{"id": "15410__0_000", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Number 632, Alexander and others against Holmes County Board of Education and others.\nMr. Greenberg you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [0.0, 11.104], "stop_times": [11.104, 17.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_001", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThese cases are here on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.\nThey involved the issue of the timing of desegregation of 14 Mississippi school districts and the procedure by which is to be accomplished.\nThe basic issue here is how much longer Negro school children in these cases in 14 Mississippi school districts must wait to realize their constitutional right to attend desegregated school systems required by this Court more than 15 years --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [17.993, 21.271, 26.802, 37.943], "stop_times": [21.271, 26.802, 37.943, 54.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.993}, "reply_to": "15410__0_000", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_002", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Greenberg, I overlooked advising you and your co-counsel and friends that Mr. Justice Brennan is unavoidably detained but he will participate in the case on the basis of course the entire record, the briefs and the tape recording of the oral arguments.\nExcuse me for not having clarified that right at the onset.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [54.574, 73.965], "stop_times": [73.965, 76.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.574}, "reply_to": "15410__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_003", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe basic issue here as I said a moment ago is how much longer Negro school children in these districts must wait to realize their constitutional right to attend desegregated schools decreed by this Court more than 15 years ago.\nThe law has been disobeyed by respondent districts and the courts below have not required obedience.\nWe submit that the issues must be seen in historical context.\nFor only in that context is it apparent why as we urge that this Court's expression on timing must be unequivocal and further what particular procedures which we will describe below are called for to achieve compliance for the Constitution.\nThe plaintiffs in this case live in school district in a state whose resistance to the Fourteenth Amendment has been second to none.\nFrom 1954 to 1964, note, there was no school desegregation in Mississippi.\nInstead, the State has doctrines of interposition and nullification.\nIndeed, the University of Mississippi desegregated not until more than a decade after this Court's decision in Sweatt against Painter.\nOnly after what can be called resistance with the quality of rebellion and that of the cost of life, not until 1964 that the Mississippi Federal Courts acknowledged that children of that State were subject to the requirements of Brown against Board of Education.\nAnd the first case was Evers against Jackson Municipal Separate School District.\nShortly after the filing of that case, Medger Evers, the plaintiff was shot and killed.\nA fact which bears upon respondents school districts continue to search and that freedom of choice can be a reality in Mississippi.\nBut the sorriest part of the story lies in the exercise of discretion by some of United States District judges in that state.\nThat discretion which in ordinary cases is necessary and salutary has been as to the setting of hearings, the time it takes to render judgments, the refusal to follow the plain intendment of decisions of this Court, the Court of Appeals and the exploitation of ambiguity is real ambiguities and fancy ambiguities in the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals.\nThe District Court has commenced disciplinary proceedings against the civil rights lawyer or Jess Brown merely because he filed the Leake County case which is here as part of these proceedings and sought to keep out of state civil rights lawyers from handling cases in the state only to be reversed by the Court of Appeals.\nAll of this has had the effect of perpetuating the status quo pendente lite.\nAnd so far in Mississippi, the status quo pendente lite has been racial segregation or minimal token desegregation.\nIndeed in these cases, the delay on the District Court became so great that the Court of Appeals was required to take the unusual step in an order of August 20, 1968 of setting a deadline for hearing the District Court.\nPlaintiffs in the United States had appealed from the District Court's refusal to set an early hearing on motions following these Courts decision in Green against New Kent County.\nThe Court of Appeals set November 4, 1968 as the deadline for hearing on plaintiffs' motions and it directed the District Court to enter an order granting relief within the 1968-1969 school year.\nThe District Court did neither not withstanding the Court of Appeals November 4th deadline, the District Court failed to render an opinion for five months and this precluded any relief for the 1968-1969 school year.\nOn May 13, 1969 it entered an order upholding the same old freedom of choice plans on the totally unsupported assumption that freedom of choice might work in the future.\nThe District Court hearing astoundingly enough consisted of more than 3,000 pages of testimony, most of which was devoted to the asserted proposition that Negro school children are the inferiors of whites.\nThe May 13th District Court opinion reaffirming the validity of freedom of choice plans justified their failure to have desegregated because they did not permit school boards to cross the ties in the Negro community and urge Negro children to go to white schools.\nThe Court of Appeals reversed on July 3, 1969 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [76.856, 79.089, 92.536, 98.243, 102.789, 121.89, 130.018, 135.873, 139.968, 148.168, 163.149, 167.739, 172.816, 181.637, 188.778, 212.364, 230.778, 238.237, 245.995, 261.445, 269.772, 283.384, 298.564, 309.593, 323.011, 338.703], "stop_times": [79.089, 92.536, 98.243, 102.789, 121.89, 130.018, 135.873, 139.968, 148.168, 163.149, 167.739, 172.816, 181.637, 188.778, 212.364, 230.778, 238.237, 245.995, 261.445, 269.772, 283.384, 298.564, 309.593, 323.011, 338.703, 342.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 76.856}, "reply_to": "15410__0_002", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_004", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Greenberg, your -- the statements you just made about cross the ties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [342.815], "stop_times": [347.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.815}, "reply_to": "15410__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__0_005", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes, pardon me, that's in the opinion of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [347.464], "stop_times": [349.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.464}, "reply_to": "15410__0_004", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_006", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I missed what you said, could you repeat it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [349.562], "stop_times": [351.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.562}, "reply_to": "15410__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__0_007", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, the reason why they said freedom of choice might work in -- freedom of choice had failed to work was because the Court of Appeals, Jefferson orders said that school districts could not go out in to the community and urge children to attend certain schools.\nIt prohibited them from doing that.\nThey said that that was why it didn't work.\nThe Court of Appeals in reversing on July 3, 1969 announced the timetable which gives rise to the instant petition.\nThe Court of Appeals requested the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to draw up desegregation plans for the respondent districts and present those plans to the District Court by August 11, 1969 for hearing on August 23.\nIf there were any objections in the respondents schools districts.\nSeptember 1st, eight days later was the deadline for implementation of the plans and the Court of Appeals order use the term immediately.\nAccordingly, a team of 27 educators of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with distinguished credentials that appear in the record and reproduce in the appendix to our petition paid a series of visits in the school districts in question produced detailed plan.\nNow we have filed with the court sets of these plans here, sufficient number for each justice to have a set of plans.\nDetail plans for the desegregation of the school districts in question that when inspects these plans and compares something numerous other plans which have found their way into the courts and to this Court, one will find that they are as careful and detailed as one might hope for.\nThey go in to the mechanics and logistics in the number of students and the number of rooms and of drawing of zone lines.\nIn addition to which, they go into something which has been made much of and on and off again in various parts of the proceedings below, the whole question of human relations and announcing the necessity of obedience of law and setting up training sessions and training teachers to work in teams and so forth and so on.\nOn August 19th however, the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare wrote a letter to the Court of Appeals and the district judges withdrawing these plans.\nThe letter stated that as the Officer of the United States Government with the ultimate responsibility for the education of pupils in this nation, he concluded the time allowed for development of the plans was too short.\nHis letter appears in the appendix to our petition on page 54-A, there is the pertinent \u201cas to the reasons he gave.\u201d\nThe administrative and logistical difficulties which must be encountered and meant in the terribly short space of time remaining will surely in my judgment produce chaos, confusion, and a catastrophic educational setback to the 135,700 children.\nBlack and white alike must look to the 222 schools of this 33 Mississippi districts for their only available educational opportunity.\nI might add that while only 14 cases are here.\nThe proceedings below involved 33 districts because on the private plaintiffs have taken this case to this Court and the Government which is the only plaintiff and the remaining cases has not.\nThe Secretary's letter mentioned no particular fact concerning any particular district.\nIn the view of the letter, the circumstances of some of the districts which have only two or three schools with only a few hundred pupils were indistinguishable from districts with thousands of students.\nEnrollments in the districts vary from 720 in one district to 11,000 in another.\nI calculated the median figure of about 27,000 per school district.\nNot a single administrative or logistical fact was mentioned tied to any particular school or tied to any particular period of time, much less described.\nNo time was prescribed by which the new desegregation plans were to be complied with there be gone.\nThe letter was completely open-ended only proposing resubmission of some plans by December 1st.\nHaving received this letter, the Court of Appeals asked the district judge to hold a hearing on the Secretary's request to withdraw plans which the District Court did and the Secretary's letter was followed by a motion of the Department of Justice I might add to the same effect.\nAt the District Court hearing which to the hearing of August 25th that appears in this particular Court report as transcript, several facts are clear appeared without any contradiction.\nOne is that no particular difficulty administrative or otherwise with respect to any particular school system was identified.\nThe sort of things was held about these schools, could be set about any schools in any condition within a process of desegregation or not.\nSecond, in all likelihood, it is quite clear, the existing plans will be brought back again with no difference or with immaterial difference and in our brief on page 21, we set forth some testimony that occurred in the -- this in the brief not in the petition.\nSome testimony which occurred in the trial court hearing in this, Mr. Leonard interrogated one of the witnesses from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Mr. Jordan.\nQuestion: Mr. Jordan, I want to clarify to be sure the Court and counsel all understand your position with respect to the delay, should the Court grant a delay?\nAm I clear that it is your position that even with the delay that in all likelihood, the plans would be very much similar and that these officials of the school board should start to work with the office of education now, in fact by October 1st to prepare for the movement from a dual to a unitary system, is that your position?\nAnswer: that is correct.\nThere is no evidence that there is going to be.\nAnd there, incidentally I might say testimony that two witnesses testified.\nOne of them inspected three school districts, he said as to two of the districts, the plans would be identical as to the third, he was not aware.\nHe did not identify any particular change.\nThird, the matter of timing which is of course one part of the -- a crucial part of the issues here had been contemplating in drawing the plans originally when the Court of Appeals gave a mandate or presented request to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, it requested Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to draw plans according to a certain timetable.\nAnd that timetable was that those plans might be ordered into effect on August 23rd and if ordered into effect on August 23rd, they were to be plans which between August 23rd and September 1st could become operational.\nNow, Mr. Anre (ph) who was the chief of all the experts who examine the school systems of considerable number, there might be 27 I said.\nMr. Anre wrote a letter which is in the record here in 44-A of our appendix in which he addresses himself not only to the substance of the plans but the timing in the 44-A of our petition in a rather lengthy letter that discusses in considerable detail, how these plans were developed.\nHe says, I believe that each of the enclosed plans, educationally and administratively sound both in terms of substance and in terms of timing.\nSo, the record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [351.089, 368.856, 370.248, 373.505, 379.679, 394.281, 396.413, 405.349, 421.809, 431.141, 445.845, 452.556, 471.05, 480.34, 492.612, 501.714, 517.712, 525.556, 527.749, 542.003, 548.116, 560.039, 567.082, 572.073, 580.727, 585.729, 593.418, 607.071, 620.256, 628.327, 634.687, 653.42, 665.424, 674.489, 692.315, 694.836, 696.464, 700.605, 707.466, 712.146, 738.019, 750.74, 763.848, 782.49, 793.036], "stop_times": [368.856, 370.248, 373.505, 379.679, 394.281, 396.413, 405.349, 421.809, 431.141, 445.845, 452.556, 471.05, 480.34, 492.612, 501.714, 517.712, 525.556, 527.749, 542.003, 548.116, 560.039, 567.082, 572.073, 580.727, 585.729, 593.418, 607.071, 620.256, 628.327, 634.687, 653.42, 665.424, 674.489, 692.315, 694.836, 696.464, 700.605, 707.466, 712.146, 738.019, 750.74, 763.848, 782.49, 793.036, 794.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.089}, "reply_to": "15410__0_006", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_008", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nDid the original Court of Appeals order contemplate the plans and objections to the plan in hearing the District Court of any objections in view of the Court of Appeals and possible into this Court which certiorari will all take place of the August 11 and September 1?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [794.672, 797.249], "stop_times": [797.249, 817.267], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 794.672}, "reply_to": "15410__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_009", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "It did not express itself on all aspects of that.\nI imagine that one of the problems that would have risen that it did contemplate there would be objections and the issue that then would have arisen whether the issue was to stay and so forth.\nBut it did contemplate that there would be objections.\nIf there were no objections, the plans were going to effect.\nIf there were objections they might go into effect nevertheless, it did not discuss the timing of any review that any court he might see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [817.267, 821.283, 830.63, 833.898, 835.792], "stop_times": [821.283, 830.63, 833.898, 835.792, 846.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.267}, "reply_to": "15410__0_008", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_010", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Let me see if I get that latter part of your response clear in mind that the Court of Appeals opinion either contemplate or can it reasonably be construed so that the plan submitted in that latter week could have been put into effect either before or during the period when objections were being filed to it and executed pending any appeals or further reviews in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [846.428], "stop_times": [882.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.428}, "reply_to": "15410__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_011", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The Court of Appeals order did not address itself to what would happen between the time of the entry of an order or putting plans into effect and any review which any party might see.\nIt did not address itself to that.\nBut it addressed to the fact that one of the plans is going to effect on September 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [882.763, 900.441, 903.204], "stop_times": [900.441, 903.204, 908.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.763}, "reply_to": "15410__0_010", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_012", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "If the report submitted to the District Court was accepted by the District Court and ordered into execution.\nAt that time, that is to say in time for September 1st or thereabout.\nWould you think it would have been within the power of the Court of Appeals to let that plan be carried out pending any appeal and further proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [908.088, 919.619, 927.175], "stop_times": [919.619, 927.175, 938.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.088}, "reply_to": "15410__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_013", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Oh!\nCertainly Mr. Chief Justice and that has occurred on other occasions and in several cases in this Court at this time.\nThe case that of Oklahoma City in Denver there are plans in effect pending review.\nThere is the paragraph from page 37-A of the Court of Appeals order which I think partly answers the question explicitly and partly in the case the Court of Appeals attitude to such a proposition.\nThat is what shall happen to our own review.\nIf I may, I would like to read it.\nBecause of the urgency of formulating and approving plans to be implemented for the 1969-1970 school term, it is ordered as follows.\nThe mandate of this Court shall issue immediately and will not be stayed pending petitions for rehearing a certiorari, and that's the mandate ordering these studies to be made and the aspect of the case we are talking about.\nOne might assume the same attitude would carry over the subsequent court's proceeding --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [938.868, 939.071, 945.609, 949.752, 964.798, 966.366, 968.069, 975.606, 991.033], "stop_times": [939.071, 945.609, 949.752, 964.798, 966.366, 968.069, 975.606, 991.033, 993.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.868}, "reply_to": "15410__0_012", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_014", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What -- where are you reading counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [993.777], "stop_times": [995.493], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 993.777}, "reply_to": "15410__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_015", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Page 37-A, paragraph 8, the mandate of this Court shall issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [995.493], "stop_times": [998.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.493}, "reply_to": "15410__0_014", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_016", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [998.326], "stop_times": [1000.184], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 998.326}, "reply_to": "15410__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_017", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I'm sorry, of the appendix for the petition for writ of certiorari, the printed document.\nThe mandate of -- because of the urgency as reference heard to be formulating and approving plans to be implemented for the 1969-1970 school term, it is ordered as follows.\nThe mandate of this Court shall issue immediately and will not be stayed pending motions for rehearing of certiorari.\nThis Court will not extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing or briefs in support of or in opposition thereto.\nAny appeals from orders or decrees of the District Court on remand shall be expedited.\nThe record on any appeal shall be largely this Court and appellant's brief filed all within 10 days of the date of the order or the decree of the District Court from which the appeal was taken.\nAppellees' brief shall be due ten days thereafter.\nThe Court will determine the time and place for oral argument if allowed.\nThe Court will determine the time for briefing and for oral argument if allowed.\nThat's a repetition.\nNo consideration will be given to the fact of interrupting the school year and the event further relief is indicated.\nAnd I would submit that indicates an attitude of urgency which make exceedingly unlikely for the Court of Appeals which stay any order that might be into desegregating the school.\nSo it does not address itself specifically to the question that I was asked.\nNow the objections that to implementing the plan which were brought out in the testimony in the District Court in the hearing of August 25.\nNot link to any district, not link to any educational, administrative or logistical factor.\nNot link to any particular time for any of the generalized objections do not even begin to approach the requirements of a showing prescribed by the second Brown decision.\nMuch less, the attitude of urgency that's been expressed by the Court in recent decisions in which as Mr. Justice Black has said in his opinion in chambers, the Court has expressed the view that the time is now.\nThe District Court following the hearing recommended that the delay requested by the Secretary be granted and the Court of Appeals merely residing what occurred, what had occurred without comment or explanation, did just that.\nPetitioners after having asked Mr. Justice Black to vacate the Court of Appeals Amendment to its earlier order brought the case hereon certiorari and this Court granted review according to an accelerated schedule.\nWe submit that the order of the Court of Appeals as amended to be vacated and urged that this Court do two things.\nFirst, we submit that the history of Southern School desegregation in certain areas such as these here today calls for a declaration by this Court in the words of Mr. Justice Black that petitioners are entitled to have their constitutional rights vindicated now without postponement for any reason or as he put it otherwise, there are no longer justiciable issues in the question of making effect if not only promptly but at ones.\nNow, order sufficient to vindicate the rights of any pupil in the United States who was effectively excluded from a public school on account of his race or color.\nNo delay should be permitted for administrative or any other reasons.\nSecond, we think this is perhaps more important because we think the Court has -- well that entirely explicitly fairly explicitly indicated the former that we ask -- the former declaration that we ask.\nWe ask for the institution of procedures which will make this declaration effective.\nThe nature of the procedures we suggest derives from the problem presented by maintaining segregation as the status quo pendente lite.\nSo long as that is the case, there is a premium on litigating ad infinitum.\nIt used to be a model of segregation forever now it's become litigation forever making thousands of pages of record on such things as the intelligence of Negro children, delaying the setting of hearings in the entry of orders in the effective dates of plans.\nWe urge that the plans of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on file with this Court.\nThese plans here be put into effect immediately.\nWe urge therefore that this Court issue its mandate forthwith to the Court of Appeals directing that it will require the District Court to put the HEW plans on the file in this case into effect immediately.\nTo that, there is one exception, the plans is the Holmes County in meridian in these 14 cases are written to take effect in 1970-1971.\nH.E.W. or some other agency designated by the Fifth Circuit should be directed immediately to revise those plans to take effect at ones and not wait until 1970-1971.\nAll hearing should be held on expedited schedule to be set by the Court of Appeals.\nNow, I'd like to say a word as to what we mean by immediately.\nObviously, some time is required to take care of the mechanics of calling children to classrooms and telling them of new assignments, of notifying bus drivers and so forth.\nThe existing plans called for the Court of Appeals by the Court of -- July 3rd order contemplated a period of eight days from the hearing of August 23 to implementation by September 1st.\nThe plans were drawn to be implemented with in that period of time that would design with that in mind.\nWe submit that no more than that amount of time is necessary and probably less.\nMoreover, the schedule should be explicitly set forth in the order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1000.184, 1006.788, 1016.121, 1022.329, 1029.396, 1034.377, 1043.179, 1046.239, 1049.995, 1054.512, 1055.533, 1060.231, 1069.092, 1075.957, 1089.486, 1095.418, 1105.258, 1117.929, 1134.061, 1146.491, 1153.397, 1181.923, 1191.586, 1195.092, 1209.927, 1215.078, 1224.914, 1230.805, 1243.344, 1248.769, 1251.755, 1263.818, 1273.696, 1283.45, 1288.146, 1292.249, 1302.563, 1315.643, 1321.614, 1326.752], "stop_times": [1006.788, 1016.121, 1022.329, 1029.396, 1034.377, 1043.179, 1046.239, 1049.995, 1054.512, 1055.533, 1060.231, 1069.092, 1075.957, 1089.486, 1095.418, 1105.258, 1117.929, 1134.061, 1146.491, 1153.397, 1181.923, 1191.586, 1195.092, 1209.927, 1215.078, 1224.914, 1230.805, 1243.344, 1248.769, 1251.755, 1263.818, 1273.696, 1283.45, 1288.146, 1292.249, 1302.563, 1315.643, 1321.614, 1326.752, 1330.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.184}, "reply_to": "15410__0_016", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_018", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What is the term situation at the schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1330.027], "stop_times": [1334.685], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.027}, "reply_to": "15410__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_019", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "There is no mid semester break.\nThere is no midyear break.\nThere is no midyear break, the year continues straight on through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1334.685, 1336.632, 1337.678], "stop_times": [1336.632, 1337.678, 1340.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1334.685}, "reply_to": "15410__0_018", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_020", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "There is Christmas break?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1340.242], "stop_times": [1341.269], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.242}, "reply_to": "15410__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_021", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "There is a Christmas vacation, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1341.269], "stop_times": [1342.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.269}, "reply_to": "15410__0_020", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_022", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "How long?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1342.431], "stop_times": [1342.937], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.431}, "reply_to": "15410__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_023", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But I'm not certain Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI would assume it's the typical Christmas vacation of a week or two.\nNow I would like point out that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1342.937, 1345.648, 1350.262], "stop_times": [1345.648, 1350.262, 1351.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.937}, "reply_to": "15410__0_022", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_024", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But they are not semesters or trimesters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1351.237], "stop_times": [1354.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.237}, "reply_to": "15410__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__0_025", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I have made a great deal of inquiry about that and the uniform reply is no.\nI would like to point out that we have had some difficulty in formulating this portion of our argument.\nThat portion to which defines the word immediately in terms of -- as we have put it now, eight days or less and there is a reason for that.\nBecause we fear that any expression by the Court authorizing even such a limited delay will be exploited by the defendant school boards in these cases and in other cases as theoretical justification for further delay.\nA fixed time deadline, we finally conclude is vastly preferable to reiteration of principles about desegregating and as soon as possible which will result in further litigation.\nI'd like to elaborate somewhat on the reasons for these two requests --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1354.345, 1360.475, 1365.224, 1372.872, 1385.71, 1397.341], "stop_times": [1360.475, 1365.224, 1372.872, 1385.71, 1397.341, 1402.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.345}, "reply_to": "15410__0_024", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_026", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Before you get there Mr. Greenberg, this would mean that did many children would change schools and teachers I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1402.471], "stop_times": [1410.823], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.471}, "reply_to": "15410__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_027", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1410.823], "stop_times": [1411.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.823}, "reply_to": "15410__0_026", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_028", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And in fact, they would be reassigned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1411.66], "stop_times": [1414.398], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.66}, "reply_to": "15410__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_029", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "In some cases, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1414.398], "stop_times": [1416.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.398}, "reply_to": "15410__0_028", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_030", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What would have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1416.041], "stop_times": [1416.678], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.041}, "reply_to": "15410__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_031", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "If there would be there, yes certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1416.678], "stop_times": [1418.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1416.678}, "reply_to": "15410__0_030", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_032", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What would it do or how would it say a child is going to a school, one school and then under this plan will be going to another school to different teacher.\nWhat would be the diff -- would that be -- pose any difficulty at all in terms of his completing his work that year or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1418.188, 1430.378], "stop_times": [1430.378, 1437.621], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.188}, "reply_to": "15410__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_033", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I think it would pose some difficulty, yes.\nI think the difficulty however would not be great, it's not more difficult than what occurs in some districts, I can think of three or four right off hand would have been teachers strikes, would have been a hurricane as it had in Mississippi they put their schools back together pretty quickly.\nThey -- it would be some difficulty.\nWe say however that that difficulty is preferable to suffer than the difficulty of having the Constitution continue to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1437.621, 1441.753, 1456.18, 1459.145], "stop_times": [1441.753, 1456.18, 1459.145, 1467.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.621}, "reply_to": "15410__0_032", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_034", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What percentage of the children now going to the schools in these districts would be changing schools and teachers, more than 50% or 90%?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1467.245], "stop_times": [1477.346], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.245}, "reply_to": "15410__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_035", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I would hesitate, I have not analyzed the figures in those terms however they all are in this book set up in tabular form and some instances more changes, some instances there is less.\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1477.346, 1488.111], "stop_times": [1488.111, 1489.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.346}, "reply_to": "15410__0_034", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_036", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "With the large number, large percentage --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1489.143], "stop_times": [1491.097], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1489.143}, "reply_to": "15410__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_037", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "There would be substantial number of children changing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1491.097], "stop_times": [1495.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.097}, "reply_to": "15410__0_036", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_038", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And teachers likewise would be changing the school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1495.303], "stop_times": [1498.059], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.303}, "reply_to": "15410__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_039", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, the districts are relatively small so the number of teachers wouldn't be very great but in -- certainly in proportion it would be typically proportional to the size of the districts.\nNow in effort to elaborate on why we have asked for the relief which we've requested.\nAs to our first request that the rights be declared effective as of now and the purpose is not merely retorable.\nThey are not in particular satisfaction that plaintiffs or the children in this district whether their lawyers would take out of the declaration by this Court saying, now this Court has indeed said virtually that as Mr. Justice Black has indicated, there perhaps might be some uncertainty about it.\nSo long as there are administrative reasons for delay recognize certain consequences follow.\nFirst, disruption and threats of disruption, threats of chaos and confusion, to borrow the language of Secretary Finch, are the premium.\nAnyone, someone in official capacity or unofficial capacity who believes that his resistance will stimulate an administrative issue which will need resolution in the courts has given an incentive to make or threat in trouble.\nWhile Aaron against Cooper and Buchanan versus Warley in the cases of this Court traditionally have held that resistance and violence are no grounds for delay.\nResistance and violence may be translated into administrative problems and then there's the question, is that the kind of an administrative problem that warrants delay.\nWe say that kind of issue, that kind of incentive for those who would provoke delay should be removed.\nSecond, litigation over administration takes time.\nLitigants and courts with the disposition to delay will explore the issue of administration a very great length even when they don't exists the administrative consideration promoted by hostility.\nIndeed when there are no administrative reasons at all.\nThis avenue should be foreclosed as Mr. Justice Black suggest by making the right effective instantly.\nThird and this is less concrete but I think more important.\nAny pretense of legality should strip from those who are violating the Constitution by continuing to segregate.\nThey should not be able to parade respectively under the cloak of complying with the so called deliberate speed doctrine.\nIt should be indubitably clear that they are law violators and I think in this country, lawfulness counts for something.\nBut the ingenuity of lawyers and judges knows no limit when the incentive is sufficient.\nAdministration is not the only thing that can be litigated even if the courts would say the rights must be realized now.\nSome parties will litigate on forever particularly if they are spending public funds, public tax funds contributed by Negro and white alike.\nIn the case at bar there could have been no credible reason to believe that litigation of the intelligence of Negro children could have made the slightest difference in the outcome of this lawsuit.\nIf there were thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of testimony occupying large cardboard boxes on file on this Court, which has been taken down on that issue.\nThere is no reason to believe after this Court's decision in Green and the unequivocal declaration by the Court of Appeals in these cases or earlier face of these cases, the freedom of choice plans could be sustained at this.\nTons and tons of litigation on the validity of freedom of choice and no one could have anticipated that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare would have injected himself into this case in taking the position that it took.\nThe profit in delay for those who would maintain segregation is that the status quo pendente lite is one of segregation.\nWe propose that in this case, this Court reverse that presumption and that the status quo pendente lite be one of integration.\nIn this case fortunately, that resolution is simple enough for their exist plans more detailed than a normally available in any school desegregation case.\nThey've been put together with the considerable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1498.059, 1510.926, 1520.285, 1525.827, 1548.555, 1553.616, 1562.214, 1575.404, 1582.803, 1591.564, 1598.082, 1602.379, 1613.487, 1616.537, 1623.044, 1628.954, 1635.525, 1642.083, 1649.39, 1655.258, 1660.476, 1668.313, 1677.002, 1690.853, 1702.77, 1716.221, 1724.499, 1734.561, 1744.51], "stop_times": [1510.926, 1520.285, 1525.827, 1548.555, 1553.616, 1562.214, 1575.404, 1582.803, 1591.564, 1598.082, 1602.379, 1613.487, 1616.537, 1623.044, 1628.954, 1635.525, 1642.083, 1649.39, 1655.258, 1660.476, 1668.313, 1677.002, 1690.853, 1702.77, 1716.221, 1724.499, 1734.561, 1744.51, 1746.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.059}, "reply_to": "15410__0_038", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_040", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Do you compose a different rule for this section in the country or is there -- your proposition go to involve the issue as to the cases no matter what part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1746.445], "stop_times": [1758.599], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.445}, "reply_to": "15410__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_041", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The rule does not rest on the part of country Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI would say it exists in a -- come into play in a variety of circumstances.\nThe first would be of course where there has been a system of segregation maintained by law.\nWe must just establish it and I think that's been established in case like Carr and Green and the other case before that.\nThe second is that where the history of the case demonstrates that protracted and interminable litigation is a means for maintaining racial segregation because it stays in effect if litigation was on and on, forever and forever.\nSome sort of relief in the nature of temporary relief must be given.\nThis is not unknown to the law, that law knows temporary restraining orders and those injunctions pending appeal.\nIt knows the use of various writs to change the status quo in the situation when the law is absolutely clear and the facts absolutely clear.\nWe turn out to be wrong which I would submit is solely very doubtful in this case, we can go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1758.599, 1763.16, 1771.381, 1774.999, 1782.735, 1800.89, 1804.591, 1810.38, 1821.807], "stop_times": [1763.16, 1771.381, 1774.999, 1782.735, 1800.89, 1804.591, 1810.38, 1821.807, 1826.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1758.599}, "reply_to": "15410__0_040", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_042", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "As of 15 years, there's these tangible time all over the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1826.991], "stop_times": [1833.568], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.991}, "reply_to": "15410__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_043", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well Mr. Justice Harlan --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1833.568], "stop_times": [1834.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1833.568}, "reply_to": "15410__0_042", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_044", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "It would be worthy of limiting the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1834.824], "stop_times": [1839.73], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.824}, "reply_to": "15410__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_045", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The -- if one looks at the report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights on the implementation of the Brown decision, one does not try in this degree of resistance all over the country, one finds it in several states, one finds very considerable compliance in many places and particularly since this Court's decision in Green as the report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights show, there has been a very mark increased in desegregation but not so in districts such as this.\nAnd that's why the normal judicial principles of entering interlocutory relief on a not yet fully litigated case should come into play here.\nWe have these plans here, they have as much detail as any plans implemented in any case it had.\nWe don't exist -- insist that they are perfect.\nI don't think one could insist that about plans which had indeed been fully litigated but they are better than what exists because what exist is racial segregation contoured at the Constitution of United States.\nWe urge this Court to direct the Court of Appeals to require the District Courts and as to these plans pendente lite except of the plans from ready in its homes to take effect now and any further litigation including appeals should take place with these plans in effect not over to -- not over a period of years.\nThis would only place respondent districts at the risk as in the entry of any temporary restraining order that having desegregated later they might prevail on the merits that some Court might hold that segregation is permissible or that freedom of choice such as they propose is permissible.\nWe say there's a very slight likelihood to the point of insignificance of either of those occurring.\nTo institute these plans pendente lite, places respondents in a situation which will interrupt the school year as Mr. Justice White suggested in his question.\nYou know, we don't view that lightly but school years are interrupted for varieties of reasons as I stated in response to his questions.\nThe National Education Association which knows the thing or two about education has filed the brief as a friend to the Court in this case and said there was no reason why the desegregation should not occur immediately in the respondent school districts.\nAnd indeed there is some considerable educational game to be achieved by showing children that the laws cannot be flooded with approval.\nIn this case, I was reminded in preparing the argument that the argument of the Solicitor General in the case of Aaron against Cooper at Little Rock School case.\nThis morning in the library I went and took a look to see whether or not it was indeed apposite and I would like to quote from what I think was one of the great oral arguments in this Court which some members of the bench have heard.\nMr. Rankin said and I think it bears on the question of the interruption of education.\nIf out of this difficulty and undesired situation, the people of Little Rock and these children who shouldn't be hurt by this problems learn the constitutional rights in this country are precious that they have a duty to this Negro boys and girls in this community to help them get their constitutional rights and this constitutional rights happens to be the right to enter a school.\nThat isn't segregated but someday they will want other constitutional rights and be able to exercise the freedom of speech and the press and everything else that we consider so wonderful in our form of Government and you cant tear down a part of those rights without losing others in the process and there wasn't any part of this country that doesn't have a tremendous state in maintaining each and all of those rights for all of its people.\nI would like to say just a word or two about our view of the Government's position in its brief.\nNow the Government's position in this case has changed considerably at this stage of the litigation.\nAs finally formulated in the brief which is filed in this Court, it makes four main points.\nIt first says that HEW plans need not be submitted until December 1st because HEW may \u201cperhaps want to correct or refine them on page 5.\u201d\nOur position is that's not adequate, we don't see any reason in the world to wait until December 1st that if they know there are any mistakes in those plans, that information should have been provided to the Court with the brief or can be provided today.\nSecond, they say formulation of a workable plan followed by its implementation necessarily requires several weeks of informed effort and we say there has been plenty of time.\nThat we think that the people who drew up the HEW plans if you look at them were aware of these needs and their belief was that the need for human relations work and informing people about how to work together in the desirability of following the Constitution could be done simultaneously and best in the context of actually following it.\nThey say that implementation may be had for example a Christmas recess or mid-semester.\nMy understanding is there is no mid-semester.\nSo far as Christmas recess is concerned, I don't see why that's anymore desirable than Thanksgiving recess which is sooner or indeed if the mandate of the mechanical work and the Court's deliberations can be completed before that in advance that no reason why we should wait this long.\nFinally and this is the part of their position that we find most distressing.\nThe school board should bear the burden of justifying below in the context of an appropriately expedited appellate review schedule, any delay beyond Christmas recess or mid-semester.\nThis to me is an indication once more to more litigation forever.\nNo one doubts that the school boards in these cases in any event, there are a lot of cases where school boards are not doing this.\nWe're obeying the law and we're having substantial amount of change now particularly since the Green decision but no one doubts of these school boards given their history our going to litigate whatever order comes out of here, no one doubt that this District Court is going to rule with them and they were going to be in the merry-go-round again, going up and around and around again.\nWe submit that in these cases, we have plans, those plans should be put into effect that those plans shall be the status quo pendente lite and then they want to litigate forever, they can do it.\nI doubt that there will be the inventive.\nMr. Satterfield's position I think, a position of the State of Mississippi in the brief which I have submitted indicated as their disposition.\nThey claim that Mississippi is in compliance with the Constitution that nothing further need be done that the rule of law is being obeyed.\nI think I need make no comment on that.\nI should like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [1839.73, 1864.811, 1881.424, 1890.763, 1892.516, 1904.738, 1924.27, 1938.369, 1946.191, 1955.172, 1962.997, 1977.655, 1984.508, 1992.829, 2004.901, 2009.622, 2030.339, 2053.75, 2059.098, 2065.827, 2071.402, 2083.021, 2096.222, 2108.674, 2133.343, 2138.249, 2141.058, 2156.373, 2164.517, 2174.604, 2181.104, 2186.905, 2202.794, 2216.754, 2218.535, 2226.017, 2236.527, 2239.656], "stop_times": [1864.811, 1881.424, 1890.763, 1892.516, 1904.738, 1924.27, 1938.369, 1946.191, 1955.172, 1962.997, 1977.655, 1984.508, 1992.829, 2004.901, 2009.622, 2030.339, 2053.75, 2059.098, 2065.827, 2071.402, 2083.021, 2096.222, 2108.674, 2133.343, 2138.249, 2141.058, 2156.373, 2164.517, 2174.604, 2181.104, 2186.905, 2202.794, 2216.754, 2218.535, 2226.017, 2236.527, 2239.656, 2241.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1839.73}, "reply_to": "15410__0_044", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_046", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Greenberg, just one question if I may, since we are very swiftly approaching November 1st now.\nThe difference between your position and that of the Solicitor General really comes down into something like 60 days more or less, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2241.624, 2249.886], "stop_times": [2249.886, 2259.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.624}, "reply_to": "15410__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_047", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I haven't calculated but there -- well, no because there are a lot of differences between that he says that we can keep on litigating -- he is willing to have us litigate forever during the -- well status quo segregation is maintained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2259.155], "stop_times": [2274.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2259.155}, "reply_to": "15410__0_046", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_048", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I did not read his brief that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2274.442], "stop_times": [2276.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.442}, "reply_to": "15410__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_049", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "He doesn't agree with our position on pendente lite I gather and the states various objections to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2276.051], "stop_times": [2282.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2276.051}, "reply_to": "15410__0_048", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_050", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2282.186], "stop_times": [2286.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.186}, "reply_to": "15410__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_051", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I'm just going to say I didn't read his brief that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2286.453], "stop_times": [2296.064], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.453}, "reply_to": "15410__0_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_052", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "On the other hand, page 7, since we agree that the school board's obligation to desegregate the school systems is a median unqualified.\nWe believe the court below may properly be authorized to acquire the implementation of the plans commencing at the most practical eminent juncture in the school year as for example Christmas recess or mid-semester.\nMoreover, the school board should bear the burden of justifying below in the context of an appropriately expedited appellate review schedule any delay beyond this points but we've had expedited appellate review schedules here.\nAnd those expedited appellate review schedules have brought us here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2296.064, 2303.552, 2314.238, 2324.469], "stop_times": [2303.552, 2314.238, 2324.469, 2326.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2296.064}, "reply_to": "15410__0_051", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_053", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But I read just as contemplating and certainly permitting during just what you had suggested earlier namely implementing as his brief says and then litigating against the background of that implementation.\nI had thought that you and the Department of Justice whereon collision course here coming very close together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2326.925, 2344.401], "stop_times": [2344.401, 2350.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.925}, "reply_to": "15410__0_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_054", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I had not read that way, I would be quite please if the Department of Justice would take position that we should have a condition of desegregation pendente lite but nevertheless we do disagree on the timing.\nI see no point and waiting for Thanksgiving, certainly not for Christmas, certainly the judicial work must be done and no one can say how long it will take the Court to deliberate and come to a conclusion.\nBut if the Court should come to a conclusion substantially in advance of that, then we say the mandate should go down forthwith and those rights should not be denied one moment longer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2350.82, 2362.771, 2373.476], "stop_times": [2362.771, 2373.476, 2382.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2350.82}, "reply_to": "15410__0_053", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_055", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "May I ask what kind of order you suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2382.437], "stop_times": [2385.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.437}, "reply_to": "15410__0_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_056", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I suggest an order that the plans for all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2385.723], "stop_times": [2387.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2385.723}, "reply_to": "15410__0_055", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_057", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "A concrete.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2387.838], "stop_times": [2388.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.838}, "reply_to": "15410__0_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_058", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "A concrete order, the order should Mr. Justice Black that for all districts in this litigation with the exception of Meridian and Holmes, the plan --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2388.966], "stop_times": [2400.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2388.966}, "reply_to": "15410__0_057", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_059", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Why should they be exempted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2400.621], "stop_times": [2402.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.621}, "reply_to": "15410__0_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_060", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well because there is some slight revision in those plans necessary which I think would take a matter of several days to work out but in all districts except those plans, except those two districts.\nThese plans in this book which had prepared by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should go into effect instantaneously taking only so much time as is necessary to complete the mechanics of informing the parents and the children and the bus drivers and the teachers and in any event no more than eight days because those plans were drawn up to be implemented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2402.321, 2415.217], "stop_times": [2415.217, 2434.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2402.321}, "reply_to": "15410__0_059", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_061", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "It's on effect now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2434.498], "stop_times": [2436.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.498}, "reply_to": "15410__0_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_062", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2436.093], "stop_times": [2437.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2436.093}, "reply_to": "15410__0_061", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_063", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And that is understood, have to be understood that you got to go through certain mechanical steps and you'd say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2437.084], "stop_times": [2446.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.084}, "reply_to": "15410__0_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_064", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And I have a -- that's not entirely arbitrary period of time.\nThat period of time is the time that the Court of Appeals directed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to draw a plan for -- within which they could be implemented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2446.661, 2449.907], "stop_times": [2449.907, 2461.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2446.661}, "reply_to": "15410__0_063", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_065", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Would you refresh my recollection Mr. Greenberg on the problems of Meridian and Holmes County where there's some building problems there, structural?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2461.316], "stop_times": [2469.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.316}, "reply_to": "15410__0_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_066", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes, the department contemplated that in view of the fact that certain building plans were in process.\nThey would wait for those plans to be completed and consequently desegregation would be completed there in the 1970-1971 school year instead of 1969-1970.\nWhile we would certainly conceive that there might be a much more desirable situation which new buildings and as in 1970-1971, we say they should do the best they can with the existing buildings in 1969-1970 and that all the children, black and white alike share such buildings as they have as at the present time 1970-1971 when they have more buildings, they can then redistribute them again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2469.182, 2476.996, 2485.925], "stop_times": [2476.996, 2485.925, 2510.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2469.182}, "reply_to": "15410__0_065", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_067", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "So what do you suggest that -- what do you urge that our order should be with respect to those two schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2510.552], "stop_times": [2515.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.552}, "reply_to": "15410__0_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__0_068", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or some other agency selected by the Court of Appeals should be given the directions within a brief time certain to make the necessary revisions and those plans to put them into effect right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2515.865], "stop_times": [2530.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2515.865}, "reply_to": "15410__0_067", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_069", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Are you -- you are not suggesting, I gather and I hope Mr. Greenberg that this Court appraise or evaluate these plans, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2530.81], "stop_times": [2539.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.81}, "reply_to": "15410__0_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__0_070", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No, I think that this Court can appraise and evaluate the quality of the plans on the record that has been made about them without reading the plans themselves.\nI confess I have subjected myself to that and they seem like any other plans.\nAnd they certainly come with better credentials than any other plans that I have said.\nThat the Court of Appeals -- this Court enter an order forthwith directing the Court of Appeals to see that these are implemented, I don't suggest this Court get involved in the details of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2539.817, 2551.632, 2557.296, 2562.288], "stop_times": [2551.632, 2557.296, 2562.288, 2572.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2539.817}, "reply_to": "15410__0_069", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_071", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "As I understand it, you are suggesting that the system of your school be ended immediately?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2572.405], "stop_times": [2580.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.405}, "reply_to": "15410__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_072", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's correct Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2580.868], "stop_times": [2582.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2580.868}, "reply_to": "15410__0_071", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_073", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Would that regard to buildings and as the buildings are unsatisfactory, they do the best they can under such improvements that can be made there perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2582.001], "stop_times": [2591.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.001}, "reply_to": "15410__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__0_074", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's correct Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2591.025], "stop_times": [2594.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2591.025}, "reply_to": "15410__0_073", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_075", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Could I ask you a question.\nDo you file that objection with exception to the original part of the deal is to strengthen the plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2594.331, 2597.676], "stop_times": [2597.676, 2607.962], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.331}, "reply_to": "15410__0_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_076", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2607.962], "stop_times": [2608.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2607.962}, "reply_to": "15410__0_075", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_077", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2608.502], "stop_times": [2610.089], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.502}, "reply_to": "15410__0_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__0_078", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Not as that the -- we -- there was no opportunity to and just a 4333 to this litigation, I don't know that we would have been disposed to either except for the 1970-1971 plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2610.089], "stop_times": [2620.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2610.089}, "reply_to": "15410__0_077", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_079", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Just to get our focus again, your entire argument is directed to the timing probable now as I get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2620.468], "stop_times": [2628.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.468}, "reply_to": "15410__0_078", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_080", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes, except that within that, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2628.309], "stop_times": [2631.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2628.309}, "reply_to": "15410__0_079", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_081", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The timing and the status pending in the appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2631.223], "stop_times": [2635.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.223}, "reply_to": "15410__0_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_082", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2635.272], "stop_times": [2636.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2635.272}, "reply_to": "15410__0_081", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_083", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Those two I regard them as one in my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2636.283], "stop_times": [2639.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.283}, "reply_to": "15410__0_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__0_084", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2639.347], "stop_times": [2640.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2639.347}, "reply_to": "15410__0_083", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__0_085", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you Mr. Greenberg.\nMr. Oberdorfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2640.053, 2641.698], "stop_times": [2641.698, 2648.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.053}, "reply_to": "15410__0_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__1_000", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI appear here today with the lawyers committee for civil rights under a law which has filed a memorandum as amicus curiae by leave of Court and participates and briefly in the oral argument by the consent of the petitioners who have see this some time.\nThis committee was organized in June 1963 under the co-chairmanship of the late Harrison Tweed and of Bernard Segal of Philadelphia.\nThey and about 45 other members of the bar, leaders of the bar had formed the nucleus of this committee.\nWhen they joined in a public appeal for peaceful compliance with the Court orders with respect to the desegregation of the University of Alabama, these gentlemen had been concerned about the failure of many leaders of the bar to involve themselves as citizen lawyers at the time of the enforcement of court orders with respect to Little Rock Arkansas and earlier in -- Later in September 1962 at the University of Mississippi.\nTheir purpose and their interest in this case is because -- is in pursuit of their objective of committing the prestige and skills of private lawyers to creating and preserving an atmosphere which will facilitate prompt and graceful if not cheerful obedience to Court orders on the subject of desegregation.\nSince the formation of the committee and since these lawyers have began to speak out as Mr. Greenberg suggest.\nThere has been less of a vigorous resistance to these orders more graceful compliance.\nSchools and such places as Bogalusa, Louisiana had been the subject of orders for reorganization of dual school systems and to unitary school systems which orders have been honored and obeyed.\nRecalling the committee's continuing role and interest in this aspect to the administration of justice.\nIt became concern that the actions of the lower courts and accounts at least of some of the actions of the United States during dependency of these proceedings might tend to cost an unraveling of the atmosphere of respect which has been developed over this recent hard years.\nWe were heartened by this Court's prompt action on the petition for certiorari and now that the case is here, we have some suggestions as amicus curiae on the merits primarily as respect to remedy.\nOur suggestion to the Court in general is that the decision and order of the Court of Appeals of August 1969 should be affirmed insofar as it orders a reorganization of the dual school system in these districts into a unitary school system.\nBut the August order of the Court of Appeals, unlike the July order of the Court of Appeals, not only set back for 90 days, the period for formulation of plans but it failed to do what the July order had done namely to prescribe in addition to -- to prescribe not only dates for formulation of plan but also precise dates for the commencement of implementation and we would suggest an order or mandate the direct of a further order a precise date for the completion or at least substantial progress toward the completion of the decentralization plan.\nPerforming dates, an order that prescribes dates not only for formulation of the plan but for performance of the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2648.294, 2652.915, 2674.948, 2686.137, 2694.83, 2731.816, 2756.207, 2762.882, 2770.457, 2787.523, 2795.755, 2822.041, 2837.526, 2859.623, 2906.955], "stop_times": [2652.915, 2674.948, 2686.137, 2694.83, 2731.816, 2756.207, 2762.882, 2770.457, 2787.523, 2795.755, 2822.041, 2837.526, 2859.623, 2906.955, 2916.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2648.294}, "reply_to": "15410__0_085", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_001", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What date do you suggest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2916.8], "stop_times": [2918.356], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.8}, "reply_to": "15410__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__1_002", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well Your Honor we are -- we have not been in this litigation.\nWe haven't been in the crucible of detail about it.\nWe really can't make a responsible suggestion for particular dates.\nWe do suggest that as the Court of Appeals had found -- I refer to page 37-A of the appendix to the petition that no consideration should be given that the Court of Appeals should be affirmed in this respect.\nNo consideration should be given to the fact of interrupting the school year in the event that further relief is indicated.\nWe wanted to suggest to the Court in appraising the mandate that -- and the United States in its last memorandum concedes as much that there is no reason to worry too much about having this done before summer.\nAs we -- we would like to suggest from the point of view of the administration of justice, from the point of view of law enforcement if you will, that there are -- nobody is an expert on this I suppose but they are good reasons to believe that the reorganization of the schools can be better accomplished during the school year when the students are in school, when the teachers are in school, when the courts are in daily business, when this Court is in session.\nThen would be possible if we had what's happened over and over again in so many school districts.\nThis is not a decided more or less in rhetoric in the spring as happened in this case, then the summer doldrums set in and then about August when everybody really concern is on holiday, we suddenly -- law enforcement people, court, school administrators, teachers, students are suddenly confronted with the whatever activity goes on to try to delay past opening of school.\nAnd as a matter of fact, they -- the first -- to set these things down for the first day of school is an invitation to whoever would try to interfere, to -- on the theory that if they could just get by that 1st day of September then they are home free for another year.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [2918.356, 2923.247, 2929.593, 2935.2, 2952.954, 2961.843, 2978.836, 3010.03, 3018.012, 3048.562, 3070.0], "stop_times": [2923.247, 2929.593, 2935.2, 2952.954, 2961.843, 2978.836, 3010.03, 3018.012, 3048.562, 3070.0, 3070.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2918.356}, "reply_to": "15410__1_001", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_003", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "You suppose Mr. Oberdorfer that that last sentence of the Court of Appeals opinion that you just read --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3070.467], "stop_times": [3080.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.467}, "reply_to": "15410__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__1_004", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Page 37-A.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3080.834], "stop_times": [3081.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3080.834}, "reply_to": "15410__1_003", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_005", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Some 37-A--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3081.762], "stop_times": [3083.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.762}, "reply_to": "15410__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__1_006", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3083.143], "stop_times": [3084.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3083.143}, "reply_to": "15410__1_005", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_007", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "-- was directed that the proposition that there is apparently no formal semester at the mid-year or approximately mid-year as in many other places and that they were -- the Court of Appeals were suggesting that if this can't be done until December, let it be done in December.\nDo you think that's what they were driving at?\nDo you read it that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3084.467, 3107.443, 3108.902], "stop_times": [3107.443, 3108.902, 3110.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.467}, "reply_to": "15410__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__1_008", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's the possible interpretation Your Honor.\nI think there was -- I really think they were saying that -- probably not saying anymore that what I was trying to say namely that whenever you do it, don't worry about waiting until June in order to do it.\nDon't worry about waiting until September when in the normal course of hopefully expedited litigation, an expedited effort by the administrate -- by the Executive Branch, the matter is ready to go and the plan is completed.\nGo ahead with it and if it happens to be the 3rd day of November, go ahead on the 3rd day of November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3110.278, 3112.418, 3122.926, 3138.471], "stop_times": [3112.418, 3122.926, 3138.471, 3146.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3110.278}, "reply_to": "15410__1_007", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_009", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Probably, no point quibbling about this language (Inaudible) as I understood this opinion of the Court of Appeals in July 3rd.\nIts basic thrust was to put a plan of unitary school system, desegregated system and to effect as of September 1st.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3146.682, 3153.389], "stop_times": [3153.389, 3165.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.682}, "reply_to": "15410__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__1_010", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3165.339], "stop_times": [3166.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3165.339}, "reply_to": "15410__1_009", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_011", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Last September 1, 1969 and that this final sentence reversed only to the possibility of further relief, further ancillary which relief that might be very tribune.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3166.548], "stop_times": [3181.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.548}, "reply_to": "15410__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__1_012", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, it's possible that that means that no stay \u2013 might mean that no stay of the order effective September 1st will be granted simply because there may be a later interruption of the school year.\nIn any event, that the government's memorandum of yesterday says and we believe that the courts below my properly be authorized to require the implementation of the plans commencing at the most practical eminent juncture in the school year.\nNow, I have two suggestion about that, one is perhaps instead of authorizing the courts below to require implementation of the plans as I read that sometime during the school year that this courts mandate direct the Court of Appeals to enter an order to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3181.58, 3200.098, 3217.593], "stop_times": [3200.098, 3217.593, 3236.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3181.58}, "reply_to": "15410__1_011", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_013", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Do I understand, I think I do that you had agreed with what Mr. Greenberg suggested that the thing to do is to say dual system is old and it is to go effect today and that there is no reason for delay by reason of the fact that things will not be perfect the first day and the thing to do is to go at it now, do you agree with his position on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3236.701], "stop_times": [3266.1], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.701}, "reply_to": "15410__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__1_014", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I agree with that Your Honor without knowing exactly what now is as to now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3266.1], "stop_times": [3270.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3266.1}, "reply_to": "15410__1_013", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_015", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I mean when we issue an order if we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3270.563], "stop_times": [3274.285], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3270.563}, "reply_to": "15410__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__1_016", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I had thought and I don't mean to [Laughter].\nIf you do Your Honor, I had thought that that -- that the order could well be an order to the Court of Appeals to direct the District Court to enter an order and that for that length of time for the mandate to get that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3274.285, 3280.199], "stop_times": [3280.199, 3297.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3274.285}, "reply_to": "15410__1_015", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_017", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3297.456], "stop_times": [3298.484], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.456}, "reply_to": "15410__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__1_018", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Then, it would be appropriate if that's the decision.\nIn any event, that there is no reason to wait for the end of the school year --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3298.484, 3301.923], "stop_times": [3301.923, 3305.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3298.484}, "reply_to": "15410__1_017", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_019", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "There is no reason to wait on future is that deliberate speed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3305.87], "stop_times": [3310.858], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.87}, "reply_to": "15410__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__1_020", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Correct and furthermore that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3310.858], "stop_times": [3312.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3310.858}, "reply_to": "15410__1_019", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_021", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Is that what you would like to have us act with all deliberate speed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3312.963], "stop_times": [3316.071], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.963}, "reply_to": "15410__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__1_022", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Faster than that Your Honor.\nThank you.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3316.071, 3319.723], "stop_times": [3319.723, 3321.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3316.071}, "reply_to": "15410__1_021", "speaker": "louis_f_oberdorfer"}
{"id": "15410__1_023", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you Mr. Oberdorfer.\nMr. Leonard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3321.619, 3326.212], "stop_times": [3326.212, 3332.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3321.619}, "reply_to": "15410__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__2_000", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI first of all would respectfully request this Court seriously consider affirming the judgments of the courts below.\nAnd before the questioning of the counsel who previously argued here completely takes over the situation, may I urge this Court not to be too caught up in the frustration that counsel have portrayed to the Court today.\nI don't mean by that for a moment to imply but there isn't a great deal of frustration involved or there is.\nLet me just for a few moments to set the stage for a very brief argument that I'm going to make today, give you a little background on where we stand with respect to southern school desegregation, because I unfortunately think there are those who take an entirely too pessimistic point of view and I for one would like to be on the side of taking more optimistic point of view and I think those of us who deal daily with the problems of school desegregation can safely say to this Court that we have made some rather substantial breakthroughs in school desegregation and in truth and in fact the end of the road is in sight.\nIt is in sight admittedly a long way but it is in sight.\nFirst of all, we're now in the error of Green and counsel continued to refer to the Green decision as a -- an important turning point and indeed it was an important turning point but Green was handed down by this Court just 18 months ago.\nPrior to Green, the requirements which were laid down by this Court could in the main be met by a school district adopting some sort of a free transfer plan generally put together in the phrase freedom of choice and upon doing this, the school district was generally considered to be in compliance with the mandates of the Court but Green changed all.\nAnd since the time of Green there has been substantial progress, both substantively as well as procedure in school desegregation, whereas in the 14 years from Brown one to Green, only approximately 20% of the Negro children in Southern schools had moved in to desegregated schools.\nIn the one school year which was affected by the Green decision, at according to the figures supplied by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in that one school year after the effective date agreement, that figure almost doubled so that today it's approximately 40% again in the southern states.\nNow whether that figure is completely accurate or not, is not the important issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3332.028, 3337.023, 3349.15, 3371.494, 3379.78, 3423.806, 3428.383, 3445.629, 3473.957, 3497.764, 3522.343], "stop_times": [3337.023, 3349.15, 3371.494, 3379.78, 3423.806, 3428.383, 3445.629, 3473.957, 3497.764, 3522.343, 3527.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3332.028}, "reply_to": "15410__1_023", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_001", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The 40% accurate or not is 40% of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3527.154], "stop_times": [3531.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3527.154}, "reply_to": "15410__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__2_002", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Of the total number of Negro children involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3531.231], "stop_times": [3534.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3531.231}, "reply_to": "15410__2_001", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_003", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Who are in what?\nFormerly in white schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3534.804, 3535.77], "stop_times": [3535.77, 3536.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3534.804}, "reply_to": "15410__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__2_004", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Who are in these school districts in these southern states.\nIn the southern states and I'm talking about now that the jury school districts without reference to what may be the fact in de facto of school situation.\nObviously, it is going to be much less than that when you take those into effect but we are talking today about school districts where segregation of the races was official, was official policy.\nBut what is material about the green decision and what is important.\nIs that it literally opened up a new era for the guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of these Negro children on the one hand?\nAlso the educational benefits to white children and they are there of desegregated education.\nSo we are little genuinely, a little disturbed about those who become frustrated and say it's been 15 years since Brown.\nWell, that's true but it's more true to say it's been 18 months since Green because that's when the important turning point we feel came about in substantial progress in -- is coming at.\nNow, let me give you specific examples.\nIn nine Deep South States, there are better than 1100 school districts.\nPrior to the Green decision, more than 200 of those were in fact already desegregated, leaving 900 affected by the Green decision.\nSince Green, 400 of those 900 are either desegregated or have in the works in implementation satisfactory at least according to the District Courts, satisfactory desegregation plans therein operation.\nAnother 100 including these 33 are subject to so-called Green motions to improve the status in those Districts leaving 400 in which no effective efforts are at this point being made on behalf of the children in those 400 districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3536.99, 3541.873, 3553.661, 3565.975, 3570.46, 3580.025, 3587.184, 3597.365, 3610.761, 3613.686, 3620.74, 3631.333, 3650.072], "stop_times": [3541.873, 3553.661, 3565.975, 3570.46, 3580.025, 3587.184, 3597.365, 3610.761, 3613.686, 3620.74, 3631.333, 3650.072, 3671.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3536.99}, "reply_to": "15410__2_003", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_005", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And by that, do you mean as to those 400, that there are, there's no pending litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3671.422], "stop_times": [3675.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3671.422}, "reply_to": "15410__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__2_006", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "There's nothing going on here.\nAnd many of those are districts whose federal are substantial number better than 25% are districts whose federal funds have been cut off or just literally their line follow, so to speak.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3675.827, 3677.581], "stop_times": [3677.581, 3690.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3675.827}, "reply_to": "15410__2_005", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_007", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Do you have any figures for say the north of the -- north land, New England midwest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3690.783], "stop_times": [3700.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3690.783}, "reply_to": "15410__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15410__2_008", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Justice Douglas, I'm frank to say that where our figures for the north are very scarce but I want to point out to the Court that the department has commenced the jury type litigation against northern school districts where it has been found.\nAnd it has commenced litigation or at least investigated segregation of faculties even in de facto, northern school districts.\nI do want to point out to the Court that there is a procedural problem at least with respect to the Government and that's the requirements of Title IV of 1964 Civil Rights Act.\nThe Attorney General must have a written complaint from a parent before he can initiate litigation.\nSo, that does have an effect on these remaining 400.\nWe have asked the Congress to remove that and hopefully, that may be done.\nNow, let me turn for a moment to Green as it applies to the instant case.\nI don't think there's any question in anyone's mind that Green required these school boards to act.\nBut the fact to the matter is that we must be cognizant that they didn't act.\nWhatever the reason is that they didn't act, they didn't act and there are many other districts similarly situated like these 33 and whether we like it or not, it's true.\nThat fact is true in too many jurisdictions and therefore, the job of drawing the desegregation plan is in fact going to fall to the District Courts.\nAnd the District Courts in many, many cases have called upon the Government.\nThey've called upon H.E.W. for help and rightly so and I think that that's going to -- it's going to aid the total desegregation process.\nThe Attorney General himself has said the fact that you can call upon qualified experts.\nThe courts can at H.E.W to help in this process is going to assist the District Court, assist the school districts themselves if they want to be assisted, if they want to cooperate.\nIf they don't, then these people are there to assist the District Courts and the Secretary of H.E.W himself has joined in with this idea of using these educational experts to aid the school districts and the District Courts.\nBut I plead with this Court to remember that these people are professionals.\nThey are professional educators and their professional judgment must be given some weight.\nIt must be given some credence or the entire experiment is going to fail and if it fails, we will return to a time where the District Court judge and the lawyers from both sides will be sitting across from each other with the school district map, drawing lines and sticking pins and drawing some arrow lines.\nInfringing, in truth, and in -- and I'm not talking about a New Kent County type of case.\nI'm not talking about a two school district, one black and one white.\nBut there are districts in this situation among these cases which are terribly complicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3700.535, 3717.934, 3730.442, 3741.498, 3748.522, 3751.942, 3756.541, 3762.833, 3771.546, 3776.935, 3790.632, 3800.74, 3804.561, 3813.241, 3818.09, 3830.6, 3850.395, 3858.969, 3865.351, 3886.668, 3893.325, 3899.675], "stop_times": [3717.934, 3730.442, 3741.498, 3748.522, 3751.942, 3756.541, 3762.833, 3771.546, 3776.935, 3790.632, 3800.74, 3804.561, 3813.241, 3818.09, 3830.6, 3850.395, 3858.969, 3865.351, 3886.668, 3893.325, 3899.675, 3907.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3700.535}, "reply_to": "15410__2_007", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_009", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Terribly what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3907.46], "stop_times": [3908.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3907.46}, "reply_to": "15410__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_010", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Complicated Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3908.466], "stop_times": [3910.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3908.466}, "reply_to": "15410__2_009", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_011", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Do you have the brief of the American Educational Association?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3910.962], "stop_times": [3914.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3910.962}, "reply_to": "15410__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_012", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I have Your Honor and I disagree with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3914.424], "stop_times": [3917.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3914.424}, "reply_to": "15410__2_011", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_013", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Do you agree with it or disagree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3917.314], "stop_times": [3919.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3917.314}, "reply_to": "15410__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_014", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I disagree with it.\nI agree however with the two experts who are members of that association, who testified on behalf of the Government, with respect to the complexities and I'm not saying that all the districts are the same.\nSome of them, I'm sure are very simple.\nMr. Greenberg said, there's two school house districts.\nThere are at least one that has only three and that isn't terribly complicated.\nBut there are complications because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3919.101, 3919.965, 3932.074, 3935.569, 3939.187, 3943.904], "stop_times": [3919.965, 3932.074, 3935.569, 3939.187, 3943.904, 3946.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3919.101}, "reply_to": "15410__2_013", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_015", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Why do you have to have a plan to just say, we're not going to have a delayed session?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3946.539], "stop_times": [3953.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3946.539}, "reply_to": "15410__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_016", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Justice Black, I was going to do it now.\nI'm just going to get to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3953.673, 3956.265], "stop_times": [3956.265, 3957.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3953.673}, "reply_to": "15410__2_015", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_017", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What does that do anything except delay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3957.703], "stop_times": [3960.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3957.703}, "reply_to": "15410__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_018", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Justice Black, what this Court has required in Green is a reorganization of school districts, a reorganization that is really in fact a merger, a merger of two separate and distinct school systems, one black and one white into one.\nNow, the testimony in this case clearly shows that in some of these districts, that this is going to include great restructuring, faculty reorganization, realigning of bus routes, readjustment of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3960.713, 3979.522], "stop_times": [3979.522, 3992.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3960.713}, "reply_to": "15410__2_017", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_019", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Why not do it and put it in effect and let the arrangements be made thereafter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3992.195], "stop_times": [3998.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3992.195}, "reply_to": "15410__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_020", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, the \u201cwhat\u201d is the problem, Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [3998.36], "stop_times": [4000.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3998.36}, "reply_to": "15410__2_019", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_021", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4000.788], "stop_times": [4001.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4000.788}, "reply_to": "15410__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_022", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The \u201cwhat\u201d is the problem.\nYou have to do something and that something has to be some kind of a plan.\nThe \u201cit\u201d is the problem.\nSomebody has to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4001.314, 4003.178, 4008.522, 4009.895], "stop_times": [4003.178, 4008.522, 4009.895, 4010.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4001.314}, "reply_to": "15410__2_021", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_023", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Start it in each one of these schools and said now we're not going to have any dual system of schools.\nThere's going to be unity.\nAnd if the buildings don't suit, we'll do the best we can with the buildings we have.\nWe'll do the best we can with the teachers here.\nWhy have to draw any other plans but that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4010.768, 4016.762, 4018.516, 4022.769, 4025.786], "stop_times": [4016.762, 4018.516, 4022.769, 4025.786, 4028.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4010.768}, "reply_to": "15410__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_024", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Justice Black, that is the position of the petitioners in the case.\nThat's pendente lite argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4028.174, 4032.408], "stop_times": [4032.408, 4034.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4028.174}, "reply_to": "15410__2_023", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_025", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No, I'm asking you why that view is right and whether it's right or not.\nWho's ever view it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4034.196, 4038.548], "stop_times": [4038.548, 4040.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4034.196}, "reply_to": "15410__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_026", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I think it's wrong.\nI think it's terribly wrong.\nI think there maybe some other alternatives to this frustration that may be felt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4040.628, 4041.702, 4043.031], "stop_times": [4041.702, 4043.031, 4048.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4040.628}, "reply_to": "15410__2_025", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_027", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The frustrations from the 15 years, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4048.247], "stop_times": [4051.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4048.247}, "reply_to": "15410__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_028", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "My point is that the frustration I think is more properly directed to the 18 months because it was with Green that this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4051.645], "stop_times": [4057.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4051.645}, "reply_to": "15410__2_027", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_029", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "You want to divide it up into segments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4057.729], "stop_times": [4060.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4057.729}, "reply_to": "15410__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_030", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4060.49], "stop_times": [4060.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4060.49}, "reply_to": "15410__2_029", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_031", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "You want to divide it up into segments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4060.795], "stop_times": [4062.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4060.795}, "reply_to": "15410__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_032", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No, I really don't.[Laughter]\nI really don't Your Honor.\nWhat I'm pleading with this Court is not to do something precipitous like the pendente lite idea.\nThere are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4062.406, 4064.605, 4066.355, 4073.995], "stop_times": [4064.605, 4066.355, 4073.995, 4074.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4062.406}, "reply_to": "15410__2_031", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_033", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Would anything -- would anything be precipitous in this appeal now?\nWith all the years gone by?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4074.204, 4081.644], "stop_times": [4081.644, 4082.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4074.204}, "reply_to": "15410__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_034", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, let me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4082.184], "stop_times": [4084.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4082.184}, "reply_to": "15410__2_033", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_035", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Since our order was given?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4084.222], "stop_times": [4086.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4084.222}, "reply_to": "15410__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_036", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Let me say that many hundreds of thousands of the children that we're talking about are children of very tender age.\nMany of these little people are six, and seven, and eight, nine years old and what you do with them can have an affect on their total future life.\nWe want to, I hope that our point is, we're trying to improve the education of the Negro children.\nWe know we will improve the education of the white children by desegregation, anyway.\nBut let's try to do it with some order.\nLet's not send children --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4086.787, 4097.173, 4106.859, 4112.877, 4118.535, 4120.578], "stop_times": [4097.173, 4106.859, 4112.877, 4118.535, 4120.578, 4120.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4086.787}, "reply_to": "15410__2_035", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_037", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Are you arguing -- are you arguing for perpetuation of the term with all deliberate speed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4120.785], "stop_times": [4126.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4120.785}, "reply_to": "15410__2_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_038", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I am not.\nI don't believe that's a law now, Mr. Justice Black.\nI don't think that -- I think that's by the boards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4126.781, 4127.437, 4130.558], "stop_times": [4127.437, 4130.558, 4133.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4126.781}, "reply_to": "15410__2_037", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_039", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Leonard, can you and I compromise you could say, pay no attention to Brown too, pay attention to Green.\nWell, could we compromise and look at Aaron and Cooper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4133.349, 4142.263], "stop_times": [4142.263, 4147.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4133.349}, "reply_to": "15410__2_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15410__2_040", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I think that Aaron and Cooper is an entirely different situation.\nI don't think that there's anyone who wouldn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4147.712, 4153.919], "stop_times": [4153.919, 4156.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4147.712}, "reply_to": "15410__2_039", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_041", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Green in which this Court have agreed to sign each Justice's name to it which is very seldom done and said that all nine agreed.\nWasn't that a slight warning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4156.023, 4169.353], "stop_times": [4169.353, 4172.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4156.023}, "reply_to": "15410__2_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15410__2_042", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I think that it was Mr. Justice Marshall but I think it was in Green that this Court articulated the need to have plans.\nPlans realistically designed to work now.\nThat's we believe, that's what the law is.\nThe question is you got to get the plan.\nYou got to find the way to get the plan into effect, into a court order in these situations.\nBecause the districts in too many situations will not voluntarily put these plans into effect and that's the point I made.\nLet me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4172.816, 4180.538, 4183.732, 4185.991, 4188.77, 4196.844, 4205.74], "stop_times": [4180.538, 4183.732, 4185.991, 4188.77, 4196.844, 4205.74, 4206.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4172.816}, "reply_to": "15410__2_041", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_043", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "In this case, we have -- we have before us and there have been formulated plans for these 14 school districts.\nTo be sure, there maybe subject to refinement in some of their details but in this particular case, these are the plans for 14 school districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4206.675, 4216.394], "stop_times": [4216.394, 4231.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4206.675}, "reply_to": "15410__2_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15410__2_044", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Stewart, let me point out to you that I don't think there's any disagreement about that.\nThere is some clear cut testimony from both of the witnesses and I might point out to this Court it is based on the testimony of people like the two witnesses that the Government presented that the Secretary acted and did what he did.\nThis wasn't something that he pulled out of the air.\nHe acted upon the advice of the people who were involved in the drawing of these plans and what they say is really two things.\nNumber one, there are elements to these plans that need validation.\nFor instance, there is in one school district, the substantial reorganization of the bus routes but there's no bus routes drawn.\nNow, are we to ask six, seven, eight, nine-year-old children who stand out in the street corner waiting for a bus that the bus driver doesn't know where to take.\nThat can be overcome in a short period of time.\nI don't point that out as being any great difficult but the fact to the plans is -- the fact to the matter is that the plans as filed were not as refined, as incomplete as they could've been if these men who worked nights, weekend, I'm talking about the educators, if they had an opportunity to really refine them.\nThat's problem number one.\nProblem number two was that September 1st is the key day because it was September 1st that the Court of Appeals set down as decision day.\nNow, the plans would have gone into effect on December 1st.\nIn the first place, some of the school districts would already have been opened, three or four or five, I'm not sure just how many but some of them would.\nMajority of them were opening, I believe on September 2nd the next day because September 1st was Labor Day and the following were opening the following week September 7th.\nNow, I plead with this Court that decision day and implementation day and school opening day were all on the same day.\nNow, that can't be.\nWe certainly can't organize our affairs given a reasonable period of time not deliberate speed by any means but some reasonable opportunity given the -- allowing these professionals some reasonable chance to work their professional judgment.\nThere's no question what the eventual result has to be here and it's got to be soon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4231.565, 4239.547, 4255.452, 4259.414, 4270.117, 4274.233, 4282.034, 4291.214, 4293.66, 4314.454, 4316.013, 4328.017, 4332.152, 4340.96, 4353.045, 4361.18, 4362.28, 4380.962], "stop_times": [4239.547, 4255.452, 4259.414, 4270.117, 4274.233, 4282.034, 4291.214, 4293.66, 4314.454, 4316.013, 4328.017, 4332.152, 4340.96, 4353.045, 4361.18, 4362.28, 4380.962, 4386.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4231.565}, "reply_to": "15410__2_043", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_045", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "They've had six or seven weeks since September 1st.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4386.15], "stop_times": [4389.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4386.15}, "reply_to": "15410__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_046", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And they have been meeting with the school districts during that period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4389.268], "stop_times": [4394.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4389.268}, "reply_to": "15410__2_045", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_047", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, are there any plans that have developed within the last six or seven weeks different from the ones that were originally filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4394.716], "stop_times": [4407.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4394.716}, "reply_to": "15410__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_048", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I honestly don't know the answer to that question.\nI meet with the people involved regularly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4407.505, 4411.518], "stop_times": [4411.518, 4413.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4407.505}, "reply_to": "15410__2_047", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_049", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, apparently, the two witnesses, if you have testified for the United States indicated some dissatisfaction with these plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4413.532], "stop_times": [4422.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4413.532}, "reply_to": "15410__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_050", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Not dissatisfaction so much with the total plan as with the lack of ability to validate the plans to conduct uncertain peripherals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4422.467], "stop_times": [4431.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4422.467}, "reply_to": "15410__2_049", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_051", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I'm not sure I know what you mean by that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4431.81], "stop_times": [4434.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4431.81}, "reply_to": "15410__2_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_052", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4434.416], "stop_times": [4437.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4434.416}, "reply_to": "15410__2_051", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_053", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Did the two witnesses you had on the stand disagree with these plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4437.033], "stop_times": [4443.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4437.033}, "reply_to": "15410__2_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_054", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Not basically.\nNo, they did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4443.163, 4444.085], "stop_times": [4444.085, 4445.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4443.163}, "reply_to": "15410__2_053", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_055", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And as far as you know, they still don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4445.541], "stop_times": [4448.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4445.541}, "reply_to": "15410__2_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_056", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I'm certain that they still do not at least at the last juncture of my talking to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4448.089], "stop_times": [4452.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4448.089}, "reply_to": "15410__2_055", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_057", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The gentleman who propounded these plans and filed them not only said that they were sound substantively but they could be put into effect in a timely manner.\nDid your witnesses disagree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4452.524, 4467.856], "stop_times": [4467.856, 4469.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4452.524}, "reply_to": "15410__2_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_058", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "They did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4469.393], "stop_times": [4470.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4469.393}, "reply_to": "15410__2_057", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_059", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Is that -- and do they still?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4470.901], "stop_times": [4473.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4470.901}, "reply_to": "15410__2_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_060", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "They still do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4473.174], "stop_times": [4474.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4473.174}, "reply_to": "15410__2_059", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_061", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "So what is their -- what have been -- what they proposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4474.266], "stop_times": [4479.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4474.266}, "reply_to": "15410__2_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_062", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I think, I doubt very much that there was any testimony that related specifically to any period of delay.\nIt was simply the shock that this was all occurring on the same day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4479.83, 4489.066], "stop_times": [4489.066, 4494.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4479.83}, "reply_to": "15410__2_061", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_063", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The experts -- so your two experts or then some others who were advising the Secretary thought that these plans might be perfectly sound but they just had to make more arrangements to put them into effect, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4494.138], "stop_times": [4507.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4494.138}, "reply_to": "15410__2_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_064", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But they had two things, as I indicated it.\nThey felt the need to validate some parts of the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4507.217, 4511.702], "stop_times": [4511.702, 4514.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4507.217}, "reply_to": "15410__2_063", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_065", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Validate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4514.797], "stop_times": [4515.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4514.797}, "reply_to": "15410__2_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_066", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That is to conduct some additional studies to determine.\nLet me give you an example Mr. Justice White.\nFor four weeks, the counsel mentioned, Mr. Oberdorfer mentioned Bogalusa.\nFor four weeks I was in Louisiana during the school openings down there and I went to a school in one parish in which there were 500 children standing outside door because somebody miscounted the number of people, number of youngsters who were inside that particular school zone.\nNow, those plans also were prepared in a little longer time frame than these but you will recall that the Louisiana, you may not but the Louisiana appeals were handled just prior to the Mississippi appeals by the Fifth Circuit.\nNow, that's what can come about when a validation as Mr. Solons and Mr. Jordan in their testimony indicated is not done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4515.857, 4518.616, 4523.008, 4528.379, 4546.432, 4560.863], "stop_times": [4518.616, 4523.008, 4528.379, 4546.432, 4560.863, 4572.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4515.857}, "reply_to": "15410__2_065", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_067", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Just one question if I may.\nIf there had been no appeal here after the Court of Appeals had acted, can you assure us that the plans would've been submitted on December 1st or is at 15th, December 1st in accordance with the Court of Appeals order?\nDo you know any reason why they would not have been submitted on that schedule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4572.956, 4575.069, 4595.134], "stop_times": [4575.069, 4595.134, 4601.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4572.956}, "reply_to": "15410__2_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__2_068", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the plans if this Court does nothing with this lawsuit between now and December 1st, the plans will be submitted on December 1st and all of those elements of the plans which can be implemented according to the decision of the Fifth Circuit, all of those which have any reasonable hope of being implemented during this school year.\nWhen I say elements, there are various elements in the desegregation plan.\nAll of those that can be implemented in the 1969-1970 school will be -- school year will be, again, this is dependant upon the decision by the District Court but our urging will be -- let me put it that way.\nAnd if there are any elements in those desegregation plans which cannot be implemented during this school year, we will expect the school boards to come forth and meet the burden and show why that particular element or those particular elements in that plan cannot be met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4601.811, 4625.694, 4630.123, 4645.691], "stop_times": [4625.694, 4630.123, 4645.691, 4666.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4601.811}, "reply_to": "15410__2_067", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_069", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What -- can you give me an example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4666.138], "stop_times": [4668.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4666.138}, "reply_to": "15410__2_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_070", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4668.206], "stop_times": [4669.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4668.206}, "reply_to": "15410__2_069", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_071", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "If you think might have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4669.459], "stop_times": [4670.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4669.459}, "reply_to": "15410__2_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_072", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "You have a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4670.489], "stop_times": [4671.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4670.489}, "reply_to": "15410__2_071", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_073", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "-- might not be able to implement this year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4671.806], "stop_times": [4675.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4671.806}, "reply_to": "15410__2_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_074", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "You have one of the school districts, I think has some 11,000 and there are some others in the package of 33 here that have some fairly good number of students.\nMany times, the school reorganization, Mr. Justice White, will call for the building of middle schools, separating a grade structure.\nMany, if you look at these plans, you'll find many of these schools are K through 12, K through eight plus a high school.\nTheir grade school feeding, feeding high schools and please understand I'm not an educational expert by any means but what many times will happen is in a reorganization of a school district, you will adopt an elementary school structure, one through four, one through six, a middle school structure and a senior high school structure.\nNow, it can well be that either through the construction of temporary or permanent facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4675.757, 4688.147, 4697.679, 4706.589, 4726.217], "stop_times": [4688.147, 4697.679, 4706.589, 4726.217, 4731.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4675.757}, "reply_to": "15410__2_073", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_075", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I thought the -- I thought these plans had failed to cover those counties where that sort of a problem would come up at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4731.855], "stop_times": [4741.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4731.855}, "reply_to": "15410__2_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_076", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No, Mr. Justice White.\nThere's 11 -- there's 11,000 students in one of the districts and there are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4741.428, 4742.466], "stop_times": [4742.466, 4747.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4741.428}, "reply_to": "15410__2_075", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_077", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That does not necessarily follow that this plan is not, can't be feasibly implemented during this year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4747.256], "stop_times": [4756.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4747.256}, "reply_to": "15410__2_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15410__2_078", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, I think Mr. Solon's testimony was that in his opinion, he's the one who worked on the Holmes County, the big district, or Heinz County.\nI'm sorry, I'm not sure whether it's Holmes or Heinz, in any event the big one, that he felt that there was not any reason why the plan could not be fully and completely implemented totally by next September.\nIn other words, even with -- even those elements that might need some delay that they would not go beyond the 1970-1971 school year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4756.785, 4767.417, 4780.307], "stop_times": [4767.417, 4780.307, 4791.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4756.785}, "reply_to": "15410__2_077", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_079", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Leonard, one more year or this year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4791.044], "stop_times": [4793.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4791.044}, "reply_to": "15410__2_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_080", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's only for part of the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4793.746], "stop_times": [4796.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4793.746}, "reply_to": "15410__2_079", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_081", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But it's another year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4796.535], "stop_times": [4799.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4796.535}, "reply_to": "15410__2_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_082", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4799.859], "stop_times": [4800.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4799.859}, "reply_to": "15410__2_081", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_083", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Contemplation, another year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4800.115], "stop_times": [4802.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4800.115}, "reply_to": "15410__2_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_084", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "For a part of the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4802.568], "stop_times": [4803.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4802.568}, "reply_to": "15410__2_083", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_085", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4803.646], "stop_times": [4804.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4803.646}, "reply_to": "15410__2_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_086", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That's correct Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4804.017], "stop_times": [4805.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4804.017}, "reply_to": "15410__2_085", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_087", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "But it's all done into parts or segments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4805.132], "stop_times": [4808.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4805.132}, "reply_to": "15410__2_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_088", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No, not always.\nGreen versus New Kent County wasn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4808.836, 4809.847], "stop_times": [4809.847, 4811.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4808.836}, "reply_to": "15410__2_087", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_089", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "So, that wasn't the first one that said that they had to do it now.\nWhy do you mark that as the first case and said they had to do it now.\nWhy was that such a turning point in the history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4811.938, 4816.149, 4822.962], "stop_times": [4816.149, 4822.962, 4827.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4811.938}, "reply_to": "15410__2_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_090", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4827.738], "stop_times": [4830.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4827.738}, "reply_to": "15410__2_089", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_091", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What about the Virginia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4830.353], "stop_times": [4831.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4830.353}, "reply_to": "15410__2_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_092", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "I may be wrong Mr. Justice Black (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4831.141], "stop_times": [4833.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4831.141}, "reply_to": "15410__2_091", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_093", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What about the Virginia school which had said substantially the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4833.034], "stop_times": [4838.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4833.034}, "reply_to": "15410__2_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_094", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The Fourth Circuit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4838.11], "stop_times": [4838.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4838.11}, "reply_to": "15410__2_093", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_095", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Two years before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4838.866], "stop_times": [4844.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4838.866}, "reply_to": "15410__2_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_096", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Let me say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4844.558], "stop_times": [4845.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4844.558}, "reply_to": "15410__2_095", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_097", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That the time for deliberation was out and the thing to do it, do it now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4845.573], "stop_times": [4854.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4845.573}, "reply_to": "15410__2_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15410__2_098", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The Green throughout the Freedom of Choice was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4854.478], "stop_times": [4859.133], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4854.478}, "reply_to": "15410__2_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__2_099", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Green throughout Freedom of Choice made it clear that the -- unless they really had worked that and said you needed a plan and that I think is what everyone is struggling for is to get the plan before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4859.133], "stop_times": [4874.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4859.133}, "reply_to": "15410__2_098", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_100", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Too many plans, not enough action made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4874.539], "stop_times": [4878.287], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4874.539}, "reply_to": "15410__2_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__2_101", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Well, -- [Laughter] We hope not Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4878.287], "stop_times": [4881.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4878.287}, "reply_to": "15410__2_100", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_102", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "What about the planning of the report that was called (Inaudible) concern, is that report made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4881.148], "stop_times": [4886.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4881.148}, "reply_to": "15410__2_101", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15410__2_103", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "That report was made, Mr. Justice Marshall and the in service training and the rest of it is going on right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4886.968], "stop_times": [4895.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4886.968}, "reply_to": "15410__2_102", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_104", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "And the report was made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4895.427], "stop_times": [4896.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4895.427}, "reply_to": "15410__2_103", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15410__2_105", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "The report was made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4896.652], "stop_times": [4898.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4896.652}, "reply_to": "15410__2_104", "speaker": "jeris_leonard"}
{"id": "15410__2_106", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4898.073], "stop_times": [4900.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4898.073}, "reply_to": "15410__2_105", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15410__2_107", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Leonard.\nMr. Summer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4900.426, 4908.225], "stop_times": [4908.225, 4911.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4900.426}, "reply_to": "15410__2_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__3_000", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI did not have the opportunity to participate in the trial of these cases below.\nI've been the Attorney General of Mississippi for just a few months and therefore have not previously participated in any of these school cases.\nSo, with the Court's permission, it will be my purpose to take a very few minutes to the remainder of our time and pass the argument then to the Honorable John Satterfield who has participated in these cases from the beginning and who will be better qualified to answer any of your specific question regarding these specific cases and with your permission, I would refer to him for same.\nJust a few commentaries in regard to the say the least loose statement made for the counsel that the law has disobeyed and the courts have not required obedience.\nThat's carrying the -- therefore, I believe the something that does not appear in this record nor in my opinion in any other record of the court below.\nHe has not -- this record will not show any disobedience of the court or other court orders in this case, nor do I believe that would show that the judge has refused to require the obedience to those.\nAnd further, to counsel's extreme reluctance, to have the same standards applied to all of the schools in the nation that apply to those in the area in which we live.\nWith the Court's permission, I would like to point out our part of the evidence in these cases below that addresses itself to that point.\nThe record in these cases contain absolute proof taken from the H.E.W files that there are hundreds of all-Negro and all-white schools in the de facto areas which was being inquired about this moment ago.\nThey are all-Negro and all-white because of the living patterns and other factors.\nWe feel we no longer have the issue of segregated schools but de facto, just as those and other parts of the nations just as their schools are.\nHow much longer can it be fairly said that Chicago with 610 schools can have 208 all-Negro schools, 184 all-white schools and 228 schools with no Negro teachers.\nBut each of these schools before the court must affirmatively or forcefully in agree to each of their schools summarily without hearing both students and faculty whether it is right for the students or not.\nWell, St. Louis with its 164 schools, 83 of which are black and 31 of which are all-white, 81 of which either have or have either all-black or all white teachers, continued except from this new constitutional principle they are advocated.\nAs a matter of fact, proven in the record of these cases of the 12,497 and the 100 largest school districts in the nation, assuming that a school with less than one percent of the minority race is a in all-Negro or all-white school, 6,137 are 48% are either all-black or all-white.\nThese are schools that have never had a dual system.\nOur record in the hold is no worst than what seems to be the national average.\nThe advocates here would have these children into -- these children involved in these lawsuits, 135,720 children endure a discriminatory application of a constitutional standard, that is not applied universally in this country.\nWith that, if the Court please, I would defer to Mr. Satterfield for the balance of the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [4911.176, 4914.866, 4919.406, 4928.005, 4952.202, 4966.852, 4984.269, 5000.091, 5013.271, 5022.905, 5037.445, 5042.474, 5053.907, 5071.53, 5086.01, 5105.286, 5130.078, 5133.835, 5141.65, 5160.253], "stop_times": [4914.866, 4919.406, 4928.005, 4952.202, 4966.852, 4984.269, 5000.091, 5013.271, 5022.905, 5037.445, 5042.474, 5053.907, 5071.53, 5086.01, 5105.286, 5130.078, 5133.835, 5141.65, 5160.253, 5179.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4911.176}, "reply_to": "15410__2_107", "speaker": "a_f_summer"}
{"id": "15410__4_000", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [5179.887], "stop_times": [5180.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5179.887}, "reply_to": "15410__3_000", "speaker": "john_c_satterfield"}
{"id": "15410__4_001", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Satterfield.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [5180.681], "stop_times": [5182.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5180.681}, "reply_to": "15410__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__4_002", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "-- and then the Court.\nIt is a pleasure to appear before you today in this connection because there are quite a number of matters which I believe need to be cleared off for the benefit of the Court, the litigants and of the children here involved.\nThe first is this that this procedure has been handled by the petitioners in the same way they handled the appearance before the Fifth Circuit (Inaudible) which was purely on a motion consenting a docket setting at which time, the Fifth Circuit had no record before it, no evidence before it, no briefing over the basic merits, briefing only as to timing and at which time, the Fifth Circuit pronounced (Inaudible) which has later been referred to as law of the case.\nSecondly, when these cases appeared as Heinz County before the Fifth Circuit, they were heard upon eight days notice.\nThe record was in four packing boxes and was not available to the Court and the Court in its direction of October 25th found.\nIt did not intend to review the record but would accept the finding of the District Court on all matters of fact which with deference in whole affair to do.\nThis proceeding is brought without the record before the Court.\nAlthough it was available to be brought even within the time limited under Rules 20 and 12 of this Court and Rule 11 of the rule of the federal procedures.\nAnd this is again an attempt to make broad statements not supported by the record because there is no record.\nFor instance, the statement had been made to some 3,000 pages of testimony and most of which was directed toward the allegation there's a difference in the intelligence of Negro and white children.\nThat statement is absolutely without any foundation is in fact, in fact and contrary to the truth.\nThe record contains evidence demonstrating compliance by many of these districts with the requirements not only of the cases throughout the years but the Green, Ray, Monroe and Carr.\nI will not take the time to go into the illustration.\nWe had the time to bring before this Court but in the Meridian District, in athletics, in activities, in faculty, in participation of students, it is demonstrated in the record that there is no longer a dual system but there is a unitary system.\nAnd Mrs. Comp (ph) a leader of the NAACP of the Southern Christian Leadership Commerce of the Black Methodist who has been active in all Civil Rights Movements in Meridian for the last 31 years testified the system was unitary, that there was a complete right of attendance of all students to every school and that in whole opinion, it was working and would continue to work.\nAnd there is evidence throughout this record if petitioners were willing for the Court to have the opportunity of saying it, of that nature, applicable to most of these issues.\nThey differ in many, very different ways.\nMay I call the Court's particular attention to the fact that as it has been stated to this Court, we did not know until when you read the brief we received Saturday morning after office close as the statement on page approximate 23 thereof, they would be made available to the Court copies of certain plans.\nWe've never seen what was handed to the Court but we've seen plans that were filed.\nI assume that may be it.\nBut it should be noted that in this matter the petitioners bring piece by piece that would say what the Court to see but have asked the Court to pass upon this matter without there being before the Court the record of the Court which was available to them and could be brought.\nAnd what do they ask?\nTheir prayer appears on pages 30 and 31 of their present brief and that is one that was the most amazing, it frankly may it please the Court, it made both of our state (Inaudible) stand up.\nI've never seen anything like it before.\nIn the first place, it asked this Court to require that they'd be put into effect plans which have been withdrawn.\nWithdrawn by whom under own allegations, withdrawn by the Department of Education, Health, and Welfare and the Secretary of Finance extra full consideration thereof.\nThey have been, as demonstrated by (Inaudible), he found that they were not sufficient.\nThat was reported by the testimony of Mr. Jordan and of Mr. -- of the other gentleman who testified.\nThis gentleman, Mr. Solons, one of the top employees of H.E.W testified as found by the District Court and assigned by the Court of Appeals.\nThe witness was of the opinion and the Court defines that in order to formulate, not implement, to formulate and implement successful and you think that desegregation plans, their additional time will be required.\nNow, a record was made to the chaos which might result as if it had to do with community resistance.\nThat is another matter in which there's an attempt to give an erroneous idea to this Court to put it in a most charitable way.\nThe statement of the secretary is as follows to which appeared on page 31 (e) of the petitioner, in the letter written by the secretary.\nAnd by the way, that came into the Court as an exhibit to the motion.\nThere's no attempt to have an indefinite postpone of anything.\nThe secretary's obligation solely was to file and formulate plans before the action would be taken by the Court with the assistance of the Department of Justice (Inaudible) and when that letter came to Chief Justice John Brown and Chief District Judge Cox.\nIt came as a part of a motion setting forth timing similar, almost identical to that in the original order of July 3rd and July 25th with the exception of the necessary time to do what?\nNot to implement plans but to form proper things.\nNow, here's what Mr. Finch say.\nHe says, \u201cI'm gravely concerned that the time allowed for the development of these terminal plans has been too short for the educators of the Office of Education to develop terminal plans which can be implemented this year.\u201d\nThe administrative and what is here before right you, is he talking about community as has been stated in the brief erroneously and without any basis whatsoever without the record being before the Court.\nHe says, the administrative and logistical difficulties, the administrative which must be encountered and made in the terribly short space of time must surely in my judgment produce chaos, confusion and a catastrophic educational set back to the children involved.\nThe administrative difficulty because the plans have not yet been developed and here is the prayer that is now made in their request.\nThe first is that there should not be any hearing by the District Court that this Court should overrule or modify Brown one, Brown two, Cooper, Green, Ray, and all the other cases in Court that's above this Court.\nAnd should put into effect plans which have been withdrawn which the evidence of Mr. Finch's secretary, of Mr. Jordan, in charge of that area, of Mr. Sutton's who was his assistant were not sufficiently developed without a hearing by any Court at any time under any circumstances.\nThe prayer is that the public officials who are charged with a duty of administering the educational system within these states should not be permitted to participate in any matter in the preparation of or collaboration in saying the plans.\nIt was found by the District Court and defined by the Court of Appeals that when these plans which the system were drawn were presented to the local educational authorities.\nThey were presented with the statement and I can say this because it is in the record and it's understood that it is or should be before the Court.\nI was present when it was done.\nThe representative as the record shows and now heard with the statement that there was no time to discuss or collaborate concerning them or to work out difficulties which might result and that is the present situation, the only plans now in own file are those which were filed in accordance with the order of the Court by the districts themselves under the renovation that they had not had an opportunity to fully collaborate with the department and to work out plans satisfactory to all parties.\nI have not lost my temper in the last 40 years I've been practicing law except twice and that was 35 years ago and did not do so today.\nIn south, you know, we get upset if we're made (Inaudible).\nBut come almost outside when I hear and see statements made of constitutional defiance by the public officials of Mississippi in particular of the schools.\nThe fact is and we have set them out on that brief beginning with 1959, 1962, 1964, 1966 up through January 16, 1966.\nThe decisions of the Court of Appeals on the Fifth Circuit was that Freedom of Choice plan to work proper, they should be extended year by year and we have set out and quoted in our brief the latter ones which were that since a late start had been made in 13 districts beginning in 1965.\nThey should be extended to four grades a year and these districts, every district before this Court has complied with those requirements.\nThey are law abiding citizens and those who are alleged otherwise do so being I hope innocent of the facts to be most charitable to them.\nMay it please the Court, with reference to the matter of Green, of course, as the Court knows, in that case, freedom of choice was by no means outlawed.\nNow, by the way, the Court has problems that noted on page 31 of the last brief filed by the petitioners.\nThat the prayer that is made there is not with reference to desegregation.\nThe prayer is as follows concerning action pendente lite that this Court should make the action, pendente lite \u201crequiring that integration and not segregation be the status quo pendente lite\u201d.\nOr in other words, that integration and not desegregation be made the status quo pendente lite.\nAnd yet this Court said in Green, reaffirmed in Carr and it is the law of the land as interpreted by this Court as follows, that is we do not hold that freedom of choice can have no place in such a plan.\nWe do not hold any freedom of choice plan might of itself be unconstitutional or that argument has been urged upon us.\nThis Court specifically declined so to hold rather all way that said today is that in desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing a freedom of choice is not an end in itself and then yet when he said, there are two words used in many cases including Carr, Green, Monroe, and others.\nThomas (Inaudible) to wait and the word \u201cnow.\u201d\nThe petitioner said the word \u201cnow\u201d means yesterday, have already worked on tomorrow morning, at 7:15 eastern daylight saving time.\nBut in the use of the English language, the word promises really realistically the word now necessarily force to the realism with which it may be reasonably expected to work and not that it has that before done so.\nAnd set this Court in Green where if the freedom of choice plan, compose a real promise of aiding a desegregation program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, non-racial system.\nThere will be no objection to allowing such a device to improve itself at operation.\nNo objection whatsoever by the time and that we have in our briefs presented to you three illustrations that (Inaudible) because the petitioner was not willing for the Court to have the full record report.\nBut we have both in relation to the cross-petition found under the exhibits to our brief in this case.\nIllustrations of the Meridian school district, the Naches school district, and the Enterprise school district demonstrated that the freedom of choice plan is nothing like tomorrow there will be a ball game, football game in Neshoba County at Philadelphia, Mississippi team many, or some years ago in which the team from one of the schools here involved so-called \u201cwhite schools\u201d will have opponent almost in equal number of Negro players and of white players.\nWe have shown in the record the picture of the all State Negro back who was a member of the Meridian team of the so-called white school.\nNow, I say in closing, may it please that Court that there are two things I do want to call your attention, to which I wish to call your attention.\nThe first is I'm somewhat embarrass after reading the brief to admit that I'm a charter member of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under the law.\nI was the one who arranged for them to open in August in Jackson, Mississippi.\nFor a number of years, they did a very fine job, a reason that they had many different situations.\nI refer you to my brief for that connection and the connection with their work.\nThat other is this, that where and if the Court grants the prayer, which is now made and the request which is now before this Court that is that integration shall be the pendente lite shall be the matter of the day.\nIf the plans that I've never seen those files or what's been found that maybe the ones I saw some months ago.\nMost of those call for compulsory assignment.\nAnd it's interesting that in order to have compulsory assignment, it does have to be a Tom and Mary and Jim and Bill by name.\nIt maybe, it maybe compulsory assignment by pairing all racial grounds only.\nNot pairing on educational ground, but pairing what.\nYou don't call Jim and Bill by name.\nYou simply say everybody in the class that Jim and Bill is going to shall be assigned over somewhere else to compulsory assignment.\nProper zoning on educational grounds is certainly recognized and there has been by this and over the courts.\nBut zoning on racial grounds is simply saying, you don't say to assign compulsory John and Bill or to pass Mary and Sally from one school to the other.\nYou set a draw line over the east side of Mary's house and she is compelled not on educational grounds but on racial ground alone to be passed over to some other school and that is the prayer which is now before us.\nNow, if that was to be carried out, that would bring and there would be directed as there is in the Adams dicta a conflict what goes decided by the Sixth Circuit which in our brief.\nI will not attempt to read it to you, directly so, in which they decline to fall at Jefferson one or two.\nIn Mapp and Monroe also decided by the Sixth Circuit indeed on those two (Inaudible) or dual system to sets into one was a de facto system.\nThere would be a direct conflict with (Inaudible) of the Little Rock System holding that compulsory integration is not required by the Constitution of the United States.\nThey think there will be a direct conflict during that which is requested to be required of the Fifth Circuit with the First Circuit in Springfield quoted in our brief.\nAnd a direct conflict was Cook County of the First Circuit holding directly to record contrary and to announce of the Tenth Circuit in Kansas City holding directed to the contrary.\nWe will have a conflict with Sixth Circuits if what she had requested is granted.\nMay it please the Court, we recognize that time has run out as it is set.\nDeliberate speed is no longer the color of the day.\nAny plan must promise realistic to work and promise to work now, realistically.\nThere is no idea of delay.\nThe request to delay did not come from the school districts.\nIt came from those public educators of the United States of America who found that the claims which they had drawn under the pressure that was with him was said that they could no longer recommend and as counsel has stated, asked that they be withdrawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [5182.317, 5184.726, 5202.257, 5243.039, 5254.142, 5262.116, 5273.205, 5277.338, 5288.53, 5296.453, 5309.807, 5317.284, 5335.289, 5338.164, 5357.068, 5390.343, 5402.92, 5409.195, 5428.902, 5433.76, 5436.281, 5453.475, 5455.37, 5473.883, 5476.498, 5484.655, 5496.209, 5503.649, 5514.866, 5526.277, 5544.743, 5551.717, 5562.173, 5572.08, 5579.024, 5583.458, 5605.909, 5623.307, 5627.314, 5629.99, 5653.324, 5664.99, 5685.093, 5696.72, 5713.537, 5739.133, 5758.638, 5770.556, 5778.776, 5781.308, 5817.857, 5826.148, 5830.741, 5847.142, 5863.224, 5886.424, 5899.519, 5914.133, 5928.817, 5936.708, 5944.311, 5961.799, 5971.684, 5990.732, 5999.355, 6026.14, 6031.791, 6042.968, 6062.9, 6079.41, 6084.505, 6095.904, 6102.263, 6141.419, 6152.86, 6159.803, 6167.977, 6172.696, 6180.316, 6184.422, 6210.265, 6217.921, 6223.704, 6234.034, 6242.869, 6245.683, 6247.673, 6256.64, 6264.321, 6278.522, 6296.408, 6310.772, 6319.963, 6338.093, 6349.352, 6362.981, 6378.883, 6390.357, 6395.635, 6400.166, 6408.74, 6410.827, 6414.523], "stop_times": [5184.726, 5202.257, 5243.039, 5254.142, 5262.116, 5273.205, 5277.338, 5288.53, 5296.453, 5309.807, 5317.284, 5335.289, 5338.164, 5357.068, 5390.343, 5402.92, 5409.195, 5428.902, 5433.76, 5436.281, 5453.475, 5455.37, 5473.883, 5476.498, 5484.655, 5496.209, 5503.649, 5514.866, 5526.277, 5544.743, 5551.717, 5562.173, 5572.08, 5579.024, 5583.458, 5605.909, 5623.307, 5627.314, 5629.99, 5653.324, 5664.99, 5685.093, 5696.72, 5713.537, 5739.133, 5758.638, 5770.556, 5778.776, 5781.308, 5817.857, 5826.148, 5830.741, 5847.142, 5863.224, 5886.424, 5899.519, 5914.133, 5928.817, 5936.708, 5944.311, 5961.799, 5971.684, 5990.732, 5999.355, 6026.14, 6031.791, 6042.968, 6062.9, 6079.41, 6084.505, 6095.904, 6102.263, 6141.419, 6152.86, 6159.803, 6167.977, 6172.696, 6180.316, 6184.422, 6210.265, 6217.921, 6223.704, 6234.034, 6242.869, 6245.683, 6247.673, 6256.64, 6264.321, 6278.522, 6296.408, 6310.772, 6319.963, 6338.093, 6349.352, 6362.981, 6378.883, 6390.357, 6395.635, 6400.166, 6408.74, 6410.827, 6414.523, 6431.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5182.317}, "reply_to": "15410__4_001", "speaker": "john_c_satterfield"}
{"id": "15410__4_003", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Let me get something straight here.\nMaybe I misunderstood it.\nI do not understand after the proposal of your opponents, of the things and these plans that you have been criticize would be foreclosed from objection and ultimate review by this Court if necessary if their proposal wanted to effect the issue, do I misunderstand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [6431.352, 6432.94, 6435.428], "stop_times": [6432.94, 6435.428, 6455.649], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6431.352}, "reply_to": "15410__4_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__4_004", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "No.\nMay it please the Court, I believe it would be foreclosed in two ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [6455.649, 6455.932], "stop_times": [6455.932, 6459.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6455.649}, "reply_to": "15410__4_003", "speaker": "john_c_satterfield"}
{"id": "15410__4_005", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "You said it would be foreclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [6459.29], "stop_times": [6460.682], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6459.29}, "reply_to": "15410__4_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15410__4_006", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "In my judgment, it would.\nBut there are two ways.\nFirst is they asked they'd be required to be put into effect pendente lite which is another way of putting them immediately into effect without hearing, without an opportunity of discuss -- of consideration by either this Court or Court of Appeals even and if changes such as those -- broad changes such those which were suggested are made, they would be not irreparable but irretrievable.\nThen may it please the Court, I believe that it means, if what they asked is right, it would not be subject to relief.\nBecause they are asking that the District Court should not be permitted to have any hearing but that their experts be used as special ministers by the Court of Appeals.\nAnd while there might have some time be a later appeal, I believe that it would be more than that was correct.\nSo, I do believe that our request is say -- is such that it could never be really.\nWe take the position that one of the distinguished members of this Court took on May the 6th 1955, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nWhen he said in brief filed in Brown two.\nThe Negro children before the Court in these cases are entitled of public education on a non-segregated basis.\nThe only way the relief can meaningfully do them can be given to mean to them is to abolish the policy of using race as a criterion for assignment of students.\nThus, the only, the effective decree would be one which will enjoin the use of race in the assignment of any pupils in the school districts involved.\nWe further agree with the position taken by Mr. Justice Goldberg in his brief in Brown in which he said, \u201cWe do not mean to be understood that there is anything in the Fourteenth Amendment where it makes it mandatory that pupils be given a choice of school.\u201d\nWe mean that the elimination of compulsory segregation is not the same thing as compulsory attendance of whites at Negro schools or Negroes at white schools.\nNegroes and whites would no more be compelled to attend the same schools under such regulations then what Negroes and whites compel to live in the same neighborhood when compulsory residential segregation was declared invalid in Buchanan and in Ward.\nAnd may I tell this Court frankly that if and when the Court has the opportunity of reading this record, the Court would find and of having it briefed and having the facts before you, the Court would find that in the majority of these issues, and the great majority, the vested use of the dual school system have been removed and those who have not is realistic to promises the way Comp (ph), one of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement in Mississippi, so testified as one of these particular issues.\nAnd may I say finally, and in response to question I believe of -- by Mr. Justice Harlan, that the question of the number of years or the question of status of individual schools is a national question, not a local question.\nAnd you will find on page 64 of our brief, a listing of some 20 schools, all of which with exception of one which is in Texas, on a northern, eastern, not in this southern area and in which ever of these found and I give you about three because I believe that my time is about to expire.\nIn Chicago, out of 610 schools, there are 392 of one race assuming 99% or more is of one race.\nIn Iowa, there are 36 out of 81 composed of students of one race.\nIn New Your, there area 27 of 80 composed of students of one race.\nIn Los Angeles, California, in that district, out of 591 schools, 359 are composed of students of one race.\nAnd finally, in New York, in the New York City public schools out of 853 schools, 158 are composed of students of one race and the faculty is likewise.\nTherefore, may it please the Court when the Adams dicta says that if any one of these three things exist, schools of one race, a small portion of white students attending former -- no white students then from Negro school, a small portion of Negro students attending a former white school, or a small number of teachers of the asset races.\nFreedom of choice is out the window.\nIt is a direct violation of the holding of this Court in Green, Monroe and Ray.\nIn that case, as we put out in the brief, and with this I recall, there were 18 matters involving administration of schools considered by this point in reaching its determination that those particular districts, there was no reasonable probability that the reasonable premise that freedom of choice would work.\nAnd in this case and in others, particularly in this case, where the record is not before the Court and I can see why it is not desired by the petitioners here.\nOne statistic, I think I haven't looked that up yet.\nI've always seen statistics.\nBut one statistic is said to be the alternative of whether the vestiges of the dual system are being removed.\nWe feel that we are in the hands of the greatest review in the world.\nWe know that you will do that which is best under our Constitution.\nWe feel that the recommendation, here made is one that is worthy of consideration and that the request there be put into effect immediately that the matter pendente lite be integration and not be segregation.\nThat plans withdrawn be forced in immediately, that no time be allowed for collaboration between H.E.W. and those public officials charged with the administration of schools is a request that if -- well, I would say this, I would hesitate to make such a request myself.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [6460.682, 6461.903, 6462.655, 6493.129, 6500.945, 6514.196, 6522.619, 6527.692, 6536.669, 6540.113, 6547.103, 6561.159, 6572.161, 6590.548, 6601.304, 6620.152, 6657.179, 6676.558, 6700.697, 6713.212, 6721.111, 6726.609, 6737.749, 6753.274, 6784.416, 6785.911, 6792.775, 6816.491, 6827.354, 6830.697, 6833.232, 6844.511, 6850.224, 6856.887, 6875.923, 6897.996], "stop_times": [6461.903, 6462.655, 6493.129, 6500.945, 6514.196, 6522.619, 6527.692, 6536.669, 6540.113, 6547.103, 6561.159, 6572.161, 6590.548, 6601.304, 6620.152, 6657.179, 6676.558, 6700.697, 6713.212, 6721.111, 6726.609, 6737.749, 6753.274, 6784.416, 6785.911, 6792.775, 6816.491, 6827.354, 6830.697, 6833.232, 6844.511, 6850.224, 6856.887, 6875.923, 6897.996, 6899.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6460.682}, "reply_to": "15410__4_005", "speaker": "john_c_satterfield"}
{"id": "15410__4_007", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Satterfield.\nMr. Greenberg, you have a few moments left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [6899.671, 6900.762], "stop_times": [6900.762, 6902.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6899.671}, "reply_to": "15410__4_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15410__5_000", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI have a few moments of rebuttal if I may.\nMr. Satterfield has made regular references to the absence of a record in this Court and I think that's very illuminating because I might say at the outset there is indeed the complete record in this Court and it has been here for some considerable period of time.\nIt's in Mr. Davis' Office right behind the Court.\nIt's not before the Court but it's behind the Court.\nThe problem -- there was problem however in obtaining this record and it teaches us something about this litigation.\nWhen we file this case here, we ask the clerk of the Fifth Circuit to send up the record.\nHe sent up everything that he had.\nHowever, part of the record was in Judge Cox's Court.\nWe request that Judge Cox's clerk to send the record up and he refused.\nWe sent a lawyer to visit the clerk and the clerk said that he wanted 50 cents a page for the record and we said we didn't want it and we could not pay all that money for thousands and thousands of pages of record.\nAnd the lawyer went and visited Judge Cox and Judge Cox said, he would not send the record up and indeed, he thought the price have gone up.[Laughter]\nBut we then communicated with Mr. Davis of this Court through processes of communication with the federal District Court in Mississippi, was able to obtain the record and it sits in there in eight huge boxes for anyone who cares to read it.\nThat is the story of the litigation in this case.\nJudge Cox doesn't let you have the record and Mr. Satterfield says, you don't belong in this Court because you don't have it.\nThe fact is however, we do have it.\nNow, I would like to make a reference to further response to the question asked by Mr. Justice Harlan about whether the rule we propose here is for only one part of the country.\nThe pendente lite rule which is what I believe Mr. Justice Harlan had reference to is particularly appropriate in these cases because here we have substantially or fully matured plans which are capable of being put into effect and perhaps completely or certainly almost close to completely carrying out the purposes of this Court's decision in Brown as elucidated in many later decisions.\nI think that's what peculiarly appropriate to apply in this particular case and it's not a sectional suggestion but one that adverts to the circumstances here.\nNow, this country has made the men strides in eradicating the stigma of slavery since and largely as result to this Court's decision in Brown against Board of Education.\nThe principle of those cases has been important not only in theory but because of actual implementation which shows that this Court and this nation stands behind the theory.\nConversely, a retreat from the principles of Brown as well as what that retreat would symbolize will tell the country more than many volumes of mere rhetoric about what the country stands.\nPlessy against Ferguson symbolized the retreat from the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nIt was followed by not even a separate but equal doctrine which it professed.\nIt is crucial, we submit, that if we are to continue in the path of bringing the black and the white citizens of this country together.\nOf course, which was resumed by the Brown decision after more than half a century following Plessy versus Ferguson that this Court may clear in this case, in which the real issue is whether we shall continue to go forward or halt that the rights of the Constitution are for the here and now and not merely stuff about which lawyers play charades.\nBut there is more in this case than the relations of America's black to white citizens crucial as that is.\nIn one of his great opinions for almost a quarter of century ago, Mr. Justice Rutledge voiced in dissent an admonition that has special application today.\nHe said, \u201cIt is not too early, it is never too early for the nation steadfastly to follow its great constitutional traditions.\nIt can become too late.\u201d\nEvery one of the tens of thousands of schoolchildren, black and white in the 14 school districts encompass by this litigation entered the public schools of Mississippi years after the day, May 17, 1954 when this Court announced that segregation and the Constitution cannot co-exist.\nYet no more than a handful of these children, has attended a lawfully constituted school.\nThus far then, out of their life experience, the black and white schoolchildren in these 14 school districts have not learned that the Constitution is to be protected and defended, cherished and lived.\nToday, we ask this Court to direct the entry of decrees ordering desegregation now.\nWith the Constitution to be the rule of decision pendente lite, we asked this not merely because another forth night of a dual schools system is intolerable.\nBut rather because another forth night upon warranted displacement of the Constitution is intolerable.\nThe question in these cases is whether the children in these school districts and indeed the children in every school district throughout our beloved land are at last to learn that there was supreme law of the land binding upon children or parents, binding upon school boards, binding upon the states, binding upon the United States and binding upon and enforced by this high Federal Law.\nWhat Mr. Justice Frankfurter wrote in this concurring opinion in Sweezy against New Hampshire, \u201cBut in the end, judgment cannot be escaped, the judgment of this Court.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [6902.838, 6905.036, 6909.234, 6921.422, 6923.476, 6927.285, 6933.515, 6937.223, 6938.767, 6941.586, 6945.577, 6954.996, 6961.724, 6976.42, 6978.694, 6983.605, 6985.824, 6999.869, 7025.536, 7039.32, 7049.574, 7060.8, 7073.709, 7079.002, 7083.207, 7090.276, 7111.534, 7118.63, 7129.165, 7138.277, 7141.257, 7161.048, 7167.337, 7181.516, 7186.375, 7197.132, 7204.575, 7230.283], "stop_times": [6905.036, 6909.234, 6921.422, 6923.476, 6927.285, 6933.515, 6937.223, 6938.767, 6941.586, 6945.577, 6954.996, 6961.724, 6976.42, 6978.694, 6983.605, 6985.824, 6999.869, 7025.536, 7039.32, 7049.574, 7060.8, 7073.709, 7079.002, 7083.207, 7090.276, 7111.534, 7118.63, 7129.165, 7138.277, 7141.257, 7161.048, 7167.337, 7181.516, 7186.375, 7197.132, 7204.575, 7230.283, 7244.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6902.838}, "reply_to": "15410__4_007", "speaker": "jack_greenberg"}
{"id": "15410__5_001", "conversation_id": "15410", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Greenberg.\nThank you, gentlemen for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_632", "start_times": [7244.523, 7245.734, 7247.436], "stop_times": [7245.734, 7247.436, 7250.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7244.523}, "reply_to": "15410__5_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_000", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Number 369, American Farm Lines against Black Ball Freight Service, Interstate Commerce Commission against Black Ball.\nMr. Califano for American Farm Lines, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [0.0, 43.215], "stop_times": [43.215, 46.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_001", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [46.485], "stop_times": [46.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 46.485}, "reply_to": "15480__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_002", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [46.921], "stop_times": [48.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 46.921}, "reply_to": "15480__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_003", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Thank you, sir.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThese consolidated appeals are taken from a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.\nThat decision nullified a grant of temporary motor carrier authority to my client, American Farm Lines.\nThe appeals present two questions concerning Interstate Commerce Commission's award of temporary motor carrier authority.\nOne relates to the adequacy of the evidence to support the grant under the Interstate Commerce Act and ICC rules.\nThe other relates to the jurisdiction of the ICC to reopen a proceeding handing before it at a time when some of the parties had obtained preliminary judicial relief against the Commission and others have asked the Commission to reconsider its opinion.\nAppellants have divided the allotted time for argument.\nI will state the facts and deal with the first issue.\nMr. Cerra on behalf of the United States Government will discuss the second issue.\nWe would like to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal.\nThe conflict before this Court arises because of the determination of the Defense Department to reduce the time during which defense material is in transit and does achieve substantial savings, increased deficiency and with respect to explosives and other dangerous cargo, increase safety.\nUntil 1966, virtually all defense motor carrier shipments were on a joint line basis by regulated carriers with routing specified in detail and their certificates of operating authority.\nThe routings were generally circuitous.\nThey required several carriers to transport the same load of defense material.\nIn 1966, the Department began to use exempt farm cooperatives including American Farm Lines to provide a fast, direct, point-to-point service.\nThe Department use farm cooperatives because a legislative exemption freed them from the certificate restrictions of regulated carriers and thus enable them to provide the direct single-line service.\nUnder this exemption, American Farm Lines has hold substantial amounts of defense material.\nIts operations promptly demonstrated three advantages to the Department of direct service.\nThe direct savings from lower direct transportation costs, the indirect savings from lower inventories enhanced fewer pipe line costs, and increase safety in the movement of explosives and dangerous materials because of a shorter period, a population exposure.\nIn 1968 after two years, roughly two years of operation by American Farm Lines, two actions sharply restricted its ability to provide this service.\nThe first was an injunction obtained by the Munitions Carriers Conference, and the second was a change in the legislative exemption for farm cooperatives.\nAs a result of the eminent curtailment of American Farm Line service, American Farm Lines supported by the Defense Department applied to the ICC for temporary authority to continue its direct single-line service as a regulated carrier.\nProtests were filed by 125 proposing carriers.\nThe application of American Farm Lines was made under Section 210a of the Interstate Commerce Act.\nThat Section authorizes the Commission in its discretion and without hearings or other proceedings to grant such authority and I quote, \u201cto enable a provision of service for which there is an immediate and urgent need to a point who appoints within a territory having no service capable of needing that need.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [48.674, 52.896, 57.704, 68.168, 77.101, 87.497, 96.161, 117.012, 119.742, 123.114, 130.125, 133.541, 157.083, 173.418, 176.065, 182.702, 197.287, 211.985, 218.104, 224.896, 244.729, 256.737, 267.603, 286.392, 292.564, 300.99], "stop_times": [52.896, 57.704, 68.168, 77.101, 87.497, 96.161, 117.012, 119.742, 123.114, 130.125, 133.541, 157.083, 173.418, 176.065, 182.702, 197.287, 211.985, 218.104, 224.896, 244.729, 256.737, 267.603, 286.392, 292.564, 300.99, 327.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 48.674}, "reply_to": "15480__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_004", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What's the duration of that authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [327.661], "stop_times": [329.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 327.661}, "reply_to": "15480__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__0_005", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "The duration of that authority was 180 days has been extended the permanent authority proceedings with the Defense Department support.\nThe hearings have been completed and the case now being briefed before the ICC.\nICC regulations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [329.927, 341.376, 347.793], "stop_times": [341.376, 347.793, 348.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.927}, "reply_to": "15480__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_006", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "As the -- once having granted temporary authority, does the Commission have unlimited power to keep granting extensions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [348.283], "stop_times": [355.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.283}, "reply_to": "15480__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15480__0_007", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Under decisions of this Court until the permanent authority case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [355.319], "stop_times": [361.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.319}, "reply_to": "15480__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_008", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "It didn't matter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [361.055], "stop_times": [361.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.055}, "reply_to": "15480__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15480__0_009", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- is granted.\nThe ICC as I indicated granted American Farm Lines the authority requested.\n60 protestants of that point file petitions for reconsideration.\nSome of them moved that the ICC stay its grant of temporary authority pending resolution of the petitions for reconsideration.\nThe ICC denied that motion and several of the protestants then went to the Western District Court and ask for a temporary restraining order.\nThat temporary restraining order was granted.\nNo further action was taken by the court.\nThe ICC then reopened its proceedings to receive additional evidence from the Defense Department, American Farm Lines, and the protestants.\nThe ICC promptly notified the court of its action and move for a stay of the courts full review of the proceedings.\nThe court, the Western District Court took no action on the Commission's motion.\nIn the reopen proceeding, the Defense Department filed a 22-page detailed statement supporting American Farm Lines.\nThe statement was filed by the Director of Transportation Policy for the Defense Department, the highest ranking transportation official in the Department.\nProtestants filed hundreds of pages of detailed replies to the defense statement and upon reviewing all the additional evidence, the ICC again granted temporary authority to American Farm Lines.\nThe Commission concluded that the Defense Department had an immediate and urgent need for American Farm Line services to discharge its responsibilities for the national defense.\nSpecifically, the ICC found among the other things that the Defense Department \u201cimperatively requires service over the most direct routes in a minimum transit time.\u201d\nThe Department knows of no carriers in a position to meet its needs and \u201cthere is nothing in this record to establish that the protesting carriers provide a service to meet its need.\u201d\nThe protestants returned to the District Court and obtain to stay of the ICC Order.\nOn final review, the three-judge court vacated the grant of temporary authority by the ICC.\nIt based its decision on two grounds essentially that the Department of Defense statement did not meet two requirements of an ICC rule with respect to supporting shipper statements, and secondly that the ICC was without jurisdiction to reopen its proceedings and accept additional evidence.\nOn --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [361.964, 366.85, 374.546, 379.841, 389.408, 399.591, 404.171, 407.038, 417.611, 427.815, 433.155, 442.231, 452.231, 466.352, 477.648, 491.17, 507.233, 512.748, 520.111, 541.574], "stop_times": [366.85, 374.546, 379.841, 389.408, 399.591, 404.171, 407.038, 417.611, 427.815, 433.155, 442.231, 452.231, 466.352, 477.648, 491.17, 507.233, 512.748, 520.111, 541.574, 541.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.964}, "reply_to": "15480__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_010", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "(Inaudible) what that case was in court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [541.652], "stop_times": [545.251], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 541.652}, "reply_to": "15480__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__0_011", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "The fact that the appellees here had gone to the court to obtain what we considered to be an essentially interlocutory relief.\nThe -- on August 21, 1969, Mr. Justice Douglas granted a stay of the three-judge court decision to avoid irreparable injury to American Farm Lines, pending the resolution of this case before this Court.\nThe first issue is whether the evidence adduced by the Defense Department as the supporting shipper reasonably complied with the procedural rules of the ICC.\nThe ICC rules call upon shippers to provide 11 categories of information and the court below raised no question about nine categories of the information provided by the Defense Department.\nIt questioned the Department's responds to two of these categories.\nOne was and I quote \u201cwhether efforts have been made to obtain the service from existing motor rail or water carriers, and the dates and results of such efforts.\u201d\nAnd the other is \u201cnames and addresses of existing carriers who have either failed or refused to provide the service and the reasons given for any such failure or refusal.\u201d\nWithout considering the record as a whole, route considering whether the record as a whole contained evidence to support the ICC as grant of temporary authority, the District Court nullified the Commission's order on the ground that the Defense Department did not comply literarily with the requirements of these two categories.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [545.251, 557.74, 574.991, 587.63, 604.191, 608.982, 622.898, 637.384], "stop_times": [557.74, 574.991, 587.63, 604.191, 608.982, 622.898, 637.384, 659.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.251}, "reply_to": "15480__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_012", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What if their answers have been negative on the first that they haven't made any inquiry and perhaps negative on the second, I'm not sure I have with the question in mind but indicating that no one had refused to furnish the service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [659.372], "stop_times": [678.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.372}, "reply_to": "15480__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_013", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "If under a case that we believe to be almost directly in point, Estes v.the United States which this Court decided recently, if the answer had been no to the first question, there would been no requirement, you know, where efforts made, no efforts were made.\nThere would have been no requirement to fulfill any of the other requirements, and that also an effect of being fairly say conceded in the appellees' brief.\nIn the Estes case, the Railway Express Agency applied for temporary authority after a railroad had announced that is was canceling service between Washington and Richmond.\nThe Railway Express Agency indicated that it had not tried to get that service from anyone else because it was simply not available.\nWhen the protesting shippers came in, none of them held themselves out publicly as capable of providing a direct service from Richmond to Washington, the Conroe (ph) Express, and the lower court and this Court, the lower court held that Railway Express was entitled to the temporary authority and this Court affirmed that decision per curium.\nWe believe that a careful reading of the defense statement against the categories I've mentioned shows that the direct single-line service of American Farm Lines was unique, that the protesting certificated carriers were incapable legally of furnishing this service.\nAnd that the Defense Department aware of this was not required to make efforts in a conventional sense to obtain single-line service from protesting carriers who had no authority to furnish it.\nBoth of those categories you will note are concerned only with one of the salutatory standards whether the existing carriers are capable of providing the service involved.\nThe other standard, the immediacy and urgency of the shippers need for that service is not involved in these two categories.\nMoreover, it's important to note that the ICC rules in of temporary authority proceeding require only one thing from the protesting carrier that he give a specific statement \u201cas to the service which such protestant can and will offer.\u201d\nIn evaluating the shipper's response to these categories, the first question is what the service was?\nThe service in this case was direct single lines service covering a 14-state area.\nIn its verified statement, the Defense Department concluded that this service was substantially faster than joint line regular route service and many cases three times as fast.\nThe Department believed that this service was materially different from joint line regular route service because of the direct savings in transportation costs and because of the enormous impact in indirect savings on its inventory pipe line.\nThe next question in terms of these categories is whether this certificate of carriers were capable of providing this service over the territories covered by American Farm Lines, and there's ample evidence in the record on this point.\nFirst, the Defense Department verified statement which among other things specifies some 65 point-to-point routings and says that there is no known carrier who can provide direct service over those routings.\nAnd I think in this connection, it's important to realize that the Defense Department is probably the most experienced shipper in the western world moving 64 billion pounds of freight every year.\nSecond, from American Farm Lines own analysis and uncontested analysis of the authorities of the seven largest carriers operating in this area.\nOf some 2,030 routes involved in those authorities, those carriers were capable of providing direct point-to-point service over only 93 of those routes, less than 5%.\nThird, the evidence provided by protestants.\nThe protesting carriers introduced their certificates in this proceeding and those certificate shows on their face that these carriers have no authority to provide direct single-line service.\nMoreover as we point out in the reply brief, these very protestants are standing now before the ICC with applications for precisely the same kind of authority supported by the Defense Department that American Farm Lines was granted on a temporary basis by the ICC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [678.019, 697.881, 711.53, 724.049, 736.007, 759.719, 781.492, 796.481, 808.94, 817.732, 838.117, 845.613, 852.322, 866.924, 883.777, 898.896, 914.267, 928.074, 939.984, 956.246, 959.942, 974.285], "stop_times": [697.881, 711.53, 724.049, 736.007, 759.719, 781.492, 796.481, 808.94, 817.732, 838.117, 845.613, 852.322, 866.924, 883.777, 898.896, 914.267, 928.074, 939.984, 956.246, 959.942, 974.285, 996.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.019}, "reply_to": "15480__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_014", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What would be the consequences if that's granted?\nThat's just an economic consequence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [996.332, 1000.007], "stop_times": [1000.007, 1002.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.332}, "reply_to": "15480__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_015", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "The consequence would be I think substantial Mr. Chief Justice, economically in direct savings costs if comparable reductions resulted the record indicates American Farm Lines in effect to reduced direct cost by about 10%.\nThe Defense Department spends 500 -- last year, they spend $599 million for transportation.\nThat alone would be a $59 million saving.\nThere'd be savings in the indirect cost because you have to carry less inventory and your pipe line if your transit times are shorter, and third there'd be increase safety because explosives and dangerous materials would be on the road for shorter periods of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1002.123, 1020.352, 1028.311, 1031.566], "stop_times": [1020.352, 1028.311, 1031.566, 1047.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.123}, "reply_to": "15480__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_016", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1047.076], "stop_times": [1047.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.076}, "reply_to": "15480__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_017", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- across the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1047.376], "stop_times": [1048.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.376}, "reply_to": "15480__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_018", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Is that expenditure figure you mentioned the surface transportation within the continental limits to the United States or all their transport?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1048.354], "stop_times": [1056.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.354}, "reply_to": "15480__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_019", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, that is transportation by the Defense Department excluding contract carrier transportation and contract air transportations.\nSo, it's virtually grand transportation within the United States, all there is some air transportation in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1056.058, 1066.937], "stop_times": [1066.937, 1073.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.058}, "reply_to": "15480__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_020", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That's by railroad all over the country and all over the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1073.796], "stop_times": [1080.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.796}, "reply_to": "15480__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__0_021", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Most of the -- it -- most of the figure, you might discount it by 5 or 10% to take out transportation outside the United States.\nIt does not include contract transportation and a good portion if not all of the defense transporters abroad are operating on a contract basis and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1080.243, 1092.989], "stop_times": [1092.989, 1104.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.243}, "reply_to": "15480__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_022", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Does it include air transportation, rail transportation, truck transportation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1104.072], "stop_times": [1109.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.072}, "reply_to": "15480__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__0_023", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, no, sir, it does not include air service -- contract air service which is most of the air transportation.\nSome air transportation is in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1109.214, 1114.801], "stop_times": [1114.801, 1117.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.214}, "reply_to": "15480__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_024", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Commercial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1117.297], "stop_times": [1117.955], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.297}, "reply_to": "15480__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__0_025", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1117.955], "stop_times": [1119.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.955}, "reply_to": "15480__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_026", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1119.029], "stop_times": [1119.54], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.029}, "reply_to": "15480__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__0_027", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No -- yes Mr. Justice.\nRail is in there and railroads are protesting in this case.\nThe array of briefs before this Court present a wide spectrum of views on the question whether \u201cefforts have been made to obtain\u201d the single-line service for motor carriers.\nSome appellees including those represented by my colleague, Mr. Dempsey, say that the Defense Department made such efforts, but did not disclose the dates and results.\nThe court below and other appellees say that the Defense Department made no such efforts.\nOne appellee attempts to argue that the Government brief claims the Defense Department made such efforts and that our brief for American Farm Lines indicates that the Department made no such efforts.\nI think that the -- all of these papers fail to recognize the unique status of the Defense Department as a unique shipper.\nIt is the most experienced shipper in the western world as I indicated thoroughly familiar with the legal restrictions on the operating authorities of the shippers that has been using for years.\nIf the point is that when faced with eminent curtailment of American Farm Line service, someone in the Defense Department did not pick up a telephone and asked the protestants whether they could provide service under certificates that did not give them legal authority to do so.\nObviously, no such phone calls were made.\nThey would resubmit in a Feudal Act and not required by the law.\nIf the question is whether the Department reviewed its existing authorities, the existing authorities of existing carriers which were serving it on a joint line basis over irregular routes, I think the answer is equally obvious.\nThere are scores of transportation officials in the Department thoroughly familiar with the service these carriers were capable of providing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1119.54, 1123.176, 1129.686, 1148.725, 1161.939, 1169.452, 1182.266, 1194.787, 1208.336, 1226.244, 1229.381, 1234.319, 1250.238], "stop_times": [1123.176, 1129.686, 1148.725, 1161.939, 1169.452, 1182.266, 1194.787, 1208.336, 1226.244, 1229.381, 1234.319, 1250.238, 1259.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.54}, "reply_to": "15480__0_026", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_028", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What is the purpose, what's your hypothesis as to the purpose of that question in the ICC form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1259.155], "stop_times": [1266.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.155}, "reply_to": "15480__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_029", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I think Mr. Chief Justice for the ordinary shipper, the question -- the ICC does not grant the new authority just because there's a preference for it.\nThe concept is whether or not there's an immediate and urgent need and whether other carriers can provide the same service.\nThe idea of having to make efforts I think was to help the ICC as the ICC itself has said in the statement explaining the regulations make quick adjudications in cases like this, did you try and check other carriers to see if they can do the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1266.867, 1280.158, 1288.637], "stop_times": [1280.158, 1288.637, 1303.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.867}, "reply_to": "15480__0_028", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_030", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "If its down to the necessity, doesn't it?\nIsn't that one of the factors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1303.978, 1308.456], "stop_times": [1308.456, 1311.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.978}, "reply_to": "15480__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__0_031", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I think Mr. Chief Justice that it really -- it goes more to the question of whether or not carriers are capable of providing the service, and that of course does relate to necessity.\nI would make one further point in terms of appellees arguments that they were prejudiced because they were not fairly informed of the charges against them.\nAppellees like every other party in this case knew exactly that the issue here is whether single line served whether the Defense Department could obtain direct single-line service which it viewed as materially different from circuitous joint line service.\nEvery defense statement presented in this case is abundantly clear on that point.\nWhen the American Trucking Association try to get the Defense Department to withdraw its support of American Farm Lines, the assistant secretary of defense for instillations and logistics wrote to the president of the organization expressing precisely the point that department was trying to get direct single-line service.\nThe protesting carriers, we submit fully understood this and thus were not in any way prejudiced in preparing any of their responses.\nTo the extent, I might note that they were -- could show that they could provide this service was peculiarly also within their own ability.\nThey were the best people to show that because they had their own certificates of authority.\nI would make one point in closing with respect to this case Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe -- this is a summary proceeding before the ICC and which the standard of review is whether there is any evidence in the record to support the Commission's decision.\nCommission handles a 5,000 temporary authority cases a year and we think there was ample evidence in this one of them to support its decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1311.998, 1335.258, 1351.229, 1371.251, 1378.302, 1399.139, 1410.025, 1419.625, 1425.683, 1432.013, 1444.543], "stop_times": [1335.258, 1351.229, 1371.251, 1378.302, 1399.139, 1410.025, 1419.625, 1425.683, 1432.013, 1444.543, 1465.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.998}, "reply_to": "15480__0_030", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__0_032", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. Cerra.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1465.084], "stop_times": [1466.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.084}, "reply_to": "15480__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__1_000", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, if it please the Court.\nIn the remaining time, allotted to appellants except for the few minutes we hoped to say for rebuttal, my argument will be addressed to the second question presented by these consolidated appeals.\nThe question concerns the Commissioner's jurisdiction to reopen its administrative proceedings after protesting carriers have sought judicial review before a three-judge court and a single-judge of the court had issued a restraining order.\nNow, the pertinent facts concerning this question are not in dispute, but I think they are important and we would highlight them to bring focus on the issue.\nAfter the Commission issued its first order, many protesting carriers filed petitions for reconsideration and some sought that the Commission stay the effect of its grant until the petitions could be determined.\nThe Commission denied the stay and the grant became effective immediately.\nShortly thereafter, some of the protesting carriers went to court and they obtain from the judge, a single district judge a temporary restraining order against the operation of the Commission's grant of authority.\nUpon issuance of the restraining order, the Commission exceeded to it and itself postponed the operation of its initial order.\nNow in reply to the petitions that arrive in pending before the Commission, the Department of Defense and AFL made specific request that these petitions should be looked at because number one, the Department of Defense had add it in its reply of the petition, some additional reasons supporting a grant.\nAFL meanwhile had also asked that the petition be reopened in order to receive this evidence.\nOur commission of course had a problem.\nThis addition -- evidence had not been a part of the original record, nor had the existing carriers been offered enough and extended an opportunity to reply to that evidence.\nSo on the 5th of November, it decided to reopen the matter and it reopened it for the purpose of receiving the additional evidence to be submitted by the Department of Defense, as well as any evidence of reply by the existing carriers.\nWe immediately notified -- the Government immediately notified the court of this reopening, and we move for a stay.\nPending final completion of the administrative process, we specifically stated in the motion that it was our intent that upon completion of the administrative process, the parties have the opportunity, the plaintiffs that is, protesting carriers, have the opportunity if they so desire to renew their request for relief from the court.\nUnfortunately, the motion to reply has never came on for hearing under local rules of the court.\nBut after receiving the additional evidence, the Commission considered the record anew, both as previously made and as supplemented by the additional evidence and they granted the temporary authority for the second time.\nThe protesting carriers immediately file a complaint in court, a supplemental complaint attacking the second grant and the obtained from the same district judge a temporary restraining order against that grant's operation.\nOn final review, after briefs and oral argument, the three-judge court held that without prior leave of court, the Interstate Commerce Commission lack jurisdiction to reopen its administrative proceedings after the court have assumed jurisdiction and issued the first temporary restraining relief.\nIn this connection, the court also held that there was nothing validly pending before the Commission.\nThey said that the Commission that the protesting carrier's petitions for reconsideration were not authorized by temporary authority Rule 6 or by general rule of practice 101 (a) (2).\nWith this holding, the court concluded that there was nothing properly before the Interstate Commerce Commission when it reopened the proceedings leading to its second order.\nNow taking these holdings in reverse order, we submit first that the court simply misconstrued the Commission's rules of practice, and indeed and more importantly, they overlooked the controlling rule of practice which is Rule 101 (g).\nNow generally speaking, the Commission's General Rules of Practice prescribe limitations on the rights of parties to petition for reconsideration.\nFor example, Rule 101 (a) (2) and (3) specified that all orders of a division of the Commission shall be considered administratively final except in two instances one not pertinent here.\nBut in the instance that is pertinent here except wherein a division reverses, changes, or modifies a prior decision of a hearing officer.\nThe court below had held that temporary authority board that would not a hearing officer, yet the very rules provide that the term officer is defined as including a board of employees.\nSo properly construe, we would submit that Rule 101 (a) (2) of the Commissions General Rule of Practice authorize petitions for reconsideration in the circumstances of this case, where an appellate division had reversed the temporary authorities board, but we need not however to rely on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1466.598, 1471.36, 1482.741, 1497.416, 1505.992, 1519.345, 1526.243, 1542.699, 1552.933, 1577.152, 1583.477, 1585.295, 1596.196, 1609.236, 1616.526, 1637.006, 1641.926, 1657.714, 1670.268, 1689.963, 1695.113, 1709.628, 1719.517, 1736.513, 1748.24, 1760.952, 1771.236, 1784.527], "stop_times": [1471.36, 1482.741, 1497.416, 1505.992, 1519.345, 1526.243, 1542.699, 1552.933, 1577.152, 1583.477, 1585.295, 1596.196, 1609.236, 1616.526, 1637.006, 1641.926, 1657.714, 1670.268, 1689.963, 1695.113, 1709.628, 1719.517, 1736.513, 1748.24, 1760.952, 1771.236, 1784.527, 1801.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1466.598}, "reply_to": "15480__0_032", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_001", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Where is that printed?\nI don't find it in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1801.485, 1805.009], "stop_times": [1805.009, 1807.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.485}, "reply_to": "15480__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15480__1_002", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "101 (a) (2) is printed in -- at page -- I'm sorry Your Honor, it is not in our brief.\nIt is in the -- I regret, Your Honor I don't know where it's printed.\nWe're relying on Rule 101 (g) which appears at page 33 of our brief.\nNow, I was getting to that point.\nEven considering for the cause indulgence, I do have a copy of the General Rules of Practice where it is printed, if Your Honor would like to look at it Mr. Justice Douglas.\nI'd be glad to send it in to the clerk to hand up to you.\nThe railroads do have it in their brief that footnote 13 on page 18 but here's the text -- the entire rule in the General Rules of Practice.\nAs I was saying, we need not to rely on Rule 101 (a) (2) however because the construction that we would give from a definition of the term hearings, isn't necessary.\nRule 101 (g) specifically authorizes the filing of petitions for reconsideration where the appellate division reverses, changes, or modifies a previous decision by a board of employees.\nFaced with the plain language of this Rule 101 (g), three of the four brief of the appellees don't even mention it.\nIn the remaining brief filed by Consolidated Freightways, et al., the temporary thought they contend only that temporary authority Rule 6 is later in time and therefore supersedes or restricts the vested right to petition for reconsideration which is granted by General Rule 101 (g).\nBut we submit that no such content is expressed in the Rule 6, nor can one be so implied.\nIndeed, the language of temporary authority Rule 6 which basically says that petitions for reconsideration of the determination by the board or an initial determination by the division without it prior determination by a board are sudden to reconsideration is merely a repetition of the General Rules of Practice.\nRule 6 itself does not grant the right to petition for reconsider or rather it specifies that such right exist and I quote \u201cpursuant to and in accordance with the Commission's General Rules of Practice, the rules of practice of the governing matter.\u201d\nIt would seem to us that the court's construction of the Commissioner's temporary rule and general rules just simply inaccurate and incorrect.\nThey were validly pending before the Commission, petitions for reconsideration under Rule 101 (g) and the administrative proceeding had not been completed.\nWell, this will lead me to the discussion of the remainder of the court's ruling.\nThat is that simply because judicial review had been commenced the ICC lack jurisdiction to reopen or hear additional evidence.\nI want to point out first that contrary to the decision below, the Government did not concede that the Commission's initial grant of authority was administratively final, rather, we urged first that the Commission proceeding was not administratively final because the petitions for reconsideration were pending.\nSecondly, we urged that this lack of administrative finality however did not deprived the court of jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctive relief to prevent irreparably injury pending final agency action where as in this case, the order have already been become effective and the Commission had to disclaim -- to stay its operation.\nNow, we've cited those cases in our brief and they include among others, Oklahoma Natural Gas, Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau and Cantley and (Inaudible), they are on pages 24 and 45, 44 and 45 respectively of both of appellants brief.\nWe want to point out here that appellees briefs either acknowledge, refer to, or attempt to explain away this particular rule.\nNow, we know that the basic tend in this that nobody is entitled to judicial review until the agency all administrator remedies have been exhausted and the agency's action is final.\nThe one that we attempted to use here was an exemption which was stated in these cases we've cite.\nPlaintiffs don't -- excuse me, I referred them as plaintiffs because of my experience below, the appellees here don't even attempt to explain them away, rather they urged this three thing that once a court asserts jurisdiction, the Commission is simply without anymore authority that simply does not posses any more authority to proceed further.\nThe court's jurisdiction is inclusive -- exclusive and then they urge that there's no statute that authorizes the Commission to act concurrently with the reviewing court.\nAnd finally the third matter they urge is that, permitting an agency to reopen after court review has been commenced disrupts the judicial procedures and creates the danger that the agency may not be acting as an impartial or judicatory tribunal, but rather as a litigant, merely trying to paper all the defects in an attempt to win a lawsuit.\nNow, we would submit that these arguments have no foundation in fact or in law simply because a court may have jurisdiction to preserve a status quo pending completion of agency action.\nIt does not mean that the Commission loses all jurisdictions to complete the administrative process.\nIn such circumstances we would submit the proper procedure is for the reviewing court to hold the judicial action in advance pending completion of the administrative process.\nThe caution had experienced over the past 18 years as we pointed out to the court below and then our jurisdictions statement here.\nWith this very situation, most of the cases did not involve -- were temporary restraining order have been initially issued by the judge but some of them did.\nAnd no court has ever taken issue with this on this procedure except in the foot -- except in the cases such as Atchison, Topeka which is cited by appellees at the -- the statutory foundation that we believe for the ability for the Commission to reopen while a judicial review proceeding is pending is Section 17 (7) of the Act.\nThis grants the Commission continuing jurisdiction over its orders and empowers it to rehear, reconsider, resend, change, or modify them anytime for the purpose of correcting errors; any error or any injustice that is.\nThat statute has been in existence since 1906 and it hasn't been changed, and where Congress has sought to impose a limitation on the rights of review, for other agencies, it has specifically done so.\nIt is said that once the reviewing action is filed, the only time an agency can reopen is up until the point whether the administrator record is filed.\nOnce that record is filed, the Court of Appeals and the citations we give in our brief, Court of Appeals jurisdiction becomes exclusive.\nNow, Congress was aware the Interstate Commerce Commission's practice under 17 (6), 17 (7), although they expressly limited, the reopening powers of other agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission.\nSo, we simply say that were Congress was aware of this situation, it was careful to provide some limitation against reopening where it considered appropriate.\nBut the review provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Urgent Deficiency Act which applies here, which both of which apply here, I submit there is no such limitation and the absence of such provisions is therefore meaningful.\nBut more importantly, we need not even rely on Section 17 (7).\nAs we have shown, the case was validly before the Commission because the petitions for reconsideration were pending.\nAnd we would submit that there is simply no inconsistency between the Commission's reopening and issuing a second order on new evidence on the one hand, and on the other hand, the court's action in supplying temporary relief from operation of initial grant pending completion of the administrative process.\nWe informed the District Court of the reopening.\nThere was no attempted evasion or any evasion at all of the court's stay of the first order.\nThe District Court had an opportunity to stay operation of the second order and in fact that did so.\nWe failed to see how the prejudice -- how the appellees could have been prejudice in that situation.\nCertainly, they have ample opportunity before the Commissioner to present all the evidence that they needed to present to rebut, but the Department of Defense had submitted.\nThey did so.\nThey also have ample opportunity to go back before the reviewing court and seek relief, and they did so and they obtained it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [1807.885, 1818.132, 1840.142, 1847.606, 1850.547, 1859.707, 1874.341, 1883.989, 1896.423, 1909.138, 1917.847, 1938.231, 1945.291, 1966.455, 1985.789, 1996.358, 2006.126, 2012.243, 2024.568, 2044.89, 2069.59, 2087.126, 2098.296, 2108.923, 2116.138, 2141.294, 2154.519, 2178.832, 2192.393, 2198.376, 2210.46, 2218.172, 2229.996, 2250.682, 2267.058, 2280.503, 2290.362, 2299.526, 2317.238, 2329.214, 2344.713, 2348.827, 2358.109, 2377.757, 2380.884, 2386.337, 2394.724, 2400.253, 2409.368, 2411.27], "stop_times": [1818.132, 1840.142, 1847.606, 1850.547, 1859.707, 1874.341, 1883.989, 1896.423, 1909.138, 1917.847, 1938.231, 1945.291, 1966.455, 1985.789, 1996.358, 2006.126, 2012.243, 2024.568, 2044.89, 2069.59, 2087.126, 2098.296, 2108.923, 2116.138, 2141.294, 2154.519, 2178.832, 2192.393, 2198.376, 2210.46, 2218.172, 2229.996, 2250.682, 2267.058, 2280.503, 2290.362, 2299.526, 2317.238, 2329.214, 2344.713, 2348.827, 2358.109, 2377.757, 2380.884, 2386.337, 2394.724, 2400.253, 2409.368, 2411.27, 2417.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1807.885}, "reply_to": "15480__1_001", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_003", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Could I just ask you, do the Commission's rules prescribe a standard, a substantive standard for when temporary authorities to be granted more specifically, do the rule say whether or not the absence of single-line service as compared with joint interline service is a basis for temporary authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2417.215], "stop_times": [2445.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.215}, "reply_to": "15480__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_004", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2445.743], "stop_times": [2446.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2445.743}, "reply_to": "15480__1_003", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_005", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What did they say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2446.58], "stop_times": [2446.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.58}, "reply_to": "15480__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_006", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That is the rule, point four.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2446.583], "stop_times": [2448.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2446.583}, "reply_to": "15480__1_005", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_007", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What did they say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2448.463], "stop_times": [2455.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.463}, "reply_to": "15480__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_008", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Generally --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2455.698], "stop_times": [2458.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2455.698}, "reply_to": "15480__1_007", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_009", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "They say generally that single-line -- the desire for single-line service --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2458.328], "stop_times": [2461.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.328}, "reply_to": "15480__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_010", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Is not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2461.08], "stop_times": [2462.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2461.08}, "reply_to": "15480__1_009", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_011", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- isn't enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2462.482], "stop_times": [2463.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.482}, "reply_to": "15480__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_012", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, no.\nThey say this.\nThe desire of a shipper for single-line service in lieu of existing interchange or connecting carrier service will not warrant a grant of temporary authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2463.268, 2464.487, 2465.616], "stop_times": [2464.487, 2465.616, 2474.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2463.268}, "reply_to": "15480__1_011", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_013", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well now did the Defense Department say what need it had over and beyond the single-line service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2474.866], "stop_times": [2483.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.866}, "reply_to": "15480__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_014", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "The Defense Department's need over and above beyond single-line service --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2483.474], "stop_times": [2486.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2483.474}, "reply_to": "15480__1_013", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_015", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But that's was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2486.9], "stop_times": [2488.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.9}, "reply_to": "15480__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_016", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "They had -- they expressed so.\nIn their -- in Mr. Caputo's affidavit, he said that the single-line service was needed to complement rather than replace the existing joint lines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2488.46, 2489.9], "stop_times": [2489.9, 2499.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2488.46}, "reply_to": "15480__1_015", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_017", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I know but the single-line service isn't a reason for getting temporary authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2499.066], "stop_times": [2503.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.066}, "reply_to": "15480__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_018", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "It is here Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2503.707], "stop_times": [2504.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2503.707}, "reply_to": "15480__1_017", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_019", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Under your rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2504.192], "stop_times": [2505.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.192}, "reply_to": "15480__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_020", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "It is here Your Honor because this rule further provides that a grant of temporary authority to effect single-line service will be authorized only when it is clearly established, and there are two test that the carrier providing -- the carriers providing multiple line service are not capable of or have failed in meeting the reasonable and immediate transportation needs of the shippers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2505.352], "stop_times": [2530.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2505.352}, "reply_to": "15480__1_019", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_021", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Oh, I know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2530.366], "stop_times": [2530.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.366}, "reply_to": "15480__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_022", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2530.448], "stop_times": [2530.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2530.448}, "reply_to": "15480__1_021", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_023", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- but the -- I gather the Defense Department; one of its big reasons from wanting this single-line service is just because of the single-line service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2530.836], "stop_times": [2539.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.836}, "reply_to": "15480__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_024", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That is not correct, Your Honor.\nThey wanted a single-line service for the various savings that could be experience in both time, time-wise and money-wise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2539.888, 2541.764], "stop_times": [2541.764, 2548.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2539.888}, "reply_to": "15480__1_023", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_025", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I know but that wouldn't be enough under the rules to want a temporary authority, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2548.11], "stop_times": [2554.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.11}, "reply_to": "15480__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_026", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "It would be warrant.\nIt would be enough under the rule --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2554.133, 2555.126], "stop_times": [2555.126, 2557.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2554.133}, "reply_to": "15480__1_025", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_027", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "You mean under that rule if I commence and say well the only reason I want this temporary authority is to provide the single-line service and the only reason of what single-line service, it saves time and money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2557.275], "stop_times": [2569.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.275}, "reply_to": "15480__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_028", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Your Honor, we would say that you would have to show what the deficiencies were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2569.089], "stop_times": [2573.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2569.089}, "reply_to": "15480__1_027", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_029", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well, the only deficiency is that the other carriers are interlined.\nThey haven't got single-line service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2573.91, 2577.314], "stop_times": [2577.314, 2579.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.91}, "reply_to": "15480__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_030", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But the question of only interlining is that were talking about here, Your Honor, vast geographical areas and commodities and for the -- for an applicant to come before the Commission and say he simply desired single-line service would not be sufficient.\nBut if he showed that there was an immediate and an emergent need for it and that there were no carrier service capable of meeting those immediate and urgent needs, then the Commission would be authorized on the rule, balancing the equities of the situation and the evidence of determining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2579.528, 2595.548], "stop_times": [2595.548, 2610.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2579.528}, "reply_to": "15480__1_029", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_031", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Single-line -- this rule is the need -- the desire for single-line services sometimes -- they perfectly added at places for granting a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2610.217], "stop_times": [2618.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2610.217}, "reply_to": "15480__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_032", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "It could be very much so as in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2618.406], "stop_times": [2620.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2618.406}, "reply_to": "15480__1_031", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_033", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "In spite of this rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2620.777], "stop_times": [2623.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.777}, "reply_to": "15480__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__1_034", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But it's not in spite of the rule, it's because of the rule, Your Honor.\nI think that the basic reason I'm talking here about the jurisdiction of the Commission to reopen while this Court case is pending is that it's a basic tentative administrative law that no party has the vested right to have an agencies error preserved pending review.\nIf the agency wishes to correct that error without the necessity of reviewing court, remanding the matter to the Commission for this purpose, and as here where there would be an effective judicial review of the corrective action.\nNow, they've talked, the appellees have talked about the point of perhaps this would not create an impartial quasi-judicial body in rendering a decision, but rather that the Commission would be attempting to win a case as a litigant.\nWe submit that there's absolutely no fact in that suggestion.\nThe Commission's primary and never ending role is to administer the transportation policy.\nEven if a reviewing court had remanded the Commission -- to the Commission an order which had put out, it's still would be responsible as this Court has said on many occasions to administering the transportation policy by either reopening the matter to reconsider it on the existing record, reopening to receive new evidence or otherwise disposing of it.\nThe court has clearly spelled that out in the Idaho Power case in 344 U.S.\nThere's another reason though we think that this procedure should be sustained here.\nIn avoiding the delays, inherent the court reversals in remands, the Commission's action is consistent with the broad purpose of the temporary authority provision to the act themselves.\nThat is the question of immediacy.\nIt's also consistent with the mandate of Section 17 (3) which instructs the Commission to conduct its proceedings in such manner as best full conduce to the ends of justice and the proper dispatch of business.\nAbsent any statutory prohibition against reopening prejudice to the parties or an attempted evasion of the court order, the Commission was free to do so.\nAnd finally, we submit that such procedure would be in the both and the best interest of judicial economy and the agency responsibility.\nWe'd like very much to save our remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2623.162, 2640.832, 2659.202, 2673.818, 2697.041, 2704.168, 2710.193, 2731.051, 2736.799, 2745.091, 2756.38, 2759.095, 2773.257, 2787.374, 2795.979], "stop_times": [2640.832, 2659.202, 2673.818, 2697.041, 2704.168, 2710.193, 2731.051, 2736.799, 2745.091, 2756.38, 2759.095, 2773.257, 2787.374, 2795.979, 2800.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2623.162}, "reply_to": "15480__1_033", "speaker": "arthur_j_cerra"}
{"id": "15480__1_035", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Very well, Mr. Cerra.\nMr. Dempsey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2800.997, 2806.379], "stop_times": [2806.379, 2807.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.997}, "reply_to": "15480__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_000", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn responding to the arguments advanced by Mr. Califano and Mr. Cerra, I should like to begin with the issue respecting the Commission's regulations and then move on to a discussion of the second issue regarding the real thing of the record by the Commission.\nNow as to the first question, I would like to if the outsets spend a few moments discussing the statutory framework in which these issues arise.\nThis has nothing to do I may note with the tension between the exemption provisions of the act relating the cooperatives and the other provisions of the act because as Mr. Califano has noted that Congress settle that problem with the enactment of legislation in 1968, so that no question respecting that legislation is before the Court.\nThe relationship that seems to us to be significant is the relationship between the temporary authority's statute and those provisions of the statute and the regulations that bear upon the issuance of permanent of operating authority.\nAs this Court of course is well aware, this industry of interstate transportation since the time the Congress first in an important way move in its regulation in 1887 has not been characterized by unlimited competition.\nThe Congress from the beginning of its legislative program or a variety of reasons having to do with the protection of shippers and the maintenance of economic stability and the key industry that does that common carrier obligations has decided that the public interest would be best served in and by enlarged by the application of the principle of regulated competition.\nAnd it's carried forward that judgment in each time that it brought a new mode of transportation within the jurisdiction of the Commission.\nSo that today, we have regulation in rates and in service and most pertinently here in terms of entry into the market.\nSo that in the case of any application for permanent operating authority of any consequence, there are extended and the extensive proceedings; evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, or hearing examiner -- report of the hearing examiner, briefs and the appeal within the Commission, perhaps to the full commission often litigation.\nAll of these were denied toward insuring that if an application for permanent authority is granted, it will be upon the basis of a careful consideration and evaluation of all of the facts that bear upon the need for the service, the competitive impact of a grant and the ability and willingness of existing carriers to perform that service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2807.45, 2810.087, 2825.021, 2835.626, 2856.075, 2870.319, 2886.614, 2909.888, 2918.598, 2928.523, 2948.935], "stop_times": [2810.087, 2825.021, 2835.626, 2856.075, 2870.319, 2886.614, 2909.888, 2918.598, 2928.523, 2948.935, 2969.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2807.45}, "reply_to": "15480__1_035", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_001", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "How is this transportation being held -- carried out now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2969.76], "stop_times": [2973.994], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.76}, "reply_to": "15480__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__2_002", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "The Government transportation, Mr. Justice Harlan by motor carriers and rail and as the Department said to a small extent by air.\nBy sort of -- by certificated carriers for the most part by cooperatives to the extent that under the new legislation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2973.994, 2981.919], "stop_times": [2981.919, 2988.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2973.994}, "reply_to": "15480__2_001", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_003", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Did that arise; did it expand its course on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2988.671], "stop_times": [2992.196], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.671}, "reply_to": "15480__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__2_004", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "This temporary authority?\nOh no, Your Honor, no.\nUnder this Courts decision in Pan-Atlantic Steamship Company, as I believe Mr. Califano indicated a grant of temporary authority despite the attack, 180-day limitation of the statute is continued now until the termination of the permanent authority proceeding.\nNow, in its jurisdictional statement, AFL estimated that and I think that was filed on July of last year.\nAFL estimated that it would take another three years for completion of the permanent authority proceeding and I would consider that to be a pretty good guess, so that we face a long period of time of the life of this temperate authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [2992.196, 2993.402, 2996.455, 3012.368, 3021.094], "stop_times": [2993.402, 2996.455, 3012.368, 3021.094, 3035.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2992.196}, "reply_to": "15480__2_003", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_005", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Or you prevail below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3035.669], "stop_times": [3037.648], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.669}, "reply_to": "15480__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__2_006", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, Your Honor but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3037.648], "stop_times": [3039.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3037.648}, "reply_to": "15480__2_005", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_007", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Is there a stay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3039.18], "stop_times": [3040.013], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.18}, "reply_to": "15480__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__2_008", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "There is a stay, there is a stay.\nNow, the temporary authority statute which was enacted in 1938 and it has to the Interstate Commerce Commission shortly after passing 35 Motor Carrier Act, of course, cut sharply across the grain of this general statutory scheme because it permits the Commission without hearings at its discretion to permit this kind of authority to be exercised.\nAnd what the Commission said to the Congress quite sensibly it seems to me was that there might very well be occasions in which a shipper's need was so imperative, so immediate that its satisfaction should not await the conclusion of the often prolonged permanent application proceedings.\nNow what the Congress had in mind when it enact the statue was that it would be limited to emergencies.\nThis is what the Senate Report said, such temporary grants would be limited to situations in which there was an emergency, and that accorded with the kind of things that the Commission was talking about to the Congress because it was speaking in terms of new oil wells coming in and the havoc that's brought by floods and what it referred to in short as calamities visitations.\nAnd the Commission did represent to the Congress that it recognized that need would be -- would have to be -- care would have to be exercised to protect the interest of the existing carriers.\nAnd the language that the Congress chose was well suited to limit the application of this statute.\nThe Congress spoke as the Court is aware in terms of an immediate and urgent need for service that no existing carrier could provide.\nNow, it was that statutory framework against which the Commission was called upon to evaluate AFL's application for authority.\nIt may be that in the annals of the Commission, there are applications that have been granted that are sweeping in scope as this one, but if there are, we do not know them and the Commission is not preferred to them.\nThese applications sought authority and authority was granted to transport for all branches of the United States Government, all commodities from all points of origin to all points of destination in a 14-state geographical area without restriction as to roots.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3040.013, 3045.153, 3068.429, 3085.878, 3093.417, 3118.252, 3128.262, 3135.478, 3145.109, 3154.028, 3165.769], "stop_times": [3045.153, 3068.429, 3085.878, 3093.417, 3118.252, 3128.262, 3135.478, 3145.109, 3154.028, 3165.769, 3187.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3040.013}, "reply_to": "15480__2_007", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_009", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "And -- without restriction as to roots and it require -- it will all be continuous single service -- single-line service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3187.888], "stop_times": [3201.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.888}, "reply_to": "15480__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_010", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well it would be single-line service because it will be performed by AFL.\nI believe there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3201.263, 3204.442], "stop_times": [3204.442, 3204.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3201.263}, "reply_to": "15480__2_009", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_011", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I suppose they are in line with other carriers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3204.468], "stop_times": [3206.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.468}, "reply_to": "15480__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_012", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I believe Mr. Justice White that there is a provision in the regulations that would prohibit interlining, but I'm not absolutely certain about this.\nCertainly what is contemplated was single-line AFL service.\nThe application was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3206.393, 3214.042, 3219.282], "stop_times": [3214.042, 3219.282, 3220.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3206.393}, "reply_to": "15480__2_011", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_013", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What sort of fact is given to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3220.683], "stop_times": [3222.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.683}, "reply_to": "15480__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_014", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice Brennan, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3222.427], "stop_times": [3223.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3222.427}, "reply_to": "15480__2_013", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_015", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What fact has been -- has there been any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3223.669], "stop_times": [3225.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.669}, "reply_to": "15480__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_016", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Any interlining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3225.668], "stop_times": [3226.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3225.668}, "reply_to": "15480__2_015", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_017", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3226.527], "stop_times": [3227.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.527}, "reply_to": "15480__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_018", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I don't believe so, but I'm, I'm -- it is in the record and I'm an absolutely confident about it, but my impression would be that there is no.\nThe application was supported as the court has been advised by statement by a single branch of the Government, the Defense Department.\nIn that statement, the Department did not state that in the absence of AFL's service, the existing service would be inadequate and that is not surprising because in two letters that were written by the Defense Department, one to AFL and one to another motor carrier within two weeks of the filing of this support statement.\nThe Department said this and I quote that \u201cthe Department is not in a position to state that there would be insufficient or inadequate service without American Farm Lines.\u201d\nAnd then shortly after the filing of the statement in another letter that it sent to American Trucking Associations, it said that its support of AFL was, \u201can expression of the desire of the Department who have available to it the type and quality of service which AFL has provided regardless of the carriers which might provide the same.\u201d\nSo that in our view, it was not particularly astonishing when the temporary authorities Board of the Commission denied this application, but as the court has been advised division, one of the Commission on appeal reversed that determination, the authority was granted, the protesting carriers went to courts, secured the temporary restraining order, the Commission bear upon on its own motion reopened the record and finally the last deal, the statement the so-called Caputo statement was put into the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3227.138, 3237.1, 3244.519, 3262.569, 3273.031, 3293.786], "stop_times": [3237.1, 3244.519, 3262.569, 3273.031, 3293.786, 3325.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3227.138}, "reply_to": "15480__2_017", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_019", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What do we have in the way of the ICC statement about this, is it only their orders that are in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3325.708], "stop_times": [3332.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.708}, "reply_to": "15480__2_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_020", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Only their orders that are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3332.097], "stop_times": [3332.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3332.097}, "reply_to": "15480__2_019", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_021", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "You don't have a findings or anything of that kind in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3332.975], "stop_times": [3337.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.975}, "reply_to": "15480__2_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_022", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3337.904], "stop_times": [3338.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3337.904}, "reply_to": "15480__2_021", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_023", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "There just be the order of the Division I, it's order 143 (a) and 146?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3338.841], "stop_times": [3344.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.841}, "reply_to": "15480__2_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_024", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "December 29, 1968 on page 367 on the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3344.676], "stop_times": [3348.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3344.676}, "reply_to": "15480__2_023", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_025", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3348.519], "stop_times": [3349.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.519}, "reply_to": "15480__2_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_026", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That's it, that's it.\nAll application were referred to it I think there is a finding of sorts there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3349.167, 3352.449], "stop_times": [3352.449, 3356.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3349.167}, "reply_to": "15480__2_025", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_027", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But no opinion, no opinion or any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3356.369], "stop_times": [3358.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.369}, "reply_to": "15480__2_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_028", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No.\nNow, that brings me to the question that's involved on this first branch of the case and that is what the Caputo statement measured up to the requirements of the regulation.\nSo I -- I turn now to the regulations which are set forth in -- I think, it is appendix B to the brief of certain motor carrier appellees beginning on page 32 of that brief.\nNow what the regulations say at the outset is that they're designed to implement the temporary authority statute, and I think the first thing perhaps to notice that they divide temporary authority in the two categories.\nOne is called the Emergency Temporary Authority and the other for -- better word, I'll call Ordinary Temporary Authority.\nEmergency Temperate Authority according to the regulations is to be granted only whether is an enough time to provide notice to interested parties, and then it's restrictive.\nIt's restricted to 30 days and then it can be continued only until Ordinary Temporary Authority can be either granted or denied.\nNow, this case of course is one of Ordinary Temporary Authority, and the regulations that begin on page 37 I think clearly make this an adversary proceeding before the Commission because they require the basic elements of an adversary proceeding, they require that notice be given to interested persons in the Federal Register and they provide interested persons who are willing and able or say they are, to provide the service have a right to reply.\nThey have a right to file a protest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3358.427, 3364.19, 3373.763, 3387.689, 3398.686, 3405.592, 3414.731, 3422.28, 3450.268], "stop_times": [3364.19, 3373.763, 3387.689, 3398.686, 3405.592, 3414.731, 3422.28, 3450.268, 3452.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3358.427}, "reply_to": "15480__2_027", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_029", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Page 37 of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3452.023], "stop_times": [3452.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3452.023}, "reply_to": "15480__2_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15480__2_030", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Page 37 of -- Mr. Justice Stewart of the brief of certain motor carrier appellees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3452.988], "stop_times": [3458.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3452.988}, "reply_to": "15480__2_029", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_031", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3458.072], "stop_times": [3460.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3458.072}, "reply_to": "15480__2_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15480__2_032", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Now, it's a truncated proceeding to be sure, there is no cross-examination of witnesses, the timetable is telescope, but it is nonetheless and adversary proceedings.\nNow, what the protestants are able to put in their rebuttals of course depends in large measure on what the applicant is required to put in his application, and associated papers and that brings me to the regulation that is most directly involved and that begins on page 34, subparagraph C supporting statements.\nThat regulation refers to the supporting statements of shippers and it says this it says that each application or temporary authority must be accompanied by a supporting statement or statements designed to established an immediate and urgent need for service which cannot be met by existing carriers, the statutory standards.\nAnd then, it goes on say that any self-supporting statement must contain at least the following information and it sets forth 11 categories as much Mr. Califano has indicated and of those were concerned here basically with subparagraphs 7 and 8.\nAnd the basic question is whether the Caputo statement compiled with the requirements of 7 and 8, and if it didn't, what the consequence is ought to be?\n7 and 8 go to what a shipper is suppose to say is to whether or not he has made efforts to get this service from existing carriers, and if it has made all those efforts, he is then suppose to give the names and the dates of the allegedly defaulting carriers and the reasons they assigned for not being able to perform, and that sort of thing.\nNow, analysis at this point in our view is impaired somewhat by the fact that we believe that the appellants have taken rather markedly diverging views of what the Department of Defense said in response to the threshold question of subparagraph 8.\nNow, that question is whether efforts have been made to obtain the service from existing carriers.\nAmerican Farm Lines says clearly in its brief and I did not understand Mr. Califano to retreat from it that DOD's response to that question was negative, that it did not make any such efforts.\nThe argument is spelled forth at some length on pages 20, I think 20 to 23 of their opening brief and their conclusion is this on page 22.\nIn short, the Department's response to the requirements of subparagraphs 8 and 9 was that it had not requested the proposed service from other carriers, and then it goes on to explain why in its view that shouldn't be fatal, and I'll take that up in a moment.\nBut now let me turn -- well, and then its analysis proceeds this way and says that as DOD said it did not may be his efforts then course the other requirements of 8 and 9 never came into play because the Department couldn't be required to supply details as to efforts that it never made.\nNow, the Solicitor General on the other hand, I understand not to advance that argument but rather the argument that indeed DOD said -- now, this isn't the question I should make clear as to what DOD actually did.\nThis is a question as to what DOD said in its statement, no one knows really what DOD actually did.\nWe can only go on the basis of what it said.\nThe Solicitor General as I read its brief, of course, the Government has not argued this aspect of the case so we have to rely on that brief I think.\nAs I understand their brief, they say that the Solicitor General did make these efforts and that he did provide -- I mean, DOD and that the DOD did provide most of the information are required and really all that ought to be required.\nThis is what he says on page 16 and 17 of his brief.\nIn fact the statement of DOD that is did provide much of the information there specified, thus DOD did state whether it made efforts to obtain the service from existing carriers and graphically describe the results of its efforts as subsection 8 dictates, and it explained in detail the reasons whey existing carriers were only able to provide the service needed as subsection 9 contemplates.\nWe acknowledge the statement did not give the dates of DOD's efforts to secure service as 8 further asks, or the names and addresses of the carriers who do not provide service as 9 specifies.\nBut these are the only deficiencies, and then it goes on to explain why he doesn't consider those fatal and I'll move on to that in due course.\nNow, the good deal in terms of how one approaches this case depends upon which of these views to the DOD statement is correct.\nIn our view the Government is the only one that is open, and that is because the Commission, Mr. Justice White, does have what I consider to be a finding of sorts here in its order, and it bears directly on this problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3460.69, 3470.334, 3491.436, 3509.022, 3524.895, 3535.099, 3554.94, 3577.214, 3586.687, 3601.705, 3611.163, 3623.851, 3641.18, 3654.453, 3659.543, 3663.02, 3673.175, 3685.068, 3690.351, 3713.948, 3725.499, 3734.255, 3744.292], "stop_times": [3470.334, 3491.436, 3509.022, 3524.895, 3535.099, 3554.94, 3577.214, 3586.687, 3601.705, 3611.163, 3623.851, 3641.18, 3654.453, 3659.543, 3663.02, 3673.175, 3685.068, 3690.351, 3713.948, 3725.499, 3734.255, 3744.292, 3757.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3460.69}, "reply_to": "15480__2_031", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_033", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What page is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3757.745], "stop_times": [3758.472], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3757.745}, "reply_to": "15480__2_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15480__2_034", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Page 368 (a) of the appendix.\nNow this -- and I am referring particularly the subparagraph 3, but I'll incorporate when I read it the -- it further appearing language at the top of the page.\nThe Commission says this in its order, yet further appearing that by its verified statement field November 20, 1968, the Department of Defense has established that it has attempted but has been unable to obtain the required and necessary type of service.\nNot that it has not attempted as AFL indicated and that quotation that I read from it brief.\nSo the number well established doctrine emerging from decisions of this Court such as that in the Chenery case and the Burlington Truck Lines case, we suggest that the order of the Commission has to be defended upon the grounds that it put it on.\nAnd therefore that this argument that AFL advances here newly devised, advance here I think for the first time in this litigation is simply not open.But I would like to say that there are additional infirmities in it.\nI'd like to touch on those for a moment.\nBecause of course normally if the shipper says that he hasn't made any efforts to get the service that he wants from existing carriers, that would be fatal.\nNot because of noncompliance with the regulations, but because of noncompliance with the statute.\nHe simply would not have made this sufficient showing.\nNow, AFL says that that shouldn't be the case here because as Mr. Califano said what DOD wanted was single-line direct route service and it knew that wasn't available from existing carriers between many of the points, and therefore it would have been bootless for them as for it.\nAnd they add that single-line direct route service is obviously superior to joint line service.\nWell, I think they summarize your position quite succinctly in the reply brief back on page 13.\nThis is what AFL says, the Department made clear that it support for AFL way premise not upon service failures but upon the Department's desire to upgrade the quality and to reduce the cost of the motor transportation service available to it through the certification of direct single-line service.\nNow, have that been the argument made by DOD and explicitly to the Commission, we suggest that the Commission surely would have concluded or surely should have conclude at least that for the reasons I've already indicated, the temporary authority statue was simply not designed to permit the short circuiting of all of the other procedures of the act simply in order to upgrade the quality and reduce the cost of the service available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3758.472, 3761.845, 3770.651, 3787.257, 3793.137, 3807.683, 3822.354, 3824.658, 3833.642, 3838.855, 3841.827, 3858.238, 3863.834, 3873.643, 3892.628], "stop_times": [3761.845, 3770.651, 3787.257, 3793.137, 3807.683, 3822.354, 3824.658, 3833.642, 3838.855, 3841.827, 3858.238, 3863.834, 3873.643, 3892.628, 3919.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3758.472}, "reply_to": "15480__2_033", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_035", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Is that because it's not urgent or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3919.034], "stop_times": [3920.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3919.034}, "reply_to": "15480__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_036", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That's because it's not urgent and immediate.\nThat's correct Mr. Justice Brennan.\nNow so far as cost is concerned, the Commission has never --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3920.982, 3923.683, 3925.138], "stop_times": [3923.683, 3925.138, 3927.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3920.982}, "reply_to": "15480__2_035", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_037", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "(Voice Overlap) --\nYou don't think that cost savings and we're not dealing with pennies in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3927.648, 3928.672], "stop_times": [3928.672, 3934.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3927.648}, "reply_to": "15480__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_038", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3934.424], "stop_times": [3935.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3934.424}, "reply_to": "15480__2_037", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_039", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- at least enormous cost savings would not be an emergent to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3935.193], "stop_times": [3938.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3935.193}, "reply_to": "15480__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_040", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, no I don't Mr. Justice Brennan.\nCertainly in the order, the Commission never suggested that it was considering cost savings from the Government, and indeed, I can provide the court citations in which the Commission has said that even in permanent authority cases, a rate question is not irrelevant factor.\nNow of course, we're talking about this enormous savings.\nWe're not talking about this particular case either in the American Farm Lines having single-line direct writ authority.\nIt's not going to save the Government this money, monumental sum of money.\nBut if every carrier, if the entire certification scheme under the act is to be abandoned now and every carrier, west of the Mississippi is to have direct single-line authority, well I don't doubt that there would be very considerable savings.\nI don't doubt that al lot of carriers would go on to business.\nI don't doubt that the Commission would regard this all as a very complicated and difficult question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3938.43, 3941.279, 3956.442, 3958.636, 3965.179, 3968.158, 3982.726, 3984.961], "stop_times": [3941.279, 3956.442, 3958.636, 3965.179, 3968.158, 3982.726, 3984.961, 3989.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3938.43}, "reply_to": "15480__2_039", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_041", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What about the pipe line and safety factors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3989.711], "stop_times": [3993.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3989.711}, "reply_to": "15480__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_042", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3993.22], "stop_times": [3994.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3993.22}, "reply_to": "15480__2_041", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_043", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Pipe line and safety factors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3994.091], "stop_times": [3994.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3994.091}, "reply_to": "15480__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_044", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "(Voice Overlap) you mean the pipe line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3994.379], "stop_times": [3996.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3994.379}, "reply_to": "15480__2_043", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_045", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Do you consider those as part of the expense argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [3996.278], "stop_times": [4000.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3996.278}, "reply_to": "15480__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_046", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nI -- it's a -- perhaps, I can respond this way.\nIf the Defense Department had said that what we're talking about here ammunitions destined for Vietnam and here the points of origin, and here are the points of destination nor or aircraft parts or something that sort, and to be sure we're only talking in terms of saving a day or saving 12 hours from east to west or something of that sort but that's very important because fighting men are depending on this material.\nWell I mean, I would never suggest that that would be irrelevant consideration in a highly persuasive consideration under the temporary authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4000.258, 4002.592, 4006.916, 4033.394], "stop_times": [4002.592, 4006.916, 4033.394, 4039.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4000.258}, "reply_to": "15480__2_045", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_047", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "In the ICC, no one else has ever suggested before that it was illegal or somehow improper to interline explosives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4039.82], "stop_times": [4048.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4039.82}, "reply_to": "15480__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_048", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No sir, Mr. Justice White and I refer here to the regulation.\nThe regulation that you discussed with Mr. Califano -- Mr. Cerra, I believe was, is a regulation that we set forth quoted in full in at pages 50 and 51 of our opening brief.\nNow, it's never been mentioned by the appellants until your colloquy with Mr. Cerra.\nIt seems to us that that regulation says pretty clear that whatever theoretical advantages may be thought to be associated with single-line service --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4048.386, 4052.746, 4064.326, 4070.442], "stop_times": [4052.746, 4064.326, 4070.442, 4080.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4048.386}, "reply_to": "15480__2_047", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_049", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Or practical --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4080.638], "stop_times": [4081.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4080.638}, "reply_to": "15480__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_050", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Or practical, if you can that way, will not be enough in a temporary authority proceeding.\nOne have must show some sort of unusual and significant actual default in the part of the existing joint line carriers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4081.728, 4087.419], "stop_times": [4087.419, 4098.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4081.728}, "reply_to": "15480__2_049", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_051", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. Dempsey, while you're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4098.399], "stop_times": [4099.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4098.399}, "reply_to": "15480__2_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_052", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4099.961], "stop_times": [4100.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4099.961}, "reply_to": "15480__2_051", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_053", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- stopped as you are, am I interrupting you now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4100.523], "stop_times": [4102.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4100.523}, "reply_to": "15480__2_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_054", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4102.6], "stop_times": [4105.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4102.6}, "reply_to": "15480__2_053", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_055", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I'm trying to reconcile the findings of 368 (a) of the appendix, the three and four, I think you referred to sometime ago in relation to the question that Mr. Califano about the failure to answer questions 8 and 9.\nIs there anywhere in this record that indicates that would shed some light on the gap that failure to answer those questions in the original application for the temporary authority and ultimately, a finding by the Commission that is right on target on those two points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4105.171, 4123.957], "stop_times": [4123.957, 4147.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4105.171}, "reply_to": "15480__2_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_056", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "There is nothing in the record to shed light on it, but I think what there is in the record only makes it more surprising if I may say because the Caputo statement after all was not written in the dark.\nIt was submitted to the Commission some roughly a month after Judge Boldt in the hearing on the temporary restraining order identified noncompliance with subparagraphs 8 and 9 as a serious problem in his mind.\nSo that what one would reasonably expect would be that the Defense Department in putting in another statement would have been particularly careful to comply with subparagraphs 8 and 9.\nI can only -- well, I shouldn't assume anything.\nI should simply answer and the answer to the question I think is that there is nothing in the record to indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4147.617, 4159.814, 4174.455, 4187.907, 4193.1], "stop_times": [4159.814, 4174.455, 4187.907, 4193.1, 4197.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4147.617}, "reply_to": "15480__2_055", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_057", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What's the time laps?\nI see that these findings 3 and 4 on 368 (a) are based on verified statements of November 1968.\nWhat was the date of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4197.566, 4198.761, 4209.856], "stop_times": [4198.761, 4209.856, 4211.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4197.566}, "reply_to": "15480__2_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_058", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That is the date of the Caputo statement, the final DOD statement.\nThe hearing on the temporary restraining order, I believe was in October.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4211.808, 4215.69], "stop_times": [4215.69, 4219.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4211.808}, "reply_to": "15480__2_057", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_059", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "What's the date of the document that was filed the application or petition which they fail to answer questions 8 and 9?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4219.886], "stop_times": [4227.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4219.886}, "reply_to": "15480__2_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_060", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well, the November 20, this statement that's being referred to here is the only DOD statement that is being spoken up in any respect now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4227.315], "stop_times": [4237.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4227.315}, "reply_to": "15480__2_059", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_061", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well then, I'm even more confused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4237.605], "stop_times": [4239.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4237.605}, "reply_to": "15480__2_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_062", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4239.184], "stop_times": [4239.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4239.184}, "reply_to": "15480__2_061", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_063", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Maybe you can clear that up or someone can.\nI thought they had fail to answer on this two points 8 and 9 that the findings says that by the verified statement, the following things have been established and two of the following items down on 3 and 4 are precisely the answers to the question 8 and 9.\nWhere did the Defense -- where did the Commission get the data for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4239.566, 4242.94, 4262.215], "stop_times": [4242.94, 4262.215, 4268.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4239.566}, "reply_to": "15480__2_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_064", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well as to finding 3 or in subparagraph 3, I assume that the Commission thought that a fair inference from what the Defense Department's statements said, and I am not prepared to say it was not a fair inference.\nNow our complaint of course is that having said that they did attempt to get the service they wanted, they were then required to comply with the other parts of subparagraphs 8 and 9 and provide the details.\nSo, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4268.312, 4289.806, 4304.868], "stop_times": [4289.806, 4304.868, 4305.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4268.312}, "reply_to": "15480__2_063", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_065", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well now, I take it that you are concerned about the lack of underlying factual basis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4305.637], "stop_times": [4315.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4305.637}, "reply_to": "15480__2_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_066", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4315.893], "stop_times": [4316.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4315.893}, "reply_to": "15480__2_065", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_067", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- for those two --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4316.481], "stop_times": [4317.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4316.481}, "reply_to": "15480__2_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_068", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4317.14], "stop_times": [4317.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4317.14}, "reply_to": "15480__2_067", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_069", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- findings in a very important way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4317.404], "stop_times": [4318.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4317.404}, "reply_to": "15480__2_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_070", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, that's right and let me move directly to that.\nI just -- on the single-line authority problem, I just like to make sure I made one final point on it, and then -- let me move directly into that.\nI think that really conclusive evidence that the Commission did not issue this authority on the premise advance now by AFL; that is the desirability of single-line services, the fact that they didn't limit, they did not limit it to those points between which various exist no single-line direct service.\nIt's simply a broad 14-state geographical ground.\nSo far as the extra record material that cited in AFL's reply brief is concerned with respect to the statements made by some appellees about the desirability of single-line service, those statements were made in the context of applications for permanent authority and for reasons that I've already indicated that's much different than an application for temporary authority.\nBut I would cite to the Court since we didn't have an opportunity to reply, to ICC examiner's decisions in this chain of litigation going on before the Commission.\nAshworth Transfer, Inc., M.C.1872 sub number 71 and served January 7, 1970 and Derrick Freight Lines Inc. M.C. 263 sub number 185 November 20, 1969.\nIn both of these cases, the examiner in permanent authority cases denied single-line authority direct routes sought by the Defense Department upon substantially the same grounds as they sought this authority criticizing the Defense Department for not establishing sufficiently the asserted deficiencies in multiple line service.\nNow, I don't say that this is terribly important, but I do say that's -- it is indicative of the kind of evidence that has to be introduced when one realize on the single-line authority concept even in a permanent authority case.\nNow, Mr. Chief Justice, let me go into this question of what it is that we complain about in terms of the Government side which I understand to be that there where depots.\nThe Solicitor General says that yes, the Caputo statement did not give names, dates, particulars about the service deficiencies about which it was complained, but he says that shouldn't matter and -- so I guess really, the basic question is whether it should matter or not.\nThere isn't any question I think that he's right in making the concession that does in this entire DOD statement, not a single, not a single existing allegedly defaulting carrier is named.\nNo dates, no names and no particulars.\nWe suggest that the standard to be used in measuring whether or not this is -- if I may for a lack of a better word say prejudicial error ought to be the traditional one and ought to be whether have the error and not been committed might the outcome have been changed.\nThe Government says that it would not have been.\nThey say on their brief that the provision of these details could not be affected the outcome and I understand them to say that on the notion that the evidence of record was compelled.\nNow, that's kind of a harmless error doctrine.\nIt seems to us it has no place unless the evidence that's being relied upon is compelling is independent of the error; that is to say that correction of the error would not have affected that evidence.\nNow if you got 20 eyewitnesses to a crime and they all identified the defendant in a trial and the trial judge improperly circumscribes cross-examination going to the eyesight and one of them, well maybe that's harmless error.\nBut that situation does not resemble the one at bar at all because the provision of the details by DOD might radically have undercut the force of its submission.\nNow, I don't have the time in oral argument for the kind of detailed textual analysis of this statement that we do have in the briefs, but let me illustrate to the Court what kind of thing I have in mind.\nThe most important parts of the statement are generalities.\nThey're always qualified in what we regard as suggestive way.\nNow for example, page 368 of the Caputo statement, the statement -- no, that\u2018s not a statement, that's the order.\nThe statement begins on 194, I think, yes.\nPage 198 contains what is sort the topics sentence of the statement.\nThere, Mr. Caputo says this defense need for speed has not been met in many, many instances by the current certified motor carriers.\nNow, no place in this statement does he indicate anything about those many, many instances.\nI suppose arithmetically, that could 50 or 100 or a 150 or almost any figure, but surely it would make a difference if it were only a 50 in this broad geographical area among these dozens of carriers, and I don't really see how it reasonably could be suggested otherwise.\nIn the next sentence he says -- and let me just string some of these together because they're all really the same.\nIn the next paragraph, he says we must in some cases allow no less than 24 hours for each 300 miles of joint line service, some cases.\nThe next sentence he said, prescribe routes are often circuitous.\nIn the next paragraph he says, some regular route carriers utilize single drivers instead of two-men driving teams and this sometimes results in delays.\nThe next page he says, some shipments of explosives between McAllister and Vanguard Transit for lengthy periods of time.\nAnd it's that way throughout.\nIn many instances, it is necessary to closely coordinate the arrival of inbound shipments with production schedules.\nHe gives one example, how many are many in addition to one?\nIn the next page he says DOD has experience situations where shipments routed the currently certificated carriers failed to arrive at destination in time for transshipments and it gives one example there.\nHow many more times beyond one did DOD actually experienced these situations?\nNow, he does provide in his statements some what he calls examples.\nWe've analyzed them one by one in our brief and I won't detain the Court with the flaws that we see in the examples other than to note that again that they did not comply with the regulations.\nThe allegedly defaulting carriers were not identified.\nThey had no opportunity of rebuttal.\nBut beyond that, I suggest that the fact that DOD did provide some examples cuts in our favor and not against us because in the first place, it shows they can provide examples.\nAnd in the second place, one cannot put aside the possibility Mr. Chief Justice that this is about all they could come up with.\nBecause as I said before, they grafted the statement in the face of the temporary restraining order which pointed to noncompliance with subparagraphs 8 and 9 as a problem.\nThey went back and they drafted it and I think it is at least reasonable, it is reasonably possible to assume that this was about as good as they could do.\nBut if that's a possibility, then surely compliance with the regulations, compelling the Department to deploy with the regulations might entirely have change the outcome of this case because if this handful of examples is all that the Department could come up with.\nI would find it very difficult to believe that the Commission would have granted this temporary authority.\nAnd I have not spoken of the possibility of rebuttal, but that possibility could not be put aside either as this record demonstrates, the Department is not always infallible in what it says.\nI would refer the Court to the statement of the munitions carrier's conference which is here some place.\nWhat the -- let me just summarize what it says, what it says -- here it is, it's on page 308 and 309 and what it says basically is that, that DOD in one of its statements gave before this Caputo statement gave three examples of what are deserted and were deficiencies.\nAnd those -- two of them could be verified in terms of the carriers that were involved and those carriers put in rebuttals.\nOne of them indeed as the statement says submitted photo static copies of documents which established of the charge was false, and DOD did not repeat any of those in the Caputo statement.\nSo that the opportunity to rebut specific data, when that's specific data is given by the DOD is important to the appellees.\nI should mention Estes briefly but I think Mr. Califano really has given me my basis for distinguishing Estes it's the one that I rely on, there are several but the shippers in Estes as Mr. Califano said stated very explicitly that they have not made any efforts to get the service that they were interested in from other carriers.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4318.91, 4321.537, 4329.936, 4349.699, 4353.849, 4374.225, 4386.851, 4403.92, 4424.589, 4441.539, 4455.278, 4473.608, 4487.404, 4492.702, 4509.414, 4513.439, 4522.594, 4526.402, 4538.531, 4552.716, 4566.059, 4577.079, 4581.828, 4586.218, 4594.218, 4599.516, 4607.723, 4615.633, 4621.745, 4640.077, 4645.853, 4655.326, 4660.326, 4669.76, 4678.01, 4680.063, 4685.987, 4690.53, 4703.648, 4710.173, 4719.645, 4730.955, 4733.887, 4736.386, 4749.089, 4756.136, 4766.86, 4776.252, 4792.023, 4798.42, 4810.931, 4824.003, 4845.01, 4851.403, 4863.57, 4876.244, 4894.666], "stop_times": [4321.537, 4329.936, 4349.699, 4353.849, 4374.225, 4386.851, 4403.92, 4424.589, 4441.539, 4455.278, 4473.608, 4487.404, 4492.702, 4509.414, 4513.439, 4522.594, 4526.402, 4538.531, 4552.716, 4566.059, 4577.079, 4581.828, 4586.218, 4594.218, 4599.516, 4607.723, 4615.633, 4621.745, 4640.077, 4645.853, 4655.326, 4660.326, 4669.76, 4678.01, 4680.063, 4685.987, 4690.53, 4703.648, 4710.173, 4719.645, 4730.955, 4733.887, 4736.386, 4749.089, 4756.136, 4766.86, 4776.252, 4792.023, 4798.42, 4810.931, 4824.003, 4845.01, 4851.403, 4863.57, 4876.244, 4894.666, 4894.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4318.91}, "reply_to": "15480__2_069", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_071", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Do you think if all shippers who supported temporary application come forward and say that we are not in the position to say that there is insufficient or inadequate service without this temporary authority.\nIf all the shippers say we don't think there is anything wrong with the present, that the present services inadequate, but we just want better service.\nWould you think a temporary authority would ever be justified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4894.726, 4914.51, 4925.011], "stop_times": [4914.51, 4925.011, 4927.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4894.726}, "reply_to": "15480__2_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_072", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, I think it would be never justified in those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4927.53], "stop_times": [4929.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4927.53}, "reply_to": "15480__2_071", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_073", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Apparently the -- but do you think the ICC thinks it would be?\nI don't suppose the Department of Defense ever repudiated these statements that it filed certainly the Assistant Secretary when he wrote didn't repudiate that statement.\nHe said just to be satisfied, however with present, the capabilities is not to say we shouldn't have better service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4929.402, 4936.776, 4950.595], "stop_times": [4936.776, 4950.595, 4955.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4929.402}, "reply_to": "15480__2_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_074", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Oh, right, yes, I found that interesting passage in this letter and Mr. Justice White, I think you will not find in the Caputo statement a repudiation of the three letters that DOD wrote and which the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4955.818], "stop_times": [4968.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4955.818}, "reply_to": "15480__2_073", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_075", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But the -- but the Commission found -- seems to found that there had been shown an urgent and immediate need.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4968.422], "stop_times": [4978.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4968.422}, "reply_to": "15480__2_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_076", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4978.062], "stop_times": [4979.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4978.062}, "reply_to": "15480__2_075", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_077", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Well, they apparently construe a desire for better service as urgent and immediate need.\nThat's certainly not in, that's not illogical, I don't suppose it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4979.957, 4988.967], "stop_times": [4988.967, 4994.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4979.957}, "reply_to": "15480__2_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_078", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "That they -- well, I -- it's not illogical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [4994.401], "stop_times": [5001.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4994.401}, "reply_to": "15480__2_077", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_079", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, it isn't, it isn't, I mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5001.823], "stop_times": [5003.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5001.823}, "reply_to": "15480__2_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_080", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "It's not internally inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5003.618], "stop_times": [5004.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5003.618}, "reply_to": "15480__2_079", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_081", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "You just say you have an urgent need for better service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5004.605], "stop_times": [5007.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5004.605}, "reply_to": "15480__2_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__2_082", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, yes, well you might as a matter of fact.\nI mean it's possible.\nAll that I can say is that when you can -- I think you can visualize a company in extreme financial client or something like that might really need better service.\nBut it's hard for me to believe that the Commission having set forth in its single-line service regulations pretty clearly an indication of this isn't the case, and the Commission after all does know what the statute says and what the history of the statute was.\nI think that what the Commission must have done here was to accept the general statements made by DOD in the Caputo statement in terms of what it said where its actual service failures that in many, many instances they haven't gotten goods on time for transshipment and that sort of thing and based their decision base on the order on that and not upon a mere statement by DOD of a preference for better service.\nNow if in this order, I certainly don't suggest that this order is a model of clarity far from it, but if in this order the Commission had said which you just suggested Mr. Justice White, then the litigation that seems to me would have taken an entirely different path.\nWhat we would have been arguing in lower court was that the order did not comply with the statute and with that kind of a fine thing by the Commission we would have tested this on a different basis.\nLet me spend what remaining time I have on the second issue in the case, the question respecting the Commission's reopening of the record.\nI regret that I do not have more time for this because it is an important issue bearing as it does upon the Commission's relation to the federal judiciary.\nBut we have set forth our arguments in our briefs in detail and of course, we rely upon them.\nLet me try simply to touch upon the highlights over the central factors of these issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5007.011, 5009.426, 5010.375, 5019.34, 5034.864, 5065.219, 5080.543, 5093.128, 5103.43, 5113.276, 5118.577], "stop_times": [5009.426, 5010.375, 5019.34, 5034.864, 5065.219, 5080.543, 5093.128, 5103.43, 5113.276, 5118.577, 5128.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5007.011}, "reply_to": "15480__2_081", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_083", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Before you to get on that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5128.97], "stop_times": [5129.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5128.97}, "reply_to": "15480__2_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_084", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5129.555], "stop_times": [5130.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5129.555}, "reply_to": "15480__2_083", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_085", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Let me go to that number 4 again which -- of the 3 and 4 that troubles me on 368.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5130.095], "stop_times": [5135.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5130.095}, "reply_to": "15480__2_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_086", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5135.737], "stop_times": [5137.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5135.737}, "reply_to": "15480__2_085", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_087", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Four has the finding that there's nothing in this record to establish that any of the protesting carriers provide a service to meet its needs.\nWhat if the regulations or the case is hold about where the burden lies in establishing that?\nWho had the burden there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5137.332, 5145.53, 5151.423], "stop_times": [5145.53, 5151.423, 5152.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5137.332}, "reply_to": "15480__2_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_088", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Oh, well, I think clearly the applicant has the burden under the regulation say and particularly if they're talking about single-line service because that requires in terms of the regulations are clearly showing that the existing carriers have defaulted.\nI don't think really that commission counsel would disagree that the burden here is on the applicant especially in terms of the concern of the Congress expressed in the committee reports that this temporary authority statute be utilized only in a emergencies as it is an exception to the general statutory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5152.421, 5166.409], "stop_times": [5166.409, 5184.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5152.421}, "reply_to": "15480__2_087", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_089", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I suppose you'd agreed that it might be very sensible to have the Government carriage exempt from these provisions that Congress hasn't done that as a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5184.685], "stop_times": [5197.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5184.685}, "reply_to": "15480__2_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_090", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Exempt from the -- from which provision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5197.558], "stop_times": [5199.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5197.558}, "reply_to": "15480__2_089", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_091", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "From these, the -- from the 8 and 9 question requirements from --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5199.266], "stop_times": [5203.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5199.266}, "reply_to": "15480__2_090", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_092", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5203.825], "stop_times": [5204.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5203.825}, "reply_to": "15480__2_091", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_093", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "-- making the showing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5204.204], "stop_times": [5204.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5204.204}, "reply_to": "15480__2_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_094", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "No, I would not -- if I understand the question right --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5204.954], "stop_times": [5207.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5204.954}, "reply_to": "15480__2_093", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_095", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "You wouldn't think that would be a sensible thing to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5207.316], "stop_times": [5209.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5207.316}, "reply_to": "15480__2_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_096", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5209.824], "stop_times": [5210.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5209.824}, "reply_to": "15480__2_095", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_097", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But in any event they have in coming --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5210.382], "stop_times": [5211.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5210.382}, "reply_to": "15480__2_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__2_098", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "And certainly they done it.\nThey have exempted the Government from the rate discrimination provisions of the legislations so that they can and effect that the rate discrimination in favor of the Government.\nThey've done that, but they haven't done anything with respect to the routings that are to be used during that sort.\nBut I should say that the importance of Government traffic to the regulated motor carrier industry in particularly to some elements of it is very, very great.\nAnd the Commission will one way or another in the many, many proceedings that are pending before it now seeking modification of routes and that sort of thing will have to decide how this problem can be worked out so as to provide the best service to the Department without working, undo damage on the existing motor and rail carriers.\nI think that's a complex problem, and so I would much prefer to see that worked out in permanent authority applications with full hearings than by way of this kind of summary proceeding.\nNow, I would gather from Mr. Cerra's argument that perhaps erroneously but let me just state what I seem to feel about it, and that is that if these petitions for reconsideration have not been pending at that time that the Commission reopened the record, there would not be a very strenuous argument from the other side that the Commission was free to do what it did.\nBut if I incorrectly surmise that in any event, I think that's what the appellants ought to be conceding because Inland Steel in the -- this Court in establishing that the Commission cannot act in a way inconsistent with the Commission's jurisdiction taking together with the other cases that we have cited which in other context indicated what that sort of thing means.\nIt seems to me lead to the conclusion that where the Commission in effect wipes out the raise of the litigation, they're acting inconsistently with the court's jurisdiction, and that's what the Commission did here.\nIn effect, it wiped out the order that was under view.\nIt reopened the record in effect that a new trial and entered in effect a new judgment which was then subject to further appeal.\nSo that it seems to me that the turning question here is the effect of the pending petitions for reconsideration.\nOur first position on that is that those petitions for reconsideration could not have extended the authority of the Commission because they were not authorized.\nThe regulation respecting petitions for reconsiderations in temporary authority proceedings is set forth on page 47 of the brief of certain motor carrier appellees.\nNow, it identifies two kinds of orders from which such petitions can be taken and this case does not involved either one of them that I think is conceivable.\nBut what Mr. Cerra says is that the general rules of practice of the Commission do authorize a petition for reconsideration in these circumstances.\nAnd that that rule should be ready into the temporary authority rule because the temporary authority rule starts out pursuant to and in accordance with the Commission's general and special rules of practice.\nNow, we think that the a more normal reading of that phrase pursuant to and in accordance with would be to refer to procedural questions such as a number of copies and that sort of thing.\nBut more important than that, if the general rules and the special rules are read into this rule, then this rule is robbed of any independent significance because the petitions for reconsideration that are authorize by this rule are also authorize by the general and special rules.\nSo that to give it any meaning, one must read it restrictively.\nOne must conclude that this rule establishes the only circumstances under which petitions for reconsideration are to be permitted in temporary authority proceedings.\nIf I may add that there is no support here to the court and no help to the court by way of the construction of these regulations by the Commission.\nThe Commission in no order construed these regulations to permit these petitions for reconsideration.\nIt reopened the proceeding on its own motion.\nThere is a reference in a footnote and AFL's brief to the effect that that is not so and that the Commission indicated that it believed the petitions were authorized but I refer the Court to the record citation.\nIt is to a brief by commission counsel and the court below.\nBut beyond that, we say that even if the petitions were not authorized that the results should be the same.\nAnd we say that fundamentally because we think if the result is different, that an important policy consideration underlying the principle restricting agency freedom in the context of judicial review would be undercut.\nAnd that policy we think arises from the dual role of the agency.\nIt is of course first and foremost the neutral arbiter, but then when its orders are attacked it becomes a litigant.\nNow, so long as the litigation is simply conducted by the general counsel's office, there's no possibility of conflict of interest.\nBut where the Commission reopens the procedure after judicial review has commenced and particularly where the court has identified would it seize as a possible difficulty in the Commission's position.\nThen we suggest that there is a risk that the agency will add it more as a litigator than as an arbiter.\nNow, the counsel for the Commission says yes, but -- well, he doesn't say yes to that, but he says in connection with this point that one must allow the Commission the right to correct errors and certainly that's true, and that's an important policy consideration.\nBut first of all, the rule that we're arguing for it doesn't deny the agency the right to do that.\nIt simply requires that the agency get the authority of the court to do whatever it wishes to do.\nAnd in the second place, the facts of this case, well certainly not conclusive one way or the other, do not fit very neatly we suggest into the notion that what the Commission is doing here was correcting error in that alone.\nThe Government in a footnote to its brief indicates that the Commission had in mind when it reopened the record, this problem respecting subparagraphs 8 and 9 of the regulations.\nBut if that is so, you didn't do anything about that problem at least directly.\nIt did not suggest to the Department if they comply with subparagraphs 8 and 9.\nIt did not direct the attention of the Department to subparagraphs 8 and 9.\nWhat it did was to reopen the record and take additional evidence from the Department and then its counsel returned to court below as they do here and conceive that there were defaults with respect to the compliance with these regulations as Judge Boldt indicated in that very first hearing, but argued that the additional evidence that was taken was so compelling as to outweigh these problems with respect to the regulation.\nAs I say, I don't suggest that these facts are conclusive with respect to this risk that I'm talking about, but they're not inconsistent at least with the theory that I advance.\nAnd so what we argue for and I may say it seems to me that what's needed here is a rule.\nThere ought to be a clear cut rule.\nI don't suggest that this is a -- that the policy consideration is either way here are so strong as to establish that we're right or we're wrong.\nWhat I do say is that we think that the burden on the Commission in complying with the rule that we're talking about would be very, very slight indeed.\nWhereas, the risk of danger on the other side is reasonably significant and so what we urge is a rule that would require the Commission when should this review is commence or at the very least, after the court has taken a significant step in the case.\nAnd that here was the grant of the temporary restraining order after a full hearing.\nBut at that point, the Commission then be required to go to the court, seek authorization if it wishes to reopen the record and enter a new order.\nWe think that as I say, that's a slight burden on the Commission.\nIt prevents any hazards with respect to the legitimate interest of the parties before the Commission.\nThat I think summarizes our case if it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5211.451, 5212.899, 5221.887, 5231.509, 5245.037, 5264.146, 5275.685, 5300.529, 5322.382, 5334.203, 5338.003, 5345.374, 5353.532, 5363.968, 5380.181, 5390.965, 5400.619, 5412.879, 5422.652, 5439.414, 5442.9, 5453.068, 5460.877, 5467.891, 5470.838, 5481.942, 5486.639, 5494.223, 5508.027, 5512.895, 5519.408, 5528.052, 5541.05, 5549.24, 5568.161, 5573.904, 5581.371, 5596.072, 5607.302, 5612.384, 5617.851, 5622.465, 5652.072, 5663.82, 5670.903, 5672.99, 5681.364, 5689.251, 5705.261, 5710.188, 5719.641, 5722.847, 5729.542], "stop_times": [5212.899, 5221.887, 5231.509, 5245.037, 5264.146, 5275.685, 5300.529, 5322.382, 5334.203, 5338.003, 5345.374, 5353.532, 5363.968, 5380.181, 5390.965, 5400.619, 5412.879, 5422.652, 5439.414, 5442.9, 5453.068, 5460.877, 5467.891, 5470.838, 5481.942, 5486.639, 5494.223, 5508.027, 5512.895, 5519.408, 5528.052, 5541.05, 5549.24, 5568.161, 5573.904, 5581.371, 5596.072, 5607.302, 5612.384, 5617.851, 5622.465, 5652.072, 5663.82, 5670.903, 5672.99, 5681.364, 5689.251, 5705.261, 5710.188, 5719.641, 5722.847, 5729.542, 5734.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5211.451}, "reply_to": "15480__2_097", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey_jr"}
{"id": "15480__2_099", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Thank you Mr. Dempsey.\nMr. Califano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5734.292, 5735.647], "stop_times": [5735.647, 5739.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5734.292}, "reply_to": "15480__2_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__3_000", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, if I -- may I just make a couple of points.\nOne, with respect to the regulation Mr. Justice White on the granting of temporary authority were single-line services involved that regulation does go on to provide that a grant of temporary authority to effectuate single-line service will be authorized only when it is clearly established that the carriers providing multiple line service are not capable of or fail to meet needs.\nThe same regulations subsection 2 of it, specifically list as one of the occasions on which an immediate and urgent need exists in occasion whether it's \u201ca discontinuance of existing service.\u201d\nAnd I do you think it's important to note that the Department of Defense had the service of American Farm Lines for some two and half years, and it was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5739.442, 5745.119, 5773.539, 5790.723], "stop_times": [5745.119, 5773.539, 5790.723, 5800.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5739.442}, "reply_to": "15480__2_099", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__3_001", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "On an exempt basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5800.433], "stop_times": [5801.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5800.433}, "reply_to": "15480__3_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15480__3_002", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "On an exempt basis, and that service was being discontinued.\nSecondly, Mr. Chief Justice, with respect to the burden of proof, I just would like to point out quoting from the regulation, that's in the brief filed by Mr. Adams in the American Trucking Association that with respect to the filing of protest it says, \u201csuch protest must be specific as to the service which such protestant can and will offer and must consists of a signed original etcetera, etcetera.\u201d\nI think it's at best it's fuzzy as to where the burden of proof lies when you read this regulation which follows immediately upon the regulation listing the 11 points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5801.959, 5807.281, 5841.057], "stop_times": [5807.281, 5841.057, 5850.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5801.959}, "reply_to": "15480__3_001", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__3_003", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "But if this a default in the first place, failure to answer the questions like 8 and 9, doesn't that perhaps altered the situation somewhat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5850.08], "stop_times": [5862.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5850.08}, "reply_to": "15480__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15480__3_004", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "I think Mr. Chief Justice that as I've indicated in this many the appellees have considered, there's no -- if you say no efforts have been made, that's an answer to -- that's an answer to 8 and 9.\nIf you say efforts have been made, then the question is what kinds of efforts were made and what came out of them.\nThe problem -- this is a procedural rule of the ICC designed to help them I believe and I think the problem is that we have just a unique shipper.\nIt's not like any other shipper in the country and the question is whether or not his statement measures up under either of those alternatives.\nAnd we believe that what he was asking for was clear here and I clearly couldn't provide it.\nFinally on the point of need, I would indicate as, I think Mr. Justice Brennan asked that in this day and age, if there's not a need for sharply reducing defense cost as this would do and for safety in moving dangerous materials, I don't like you know, it's hard to think to put more urge and needs we could have than that.\nThank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5862.075, 5876.161, 5885.067, 5895.224, 5907.819, 5915.455, 5943.557], "stop_times": [5876.161, 5885.067, 5895.224, 5907.819, 5915.455, 5943.557, 5944.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5862.075}, "reply_to": "15480__3_003", "speaker": "joseph_a_califano_jr"}
{"id": "15480__3_005", "conversation_id": "15480", "text": "Thank you Mr. Califano.\nThank you Mr. Dempsey.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_369", "start_times": [5944.709, 5945.838, 5946.764], "stop_times": [5945.838, 5946.764, 5949.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5944.709}, "reply_to": "15480__3_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__0_000", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Number 45, Anderson's-Blackrock against Pavement Salvage Company.\nMr. Borst, you may proceed whenever you are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [0.0, 55.804], "stop_times": [55.804, 58.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__0_001", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Thank you sir.\nIf the court pleases, this is a civil action, a case in patent infringement which was tried in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.\nThe trial was had and a opinion was rendered in written form declined that the patent in suit namely Neville Patent, number 3,005,280 was invalid.\nNot reaching the issue of infringement on account of that adjudication.\nThe appeal was then made to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit here in Richmond, before which we had oral argument and after that, decision was rendered reversing the District Court, remanding it to the District Court for consideration of the infringement issue.\nStay of that mandate was then granted on petitioner's request pending of course the termination of that whole matter by this court.\nThe Neville patent in suit, basically, discloses a street paver and suspended from the street paver is a heat generator.\nThe street paver basically comprises a hopper which receives bituminous materials from a truck which has obtained the materials from an asphalt plant.\nA distributor which deposits the material on a roadbed and a tamper which in vibrating fashion compacts the material on the road -- on the bed and very often a screed which irons or planes the material so as to smooth it and should finally shape the pavement.\nThe heater which is suspended from the paver in the Neville case, in the Neville Patent is not used in the operation of the paver to form the pavement -- the first strip of pavement.\nIt is used solely when paving the second strip which is to be laid in abutting relation to the first strip.\nThe heater functions to preheat the longitudinal, marginal edge of the first strip -- had been laid and which had allowed to grow cool and then the paver itself deposits the asphalt on the roadbed and against the new -- the preheated edge so as to form a bond therewith, a union therewith and to make the so-called cold joint.\nThe claims in suit, and we have considered claimed for as representative call broadly for means for laying the asphalt and means for shaping the pavement.\nAnd broadly, therefore, covers the paver itself.\nThe claim goes on to recite a radiant energy generating means and further in connection with the radiant energy generating means that it comprises a combustion chamber.\nThe lower plate of which is perforated.\nAnd through the holes of the perforation or adjacent thereto propane gases or butane gases are fired and the plate thereby becomes incandescently hot and becomes a source of radiant energy or infrared heat.\nThe radiant energy generator in the Neville patent is disclosed as far it is claimed in the Schwank Patent number 2,775,294 and the Neville specification so states that the radiant energy generator that is disclosed in the Schwank Patent is entirely suitable for the patentee's purposes.\nThe components of the paver and the components of the generator are all old elements which are readily conceded by respondent.\nIn reversing the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [58.458, 60.354, 72.033, 88.416, 96.604, 116.425, 128.32, 146.479, 161.028, 186.517, 203.37, 215.856, 255.774, 271.032, 276.321, 292.394, 296.225, 316.389, 346.497, 367.873], "stop_times": [60.354, 72.033, 88.416, 96.604, 116.425, 128.32, 146.479, 161.028, 186.517, 203.37, 215.856, 255.774, 271.032, 276.321, 292.394, 296.225, 316.389, 346.497, 367.873, 371.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.458}, "reply_to": "15073__0_000", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_002", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "There's is no process patent involved here though, is it, just two products?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [371.197], "stop_times": [372.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.197}, "reply_to": "15073__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_003", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "There is no process claims, just apparatus claims.\nIn reversing the District Court the Circuit Court of Appeals commented that the steps which occupy the attention of the District Court were narrow ones and went on to decide to make its decision largely based on the satisfaction of the long felt need and eventual acceptance -- the eventual acceptance of Neville's concepts by respondents experts who were initially skeptical.\nThe court then went on to find that the method of forming the so-called cold joint between two asphalt lanes of concrete highway previous to Neville involve the process of cutting back the vertical marginal edge and painting it with asphalt.\nWe feel that both this finding of the of the Circuit Court of Appeals and the significance to be attached to the expert's original sceptability, and incredulity must be weighed in terms of the prior art which was extent at that time, included in that art was British patent number 756,911.\nAccording to that patent, it was entirely feasible to cut back -- to heat the vertical edge of the first laid lane of concrete.\nThere is no mention in this prior art patent of cutting back that edge and painting it with hot asphalt.\nWe feel that knowledge of this patent as well as other patents of the prior art as we feel are particularly opposite and their disclosures should be imputed constructively to the respondents experts as well as to the patentee himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [372.923, 378.235, 411.851, 441.77, 470.046, 486.544, 497.674], "stop_times": [378.235, 411.851, 441.77, 470.046, 486.544, 497.674, 518.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.923}, "reply_to": "15073__0_002", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_004", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "How much of the prior art upon which you now rely was available in the patent office, all of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [518.072], "stop_times": [525.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.072}, "reply_to": "15073__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__0_005", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "All of it but the so-called Morcom patent which I am about to come to.\nThe British patent was cited during the prosecution of the Neville application.\nThis knowledge should be of the previous method of forming the edge should be -- we feel should be imputed as to the patentee himself who is supposed to have filled a long felt need and thereby had made an un-obvious discovery as required for patentability under 35 U.S. Code 103.\nAside from this -- petitioner believes it would be made to consider here this question of long felt need or commercial success and its function in Patent Law with regard to the determination of the validity or invalidity of patents.\nUnder the decisions, there is no question but that this is a marginal or peripheral question.\nThis conclusion was explicitly expounded by this court in the A&P. versus Supermarket Case decided in 1950 in which it said and I quote, \u201cCommercial success without invention will not make patentability.\u201d\nThe decisions over the years have said that commercial success may be used to resolve doubt as to invention but not to inject such doubt.\nSo therefore, recognizing that such a ground is long felt need is relevant solely on condition that after the usual test for patentability have been conducted there is genuine doubt as to how to decide the issue invention.\nWe have the really significant question here as to how much importance may be attached to commercial success when the only evidence of that success have been adduced by plaintiff relates to but one element of a patented combination that being the radiant energy generator as claimed of the Schwank type.\nThe two engineers who testified for respondent described the benefits and virtues and glories of using a radiant energy generator of the Schwank type to heat up an asphaltic edge which was to receive new asphalt in abutting relation.\nThey did not testify as of the success of or the unexpected benefits flowing from the combination paver and heater which is the subject of the claims.\nIt is the combination which is the supposed invention not the heater per se.\nThe original claims as filed in the Patent Office attempted to claim the heater per se in connection with its use in highway construction.\nBut those claims that Neville failed to get.\nHe also claimed -- he also attempted to get claims to a process for using such a generator.\nAnd those claims he failed to get.\nSo he is now in a position where he can only assert, to discuss the scope of his invention the entire combination of conventional road paver and specific type of radiant energy generator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [525.219, 535.006, 543.785, 573.122, 592.686, 601.271, 617.111, 627.956, 647.742, 673.259, 692.147, 705.821, 710.686, 720.638, 724.466, 731.146, 734.112], "stop_times": [535.006, 543.785, 573.122, 592.686, 601.271, 617.111, 627.956, 647.742, 673.259, 692.147, 705.821, 710.686, 720.638, 724.466, 731.146, 734.112, 748.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.219}, "reply_to": "15073__0_004", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_006", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "It's your submission that this is not a combination but rather says simply an aggregation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [748.905], "stop_times": [755.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.905}, "reply_to": "15073__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_007", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes.\nI am using the term up till now in a rather non-technical sense, when I say combination I mean a collocation or an assembly of available elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [755.552, 755.783], "stop_times": [755.783, 763.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.552}, "reply_to": "15073__0_006", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_008", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Selection of (Voice Overlap) The collection of other -- the collection of known ingredients?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [763.581], "stop_times": [766.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.581}, "reply_to": "15073__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_009", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Right, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [766.161], "stop_times": [768.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.161}, "reply_to": "15073__0_008", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_010", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "But technically, it is your claim that this is an aggregation and I understand your submission is that the law is that a mere aggregation is never patentable.\nA combination may be patentable if it combines all elements to reach a new and unanticipated result.\nIs that your --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [768.162, 779.743, 786.534], "stop_times": [779.743, 786.534, 787.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.162}, "reply_to": "15073__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_011", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That is our position, perfectly stated Your Honor.\nThe question naturally, therefore, presents itself as to whether the respondent's testimony on commercial success is even relevant since it goes only to the benefits of one element of an assembly of elements as patented which is whether there is any invention in this assembly of old elements.\nSo let us look at the so-called narrow issues or steps which occupy the attention of the District Court.\nIn fact, these issues involve the scope and relevancy of the prior art to this development.\nIt involved the question as to whether the patentee had solved a problem which had hit it to essentially defied solution.\nAnd it went into this question of aggregation which we feel was treated rather cavalierly by the court below.\nThe prior art in this case which the petitioner considers most pertinent is the British patent which I have previously alluded to.\nThe Morcom patent number 709014 which issued on 1905 and of course the Schwank patent which shows the radiant energy generator used on the Neville paver.\nMorcom had versed to the basic problem of causing new asphalt to unit with all asphalt in place in road patching.\nAnd what is Morcom's solution?\nIt is exactly and precisely the same as Neville's, namely, the use of radiant energy.\nRespondent has never tried to contend throughout the trial or the appeals that road patching, in this regard, presents any problem which differs essentially from road construction there being in each case the question of how to get new asphalt which is hot asphalt to unit with old asphalt which has been allowed to grow cold.\nBoth Morcom in 1905 and Neville in 1959 on, some 50 or more years later state that radiant energy prepares the cold surface edge and is less likely to scorch it and say an open flame.\nThe British patent shares everything that Neville claims exceptn hat the British street paver heats the marginal asphalt edge with a different type radiant energy heater.\nIt is not so denominated in the British patent as a radiant energy heater but as Judge Haynswort in the Forth Circuit correctly stated, it is a radiant energy heater since it comprises a combustion chamber which permits and which provides for the firing of gaseous materials within and an escape or discharge opening causing the bottom of the heater to raise its temperature.\nAnd, therefore of necessity becomes a source of radiant heat from a scientific point of view; anybody in fact which have a temperature of in excess of absolute zero degrees is a source of radiant heat.\nSecondly, he would seem that if radiant heat was desirable, suggested by Morcom, such a heater of any type could be obviously substituted for the radiation heater in the British claim without making invention.\nSchwank, as explained, shows the heater as that component's claimed in Neville.\nAnd that patent is in fact mentioned in the Neville patent as been exposing a heater which is suitable for the patentee's purposes.\nThe District Court went on to discuss this question of aggregation.\nThere is no question here.\nAnd respondents' experts and certainly petitioners' expert have agreed that the paver operates entirely independently of the heater.\nAnd the heater operates independently of the paver.\nTherefore, the heater will function in precisely the same manner where the tamper, for example, has been operated whether the distributor is actually laying material or whether the screed as there to smooth the material.\nThis is a unquestioned fact as well, that the heater in constructing the adjoining road blocks of a single lane is removed from the paver and is placed on a separate mobile support and used to make the transverse edge of the two adjoining highway blocks in the single lane of highway.\nIn discussing this whole question, this court, in deciding the Lincoln Engineering case which is so heavily relied upon in its briefs and petitions, found that at least one definition of aggregation was that the total of the old elements must somehow exceed the sum of the parts.\nAnd then finding the system there disclosed which was a system for injecting grease into the bearings of automobile which included a piston pump on a conduit communicating therewith and a coupling consisting of jaws were aggregated.\nThey bank the court makes at that time an observation which we think is peculiarly applicable to the situation here.\nThe court, perhaps, overturn suggested that if the patentee had addressed his claims to the jaws perceived, he might have found himself with a valid patent.\nBut in fact, he did not and then by the time this patent got before this court it was, of course, too late to do that.\nIt might be of interest to this court to note that there are several cases in Great Britain which deal with the subject of aggregation which have not been brought to its attention in the briefs.\nAnd I thought I might do it now, if the court indulges me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [787.391, 791.752, 810.512, 818.048, 829.334, 839.422, 850.549, 863.005, 879.681, 889.378, 892.072, 899.98, 925.513, 941.768, 955.631, 990.868, 1011.816, 1029.356, 1034.102, 1044.387, 1049.179, 1050.661, 1065.979, 1071.443, 1097.385, 1130.144, 1154.389, 1180.674, 1188.457, 1207.939, 1217.626, 1236.864], "stop_times": [791.752, 810.512, 818.048, 829.334, 839.422, 850.549, 863.005, 879.681, 889.378, 892.072, 899.98, 925.513, 941.768, 955.631, 990.868, 1011.816, 1029.356, 1034.102, 1044.387, 1049.179, 1050.661, 1065.979, 1071.443, 1097.385, 1130.144, 1154.389, 1180.674, 1188.457, 1207.939, 1217.626, 1236.864, 1240.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.391}, "reply_to": "15073__0_010", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_012", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "When you supply to us by memorandum that the close of your argument as well, you may discuss the cases now but I will supply the citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1240.207], "stop_times": [1246.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.207}, "reply_to": "15073__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__0_013", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "All right, I will do it.\nOne case is the famous and classic sausage machine case which was decided by the Transfer Division of the High Court of Appeals in 1890.\nIn that case, the meat grinder ground the sausage meat and then the filling machine was placed somehow in communication with the grinder so that that machine filled the sausage skin with the ground meat.\nThe High Court of Appeals Transfer Division stated that while it must be recognized as something new and useful was done here.\nThe fact is that the two components operate so independently at one another from the standpoint of function and are, in fact, separate from one another from the standpoint of structure that the claims to the two elements are arrogating and therefore invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1246.532, 1251.589, 1267.278, 1286.013, 1296.079], "stop_times": [1251.589, 1267.278, 1286.013, 1296.079, 1319.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.532}, "reply_to": "15073__0_012", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_014", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Mr. Borst, I have the knowdghe am not the lawyer to know how similar or how different it is the British Law patents from our law or the British Law of 1890 from our Law of 1969.\nHelp me in your discussion with these British cases if you could indicate at least your submission as to if that laws were identical or different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1319.799, 1333.209], "stop_times": [1333.209, 1343.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.799}, "reply_to": "15073__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_015", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "It may be hard to generalize because much of our law has undergone transformation or modification of statute.\nThe question of aggregation is not a statutory matter but has come through a law of patents in this country and, I believe in Great Britain, in a parallel way to describe decision of my decision-making.\nI think that the courts have felt better out of this apple boat and irrelevant to the question of standard of invention and obviousness and, therefore, have continued to retain as an operating rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1343.2, 1352.203, 1367.555], "stop_times": [1352.203, 1367.555, 1386.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1343.2}, "reply_to": "15073__0_014", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_016", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I suppose in Great Britain, is Patent Law a Common Law so to speak or are there a series of statutes as we have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1386.583], "stop_times": [1394.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.583}, "reply_to": "15073__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_017", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "There are patent statutes but which have been construed and so the law has evolved through construction as our law has evolved by amendment to statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1394.468], "stop_times": [1412.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.468}, "reply_to": "15073__0_016", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_018", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Of course, we, unlike them have a constitutional provision that we sometimes cross over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1412.004], "stop_times": [1415.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.004}, "reply_to": "15073__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__0_019", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That is true.\nThe House of Lords itself in 1935 in the case of Celanese Limited versus Courtaulds with Lord Talmud speaking for the court made this definition of aggregation which I think can be accepted by American Courts today.\nWhen he said, as I quote, \u201cAs accepted a sound law that a mere placing side by side of old integers so that each perform its own proper function independently of any of the others is not a patentable combination but that where the old integers when placed together have some working interrelation producing a new or improved result then there is patentable subject matter in the idea of the working interrelation brought about by the collocation of the integers.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1415.799, 1420.6, 1444.983], "stop_times": [1420.6, 1444.983, 1474.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.799}, "reply_to": "15073__0_018", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_020", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "By the what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1474.908], "stop_times": [1475.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.908}, "reply_to": "15073__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__0_021", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Collocation of the integers.\nThe first case that I have cited may be found that is S. Williams versus Ni in 7 RPC 62, RPC being an acronym for report on patent cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1475.816, 1478.627], "stop_times": [1478.627, 1495.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.816}, "reply_to": "15073__0_020", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_022", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Were there any findings by the court here that the way in which these integers do (Inaudible) were placed together the generator or the heater on top is an essential element of the patent?\nIn other words, what I am getting at is, is there anything that include the use of the heater on a different machine running it back at the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1495.321, 1516.482], "stop_times": [1516.482, 1525.557], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.321}, "reply_to": "15073__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__0_023", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Nothing whatsoever sir.\nWe have contended that the only reason that Neville has done this is entirely, one, for convenience.\nHere we get the same result perhaps a little -- exactly more practical and it's better to provide a separate little cart running ahead of the street paver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1525.557, 1527.079, 1533.24], "stop_times": [1527.079, 1533.24, 1542.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.557}, "reply_to": "15073__0_022", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_024", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "No finding of the District Court dealt with that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1542.419], "stop_times": [1550.472], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.419}, "reply_to": "15073__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__0_025", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "When it discussed this whole question of aggregation, it was discussing that problem because they functioned separately, the two elements, the paver and the generator exactly precisely in the same way whether they are put together or whether they were on the same (Inaudible) or whether they were on different mobile supports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1550.472], "stop_times": [1573.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.472}, "reply_to": "15073__0_024", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_026", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Well, the District Court found its patent invalid, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1573.039], "stop_times": [1576.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.039}, "reply_to": "15073__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__0_027", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes, it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1576.538], "stop_times": [1577.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.538}, "reply_to": "15073__0_026", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_028", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "And on the basis that there was no new function performed by any of these elements when in combination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1577.371], "stop_times": [1584.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.371}, "reply_to": "15073__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__0_029", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Though new function performed by a patentable combination.\nIt would be somewhat unfair to say that there was no new function in its entirety because it is true that no one else has used before a Schwank type heater to transmit radiant energy to it\u2026", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1584.57, 1588.43], "stop_times": [1588.43, 1599.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.57}, "reply_to": "15073__0_028", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_030", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "No, but the District Court held that each of the elements here performed its usual function -- precisely when in combination.\nWhen you put it together they still function as they always do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1599.629, 1608.89], "stop_times": [1608.89, 1611.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.629}, "reply_to": "15073__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__0_031", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "As they always have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1611.148], "stop_times": [1612.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1611.148}, "reply_to": "15073__0_030", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_032", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "And that is what the District Court held?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1612.152], "stop_times": [1613.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.152}, "reply_to": "15073__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__0_033", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That is what the District Court did hold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1613.706], "stop_times": [1616.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1613.706}, "reply_to": "15073__0_032", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_034", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Did the Court of Appeals tempt to set aside that finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1616.444], "stop_times": [1620.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.444}, "reply_to": "15073__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__0_035", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "It made no direct reference to that finding except to say that the District Court dealt with narrow issues.\nI was about to give the citation the Chief Justice asked for, for the case of the House of Lords 1935, namely, Celanese versus Courltaulds as that may be found a 52 RPC 171 particularly noting page 193.\nWe have laterally contented in this case that this suit could also be decided on the question of exhausted combination.\nA combination which has been prepped of all elements which have been previously patented may not be re-patented merely because one has improved one of the elements of that combination.\nAnd that may be exemplified by saying that if one improves a sparkplug or a carburetor, he is not entitled to reclaim the engine block and the steering apparatus and windshield wipers and the safety belts that go today to make up a combination which we know is an automobile.\nThe position that we take on this matter, we believe is amply supported by the decision in this court entitled Basic Manufacturing Code versus RM Hollingted which is cited at 298 U.S. 415.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1620.976, 1632.461, 1654.005, 1666.055, 1681.25, 1707.444], "stop_times": [1632.461, 1654.005, 1666.055, 1681.25, 1707.444, 1738.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1620.976}, "reply_to": "15073__0_034", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__0_036", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Mr. Blenko.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1738.286], "stop_times": [1740.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.286}, "reply_to": "15073__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_000", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.\nI should like at once to answer the question Mr. Justice Blood around the court.\nMr. Justice Harlan Ray questioned whether the District Court had made findings?\nThere were no separate findings made by the District Court.\nThe only findings are such as appears in that court's opinion.\nMr. Justice White, you asked a question at the very end regarding findings by the District Court upon the co-actions of the several elements.\nAs I have said, there were no formal findings as such.\nI think that the language which should be noted in response to your question is that conclusion of the opinion of the Trial Court.\nThat is on page 26 A of the printed appendix.\nThe last paragraph on that page contains, I think, the summarizing statement, \u201cIt is my opinion that plaintiff's combination in no way exceeds the sum of its parts.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1740.874, 1744.564, 1751.334, 1756.414, 1760.389, 1766.503, 1778.475, 1782.101, 1791.117, 1796.92], "stop_times": [1744.564, 1751.334, 1756.414, 1760.389, 1766.503, 1778.475, 1782.101, 1791.117, 1796.92, 1814.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.874}, "reply_to": "15073__0_036", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_001", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "What you say 22 A?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1814.51], "stop_times": [1815.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.51}, "reply_to": "15073__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__1_002", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "26 A, Mr. Justice, the last paragraph commencing about eight lines from the bottom of the page.\nMy point that I want to make is that it is avowedly stated as an opinion of the trial judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1815.816, 1829.954], "stop_times": [1829.954, 1840.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.816}, "reply_to": "15073__1_001", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_003", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1840.563], "stop_times": [1843.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.563}, "reply_to": "15073__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__1_004", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I want to carry a little bit further if I may because the evidence which we pointed to in the Court of Appeals and which we point to here is in our submission undisputed and is the other way.\nAnd that the opinion expressed by the trial judge, we think, simply does not find any support in the evidence which was before you.\nI want to develop that a little bit further, I think, if I deal with the facts I can then come back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1843.199, 1859.25, 1871.761], "stop_times": [1859.25, 1871.761, 1878.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.199}, "reply_to": "15073__1_003", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_005", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "(Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1878.669], "stop_times": [1885.096], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.669}, "reply_to": "15073__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__1_006", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I think it is a matter which is fact.\nI think, necessarily I must be based on the evidence.\nI do not think that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1885.096, 1888.97, 1892.863], "stop_times": [1888.97, 1892.863, 1894.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.096}, "reply_to": "15073__1_005", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_007", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Is there erroneous standard in the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1894.28], "stop_times": [1897.599], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.28}, "reply_to": "15073__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__1_008", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I think it is Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1897.599], "stop_times": [1899.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.599}, "reply_to": "15073__1_007", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_009", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Did the Court of Appeals find this State (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1899.067], "stop_times": [1902.604], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.067}, "reply_to": "15073__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__1_010", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Not referring to this language as such.\nI think it is implicit and tacit and straightforward within the opinion of the Court of Appeals.\nJudges Haynswort and Sobeloff dealt with this and opinion by Judge Haynswort and made birth plate player with the evidence shows.\nI would like to develop that evidence with you a little bit further as I go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1902.604, 1905.671, 1911.681, 1922.992], "stop_times": [1905.671, 1911.681, 1922.992, 1927.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.604}, "reply_to": "15073__1_009", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_011", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Good.\nPardon me.\nIt seems to me that last paragraph is not a finding but a conclusion of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1927.332, 1927.704, 1928.265], "stop_times": [1927.704, 1928.265, 1937.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.332}, "reply_to": "15073__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15073__1_012", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "We are into this area, Your Honor, where it has been debated back and forth whether these are finding or conclusions.\nI think, with all respect, this probably is properly a finding of fact.\nIn this case, I do not think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1937.192, 1944.895, 1952.078], "stop_times": [1944.895, 1952.078, 1953.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.192}, "reply_to": "15073__1_011", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_013", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "But finding it is invalid.\nThat is not a finding of any facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1953.961, 1957.077], "stop_times": [1957.077, 1959.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.961}, "reply_to": "15073__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__1_014", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1959.277], "stop_times": [1959.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.277}, "reply_to": "15073__1_013", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_015", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "But underlying the conclusion, it is invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1959.658], "stop_times": [1962.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.658}, "reply_to": "15073__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__1_016", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nInvalidity is plainly a legal conclusion.\nObviousness is a factual matter to be determined on the evidence in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1962.574, 1963.073, 1967.644], "stop_times": [1963.073, 1967.644, 1975.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.574}, "reply_to": "15073__1_015", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_017", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Well, are the blank of the sentences which follow at 315 sentences?\nIt is my opinion that each element in combination performs in the same manner except that all the plaintiff has done is stop the four elements known as (Inaudible).\nAre they not findings in fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1975.989, 1981.961, 1993.925], "stop_times": [1981.961, 1993.925, 1995.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.989}, "reply_to": "15073__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__1_018", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I think that much constitutes of finding a fact.\nAnd I would say, Your Honor, is clearly erroneous that there is absolutely no evidence in this record to sustain either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [1995.825, 1998.882], "stop_times": [1998.882, 2010.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.825}, "reply_to": "15073__1_017", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_019", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "As you get into this discussion of the evidence in your own time, Mr. Blenko, the statement in Judge Pavens dissenting opinion which is the specific aspect of what you just been discussing in which was the subject of Justice Harlan's question right in the right first paragraph.\nHe says, \u201cNor has it demonstrated to my satisfaction that the combination on one chassis of the paving machine and heat generator is necessary to produce the desired result.\nThat is the combination on one body in set of wheels.\nYet the combination is held patentable.\nAlthough, for all we know, the same desired result may be achieved by two machines juxtaposed and separately propelled.\u201d\nThat is I say is one specific aspect rather dramatically I would suppose presenting the issue as to whether or not this combination is simply the known expectable result of the combination of all ingredients or whether it is one in which the result exceeds the sum of its parts.\nAnd would like to know what the evidence shows on that particular aspect if can might as know if sure can means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2010.671, 2031.44, 2043.935, 2047.588, 2049.844, 2060.029, 2082.306], "stop_times": [2031.44, 2043.935, 2047.588, 2049.844, 2060.029, 2082.306, 2090.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.671}, "reply_to": "15073__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_020", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes.\nI think I will say it once.\nI do not believe there is any explicit evidence upon that point.\nI believe that the proposition which Judge Craven brought forward here was one which was in effect how far can you nudge towards or weigh from the scope of the claim and still have an infringement.\nI think it is one of these imperfect infringements if you will.\nIt is not a question which fairly arises upon this record because that was not the fact which was before the court.\nBut I think that it is the old story when you define an invention in claim language there is always a temptation.\nParticularly, if one is discussing the scope of the claim as distinguished from the practical working world to say, well, if you do this and slightly bend the edges will you infringe?\nI feel that this is the sort of thing that is.\nBut there is no evidence which directly bears upon it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2090.848, 2091.378, 2092.819, 2097.5, 2113.221, 2117.348, 2123.542, 2132.079, 2143.409, 2146.072], "stop_times": [2091.378, 2092.819, 2097.5, 2113.221, 2117.348, 2123.542, 2132.079, 2143.409, 2146.072, 2149.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.848}, "reply_to": "15073__1_019", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_021", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "One way or the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2149.282], "stop_times": [2150.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.282}, "reply_to": "15073__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_022", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "One way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2150.217], "stop_times": [2152.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.217}, "reply_to": "15073__1_021", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_023", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Mr. Blenko, you said in response to question to Mr. Justice Brennan that the second sentence in the final paragraph on page 26A is essentially a finding of fact even though I am not cast in the farm language.\nAnd then you said there is no evidence to support that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2152.373, 2174.193], "stop_times": [2174.193, 2177.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.373}, "reply_to": "15073__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_024", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2177.766], "stop_times": [2179.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.766}, "reply_to": "15073__1_023", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_025", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "And, now, I take it you mean that no one picked out each of the parts that were dealt with in that sentence and said you gave a testimony to the contrary.\nBut may not a trial of fact look at the record as a whole and viewing the record as a whole and synthesizing all the testimony make findings even though no one has no particular witness as addressed himself to each of the parts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2179.6, 2192.386], "stop_times": [2192.386, 2214.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.6}, "reply_to": "15073__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_026", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I think he certainly may do that.\nI think that in doing so it is always open to review.\nWe submit that upon the whole record that this statement simply is not supportable that the contrary is affirmatively shown.\nThe contrary is an agreed fact and is admitted by the defendant's witnesses and by the real defendant who is not the named party.\nWho proclaimed that in the trade their position in the courtroom here is directly opposite to everything they say to the words and the art.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2214.49, 2216.514, 2221.649, 2233.287, 2244.93], "stop_times": [2216.514, 2221.649, 2233.287, 2244.93, 2255.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.49}, "reply_to": "15073__1_025", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_027", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "When you say they proclaimed it to the trade, do you mean in there advertising material and that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2255.572], "stop_times": [2260.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.572}, "reply_to": "15073__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_028", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2260.402], "stop_times": [2262.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.402}, "reply_to": "15073__1_027", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_029", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Do you think the court can rely on that as evidence of the fact, this context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2262.591], "stop_times": [2273.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.591}, "reply_to": "15073__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_030", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "The material is in the record.\nI point, primarily, to the last page of the appendix volume where Era Oil, who is the rail defendant, stated in this context, \u201cThis remarkable new development is a dramatic breakthrough in asphalt highway and road maintenance.\nInfrared heat is not new but the application is revolutionary.\u201d\nWe agree to that.\nLet me just answer this.\nI am sorry.\nEra Oil as vice president appears witness at the trial.\nHe acknowledged that these were the applications of Era Oil.\nI asked him, did he wish it to be understood that they were misrepresenting the fact to the public?\nHe said, \u201cCertainly not.\u201d\nI think that is good evidence.\nMr. Justice White, I am sorry.\nI brought (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2273.968, 2277.723, 2300.194, 2305.297, 2307.443, 2308.988, 2313.628, 2317.977, 2324.378, 2329.652, 2332.471, 2334.437, 2336.054], "stop_times": [2277.723, 2300.194, 2305.297, 2307.443, 2308.988, 2313.628, 2317.977, 2324.378, 2329.652, 2332.471, 2334.437, 2336.054, 2340.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.968}, "reply_to": "15073__1_029", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_031", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Does the court feels in fact say even if there cutting new these two elements and even if the combination of the former (Inaudible) nevertheless there is patentability here?\nBecause whatever the thought of putting these together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2340.683, 2356.898], "stop_times": [2356.898, 2360.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.683}, "reply_to": "15073__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__1_032", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "In our submission, the Court of Appeals did not say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2360.05], "stop_times": [2363.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2360.05}, "reply_to": "15073__1_031", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_033", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "What did they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2363.343], "stop_times": [2364.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.343}, "reply_to": "15073__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15073__1_034", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I think then it would plainly be wrong.\nBut I do not think that is the case which arises upon this record.\nLet me see if I can develop that a little bit.\nFirst of all, there are several matters here which I think are beyond dispute if you look at the record as distinguished from arguments and contentions of counsel.\nFirst of all, Neville did create a new combination of elements.\nYou can look through the entire record and you will not find Neville's combination any place in the prior art.\nI think that the most (Inaudible) comment upon that was again in the testimony of Mr. Quail.\nHe was Era Oil's Vice President.\nAnd at pages 40, 41, 42 A in the printed appendix, I asked him where he found the elements of the Neville patent.\nAnd he said, \u201cYou have to look at all the prior art to find it.\u201d\nThose were some eight pieces of prior art in number.\nSo, he had to look at eight of them in order to find the Neville patent.\nSo, we say on that basis and upon a review of the element of the prior art individually that this was a new combination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2364.764, 2368.315, 2372.306, 2375.373, 2384.311, 2390.729, 2398.191, 2407.749, 2410.57, 2419.726, 2424.272, 2427.361, 2433.167], "stop_times": [2368.315, 2372.306, 2375.373, 2384.311, 2390.729, 2398.191, 2407.749, 2410.57, 2419.726, 2424.272, 2427.361, 2433.167, 2443.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.764}, "reply_to": "15073__1_033", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_035", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "What was that last page reference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2443.024], "stop_times": [2444.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.024}, "reply_to": "15073__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_036", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes, 40 A through 42 A, Your Honor, the last question and answer at the top 42A.\nNow, the second point that I want to develop is that this combination was not an obvious one.\nNowhere in the record will you find any testimony by people skilled in this art showing that it was obvious or stating it was obvious to them.\nThe evidence is just the contrary.\nWe brought in two witnesses.\nOne of these men had been Director of Research for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways.\nThe inventor came to him.\nAnd in effect, he said, \u201cIt would not work.\u201d\nAnd eased him out of his office.\nThe second was a civilian employee of the Air Force.\nA man greatly concerned with asphalt paving.\nAnd he was interested in it.\nAnd he spoke with very real embarrassment which I think will show upon the record and said, he showed it to me and I did not believe it would work.\nI had to ask somebody else that I could rely on who had seen it work to tell me.\nThat I got interested.\nThere is testimony here as to the result.\nThere was a test job done at Anderson Air Force Base.\nIt is the subject of testimony.\nIt showed a complete difference between the combination of the patented suit and what had been done before that time.\nNow, this brings me to what is the essential point and that is the elimination of the cold joint.\nThis arises when you lay two lanes of asphalt bituminous black top, whatever you would like to call it.\nIt's the sort off thing, we see on the ordinary highway.\nWhen you lay them side by side, you almost in variably lay one lane and then bring another lane and it alongside later.\nInventor was an individual.\nHe was one of these men at the patent system.\nI think, may be said, designed to encourage and protect.\nHe was not a part of any organization.\nHe concede that if you put on a radiant energy at the joint area as you lay the second, a budding course, that then he would eliminate this cold joint where you never had a really good matching or marriage, as they call it, between the two mats which have been laid down.\nAnd he went around established people and he tried to make his point with them and got nowhere.\nHe finally got backing from a layman who did not know much about it either but who sold.\nAnd they went to work.\nAnd they have now managed to bring the system forward and show that this is a real and a workable scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2444.581, 2461.937, 2476.687, 2488.102, 2491.704, 2494.665, 2501.189, 2504.759, 2507.359, 2510.824, 2514.798, 2520.21, 2521.893, 2531.166, 2535.998, 2539.182, 2543.639, 2546.873, 2549.475, 2559.911, 2566.784, 2576.995, 2579.882, 2589.831, 2591.704, 2593.937, 2597.786, 2600.671, 2624.385, 2631.736, 2637.419, 2638.977], "stop_times": [2461.937, 2476.687, 2488.102, 2491.704, 2494.665, 2501.189, 2504.759, 2507.359, 2510.824, 2514.798, 2520.21, 2521.893, 2531.166, 2535.998, 2539.182, 2543.639, 2546.873, 2549.475, 2559.911, 2566.784, 2576.995, 2579.882, 2589.831, 2591.704, 2593.937, 2597.786, 2600.671, 2624.385, 2631.736, 2637.419, 2638.977, 2651.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.581}, "reply_to": "15073__1_035", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_037", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "In that sin, applying the radiant energy at the time you put the places together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2651.344], "stop_times": [2657.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.344}, "reply_to": "15073__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__1_038", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2657.014], "stop_times": [2658.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.014}, "reply_to": "15073__1_037", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_039", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That is what you consider to be the new discovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2658.588], "stop_times": [2663.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.588}, "reply_to": "15073__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__1_040", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes.\nI want to go a little bit further than that.\nWe have all spoken here in the courtroom in very generalized terms of course.\nBut I want to take that a little bit further if I may?\nThe claim which is printed and I would not try to deal with it orally is lengthy, specific and detailed.\nIt is in reality a narrow claim.\nAnd if you go through it, you will find many, many limitations and requirements.\nEach of which must be met in order to infringe.\nIt is not a broad claim at all.\nNow, the point I make from that is this.\nIf this claim is so narrow, it certainly is an easy thing to avoid infringement by changing the few of these details.\nAnd you can make so much more radical changes than trying to mount these on two separate chassis.\nYou can still stay on one chassis but you can certainly avoid infringement very easily.\nThey do not do it.\nAnd the reason is, of course, that there is no alternative.\nThis is the essential scheme which we think demonstrates eventually.\nNow, speaking again very broadly without going in to these details of the claimed language.\nThere are three elements which we have talked about for convenience.\nThese are the asphalt or bituminous spreader and then the screed element which shapes it and you also have the radiant energy generator which bears upon the previously laid lane and which makes it receptive for the asphalt which is being laid alongside.\nSo as the machine goes down the highway, you have the one side a previously laid lane of asphalt, the paver is running beside that.\nThe radiant energy generator is directing the radiant energy on to the existing lane of asphalt and then a new lane of asphalt is laid alongside.\nAnd because you do have the radiant energy, you get your marriage of the two lanes and you avoid this cold joint and everything that that entails, the problems that arise with matters at court and the testimony in the printed appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2663.637, 2663.931, 2665.888, 2671.02, 2674.014, 2683.731, 2687.082, 2691.3, 2696.224, 2699.379, 2703.585, 2714.419, 2720.979, 2725.798, 2727.981, 2731.412, 2750.426, 2756.75, 2762.164, 2784.685, 2795.766, 2806.317], "stop_times": [2663.931, 2665.888, 2671.02, 2674.014, 2683.731, 2687.082, 2691.3, 2696.224, 2699.379, 2703.585, 2714.419, 2720.979, 2725.798, 2727.981, 2731.412, 2750.426, 2756.75, 2762.164, 2784.685, 2795.766, 2806.317, 2821.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.637}, "reply_to": "15073__1_039", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_041", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "How long has radiant energy has been used for this purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2821.346], "stop_times": [2825.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.346}, "reply_to": "15073__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15073__1_042", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "For this purpose, Mr. Justice Black, it never was used before this inventor's time.\nOther people had talked radiant energy.\nThey had had thoughts and they had had ideas.\nI would be the last one to suggest that people had not tried all sorts of things.\nThis inventor was not coming in to a field that was wide open to him.\nThis inventor was coming in to solve a problem that had existed in the field for many, many years.\nPeople had used all sorts of earlier schemes and they had been unsuccessful by and large.\nReference has been made here to the Morcom patent.\nAnd I want to say at once that you will find really little about it in the record because Morcom was really not the thrust and the defense in the trial court.\nIt came along for the ride.\nThe primary reference has simply been abandoned at this point.\nSo, you would not find very much testimony on Morcom.\nThe testimony that is there is that it would not work.\nAnd it would not work because it different from what is claimed in the patent.\nYou will find in the patent claims, very specific requirements that this radiant energy generator have perforations or (Inaudible) that a combustible gas be delivered through these and be combustant adjacent surface and a number of other things.\nMorcom lacks all of that.\nAnd Morcom would not work as a result.\nThey could use Morcom, if they wanted to but they do not want to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2825.52, 2831.645, 2836.376, 2839.811, 2844.475, 2849.839, 2855.668, 2863.693, 2867.572, 2877.701, 2880.035, 2883.0, 2886.705, 2890.603, 2897.023, 2914.143, 2916.157, 2918.703], "stop_times": [2831.645, 2836.376, 2839.811, 2844.475, 2849.839, 2855.668, 2863.693, 2867.572, 2877.701, 2880.035, 2883.0, 2886.705, 2890.603, 2897.023, 2914.143, 2916.157, 2918.703, 2923.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.52}, "reply_to": "15073__1_041", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_043", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Was part of the problem until this came along, the unavailability of the right kind of combustible gas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2923.671], "stop_times": [2933.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.671}, "reply_to": "15073__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_044", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "There is no evidence to that effect, Your Honor.\nAnd I think not.\nCertainly these bottled gases have been around for nearly 30 years to my own personal recollection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2933.927, 2936.906, 2938.615], "stop_times": [2936.906, 2938.615, 2947.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.927}, "reply_to": "15073__1_043", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_045", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "What is the date to this patent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2947.026], "stop_times": [2948.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.026}, "reply_to": "15073__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_046", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Application was 1952, if my memory is correct.\nI am sorry, 1959.\nIt is of course several years later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2948.718, 2955.823, 2962.344], "stop_times": [2955.823, 2962.344, 2967.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.718}, "reply_to": "15073__1_045", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_047", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "If I can be sure, I understand your legal position, Mr. Blenko.\nAs I understand it, you told us that first of all that this was a combination, not an aggregation.\nAnd you told us that it was a new combination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2967.867, 2972.209, 2980.684], "stop_times": [2972.209, 2980.684, 2983.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.867}, "reply_to": "15073__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_048", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2983.126], "stop_times": [2984.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.126}, "reply_to": "15073__1_047", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_049", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "But that, as I understand it, does not mean that that is necessarily patentable so far.\nThose are just the first two steps in the combination patent, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2984.453, 2991.244], "stop_times": [2991.244, 2995.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.453}, "reply_to": "15073__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_050", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That is part of it, yes.\nThere is one more step as I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2995.883, 2996.767], "stop_times": [2996.767, 2997.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.883}, "reply_to": "15073__1_049", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_051", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "There is one more step.\nAnd you say that it was not obvious.\nAnd for that statements, you rely on testimony of the people who said they did not think it would work.\nThey were skeptical about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [2997.71, 2999.265, 3005.269, 3010.737], "stop_times": [2999.265, 3005.269, 3010.737, 3013.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.71}, "reply_to": "15073__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_052", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "And lack of any countervailing testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3013.395], "stop_times": [3016.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.395}, "reply_to": "15073__1_051", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_053", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Down the absence of any countervailing testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3016.44], "stop_times": [3017.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.44}, "reply_to": "15073__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_054", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3017.451], "stop_times": [3018.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3017.451}, "reply_to": "15073__1_053", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_055", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Is that enough in your view to mean that it is patentable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3018.361], "stop_times": [3024.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.361}, "reply_to": "15073__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_056", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nI think that that does carry the burden for us.\nI would like if I may simply to restate that back in my own terms.\nI think it essentially is what you say.\nThere are three Sections of the statute to which we look in these matters.\nThese have been discussed most recently by these courts in Graham against John Deer and United States against Adams.\nThose are Sections 101, 102 and 103.\nI may be presumed to state my understanding of it, it would be this.\nThat Section 1 requires that there be an invention in fact.\nI think the defensive aggregation really is statutory and is a Section 101 defense.\nIn short, you must show that you have some elements brought together which do co-act the invention in a patentable or legal sense.\nIt is not enough to claim a table and a chair.\nThe mere fact that you claim two things does not mean that you have any combination or legal convention.\nSo, I say that as a Section 101 defense.\nSection 102 defense is the defense lack of novelty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3024.81, 3025.766, 3028.777, 3033.61, 3037.151, 3041.42, 3048.296, 3052.397, 3056.908, 3063.184, 3070.083, 3082.821, 3088.006, 3095.722, 3098.932], "stop_times": [3025.766, 3028.777, 3033.61, 3037.151, 3041.42, 3048.296, 3052.397, 3056.908, 3063.184, 3070.083, 3082.821, 3088.006, 3095.722, 3098.932, 3107.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.81}, "reply_to": "15073__1_055", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_057", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Lack of novelty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3107.506], "stop_times": [3109.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.506}, "reply_to": "15073__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15073__1_058", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "The problem is that no one has ever found an affirmative definition of invention.\nAnd I think that comes from its nature because it is always pushing into the unknown.\nAfter we know the invention, it is very easy to have 20/20 hindsight and see all about it.\nBut at the time the invention was made, when you are all reaching forward, it is a different matter.\nAnd so, we always end up putting this in a negative sense.\nNovelty is not present at default.\nIf it is disclosed in the exact convention, then you have Section 102 defense.\nAnd finally, you could get over 101 and 102; you have the Section 103 hurdle which was not an obvious invention to make.\nI think, in essence, this is a restating of the way you have.\nWell, I thought it would be helpful to restate it in my own language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3109.908, 3115.043, 3119.887, 3125.099, 3130.14, 3137.362, 3141.311, 3147.122, 3157.462, 3162.156], "stop_times": [3115.043, 3119.887, 3125.099, 3130.14, 3137.362, 3141.311, 3147.122, 3157.462, 3162.156, 3165.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.908}, "reply_to": "15073__1_057", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_059", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I take it you rely rather strongly on the testimony of the military engineer who dealt with laying asphalt pavement on Air Force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3165.546], "stop_times": [3174.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.546}, "reply_to": "15073__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_060", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I certainly rely upon his testimony.\nI also rely upon the testimony of Mr. Witkoski who was the former head of the research laboratory in the Pennsylvania Highway Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3174.019, 3176.455], "stop_times": [3176.455, 3185.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.019}, "reply_to": "15073__1_059", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_061", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "And you say that there is no testimony in this total record which disputes their statement that this was not obvious to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3185.57], "stop_times": [3194.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.57}, "reply_to": "15073__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__1_062", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "None whatsoever.\nI know of no such testimony at all any place in the record.\nI do know some other testimony which goes the other way and that testimony is that the defendant is a equipment foreman, and even at the time of the trial, he said, \u201cI am not quite sure why we do this but we do it.\u201d\nNow, here is the man who is actually out in the field who I think is the skilled worker in the art. even then he had not been able to see it.\nI think that shows a complete lack of obviousness.\nNow, I want to say one word very briefly about the cases which have been referred to here by the petitioner.\nThey have referred primarily to Lincoln Engineering against Stewart Warner.\nI think all of the other cases which they have cited are of the same strife and they all stand or fall for the same proposition.\nI think that Lincoln Engineering against Stewart Warner is entirely in accord, Graham against John Deer, United States versus Adams and the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case.\nIn short, I think the decisions in the patent field are about as consistent as the decisions you will find in any body of law.\nI do not think they are inconsistent at all.\nThe problem arises on the application of the law out of the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3194.555, 3197.742, 3203.859, 3217.54, 3225.426, 3230.775, 3237.986, 3244.099, 3253.761, 3266.797, 3275.169, 3277.122], "stop_times": [3197.742, 3203.859, 3217.54, 3225.426, 3230.775, 3237.986, 3244.099, 3253.761, 3266.797, 3275.169, 3277.122, 3281.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3194.555}, "reply_to": "15073__1_061", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_063", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Mr. Blenko, is this the first litigation about your patent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3281.465], "stop_times": [3290.101], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.465}, "reply_to": "15073__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__1_064", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Yes.\nThis is the only action on this patent, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3290.101, 3290.381], "stop_times": [3290.381, 3294.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3290.101}, "reply_to": "15073__1_063", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_065", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "(Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3294.159], "stop_times": [3298.938], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.159}, "reply_to": "15073__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15073__1_066", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "No, there have not been any formally made and some suggestions made but there has been nothing brought forward beyond that point.\nNow, I want to say this, that these cases I see at are all consistent.\nIn the Celanese Case which was cited by counsel at the argument is again entirely consistent as I heard him read it.\nAnd those stand as I see it for this proposition, if you have several elements, each independently hold, and if you bring them together and if they co-act to produce a new result -- In other words, if their co-action adds up to something more than their individual actions, then you have a patentable invention.\nThat was so in Lincoln Engineering against Stewart Warner where a number of the claims were held valid.\nAnd we think that that is properly so here for this reason that if you omit the radiant energy generator you will get the cold joint.\nIf you omit the spreader you would not have a pavement.\nIf you omit the shaper you would not have a pavement.\nYou must bring these three together and operate them together in order to get this new and admittedly beneficial result which is the elimination of the cold joint.\nNow, my difficulty as I understand it here is that the petitioner declines to deal with the overall result.\nIt is not answer to say these are not mechanically connected.\nOf course they are not mechanically connected.\nThey are acting at different places.\nBut when they act at different places and the process is finished, you have a new result brought about by this machine.\nThe difficulty, it seems to me, is one which was characterized by Mr. Justice Holmes, a good many years ago in a trademark case, I believe, of breaking the fagot, stick by stick.\nThey declined to look at the overall situation which exists here.\nWe think that when that overall situation is examined as we think that was properly done by Judges Haynswort and Sobeloff of Court of Appeals that the necessary result is that you have here a new beneficial combination, one which was not obvious.\nWe think that the District Judge and Judge Craven ignored the overall result and focused if you will on too narrow a point of view of looking at the individual elements and not looking at the overall combination and recognizing the new result.\nCordially, we ask that the judgment will all be affirmed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3298.938, 3310.03, 3315.848, 3326.061, 3350.04, 3359.242, 3372.543, 3376.683, 3380.211, 3391.51, 3402.3, 3405.73, 3407.665, 3410.146, 3420.122, 3435.021, 3440.027, 3461.979, 3484.601, 3488.745], "stop_times": [3310.03, 3315.848, 3326.061, 3350.04, 3359.242, 3372.543, 3376.683, 3380.211, 3391.51, 3402.3, 3405.73, 3407.665, 3410.146, 3420.122, 3435.021, 3440.027, 3461.979, 3484.601, 3488.745, 3491.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3298.938}, "reply_to": "15073__1_065", "speaker": "walter_j_blenko_jr"}
{"id": "15073__1_067", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Borst, you have two minutes left that is just about one flick before lunch hour.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3491.072, 3491.868], "stop_times": [3491.868, 3499.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3491.072}, "reply_to": "15073__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__2_000", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Petitioner refers to Era Oil's ads as extolling some part of this invention.\nWell, it is true at some part of this invention as claimed.\nEra Oil only makes the heater and so it hardly could be extolling the combination which is claimed, the heater plus the paver.\nBut there was testimony adduced on behalf of petitioner and behalf of its assertion that there was aggregation to hear.\nThat is that in the appendix on 38 A and to the trial transcript on page 113 through 114 at one point.\nI know that there is other testimony in record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3499.355, 3507.272, 3510.92, 3521.13, 3528.779, 3537.641], "stop_times": [3507.272, 3510.92, 3521.13, 3528.779, 3537.641, 3540.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3499.355}, "reply_to": "15073__1_067", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__2_001", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I noticed that there are three expert witnesses here who testified rather explicitly that this was not obvious to them.\nThey had very large credentials.\nDid you have any expert witness to testify who said that this was obvious in their minds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3540.573, 3549.769, 3552.252], "stop_times": [3549.769, 3552.252, 3561.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3540.573}, "reply_to": "15073__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__2_002", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "They testified that there was no invention here because they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3561.414], "stop_times": [3567.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3561.414}, "reply_to": "15073__2_001", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__2_003", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That is a conclusion of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3567.251], "stop_times": [3568.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3567.251}, "reply_to": "15073__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__2_004", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "That, of course, the conclusion.\nIt is right.\nBut their contention has been that the use of radiant energy is old and therefore the continued use of it should be permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3568.433, 3570.094, 3571.328], "stop_times": [3570.094, 3571.328, 3580.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3568.433}, "reply_to": "15073__2_003", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__2_005", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "Well, of course the use of radiant energy is used on football players and baseball players.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3580.16], "stop_times": [3584.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3580.16}, "reply_to": "15073__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15073__2_006", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I overstated.\nRadiant energy to form an asphaltic bond or joint between two abutting lanes of highway.\nThat is in the art.\nAnd whether or not has been used of course is not necessarily relevant to the question here if it is of a prior art.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3584.184, 3586.657, 3592.514, 3594.402], "stop_times": [3586.657, 3592.514, 3594.402, 3604.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3584.184}, "reply_to": "15073__2_005", "speaker": "alan_w_borst"}
{"id": "15073__2_007", "conversation_id": "15073", "text": "I think that is your time, Mr. Borst.\nThank you for your submission gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_45", "start_times": [3604.411, 3607.556, 3609.05], "stop_times": [3607.556, 3609.05, 3611.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3604.411}, "reply_to": "15073__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__0_000", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Number 57, Ashe against Swenson.\nMr. Clifford, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [0.0, 6.519], "stop_times": [6.519, 13.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__0_001", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI represent the petitioner in this case, Bob Fred Ashe, who as a result of the verdict of guilty was sentenced to a 35-year term in the Missouri State Penitentiary.\nThe case involves the construction of the basic theory of double jeopardy.\nIn this action, four men were charged with holding up a poker game and as a result of that, informations were returned, charging each of the four alleged robbers with six separate offenses because there were six men in the poker game, each was robbed.\nSo, each of the four defendants was charged with a separate offense.\nIn this instance Ashe, my client, was tried and acquitted at his first trial.\nHe then was tried a second time and that time he was convicted.\nThe facts of the case are of paramount importance.\nSo, the court will bear with me while I trace briefly what these facts are.\nIn this town, in the Northern Western portion of Missouri called Lee's Summit, was known from time to time a group gathered to play poker at the home of a man named Gladson and on this Saturday evening, there were six men playing.\nIt was a game in which bets were made as much as a hundred dollars.\nSo, from time to time there would be a good deal of money on the poker table.\nEarly that morning, it would be early Sunday morning on January 10, 1960, there was a disturbance at the door which led into the basement of Mr. Gladson's house where they were having the game.\nOne of the men got up, the door was pushed open in his face and three men entered, one of them with a shotgun and two of them with pistols.\nThey said, \u201cThis is a stickup.\u201d\nThey forced the six poker players over with their backs to the wall.\nThese men gathered up the bills and currency that were lying on the table.\nThey removed from the persons of the six pokers player their watches, any other valuables that they might have.\nWhen the case came to trial against my client Ashe, he was charged with armed robbery against one of the six poker players whose name was Knight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [13.333, 17.34, 34.552, 47.307, 77.343, 85.162, 96.21, 104.154, 108.694, 114.723, 135.676, 139.371, 144.933, 159.099, 168.972, 171.722, 176.453, 182.695, 193.219], "stop_times": [17.34, 34.552, 47.307, 77.343, 85.162, 96.21, 104.154, 108.694, 114.723, 135.676, 139.371, 144.933, 159.099, 168.972, 171.722, 176.453, 182.695, 193.219, 207.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.333}, "reply_to": "15037__0_000", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_002", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Mr. Clifford, I want to be sure I fully understand the facts, it is -- I think you said and did I understand it correctly that these men not only scooped up what was on the table, but also personally went into the pockets of each one of the players?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [207.222], "stop_times": [223.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.222}, "reply_to": "15037__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15037__0_003", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and I was going to give you more detail on that regard.\nI first stated the general proposition.\nThey forced the six men over with their back facing the wall with their backs to the room.\nThey took whatever cash and valuables there were on the table.\nThen, in each instance, they removed from the person of the six poker players, their watches, their rings, their billfolds, whatever they could find of value on the six men who were there.\nThe question is a curious one as to whether there were three or four of the alleged robbers who came in, but in any event, after they had performed this robbery, these men were tied up.\nTheir trousers were taken away from them in an effort perhaps to prevent pursuit and the robbers left.\nSo that just taking Ashe alone, the petitioner here, he had six informations filed against him, alleging these six offenses against the poker players.\nSo when the first trial came on, four of the poker players were called as witnesses among a number of other witnesses.\nThe fact is 15 witnesses were called by the state in this first trial against Ashe.\nGladson at whose house the game was held identified one of the robbers, a man named Brown because as the robbers came in they had hats on, they had bandanas around their face and were difficult to identify.\nBut in the course of the proceedings, Brown's bandanna fell down and Gladson identified him and knew him there in town.\nSo, he identified him but could not identify any of the others.\nKnight, the second witness at the first trial, said he'd heard that some people claim there were four men in the holdup, but he only recalled three and he couldn't identify any of the three.\nMcClendon, the third poker player said that he remembered only three men in the basement and he identified all three of them as Johnson, Larson and Brown.\nHe was asked about Ashe at this particular case and said, no, he couldn't remember seeing Ashe in the basement where they were having the game.\nRoberts, the fourth member of the game, did identify Ashe as one of the robbers, but in a curious manner.\nHe said, \u201cI didn't see his face that evening in the room where the poker game was held.\nI couldn't see his hands because these men all had gloves on and I really couldn't identify his voice, but Ashe was one of the robbers and he is sitting over there at the trial table when the case came to trial and that is Ashe and he was one of them.\u201d\nFrom there, the trial, the first trial went then to the question that the robbers escaped, stole one of the cars belonging to the poker players and escaped.\nEarly the next morning, witnesses saw this group and two or three witnesses saw the stolen car with three men in or around it, one lying on the ground next to it, two sitting on the other side.\nAnd the next morning, Sunday morning, maybe 8 o'clock or so, these three men were picked up, that's Johnson, Larson and Brown, those were the three that McClendon incidentally had recognized in the basement.\nThey were picked up by a Missouri Highway Patrolman.\nAshe was not with those three men.\nAlso, these three men picked up near the stolen car, all had money on them; ones, fives, tens, twenties, something that kind; the same kind of currency that had been used in the poker game.\nWhen the stolen car was found near which one witness had seen these three men, a shotgun was found some few steps behind the car, two pistols were found inside of the car.\nNow, sometime later, at a point removed from this location where these three men were found, Ashe was walking along the highway.\nAnd a separate state patrolman who was driving along, saw this man walking along the highway, stopped him and the word had gone out be on the lookout for this particular fellow.\nHe arrested him at the time, had him come over and stand with his hands against the automobile and searched him.\nAll Ashe had on at that time was a pair of pants and a white shirt and the officer said he had nothing in his pockets, he had no money of any kind.\nI mention it because the identification of Ashe was extraordinarily flimsy from the witnesses who were in the game.\nThe case against the other three who were supposedly implicated was quite strong because they were found with money on them.\nThey pretty well stayed together.\nThey'd been seen near the car and so forth.\nAshe was separate.\nAll at one might know, he might just have been walking down the highway and the policeman saw him.\nAfter the submission of the case to the jury, the defense did not put on any witnesses.\nThe jury went out and brought in a verdict of not guilty against Ashe.\nIncidentally and interestingly, the jury was given a verdict which said not guilty and they added to it not guilty due to insufficient evidence, they supplied that themselves.\nThe state tried the case on the theory that the four men were acting in concert and that all four took place in a robbery that involved all six poker players.\nNo effort was made to show that any particular defendant robbed any particular poker player Fact is there is some evidence exactly to the opposite when one witness said, \u201cI don't know which men of the four or three did what.\nWe were just all herded over there and we just saw them scooping up the money.\u201d\nSo there is no specific act on the part of any defendant alleged.\nIt is merely that four men acting in concert robbed each of the six men.\nSo that's why all four of the alleged robbers each had informations issued against them for all six poker players.\nNow, in the case, the first trial of Ashe, there was only one issue in the case.\nThe issue was, was Ashe one of the robbers who was in the basement that evening?\nThere is no doubt about what else took place.\nThere's no doubt that the poker game took place.\nThere's no doubt that some robbers came in with guns.\nThere is no doubt that a substantial amount of money, maybe as much as two thousand dollars or so was taken from the table.\nThere is no doubt that they lost personal property.\nAll of that is uncontroverted, went in, very little cross-examination, no contradiction.\nSo, we have those facts established without any doubt or question.\nThe one real question, however was, was Ashe one of the men?\nIt was slightly complicated by McClendon for instance saying, \u201cThere were only three men and they were Johnson, Larson and Brown and I didn't see Ashe.\u201d\nOther men said, \u201cWell, I don't know who there was.\u201d\nSo that whereby time the jury had to consider, a reading of the record shows they really had one issue submitted to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [223.262, 227.742, 232.963, 240.02, 244.382, 261.584, 278.438, 288.371, 305.95, 314.272, 321.591, 341.204, 349.45, 355.006, 371.865, 389.076, 400.45, 410.407, 418.309, 440.707, 453.411, 472.092, 487.198, 490.602, 494.683, 509.717, 524.515, 537.221, 552.672, 559.416, 570.2, 584.962, 594.676, 596.921, 599.647, 601.756, 609.591, 615.352, 621.267, 634.414, 650.279, 669.711, 673.866, 679.869, 686.041, 693.813, 701.651, 709.455, 713.201, 715.81, 719.669, 726.82, 730.044, 737.425, 743.383, 749.991, 760.571, 764.038], "stop_times": [227.742, 232.963, 240.02, 244.382, 261.584, 278.438, 288.371, 305.95, 314.272, 321.591, 341.204, 349.45, 355.006, 371.865, 389.076, 400.45, 410.407, 418.309, 440.707, 453.411, 472.092, 487.198, 490.602, 494.683, 509.717, 524.515, 537.221, 552.672, 559.416, 570.2, 584.962, 594.676, 596.921, 599.647, 601.756, 609.591, 615.352, 621.267, 634.414, 650.279, 669.711, 673.866, 679.869, 686.041, 693.813, 701.651, 709.455, 713.201, 715.81, 719.669, 726.82, 730.044, 737.425, 743.383, 749.991, 760.571, 764.038, 773.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.262}, "reply_to": "15037__0_002", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_004", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Was it the state's theory at all that four men were involved, but that only three came in to the basement and that the other was the driver of the get away car, or anything along those lines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [773.998], "stop_times": [785.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.998}, "reply_to": "15037__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15037__0_005", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It was not explained.\nThe state alleged that there were these four men and -- but the three came in all alone and then one came in afterwards, there was a good deal of confusion, but the state's charge was in effect, there were actually four robbers at some time or another in the basement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [785.217, 787.058], "stop_times": [787.058, 806.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.217}, "reply_to": "15037__0_004", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_006", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Is it not normal, usual, Mr. Clifford, in the situation where you have three people or four people robbing or committing some other crime against four, five or six that you have this kind of a confused picture?\nPeople are -- the identifications aren't always precise so the identification or the particular movements are not always precise, so this is not uncommon, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [806.544, 822.999], "stop_times": [822.999, 832.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.544}, "reply_to": "15037__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__0_007", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It is not uncommon.\nI'm sure that with the excitement of the moment, with these men coming in, the fact that they had their faces concealed, I think all of that is likely to create difficulty in identification, I accept that.\nHowever, the fact is that when the state brought its first case against Ashe, all of the facts of the game, all of the facts of the holdup, all of the facts of the loss by each of the six was all put into the case and the one real question the jury had to determine is, was Ashe one of the four men?\nThe jury concluded from the reading of the record, -- jury concluded after the case, I concluded also from the reading of the record that it would be very difficult to associate him with the case, the jury found him not guilty.\nThereafter, in the case -- the state proceeded on the second information against Ashe.\nThe first charged him with robbing Knight.\nAn identical information then was used as the basis of the second trial, it charged him with robbing a man named Roberts and the case came on for trial.\nNow, I submit to you as I read the appendix of the second trial, I found it a shocking experience.\nThe case had changed very considerably.\nGladson, who at the first trial had said, \u201cI could only identify Brown because his mask fell off\u201d now says, \u201cYes, Ashe was one of the robbery,\u201d just a flat categorical statement.\nHe was tied up with the fact that I -- \u201cWhen I saw the four men at the police station the next day, I could see those were the four and Ashe was one of them\u201d so he then changes his story.\nHe apparently knew more about what happened that night at the second trial than he knew after the first trial.\nKnight, who didn't know anybody at the first trial, maintained his same position.\nHe didn't know anybody at the second trial.\nMcClendon, the man who'd at the first trial had said there were only three men and they were Johnson, Larson and Brown was not called by the state the second time because he had been so positive about the identity of the three robbers which did not -- his identification did not include Ashe so he was not called by the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [832.112, 833.956, 849.072, 874.687, 890.214, 899.344, 904.511, 917.738, 929.793, 935.064, 947.948, 958.11, 965.295, 970.916, 973.904], "stop_times": [833.956, 849.072, 874.687, 890.214, 899.344, 904.511, 917.738, 929.793, 935.064, 947.948, 958.11, 965.295, 970.916, 973.904, 998.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.112}, "reply_to": "15037__0_006", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_008", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Was there any legal impediment to the defense calling him that you know of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [998.561], "stop_times": [1001.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.561}, "reply_to": "15037__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__0_009", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "There was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1001.744], "stop_times": [1003.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.744}, "reply_to": "15037__0_008", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_010", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "What was the interval between the two trials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1003.79], "stop_times": [1005.68], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.79}, "reply_to": "15037__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15037__0_011", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Six and a half weeks.\nRoberts, the fourth man, called again although still, having difficulty with the fact that the mask were on, he also flatly said that he identified Ashe.\nAnd he now, between the first and second trials, had concluded that he had identified him as a result of a -- of his voice which he had not done at the first trial.\nNow, in that case after this finding, the case went on and obviously, as you look through the record, you would see a process going on.\nWitness' stories are strengthened.\nThey pick up little details here that they testified to it the second trial which they didn't at the first trial, weak places are bolstered up, here is a perfect illustration.\nObviously, the prosecution was very concerned that when Ashe was picked up, he just had pair of trousers and a shirt on and had no money of any kind on him.\nSo, at the second trial, an effort was made to show that he did have some money on him, but they couldn't get around the first statement of the highway patrolman that he had searched Ashe and found nothing on him.\nSo, they put on a deputy sheriff who was at the jail in Jackson County and this it seems to me is really quite significant.\nI want to read just two or three questions and answers.\nHe said he had found some money on Ashe.\nWhere was the money?\nAnswer, \u201cIn his pocket.\nHe had some in his coat pocket, I think.\u201d\nQuestion; \u201cDid he have some in his shoe or sock?\u201d\n\u201cThat is a mistake I made.\nI got it all out of the pocket of his coat.\u201d\nWell, that's a little troublesome to the state because he never had a coat.\nThey found him at the very beginning with just pants and shirt and he'd never had a coat on.\nThen this, \u201cDidn't you tell me prior to this, you took it out of his shoe?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cNo, I said I made him take his shoes and socks off.\nThat was a misunderstanding because I have heard it four or five times.\u201d\nSometime between the first trial and the second trial, this particular witness had had suggested to him four or five times that he had found some money in Ashe's shoe between his sock and his shoe because there was no evidence of any kind about any money in his shoe in the first one.\nAnd to compound what I believe is the gross injustice here, although, this witness's name is Autoray, the deputy sheriff who took his shoes and socks off, had testified at the first trial and said nothing about finding any money in his shoe and sock at the first trial.\nThe prosecutor at the second trial was very anxious to get this deputy sheriff to say that and when he wouldn't say it, then the deputy sheriff claimed surprise and asked leave to cross-examine him as a hostile witness although he had testified six weeks before at another first trial and never mentioned about the money in the shoe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1005.68, 1009.862, 1022.053, 1034.145, 1055.953, 1058.712, 1067.647, 1080.094, 1096.914, 1108.119, 1112.607, 1117.473, 1118.674, 1120.531, 1123.759, 1126.956, 1128.483, 1131.71, 1135.777, 1140.95, 1145.214, 1149.939, 1155.97, 1177.717, 1200.154], "stop_times": [1009.862, 1022.053, 1034.145, 1055.953, 1058.712, 1067.647, 1080.094, 1096.914, 1108.119, 1112.607, 1117.473, 1118.674, 1120.531, 1123.759, 1126.956, 1128.483, 1131.71, 1135.777, 1140.95, 1145.214, 1149.939, 1155.97, 1177.717, 1200.154, 1222.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.68}, "reply_to": "15037__0_010", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_012", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "How was he impeached with these inconsistencies --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1222.31], "stop_times": [1224.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.31}, "reply_to": "15037__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__0_013", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, and the court permitted him to do it and eight pages in this appendix is devoted to the prosecuting attorney trying to get this deputy sheriff to say that he'd found the money in his shoe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1224.541], "stop_times": [1237.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.541}, "reply_to": "15037__0_012", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_014", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "But then the jury had all of this picture before it and resolved these conflicts, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1237.666], "stop_times": [1243.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.666}, "reply_to": "15037__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__0_015", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, fine.\nWhat I'm -- they did Your Honor and the second time, they said, they brought in the verdict of guilty and it was under that guilty finding that he was sentenced to serve the term in the penitentiary.\nNow, the point is that it is our contention in behalf of Ashe that the substance, the thrust of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is carried over into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nAnd it is our contention that after he was acquitted of the first charge, when there was only one real issue and that is \u201cWas Ashe there,\u201d that that then became the finding of the jury and he should not have been tried again on that issue, that is the contention that we make.\nNow, in this regard, when our brief was filed, there was a federal rule regarding the application of double jeopardy and a state rule.\nIt was perhaps best stated by the decision in State versus Palko, Justice Cardozo, it seems to me.\nNo, alright, State versus Palko where it was alleged and held that there was one rule for federal cases and one rule for state cases and in the state case a very watered down requirement was leveled against the state.\nI think it was Judge Cardo -- Justice Cardozo in the Palko case who said, \u201cWe will not disturb a second finding of guilty in a state case unless the hardship is so shocking and acute as to be unendurable.\u201d\nThat is the substantial language in -- and the Palko decision was followed for quite a long time.\nNow, that was changed, but I'll get to that.\nWe contend that in even in this instance, when there is but one issue in a case and the state has full opportunity to present its case and the one clear issue is decided in favor of the defendant in that case, that he should not be tried again for the charge for which the jury has obviously found one positive result.\nSo, we say that even if Palko were the law today, with this watered down requirement, I believe that this case still would come under the rule enunciated in Palko, but, the Palko case is no longer controlling in this regard because of the case of Benton versus Maryland in which Justice Marshall wrote the opinion just June of this year.\nAnd in that opinion, this Court said that the double jeopardy concept, the double jeopardy theory, the core of the concept of double jeopardy applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.\nSo, one cannot read the Benton versus Maryland without coming to the conclusion that now this Court has stated there are no longer two rules, one for state cases and one for federal cases.\nThere is just one rule now and that is for the federal rule because as the opinion of Judge Marshall said that the basic protection of double jeopardy is so thoroughly ingrained in our law that it was present even at the common law before it was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.\nAnd, therefore, that you cannot permit an individual when his constitutional rights are being grossly affected as I believe this defendant's were, to have a court say, \u201cWell, we'll apply one rule to that man on the double jeopardy question and another rule if his case was in a federal court.\u201d\nI see that I have at five minutes left and I would like to use the five minutes after my colleague has argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1243.988, 1245.459, 1259.327, 1282.475, 1307.021, 1320.596, 1330.966, 1355.722, 1375.196, 1382.114, 1385.772, 1416.721, 1445.211, 1463.049, 1478.617, 1503.559, 1524.533], "stop_times": [1245.459, 1259.327, 1282.475, 1307.021, 1320.596, 1330.966, 1355.722, 1375.196, 1382.114, 1385.772, 1416.721, 1445.211, 1463.049, 1478.617, 1503.559, 1524.533, 1534.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1243.988}, "reply_to": "15037__0_014", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__0_016", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Thank you Mr. Clifford.\nMr. Voigts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1534.205, 1538.564], "stop_times": [1538.564, 1551.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.205}, "reply_to": "15037__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__1_000", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWhile we agree with the facts as have been related by Mr. Clifford in detail, the sequence of events that transpired in the Circuit Court of Jackson County back in 1960 and the facts that were introduced adduced in evidence at the time of the two trials, we of course, disagree with the conclusion that he withdraw from those facts.\nWe believe, of course, that the general issue involved in this case is whether or not the state may try a defendant for a charge of robbery, if the defendant has previously been acquitted on a charge of robbery involving a different victim and different property even though the two charges of robbery arose out of essentially the same transaction and the same point in time.\nIt is our belief and our contention that the state may do so and we suggest that the state may do so, first because the second trial based upon a second separate and distinct offense did not amount to fundamental unfairness.\nSecondly, we suggest that the constitutional prohibition against placing a person twice in jeopardy for the same offense is precisely that, that the test is the identity of the offense rather than the test being the same transaction.\nThird, we suggest that the principle of collateral estoppel is not applicable upon the facts presented in this case and finally, that even if this Court should conclude that the principle of collateral estoppel applies to the fact of this case, that it is not required by the constitution either under the double jeopardy provision or as a part of the Due Process Clause.\nWe believe that these issues based upon the questions presented in this case must be resolved in favor of the state.\nIf I may then, I would like to direct my attention first to the question as to whether or not the constitutional prohibition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1551.832, 1556.124, 1580.621, 1612.264, 1635.173, 1657.831, 1687.248, 1697.406], "stop_times": [1556.124, 1580.621, 1612.264, 1635.173, 1657.831, 1687.248, 1697.406, 1705.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1551.832}, "reply_to": "15037__0_016", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_001", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "On the questions of the facts I'm a little worried.\nWas the state's position that Ashe took money out of both of these men's pockets?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1705.404, 1710.307], "stop_times": [1710.307, 1720.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.404}, "reply_to": "15037__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_002", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Your Honor, I think as Mr. Clifford previously indicated, at both of the trials, it was not clear and there was not any clear cut identification as to which one of the four robbers took the money out of, shall we say Mr. Knight's pocket, who was the robbery victim in the first trial or Mr. Roberts' pocket in the second trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1720.622], "stop_times": [1744.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.622}, "reply_to": "15037__1_001", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_003", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, is it the state's position that Ashe could be charged with robbing all six?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1744.481], "stop_times": [1752.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.481}, "reply_to": "15037__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_004", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "He was in fact charged with robbing all six Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1752.157], "stop_times": [1755.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.157}, "reply_to": "15037__1_003", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_005", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, isn't that contrary to all the evidence?\nThe evidence says that the four passed around the six, so one man didn't do it all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1755.167, 1758.485], "stop_times": [1758.485, 1765.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.167}, "reply_to": "15037__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_006", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "That is right, Your Honor.\nThe instruct --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1765.396, 1766.718], "stop_times": [1766.718, 1766.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.396}, "reply_to": "15037__1_005", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_007", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "But you think you could charge him with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1766.825], "stop_times": [1769.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1766.825}, "reply_to": "15037__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_008", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "He was so charged and the instructions to the jury -- instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty if they found that he did these certain specified elements either acting alone or knowingly acting in concert with the others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1769.463], "stop_times": [1785.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.463}, "reply_to": "15037__1_007", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_009", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Rob all six of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1785.833], "stop_times": [1787.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.833}, "reply_to": "15037__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_010", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1787.17], "stop_times": [1790.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.17}, "reply_to": "15037__1_009", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_011", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "So he could be convicted six times?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1790.298], "stop_times": [1794.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.298}, "reply_to": "15037__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_012", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It is possible.\nI do not believe that to sustain the state's position in this case Your Honor that I need to necessarily go to that extension.\nI think that my position has to simply be that by virtue of his acquittal on the first trial, in fact did not constitutionally preclude the state from trying him the second time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1794.874, 1795.84, 1804.342], "stop_times": [1795.84, 1804.342, 1818.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.874}, "reply_to": "15037__1_011", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_013", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "And third?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1818.175], "stop_times": [1820.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.175}, "reply_to": "15037__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_014", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Of course, obviously, I believe that there's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1820.171], "stop_times": [1822.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.171}, "reply_to": "15037__1_013", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_015", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, are the information still outstanding for the others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1822.071], "stop_times": [1826.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.071}, "reply_to": "15037__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_016", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Your Honor, I do not know.\nIt does indicate in the record that there were six informations filed, that he was tried in May of 1960 on the first information, acquitted.\nHe was tried on the second information in June and was convicted.\nThere is no indication as to what has happened as to the status of the four remaining (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1826.479, 1827.778, 1837.059, 1841.779], "stop_times": [1827.778, 1837.059, 1841.779, 1846.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.479}, "reply_to": "15037__1_015", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_017", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "So the four might still be sitting there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1846.353], "stop_times": [1849.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.353}, "reply_to": "15037__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_018", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, of course.\nI am sure that there are problems, should there ever be any attempt by the state to prosecute on those because of the lapse of time that has been involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1849.008, 1849.542], "stop_times": [1849.542, 1858.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.008}, "reply_to": "15037__1_017", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_019", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "You never -- pretty good speedy trial defense claim, wouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1858.308], "stop_times": [1862.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.308}, "reply_to": "15037__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__1_020", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I should think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1862.448], "stop_times": [1867.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.448}, "reply_to": "15037__1_019", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_021", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "In the trial where he was acquitted, did he plead an alibi?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1867.629], "stop_times": [1872.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.629}, "reply_to": "15037__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_022", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere was no evidence introduced by the defendant whatsoever in either the first trial or the second trial.\nInterestingly enough and purely as in the side, the counsel for the defendant at the first trial even waived to closing argument to the jury.\nIt was simply the state's evidence, the first part of the state's final argument, the jury retired to deliberate and it then of course returned a verdict of not guilty.\nIt if -- Mr. Clifford has indicated, had written on it due to insufficient evidence, we submit this as really not relevant or important.\nWe believe that would have been applied in the verdict in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1872.874, 1873.441, 1879.535, 1887.915, 1900.252, 1909.017], "stop_times": [1873.441, 1879.535, 1887.915, 1900.252, 1909.017, 1912.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.874}, "reply_to": "15037__1_021", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_023", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, if he had been acquitted and the issue on which he was acquitted was that he was not there and did not participate, would your same argument be valid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1912.74], "stop_times": [1928.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.74}, "reply_to": "15037__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_024", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I think so to the extent Your Honor that we suggest that the principle of collateral estoppel would not be constitutionally required to be applied by the state in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1928.412], "stop_times": [1940.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.412}, "reply_to": "15037__1_023", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_025", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Does Missouri have a special verdict or general (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1940.559], "stop_times": [1943.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.559}, "reply_to": "15037__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__1_026", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "No, Your Honor, it's a general verdict.\nThey returned a finding of either guilty or not guilty and of course, in this situation he was charged under the -- our habitual criminal act and so the jury did not have the added function of assessing the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1943.577, 1945.352], "stop_times": [1945.352, 1959.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.577}, "reply_to": "15037__1_025", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_027", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, I suppose if a man was acquitted on an issue which would absolutely absolve him from all the guilt such as that would, that you'd have a pretty hard time, wouldn't you in saying it although called collateral estoppel didn't amount to double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1959.928], "stop_times": [1982.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.928}, "reply_to": "15037__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_028", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "That may be, Your Honor, but what we are suggesting is that you do not go beyond those issues which necessarily had to be found.\nAnd we're suggesting that the ultimate issue involved in this case in the first trial was whether or not Ashe either acting alone or knowingly in concert with another robbed Don Knight and whether or not the jury in that case found beyond a reasonable doubt all of the necessary elements which they would have to find on a charge of robbery in the first degree.\nNow, of course, I will concede and agree with Mr. Clifford that if you examine the record, this was perhaps the really only contested issue but I think if you will examine the record of the first trial, one must conclude that there was hardly any issue contested at all if you are talking about contesting an issue from the standpoint of serious and extensive cross-examination by the defense counsel.\nThe state's evidence came in relatively free from any objection, relatively free from any extensive cross examination whatsoever.\nThe jury returned a verdict of acquittal and we suggest that when they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [1982.052, 1992.421, 2019.23, 2045.809, 2055.704], "stop_times": [1992.421, 2019.23, 2045.809, 2055.704, 2060.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.052}, "reply_to": "15037__1_027", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_029", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Did they return the verdict for acquittal for of the others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2060.003], "stop_times": [2062.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.003}, "reply_to": "15037__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_030", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "No.\nThis was a separate trial, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2062.946, 2063.132], "stop_times": [2063.132, 2064.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.946}, "reply_to": "15037__1_029", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_031", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Separate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2064.44], "stop_times": [2065.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.44}, "reply_to": "15037__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_032", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Just Mr. Ashe was involved in this particular trial.\nPrior to this, he had move for a severance of his trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2065.55, 2069.106], "stop_times": [2069.106, 2072.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.55}, "reply_to": "15037__1_031", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_033", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "How do you explain that jury verdict? You have studied the record and I'm just asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2072.889], "stop_times": [2078.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.889}, "reply_to": "15037__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_034", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Your Honor I cannot explain the jury verdict and I do not frankly believe that it is necessary that I do explain the jury verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2078.797], "stop_times": [2090.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.797}, "reply_to": "15037__1_033", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_035", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I just want to know what was your impression of the record as to why he was acquitted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2090.52], "stop_times": [2096.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.52}, "reply_to": "15037__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_036", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I think it's very possible that the jury found that there was a lack of sufficient identification of Mr. Ashe as one of the participants in this.\nI think it was equally suggested by the Missouri Supreme Court and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that even though there had been other evidence that was un-contradicted as to the taking of property or as to a number of other elements that they might have found on those.\nAnd I think too, it was interesting that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit observed that perhaps the jury finding these six gentlemen playing poker until I believe about four o'clock in the morning for -- as Mr. Clifford has indicated quite sizable stakes, the jury may have simply decided that they were not going to extend any protection of the law to the people that were engaging in this type of activity.\nNow, I cannot really stand here and argue to the court that they found on anyone of these items any more logically or reasonably than another, but what I am suggesting is that it is not necessary for the state's position in this case to go beyond that verdict and to try to make a determination or to speculate as to what facts might have been considered by the jury or as to what facts the jury might necessarily have based their verdict on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2096.02, 2104.697, 2122.739, 2149.188], "stop_times": [2104.697, 2122.739, 2149.188, 2179.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.02}, "reply_to": "15037__1_035", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_037", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "And isn't it an element of the crime in Missouri that the victim be in fear of his life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2179.499], "stop_times": [2184.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.499}, "reply_to": "15037__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_038", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2184.925], "stop_times": [2187.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.925}, "reply_to": "15037__1_037", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_039", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Would that -- could that fact vary between the defendant -- they'd do in the victim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2187.144], "stop_times": [2192.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.144}, "reply_to": "15037__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_040", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It might well have done so I must say in all candid though that I don't think that the record necessarily clearly indicates that this was an element.\nBut this is in part why I am suggesting that one need not go that additional step to examine the record in its entirety to attempt to pinpoint and determine what specific element the jury found like in -- at the first trial.\nAs indicated by Mr. Clifford, of course, at the time that this case originally came to this Court and at the time that the briefs were in the process of being prepared and submitted, Palko versus Connecticut was of course still essentially the law insofar as the application of the Fifth Amendment to state action.\nSince that time of course we have had Benton versus Marilyn and Justice Marshall speaking for the Court of observed there that the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritages and that it should apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.\nAnd its -- while that case did not deal specifically with the question as to whether this applicable to the same offense or what type of test you would apply in determining whether a person has been placed twice in jeopardy, I think its significant that there was quotation in that opinion from Blackstone and significant that the quotation was at the plea of former acquittal as grounded on the universal maxim of law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense.\nAnd I submit that it is interesting that the constitutional language, the language that is used by Blackstone is the same offense and it is interesting to note that in the common law cases of England that the emphasis was placed upon the identity of the offense from the standpoint of the same evidence test perhaps.\nAnd I submit that when you apply that same evidence test and that is namely whether or not in the second trial, the identical evidence which was produced at the first trial was necessary to support the indictment that we must conclude that there is not that identity of offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2192.313, 2200.707, 2224.944, 2243.304, 2262.844, 2296.904, 2317.166], "stop_times": [2200.707, 2224.944, 2243.304, 2262.844, 2296.904, 2317.166, 2336.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.313}, "reply_to": "15037__1_039", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_041", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "What difference -- what difference are you emphasizing on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2336.415], "stop_times": [2340.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.415}, "reply_to": "15037__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_042", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "The difference as was indicated by Mr. Justice White from one thing.\nIn Missouri the thrust of the charge of robbery is the taking of property either from the ownership or the possession of a person by threat or fear of violence to their person and obviously, this involved a different issue than would have necessarily had to be litigated at the first trial.\nThe evidence which would necessarily support a conviction on the charge of robbing Knight was not that same evidence which was necessary to support the charge as to whether or not he robbed Roy Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2340.029, 2343.635, 2365.57], "stop_times": [2343.635, 2365.57, 2382.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.029}, "reply_to": "15037__1_041", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_043", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "In other words, you don't -- go going on the basis that each robber, each person must be considered as two separate offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2382.2], "stop_times": [2392.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.2}, "reply_to": "15037__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_044", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court has so indicated that that is the law as it exists in the state of Missouri and as I understand this Court's prior ruling in the Hoag versus New Jersey, of course, that is a determination to be made by that court as to whether or not at the same time you rob two people whether or not that constitutes one offense or whether or not it constitutes separate and independent offenses as against each of those two people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2392.373, 2393.638], "stop_times": [2393.638, 2422.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.373}, "reply_to": "15037__1_043", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_045", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Any other differences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2422.03], "stop_times": [2423.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.03}, "reply_to": "15037__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_046", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2423.863], "stop_times": [2425.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.863}, "reply_to": "15037__1_045", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_047", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Merely the difference of robbing two different people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2425.169], "stop_times": [2430.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.169}, "reply_to": "15037__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15037__1_048", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, if I understand the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2430.65], "stop_times": [2434.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.65}, "reply_to": "15037__1_047", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_049", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Any evidence that Ashe pointed a gun at either one of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2434.579], "stop_times": [2438.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.579}, "reply_to": "15037__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_050", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I'm sorry Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2438.951], "stop_times": [2439.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.951}, "reply_to": "15037__1_049", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_051", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Is there any evidence in the record that Ashe pointed a gun at either?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2439.828], "stop_times": [2444.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.828}, "reply_to": "15037__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_052", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "No.\nOnce again, Mr. Justice, at the time of both trials there is this problem of identity of robbers, number one, two, three and four.\nThere is evidence in the record though that as they came down into that basement that one of the robbers had I believe a sawed-off shotgun which was described as perhaps a 410.\nThe other two had pistols of a smaller caliber.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2444.895, 2445.127, 2454.377, 2465.658], "stop_times": [2445.127, 2454.377, 2465.658, 2469.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.895}, "reply_to": "15037__1_051", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_053", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, which -- what evidence is in the record that Ashe threatened either one of these first two people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2469.637], "stop_times": [2478.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.637}, "reply_to": "15037__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_054", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "The evidence is essentially that at the second trial and I believe at the first trial that once again that the people who came down into the basement, Your Honor, with the guns forced these six participants in the card games to go over against the wall at one point.\nThey then forced them back into the center of the room, had all, but one of them I believe removed their trousers and they were tied together at that point.\nAnd there was testimony of course by each one of the witnesses as to the various people who came around --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2478.895, 2496.955, 2504.945], "stop_times": [2496.955, 2504.945, 2511.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.895}, "reply_to": "15037__1_053", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_055", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "(Voice Overlap) the same witnesses, in both sides?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2511.264], "stop_times": [2513.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.264}, "reply_to": "15037__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_056", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes.\nExcept for the modifications that were indicated by Mr. Clifford in his statement (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2513.644, 2514.898], "stop_times": [2514.898, 2518.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.644}, "reply_to": "15037__1_055", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_057", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "But the same witnesses were at both trials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2518.212], "stop_times": [2521.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.212}, "reply_to": "15037__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_058", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2521.311], "stop_times": [2521.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.311}, "reply_to": "15037__1_057", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_059", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "And they testified substantially the same thing at both trials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2521.664], "stop_times": [2526.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.664}, "reply_to": "15037__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_060", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "With the exception Your Honor that the question of identification was developed much more extensively at the second trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2526.65], "stop_times": [2535.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.65}, "reply_to": "15037__1_059", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_061", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2535.309], "stop_times": [2535.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.309}, "reply_to": "15037__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_062", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "And in addition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2535.483], "stop_times": [2536.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.483}, "reply_to": "15037__1_061", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_063", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Why?\nI'm sure you wouldn't know cause you weren't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2536.599, 2538.634], "stop_times": [2538.634, 2541.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.599}, "reply_to": "15037__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_064", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I don't know but I think it's quite obvious, Your Honor, that this is one of the problems apparently that it concerned the prosecutor at the first trial.\nIt was the same prosecutor at the two trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2541.106, 2550.107], "stop_times": [2550.107, 2550.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.106}, "reply_to": "15037__1_063", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_065", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "And it's one of the reasons why a man shouldn't be put in jeopardy twice too, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2550.668], "stop_times": [2556.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.668}, "reply_to": "15037__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_066", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "But under the test of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2556.838], "stop_times": [2557.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.838}, "reply_to": "15037__1_065", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_067", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Why if he'd be -- he was acquitted this time, then the third time, they really wouldn't have something here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2557.684], "stop_times": [2563.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.684}, "reply_to": "15037__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_068", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I'm suggesting that there is protection to this man though Your Honor, by virtue of a -- if you will, a fundamental unfairness type test.\nAnd I cannot tell this Court whether it arises upon the second trial or the third trial or the fourth trial.\nI submit that depends upon the facts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2563.202, 2573.361, 2580.487], "stop_times": [2573.361, 2580.487, 2581.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.202}, "reply_to": "15037__1_067", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_069", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, Benton would suggest its at the second trial, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2581.205], "stop_times": [2585.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.205}, "reply_to": "15037__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_070", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I'm sorry Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2585.475], "stop_times": [2586.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.475}, "reply_to": "15037__1_069", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_071", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Benton would suggest that at the second stage it becomes unfair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2586.108], "stop_times": [2590.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.108}, "reply_to": "15037__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_072", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I would suggest that that's not necessarily a conclusion that must follow from Benton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2590.83], "stop_times": [2595.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.83}, "reply_to": "15037__1_071", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_073", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, what would you suggest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2595.415], "stop_times": [2598.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.415}, "reply_to": "15037__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_074", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I would suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2598.023], "stop_times": [2599.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.023}, "reply_to": "15037__1_073", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_075", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Because six -- is it six information against this man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2599.146], "stop_times": [2602.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.146}, "reply_to": "15037__1_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_076", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2602.459], "stop_times": [2603.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.459}, "reply_to": "15037__1_075", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_077", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Where would you think the cutoff point would be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2603.189], "stop_times": [2608.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.189}, "reply_to": "15037__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__1_078", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Once again, Your Honor, I've suggested that I do not feel that I can indicate a mathematical number to this Court.\nBut I think that the protection which does extend to this defendant would be a protection under a fundamental unfairness and perhaps this Court may well conclude on the facts of this case that that arose at the conclusion of the first trial or it may conclude that the -- after the second trial it arose.\nBut what I am suggesting is that there was not any substantial delay between the first trial and the second trial as was present in the case of Hoag, there was almost two years elapsed between the first trial and the second trial in that situation.\nI am further suggesting that there was no showing or indication in the record that by virtue of the delay or the second trial that the defendant lost any witnesses or had any difficulty procuring any evidence which might have been available to him otherwise.\nAnd these are some of the factors which I submit, Mr. Justice, would we considered in that total question of determining whether or not there was a fundamental unfairness and we submit under that facts here involved that there was not.\nThe record indicates clearly that defense counsel had the benefit of the transcript, of the testimony of witnesses at the preliminary hearing that he was able to use in cross-examination.\nHe apparently had the benefit of their testimony at the first trial that he was able to use in cross-examination for purposes of impeachment.\nAnd so, under those circumstances, where you do have two separate and distinct crimes, I submit that the second trial presented on the facts of this case did not rise to the level of fundamental unfairness.\nWe further submit that it does not constitute double jeopardy under the test that had traditionally been used to determine whether or not there is that identity of offense that results in a person being placed twice in jeopardy.\nFinally, I suppose we come to the issue then as to whether or not there is a collateral estoppel that is applicable as applied to the facts of this case.\nAnd we suggest very simply first of all that there has not a collateral estoppel because the ultimate fact that was determined at the first trial was whether or not Ashe robbed Knight.\nWe submit that there was not any determination of merely evidentiary facts or merely evidentiary matters and that since that ultimate fact is not therefore conclusive on the issue as to whether or not he robbed Roberts on the separate, second separate and distinct offense that collateral estoppel is not applicable upon the facts of the case, but perhaps more importantly, we suggest that collateral estoppel need not be applied by this Court simply because as indicated in this Court's decision in Hoag versus New Jersey there was a reluctance to declare the principle of collateral estoppel as a constitutional principle that was applicable to the state action and we submit that the same reasoning which was applied by the Court at that time should once again be applied by the court to the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2608.418, 2615.22, 2634.137, 2649.662, 2666.363, 2679.738, 2690.698, 2699.05, 2714.19, 2731.123, 2740.478, 2753.953], "stop_times": [2615.22, 2634.137, 2649.662, 2666.363, 2679.738, 2690.698, 2699.05, 2714.19, 2731.123, 2740.478, 2753.953, 2810.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.418}, "reply_to": "15037__1_077", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_079", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Mr. Voigts, let's assume that there'd had been a trial to the court and the court at the -- in the first go around they had found Ashe not guilty and made his findings and said that I find that Ashe wasn't there and then Ashe is tried again --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2810.669], "stop_times": [2835.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.669}, "reply_to": "15037__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_080", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2835.99], "stop_times": [2836.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.99}, "reply_to": "15037__1_079", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_081", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "-- for robbing Roberts or whoever such a man was (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2836.367], "stop_times": [2841.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.367}, "reply_to": "15037__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_082", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "If on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2841.663], "stop_times": [2841.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.663}, "reply_to": "15037__1_081", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_083", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "In Missouri, in the state courts, would he have a plea of collateral estoppel in that event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2841.844], "stop_times": [2849.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.844}, "reply_to": "15037__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_084", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Your Honor, I must frankly say, I do not think that that question has been adjudicated by the courts of Missouri", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2849.173], "stop_times": [2854.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.173}, "reply_to": "15037__1_083", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_085", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well its been adjudicated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2854.981], "stop_times": [2855.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.981}, "reply_to": "15037__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_086", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "I frankly, I would suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2855.152], "stop_times": [2855.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.152}, "reply_to": "15037__1_085", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_087", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It's been adjudicated in the federal courts, hasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2855.444], "stop_times": [2858.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.444}, "reply_to": "15037__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_088", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, sir and I would suggest that under those circumstances if there were express findings of fact that the principle of collateral estoppel would be applicable without getting into the question as to whether or not the principle of collateral estoppel rises to the level of being constitutional applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2858.75], "stop_times": [2876.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2858.75}, "reply_to": "15037__1_087", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_089", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes.\nWell, what -- let's talk about federal courts.\nYou would think in the federal courts there would be a collateral estoppel in that event, that's been tried by the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2876.383, 2876.589, 2880.45], "stop_times": [2876.589, 2880.45, 2885.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.383}, "reply_to": "15037__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_090", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "As I understand it Your Honor it has been applied (Voice Overlap) situations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2885.242], "stop_times": [2887.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.242}, "reply_to": "15037__1_089", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_091", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Would there be a double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2887.266], "stop_times": [2890.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.266}, "reply_to": "15037__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_092", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "The cases which I have examined on that question, Your Honor, deal with it I believe as a principle of collateral estoppel without elevating it necessarily to the level of a constitutional guarantee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2890.789], "stop_times": [2903.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.789}, "reply_to": "15037__1_091", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_093", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Well, what would be your view though, wholly aside from the cases, would that be a double jeopardy if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2903.615], "stop_times": [2910.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.615}, "reply_to": "15037__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_094", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Obviously, my view has to be in this case, Your Honor, that collateral estoppel does not rise to the level of a constitutional guarantee.\nThat collateral estoppel may well be applied by this Court in the federal court cases as a part of its supervisory power but that it (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2910.121, 2918.881], "stop_times": [2918.881, 2926.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.121}, "reply_to": "15037__1_093", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_095", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Why wouldn't it be double jeopardy in the facts I posed?\nBecause of -- because you would still say it's a different offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2926.367, 2930.903], "stop_times": [2930.903, 2934.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.367}, "reply_to": "15037__1_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_096", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "That's right, Your Honor because it is collateral estoppel I would submit is not a part of the definition of double jeopardy as would be applied by our constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2934.383], "stop_times": [2948.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.383}, "reply_to": "15037__1_095", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_097", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2948.979], "stop_times": [2950.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.979}, "reply_to": "15037__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15037__1_098", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "For those reasons then, we would submit that this Court should affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; first, on the basis that the actions here brought in question did not constitute a fundamental unfairness to the petitioner.\nSecondly, that although the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy is applicable to the states that nonetheless there were two separate and distinct offenses involved in this particular case.\nFinally, we would suggest that collateral estoppel is not applicable to the facts of this particular case and even if this Court should so find that it is not constitutionally required.\nFor those reasons we would ask affirmance of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.\nThank you Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [2950.415, 2969.571, 2984.386, 2996.33, 3002.765], "stop_times": [2969.571, 2984.386, 2996.33, 3002.765, 3005.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.415}, "reply_to": "15037__1_097", "speaker": "gene_e_voigts"}
{"id": "15037__1_099", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Thank you Mr. Voigts.\nMr. Clifford, you have about five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3005.443, 3007.085], "stop_times": [3007.085, 3009.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.443}, "reply_to": "15037__1_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__2_000", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI wish to make three points and I must touch them lightly because I want to get them all in the five minutes I have left.\nThe question asked by Mr. Justice White; the federal court for a long time has distinguished between a strict double jeopardy case and what we will call a double jeopardy situation.\nThe Benton case was one where a defendant had been found guilty of both burglary and larceny and when he was or had been charged with burglary and larceny and on trial had been acquitted of larceny.\nThe court held he could not be charged or tried again on larceny because it was now the federal rule was applying and it was double jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3009.193, 3011.685, 3021.889, 3039.838, 3054.579], "stop_times": [3011.685, 3021.889, 3039.838, 3054.579, 3064.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3009.193}, "reply_to": "15037__1_099", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__2_001", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "That didn't involve multiple parties, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3064.216], "stop_times": [3067.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.216}, "reply_to": "15037__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__2_002", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It did not in that instance.\nNow, this Court, the Supreme Court, and many of the Court of Appeals, Federal Courts of Appeals have met the question of what do you do in a double jeopardy situation when it is not the exact charge that is being directed against the defendant for the second time?\nThey have in that instance resorted to the accepted rule of collateral estoppel and they have said many times that when the facts of a case show clearly that there is one major thrust to the state's evidence and the defendant has met that and has been acquitted on that one major point, then we are not going to make him run the gauntlet again.\nIt compares collateral estoppel with the theory of res judicata.\nThe Chief Justice himself in the Watts case recognized the application of collateral estoppel to a federal criminal case.\nJustice Douglas referred to it in the Sealfon Sugar case and there it was applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3067.383, 3069.447, 3089.82, 3121.407, 3126.796, 3138.157], "stop_times": [3069.447, 3089.82, 3121.407, 3126.796, 3138.157, 3145.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3067.383}, "reply_to": "15037__2_001", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__2_003", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Not as the constitutional argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3145.111], "stop_times": [3147.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.111}, "reply_to": "15037__2_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15037__2_004", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "It was not, it was not, but it was -- on those particular facts he said that this should apply.\nJustice Holmes did it in Oppenheimer case.\nThere is an excellent review of the whole question of collateral estoppel in the Kramer case where Judge Friendly of the Second Circuit analyzes the whole matter and says that it should be used in federal cases when it's appliable.\nAnd under the Benton decision, this case now must be looked at in the light of the federal rule and not the old state rule which has now become archaic.\nSecond quick point, the State of Missouri, in the Supreme Court of Missouri, in the Federal District Court, in the Federal Court of Appeals and here has cited the Hoag case as its authority for forcing this man to serve this sentence when he was tried on exactly the same issue.\nA quick comment on the Hoag case; that was a case tried in New Jersey.\nIt so happens that Justice Brennan sat in that case, it was a four to three decision.\nJustice Brennan dissented in that case, it was a holdup case like this one.\nThat case came on to the Supreme Court of the United States.\nJustice Brennan abstained and it was a five to three decision here.\nIf he had voted I assume it would be five to four.\nSo, we have a case that's four to three in New Jersey and would have been five to four in this case, I believe had he voted.\nNow, they can no longer use the Hoag case I submit to Your Honor.\nOne; the Hoag case has been repudiated by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the Kermeyer (ph) case and they specifically referred to the Hoag case in the Kermeyer case and suggest they're not going to follow that rule any longer.\nAnd the language of the Kermeyer decision now in the New Jersey Supreme Court is that collateral estoppel should be ungrudgingly applied in this type of case.\nAlso, I submit to you, Hoag is no longer an authority in this case because Benton has changed Hoag also.\nBecause Hoag comments on the fact that there are two rules, one rule that is quite beneficial to defendants in federal cases and one that really hardly at all as to state cases.\nAlso, in the Hoag case, this Court said we're not going to go behind the finding of the New Jersey Supreme Court and look into that record.\nWe don't want to do that to state courts, that was under the old rule.\nYou can do it now because it is under the federal rule and you have the right to look.\nSo, I say Hoag is no longer an authority for the case.\nLast comment; sometimes when you go through a record of this kind and look at it, it's murky, it's difficult to find out really what happened.\nOccasionally, you come to a door and you open the door and let light right on in, that happened in this case.\nAnd, I refer Your Honors to what happened just before this second case was tried.\nAfter he was acquitted the first time, there was a colloquy between the trial judge and the counsel for the defendant and the prosecuting attorney and that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3147.081, 3154.152, 3157.93, 3172.585, 3183.737, 3206.514, 3212.33, 3218.331, 3223.862, 3227.834, 3232.804, 3235.978, 3243.212, 3247.984, 3264.406, 3276.198, 3284.878, 3296.928, 3305.816, 3309.371, 3313.348, 3317.78, 3329.618, 3335.688, 3341.953], "stop_times": [3154.152, 3157.93, 3172.585, 3183.737, 3206.514, 3212.33, 3218.331, 3223.862, 3227.834, 3232.804, 3235.978, 3243.212, 3247.984, 3264.406, 3276.198, 3284.878, 3296.928, 3305.816, 3309.371, 3313.348, 3317.78, 3329.618, 3335.688, 3341.953, 3352.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3147.081}, "reply_to": "15037__2_003", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__2_005", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Would you just give us this page cite on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3352.106], "stop_times": [3354.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3352.106}, "reply_to": "15037__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__2_006", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Yes sir, it's 107 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3354.457], "stop_times": [3354.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3354.457}, "reply_to": "15037__2_005", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__2_007", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "(Voice Overlap), I think your time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3354.728], "stop_times": [3356.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.728}, "reply_to": "15037__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__2_008", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Its 107 Your Honor and I just want to say this.\nIf the judge said in view of the wide publicity that's attended this case, the fact that the co-defendants have been tried and convicted, so that by time this fellow came to trial the second time, he'd had one trial, the other three had been tried and acquitted with resulting publicity and yet the State of Missouri said that original acquittal meant absolutely nothing to us or to this man.\nThank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3356.847, 3360.393, 3387.663], "stop_times": [3360.393, 3387.663, 3388.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3356.847}, "reply_to": "15037__2_007", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "15037__2_009", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Thank you Mr. Clifford.\nNow, you appeared at our request and by our appointment Mr. Clifford.\nWe thank you for your assistance to the Court and to the petitioner.\nWe thank you for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3388.397, 3389.774, 3393.247, 3399.271], "stop_times": [3389.774, 3393.247, 3399.271, 3401.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.397}, "reply_to": "15037__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15037__2_010", "conversation_id": "15037", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_57", "start_times": [3401.116], "stop_times": [3402.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3401.116}, "reply_to": "15037__2_009", "speaker": "clark_m_clifford"}
{"id": "14963__0_000", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Number 85, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations against Camp.\nMr. Gross, you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [0.0, 12.457], "stop_times": [12.457, 17.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__0_001", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn the present case, this Court is called upon to resolve a direct conflict between the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the First Circuit regarding a threshold question of standing to sue.\nNow, this case arose in the District Court for the District of Minnesota and it was dismissed upon motion and before trial on the grounds that the petitioners lack standing to maintain this litigation.\nThis ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and about the same time, a substantially identical case arose in Rhode Island and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reached a precisely opposite result that petitioners in that case do have standing to maintain this particular type of litigation.\nThis case arose from the Eighth Circuit.\nThe First Circuit case is presently pending on petition for certiorari.\nThe facts in this case are limited to the complaint because the case was dismissed on motion prior to trial or pretrial.\nThe petitioners were the plaintiffs and they are the Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, which is a trade association of businesses engaged in rendering data processing services to the general business community.\nThe other petitioner is Data Systems Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, a member of the association, which is referred to as ADAPSO and Data Systems is engaged in rendering data processing services in the Minnesota.\nRespondents are the American National Bank and Trust Company of St. Paul, a National Bank and the Comptroller of the Currency.\nThe facts alleged that Data System was engaged in the data processing business in Minnesota and that the American National Bank was similarly engaged in the data processing business.\nAnd as a matter of fact, the Data Systems had agreed to perform certain services for particular customer, it later turned out that the customer began doing business with the American National Bank.\nThere is no question about that.\nThe complaint alleged that the action of the American National Bank in performing data processing services was unlawful and that it violated the powers given National Banks under the National Banking Laws.\nThe complaint asked for declaratory relief that the bank\u2019s action was unlawful.\nIt asked for injunctive relief and it asked for damages.\nThe complaint also asked for declaratory relief that the Comptroller of the Currency was acting unlawfully when he authorized National Banks to engage in the general data processing business.\nThe Comptroller\u2019s authorization is found on page 2 of petitioner\u2019s brief and it\u2019s in a paragraph of the Comptroller\u2019s Manual for National Banks, which states as follows.\n\u201cIncidental to its banking services, a national bank may make available its data processing equipment or perform data processing services on such equipment for other banks and bank customers.\nThe last three words that if the banks assume authority to do this fatal activity.\nNow, in our brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [17.354, 21.077, 35.709, 50.626, 75.365, 77.172, 83.306, 92.038, 108.461, 125.785, 136.049, 148.988, 161.193, 164.375, 178.516, 184.377, 188.51, 202.353, 214.442, 229.891, 238.063], "stop_times": [21.077, 35.709, 50.626, 75.365, 77.172, 83.306, 92.038, 108.461, 125.785, 136.049, 148.988, 161.193, 164.375, 178.516, 184.377, 188.51, 202.353, 214.442, 229.891, 238.063, 239.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.354}, "reply_to": "14963__0_000", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_002", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "They might have had it without that regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [239.99], "stop_times": [244.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.99}, "reply_to": "14963__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_003", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "If they have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [244.72], "stop_times": [245.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.72}, "reply_to": "14963__0_002", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_004", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Let\u2019s assume that it just started out doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [245.111], "stop_times": [249.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.111}, "reply_to": "14963__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_005", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "If they have authority under the acts of Congress Your Honor, they would not need the specific authorization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [249.001], "stop_times": [255.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.001}, "reply_to": "14963__0_004", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_006", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "So the question is the statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [255.827], "stop_times": [258.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.827}, "reply_to": "14963__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_007", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s correct, the question is statutory authority.\nIn our brief, we raise the general question of standing to sue.\nWe have discussed the so-called the legal right theory, the requirement that a plaintiff must have a legal right to have standing to maintain an action of this nature.\nThis rule was probably most prominently announced in the case of Tennessee Electric Power versus TVA in 306 United States\u2019 reports, but this was not the issue that divided the Courts of Appeals where the First and the Eighth Circuit and I would turn to that narrow issue which did divide the Circuits and that\u2019s he question of statutory aid to standing.\nThe rule generally maybe stated that that if a competitor can show that a statute was intended to protect his competitive or economic interest then he has standing to complain of unlawful competition.\nAnd we believe that the statute is applicable in this case, and that statute is the Bank Service Corporation Act.\nThat\u2019s found in 12 United States Code, Section 1864 -- the relevant portion is quoted in our brief at page 2.\nThis is a 1962 statute.\nIt is therefore extremely important to examine the legislative purpose of the Bank Service Corporation Act to decide the scope or the protection before the data processing industry.\nThe basic purpose of the act is undoubted, it was to allow smaller banks to achieve more effective competition against larger banks by joining together to invest in bank service corporations subsidiaries.\nTwo or more banks that can now join together to form a bank service corporation which will render data processing services for the banks such things as sorting checks and reconciling statements that sort of thing.\nPrior to 1962, it was felt that banks could not invest in corporations of this type.\nSo the basic purpose was to authorize National Banks to join together in this function.\nNow, the question that properly came up as to the extent that bank service corporations could engage in the general data processing of business.\nAnd the compromise or result reach by the House of Representatives which have the bill initially was to permit bank service corporations subsidiaries to perform the services for a non-bank customers to the extent of one-half of their total activities, but not to exceed one-half of their total activities could be performed for a non-bank customers.\nWhen the Bill got to the Senate, certain senators were not satisfied with even this restriction and a minority report was issued by the Senate Banking and Currency Commission or Committee.\nSenators Proxmire, Neuberger and Douglas issued the report criticizing the one-half limitation as being excessive, that\u2019s found on our brief on page 33.\nExcerpts from that report, I\u2019ll read the Court one sentence and this is the basic point of the minority report.\nThey stated that adequate justification has not been demonstrated for extending this exemption to permit banks to engage in the business of data processing which this Bill permits up to 50% of the total activity of a bank service corporation.\nSenator Proxmire went further.\nHe introduced an amendment on the Florida Senate to prohibit bank service corporations totally from engaging in data processing services for non-bank customers.\nAnd there could be no question as to the reasons for Senator Proxmire\u2019s amendment.\nHe was perfectly clear on the reasons and they were to protect the data processing industry.\nOn page 35 of our brief, we have quoted from certain remarks of Senator Proxmire and I\u2019ll read a few sentences so that the Court can see exactly what the senator was driving at with his amendment.\nHe stated that banks have customer lists and they can offer their customers for instance for service of handling their receivables which would give the banks a substantial advantage over other legitimate long established business providing this kind of service.\nA number of these businesses have informed me and other senators that this kind of competition would be very unfair.\nIt would be unfair because the banks could use their own personnel charged merely the out-of-pocket cost and the unfair competition could drive businesses now offering this kind of service to the (Inaudible).\nThese are the reasons why I offered this amendment with the adoption of the amendment, I think we are in a position to have a bill that provides what the banks really want, what the members of the committee feel is justified and at the same time safeguard legitimate business enterprises which might otherwise be put out of business.\nThe Proxmire Amendment passed and the Bank Service Corporation Act is presently enacted in the law states as follows: no bank service corporation may engage in any activity other than the performance of bank services for banks.\nWe believe that this case requires in unique fashion and interpretation of the scope of the so-called statutory aid to standing a doctrine.\nIn previous cases, courts have been faced with the question of whether a statute was designed to protect the competitive interest.\nIf the statute was designed to protect the competitive interest, then the court held that the protected competitor had standing to maintain his litigation on the merits.\nOn the other hand, if the statute for constitutional provision was not so designed and was not intended to offer protection to competitive interest, then the competitors were held not to have standing.\nOr in this case, we have a situation that is not occurred before to the best of our research and the respondents cited no cases showing a situation where there is an undoubted congressional purpose to protect a competitive interest, but from a source of competition which is slightly different although closely related to the actual source of competition.\nHere, we\u2019re dealing with competition by a National Banks themselves.\nThe statute according to its words was -- says that no bank service corporations subsidiary shall engage in data processing activities.\nSo, we have the situation where it appears to us that respondents are arguing this file.\nAssume that Bank A and Bank B get together to form a subsidiary Bank Service Corporation Act.\nThat corporation begins to engage in activities, which appear to be data processing for the general business community.\nIn that situation, we must assume that a competitor like the petitioner has standing.\nHowever, assume that Bank A and Bank B instead of forming a subsidiary corporation decide on their own individually to offer the same type of data processing services.\nThe respondent says, \u201cThere is no standing because there is no statutory aid to standing.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [258.385, 264.157, 269.012, 283.363, 312.909, 330.068, 338.257, 348.073, 351.802, 367.086, 385.383, 399.789, 407.43, 414.731, 424.326, 451.228, 465.284, 480.071, 487.689, 506.739, 509.82, 523.722, 529.263, 535.447, 550.322, 565.61, 572.967, 585.499, 607.218, 626.653, 638.016, 646.823, 658.774, 671.128, 698.716, 703.026, 714.789, 720.916, 728.145, 736.326, 743.085, 756.901], "stop_times": [264.157, 269.012, 283.363, 312.909, 330.068, 338.257, 348.073, 351.802, 367.086, 385.383, 399.789, 407.43, 414.731, 424.326, 451.228, 465.284, 480.071, 487.689, 506.739, 509.82, 523.722, 529.263, 535.447, 550.322, 565.61, 572.967, 585.499, 607.218, 626.653, 638.016, 646.823, 658.774, 671.128, 698.716, 703.026, 714.789, 720.916, 728.145, 736.326, 743.085, 756.901, 762.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.385}, "reply_to": "14963__0_006", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_008", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Under your view of the standing issue, would you, would be not reach the merits namely the question of the authority that comptroller to authorize?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [762.627], "stop_times": [771.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.627}, "reply_to": "14963__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_009", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No Your Honor, not in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [771.792], "stop_times": [775.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.792}, "reply_to": "14963__0_008", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_010", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "A case should go back to the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [775.591], "stop_times": [776.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.591}, "reply_to": "14963__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_011", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "A case would go back for trial.\nNow, we can assume that even further where the bank service corporation access that have two banks get together to form the subsidiary on one bank leaves and withdraws that the other bank -- the other individual bank may carry on with the bank service corporation.\nSo, we have a situation of one bank having a bank service corporation subsidiary which if it engages in data processing activities now the petitioners can attack.\nAnd yet, if the parent corporation engages in the self same activities, there is no standing according to the respondents.\nWe feel that this is an effort by the banks and by the Comptroller of the Currency to adopt the very broad and expensive interpretation of the restrictive doctrine of standing.\nAnd we feel that they are pushing the doctrine of standing beyond any reasonable purpose.\nThe rules of standing have the effect of preventing an inquiry into the merits of litigation.\nAnd we feel that rules that have this effect of preventing reaching the merits should be rather narrowly and restrictively interpreted and in close cases, the doubt should be resolve in favor of reaching the merits particularly where the merits are important and the merits are important and not this type of bank case is important to the banks.\nIt\u2019s important to petitioners and it has important implications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [776.904, 780.242, 796.417, 808.527, 817.995, 830.851, 836.531, 842.63, 866.013], "stop_times": [780.242, 796.417, 808.527, 817.995, 830.851, 836.531, 842.63, 866.013, 870.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.904}, "reply_to": "14963__0_010", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_012", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What bearing do you think the Flast case has?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [870.384], "stop_times": [875.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.384}, "reply_to": "14963__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_013", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Your Honor, I feel that Flast v. Cohen shows a philosophy of standing that would grant standing in this case.\nThe facts of course in the situation are different but Flast versus Cohen has a philosophy of inquiring into the personal interest of the petitioner.\nIt inquires into the concrete adverseness of the parties whether the case is informed in appropriate form for judicial resolution rather than seeking to find some undefined legal right.\nIf you look at the factual adverse interest, if you look at the type of case, if you look at our case through the view Flast and Cohen there clearly is standing.\nThese people are adverse under any test, petitioners have been harmed undeniably at this juncture of the case they have been harmed.\nThey alleged they\u2019ve been harmed and their complaint was dismissed before trial.\nThe case is appropriate for a judicial treatment, we ask for the interpretation of a statute of Congress.\nWe think the competitors in this situation are the best persons to try the merits to this litigation and probably the only persons, we feel that the merits it\u2019s unlikely that the merits will ever be reach if a competitor does not bring this type of litigation.\nSo, we feel that under Flast versus Cohen, we do have standing, we have adversity, we have this personal state, we have a concrete case, and in addition, we have important issues on the merits and finally we have a statute of Congress where Congress clearly was trying to protect the data processing industry from a type of National Bank competition.\nThis is what the First Circuit felt was sufficient for standing and this is what we believe this sufficient for standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [875.231, 884.607, 895.962, 912.212, 923.18, 933.584, 939.374, 947.222, 964.683, 989.132], "stop_times": [884.607, 895.962, 912.212, 923.18, 933.584, 939.374, 947.222, 964.683, 989.132, 995.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.231}, "reply_to": "14963__0_012", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_014", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, suppose there are some trial cases of the court that would have been decided differently under your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [995.561], "stop_times": [1002.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.561}, "reply_to": "14963__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_015", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Not under the narrow scope of statutory aid to standing Your Honor under the broad --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1002.551], "stop_times": [1008.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.551}, "reply_to": "14963__0_014", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_016", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "You mean they -- we must -- for you to win, must we buy the bank service corporation approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1008.257], "stop_times": [1014.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.257}, "reply_to": "14963__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_017", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, we have two basic issues Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1014.374], "stop_times": [1018.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.374}, "reply_to": "14963__0_016", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_018", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "You\u2019re saying that it isn\u2019t enough for standing just to show an economic injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1018.315], "stop_times": [1024.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.315}, "reply_to": "14963__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_019", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I think it is if you overrule about three to four cases of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1024.246], "stop_times": [1027.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.246}, "reply_to": "14963__0_018", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_020", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Are you urging that we do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1027.249], "stop_times": [1028.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.249}, "reply_to": "14963__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_021", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and in our brief we have set forth that rather extensively.\nAnd we don\u2019t believe that Tennessee Electric Power is an adequate type of case and adequate determination of this issue.\nWe think it should be a bond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1028.617, 1033.008, 1043.809], "stop_times": [1033.008, 1043.809, 1045.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.617}, "reply_to": "14963__0_020", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_022", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "But accepting those cases, you still think you have pending in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1045.107], "stop_times": [1048.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.107}, "reply_to": "14963__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_023", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes, following Tennessee Electric Power, we think we have standing under the doctrine of statutory aid to standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1048.946], "stop_times": [1055.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.946}, "reply_to": "14963__0_022", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_024", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "When the statutory aid is under the bank service corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1055.668], "stop_times": [1058.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.668}, "reply_to": "14963__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_025", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1058.106], "stop_times": [1059.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.106}, "reply_to": "14963__0_024", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_026", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s the only source?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1059.154], "stop_times": [1060.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.154}, "reply_to": "14963__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__0_027", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s the only statute we rely on, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1060.219], "stop_times": [1064.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.219}, "reply_to": "14963__0_026", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_028", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What you say is there is enough (Inaudible) Bank Service Corporation Act is a separate act, is it not the measurable (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1064.266], "stop_times": [1076.125], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.266}, "reply_to": "14963__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__0_029", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.\nWe feel that the Administrative Procedure Act bears on this issue too -- in part.\nNow, the judicial review provisions of the APA are familiar.\nIt reads that a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or agreed by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute is entitled to judicial review there.\nWe feel that the Bank Service Corporation Act is a relevant statute under the APA and we think that reading the APA in conjunction with the Bank Service Corporation Act there certainly is standing.\nThe Bank Service Corporation Act is relevant because it bears on this problem, it was an undoubted congressional, a response or effort to protect data processors.\nFor this reason, we feel it is relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1076.125, 1078.308, 1083.974, 1089.667, 1103.173, 1119.417, 1131.171], "stop_times": [1078.308, 1083.974, 1089.667, 1103.173, 1119.417, 1131.171, 1133.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.125}, "reply_to": "14963__0_028", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_030", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Does the First Circuit decision follow the decision of the Eighth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1133.517], "stop_times": [1138.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.517}, "reply_to": "14963__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_031", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "The First Circuit was after the Eight Circuit, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1138.8], "stop_times": [1140.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.8}, "reply_to": "14963__0_030", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_032", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "It was after?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1140.779], "stop_times": [1141.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.779}, "reply_to": "14963__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_033", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes, it was Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1141.372], "stop_times": [1143.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.372}, "reply_to": "14963__0_032", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_034", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "The argument you\u2019re now making is addressed with the Eighth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1143.859], "stop_times": [1146.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.859}, "reply_to": "14963__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_035", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "It was Your Honor.\nIt was addressed in our brief and further prominently displayed.\nIt was not argued --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1146.881, 1148.14, 1152.457], "stop_times": [1148.14, 1152.457, 1153.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.881}, "reply_to": "14963__0_034", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_036", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Today you dismissed it simply by saying under those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1153.482], "stop_times": [1157.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.482}, "reply_to": "14963__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__0_037", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "In a footnote, Your Honor.\nSo, we feel that under the Bank Service Corporation Act and under the Administrative Procedure Act not along by the Administrative Procedure Act, but that act read in conjunction with the Bank Service Corporation Act.\nThere are certainly is enough congressional protection afforded to data processors to give them standing to reach the merits of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1157.795, 1161.929, 1174.553], "stop_times": [1161.929, 1174.553, 1190.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.795}, "reply_to": "14963__0_036", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__0_038", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Mr. Rosenthal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1190.787], "stop_times": [1192.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.787}, "reply_to": "14963__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__1_000", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nOver a period of almost 90 years beginning with its decision in 1882 when Railroad Company against Ellerman.\nThis Court has consistently in here to rule that where as is concededly the case here.\nThere is no special statutory provision for judicial review.\nThe complainant seeking to attack governmental action which does no more than increase competition against him or show that he possesses a legally protective right to be free from that competition, now the court has further made it clear that it is also true in this case.\nNo such legally protected right is conferred by license or franchise.\nThe plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that as this Court put it just two terms ago in Hardin against Kentucky Utilities.\nThe particular statutory provision invoked reflects a legislative purpose to protect the competitive interest.\nIf but only if such a purpose appears to again call it from Hardin, the injured competitor has standing to require compliance with that provision.\nNow, notwithstanding the present reliance petitioners upon the Bank Service Corporation Act to which I will turn in a few minutes.\nThe fact remains that its complaint invoked only the incidental powers clause of the National Bank Act.\nProvision of 12 U.S.C. 247 which authorizes National Banks to exercise \u201csuch incidental powers shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.\u201d\nSpecifically, as petitioner\u2019s complaint reflects their attack upon the Comptroller\u2019s ruling that National Banks may provide data processing services to other banks and bank customers was based exclusively on the proposition that such services do not come within the purview of the incidental powers clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1192.311, 1196.739, 1206.457, 1213.781, 1219.761, 1239.742, 1245.842, 1255.17, 1264.327, 1277.601, 1290.316, 1298.862, 1314.319], "stop_times": [1196.739, 1206.457, 1213.781, 1219.761, 1239.742, 1245.842, 1255.17, 1264.327, 1277.601, 1290.316, 1298.862, 1314.319, 1336.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1192.311}, "reply_to": "14963__0_038", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_001", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Is that pleading the argument to a fatal argument, is that a fatal thing likewise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1336.681], "stop_times": [1342.299], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.681}, "reply_to": "14963__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_002", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, I think it is fatal Mr. Justice Harlan from this point of view for the reason that they cannot as they do not assert that the conduct which they are seeking to enjoin violates any statute but the National Bank Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1342.299], "stop_times": [1358.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1342.299}, "reply_to": "14963__1_001", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_003", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes, well of course as far as the pleading issue is concerned, the Court of Appeals did notice it in the footnote rule against?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1358.189], "stop_times": [1365.45], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.189}, "reply_to": "14963__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_004", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1365.45], "stop_times": [1366.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1365.45}, "reply_to": "14963__1_003", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_005", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "But they didn\u2019t rely on the pleading defect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1366.036], "stop_times": [1368.58], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.036}, "reply_to": "14963__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_006", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, it is the matter Your Honor of a pleading defect.\nThe point is that their complaint alleges a violation of the National Bank Act for the good and sufficient reason that that is the only Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1368.58, 1372.281], "stop_times": [1372.281, 1382.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1368.58}, "reply_to": "14963__1_005", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_007", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Which you\u2019re saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1382.829], "stop_times": [1383.516], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.829}, "reply_to": "14963__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_008", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Which they could claim have been violated, it wasn\u2019t that any inadvertent failure to allege a violation of the Bank Service Corporation Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1383.516], "stop_times": [1390.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1383.516}, "reply_to": "14963__1_007", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_009", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What you\u2019re saying is it\u2019s a change of theory or the -- what do you call the additional theory that came to counsel\u2019s mind after the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1390.692], "stop_times": [1400.997], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.692}, "reply_to": "14963__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_010", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, what I'm saying Your Honor is that they seek to base their claim of standing upon a statute which they cannot claim has been violated.\nThat\u2019s essentially what it comes down to and not only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1400.997, 1412.592], "stop_times": [1412.592, 1418.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1400.997}, "reply_to": "14963__1_009", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_011", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "If your basic provision on standing is right on your brief is that you got to reach the merits of this case now to give you standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1418.324], "stop_times": [1427.171], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.324}, "reply_to": "14963__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_012", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, Your Honor, that is not our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1427.171], "stop_times": [1431.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1427.171}, "reply_to": "14963__1_011", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_013", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1431.134], "stop_times": [1431.937], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.134}, "reply_to": "14963__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_014", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Our position is that they lack standing irrespective of whether the National Bank Act precludes banks from engaging in the activity which they seek to enjoin.\nOur position rests upon this proposition that even if it could be said on the merits that Section 247 precludes the activity of which they complain, the fact remains that Section 247 was not enacted to protect any competitive interest of these petitioners or any other potential competitors of National Banks.\nAnd that for this reason under the federal standing doctrine, Ellerman, Tennessee Power v. TVA, the Hardin case is the last expression of the court that they lack standing that they would only have standing if they could show not merely that the statute was violated but then it was intended to protect a competitive interest over theirs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1431.937, 1446.036, 1477.243], "stop_times": [1446.036, 1477.243, 1501.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1431.937}, "reply_to": "14963__1_013", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_015", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, who could adopt the statute under -- who could raise this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1501.201], "stop_times": [1505.301], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.201}, "reply_to": "14963__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_016", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I would think in the circumstances -- present circumstances, the action on the part of a bank in violation of the act could be challenged by bank\u2019s supervisory authorities.\nIt is possible that with respect to some provisions of the National Bank Act which might have been designed to protect possibly the solvency of banks that their depositors or customers might have a standing -- or shareholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1505.301, 1523.431], "stop_times": [1523.431, 1540.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1505.301}, "reply_to": "14963__1_015", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_017", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Or shareholders in any event, wouldn\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1540.04], "stop_times": [1542.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.04}, "reply_to": "14963__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14963__1_018", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I would think so if the shareholder again could establish as I think he would very like to be able to in many instances at least that the provision which was being violated by the bank was intended to ensure the solvency of the bank.\nAdditionally, if Your Honor pleases, any time that the Congress sees fit to insert in this statute a person aggrieved provision.\nReview would be available at the behest of people who would qualify as persons aggrieved.\nThe Congress has not chosen to close these petitioners with the status of essentially private attorneys general.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1542.14, 1559.613, 1575.477, 1582.123], "stop_times": [1559.613, 1575.477, 1582.123, 1592.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1542.14}, "reply_to": "14963__1_017", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_019", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Your position makes it very hard doesn\u2019t it for anyone to attack except in government agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1592.654], "stop_times": [1600.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.654}, "reply_to": "14963__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_020", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Your Honor, there are areas -- many areas in which the superintendence of compliance with statutory mandates rest with the Congress itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1600.628], "stop_times": [1615.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1600.628}, "reply_to": "14963__1_019", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_021", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, then what do you say to the question that I asked you, doesn\u2019t it make it almost impossible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1615.256], "stop_times": [1620.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.256}, "reply_to": "14963__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_022", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I would think in this instance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1620.375], "stop_times": [1621.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.375}, "reply_to": "14963__1_021", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_023", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Anybody could challenge it except the bank officers of the superintendent of banks himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1621.4], "stop_times": [1627.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.4}, "reply_to": "14963__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_024", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I would think Your Honor with respect to this particular provision there are few individuals would have standing to attack the provision.\nThat\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1627.64, 1637.381], "stop_times": [1637.381, 1638.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.64}, "reply_to": "14963__1_023", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_025", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "With the stockholders --\nWith the stockholders, the bank stockholders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1638.496, 1639.936], "stop_times": [1639.936, 1641.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.496}, "reply_to": "14963__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__1_026", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes, stockholders well might but certainly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1641.041], "stop_times": [1645.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.041}, "reply_to": "14963__1_025", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_027", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "On the basis of ultra vires or somewhere to analyze?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1645.175], "stop_times": [1648.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.175}, "reply_to": "14963__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__1_028", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes, I would think it\u2019s quite possible the stockholders would but in the realm of competitors, the realm of individuals such as these petitioners who are complaining of competitive activity in the part of the banks.\nTheir remedy lies with the Congress to which they have gone repeatedly.\nBut before and after, the passage of the Bank Service Corporation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1648.159, 1662.903, 1667.911], "stop_times": [1662.903, 1667.911, 1673.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1648.159}, "reply_to": "14963__1_027", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_029", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well then are you telling us that that\u2019s the way Congress wants it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1673.253], "stop_times": [1676.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.253}, "reply_to": "14963__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__1_030", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s precisely what I'm suggesting to the Court that the -- again the ADAPSO itself has been before the Congress.\nIt has sought after the Bank Service Corporation Act was passed to have Congress specifically preclude data processing service activities on the part of banks except as they related to the internal operations of the bank.\nThey have also called the Congress\u2019 attention, the absence of a judicial review provision and the necessity for such a provision.\nAnd to this point those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.\nNow, we say it is quite appropriate for the Congress to decide whereas here there is no legally protective right of the petitioners being invaded appropriate to the Congress to decide, the extent to which it wishes to deputize these petitioners or any other class as private attorney\u2019s general to enforce what they say is the public interest and compliance with the National Bank Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1676.477, 1685.901, 1703.012, 1712.488, 1716.419], "stop_times": [1685.901, 1703.012, 1712.488, 1716.419, 1747.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.477}, "reply_to": "14963__1_029", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_031", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "May I ask you a question, again, assuming that they are right and that Congress has made it unlawful for these banks to do exactly what they have charge for duty and did it in order to protect competitors, is it your position that nobody cannot challenge it except the bank examiner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1747.033], "stop_times": [1775.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.033}, "reply_to": "14963__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_032", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt\u2019s my -- if Congress had done this for the protection of competitors then under the established standing doctrine, the latest decision being Your Honor\u2019s decision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1775.589, 1777.166], "stop_times": [1777.166, 1789.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.589}, "reply_to": "14963__1_031", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_033", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s their argument in Hardin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1789.274], "stop_times": [1790.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.274}, "reply_to": "14963__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_034", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "In Hardin, but we insist if the Court pleases that the restriction which they seek to enforce -- the restriction of the National Bank Act was not intended to protect a competitive interest and indeed they don\u2019t argue to the contrary, they have never suggested either on the lower courts or in this Court that the purpose of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1790.419], "stop_times": [1812.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.419}, "reply_to": "14963__1_033", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_035", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I misunderstood the argument here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1812.905], "stop_times": [1814.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.905}, "reply_to": "14963__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_036", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, their contention is that in the Bank Service Corporation Act specifically with relation to Section 4 of that Act that Congress manifested an intent to protect data processors from the kind of competition of which their complaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1814.537], "stop_times": [1839.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.537}, "reply_to": "14963__1_035", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_037", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Assume that that\u2019s true, let\u2019s assume it was passed for that purpose, is it still your -- and it maybe said, I'm not saying it\u2019s not.\nI want to get just how far it goes.\nIt\u2019s still your argument notwithstanding express as that of Congress to give this kind of competitors a protection that none of them can raise it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1839.629, 1850.253, 1851.824], "stop_times": [1850.253, 1851.824, 1862.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.629}, "reply_to": "14963__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_038", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, that\u2019s not my argument Your Honor.\nIf the Bank Service Corporation Act in this legislative history manifested a congressional intent to protect data processing service companies from competition on the part of National Banks, then I would certainly agree that under the teachings of this Court is recently again in the Hardin case standing what exist.\nWhat we say is that the -- there isn\u2019t a job or syllable in the legislative history of the Bank Service Corporation Act to indicate any congressional intent to protect the bank service corporations from the competition of which they are complaining here.\nNow, the legislative --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1862.334, 1865.036, 1895.318, 1917.091], "stop_times": [1865.036, 1895.318, 1917.091, 1918.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.334}, "reply_to": "14963__1_037", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_039", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Let me ask you the question of my brother Harlan asked you a little bit ago, if that\u2019s the case, aren\u2019t you saying that we have to look at this Act in order to see whether that was its purpose to decide standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1918.382], "stop_times": [1934.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.382}, "reply_to": "14963__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_040", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "The only extent that you have to look to the Bank Service Corporation Act begin in response to Mr. Justice Harlan, I suggest that we did not need to reach the merits of this controversy because the merits are of course are in terms of an alleged violation of the National Bank Act.\nAnd it\u2019s not necessary to reach that question whether or not the National Bank Act has been violated in order to decide standing.\nNow, with respect to the Bank Service Corporation Act, the only thing that is required is to examine this legislative history and to determine whether the Congress was intending by that Act to any extent to protect a competitive interest of data processing service companies against National Bank competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1934.407, 1950.427, 1957.34], "stop_times": [1950.427, 1957.34, 1983.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.407}, "reply_to": "14963__1_039", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_041", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Now, supposing this would arose under the Bank Service Act, is your question standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1983.721], "stop_times": [1989.669], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.721}, "reply_to": "14963__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_042", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "If this was an attack upon a Bank Service Corporation Activity, I think the standing question would be much closer.\nI say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1989.669, 1998.797], "stop_times": [1998.797, 1999.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1989.669}, "reply_to": "14963__1_041", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_043", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, it would be fairly against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [1999.547], "stop_times": [2001.133], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.547}, "reply_to": "14963__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_044", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "I don\u2019t think so Your Honor for this reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2001.133], "stop_times": [2002.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.133}, "reply_to": "14963__1_043", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_045", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2002.441], "stop_times": [2003.404], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.441}, "reply_to": "14963__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_046", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Because the only statement in the entire legislative history of the Bank Service Corporation Act which manifested any concern for the protection of data processors was the statement on the floor by Senator Proxmire.\nNow, this Court has questioned before --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2003.404, 2028.766], "stop_times": [2028.766, 2030.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.404}, "reply_to": "14963__1_045", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_047", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What about the provision itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2030.807], "stop_times": [2033.055], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2030.807}, "reply_to": "14963__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_048", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, the provision itself could have been for many different reasons.\nIn the congressional mind, the provision itself might have been a gain because of the feeling that Bank Service Corporations in the general public interest without relation to any specific competitive rule should not be engaging in activities other than the providing of Bank Services to banks.\nThere\u2019s no way of really telling what of many possible approaches there might have been, but this much is clear.\nWe\u2019re dealing with National Banks here, Congress in connection with the Bank Service Corporation Act both banking and currency committees, both the Committee in the House and the Committee in the Senate were specifically apprised of the fact that National Banks were engaged in this activity.\nNow, if there was some concern --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2033.055, 2038.273, 2058.804, 2066.757, 2094.784], "stop_times": [2038.273, 2058.804, 2066.757, 2094.784, 2096.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.055}, "reply_to": "14963__1_047", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_049", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Was it hard for you to tell a man who doesn\u2019t know all about bank services what bank services precisely what bank services involved?\nThe banking service company, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2096.946, 2109.105], "stop_times": [2109.105, 2114.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.946}, "reply_to": "14963__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_050", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What is the Bank Service Corporation itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2114.0], "stop_times": [2116.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.0}, "reply_to": "14963__1_049", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_051", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "How they do it again?\nOr exceed who the competitors are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2116.606, 2120.259], "stop_times": [2120.259, 2124.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.606}, "reply_to": "14963__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_052", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, there\u2019s no bank service corporation involved in the present case Your Honor.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2124.224, 2127.73], "stop_times": [2127.73, 2127.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.224}, "reply_to": "14963__1_051", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_053", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "But it\u2019s a bank.\nIt\u2019s right it\u2019s a bank.\nWhat are the bank services that are being performed that they object to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2127.908, 2128.816, 2130.189], "stop_times": [2128.816, 2130.189, 2135.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.908}, "reply_to": "14963__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_054", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "The bank services -- well, what they seek to enjoin as being outside of the scope of 247 is the providing of Data Processing Services to customers of the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2135.572], "stop_times": [2147.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.572}, "reply_to": "14963__1_053", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_055", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What are the data processing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2147.751], "stop_times": [2150.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.751}, "reply_to": "14963__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_056", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "With what kind of services?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2150.378], "stop_times": [2151.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.378}, "reply_to": "14963__1_055", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_057", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2151.448], "stop_times": [2151.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.448}, "reply_to": "14963__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_058", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, they would include for example putting a company\u2019s payroll through a computer.\nIt\u2019s the kind of record in the bookkeeping type of services which today are provided in most up-to-date business establishments signed an automated basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2151.936, 2158.125], "stop_times": [2158.125, 2169.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.936}, "reply_to": "14963__1_057", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_059", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s precisely what\u2019s involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2169.701], "stop_times": [2171.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.701}, "reply_to": "14963__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14963__1_060", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "That\u2019s correct, that is correct.\nBut the -- getting back if I may just for minute of the legislative history of the Bank Service Corporation Act is unreasonable to assume that had there been this concern that petitioners insist existing regarding competition on the part of banks themselves -- the National Banks in particular with data processing service companies, that Section 4 would not have been cast as it is solely in terms of bank service corporations but what have embraced banks as well.\nAn important fact, Section 5 of the Act does deal with banks in a completely of course unrelated context.\nNow, we see and think it is very difficult for petitioners to seriously argue here.\nEven though the statute which they claim is being violated, the only statute National Bank Act was not intended for their protection and I admit this, implicitly at least, that they have standing to complain violations of the National Bank Act on the basis of a statute which is on its face does not apply to Bank Service Corporations.\nCircumstances where the Congress that both congressional committees were informed the banks were engaging in this activity and not only does the Act not refer to banks in this context, but there wasn\u2019t one single suggestion and the committee reports of either committee that this was an activity which should be legislated the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2171.6, 2175.801, 2215.713, 2225.492, 2232.334, 2258.2], "stop_times": [2175.801, 2215.713, 2225.492, 2232.334, 2258.2, 2283.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.6}, "reply_to": "14963__1_059", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_061", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "What was the original motive for that that led to the bank services?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2283.357], "stop_times": [2288.639], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.357}, "reply_to": "14963__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_062", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "The motivation for the Act?\nIt was considered in 1962 both by the Comptroller of the Currency and The Federal Reserve Board that a bank was precluded, absolutely precluded from owning stock in another corporation.\nThe purpose of the Bank Service Corporation Act was to enable banks to invest to these bank service corporations so that banks particularly small ones could combine to obtain the advantage of among other things automated facilities which individually they could not have purchased.\nThe whole basis of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2288.639, 2291.445, 2313.6, 2338.895], "stop_times": [2291.445, 2313.6, 2338.895, 2339.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.639}, "reply_to": "14963__1_061", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_063", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "The whole motivation of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2339.025], "stop_times": [2340.907], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.025}, "reply_to": "14963__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_064", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Excuse me, I don\u2019t mean to interrupt you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2340.907], "stop_times": [2341.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.907}, "reply_to": "14963__1_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__1_065", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, the motivation of the act indeed was to provide assistance to banks not to impose any kind of restrictions that were not already there.\nAnd I think that Representative Malter who is a senior member of the Banking of Currency Committee really admonished against the kind of approach which the petitioners advance here and the quotation which appears in the amicus curiae brief of the American Bank Association on page 12.\nI won\u2019t read the quote, but he specifically indicates that he wants to make it abundantly clear that this Bill was not intended to go outside the very language appearing in the Bill and he goes on to say that it will not interfere with any authority now invested in banks and that it simply sets up a new means by which individual banks can acquire these additional services.\nNow, it was in part in parcel of the conferral of this benefit upon banks if this restriction was put in which was -- limits the bank service corporation to performing bank services for banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2341.938, 2352.3, 2380.369, 2406.191], "stop_times": [2352.3, 2380.369, 2406.191, 2421.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.938}, "reply_to": "14963__1_064", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_066", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Now, what was the motivation to that Section 4 to narrow my brother Harlan\u2019s question a little bit?\nI have in mind the -- what Judge Bailey Aldrich says about its motivation.\nI haven\u2019t independently looked at the legislative history but he says it\u2019s very clear to him that that motivation came from the National Society of Public Accountants who were afraid of the competition (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2421.409, 2428.281, 2432.892], "stop_times": [2428.281, 2432.892, 2443.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.409}, "reply_to": "14963__1_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__1_067", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "It may have been that it was initially spearheaded by that rule, but I think Your Honor pleases that the actual motivation of the congressional adoption of this provision was to just get that Bank Service Corporation Act through, it\u2019s a form of compromise that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2443.986], "stop_times": [2463.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.986}, "reply_to": "14963__1_066", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_068", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "But your compromising was what interest on the other side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2463.483], "stop_times": [2466.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.483}, "reply_to": "14963__1_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__1_069", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, I don\u2019t think that there is any indication of beyond the Senator Proxmire of an interest in data processing service companies.\nBut even so the interest was reflected only in the context of the activities of the bank service corporation itself.\nNow, I wish to stress again that as said out in some length in the amicus brief of the American Bank Association there have been several bills for the Congress since 1962 in which they -- there has been in connection with which there has been a request usually spearheaded by ADAPSO that there be a prohibition directly impose on banks with respect to data processing service activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2466.317, 2475.633, 2482.213], "stop_times": [2475.633, 2482.213, 2519.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.317}, "reply_to": "14963__1_068", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_070", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Has any committee report of the Congress said in substance what Congressman Malter said in the quote that you referred to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2519.423], "stop_times": [2530.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.423}, "reply_to": "14963__1_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__1_071", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Well, I think that the thrust of the committee reports, I don\u2019t recall Mr. Chief Justice whether there is a specific statement in the committee reports to that effect.\nBut the whole thrust of the reports of the two Houses, the majority views particularly I wish to stress that the petitioner is here from the statement which I quote from the supplemental minority views that they according from a minority view and even there it doesn\u2019t go in really to the matter of protection competitors but simply solvency.\nBut the whole thrust really the majority views of the two committees is that this is an Act which is designed to legislate in the area of bank service corporations and not in any other area.\nAnd we think that it is really is not appropriate basis for carrying over this statute into another area and allowing it to be used as a statutory aid standing to question activity under a statute which was not intended to protect the competitor who has bring the challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2530.063, 2539.572, 2567.094, 2581.563], "stop_times": [2539.572, 2567.094, 2581.563, 2611.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.063}, "reply_to": "14963__1_070", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_072", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Mr. Rosenthal, as I understood you in an answer to a question by Mr. Justice Harlan, you said that if the facts of this case were that a bank service corporation was performing these services for a hardware store directly that these petitioners would still not have standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2611.303], "stop_times": [2641.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.303}, "reply_to": "14963__1_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14963__1_073", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, Your Honor, I suggested that possibility.\nWell, I meant to say was that that would be a much closer case.\nThere, if they well might be found to have standing.\nAnd on the other hand, there\u2019s an argument at least that they would lack standing.\nIt was not a gain I wish to stress it\u2019s a completely different situation than the one which is before the Court here where they are not invoking as the basis of complaint of the legality of that Act, some other statute.\nNow, I would only add have if the Court pleases that for the reasons that are detailed in our brief, we do not believe that there is any reason why this Court should suggest -- excuse me, should adopt the alternative suggestion of petitioners that the rule of Ellerman, Tennessee Power, and Hardin be discarded.\nWe think that that rule does not as petitioners suggest -- would suggest we think the rule does not leave the public interest unprotected.\nWe think what it does do is leave it to the Congress inappropriately so to determine where superintendence of the administrative action should be when those circumstances where the claimant can point to the invasion of no legally protected right.\nWe think that fundamentally what the role of the Court is -- the proper role of the Court is the -- that of a guardian of legally protected rights and interests.\nWe think that outside of that realm, it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to make the decision as to whether it wishes the courts to extend judicial review to those who\u2019s like these petitioners it can claim solely aggrieved in the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2641.109, 2643.685, 2648.166, 2651.589, 2657.259, 2673.034, 2704.338, 2719.705, 2739.778, 2753.249], "stop_times": [2643.685, 2648.166, 2651.589, 2657.259, 2673.034, 2704.338, 2719.705, 2739.778, 2753.249, 2771.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.109}, "reply_to": "14963__1_072", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_074", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Mr. Rosenthal, do you think Flast v. Cohen (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2771.196], "stop_times": [2775.527], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.196}, "reply_to": "14963__1_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14963__1_075", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Flast and Cohen Mr. Justice Harlan, we believe to be fully consistent with the standing cases upon which we rely.\nIn Flast and Cohen -- against Cohen, this Court held that in so far as the Article 3 requirement of the case of controversy is concerned that it was enough that there be a substantial personal state.\nBut the Court there was confronted with a situation where there was obviously a legal right involved as the Court construed the First Amendment.\nThey -- that individual has a right legally protect the constitutionally protected right to be free from having his tax moneys expended for in the furtherance of a religious purpose.\nAnd I would only add that in just last June, this Court in Jenkins versus McKeithen, as the opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall specifically indicated referring to Flast against Cohen that something more than adversary interest is necessary to confer standing.\nThere must be an addition, some connection between the official action challenge and some legally protected interest party challenging that action.\nAnd while Mr. Justice Marshall\u2019s opinion again was for himself and two other justices as we read the concurring and dissenting opinions, there was no disagreement on this interpretation of Flast.\nAnd we would submit if the Court pleases that in this case, petitioners have not established requisite connection between the official action which they challenged the action of the Comptroller interpreting the National Bank Act and some legally protected interest which they possess.\nAnd as so far as the National Bank Act is concerned as they admit themselves competitors have no legally protected interest.\nFor these reasons, we respectfully submit that the judgment of court below should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2775.527, 2784.791, 2802.358, 2815.177, 2831.863, 2853.788, 2863.059, 2876.356, 2897.838, 2905.678], "stop_times": [2784.791, 2802.358, 2815.177, 2831.863, 2853.788, 2863.059, 2876.356, 2897.838, 2905.678, 2912.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.527}, "reply_to": "14963__1_074", "speaker": "alan_s_rosenthal"}
{"id": "14963__1_076", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Thank you Mr. Rosenthal.\nMr. Gross, you have I think about 10 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2912.166, 2913.751], "stop_times": [2913.751, 2917.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.166}, "reply_to": "14963__1_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__2_000", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Thank you.\nIf the Court please, we cannot agree that assuming that we have standing to challenge the action of a wholly-owned subsidiary of a National Bank that we do not have standing to challenge the identical activity of the National Bank itself.\nWe think that that cuts the doctrine of standing too fine.\nAs far as the legislative purpose of the Bank Service Corporation Act, the respondents have stated that we only have Senator Proxmire statements as to the purpose for Section 4.\nBut of course Senator Proxmire introduced this Section, he explicitly stated his reasons for doing so on and it was passed.\nThere is another statement which we have quoted in the footnote on our brief at page 35 and this is from Senator Bush.\nSenator Bush said, \u201cI join with the Senator that is Senator Proxmire in supporting the Bill.\nI think the Senator\u2019s amendment is well taken.\nI think it is advisable to try the situation out at the bank level before we authorize banks to go into competition with other service organizations in providing the type of service kind contemplated here.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2917.309, 2919.024, 2940.62, 2946.313, 2960.617, 2967.876, 2975.449, 2981.521, 2984.393], "stop_times": [2919.024, 2940.62, 2946.313, 2960.617, 2967.876, 2975.449, 2981.521, 2984.393, 2998.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2917.309}, "reply_to": "14963__1_076", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__2_001", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "There you\u2019re getting at the merits, aren\u2019t you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [2998.887], "stop_times": [3002.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.887}, "reply_to": "14963__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14963__2_002", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "No, Senator Bush is saying that again that we should not authorize banks to go into competition.\nWe\u2019re presenting this only for a statement of the interest that was trying to be protected that they were trying to protect the competitive interest.\nAnd this is what gives the standing, it is the congressional intent or purpose to protect competitive interest which gives the standing and we do not go into the merits at this time.\nAs far as reaching the merits of the case and the question of whether or not the merits will ever be reached and who can reach the merits if we cannot.\nWe frankly do not think that the Comptroller of the Currency is the -- is an adequate person to reach the merits to this situation.\nNumber one, he has already decided that the banks do have authority under the statute.\nSecondly, and in a broader sense, there have been recently in the Court of Appeals six cases regarding entry by a National Banks into various areas of business endeavor which have not previously been considered traditional banking areas.\nFrom these six cases, four cases of the Court of Appeals held standing, two they held no standing.\nOf the three cases that actually reached the merits, two of the three held that bank action was illegal and all these cases, this action was authorized by the Comptroller of the Currency.\nSo, on the merits the Comptroller is banning one out of three and the legality of bank actions and on these grounds, we think that judicial review is needed and this is a traditional function of the courts to decide the question of statutory interpretation.\nFor these reasons, we repeat that we feel we do have standing in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [3002.213, 3011.096, 3018.483, 3031.84, 3042.048, 3053.133, 3060.283, 3078.797, 3085.839, 3097.696, 3115.108], "stop_times": [3011.096, 3018.483, 3031.84, 3042.048, 3053.133, 3060.283, 3078.797, 3085.839, 3097.696, 3115.108, 3120.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3002.213}, "reply_to": "14963__2_001", "speaker": "bert_m_gross"}
{"id": "14963__2_003", "conversation_id": "14963", "text": "Thank you Mr. Gross, thank you Mr. Rosenthal for your submissions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_85", "start_times": [3120.728, 3125.404], "stop_times": [3125.404, 3128.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.728}, "reply_to": "14963__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15084__0_000", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Number 477, Atlantic Coast Line against Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.\nMr. Friedmann, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [0.0, 31.807], "stop_times": [31.807, 35.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15084__0_001", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.\nDue to the intricate litigation, which is in the background of this case, and the complex factual setting as well as the unique procedural vehicle which was employed by the respondent Brotherhoods below, we will, with the Court's permission, make first a separate and distinct statement of the facts and of the procedural setting in this case, which will then be followed by Mr. Lyons's argument of the law as applied to those facts.\nFirst to the background and the physical setting which we're dealing with; Physically, we are dealing with the property of three separate railroad carriers.\nFirst, the Florida East Coast Railway; The Florida East Coast property is located in large part to the south of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida, although, it is bounded on the north by the north bank of the St. Johns River.\nThe second parcel of the property we are dealing with is located to the north of the FEC property, and that property is of the Jacksonville Terminal Company.\nThirdly, the property which is directly involved here is the Moncrief Yard located again north of the Jacksonville Terminal Company.\nBy way of background and in highly capsule form if I may, in January, 1963, the FEC non-operating employees went on strike and began to picket the FEC property.\nIn May of 1966, these pickets moved up the land and across the St. Johns River and began to picket the Jacksonville Terminal Company.\nTwo series of litigation resulted from that picketing, both of which came before this Court.\nFirst, the Jacksonville Terminal Company sought an injunction and was granted an injunction in Federal Court.\nThat injunction was reversed due to the Bar of Norris-LaGuardia by the Fifth Circuit and this Court affirmed full forward.\nSecondly, the Jacksonville Terminal Company sought an injunction in the state court.\nThat injunction was granted and in March of last year, this Court reversed by a four- three decision.\nIn the meantime however, and in April, 1967, the FEC pickets again moved up the land and placed pickets around the ACL's Moncrief Yard.\nMoncrief Yard, the facility which is involved in this case is a wholly-owned piece of property or a piece of property wholly owned by the ACL which is devoted primarily to classification and secondarily to the interchange of traffic with connecting carriers.\nClassification as the term implies is the simple act of breaking down a road train which comes in to the yard, putting it into its separate classes and putting it in a road train which goes out of the yard, it comes in ACL and goes out ACL.\nThe interchange procedure, which is used by FEC and ACL in Moncrief Yard is also quite similar.\nThe FEC with its locomotives and employees bring cars across the St. Johns River north, across the Jacksonville Terminal Company, and drop them on a previously designated track in Moncrief Yard.\nAnd on occasions, they pick up cars from Moncrief Yard and take them back to their own classification yard south of the river, back on the yard.\nThe operating procedure which exists as to Moncrief Yard as well as the relationship between ACL and FEC is, we respectfully submit, totally distinguishable from the situation which existed in the case decided by this Court in March of last year.\nIn the first place, the FEC owns no part of the ACL stock or no part of ACL property.\nSecondly, the FEC obviously owns no part of Moncrief Yard and had no interest, ownership wise in Moncrief Yard.\nThe FEC exercises no discretion in either the overall management of ACL or in the management and operation of Moncrief Yard.\nThe ACL does not maintain or repair any FEC cars and engines, And very importantly, we submit in this case, no FEC employee reports to or leaves from work at the picketed premises Moncrief Yard.\nThe 1967 picketing, which is in issue here, took place at the ACL employee entrance into Moncrief Yard.\nThe request, which was made by picket signs, pamphlets and apparently by telephone calls during the night was for ACL employees to go to work, but refuse to perform the functions which they normally perform in that yard, namely classify and interchange cars which are the sole property of ACL.\nThere are at least three points which we believe should be made insofar as the picketing is concerned.\nFirst, there's no relationship between the picketing, which took place at Moncrief Yard in the presence of FEC in that yard.\nSecondly, the intent of the Brotherhood is obvious and was expressed by the highest official insofar as the strike is concerned, and that is to close the ACL because the ACL was doing business with the FEC.\nThirdly, picketing was designed to force ACL employees to quit performing work, which they normally did for the ACL.\nAs to the relationship between the picketing and the FEC presence in the yard, there was no relationship in time between the picketing and the FEC presence in the yard.\nThey picketed when the ACL employees came to work and this was not necessarily at all at the time when FEC employees or engines might be in Moncrief Yard.\nThere was no relationship in effect.\nThe effect of this picketing was to cause ACL employees to cease to handle ACL cars and in many instances, cars which were never \u2013- or never originated or were not destined to FEC.\nSeparation is practical in this case.\nThere are more than one place at which these FEC employees could be picketed and the intent was expressed by the head Brotherhood man insofar as this strike is concerned, and I quote from the appendix at page 31, \u201cHe was going to shut down the coastline railroad.\n\u201d It was in this factual situation that the rather unique procedural complexity arose.\nFirst in 1967, the ACL filed a complaint in Federal Court based solely on Federal law and sought a temporary restraining order.\nThat motion or request for a temporary restraining order was denied on the grounds of the Bar of Norris-LaGuardia.\nThis action lay dormant from April 26, 1967 to May 23, 1969.\nSubsequently, the ACL filed suit in the state court, requesting an injunction solely under state law, that injunction was granted.\nIn March, 1969, this Court handed down its opinion in Trainmen versus Jacksonville Terminal and it's the chronology of subsequent events with which this Court is primarily concerned today.\nFirst, the Brotherhood moved to dissolve the state court injunction, which had been handed down in 1967 and noticed a hearing for May 23, 1969.\nVirtually, while this hearing was going on in state court, on the Brotherhood motion to dissolve the injunction, a handwritten answer was filed by the Brotherhood in the dormant Federal Case, and a copy of that answer is found in the appendix at page 163.\nA second full hearing on the merits was held in State Court and Judge Lackey then issued a letter opinion which indicated that he would deny the Brotherhood's motion to dissolve the state court injunction.\nIt was then that the Brotherhood filed a motion in the dormant federal case in Federal Court requesting that the federal district judge in effect enjoin the state court from enforcing its injunction.\nAnd the grounds of the motion were, and I quote from the appendix at page 186, to enjoin ACL from availing itself of the state court injunction \u201cpending final hearing and determination of this [the federal action].\n\u201d The ACL attempted to have the federal action finally determined and in fact, immediately filed a notice of dismissal.\nThe ACL stated in open court that it was willing to have its complaint and its case dismissed with prejudice.\nThe Brotherhood objected to a dismissal with prejudice, even though they had not in their handwritten answer sought any affirmative or counter relief, and the challenged order was entered on June 19, 1969, which one; denied the ACL the right to dismiss its complaint with prejudice and two; enjoined the state court from enforcing the 1967 injunction pending final hearing, in a case in which we respectfully submit there was nothing left to finally hear.\nWe did however seek a final hearing and we were denied a final hearing and it is subsequent to that that we felt these appellate proceedings were commenced.\nIn conclusion as to the facts and the procedural setting which gave rise to this case, we would respectfully submit that the procedural vehicle of a federal district judge enjoining a state court used by the Brotherhood in this case is unique and does constitute a serious and we believe a grave threat to continued federal state judicial relationships.\nThe ACL sought injunctive relief in federal court in 1967, and that relief was denied because the Court was barred from acting under Norris-LaGuardia.\nThe Brotherhood did not and has never sought any counter or affirmative relief in that case, and the federal court did not determine and could not determine the legality of the picketing in 1967.\nSubsequently, the Brotherhood contends that somehow, the district \u2013- the Federal District Court in negatively denying the ACL's requested relief, affirmatively determined that the picketing was legal.\nIt was not however until after the Brotherhood had failed to prevail in state court on its motion to dissolve the state court injunction that the Brotherhood took steps to enjoin the state court to \u201cprotect\u201d the jurisdiction of the federal court.\nWe respectfully submit that the intent was obvious and the effect was obvious, and that was to subvert the appellate processes of the state of Florida, avoid normal appellate procedures in the state of Florida, and to seek directly a review of a state court circuit judge decision by a federal district judge.\nAnd it is that error legally, which with the Court's permission, Mr. Lyons will commence discussing at this time, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [35.259, 39.792, 73.945, 85.593, 104.472, 115.207, 126.007, 142.943, 153.416, 160.303, 167.092, 174.872, 179.79, 188.594, 205.479, 226.149, 243.661, 250.481, 264.881, 274.378, 295.312, 304.275, 312.183, 322.263, 341.405, 352.965, 374.313, 381.34, 391.95, 406.552, 418.911, 429.976, 441.275, 443.914, 460.105, 463.109, 486.774, 496.963, 508.249, 516.058, 525.149, 537.0, 550.162, 561.51, 584.309, 598.216, 614.361, 633.469, 641.395, 649.83, 688.075, 698.717, 730.88, 742.607, 757.397, 773.954, 793.71, 817.411], "stop_times": [39.792, 73.945, 85.593, 104.472, 115.207, 126.007, 142.943, 153.416, 160.303, 167.092, 174.872, 179.79, 188.594, 205.479, 226.149, 243.661, 250.481, 264.881, 274.378, 295.312, 304.275, 312.183, 322.263, 341.405, 352.965, 374.313, 381.34, 391.95, 406.552, 418.911, 429.976, 441.275, 443.914, 460.105, 463.109, 486.774, 496.963, 508.249, 516.058, 525.149, 537.0, 550.162, 561.51, 584.309, 598.216, 614.361, 633.469, 641.395, 649.83, 688.075, 698.717, 730.88, 742.607, 757.397, 773.954, 793.71, 817.411, 833.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 35.259}, "reply_to": "15084__0_000", "speaker": "frank_x_friedman_jr"}
{"id": "15084__0_002", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Mr. Lyons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [833.611], "stop_times": [834.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.611}, "reply_to": "15084__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15084__1_000", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis case is quite different from the previous cases involving the attempts of the Railway Brotherhoods to involve the neutral carriers in their seven-year labor dispute with the FEC.\nThe basic point of difference is that this is the first case which involves an injunction granted out of the courts in one of our concurrent jurisdictions, the federal jurisdiction, against proceedings in state courts.\nNow, we submit that for the Brotherhood here to prevail, for the respondents here to prevail, they must on the basic issue in this case prevail on two points.\nFirst, they must show that this case falls within the exceptions to the anti-injunction statute.\nThat is Section 2283 of the Judicial Code.\nSecond, after bringing the case within those exceptions, they have to demonstrate that on the merits that this federal court, federal law defense that they attempt to litigate through this injunction against the state court proceedings, they further have to show that that defense is a good and valid defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [834.626, 837.914, 855.789, 873.933, 888.085, 896.199, 901.145], "stop_times": [837.914, 855.789, 873.933, 888.085, 896.199, 901.145, 925.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.626}, "reply_to": "15084__0_002", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_001", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "And also we have to show with this injunction itself is not covered by Norris-LaGuardia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [925.305], "stop_times": [930.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.305}, "reply_to": "15084__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15084__1_002", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Yes, and they further have to show that that is sort of a severable point, but they also have to demonstrate that the matter started by the injunction that our side sought in the federal court being denied for that various -\u2013 very reason.\nWe on the other hand need only to prevail on one of the three points, which we have just mentioned.\nWe need only to demonstrate either that this case is not within any of the exceptions to Section 2283 or that the preemption or supersession defense that they're attempting to litigate in this fashion isn't a good one, or that Norris-LaGuardia here takes away the power of the federal court to enjoin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [930.373, 949.806, 955.149], "stop_times": [949.806, 955.149, 978.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.373}, "reply_to": "15084__1_001", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_003", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "if you prevail or you prevail as to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [978.351], "stop_times": [980.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.351}, "reply_to": "15084__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15084__1_004", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Any one of those three reasons Your Honor.\nWe start with Section 2283 of the Judicial Code, which is the statute that takes us back virtually to the start of our Constitutional Republic.\nIn its earliest version, it was passed in 1793.\nIt has been amended at various times, but remains in the same substantial form in which it was enacted back then in the Third Congress.\nIt now says, \u201cA Court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by act of Congress or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.\n\u201d This Court has construed that statute on a number of occasions in the century and three quarters that it's been on books.\nThe basic purpose of the statute, this Court has said, is to avoid needless friction between the state and the federal court systems.\nThe first reason obviously is comity that we have and have had since the foundation of our Constitutional Republic, two independent systems of Courts operating.\nThe relationship between them is a delicate matter.\nThe second reason is that of uniformity.\nAs this Court has once said, it is not only the state court judges that are capable of misinterpreting this Court's decisions.\nThe lower federal courts, as this Court has indicated, sometimes are in error themselves.\nRecognizing that, this Court has indicated if we were to have the lower federal court sitting in judgment over whether the federal law defenses that were urged in the state courts were properly passed upon, we would have less and less uniformity.\nWe would have different federal judges taking different views, just as you would have different state court judges taking different views of what the federal law was.\nWe would be introducing added diversity and lack of uniformity rather than simplifying matters.\nSo it is that the 1793 legislation is in a way in the same -\u2013 deals with the same subject matter as the court's Judiciary Act of 1789, which again has been on the books and has been the basic principle of this Court's review of state court judgments.\nAnd that is that this Court has jurisdiction to review the validity of federal law defenses that are set up in the state courts.\nBut then, only where the case had preceded in an orderly fashion through the state court system and where the judgment of the highest state court that is available to pass on the question has been obtained.\nBack in 1955, under the present version of the anti-injunction statute, Section 2283 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [980.326, 983.99, 996.443, 1001.251, 1013.407, 1037.968, 1048.4, 1059.998, 1073.264, 1077.406, 1080.765, 1091.23, 1101.012, 1122.616, 1132.715, 1141.016, 1162.355, 1176.781, 1196.944], "stop_times": [983.99, 996.443, 1001.251, 1013.407, 1037.968, 1048.4, 1059.998, 1073.264, 1077.406, 1080.765, 1091.23, 1101.012, 1122.616, 1132.715, 1141.016, 1162.355, 1176.781, 1196.944, 1206.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.326}, "reply_to": "15084__1_003", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_005", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "May ask you one question?\nEven if the Court will not subdue with you in the above statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1206.761, 1210.811], "stop_times": [1210.811, 1212.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1206.761}, "reply_to": "15084__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15084__1_006", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "No, the respondents were afforded an opportunity to submit a final judgment and I believe at the time of the hearing, they indicated that they would so that they could take an appeal from it through the state court system.\nJudge Lackey, the Florida Trial Judge afforded them that right in his letter of opinion, the letter of opinion that's complained of here back on June 3, 1969 \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1212.932, 1231.833], "stop_times": [1231.833, 1242.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.932}, "reply_to": "15084__1_005", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_007", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Could they still enter the final judgment so that there could be viewed \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1242.042], "stop_times": [1246.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.042}, "reply_to": "15084__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15084__1_008", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Yes, they certainly could.\nIt's \u2013- they have not done that and the respondents have not admittedly \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1246.82, 1248.09], "stop_times": [1248.09, 1253.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.82}, "reply_to": "15084__1_007", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_009", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "I think if they'd come to this issue, until the final judgment is issued, a temporary injunction is not itself refuted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1253.5], "stop_times": [1261.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.5}, "reply_to": "15084__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15084__1_010", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "The Florida Law I believe is a bit unclear as to that, as to whether it would be or not, but the state court here was perfectly plain that he was perfectly willing to give them an appealable order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1261.632], "stop_times": [1275.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.632}, "reply_to": "15084__1_009", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_011", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Mr. Lyons, I was a little puzzled by your emphasis in the briefs and now, on the union's failure to get a decree or a judgment under the -- ordinarily a prevailing party takes that responsibility, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1275.32], "stop_times": [1292.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.32}, "reply_to": "15084__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15084__1_012", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Well, we were asked to come into agreement with counsel for the respondent as to the form of the judgment to be entered and the counsel for the respondent I'm sure will confirm this as indicated that he does not wish to join with us in settling the terms of a final judgment or \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1292.894], "stop_times": [1313.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.894}, "reply_to": "15084__1_011", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_013", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "And there's anything to prevent you in the meantime from sending him a copy of a proposed judgment and saying that if there's no comment within ten days, you're going to ask the Court to enter that judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1313.749], "stop_times": [1325.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.749}, "reply_to": "15084__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15084__1_014", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Well, I believe we have sent him a draft.\nWe have never taken the other step, but he has never given us any comments on the form of the judgment.\nI mean \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1325.936, 1327.795, 1335.485], "stop_times": [1327.795, 1335.485, 1335.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.936}, "reply_to": "15084__1_013", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_015", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "I'm not sure what difference it makes, except that you seem to dwell on it so much.\nI \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1335.661, 1339.709], "stop_times": [1339.709, 1339.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.661}, "reply_to": "15084__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15084__1_016", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Well, I think the fact of the matter is, Your Honor, the only point we're trying to make is that it's entirely within the respondent's power if he wants to appeal Judge Lackey's injunction.\nIt's within -\u2013 entirely within his power to do so, and Judge Lackey has afforded that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1339.926, 1353.11], "stop_times": [1353.11, 1357.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.926}, "reply_to": "15084__1_015", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_017", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "I think that the final judgment maybe in about [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1357.919], "stop_times": [1363.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.919}, "reply_to": "15084__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15084__1_018", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "I believe that it could be.\nIn fact, I believe the respondent so requested.\nThere was a \u2013- an extensive evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction in the \u2013- as many facts were developed then, I believe this could be developed.\nIn 1955, using as it was then in effect, the present version of Section 2283, in the Richman Brothers Case this Court made it plain that litigation of the so-called labor preemption or labor supersession, federal law defense to a state court proceeding was not an exception to Section 2283 simply because your position was that the state court was moving in an area where there was preemption or supersession because of federal labor policy.\nThat did not give you a right to go into federal court and obtain an injunction against the state court proceedings.\nThe Court there said that there was no additional implicit exception to be read into Section 2283 even where the contention by the party seeking the injunction was that the state court was wholly without jurisdiction over the subject matter having invaded a field preempted by Congress and let me say that this case I believe is not even as strong a case for a federal court injunction as was Richman Brothers.\nIn Richman Brothers, we had a situation under the Taft-Hartly Act, the Labor Management Relations Act where this Court has held that the state courts are without jurisdiction.\nNow, the principal substantive authority for their preemption or supersession defense that the respondents are urging here is this Court's decision in the Jacksonville Terminal case the last term where this Court expressly said that the state courts have jurisdiction, or that in the circumstances there presented that the application of their own state substantive law had there to yield because of preeminent federal policies.\nNow, since there's no implicit exception for adjudication of the preemption or supersession defense, we turn to the text of the statute.\nThere are two exceptions in the statute that the respondents are citing.\nThe first exception is for injunctions necessary in aid of the District Court's jurisdiction.\nThe revisers note in the existing precedence from the pre-1948 era, and this exception at least was designed to carry forward the pre-existing law, indicate that that exception deals with two cases.\nFirst, you have the removed case where case is removed from the state court to the federal court, and then the state court tries to go ahead with the case as if nothing had happened.\nAnd there, the authorities indicate that in order to protect its jurisdiction, in aid of the District Court's jurisdiction it may enjoin the proceedings in the state court.\nThe other has to do with fund or breaking the line, what the Courts call a reese, if there's a particular fund than only one Court could take jurisdiction over, the exception is also applicable.\nThe decisions of this Court, Klein versus Burke Construction and Princess Lida v. Thompson back before the codification which this codification, we submit, carried forward, indicate that you may, despite that language, have parallel proceedings which seek general or personal relief in the two systems at the same time.\nSo here, there could be a federal court suit under federal law and the state court suit under state law.\nThe fact that there is a proceeding in one doesn't affront the jurisdiction of the other.\nThe next exception that they cite in which I think is the basis of the primary reliance by the respondents is the exception for injunctions necessary to protect or effectuate a District Court's judgments.\nNow, the revisers note teaches that that was aimed to prevent re-litigation by the state courts of a dispute which had been finally litigated by a federal court.\nIn effect, it was designed to overrule perhaps the high water decision of this Court's construction of the anti-injunction statute, which was the 2CV New York Life case back in 1941.\nThe respondents have tried then to characterize this case as one where the federal court was acting in enjoining these proceedings simply to protect or effectuate its judgments.\nNow, for the first time in this Court, they pointed to a whole litany of proceedings in the federal court the cases involving the government's suit against the FEC to which the carrier \u2013- the other carriers aren't a party and the so-called Clark's Case, which came before this Court in 1966, which was a proceeding which was designed to see how far the FEC could go in changing the work rules with their own employees during the strike.\nThere is no order whatsoever or judgment whatsoever in any of these other proceedings that we are strangers to, which the respondent cite as being the order the district court was attempting to protect or effectuate here.\nWe come back to the order which is the one that they've relied on throughout, and that is the April 26, 1967 order of the federal district court, which was the order which denied the injunction to the ACL under federal law.\nNow, that order says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of remedies in the state court under state law.\nIndeed, if getting the injunction in the state court affronted that order of the federal court, it took the respondents quite a long time to complain of that to the federal court.\nThe state court order -\u2013 the federal court order was entered in April, 1967, the state court order in May, 1967.\nThen two years passed and it was not until 1969 that the respondents suggested that there was something in the 1967 order of the federal court that the state court injunction contravened.\nI think the explanation for this delay is simple.\nWhat happened in 1969 was this Court's decision in the Jacksonville Terminal litigation.\nWhat we are trying -\u2013 what the respondents are trying to litigate in the federal court doesn't have anything to do really with the meaning of the district court's 1967 order.\nWhat they are trying to litigate is a preemption defense based upon the intervening decision in the Jacksonville Terminal Case, and that we submit puts us into the Richman Brothers situation where this Court has held that there will be no implicit exceptions to the anti-injunction statute to permit \u2013- to permit litigants to try out the validity of preemption or supersession defenses against state law proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1363.039, 1364.219, 1366.444, 1381.864, 1424.815, 1434.919, 1471.032, 1483.077, 1520.318, 1533.037, 1541.315, 1552.021, 1571.254, 1583.108, 1596.746, 1612.687, 1640.796, 1649.203, 1655.83, 1676.836, 1693.479, 1708.75, 1724.26, 1763.411, 1782.455, 1805.944, 1821.021, 1838.298, 1849.898, 1869.248, 1872.751, 1881.504, 1895.166], "stop_times": [1364.219, 1366.444, 1381.864, 1424.815, 1434.919, 1471.032, 1483.077, 1520.318, 1533.037, 1541.315, 1552.021, 1571.254, 1583.108, 1596.746, 1612.687, 1640.796, 1649.203, 1655.83, 1676.836, 1693.479, 1708.75, 1724.26, 1763.411, 1782.455, 1805.944, 1821.021, 1838.298, 1849.898, 1869.248, 1872.751, 1881.504, 1895.166, 1932.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.039}, "reply_to": "15084__1_017", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_019", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Is it really preemption or even supersession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1932.977], "stop_times": [1937.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.977}, "reply_to": "15084__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15084__1_020", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "I keep using those two terms, Your Honor, I'm not sure it's either.\nIt's the existence of a federal law type of defense, a federal privilege or a federal immunity, if you will, that is urged as a bar to the state proceeding.\nI think this is a \u2013- in a fortiori case really from Richman Brothers if you couldn't try out through an injunction proceeding, our contention that the state courts had no jurisdiction whatsoever, it would seem to follow a fortiori from that that you couldn't try out by way of an injunction against them whether there was some sort of federal law defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1937.5, 1941.75, 1956.116], "stop_times": [1941.75, 1956.116, 1979.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1937.5}, "reply_to": "15084__1_019", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_021", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Whether they were really right -\u2013 right or wrong --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1979.119], "stop_times": [1980.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.119}, "reply_to": "15084__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15084__1_022", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Right or wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1980.595], "stop_times": [1981.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1980.595}, "reply_to": "15084__1_021", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_023", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "-- isn't that come down to that their claim is that under Jacksonville, this Court's opinion in Jacksonville, since this case was virtually indistinguishable, the state court was wrong in issuing an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1981.531], "stop_times": [1993.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.531}, "reply_to": "15084__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15084__1_024", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "That was their claim, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1993.867], "stop_times": [1995.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1993.867}, "reply_to": "15084__1_023", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_025", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "And therefore, the federal district court has power to enjoin what a state court did and you say well no, you can't do that because of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1995.898], "stop_times": [2006.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.898}, "reply_to": "15084__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15084__1_026", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "Yes, that's \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2006.06], "stop_times": [2006.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2006.06}, "reply_to": "15084__1_025", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_027", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "It's really a matter of right or wrong, isn't it, rather than supersession or preemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2006.387], "stop_times": [2010.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.387}, "reply_to": "15084__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15084__1_028", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "I think that's -\u2013 that's simply --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2010.294], "stop_times": [2012.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2010.294}, "reply_to": "15084__1_027", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_029", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "[Inaudible] federal court at it has on the [Inaudible]?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2012.224], "stop_times": [2018.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.224}, "reply_to": "15084__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15084__1_030", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2018.391], "stop_times": [2019.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2018.391}, "reply_to": "15084__1_029", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_031", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2019.455], "stop_times": [2020.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.455}, "reply_to": "15084__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15084__1_032", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "That's correct.\nThere are a number of other reasons why the injunction here is not properly within the exception for injunctions necessary to protect or effectuate a federal court's orders.\nIn the first place, the real basis to us of the federal court's denial of an injunction back in 1967 to the ACL appears to be the Norris-LaGuardia Act.\nVirtually, all the cases which the order cites are Norris-LaGuardia Act cases and the standard as well as legislative history of the Norris-LaGuardia Act makes it quite plain that that act was aimed solely at the federal courts and does not take away the remedies and rights in the state courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2020.48, 2023.06, 2041.498, 2054.641], "stop_times": [2023.06, 2041.498, 2054.641, 2078.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2020.48}, "reply_to": "15084__1_031", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15084__1_033", "conversation_id": "15084", "text": "We suspend until morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2078.282], "stop_times": [2084.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.282}, "reply_to": "15084__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_000", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company against Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and pick up where we left off last evening.o", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [11.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_001", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nYesterday afternoon, we were to the point where we were discussing the -- what we take to be the principle contention of the respondents here and that is that the April 26, 1967 order of the Federal District Court and that was the order that denied the Atlantic Coast Line a preliminary injunction that that order was being protected or effectuated by the subsequent injunction, the 1969 injunction against enforcement of the May 1967 order of the state Court and that on that basis, they contend there is an exception here from Section 2283.\nOur basic answer to that preposition is that the Federal District Court never purported to pass upon the availability of state rights or state remedies to the Atlantic Coast Line.\nHis decree amounted to a denial of the injunction, which was sought solely under federal law.\nTheir argument which was made for the first time two years later that the state injunction of May 1967 contravened the federal denial of an injunction is we submit simply a setting up of the federal law defense based on this Court\u2019s subsequent decision in Jacksonville Terminal against the injunction in the state court proceedings.\nNow, there are number of subsidiary reasons why that April 26, 1967 order could not be the basis of the claimed exception here from Section 2283.\nIn the first place as we read the order, there is some dispute about it, but most of the cases that it cites are Norris-LaGuardia Act cases and that it appears to us to proceed primarily on the basis of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.\nWe contend that the federal court order simply declined an injunction by reason of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and of course, the legislative history of that Act is clear that it leaves open the remedies under state law and in the state courts.\nThe respondents contend that the federal court order somehow constituted a comprehensive declaration of the party\u2019s rights.\nAnd in effect, I suppose held that Coastline, the neutral road had no right to injunctive relief here on any basis.\nOn its face, the order simply doesn\u2019t say that.\nThe most you could say, if the order were a declaration of rights and we read it that way if at all we'd be to this simply a denial on the basis of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, all it denied were rights under federal law.\nThere is the further point that it is simply an order made upon application for at the most preliminary injunction, indeed it might have been an order simply denying a temporary restraining order.\nThe record is a little unclear, but giving the respondents the benefit of the doubt it's an order the denying a preliminary injunction and the laws, we submit quite black letter on the point that you cannot have a determination of the party's substantive rights through a preceding on a preliminary injunction application.\nWe submit then that really what the respondents are trying to do here is to adjudicate this federal law defense, call it preemption or super session or maybe perhaps simply called the insertion of a federal law defense to the state court injunction by enjoining the proceedings in the state court and this we submit is at the core of what Section 2283 says that federal courts are not to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [11.244, 15.895, 68.524, 84.313, 90.55, 116.861, 130.294, 145.831, 161.31, 171.044, 181.387, 185.504, 197.728, 209.151, 232.034], "stop_times": [15.895, 68.524, 84.313, 90.55, 116.861, 130.294, 145.831, 161.31, 171.044, 181.387, 185.504, 197.728, 209.151, 232.034, 259.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.244}, "reply_to": "15104__0_000", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_002", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, on what reasons it must rely under the District Court give in denying your application for the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [259.66], "stop_times": [270.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.66}, "reply_to": "15104__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__0_003", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "He said that since the respondents had filed the hand written answer which they did very shortly before the notice of dismissal that it was dismissible as of right and he then declined to grant the injunct -- the order for a voluntary dismissal upon motion.\nAnd he said that since the Court was of opinion that the defendants motion for preliminary injunction, that is their counter motion seeking to enjoin the state court proceedings has merit, our motion for voluntary dismissal will be denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [270.469, 302.574], "stop_times": [302.574, 317.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.469}, "reply_to": "15104__0_002", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_004", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "What page is --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [317.194], "stop_times": [318.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.194}, "reply_to": "15104__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_005", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That's on page 195 of the appendix Your Honor.\nIn effect, he is assigned the reason that he wants to pass an injunction against the plaintiff as a reason for denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [318.233, 321.393], "stop_times": [321.393, 333.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.233}, "reply_to": "15104__0_004", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_006", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "What was your application, the railroad's application for an injunction that was denied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [333.83], "stop_times": [340.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.83}, "reply_to": "15104__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_007", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Back in 1967, yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [340.082], "stop_times": [341.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.082}, "reply_to": "15104__0_006", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_008", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And was the case dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [341.771], "stop_times": [343.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.771}, "reply_to": "15104__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_009", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No, it was not.\nThe case simply laid dormant for two years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [343.43, 344.062], "stop_times": [344.062, 346.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.43}, "reply_to": "15104__0_008", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_010", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And that is the case in which this current order has been entered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [346.369], "stop_times": [351.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.369}, "reply_to": "15104__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_011", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That is correct Your Honor, and that is the case that we now have before this Court.\nIf the contentions that we make as to the applicability of Section 2283 are not well founded, the Court must still reach the question whether the defense that the respondents have urged to the state court injunction is a good defense.\nNow of course, if the Court is in agreement with us, that Section 2283 is applicable here and that none of the exception is applicable, then the Court need not reach this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [351.627, 358.511, 379.972], "stop_times": [358.511, 379.972, 390.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.627}, "reply_to": "15104__0_010", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_012", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And I suppose what happens is the right to the union to review state courts, state court is still available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [390.847], "stop_times": [403.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.847}, "reply_to": "15104__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__0_013", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes, it certainly is, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [403.977], "stop_times": [405.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.977}, "reply_to": "15104__0_012", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_014", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That's no judgments, no final judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [405.458], "stop_times": [407.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.458}, "reply_to": "15104__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__0_015", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That's correct.\nIf I might amplify a little bit on my answer to the Chief Justice yesterday, one of the basic reasons why we did not proceed to have an final judgment entered ourselves right away, was that Judge McCray's order out of the federal District Court enjoined us from proceeding further with the state court proceedings.\nThat injunction followed on the heels fairly closely of the statement by the state judge that he would be willing to enter a final order and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [407.033, 409.036, 431.413], "stop_times": [409.036, 431.413, 441.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.033}, "reply_to": "15104__0_014", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_016", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And you think that is broad enough?\nDo you think that was broad enough to preclude the state court implementing its own decision by a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [441.959, 443.731], "stop_times": [443.731, 453.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.959}, "reply_to": "15104__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_017", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, he restrained us Your Honor from taking any further action in furtherance of the rights that we have in the state court and that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [453.655], "stop_times": [460.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.655}, "reply_to": "15104__0_016", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_018", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Was that the court too or just you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [460.442], "stop_times": [462.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.442}, "reply_to": "15104__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_019", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Just us.\nBut the state court judge indicated to one of the parties to prepare a decree and that went under the federal court injunction, we were there shortly thereafter.\nBut our position is plain, the respondents are entitled to a final judgment that they could feel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [462.76, 464.006, 474.867], "stop_times": [464.006, 474.867, 480.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.76}, "reply_to": "15104__0_018", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_020", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Is that very clear Mr. Lyons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [480.832], "stop_times": [482.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.832}, "reply_to": "15104__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__0_021", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes, that's -- I think is completely clear Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [482.608], "stop_times": [484.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.608}, "reply_to": "15104__0_020", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_022", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Is that conceded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [484.371], "stop_times": [485.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.371}, "reply_to": "15104__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__0_023", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.\nWe concede that they are entitled to have a final judgment here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [485.805, 485.987], "stop_times": [485.987, 488.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.805}, "reply_to": "15104__0_022", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_024", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And are they satisfied, they do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [488.81], "stop_times": [490.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.81}, "reply_to": "15104__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__0_025", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "I believe they are, although, I can't speak for them.\nWe submit that the Jacksonville Terminal case which is the respondent's principle, perhaps, sole authority for the preposition that they have a federal law defense is not applicable to the situation involved here at the Moncrief Yard, which is a yard, wholly owned by the Atlantic Coastline, a non-struck carrier.\nNow, we do not intend to take the liberty of parsing for the Court's opinion rendered only one year ago, but we do call the Court's attention to the fact that there was very, very extensive discussion of the very peculiar facts involved in the Jacksonville Terminal case in that opinion.\nThe fact that, there we had a joint terminal facility which was jointly owned and jointly controlled by the carriers including the struck carrier and the struck carrier had a right to veto over the major decisions that might be undertaken with respect to those premises.\nThose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [490.852, 496.238, 523.566, 547.044, 567.064], "stop_times": [496.238, 523.566, 547.044, 567.064, 567.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.852}, "reply_to": "15104__0_024", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_026", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Lyons, if we agree with your basic argument with respect to Section 2283, we don't get it all to the question of whether or not there's any difference that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [567.297], "stop_times": [577.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.297}, "reply_to": "15104__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__0_027", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [577.35], "stop_times": [578.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.35}, "reply_to": "15104__0_026", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_028", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Truly in this case, that -- do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [578.062], "stop_times": [578.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.062}, "reply_to": "15104__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__0_029", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "You do not -- you don't have to reach this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [578.998], "stop_times": [581.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.998}, "reply_to": "15104__0_028", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_030", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "At all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [581.593], "stop_times": [581.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.593}, "reply_to": "15104__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__0_031", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "-- point of argument at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [581.838], "stop_times": [582.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.838}, "reply_to": "15104__0_030", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_032", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "If we agree with you on your primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [582.839], "stop_times": [584.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.839}, "reply_to": "15104__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__0_033", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [584.599], "stop_times": [585.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.599}, "reply_to": "15104__0_032", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_034", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [585.492], "stop_times": [588.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.492}, "reply_to": "15104__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__0_035", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "I should have belabored the point but the opinion in Jacksonville Terminal as we read it at least, it seems to us to turn on these unique factors at this jointly owned facility.\nThis is a facility where FEC employees report for work everyday on foot which was jointly controlled by them, which was in effect the FEC passenger terminal at the northern end, which sold tickets for the FEC, which were repaired FEC cars, which performed extensive switching and rowing services for them.\nThe Court discussed at some length the analogy with the common situs cases under the Taft-Hartley Act and in effect as we read the opinion, the Court concluded that in that context, the rather tangled involved context of a joint facility that the Court did not believe that it could make a judgment as to what extent the parties self help rights were properly exercisable and to what extent they were not.\nThe Court took the view that we submit in that area at least that that essentially had to be a legislative judgment.\nNow here, we have gone beyond the exercise of self help rights against the primary parties to the dispute.\nWe have gone beyond the situation where the primary party, the FEC is involved in the joint use and control of a terminal facility.\nWhat we have here is essentially hot car picketing.\nAt first, it did not start out that way and there are still in this Court protestations that that is not what was going on.\nBut particularly in the last few days of the picketing here, what you had was an attempt and a successful attempt to induce the employees of the Coastline, operating within the Coastline's own yard, not to handle cars which had originated on the FEC, and not to handle inbound cars coming down from the north that were ultimately destined to the FEC.\nNow, there is some talk by the respondents that this was done in a limited way that they only refused to handle long solid blocks of cars, that they only refused to make the very next move down to the point where the interchange would take place.\nBut the record is plain particularly in the last few days of the picketing that the refusals by the employees went well beyond that.\nThat they were beyond simply involving this last move down back from the interchange point.\nThat in one case they declined to move a road train that was destined up to go through way cross Georgia, which is fully made up simply because it had FEC cars in it.\nAnd in the court below in the -- before the state court I should say, the counsel for the respondents took the view that this Court's opinion in Jacksonville Terminal was to the effect that it was no longer any question of how far you can go or how far you can't go, that there was no longer any body of law available to any employer doing business with the FEC, that would in any way restrict their right to picket his business.\nNow, we contend that if you read the Jacksonville Terminal case that way, what you have is picketing which I think anybody would consider secondary picketing.\nThat's not a magic word, but it is a word that expresses sort of judgment about what it is when people who are essentially strangers to a labor dispute have their businesses interfered with by the parties to a labor dispute.\nAnd it is a practice which the Congress has outlawed and outlawed in increasingly stringent terms for the last 23 years, starting at 1947.\nAnd which, the legislatures in virtually all the states and the state courts of common law have outlawed.\nWhat the position of the respondents is as I understand is that despite that because of the fact that the Taft-Hartley Act is not as we concede not applicable here in the railroad industry that there is no agency of Government state or federal, judicial or administrative that can any way regulate or any way deal with these practices regardless of how far removed they are from directly operating upon the party that they have the dispute with.\nIn other words, the hot car approach, or the hot cargo approach, or the so-called hot property approach is outlawed in firstly every industry by the Taft-Hartley Act and the Landrum-Griffin Act, but not in the railroad area and what is more to say the respondents that the states cannot do anything about it either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [588.126, 602.645, 626.937, 664.226, 672.299, 682.256, 692.423, 698.353, 706.689, 737.237, 755.054, 764.257, 772.253, 784.032, 819.42, 831.787, 852.184, 864.29, 873.726, 910.72], "stop_times": [602.645, 626.937, 664.226, 672.299, 682.256, 692.423, 698.353, 706.689, 737.237, 755.054, 764.257, 772.253, 784.032, 819.42, 831.787, 852.184, 864.29, 873.726, 910.72, 932.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.126}, "reply_to": "15104__0_034", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_036", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Lyons, if the District judge relied, if at all, on the business relationships between the Florida East Coast and Atlantic Coastline?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [932.349], "stop_times": [942.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.349}, "reply_to": "15104__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_037", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "It's a -- I assume you have those before him because that transcript was available to him from the hearing two years before and he did refer two certain findings that the use of the Moncrief Yard was an integral and necessary part of the FEC's operations, which is clear if they cannot receive cars coming down from the north or if they can't, if there is a blockage of the way in which their cars go up to the north, they simply can't operate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [942.145], "stop_times": [979.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.145}, "reply_to": "15104__0_036", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_038", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "But that reasoning would apply equally if this facility had been owned by completely independent entity with the Florida East Coast and Atlantic Coastline leasing the common facilities apparently with it, is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [979.302], "stop_times": [999.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.302}, "reply_to": "15104__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_039", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, I suppose that would be the case Your Honor, but of course here, we do have an independent owner, we have the ACL which is completely independent to the FEC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [999.143], "stop_times": [1006.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.143}, "reply_to": "15104__0_038", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_040", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, but I mean independent of each of them, if there has been a complete independence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1006.686], "stop_times": [1009.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.686}, "reply_to": "15104__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_041", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.\nOr indeed these have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1009.421, 1010.712], "stop_times": [1010.712, 1011.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.421}, "reply_to": "15104__0_040", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_042", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "The reason if the Court would have been the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1011.119], "stop_times": [1012.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.119}, "reply_to": "15104__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__0_043", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes or indeed I would think it you've the same result had they gone up to way cross Georgia or whatever the next junction point, or the next point where they conveniently could have blockaded the trains, getting through these other points going up to the north are similarly integral and essential to the FEC's business.\nUnless it can have some way of getting its cars through the points that it is suppose to get them to, beyond its own line, it is not going to continue operate.\nYour Honors, we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1012.854, 1033.955, 1045.234], "stop_times": [1033.955, 1045.234, 1046.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.854}, "reply_to": "15104__0_042", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_044", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Lyons, you would making somewhat the same argument if this case wasn't a railroad labor case, but was a under the NLRB, NLRA regime, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1046.001], "stop_times": [1060.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.001}, "reply_to": "15104__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_045", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, we wouldn't have gone to state courts, but we would have made a similar argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1060.945], "stop_times": [1067.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.945}, "reply_to": "15104__0_044", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_046", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Let us assume the state court purports -- reports to enjoin a union from doing something that is either arguably or actually protected or prohibited by the Labor Act and at the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with it and the -- but the state court nevertheless purports to deal with it by an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1067.354], "stop_times": [1089.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.354}, "reply_to": "15104__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_047", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1089.41], "stop_times": [1090.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.41}, "reply_to": "15104__0_046", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_048", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And I suppose you would be making the same argument that the employer or that the union may not resort to the federal court for an injunction to prohibit the state courts from doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1090.847], "stop_times": [1102.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.847}, "reply_to": "15104__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_049", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "I certainly would.\nI'd make the Section 2283 argument.\nI do not really see how I could make an argument on the merits --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1102.683, 1103.376, 1105.679], "stop_times": [1103.376, 1105.679, 1108.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.683}, "reply_to": "15104__0_048", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_050", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1108.902], "stop_times": [1109.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.902}, "reply_to": "15104__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_051", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "-- in support of the state court's action because that -- that's a very clear area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1109.392], "stop_times": [1113.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.392}, "reply_to": "15104__0_050", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_052", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "But the fact the state court had no jurisdiction or would -- it would be said to have no jurisdiction to deal with it, would it make any difference to your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1113.024], "stop_times": [1120.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.024}, "reply_to": "15104__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__0_053", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "To the Section 2283, not at all, Your Honor.\nWe submit lastly that if the Jacksonville Terminal decision means what the respondents say that it means, it should be reconsidered by this Court, though, clearly we think the Court need not reach that point at all.\nOur final contention takes us into an area which is relatively unchartered by this Court's decisions and that is that the Norris-LaGuardia Act here as well as Section 2283 precludes the injunction that the federal court granted.\nThe relationship between the non-struck carriers and the rail unions has been held by the lower courts and this Court in a four to four decision once upheld that as being a relationship arising out of a labor dispute.\nAnd hence, in the Jacksonville Terminal case by this Court and then this case, the Moncrief case by the lower court, the non struck carriers have been held not to be entitled to have a federal court injunction.\nWe say that the Norris-LaGuardia Act works both ways.\nIf the federal courts may not pass an injunction against the unions, we submit that in this situation, they may not pass an injunction against the non struck carriers restraining them from the use of the state courts.\nIt is clear on the face of the Norris-LaGuardia Act that it does work both ways, that it does inhibit injunctions against management just as it inhibits injunctions against unions.\nAnd in fact, we quote in our brief considerable dialog in the floor of Senate and the House which indicate the Congress recognized that this was a two-edged sword when it was passed back in 1932.\nIndeed, some of the practices that can't be enjoined are practices that only an employer could commit i.e joining an employer organization.\nSo, we submit that the very broad contention that the respondents make that the Act doesn't apply at all to injunctions against management is not correct.\nWe also say that Section 4 (d) of the statute makes it plain that injunctions against the ordinary course of judicial proceedings were one of the evils that Congress was trying to deal with when it passed the statute.\nThat being so, we are confronted with the very flat prohibition in Section 7, which flatly restrains the Courts of the United States from granting any injunction or labor dispute unless certain findings were made and those findings were not made here, including findings which certainly were very relevant to the subject matter here.\nNamely, there was no finding that the complainant has no adequate remedy at law, certainly his appellate rights in Florida state courts would have precluded the making of that finding.\nIndeed, there was no attempt to comply of Norris-LaGuardia Act at all.\nSo for this reason as well, we contend that the injunction here should not have been granted against the state court proceedings and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.\nYour Honors --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1120.346, 1123.87, 1137.639, 1157.778, 1175.65, 1192.442, 1196.699, 1214.504, 1227.939, 1242.827, 1254.498, 1266.593, 1283.117, 1308.581, 1319.463, 1324.823, 1338.617], "stop_times": [1123.87, 1137.639, 1157.778, 1175.65, 1192.442, 1196.699, 1214.504, 1227.939, 1242.827, 1254.498, 1266.593, 1283.117, 1308.581, 1319.463, 1324.823, 1338.617, 1339.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.346}, "reply_to": "15104__0_052", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_054", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "They just -- there is a -- going on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1339.324], "stop_times": [1346.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.324}, "reply_to": "15104__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__0_055", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No, there is not.\nThe -- we do have a stay of the federal court order which is in fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1346.299, 1347.144], "stop_times": [1347.144, 1351.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.299}, "reply_to": "15104__0_054", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_056", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "As was said by Justice Black?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1351.302], "stop_times": [1352.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.302}, "reply_to": "15104__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__0_057", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.\nWith the Court's permission, I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1352.272, 1352.837, 1354.164], "stop_times": [1352.837, 1354.164, 1357.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.272}, "reply_to": "15104__0_056", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__0_058", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lyons.\nMr. Milledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1357.051, 1361.484], "stop_times": [1361.484, 1378.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.051}, "reply_to": "15104__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_000", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWe will demonstrate in our argument that this case, this injunction issued by Judge McCray against inconsistent state court action is not an isolated case, but it arises out of a totality of regulation of the Florida East Coast dispute that goes back to 1964 and involves every aspect of this strike including regulation of good faith bargaining, regulation of the self help rights of the railroad, regulation of the self help rights of the unions, the actual operations of the railroad itself, and that all of these are interrelated and all bear upon each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1378.764, 1383.478], "stop_times": [1383.478, 1445.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1378.764}, "reply_to": "15104__0_058", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_001", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "You mean that, you'd have some problem with the state court enjoining a violent picketing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1445.663], "stop_times": [1451.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.663}, "reply_to": "15104__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_002", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Not violent picketing, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1451.046], "stop_times": [1452.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1451.046}, "reply_to": "15104__1_001", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_003", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, then the federal court didn't take over the entire controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1452.653], "stop_times": [1457.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.653}, "reply_to": "15104__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_004", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "With that exception.\nWith the -- that exception --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1457.616, 1459.707], "stop_times": [1459.707, 1460.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1457.616}, "reply_to": "15104__1_003", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_005", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Why not the exception for secondary activity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1460.842], "stop_times": [1464.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.842}, "reply_to": "15104__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_006", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Because this Court has held in the Jacksonville Terminal company case that that is not only preempted or that a state law may not apply in that field --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1464.682], "stop_times": [1481.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1464.682}, "reply_to": "15104__1_005", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_007", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, it is not preempted of the -- it is not preempted to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1481.704], "stop_times": [1484.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.704}, "reply_to": "15104__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_008", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Of jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1484.982], "stop_times": [1485.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1484.982}, "reply_to": "15104__1_007", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_009", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "-- of the federal court either.\nWhat can the federal court do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1485.387, 1487.782], "stop_times": [1487.782, 1490.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.387}, "reply_to": "15104__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_010", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, it is -- as we interpret the opinion, it is protected conduct to engage in whatever reasonable conduct that the organizations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1490.168], "stop_times": [1503.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1490.168}, "reply_to": "15104__1_009", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_011", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "So, what jurisdiction does a federal court have about that --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1503.371], "stop_times": [1507.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.371}, "reply_to": "15104__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_012", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, the railway --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1507.455], "stop_times": [1511.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1507.455}, "reply_to": "15104__1_011", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_013", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Federal court is preempted too, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1511.359], "stop_times": [1516.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.359}, "reply_to": "15104__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_014", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "In the opinion, there's the area of course of damages which would be an area that the federal court could deal with.\nBut in the opinion of this Court of the last term is, as we read it, that there is no limitation upon the self help rights so long as they are reasonable and that is a matter that has been of before the District Courts, a number of times and I think I can develop also the interrelationship.\nThe second thing that we will demonstrate is that the power of the District Court to enjoin the state court action here under 2283 in this Court's opinions is beyond question that it has that power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1516.993, 1527.116, 1565.07], "stop_times": [1527.116, 1565.07, 1589.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1516.993}, "reply_to": "15104__1_013", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_015", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Do you agree with Mr. Lyons that Norris-Laguardia is a two-way street, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1589.076], "stop_times": [1594.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.076}, "reply_to": "15104__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_016", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1594.802], "stop_times": [1594.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1594.802}, "reply_to": "15104__1_015", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_017", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "-- in its prohibitions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1594.999], "stop_times": [1599.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.999}, "reply_to": "15104__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_018", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "We think that with the two -- really, there is only one provision in the Norris-LaGuardia Act that applies to management and that is the one he sited about employer organizations.\nBut, we think our basic position on that is that the tail will go with the hide, that once the 2283 problem is dealt with, the Norris-LaGuardia Act problem -- the Norris-LaGuardia Act just basically is not designed for this type of a problem and will develop that later, but our position is not that the Norris-LaGuardia Act can not apply to an employer.\nNow, the third position that we will develop is that this case is the strongest case for the application that is the should aspects.\nWe will demonstrate that there is the power of the District Court to do this, but this is the strongest case for the application of an injunction against a state court that has ever come before this Court or a lower court in a reported opinion and it is a stronger case for the granting of such injunction than any reported case granting one.\nIn connection with the totality of regulation of -- by the federal court, there are four separate cases, cases that is with separate file numbers, that the jurisdiction of which, is aided by this injunction and orders are need to protection of this injunction.\nNow, the types of matters which have been before the court below are absolutely legend.\nThis Court recalls the clerk's case that was before this Court, that was a case brought by the United States Government.\nIt is a case in which it was determined that the Florida East Coast railroad for the first two years of its operations, its post strike operation was operating in violation of the Railway Labor Act.\nThere was an order entered in that case requiring good faith bargaining.\nThere was an order in that case granting to the railroad certain limited exceptions or deviations from its collective bargaining contracts in aid of its self-help rights.\nThat case still pends that there is a trial commencing our final, another final hearing in that case commencing the first week of April to go on for all of April and all of May and the issues are again, the good faith bargaining that is all in contempt citations, the good faith bargaining, massive violations of the injunction since the strike, and on other issues.\nAll of that still pends and the good faith order, the good faith order depends on economic sanctions.\nAs Justice -- Mr. Justice Brennan has written in the Insurance Agents case, and has written in other cases too, and it is in the Galveston Wharves case the decision of the Fifth Circuit in the same area of 2282, that bargaining, the motive power in bargaining is economic sanctions.\nNow in this case, that is the Florida East Coast strike, there are as there are in all railroad or other situations two types of economic sanction.\nOne is the withdrawal of your people at the commencement of the strike and the second type is picketing aimed at those persons, the employees or persons making pick ups and deliveries to the struck employer.\nIts -- in other industries, it's more general than that, but in the railroad industry, the place where you put the pressure on is where the railroad gets its freight from another railroad.\nNow, from the commencement of this strike up until the present, there has not with the exception of a few hours in 1966 and a few hours in 1967 any use of the economic sanction to stop pick ups and deliveries from other railroads by asking the employees of other railroads not to do so.\nThat has been prevented by an injunction initially issued by the United States District Court for the middle district to Florida and that is another case in which in that case still pends.\nNow Mr. Lyons in his brief has talked about that case.\nThat's a case in which the United States District Court has assumed jurisdiction over interchange and the organizations, labor organizations were never allowed to get into that case, and as they say, it mandates interchange.\nNow, what is happened since that time is, there was a lawsuit filled in 1965 by the organizations to construe that injunction as not to apply to employees who had -- of the connecting carriers.\nThen in 1966, the Trainmen strike against -- the Trainmen picketing of the terminal area began and effectively, there was a construction of that assumed jurisdiction over interchange to initially not permit picketing of the terminal company and ultimately to permit picketing of the terminal company.\nAnd then in 1967, in this case with the different file number nonetheless, the Court has again, but with a different file number assumed jurisdiction to determine whether or not we and I say in this case we, it is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, can picket the Moncrief Yard.\nAll of these cases are all interrelated and they all have impact back and forth on each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [1599.407, 1615.505, 1649.913, 1664.207, 1693.624, 1725.124, 1738.731, 1750.332, 1768.164, 1773.682, 1789.146, 1822.106, 1835.475, 1862.989, 1877.63, 1903.382, 1920.482, 1949.367, 1967.258, 1971.957, 1993.19, 2015.598, 2051.279, 2081.206], "stop_times": [1615.505, 1649.913, 1664.207, 1693.624, 1725.124, 1738.731, 1750.332, 1768.164, 1773.682, 1789.146, 1822.106, 1835.475, 1862.989, 1877.63, 1903.382, 1920.482, 1949.367, 1967.258, 1971.957, 1993.19, 2015.598, 2051.279, 2081.206, 2092.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1599.407}, "reply_to": "15104__1_017", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_019", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Can I ask you a question?\nSupposing the Judge McCray allowed dismissal of Atlantic Coastline to or supposing that particular suit would not been petitioners [Inaudible].\nWould you go in to the state court or to the federal courts to bring an original action bypass the state judge and appellate court procedures out of the view here rather --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2092.617, 2094.512, 2108.53], "stop_times": [2094.512, 2108.53, 2121.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.617}, "reply_to": "15104__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__1_020", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "If there were -- if there was no jurisdiction that had been assumed by the United States District Court or no orders that needed to be protected or effectuated, I would say that we could not.\nNow, the difference --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2121.073, 2137.98], "stop_times": [2137.98, 2139.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.073}, "reply_to": "15104__1_019", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_021", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "[Inaudible] any of these other pending suits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2139.932], "stop_times": [2142.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.932}, "reply_to": "15104__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_022", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "I think that we could.\nI think that we could have gone into the Government's case, the good faith bargaining nexus is exactly the same there as it is in the Galveston Wharves case, which we will discuss after a bit.\nWe could have gone in if permitted into the case in which there was already assumed jurisdiction.\nThe -- what's called the 6316 case or the initial case assuming jurisdiction over interchange.\nOnce in as we come later as I'll get into as quickly as I can into the 2283 question, once there is federal jurisdiction to determine the controversy, wherein far enough so that an injunction maybe issued.\nNow in a case like that, you probably wouldn't get into the area of should it be issued.\nThis case makes as we'll show later an overwhelming posture for the \u201cshould aspect\u201d of it, but what the statute says on the could or the power is simply a case in which it is necessary to a jurisdiction or a case in which an order needs protecting or effectuating, that's what the Congress say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2142.147, 2143.139, 2158.768, 2168.204, 2176.459, 2201.499, 2208.33], "stop_times": [2143.139, 2158.768, 2168.204, 2176.459, 2201.499, 2208.33, 2241.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.147}, "reply_to": "15104__1_021", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_023", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "This petitioner is not, however, a party in any of these actions that you're talking about, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2241.757], "stop_times": [2253.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.757}, "reply_to": "15104__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_024", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Petitioner is a party to all of the interchange actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2253.288], "stop_times": [2257.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.288}, "reply_to": "15104__1_023", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_025", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And Atlantic Coastline --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2257.408], "stop_times": [2258.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.408}, "reply_to": "15104__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_026", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Atlantic Coastline railroad is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2258.065], "stop_times": [2260.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.065}, "reply_to": "15104__1_025", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_027", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Is it the only one or --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2260.39], "stop_times": [2262.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.39}, "reply_to": "15104__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_028", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No.\nAll the railroads are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2262.157, 2262.369], "stop_times": [2262.369, 2263.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.157}, "reply_to": "15104__1_027", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_029", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "All are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2263.583], "stop_times": [2264.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.583}, "reply_to": "15104__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_030", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "-- to the initial case upon which the federal court assumed and mandated interchange.\nAll of the carriers are, possibly Southern is not, but Atlantic Coastline, the Seaboard, of course it is all one railroad now, and the Jacksonville Terminal are all parties to that and the Southern was too, I recall that Southern --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2264.052, 2274.615], "stop_times": [2274.615, 2290.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.052}, "reply_to": "15104__1_029", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_031", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Is that a litigation that involves this labor dispute with FEC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2290.993], "stop_times": [2295.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.993}, "reply_to": "15104__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_032", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "It was -- it is and that's the petition that is the complaint was filed in that case on January 27, four days after the strike commenced by the FEC against these other carriers saying that, they -- the other carriers were refusing interchange that they had imposed an embargo and indeed they had imposed an embargo and the labor organizations were not parties, but the justification given by the defendant railroads, that is the other railroads, was -- if there was a labor dispute and that these people, that is our people would picket the interchange and so they want --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2295.472], "stop_times": [2347.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.472}, "reply_to": "15104__1_031", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_033", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Now, you've probably already said it, but will you repeat for me again?\nHow was it that we could get into that as I understand your argument that there is a judgment which in that case which will entitle the union now, the relief in that action of the kind you got here against the state court suit, how does that come about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2347.361, 2350.612], "stop_times": [2350.612, 2367.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.361}, "reply_to": "15104__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_034", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Alright.\nThat, the injunction in that case applies to the Atlantic Coastline and its employees, the terminal company and its employees.\nNow, that is an injunction -- the jurisdiction of the Court is over the question of interchange and it applies to employees as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2367.298, 2368.781, 2377.632], "stop_times": [2368.781, 2377.632, 2388.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.298}, "reply_to": "15104__1_033", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_035", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "But how are you going to get into that suit, that is what I am interested in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2388.611], "stop_times": [2392.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.611}, "reply_to": "15104__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_036", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "We would be by intervention but the question is a question simply of how does 2283 read. For instance, in the Capital Service case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2392.743], "stop_times": [2407.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.743}, "reply_to": "15104__1_035", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_037", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, I appreciate, but you answered Mr. Justice Harlan and if there -- if this present proceeding hadn't been brought at all the federal court that nevertheless you would be able to get in as I understood you would say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2407.314], "stop_times": [2418.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.314}, "reply_to": "15104__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_038", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2418.714], "stop_times": [2419.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.714}, "reply_to": "15104__1_037", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_039", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Under this interchange case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2419.349], "stop_times": [2421.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.349}, "reply_to": "15104__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_040", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, the way --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2421.654], "stop_times": [2422.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.654}, "reply_to": "15104__1_039", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_041", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "In a way which would entitle you to have the same relief that you could actually got in this case.\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2422.17, 2427.448], "stop_times": [2427.448, 2428.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.17}, "reply_to": "15104__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_042", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.\nNow, the way we actually went about it, the way we went about it was in 1965, we filed another case to construe -- we sought intervention and we are denied and Judge Tuttle discusses that in the case, one of the Jacksonville Terminal company cases.\nSo, then we filed a suit to construe it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2428.33, 2428.719, 2449.902], "stop_times": [2428.719, 2449.902, 2452.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.33}, "reply_to": "15104__1_041", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_043", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Where did you bring that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2452.425], "stop_times": [2453.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.425}, "reply_to": "15104__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_044", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Before the same judge in the same Court.\nNow, that one didn't reach any file determination because in the mean time in 1966, the Trainmen went on strike and began to picket the terminal which was nominally in violation of the injunction and the same judge, Judge McCray and enjoined it initially and then later reversed -- his injunction was reversed by the Fifth Circuit.\nSo, that for -- as a practical matter that that original case, 6316, the original embargo injunction case has been modified by the 1966 case and by the 1967 case, this case is presently before the Court.\nAll of which deal with these really the same problems, the interchange between the connecting carriers and this railroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2453.664, 2456.367, 2487.293, 2509.944], "stop_times": [2456.367, 2487.293, 2509.944, 2520.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.664}, "reply_to": "15104__1_043", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_045", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, basically then your argument is it -- I'll let the \u2013 you -- to the 2283 problem is that this interchange action has a judgment, which this present proceeding protects or effectuates, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2520.773], "stop_times": [2543.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.773}, "reply_to": "15104__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_046", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No.\nOur basic answer is that Judge McCray has -- as he says, \u201cDetermined the rights of the parties.\u201d\nIn this order on appeal, he says, \u201cI delineated the rights of the parties.\nI did make a substantive determination between the parties.\u201d\nNow assume that, he was wrong about that, that he really hadn't done that, that Mr. Lyons is somehow right that all his order was was an Norris-LaGuardia order.\nCertainly, he has assumed jurisdiction to do that.\nHe's had jurisdiction to do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2543.49, 2544.215, 2554.279, 2560.076, 2565.305, 2578.297, 2587.516], "stop_times": [2544.215, 2554.279, 2560.076, 2565.305, 2578.297, 2587.516, 2588.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2543.49}, "reply_to": "15104__1_045", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_047", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "I know, but what -- to protect or effectuate, what judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2588.974], "stop_times": [2593.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.974}, "reply_to": "15104__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_048", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, the language of the statute does not require that there be a judgment to be construed, to be protected or effectuated.\nThe language of the statute is -- were necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.\nFor instance, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2593.439, 2607.271, 2614.382], "stop_times": [2607.271, 2614.382, 2614.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.439}, "reply_to": "15104__1_047", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_049", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Oh, I see.\nIs that the one you're relaying on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2614.881, 2615.269], "stop_times": [2615.269, 2616.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.881}, "reply_to": "15104__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_050", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "We -- there -- we rely on both of them because they are both in point.\nWhat I was saying is that even if his 1967 order wasn't an order that required protection in first place, well, even if it was and we say it was because he says it was.\nEven if it wasn't, he certainly had assumed jurisdiction to determine the legality of this conduct.\nSo, he certainly has the jurisdiction.\nNow, we've heard over here that everything was done, everything was done in this litigation to entitle them to a final judgment.\nI forget the exact terms, but you recall what Mr. Lyons says, talked about it and says Mr. Friedman that after this injunction against the state court proceeding was entered that they asked Judge Scott, the other district judge, to either set it aside or to give them a final judgment because everything that had been done, all the facts were in and all he had to do is just enter a file of order.\nI mean that's true, I mean, that's where the case is.\nIt is a question of either our conduct is legal or illegal, Judge McCray says his ruled that its legal conduct and when he made that ruling back in 1967 and this is along the line that there is a judgment to protect or effectuate.\nHe -- this Court had not yet ruled in Jacksonville Terminal, but you will see in his opinion or order that he cites Section 20 of the Clayton Act.\nNow, this Court has heard about Section 20 of the Clayton Act from us since 1966 that Section 20 of the Clayton Act as discussed by the Hutcheson case in Norris-LaGuardia breathing life back in the Clayton, it's been our position on legality from the beginning.\nAnd that's what Judge McCray said in his order in 1967 and that was before the order of this Court to be sure, but that is what his determination was.\nHe determined that Norris-LaGuardia applied, but he went much further than that.\nHe also in terms of this order being an order which is necessary to protect or effectuate, he cites -- defines that we were engaged in a major dispute and he cites the B&O case, which is a standard fairly recent then, casing that once you had exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, once there was a major dispute, then you are entitled to self help.\nYou had a legal right to self help.\nNow, the content of self help is something else, but it's -- we -- it is certainly been said often enough by this Court that -- that self help implies as it does -- as it must, since there is the duty to bargain in the Act, it must imply primary strikes and primary picketing.\nNow, he cited the B&O case, this is a major dispute, he talks about what we did.\nNow, I haven't got into the facts and I may never have a chance to get very far into the facts, but we've heard over and over again and this Court has heard over and over again, this great tale of horror.\nThe world is going to come to an end.\nNow, since 1963, one road train has been 32 minutes late and the yard in this case was 15 hours late.\nBut that's all that's ever happened and all that has ever happened is that the -- in the exact place where the Florida East Coast railroad ends, and I am not talking about ownership, I'm talking about where its railroad trains run?\nIn this case, they run into the Atlantic Coastline property where they complete their business.\nThey make a delivery and they make pick ups in the employees of the neutral.\nThe Atlantic Coastline, are people that under any idea of primary picketing, we are entitled to ask, \u201cDon't pick up and do not make deliveries to the primary.\u201d\nNow, this happens to be a case.\nThis Moncrief Yard picketing in which every effort was made to limit the manner of picketing so that it would have the effect only on pick ups and deliveries.\nNow, we didn't even use a picket line.\nIf we put a picket line up at the one and only entrance, the only place that employees of Atlantic Coastline go to work in the Moncrief Yard is at this one employee entrance.\nIf we put a picket line there, those employees whose duty it is to make pick ups and deliveries to the FEC within that yard, where the FEC engines come, no other place to reach those people, if we will put a picket line there, that closes the yard down.\nNow, there is this assertion over here made that that's really what we had in mind doing that we just want to close the yard down.\nAnd what we did, I might say was we let the people go to work, we just asked them simple thing, \u201cDon't handle the interchange\u201d and that is what they did.\nNow, that relates back because that's what Judge McCray found in his order, now, I'll show you that in just a moment.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [2616.45, 2623.045, 2641.598, 2651.026, 2655.717, 2670.224, 2700.946, 2703.475, 2727.284, 2743.578, 2771.262, 2784.407, 2796.057, 2830.139, 2833.63, 2862.041, 2872.07, 2885.355, 2887.37, 2897.701, 2915.402, 2923.57, 2930.663, 2944.311, 2946.629, 2962.775, 2965.349, 2981.97, 3002.08, 3015.596, 3025.327, 3033.852], "stop_times": [2623.045, 2641.598, 2651.026, 2655.717, 2670.224, 2700.946, 2703.475, 2727.284, 2743.578, 2771.262, 2784.407, 2796.057, 2830.139, 2833.63, 2862.041, 2872.07, 2885.355, 2887.37, 2897.701, 2915.402, 2923.57, 2930.663, 2944.311, 2946.629, 2962.775, 2965.349, 2981.97, 3002.08, 3015.596, 3025.327, 3033.852, 3034.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.45}, "reply_to": "15104__1_049", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_051", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Does that go to any issue other than the character of the picketing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3034.875], "stop_times": [3040.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.875}, "reply_to": "15104__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_052", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "It really -- no, it is really doesn't.\nThis conduct here in question, however, is more primary than the conduct in the Jacksonville Terminal Company case, that's about all it really does go to.\nWe are not some villains that are out to close down the world or close down the railroad or anything else.\nWe do want to apply the economic power, the economic sanctions to the place where the railroad gets its traffic.\nIt doesn't go really any farther than that in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3040.194, 3043.767, 3058.46, 3069.328, 3079.535], "stop_times": [3043.767, 3058.46, 3069.328, 3079.535, 3082.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.194}, "reply_to": "15104__1_051", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_053", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "It doesn't really touch the 2283 issue or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3082.851], "stop_times": [3086.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.851}, "reply_to": "15104__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_054", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Or the Norris-LaGuardia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3086.844], "stop_times": [3087.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.844}, "reply_to": "15104__1_053", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_055", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "It is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3087.663], "stop_times": [3088.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.663}, "reply_to": "15104__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_056", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No, sir.\nNow, just to go because there was this business about we want to close the yard down or something that's what they say over and over in the brief.\nThey quote a man named Jeanneth who is quoting a man named Sims, Jeanneth is their overall man and Sims is our overall man.\nNow of course, Mr. Sims testified and as Judge McCray found all we were doing was stopping the interchange movements.\nBut Mr. Jeanneth in cross-examination said, my question to him was and you had some conversations I believe, I am reading from page 109 of the appendix, and you had some conversations I believe with other different union people or at least, they were there like Mr. Sims answered.\nI talk to you and to Mr. Sims question, \u201cYou understood did you not that the purpose of this activity was only to stop FEC traffic?\u201d\nAnd sir, \u201cThat was my understanding.\nYes sir.\u201d\nThat's the man there quoting earlier for that, we were going to close the world down.\nNow, in connection -- well I just might, since I got started on it, just tell you that Judge McCray's order, the order of 1967, paragraph number six which is on page 66 of the appendix, finds if that is what we were doing.\nThat we were asking people not to make pick ups and not to make deliveries and that was that.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3088.959, 3089.898, 3103.207, 3115.698, 3122.506, 3142.986, 3152.707, 3154.321, 3155.451, 3162.167, 3183.574, 3192.817], "stop_times": [3089.898, 3103.207, 3115.698, 3122.506, 3142.986, 3152.707, 3154.321, 3155.451, 3162.167, 3183.574, 3192.817, 3194.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3088.959}, "reply_to": "15104__1_055", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_057", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "How many cases did you get when you filed case [Inaudible] Court --?\nHow many cases that you have been able to find where there's 2283 power has been exercised --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3194.663, 3203.06], "stop_times": [3203.06, 3209.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3194.663}, "reply_to": "15104__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__1_058", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Alright.\nThe Galveston case in the Fifth Circuit which certiorari was denied by this Court this past term, the picketing very similar to this on the grounds the state enjoined to the secondary and the nexus was a good faith bargain order.\nThere is that case, there is the Capital Service case. Capital Service is a case which came before Richman Brothers.\nAnd in Capital Service, the board had invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court, hadn't entered any orders at all, but had invoked it, invoked the jurisdiction for the purpose of entering some orders pertaining to alleged secondary conduct.\nAnd this Court held that that was proper under 2283 then the injunction against the state court was proper to unfetter the federal Court so that it could make a determination.\nThere is that case, there's -- I have a list, if I can pick them up quickly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3209.282, 3211.122, 3230.808, 3245.571, 3271.073, 3287.982], "stop_times": [3211.122, 3230.808, 3245.571, 3271.073, 3287.982, 3295.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3209.282}, "reply_to": "15104__1_057", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_059", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Are they connected in brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3295.28], "stop_times": [3297.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.28}, "reply_to": "15104__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15104__1_060", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.\nThe Looney case is the case that this one -- this case is most similar to.\nIt's very similar -- this case is very similar to really three cases.\nIt's very similar to Galveston Wharves.\nIt's very similar to Capital Service because the difference there, the Board invoked the jurisdiction as only the board can under that Act.\nHere, it is private parties who may invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.\nBut the Looney case is case that goes back quite a number of years, but the Looney case is a case in which this Court approved an injunction against the state court case -- state court injunction in a Texas rate dispute that is the way I think of it in any event.\nAnd that case, the Looney case is discussed, it is quite significant because it is like Capital Service in that an injunction was issued, it was in aid of jurisdiction but of the Court rather than to protect or effectuate a judgment.\nBut the Looney case is of particular significance because it is discussed at length in the Toucey decision.\nThe Justice Frankfurter opinion for the Court, and Justice Reed's opinion for the minority, and in both the majority and the minority, the same conclusion is reached about Looney.\nJustice Frankfurter in that case said that, that case was granted merely to protect its jurisdiction until the suit brought by the carriers was finally settled.\nNow the significance of that is this.\n2283, Mr. Lyons has suggested to us that 2283 has a lot of pigeon holes and this does not fit a pigeon hole.\nThe pigeon hole for a race, there is a pigeon whole for a removed case, there is a pigeon hole for fully adjudicated case and that is all he said, the pigeon holes were in his main brief.\nNow, a lot of cases don't happen to fit in those pigeon holes, but 2283 isn't a pigeon whole statute.\nThe history of 2283 is that, it initially was a flat blanket statement by the Congress, \u201cthe District Court shall not enjoin state courts\u201d and then eventually the bankruptcy addition came into it.\nAnd then finally in 1948, it was changed because of Toucey, but what had this court done in the mean time?\nThis Court had said that obviously, there are situations in which it is necessary that having jurisdiction, a District Court has got general equity jurisdiction in it has got to be able to protect that jurisdiction.\nAnd so, various cases came along and Looney was one of them that where it was necessary to protect the jurisdiction.\nNow, Justice Frankfurter in 1941 in the Toucey case said that, the policy against enjoining state courts was so great that even a fully litigated case that was a money judgment diversity case, but the policy of the United States against enjoining state courts was great enough to require somebody who would fully litigated the matter in the federal courts to go ahead and just plead res judicata and go on all the way up again through the state system and back around.\nNow, that was reversed by Congress and they -- so, you no longer, you have an entirely different statutory format starting in 1948.\nIt isn't a question anymore of the Court having to look to its some general equity considerations, but the Congress has said and the reviser says the same thing and they do not limit it to pigeon holes, but particularly the language of Congress, a District Court may enjoin where necessary in aid of jurisdiction or to protect and effectuate judgments.\nYou have both here and really the question is the question of the should aspect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3297.018, 3297.869, 3305.188, 3310.341, 3312.976, 3324.978, 3331.831, 3355.936, 3377.009, 3389.973, 3421.55, 3432.907, 3438.036, 3449.824, 3463.136, 3471.637, 3488.652, 3504.3, 3523.118, 3536.751, 3586.186, 3599.75, 3626.985], "stop_times": [3297.869, 3305.188, 3310.341, 3312.976, 3324.978, 3331.831, 3355.936, 3377.009, 3389.973, 3421.55, 3432.907, 3438.036, 3449.824, 3463.136, 3471.637, 3488.652, 3504.3, 3523.118, 3536.751, 3586.186, 3599.75, 3626.985, 3636.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.018}, "reply_to": "15104__1_059", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_061", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "You don't suggest, do you that this 1967 judgment was res judicata on the railroad, do you, insofar as precluding it from going into the state Court, under the state court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3636.364], "stop_times": [3651.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3636.364}, "reply_to": "15104__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__1_062", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No.\nWhat our position is with regard to the state court matter is that whatever that Court does or does not do, right, wrong or indifferent that that impinges upon the jurisdiction of the federal court which was assumed to make those determinations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3651.035, 3651.36], "stop_times": [3651.36, 3675.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3651.035}, "reply_to": "15104__1_061", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_063", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Why -- Why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3675.345], "stop_times": [3675.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3675.345}, "reply_to": "15104__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_064", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "We also say that it did happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3675.74], "stop_times": [3676.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3675.74}, "reply_to": "15104__1_063", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_065", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Why does it if is acting under state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3676.991], "stop_times": [3679.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3676.991}, "reply_to": "15104__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_066", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, we now know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3679.854], "stop_times": [3682.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3679.854}, "reply_to": "15104__1_065", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_067", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "The federal Court -- was the federal court dealing on a state law problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3682.716], "stop_times": [3685.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3682.716}, "reply_to": "15104__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_068", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, the federal court could deal with the state law problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3685.565], "stop_times": [3688.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3685.565}, "reply_to": "15104__1_067", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_069", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, it didn't purport to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3688.958], "stop_times": [3692.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3688.958}, "reply_to": "15104__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_070", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, if (f) under ASCO decision of this Court, what you plead is a set of operative facts?\nYou do not plead all this business that comes from the other side of the table about the federal court couldn't deal with the state court with state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3692.235, 3700.491], "stop_times": [3700.491, 3711.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3692.235}, "reply_to": "15104__1_069", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_071", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Was there diversity in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3711.21], "stop_times": [3714.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3711.21}, "reply_to": "15104__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_072", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No, I am not quite sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3714.363], "stop_times": [3715.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3714.363}, "reply_to": "15104__1_071", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_073", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, what jurisdiction would this federal court have had to deal with the state law of question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3715.502], "stop_times": [3720.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3715.502}, "reply_to": "15104__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_074", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, there is no longer a state law question but I would assert base upon last year's determination of this Court.\nBut at that time, if the Court had jurisdiction as it did under the Railway Labor Act and under the Interstate Commerce Act, it could use whatever body of law that there was that was applicable under pendent jurisdiction or ancillary jurisdiction.\nDistrict Courts of the United States everyday apply state law and it is usually in diversity cases, but they also apply state law in pendent jurisdiction cases where in this case it would be the Railway Labor Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3720.884, 3730.627, 3761.168], "stop_times": [3730.627, 3761.168, 3781.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3720.884}, "reply_to": "15104__1_073", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_075", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "What you are saying is that in 1967, the District Court in effect declared that this is protected conduct to free from interference by any Court under the federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3781.587], "stop_times": [3793.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3781.587}, "reply_to": "15104__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_076", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "That is what we say he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3793.343], "stop_times": [3794.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3793.343}, "reply_to": "15104__1_075", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_077", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3794.865], "stop_times": [3795.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3794.865}, "reply_to": "15104__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_078", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3795.616], "stop_times": [3796.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3795.616}, "reply_to": "15104__1_077", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_079", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "And you're saying that the railroad going into the state court is maybe enjoined because of its acting contrary to the -- at least the declaratory judgment that was entered against it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3796.47], "stop_times": [3808.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3796.47}, "reply_to": "15104__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_080", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Yes.\nDefendants can win, I mean, the position that Mr. Lyons is \u201cIf you don't rule for the plaintiff and don't grant an injunction, then nothing has happened.\u201d\nDefendants can never have the benefit of this doctrine or benefit of protection if it had been -- let us say a fully litigated case with res judicata, I suppose that would be something different, but that somehow if the defendant gets rules for that that isn't an order requiring some kind of protection.\nWell, he did rule the question of the legality, the issue of legality of our conduct was submitted to Judge McCray in 1967, about that, there can be no question.\nNow, there was a question up until this past year as to whether or not there might be some independent state remedy as it was thought that could intrude into railway labor.\nNow as long as that was the case, and there the suggestion is made, well, if it required protection -- If it is what you say it is, why didn't you go in 1967?\nWell, you're into the area then of the question of really a should preposition.\nUntil this Court has ruled and incidentally the arrangement was with counsel that we would let the 1967 picketing cases lie until this Court had ruled and when this Court had ruled within about two weeks we were in before Judge Locke.\nSo, why the reason for not going in, in 1967 is that a Federal District Court with that question remaining as an open question would be reluctant to enjoin not because it couldn't, not because it didn't interfere but because that just would not -- you never get somebody to do it is really what's involved, but once its clear that that interferes it's not a question of trying a res judicata defense, it's not a question of under the statute, it is not question of any of those things.\nIt's simply a question that the state court action fetters the federal court in making its determination or it is contrary or in some -- it does not really even need to be contrary as long as it's necessary to some reason or to be necessary for the court to take action and here, that is really very clear.\nNow, it is said by Mr. Lyons that Richman Brothers ends the matter and that Richman Brothers says that there is a forbidden fruit here that you can't try a preemption court -- a defense in the Federal District Court, that you got to let that go on up.\nWell, that isn't what Richman Brothers says.\nIn Richman Brothers, there was no jurisdiction of the United States District Court.\nThat jurisdiction had been preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [3808.454, 3809.297, 3823.783, 3850.775, 3871.493, 3896.096, 3911.962, 3920.567, 3945.745, 3991.634, 4025.222, 4048.608, 4053.649, 4061.568], "stop_times": [3809.297, 3823.783, 3850.775, 3871.493, 3896.096, 3911.962, 3920.567, 3945.745, 3991.634, 4025.222, 4048.608, 4053.649, 4061.568, 4067.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3808.454}, "reply_to": "15104__1_079", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_081", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "There was no jurisdiction in either state court order or federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4067.605], "stop_times": [4070.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4067.605}, "reply_to": "15104__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__1_082", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No.\nThere is no jurisdiction anywhere around.\nSo, there was no jurisdiction to aid and no order should have been entered.\nSo, 2283 could not apply.\nIt really is just about as simple as that.\nNow, the language --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4070.112, 4070.992, 4073.339, 4077.415, 4083.082, 4086.246], "stop_times": [4070.992, 4073.339, 4077.415, 4083.082, 4086.246, 4087.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4070.112}, "reply_to": "15104__1_081", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_083", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "[Voice Overlap] the opinion of the Court has been written quite that simply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4087.595], "stop_times": [4090.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4087.595}, "reply_to": "15104__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15104__1_084", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "No.\nThe opinion of the Court in \u201cthe should\u201d area is Justice Frankfurter again writing the author of Toucey and he writes a lots of reasons why it shouldn't be done.\nBut fundamentally, it all does come back down to the question of there was no jurisdiction to aid or a judgment or order to be protected.\nNow, Professor Moore has something to say about this.\nProfessor Moore says the -- and this is on page 43 of our brief, \u201cThe second exception permits a federal court to grant an injunction against state proceedings where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.\u201d\nThis puts back into 2283 some of the judicial flexibility which Toucey had removed from the statute.\nAnd despite the strict reading of 2283 by Richman Brothers, flexibility still remains for Richmond as we shall see held only that the District Court had no jurisdiction to aid. But if on the other hand a federal court has jurisdiction, then under the terms of 2283, it may enjoin state court proceedings where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.\nNow, since that time there has been the Galveston Wharves decision of the Fifth Circuit.\nIt's possible that it is very round decision is since that time as well which -- but perhaps not.\nThe Galveston Wharves decision was a case like the FEC in this regard that it had been to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals three times.\nIt is -- it was a case that had spawned considerable litigation.\nThe state court had enjoined picketing, the federal court had mandated that the carrier engage in good faith bargaining.\nThe federal court enjoined the state court from enjoining the picketing because of the impact that that would have regardless of considerations of secondary conduct and Galveston again was a decision before this Court's decision in Jacksonville Terminal and that case is essentially in terms of the power under 2283, essentially the same case as this one.\nThe Sperry Rand case is a Court of Appeals case in that case an injunction was issued against the state court to protect a discovery order of the federal court.\nIn the Brown versus Pacific Mutual case, which is a case which goes back prior to the 1948 Amendments, Justice Parker issued an injunction against a state court or rather he affirmed an injunction against a state court in a case which only involved cancellation of an insurance policy.\nThe suit in the federal court was for cancellation, the suit in the state court was on a $450.00 claim arising under the policy and he discusses at great length and this is back when there were no exceptions to 2283.\nHe discusses the Kline case which is a case Kline, and Toucey, and Richmond are really the cases most often talked about, but when you come through all of it and that injunction was sustained, but it never reached this Court, but when you come down really to all of it, certainly the Looney case is still the law.\nThe Looney case does not fit into any body's pigeon hole.\nThe Looney case is simply a case in aid of jurisdiction.\nThis is what the respondents say about Looney and the Sperry Rand case.\nWhat they teach is that an interlocutory order of a federal court is as much entitle to protection by injunction against interference from a state court as a final order.\nThat's certainly true under Looney.\nLooney -- the principles of Looney were certainly carried forward and probably broadened in the, but at least carried forward in the 48 revision, and that is certainly within the language of 2283.\nNow, the reason that this case is the strongest case that of any case for the application of 2283 is this.\nThere are at least 0 or 40 separate cases the District Court has had, innumerable cases involving this.\nThe Fifth Circuit has had opinions that, I don't think you can number on two hands.\nAll of these matters ultimately come down to one thing that the Florida East Coast strike will be settled only if there is bargaining, when you finally come down to it.\nNow, there has been no economic power, no economic sanction that could be put to bear upon the Florida East Coast Railroad since the first two years of the strike, except the economic sanction of asking the employees of the neutral railroads not deliver cars to the FEC.\nNow in a situation like this and what, the reason really I think that the economic sanctions initially didn't bring any kind of settlement, was because the FEC immediately started all these illegal operations for which there is a proceedings now about restoration of the status quo and so forth, but they effectively through illegal conduct wanted that, that is not the fault of the Atlantic Coastline.\nBut also from the very beginning, the other form of primary activity and surely there must some way in the railroad industry that you are entitled to ask the people who make pick ups and deliveries in the terms of the Steelworker case or in the terms of this Court last year not to do that and of course, one knows that in this industry that they won't do it if you ask them not to.\nSo, there is an economic power that has never been used.\nThat is what is involved in this case and this Court has decided that state courts have no business in this field.\nThat interferes with not only the federal scheme, but that interferes and with jurisdiction assumed over the bargaining, over the self help rights of the railroad and over the question not only of interchange between the carriers, but interchange as it affects the rights of this people and it is all one ball of wax.\nBut if for instance, let us assumed that a state court tells the federal court that the railroad cannot deviate one iota from its contract and we know that Judge Simpson who is originally the District Judge following the mandate of this Court, allowed the railroad to get away in its operations from certain matters, I forget exactly what they were to long, but some matters of its collective bargaining agreement.\nNow, there wouldn't be any hesitation, I dare say, that that injunction by a state court would come within 2283 and be stopped.\nAnd this is simply the other side of the coin and the only reason it looks any different in perspective is because the order says, \u201cOkay, do it.\u201d\nOr at least, \u201cI'm not going to give relief against it\u201d and so you can say, well that isn't some kind of an affirmative duty, but it bears on it -- the Court assumed jurisdiction over the legality of this conduct and as a state court order that impinges upon that and it isn't tangential at all, it's the heart of the whole business and no bargaining will ever make any sense until the day that there is some economic power on the part of the organizations.\nI mean, the basic dispute still pends it's over 10 cents an hour.\nA demand made in 1961 and for 10 cents an hour the hold up strike can be settled for 10 cents an hours in an economy that from 1961 to 1969 has expanded 25 -- on inflation 25%.\nI mean, so something is wrong in this strike and it is that this traditional weapon of labor, primary picketing against people who make deliveries and pick ups has never been able to be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4090.438, 4091.314, 4110.0, 4122.925, 4133.809, 4147.997, 4157.188, 4186.42, 4203.051, 4211.513, 4227.58, 4237.856, 4250.135, 4285.086, 4304.734, 4332.812, 4353.511, 4388.769, 4395.776, 4402.893, 4413.149, 4426.803, 4431.83, 4450.856, 4469.283, 4480.655, 4490.579, 4506.64, 4536.012, 4567.489, 4595.84, 4598.898, 4610.572, 4636.036, 4669.994, 4679.998, 4692.357, 4742.194, 4748.065, 4765.104], "stop_times": [4091.314, 4110.0, 4122.925, 4133.809, 4147.997, 4157.188, 4186.42, 4203.051, 4211.513, 4227.58, 4237.856, 4250.135, 4285.086, 4304.734, 4332.812, 4353.511, 4388.769, 4395.776, 4402.893, 4413.149, 4426.803, 4431.83, 4450.856, 4469.283, 4480.655, 4490.579, 4506.64, 4536.012, 4567.489, 4595.84, 4598.898, 4610.572, 4636.036, 4669.994, 4679.998, 4692.357, 4742.194, 4748.065, 4765.104, 4787.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4090.438}, "reply_to": "15104__1_083", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_085", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Did I understand you sometime back and say that after 1967 injunction suit by the railroad in the Federal District Court that you might have some problems here if you had to start a new suit to enjoin a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4787.929], "stop_times": [4803.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4787.929}, "reply_to": "15104__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_086", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, I think that in the totality of this situation that with the perspective in the first place.\nThe perspective of the statute is not litigant's contentions or anything else.\nThe perspective of the statute is the power of the Court and it's whether the power of the Court depends on whether it is assumed jurisdiction and it has assumed jurisdiction over the bargaining orders which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4803.749, 4813.222, 4818.658], "stop_times": [4813.222, 4818.658, 4834.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4803.749}, "reply_to": "15104__1_085", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_087", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Wouldn't you have some problem with Richman Brothers at least, if there had not been any suit in the Federal District Court at all and that the employer went right to the state court got an injunction and then you started action in the federal court?\nMr. Justice Harlan asked you awhile ago I think about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4834.785, 4852.416], "stop_times": [4852.416, 4855.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4834.785}, "reply_to": "15104__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_088", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4855.436], "stop_times": [4855.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4855.436}, "reply_to": "15104__1_087", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_089", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "I thought you answer was you might have the answer to the problems with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4855.982], "stop_times": [4860.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4855.982}, "reply_to": "15104__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__1_090", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, the Capital Service case, this case, if that were so if there was no prior litigation at all, I believe that is your assumption of no litigation at all, you would then have a situation which is like the Capital Service case.\nThe difference would be in Capital Service, it is the Board that invokes the jurisdiction of the court and then in the Capital Service, the Court unfettered itself first.\nUnder the Railway Labor Act, it is private litigants who invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to make a determination under the Railway Labor Act.\nAnd if Capital Service is analogized to the Railway Labor Act, then an initial proceeding brought by a private litigant to have the federal court determine a question of Railway Labor Act law would be entitled, once the Court had assumed jurisdiction to do that would be within 2283.\nNow, that doesn't make a stronger case for the \u201cshould aspect\u201d as we have in this case because of the totality of all of the different factors.\nNow, it has been said several times all we need to do is just go ahead and follow our appellate remedies and it is true the appellate remedies are there and we can take an appeal and we'll get back around here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4860.84, 4883.755, 4899.501, 4913.997, 4943.999, 4962.86], "stop_times": [4883.755, 4899.501, 4913.997, 4943.999, 4962.86, 4981.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4860.84}, "reply_to": "15104__1_089", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_091", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "You agree if you get a final judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4981.294], "stop_times": [4981.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4981.294}, "reply_to": "15104__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15104__1_092", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Oh, yes we can.\nWell, if Judge Locke would do what he said he would his letter and enter a final judgment, we could appeal from that, that's quite true.\nThat is true in every 2283 case and that doesn't affect the policy of 2283, and that is a singularly inappropriate way to deal with a labor dispute.\nIf a federal court has taken jurisdiction and had orders, then we'll be back here two years from now so that this Court can say that Jacksonville Terminal, when it says that state law can apply, means act, and then when some state judge wants to take jurisdiction over something again, well, we'd be back in another two years after that and so forth and so on.\nNow, the federal interest in the settlement of the Florida East Coast strike is enormous.\nThe Federal Government has been in the case since the beginning not the one with this case number on it.\nIt does affect whole regions and to have that procedure and that's really what the decision I think that this Court comes down to, really the question that is, is this the type of a case, like a money judgment case in a -- it's already been determined that Toucey was wrong that fully litigated diversity, but personal money judgment case that you could and should enjoin a state court.\nCongress said that, Congress was upset to think that you couldn't do that.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [4981.974, 4983.514, 4991.578, 5007.83, 5043.914, 5053.579, 5061.071, 5099.265, 5104.42], "stop_times": [4983.514, 4991.578, 5007.83, 5043.914, 5053.579, 5061.071, 5099.265, 5104.42, 5104.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4981.974}, "reply_to": "15104__1_091", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_093", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Your time has expired now, Mr. Milledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5104.68], "stop_times": [5109.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5104.68}, "reply_to": "15104__1_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__1_094", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "But this case if that's so, then this case is just overwhelming for that in -- I didn't discuss the Norris-LaGuardia Act at all, but our position is stated in the brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5109.132], "stop_times": [5121.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5109.132}, "reply_to": "15104__1_093", "speaker": "allan_milledge"}
{"id": "15104__1_095", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Milledge.\nMr. Lyons, you have about five minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5121.051, 5122.394], "stop_times": [5122.394, 5128.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5121.051}, "reply_to": "15104__1_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15104__2_000", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nMr. Milledge referred to a number of other proceedings besides the case at Bar which presumably the District Court was protecting orders in -- by enjoining the state court proceedings here.\nNow, the District Court itself never cited any of these other cases.\nI don't believe they were cited to it by counsel.\nThey were mentioned for the first time in this Court.\nThere are three proceedings essentially, one of them is the so called the Clerks case to which the neutral carriers are not even a party.\nThe other is a proceeding in which there's never been any order entered of any affirmative or even negative sort it and the only other one is this 1963 case and the only order that has ever been entered in that and we discuss all of these in our brief.\nThe only order that has ever been entered in that is an order that the FEC got against the Atlantic Coastline and the other neutral carriers requiring them to interchange and we scarcely see how the state court order in any way contravenes that order since the picketing that the state court sought to enjoin was designed to disrupt the interchange by getting the Coastline stop the interchange.\nThis case is quite different than from the Looney case which was mentioned frequently by counsel in his oral argument.\nIn Looney, there was an affirmative interlocutory injunction granted by the federal court.\nThen a state court ordered the taking of certain action which was inconsistent, completely inconsistent with the federal court injunction and it was held that the federal court could enjoin proceedings upon that state court injunction notwithstanding that the federal court injunction was interlocutory.\nThis is an entirely different case.\nThere is no order whatsoever that the injunction under review protects or effectuates the assertions of the federal court's jurisdiction in this case, have been solely assertions as to the federal law rights.\nThere is no diversity, the state law claims were never pleaded.\nWe get down to the final point in this case that what the respondents are trying to do here is to adjudicate this defense based on their reading of the Jacksonville Terminal case by way of brining an injunction against the state court proceedings.\nNow, they have stated that the argument we're making is essentially a pigeon whole argument that they have to point to a specific exception to the statute.\nWell that is the way the statute reads, pigeon whole is a kind of a tendentious way of saying it but it's a general statute with specific exceptions.\nAs the Court said in Richman Brothers, legislative policy is here expressed in Section 2283, in a clear cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.\nThe exception I think that the respondents are trying to urge on this Court is the exception that we heard much of the very end of Mr. Milledge's argument and that is that they just can't wait for the orderly adjudication of their federal defenses in the state courts.\nThey have not joined with us in entering a final judgment.\nThey admit that they could have had one entered.\nThey have left that situation stand now for nine months.\nThey have not lifted a finger to take an appeal in the state courts.\nThe preposition we submit that the respondents are urging upon this Court cuts at the very heart of what Congress tried to do back in 1793 and ever since when it is enacted and reenacted this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5128.431, 5131.529, 5149.034, 5155.115, 5158.139, 5162.422, 5171.152, 5188.451, 5219.854, 5228.073, 5236.424, 5260.333, 5263.051, 5283.305, 5287.95, 5310.363, 5323.891, 5333.513, 5348.552, 5372.207, 5376.176, 5379.331, 5384.877, 5390.59], "stop_times": [5131.529, 5149.034, 5155.115, 5158.139, 5162.422, 5171.152, 5188.451, 5219.854, 5228.073, 5236.424, 5260.333, 5263.051, 5283.305, 5287.95, 5310.363, 5323.891, 5333.513, 5348.552, 5372.207, 5376.176, 5379.331, 5384.877, 5390.59, 5411.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5128.431}, "reply_to": "15104__1_095", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__2_001", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Mr. Lyons, let me ask you, if this -- if in 1967, the federal court had said expressly or in effect that this issue before me is governed exclusively by federal law and if the railroad has no right to an injunction under federal law.\nNow and then, the railroad promptly resorted to state courts and asked the state court to adjudicate the controversy under state law and asked for an injunction under the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5411.282, 5434.033], "stop_times": [5434.033, 5447.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5411.282}, "reply_to": "15104__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__2_002", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "If he had purported to -- had purported to exercise the power adjudicate state law claims or deny their existence, then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5447.99], "stop_times": [5459.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5447.99}, "reply_to": "15104__2_001", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__2_003", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Well, we can say federal law preempts at all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5459.007], "stop_times": [5462.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5459.007}, "reply_to": "15104__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15104__2_004", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "-- and it's exclusive, then we would have quite a different case.\nYou could make the argument that what we were trying to do then was to re-litigate that order and that we should have appealed that order.\nNow, we didn't appeal his order and if it said something else from what it had said, presumably our decision as to appeal would have been quite different.\nThank you ,Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5462.178, 5467.865, 5477.016, 5487.04], "stop_times": [5467.865, 5477.016, 5487.04, 5487.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5462.178}, "reply_to": "15104__2_003", "speaker": "dennis_g_lyons"}
{"id": "15104__2_005", "conversation_id": "15104", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lyons.\nThank you, Mr. Milledge.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_477", "start_times": [5487.775, 5489.206, 5490.032], "stop_times": [5489.206, 5490.032, 5492.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5487.775}, "reply_to": "15104__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_000", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Number 729, Bachellar against Maryland.\nMr. Amsterdam, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [0.0, 27.063], "stop_times": [27.063, 30.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_001", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis state disorderly conduct prosecution brings to the Court three issues of greatly varying breadth.\nThe narrowest relates simply to the jury instructions in this particular case.\nAnd it is whether on this record and in light of the trial court's charge defining the offensive disorderly conduct.\nThe Court's failure to give certain instruction requested by the petitioner caused the case to go to the jury on a constitutionally impermissible basis.\nThe second and broader question is whether on this record, the conviction of these petitioners under the specific definition of disorderly conduct charged to the jury violates the First Amendment or in other words, whether the Maryland disorderly conduct statute has been unconstitutionally applied.\nAnd the third question is whether the Maryland disorderly conduct statute is unconstitutional on its face by virtue of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.\nNow, all three of these questions have in common, the language of the offense of disorderly conduct in Maryland, resolution of any of them requires careful attention to that language and I would like to start with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [30.051, 35.655, 48.781, 56.07, 65.403, 77.842, 100.838, 110.782], "stop_times": [35.655, 48.781, 56.07, 65.403, 77.842, 100.838, 110.782, 130.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 30.051}, "reply_to": "14938__0_000", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_002", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Just before you do, Mr. Amsterdam, let me be sure that I understand the distinct categories into which you put your three issues in increasing breadths.\nYou said the last one was whether the statute on its face is unconstitutional as violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment and you mean -- does this have to do with vagueness or breadth, over breadth or vagueness or does it have to do with what the statute explicitly prohibits and makes an offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [130.175, 142.685], "stop_times": [142.685, 161.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.175}, "reply_to": "14938__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_003", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "It has to do with the particularized standards of vagueness and over breadth applicable in the First Amendment area.\nSo, when I say unconstitutional on its face, I mean unconstitutional on its face in the same sense in which this Court has looked to the facial validity of statutes when applied in areas involving speech.\nI am talking about a First Amendment contention, but it's not unrelated to the general doctrines of vagueness and over breadth.\nThere's a more particularized doctrine of vagueness and over breadth applicable in the First Amendment area.\nIt is that which we invoke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [161.201, 168.473, 181.793, 188.156, 193.589], "stop_times": [168.473, 181.793, 188.156, 193.589, 196.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 161.201}, "reply_to": "14938__0_002", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_004", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [196.493], "stop_times": [197.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.493}, "reply_to": "14938__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_005", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Now, it is not unusual that in the disorderly conduct area, the statute itself does not contain the exhaustive definition of the crime.\nThe statute is found on page 4 of our brief and it simply says, \u201cEvery person who shall be found acting in a disorderly manner to the disturbance of a public peace upon any street or highway or in other public places is guilty of the offense.\u201d\nHowever, the statute has been authoritatively construed by the Maryland Court of Appeals and at pages 30 and 31 of our brief, we both state those constructions and set forth the portions of the specific jury charge in this case which embody the Maryland doctrines of disorderly conduct.\nAnd there are two distinct theories of disorderly conduct in Maryland.\nThe first as charged to petitioner's jury is, disorderly conduct is the doing or saying, or both, of that which offends, disturbs, incites, or tends to incite a number of people gathered in the same area.\nIt is conduct of such nature as to affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness it and who maybe disturbed or provoked to resentment because of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [197.628, 204.93, 226.776, 248.049, 252.307, 269.877], "stop_times": [204.93, 226.776, 248.049, 252.307, 269.877, 281.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 197.628}, "reply_to": "14938__0_004", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_006", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Now, the term peace and quiet, there is linked up directly with the incite, and the peace and quiet are linked, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [281.308], "stop_times": [294.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.308}, "reply_to": "14938__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_007", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, it is unclear.\nAgain, it's of the nature of definitions of this sort that they don't make those linkages clear.\nThe -- the verbal terminology is--conduct of such nature as to affect the peace and quiet.\nNow, I take it there's a relationship between that and inciting and disturbing, but the verbal mix is not direct.\nThe second -- for sure, I think it maybe helpful to call that the disturbing of public theory of disorderly conduct and I refer to it as that.\nThe second is that, disobeying a police order theory of disorderly conduct and that which charged the petitioner's jury as follows, \u201ca refusal to obey a policemen's command to move on when not to do so may endanger the public peace.\u201d\nIt may amount to disorderly conduct.\nNow, having focused in on the language, I would propose very, very briefly to describe the facts of the case.\nI know the Court is familiar with them.\nI only want to touch the highlights in that brief briefly.\nThe case arises of course out of an antiwar demonstration in front of a recruiting center.\nThere were pickets in front of the recruiting center, marching in a line.\nThey had signs and placards.\nThe petitioners here were part of the picket line.\nThey joined that picket line and they marched with the placards in the line.\nThey then went into -- actually three of them, I don't regard this as material, three of the six went in to the recruiting office and asked the sergeant in charge to display their antiwar literature which he said, he had no authority to do and declined to do and explaining that to the mass on the lead.\nThey did not -- they remained and argued with him for a while but no attempt was made to remove them for the office until closing time, something more than an hour later.\nAt that time, the lines were drawn down, and after they were asked again to leave both by the recruiting sergeant and the United States Marshall and they declined to do so, they were removed.\nNow at this point, the testimony begins to diverge in as many directions as there are witness.\nThey say they were taken out thrown bodily on the ground in a violent way.\nThe officer has testified that they were put outside.\nSome of the officers admit putting them down of their backs.\nOthers say at least one landed on his feet, some say they were escorted out.\nA photographer present says they were all carried out very close to the ground and dropped on their rears, but in any event, they ended up on the ground outside.\nThey may have sat down and they may have been dropped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [294.209, 295.739, 301.32, 308.285, 315.255, 324.121, 342.148, 345.021, 352.823, 354.098, 357.649, 365.275, 369.13, 371.27, 374.28, 378.435, 397.099, 405.551, 416.583, 422.913, 429.285, 432.304, 435.1, 439.785, 447.94], "stop_times": [295.739, 301.32, 308.285, 315.255, 324.121, 342.148, 345.021, 352.823, 354.098, 357.649, 365.275, 369.13, 371.27, 374.28, 378.435, 397.099, 405.551, 416.583, 422.913, 429.285, 432.304, 435.1, 439.785, 447.94, 450.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 294.209}, "reply_to": "14938__0_006", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_008", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Is that dispute?\nDoes that dispute in evidence have any relevance to your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [450.188, 451.193], "stop_times": [451.193, 454.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.188}, "reply_to": "14938__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14938__0_009", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Oh, it absolutely -- it does indeed Your Honor.\nIf this were a case in which we were just claiming that the petitioner's conduct was not constitutionally punishable, we would accept the findings of fact most favorable to the prosecution.\nI would have stated this case entirely in terms of the prosecution's testimony.\nBut one of the major issues is, what instructions should have been given to the jury.\nNow, of course it is the function of instructions to the jury to have them decide on the facts of the whole record which category, a prosecution verdict or a defense verdict the case falls in.\nSo of course, defense evidence is relevant and conflicts of the evidence are irrelevant on the question what instruction should have been given to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [454.735, 457.934, 471.891, 476.545, 481.361, 493.436], "stop_times": [457.934, 471.891, 476.545, 481.361, 493.436, 499.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 454.735}, "reply_to": "14938__0_008", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_010", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I think that I didn't make my question clear.\nI understand your arguing now on the unconstitutionality of the statute on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [499.609, 502.671], "stop_times": [502.671, 507.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.609}, "reply_to": "14938__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14938__0_011", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "No, that is one of three contentions and at the moment, I am not addressing my --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [507.705], "stop_times": [512.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 507.705}, "reply_to": "14938__0_010", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_012", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Suppose they were there wrongfully and they had a right to put them out and they did put them out.\nWhat would be the relevance of the way they put them out, in your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [512.546, 518.379], "stop_times": [518.379, 525.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.546}, "reply_to": "14938__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14938__0_013", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [525.212], "stop_times": [525.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 525.212}, "reply_to": "14938__0_012", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_014", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I don't know which is right or wrong on the violation of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [525.391], "stop_times": [529.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.391}, "reply_to": "14938__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14938__0_015", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "It would have no relevance whatever if they were charged with disorderly conduct in the recruiting center.\nThey were not.\nThat is very plain.\nThe statute does not apply to disorderly conduct except on a public street and in certain places which does not include a recruiting officer.\nAt the close of the case, the trial judge formally announced that nothing that they had done in the recruiting office was the basis of this charge.\nWhatever they may have done in there, the scene and if that's what it was has nothing to do with their conviction of disorderly conduct.\nThat has been plain from the beginning of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [529.331, 535.896, 537.481, 539.175, 548.932, 557.943, 565.721], "stop_times": [535.896, 537.481, 539.175, 548.932, 557.943, 565.721, 567.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 529.331}, "reply_to": "14938__0_014", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_016", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Does it have some relationship in the flow and sequence of events to what happened before they went in and after they came out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [567.871], "stop_times": [575.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.871}, "reply_to": "14938__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_017", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Absolutely, there is no question about that and I am not arguing for one moment that the court below could not take account in determining whether what they were charged with was disorderly conduct as its conduct on the street with their conduct before they went in and while they went in and after they came out.\nThat is no -- that's exactly why I'm describing these facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [575.718, 592.041], "stop_times": [592.041, 595.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 575.718}, "reply_to": "14938__0_016", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_018", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "You don't think the statute covers the conduct in the recruiting office itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [595.518], "stop_times": [602.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.518}, "reply_to": "14938__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_019", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Pardon me, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [602.259], "stop_times": [603.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 602.259}, "reply_to": "14938__0_018", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_020", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I'm just looking at the statute.\nIt talks about any public street or highway and various other places and it says or in any elevator, lobby, or corridor of any office building that would not in your submission include the recruiting office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [603.124, 604.264], "stop_times": [604.264, 618.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.124}, "reply_to": "14938__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_021", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I am quite sure that the interior of a business office is not an elevator, lobby or corridor of an office building.\nThis is a storefront office.\nThis is not a public building with public cars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [618.025, 628.142, 629.959], "stop_times": [628.142, 629.959, 632.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 618.025}, "reply_to": "14938__0_020", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_022", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "An office building, if it's a building with an office in it, I suppose, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [632.632], "stop_times": [636.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.632}, "reply_to": "14938__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_023", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, but this requires that it be the elevator, lobby or corridor of an office building.\nAnd what we have simply is a storefront, all of the space within which is working space.\nThis is an office.\nIt is not public space in an office building.\nIn any event, if I may Mr. Justice Stewart, simply refer Your Honor to the view the trial took of this case.\nI think it is quite important.\nIf you look at our brief at page 25 in the run over footnote, at the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court declared that the offense of disorderly conduct with which they are charged does not relate to anything that took place inside the office.\nNow, this was in connection with a defense request to charge to that effect.\nThe project said he would charge to that effect.\nHe did in fact neglect the charge to that effect.\nBut that's not the claim we bear at this point.\nWe raised that claim below that he should've as a matter of state law.\nBut his ruling is quite plain.\nHe didn't think that anything that went on inside the office was part of the offense.\nIndeed, the Chief Justice's point came up at the trial.\nIt is whether we took the position that what went on inside the office was totally immaterial.\nDefendant's trial counsel did take that position and answer the testimony be strict and I do not, at this point take that position.\nI think that the testimony was relevant background.\nThe Court rejected that position.\nBut the Court rejected it specifically on the ground that this was relevant background and not that the conduct inside the office was disorderly.\nAnd in fact, if you take a look at the trial record, you will see that the prosecution hurried through the testimony as to what went on in the office.\nThat testimony is quite unclear.\nThere was no cross examination on it by defense counsel precisely because these events separately were not and everybody realized they were not.\nAt trial, what the basis of the charge was.\nThe charge had to do with what happened on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [636.871, 642.797, 648.237, 649.115, 651.839, 659.871, 665.226, 683.206, 687.235, 690.231, 693.528, 695.406, 699.28, 700.727, 705.082, 710.76, 716.189, 722.298, 724.717, 726.734, 734.935, 742.37, 744.414, 750.75, 752.436], "stop_times": [642.797, 648.237, 649.115, 651.839, 659.871, 665.226, 683.206, 687.235, 690.231, 693.528, 695.406, 699.28, 700.727, 705.082, 710.76, 716.189, 722.298, 724.717, 726.734, 734.935, 742.37, 744.414, 750.75, 752.436, 754.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 636.871}, "reply_to": "14938__0_022", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_024", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Now, there were 25 or 30 other people who had been picketing on the street for fairly long period of time while your clients were in the office, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [754.553], "stop_times": [765.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.553}, "reply_to": "14938__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_025", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That's correct.\nBoth before and after the picketers included the six defendant's petitioners here.\nAnd then when they went in they were in, remember for about an hour.\nPicketing continued and indeed, from what it appears, the petitioners were in and out and other people were in and out.\nThe six petitioners end up here because they were lashed in the office at five.\nThey were the ones who had stayed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [765.344, 767.511, 776.659, 780.7, 786.903, 790.82], "stop_times": [767.511, 776.659, 780.7, 786.903, 790.82, 791.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 765.344}, "reply_to": "14938__0_024", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_026", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "At closing time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [791.497], "stop_times": [792.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.497}, "reply_to": "14938__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_027", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "And then they were thrown out.\nNow, the point is, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [792.598, 794.776], "stop_times": [794.776, 797.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 792.598}, "reply_to": "14938__0_026", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_028", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "You spoke of their marching in a line, now some of the pictures indeed show they were marching in a line, but Exhibit 9 which is, one of the exhibits here is not much of a line, would you say, this is a crowd in front of the store spilling out onto the street.\nIndeed, spilling out to the point where although there are parking meters there, no car could be parked there at the time this activity was going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [797.468, 816.832], "stop_times": [816.832, 830.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.468}, "reply_to": "14938__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_029", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Let us be clear in timing Mr. Chief Justice.\nI was responding to that question.\nI was talking about the picketing.\nThe picketing had seized by the time of Exhibit 9.\nExhibit 9 refers to the time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [830.34, 833.267, 834.972, 836.312, 839.203], "stop_times": [833.267, 834.972, 836.312, 839.203, 841.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 830.34}, "reply_to": "14938__0_028", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_030", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "What was going on that time at 9:00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [841.096], "stop_times": [844.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.096}, "reply_to": "14938__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_031", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "The six petitioners had been thrown out of the office and were on the sidewalk, in front of it.\nAt that point, a crowd composed of the other demonstrators -- that is the picketers and onlookers, gathered around to watch.\nIt is unclear on the record, whether or not that crowd of onlookers was already obstructing the sidewalk in the way in which you see at 9:00 before they were thrown out, or whether that happened when they were thrown out.\nThat is not a picket line, Your Honor, that is a crowd that is watching.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [844.008, 850.793, 859.01, 872.417], "stop_times": [850.793, 859.01, 872.417, 875.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 844.008}, "reply_to": "14938__0_030", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_032", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "It's a crowd?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [875.036], "stop_times": [876.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.036}, "reply_to": "14938__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_033", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That is certainly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [876.67], "stop_times": [877.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 876.67}, "reply_to": "14938__0_032", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_034", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "It's a crowd of people.\nNo picketing in the sense you were talking about at all except that your clients was still engaged in their demonstration, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [877.216, 878.385], "stop_times": [878.385, 885.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.216}, "reply_to": "14938__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_035", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "They are at that point depending on the view one takes to the testimony which was never resolved by the jury.\nEither still engaged in a demonstration were lying on the ground where they were thrown because they haven't yet a change to pick themselves up.\nIf that issue had been resolved by the jury, we would have a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [885.55, 891.642, 899.272], "stop_times": [891.642, 899.272, 902.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 885.55}, "reply_to": "14938__0_034", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_036", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Isn't the whole idea of a disorderly conduct statute to preclude and prevent the kind of collection and episodes that are involved in Exhibit 9?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [902.383], "stop_times": [913.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.383}, "reply_to": "14938__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_037", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "No, I don't think it is by any means.\nCertainly not this disorderly conduct statute and in any event --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [913.054, 915.337], "stop_times": [915.337, 921.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 913.054}, "reply_to": "14938__0_036", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_038", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Doesn't it refer in terms to the responses of others.\nNow, the response of others here sometimes is peaceful, just curiosity, interest in what's going on, and sometimes it might be more than that.\nBut the response is part of the statute, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [921.698, 926.038, 937.227], "stop_times": [926.038, 937.227, 940.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.698}, "reply_to": "14938__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_039", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "There is no doubt about that, unless the public responds -- well, I better not go that far.\nIt is not clear to me whether that so.\nLet me take the statute apart and see.\nIn one sense response is necessary.\nThat is, under the definition of disorderly conduct which involves doing something which offends, disturbs or incites, the reaction of the crowd is relevant.\nWhat I'm concerned about is whether it tends to incite may not turn the liability on actual reaction by the crowd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [940.346, 949.284, 951.224, 954.136, 956.385, 967.256], "stop_times": [949.284, 951.224, 954.136, 956.385, 967.256, 974.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 940.346}, "reply_to": "14938__0_038", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_040", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Was anyone arrested while the picketing was going on in the orderly way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [974.831], "stop_times": [981.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.831}, "reply_to": "14938__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_041", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [981.31], "stop_times": [982.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 981.31}, "reply_to": "14938__0_040", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_042", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Indeed, the police afforded protection to them, did they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [982.443], "stop_times": [985.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.443}, "reply_to": "14938__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_043", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "They did indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [985.261], "stop_times": [986.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 985.261}, "reply_to": "14938__0_042", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_044", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "They were there to guarantee their right to picket and parade up and down in front of the recruiting office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [986.581], "stop_times": [993.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.581}, "reply_to": "14938__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_045", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Absolutely, no question about it.\nYour Honor, I want to make it very clear our position here which both the court below misunderstood and respondent appears to misunderstand.\nWe are not contending that these petitioners were arrested because the police disagreed with their views, they were not.\nWe don't suggest that for one moment.\nWhat we suggest is two things.\nFirst of all, what is an issue before this Court is not the reason for their arrest.\nWhat's involved before this Court is a basis for their conviction and they were convicted on the theory that they did something which offended, disturbed or incited.\nIt had nothing to do with obstructing the sidewalk or any basis for the police arrest.\nSecondly, the offense disturbing and inciting has to do with the crowd's response to their ideas.\nWe're not saying the police disagreed with their ideas.\nWhat we're saying is that police arrested them because they disturbed the crowd.\nWhat Your Honor is saying, Mr. Chief Justice, is exactly is right, that this offense turns in large part, if not exclusively on a crowd's reaction.\nAnd what has happened in this case is, that the crowd reacted with hostility to the petitioners.\nWhy?\nNot because of their position on the street, because of their position in Vietnam, that's plain and that's plain on the state's own testimony.\nAnd as a result of that hostility, the police then proceeded to arrest them for creating a disturbance.\nNow, it is the purpose of disorderly conduct was, to prevent the public from being upset, and it is the purpose of the First Amendment to prevent disorderly conduct laws from allowing convictions where the offset is ideological.\nThat is the essence of our submission in this case.\nNow, I want to be very clear about the issues presented because in my view, the respondent takes a very different issue -- very different view of the issues than petitioner.\nAnd I think who is ultimately right on the merits of this case depends on large part if not exclusively and whose formulation of the issues is the correct one.\nFor that reason, I wanted to tell the Court exactly what I think the issues are.\nThe question here is not whether these petitioners had done something for which Maryland can constitutionally punish.\nMore specifically, it is not whether they have a right to sit in on a recruiting office.\nIt is not whether they have a right to sit down on the sidewalk.\nIt is not whether they have a right to obstruct the sidewalk.\nI am not asserting that they have any of those rights.\nWhat they have a right to is a fair trial on the issue whether they did any of those things under a statute which in terms punishes doing those things.\nSo that the issues submitted to the jury and fairly decided by the jury would be whether the petitioners did anything that Maryland had a constitutional right to punish.\nNow, that is not this trial and that is not this statute.\nAnd it is for this reason that we profoundly disagree with the respondent's statement of the issues in this case.\nThe respondents make it a simple case.\nPetitioners obstructed the sidewalk, they were told to move on, therefore they were charged with refusing to move on after being told that this is so because they were obstructing the sidewalk and that's a perfectly constitutional charge.\nThe trouble with that is that the first time petitioners have been charged with that is in this Court, and if I may refer to the record, I think I can satisfy the Court pretty squarely on that point.\nWhat the respondents say specifically in their brief is, petitioners were arrested for blocking the sidewalk and for failure to obey a policeman's command to move on, when not to do so may endanger the public peace.\nAn examination of the record clearly discloses that obstruction of the sidewalk was a prevailing factor because they arrested petitioners not disagreement with their ideas.\nI think I've already pointed out that the issue here is not what they were arrested for, it's what they've been convicted for.\nAnd at this point, when we want to ask what they were convicted for, and I want to look at another aspect of the respondent's brief.\nThe respondent point's out at page 42 that the prosecutor elected not to proceed under the Maryland statute governing obstruction of the streets.\nThe respondent suggested it's immaterial that the state didn't proceed under that statute.\nI suggest that the fact that the state didn't proceed under that statute is the essence of this case because what the charge was, it was in fact may, was the broad general disorderly charge under Section 123.\nNow that charge as I've said has two aspects.\nDoing or saying or both of anything that offends, disturbs or incites.\nNow, with regard to that charge, I want to point out, that there's not only nothing in it about obstructing sidewalks but there's nothing in it about disobeying a police order.\nAnd this was put before the jury as a separate ground of conviction, with all the facts including Chief Justice Burger, the background facts like the fact that these people were walking with signs and that they were singing \u201cWe Shall Overcome\u201d and they were on the street.\nNow, the state even in this Court caused their singing on the sidewalk, misplaced, vocalizing and suggested that it was disorderly because it prevented them for hearing police orders.\nAnd that's why I think that this Court has to focus in this case not on the question of whether they were obstructing a sidewalk or anything else.\nCertain of their conduct was clearly protected by the First Amendment.\nThe picketing was with the placards and with the signs and singing \u201cWe Shall Overcome,\u201d not all of it, but some parts of it.\nThe state's charge here was a blunderbuss.\nIt was a charge that they did offend, disturb, and incite a crowd of people.\nThat's the issue which was submitted to the jury.\nNow, for the state then to abandon that up in this Court for the first time, to say that that head of liability which it insisted on to get these convictions and then in its brief in the Court of Appeals -- pardon me, in the Court of Special Appeals stood on to get the conviction affirmed is now to be abandoned, and this is to turn into an obstructing the sidewalk case, is to do precisely what this Court in Gregory and a number or other cases has said cannot be done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [993.479, 995.138, 1004.129, 1011.512, 1013.703, 1015.294, 1020.291, 1028.739, 1033.071, 1041.444, 1043.921, 1047.39, 1056.271, 1062.767, 1063.604, 1069.887, 1075.998, 1088.837, 1092.306, 1106.669, 1114.139, 1119.608, 1126.907, 1131.941, 1135.21, 1137.896, 1141.311, 1153.596, 1162.911, 1167.205, 1174.655, 1176.928, 1188.019, 1198.922, 1212.53, 1223.806, 1230.183, 1238.049, 1247.762, 1252.888, 1266.703, 1269.37, 1273.567, 1281.881, 1296.355, 1307.281, 1314.692, 1317.941, 1324.514, 1327.523, 1332.24, 1334.728], "stop_times": [995.138, 1004.129, 1011.512, 1013.703, 1015.294, 1020.291, 1028.739, 1033.071, 1041.444, 1043.921, 1047.39, 1056.271, 1062.767, 1063.604, 1069.887, 1075.998, 1088.837, 1092.306, 1106.669, 1114.139, 1119.608, 1126.907, 1131.941, 1135.21, 1137.896, 1141.311, 1153.596, 1162.911, 1167.205, 1174.655, 1176.928, 1188.019, 1198.922, 1212.53, 1223.806, 1230.183, 1238.049, 1247.762, 1252.888, 1266.703, 1269.37, 1273.567, 1281.881, 1296.355, 1307.281, 1314.692, 1317.941, 1324.514, 1327.523, 1332.24, 1334.728, 1359.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 993.479}, "reply_to": "14938__0_044", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_046", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, do you -- are you saying also that no one could possibly know from the statute that sitting down and blocking a sidewalk was covered by statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1359.062], "stop_times": [1372.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.062}, "reply_to": "14938__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_047", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I am most certainly am saying that no one could know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1372.73], "stop_times": [1376.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1372.73}, "reply_to": "14938__0_046", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_048", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That's part of your vagueness argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1376.569], "stop_times": [1379.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.569}, "reply_to": "14938__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_049", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes, but Mr. Justice White, let me explain why I'm saying that.\nA -- As I read the statute on the constructions put on it below.\nI can sit down and block the sidewalk all I want and I don't violate the statute.\nUnless I offend, disturb, incite or tend to incite a number of people or disobey a police order when not to move on may endanger the public peace, I have not violated the statute.\nNow, if I sit down on the sidewalk --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1379.255, 1384.826, 1388.174, 1392.997, 1409.904], "stop_times": [1384.826, 1388.174, 1392.997, 1409.904, 1411.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1379.255}, "reply_to": "14938__0_048", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_050", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "You don't think I'm disturbing anybody who wants to use the sidewalk if I block the sidewalk completely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1411.74], "stop_times": [1418.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.74}, "reply_to": "14938__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_051", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I have no doubt that you would be disturbing those people who wants to use --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1418.609], "stop_times": [1421.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1418.609}, "reply_to": "14938__0_050", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_052", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, why isn't that covered by the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1421.466], "stop_times": [1425.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.466}, "reply_to": "14938__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_053", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Because the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1425.041], "stop_times": [1425.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1425.041}, "reply_to": "14938__0_052", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_054", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "And why wouldn't you have notice that -- sitting down on the sidewalk and blocking the passage would disturb people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1425.453], "stop_times": [1433.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.453}, "reply_to": "14938__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_055", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, even on the face of the statute itself, it's not simply a matter of disturbing, it is a matter of acting in a disorderly manner to the disturbance of the public peace.\nThat doesn't simply mean disturbing any individual from engaging in his own pursuits.\nThe notion of disturbing a public peace is one with which courts have struggled for a long time and this Court witnessed state court definitions of disturbance of the peace in Cox, in Edwards and a number of other cases, the very different thing from simply disturbing somebody who wants to walk along the street.\nAnd in any event, the whole purpose of the petitioner's request to the jury, request to charge the jury would have been to limit the statute to exactly that.\nWe admit that the statute is not clear in what it means.\nI do think that one would not know that sitting down is a violation of the statute.\nBut in any event, I am clear on one thing, that the jury should know what is and what is not a violation of the statute, when it comes time to try the case.\nAnd that when the trial judge submits the issue in terms of generally disturbing, offending and inciting, and we asked for instructions that say, it's only if you disturb people by obstructing the sidewalk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1433.454, 1445.283, 1451.452, 1468.196, 1482.986, 1486.343, 1491.211, 1499.884], "stop_times": [1445.283, 1451.452, 1468.196, 1482.986, 1486.343, 1491.211, 1499.884, 1511.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1433.454}, "reply_to": "14938__0_054", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_056", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I understand --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1511.459], "stop_times": [1512.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.459}, "reply_to": "14938__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_057", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That you're guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1512.077], "stop_times": [1512.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1512.077}, "reply_to": "14938__0_056", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_058", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I understand that you have far more to your case than just saying that sitting down on the sidewalk isn't covered by the statute because even if it is, well, you still have a lot of your case left, because it covers a lot of other things too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1512.999], "stop_times": [1526.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.999}, "reply_to": "14938__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_059", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "There is one other thing I should respond Mr. Justice White, your question assumes something that I think the Court may well assume when it comes to this case and I want to be very clear, I don't think it's a fair assumption.\nThat is the assumption that these people sat on the sidewalk.\nNow, I'm not as I said in the brief, I'm not going to be evasive about that.\nThat issue was not fairly tried below and I think this would be a different case if the way this case had gone to jury, the question presented was allow the jury to resolve whether they did or didn't sit on the sidewalk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1526.995, 1539.933, 1543.336, 1547.647], "stop_times": [1539.933, 1543.336, 1547.647, 1559.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1526.995}, "reply_to": "14938__0_058", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_060", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "You don't -- you don't think they had any chance at all to get up before they were arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1559.124], "stop_times": [1562.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.124}, "reply_to": "14938__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__0_061", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I think that the testimony is conflicting on that.\nAnd I think that is was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1562.843, 1565.954], "stop_times": [1565.954, 1566.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1562.843}, "reply_to": "14938__0_060", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_062", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "And did not resolve by a verdict?\nAren't conflicts resolved by jury verdicts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1566.042, 1568.423], "stop_times": [1568.423, 1571.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.042}, "reply_to": "14938__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_063", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1571.994], "stop_times": [1572.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1571.994}, "reply_to": "14938__0_062", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_064", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Aren't conflicts in testimony always resolved by jury verdicts, not up of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1572.636], "stop_times": [1576.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1572.636}, "reply_to": "14938__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__0_065", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Only of the issues that was submitted to the jury for their resolution.\nWhen the trial court submits to the jury the question whether or not the defendant's conduct offended, disturbed or incited a crowd, to take the jury's verdict then settling a proposition that they sat on the sidewalk would be totally incomprehensible.\nIf the trial court had said to the jury, did they or did they not willfully, indeed we submit an instruction.\nI think if the court will take a look at our proposed instructions.\nWe submitted instructions at page 15, 16, 17 which would have allowed the definition of the offense in exactly those terms.\nAn alternative instruction I-A had three heads of liability.\nOne of which was knowingly and purposely engaging in acts which they had no lawful right to do, which obstructed or hinder pedestrians and traffic.\nOver on the next page 16 of the appendix, our instruction would have defined in precisely Mr. Justice White's terms obstructing traffic.\nIf those instructions had been given and the jury had voted against these petitioners, we wouldn't be here.\nThat wouldn't be this case.\nBut what was submitted to the jury was not the question of whether or not the petitioners sat on the sidewalk but a broader one.\nNow, there is one aspect of the Court's charge that may seem to submit that question.\nIt is not in the portion defining the offense, but it is on page 157 where in describing the defense case, and I want to -- taking aside one moment to point out that, the Court summarized the evidence here as well as giving instructions on the law.\nWhen it summarized the prosecution's case, where you would think at least it would mention obstruction, if obstruction was an issue even though that was an illegal element.\nThe court didn't even talk about obstruction.\nThere is nothing either in the instructions to the jury on the law nor on summary even of the prosecutor's case would suggest that obstruction was an issue here.\nAnd therefore, Mr. Chief Justice, the question of whether they sat there, whether they have obstructed anything was not resolved by the jury.\nNow, the one quibble that one might have with that is this, there is instating the defense case a statement that, the position of the defense is that, they didn't here the command of the officers to get up and move on.\nIf that is the case, they had a right to sit on the sidewalk or in the case of one or two of them restrained there by the end of office.\nBut notice that the general jury charge submits two theories of liability.\nOffending, disturbing and inciting is one and the other is refusing to move on.\nThis says that they had a right to sit on the sidewalk, i.e. not to move on, if they didn't hear the instruction of the officers.\nIt doesn't say anything about whether they're guilty or not guilty under the first theory.\nAnd it is perfectly consistent that the jury in resolving this case, Mr. Chief Justice found that although they did not willfully sit down, they were thrown there by the officers.\nAlthough, they did not have a chance to get up, or although they were held down which is their testimony that nevertheless they did something which offended, disturbed and incited a crowd to with the misplaced vocalizing which the state now talks about singing \u201cWe Shall Overcome.\u201d\nThe total current text of that activity which Your Honor really are suggested, picketing outside, going into a recruiting office, presenting literature and then refusing to leave the office and then getting out on the street, I think the jury in fact didn't resolve these conflicts.\nI think it would be impossible for this Court to say it did.\nThe jury took this case the way the state submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1576.014, 1579.144, 1591.915, 1598.783, 1602.541, 1610.807, 1615.752, 1623.279, 1631.77, 1637.15, 1638.819, 1645.735, 1650.436, 1666.515, 1674.541, 1676.642, 1685.397, 1691.632, 1705.837, 1712.739, 1719.196, 1725.184, 1733.519, 1737.56, 1748.383, 1763.705, 1779.12, 1781.954], "stop_times": [1579.144, 1591.915, 1598.783, 1602.541, 1610.807, 1615.752, 1623.279, 1631.77, 1637.15, 1638.819, 1645.735, 1650.436, 1666.515, 1674.541, 1676.642, 1685.397, 1691.632, 1705.837, 1712.739, 1719.196, 1725.184, 1733.519, 1737.56, 1748.383, 1763.705, 1779.12, 1781.954, 1784.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1576.014}, "reply_to": "14938__0_064", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_066", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Is this still the law in Maryland, Mr. Amsterdam, that \u2013- rather peculiar law in Maryland that the jury is the judge both with the facts and the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1784.68], "stop_times": [1795.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.68}, "reply_to": "14938__0_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_067", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere is such a rule in Maryland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1795.874, 1796.892], "stop_times": [1796.892, 1798.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1795.874}, "reply_to": "14938__0_066", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_068", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "So what relevance here are the instructions of the trial judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1798.619], "stop_times": [1802.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.619}, "reply_to": "14938__0_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_069", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "They are supposed to be merely advisory.\nBut in as much as the Court of Appeals of Maryland has held that a conviction is reversible if the advisory instructions are wrong, it seems very clear that this Court would have to say as a matter of federal law whether the instructions were wrong.\nAnd if they were wrong, then the judgment would have to be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1802.876, 1805.044, 1819.611], "stop_times": [1805.044, 1819.611, 1823.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1802.876}, "reply_to": "14938__0_068", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_070", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, I just wonder in the case, and I think perhaps the unique situation of Maryland where the jury is made the judge of both facts and the law, whether our decisions of coming from other jurisdictions, where that is far from true, are completely relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1823.004], "stop_times": [1842.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.004}, "reply_to": "14938__0_069", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__0_071", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I have no doubt that if the Court were disposed to treat Maryland differently than any other jurisdiction for that purpose, that Maryland's whole law disorderly conduct would have to be unconstitutional because what that would do would be to deprive this Court of imposing legal restrictions on the formulation of rules in the First Amendment area.\nAnd that very deprivation would cause inevitably the kind of vagueness and over breadth which this Court has held bad when applied to First Amendment conduct if it really is true and I simply do not take it seriously, because frankly, the Maryland Court of Appeals doesn't take it seriously, that the jury is judge to the fact.\nFor all ordinary trial purposes, it isn't.\nCounsel can get up and argue when the jury is told that they are in that sort of things.\nBut as this Court pointed out in Brady and as the (Inaudible) opinion that it refers to in Brady pointed out, only ordinary rules of review are applicable in Maryland.\nIf the instruction is wrong, the jury judgment gets reversed.\nThat's all that's in issue here.\nWas as a matter of federal constitutional law, this instruction wrong and rendered wrong because of refusal to give the requested charges, and if so, Maryland law itself says that this judgment has to be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1842.814, 1863.39, 1880.455, 1883.248, 1887.34, 1896.06, 1899.982, 1901.737], "stop_times": [1863.39, 1880.455, 1883.248, 1887.34, 1896.06, 1899.982, 1901.737, 1914.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1842.814}, "reply_to": "14938__0_070", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14938__0_072", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Amsterdam.\nMr. Lentz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1914.03, 1918.699], "stop_times": [1918.699, 1927.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.03}, "reply_to": "14938__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__1_000", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, so as the Justices, may it please the Court.\nBefore addressing myself to the principal issue raised by petitioners namely, that they were tried for the wrong crime, it would assist the state's presentation if the Court would permit the state to present it, their argument first from the stand point of the application of the statute to the petitioners by reviewing the actual facts involved.\nSecondly, considering the issue of vagueness which the petitioners raised and finally, from the instructions to jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1927.485, 1933.315, 1959.258], "stop_times": [1933.315, 1959.258, 1967.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1927.485}, "reply_to": "14938__0_072", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_001", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Speak up a little -- Mr. Lentz, would you just raise your voice a little certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1967.532], "stop_times": [1971.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.532}, "reply_to": "14938__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__1_002", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "This is not a complicated case.\nHowever, the facts must be considered in detail to present a prompt and to arrive at a proper legal determination.\nThe state anticipates emphasizing in its argument that this is a disorderly conduct case, not a freedom of speech case.\nThe arrest and prosecution of petitioners was based on their disorderly conduct which caused a disturbance of the public peace on a street in the City of Baltimore.\nPetitioners were a portion of a group demonstrating against United States policy in Vietnam.\nHowever, their political views and ideas did not cause their arrest and prosecution.\nThis position is established by the recognition that a minimum of 35 to 40 demonstrators whose activities were peaceful were not arrested but on the contrary, they received police protection and were granted complete freedom to picket an army recruiting office and distribute literature to unsympathetic onlookers.\nOnly when the petitioners sat down on a 10 to 12-foot wide sidewalk, in a commercial section in the city, blocked it as public passageway, refused officer\u2019s request to move, were they arrested for disorderly conduct.\nThese demonstrators could still be picketing, if the petitioners had not laid down on the sidewalk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [1971.828, 1975.563, 1985.877, 1996.273, 2008.462, 2015.216, 2024.113, 2048.998, 2069.743], "stop_times": [1975.563, 1985.877, 1996.273, 2008.462, 2015.216, 2024.113, 2048.998, 2069.743, 2076.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1971.828}, "reply_to": "14938__1_001", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_003", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I take it that you -- that Baltimore has no anti-picketing law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2076.11], "stop_times": [2081.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.11}, "reply_to": "14938__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14938__1_004", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That is correct to the best of my knowledge, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2081.338], "stop_times": [2083.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2081.338}, "reply_to": "14938__1_003", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_005", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "But the state has one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2083.094], "stop_times": [2084.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.094}, "reply_to": "14938__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14938__1_006", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That's correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2084.542], "stop_times": [2086.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2084.542}, "reply_to": "14938__1_005", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_007", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Is there law or ordinance about disobeying an order of an officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2086.612], "stop_times": [2092.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.612}, "reply_to": "14938__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14938__1_008", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere is a state law which is embodied in the interpretation affixed to Article 27, Section 123 which is your state disorderly conduct statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2092.184, 2092.795], "stop_times": [2092.795, 2104.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2092.184}, "reply_to": "14938__1_007", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_009", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "But there isn't a separate one just for that alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2104.311], "stop_times": [2107.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.311}, "reply_to": "14938__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14938__1_010", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Not to my knowledge, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2107.184], "stop_times": [2109.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2107.184}, "reply_to": "14938__1_009", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_011", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "But there is a separate one as I understand it, making an offense to obstruct the street or sidewalk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2109.5], "stop_times": [2115.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.5}, "reply_to": "14938__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__1_012", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes.\nThere is a Section 121 of Article 27 I think.\nNow, the thrust of petitioner's argument is that the arrest and prosecution was based on expression of their political views and ideas.\nThe respondent of course argues that the arrest and their conviction was based on disorderly conduct and the vehicle used for the prosecution namely Article 27 Section 123 is a valid constitutional vehicle.\nAt the outset, the respondent would emphasize to the Court that this case does not present the \u201cfighting words\u201d of Chaplinski.\nIt is not a racial arrest that was patently illegal such as we had Shuttlesworth, Cox and Edwards.\nIt is not a pure speech case such as we had in Terminiello.\nIt is not a peaceful picketing as was in Gregory.\nThe case is purely and simply an instance where the conduct of the six petitioners was disorderly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2115.103, 2115.759, 2120.526, 2128.281, 2144.866, 2153.985, 2161.189, 2165.096, 2169.352], "stop_times": [2115.759, 2120.526, 2128.281, 2144.866, 2153.985, 2161.189, 2165.096, 2169.352, 2177.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2115.103}, "reply_to": "14938__1_011", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_013", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, could I ask you then, surely the statute and the instructions to the jury would permit the convictions for saying anything that disturbs someone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2177.204], "stop_times": [2191.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.204}, "reply_to": "14938__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_014", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2191.211], "stop_times": [2191.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2191.211}, "reply_to": "14938__1_013", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_015", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "And the instructions specifically permitted the jury to convict on that basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2191.917], "stop_times": [2196.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.917}, "reply_to": "14938__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_016", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2196.483], "stop_times": [2197.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2196.483}, "reply_to": "14938__1_015", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_017", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Now, if there's any evidence in the case on which imaginably or rationally, the jury could have convicted for saying something --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2197.612], "stop_times": [2208.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.612}, "reply_to": "14938__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_018", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "None -- none whatsoever, Your Honor.\nThere was no testimony offered either for the prosecution or by the defense that any verbal remarks, any words were used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2208.622, 2210.665], "stop_times": [2210.665, 2220.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2208.622}, "reply_to": "14938__1_017", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_019", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "What do you -- you mean that time they, you mean at time they were arrested right then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2220.638], "stop_times": [2226.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.638}, "reply_to": "14938__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_020", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "At any time during outside of the singing that went on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2226.685], "stop_times": [2231.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2226.685}, "reply_to": "14938__1_019", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_021", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "But weren't these petitioners among those who had been carrying signs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2231.337], "stop_times": [2235.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.337}, "reply_to": "14938__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_022", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2235.247], "stop_times": [2235.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2235.247}, "reply_to": "14938__1_021", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_023", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Weren't they carrying handbills inside the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2235.546], "stop_times": [2236.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.546}, "reply_to": "14938__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_024", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes, well, the evidence does not indicate whether they were then carrying handbills inside.\nThey had a large poster --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2236.992, 2244.38], "stop_times": [2244.38, 2245.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2236.992}, "reply_to": "14938__1_023", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_025", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "They wanted to display their posters, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2245.841], "stop_times": [2247.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.841}, "reply_to": "14938__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_026", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That's correct.\nThat they wanted to place inside in the window.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2247.533, 2248.421], "stop_times": [2248.421, 2252.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2247.533}, "reply_to": "14938__1_025", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_027", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "And then you say there is no evidence in this record from which anybody could rightfully infer that the jury might have convicted these petitioners for what they said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2252.062], "stop_times": [2262.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.062}, "reply_to": "14938__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_028", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nThe only words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2262.075, 2263.232], "stop_times": [2263.232, 2263.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2262.075}, "reply_to": "14938__1_027", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_029", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Let's assume there was, let's assume there was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2263.77], "stop_times": [2267.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.77}, "reply_to": "14938__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_030", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, alright, let's assume there was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2267.531], "stop_times": [2268.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2267.531}, "reply_to": "14938__1_029", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_031", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "There was something in this record from which it could be inferred that, it could be rationally -- that the jury could rationally convict them for speaking, and the instructions authorized them to do so.\nAnd we don't know on what basis they convicted them, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2268.912, 2280.54], "stop_times": [2280.54, 2283.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.912}, "reply_to": "14938__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_032", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "There would be no basis for arriving at that level, Your Honor because the only words brought out were the singing that was done.\nBut there were signs carried by the picketers.\nThere was a sign that the petitioners attempted to have place inside the recruiting office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2283.726, 2293.319, 2296.607], "stop_times": [2293.319, 2296.607, 2306.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2283.726}, "reply_to": "14938__1_031", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_033", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, if these petitioners have been carrying a sign at the time they were arrested or had the signs in their hands at the time they were arrested, and the jury might have convicted them for speaking in a way that disturbed people, what would you think about their convictions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2306.197], "stop_times": [2329.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.197}, "reply_to": "14938__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_034", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Well, this court has ruled that picketing is not pure speech so that we get in that never, never land, that gray area where it's not purely covered by the First Amendment umbrella of protection.\nWe might have symbolically perforated umbrella that we're going to call and bring in to play if we're going to get into an area than carrying signs.\nBut I don't think the Court need reach, need confront itself with that problem because there is no testimony in the transcript to indicate that when the petitioners left or were ejected from the recruiting office, that any signs were in their hands, Mr. Justice White.\nApproaching the position, when the petitioners were in the recruiting office and for a period of two hours remain, while peaceful picketing and this is very emphatically demonstrated by referring to the state's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 demonstrates the peaceful picketing outside the recruiting office.\nIt indicates that there are no crowd had gathered on the sidewalk.\nIt indicates that police protection was afforded these picketers for a two-hour period on state's Exhibit number 8 which is on page 169, on the left hand side, the uniformed policeman would be observed, noticing the peaceful picketing that is transpired.\nAnd of course the sidewalk is perfectly clear, one half of the sidewalk approximately seems to be utilized by the picketers, whereas the other half permits free passage by pedestrians.\nWhen the point in time was reached that the petitioners were inside the office and requested to move by the sergeant, five o'clock arrived, they refused.\nSo certainly, if we did not have a trespass between three and five, a trespass certainly occurred at five o'clock.\nI would submit that it was a reasonable removal since it was closing time.\nThe removal was accomplished --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2329.745, 2347.839, 2356.986, 2387.204, 2418.121, 2424.117, 2446.555, 2469.741, 2480.453, 2488.671, 2492.789], "stop_times": [2347.839, 2356.986, 2387.204, 2418.121, 2424.117, 2446.555, 2469.741, 2480.453, 2488.671, 2492.789, 2494.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2329.745}, "reply_to": "14938__1_033", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_035", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Mr. Lentz, I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2494.629], "stop_times": [2495.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.629}, "reply_to": "14938__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__1_036", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2495.351], "stop_times": [2496.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2495.351}, "reply_to": "14938__1_035", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_037", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Before you leave these exhibits --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2496.181], "stop_times": [2498.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.181}, "reply_to": "14938__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__1_038", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I've got to clogged up your station tube, Your Honor, so that might account from me not hearing you.\nProceed if you will please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2498.566, 2503.946], "stop_times": [2503.946, 2506.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2498.566}, "reply_to": "14938__1_037", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_039", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Before you leave these exhibits, is Exhibits 7 a picture taken inside the recruiting office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2506.014], "stop_times": [2512.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.014}, "reply_to": "14938__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__1_040", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That's correct, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2512.608], "stop_times": [2514.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2512.608}, "reply_to": "14938__1_039", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_041", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "And so, the gentleman on the left there as you look at the picture is not a policeman.\nHe is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2514.849, 2518.555], "stop_times": [2518.555, 2519.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.849}, "reply_to": "14938__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__1_042", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "That is Sergeant Ramley, the recruiting officer assigned to the recruiting office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2519.469], "stop_times": [2524.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2519.469}, "reply_to": "14938__1_041", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_043", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2524.789], "stop_times": [2525.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.789}, "reply_to": "14938__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14938__1_044", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "About what time is this Exhibit 9 taken?\nDo you have any idea?\nThat's the last one with the big crowd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2525.332, 2529.536, 2531.302], "stop_times": [2529.536, 2531.302, 2533.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.332}, "reply_to": "14938__1_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14938__1_045", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Exhibit 9 on page 170 Mr. Justice would have to be taken sometime between 5:00 and 5:15.\nThis was taken after the petitioners were ejected from the office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2533.17, 2543.614], "stop_times": [2543.614, 2548.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2533.17}, "reply_to": "14938__1_044", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_046", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I see quite a few policemen in the middle there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2548.896], "stop_times": [2551.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.896}, "reply_to": "14938__1_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14938__1_047", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2551.557], "stop_times": [2552.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2551.557}, "reply_to": "14938__1_046", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_048", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Does that help you on the timing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2552.456], "stop_times": [2555.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.456}, "reply_to": "14938__1_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14938__1_049", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "No, as I say, the testimony indicates that Exhibit 9, this photograph was taken after the petitioners were ejected from the recruiting office.\nYes, there were police officers in the middle and this crowd is combined of -- and you might also refer to state Exhibits 2, Mr. Justice, on page 173 which gives a close up view of that.\nNow, after the petitioners had been removed from the building, there was testimony indicating two petitioners tried to crawl back in.\nThere was an ample supply of police present.\nAs a matter of fact, one of the petitioners phoned the police department the day before the demonstration to advise them that such a demonstration would take place.\nAnd I might add that this is a common occurrence.\nThere were officers from the two districts bordering on this particular locality, as well as officers from the traffic division.\nNow, the state's position is that this disturbance on the sidewalk was caused directly by the petitioner's refusal to get up, stand and move.\nThis blockage of the sidewalk occurred when the petitioners refused to move.\nAs many as five requests were made, three by one officer, two by another.\nThe petitioners took the position that they did not hear the request.\nAn explanation is offered that possibly the singing at that time could have been of such volume that the petitioners did not hear the officer's request.\nNevertheless, a rebuttal witness when Fogerty, a newspaper reporter testified that he saw the officers standing at the feet of the petitioners talking to them.\nBecause of the noise of the crowd, he could not hear the words that were directed.\nNow, we reached the level as to the particular crime with which the petitioners were charged.\nCertainly, if our states attorney is to possess any degree of discretion, he is the one that makes the decision as to what particular statute he will charge the accused of.\nWe have not reached the point where the accused is going to select the statute that he wishes to be prosecuted by, certainly he was in violation of 121, the blockage of the sidewalk.\nBut certainly, he was in violation of 123, the disorderly conduct statute.\nNumber one, the disorderly conduct violation occurred when he hit the sidewalk and remained in that position, he could have stood, they could have stood, they could have joined their fellow picketers but they chose to flop on the sidewalk and prevent the use of the sidewalk with the purpose for which it was intended, namely the free passage by pedestrians.\nInstead, they very selfishly chose to make use of their own purpose for utilizing the sidewalk.\nNow, the Court will I'm sure consider the position that the police are placed at that time.\nThey must make a decision.\nMay they permit the petitioners to utilize the sidewalk for a purpose for which the sidewalk was not built and deny pedestrians the right to use the sidewalk for a purpose for which it was built.\nAnd if they do make that determination, then it would follow that they would have to detour the pedestrians into the street.\nAnd the problem that presents itself then is the danger, not only to pedestrians but also to the motorist as presented.\nAnother possible avenue of escape for the police officers at this point is to detour the pedestrian, so that they will avoid the area that is being blocked by the petitioners.\nIn which case, can they properly detour pedestrian traffic one block north and one block south of the location?\nAnd if so, what position are the police in if one of the pedestrians refuses to follow the detour?\nMay that pedestrian be arrested for disorderly conduct?\nAnd assume if you will that that procedure is followed, and again I call the Court's attentions to the exhibits and to the various shops that are on that side of the street are the rights of these shop owners denied, if the pedestrians are not permitted to use that side of the street?\nAll of these are practical problems with which the police were presented at that time.\nHowever, returning to the question raised by petitioner at this time that the state's position is that the states attorney has a right.\nHe has a responsibility as to elect which particular violation that he decides to proceed under and he did so in this particular case by acting to proceed under the disorderly conduct statute.\nA word on the vagueness of the Maryland statute as alleged by petitioners, assuming arguendo that the conditions as I have described and as the Maryland jury found to exist and as the Maryland Appellate Court found to exist, assuming arguendo that these conditions exist too, what tool did the Baltimore City police officer have to counteract this action.\nAnd I submit it is Title 27 Article 23 the disorderly conduct statute and also of course, the blockage of the sidewalk, and so far as the vagueness of the statute is concerned and I am reading verbatim, \u201cacting in a disorderly manner to the disturbance of the public peace upon any public street or highway in any city, town or county of the state, and the question is this statute as interpreted by the Maryland Court of Appeals void for vagueness.\u201d\nThe problem exists admittedly in drafting any disorderly conduct statute.\nIt is literally impossible to articulate with the utmost specificity all of the precise activities which are prescribed.\nDisorderly conduct activity defines precise statutory definition.\nThe subject decides the greater specificity is not feasible.\nNow, the state would submit that the interpretation given to the statute by Maryland Court of Appeals gives fair warning to the common man as to precisely what actions are prohibited.\nAnd this interpretation is the gist of the crime of disorderly conduct and I am reading --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [2555.324, 2567.052, 2592.582, 2603.746, 2608.328, 2617.562, 2621.22, 2632.509, 2648.236, 2654.719, 2660.835, 2665.378, 2675.582, 2692.088, 2696.984, 2706.302, 2719.905, 2732.319, 2737.347, 2762.829, 2769.749, 2776.307, 2778.971, 2797.467, 2806.316, 2815.447, 2829.973, 2838.854, 2846.554, 2850.678, 2873.212, 2881.607, 2891.902, 2910.866, 2945.729, 2986.179, 2991.082, 3001.377, 3007.405, 3011.783, 3028.683], "stop_times": [2567.052, 2592.582, 2603.746, 2608.328, 2617.562, 2621.22, 2632.509, 2648.236, 2654.719, 2660.835, 2665.378, 2675.582, 2692.088, 2696.984, 2706.302, 2719.905, 2732.319, 2737.347, 2762.829, 2769.749, 2776.307, 2778.971, 2797.467, 2806.316, 2815.447, 2829.973, 2838.854, 2846.554, 2850.678, 2873.212, 2881.607, 2891.902, 2910.866, 2945.729, 2986.179, 2991.082, 3001.377, 3007.405, 3011.783, 3028.683, 3036.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2555.324}, "reply_to": "14938__1_048", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_050", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Where are you reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3036.286], "stop_times": [3037.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.286}, "reply_to": "14938__1_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14938__1_051", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I am reading from my notes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3037.229], "stop_times": [3041.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3037.229}, "reply_to": "14938__1_050", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_052", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I know but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3041.152], "stop_times": [3042.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.152}, "reply_to": "14938__1_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_053", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "I'll refer you to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3042.312], "stop_times": [3045.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3042.312}, "reply_to": "14938__1_052", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_054", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "If you can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3045.076], "stop_times": [3058.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.076}, "reply_to": "14938__1_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_055", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "-- page 29 of the respondent's brief at the bottom.\nThe gist of the crime of disorderly conduct as it was in the cases of common law predecessor crimes is a doing or saying or both of that which offends, disturbs, incites or tends to incite a number of people gathered in the same area.\nAlso it has been held the failure to obey a policeman's command to move on or not to do so may endanger the public peace amounts to disorderly conduct.\nIn considering whether this statute as interpreted, is sufficiently clear to a person of common intelligence, I would first remind the Court that the petitioners in this case are all college students or college graduates and no suggestions has been made that they lack common intelligence.\nThis Court moreover has twice considered the Maryland disorderly conduct statute in the Drews cases in \u201864 and \u201865 and no quarrel was found with its constitutionality on the vagueness issue.\nThe Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in deciding this case made specific reference to the findings of this Court in Drews.\nNow, let's consider the other state, the other enactments of other states in an attempt to draw a comparison with the Maryland statute.\nSet out on pages 55 thru 69 of the respondent's brief, the state has attempted to offer for this Court's consideration, the disorderly conduct statutes of all the states, and also the ALI model penal code disorderly conduct statute.\nThey all seem to be strikingly similar in their wording and I would certainly submit that the common man would have less difficulty considerable less difficulty in understanding, comprehending and applying this disorderly conduct statute to himself than he would to many, many other statutes including -- I might also suggest our income tax, regulations.\nSimple generic terms had been used in the statute and this expressed to man of common intelligence what is necessary or what is prohibited.\nI would suggest that the 10 Commandments are expressed in the simplest of terms, yet they're completely understandable to the sinner, although theologians might experience some difficulty in agreeing on interpretation.\nThe same might apply to the disorderly conduct statute, I don't think that the common man would experience difficulty in applying this statute, however, lawyers or judges might well contest its specific meaning as it had been doing for centuries over such terms as probable cause, due process, reasonable, competent, fair or proper.\nI would refer this Court to words of Justice Frankfurter in Addison versus Holly Hill where he stated, \u201cLegislation when not expressed in technical terms as addressed to the common realm of man as therefore to be understood according to the sense of the thing, as the ordinary man has a right to rely on ordinary words addressed to him.\nThis Court has in the recent past considered similar disorderly conduct statutes in Zwicker versus Boll in the Woodward case which is cited in the state's brief where the Seventh Circuit considered a similar Illinois statute and in neither instance, where these statutes held to be void for vagueness.\nAs recently as November 1969, in the O'Leary case where the issue was whether statutory over breadth in a Kentucky statute which prohibited \u201cacts and words likely to produce violence and others\u201d this language was upheld, well certainly was denied.\nThe final argument advanced by petitioners namely that the trial court erred in his charge to the jury and at that this charge was of constitutional dimensions.\nI would point out that all instructions in criminal cases given by judges to juries in Maryland are advisory only.\nMaryland is one of two states having this provision in its Constitution.\nThis Court has taken cognizance of this procedure in Brady versus Maryland and the Maryland rules of procedures specified that the Court need not grant any requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered, and I emphasized fairly covered, by the instructions actually given.\nDecisions of the Maryland Courts permit counsel to argue to the jury the facts and the law even if it's contrary to the advisory instructions given by the trial judge.\nAnd where the trial judge refuses to permit counsel to argue the law and the facts reversals have resulted.\nNow, the requested instructions that the petitioners offered in number 1 thru 4 (a) and also 8, were properly covered by the instructions of the nisi prius jurors.\nInstructions 5, 6 and 7, are all based on the expression of views or ideas theory.\nThese instructions were, it is true, refused by the Maryland trial judge and we feel properly refused.\nAnd the reason for the refusal is found in the opinion of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, I'm reading from page 180 of the transcript, the evidence before the trial court clearly established that the arrest and charges resulted from appellant's refusal to cease their obstruction of the sidewalk and result in public disturbance, and because they had refused to comply with the three lawful commands of the police officer --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3058.268, 3063.63, 3084.274, 3102.367, 3121.679, 3135.743, 3144.854, 3160.301, 3183.491, 3211.027, 3222.433, 3237.386, 3263.988, 3295.852, 3317.966, 3343.201, 3354.97, 3366.033, 3373.834, 3399.8, 3412.638, 3422.367, 3438.91, 3447.781, 3457.024], "stop_times": [3063.63, 3084.274, 3102.367, 3121.679, 3135.743, 3144.854, 3160.301, 3183.491, 3211.027, 3222.433, 3237.386, 3263.988, 3295.852, 3317.966, 3343.201, 3354.97, 3366.033, 3373.834, 3399.8, 3412.638, 3422.367, 3438.91, 3447.781, 3457.024, 3497.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3058.268}, "reply_to": "14938__1_054", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_056", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Now, how do we know that there it was a general verdict here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3497.21], "stop_times": [3500.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.21}, "reply_to": "14938__1_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14938__1_057", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "It was a general verdict.\nThat's correct, Your Honor, and the instructions as given by the nisi prius jurors were to the effect that these are both questions that are open for resolution.\nIt is your responsibility to make the resolution on these two issues.\nAnd that resolution would have had to be made in the affirmative by reason of the general verdict that followed.\nWe further note that the standing demonstration -- demonstrators were not arrested since the evidence adduced below rejected any substance to the allegations that the arrest were predicated upon suppression of political views, the instructions were properly rejected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3500.328, 3501.462, 3513.13, 3518.173, 3527.204], "stop_times": [3501.462, 3513.13, 3518.173, 3527.204, 3547.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3500.328}, "reply_to": "14938__1_056", "speaker": "h_edgar_lentz"}
{"id": "14938__1_058", "conversation_id": "14938", "text": "Thank you Mr. Lentz.\nCase is submitted gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_729", "start_times": [3547.355, 3550.937], "stop_times": [3550.937, 3553.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.355}, "reply_to": "14938__1_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__0_000", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Number 188, Baldwin against New York.\nIf you'll give us just a moment to get ourselves collected Mr. Hellerstein, we'll be right with you.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [0.0, 47.691, 63.934], "stop_times": [47.691, 63.934, 65.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__0_001", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nNew York City, (Inaudible) which is comprised is the only jurisdiction in this country that denies to its citizens a right to jury trial for a crime punishable by as much as one-year imprisonment.\nIndeed in the remaining 57 counties in the State of New York, a person is entitled to a jury trial of six requiring unanimous verdict.\nThus the question which this case brings to this Court whether Section 40 of the New York City Criminal Code Act set forth at pages 3 and 4 of our brief violates the Sixth Amendment as applied to the states in the Fourteenth in denying jury trial for what we deem to be a serious offense and also in view of the provision for jury trial elsewhere in the State of New York whether the Equal Protection Clause is so violated.\nThe records of facts in this case are relatively simple.\nThe appellant --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [65.876, 69.541, 84.87, 96.688, 128.496, 132.841], "stop_times": [69.541, 84.87, 96.688, 128.496, 132.841, 133.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.876}, "reply_to": "15406__0_000", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_002", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "(Voice Overlap) The equal -- I miss that, how does the equal protection argument (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [133.731], "stop_times": [138.807], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 133.731}, "reply_to": "15406__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_003", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Primarily Mr. Justice Harlan in that the State of New York making available to all its residents except those who reside in the City of New York, the right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [138.807], "stop_times": [148.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.807}, "reply_to": "15406__0_002", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_004", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "That's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [148.656], "stop_times": [149.154], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 148.656}, "reply_to": "15406__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_005", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [149.154], "stop_times": [149.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.154}, "reply_to": "15406__0_004", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_006", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "What you're saying in effect is that every state must be exactly the same, every state, city, county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [149.836], "stop_times": [156.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.836}, "reply_to": "15406__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__0_007", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, no Your Honor, I'm saying that where the state has undertaken to provide most of its citizenry apart from one city with the right to jury trial given what this Court has said in Duncan about the importance of right to jury trial as provided by the state.\nIndeed in the deciding Duncan, this Court looked to the states to see how important that right was and they found that it was applied and provided for in all the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [156.586, 175.474], "stop_times": [175.474, 187.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.586}, "reply_to": "15406__0_006", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_008", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, I was really just pushing your argument one step beyond that that once you have a fixed cutoff time in one state, the citizens of every other state which does not comply with that favorably is involved in an equal protection problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [187.924], "stop_times": [206.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.924}, "reply_to": "15406__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__0_009", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, that now I misunderstood Your Honor's question.\nIf that's all that's involved then there is no problem there because if New York is the only state which, New York City indeed, was the only state which has a problem that is before this Court namely right to a jury trial for a year then we don't have to equalize anything among the other states because this Court has already decided that a six-month period of time on an offense is petty and since all the other states do not deprive anybody of a jury trial for a years a time then there is no equalization required between New York and the rest of the country.\nThere is equalization required between New York City and the rest of the state, but I would like to get to the equal protection argument a bit later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [206.724, 209.834, 244.795], "stop_times": [209.834, 244.795, 251.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.724}, "reply_to": "15406__0_008", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_010", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, that was a (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [251.183], "stop_times": [255.111], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 251.183}, "reply_to": "15406__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_011", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The record -- the facts were essentially very simple.\nThis defendant, appellant was convicted after a one-judge bench trial for the crime of jostling and sentenced to one-year imprisonment.\nThe evidence in the case was that he was observed with his co-defendant crowding a woman on an escalator and the (Inaudible) terminal.\nThe arresting officer said that he saw defendant take either a loose cash, money from the woman's handbag or a $10 bill.\nA motion for a jury trial was made in the criminal court and it was denied.\nThe New York Court of Appeals by majority decision, five to two felt that this Court's decision in Duncan did not require a holding that one-year was a serious crime nor did it require any different holding on equal protection.\nThe justices who dissented, Justice Burke and Keating took a much different view and of course it's much more consonant with our position.\nEssentially, our Sixth Amendment argument is really broken down to three parts.\nWe think that although Duncan did not decide this question, the thrust of Duncan, the logic of Duncan resolves the issue for us.\nHowever, we also feel that if Your Honors would accredit New York's looking at its own historical experience to deprive the appellant of a jury trial that even under what we concede to be erroneous criteria, our argument still prevails.\nAnd the people had misunderstood our argument on this point because they seem to say in their brief that we offer to the Court as an affirmative indication of our position.\nWe are saying that if we will force to it, we can win our case even under the criteria of New York Court of Appeals followed, even though we think its broad.\nThirdly, I think perhaps the ghost in the closet on this case has to be the question of the impact of the Court's decision on the criminal court, the problem in New York City because I really believe if this case had come from Casanovia, or people -- as the people would have it, this would not be a consideration.\nNow, although the New York Court of Appeals spoke of the problems of New York criminal court on the equal protection issue, I can't help but feel and I would like to come to grips with that, end of the argument on Sixth Amendment lurking behind the problem this Court faces is the problem of the calendar chaos in New York criminal court.\nHence, looking towards the decision in Duncan, as I read the opinion, the Court looked to what it called the objective criteria, chiefly the existing laws and the practices of the nation to decide whether Louisiana's assault statute requiring a two year maximum of imprisonment was a serious or petty offense.\nLooking to national criteria, the Court found that nowhere else in the land was a two-year of sentence of countenance without a right to jury trial.\nApplying that method of analysis, the Court would arrive at the same conclusion with respect to New York City, namely that nowhere else in the land does the situation prevail in which a defendant faced with one-year imprisonment is denied a right to jury trial.\nSo Section 4 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [255.111, 257.086, 266.036, 275.374, 285.265, 289.858, 306.24, 315.409, 321.853, 332.771, 348.574, 360.047, 368.522, 388.579, 407.898, 432.726, 444.051, 460.88], "stop_times": [257.086, 266.036, 275.374, 285.265, 289.858, 306.24, 315.409, 321.853, 332.771, 348.574, 360.047, 368.522, 388.579, 407.898, 432.726, 444.051, 460.88, 461.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.111}, "reply_to": "15406__0_010", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_012", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "How about the other states that gave a jury trial and the one-year, it must have been the type of the case and had (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [461.083], "stop_times": [476.087], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 461.083}, "reply_to": "15406__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_013", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yes.\nI think Mr. Justice Harlan you are getting to what the people -- I think hang their case on, I might say, namely that our position depends on whether we are entitled to a common law jury or not and I think that this is an error for the same reason that it was an error or at least a relevant decision in Duncan.\nPrimarily in Duncan, the Court, I think Mr. Justice Fortas in his concurring opinion in Bloom, Mr. Justice White's footnote, Mr. Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion all discussed whether the entire bag and baggage of the Sixth Amendment must come with the Duncan decision.\nIt's a question left opened in the Duncan.\nThe unanimous jury, the twelve-man jury, I think again that this is a question left open in this case and which -- one which we need not resolve because all and I think in depending on Duncan that we are asking for is some form a jury trial.\nFor instance in Louisiana after Duncan, the jury trial which is now provided is not a common law. Unanimous jury, is a five man jury for the one-year crime.\nWhat Louisiana did is they knocked a lot of crime down to six months and for the ones that were over, they provided a five man jury.\nI don't think the record in this case nor the issue on this case has to depend on whether a Sixth Amendment jury with all its bag and baggage is required.\nWhat the New York Court of Appeals did therefore is they looked away from Duncan and at least read Duncan to authorize looking to its own historical experience, namely that in New York we have always considered a misdemeanor a petty offense and a felony a serious offense and that one-year decided which was which?\nBut the six-months cutoff nation with -- nationwide and even historically has much more support with respect to the issue of the jury trial than does the one-year cutoff upon which the people and the New York Court of Appeals based their opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [476.087, 477.373, 497.373, 514.645, 517.318, 537.08, 548.047, 553.96, 566.163, 591.476], "stop_times": [477.373, 497.373, 514.645, 517.318, 537.08, 548.047, 553.96, 566.163, 591.476, 606.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.087}, "reply_to": "15406__0_012", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_014", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, if we adopted your argument, this would preclude the idea of any states cutting back if -- as they had find juries, jury trials more difficult to administer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [606.158], "stop_times": [615.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.158}, "reply_to": "15406__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__0_015", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "I think Your Honor, it would preclude the state from denying a jury trial for anything more than a six-month period of imprisonment unless of course the Court upon reconsideration of a decision, it could be forthcoming in this case and in Duncan, might -- would reconsider on a full record what the problem warrants.\nI think that its interesting in the people's brief, they attempt to call the Court's attention to the Minnesota experience with requiring a jury trial in a certain lesser crime situations by showing that there were delays that will result in.\nTheir brief doesn't reflect however the next two lines of the Minnesota Law Review Article which also discloses that the Bar Association of Minnesota in a response to the delay and the question of whether the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court should remain in Vivo, recommend it that it was much more important to retain the jury system than to just disregard it as a result of some momentary shortage of space and the facility but I'd get to that again later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [615.734, 637.255, 652.061], "stop_times": [637.255, 652.061, 682.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.734}, "reply_to": "15406__0_014", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_016", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "(Inaudible) cut off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [682.499], "stop_times": [683.783], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 682.499}, "reply_to": "15406__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_017", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The sixth month cutoff has historical significance.\nThis Court in the Duncan mentioned the fact that for the most part in the 18th Century, the six-month cutoff with exceptions was a general experience.\nAlso, the reason why New York's experience doesn't really help is that New York's experience was not the only type of experience the colonies had had.\nNew York, New Jersey as late Justice Frankfurter in his article -- Mr. Cockrin point out are much harsher than the denial of trial by a jury than many of the other colonies.\nSo an attempt to locate in history exactly what's at stake is not really a fruitful thing but I think we've got the better of it in terms of the fact that there were and more lenient, there were more lenient policies in the colony.\nI think its interesting that to note that at least two commentators, Professor Herbal in our brief think that the New York's denial of jury trial in serious and in petty offenses or serious offenses depending on where you place the label has something to do with the aristocratic structure of the colony.\nI view the New York experience, although we affirmed consistently over the years by the Court, sort of a vestige of this old colonial policy.\nThe dissenting opinion as we do took the position that you couldn't tell even if you cannot look to the New York experience that the citizens of New York had not opted, had not felt that over six months was a serious offense.\nFor the reason that the legislature had given a jury trial elsewhere in the state and that in the recent constitutional convention, the elected representatives of the people drafted the constitution with a new provision which this Court called attention to in Duncan that would've limited the denial of the jury trial to a six-month period.\nOf course the constitution was defeated as a matter of -- it was a package deal, nothing to do, I don't believe, I'm almost certain with the jury trial provision.\nSo I don't think the New York Court of Appeals is right in saying that New York citizenry does not view a one-year sentence as a serious crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [683.783, 688.878, 702.082, 713.112, 727.119, 740.952, 760.746, 773.143, 790.666, 809.413, 819.589], "stop_times": [688.878, 702.082, 713.112, 727.119, 740.952, 760.746, 773.143, 790.666, 809.413, 819.589, 829.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.783}, "reply_to": "15406__0_016", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_018", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "How long is this dichotomy existed between New York City and the rest of the state (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [829.563], "stop_times": [834.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 829.563}, "reply_to": "15406__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__0_019", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "This dichotomy has existed, it was -- the history of New York entirely until 1824 when the legislature cutback and said to the rest of the state, \u201cWe will provide some form of jury trial.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [834.716], "stop_times": [850.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.716}, "reply_to": "15406__0_018", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_020", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Up until 1824 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [850.84], "stop_times": [851.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.84}, "reply_to": "15406__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__0_021", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "24, it was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [851.831], "stop_times": [852.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.831}, "reply_to": "15406__0_020", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_022", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "-- it was all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [852.494], "stop_times": [853.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.494}, "reply_to": "15406__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__0_023", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Right.\nThe one-year --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [853.29, 853.619], "stop_times": [853.619, 854.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.29}, "reply_to": "15406__0_022", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_024", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Now it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [854.176], "stop_times": [854.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.176}, "reply_to": "15406__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__0_025", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [854.614], "stop_times": [854.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.614}, "reply_to": "15406__0_024", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_026", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "-- (Voice Overlap) the way New York City is now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [854.757], "stop_times": [856.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.757}, "reply_to": "15406__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__0_027", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Its curios, now let me point out in our brief, it's interesting that in 1878, the New York Court of Appeals said when it confronted with the question of validity of that choice, we no longer can see the reason for denying a jury trial for citizens of New York.\nOf course now, the reasons have become a bit more sanguine when I say, the city has grown and its problems have become so immense, but in 1878 when New York Court of Appeals not having, not feeling itself possessed of that equal protection argument just declined to answer the question on constitutional basis although it's not a violation of the New York State constitution and let it go at that but they commented that they couldn't see the distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [856.514, 870.792], "stop_times": [870.792, 897.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.514}, "reply_to": "15406__0_026", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_028", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Is there a legislature pending in the New York (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [897.504], "stop_times": [900.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.504}, "reply_to": "15406__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__0_029", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "No.\nNot to my knowledge Mr. Justice (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [900.478, 901.052], "stop_times": [901.052, 902.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.478}, "reply_to": "15406__0_028", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_030", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "It was included in the constitution, the (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [902.374], "stop_times": [904.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.374}, "reply_to": "15406__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__0_031", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yes.\nAnd there have constant efforts by various groups to have it you know, but there's nothing pending that I know of in the state legislature.\nThe people have attempted to draw Your Honors' attention in their brief, I think that superficially, it has a lot of attractiveness but I think down deep, it really doesn't cut too deeply by trying to convince you that one-year as cutoff really has a lot of sense, a lot of historical sense in our national history.\nBut the one-year cutoff which they refer to really is a felony-misdemeanor distinction that goes to such things as the right to jury trial -- a right to indictment for this crime, the collateral effect of the conviction of a misdemeanor distinguished from a felony and the place of incarceration with respect to the both of them.\nBut it's interesting that this one-year distinction that they attempt to draw is not a distinction as drawn by any state except New York with respect to the right to jury trial.\nFor example, California still draws the distinction between felony and misdemeanor as a one-year crime in terms of who goes to what prison, but with respect to the jury trial, a common law jury is provided in California for traffic offenses.\nSo the one-year distinction as to the felony and misdemeanor really doesn't answer anything and combined with what I think to be a much more sensible and stronger historical six-month position really wipes itself out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [904.852, 905.547, 914.86, 939.264, 961.442, 970.747, 989.649], "stop_times": [905.547, 914.86, 939.264, 961.442, 970.747, 989.649, 1004.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.852}, "reply_to": "15406__0_030", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_032", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, can we decide what the question raised under the constitution on the basis of what is sensible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1004.581], "stop_times": [1013.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.581}, "reply_to": "15406__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__0_033", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "No.\nI -- maybe I chose the wrong word Mr. Chief Justice, sensible to me means logically consistent with your prior decisions and I think what I'm suggesting here is logically consistent with the language and the thrust of Duncan.\nThe commentators who have analyzed Duncan have so read it and those are authorities cited in our brief.\nI think since Duncan looked to the nation as a whole and said, \u201cLet us see what they are doing in the other states\u201d that that issue was resolved and the only thing that was left hanging was the New York situation.\nThe right to -- also to attempt to tie the one-year serious-petty to the incidence of the right to indictment can't work very well either because only eight states in this country guarantee the right to indictment.\nNow most states which guarantee the right to jury trial which was set forth in our appendix don't really care about indictment and I would presume to say that if I thought there was one provision of the Bill of Rights that would probably not be incorporated apart from the Second Amendment would have to be the right to indictment.\nScholarship, the literature on the subject is against grand jury indictment rather than before and I think if any of the old cases perhaps has some longevity, it would be Hurtado.\nAlso the place of confinement in that 22 states as adversary recites, \u201cSend their felons to state prison while misdemeanants go to county jail.\u201d\nI don't think there was any analytical words Your Honors.\nMainly because its only 22 states, but historically, this distinction arises out of concepts of infamy, concepts of finance, why should the local administration have to bear the cost of a serious felon where the state could take a more proper interest and indeed in New York, one of the blunders of the penal law even with its recent modification, is that felons can go to the county jail as we call the New York City penitentiary.\nThis is something the legislature would like to resolve, but right now, and as a matter of practice felons do go to Rikers Island which is the penitentiary.\nSo what -- you really don't as I see it get much mileage out of the distinction that has been drawn by the people.\nThe collateral effect are also time tried and historical.\nA felon loses his right to vote in most states, in New York, right to public office, loss of civil right is a board category.\nThe misdemeanant, all he loses his possible right to livelihood, housing, employment, certain occupations.\nThe majority of the New York Court of Appeals thought this were not very important compared to the right to vote and the right to public office.\nI think given the nature of the New York City criminal population, those people who faced with the misdemeanor conviction, loss of the misdemeanor collateral effect -- collateral consequences are much more severe and I would think certainly neutralized the Court of Appeals emphasis on the felony collateral effect.\nI think the most difficult part of the case in terms of psychology of it in both below and perhaps here, is what the Court conceives of is probably New York City criminal court here.\nNew York City criminal court is in chaos and it has been in chaos for a long time to the extent, I don't know how I could convey to you the feeling I would like to if I could take you through our courthouses.\nI've tried to document -- I would not dare make the claims I have made in my brief without documentation of what it is like, what the process of justice has become in our criminal court.\nThe turnstile feeling, the feeling by the minority population which participates very heavily in the criminal court or what it is like to have a judge to being a part and watch a judge decide his fifteenth case of the day.\nThe jury trial, the right to jury trial was meant I think by this Court, understood by this Court to protect a defendant against a judge for whatever the reasons maybe, from being casehardened, from being worn down by the system.\nAnd the burdens the court as we've pointed out with the addition of new judges as we assumed the elimination of three-judge court would not create much more difficulty if any.\nI don't think it makes any sense to permit New York to stop now and say we have courtrooms only so much -- judges only so much and we think we have enough judges for this and also one of the significant aspects of a jury trial system is a heavy incidence of waiver that it makes any sense to stop or permit New York to say we can now stop the 1969 with our facilities.\nI think New York is capable and certainly its necessary for it to respond to what I think the Sixth Amendment requires --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1013.409, 1014.222, 1025.596, 1032.251, 1048.793, 1063.56, 1084.269, 1097.003, 1109.44, 1113.011, 1144.642, 1153.128, 1162.364, 1165.826, 1173.394, 1183.379, 1192.28, 1213.635, 1225.651, 1237.327, 1249.819, 1265.707, 1285.376, 1300.474, 1324.592], "stop_times": [1014.222, 1025.596, 1032.251, 1048.793, 1063.56, 1084.269, 1097.003, 1109.44, 1113.011, 1144.642, 1153.128, 1162.364, 1165.826, 1173.394, 1183.379, 1192.28, 1213.635, 1225.651, 1237.327, 1249.819, 1265.707, 1285.376, 1300.474, 1324.592, 1333.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.409}, "reply_to": "15406__0_032", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_034", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Am I right to understand that the present New York law in a case of this kind, the defendant will get a three-judge court as a matter of right by holding a court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1333.677], "stop_times": [1344.41], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.677}, "reply_to": "15406__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_035", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1344.41], "stop_times": [1345.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1344.41}, "reply_to": "15406__0_034", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_036", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "And then if he wants a jury, he has to go to the Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1345.439], "stop_times": [1349.882], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.439}, "reply_to": "15406__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_037", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1349.882], "stop_times": [1350.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.882}, "reply_to": "15406__0_036", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_038", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Which will be purely discretionary matter of a (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1350.305], "stop_times": [1352.703], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.305}, "reply_to": "15406__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15406__0_039", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "It's exceptionally discretionary Your Honor.\nIt's a -- it's really titled a motion to remove and for leave to prosecute by indictment and jury trial, the law on that, the discretion which the courts have exercised isn't such an arbitrary.\nI could get you decisions where the judges themselves say, \u201cWe have no guidance on this\u201d and it is not a procedure that is used very often.\nJust briefly then, the equal protection issue we think is a bit more difficult because people I think about -- put their hand on one possible weakness in our case and that is, if we are right on the Sixth Amendment, we're begging the question in a way because we've got the constitutional right.\nWe don't have to work out a classification problem.\nAlthough I would suggest that if for some reason, I can't convince you, the Sixth Amendment takes us where we would like it that even without having the Sixth Amendment, where as I have said at the outset of my argument, the equal protection clause -- where the state does provide a right to jury trial, that right by its mere provision as this Court interpreted the state's practices in Duncan becomes a right of fundamental importance which then requires a rational and perhaps a compelling interest to deny a citizen within a state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1352.703, 1355.95, 1368.984, 1379.839, 1398.364, 1401.588], "stop_times": [1355.95, 1368.984, 1379.839, 1398.364, 1401.588, 1442.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.703}, "reply_to": "15406__0_038", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__0_040", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Thank you Mr. Hellerstein.\nMr. Juviler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1442.535, 1446.22], "stop_times": [1446.22, 1447.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.535}, "reply_to": "15406__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__1_000", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe boundaries of the petty offense category as Mr. Justice White said in Duncan against Louisiana are ill-defined if not ambulatory.\nThis case presents the opportunity to define those boundaries.\nA subsidiary question raised by appellant's claims relates to the alleged denial of equal protection of the laws in the geographical classification adopted by the New York legislature.\nI propose to rest entirely or almost entirely on our brief as to that issue, although I might perhaps say something about it in closing tomorrow morning.\nThe difficult question which the Court left open in Duncan as to the boundaries of the petty offense category does not have to be resolved without guidelines for indeed there have been substantial guidelines set down by this Court.\nThe Court has made clear that imprisonment of itself does not render an offense serious such as to require trial by jury.\nIt has also been stated unequivocally that an offense punishable by no more than six months imprisonment is a petty offense.\nOn the other hand, a crime punishable by two years is a serious offense, that was the holding in Duncan.\nSo we have essentially in this case a choice between the six-month cutoff proposed by appellant and the one-year cutoff which we urge upon the Court.\nThere is a temptation in choosing between these alternatives to what are priority judgment to say while this is serious or it isn't, I know it when I see it.\nBut there are extensive indications, there are extensive circumstantial evidence in the experience of the states in the federal system of justice which point predominantly to the one-year cutoff as the proper boundary, as an objective boundary.\nAppellant claims that New York city in provisions for jury trials stands alone in the entire nation in withholding trial by a jury from offenses punishable by up to one-year.\nBut it is not that clear as Mr. Justice Harlan implied in his question to Mr. Hellerstein, there are juries and and there are juries and since the issue before this Court is a constitutional issue under the Sixth Amendment, we would best look to the constitutional law as to what is a jury trial.\nThat is a jury which consists of twelve persons rendering a unanimous verdict at a trial in the first instance.\nThis common law, Sixth Amendment jury is withheld in 13 states for trials of crimes punishable by up to one-year.\nThirteen states have adopted this boundary if it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1447.42, 1450.922, 1460.168, 1464.605, 1477.636, 1491.496, 1509.971, 1522.922, 1533.344, 1541.216, 1555.356, 1567.393, 1585.741, 1601.124, 1622.495, 1631.191, 1641.625], "stop_times": [1450.922, 1460.168, 1464.605, 1477.636, 1491.496, 1509.971, 1522.922, 1533.344, 1541.216, 1555.356, 1567.393, 1585.741, 1601.124, 1622.495, 1631.191, 1641.625, 1644.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1447.42}, "reply_to": "15406__0_040", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_001", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "It includes New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1644.775], "stop_times": [1646.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.775}, "reply_to": "15406__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__1_002", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Including New York --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1646.181], "stop_times": [1647.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.181}, "reply_to": "15406__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_003", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Because out of New York City as I understand it the right is to a six-man jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1647.49], "stop_times": [1651.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.49}, "reply_to": "15406__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__1_004", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The right is to a six-man jury in all of other counties for crimes punishable by up to one-year.\nIf the crime is punishable by more than one-year, there is right in the entire state to a common law Sixth Amendment jury.\nAnd thirteen other states have the same boundary line between this hybrid jury which the states built free to experiment with for crimes punishable by up to a year and the full fledged common law constitutional jury for crimes punishable by more than one-year, by more than one-year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1651.801, 1658.318, 1665.894], "stop_times": [1658.318, 1665.894, 1685.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.801}, "reply_to": "15406__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_005", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Now in a hybrid, you're including jurors -- a jury of less than 12 people and also you're including a trial de novo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1685.564], "stop_times": [1693.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.564}, "reply_to": "15406__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15406__1_006", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yes there are for example 9 states in which there are fewer than twelve jurors for crimes punishable explicitly by no more than one-year, that is the explicit cutoff in 9 states.\nIn one state, a non-unanimous verdict can be rendered in a case punishable by up to one-year as the precise cutoff and in five states there is a trial de novo with a jury at the second trial for persons who are found guilty of crimes punishable by up to one-year as the expressly defined cutoff.\nIf you add this all together, its 15, but they're really are 13 separate states because some of the states have adopted several of these hybrid procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1693.329, 1705.318, 1727.064], "stop_times": [1705.318, 1727.064, 1736.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.329}, "reply_to": "15406__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_007", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "But the real problem with three judges and six jurors, is that the real problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1736.991], "stop_times": [1747.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.991}, "reply_to": "15406__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15406__1_008", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The problem is that three judges or even 12 judges are not a jury.\nThey are not citizens, private citizens interposed between the accused and the Government and we do not urge that a three-judge bench is a jury of three persons.\nWe concede --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1747.744, 1752.456, 1763.848], "stop_times": [1752.456, 1763.848, 1764.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.744}, "reply_to": "15406__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_009", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, why have three instead of one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1764.006], "stop_times": [1766.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.006}, "reply_to": "15406__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15406__1_010", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "That is a legislative determination in New York which is based on a long standing history and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1766.323], "stop_times": [1773.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.323}, "reply_to": "15406__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_011", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, I -- maybe you say that the difference is between the judge and the jury and now you've got a three judge bench?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1773.879], "stop_times": [1781.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.879}, "reply_to": "15406__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15406__1_012", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "I think it was felt Mr. Justice Marshall that in adopting a system which had no jurors at all there might be a ameliorating factor by interposing at the option of the defendant more than one judge so that you could have deliberations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1781.387], "stop_times": [1799.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.387}, "reply_to": "15406__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_013", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "And it would be more ameliorating with a jury of six?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1799.056], "stop_times": [1801.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.056}, "reply_to": "15406__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15406__1_014", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "No question and it would be even more with a jury of twelve.\nBut the question here is what the constitution requires New York City -- New York State or New York City to provide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1801.897, 1805.075], "stop_times": [1805.075, 1812.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.897}, "reply_to": "15406__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_015", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "In the de novo states, what's the situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1812.84], "stop_times": [1816.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.84}, "reply_to": "15406__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__1_016", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "There are five states which provide a trial only de novo with a common law jury for crimes punishable by up to one-year, that's the cutoff.\nIf the crime is punishable by less than a year --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1816.456, 1826.761], "stop_times": [1826.761, 1828.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.456}, "reply_to": "15406__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_017", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, what do you mean by de novo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1828.814], "stop_times": [1830.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.814}, "reply_to": "15406__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__1_018", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "That means in the first instance, there is a trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1830.701], "stop_times": [1833.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.701}, "reply_to": "15406__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_019", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Without a jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1833.615], "stop_times": [1834.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.615}, "reply_to": "15406__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__1_020", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Without any jury or is in the case of Virginia which is one of these things, there are five jurors.\nThen on appeal there is a full fledged common law jury of twelve for persons who have already been found guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1834.484, 1840.131], "stop_times": [1840.131, 1846.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.484}, "reply_to": "15406__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_021", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "But the penalty is of the same possible (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1846.745], "stop_times": [1848.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.745}, "reply_to": "15406__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__1_022", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The penalty is the same, punishment by up to one-year.\nNow of course as Mr. Justice White pointed out in Duncan, these procedures are subject to reconsideration as in the case that was ordered for review yesterday from Florida involving six jurors.\nBut we take the law as we find it and the prosecution can also find solace in the constitutional law as we find it.\nAt the moment, there are thirteen states which would be in violation of the constitution if this Court accepts the appellant's argument that a one-year sentence renders a crime serious under the Sixth Amendment.\nThere are only 6 states on the other hand which have adopted a six-month cutoff for the provision for a jury trial of any kind in the first instance.\nAnd that is not a bulk -- a bulky evidence of a nationwide feeling of seriousness supporting the six months cutoff which appellant proposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1848.636, 1854.689, 1867.738, 1875.221, 1889.721, 1904.006], "stop_times": [1854.689, 1867.738, 1875.221, 1889.721, 1904.006, 1915.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.636}, "reply_to": "15406__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_023", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "What do the rest of the states do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1915.64], "stop_times": [1918.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.64}, "reply_to": "15406__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__1_024", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The majority of states provide for a common law jury at various levels of a sentence.\nFor example, in 18 states, including California, a full fledged jury trial is provided for any crime punishable by any imprisonment whatsoever, but since the choice here is between a six-month cutoff and a one-year cutoff, these provisions in 18 states which go far beyond what is required by the constitution offer no guidance as to which of these two cutoffs should be chosen by the Court.\nCalifornia has made clear elsewhere in its law that there are two classes of crimes, felonies punishable by more than one-year in the state prison or penitentiary and misdemeanors punishable by up to one-year, one-year in the county jail but California has chosen in its legislative wisdom to apply a full fledged jury trial even for the petty offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1918.603, 1927.787, 1957.183], "stop_times": [1927.787, 1957.183, 1982.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.603}, "reply_to": "15406__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_025", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "What about the other states?\nI believe, it's what 13 -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1982.242, 1983.941], "stop_times": [1983.941, 1984.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.242}, "reply_to": "15406__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15406__1_026", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "We list a quite a few other states in our brief, in our argument and in our appendix, Mr. Justice White.\nAnd we have broken them down by the specific cutoff shows that in each state, there are 18 states with a six-month cut -- with a -- no cutoff whatsoever, every crime is triable by a jury.\nThere is a handful of states, I think there are two states with a one month cutoff, crimes punishable by more than one month have a jury trial; two states with a three-month cutoff and only six with the six-month cutoff that the appellant proposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [1984.894, 1993.322, 2007.88], "stop_times": [1993.322, 2007.88, 2027.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.894}, "reply_to": "15406__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_027", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "How many did you say requires a fair jury (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2027.731], "stop_times": [2031.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.731}, "reply_to": "15406__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_028", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Under the common understanding of the Sixth Amendment, twelve jurors rendering a unanimous verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2031.053], "stop_times": [2039.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.053}, "reply_to": "15406__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_029", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "What state?\nHow many states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2039.011, 2040.002], "stop_times": [2040.002, 2042.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.011}, "reply_to": "15406__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_030", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, there are 18 states which provide such a jury in every criminal case regardless of the punishment.\nThere are two states in the three-month cases, two states in two, in one-month cases and only six states in six-month cases.\nWe do not hang our hats on the jury trial provisions that I have discussed contrary to the appellant's argument.\nWe recognize that we're dealing here with circumstantial evidence of seriousness and the jury trial provisions are merely one source of guidance to this Court.\nWe do point to the clear law relating to the prosecution of infamous crimes under the Fifth Amendment.\nInfamous crimes are those punishable by more than one-year of imprisonment in the state penitentiary or at hard labor.\nAnd this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2042.103, 2047.641, 2058.071, 2065.0, 2076.382, 2085.216, 2094.875], "stop_times": [2047.641, 2058.071, 2065.0, 2076.382, 2085.216, 2094.875, 2095.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.103}, "reply_to": "15406__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_031", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Including New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2095.121], "stop_times": [2096.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.121}, "reply_to": "15406__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_032", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Including New York and this is the federal system of justice incorporated in the federal rules of criminal procedure.\nThis is clear evidence we submit as to the content of serious crimes under the Sixth Amendment, particularly since both provisions in the Bill of Rights serve the same purpose and that is to prevent the arbitrary action of officials of the Government that Mr. Hellerstein has referred to, to protect the citizen against such action by the interposition of private citizens between him and the crowd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2096.837, 2106.288], "stop_times": [2106.288, 2138.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.837}, "reply_to": "15406__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_033", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, isn't the adjustment of three judges aimed at the same - I believe what Mr. Hellerstein was talking about the arbitrariness of one judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2138.238], "stop_times": [2147.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.238}, "reply_to": "15406__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__1_034", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Yes.\nOne of the purposes is to see that there are three persons brought to bear on the complaint against a defendant with their deliberations that if you have one judge who has a disposition for or against the defendant or a certain type of crime that will be ameliorated by two other finders of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2147.144, 2147.541], "stop_times": [2147.541, 2166.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.144}, "reply_to": "15406__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_035", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Is the demand for a three-judge trial exercised frequently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2166.089], "stop_times": [2171.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.089}, "reply_to": "15406__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__1_036", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "I would estimate in approximately 5 to 10% of the cases, perhaps 5 to 10% of the cases that are actually tried brought to trial.\nThe defendant in this case did not exercise that option.\nThere is a broad field of law in American jurisprudence pointing further to the one-year cutoff and that is the classification of crimes throughout the United States and in the federal system of justice.\nIn 28 states, and in federal courts, there is a felony-misdemeanor distinction and the misdemeanors are punishable by no more than one-year of imprisonment.\nNow, this is not dispositive of this case, but it is some evidence as to the community's view in the nation as to the location of this boundary between two distinct classes of crimes, the petty offenses and the serious offenses.\nThere are other expressions of seriousness pointing to the one-year cutoff, many of which have come after this Court's decision in the Duncan case, many of which have been effective after the Duncan decision.\nThe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts provides a provision for eavesdropping by state law enforcement officials pursuant to court order and one of the categories of crimes that Congress has authorized to be the subject of electronic eavesdropping is crimes punishable by more than one-year of imprisonment, not six months of imprisonment.\nThe selection of petit jurors and grand jurors for federal prosecutions has been enacted by Congress after Duncan to exclude and disqualify from these panels persons convicted of crimes punishable by more than one-year, not more than six months.\nThese are the serious crimes which disqualify American citizens from sitting on a grand or petit jury in the federal system of justice.\nThe Uniform Criminal Extradition Act which has been adopted in 45 states, Section 14 of that Act which I've neglected to cite in the brief adopts also a one-year cutoff, not a six year cutoff for crimes which may -- for which fugitives may be apprehended without a warrant.\nIf he is a fugitive from a crime punishable by more than one-year, there may be an arrest for purposes of extradition without a warrant.\nNow if the crime is punishable by up to one-year is considered not serious enough and therefore a judge has to issue a warrant.\nNow this again is an item of circumstantial evidence guiding this Court in choosing between the six-month boundary and the one-year boundary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2171.822, 2182.301, 2187.646, 2201.881, 2215.553, 2232.948, 2248.286, 2270.891, 2293.485, 2304.19, 2323.988, 2333.498, 2342.683], "stop_times": [2182.301, 2187.646, 2201.881, 2215.553, 2232.948, 2248.286, 2270.891, 2293.485, 2304.19, 2323.988, 2333.498, 2342.683, 2352.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.822}, "reply_to": "15406__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_037", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "You mean, guiding (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2352.681], "stop_times": [2354.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.681}, "reply_to": "15406__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_038", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2354.444], "stop_times": [2354.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.444}, "reply_to": "15406__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_039", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "-- as I understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2354.706], "stop_times": [2355.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.706}, "reply_to": "15406__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_040", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Excuse me.\nIn guiding the Court in choosing between these two boundaries.\nWe do not urge that this issue is crystal clear.\nIf it were, we wouldn't be here today, the Duncan would've disposed of it.\nBut I think that the appellant has failed to point to any considerable body of evidence leading to the six-month cutoff.\nThe one-year cutoff is the predominant one.\nIt is true that in federal contempt cases, the Court in the exercise of this supervisory function over federal justice has seized upon perhaps out of desperation the six-month cutoff for the maximum penalty that maybe imposed without a jury and the Court was guided in that instance by Section 1 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code which define petty offenses as those punishable by up to six months.\nBut Congress, since those decisions, has enacted the Federal Magistrates Act which substantially changes the congressional view of seriousness of offenses and creates a new offense, the minor offense punishable by up to one-year and it removes the jurisdiction of such minor offenses from the Federal District Court to the federal magistrate.\nIf --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2355.948, 2357.061, 2362.508, 2367.313, 2371.536, 2382.597, 2385.14, 2417.408, 2445.594], "stop_times": [2357.061, 2362.508, 2367.313, 2371.536, 2382.597, 2385.14, 2417.408, 2445.594, 2445.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2355.948}, "reply_to": "15406__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_041", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Isn't that highly relevant (Inaudible) in connection with the destruction of the constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2445.687], "stop_times": [2451.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.687}, "reply_to": "15406__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_042", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "No.\nI don't think it's highly relevant, but if you could -- if the Court puts all of these provisions together, the provisions for the common law jury in cases punishable by more than one-year, the provisions for classification of crimes that I have recounted to the Court, all of those together point to a predominant cutoff of one-year --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2451.99, 2452.439], "stop_times": [2452.439, 2474.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.99}, "reply_to": "15406__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_043", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "You mean a predominant sentiment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2474.567], "stop_times": [2477.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.567}, "reply_to": "15406__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_044", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "A community sentiment rather than a judicial sentiment and as Mr. Justice Marshall pointed out in the Frank case in the last term of this Court, the difficult task of defining serious offenses should be undertaken without regard to the judicial sentiment, but rather with regard to some objective criteria as to how the national community views crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2477.345], "stop_times": [2501.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.345}, "reply_to": "15406__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_045", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2501.621], "stop_times": [2503.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.621}, "reply_to": "15406__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15406__1_046", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "By the legislative enactments by the judicial decisions and to some extent by the history of the administration of justice in the various states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2503.607], "stop_times": [2513.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.607}, "reply_to": "15406__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_047", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "I take it you wouldn't be making these points except that your friend has urged a different drawing on these sources for a different cutoff date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2513.53], "stop_times": [2527.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.53}, "reply_to": "15406__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__1_048", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "I think that they not only rebut Mr. Chief Justice the appellant's arguments but they point the Court towards the one-year cutoff provision because this is the real choice, is it going to be six months or is it going to be one-year.\nIf the sentiment were the answer, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2527.031, 2542.075], "stop_times": [2542.075, 2543.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.031}, "reply_to": "15406__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_049", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Well, if the third alternative --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2543.951], "stop_times": [2545.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.951}, "reply_to": "15406__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__1_050", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "The third alternative --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2545.367], "stop_times": [2545.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.367}, "reply_to": "15406__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_051", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "-- or is it going to be left to the states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2545.985], "stop_times": [2550.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.985}, "reply_to": "15406__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__1_052", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "If that alternative is adopted I suppose there would be some limits on the state, for example the State of Louisiana chose a two-year cutoff and that was deemed to be impermissible under the Sixth Amendment.\nBut the state we urge can chose a cutoff which is not far out of line with the prevailing standards of seriousness and the one-year cutoff is the prevailing standard, the six-month cutoff is out of line.\nThe other alternative is to say that in every criminal case as two members of the court have said, where there is any imprisonment prescribed whatever the defendant is entitled to a trial by a jury because as to him, that is a serious offense.\nBut the Court has reject -- the majority of the Court has consistently rejected that approach and so we urge that guided by these objective criterion, the Court, he simplest and most substantially based decision would be to accept the one-year -- accept the state provision providing for a one-year cutoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2550.949, 2561.744, 2576.612, 2592.755], "stop_times": [2561.744, 2576.612, 2592.755, 2617.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.949}, "reply_to": "15406__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "15406__1_053", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "You have about seven minutes and we'll continue and let you get back to your homes tonight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2617.95], "stop_times": [2621.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.95}, "reply_to": "15406__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15406__2_000", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nI only have three matters I think of.\nMr. Juviler has tried to tell you that Congress has placed a different emphasis on what a serious -- I'm not quite so sure that -- it was Justice Black that suggested it's relevant but even if it were relevant, it's not quite that accurate for the following reasons.\nIn Duncan, this Court pointed to Title 18, Section 1, six-month cutoff and said in a way indicia of Duncan by it be whether the case were triable in the federal court.\nThat Title 1 still remains, still stands very similar to the New York penal law, the New York's structure of the penal law both prior to the revision now.\nThe Federal Magistrates Act which Mr. Juviler speaks off, the rights of it has not changed anything at all with respect to the availability of a right to jury trial, putting aside constitutional considerations, the validity of the Magistrates Act because it may erase problems of non-Article 3 courts.\nBut the fact is that even under the Federal Magistrates Act which has the new classification, you are still entitled to a jury trial for anything over six months.\nMr. Chief Justice asked the question about the three-judge court and the demand how frequently and I don't know if its proper for me to comment on this since there is nothing in the record but if -- as member of the bar in this attorney joint legal society, I feel at least obligated to tell the Court that in the hall below, the criminal court system, there is a pressure upon defendants not to seek a three-judge court.\nThis is one of the things that doesn't -- to turn to plea bargain, namely what the defendant give up with respect to a plea.\nA three-judge court is not a highly local thing among the people who must work with the court. And lastly, I would only point out that in Frank, Mr. Justice Marshall wrote for the Court the maximum term of imprisonment even though there was a three year provision, it was only six months whereas in New York, if it were a class of misdemeanor, you can get a year imprisonment and three years probation.\nLast thing, I have set forth in Appendix B a break down of the criminal code of the penal law of New York and I think Your Honors will see if you were even curious to looking to the nature of the offense rather than the term of punishment imposed that New York class a misdemeanor does not strike a court in terms of the petty offenses that one might find in history.\nYou will find the concept of petty offenses historically is quite a stranger to the class of misdemeanor in New York.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2621.514, 2623.76, 2628.416, 2650.698, 2665.436, 2674.743, 2695.31, 2704.653, 2736.167, 2744.272, 2768.799, 2790.659, 2798.383], "stop_times": [2623.76, 2628.416, 2650.698, 2665.436, 2674.743, 2695.31, 2704.653, 2736.167, 2744.272, 2768.799, 2790.659, 2798.383, 2799.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2621.514}, "reply_to": "15406__1_053", "speaker": "william_e_hellerstein"}
{"id": "15406__2_001", "conversation_id": "15406", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you gentlemen for your submissions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_188", "start_times": [2799.211, 2800.596, 2802.158], "stop_times": [2800.596, 2802.158, 2804.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.211}, "reply_to": "15406__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14884__0_000", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Barlow and others against Collins.\nMr. Edgar you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [0.0, 6.351], "stop_times": [6.351, 21.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14884__0_001", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case concerns the very limited purposes for which assignments may be made of benefits payable under the upland cotton program. More particularly, it concerns whether the Secretary of Agriculture may disregard the considerable legislative and administrative construction of the statutory phrase \u201cmaking a crop\u201d and redefine it to authorize assignments for the purpose of paying rent for land.\nPrior to his change from regulations such assignments were prohibited.\nPetitioners, tenant farmers who were hurt by this change and regulation in a manner I shall develop brought suit in the middle of the District of Alabama seeking a declaration that the change in regulation was invalid.\nThe district judge held that they have no standing to raise the claim and that in any event it was not meritorious.\nThe Fifth Circuit affirmed on grounds of standing alone, this Court granted certiorari last June.\nI'd like to begin by showing how the changed regulation harms petitioners, tenant farmers.\nThey farm the land in the traditional pattern of the southern cotton farming.\nThey stay on the same year here at the same land year in and year out, some have been into farm all their lives.\nSome 61 years, the shortest named petitioner has been there for over ten years.\nWhat they do is at the beginning of the year they file -- they make a rent note with the landowner and that rent note gives them the right to use the land.\nIt also normally provides for the landowner paying them small advances to pay for food and clothing while the crop is being grown.\nAnd the landlord for this gets both the right for the rent at the settlement date which is after the crop is in and at that time the advances are repayable with interest.\nHowever since the tenant farmers do not have any credit standing in the community, typically they are forced to buy all of the seed and tools that they need to make their crop from the landowner who extends them credit and charges prices more higher than the prices that are charged in the community at large.\nMoreover, interest is payable in that amount.\nSo it turns out that at the end of the year they have to pay their rent for all their purchases in the interim and typically they have nothing left and this goes on year in year out.\nNow the upland cotton program promised a somewhat better deal for petitioners in this position.\nWhat it did is it authorized in Section (d) 13 that payments made under the program could be assigned.\nNow the assignment is a right to get credit.\nI mean if you can assign and get credit, people know in the community that you have a definite amount of federal funds coming in, you can avoid the necessity of buying all your goods at the stores maintained by landowners and you can thereby perhaps save some of the money, so that at the end of the crop season you will have some money left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [21.264, 23.977, 48.478, 52.883, 65.456, 72.685, 81.541, 87.871, 91.849, 99.912, 105.189, 114.952, 126.127, 137.479, 155.264, 158.474, 172.225, 181.225, 188.251, 190.529], "stop_times": [23.977, 48.478, 52.883, 65.456, 72.685, 81.541, 87.871, 91.849, 99.912, 105.189, 114.952, 126.127, 137.479, 155.264, 158.474, 172.225, 181.225, 188.251, 190.529, 211.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 21.264}, "reply_to": "14884__0_000", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_002", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "You said Mr. Edgar that people know in the community you have a definite amount of funds coming in.\nIs it known in advance just what the figure will be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [211.022, 215.643], "stop_times": [215.643, 218.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.022}, "reply_to": "14884__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_003", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "It is not known exactly in advance what the figure will be.\nIt depends on the amount of cotton that's grown and the amount of land that's diverted.\nThe land diverted is a fixed payment and it doesn't -- you're not growing any crop on the land diverted therefore that amount will be fixed.\nThe actual price support is predictable by knowing the typical yield rate in the area but it's not by any matter of means a definite figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [218.477, 221.715, 227.12, 233.819], "stop_times": [221.715, 227.12, 233.819, 242.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.477}, "reply_to": "14884__0_002", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_004", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Exactly predictable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [242.441], "stop_times": [244.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.441}, "reply_to": "14884__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_005", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNow, if they also Your Honor what they can do is that they can start cooperatives as they have done in this case.\nTenant farmers can get together and by pulling their credit resources they can buy and they can purchase at far less than the cost which they are now paying.\nNow if the landlord, if they can assign these payments to the landowner for whom they rent, they in effect lose the right -- the credit the Congress intended for them.\nThe landlord simply insists that the assignment be made as additional security for renting the land.\nIn that case he cannot use any of the credit that Congress has provided for his benefit and so far as he is concerned, Congress might as well not have passed Section (d) 13 which did grant farmers this right of assignment with a purpose of creating credit for small farmers.\nNow, the Government doesn't deny that this is going on.\nWhat happened in this case was that the landowner told petitioners that either they made an assignment or they got of the land and that two or three of them refused to make the assignment, they were thrown off the land, they were deprived of their allotments which are tied to the land and they were left without effectively any source of income.\nThe others made the assignment but then they were deprived of the credit as I say which Congress provided.\nNow the Government -- respondent does not challenge that this is in fact what happens.\nIt just says that it's not -- the fact that it's happened does not suffice to warrant granting relief.\nThe question then is whether Congress permitted this result.\nA relevant statutory language is found in Section 8 (g) of the Soil Conversation and Domestic Allotment Act which provides for assignments for the purpose of making a crop.\nThere are three considerations we think that preclude interpretation of this language to encompass assignment for the purpose of paying rent for land.\nFirst, the structure of the statute itself; second, its legislative history demonstrating a congressional intent to use the phrase as a limitation on assignment rights; and finally administrative construction given the term which from the moment of enactment in 1937 has precluded until the change regulation here challenged any assignments for the purpose of paying rent.\nFirst, the structure of the statute, it provides for assignments to secure cash and advances for the purpose of making a crop.\nNow only in the theoretical economist's view is securing use of land in advance.\nNormally advances mean goods that are supplied to you on credit, so the language of the statute does not seem to be looking to assignments for the purpose of paying land rent.\nSecondly the legislative history, we suggest of the Soil Conversation and Domestic Allotment Act confirms that approach.\nThe Act was passed as a compromise provision as an amendment report by a Conference Committee.\nThe House Bill permitted assignments for all purposes but only to landowners.\nThe Bill was twice introduced in the Senate, a broader assignment bill permitting assignments to anyone and the Senate refused to pass it because it provided insufficient protection for tenant farmers from being forced or from being -- either by their economic circumstances or their own lack of prudence from making inadvisable assignments.\nSo the Senate rejected the Bill twice.\nIn Conference Committee the Bill came forth but it came forth limited by these provisions that are designed to protect.\nOne of those protections is the limitation of the purpose of assignments to making a crop and making a crop is not a term of common usage.\nIt's also a technical agricultural term and we believe\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [244.025, 247.211, 253.864, 262.874, 274.658, 280.344, 300.718, 303.687, 320.713, 326.176, 330.376, 337.068, 340.203, 350.445, 358.819, 381.18, 389.85, 396.515, 408.48, 419.873, 427.186, 432.987, 456.319, 458.834, 467.089, 477.592], "stop_times": [247.211, 253.864, 262.874, 274.658, 280.344, 300.718, 303.687, 320.713, 326.176, 330.376, 337.068, 340.203, 350.445, 358.819, 381.18, 389.85, 396.515, 408.48, 419.873, 427.186, 432.987, 456.319, 458.834, 467.089, 477.592, 480.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.025}, "reply_to": "14884__0_004", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_006", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "If I could ask a question.\nIsn't the only question here now at this stage is the question standing to raise this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [480.869, 482.392], "stop_times": [482.392, 488.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.869}, "reply_to": "14884__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_007", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, Your Honor I have planned to deal with the standing question at the end of my argument but let me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [488.699], "stop_times": [494.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.699}, "reply_to": "14884__0_006", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_008", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Isn't that what was decided by the lower board that there was no standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [494.439], "stop_times": [499.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.439}, "reply_to": "14884__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_009", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well the lower court also intimated its views on the merit but yes its specific holding was that there was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [499.215], "stop_times": [503.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.215}, "reply_to": "14884__0_008", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_010", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "So it has not decided the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [503.683], "stop_times": [506.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.683}, "reply_to": "14884__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_011", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No Your Honor, not expressly.\nI will turn then to the standing question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [506.752, 508.729], "stop_times": [508.729, 512.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.752}, "reply_to": "14884__0_010", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_012", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well my point is this is a matter that's all before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [512.065], "stop_times": [516.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.065}, "reply_to": "14884__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_013", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, Your Honor we believe that a decision on the entire case is appropriate in this Court.\nThe standing question and the question on the merits are very closely linked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [516.004, 521.947], "stop_times": [521.947, 526.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.004}, "reply_to": "14884__0_012", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_014", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, naturally you like to have it but I still ask whether the only issues -- the only question that decided on the lower court was standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [526.408], "stop_times": [534.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.408}, "reply_to": "14884__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_015", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The only -- yes, Your Honor the only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [534.17], "stop_times": [538.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.17}, "reply_to": "14884__0_014", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_016", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Therefore I would assume that you disagree with lower court and there are no standings involved and you have already told that.\nMerits will go back to the lower court for determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [538.303, 547.861], "stop_times": [547.861, 551.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.303}, "reply_to": "14884__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_017", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [551.85], "stop_times": [553.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.85}, "reply_to": "14884__0_016", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_018", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "If the court decided them then the Court of Appeals did it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [553.75], "stop_times": [558.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.75}, "reply_to": "14884__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "14884__0_019", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think it's fair to say that the Court of Appeals strongly indicated its view on the merits as respondent noted and in our view that the questions are so close that it doesn't want remanding for the purpose of -- and the Court of Appeals decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [558.356], "stop_times": [579.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 558.356}, "reply_to": "14884__0_018", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_020", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Though we note we review intonations, we only review holdings counsel, so you'd better address yourself to the standing questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [579.037], "stop_times": [587.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.037}, "reply_to": "14884__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14884__0_021", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe believe that the Fifth Circuit decision was simply -- was erroneous in denying standing in this case.\nWe believe that the source of confusion there was that they analogized this case to the case of the competitive interloper.\nMost of the cases that have raised severe standing problems in this Court are those who are persons who is not -- whose conduct is in no way described by a statute challenges the action of someone else who is under some form of statutory limitation and urges that the statutory limitations that govern the other persons conduct are not being carried out.\nThis is not such a case at all, for example if the Secretary of Agriculture had instead of expanding the purposes for which assignments might have been made, might be made.\nIf he had simply said no assignments shall be made at all, it seems that the petitioners are surely entitled to come to court and challenge his construction of his duties under the statute and simply saying that it will not be -- the statute will not be given effect and there's no -- from the point of view of standing, doesn't seem to us that there's any difference if he is cutting back power to assign or expanding where it is clear that the purposes that the congressional reasons which underlay the imposition of the restrictions on standing were precisely to benefit tenant farmers.\nIn the same way that settler of a spendthrift trust imposes the limits on his spendthrift trust to protect the beneficiary against his unwise judgment.\nSurely for example, just as a matter of common law, the analogue, the common law, an interest protected at common law the strictest standard that this Court has ever used in standing cases.\nAny trustee who informed the beneficiary of spendthrift trust that he was simply going to disregard the terms of the trust the beneficiary would have standing to seek removal of the trust and we suggest that even under the common law right analogue that this case -- there is standing in this case.\nThere is also clearly standing under this court's holding in Hardin.\nThe Hardin case two terms ago, there the court said that there was standing.\nStanding did exist when a person was a member of a class whose interest Congress had sought to protect.\nNow as we say the legislative history of Section 8 (g) is clear.\nIt emerges as an assignment -- broad assignment provision, the senate rejects it precisely because it is too broad and it manages to get approved with narrow limitations on the purposes for which assignments may be made.\nThat is the only grounds upon which the approval, the congressional approval was granted.\nSo we think in light of that it's clear that these tenant farmers are within the class that Congress had intended to protect.\nFurthermore, that is that conclusion is particularly strong, seems particularly mandated, in so far as this Court has often said that there ought to be a presumption that administrative action is judicially reviewable.\nNow no one else can have standing in this case but petitioners.\nIn other words a landowner who is harmed, who thought himself harmed would have no standing to raise the claim pressed here in.\nThese plaintiffs are the only ones who do and it's proper in light of the presumption in favor of judicial review that standing be conferred on those who are adversely affected in fact and that is, of course the constitutional minimum but there is no question here that these parties or these petitioners are adversely affected in the fact.\nThey\u2019ve been -- some of them have been thrown off the land, they've been working all their lives and that we think compels the conclusion that standing is present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [587.154, 588.226, 596.787, 603.255, 626.649, 639.08, 676.756, 688.387, 698.807, 715.207, 718.508, 724.785, 732.276, 737.23, 753.684, 758.731, 767.683, 779.262, 784.664, 794.229, 816.142], "stop_times": [588.226, 596.787, 603.255, 626.649, 639.08, 676.756, 688.387, 698.807, 715.207, 718.508, 724.785, 732.276, 737.23, 753.684, 758.731, 767.683, 779.262, 784.664, 794.229, 816.142, 826.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.154}, "reply_to": "14884__0_020", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_022", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Do you employ against on the data process engaged in case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [826.829], "stop_times": [830.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.829}, "reply_to": "14884__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_023", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI've read the Government's brief but I was not here yesterday.\nYour Honor, I'd like to return to the question of making a crop and what it may permissibly mean.\nAs the term is not one of the broad general usage it is not as the government -- respondent suggests a synonym for current farming cause.\nIt had a long meaning confirmed by agricultural dictionaries that it refers to producing crops, it refers to harvesting, to sowing a seed.\nIt does not refer to the rental of land.\nNow this interpretation we think is confirmed by the fact that within nine days after the Act was passed the Secretary of Agriculture issued regulations expressly forbidding any assignments for the purpose of paying rent for land.\nThis was immediately after the enactment of the statute.\nNow he was undoubtedly informed as to what Congress\u2019 purpose had been, he saw the potential risk in permitting land owners to simply you surf the credit that would have been provided for tenant farmers by forcing them to assign and he said it could not be done.\nNow the same risk is present today and as we say respondent does not challenge the fact that the effect of permitting assignments to pay rent is to take the credit the Congress provided away from the tenant farmer.\nNow the question becomes what effect this has under the new Act, Section (d) 13 which as we say is the provision enacted in 1965 which incorporates by reference the prior law.\nNow that new Act is also pervaded with -- has several protections for small farmers in it.\nSection (d) 10 of the act expressly authorizes and commands the Secretary to issue regulations to protect the interest of small tenant farmers and sharecroppers.\nSo, it can't be said that this purpose which underlay the 1937 Act has somehow that Congress is of the view that it's no longer important.\nIt is important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [830.031, 831.647, 840.611, 847.827, 858.101, 870.152, 872.625, 885.95, 889.075, 907.682, 923.491, 937.16, 944.375, 954.786, 963.957], "stop_times": [831.647, 840.611, 847.827, 858.101, 870.152, 872.625, 885.95, 889.075, 907.682, 923.491, 937.16, 944.375, 954.786, 963.957, 966.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.031}, "reply_to": "14884__0_022", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_024", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "You say the Act instructs the Secretary to issue regulations to protect the farmer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [966.501], "stop_times": [975.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.501}, "reply_to": "14884__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_025", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, well it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [975.482], "stop_times": [976.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.482}, "reply_to": "14884__0_024", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_026", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Where is that?\nThat ten Section what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [976.639, 979.546], "stop_times": [979.546, 980.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.639}, "reply_to": "14884__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_027", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "It's Section 7 U.S.C. 144 d (10) Your Honor which is Section 103 (d) 10 of the 1949 Agricultural Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [980.851], "stop_times": [993.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.851}, "reply_to": "14884__0_026", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_028", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "So I take it then we have the Secretary responding by issuing what he thought was a regulation to protect the interest of the attendant farmer.\nAnd that in his judgment it was necessary in order to help the farmer make a crop to permit assignments for cash rent as well as other cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [993.862, 1004.161], "stop_times": [1004.161, 1016.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.862}, "reply_to": "14884__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_029", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Mr. Justice White, we don't think that construction of what is happened is a likely one.\nThe reason is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1016.529, 1026.502], "stop_times": [1026.502, 1028.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.529}, "reply_to": "14884__0_028", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_030", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well do you think he was disobeying his duty or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1028.93], "stop_times": [1031.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.93}, "reply_to": "14884__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_031", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think he was just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1031.635], "stop_times": [1033.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.635}, "reply_to": "14884__0_030", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_032", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "He thought at least that was -- to help the tenant farmers I take it.\nIs that right or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1033.369, 1040.059], "stop_times": [1040.059, 1041.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.369}, "reply_to": "14884__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_033", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I -- we would not accept that Your Honor for this reason.\nFirst of all, for most farmers, it does not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1041.196, 1045.032], "stop_times": [1045.032, 1047.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.196}, "reply_to": "14884__0_032", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_034", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "So he disobeyed his duty and he issued a regulation to hurt them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1047.896], "stop_times": [1053.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.896}, "reply_to": "14884__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14884__0_035", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, this regulation Your Honor is not issued pursuant -- the regulations we are challenging are not issued pursuant to Section (d) 10.\nThis are not part of those regulations, they are rather regulations that are issued under Section (d) 13.\nWhat the Secretary has done in our view is he has issued regulations in part protective of tenant farmers under (d) 10.\nHe has redefined the term \u201cmaking a crop\u201d in a way which prejudices severely tenant farmers for the benefit of landowners and does very little good for the rest of the farming population.\nNow the people who simply own land obviously do not have to assign for the purpose of paying rent.\nThe average rental value of cotton land is between one-third, at least in Alabama between one-third and one-half the value of the crop.\nSo, even those farmers who do rent land are in no need of the right to assign for the purpose of paying rent.\nWhat they can do is they can use the assignment to purchase the seeds, the tools, the other things that they need which are as large, in fact larger portion of the ultimate crop value and use whatever resources they are now expending to get those goods for the purpose of paying their rent if they are dealing with a landowner who will not -- who will simply refuse to accept a rent except on a pay now basis.\nNow if that were -- if the Secretary\u2019s purpose were to merely to help other farmers, he could have prevented the harm that is done here simply by issuing a regulation under Section (d) 10 which would say that even though assignments can be made for purpose of making cash rent, no landowner can kick a tenant -- can remove a tenant from the farm who refuses to make the assignment.\nNow if the only purpose which underlay to change definition of making a crop was to facilitate financing for farmers as a whole, this particular lawsuit could have been avoided by a protective regulation issue pursuant to Section (d) 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1053.353, 1061.417, 1067.846, 1076.43, 1087.354, 1093.779, 1102.055, 1113.136, 1142.445, 1171.853], "stop_times": [1061.417, 1067.846, 1076.43, 1087.354, 1093.779, 1102.055, 1113.136, 1142.445, 1171.853, 1195.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.353}, "reply_to": "14884__0_034", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_036", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I take it that the Secretary probably thought he was (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1195.27], "stop_times": [1199.954], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.27}, "reply_to": "14884__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_037", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Your Honor, we do not know what are the reasons underlying the Secretary's change of regulation were -- were simply they're not issued after any formal proceeding and they are not issued with any explanation.\nIn part it may be that landowners have been hurt somewhat by the new Act to the extent that the land -- to the extent that the tenant farmers can avoid the whole structure of rent notes, advances, credit from the landowner's farm.\nThey are going to be losing income and we simply do not know whether that was a motivating factor behind the Secretary\u2019s action whether it was his view.\nA view which we don't think can be supported that it was necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1199.954, 1212.573, 1232.697, 1241.802], "stop_times": [1212.573, 1232.697, 1241.802, 1244.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.954}, "reply_to": "14884__0_036", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_038", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "One of the purposes of the Act is to take its plan on elevation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1244.902], "stop_times": [1248.441], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.902}, "reply_to": "14884__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_039", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1248.441], "stop_times": [1249.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.441}, "reply_to": "14884__0_038", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_040", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "And I suppose landowners -- they are accessible as everyone would like to -- they'd like to infer to landowners to take the rent out of the -- out of tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1249.993], "stop_times": [1267.507], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.993}, "reply_to": "14884__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_041", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "They would like.\nAt the moment, they are not encouraging that because the cotton years have been very bad for the last three years, so they are no longer insisting upon diversion for the 1969 crop.\nPresumably they will again but that is not -- that does not affect the question of assignments.\nWe don't believe Your Honor the whether or not they are encouraging people to take land out of reduction is not out of cotton production.\nIt does not affect the question of whether assignments ought to be made, ought to be authorized for the purpose of hanging around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1267.507, 1268.203, 1277.621, 1284.521, 1295.355], "stop_times": [1268.203, 1277.621, 1284.521, 1295.355, 1303.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.507}, "reply_to": "14884__0_040", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_042", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I was looking for some reason for the Secretary expanding in right of the terms.\nYou say it was the tenant farmer, how did he do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1303.877, 1310.239], "stop_times": [1310.239, 1314.8], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.877}, "reply_to": "14884__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_043", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The only -- we think there are two possible --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1314.8], "stop_times": [1317.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.8}, "reply_to": "14884__0_042", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_044", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What are the farmer's rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1317.987], "stop_times": [1322.263], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.987}, "reply_to": "14884__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_045", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "It is we think possible that he did it to facilitate financing for farmers across the board you know all farmers.\nIt makes it easier I suppose for all farmers to finance their total farming expenditures.\nIt makes it easy in a limited sense rather than juggling their use of credit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1322.263, 1329.439, 1337.067], "stop_times": [1329.439, 1337.067, 1341.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.263}, "reply_to": "14884__0_044", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_046", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, what is it that this particular part of the regulation just affects people who are renting land, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1341.651], "stop_times": [1350.665], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.651}, "reply_to": "14884__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_047", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1350.665], "stop_times": [1351.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.665}, "reply_to": "14884__0_046", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_048", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "And no one is permitted to assign these payments for the purpose of securing the purchase price land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1351.66], "stop_times": [1361.993], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.66}, "reply_to": "14884__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_049", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No Your Honor, it would only facilitate those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1361.993], "stop_times": [1364.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.993}, "reply_to": "14884__0_048", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_050", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "So why would he -- what reason would he have for including cash rent in the assignment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1364.67], "stop_times": [1375.52], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.67}, "reply_to": "14884__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__0_051", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "We can suppose only two, one is that he was attempting to facilitate financing for farmers who both own land and rent land.\nIt makes somewhat easier for them if they can assign their payments to secure cash to pay the rent.\nThis is not in the tenant farm con -- no, not in the tenant farm context.\nNow the reason we don't think that was his motivation is that if that's all he wanted to do, he could have protected against this particular abuse of which he was aware.\nI mean from Alabama tenant farmers organize presented their claim.\nNow he could have protected this abuse simply by issuing a regulation precluding a landowner from removing a tenant from his farm if the tenant refused to make the assignment.\nIf the only purpose behind the Secretary's action was a facilitated one then the harm here alleged which is a real harm could have been -- could have been taken away, could have been removed very simply.\nSo it's for that reason that we do not think that this was the underlying the Secretary's action.\nParticularly in so far as even those farmers who rent land, who both own land and rent land, can normally juggle their use of the assignment to pay for their crops with their cash.\nI mean pay for their land with cash and their seed, livestock, tools and those matters with their assignment money.\nI would like to reserve the rest -- if the court please, I would like to reserve the rest for my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1375.52, 1385.084, 1392.02, 1396.193, 1404.855, 1409.382, 1420.306, 1433.937, 1439.103, 1452.064, 1461.634], "stop_times": [1385.084, 1392.02, 1396.193, 1404.855, 1409.382, 1420.306, 1433.937, 1439.103, 1452.064, 1461.634, 1465.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.52}, "reply_to": "14884__0_050", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__0_052", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Very well, very well.\nMr. Strauss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1465.686, 1469.436], "stop_times": [1469.436, 1474.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.686}, "reply_to": "14884__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14884__1_000", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI'd like to start if I may with something in the nature of a counter statement of certain factual propositions that bear on this case and which I think put it in something of a perspective.\nFirst, although I think it was clear from petitioners\u2019 oral presentation and perhaps it had been in their briefs.\nIt should be clear that what we are talking about is a new program, the 1965 program and not a program which has been running since 1938.\nPetitioners have no right to make assignments to their cotton payments except under the 1965 Act.\nThe right of assignment was new.\nThey have never used it except under circumstances in which they were permitted to make assignments to pay for cash rent because the regulation that permitted them to make those assignments for that purpose was adopted prior to the first crop year, the crop year of 1966 to which the upland cotton program of 1965 applied.\nThey have not been able to make assignments at least since commodity payments seized under the 1938 Act and in the very early 1940's.\nNow they can do so and terms in which they can do so has not been materially changed since that program began.\nThe second and really part of the first observation is that there has been no continuity in the administration of assignments provisions generally.\nSection 8 (g) was passed in 1938 through 1941, literally hundreds of thousands of assignments were made every year and that year the war began.\nIt was no longer necessary to make commodity payments in order to secure agricultural prosperity and Congress seized to do so.\nThe assignment fell dramatically and by 1952 when statistics seized to be kept and when the Secretary of Agriculture went to the Congress and said \u201cI don\u2019t need this statute anymore, wipe it off the books.\u201d\nBy 1952 only 2,100 assignments were made under that Act in that year.\nSo that there was an effect a 20-year hiatus between the end of practical importance for Section 8 (g) and the enactment of the 1965 Act which the Government\u2019s position is the only Act in issue in this case and we think that has some substantial bearing on the issues before the court.\nThe third thing and I think discuss to some extent Mr. Justice White to the questions you were asking is that there has been a radical shift in ten-year pattern even among those who rent the land they farm since 1938.\nNow we pointed out in a footnote to our brief, it's on page 32, footnote 22 that in 1935 42% of all farmers were tenants and they farmed 32% of this nations land.\nBy 1964, their place had been taken by part owners.\nPart owners are farmers who own some land and rent other land typically for cash.\nIn the 1964, part owners outnumbered tenants and they farmed almost four times as much land.\nNow at the time that we wrote the brief, I had not been able to find statistics relating to cotton farming and footnotes note that fact.\nSince that time, I haven't able to find such statistics on a statewide basis and if the Court please, I should like briefly just to mention the ones which strike me as being significant.\nThey are from the census figures which are compiled on a statewide basis by the Department of Commerce and something called the United States Census of Agriculture.\nIn 1964, Census of agriculture for Alabama shows that 33% of the commercial farms in that state raising cotton were operated by part owners and these cotton farms, this 33% of Alabama's cotton farmers who have rent obligations.\nThese cotton farms held 53% of the States cotton land, that's over half.\nOn the other hand, cash tenants, the other major group, the only other major group with a cash rent obligation were only 11% of the States commercial cotton farmers and they farmed only 7% of its land.\nThe figures I'm referring to are derived from numerical figures that appear on pages 64 and 65 of this volume and if the court pleases, I have Xerox copies of these pages which I've already given to counsel and which I will leave with the clerk.\nThe point is there are over twice as many part owners as cash tenants in 1965 and they farmed over seven times as much cotton land.\nOne could go on at considerable length but the point is a simple one, petitioners are not facing the changed interpretation of an established program under an old statute in which they have long participated.\nThey are complaining of the initial interpretation of a new program which was passed and which applies and conditions very different from those which existed when the (Inaudible) bond statute on which it happens to draw was passed.\nThe assignments statute was in 1965 was not a tenant statute and it's interpretation even as respect assignments to finance the farming cost of cash rent primarily effect others, part owners and not cash tenants.\nTo get back to the other point of the questions you were asking Justice White regarding well, why has the Secretary done this?\nWhat about the protection of tenants, petitioners who were complaining in the course of their colloquy with you that he had adopted no regulations to provide for the protection of tenants?\nThis was meant to apply to all farmers with cash rent obligations as a whole.\nOf course there are regulations which were adopted for the upland cotton program and precisely in the same time and the same volume of the federal register on the same page, perhaps one or two pages before as the assignment provision.\nThey are set out on page 46 of our brief and they provide the diversion and price support assignments or payments rather shall not be approved for payment by county committee if the county committee determines among other things that there exists between the landlord and any tenant or sharecropper any lease contract agreement or understanding unfairly exacted or required by the landlord which was entered into an anticipation of participating in the program.\nThe effect of which is to force the tenant or sharecropper to pay over to the landlord any payment earned by him under the program.\nTo change the status of any tenant or sharecropper so that to deprive him of any payment or right which he would have otherwise had had under the program to decrease the rent to be paid by the tenant -- to increase rather the payment to be paid by the tenant or to decrease the share of the crop or its proceeds to be received by the sharecropper.\nNow of course disagreements could exist, they are not present in the allegations with the legal contentions in this case.\nDisagreements could exist as to whether those regulations are sufficient, whether they are properly enforced and obviously I don't believe that that's the case.\nPetitioners do and I'm sure that there could be reasonable arguments about the question but what strikes me as being significant to this case is that the petitioners will have no part of those regulations and petitioners will have no part of the Section under which they were adopted 7 U.S.C. 1444 (d) 10 which does specifically provide that the Secretary of Agriculture must provide adequate safeguards to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers.\nThey don't argue for standing under that provision for example, their argument isn't; well now here's a provision that says the Secretary must protect the tenants.\nTherefore, we have standing, that's not their argument nor do they argue that way on the merit.\nThe Secretary has failed to protect them.\nOf course, it may be significant that that provision only requires adequate safeguards.\nThere is a little bit of legislative history which petitioners cite in part -- quote in part in their brief I believe it's at page 20 and 21 of their brief.\nPetitioners quote in part a House Report from the soil bank program at page 39 of that report.\nThey quote the sentence that said \u201cno single problem connected with the proposed soil bank has caused the committee more concern than that of guaranteeing adequate protection of tenants and sharecroppers under the program.\u201d\nThe next following sentence in the report is as follows \u201cseveral provisions referring to tenants and sharecroppers had intended to protect their interests while at the same time safeguarding the interests to landlords with scattered throughout the soil bank provisions of the Senate Bill and then several other sentences also in that report carry out the same theme.\nCongress is not interested simply and only in the safeguarding the interest of tenants that they realize that landlords have interests too and therefore they provide for adequate protection.\nThe Secretary has a responsibility adequately to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [1474.734, 1478.342, 1491.618, 1499.054, 1509.602, 1515.245, 1517.717, 1539.601, 1547.22, 1554.932, 1563.445, 1574.993, 1583.498, 1595.918, 1601.675, 1620.266, 1633.628, 1650.238, 1655.389, 1661.859, 1668.819, 1677.789, 1691.502, 1704.277, 1724.249, 1730.175, 1747.537, 1766.329, 1775.471, 1786.847, 1799.887, 1815.56, 1826.172, 1836.452, 1842.057, 1855.873, 1886.252, 1893.558, 1912.173, 1921.876, 1932.431, 1965.849, 1974.17, 1980.205, 1983.38, 1991.317, 2005.075, 2019.705, 2031.37, 2054.228, 2068.447], "stop_times": [1478.342, 1491.618, 1499.054, 1509.602, 1515.245, 1517.717, 1539.601, 1547.22, 1554.932, 1563.445, 1574.993, 1583.498, 1595.918, 1601.675, 1620.266, 1633.628, 1650.238, 1655.389, 1661.859, 1668.819, 1677.789, 1691.502, 1704.277, 1724.249, 1730.175, 1747.537, 1766.329, 1775.471, 1786.847, 1799.887, 1815.56, 1826.172, 1836.452, 1842.057, 1855.873, 1886.252, 1893.558, 1912.173, 1921.876, 1932.431, 1965.849, 1974.17, 1980.205, 1983.38, 1991.317, 2005.075, 2019.705, 2031.37, 2054.228, 2068.447, 2074.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1474.734}, "reply_to": "14884__0_052", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_001", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Do you defend -- are you defending the decision below on standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2074.33], "stop_times": [2079.266], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.33}, "reply_to": "14884__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_002", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2079.266], "stop_times": [2080.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.266}, "reply_to": "14884__1_001", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_003", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "On the grounds used by the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2080.359], "stop_times": [2084.179], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2080.359}, "reply_to": "14884__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_004", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No I don't to the extent that -- I think it was made clear in our -- from the beginning of this Court in our opposition to the petition for right of certiorari and in our brief we defend the decision below on standing on Hardin grounds.\nWe don\u2019t think this case does fall within Hardin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2084.179, 2102.506], "stop_times": [2102.506, 2105.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.179}, "reply_to": "14884__1_003", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_005", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Do you think there is no statutory indication of any desire of intention to protect tenants as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2105.268], "stop_times": [2112.49], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.268}, "reply_to": "14884__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_006", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, Section d (10) does say that there has to be adequate protection for tenants.\nPetitioners though do not invoke that Section and I think they don't do so advisably and I would hardly wish to.\nI think if -- let me put it this way if that was the Section that they invoked, the question on the merits would be very different.\nPetitioners\u2019 case on the merits, their actual complaint depends on their being able to characterize a Section that was passed in 1965.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2112.49, 2119.634, 2127.166, 2135.547], "stop_times": [2119.634, 2127.166, 2135.547, 2144.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.49}, "reply_to": "14884__1_005", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_007", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What Section do you think the assignment regulation was issued under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2144.931], "stop_times": [2151.02], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.931}, "reply_to": "14884__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_008", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The assignment regulation was issued under Section (d) 13 of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2151.02], "stop_times": [2155.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.02}, "reply_to": "14884__1_007", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_009", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well (d) 13 just says what? This says that the provision from a certain section fell apart?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2155.367], "stop_times": [2162.033], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.367}, "reply_to": "14884__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_010", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "That's right, which are Section 590 (g) or Section 8 (g) of the 1938 Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2162.033], "stop_times": [2171.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.033}, "reply_to": "14884__1_009", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_011", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "And the Secretary however has issued a regulation which interprets that Section or which applies it in a way that it hasn't been applied before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2171.08], "stop_times": [2187.773], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.08}, "reply_to": "14884__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_012", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, I would have to disagree, I think in a formal sense, what you say is true but since that statute went out of lost practical meaning in 1942 and was in effect abandoned by the Secretary in 1952.\nSince these regulations were adopted in 1965 immediately following the enactment of the upland cotton program in that year.\nExcuse me it was February of 1966, immediately following the adoption of the upland cotton program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2187.773, 2203.79, 2211.875], "stop_times": [2203.79, 2211.875, 2217.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.773}, "reply_to": "14884__1_011", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_013", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well let me ask you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2217.845], "stop_times": [2219.079], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.845}, "reply_to": "14884__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_014", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "We view this as the interpretation of the Upland Cotton Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2219.079], "stop_times": [2222.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.079}, "reply_to": "14884__1_013", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_015", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Let me ask you, there's a -- what does the statute -- what is the statute -- why is the statute has to permitting exemptions from the normal and assignment policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2222.284], "stop_times": [2238.198], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.284}, "reply_to": "14884__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_016", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think the statute was passed in order to facilitate the activities of farmers in financing their expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2238.198], "stop_times": [2246.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.198}, "reply_to": "14884__1_015", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_017", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "That too I suppose is the purpose of that Section is to aid in farmers getting financing in their operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2246.036], "stop_times": [2253.28], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.036}, "reply_to": "14884__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_018", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "In 1965 particularly, I think Congress was well aware that it was cutting by almost 30% the level of support that farmers were receiving under the Act and they were going to need new finances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2253.28], "stop_times": [2266.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.28}, "reply_to": "14884__1_017", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_019", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well now, why would you suggest then that these farmers involved in this case aren't within the group which this Section was intended to benefit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2266.042], "stop_times": [2281.594], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.042}, "reply_to": "14884__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_020", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "In 1960, -- oh I don't -- I fully admit that they are within the group that this Section was intended to benefit but I have not understood Hardin --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2281.594], "stop_times": [2289.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.594}, "reply_to": "14884__1_019", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_021", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well being in that group they come in and say that this Section was intended to benefit the farmers.\nThis Section which (d) 13 applies to this statutory scheme and we think that the regulation issued under that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2289.42, 2296.393], "stop_times": [2296.393, 2307.153], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.42}, "reply_to": "14884__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_022", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Failed to benefit us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2307.153], "stop_times": [2308.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.153}, "reply_to": "14884__1_021", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_023", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Failed to benefit or benefit them badly or frustrate the purpose of the Act, now why doesn't that satisfy Hardin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2308.392], "stop_times": [2316.774], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.392}, "reply_to": "14884__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_024", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "My understanding of Hardin was that it referred rather specifically not to for that matter this Court's prior cases.\nIt referred rather specifically not to a simple matter of benefiting but rather an issue of protection.\nThe language which this Court used in Hardin and I'm quoting from page 6 of the opinion as it appears in volume 390 is that when the particular statutory and the particular statutory provision invoked does reflect the legislative purpose to protect a competitive interests, the injured competitor has standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2316.774, 2324.854, 2332.136], "stop_times": [2324.854, 2332.136, 2359.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.774}, "reply_to": "14884__1_023", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_025", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Of course this isn't a competition case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2359.556], "stop_times": [2362.7], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.556}, "reply_to": "14884__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_026", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, this is not a competition case and nor do we contend that Hardin is restricted to competition cases.\nWe do think however that there is some function to be served and we think we observed that function being served by a limitation in those terms in protection terms in keeping people from injury rather than perhaps in failing to do for with them everything that they think ought to be done for them under a beneficial federal program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2362.7, 2368.305], "stop_times": [2368.305, 2393.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.7}, "reply_to": "14884__1_025", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_027", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Do you think there is a case of controversy here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2393.863], "stop_times": [2396.663], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.863}, "reply_to": "14884__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_028", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, I do and I'm not objecting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2396.663], "stop_times": [2399.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.663}, "reply_to": "14884__1_027", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_029", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The policy question about standing then, we are really talking about the Hardin type of question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2399.12], "stop_times": [2404.155], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.12}, "reply_to": "14884__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_030", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think we are just talking about a Hardin type of question.\nI think what this Court having heard the argument yesterday in -- having heard the argument yesterday in the ADAPSO case.\nI went back and did a little homework that perhaps I should have done before.\nWhat this Court said in Stark and Wickard is rather to the point in this regard.\nThere it had to deal rather expressly with what seems to me just this problem, it's part of the same problem then came up in Abbot, what is the relationship between what this Court has frequently said is the presumption of judicial review on the one hand and standing on the other hand.\nAnd the Court was quite careful in that case as it was I think in Abbot itself to distinguish between the two situations to say that before we get to the question of judicial review or reviewability, we have to resolve standing and then it went on to say that the Court was very far from assuming that the courts are charged more than administrators or legislators with the protection of the rights of the people.\nUnder Article 3, Congress established courts to adjudicate cases and controversies as to claims of infringement of individual right.\nThat is that there must be -- there must be some special claims on nexus as the Court has put it in Jenkins versus McKeithen just last term.\nI have that here some place.\nThe Court said that something more than an adversary interest is necessary to confer standing.\nThere must be some connection between the official action challenged and some legally protected interest of the party challenging that action.\nAgain protection, I can't imagine that those words are casually used.\nIn every one of these courts, this Court's opinion has also been an emphasis on specificity and I can't imagine that either was inadvertent.\nIt seems to me that the Court has always restrained itself from the position of appearing to be a general overseer of the conduct of government business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2404.155, 2406.764, 2418.814, 2422.808, 2431.287, 2451.029, 2481.891, 2490.047, 2503.382, 2505.903, 2510.801, 2518.244, 2523.228, 2531.975], "stop_times": [2406.764, 2418.814, 2422.808, 2431.287, 2451.029, 2481.891, 2490.047, 2503.382, 2505.903, 2510.801, 2518.244, 2523.228, 2531.975, 2541.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.155}, "reply_to": "14884__1_029", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_031", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2541.828], "stop_times": [2546.991], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.828}, "reply_to": "14884__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_032", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, that\u2019s certainly true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2546.991], "stop_times": [2548.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.991}, "reply_to": "14884__1_031", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_033", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2548.766], "stop_times": [2559.997], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.766}, "reply_to": "14884__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_034", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, maybe I should start with another.\nIf I may, this is in response to your question I think.\nIt is quite clear isn't it that if petitioners or rather if you are right.\nIf the directions of your questions are leading, it won't be only petitioners that have standing.\nIt will be every farmer in the country, every cotton farmer in the country who is displeased by something the Secretary of Agriculture has done.\nWho thinks that he ought to have gotten more, that the level of benefits set off to have been a little higher who will have standing to come in because it's quite clear that in a benefit context this statute is meant to benefit.\nNot just tenants and deep principally people other than tenants.\nEven among those who pay cash rent principally people other than tenant, so that were not talking about just tenants versus nobody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2559.997, 2565.87, 2569.444, 2573.804, 2579.438, 2587.527, 2600.562, 2604.401], "stop_times": [2565.87, 2569.444, 2573.804, 2579.438, 2587.527, 2600.562, 2604.401, 2615.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.997}, "reply_to": "14884__1_033", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_035", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Assume the Secretary had at the bar had left the regulations just like they were before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2615.063], "stop_times": [2623.233], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.063}, "reply_to": "14884__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_036", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2623.233], "stop_times": [2624.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.233}, "reply_to": "14884__1_035", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_037", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "And the tenant came in and said \u201cGee!\nMr. Secretary I just can't stay on my land because the landlord wants security and I want to give it to him but you say I can't have it.\nI can assign it now.\nWe think -- I would like to challenge your interpretation of this Section.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2624.994, 2627.948, 2635.551, 2636.665], "stop_times": [2627.948, 2635.551, 2636.665, 2642.43], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.994}, "reply_to": "14884__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_038", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, in fact if that had happened, I assume that the much more numerous part owners would have been arguing just that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2642.43], "stop_times": [2649.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.43}, "reply_to": "14884__1_037", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_039", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, I know but how about standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2649.075], "stop_times": [2651.164], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.075}, "reply_to": "14884__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_040", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think they have no standing.\nIt seemed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2651.164, 2653.829], "stop_times": [2653.829, 2654.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.164}, "reply_to": "14884__1_039", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_041", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "You have to go -- you would both ways on it and you have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2654.73], "stop_times": [2657.516], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.73}, "reply_to": "14884__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_042", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Oh certainly!\nWe certainly do.\nIt's either all farmers or none and we think in that situation the choice is none that this Court's cases have traditionally and consistently limited standing to the area of protection and not simple benefits.\nAnd indeed we don't understand petitioners to argue differently because they seem to be arguing that either tenants will be able to get review or no one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2657.516, 2658.803, 2659.565, 2673.575], "stop_times": [2658.803, 2659.565, 2673.575, 2682.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.516}, "reply_to": "14884__1_041", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_043", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Or they might have been more understanding -- I recognize --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2682.219], "stop_times": [2688.26], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.219}, "reply_to": "14884__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_044", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2688.26], "stop_times": [2688.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2688.26}, "reply_to": "14884__1_043", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_045", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The relationship between the two obviously of your understanding as to their relationships.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2688.661], "stop_times": [2695.124], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.661}, "reply_to": "14884__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_046", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The court did grant certiorari on the question of the merits when it was merited in the petition and I don't think I would suggest that it was improper for it to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2695.124], "stop_times": [2703.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.124}, "reply_to": "14884__1_045", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_047", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, did the lower court decide anything more than the standing case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2703.629], "stop_times": [2707.045], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.629}, "reply_to": "14884__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_048", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I don't think so although again I would have to agree with the petitioners that it certainly gave some very broad hint about where it's fused were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2707.045], "stop_times": [2715.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.045}, "reply_to": "14884__1_047", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_049", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Is that what certainly Judge Turtle's consent, for example was solely understanding the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2715.4], "stop_times": [2720.311], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.4}, "reply_to": "14884__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_050", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, he did go on to reach the merits but the majority did decide in terms of decision.\nIt decided only that the standing issue.\nIndeed in Abbot Laboratory for example the court remanded in addition to the cases which were cited in our brief.\nExcuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2720.311, 2728.232, 2730.206, 2739.479], "stop_times": [2728.232, 2730.206, 2739.479, 2740.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2720.311}, "reply_to": "14884__1_049", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_051", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Abbot Laboratories was not on standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2740.31], "stop_times": [2742.202], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.31}, "reply_to": "14884__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_052", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No but it was a similar kind of situation in which jurisprudential questions were raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2742.202], "stop_times": [2747.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.202}, "reply_to": "14884__1_051", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_053", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Their answer is not standing.\nTheir right was not standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2747.138, 2748.074], "stop_times": [2748.074, 2749.598], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.138}, "reply_to": "14884__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_054", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "That's right but at the conclusion of its opinion it did then refuse to pass on the merits although it had been pressed to do so in the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2749.598], "stop_times": [2756.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.598}, "reply_to": "14884__1_053", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_055", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "To my understanding of the merits of course are always declined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2756.336], "stop_times": [2760.859], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.336}, "reply_to": "14884__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_056", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Certainly true, certainly true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2760.859], "stop_times": [2764.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.859}, "reply_to": "14884__1_055", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_057", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Have both questions been argued by both parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2764.977], "stop_times": [2767.555], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2764.977}, "reply_to": "14884__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_058", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Both questions have been argued by both parties in this Court, that's right.\nI don't think that there is any jurisdictional objection to the Court passing on the merits but we do think that ordinary sound practice of the court is to wait for the Court of Appeals to present its view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2767.555, 2773.586], "stop_times": [2773.586, 2783.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.555}, "reply_to": "14884__1_057", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_059", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, well there is no jurisdiction with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2783.814], "stop_times": [2786.082], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.814}, "reply_to": "14884__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_060", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, if I may for a moment go back to this because I think it --this matter is particularly revealing that we have in Section (d) 10.\nA Section which said \u201cnow the secretary must protect the tenants\u201d and yet petitioners aren't claiming standing under the Section.\nThey say their standing as under Section (d) 13 because Section (d) 13 was meant to protect the tenants.\nWhy do they that?\nThere is a reason for that it seems to us, if they relied on the express obligation of the Secretary instead of what they think is implicit in the assignment provision as the basis of either of standing or the merits.\nThen they would have to face up to the facts that the assignment provisions are not for tenants or cash tenants alone but for all cotton farmers.\nAnd facing up to that fact, the judgment whether assignments to finance the farming expense of cash rent are proper is much more difficult than it appears on the petitioner's view of the statute as meant for tenants alone.\nPetitioners say in their reply brief that the issue here is whether landlord shall be allowed unrestricted access to the credit generated by federal benefit.\nWe fully agree that the tenants -- the landlords are not to be allowed unrestricted access.\nTheir access is restricted and really the question here is by how much?\nPerhaps the regulations which exist are inadequate, we don't think so and petitioners don't claim it.\nIf they did, we would have to agree that they were properly here, instead they seek to block even properly restricted access by landlords to assignments with the effect that not only tenants would be unable to make them but also the much more numerous class of part owners who may equally need this financing tool and who are not present on the scene in 1938 when Section 8 (g) was passed and such numbers or such forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2786.082, 2799.664, 2808.397, 2816.286, 2817.21, 2831.135, 2838.473, 2851.125, 2861.567, 2867.219, 2873.17, 2879.4], "stop_times": [2799.664, 2808.397, 2816.286, 2817.21, 2831.135, 2838.473, 2851.125, 2861.567, 2867.219, 2873.17, 2879.4, 2907.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.082}, "reply_to": "14884__1_059", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_061", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "If this people do not have standing, who in your judgment would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2907.47], "stop_times": [2911.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.47}, "reply_to": "14884__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14884__1_062", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, as I was explaining to Justice White Mr. Justice Black, it seems to me that the choice of this court faces -- is in part not a choice between this people and no one but all farmers and no one unless this Court is able to find that there is a legally protected interest, distinct from a simple intent to benefit.\nNow if this court finds from the legislative history that Congress meant to protect the interests of tenants.\nSpecific interest of tenants in a manner related to this statute as the court has repeatedly said must be done in Jenkins versus McKeithen and Flast versus Cohen and its other cases.\nIf there is a legally protected interest which is related in that way, well of course petitioners have standing.\nThat is the issue here.\nIf they have no legally protected interest, if all they have is a simple claim to a benefit under the Act then they have no more standing than any other farmer.\nIt's either all farmers or none and I think that in the obvious the Government's is the Government\u2019s position on the issue.\nAnd I would also say to go back to Abbot Laboratory versus Gardner, it does seem to me that this question -- well if this people can't challenge it, who can?\nThat question involve the issue of reviewability and the issue of reviewability it seems to us in Abbot, in Stark, this Court has very carefully distinguished from the issue of standing as the question you get to once, you decide that there is a legally protected interest.\nThen since the interest is there, since it is protected, since it's meant to be honored by Congress then of course there is some presumption that Congress would want those people to be able to go into court and enforce it.\nBut you have to decide first that the interest is a protected one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [2911.488, 2937.789, 2946.425, 2958.33, 2964.568, 2966.052, 2976.465, 2984.455, 2997.074, 3012.411, 3026.125], "stop_times": [2937.789, 2946.425, 2958.33, 2964.568, 2966.052, 2976.465, 2984.455, 2997.074, 3012.411, 3026.125, 3031.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.488}, "reply_to": "14884__1_061", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_063", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Is the second question on the merit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3031.555], "stop_times": [3035.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.555}, "reply_to": "14884__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_064", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What I've just been speaking too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3035.013], "stop_times": [3036.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.013}, "reply_to": "14884__1_063", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_065", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3036.227], "stop_times": [3036.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.227}, "reply_to": "14884__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_066", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, I think its part of the standing issue that is I'm trying to persuade the court that the language in Abbot is really not language which ought to be applied in the standing issue.\nIt is not relevant to the question at stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3036.606, 3049.386], "stop_times": [3049.386, 3051.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.606}, "reply_to": "14884__1_065", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_067", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "It was intended to protect them according to your judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3051.289], "stop_times": [3055.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.289}, "reply_to": "14884__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_068", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3055.607], "stop_times": [3056.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.607}, "reply_to": "14884__1_067", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_069", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "By standing it could defend upon whether the act was intended to protect them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3056.414], "stop_times": [3060.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.414}, "reply_to": "14884__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_070", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "That's right and was intended to protect them in around a very specific way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3060.948], "stop_times": [3062.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.948}, "reply_to": "14884__1_069", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_071", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well that's the issue on the merit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3062.641], "stop_times": [3065.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.641}, "reply_to": "14884__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_072", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, I think that's the issue on standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3065.018], "stop_times": [3066.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.018}, "reply_to": "14884__1_071", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_073", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "To a certain extent in another question, have you shown the merits also?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3066.385], "stop_times": [3069.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.385}, "reply_to": "14884__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_074", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "It is also a part of the issue on the merits.\nObviously this are closely intertwined but as in Hardin for example, the court found that on the standing issue was the TBA act intended to protect certain competitors and the court found that it was in the abstract as a legal proposition.\nThen on the facts of the case resoling disputed factual issues on the merits, it went ahead and it said well but nonetheless.\nThis treatment of this particular issue doesn't depend on the statute; well I don't think there's any necessity to argue the merits of length.\nI think our arguments are fairly adequately set out in the briefs and implicit in what I have said before.\nI just want to make a couple of very quick points.\nFirst, that we are dealing here, the Government insist were dealing here with a 1965 statute not with a 1938 statute and in connection with that -- well this Court may decide that making a crop means this or that, we think that the reasons we've set out on the brief that it very comfortably accommodates what the Secretary has done but of course the court could disagree --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3069.959, 3072.083, 3089.346, 3098.151, 3112.306, 3118.292, 3122.236], "stop_times": [3072.083, 3089.346, 3098.151, 3112.306, 3118.292, 3122.236, 3150.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.959}, "reply_to": "14884__1_073", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_075", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "You're arguing with the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3150.145], "stop_times": [3152.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.145}, "reply_to": "14884__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_076", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Just very briefly Mr. Justice Douglas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3152.067], "stop_times": [3153.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.067}, "reply_to": "14884__1_075", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_077", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "We didn't allow the petitioner to argue the merits very briefly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3153.953], "stop_times": [3158.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.953}, "reply_to": "14884__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_078", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well if you wish me to stop, I will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3158.738], "stop_times": [3160.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3158.738}, "reply_to": "14884__1_077", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_079", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well you think -- No, I don't care.\nDo you think the merits are here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3160.111, 3162.513], "stop_times": [3162.513, 3165.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.111}, "reply_to": "14884__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14884__1_080", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I think the Court could reach the merits if it wish too although its sound practice has not been not to do so under any circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3165.172], "stop_times": [3171.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.172}, "reply_to": "14884__1_079", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_081", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Why should we (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3171.08], "stop_times": [3173.348], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.08}, "reply_to": "14884__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_082", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I don't see any reason in this case to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3173.348], "stop_times": [3176.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.348}, "reply_to": "14884__1_081", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_083", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I would prefer if you would say something about the merits if you want to argue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3176.363], "stop_times": [3183.631], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.363}, "reply_to": "14884__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__1_084", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The points I -- the point I wanted to make was only this while we think what the Secretary has done comes within the comfortable meaning of financing the expenses of making a crop.\nExpensive rent is an obvious expense of producing cotton or any other crop.\nPerhaps this Court will disagree that would do the Government and the law will particularly deserve it but petitioners make an argument that it seems to us to be quite dangerous.\nThey say because the Secretary interpreted this obscure provision of the law in 1938 under another program which went out of practical existence in 1942.\nIn a particular way now we can't reinterpret that provision at all and we think that that proposition that Congress in 1965 despite legislative history which says absolutely nothing about the meaning of this provision.\nAbout how it was applied, about whether it was meant to protect tenants or not that if this Court was to say that nonetheless it's reenactment of the statute in 1965 froze into law the prior administrative interpretation.\nThat would be an extraordinarily harmful thing and this Court remarked does not particularly to our advantage as it was in the Leary case last term.\nIn connection with Leary, there was an argument, the Government made the argument that the interpretation of the Bureau of Narcotics which had existed for so long ought to be confirmed because there was legislative reenactment at a subsequent time and much less sweeping propositions and since it didn't in any way foreclose the possibility of future change.\nAnd this Court responded the scanty legislative history accompanying the reenactment gives no hint that Congress knew of this particular regulations much less the indirect impact now scribed to them.\nThat language is peculiarly applicable here and it seems to us to say on the basis of the very scanty legislative history that it exists that the prior interpretation was frozen into law would have all kinds of untoward consequences for future administrative law cases bearing no resemblance at all the facts of this case.\nThe Government submits that the judgment below should be affirmed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3183.631, 3194.999, 3199.842, 3211.038, 3222.413, 3239.547, 3257.547, 3268.866, 3292.36, 3304.009, 3328.918, 3331.752], "stop_times": [3194.999, 3199.842, 3211.038, 3222.413, 3239.547, 3257.547, 3268.866, 3292.36, 3304.009, 3328.918, 3331.752, 3333.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.631}, "reply_to": "14884__1_083", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14884__1_085", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Thank you Mr. Strauss.\nMr. Edgar you have about six minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3333.314, 3334.366], "stop_times": [3334.366, 3339.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.314}, "reply_to": "14884__1_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14884__2_000", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Your Honor I'd like to first speak a bit about whether a remand would be appropriate in this case under both the Governments\u2019 discussion of standing and on our discussion of standing.\nThe plaintiff -- the purpose of the assignment provision is put very much in question in order to decide whether standing exists.\nIn view of the necessity of elucidating the purposes underlying the law that there is very closely on the scope of the discretion that the Secretary has in changing interpretations of the meaning of the statutory language that are well settled, that have been well settled.\nAnd in view of that fact, it would seem to us that in to remand the question once that task had been done in this Court to remand that question to the courts below would be inappropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3339.845, 3355.315, 3364.862, 3382.25], "stop_times": [3355.315, 3364.862, 3382.25, 3395.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3339.845}, "reply_to": "14884__1_085", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_001", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Once you carry that it's the logical conclusion, what you do is wipe out standing as a fact of it all.\nYou might as well reach the merits on all this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3395.764, 3405.037], "stop_times": [3405.037, 3407.442], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3395.764}, "reply_to": "14884__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_002", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No Your Honor, I don't think -- may I give an example?\nFor example suppose a landowner sued under Section 8 (g) regardless of whether that deals with tenants with all farmers, it doesn't deal with the interest of landowners.\nStanding would be very appropriate means of disposing of that case.\nThe land owners simply lack standing to come in and sue under this particular act and it involves no -- it involves the consideration of the purposes underlying the Act of course but it does not require you to reach the scope of discretion that the Secretary has to define the terms of the language at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3407.442, 3411.893, 3422.033, 3426.27], "stop_times": [3411.893, 3422.033, 3426.27, 3444.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3407.442}, "reply_to": "14884__2_001", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_003", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, of course that's a very easy case, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3444.608], "stop_times": [3450.08], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.608}, "reply_to": "14884__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_004", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What about the cash tenant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3450.08], "stop_times": [3452.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.08}, "reply_to": "14884__2_003", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_005", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I beg your pardon, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3452.091], "stop_times": [3452.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3452.091}, "reply_to": "14884__2_004", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_006", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What about the cash tenant, who pays his rent in cash?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3452.796], "stop_times": [3457.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3452.796}, "reply_to": "14884__2_005", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_007", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well these are petitioners Your Honor, our cash tenants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3457.567], "stop_times": [3460.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3457.567}, "reply_to": "14884__2_006", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_008", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What about the tenant farmers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3460.192], "stop_times": [3462.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.192}, "reply_to": "14884__2_007", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_009", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The tenant farmers here Your Honor are those who pay rent in cash.\nThe Secretary has not although taking the new view that land -- payments for land are part of making a crop does not permit such assignments to be made by share properties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3462.237, 3466.872], "stop_times": [3466.872, 3476.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3462.237}, "reply_to": "14884__2_008", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_010", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "So you've got both groups?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3476.442], "stop_times": [3478.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3476.442}, "reply_to": "14884__2_009", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_011", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, we have the cash tenants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3478.072], "stop_times": [3480.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3478.072}, "reply_to": "14884__2_010", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_012", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well what about the other kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3480.506], "stop_times": [3482.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.506}, "reply_to": "14884__2_011", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_013", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "They are not -- they have not been harmed by the change in the definition although the inconsistency of the Secretary's approach is made manifest by the fact that he alters it for purposes of paying cash rent yet not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3482.189], "stop_times": [3493.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3482.189}, "reply_to": "14884__2_012", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_014", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, that's my point, if it's inconsistent or in error, does that give you standing?\nIf it's inconsistent or in error, does that give you standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3493.511, 3502.906], "stop_times": [3502.906, 3508.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.511}, "reply_to": "14884__2_013", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_015", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Mere error is not -- does not give you standing, no Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3508.202], "stop_times": [3510.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3508.202}, "reply_to": "14884__2_014", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_016", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "So we don't need to get to the merits uphold, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3510.693], "stop_times": [3515.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3510.693}, "reply_to": "14884__2_015", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_017", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Well, the point -- my point is Your Honor that the merits, the question on the merits is very closely interrelated to the purposes of the Act to the extent that the Act does have a purpose to protect to that extent that Secretary's interpretation of the statutory language which removes protection is less permissible.\nIt's impermissible as the plainness of the congressional intent becomes what is found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3515.395, 3538.344], "stop_times": [3538.344, 3546.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3515.395}, "reply_to": "14884__2_016", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_018", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What is the question on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3546.341], "stop_times": [3548.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3546.341}, "reply_to": "14884__2_017", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14884__2_019", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "The question on the merits is whether the term making a crop, the term that has agricultural long legislative history but it does not mean paying rent for land whether the Secretary can redefine it in order to permit tenant farmers to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3548.014], "stop_times": [3569.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3548.014}, "reply_to": "14884__2_018", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_020", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Does that require any evidence?\nThe determination of that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3569.171, 3571.865], "stop_times": [3571.865, 3573.601], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3569.171}, "reply_to": "14884__2_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_021", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3573.601, 3573.999], "stop_times": [3573.999, 3575.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3573.601}, "reply_to": "14884__2_020", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_022", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "What is it?\nIs it purely a question of statutory construction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3575.107, 3575.774], "stop_times": [3575.774, 3578.611], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3575.107}, "reply_to": "14884__2_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_023", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Purely a question of statutory construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3578.611], "stop_times": [3580.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3578.611}, "reply_to": "14884__2_022", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_024", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "How long has this case already been pending?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3580.625], "stop_times": [3583.427], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3580.625}, "reply_to": "14884__2_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_025", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Approximately three-and-a-half years Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3583.427], "stop_times": [3586.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3583.427}, "reply_to": "14884__2_024", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_026", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Two-and-a-half years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3586.344], "stop_times": [3587.39], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3586.344}, "reply_to": "14884__2_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_027", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3587.39], "stop_times": [3588.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3587.39}, "reply_to": "14884__2_026", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_028", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Three-and-a-half years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3588.084], "stop_times": [3589.308], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3588.084}, "reply_to": "14884__2_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_029", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I may be mistaken, I believe it's three.\nIt was 66 it was brought --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3589.308, 3592.753], "stop_times": [3592.753, 3594.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3589.308}, "reply_to": "14884__2_028", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_030", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "How long would it probably take if it went back to find it's way back to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3594.371], "stop_times": [3597.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3594.371}, "reply_to": "14884__2_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_031", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Your Honor it would probably go back to the Fifth Circuit which has already intimated its views.\nI don't know what the timing is, I would think of another year at least before the Fifth Circuit would rule on the remand and the case might be heard again in this Court but I'm not aware of the docket so that will be Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3597.511, 3603.949], "stop_times": [3603.949, 3614.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3597.511}, "reply_to": "14884__2_030", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_032", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "That was truly a legal decision including the words, the language of the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3614.491], "stop_times": [3621.22], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3614.491}, "reply_to": "14884__2_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_033", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3621.22], "stop_times": [3621.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3621.22}, "reply_to": "14884__2_032", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_034", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "But you advise no evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3621.823], "stop_times": [3623.729], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3621.823}, "reply_to": "14884__2_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_035", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nSorry sir.\nNow on this point we are aware that the Secretary has issued regulations under Section (d) 10.\nThe point is however that the Secretary as the Government made clear in its opposition has construed this regulations not to bar a landowner from removing a tenant from the land when he does not assign his credit over.\nThat is the precise point at issue respondents brief in opposition says that the Secretary of Agriculture informs the Government that that is the way those regulations have been construed that this harm can continue.\nNow the problem of protecting tenant farmers --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3623.729, 3624.812, 3625.417, 3632.206, 3650.52, 3661.839], "stop_times": [3624.812, 3625.417, 3632.206, 3650.52, 3661.839, 3664.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3623.729}, "reply_to": "14884__2_034", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_036", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "I suppose we weren't committed to authority of writ (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3664.973], "stop_times": [3674.428], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3664.973}, "reply_to": "14884__2_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_037", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "No, Your Honor he cannot, this is the point which I wish to develop.\nThere is a network of federal regulations precluding land owners from terminating the tenancy of their tenants.\nUnder the D10 regulations, he is not permitted to simply go to his tenant and say \u201cI'm sorry, if you can't pay your money I don't want to rent you anymore, I'm raising the rent\u201d he cannot raise the rent, he cannot alter the terms of the\u2014well there are limitations on his ability to alter the terms of the statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3674.428, 3677.455, 3685.655], "stop_times": [3677.455, 3685.655, 3704.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3674.428}, "reply_to": "14884__2_036", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_038", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "You have taken him off for non-payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3704.949], "stop_times": [3707.764], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3704.949}, "reply_to": "14884__2_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14884__2_039", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "If he can.\nIf he does not pay at settlement date he can take them off but only on that day and there is this long pattern of protecting federal benefits against user payment by landowners and this credit right is right to assign is another form of federal benefit.\nIt is being -- the Secretary is permitting its use of pay by it's -- by it's -- by his impermissible redefinition of the term making a crop.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3707.764, 3710.059, 3727.886, 3736.197], "stop_times": [3710.059, 3727.886, 3736.197, 3736.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3707.764}, "reply_to": "14884__2_038", "speaker": "harold_edgar"}
{"id": "14884__2_040", "conversation_id": "14884", "text": "Thank you Mr. Edgar.\nThank you for your submission.\nThank you Mr. Strauss.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_249", "start_times": [3736.807, 3738.068, 3739.331, 3740.377], "stop_times": [3738.068, 3739.331, 3740.377, 3743.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3736.807}, "reply_to": "14884__2_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_000", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "We'll hear argument in number 27, Boddie against Connecticut.\nMr. LaFrance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [0.0, 39.123], "stop_times": [39.123, 40.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_001", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMay it please the Court.\nI am the counsel for the appellants in this proceeding which involves a direct appeal from the District Court for the District of Connecticut where a three-judge panel dismissed appellant's complaint.\nAppellants had alleged that they are welfare recipients who seek to divorce their husbands in the Courts of Connecticut, but could not afford to pay the court costs imposed by the State of Connecticut of roughly $60.00.\nThey further alleged that the Connecticut Court officials had refused to waive those costs.\nAppellant sought an injunction on the basis that the fee statute was unconstitutional, requesting the District Court to order the Connecticut Courts to accept appellant's divorce papers for filing and to arrange service of process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [40.622, 42.322, 43.743, 56.864, 74.02, 81.035], "stop_times": [42.322, 43.743, 56.864, 74.02, 81.035, 97.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.622}, "reply_to": "15507__0_000", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_002", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "When were these papers originally filed approximately?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [97.732], "stop_times": [101.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.732}, "reply_to": "15507__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_003", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "At the end of March in 1968 Your Honor.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [101.851, 106.17], "stop_times": [106.17, 106.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.851}, "reply_to": "15507__0_002", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_004", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "March 68 to now, I suppose we must assume they have not been able to accumulate $60.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [106.517], "stop_times": [115.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.517}, "reply_to": "15507__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_005", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is correct with at least five of them Your Honor.\nAs to two of the original named plaintiffs, their participation in this proceeding has been withdrawn.\nBefore appearing here today, I asked one of the people attached to the neighborhood office where I was formerly employed to check with the appellants to make certain that they are in fact still interested in this proceeding.\nBecause of the shortage of time, only four of the remaining seven were contacted, they are still married after a fashion and still emphatically undivorced and still unable to raise the fees necessary to initiate a divorce proceeding in Connecticut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [115.168, 119.993, 126.509, 140.75], "stop_times": [119.993, 126.509, 140.75, 159.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.168}, "reply_to": "15507__0_004", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_006", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "How much of a showing have they made with respect to their indigency if you wish to call it that.\nAnd second has any showing then brought up to date from March of 1968 to now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [159.101, 173.794], "stop_times": [173.794, 182.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.101}, "reply_to": "15507__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_007", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "With response to the first or in response to the first question Your Honor, the showing which was submitted to the Courts of Connecticut and to the District Court consisted of affidavits which appear in the Appendix in this Court indicating the family situation, the income situation, the economic responsibilities of the appellants and we would argue clearly establishing indigency at that time.\nNow, we've never had an evidentiary hearing on the issue of indigency because this case was resolved in the District Court on the pleadings and for the purposes of this appeal and for the purposes of the District Court, indigency was conceded.\nAt the present time, there is nothing before this Court updating that showing of some two and half years ago.\nI suppose if this Court were to hold in favor of the appellants, a remand would be appropriate and if that time as to any of the appellants in the case, the state would have an opportunity to challenge their indigency.\nIt is appellant's contention that the conduct of the appellees has denied the Due Process rights specifically and particularly with respect to the right to petition for redress and grievances.\nThis is a right which appears in the First Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as reflected in the decisions of this Court such as NAACP versus Button, United Mine Workers versus Illinois Decision, Railway Train Man versus Virginia.\nThe right to petition as this Court has recognized, there's a fundamental right as long ago as Chambers versus Baltimore on Ohio Railway.\nThis Court said that the right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force in an organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundations of orderly Government.\nSince this case was argued last year, two decisions of this Court have been rendered which I feel bear upon the position of the appellants, at least with respect to their Due Process argument.\nI refer to Sniadach versus Family Finance and Goldberg versus Kelly.\nEssentially, both of those cases held that before the property interest of a citizen can be impaired or affected by state action, a hearing must be a for due.\nThe appellants seek that very same hearing, and yet their position is more critical than that of the position of the appellants in Goldberg versus Kelly and in Sniadach because in this instance, not only have the appellants been denied a prior hearing which was the issue in Sniadach and Goldberg but they have been denied any hearing at all.\nThey have simply been denied the opportunity to seek a divorce in the Courts of Connecticut.\nFor this reason, appellants maintain their right to Due Process has been denied of equal importance is the other aspect of our argument which relates to the right to Equal Protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.\nAs long ago, as 1941, Mr. Justice Jackson wrote in Edwards versus California that the mere state of being without funds is a neutral fact constitutionally and irrelevant, like race, creed or color.\nMore recent decisions of this Court have indicated that poverty, like race is a suspect criteria, and when a state discriminates among its citizens upon the basis of poverty, then it must make the same showing to justify that discrimination as would be required if the discrimination were racial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [182.459, 210.131, 227.624, 235.606, 251.794, 267.138, 287.755, 297.116, 312.4, 326.424, 332.395, 349.306, 372.769, 379.975, 401.026, 418.771], "stop_times": [210.131, 227.624, 235.606, 251.794, 267.138, 287.755, 297.116, 312.4, 326.424, 332.395, 349.306, 372.769, 379.975, 401.026, 418.771, 443.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.459}, "reply_to": "15507__0_006", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_008", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. LaFrance, let me follow through a little bit on your Equal Protection argument.\nSuppose instead of wanting the divorce, your clients wanted to get married and the marriage license worth $3.00.\nWould you say that Equal Protection demands that they be given the marriage license without payment of the fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [443.109, 449.262, 458.875], "stop_times": [449.262, 458.875, 465.679], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 443.109}, "reply_to": "15507__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_009", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I would Your Honor, if a demonstration were made that in point of fact, they could not afford that fee, and the reason is simply this; although a dog license for example may not affect the matter of constitutional import, this Court is said that marriage appropriation are basic civil liberties of man, and I refer to Loving versus Virginia, Skinner versus Oklahoma and Griswold versus Connecticut.\nAnd so, the appellant's position would be that whenever a fee is attached to a state franchised activity which is of constitutional magnitude, then that fee must be waived on behalf of an indigent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [465.679, 497.532], "stop_times": [497.532, 513.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.679}, "reply_to": "15507__0_008", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_010", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well then, you drawn no distinction between the need for a divorce and the desire to marry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [513.691], "stop_times": [522.691], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 513.691}, "reply_to": "15507__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_011", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is within limitations, correct.\nWe're primarily concerned or we're particularly concerned about divorce in this case because it carries with it the right to marry or re-marry I should say.\nThe right to procreate with someone other than the present spouse, so that in the context of this case, divorce and marriage are very closely linked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [522.691, 528.458, 539.202], "stop_times": [528.458, 539.202, 549.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.691}, "reply_to": "15507__0_010", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_012", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Does your record show in any way that re-marriage was contemplated by the parties or any of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [549.132], "stop_times": [555.939], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 549.132}, "reply_to": "15507__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_013", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, it does not Your Honor.\nLegal structure of Connecticut and of most states is such that divorce carries with it the right to re-marry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [555.939, 558.873], "stop_times": [558.873, 565.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.939}, "reply_to": "15507__0_012", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_014", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Then, let me ask the next question which you indicated.\nWould you carry your Equal Protection Clause to a -- the fishing license or dog license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [565.064, 569.27], "stop_times": [569.27, 577.405], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 565.064}, "reply_to": "15507__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_015", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, I would not.\nAt least --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [577.405, 580.722], "stop_times": [580.722, 581.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.405}, "reply_to": "15507__0_014", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_016", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And draw the distinction where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [581.17], "stop_times": [582.175], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 581.17}, "reply_to": "15507__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_017", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [582.175], "stop_times": [583.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.175}, "reply_to": "15507__0_016", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_018", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You draw the line and where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [583.072], "stop_times": [584.451], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 583.072}, "reply_to": "15507__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_019", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I draw the line with respect the constitutionally protected interest.\nFor example, we are here and not talking simply about divorce.\nWe are here talking about the right to access to the Courts.\nThe First Amendment speaks about this specifically.\nIt says nothing about fishing licenses or dog licenses.\nYou asked me a moment ago about marriage.\nThis Court has said that marriage is a basic civil liberty.\nTaking that statement as a given at accepting it, then I would argue further that conditioning a basic civil liberty on the ability to pay for it is an impermissible state regulation of constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [584.451, 591.508, 594.792, 598.42, 601.226, 606.074, 608.744, 613.642], "stop_times": [591.508, 594.792, 598.42, 601.226, 606.074, 608.744, 613.642, 629.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.451}, "reply_to": "15507__0_018", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_020", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Would the right to fish in a lake of Connecticut as a civil liberty right, if there are any lakes in Connecticut with fish left in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [629.582], "stop_times": [641.777], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 629.582}, "reply_to": "15507__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__0_021", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "There are some.\nI would say that it is a right.\nI suppose the distinction which becomes important is the distinction, let us say, between Shapiro versus Thompson on the one hand, and Williams versus Dandridge on the other.\nIn Williams versus Dandridge, maximum grants were upheld in welfare cases by this Court.\nIn Shapiro versus Thompson in welfare cases, residency restrictions were stricken down.\nThe difference was not that they weren't rights or interests in both cases, but that the right in Shapiro versus Thompson was deemed to be a constitutional right, the right of free travel in the United States.\nWhereas in Williams versus Dandridge, the majority of this Court concluded that although there were interests being affected by the state's economic regulation.\nThey were not of constitutional dimension and as a consequence, the showing by the State of a reasonable purpose for regulation was sufficient to justify maximum grants.\nI don't know if this is responsive, but it would be the distinction which I would draw for example between access to the courts and the fishing license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [641.777, 643.644, 646.213, 656.765, 662.102, 666.786, 680.449, 692.512, 706.379], "stop_times": [643.644, 646.213, 656.765, 662.102, 666.786, 680.449, 692.512, 706.379, 715.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.777}, "reply_to": "15507__0_020", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_022", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. LaFrance, what do you do about man who wants to sue to prevent pollution of the air by the electric company in New Heaven?\nWould he have to pay fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [715.671, 725.412], "stop_times": [725.412, 728.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.671}, "reply_to": "15507__0_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_023", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Not if he is indigent Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [728.865], "stop_times": [731.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.865}, "reply_to": "15507__0_022", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_024", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But you want that in the same indigent protection, you have a criminal prosecution.\nDo you happen o go that far in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [731.541, 741.833], "stop_times": [741.833, 745.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.541}, "reply_to": "15507__0_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_025", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I don't believe so.\nWe at least want the same protection that is afforded in criminal cases as to the opportunity for a hearing.\nWe would not go beyond that and maintain that the criminal protections for example, involving appointed counsel are necessary in civil cases, and there are number of distinctions which are relevant.\nFor example --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [745.486, 747.266, 757.255, 773.173], "stop_times": [747.266, 757.255, 773.173, 775.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.486}, "reply_to": "15507__0_024", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_026", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, suppose the person is filed for air pollution and some legal aid society takes over the lawyer part, it doesn't pay his fees, and then he wants to appeal and takes care of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [775.237], "stop_times": [797.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.237}, "reply_to": "15507__0_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_027", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I'm sorry Your Honor, I didn't understand the question. With respect to the appeal, who would take care of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [797.318], "stop_times": [802.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.318}, "reply_to": "15507__0_026", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_028", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Cost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [802.742], "stop_times": [805.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.742}, "reply_to": "15507__0_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_029", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "If the State could make a showing that the costs were necessary to maintaining the appellate system.\nThen, I suppose as a matter of Equal Protection that it could require appellate cost of an indigent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [805.202, 813.015], "stop_times": [813.015, 822.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.202}, "reply_to": "15507__0_028", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_030", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I personally don't know of any system that court cost take care of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [822.485], "stop_times": [829.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.485}, "reply_to": "15507__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_031", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [829.703], "stop_times": [830.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.703}, "reply_to": "15507__0_030", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_032", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "They never do.\nI mean, they always need that money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [830.975, 831.965], "stop_times": [831.965, 835.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.975}, "reply_to": "15507__0_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_033", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I agree.\nOne of the positions which the appellants have maintained in their brief is that the justification offered by the state for imposing cost on indigents simply is inadequate for the burden that results.\nFor example, in terms of producing revenues, it doesn't make sense to require that revenues be generated by the poor who simply are unable to produce them or to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [835.173, 835.747, 851.662], "stop_times": [835.747, 851.662, 861.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.173}, "reply_to": "15507__0_032", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_034", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It make much more sense with me, if you could draw a line other than saying that in all civil actions, the person without income can file without payment of fees, which is a pretty broad hump of litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [861.084], "stop_times": [879.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.084}, "reply_to": "15507__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_035", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And yet Your Honor in roughly half of the states, the very same type of informa pauperis litigation which we are arguing for today is provided as a matter of statute, and yet those states and their court systems don't seem to be crumbling under the burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [879.958], "stop_times": [896.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.958}, "reply_to": "15507__0_034", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_036", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "In all civil actions, typically tort, contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [896.569], "stop_times": [901.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.569}, "reply_to": "15507__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__0_037", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I have not surveyed the exact dimensions of these provisions, but at least as to some of the states, the door is that wide open, that is an indigent may simply file an action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [901.768], "stop_times": [912.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.768}, "reply_to": "15507__0_036", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_038", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Without what kinds of fees at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [912.999], "stop_times": [914.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.999}, "reply_to": "15507__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__0_039", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [914.91], "stop_times": [915.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.91}, "reply_to": "15507__0_038", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_040", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [915.401], "stop_times": [915.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.401}, "reply_to": "15507__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__0_041", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Supposing with this, supposing sue for million dollars and gets million dollars, can the state get his $20.00 file fee out of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [915.93], "stop_times": [925.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.93}, "reply_to": "15507__0_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_042", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I would think that it could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [925.283], "stop_times": [927.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.283}, "reply_to": "15507__0_041", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_043", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I'd hope so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [927.039], "stop_times": [929.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.039}, "reply_to": "15507__0_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__0_044", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, they have you interrupted counsel. You spoke in terms of a right that comes by way of the franchise.\nWould you say that a man who seeks of license to practice to carry on the business of being a barber of an electrician or a plumber, one of the license activities that have it substantial license fee or some due up to a $100.00 or more?\nIt's in the same category as your client here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [929.521, 940.202, 960.01], "stop_times": [940.202, 960.01, 965.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.521}, "reply_to": "15507__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_045", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I don't think that he is Your Honor.\nNow, as a matter of Equal Protection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [965.42, 967.901], "stop_times": [967.901, 970.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.42}, "reply_to": "15507__0_044", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_046", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Or isn't he -- isn't there an inherit right, constitutional right to engage in an occupation if you can pay the fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [970.14], "stop_times": [980.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.14}, "reply_to": "15507__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_047", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "There certainly is that, but they may also be a right on the part of the State.\nLegitimately to regulate certain types of activities and they may also be a right on the part of the state to impose licensing fees, examination fees, investigation fees, and the like.\nI'm thinking specifically of the $200.00 I'm going to have to be paying to the Arizona Bar Association within the next few months.\nBut the situation here is dramatically different because these appellants are seeking to exercise a right which specifically protected by the constitution which has body in the First Amendment.\nThe right of a plumber, I suppose is assured by the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause is against arbitrary or capricious discrimination, but the right of a person to go into Court is as fundamental as the right of a person to vote or the right of a person to exercise free speech or engage in political activity.\nAnd as to these before the state can impair these rights, it must demonstrate a compelling necessity for the regulation which it seeks to impose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [980.54, 984.717, 995.578, 1003.408, 1016.377, 1037.431], "stop_times": [984.717, 995.578, 1003.408, 1016.377, 1037.431, 1046.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.54}, "reply_to": "15507__0_046", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_048", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, does not the state in its capacity as parens patriae, if not on broader grounds have a deep interest in regulating the termination of the married state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1046.79], "stop_times": [1061.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.79}, "reply_to": "15507__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_049", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It certainly does that Your Honor.\nBut in this instance, the regulation involved, imposing a fee upon indigents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1061.981, 1066.298], "stop_times": [1066.298, 1072.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.981}, "reply_to": "15507__0_048", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_050", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1072.2], "stop_times": [1072.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.2}, "reply_to": "15507__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_051", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Does not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1072.615], "stop_times": [1072.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.615}, "reply_to": "15507__0_050", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_052", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Impose on everyone, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1072.963], "stop_times": [1075.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.963}, "reply_to": "15507__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_053", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes, but the only aspect of the fee system which is being challenged here today is that which operates against indigents and bars them from the courts.\nThe regulation which is involved is not particularly well calculated to save the family, since it applies to all types of litigation.\nIn addition of course, the courts of Connecticut have spoken with respect to divorce.\nThey have said that divorce is permissible, is authorized as a matter of state policy if grounds are shown, and yet, the state has gone farther and said we don't mean that's with respect the poor because as to them, we attach a further condition.\nThe condition that they cannot get a divorce unless they somehow aggregate their condition of poverty.\nThe Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Parks versus Parks cited in our last brief which we filed with this Court noted that, if in the District of Columbia in addition to the requirements which Congress has imposed for showing, for obtaining a divorce.\nIf there were a further requirement that only the wealthy or the affluent could obtain divorces.\nThen there would be issues of serious constitutional dimension raised, and I submit that this is the case which was contemplated by that Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1075.444, 1083.709, 1091.774, 1096.445, 1112.647, 1120.212, 1140.579, 1147.67], "stop_times": [1083.709, 1091.774, 1096.445, 1112.647, 1120.212, 1140.579, 1147.67, 1157.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.444}, "reply_to": "15507__0_052", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_054", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, that hypothetical really isn't worth very much because there is no state in the country that ever had any such a statute it has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1157.448], "stop_times": [1164.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.448}, "reply_to": "15507__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_055", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Except that the effect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1164.262], "stop_times": [1165.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.262}, "reply_to": "15507__0_054", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_056", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's the negatively, the negative impact is what you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1165.4], "stop_times": [1170.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.4}, "reply_to": "15507__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_057", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes, I am Your Honor.\nIn the things --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1170.33, 1171.766], "stop_times": [1171.766, 1172.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.33}, "reply_to": "15507__0_056", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_058", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "How are these -- suppose we agreed with you and decided the case the way you wanted to decide it, and the week afterwards, someone comes in and wants to get a divorce and they say now, I have plenty of money.\nBut if you don't let me file my action without the payment of the fee, you're denying me Equal Protection as compared with Gladys Boddie and the other people involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1172.787, 1190.266], "stop_times": [1190.266, 1206.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.787}, "reply_to": "15507__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__0_059", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I suppose that if that person would like to change places in light with Gladys Boddie.\nShe would be very happy to meet and then change place with him.\nI don't mean that entirely facetiously, because I don't believe there is an obligation upon the State to equalize all of the inequities of life.\nBut what we do contend here is that the State, when it creates a right or in this instance, when it forces a person to come to it to resolve that person's affairs.\nIt cannot create new inequities.\nIt cannot impose requirements which I suppose life itself does not impose.\nWhat we have here is a situation like that in Williams versus Illinois, decided in June of this past year, where a person who could not pay a fine was required to work it off in the State of Illinois.\nAnd this Court said that on its face, that's a perfectly reasonable equitable statute, except that in operation for the poor, it met an invidious discrimination.\nNow, I suppose that a prisoner in Illinois might appear someday before this Court and make the same argument that could be made with respect to Gladys Boddie that is that the indigent are receiving preferential treatment, but the thrust of this case is not that.\nIt is simply that the State cannot discriminate against the poor in structuring its legal system.\nWith respect to the Due Process and Equal Protection arguments which appellants have submitted to this Court.\nI suspect that the comments I've made by this time are at least a survey of our position.\nThere's one other aspect of our position which I would like to turn to, and that is the arguments or that is with reference to the arguments which the State has put forward to justify its fee system.\nThe fee system does not deter frivolous litigation or if it does, it does so only with respect to the poor and as to them, it deters all litigation.\nIt does not provide revenues, at least not from the poor because they aren't able to pay the fees.\nIt does not particularly or at least measurably conserve revenue or facilities or services in the court system.\nAnd even if it did, it has never been held or believed to my knowledge that that cost of constitutionally imposed burdens relieves the states from fulfilling those -- their duties under those burdens.\nIn Shapiro versus Thompson, this Court said that we recognized that if State has a valid interest in preserving the physical integrity of its programs.\nBut a State may not accomplish such a purpose by invidious discrimination between classes of its citizens.\nIt could not for example, reduce its expenditures for school by barring indigent children, and yet the State of Connecticut is attempting to reduce its expenditures for courts by barring indigent litigants.\nWe wish to emphasize that it is not enough for the appellees to show a mere rational basis for the fee system which operates in the State of Connecticut.\nThey must show more of compelling necessity for imposing court fees upon the poor.\nThis Court in Shapiro versus Thompson which I just quoted from said in essence that only a compelling necessity could justify discriminating among citizens on suspect criteria such as poverty or race, and discriminating in a manner which affects important rights such as the petition for redress of grievances.\nWe ask this Court to reverse the court below to give the relief which appellants seek.\nAnd in so doing, we have maintained in the last brief which we submitted to this Court that a holding in favor appellants can be narrowly based and narrowly limited in its implications.\nThis case involves a specific constitutional guarantee, the right to petition for redress of grievances.\nIt involves litigation concerning matters of constitutional magnitude marriage appropriation.\nFurther, it involves matters which cannot be settled privately.\nThe State of Connecticut has said to these appellants that they cannot resolve their affairs privately.\nThey must go into state courts to seek the relief they need, and yet at the same time, has barred them from those Courts.\nA holding emphasizing these factors, for example, would not compel a later holding that counsel be appointed in civil cases or a later holding that fees for the use of golf greens in a public golf course must be waived for the poor.\nA useful analog for this case is Goldberg versus Kelly where this Court considered the meaning of Due Process in welfare termination cases and concluded that a hearing is the essence of Due Process.\nBut that appointment of counsel may not be required.\nIn conclusion, then we ask this Court to grant the relief for appellants --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1206.996, 1214.077, 1217.849, 1228.835, 1240.886, 1244.062, 1251.421, 1264.021, 1274.761, 1292.15, 1302.474, 1310.174, 1319.151, 1334.488, 1344.996, 1352.037, 1359.545, 1374.698, 1384.918, 1391.895, 1408.646, 1421.038, 1428.642, 1452.862, 1458.507, 1470.953, 1478.589, 1486.597, 1490.628, 1495.886, 1504.77, 1527.2, 1540.96, 1547.7], "stop_times": [1214.077, 1217.849, 1228.835, 1240.886, 1244.062, 1251.421, 1264.021, 1274.761, 1292.15, 1302.474, 1310.174, 1319.151, 1334.488, 1344.996, 1352.037, 1359.545, 1374.698, 1384.918, 1391.895, 1408.646, 1421.038, 1428.642, 1452.862, 1458.507, 1470.953, 1478.589, 1486.597, 1490.628, 1495.886, 1504.77, 1527.2, 1540.96, 1547.7, 1551.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1206.996}, "reply_to": "15507__0_058", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_060", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I don't quite get that reason.\nWhether you draw into distinction, you draw there.\nMaybe the party so indigent that can't hire a lawyer for themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1551.891, 1555.852, 1558.839], "stop_times": [1555.852, 1558.839, 1563.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.891}, "reply_to": "15507__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_061", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is correct Your Honor, and I would suppose that in many if not most aspects of civil litigation.\nIt would be useful perhaps necessary to have an attorney.\nBut a holding in this case would not compel a later holding that counsel must be appointed in civil cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1563.395, 1571.368, 1575.7], "stop_times": [1571.368, 1575.7, 1583.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.395}, "reply_to": "15507__0_060", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_062", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Why would they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1583.397], "stop_times": [1584.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.397}, "reply_to": "15507__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_063", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Because in this case, we are relying upon the specific First Amendment guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances.\nThere is no such --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1584.335, 1591.338], "stop_times": [1591.338, 1595.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.335}, "reply_to": "15507__0_062", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_064", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You might be barred form it as successfully by not being able to hire a lawyer as by not being able to pay the fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1595.055], "stop_times": [1602.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.055}, "reply_to": "15507__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_065", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I take it that the First Amendment and speaking about the right to petition is speaking about access to the courts or to Government.\nIt would always remain true that the fruits of that access inherently will be unequal.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1602.4, 1613.272, 1619.924], "stop_times": [1613.272, 1619.924, 1620.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.4}, "reply_to": "15507__0_064", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_066", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, if it's unequal wouldn't be anyway to equal that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1620.635], "stop_times": [1626.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.635}, "reply_to": "15507__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_067", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Perhaps as a matter of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court might want to go farther and to hold that for example, counsel must be appointed in certain types of civil cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1626.35], "stop_times": [1637.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1626.35}, "reply_to": "15507__0_066", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_068", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Why not they not be influenced to go far on that eventually on your argument to say that the courts are necessary to civilized people.\nYou got to have them in that Government?\nTherefore, they must supply to all without regard to their race, color or amount of money they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1637.467, 1647.797, 1649.913], "stop_times": [1647.797, 1649.913, 1657.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.467}, "reply_to": "15507__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_069", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I would think a holding of that nature as to courts would be perfectly appropriate.\nNow, when I say that, what I have in mind are the kinds of considerations this Court had in mind in Goldberg versus Kelly in saying that Due Process must be afforded at some point by the State whether it be in what is called an administrative hearing or what is called the Court.\nBut the functions of Courts must be performed and they must be performed equally at least open equally to the rich and then the poor alike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1657.928, 1665.461, 1686.394], "stop_times": [1665.461, 1686.394, 1697.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.928}, "reply_to": "15507__0_068", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_070", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But the only way to do that unless you see that they deny Equal Protection to the rich.\nIt would be to say that the court from us we owned the all to prosecute or defend that claim whether they have money or do not have money.\nAnd they must pay the cost if they are in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1697.361, 1704.371, 1713.563], "stop_times": [1704.371, 1713.563, 1717.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.361}, "reply_to": "15507__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_071", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And they must pay the costs if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1717.098], "stop_times": [1718.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1717.098}, "reply_to": "15507__0_070", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_072", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Cost, if they have cost imposed, all.\nIt seems to me that I can't say your argument would take this.\nI'm not saying as right or wrong, I'm just asking you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1718.541, 1724.436, 1728.5], "stop_times": [1724.436, 1728.5, 1730.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.541}, "reply_to": "15507__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_073", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I don't think that argument carries that far, if I understand you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1730.988], "stop_times": [1734.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1730.988}, "reply_to": "15507__0_072", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_074", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Not yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1734.264], "stop_times": [1734.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.264}, "reply_to": "15507__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_075", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Correctly.\nWell, the argument which I'm making today, I don't think compels anyone to go that far anytime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1734.969, 1735.908], "stop_times": [1735.908, 1741.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1734.969}, "reply_to": "15507__0_074", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_076", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Just as far as your clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1741.165], "stop_times": [1743.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.165}, "reply_to": "15507__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_077", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1743.891], "stop_times": [1746.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1743.891}, "reply_to": "15507__0_076", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_078", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Perhaps a good lawyer like --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1746.107], "stop_times": [1748.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.107}, "reply_to": "15507__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__0_079", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1748.236], "stop_times": [1755.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1748.236}, "reply_to": "15507__0_078", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__0_080", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. Cannon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1755.477], "stop_times": [1756.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.477}, "reply_to": "15507__0_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_000", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nTo understand what's really at stake in this case perhaps it's rather outlined briefly the procedures followed in divorce actions are civil actions in Connecticut, all civil actions.\nFirst of all, of course, the client sees the attorney.\nThe attorney discernments whether it has a cause of action and draws a writ which is delivered to the officer to make service at the expense of the client or and then the officer returns the writ to court.\nAt that time, the statute comes into play, and says the clerk for the Court shall charge $45.00 for entering all civil causes.\nThat's the statute.\nTo accomplish the relief sought by the plaintiffs in this case.\nIt is necessary that some provision also be made to pay these auxiliary costs which are incident to the divorce cases.\nVery often there's expensive advertisement or publication particularly when the defendant is absent from the state.\nNow in this complaint, another thought we must bear in mind, it seems to me.\nIn this complaint, the only plaintiffs are women on welfares.\nThey are not poor people generally.\nThere's thousands of poor people as everyone knows who are working their head's off to try to make a living in case that they're only together and resent or check on the welfare.\nAnd that class of people who's entitled of relief as this well as these people, if they are entitled to relief.\nAt presently, the court raised the thought, what has been done since the last time we were here?\nPresently, we find all inability, welfare women or other poor people to get divorce cases, divorce actions.\nThere are as plenty of them handled by the legal assistance association.\nA great number of them are being handled.\nWe try to get some figures from them through the clerk of the court but they weren't supplied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1756.983, 1761.906, 1778.753, 1781.687, 1797.778, 1807.924, 1812.119, 1821.291, 1832.997, 1843.519, 1846.82, 1853.607, 1857.396, 1867.31, 1880.474, 1889.091, 1903.631, 1908.662, 1911.105], "stop_times": [1761.906, 1778.753, 1781.687, 1797.778, 1807.924, 1812.119, 1821.291, 1832.997, 1843.519, 1846.82, 1853.607, 1857.396, 1867.31, 1880.474, 1889.091, 1903.631, 1908.662, 1911.105, 1916.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.983}, "reply_to": "15507__0_080", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_001", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Doesn't Connecticut apply furnished on application, the filing fees for divorces, for people who are unrelief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1916.449], "stop_times": [1926.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.449}, "reply_to": "15507__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_002", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe do not have any general in forma pauperis statute.\nWe have other situations where no court fees are charge, but there not in forma pauperis statutes.\nThey apply to everyone regardless of his status.\nThere is this legal services program which we mentioned in our brief before which has been initiated and by HEW and the local welfare department is an experiment being carried on in five states in the union.\nConnecticut happens to be one of them.\nIt's a legal service organization in the towns of Meriden and Southington and Wallingford and that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1926.398, 1927.006, 1932.207, 1940.837, 1948.461, 1965.354, 1968.355], "stop_times": [1927.006, 1932.207, 1940.837, 1948.461, 1965.354, 1968.355, 1976.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.398}, "reply_to": "15507__1_001", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_003", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That would take care of the problem if Mr. Justice Black was inquiring about, that it doesn't reach the question of filing fees, the $45.00 or $60.00, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1976.367], "stop_times": [1987.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.367}, "reply_to": "15507__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_004", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, if the Sheriff's fee \u2013 there's no direct state action in the Sheriff's fee. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1987.983], "stop_times": [1992.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.983}, "reply_to": "15507__1_003", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_005", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Whether the amount of the fee here is $45.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1992.288], "stop_times": [1993.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.288}, "reply_to": "15507__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_006", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "$45.00 is what goes to State of Connecticut as an entry fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1993.849], "stop_times": [1997.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.849}, "reply_to": "15507__1_005", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_007", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes, well now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1997.435], "stop_times": [1998.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.435}, "reply_to": "15507__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_008", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And the statute provides --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1998.372], "stop_times": [1999.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.372}, "reply_to": "15507__1_007", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_009", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The legal aid doesn't supply that, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1999.526], "stop_times": [2003.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.526}, "reply_to": "15507__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_010", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes, they do and so is legal assistance.\nConnecticut contributes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2003.368, 2007.246], "stop_times": [2007.246, 2007.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.368}, "reply_to": "15507__1_009", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_011", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "If they do, why are here.\nWe all of it, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2007.94, 2010.452], "stop_times": [2010.452, 2012.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.94}, "reply_to": "15507__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_012", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I don't know.\nAt the beginning, maybe the legal assistance didn't' pay all the fees.\nThey don't pay them now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2012.071, 2015.823, 2023.653], "stop_times": [2015.823, 2023.653, 2025.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.071}, "reply_to": "15507__1_011", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_013", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But specifically, do they pay the $45.00 we are here talking about if they ask for it?\nAre you -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2025.899, 2032.247], "stop_times": [2032.247, 2032.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.899}, "reply_to": "15507__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_014", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I understand so, but depending upon the judgment of the Director of the legal aid assistance.\nHe in his discretion according to their setup can determine which cases have the most significance, and accordingly, they allot their money that they collect from the federal Government to State of Connecticut, another charitable organizations to pay the cases which in their opinion have priority.\nThere's the other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2032.403, 2037.914, 2060.827], "stop_times": [2037.914, 2060.827, 2061.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.403}, "reply_to": "15507__1_013", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_015", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, since your friend and you are both here on a constitutional issue as your friend is posed on the constitutional issue of no small importance.\nIs there any possibility that the petitioner has not exhausted her administrative remedies, if you could call on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2061.902, 2072.275], "stop_times": [2072.275, 2084.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.902}, "reply_to": "15507__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_016", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2084.277], "stop_times": [2085.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.277}, "reply_to": "15507__1_015", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_017", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "In this Court to decide is a constitutional matter that the fee is to be waived?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2085.893], "stop_times": [2090.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.893}, "reply_to": "15507__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_018", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The difficulty in that regard, it seems to me Your Honor please is that these are not State agencies, strictly speaking.\nA legal aid assistance association incorporated under the State of Connecticut pursuant to federal legislation which recognized and advocated that these legal assistance association to be formed in conjunction with -- and supported by the local bars associations to provide legal services for the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2090.388, 2100.417], "stop_times": [2100.417, 2122.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.388}, "reply_to": "15507__1_017", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_019", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Is any of its supported by the public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2122.376], "stop_times": [2125.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.376}, "reply_to": "15507__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_020", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2125.257], "stop_times": [2126.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.257}, "reply_to": "15507__1_019", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_021", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Any of them, one is supplied by the public, by the State or the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2126.363], "stop_times": [2129.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.363}, "reply_to": "15507__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_022", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Oh, yes Your Honor.\nThere's money supplied.\nI have the 1968 article, certified article with me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2129.995, 2131.157, 2132.174], "stop_times": [2131.157, 2132.174, 2138.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.995}, "reply_to": "15507__1_021", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_023", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Are these people effectively barred before they know?\nAnd if they can get the money and had the money if there are public or private agencies available to supply these fees.\nAre they really effectively barred if this is a real controversy or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2138.061, 2142.117, 2149.116], "stop_times": [2142.117, 2149.116, 2153.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.061}, "reply_to": "15507__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_024", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, it's our opinion that they're not effectively barred and they are a lot of women in the divorce courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2153.663], "stop_times": [2161.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.663}, "reply_to": "15507__1_023", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_025", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Why -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2161.919], "stop_times": [2162.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.919}, "reply_to": "15507__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_026", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It's not in the record, but I can give you court assignment here on September --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2162.214], "stop_times": [2174.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.214}, "reply_to": "15507__1_025", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_027", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Why you say they are not barred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2174.684], "stop_times": [2181.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.684}, "reply_to": "15507__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_028", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "There's the legal aid and the legal services programs; two different programs, each paying entry fees, each pay for shares.\nThe legal aid and the legal aid services is a separate program just to initiate the writ gotten on the floor since we argued it last time.\nThe first three or four months when that was organized in the Meriden and they operate entirely different way, than the legal aid assistance association.\nThey are not a corporation, but they got a contracts with the local bar associations.\nAnd they have a director, a case comes in and it's assigned to some attorney who has previously indicated that he will accept these cases, and the legal aid services program pays this attorney a modest of $16.00 an hour plus the cost of expenses.\nAnd in Meriden and Wallingford and Southington, there was only one lawyer out of the whole three towns which comprised of our population of 75,000 to 100,000.\nI understand there's only one lawyer who didn't signify that he would accept to work along with this program because of age or infirmity or ill health for some reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2181.447, 2198.785, 2208.033, 2220.444, 2228.091, 2247.378, 2260.701], "stop_times": [2198.785, 2208.033, 2220.444, 2228.091, 2247.378, 2260.701, 2271.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.447}, "reply_to": "15507__1_027", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_029", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It's a private organization?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2271.591], "stop_times": [2273.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.591}, "reply_to": "15507__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15507__1_030", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It's a public organization, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2273.95], "stop_times": [2278.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.95}, "reply_to": "15507__1_029", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_031", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Not State supported?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2278.17], "stop_times": [2280.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.17}, "reply_to": "15507__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15507__1_032", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It is state supported though the welfare department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2280.492], "stop_times": [2283.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.492}, "reply_to": "15507__1_031", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_033", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And federal and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2283.086], "stop_times": [2283.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.086}, "reply_to": "15507__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_034", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And federal.\nBoth of these programs are federally financed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2283.968, 2285.265], "stop_times": [2285.265, 2288.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.968}, "reply_to": "15507__1_033", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_035", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. Cannon, as to these plaintiffs named in this case.\nYou say they can get $45.00 for the purpose of filing this lawsuit or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2288.697, 2293.383], "stop_times": [2293.383, 2299.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.697}, "reply_to": "15507__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_036", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "They have to say with this proviso Your Honor please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2299.52], "stop_times": [2301.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.52}, "reply_to": "15507__1_035", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_037", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2301.849], "stop_times": [2304.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.849}, "reply_to": "15507__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_038", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The country (ph) fees that are paid by the legal assistance association.\nMr. LaFrance's client or he formerly was with the legal aid.\nHe hasn't been with them for over a year or more.\nIt was Mr. Danford, the Director, who determined what fees should be paid in what cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2304.575, 2309.582, 2313.356, 2317.321], "stop_times": [2309.582, 2313.356, 2317.321, 2324.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.575}, "reply_to": "15507__1_037", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_039", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You're not saying that these people got the $45.00, of course?\nYou're not saying that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2324.713, 2328.183], "stop_times": [2328.183, 2328.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.713}, "reply_to": "15507__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_040", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, no, no, I don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2328.964], "stop_times": [2329.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.964}, "reply_to": "15507__1_039", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_041", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You're not saying they could have got that, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2329.897], "stop_times": [2332.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.897}, "reply_to": "15507__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_042", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I'm not saying they got it.\nI don't know why it was refused to him.\nI don't know why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2332.699, 2334.604, 2337.051], "stop_times": [2334.604, 2337.051, 2338.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.699}, "reply_to": "15507__1_041", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_043", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Was it refused?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2338.921], "stop_times": [2339.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.921}, "reply_to": "15507__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_044", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Oh, no.\nI wouldn't make that claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2339.995, 2340.871], "stop_times": [2340.871, 2342.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.995}, "reply_to": "15507__1_043", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_045", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "What is your claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2342.81], "stop_times": [2344.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.81}, "reply_to": "15507__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_046", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It was refused not by the legal aid; it was refused by the court, the State of Connecticut because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2344.827], "stop_times": [2351.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.827}, "reply_to": "15507__1_045", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_047", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "When you say refused, you mean the waiver of the entry fee was refused, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2351.902], "stop_times": [2356.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.902}, "reply_to": "15507__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_048", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2356.562], "stop_times": [2357.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.562}, "reply_to": "15507__1_047", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_049", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But you didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2357.899], "stop_times": [2359.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.899}, "reply_to": "15507__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_050", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I don't mean to say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2359.351], "stop_times": [2360.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.351}, "reply_to": "15507__1_049", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_051", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You looked up the regulations of HEW of the Health and Education Department of the Federal Government on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2360.32], "stop_times": [2367.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.32}, "reply_to": "15507__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_052", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I have been made more or less familiar with them indirectly on the legal services program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2367.228], "stop_times": [2373.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.228}, "reply_to": "15507__1_051", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_053", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Do they require that money be given to the indigent to conduct necessary lawsuits or do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2373.166], "stop_times": [2381.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.166}, "reply_to": "15507__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_054", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, the program is not given directly to the welfare recipient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2381.282], "stop_times": [2386.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.282}, "reply_to": "15507__1_053", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_055", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Who's it given to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2386.92], "stop_times": [2388.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.92}, "reply_to": "15507__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_056", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It is given to the welfare department.\nIf a welfare client wants legal services regardless of the nature, divorce or anything else.\nThen, they have two attorneys who are on their own panel.\nThey made their own salary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2388.006, 2392.507, 2399.872, 2403.454], "stop_times": [2392.507, 2399.872, 2403.454, 2404.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.006}, "reply_to": "15507__1_055", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_057", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And supply them to the indigent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2404.619], "stop_times": [2406.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.619}, "reply_to": "15507__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_058", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "They are free for the indigent.\nBut then, there are additional services that if they want other services or the two people assigned to the particular job or rendering legal services to this organization.\nThen, the lawyers who have subscribed as being willing to take this cases, the director forwards the case to one of these lawyers.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2406.732, 2408.985, 2423.2, 2435.917], "stop_times": [2408.985, 2423.2, 2435.917, 2436.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.732}, "reply_to": "15507__1_057", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_059", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "He gives them a small fee, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2436.423], "stop_times": [2438.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.423}, "reply_to": "15507__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_060", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes and pays --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2438.324], "stop_times": [2439.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.324}, "reply_to": "15507__1_059", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_061", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's what that amounts to but they do get a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2439.412], "stop_times": [2442.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.412}, "reply_to": "15507__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_062", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's right.\nThey get a lawyers and they get their fees paid and they get all kinds of problems and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2442.137, 2442.699], "stop_times": [2442.699, 2446.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2442.137}, "reply_to": "15507__1_061", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_063", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Government and the state contributes to the fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2446.422], "stop_times": [2449.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.422}, "reply_to": "15507__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_064", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2449.65], "stop_times": [2451.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.65}, "reply_to": "15507__1_063", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_065", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The problem in this case is that this was decided on the motion to dismiss and everything alleged in the complaint was taken to be true by the three-judge District Court very properly.\nAnd it assumed now, the allegations were true and then granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.\nBut that complaint was supported by affidavits, just take a sample one appearing on page 11 on the record.\nAffidavits sworn to under oath in which the appellant (ph) says among other things that their welfare benefits from the State of Connecticut do not include an allotment for legal and court fees.\nNow, there are several other affidavits containing the same or similar statement.\nAnd that appears to be true, at least just sworn to under oath and for familiar grounds of practice and procedure and pleading on the motion to dismiss the complaint.\nAll of those allegations were assumed to be true by the District Court properly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2451.505, 2461.961, 2468.834, 2477.101, 2490.675, 2497.868, 2508.988], "stop_times": [2461.961, 2468.834, 2477.101, 2490.675, 2497.868, 2508.988, 2513.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.505}, "reply_to": "15507__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__1_066", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2513.025], "stop_times": [2513.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.025}, "reply_to": "15507__1_065", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_067", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's the reason, we have no evidence in this case.\nWe simply have the allegations of a complaint and a motion to dismiss, which was granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2513.11, 2515.503], "stop_times": [2515.503, 2522.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.11}, "reply_to": "15507__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__1_068", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "We will admit that.\nWe don't argue that fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2522.444, 2523.376], "stop_times": [2523.376, 2525.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2522.444}, "reply_to": "15507__1_067", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_069", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "What's the point of peeping in to these extra curricular, extra records?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2525.757], "stop_times": [2531.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.757}, "reply_to": "15507__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__1_070", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, I thought the Court -- that the situation is changed materially in the last couple of years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2531.416], "stop_times": [2537.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.416}, "reply_to": "15507__1_069", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_071", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, I'm interested in it.\nI asked the question.\nI'm interested in it for this reason.\nWe should not decide the case of this wide importance on a great constitutional question.\nIf as a matter of fact, provisions are already made by the Government to take care of the lawyer, if they had to have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2537.368, 2538.74, 2540.547, 2543.559, 2551.11], "stop_times": [2538.74, 2540.547, 2543.559, 2551.11, 2560.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.368}, "reply_to": "15507__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_072", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well Justice Black, I have spoken in the first instance about the legal aid or service which is an experimental problem.\nIt's in the second year.\nIt's a pilot program.\nAs I understand it, it's designed to determine whether the Federal Government will go deeper into this, provided different kinds of service in the legal aids or adopt some other made.\nThat's what I understand the legal aid service is.\nAnd there is only one community or three communities being handled by the legal aid.\nIt's a new program of the federal -- of HEW.\nBut prior to that time, this legal aid assistance corporation was organized back in '64, I believe, and they are in turn financed by the Federal Government, the State of Connecticut, The Ford Foundation, the Maya Foundation, and other charitable contributions.\nSo, here public monies are charitable monies, and they have given them to him for certain purpose.\nAnd they ended the year in 1968 with a substantial sum and if these people made application for divorce during that period.\nThis legal aid assistance had the money to pay for these and shares and entry fees during that period.\nAnd it must be a fact that others get in to Court.\nThe clerk of the superior court at my request didn't have the figures, but he requested to aid from assistance from the legal aid assistance to give him the figures, but we didn't get them.\nI don't know why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2560.181, 2570.218, 2572.027, 2573.365, 2584.593, 2587.66, 2593.881, 2598.726, 2621.041, 2629.039, 2641.821, 2650.684, 2657.869, 2668.179], "stop_times": [2570.218, 2572.027, 2573.365, 2584.593, 2587.66, 2593.881, 2598.726, 2621.041, 2629.039, 2641.821, 2650.684, 2657.869, 2668.179, 2669.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.181}, "reply_to": "15507__1_071", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_073", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, if the state has failed to raise a defense which might be a defense, even if its own facts of course, we don't have to decide or live with it, could be sent back to the state court in some proceeding so that they could look up and see whether or not these people can get their divorce money from the state or from the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2669.347], "stop_times": [2693.049], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.347}, "reply_to": "15507__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__1_074", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, may very well be that, that would be the problem or action to pursue, but we attacked --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2693.049], "stop_times": [2701.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.049}, "reply_to": "15507__1_073", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_075", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I should think, it be a problem of the state to raise all the defenses it has.\nOne of them being that you're not stating the fact when you say, you do not have the money and can't get it because there is provision made for it in the federal and state contributions joined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2701.947, 2706.482], "stop_times": [2706.482, 2719.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.947}, "reply_to": "15507__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_076", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, maybe I've confused the Court.\nThe state has no appropriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2719.702, 2726.449], "stop_times": [2726.449, 2728.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.702}, "reply_to": "15507__1_075", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_077", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2728.726], "stop_times": [2730.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.726}, "reply_to": "15507__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_078", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But, it gives executive --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2730.649], "stop_times": [2732.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.649}, "reply_to": "15507__1_077", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_079", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Even the federalism and the state has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2732.306], "stop_times": [2735.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.306}, "reply_to": "15507__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_080", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It makes a contribution to these two organizations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2735.771], "stop_times": [2740.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.771}, "reply_to": "15507__1_079", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_081", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Then they knew where the money comes from.\nIf the people can get it to conduct their divorce cases, then Connecticut -- we should not branch out a plan, enter decision on the constitutionality which practically owns us away for paying the use of all for all indigents and all of these courts of the nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2740.554, 2742.35], "stop_times": [2742.35, 2762.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.554}, "reply_to": "15507__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_082", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. Counsel, I'm afraid I led you into this by my question as to whether or not the petitioners here had exhausted appellants I should say, the appellants here had exhausted all of their available remedies whether administrative or otherwise.\nBut you tell us now that situation has developed considerably since the action was originally started.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2762.413, 2785.267], "stop_times": [2785.267, 2794.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.413}, "reply_to": "15507__1_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_083", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's my understanding of it from the best authority I know and that in the audit of this plaintiff in 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2794.628], "stop_times": [2803.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.628}, "reply_to": "15507__1_082", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_084", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "If it develops, if it develops that through the welfare program of the State of Connecticut as it now exists, whether the money comes all from Connecticut or partly from the Federal Government and partly from the State, and if it that program would advance to persons in posture of Mrs. Boddie.\nThe $45.00 to file to make the entry fee payment then, would there be any constitutional question for us to decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2803.338, 2826.994], "stop_times": [2826.994, 2838.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.338}, "reply_to": "15507__1_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_085", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I think not from -- there would be no live constitutional program.\nYou think that we can get that information by affidavit, but we get cooperation if the number of people and so forth from this legal aid assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2838.928, 2843.442], "stop_times": [2843.442, 2853.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.928}, "reply_to": "15507__1_084", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_086", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. Cannon, putting it in another way, I think what we're concerned about is whether today, Mrs. Boddie and her co-plaintiffs are barred from the Connecticut courts with respect to their divorce actions.\nNow, it maybe that Mr. LaFrance is the one to answer this question and not you.\nBut I think from the indications from the bench, this is a vital question at this time and when Mr. LaFrance gets up again, I'd like to know his answer to those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2853.911, 2867.928, 2872.752], "stop_times": [2867.928, 2872.752, 2884.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.911}, "reply_to": "15507__1_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15507__1_087", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, if you may, it may please Your Honor, Mr. LaFrance has been absent for all due respect to Mr. LaFrance from the state for sometime, but I made the inquiry myself as to how many of these plaintiffs, since the action was instituted have filed divorce cases.\nThere are two.\nOne was withdrawn I think.\nMary Anne Dochures filed for divorce in March 1970.\nHer lawyer is Jonathan E. Silver. Jonathan E. Silver is under staff of the Haven Legal Assistance.\nI'm I correct?\nAnd Mrs. Perez filed her return before we were here or her divorce application before we came to Court the last time and is still on file.\nBut she's represented by Atty.\nGallagher and I don't know whether he is employed by the New Haven Legal Assistance.\nThe legal aid services of Southington or he is an independent attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2884.008, 2901.568, 2902.837, 2906.794, 2911.724, 2918.091, 2924.757, 2937.374, 2938.877, 2943.154], "stop_times": [2901.568, 2902.837, 2906.794, 2911.724, 2918.091, 2924.757, 2937.374, 2938.877, 2943.154, 2947.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.008}, "reply_to": "15507__1_086", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_088", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But it would make any difference if in the meantime, she's got her $45.00 entry fee paid from some sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2947.387], "stop_times": [2952.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.387}, "reply_to": "15507__1_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_089", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "She's in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2952.505], "stop_times": [2953.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.505}, "reply_to": "15507__1_088", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_090", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "She's in the court and she has no case any longer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2953.667], "stop_times": [2956.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.667}, "reply_to": "15507__1_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_091", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's the only two I know of.\nAnd I was informed that they some -- if they are possibly capable of raising the money paid to the legal aid by installments.\nOtherwise, they use their own funds that they get from other sources.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2956.567, 2958.696, 2967.993], "stop_times": [2958.696, 2967.993, 2972.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.567}, "reply_to": "15507__1_090", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_092", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. John Cannon, right of outset of his argument, Mr. LaFrance said that he satisfied himself by investigation that at least with respect to five of these plaintiffs, these cases were not moot.\nAnd I took that as a professional representation that these people did not have the money, the $45.00 to pay the filing fee.\nAnd furthermore, may I point out that the State of Connecticut, your client, when it filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, admitted every allegation of the complaint.\nThat's what the motion to dismiss does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2972.315, 2985.121, 2994.701, 3005.227], "stop_times": [2985.121, 2994.701, 3005.227, 3007.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.315}, "reply_to": "15507__1_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__1_093", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3007.126], "stop_times": [3007.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.126}, "reply_to": "15507__1_092", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_094", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And that you know, it surprises me that you're taking such a different posture now that you're here in this Court.\nNow, you're beginning to deny the allegations of the complaint.\nThe place to do that is in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3007.926, 3012.731, 3015.017], "stop_times": [3012.731, 3015.017, 3015.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.926}, "reply_to": "15507__1_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__1_095", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I didn't mean to deny the allegations and complaint.\nI misunderstood apparently the questions raised as to what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3015.32, 3019.597], "stop_times": [3019.597, 3023.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.32}, "reply_to": "15507__1_094", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_096", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I thought you don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3023.698], "stop_times": [3024.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.698}, "reply_to": "15507__1_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15507__1_097", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That at this plaintiffs are at denial in year-and-a half since this case has been standing.\nIt is our claim of course, constitutionally or on the merits that although 23 states, for example, have in forma pauperis statutes.\nTwo of them do not apply to divorce actions.\nOne state allows divorce actions for women only and I don't' remember now what the other state could apply.\nBut in all of these cases and including the federal proper statute 281915, it's within the discretion of the court as to whether to allow a plaintiff to pursue in civil action, a case without payment of court fees.\nThe court in this recent case in Washington DC, Harris -- there were two statutes.\nOne is general statute allowing residents of Washington DC to secure divorce action as general sessions court I believe it was.\nAnd then the in forma pauperis statute 281915.\nIn that case, the court didn't get into the constitutional acts features but it reconciled the two statutes and said that it is much as 281915 did not exclude the divorce cases.\nThen the plaintiffs could proceed under in forma pauperis regulations.\nNow, divorce as, it is far furhter claim trial further claim that divorce is not a matter of fundamental right.\nIt's not within the framework and can man of the Constitution.\nWe get notations like Goldberg and Sniadach and other cases involved in Due process, although, there are civil factors involved.\nThey are to my opinion nevertheless rights, the one wages.\nWages is a -- person who is more dependent about his wages every week.\nAs a general rule then if a person who has money in the bank.\nThere's a distinct difference there and to deprive and attach wages is as the court said a brutal blow, but wages incidentally haven't been attach in Connecticut for years and years.\nAnd we got into the other cases on Equal Protection and so forth.\nEqual Protection of life, liberty and property.\nThe Equal Protection has to -- the item under consideration has to attach to one of those factors.\nThe item for liberty or property.\nIn Goldberg case of course, it was liberty that was Due Process.\nBut we have submitted our argument in the first brief.\nWe have now relying on furthermore on the Dandridge versus Williams's case which is the reduction of the maximum welfare benefits due to families of over five or six was decided on Equal Protection, and I think that case fits very well into this case.\nAssuming it is, it's -- there's a rationality behind the procedure adopted by the State.\nThat is that it's reasonable to expect that persons use in the courts will pay some of the expense of maintaining.\nThat is done in every state in the federal state court and then the federal courts as well in this country as far as I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3024.376, 3031.464, 3047.912, 3050.59, 3060.889, 3080.642, 3088.144, 3097.132, 3102.175, 3116.095, 3121.214, 3129.134, 3134.085, 3145.27, 3155.088, 3160.864, 3165.625, 3182.663, 3187.034, 3192.216, 3207.726, 3209.915, 3217.866, 3222.978, 3244.381, 3250.989, 3260.245], "stop_times": [3031.464, 3047.912, 3050.59, 3060.889, 3080.642, 3088.144, 3097.132, 3102.175, 3116.095, 3121.214, 3129.134, 3134.085, 3145.27, 3155.088, 3160.864, 3165.625, 3182.663, 3187.034, 3192.216, 3207.726, 3209.915, 3217.866, 3222.978, 3244.381, 3250.989, 3260.245, 3266.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.376}, "reply_to": "15507__1_096", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_098", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Mr. Cannon, I did not understand you to be changing your position in any essence of not in terms of not standing on the posture pleadings when the case came here.\nBut in the response to my questions and others, you have indicated that the situation may have change since this litigation started.\nThen that there may now be publicly supported agencies within the State of Connecticut who would supply the $45.00 and that line of questioning was pursued I think by all of us with respect to the basic proposition that Mr. Justice Black suggested to you that if there is any other solution.\nWe do not reach large constitutional issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3266.609, 3278.34, 3289.503, 3312.428], "stop_times": [3278.34, 3289.503, 3312.428, 3318.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.609}, "reply_to": "15507__1_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_099", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The factual situation, I'll have to admit this that the factual situation which you used today had existed when we filed a motion to dismiss, but we haven't filed a motion to dismiss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3318.64], "stop_times": [3330.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3318.64}, "reply_to": "15507__1_098", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_100", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3330.225], "stop_times": [3333.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.225}, "reply_to": "15507__1_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_101", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But we filed a motion to dismiss.\nProbably we had a lot of cases from this Haven Legal Assistance Association.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3333.805, 3338.621], "stop_times": [3338.621, 3342.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3333.805}, "reply_to": "15507__1_100", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_102", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But as of right now the Mrs. Boddie or anybody else had the $45.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3342.871], "stop_times": [3349.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.871}, "reply_to": "15507__1_101", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_103", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I couldn't answer that.\nI'll have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3349.783, 3351.299], "stop_times": [3351.299, 3351.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3349.783}, "reply_to": "15507__1_102", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_104", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But do you deny it?\nDo you deny that she's unable to put up that $45.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3351.678, 3354.27], "stop_times": [3354.27, 3358.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3351.678}, "reply_to": "15507__1_103", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_105", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "She personally, I will concede that she is probably unable to put up the $45.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3358.299], "stop_times": [3362.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.299}, "reply_to": "15507__1_104", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_106", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "So?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3362.56], "stop_times": [3363.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.56}, "reply_to": "15507__1_105", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_107", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Because it's the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3363.339], "stop_times": [3363.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3363.339}, "reply_to": "15507__1_106", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_108", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's the case we have now?\nShe is in the same position she was then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3363.868, 3365.556], "stop_times": [3365.556, 3368.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.868}, "reply_to": "15507__1_107", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_109", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is correct.\nBecause the welfare department does not give welfare recipient direct money for court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3368.384, 3369.129], "stop_times": [3369.129, 3373.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3368.384}, "reply_to": "15507__1_108", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_110", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Was anybody else given that $45.00 to file this action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3373.974], "stop_times": [3379.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.974}, "reply_to": "15507__1_109", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_111", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It's my understanding they do Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3379.252], "stop_times": [3381.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3379.252}, "reply_to": "15507__1_110", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_112", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, can you prove it?\nOr is that just hear say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3381.625, 3383.779], "stop_times": [3383.779, 3385.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.625}, "reply_to": "15507__1_111", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_113", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I can prove it now, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3385.489], "stop_times": [3387.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3385.489}, "reply_to": "15507__1_112", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_114", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Can you prove that Mrs. Boddie got $45.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3387.209], "stop_times": [3390.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3387.209}, "reply_to": "15507__1_113", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_115", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, not applied to the individuals, no Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3390.007], "stop_times": [3392.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3390.007}, "reply_to": "15507__1_114", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_116", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, that's what we're dealing with this by appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3392.679], "stop_times": [3394.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.679}, "reply_to": "15507__1_115", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_117", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I can just show an expenditures sums for fees and cost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3394.415], "stop_times": [3397.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3394.415}, "reply_to": "15507__1_116", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_118", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But, we're dealing with five named appellants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3397.724], "stop_times": [3401.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.724}, "reply_to": "15507__1_117", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_119", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But would you be willing to represent to the Court that if this case were remanded to the courts of Connecticut that there may well be facilities to provide her with money that were not available when this action was started?\nCould you represent that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3401.443, 3416.991], "stop_times": [3416.991, 3420.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.443}, "reply_to": "15507__1_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_120", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes, I think I would.\nI got an honest certified attorney of the New Haven Legal Assistance can show us an expenditure of several thousand dollars or $6,000.00 plus for fees and costs in litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3420.781, 3421.837], "stop_times": [3421.837, 3433.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3420.781}, "reply_to": "15507__1_119", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_121", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "In divorce cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3433.142], "stop_times": [3435.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.142}, "reply_to": "15507__1_120", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_122", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "In all kinds of cases Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3435.911], "stop_times": [3437.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3435.911}, "reply_to": "15507__1_121", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_123", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Does it say divorces?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3437.504], "stop_times": [3439.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.504}, "reply_to": "15507__1_122", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_124", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "No, it's not broken down not if I knew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3439.116], "stop_times": [3442.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3439.116}, "reply_to": "15507__1_123", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_125", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You mean pay in the all cases of litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3442.905], "stop_times": [3452.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3442.905}, "reply_to": "15507__1_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15507__1_126", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor.\nIt's all cases, but it's not broken down in this audit is not broken down by -- I got flat transcripts and costs, total $6,000.00", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3452.171, 3458.797], "stop_times": [3458.797, 3477.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3452.171}, "reply_to": "15507__1_125", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_127", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3477.986], "stop_times": [3478.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3477.986}, "reply_to": "15507__1_126", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_128", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "$6,000.00 plus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3478.562], "stop_times": [3480.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3478.562}, "reply_to": "15507__1_127", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_129", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "For what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3480.221], "stop_times": [3481.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.221}, "reply_to": "15507__1_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__1_130", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Transcripts and costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3481.497], "stop_times": [3485.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3481.497}, "reply_to": "15507__1_129", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_131", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "What kind of cases?\nCriminal or civil or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3485.675, 3488.055], "stop_times": [3488.055, 3490.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3485.675}, "reply_to": "15507__1_130", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_132", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, there's no criminal fees; we have public defender system in Connecticut on public and criminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3490.851], "stop_times": [3498.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3490.851}, "reply_to": "15507__1_131", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_133", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Does this budget cover all civil matters, the one you're reading from?\nThat includes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3498.089, 3503.978], "stop_times": [3503.978, 3505.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3498.089}, "reply_to": "15507__1_132", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_134", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Not necessarily restricted to civil cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3505.253], "stop_times": [3507.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3505.253}, "reply_to": "15507__1_133", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_135", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But it includes them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3507.758], "stop_times": [3508.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.758}, "reply_to": "15507__1_134", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_136", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "It includes and it indicates a surplus on hand at the end of the season.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3508.942], "stop_times": [3517.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3508.942}, "reply_to": "15507__1_135", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_137", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Very well.\nI think your time is up Mr. Cannon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3517.883, 3523.366], "stop_times": [3523.366, 3524.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3517.883}, "reply_to": "15507__1_136", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__1_138", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I think so Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3524.85], "stop_times": [3526.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3524.85}, "reply_to": "15507__1_137", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__1_139", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And your time is up too counsel that I would have to questions to put you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3526.23], "stop_times": [3530.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3526.23}, "reply_to": "15507__1_138", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_000", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3530.354], "stop_times": [3533.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3530.354}, "reply_to": "15507__1_139", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_001", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You heard this colloquy of course and I'm sure as a member of this bar, you know that this Court doesn't reach constitutional issues if there's any way to avoid them.\nDo you see any reason why this case should not be remanded in the Courts of Connecticut for consideration in light of the changed conditions which may have occurred and which are suggested to have occurred by way of providing means for this $45.00 entry fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3533.576, 3545.605], "stop_times": [3545.605, 3563.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.576}, "reply_to": "15507__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_002", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I certainly do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3563.969], "stop_times": [3565.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3563.969}, "reply_to": "15507__2_001", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_003", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And what are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3565.173], "stop_times": [3565.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3565.173}, "reply_to": "15507__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_004", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "There are several reasons.\nFirst, I would argue that the availability of other sources is irrelevant to whether or not these appellants have a constitutional right to walk into a Court of Connecticut and file a proceeding without having to pay for sanctions, for fees which that state court has imposed upon them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3565.762, 3567.512], "stop_times": [3567.512, 3590.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3565.762}, "reply_to": "15507__2_003", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_005", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Even if the State of Connecticut through its agencies will provide that $45.00 on request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3590.296], "stop_times": [3596.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3590.296}, "reply_to": "15507__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_006", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Yes.\nNow secondly, with respect to that, the record in this case is clear that the State of Connecticut will not provide those funds on request.\nI must say that, I personally resent as a member of the bar of this Court and as an attorney, Mr. Cannon is going outside of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3596.755, 3597.06, 3605.988], "stop_times": [3597.06, 3605.988, 3614.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3596.755}, "reply_to": "15507__2_005", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_007", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "We asked him to go out of the record counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3614.116], "stop_times": [3616.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3614.116}, "reply_to": "15507__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_008", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "In the fashion in which he did because for example, there is no program in the State of Connecticut which will provide court fees to indigent litigants upon request.\nThere is only one program in which the State of Connecticut is at all involved, and that is a pilot program serving a small section of middle town in the county around it.\nFor the rest of the State and I might add for the rest of the nation, people going to legal services programs cannot get into Court unless their program is fortunate about to have excess funds or a budget item which allows for payment of fees.\nThe Haven Legal Assistance is one of the few programs in the country to my knowledge which over the years has had some funds available for payment of court fees.\nThere are limited funds, they're insufficient.\nBut more importantly, if a person has a constitutional right to walk into a Court, he should not have to go begging or soliciting or his attorney should not have to go soliciting to charitable voluntary ad hoc agencies or governmental programs for something which the State of Connecticut is obligated to provide.\nNow, I submit to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3616.318, 3628.349, 3639.177, 3655.364, 3665.112, 3667.486, 3689.092], "stop_times": [3628.349, 3639.177, 3655.364, 3665.112, 3667.486, 3689.092, 3691.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3616.318}, "reply_to": "15507__2_007", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_009", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, that's the issue before, certainly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3691.423], "stop_times": [3693.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3691.423}, "reply_to": "15507__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_010", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3693.357], "stop_times": [3694.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3693.357}, "reply_to": "15507__2_009", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_011", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's that issue before us certainly?\nWell, whether the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3694.148, 3697.048], "stop_times": [3697.048, 3700.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3694.148}, "reply_to": "15507__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_012", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3700.07], "stop_times": [3700.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3700.07}, "reply_to": "15507__2_011", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_013", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You need it to it without money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3700.796], "stop_times": [3702.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3700.796}, "reply_to": "15507__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_014", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And so that I maintain that Mr. Cannon's argument or at least the burden of it missed the point of this appeal which is that these appellants don't have to go to charitable organizations which may or may not have funds to get something which the state is obligated to provide.\nNow, to go back to the point which Mr. Cannon I guess was arguing.\nNew Haven Legal Assistance does not have the funds for these appellants.\nIf they did, I would never have started this case.\nI wouldn't be here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3702.375, 3720.658, 3726.382, 3729.803, 3732.058], "stop_times": [3720.658, 3726.382, 3729.803, 3732.058, 3733.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3702.375}, "reply_to": "15507__2_013", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_015", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Did you ask for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3733.377], "stop_times": [3734.91], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3733.377}, "reply_to": "15507__2_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15507__2_016", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I certainly did.\nYour Honor, these cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3734.91, 3735.791], "stop_times": [3735.791, 3736.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3734.91}, "reply_to": "15507__2_015", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_017", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "That's the State of Connecticut, they actually have money to pay the fee out of that fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3736.61], "stop_times": [3742.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3736.61}, "reply_to": "15507__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_018", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The State of Connecticut has not fund.\nThere is no source for these fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3742.461, 3745.163], "stop_times": [3745.163, 3747.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3742.461}, "reply_to": "15507__2_017", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_019", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "What is that fund he is talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3747.166], "stop_times": [3749.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3747.166}, "reply_to": "15507__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_020", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The fund that he is talking about to the extent, I understood it; related to a small fund from the welfare department, for a pilot project in middle town jointly funded with HEW.\nIt has no bearing on these appellants or on the rest of the State.\nThe allegations and the affidavits in this record remain unchallenged and they remain true that there is no place for these appellants to go.\nNow, if this Court is concerned about the present financial status of these appellants, I will be happy to submit affidavits to this Court to persuade it that this case is still alive and not moot.\nBut remanding this case after these applications sat in my office for six month and after this case is taken two and a half years, I submit would be cruel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3749.133, 3762.161, 3766.21, 3774.573, 3787.599], "stop_times": [3762.161, 3766.21, 3774.573, 3787.599, 3800.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3749.133}, "reply_to": "15507__2_019", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_021", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Are you taking the position because I have an idea that the federal government did supply for it.\nUnnecessary expenses so much for money and they included on all necessary expenses.\nAre you taking the position to pay due do that that?\nThat you should be allowed to have us pass on this constitutional question now?\nI understand your argument, you are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3800.968, 3810.484, 3816.998, 3820.422, 3825.993], "stop_times": [3810.484, 3816.998, 3820.422, 3825.993, 3828.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3800.968}, "reply_to": "15507__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_022", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "First of course, they don't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3828.898], "stop_times": [3830.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3828.898}, "reply_to": "15507__2_021", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_023", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, I'm not talking about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3830.642], "stop_times": [3831.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3830.642}, "reply_to": "15507__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_024", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "But if they did do that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3831.113], "stop_times": [3832.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3831.113}, "reply_to": "15507__2_023", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_025", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "How do we know if the don't do this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3832.005], "stop_times": [3833.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3832.005}, "reply_to": "15507__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_026", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3833.791], "stop_times": [3834.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3833.791}, "reply_to": "15507__2_025", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_027", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "How do we know if they don't do this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3834.371], "stop_times": [3835.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3834.371}, "reply_to": "15507__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_028", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "If there is such a regulation or such a program, Mr. Cannon has to have two and a half years to refer it in his brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3835.761], "stop_times": [3842.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3835.761}, "reply_to": "15507__2_027", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_029", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Because he's had five years and the case comes up before us and that we must decide of seven important constitutional questions, one way or another, depending on whether certain facts are true.\nWould you object it be remanded to the Court to pass on this issue of whether or not that money was available to them but from the relief funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3842.055, 3854.185], "stop_times": [3854.185, 3862.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3842.055}, "reply_to": "15507__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_030", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I would object in the posture of this case which has been in the Federal Courts for two-and-a-half years and the state has never once documented the argument which it has made more or less for the first time today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3862.231], "stop_times": [3874.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3862.231}, "reply_to": "15507__2_029", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_031", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Suppose it hasn't and we found out that's true.\nShould we still go ahead and pass on the constitutional question which perhaps reach all civil cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3874.148, 3877.107], "stop_times": [3877.107, 3884.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3874.148}, "reply_to": "15507__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_032", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The fact that the State has not raised any reference to any program or regulation indicates --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3884.62], "stop_times": [3889.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3884.62}, "reply_to": "15507__2_031", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_033", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, we will then raise it and we found it up here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3889.783], "stop_times": [3892.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3889.783}, "reply_to": "15507__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_034", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "If you found it, then I would suggest that's possibly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3892.963], "stop_times": [3897.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3892.963}, "reply_to": "15507__2_033", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_035", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "In the question -- in the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3897.803], "stop_times": [3900.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3897.803}, "reply_to": "15507__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_036", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "If it were a program clearly available to these appellants.\nThen perhaps it might moot this appeal and perhaps then a remand would be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3900.161, 3906.05], "stop_times": [3906.05, 3911.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3900.161}, "reply_to": "15507__2_035", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_037", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You mean an official program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3911.183], "stop_times": [3913.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3911.183}, "reply_to": "15507__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15507__2_038", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I mean an official program -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3913.174], "stop_times": [3914.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3913.174}, "reply_to": "15507__2_037", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_039", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "You wouldn't concede that if the program were a wholly a private program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3914.856], "stop_times": [3920.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3914.856}, "reply_to": "15507__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15507__2_040", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I certainly would not Your Honor.\nThese appellants don't have to go to charities to seek what is a constitutional right.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3920.049, 3922.643, 3930.797], "stop_times": [3922.643, 3930.797, 3932.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3920.049}, "reply_to": "15507__2_039", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_041", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Well, if there are anymore questions counsel, you're time is up but we -- you may respond to any other questions.\nIf there are no questions, I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3932.573, 3939.156], "stop_times": [3939.156, 3940.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3932.573}, "reply_to": "15507__2_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_042", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I think if I may say so.\nYou suggested that you would supply some affidavits as to the authority of these clients of yours to get access to the courts if you having change of conditions, therefore we will have to have those affidavits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3940.583, 3943.952], "stop_times": [3943.952, 3956.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3940.583}, "reply_to": "15507__2_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_043", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you.\nI will provide them within two weeks Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3961.026, 3956.65], "stop_times": [3956.65, 3961.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3961.026}, "reply_to": "15507__2_042", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_044", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3961.757], "stop_times": [3961.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3961.757}, "reply_to": "15507__2_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__2_045", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Can you get something about the viewpoint of the regulations of the health department that the Government did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3961.89], "stop_times": [3969.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3961.89}, "reply_to": "15507__2_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15507__2_046", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "I would like the opportunity to submit a supplemental brief on those Your Honor.\nI feel strongly that this case should not be remanded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3969.095, 3972.979], "stop_times": [3972.979, 3977.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3969.095}, "reply_to": "15507__2_045", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__2_047", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Of course, Mr. Cannon may submit any information that relates, bears on the issue.\nBut some members of the court aren't concerned about namely and specifically whether any public authority in the State of Connecticut either or whether supported by the State of Connecticut of federal or both or indeed separately any private authority, whether that's relevant or not, we don't know.\nBut you may submit that material as well Mr. Cannon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3977.432, 3985.373, 4009.024], "stop_times": [3985.373, 4009.024, 4011.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3977.432}, "reply_to": "15507__2_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__3_000", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [4011.98], "stop_times": [4012.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4011.98}, "reply_to": "15507__2_047", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__3_001", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "And of course, each of you will exchange your information before it comes up here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [4012.584], "stop_times": [4016.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4012.584}, "reply_to": "15507__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__4_000", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [4016.807], "stop_times": [4017.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4016.807}, "reply_to": "15507__3_001", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15507__4_001", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you Mr. LaFrance.\nThank you Mr. Cannon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [4017.55, 4019.228], "stop_times": [4019.228, 4020.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4017.55}, "reply_to": "15507__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15507__5_000", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [4020.262], "stop_times": [4020.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4020.262}, "reply_to": "15507__4_001", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15507__5_001", "conversation_id": "15507", "text": "The case is submitted subject to those filings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [4020.785], "stop_times": [4024.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4020.785}, "reply_to": "15507__5_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_000", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Number 265, Boddie against Connecticut.\nMr. LaFrance we may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [0.0, 21.205], "stop_times": [21.205, 24.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_001", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.\nMr. Padnos closed by saying that when he sought was the opportunity to get into court.\nI might begin by saying that that is precisely what the appellant seek in this case.\nThe appellants initiated this proceeding by bringing a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.\nThey allege in their complaint that they wished, intended to sue their husbands for divorce in the Connecticut Superior Courts, but that is welfare recipients they could not afford to pay the court cost of approximately $60.00 or more.\nAs a consequence, they had set their divorce papers to the Superior Court for New Haven County, with applications asking that court to waive the filing fees and to arrange service of process.\nThese papers where all set back by the clerk of that court.\nUpon received of these papers, appellants then asked Superior Court Judge Longo and after speaking with him, the State Supreme Court Administrator Justice Carter to reverse the position which had been taken by the Superior Court Clerk Edward Orimits.\nThey sustained that position and as a consequence, appellants were effectively bard from access to the courts of the State of Connecticut.\nThey further alleged in their complaint in the District Court that this denied them constitutional rights involving Due Process and equal protection.\nThe appellee is moved to dismiss their motion with sustain by a -- or granted by a three-judge-panel and this direct appeal was taken to this Court.\nThe question which is thus presented is has Connecticut by erecting economic barriers to its court denied these appellants the rights to Due Process and equal protection of laws guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.\nIf I may turn first to our Due Process contention, we founded upon the right to petition for redress of grievances, a right which is expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and which is incorporated into the Fourteenth.\nThe decisions of this Court in NAACP versus Button, United Mine Workers versus The Brotherhood of Railway Engineers and the United Mine Workers -- I'm sorry, the United Mine Workers versus Illinois Bar Association and the Brotherhood of Railway Trainman versus Virginia, all of these cases are squarely precedent for this.\nThe appellees may attempt to distinguish them on the ground that the litigation contemplated in Button was of a political nature whereas the litigation appellants contemplate is of a personal nature, but that distinction was rejected in the Mine Worker's case; a second distinction maybe that these cases involved the right of assembly rather than the right to petition for redress of grievances, but we submit that the language of these three cases discusses these two rights independently and accords to them equal status.\nThe right of assembly and the right to petition for redress of grievances indeed in these cases, their would hardly have been any point to assembly at all if it had not been to unable individuals as here to bring suits on their on behalf.\nThis is a fundamental right.\nThis Court has said that the right sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force in an organize society.\nIt is the right conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundations of orderly Government.\nTurning to our equal protection contention, it is clear that the equal protection of the laws can be denied by economic discrimination as surely as racial discrimination.\nThis Court recognized that in Edwards versus California in 1941 and as reaffirmed it in many decisions sense most recently in McDonald versus Board of Elections.\nPerhaps the most significant case here is Griffin versus Illinois where this Court held that appellant remedies could not be denied to a person convicted of crime simply because of its inability to purchase a transcript for appeal.\nAppellees brief at great length has attempted to distinguish Griffin from this case.\nAppellees have set first that Griffin is a criminal case and that this is a civil case, the present proceeding.\nAnd point of fact, however, this is a distinction which is not recognized by the constitution appears no where in the Equal Protection Clause and was not expressed by this Court in the decision in Griffin versus Illinois.\nThat decision dealt not with criminal procedure, but with court procedure, and it is court procedure which these appellants seek to pursue.\nA second distinction offered in their brief by appellees is that in Griffin, liberty was involved whereas these appellants are at large to go about as they choose.\nBut in point of fact, the liberty of these appellants is substantially curd by their inability to obtain divorces in the courts of Connecticut and this Court has recognized that liberty consist of more than simply freedom from physical restraint.\nA final point which appellees have made in their brief is that Griffin should not govern here because in Griffin, the state was the participating adversary.\nIt was the state which had put Mr. Griffin in custody whereas the divorce actions contemplated by appellants are private matters between husband and wife.\nThis however is an elusory distinction.\nIt is the state which has bard these appellants from its courts.\nIt is the state which has said to these appellants that they may not settle their marital affairs out of the court.\nThus on the one hand, the state has required these appellants to go in the court and at the same time has told them that they may not do so.\nWe submit then that the state is fully as much as an adversary in this proceeding at it was in Griffin versus Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [24.377, 28.217, 36.67, 42.806, 51.634, 69.029, 83.288, 88.825, 110.134, 119.161, 132.235, 142.73, 162.711, 179.691, 205.031, 239.677, 256.341, 259.463, 267.524, 274.119, 286.222, 297.792, 315.697, 322.623, 330.557, 343.238, 351.781, 363.283, 381.223, 389.845, 402.051, 406.123, 410.691, 418.004, 425.31], "stop_times": [28.217, 36.67, 42.806, 51.634, 69.029, 83.288, 88.825, 110.134, 119.161, 132.235, 142.73, 162.711, 179.691, 205.031, 239.677, 256.341, 259.463, 267.524, 274.119, 286.222, 297.792, 315.697, 322.623, 330.557, 343.238, 351.781, 363.283, 381.223, 389.845, 402.051, 406.123, 410.691, 418.004, 425.31, 433.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 24.377}, "reply_to": "15509__0_000", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_002", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Is that the basic difference do you suppose between your case and other civil litigation generally that parties are always afraid to compromise or settle?\nAre their quarrels within the form of litigation or not but the divorce matter that is a civil case which can only be decided by a judicial decree and cannot be compromised is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [433.494, 446.75], "stop_times": [446.75, 461.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.494}, "reply_to": "15509__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__0_003", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That is certainly one distinction Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [461.71], "stop_times": [466.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.71}, "reply_to": "15509__0_002", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_004", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "-- compromised here, something short of divorce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [466.237], "stop_times": [469.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.237}, "reply_to": "15509__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__0_005", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [469.938], "stop_times": [471.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.938}, "reply_to": "15509__0_004", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_006", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I supposed there could be a settlement here by something short of divorce just this -- like there can be and if somebody suing you for $100,000.00, you settled for short of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [471.064], "stop_times": [484.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.064}, "reply_to": "15509__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__0_007", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I don't know if any legal proceeding in Connecticut which would extend to these appellants half the divorce for one third or one fourths.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [484.3], "stop_times": [491.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.3}, "reply_to": "15509__0_006", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_008", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well it could agree to live apart?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [491.074], "stop_times": [493.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.074}, "reply_to": "15509__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__0_009", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "They could agree to live apart if they were to agree to that which in point a fact most of them have done.\nWhat would happen is that they would be locked into marriages which were meaningless, which was barren.\nThey would also be cut off from some rather important rights, the right to remarried, the right to appropriate, the right to form new families.\nAnd this Court is said that those rights are rights of considerably significant.\nI might also note as we have in our brief that denial of access to divorce for the poor opposes peculiar problems which may not be post for other segments of society because denial of that access aggravates the economic circumstances under which the poor live.\nIt may also further weakened the family structure patterns which sociologist indicate are prevalent among the poor.\nWhether or not that peculiar problem for the poor are cognoscible by this Court, it is at least clear that by Connecticut's law, anybody who is cutoff from divorce is cutoff from remarriage and is cutoff from appropriation with anyone other than her legal spouse.\nWhat we are submitting is that since and in fact these marriages have seized to exist in legal contemplation; that fact ought to be recognized.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [493.859, 501.552, 508.798, 517.1, 524.453, 545.777, 557.164, 579.578, 591.721], "stop_times": [501.552, 508.798, 517.1, 524.453, 545.777, 557.164, 579.578, 591.721, 592.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.859}, "reply_to": "15509__0_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__0_010", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. LaFrance, I gathered the sums involved here are minimum about $45.00 and a maximum about $200.00.Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [592.348], "stop_times": [601.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.348}, "reply_to": "15509__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_011", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The sums are accurate.\nI would not characterize them as minimum -- minimal nor with my clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [601.824, 603.389], "stop_times": [603.389, 607.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.824}, "reply_to": "15509__0_010", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_012", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "-- the facts targeting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [607.04], "stop_times": [608.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.04}, "reply_to": "15509__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_013", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [608.455], "stop_times": [608.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.455}, "reply_to": "15509__0_012", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_014", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And that $45.00 to a $100.00, that's the amount of money that needs to be put up in order to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [608.605], "stop_times": [616.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.605}, "reply_to": "15509__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15509__0_015", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "A routine divorce of case would cost approximately $60.00 Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [616.018], "stop_times": [619.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.018}, "reply_to": "15509__0_014", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_016", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "$60.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [619.626], "stop_times": [620.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.626}, "reply_to": "15509__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_017", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [620.944], "stop_times": [622.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.944}, "reply_to": "15509__0_016", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_018", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If you prevail of those cases, how do we contain a decision to just divorce actions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [622.16], "stop_times": [631.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.16}, "reply_to": "15509__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_019", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I suppose this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [631.951], "stop_times": [632.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.951}, "reply_to": "15509__0_018", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_020", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "You would be involved in take a negligence actions -- any kind of civil actions, contract actions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [632.86], "stop_times": [643.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.86}, "reply_to": "15509__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_021", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Let me first say that this Court could draw a distinction between this type of case and a case which involves purely personal private issues, a negligence, suit or contract suit are examples of litigation which does not involved with state in the same fashion that a criminal prosecution does or divorce prosecution -- pardon me, a divorce suit does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [643.381], "stop_times": [671.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.381}, "reply_to": "15509__0_020", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_022", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "How about there has to be proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [671.16], "stop_times": [673.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.16}, "reply_to": "15509__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15509__0_023", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "In Connecticut, a baster the proceeding involves the state rather extensively.\nI don't know about other states.\nI would not urge this distinction upon the court.\nThe court of course is free to adapt it.\nWhat I would urge upon the court is simply this that anytime the states, where it be the State of Connecticut or any other state creates a state remedy through its courts.\nI submit that that the remedy must be available to the poor and the wealthy alike whether it involved negligence, divorce, bastardy or whatever.\nI would note that are some limitations on the reach of reasoning.\nThe appellees have noted that this reasoning would carry over to dog licenses, road tolls and whatever.\nI contend that it is not.\nThe issue here is whether a constitutional right, the access to the courts maybe deny by economic barriers.\nThere is no constitutional right to a dog license or I supposed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [673.316, 678.621, 680.316, 683.128, 686.312, 697.941, 709.625, 714.992, 722.363, 725.826, 732.662], "stop_times": [678.621, 680.316, 683.128, 686.312, 697.941, 709.625, 714.992, 722.363, 725.826, 732.662, 737.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.316}, "reply_to": "15509__0_022", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_024", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "On equal protection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [737.738], "stop_times": [738.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.738}, "reply_to": "15509__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_025", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "To passage through a road toll station.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [738.834], "stop_times": [743.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.834}, "reply_to": "15509__0_024", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_026", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That's a right to travel, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [743.702], "stop_times": [746.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.702}, "reply_to": "15509__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_027", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If the right to travel were totally bard by a state by toll stations, then I would submit that the person who he is thus bard has a constitutional claim.\nIn Thompson versus Shapiro would be as good as citation for that as any, so with Edwards versus California.\nBut I did not understand that was the argument being made by the appellees.\nIf there is no constitutional right involved as they clearly is here, then perhaps this Court might distinguish future litigation from present litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [746.905, 757.235, 763.084, 768.721], "stop_times": [757.235, 763.084, 768.721, 778.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.905}, "reply_to": "15509__0_026", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_028", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Where this plaintiff said, the appellants have lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [778.562], "stop_times": [784.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.562}, "reply_to": "15509__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15509__0_029", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Do they have a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [784.451], "stop_times": [785.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.451}, "reply_to": "15509__0_028", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_030", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Do they have lawyers in the divorce action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [785.846], "stop_times": [789.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.846}, "reply_to": "15509__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15509__0_031", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes, they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [789.299], "stop_times": [791.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.299}, "reply_to": "15509__0_030", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_032", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Must they have them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [791.445], "stop_times": [792.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.445}, "reply_to": "15509__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_033", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Oh I'm sorry, no.\nI do not believe that they must.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [792.779, 794.266], "stop_times": [794.266, 796.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.779}, "reply_to": "15509__0_032", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_034", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I'm just wondering extent to which this goal, if you require them to get in without payment of fees, they couldn't get very far without benefits of legal advice.\nIs this lead to the appointment of lawyers in civil cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [796.193, 808.529], "stop_times": [808.529, 812.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.193}, "reply_to": "15509__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15509__0_035", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I submit that it does not.\nThe right to access to the courts is clearly provided for in the constitution by express provision.\nThere is no similar provision for appointment of counsel in civil cases or for appointment of expert assistance.\nSo in constitutional contemplation, there is a distinction between access to the courts and appointment of counsel.\nIn point of fact also there is a distinction.\nOnce in court, a litigate has an opportunity to obtain justice given a reasonably compassionate judge and a reasonably good case and affirm amount of intelligence.\nWe have those in reasonable abundance in the State of Connecticut, but if bard from court, if her papers are simply set back by the clerk of court without any consideration, there's no opportunity to obtain justice at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [812.254, 814.599, 823.344, 831.156, 837.881, 840.764, 852.253], "stop_times": [814.599, 823.344, 831.156, 837.881, 840.764, 852.253, 869.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.254}, "reply_to": "15509__0_034", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_036", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What about appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [869.199], "stop_times": [873.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.199}, "reply_to": "15509__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15509__0_037", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [873.948], "stop_times": [875.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.948}, "reply_to": "15509__0_036", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_038", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well assuming that very capable in hard rending courts here have been Connecticut go wrong and the petition I think she was desirable and above divorce and didn't get it, what is she have to pay for her appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [875.702], "stop_times": [895.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.702}, "reply_to": "15509__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15509__0_039", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I would submit that she does not have to pay the court cost incident to an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [895.13], "stop_times": [900.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.13}, "reply_to": "15509__0_038", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_040", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or printing of briefs or records or any cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [900.963], "stop_times": [906.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.963}, "reply_to": "15509__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15509__0_041", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "She might have to retain her own counsel if she desired counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [906.892], "stop_times": [911.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.892}, "reply_to": "15509__0_040", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_042", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If she can't afforded this, she can't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [911.002], "stop_times": [913.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.002}, "reply_to": "15509__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_043", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If she cannot afford it -- the -- I supposed one other factor which is worth noting and that is that the prevalence of legal services programs and the availability of legal services attorneys take some of the urgency out of the concern for availability of counsel.\nIt does not relieve the urgency which is behind the issues raised by appellants in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [913.246, 930.212], "stop_times": [930.212, 937.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.246}, "reply_to": "15509__0_042", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_044", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Is that a factor which could be taken into if this precasten constitutional terms in fact if there is a neighborhood legal services and legal aid?\nEither, there is a constitutional right to counsel or there isn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [937.655, 949.644], "stop_times": [949.644, 954.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.655}, "reply_to": "15509__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_045", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That is true Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [954.335], "stop_times": [955.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.335}, "reply_to": "15509__0_044", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_046", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I was thinking in terms of the equal protection clause if there was a constitution is a very specific as respects equal protection like in Griffin and Illinois to give the -- for the record free?\nThere's no reference to the right of appeal and the constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [955.561, 975.836], "stop_times": [975.836, 983.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.561}, "reply_to": "15509__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15509__0_047", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well that is correct Your Honor.\nIn terms of whether the absence of a reference to appeal by the constitution in Griffin case in terms of whether that therefore would require compelling the appointment of counsel in civil cases, I would only respond that the appointment of counsel is a matter which in criminal cases specifically provided for and the absence of reference to civil cases could justify this Court and inferring that the drafters of the constitution did not contemplate appointing counsel in civil cases.\nNow, I have somewhat handicap in arguing a case which I'm not bringing, but I do submit that if that cases brought for the appointment of counsel in a civil case, this Court might well be justified in distinguishing this case from the arguments which would be submitted at a later time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [983.569, 986.192, 1025.723], "stop_times": [986.192, 1025.723, 1049.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.569}, "reply_to": "15509__0_046", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_048", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or it might say that the counsel should be appointed or indigence in all civil cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1049.386], "stop_times": [1055.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.386}, "reply_to": "15509__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15509__0_049", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "You might well say that or you might say only an important civil cases, defining that in various ways.\nThe problem here is not much different from the problem which this Court is cope with for exampling Gideon versus Wainwrigth in determining of whether counsel must be appointed only Felony cases or in misdemeanor cases determining the limit of the appointment requirements of the constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1055.354, 1062.468], "stop_times": [1062.468, 1084.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.354}, "reply_to": "15509__0_048", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_050", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I suppose since -- if we accepted your arguments that the right to a divorce of this absolute nature, it would follow that the right to go into the married state would be at least comfortable statute, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1084.294], "stop_times": [1105.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.294}, "reply_to": "15509__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_051", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1105.003], "stop_times": [1106.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.003}, "reply_to": "15509__0_050", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_052", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What about two people who presented themselves for a $10.00 marriage license, said they didn't have any money but they wanted the license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1106.867], "stop_times": [1115.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.867}, "reply_to": "15509__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_053", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "On this Court's rulings in Loving versus Virginia, Skinner versus Oklahoma, I would say that the state would be required to raise -- I'm sorry waive that filling fee in application for marriage if the applicants establish they could not pay fee and if the state could not show a legitimate basis for imposing the fee.\nNow, I say that with the important emphasis that what is involved is a fundamental right in marriage according to this Court's decisions, and I would therefore distinguish this from a dog license --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1115.842, 1138.727], "stop_times": [1138.727, 1159.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.842}, "reply_to": "15509__0_052", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_054", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or a hunting license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1159.774], "stop_times": [1160.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.774}, "reply_to": "15509__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_055", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or perhaps a hunting license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1160.98], "stop_times": [1163.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.98}, "reply_to": "15509__0_054", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_056", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Would you think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1163.593], "stop_times": [1164.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.593}, "reply_to": "15509__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_057", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "How about a dog house license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1164.649], "stop_times": [1168.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.649}, "reply_to": "15509__0_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_058", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "With an automobile license, the question then becomes or rather difficult one of equal protection of the laws.\nPresumably, there is no constitution part --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1168.799, 1177.001], "stop_times": [1177.001, 1178.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.799}, "reply_to": "15509__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_059", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I take it you also have the right travel involvement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1178.815], "stop_times": [1181.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.815}, "reply_to": "15509__0_058", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15509__0_060", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1181.63], "stop_times": [1184.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.63}, "reply_to": "15509__0_059", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_061", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And the work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1184.103], "stop_times": [1186.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.103}, "reply_to": "15509__0_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_062", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The right to work would then raise the economic considerations which might be to a conclusion that equal protection have been denied the right to travel in itself would be a constitutional consideration and protected by decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1186.917], "stop_times": [1204.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.917}, "reply_to": "15509__0_061", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_063", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What provision the constitution do you claim affords the right to have access to the courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1204.315], "stop_times": [1216.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.315}, "reply_to": "15509__0_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_064", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The First Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth, the First Amendment providing for a right of assembly and a right to petition the courts for redress the Fourteenth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1216.346], "stop_times": [1230.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1216.346}, "reply_to": "15509__0_063", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_065", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Redress of grievances from about whom, about official action or about private action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1230.506], "stop_times": [1237.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.506}, "reply_to": "15509__0_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_066", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "As I read this Court's opinions in the Mine Worker's case and in the Brotherhood of Railway Trainman case, the right to petition for redress of grievances involves both private and official grievances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1237.827], "stop_times": [1254.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.827}, "reply_to": "15509__0_065", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_067", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "But note the Button case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1254.275], "stop_times": [1259.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.275}, "reply_to": "15509__0_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_068", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The Button case was primarily focused upon official grievances in the sense that the group there was involved with advancing the political social interest of a minority group which was being impressed -- discriminating against.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1259.949], "stop_times": [1276.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.949}, "reply_to": "15509__0_067", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_069", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "How about most been agreed by address -- was addressed to govern officials, who practice the policy of segregation that this was addressed to public officials, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1276.436], "stop_times": [1289.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.436}, "reply_to": "15509__0_068", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15509__0_070", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "In Button; that is true but in the Mine Worker's case and the Brotherhood of Railway Trainman, the litigation contemplated was for private gain, for individual benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1289.787], "stop_times": [1300.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.787}, "reply_to": "15509__0_069", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_071", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "You say that the state is constitutional required provide a form or litigating any claim of one private person against another.\nIt may not say that that like our courts are courts of limited of jurisdiction and to have jurisdiction decides some kind of -- to hear some kind of claims but not others.\nThere are just some kind things that at lead to the private sector workout the best they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1300.157, 1312.578, 1322.653], "stop_times": [1312.578, 1322.653, 1333.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1300.157}, "reply_to": "15509__0_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_072", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What I'm saying is that, under our first Due Process argument, I'm saying that the states must afford the opportunity to come in to court and raised a claim.\nThe state may not provide redress for the claim, but it must at least provide an opportunity to petition for redress.\nUnder our equal protection argument, I am saying that where the state provides a cause of action or a remedy, it must provide equally.\nNow it happens that the State of Connecticut provides for divorce.\nGiven that, it seems to me that it cannot say to the appellants that they may not come into court and ask for divorce, norm that it may have say to appellants that divorce is available to everybody excepting the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1333.413, 1345.485, 1353.539, 1361.93, 1367.579], "stop_times": [1345.485, 1353.539, 1361.93, 1367.579, 1378.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.413}, "reply_to": "15509__0_071", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_073", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, let's just say the equal protection argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1378.956], "stop_times": [1384.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.956}, "reply_to": "15509__0_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_074", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The two arguments are quite close.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1384.435, 1387.76], "stop_times": [1387.76, 1388.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.435}, "reply_to": "15509__0_073", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_075", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That's not saying that this is just a burden on a constitutional right unless you can say that the constitutional right I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1388.586], "stop_times": [1398.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.586}, "reply_to": "15509__0_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_076", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The significance of the right to petition for redress of grievances in this case comes about because of this Court's decisions of such cases as Shapiro versus Thompson in which the court had said that in order to justify racial discrimination or economic discrimination as legitimate legislative policy, a state must show that there is a compelling necessity for that discrimination.\nIt may not show simply that there is a rational basis for it, there must a compelling necessity.\nWe of course submit in our brief that there is no such necessity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1398.525, 1428.051, 1433.658], "stop_times": [1428.051, 1433.658, 1436.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.525}, "reply_to": "15509__0_075", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_077", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, I understand, but that's preminence on their being a constitutional right to be in burden and you say the constitutional right here is a right to petition for redress of grievances by filling a suit in the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1436.311], "stop_times": [1450.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.311}, "reply_to": "15509__0_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_078", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1450.944], "stop_times": [1451.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.944}, "reply_to": "15509__0_077", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_079", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And concededly not because anybody is agreed to what the state's done to them, but because of their dissatisfaction was to conduct of some other private person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1451.521], "stop_times": [1466.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.521}, "reply_to": "15509__0_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_080", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I do not conceive that.\nI maintain that the state has taken two entirely different types of action against these appellants: First, the procedural action of barding them from its court by imposing economic barriers; Secondly, the anacidence substantive action of requiring that the appellants go into court in order to settle their marital status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1466.478, 1468.534], "stop_times": [1468.534, 1490.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.478}, "reply_to": "15509__0_079", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_081", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well that's -- that might make sense if they were bringing a suit to a -- how did the suits start out?\nThe suit started out by our sending divorce papers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1490.848, 1502.625], "stop_times": [1502.625, 1506.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.848}, "reply_to": "15509__0_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_082", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes, but you didn't -- but didn't start a suit attacking the statutes which might then be a petition for redress of grievances revolving on you from the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1506.029], "stop_times": [1525.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1506.029}, "reply_to": "15509__0_081", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_083", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I suppose that what we did is tend amount to precisely that because attach to our divorce papers, we asked the state of Connecticut to waive the filling fees and arrange service of process for these papers.\nNow, prior to our doing that, there was no ruling in the State of Connecticut which said that the courts lack the power to do so.\nOnce their ruling became apparent, we then raised the issue by raising the constitutionality of the clerk's action with the Superior Court Judge, Ms.Judge Longo and the Supreme Court Administrator, Justice Carter.\nSo I suppose that we've done precisely what you have suggested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1525.296, 1539.685, 1548.069, 1565.114], "stop_times": [1539.685, 1548.069, 1565.114, 1571.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.296}, "reply_to": "15509__0_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__0_084", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. LaFrance they have service of publication?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1571.308], "stop_times": [1575.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.308}, "reply_to": "15509__0_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15509__0_085", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "At Connecticut law provides for that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1575.353], "stop_times": [1577.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.353}, "reply_to": "15509__0_084", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_086", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well under your argument, who paid for that, the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1577.599], "stop_times": [1582.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.599}, "reply_to": "15509__0_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15509__0_087", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1582.108], "stop_times": [1583.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.108}, "reply_to": "15509__0_086", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_088", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or waived the publication?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1583.942], "stop_times": [1585.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.942}, "reply_to": "15509__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_089", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or waived the publication if that were consistent with Due Process requirements or provide for alternative means of service or notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1585.569], "stop_times": [1596.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.569}, "reply_to": "15509__0_088", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_090", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What about a state that allows annulments as many states do with your claims with seem to in compass that, the right to dissolve a marriage by annulment which would be a very important right to some people, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1596.034], "stop_times": [1613.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.034}, "reply_to": "15509__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_091", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes, I believe the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1613.208], "stop_times": [1614.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1613.208}, "reply_to": "15509__0_090", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_092", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That's a -- it's a civil action, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1614.695], "stop_times": [1619.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.695}, "reply_to": "15509__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_093", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1619.858], "stop_times": [1620.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.858}, "reply_to": "15509__0_092", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_094", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I suppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1620.984], "stop_times": [1621.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.984}, "reply_to": "15509__0_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_095", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Quite frankly, I'm not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1621.271], "stop_times": [1622.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1621.271}, "reply_to": "15509__0_094", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_096", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Some state I suppose, it's an equitable action, but that would make any difference.\nBut you -- it can follow that if we agreed you, annulment would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1622.529, 1625.85], "stop_times": [1625.85, 1633.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.529}, "reply_to": "15509__0_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_097", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, I'm simply not familiar with annulment procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1633.133], "stop_times": [1636.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1633.133}, "reply_to": "15509__0_096", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_098", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, it's termination of the marriage of declaration that a marriage very existed where it is legally thought to exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1636.267], "stop_times": [1644.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.267}, "reply_to": "15509__0_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_099", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Without -- I would assume that my arguments would extend to that as well as to divorce.\nWith the court's permission, I'd like to reserve two or three minutes for rebuttal if it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1644.797, 1651.504], "stop_times": [1651.504, 1655.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1644.797}, "reply_to": "15509__0_098", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_100", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Very well Mr. LaFrance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1655.933], "stop_times": [1656.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.933}, "reply_to": "15509__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__0_101", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If you're appropriate, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1656.821], "stop_times": [1661.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1656.821}, "reply_to": "15509__0_100", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__0_102", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. Cannon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1661.62], "stop_times": [1662.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.62}, "reply_to": "15509__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__1_000", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court.\nThe statute that's under attack in this case, that portion of it, 52-259 excuse me, they shall be paid to the clerks of the Supreme Court or the Superior Court for which civil cost $45.00.\nThat is the entry fee.\nNow the problem in this case is not particularly the court cost.\nIt's the marrying which cases started at least in Connecticut that client or person goes usually to a lawyer if he has or a person has a case, the writ is drawn, the lawyer gives it to the sheriff or brought a proper officer for service.\nAnd the service officer makes a fee, makes a service and returns the writ to court.\nNow, the fee payable to the sheriff is paid by the client or the lawyer.\nThe state does not enter into that angle of the case at all.\nThe case is returned to court after service.\nNow if they are not arrest in defendants, the sheriff has to go over the court or with the representations affidavit made the lawyer showing the type of service which would most likely reach the attention of the defendant.\nVery often, that calls for publication and sometimes a series of publications, two or more.\nSo, it was on their basis of these features and many other features that we argued in the lower court that this is matter of legislative action rather than judicial determination.\nEvery state in the union so far as I know including the support of the Federal Courts have entry fees and court fees.\nThey're waived in the Federal Court by a form of pauper statute.\nThat is true to in some other states.\nThey have form of pauper statutes.\nBut there are so many factors to be taken into consideration for form of pauper statute that it would seem to me a pauper domain for the legislature.\nAnd then that regard, we mentioned in the brief that in Connecticut right now as of July 1, they've started through the Welfare department of pilot program.\nIncluding in it is a legal services and appropriations for it and last week before coming down, we checked in the progress of this pilot program which is funded by the Welfare department.\nIt's mentioned in our brief and there' a schedule attached there to showing the appropriations available.\nNow that case among other actions they've had through the legal assistance program in Middlesex in County, it's involved and I think three counties, smaller counties to give it a test program, to promote and advocate legislation in the next turn around.\nThey have six divorces' cases printing since July 1.\nThey are making or negotiating a contract with the Middlesex Bar Association to conduct this because it was not only divorce case and it's not only welfare cases that probably need access to courts, but there are many, many indigence probably who can't afford litigations.\nSome of there rights are waived.\nThe OEO or legal assistance in New Haven has paid for entry fees.\nThey do have appropriations entry fees.\nThey could have well brought this case.\nIt seems to me in one situation bringing the a declaratory judgment in the Connecticut Court give the Connecticut Courts of proper way to pass on this issue in a judicial fashion.\nThe Federal Court has held this and another cases that the clerk and the judge who says you can't get in to court unless you pay the entry fee, I have no power to waive the statute, but I can't -- the judicial capacity, we're acting these administrators and the Federal Court says that exactly that that they're acting in administrative capacity when they say they have no power to waive the court.\nWhether the Connecticut Courts would have done anything on that, I do not know.\nNo one else, they do and I don't have the opportunity to pass on it as a group decided the Supreme Court.\nThe only issues here are the -- if there is any constitutional problem in this case, it's whether or not the entry fees statute provides equal protection.\nIt seems necessary to have these entry fee statutes, court cost, if they're reasonable in nature and do not impose an undo burden and no unfair discrimination, no invidious discrimination.\nThey are arbitrary or harsh, then, the fall has been allowed.\nI do not know if this is a case of first impression.\nThere was no other similar situation and this Court has not expanded the Griffin doctrine to situations such as this.\nThe civil suit which doesn't have in and over itself for a no state participation whatsoever, it's a dispute between two individuals and this case here, if the judgment was rendered on this case, this is for welfare recipients.\nHundreds of other people in Connecticut that are indigent can't afford it, but there not welfare recipients.\nThe judgment of this case could well revert and reverse discrimination.\nThat's why we say it's a matter for the legislature.\nAt Due Process, the parties, the plaintiffs made the same claim in the Federal Court about the Due Process, but Due Process -- this three-judge court didn't even consider the issue of Due Process.\nI think Due Process is pertinent cases of this type.\nThey have the right to go to get into court.\nThe only thing is the condition of getting in is him by a reasonably entry fee as these entry fees prevails throughout the United States or court cost prevailed throughout the United States.\nAnd appeals even the federal statute of 1915, incidentally provides only that in a civil case brought in form paupers, the court may request an attorney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel.\nThere's plenty of cases on that and they have been interpreted to mean only that the court may request.\nThey cannot order representation by counsel such as they do in all civil cases.\nWe of course in Connecticut have numerous situations which by statute or specific circumstances allow people to get in the court without payment of fees.\nWhere workman's compensation, the uniform support, that's been waive, but on the statute has been waive as a matter of policy with most dates and there's others that for the moment, I just skip my mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [1662.409, 1665.9, 1684.4, 1687.404, 1692.984, 1712.199, 1718.851, 1728.112, 1732.334, 1735.857, 1754.172, 1762.602, 1781.065, 1789.49, 1794.946, 1797.15, 1799.826, 1813.847, 1830.884, 1847.094, 1855.692, 1884.016, 1891.92, 1911.715, 1915.418, 1921.949, 1925.23, 1927.825, 1939.087, 1966.667, 1972.773, 1982.361, 1999.411, 2018.808, 2025.815, 2029.109, 2038.276, 2056.215, 2062.96, 2068.876, 2092.889, 2107.321, 2115.235, 2118.377, 2133.379, 2153.052, 2159.577, 2167.649, 2180.395], "stop_times": [1665.9, 1684.4, 1687.404, 1692.984, 1712.199, 1718.851, 1728.112, 1732.334, 1735.857, 1754.172, 1762.602, 1781.065, 1789.49, 1794.946, 1797.15, 1799.826, 1813.847, 1830.884, 1847.094, 1855.692, 1884.016, 1891.92, 1911.715, 1915.418, 1921.949, 1925.23, 1927.825, 1939.087, 1966.667, 1972.773, 1982.361, 1999.411, 2018.808, 2025.815, 2029.109, 2038.276, 2056.215, 2062.96, 2068.876, 2092.889, 2107.321, 2115.235, 2118.377, 2133.379, 2153.052, 2159.577, 2167.649, 2180.395, 2199.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.409}, "reply_to": "15509__0_102", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_001", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "General Cannon, I notice in the appendix, appendix A to the brief of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association amicus brief that Connecticut as listed here is having the court's there of having power to waive these fees, is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2199.691], "stop_times": [2220.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.691}, "reply_to": "15509__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__1_002", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That's in the Uniform Reciprocals Enforcement Support Act and yes Your Honor and they waived them as the matter of policy in all cases that uniform Reciprocals Support Act provides that state may waive the cost.\nThat is where they collect for a wife in Connecticut, a husband some other state or vice versa.\nA wife can enforce support for herself and the children by having proceedings in one state orders in the other state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2220.082, 2236.602, 2243.706], "stop_times": [2236.602, 2243.706, 2254.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.082}, "reply_to": "15509__1_001", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_003", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I see.\nSo, it's limited only to the kind of an action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2254.601, 2254.961], "stop_times": [2254.961, 2257.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.601}, "reply_to": "15509__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__1_004", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2257.394], "stop_times": [2258.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.394}, "reply_to": "15509__1_003", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_005", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "An action for maintenance and support?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2258.682], "stop_times": [2261.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.682}, "reply_to": "15509__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__1_006", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2261.225], "stop_times": [2261.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.225}, "reply_to": "15509__1_005", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_007", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2261.912], "stop_times": [2263.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.912}, "reply_to": "15509__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__1_008", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "They have a notation there as I recall it $60.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2263.088], "stop_times": [2264.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.088}, "reply_to": "15509__1_007", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_009", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I see that under UERESA, I'd now see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2264.793], "stop_times": [2267.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.793}, "reply_to": "15509__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__1_010", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "But there's no $60.00 fee in any court cost in Connecticut.\nIt would be combination of the -- if it's $60.00, the combination of $45.00 or entry fee and the $15.00 fee which the client owes to share but not the court do not involved in this situation at all.\nBefore it closing, either --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2267.895, 2271.406, 2285.689], "stop_times": [2271.406, 2285.689, 2286.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.895}, "reply_to": "15509__1_009", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_011", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "$15.00 fee for service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2286.677], "stop_times": [2289.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.677}, "reply_to": "15509__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_012", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I beg your pardon sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2289.33], "stop_times": [2290.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.33}, "reply_to": "15509__1_011", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_013", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "$15.00 fee for what, service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2290.206], "stop_times": [2292.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.206}, "reply_to": "15509__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_014", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Service or process against the defendant citing them in.\nServed the living with him or as the usual place for both, must be the resident of the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2292.092, 2297.023], "stop_times": [2297.023, 2303.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2292.092}, "reply_to": "15509__1_013", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_015", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What are the other cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2303.418], "stop_times": [2306.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.418}, "reply_to": "15509__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_016", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well in divorce, it probably not other, but there is witness fees, investigation ordinary cases, investigation fees and the counts of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2306.475], "stop_times": [2315.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.475}, "reply_to": "15509__1_015", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_017", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Investigation fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2315.655], "stop_times": [2317.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.655}, "reply_to": "15509__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_018", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Not in divorce, I mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2317.651], "stop_times": [2319.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.651}, "reply_to": "15509__1_017", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_019", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2319.038], "stop_times": [2320.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.038}, "reply_to": "15509__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_020", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "In divorce fees -- divorce cases, I would say there's probably rate cost, the sheriff, the witnesses and publication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2320.805], "stop_times": [2332.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.805}, "reply_to": "15509__1_019", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_021", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Suppose the defendant comes in, suppose the plaintiff comes in and files a petition for divorce and the other spouse comes in and agrees to accept service, is there any cost there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2332.454], "stop_times": [2348.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.454}, "reply_to": "15509__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_022", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I've never heard of that situation Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2348.808], "stop_times": [2351.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.808}, "reply_to": "15509__1_021", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_023", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Of accepting service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2351.661], "stop_times": [2353.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.661}, "reply_to": "15509__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_024", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, the service has to do.\nThere some and then under the Connecticut statute by a written summons to appear in court.\nNow, for word of proper form and were signed by an attorney or ordered sign by a clerk or judge rather, then they could accept service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2353.956, 2356.601, 2362.848], "stop_times": [2356.601, 2362.848, 2374.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.956}, "reply_to": "15509__1_023", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_025", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "They could accept.\nCan they just come into the court and file an answer for that in the summons of service summon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2374.467, 2375.333], "stop_times": [2375.333, 2381.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.467}, "reply_to": "15509__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_026", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Without actually making the summons or making actual service of the summons, yes.\nBut there's another statute would says in every civil action shall be in a special form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2381.918, 2390.068], "stop_times": [2390.068, 2395.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.918}, "reply_to": "15509__1_025", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_027", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And they consent this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2395.345], "stop_times": [2395.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.345}, "reply_to": "15509__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_028", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "With the writ of summons and complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2395.914], "stop_times": [2398.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.914}, "reply_to": "15509__1_027", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_029", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And they consent for the case to be tried right way.\nI'm talking about some practices that I know exist over the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2398.206, 2400.571], "stop_times": [2400.571, 2404.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.206}, "reply_to": "15509__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_030", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "No, there's a 90-day waiting period in Connecticut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2404.194], "stop_times": [2406.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.194}, "reply_to": "15509__1_029", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_031", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "They have to wait 90 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2406.31], "stop_times": [2407.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.31}, "reply_to": "15509__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_032", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "After waiting 90 days at any event after they return day before it be brought to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2407.605], "stop_times": [2412.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.605}, "reply_to": "15509__1_031", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_033", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And they have to take evidence of course?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2412.366], "stop_times": [2414.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.366}, "reply_to": "15509__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_034", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "They have to take evidence and it's usually two or three witnesses requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2414.4], "stop_times": [2419.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.4}, "reply_to": "15509__1_033", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_035", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "And why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2419.158], "stop_times": [2420.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.158}, "reply_to": "15509__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_036", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "It's usually two or three supporting witnesses required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2420.396], "stop_times": [2427.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.396}, "reply_to": "15509__1_035", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_037", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. Cannon, how would you describe the state interest that's involved in closing the door of its court circumstances of this kind?\nWhat do you think the real estate interest is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2427.287, 2437.84], "stop_times": [2437.84, 2444.317], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.287}, "reply_to": "15509__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15509__1_038", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well I think this Your Honor, I think the fees are reasonable and then the only way it can be done it seems to me is by discretionary whereby legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2444.317], "stop_times": [2458.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.317}, "reply_to": "15509__1_037", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_039", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What interest this, is the state serving consuming for the moment that there is some kind of a screening process to prevent abusive resorts of to the courts.\nWhat others in the statement personal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2458.5, 2472.32], "stop_times": [2472.32, 2477.961], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.5}, "reply_to": "15509__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15509__1_040", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I'm not sure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2477.961], "stop_times": [2478.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.961}, "reply_to": "15509__1_039", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_041", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Not merely is the legislature because the better body to do it, but what is the -- to make the change and what is the state interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2478.49], "stop_times": [2487.382], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.49}, "reply_to": "15509__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15509__1_042", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The state interest is only -- I presumed to prevent frivolous litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2487.382], "stop_times": [2496.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.382}, "reply_to": "15509__1_041", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_043", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, I supposed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2496.245], "stop_times": [2496.932], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.245}, "reply_to": "15509__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15509__1_044", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Tend to prevent it rather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2496.932], "stop_times": [2497.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.932}, "reply_to": "15509__1_043", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_045", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Supposing you protected it self by setting up procedures screening process of some kind that you said no or we won't waive these fees frivolous, untenable litigation, and what interest is there in the state requires across the board application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2497.858], "stop_times": [2522.934], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.858}, "reply_to": "15509__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15509__1_046", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I don't think that state has legitimate interest to waive all court fees, a license within the realm of the legislature to do it, they could have do it of course, but they have to provide tax measure elsewhere, thus the entry fee do, can or do help to support the judiciary system.\nAs far as disputes between the parties are concerned in a divorce case, the state is a more on standing under the sidelines.\nThey are not a party to the action.\nThey don't represent, the only place that possible in their state would get interested in a divorce case as if they were minor children on welfare or in hospital or mentally retarded institution or somewhat in that sort, so welfare standpoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2522.934, 2548.886, 2559.208, 2560.733], "stop_times": [2548.886, 2559.208, 2560.733, 2577.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2522.934}, "reply_to": "15509__1_045", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_047", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. Cannon, if the screening procedure were set out which required people who could not pay the fee to go through the screening in order to get a waiver of the filing fees and other costs, would that not be a denial of equal protection because rich people would not have to go through that screening process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2577.262], "stop_times": [2598.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.262}, "reply_to": "15509__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__1_048", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well I don't know how they could or have a screening process work in any event.\nIf I intimated that, I didn't mean it, I wouldn't think even from part from the constitutional questions which I would tend to agree with would also seem to be very commerce and then workable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2598.305, 2604.531], "stop_times": [2604.531, 2618.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.305}, "reply_to": "15509__1_047", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_049", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "But I'm not sure I have the position on it.\nI'm just thinking the kind of arguments that we likely be tendered to this Court to make the poor man go through a process which rich man don't have to go through?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2618.534, 2620.201], "stop_times": [2620.201, 2630.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.534}, "reply_to": "15509__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__1_050", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, I think there are to be a reasonably form of pauper statute in every state that myself, but I don't know how it's going of the done.\nThere are so many factors.\nThere are so many situations that will come up.\nI'm sure that this program, it's now being well developed some good.\nThe funds appropriated.\nThere's a total $119,000.00.\nI think that was more than that though I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2630.492, 2639.125, 2640.191, 2644.021, 2651.856, 2655.289, 2667.163], "stop_times": [2639.125, 2640.191, 2644.021, 2651.856, 2655.289, 2667.163, 2671.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.492}, "reply_to": "15509__1_049", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_051", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2671.353], "stop_times": [2673.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.353}, "reply_to": "15509__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_052", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The pilot -- there's a pilot program justice.\nIt is being worked out through the welfare department in Hartford, in Connecticut.\nIt's a special legal services project; a $119,000.00 is being tried out in two smaller counties up there and the director --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2673.397, 2676.13, 2684.591], "stop_times": [2676.13, 2684.591, 2699.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.397}, "reply_to": "15509__1_051", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_053", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Is that a $119,000.00 or people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2699.167], "stop_times": [2702.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.167}, "reply_to": "15509__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__1_054", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Dollars.\nAnd they provide legal services and their purpose is as said by the acting commission in welfare is to enable us to make recommendations for program or policy changes that our statewide programs\nWe are getting this form of pauper statutes.\nSomebody's got to pay the sheriff for publication and newspaper and things like that.\nNow, what -- there's another problem is to what appropriated state fund is going to be charge to.\nWe have statute of course that no state officer can spend the moneys that are not appropriated and other statute that he can only spend the moneys for the purposes for which it was appropriated.\nOtherwise, this personal liability on the officer had probably other expose to other chargers.\nIt's sort of a complex procedure and seemed to me that it's a matter really for the -- rather really for the legislature and I think that the constitutional programs for questions raised either are not too momentous in view of the fact that access is a Due Process isn't a picture because access the court is not deny, it's him then or condition by a reasonable charge which is prevails, so far as I know that every state in the union and then the Federal Government, the Federal Courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2702.537, 2704.182, 2721.089, 2723.762, 2727.712, 2735.328, 2749.451, 2759.033], "stop_times": [2704.182, 2721.089, 2723.762, 2727.712, 2735.328, 2749.451, 2759.033, 2797.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.537}, "reply_to": "15509__1_053", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_055", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Suppose the state should decide to abolish its divorce law, do you think Federal Constitution would permit it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2797.705], "stop_times": [2806.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.705}, "reply_to": "15509__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_056", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The old cases have said so Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2806.977], "stop_times": [2810.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2806.977}, "reply_to": "15509__1_055", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_057", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "What?\nHave said what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2810.85, 2811.397], "stop_times": [2811.397, 2812.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.85}, "reply_to": "15509__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_058", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The old cases which seemed to indicated that where is not likely they've been large and made it into more rarely available because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2812.593], "stop_times": [2822.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2812.593}, "reply_to": "15509__1_057", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_059", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Most provision of the Federal Constitution was violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2822.345], "stop_times": [2826.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.345}, "reply_to": "15509__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_060", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Would bar divorce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2826.265], "stop_times": [2828.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.265}, "reply_to": "15509__1_059", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_061", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If a state should bard divorce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2828.67], "stop_times": [2831.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.67}, "reply_to": "15509__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_062", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I think it's purely state matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2831.795], "stop_times": [2834.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.795}, "reply_to": "15509__1_061", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_063", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "It would what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2834.011], "stop_times": [2835.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.011}, "reply_to": "15509__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_064", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I would think Justice it's purely state matter the court may bard divorces without being in contravention of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2835.259], "stop_times": [2842.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.259}, "reply_to": "15509__1_063", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_065", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well then, you wouldn't think it violated the Federal Constitution for state to abolish divorce in town.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2842.453], "stop_times": [2848.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.453}, "reply_to": "15509__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_066", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I would not think so that bringing every state in the union has different grounds and different conditions prevailing in divorce cases.\nAs far as Connecticut is concerned of the end of three year residence, but now this year, they reduced it to one year to show that their --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2848.0, 2856.136], "stop_times": [2856.136, 2866.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.0}, "reply_to": "15509__1_065", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_067", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Much up too much as conscience, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2866.084], "stop_times": [2869.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.084}, "reply_to": "15509__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_068", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, that is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2869.038], "stop_times": [2870.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2869.038}, "reply_to": "15509__1_067", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_069", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That would be true among legal findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2870.605], "stop_times": [2873.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.605}, "reply_to": "15509__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__1_070", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2873.886], "stop_times": [2883.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.886}, "reply_to": "15509__1_069", "speaker": "raymond_j_cannon"}
{"id": "15509__1_071", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Mr. LaFrance, do you have anything further?\nYou have about two and a half or three minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2883.496, 2886.254], "stop_times": [2886.254, 2889.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.496}, "reply_to": "15509__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__2_000", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Let me pick up Mr. Chief Justice three points right quickly.\nThe first is that Mr. Cannon had suggested that the appellant should have bought a declaratory judgment proceeding in Connecticut so that the Connecticut Supreme Court would have an opportunity to rule property on the issues imposed in this case.\nAll I can say is that we submitted an application to Superior Court for New Haven County and then pursued it to the administrator of the court's of State of Connecticut who is a Supreme Court Justice.\nNot only where we not given an opportunity to present this issue and argue it, our papers were simply sent back.\nNow for failure to pay the filing fees, if we have brought a declaratory judgment proceeding, the same filing fees would have been required and our papers presumably there would have been set back.\nWe did make the attempt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2889.585, 2895.485, 2907.922, 2922.595, 2929.092, 2940.412], "stop_times": [2895.485, 2907.922, 2922.595, 2929.092, 2940.412, 2941.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2889.585}, "reply_to": "15509__1_071", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_001", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "4500?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2941.78], "stop_times": [2942.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.78}, "reply_to": "15509__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__2_002", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2942.976], "stop_times": [2943.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2942.976}, "reply_to": "15509__2_001", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_003", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Or the declaratory judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2943.852], "stop_times": [2945.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.852}, "reply_to": "15509__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__2_004", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes, the $45.00 -- I would have to check the statutes again Your Honor, but there is certainly an entry fee attached to all proceedings brought the Superior Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2945.229], "stop_times": [2957.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2945.229}, "reply_to": "15509__2_003", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_005", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "4918 close $45.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2957.237], "stop_times": [2961.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.237}, "reply_to": "15509__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15509__2_006", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I believe so.\nThere is a flat $45.00 entry fee required for filling proceedings.\nThere are some exceptions as Mr. Cannon noted, but the declaratory judgment proceeding, I do not believe would be one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2961.556, 2963.093, 2968.593], "stop_times": [2963.093, 2968.593, 2975.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2961.556}, "reply_to": "15509__2_005", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_007", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "That is nothing at all to do with any further or other expenses across that there might be for service and so on.\nAs I read it on the bottom of page 3 of your brief, it just $45.00 but what it says each civil cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2975.288, 2981.344], "stop_times": [2981.344, 2989.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.288}, "reply_to": "15509__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__2_008", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2989.336], "stop_times": [2989.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2989.336}, "reply_to": "15509__2_007", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_009", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "However, that's defined else where in your statutes, I don't know, but that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2989.696], "stop_times": [2993.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.696}, "reply_to": "15509__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__2_010", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Service with me in addition to the $45.00 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2993.798], "stop_times": [2995.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2993.798}, "reply_to": "15509__2_009", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_011", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "-- in the civil case, you have to pay for $45.00 quite apart for any additional expenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [2995.824], "stop_times": [3000.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2995.824}, "reply_to": "15509__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15509__2_012", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Yes, that is correct.\nThe second point that I would like to pick up quickly is simply that there is no justification in Connecticut for imposing this requirement of filing fees.\nIt does not discourage frivolous litigation.\nThe wealthy can bring that litigation if they choose to do so.\nWhat is achieved by these filing requirements is that the poor may not bring frivolous litigation.\nWe submit that this letter is a denial of equal protection of the laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3000.467, 3002.481, 3011.824, 3014.07, 3019.018, 3026.108], "stop_times": [3002.481, 3011.824, 3014.07, 3019.018, 3026.108, 3030.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3000.467}, "reply_to": "15509__2_011", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_013", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Because that assumed that there is a constitutional right to bring frivolous litigation as you have defined it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3030.27], "stop_times": [3036.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.27}, "reply_to": "15509__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__2_014", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "No, it does not.\nIt does assumed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3036.655, 3037.857], "stop_times": [3037.857, 3038.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3036.655}, "reply_to": "15509__2_013", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_015", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Sounds like the predicate for your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3038.713], "stop_times": [3041.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.713}, "reply_to": "15509__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__2_016", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "It does ssumed that there's a constitutional right to bring on behalf of the poor the same of kind of litigation which the wealthy can bring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3041.198], "stop_times": [3049.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3041.198}, "reply_to": "15509__2_015", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_017", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "But you defined it in your hypothesis as frivolous.\nYou say because a rich man can bring frivolous litigation, a poor man must be guaranteed by the constitution like a merit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3049.503, 3054.202], "stop_times": [3054.202, 3062.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.503}, "reply_to": "15509__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15509__2_018", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Perhaps, I should -- well, I will argue that but I would also contend that the fee requirement in Connecticut has the further affect of discouraging meritorious litigation by the court.\nIn other words, it bards all litigation by the poor whether frivolous or not.\nAnd that is a consequence which we feel that constitutional --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3062.483, 3072.59, 3076.76], "stop_times": [3072.59, 3076.76, 3081.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3062.483}, "reply_to": "15509__2_017", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_019", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Your argument -- it would require as I understood it that the state fee a lawyer was a divorce -- question among the divorce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3081.79], "stop_times": [3093.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.79}, "reply_to": "15509__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_020", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I'm sorry, am I contending that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3093.195], "stop_times": [3095.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3093.195}, "reply_to": "15509__2_019", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_021", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Are you not?\nAre you arguing that because of rich man can hire lawyer to get a divorce?\nThe state must supply lawyer for a poor women or poor men wants to get a divorce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3095.217, 3098.026, 3103.63], "stop_times": [3098.026, 3103.63, 3108.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.217}, "reply_to": "15509__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_022", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "No, I'm not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3108.492], "stop_times": [3109.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3108.492}, "reply_to": "15509__2_021", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_023", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Well, how could you keep from doing it if you made them pay the call?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3109.518], "stop_times": [3112.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.518}, "reply_to": "15509__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_024", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Because the State of Connecticut does not require a person to come in to court with a lawyer.\nIt requires a person to come in to court with the money to pay filing fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3112.73, 3117.618], "stop_times": [3117.618, 3121.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3112.73}, "reply_to": "15509__2_023", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_025", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "But the case on which you're relaying was a lawyer, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3121.349], "stop_times": [3125.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.349}, "reply_to": "15509__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_026", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "The case on which I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3125.778], "stop_times": [3126.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3125.778}, "reply_to": "15509__2_025", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_027", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Within was not a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3126.457], "stop_times": [3130.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.457}, "reply_to": "15509__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_028", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "In Griffin issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3130.058], "stop_times": [3130.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3130.058}, "reply_to": "15509__2_027", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_029", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "If it will be just Illinois?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3130.585], "stop_times": [3133.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.585}, "reply_to": "15509__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_030", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "It was a transcript on appeal Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3133.916], "stop_times": [3137.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3133.916}, "reply_to": "15509__2_029", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_031", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "But you wouldn't say that they would be required to supply lawyer.\nHow could a poor person try the case without lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3137.12, 3141.649], "stop_times": [3141.649, 3145.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.12}, "reply_to": "15509__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_032", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "All you would have to do, I suppose would -- in the instance of divorce is go to married in Connecticut, sit and watch the informal proceedings on which divorces are granted, present his two witnesses which usually consisted of a mother and a neighbor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3145.719], "stop_times": [3160.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3145.719}, "reply_to": "15509__2_031", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_033", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Suppose they litigated and the other fellow had a good lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3160.926], "stop_times": [3163.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.926}, "reply_to": "15509__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_034", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "In that case the State of Connecticut has provision for the husband to be assessed for the cost of providing counsel.\nI do not contend here that counsel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3163.688, 3173.689], "stop_times": [3173.689, 3178.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3163.688}, "reply_to": "15509__2_033", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_035", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Suppose -- one finally gets the divorce and use the full person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3178.108], "stop_times": [3183.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.108}, "reply_to": "15509__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15509__2_036", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "Your Honor, I do not contend that a person without counsel is as well equipped as a person with counsel to litigate in court.\nAll I do contend is that what is required by the constitution is that the person be given an opportunity to get in to court.\nThe constitution does not require that the state go farther and provide counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3183.378, 3191.203, 3198.716], "stop_times": [3191.203, 3198.716, 3206.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3183.378}, "reply_to": "15509__2_035", "speaker": "arthur_b_lafrance"}
{"id": "15509__2_037", "conversation_id": "15509", "text": "I think your time is up Mr. LaFrance.\nThank you for your submission.\nThank you for Mr. Cannon for yours.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_27", "start_times": [3206.891, 3208.55, 3209.775, 3211.262], "stop_times": [3208.55, 3209.775, 3211.262, 3214.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.891}, "reply_to": "15509__2_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_000", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Next case on for argument is Number 768, Boys Market against Retail Clerks Union.\nMr. McLaughlin, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [0.0, 53.915], "stop_times": [53.915, 56.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_001", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis case presents an issue which this Court faced eight years ago in Sinclair Refining Company versus Atkinson.\nThe question is again here today as well as an additional questionnaire to the -- was not present in Sinclair.\nThe issue basically is whether federal courts have jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to enjoin strikes and work stoppages by labor organizations in violation of their promises contained in their labor agreements not to engage in strikes or work stoppages during the term of the labor agreement and to submit such disputes to arbitration.\nThis involves the question as to whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act should be accommodated to Section 301 and held not to bar the issuance of injunctions against strikes in breach or promise to arbitrate and not to strike.\nSo the continuing validity of this Court's decision in Sinclair is squarely at issue here today.\nAlso, there's a subsidiary question and that relates to the continued vitality of state court injunctions in the federal court after removal under Avco, that is assuming that this Court finds that Sinclair was rightly decided.\nThe factual background is simple, the petitioner and the respondent, at all times material hereto, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement.\nOn that agreement provided in pertinent parts that all disputes involving in any way the interpretation and application of the agreement shall be submitted to arbitration.\nIt further contained a specific agreement that there would be no strikes, cessations of work, picketing, boycotts or lockouts during the term of the contract.\nIt contained yet another specific provision namely that matters subject to the arbitration procedure should be settled and resolved by that established procedure.\nThe employer operates a chain of some 35 supermarkets.\nOn a particular day in 1969, the employer was utilizing some non-union -- some non-bargaining unit personnel to stock a frozen food case.\nA union business agent observed this and objected, demanded that the employer cease.\nThe employer believing that he was not in violation of the contract refused.\nThe union called a strike.\nAll the employees left the store.\nPicketing commenced.\nThe customers were told that the store has closed.\nThere is no service.\nPickets carried signs saying, \u201cLocal 770, this store on strike, please respect our picket lines.\u201d\nThe employer demanded arbitration.\nThe union refused and continued to picket.\nThe employer went to the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and obtained a temporary restraining order and also an order to show cause by preliminary injunction was issued.\nNow in connection with this state court procedure, union counsel was notified as provided by local court rule after argument in chambers in consideration of the verified complaints, the affidavits and the likes, the order was issued.\nNow the temporary restraining order enjoined the work stoppage.\nThe union responded promptly by removing the case to the federal court and in the federal court filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order.\nIn opposition, the employer filed in the federal court a motion for an order compelling arbitration for an order requiring specific performance of the agreement to arbitrate and application for a preliminary injunction against the strike.\nNow the district judge was well aware of Avco and was well aware of this Court's decision in Sinclair.\nAnd after consideration of the arguments of the parties in the various documents submitted, he denied the union's motion to quash the state court injunction.\nHe granted the employer's motion for an order compelling arbitration in enjoining the work stoppage.\nThe union appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the District Court on the ground of Sinclair.\nNow Your Honors, the underlying premise of the trilogy in Lincoln Mills of the law which this Court has developed under Section 301 is that arbitration is the most favorable solution, the most feasible solution to industrial warfare.\nAdjudication on the merits is to be substituted for muscle.\nThis Court has said that the no strike agreement is the quid pro quo for the employer's agreement to arbitrate.\nNow, if unions are free to strike and the employer is bound to arbitrate, this does not only mean that the employer doesn't receive his bargain, the benefit of this bargain which is really about the only thing an employer gets from a labor agreement but also most serious imbalance results.\nThis Court has said that arbitration is the kingpin of the federal labor policy under Section 301.\nWell, the kingpin is destroyed by the strike in breach of contract where the union is obligated to arbitrate the underlying union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [56.435, 60.069, 69.005, 76.773, 108.577, 125.273, 132.84, 157.825, 168.414, 180.787, 192.55, 205.802, 210.224, 221.411, 227.461, 231.786, 233.21, 235.365, 237.092, 239.497, 241.385, 248.819, 251.382, 254.078, 264.597, 276.914, 280.273, 289.822, 304.284, 310.537, 319.912, 325.248, 333.547, 350.033, 355.645, 362.551, 380.463, 387.716], "stop_times": [60.069, 69.005, 76.773, 108.577, 125.273, 132.84, 157.825, 168.414, 180.787, 192.55, 205.802, 210.224, 221.411, 227.461, 231.786, 233.21, 235.365, 237.092, 239.497, 241.385, 248.819, 251.382, 254.078, 264.597, 276.914, 280.273, 289.822, 304.284, 310.537, 319.912, 325.248, 333.547, 350.033, 355.645, 362.551, 380.463, 387.716, 396.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 56.435}, "reply_to": "14985__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_002", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Are you asking us to overrule the Sinclair case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [396.308], "stop_times": [399.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.308}, "reply_to": "14985__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_003", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [399.621], "stop_times": [401.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 399.621}, "reply_to": "14985__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_004", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "When was it decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [401.559], "stop_times": [402.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.559}, "reply_to": "14985__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_005", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "1962 Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [402.676], "stop_times": [404.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 402.676}, "reply_to": "14985__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_006", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Is to statutory decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [404.463], "stop_times": [407.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.463}, "reply_to": "14985__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_007", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Your Honor it was a decision of the -- decision of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [407.903], "stop_times": [410.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 407.903}, "reply_to": "14985__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_008", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Is it based on a statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [410.294], "stop_times": [412.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.294}, "reply_to": "14985__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_009", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [412.281], "stop_times": [413.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 412.281}, "reply_to": "14985__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_010", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Nothing but a statute.\nHas it been presented in Congress to change it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [413.49, 414.827], "stop_times": [414.827, 418.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.49}, "reply_to": "14985__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_011", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, Your Honor in Sinclair, this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [418.297], "stop_times": [420.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 418.297}, "reply_to": "14985__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_012", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "You try -- you're trying to get the -- a dissent in that case of 1962, reinstated as the law today under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [420.212], "stop_times": [428.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.212}, "reply_to": "14985__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_013", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "That's correct sir, yes because I believe the dissent was correct.\nThe decision of 1962 is simply out of harmony with the congressional policy which this Court has found in Section 301 that is that the federal courts under Section 301 are to develop a body of federal labor law.\nAnd as I'm pointing out before, arbitration has been declared to be the kingpin of that policy.\nNow the objection at the Norris-LaGuardia Act forbids what almost every commentator what agrees is necessary and desirable is simply not sound because you can adopt, you can accommodate Section 301, Norris-LaGuardia Act so as to give the fullest possible effect to the central purpose of those statutes.\nThe courts done this before, it's done in -- on the field of antitrust.\nJustice Frankfurter writing for the court accommodated Norris-LaGuardia to the antitrust laws and the Hutcheson case.\nIn Chicago River, this Court accommodated Section 301 with the Railway Labor Act and I submit that in Lincoln Mills this Court likewise accommodated the Norris-LaGuardia Act with Section 301.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [428.052, 434.692, 449.51, 455.215, 476.112, 479.954, 487.589], "stop_times": [434.692, 449.51, 455.215, 476.112, 479.954, 487.589, 500.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 428.052}, "reply_to": "14985__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_014", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Have you filed or joined and then request to Congress to change this statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [500.253], "stop_times": [505.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.253}, "reply_to": "14985__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_015", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [505.882], "stop_times": [506.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 505.882}, "reply_to": "14985__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_016", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "-- as it was construed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [506.104], "stop_times": [507.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.104}, "reply_to": "14985__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_017", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice, I didn't hear you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [507.295], "stop_times": [508.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 507.295}, "reply_to": "14985__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_018", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Have you joined and then request to Congress to change this statute as we construed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [508.919], "stop_times": [513.979], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 508.919}, "reply_to": "14985__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_019", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "No, Your Honor neither --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [513.979], "stop_times": [514.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 513.979}, "reply_to": "14985__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_020", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "That (Inaudible) eight years ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [514.288], "stop_times": [516.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.288}, "reply_to": "14985__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_021", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Neither I nor anyone I represent has opposed the Congress on this matter sir.\nNow, no viable distinction, it seems to me at least can be made between the accommodation of Chicago River and the failure to accommodate in Sinclair with Section 301.\nThe only distinction is that in Chicago River the arbitrator was a National Railroad Adjustment Board.\nAnd here under Taft-Hartley Section 301, it's an arbitrator who was selected through the contractually agreed upon procedures.\nI respectfully submit that the question that was asked or the question rather that was stated in the Court's opinion in Sinclair was the wrong question.\nThe opinion of the court starts off stating the question as being whether Section 301 and I believe the phrase used is \u201cimpliedly repealed\u201d Section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.\nI think the answer to that is obviously no.\nI think the proper question, I would respectfully suggest, is a question as to whether the statute should be accommodated to each other and I think the answer there is just as obvious and its yes.\nNow, the legislative history of Section 301 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [516.375, 523.465, 535.866, 543.268, 551.912, 564.082, 575.886, 579.648, 595.944], "stop_times": [523.465, 535.866, 543.268, 551.912, 564.082, 575.886, 579.648, 595.944, 598.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 516.375}, "reply_to": "14985__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_022", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I suppose that you would say that as a threshold matter before a court could issue the injunction to enforce the no-strike clause, you would -- the court would have to pass on the arbitrability of the dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [598.481], "stop_times": [616.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.481}, "reply_to": "14985__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_023", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, obviously Your Honor and as this Court has pointed out it is the function of the court to determine arbitrability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [616.177], "stop_times": [622.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 616.177}, "reply_to": "14985__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_024", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "And pass on the scope of the no-strike clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [622.011], "stop_times": [624.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.011}, "reply_to": "14985__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_025", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "That would -- that's undoubtedly the case because, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [624.967], "stop_times": [626.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 624.967}, "reply_to": "14985__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_026", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, are any exceptions to it and things like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [626.854], "stop_times": [630.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.854}, "reply_to": "14985__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_027", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I can't think of any at the moment Your Honor, there would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [630.376], "stop_times": [632.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 630.376}, "reply_to": "14985__0_026", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_028", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "And then about an unfair labor practice strike, I suppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [632.411], "stop_times": [635.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.411}, "reply_to": "14985__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_029", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, in unfair labor practice strike of course that's something else the court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [635.226], "stop_times": [639.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 635.226}, "reply_to": "14985__0_028", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_030", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "So the courts going to end up to be doing a lot of arbitrators work just to get to the injunction question, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [639.08], "stop_times": [645.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.08}, "reply_to": "14985__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_031", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor because unless an agreement specifically confides the question arbitrability to the arbitrator.\nIt is the court's function to determine arbitrability.\nNow, in determining arbitrability, you have to interpret the scope of the arbitration clause and it's not unusual on contracts for matters to be accepted from the scope of the arbitration clause.\nNow likewise with respect to a no-strike clause, it seems --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [645.227, 655.306, 658.316, 669.797], "stop_times": [655.306, 658.316, 669.797, 672.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 645.227}, "reply_to": "14985__0_030", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_032", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Is this contract still that -- I mean, which this dispute arose still in effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [672.195], "stop_times": [676.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.195}, "reply_to": "14985__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_033", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "This particular contract expired was replaced after a strike by a successor contract.\nThe language of this section and the language of the contract which relates to and which would have anything with the issues before this Court are identical.\nThey haven't been changed they are enforced in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [676.923, 682.392, 690.808], "stop_times": [682.392, 690.808, 693.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 676.923}, "reply_to": "14985__0_032", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_034", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "And the -- no one has to know -- nobody has to determine whether or not there is any contract about the -- about this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [693.815], "stop_times": [704.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.815}, "reply_to": "14985__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_035", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "No, there's no -- there is no issue in this case at all and union counsel for example will not deny one that there was a labor agreement at certain points to the language of the no-strike clause.\nIf you're -- as is clear as language can possibly be and it would be extremely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [704.662, 715.81], "stop_times": [715.81, 722.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 704.662}, "reply_to": "14985__0_034", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_036", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "And the dispute was arbitrable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [722.998], "stop_times": [725.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.998}, "reply_to": "14985__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_037", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [725.093], "stop_times": [726.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 725.093}, "reply_to": "14985__0_036", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_038", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Now, to get it in focus, what would happen if the employer locked out the employees and the union wanted to grant a remedy what are their alternatives, what are their remedies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [726.519], "stop_times": [739.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.519}, "reply_to": "14985__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_039", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Under this contract and under similar contracts, if the union business agent had come in the store and he had said, \"You're improperly stocking the frozen food cases, it's a violation.\"\nAnd the employer had said it is not and you better forget about it and then the union business agent refused to it, and then the employer lock the people out or something like that.\nThen the union could have gone to court under this contract and under the law as I think it is and should be, could have gone to court and could have obtained a restraining order against the employer.\nIn fact, I would stipulate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [739.986, 750.12, 759.145, 770.14], "stop_times": [750.12, 759.145, 770.14, 770.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 739.986}, "reply_to": "14985__0_038", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_040", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "But now, doesn't Norris-LaGuardia forbid injunctions against both employers and unions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [770.202], "stop_times": [776.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.202}, "reply_to": "14985__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_041", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "It most certainly does sir but I don't that Norris-LaGuardia forbids --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [776.446], "stop_times": [779.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 776.446}, "reply_to": "14985__0_040", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_042", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, you -- I know your argument here that it doesn't but what is the present state of the law under Sinclair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [779.823], "stop_times": [786.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.823}, "reply_to": "14985__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_043", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Oh, under Sin --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [786.573], "stop_times": [787.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 786.573}, "reply_to": "14985__0_042", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_044", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Under Sinclair, could the employer -- could the union get an injunction against the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [787.112], "stop_times": [792.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.112}, "reply_to": "14985__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_045", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [792.767], "stop_times": [795.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 792.767}, "reply_to": "14985__0_044", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_046", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "So that at least as of now, under Sinclair both the employer and the -- and union are in the same posture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [795.844], "stop_times": [803.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.844}, "reply_to": "14985__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_047", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, they're in the same posture with respect to getting the injunction but they're not in the same posture with respect to the objectives of arbitration and with respect to what the real meaning of the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [803.255], "stop_times": [813.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 803.255}, "reply_to": "14985__0_046", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_048", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, let me strip it away then.\nAre they in the same posture in terms of the enforceability of the no-strike clause or the no-lockout clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [813.964, 816.704], "stop_times": [816.704, 825.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.964}, "reply_to": "14985__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_049", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Legally speaking in terms of their right to access to the court or lack of right, they are the in same position, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [825.216], "stop_times": [832.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 825.216}, "reply_to": "14985__0_048", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_050", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "So that if we overrule Sinclair, you'd put them again in the same posture but that they'd both have access, each would have access to the injunctive power of the courts to compel arbitration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [832.675], "stop_times": [847.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.675}, "reply_to": "14985__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_051", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [847.798], "stop_times": [850.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 847.798}, "reply_to": "14985__0_050", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_052", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Would that have been true when Sinclair was argued and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [850.185], "stop_times": [852.611], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 850.185}, "reply_to": "14985__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_053", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Yes sir, I believe so.\nAs I to start to say the legislative history of this statute doesn't indicate the congressional disapproval of this accommodation that we're suggesting here today.\nIn Sinclair this Court read more into that legislative history than it can properly bear.\nJustice Frankfurter and his dissent in Lincoln Mills I believe said that the legislative history of Section 301 leaves us in the dark.\nIn Lincoln Mills, the majority opinion of this Court said that the legislative history of Section 301 was cloudy and confusing.\nOne thing, Lincoln Mills did said about that legislative history though was that Congress interested in promoting collective bargaining that ended with the agreements not to strike.\nNow, if Congress was interested in promoting collective bargaining that ended with agreements not to strike, the enforcement of those agreement or the enforcement of those agreements must be provided for so as to make them meaningful because one thing Congress obviously wasn't doing, it obviously wasn't engaging in an idle exercise to encourage people to make agreements which were meaningless in practical effect.\nIf arbitration is going to work, the federal scheme must permit the effectuation of labor policy in the field of arbitration by means of the injunction against the strike and breach of contract.\nNow, it's been suggested that this is not necessary.\nIt's been suggested that there are other and alternative ways to handle this problem.\nFor example, the remedy of damages has been suggested.\nWell, damages as a remedy against a union, Your Honors, if I can bring 15 years of intimate experience about it to bear, damages against a union with whom a -- an employer has a collective bargaining relationship are meaningless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [852.611, 859.321, 870.511, 876.03, 885.262, 895.597, 906.46, 934.499, 946.65, 949.255, 953.892, 957.563], "stop_times": [859.321, 870.511, 876.03, 885.262, 895.597, 906.46, 934.499, 946.65, 949.255, 953.892, 957.563, 977.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 852.611}, "reply_to": "14985__0_052", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_054", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Why don't you -- how about arbitrating and then enforcing the award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [977.363], "stop_times": [982.696], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 977.363}, "reply_to": "14985__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_055", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, first of all, to arbitrate in the face of a strike is difficult.\nSecondly, a strike defeats the arbitrator's jurisdiction.\nAnd thirdly, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [982.696, 988.263, 994.987], "stop_times": [988.263, 994.987, 996.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 982.696}, "reply_to": "14985__0_054", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_056", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "It what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [996.487], "stop_times": [997.923], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 996.487}, "reply_to": "14985__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_057", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "A strike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [997.923], "stop_times": [998.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 997.923}, "reply_to": "14985__0_056", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_058", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Oh, you wouldn't say the arbitrator didn't have jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [998.687], "stop_times": [1000.826], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 998.687}, "reply_to": "14985__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_059", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, jurisdiction Your Honor in the sense that the -- his ability to consider the matter on the merits to adjudicate the thing sanely and in a civilize fashion is defeated because, Your Honor, the employer in this case over who was right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1000.826], "stop_times": [1015.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1000.826}, "reply_to": "14985__0_058", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_060", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, the fact remains you could arbitrate, could you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1015.083], "stop_times": [1017.538], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.083}, "reply_to": "14985__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_061", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Pardon, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1017.538], "stop_times": [1018.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1017.538}, "reply_to": "14985__0_060", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_062", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "The fact remains you could arbitrate your dispute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1018.235], "stop_times": [1020.24], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.235}, "reply_to": "14985__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_063", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Oh, yes but in this case for example, if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1020.24], "stop_times": [1022.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1020.24}, "reply_to": "14985__0_062", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_064", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "But you could arbitrate it, if I may interrupt you, you could arbitrate if both parties agreed to arbitrate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1022.34], "stop_times": [1027.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.34}, "reply_to": "14985__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_065", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1027.604], "stop_times": [1027.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1027.604}, "reply_to": "14985__0_064", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_066", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "-- except, otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1027.761], "stop_times": [1028.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.761}, "reply_to": "14985__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_067", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "That's another point.\nIf --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1028.736, 1029.613], "stop_times": [1029.613, 1030.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1028.736}, "reply_to": "14985__0_066", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_068", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, if you could get an order to arbitrate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1030.196], "stop_times": [1032.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.196}, "reply_to": "14985__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_069", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, but only -- that's my point; we should be able to get an order to arbitrate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1032.311], "stop_times": [1035.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1032.311}, "reply_to": "14985__0_068", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_070", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Or you could get an order to arbitrate, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1035.08], "stop_times": [1036.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.08}, "reply_to": "14985__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_071", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Yes.\nBut at the same time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1036.955, 1037.329], "stop_times": [1037.329, 1037.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1036.955}, "reply_to": "14985__0_070", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_072", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "And you -- then you can arbitrate and you can enforce the award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1037.878], "stop_times": [1041.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.878}, "reply_to": "14985__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_073", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1041.827], "stop_times": [1042.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1041.827}, "reply_to": "14985__0_072", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_074", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I take it the -- your opponents can or am I wrong, do they -- don't they concede that a court could issue an order enforcing an arbitration award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1042.281], "stop_times": [1054.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.281}, "reply_to": "14985__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_075", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1054.231], "stop_times": [1054.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1054.231}, "reply_to": "14985__0_074", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_076", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Without violating Norris-LaGuardia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1054.917], "stop_times": [1057.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.917}, "reply_to": "14985__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_077", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I don't know what their position would be with respect to that.\nI have three comments that I would like to make.\nFirst, with respect what would've happen here, the dispute involved the propriety of the way a frozen food case was being stocked or rather a large frozen food case but nevertheless that.\nNow, the collective bargainingship -- relationship or the collective-bargaining relationship with these parties is made up of hundreds and thousands of disputes like this over the years.\nNow, if the employer in this case had to wait while somebody got an order to arbitrate and then had arbitration hearing and then came back with an order and that leaves still unanswered Your Honor the question of the courts ability to specifically enforce the award of the arbitrator.\nThat's a question that came up in New Orleans Steamship and the Philadelphia Marine.\nIn any event, my employer in this case, it isn't worth it.\nHe's loss the benefit of his bargain.\nHe can't have a store shutdown with the enormous overhead of a modern supermarket for a period of two or three months while an arbitrator decides a dispute.\nIt has defeated the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1057.411, 1060.056, 1062.633, 1078.422, 1089.746, 1106.712, 1110.817, 1115.483, 1117.505, 1125.648], "stop_times": [1060.056, 1062.633, 1078.422, 1089.746, 1106.712, 1110.817, 1115.483, 1117.505, 1125.648, 1128.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1057.411}, "reply_to": "14985__0_076", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_078", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, let's take another situation, suppose an employer discharges an employee and the union goes on a strike, do you think that you should be able to enjoin the strike while the union arbitrates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1128.537], "stop_times": [1149.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.537}, "reply_to": "14985__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_079", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Absolutely and the reason for that Your Honor is that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1149.116], "stop_times": [1151.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1149.116}, "reply_to": "14985__0_078", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_080", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, don't you think that -- what do you think about putting the man back to work while you're arbitrating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1151.721], "stop_times": [1156.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.721}, "reply_to": "14985__0_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14985__0_081", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, the point is that this things --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1156.747], "stop_times": [1159.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1156.747}, "reply_to": "14985__0_080", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_082", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "You don't do that do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1159.776], "stop_times": [1161.069], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.776}, "reply_to": "14985__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_083", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "No sir, we do not and I do not think we should have to.\nNow I'd be glad to explain why, if I may.\nThe reason is this, is that when the arbitrator renders his award and he says for example that that the employee was wrongly discharged that employee can be made whole because he is awarded reinstatement, he is awarded back pay.\nWhatever happened can be quite readily remedied.\nNow a strike in breach of contract is something of an entirely different order.\nIt's not the same thing at all.\nAnd so that's why Your Honor I don't think that there's -- an inequality as Your Honor at least to me seem to be suggesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1161.069, 1164.449, 1166.811, 1181.591, 1186.351, 1190.781, 1193.396], "stop_times": [1164.449, 1166.811, 1181.591, 1186.351, 1190.781, 1193.396, 1200.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1161.069}, "reply_to": "14985__0_082", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_084", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Could I ask you a question, its perhaps drawing more on your own experience, what would say was a fair estimate of what impact Sinclair has had during the eight years of the union management relations, is that a question that you can draw any light on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1200.091], "stop_times": [1222.354], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.091}, "reply_to": "14985__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14985__0_085", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I can throw some light on it from my own experience.\nI personally do not think that at least in the areas where I have practiced that Sinclair itself has had much in effect at all until Avco came along.\nBut you see, that was because for example in the southern district of California which is now the central in the south district, the courts there refused to accept removed cases from the superior court.\nNow, the gimmick in combination, Sinclair and Avco, you see, we removed the case from the superior court and the anomaly of that is and Congress could never have intended this, that an employer actually ends up with lesser means of effectuating his rights under the contract than he had before Section 301 and this I -- I'm -- I don't think anyone could say they were intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1222.354, 1225.051, 1235.404, 1247.191], "stop_times": [1225.051, 1235.404, 1247.191, 1272.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1222.354}, "reply_to": "14985__0_084", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_086", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "May I ask you one question?\nIs there any difference in circumstances or conditions with reference to this case, now and eight years ago when its decided except that the members of the court have changed and that the personnel is different by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1272.004, 1274.726], "stop_times": [1274.726, 1294.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.004}, "reply_to": "14985__0_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_087", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, Your Honor I think a number a things have happened to change it.\nFor example, first of all as I made it plain, I think the decision was wrong and if it was -- if I'm correct sir I may respectfully suggest if it was wrong then, it's likely to be just as wrong today.\nSecondly, if I may say so with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1294.282, 1297.874, 1309.778], "stop_times": [1297.874, 1309.778, 1311.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1294.282}, "reply_to": "14985__0_086", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_088", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Is it any more wrong now than it was then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1311.75], "stop_times": [1314.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.75}, "reply_to": "14985__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_089", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I believe it is because of Avco.\nYou see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1314.608, 1316.763], "stop_times": [1316.763, 1316.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1314.608}, "reply_to": "14985__0_088", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_090", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Because of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1316.972], "stop_times": [1317.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.972}, "reply_to": "14985__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_091", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Because of this Court's decision in Avco.\nYou see previously as it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1317.817, 1320.92], "stop_times": [1320.92, 1322.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1317.817}, "reply_to": "14985__0_090", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_092", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "In which case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1322.856], "stop_times": [1324.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.856}, "reply_to": "14985__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_093", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "In the Avco case, Your Honor.\nIt was concerning the right of removal from state courts to federal courts of Section 301 actions.\nSee, what actually happened was and this is the other anomaly if I may say so.\nThat here we have a situation where I suppose that, Your Honors don't agree with me and that Sinclair remains with continued vitality and then you put it together with Avco then we come up with this next question.\nAlright, then we have to decide or rather this Court has to decide what effect does Norris-LaGuardia have on state courts.\nWhat is the effect upon an injunction issued by a state court after it's been removed to the federal court?\nDoes Norris-LaGuardia command that order be dissolved?\nIf not then the anomalous situation arises of having Section 301 under which the federal court system was to create a body of federal law of having results that have forced plaintiffs into state courts where state courts would do the body of 301 business under Section 301.\nAnd then the other side of it if you say, \u201cWell, Norris-LaGuardia will require those injunctions to be dissolved.\u201d\nAs I've said before, an employer has less ways of effectuating his agreement than he had before 301, that's not right.\nAnd then thirdly, if you say, \u201cWell, state courts are bound by Norris-LaGuardia.\u201d\nAnd we know we can't say that from Norris-LaGuardia.\nWe would have to import through an interpretation of Section 301.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1324.114, 1327.05, 1333.369, 1337.238, 1352.341, 1360.781, 1367.587, 1371.485, 1391.423, 1397.409, 1403.776, 1408.999, 1411.546], "stop_times": [1327.05, 1333.369, 1337.238, 1352.341, 1360.781, 1367.587, 1371.485, 1391.423, 1397.409, 1403.776, 1408.999, 1411.546, 1417.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1324.114}, "reply_to": "14985__0_092", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_094", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "What year was Avco decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1417.209], "stop_times": [1419.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.209}, "reply_to": "14985__0_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_095", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Avco, I believe was 1969 or 1968, Your Honor.\nIt's a rather recent case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1419.092, 1422.088], "stop_times": [1422.088, 1423.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1419.092}, "reply_to": "14985__0_094", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_096", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "But you -- did I understand you to say that Sinclair created no particular problems of consequence until --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1423.921], "stop_times": [1431.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.921}, "reply_to": "14985__0_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_097", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Oh, I think Sin --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1431.646], "stop_times": [1431.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1431.646}, "reply_to": "14985__0_096", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_098", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "-- it was combined with Avco?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1431.7], "stop_times": [1433.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.7}, "reply_to": "14985__0_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_099", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I think Sinclair probably created or gave rise to serious problems of difficulties.\nFor example in the District of Columbia or in states --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1433.142, 1438.955], "stop_times": [1438.955, 1442.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1433.142}, "reply_to": "14985__0_098", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_100", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Where you have no state courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1442.944], "stop_times": [1444.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.944}, "reply_to": "14985__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_101", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Yes or in states where they have anti-injunction acts that might have been interpreted to not give this relief.\nI didn't mean to say sir that Sinclair had not given rise to difficulties.\nWhat I meant to say was that whatever difficulties Sinclair gave rise to, they have been terrifically increased with the decision in Avco.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1444.209, 1451.909, 1456.737], "stop_times": [1451.909, 1456.737, 1465.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1444.209}, "reply_to": "14985__0_100", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_102", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "May I ask you -- I understand your strong feeling on this, mostly misinterpreted and we misinterpret in the will of Congress but has Congress yet made any complaint about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1465.774], "stop_times": [1481.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.774}, "reply_to": "14985__0_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_103", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, to my knowledge sir I don't think that Congress has passed any resolutions or enacted any statutes that would indicate a complaint however --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1481.568], "stop_times": [1488.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1481.568}, "reply_to": "14985__0_102", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_104", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Don't you think that might be the best place to go for people who feel that the will of Congress has been perverted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1488.945], "stop_times": [1497.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.945}, "reply_to": "14985__0_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_105", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1497.726], "stop_times": [1497.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1497.726}, "reply_to": "14985__0_104", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_106", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "On statutory matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1497.844], "stop_times": [1499.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.844}, "reply_to": "14985__0_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_107", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "This Court has interpreted statutes in various ways.\nFor example, if you take a look at the legislative history of Lincoln Mills as you most certainly have, not Lincoln Mills of Section 301, we find in there practically no mention of arbitration.\nNow what I think happened here is likewise --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1499.517, 1505.44, 1518.023], "stop_times": [1505.44, 1518.023, 1520.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1499.517}, "reply_to": "14985__0_106", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_108", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, why do you find it there if it's not in the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1520.44], "stop_times": [1523.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.44}, "reply_to": "14985__0_107", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_109", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, I think the court in interpreting the statute found it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1523.453], "stop_times": [1526.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1523.453}, "reply_to": "14985__0_108", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_110", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "You think the court added it to the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1526.482], "stop_times": [1528.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.482}, "reply_to": "14985__0_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_111", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "No sir, I did not say that.\nI said, \u201cIn interpreting the statute the court found it.\u201d\nBut what I'm saying is that in the legislative history of that statute, you don't find very much and also in looking at the wording of 301, you don't find too much.\nNow, my point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1528.553, 1529.719, 1532.33, 1540.207], "stop_times": [1529.719, 1532.33, 1540.207, 1540.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1528.553}, "reply_to": "14985__0_110", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_112", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Now what do you think about this position of the court on cases where you decide nothing but statutory question changing from time to time not according to change conditions but because you changed the membership of the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1540.64], "stop_times": [1555.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.64}, "reply_to": "14985__0_111", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_113", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, sir I don't know and I can't agree that that's correct, that is if your assumptions are correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1555.937], "stop_times": [1560.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1555.937}, "reply_to": "14985__0_112", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_114", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1560.806], "stop_times": [1561.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.806}, "reply_to": "14985__0_113", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_115", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Mr. -- what -- Mr. Justice Black, I'm saying, I can't agree that there would be a change simply because the composition of the court has changed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1561.023], "stop_times": [1569.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1561.023}, "reply_to": "14985__0_114", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_116", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Well, wouldn't that be it if there are no differences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1569.067], "stop_times": [1572.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.067}, "reply_to": "14985__0_115", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_117", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "I said Your Honor, I think that it -- the same Justices could conceivably have come to the conclusion and this Court has done this before.\nCome to the conclusion that it did something incorrectly some years ago and rectify it.\nI don't think there's anything unusual about that either in the -- our legal system in the United States or in the decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1572.242, 1579.968, 1584.652], "stop_times": [1579.968, 1584.652, 1591.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1572.242}, "reply_to": "14985__0_116", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_118", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Was not usually done eight years afterwards but sometimes it is (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1591.17], "stop_times": [1594.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.17}, "reply_to": "14985__0_117", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_119", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Your Honor it's been done lately --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1594.574], "stop_times": [1595.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1594.574}, "reply_to": "14985__0_118", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_120", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "(Voice Overlap) those of the statutes just because as the court change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1595.132], "stop_times": [1602.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.132}, "reply_to": "14985__0_119", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_121", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Now another thing that's been suggested is that discipline is a means of controlling this.\nSir, you can't fire your whole warehouse crew.\nI don't have enough time to dwell on these things.\nIts illusion, it's a snare.\nDisciplining employees doesn't do any good because you need them.\nYou're in business to produce goods or to sell goods as the case may be.\nNext, they talk about quickie arbitrations.\nQuickie arbitrations are misnomer, they're an illusion, the best illustration of that, we covered it in our reply brief, the best illustration of it though is to be found in the New Orleans Steamship case where they had a quickie arbitration procedure, quickie, yes.\nThe hearing lasted for four days and the decision didn't come out until over two months later.\nNow, in summary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1602.485, 1609.819, 1612.995, 1615.188, 1617.133, 1620.283, 1624.443, 1626.903, 1641.308, 1647.06], "stop_times": [1609.819, 1612.995, 1615.188, 1617.133, 1620.283, 1624.443, 1626.903, 1641.308, 1647.06, 1648.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1602.485}, "reply_to": "14985__0_120", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_122", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Do I understand that you're talking against arbitrations now?\nWe might have somewhat the same language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1648.573, 1651.94], "stop_times": [1651.94, 1654.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.573}, "reply_to": "14985__0_121", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_123", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "No, Your Honor, you don't understand me or if you do understand me to be saying that you misunderstand me.\nWhat I'm saying sir is that there has been a suggestion particularly in the brief of AFL-CIO amicus that perhaps a proper substitute would be the negotiation of so-called quickie arbitration provisions and we've been at some pains in reply brief to point out why this isn't so and I was just in my argument passing by and adverting to that fact sir.\nIn any event --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1654.386, 1659.736, 1679.969], "stop_times": [1659.736, 1679.969, 1680.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1654.386}, "reply_to": "14985__0_122", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_124", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Or rather will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1680.1], "stop_times": [1681.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.1}, "reply_to": "14985__0_123", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_125", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Pardon me, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1681.585], "stop_times": [1681.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1681.585}, "reply_to": "14985__0_124", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_126", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Or rather will be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1681.98], "stop_times": [1684.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.98}, "reply_to": "14985__0_125", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14985__0_127", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Sinclair was wrongly decided and as I say, we think it should be reversed.\nAnd I pointed out what I think or the really the thorny thicket that -- I mean this business of really painting the court and the profession and the law into a corner if we continue down this path because of the fact that we now have to decide if Sinclair remains viable, we have to decide what we are going to do about remove state court injunctions.\nWe get by that, what are we going to do about the power of state courts to issue injunctions particularly, well for some reason they aren't removed.\nNow, I would suggest that a proper accommodation of Norris-LaGuardia and Section 301 sanctions the injunction in this case, it's a vital part of Section 301's effectuation.\nI would say that the availability of the injunction is far more necessary to Section 301 than it is detrimental to Norris-LaGuardia and therefore its respectfully submitted that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should be reversed with instructions to affirm the order of the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1684.764, 1690.063, 1713.553, 1724.486, 1737.016], "stop_times": [1690.063, 1713.553, 1724.486, 1737.016, 1754.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1684.764}, "reply_to": "14985__0_126", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "14985__0_128", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "You'll have three minutes left tomorrow morning for rebuttal counsel and we'll suspend now until tomorrow morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1754.196], "stop_times": [1760.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.196}, "reply_to": "14985__0_127", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14985__0_129", "conversation_id": "14985", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1760.582], "stop_times": [1765.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1760.582}, "reply_to": "14985__0_128", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__0_000", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "-- as soon as counsel are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [15.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_001", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn yesterday's session of the Court there were some questions propounded to counsel for the petitioner by Mr. Justice White.\nI'd like to address myself for a couple of moments to those questions and answers.\nOne of the questions propounded to counsel was whether or not the remedies afforded the parties under the present posture of the law is reciprocal, and I can state that as it stands today the parties to the collective-bargaining agreement do have -- there is no disparity between the parties.\nAll the Norris-LaGuardia Act does is prevent either the parties to get a judicial order against the other for conduct that they may find is to be an alleged violation of the Act.\nThe Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent either party from getting a judicial order in order to enforce or require the other party to comply with them a provision in their agreement affording the opportunity for a voluntary adjustment of their proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [15.611, 19.125, 27.641, 32.573, 54.673, 70.194], "stop_times": [19.125, 27.641, 32.573, 54.673, 70.194, 90.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 15.611}, "reply_to": "15210__0_000", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_002", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I'm not sure I track you on that counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [90.449], "stop_times": [93.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.449}, "reply_to": "15210__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_003", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Norris-LaGuardia simply prevents either the parties to the collective-bargaining agreement to get a judicial order from any court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [93.761], "stop_times": [101.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 93.761}, "reply_to": "15210__0_002", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_004", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Prevents them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [101.323], "stop_times": [102.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.323}, "reply_to": "15210__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_005", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Prevents them, they do that, yes.\nThe only exception is, it does afford the parties an opportunity to go to a court to compel arbitration which is a matter set forth between the parties a voluntary method for them to adjust their disputes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [102.272, 104.07], "stop_times": [104.07, 118.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 102.272}, "reply_to": "15210__0_004", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_006", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "But not to enforce the no-strike clause if it's violated by the Union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [118.139], "stop_times": [123.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.139}, "reply_to": "15210__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_007", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "The no-strike clause in the contract --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [123.187], "stop_times": [126.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 123.187}, "reply_to": "15210__0_006", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_008", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Does or does not the Norris-LaGuardia Act bar any court from enjoining a strike in violation of the no-strike clause while the arbitration goes on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [126.44], "stop_times": [135.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.44}, "reply_to": "15210__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_009", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "It does bar federal courts from enjoining the action, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [135.428], "stop_times": [138.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 135.428}, "reply_to": "15210__0_008", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_010", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "But why doesn't it bar the order to arbitration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [138.967], "stop_times": [142.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.967}, "reply_to": "15210__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_011", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Why does it not?\nThe -- we have a situation in the collective-bargaining --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [142.095, 144.461], "stop_times": [144.461, 148.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 142.095}, "reply_to": "15210__0_010", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_012", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Simply enforcing -- they're simply enforcing a term of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [148.17], "stop_times": [150.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 148.17}, "reply_to": "15210__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_013", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "They're enforcing a term of the contract but the parties have agreed upon a method of adjustment of their disputes.\nIn their collective-bargaining agreement, if you had an injunction or temporary restraining order prior to the arbitration you have taken away from the parties the rights they have agreed upon and bargained for in their collective-bargaining agreement.\nThey have bargained for and this Court said so in Steelworkers Trilogy.\nThey have bargained for the expertise of an arbitrator.\nIf they are permitted either party or both parties are permitted to go to courts when they have an argument or dispute under the collective-bargaining agreement, and the defect takes away any of the powers of the arbitrator may have in settling that dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [150.912, 157.229, 170.758, 174.404, 177.539], "stop_times": [157.229, 170.758, 174.404, 177.539, 194.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 150.912}, "reply_to": "15210__0_012", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_014", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, if they would -- they agreed on an arbitrator to settle the dispute, why does the Union strike?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [194.491], "stop_times": [203.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.491}, "reply_to": "15210__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_015", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "The strike situation is no different than the employer taking a -- himself violating the contract by say discharging some employees or by bringing in as he did in this case, bringing in a crew, none bargaining unit people into a store to do bargaining unit work.\nThe Union at that time of course could not get an injunction to restrain them from doing that.\nThey're irreparable injury that was referred to by counsel in regard to the strike activity of the Union.\nThere's no different than the irreparable injury in so far as an individual his discharge is concerned, then the individual although the counsel says he can recover in damages, we say that in regard to a strike.T\nThe company can respond in damages in regard that arbitrator finding it to be so.\nThe idea being that the parties have bargained for a method of adjustment of their disputes.\nA strike is a violate -- may be a violation of the collective-bargaining agreement, it may not depending upon what the strike is for.\nContrary to that, the employer can take actions in regard to demotions, promotions, subcontracting and all issues that the collective-bargaining agreement provides for they can violate it.\nNow, the Union certainly cannot come in because of Norris-LaGuardia and get an injunction and I'm not saying they should because the Union and employer have agreed upon a method of bargaining.\nIn that bargain they have said, that we are going ahead and have our disputes resolve by an impartial arbitrator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [203.14, 220.956, 225.703, 231.907, 244.638, 249.998, 255.518, 263.292, 274.975, 285.406], "stop_times": [220.956, 225.703, 231.907, 244.638, 249.998, 255.518, 263.292, 274.975, 285.406, 292.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 203.14}, "reply_to": "15210__0_014", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_016", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And in the contract the Union has also said, we\u2019ll not strike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [292.01], "stop_times": [295.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.01}, "reply_to": "15210__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_017", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, the employer had said for example he will not discharge employees without just cause.\nHe has said he will not subcontract work.\nHe has said as he did in this case that he will not bring in others not parties to the collective-bargaining agreement and perform their work as suppose to be confirmed by the bargaining agreement.\nThese are alleged violations to the contract.\nHere, the employers alleged to violate the contract and the employers says, the Union has violated the contract by violating to no-strike clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [295.891, 300.714, 303.256, 312.649, 315.125], "stop_times": [300.714, 303.256, 312.649, 315.125, 322.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 295.891}, "reply_to": "15210__0_016", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_018", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "But aren't both parties better off if immediately from the occurring the arbitration process is invoked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [322.003], "stop_times": [330.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.003}, "reply_to": "15210__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_019", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, yes the party agreed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [330.924], "stop_times": [333.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 330.924}, "reply_to": "15210__0_018", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_020", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Of course the status quo remains as it is.\nThey preserve the status quo and go ahead to arbitrate whatever issue it is, the Union's issue or the employer's issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [333.116, 338.131], "stop_times": [338.131, 343.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.116}, "reply_to": "15210__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_021", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "You say preserve the status quo, Mr. Chief Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [343.748], "stop_times": [346.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 343.748}, "reply_to": "15210__0_020", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_022", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Stay working and no lockout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [346.003], "stop_times": [348.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.003}, "reply_to": "15210__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_023", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Let's take a situation of a discharge.\nAre you saying that the status quo is that an individual stays on the job until the arbitration takes place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [348.374, 351.388], "stop_times": [351.388, 356.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 348.374}, "reply_to": "15210__0_022", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_024", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "The status quo is effectively preserve is it not if he is guaranteed back pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [356.884], "stop_times": [361.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.884}, "reply_to": "15210__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_025", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Oh!\nNo.\nNot a bit, not anymore so than it would be in regard to the strike situation for the employer for the simple reason, you say he risk covers damages when he recovers back pay.\nThat period of time that that individual has to feed his family, he has to wait until the arbitrator\u2019s award comes out.\nWhat irreparable injury he has cannot be determined by me I don't know the status of his economic position.\nMost of our people today are -- have credit up to their ears and when they go ahead and don\u2019t get pay while they've got problems.\nNow, what irreparable injury he may have, I don't know he may lose his house.\nHe may not make his car payments and lose his car.\nIt's very difficult to say any more so than the employer can recover in damages and they make the allegation that their damages are not sufficient and not adequate because they say that the damages cannot be satisfying them because of irreparable injury.\nI say the argument is the same on the other side of defense but both of the employer and Union have bargained for this, both of them have bargained for the fact that they'll submit it to arbitration.\nThey have not bargained that they will go to court for it all and then they know they couldn't.\nNow, the very fact of the matter is this, both of the parties here rely upon the expertise of the arbitrator and the reason they do so is because of the federal labor policy recognizing is this Court did in Lincoln Mills and Steelwork Trilogy that it\u2019s a different type of field.\nIt's a type of field that courts do not have the expertise that is required in order to resolve his problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [361.274, 361.43, 362.318, 373.949, 380.645, 386.793, 395.044, 398.248, 400.624, 417.692, 426.446, 431.008, 448.305], "stop_times": [361.43, 362.318, 373.949, 380.645, 386.793, 395.044, 398.248, 400.624, 417.692, 426.446, 431.008, 448.305, 454.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 361.274}, "reply_to": "15210__0_024", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_026", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "(Voice Overlap) of no-strike clause, what's the value of administrate clause in the contract if the no-strike clause permits a strike on your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [454.366], "stop_times": [464.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.366}, "reply_to": "15210__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_027", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, I might point out to Mr. Chief Justice that there may be strikes in a shop or in a store that may not necessarily be a violation of the contract.\nFor example we have those situations where employees may walk off the job because of unsafe conditions.\nThat would not be a violation of the no-strike clause and the court has held so.\nWe have situations where there may be an unfair labor practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [464.509, 476.533, 483.959, 487.453], "stop_times": [476.533, 483.959, 487.453, 490.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 464.509}, "reply_to": "15210__0_026", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_028", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "We don't have that here, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [490.588], "stop_times": [491.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.588}, "reply_to": "15210__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_029", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "No, I'm responding to the questions you asked me about the strike situation but we do have these things that we have to take into consideration.\nWe have a situation where the -- there's always an allegation it\u2019s a violation of a contract if the employer brings in people to do work or subcontract work which is to be formed by contract by bargaining unit people.\nThat is an erosion of the contract and it has the same effect in regard to irreparable injury as we have on the other side in defense in regard to the employer.\nI simply say to this Court that there is a remedy and to say there isn't a remedy isn't so because in Section 301 (b) expressly states that Section 301 confines for a lawsuit or damages can be given against the Union.\nNow, when counsel says he doesn't feel that that's an adequate remedy, we can only say that a Union -- a labor organization is no different from any other institution.\nThey have to have a treasury the same way any other institution has and if they run into a situation where their treasury is depleted they\u2019re pretty much out of business.\nSo to say that is not adequate it may not be satisfactory.\nIt may not be totally satisfactory to the employers because the employers may like the idea of having this injunctive relief.\nBut that doesn't answer the question because if the employers felt that way and if based upon the Sinclair decision they felt that way strongly, from 1962 to the present time when this Court decided that the Sinclair case in Norris-LaGuardia was not repealed by the Section 301 was not intended by Congress to be repealed.\nIt seems to me, it more or less was a mandate to the parties believing that the decision was wrong or that the law was wrong whatever it may be that the party should have gone to Congress and should have told Congress, we feel that Norris-LaGuardia should be repealed, It makes it very difficult for me to understand this because in the Sinclair case and in legislative history of the Sinclair case.\nWe have Senator Taft -- the late Senator Taft was certainly was a man skilled in this field.\nWhen he came out of the Conference Committee on the Senate Floor he pointed out that the Section 301 did not prohibit all strikes.\nHe pointed out that Section 301 did not repeal Norris-LaGuardia Act.\nHe specifically said that the only two types of strike activities that would be illegal would be the secondary boycott strike and the jurisdictional strike.\nThose two aspects and those two strike activities were put in the Section 301 of the Act giving the National Labor Relations Board making it a mandatory injunction on the Board -- on the Board to go ahead and take those actions not to private litigants.\nIf you recall in the legislative history, in the House Bill, there was a provision that make Section 301 -- Norris-LaGuardia not applicable to Section 301 cases.\nIt was after it came out a committee that Congressman Hartley who also was the co-author of the Bill, pointed out specifically that this aspect of the Norris-LaGuardia Act was dropped in the Conference Committee.\nNow that appears to me and it was cited in the case and it was cited by the majority opinion in this case.\nIf I were in the other side, I would take that as a mandate to me to get the Congress and have Congress change the law if they didn\u2019t feel it was equitable.\nNow nothing has happened from 1962 to the present time, there has been no legislation in Congress in regard to this.\nThere's no judicial determination which have warrant any reconsideration, the Sinclair aspect.\nAnd I think it's very, very important that we realize when counsel was asked yesterday.\nThe question is to what status in regard to the business community was since Sinclair was enacted.\nCounsel pointed out that there's been very little activity as a matter of fact in the brief of amicus curiae AFL-CIO.\nThey have a statistic from the U.S. Department of Labor where they show a 1961 which is prior to Sinclair.\nThere 10.8% a man idle hours due to strikes during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement in 1961.\nIn 1968, according to same bureau they show at 9.1% of the man hours idle during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement.\nThis is not say that because of Sinclair there was reduction but I simply say that there is no real impact on the Sinclair decision on the business community which apparently from reading the briefs of amici and the petitioner makes it appear that there are some real reason for changing the posture of the law.\nSo far as we can determine here that doesn't seem to be that reason as a matter of fact the parties in -- to collective-bargaining agreements have apparently found that this method of voluntary arbitration picking arbitrators with the expertise is a desired way along with the fact that the federal labor law has recognized the fact that arbitration is a matter for the experts in this particular feel because he run into also it\u2019s a complexities in a contract.\nWe run it to aspects of how many people are actually in the bargaining unit?\nWho should have overtime?\nWho shouldn't have overtime?\nWhat does the assignment all works?\nAre these breaches of the agreement?\nAs a matter of fact even when we talk about a strike or a lockout.\nThe arbitrator may have to determine whether in fact that strike was a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement.\nIf we have a lockout, is it a question of a partial lockout or a complete lockout?\nWe sometimes think in terms of a lockout meaning the entire plant is shutdown, nobody works but that isn\u2019t necessarily so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [491.828, 500.552, 513.537, 522.164, 541.713, 551.556, 560.957, 565.088, 571.947, 594.695, 618.913, 625.587, 634.98, 639.121, 649.915, 664.945, 676.403, 688.056, 695.751, 707.065, 715.408, 720.996, 726.82, 735.378, 744.43, 752.252, 761.408, 772.342, 793.525, 823.729, 828.123, 829.55, 830.765, 831.952, 834.583, 837.67, 843.559, 848.331], "stop_times": [500.552, 513.537, 522.164, 541.713, 551.556, 560.957, 565.088, 571.947, 594.695, 618.913, 625.587, 634.98, 639.121, 649.915, 664.945, 676.403, 688.056, 695.751, 707.065, 715.408, 720.996, 726.82, 735.378, 744.43, 752.252, 761.408, 772.342, 793.525, 823.729, 828.123, 829.55, 830.765, 831.952, 834.583, 837.67, 843.559, 848.331, 855.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 491.828}, "reply_to": "15210__0_028", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_030", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "So wouldn't it be helpful to total of industrial peace if in case of a lockout in violation of the contract, the Union could go into the federal courts and get an injunction against that lockout?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [855.199], "stop_times": [872.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.199}, "reply_to": "15210__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_031", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "If we would do that Your Honor and we are talking about when you say lockout, I assume that you're talking about partial lockout as well as any other type of lockout, then I could mention that to you very simply by pointing out the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [872.225], "stop_times": [885.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 872.225}, "reply_to": "15210__0_030", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_032", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "All lockouts that are prohibited by the contract whatever they maybe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [885.07], "stop_times": [889.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.07}, "reply_to": "15210__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_033", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, there we have again exactly what I was referring to just on your own comment Mr. Chief Justice, if you say accordance to the contract whatever they are.\nThis Court has said that the person who can best determine whether or not it is a violation of that contract is the arbitrator.\nIt is because he works with that -- in that field day and night.\nHe becomes the expert in the field.\nThe courts have said time and time again that the type of economy and the type of labor management relations requires some sort of expert.\nAnd admittedly, this Court has said that the courts do not have that expertise.\nSo, it isn't just a question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [889.227, 899.515, 908.706, 912.593, 915.044, 924.744, 929.781], "stop_times": [899.515, 908.706, 912.593, 915.044, 924.744, 929.781, 930.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 889.227}, "reply_to": "15210__0_032", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_034", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Oh!\nI don't understand.\nI understand your argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [930.603, 930.718, 931.549], "stop_times": [930.718, 931.549, 933.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.603}, "reply_to": "15210__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_035", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Alright --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [933.176], "stop_times": [934.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 933.176}, "reply_to": "15210__0_034", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_036", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "-- with respect to damage suits under Section 301 which I understood you to concede are permissible certainly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [934.12], "stop_times": [941.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.12}, "reply_to": "15210__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_037", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [941.827], "stop_times": [942.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 941.827}, "reply_to": "15210__0_036", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_038", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "-- if the court has held so wouldn't the -- any court be face with exactly the same sort of problems that you're telling us are so impossible and so inappropriate for court decision?\nIn a damage suit, you'd have exactly the same kind of issues.\nIt will be decided by court and or a jury wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [942.03, 953.589, 957.272], "stop_times": [953.589, 957.272, 960.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.03}, "reply_to": "15210__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_039", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, that is true.\nBut the -- in all the cases some Lincoln Mills, Iron, and for the Steelworks Trilogy, this Court has spoken in respect -- they were make into distinction and talking about arbitrators and putting it in a great weight upon the arbitrator\u2019s decision as oppose to the courts and they were talking in terms of injunctive relief primarily when we go back to the fact where the individual comes in with an allegation in the form of an affidavit and asking for an ex parte order in making the allegations that this is agreed to the collective-bargaining agreement and that's the end of it.\nWhereas the actual fact of the matter is it requires -- it may require an arbitrator to decide and the court doesn\u2019t really have the time.\nIf these cases were open to the courts, there'd be no use for arbitrators anymore because by the time the parties come into the court and get their injunctive relief there is really nothing for the arbitrator to decide.\nBecause we found time and time again that where the injunctive relief was issued by a court there really wasn't any problem for the arbitrator at that particular time.\nIn so far as determine damages in a 301 suit there is no questions that the court has to take the evidence very much the same of the arbitrator.\nBut we're talking about matters relating to the expertise of the arbitrator and deferring to arbitration as such.\nIt seems to me that this Court has said from Lincoln Mills and Iron, down that they deferred to the arbitrators and the Steelworks Trilogy makes it very clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [960.334, 961.258, 995.705, 1005.373, 1017.242, 1028.127, 1036.857, 1042.761], "stop_times": [961.258, 995.705, 1005.373, 1017.242, 1028.127, 1036.857, 1042.761, 1056.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 960.334}, "reply_to": "15210__0_038", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_040", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What about referring to the arbitrator disputes over a breach for the no-strike clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1056.5], "stop_times": [1062.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.5}, "reply_to": "15210__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_041", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, that's fine and the arbitrator can assess damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1062.813], "stop_times": [1066.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1062.813}, "reply_to": "15210__0_040", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_042", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Isn't that -- wouldn't that be covered by the normal arbitration clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1066.702], "stop_times": [1070.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.702}, "reply_to": "15210__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_043", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1070.484], "stop_times": [1071.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1070.484}, "reply_to": "15210__0_042", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_044", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And if the Union --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1071.585], "stop_times": [1072.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.585}, "reply_to": "15210__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_045", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "In this case incidentally has been referred to arbitration --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1072.542], "stop_times": [1074.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1072.542}, "reply_to": "15210__0_044", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_046", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "If the Union strikes allegedly in violation of the no-strike clause it goes to the arbitrator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1074.876], "stop_times": [1079.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.876}, "reply_to": "15210__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_047", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That's correct, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1079.369], "stop_times": [1080.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1079.369}, "reply_to": "15210__0_046", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_048", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And what is the arbitrator to do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1080.267], "stop_times": [1081.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.267}, "reply_to": "15210__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_049", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "The arbitrator can assess damages, he can do anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1081.723], "stop_times": [1084.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1081.723}, "reply_to": "15210__0_048", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_050", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "So the courts don't get in at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1084.409], "stop_times": [1086.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.409}, "reply_to": "15210__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_051", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1086.177], "stop_times": [1086.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1086.177}, "reply_to": "15210__0_050", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_052", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Except for the confirmation of the award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1086.666], "stop_times": [1090.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.666}, "reply_to": "15210__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_053", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "It's a little -- it seems to me that when parties have agreed upon the set scope of conduct, and they violate and they have agreed in the collective-bargaining agreement that any dispute under the collective-bargaining agreement goes to arbitration.\nThat's exactly what it means.\nNow, if in fact the strike is a violation of the collective-bargaining agreement the parties, the employer can and did in this case make a motion to compel arbitration that motion is granted.\nNow, the fact of the matter is that is what we bargained for, we did not bargain for any type of status quo situation and the Norris-LaGuardia makes it -- the Act makes it very clear that Section 301 in the matter of collective-bargaining in Section 301 (b) speaks in terms of damages.\nNow, I'm sure without knowing that counsel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1090.964, 1107.766, 1109.695, 1123.573, 1146.151], "stop_times": [1107.766, 1109.695, 1123.573, 1146.151, 1149.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1090.964}, "reply_to": "15210__0_052", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_054", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What if the Union strikes and the issue goes to the arbitrator right away assuming an arbitrator was available right away?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1149.46], "stop_times": [1158.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.46}, "reply_to": "15210__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_055", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That does happen by the way, the Longshoremen have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1158.263], "stop_times": [1160.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1158.263}, "reply_to": "15210__0_054", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_056", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "But can arbitrator -- can the arbitrator issue an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1160.787], "stop_times": [1166.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.787}, "reply_to": "15210__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_057", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Arbitrator issued an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1166.885], "stop_times": [1168.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1166.885}, "reply_to": "15210__0_056", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_058", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And they ordered -- can his award say that Union to go back to work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1168.317], "stop_times": [1172.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.317}, "reply_to": "15210__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_059", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "His award can say that and if the Union fails to put his man back to work, the employer can go to the court for conformation of the award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1172.647], "stop_times": [1181.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1172.647}, "reply_to": "15210__0_058", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_060", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "You -- do you agree that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar an injunction in enforcing an arbitrator\u2019s award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1181.194], "stop_times": [1187.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1181.194}, "reply_to": "15210__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15210__0_061", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I conceded that in my brief sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1187.96], "stop_times": [1191.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1187.96}, "reply_to": "15210__0_060", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_062", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What's the difference then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1191.384], "stop_times": [1193.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.384}, "reply_to": "15210__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_063", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Oh!\nThe difference is that in the arbitrator's award the parties have bargained for the arbitration.\nThe parties normally in the arbitration clause provide for the fact that the arbitrator's award shall be a final and binding award.\nIf after they have gone to the procedure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1193.567, 1194.597, 1202.708, 1213.397], "stop_times": [1194.597, 1202.708, 1213.397, 1215.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1193.567}, "reply_to": "15210__0_062", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_064", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I wasn't talking about the mechanics of it I'm familiar with the mechanics.\nWhat's the difference in principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1215.662, 1219.154], "stop_times": [1219.154, 1220.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.662}, "reply_to": "15210__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_065", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "One is before the fact and one is after the fact.\nThe matter of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1220.966, 1223.792], "stop_times": [1223.792, 1226.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1220.966}, "reply_to": "15210__0_064", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_066", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Can the Union go into District Court and get a directive whatever you might call it to arbitrate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1226.698], "stop_times": [1238.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.698}, "reply_to": "15210__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_067", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Certainly, to compel arbitration.\nThey've done it many times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1238.778, 1240.867], "stop_times": [1240.867, 1241.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1238.778}, "reply_to": "15210__0_066", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_068", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And the employer can do the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1241.647], "stop_times": [1243.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.647}, "reply_to": "15210__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_069", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes sir, they've done it many times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1243.262], "stop_times": [1245.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1243.262}, "reply_to": "15210__0_068", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_070", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "But how do you distinguish the power to get invoke the authority of the federal court to compel one clause of the contract but not another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1245.59], "stop_times": [1256.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.59}, "reply_to": "15210__0_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_071", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1256.326], "stop_times": [1256.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1256.326}, "reply_to": "15210__0_070", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_072", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "It's a specific performance equitable enforcement isn't it whenever you invoke it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1256.635], "stop_times": [1260.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.635}, "reply_to": "15210__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_073", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1260.366], "stop_times": [1262.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1260.366}, "reply_to": "15210__0_072", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_074", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What's the difference between a mandate for specific performance of the no-strike clause and a mandate for the specific performance of the arbitration clause, in principle now, in legal principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1262.447], "stop_times": [1277.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.447}, "reply_to": "15210__0_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_075", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Let me se whether I understand it Mr. Chief Justice.\nWhat is the difference between the mandates for specific performance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1277.046, 1279.243], "stop_times": [1279.243, 1283.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1277.046}, "reply_to": "15210__0_074", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_076", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What's the difference in the power of a federal court sitting as a court of equity to invoke the extra ordinary equitable remedy to command one or the other or both of the parties to arbitrate and the command to fulfill some other clause of the contracts specifically by specific performance decree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1283.286], "stop_times": [1306.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.286}, "reply_to": "15210__0_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_077", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "The -- in Section 301, of course the federal courts do have jurisdiction and the dispute between a parties and collective-bargaining agreement.\nThe parties have agreed by contract to go to a form being the arbitration voluntarily.\nParties have infused to do that.\nThe court actually can and does compel arbitration, compel the parties to comply with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement which says they have agreed upon a form of adjustment which is quite different from enjoining the parties from doing something else.\nThe difference being and as I thought I mentioned previously that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent the parties from going to federal court to seek compliance with their agreement to arbitrate when it does prevent the parties going to federal court to have the federal courts in effect require them to take certain conduct under their collective-bargaining agreement -- comply with conditions of that.\nThat is expressly set out in the Norris-LaGuardia Act where it says that there can be no federal District Court can issue an injunction against certain activities.\nThis is not one of those activities expressed in Norris-LaGuardia and so I think there is a difference.\nI think the federal court doesn't have the power because of Norris-LaGuardia as oppose to what we find here in Section 301 in regard the motion to compel arbitration.\nDoes that answer your question Mr. Chief Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1306.952, 1317.39, 1325.878, 1330.429, 1349.621, 1380.446, 1391.634, 1397.042, 1406.926], "stop_times": [1317.39, 1325.878, 1330.429, 1349.621, 1380.446, 1391.634, 1397.042, 1406.926, 1409.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1306.952}, "reply_to": "15210__0_076", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_078", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, I want to have your analysis.[Laughter Attempt]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1409.006], "stop_times": [1412.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.006}, "reply_to": "15210__0_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__0_079", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Let's assume you would say that probably that's the way Congress in intended that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1412.987], "stop_times": [1416.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.987}, "reply_to": "15210__0_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15210__0_080", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "This is what -- this is the way I understand it and that the way the law and the way the courts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1416.975], "stop_times": [1421.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1416.975}, "reply_to": "15210__0_079", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_081", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And that it might be bad but it was the act of the Congress that at least in some field ought to be above us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1421.255], "stop_times": [1429.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.255}, "reply_to": "15210__0_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15210__0_082", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That is my position Mr. Justice Black that it's just a matter of -- if there is going to be a change in the statute where the statute is clear and not ambiguous.\nIt seems to me that that change has to be performed by Congress and not by judicial legislation so called.\nAnd in this particular instance, as I say I recognize the fact that this Court can change its opinions in regard to cases.\nI recognize the fact that they are not necessarily bound by stare decisis, but it is my feeling that Sinclair was an expression by this Court.\nNot in regard to a policy change of a matter left opened by Congress.\nIt seem to me that what the Court said in Sinclair what they are deferring to Congress and that is that have been clearly set forth by the intent of Congress that they're saying to the parties that if this has to be changed then it maybe an inequity and may be changed.\nThe place to get it is not in the courtroom but to get it from Congress.\nCongress has failed to act in this matter and therefore it seems that there is no other answer but that without Congress acting, we must take the intent of Congress applied to law and say, that\u2019s where we stand today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1429.166, 1439.086, 1446.347, 1455.914, 1465.606, 1470.223, 1487.691, 1492.319], "stop_times": [1439.086, 1446.347, 1455.914, 1465.606, 1470.223, 1487.691, 1492.319, 1506.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1429.166}, "reply_to": "15210__0_081", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_083", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Except that this case involves not Sinclair directly does it but rather the situation that the court dealt with in the Avco case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1506.152], "stop_times": [1514.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.152}, "reply_to": "15210__0_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_084", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1514.863], "stop_times": [1515.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1514.863}, "reply_to": "15210__0_083", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_085", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "This was a case -- no, I'll make premise on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1515.503], "stop_times": [1517.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.503}, "reply_to": "15210__0_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_086", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1517.452], "stop_times": [1518.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1517.452}, "reply_to": "15210__0_085", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_087", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I understood that this was originally brought in the state court and then moved to the federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1518.121], "stop_times": [1522.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.121}, "reply_to": "15210__0_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_088", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1522.905], "stop_times": [1523.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1522.905}, "reply_to": "15210__0_087", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_089", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And that in the federal court, the order previously granted by the state court was set aside if I'm not mistaken about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1523.746], "stop_times": [1531.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.746}, "reply_to": "15210__0_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_090", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "No, it was not sir.\nThe federal court read its own injunction federal District Court and that was the court I appealed to Circuit Court and the Circuit Court reversed on the basis of Sinclair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1531.827, 1533.281], "stop_times": [1533.281, 1542.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1531.827}, "reply_to": "15210__0_089", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_091", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, I know the Court of Appeals did on the basis of Sinclair just as the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had to decide of the Avco case on the basis of Sinclair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1542.794], "stop_times": [1552.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.794}, "reply_to": "15210__0_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_092", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1552.703], "stop_times": [1552.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1552.703}, "reply_to": "15210__0_091", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_093", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "But in this Court, in this Court we left the question open --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1552.982], "stop_times": [1556.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.982}, "reply_to": "15210__0_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_094", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1556.806], "stop_times": [1556.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1556.806}, "reply_to": "15210__0_093", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_095", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "-- with respect to a removed case, did we not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1556.993], "stop_times": [1559.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.993}, "reply_to": "15210__0_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_096", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That's correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1559.508], "stop_times": [1560.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1559.508}, "reply_to": "15210__0_095", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_097", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And I think the last footnote of the court's opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1560.232], "stop_times": [1563.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.232}, "reply_to": "15210__0_096", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_098", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I think footnote 4 is the reason we're here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1563.739], "stop_times": [1566.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1563.739}, "reply_to": "15210__0_097", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_099", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1566.292], "stop_times": [1566.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.292}, "reply_to": "15210__0_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_100", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "And I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1566.894], "stop_times": [1568.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1566.894}, "reply_to": "15210__0_099", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_101", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "So, it's not as so this had all been decided in Sinclair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1568.344], "stop_times": [1571.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.344}, "reply_to": "15210__0_100", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_102", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Oh!\nI think the principle to decide was Sinclair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1571.49, 1571.934], "stop_times": [1571.934, 1573.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1571.49}, "reply_to": "15210__0_101", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_103", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, I know you submitted to attach then but it's not all that are in bound the stare decisis.\nWe have in fact left the question open with respect to removed cases in the Avco opinion, didn\u2019t we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1573.475, 1579.35], "stop_times": [1579.35, 1585.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.475}, "reply_to": "15210__0_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_104", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Well, the way I understand it, I may have understood or think correctly Mr. Justice Stewart, but in the Avco case, all the Avco case just cited was a matter of procedure when a case is removed to the federal court from a state court and there is no remand.\nWe had remand before, but at that point it took care of that problem and all I did is established in my opinion a method of federal labor law but isn\u2019t a matter of forum shopping anymore.\nOnce you go into state court and it's removed you applied the federal labor law which you should have applied in the state as well but because Norris-LaGuardia did not speak to the state we had a different situation when a case is filed in the state as oppose in federal law.\nBut the principle can't be any different if in Sinclair as this Court found the Congress expressly set forth its intent unambiguous then the Avco doesn\u2019t have anything to do with it.\nThe fact that the remedy may be different because this Court happened to see fit, to find an Avco that there would be no remand.\nIt seems that under those circumstances the principle -- underlying principle in Sinclair is no different because if the intent of Congress is so expressed that Congress must do something to change the law then I don't see where Avco is a matter of procedure affects it at all.\nI never did quite understand the footnote there from the system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1585.705, 1600.846, 1612.714, 1626.564, 1638.494, 1647.119, 1664.524], "stop_times": [1600.846, 1612.714, 1626.564, 1638.494, 1647.119, 1664.524, 1667.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1585.705}, "reply_to": "15210__0_103", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_105", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Or really all Avco held was that issue remove, that was a removable case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1667.215], "stop_times": [1671.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.215}, "reply_to": "15210__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_106", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1671.533], "stop_times": [1672.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1671.533}, "reply_to": "15210__0_105", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_107", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Period.\nThat was the holding in Avco.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1672.537, 1672.916], "stop_times": [1672.916, 1674.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.537}, "reply_to": "15210__0_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_108", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes, but what I mean I didn't understand the impact that Avco might have in regard to Sinclair other than the fact as we did here.\nWe removed the case from the state court to federal court and they could --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1674.65, 1682.11], "stop_times": [1682.11, 1685.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1674.65}, "reply_to": "15210__0_107", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_109", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes and it couldn't be remanded back to the state court that's what Avco holds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1685.195], "stop_times": [1688.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.195}, "reply_to": "15210__0_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_110", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "That's right.\nAnd that's all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1688.13, 1688.712], "stop_times": [1688.712, 1689.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1688.13}, "reply_to": "15210__0_109", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_111", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Maybe beyond that in Avco, in the Avco it so happened that the federal District Court set aside the order for use to be granted by the state court.\nIt wasn't clear on the record why the court had done so.\nThe Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as I remember in the Avco case had held yes it was -- now the property didn't so but it was required to do so by the Norris-LaGuardia Act and that's the question that we left opened and decided the court left open in deciding the Avco case here, am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1689.885, 1700.087, 1703.974], "stop_times": [1700.087, 1703.974, 1719.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.885}, "reply_to": "15210__0_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15210__0_112", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "No, you're correct.\nAs a matter of fact when counsel for the petitioner was arguing in this case, it sounded as if he was not concerned with Sinclair but he\u2019s unhappy with Avco.\nAnd as a matter of fact, in his reply brief it seems to me that he\u2019s unhappy with the entire arbitration proceeding because in citing this one case from we\u2019re talking about picking arbitration counsel points out that the -- while the contract hold for 72 hours and then a 12-hour decision he said, well, my god it took four days for hearing.\nWell, how long it would take if you went to court, and then the fact that there was a decision in December, the only way that they have a decision in December if the parties agreed.\nSo, I simply say that by pointing to that particular case in the same quick the arbitrations are not the answer.\nI don't agree because in the Longshoremen when you have a dispute on the dock, they have a provision in their contract where the arbitrary comes right down to the dock right there.\nIt says, go back to work and that's the end of it.\nSo there is an answer to these things and people with the expertise in labor and management can bargain for that.\nAnd I failed to see and where the situation has changed from 1962 to today as I mentioned previously, I can find no legislative history, no legislate act, incidentally legislative history in 1962 as the same legislative history we have today.\nSo, under those circumstances, absent anything else it seems to me that the Sinclair case should not be reversed and I think that\u2019s it.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1719.892, 1720.748, 1729.372, 1748.419, 1756.571, 1762.06, 1770.559, 1772.947, 1779.282, 1798.009, 1808.766], "stop_times": [1720.748, 1729.372, 1748.419, 1756.571, 1762.06, 1770.559, 1772.947, 1779.282, 1798.009, 1808.766, 1811.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1719.892}, "reply_to": "15210__0_111", "speaker": "kenneth_m_schwartz"}
{"id": "15210__0_113", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Thank you Mr. Schwartz.\nMr. McLaughlin, you have about three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1811.884, 1813.934], "stop_times": [1813.934, 1816.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.884}, "reply_to": "15210__0_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__1_000", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn the very brief time remaining to me, I'd like to make two or three points.\nFirst of all, with reference to the statements and the contentions that have been made on account of the failure of Congress to act following the decision of this Court in Sinclair and also with respect to the idea that Sinclair is some kind of a stare decisis impact.\nI would like to direct the Court\u2019s attention to decision of this Court which is not cited in any of the briefs.\nWe didn't cover this point Helvering versus Hallock this case is to be found in 309 U.S. 106.\nThe decision in the case was offered by Mr. Justice Frankfurter joined in by Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Stone, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Murphy.\nOn page 118 of the Official Report and if the Court will indulge me, I would just like to read three or four sentences.\nThis case involved a situation where there had been three different decisions of this Court with respect to a tax matter and the Court was faced with the question as to whether it should further proliferate these decisions or whether it should just take the three decisions that come on before and in fact overturn them.\n\u201cOur real problem, therefore, is to determine whether we are to adhere to a harmonizing principle in the construction of 302 (c), or whether we are to multiply gossamer distinctions between the present cases and the three earlier cases.\u201d\nNow, skipping Your Honor, \u201cWe recognize that stare decisis embodies an important social policy.\nIt represents an element of continuity in and law and it\u2019s rooted in the psychologic need to satisfy reasonable expectations.\nBut stare decisis is a principle policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable, where such adherence involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder and verified by experience.\u201d\nSkipping now for one more sentence to what would be page 121 of the Official Reporter.\n\u201cThis Court, unlike the House of Lords, has from the beginning rejected the doctrine of disability and self-correction.\nWhatever else may be said about want to congressional action to modify by legislation the result from the St. Louis Trust cases, it will hardly be urged that the reason was Congressional approval of these distinctions\u201d and then the Court goes on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1816.509, 1818.911, 1823.357, 1842.232, 1848.06, 1856.587, 1867.858, 1876.831, 1897.145, 1911.083, 1917.773, 1925.304, 1939.957, 1945.923, 1952.568], "stop_times": [1818.911, 1823.357, 1842.232, 1848.06, 1856.587, 1867.858, 1876.831, 1897.145, 1911.083, 1917.773, 1925.304, 1939.957, 1945.923, 1952.568, 1966.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1816.509}, "reply_to": "15210__0_113", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__1_001", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What's the full citation?\nCould you give it to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1966.316, 1967.625], "stop_times": [1967.625, 1968.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.316}, "reply_to": "15210__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15210__1_002", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nHelvering versus Hallock it\u2019s to be found at -- in the Official Reporter as I said at 309 U.S. 106.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1968.713, 1969.466], "stop_times": [1969.466, 1979.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1968.713}, "reply_to": "15210__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__1_003", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "309?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1979.007], "stop_times": [1980.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.007}, "reply_to": "15210__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15210__1_004", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Pardon me sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1980.061], "stop_times": [1981.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1980.061}, "reply_to": "15210__1_003", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__1_005", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "309 or 301?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1981.473], "stop_times": [1982.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.473}, "reply_to": "15210__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15210__1_006", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "309.\nNow, also I would like to direct the Court\u2019s attention the decision of Girouard versus United States 328 U.S. 61.\nThe first case I cited I believe was a 1940 case.\nThis is a 1946 case.\nThis involved a matter arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act.\nThe opinion in that case written by Mr. Justice Douglas joined in by Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Murphy, Mr. Justice Rutledge and Mr. Justice Burger.\nOne sentence from that case if I might please once again a prior --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [1982.45, 1984.536, 1994.786, 1997.8, 1999.926, 2005.139, 2013.851], "stop_times": [1984.536, 1994.786, 1997.8, 1999.926, 2005.139, 2013.851, 2018.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1982.45}, "reply_to": "15210__1_005", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__1_007", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "What is that citation issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [2018.084], "stop_times": [2019.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.084}, "reply_to": "15210__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15210__1_008", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "321 U.S. 61 Your Honor.\nOne sentence, \u201cIt is, at best, treacherous to find in congressional silence alone the adoption of a controlling rule of law.\u201d\nNow, I see that my time is up and so I can't make some of the other points I'd like to make but suffice it to say that the only remedy that\u2019s going to effectuate the policy of Section 301 is going to be the availability of the injunction against the strike in breach of contract.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [2019.969, 2024.523, 2031.718, 2051.106], "stop_times": [2024.523, 2031.718, 2051.106, 2052.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2019.969}, "reply_to": "15210__1_007", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__1_009", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Thank you Mr. McLaughlin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [2052.632], "stop_times": [2053.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.632}, "reply_to": "15210__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15210__1_010", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Oh!\nOne thing Your Honors if I might, I apologize.\nI will direct your attention with respect to this idea about equality to Section 2 on page 3 of our reply brief.\nWe have covered this so called imbalance situation and I would ask you to read it with some care.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [2053.547, 2054.299, 2057.387, 2064.882, 2070.099], "stop_times": [2054.299, 2057.387, 2064.882, 2070.099, 2070.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2053.547}, "reply_to": "15210__1_009", "speaker": "joseph_m_mclaughlin"}
{"id": "15210__1_011", "conversation_id": "15210", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you Mr. Schwartz for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_768", "start_times": [2070.821, 2071.801, 2074.018], "stop_times": [2071.801, 2074.018, 2076.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.821}, "reply_to": "15210__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_000", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Brady against the United States.\nMr. Adang, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [0.0, 15.264], "stop_times": [15.264, 18.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_001", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI represent the petitioner Robert M. Brady in the case of Brady against the United States which is on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.\nThis case involves a denial of a motion to vacate sentence made under Title 28 Section 2255 of the United States Code.\nI believe that this case presents three issues for resolution by this Court.\nThese are, first, whether the decision of this Court in the case of United States against Jackson will be given retroactive application to prior guilty pleas under the Kidnapping Act.\nSecondly, if the decision is to be given such retroactive application, the question is what test will be formulated to determine when such guilty pleas were involuntary prior to that decision?\nAnd finally, assuming that the Court does make Jackson retroactive as suggested and does formulate an appropriate test, how the facts of the petitioner's case fit within that test?\nI would like to depart somewhat from orthodox procedure on oral argument and address myself initially to the first issue which I have mentioned and that is the retroactivity of the Jackson decision.\nAnd the reason I'd like to do this if the Court would allow me is because I feel that this is a question which can and should be determined as an abstract proposition of law without reference to the facts of this case or any particular case for that matter.\nAlso, I would like to say that at this time that since we only received the Government's answer brief last Monday, we're unable to have an opportunity to file a reply brief and therefore I'd like to try to concentrate on attempting to rebut the arguments which appear in the Government's answer brief.\nThe Government has taken a position on retroactivity which we feel is essentially a negative argument which as a practical matter would allow very little or possibly even no retroactive application of the Jackson decision.\nThe Government quite directly points out in its answer brief that there are apparently two underlying purposes for Jackson.\nFirst, to prevent discouragement of guilty pleas and deterrence or encouragement of guilty pleas and discouragement of the exercise of the right to a jury trial and secondly, to stop penalizing those defendants who do assert their constitutional rights to a jury trial and to plea not guilty.\nEssentially then, the Government's argument is that we should only apply Jackson retroactively to those cases in which a defendant has pled not guilty and then tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.\nWe of course take the position that the first purpose which we believe is inherent in Jackson should also be given retroactive application and we have brief 3 arguments in support of this contention as alternative arguments for retroactive application of the decision to prior guilty pleas under the Kidnapping Act.\nThe first of these arguments we believe is that it is implicit from the language of the case itself that it should be given such application retroactively.\nThis Court held in Jackson that the evil in the selective death penalty provision of the Kidnapping Act was that it tended to discourage assertion of the right to plead not guilty and deter the exercise of the right to a jury trial.\nNow, this evil while it wasn't necessarily coercive was held to be needlessly encouraging of guilty pleas and this, the Court said, had a chilling effect upon the exercise of constitutional rights.\nThat chilling effect being unnecessary was therefore excessive.\nWe submit therefore that the rationale behind Jackson or the implicit rationale was that if the selective death penalty provision had been allowed to remain in the Kidnapping Act, there would have been a potentiality in the future for involuntary guilty pleas and we submit that if that is recognized, then there has to be a recognition of the implicit corollary and that is that guilty pleas prior to Jackson might also have been involuntary.\nAnd if that presumption is accepted, then I feel that Jackson had to be given retroactive application to prior guilty pleas automatically because this Court has held in the past that involuntary guilty pleas are subject to collateral attack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [18.205, 20.873, 31.668, 40.782, 45.507, 57.178, 70.1, 85.299, 97.618, 111.813, 129.277, 144.93, 151.879, 170.438, 182.473, 201.658, 211.063, 226.171, 240.048, 245.067, 275.943], "stop_times": [20.873, 31.668, 40.782, 45.507, 57.178, 70.1, 85.299, 97.618, 111.813, 129.277, 144.93, 151.879, 170.438, 182.473, 201.658, 211.063, 226.171, 240.048, 245.067, 275.943, 293.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.205}, "reply_to": "15249__0_000", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_002", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I realize yours is a federal case, but in your retroactivity argument, do you think whatever rule that is appropriate here is also appropriate as application of Jackson to the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [293.79], "stop_times": [310.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.79}, "reply_to": "15249__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15249__0_003", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I feel that it is Your Honor.\nAssuming that we're talking about a statute with the same kind of a selective death penalty provision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [310.956, 312.363], "stop_times": [312.363, 320.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.956}, "reply_to": "15249__0_002", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_004", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "You are not concerned for that I recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [320.807], "stop_times": [323.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.807}, "reply_to": "15249__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15249__0_005", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, I believe that it should be applicable postulating that we have the same kind of a statute and the same kind of selective death penalty provision, I would submit that it should be applicable to the states.\nThe Government has made an argument in rebuttal to our contention on retroactivity that when this Court stated in the Jackson decision that not every defendant who pleads guilty under the Kidnapping Act to a capital indictment does so involuntarily.\nThis Court implicitly rejected any contention that prior guilty plea should be open to collateral attack.\nWe feel that the conclusion hardly follows from the language of the case.\nWe feel that all the case says is that the Court was not going to say that the selective death penalty provision was necessarily coercive because that would have meant invalidating all prior guilty pleas automatically.\nWe submit that the Court merely was recognizing that some guilty pleas could be involuntary in the future and the selective death penalty provision then left in the Act, and as I stated before, I think the implicit corollary is that some guilty pleas in the past could also have been the involuntary.\nAnd for that reason, we submit that Jackson should be, under the language of the case applied retroactively to prior guilty pleas.\nNow, in alternative argument which we have made is that under the doctrine of absolute retroactive invalidity of an unconstitutional statute, there should also be retroactive application to prior guilty pleas.\nAnd because of the time limitation on this argument and the fact that the Government hasn't made any response to this contention, I'm going to skip over unless the Court has some question.\nAnother argument which we made is again an alternative argument and the Court had heard it yesterday and that is that under prior decisions of this Court on the retroactivity question, Jackson should also be applied retroactively to prior guilty pleas.\nThese decisions are discussed in detail in our brief in chief at pages 28 through 32 and I'm sure they're more familiar to the Court than they are to me so I'm not going to discuss them in any detail except to mention that the Court did say in the case of Linkletter against Walker that there are three tests for determining retroactivity of prior decisions and these tests are first, the purpose to be served by the new rule.\nSecondly, the extent of reliance upon the old rule by law enforcement authorities.\nAnd finally, the effect upon the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new decision.\nIn the Desist against United States, this Court held that the most important of these considerations is the purpose to be served by the new rule and it has been further held that when the purpose of the new rule is to ensure fair trials and reliable verdicts, in other words, to ensure integrity of the factfinding process, then that consideration is paramount and other consideration such as reliance by law enforcement officials or in adverse effect upon the administration of justice, deserve a little consideration.\nAnd we submit that under that philosophy, that the Jackson decision must also be given the retroactive effect which we suggest.\nThe effect of the selective death penalty provision is the Federal Kidnapping Act in inducing individuals to plead guilty in order to avoid imposition of the death penalty was not merely to deny them a fair trial but it was to deny them any trial at all.\nAnd we submit therefore that it is obvious that the implicit purpose of Jackson was to ensure fair trials if individuals wanted trials and to ensure reliable verdicts if they are going to plead guilty.\nAnd I feel therefore that because of this and because of the authorities cited, Jackson should be given retroactive application to prior guilty pleas.\nNow, the Government had made to arguments in response to this.\nFirst, the Government has said, \u201cIf we give Jackson such retroactive effect, we're probably going to have a substantial adverse effect upon the administration of justice.\u201d\nBut in the very next breadth, the Government says, \u201cWell, there are only about a 120 federal prisoners now in custody under guilty pleas or bench trials under the Kidnapping Act.\u201d\nAnd then it further admits that not all of these individuals are incarcerated under capital indictments and as I will show the Court later, we're only concerned here with capital indictment situations.\nSo the number of individuals that we're dealing with is something less that a 120 under the Kidnapping Act.\nEven if we add to this number, those individuals who are incarcerated under the Federal Bank Robbery Act or similar state statute having selective death penalty provisions, we submit to the Court that the number we're talking about really isn't that great.\nAnd even if every one of these cases were to be reviewed on a collateral attack, we don't feel that there would be a substantial effect, adverse effect upon the administration of justice, especially when compared to the potential adverse effect that there would have been had this Court made in Miranda or Griffin or Mapp retroactive.\nI had one of those decisions had been made retroactive, the effect would have been on literally thousands of prior convictions as opposed to mere handful of cases we're talking about here.\nSo we don't feel for this reason that the argument of the Government on a substantial adverse effect is really supported by the facts which the Government cites.\nIn addition to this, the Government has made another argument and this is that purpose of Jackson doesn't require that we give a retroactive effect to prior guilty pleas.\nThe Government says and I pointed this out previously that Jackson --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [323.511, 334.991, 350.853, 358.647, 363.054, 377.63, 395.742, 403.721, 416.09, 425.772, 441.193, 467.787, 473.115, 480.429, 511.763, 521.056, 536.658, 550.409, 560.065, 564.491, 573.907, 585.895, 597.626, 604.059, 621.538, 641.272, 651.882, 661.005, 671.636], "stop_times": [334.991, 350.853, 358.647, 363.054, 377.63, 395.742, 403.721, 416.09, 425.772, 441.193, 467.787, 473.115, 480.429, 511.763, 521.056, 536.658, 550.409, 560.065, 564.491, 573.907, 585.895, 597.626, 604.059, 621.538, 641.272, 651.882, 661.005, 671.636, 675.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.511}, "reply_to": "15249__0_004", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_006", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Mr. Adang, does the -- is the decision in your favor on retroactivity have impact far beyond the Kidnapping Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [675.55], "stop_times": [684.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.55}, "reply_to": "15249__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_007", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I don't believe it would Your Honor.\nWe'll the Kidnapping Act and the Federal Bank Robbery Act and state statutes where we do have selective death penalty provisions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [684.441, 686.593], "stop_times": [686.593, 693.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.441}, "reply_to": "15249__0_006", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_008", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well that may be in six, seven or eight states.\nSo when you start counting that numbers, you can just talk about significance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [693.196, 697.758], "stop_times": [697.758, 702.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.196}, "reply_to": "15249__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_009", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, that is a possibility but I don't think that the Government has submitted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [702.694], "stop_times": [707.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.694}, "reply_to": "15249__0_008", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_010", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [707.987], "stop_times": [710.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.987}, "reply_to": "15249__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_011", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I believe so, Your Honor.\nAs I stated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [710.059, 711.548], "stop_times": [711.548, 712.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.059}, "reply_to": "15249__0_010", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_012", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Isn't it stronger than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [712.607], "stop_times": [714.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.607}, "reply_to": "15249__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_013", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, I don't know how many cases we're talking about.\nCertainly I don't think it would be the kind of effect that we would have had in Miranda been made retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [714.571, 718.871], "stop_times": [718.871, 723.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.571}, "reply_to": "15249__0_012", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_014", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well since we don't know, you can't just say its 120.\nNo, I didn't say it was 120 Your Honor.\nI didn't mean to imply that, I'm sorry.\nAll I'm saying is that the Government's arguments on the substantial adverse effects, simply isn't supported by the facts which they cite in their brief.\nAnd therefore we have a nebulous question.\nAs I was stating, the Government has made a second argument on the purpose of Jackson and they state that Jackson should only be applied to those cases in which an individual has plead not guilty and been tried and convicted and sentenced to death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [723.782, 727.745, 729.399, 732.19, 740.506, 745.257], "stop_times": [727.745, 729.399, 732.19, 740.506, 745.257, 762.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.782}, "reply_to": "15249__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_015", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "That -- that was the holding of Jackson, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [762.469], "stop_times": [767.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.469}, "reply_to": "15249__0_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15249__0_016", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "No, it wasn't Your Honor, because Jackson -- the facts in the holding of Jackson --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [767.023], "stop_times": [769.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.023}, "reply_to": "15249__0_015", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_017", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "The holding of Jackson didn't get the death penalty provision of the federal so-called Lindbergh Law was unconstitutional period, isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [769.889], "stop_times": [779.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.889}, "reply_to": "15249__0_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15249__0_018", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I believe that that is correct and I think that while the facts of Jackson were very limited, I think that because of the holding, it encompasses our argument and the retroactivity.\nI think that the Government's argument as I was pointing out is essentially a negative argument because unless the Government has found some magical formula for resurrecting the dead, I don't think that there would be very much retroactive application under their theory.\nI don't again have all of the figures on death penalty convictions but as I understand that there are only been six of them under the Federal Kidnapping Act and I understand also that all of these people have already been executed, even again if we take into consideration the possibility that there are some people now under death penalty sentences under the Bank Robbery Act which I don't believe there are because the only case that's come up in the past year has been Pope against the United States.\nAnd the individuals who may be sentenced under state statutes on death penalty were probably not talking about a very great number of individuals and I think it's really infinitesimal and I feel therefore that essentially the Government's argument for retroactivity is that there wouldn't been any retroactivity or very little in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [779.831, 794.733, 810.044, 838.448], "stop_times": [794.733, 810.044, 838.448, 859.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.831}, "reply_to": "15249__0_017", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_019", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Does the rational you are urging on us have any possible application to situation where a defendant enters a guilty plea to, let us say, any lesser offense, manslaughter on a second-degree murder charge where no death penalty is involved, where he is giving up his jury trial in order to avoid a heavier penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [859.804], "stop_times": [890.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.804}, "reply_to": "15249__0_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_020", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I don't believe that it does, Your Honor, and if I may, I'll address myself to this argument because the Government has raised it in its answer brief.\nThe Government takes the position that even if we have needless encouragement in this case or in any case we're dealing with of a guilty plea, that doesn't equate with involuntariness or coercion and therefore, evidence of needless encouragement is irrelevant, so the Government cites in factual support of this the situations involving multi-count indictments or several indictments against the same individual or the lesser degree of the same crime.\nAnd the Government says that in this situation, an individual might very well be encouraged to plead guilty to a lesser degree of crime in order to have some counts dropped against him or some indictments dismissed or to get a lesser degree to avoid a harsher penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [890.258, 898.084, 926.428], "stop_times": [898.084, 926.428, 943.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.258}, "reply_to": "15249__0_019", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_021", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Isn't that the whole idea underlying the concept of plea negotiations and discussions?\nThat's correct Your Honor, but I think that there is a definite distinction.\nI think that in the plea bargaining situation, it is implicit that the penalties which the state can't create for the various degrees of crime are all valid in constitutional penalties, in other words, the state can create a crime of first-degree murder and make that penalty and sentence and create a crime of second-degree murder and make 20 years the maximum sentence.\nAnd in that situation, the individual is definitely encouraged to plea guilty to the lesser degree to avoid the harsher penalty but as I stated, the distinction is that there, the Government or the state can create the alternatives and therefore the choice that derives from those alternatives is not unnecessarily compelling.\nIn other words, I would submit that there the encouragement is only incidental to the fact that there is a choice available and that encouragement is not unnecessary and is not excessive whereas in the death penalty situation, it's inherent in the opinion of Jackson that the fact there is a choice available, is itself compulsion, is itself unconstitutional.\nThere the Court, well it's implicit in the essence of that decision, that the state cannot create two different penalties for exactly the same degree of crime and impose the harsher penalty only when the individual chooses to assert his constitutional rights.\nSo therefore in that situation, because there is a choice, which is compelled and that choice is unnecessary and avoidable, the encouragement which resolves from that choice is also unnecessary and excessive.\nAnd I believe it's sufficient to make a guilty plea involuntary.\nSo what we end up with this situation in the plea bargaining case, we have a choice available but that choice is one which can be imposed by the state.\nThe encouragement which derived from that choice is therefore not unnecessary and not excessive and not illegal.\nHowever, in the Jackson situation or the Kidnapping Act situation, the fact that there is a choice is itself unconstitutional and therefore the encouragement which derives from that choice is unnecessary and excessive and can be avoided in the words of the Government.\nSo I don't think that if we're going to make Jackson retroactive as we suggest that that is necessarily going to affect the plea bargaining situations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [943.281, 949.362, 953.694, 975.94, 999.573, 1027.416, 1047.21, 1060.755, 1064.805, 1075.936, 1082.852, 1099.341], "stop_times": [949.362, 953.694, 975.94, 999.573, 1027.416, 1047.21, 1060.755, 1064.805, 1075.936, 1082.852, 1099.341, 1110.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.281}, "reply_to": "15249__0_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_022", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "What about the situation where there is a bargain for penalty without the bargain for a lesser degree or another crime or through the defense, is the straight charge and the plea of guilty in return for recommendation not only in certain sentence, then you are right in fact in Jackson, absolutely as you read it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1110.574], "stop_times": [1132.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.574}, "reply_to": "15249__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_023", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "To some extent, but in that situation, it's obvious that the recommendation is not binding on the Court so there's really no guarantee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1132.645], "stop_times": [1139.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.645}, "reply_to": "15249__0_022", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_024", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, I know, but the Court accepts it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1139.631], "stop_times": [1142.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.631}, "reply_to": "15249__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_025", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Pardon, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1142.135], "stop_times": [1142.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1142.135}, "reply_to": "15249__0_024", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_026", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "The Court accepts it and what if it were acceptable?\nWhat if they plead -- pled guilty and the bargain wasn't kept?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1142.86, 1147.779], "stop_times": [1147.779, 1155.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1142.86}, "reply_to": "15249__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_027", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, again I don't think that would invalidate the plea because the Courts have always held in this kind of situation the recommendation of the United State's attorney or the prosecutor in the case is not binding upon the Court.\nSo, I don't think that in that situation, the claim of the plea was involuntary would be necessary upheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1155.125, 1167.073], "stop_times": [1167.073, 1175.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1155.125}, "reply_to": "15249__0_026", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_028", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "But if it were accepted, if the Court followed the recommendation, the Court asked the prosecutor what he recommends, perhaps that isn't the practice but assume it did and the prosecutor made the recommendation and it was taken and accepted and there was a plea of guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1175.603], "stop_times": [1194.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.603}, "reply_to": "15249__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_029", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well again, I think all I can say about is you get down to a negotiating situation or bargaining situation and we've always held that plea bargaining is not itself invalid whereas in the situation of the death penalty provision, that's there in the statute and it itself creates a compulsion.\nAnother analogy might be the situation where a judge on arraignment says to the defendant, \u201cIf you plead guilty, I'm going to give you 20 years of imprisonment.\nIf you plead not guilty and are convicted, I'm going to give you 50 years of imprisonment.\nAnd I think in that situation, it's fairly obvious that the guilty plea of one results is invalidated.\nIt is involuntary.\nAnd I think that our situation here is instead of the judge saying that, the statute says it, is you plead not guilty, the maximum penalty is the death penalty whereas if you plead guilty, the most you can get is life imprisonment.\nSo, I feel that that is a more consistent analogy with the situation and does support our argument.\nI was going to say previously that in addition, the Government's theory if one thinks about it would be to punish the potential innocent individual and reward the guilty individual.\nIn other words, the Government would say, \u201cLet's reward those people that were tried and convicted and sentenced to the death penalty by reducing their sentences.\u201d\nBut let's not go into prior guilty pleas on collateral attack and thereby I think we would potentially punish individuals who might be innocent or who might be incarcerated because of the clear violation of their constitutional rights.\nSo, I think, for all of these reasons, Jackson should be given the retroactive application which we request.\nWith that, and assuming that the Court does adopt that argument, I'd like to give a brief statement of the facts of this case to present the framework for the remaining arguments which we have in our brief.\nNow Brady here was indicted under the Federal Kidnapping Act on January 27, 1959 and it was a capital indictment.\nHe was arraigned on the following day and he pled not guilty.\nOn April 30, 1959, he was again brought before the judge and he changed his plea from not guilty to guilty.\nAnd on May 8, 1959, he was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment which was later reduced by executive clemency.\nOn September 20, 1967 he filed his motion to vacate sentence and as I stated in his motion, he contended that his plea was coerced and nor entered freely and voluntarily and the argument he made was essentially the argument which appeared in the Jackson case.\nThere were other claims in the motion but they are not issue in this proceeding.\nOn March 20, 1968 his came on for hearing and evidence was introduced on all of the claims and the evidence and the influence of the death penalty provision is set out in our brief, I'm not going to try to go into it, it's quite detailed but I believe that the Government has admitted in it's answer brief that Brady was undoubtedly encouraged and motivated to plead guilty by fear of the death penalty and his desire to avoid the imposition of death penalty.\nAfter all of the evidence was in the District Court denied, the motion on all of the grounds stated and it held that the Federal Kidnapping Act was constitutional and I feel that it implicitly held that because the statute was constitutional, Brady's claim that fear of the death penalty coerced him was without any merit.\nOn April 8th of last year, this Court handed down the decision of the Jackson case and the denial of Brady's motion was then appealed.\nAnd the Tenth Circuit on December 17, 1968 affirmed the decision.\nNow, the Tenth Circuit apparently held the decision in the Jackson case should be applied retroactively to prior guilty pleas but it went on to state that the existence of the prescribed provision did not necessarily imply that all individuals prior to Jackson who had pled guilty did so involuntarily.\nAnd therefore, to affirm the District Court's conclusion that Brady's guilty plea was influenced and encouraged by factors other than the death penalty provision.\nIt held that that was supported by substantial evidence.\nAnd the second point in our brief in chief we have proposed a test to be utilized by District Courts in determining when prior guilty pleas are involuntary.\nAs I stated before, we're only concerned here with cases where the death penalty was a reasonable possibility and that would only those cases where there was a capital indictment.\nOnce that requisite is satisfied, the next question is what kind of evidence will be necessary to show that a guilty plea is involuntary.\nAnd I submit that the only practical and reasonable test that can be formulated is a simple test and rather undefined and that is, that if the District Court can find from the evidence, that fear of the death penalty and the desire to avoid the imposition of death penalty was a definite factor or substantial factor in motivating the guilty plea, then that should be sufficient to invalidate the guilty plea.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1194.591, 1213.749, 1227.211, 1233.49, 1241.294, 1243.137, 1259.249, 1267.283, 1278.574, 1287.315, 1301.3, 1308.201, 1318.999, 1328.17, 1331.871, 1339.209, 1346.667, 1364.05, 1369.179, 1400.707, 1420.382, 1428.347, 1433.325, 1452.723, 1462.332, 1466.97, 1476.988, 1487.984, 1498.652, 1524.844], "stop_times": [1213.749, 1227.211, 1233.49, 1241.294, 1243.137, 1259.249, 1267.283, 1278.574, 1287.315, 1301.3, 1308.201, 1318.999, 1328.17, 1331.871, 1339.209, 1346.667, 1364.05, 1369.179, 1400.707, 1420.382, 1428.347, 1433.325, 1452.723, 1462.332, 1466.97, 1476.988, 1487.984, 1498.652, 1524.844, 1524.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.591}, "reply_to": "15249__0_028", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_030", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Would there always be a definite factor, how could if not be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1524.932], "stop_times": [1530.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.932}, "reply_to": "15249__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_031", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, I think there you can probably postulate situations Your Honor where it wouldn't be.\nFor example, I think maybe in the situation where an individual was indicted under the Kidnapping Act and also was indicted under the state charge for first-degree murder, he might conceivably very well plead guilty to the kidnapping charge to have the state charge against him dropped and he might not even consider the possibility of the imposition of the death penalty under the Kidnapping Act.\nBut really, that kind of argumentation doesn't lead anything to the question.\nIt kind of obfuscates the issue.\nI think there are certainly can be cases wherein an individual would plead guilty not out of fear of the death penalty but out of a genuine sense of guilt.\nThe practical question is in every one of these cases an individual is going to claim that he was afraid of the death penalty and he get involved in an evidentiary problem.\nAnd the question is, how do you resolve that?\nAnd I think that the only way to do that is to give the district courts this general test and let them go from there because I think as a practical matter the District Courts aren't going to believe the testimony in every case of the defendant himself that he was afraid of the death penalty, I think they are going to require that there would be some more independent objective evidence of the influence of the death penalty.\nAnd I think that this kind of evidence could come from the lawyers that were involved, or from possibly other witnesses who were involved at the time who would have less of a motivation to fabricate a story than to accused himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1530.99, 1536.893, 1558.995, 1564.394, 1565.898, 1578.176, 1589.233, 1592.02, 1616.773], "stop_times": [1536.893, 1558.995, 1564.394, 1565.898, 1578.176, 1589.233, 1592.02, 1616.773, 1627.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.99}, "reply_to": "15249__0_030", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_032", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "But if there is complete implementation of Rule 11 on the judge who takes the plea makes an inquiry which develops all the facts which accumulatively would make for guilt?\nWould you then say that that satisfies the test that you have advanced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1627.969, 1646.106], "stop_times": [1646.106, 1654.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.969}, "reply_to": "15249__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_033", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "That's postulating leaving the selective death penalty provision and I suppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1654.232], "stop_times": [1659.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1654.232}, "reply_to": "15249__0_032", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_034", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1659.104], "stop_times": [1659.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.104}, "reply_to": "15249__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_035", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "And I would say no, it would not because I think that question has already been dealt within Jackson because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1659.63], "stop_times": [1665.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.63}, "reply_to": "15249__0_034", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_036", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "If there is a complete demonstration on the record at the time of the plea that the man is guilty, do you say that would not be enough under Jackson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1665.257], "stop_times": [1673.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.257}, "reply_to": "15249__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_037", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, I don't know how you make a complete demonstration on the record at the time of the plea that he is guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1673.504], "stop_times": [1678.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.504}, "reply_to": "15249__0_036", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_038", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, isn't that the purpose of -- isn't that the purpose and thrust of Rule 11, the New Federal Rules or the Amended Rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1678.299], "stop_times": [1684.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.299}, "reply_to": "15249__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_039", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "The purpose and thrust is to determine whether he is making his plea voluntarily and not whether he is guilty or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1684.445], "stop_times": [1689.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1684.445}, "reply_to": "15249__0_038", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_040", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "And whether there is a factual basis for the plea? That's the language of the rule isn't it?\nWell, yes that's true, I stand corrected on that that is the basis of it to determine whether there is a factual basis and whether there are -- but the factual basis is a practical matter is determined by the defendant standing there and saying, \u201cYes, I did it\u201d which is his guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1689.926, 1696.147], "stop_times": [1696.147, 1713.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.926}, "reply_to": "15249__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_041", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1713.688], "stop_times": [1714.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.688}, "reply_to": "15249__0_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_042", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "In other words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1714.23], "stop_times": [1714.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1714.23}, "reply_to": "15249__0_041", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_043", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "-- district judge, if the trial judge is doing his task the way it should be done, he will not accept that, he will ask the man to recite what he did and develop on the record the full statement of all the facts that would -- a summary of the facts that would be in the case against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1714.86], "stop_times": [1732.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.86}, "reply_to": "15249__0_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_044", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Alright then adopting the court's line of reasoning, assuming there is some factual basis for the plea, that still does not necessarily rule out that fear of the death penalty would motivate and encourage that guilty plea.\nIn other words, a factual basis does not necessarily mean that the man is in fact guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1732.936, 1745.68], "stop_times": [1745.68, 1751.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1732.936}, "reply_to": "15249__0_043", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_045", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Your argument almost carries us to the point that you can't have a guilty plea in these circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1751.82], "stop_times": [1758.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.82}, "reply_to": "15249__0_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__0_046", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, with the death penalty provision in there, I would say that is correct.\nIf we take the death penalty provision out, then we alleviate the problem.\nAnd that's crux of the matter.\nThe death penalty provision is the fly in the ointment and I think if we take that out, then we alleviate the problem.\nI see that my time is rapidly coming to a close and I would just like to summarized our last point briefly and that is that it is clear on the record that Brady's guilty plea was encouraged and motivated by fear of the death penalty and that it was a substantial factor in his plea.\nHis lawyers testified to this.\nOther witnesses testified to this and there was evidence on the statements made by the court to him at the time his plea and time of all of these proceedings.\nAnd the Government has admitted that there was encouragement of his guilty plea and I feel therefore that because of his evidence, Brady's guilty plea should be vacated and his motion to vacate sentence should be granted.\nThe Government's argument is that, even if we show encouragement of a guilty plea under our test, that wouldn't be enough to invalidate the guilty plea because it wouldn't be involuntary and the Government cites cases which extensively hold that an individual can only show that his plea is involuntary if he is able to demonstrate that fear overcame his capacity to make a rationale decision.\nNow I believe that these cases are not in point, they all involve the plea bargaining situation which I have discussed previously with the Court.\nAnd it's always been held in the plea bargaining situation that guilty pleas bargained for are not involuntary.\nAnd I see that my time has run out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1758.321, 1763.132, 1767.315, 1768.548, 1775.878, 1793.351, 1795.611, 1804.782, 1818.064, 1848.521, 1856.697, 1867.486], "stop_times": [1763.132, 1767.315, 1768.548, 1775.878, 1793.351, 1795.611, 1804.782, 1818.064, 1848.521, 1856.697, 1867.486, 1868.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1758.321}, "reply_to": "15249__0_045", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_047", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Is there anything you didn't have Jackson on the books at all, would you be here at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1868.557], "stop_times": [1877.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.557}, "reply_to": "15249__0_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_048", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I don't quite understand the question Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1877.853], "stop_times": [1879.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1877.853}, "reply_to": "15249__0_047", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_049", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "What if the Jackson decision had never been made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1879.502], "stop_times": [1884.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.502}, "reply_to": "15249__0_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_050", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Well, if Jackson decision had never been made I think eventually if not this case, some other case would have obviously, this case was based upon Jackson because it was cited in the motion.\nBut if Jackson hadn't been decided I think eventually a case would have gotten here anyway because I really believe that this is an invalid procedure and I think that it does induce involuntary guilty pleas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1884.829, 1896.488], "stop_times": [1896.488, 1910.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1884.829}, "reply_to": "15249__0_049", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_051", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Given Jackson Mr. Adang, what if your client had not pleaded guilty but had waived the jury trial and requested to be pleaded not guilty and request a trial before the judge and had been sentence to 50 years in the penitentiary as your client was, would you be here trying to set that aside under reasoning of Jackson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1910.551], "stop_times": [1933.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.551}, "reply_to": "15249__0_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__0_052", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "I think I would Your Honor, because I think that the third exercise of this right to a jury trial.\nBut I think in this case, that's not a consideration because here, there's evidence in the appendix that the District Court prior to the plea had indicated that he would not allow bench trial.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1933.908, 1940.355, 1954.383], "stop_times": [1940.355, 1954.383, 1955.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1933.908}, "reply_to": "15249__0_051", "speaker": "peter_j_adang"}
{"id": "15249__0_053", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Thank you Mr. Adang.\nMr. Connolly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1955.028, 1956.339], "stop_times": [1956.339, 1961.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.028}, "reply_to": "15249__0_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15249__1_000", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nPost-conviction hearing in this case disclosed the following facts which should be emphasized.\nPetitioner was 24 years old when he pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnapping a young woman.\nAn element of the charge in the Government's case was that petitioner and his codefendant raped their victim several times during the abduction.\nPetitioner was represented by competent and experienced counsel.\nAfter thoroughly investigating the case, counsel concluded, \u201cThat we just couldn't go to a jury, it would be almost sure conviction.\u201d\nPetitioner's codefendant Tafoya had given a confession which fully implicated the petitioner.\nThereafter, Tafoya decided to plea guilty and seek leniency from the Court when the ground the petitioner was the instigator and principal actor in the crime.\nFaced with the testimony of his victim and other witnesses including possibly his codefendant, petitioner with the concurrence of his counsel entered the plea of guilty.\nPetitioner now contends that his conviction must be set aside in the authority of United States versus Jackson.\nHe does not argue that his guilty plea involuntary in a traditional sense which I will discuss in a few minutes, rather his arguments rest entirely when the Court's finding in Jackson that the death penalty provision needlessly encouraged guilty pleas in jury waivers.\nWe must assume that such encouragement was present in this case, but the issue here is whether the needless encouragement so far undermines the validity of the guilty plea that petitioner is thereby entitled to release on habeas corpus.\nThe function of the writ of habeas corpus, as the Court said in Fay versus Noia is to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints.\nHe is continued incarceration under a needlessly encouraged guilty plea and intolerable restraints.\nWe submit that it is not.\nIn our brief, we consider two theories under which the validity of the guilty plea might be affected by the needless encouragement rational of Jackson.\nThe first theory which I will discuss in more detail here is the Jackson announced a new standard to be applied in determining the voluntariness of the guilty plea.\nThis is the approach taken the Fourth Circuit in the Alfred case which was argued yesterday.\nThe second theory is unrelated to the concept of voluntariness, the elements of this theory are, one, that Jackson established in essence a right to be free from needless encouragement.\nAnd two, that this right should be applied retroactively so that all defendants who had previously pleaded guilty are entitled to automatic release on habeas corpus.\nReturning to the involuntariness theory, it is our submission that the determination of the voluntariness of the guilty plea to a kidnapping indictment is not affected by the decision in Jackson.\nEven before Jackson was decided, a defendant's extreme fear to death sentence after trial could have been shown to establish the involuntariness of his guilty plea.\nThe fact that the statute created a needless encouragement added nothing to its coercive effect.\nIt has long been held that in the involuntary guilty plea is invalid in subject to collateral attack continued incarceration under such a plea is in the language of Noia an intolerable restraint.\nWe borrow from the more developed body of law concerning confessions for statement of the test of voluntariness, that is whether the fear or inducement to which the defendant must subjected was sufficient to overcome his capacity to make a free and rational decision.\nBut more important than a statement of a test is an understanding of the policy considerations which underlie the rule.\nThe first of these considerations is he overriding purpose of rules of criminal procedure to ensure the reliability of criminal convictions.\nWe reject guilty pleas that the product of compulsive pressures because of our concern that such pressures may have caused the conviction of one who is not in fact guilty of a crime to which he pleaded.\nThe second consideration which underlies the requirement of voluntariness is our concern for preserving the dignity and integrity of the individual in the criminal process.\nThis is the fundamental principle enforced to the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.\nIt is inconsistent with our adversary system of justice to subject the individual to compelling pressures which overcome hid determination to make the state prove its case against him.\nWith these considerations in mind, we think that the fear of the death penalty which overcomes the defendant's capacity to make a free and rational decision renders his guilty plea involuntary.\nSuch a defendant who pleads guilty in a matter which precludes the death penalty is entitled to relief even if the death penalty provisions are entirely constitutional.\nBut there is no showing in this case of a fear to death penalty which deprived the petitioner of his capacity to make a free and rational choice.\nHe was represented by competent counsel who fully investigated the prosecution's case and the possible avenues of defense.\nCounsel concluded that there was no realistic hope of acquittal if the case went to trial. Petitioner had been counting upon the assistance of his codefendant Tafoya and the expectation that they would both give consistent exculpatory testimony.\nBut when Tafoya who would giving the confession implicating the petitioner, decided to plead guilty, petitioner concluded that he had no choice but to do the same and seek leniency from the Court.\nThere is no indication here that petitioner was so moved by fear of the death penalty that he could not realistically assess his chances for conviction or acquittal.\nThis is not a case where the defendant abandoned a substantial defense because of his fear of execution.\nThis is a case where the defendant knew he would be convicted and freely decided that there was no reason to risk the sentence of death.\nBut the question remains whether petitioner's guilty plea should be viewed as involuntary because the death penalty was a needless or unnecessary burden on his right to a jury trial.\nWe believe as Mr. Justice White recognized in a different context in the Harrison case that the compulsive effect of the capital punishment provision is not related to the necessity or the validity of the provision.\nThe fact that the death penalty provision was subsequently declared invalid gives no additional reason to conclude that petitioner's will was overborne.\nIt gives no reason to believe the petitioner was not in fact guilty of the charge.\nThe needlessness of the encouragement we submit is not relevant to the question whether that encouragement produced an involuntary guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [1961.669, 1964.595, 1971.16, 1978.441, 1988.687, 1993.013, 2003.401, 2010.37, 2021.477, 2033.083, 2039.546, 2058.482, 2075.922, 2089.964, 2097.74, 2106.019, 2116.134, 2126.951, 2132.838, 2146.072, 2157.252, 2170.69, 2183.23, 2190.953, 2205.126, 2224.727, 2232.424, 2242.928, 2257.448, 2267.767, 2275.573, 2288.994, 2302.422, 2314.713, 2326.036, 2335.123, 2351.649, 2365.345, 2376.83, 2384.402, 2394.027, 2408.017, 2424.073, 2433.983, 2440.121], "stop_times": [1964.595, 1971.16, 1978.441, 1988.687, 1993.013, 2003.401, 2010.37, 2021.477, 2033.083, 2039.546, 2058.482, 2075.922, 2089.964, 2097.74, 2106.019, 2116.134, 2126.951, 2132.838, 2146.072, 2157.252, 2170.69, 2183.23, 2190.953, 2205.126, 2224.727, 2232.424, 2242.928, 2257.448, 2267.767, 2275.573, 2288.994, 2302.422, 2314.713, 2326.036, 2335.123, 2351.649, 2365.345, 2376.83, 2384.402, 2394.027, 2408.017, 2424.073, 2433.983, 2440.121, 2450.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.669}, "reply_to": "15249__0_053", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15249__1_001", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Now, what's you're saying in your argument is leaving out the question for retroactivity that the Jackson decision has now impact upon what the issue is in determining whether the plea of guilty is coerced or not coerced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [2450.794], "stop_times": [2471.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.794}, "reply_to": "15249__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15249__1_002", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "That's right Mr. Justice.\nI will leave to our brief the discussion of the alternative theory on which petitioner might be entitled to relief on the basis of Jackson.\nUnder that theory, Jackson would be viewed as creating a new constitutional right to an unencumbered choice, the choice of plea or motive trial free from needless encouragement.\nIf this right is given retroactive application, then petitioner and all other defendants who pleaded guilty under the Kidnapping Act or entitled to their immediate release.\nAlthough, we doubt the Jackson decision was intended to create such a right, we analyze this theory in our brief and we conclude that retroactive application of such a right is not appropriate because of the purposes of the rule do not cast out on the accuracy or integrity of prior convictions.\nPetitioner's argument that the principle of Jackson was that there was a possibility that there would be involuntary pleas in the future and hence, a possibility that there were involuntary pleas under the Kidnapping Act prior to the invalidation of the death penalty provision.\nIt's fully answered as it was in Johnson versus New Jersey by the fact that such defendants have available to them, a vehicle to show, the involuntariness of their guilty plea.\nFinally, it may be argued that our inquiry has been too limited and that it is difficult to believe that the Jackson decision had no effect or whatsoever on previous guilty pleas.\nIn preparation of our brief and our argument, we have tried to explore other possible theories in which Jackson would affect past convictions.\nIndeed, three different theories are presented by the three individuals in these cases argued yesterday and today.\nBut the difficulty in selecting any of these theories is that the Jackson opinion, if it is to be applied to previous convictions at all gives no indication as to which defendants should and should not benefit from it.\nWhen the proper retrospective effect of the rule is thus so uncertain, we believe that the appropriate course is to decline to release serious offenders without it showing of the involuntariness of the guilty plea under established standards.\nFor these reasons, we submit that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [2471.917, 2476.218, 2484.468, 2497.07, 2509.171, 2528.991, 2548.583, 2565.725, 2576.823, 2585.431, 2593.488, 2607.906, 2623.739], "stop_times": [2476.218, 2484.468, 2497.07, 2509.171, 2528.991, 2548.583, 2565.725, 2576.823, 2585.431, 2593.488, 2607.906, 2623.739, 2630.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.917}, "reply_to": "15249__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15249__1_003", "conversation_id": "15249", "text": "Thank you.\nDoes Mr. Adang have anymore time left?\nThank you Mr. Adang.\nThank you Mr. Connolly.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_270", "start_times": [2630.229, 2633.123, 2636.962, 2638.146, 2639.258], "stop_times": [2633.123, 2636.962, 2638.146, 2639.258, 2642.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.229}, "reply_to": "15249__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__0_000", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Number 65, Breen against the Selective Service Board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [21.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__0_001", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please it the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [21.769], "stop_times": [24.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 21.769}, "reply_to": "15088__0_000", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_002", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Mr. Margolis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [24.276], "stop_times": [27.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 24.276}, "reply_to": "15088__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__0_003", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "The question presented in this case, I think, can be fairly reduced to the following whether in the light of this Court's decisions in Oestereich and Gabriel.\nSection 10 (b) (3) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 precludes pre-induction judicial review of delinquency, reclassification processes by local draft board against a full time undergraduate student who is statutorily entitled to a II-S classification simply because he surrendered his draft card to a clergymen to register his dissent against the war in Vietnam.\nPut another way, the question is, does Oestereich control this case or does Gabriel control it?\nThe facts in the case are admitted for purposes of this appeal and are further agreed to and the agreed statement on appeal which is part of the appendix.\nThe petitioner at the time in question was a 19-year old undergraduate student at the Berklee School of Music in 1967, a school located in Boston, Massachusetts.\nAt that time, he was satisfactorily pursuing a full time course of instruction at the college and was properly classified by his local board, board number 16 in Bridgeport, Connecticut as a II-S for the academic year in 1967 to 1968.\nAt all relevant times, the petitioner maintained the necessary status for his II-S in full compliance with all of the statutory requirements.\nOn November 16th 1967, the petitioner along with numerous others took part in a meeting at the Arlington Street Church in Boston protesting the war in Vietnam and in the course of this meeting delivered his registration certificate along with a number of other registrants to a clergymen for the sole purpose of registering his dissent against the war in Vietnam.\nThe action by the petitioner was peaceful.\nIt was nonviolent and it was expressed as a form of speech under the First Amendment.\nA few weeks prior to this occasion, a memorandum and letter was issued from the director of Selective Service General Hershey which was addressed to all members and officials of the Selective Service System.\nThis memorandum and letter which we will herein after refer to as the Hershey directive and instructed and advised the members of the system to strip deferments and exemptions from all registrants who in anyway violate the Selective Service regulations or its related processes or who take part in any so-called illegal demonstrations.\nThe directive further recommended that the delinquency reclassification induction procedure be pursued for any registrant who abandons his draft card or his classification card.\nSubsequent to the action by the petitioner on January 9th, 1968, he received a simultaneous declaration of delinquency and reclassification in the mail, reclassification from II-S to I-A.\nThis was a clear implementation of the directive of General Hershey and as the court below aptly put it, it was certainly in line with this directive.\nThe ground set forth in the delinquency notice were \u201cfailure to have registrations certificate in your possession\u201d.\nTwo days later, the petitioner was ordered for a physical examination and in early February of 1968, he appealed his reclassification.\nThe litigation below was commenced on February 20th, 1968 in the District Court for Connecticut wherein a declaratory judgment and injunction and other relief was asked by way of a remedy on behalf of the petitioner together with other forms of relief including damages.\nThe initial hearing before that Court took place on March 1st 1968 where a temporary restraining order was obtained.\nHowever, on March 8, 1968, all of the petitioner\u2019s claims for relief were denied, the temporary restraining order was dissolved and the respondent's motion to dismiss was granted primarily on the grounds that 10 (b) (3) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction.\nOn April 30, 1968, subsequent to the litigation, the Appeal Board for Connecticut confirmed the classification of the petitioner's I-A.\nPrior to that time had passed his physical examination and was ordered to report for induction.\nHe has not reported for induction based on stays obtained by the District Court subsequently by the Court of Appeals and eventually by this Court.\nThe rationale by the Court of Appeals in upholding the action of the District Court was geared clearly to differentiation which it drew between this Court's decisions and Oestereich and in Gabriel.\nThe Court held that Oestereich was distinguishable based on a demarcation between exemption and deferment under the statute with extremely heavy reliance upon Gabriel.\nPetitioner contends that the essential error below is in the failure of the majority in its opinion to identify the case as it should have with Oestereich rather than with Gabriel.\nWe submit that the Oestereich case clearly and unmistakably controls the case at bar and we submit this initially for factual reasons because the salient facts in both Oestereich and in a case at bar are absolutely identical in at least seven respects.\nIn the first place, both cases involved full time undergraduate students.\nSecond, both involved the surrender of draft cards as a conscientious dissent by personal commitment against the war in Vietnam.\nThird, both involved explicit and unqualified statutory rights at stake in both cases.\nFourth, there is in neither case any discretion or exercise of judgment or weighing of evidence by the local board.\nFifth, both involve the application of the delinquency regulations directly pursuant to the Hershey directive.\nSixth, the registrants in both cases were punitively reclassified I-A pursuant to that directive.\nAnd seventh, there was a simultaneous declaration in both cases of delinquency and a I-A reclassification.\nPetitioner submits that the facts in Gabriel are not reconcilable with any single one of those seven factual elements in Oestereich and Breen, and for that reason, Gabriel is irrelevant to consideration of the case at bar.\nWe submit by way of legal argument that the exemption, deferment, distinction which was drawn by the court below and on which heavy emphasis is placed by the respondents is totally unsupported in at least four aspects.\nThe first place, unsupported by the legislative history of the statute which reflects the congressional intent in passing the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.\nSecondly, it is unsupported by the wording of the statute itself.\nThirdly, it's unsupported by the wording of the Selective Service Regulations.\nAnd fourthly, it is unsupported by the pertinent and relevant case law by Court of Appeal\u2019s decisions below.\nThe legislative history of this statute is extensively described in both the House and Senate reports leading up to the passage of this Act and in particular in House Report number 267 which stresses the importance in the passage of the new Act of immunizing full time undergraduate students from any disruption of their education by way of untimely induction and stressing further the fact that this was in the public interest or this clear and unmistakable immunity to apply.\nThere was a very distinct effort on the part of both the House and the Senate to remove local board discretion based on class standing in favor of what is described in the legislative history as a uniform deferment policy with a statutory and clear cut criteria for all undergraduate student deferments and also significant and I intend to go back to this later on.\nThe new statute in 1967 removes the discretionary term authorize, where the President has authorized to grant student deferments and replaces it with the mandatory word \u2018shall\u2019 and further goes on to remove the further discretionary language in the old Act which talked about authorizing deferments only when necessary to the maintenance of the national health safety or interest, that was removed and what we now have in the statute are five clear cut statutory criteria leaving no discretion to the local boards whatsoever if these criteria are met.\nNamely, that a II-S will be granted in the following instances.\nFirst, if the student is pursuing a full time course of instruction; second, if he is attending a college, a university or a similar institution of higher learning; third, that he is pursuing a course of instruction satisfactorily; fourth, if he has not yet attained a baccalaureate degree; and fifth, if he has not attained his 24th birthday.\nThese are the clear statutory criteria set forth by the Congress deliberately and intentionally, so that there should be no mistaking about when a student was or was not entitled to his deferment.\nAnd as far as the case at bar is concerned, there is no question.\nIt's not contested that Mr. Breen met every single one of these criteria.\nThe national policy and the statutory criteria are further reflected in the specific restriction upon the President which was also introduced in the 1967 statute was non-existent prior to that time, that such deferments shall not be restricted or terminated without a specific finding by the President -- that the needs of the Armed Forces require such action and of course, there has been no such finding by the President of United States.\nSo that taking all of these elements together, it is not surprising that if the dissenting opinion below pointed out that this is about as clear a statement of congressional intent as you can get made all and more specific, all the more emphatic rather by its appearance in the Selective Service Act for the first time in the 1967 Amendments.\nThe statute insofar as congressional intent is concerned, is further buttressed in the following way by a very brief except that I'd like to read from the conference report of the Senate and House prior to the passage of the Act and talking about these changes.\nThis is what the report says at 1359 of the House Report number 267.\nThe language incorporates the original House recommendation in respect to undergraduate student deferments and would provide them uniformly to all registrants who requested and qualified for such a deferment.\nThese undergraduate deferments would continue only until a registrant had received the baccalaureate degree, failed to continue to pursue a full time course of instruction satisfactorily or reached the age of 24 whichever occurred first.\nI submit there's no question about the legislative intent here.\nNow, the other main problem of respondent's argument has to do with the proposition that an exempt registrant as in Oestereich is somehow outside the system, outside the Selective Service System entirely and it quotes, a Court of Appeal\u2019s decision Anderson against Hershey in support of this rationale.\nPetitioner contends that an exempt student is no more outside the system than a deferred system -- than a deferred student.\nAnd Section 6 (k) of the statute leaves absolutely no doubt on this point as does Section 5 of the statute leave there a continuing references to deferred and exempt students.\nThere are no distinctions drawn between exemptions and deferments with these purposes under the statute.\nThe regulations, Section 1625.1 state unconditionally that no classification is permanent.\nNow, to take the Oestereich situation and compare it with the Breen situation, we can see this in operation very clearly.\nIf Oestereich, a divinity student had finished his divinity school at the seminary and having completed his school then decided that he was going to enter a law school or he then decided that he was going to drive a bus or become a carpenter, can there be any question at all that he would not be outside the system simply because he had a IV-D originally?\nAnd let's reverse the situation.\nLet's take the case of the petitioner who was attending the Berklee School of Music and let's assume that having concluded the Berklee School of Music or even while he was there, he transferred to a divinity school.\nWould he be outside the system at that point simply because he had transferred to a divinity school?\nIt's obvious under the statute as well as under the regulations that any change in the circumstances of a registrant can produce a change in his classification.\nThat's what the classification, regulations are all about and that there is clearly no person who is within the system, no registrant who is within the system who simply because he has an exemption is outside the system.\nThat was never intended and it's nowhere to be found.\nIndeed, it may be said, now there has been said by several courts below that both exempt and deferred registrants are outside the pool of manpower and that's true, they are outside the pool of manpower but that hardly places them outside the system.\nThis is further -- I think buttressed by the fact that the exemption deferment, demarcation line which the Government tries so desperately to draw particularly after Oestereich is almost impossible to define when examining the various kinds of classifications which exist both under the statute and the regulation.\nWhen one moves from such classification is IV-F which is an exemption and I-Y which is an exemption and then moves on I-D which is a deferment, there is no logical order of priority, there is no systematic attempt to say that we have a series of exemptions which are going to be treated in one fashion exclusively a series of deferments which are going to be treated in another fashion exclusively and at one is in a higher order of priority, one is in the lower order of priority.\nIndeed, the regulations themselves show a mixture and that mixture of exemptions and deferments in terms of persons who are in the highest order of priority at I-A down to the lowest order of priority which is I-C.\nAnother, I think, prime example to illustrate this point would be in the case of federal judges who under the statute and under the regulations have deferments.\nThe federal judge is obviously appointed for life but he only has a deferment.\nNow, is it going to be suggested by the Government that a federal judge is somehow rather inside the system but a divinity student at the end of a theological seminary is somehow rather outside the system, it makes no sense.\nThere is no rational distinction recognized by either the statute or by the regulations and I think that the three justices of this Court who filed their dissenting opinion in Oestereich has much as said so particularly as indicated in footnote nine of their opinion.\nThis was also practically conceded by counsel for Selective Service System in the brief for the Solicitor General filed in the Oestereich case calling the Court's attention particularly to the footnote on page 68 where again, there was practically a concession that you couldn't draw these fine distinctions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [27.859, 43.062, 75.504, 83.513, 97.854, 111.312, 131.094, 143.459, 171.722, 174.712, 180.778, 197.757, 223.028, 239.138, 253.556, 263.39, 271.199, 282.232, 304.114, 311.417, 331.123, 341.986, 347.933, 357.121, 374.471, 386.907, 399.859, 419.646, 425.963, 435.305, 443.78, 454.828, 462.83, 471.513, 481.006, 498.703, 518.488, 530.06, 534.691, 540.216, 550.913, 590.35, 618.791, 662.768, 666.531, 691.052, 703.666, 707.178, 713.989, 747.95, 774.888, 794.237, 804.12, 816.129, 833.203, 836.98, 862.963, 871.771, 882.563, 890.519, 900.79, 908.724, 932.086, 934.076, 948.319, 952.838, 963.043, 976.81, 979.663, 999.66, 1021.224, 1050.34, 1065.704, 1077.47, 1081.597, 1095.42, 1115.102], "stop_times": [43.062, 75.504, 83.513, 97.854, 111.312, 131.094, 143.459, 171.722, 174.712, 180.778, 197.757, 223.028, 239.138, 253.556, 263.39, 271.199, 282.232, 304.114, 311.417, 331.123, 341.986, 347.933, 357.121, 374.471, 386.907, 399.859, 419.646, 425.963, 435.305, 443.78, 454.828, 462.83, 471.513, 481.006, 498.703, 518.488, 530.06, 534.691, 540.216, 550.913, 590.35, 618.791, 662.768, 666.531, 691.052, 703.666, 707.178, 713.989, 747.95, 774.888, 794.237, 804.12, 816.129, 833.203, 836.98, 862.963, 871.771, 882.563, 890.519, 900.79, 908.724, 932.086, 934.076, 948.319, 952.838, 963.043, 976.81, 979.663, 999.66, 1021.224, 1050.34, 1065.704, 1077.47, 1081.597, 1095.42, 1115.102, 1135.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 27.859}, "reply_to": "15088__0_002", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_004", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "In your brief, I think you state that the Vice President of the United States has given an explicit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1135.971], "stop_times": [1143.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.971}, "reply_to": "15088__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__0_005", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Deferment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1143.704], "stop_times": [1144.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.704}, "reply_to": "15088__0_004", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_006", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Is that the deferment or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1144.348], "stop_times": [1145.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.348}, "reply_to": "15088__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__0_007", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "That's a deferment (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1145.205], "stop_times": [1146.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.205}, "reply_to": "15088__0_006", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_008", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "It is simply deferred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1146.668], "stop_times": [1147.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.668}, "reply_to": "15088__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__0_009", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Stewart that is a deferment.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1147.227, 1149.189], "stop_times": [1149.189, 1149.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.227}, "reply_to": "15088__0_008", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_010", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "That's while he is Vice President?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1149.462], "stop_times": [1150.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.462}, "reply_to": "15088__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__0_011", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "As long as he is Vice President, he only has a deferment.\nThat would be under classification IV-B.\nThat's only he has.\nHe has no exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1150.568, 1153.787, 1157.082, 1157.783], "stop_times": [1153.787, 1157.082, 1157.783, 1161.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.568}, "reply_to": "15088__0_010", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_012", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "And that is also true to the members of this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1161.399], "stop_times": [1164.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.399}, "reply_to": "15088__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__0_013", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "That's true of members of this Court.\nAll the members of the court have our deferments.\nThe gentlemen are not exempted, at least not specifically under IV-B, that's the classification.\nNow, the distinction I think which needs to be drawn in obviously some line in this case as in so many other cases before this Court that needs to be drawn is not between exemptions on the one hand and deferments on the other but rather between those exemptions and deferments which are unequivocally and unconditionally granted by statute on the one side such as veterans, such as sole surviving sons, such as full time students, elected officials and the like where you have exemptions and deferments there and those exemptions and deferments which are granted by statute but which are subject to findings of fact, which are subject to exercise of judgment by local boards and weighing of evidence where again you got exemptions and deferments such as in the case of IV-F's, in the case of conscientious objectors, in the case of dependency and hardship deferments.\nAs a matter of fact, we would submit that the Gabriel case itself is a prime example to illustrate this point where you are dealing with a conscientious objector which involves an exemption, if he is entitled to conscientious objective status that would be an exemption and yet you've got so clearly a case where there's got to be discretion exercised by the board that has got to be weighing of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1164.87, 1166.996, 1169.23, 1175.6, 1231.992], "stop_times": [1166.996, 1169.23, 1175.6, 1231.992, 1255.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.87}, "reply_to": "15088__0_012", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_014", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Would you care to make -- I didn't get it.\nWould you care to state your views to the scope of the discretion, (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1255.635, 1261.601], "stop_times": [1261.601, 1273.992], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.635}, "reply_to": "15088__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_015", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I think that the scope of his discretion would be limited only to the statutory criteria.\nIf the director finds and that by way of the local board that a student is not pursuing a full time course of instruction that might be a factual determination or if he finds that he is not pursuing that course of instruction satisfactorily which are the statutory criteria then I would certainly say, there would be a basis for a weighing, for a judgment, for discretionary act by the local board which may indeed be barred by 10 (b) (3) but certainly where there are criteria totally irrelevant to the statutory criteria such as in the case at bar where the only basis for doing what the board did and this is conceded as the turning over of a registration certificate to a clergymen by way of an expression of dissent that has nothing to do with the statute and at that point the Selective Service director cannot do anything about taking away a II-S classification, I would submit.\nThe only final point that I would like to make, so I can reserve a little time later on if the Court please is that the case is cited by the Government that three Court of Appeals cases cited by Government, give it small comfort in attempting to arrange for what is obviously a divorce of convenience as between the exemption on the one side and deferment on the other.\nThe Kolden case which it cites by dictum is in full accord with the position of the petitioner in this case.\nThere is clear and rather it's a repeated dictum indicating that the 10 (b) (3) would not be a bar in Kolden where a II-S undergraduate student, full time undergraduate student was involved.\nThe Kraus case involving a III-A deferment is governed by statutory language authorizing not mandating but authorizing the President to grant a deferment subject to certain specific conditions in 6 (h) (2), again not applicable.\nAnd as far as Anderson against Hershey is concerned, which they cite in their brief that is again the rationale that an exemption is outside the Selective Service System which we have already dealt with.\nThe cases that we have cited I think are terribly important particularly the Carey case which was decided in the Second Circuit.\nIt is important because it was a per curiam decision in which two of the three judges, and that case ironically and perhaps incongruously held that 10 (b) (3) would not be a bar to a review of a denial of a I-S classification and set forth that where there is no basis for withdrawing it and where there is a statutory grant, it cannot be taken away by the Selective Service System.\nAnd if there is a legal relationship involved as there was in Carey and whether there was a statutory interpretation to be applied as there was in that case, this is not a matter for the local board nor is this a matter to await a criminal prosecution but that it is a matter which is entitled to early judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1273.992, 1279.45, 1337.336, 1362.286, 1369.945, 1382.515, 1401.54, 1413.118, 1421.226, 1450.698], "stop_times": [1279.45, 1337.336, 1362.286, 1369.945, 1382.515, 1401.54, 1413.118, 1421.226, 1450.698, 1468.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.992}, "reply_to": "15088__0_014", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_016", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Is that subsequent to this decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1468.692], "stop_times": [1471.449], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.692}, "reply_to": "15088__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_017", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I'm sorry, Mr. Justice Harlan --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1471.449], "stop_times": [1472.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.449}, "reply_to": "15088__0_016", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_018", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Was that, that per curiam subsequent to this decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1472.222], "stop_times": [1475.998], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.222}, "reply_to": "15088__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_019", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "That was subsequent to the Oestereich decision, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1475.998], "stop_times": [1478.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.998}, "reply_to": "15088__0_018", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_020", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Oh, it is subsequent to the Breen decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1478.815], "stop_times": [1480.951], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.815}, "reply_to": "15088__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_021", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Yes, subsequent to the Breen decision.\nThat's correct, Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1480.951, 1483.127], "stop_times": [1483.127, 1484.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.951}, "reply_to": "15088__0_020", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_022", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Different panel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1484.034], "stop_times": [1485.932], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.034}, "reply_to": "15088__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_023", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "A different panel but interestingly enough of the three judges on that panel, two of them are Judges Moore and Friendly were in the majority in Breen.\nI think I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1485.932, 1498.488], "stop_times": [1498.488, 1500.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.932}, "reply_to": "15088__0_022", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_024", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Very well, Mr. Margolis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1500.492], "stop_times": [1505.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.492}, "reply_to": "15088__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__0_025", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Have you cited in your brief that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1505.164], "stop_times": [1507.571], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.164}, "reply_to": "15088__0_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_026", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1507.571], "stop_times": [1508.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.571}, "reply_to": "15088__0_025", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_027", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "It is cited in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1508.155], "stop_times": [1509.864], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.155}, "reply_to": "15088__0_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_028", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Yes, it is.\nWe did not have the citation at that time because it had not yet been published.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1509.864, 1511.468], "stop_times": [1511.468, 1515.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.864}, "reply_to": "15088__0_027", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_029", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1515.562], "stop_times": [1516.95], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.562}, "reply_to": "15088__0_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_030", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I can give it to you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1516.95], "stop_times": [1532.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1516.95}, "reply_to": "15088__0_029", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_031", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "You do that later then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1532.499], "stop_times": [1533.496], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.499}, "reply_to": "15088__0_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__0_032", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I can do it later, Your Honor, I cannot locate it right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1533.496], "stop_times": [1535.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.496}, "reply_to": "15088__0_031", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__0_033", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Mr. Ruckelshaus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1535.848], "stop_times": [1537.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.848}, "reply_to": "15088__0_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__1_000", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nAt the outset, I think in light of the statement of facts by the counsel for petitioner, it might be well to state in the Government's opinion what this case is not about.\nIn our opinion, this case is not about the advisability of the war in Vietnam, it's not about the advisability of the present Selective Service law.\nQuite obviously, these are questions of policy or the legislative and executive branches of Government.\nThirdly, I think that this case is not about free speech or the challenge to free speech under the Hershey directive.\nThere was a specific finding by the court below in this case to which petitioner did not object and which is set out on page four of our appendix, it\u2019s finding of fact number five, which states that the board's actions were entirely by virtue of the draft regulations.\nOn page three in the statement of facts agreed to by the petitioner and the Government, in this case, there is a statement in the bottom of paragraph 14, that the attest memorandum of decisions containing the following findings of fact which are not in dispute in the following conclusions of law.\nThere is no dispute about that finding in this case.\nIn the same question and that arises in the Gutknecht case which will follow this one and there is also a specific finding in the Gutknecht case that there is no evidence that the acceleration was based on the expressions of oppositions of the war in Vietnam.\nNow I think that the claims of the denial of First Amendment freedoms, in this case cannot be based on pure speculation or on what might have been done.\nThey must be based on the fact situation as we find it in this case which I think leads to a complete denial that there was any abridgment of First Amendment freedoms in this case.\nHere, as the counsel for the petitioner stated in his opening argument, there was not an effort on the part of the local draft boards to implement the Hershey directive, in this case applying the delinquency regulations and accelerating Mr. Breen, accelerating his induction.\nI think that it should be pointed out that while the Hershey directive was issued in October under the statement of facts in this case, it is clear that at the petitioner was declared delinquent on January 8.\nAnd in our appendix, appendix B to the brief of the Government on page 41 is a joint statement of Attorney General Ramsey Clark and the director of the Selective Service in which it was stated that lawful protest activities whether directive to the draft or other national issues do not subject registrants to acceleration or any other special administrative action by the Selective Service System.\nNow, this statement is fully supported by the present justice department and we would not be here if the department were the opinion that in this instance that Mr. Breen was denied his First Amendment rights or that the board below acted interrogation of those rights, that he was accelerated for his views.\nIf I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1537.201, 1542.609, 1557.319, 1571.801, 1578.839, 1590.161, 1616.117, 1638.495, 1642.393, 1661.863, 1673.484, 1689.123, 1714.146, 1731.523, 1758.28, 1778.696], "stop_times": [1542.609, 1557.319, 1571.801, 1578.839, 1590.161, 1616.117, 1638.495, 1642.393, 1661.863, 1673.484, 1689.123, 1714.146, 1731.523, 1758.28, 1778.696, 1779.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1537.201}, "reply_to": "15088__0_033", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_001", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Is there anything direct to show why he was brought in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1779.443], "stop_times": [1784.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.443}, "reply_to": "15088__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_002", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "He was brought in the -- Mr. Justice Marshall, because he violated one of the regulations, the delinquency regulations were applied to him and because he violated a regulation which provides that you must have your registration certificate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1784.721], "stop_times": [1799.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.721}, "reply_to": "15088__1_001", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_003", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "How did they know he didn't have his certificate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1799.532], "stop_times": [1803.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.532}, "reply_to": "15088__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_004", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Because it was reported to them apparently by the marshal or by the -- and when he returned his registration certification into the clergyman on November 16, 1967.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1803.766], "stop_times": [1817.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1803.766}, "reply_to": "15088__1_003", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_005", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "How did they find that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1817.643], "stop_times": [1819.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.643}, "reply_to": "15088__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_006", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I really can't recall exactly how did they find that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1819.914], "stop_times": [1822.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1819.914}, "reply_to": "15088__1_005", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_007", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, isn't it interesting that all of the people they picked him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1822.888], "stop_times": [1826.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.888}, "reply_to": "15088__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_008", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, I think that anyone that violates a regulation of this nature where it comes to the attention of the local board would be accelerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1826.818], "stop_times": [1835.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.818}, "reply_to": "15088__1_007", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_009", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "And you consider that the handing in of its registration certificate was not the form of expression.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1835.981], "stop_times": [1844.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.981}, "reply_to": "15088__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_010", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, I think it's a form of mixed expression and conduct and under the cases in this Court where there is a mixture and where there is a valid governmental purpose to be had in the regulation which is violated.\nIn this case, the possession of his draft cards that he cannot violate a law or regulation and call it speech and thereby, exonerate himself from any sanctions other than law or regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1844.33, 1858.878], "stop_times": [1858.878, 1872.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.33}, "reply_to": "15088__1_009", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_011", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Did you mean sanctions or punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1872.656], "stop_times": [1875.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.656}, "reply_to": "15088__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_012", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, I will get to that, Mr. Justice Marshall, I'll address myself that now, if you care to the question of punishment as far as it's concerned in this case involves the -- and it also involves the case as follows.\nAs to whether the delinquency regulations are punishment and the question that we directly face is whether -- if they are a punishment and say, he should have been provided its Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under that.\nI think there is threshold question in this case of Section 10 (b) (3) but if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1875.38, 1893.314, 1911.286], "stop_times": [1893.314, 1911.286, 1918.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.38}, "reply_to": "15088__1_011", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_013", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "That is the question of this case, is it Mr. Ruckelshaus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1918.472], "stop_times": [1920.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.472}, "reply_to": "15088__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__1_014", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Yes, it think it is, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1920.523], "stop_times": [1922.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.523}, "reply_to": "15088__1_013", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_015", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "And the sole question asked is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1922.091], "stop_times": [1924.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.091}, "reply_to": "15088__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__1_016", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I think it is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1924.791], "stop_times": [1926.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.791}, "reply_to": "15088__1_015", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_017", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "We get to the other question or at least a part of it in the next case, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1926.062], "stop_times": [1930.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.062}, "reply_to": "15088__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15088__1_018", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I think that's right, Mr. Justice Stewart.\nAh the -- the threshold question is the one to which the petitioner's attorney directed most of his attention.\nI believe, Mr. Justice Marshall that the question of punishment will be covered in great detail in the next case and I think that if you take the straight question of punishment itself that probably there are elements of punishment in what happened here to the petitioner and there are arguments that can be made that it was not a punishment.\nI think this tends to obscure the underlying issue and that is whether ultimately the petitioner in this case is able to be afforded his full Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and it is our position both in this case in Oestereich that what has happened with 10 (b) (3) is that the raising of those rights is simply been delayed.\nHe has not been denied the right to raise all of this or have all the right to counsel and right to confrontation of witnesses.\nThis is done when he has refused to submit to induction and has a criminal trial or submits to induction and brings the habeas corpus to contest his induction.\nSo that the question of whether or not it's a punishment, I think is only relevant in terms of whether he eventually receives his rights that he claims he should have.\nThat the threshold question, of course, is the question of 10 (b) (3), the District Court and the Court of Appeals thought that this case should be dismissed under Section 10 (b) (3).\nIt is our contention that, that decision by the Court of Appeals and the District Court below was proper.\nThe Section 10 (b) (3) clearly prohibits judicial review of classification and processing by local appeal board and that these -- the questions of classification and processing can only be brought up as a defense to a criminal trial or by habeas corpus.\nNow, I don't believe that Oestereich is dispositive of this case.\nI think there are some distinctions that can be drawn between the deferment and exemption which are irrelevant to Section 10 (b) (3) and these are contentions that the Section does apply here.\nIn the first place, I think that the purpose of Section 10 (b) (3) is twofold.\nIts first purpose is to avoid a litigious interruption with the Selective Service process and that I think the congressional purpose here was not to deny review but to postpone it.\nAnd I think that the Selective Service process if it should go on smoothly, Section 10 (b) (3) and the purpose behind it must be at least applied at the situation as it exist in deferments and I think that the petitioner can raise all the defenses that he had to his treatment at the end of the process.\nNow, there is historical validity to the finality provisions -- or finality decision of an appeal board and that we have the decision cited in our brief, Falbo and Estep which have modified the decision in Falbo which said that all of these, the defenses of the board exceeding its jurisdiction by not having any basis in fact for its decision could be brought up at the criminal trial.\nSo that I believe that what has happened in Section 10 (b) (3) is not a denial of review but a postponement and that there is historical validity for that postponement.\nI think we can -- the second purpose of the Section 10 (b) (3) has is to avoid having the courts becoming super draft boards and certainly that if Section 10 (b) (3) were not to apply the deferments to anybody who is deferred, the courts would be flooded with cases involving interpretation of draft board decisions and not only as far as they might be considered blatantly lawless because they were completely outside of the manpower pool as the Judge Coffman suggested with the rationale that could be applied to Oestereich but also with all kinds of rationale that might have been applied to the draft board's refusal or the draft board decision to accelerate.\nAnd now, if it is the Government's contention that this is a -- that Section 10 (b) (3) is a proper exercise of congressional power and that Article III Section 1 of the Constitution that gives the Congress the power to define and limit jurisdiction of the inferior courts of this country and Article I Section 8 that gives the Congress the power to raise and support the Armed Forces and that's precisely what Congress is attempting to do in Section 10 (b) (3).\nThere is a constitutional question raised by a petitioner as the constitutionality of Section 10 (b) (3).\nIt is our position at the outset that this question has been decided by this Court in Clark against Gabriel that it has been decided against the petitioner and the Court there specifically found that there was no constitutional objection to Section 10 (b) (3).\nIn Oestereich, the Court stated its construction 10 (b) (3), left it unimpaired in the normal operations of the Act.\nStill I don't believe that the question of constitutionality can be considered to be a serious one here.\nThe question of the distinction between with this case and Oestereich, the question of whether there is any distinction that can be made between exemptions and deferments and if there is no distinction that therefore Oestereich applies, I think is very much for this Court today.\nI would state that the outset, that all circuit courts which have faced this question since Oestereich and have decided the question in the Government's favor, the Second, Fourth, Sixth and Eight Circuits cited all, the cases cited on page 18 of our brief, have all decided that there is a distinction between a deferment and an exemption.\nIn the first place, that there is a statutory distinction between a deferment and an exemption.\nIn Section 6 (g) of the Selective Service Act, this Section involving the ministerial exemption.\nThat exemption is unconditional, it is in given subject to the power of the President to adapt rules and regulations and providing for that exemption but in a II-S deferment in Section 6 (h) (1), there is a statutory condition placed on it.\nThe deferment has provided\u201d under such rules and regulations as the President may provide\u201d.\nNow, that conditional grant is not in Section 6 (g) involving the exemption, the Section 6 (h) (1) specifically recognizes the delinquency regulations in the last sentence of the same Section.\nFor the first time, the delinquency regulations are recognized as being in existence by the Congress and as Judge Friendly stated on Page 26 of his opinion that this was a clear evidence that in the court below, clear evidence that the Congress did not suppose that reclassification pursuant to the delinquency regulation would violate provisions of 6 (h) (1).\nIt said that Congress has not authorized that delinquency regulations, it seems to me is to ignore almost 30 years of their existence.\nIn the 30 years of the existence of the delinquency regulations which have essentially remained the same since 1948, the Congress has amended the Act four times.\nEither amended the Act by changing it very greatly or by readapting basically the provisions that were already there and I just can't believe that if a Congress has known of the existence of regulations of this matter, this kind has gone into their -- into the whole Act involving the delinquency regulations of four times over the last 28 years that we can say in 1969, that Congress did not intend that the delinquency regulations be in effect if there was no statutory authorization for those regulations.\nI just can't believe that Congress is so blind.\nI would suggest for this Court's analysis that Judge Coffman's analysis in Anderson against Hershey of the Sixth Circuit case which is cited on page 18 of our brief.\nOn page 19 of our brief, Judge Coffman, I think expresses very well the analysis which we recommended to this Court.\nHe said that in the case of an exemption, the Congress has made the decision that qualifying persons shall be beyond the pool of manpower available for military purposes.\nIn the case of deferment, the Congress has tried to set priorities to provide predictability and to guarantee equality of treatment but not immunity for those within the available pool of manpower.\nAn exempt person is predetermined to be outside of the system, a deferred person is within.\nWe deem this is a significant line of demarcation.\nNow, I do not agree with statement made by counsel for petitioner that the deferred individual is outside the pool of manpower.\nI think he is inside the pool of manpower.\nHe is simply postponed when he shall have to either be in the pool that is immediately indictable under the order of call or if he should for some reason, no longer qualify to be in that classification and I think that in the place of the exemption, the case of Oestereich, since he was outside -- outside the pool, the system simply didn't operate on him.\nThere was no reason for him to comply with the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [1930.148, 1933.363, 1942.53, 1966.059, 1986.351, 1992.664, 2004.048, 2015.835, 2032.118, 2040.595, 2060.023, 2066.481, 2078.601, 2086.235, 2099.9, 2123.307, 2152.368, 2164.778, 2213.802, 2241.216, 2248.193, 2263.503, 2271.788, 2278.445, 2296.443, 2317.848, 2323.542, 2331.907, 2350.072, 2356.285, 2370.434, 2395.635, 2403.913, 2415.088, 2449.903, 2453.797, 2466.636, 2479.076, 2490.134, 2503.64, 2509.899, 2513.468, 2523.061, 2525.96, 2552.802], "stop_times": [1933.363, 1942.53, 1966.059, 1986.351, 1992.664, 2004.048, 2015.835, 2032.118, 2040.595, 2060.023, 2066.481, 2078.601, 2086.235, 2099.9, 2123.307, 2152.368, 2164.778, 2213.802, 2241.216, 2248.193, 2263.503, 2271.788, 2278.445, 2296.443, 2317.848, 2323.542, 2331.907, 2350.072, 2356.285, 2370.434, 2395.635, 2403.913, 2415.088, 2449.903, 2453.797, 2466.636, 2479.076, 2490.134, 2503.64, 2509.899, 2513.468, 2523.061, 2525.96, 2552.802, 2555.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1930.148}, "reply_to": "15088__1_017", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_019", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "But if Oestereich did left the divinity school, what would happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2555.767], "stop_times": [2560.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.767}, "reply_to": "15088__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_020", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "If he would -- The question of permanency does not I think put them inside or outside the pool of manpower.\nI think the question is one of statutory construction and in Section 6 (g), it's an unconditional grant of an exemption to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2560.606, 2567.653], "stop_times": [2567.653, 2576.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.606}, "reply_to": "15088__1_019", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_021", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, then just one more question would help me.\nThe petitioner did emphasize that the change of the word to shall for the student.\nHe shall be put into us.\nThey put great emphasis on that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2576.524, 2578.564, 2584.623, 2587.966], "stop_times": [2578.564, 2584.623, 2587.966, 2588.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.524}, "reply_to": "15088__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15088__1_022", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "I think that, Mr. Justice Marshall, they are referring to the question of whether there was any discretion given to the President to defer students and in the 1967 Act, there was no discretion given.\nIt was made mandatory.\nThe deferment was made mandatory but the deferment was not made unconditional and the conditions were subject to such rules and regulations as the President may provide.\nAnd in Section 6 (g), there is no such condition that was given and I think this makes a significant distinction between a deferment and an exemption.\nI would also submit that there is a logical nexus here between the whole gamut of the regulations and the deferred status of the petitioner.\nNow, the registration, there are good reasons why all of these regulations exist.\nThe registration itself, the filling -- th filing in -- the filling of a classification questionnaire, the carrying of draft cards.\nAll of these things were found to be significant in United States against O'Brien when this Court found that the criminal statute against the burning of a draft card.\nThe statute itself stated a legitimate Government purpose and I think there is a logical nexus between anybody within the pool of manpower and all of these regulations and I think that it maybe admitted that single regulations may not be indispensable but if the courts are going to get into the business of trying to say which regulations are indispensable and which are not.\nNow, then we are going to have again the Section 10 (b) (3) frustrated because all of these questions are going to come before the district courts below as to whether the draft boards properly saw a particular regulation as having a logical nexus with the status of the individual who was accelerated and I think that this piecemeal determination by the courts of what is and what is not indispensable or logically connected and would frustrate purposes of Section 10 (b) (3) and serve no better purpose.\nIn the Oestereich decision, great emphasis was placed on the action of a draft board being blatantly lawless and I think that the -- what the Court meant there and what Mr. Justice Douglas meant in his decision was that there was no congressional authorization for the delinquency regulations to apply to a man once he was exempted.\nAnd that since there was no congressional authorization, any effort to apply them to the individual who was exempt was blatantly lawless.\nAnd again in Gabriel where the Court said that the action would have to flout in Mr. Justice Douglas' concurring opinion where the action would have to flout the law and by that draft board shows the reluctance of the Court to broaden the rule announced in Oestereich so that 10 (b) (3) would apply at the cases of deferments.\nI think there are strong policy reasons for eliminating Oestereich as we have stated in our brief.\nAnd the policy reason underlying Section 10 (b) (3) itself against litigious interruptions of the Selective Service System.\nIn the exempt category are a very few people.\nThere are ministers, there are people under 19, there are veterans, reservist, sole surviving sons and as was mentioned in the Section involving the governmental official including Federal Judges and legislative officers but in the deferred status, there are much greater number of people.\nIn 6 (h) (1) and (2) involving not only students but also of those deferred for dependency or hardship or occupational problems.\nAll of these -- if all these people were not subject to the jurisdictional bar of 10 (b) (3), it'll bring you a pre-induction injunction.\nAgain, I believe the 10 (b) (3) itself, would be so emasculated.\nThe purpose of the statute would be so frustrated.\nSo that we would virtually rule that out of a -- out of any effectiveness, whatsoever and I think that this Court would be better to just declare it unconstitutional rather than to effectively frustrate the will of Congress by saying that the 10 (b) (3) would not apply not only to those who were exempt but also to those who were deferred.\nI think that based on these arguments that Section -- the purpose of Congress and then in enacting Section 10 (b) (3) is so clear to allow the process to continue, to allow the Selective Service process with a minimum of interference, to raise an army to go all the way up to the point where the man is about to be inducted, where he can raise all the objections that he has.\nAt that point, the process is essentially over.\nAnd he can raise the objections to his induction at that point by submitting to criminal prosecution or by Breen into the army and submitting it on habeas corpus.\nNow, this is a sound congressional purpose and that it should not be in any way further emasculated or diminished by extending its non-application to the case of those who are deferred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2588.957, 2603.343, 2604.918, 2614.47, 2624.397, 2636.993, 2642.178, 2652.355, 2664.473, 2689.752, 2727.413, 2759.479, 2767.858, 2792.341, 2798.822, 2808.025, 2810.948, 2832.514, 2843.888, 2853.429, 2857.424, 2860.682, 2886.749, 2915.499, 2918.541, 2930.656], "stop_times": [2603.343, 2604.918, 2614.47, 2624.397, 2636.993, 2642.178, 2652.355, 2664.473, 2689.752, 2727.413, 2759.479, 2767.858, 2792.341, 2798.822, 2808.025, 2810.948, 2832.514, 2843.888, 2853.429, 2857.424, 2860.682, 2886.749, 2915.499, 2918.541, 2930.656, 2947.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.957}, "reply_to": "15088__1_021", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_023", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Under your argument, would this man have in ane relief at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2947.282], "stop_times": [2953.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.282}, "reply_to": "15088__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15088__1_024", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Mr. Justice Black he would have completes relief.\nHe would have relief by refusing to submit for induction and subjecting himself as Mr. Gutknecht did in the case that follows to a criminal prosecution where he could raise the questions of the constitutionality of the delinquency regulations as he seeks to do here or he could submit to induction and raise the question, of all the questions that he is trying raise here in his habeas corpus case.\nThere is no fact question involved here.\nThe boards had nothing but to determine as far as the board was concerned, he clearly violated a regulation.\nHaving violated one, it was within there discretion to apply the delinquency regulations and he did so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2953.094, 2955.853, 2983.509, 2986.127, 2992.158], "stop_times": [2955.853, 2983.509, 2986.127, 2992.158, 2997.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.094}, "reply_to": "15088__1_023", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_025", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Would it be too late now for him to raise a question about habeas corpus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [2997.557], "stop_times": [3002.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.557}, "reply_to": "15088__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15088__1_026", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, it would not be too late, Mr. Justice Black.\nI think you have to wait until he went until he went in and he submitted himself for induction.\nThis has not happened yet.\nHe is not even been given an induction notice as here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3002.046, 3004.627, 3008.241, 3009.297], "stop_times": [3004.627, 3008.241, 3009.297, 3012.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.046}, "reply_to": "15088__1_025", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15088__1_027", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "It's been stayed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3012.496], "stop_times": [3016.852], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.496}, "reply_to": "15088__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15088__1_028", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ruckelshaus.\nYou have five minutes so I think we'll continue until we complete.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3016.852, 3018.936], "stop_times": [3018.936, 3023.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.852}, "reply_to": "15088__1_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__2_000", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nJust very briefly answerable to the points that were stated by Mr. Ruckelshaus, I am interested to learn that he concedes that there elements of punishment in what happened to the petitioner in this, so I think that as an important concession and I would hope that the court would take that in a consideration of dovetails with the argument that -- part of the argument that we have made in our brief as well as the argument on the delinquency regulations which we have incorporated from the brief in Gutknecht case.\nI would like to point out that as far as the Gutknecht case is concerned; it's very different from this and one major respect.\nGutknecht was not reclassified punitively which was the case here and therefore, it's a totally different factual situation but I don't want to get in to that because the honorable members of this Court would be given all the facts in that case tomorrow.\nAs far as the statement by the Government that there has been no effort to implement the Hershey directive that there's no evidence of that, this comes as a complete shock to petitioner in light of the fact that the agreed statement on appeal concedes that the plaintiff's complaint in this -- all the allegations to that complaint of course are admitted.\nIn terms of the posture of the case alleges that this action was taken pursuant to the terms of said directive, the Court of Appeals below had no difficulty at all with that issue and stated in the course of its opinion and I quote from it, the majority stated that these actions of the board were in line with the memorandum and letter dated respectively October 24 and October 26, 1967.\nSo I don't know how that really can be placed in issue at this time.\nFurthermore, as far as the pursuit of these kinds of processes and procedures of punitive reclassification pursuant to the Hershey directive, I recall a Court to an as yet unpublished, series of hearings before the Senate sub-committee on administrative practice and procedure of the committee on the judiciary which were held before or rather on November 3rd, 1969, they are not yet as published that I have received copies of the transcript and I would call the Court's attention to the testimony before that committee of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark who concedes that in fact this kind of process and procedure pursuant to the Hershey memorandum and letter did in fact take place.\nThe policy argument of litigious interruption, I think, is one that really needs to be met and I had intended to meet it except we're running out of time but I think this maybe the time.\nThis is something which of course is a policy argument that the Government has made throughout not just in this case but in prior cases and I think it was amply answered not only by Mr. Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Oestereich with a specific reference to it.\nBut it's also have been answered particularly well by Judge Bazelon in the case of National Students Association versus Hershey in footnote 17 where he points out that in order to really preclude a litigious interruption, Congress would in fact have to bar a post induction review as well as pre-induction review by way of defense to a criminal prosecution since an invalidation made in a post induction suit would have precisely the same effect as if it were made prior to induction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3023.997, 3029.282, 3062.341, 3068.503, 3084.295, 3105.092, 3130.703, 3137.799, 3189.533, 3200.285, 3217.984], "stop_times": [3029.282, 3062.341, 3068.503, 3084.295, 3105.092, 3130.703, 3137.799, 3189.533, 3200.285, 3217.984, 3252.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3023.997}, "reply_to": "15088__1_028", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__2_001", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Well, it wouldn't interrupt this service though, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3252.255], "stop_times": [3255.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.255}, "reply_to": "15088__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__2_002", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3255.576], "stop_times": [3256.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3255.576}, "reply_to": "15088__2_001", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15088__2_003", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "It wouldn't interrupt his military service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3256.108], "stop_times": [3258.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.108}, "reply_to": "15088__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15088__2_004", "conversation_id": "15088", "text": "No, but I think when the reference is made to litigious interruption, then the policy is not with reference to interruption of service, it's with reference to the interruption of calling men to service and it has to do with the calling men into the Armed Forces.\nNow, in many of these situations, I would submit in most of these situations where arguments geared to the law, geared to the procedures, geared to the statute only are involved and no factual determinations are involved would not make more sense as a matter of policy to allow these matters to be heard preliminarily by a Federal Court whether on a claim for injunction or a declaratory judgment or both, let the matter be heard on the basis of oral arguments and briefs at that time and at that point, the registrant will know what his legal rights are, the respondents will know what the legal duties are of the draft board and certainly there will be no risk to be run by the registrant later on, and risking an indictment, and a prosecution and if he's wrong, of course he is facing not only the (Inaudible) of that but possibly five years in jail and a $10,000 fine.\nThis litigious interruption argument I think bears no real weight when examined carefully as was suggested by Mr. Justice Harlan, as was suggested in the opinion by Judge Bazelon.\nAnd I trust that the Court would give this the weight that it deserves which is very little.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_65", "start_times": [3258.01, 3273.444, 3324.052, 3336.801, 3344.036], "stop_times": [3273.444, 3324.052, 3336.801, 3344.036, 3346.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3258.01}, "reply_to": "15088__2_003", "speaker": "emanuel_margolis"}
{"id": "15160__0_000", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Number 31, Brockington against Rhodes and others.\nMr. Sheerer you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [0.0, 60.233], "stop_times": [60.233, 69.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_001", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nCase number 31 Brockington versus Rhodes today is an election case on appeal from the Ohio Supreme Court.\nIt\u2019s a case that we feel as this Court has said deals with matters closed to the core of our constitutional system.\nIt follows a case previously decided by this Court under the title Williams versus Rhodes.\nThe Williams versus Rhodes case dealt with the right of third parties to attain ballot status in Ohio.\nThis case deals with the right of independent candidates to obtain ballot status in the State of Ohio.\nWe think the case itself raises two main issues.\nThe first issue arises in this manner.\nOhio allows independent candidates to secure ballot status through the filing of nominating petitions signed a certain number of qualified voters.\nNow up to 1952, that number was 1%, that number was 1% for 60 something years.\nIn 1952, the amount was increased to 7%.\nNow, under the 1% rule which had existed for 60 something years, there was no substantial, no disruptive interference with the election procedure by independents.\nIn fact, participation by independents was slight perhaps even minimal in the Ohio election process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [69.938, 77.66, 87.032, 99.641, 108.851, 117.666, 129.657, 136.539, 139.686, 155.163, 163.908, 169.941, 182.251], "stop_times": [77.66, 87.032, 99.641, 108.851, 117.666, 129.657, 136.539, 139.686, 155.163, 163.908, 169.941, 182.251, 190.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.938}, "reply_to": "15160__0_000", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_002", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Was that 1% rule applicable across the board all independent candidates for any elective office of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [190.784], "stop_times": [198.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.784}, "reply_to": "15160__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_003", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir that is my understanding.\nAnd in fact sir the 7% is likewise --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [198.873, 200.796], "stop_times": [200.796, 204.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.873}, "reply_to": "15160__0_002", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_004", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Likewise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [204.351], "stop_times": [204.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.351}, "reply_to": "15160__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_005", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "-- applicable across the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [204.422], "stop_times": [207.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.422}, "reply_to": "15160__0_004", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_006", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Your client is a -- wanted to be an independent candidate for election to the House of Representatives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [207.066], "stop_times": [212.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.066}, "reply_to": "15160__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_007", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes sir that\u2019s correct, for 21 first congressional District State of Ohio and in November 1968 general election.\nNow we say that given that history of no disruption, no substantial interference, no overburdening of election process, the increase, the sevenfold increase in the requirement constitutes a burden on First Amendment, freedoms, a limitation of First Amendment freedoms of association and speech and a burden on the right to cast an effective ballot, a right to participate equally in the election process.\nNow, the second main issue we see arising is the barrier itself.\nIn our case, for example, my man, Mr. Brockington, the appellant here would have had to secure 5,974 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.\nNow as a rule of thumb, any politician will tell you this means get 50% more.\nIn other words, he would have had to obtain 9,000 signatures most likely of which perhaps 6,000 would be valid in order to qualify.\nNow a party candidate qualifies for the primary for being on the ballot in the primary by simply securing 100 signatures if it\u2019s an office less than statewide, or 1,000 signatures if it\u2019s a statewide office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [212.33, 222.843, 253.591, 258.356, 271.642, 277.603, 286.54], "stop_times": [222.843, 253.591, 258.356, 271.642, 277.603, 286.54, 300.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 212.33}, "reply_to": "15160__0_006", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_008", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, but then, in order to appear on the ballot in November, he has to win a primary election and get a majority of the people voting on the primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [300.386], "stop_times": [309.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.386}, "reply_to": "15160__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_009", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [309.656], "stop_times": [309.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.656}, "reply_to": "15160__0_008", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_010", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Which is many, many thousands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [309.978], "stop_times": [312.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.978}, "reply_to": "15160__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_011", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That may be the case.\nWe say however --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [312.366, 314.073], "stop_times": [314.073, 317.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.366}, "reply_to": "15160__0_010", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_012", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Is there any alternative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [317.08], "stop_times": [320.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.08}, "reply_to": "15160__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_013", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "To --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [320.142], "stop_times": [321.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.142}, "reply_to": "15160__0_012", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_014", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "To get on the final ballot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [321.773], "stop_times": [323.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.773}, "reply_to": "15160__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_015", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, sir.\nThere is either through to the party primary or as an independent.\nThose are the two methods that Ohio allows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [323.722, 324.27, 328.808], "stop_times": [324.27, 328.808, 331.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.722}, "reply_to": "15160__0_014", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_016", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Now what I think we were concerned about you said in response to Justice Stewart\u2019s question that he may have to get a majority in his primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [331.422], "stop_times": [343.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.422}, "reply_to": "15160__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_017", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "My main --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [343.321], "stop_times": [343.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.321}, "reply_to": "15160__0_016", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_018", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Many thousands of votes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [343.821], "stop_times": [345.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.821}, "reply_to": "15160__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_019", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "My main response was that, it might be thousands of votes depending on the size.\nThat is the only -- that is true, he would have to prevail on the party primary.\nI was responding mainly to the size.\nIt might be the required because it might be a small election district, that\u2019s what I meant when I said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [345.318, 348.604, 354.106, 357.867], "stop_times": [348.604, 354.106, 357.867, 362.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.318}, "reply_to": "15160__0_018", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_020", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, the -- if the party only puts up one candidate, he doesn\u2019t have to -- those two are primary at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [362.264], "stop_times": [374.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.264}, "reply_to": "15160__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_021", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I would assume that his name would be on the ballot, that persons could cast right in votes for other people if they wanted to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [374.194], "stop_times": [379.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.194}, "reply_to": "15160__0_020", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_022", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "How do you get on the primary ballot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [379.86], "stop_times": [381.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.86}, "reply_to": "15160__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_023", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Their primary ballot is secured one or two ways, Your Honor.\nIf it\u2019s a less than statewide office, in other words from a congressional district or something like that.\nYou have to obtain the signatures of 100 party or 100 qualified voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [381.967, 386.226, 392.103], "stop_times": [386.226, 392.103, 397.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 381.967}, "reply_to": "15160__0_022", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_024", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Of that party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [397.075], "stop_times": [397.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.075}, "reply_to": "15160__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_025", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Of that party.\nIf it\u2019s for senator for instance which would be a statewide office or Attorney General, you would have to obtain 1,000 signatures of qualified voters in that party, the difference for the independent courses that he must obtain a number equally to 7% of those people who voted for governor in the applicable district in the last previous gubernatorial election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [397.774, 399.572], "stop_times": [399.572, 422.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.774}, "reply_to": "15160__0_024", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_026", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Do you know -- do you have any idea how often candidates are on opposed to the primary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [422.03], "stop_times": [428.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.03}, "reply_to": "15160__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_027", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, sir.\nI would say that my feeling is not often sir.\nProbably so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [428.019, 430.813, 435.394], "stop_times": [430.813, 435.394, 435.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.019}, "reply_to": "15160__0_026", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_028", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "As a general rule in primary in Ohio is that any significant office, there is competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [435.605], "stop_times": [442.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.605}, "reply_to": "15160__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_029", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI think that so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [442.292, 443.436], "stop_times": [443.436, 447.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.292}, "reply_to": "15160__0_028", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_030", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "This 7% requirement that you attack here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [447.555], "stop_times": [451.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.555}, "reply_to": "15160__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_031", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [451.161], "stop_times": [451.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.161}, "reply_to": "15160__0_030", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_032", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Which we now know has been reduced to 4 but in any event attacked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [451.678], "stop_times": [453.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.678}, "reply_to": "15160__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_033", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [453.987], "stop_times": [456.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.987}, "reply_to": "15160__0_032", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_034", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Those can be signatures of member of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or no party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [456.909], "stop_times": [462.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.909}, "reply_to": "15160__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_035", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [462.925], "stop_times": [463.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.925}, "reply_to": "15160__0_034", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_036", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Or some other third parties, isn\u2019t it, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [463.201], "stop_times": [465.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.201}, "reply_to": "15160__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_037", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That is my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [465.691], "stop_times": [466.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.691}, "reply_to": "15160__0_036", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_038", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Not limited to people who have not voted in party primaries for example, is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [466.539], "stop_times": [471.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.539}, "reply_to": "15160__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_039", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [471.414], "stop_times": [472.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.414}, "reply_to": "15160__0_038", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_040", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "The whole field is open to registered voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [472.735], "stop_times": [476.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.735}, "reply_to": "15160__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_041", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWe think that not only through comparison or disproportion of a 100 signatures for instance approximately 6,000 here but also of the election of the barrier itself.\nThe election of the 7% or now the 4% being offense to the equal protection clause is violative of it.\nThe equal protection clause as in the election area deals with fundamental rights and the classifications that might limit or restrict these rights are carefully scrutinized and closely confined to whatever might be determined to be a necessity of the case.\nNow, the particular facts in which these case arise are these.\nAs has been noted, my -- the appellant was an independent candidate for the Twenty-first Congressional District in November of 1968.\nHis petitions were good and sufficient except for the signature requirement.\nThe number of signatures required.\nWhen he was turned down for a ballot position, this suit was filed for mandamus against various officials of the State of Ohio having to do with the election process.\nThe theory of the suit was this, from the beginning.\nWe have urged in this case that the 7% requirement was unconstitutional as violative of First and Fourteenth Amendment.\nThis being so we said, he does say as prior to 1% requirement.\nThe 7% requirement being unconstitutional, the thing to do is to certify him for the ballot.\nHe met the 1% requirement.\nThe amendment to 7% being held unconstitutional is void and have no effect, the 1% requirement is in effect and he should have been given ballot status.\nNow, at trial, the trial court agreed that he met the constitutional requirements for the office.\nEssential facts of the case are admitted on the record in the trial court.\nThe trial court seemed to indicate and it believed that only the legal issue remained the constitutionality of the increase.\nNevertheless, in its opinion it ruled against us.\nIts opinion to me can best be described as opaque.\nI\u2019m not sure what the basis of the rule.\nAppeal was promptly taken to the Court of Appeals of our state.\nWe made several attempts to get on the ballot at that point.\nWe asked for a temporary restraining order.\nThat was denied.\nBy this time, this Court had acted in the Williams case and it had placed Governor Wallace on the ballot in Ohio depending upon the determination this Court made.\nWe suggest that the Court of Appeals it do likewise.\nThat is if Mr. Brockington want a suit there, he would be on the ballot, if not, he is to be blocked out.\nThat was denied us.\nWe brought the decision of the three-judge District Court in a Socialist Labor Party case, the Williams versus Rhodes case to the attention of Court of Appeals.\nNevertheless, they ruled against us without opinion.\nWe then went to the Ohio Supreme Court.\nWe obtained the prompt hearing there.\nI think it was October 16.\nThis Court had just decided the Williams versus Rhodes case.\nI brought that case to the Court\u2019s attention.\nNevertheless, that court and before the election dismissed on our appeal sua sponte as involving no substantial constitutional question.\nWe took appeal to this Court, probable jurisdiction was noted.\nNow since that time, the Ohio legislature has reduced the percentage to 4%.\nI\u2019m here to urge today that the 4% requirement is unconstitutional that this Court should still act in this case.\nThat the case requires decision and that the appellant deserves a decision from the court on these important issues.\nNow throughout this case, to my mind the appellees have refused to deal with the constitutional issues.\nWe challenge them in the courts below to do that.\nI don\u2019t think they have done it at any point.\nNow, my conclusion is they have not and for this reason that the 7% increase was patently unconstitutional and is unconstitutional and that the 4% requirement is also unconstitutional.\nI say this for two reasons.\nFirst of all, the 60-year history -- the 60-year history of an election system is running without problems under a 1% requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [476.327, 481.439, 492.885, 500.661, 520.556, 525.255, 534.354, 539.367, 543.271, 556.126, 560.017, 570.137, 574.824, 581.921, 583.631, 594.804, 603.35, 610.4, 617.279, 619.917, 623.721, 626.684, 630.931, 633.63, 636.317, 637.762, 647.715, 650.441, 655.838, 659.403, 668.06, 672.434, 675.01, 676.797, 679.175, 683.973, 687.872, 698.862, 704.902, 713.381, 720.065, 736.152, 745.108, 747.401, 750.978, 767.361, 769.162], "stop_times": [481.439, 492.885, 500.661, 520.556, 525.255, 534.354, 539.367, 543.271, 556.126, 560.017, 570.137, 574.824, 581.921, 583.631, 594.804, 603.35, 610.4, 617.279, 619.917, 623.721, 626.684, 630.931, 633.63, 636.317, 637.762, 647.715, 650.441, 655.838, 659.403, 668.06, 672.434, 675.01, 676.797, 679.175, 683.973, 687.872, 698.862, 704.902, 713.381, 720.065, 736.152, 745.108, 747.401, 750.978, 767.361, 769.162, 777.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.327}, "reply_to": "15160__0_040", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_042", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Before you get to the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [777.928], "stop_times": [780.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.928}, "reply_to": "15160__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_043", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [780.471], "stop_times": [780.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.471}, "reply_to": "15160__0_042", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_044", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "If you mention the question of mootness, I missed it, I trust you well before you conclude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [780.824], "stop_times": [789.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.824}, "reply_to": "15160__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_045", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I would be happy to respond to that at this time Your Honor.\nIt is true that the election just passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [789.015, 793.999], "stop_times": [793.999, 797.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.015}, "reply_to": "15160__0_044", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_046", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "The relief you asked and I\u2019m looking at page 8 of the appendix, was not for a declaratory judgment but this was an action in mandamus in which you directed yourself to getting your client on the ballot for a specific election, i.e. the election of November 5, 1968 and no other.\nAnd there is no request for general declaratory relief.\nI was wondering if that quite a part from the fact of the statutes now have been amended to reduce the requirement from 7% to 4% quite apart from that.\nI was wondering if this isn\u2019t moot just by reason to the fact that the relief you ask is now impossible to be accorded to.\nYou didn\u2019t ask that the election be set aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [797.159, 821.408, 827.997, 837.66, 846.407], "stop_times": [821.408, 827.997, 837.66, 846.407, 849.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.159}, "reply_to": "15160__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_047", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, sir.\nI would hope not Your Honor and I believe it should not be regarded this moot.\nFirst of all, although I\u2019m not sure, I know in Ogilvie versus Moore recently decided by this Court election had passed.\nWhether prayer was for declaratory relief, I don\u2019t recall at this point.\nIf it was not, I would certainly say as authority at this time.\nYour Honor, I believe the mootness rule is a rule, a judicial rule not mandated necessarily by the Constitution although perhaps by the case in controversy rule the Constitution.\nBut in any event, we have had in this case, a case that was tested to three lower courts as a completely adversarial proceeding.\nThe appellees here were -- at every proceeding filed briefs, I argued the case, I can assure you it was haughtily contested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [849.836, 851.297, 855.946, 864.999, 869.665, 874.895, 886.201, 901.408], "stop_times": [851.297, 855.946, 864.999, 869.665, 874.895, 886.201, 901.408, 910.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.836}, "reply_to": "15160__0_046", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_048", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "But Mr. Sheerer isn\u2019t this a partial answer to the Ohio Supreme Court did not reach this mootness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [910.366], "stop_times": [922.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.366}, "reply_to": "15160__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_049", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes sir, I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [922.167], "stop_times": [922.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.167}, "reply_to": "15160__0_048", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_050", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "It\u2019s not decided on the basis of remedy.\nThey got the constitutional issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [922.971, 926.147], "stop_times": [926.147, 928.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.971}, "reply_to": "15160__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_051", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I believe they did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [928.43], "stop_times": [929.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 928.43}, "reply_to": "15160__0_050", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_052", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, I understood the Ohio Supreme Court and please correct me if I\u2019m mistaken, decided this before the election for which you asked to relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [929.907], "stop_times": [937.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.907}, "reply_to": "15160__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_053", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes sir, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [937.943], "stop_times": [939.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.943}, "reply_to": "15160__0_052", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_054", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "So obviously it wasn\u2019t moot then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [939.107], "stop_times": [940.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.107}, "reply_to": "15160__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_055", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Did they decide the constitutional issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [940.734], "stop_times": [942.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.734}, "reply_to": "15160__0_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_056", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I believe they decided the constitutional issue, Your Honor.\nThe appellees, one of the appellees makes the suggestion that the dismissal there was because they couldn\u2019t grant relief but if that was so, I think they would have said so.\nThey said that they found no substantial constitutional issue involved.\nI think it has been litigated and litigated solely on the merits through three courts below.\nSecondly, I like to point out that election cases are treated differently, I believe, than other cases.\nElection cases are peculiarly difficult to get complete and adequate review on.\nThey just are as effective length.\nIt\u2019s the -- naturally the opponent in election case wants to delay, he wants to get the election over and so it\u2019s just almost impossible to get adequate complete review on these cases and yet the question comes up again.\nThis is not a question that will be finally determined.\nNow, if this Court does not resolve it, people arise --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [942.783, 947.206, 956.817, 962.452, 968.393, 974.222, 978.747, 981.654, 999.016, 1003.832], "stop_times": [947.206, 956.817, 962.452, 968.393, 974.222, 978.747, 981.654, 999.016, 1003.832, 1006.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.783}, "reply_to": "15160__0_055", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_057", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Are you suggesting that we now treat it as though you had sought a declaratory judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1006.781], "stop_times": [1012.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.781}, "reply_to": "15160__0_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_058", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir if that is possible I\u2019m going to request it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1012.351], "stop_times": [1015.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.351}, "reply_to": "15160__0_057", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_059", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "On what authority do you suggest we do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1015.841], "stop_times": [1018.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.841}, "reply_to": "15160__0_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_060", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, sir I don\u2019t have specific authority as to the capability of the Court to do that.\nI do say this that this is not an unnecessary question.\nThat is a question that will come up again and that the mere fact that we did not include an allegation in the court below when this case was submitted should not be determined of this issue.\nThe -- this is not an academic question as I say.\nIt will come up again.\nElection matters tend to recur and many times the courts have said that where it\u2019s a matter of great and public importance, where it transcends the individual case, we will go ahead and decide this point for the benefit of the public to preserve the electoral process to enhance it and the cases to that effect are cited in our briefs, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1018.582, 1023.313, 1027.988, 1040.675, 1044.869, 1046.396], "stop_times": [1023.313, 1027.988, 1040.675, 1044.869, 1046.396, 1071.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.582}, "reply_to": "15160__0_059", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_061", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "But Mr. Sheerer, you have asked the mandamus that\u2019s an action at law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1071.255], "stop_times": [1075.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.255}, "reply_to": "15160__0_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_062", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1075.595], "stop_times": [1076.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.595}, "reply_to": "15160__0_061", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_063", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "To enjoin the enforcement of the statute is inequitable action, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1076.895], "stop_times": [1083.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.895}, "reply_to": "15160__0_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_064", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I didn\u2019t here the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1083.391], "stop_times": [1084.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.391}, "reply_to": "15160__0_063", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_065", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "To enjoin the enforcement of a statute would be inequitable action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1084.565], "stop_times": [1090.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.565}, "reply_to": "15160__0_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_066", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, sir we -- what we said and what we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1090.949], "stop_times": [1092.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.949}, "reply_to": "15160__0_065", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_067", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, what do you want us to tell this brave Court of Ohio, to grant mandamus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1092.619], "stop_times": [1098.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.619}, "reply_to": "15160__0_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_068", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "We want this Court to say, Your Honor that the courts below were in error that they should have held that the 7% requirement was unconstitutional and that the 1% requirement was in effect.\nNow, what we are asking is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1098.61, 1113.737], "stop_times": [1113.737, 1115.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.61}, "reply_to": "15160__0_067", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_069", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "And that he should have -- he should be prolonged about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1115.305], "stop_times": [1118.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.305}, "reply_to": "15160__0_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_070", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That that was what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1118.832], "stop_times": [1120.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.832}, "reply_to": "15160__0_069", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_071", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That he should have been prolonged about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1120.251], "stop_times": [1122.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.251}, "reply_to": "15160__0_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_072", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat he should have been granted valid status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1122.112, 1122.369], "stop_times": [1122.369, 1124.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.112}, "reply_to": "15160__0_071", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_073", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Do you have any case that suggests that?\nYou can do that in a mandamus action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1124.595, 1127.219], "stop_times": [1127.219, 1130.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.595}, "reply_to": "15160__0_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_074", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well sir, we do cite --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1130.566], "stop_times": [1132.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.566}, "reply_to": "15160__0_073", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_075", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "You made no effort to change the mandamus action.\nYou got the same prayer now today that you have then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1132.307, 1135.368], "stop_times": [1135.368, 1140.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.307}, "reply_to": "15160__0_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_076", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir that is true.\nHowever, the thrust of our lawsuit is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1140.823, 1147.127], "stop_times": [1147.127, 1149.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.823}, "reply_to": "15160__0_075", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_077", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "We could give sua sponte.\nWe could give a declaratory judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1149.102, 1151.126], "stop_times": [1151.126, 1154.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.102}, "reply_to": "15160__0_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_078", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well sir, the thrust of our lawsuit has always been that the 1% requirement was appropriate and the 7% was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1154.393], "stop_times": [1162.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.393}, "reply_to": "15160__0_077", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_079", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "What about one and a half?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1162.862], "stop_times": [1165.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.862}, "reply_to": "15160__0_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_080", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well sir, the -- we say this.\nThat the 60-year history shows that it had been an existence for 60 years that there was no need for an increase.\nNow, I\u2019m not suggesting to the court that it sanctify or hold that the 1% requirements constitutional because I don\u2019t think that its quite the issue here because -- and I\u2019m not clear in my own mind whether 1% could be said to be constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1165.85, 1169.739, 1181.491], "stop_times": [1169.739, 1181.491, 1197.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.85}, "reply_to": "15160__0_079", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_081", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I\u2019ll presume somebody will have to decide that maybe like a legislature, wouldn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1197.833], "stop_times": [1202.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.833}, "reply_to": "15160__0_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__0_082", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I\u2019m not asking the Court to substitute its judgment for the legislature here.\nWhat I we\u2019re saying is this that where there has been this type of history and no interference or disruption, the legislature cannot just increase -- make increase at sevenfold driving independents and minorities parties off the ballot.\nThey cannot show a justification for this increase.\nNow as to the validity of the 1% requirement itself, I take it that could be the subject of litigation sometime, if so I wanted to litigate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1202.78, 1207.061, 1230.154, 1232.569], "stop_times": [1207.061, 1230.154, 1232.569, 1241.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.78}, "reply_to": "15160__0_081", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_083", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Do you think the 1% --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1241.215], "stop_times": [1244.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.215}, "reply_to": "15160__0_082", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15160__0_084", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I\u2019m not entirely clear on that Mr. Justice, I can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1244.839], "stop_times": [1249.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.839}, "reply_to": "15160__0_083", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_085", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Because my next question was going to be one is, why was it for?\nOr you\u2019re going to do it alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1249.467, 1253.837], "stop_times": [1253.837, 1254.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.467}, "reply_to": "15160__0_084", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15160__0_086", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, again I have to respond to my historical argument that this was not great participation that it was hardly any independent activity and the raise at sevenfold just about ended independent activity and also as a historical fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1254.317], "stop_times": [1270.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.317}, "reply_to": "15160__0_085", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_087", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, I gather you think four is equally an affirmance in the same reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1270.396], "stop_times": [1273.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.396}, "reply_to": "15160__0_086", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15160__0_088", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes sir and of course if we cannot prevail here, I\u2019m sure that 4% statute is going to be subject of litigation.\nWe\u2019d like to avoid that if we could.\nWe\u2019d like to avoid another long process litigation when we think the issues could not be presented any differently to this Court if it came back again.\nI cannot conceive of the question being different at all before this Court if it were brought back again.\nI think the exactly the same contending issues would be before the Court if it came back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1273.698, 1282.088, 1284.686, 1296.432, 1302.748], "stop_times": [1282.088, 1284.686, 1296.432, 1302.748, 1310.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.698}, "reply_to": "15160__0_087", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_089", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Is there some contention that the -- that this man was to run again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1310.859], "stop_times": [1318.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.859}, "reply_to": "15160__0_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_090", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I\u2019m not clear, Your Honor whether he will or not.\nCertainly, in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1318.283, 1320.772], "stop_times": [1320.772, 1322.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.283}, "reply_to": "15160__0_089", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_091", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Or he might run again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1322.513], "stop_times": [1323.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.513}, "reply_to": "15160__0_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_092", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes sir, I think it\u2019s possible.\nHe might, he\u2019s had a taste of it and he \u2013 it wasn\u2019t very successful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1323.476, 1325.774], "stop_times": [1325.774, 1330.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.476}, "reply_to": "15160__0_091", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_093", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Or he\u2019s not running?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1330.173], "stop_times": [1331.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.173}, "reply_to": "15160__0_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15160__0_094", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, he was able to run as a write-in candidate of course.\nThanks to the relief we got from the three-judge federal court in the Socialist Labor Party case.\nI\u2019m not entirely familiar with the case Carroll versus Princess Anne recalling that.\nBut I recall that that was a case in which relief could not be granted.\nI believe it was an injunction case and as to whether or not, that was a declaratory judgment.\nPrayer in that, I\u2019m not sure but I do remember that was a case in which it was the question as considered of such public importance that this Court decided it.\nNow, in addition to the history which we believe is a vital importance here.\nThis Court has held in this area, in the area of the election cases three principles I believe.\nNumber one, is that there is sanctity in the individual ballot that every man\u2019s vote is equal the others and that our guarantee is the right to cast an effective ballot.\nSecondly, that Constitution guarantees free and equal competition in areas, ideas, and governmental policy in the electoral process.\nThe First Amendment in the election process are inextricably intertwined.\nAnd finally, that minority and independent candidates are not to be subjected to needless disadvantage.\nNow in determining whether a statute can pass constitutional master in this area, the Court has said it will look at the facts and circumstances of the law.\nLook at what the state claims to be protecting and look at the interests that are disadvantaged by the law.\nAnd to allow verdicts, there must be a compelling state interest.\nWe suggest no state interest can be advanced, has not been advanced or could be advanced for the sevenfold or the fourfold increase.\nWe hope the Court will act, will indicate that the 1% was a sealing but beyond which the legislature could not go.\nHelp us restore some health to the Ohio election process.\nFree as -- so that in the oncoming months, the legislature can take further action if they want to or so that independents can participate, minority parties can participate in the election process.\nOtherwise, the result is going to be -- people will be frozen off the ballot and that there will be a necessity of further litigation on a question that is squarely before the Court on this record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1331.973, 1335.172, 1345.604, 1349.91, 1355.412, 1360.478, 1375.398, 1381.855, 1389.355, 1400.767, 1413.22, 1419.873, 1426.584, 1432.966, 1444.249, 1448.737, 1458.746, 1468.715, 1473.742, 1485.204], "stop_times": [1335.172, 1345.604, 1349.91, 1355.412, 1360.478, 1375.398, 1381.855, 1389.355, 1400.767, 1413.22, 1419.873, 1426.584, 1432.966, 1444.249, 1448.737, 1458.746, 1468.715, 1473.742, 1485.204, 1497.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.973}, "reply_to": "15160__0_093", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_095", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, do you say that it is not a permissible or valid state interest to take some measures to preclude multiple splinter parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1497.799], "stop_times": [1511.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.799}, "reply_to": "15160__0_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_096", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I believe not Your Honor.\nI believe not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1511.58, 1512.808], "stop_times": [1512.808, 1513.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.58}, "reply_to": "15160__0_095", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_097", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "And how many parties at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1513.038], "stop_times": [1515.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.038}, "reply_to": "15160__0_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_098", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I believe no, I believe there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that.\nThe Constitution is neutral on parties.\nIt does not enshrine them to give them any special sanctity.\nNow, I do not maintain today that some regulation cannot be placed as to obtaining ballot status, but I say it must be minimal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1515.152, 1518.882, 1521.524, 1525.345], "stop_times": [1518.882, 1521.524, 1525.345, 1535.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.152}, "reply_to": "15160__0_097", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_099", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Do you think if one -- you thought 1% was all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1535.247], "stop_times": [1538.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.247}, "reply_to": "15160__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__0_100", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well I say this that -- and I want to be perfectly clear on this, I\u2019m not saying that this Court -- this case requires this Court to say 1% is constitutional.\nIt asks only that this Court to say an increase beyond 1% in view of a history was unconstitutional.\nNow someday, someone may be able to present a case, litigated case, present a record to a Court which would hold, which will lead it to hold that the 1% is unconstitutional.\nI\u2019m not asking today for endorsement of that 1%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1538.035, 1550.77, 1558.095, 1569.345], "stop_times": [1550.77, 1558.095, 1569.345, 1575.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.035}, "reply_to": "15160__0_099", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_101", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "How does this requirement compare to the requirements of other states with respect to independent candidate is contrasted with no parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1575.752], "stop_times": [1583.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.752}, "reply_to": "15160__0_100", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_102", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Very, very high.\nYou\u2019ll remember that in footnote 9, in Williams versus Rhodes, the Court noted that 42 other states require 1% for third parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1583.749, 1584.631], "stop_times": [1584.631, 1595.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1583.749}, "reply_to": "15160__0_101", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_103", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes I know but that\u2019s a different situation, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1595.247], "stop_times": [1597.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.247}, "reply_to": "15160__0_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_104", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "But if there -- only require parties to require 1%, the party is a structure as to an organization is the one to obtain ballot status.\nHow much harder is it to require 7% from an independent candidate?\nThe other states in our research are much lower.\nMuch lower and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1597.467, 1610.113, 1614.363, 1617.786], "stop_times": [1610.113, 1614.363, 1617.786, 1620.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1597.467}, "reply_to": "15160__0_103", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_105", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Is that material in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1620.404], "stop_times": [1622.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.404}, "reply_to": "15160__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__0_106", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No sir it is not.\nI believe that we got in to that question in the Socialist Labor Party brief and I am not -- I am going by memory on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1622.04, 1623.471], "stop_times": [1623.471, 1633.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1622.04}, "reply_to": "15160__0_105", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__0_107", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Thank you Mr. Sheerer.\nMr. Macklin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1633.316, 1636.45], "stop_times": [1636.45, 1641.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.316}, "reply_to": "15160__0_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__1_000", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWe would first of all like to point out that the appellees in this case have suggested the element of mootness in this case and of course that is now pending for your decisions.\nWe feel very strongly however that in the event, in the unhappy event, that this Court might want to rule upon the constitutionality of our election statute which is under consideration here.\nWe do recognize the fact that when the Court rules, it affects whatever rule that -- or whatever piece of legislation may then be in effect and consequently feel would have an effect upon our 4% statute which is going to be effective some eight days and today on October the 30th.\nNotwithstanding, we would like to ask for some silver reflection on the basic law of this particular case.\nThe appellant initially came in to the trial court seeking the extraordinary remedy of writ of mandamus to commend the respondent board of elections and certain state officials to place his name on the ballot as an independent candidate for election to Congress as United States represented from the 21st district in Ohio.\nMr. Brockington had failed at that time to comply with the existing statute requiring that he file nominating petitions signed by not less than 7% of the number of electors who were voted for governor in the next proceeding general election in that district.\nHe had filed petitions which are slightly in excess of the 1% which would have been the requirement under the former statute which preceded the 7% statute.\nIn Ohio, by statutory definition, a writ of mandamus commenced the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from the office, press or station.\nIn addition, our state law places a burden on the relator to establish a clear legal right to have the writ issued.\nSo implicit, that Mr. Brockington suit was a requirement that he showed the unconstitutionality of the 7% statute such that the court would be correct in reinstating the 1% statute and therefore granting the writ of mandamus.\nNow the record will show that at the trial court level, there was no evidence introduced supporting our contention of unconstitutionality of the 7% statute.\nThe essence of the evidence was simple that Mr. Brockington had filed petitions with signatures consisting of about 1% rather than the records at 7% and that the respondent board of elections had denied certification because of the insufficiency of the petitions.\nNothing more, this was the entire thrust of the evidence which was heard at the trial court in Cuyahoga County in Ohio.\nIt was at that time, and for I know it still is, the rule in Ohio that before, that an act of the general assembly is presumed to be constitutional, and before a court made it very clearly constitutional, it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt the legislation and the constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible.\nAbsent in appearance of such incompatibility in the evidence of the record in this case, it was not unreasonable that our state court should find that no substantial constitutional question existed.\nAnd now it\u2019s made that rather than being an opaque determination in the court -- in the trial court, it was quite clear that really they had not carried the burden of showing that he had a clear legal right to the remedy which he ask for.\nIn Ohio, the basic philosophy underline the enactment of a statute requiring independent candidates to support the candidacy with petitions subscribed by a certain percentage of electors whether to be 1% or 4% or 7% is that we feel that for the best exercise of the democratic process, as a matter of principle that a candidate for any office be required to demonstrate that this is not the frivolous injection of its personality and publicity of a political campaign but rather in fact that he is seeking election to that office.\nIt is not unreasonable that he be asked or required rather to show some marked demonstration of support from at least a fraction of the electorate within the area from which he seeks election.\nWe believe that such a requirement is necessary to establish a bona fide intent on the part of the candidate.\nAnd in this respect we are supported in our belief in the knowledge that some 44 sister states have some form of similar requirement and either greater or lesser degree.\nIn actual fact I believe there are 11 other states which now would require a greater degree of percentage than does Ohio in view of its 4% statute coming out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1641.289, 1645.668, 1658.76, 1672.593, 1690.138, 1700.537, 1727.476, 1745.309, 1755.675, 1771.171, 1780.872, 1798.355, 1811.931, 1829.145, 1840.387, 1865.059, 1877.362, 1895.438, 1932.343, 1945.441, 1951.907, 1963.332], "stop_times": [1645.668, 1658.76, 1672.593, 1690.138, 1700.537, 1727.476, 1745.309, 1755.675, 1771.171, 1780.872, 1798.355, 1811.931, 1829.145, 1840.387, 1865.059, 1877.362, 1895.438, 1932.343, 1945.441, 1951.907, 1963.332, 1980.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.289}, "reply_to": "15160__0_107", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_001", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "You don\u2019t have any requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1980.437], "stop_times": [1982.604], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.437}, "reply_to": "15160__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_002", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "There are five states which had no requirement at all Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI can tell you, yes sir.\nThere are no provisions in Hawaii or in Delaware and Florida, Michigan or Mississippi.\nAnd this is according to our research.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [1982.604, 1986.71, 1994.536, 2002.262], "stop_times": [1986.71, 1994.536, 2002.262, 2004.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.604}, "reply_to": "15160__1_001", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_003", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No provisions for independent candidates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2004.756], "stop_times": [2007.692], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.756}, "reply_to": "15160__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_004", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No provisions for a coming up with a requirement of a certain percentage of electors to sign the petitions or nominations, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2007.692], "stop_times": [2020.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.692}, "reply_to": "15160__1_003", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_005", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Do they have a provision for independent candidate through states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2020.885], "stop_times": [2026.225], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.885}, "reply_to": "15160__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_006", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Would you please repeat, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2026.225], "stop_times": [2027.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.225}, "reply_to": "15160__1_005", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_007", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Do they have a candidate for -- do they have a provision for independent candidates in those states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2027.081], "stop_times": [2034.194], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.081}, "reply_to": "15160__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_008", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I\u2019m quite sure they do Your Honor but we only looked at this from the standpoint of whether or not there was a percentage requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2034.194], "stop_times": [2039.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.194}, "reply_to": "15160__1_007", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_009", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2039.343], "stop_times": [2040.011], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.343}, "reply_to": "15160__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_010", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "In the course of our research.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2040.011], "stop_times": [2042.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.011}, "reply_to": "15160__1_009", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_011", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Is that material in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2042.405], "stop_times": [2044.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.405}, "reply_to": "15160__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__1_012", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, it is not sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2044.395], "stop_times": [2047.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.395}, "reply_to": "15160__1_011", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_013", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Mr. Macklin, why the change in one to seven?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2047.339], "stop_times": [2054.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.339}, "reply_to": "15160__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__1_014", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I don\u2019t really know Your Honor.\nThis was established by the legislature.\nI do think that the appellant indicates a long history of a very comfortable arrangement with the 1% requirement.\nI think it\u2019s conjectural.\nI think that we might very well ask, what might the history have been with 1-1/2% percent, with a 4% with a 7% and moreover, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2054.235, 2056.077, 2060.172, 2071.377, 2072.601], "stop_times": [2056.077, 2060.172, 2071.377, 2072.601, 2083.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.235}, "reply_to": "15160__1_013", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_015", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I think difficulty because I would assume in 60 years that the 1% would be much more than it was 60 years ago.\nBecause I assume the population of Ohio has increased.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2083.018, 2094.31], "stop_times": [2094.31, 2097.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.018}, "reply_to": "15160__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__1_016", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2097.0], "stop_times": [2097.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.0}, "reply_to": "15160__1_015", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_017", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I assume that.\nSo with the population increase and the man with more signatures required why would you raise the percent?\nThat\u2019s my problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2097.232, 2099.088, 2106.65], "stop_times": [2099.088, 2106.65, 2109.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.232}, "reply_to": "15160__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15160__1_018", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, I can only suggest that this was in the -- within the sole area of the legislature of that time.\nHowever, since they have taken another look at it and they have reduced it to 4% and perhaps they have looked at other states and seen what they have but I think it\u2019s purely a matter for the discretion of the legislature and in this case that\u2019s what they did exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2109.176, 2119.096], "stop_times": [2119.096, 2134.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.176}, "reply_to": "15160__1_017", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_019", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "There is no way to get out the -- what we call a legislative history of that change in 1952 from 1% to 7% in the Ohio as there are no committee reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2134.582], "stop_times": [2145.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.582}, "reply_to": "15160__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__1_020", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No Your Honor there are not, we looked for this.\nWe looked newspapers and everything else.\nBut as you know that the deliberations are not now set out as they were formally in 1852.\nWe believe the requirement of showing some bona fide intent upon the candidate really to be in the best interest of the voter and quite frankly, we believe it to be supportive of the one man, one vote principle.\nIn that, the voters are short that when he cast his vote for candidate he was qualified fro the ballot, his vote will be in effective expression of a preference for a candidate and the vote would be undiluted in its relationship to all other votes cast.\nSince he will have voted in behalf of a candidate of proof and intent, now we freely admit that our statutes do distinguish between the independent candidate and the candidate who is running for a party nomination.\nAnd as I pointed out previously I believe a party candidate is required only to have 100 signatures on his ballot.\nBut we consider that the reason for this distinction lies in the difference, in the path of the party candidate must follow as opposed to the independent candidate.\nThe party candidate is put to great time, expense, although he lays his principles on the line, on the issues which may be before the people of that time and certainly in Ohio party primary fights are very difficult time for the candidates.\nWe feel that to proscribe a parity between an independent and a party candidate would in effect be discriminatory as to the party candidates and this is.\nBut this is not really the issue that\u2019s been raised in this case because the appellant certainly in his briefs openly subscribes to the 1% requirement and this of itself is a greater demand of the independent then it would be of the party candidate.\nIts only complaint why is the degree of the burden that may be cast upon the independent candidate and he really fails to tell us what increment beyond 1% triggers off the avalanche of unconstitutional invalidity.\nHe would ask this Court to determine some magic figure of percentage and to oppose upon the State of Ohio and quite clear the other states would be affected by this, this Court\u2019s ideas of what that policy might be.\nWe submit that the appellant has not offered guidelines.\nThere are no clear or valid criteria which been presented to this Court which might establish a basis for determining some magic percentage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2145.314, 2147.426, 2151.613, 2161.041, 2177.688, 2194.921, 2208.477, 2217.085, 2227.479, 2248.257, 2261.195, 2277.496, 2295.948, 2309.817, 2313.522], "stop_times": [2147.426, 2151.613, 2161.041, 2177.688, 2194.921, 2208.477, 2217.085, 2227.479, 2248.257, 2261.195, 2277.496, 2295.948, 2309.817, 2313.522, 2323.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.314}, "reply_to": "15160__1_019", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_021", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "But what\u2019s the state interest precisely that you would say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2323.293], "stop_times": [2327.663], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.293}, "reply_to": "15160__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_022", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "The state interest Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2327.663], "stop_times": [2329.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.663}, "reply_to": "15160__1_021", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_023", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "4% or 1% or any other percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2329.998], "stop_times": [2333.958], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.998}, "reply_to": "15160__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_024", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, the state interest that we feel is as far as we can say a compelling state interest is simply that we are requiring that an independent candidate show that he has a valid intent to actually run and that he may -- that he does have the support of at least a fraction of the electorate in furthering his candidacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2333.958], "stop_times": [2359.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.958}, "reply_to": "15160__1_023", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_025", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Am I wrong in taking that that was the objective in the Williams v. Rhodes, that state interest?\nI thought you have picked your argument in Williams and Rhodes on the proposition that you are to assure against the proliferation in the names on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2359.644, 2366.272], "stop_times": [2366.272, 2380.824], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.644}, "reply_to": "15160__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_026", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well this would be a part of it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2380.824], "stop_times": [2381.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.824}, "reply_to": "15160__1_025", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_027", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "In many names and what your adversary says here that under the history of the operation, the 1% limitation your experience had only produced a few candidates on the ballots of that argument is not a -- did not tend to show a valid state interest as is going now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2381.792], "stop_times": [2407.447], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.792}, "reply_to": "15160__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_028", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, we didn\u2019t particularly feel that Williams versus Rhodes was applicable to this particular case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2407.447], "stop_times": [2412.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.447}, "reply_to": "15160__1_027", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_029", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, it\u2019s a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2412.955], "stop_times": [2414.384], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.955}, "reply_to": "15160__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_030", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Different case, a difference proposition.\nAnd actually there was no consideration of this particular statute in the Williams versus Rhodes case and we didn\u2019t feel that you completely knocked out the electoral --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2414.384, 2416.764], "stop_times": [2416.764, 2428.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.384}, "reply_to": "15160__1_029", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_031", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2428.241], "stop_times": [2428.86], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.241}, "reply_to": "15160__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_032", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "-- machinery in Ohio when this took place.\nHave I answered your question, Mr. Justice Harlan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2428.86, 2436.776], "stop_times": [2436.776, 2438.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.86}, "reply_to": "15160__1_031", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_033", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well, I guess so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2438.283], "stop_times": [2445.022], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.283}, "reply_to": "15160__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15160__1_034", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "To go on, we submit that the determination of requirements to qualify an independent candidate for certification of a ballot ought properly to believe -- to be left to the discretion of the legislature where the knowledge of local conditions and special considerations of assessing the validity of candidate intent are really within the sphere of a political question belonging to the State.\nFor these reasons, we respectfully urge that this Court should affirm the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2445.022, 2469.609, 2478.557], "stop_times": [2469.609, 2478.557, 2479.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.022}, "reply_to": "15160__1_033", "speaker": "robert_d_macklin"}
{"id": "15160__1_035", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Thank you Mr. Macklin.\nMr. Sheerer you have four minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2479.78, 2482.158], "stop_times": [2482.158, 2487.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.78}, "reply_to": "15160__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_000", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nIf I might make some comments, first of all on the statements from appellees\u2019 counsel.\nI do not believe that a candidate for office has to be able to show that he can win.\nThe three-judge federal court in the Socialist Labor Party case pointed out that the right of free speech is the right also to be wrong.\nAnd we said that anybody that manifests a degree of sincerity about this candidacy is entitled to be on the ballot and it does not matter whether other people might consider that candidacy frivolous or pointless whatever.\nIt\u2019s part of our basic framework of our society that everyone is entitled to suffrage and to offer themselves as a candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2487.924, 2490.538, 2499.935, 2507.029, 2514.673, 2530.473], "stop_times": [2490.538, 2499.935, 2507.029, 2514.673, 2530.473, 2539.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2487.924}, "reply_to": "15160__1_035", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_001", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Well did I understand you say before that there is no prohibition against the so-called sticker or write-in candidate under the present law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2539.579], "stop_times": [2550.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.579}, "reply_to": "15160__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_002", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That was achieved by the Williams-Rhodes case in the three-judge District Court.\nThat is right.\nI would point out of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2550.518, 2557.553, 2558.365], "stop_times": [2557.553, 2558.365, 2559.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2550.518}, "reply_to": "15160__2_001", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_003", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "So this candidate, your client could be a write-in candidate in any election for any office, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2559.55], "stop_times": [2569.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.55}, "reply_to": "15160__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_004", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir with the exception of -- if you are running for president, he would have to -- well now, Ohio requires filing of declaration intent to serve shortly before.\nLet me point out that Williams and Rhodes notes that write-in is not a comparable to ballot status that Mr. Justice Douglas in his concurring opinion points out it\u2019s a disability, the majority opinion points out that it cannot be compared and that is a definite disadvantage to a candidacy.\nThe reduction of 4% in the Ohio legislature came after this Court and noted probable jurisdiction.\nThe guideline -- the only guideline we are advancing here is when that history is offered.\nHistory has pointed out the guideline in this case.\nLet me point out also this is not a case where the legislature is failed to act as was the case in the reapportionment cases where the legislature failed to reapportion.\nThis is a case where the legislature is acted twice in Ohio and against the interest of independent candidates and minority party candidates.\nThis is a case that particularly requires to relief that this Court can require, can give.\nThere are no independents in Ohio legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2569.197, 2578.69, 2601.618, 2610.225, 2614.969, 2620.546, 2629.486, 2639.916, 2645.06], "stop_times": [2578.69, 2601.618, 2610.225, 2614.969, 2620.546, 2629.486, 2639.916, 2645.06, 2648.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2569.197}, "reply_to": "15160__2_003", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_005", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "This could be argued that this is not necessarily legislation against or hostile to bona fide independent candidate.\nIn my own experience and observation in this very state that\u2019s where I grew up there.\nThere are such things as people who pretend to be independent candidates when what they\u2019re really looking at for is personal advertising or aggrandizement and they are not bona fide candidates and as the ballot has filled up with people like that with so-called bed sheet ballot of the candidate, of the kind that used to have in Detroit, Michigan.\nIt makes it more difficult for a bona fide or true independent candidate for public office to command the attention of conscientious and responsible voters, isn\u2019t that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2648.484, 2660.172, 2665.154, 2685.514], "stop_times": [2660.172, 2665.154, 2685.514, 2697.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.484}, "reply_to": "15160__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15160__2_006", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That could be so Your Honor.\nIn Williams and Rhodes, the Court spoke of it as a remote danger.\nNothing in the case that it does exists and cited on Mine Workers case from Illinois.\nHe is saying that these rights cannot be infringed on a speculative danger.\nI think that the intelligence of the legislature is equal to that sort of problem, if it became a problem.\nThere is no indication whatsoever that it was or will become a problem, and I would hate to defy bona fide candidate for the Court.\nI think that probably an attack the Court should take this one noted in Williams versus Rhodes, the parties have to begin, people have to begin somewhere.\nThere should be allowed a free and equal chance to engage in a competition of our electoral process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2697.892, 2700.449, 2705.976, 2711.065, 2717.676, 2724.717, 2740.952, 2751.132], "stop_times": [2700.449, 2705.976, 2711.065, 2717.676, 2724.717, 2740.952, 2751.132, 2757.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2697.892}, "reply_to": "15160__2_005", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_007", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Would you agree counsel of that the excessively long ballots sometimes called the bed sheet ballot has the tendency to discourage people from voting?\nWould you accept that as a fact of life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2757.371, 2769.778], "stop_times": [2769.778, 2772.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.371}, "reply_to": "15160__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_008", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "I don\u2019t know, not about him in nature Your Honor but I suppose that it might discourage some people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2772.02], "stop_times": [2776.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2772.02}, "reply_to": "15160__2_007", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_009", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "It\u2019s widely thought that political scientists and other expert servers that is so.\nNow, assuming them for a moment that that is correct, do you that the state of Ohio does not have a valid interest in preventing that situation for proliferating and standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2776.552, 2781.819], "stop_times": [2781.819, 2794.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.552}, "reply_to": "15160__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_010", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Certainly if there where a showing Your Honor that this was happening.\nThat people were being discouraged from voting or confused to something like that, this case -- the situation will be entirely different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2794.949, 2797.929], "stop_times": [2797.929, 2804.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2794.949}, "reply_to": "15160__2_009", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_011", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Who must make that showing, the legislature when it fixes a 4% or 3% or 5% or 1%?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2804.858], "stop_times": [2811.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.858}, "reply_to": "15160__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_012", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "That\u2019s right Your Honor.\nBecause the holding of this Court is that where fundamental liberties are involved, the inquiry will be made as to what interest the state is protecting.\nThis Court is the defender of individuals, minority rights and it looks when these people\u2019s rights are burdened or restricted; it looks to the interests that the State is against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2811.514, 2812.637, 2823.359], "stop_times": [2812.637, 2823.359, 2836.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2811.514}, "reply_to": "15160__2_011", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_013", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Would you say that in effect that 1% is not unconstitutionally burdensome but the 4% is and in effect you are saying that the judgment of the legislature of Ohio is an erroneous judgment by that difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2836.454], "stop_times": [2855.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.454}, "reply_to": "15160__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15160__2_014", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Yes, sir it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2855.473], "stop_times": [2858.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2855.473}, "reply_to": "15160__2_013", "speaker": "benjamin_b_sheerer"}
{"id": "15160__2_015", "conversation_id": "15160", "text": "Thank you Mr. Sheerer.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_31", "start_times": [2858.087, 2859.569], "stop_times": [2859.569, 2862.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.087}, "reply_to": "15160__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_000", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Number 35, Gladstein against -- excuse me, Bryson against the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [16.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_001", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [16.84], "stop_times": [19.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.84}, "reply_to": "15420__0_000", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_002", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "If you\u2019ll just wait one moment Mr. Gladstein until counsel gets clear.\nNow, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [19.93, 29.193], "stop_times": [29.193, 30.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 19.93}, "reply_to": "15420__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_003", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMay it please the Court.\nThis case brings into question, the constitutionality of Section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.\nThat Act provided in substance that before a labor union could resort to the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board.\nEach of its officers most annually signed in filing non-Communist affidavit.\nThe constitutionality of that statute was upheld in 1950 in the case of American Communications Association against Douds.\nThe chief opinion was written by Chief Justice Vinson in which two other members of the court concurred, Justices Frankfurter and Jackson wrote separate opinions, concurring in part and dissenting in part.\nMr. Justice Black dissented on a number of grounds including explicitly an expression of his view of Section 9 (h) was a bill of attainder and therefore violated the Article I Section 9 of the Constitution.\nCongress, it appears was not satisfied with its experience under Section 9 (h) and 12 years after its passage, nine years after this Court was persuaded to sustain it.\nThe Congress have repealed that law and replaced it with Section 504 of the Labor Management Relations Act.\nThat Section provided that it was a crime for a man simultaneously to hold union office and to be a member of the Communist Party.\nThat statute was held unconstitutional by this Court in United States against Archie Brown, 1965 in an opinion written by the Chief Justice, four other members of the Court concurring in the opinion on the expressed ground of Section 504 was unconstitutional bill of attainder.\nOne of the questions certified in this case is whether in the comparative light of American Communications Association versus doubts and United States versus Brown, Section 9 (h) is constitutional.\nLet me say a few words about the background of this case in order to put the other two certified questions in perspective.\nPetitioner here was one time the president of a small maritime labor union numbering some 3,000 members who served on vessels plying in and out of Pacific Coast Port in the Steward\u2019s Department of those ships.\nIn 1951, he signed and filed the affidavit as required -- that was required at the time under Taft-Hartley law.\nThe union was and had been for some time engaged in the bitter jurisdictional dispute which ultimately led to the dissolution of the organization itself.\nNow, the affidavit that he filed was a printed form.\nBut the Labor Board supplied and it recited three basic things.\nIt recited that the files at the time he signed did not then support any organization that advocated the overthrow of the Government by force, violation or other unconstitutional or illegal means.\nIt provided second that he said he was then not a member of the Communist Party specifically naming the Communist Party in the second portion.\nIt provided third, that he was not then affiliate for the Communist Party.\nIn 1954, almost three yeas after the filing of the 1951 affidavit although I should state that in 1952 Bryson filed the affidavit.\nHe did the same in 1953 and again in 1954 if my memory served me correctly, even after he was indicted on the 1951 affidavit.\nHe was charged in the indictment with three counts of violation, all three of the portions that I have mentioned\n.Prior to the trial, the Government dismissed the count that charged him of supporting an organization that advocated the overthrow of the Government.\nHe went to trial on the counts concerning membership and concerning affiliation.\nThe jury returned the verdict holding or I should say that this was brought under the false statement statute which it set forth in our brief and in the petition.\nJury returned the verdict holding that when he swore that he was not been a member of the Communist Party he was not falsely swearing.\nOn the other hand, it returned the verdict holding that he did violate the law when he swore that he was not then affiliated for the Communist Party.\nBryson was sentence to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000 which was the maximum.\nAnd in addition, the trial judge provided expressly that he could be subject to further imprisonment in the event that he failed to pay the fine.\nHe served nearly two years of his term and then was paroled.\nAnd in the intervening years he has managed to pay $2,000 of the $10,000 fine but the there is a balance of $8,000.\nShortly before we filed a petition in the District Court that commenced the proceedings that are now here, the Government noticed the taking of Bryson\u2019s deposition of the original criminal proceeding and did take his -- the position seeking assets for the purpose of enforcing the collection of the $8,000 balance.\nAnd thereafter, the Government filed a civil action in the Federal District Court in San Francisco seeking judgment for the $8,000.\nA week or two after that, Bryson\u2019s petition was filed with the District Court seeking a writ of error coram nobis or relief under the other applicable post-conviction statutes.\nOne of the basic grounds upon which that relief was sought was the allegation that under United States versus Brown, the constitutional basis of Section 9 (h) had been eroded along with other decisions that it was constitutionally infirmed, that it should be controlled by the decision of this Court in United States against Brown and therefore that petition of original conviction had been unconstitutionally obtained.\nThe District Judge granted petition in all respects except not granting the prayer for a return of the $2,000 that Bryson has paid to the Government on his fine.\nThe Government took an appeal to the Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit and that court in a per curiam decision reversed holding that Bryson was precluded for bringing his petition by reason of a decision of this Court in Dennis versus the United States.\nThat case was a case in which this Court declined to review a challenge of constitutionality against Section 9 (h) upon the ground for the petitions in that case were shown to have been engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and to the defraud the Government and therefore that they had lost standing.\nThe Court of Appeals holding that Dennis presented an insuperable obstacle to us declined the test on the other questions and reversed.\nThe other two questions presented and certified here then are: One, whether the petitioner is precluded by reason of this Court\u2019s decision in Dennis from attacking the constitutionality of 9 (h).\nThe other is whether the petitioner qualifies regardless of Dennis upon the ground that it\u2019s inapplicable in as much as this is a post-conviction proceeding and under the all writs section or under the other Section providing for such relief, he would qualify for this relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [30.291, 31.842, 34.376, 45.501, 55.117, 62.899, 74.37, 89.097, 105.501, 118.895, 126.277, 138.818, 159.266, 174.858, 182.799, 202.086, 211.469, 222.224, 225.745, 231.208, 244.872, 254.385, 261.017, 271.534, 283.015, 290.949, 300.739, 306.239, 316.278, 324.394, 334.342, 341.34, 351.562, 355.994, 366.531, 389.464, 398.096, 413.233, 439.358, 451.275, 469.499, 492.214, 505.532, 518.866], "stop_times": [31.842, 34.376, 45.501, 55.117, 62.899, 74.37, 89.097, 105.501, 118.895, 126.277, 138.818, 159.266, 174.858, 182.799, 202.086, 211.469, 222.224, 225.745, 231.208, 244.872, 254.385, 261.017, 271.534, 283.015, 290.949, 300.739, 306.239, 316.278, 324.394, 334.342, 341.34, 351.562, 355.994, 366.531, 389.464, 398.096, 413.233, 439.358, 451.275, 469.499, 492.214, 505.532, 518.866, 538.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 30.291}, "reply_to": "15420__0_002", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_004", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "When you talk about the constitutionality of 9 (h) it\u2019s really whether 9 (h) wasn\u2019t absolute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [538.379], "stop_times": [545.352], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 538.379}, "reply_to": "15420__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__0_005", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [545.352], "stop_times": [547.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.352}, "reply_to": "15420__0_004", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_006", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Is that no longer unquote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [547.485], "stop_times": [550.135], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 547.485}, "reply_to": "15420__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__0_007", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I know.\nI can see that.\nYes, Your Honor.\nHowever, the vitality of it still affects Bryson and as hope to argue also affects to its detriment to the bill of attainder provision in our Constitution.\nNow, let me say something about the petitioner of the evidence here.\nBecause I suppose in the last analysis, this Court is not going to look nearly at forms as the Government invites it to do and say well, in Dennis there was a conspiracy to defraud and Bryson\u2019s case the jury found that he lied about whether or not he was affiliated with the Communist Party and therefore they are on a par, this is the Government\u2019s argument.\nI would suppose that if Dennis lays down a rule, the Court created by which the Court will determine in its own discretion whether or not a particular person is entitled to be heard has standing to be heard.\nOne must look at the character of the particular petitioner in so far at least as the record and the evidence would seem to show.\nNow in petitioner\u2019s case, the facts are these.\nThere\u2019s no question that for a period of ten years between 1937 and 1947, he was a member of the Communist Party.\nHe was an officer of that party.\nHe was an officer under what was called the Waterfront Section Level in San Francisco and he was an officer on a state level, state committee.\nThere was no suggestion in this record that Bryson never tried to concede the fact that his membership or holding office in the communist party when he was a member of it.\nNow in 1947, he terminated his associations and there is no evidence.\nThere was no evidence of the trial to sustain any charge that there was an active relationship between him and the party thereafter.\nThe evidence upon which he was convicted not of membership but of association of affiliation summarize by the Government in its brief, and I assume that they have called from it as much as there is and this is one of the matters to it that comes on pages 5 and 6 of the Government\u2019s brief.\nFirst, he said that in 1949, at an open union convention, he -- I quote what they say, \u201cpremised -- he refused to see that delegate to a union conversion premised on the delegate\u2019s failure to accept an opportunity to join the Communist Party.\u201d\nSo not only was that two years before he filed the affidavit in this case.\nBut I mentioned that this is the type of evidence on which the affiliation count was based.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [550.135, 551.52, 552.14, 554.074, 571.62, 577.639, 600.321, 618.42, 625.804, 629.224, 637.242, 639.486, 647.77, 658.561, 664.504, 672.447, 695.64, 715.582, 720.451], "stop_times": [551.52, 552.14, 554.074, 571.62, 577.639, 600.321, 618.42, 625.804, 629.224, 637.242, 639.486, 647.77, 658.561, 664.504, 672.447, 695.64, 715.582, 720.451, 725.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.135}, "reply_to": "15420__0_006", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_008", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But is it not after he now says that he terminated his membership?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [725.531], "stop_times": [732.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.531}, "reply_to": "15420__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_009", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "There was no announcement.\nThere was a cessation of all relationship, all active relationship --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [732.367, 733.435], "stop_times": [733.435, 738.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.367}, "reply_to": "15420__0_008", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_010", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "In 1947?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [738.482], "stop_times": [739.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.482}, "reply_to": "15420__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_011", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "In 1947, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [739.965], "stop_times": [741.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.965}, "reply_to": "15420__0_010", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_012", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "This event that you\u2019ve just described under the Government\u2019s brief two years later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [741.277], "stop_times": [746.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.277}, "reply_to": "15420__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_013", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "This and two or three other statements attributed to him.\nYes, one in 1949 and several in 1951.\nOne of which as the Government correctly points out was two months after he had filed his affidavit in 1951.\nHe then is supposed to use -- it was testified that he said in the course of an argument between him and one of the men who was forming a dual union, a rival union within the organization.\nHe -- this man testified that Bryson said to him in the course of an angry exchange.\n\u201cIf you are referring to me, I\u2019m still a Communist and proud of it.\u201d\nThere is another piece of testimony that was given by another person who in the course of -- who was expelled from the union or was in the process of being expelled.\nThere was an argument about whether or not Bryson was discriminating against him or ordering him to be discriminated against in regard of getting union jobs.\nAnd the man testified that what you have to do to get a job around here, to be a party member of something of that kind and he said that might help and in reply to another question after Bryson said when he was accused, \u201care you still a member?\u201d\nHe said, \u201cyes and I\u2019m proud of it.\u201d\nThat\u2019s the evidence.\nNow, the District Court told the jury what, based on the record, what\u2019s the kind of evidence was that existed when Bryson was a member of the party and he told the jury that they should take him to consideration of whether or not he held office or official position on the Communist Party whether he have ever attended and participated communist party meetings.\nWhether or not he took instruction from communist party leaders, whether he participated in distributing literature, whether he solicited members for the party, whether or not he cooperated closely with and worked for there benefit and so on.\nThere was evidence that during the period of executive membership, of his membership between 1937 and 1947, there was evidence that these were the activities in which he engaged.\nThere was no evidence I might say that he ever advocated there was ever present when they was advocated or that he ever runs to it in whatever portion of the Communist Party he was associated with.\nThat there was forbidden doctrine or policy advocating the further or that he himself believed in the overthrow of the Government of United States by force surveillance and of course there was no evidence in the case itself offered by the Government.\nTo establish what the teachings of the Communist Party were, what their doctrines were, what their policies were, what their objects were?\nThe case went to the jury on the sole question of whether nor he was a member or affiliated with the Communist Party without any evidence to indicate.\nEither he understood it to be based on his associations or what the party itself stood for in fact from the viewpoint of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [746.053, 751.38, 755.761, 764.61, 780.811, 786.448, 790.66, 801.968, 811.618, 829.99, 832.152, 834.111, 860.46, 874.686, 885.048, 897.88, 912.401, 921.901, 931.579], "stop_times": [751.38, 755.761, 764.61, 780.811, 786.448, 790.66, 801.968, 811.618, 829.99, 832.152, 834.111, 860.46, 874.686, 885.048, 897.88, 912.401, 921.901, 931.579, 940.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.053}, "reply_to": "15420__0_012", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_014", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, aren\u2019t those arguments that were addressed to the Court from this case was tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [940.527], "stop_times": [948.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.527}, "reply_to": "15420__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_015", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "All of the arguments that are offered now were addressed to the courtroom when the case was tried.\nThat is we addressed these arguments on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals rejected the arguments.\nThis Court did not grant a position for certiorari.\nWe saw twice first after the original conviction was upheld and I should say that in the petition for rehearing that we filed with the Court of Appeals calling their attention of the fact that in their first decision, we thought they were establishing de novo law.\nThey reiterated and they said I\u2019ve copied on the sentence from their opinion which is referred to in our brief as well as in the Government\u2019s.\nThey answer this by saying that although it was true that there was no evidence in the case of active affiliation, it didn\u2019t have to be any.\nThey said affiliation and this is the quote, \u201cAffiliation is a relationship that can exist even when not manifested by activity.\u201d\nAs to the argument that we advanced that had to be some showing that the communist party stood for either a calling, political strikes which was the purpose of Section 9 (h) according to the legislative history Congress wanted to inhibit the threat that political strikes might be called in the labor movements.\nThere was no evidence of anything of that sort either as to Bryson or as party but specifically as to Bryson.\nNever had he advocated or suggested or anything of that sort, although he was being found and in fact guilty because Congress assumed that anybody found to have been affiliated with the Communist Party was necessarily presenting threat to the country that he would throw the country into political strikes.\nThe Court of Appeals answered that argument by saying that the requirement of adherence to Communist Party purposes was covered by the instruction to the jury that said in effect affiliation is a very difficult concept to define, I tell you in essence that its everything but membership been named only and suggested that it is comparable to the relationship between a man and a woman who are not married.\nThere was no instruction to the jury advising that affiliation could be found only if there was some evidence that Bryson adhered to some forbidden doctrine or that he advance some policy of believing some policy.\nWhether it be the overthrow of the Government by violence or the calling of political strikes.\nNow, this was the evidence against the man and nothing else.\nHe did not take the stand.\nWe\u2019ve tried to show in our brief why.\nIt was the practice then and it may still be that in cases of this kind or any kind perhaps where a person has been a member of the Communist Party.\nIt is uniformly the practice of the prosecutor to inquire on cross-examination for the names of other persons who were in the party at the time that the witness was.\nIt was clear at the time and we set forth in detail the reasons that if he were asked questions of that kind and if he declined to become an informer, the person whose he had known long years ago in the Communist Party that he would be sentence to a jail term for contempt of court by the trial judge and of course that would take place on the presence of the jury and in he had any chance of becoming acquitted he would lose it with a thing like that happening as well as gaining a jail-term.\nBut there\u2019s some things to some man that are even more important than the risk of spending a term of years in prison and one of them as a matter of point.\nBryson chose not to testify in order to avoid being placed in the dilemma of having to become either an informer or showing disrespect for the court by declining to answer questions that he would be ordered to answer.\nIn the absence of Bryson\u2019s testimony because he couldn\u2019t under those circumstances, he was not a free agent to get up and either deny those statements that he claim had not been made that were attributed or if he made some of them to explain the context to them which they were made so that the jury could know what he as doing, what he was saying in the absence of his own ability to testify.\nIn the presence of no evidence by the prosecution at all concerning association of activities, association of times or any kind with the party, we did what we considered the next best thing.\nFourteen witnesses, reputable people from various walks of the community were called and testified that he have to enjoy an excellent reputation for truth, honesty, and integrity.\nHis record of having sailed on the seas for many, many years and being subject to the United States Coast Guard Regulations of course was a fact he had never been arrested on any charge either a charge of violating a regulation or for that matter a violation of any law.\nWe also did this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [948.587, 952.655, 961.574, 965.1, 984.871, 994.401, 1004.588, 1014.038, 1039.984, 1047.294, 1066.54, 1095.872, 1113.5, 1119.708, 1133.007, 1135.37, 1138.734, 1148.796, 1163.953, 1199.409, 1212.681, 1231.318, 1255.961, 1270.616, 1282.547, 1304.785], "stop_times": [952.655, 961.574, 965.1, 984.871, 994.401, 1004.588, 1014.038, 1039.984, 1047.294, 1066.54, 1095.872, 1113.5, 1119.708, 1133.007, 1135.37, 1138.734, 1148.796, 1163.953, 1199.409, 1212.681, 1231.318, 1255.961, 1270.616, 1282.547, 1304.785, 1305.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.587}, "reply_to": "15420__0_014", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_016", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I have a little trouble understanding Mr. Gladstein, what the relevance of all these is to the issues now here before the court, after all the jury did convict him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1305.686], "stop_times": [1316.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.686}, "reply_to": "15420__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15420__0_017", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1316.979], "stop_times": [1317.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.979}, "reply_to": "15420__0_016", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_018", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Under instructions that have been explicitly approved by this Court as I understand it of violating of being affiliated with the Communist Party at the time that he said he swore under oath that he was not so affiliated?\nThat\u2019s a finding that was appealed.\nThat\u2019s the finding.\nThat\u2019s water over the dam.\nHe was convicted.\nWhat questions as to why he might have not testified in that trial or what he\u2019s motivations had been or of interest but I don\u2019t see what relevance they have to the issues now here before this Court in this present case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1317.764, 1333.196, 1334.917, 1336.074, 1337.239, 1338.946], "stop_times": [1333.196, 1334.917, 1336.074, 1337.239, 1338.946, 1353.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.764}, "reply_to": "15420__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15420__0_019", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I\u2019m sorry I failed to make myself sufficiently clear.\nIt is because [Voice Overlap].\nYes, thank you very much.\nIt\u2019s because the Governments realize on the decision in Dennis to constitute a barrier to Bryson having standing in this case to be heard.\nThat I considered important for the Court.\nI know I can\u2019t attack the finding of guilt and I\u2019m not doing that.\nI\u2019m not seeking that.\nThere\u2019s no, nothing like that has being done.\nBut I would think that it\u2019s relevant to the exercise of discretion if that\u2019s what it\u2019s involved if Dennis is a relevant decision to consider here.\nThat will be important to consider what the record was, whatever the jury found.\nWhat the record was concerning Bryson so as to determine whether he compares with or contrasts with the defendants of the Dennis case.\nAnd I wanted to -- one more thing concerning what happened there and that was this.\nWe called as a witness for the defense the agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who was in charge of the prosecution against the Bryson, and he testified that under cover informants and agents of the FBI were and have been throughout this period before and after 1947 within this group that Bryson at one time had been a member of.\nThat no -- none of this informants, none of these agents testified and nobody came forward to testify against Bryson.\nNow, I realize that\u2019s consistent with a policy decision by the FBI that it did not want for reasons of its own which it certainly has a right to make.\nHe did not want to reveal the identity of someone who was in that Section but its also consistent with the assertion that Bryson has steadfastly made from the beginning and has never deviated from that he was innocent, that he was neither a member nor affiliated with the Communist Party at any time after 1947.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1353.395, 1357.448, 1358.845, 1360.208, 1373.22, 1375.747, 1379.583, 1380.994, 1384.5, 1394.047, 1399.13, 1409.879, 1415.265, 1444.214, 1452.777, 1464.183], "stop_times": [1357.448, 1358.845, 1360.208, 1373.22, 1375.747, 1379.583, 1380.994, 1384.5, 1394.047, 1399.13, 1409.879, 1415.265, 1444.214, 1452.777, 1464.183, 1485.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.395}, "reply_to": "15420__0_018", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_020", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But Mr. Gladstein isn\u2019t that as Justice Stewart has suggested that the issue that\u2019s long since settled and disposed of.\nYou have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1485.536, 1492.817], "stop_times": [1492.817, 1493.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.536}, "reply_to": "15420__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_021", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I\u2019ll turn away from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1493.313], "stop_times": [1493.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.313}, "reply_to": "15420__0_020", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_022", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "-- you have used most of your time and you haven\u2019t yet suggested any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1493.729], "stop_times": [1498.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.729}, "reply_to": "15420__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_023", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1498.129], "stop_times": [1498.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.129}, "reply_to": "15420__0_022", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_024", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "-- reasons why for example United States against Kapp doesn\u2019t apply if we have to overrule Douds we\u2019d have to overrule Kapp also, wouldn\u2019t we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1498.817], "stop_times": [1507.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.817}, "reply_to": "15420__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__0_025", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I\u2019m sorry.\nNo, I think that the basic distinction between those cases and this is that those are cases that deal with money transaction.\nWe are talking here about a statute that involves the political liberties of the individual.\nWe are talking about rights of the caliber that the First Amendment protects rights that are embraced within the provision that prohibits the passing.\nAbsolutely prohibits the passing of bills of attainder.\nI do not think that this Court\u2019s decisions can possibly equate cases like the Kapp, those decisions which we treat in our brief at all with what this Court again and again has said to be rights that are enshrined.\nI didn\u2019t realize that I was taking up so much time and I\u2019m sorry about that.\nBut I\u2019d better make my points rather fast.\nThis case I think is controlled by Brown, United States against Brown.\nThe statute as we took pains to show in our brief by calling from the Government\u2019s brief in Brown.\nThere the Government argued that 9 (h) and 504 were enacted to serve the same purpose, same substance, only the little difference in form and they were pains to show that the force exerted by 9 (h) was just as forceful just as effective just as punitive as 504.\nIf that was true then it\u2019s equally true today, 504, I submit is controlling Dennis for the reasons I -- I\u2019m sorry I took so much time to try to develop without a success would not on the facts of these case warrant or would not justify the Court in preventing Bryson from being hurt and moreover, in any event there are the post conviction statutes which entitle him by congressional enactment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1507.219, 1508.296, 1518.95, 1525.014, 1536.689, 1539.635, 1556.921, 1560.822, 1565.471, 1571.757, 1581.416, 1601.678], "stop_times": [1508.296, 1518.95, 1525.014, 1536.689, 1539.635, 1556.921, 1560.822, 1565.471, 1571.757, 1581.416, 1601.678, 1645.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.219}, "reply_to": "15420__0_024", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__0_026", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Mr. Beytagh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1645.658], "stop_times": [1647.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.658}, "reply_to": "15420__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__1_000", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWith all respect, the positions of the several parties in this case are something like ships passing in the night.\nThe counsel started with the proposition that the basic question here is the constitutionality of Section 9 (h) of the Taft-Harley Act repealed some ten years ago and then proceeded to spend, as the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart pointed out, most of his time seeking it seemed to me to reopen and discuss again the basic underlying facts which have been found against petitioner at his jury trial some 15 years ago.\nNow we look at the case somewhat differently.\nAs we understand it, the basic question here the basic issue that the Court repeals started was faced within principle on which we decided this case as to deal with the question of whether the rational of this Court in Dennis versus United States decided several terms ago applies here.\nIn short, that rational is simply this.\nThat one who fains or purports to comply with the law by taking some sort of action that is required by the Government of him but in fact is proceeding falsely or fraudulently in so doing lacks standing when he\u2019s discovered to a fact that fraudulently to challenge the law that he purported to comply with.\nThat principle was not established in Dennis.\nIt goes back to earlier cases of this Court such as Kay and Kapp that\u2019s been accepted by every circuit to my knowledge that has considered it.\nIt simply, it seems to me basic principle of judicial administration.\nAny other rule would breed I would suggest disrespect for a law. It would invite avoidance or attempted avoidance of the orderly processes of law when one took it up himself to proceed fraudulently and then said well, yes I did that but it\u2019s justifiable because the statute you see is invalid.\nNow as we understand it, principally from petitioner\u2019s brief, he suggests that there are several respects in which Dennis is distinguishable.\nHe says first that Dennis involved a conspiracy and this case does not.\nWhat\u2019s true as the Court ordered or noted in Dennis.\nSome of the petitioners involved in conspiracy they are charged which was conspiracy to defraud the Unites States by doing exactly the same the petitioner did filing false affidavits under Section 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley.\nThe court noted there that at least some of the petitioners could have been charged under the false statement act that petitioner himself was charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001.\nI take it the reason they weren\u2019t, it was because some of the petitioners who allegedly and were found to have engaged in the conspiracy there were not themselves union officers required to file this affidavits, but instead participated with union officers in the conspiracy to file.\nWe cannot really see that the fact that a conspiracy was charged and was involved in Dennis is a substantial -- it makes that case of substantial difference.\nThere\u2019s some language in the Court\u2019s opinion in Dennis that refers to the fact of conspiracy but as we understand at that language related basically to a threshold issue in Dennis is to whether the indictment was appropriate there.\nAnd the Court concluded that it was appropriate over strenuous arguments made in the contrary and in the course of that noted that a conspiracy was involved.\nPetitioner also notes that the case is now on collateral and not direct review and in that respect differs from Dennis and for some reason that these presents a different situation.\nNow, we\u2019re quite aware the increasing breath of the scope for collateral review but we had not thought that we have reached the point where collateral was broader than direct.\nAnd it seems to us that it\u2019s a rather difficult notion to accept that petitioners are in better position with respect to the basic rational on which the Court relied in Dennis.\nIndividuals involved in Dennis because he is now on collateral and not on direct.\nPetitioner also suggests and has argued in great length that his facts are different than the facts in Dennis.\nWell, frankly we don\u2019t quite understand that and his brief he relies extensively on affidavit that he filed on a later collateral proceeding and here he is noted that Mr. Bryson terminated all relationship with the Communist Party in 1947, at least in his view.\nNow of course that was one of the issues that jury had to resolve and has not indicated that the jury resolve that against him.\nIn so far as he seeks to reopen and re-litigate those facts, it seems to us that\u2019s not an appropriate question presented in this Court.\nQuestion of supposed ambiguity of the notion of affiliation is also raised by petitioner.\nThere may well be contacts in which the notion of affiliation with the Communist Party or some other organizations would be a difficult and dubious thing to present to a jury.\nBut as Mr. Justice Stewart noted in the context here under a very narrow and limiting instruction which is set out in the Government\u2019s brief which followed and was confirmed by this Court\u2019s decision in Killian case pages 6 and 7 of the Government\u2019s brief note 5 we set out the basic construction.\nThe jury was told that in order for petitioner to have been affiliated with the Communist party, he must have been a member and everything but name.\nAnd as the Chief Justice has indicated, the facts as developed for the jury trial indicated that various incidence from the evidence are related which indicated that petitioner had continued to maintain at least some connection with the party, connection in the sense that a jury could find that he was affiliated with the party when he filed a false affidavit in 1951.\nI think that any analysis of the Dennis opinion makes it rather clear that it\u2019s difficult if not impossible for petitioner to say that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the Dennis was controlling here.\nDennis said petitioners are in no position to attack the constitutionality of Section 9 (h) because they sought to circumvent the statute not to challenge it.\nWays are open to challenge the validity of statutes like Section 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley.\nIt was challenged in the Douds case but it was upheld as we indicate and as the facts before the Court of Appeals indicated a number of union members after the passage of union officers after the passage of Section 9 (h) who were members of the Communist Party determined that the best course of action was for them to formally disassociate themselves with the party and then file when and if necessary those affidavits that Section 9 (h) required.\nAs the facts also indicate here in 1958 jurisdictional dispute of rules in the union that petitioner was president of and petitioner then took it upon himself to file this affidavit that jury found to be false.\nDouds was decided in 1950.\nThis was -- his affidavit was filed of less than a year later.\nI think that the situation is not at all dissimilar from that of the Court referred to in Dennis.\nIn Dennis, the Court said that in view of these circumstances what petitioners there did was to flout, not simply to overlook the law.\nThe Court in Dennis further noted that there are appropriated and inappropriate ways to challenge the validity of a statute.\nAnd that even though in some circumstances it may be necessary to violate a statute in order to challenge its constitutionality that a person who fains to comply with it, who purports to act consistent with it cannot then later be heard to challenge it when he has discovered have acted fraudulently.\nIt seems to me that there --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [1647.312, 1650.925, 1658.559, 1693.122, 1697.529, 1725.091, 1728.192, 1760.771, 1763.818, 1776.977, 1787.926, 1817.141, 1827.673, 1834.479, 1839.897, 1856.011, 1867.81, 1889.524, 1902.369, 1916.793, 1931.642, 1949.723, 1965.719, 1981.651, 1989.208, 1999.167, 2022.832, 2031.441, 2041.421, 2050.636, 2065.558, 2089.909, 2102.184, 2137.736, 2157.957, 2172.751, 2178.319, 2216.532, 2233.195, 2236.143, 2242.359, 2248.533, 2259.865, 2268.616, 2293.438], "stop_times": [1650.925, 1658.559, 1693.122, 1697.529, 1725.091, 1728.192, 1760.771, 1763.818, 1776.977, 1787.926, 1817.141, 1827.673, 1834.479, 1839.897, 1856.011, 1867.81, 1889.524, 1902.369, 1916.793, 1931.642, 1949.723, 1965.719, 1981.651, 1989.208, 1999.167, 2022.832, 2031.441, 2041.421, 2050.636, 2065.558, 2089.909, 2102.184, 2137.736, 2157.957, 2172.751, 2178.319, 2216.532, 2233.195, 2236.143, 2242.359, 2248.533, 2259.865, 2268.616, 2293.438, 2297.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.312}, "reply_to": "15420__0_026", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_001", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Let me see if I understand your argument in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2297.126], "stop_times": [2299.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.126}, "reply_to": "15420__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_002", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, You Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2299.855], "stop_times": [2301.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.855}, "reply_to": "15420__1_001", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_003", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "As I understand what you\u2019re saying.\nBut when a commits perjury where a statute requires that perjury be both be made, that if that statute is itself void he is barred from raising a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2301.257, 2304.604], "stop_times": [2304.604, 2325.268], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.257}, "reply_to": "15420__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_004", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "The only thing that I would say yes with the exception of your use of the term \u201cvoid\u201d, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2325.268], "stop_times": [2330.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.268}, "reply_to": "15420__1_003", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_005", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, that is -- isn\u2019t that the challenge he is making?\nIt is unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2330.473, 2334.419], "stop_times": [2334.419, 2335.064], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.473}, "reply_to": "15420__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_006", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, he is seeking to challenge Section 9 (h) that has not been held unconstitutional but it was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2335.064], "stop_times": [2341.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.064}, "reply_to": "15420__1_005", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_007", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But it has not been held unconstitutional but he is challenging it as unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2341.038], "stop_times": [2346.392], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.038}, "reply_to": "15420__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_008", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2346.392], "stop_times": [2346.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.392}, "reply_to": "15420__1_007", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_009", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "As I understand what you\u2019re saying is when a man has come forth to swear something under a law which is unconstitutional, he is barred from raising the question of that constitutionality when he is prosecute for perjury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2346.521], "stop_times": [2365.313], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.521}, "reply_to": "15420__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_010", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, Your Honor, you say he is forced to take some action --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2365.313], "stop_times": [2368.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.313}, "reply_to": "15420__1_009", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_011", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, that\u2019s a statute, that\u2019s a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2368.484], "stop_times": [2371.215], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.484}, "reply_to": "15420__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_012", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2371.215], "stop_times": [2371.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.215}, "reply_to": "15420__1_011", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_013", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "The statute said they had to do it, didn\u2019t he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2371.886], "stop_times": [2374.344], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.886}, "reply_to": "15420__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_014", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2374.344], "stop_times": [2374.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.344}, "reply_to": "15420__1_013", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_015", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "And he had to do it as I understand that you\u2019re saying that he will know that statute is unconstitutional, therefore has always understood it with no effect.\nYou could prosecute -- he is bar from raising the question when he is charged with perjury.\nWell, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2374.968, 2387.339, 2392.812], "stop_times": [2387.339, 2392.812, 2393.657], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.968}, "reply_to": "15420__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_016", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "With all respects Your Honor I don\u2019t think the statute is of simply no effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2393.657], "stop_times": [2397.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.657}, "reply_to": "15420__1_015", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_017", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, if suppose it\u2019s unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2397.95], "stop_times": [2402.289], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.95}, "reply_to": "15420__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_018", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s a judgment of course this Court has to make.\nThe Court has already passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2402.289, 2404.484], "stop_times": [2404.484, 2404.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.289}, "reply_to": "15420__1_017", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_019", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But you say it can\u2019t make it.\nThis man can\u2019t raise it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2404.817, 2406.9], "stop_times": [2406.9, 2409.188], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.817}, "reply_to": "15420__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_020", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "It can\u2019t make it at the instance of this particular individual because what he has sought is to [Voice Overlap] support the legal process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2409.188], "stop_times": [2413.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.188}, "reply_to": "15420__1_019", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_021", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, it depends if he is the one that\u2019s called in the bench.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2413.708], "stop_times": [2419.489], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.708}, "reply_to": "15420__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_022", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But he had ways available to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2419.489], "stop_times": [2422.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.489}, "reply_to": "15420__1_021", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_023", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "He had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2422.052], "stop_times": [2422.693], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.052}, "reply_to": "15420__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_024", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Just as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2422.693], "stop_times": [2423.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.693}, "reply_to": "15420__1_023", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_025", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That other way also but how can the Government in good faith and good conscience and in not in fraud tempt to prosecute him for perjury under statute which why the oath that he is charged with it perjuring himself on is unconstitutional?\nFor me, like the Government is more fraud there than he is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2423.171, 2444.645], "stop_times": [2444.645, 2448.168], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.171}, "reply_to": "15420__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_026", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Isn\u2019t the answer to that in part at least to counsel that if you answer questions of the Government you make an election.\nYou may elect not to answer at all and challenge the constitutionality of the statue by that course.\nBut if you answer you must answer truthfully or take the penalties of perjury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2448.168, 2456.117, 2464.2], "stop_times": [2456.117, 2464.2, 2468.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.168}, "reply_to": "15420__1_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__1_027", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2468.551], "stop_times": [2468.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.551}, "reply_to": "15420__1_026", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_028", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s what this Court\u2019s held, hasn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2468.93], "stop_times": [2470.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.93}, "reply_to": "15420__1_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__1_029", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and there were ways --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2470.605], "stop_times": [2473.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.605}, "reply_to": "15420__1_028", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_030", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Which case did --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2473.235], "stop_times": [2474.127], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.235}, "reply_to": "15420__1_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_031", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Our ways are open to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2474.127], "stop_times": [2475.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.127}, "reply_to": "15420__1_030", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_032", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Which case did it hold it in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2475.524], "stop_times": [2478.104], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.524}, "reply_to": "15420__1_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_033", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "The Court has held this Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2478.104], "stop_times": [2480.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.104}, "reply_to": "15420__1_032", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_034", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Which case did it hold that in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2480.9], "stop_times": [2483.075], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.9}, "reply_to": "15420__1_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_035", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "In the Kapp case, in the Kay case, and in the Dennis case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2483.075], "stop_times": [2486.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.075}, "reply_to": "15420__1_034", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_036", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Which Dennis case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2486.637], "stop_times": [2488.323], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.637}, "reply_to": "15420__1_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_037", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "The one decided three terms ago in 384 U.S. 855, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2488.323], "stop_times": [2495.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.323}, "reply_to": "15420__1_036", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_038", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, your point is counsel isn\u2019t it at least I thought it was that it doesn\u2019t make any difference whether the statute is unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2495.305], "stop_times": [2504.418], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.305}, "reply_to": "15420__1_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_039", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "No, I really don\u2019t think it makes any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2504.418], "stop_times": [2506.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.418}, "reply_to": "15420__1_038", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_040", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, isn\u2019t that what you say Dennis holds that it just doesn\u2019t make any difference even if the statute is unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2506.265], "stop_times": [2514.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.265}, "reply_to": "15420__1_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_041", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, in one of the cases that we refer to, I believe it\u2019s the Kapp case.\nAgricultural Adjustment Act had already been held unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2514.537, 2520.049], "stop_times": [2520.049, 2523.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.537}, "reply_to": "15420__1_040", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_042", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2523.634], "stop_times": [2524.109], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.634}, "reply_to": "15420__1_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_043", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "The Court still applied this principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2524.109], "stop_times": [2525.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.109}, "reply_to": "15420__1_042", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_044", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "As I read your brief you say it doesn\u2019t make if whichever way the constitutional question is decided is conviction for making a false statement withstand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2525.522], "stop_times": [2535.275], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.522}, "reply_to": "15420__1_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_045", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2535.275, 2536.553], "stop_times": [2536.553, 2536.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.275}, "reply_to": "15420__1_044", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_046", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But that\u2019s maybe for the no standing, isn\u2019t it rather than [Voice Overlap]?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2536.634], "stop_times": [2542.087], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.634}, "reply_to": "15420__1_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_047", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Right.\nRight but I\u2019m suggesting that in the circumstances here, we don\u2019t have even that extreme situation because as the situation exists right now that statute was upheld in Douds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2542.087, 2542.439], "stop_times": [2542.439, 2553.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.087}, "reply_to": "15420__1_046", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_048", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, that\u2019s going beyond Dennis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2553.745], "stop_times": [2557.317], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.745}, "reply_to": "15420__1_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_049", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, that\u2019s one way of looking at it.\nThat it\u2019s not even reaching the problem presented if you assume the unconstitutionality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2557.317, 2559.181], "stop_times": [2559.181, 2566.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.317}, "reply_to": "15420__1_048", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_050", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Or are there any cases around here that you know of that supports your -- this present theory of standing because he really was a bad fellow, he has to have standing to raise this argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2566.906], "stop_times": [2585.132], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.906}, "reply_to": "15420__1_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_051", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I didn\u2019t think I was suggesting that it\u2019s because he was a bad fellow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2585.132], "stop_times": [2588.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.132}, "reply_to": "15420__1_050", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_052", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, it\u2019s the way it sounded to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2588.807], "stop_times": [2592.263], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.807}, "reply_to": "15420__1_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_053", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "It simply that he violated the False Statement Act and that\u2019s what he was charged of violating and that\u2019s what he was convicted, having --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2592.263], "stop_times": [2600.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.263}, "reply_to": "15420__1_052", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_054", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "And because he told a lie he shouldn\u2019t be able to challenge the constitutionality of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2600.757], "stop_times": [2605.498], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.757}, "reply_to": "15420__1_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_055", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, because he purported to comply with the statute.\nNow he is seeking to turn around what he is caught in complying with it in a fraudulent manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2605.498, 2609.073], "stop_times": [2609.073, 2616.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.498}, "reply_to": "15420__1_054", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_056", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, would you make that argument if it were really true and that statute run if it would make a difference under the false statement statute, whether the statute was unconstitutional or not.\nWould you still make this standing argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2616.874, 2633.876], "stop_times": [2633.876, 2639.297], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.874}, "reply_to": "15420__1_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_057", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I\u2019m not sure that I understand.\nI agree with you that it doesn\u2019t matter whether the statute is unconstitutional or not.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2639.297, 2641.178, 2646.704], "stop_times": [2641.178, 2646.704, 2647.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.297}, "reply_to": "15420__1_056", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_058", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, assume that it did make a difference, whether the statute was constitutional or not?\nWould you say that he would be barred from raising the constitutional question just because he told a lie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2647.63, 2652.569], "stop_times": [2652.569, 2659.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.63}, "reply_to": "15420__1_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15420__1_059", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "No, but I think that\u2019s an entirely different situation.\nAnd that\u2019s the situation that we had in Dennis and the situation here don\u2019t involve it.\nDennis stated in conclusion, the governing principle is that a claim of unconstitutionality will not be heard to excuse a voluntary deliberate and calculated course of fraud and deceit.\nOne who elects such a course as a means of self-help may not escape the consequences by urging the misconduct, the excuse because the statute which he sought to obeyed is unconstitutional.\nAs I\u2019ve indicated, the Government feels that there are policy considerations that support the rational of Denis as well.\nIf the law were otherwise, it seems to me it would be but an open invitation to individuals to seek to circumvent a law but according to comply with it, in the course of which they would commit a violation of the statute such as the False Statement Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2659.348, 2662.523, 2671.478, 2685.588, 2702.779, 2714.414], "stop_times": [2662.523, 2671.478, 2685.588, 2702.779, 2714.414, 2733.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.348}, "reply_to": "15420__1_058", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_060", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Mr. Beytagh, the conviction in this case was for violation of what Titled 18 Section 1001?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2733.89], "stop_times": [2741.044], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.89}, "reply_to": "15420__1_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_061", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2741.044], "stop_times": [2741.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.044}, "reply_to": "15420__1_060", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_062", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Alright, which is not itself 9 (h)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2741.571], "stop_times": [2746.513], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.571}, "reply_to": "15420__1_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_063", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nAs I pointed out earlier that the charge here was not that the petitioner had violated the very statute he seeks to challenge is unconstitutional but in the course of purporting to comply with statute which he now says is unconstitutional.\nHe violated a general statute applicable to a variety of circumstances by falling -- filing a false affidavit.\nOur analogy is that exists in the law apart from Dennis and Kay and Kapp.\nIt\u2019s long been established, this Court held in the Williams case the one who takes the stand and commits perjury in the course of a prosecution later held invalid can be tried for that perjury.\nMoreover, the Government needs statutes like Section 1001 in order to fulfill its varied obligations of obtaining information in order to carryout a variety of programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2746.513, 2748.32, 2767.505, 2778.245, 2786.646, 2804.35], "stop_times": [2748.32, 2767.505, 2778.245, 2786.646, 2804.35, 2818.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.513}, "reply_to": "15420__1_062", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_064", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But you are assuming that, that would apply to all kinds of case this was reference to false statement?\nYou said in order to obtain this necessary information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2818.523, 2827.997], "stop_times": [2827.997, 2830.964], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.523}, "reply_to": "15420__1_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_065", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, Your Honor", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2830.964], "stop_times": [2831.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.964}, "reply_to": "15420__1_064", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_066", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "First Amendment has some rights in the Constitution, didn\u2019t it?\nSubmit and bestow some rights on the people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2831.858, 2835.62], "stop_times": [2835.62, 2838.65], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.858}, "reply_to": "15420__1_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_067", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Of course, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2838.65], "stop_times": [2840.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.65}, "reply_to": "15420__1_066", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_068", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "With reference to exposing their political views?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2840.121], "stop_times": [2845.838], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.121}, "reply_to": "15420__1_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_069", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2845.838], "stop_times": [2846.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2845.838}, "reply_to": "15420__1_068", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_070", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Compelling them to have one political view rather than another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2846.384], "stop_times": [2850.757], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.384}, "reply_to": "15420__1_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_071", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "What we are maintaining Your Honor is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2850.757], "stop_times": [2853.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.757}, "reply_to": "15420__1_070", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_072", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "What was this oath about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2853.465], "stop_times": [2857.571], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.465}, "reply_to": "15420__1_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_073", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "In order to be a member.\nIn order to hold office in the union under the statute that\u2019s been repealed some 10 years ago.\nAn officer had to file an affidavit to the effect that he did not support the Communist Party.\nHe was neither a member nor affiliated with the Communist Party.\nThe purpose of Congress in enacting that provision is what counsel has indicated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2857.571, 2860.21, 2868.982, 2877.698, 2881.702], "stop_times": [2860.21, 2868.982, 2877.698, 2881.702, 2885.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2857.571}, "reply_to": "15420__1_072", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_074", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Suppose he had to make an oath that he was not affiliated with the Republican Party and had not cast the vote for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2885.524], "stop_times": [2894.66], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.524}, "reply_to": "15420__1_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_075", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, I want to be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2894.66], "stop_times": [2895.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.66}, "reply_to": "15420__1_074", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_076", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Will that be required of him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2895.471], "stop_times": [2896.342], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.471}, "reply_to": "15420__1_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_077", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I would have more difficulty with that Your Honor in light of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2896.342], "stop_times": [2898.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.342}, "reply_to": "15420__1_076", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_078", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Why would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2898.734], "stop_times": [2899.572], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.734}, "reply_to": "15420__1_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_079", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Because the Congress --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2899.572], "stop_times": [2900.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2899.572}, "reply_to": "15420__1_078", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_080", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "It was political.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2900.364], "stop_times": [2901.943], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.364}, "reply_to": "15420__1_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_081", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Because the Congress made a number of findings on which it premised its legislative judgment here regarding the nature of the Communist --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2901.943], "stop_times": [2908.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.943}, "reply_to": "15420__1_080", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_082", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But, Congress has made any findings yet that\u2019s for them to concern for justifying and interfering with the man\u2019s political faith in view of the First Amendment, and has -- could not make any violation in my judgment.\nWhat he is trying to do is to challenge prosecuting him from making that statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2908.071, 2921.609], "stop_times": [2921.609, 2926.651], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.071}, "reply_to": "15420__1_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_083", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAm I suggesting that there were ways that he could have properly proceeded to challenge its law but he didn\u2019t do that.\nInstead he filed his affidavit which purported to comply with, which the jury found was false.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2926.651, 2927.201, 2934.805], "stop_times": [2927.201, 2934.805, 2941.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.651}, "reply_to": "15420__1_082", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_084", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "You were trying him for making on his ground.\nYou are trying him for making a statement which could not be required of him constitutionally under the law, and you want to prosecute him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2941.191, 2946.749], "stop_times": [2946.749, 2962.158], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.191}, "reply_to": "15420__1_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_085", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, again Your Honor in the Douds case, the Court held that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2962.158], "stop_times": [2966.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.158}, "reply_to": "15420__1_084", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_086", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Which Douds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2966.337], "stop_times": [2967.591], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.337}, "reply_to": "15420__1_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_087", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "American Communications Association versus Douds decided in 1950 just prior to the filing of this false affidavit held that the statue Section 9 (h) was valid and was constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2967.591], "stop_times": [2981.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.591}, "reply_to": "15420__1_086", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_088", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Do you have to stand on Douds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2981.255], "stop_times": [2983.326], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.255}, "reply_to": "15420__1_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_089", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "No, we don\u2019t have to stand on Douds Your Honor.\nWe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2983.326, 2985.377], "stop_times": [2985.377, 2985.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.326}, "reply_to": "15420__1_088", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_090", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I should think, I wouldn\u2019t want to per se.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2985.589], "stop_times": [2990.562], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.589}, "reply_to": "15420__1_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_091", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, we suggest in our brief that there are ways of distinguishing the Court\u2019s holding in Brown which held the successor statute Section 504 Bland and Griffin invalid.\nWhereas of distinguishing Brown --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [2990.562, 3003.894], "stop_times": [3003.894, 3005.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.562}, "reply_to": "15420__1_090", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_092", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But isn\u2019t your basic proposition Mr. Beytagh, even if Douds was wrong, even if Douds ought to be overruled nevertheless, that\u2019s not the issue that\u2019s involved here.\nThe issue here is whether 9 (h) is constitutional or not?\nEven if it was unconstitutional, we\u2019re dealing with an indictment under the different statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3005.612, 3015.512, 3019.453], "stop_times": [3015.512, 3019.453, 3024.656], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.612}, "reply_to": "15420__1_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_093", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3024.656], "stop_times": [3025.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.656}, "reply_to": "15420__1_092", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_094", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Is that a basic proposition?\nI just wonder why you argue should depend on Douds you don\u2019t have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3025.646, 3027.358], "stop_times": [3027.358, 3030.666], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.646}, "reply_to": "15420__1_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_095", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, I\u2019m seeking to respond to Mr. Justice Black\u2019s inquiry.\nWe\u2019re not willing to concede that Douds has been overruled.\n[Voice Overlap] I would try to rely on the elaboration in our brief far over than anymore at all argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3030.666, 3034.676, 3038.509], "stop_times": [3034.676, 3038.509, 3044.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.666}, "reply_to": "15420__1_094", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_096", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "You\u2019re the one that mentioned Douds.\nI wasn\u2019t the one who mentioned Douds.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3044.461, 3046.075], "stop_times": [3046.075, 3048.548], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.461}, "reply_to": "15420__1_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_097", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But you\u2019re the one who mentioned that the statute was unconstitutional and I suggested that the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3048.548], "stop_times": [3053.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.548}, "reply_to": "15420__1_096", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_098", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, you are the one that mentioned Douds and that\u2019s what you have --[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3053.678], "stop_times": [3056.69], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.678}, "reply_to": "15420__1_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_099", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But Douds --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3056.69], "stop_times": [3057.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.69}, "reply_to": "15420__1_098", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_100", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Now you have to defend it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3057.003], "stop_times": [3058.749], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.003}, "reply_to": "15420__1_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_101", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "But Douds was the case that held to the contrary of your sub-position Your Honor.\nAs Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Brennan have suggested, we feel that petitioner\u2019s convictions should be upheld regardless of whether the Court feels that Douds should be reach de novo rule here or not.\nSection 9 (h) is no longer on the books.\nIt hasn\u2019t been for 10 years.\nPetitioner is asking this Court to reach back and hold unconstitutional statute that Congress itself has repealed some 10 years ago.\nPetitioner also is asking the Court as we understand it to apply the decision in United States versus Brown retroactively.\nHe is not suggesting any compelling reasons for doing so but it seems too soon that that\u2019s been done.\nMoreover, statutes that are enacted and later held invalid or repeal, do have as the Court held in the Chicot County Drainage District case and has held over and over again.\nThey do have an operative effect and they are of some significance for the time that there are in existence?\nIt seems to us that as Mr. Justice Brennan pointed out since there simply is no element of the separate crime of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001, the False Statement Act involved in the matter relating to the validity of Section 9 (h) that petitioner is conviction is a valid one and should be upheld basically has been indicated.\nWe stand on the Dennis rational and we suggest to the Court that the Court of Appeals properly conclude the Dennis controlled here unless this Court is willing to overrule Dennis.\nWe think that petitioner\u2019s conviction was properly upheld below and the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3058.749, 3066.517, 3086.496, 3088.637, 3091.577, 3101.734, 3110.487, 3117.079, 3129.0, 3137.184, 3167.454, 3180.537], "stop_times": [3066.517, 3086.496, 3088.637, 3091.577, 3101.734, 3110.487, 3117.079, 3129.0, 3137.184, 3167.454, 3180.537, 3188.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.749}, "reply_to": "15420__1_100", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_102", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Are you arguing in the -- that Dennis case should be overruled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3188.22], "stop_times": [3192.982], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.22}, "reply_to": "15420__1_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_103", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Of course not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3192.982], "stop_times": [3193.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.982}, "reply_to": "15420__1_102", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_104", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That his contention is still wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3193.655], "stop_times": [3197.77], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.655}, "reply_to": "15420__1_103", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__1_105", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I suggested Your Honor that even if the Dennis case is overruled there are circumstances in this particular situation here which it seems to me don\u2019t warrant the court\u2019s exercise of its power to reach these questions that is raised here.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3197.77, 3213.992], "stop_times": [3213.992, 3215.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3197.77}, "reply_to": "15420__1_104", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15420__1_106", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Thank you Mr. Beytagh.\nMr. Gladstein you have three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3215.678, 3218.914], "stop_times": [3218.914, 3221.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.678}, "reply_to": "15420__1_105", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__2_000", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Your Honor, well I thought I have used all my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3221.444], "stop_times": [3225.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3221.444}, "reply_to": "15420__1_106", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_001", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "You have three minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3225.929], "stop_times": [3227.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.929}, "reply_to": "15420__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__2_002", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I\u2019ll try to take less.\nI think the basic inquiry that I sensed here I hope in our brief, that inquiry is this.\nDoes Congress have to pay attention to the Constitution of the United States?\nCongress makes the laws.\nIt has a right to make laws of general application. It has the right and it does have a duty to pass those laws.\nThey\u2019ve got to be general laws.\nWhat right does Congress have at anytime under any Government --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3227.542, 3232.251, 3242.722, 3247.63, 3250.243, 3258.357, 3260.378], "stop_times": [3232.251, 3242.722, 3247.63, 3250.243, 3258.357, 3260.378, 3264.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3227.542}, "reply_to": "15420__2_001", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_003", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, couldn\u2019t you test --- couldn\u2019t you test out the constitutionality of all those things when you were trying this case, 15 years ago?\nAnd weren\u2019t they passed on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3264.424, 3274.505], "stop_times": [3274.505, 3276.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.424}, "reply_to": "15420__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__2_004", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, I can\u2019t recall Your Honor whether they were all presented.\nI\u2019m sure they were.\nI\u2019m sure they were all rejected in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals.\nIt never were heard here.\nThis Court never granted the position for certiorari.\nCongress passed along that we suggest clearly violated the prohibition against bills of attainder.\nNow, if that\u2019s true.\nIf that law is unconstitutional or for other reasons, First and Fifth Amendments which we argued then it seems to me the threshold inquiry is where you stop to the minute you determine that Congress has offended the Constitution.\nIf that\u2019s true than Congress\u2019 enactment should be nullified and it doesn\u2019t matter at all what the citizen is required to do under the coercion of unconstitutional statute.\nIt was suggested that suppose Congress did this to the Republican Party and counsel said he\u2019d have more trouble.\nBut supposing it is a Socialist Party.\nMr. Justice Jackson in the Douds case have -- have no trouble saying that the Congress can\u2019t do this with the Republican Party of the Democratic Party or the Socialist Party.\nWe know from history that the Socialists were expelled after being lawfully elected to the New York legislature.\nCongress has no more right and the States have no more right to pass a bill that lumps all of the people in a political group no matter what there opinions are and precisely because they\u2019re unorthodox, hated, unpopular, precisely those are entitled to the protections of the bill of attainder in the First Amendment and it must have been for those reasons that the framers of the Constitution put those provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3276.356, 3282.503, 3283.88, 3290.058, 3292.216, 3300.161, 3309.125, 3311.146, 3326.059, 3342.357, 3350.095, 3352.326, 3361.958, 3370.291], "stop_times": [3282.503, 3283.88, 3290.058, 3292.216, 3300.161, 3309.125, 3311.146, 3326.059, 3342.357, 3350.095, 3352.326, 3361.958, 3370.291, 3396.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3276.356}, "reply_to": "15420__2_003", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_005", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Are all that Congress has done in years you say is -- are dealing with the Government and a like?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3396.234], "stop_times": [3403.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.234}, "reply_to": "15420__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15420__2_006", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "No, Your Honor is talking about Section 1001.\nBut this case is based upon the underlying statute of 9 (h).\nWithout Section 9 (h) or some other Section of law, without some other Section of law, 1001 has no meaning in itself.\nCongress can\u2019t just pass a law saying answering any question that anybody ever asked you, you must be connected to some power that Congress has.\nIn this case, utilizing the commerce power or purporting to do so, Congress passed Section 9 (h) and then it simply used as an alternative method of permitting prosecution or enforcement, the use of 1001.\nIt could just as easily have put such a provision in 9 (h).\nIt does it all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3403.03, 3408.442, 3415.013, 3424.46, 3433.698, 3449.64, 3453.486], "stop_times": [3408.442, 3415.013, 3424.46, 3433.698, 3449.64, 3453.486, 3454.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3403.03}, "reply_to": "15420__2_005", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_007", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I don\u2019t think that\u2019s actually the way I\u2019m looking at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3454.846], "stop_times": [3457.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3454.846}, "reply_to": "15420__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15420__2_008", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Why, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3457.39], "stop_times": [3458.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3457.39}, "reply_to": "15420__2_007", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_009", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "All that the Congress has done here is to say irrespective of whether to translate it a little bit.\nIrrespective of whether what they did in Section 9 (h) is good or bad.\nIf you\u2019re living with the Government, you cannot lie to the Government as a means of avoiding Section 9 (h).\nIf you want to attack it, go and attack it the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3458.005, 3460.608, 3472.046, 3481.302], "stop_times": [3460.608, 3472.046, 3481.302, 3483.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3458.005}, "reply_to": "15420__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15420__2_010", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I suggest that the more basic question is that when dealing with its citizens, Congress has no right to enact the statute which deprives them of their constitutional liberties particularly in the field of politics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3483.69], "stop_times": [3497.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3483.69}, "reply_to": "15420__2_009", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_011", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "May I ask you one other question as you heard my brother Harlan suggests.\nSuppose Congress passes a series of laws, as it might well do in some time making you apply all the kinds of relief with reference to your political leads and persuasions and what you\u2019ve done, is the man then to be denied the privilege of challenging at law on the ground that he lied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3497.597, 3504.003], "stop_times": [3504.003, 3531.501], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.597}, "reply_to": "15420__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__2_012", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "That\u2019s what they say and if this Court should ever close its doors in that kind of a situation, then the Constitution would have lost its vitality for many, many people in the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3531.501], "stop_times": [3545.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3531.501}, "reply_to": "15420__2_011", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_013", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "I think it\u2019s pretty broad statement.\nThat would suppose the Government\u2019s position would be the same on Mr. Justice Black\u2019s hypothetical?\nIt passes the law, it violates the First Amendment and the prosecution is lying about to an agency that has jurisdiction whether it\u2019s a Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Communist Party or anything else.\nCongress has long been inspiring doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3545.397, 3547.079, 3553.87, 3572.791], "stop_times": [3547.079, 3553.87, 3572.791, 3574.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3545.397}, "reply_to": "15420__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15420__2_014", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan haven\u2019t you assumed part of -- in your statement when you said an agency that has jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3574.966], "stop_times": [3581.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3574.966}, "reply_to": "15420__2_013", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_015", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, I was thinking jurisdiction in the broad sense punitive, colorable jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3581.058], "stop_times": [3588.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3581.058}, "reply_to": "15420__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15420__2_016", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, it is my contention that there just isn\u2019t any jurisdiction if the statute upon which power is being exerted is itself violated with the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3588.737], "stop_times": [3601.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3588.737}, "reply_to": "15420__2_015", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_017", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "May I suggest to you that if Congress can do that whenever it gets heated up over some political question, it has a way to set millions of traps for citizens who ought not to be convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3601.184], "stop_times": [3616.75], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3601.184}, "reply_to": "15420__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15420__2_018", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "All that history shows that the bills of attainder in England and in the colonies were precisely used and that\u2019s the one distinguishing feature about them.\nThey were all politically inspired and utilized against political groups.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3616.75, 3626.415], "stop_times": [3626.415, 3631.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3616.75}, "reply_to": "15420__2_017", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_019", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Is there anything Mr. Gladstein in any of these hypothetical situations that you have suggested that would prevent a citizen from challenging the constitutionality on First Amendment grounds or any other grounds when he refused to comply with the law, anything at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3631.177], "stop_times": [3652.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3631.177}, "reply_to": "15420__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15420__2_020", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Well, this Court has reviewed cases of both types in Unites States against Brown to show their unconstitutionality, but here of course, we\u2019re told by counsel that a year before my client filed the affidavit, this Court had held that 9 (h) was constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3652.647], "stop_times": [3674.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3652.647}, "reply_to": "15420__2_019", "speaker": "richard_gladstein"}
{"id": "15420__2_021", "conversation_id": "15420", "text": "Fine.\nThank you.\nMr. Gladstein and Mr. Beytagh, we thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_35", "start_times": [3674.884, 3675.691, 3676.595, 3680.434], "stop_times": [3675.691, 3676.595, 3680.434, 3682.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3674.884}, "reply_to": "15420__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_000", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Byrne against Karalexis, Mr. Quinn you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [7.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_001", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis matter is here on appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court, for the district of Massachusetts, under the provisions of 28 United States Code 1253.\nThat provides for direct appeal from an order or judgment of a three-judge court granting temporary injunctive relief against enforcement of a state statute.\nIn our view, this appeal presents two equally important issues, which ought to be finally resolved by this Court.\nThe first is whether the court below abused its discretion in enjoining the district attorney from prosecuting in the future on account of the showing of the film, \u201cI am Curious Yellow,\u201d which the court below assumed to be obscene.\nThe second is whether under this Court\u2019s holding in Stanley versus Georgia, any state can constitutionally prohibit public, commercialized dissemination of pornographic matter, absent distribution to minors, non-consenting adults, or by pandering.\nThe facts maybe stated briefly as follows: On June 30, 1969, after preliminary proceedings not relevant here, the appellees filed an amended complaint in the court below, alleging reason to believe that indictments would be sought against them, by appellant Byrnes office, under Massachusetts general laws, Chapter 272, Section 28 (a).\nShortly thereafter, the indictments were in fact sought and returned.\nAppellees saw the declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and that injunction against prosecution there under.\nThey alleged the statute was overbroad, because among other things, adequately controlled commercial distribution of obscene material is protected by the First Amendment.\nThe court declined to grant injunctive or other relief, but requested briefs on the questions regarding the scope of this Court\u2019s holding, in Stanley versus Georgia.\nAnd the effect of that opinion on the Massachusetts Statute, prosecution continued in the state court, in a jury waived session and the appellees were convicted.\nFollowing their conviction, the appellees renewed their request for injunctive relief.\nAfter further argument, a majority of the court below held that Stanley versus Georgia went so far as to prohibit state prosecutions, with respect to adequately controlled public distribution of obscene material.\nAnd the court decided that the Massachusetts Statute was probably unconstitutional as being overbroad on its face.\nBased on this opinion, a majority of the court below enjoined the appellants from further prosecution with respect to showing of the film, I\u2019m Curious Yellow.\u201d\nThis matter was argued before this honorable Court on April 38th and subsequently ordered for re-argument.\nIn the meantime, the appellees\u2019 appeal was entered in the State Court.\nOral argument in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has been delayed, pending a motion for postponement filed by the appellees here.\nI address myself first to the question, whether the court below abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief.\nComity and federalism prompt a federal judge to be extremely reluctant to enjoin good faith enforcement of a state\u2019s criminal laws by that state's law enforcement officials.\nWhat have we here to contravene that fundamental principle?\nNo monetary loss.\nThere is no evidence whatsoever of any financial loss on the part of appellees here.\nThey had no proprietary interest in the subject matter.\nThey\u2019re not the owners of a film.\nRather they own a movie house.\nThere's no chilling effect either on the appelles or their patrons.\nThese are not politically hand bills, but commercial pornography.\nAssumptively in the court below and after a finding in a trial, a subject matter assumed to be obscene, we submit.\nAll the more so is subject matter found in a trial below to be obscene, cannot be said to have any value within itself.\nThis film further showed for five-and-a-half months, pending the argument on the merits and the decision of obscenity on the facts, in a trial, in the Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts.\nWe\u2019ve been only able to find one instance, where this Court approved relief granted against a state law enforcement official.\nThat is of course, the decision in Dombrowski versus Pfister in 380 United States 479.\nThe Dombrowski case was a matter of civil rights advocacy.\nIt's record is replete with incidence of bad faith, for example night raids, made by law enforcement officials on the offices and the homes of individuals involved.\nWe have none of that here.\nHere we have first of all, activity whose dominant theme is offensive to community standards of morality, whose appeal is to a prurient interest in sex, whose content is utterly without redeeming social value.\nHere we have no bad faith, either on the record, or argued below on the part of the prosecution or law enforcement officials.\nThis has been a single case, pursued by the district attorney in Suffolk County, in the course of his work as the elected district attorney of the people, pursued while the film showing by the appellees in their theater continued for five-and-a-half months.\nHere, we submit is a classic example for the application of the principle of abstention.\nIf the statute, Chapter 272, Section 28 (a) of the Massachusetts General Laws, should be overbroad, and we do not concede this, that\u2019s fault here can be overcome by leaving the case to be resolved in the state court.\nAnd by giving the state court the opportunity to narrowly construe the law and thus, avoid any constitutional defect.\nThis can be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [7.948, 15.775, 20.565, 35.536, 47.082, 56.429, 74.943, 97.325, 123.568, 130.002, 138.575, 151.684, 163.506, 176.857, 182.416, 199.962, 209.525, 221.602, 229.432, 234.753, 244.28, 254.027, 268.716, 274.076, 276.325, 282.161, 285.269, 287.675, 291.439, 296.362, 302.263, 314.308, 325.172, 339.55, 350.825, 359.219, 364.114, 376.081, 378.714, 396.661, 407.4, 430.388, 437.643, 454.868, 465.427], "stop_times": [15.775, 20.565, 35.536, 47.082, 56.429, 74.943, 97.325, 123.568, 130.002, 138.575, 151.684, 163.506, 176.857, 182.416, 199.962, 209.525, 221.602, 229.432, 234.753, 244.28, 254.027, 268.716, 274.076, 276.325, 282.161, 285.269, 287.675, 291.439, 296.362, 302.263, 314.308, 325.172, 339.55, 350.825, 359.219, 364.114, 376.081, 378.714, 396.661, 407.4, 430.388, 437.643, 454.868, 465.427, 466.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.948}, "reply_to": "14912__0_000", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_002", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What is the status of the proceedings if any, in the state courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [466.296], "stop_times": [471.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.296}, "reply_to": "14912__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_003", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The proceedings below have been staid, Your Honor, pending or are subsequent to a motion by the appellees that the oral argument on this case be postponed until the decision in this Court was made on the issue of obscenity, generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [471.52], "stop_times": [486.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.52}, "reply_to": "14912__0_002", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_004", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "There was a conviction in the Suffolk County Superior Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [486.585], "stop_times": [490.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 486.585}, "reply_to": "14912__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_005", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "There was a conviction in Suffolk County Superior Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [490.225], "stop_times": [492.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.225}, "reply_to": "14912__0_004", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_006", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "And then an appeal to the highest court of your state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [492.45], "stop_times": [493.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.45}, "reply_to": "14912__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_007", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Appeal was prosecuted to the highest court of the state, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, that argument, I believe would have been made orally before the court in the first week of October, but sometime in September, I think September 16th, the motion was filed by the appellees here for postponement.\nPostponement on the issue of whether obscenity can be proscribed any longer by any state court, a decision by this Court and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [493.564, 510.238], "stop_times": [510.238, 518.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.564}, "reply_to": "14912__0_006", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_008", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Postponement of the oral argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [518.716], "stop_times": [521.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.716}, "reply_to": "14912__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_009", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Postponement of the oral argument, as far as that is concerned and we assent that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [521.13], "stop_times": [525.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.13}, "reply_to": "14912__0_008", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_010", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Postponement on the entire oral argument, I gather, wasn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [525.706], "stop_times": [528.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.706}, "reply_to": "14912__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_011", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019s what the Honorable Court decided that if there was going to be any postponement at all, it would be a postponement of the complete oral argument.\nThey would not separate the issues involved in one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [528.457, 534.603], "stop_times": [534.603, 538.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.457}, "reply_to": "14912__0_010", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_012", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "And so that\u2019s -- is that by formal order of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [538.012], "stop_times": [544.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.012}, "reply_to": "14912__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_013", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I believe it has been by formal order, Your Honor.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [544.352, 546.419], "stop_times": [546.419, 546.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.352}, "reply_to": "14912__0_012", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_014", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Postponed pending a decision by this Court, in this case?\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [546.811, 551.019], "stop_times": [551.019, 551.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.811}, "reply_to": "14912__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_015", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Yes sir, on the motion of the appellees here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [551.62], "stop_times": [554.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.62}, "reply_to": "14912__0_014", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_016", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Did you resist the motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [554.672], "stop_times": [556.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.672}, "reply_to": "14912__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_017", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "We did not, we assented to the motion provided that the issues not be divided, but the case be taken as a whole.\nWe had no objection either to arguing the total case as a whole in October or to postponing the oral argument on the total case, until some decision should be made by this Honorable Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [556.104, 561.97], "stop_times": [561.97, 571.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.104}, "reply_to": "14912__0_016", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_018", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "But was there anything in the order of the -- or action of the three-judge United States District Court or in any order or action of this Court that prohibited the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts from proceeding to a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [571.606], "stop_times": [588.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.606}, "reply_to": "14912__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_019", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "None whatsoever Your Honor.\nOnly the motion affirming the action taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [588.292, 590.055], "stop_times": [590.055, 592.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.292}, "reply_to": "14912__0_018", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_020", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Its own independent action on motion of the appellees here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [592.826], "stop_times": [594.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.826}, "reply_to": "14912__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_021", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nAnd I respectfully submit that on notice by both parties, I think that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would schedule a case for oral argument at the earliest convenient date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [594.125, 595.431], "stop_times": [595.431, 607.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.125}, "reply_to": "14912__0_020", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_022", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "They do if what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [607.174], "stop_times": [609.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.174}, "reply_to": "14912__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_023", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think that if pending a visit by the appelles and the appellants here, to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the Court would immediately schedule that case for oral argument there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [609.616], "stop_times": [621.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.616}, "reply_to": "14912__0_022", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_024", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I understand as of now, the oral argument has been postponed, until after the decision of this Court, in these proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [621.936], "stop_times": [628.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.936}, "reply_to": "14912__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__0_025", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [628.368], "stop_times": [630.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.368}, "reply_to": "14912__0_024", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_026", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "May I ask you another question, Mr. Quinn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [630.476], "stop_times": [632.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.476}, "reply_to": "14912__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_027", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [632.042], "stop_times": [633.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.042}, "reply_to": "14912__0_026", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_028", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Does the record in this case show any proffer on the part of the State of Massachusetts of evidence tending to show pandering by the type of advertising used, advertising to help this film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [633.246], "stop_times": [650.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.246}, "reply_to": "14912__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_029", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "It does not Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [650.94], "stop_times": [652.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.94}, "reply_to": "14912__0_028", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_030", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Does it show anything in the nature of evidence that in fact, minors were not excluded, that there was no good faith effort to keep them from attending?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [652.484], "stop_times": [667.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.484}, "reply_to": "14912__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_031", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "It does not Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [667.76], "stop_times": [669.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.76}, "reply_to": "14912__0_030", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_032", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You were going narrowly on this one central issue, independent of it \u2013 the pandering or access of minors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [669.743], "stop_times": [680.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.743}, "reply_to": "14912__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_033", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That is correct Your Honor, on whether as I've said in the second issue, to be considered by the Court, whether under the Court\u2019s holding in Stanley versus Georgia, any state can constitutionally prohibit the public commercialized dissemination of pornographic matter, without any consideration to this distribution being to minors, or non-consenting adults or by pandering.\nAnd I have addressed myself to the first argument, which I believe is basic to my appearance before this Honorable Court, that of whether the court below abused its discretion in enjoining the district attorney from prosecuting in the future on account of showing of a film, which has been adjudged by a competent court as obscene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [680.288, 701.707], "stop_times": [701.707, 724.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.288}, "reply_to": "14912__0_032", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_034", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Unless if you\u2019re -- what you\u2019re saying on this will never get in to the merits of the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [724.945], "stop_times": [729.92], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 724.945}, "reply_to": "14912__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14912__0_035", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That is true your Honor, unless the court in its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [729.92], "stop_times": [731.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.92}, "reply_to": "14912__0_034", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_036", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019d be the merits on the Bill not from the Maryland case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [731.711], "stop_times": [734.559], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 731.711}, "reply_to": "14912__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14912__0_037", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think last week, this Honorable Court heard a lot of arguments on the merits of that film and on the issue of proscribing obscenity, that\u2019s correct, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI have suggested that in this case pending, we have the classic example for the application of the principle of abstention, by this Court.\nWe further submit that if Chapter 272, Section 28 (a), should be read to be overbroad in the light of the most recent decisions of this Court, in Stanley versus Georgia, that that fault could be overcome by a decision and by a narrow construction made in that decision, by our Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the single case, now pending before the Court.\nThis would avoid the constitutional defect.\nAnd it would further avoid any possible irritant to the federal state relationship, which is a matter of grave concern to this Court, and a matter of grave concern to all of us in the field of Criminal Justice Administration in the United States of America.\nWere we to assume that the statutory validity of the Massachusetts law is affected by Stanley versus Georgia?\nWe think this Court ought to leave for the state and its court to interpret and to limit the application of the state statute, within that holding of Stanley versus Georgia.\nSimilarly, as this Honorable Court itself has subsequently limited the application of Stanley versus Georgia.\nMy brother, the Solicitor General will discuss the substance of the second issue, which we have touched upon in the questions put before me, that relating to the constitutional right of any state or any government to proscribe obscenity within the framework of the First Amendment to our United States Constitution.\nI respectfully submit again that this Court has heard many arguments on this issue that during this term, as well as the term before.\nAnd I will leave the burden of that argument to my brother, the Solicitor General.\nFor these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the judgment below should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [734.559, 745.417, 758.501, 784.692, 787.905, 809.529, 819.179, 833.068, 844.341, 866.648, 876.302, 882.418], "stop_times": [745.417, 758.501, 784.692, 787.905, 809.529, 819.179, 833.068, 844.341, 866.648, 876.302, 882.418, 889.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.559}, "reply_to": "14912__0_036", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_038", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you Mr. Quinn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [889.28], "stop_times": [890.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.28}, "reply_to": "14912__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__0_039", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [890.516], "stop_times": [891.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.516}, "reply_to": "14912__0_038", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__0_040", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Strauss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [891.988], "stop_times": [904.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.988}, "reply_to": "14912__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_000", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nAs the Court knows, the government appears here today only with respect to the issues in this case, involving the meaning of its decision two terms ago in Stanley versus Georgia and as the Court knows that decision has led to a good deal of ferment in this general area, including the invalidation of two central federal statutes, which we shall be appearing here later in the term to defend.\nThe facts of Stanley and we think are significant.\nThe police almost by accident searching through an individual\u2019s home for other purposes came upon three reels of motion pictures and some other items, which no one knew were there, looked through those films and concluded that they were obscene, arrested Mr. Stanley for possession of obscene matter, under Georgia\u2019s statute, which permitted punishment for that purpose.\nThe case came here and the Court held and what I think was carefully limited language that the mere possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime.\nThat formula -- excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [904.958, 909.259, 942.842, 946.326, 976.851, 988.232], "stop_times": [909.259, 942.842, 946.326, 976.851, 988.232, 989.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 904.958}, "reply_to": "14912__0_040", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_001", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Was there any showing in the Stanley case that the possession had been for or was intended for commercial profit, public showing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [989.528], "stop_times": [1001.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.528}, "reply_to": "14912__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_002", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "None whatsoever, to us the central fact and Stanley really was the very accidental nature.\nNo one knew that Mr. Stanley had that material or certainly no one in the general public knew that before it was discovered by happenstance in his desk.\nWell, it's not quite happenstance, the officers were there searching for other materials.\nThey certainly didn\u2019t expect to find that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1001.379, 1007.559, 1016.79, 1021.348], "stop_times": [1007.559, 1016.79, 1021.348, 1026.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1001.379}, "reply_to": "14912__1_001", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_003", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "So that the issue of public showing or pandering by advertising before public showing were not involved in the Stanley case at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1026.246], "stop_times": [1037.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.246}, "reply_to": "14912__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_004", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I don\u2019t think it's necessary, Mr. Chief Justice, to go so far to be as gentle with Stanley as to say that the issue of pandering wasn\u2019t in that case.\nI would put it the issue of public knowledge was not in that case.\nAnd this Court, I think was quite careful in its statement, regarding that case, to indicate that it was simply a matter of private possession that was before and that that was all that the holding meant.\nLower courts however, have not been so minded about the opinion.\nThere is as the Court knows and I'm sure this Court feels that a good deal of impatience about this very troublesome issue of obscenity.\nAnd there are in the opinion here and there remarks which could be take in the way that court below here has taken them.\nThat if one is careful, if one restricts access to the movie to those who want to see it.\nAnd to those who are adult enough, so that ordinary parens patriae, considerations do not come into effect.\nAnd if one doesn\u2019t offend sensibilities by advertising, well, then one has a constitutional right to show the movie, to commercially exploit it.\nAnd again, since the Chief Justice has brought it up, I want to stress that we aren\u2019t talking here about commercial exploitation, in the sense of the Ginsburg case in a pandering sense, simply public sale, unadorned by any kind of special attention on the hypothesis of this case to the sexual aspects or the sexually provocative aspects of the film.\nI should like to start my discussion a little way off in the obscenity question, but in a way that I think again, calls attention to this central character of public knowledge of what's going on.\nLet us suppose that a traveling carnival should come to Washington.\nSetup tents, which are perfectly well enclosed and screened from public view and announce that in those tents, for those who wish to pay and come and see it, there will be a bearbaiting contest in which five dogs and a chained bear will be set against each other, until some or all of the participants are dead.\nLet's suppose that that could be done in perfect safety for all of the viewers.\nI think that it maybe perfectly clear that no one would leave that tent to commit an act of violence.\nAnd I think it may also be clear that no one who would wish not to see the scene in the tent would be forced to do so.\nBut I submit it's also clear that the community to which that carnival came could prohibit it, if it were so minded, and that\u2019s a public policy question on which all might not agree.\nBut, I think if the community decided to prohibit that show, it could do so.\nThe distress which is caused to those who don\u2019t come, but who know what's going to go on in the tent, who know for a certainty what will appear and that is a very real distress.\nThe long term brutalization of society, which the society may fear will result.\nThe strain on social fabric through public tolerance of what is to many members of that society utterly repellent.\nAll of these factors would seem to me to justify such regulation.\nIt has never been held that society lacks power to protect the sensibilities or to deal with these occurrences, that it must not only tolerate, but in a meaningful sense legitimize these activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1037.972, 1050.37, 1058.703, 1071.446, 1077.44, 1086.029, 1095.92, 1103.486, 1110.781, 1121.075, 1146.136, 1159.053, 1163.556, 1187.632, 1193.858, 1202.137, 1210.772, 1223.553, 1228.747, 1242.02, 1247.664, 1257.441, 1262.089], "stop_times": [1050.37, 1058.703, 1071.446, 1077.44, 1086.029, 1095.92, 1103.486, 1110.781, 1121.075, 1146.136, 1159.053, 1163.556, 1187.632, 1193.858, 1202.137, 1210.772, 1223.553, 1228.747, 1242.02, 1247.664, 1257.441, 1262.089, 1277.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1037.972}, "reply_to": "14912__1_003", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_005", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Do you think your hypothetical would be quite so clear, if it were shown inside the tent or a movie of a bearbaiting contest or are you going to be getting to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1277.959], "stop_times": [1287.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.959}, "reply_to": "14912__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_006", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Yes, I think it would be as clear.\nIt's inconceivable to me that the court would extend less protection to a theatrical performance than it does to film, just because the performance happened to be live, rather than preserved on acetate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1287.077, 1289.771], "stop_times": [1289.771, 1301.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1287.077}, "reply_to": "14912__1_005", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_007", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I suppose community, most communities do, make bank robbery a criminal offense.\nBut, would a movie showing a bank robbery be a criminal offense -- an offense on the part of the television producer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1301.757, 1306.829], "stop_times": [1306.829, 1314.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.757}, "reply_to": "14912__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_008", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No, but neither would a stage production.\nIn a bank robbery, I think and I tried to select the hypothetical carefully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1314.223, 1319.504], "stop_times": [1319.504, 1322.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1314.223}, "reply_to": "14912__1_007", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_009", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "We\u2019re talking about the bears and dogs killing each other, aren\u2019t we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1322.522], "stop_times": [1326.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.522}, "reply_to": "14912__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_010", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019s right, well that no offense against the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1326.046], "stop_times": [1330.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1326.046}, "reply_to": "14912__1_009", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_011", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "So, it's not an offense, you hypothesized [Voice Overlap]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1330.052], "stop_times": [1332.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.052}, "reply_to": "14912__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_012", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "For the bears and the dogs.\nExcuse me, for the bears and the dogs, they commit no crime.\nThere is this offense of cruelty to animals, which I think is what you're referring to.\nBut I think that is an entirely analogous offense to the obscenity offense.\nIt is an offense designed to protect human sensibilities.\nThe dogs and the bears that may survive the fighting aren\u2019t in any sense punished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1332.13, 1334.476, 1339.009, 1344.335, 1349.458, 1353.386], "stop_times": [1334.476, 1339.009, 1344.335, 1349.458, 1353.386, 1360.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1332.13}, "reply_to": "14912__1_011", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_013", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What about Bonnie and Clyde?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1360.878], "stop_times": [1364.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.878}, "reply_to": "14912__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_014", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1364.48], "stop_times": [1365.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1364.48}, "reply_to": "14912__1_013", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_015", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Is that offensive to some people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1365.47], "stop_times": [1367.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.47}, "reply_to": "14912__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_016", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think my answer is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1367.863], "stop_times": [1368.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1367.863}, "reply_to": "14912__1_015", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_017", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Isn\u2019t that offensive to most people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1368.874], "stop_times": [1371.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1368.874}, "reply_to": "14912__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_018", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I wouldn\u2019t say Justice Marshall, and I suppose it's not really important to do so, as I just stated, I don\u2019t think it would make any difference, whatsoever, if Bonnie and Clyde were presented on the stage, rather than in the form of a movie picture, that\u2019s part of my point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1371.906], "stop_times": [1393.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1371.906}, "reply_to": "14912__1_017", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_019", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Do you think a state could ban it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1393.549], "stop_times": [1397.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.549}, "reply_to": "14912__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_020", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I don\u2019t think it's necessary for me to say so.\nI personally wouldn\u2019t think so, but I don\u2019t think that\u2019s important here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1397.172, 1399.114], "stop_times": [1399.114, 1402.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1397.172}, "reply_to": "14912__1_019", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_021", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You don\u2019t see any problem with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1402.531], "stop_times": [1406.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.531}, "reply_to": "14912__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_022", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I'm afraid I don\u2019t see the direction--I don\u2019t see what you're getting at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1406.09], "stop_times": [1410.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1406.09}, "reply_to": "14912__1_021", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_023", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, if I understand you're at the point of saying that obscenity is against the people in the communities, morals, customs, and beliefs.\nAnd I'm really asking you, is Bonnie and Clyde also in that category?\nThat\u2019s only the point I\u2019m making, trying to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1410.952, 1422.44, 1428.768], "stop_times": [1422.44, 1428.768, 1434.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.952}, "reply_to": "14912__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_024", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I suppose such statutes have been generally thought to be more difficult to administer, without saying whether it was Bonnie and Clyde, in particular, I suppose if there were a statute, which could be sufficiently, carefully drawn as to which one could make the conclusion that was made in Roth, regarding obscenity legislation that it is not vague that a state could indeed prohibit the screen depiction of certain forms of carnage, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1434.678], "stop_times": [1471.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1434.678}, "reply_to": "14912__1_023", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_025", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1471.589], "stop_times": [1473.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.589}, "reply_to": "14912__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__1_026", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1473.176], "stop_times": [1475.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1473.176}, "reply_to": "14912__1_025", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_027", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Strauss, going back to this other earlier question, are there some forms of conduct, which if they occur in private are completely innocent and protected, but if performed in public are not protected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1475.582], "stop_times": [1497.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.582}, "reply_to": "14912__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_028", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think that\u2019s the matter of the Court, at least the forms of conduct that are coming to mind maybe a matter that the court hasn\u2019t yet decided.\nI may say, it maybe my fault, I have the feeling of having gotten into somewhat of an alley.\nI am not trying to draw any distinction here between conduct on the one hand and representations of conduct on the other hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1497.931, 1507.14, 1515.911], "stop_times": [1507.14, 1515.911, 1525.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1497.931}, "reply_to": "14912__1_027", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_029", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, my question is, precisely, precisely directed at that, now, perfectly simple example is that it's entirely proper and highly desirable to take a shower.\nAnd you might find yourself arrested, if you took shower in the center of Pennsylvania Avenue, is that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1525.727, 1541.442], "stop_times": [1541.442, 1546.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.727}, "reply_to": "14912__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_030", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Certainly true, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1546.046], "stop_times": [1548.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1546.046}, "reply_to": "14912__1_029", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_031", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Now, if you, on the other hand, you cannot rob a bank either in private or in public, with impunity can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1548.012], "stop_times": [1555.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.012}, "reply_to": "14912__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_032", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "In terms of actual robbing of the bank, of course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1555.117], "stop_times": [1557.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1555.117}, "reply_to": "14912__1_031", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_033", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The robbing of the bank is subject to penal sanctions, whether you do it in the utmost of privacy in the middle of the night or at high noon with a number of spectators.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1557.738], "stop_times": [1570.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.738}, "reply_to": "14912__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_034", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "There are many who tried to do it in private.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1570.024], "stop_times": [1571.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1570.024}, "reply_to": "14912__1_033", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_035", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "So, that makes quite a difference between bank robbery and some of these other things, doesn\u2019t it, the taking of a shower on Pennsylvania Avenue at high noon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1571.523], "stop_times": [1582.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.523}, "reply_to": "14912__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_036", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Surely, it does.\nI had a different impression of what had been troubling the other Justices.\nI think I can say no more to it and it maybe in a sense twisting the Court\u2019s language in Reynolds and Sims.\nThe Court said that legislatures represent the people, not houses or trees, or I might add dogs or bears.\nAnd in giving that hypothetical, it seems to me that if one thinks about it carefully, one would reach the conclusion that those laws are there not to make the behavior of the dogs and bears criminal, but to protect certain human sensibilities.\nAnd this is an area of traditional regulation, just as obscenity regulation.\nIt's an area of traditional regulation, and one then does get to the question, is it important that this on film as distinct to in a live performance?\nAnd I think the answer there is no, it is not.\nThis Court\u2019s opinion last year in Shack gave no indication that it would have reached the different question, would have reached the different conclusion, had that been a film the Gorilla Theater episode, rather than a Gorilla Theater episode.\nIndeed, if anything film performances can be even more intrusive in a sense to the society\u2019s sensibilities in a way one has to deal with--in a stage production.\nOne has to deal with a situation which is necessarily human and in a real sense remote.\nThere's only so close that you can get to the stage.\nIn a film performance with the possibilities of staging, close ups and what have you.\nBut these difficulties or I think really very substantially aggravated.\nWhen we come to the question how we\u2019re going to understand Stanley.\nThe government believes that the Court meant what it said, when it said that Stanley was a holding limited to its fact.\nAnd it did not impair the validity of Roth for any commercial setting, as we\u2019ve called the Court\u2019s attention before.\nAnd there is much reference in that opinion to notions of privacy and freedoms from intrusion and we feel those references are central.\nAnd the opinions quotes at length from Mr. Justice Brandeis\u2019s dissent in Olmstead.\nIt refers to the Griswold opinion, Griswold versus Connecticut, where the court put it this way.\nThe present case concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy, created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.\nAnd it concerns a law, which in forbidding the use of contraceptive, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum disruptive impact upon that relationship.\nStanley is an entirely similar case.\nIt is a case in which the state sought to regulate in a manner having a maximum destructive impact and this Court, I think quite properly said that it might not do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1582.159, 1584.315, 1594.947, 1604.392, 1612.285, 1625.729, 1630.091, 1638.526, 1642.055, 1658.802, 1675.967, 1681.772, 1684.931, 1689.994, 1696.317, 1701.042, 1707.193, 1714.806, 1724.919, 1731.591, 1737.061, 1745.61, 1760.015, 1764.163], "stop_times": [1584.315, 1594.947, 1604.392, 1612.285, 1625.729, 1630.091, 1638.526, 1642.055, 1658.802, 1675.967, 1681.772, 1684.931, 1689.994, 1696.317, 1701.042, 1707.193, 1714.806, 1724.919, 1731.591, 1737.061, 1745.61, 1760.015, 1764.163, 1778.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1582.159}, "reply_to": "14912__1_035", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_037", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "On what provision of the United States Constitution do you understand the Stanley decision to have been based?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1778.201], "stop_times": [1784.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.201}, "reply_to": "14912__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_038", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think there are three basically.\nThere are two, which were expressed, the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and the third, which was not expressed, the Fourth Amendment.\nAnd I think the Fourth Amendment centrality is made clear by the reference to Olmstead, by the reference to notions of privacy, that the stress really on privacy as a coordinate part of the opinion in that case.\nIn a way I think it's central to the Stanley opinion, that unlike the other obscenity decisions in this Court, the opinion does not talk about the material.\nThe opinion refers to the rights of the person and not to the protected character of the material or not.\nAnd when one starts talking about the individual rather than what he may have and the individual's First Amendment rights, it wasn\u2019t that the material was protected under the First Amendment, but that the individual had First Amendment rights.\nThen it becomes, I think clear that what we are dealing with.\nAgain, citation to Griswold is a kind of penumbral analysis, which we try and set out in our brief, that to protect the individual\u2019s rights to read, to learn, it is necessary to afford a kind of penumbral protection in which the matters which may not contain information, may not contain ideas are nonetheless ignored.\nAnd again, I think the Court was very careful, while it did refer to a right to receive information and ideas.\nIt never once said that the material, which he had was material which contained information and ideas.\nIf it had said that, then it would\u2019ve been saying that that material had First Amendment protection.\nIt didn\u2019t say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1784.665, 1787.689, 1796.025, 1813.797, 1825.749, 1835.587, 1851.251, 1855.384, 1882.981, 1889.246, 1895.832, 1900.407], "stop_times": [1787.689, 1796.025, 1813.797, 1825.749, 1835.587, 1851.251, 1855.384, 1882.981, 1889.246, 1895.832, 1900.407, 1901.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1784.665}, "reply_to": "14912__1_037", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_039", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I don\u2019t have the opinion in front of me, so I'm relying on my recollection, but would you disagree that so far as explicit articulation went at least, the decision was bottomed on the First Amendment, made applicable to the State of Georgia, at least for the Fourteenth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1901.748], "stop_times": [1922.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.748}, "reply_to": "14912__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_040", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1922.251], "stop_times": [1923.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1922.251}, "reply_to": "14912__1_039", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_041", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Isn\u2019t that what the court said?[Voice Overlap]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1923.236], "stop_times": [1925.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.236}, "reply_to": "14912__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_042", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I would have to agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1925.861], "stop_times": [1926.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1925.861}, "reply_to": "14912__1_041", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_043", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Specific supervision of the United States Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1926.658], "stop_times": [1930.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.658}, "reply_to": "14912__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_044", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I would have to agree that Fourth Amendment was not mentioned.\nWhen however--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1930.016, 1933.374], "stop_times": [1933.374, 1933.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1930.016}, "reply_to": "14912__1_043", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_045", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "But, in the First Amendment was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1933.812], "stop_times": [1935.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.812}, "reply_to": "14912__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_046", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "And the First Amendment was, when--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1935.042], "stop_times": [1936.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1935.042}, "reply_to": "14912__1_045", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_047", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "And mentioned as rather euphemism.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1936.479], "stop_times": [1938.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.479}, "reply_to": "14912__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__1_048", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "When however privacy of the home, notions of privacy are referred to as frequently as they were in that opinion.\nOne must believe that the Fourth Amendment was involved.\nAnd in any event, when the opinions so carefully discusses the right of the individual, rather than the nature of the material.\nI think one must be quite clear that the holding was not holding, that these materials were in any sense protected by the First Amendment.\nAnd it was a holding that the individual, in his home was protected by the First Amendment.\nAnd that to us is really central.\nMr. Stanley did not advertise to the world what he had in his bedroom.\nAs the facts of the case show, the police had no reason to suspect what they might find.\nHe kept it private, as long as he did so, society could claim no greater interest in what was there, than the supervision of his own personal morals.\nThat this Court said was not enough, and I think the court was quite plainly correct in doing so.\nBut, here there's no such privacy.\nAppellees proclaimed to the world what maybe seen in the theater, however discretely they may do it.\nAnd that notoriety in itself changes the issue from an issue of private morality to an issue of public morality.\nBecause the contents of the film and its location are known to the public, the government must not only tolerate, but in an important sense, legitimize that film.\nAnd if the film is obscene and now we have to talk about the First Amendment protection of the materials, not the man, if the film is obscene, we submit that government can't be required to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1938.888, 1948.235, 1951.709, 1961.125, 1968.816, 1974.533, 1977.327, 1982.44, 1987.472, 1998.413, 2004.931, 2006.844, 2013.098, 2020.249, 2030.753], "stop_times": [1948.235, 1951.709, 1961.125, 1968.816, 1974.533, 1977.327, 1982.44, 1987.472, 1998.413, 2004.931, 2006.844, 2013.098, 2020.249, 2030.753, 2043.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1938.888}, "reply_to": "14912__1_047", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_049", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What you're saying I take it is, that if the same film that we\u2019re dealing with here is possessed by private persons in their homes with no indications that they had it for commercial purposes that it would be completely protected under Stanley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2043.459], "stop_times": [2060.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.459}, "reply_to": "14912__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_050", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Those persons would be completely protected under Stanley.\nThe film would not be protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2060.695, 2063.251], "stop_times": [2063.251, 2064.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2060.695}, "reply_to": "14912__1_049", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_051", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, but if the persons were, they can't reach the film as long as it remains in the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2064.733], "stop_times": [2070.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.733}, "reply_to": "14912__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_052", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, that\u2019s true, but while these matters are subtle, I think that one has to be very careful just because of the risk of the kind of emanations, which one finds in the lower court opinions today.\nThe lower courts, rather carelessly I think have treated that opinion is going to the material.\nI'm treating the opinion as going to the material, they have said, well, if an individual can have the material, then somebody has to have the right to sell it to him, and therefore, as long as he sells it to whom in a proper way, everything is alright.\nI think as we read the opinion rather, one would say in the circumstance of an --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2070.234, 2087.212, 2094.56, 2107.268], "stop_times": [2087.212, 2094.56, 2107.268, 2111.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2070.234}, "reply_to": "14912__1_051", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_053", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You\u2019re referring to the Stanley opinion now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2111.834], "stop_times": [2114.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.834}, "reply_to": "14912__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__1_054", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nAs we read the Stanley opinion, and one would have to say, rather that in the circumstances of an individual, having a book or a film in his house, which no one knows about, the only interest of the state in regulating his conduct, is an interest in private morality.\nAnd that, in those circumstances, in the context of the First Amendment, in the necessity under Griswold of a penumbral protection for those rights, simply is not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2114.544, 2115.425, 2134.638], "stop_times": [2115.425, 2134.638, 2150.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2114.544}, "reply_to": "14912__1_053", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__1_055", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Strauss.\nMr. Lewin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2150.263, 2159.886], "stop_times": [2159.886, 2162.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.263}, "reply_to": "14912__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__2_000", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWhen this case was argued last term, among those argued with it was Gunn versus University Committee, number 7 last term.\nAnd which the court dismissed the appeal on the last day of the term, when it set this case and its other companions over for re-argument.\nOn the ground that the three-judge district court in Gunn had failed to enter any injunctive order, whatever.\nAnd it was therefore, quoting the Court\u2019s language, \u201cNot possible to know, with any certainty what the Court has decided.\u201d\nIn this case, by contrast, the appealed order is short and specific.\nAnd it clearly discloses what the court below has decided.\nAnd we submit that if that injunction is analyzed in terms of what it does not enjoin, as well as in terms of what it does.\nIt emerges as a permissible and proper action, by a Federal District Court, seeking to preserve for state prosecutors and courts, their proper role in the enforcement of restrictions, upon the distribution of obscenity, while retaining the First Amendment rights of motion picture exhibitors and distributors in the interim.\nTo the extent, I would submit, that the opinion of the court below goes beyond the terms of the preliminary injunction and expresses views concerning the constitutionality of the statute as ultimate decision.\nIt's nothing more than an advisory opinion or as was suggested in some of the cases argued before the Court yesterday, in terms of declaratory judgment, which maybe appealable by the state, if it views it is such to the Court of Appeals.\nBut, the issue here, we submit, is framed by the injunction, which appears at pages 44 and 45 of this record.\nNow, what does it enjoin?\nThe injunction prohibits and enjoins the defendants, the state prosecutors, local district attorney and the state Attorney General\u2019s office from proceedings civilly or criminally or otherwise interfering with the appellee's exhibition of the film, \u201cI am Curious Yellow\u201d so long as that exhibition is conducted under certain specific circumstances, which cover the areas of pandering, and intrusion.\nAnd it provides in addition, that the order is not to prevent or inhibit in any way, the prosecution of a then pending criminal proceeding in the Massachusetts States Courts, which was then on appeal, from a judgment of conviction and which the motion picture exhibitors, who are perfectly legitimate theater owners and have shown award winning films in the past was sentenced to one year in jail for having shown this film.\nNow let me, if I may just clarify for a moment, just to clarify the status of that case, in the Massachusetts state court and supplement somewhat on what Mr. Quinn has advised the Court.\nThat case, those convictions, were appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, briefs were filed.\nIn the state\u2019s brief, which was response to the appealles brief in the state court, the state concluded with the following language.\nSince--speaking of this Court, that court\u2019s adjudication in the Maryland case, which was argued here last term, will bind the Commonwealth, it is respectfully suggested that this court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, hold its decision upon the obscenity of the film, in abeyance, pending that adjudication, not the adjudication of this case, but the adjudication of the Maryland case, and which the obscenity of the film is an issue.\nPursuant to that suggestion, these appellees, feeling that that issue would be resolved ultimately by this Court, even irrespective of how they would resolve by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court moved that the issue of obscenity and that issue alone await the decision of this Court in the Maryland case.\nBut that the other issues be considered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.\nThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court acting on that notion staid the entire argument of the case, so the entire argument is staid true in form on our motion.\nBut, really at the suggestion of the state that the Maryland case would be dispositive of the issue of obscenity, which I think is plain truth.\nIf the court were to -- there were of course, other issues in the Maryland case, that assume that the court were to reach the issue of obscenity in the Maryland case, and were to decide that question one way or the other.\nOf course, resolution of that issue, I might say might very--if it were resolved in favor of the film, might very well have the effective mooting out this very case, as well.\nBecause the sole issue here is whether these exhibitors may continue to exhibit this film in the interim.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2162.815, 2166.539, 2175.133, 2183.105, 2189.571, 2199.481, 2205.047, 2209.69, 2219.198, 2242.262, 2256.5, 2270.931, 2279.131, 2281.767, 2315.885, 2343.59, 2356.025, 2362.8, 2371.704, 2396.821, 2414.427, 2419.178, 2431.658, 2439.875, 2452.103, 2462.567, 2470.215], "stop_times": [2166.539, 2175.133, 2183.105, 2189.571, 2199.481, 2205.047, 2209.69, 2219.198, 2242.262, 2256.5, 2270.931, 2279.131, 2281.767, 2315.885, 2343.59, 2356.025, 2362.8, 2371.704, 2396.821, 2414.427, 2419.178, 2431.658, 2439.875, 2452.103, 2462.567, 2470.215, 2470.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.815}, "reply_to": "14912__1_055", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_001", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Let me ask you this question, if I may, if the conduct, which is the target of the state of Massachusetts in this case, occurred on Pennsylvania Avenue, would you think that the principles would have the First Amendment right or would they be subject to arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2470.602], "stop_times": [2497.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.602}, "reply_to": "14912__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__2_002", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I agree, they would be subject to punishment.\nI think -- let me just say, for purposes for our own argument and with the Court\u2019s permission, the matters of the issues discussed by the Assistant to the Solicitor General, the Stanley issue and all that -- all those ramifications of that issue were to be covered in our argument, by Professor Dershowitz, my colleague, who will be arguing the second half of the argument.\nNow, we will definitely address ourselves to those questions, in this portion of the argument, I would limit my argument to -- as it were the Dombrowski, the abstention, the Federalism issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2497.82, 2501.152, 2523.662], "stop_times": [2501.152, 2523.662, 2535.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.82}, "reply_to": "14912__2_001", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_003", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I\u2019ll defer my question to Professor Dershowitz then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2535.621], "stop_times": [2537.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.621}, "reply_to": "14912__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__2_004", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you very much.\nI\u2019m afraid that on the question of the federalism and the federal court's role in this case.\nSome confusion may have been engendered by papers, which we filed at -- upon the application of the state for stay last term.\nWhen it appeared, I believe just from those papers is if in some way, the Federal District Court in this case, was barging into a state prosecution.\nIf anything, the record in this case demonstrate, we submit, that what the District Court below did was at successive stages of this litigation defer and refused to act until the juncture was reached, at which if it failed to act, speech which was eminent, pending, and in fact, had continued until the date of its action, would not merely be chilled.\nIf I may proceed from the Court\u2019s metaphor, but would in fact be put in the deep freeze, because the consequence of the action, which caused the Federal District Court to issue the preliminary injunction, which it did, was the withdrawal by the prosecutor, in the state courts, of an agreement under which he would permit the film to continue to show while the various issues were being litigated through the Massachusetts courts.\nIn fact, what did the court below do?\nIts order plainly demonstrates that the court permitted the one pending state prosecution to go on.\nIn addition to that, the opinion of the court below and the language of Judge Aldrich, who wrote the opinion, which appears at page 37 of the record, concludes with an explicit caveat to these appellees, stating that the court voices no opinion, as to the legal consequences if plaintiffs exhibit their film, under the protection of our injunction, and it is ultimately determined that our view was mistaken, and that such exhibition was properly considered elicit.\nIn effect, what that language in Judge Aldrich opinion states is that the continued exhibition of the film, even under the protection of the injunction is still subject to the risk that at the conclusion of whatever ultimate decision is reached on the various constitutional issues, these appellees maybe prosecuted, in fact retrospectively for the showing of the film, which they engaged in during the entire period of the litigation.\nSo that is if there is anything that\u2019s clear from the terms and the order, it is that in no way forecloses any state court determination of any relevant issue and in fact doesn\u2019t -- not only under Dombrowski doesn\u2019t enjoin any state prosecution but any pending state prosecution, but doesn\u2019t even enjoin future state prosecutions.\nAt most it defers them if they\u2019re legitimate to some ultimate date at which if they can properly be brought they can then be instituted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2537.758, 2547.75, 2553.412, 2563.309, 2572.368, 2601.563, 2630.371, 2634.702, 2642.238, 2671.689, 2700.112, 2725.956], "stop_times": [2547.75, 2553.412, 2563.309, 2572.368, 2601.563, 2630.371, 2634.702, 2642.238, 2671.689, 2700.112, 2725.956, 2734.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.758}, "reply_to": "14912__2_003", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_005", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You say it doesn\u2019t enjoin future prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2734.806], "stop_times": [2737.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.806}, "reply_to": "14912__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_006", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No Your Honor, we think it does not enjoin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2737.532], "stop_times": [2738.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.532}, "reply_to": "14912__2_005", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_007", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What do you think the language on page 44 means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2738.839], "stop_times": [2741.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.839}, "reply_to": "14912__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_008", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What it means is that the prosecutor may not in the period of time until the issues are resolved, institute civil or criminal proceedings or seize that film. But the language of Judge Aldrich that appears on page 37\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2741.014], "stop_times": [2755.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.014}, "reply_to": "14912__2_007", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_009", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Now, you are referring as to the order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2755.255], "stop_times": [2757.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.255}, "reply_to": "14912__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_010", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I\u2019m referring to the order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2757.03], "stop_times": [2757.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.03}, "reply_to": "14912__2_009", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_011", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "And then you made a statement which I wholly agree that\u2019s the order that\u2019s being reviewed here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2757.944], "stop_times": [2764.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.944}, "reply_to": "14912__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_012", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019s right, and the order enjoins the institution of proceedings.\nIt does not however say that if the film has finally found obscene, these appellees may not then be prosecuted for having showing the film in the interim.\nIf the case is viewed as we think it properly should be as to what are the appropriate steps for a Federal District Court to take when it has before a case in which there is some doubt as to the constitutionality of the statute under which the state is proceeding where the State has no injunction power.\nAnd I think that\u2019s important in this context.\nThe State of Massachusetts has not authorized each prosecutors to go into court and obtain injunctions against the showing of films.\nIt has an interim proceeding applicable to books but none with respect to films.\nSo it authorizes criminal prosecution.\nNow there is a criminal prosecution with respect to a film under a statute which is a questionable constitutionality with respect to a film which a Federal District Court has found prior to its opening to be not obscene.\nAnd Judge Aldrich took notice of that too and that appears in his opinion.\nAnd the film is shown under very careful safeguards to avoid pandering, any showing to minors, any intrusion on the public.\nIn those circumstances, the Federal District Court says in the interim until the issues are resolved we think you have a First Amendment right to show that film subject possibly to future prosecution for you having shown it, but you will not be hold into court everyday and indicted everyday and have the film seized everyday because you are showing it because that would in effect be a form of censorship.\nA form of censorship by threat to be sure but it would be a form of censorship.\nAnd we submit that that\u2019s under all doctrines of nonintervention or abstention or whatever federal policy applies we think that\u2019s appropriate.\nThe court below stayed its hand until that point where the threat the prosecutor to make -- to continue to prosecute and to indict and seize the film had the effect of an effect of closing it down.\nNow let me\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2764.307, 2769.68, 2780.609, 2799.94, 2802.993, 2811.725, 2815.873, 2818.562, 2831.825, 2837.51, 2847.063, 2870.172, 2875.101, 2886.676, 2902.826], "stop_times": [2769.68, 2780.609, 2799.94, 2802.993, 2811.725, 2815.873, 2818.562, 2831.825, 2837.51, 2847.063, 2870.172, 2875.101, 2886.676, 2902.826, 2903.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.307}, "reply_to": "14912__2_011", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_013", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What\u2019s the statute of limitations on the obscenity prosecutions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2903.639], "stop_times": [2907.781], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.639}, "reply_to": "14912__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14912__2_014", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Six years so that there\u2019s no question that that it would be within the statute if prosecutions were subsequently brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2907.781], "stop_times": [2915.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2907.781}, "reply_to": "14912__2_013", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_015", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That would mean six years from the last showing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2915.911], "stop_times": [2918.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.911}, "reply_to": "14912__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__2_016", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think six years from any criminal act which would be the showing -- any showing if they are to be prosecuted\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2918.551], "stop_times": [2923.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2918.551}, "reply_to": "14912__2_015", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_017", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The only one we\u2019re concerned about is six years from the last one, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2923.153], "stop_times": [2926.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.153}, "reply_to": "14912__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__2_018", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think that should be true Mr. Chief Justice, but there is one there is already a prosecution.\nThe problem that this case presents is that a showing of the film can be subject to multiple prosecutions.\nThese appellees have assumed the risk of a single prosecution and indeed they are prepared to assume even the risk of multiple prosecutions if they\u2019re proved wrong.\nThe only thing that they seek and that they obtain from -- they sought more but the only thing that they obtained from the District Court was an order which prevented multiple prosecutions while the film was being shown, while the litigation was going on, and while their rights were still an issue.\nAt that period of time, we submit they\u2019re entitled to federal relief to permit the film to show in the interim until that date when it is finally decided whether they\u2019re right or wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2926.343, 2933.576, 2941.016, 2951.491, 2969.574], "stop_times": [2933.576, 2941.016, 2951.491, 2969.574, 2979.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.343}, "reply_to": "14912__2_017", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_019", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Anyway you are probably saying that an interference with the process of state criminal prosecution to the extent that it prevents prosecution by the state.\nCan you escape that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2979.504, 2991.665], "stop_times": [2991.665, 2992.775], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.504}, "reply_to": "14912__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14912__2_020", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "To that extent we agree Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2992.775], "stop_times": [2994.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.775}, "reply_to": "14912__2_019", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_021", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well that\u2019s the whole issue is, so that\u2014I don\u2019t quite understand your argument about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2994.518], "stop_times": [2999.756], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.518}, "reply_to": "14912__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14912__2_022", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No, it\u2019s because it\u2019s an interference with a state criminal process to obtain rights which could not be obtained in the state criminal process Mr. Justice Harlan.\nIn other words, assuming even assuming that the law were which I think this Court\u2019s cases have conclusively established otherwise, but even assuming the law were that one had to exhaust state remedies, as it were to obtain relief from a Federal District Court in a free speech case, in these circumstances, there is no way that these appellees could say and in fact obtain the right to show the film while its obscenity was being -- the matter of its obscenity was being litigated.\nThey couldn\u2019t obtain that in a defense to a state criminal prosecution.\nThere\u2019s just no way they could.\nThey can defend the state criminal prosecution, they can say we\u2019re not guilty, put the state to the test of proving the obscenity of the film.\nBut when they want to show the film on November 12, 1969 and thereafter, the only remedy they have is to go into a Federal District Court at that point and say, \u201cWe institute this action and seek this relief.\nWe have a right to show the film on November 13th and 14th and 15th while it\u2019s obscenity is being tested under the state criminal process.\u201d\nNow, that we submit is a permissible interference.\nWhat the cases prior to Dumbrowski and what the general principle of nonintervention of federal courts and state criminal process involves we submit, are only those instances where the same relief or the relief that the plaintiffs are seeking could be obtained from the state process.\nHere, that\u2019s just not possible.\nThese appellees, so far as trying to show the film in the interim could not obtain any relief from the state courts.\nThey could defend the criminal prosecution.\nIf the state had had an injunctive procedure under which the state prosecutor could go into state court and seek an injunction then they would have that remedy in a state court.\nThey could defend against bad injunctive proceeding.\nOf course, if the state prosecutor decided not to institute it, they would never have it.\nBut assuming it did -- they could defend and litigate the right of showing the film in the interim, there is no such procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2999.756, 3009.614, 3039.719, 3043.294, 3044.329, 3050.863, 3063.6, 3072.759, 3076.879, 3095.215, 3097.203, 3103.775, 3106.074, 3116.709, 3118.86, 3122.809], "stop_times": [3009.614, 3039.719, 3043.294, 3044.329, 3050.863, 3063.6, 3072.759, 3076.879, 3095.215, 3097.203, 3103.775, 3106.074, 3116.709, 3118.86, 3122.809, 3131.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.756}, "reply_to": "14912__2_021", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_023", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Does Massachusetts have a declaratory judgment procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3131.603], "stop_times": [3134.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.603}, "reply_to": "14912__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_024", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "It has a declaratory judgment procedure Mr. Justice Stewart.\nHowever, the standards that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court applies in the declaratory judgment cases indicate that this issue could not be raised.\nWe have this pending, I think on this Court\u2019s docket now is the case involving the obscenity of the stage play Hare \u2014 the PBIC versus Byrne, which involved an attempt to obtain a declaratory judgment from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which was subject to various state objections that the state raised in that case.\nAnd that case demonstrates how hard it would be even to obtain a declaratory judgment on the initial question, which is the obscenity of the film.\nBut certainly, in terms of the right to show it in the interim, which is really what we say is at stake here and all that is involved in this injunction that right could not be asserted in the state court.\nAnd it certainly could not be asserted in a defense to a criminal prosecution because the only issue in the criminal prosecution would be whether the film is obscene, whether all the other constitution and statutory standards are met and the judgment of conviction and not whether the film would be shown of the 13th or any other days.\nOn this general principle of nonintervention, if I may just address myself to it briefly, this Court\u2019s decisions ranging way back and certainly commentating in Zwickler and Khuta have made it clear.\nI think Zwickler and Khuta, the Court quoted from a District Court opinion which made it, and I just quote that briefly.\nThe Court said, \u201cWe yet like to believe that wherever the federal court sit, human rights under the federal constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication, and that we have not the right to decline the exercise of that jurisdiction simply because the rights asserted and they be adjudicated in some other form.\u201d\nNow here, in this case we submit follows a fortiori from Zwickler and Dombrowski and all the others because the right that\u2019s covered by this preliminary injunction and let me emphasize it is a preliminary injunction and therefore the standards that ordinarily apply to preliminary injunction, we submit should be applied.\nIn other words, District Courts have broad discretion to decide on the probabilities of success of the ultimate outcome of the litigation and issue preliminary injunctions in those terms.\nHere we deal with a preliminary injunction and we submit for that reason certainly, rights which couldn\u2019t be asserted in a state court, which these appellees had no way of asserting in a state court should properly or properly protected by the Federal District Court and should be affirmed here.\nNow I would like -- if I may just briefly to go to the question of the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was raised also in the argument last week before this Court, and which we think applies to these circumstances as well.\nOne has here a set of facts in which what the state prosecutors have sought to do was prevent the exhibition of a film under a statute which the court below found and we submit properly a subject to constitutional challenge.\nWhen that film itself had prior to its opening been found to be constitutionally protected by United States Court of Appeals.\nNow, we don\u2019t argue and of course we couldn\u2019t argue that defining of United States Court of Appeals is binding on the State of Massachusetts as a matter of res judicata.\nWhat we do argue and we elaborate then the distributor who\u2019s the appellant in the Maryland case elaborates at some length and our brief in that case and we think it applies here as well, is that there -- in terms of protecting and giving wide scope to free expression the decision of the Second Circuit and the decision of the Court of Appeals or indeed any decision which is binding on the United States, should as a matter of First Amendment law be applied by this Court to bar other proceedings to prevent the exhibitions of the very same material.\nNow that\u2019s just a very -- in terms of the practical consequence on distributors and exhibitors of films and books that\u2019s just a very important rule.\nThis Court has on its docket right now pending in one form or another five cases involving the exhibition of this film, five cases out of the States of Alabama, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland and Ohio all involving the exhibition of this film.\nAs was stated in the brief in the Maryland case there were 144 lawsuits in the country involving the exhibitions of this film essentially in the distribution of films and books throughout the United States to put a distributor or an exhibitor who has established to the satisfaction of a Court of Appeals and a judgment binding on the United States which could have enjoined by states throughout the United States.\nThat a film or a book is constitutionally protected must we submit act to prevent future harassment, multiplicities of litigation which otherwise makes the distribution of such First Amendment material or arguable First Amendment material close to impossible.\nAnd that\u2019s why the argument made is essentially that that judgment although not operative as a matter of res judicata should like various other decisions of this Court which have found judgments binding on the United States in the search and seizure area, in the self-incrimination area to be in effect have operative affect on state prosecutors and state bodies that that very same rule should be applied in the field of arguable obscenity in the filed of books or movies that are distributed nationwide that go through a federal proceeding that are conclusively adjudicated by a federal court as being constitutionally protected and should be\u2014we submit free of multiplicities and repeated suits in various local jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3134.267, 3136.975, 3146.93, 3166.259, 3175.73, 3188.911, 3207.105, 3224.327, 3231.621, 3248.157, 3266.059, 3278.072, 3298.616, 3322.53, 3342.376, 3352.85, 3361.922, 3405.136, 3415.318, 3434.172, 3462.06, 3484.851], "stop_times": [3136.975, 3146.93, 3166.259, 3175.73, 3188.911, 3207.105, 3224.327, 3231.621, 3248.157, 3266.059, 3278.072, 3298.616, 3322.53, 3342.376, 3352.85, 3361.922, 3405.136, 3415.318, 3434.172, 3462.06, 3484.851, 3535.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.267}, "reply_to": "14912__2_023", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_025", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Your theory is that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals proceedings gave it kind of license a federal license that under the supremacy clause or for some other reason had to be honored in every state or county, is that basically your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3535.393], "stop_times": [3552.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3535.393}, "reply_to": "14912__2_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_026", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "A license in the sense that it gave us a First Amendment shield.\nWe think that if -- this is a one need to parade horribles.\nThe history of this case\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3552.701, 3556.023, 3561.356], "stop_times": [3556.023, 3561.356, 3561.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3552.701}, "reply_to": "14912__2_025", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_027", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I\u2019m just asking about your theory of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3561.992], "stop_times": [3563.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3561.992}, "reply_to": "14912__2_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_028", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Yes right, the history of this case shows and this movie shows what the contrary result -- or what the absence of such a rule really results in, which is\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3563.677], "stop_times": [3573.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3563.677}, "reply_to": "14912__2_027", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_029", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well what\u2019s your rule dependent on that\u2019s my question.\nWhat\u2019s the rationale that supported your submitted rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3573.381, 3576.495], "stop_times": [3576.495, 3578.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3573.381}, "reply_to": "14912__2_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_030", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The rationale is that if vis-a-vis, the United States material is found to be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, states which have had an opportunity to enter that litigation assuming it\u2019s a judgment, which have had an opportunity to enter that litigation should not thereafter, as a matter of First Amendment law be able to inhibit its distribution, sale and publication by under local ordinances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3578.296], "stop_times": [3613.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3578.296}, "reply_to": "14912__2_029", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_031", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3613.025], "stop_times": [3614.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3613.025}, "reply_to": "14912__2_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_032", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Because if the right to free speech, the First Amendment right, is to be given the breathing space it needs which this Court has referred to in various occasions, the danger to it of threats of multiplicities litigation must be prevented.\nIn other words, it\u2019s simply as it were a preventive rule, a prophylactic rule that we submit the Court should adopt to prevent the very kind of situation which is a reason with regards to this film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3614.225, 3631.82], "stop_times": [3631.82, 3643.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3614.225}, "reply_to": "14912__2_031", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_033", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I have still trouble understanding the rationale in support of the rule.\nI understand the rule that you submit but I don\u2019t understand the reasoning that supports it, apart from what I try to verbalize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3643.774, 3646.93], "stop_times": [3646.93, 3658.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3643.774}, "reply_to": "14912__2_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_034", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3658.059], "stop_times": [3658.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3658.059}, "reply_to": "14912__2_033", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_035", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "To get sort of a federal license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3658.213], "stop_times": [3660.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3658.213}, "reply_to": "14912__2_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_036", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "It\u2019s --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3660.976], "stop_times": [3662.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3660.976}, "reply_to": "14912__2_035", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_037", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That is paramount to any attack of the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3662.158], "stop_times": [3666.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3662.158}, "reply_to": "14912__2_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_038", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I prefer to call it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3666.443], "stop_times": [3667.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3666.443}, "reply_to": "14912__2_037", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_039", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "-- a federal pilot\u2019s license and then you can go on every directional through intrastate waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3667.715], "stop_times": [3674.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3667.715}, "reply_to": "14912__2_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__2_040", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I\u2019d prefer to call it a federal shield, but I think that\u2019s essentially what it is that\u2019s right, but only in a litigation.\nLet me say federal license, which can\u2019t just be granted unilaterally but only in litigation where the state has the opportunity to come in.\nThat\u2019s really our argument we think of the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3674.311, 3680.589, 3686.927], "stop_times": [3680.589, 3686.927, 3688.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3674.311}, "reply_to": "14912__2_039", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_041", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "(Inaudible) operate then, very supposing the Second Circuit would check the film, or its --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3688.426], "stop_times": [3693.688], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3688.426}, "reply_to": "14912__2_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14912__2_042", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, if it said the film was obscene it wouldn\u2019t be here Mr. Justice Harlan, it\u2019d be out of the country and we couldn\u2019t have brought it in.\nOf course we would have taken it up to this Court but it just wouldn\u2019t be here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3693.688, 3700.048], "stop_times": [3700.048, 3702.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3693.688}, "reply_to": "14912__2_041", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_043", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "How would you know that this is the same picture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3702.563], "stop_times": [3706.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3702.563}, "reply_to": "14912__2_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_044", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think that could be contested.\nI think if a state were to say they\u2019ve added things to the movie, I think that\u2019s an appropriate issue that a state may consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3706.804, 3708.398], "stop_times": [3708.398, 3715.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3706.804}, "reply_to": "14912__2_043", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_045", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019d be a fact question in each case, wouldn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3715.928], "stop_times": [3717.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3715.928}, "reply_to": "14912__2_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__2_046", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That would be if\u2014but I think in this case I must say its totally undisputed that the very same versions of the film were being shown all over the country.\nBut\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3717.751, 3726.105], "stop_times": [3726.105, 3726.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3717.751}, "reply_to": "14912__2_045", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_047", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What worries me about the children in fact, it\u2019s been shown before 5 million people.\nIt was a little warm rather than chilling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3726.821, 3733.738], "stop_times": [3733.738, 3736.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3726.821}, "reply_to": "14912__2_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_048", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "It\u2019s true, that\u2019s true but it\u2019s awfully cold in Maryland, Massachusetts, Alabama, Florida and Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3736.153], "stop_times": [3741.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3736.153}, "reply_to": "14912__2_047", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_049", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "As I said last week it\u2019s not totally cold in Maryland to the people who can\u2019t drive to the district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3741.381], "stop_times": [3749.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3741.381}, "reply_to": "14912__2_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_050", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The problem with that Mr. Justice Marshall of course is that you\u2019re imposing an added burden to obtain material which is subject to constitutional protection.\nWe think that\u2019s not proper.\nYou can\u2019t just say \u201cWell, since if we allow it in various regions of the country where people can reach it by traveling that\u2019s good enough.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3749.254, 3756.283, 3758.406], "stop_times": [3756.283, 3758.406, 3764.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3749.254}, "reply_to": "14912__2_049", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_051", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I just don\u2019t understand your answer to my brother Stewart here that you don\u2019t have some obligation to litigate this.\nYou just want -- now you don\u2019t even want to litigate it, except in one court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3764.971, 3773.262], "stop_times": [3773.262, 3778.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3764.971}, "reply_to": "14912__2_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_052", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "We think, well in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3778.347], "stop_times": [3779.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3778.347}, "reply_to": "14912__2_051", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_053", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Isn\u2019t that what you\u2019re saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3779.919], "stop_times": [3781.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3779.919}, "reply_to": "14912__2_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_054", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That is what we\u2019re saying.\nWe don\u2019t have an obligation to litigate if we litigate against the United States in a case where -- in a federal court where the states and local jurisdictions could come in if they wanted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3781.36, 3782.778], "stop_times": [3782.778, 3792.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3781.36}, "reply_to": "14912__2_053", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_055", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, you mean the State of Hawaii could come in to New York and defend its --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3792.788], "stop_times": [3795.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3792.788}, "reply_to": "14912__2_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_056", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Oh! Yes.\nIf it wanted to claim that the film should not be shown in Hawaii, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3795.805, 3797.556], "stop_times": [3797.556, 3800.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3795.805}, "reply_to": "14912__2_055", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_057", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You wouldn\u2019t consider that a burden on Hawaii?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3800.698], "stop_times": [3803.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3800.698}, "reply_to": "14912__2_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_058", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "We think where the burden --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3803.053], "stop_times": [3803.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3803.053}, "reply_to": "14912__2_057", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_059", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What you would consider the burden on you if it didn\u2019t have.\nI\u2019m just worrying about this shift in the burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3803.489, 3807.2], "stop_times": [3807.2, 3809.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3803.489}, "reply_to": "14912__2_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_060", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, the difference is that the State of Hawaii has no constitutional right not to be in a New York Federal District Court.\nWhat we maintain, and I think what the decisions of this Court in Dombrowski and prior to would have said is that what the First Amendment requires, in terms of breathing space is prevent where necessary even unnecessary multiplicities repeated litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3809.611, 3816.747], "stop_times": [3816.747, 3833.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3809.611}, "reply_to": "14912__2_059", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_061", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "So what do you see in Dombrowski that says that that applies to other peoples other than Dombrowski?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3833.019], "stop_times": [3839.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3833.019}, "reply_to": "14912__2_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_062", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think what the Dombrowski could --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3839.933], "stop_times": [3840.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3839.933}, "reply_to": "14912__2_061", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_063", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "What do you find in Dombrowski that says that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3840.781], "stop_times": [3843.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3840.781}, "reply_to": "14912__2_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_064", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think what the Dombrowski opinion does say is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3843.554], "stop_times": [3846.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3843.554}, "reply_to": "14912__2_063", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_065", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Are you saying that the Dombrowski opinion is enough so that somebody tried to search somebody in New York, they can\u2019t do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3846.157], "stop_times": [3854.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3846.157}, "reply_to": "14912__2_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_066", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No, no I don\u2019t -- but what the Dombrowski opinion does say is that the threat of sanctions and that -- by imposing on a party who\u2019s exercising a First Amendment right, the obligation to go through repeated litigation that in itself will deter speech.\nAnd I think, Your Honor, adverted exactly to that in the interstate circuit case.\nThere is language in the interstate circuit case which talks about the fact that the ordinance of the City of Dallas, if other cities do the same thing, will have an inhibiting effect on the motion picture industry in Hollywood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3854.426, 3876.28, 3880.622], "stop_times": [3876.28, 3880.622, 3891.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3854.426}, "reply_to": "14912__2_065", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_067", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I thought we said in that that was all right involving children?\nThat you could prohibit children from seeing the picture, I thought that\u2019s what we said in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3891.751, 3896.815], "stop_times": [3896.815, 3900.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3891.751}, "reply_to": "14912__2_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_068", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "But the licensing statute in that case was struck down and Your Honor referred to the fact that if Dallas could do what it does, then every other city could do what it wanted to do and the result would be that those who produced films would not produce anything that\u2019s even close to the line.\nThat\u2019s exactly what we\u2019re talking about here.\nIf this film can be subjected to a 144 lawsuits and five trips to this Court, then people are obviously deterred from producing any films which maybe subject to litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3900.959, 3919.799, 3921.876], "stop_times": [3919.799, 3921.876, 3933.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3900.959}, "reply_to": "14912__2_067", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_069", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Have you any figure to show that these motion pictures are dropping off in numbers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3933.305], "stop_times": [3941.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3933.305}, "reply_to": "14912__2_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_070", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "In terms of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3941.949], "stop_times": [3943.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3941.949}, "reply_to": "14912__2_069", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_071", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Because I gather some would say the opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3943.035], "stop_times": [3946.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3943.035}, "reply_to": "14912__2_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_072", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You mean motion pictures that are close to the line if that -- I think the real test is whether the effect of litigation is inhibiting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3946.858], "stop_times": [3956.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3946.858}, "reply_to": "14912__2_071", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_073", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I hope you\u2019re not saying that it\u2019s been chilled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3956.366], "stop_times": [3958.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3956.366}, "reply_to": "14912__2_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_074", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well I think Your Honor with all respect I think it has been chilled with regard to legitimate distributors and exhibits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3958.894], "stop_times": [3964.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3958.894}, "reply_to": "14912__2_073", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_075", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "It means it if one distribute their obscene pictures is bankrupt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3964.08], "stop_times": [3968.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3964.08}, "reply_to": "14912__2_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_076", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I can only say that the distributor of this film has incurred very very substantial cost in litigating these issues through the various Courts and that in fact it is bound to be an inhibitory --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3968.456], "stop_times": [3983.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3968.456}, "reply_to": "14912__2_075", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__2_077", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I assume that the profit -- if there are four million that have seen it $5.00 a head, my arithmetic could get in trouble.\nI wouldn\u2019t get -- what I\u2019m trying to say is I wouldn\u2019t get in to the point about trying to get this license.\nYou don\u2019t need that for your case, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3983.847, 3995.556, 4002.627], "stop_times": [3995.556, 4002.627, 4005.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3983.847}, "reply_to": "14912__2_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14912__2_078", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I don\u2019t think so, but I just an alternative ground that I think we have relied on in the brief and that I just wanted to discuss somewhat on not a lot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4005.106], "stop_times": [4015.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4005.106}, "reply_to": "14912__2_077", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "14912__3_000", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4015.526], "stop_times": [4017.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4015.526}, "reply_to": "14912__2_078", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_001", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Dershowitz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4017.303], "stop_times": [4017.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4017.303}, "reply_to": "14912__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_002", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Simply in response to that, it may be relevant.\nThough of course it\u2019s not I the record that the staff of the distributor of this film was not a commercial pornographer, has dropped from 39 to 3 and great part as a result to the cost of this particular litigation.\nSo it certainly does have a chilling effect.\nNot only under distribution of films that are close to the line but on the distribution and the operation of a company which decides to distribute films which run the gambit and which may run a foul of state conceptions of immorality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4017.456, 4019.056, 4028.805, 4030.979], "stop_times": [4019.056, 4028.805, 4030.979, 4043.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4017.456}, "reply_to": "14912__3_001", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_003", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Now General Motors wouldn\u2019t make that claim with reference to the drop in its stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4043.135], "stop_times": [4047.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4043.135}, "reply_to": "14912__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_004", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No but we do with reference to the drop in this stock.\nAt least in part and I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4047.053, 4049.245], "stop_times": [4049.245, 4052.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4047.053}, "reply_to": "14912__3_003", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_005", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Pretty speculative, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4052.29], "stop_times": [4053.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4052.29}, "reply_to": "14912__3_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_006", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well speculative but I think is supported by the information that we have at hand but I did want to dwell on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4053.309], "stop_times": [4058.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4053.309}, "reply_to": "14912__3_005", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_007", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Before you -- I have to interrupt you again, Professor Dershowitz.\nLet me ask you.\nDid you -- would you accept the postulates I think advanced by the Solicitor General on the bearbaiting, the right of the state to prohibit bearbaiting contest for public exhibition or otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4058.703, 4062.742, 4064.084], "stop_times": [4062.742, 4064.084, 4080.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4058.703}, "reply_to": "14912__3_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_008", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well I think the Solicitor General has suggested the only possible distinction between the Stanley case and retro cases that preceded it and the case that\u2019s before this Court now.\nThat is the distinction which rests on public sensibilities.\nThat is the public knows what\u2019s going on in the theater whereas the public does not know what\u2019s going on in a private home.\nI submit that that distinction was rejected by this Court in the case of Griswold versus Connecticut.\nIn that case you will recall the prosecution was not directed against the users of birth control.\nThe couple, the married, couple that was directed against clinics, centers they will call under Connecticut law.\nThey were open centers, they were visible, they were so to speak on Pennsylvania Avenue.\nThey were of course discreet and yet they disseminated the information and materials necessary for a birth control.\nThe public, knew that birth control information was being disseminated and the public in Connecticut was offended by that fact alone as reflected by its legislation.\nYet this Court decided not only to protect the rights of those who would use birth control materials and information but also necessarily by its holding the right of a clinic though its public in some senses to discretely give out the information and materials necessary for the effectuation of the primary right.\nNow in an important respect, this case is a fortiori from the Griswold case.\nThe Griswold case involved purely, the Fourth Amendment right.\nThe constitution is neutral on whether or not couples practice birth control.\nThere is no First Amendment right involved there.\nIndeed, it\u2019s an activity rather than any arguable speech.\nSo that case relied exclusively under Fourth Amendment.\nThis case although it may conceivably have Fourth Amendment overtones, we concede it cited the Olmstead case.\nCertainly also the Government would concede has important First Amendment overtones.\nThe primary right, the right to satisfy ones emotional and intellectual needs in the privacy of his home is a First Amendment right centrally.\nAnd so one would think, I certainly would argue that the decision of this Court permitting the dissemination of material necessary for the use of birth control in the Griswold case would necessarily require a limited discrete opportunity to obtain the materials which are necessary to satisfy the intellectual and emotional needs described in the Stanley case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4080.788, 4091.199, 4095.202, 4101.278, 4107.366, 4112.765, 4118.721, 4123.693, 4130.161, 4140.041, 4159.002, 4164.017, 4167.596, 4171.81, 4174.613, 4178.376, 4180.939, 4186.689, 4190.643, 4199.087], "stop_times": [4091.199, 4095.202, 4101.278, 4107.366, 4112.765, 4118.721, 4123.693, 4130.161, 4140.041, 4159.002, 4164.017, 4167.596, 4171.81, 4174.613, 4178.376, 4180.939, 4186.689, 4190.643, 4199.087, 4221.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4080.788}, "reply_to": "14912__3_007", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_009", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Would you mind coming back now to the bearbaiting that we were talking (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4221.439], "stop_times": [4224.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4221.439}, "reply_to": "14912__3_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_010", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Right.\nNow on the bearbaiting I would think there is no constitutional protection for bearbaiting.\nBearbaiting is an act of course.\nIt\u2019s a real act.\nAnimals are killed.\nThe constitution certainly permits the states the right to protect the interest of animals as distinguished from the interest of the sensibilities of those people who are concerned about the rights of animals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4224.972, 4225.477, 4229.475, 4231.226, 4232.617, 4234.41], "stop_times": [4225.477, 4229.475, 4231.226, 4232.617, 4234.41, 4243.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4224.972}, "reply_to": "14912__3_009", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_011", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Are both involved in the prohibition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4243.959], "stop_times": [4248.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4243.959}, "reply_to": "14912__3_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_012", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4248.166], "stop_times": [4248.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4248.166}, "reply_to": "14912__3_011", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_013", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Aren\u2019t both factors involved in a statute which prohibits that kind of conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4248.394], "stop_times": [4253.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4248.394}, "reply_to": "14912__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_014", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, I think the example would be better if were a film, as you put it, a film of bearbaiting.\nWe know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4253.474, 4258.288], "stop_times": [4258.288, 4258.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4253.474}, "reply_to": "14912__3_013", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_015", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I know, switch on the reality through first, let\u2019s stay on the live --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4258.491], "stop_times": [4261.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4258.491}, "reply_to": "14912__3_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_016", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well I think I would have to say then that the constitution does not permit individuals who choose to have their sensibilities offended.\nPerhaps that\u2019s a contradictory term.\nTo choose to have your sensibilities offended.\nThe constitution would not permit prohibition of an event.\nIf it were protected by the First Amendment and arguable bearbaiting itself might not be the film where an exhibition of it might be -- would protect that right, if the only interest at stake were the desire to protect people against sensibilities which they have voluntarily decided not to be protected against.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4261.998, 4269.109, 4270.623, 4272.599, 4277.097], "stop_times": [4269.109, 4270.623, 4272.599, 4277.097, 4292.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4261.998}, "reply_to": "14912__3_015", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_017", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, then now are you saying that it\u2019s all right to kill one bear and five dogs in a filming process but it isn\u2019t alright to kill many more of them in the live showing, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4292.237], "stop_times": [4303.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4292.237}, "reply_to": "14912__3_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_018", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No I wouldn\u2019t say that.\nI would say a state would have the right to prohibit the killing of dogs and bears whether for film or for other purposes.\nThe protection of animals is perhaps arguably a constitutional right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4303.639, 4304.601, 4310.149], "stop_times": [4304.601, 4310.149, 4314.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4303.639}, "reply_to": "14912__3_017", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_019", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Since we agree on that, suppose it developed in a particular case that \u2013 no use naming the states but let\u2019s say 14 states had not enforced, not sought to enforce or didn\u2019t have any statutes against bearbaiting, and four-and-a- half million people had watched bearbaiting or the filming of bearbaiting, would that have any slightest relevance in your judgment on whether the showing of bearbaiting in Boston, Massachusetts could or could not be stopped under Massachusetts statute by prohibiting it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4314.136], "stop_times": [4351.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4314.136}, "reply_to": "14912__3_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_020", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The fact that many people have seen it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4351.016], "stop_times": [4352.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4351.016}, "reply_to": "14912__3_019", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_021", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "As the 14 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4352.104], "stop_times": [4353.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4352.104}, "reply_to": "14912__3_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_022", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No, the First Amendment protects the individual right to receive information necessary to satisfy his emotional intellectual needs.\nThe fact that some people in Baltimore might come to see it in Washington, the fact that some other people in the United States have seen it, to me, to our argument is not necessarily relevant.\nIn fact, there were many people who would like to participate in an activity which has First Amendment ramifications and which the state is forbidding them to participate in that is to watch, to exercise the First Amendment right for no arguable, for no presentable reason.\nNow, certainly what we would argue is that if a person takes a shower on Pennsylvania Avenue that certainly is proscribable on a number of grounds.\nFirst of all it is not speech but more important it offends people. People don\u2019t want to see other people taking showers on Pennsylvania Avenue.\nThe thrust of our opinion would give the prosecutors great powers to look at what\u2019s offending other people.\nIt would take them from within the private theater, the theater that only is attended by people who want to go and would put them outside the theater to protect you and me from the intrusion on our sensibilities that would occur.\nIf movies opened on Pennsylvania Avenue and advertised in a pandering way, thrust its advertisements or its pictures or its commercials on unwilling viewers.\nThat is clearly not involved in this case.\nThe state conceded on July 14th, 1969 in open Court that there was no pandering.\nThe advertising was discrete.\nNo children were permitted into the theater.\nThe theater was policing that the public was forewarned and yet not forewarned in a way as it is so typical of many movies.\nNot forewarned in a way which titillates.\nIt was forewarned in a discrete way so that what is involved in this case is the classic instance of only adults who choose to see an exhibition which the Second Circuit has held to be with socially redeeming value.\nOnly those adults are being denied the right to see that a First Amendment protected material we argue simple because of some tenable claim that public sensibility may be offended because others outside the theater know that people inside the theater are viewing this kind of film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4353.191, 4361.338, 4370.778, 4384.935, 4393.482, 4400.344, 4406.539, 4417.275, 4425.826, 4428.089, 4432.847, 4434.412, 4436.499, 4443.258, 4445.479, 4459.156], "stop_times": [4361.338, 4370.778, 4384.935, 4393.482, 4400.344, 4406.539, 4417.275, 4425.826, 4428.089, 4432.847, 4434.412, 4436.499, 4443.258, 4445.479, 4459.156, 4477.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4353.191}, "reply_to": "14912__3_021", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_023", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Let me go back to something you said earlier.\nAre you suggesting that it is a universal rule that everybody is offended by bearbaiting for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4477.181, 4480.925], "stop_times": [4480.925, 4492.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4477.181}, "reply_to": "14912__3_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_024", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4492.215], "stop_times": [4492.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4492.215}, "reply_to": "14912__3_023", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_025", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I suspect that great many people would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4492.673], "stop_times": [4494.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4492.673}, "reply_to": "14912__3_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_026", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4494.506], "stop_times": [4494.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4494.506}, "reply_to": "14912__3_025", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_027", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Either go to see it, wouldn\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4494.64], "stop_times": [4495.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4494.64}, "reply_to": "14912__3_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_028", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "By all means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4495.784], "stop_times": [4497.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4495.784}, "reply_to": "14912__3_027", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_029", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "You\u2019re not suggesting either that everyone, 100% would be offended by public showering on Pennsylvania Avenue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4497.505], "stop_times": [4505.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4497.505}, "reply_to": "14912__3_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_030", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4505.267], "stop_times": [4506.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4505.267}, "reply_to": "14912__3_029", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_031", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, then the fact that some -- that there is a differing view on these matters doesn\u2019t really enter into it, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4506.559], "stop_times": [4515.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4506.559}, "reply_to": "14912__3_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_032", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Yes it does.\nWe would argue that the constitution gives greater protection to the right of privacy in this regard than the right to offend people by thrusting upon them stimuli.\nThat is everybody who wants to see somebody showering, assuming that would have some First Amendment protection could do it in a first -- in a closed private theater.\nThere is no need to do it on Pennsylvania Avenue or innocent people would be offended.\nAnd so I would say all doubts must be resolved in favor of privacy.\nBut this case presents no doubts.\nThere is nobody, not a single human being who was being offended because a stimuli is being thrust on him.\nThe only claim is that a human being is being offended by passing by the Symphony Cinema Theater and seeing a discrete sign saying \u201cI am Curious Yellow is playing inside.\u201d\nWe submit that kind of offense which is identical to the offense of a person passing by a birth control clinic does not deserve constitutional protection when fitted against an arguably First Amendment protective right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4515.385, 4516.066, 4526.256, 4535.663, 4539.924, 4543.415, 4545.373, 4551.996, 4561.455], "stop_times": [4516.066, 4526.256, 4535.663, 4539.924, 4543.415, 4545.373, 4551.996, 4561.455, 4571.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4515.385}, "reply_to": "14912__3_031", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_033", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Now you\u2019ve introduced at least an element that\u2019s new to me.\nSuppose the prosecution could demonstrate that half of the people who saw the movie performance were offended by it and so testified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4571.626, 4575.032], "stop_times": [4575.032, 4583.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4571.626}, "reply_to": "14912__3_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_034", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Judge Aldrich addressed himself to that question in oral argument and he said that there must be adequate warning before and an opportunity indeed to leave in the middle at any given time.\nIndeed there was no evidence.\nThe state might have sought to introduce but there was no evidence of a single complaint brought by a single person of course other than a policeman who went to see the film, nobody complained about its offensive character.\nOne can imagine a constitutional statute which punishes a film which deceptively lures people into the theater on the assumption that it\u2019s something else and then it turns out to be an offense or obnoxious film and complaints filed.\nThat is not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4583.765, 4594.22, 4595.559, 4605.221, 4618.158], "stop_times": [4594.22, 4595.559, 4605.221, 4618.158, 4619.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4583.765}, "reply_to": "14912__3_033", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_035", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well, if I follow your thesis on, how about moving the bearbaiting in to the theater and charging $5.00 admission for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4619.517], "stop_times": [4633.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4619.517}, "reply_to": "14912__3_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_036", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Well of course the admission charge would be, we argue, irrelevant under this Court\u2019s holding in the times case and at the state circuit.\nUnder our system, people simply must make money for an activity to go forward and First Amendment activities must be operated within our capitalistic system as well as other activities if they are in fact to occur.\nBearbaiting, I\u2019ve state previously, bearbaiting is not in our view protected by the constitution because it is A, an act, B, it hurts animals.\nBut if it were a movie that were being played inside, yes we would have to argue that a movie played in a discrete theater.\nRemember, I would like to remind this Court simply that it need not necessarily reach the issue of hardcore pornography in this case because there was no assumption that this film was hardcore pornography, no claim that was hardcore pornography and the Second Circuit decision can at least be relevant to the sense, to the extent of allowing this Court to decide the case on a record other than a hardcore pornography exhibition in a closed control movie theater.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4633.667, 4639.759, 4654.101, 4662.411, 4669.55], "stop_times": [4639.759, 4654.101, 4662.411, 4669.55, 4692.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4633.667}, "reply_to": "14912__3_035", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_037", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I don\u2019t want to over work to you on the bearbaiting but in order to have the film of bearbaiting, you got to go through an unlawful process in the first instance, do you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4692.503], "stop_times": [4701.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4692.503}, "reply_to": "14912__3_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_038", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "If the process is unlawful then there is no right to make a film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4701.798], "stop_times": [4705.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4701.798}, "reply_to": "14912__3_037", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_039", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Is it unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4705.241], "stop_times": [4706.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4705.241}, "reply_to": "14912__3_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_040", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "The process of bearbaiting?\nThe state has the right to make bearbaiting unlawful.\nTake another hypothetical of the film being made of a bank robbery in process.\nWe know that these things now occur.\nSurely there is a right to exhibit that film in a public controlled theater even though it might be offensive to many.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4706.221, 4707.366, 4709.996, 4713.609, 4715.782], "stop_times": [4707.366, 4709.996, 4713.609, 4715.782, 4721.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4706.221}, "reply_to": "14912__3_039", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_041", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "But the bank robbery is illegal whether privately performed or any other place isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4721.513], "stop_times": [4726.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4721.513}, "reply_to": "14912__3_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_042", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Right.\nAnd I would think that bearbaiting would be illegal whether privately performed there otherwise because it results in the killing of animals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4726.543, 4726.924], "stop_times": [4726.924, 4731.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4726.543}, "reply_to": "14912__3_041", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_043", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Do you think that analogy is valid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4731.546], "stop_times": [4734.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4731.546}, "reply_to": "14912__3_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_044", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think the analogy, bearbaiting is not valid in the sense that bearbaiting which is an act and which is an illegal act in which hurts animals is different from the film made of acts legal where committed in fact in this case of being presented on a screen to a public who has chosen to view that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4734.731], "stop_times": [4755.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4734.731}, "reply_to": "14912__3_043", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_045", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "But the difference between the showering on Pennsylvania Avenue and the bank robbery of Riggs Bank is that the showering on Pennsylvania, you say, is illegal but the showing of it is legal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4755.317], "stop_times": [4773.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4755.317}, "reply_to": "14912__3_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__3_046", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "But not on Pennsylvania Avenue.\nThe showing of film people showering at Pennsylvania Avenue would be illegal.\nIndeed the showing of a film of people showering in a home would be illegal if the curtains weren\u2019t drawn down.\nWe would argue that a theater with its curtains drawn down deserves more constitutional protection than a home with its shades drawn up.\nThat one must look at the functional definition of privacy and functionally a theater which is closed is more private than a home which shades are open.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4773.845, 4775.453, 4779.183, 4784.915, 4792.418, 4800.85], "stop_times": [4775.453, 4779.183, 4784.915, 4792.418, 4800.85, 4801.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4773.845}, "reply_to": "14912__3_045", "speaker": "alan_m_dershowitz"}
{"id": "14912__3_047", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Quinn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4801.343, 4807.093], "stop_times": [4807.093, 4812.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4801.343}, "reply_to": "14912__3_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__4_000", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nVery briefly, I choose to touch upon three items which I think have been a part of the appellees argument.\nThe first relates to what I think has been referred to as a novel approach for law enforcement in the field of obscenity.\nThe suggestion is of course.\nThat a customs case in the Second Circuit is one that ought to invite the interest of every state law enforcement official.\nThis, I respectfully submit is one aspect or one approach to law enforcement of which I want no part whatsoever.\nFor the first reason, I don\u2019t know how a state could intervene into a federal customs case.\nI know of no provision that would entitle any of us who might be States Attorney\u2019s General or District Attorney\u2019s to step into this Court to be ultimately bound.\nFor another reason, I am not prepared anymore than any other individual in this Courtroom to make the assumption that some imported film or other item is obscene or ought to have my supervision immediately on its importation to be obscene.\nI think first any one of us in law enforcement would have to have an opportunity to make a judgment on the facts would have to see the film as in this case in our jurisdiction.\nIt should not be asked either to come in out of curiosity to another jurisdiction or another Court or to come in on notice or in any binding effect of that particular decision.\nOn the contrary, in this particular case, there must have been some assumption to the validity of the particular act which is the showing of the film until there was a contrary decision made and this is exactly what occurred in the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.\nThere was an allegation or complaint and indictment, one single action taken by a qualified law enforcement official of Suffolk County.\nThere were many arguments and there was a hearing.\nThere was a trial conducted.\nAnd this covered a period of five-and-a-half months when the particular film in question showed, when there was no chill whatsoever on any citizen\u2019s rights.\nWhether the appellees here or any viewers as far as their opportunity to observe the film \u201cI Am Curious Yellow\u201d which two judges out of three and the Second Circuit Court determined was not obscene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4812.736, 4815.803, 4829.486, 4838.742, 4840.168, 4849.95, 4858.516, 4864.459, 4877.295, 4899.253, 4914.072, 4932.829, 4953.1, 4963.285, 4966.488, 4969.44, 4981.96], "stop_times": [4815.803, 4829.486, 4838.742, 4840.168, 4849.95, 4858.516, 4864.459, 4877.295, 4899.253, 4914.072, 4932.829, 4953.1, 4963.285, 4966.488, 4969.44, 4981.96, 5000.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4812.736}, "reply_to": "14912__3_047", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__4_001", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "General Quinn it\u2019s not entirely clear in my mind as to when this five-and-a half month period came chronologically in this litigation when you say this film was really shown to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5000.038], "stop_times": [5014.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5000.038}, "reply_to": "14912__4_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__4_002", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "From the beginning of the -- from the Spring of 1969 Mr. Justice Stewart, which I think was probably in May and then an indictment was sought some time around the last week of June by the District Attorney of Suffolk County and there was no -- there was action then taken by the appellees in the federal court but there was no controlling action taken by the federal court nor was there any other action taken by the district attorney of Suffolk County.\nJust one single indictment and during the time when these arguments ensued and when the trial on the issue was held in a jury waived session in Suffolk Superior Court, that covered a period of five-and-a-half months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5014.443, 5043.241], "stop_times": [5043.241, 5055.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5014.443}, "reply_to": "14912__4_001", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__4_003", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "In that period and I understood Mr. Lewin to say, and you would agree, if I understood it correctly that with respect to a moving picture film, there is not just (Inaudible) as contrasted with a book.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5055.193], "stop_times": [5071.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5055.193}, "reply_to": "14912__4_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14912__4_004", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "That is correct, that is correct Your Honor.\nThere is not that remedy available to the prosecutor but there is the remedy of declaratory judgment which was an approach endorsed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its decision of Commonwealth versus Baird where these First Amendment issues are brought into focus.\nAnd there has been other precedent in the Massachusetts Court system for act of approach taken by anyone asserting his individual rights.\nSo this film showed for five-and-a-half months in the Massachusetts jurisdiction not withstanding the District Attorney of Suffolk County had no opportunity to appear in the Second Circuit.\nOf course, implicit in this is the fact that we cannot assume that there were any threats on the part of the District Attorney of Suffolk County or the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during this five-and-a-half month period.\nThere were no threats and I further suggest that a threat connotes illegal action on the part of a state law enforcement official.\nWell, there was only one single action taken during this five-and-a-half month period.\nThere has been no action taken by the District Attorney since that period, only the fact that he will not pledge to undergo no further prosecutions, should this film be shown.\nThough there was the forbearance on the part of the appellees here, after the finding and I respectfully submit that after a finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Suffolk County that there is obscenity.\nThat any prosecuting official, any law enforcement official who should take a pledge that he would not move against the film found in fact to be obscene in his jurisdiction would not be upholding his sworn duty to administer the law and to prosecute crime but there was no such statement made only that a change had occurred.\nThis was after the five-and-a-half month showing.\nThis was after a finding of obscenity.\nThis was after I respectfully submit, a removal of that presumption which must have existed on the part of individuals.\nOn the basis of the decision, the 2:1 decision in the Second Circuit.\nI further suggest to this Honorable Court what else is a law enforcement official to do as far as these cases are concerned, if over his shoulder constantly is -- I would not use the threat but is the possibility of federal court intervention in every action that might be under taken by that state law enforcement official in good faith, in the pursuance of his duty?\nWhat else is he to do but stand still and I submit, let something now presumptively a crime continued to be perpetuated within his jurisdiction.\nI would further suggest that if we are to remove the very pressing issue of obscenity from determinations by this Court or by any individual citizen, nobody has seriously suggested that I have heard that we not continue to apply the limitations which were mentioned in the provisos in the injunction by the court below.\nThose limitations that provided this injunction shall not apply if the picture is advertised in a manner pandering to prurient interest in sex or is shown to an audience not warned of its possibly offensive character, or is shown to children under the age of 18 years, I respectfully submit that more constitutional issues could be raised in any one of these three classifications than I raise in the whole issue of what is obscene and not obscene under the context of definitions of obscenity as outlined by this Court in Roth versus the United States.\nWe would have to wonder what size ad newspaper add was advertising in a manner pandering to prurient interest.\nWe\u2019d have to wonder, if showing the film in Disney Land with all the cautions in the world was nevertheless a failure to warn a possible offensive character.\nWe would have to wonder if some young people in these United States who come from, for example, the Mediterranean countries in the heritage as my own wife does, should not be allowed a greater degree of maturity than age 18 or than those individuals of my own heritage who might have come from Northern European countries.\nNo, I hardly think that removing obscenity as proscribed conduct could remove the problems that beset law enforcement officials and this Honorable Court alike in the area of obscenity.\nThank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5071.832, 5073.607, 5088.827, 5101.566, 5115.314, 5131.681, 5143.194, 5147.872, 5167.702, 5179.755, 5208.096, 5210.424, 5212.96, 5222.555, 5227.544, 5255.766, 5271.162, 5294.007, 5333.753, 5341.15, 5353.542, 5378.278, 5394.284], "stop_times": [5073.607, 5088.827, 5101.566, 5115.314, 5131.681, 5143.194, 5147.872, 5167.702, 5179.755, 5208.096, 5210.424, 5212.96, 5222.555, 5227.544, 5255.766, 5271.162, 5294.007, 5333.753, 5341.15, 5353.542, 5378.278, 5394.284, 5396.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5071.832}, "reply_to": "14912__4_003", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "14912__4_005", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you Mr. Attorney General.\nMr. Strauss you -- nothing to add?\nYou have a few more minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5396.088, 5398.669, 5404.51], "stop_times": [5398.669, 5404.51, 5407.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5396.088}, "reply_to": "14912__4_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__5_000", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "I think in fact, Mr. Chief Justice that the 20 minutes that I was allotted by the Court have expired --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5407.01], "stop_times": [5417.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 5407.01}, "reply_to": "14912__4_005", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__5_001", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "There is some margin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5417.842], "stop_times": [5420.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5417.842}, "reply_to": "14912__5_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14912__5_002", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Alright.\nI think the only thing that I would wish to note on the issue of Griswold versus Connecticut, counsel sought to bring that case to this aid, as certainly of the statute involved in that case where a statute prohibiting birth control clinics, we would be in for much harder time of relying on it.\nThe statute involved in that case was a statute which prohibited married couples from using contraceptives.\nThis Court struck down that statute in a prosecution against the directors of the clinics as aiders and abettors under that statute.\nAnd in doing so and used the language that I quoted, the reasoning which had been found not only in that opinion but in ultimately prevailing dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan in Poe versus Ullman and I think again, that that is the central issue in Stanley that the state is invading the Stanley facts, the state is invading a completely private realm.\nHere we are dealing with public conduct and because it is public conduct no matter how carefully guarded it may be, there are at least some sorts of materials which the state may prevent from appearing in the course of that conduct, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5420.106, 5421.907, 5441.822, 5448.012, 5457.547, 5482.792], "stop_times": [5421.907, 5441.822, 5448.012, 5457.547, 5482.792, 5499.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 5420.106}, "reply_to": "14912__5_001", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "14912__5_003", "conversation_id": "14912", "text": "Thank you Mr. Strauss.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5499.015, 5501.778], "stop_times": [5501.778, 5506.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5499.015}, "reply_to": "14912__5_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_000", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We'll hear arguments in number 1149, Byrne against Karalexis.\nMr. Quinn, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [0.0, 40.184], "stop_times": [40.184, 50.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_001", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis matter is here on appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the provisions of 28 U.S.C 1253.\nThat provides for direct appeal from an order or judgment of a three-judge court granting temporary injunctive relief against the enforcement of a state statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [50.292, 56.343, 70.925], "stop_times": [56.343, 70.925, 83.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.292}, "reply_to": "15175__0_000", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_002", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Future enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [83.152], "stop_times": [85.034], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 83.152}, "reply_to": "15175__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_003", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIn our view, this appeal presents two equally important issues which ought to be finally resolved by this Court.\nThe first is whether the court below abused its discretion in enjoining the district attorney from prosecuting in the future on account on the showing off the film \u201cI Am Curious (Yellow)\u201d, which the court below assumed to be obscene.\nThe second is whether under this Court's holding in Stanley versus Georgia any state to unconstitutionally prohibit public commercialized dissemination of pornographic matter, absent distribution to minors, to non-consenting adults or by pandering the facts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [85.034, 87.963, 99.04, 118.394], "stop_times": [87.963, 99.04, 118.394, 142.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 85.034}, "reply_to": "15175__0_002", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_004", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "What is there in Stanley that protects commercial distribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [142.599], "stop_times": [147.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.599}, "reply_to": "15175__0_003", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__0_005", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is not the way we read it Your Honor and I do not think that is the way the author of the opinion wrote it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [147.796], "stop_times": [156.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 147.796}, "reply_to": "15175__0_004", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_006", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "If you prevail on the first branch of your case, why do we get the second point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [156.164], "stop_times": [163.264], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 156.164}, "reply_to": "15175__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_007", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think it's significant to get to the second point for the same reason stated by my brother, the distinguished Assistant Attorney General in the immediately prior argument, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [163.264], "stop_times": [174.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.264}, "reply_to": "15175__0_006", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_008", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And yet as Mr. Justice Stewart pointed out the substantial and irreversible point though in ourselves that I would say we will do but what was said that our Court exactly did, being in the pair with the state prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [174.475], "stop_times": [191.226], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 174.475}, "reply_to": "15175__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_009", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I submit respectfully Your Honor that there exists now a great deal of confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [191.226], "stop_times": [196.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.226}, "reply_to": "15175__0_008", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_010", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I know that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [196.823], "stop_times": [197.701], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 196.823}, "reply_to": "15175__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_011", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Among lower court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [197.701], "stop_times": [198.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.701}, "reply_to": "15175__0_010", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_012", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You have to argue this case on some kind of principle and not just because it would say, it's nice to have a little certainty on time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [198.652], "stop_times": [209.296], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 198.652}, "reply_to": "15175__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_013", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I submit Your Honor that the principles exist in Roth versus the United States and the opinions following that and also in Stanley versus Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [209.296], "stop_times": [219.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.296}, "reply_to": "15175__0_012", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_014", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But those issues will get here as to the state courts, won't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [219.396], "stop_times": [223.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.396}, "reply_to": "15175__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__0_015", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor but in the meantime, we submit that there exist a great deal of confusion and a chilling effect among law enforcement officials as far as the degree to which they can go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [223.686], "stop_times": [236.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.686}, "reply_to": "15175__0_014", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_016", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's a switch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [236.505], "stop_times": [237.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.505}, "reply_to": "15175__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__0_017", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In reading the statue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [237.244], "stop_times": [240.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.244}, "reply_to": "15175__0_016", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_018", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Tell me.\nWhat is the standing of -- there's already been a conviction as I understand it, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [240.442, 240.866], "stop_times": [240.866, 246.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.442}, "reply_to": "15175__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_019", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [246.965], "stop_times": [248.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.965}, "reply_to": "15175__0_018", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_020", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Of this distribution Mr. Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [248.315], "stop_times": [250.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.315}, "reply_to": "15175__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_021", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [250.037], "stop_times": [250.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.037}, "reply_to": "15175__0_020", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_022", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And there was something about some delay in the hearing of the appeal which is in the supreme judicial court, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [250.509], "stop_times": [259.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.509}, "reply_to": "15175__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_023", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's correct.\nOur understanding Your Honor is that the Bill of Exceptions was entered in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [259.572, 260.827, 268.666], "stop_times": [260.827, 268.666, 268.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.572}, "reply_to": "15175__0_022", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_024", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And in an ordinary course, will there be oral argument in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [268.881], "stop_times": [272.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.881}, "reply_to": "15175__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_025", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In the ordinary course, there would be oral argument and very likely in the October sitting of the Court because of course it's too late now for this argument to reach the May sitting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [272.465], "stop_times": [280.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 272.465}, "reply_to": "15175__0_024", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_026", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's what I was trying to get to you.\nSo we won't get a decision which goes to the constitutionality of the statute, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [280.612, 281.831], "stop_times": [281.831, 289.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.612}, "reply_to": "15175__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_027", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The decision would go.\nI submit that a decision would go to the constitutionality of the statute as well as to the question of obscenity vel non?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [289.561, 291.21], "stop_times": [291.21, 296.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.561}, "reply_to": "15175__0_026", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_028", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But we probably wouldn't get that then from your high court until December or January?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [296.913], "stop_times": [303.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.913}, "reply_to": "15175__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_029", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's a fair assumption Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [303.155], "stop_times": [304.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.155}, "reply_to": "15175__0_028", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_030", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [304.733], "stop_times": [305.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.733}, "reply_to": "15175__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_031", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I would add parenthetically that if there had been all haste in the preparation of the Bill of Exception so that it might be entered by the Court, it's very likely that this case would have been argued in the state court at next week's scheduled arguments in the May sitting.\nThe facts maybe stated briefly as follows.\nOn June 30, 1969, after preliminary proceedings not relevant here, appellees filed an amended complaint in the court below alleging reason to believe that indictments would be sought against them by appellant Byrne's office under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272 Section 28(a).\nShortly thereafter, the indictments were in fact sought and returned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [305.914, 324.351, 328.671, 353.205], "stop_times": [324.351, 328.671, 353.205, 357.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.914}, "reply_to": "15175__0_030", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_032", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "This was after the suit is filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [357.91], "stop_times": [361.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.91}, "reply_to": "15175__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_033", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.\nAfter the suit was filed but before there was any action taken if I may say respectfully, there was a bit of a raise to the courtroom doors, two courts involved.\nAppellees sought a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against prosecution there under.\nThey alleged that the statute was overbroad because among other things adequately controlled commercial distribution of obscene material is protected by the First Amendment.\nThe Court declined to grant injunctive or other relief but requested briefs on questions regarding the scope of this Court's holdings in Stanley versus Georgia and the effect of that opinion on the Massachusetts statute.\nProsecution continued in the state court in a jury weighed session and the appellees were convicted.\nFollowing their conviction appellees renewed their request for injunctive relief.\nAfter further argument, a majority of the court below held that Stanley versus Georgia went so far as to prohibit state prosecution with respect to adequately controlled public distribution of obscene material and the Court decided that the Massachusetts statute was probably unconstitutional as being overbroad on its face.\nBased on this opinion, a majority of the court below enjoined the appellants from further prosecution with respect to showing of the film of I Am Curious (Yellow).\nI address myself first to the question, why did the court below abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief?\nCommittee and federalism prompt the federal judge to be extremely reluctant to enjoin good faith enforcement of a state's criminal laws by law enforcement officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [361.749, 363.436, 375.346, 383.588, 396.89, 413.897, 422.786, 428.987, 459.866, 474.293, 484.557], "stop_times": [363.436, 375.346, 383.588, 396.89, 413.897, 422.786, 428.987, 459.866, 474.293, 484.557, 497.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.749}, "reply_to": "15175__0_032", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_034", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In the application to the Mr. Attorney General is a nice significance in the fact that this proceeding had been brought before actually a criminal prosecution was initiated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [497.522], "stop_times": [507.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.522}, "reply_to": "15175__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_035", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I respectfully submit -- no Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [507.678], "stop_times": [510.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.678}, "reply_to": "15175__0_034", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_036", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Haven't we made the distinction in that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [510.59], "stop_times": [512.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.59}, "reply_to": "15175__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_037", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct Your Honor, you have and the Congress as legislative a distinction -- legislated a distinction in that respect.\nBut I respectfully submit that what we have here in the facts that I suggested were not relevant to the facts present.What we have here really was the seeking of an indictment before any approach to the federal court.\nThis indictment was subsequently dismissed in the judgment of the district attorney because there was lacking scienter in the terms of the indictment and the district attorney then in the normal course of his business proceeded to seek a new indictment including all of the proper elements of the crime so that there would not be a dismissal on a basis of a technicality.\nAnd during the interim --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [512.96, 520.481, 536.101, 559.116], "stop_times": [520.481, 536.101, 559.116, 560.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.96}, "reply_to": "15175__0_036", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_038", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How long after this suit was brought -- it was the second of that, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [560.417], "stop_times": [564.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.417}, "reply_to": "15175__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__0_039", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I would say within a week of the hearing on the motion to dismiss Your Honor.\nOn June 25th, the matter was dismissed on motion of the district attorney in the Suffolk Superior Court.\nOn June 30th, the appellees here were in the federal court and within days there, there was a process of indictment again in the Suffolk Superior Court.\nWell, what have we here to contravene that fundamental principle which I have now stated?\nNo monetary loss for there is no evidence whatsoever on the record of any financial loss on the part of the appellees here.\nAs a matter of fact, there is no proprietary interest.\nThey're not the owners of this film.\nThey own a movie house which shows this and other films.\nWe can hardly say further --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [564.752, 571.179, 578.671, 593.483, 603.706, 615.491, 619.885, 623.197, 630.651], "stop_times": [571.179, 578.671, 593.483, 603.706, 615.491, 619.885, 623.197, 630.651, 632.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.752}, "reply_to": "15175__0_038", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_040", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I'm not sure what difference it makes whether they're owner to whether they're showing it.\nHow does that --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [632.024, 638.518], "stop_times": [638.518, 639.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.024}, "reply_to": "15175__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_041", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think it goes to the essence of whether injunctive relief can be granted Your Honor whether there is monetary damage.\nWe submit that there was no showing of monetary damage that simply stating that they own a movie house and they are showing or might want to show a particular film is not sufficient showing of damage.\nAs a matter of fact, I think in one of the briefs, the red brief, there is a mention of the other films that have been shown since in the judgment of the appellees here, they should show other films.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [639.202, 645.917, 660.505], "stop_times": [645.917, 660.505, 673.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.202}, "reply_to": "15175__0_040", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_042", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Could we take judicial notice that \u201cI am Curious, Yellow\u201d gets a heavier box office price than the others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [673.014], "stop_times": [681.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.014}, "reply_to": "15175__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__0_043", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't know how, Your Honor.\nThere are great deal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [681.151, 682.488], "stop_times": [682.488, 683.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.151}, "reply_to": "15175__0_042", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_044", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Just look in the newspaper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [683.822], "stop_times": [685.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.822}, "reply_to": "15175__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__0_045", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "There are great deal of exciting films, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nYou know many at times, I attempted to go to one of the theatres of the appellees involved here and I've never been able to get inside the theater.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [685.391, 688.38], "stop_times": [688.38, 697.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.391}, "reply_to": "15175__0_044", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_046", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "(Inaudible) prosecuting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [697.803], "stop_times": [702.032], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 697.803}, "reply_to": "15175__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_047", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I didn't think I look that way Mr. Justice.\nAnd we can hardly say that there is any chilling effect here either on the appellees or their patrons.\nWe are not talking about political handbills.\nWe are talking about commercial pornography assumptively in the court below and on a finding after a trial in the Superior Court of Suffolk County.\nA subject matter assumed to be obscene, we submit, cannot be said to have any value within itself.\nFurthermore, this film showed for five-and-a-half months pending the argument on the merits and the decision of obscenity on the facts in the Suffolk Superior Court.\nWe find only one instance where this Court approved relief, granted against a state law enforcement official.\nThat was the case of the Dombrowski versus Pfister.\nIt concerns civil rights advocacy.\nThe record is replete with incidents of bad faith on the part of local officials.\nThis is epitomized by the anecdote of night rage on citizen's officers which discouraged their protected activities.\nThese are not the facts in the case of Byrne.\nWe have here activity whose dominant theme by assumption and by a finding on the facts after a state trial is offensive to community standards of morality, whose appeal is to a prurient interest in sex whose content is utterly without redeeming social value.\nFurthermore, there is no bad faith whatsoever either evident on the record or argued in the court below on the part of the prosecution law enforcement officials.\nThis has been accepting the instance that I've related to you Your Honor, Mr. Justice Brennan.\nThis has been a single case pursued in the course of his work by the District Attorney of Suffolk County.\nWe submit therefore that there is no showing of irreparable injury which would prompt and support the action taken by the majority membership of the court below.\nMoreover in this case, we have a classic example for the application of the principle of abstention.\nIf the statute in question, Chapter 272, Section 28(a) of the Massachusetts General Laws should be overbroad and this we do not concede.\nThat faults can here be overcome by leaving the case to be resolved in the state court and giving the state court the opportunity to narrowly construe the law and thus avoid constitutional defects.\nAnd this can be done in a single matter pending in the Massachusetts courts.\nAssuming however that this statute is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [702.032, 706.123, 714.117, 717.638, 729.553, 738.931, 755.635, 766.493, 770.231, 774.627, 781.319, 789.674, 793.679, 816.819, 830.778, 837.019, 848.739, 865.874, 877.43, 889.455, 908.942, 917.374], "stop_times": [706.123, 714.117, 717.638, 729.553, 738.931, 755.635, 766.493, 770.231, 774.627, 781.319, 789.674, 793.679, 816.819, 830.778, 837.019, 848.739, 865.874, 877.43, 889.455, 908.942, 917.374, 919.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.032}, "reply_to": "15175__0_046", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_048", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The content to stop at that point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [919.739], "stop_times": [924.365], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 919.739}, "reply_to": "15175__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_049", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why should I not be content to stop at that point, Mr. Justice Harlan?\nI think as I have stated before that there must be some consideration given by this distinguished court to the aspect in which our complete American society finds itself as far as the issue of obscenity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [924.365, 928.735], "stop_times": [928.735, 944.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.365}, "reply_to": "15175__0_048", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_050", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But if you're right -- if you're right in what you've just told us then it would be quite wrong for this Court in this case at this time to give that sure guidance that you feel so much the need of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [944.089], "stop_times": [958.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.089}, "reply_to": "15175__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__0_051", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I submit Your Honor that it is not without precedent that this Court has made distinctions and has made findings as far as the procedure in cases like this where it rendered what appeared to be sufficient decision on one part of the case to eliminate consideration of the second point but then went on in its judgment for proper interpretation of the law to considering a second point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [958.204], "stop_times": [987.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.204}, "reply_to": "15175__0_050", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_052", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, there's nothing -- of course there's nothing wrong and nothing impermissible about you're making alternative arguments but if you do prevail on this argument you just made to us then that's the end of the case then we obviously don't get in to the merits of the substance of the merits of this particular movie at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [987.127], "stop_times": [1008.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 987.127}, "reply_to": "15175__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__0_053", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct Your Honor but I submit that we continue to have two judges of three in the three-judge district court in Massachusetts making a decision of probable unconstitutionality.\nWe continue to have a federal judge in California making another decision of unconstitutionality of a federal statute.\nWe continue to have that confusion that I mentioned before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1008.397, 1021.543, 1029.886], "stop_times": [1021.543, 1029.886, 1033.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.397}, "reply_to": "15175__0_052", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_054", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Let me put a practical question to you and this is not suppose to be a humorous.\nNow, what you're arguing now in effect that showing effect on you prosecutors, state prosecutors of the confusion that manifest to exists under this court's decision and this holds and it repealed nobody could belie that.\nNow as between that -- as between the propositions that you've just argued namely the implications of federalism that going into federal courts not getting into restraining state enforcement regardless from proceeding to enforce their own law by letting individual constitutional questions come up to the state system.\nWhat do you think of if you have to look at these two countervailing effects, chilling effect of all this, which do you think is the most important?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1033.759, 1039.367, 1054.989, 1083.107], "stop_times": [1039.367, 1054.989, 1083.107, 1095.308], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.759}, "reply_to": "15175__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_055", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You want to ponder on that counsel and give us your response after your lunch?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1095.308], "stop_times": [1099.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.308}, "reply_to": "15175__0_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_056", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "If that's the pleasure of the Court, yes Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1099.759, 1102.259], "stop_times": [1102.259, 1105.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.759}, "reply_to": "15175__0_055", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_057", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Quinn, you have had time to ponder.\nNow, do you want to address yourself to Justice Harlan's question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1105.388, 1107.372], "stop_times": [1107.372, 1112.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.388}, "reply_to": "15175__0_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_058", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI did not need quite the hour's hesitation to answer respectfully, Your Honor.\nI have no doubt in my experience as Attorney General that of extreme importance and primary importance in consideration of this Court today is the first point, that point of abstention as far as the Court, three-judge federal court in its action on this case.\nThis is of extreme importance to all of us because in addition to the confusion, it establishes in the judicial system and in law enforcement administration.\nIt also, I respectfully submit, creates great or a possibility of disrespect with the public at large and it is that point additionally that makes it advisable, we submit, for the further consideration of the problem of obscenity and for the consideration of clarifying exactly this Court's views on obscenity.\nI go now to another factor relied on in the majority opinion below because it leads to the second question presented in our case here.\nThat court gave great weight to the likelihood of success for the appellees here in their posture on the facts.\nThat success depends on the answer to the question, \u201cCan public commercial dissemination of pornography be proscribed by any state?\u201d\nBefore Stanley versus Georgia, we submit that there was no doubt at all above this principle.\nRoth versus the United States, the leading case on this subject based that answer on the fact that obscenity is not protected speech within the First Amendment.\nWe agree with Mr. Justice Marshall that the holding in Stanley in no way impairs the principle so well annunciated in Roth.\nIn fact, only last week, this Court summarily affirmed in Gable versus Jenkins number 1049 on the docket of the Court, a case involving action under a distinguishable statute in the same jurisdiction as Stanley.\nDistinguishable from the statute in the Stanley case but a statute very much like that upheld in the Roth case and very much like the statute under consideration in the case at bar.\nThe statute upheld in Roth prohibited commercial distribution of pornography.\nThe Massachusetts statute, Chapter 272, Section 28(a) is of like tenet.\nIt strikes at public dissemination.\nThis, we submit, does not affect a fact situation like that present in Stanley versus Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1112.457, 1115.971, 1122.904, 1143.977, 1155.088, 1179.593, 1190.799, 1200.953, 1213.621, 1220.851, 1234.578, 1245.262, 1267.119, 1283.734, 1290.025, 1296.322, 1300.521], "stop_times": [1115.971, 1122.904, 1143.977, 1155.088, 1179.593, 1190.799, 1200.953, 1213.621, 1220.851, 1234.578, 1245.262, 1267.119, 1283.734, 1290.025, 1296.322, 1300.521, 1307.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.457}, "reply_to": "15175__0_057", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_059", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Is that case you referred to last week and now is heard as the premise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1307.213], "stop_times": [1312.777], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.213}, "reply_to": "15175__0_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_060", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It was a summary affirmance, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1312.777], "stop_times": [1318.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.777}, "reply_to": "15175__0_059", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_061", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "What's the name of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1318.063], "stop_times": [1319.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.063}, "reply_to": "15175__0_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__0_062", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Gable versus Jenkins, number 1049.\nAs I recall, I think there were two justices either abstaining or dissenting, Your Honor.\nFor all of the foregoing reasons that I have brought forth --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1319.445, 1326.269, 1338.255], "stop_times": [1326.269, 1338.255, 1343.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.445}, "reply_to": "15175__0_061", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_063", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Did you say number 1249?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1343.38], "stop_times": [1345.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.38}, "reply_to": "15175__0_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__0_064", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "1049 Your Honor.\nI'm aware that the Solicitor General is going to take some time of the honorable court and will dwell exclusively on the issue of obscenity and the relationship between the Roth decision and those following it and Stanley versus Georgia.\nSo I will conclude, submitting that for all of the foregoing and for the reasons brought forth in our brief, we submit that the court below abused its discretion in granting relief and should be reversed on that instance.\nWe also submit that the right to prohibit obscenity, that right annunciated in Roth and the right to possess obscene matter in the privacy of one's home that right protected in Stanley are compatible as this Court has held.\nAnd that therefore, the Massachusetts statute is constitutional.\nWe asked this Honorable Court so to hold and add again if I may be able to do so a special plea on behalf of the judicial systems of the several states, the enforcement officials and the legislatures of those several states that this Honorable Court make that latter point clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1345.421, 1349.842, 1366.62, 1385.292, 1401.759, 1407.671], "stop_times": [1349.842, 1366.62, 1385.292, 1401.759, 1407.671, 1429.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.421}, "reply_to": "15175__0_063", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_065", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I suppose on your latter proposition that we accepted it and the case then go back to the Court of Appeals to have that as reversed to this as to whether this is within or without the Roth case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1429.542], "stop_times": [1445.589], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.542}, "reply_to": "15175__0_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_066", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think that this Court here could consider that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1445.589], "stop_times": [1449.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1445.589}, "reply_to": "15175__0_065", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_067", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "If we are to bypass the Court of Appeals then that's -- I mean the three-judge court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1449.196], "stop_times": [1455.798], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.196}, "reply_to": "15175__0_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_068", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I submit that we do have here a commercial aspect.\nThis is the appellees here in question where the owners and the manager and the corporate owner of a movie house so that there is sufficient here for the Court with other cases presently under consideration there is sufficient here for the Court to elaborate on what we find in Stanley versus Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1455.798, 1459.759], "stop_times": [1459.759, 1483.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.798}, "reply_to": "15175__0_067", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_069", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How can a man who's charged with a crime if he able to know for himself in the events of the trial whether or not a piece of literature or whatever you may want to call it has a redeeming social value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1483.329], "stop_times": [1503.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.329}, "reply_to": "15175__0_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__0_070", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I respectfully submit Your Honor that this is basic to the question of obscenity no matter where the issue is applied.\nI'm well aware of the position of Your Honor regarding obscenity but there is another opinion and there is an opinion supported by actions of the legislatures of the several states as well as the United Sates Congress which has proscribed obscenity and there is support in legal opinion that suggests that obscenity in its reference may properly continue to be difficult a specific definition and specific application as has been stated by one justice I know it when I see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1503.456, 1510.805], "stop_times": [1510.805, 1545.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.456}, "reply_to": "15175__0_069", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_071", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yeah, but what I'm getting at here is if one element of the crime here that whatever you're examining has no redeeming social value, how can any man who handles literature of any kind know whether he is violating it or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1545.729], "stop_times": [1567.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.729}, "reply_to": "15175__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__0_072", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It is extremely difficult to do so Your Honor and this is another reason why further clarification of the distinctions made by this Court would be helpful to all of us who are in society and in law enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1567.05], "stop_times": [1579.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1567.05}, "reply_to": "15175__0_071", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_073", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I suppose an addendum to that answer might be that the states did not make that standards but they have to try to live with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1579.735], "stop_times": [1588.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.735}, "reply_to": "15175__0_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_074", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Respectfully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1588.751], "stop_times": [1588.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.751}, "reply_to": "15175__0_073", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_075", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But if the Federal Constitution requires, no man be convicted of a crime unless it's accurately described so that he can know whether he is violating the law, that is a state problem and a federal problem, isn't it?\nAnd if he cannot be convicted, if the test at each time whether it has a redeeming social value, is that to proven by evidence?\nIs it to be proven by the -- tried by the jury or is it to be tried by this Court ultimately?\nAnd can a man ever know whether it has redeeming social value until his particular case gets up here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1588.992, 1605.507, 1615.524, 1622.985], "stop_times": [1605.507, 1615.524, 1622.985, 1631.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.992}, "reply_to": "15175__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__0_076", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I must answer in the affirmative to all of these disjunctives, Your Honor.\nThere is an evidentiary problem in determining obscenity or not.\nThis is the case that was tried in this particular matter in the state court.\nThere is also of course the overview of this Honorable Court as far as the extent to which the factual problem of obscenity goes and constantly, we have seen cases brought before here arguing the issue of obscenity on a given set of facts.\nFortunately, that is not the case here.\nPardon Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1631.223, 1635.124, 1639.761, 1643.623, 1660.287, 1663.066], "stop_times": [1635.124, 1639.761, 1643.623, 1660.287, 1663.066, 1663.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.223}, "reply_to": "15175__0_075", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_077", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Those facts -- the facts in the case was sufficient to show that the article of whatever that was purchase to sell as a redeeming social value.\nThat should test to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1663.692, 1679.206], "stop_times": [1679.206, 1680.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.692}, "reply_to": "15175__0_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__0_078", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's one of the tests, yes Your Honor.\nHow this is established is extremely difficult I'm sure for the Court as well as for individual late people, citizens of Unite States of America.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1680.881, 1683.631], "stop_times": [1683.631, 1695.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1680.881}, "reply_to": "15175__0_077", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_079", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Suppose you could say that from the moment constitutional to your life and it's not about its attributes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1695.629], "stop_times": [1703.374], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.629}, "reply_to": "15175__0_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__0_080", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well stated, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1703.374], "stop_times": [1705.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1703.374}, "reply_to": "15175__0_079", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_081", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Life would have its hazards but under the Constitution suppose everybody has suppose I thought up to now on the discussion of obscenity, no man could be convicted of a crime unless it could be defined in such a way that he could know whether he is violating the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1705.281], "stop_times": [1725.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.281}, "reply_to": "15175__0_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__0_082", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1725.964], "stop_times": [1728.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1725.964}, "reply_to": "15175__0_081", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_083", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I suppose a man operating a motor vehicle under the reckless driving laws has a certain area that we up here call the penumbra where he might think it was not reckless but somebody else, some officer might think it was reckless.\nHe has to make a difficult judgment there too, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1728.375, 1744.656], "stop_times": [1744.656, 1747.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.375}, "reply_to": "15175__0_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__0_084", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In Massachusetts, we always thought that 20 miles an hour was a reasonable speed practically anyway, Your Honor.\nThat's correct.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1747.713, 1754.132, 1755.993], "stop_times": [1754.132, 1755.993, 1761.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1747.713}, "reply_to": "15175__0_083", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__0_085", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Pauley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1761.525], "stop_times": [1766.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.525}, "reply_to": "15175__0_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__1_000", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nAt the outset, I should like to indicate as our amicus brief shows and as General Quinn has pointed out the interest of the United States in this case is limited to that aspect of the District Court's decision that considered and interpreted with this Court's holding in Stanley versus Georgia.\nWe therefore take no position on the procedural issue that is also involved in this case and it has been the subject to extensive briefing an argument by the parties.\nI should like also to note the reasons for the Government's interest in this case as the Court well knows the Federal Government as well as the states has laws that bear upon the matter of obscenity.\nThe Government bans the importation of obscene materials and the Federal Government again through a statute enacted by Congress proscribes the interstate mailing transportation through the mails of obscene materials.\nIn addition, as a treaty that the United States is a party too that the Court referred to in the Roth case in Mr. Justice Brennan's opinion that requires the United States to take necessary steps to prohibit the international traffic in obscene materials.\nMoreover, we have a number of pending cases as we refer to in our amicus brief in which the issue of meaning and effect of Stanley is centrally raised.\nThose cases are working their way up to this Court but because this case is being considered this term and those cases will not -- we thought it's appropriate to express our views on the question of the meaning of Stanley at this point not to run the risk of not having an opportunity to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1766.895, 1770.958, 1791.946, 1803.802, 1821.049, 1840.445, 1859.815, 1872.152], "stop_times": [1770.958, 1791.946, 1803.802, 1821.049, 1840.445, 1859.815, 1872.152, 1893.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1766.895}, "reply_to": "15175__0_085", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_001", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Did I understand from scanning your brief that at least one Federal Court I think in California has held this federal legislation or part of it constitutionally invalid based on Stanley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1893.688], "stop_times": [1909.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.688}, "reply_to": "15175__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_002", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1909.342], "stop_times": [1910.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1909.342}, "reply_to": "15175__1_001", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_003", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And that was the importation statute (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1910.373], "stop_times": [1912.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.373}, "reply_to": "15175__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_004", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, that's correct and based essentially on the same reading of the opinion in Stanley as (Voice Overlap).\nYes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1912.219, 1919.685], "stop_times": [1919.685, 1922.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1912.219}, "reply_to": "15175__1_003", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_005", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Is the Solicitor General able to give us anymore definite definition of this crime than it must be something that does not have a redeeming social value?\nIf so, what is its definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1922.194, 1934.002], "stop_times": [1934.002, 1939.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.194}, "reply_to": "15175__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_006", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "As Your Honor knows the issue of obscenity is one that has divided the Court perhaps more than any other issue in recent times and we're of course aware of your position and the position of Mr. Justice Douglas on the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1939.36], "stop_times": [1954.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1939.36}, "reply_to": "15175__1_005", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_007", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I'm not just talking about the position of any individual.\nI'm talking about a situation that has been on evident, honest, deliberate purpose to find some way to make a definition that does not leave people in uncertainty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1954.138, 1956.662], "stop_times": [1956.662, 1972.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.138}, "reply_to": "15175__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_008", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1972.617], "stop_times": [1973.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1972.617}, "reply_to": "15175__1_007", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_009", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Solicitor General any idea of a better way than the test to be whether it has redeeming social value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1973.073], "stop_times": [1981.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.073}, "reply_to": "15175__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_010", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Your Honor, that's one -- as I understand it, that's one aspect of several what the Court has applied in determining obscenity.\nI think the answer to your question is no, and I think it would really be an insult to the intelligence of those justices and judges and counsel who have struggled over the last 15 or 20 years to come at a definition to suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [1981.566, 1990.472], "stop_times": [1990.472, 2008.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1981.566}, "reply_to": "15175__1_009", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_011", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Then why there's struggle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2008.556], "stop_times": [2009.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.556}, "reply_to": "15175__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_012", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "To suggest that we -- you're quite right.\nAs Mr. Justice Harlan pointed out in cases taken and considered on the merits, this Court his count then was 55 separate opinions and it's over 60 now.\nIt's a very difficult problem but I would suggest that one way of looking at it as Attorney General Quinn did is that it is a problem that the legislative branch, both of the state and the federal level has some role to play in and the statutes that the states have enacted and the Congress has enacted, they have sought to reflect as best as they can, this Court's articulation of the pertinent constitutional standards.\nThere is that the Chief Justice indicated a penumbra where an individual has to make a very difficult choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2009.593, 2012.322, 2025.808, 2056.732], "stop_times": [2012.322, 2025.808, 2056.732, 2065.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2009.593}, "reply_to": "15175__1_011", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_013", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Lucrative guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2065.726], "stop_times": [2067.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.726}, "reply_to": "15175__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_014", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Choice as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2067.666], "stop_times": [2069.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2067.666}, "reply_to": "15175__1_013", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_015", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But doesn't he have to make a guess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2069.159], "stop_times": [2071.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.159}, "reply_to": "15175__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_016", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think that's correct Your Honor.\nI don't think that that's limited to the area of obscenity.\nI think that perhaps there's a heightened impact there because of the First Amendment and as protection of free expression.\nBut I don't think that we should throw the whole notion of obscenity legislation out simply because it's difficult to arrive at a dissatisfactory definition.\nI think the Court has worked through the cases that had come to it to reach such a definition.\nWe think that the definition stated in Roth as explicated in subsequent cases, Memoirs and Redrup as a workable definition that permits on the one hand free expression of those ideas that the framers of First Amendment had in mind protecting and yet allows states and the Federal Government to prevent on behalf of the people, material it has, has no role to play in the discussion about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2071.254, 2072.818, 2077.312, 2084.942, 2097.791, 2105.704], "stop_times": [2072.818, 2077.312, 2084.942, 2097.791, 2105.704, 2139.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2071.254}, "reply_to": "15175__1_015", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_017", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How do we know exactly what ideas the framers had in mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2139.749], "stop_times": [2143.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.749}, "reply_to": "15175__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_018", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the Court traced this in the Roth case, traced the history of the First Amendment and it was quite clear at the time that the First Amendment was adopted and ratified that there were obscenity laws on the books at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2143.545], "stop_times": [2158.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2143.545}, "reply_to": "15175__1_017", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_019", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Undoubtedly.\nUndoubtedly, but I thought the object to the Constitution was to say what the Government could do and what it could not do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2158.517, 2160.123], "stop_times": [2160.123, 2166.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.517}, "reply_to": "15175__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_020", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor and I think that this Court has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2166.782], "stop_times": [2169.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2166.782}, "reply_to": "15175__1_019", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_021", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You didn't just ratify what had been done before, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2169.255], "stop_times": [2172.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.255}, "reply_to": "15175__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_022", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No, but I think the Constitution has to be read in the historical context in which those words were written and that's what the Court in Roth said and that's the point of departure that the Court has followed since that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2172.556], "stop_times": [2186.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2172.556}, "reply_to": "15175__1_021", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_023", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, there weren't any federal obscenity laws --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2186.946], "stop_times": [2189.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.946}, "reply_to": "15175__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_024", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2189.833], "stop_times": [2190.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2189.833}, "reply_to": "15175__1_023", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_025", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "-- on the books at the time the Constitution was written because there was no Federal Government until the Constitution was ratified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2190.098], "stop_times": [2194.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.098}, "reply_to": "15175__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_026", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's correct.\nThere --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2194.625, 2195.432], "stop_times": [2195.432, 2195.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2194.625}, "reply_to": "15175__1_025", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_027", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And the First Amendment is directed only at governing what the Federal Government can do.\nAt least that was true until the Fourteenth Amendment came along.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2195.722, 2202.454], "stop_times": [2202.454, 2205.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.722}, "reply_to": "15175__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_028", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's correct.\nThe first federal statute was enacted in 1842 on the obscenity question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2205.21, 2206.746], "stop_times": [2206.746, 2212.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2205.21}, "reply_to": "15175__1_027", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_029", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Would you agree Mr. Pauley that the guidelines in the antitrust field for example on anticompetitive effect or relevant market are perhaps better guidelines more precise than any that had been afforded in obscenity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2212.261], "stop_times": [2231.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.261}, "reply_to": "15175__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__1_030", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't -- I don't think there any better.\nNo Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2231.577, 2233.111], "stop_times": [2233.111, 2233.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2231.577}, "reply_to": "15175__1_029", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_031", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Would you think they are no better or about the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2233.674], "stop_times": [2238.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.674}, "reply_to": "15175__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__1_032", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't know how you made that qualitative evaluation.\nI think they have the same sort of ambiguity and vagueness in them that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2238.946, 2242.044], "stop_times": [2242.044, 2245.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2238.946}, "reply_to": "15175__1_031", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_033", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, that question was preliminary to the one that I now put to you.\nA great many businessmen and expert antitrust lawyers think they have as much difficulty in understanding applying and interpreting statutory standards and opinions of this Court on anticompetitive effects of a particular line of conduct or the relevant market of a particular business as exhibitors and publishers do with the obscenity fields.\nWould that -- do I -- do I overstate it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2245.277, 2252.531, 2281.838], "stop_times": [2252.531, 2281.838, 2284.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.277}, "reply_to": "15175__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__1_034", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Your Honor I agree and I think as I indicated Mr. Justice Black.\nThere are variety of areas of the law in which there is an area of uncertainty and the language simply doesn't lend itself to any better definition and the Court has struggled and attempted and worked and I assume will continue to work with the refinement of the standard as best as it can in this area and in the area you referred to in another area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2284.757, 2288.262], "stop_times": [2288.262, 2312.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2284.757}, "reply_to": "15175__1_033", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_035", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "75 no, 76 years ago, these Court divided almost four-and-a-half to four-and-a-half on the Northern Securities case or I think it was the predecessor but a couple of months ago, we -- without dissent affirmed the merger of the same two railroads.\nSo I suppose in the interval, there has been a lot of doubt about the problem of competition and monopoly in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2312.784, 2335.837], "stop_times": [2335.837, 2345.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.784}, "reply_to": "15175__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__1_036", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2345.896, 2346.495], "stop_times": [2346.495, 2347.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2345.896}, "reply_to": "15175__1_035", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_037", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Do I understand you to agree with the statement that was many businessmen think there are no boundaries.\nAre you saying that you do not think of anymore about solid boundaries for the antitrust laws then for obscenity which are you saying?\nYou said you agreed to something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2347.597, 2355.6, 2364.482], "stop_times": [2355.6, 2364.482, 2366.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.597}, "reply_to": "15175__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_038", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think the Chief Justice was suggesting that in the antitrust field under the broad dictates of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, this Court's opinions construing those statutes that there was at least as much ambiguity about those opinions and the standards there enunciated as in the obscenity field.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2366.94], "stop_times": [2389.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2366.94}, "reply_to": "15175__1_037", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_039", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So you think that's the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2389.246], "stop_times": [2391.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.246}, "reply_to": "15175__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_040", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2391.582], "stop_times": [2392.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2391.582}, "reply_to": "15175__1_039", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_041", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You think so.\nI think you perhaps overstated inadvertently my position.\nI think there's a difference but it's one only of degree.\nI think the publishers and exhibitors maybe have a little harder time of it.\nI'm sure they think so which perhaps the businessmen think they have the harder time of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2392.568, 2394.817, 2399.289, 2403.023, 2408.198], "stop_times": [2394.817, 2399.289, 2403.023, 2408.198, 2415.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.568}, "reply_to": "15175__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__1_042", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I would like to turn to Stanley.\nIt has been discussed a bit but that's the central concern for us and I should like to give the Court the Government's view of what Stanley holds and what it doesn't hold.\nAs we read that opinion and expressly disclaimed undermining of Roth in its progeny.\nIt said, instead that the concern there was with the mere possession of material that might be regarded as obscene and the privacy of an individual's home.\nNow, we suggest that it's inappropriate the District Court to extrapolate from that narrow holding, a decision with what we regard as sweeping implications in all field of obscenity as it has.\nWhat the District Court essentially did as the Court is aware here as whole dividing to the one that because there was a right to possess privately, materials that might in other context be regarded as obscene, it was necessarily a right to receive them.\nAnd since there was a right to receive them, there was necessarily a right to distribute them and therefore, has a right to commercial distribution that adheres to any exhibitor of a film or distributor of a book or whatever.\nWe think that the Court is wrong in its logic.\nWe think that this Court's opinion in Stanley should be honored for what it said.\nIt said that it was limited to the question of mere possession.\nIt did place its holding on First Amendment grounds but as we indicated that the whole opinion is rather full of language.\nIt speaks in Fourth Amendment terms.\nIt speaks about a concern about privacy in a man's home.\nAnd I'm not talking as appellees suggest about some protected area.\nThat's been done away with by the Court in the Katz case.\nWhat we're talking about is an individual's privacy and I would suggest if Mr. Stanley would like to carry an obscene book down the street, he could do that too and couldn't be prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2415.269, 2418.392, 2432.976, 2440.962, 2453.085, 2471.741, 2492.062, 2507.956, 2512.034, 2517.902, 2522.055, 2533.921, 2536.102, 2540.358, 2548.418, 2551.463], "stop_times": [2418.392, 2432.976, 2440.962, 2453.085, 2471.741, 2492.062, 2507.956, 2512.034, 2517.902, 2522.055, 2533.921, 2536.102, 2540.358, 2548.418, 2551.463, 2560.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2415.269}, "reply_to": "15175__1_041", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_043", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yeah, but where would he have acquired this book?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2560.938], "stop_times": [2563.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.938}, "reply_to": "15175__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_044", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't know where he would have acquired it Your Honor and I don't think that -- I really don't think that it matters where he acquired it.\nI think the Government has a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2563.946, 2570.28], "stop_times": [2570.28, 2570.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2563.946}, "reply_to": "15175__1_043", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_045", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No, you're saying it matters very much where you acquired it, don't you?\nHow would you suggest that he would have gain possession on this book that he has an absolute constitutional right to possess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2570.701, 2575.671], "stop_times": [2575.671, 2585.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.701}, "reply_to": "15175__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_046", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "He could have obtained that in a variety --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2585.743], "stop_times": [2587.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2585.743}, "reply_to": "15175__1_045", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_047", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And that you almost have to have written it himself, wouldn't he, under your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2587.52], "stop_times": [2592.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.52}, "reply_to": "15175__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_048", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No Your Honor, I'm assuming that he obtained it from the same sort of source that other Stanley has obtained similar sorts of materials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2592.15], "stop_times": [2602.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2592.15}, "reply_to": "15175__1_047", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_049", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's what you're telling us.\nIt's illegal or can be made illegal and it has been made illegal by the States or Federal Government for one Mr. Stanley to sell or give the book to another Mr. Stanley which Mr. Stanley found that he has to create his own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2602.595, 2603.712], "stop_times": [2603.712, 2623.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.595}, "reply_to": "15175__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_050", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, he doesn't have.\nWe know it's a practical matter that Stanleys can obtain this material.\nThe question is whether the holding in Stanley reaches so far as giving constitutional sanction to the people that were distributed and I would suggest that it does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2623.649, 2625.656, 2629.732], "stop_times": [2625.656, 2629.732, 2638.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2623.649}, "reply_to": "15175__1_049", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_051", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Suggesting it, would be of kind of an empty right and that the Court in Stanley have been spending a lot of time writing a very eloquent opinion about almost nothing at all if the right of possession of something doesn't involved or bring in its train the right to acquire it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2638.388], "stop_times": [2658.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.388}, "reply_to": "15175__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_052", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I'm not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2658.938], "stop_times": [2659.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2658.938}, "reply_to": "15175__1_051", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_053", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The absolute constitutional right that was up held in Stanley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2659.378], "stop_times": [2662.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.378}, "reply_to": "15175__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_054", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I'm not suggesting that he doesn't have a right to acquire and I'm suggesting that it doesn't extend so far as to hold with distributors have a right to disseminate material contrary to obscenity statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2662.68], "stop_times": [2676.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2662.68}, "reply_to": "15175__1_053", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_055", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So far as the record of Stanley, it shows that somebody might have given it to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2676.192], "stop_times": [2679.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.192}, "reply_to": "15175__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__1_056", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yeah, I don't know where he get the film and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2679.818], "stop_times": [2681.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2679.818}, "reply_to": "15175__1_055", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_057", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Or somebody might have mailed it to him.\nThere's nothing in the record that show where he got that film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2681.816, 2685.647], "stop_times": [2685.647, 2688.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.816}, "reply_to": "15175__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_058", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We made the basic right it seems to me Mr. Justice Stewart.\nIt's really a right not to be interfered with by the Government in this possession and the right has as we think Fourth and the Fifth Amendment underpinnings that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2688.896, 2692.812], "stop_times": [2692.812, 2704.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2688.896}, "reply_to": "15175__1_057", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_059", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Stanley -- the opinion of the Court in Stanley as I understood it.\nI did not join it as you know is based on the First Amendment of the separate opinion in that case which I do know something about and we've written it was based on the Fourth Amendment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2704.213, 2709.303], "stop_times": [2709.303, 2722.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.213}, "reply_to": "15175__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__1_060", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That was a different Fourth Amendment (Voice Overlap) yes.\nBut I would suggest that there's a long quote in there from Olmstead which was a Fourth Amendment case and there's repeated references to invasions of privacy and that's Fourth Amendment talk as far as I read this Court's case.\nIt seems to us that what the Court should do in this area is to adhere to the standards that it has annunciated in the past and instead of the bold departure that the District Court here has suggested, the District Court suggested that so long as material commercially disseminated was adequately controlled, and by adequately controlled, the District Court suggested not allowing minors in, no pandering and not -- and ensuring that there was no intrusion into unwilling or uninterested people.\nThe District Court suggests that so long as that was done that commercial distribution of films, book, whatever would be constitutionally protected.\nWe think that that's a misguided notion because first, it doesn't give sufficient weight to the legislative judgment in this matter.\nIt has been a running debate about the empirical evidence on the inducement of obscene materials to antisocial conduct as the Court knows as a presidential commission presently studying this matter.\nWe don't know what they're going to come up with.\nThey are going to make a report in the middle of this year.\nNow, I suggest that a part of wisdom would be to wait and see what they'd come up with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2722.254, 2725.45, 2740.036, 2778.428, 2789.094, 2797.653, 2810.126, 2811.871, 2815.542], "stop_times": [2725.45, 2740.036, 2778.428, 2789.094, 2797.653, 2810.126, 2811.871, 2815.542, 2821.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2722.254}, "reply_to": "15175__1_059", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_061", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "What are these matters -- was it in the middle of this year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2821.113], "stop_times": [2825.517], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.113}, "reply_to": "15175__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__1_062", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That statute requires a report by July 31st this year.\nYes, Your Honor.\nI'm not positive that they are going to make it by then but that's what the statute required.\nBecause it seems to us -- this is so because where you end up if you accept this position is essentially that hardcore pornography, whatever it is, assuming --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2825.517, 2829.31, 2830.438, 2837.148], "stop_times": [2829.31, 2830.438, 2837.148, 2848.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2825.517}, "reply_to": "15175__1_061", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_063", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's what I would like to -- I think we're lost on that.\nHardcore pornography.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2848.681, 2851.535], "stop_times": [2851.535, 2852.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2848.681}, "reply_to": "15175__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_064", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Assuming you can know it when you see it.\nYou can't -- it will be allowed in and the kind of material --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2852.845, 2855.532], "stop_times": [2855.532, 2859.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2852.845}, "reply_to": "15175__1_063", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_065", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "(Voice Overlap) you can understand it with your brain.\nWhen you hear it -- I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2859.362, 2862.228], "stop_times": [2862.228, 2865.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2859.362}, "reply_to": "15175__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_066", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But Your Honor as you know, the only conclusion if you accept that is to allow everything in and say that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2865.518], "stop_times": [2872.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2865.518}, "reply_to": "15175__1_065", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_067", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And the only conclusion the other way is just to say there was sex which is one of the strongest urges of the human race cannot be publicly discussed or privately discuss unless you would straight some other amendment to fit the project.\nIt puts that subject out of this -- of course it can't be done, everybody knows that it can't be done.\nYou can't (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2872.433, 2891.935, 2899.292], "stop_times": [2891.935, 2899.292, 2901.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.433}, "reply_to": "15175__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_068", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think there is certainly a position between those extremes that the Court has sought to carve out and I would hope that would continue to carve it out.\nIndeed, it seems that the appellees concede that the District Court's resolution is no panacea.\nThis is the so called assault theory or nuisance theory of obscenity.\nSomehow, that's going to get the Court out of all these problem but it won't get them out of all these problems.\nIt's clear that it won't get them out of all these problems because in the first place, you're going to have to decide in each case whether these three-pronged test has been complied with adequately and you're going to have to decide in cases where the distributor or the exhibitor determines that he doesn't have to comply with the three-pronged test.\nYou still are going to have to apply a standard of obscenity.\nSo it's no panacea and they admit that.\nThey back off and they finally say, \u201cWell maybe what you should do is draw a line between what's concededly obscene and possibly obscene.\u201d\nWe suggest that that's just a different verbal formulation and that does in advance the inquiry anywhere.\nIt seems to us finally that the basic problem here is one of whether this Court should seek to create for the society.\nA society that is concerned about morality, whose people are concerned about pornography, create a fixed and inflexible rule that prevents legislatures from reflecting the will of the people and I would suggest that the Court shouldn't do that and it hasn't done that up to now and we suggest that it's not appropriate to do it.\nSo if the Court reaches the issue that's presented on the question of the meaning of Stanley, we suggest that it would be appropriate for the Court to overturn the District Court's decision and restore Stanley to the limited and original meaning that we think the Court had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [2901.042, 2910.066, 2917.811, 2922.369, 2926.621, 2945.417, 2947.786, 2950.249, 2958.099, 2965.387, 2983.594, 3007.831], "stop_times": [2910.066, 2917.811, 2922.369, 2926.621, 2945.417, 2947.786, 2950.249, 2958.099, 2965.387, 2983.594, 3007.831, 3028.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2901.042}, "reply_to": "15175__1_067", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_069", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But it's your judgment that the Court can do any better if it's as deadly to create a definition.\nThey can't do any better than what's done in the opinion written by my Brother Brennan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3028.813, 3035.339], "stop_times": [3035.339, 3041.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.813}, "reply_to": "15175__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_070", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No Your Honor, I don't think so.\nI think the Court -- all the minds in the Court, the counsel that have sought to assist them have struggled as I indicated it with this problem for 15 or 20 years and I don't suggest there's a better formulation that could be arrived at.\nI think it's a difficult problem and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3041.956, 3045.281, 3062.329], "stop_times": [3045.281, 3062.329, 3064.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3041.956}, "reply_to": "15175__1_069", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_071", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I don't either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3064.79], "stop_times": [3065.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.79}, "reply_to": "15175__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__1_072", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But the standards of the Court has annunciated, they give very wide range to free expression and the Court has moved really to a point where what is prohibited is essentially the hardcore sort of pornography.\nIt doesn't really express ideas that have any merit or any word.\nIt seems to us that that's a sound and sensible position and that's a position that people and the legislatures can live with.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3065.901, 3085.041, 3092.606, 3101.859], "stop_times": [3085.041, 3092.606, 3101.859, 3103.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3065.901}, "reply_to": "15175__1_071", "speaker": "roger_a_pauley"}
{"id": "15175__1_073", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Pauley.\nMr. Lewin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3103.523, 3106.47], "stop_times": [3106.47, 3117.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.523}, "reply_to": "15175__1_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__2_000", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts and the Solicitor General as amicus curiae have, I submit, argued before this Court a case that simply is not here and an issue that is not fairly presented by the order which is here under review.\nI would just like to take a minute to summarize what in fact has happened here.\nA theatre owner threatened with criminal prosecution under a state statute of dubious constitutionality for showing a film which was found non-obscene by a Federal Court of Appeals and has been widely and seriously reviewed, instituted a proceeding under 42 U.S.C 1983 in a Federal District Court to prevent the threatened prosecution and harassment by the state prosecutor under the local obscenity statute.\nThe federal court upon entertaining that complaint, refused to intervene even with a subsequently instituted prosecution under the state statute and appellants here can see that unlike --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3117.321, 3120.986, 3140.456, 3146.609, 3179.83], "stop_times": [3120.986, 3140.456, 3146.609, 3179.83, 3197.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3117.321}, "reply_to": "15175__1_073", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_001", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Is it accurate really to say it was subsequent -- as I understood it, there had initially been a prosecution in the indictment to some infirmity was superseded by another indictment after this suit had been filed.\nIs that what the law confines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3197.118, 3211.464], "stop_times": [3211.464, 3212.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.118}, "reply_to": "15175__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_002", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's true.\nThere was a prior indictment.\nThat earlier indictment is not involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3212.621, 3213.131, 3215.666], "stop_times": [3213.131, 3215.666, 3217.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.621}, "reply_to": "15175__2_001", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_003", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I know that but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3217.722], "stop_times": [3220.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.722}, "reply_to": "15175__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_004", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, in the technical --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3220.641], "stop_times": [3220.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3220.641}, "reply_to": "15175__2_003", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_005", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "On the questions whether or not it was a pending prosecution when this suit was brought to the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3220.931], "stop_times": [3229.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.931}, "reply_to": "15175__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_006", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3229.987], "stop_times": [3232.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3229.987}, "reply_to": "15175__2_005", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_007", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Is it difficult to argue that there was none pending when you -- when the suit was filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3232.228], "stop_times": [3236.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.228}, "reply_to": "15175__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_008", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "There was a prosecution pending when this suit was originally instituted.\nAt the time the final amended complaint was filed, the amended complaint which really presented the issues before the Court, there was then no outstanding indictment.\nThat indictment had been dismissed because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3236.958, 3241.115, 3252.59], "stop_times": [3241.115, 3252.59, 3254.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3236.958}, "reply_to": "15175__2_007", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_009", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's only a matter of days before the second.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3254.532], "stop_times": [3256.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.532}, "reply_to": "15175__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_010", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It was a matter of days, that's true Mr. Justice Brennan.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3256.141, 3258.853], "stop_times": [3258.853, 3259.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.141}, "reply_to": "15175__2_009", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_011", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But it can't really a continuity of the initial prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3259.153], "stop_times": [3262.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.153}, "reply_to": "15175__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_012", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I think in terms of 2283 which after all is a technical statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3262.065], "stop_times": [3266.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3262.065}, "reply_to": "15175__2_011", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_013", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's what I'm thinking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3266.706], "stop_times": [3267.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.706}, "reply_to": "15175__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_014", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Right.\nWhich after all is a technical statute.\nI think it's appropriate to construe that particularly in the First Amendment contact is to construe it narrowly but let me go beyond that Mr. Justice Brennan.\nI don't think that's essential and it's no way essential in our case because even if one assumes that the indictment that was entered subsequent to the firing of the last amended complaint was one which was entitled to protection under 2283, the three-judge district court in this case in fact fully protected that prosecution.\nIt refused in anyway to interfere with that state prosecution.\nThe issue that was presented to the District Court and which prompted the entry of the order which is here under review, the interlocutory order which appears in pages 44 to 45 of the appendix.\nThe circumstances which prompted the entry of that order were solely and exclusively the fact that in the interim that state prosecution had gone through a trial and a judge had found the appellees in this case guilty.\nThe state prosecutor then returned to the federal court and said that whereas heretofore, I have by stipulation permitted this film to continue its exhibition during the pendency of that trial, I hereby withdraw that stipulation and that appears in the transcript which is on file here in this Court several times.\nIt was at that point that the three-judge district court was faced with the question on which should acted in this order and that question was, was it to permit a state prosecutor at that juncture to threaten by threatening indictments and seizures to threaten a theatre owner out of permitting him to show his film.\nNow, I point out to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3267.479, 3267.868, 3270.058, 3278.758, 3302.087, 3309.143, 3323.572, 3340.011, 3362.458, 3389.013], "stop_times": [3267.868, 3270.058, 3278.758, 3302.087, 3309.143, 3323.572, 3340.011, 3362.458, 3389.013, 3390.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.479}, "reply_to": "15175__2_013", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_015", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "What you're saying is this is not applied to any of the three cases involved, you say your question could reach the Dombrowski, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3390.559], "stop_times": [3402.323], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.559}, "reply_to": "15175__2_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_016", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Right.\nWe think this follows a fortiori from Dombrowski.\nWe think it's for -- right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3402.323, 3402.611, 3406.661], "stop_times": [3402.611, 3406.661, 3410.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3402.323}, "reply_to": "15175__2_015", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_017", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The Dombrowski issue and not in 2283?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3410.915], "stop_times": [3414.816], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.915}, "reply_to": "15175__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_018", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Definitely not a 2283 issue and we think it's not even a Dombrowski issue for this reason Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3414.816], "stop_times": [3420.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3414.816}, "reply_to": "15175__2_017", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_019", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's not the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3420.791], "stop_times": [3422.046], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.791}, "reply_to": "15175__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_020", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's not a Dombrowski issue because in this case, the relief actually granted by the District Court did not in anyway extend to state prosecutions and in fact we submit if the order is read and we think that this Court must judge the case on the order if the order is read, it remove not a single issue either factual or legal from the purview of the state court in its consideration of the state prosecution.\nWhat the order did --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3422.046, 3456.51], "stop_times": [3456.51, 3458.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3422.046}, "reply_to": "15175__2_019", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_021", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is the declaration of unconstitutionality.\nOf course, it was not conclusive upon the state court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3458.101, 3460.869], "stop_times": [3460.869, 3464.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3458.101}, "reply_to": "15175__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15175__2_022", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Indeed Mr. Justice Brennan.\nThe judge was very careful to talk about constitutionality in terms of probable constitutionality.\nNow, that makes absolutely no sense unless one considers the case in the context of this interim relief.\nAs the case was presented to the three-judge district court, it was faced with the question of whether it should at the point where the state prosecutor had said \u201cI will now seize this film.\nI will now indict again and again if this film is shown.\u201d\nThe three-judge court was faced with a question whether having previously allowed the state court proceedings to continue whether it should then having indeed abstained, we submit that under the traditional view of what abstention is, that's exactly what the district judge said in this case.\nHe said, I'll retain jurisdiction over this case.\nI'll permit you to make your constitutional claims in the state court and you can come back to me ultimately after you've gone to that state procedure but then there was a change of facts.\nSuddenly, there was a conviction and the prosecutor said, now, the film has got to stop and I will indict and seize.\nAt that point, the three-judge district court said, \u201cWe have to consider what the probable outcome of that state case will be because that is relevant to a determination as to whether this exhibitor is entitle to interim relief and it was for that reason and for that reason alone that the three-judge district court then went on to consider in terms of probable outcome, the constitutional issue which was presented by the challenge of the statute on his face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3464.339, 3465.547, 3473.093, 3481.49, 3493.56, 3498.179, 3518.102, 3521.681, 3533.713, 3541.757], "stop_times": [3465.547, 3473.093, 3481.49, 3493.56, 3498.179, 3518.102, 3521.681, 3533.713, 3541.757, 3574.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3464.339}, "reply_to": "15175__2_021", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_023", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The temporary injunction against further prosecutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3574.992], "stop_times": [3581.415], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3574.992}, "reply_to": "15175__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_024", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "He issued Mr. Justice Harlan a temporary injunction against proceeding civilly or criminally or otherwise interfering with the exhibition.\nNow, I think an important element in understanding that injunction is the sentence which is really the next to last sentence of the district judge's opinion.\nHe says and I quote, \u201cFinally, we voice no opinion as to the legal consequences if plaintiffs exhibit their film under the protection of our injunction and it is ultimately determined that our view was mistaken and that such exhibition was properly considered elicit.\u201d\nWhat Judge Aldrich was saying in that sentence, I submit, was that if these appellees who are not entitled to be free of the threat of the job owning as it were of a local DA now go out and continue to show the film \u201cI am Curious (Yellow)\u201d, they are assuming the risk they were assuming all along, that if at some future date the film was found obscene and that -- and the statute is found constitutional, they may be prosecuted even, even for the period of exhibition between the date of the injunction and the date of that finding.\nAll that the order did, Mr. Justice Harlan, was tell the DA, \u201cYou may not threaten these prosecutors with indictment.\nYou may not seize this film; you may not interfere with its showing,\u201d but nothing beyond that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3581.415, 3590.705, 3600.705, 3619.858, 3659.382, 3667.419], "stop_times": [3590.705, 3600.705, 3619.858, 3659.382, 3667.419, 3673.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3581.415}, "reply_to": "15175__2_023", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_025", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, it's called up the state process during that period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3673.342], "stop_times": [3677.244], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3673.342}, "reply_to": "15175__2_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_026", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It does.\nIn interest.\nWith --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3677.244, 3678.633, 3680.841], "stop_times": [3678.633, 3680.841, 3681.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3677.244}, "reply_to": "15175__2_025", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_027", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "They shouldn't have done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3681.056], "stop_times": [3682.602], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3681.056}, "reply_to": "15175__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_028", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Right, but it holds up the state process in the interim but does not forever foreclose a prosecution, even for that interim period.\nIn other words, ultimately, they may prosecute.\nNow, the question then is, and we submit that's -- that -- well, let me first turn then to the -- in that context to the abstention point.\nThe question with respect to this interim relief, which the three-judge district court granted is, was that an appropriate action by a Federal District Court?\nWas that appropriate in terms of abstention?\nWas it appropriate in terms of the injunctive relief, which is -- where the ground rule for injunctive relief set out in this Court's opinion in Dombrowski?\nWe submit it plainly was.\nUnlike all the other cases which this Court has heard in the last two days, this is an instance of ongoing, continuing to this very day suppression of speech.\nNothing is more plainly demonstrable than the fact that from the time that the district attorney withdrew his stipulation, this film was not shown by these appellees in Boston.\nIt is not shown today only because that stipulation was withdrawn.\nSo if we're talking --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3682.602, 3691.182, 3694.731, 3705.204, 3715.487, 3717.47, 3726.901, 3728.989, 3740.978, 3752.722, 3757.13], "stop_times": [3691.182, 3694.731, 3705.204, 3715.487, 3717.47, 3726.901, 3728.989, 3740.978, 3752.722, 3757.13, 3759.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3682.602}, "reply_to": "15175__2_027", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_029", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why is it not being shown?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3759.056], "stop_times": [3760.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3759.056}, "reply_to": "15175__2_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_030", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's not being shown because the district attorney announced to the Federal District Court on November 12, 1969 that if that film reopened, he would seize it and he would prosecute, although he had -- it had been one prosecution --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3760.474], "stop_times": [3772.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3760.474}, "reply_to": "15175__2_029", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_031", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So why didn't you show it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3772.503], "stop_times": [3774.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3772.503}, "reply_to": "15175__2_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_032", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Because it would just subject out my clients to continuing harassment of seizures and prosecutions.\nIf we would open the film, it would immediately be seized by police officers, there could be an indictment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3774.28, 3781.504], "stop_times": [3781.504, 3786.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3774.28}, "reply_to": "15175__2_031", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_033", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So the substance of your position then is that federal intervention is justified by a desire to avoid a state criminal prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3786.583], "stop_times": [3797.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3786.583}, "reply_to": "15175__2_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_034", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Federal intervention is justified, Mr. Justice White, when the state prosecution -- the threat of state prosecution is being used to close down a film which -- whose obscenity is then being litigated in the state courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3797.309], "stop_times": [3811.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3797.309}, "reply_to": "15175__2_033", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_035", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, what is effective -- when the threat of criminal prosecution is effective enough to deter someone from exercising what he claims or his right of free speech, and which he would otherwise exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3811.563], "stop_times": [3824.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3811.563}, "reply_to": "15175__2_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_036", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's exactly what we say.\nWe say that a Federal District Court could enjoin -- what we say, there are -- there are a host of reasons supporting this injunction.\nThe District Court chose one reason, which is that if viewed, this statute has probably unconstitutional understanding.There are narrower grounds for sustaining that order, Mr. Justice White, than what the District Court did.\nWe urge the Court to affirm on the District Court's reasoning, but there are narrower grounds.\nWe've set out at pages 54 to 62 of our brief our argument that in fact, a state prosecutor may not constitutionally job-own a film to -- by that, I mean threatened prosecution and multiple prosecutions of a film in order to -- to have it closed when in fact that very film is being litigated, its obscenity is being litigated in a state court, is then under litigation, and there are constitutional challenges to the statute under which it's being litigated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3824.531, 3826.065, 3833.197, 3846.303, 3850.515], "stop_times": [3826.065, 3833.197, 3846.303, 3850.515, 3883.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3824.531}, "reply_to": "15175__2_035", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_037", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I suppose there's some risk that you have to take.\nYou could go ahead and show your film.\nYou just don't want to take the risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3883.057, 3885.979, 3887.608], "stop_times": [3885.979, 3887.608, 3889.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3883.057}, "reply_to": "15175__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_038", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Oh, no.\nWe are taking the risk.\nOur clients --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3889.03, 3890.235, 3891.193], "stop_times": [3890.235, 3891.193, 3891.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3889.03}, "reply_to": "15175__2_037", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_039", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Are you showing the film or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3891.949], "stop_times": [3893.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3891.949}, "reply_to": "15175__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_040", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Right now, we are not.\nWe have taken the risk --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3893.576, 3894.625], "stop_times": [3894.625, 3895.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3893.576}, "reply_to": "15175__2_039", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_041", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, why aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3895.176], "stop_times": [3896.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3895.176}, "reply_to": "15175__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_042", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, let me explain that, because the repeated prosecutions repeated multiple prosecutions are more of a risk we think than we are required to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3896.49], "stop_times": [3904.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3896.49}, "reply_to": "15175__2_041", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_043", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So it's your decision to that respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3904.118], "stop_times": [3906.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3904.118}, "reply_to": "15175__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_044", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Only under the arrest, it's our decision as to any decision under the arrest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3906.992], "stop_times": [3910.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3906.992}, "reply_to": "15175__2_043", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_045", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "(Voice Overlap) I suppose they would be in the same position as the prosecutor never said a word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3910.277], "stop_times": [3913.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3910.277}, "reply_to": "15175__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_046", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3913.698, 3914.216], "stop_times": [3914.216, 3915.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3913.698}, "reply_to": "15175__2_045", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_047", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3915.007], "stop_times": [3915.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3915.007}, "reply_to": "15175__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_048", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Because if the prosecutor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3915.067], "stop_times": [3916.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3915.067}, "reply_to": "15175__2_047", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_049", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You would never know what the prosecutor is going to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3916.464], "stop_times": [3918.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3916.464}, "reply_to": "15175__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_050", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "If -- if the prosecutor is by indict -- we -- we don't deny the prosecutor's right to indict and to prosecute after he has a finding that a film is obscene, and that's been concluded.\nWe're assuming that risk.\nThe risk we don't have to assume, Mr. Justice White, and I think that's the risk that this Court talked about in Dombrowski, is what I think is very practically a risk of a very much different magnitude, and that is day in and day out seizures of films, repeated indictments for everyday in which you show a film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3918.609, 3935.551, 3936.837], "stop_times": [3935.551, 3936.837, 3954.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3918.609}, "reply_to": "15175__2_049", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_051", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, what is he supposed to do?\nWhat is the prosecutor supposed to do?\nSay, \u201cI think you're breaking the law but you can -- you think you're not but you can go and -- but I am constitutionally obligated to let you go on breaking the law until we get a decision,\u201d is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3954.036, 3955.1, 3956.877], "stop_times": [3955.1, 3956.877, 3969.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3954.036}, "reply_to": "15175__2_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_052", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We think where state -- let me say this, Mr. Justice White, where the state provides an injunctive remedy as it may, and this Court in the Kingsley Books case, for example, set out very specifically the rules for injunctive remedies --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3969.122], "stop_times": [3982.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3969.122}, "reply_to": "15175__2_051", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_053", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, did the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3982.469], "stop_times": [3982.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3982.469}, "reply_to": "15175__2_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_054", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "-- where the state provides a Board of Censors, Mr. Justice White.\nOf course, it can do that.\nBut the State of Massachusetts has not done that.\nWhat the State of Massachusetts has done is it had said, \u201cYou may proceed by way of criminal prosecution.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3982.788, 3985.808, 3987.22, 3989.32], "stop_times": [3985.808, 3987.22, 3989.32, 3994.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3982.788}, "reply_to": "15175__2_053", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_055", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But did the state court refused to issue the temporary relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3994.093], "stop_times": [3998.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3994.093}, "reply_to": "15175__2_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_056", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The state court couldn't issue.\nIt was a criminal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [3998.776, 4000.035], "stop_times": [4000.035, 4001.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3998.776}, "reply_to": "15175__2_055", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_057", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, why couldn't the state enjoin the prosecutor for many further prosecutions pending decision of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4001.461], "stop_times": [4010.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4001.461}, "reply_to": "15175__2_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_058", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It -- it was a criminal prosecution brought by the state.\nThere is no way to my knowledge in which in a criminal prosecution you can ask a judge in a state court to enjoin the prosecutor from bringing other prosecutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4010.125, 4012.168], "stop_times": [4012.168, 4020.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4010.125}, "reply_to": "15175__2_057", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_059", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Did you try it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4020.276], "stop_times": [4021.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4020.276}, "reply_to": "15175__2_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_060", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We did not try it.\nWe will -- we are entitled to go into a federal court, Mr. Justice White, under -- under the -- this Court's decisions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4021.33, 4022.105], "stop_times": [4022.105, 4028.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4021.33}, "reply_to": "15175__2_059", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_061", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The state court can't do it but the federal court can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4028.058], "stop_times": [4031.629], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4028.058}, "reply_to": "15175__2_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_062", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But the federal court doesn't have -- the state court may be able to do it in an independent proceeding, Mr. Justice Harlan, and then you'll squarely up to the question of whether we're obliged to institute a separate proceeding in a state court where we -- where we choose instead to go to a federal court.\nIn this Court's case in England versus Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, that was specifically rejected by the Court.\nIf we have a claim on the year 1983, if we're entitled to present to a Federal District Court our claim that the prosecutor is not permitted, either because the statute is unconstitutional or because he is in effect what -- what this prosecutor has an effect done is he has implemented a system of informal censorship.\nThere is no judicial superintendence of what he does.\nThere is no review.\nIndeed, as you pointed out, Mr. Justice White, his success is what makes the whole thing non-reviewable.\nIf he -- he can go over to any exhibit or motion picture films in Massachusetts and say, \u201cI will indict you tomorrow if you show that film,\u201d then of course the exhibitor would close up.\nAnd if he says, \u201cI'll indict you time and again and again and again if you show it,\u201d then for a fortiori, it will close up.\nBut now, our client has taken the risk.\nHe is in fact under a -- presently under an appeal sentence of one year imprisonment for showing this film.\nHe's in fact assuming a further risk under Judge Aldrich's opinion that if in fact this film is found obscene, he can be prosecuted after the judgment of conviction is ultimately affirmed and after this Court acts on that film.\nHe can be prosecuted from everyday that he now shows that film.\nThe only relief we're seeking is interim relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4031.629, 4046.313, 4053.484, 4074.441, 4077.225, 4078.628, 4084.599, 4095.148, 4101.323, 4104.944, 4113.656, 4128.609, 4133.072], "stop_times": [4046.313, 4053.484, 4074.441, 4077.225, 4078.628, 4084.599, 4095.148, 4101.323, 4104.944, 4113.656, 4128.609, 4133.072, 4136.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4031.629}, "reply_to": "15175__2_061", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_063", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So pending a state criminal prosecution, pending the outcome of the state criminal prosecution that federal court is authorized to require that the conduct that's challenged by the state be permitted to continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4136.171], "stop_times": [4153.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4136.171}, "reply_to": "15175__2_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_064", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No, Mr. Justice White, that's not -- our position, is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4153.764], "stop_times": [4155.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4153.764}, "reply_to": "15175__2_063", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_065", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4155.359], "stop_times": [4155.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4155.359}, "reply_to": "15175__2_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_066", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That when its speech --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4155.818], "stop_times": [4156.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4155.818}, "reply_to": "15175__2_065", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_067", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "There is where there is a film involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4156.764], "stop_times": [4158.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4156.764}, "reply_to": "15175__2_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_068", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "When it's continuing speech, yes.\nThat is our position because otherwise if you don't do that -- if you don't do that, then in fact what you're saying to a district attorney is you may, without any state statute -- this Court has said time and again in the First Amendment area, if the state legislates, it must narrowly define the conduct to be prohibited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4158.272, 4159.997], "stop_times": [4159.997, 4177.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4158.272}, "reply_to": "15175__2_067", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_069", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, then -- I suppose then Freedman against Maryland really ought to be amended in your position to say that no state Board of Censors can stop a film pending appeal of the censorship decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4177.889], "stop_times": [4191.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4177.889}, "reply_to": "15175__2_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_070", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No, because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4191.591], "stop_times": [4192.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4191.591}, "reply_to": "15175__2_069", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_071", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4192.179], "stop_times": [4192.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4192.179}, "reply_to": "15175__2_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_072", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "-- because Freedman and Maryland provides the very procedural safeguards which we say your absence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4192.858], "stop_times": [4198.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4192.858}, "reply_to": "15175__2_071", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_073", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's not on appeal, it doesn't.\nIt doesn't regulate the length of time that it's on appeal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4198.055, 4200.875], "stop_times": [4200.875, 4202.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4198.055}, "reply_to": "15175__2_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_074", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4202.373], "stop_times": [4203.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4202.373}, "reply_to": "15175__2_073", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_075", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "-- especially to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4203.34], "stop_times": [4204.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4203.34}, "reply_to": "15175__2_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_076", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "True, it doesn't regulate the length of time, but what it does -- what's happened in Freedman and Maryland, Mr. Justice White, is that the State of Maryland has focused on the question of exhibition of films and it has said that with regard to the exhibition of films, we authorize this procedure.\nThe State of Massachusetts has never done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4204.546, 4218.616], "stop_times": [4218.616, 4220.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4204.546}, "reply_to": "15175__2_075", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_077", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, but nevertheless, in the Freedman case, the State of Maryland would be saying you can't show the film and you're not going to show it until -- unless you can get this order up set on appeal and it may take a long time, and Freedman doesn't even limit the time to the Court of Appeals in Maryland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4220.398], "stop_times": [4235.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4220.398}, "reply_to": "15175__2_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_078", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It may -- it may indeed, but the difference we think between that case and this is that there at Maryland has specifically focused on the question of films and has made a determination as to what are the appropriate procedures in the interim.\nThat is just not true in Massachusetts if Massachusetts could very easily enact an injunction statute as was approved by this Court for example in Kingsley Books --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4235.959, 4248.552], "stop_times": [4248.552, 4257.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4235.959}, "reply_to": "15175__2_077", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_079", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, you haven't given them the chance to focus on it.\nYou haven't even asked them about the interim state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4257.228, 4259.2], "stop_times": [4259.2, 4262.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4257.228}, "reply_to": "15175__2_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_080", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4262.083], "stop_times": [4262.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4262.083}, "reply_to": "15175__2_079", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_081", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You haven't even asked the state court or anybody else in the state about an interim state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4262.275], "stop_times": [4266.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4262.275}, "reply_to": "15175__2_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_082", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "There is no -- Your Honor, the option we had in a state court was simply to institute a separate proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4266.352], "stop_times": [4273.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4266.352}, "reply_to": "15175__2_081", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_083", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So what if it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4273.277], "stop_times": [4274.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4273.277}, "reply_to": "15175__2_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_084", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, we're not required to do that.\nIf we have a right under 1983 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4274.46, 4276.003], "stop_times": [4276.003, 4276.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4274.46}, "reply_to": "15175__2_083", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_085", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's the issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4276.976], "stop_times": [4278.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4276.976}, "reply_to": "15175__2_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_086", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4278.397], "stop_times": [4278.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4278.397}, "reply_to": "15175__2_085", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_087", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's one of the issues here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4278.993], "stop_times": [4280.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4278.993}, "reply_to": "15175__2_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_088", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No.\nYour Honor, with all deference, I think the issue here is -- I mean that issue was taken care of by -- by the England case.\nVery specifically what the Court said in England versus Louisiana State Board, and I refer to page 415, when a federal court is properly appealed to in a case over which it has by law of jurisdiction, it is its duty to take such jurisdiction.\nThe right of party plaintiff to choose a federal court when there is a choice cannot be properly denied.\nWe're not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4280.179, 4281.277, 4288.665, 4303.513, 4308.945], "stop_times": [4281.277, 4288.665, 4303.513, 4308.945, 4309.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4280.179}, "reply_to": "15175__2_087", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_089", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Sounds like my Brother Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4309.14], "stop_times": [4312.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4309.14}, "reply_to": "15175__2_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_090", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4312.166], "stop_times": [4312.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4312.166}, "reply_to": "15175__2_089", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_091", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4312.721], "stop_times": [4313.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4312.721}, "reply_to": "15175__2_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_092", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No, the -- the additional difference, Mr. Justice White, is that there is here no question of state law, which -- which we would want to go to a state court on.\nWhat you're urging us to do in terms of bringing a separate suit in a state court is to bring a separate suit for the purpose of having the state court make the very constitutional determination that we're asking the federal court to do.\nNow, that is specifically said in McNeese was impermissible and it was the wrong standard to apply.\nYou can't force a plaintiff to claim his federal constitutional right in the state court when it's the same right that he's claiming in the federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4313.704, 4323.614, 4334.959, 4341.289], "stop_times": [4323.614, 4334.959, 4341.289, 4348.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4313.704}, "reply_to": "15175__2_091", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_093", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How about the constitutionality of the statute by the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4348.718], "stop_times": [4352.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4348.718}, "reply_to": "15175__2_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_094", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, the constitutionality of the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4352.531], "stop_times": [4355.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4352.531}, "reply_to": "15175__2_093", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_095", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Are you going to say that you can have a decision on that in the federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4355.634], "stop_times": [4359.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4355.634}, "reply_to": "15175__2_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_096", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Only in the context of this interim relief.\nWe think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4359.833, 4362.162], "stop_times": [4362.162, 4362.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4359.833}, "reply_to": "15175__2_095", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_097", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But why?\nIn your argument, you cannot force a man to make his federal constitutional claim to the state court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4362.51, 4363.584], "stop_times": [4363.584, 4370.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4362.51}, "reply_to": "15175__2_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_098", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4370.241], "stop_times": [4370.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4370.241}, "reply_to": "15175__2_097", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_099", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You just said it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4370.274], "stop_times": [4371.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4370.274}, "reply_to": "15175__2_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_100", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Because I think the claim that's being made, Mr. Justice White, with regard to the state statute is that the state court may construe that statute narrowly.\nThat's the ground for abstention.\nThe ground for abstention, the only ground urged by the appellants --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4371.323, 4380.356, 4382.162], "stop_times": [4380.356, 4382.162, 4384.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4371.323}, "reply_to": "15175__2_099", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_101", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I wasn't even talking about abstention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4384.946], "stop_times": [4387.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4384.946}, "reply_to": "15175__2_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15175__2_102", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, but the only ground urged by the appellants here is that it's not that -- it's not that the state statute may be found unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.\nThe only ground is that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may construe that statute narrowly.\nNow, that is just not true with regard to this other point.\nNow we are now -- let me make clear that what we are saying essentially is that this interim relief is permissible and was appropriately granted for, as I say, a variety of reasons.\nThe first and second reason is that the statute is unconstitutional on its face and that it's unconstitutional as applied to the exhibition of this motion picture by these appellees, what we gone into in some detail by my colleague, Professor de Grazia.\nBut what I would like to address myself to is the narrower grounds, which are that in the absence of any state injunction statute, in the absence of any state statute such as that in Freedman and Maryland, in the absence of any state provision that says to a state district attorney, \u201cYou may call the termination of a film.\u201d\nThis district attorney could not in effect stop this film from being shown by withdrawing that stipulation, and that is really all that the order that was issued by Judge Aldrich did.\nIt simply said to the state district attorney you may not interfere with the exhibition of this film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4387.167, 4397.571, 4403.748, 4405.906, 4419.079, 4434.536, 4456.668, 4467.629], "stop_times": [4397.571, 4403.748, 4405.906, 4419.079, 4434.536, 4456.668, 4467.629, 4474.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4387.167}, "reply_to": "15175__2_101", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_103", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "What was in that make known stipulation of the state, the prosecutor made no statement or whatever but he simply went around enforcing the laws.\nWhat would you say then to the propriety of the federal courts --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4474.471, 4485.371], "stop_times": [4485.371, 4489.498], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4474.471}, "reply_to": "15175__2_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_104", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We think the same would be true if our plaintiff could show that that repeated indictment and seizure was like the allegations in Dombrowski pursuant to a plan to suppress the speech.\nHere, we didn't have to show that because here, there was a stipulation and it was withdrawn, and the obvious purpose of its withdrawal was to terminate the showing of film, which it did.\nSo we're now in the posture where the film played from May to November, no great harm done to the citizens of Massachusetts.\nIt played from May to November.\nThe prosecutor then withdrew his stipulation, the film showing immediately terminated, the District Court entered its order, and we're seeking affirm it's just an order to allow this film to play.\nThe film is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4489.498, 4506.316, 4515.854, 4523.361, 4524.752, 4535.302], "stop_times": [4506.316, 4515.854, 4523.361, 4524.752, 4535.302, 4536.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4489.498}, "reply_to": "15175__2_103", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_105", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, what you're really arguing I think is that the peculiar patterns of this case, this is within the four corners of the Dombrowski case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4536.76], "stop_times": [4545.542], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4536.76}, "reply_to": "15175__2_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_106", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4545.542], "stop_times": [4545.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4545.542}, "reply_to": "15175__2_105", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_107", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And you're arguing that the looking apart from that (Voice Overlap) enable the federal courts to stop him whether it was more than at least one prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4545.99], "stop_times": [4560.178], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4545.99}, "reply_to": "15175__2_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__2_108", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes.\nWe think -- as I've tried to point out, we think it's even beyond Dombrowski because in Dombrowski, the District Court was being asked to take an issue away from the state courts, to take away from the state court the issue of a constitutionality of that Louisiana Subversive Activities Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4560.178, 4560.495], "stop_times": [4560.495, 4578.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4560.178}, "reply_to": "15175__2_107", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_109", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Lewin, there's not a lot of difference.\nIn the Dombrowski case as I read it, they were putting that man out of business in this whole organization.\nAnd if I understand General Quinn, your client is still in business running with a packed audience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4578.965, 4581.294, 4589.206], "stop_times": [4581.294, 4589.206, 4599.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4578.965}, "reply_to": "15175__2_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_110", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think -- I think really the distinction is cut the other way with all due respect, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI think in Dombrowski, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4599.551, 4603.851], "stop_times": [4603.851, 4607.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4599.551}, "reply_to": "15175__2_109", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_111", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Were you having --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4607.581], "stop_times": [4608.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4607.581}, "reply_to": "15175__2_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_112", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "-- the suppression was much -- was much less direct.\nWhat was happening was they were occasional seizures, occasional ransacking of the files.\nThere was a broad allegation that this would drive away members at some time in the future and would put him out of business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4608.198, 4611.236, 4616.734], "stop_times": [4611.236, 4616.734, 4623.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4608.198}, "reply_to": "15175__2_111", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_113", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Do you have any of those allegations here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4623.973], "stop_times": [4626.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4623.973}, "reply_to": "15175__2_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_114", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In this case, we have the fact.\nWe have the very fact that here is an exhibitor who wants to speak --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4626.323, 4628.412], "stop_times": [4628.412, 4632.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4626.323}, "reply_to": "15175__2_113", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_115", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well he's -- well, it is -- well, let's face facts.\nIs that except if they want to speak or make a book?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4632.615, 4638.035], "stop_times": [4638.035, 4642.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4632.615}, "reply_to": "15175__2_114", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_116", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We think that makes no difference constitutionally.\nIn this Court's opinions from New York Times in Sullivan through --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4642.141, 4644.224], "stop_times": [4644.224, 4647.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4642.141}, "reply_to": "15175__2_115", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_117", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, granted but I -- I'd be no -- you say he's been denied his speech all the time this has been pending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4647.979], "stop_times": [4654.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4647.979}, "reply_to": "15175__2_116", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_118", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4654.608], "stop_times": [4655.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4654.608}, "reply_to": "15175__2_117", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_119", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And if I understand it correctly, you'll admit that his theater hadn't been closed yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4655.795], "stop_times": [4660.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4655.795}, "reply_to": "15175__2_118", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_120", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Your Honor, the fact that it hasn't been closed -- if I -- if I, for example, want to speak with respect to a congressional action and I'm told I could speak with regard to the World Series, I was still allowed to speak but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4660.699], "stop_times": [4672.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4660.699}, "reply_to": "15175__2_119", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_121", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Then I assume you'd say that if the prosecutor said you shall not say, \u201cThy kingdom come\u201d on the corner that he'd been denied his right to speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4672.578], "stop_times": [4685.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4672.578}, "reply_to": "15175__2_120", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_122", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4685.577], "stop_times": [4685.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4685.577}, "reply_to": "15175__2_121", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_123", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Unless there's anything else he wants to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4685.691], "stop_times": [4687.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4685.691}, "reply_to": "15175__2_122", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_124", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think I'm probably -- Your Honor, Dombrowski would have been a much stronger case if what had happened in Dombrowski was the state prosecutors were taking Mr. Dombrowski, just hypothetically, and arresting him or threatening him with arrest if he opened his mouth or if he distributed the pamphlets which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4687.721], "stop_times": [4706.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4687.721}, "reply_to": "15175__2_123", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_125", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's Dombrowksi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4706.97], "stop_times": [4708.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4706.97}, "reply_to": "15175__2_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_126", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No.\nIn Dombrowksi, there were seizures and it was claimed that the seizures were part of a plan, but there was not as there is here, the gag in the mouth.\nReally in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4708.222, 4708.514, 4716.745], "stop_times": [4708.514, 4716.745, 4716.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4708.222}, "reply_to": "15175__2_125", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_127", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, is there -- is there anything in this case that says that the prosecution or anybody is out to stop this man's speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4716.778], "stop_times": [4727.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4716.778}, "reply_to": "15175__2_126", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_128", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's plain, Your Honor, from the withdrawal of the stipulation and the fact that immediately upon its withdrawal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4727.685], "stop_times": [4733.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4727.685}, "reply_to": "15175__2_127", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_129", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I can construe that in saying we don't want you to show this one picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4733.528], "stop_times": [4739.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4733.528}, "reply_to": "15175__2_128", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_130", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But that's a speech, Your Honor.\nThat's the speech just as surely as Mr. Dombrowksi's pamphlet or Mr. -- take Mr. Harris' case, the case Your Honors heard as in the first of this series.\nWe think that would be parallel to this one if on the day after the day for which he was arrested for distributing a pamphlet, Harris said, \u201cI want to distribute pamphlet again today and again tomorrow and the day after and for a whole month.\u201d\nAnd the sheriff would come up to him and say, \u201cWe'll arrest you every time.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4739.43, 4740.718, 4749.999, 4761.426], "stop_times": [4740.718, 4749.999, 4761.426, 4764.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4739.43}, "reply_to": "15175__2_129", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_131", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's Harris' pamphlet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4764.52], "stop_times": [4766.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4764.52}, "reply_to": "15175__2_130", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_132", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4766.896], "stop_times": [4767.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4766.896}, "reply_to": "15175__2_131", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_133", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "This is not this man's film.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4767.351], "stop_times": [4769.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4767.351}, "reply_to": "15175__2_132", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_134", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, it is Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4769.19], "stop_times": [4770.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4769.19}, "reply_to": "15175__2_133", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_135", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4770.303], "stop_times": [4770.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4770.303}, "reply_to": "15175__2_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_136", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "He is exhibiting it.\nLet -- let me just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4770.36, 4772.057], "stop_times": [4772.057, 4773.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4770.36}, "reply_to": "15175__2_135", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_137", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's his on -- it's his by being loaned to and to be -- for a price.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4773.059], "stop_times": [4778.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4773.059}, "reply_to": "15175__2_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_138", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Right, and he wants to exhibit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4778.375], "stop_times": [4779.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4778.375}, "reply_to": "15175__2_137", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_139", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's a lot different from a man that prints his own pamphlet and has a right to distribute it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4779.594], "stop_times": [4785.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4779.594}, "reply_to": "15175__2_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_140", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Let -- let me just for a minute add, Your Honor, because I think we should -- I should respond to claim that's been made in the brief by the state and that was made here on oral argument.\nIt's true that this film does not belong to these exhibitors.\nThe distributor of this film is Grove Press which is not a party to this case.\nGrove Press moved to intervene in the court below.\nIntervention was denied on the ground that its interest would be fully represented by the exhibitor.\nWe think that entitles an exhibitor that makes all the claims that the distributor would have made and indeed, we submit the exhibitor is no different if Harris had an associated.\nIt's Harris's rights to his pamphlet and he hands it to an associate who isn't smart enough to write it himself and tells them, you distribute it.\nI don't think the associate has less rights than --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4785.527, 4793.179, 4797.808, 4802.699, 4805.727, 4812.445, 4823.463, 4831.69], "stop_times": [4793.179, 4797.808, 4802.699, 4805.727, 4812.445, 4823.463, 4831.69, 4833.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4785.527}, "reply_to": "15175__2_139", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_141", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The problem is that the man that's in business to run -- he hopes to run a packed house everyday and here's a one film you can't show and he runs a packed house everyday and despite your claim that he is interested in speech, how is he damaged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4833.556], "stop_times": [4858.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4833.556}, "reply_to": "15175__2_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_142", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Because he is not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4858.848], "stop_times": [4859.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4858.848}, "reply_to": "15175__2_141", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_143", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You admit he is not damaged financially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4859.366], "stop_times": [4861.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4859.366}, "reply_to": "15175__2_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_144", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nI don't think that's true.\nI think as it was pointed out here, it's a fact which you referred to that it's well known that this film has been doing far better than other films.\nI don't -- I admit that the record doesn't have the fact on whether this exhibitor would have done better with one -- with this film than he did with the one he used in place of it.\nBut I submit that if an exhibitor wants to show film A and he is constitutionally entitled to show it, it makes no different that the state says, \u201cThen you can show film B instead.\u201d\nIf that were right and the state would be controlling speech.\nThat's the worst kind of regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4861.362, 4862.139, 4862.934, 4873.862, 4882.716, 4893.135, 4896.506], "stop_times": [4862.139, 4862.934, 4873.862, 4882.716, 4893.135, 4896.506, 4897.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4861.362}, "reply_to": "15175__2_143", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_145", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That depends on the professor's argument of whether he does have a constitutional right showed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4897.985], "stop_times": [4904.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4897.985}, "reply_to": "15175__2_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15175__2_146", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "What you're saying is that one of the speeches he wants to make, he is afraid to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4904.185], "stop_times": [4909.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4904.185}, "reply_to": "15175__2_145", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__2_147", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's right.\nHe wants to make this speech.\nThis exhibitor says, \u201cI want to show this film and the prosecutor who is able to achieve by various other means.\nHe is able to achieve his lawful ends, which is to prosecute if in fact an offense has been committed.\nAnd in fact he has prosecuted and in fact all the issues are going to be considered in the state case.\nThat prosecutor chooses instead to suppress the film without statutory authority, without the benefit of any procedure that's been authorized by any state court, suppress the film simply by threatening it to death and that's what this prosecutor has done.\nHe has threatened this film to death.\nHe simply closed it up by saying, \u201cIf you don't close it up, I'll just prosecute you and I'll seize you and I'll prosecute you again and there is no exhibitor.\u201d\nWe submit that even an exhibitor who is willing to run the risk and our client is willing to run the risk of ultimate jail sentence.\nHe is under a one year jail term.\nEven a prosecute -- even an exhibitor who is willing to run the risk is not prepared to be hold into court everyday to answer a new indictment everyday to plea, to have his film seized, to have to retain mirage of attorneys in order to be able to show a film which an important element which I think I haven't mentioned at all, this is the fact that this is the film which the court below knew and which this Court can certainly take judicial notice of had been found constitutionally protected by United States Court of Appeals.\nSo we're not dealing with just some -- whatever it may be hardcore pornography.\nWe're dealing with the film which the United States Court of Appeals has said in a suit court by the United States is subject to constitutional protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [4909.837, 4910.495, 4911.979, 4920.331, 4925.662, 4930.18, 4945.043, 4947.053, 4955.967, 4963.477, 4965.013, 4997.412, 5003.555], "stop_times": [4910.495, 4911.979, 4920.331, 4925.662, 4930.18, 4945.043, 4947.053, 4955.967, 4963.477, 4965.013, 4997.412, 5003.555, 5010.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4909.837}, "reply_to": "15175__2_146", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_148", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But that was no part at all of the District Court's reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5010.889], "stop_times": [5014.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5010.889}, "reply_to": "15175__2_147", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_149", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't think so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5014.143], "stop_times": [5014.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5014.143}, "reply_to": "15175__2_148", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_150", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "They've considered on the hypothesis that this was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5014.884], "stop_times": [5019.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5014.884}, "reply_to": "15175__2_149", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_151", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Stewart, it maybe a fine reading of the opinion.\nAnd I think (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5019.442, 5022.033], "stop_times": [5022.033, 5022.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5019.442}, "reply_to": "15175__2_150", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_152", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "When I read it, I don't know how finally I read it but I read it carefully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5022.698], "stop_times": [5026.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5022.698}, "reply_to": "15175__2_151", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_153", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, no.\nI just mean, my proposed reading of it but at the top to page 33, Judge Aldrich says, \u201cFor the purposes of this case, we'll assume that the film is obscene by standards currently applied by the Massachusetts Court footnote, another court viewing the same film is different, United States versus \u201cI am Curious (Yellow).\u201d\nI think what Judge Aldrich was saying is, well alright, the Massachusetts Court has, we know (Inaudible), will assume arguendo that that would be upheld but it is by no means, by no stretch of the imagination, totally work was hardcore pornography.\nIt's a film which maybe Massachusetts will find obscene, the Second Circuit has found not obscene.\nAnd I think that's an important element in deciding whether that film should be entitled to be shown in the interim while these appellees are making their way through the Massachusetts Courts and being forced to assert in those courts every right, every claim that they might have.\nThe federal court has entertained in effect, no substantive claim either factual or constitutional other than the claim essential to what they're entitled to interim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5026.118, 5026.963, 5045.444, 5061.363, 5066.128, 5083.815], "stop_times": [5026.963, 5045.444, 5061.363, 5066.128, 5083.815, 5094.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5026.118}, "reply_to": "15175__2_152", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_154", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How many state prosecutions had there actually been, one or two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5094.348], "stop_times": [5098.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5094.348}, "reply_to": "15175__2_153", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_155", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "They're been instituted by a complaint in addition to the one in Boston.\nI think three others?\nThree others in all that account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5098.968, 5103.504, 5105.079], "stop_times": [5103.504, 5105.079, 5107.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5098.968}, "reply_to": "15175__2_154", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_156", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And what's their status now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5107.053], "stop_times": [5108.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5107.053}, "reply_to": "15175__2_155", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_157", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "They're just waiting really.\nOf course this Court has the obscenity vel non as one of the issues of this film on its docket in number 905 which should be heard next term.\nSo I think they're probably just awaiting the outcome of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5108.728, 5110.194, 5119.348], "stop_times": [5110.194, 5119.348, 5122.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5108.728}, "reply_to": "15175__2_156", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_158", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I guess they're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5122.039], "stop_times": [5123.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5122.039}, "reply_to": "15175__2_157", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_159", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, they all played one day and let me say again.\nWhat the District Court means that each one of those exhibitors also will be forced to a criminal trial and we're not contesting that, we haven't appealed the abstention issues and all the federalism issues would be presented in this case, had we appealed, the District Court's refusal to enjoin the ongoing state proceeding.\nWe did not appeal that.\nSo therefore, the abstention should be just on here.\nThe District Court has in fact, no matter what said has in fact abstained and the only issue that's here on this appeal is what happens in the interim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5123.895, 5126.824, 5146.201, 5147.928, 5150.036], "stop_times": [5126.824, 5146.201, 5147.928, 5150.036, 5159.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5123.895}, "reply_to": "15175__2_158", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_160", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well now, this District Court issued an injunction and that injunction has been stayed, has it not, by us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5159.411], "stop_times": [5168.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5159.411}, "reply_to": "15175__2_159", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_161", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5168.564], "stop_times": [5169.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5168.564}, "reply_to": "15175__2_160", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_162", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And this therefore brings us back to the situation that existed before the issuance of the injunction by the District Court which you said was an intolerable situation because you are going to be prosecuted everyday, what in fact -- the fact is now you're not exhibiting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5169.989], "stop_times": [5186.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5169.989}, "reply_to": "15175__2_161", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_163", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "We're not exhibiting the film.\nWe got a -- and with our speech in a plainest sense is being suppressed.\nWe are just not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5186.544, 5187.663, 5191.947], "stop_times": [5187.663, 5191.947, 5193.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5186.544}, "reply_to": "15175__2_162", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_164", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well your -- that's your choice isn't it, whether or not you exhibit it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5193.085], "stop_times": [5196.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5193.085}, "reply_to": "15175__2_163", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_165", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "No, I don't think it is, Your Honor.\nI think it's no more our choice than it was the choice of Viva Maria in Interstate Circuit not to exhibit that film or the exhibitor exhibiting it because the informal censorship or the Interstate Circuit case had found the juveniles should not be allowed to see that film and this Court struck down in the Interstate Circuit case.\nA system under which it noted self regulation would be the result in Smith and California.\nIt was bookseller's own individual choice not to sell books if he hasn't read them but that's not a defense.\nIf the state is forcing to that choice, it's not a choice at all and that's really what the state is doing with no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5196.898, 5198.097, 5217.29, 5224.393, 5230.916], "stop_times": [5198.097, 5217.29, 5224.393, 5230.916, 5236.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5196.898}, "reply_to": "15175__2_164", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_166", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You said this is a fortiori from Dombrowski, as I understand your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5236.737], "stop_times": [5239.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5236.737}, "reply_to": "15175__2_165", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_167", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5239.772], "stop_times": [5241.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5239.772}, "reply_to": "15175__2_166", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_168", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And yet this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5241.447], "stop_times": [5242.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5241.447}, "reply_to": "15175__2_167", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_169", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5242.18], "stop_times": [5243.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5242.18}, "reply_to": "15175__2_168", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_170", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In Dombrowski, the allegations were that it was deliberate pattern and course of harassment and abuse of a statute and a bad faith course of conduct here and I don't understand that there's any such a claims at all.\nThere's no claim of bad faith, there's no claim of deliberate harassment, there's simply a prediction of good faith enforcement by the prosecutor of law of Massachusetts makes quite different from Dombrowski, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5243.273, 5264.955], "stop_times": [5264.955, 5277.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5243.273}, "reply_to": "15175__2_169", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_171", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, Zwickler and Koota certainly established that bad faith is not an essential element in getting the -- in the federal courts getting in to these cases.\nWe submit that here, there's an alternative reason which just didn't exist in Dombrowski because in Dombrowski, again, the prospect of interference with speech was off in some future date.\nIt's true there were general allegations about it and general allegations of harassment and bad faith.\nBut the fact to the matter is here, you have a very evil that the Court forth was a prospect in Dombrowski because what the Court was concerned about in Dombrowski was that the conduct of the prosecutor was going to chill the expression of First Amendment rights.\nIt was going to prevent Mr. Dombrowski from expressing his views.\nIn this case, what the prosecutor has done has in the most demonstrable way, achieve that result.\nIt doesn't only have the prospect to do it but it's achieved.\nMoreover, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5277.615, 5286.964, 5300.198, 5305.543, 5319.18, 5322.286, 5328.131, 5330.853], "stop_times": [5286.964, 5300.198, 5305.543, 5319.18, 5322.286, 5328.131, 5330.853, 5331.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5277.615}, "reply_to": "15175__2_170", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_172", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "You mean have chilled into death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5331.78], "stop_times": [5333.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5331.78}, "reply_to": "15175__2_171", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__2_173", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's chilled to death, that's right.\nIt just can't be shown.\nIt's just dead.\nAnd with motion pictures, we submit that the essence.\nIf you can't show a film that's being nationally distributed at the time when it is nationally reviewed in national magazines, people just won't be interested in it anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5333.56, 5334.919, 5335.953, 5337.069, 5339.839], "stop_times": [5334.919, 5335.953, 5337.069, 5339.839, 5349.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5333.56}, "reply_to": "15175__2_172", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_174", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And then you lose money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5349.86], "stop_times": [5352.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5349.86}, "reply_to": "15175__2_173", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__2_175", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Which we think is a permissible con -- this Court it is repeatedly recognized as a permissible constitutional consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5352.169], "stop_times": [5358.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5352.169}, "reply_to": "15175__2_174", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_176", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "But that's the consequence to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5358.174], "stop_times": [5360.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5358.174}, "reply_to": "15175__2_175", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__2_177", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That's what the New York Times case was all about and the court said back indeed in Ginsberg.\nThis Court went out of its way to specifically say that has no part of our decision in this case the fact that money is being made.\nBut I think the distinction from Dombrowski is even greater than that.\nI think there's really a fallacy in trying to compare this with Dombrowski.\nWe're not in the Dombrowski ballpark because we're not talking here that the federal court invalidating the state statute.\nIn Dombrowski, the plaintiffs went in specifically to move from the jurisdiction of the state courts the question of the federal constitutionality of the state statute.\nThat's not in this case at all.\nSo we're not really in Dombrowski in that situation.\nWe don't need a Dombrowski exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5360.617, 5365.353, 5373.016, 5376.062, 5380.278, 5387.126, 5397.277, 5399.378, 5402.641], "stop_times": [5365.353, 5373.016, 5376.062, 5380.278, 5387.126, 5397.277, 5399.378, 5402.641, 5404.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5360.617}, "reply_to": "15175__2_176", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_178", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Lewin, I should tell you you're down for about 12 minutes for Professor de Grazia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5404.858], "stop_times": [5410.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5404.858}, "reply_to": "15175__2_177", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__2_179", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Professor de Grazia time.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5410.089, 5411.14], "stop_times": [5411.14, 5423.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5410.089}, "reply_to": "15175__2_178", "speaker": "nathan_lewin"}
{"id": "15175__2_180", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Professor de Grazia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5423.819], "stop_times": [5425.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5423.819}, "reply_to": "15175__2_179", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_000", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI want to speak mainly to the issue of the unconstitutionality of the statute on its phase and as it was applied to the circumstances of the exhibition below.\nBefore I do that, I would like to make one or two remarks concerning the statements or questions raised by the Chief Justice and by Mr. Justice Marshall concerning the interest of the exhibitor which is being -- which was defended by the district court below.\nIt is not only his right to make money.\nIt is his right as was ably argued by Mr. Lewin to show this particular film but more important was the right of all the people in Boston who might want to see this film to see its ideas to consider its images.\nIt was their right which was being stifled by the State of Massachusetts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5425.82, 5430.874, 5444.727, 5471.05, 5473.675, 5496.389], "stop_times": [5430.874, 5444.727, 5471.05, 5473.675, 5496.389, 5505.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5425.82}, "reply_to": "15175__2_180", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_001", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, is the exhibitor in that circumstance the appropriate party to vindicate that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5505.786], "stop_times": [5512.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5505.786}, "reply_to": "15175__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_002", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I believe he is Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5512.673], "stop_times": [5513.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5512.673}, "reply_to": "15175__3_001", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_003", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't suggest that he is not.\nI just raised that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5513.802, 5515.286], "stop_times": [5515.286, 5516.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5513.802}, "reply_to": "15175__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_004", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I believe he may be the only person and he is certainly the logical person.\nHe is the person --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5516.806, 5520.11], "stop_times": [5520.11, 5521.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5516.806}, "reply_to": "15175__3_003", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_005", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "He has the most immediate interest, immediate impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5521.176], "stop_times": [5523.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5521.176}, "reply_to": "15175__3_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_006", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "He has the most direct interest.\nIt's his skin that's at stake also.\nI think that booksellers and motion picture exhibitors, they run a hazardous business if they're publishing in the area -- if they publish sexual material and I think it's up to this Court to see that they get the measure of protection they need for performing an important social and constitutional duty.\nI don't think it's fair, I don't think it's just to say that these people can run the risk of going to jail for a year.\nThey are -- merely because they may no be able to reach judgment that a majority of this Court might reach concerning whether or not a particular film or a particular book is obscene.\nIt's an exquisite question.\nIt's a very difficult question.\nI think it's something which -- which you are trying very hard that this Court, this Honorable Court is trying very hard to clarify so that we will have a situation where -- for instance, we'll know what material is obscene.\nFor instance, we'll be unnoticed of what behavior with respect to possibly obscene material will end them in jail or will cause them to be punished or will cause their films or their books to be suppressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5523.79, 5525.045, 5528.071, 5546.779, 5559.254, 5569.962, 5572.688, 5574.948, 5593.962], "stop_times": [5525.045, 5528.071, 5546.779, 5559.254, 5569.962, 5572.688, 5574.948, 5593.962, 5605.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5523.79}, "reply_to": "15175__3_005", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_007", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Would you -- do I get from that to his intimation that you concede that there is some suppressible material that there are some movies that could be suppressed under a federal statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5605.699], "stop_times": [5620.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5605.699}, "reply_to": "15175__3_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_008", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I do.\nI think that the direction of this Court is going in its opinions at least for the next 20 years I would anticipate that there will be material that will validly be proscribed.\nHowever, I would like to say that I think the direction that this Court is taking and a proper direction and a hopeful direction is to focus more and more on the behavior of the parties involved to look less and less, to be concerned less and less with the obscenity of vel non of material because obscenity vel non in fact differs from person to person, from prosecutor to defendant, from judge to judge, from court to court, from state to state, from country to country, from culture to culture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5620.152, 5621.933, 5637.145], "stop_times": [5621.933, 5637.145, 5668.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5620.152}, "reply_to": "15175__3_007", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_009", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Do I understand you in the answer to the question that you say that you concede that the First Amendment does not protect this literature or whatever it is they're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5668.279], "stop_times": [5681.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5668.279}, "reply_to": "15175__3_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_010", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Justice Black --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5681.167], "stop_times": [5681.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5681.167}, "reply_to": "15175__3_009", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_011", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Or do your concede that that court have decided that up to now, which do you concede?\nThat's quite different (Voice Overlap) if you're making a confession that First Amendment doesn't protect you.\nI would like to know it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5681.998, 5687.359, 5692.241], "stop_times": [5687.359, 5692.241, 5693.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5681.998}, "reply_to": "15175__3_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_012", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The Court has decided that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5693.494], "stop_times": [5696.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5693.494}, "reply_to": "15175__3_011", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_013", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Are you making a concession that the First Amendment does not protect your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5696.379], "stop_times": [5700.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5696.379}, "reply_to": "15175__3_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_014", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well I -- this case doesn't require me to.\nOh! No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5700.893, 5703.889], "stop_times": [5703.889, 5704.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5700.893}, "reply_to": "15175__3_013", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_015", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I understood you to answer the question if you concede it, the Chief asked you a question if you concede it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5704.989], "stop_times": [5713.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5704.989}, "reply_to": "15175__3_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_016", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I'm sorry.\nI must have misunderstood the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5713.206, 5713.488], "stop_times": [5713.488, 5715.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5713.206}, "reply_to": "15175__3_015", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_017", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I thought surely, you did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5715.259], "stop_times": [5718.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5715.259}, "reply_to": "15175__3_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_018", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, let's try again.\nI thought you did concede explicitly that there is some material which could be suppressed that is it could be so bad whatever that means under the standards that it's so bad that it could be lawfully suppressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5718.921, 5720.235], "stop_times": [5720.235, 5736.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5718.921}, "reply_to": "15175__3_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_019", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's clearly enough the material in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5736.809], "stop_times": [5739.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5736.809}, "reply_to": "15175__3_018", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_020", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, no.\nI'm not talking about this case.\nIs there some kind of material which could be suppressed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5739.018, 5739.984, 5741.234], "stop_times": [5739.984, 5741.234, 5744.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5739.018}, "reply_to": "15175__3_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_021", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "In my judgment, there is a state that may validly pass -- may pass a valid statute proscribing and punishing certain kinds of behavior with respect to material which might -- which might -- can be called obscene but it will be the behavior focused on which imparts the criminality to the situation, it is not the material of itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5744.386], "stop_times": [5769.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5744.386}, "reply_to": "15175__3_020", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_022", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It's the behavior that results in disseminating the material.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5769.577], "stop_times": [5773.42], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5769.577}, "reply_to": "15175__3_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__3_023", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, it's the dissemination of material which is involved.\nYes.\nWell, Your Honor, for example the state court in this case below spread perhaps 100 pages -- 100 pages of an opinion, trying to decide whether or not the three-pronged test of Roth was met in this case and then in one sentence found that their necessary guilty knowledge or scienter for criminal culpability was existed and he found that in one sentence despite the fact that these exhibitors were knew that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had found the film constitutionally protected and could not possibly imagine that the film was obscene.\nIt could not possibly have the guilty knowledge that this film was obscene or that their exhibition of this film was criminal or culpable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5773.42, 5775.848, 5776.494, 5809.726], "stop_times": [5775.848, 5776.494, 5809.726, 5819.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5773.42}, "reply_to": "15175__3_022", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_024", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, of course Judge Aldrich and his two colleagues were not absolutely sure about this, were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5819.513], "stop_times": [5826.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5819.513}, "reply_to": "15175__3_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_025", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I don't think Judge Aldrich had any question in his mind.\nI think that he chose not to reach the question in order that he could reach more interesting and more deep -- deep-sounding questions concerning the law of obscenity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5826.308, 5830.455], "stop_times": [5830.455, 5840.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5826.308}, "reply_to": "15175__3_024", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_026", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well (Voice Overlap) probable unconstitutionality which is I suppose when a judge uses that term, he means something like probable cause.\nThis was probable cause in reverse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5840.982, 5851.178], "stop_times": [5851.178, 5867.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5840.982}, "reply_to": "15175__3_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_027", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The -- the three-judge court based its preliminary injunction principally on the probability that the statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the circumstances below.\nThe principally -- the Court relied on the Stanley v.Georgia opinion.\nThere are -- this statute, it is our position and we urge you to consider that this statute is overbroad and the number of other respects procedurally and substantively and is in fact not only probably but quite certainly unconstitutional.\nI'd like to direct myself to that question for a few minutes.\nWe don't deny for purposes of this case that the State of Massachusetts has some power to deal with social problems involving alleged obscenity, alleged obscene material but we insist as this Court has insisted that when a state legislate in this field that which touches on First Amendment freedoms that it do so was specificity and with careful consideration to the First Amendment freedoms that are involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5867.365, 5883.092, 5888.16, 5907.649, 5915.476], "stop_times": [5883.092, 5888.16, 5907.649, 5915.476, 5948.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5867.365}, "reply_to": "15175__3_026", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_028", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why -- if it has that vow, well, why hasn't it done so in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5948.985], "stop_times": [5954.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5948.985}, "reply_to": "15175__3_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_029", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The State of Massachusetts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5954.11], "stop_times": [5954.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5954.11}, "reply_to": "15175__3_028", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_030", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I can't see that part of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5954.169], "stop_times": [5956.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5954.169}, "reply_to": "15175__3_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_031", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why hasn't the State of Massachusetts done it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5956.937], "stop_times": [5959.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5956.937}, "reply_to": "15175__3_030", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_032", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Why is it not specific?\nI thought it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5959.379, 5961.059], "stop_times": [5961.059, 5963.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5959.379}, "reply_to": "15175__3_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_033", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Mr. Justice Black --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5963.12], "stop_times": [5963.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5963.12}, "reply_to": "15175__3_032", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_034", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "As specific as it could be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5963.75], "stop_times": [5965.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5963.75}, "reply_to": "15175__3_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_035", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It is -- the statute is not specific as it could be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5965.946], "stop_times": [5968.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5965.946}, "reply_to": "15175__3_034", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_036", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How could it be made anymore specific?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5968.958], "stop_times": [5970.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5968.958}, "reply_to": "15175__3_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_037", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The Massachusetts statute with respect to books for example provides in rem proceeding, provides a number of -- a great number of procedural constitutional safeguards to protect the rights of publishers and book sellers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5970.735], "stop_times": [5987.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5970.735}, "reply_to": "15175__3_036", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_038", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That procedural safeguard, that has nothing to do with the fact that I understand you to say now.\nYou're defending this on the ground that although a court can abridge speech that the court deems immoral or obscene that here it hasn't done so, it's definitely and I think it has in the State of Massachusetts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [5987.537, 5993.73], "stop_times": [5993.73, 6012.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5987.537}, "reply_to": "15175__3_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_039", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The definition in the book statute is no more precise specific than the definition in this statute, Mr. Chief -- Mr. Justice Black.\nThat is true.\nI would now -- I am not attempting here to say -- I would not suggest here that that book statute is constitutional.\nIt's not itself overbroad.\nI am suggesting, however, that most of the vices contained in this statute as it is being applied to films are not contained in the Boston book, in the Massachusetts book statute.\nFor example criminal prosecutions are not brought until after there has been an in rem proceeding and a judicial determination of obscenity with respect to a particular book.\nFor example, booksellers are given the benefit of any prior final decision concerning non-obscenity of a book and are protected by an absolute presumption against the criminal prosecution.\nFor example, police and prosecutors do not bring criminal actions involving books in Massachusetts unless and until the Attorney General of the state has considered the material, weighed the constitutional issues and decided whether or not the book is probably obscene.\nAnd then during --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6012.253, 6023.241, 6025.629, 6032.645, 6034.809, 6048.98, 6059.807, 6074.562, 6093.522], "stop_times": [6023.241, 6025.629, 6032.645, 6034.809, 6048.98, 6059.807, 6074.562, 6093.522, 6093.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6012.253}, "reply_to": "15175__3_038", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_040", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well that -- that doesn't decide anything does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6093.57], "stop_times": [6096.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6093.57}, "reply_to": "15175__3_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_041", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "It doesn't solve the substance of problem --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6096.671], "stop_times": [6097.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6096.671}, "reply_to": "15175__3_040", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_042", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "If the Attorney General decides that the Attorney General thinks it's constitutional.\nThat wouldn't be binding on anybody, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6097.175, 6102.768], "stop_times": [6102.768, 6107.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6097.175}, "reply_to": "15175__3_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_043", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "With the Attorney General's action --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6107.406], "stop_times": [6109.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6107.406}, "reply_to": "15175__3_042", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_044", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Yes, the Attorney General decides it's constitutional.\nWould that be binding on the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6109.185, 6112.519], "stop_times": [6112.519, 6116.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6109.185}, "reply_to": "15175__3_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__3_045", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Which just means that he is going to take it to the grand jury or issue an information charge, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6116.099], "stop_times": [6126.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6116.099}, "reply_to": "15175__3_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_046", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, I simply what I want -- I don't want to suggest that if Massachusetts enacted a new statute applicable to films which provided precisely with the Massachusetts statute applicable to books provided that that would solve all the problems but I'm suggesting that the state can in Massachusetts obviously can look at the problem of freedom of speech in films and look at the problem of obscenity and come a lot closer to protecting the rights of the persons who have as their duty the exercise of First Amendment rights in trying to pursue their legitimate state interest in obscenity -- their interest, their purpose in protecting -- in protecting the people of the state from obscenity.\nNow, I suggest that what this Court said in Stanley.\nWhat this Court said in the Redrup are the legitimate state purposes.\nI think that if the statute were restricted to the dangers pointed out in the Stanley v.Georgia decision and in Redrup that is the dangers of pandering, of solicitation, the dangers of that material might fall into the hands of children and the danger of obtrusive, evasions of privacy that we would have a statute that people could operate under without wholesale violations of their constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6126.943, 6177.714, 6181.542, 6185.947], "stop_times": [6177.714, 6181.542, 6185.947, 6218.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6126.943}, "reply_to": "15175__3_045", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_047", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I think your time is up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6218.79], "stop_times": [6219.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6218.79}, "reply_to": "15175__3_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_048", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6219.651], "stop_times": [6220.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6219.651}, "reply_to": "15175__3_047", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_049", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "-- Professor de Grazia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6220.617], "stop_times": [6221.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6220.617}, "reply_to": "15175__3_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__3_050", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6221.266], "stop_times": [6230.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6221.266}, "reply_to": "15175__3_049", "speaker": "edward_de_grazia"}
{"id": "15175__3_051", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "General Quinn, you have four minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6230.401], "stop_times": [6233.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6230.401}, "reply_to": "15175__3_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__4_000", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWe all agree that we have difficulty with the definition of obscenity.\nI must confess now.\nI have a great deal of difficulty with the definition of the word \u201cthreat\u201d.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6233.301, 6237.249, 6244.635, 6246.78], "stop_times": [6237.249, 6244.635, 6246.78, 6253.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6233.301}, "reply_to": "15175__3_051", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_001", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Word what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6253.499], "stop_times": [6254.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6253.499}, "reply_to": "15175__4_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__4_002", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Threat, Your Honor.\nAfter five-and-a-half months of showing of the film by the appellees here, \u201cI am Curious (Yellow),\u201d after a trial in the merits in Superior Court lasting days not suddenly in a colloquy in the federal court, the district attorney declines to renew a stipulation which he made previously that he would not seek further prosecution or seek to enjoin the showing of this film until the conclusion of the trial in the merits.\nThis -- this is all called threats.\nThis is all called job owning.\nThis is all called multiple prosecutions.\nThis is called Dombrowski a fortiori.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6254.827, 6257.553, 6299.45, 6301.856, 6304.229, 6307.244], "stop_times": [6257.553, 6299.45, 6301.856, 6304.229, 6307.244, 6310.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6254.827}, "reply_to": "15175__4_001", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_003", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6310.582], "stop_times": [6315.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6310.582}, "reply_to": "15175__4_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15175__4_004", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Pardon my Latin, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6315.611], "stop_times": [6319.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6315.611}, "reply_to": "15175__4_003", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_005", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Dombrowski complicated it a little.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6319.162], "stop_times": [6323.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6319.162}, "reply_to": "15175__4_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__4_006", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "This is called Dombrowski a fortiori, I submit, it is neither a fortiori although weaker.\nIt is completely not the case.\nThe record shows no evidence of threats whatsoever but simply a declination to renew a stipulation by the district attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6323.151, 6331.709, 6334.304], "stop_times": [6331.709, 6334.304, 6344.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6323.151}, "reply_to": "15175__4_005", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_007", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Well, you just shown that it legally threatened your (Inaudible) as a matter of injunction, the official factions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6344.664], "stop_times": [6352.339], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6344.664}, "reply_to": "15175__4_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__4_008", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "I submit that however we interpret or define threat that cannot be held to be a threat legally in the English language or even in the Swedish language.\nFurther, we must accept the fact that my brother has conceded that there has never been an effort made in the state courts of Massachusetts to continue the showing of this film.\nI submit in conclusion that the appellees here are not Grove Press, Inc.\nThe appellees here are film distributors.\nThe action on the part of the appellants has never under any color or interpretation of that action been able to be defined as threats or anywhere near the fact of situation existing in Dombrowski versus Pfister.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6352.339, 6366.307, 6381.759, 6389.157, 6392.611], "stop_times": [6366.307, 6381.759, 6389.157, 6392.611, 6412.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6352.339}, "reply_to": "15175__4_007", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_009", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Quinn, I'm -- perhaps it's been made clear but if so, I missed it.\nWhat is the posture of the state prosecution now in the Massachusetts Court?\nThere has been a conviction on its own appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6412.281, 6418.498, 6424.295], "stop_times": [6418.498, 6424.295, 6426.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6412.281}, "reply_to": "15175__4_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__4_010", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "And the Bill of Exceptions was entered yesterday in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which leads us to the safe assumption that this Court, this case will be argued on the merits in Massachusetts in the October sitting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6426.639], "stop_times": [6437.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6426.639}, "reply_to": "15175__4_009", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_011", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "The October sitting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6437.39], "stop_times": [6439.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6437.39}, "reply_to": "15175__4_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15175__4_012", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "How long does it take for the Massachusetts Supreme Court get the answer to this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6439.759], "stop_times": [6445.02], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6439.759}, "reply_to": "15175__4_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15175__4_013", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Our Massachusetts Supreme Court has a tradition of never having to let the year pass without deciding all of the cases that were argued before and I think it's safe to assume that within a month or two after the oral argument that there'd be a decision on this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6445.02], "stop_times": [6460.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6445.02}, "reply_to": "15175__4_012", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_014", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "So it would be in this calendar year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6460.033], "stop_times": [6462.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6460.033}, "reply_to": "15175__4_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15175__4_015", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nI thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6462.605, 6465.035], "stop_times": [6465.035, 6467.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6462.605}, "reply_to": "15175__4_014", "speaker": "robert_h_quinn"}
{"id": "15175__4_016", "conversation_id": "15175", "text": "Thank you, General Quinn.\nThank you gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_83", "start_times": [6467.167, 6468.422, 6469.066], "stop_times": [6468.422, 6469.066, 6471.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6467.167}, "reply_to": "15175__4_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_000", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Today's calendar for argument is Number 387, California against John Anthony Green.\nMr. James, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [0.0, 17.682], "stop_times": [17.682, 18.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_001", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice -- thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis matter is before this Court on the petition of the state of California containing that the Supreme Court of the state of California improperly and incorrectly interpreted the rulings of this Court on the question of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and that pursuant to that misinterpretation of the confrontation clause that the Supreme Court of California held unconstitutional a state statute that would have permitted the admission for the truth of the matters asserted prior inconsistent statements of a witness who was present at trial and subject to cross examination.\nIt was only a few weeks back I believe that this Court had occasion to view another aspect of the confrontation clause and in Illinois versus Allen held there that a defendant could deprive himself of the right by his conduct to be present in Court.\nThe Court emphasized that one of the rights included in the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment was the right to be present in Court.\nHow else could you confront your accusers and this Court has been consistent in holding that the Sixth Amendment right is a right at trial, a right to conduct cross examination of the accusers, of the witnesses against the particular defendant.\nIn the early case -- I should say in the first case where this Court held that the confrontation clause was obligatory on that states Pointer versus Texas, this Court said as has been pointed out a major reason underlying the constitutional right of confrontation is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him.\nThis Court followed that with the case of Barber versus Page emphasizing that the right to confrontation is basically a trial right.\nIt includes both the opportunity to cross examine and the occasion for the jury to weigh the demeanor of the witness.\nIn a companion case to Pointer, Douglas versus Alabama, this Court used these terms.\nOur cases construing the clause referring to the confrontation clause hold that a primary interest secured by it is a right of cross examination.\nAn adequate opportunity for cross examination may satisfy the clause even in the absence of physical confrontation.\nIn that particular case, a defendant Douglas had a co-defendant who was separately tried, Loyd.\nLoyd was convicted and took an appeal and at the trial of Douglas, the prosecution called Loyd and Loyd since he had an appeal pending decided to exercise his privilege against self incrimination and refused to answer questions so the prosecutor commenced to read his confession which implicated Douglas to him and the prosecutor asked the witness Loyd at each sentence if he had made this statement and he refused to answer on the ground of self incrimination and this Court held that the defendant Douglas had been denied the effective right of confrontation because he had no opportunity to cross examine the witness who was exercising the privilege against self-incrimination and in Bruton, a more recent case discussing the aspects of confrontation, this Court said in reference to the Douglas case, we held that Douglas' inability to cross examine Loyd denied Douglas the right of cross examination secured by the confrontation clause.\nWe noted that effective confrontation of Loyd was possible only if Loyd affirmed the statement as his, however, Loyd did not do so but relied on his privilege to refuse to answer.\nNow, the California legislature in 1965 adopted the evidence code of California, incorporating in that code, the other provisions contained relating to evidence in the code of civil procedures and other codes and abandoned by the adoption of that code, the so-called orthodox view as to impeachment, the use of impeaching prior inconsistent statements and adopted what has been referred to as the academic view, that is that prior inconsistent statements of a witness, present in Court and subject to cross examination would be admissible as substance of evidence and they enacted evidence code Section 1235 which is the statute involved in this case and made it effective in California on January 1, 1967 and the factual basis upon which this case arises involved --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [18.652, 20.89, 23.283, 63.995, 82.615, 92.314, 114.408, 142.63, 152.319, 162.646, 170.531, 181.72, 190.937, 199.87, 270.765, 287.116], "stop_times": [20.89, 23.283, 63.995, 82.615, 92.314, 114.408, 142.63, 152.319, 162.646, 170.531, 181.72, 190.937, 199.87, 270.765, 287.116, 350.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.652}, "reply_to": "15050__0_000", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_002", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Before you proceed to the facts to this case General James, is there any available evidence showing the legislative history of this amendment in the California code relating to evidence, any -- is there anything --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [350.191], "stop_times": [366.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.191}, "reply_to": "15050__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_003", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [366.071], "stop_times": [366.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.071}, "reply_to": "15050__0_002", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_004", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That you know off that shows why the state legislature did this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [366.21], "stop_times": [370.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.21}, "reply_to": "15050__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_005", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nThe code commissioners when the evidence code was being considered by the legislature made comments and the comments of the code commissioners are contained in the code.\nI believe they were coded in our petition for certiorari and also in our petition for -- in our brief filed for the petitioner herein, the code commissioner's notes were also referred to in the notes of the committee for the adoption of the rules of evidence for the federal courts and magistrates and there contained in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [370.001, 372.416, 384.074], "stop_times": [372.416, 384.074, 410.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.001}, "reply_to": "15050__0_004", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_006", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "These notes indicate what?\nThat this was in response to some sort of a felt need or was just as the academic rule and these commissioners were academic people and they thought they got to put on that rule, what was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [410.387, 412.359], "stop_times": [412.359, 423.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.387}, "reply_to": "15050__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_007", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, it was a conclusion of the commissioners that this was the federal rule of evidence and that there was no reason why these statements shouldn't be used as had been suggested by Wigmore in his latest work has been expressed by McCormick in his work on evidence.\nI think in our petitioner's opening brief at pages 36 and 37 where we are discussing the reasons by the advisory committee for the proposed rules of evidence for the federal courts and magistrates, they adopted a portion of the code commissioner's notes and has contained there, it generally states that Section 1235 admits inconsistent statements of witnesses because the dangers against which the hearsay rule is designed to protect are largely non-existent and it goes in continuance and it concludes by citing McCormick in his code and evidence and then the advisory committee of the federal rules, a committee for the adoption of the federal rules states that advisory committee finds this view more convincing than those expressed in People versus Johnson which was a predecessor of the Green case.\nMoreover, the requirement that the statement be inconsistent with the testimony given assures a thorough explanation of both versions of the witnesses on the stand and bars, any general and indiscriminate use of previously prepared statements.\nThe commissioner's notes are contained in a number of volumes which preceded the action by the state legislature in adopting the evidence code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [423.642, 444.509, 505.6, 520.051], "stop_times": [444.509, 505.6, 520.051, 532.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.642}, "reply_to": "15050__0_006", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_008", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Is the availability of the primary speaker in the courtroom one of the conditions of the California statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [532.363], "stop_times": [538.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.363}, "reply_to": "15050__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_009", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [538.859], "stop_times": [539.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.859}, "reply_to": "15050__0_008", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_010", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "As it is under the proposed federal rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [539.562], "stop_times": [541.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.562}, "reply_to": "15050__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_011", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes, yes.\nThe Section provides in evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770 of the evidence code and so they -- it contemplates the presence of a witness in Court who is subject to cross examination and who's demeanor maybe viewed by the trier of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [541.563, 543.547], "stop_times": [543.547, 573.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.563}, "reply_to": "15050__0_010", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_012", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And you do not see this as conflict with any prior decision of this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [573.188], "stop_times": [577.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.188}, "reply_to": "15050__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_013", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I don't know of any prior decision of this Court that it conflicts with.\nThe cases to which I've been referring all relate to situations where the defendant was effectively denied.\nConfrontation by lack of thorough cross examination of the trial, either the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [577.974, 581.789, 590.215], "stop_times": [581.789, 590.215, 594.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.974}, "reply_to": "15050__0_012", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_014", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That was this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [594.952], "stop_times": [595.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.952}, "reply_to": "15050__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_015", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- declarance wasn't there or he made himself unavailable by an exercise of a privilege or as in Smith versus Illinois, the defendant was precluded from some effective interrogation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [595.015], "stop_times": [608.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.015}, "reply_to": "15050__0_014", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_016", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "In the Douglas case, this Court equated the assertion of the Fifth Amendment right as being the same as not being present, not being available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [608.266], "stop_times": [619.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.266}, "reply_to": "15050__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_017", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It effectively denied cross examination to the defendant and he wasn't able to examine the witness over the declarant in Court and this Court pointed out that it would have been different had he been able -- had he been able in Douglas to cross examine Loyd which he was not.\nWe submit that this is a basic and fundamental factor.\nI think that the confrontation clause and the rules of evidence, the hearsay rules of evidence are sometimes deemed to be coexistent but I think a commentator has noted that there are fundamental differences.\nThe right of confrontation secures to the defendant the right to be present in Court, to confront his accusers, to cross examine those accusers, to probe into their story and to have the privilege of having the accusers in Court subject to the view, scrutiny of the triar of fact and that is what the confrontation clause gives.\nThe rules of evidence concern themselves with the reliability of out of Court statements of declarance of may or may not be in Court and do not concern directly the confrontation right which was granted to the accused in the Green case and would be granted under the state statute and we submit, I'm sure the solicitor will submit under the proposed rules for the federal courts and magistrates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [619.484, 639.817, 644.666, 660.614, 686.18], "stop_times": [639.817, 644.666, 660.614, 686.18, 716.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.484}, "reply_to": "15050__0_016", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_018", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [716.202], "stop_times": [720.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.202}, "reply_to": "15050__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__0_019", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "In this case it was approved by the first, the reading of a preliminary hearing transcript and also by the statement made to an officer of the juvenile court by the officer himself who testified concerning these statement of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [720.75], "stop_times": [738.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.75}, "reply_to": "15050__0_018", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_020", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Have here two types of a prior statement.\nOne, statement under oath under preliminary hearing of which a transcript was made in a magistrate proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [738.97, 742.568], "stop_times": [742.568, 751.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.97}, "reply_to": "15050__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_021", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [751.357], "stop_times": [751.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.357}, "reply_to": "15050__0_020", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_022", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "On one end and additionally an unsworn statement made in no judicial proceeding but made to an officer, to made to an officer while at the -- of the juvenile court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [751.96], "stop_times": [763.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.96}, "reply_to": "15050__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_023", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [763.569], "stop_times": [764.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.569}, "reply_to": "15050__0_022", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_024", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "unsworn?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [764.24], "stop_times": [765.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.24}, "reply_to": "15050__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_025", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [765.148], "stop_times": [765.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.148}, "reply_to": "15050__0_024", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_026", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And there may or may not be a difference with respect to the two, I know you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [765.516], "stop_times": [771.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.516}, "reply_to": "15050__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_027", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "We submit that the reason involvements --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [771.336], "stop_times": [771.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.336}, "reply_to": "15050__0_026", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_028", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- shouldn't have involved in this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [771.972], "stop_times": [774.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.972}, "reply_to": "15050__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_029", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Under the rule of confrontation at least --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [774.207], "stop_times": [777.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.207}, "reply_to": "15050__0_028", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_030", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [777.354], "stop_times": [777.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.354}, "reply_to": "15050__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_031", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And that perhaps judicial policy of policy of legislature in adapting one rule or another are -- where the various conflicts arise.\nJudge Stone in the Minnesota case gave very eloquent reasons why the orthodox rules should be adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [777.631, 789.447], "stop_times": [789.447, 795.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 777.631}, "reply_to": "15050__0_030", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_032", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But you did and the Supreme Court of California confesses error with respect to the later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [795.505], "stop_times": [801.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.505}, "reply_to": "15050__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_033", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Only as it pertained to the in to the state court ruling which we bound by at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [801.797], "stop_times": [806.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.797}, "reply_to": "15050__0_032", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_034", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's why -- right, because by previous state court decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [806.58], "stop_times": [808.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.58}, "reply_to": "15050__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_035", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's right.\nAt that time we had pending a petition for certiorari in Johnson in this Court which was not denied until January 20, 1969.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [808.855, 809.258], "stop_times": [809.258, 817.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.855}, "reply_to": "15050__0_034", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_036", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right.\nSo the fact is you did confess error but submitted it that the error was harmless error, wasn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [817.594, 818.528], "stop_times": [818.528, 824.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.594}, "reply_to": "15050__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_037", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [824.487], "stop_times": [825.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.487}, "reply_to": "15050__0_036", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_038", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [825.016], "stop_times": [825.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.016}, "reply_to": "15050__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_039", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But we made no intention of conceding the issue, we were bound at that time by final state court decision which we were contesting unsuccessfully or heads were bloody but on bout at that time.\nThe factual context where this case arises is the fact that a minor in early part of January of 1967 came into possession of a quantity of narcotics and marihuana and ultimately and on January 10th sold it to an undercover officer.\nFurther investigation including an arrangement for a meeting between the officer and the defendant Green resulted in Green's arrest and a preliminary hearing which was held on February 8, 1967, he was held to answer and information was filed and he was charged with violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11532 furnishing to a minor a narcotic and he came trial on this charge on April 5th and April 6 of 1967.\nAt this trial, the people introduced the first witness, the minor himself, one Melvin Porter and he was placed on the stand and he was asked some questions and he related that in the early part of January, some time between the first and the 10th of January 1967, he'd received a telephone call from the defendant, the defendant told him that he had some stuff for him to sell but the witness, the minor witness testified that he couldn't remember what happened because he was under the influence of LSD and at that point, the people introduced pursuant to evidence code Section 1235, the portion of the direct examination of this particular witness in which he related that the conversation over the telephone with the defendant Green related to a sale, the selling by Porter of a kilo of marihuana and the testimony was -- preliminary testimony was that the marihuana came in 29 baggies in a large shopping bag and the witness at the trial, the minor witness who was asked if this was his recollection of what occurred and if that was the way he testified and if he believe he was telling the truth when he testified at the preliminary and he said yes, I believe it to be at that time, yes.\nHe was then asked how he came into possession of this marihuana which portion of which he'd ultimately sold to this undercover police officer and he said that he couldn't recall who he got it from or where he found it.\nAnd so again, the people pursuant to evidence code Section 1235 referred to this time, the cross examination of the minor witness at the preliminary hearing and when she acknowledged that the marihuana was pointed out to him by the defending Green who was apparently at the defendant Green's father's home and that after the defendant had pointed out to him the boy went and got it and thereafter consumed part of it, sold six or seven baggies including one sale to the undercover officer and the rest was supposedly was stolen from his closet.\nNow, he was asked at the trial concerning this statement that he had made, the testimony that he had given at the preliminary examination and he was asked this particular question, \u201calright, now with your recollection refreshed, would you tell us of your own knowledge where did you get that bag of marihuana?\u201d\nAnd he said, \u201cWell, I guess I got it from his backyard\u201d.\nIt was inquired who's backyard, he said \u201cJohn\u201d, referring to the defendant and the question by the prosecutor at the trial, \u201cdid you get any money for selling this marihuana, the bags that you managed to sell?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cYes\u201d.\nQuestion, \u201cWhat did you do with the money?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cI gave it to John I think\u201d.\nQuestion, \u201cto the defendant?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cyes I guess\u201d.\nThis is page 23 of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [825.957, 840.453, 865.003, 898.432, 992.85, 1008.51, 1053.53, 1073.338, 1077.601, 1091.231, 1092.993, 1094.875, 1097.489, 1099.483, 1101.63], "stop_times": [840.453, 865.003, 898.432, 992.85, 1008.51, 1053.53, 1073.338, 1077.601, 1091.231, 1092.993, 1094.875, 1097.489, 1099.483, 1101.63, 1105.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.957}, "reply_to": "15050__0_038", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_040", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Now, is this testimony that he was giving at the trial or is this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1105.958], "stop_times": [1109.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.958}, "reply_to": "15050__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_041", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "This is testimony he was giving at the trial following the reading of his cross examination at the preliminary hearing.\nThe trial was on April 5th ands 6th.\nThe preliminary hearing had been on February 8.\nThereafter, the people also put on the witness stand, the narcotic juvenile officer, juvenile narcotic's officer, officer Wade and they asked him he had had a conversation with the minor Porter and he related that he had and he testified that this conversation took place on January 31 and that at this conversation, Porter had told him that he had obtained this marihuana grass or stuff as he referred to it from the defendant Green and that Green had brought it over to his house and it consisted of 29 wax paper bags in a shopping bag, a large shopping bag and the witness, this witness was cross examined by counsel for the defendant and subsequently, when the minor witness Porter was recalled as part of the defendant's case in chief for further cross examination, counsel questioned the minor regarding his statement to the police officer and he was asked if he had made this statement and then, \u201cdo you recall what you told him at that time?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cumm let's see\u201d.\n\u201cWill it had to do with buying it from John?\u201d\n\u201cYes sir, I mean, I couldn't say exactly what went on or not\u201d.\nQuestion, \u201cwell, do you remember telling the officer that Mr. Green phoned you up and told you that he Mr. Green had some marihuana and wanted to bring it over and leave it at your house?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cI might have said that, yes\u201d.\nQuestion, \u201cDo you remember telling him that Mr. John Green had brought the marihuana over to your house that day, the day that you had the conversation with Mr. Green?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cI think, let's see, yes I think so\u201d.\nAnd then he was questioned and this is pages 59 and 60.\nHe was questioned whether he believed he was telling the truth when he made the statement to the police officer on January 31 and he said yes sir.\nHe was also asked if he believed he was telling the truth when he testified at the preliminary hearing on February 8 and answered yes, and he was also asked if he was testifying truthfully in Court and he also replied in the affirmative.\nWe submit that in the context of this particular case with particular reference to these facts, it is clearly demonstrated that this defendant was not denied confrontation as been explained in this Court's opinions, the numerous opinions that have proceeded since Pointer versus Texas have all pointed out that there as in the particular case, a lack of adequate cross examination at the trial and he was on -- not within one of the exceptions or there had been no diligent effort made to secure the presence of the defendant in Court to subject him to cross -- to get the witness in Court, the declarant present in Court to subject him to cross examination and to permit the trier of fact to view him when he testified and to determine whether his testimony was worth anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1109.997, 1119.32, 1122.533, 1127.061, 1204.979, 1207.403, 1209.929, 1214.673, 1225.433, 1228.172, 1236.634, 1240.663, 1244.291, 1252.485, 1267.583], "stop_times": [1119.32, 1122.533, 1127.061, 1204.979, 1207.403, 1209.929, 1214.673, 1225.433, 1228.172, 1236.634, 1240.663, 1244.291, 1252.485, 1267.583, 1325.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.997}, "reply_to": "15050__0_040", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_042", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Was the -- excuse me a bit.\nWas the defendant represented by a lawyer in the preliminary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1325.308, 1328.248], "stop_times": [1328.248, 1332.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.308}, "reply_to": "15050__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_043", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nHe was represented by the same attorney who represented him at the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1332.751, 1334.327], "stop_times": [1334.327, 1337.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.751}, "reply_to": "15050__0_042", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_044", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You think that makes any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1337.917], "stop_times": [1340.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.917}, "reply_to": "15050__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_045", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No I don't but I think in this particular case, it clearly demonstrates that this man had the opportunity to confront the declarant at the time the earlier statement was made and further cross examination, the important aspect of confrontation, the presence before the ultimate trier of fact and he had that he had the attorney and the attorney did a good job in both questioning the witnesses at the preliminary hearing and then following it up with an examination of the minor witness, the officers and the other witnesses at the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1340.907], "stop_times": [1378.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.907}, "reply_to": "15050__0_044", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_046", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It means counsel -- excuse me, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1378.561], "stop_times": [1380.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.561}, "reply_to": "15050__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__0_047", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1380.365], "stop_times": [1381.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.365}, "reply_to": "15050__0_046", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_048", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What's the object of a preliminary trial in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1381.879], "stop_times": [1385.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.879}, "reply_to": "15050__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_049", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Primarily to determine whether there is probable cause to hold the defendant to answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1385.157], "stop_times": [1390.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.157}, "reply_to": "15050__0_048", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_050", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And if it's found, what is done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1390.456], "stop_times": [1393.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.456}, "reply_to": "15050__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_051", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "An information is filed within a period of 15 days in the superior court and the defendant is thereafter arraigned in the superior court and a date is set for trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1393.428], "stop_times": [1404.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.428}, "reply_to": "15050__0_050", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_052", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Held for the purpose of determining on whether or not there will be a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1404.839], "stop_times": [1411.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.839}, "reply_to": "15050__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_053", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "An information filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1411.518], "stop_times": [1412.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.518}, "reply_to": "15050__0_052", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_054", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Information, what information?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1412.82], "stop_times": [1414.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.82}, "reply_to": "15050__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_055", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "An accusation filed against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1414.986], "stop_times": [1417.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.986}, "reply_to": "15050__0_054", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_056", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You don't have any grand jury investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1417.64], "stop_times": [1420.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.64}, "reply_to": "15050__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_057", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes, we have both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1420.061], "stop_times": [1425.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.061}, "reply_to": "15050__0_056", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_058", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, this one was not a grand jury investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1425.454], "stop_times": [1427.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.454}, "reply_to": "15050__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_059", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "This was not a grand jury, this proceeded by information.\nThe Johnson case that had been decided earlier and has been referred to was a grand jury proceeding at which the witnesses testified under oath but not subject to cross examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1427.257, 1430.272], "stop_times": [1430.272, 1440.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.257}, "reply_to": "15050__0_058", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_060", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Suppose the Court had decided on preliminary trial there would be -- there was no probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1440.725], "stop_times": [1448.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.725}, "reply_to": "15050__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_061", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The man would not be held to answer at the preliminary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1448.562], "stop_times": [1451.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.562}, "reply_to": "15050__0_060", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_062", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Hew would be released?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1451.77], "stop_times": [1453.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.77}, "reply_to": "15050__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_063", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "He would be released and the complaint would be dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1453.09], "stop_times": [1458.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.09}, "reply_to": "15050__0_062", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_064", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What's the difference in the procedures when you try him for preliminary trial here and back to the trial of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1458.343], "stop_times": [1467.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.343}, "reply_to": "15050__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_065", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, actually, the grand jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1467.074], "stop_times": [1469.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1467.074}, "reply_to": "15050__0_064", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_066", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Put on witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1469.907], "stop_times": [1471.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.907}, "reply_to": "15050__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_067", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "At the grand jury proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1471.506], "stop_times": [1473.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.506}, "reply_to": "15050__0_066", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_068", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "At the proceeding, at the preliminary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1473.054], "stop_times": [1475.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.054}, "reply_to": "15050__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_069", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "At the preliminary?\nOh yes.\nIts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1475.135, 1475.944, 1476.927], "stop_times": [1475.944, 1476.927, 1477.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.135}, "reply_to": "15050__0_068", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_070", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And then the defendant put on witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1477.032], "stop_times": [1479.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.032}, "reply_to": "15050__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_071", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Ordinarily not, he would be there to merely cross examine --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1479.055], "stop_times": [1483.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.055}, "reply_to": "15050__0_070", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_072", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "He cannot put on witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1483.559], "stop_times": [1484.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.559}, "reply_to": "15050__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_073", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "He may put on witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1484.79], "stop_times": [1485.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.79}, "reply_to": "15050__0_072", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_074", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But he may?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1485.984], "stop_times": [1486.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.984}, "reply_to": "15050__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_075", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "He may put on witnesses, he ordinarily does not because the question there is, is there probable cause to hold the defendant to answer?\nIf there is, that question will be determined in the superior court and it's a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1486.966, 1497.003], "stop_times": [1497.003, 1500.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1486.966}, "reply_to": "15050__0_074", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_076", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "If he wants to have a lawyer and put on witnesses he has a right to do both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1500.414], "stop_times": [1504.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.414}, "reply_to": "15050__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_077", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Oh yes, he has a right to a lawyer at the preliminary and in California would be furnish a lawyer at the preliminary hearing if he was unable to afford one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1504.33], "stop_times": [1515.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1504.33}, "reply_to": "15050__0_076", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_078", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, what is the reason suggested by that is not the kind of a trial or proceeding or you could use the evidence from here, if you could use it from any other place, that it had been a cross examination or counseling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1515.356], "stop_times": [1528.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.356}, "reply_to": "15050__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__0_079", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I would submit that there -- this, that there should be a right to use this preliminary examination evidence at a later time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1528.776], "stop_times": [1538.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1528.776}, "reply_to": "15050__0_078", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_080", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But the reason suggested why you shouldn't is the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment in answer to Justice Black's question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1538.055], "stop_times": [1543.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.055}, "reply_to": "15050__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__0_081", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1543.719], "stop_times": [1545.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.719}, "reply_to": "15050__0_080", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_082", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Can California proceed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1545.472], "stop_times": [1548.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.472}, "reply_to": "15050__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_083", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1548.359], "stop_times": [1548.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.359}, "reply_to": "15050__0_082", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_084", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Were you finished Justice -- can California proceed by way of information or indictment by a grand jury without any preliminary hearing at all if they want to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1548.688], "stop_times": [1559.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.688}, "reply_to": "15050__0_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_085", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You can proceed by a grand jury indictment without a preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1559.226], "stop_times": [1562.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1559.226}, "reply_to": "15050__0_084", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_086", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But not by information?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1562.813], "stop_times": [1564.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1562.813}, "reply_to": "15050__0_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_087", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not by information unless the defendant waives a preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1564.476], "stop_times": [1570.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.476}, "reply_to": "15050__0_086", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_088", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Just to have that clear, the preliminary hearing is an absolute right if they proceed by charge by information but not so by grand jury indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1570.323], "stop_times": [1583.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.323}, "reply_to": "15050__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_089", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's right Your Honor.\nIf I may, I'll defer right now to the Solicitor and reserve a few minutes to close.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1583.363, 1585.279], "stop_times": [1585.279, 1589.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1583.363}, "reply_to": "15050__0_088", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_090", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1589.836], "stop_times": [1590.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.836}, "reply_to": "15050__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__0_091", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1590.601], "stop_times": [1591.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.601}, "reply_to": "15050__0_090", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__0_092", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you General.\nMr. Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1591.092, 1594.572], "stop_times": [1594.572, 1597.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.092}, "reply_to": "15050__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__1_000", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "May it please the Court.\nAs Mr. James has said, there are two pieces of evidence involved here both prior inconsistent statements.\nFirst, the testimony at the preliminary examination where I may point out, there was confrontation in the physical sense, that is the defendant was himself present and sought and saw the witness who testified and then the second piece of evidence is the statement made to officer Wade.\nBoth Porter, the witness who testified at the preliminary examination and Wade, the officer to whom the statement was made were present at the trial and subject to cross examination.\nThe testimony at the preliminary investigation was of course an official record.\nI think I may point out too that in this particular case, the trial was before the court without a jury because the defendant had waived the jury but we do not believe that this should lead to any difference in the result.\nThere is a note by professor Kenneth Davis in the current April issue of the Harvard Law Review making a contention that the rule should be different in trials without a jury and in trials with a jury but I find hard to make that applicable in a criminal case because it seems to me odd that the defendant's counsel should be put to the choice of trying to decide whether we shall waive a jury or not depending upon what evidence can or cannot come in.\nIt seems to me that in a criminal case, the rules of evidence should be the same in either way.\nNow, our submission here is against the decision below by the California Supreme Court which deals in effect only with the evidence taken at the preliminary examination and it is also against the decision of the California Supreme Court in California against Johnson decided a couple of years ago in which this Court denied the state's petition for certiorari which deals with a prior statement like that made to officer Wade here, unsworn and not subject to a cross examination.\nWe think that both decisions are wrong and that they are not required either by the constitution or by decisions of this Court.\nIf we are wrong as to Johnson however, we would urge that the decision below with respect to the evidence at the preliminary examination is nevertheless wrong and should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1597.911, 1599.085, 1611.529, 1640.068, 1657.441, 1663.57, 1683.457, 1718.714, 1726.222, 1767.681, 1777.323], "stop_times": [1599.085, 1611.529, 1640.068, 1657.441, 1663.57, 1683.457, 1718.714, 1726.222, 1767.681, 1777.323, 1791.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1597.911}, "reply_to": "15050__0_092", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_001", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Like here a first premise, Mr. Solicitor General doesn't make any difference where there is counsel preliminary hearing or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1791.857], "stop_times": [1800.59], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.857}, "reply_to": "15050__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_002", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No Mr. Justice, it -- our position is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1800.59], "stop_times": [1806.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1800.59}, "reply_to": "15050__1_001", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_003", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The confrontation is satisfied by the presence of the witness at trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1806.502], "stop_times": [1810.101], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.502}, "reply_to": "15050__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_004", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "At the trial itself and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1810.101], "stop_times": [1811.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1810.101}, "reply_to": "15050__1_003", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_005", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Doesn't make any difference if there is counsel there, it doesn't make any difference if the defendant was there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1811.797], "stop_times": [1816.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.797}, "reply_to": "15050__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_006", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That is -- all of those things go to the weight of the evidence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1816.072], "stop_times": [1819.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1816.072}, "reply_to": "15050__1_005", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_007", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1819.842], "stop_times": [1820.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.842}, "reply_to": "15050__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_008", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- but not to its admissibility and this leaves directly to the first point of my argument which is that this case is not a Sixth Amendment case.\nThis case does not deal with the right of confrontation because the right of confrontation was fully vindicated here.\nThe witness Porter was present and sworn and subjected to cross examination.\nThe trier of the facts had full opportunity to see and hear him, to observe his demeanor and to form a conclusion about his honesty and trustworthiness.\nThat conclusion might well have been that he was a devious person who probably spoke the truth shortly after the event but for one reason or another found it convenient to be forgetful and evasive at the trial.\nAnd similarly with respect to the other item, the witness Wade was present, sworn and subject to cross examination.\nHe testified fully and his personality and demeanor could be evaluated by the trier of the facts.\nThus, every objective and requirement of confrontation was met.\nThis is not a case like Pointer against Texas or Douglas against Alabama or more recently Barber against Page, where the person whose out of court's statement was sought to be used was not present or available and particularly where the prosecutor was at fault in not having the declarant available.\nHere, the key fact is that the witnesses were present at the trial, were sworn and were subject to cross examination, so that the defendant had full opportunity to show what he could to the trier of the facts by way of impeachment, explanation, a contradiction or otherwise.\nSome 40 years ago, Judge Hand dealt with this problem in a case which is cited in our brief although this quotation is not there.\nThis is Decarlo against the United State in six federal second and I quote from Judge Hand, \u201che is present before the jury and they may gather the truth from his whole conduct and bearing, even if it be in respect of contradictory answers he may have made at other times.\nIf from all that the juries see of the witness, they conclude that what he says now is not the truth but what he said before, they are none the less deciding from what they see in here of that person and in Court\u201d.\nIndeed, this Court of course has held that prior statements maybe introduced even though the declarant is not present at the trial in cases of necessity.\nNow, the leading case is Maddox against the United States in its two separate appearances in this Court where both dying declarations and testimony taken at a previous trial where the witness was now deceased were held admissible and the Maddox case was specifically referred to in the recent decisions of this Court as a decision which was not affected by those decisions.\nThere are other illustrations as in the case of book entries, ancient documents which might be used to prove title to land and a charge of trespass in a criminal case and other established exceptions to the hearsay rule.\nIn this situation where the witnesses were present and were cross examined in Court, it seems to me that the only case that is troublesome is Bridges against Wixon in 326 US.\nWhatever maybe said about that case, it was a deportation case rather than a criminal case but I don't think that's of any particular importance, it is clearly distinguishable.\nThere, the declarant took the stand as here.\nHe admitted that he made a statement as here, but at that point, the two situations diverge.\nIn the Bridges' case, the witness denied at the trial that he had said anything in his statement about Bridges' communist activity.\nHere, the witness admitted that he had made the statement and testified that he apparently thought that it was the truth when he made it, I don't want to overstate but he testified at the trial because he was very devious but he specifically admitted that he had made both of the statements and one of them of course was a public record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [1820.057, 1832.54, 1841.978, 1849.694, 1861.976, 1877.936, 1887.77, 1896.72, 1903.124, 1929.779, 1956.583, 1966.99, 1989.845, 2011.449, 2026.665, 2059.358, 2081.362, 2099.503, 2112.772, 2117.905, 2126.926, 2138.947], "stop_times": [1832.54, 1841.978, 1849.694, 1861.976, 1877.936, 1887.77, 1896.72, 1903.124, 1929.779, 1956.583, 1966.99, 1989.845, 2011.449, 2026.665, 2059.358, 2081.362, 2099.503, 2112.772, 2117.905, 2126.926, 2138.947, 2163.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1820.057}, "reply_to": "15050__1_007", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_009", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What case do you say about Richards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2163.192], "stop_times": [2166.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.192}, "reply_to": "15050__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__1_010", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Bridges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2166.157], "stop_times": [2168.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2166.157}, "reply_to": "15050__1_009", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_011", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yeah, the one you first mentioned, Richards?\nRichards' case on pending is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2168.134, 2171.25], "stop_times": [2171.25, 2174.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.134}, "reply_to": "15050__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__1_012", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Bridges, you're talking about Bridges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2174.708], "stop_times": [2177.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.708}, "reply_to": "15050__1_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_013", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm talking about Bridges, Bridges against Wixon, W I X O N in 326 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2177.268], "stop_times": [2183.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2177.268}, "reply_to": "15050__1_012", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_014", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2183.924], "stop_times": [2185.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.924}, "reply_to": "15050__1_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__1_015", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- US.\nBut as we see it, the Court need not reexamine Bridges now, it need say only that it is inapplicable in a case where as here, the declarant witness testifies under oath and subject to cross examination that he made the statement and that he believed it was true when he made it.\nThere are of course a number of decisions of the Court that which support the conclusion that such evidence is admissible.\nThere is the well known Bruton case involving the use of a co-defendant's confession in a joint trial implicating another defendant where the Court quoted from the leading Maddox case these words, hence, effective confrontation of Loyd, the witness who had made the statement was possible only if Loyd affirmed the statement as his and here the witness did affirm the statement as his.\nAnd on the basis of this passage, this quotation of Maddox in the Bruton opinion, a number of lower courts have held that in the Bruton situation the confession of the co-defendant is admissible when he does in fact appear at the trial, is sworn and is subject to cross examination there and this Court has several times denied certiorari from such decisions and there's another case of this Court which seems relevant and interesting, its Stovall and Denno in 388 U.S and it is not cited in our brief.\nThat was the case which was decided on the same day as the Wade case involving minor, and in the Stovall Denno case, the only witness to the crime or a witness to the crime was the wife of the deceased who was seriously injured and was in the hospital and the defendant was taken to the bedside and the wife identified him then as the perpetrator of the crime.\nIt so developed that the wife recovered and she was a witness at the trial and was sworn and subject to cross examination and this Court held that the evidence of her prior identification was admissible, not merely her testimony at the trial but her inclusion in the trial of her prior identification without violation of the due process clause.\nNow I point that out because the Court held that since Wade was not retroactive, the confrontation clause was not before it but as I think this case is really a due process case and not a confrontation case, it does seem to me that Stovall and Denno is directly in point.\nThere, the prior statement, the prior evidence was consistent, not inconsistent but the same question would seem to me to be applicable in determining its admissibility and of course in that case as in the sequel to the Bruton case, the prior statement is not sworn and was not subject to a cross examination.\nAnd now I turn to my second approach to this case, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2185.229, 2186.714, 2213.104, 2223.315, 2264.744, 2313.528, 2344.477, 2373.694, 2391.98, 2423.235], "stop_times": [2186.714, 2213.104, 2223.315, 2264.744, 2313.528, 2344.477, 2373.694, 2391.98, 2423.235, 2426.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2185.229}, "reply_to": "15050__1_014", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_016", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, could I ask you if you're -- are you suggesting the rule would be different if the witness denies having made the prior statement but you put on witnesses to show that he did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2426.964], "stop_times": [2438.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.964}, "reply_to": "15050__1_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__1_017", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm suggesting Mr. Justice White that if we had that case then we would have to deal with Bridges against Wixon head on which I would prefer not to do and think I don't have to here or that that would be a harder case.\nMy own view would be that it ought to make no difference that Bridges and Wixon was -- that its application to this case at least wrong, that that ought to be a matter for the evaluation of the trier of the fact that the trial since the witnesses performed and is under oath at the trial and it is not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2438.607, 2455.788], "stop_times": [2455.788, 2479.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2438.607}, "reply_to": "15050__1_016", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_018", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And you put on testimony that showed that he did make his prior statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2479.582], "stop_times": [2484.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.582}, "reply_to": "15050__1_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__1_019", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That he did make the prior statement, that is correct, but I feel a little happier or quite a bit happier that I can distinguish Bridges against Wixon rather than having to meet it head on.\nNow, if in accordance with our submission, this is not a Sixth Amendment case, then our contention is that there is nothing in the due process clause which should prevent the admission of the evidence below.\nLet me say before going further that in my opinion this is a poor case.\nI'm not representing the State of California here and Mr. James will speak up for the state.\nThere are no sense bound by but what I say -- but this Court has recently found that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a requirement of the due process clause in criminal cases and I can only say that I can't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this record.\nThis is not a case where it is enough to find some evidence or sufficient evidence to support a verdict based on a preponderance of the evidence.\nIt's a criminal case where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.\nNeedless to say, I don't think that this Court should review records in state criminal cases to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does seem to me that the Court can correct the error of the California Supreme Court an error into which I think it maybe said that the California Court fell because of the chilling effect of certain decisions of this Court in rejecting the admissibility of the evidence here and then remand the case to the California Court for further proceedings, after all, the Court below concluded its opinion by saying on page 118 of the appendix, we need not reach the defendant's additional contentions of insufficiency of the evidence, suppression of the evidence and prejudicial misconduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2484.005, 2501.034, 2519.381, 2527.033, 2534.928, 2557.371, 2568.227, 2574.39], "stop_times": [2501.034, 2519.381, 2527.033, 2534.928, 2557.371, 2568.227, 2574.39, 2637.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2484.005}, "reply_to": "15050__1_018", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_020", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You're suggesting that even if all of this evidence was properly admitted as you say it should have that as you say it was, that there would remain a question of whether or not even with this prosecution evidence there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2637.749], "stop_times": [2655.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.749}, "reply_to": "15050__1_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_021", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2655.907], "stop_times": [2656.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2655.907}, "reply_to": "15050__1_020", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_022", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- but that that's the matter we should leave to the California Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2656.3], "stop_times": [2658.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.3}, "reply_to": "15050__1_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_023", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That it seems to me is a matter for the California Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2658.962], "stop_times": [2661.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2658.962}, "reply_to": "15050__1_022", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_024", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You are suggesting this a Thompson Louisville?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2661.486], "stop_times": [2666.308], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.486}, "reply_to": "15050__1_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_025", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2666.308], "stop_times": [2667.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2666.308}, "reply_to": "15050__1_024", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_026", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You're not suggesting this is a Thompson Louisville case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2667.248], "stop_times": [2670.755], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.248}, "reply_to": "15050__1_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_027", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No, no, I think this is -- there is more evidence here than there was in Thompson against Louisville but I don't think an my view is of no importance but I have read the record and I couldn't find that there was evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt here.\nI don't think that the Court need be concerned that justice will not be done if it corrects the Court below on the constitutional law of evidence.\nWhat I am concerned with is that hard cases make bad law, we all know that and I agree that this is a hard case but I don't think that it should be resolved by a holy novel and I should think unfortunate discovery that the Fourteenth Amendment and thus presumably the Fifth as well requires that hearsay evidence is inadmissible even where the witnesses involved are in Court sworn and available for cross examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2670.755, 2690.313, 2702.745], "stop_times": [2690.313, 2702.745, 2739.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2670.755}, "reply_to": "15050__1_026", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_028", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Could I clarify something about a matter, you're saying that even if you prevail confrontation and the state prevails confrontation, you're still allowed the due process question as to the \u201cinsufficiency of the evidence\u201d?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2739.328], "stop_times": [2756.29], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.328}, "reply_to": "15050__1_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_029", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No Mr. Justice, what I am trying to say is a little bit like what was in Stovall and Denno.\nThe first portion of my argument is this is not a Sixth Amendment case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2756.29, 2766.185], "stop_times": [2766.185, 2770.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2756.29}, "reply_to": "15050__1_028", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_030", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2770.892], "stop_times": [2771.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.892}, "reply_to": "15050__1_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__1_031", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The Sixth Amendment is fully satisfied here, there was every confrontation that you can want and therefore, perhaps that's enough to dispose of the case if it is, what I have more to say is irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2771.28], "stop_times": [2784.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2771.28}, "reply_to": "15050__1_030", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_032", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's the question I want to put to you.\nIf you prevail, the state prevails under Sixth Amendment case, do you think there's a due process question there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2784.765, 2786.708], "stop_times": [2786.708, 2792.597], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.765}, "reply_to": "15050__1_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_033", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I think conceivably there is Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2792.597], "stop_times": [2800.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2792.597}, "reply_to": "15050__1_032", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_034", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I heard you to say first of all and you started out in this due process business, that was prefaced on the theory that you might not to the state, might not prevail on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2800.85], "stop_times": [2814.702], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.85}, "reply_to": "15050__1_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_035", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I think perhaps I would prefer to put it this way Mr. Justice.\nIf there is any question, it is only a question under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nI don't regard that question as serious but I thought it of enough concern that it was appropriate to devote a part of my argument to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2814.702, 2817.862, 2823.178], "stop_times": [2817.862, 2823.178, 2832.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2814.702}, "reply_to": "15050__1_034", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_036", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Now, I'm getting a little confused.\nAre we talking about the proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that part of the Fourteenth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2832.684, 2834.737], "stop_times": [2834.737, 2838.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.684}, "reply_to": "15050__1_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_037", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No Mr. Justice, were talking about the admission of prior inconsistent statements as affirmative evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2838.549], "stop_times": [2846.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2838.549}, "reply_to": "15050__1_036", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_038", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, lets -- may ask you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2846.565], "stop_times": [2849.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.565}, "reply_to": "15050__1_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_039", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And what I am seeking --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2849.972], "stop_times": [2850.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2849.972}, "reply_to": "15050__1_038", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_040", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "May I ask you this question.\nLet's assume you prevail and that the Court decides that neither the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as it incorporates a Sixth Amendment, no other Fourteenth Amendment, simplicitaire plano requires the exclusion of this evidence and that the California Supreme Court was wrong in holding that the United States constitution requires the exclusion of the evidence, do you still say that with the inclusion of this evidence there might remain a question of whether or not there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt but that that's a matter for the state of California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2850.965, 2852.294], "stop_times": [2852.294, 2891.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.965}, "reply_to": "15050__1_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_041", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice, that's my personal view --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2891.512], "stop_times": [2895.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2891.512}, "reply_to": "15050__1_040", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_042", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yeah, that's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2895.016], "stop_times": [2896.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.016}, "reply_to": "15050__1_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_043", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- My concern here is that when the Court reads this record and finds that it is a pretty thin case that we may end up with a constitutionally prescribed rule with respect to the rules of evidence as a means of disposing of it.\nWhen I think it opt to be disposed off simply on the narrow ground of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty as beyond a reasonable doubt and that gets close to the area of Thompson and Louisville although this is -- this is different from that case in many ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2896.06, 2912.027], "stop_times": [2912.027, 2937.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2896.06}, "reply_to": "15050__1_042", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_044", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, Bridges was a -- without a due process of attempt mostly, didn't it rather than confrontation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2937.043], "stop_times": [2948.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2937.043}, "reply_to": "15050__1_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_045", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "There is confrontation overtones in the language in Bridges.\nThis is quoted in our -- the passage is quoted in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2948.248, 2954.113], "stop_times": [2954.113, 2962.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2948.248}, "reply_to": "15050__1_044", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_046", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But it was a federal case and they didn't mention, they really seem to talk due process, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2962.245], "stop_times": [2970.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.245}, "reply_to": "15050__1_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_047", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The passage is on page 22 of our brief.\nTo admit this prior statement in Bridges said the Court so to hold would allow men to be convicted on unsworn testimony of witnesses, a practice which runs counter to the notions to fairness on which our legal system is founded.\nNow, that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2970.793, 2974.83, 2991.519], "stop_times": [2974.83, 2991.519, 2992.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2970.793}, "reply_to": "15050__1_046", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_048", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Is that confrontation talk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2992.009], "stop_times": [2995.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.009}, "reply_to": "15050__1_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__1_049", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's due process talk I suppose but perhaps that's the reason why I thought it was relevant to make a due process argument here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [2995.909], "stop_times": [3010.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2995.909}, "reply_to": "15050__1_048", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_050", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, I was just looking at Mr. Prettyman's brief for Green, I don't see that he raises any question unless I've missed it on the sufficiency of the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3010.653], "stop_times": [3024.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.653}, "reply_to": "15050__1_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__1_051", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No Mr. Justice, I have interjected this as a means of hoping to divert you from deciding this case against the government on constitutional grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3024.671], "stop_times": [3039.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3024.671}, "reply_to": "15050__1_050", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_052", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It's a diversionary argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3039.304], "stop_times": [3040.553], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.304}, "reply_to": "15050__1_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_053", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It is a diversionary argument, a confession in avoidance.\nWhat I am concerned with is that we should not end up with this case by finding that for the first time in a 180 years, it has been discovered that the hearsay rules are embodied in the constitution on one ground or another and are beyond the powers of state legislatures to change, to innovate, to experiment and indeed beyond the powers of people who formulate federal rules of evidence which of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3040.553, 3048.88], "stop_times": [3048.88, 3076.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3040.553}, "reply_to": "15050__1_052", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_054", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "(Inaudible) in to a program of examining state of records to see whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3076.75], "stop_times": [3089.6], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.75}, "reply_to": "15050__1_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_055", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm not suggesting Mr. Justice that you should.\nI am suggesting you should remand to the Supreme Court of California to do that was such intimation as you care to include in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3089.6, 3092.081], "stop_times": [3092.081, 3101.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3089.6}, "reply_to": "15050__1_054", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_056", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But how does -- how does that process avoid our getting into the evaluation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3101.126], "stop_times": [3107.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.126}, "reply_to": "15050__1_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__1_057", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It does not.\nIt means that you decide that the Supreme Court of California was wrong in its decision below and in the Johnson case that this is not a constitutional requirement but that you can feel satisfied that nevertheless justice will be done in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3107.817, 3108.615], "stop_times": [3108.615, 3127.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3107.817}, "reply_to": "15050__1_056", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_058", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But what you're saying is that it's none of our business really but that we should take a quick look at it and do something about it, the sufficiency of the evidence point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3127.926], "stop_times": [3140.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.926}, "reply_to": "15050__1_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__1_059", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice, I can't quite say it's none of your business since the Court put it into the constitution about three weeks ago.\nThe question of whether of beyond a reasonable doubt being a constitutional requirement and I don't know that the Court can completely escape that though it can delegate it quite widely and expect that the delegation will be peacefully honored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3140.683, 3150.562], "stop_times": [3150.562, 3167.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3140.683}, "reply_to": "15050__1_058", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_060", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, Mr. Solicitor General, I thought that ordinarily when we get certain circumstances like that in the state case, we remand for proceedings not inconsistent because we don't think we ought to get to be on the issues raised by the petitioner in the state case, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3167.93], "stop_times": [3185.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.93}, "reply_to": "15050__1_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_061", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I assume --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3185.49], "stop_times": [3187.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3185.49}, "reply_to": "15050__1_060", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_062", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "When do we go reaching it the things like this?\nI don't we did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3187.196, 3190.54], "stop_times": [3190.54, 3191.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.196}, "reply_to": "15050__1_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__1_063", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I don't want Mr. Justice, my whole objective is that when you read this record, I don't think you'll think the state's case is very strong and I don't want that to result in an affirmance of the state's decision which puts this rule of evidence into the constitution and there are -- there is another way which is to reverse these decisions below on the constitutional questions and remand it for further proceedings consistent with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3191.578], "stop_times": [3222.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3191.578}, "reply_to": "15050__1_062", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_064", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not inconsistent with -- in state cases we don't send them back for proceedings consistently, we send them back if the proceedings not inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3222.445], "stop_times": [3230.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.445}, "reply_to": "15050__1_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__1_065", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3230.141], "stop_times": [3231.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3230.141}, "reply_to": "15050__1_064", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_066", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, it's rather an important distinction we make --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3231.154], "stop_times": [3232.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.154}, "reply_to": "15050__1_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_067", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3232.892], "stop_times": [3232.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3232.892}, "reply_to": "15050__1_066", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_068", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "--between state and federal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3232.936], "stop_times": [3238.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.936}, "reply_to": "15050__1_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__1_069", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I thought your proposition was that hough your diversionary argument was that California and you're uneasy about the record and the California Court said since we find that this was not admissible under confrontation we don't have to reach anything, and therefore you're simply suggesting that if we agree on the confrontation thing, we leave it off before the California Court rule it at once?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3238.819], "stop_times": [3268.301], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.819}, "reply_to": "15050__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__1_070", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Exactly Mr. Justice, that's my point.\nNow, this question of the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as evidence is one which has been discussed over a period of two generations.\nIt is sometimes -- it seems to me denigrate a little bit by talking it about the orthodox rule and the academic view.\nThe academic view for which we speak here has been supported by some very great figures.\nWe ignore who is one of our authentic greats and Morgan and Judge Weinstein can hardly be called impractical persons.\nThis change in the California statute Section 1235 was recommended by a state commission in California which had a staff of which professor James A. Chadman was the chief reporter.\nHe is now at the Harvard Law School and is the editor carrying out the current revisions with more on evidence.\nThis rule is supported by distinguished members of the bench not impractical men such as Judge Learned Hand whom I've already quoted and Judge Henry Friendly who is cited in our brief.\nFrom bantam to the present time, authorities have agreed that present hearsay law keeps reliable evidence from the courtroom.\nWe should be continued to be free to experiment in this area by legislation, by delegated rule making and by judicial decision.\nThe area should not be frozen into a constitutional rule by application of a constitutional provision which says nothing about it and obviously has no application to the problem either in terms or in light of its history.\nI speak of course of the Fourteenth Amendment because I earlier contented that the Sixth Amendment whether incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment of not has nothing to do with the case since the defendant here did confront both of the human witnesses involved.\nThere's no case in this Court which requires affirmance of the Court below either here or in its decision in the Johnson case.\nOn the contrary, affirmance here is nothing less than reading into the Fourteenth Amendment, a conclusion that hearsay evidence is always inadmissible for this evidence cannot come in, it is hard to see how any extra judicial statements can be received.\nThat would be a revolution not only in the law of evidence but in constitutional law and if the Court thinks I am overstating, I can only say that's what the California Court has decided in both of these cases.\nAnd moreover since we're talking about the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Sixth Mr. Chief Justice, I will borrow a little time form Mr. James with his permission.\nI don't see how it could be limited to criminal cases.\nIt would apparently apply to civil cases as well for they are surely subject to the Fourteenth and the Fifth Amendment.\nApparently, such a rule would apply to the administrative process too where we widely had statute saying that the rules of evidence shall not apply.\nSuch a conclusion would go beyond anything that is needed or useful or warranted.\nIt would go far beyond any conception of due process which is part of our tradition or a concept of ordered liberty.\nOur law has always accepted hearsay evidence and evidence of extra-judicial statements and actions often without authorized cross examination under one or another of a great many exceptions to the hearsay rule and I would point out of course that other systems of law widely admits hearsay evidence subject only to the weight to be attributed to it and the scholars in those systems often find themselves quite unable to understand our concern about hearsay.\nOften, in one situation or another and particularly in administrative proceedings of one kind or another, our law has specifically provided that no hearsay rule shall apply and that the only test of the admissibility of evidence shall be its relevance with its weight under all of the circumstances to be a matter for the trier of the facts.\nIt can hardly be said that such rules are irrational, it ought not to be said that they are forbidden by the constitution.\nIf states wants to expand the admissibility of evidence within sound reason, they should be free to do so.\nAs I've indicated, justice should be done in this case but not by distorting our rules of evidence and putting it beyond development and change.\nThis is not a case for a constitutional decision and the California Court was wrong in thinking that this Court's decisions required it to dispose off the case on federal constitutional grounds.\nNow, that error should be corrected and the case should then be remanded to the California Court for further proceedings are not inconsistent with this Court's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3268.301, 3271.248, 3283.933, 3294.691, 3302.501, 3313.751, 3332.953, 3341.987, 3357.883, 3367.862, 3379.16, 3396.292, 3417.048, 3427.042, 3448.884, 3463.478, 3475.512, 3480.12, 3488.047, 3497.73, 3503.992, 3513.603, 3549.298, 3574.085, 3584.264, 3593.704, 3606.462, 3621.913], "stop_times": [3271.248, 3283.933, 3294.691, 3302.501, 3313.751, 3332.953, 3341.987, 3357.883, 3367.862, 3379.16, 3396.292, 3417.048, 3427.042, 3448.884, 3463.478, 3475.512, 3480.12, 3488.047, 3497.73, 3503.992, 3513.603, 3549.298, 3574.085, 3584.264, 3593.704, 3606.462, 3621.913, 3635.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3268.301}, "reply_to": "15050__1_069", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15050__1_071", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you Mr. Solicitor General.\nMr. Prettyman.\nBefore you get underway Mr. Prettyman, may I ask if you know because I'm not sure I could see it in the record whether in the California Supreme Court the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict was urged by the petitioner there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3635.656, 3638.586, 3641.66], "stop_times": [3638.586, 3641.66, 3659.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3635.656}, "reply_to": "15050__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_000", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It was urged before the California Supreme Court and they reserved judgment.\nI might say that I view the record in this case as the Solicitor General does but perhaps with moral arm and I have not raised the issue in my brief for this simple reason that I was appointed after the petition was filed and granted and consequently I found myself bound by the issues there presented.\nBut, if for some reason, I do not prevail here, I would certainly intend to urge before the California Supreme Court on remand that this conviction cannot stand on such poultry evidence as we find in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3659.443, 3663.389, 3684.556], "stop_times": [3663.389, 3684.556, 3700.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3659.443}, "reply_to": "15050__1_071", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_001", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Even assuming all the evidence was properly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3700.021], "stop_times": [3701.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3700.021}, "reply_to": "15050__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_002", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Even assume that it all came in.\nAs a matter of fact, I would urge the rule which as I understand it has not been decided by this Court as to whether a conviction can stand on the basis of hearsay law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3701.641, 3703.605], "stop_times": [3703.605, 3713.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3701.641}, "reply_to": "15050__2_001", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_003", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, the last sentence of the opinion says just that.\nWe need not reach defendant's additional contentions of insufficiency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3713.734, 3717.031], "stop_times": [3717.031, 3720.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3713.734}, "reply_to": "15050__2_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_004", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3720.999], "stop_times": [3721.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3720.999}, "reply_to": "15050__2_003", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_005", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "So it's wide open.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3721.589], "stop_times": [3723.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3721.589}, "reply_to": "15050__2_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_006", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3723.128], "stop_times": [3723.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3723.128}, "reply_to": "15050__2_005", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_007", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It's wide open if you will get that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3723.802], "stop_times": [3725.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3723.802}, "reply_to": "15050__2_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_008", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's correct.\nWell I would be happy to present the issue of insufficiency and obtain a reversal on any ground that I can.\nI'm --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3725.263, 3726.291, 3732.293], "stop_times": [3726.291, 3732.293, 3732.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3725.263}, "reply_to": "15050__2_007", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_009", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Would you lead the Court or seriously urge the Court to review this record and make that initial determination that this record is insufficient as that is by the standards of reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3732.739], "stop_times": [3743.718], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3732.739}, "reply_to": "15050__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_010", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Your Honor I think the confrontation issue is so square and is so surely in my favor that I don't think I have to urge that the Court do that.\nI think that the California Court should there be a remand is fully able to take care of that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3743.718, 3752.986], "stop_times": [3752.986, 3758.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3743.718}, "reply_to": "15050__2_009", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_011", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I am just putting the direct question to you as to whether you are seriously urging the second proposition on this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3758.305], "stop_times": [3764.499], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3758.305}, "reply_to": "15050__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_012", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You mean the hearsay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3764.499], "stop_times": [3765.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3764.499}, "reply_to": "15050__2_011", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_013", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3765.392], "stop_times": [3766.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3765.392}, "reply_to": "15050__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_014", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3766.0], "stop_times": [3767.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3766.0}, "reply_to": "15050__2_013", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_015", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3767.259], "stop_times": [3768.71], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3767.259}, "reply_to": "15050__2_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_016", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I hope if there's a remand and I'll be back up at you when that is decided by the -- if it's decided adversely by the California Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3768.71], "stop_times": [3776.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3768.71}, "reply_to": "15050__2_015", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_017", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It would appear on what you have just confirmed about the situation in the California Supreme Court that they reached out of their way for a constitutional issue when they could have disposed to this case on what you and Solicitor General suggest is a relatively routine non constitutional ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3776.819], "stop_times": [3802.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3776.819}, "reply_to": "15050__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_018", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Of course I can't speak for the Court but I would guess that since they said that this evidence shouldn't have been in the case in the first place that they didn't find it necessary to reach the question of what would have happened if it had gotten there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3802.214], "stop_times": [3812.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3802.214}, "reply_to": "15050__2_017", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_019", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's the reverse of what was once thought the orthodox approach to the problem, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3812.734], "stop_times": [3817.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3812.734}, "reply_to": "15050__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_020", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I concede it.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI think I'm fortunate in having the case in which the facts so dramatically illustrate the dangers of adopting the position that are searched by the state by Solicitor General.\nI would like to review those facts briefly even though they have been touched on before because of some very important facts have not been mentioned to you.\nThe key witness in this case and in fact, the only witness to the alleged crime was a 16-year old, name Melvin Porter.\nIn footnote 2 of my brief, I have listed a series of comments about this witness from the judge and the prosecutor.\nAnd I think that the most kindly and restrained way of summarizing their attitude toward him is to say that they considered him a worthless liar.\nAnd yet it was he and he alone who convicted Mr. Green.\nMr. Green at that time was 24 years old.\nAnd according to the state, he gave or sold some marihuana to Porter.\nNow how did the state prove this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3817.002, 3819.632, 3821.349, 3834.349, 3842.907, 3852.426, 3861.81, 3871.319, 3875.594, 3879.097, 3884.123], "stop_times": [3819.632, 3821.349, 3834.349, 3842.907, 3852.426, 3861.81, 3871.319, 3875.594, 3879.097, 3884.123, 3886.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3817.002}, "reply_to": "15050__2_019", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_021", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Does that go to -- if I may interrupt you there Mr. Prettyman, does that go you think primarily to admissibility or to weight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3886.853], "stop_times": [3895.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3886.853}, "reply_to": "15050__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_022", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I think what I'm going to demonstrate to you Your Honor is how it was impossible for the defendant to have true and effective confrontation in this case.\nAnd I think I can develop it for you through the facts and the situation that he was confronted with, how he was denied confrontation in the same senses if the witness had not even been on the stand or if he had been pleading self incrimination.\nBefore, during and after the trial in this case, this 16-year old made four separate and self conflicting statements in regard to this crime.\nThe first one was after Mr. Porter himself had been arrested and in an effect that was separate from the one we have here.\nHe was arrested after selling marihuana to an undercover agent and he had been incarcerated for four days at the time he made this first statement.\nThe police officer, Officer Wade interrogated him at the juvenile headquarters.\nNow only the two of them were present.\nThere was no lawyer either for the defendant Green or for the defendant Porter.\nNo witness, no stenographer, just the two of them after this young boy had been in jail for four days.\nAccording to Wade, Porter told him that some weeks before, Mr. Green had called him and then he'd come by his house and brought with him a bag of marihuana.\nThe second statement was made at the preliminary hearing of Mr. Green after he had been arrested as a result of the first statement.\nMr. Porter was still in custody of the police, still in jail.\nHis case had not yet been disposed off.\nThat hearing was held only eight days after Mr. Green's arrest.\nAnd at the hearing, Porter testified this time, not that Green had brought a bag of marihuana to this house but rather that he had come and taken Mr. Porter over to the house of Mr. Green's father and it showed him some marihuana behind a bush and Mr. Porter had comeback on his own that night or the next day and picked it up.\nNow I might say that there are number of inconsistencies between these first two statements and the state has never yet attempted to reconcile those inconsistencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [3895.578, 3908.369, 3923.838, 3935.536, 3943.718, 3954.272, 3958.652, 3960.933, 3965.317, 3971.576, 3986.503, 3994.936, 3998.657, 4002.562, 4006.815, 4030.768], "stop_times": [3908.369, 3923.838, 3935.536, 3943.718, 3954.272, 3958.652, 3960.933, 3965.317, 3971.576, 3986.503, 3994.936, 3998.657, 4002.562, 4006.815, 4030.768, 4042.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3895.578}, "reply_to": "15050__2_021", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_023", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Did state use both of those statements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4042.273], "stop_times": [4044.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4042.273}, "reply_to": "15050__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_024", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4044.402], "stop_times": [4046.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4044.402}, "reply_to": "15050__2_023", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_025", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I suppose you would agree that if it is not unusual in criminal or civil case to have inconsistencies and disparities as wide as what appear in this record E. Barrett Prettyman,", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4046.892], "stop_times": [4061.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4046.892}, "reply_to": "15050__2_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_026", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4061.304], "stop_times": [4062.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4061.304}, "reply_to": "15050__2_025", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_027", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "From two different witness or from the same witness with internal inconsistencies on direct and cross examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4062.01], "stop_times": [4069.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4062.01}, "reply_to": "15050__2_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_028", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I do think however though when you consider that these are the only two statements that convicted this man, he was not convicted upon any testimony or trial.\nHe was convicted on the basis of these two statements.\nI think that there is some burden on somebody's part to reconcile the conflicts.\nWe don't even know from the trial judge whether he relied on the first statement, the second statement or both statements, we have no idea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4069.255, 4078.287, 4081.229, 4085.811], "stop_times": [4078.287, 4081.229, 4085.811, 4092.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4069.255}, "reply_to": "15050__2_027", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_029", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But what if we didn't have the out of court statement at all, the preliminary hearing statement, it had one version on direct examination and the other version precisely as they now stand in the record on cross examination, that this should be purely a weight of the evidence question then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4092.818], "stop_times": [4115.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4092.818}, "reply_to": "15050__2_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_030", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You would not have the conflict you have here but I'm trying to demonstrate that to go back as the state would do and say, well these prior statements are more likely to be true because they are earlier in time doesn't face up to the issue that the two statements themselves don't coincide one with the other.\nI think it goes to the point about what kind of witness is this and the necessity for having him give his convicting statement in front of the trier of fact and not back before some police officer or at some previous hearing.\nI want to emphasize that at the preliminary hearing, Officer Wade to whom the first statement had been given did not testify and no mention was made of that first statement and therefore Porter's attorney had apparently had no view of it, had no idea that he'd given a previous inconsistent statement.\nAnother thing about the preliminary hearing was that Porter's attorney apparently knew nothing about the LSD that was going to develop later because not a single solitary mention of LSD was made at that preliminary hearing.\nNow we go on to the third statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4115.028, 4134.216, 4147.256, 4169.656, 4182.504], "stop_times": [4134.216, 4147.256, 4169.656, 4182.504, 4184.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4115.028}, "reply_to": "15050__2_029", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_031", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What you are really saying as if I did, the argument is that the relevant point of the confrontation is not confrontation at the trial, but absence of confrontation at the time of these --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4184.372], "stop_times": [4196.35], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4184.372}, "reply_to": "15050__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_032", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm saying the point of confront --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4196.35], "stop_times": [4197.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4196.35}, "reply_to": "15050__2_031", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_033", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4197.479], "stop_times": [4198.265], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4197.479}, "reply_to": "15050__2_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_034", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm saying, if I may state it just a little differently Mr. Justice Harlan that the point of confrontation is to look the witness in the eye, have the trier of fact looking in the eye, not as he's talking about some other statement that he made at some other time but when he's talking about the crime.\nWhen he's saying the words that convict this whole cross examination, the trial was not about the crime and a cross examination was -- well now, did you say something to somebody else back there and he is saying, I really don't -- I'm really not sure, I can't remember.\nThe third statement now was given a trial.\nAnd at this point, it's important to note that this young man was no longer in custody.\nHis own case had been disposed off.\nThis is the first time now that he is out of the hands of the police and what is he testified to now?\nHe says \u201cwell, if you want to know the truth of it, I took LSD about 20 minutes before Mr. Green called me and I'm not sure what happened thereafter.\u201d\nHe didn't know whether Mr. Green had come by his house, he didn't know whether if he came by the house, he left anything, he didn't know where he got the marihuana because he'd been under the influence of LSD.\nIt was less apparent to the state that they could not convict Mr. Green on the testimony in Court.\nThis was the only testimony of this crime.\nSo what do they do?\nThey turn around and have the officer come in and say, well, he told me down in juvenile headquarters, such and such and then they read to the witness from portions about 1/4th of the testimony at the preliminary hearing including I might say about 1/4th of the cross examination.\nThey read this testimony to the witness and they say, didn't you say that at the preliminary hearing?\nIf you look on page 7 of my brief, you will see in the footnote his various replies to these questions about what he had said before if there was ever a young man who was confused.\nWho seemed to be saying six different things at once, it was this young man.\nBut the best we can make out of all this testimony was, well, if I said it before, perhaps it was true but the fact of the matter is that because of my condition, I don't know anything about the crime.\nNow because of these two sections of the California code, these prior two statements, the one to the officer and the one at the preliminary hearing where the young man, both arms was under police control, those were the statements that convicted Mr. Green.\nNothing that was said at trial could have convicted him because the only direct evidence at trial was that he didn't know what had happened.\nThe fourth statement from this young man was made after trial.\nAnd it was in a sworn statement which he said he was making at the suggestion of his probation officer.\nAnd here he said, he'd not gotten the marihuana from Mr. Green, he'd gotten it from the gentleman named plughead 7315 that Mr. Green was entirely innocent at the offense and that he, Mr. Porter had made these statements because of police threats when it was in their hands and because he was unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.\nNow both the intermediate appellate court and the California Supreme Court unanimously held that Mr. Green was denied his right of confrontation.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4198.265, 4219.03, 4236.101, 4241.101, 4246.709, 4248.432, 4255.193, 4263.834, 4275.854, 4282.721, 4285.432, 4287.668, 4307.378, 4313.566, 4327.972, 4331.638, 4345.516, 4364.858, 4374.947, 4381.975, 4388.518, 4410.981, 4419.691], "stop_times": [4219.03, 4236.101, 4241.101, 4246.709, 4248.432, 4255.193, 4263.834, 4275.854, 4282.721, 4285.432, 4287.668, 4307.378, 4313.566, 4327.972, 4331.638, 4345.516, 4364.858, 4374.947, 4381.975, 4388.518, 4410.981, 4419.691, 4421.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4198.265}, "reply_to": "15050__2_033", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_035", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "This final statement that he made after trial in a extra judicial sworn statement is really -- really doesn't go very much to the issue before us, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4421.611], "stop_times": [4433.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4421.611}, "reply_to": "15050__2_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_036", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well except that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4433.809], "stop_times": [4434.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4433.809}, "reply_to": "15050__2_035", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_037", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not in the California Courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4434.217], "stop_times": [4436.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4434.217}, "reply_to": "15050__2_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_038", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Except to this extent Mr. Justice that it was made part of the record as the part of the motion for a new trial and I think that if you review the four statements and see the incredible inconsistencies, I think to view any statement made by this man as evidence even if you look back to the prior too simply won't wash.\nThis fourth statement is part of the pattern of four totally inconsistencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4436.14, 4460.411], "stop_times": [4460.411, 4464.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4436.14}, "reply_to": "15050__2_037", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_039", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It does however rather go from more to the question of whether admitting all this evidence at the trial, was a proof beyond the reasonable doubt, might be with the witness such as this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4464.149], "stop_times": [4477.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4464.149}, "reply_to": "15050__2_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_040", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4477.73], "stop_times": [4479.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4477.73}, "reply_to": "15050__2_039", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_041", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Now that leads me to ask you another question.\nSupposing you would have this 7445 testimony, and just a straight forward contradictory statement, with out any LSD or any qualification that have been offered, would you still say that a confrontation rule that you are arguing before it now should be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4479.176, 4481.014], "stop_times": [4481.014, 4504.915], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4479.176}, "reply_to": "15050__2_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_042", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Let me see if I understand you.\nHe gets on the stand and he gives one statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4504.915, 4506.859], "stop_times": [4506.859, 4509.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4504.915}, "reply_to": "15050__2_041", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_043", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4509.357], "stop_times": [4510.137], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4509.357}, "reply_to": "15050__2_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_044", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And then they attempt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4510.137], "stop_times": [4510.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4510.137}, "reply_to": "15050__2_043", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_045", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And they come up and they give a -- give a proof of black-footed statement the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4510.874], "stop_times": [4516.192], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4510.874}, "reply_to": "15050__2_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_046", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well I think, conceivably that might be used solely to impeach and incidentally I have some question even on that because in order at least in the federal courts to impeach, you have to have both the price and affirmative damaging evidence given for the other side which you don't have in the case of this LSD testimony.\nBut assuming that you could use it only to impeach, I certainly don't agree that you could use the prior statement for the truth of the facts therein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4516.192, 4536.682], "stop_times": [4536.682, 4547.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4516.192}, "reply_to": "15050__2_045", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_047", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No matter how --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4547.869], "stop_times": [4548.926], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4547.869}, "reply_to": "15050__2_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_048", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No sir, I certainly don't and I'll show you why shortly.\nNow the state has a quite simple argument, I think deceptively so.\nAnd in some ways it seems to have a certain appeal.\nThey say quite simply that so long as the witness is available at trial so that the trier of fact can look him in the eye what possible harm can be done in putting in these prior statements.\nWell, the answer is a great deal of harm could be done.\nThe right to confrontation in order to have any substance, in order to have any meaning if its not going to become an empty right, must mean that there's going to be something more than having a witness, a body available --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4548.926, 4554.323, 4561.5, 4563.981, 4576.397, 4580.613], "stop_times": [4554.323, 4561.5, 4563.981, 4576.397, 4580.613, 4596.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4548.926}, "reply_to": "15050__2_047", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_049", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "We'll suspend for lunch now Mr. Prettyman.\nMr. Prettyman you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4596.288, 4604.624], "stop_times": [4604.624, 4607.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4596.288}, "reply_to": "15050__2_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_050", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThere are three basic ingredients of the right of cross confrontation which I would like to discuss.\nAll three of which were missing in this case.\nThe first one is perhaps the least important of the three but nevertheless I think it's a factor.\nIt's the requirement that the witness make the incriminating statement at the crucial hearing itself so that the subjective moral impact of the courtroom is brought to bear on it.\nSo that he fully realizes the importance, a seriousness, the gravity of the proceeding and the necessity for telling the truth.\nI'm not going to elaborate this except to say that it's a very far crime from giving the statement to a police officer and juvenile headquarters than it is from giving it under oath before a judge or a jury facing the defendant in the courtroom itself where the issue of innocence or guilt is going to be decided.\nThe second basic ingredient is viewing the contemporaneous demeanor of that witness.\nThe concept that the witness will make his incriminating statements in front of the trier of fact so that the trier of fact then and there as the words are said can determine whether this man is telling the truth.\nNow the state says that you can judge his demeanor at trial as he's asked about his statement.\nBut is the demeanor at trial in any way comparable to the demeanor on the prior occasion, of course not.\nPorter in the hands of the police implicates Green.\nPorter out of the hands of the police fails to implicate green.\nWe can see his non-implicating demeanor at trial but his implicating demeanor is lost to as forever.\nThere's no way we can go back and pick that up.\nThe state's position assumes that you can judge at trial whether or not the witness is lying at trial and therefore you can make an assumption about prior truth but that's just as himself.\nIn this case, if the judge at trial found that porter was telling the truth about taking LSD, it follows of course that Green's conviction cannot stand because Porter said that the effect of the LSD was such that he simply did not know the facts about the crime.\nBut what if the judge at the trial didn't believe the story about LSD?\nWhat can that possibly prove about the two prior statements?\nPorter could have lied in his first statement, he could have lied in his second statement, he could or he could have lied a trial or all three occasions.\nIt's not enough to see the man's demeanor now, weeks or months after those statements were made.\nYou got to be able to compare demeanors to see the demeanor now and the demeanor then.\nAs a matter of fact, there's a very great danger here.\nBecause I think that there is a tendency to feel when a man is lying at trial.\nIf he has made a prior statement that is different to feel automatically that the other statement must be true.\nBut that again just isn't so, in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4607.077, 4612.656, 4620.276, 4623.675, 4629.493, 4642.17, 4651.889, 4672.48, 4678.861, 4694.445, 4701.888, 4710.631, 4716.149, 4721.621, 4731.418, 4734.564, 4751.87, 4768.124, 4774.796, 4780.441, 4790.214, 4796.321, 4802.177, 4805.853, 4812.132, 4819.713], "stop_times": [4612.656, 4620.276, 4623.675, 4629.493, 4642.17, 4651.889, 4672.48, 4678.861, 4694.445, 4701.888, 4710.631, 4716.149, 4721.621, 4731.418, 4734.564, 4751.87, 4768.124, 4774.796, 4780.441, 4790.214, 4796.321, 4802.177, 4805.853, 4812.132, 4819.713, 4823.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4607.077}, "reply_to": "15050__2_049", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_051", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What would you do Mr. Prettyman on that thesis where the traditional hearsay exception dying-declaration, were the same arguments that you are making now, would you say that those are unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4823.13], "stop_times": [4839.6], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4823.13}, "reply_to": "15050__2_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_052", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No Your Honor.\nIn the case of the dying-declaration, you have two elements that are lacking here.\nOne is, there is an assumption that if the witness were available.\nIf he was here at trial, he would tell the same story that he told before.\nYou assume that.\nHere, that's completely refuted and rebutted because when the man gets on the stand at the trial and you're looking him in the eye, he has a different story to tell.\nThe other thing about the dying-declaration is that it has a very high degree of probability of truthfulness.\nThe Courts have always assumed perhaps rightly or wrongly, that a man on his death bed is going to tend to tell the truth.\nWhat element --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4839.6, 4841.13, 4845.79, 4851.952, 4856.519, 4858.539, 4868.742, 4875.814, 4884.133], "stop_times": [4841.13, 4845.79, 4851.952, 4856.519, 4858.539, 4868.742, 4875.814, 4884.133, 4884.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4839.6}, "reply_to": "15050__2_051", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_053", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "On his own or legal presumptions that have the force of prediction behind it, it seems to me that would suggest it has.\nThe earlier question I put to you is to whether or not your argument doesn't turn on the particular facts of this case rather than the general rule as to the scope of the confrontation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4884.586, 4898.097], "stop_times": [4898.097, 4910.343], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4884.586}, "reply_to": "15050__2_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_054", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Your Honor, I think the facts of this case point out rather dramatically the dangers here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4910.343], "stop_times": [4914.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4910.343}, "reply_to": "15050__2_053", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_055", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4914.814], "stop_times": [4915.441], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4914.814}, "reply_to": "15050__2_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_056", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But, there are other cases which pointed out just as well.\nAnd now that you've asked me about that, let me turn to the case that the state is asking you to overrule today although you denied certiorari when it came up to you before.\nIn California versus Johnson, you had a mother and a young daughter testifying before the grand jury that the father had incest with the daughter.\nNow, this is before the grand jury where the defendant cannot be present.\nHis counsel is not allowed to be present.\nWhen the mother and the daughter got on the stand to trial, what do they say?\nThe mother said, I'll tell you why, who told that story because he beat me up and I was mad at him.\nAnd the daughter said, I told the story because he found out I was a member of a sex club in high school and he turned my name over to the US attorney.\nThey said the stories just are not true and they convicted that man on the basis of the grand jury testimony.\nThat's the rule that the state is asking you to adopt.\nThey say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4915.441, 4919.248, 4929.014, 4943.127, 4947.219, 4950.091, 4954.502, 4958.795, 4967.32, 4976.101, 4980.185], "stop_times": [4919.248, 4929.014, 4943.127, 4947.219, 4950.091, 4954.502, 4958.795, 4967.32, 4976.101, 4980.185, 4980.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4915.441}, "reply_to": "15050__2_055", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_057", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Would you make any or draw any distinction Mr. Prettyman in terms of what kind of a statement the witness made at the previous time?\nWhat if the witness had made a statement that was against his interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4980.876, 4991.432], "stop_times": [4991.432, 4995.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4980.876}, "reply_to": "15050__2_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_058", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No, Your Honor, I think that -- and I incidentally I make the distinction between a civil and criminal proceeding although the Solicitor General doesn't.\nIn a criminal proceeding, I think the against interest rule goes out the window.\nI think that in a criminal proceeding where you have not had the opportunity for discovery of the facts as you do in several proceeding, you, the prosecution has to rest on the evidence that it develops at trial at least for the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [4995.489, 5003.769, 5009.316], "stop_times": [5003.769, 5009.316, 5023.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4995.489}, "reply_to": "15050__2_057", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_059", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But just generally, if there were -- the prior statements by the witness if there was some other substitute for reliability, I take it like from the dying-declarations, you would permit those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5023.123], "stop_times": [5036.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5023.123}, "reply_to": "15050__2_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_060", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No, because as I pointed out in the case of the dying-declaration, it's not just a question of a probability of truth.\nIt is more basic assumption that if the man were here, he'd say the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5036.822, 5045.907], "stop_times": [5045.907, 5050.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5036.822}, "reply_to": "15050__2_059", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_061", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "So you wouldn't -- so in terms, except to the dying-declaration, you wouldn't permit any of the exceptions to be heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5050.233], "stop_times": [5056.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5050.233}, "reply_to": "15050__2_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_062", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Only for impeachment purposes but not for the truth of what they say.\nI say that a man could be convicted in a criminal trial, has to have the evidence against him introduced at the trial where the person as he says the words can be looked in the eye by the trier of fact and he can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5056.678, 5061.168], "stop_times": [5061.168, 5074.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5056.678}, "reply_to": "15050__2_061", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_063", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Let's assume that co-defendants tried, one of the co-defendants has confessed.\nAnd he implicates the other defendant.\nAnd in Bruton, the Court held that at least where the co-defendant didn't testify, you could introduce the confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5074.216, 5080.086, 5083.136], "stop_times": [5080.086, 5083.136, 5095.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5074.216}, "reply_to": "15050__2_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_064", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5095.309], "stop_times": [5096.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5095.309}, "reply_to": "15050__2_063", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_065", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Or use it against the other defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5096.238], "stop_times": [5098.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5096.238}, "reply_to": "15050__2_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_066", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5098.347], "stop_times": [5098.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5098.347}, "reply_to": "15050__2_065", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_067", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What if the co-defendant does testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5098.572], "stop_times": [5100.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5098.572}, "reply_to": "15050__2_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_068", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Alright, suppose he testifies and he says in truth and fact, what I said in this alleged confession is simply untrue.\nIt was extracted out of me by force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5100.407, 5110.714], "stop_times": [5110.714, 5112.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5100.407}, "reply_to": "15050__2_067", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_069", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And you would say then that they could not introduce this prior confession against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5112.272], "stop_times": [5115.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5112.272}, "reply_to": "15050__2_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_070", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, except possibly for impeachment purposes and possibly I think the danger --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5115.434], "stop_times": [5119.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5115.434}, "reply_to": "15050__2_069", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_071", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well if it is introduced against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5119.515], "stop_times": [5121.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5119.515}, "reply_to": "15050__2_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_072", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes but not against the -- not against the defendant absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5121.229], "stop_times": [5125.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5121.229}, "reply_to": "15050__2_071", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_073", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You would say the prior statement of the defendant himself is an admission and admissible for the truth of the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5125.014], "stop_times": [5132.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5125.014}, "reply_to": "15050__2_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_074", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.\nOf course you have a double problem in Bruton because you have as you recalled a instruction to the jury, it's not to be considered against --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5132.813, 5133.626], "stop_times": [5133.626, 5140.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5132.813}, "reply_to": "15050__2_073", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_075", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Put that aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5140.259], "stop_times": [5141.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5140.259}, "reply_to": "15050__2_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_076", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Putting that aside, I say absolutely that the prosecution has to contend itself with the evidence that they can produce before the trier of fact.\nThey cannot as in this case rely solely upon evidence that was developed out of the sight in the trier of fact.\nThat is written, spoken words that the trier of fact has not seen and which the defendant cannot even find out about.\nHow can this defendant in this case, when we talk about the right of cross examination, how was he supposed to cross examine a man who says he has -- knows nothing about the offense because the taken LSD, how are they -- how is he supposed to cross examine him about a statement made to a police officer at juvenile headquarters when the kid had been incarcerated for four days, nothing had happened at his trial, only the two of them were present.\nHe later says in his fourth statement, he gave it partially because of police threats.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5141.386, 5151.306, 5159.247, 5166.653, 5195.112], "stop_times": [5151.306, 5159.247, 5166.653, 5195.112, 5199.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5141.386}, "reply_to": "15050__2_075", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_077", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But you wouldn't make the same statement as whether you would make --you would have the same position, whether or not the man -- the prior statement was made under the influence of LSD, if you'd been perfectly competent and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5199.246], "stop_times": [5212.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5199.246}, "reply_to": "15050__2_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_078", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Oh yes!", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5212.291], "stop_times": [5212.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5212.291}, "reply_to": "15050__2_077", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_079", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- knew exactly you would take to have the same position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5212.426], "stop_times": [5214.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5212.426}, "reply_to": "15050__2_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__2_080", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Absolutely because the right to confrontation in any meaningful sense is missing.\nI think that they view the right of confrontation the same way in a comparable fashion to the right to counsel, they would say so long as you have counsel, that's all that's necessary.\nThat isn't what this Court has said.\nIt says you have to have the effective assistance of counsel.\nIf the counsel sells the man down the river, you have not had counsel.\nAnd here, it isn't enough to have a body on the stand that you can throw questions at, you said this in Douglas versus Alabama where you had the witness present, available, he could be asked questions but he wasn't answering them because of self incrimination.\nHe was denied effective confrontation.\nAnd that's what's missing here and that's what I want to turn to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5214.451, 5220.533, 5234.247, 5235.913, 5238.886, 5242.592, 5256.728, 5260.18], "stop_times": [5220.533, 5234.247, 5235.913, 5238.886, 5242.592, 5256.728, 5260.18, 5263.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5214.451}, "reply_to": "15050__2_079", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_081", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But as Justice Harlan suggested to you, all of these arguments could be made on the dying-declaration exception -- couldn't they really?\nAnd nothing but I think Justice Harlan called it tradition.\nAnd presumably behind that tradition a long human experience supports the exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5263.696, 5272.463, 5279.006], "stop_times": [5272.463, 5279.006, 5288.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5263.696}, "reply_to": "15050__2_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_082", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Your Honor, I can only say to you that the dying-declaration -- that the two basic underpinnings of the dying-declaration are totally absent here.\nAnd the only way the dying-declaration ever gets in, and it gets in only in the case of the absolute necessity of the witness not being here.\nThe only way is that you assume that he would testify the same and it has a very great degree of probability of truth.\nAnd because of those two factors, the Courts have leaded in the past, both of those are missing now, the witness is present and he's giving a different story.\nAnd therefore you don't assume that he gives the same, you have to assume the opposite.\nAnd the degree of probability of truth is missing.\nIt can't be said to be present in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5288.406, 5300.163, 5308.901, 5317.481, 5327.583, 5332.781, 5336.512], "stop_times": [5300.163, 5308.901, 5317.481, 5327.583, 5332.781, 5336.512, 5339.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5288.406}, "reply_to": "15050__2_081", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_083", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Was the testimony under oath?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5339.478], "stop_times": [5342.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5339.478}, "reply_to": "15050__2_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_084", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Pardon me sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5342.216], "stop_times": [5342.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5342.216}, "reply_to": "15050__2_083", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_085", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Testimony was under oath?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5342.676], "stop_times": [5344.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5342.676}, "reply_to": "15050__2_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_086", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not the first statement, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5344.06], "stop_times": [5346.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5344.06}, "reply_to": "15050__2_085", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_087", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The one at the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5346.133], "stop_times": [5347.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5346.133}, "reply_to": "15050__2_086", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_088", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The wanted preliminary hearing was under oath.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5347.677], "stop_times": [5349.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5347.677}, "reply_to": "15050__2_087", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_089", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And let's presume to be truthful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5349.656], "stop_times": [5351.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5349.656}, "reply_to": "15050__2_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_090", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well sir, I'm going to address myself very shortly to the proposition that testimony at a preliminary hearing is a very far try, as this Court has said from testimony at trial.\nAnd the right of cross examination is quite different at the preliminary hearing than it is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5351.781, 5362.554], "stop_times": [5362.554, 5368.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5351.781}, "reply_to": "15050__2_089", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_091", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5368.764], "stop_times": [5370.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5368.764}, "reply_to": "15050__2_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_092", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I'll address myself to it now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5370.516], "stop_times": [5372.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5370.516}, "reply_to": "15050__2_091", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_093", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Never heard that before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5372.827], "stop_times": [5374.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5372.827}, "reply_to": "15050__2_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_094", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "For this reason.\nIn the first place, that preliminary hearing is held as soon as possible after arrest and sometimes contemporaneously with the appointment of counsel.\nQuite often in the state courts and even in the federal courts, the first times that they appointed attorney sees his man as when he walks in there to the preliminary hearing because he was just appointed.\nSecondly, the issue at the preliminary hearing is a very narrow one.\nIt's not guilt beyond the reasonable doubt, it's whether there is simply enough evidence to say that there is probable cause to hold the man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5374.975, 5376.821, 5387.484, 5398.93, 5404.192], "stop_times": [5376.821, 5387.484, 5398.93, 5404.192, 5411.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5374.975}, "reply_to": "15050__2_093", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_095", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What effect does that have on the examination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5411.813], "stop_times": [5414.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5411.813}, "reply_to": "15050__2_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_096", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Because sir, in the first place, the cross examiner has not able to find the facts.\nIn this case, this trial attorney was retained no more than six days and perhaps less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5414.351, 5419.127], "stop_times": [5419.127, 5427.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5414.351}, "reply_to": "15050__2_095", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_097", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I can't understand reason for you argument, the examination is somehow different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5427.701], "stop_times": [5434.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5427.701}, "reply_to": "15050__2_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_098", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I was saying cross examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5434.986], "stop_times": [5436.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5434.986}, "reply_to": "15050__2_097", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_099", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "On both sides.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5436.026], "stop_times": [5437.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5436.026}, "reply_to": "15050__2_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_100", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I was saying cross examination Mr. Justice Black.\nI think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5437.365, 5440.598], "stop_times": [5440.598, 5440.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5437.365}, "reply_to": "15050__2_099", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_101", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I don't understand why it would be different, it's not in my state -- I don't know why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5440.823], "stop_times": [5446.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5440.823}, "reply_to": "15050__2_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_102", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, in the first place the -- as I say the attorney who is going to do the cross examination simply has not had time to gather the facts to prepare for effective cross examination.\nIn this case for example, the attorney knew nothing about Officer Wade statement and he knew nothing about LSD just by way of examining.\nIn the second place, the Courts are constantly striving to keep the issue at the preliminary hearing narrow.\nHere in the district, defendants have attempted a broad games cross examination attempting to use it for discovery purposes to all of the whole range of facts surrounding the case and they have been denied that right.\nThe trial courts have said, no, so long as the issue is the very narrow one of probable cause, that really is all that you can cross examine on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5446.037, 5462.625, 5470.42, 5478.865, 5492.394], "stop_times": [5462.625, 5470.42, 5478.865, 5492.394, 5499.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5446.037}, "reply_to": "15050__2_101", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_103", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "It's the probable cause of guilt.\nGuilt in each case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5499.882, 5501.979], "stop_times": [5501.979, 5503.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5499.882}, "reply_to": "15050__2_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_104", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5503.744], "stop_times": [5504.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5503.744}, "reply_to": "15050__2_103", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_105", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Either in the preliminary or the other.\nOne of the probable cause of guilt and now that it's just guilt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5504.0, 5506.176], "stop_times": [5506.176, 5511.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5504.0}, "reply_to": "15050__2_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_106", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well one is whether this probable cause to hold him and the other is whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5511.352], "stop_times": [5516.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5511.352}, "reply_to": "15050__2_105", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_107", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5516.98], "stop_times": [5517.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5516.98}, "reply_to": "15050__2_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_108", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And those standards are quite --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5517.729], "stop_times": [5518.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5517.729}, "reply_to": "15050__2_107", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_109", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But the issue is not worded precisely the same but I just don't understand this idea that it's some different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5518.837], "stop_times": [5526.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5518.837}, "reply_to": "15050__2_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_110", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I'm sorry I can't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5526.959], "stop_times": [5527.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5526.959}, "reply_to": "15050__2_109", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_111", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "As I see, I can describe them all time on both sides for the state and the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5527.336], "stop_times": [5534.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5527.336}, "reply_to": "15050__2_110", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15050__2_112", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5534.294], "stop_times": [5534.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5534.294}, "reply_to": "15050__2_111", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_113", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Maybe that Alabama's rule is different to the most states, I'm not saying it's not, but as far as asking you this question about why they're different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5534.789], "stop_times": [5543.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5534.789}, "reply_to": "15050__2_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_114", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5543.806], "stop_times": [5544.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5543.806}, "reply_to": "15050__2_113", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_115", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Sometimes, preliminary is not tried for months, two months, three months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5544.01], "stop_times": [5547.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5544.01}, "reply_to": "15050__2_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_116", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, on the other hand, the whole purpose of the preliminary is to hold it as at earliest time as possible so that if you have a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5547.828], "stop_times": [5553.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5547.828}, "reply_to": "15050__2_115", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_117", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, that's not the whole coverage, not as earliest time as possible.\nThey are not always held that early.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5553.168, 5559.914], "stop_times": [5559.914, 5562.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5553.168}, "reply_to": "15050__2_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_118", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well here in the district, there is a statute which requires you to do it within ten days unless you waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5562.644], "stop_times": [5567.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5562.644}, "reply_to": "15050__2_117", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_119", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well that maybe true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5567.34], "stop_times": [5568.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5567.34}, "reply_to": "15050__2_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_120", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Because the point if it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5568.596], "stop_times": [5569.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5568.596}, "reply_to": "15050__2_119", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_121", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm asking you about the difference, it might be different in those things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5569.415], "stop_times": [5573.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5569.415}, "reply_to": "15050__2_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_122", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, they're asking you for a rule though that's going to apply to all preliminary hearings regardless of when they are held and what I am saying to you is that that -- to have a man available for cross examination at preliminary hearing is simply not an effective right.\nIt's simply not as a practical matter, you don't really -- you won't able to cross examine at the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5573.811, 5591.169], "stop_times": [5591.169, 5599.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5573.811}, "reply_to": "15050__2_121", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_123", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That maybe true but I just can't understand it because that was tried, meaning, we examined just like you are on the regular trial, no difference in it and sometimes it's a week, two months, something but always we really had a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5599.268], "stop_times": [5616.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5599.268}, "reply_to": "15050__2_122", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_124", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I can only assure you Mr. Justice Black that it's quite different in many jurisdictions and that in many cases, the lawyer at the preliminary hearing isn't even the same as the one at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5616.05], "stop_times": [5627.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5616.05}, "reply_to": "15050__2_123", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_125", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Suppose it's a jurisdiction, that's what sometimes, is it not?\nBut suppose if a jurisdiction it does have regular, not bound, drag out trial and cross examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5627.71, 5631.19], "stop_times": [5631.19, 5638.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5627.71}, "reply_to": "15050__2_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_126", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well I would still say that if you have a man who gives one story at the preliminary hearing whether he's been cross examined for eight days or not, and he gets on to stand at trial where the issue is entirely different and gives the different story that the prosecution is stopped with the story that the man tells on the stand because the trier of fact as to ultimate guilt is going to look him in the eye.\nIn California, they can't even be the same judge.\nIt's a different judge that judge down at the preliminary hearing is a magistrate or a justice of the peace and not the same man who is going to appear when the ultimate issue of guilt is decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5638.537, 5662.645, 5665.64], "stop_times": [5662.645, 5665.64, 5676.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5638.537}, "reply_to": "15050__2_125", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_127", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Which would be a different judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5676.807], "stop_times": [5677.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5676.807}, "reply_to": "15050__2_126", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_128", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Now I think that this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5677.943], "stop_times": [5678.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5677.943}, "reply_to": "15050__2_127", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_129", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Or different lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5678.984], "stop_times": [5681.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5678.984}, "reply_to": "15050__2_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_130", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I think this case illustrates the fact that there may well have been enough evidence at the preliminary hearing for holding the man but even the Solicitor General recognizes, when you start talking about ultimate proof of guilt at the trial, you get into some serious difficulty, it's an entirely different matter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5681.494], "stop_times": [5700.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5681.494}, "reply_to": "15050__2_129", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_131", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Are you not going any distinction between the legal relevancy of the statement made at a preliminary trial where there is a cross examination and one made to an (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5700.615], "stop_times": [5714.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5700.615}, "reply_to": "15050__2_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_132", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I could think quite obviously that the statement made to Officer Wade has all kinds of problems to it.\nSome of which are less serious in the preliminary hearing but what I'm saying is to equate the preliminary hearing and the cross examination allowed at the preliminary hearing with the trial is simply not realistic and as a matter of fact goes entirely against the grain of what this Court has said when itself has said that the preliminary hearing issues are entirely different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5714.978, 5721.787], "stop_times": [5721.787, 5745.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5714.978}, "reply_to": "15050__2_131", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_133", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No doubt about the issues being different.\nThe issue is filed on whether he is guilty or probably cause for guilt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5745.144, 5747.392], "stop_times": [5747.392, 5751.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5745.144}, "reply_to": "15050__2_132", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_134", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5751.877], "stop_times": [5753.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5751.877}, "reply_to": "15050__2_133", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_135", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I might understand from you that the person should be against, on the issue with reference to the preliminary trial.\nThat he can't be against you on the others -- for you on the others.\nAre you putting him on the same level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5753.18, 5763.85, 5770.688], "stop_times": [5763.85, 5770.688, 5773.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5753.18}, "reply_to": "15050__2_134", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_136", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Putting which person?\nI'm sorry I didn't understand the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5773.451, 5774.275], "stop_times": [5774.275, 5775.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5773.451}, "reply_to": "15050__2_135", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_137", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The one where they have a chance of cross examination at a preliminary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5775.918], "stop_times": [5779.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5775.918}, "reply_to": "15050__2_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_138", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5779.3], "stop_times": [5779.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5779.3}, "reply_to": "15050__2_137", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_139", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "-- and the one to whom state -- just where a statement is made to an officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5779.578], "stop_times": [5783.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5779.578}, "reply_to": "15050__2_138", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15050__2_140", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I've said to you sir that I do believe that there is a difference.\nAnd that I think the difficulty with the statement to Officer Wade is a far more serious one.\nBut on the other hand, it's -- I still think that the -- that it is not enough to have a man at a preliminary hearing simply cross examined.\nYou just -- what if you hold this way, if you hold this way, look what's going to happen to the effective assistance of counsel.\nDo you realize the fantastic pressure that this is going to be put on counsel to prepare themselves for a full effective cross examination at that preliminary hearing?\nYou have said that counsel has to be in a line up because it is a critical confrontation because not to have in present might derogate from the man's right at trial.\nWhat are you going to do about these preliminary hearings?\nThe man has to prepare himself fully just as he would for trial because otherwise, he may miss his only opportunity to tear this man's story down.\nMany of the statements of course are taken before there even is a defendant such as in the Johnson case and such as the statement to officer Wade here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5783.638, 5786.631, 5793.25, 5803.446, 5814.122, 5827.505, 5840.523, 5843.938, 5853.607], "stop_times": [5786.631, 5793.25, 5803.446, 5814.122, 5827.505, 5840.523, 5843.938, 5853.607, 5862.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5783.638}, "reply_to": "15050__2_139", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_141", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Prettyman, my problem is simple.\nThe man testifies at the preliminary hearing one way, and that the hearing on the merits, he says I didn't know what happened because I was on LSD, he keep emphasizing the point of lack of effective cross examination.\nWell ones he make that statement, both the statements read to him and the statement he made, the defense counsel has unlimited cross examination, right or wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5862.022, 5865.653, 5889.332], "stop_times": [5865.653, 5889.332, 5901.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5862.022}, "reply_to": "15050__2_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_142", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "At the preliminary hearing or at the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5901.378], "stop_times": [5903.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5901.378}, "reply_to": "15050__2_141", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_143", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "At the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5903.34], "stop_times": [5905.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5903.34}, "reply_to": "15050__2_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_144", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I think this case is the perfect example why, that cross examination at trial in regard to any previous statement is not sufficient.\nIt simply is not.\nAnd the reason is that when you have this man at this trial who says, look, I don't know anything about the facts because I was under the influence of LSD, you can talk to him, tell you are blue in the face about some prior statement, what are you going to get him to say just what you did here.\nRead page 7 of my brief and you see these comments.\nHe says \u201cWell I don't know, I guess I said it but really I don't -- just don't know too much about it.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5905.314, 5916.412, 5918.206, 5935.759, 5939.706], "stop_times": [5916.412, 5918.206, 5935.759, 5939.706, 5946.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5905.314}, "reply_to": "15050__2_143", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_145", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well you don't deny that you're getting towards the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5946.811], "stop_times": [5952.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5946.811}, "reply_to": "15050__2_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_146", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not in this case, I don't think we're getting towards the truth Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5952.304], "stop_times": [5954.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5952.304}, "reply_to": "15050__2_145", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_147", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5954.768], "stop_times": [5955.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5954.768}, "reply_to": "15050__2_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_148", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "If you mean getting further toward the proof from the statement from Officer Wade, I would agree that you have a little better chance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5955.759], "stop_times": [5962.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5955.759}, "reply_to": "15050__2_147", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_149", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Alright, at this point, I'm not interested in Officer Wade.\nAt this point, you can discredit him to the better hand, defense counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5962.678, 5966.926], "stop_times": [5966.926, 5974.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5962.678}, "reply_to": "15050__2_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_150", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well what -- the point I'm making is what could --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5974.083], "stop_times": [5976.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5974.083}, "reply_to": "15050__2_149", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_151", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well defense counsel just established that this man is a non-truth telling person.\nI got a better word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5976.647, 5984.578], "stop_times": [5984.578, 5986.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5976.647}, "reply_to": "15050__2_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_152", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Now have you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5986.856], "stop_times": [5987.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5986.856}, "reply_to": "15050__2_151", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_153", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Don't just -- should discredit him, should it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5987.016], "stop_times": [5991.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5987.016}, "reply_to": "15050__2_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_154", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Alright, if you show --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5991.157], "stop_times": [5991.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5991.157}, "reply_to": "15050__2_153", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_155", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Should it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5991.669], "stop_times": [5993.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5991.669}, "reply_to": "15050__2_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_156", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "If you show that he is lying now, what have you proved about whether he was lying before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5993.293], "stop_times": [5999.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5993.293}, "reply_to": "15050__2_155", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_157", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "firstly, he never told the truth since he was born.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [5999.823], "stop_times": [6003.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5999.823}, "reply_to": "15050__2_156", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_158", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I would like to think that's precisely what was shown here but the man was convicted on the basis to his prior statements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6003.231], "stop_times": [6009.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6003.231}, "reply_to": "15050__2_157", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_159", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That's my point, so the judge sitting at the trier of fact does not agree that he just never tells the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6009.026], "stop_times": [6018.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6009.026}, "reply_to": "15050__2_158", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_160", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The judge at trial Mr. Justice, how is he going to know the circumstances under what -- under which this man testified at the preliminary hearing?\nHow is he going to see the fickr of buying on his face --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6018.663, 6029.851], "stop_times": [6029.851, 6032.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6018.663}, "reply_to": "15050__2_159", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_161", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "He wouldn't know as much about it as competent counsel brings out on cross examination at the trial on the merits.\nIt's just how much you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6032.133, 6041.819], "stop_times": [6041.819, 6043.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6032.133}, "reply_to": "15050__2_160", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_162", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, my -- I submit to you that it isn't very much.\nI submit to you that he has no opportunity to recreate the scene as the man gave his testimony that you are allowing a man to testify on one occasion and use it under other circumstances, something that is never been done.\nThis so far as I know has never been done before.\nThis rule that they're asking for is broadly than the common law rule.\nThat the very first right under confrontation even before the right to cross examine was the right to have the witness come and appear at the trial while he gave his testimony.\nThat was the most basic of all rights.\nAnd I say it's not enough to have him crossing -- cross examine now about his prior statement, he should be cross examined about what he knows about the crime and the facts of the crime.\nAnd here, that right was simply denied.\nThis case was -- this man was denied, the effect cross examination just as much as he'd have a wooden body on the stand because this boy simply could imagine the questions he didn't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6043.648, 6048.449, 6064.53, 6069.093, 6074.105, 6085.65, 6088.424, 6098.878, 6102.292], "stop_times": [6048.449, 6064.53, 6069.093, 6074.105, 6085.65, 6088.424, 6098.878, 6102.292, 6114.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6043.648}, "reply_to": "15050__2_161", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_163", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well of course, there's another factor there Mr. Prettyman that he may have been dissembling at the second trial.\nWe -- no one has any way of knowing subjectively what was the motivation behind this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6114.428, 6122.849], "stop_times": [6122.849, 6129.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6114.428}, "reply_to": "15050__2_162", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_164", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "If I were to guess and I confess it's only a guess, I would say that this boy at trial really knew that Green did not give him this doubt that he got it from 10221 and that he finally decide it he better get him off.\nThat is perfectly in conformity with his four statement which in term is supported by evidence actually at the trial and it's just as logical to assume that he decided the trial to get him off as it is to assume that one of these prior statements which conflicted one with the other was in fact true.\nBut at -- that is a guess Mr. Justice but I don't think we should be guessing about this kind of thing.\nI think that -- I think the man has to get on the stand and give his story and lets you judge him by the way he is giving it now.\nSo that when he gives the incriminating testimony, you're looking right in the eye and you tell as best you can, is it true or false.\nNow, I would like to pass in a moment some remaining to me to something which I think is extremely important and that is I've touched on it.\nBut I'd like to expand on it a little bit.\nI'm concerned if you approve this rule about what's going to happen to this problem of effective assistance of counsel.\nIt's inconceivable to me that if these statements are going to come in that they can come in without counsel being present when they were first made.\nAnd look what's going to happen now to all of these pretrial proceedings.\nMotions to suppress evidence, hearings on sanity and ability to stand trial, line ups, preliminary hearings and all the rest of these pre trial proceedings, every one of these proceedings is going to be turned in to a forum for the prosecution to get its statements down now to get its case put in and they couldn't careless about the trial later.\nThey couldn't careless whether the man gets up and even says I never made this statement before because under the California statute, it's not even required that he admit he made them.\nSo that they could -- that you realize the pressure that this is going to put on the police for example.\nThey got a fellow in tow here down to headquarters for four days.\nThey could be the confession out of him and he gets on the stand and he says \u201cI never met a word of it, they beat me up,\u201d and that first statement can be used to convict.\nIt's incredible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6129.638, 6146.113, 6165.068, 6169.528, 6177.436, 6186.689, 6203.395, 6208.946, 6217.515, 6227.778, 6233.951, 6257.553, 6267.678, 6273.088, 6277.312, 6289.011], "stop_times": [6146.113, 6165.068, 6169.528, 6177.436, 6186.689, 6203.395, 6208.946, 6217.515, 6227.778, 6233.951, 6257.553, 6267.678, 6273.088, 6277.312, 6289.011, 6289.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6129.638}, "reply_to": "15050__2_163", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_165", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well subject to all the rule -- constitutional rules developed over the years with respect to involuntary confessions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6289.844], "stop_times": [6299.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6289.844}, "reply_to": "15050__2_164", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_166", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Of course, of course Your Honor that we are hopeful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6299.997], "stop_times": [6302.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6299.997}, "reply_to": "15050__2_165", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_167", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right apart from Miranda.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6302.895], "stop_times": [6305.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6302.895}, "reply_to": "15050__2_166", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_168", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "We are hopeful that the facts would come out and that he could show that he was beaten up.\nBut the point I'm making is that even to allow as a possibility that a statement out of the defendant's presence under the tow -- the police could be used as the sole evidence at trial to convict the man despite what he says at the trial, I think that's inconceivable and I think it goes directly against every concept of the confrontation.\nYou're going to have statements --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6305.967, 6312.857, 6340.764], "stop_times": [6312.857, 6340.764, 6342.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6305.967}, "reply_to": "15050__2_167", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_169", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Suppose the man comes in to the police precinct and says I just murdered my brother and I shot him with a 38 revolver which I am now handing to you and I'm ready, willing to sign anything that you will give me but as a matter of fact, I've written it up myself.\nAnd he doesn't have a lawyer or anything else -- could they use it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6342.016, 6360.66], "stop_times": [6360.66, 6364.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6342.016}, "reply_to": "15050__2_168", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_170", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I say that if goes on to stand at trial and says in truth, what happened was this, that the guy didn't do it at all, it was somebody else who did it.\nThat I was drunk at the time and this felt like playing the game and came in the police headquarters and confessed, I say the prosecution is stuck with that testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6364.669, 6373.622], "stop_times": [6373.622, 6381.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6364.669}, "reply_to": "15050__2_169", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_171", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Then can't use the oath.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6381.999], "stop_times": [6383.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6381.999}, "reply_to": "15050__2_170", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_172", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6383.321], "stop_times": [6383.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6383.321}, "reply_to": "15050__2_171", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_173", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "In his own hand writing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6383.748], "stop_times": [6386.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6383.748}, "reply_to": "15050__2_172", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_174", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "In his own -- well, certainly whether if it is his hand writing or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6386.097], "stop_times": [6389.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6386.097}, "reply_to": "15050__2_173", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_175", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "If you keep pushing me, I want to have 6 witness, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6389.585], "stop_times": [6392.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6389.585}, "reply_to": "15050__2_174", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_176", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6392.961], "stop_times": [6393.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6392.961}, "reply_to": "15050__2_175", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_177", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Who will testify to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6393.066], "stop_times": [6394.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6393.066}, "reply_to": "15050__2_176", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_178", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Your Honor, I had a man who once told me that he committed such a crime and it turned out that legally he haven't.\nHe didn't know whether he had done it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6394.734, 6400.752], "stop_times": [6400.752, 6402.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6394.734}, "reply_to": "15050__2_177", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_179", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well you're not a good lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6402.065], "stop_times": [6403.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6402.065}, "reply_to": "15050__2_178", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_180", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6403.529], "stop_times": [6404.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6403.529}, "reply_to": "15050__2_179", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_181", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I was talking about the one that he didn't have the good lawyer.\nWell, suppose he goes on television and confesses, could he use that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6404.128, 6408.073], "stop_times": [6408.073, 6415.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6404.128}, "reply_to": "15050__2_180", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_182", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No, I wouldn't because we don't know why he is on television.\nWe don't know whether he is confessed under pressure.\nWe don't know whether he may have realized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6415.295, 6417.945, 6420.625], "stop_times": [6417.945, 6420.625, 6421.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6415.295}, "reply_to": "15050__2_181", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_183", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, he didn't explain that he was under pressure or not, but I mean you say, is no way it can be admitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6421.496], "stop_times": [6428.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6421.496}, "reply_to": "15050__2_182", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_184", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "As evidence of the truth of the fact asserted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6428.173], "stop_times": [6430.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6428.173}, "reply_to": "15050__2_183", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_185", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6430.411], "stop_times": [6430.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6430.411}, "reply_to": "15050__2_184", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_186", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That is the traditional rule as the Eighth Circuit has said, that rule has stood the test of time and the academic --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6430.998], "stop_times": [6438.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6430.998}, "reply_to": "15050__2_185", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_187", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "That a voluntary confession is never admissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6438.33], "stop_times": [6441.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6438.33}, "reply_to": "15050__2_186", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_188", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not against the man himself now, this is against another defendant you are talking about.\nWe're not talking about the confession of the man who shot the woman, we are talking about a confession of one man that implicates the other fellow who is on trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6441.854, 6446.692], "stop_times": [6446.692, 6455.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6441.854}, "reply_to": "15050__2_187", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_189", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, what do we do with the man that testifies and he also has a taped recordings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6455.334], "stop_times": [6460.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6455.334}, "reply_to": "15050__2_188", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_190", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "To as a what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6460.624], "stop_times": [6461.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6460.624}, "reply_to": "15050__2_189", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_191", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Tape recording.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6461.533], "stop_times": [6462.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6461.533}, "reply_to": "15050__2_190", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_192", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And again, this is a statement about somebody else.\nNot about himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6462.764, 6465.319], "stop_times": [6465.319, 6466.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6462.764}, "reply_to": "15050__2_191", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_193", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No, about somebody else, he wouldn't come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6466.44], "stop_times": [6470.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6466.44}, "reply_to": "15050__2_192", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_194", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Not as affirmative proof of guilt against the other party if that's not the story he gives to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6470.031], "stop_times": [6477.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6470.031}, "reply_to": "15050__2_193", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_195", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And it's your position that there is nothing in this record other than those that will stand up as proof that Green did sell the marihuana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6477.751], "stop_times": [6488.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6477.751}, "reply_to": "15050__2_194", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_196", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But -- no, what I'm saying is that there is a total lack of evidence of guilt itself other than these two statements.\nThere were circumstances which could be said to, if believed corroborates some aspects of it but I think everyone would agree that we took these two statements probably there would not be enough evidence involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6488.239, 6496.326], "stop_times": [6496.326, 6509.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6488.239}, "reply_to": "15050__2_195", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_197", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Alright, what you want us to say is that where there is no evidence other than these statements, then the conviction cannot stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6509.209], "stop_times": [6518.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6509.209}, "reply_to": "15050__2_196", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_198", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No sir, I do not base it on whether there is enough evidence or not.\nWhat I am saying is that you look at each statement itself whether or not it is enough to convict, whether or not.\nAnd you judge it as to whether the statement was made in Court where the defendant in the trier of fact can judge it or whether it was made on some other occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6518.847, 6524.608, 6532.266], "stop_times": [6524.608, 6532.266, 6542.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6518.847}, "reply_to": "15050__2_197", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_199", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And that ones the witness says, I don't have the slightest idea of what happened that day because I was under LSD and never contradicts that statement.\nYou cannot use anything that was similar to these two statements to the contrary because there is nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6542.765, 6557.966], "stop_times": [6557.966, 6567.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6542.765}, "reply_to": "15050__2_198", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_200", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well you could use extrinsic proof of some kind but you cannot use the man's own prior inconsistent statements, that's what you can't -- that's the great innovation in this California code.\nThis type of evidence has traditionally been used to impeach a witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6567.655, 6581.482], "stop_times": [6581.482, 6585.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6567.655}, "reply_to": "15050__2_199", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_201", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Oh, it's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6585.521], "stop_times": [6586.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6585.521}, "reply_to": "15050__2_200", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15050__2_202", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But not obviously for the truth of what's in it and for all of these various obvious reasons, the dangers are just too great.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6586.486], "stop_times": [6593.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6586.486}, "reply_to": "15050__2_201", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_203", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You would still stand for impeachment purposes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6593.9], "stop_times": [6598.043], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6593.9}, "reply_to": "15050__2_202", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_204", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I would where it meant the test.\nThat is the test both of surprise and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6598.043, 6599.42], "stop_times": [6599.42, 6603.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6598.043}, "reply_to": "15050__2_203", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_205", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You tend to end to rely on the jury instruction that they can't use with the truth of the fact even though it's a practical law or you probably got into it and intended that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6603.311], "stop_times": [6614.473], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6603.311}, "reply_to": "15050__2_204", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_206", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well I don't think we can decide the constitutional question on the basis that the jury will disregard the instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6614.473], "stop_times": [6619.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6614.473}, "reply_to": "15050__2_205", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_207", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well that runs in the Bruton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6619.421], "stop_times": [6621.118], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6619.421}, "reply_to": "15050__2_206", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_208", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6621.118], "stop_times": [6622.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6621.118}, "reply_to": "15050__2_207", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_209", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Then you would a fortiori --(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6622.601], "stop_times": [6633.567], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6622.601}, "reply_to": "15050__2_208", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__2_210", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "The co-conspirator exception only allows the statement in to impeach the particular defendant against to whom it comes and it is not allowed as affirmative evidence of guilt as to the other party.\nAnd they -- and the jury is so instructed but this Court as you know has difficulty in cases where they felt that it could be considered and you have reverse cases where a statement has come in that implicated the second defendant and you felt that the jury instruction was not sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6633.567, 6648.612], "stop_times": [6648.612, 6672.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6633.567}, "reply_to": "15050__2_209", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_211", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "You said that a co-conspirator statement may not be used from the question of guilt or innocence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6672.344], "stop_times": [6678.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6672.344}, "reply_to": "15050__2_210", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15050__2_212", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm saying that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6678.696], "stop_times": [6679.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6678.696}, "reply_to": "15050__2_211", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_213", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Of the co-conspirator?\nA and B or indicted as co-conspirators, A makes the statement in pursuance of the conspiracy and implicating B.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6679.77, 6681.176], "stop_times": [6681.176, 6688.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6679.77}, "reply_to": "15050__2_212", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15050__2_214", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "As I understand --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6688.85], "stop_times": [6689.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6688.85}, "reply_to": "15050__2_213", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_215", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Do you use that for proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6689.268], "stop_times": [6690.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6689.268}, "reply_to": "15050__2_214", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15050__2_216", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No, as I understand it if the first co-conspirator has made a pretrial statement, and it then comes in as to him but that if it implicates the other co-defendant, the jury must be instructed that it -- unless he is testifying the same thing at trial, in other words if it's an out of trial statement that can't be used against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6690.357], "stop_times": [6720.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6690.357}, "reply_to": "15050__2_215", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_217", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I think that's perhaps not quite accurate with respect to the federal rule that with respect to co-conspirators but that's generally understood to be a recognized exception hearing in the federal court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6720.693], "stop_times": [6735.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6720.693}, "reply_to": "15050__2_216", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_218", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I'm sorry --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6735.564], "stop_times": [6736.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6735.564}, "reply_to": "15050__2_217", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_219", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But you don't have a conspiracy case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6736.477], "stop_times": [6738.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6736.477}, "reply_to": "15050__2_218", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15050__2_220", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "No I fortunately do not have.\nThe last point that I'd like to make is simply that we are going to have all kinds of conflicts developed between the various goals that we seek in our criminal justice system if we allow this kind of thing to happen.\nAs I've indicated, the entire point of the preliminary hearing for example is to get it as soon as possible so that you can free man who are not guilty and who shouldn't be held whereas I'm afraid that retained counsel and appointed counsel or to the great impetus with them, if this rule is approved it's going to delay that preliminary hearing just as long as possible because it means that they are going to have to prepare for it the same way they prepare for trial.\nThey know they got to strike while the anvil is hot at that preliminary hearing, every single experienced trial lawyers against this academic approach because they tell you, it's not enough just to have somebody available for cross examination days or weeks later.\nAnd as a matter of fact, it is even error in Court to delay cross examination too long after direct examination because the trial lawyers know if you don't get that man to change or track his testimony as he makes it.\nIt's going to become solidified in his mind, it's going to become solidified in the juries mind, it's going to gain a statute merely by the passage of time and it is going to be too late to cross examine that man at some later day about what he might have said long ago.\nSo trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6738.464, 6744.799, 6756.845, 6783.752, 6798.625, 6815.186, 6833.661], "stop_times": [6744.799, 6756.845, 6783.752, 6798.625, 6815.186, 6833.661, 6833.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6738.464}, "reply_to": "15050__2_219", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_221", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Prettyman, when you say that this is the universal view of trial lawyers, how would you reconcile that with the recommendation with the American College of Trial Lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6833.786], "stop_times": [6845.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6833.786}, "reply_to": "15050__2_220", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_222", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6845.379], "stop_times": [6845.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6845.379}, "reply_to": "15050__2_221", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_223", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Which certainly contains some of the most eminent trial lawyers in this country and a great many of them with approval of exactly what Solicitor General and the Attorney General of California are arguing here today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6845.644], "stop_times": [6858.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6845.644}, "reply_to": "15050__2_222", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_224", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well, I have perhaps misstated but I was quoting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6858.863], "stop_times": [6863.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6858.863}, "reply_to": "15050__2_223", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_225", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well I was suggesting the misstated or overstated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6863.589], "stop_times": [6865.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6863.589}, "reply_to": "15050__2_224", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__2_226", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I was quoting the -- I was citing actually the Eighth Circuit statement to the effect the trial lawyers did not think that this was inadequate substitute and my own experience in talking to trail lawyers is that they regard late cross examination.\nCross examination long after the fact as something that is totally unacceptable substitute for cross examination while the man is testified.\nMoreover some of these codes and propositions that have been put forward you know were not all like this one.\nMcGuire for example would -- although he cited this in support of this, actually would restrict it to written statements and the British code would not only restrict to written statements but would restrict it to civil proceedings which is far different because there, as you know, you have such a right of discovery before trial that you can discover all these facts that you'd need to know for your trial on a cross examination.\nBut it's not true in criminal cases in most instances.\nI think the -- that the impetus to put off the preliminary hearing as long as possible so that you can prepare for it, I think is going to be a very serious result of all this.\nThe California statute is worried about the turn code witness.\nThe answer to the turn code witness is a speedy trial.\nIt's not -- right now prosecutors want a speedy trial because they want to get that evidence and while it's still fresh in the memories in the minds of the witnesses.\nUnder the California statute, they couldn't care less about a speedy trial.\nThey've got their case, they've got the statement before Officer Wade at the preliminary hearing and they know they can go in and convict on that.\nAnd I say that the answer to the turn code witness is not to take away the most valuable single right the defendant has in a criminal trial and that is to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him as the crucial incriminating testimony comes in.\nIf you have no questions, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6865.256, 6883.582, 6896.393, 6902.509, 6929.085, 6933.11, 6946.676, 6951.258, 6955.335, 6965.51, 6969.624, 6978.012, 6997.407], "stop_times": [6883.582, 6896.393, 6902.509, 6929.085, 6933.11, 6946.676, 6951.258, 6955.335, 6965.51, 6969.624, 6978.012, 6997.407, 6999.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6865.256}, "reply_to": "15050__2_225", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__2_227", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you Mr. Prettyman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [6999.365], "stop_times": [7003.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6999.365}, "reply_to": "15050__2_226", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__3_000", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7003.624], "stop_times": [7004.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7003.624}, "reply_to": "15050__2_227", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__4_000", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Mr. James.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7004.89], "stop_times": [7004.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7004.89}, "reply_to": "15050__3_000", "speaker": "e_barrett_prettyman_jr"}
{"id": "15050__5_000", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And may it please the Court.\nIn the few moments that I have left, I think I just wanted to touch on a few points.\nI think there is no fact clearer from the decisions of this Court than that the right of confrontation is a trial right.\nAnd if there is anything in our adversary system, it is the right of cross examination by competent counsel.\nI believe Mr. Justice Marshall pointed out that if there are discrepancies in the story of a witness, a prior statement, a statement in the Court, competent counsel can probe out that statement and determine and the -- what the truth is and the trier of fact is an opportunity to view the witness as he is testifying on the stand.\nNow this argument that we've heard about contemporaneous utterances, it comes I think from the Supreme Court of California where they use the term contemporaneous confrontation which isn't found in the Sixth Amendment as far as I know and it sort of a do it yourself constitutional attitude if there is to be any confrontation.\nThe personal confrontation if at trial should be sufficient where the competent counsel has an opportunity to examine the witness to find out why he made a statement at one time.\nWhy he's is making this thing.\nThe trier of fact can view him and determine wherein lies the truth.\nAnd we submit that that is all that the constitution requires --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7004.999, 7006.898, 7013.474, 7022.674, 7031.629, 7053.423, 7078.885, 7092.732, 7094.139, 7099.293], "stop_times": [7006.898, 7013.474, 7022.674, 7031.629, 7053.423, 7078.885, 7092.732, 7094.139, 7099.293, 7104.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7004.999}, "reply_to": "15050__4_000", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__5_001", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "All of the states have got this California statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7104.215], "stop_times": [7109.559], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7104.215}, "reply_to": "15050__5_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15050__5_002", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Well I believe we cited a recent case out of Kentucky whereby judicial decision they adopted this rule and this is also true of the State of Wisconsin as far as I know.\nCalifornia has it, I believe the Second Circuit follows it, and following the Bruton decision and remand by this Court of the number of cases, I think the Ninth Circuit follows it.\nThat the -- if the co-defendant who confesses when you have a Bruton type situation is present in Court and takes the stand and is subject to cross examination by the particular defendant.\nThat defendant has not been denied confrontation.\nAnd I think this was evident from the case that this Court had relating to confrontation just last term following Bruton and that was Harrington versus California.\nThere, there was four defendants tried together.\nHarrington was up on the appeal, his petition to this Court contending that he had been denied confrontation.\nThere were three confessing co-defendants whose confessions relating to the crime and those who participated in the crime were introduced into evidence.\nTwo of those confessing co-defendants, Bozvy and Cooper did not mention this defendant Harrington by name.\nThey did not relate his participation.\nThey talked about a white boy and he was the only Caucasian.\nHarrington was the only Caucasian who participated in this abortive robbery and murder.\nAnd they did -- specifically said, he did not have a gun.\nThis Court held that applying the harmless error test of Chapman, there was Bruton error as to those two co-defendants confessions but that it was harmless.\nThe third confessing co-defendant Rowan named Harrington, placed them in the store where the robbery took place with a gun in possession of a gun.\nBut the significant thing in that case was that Rowan took the stand and was subject to cross examination by Harrington's Counsel and we submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7109.559, 7121.277, 7133.382, 7146.01, 7149.05, 7158.923, 7163.246, 7171.408, 7181.174, 7189.287, 7191.649, 7195.093, 7200.514, 7205.057, 7216.768, 7229.207], "stop_times": [7121.277, 7133.382, 7146.01, 7149.05, 7158.923, 7163.246, 7171.408, 7181.174, 7189.287, 7191.649, 7195.093, 7200.514, 7205.057, 7216.768, 7229.207, 7240.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7109.559}, "reply_to": "15050__5_001", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__5_003", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Can that holding stand if your opponents are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7240.101], "stop_times": [7247.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7240.101}, "reply_to": "15050__5_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__5_004", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "I don't think so.\nIf they would say that as to Rowan, likewise, his statement made out of Court although he was present in Court subject to cross examination would not be admissible and it would be error of a Bruton type.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7247.883, 7249.954], "stop_times": [7249.954, 7266.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7247.883}, "reply_to": "15050__5_003", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__5_005", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Rowan's testimony was different but it was an out of court statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7266.808], "stop_times": [7272.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7266.808}, "reply_to": "15050__5_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__5_006", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But it was an out of court statement that was introduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7272.181], "stop_times": [7275.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7272.181}, "reply_to": "15050__5_005", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__5_007", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "But he testified, that certainly was substance evidence against Harrington, he testified it to trial against Harrington.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7275.213], "stop_times": [7282.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7275.213}, "reply_to": "15050__5_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__5_008", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Yes, and he was subject to cross examination by Harrington's counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7282.798], "stop_times": [7287.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7282.798}, "reply_to": "15050__5_007", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__5_009", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "What we were dealing with here is a testimony at the trial which doesn't support the prosecution.\nAnd you're relying on statements given to the police officer for the substantive evidence upon which to convict Green, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7287.092, 7296.489], "stop_times": [7296.489, 7306.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7287.092}, "reply_to": "15050__5_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15050__5_010", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "And the preliminary hearing.\nMy time is up.\nI thank this Court for its indulgence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7306.646, 7309.241, 7310.316], "stop_times": [7309.241, 7310.316, 7312.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7306.646}, "reply_to": "15050__5_009", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15050__5_011", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Prettyman, you acted at the appointment of the Court at our request, we thank you for your assistance to the defendant and to the Court as well.\nMr. Solicitor General, we thank you, Mr. James.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7312.454, 7314.621, 7321.569, 7324.509], "stop_times": [7314.621, 7321.569, 7324.509, 7325.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7312.454}, "reply_to": "15050__5_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15050__5_012", "conversation_id": "15050", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_387", "start_times": [7325.653], "stop_times": [7327.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7325.653}, "reply_to": "15050__5_011", "speaker": "william_e_james"}
{"id": "15270__0_000", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "arter against the Jury Commission of Greene County, Alabama.\nMr. Amaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [0.0, 9.435], "stop_times": [9.435, 12.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__0_001", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case arising from Greene County, Alabama is on appeal from a three-judge court for the Northern District of Alabama.\nLike the Turner case heard at the close of yesterday's session concerning Georgia's jury selection law, the issue posed is that of the constitutional validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of Alabama statute which vest successive discretion in jury officials in that state in the selection of jurors.\nOur submission is that the use of statutes such as these in those states like Alabama which have a demonstrated history of discrimination against black people in the jury selection process is the major cause of the continuing phenomenon of racial exclusion of blacks from the opportunity for jury service in state courts.\nThat's a phenomenon which is all too common place as this Court's experience in jury discrimination cases for the past 90 years attests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [12.143, 14.641, 23.879, 47.181, 73.921], "stop_times": [14.641, 23.879, 47.181, 73.921, 82.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.143}, "reply_to": "15270__0_000", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_002", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Supposing you didn't have this history of discrimination, would you still say the statute is unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [82.622], "stop_times": [88.906], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 82.622}, "reply_to": "15270__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__0_003", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "If you didn't have that history of discrimination, I would say that the statute is susceptible of abuse and therefore, if a different kind of demonstrated injury were made to appear that the Court would have to hold the statute unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [88.906], "stop_times": [106.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.906}, "reply_to": "15270__0_002", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_004", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I'm going to sharpen the question.\nSupposing there was no evidence that it was affirmatively demonstrated that there had been no discrimination other to say about the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [106.167, 107.926], "stop_times": [107.926, 116.069], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 106.167}, "reply_to": "15270__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__0_005", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I would say that the statute is vague, lacking in standards, susceptible of abuse.\nI would say that the Court would knock the issue of whether the statute was constitutional would not be present because there would be no history of the application of the vague standards to a situation in which one could demonstrate that constitutional rights had been violated.\nThat's not this case.\nEvery single -- all of the vagueness cases in this Court, the free expression area and the criminal area are cases in which some litigant came to the Court and said that the cause of these vague standards which give excessive discretion to officials, my constitutional rights are being violated and until a case of that kind reaches this Court, and it reaches this Court in this case and in Georgia and it has not as for example in Wisconsin or Maine, the kinds of questions that we were discussing yesterday.\nThe Court obviously has no occasion to declare the unconstitutionality of the statute.\nBut that has been the consistent pattern of litigation and decision making in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [116.069, 122.871, 144.076, 145.087, 183.813, 189.096], "stop_times": [122.871, 144.076, 145.087, 183.813, 189.096, 195.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.069}, "reply_to": "15270__0_004", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_006", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Then it is the statute as applied that is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [195.415], "stop_times": [200.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.415}, "reply_to": "15270__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__0_007", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Only in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [200.393], "stop_times": [200.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.393}, "reply_to": "15270__0_006", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_008", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "-- back in the complaint, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [200.964], "stop_times": [201.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.964}, "reply_to": "15270__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__0_009", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Only in a very narrow sense.\nIf what you're talking about is the matter in which the jury officials have used their discretion, which is what this --which is what the issue here is concerned with, then you're talking about -- then that's a different question from the way the District Court addressed the question.\nThey simply said that if we issue an injunction, which tells these jury officials that they are no longer to discriminate that that's sufficient.\nWhat I say is that does not deal with the problem of discretion.\nThat does not deal with the capability for discrimination that the statute invites, and therefore the only way that you can deal with that is to deal with the source of the problem which is the statutory standards itself.\nThat's exactly what this Court did in some of the cases that we cited in our brief involving discrimination against blacks in voting.\nThat's what this Court has done in all the vagueness cases that have come before it.\nThis is by now no novel doctrine in this Court.\nYou know in challenging this case, therefore Alabama's jury selection statute, I stressed of the outset of firm belief that this longstanding problem of racial discrimination in jury selection will not be solved, unless the Court respond to this challenge by voiding to provisions of the statute involved here and requiring the use of fairly administered objective standards for determining what person shall be listed on the roles of perspective juries on the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [201.781, 203.379, 222.945, 233.216, 236.56, 248.85, 256.363, 260.795, 265.755], "stop_times": [203.379, 222.945, 233.216, 236.56, 248.85, 256.363, 260.795, 265.755, 294.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.781}, "reply_to": "15270__0_008", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_010", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "What would be your suggestion Mr. Amaker as to objective standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [294.613], "stop_times": [300.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.613}, "reply_to": "15270__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15270__0_011", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "The kind -- one suggestion, I think it's exemplary only are kinds that the Congress enacted in dealing with the same problem in the context of the federal jury selection system.\nAfter the key man system had been exposed as an apparatus whereby discrimination was being practiced against groups and the groups involved avail of principally Negroes.\nIn the federal system, Congress responded to that challenge by enacting the jury selection in Service Act of 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [300.406, 315.298, 328.073], "stop_times": [315.298, 328.073, 336.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 300.406}, "reply_to": "15270__0_010", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_012", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Am I right that Congress was asked to enact those same standards for selection of state jurors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [336.767], "stop_times": [345.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.767}, "reply_to": "15270__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15270__0_013", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "It -- well, let me show up in that they -- the proposed, there were two Bills.\nThey were both part of the 1966 Civil Rights package.\nNow the Bill with respect to federal jury selection was taken out and enacted last year.\nThe Bill that was proposed in 1966 passed the House.\nNow, they were in that -- there was in that Bill, Sections 203 (a) and (b) which together gave to the District Courts the judgment of whether they could require objective criteria in the state jury selection process.\nSo it is pretty clear that the response --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [345.373, 353.561, 357.271, 363.98, 369.131, 389.767], "stop_times": [353.561, 357.271, 363.98, 369.131, 389.767, 392.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.373}, "reply_to": "15270__0_012", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_014", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Does that Bill suggests what the criteria would be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [392.805], "stop_times": [396.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.805}, "reply_to": "15270__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15270__0_015", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "The Federal Act does and they are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [396.569], "stop_times": [398.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.569}, "reply_to": "15270__0_014", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_016", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "What I mean, one that where the related selection of jurors in the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [398.975], "stop_times": [403.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.975}, "reply_to": "15270__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15270__0_017", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "So far as I know Mr. Justice Brennan, it did not state what they should be.\nThe Federal Act stated the very simple ones of age, residency, absence of a felony conviction and the ability, the simple ability to read and write the English language as determined again objectively, not subjectively as determined by a person's ability to fill out a juror qualification form.\nNow, that is the system that is in fact in operation throughout the federal system.\nAs I indicated in my reply brief in this case, District Courts throughout the country who have been faced with suits of the kind that this is an affirmative action seeking injunctive relief have directed or suggested to state officials that they ought to take a look at what the Congress did with respect to that federal statute, as a means of remedying the problem.\nThat means to me is that it is pretty clear that 90 years of litigation and the repeated admonition to jury officials that they must reform their system really hasn't worked.\nAnd the only kind of reform that is an essential step is to deal with the source of the problem which is the discretion vesting statutes like the one involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [403.249, 407.439, 429.394, 434.513, 462.651, 477.871], "stop_times": [407.439, 429.394, 434.513, 462.651, 477.871, 491.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.249}, "reply_to": "15270__0_016", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_018", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But do your really think that's the source of the problem, or do you think the source of the problem is simply an unreconstructed intention required to discriminate on the basis of those who were the job of picking juries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [491.168], "stop_times": [509.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.168}, "reply_to": "15270__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_019", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, it's pretty clear Mr. Justice Stewart that that's true, but if the question that you have to ask is what can you deal with, what can a court deal with?\nHow do you remedy the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [509.513, 518.674], "stop_times": [518.674, 520.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.513}, "reply_to": "15270__0_018", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_020", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [520.057], "stop_times": [522.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.057}, "reply_to": "15270__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_021", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I don't think that it's possible for this or any other court to remedy that problem by an injunction which says, administer the statute fairly.\nThe Court has done that consistently for 90 years.\nWhat it can do consistent with the decisions in this Court under the vagueness doctrine is to deal with the State enactment which permits those unreconstructed attitudes to be effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [522.049, 532.724, 535.784], "stop_times": [532.724, 535.784, 549.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.049}, "reply_to": "15270__0_020", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_022", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But on this case, and I'm just looking at a paragraph in your own brief on page 10 in which you summarized the injunction that was granted, it was against systematic and exclusion of Negroes from the jury roll of Greene County, and also an order requiring at a new jury roll showing the race and if available the age of each juror be filed with the court within 60 days, and a report showing the procedure used in compiling it.\nNow, isn't that the way to get at this rather than to excise a couple of adjectives from the statute which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [549.799, 578.569], "stop_times": [578.569, 585.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.799}, "reply_to": "15270__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_023", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "No, that isn't the way to get at it.\nIf that were the way to get at it, Mr. Justice Stewart, you would not have the constant re-appearance of these jury discrimination cases in this Court and in courts throughout the nation.\nAnd why I'm talking about the nation, I'm talking about the courts in that Southern Tier States where the problem has past persisted.\nAnd just excising the language isn't effective.\nWhat you have to do is to require that there be objective standards.\nIt doesn't strike neither that is such a tremendous problem.\nNow, there are 22 states to be sure which have similar language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [585.868, 588.24, 600.107, 607.224, 611.246, 618.524, 621.757], "stop_times": [588.24, 600.107, 607.224, 611.246, 618.524, 621.757, 625.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.868}, "reply_to": "15270__0_022", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_024", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "You mean that we write the standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [625.538], "stop_times": [627.559], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 625.538}, "reply_to": "15270__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__0_025", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [627.559], "stop_times": [628.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.559}, "reply_to": "15270__0_024", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_026", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "You mean that we should write the standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [628.151], "stop_times": [629.328], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 628.151}, "reply_to": "15270__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__0_027", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Oh!\nI don't think so.\nI don't think -- I think that the Court can say one of the district judges in cases we've cited here simply said, \"We suggest to you that you use objective criteria and to help you, we refer you to what the Congress did in the Jury Selection Service Act.\"\nI don't think that there would be really anything wrong with the Court indicating what kind of objective criteria would be desirable, but I think that it's important for the Court to indicate that there must be some kind of objective criteria.\nOf the States in the union, there may be 22 which have this kind of vague language and you can document that in a number of them.\nIt has been used and employed for discriminatory purpose, and that's why the case is here but that still means that the majority of the States have not found it necessary to operate a fair jury selection system by using language of this sort.\nMy own submission is that when you have language of this sort and you put that, you give the discretion to persons who are then reconstructed in their attitudes and who are all white in a community like Greene County which has a black majority that you get the kind of results that are shown on this record, and those results have been documented for several years.\nThere was a prior case in the District Court showing what happened and there was declaratory relief there, that didn't work.\nNow, when you issue an injunction to jury officials, it was really telling them to do better.\nIt seems to me that that has been the decision making process in this Court for decades.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [629.328, 629.506, 630.357, 648.497, 664.836, 673.045, 687.727, 713.036, 720.211, 726.425], "stop_times": [629.506, 630.357, 648.497, 664.836, 673.045, 687.727, 713.036, 720.211, 726.425, 731.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.328}, "reply_to": "15270__0_026", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_028", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Are there some states which have more precise standards that which still practice discrimination in this regard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [731.873], "stop_times": [740.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.873}, "reply_to": "15270__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__0_029", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "There may be Mr. Chief Justice.\nI don't know about the case.\nWhat I do know is that the cases which have come to this Court and the cases in which this issue has normally raised are cases which have states -- which have standards like these.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [740.619, 745.345, 747.95], "stop_times": [745.345, 747.95, 760.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.619}, "reply_to": "15270__0_028", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_030", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, are all the Southern States using vague standards are some of the 22 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [760.896], "stop_times": [765.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.896}, "reply_to": "15270__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__0_031", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [765.564], "stop_times": [765.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.564}, "reply_to": "15270__0_030", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_032", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "-- all of the 22 including the Southern Statesdon't", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [765.775], "stop_times": [767.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.775}, "reply_to": "15270__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__0_033", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, not all of them.\nOf the 22 are, I think there were seven are Southern States.\nThat's one out of three.\nIf by defining Southern States, you're talking about 11 or 12, I get it.\nThat's still a majority.\nBut the question it seems to me is really not how many states are or not employing language of this kind.\nIt's the abuse creating mechanism that language of this kind gives.\nAnd again, I resort to what this Court has done on the vagueness cases traditionally.\nThat's exactly what was done in United States versus Louisiana and some of the other cases that we've cited here.\nThere is a second issue that's presented here and that is whether the District Court in this case and on this record, should be upheld in refusing what we think is an essential element of the relief to which appellants are entitled in this county with its history of racial exclusion of blacks from the opportunity for jury service.\nThat is the vacation of the all white jury commission of Greene County, Alabama.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [767.954, 768.76, 772.978, 775.628, 781.157, 785.927, 795.157, 800.881, 805.356, 813.543, 837.125], "stop_times": [768.76, 772.978, 775.628, 781.157, 785.927, 795.157, 800.881, 805.356, 813.543, 837.125, 842.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.954}, "reply_to": "15270__0_032", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_034", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Which has state the jury commissioners are appointed by the Governor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [842.35], "stop_times": [846.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.35}, "reply_to": "15270__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_035", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "They're appointed by the Governor who was a -- who's named at the complaint as a defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [846.154], "stop_times": [850.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.154}, "reply_to": "15270__0_034", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_036", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Unlike yesterday's case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [850.041], "stop_times": [851.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.041}, "reply_to": "15270__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_037", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Unlike yesterday's case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [851.131], "stop_times": [851.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.131}, "reply_to": "15270__0_036", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_038", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "-- where they were reported by superior court judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [851.709], "stop_times": [854.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.709}, "reply_to": "15270__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_039", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "-- by the judge, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [854.382], "stop_times": [855.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.382}, "reply_to": "15270__0_038", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_040", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "And what's your suggestion as to the remedy that should be accorded in the event we agreed with you on the merits of this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [855.312], "stop_times": [863.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.312}, "reply_to": "15270__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_041", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I start from the proposition that the District Court had a record of discriminatory action of a long period of time taken by jury officials all of whom were white.\nI look at the statement in Louisiana v. United States which indicates that the District Court when dealing with this problem of racial discrimination has the duty to render a decree that will give effective relief.\nNow, it is true that as on our first submission, an essential first step is to get rid of a vague standards and to require objective criteria, but it is also pretty clear that there may well be a time lag between the time that that relief becomes effective and that in any event, it is a practical impossibility to excise all discretion from the administration of laws.\nOn that basis then, it seems to me that in a community, the majority whose citizens -- the vast majority whose citizens are black, where you can demonstrate that white officials have consistently discriminated and there is no easier demonstration to make than on this record.\nThat as an essential item of relief, the District Court in order to give the complete relief to which the parties here were entitled should have required the appointment of some black members to the jury commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [863.099, 879.861, 898.734, 929.188, 946.791], "stop_times": [879.861, 898.734, 929.188, 946.791, 960.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.099}, "reply_to": "15270__0_040", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_042", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Now, as I understand it Mr. Amaker, there are three jury commissioners in each county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [960.285], "stop_times": [965.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.285}, "reply_to": "15270__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_043", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [965.548], "stop_times": [966.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.548}, "reply_to": "15270__0_042", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_044", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Appointed by the Governor of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [966.726], "stop_times": [967.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.726}, "reply_to": "15270__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_045", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Appointed by the Governor for an indefinite period until the successor is appointed by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [967.626], "stop_times": [970.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.626}, "reply_to": "15270__0_044", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_046", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "And your suggestion is that the Governor of the State should be required to appoint what, at least one of the three, or two out of three, or he should be requiring to appoint jury commissioners which reflected so far as possible the percentage of population of each county of that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [970.448], "stop_times": [986.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.448}, "reply_to": "15270__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_047", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I don't think that you have to go that far.\nI think what the Court had before it was a situation in Greene County.\nThe District Court could state as a matter of its discretionary relief.\nIt could state that at least one, it could divide -- it could perhaps even order an election and in the county like Greene with now with the blacks on the voting roles and abundance for the first time they put there in the last couple of years, it was very probable.\nIt had some options.\nI'm not prepared to say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [986.974, 988.603, 994.134, 1002.036, 1019.367, 1021.039], "stop_times": [988.603, 994.134, 1002.036, 1019.367, 1021.039, 1022.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 986.974}, "reply_to": "15270__0_046", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_048", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "-- it would also then of course you're saying, it should also invalidate the state law that confers upon the Governor the power to appoint jury commissioners.\nAre you suggesting that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1022.231, 1030.303], "stop_times": [1030.303, 1031.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.231}, "reply_to": "15270__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_049", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I'm not suggesting that.\nI'm suggesting that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1031.589, 1032.907], "stop_times": [1032.907, 1033.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.589}, "reply_to": "15270__0_048", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_050", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Or if there were no election then this would be in violation of the state law which provides that the Governor shall appoint the jury commissioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1033.796], "stop_times": [1040.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.796}, "reply_to": "15270__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_051", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "No.\nWell, I'm simply saying that the course of conduct of the appointment of all white jury commissioners in this county has already violated the Constitution.\nAnd therefore, as a matter of relief, I see nothing wrong with the District Court stating that in order -- \"Because of that of that, we are going to require you to, in this county at least, appoint commissioners in a different way.\"\nAnd that is, this Court has never indicated that under the supremacy clause, state laws and regulations once they were demonstrated to have play their part in the violation of the constitutional right could not be enjoined, or that the court could not as a court of equity, give the kind of relief to which the court deemed the parties were entitled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1040.483, 1040.675, 1048.746, 1063.6], "stop_times": [1040.675, 1048.746, 1063.6, 1083.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.483}, "reply_to": "15270__0_050", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_052", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well then you are suggesting that at least with respect to Greene County, the Law of Alabama that converges upon the Governor the power and the duty to appoint jury commissioners is invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1083.342], "stop_times": [1095.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.342}, "reply_to": "15270__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__0_053", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's right.\nThat was the claim in the District Court, and that's the claim that we urge here.\nThere is another point which I think I should address myself to that is the District Court's view in its opinion that it could not void the vague statutory standards because this Court had never held these criteria to be void for vagueness.\nAnd it's cited for that proposition, Cassell versus Texas which is one of a group of five cases involving the Texas grand jury system from -- decided in this Court from 1940 to 1954.\nI cited also an old 1910 case called Franklin v. South Carolina.\nNow there is an argument addressed to both of these in our brief.\nThe submission is one that the Cassell case, in that case the issue was never raised on the court without inquiry indicated that the Texas statutory scheme was alright.\nThe Franklin case it seems to me is a case which has now really been eroded entirely by the later development of the vagueness doctrine in this Court has no continuing validity.\nAnd neither of these cases, it seems to me, should be used to prevent the Court from granting the relief that we urge here.\nIf there are no further questions, I will reserve the remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1095.144, 1096.284, 1104.245, 1130.212, 1144.796, 1149.657, 1156.038, 1169.023, 1182.122, 1195.259], "stop_times": [1096.284, 1104.245, 1130.212, 1144.796, 1149.657, 1156.038, 1169.023, 1182.122, 1195.259, 1212.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.144}, "reply_to": "15270__0_052", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__0_054", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Mr. Hall you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1212.051], "stop_times": [1213.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.051}, "reply_to": "15270__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_000", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Court, I think I should first address myself to a little problem that came up yesterday afternoon, and that was in the Georgia case.\nThere was a question about what a freeholder was.\nNow, that demonstrated that that was considerably from the Georgia case.\nIn the first place, you don't have to be registered voter in order to be on the -- put on the jury roll.\nThe Alabama statute provides that you can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1213.676, 1231.686, 1236.887, 1244.108, 1261.294], "stop_times": [1231.686, 1236.887, 1244.108, 1261.294, 1269.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1213.676}, "reply_to": "15270__0_054", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_001", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "You can be a householder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1269.759], "stop_times": [1271.34], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1269.759}, "reply_to": "15270__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__1_002", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1271.34], "stop_times": [1272.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1271.34}, "reply_to": "15270__1_001", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_003", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "You can be a householder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1272.623], "stop_times": [1274.315], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.623}, "reply_to": "15270__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__1_004", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Householder or freeholder, right sir.\nNow, that doesn't mean you have to own property.\nIt means that you can even live in a house, you could be a tenant.\nThe Alabama statute is much more liberal as far as qualifications of persons who are put on the jury roll.\nI'd like to point out to the Court what the District Court said on page 364 of the appendix.\n\"Alabama is the most enlightened of the States in requiring that broadly inclusive community list to be consulted and that all eligible persons to be shown on the roll.\"\nNow, Mr. Amaker has made quite a point here about Greene County.\nGreene County, I have to admit, has had a whole lot of fault.\nThere's no question about that, but on the other hand, we come around to this point and that is the point that it is not incumbent upon this Court or any other court that is say, to the Governor of Alabama who he should appoint as members of the jury commission.\nI think it's quite obvious, quite clear this Court and to almost any court in the land that we had three judges down there.\nJustice Goldbold, Justice Brooms, Justice Allgood who were very competent and capable and they do what they were doing when they set forth the guidelines for the jury commission of Greene County to do something about that thing.\nNow, we turn right around to this other point again.\nMr. Amaker suggests that this Court dictate to the Governor of Alabama who he should appoint as member of the jury commission.\nNow that almost is like dictating to the President of the United States who he should appoint to some official position.\nI don't think that makes sense.\nI don't think this Court has any authority to do it, and I don't think any court in the land has the authority to say to a Chief Executive of a state or to the President of the United States or any other executive body who he should appoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1274.315, 1278.363, 1284.784, 1292.492, 1305.454, 1318.071, 1339.115, 1346.734, 1353.009, 1391.654, 1406.043, 1428.811, 1438.207, 1456.025, 1468.409, 1472.546], "stop_times": [1278.363, 1284.784, 1292.492, 1305.454, 1318.071, 1339.115, 1346.734, 1353.009, 1391.654, 1406.043, 1428.811, 1438.207, 1456.025, 1468.409, 1472.546, 1495.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1274.315}, "reply_to": "15270__1_003", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_005", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "How does the Court reach then the questions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1495.277], "stop_times": [1498.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.277}, "reply_to": "15270__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_006", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1498.965], "stop_times": [1499.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1498.965}, "reply_to": "15270__1_005", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_007", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "How does the Court reach then under court of remedy for the situation that you seem to concede exists in Greene County?\nLet's assume for the moment that you're correct in your assumption that it would not be feasible if for no other reason, for a court to say who should be appointed to jury commissioner?\nWhat is a court to do when it finds it over a long period of time, a population which is roughly divided equally, let us say, turns up with no people of one group on the jury list or very few of them, do you suggest that's beyond the reach of the courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1499.763, 1510.255, 1523.371], "stop_times": [1510.255, 1523.371, 1546.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.763}, "reply_to": "15270__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_008", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I don't think it's to the pretty right to the court to say who should be appointed as jury commissioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1546.853], "stop_times": [1555.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1546.853}, "reply_to": "15270__1_007", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_009", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "No, I'm talking now about the selection of jurors after laying aside the question of the jury commissioner's appointment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1555.343], "stop_times": [1563.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.343}, "reply_to": "15270__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_010", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1563.713], "stop_times": [1563.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.713}, "reply_to": "15270__1_009", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_011", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "If the jury turned up all whites in Greene County or any other county for a long period of time, are you suggesting that nothing can be done about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1563.862], "stop_times": [1572.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.862}, "reply_to": "15270__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_012", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "We have 67 counties in the State of Alabama, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1572.489], "stop_times": [1576.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1572.489}, "reply_to": "15270__1_011", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_013", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, but we're only dealing with Greene County today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1576.535], "stop_times": [1578.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.535}, "reply_to": "15270__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_014", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAnd if this Court robs the scope of the thing to say that \"We're bringing cash out to this net.\"\nNow couldn't that apply it to all 67 counties?\nI don't know.\nBut the only thing I know is it was decided in this case, the Swain case.\nAnd Mr. Justice White wrote the opinion on the case that there has to be a broad representation, isn't that correct sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1578.996, 1581.302, 1592.454, 1598.04, 1601.62, 1614.735], "stop_times": [1581.302, 1592.454, 1598.04, 1601.62, 1614.735, 1636.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1578.996}, "reply_to": "15270__1_013", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_015", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "You're making the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1636.18], "stop_times": [1637.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.18}, "reply_to": "15270__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15270__1_016", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1637.503], "stop_times": [1645.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.503}, "reply_to": "15270__1_015", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_017", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I suppose your answer to the Chief Justice's question is that the way to get out it is the way this District Court got at it.\nThis Court in its opinions said there had been a declaratory judgment put down in 1967 and that had not remedied the situation, that there continued to be recalcitrance, and that now the time come for an injunction and this Court issued an injunction which was specific and stringent.\nAnd I suppose your answer is that the way to get out it is the way this District Court got at it, rather than to enjoin the Governor of the state as to who he should appoint as jury commissioners.\nIsn't that the answer to the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1645.032, 1654.72, 1675.147, 1684.646], "stop_times": [1654.72, 1675.147, 1684.646, 1686.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.032}, "reply_to": "15270__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__1_018", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I would feel that way, yes sir.\nI don't think that court has the power to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1686.218, 1692.856], "stop_times": [1692.856, 1698.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.218}, "reply_to": "15270__1_017", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_019", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Going to do what --\nAppoint the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1698.018, 1698.733], "stop_times": [1698.733, 1699.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.018}, "reply_to": "15270__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__1_020", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "To issue an injunction to the Governor of the State of Alabama telling him to appoint one Negro, two Negroes, black people pardon me, or three on the permission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1699.653], "stop_times": [1719.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1699.653}, "reply_to": "15270__1_019", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_021", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Certainly a federal court has not only has the power but the duty, doesn't it, under the Constitution of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution to see to it that there is no racial discrimination on the selection of jurors in Greene County or any other county in any state of the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1719.078], "stop_times": [1737.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.078}, "reply_to": "15270__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_022", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Oh!\nI think it's quite clear that Alabama -- they're trying to solve the situation, but we haven't barely solve that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1737.744, 1737.908], "stop_times": [1737.908, 1747.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.744}, "reply_to": "15270__1_021", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_023", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But do you think the order which has now been entered by the district judge will produce a solution that's a reasonable one?\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1747.692, 1755.707], "stop_times": [1755.707, 1755.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.692}, "reply_to": "15270__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_024", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, we've got three very competent judges down there and I think it probably will solve it.\nI don't know why they're appealing from that portion of it anyway.\nThe only thing I wonder about is why they're appealing from the other point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1755.892, 1763.054, 1767.186], "stop_times": [1763.054, 1767.186, 1774.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.892}, "reply_to": "15270__1_023", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_025", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Why they wanted it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1774.036], "stop_times": [1776.102], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.036}, "reply_to": "15270__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__1_026", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1776.102], "stop_times": [1776.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.102}, "reply_to": "15270__1_025", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_027", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "What you're saying on the last part of your statement.\nThe only thing you wanted about was why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1776.767, 1779.751], "stop_times": [1779.751, 1782.53], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.767}, "reply_to": "15270__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__1_028", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I was wondering why the appeal from the -- they got a favorable decision on the first part, and now they wanted us to just change that old expression and have a court decree that the Governor's got to do this, that and the other.\nNow I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1782.53, 1808.753], "stop_times": [1808.753, 1812.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.53}, "reply_to": "15270__1_027", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_029", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Probably not in the record, but what's happened in relation to the remedying this situation since this plea was entered, could you tell me in your time.\nAre there more new rolls on the jury of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1812.225, 1823.748], "stop_times": [1823.748, 1826.23], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.225}, "reply_to": "15270__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15270__1_030", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, sir.\nConsiderably more, in fact I try to tell you so not too long ago in connection with the District Attorney and there's (Inaudible) turned up more Negroes than there were white people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1826.23, 1828.093], "stop_times": [1828.093, 1852.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.23}, "reply_to": "15270__1_029", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_031", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Has this injunction been complied with?\nI'm referring to the language appearing on 27 (a) of the jurisdictional statement.\nIt said \"Defendants are ordered to take prompt action to compile a jury list for Greene County, Alabama in accordance with the Law of Alabama and the constitutional principles set out in this judgment.\nThey are ordered to file with this Court within 60 days a jury list and so compiled.\"", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1852.735, 1854.747, 1863.126, 1873.344], "stop_times": [1854.747, 1863.126, 1873.344, 1877.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.735}, "reply_to": "15270__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__1_032", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's been done sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1877.963], "stop_times": [1878.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.963}, "reply_to": "15270__1_031", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_033", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's been done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1878.744], "stop_times": [1879.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.744}, "reply_to": "15270__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__1_034", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1879.736], "stop_times": [1883.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.736}, "reply_to": "15270__1_033", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_035", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That of course wouldn't be I suppose in the record, just because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1883.223], "stop_times": [1885.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.223}, "reply_to": "15270__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__1_036", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "It wouldn't be reflected in our appendix, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1885.197], "stop_times": [1902.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.197}, "reply_to": "15270__1_035", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_037", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Very well.\nDo you have anything further counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1902.012, 1902.353], "stop_times": [1902.353, 1904.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.012}, "reply_to": "15270__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_038", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1904.09], "stop_times": [1904.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.09}, "reply_to": "15270__1_037", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_039", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Do you have anything further to present to the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1904.825], "stop_times": [1906.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.825}, "reply_to": "15270__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__1_040", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "No, sir.\nI thank this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1906.221, 1906.779], "stop_times": [1906.779, 1909.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.221}, "reply_to": "15270__1_039", "speaker": "leslie_hall"}
{"id": "15270__1_041", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Thank you Mr. Hall.\nAmaker you have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1909.006, 1910.468], "stop_times": [1910.468, 1913.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.006}, "reply_to": "15270__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15270__2_000", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, in response to Mr. Justice Stewart's inquiry as to what occurred.\nThe District Court required the filing of a report as indicated in its opinion within 60 days.\nThat report was filed in November of last year.\nIt is in the -- the report is in the exhibits that are on file on the clerk's office.\nI looked at it yesterday.\nThere is no numerical compilation, scanning it in the case that there are approximately 50% blacks on that list.\nI don't know which where the balance is tipped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1913.096, 1921.487, 1931.561, 1936.209, 1942.598, 1944.478, 1958.154], "stop_times": [1921.487, 1931.561, 1936.209, 1942.598, 1944.478, 1958.154, 1961.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1913.096}, "reply_to": "15270__1_041", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_001", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "There are racial designations on the list, are there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1961.007], "stop_times": [1964.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.007}, "reply_to": "15270__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__2_002", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "They were required on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1964.076], "stop_times": [1965.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1964.076}, "reply_to": "15270__2_001", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_003", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "On accord with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1965.129], "stop_times": [1965.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.129}, "reply_to": "15270__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__2_004", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, yes they are.\nNow, whether the district -- whether the jury commissioners will consistently do that, I don't know.\nPrior to that injunction there were no racial designations.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1965.653, 1967.36, 1976.799, 1980.384], "stop_times": [1967.36, 1976.799, 1980.384, 1981.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1965.653}, "reply_to": "15270__2_003", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_005", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, in the absence of some particularized reason, I suppose the complaint to be made of the fact that there -- were racial designations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1981.518], "stop_times": [1992.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.518}, "reply_to": "15270__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__2_006", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I think that the particularized reason appear from these records, you see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1992.27], "stop_times": [1996.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1992.27}, "reply_to": "15270__2_005", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_007", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Right.\nIn accord with this injunction this probably --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [1996.553, 1997.592], "stop_times": [1997.592, 2000.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.553}, "reply_to": "15270__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15270__2_008", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But that has been -- that was the same thing that Congress did you know, in the Jury Act, and in both the Jury Bills because the problem we've had in these racial discrimination cases over the years, Mr. Justice Stewart, is that you haven't been able to find out very often or at least not without you'd been able to would not about considerable amount of difficulty what the racial breakdown was.\nNow, the Congress recognized that that it was important in order to demonstrate racial discrimination that what the numbers were.\nBut let me just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2000.41, 2021.725, 2031.699], "stop_times": [2021.725, 2031.699, 2034.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2000.41}, "reply_to": "15270__2_007", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_009", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "May I ask you, are you familiar with -- in the last election, how many colored people were elected to county office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2034.618], "stop_times": [2043.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.618}, "reply_to": "15270__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_010", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "The very last one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2043.288], "stop_times": [2044.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2043.288}, "reply_to": "15270__2_009", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_011", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "In Greene County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2044.393], "stop_times": [2045.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.393}, "reply_to": "15270__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_012", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "In Greene County?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2045.458], "stop_times": [2046.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2045.458}, "reply_to": "15270__2_011", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_013", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2046.32], "stop_times": [2049.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.32}, "reply_to": "15270__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_014", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "There were at least three or four.\nThis was after this Court's decision on Hadnott v. Amos.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2049.228, 2051.424], "stop_times": [2051.424, 2053.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2049.228}, "reply_to": "15270__2_013", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_015", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2053.886], "stop_times": [2056.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.886}, "reply_to": "15270__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_016", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "There were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2056.623], "stop_times": [2057.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2056.623}, "reply_to": "15270__2_015", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_017", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Now, in serving now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2057.128], "stop_times": [2060.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.128}, "reply_to": "15270__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_018", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "There are about three or four, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2060.118], "stop_times": [2061.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2060.118}, "reply_to": "15270__2_017", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_019", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "What offices are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2061.659], "stop_times": [2063.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.659}, "reply_to": "15270__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_020", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I'm not entirely sure what the offices are Mr. Justice Black.\nThey are on the county commission.\nAnd I think that's a three or four men-commission.\nThey're on that county commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2063.353, 2068.841, 2072.076, 2076.138], "stop_times": [2068.841, 2072.076, 2076.138, 2077.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2063.353}, "reply_to": "15270__2_019", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_021", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "As I recall it, there were some of the key officers of the county.\nI mean by key officers who could be helpful in bringing about the elimination of discrimination.\nSome of the key officers of the county were elected who were colored, were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2077.524, 2081.745, 2088.835], "stop_times": [2081.745, 2088.835, 2093.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.524}, "reply_to": "15270__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_022", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "There were some blacks elected, yes.\nAnd as a consequence of after this Court's order in Hadnott.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2093.197, 2095.734], "stop_times": [2095.734, 2100.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2093.197}, "reply_to": "15270__2_021", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_023", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Of course because it had not been that way before.\nNot before the recent opinions that attempted to provide methods to see that each race had its proper right to vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2100.497, 2104.192], "stop_times": [2104.192, 2114.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.497}, "reply_to": "15270__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_024", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well that was true in that voting context, and that's really the cognitive.\nthat's really our submission -- a part of the submission with respect to the jury commission that's in our brief here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2114.741, 2118.417], "stop_times": [2118.417, 2123.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2114.741}, "reply_to": "15270__2_023", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_025", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2123.79], "stop_times": [2124.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.79}, "reply_to": "15270__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_026", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That, you know, the Civil Rights Commission's Report documented the alienation of blacks in -- throughout the south generally in Alabama and Greene County particularly.\nAnd we indicated that one of the ways you cure that since jury service is kind of a twin of voting service in terms of the general impact on the public life community that it's extremely important, particularly in a county like this just as it was in the voting situation to have black people serving on the jury commission.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2124.448, 2136.002, 2157.953], "stop_times": [2136.002, 2157.953, 2158.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2124.448}, "reply_to": "15270__2_025", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_027", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Now the Court have black people as bonus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2158.066], "stop_times": [2160.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.066}, "reply_to": "15270__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_028", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Oh!\nOf course, of course but the jury commission at this point is not an elective office as a general proposition.\nI'm simply saying that on this record of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2160.712, 2160.926, 2167.18], "stop_times": [2160.926, 2167.18, 2169.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2160.712}, "reply_to": "15270__2_027", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_029", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "We must recall that if they could -- if we could take out of the State its power to select its officials in anyway they choose either by election or by appointment that that would cut against either one when become rules, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2169.518], "stop_times": [2191.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.518}, "reply_to": "15270__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_030", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Oh!\nI don't see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2191.068, 2191.219], "stop_times": [2191.219, 2191.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2191.068}, "reply_to": "15270__2_029", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_031", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Say the courts could take the power instead of the legislative branch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2191.488], "stop_times": [2195.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.488}, "reply_to": "15270__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_032", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "No, but I'm not -- the submission is not nearly that broad Mr. Justice Black.\nIn Louisiana --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2195.39, 2200.635], "stop_times": [2200.635, 2200.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2195.39}, "reply_to": "15270__2_031", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_033", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I understand it is a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2200.817], "stop_times": [2202.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.817}, "reply_to": "15270__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_034", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2202.907], "stop_times": [2203.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2202.907}, "reply_to": "15270__2_033", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_035", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "It is a rather unique thing to suggest that the courts of the nation have a right to change the legislation in a state and say that instead of having appointments, they should have election.\nIt might be wise, I'm not saying it wins, but it might be rather unique in the history of our building, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2203.395, 2218.419], "stop_times": [2218.419, 2224.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.395}, "reply_to": "15270__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_036", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I think it has occurred on occasions and it has occurred and the decisions of this Court reflect those occasions.\nLouisiana v. United States for example, was a case in which the District Court and this Court later affirmed a decree by that court requiring the registrars not to use a citizenship test which because of its discriminatory impact on the right of Negroes to vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2224.863, 2233.219], "stop_times": [2233.219, 2253.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2224.863}, "reply_to": "15270__2_035", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_037", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2253.779], "stop_times": [2253.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.779}, "reply_to": "15270__2_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_038", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "The last -- and that's one example, that was unique.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2253.965], "stop_times": [2256.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2253.965}, "reply_to": "15270__2_037", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_039", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Yes, but that's not an example is it of changing the law in reference to selection of officers saying how this shall be selected invalidating the law which provides to appointment of certain people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2256.468], "stop_times": [2272.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.468}, "reply_to": "15270__2_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_040", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I don't see that as an invalidation of the law because I see that only as a remedial aspect of the court's equity powers once you have a demonstrated constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2272.4], "stop_times": [2283.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2272.4}, "reply_to": "15270__2_039", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_041", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "[Voice Overlap] get away from rules and semantics because here we are up against a real practical situation.\nYou don't see that if we were to hold that the Governor can not appoint as the state law provide that that would be interfering with the election laws of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2283.342, 2291.934], "stop_times": [2291.934, 2303.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.342}, "reply_to": "15270__2_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_042", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, I don't -- no, I don't see that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2303.761], "stop_times": [2305.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2303.761}, "reply_to": "15270__2_041", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_043", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's through the core?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2305.08], "stop_times": [2306.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.08}, "reply_to": "15270__2_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_044", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "It's not an election law and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2306.227], "stop_times": [2308.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2306.227}, "reply_to": "15270__2_043", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_045", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But it's an election law that he shall appoint, I mean it's a selection of officers that he shall appoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2308.063], "stop_times": [2314.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.063}, "reply_to": "15270__2_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_046", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But when I addressed the question of how do you deal with this terribly intractable problem of racial discrimination when the Governor has consistently appointed only white jury commissioners, and those jury commissioners has consistently discriminated against blacks, I think our Constitution can reach that.\nAnd I think that this Court can say that as a matter of remedy in this situation without invalidating that law as general proposition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2314.299, 2333.601], "stop_times": [2333.601, 2341.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2314.299}, "reply_to": "15270__2_045", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_047", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But why wouldn't it invalidate it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2341.882], "stop_times": [2345.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.882}, "reply_to": "15270__2_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_048", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I think if the invalidation occurs, Mr. Justice Black, it occurs only to in those to use your term, unique situations in which it is clearly demonstrated as it is in this case that this kind of wide ranging deep seeded discrimination has occurred.\nLast year for example, as a matter of remedy with respect to the teacher integration in the Montgomery County case, this Court upheld the decree whereby district judge decided that the way to get at this problem, because other methods had not solved the problem, but the way to get up the problem was to acquire a mathematical ratio in schools.\nI'm simply saying of course it's a unique proposition, but there are certain circumstances when the constitutional violation is so bold with this Court in the past has responded with that kind of unique relief.\nAnd not simply think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2345.064, 2364.899, 2389.605, 2403.145], "stop_times": [2364.899, 2389.605, 2403.145, 2403.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2345.064}, "reply_to": "15270__2_047", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_049", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "But -- things to have, that I recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2403.986], "stop_times": [2406.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.986}, "reply_to": "15270__2_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_050", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2406.157], "stop_times": [2406.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2406.157}, "reply_to": "15270__2_049", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_051", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I do not recall doing to this extent its essential vote to the as much to your people as it is to the white people that we preserve ancient landmarks for the Government and not depart completely from the idea if they can elect their officials or appoint them in the manner of the right on law.\nSomeone suggested to me sometime ago that the way to prevent unfair trials in the south was to take defendants from down there quite differently and take them up in trial in Harlem.\nAnd they did it honestly.\nIt was a belief that that was the best way to do it.\nOf course it's an exaggeration to say that this is the same, but I think you -- from what I read about Greene County, they've made it through members, almost miraculous progress over there in the right to the people to vote and select their own office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2406.921, 2428.78, 2445.914, 2447.49, 2451.415], "stop_times": [2428.78, 2445.914, 2447.49, 2451.415, 2471.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.921}, "reply_to": "15270__2_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_052", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "They haven't made that progress without a concerted judicial effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2471.564], "stop_times": [2474.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2471.564}, "reply_to": "15270__2_051", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_053", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2474.838], "stop_times": [2475.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.838}, "reply_to": "15270__2_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_054", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Litigation after litigation after litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2475.302], "stop_times": [2477.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2475.302}, "reply_to": "15270__2_053", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_055", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "That's right but I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2477.695], "stop_times": [2478.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.695}, "reply_to": "15270__2_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_056", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "And this case is entirely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2478.478], "stop_times": [2479.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2478.478}, "reply_to": "15270__2_055", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_057", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "I don't condole that we took away from that state its right to appoint jury commissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2479.094], "stop_times": [2486.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.094}, "reply_to": "15270__2_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_058", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, if that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2486.469], "stop_times": [2486.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2486.469}, "reply_to": "15270__2_057", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_059", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "And as demanded it to be a Governor appoint a man of a certain title, (inaudible) a jury commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2486.98], "stop_times": [2494.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.98}, "reply_to": "15270__2_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_060", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Well, it certainly seems that just as the majority of the citizens in Greene County are entitled to elect the persons that they choose.\nThe jury commission which forms a very important public function in the community is entitled -- they're entitled also to have some representation of their group from that commissioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2494.177, 2501.301], "stop_times": [2501.301, 2513.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2494.177}, "reply_to": "15270__2_059", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_061", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "No one can disagree with you I don't think who lives in the fair and equal government on that basis that they are entitled to.\nBut the question here, I'm asking you because you and your group as much understood in carrying on the law fairly administered so that you don't break down the great structure of our democratic government by saying it to the courts and require that certain people or members of the race be appointed to office by the appointed power.\nAnymore than we could say they must elect them.\nOf course we can hold that they must adopt policy.\nI'm not arguing against your point that you do have a very righteous cause of complaint in connection with that county.\nBut I am trying to point out that we have reached it yet a point and made a miraculous, almost miraculous progress, a man who lived at Alabama knows, almost the miraculous progress that has been made in Greene County without destroying any of the ancient landmarks of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2513.449, 2521.143, 2553.2, 2556.751, 2561.92, 2571.662], "stop_times": [2521.143, 2553.2, 2556.751, 2561.92, 2571.662, 2592.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.449}, "reply_to": "15270__2_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15270__2_062", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "My time is up, Mr. Justice Black.\nI can only say that that has taken very, very many decades and I don't -- it's not my judgment that that is a miraculous record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2592.276, 2593.878], "stop_times": [2593.878, 2604.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2592.276}, "reply_to": "15270__2_061", "speaker": "norman_c_amaker"}
{"id": "15270__2_063", "conversation_id": "15270", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amaker.\nThank you Mr. Hall for your submissions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_30", "start_times": [2604.405, 2606.058, 2608.428], "stop_times": [2606.058, 2608.428, 2610.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.405}, "reply_to": "15270__2_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_000", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "We'll hear argument in number 830, Chambers against Maroney.\nMr. Grogan, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [0.0, 59.83], "stop_times": [59.83, 64.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_001", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis kernel matter is before the Court on write of certiorari to the Court of appeals for the Third Circuit.\nConstitutional questions presented are whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where he met his lawyer on the hallway on the way to the courtroom for trial on serious criminal charges.\nIt also involves the constitutional question of whether a warrantless search of an automobile in which the petitioner was a passenger which was made while he was in custody in a police station after the car had been moved from the scene of arrest to the police station and where there have been two previous searches of the same automobile.\nIt also involves the question of harmless error in connection with the admission into evidence of dumdum bullets which were illegally seized and then used to trial to connect petitioner with weapons that were found in the warrantless search of the car and also used to describe the severity of impact that could be made by such bullets two petitioner judgment.\nThe statement of -- the case in our brief is extensive. I'll try to summarize it more briefly for the Court.\nIt opens with the statement within the first week of September 1963, petitioner and three co-defendants were tried on fourth criminal charges.\nI find now since the time of preparation in my brief and I've advised my opponent Ms. Los that the record of this trial has become available to me and that trial did not involve four criminal charges but rather two.\nIt appears that the indictment that was presented to the court and jury in that case involved solely the alleged robbery of the service station on May 28, 1963, and for reasons it will become apparent this is very important to our case.\nI'd like to offer this to the Court at this time.\nAt the trial in early September 1963, petitioner was represented by a member of the Legal Aid Society of Pittsburgh.\nThe trial ended in a mistrial and withdrawal of a juror for reasons that are not explained in this record.\nLater in September, on September 27, 1963 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [64.59, 68.475, 76.269, 91.134, 113.032, 138.615, 146.438, 157.564, 174.071, 188.642, 193.334, 200.923, 209.578], "stop_times": [68.475, 76.269, 91.134, 113.032, 138.615, 146.438, 157.564, 174.071, 188.642, 193.334, 200.923, 209.578, 212.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.59}, "reply_to": "15089__0_000", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_002", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Was that the trial of several co-defendants?\nThe first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [212.848, 215.324], "stop_times": [215.324, 216.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.848}, "reply_to": "15089__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__0_003", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, Your Honor all the defendants or four defendants were for each of those cases.\nPetitioner was called again to trial this time he was again represented by member of Legal Aid Society of Pittsburgh.\nIt happened to be another lawyer not the one who represented him at the first trial.\nHe met his lawyer in the hallway on the way to the courtroom, there is no evidence in the record as to what discussions they were before that if any with his lawyer, they proceeded to trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [216.187, 222.908, 228.662, 233.598], "stop_times": [222.908, 228.662, 233.598, 246.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.187}, "reply_to": "15089__0_002", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_004", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What's the practice in the Pittsburgh when the legal aid group represents the defendant?\nIs the -- there was an appointment here, wasn't it?\nWas there an appointment or did he just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [246.261, 256.284, 261.011], "stop_times": [256.284, 261.011, 262.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.261}, "reply_to": "15089__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_005", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, the record isn't clear in that regard whether it was a specific appointment or not.\nIn other words, I cannot tell you whether there was an order of court entering an appearance or directing the Legal Aid Society to appear.\nIn further answer to your question as of now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [262.256, 267.456, 274.082], "stop_times": [267.456, 274.082, 275.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.256}, "reply_to": "15089__0_004", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_006", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well then, can you tell us or can't you when this gentleman that he met in the hallway first knew he was going to represent this man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [275.691], "stop_times": [284.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.691}, "reply_to": "15089__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_007", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "He first knew at that morning, Your Honor, apparently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [284.455], "stop_times": [287.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 284.455}, "reply_to": "15089__0_006", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_008", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Apparently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [287.043], "stop_times": [288.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.043}, "reply_to": "15089__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_009", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [288.261], "stop_times": [288.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.261}, "reply_to": "15089__0_008", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_010", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Does the record show that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [288.76], "stop_times": [289.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.76}, "reply_to": "15089__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_011", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [289.845], "stop_times": [290.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.845}, "reply_to": "15089__0_010", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_012", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "All you know is that he met him in the hallway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [290.688], "stop_times": [292.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.688}, "reply_to": "15089__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_013", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That's all we know and we know that because of the statements made by petitioner at the -- court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [292.631], "stop_times": [296.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.631}, "reply_to": "15089__0_012", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_014", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Or the Legal Aid Society or whatever the name of it is, know that they are going rep -- somebody from that chapter is going to represent them long ever since the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [296.592], "stop_times": [304.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.592}, "reply_to": "15089__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_015", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, I believe they could say that fairly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [304.659], "stop_times": [306.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.659}, "reply_to": "15089__0_014", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_016", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And does the record show whether anybody have been doing any work on the case until the day of the second trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [306.881], "stop_times": [313.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.881}, "reply_to": "15089__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_017", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [313.302], "stop_times": [315.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.302}, "reply_to": "15089__0_016", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_018", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "You're just assuming that they were giving at no attention in the meantime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [315.288], "stop_times": [320.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.288}, "reply_to": "15089__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_019", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, the record does disclose that and that's all that we have to deal with at the present time, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [320.431], "stop_times": [326.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.431}, "reply_to": "15089__0_018", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_020", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, we have another factor don't we?\nOrdinary human experience in the practice and the habits of lawyers that two lawyers associated in the same organization whether be a law firm or legal aid society would reasonably be in communication with each other about a case when one is transferring it to another and they build up the file along and there's some things, some assumptions that can demand about that on the basis of experience?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [326.003, 327.698], "stop_times": [327.698, 351.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.003}, "reply_to": "15089__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_021", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, I don't know whether those assumptions are warranted in the circumstances of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [351.723], "stop_times": [358.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.723}, "reply_to": "15089__0_020", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_022", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you know that there are no warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [358.167], "stop_times": [360.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.167}, "reply_to": "15089__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_023", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If I may speak outside the record, I believe so.\nI have obtained copies of the Legal Aid Society, files in connection with the case and I believe that which show very, very little to and assist the lawyer in a second trial of the same charges.\nAdditionally, we have the problem here that we have been -- I have been operating under the assumption that the first trial involved all four counts where as we find now that it only involves two counts for one of the two robberies that he was charged with and tried in September.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [360.761, 365.871, 378.672], "stop_times": [365.871, 378.672, 394.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.761}, "reply_to": "15089__0_022", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_024", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "But do you have an evidentiary hearing on this in lieu of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [394.844], "stop_times": [398.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.844}, "reply_to": "15089__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_025", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "There was an evidentiary hearing held in the state court, Your Honor, that it was very brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [398.531], "stop_times": [403.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.531}, "reply_to": "15089__0_024", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_026", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Did you represent him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [403.19], "stop_times": [404.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.19}, "reply_to": "15089__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_027", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, I did not.\nI was pointed by this Court to represent petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [404.318, 405.134], "stop_times": [405.134, 407.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.318}, "reply_to": "15089__0_026", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_028", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "But there's been a habeas corpus petition hearing on the question of advocacy of counsel, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [407.918], "stop_times": [416.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.918}, "reply_to": "15089__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_029", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Not in the federal system, Your Honor, and also its not a full hearing.\nPart of our contention is that under Townsend against Sain there was not an adequate fact-finding hearing by the state court that the material facts are not disclosed in this record.\nThe record of the habeas corpus hearing appears in the appendix and it shows that petitioner took the stand he was ask when he met his counsel, he testified that he met him in the hallway on the way to the courtroom.\nHe was not asked any questions in connection with what other preparation there was whether he discussed it with him or not.\nThe only other thing touching on the fact was that petitioner said that at some point in time between the time when he was incarcerated in the first trial that a member of the Legal Aid Society staff apparently came to the precinct to talk to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [416.991, 420.917, 434.009, 447.848, 455.027], "stop_times": [420.917, 434.009, 447.848, 455.027, 473.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.991}, "reply_to": "15089__0_028", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_030", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "You do plan to spent some time on the search and seizure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [473.748], "stop_times": [476.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.748}, "reply_to": "15089__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_031", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes.\nYes I do, Your Honor.\nThe trial testimony disclosed that on May 13, 1963.\nTwo Negroes walked into a service station and demanded all of the money that the service station operator had.\nOne of them displayed a pistol, a nickel-plated pistol and they received from the service station operator $66.00 in cash, some personal cards, and his wallet.\nAt the trial, the service station operator identified petitioner as the person who was holding the gun.\nHe made an in-court identification of petitioner and identified these items as his personal property, the cards and also the wallet.\nTestimony further disclosed that around 11:30 o'clock p.m. on May the 20th, two teenagers saw a car, a light blue station wagon parked in a parking lot near the teenage girl's home, in it were seated four Negro gentlemen.\nThey then testified that they saw this station wagon circled the block around the teenage girl's residence and also a Gulf service station.\nSubsequently, about 15 minutes later, someone ran from the service station exclaiming that there had been a robbery.\nThey then saw within a few seconds this light blue station wagon leave the parking lot at a high rate of speed.\nThe record shows that service station was not visible from the parking area, there is nothing in the record to indicate that at anytime, the -- anyone ran from the service station to the automobile, got out of the automobile or in any other fashion connected at with the robbery.\nThe service station attendant testified that two Negro gentlemen came into the service station both of them displayed pistols and demanded everything that they had.\nOne of them, one is wearing a green sweater, the other was wearing a trench coat.\nHe took the change that he had and put it in his right hand glove, the service station attendant's glove, and gave it to the two robbers.\nAs police were summoned they came.\nThey interviewed the teenagers and the service station attendant and a description of the car and the four occupants were put -- or was put on the police radio.\nApproximately, 45 minutes to an hour later, two neighboring or two police officers in the neighboring community saw a vehicle that answer the description that have been put on the radio and that is it was a light blue compact station wagon occupied by four Negroes.\nAt that time, the station wagon was being operated back toward the scene of the crime of that evening or the previous evening.\nThe police officers pulled the vehicle over on a side street, now the Commonwealth has argued that there may be inferences here leading or could be inferred that the gentlemen were attempting to elude the police at the time but I do no think that that's a fair inference from the record.\nBut in any event they were pulled over in the parking lot.\nThey got out of the station wagon and the police officers first looked at that point for weapons.\nWithin moments, other police officers from the community where the robbery had taken place came to the scene.\nAt that time, those police officers look through the station wagon by means of searchlight.\nPetitioner and the owner of the vehicle were then taken to the police station in the community where the robbery had occurred.\nThey were again searched, at that time moment or that moment, money was removed from their purses.\nThe police officers went outside and made a search of a vehicle.\nThe chief of police or the lieutenant who was in-charge testified that they went through everything to indicate the depth of the search.\nThey went back inside after finding nothing again questioned petitioner and the Lawson, one of the other co-defendants went back out again.\nAnd in this third search of the car, one of the officers opened up a bin in the heater and from this bin he removed two pistols, the cards taken in the robbery of May the 13th and a personal wallet of the attendant of that earlier event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [476.459, 477.474, 481.301, 487.076, 494.289, 507.02, 514.352, 529.621, 548.338, 559.569, 568.199, 576.062, 596.919, 608.173, 613.574, 622.588, 624.578, 636.527, 659.058, 666.6, 686.548, 691.748, 698.732, 706.554, 712.979, 722.588, 731.004, 735.646, 744.935, 755.087], "stop_times": [477.474, 481.301, 487.076, 494.289, 507.02, 514.352, 529.621, 548.338, 559.569, 568.199, 576.062, 596.919, 608.173, 613.574, 622.588, 624.578, 636.527, 659.058, 666.6, 686.548, 691.748, 698.732, 706.554, 712.979, 722.588, 731.004, 735.646, 744.935, 755.087, 773.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.459}, "reply_to": "15089__0_030", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_032", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Does the record show why the officers discontinued the search and went into the station house and then went back out and continued the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [773.774], "stop_times": [789.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.774}, "reply_to": "15089__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__0_033", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They don't say its explicitly, Your Honor, what they do assert is that they went through everything and found nothing and it appears as if what they did then was to go back in and further interrogate or attempt to interrogate to disclose information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [789.61], "stop_times": [803.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.61}, "reply_to": "15089__0_032", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_034", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The record doesn't show what the subject of that interrogation was, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [803.125], "stop_times": [808.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.125}, "reply_to": "15089__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__0_035", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [808.186], "stop_times": [809.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.186}, "reply_to": "15089__0_034", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_036", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I couldn't find anything in the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [809.062], "stop_times": [811.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.062}, "reply_to": "15089__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__0_037", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, there's nothing in the appendix to indicate that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [811.538], "stop_times": [813.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.538}, "reply_to": "15089__0_036", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_038", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "But it's your, of course your sister in opposition puts in terms of one continual interrupted search rather than two searches or three searches as you do and that's a matter of how you view the facts I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [813.267], "stop_times": [831.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.267}, "reply_to": "15089__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__0_039", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The matter of continuity is a little hard to explain, Your Honor, because of the passage of time that must be on inferred from the testimony of the officers as to how the search went on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [831.424], "stop_times": [842.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.424}, "reply_to": "15089__0_038", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_040", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Does the record suggest that this was the only matter that the officers where then engaged in or did they have other things to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [842.368], "stop_times": [849.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.368}, "reply_to": "15089__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_041", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It appears as if this was the only thing they were engaged in, Mr. Chief Justice.\nLater that same morning, then the chief of police of the community obtained a search warrant and went to the homes of the four defendants and made a search.\nIn the homes of the three other defendants nothing was found.\nHe went to petitioner's residence and there found a holster, some dumdum bullets that were matched to one of the revolvers found in the search of the car.\nAt the trial, petitioner's counsel objected to the introduction of these dumdum bullets into evidence on the grounds of irrelevancy at first, this was overruled.\nThen the police officer testified on the stand that the dumdum bullets matched one of the -- matched the bullets taken from one of the weapons and that the effect of the dumdum bullet on the human body is to make larger holes and to cause more tissue damage.\nPetitioner's counsel again objected.\nThis time he objected on the grounds that the search warrant did not disclose or did not indicate what they were searching for and it did not specifically say what they were searching for.\nUnfortunately, this search warrant is not available to us now.\nIt has been lost, it's not a matter of this record, it apparently was lost before the state habeas corpus hearings, and so we are unable to say at the present time exactly what the search warrant did disclose except for the testimony of the police officer when he was on stand who said that the search warrant did not indicate that they were looking for bullets.\nIn any event, petitioner's then counsel objection to this evidence was overruled by the court who said that his failure to file pretrial motions meant that the suppression evidence should have been heard earlier not having been heard it was overruled on those procedure grounds.\nThe jury returned verdicts convicting the four defendants of the crimes of May 20th and petitioner was sentenced to 6 to 15 years imprisonment.\nAbout two years after his conviction, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state court and evidentiary hearing was held, and I've summarized for you what was disclosed at that time that he met his counsel on the way to the courtroom for the trial.\nThere is no extensive discussion as to what preparation if any there was, there was no exploration as to what defenses were available merely those statements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [849.824, 859.213, 870.818, 873.924, 889.24, 900.827, 917.382, 920.281, 931.807, 936.271, 960.312, 982.835, 996.814, 1014.928], "stop_times": [859.213, 870.818, 873.924, 889.24, 900.827, 917.382, 920.281, 931.807, 936.271, 960.312, 982.835, 996.814, 1014.928, 1024.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.824}, "reply_to": "15089__0_040", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_042", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you point anything in the record that would show that there was any affect of assistance where there was any dereliction of duty or failure to do some things that shouldn't have been done by the lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1024.644], "stop_times": [1039.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.644}, "reply_to": "15089__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_043", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, I think -- Mr. Chief Justice, if I can I think the basic proposition which start with the things disclosed by the record and they would be that in the first instance the trial court in overruling the objections to the dumdum bullets on the grounds that there had not been a pretrial motion filed.\nThe failure of counsel to recognize the very valid argument in connection with the search of the automobile which we submit to this Court at this time, the fact that there is no evidence at all of any pretrial consultation between the lawyer and his colleagues or as a matter of fact the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1039.644, 1061.999], "stop_times": [1061.999, 1080.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.644}, "reply_to": "15089__0_042", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_044", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What does it show about the conduct of the first lawyer in the relations with the client, your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1080.566], "stop_times": [1086.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.566}, "reply_to": "15089__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_045", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It doesn't disclose anything except in this record that I now have before the Court.\nIt shows there that there were other objections made that were not made at the second trial for other reasons that apparently were not known to the lawyer at the second trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1086.47, 1093.15], "stop_times": [1093.15, 1103.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.47}, "reply_to": "15089__0_044", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_046", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Were the objections which were successfully made the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1103.556], "stop_times": [1107.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.556}, "reply_to": "15089__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_047", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor, there are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1107.116, 1108.257], "stop_times": [1108.257, 1109.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.116}, "reply_to": "15089__0_046", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_048", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And you think they are material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1109.014], "stop_times": [1110.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.014}, "reply_to": "15089__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_049", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I believe they are material.\nIn connection with argument we submit that the late appointment of counsel for petitioner in this case were so prejudicial to whom as to warrant reversal.\nThis Court in getting Gideon against Wainwright held that the right to counsel when charged with a serious crime is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial.\nThe Court reaffirmed the principles of Powell against Alabama where the Court said that this right was not a hollow one but it meant appointment at such time and under such circumstances as to give effective aid of counsel in the preparation and trial the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1110.625, 1116.157, 1127.652, 1137.046], "stop_times": [1116.157, 1127.652, 1137.046, 1153.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.625}, "reply_to": "15089__0_048", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_050", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Mr. Grogan, I understand Third Circuit's opinion was that they applied the same rule as the standards of the Fourth Circuit's opinion had and found that it didn't apply in this case so they did -- would you admit that they applied the right standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1153.518], "stop_times": [1172.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.518}, "reply_to": "15089__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_051", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI believe initially we argue in the alternative but I believe that it's not necessary under Powell against Alabama and Gideon and other cases decided by this Court to show specific prejudice that it's not necessary where you have the issue of the right to counsel to show specific prejudice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1172.748, 1176.698], "stop_times": [1176.698, 1192.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.748}, "reply_to": "15089__0_050", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_052", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I have the real problem of second guessing of trial lawyers because I don't know about you but so far as I'm concerned, when I went back over record of the case I tried, I found considerable fault with my proceeding.\nHave you found that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1192.413, 1209.841], "stop_times": [1209.841, 1211.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.413}, "reply_to": "15089__0_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_053", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I believe that that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1211.19], "stop_times": [1213.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.19}, "reply_to": "15089__0_052", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_054", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "So that's the problem I see in this case is of second guessing in trial lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1213.041], "stop_times": [1219.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.041}, "reply_to": "15089__0_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_055", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What we're really concerned with here though Your Honor is not so much second guessing the techniques of trial but we are talking about those factors that are extrinsic to the trial itself.\nIn other words, appointment at such a time that he could prepare that he could do those things it will lead to affective assistance to counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1219.374, 1229.842], "stop_times": [1229.842, 1235.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.374}, "reply_to": "15089__0_054", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_056", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, he was appointed all the way back, wasn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1235.742], "stop_times": [1240.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.742}, "reply_to": "15089__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_057", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't believe we can say that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1240.084], "stop_times": [1242.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.084}, "reply_to": "15089__0_056", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_058", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, isn't that the normal procedure to appoint the law you represents the legal aid for all purposes in these days until by order of court is removed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1242.48], "stop_times": [1251.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.48}, "reply_to": "15089__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_059", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It's not necessarily the same lawyers.\nAs a matter of practice it's not necessarily --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1251.891, 1254.358], "stop_times": [1254.358, 1255.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.891}, "reply_to": "15089__0_058", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_060", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I didn't say with the same lawyer, you always appoint the head of legal aid group, isn't that the way you do in Pittsburgh?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1255.622], "stop_times": [1263.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.622}, "reply_to": "15089__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_061", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Generally speaking, yes, I believe it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1263.735], "stop_times": [1265.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.735}, "reply_to": "15089__0_060", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_062", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And then he assigned it to one of his other lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1265.064], "stop_times": [1270.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.064}, "reply_to": "15089__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_063", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1270.363], "stop_times": [1271.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.363}, "reply_to": "15089__0_062", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_064", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And now would you assume that's what was done here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1271.343], "stop_times": [1274.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.343}, "reply_to": "15089__0_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_065", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1274.579], "stop_times": [1275.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.579}, "reply_to": "15089__0_064", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_066", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And wouldn't you assume that the lawyer was appointed before that day of the argument?\nI mean the day of the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1275.435, 1280.559], "stop_times": [1280.559, 1282.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.435}, "reply_to": "15089__0_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_067", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The Legal Aid Society, Your Honor, may have been appointed as such but he never met the lawyer that was to represent him, his personal counsel, until the morning of trial.\nThis is what the record discloses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1282.694, 1292.948], "stop_times": [1292.948, 1294.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.694}, "reply_to": "15089__0_066", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_068", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, no, I understood you to say you didn't know it.\nAll you knew was that he said he saw him on the hallway.\nHe didn't say I saw him to the first time in the hallway, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1294.511, 1298.143, 1302.133], "stop_times": [1298.143, 1302.133, 1307.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.511}, "reply_to": "15089__0_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_069", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I think he did, Your Honor.\nYes, I believe he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1307.177, 1308.347], "stop_times": [1308.347, 1315.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.177}, "reply_to": "15089__0_068", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_070", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What's the (Inaudible) file if it's in there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1315.64], "stop_times": [1322.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.64}, "reply_to": "15089__0_069", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__0_071", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "We submit that under Powell against the Alabama that the components of the effective assistance of counsel should have been provided and those would be the opportunity, prepare the opportunity to develop the defenses, to interview witnesses, to file pretrial motions.\nNone of these things could have been done by petitioner here.\nWe can say that the Legal Aid Society may have been appointed but what we have to speak in terms of is the effect of this that the personal counsel that was furnished to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1322.411, 1340.904, 1346.081], "stop_times": [1340.904, 1346.081, 1357.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.411}, "reply_to": "15089__0_070", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_072", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What about pretrial motions before the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1357.714], "stop_times": [1361.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.714}, "reply_to": "15089__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_073", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "There were none filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1361.004], "stop_times": [1362.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.004}, "reply_to": "15089__0_072", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_074", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "There would have been plenty of opportunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1362.693], "stop_times": [1366.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.693}, "reply_to": "15089__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_075", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "There would have been plenty of time to do it.\nIn other cases this Court has not considered the possibility of prejudice in connection with the appointment of counsel.\nGlasser against United States, for example, where the Court determined that it would not inquire into the degree of prejudice sustained by one who had not had the assistance of counsel unimpaired by a conflict of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1366.132, 1373.244, 1381.546], "stop_times": [1373.244, 1381.546, 1399.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.132}, "reply_to": "15089__0_074", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_076", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "We'll suspend for lunch and then continue after lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1399.991], "stop_times": [1401.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.991}, "reply_to": "15089__0_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_077", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1401.771], "stop_times": [1404.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.771}, "reply_to": "15089__0_076", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_078", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you want to keep the remaining time for rebuttal or do you want to continue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1404.476], "stop_times": [1407.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.476}, "reply_to": "15089__0_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_079", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I would like to continue, if you please.\nBefore the luncheon recess, Mr. Justice Marshall asked me a question in connection with when petitioner first met his counsel, I find it in the appendix of page 256 the testimony of the state habeas corpus hearing indicates that he first met his counsel on the morning of trial.\nIt states it quite clearly.\nIn my remaining time I'd like to point out to the Court that our argument in connection with the rule of the Third Circuit as adopted in this case is erroneous that for the reason that I -- we do not believe that you must show specific prejudice in order to warrant reversal.\nWe point to the case as this Court has considered in connection with recidivist proceedings in connection with the pretrial procedures.\nBut in any event if you assume the validity of the rule adopted by the Third Circuit in this case which shifts the burden to the prosecuting authorities to show that there was not any prejudice from the lay appointment of counsel that this rule doesn't fall to the teachings of this Court as indicated in the case of Chapman.\nBecause in Chapman, this Court said that before you can declare a constitutional error to be harmless the Court must expressly believe that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and this rule as adopted by the Third Circuit talks in terms of overcoming this prima facie case of the ineffectiveness of counsel solely by adequate affirmative proof and we submit that adequate affirmative proof in this case is not the same thing as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAs in this case, we have nothing but the trial record before us.\nAnd all that trial record discloses is what was done or what may have been counsel may have been able to do within the confines of the record as stated.\nThere is nothing here to indicate what could have been done and was not done, what counsel may have to consider and yet did not take any action upon.\nWe've pointed out in our brief that there are instances where even if you assume the validity of the rule and ignore the dictates of Chapman, that there is specific prejudice indicated, indicated by the failure of counsel for example to forcefully argue for severance of the indictments of the two counts in connection with the two separate robberies.\nThere is no common scheme.\nThe only thing in common about them was the fact that the fruits of the robberies were found at the same time.\nThere are other things to consider.\nIn this case, the Third Circuit went beyond the rule of the Fourth Circuit and inquired into the adequacy of counsel solely by reference to the record of the trial.\nNothing was done here to develop what counsel could have done through his own testimony, this case unlike any other case that we could find counsel did not testify.\nCounsel was not called to testify either in the state habeas corpus hearings or in the habeas corpus hearings in the federal district court.\nThe Legal Aid Society records were never introduced.\nPetitioner was never examined in detail as to what defenses he may have had.\nThe testimony the petitioner at the place I've indicated in the record covers just a few pages and centers around the fact that he met his counsel on that morning.\nThere is no explanation for the failure of the counsel for example to file the pretrial motions as indicated by the record, this thing should be determined and can only be done so by following the dictates of Townsend against Sain and having a preliminary hearing.\nTurning to the search and seizure problem we've argued in the brief if there was not probable cause for arrest and I believe that that argument is set forth adequately in the brief.\nI would like however in the remaining time to call the Court's attention to what this Third Circuit did in this case and connection with the application of the doctrine of Preston against United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1407.375, 1411.831, 1429.073, 1431.438, 1451.897, 1461.323, 1488.917, 1519.44, 1523.157, 1534.304, 1545.662, 1571.78, 1572.989, 1581.938, 1584.76, 1599.084, 1609.975, 1618.486, 1622.276, 1626.659, 1639.247, 1655.616, 1665.442], "stop_times": [1411.831, 1429.073, 1431.438, 1451.897, 1461.323, 1488.917, 1519.44, 1523.157, 1534.304, 1545.662, 1571.78, 1572.989, 1581.938, 1584.76, 1599.084, 1609.975, 1618.486, 1622.276, 1626.659, 1639.247, 1655.616, 1665.442, 1676.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.375}, "reply_to": "15089__0_078", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_080", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If we accept your view on the necessity for a hearing what was the error in this case without reaching to these other (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1676.627], "stop_times": [1686.91], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.627}, "reply_to": "15089__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15089__0_081", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIn Preston, this Court decided that where a person is lawfully arrested, a warrantless search can be made for two purposes.\nTo find weapons to prevent the person from escaping or from injuring the apprehending officer and also to prevent the destruction of any evidence.\nThe Third Circuit in its cases United States against Dento placed two additional distinguishing features into that test.\nAnd said that you can nevertheless validate a warrantless search where the search was substantially contemporaneous and there was a reasonable nexus between the offense and the search.\nNeither of these matters were part of the Preston test and should not become a part of our law.\nWe have indicated to the Court in our brief the case of Wood against Crouse decided by the Tenth Circuit ably distinguishes Preston or ably distinguishes Dento and indicates its failure to follow the dictates of Preston.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1686.91, 1692.735, 1702.134, 1712.544, 1722.389, 1736.993, 1744.652], "stop_times": [1692.735, 1702.134, 1712.544, 1722.389, 1736.993, 1744.652, 1760.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.91}, "reply_to": "15089__0_080", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_082", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "How was this car taken to the police station?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1760.975], "stop_times": [1763.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.975}, "reply_to": "15089__0_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_083", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It was driven by the owner, Lawson, one of the co-defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1763.121], "stop_times": [1768.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1763.121}, "reply_to": "15089__0_082", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_084", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "One of the co-defendants and with the policeman in the car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1768.911], "stop_times": [1770.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.911}, "reply_to": "15089__0_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_085", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The policeman was in the car with him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1770.927], "stop_times": [1773.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1770.927}, "reply_to": "15089__0_084", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_086", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you think if you have problem probable cause to arrest the man and you find him in his car somewhere, can you arrest him?\nDo you think the -- you put him in the patrol car, would you think the police have the right to seize the car and take it the station or anywhere else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1773.716, 1780.885], "stop_times": [1780.885, 1794.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.716}, "reply_to": "15089__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_087", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I believe they have the right to take the car some place else, Your Honor, to the station perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1794.621], "stop_times": [1800.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1794.621}, "reply_to": "15089__0_086", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_088", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1800.014], "stop_times": [1800.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.014}, "reply_to": "15089__0_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_089", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I question whether they have the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1800.964], "stop_times": [1801.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1800.964}, "reply_to": "15089__0_088", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_090", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What probable cause did they get to seize the care?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1801.933], "stop_times": [1805.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.933}, "reply_to": "15089__0_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_091", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If we assume that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1805.965], "stop_times": [1807.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1805.965}, "reply_to": "15089__0_090", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_092", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Other than just to get it off the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1807.409], "stop_times": [1809.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.409}, "reply_to": "15089__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_093", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That was my reason for saying, to get it off the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1809.26], "stop_times": [1810.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1809.26}, "reply_to": "15089__0_092", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_094", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Oh, where it is parked within a -- somewhere where it doesn't say no parking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1810.364], "stop_times": [1817.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.364}, "reply_to": "15089__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_095", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, that would be all that they could do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1817.778], "stop_times": [1820.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1817.778}, "reply_to": "15089__0_094", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_096", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They couldn't take it at the station?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1820.487], "stop_times": [1822.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.487}, "reply_to": "15089__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_097", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor.\nNor could they do this, do the things that they did in this case which was to conduct after they have taken it to the station or have been driven to the station.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1822.225, 1823.618], "stop_times": [1823.618, 1830.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1822.225}, "reply_to": "15089__0_096", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_098", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Let's assume they could take it to the station.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1830.99], "stop_times": [1836.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.99}, "reply_to": "15089__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_099", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you lis -- do you agree that they can take it to the station?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1836.713], "stop_times": [1840.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.713}, "reply_to": "15089__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_100", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't believe, Your Honor, that they can just take it to the station for any other purpose than to get it off the street.\nI'm not sure that they can move it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1840.66, 1845.911], "stop_times": [1845.911, 1847.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1840.66}, "reply_to": "15089__0_099", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_101", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you think they can impound it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1847.129], "stop_times": [1849.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.129}, "reply_to": "15089__0_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_102", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It depends on the circumstances why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1849.859], "stop_times": [1851.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1849.859}, "reply_to": "15089__0_101", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_103", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Maybe you tie it up so that the defendant's wife couldn't come and just drive it away?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1851.736], "stop_times": [1857.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.736}, "reply_to": "15089__0_102", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_104", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't believe so without some further action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1857.005], "stop_times": [1860.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1857.005}, "reply_to": "15089__0_103", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_105", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Or impound it so that no one could remove heroin from it from the gas tank or some such thing or pistols from the heater.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1860.745], "stop_times": [1868.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.745}, "reply_to": "15089__0_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_106", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If they have a reason to believe, Your Honor, but they could have got themselves a warrant in the time or left someone there in custody of the car or have a police officer remain with the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1868.373], "stop_times": [1878.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1868.373}, "reply_to": "15089__0_105", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_107", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I know but somebody fills up with the car, they parked the car in a legal parking zone, take the man at the police station and leave an officer with the car and the wife shows up at the car and says give me, I want the car, I want to drive it away.\nThey couldn't hold it, could they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1878.459, 1895.687], "stop_times": [1895.687, 1896.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.459}, "reply_to": "15089__0_106", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_108", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1896.953], "stop_times": [1899.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1896.953}, "reply_to": "15089__0_107", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_109", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Can they search the car?\nLet me get, be sure to get that clear.\nPut them on the setting where they stopped the car and pull it onto the side of the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1899.746, 1900.993, 1903.685], "stop_times": [1900.993, 1903.685, 1908.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.746}, "reply_to": "15089__0_108", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_110", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1908.123], "stop_times": [1908.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1908.123}, "reply_to": "15089__0_109", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_111", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They may search the car, top to bottom, right then and there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1908.214], "stop_times": [1911.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.214}, "reply_to": "15089__0_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_112", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't believe so on to the dictates of Preston.\nMr. Chief Justice, I think they are the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1911.866, 1915.414], "stop_times": [1915.414, 1917.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1911.866}, "reply_to": "15089__0_111", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_113", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- depends the search then and there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1917.002], "stop_times": [1919.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.002}, "reply_to": "15089__0_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_114", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Preston permits the search then and there for the purpose of preventing the destruction of evidence or to prevent the suspects from getting to weapons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1919.711], "stop_times": [1929.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1919.711}, "reply_to": "15089__0_113", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_115", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Wasn't that the Harrison or Harris case came after that, set a little bit more lay down to subjects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1929.09], "stop_times": [1937.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.09}, "reply_to": "15089__0_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_116", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I don't think it would permit when --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1937.743], "stop_times": [1938.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1937.743}, "reply_to": "15089__0_115", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_117", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "When under the District of Columbia Circuit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1938.977], "stop_times": [1940.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.977}, "reply_to": "15089__0_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_118", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Cooper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1940.965], "stop_times": [1941.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.965}, "reply_to": "15089__0_117", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_119", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Cooper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1941.79], "stop_times": [1942.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.79}, "reply_to": "15089__0_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_120", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Cooper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1942.111], "stop_times": [1944.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1942.111}, "reply_to": "15089__0_119", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_121", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No,Cooper Harris or Harrison, well, no matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1944.274], "stop_times": [1949.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.274}, "reply_to": "15089__0_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_122", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Oh, yes.\nHarris, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1949.755, 1950.183], "stop_times": [1950.183, 1953.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.755}, "reply_to": "15089__0_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__0_123", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, I don't want to interrupt your argument longer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1953.075], "stop_times": [1955.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.075}, "reply_to": "15089__0_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__0_124", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, I believe my time is up.\nThank you very much for the opportunity of presenting the case to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1955.286, 1956.964], "stop_times": [1956.964, 1964.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1955.286}, "reply_to": "15089__0_123", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__0_125", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Ms. Los.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1964.772], "stop_times": [1966.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.772}, "reply_to": "15089__0_124", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_000", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe Commonwealth the Pennsylvania would readily agree that certainly no man should be asked to stand trial on serious criminal charges or in any charges unless he has had adequate opportunity to discuss his case with counsel.\nBut certainly counsel shouldn't be forced to represent the man with only a few moments notice.\nThis we feel destroys any semblance of the attorney-client relationship, because not only does it land itself to the fact that the attorney might not be adequately prepared but also he may likely in conation to act as an advocate on behalf of his client.\nFortunately, that did not happen to Frank Chambers.\nAs the record shows, we know that he was visited during the five-month period that he was lodged in a county jail by an investigator from the Legal Aid Society that the investigator did prepare report that was reduced into writing and was placed in a file.\nBut the file was subsequently turned over to Mr. Tamburo who was to represent Chambers on the day of trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [1966.925, 1969.687, 1981.699, 1987.49, 2005.077, 2008.129, 2025.373], "stop_times": [1969.687, 1981.699, 1987.49, 2005.077, 2008.129, 2025.373, 2031.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1966.925}, "reply_to": "15089__0_125", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_001", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Is that all in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2031.398], "stop_times": [2034.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.398}, "reply_to": "15089__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_002", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, it's in the record by virtue of allegations made in response to the habeas corpus petition filed in the state court.\nUnfortunately, what happened to state habeas corpus hearing was the counsel for the petitioner then withdrew the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.\nConsequently, the matter was never before the court, the Commonwealth was not required to go forward with its burden of proof or to present Mr. Tamburo or to offer, in fact any files or records from the Legal Aid Society.\nConsequently, there is nothing actually on the record before your Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2034.064, 2042.21, 2052.523, 2069.221], "stop_times": [2042.21, 2052.523, 2069.221, 2073.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2034.064}, "reply_to": "15089__1_001", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_003", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The issue then was presented to the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2073.186], "stop_times": [2076.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.186}, "reply_to": "15089__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_004", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It was presented to the state court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2076.181], "stop_times": [2077.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2076.181}, "reply_to": "15089__1_003", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_005", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It was withdrawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2077.867], "stop_times": [2078.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.867}, "reply_to": "15089__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_006", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- and withdrawn.\nHowever, Your Honor in the federal district court.\nThe judge their felt that since the petitioner himself had raised it that it should be considered again by him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2078.764, 2079.509, 2082.188], "stop_times": [2079.509, 2082.188, 2090.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2078.764}, "reply_to": "15089__1_005", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_007", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "He thought that withdrawing the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2090.366], "stop_times": [2092.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.366}, "reply_to": "15089__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_008", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "He did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2092.141], "stop_times": [2093.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2092.141}, "reply_to": "15089__1_007", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_009", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2093.19], "stop_times": [2094.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.19}, "reply_to": "15089__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_010", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I feel that if that is the case, if petitioner was not waiving it at the time that it did not exhaust the state revenues and the question actually should be before the state court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2094.699], "stop_times": [2107.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2094.699}, "reply_to": "15089__1_009", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_011", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "How did he -- he withdrew it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2107.118], "stop_times": [2111.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.118}, "reply_to": "15089__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_012", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "By virtue of his counsel when the Commonwealth attempted to cross-examine Chambers about the length of time that he had -- had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Tamburo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2111.853], "stop_times": [2121.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2111.853}, "reply_to": "15089__1_011", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_013", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, if there wasn't an adequate hearing in the state court because they didn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2121.407], "stop_times": [2127.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.407}, "reply_to": "15089__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_014", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, that is our point Your Honor, we are saying that they with -- if there is anything lacking in the record, then it is likely by virtue of counsel for the petitioner at the time withdrawing the allegation and consequently the Commonwealth then stopped its line of questioning with the petitioner on this lines and did not present any affirmative evidence to share the petitioner had had an opportunity to discuss this case with Mr. Tamburo.\nIn any event, I think we can tell from the record that Mr. Tamburo was very much aware of the facts of the mistrial that it occurred three weeks prior and was certainly very much aware of the evidence that have been admitted at the previous trial.\nChambers now shows that the near fact that he didn't get to consult with Mr. Tamburo for longer period of time warrants a new trial.\nIn the past, in our circuit in the state courts when an allegation of this nature is made, it is merely one factor to be considered in the overall test of effectiveness of counsel.\nIn other words, the burden remains with the petitioner to prove that he was prejudiced because of the belated appointment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2127.272, 2154.453, 2171.513, 2181.183, 2193.336], "stop_times": [2154.453, 2171.513, 2181.183, 2193.336, 2200.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2127.272}, "reply_to": "15089__1_013", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_015", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Ms. Los.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2200.625], "stop_times": [2201.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.625}, "reply_to": "15089__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_016", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2201.262], "stop_times": [2201.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2201.262}, "reply_to": "15089__1_015", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_017", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2201.687], "stop_times": [2203.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.687}, "reply_to": "15089__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_018", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, you do, Your Honor.\nIt's in printed at the appendix.\nThat's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2203.776, 2206.364, 2208.808], "stop_times": [2206.364, 2208.808, 2209.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2203.776}, "reply_to": "15089__1_017", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_019", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And that will tell us all the facts of withdrawal of counsel at that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2209.965], "stop_times": [2214.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.965}, "reply_to": "15089__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_020", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYes, it does it sets it forth for you.\nNow, this is -- generally, this is the Pennsylvania rule.\nIn other words, the prisoner -- the petitioner would have to show that the appointment was made in bad faith as being merely perfunctory prior to trial or that he was actually prejudiced.\nThis is the decision, I believe, that the Attorney General of New York seeks to bring before you in the amicus brief in this case.\nThis position while we are certainly happy to have the work by the Attorney General of New York goes beyond the position that we are taken because we feel that as far as the facts of the apparent -- this criminal law in Allegheny County is concerned that the facts especially in this case might warrant the presumption that the Third Circuit has given in cases of belated appointment.\nFor one thing, there is certainly a great hesitancy among the judiciary to judge defense counsel's work especially, if the judge has himself appointed defense counsel to represent an instant defendant.\nAnd again, there is a hesitancy on the part of the defense counsel to say that he actually was ineffective or was inadequately prepared.\nOf course, where he has not asked for a continuance of the case based upon these facts, it would be I think, more embarrassing for him to admit that he was inadequately prepared.\nAnd third, of course the prisoner lacking any legal knowledge would not be in a position to judge his attorney's competence.\nNow the problem is aggravated in Allegheny County in Pittsburgh because there, unless the case is a murder case or involves an extensive string of armed robberies, counsel is appointed ahead of time, it is the public defender's office who is appointed and an investigator does a preparatory work.\nBut unfortunately, the prisoner does not have an opportunity to speak with his counsel sometimes even just prior to going into the courtroom.\nUsually counsel, defense counsel will visit the prisoner in the bullpen which is located below the courtrooms on the morning of trial.\nBut unfortunately, in most situations, I must admit the counsel does not have an opportunity to speak with his client until just moments before the trial begins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2214.424, 2215.371, 2217.768, 2220.743, 2235.15, 2241.908, 2267.596, 2284.673, 2294.179, 2303.868, 2312.024, 2332.504, 2341.863, 2350.568], "stop_times": [2215.371, 2217.768, 2220.743, 2235.15, 2241.908, 2267.596, 2284.673, 2294.179, 2303.868, 2312.024, 2332.504, 2341.863, 2350.568, 2360.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2214.424}, "reply_to": "15089__1_019", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_021", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2360.742], "stop_times": [2360.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.742}, "reply_to": "15089__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_022", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "He does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2360.912], "stop_times": [2361.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2360.912}, "reply_to": "15089__1_021", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_023", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- Ms. Loss, the petitioner says that under those circumstances, there's no way under the sun to file a pretrial motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2361.374], "stop_times": [2371.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.374}, "reply_to": "15089__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_024", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, that is true Your Honor.\nWell, that it is -- that is very possible that that particular counsel would not have filed one.\nThe investigator of course prepares the facts and these facts are available to trial counsel.\nHe does not get to confer with his client but there was a previous conference done by an investigator from the public defender's staff.\nHere, the trial judge specifically --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2371.14, 2372.953, 2378.336, 2383.82, 2392.417], "stop_times": [2372.953, 2378.336, 2383.82, 2392.417, 2395.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2371.14}, "reply_to": "15089__1_023", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_025", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well who made this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2395.824], "stop_times": [2396.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.824}, "reply_to": "15089__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_026", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- specifically --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2396.082], "stop_times": [2397.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2396.082}, "reply_to": "15089__1_025", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_027", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- who made the decision whether or not to file pretrial motions in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2397.669], "stop_times": [2404.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.669}, "reply_to": "15089__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_028", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The record is unclear on that.\nI would presume that it was done by counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2404.3, 2405.695], "stop_times": [2405.695, 2408.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2404.3}, "reply_to": "15089__1_027", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_029", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- the record is clear that the counsel in this case couldn't have decided because he didn't get it until that morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2408.396], "stop_times": [2415.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.396}, "reply_to": "15089__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_030", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Not this.\nAll we know, Your Honor, is that he did not confer with his client prior to that morning.\nHe may possibly have had the case prior to that but I don't think that's relevant in this situation, Your Honor, because here the state judge as well as the federal judges all ruled in the admissibility of that evidence anyway despite the fact that no pretrial motions were filed.\nIn other words, they granted the fact they should have been filed but nonetheless say, we will rule specifically on the admissibility of this evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2415.324, 2416.327, 2423.135, 2440.444], "stop_times": [2416.327, 2423.135, 2440.444, 2449.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2415.324}, "reply_to": "15089__1_029", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_031", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What about the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2449.211], "stop_times": [2453.418], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.211}, "reply_to": "15089__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15089__1_032", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "At the first trial, Your Honor, I believe the bullets were not admitted into evidence and I presume the counsel then Mr. Tamburo that is would have relied upon that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2453.418], "stop_times": [2462.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2453.418}, "reply_to": "15089__1_031", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_033", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Did they offer anything to (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2462.624], "stop_times": [2466.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.624}, "reply_to": "15089__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_034", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I am not familiar with the -- with that because we did not have a copy of that until the weekend, Your Honor.\nSo I do not have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2466.527, 2471.605], "stop_times": [2471.605, 2471.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2466.527}, "reply_to": "15089__1_033", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_035", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I got the impression from the record that they put the pistols in, they put the weapons in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2471.772], "stop_times": [2475.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.772}, "reply_to": "15089__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_036", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2475.994], "stop_times": [2476.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2475.994}, "reply_to": "15089__1_035", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_037", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- not the bullet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2476.399], "stop_times": [2477.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.399}, "reply_to": "15089__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_038", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Right but not the bullets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2477.346], "stop_times": [2478.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2477.346}, "reply_to": "15089__1_037", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_039", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Was there any objection to the \u2013 certainly, the petitioner had consultations at his first time with the Legal Aid Society representatives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2478.849], "stop_times": [2491.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.849}, "reply_to": "15089__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_040", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2491.776], "stop_times": [2493.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2491.776}, "reply_to": "15089__1_039", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_041", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And there was ample time that there for pretrial motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2493.342], "stop_times": [2498.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.342}, "reply_to": "15089__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_042", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "We, -- as I say, Your Honor, we don't have anything as a matter of record to bring before you on those points and I would presume that there was ample time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2498.133], "stop_times": [2506.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2498.133}, "reply_to": "15089__1_041", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_043", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, was it the record that has not been fully developed on this counsel point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2506.282], "stop_times": [2510.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.282}, "reply_to": "15089__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_044", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That's very true it is not, Your Honor.\nAnd again, I say that the Commonwealth did not have to go forward with the evidence in this particular matter.\nWe will concede though that the rule in the circuit which braces the presumption should be applicable to cases of this nature.\nEspecially in lieu of the Allegheny County situation and the Circuit Judge, David Stowe, who ruled on this case was from Allegheny County was quite familiar, I believe, with this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2510.295, 2512.594, 2519.625, 2528.597], "stop_times": [2512.594, 2519.625, 2528.597, 2545.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2510.295}, "reply_to": "15089__1_043", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_045", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What did you say it raised the presumption of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2545.137], "stop_times": [2548.53], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.137}, "reply_to": "15089__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15089__1_046", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It raises the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel from the fact the counsel did not have an opportunity to confer with this client prior to trial, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2548.53], "stop_times": [2557.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2548.53}, "reply_to": "15089__1_045", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_047", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Does the record show how long the lawyer had been practicing law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2557.888], "stop_times": [2561.703], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.888}, "reply_to": "15089__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15089__1_048", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, it does not Your Honor.\nThere was no investigation at all into this matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2561.703, 2563.681], "stop_times": [2563.681, 2566.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2561.703}, "reply_to": "15089__1_047", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_049", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That's because you say that they withdrew it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2566.481], "stop_times": [2569.286], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.481}, "reply_to": "15089__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15089__1_050", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, they did, Your Honor.\nCounsel specifically stated when an assistant district attorney attempted to cross-examine Chambers, his defense counsel got up and said we want it to be made clear to the Court that we are not challenging the effectiveness of counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2569.286, 2571.6], "stop_times": [2571.6, 2586.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2569.286}, "reply_to": "15089__1_049", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_051", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Which defense counsel was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2586.125], "stop_times": [2587.789], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.125}, "reply_to": "15089__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15089__1_052", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "This was a Mr. F. Peter Dickson, who was specially appointed at the state habeas corpus hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2587.789], "stop_times": [2596.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2587.789}, "reply_to": "15089__1_051", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_053", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Was it -- are you telling us that this is standard operating procedure in Pittsburgh?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2596.723], "stop_times": [2602.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.723}, "reply_to": "15089__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_054", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, I am, Your Honor.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2602.109, 2603.371], "stop_times": [2603.371, 2603.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2602.109}, "reply_to": "15089__1_053", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_055", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It happens in every case except for first-degree murder case or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2603.524], "stop_times": [2609.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.524}, "reply_to": "15089__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_056", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Or serious case of armed robberies or large narcotics charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2609.094], "stop_times": [2611.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2609.094}, "reply_to": "15089__1_055", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_057", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Or a series (Voice Overlap) on felony cases, your representation is that this is standard procedure in Allegheny County in Pittsburgh for the actual lawyer is going to be in the courtroom representing the indigent not to see him until the morning of the trial usually in the bullpen, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2611.393], "stop_times": [2632.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.393}, "reply_to": "15089__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_058", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, that is true Your Honor.\nHowever, an investigator from the Public Defender's Office has previously conferred with the defendant.\nAnd has prepared a file, you know, if there are matters which should be raised and in addition, if there are defenses which must be raised they have subpoenaed the witnesses.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2632.269, 2633.581, 2642.138, 2650.468], "stop_times": [2633.581, 2642.138, 2650.468, 2650.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2632.269}, "reply_to": "15089__1_057", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_059", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Or you raise any objections of the shortness of the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2650.595], "stop_times": [2653.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.595}, "reply_to": "15089__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_060", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, he did not, Your Honor.\nHe did not in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2653.811, 2655.142], "stop_times": [2655.142, 2656.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2653.811}, "reply_to": "15089__1_059", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_061", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "How long was that after it raised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2656.873], "stop_times": [2659.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.873}, "reply_to": "15089__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_062", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It was not raised until the state habeas corpus, and I believe that was a matter of almost two years later.\nIt was not raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2659.522, 2666.936], "stop_times": [2666.936, 2667.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2659.522}, "reply_to": "15089__1_061", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_063", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "How long it then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2667.175], "stop_times": [2669.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.175}, "reply_to": "15089__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_064", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "How long was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2669.632], "stop_times": [2669.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.632}, "reply_to": "15089__1_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_065", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Pardon, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2669.977], "stop_times": [2670.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2669.977}, "reply_to": "15089__1_064", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_066", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "How long was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2670.072], "stop_times": [2672.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.072}, "reply_to": "15089__1_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_067", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It was approximately, I believe two years later that it was raised.\nIt was not raised by way of post trial motions and it was not raised on a direct appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2672.538, 2675.586], "stop_times": [2675.586, 2681.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2672.538}, "reply_to": "15089__1_066", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_068", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "At the time of the sentencing, does the state procedure allow a right of allocution?\nAnd if so, was it exercise?\nDid the defendant make any statement of his own to the Court at the time of sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2681.021, 2690.177, 2691.953], "stop_times": [2690.177, 2691.953, 2696.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.021}, "reply_to": "15089__1_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_069", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "We don't have a record of that, Your Honor.\nI would presume that he -- our state procedure does call for that right and he would be certainly allowed to say anything that he wished on his own behalf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2696.669, 2698.227], "stop_times": [2698.227, 2707.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2696.669}, "reply_to": "15089__1_068", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_070", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Suppose it will be reasonable to assume that if in exercising that right, he complained about the performance of his counsel that someone would have bought it to our attention and to yours by now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2707.485], "stop_times": [2718.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.485}, "reply_to": "15089__1_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_071", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, and I presume that it wouldn't have been made a matter of record so that we might have it to bring for your Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2718.645], "stop_times": [2729.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2718.645}, "reply_to": "15089__1_070", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_072", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I wasn't sure about the presumption.\nDo you suggest that there is some kind of presumption that ineffectiveness of counsel if the lawyer doesn't see the client until the day of the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2729.358, 2731.83], "stop_times": [2731.83, 2740.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.358}, "reply_to": "15089__1_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_073", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2740.02], "stop_times": [2740.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2740.02}, "reply_to": "15089__1_072", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_074", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Where did that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2740.576], "stop_times": [2741.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.576}, "reply_to": "15089__1_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_075", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The Third Circuit has adopted a rule where it may grant a presumption to the defendant.\nIf he can prove that he only met his counsel very shortly before trial that a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel would be raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2741.032, 2748.206], "stop_times": [2748.206, 2757.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2741.032}, "reply_to": "15089__1_074", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_076", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "On that -- on that basis, half of the barristers of England and half of the cases in England would be presumed to be ineffective because they rarely ever see their client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2757.904], "stop_times": [2769.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.904}, "reply_to": "15089__1_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_077", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And in Allegheny County, I am afraid it would be -- the percentage would be even greater, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2769.364], "stop_times": [2774.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2769.364}, "reply_to": "15089__1_076", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_078", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, I would say at least.\nBut an associate namely under the British System, the solicitor and in Allegheny County, the investigator for the Public Defender's Office seized the man and does the investigating, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2774.631, 2776.276], "stop_times": [2776.276, 2788.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.631}, "reply_to": "15089__1_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_079", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2788.141, 2789.779], "stop_times": [2789.779, 2790.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2788.141}, "reply_to": "15089__1_078", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_080", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "So it's an institutional defense that he has, it says though he hired a law firm and had the services of several people instead of one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2790.265], "stop_times": [2799.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.265}, "reply_to": "15089__1_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_081", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, that is correct.\nNow, he says that he was actually prejudiced by the failure to file this pretrial motions and I as I've suggested to you he was not prejudiced because in fact the trial judge, as well as the federal district court judge and the circuit court judge discussed those -- the admission of the evidence right on the merits so that he could not possibly have been prejudiced by that.\nHe says he is prejudiced because he did not receive a severance from the other defendants.\nAnd he cites the fact that Raymond Lawson had previously been tried on a murder charge.\nIn fact, I eventually say that the other defendants were prejudiced by being tried with him because he was the one that was identified as being the gunman at the two robberies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2799.133, 2801.264, 2825.935, 2831.408, 2837.739], "stop_times": [2801.264, 2825.935, 2831.408, 2837.739, 2852.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2799.133}, "reply_to": "15089__1_080", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_082", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I take it the state court judge who passed on the habeas corpus petition actually reached the counsel point, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2852.142], "stop_times": [2859.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.142}, "reply_to": "15089__1_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_083", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, he did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2859.729], "stop_times": [2860.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2859.729}, "reply_to": "15089__1_082", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_084", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Why did he do that if the point had been withdrawn?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2860.867], "stop_times": [2864.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.867}, "reply_to": "15089__1_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_085", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, I believe that in answering the petition for habeas corpus, (Voice Overlap) he went, it was raised there.\nSo he answered that, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2864.055, 2873.892], "stop_times": [2873.892, 2875.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2864.055}, "reply_to": "15089__1_084", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_086", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Where -- where do we stand on exhaustion then that the state court actually purported to dispose of the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2875.19], "stop_times": [2882.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.19}, "reply_to": "15089__1_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_087", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If you should find that indeed the petitioner had not waived his right to raise that point.\nAnd that the record -- that even though his counsel might have done so if he had not joined in that, that the allegation would still stand and the record was inadequate for either the state habeas corpus judge to rule on it and any of the federal judges, then I feel I'm force to say it must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.\nIf you find that there was sufficient evidence for the state judge and the federal judges, even if he had not waived it, then hearing is unnecessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2882.139, 2890.386, 2911.651], "stop_times": [2890.386, 2911.651, 2924.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2882.139}, "reply_to": "15089__1_086", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_088", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "When was this second court rule adopted by the prima facie evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2924.306], "stop_times": [2929.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.306}, "reply_to": "15089__1_087", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_089", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The circuit was adopted, it was adopted I believe prior to this in a case Mathis -- United States ex rel. Mathis v. Rundle which we have cited for you in our brief.\nIt has been cited by the petitioner, as well as by ourselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2929.741, 2939.936], "stop_times": [2939.936, 2943.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2929.741}, "reply_to": "15089__1_088", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_090", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That's before he was first -- retried the first time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2943.517], "stop_times": [2946.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.517}, "reply_to": "15089__1_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_091", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, Your Honor it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2946.81], "stop_times": [2948.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2946.81}, "reply_to": "15089__1_090", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_092", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It was not in effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2948.352], "stop_times": [2949.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.352}, "reply_to": "15089__1_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_093", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, it was not in effect I believe until 1967 and that was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2949.618], "stop_times": [2953.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2949.618}, "reply_to": "15089__1_092", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_094", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What does it have to do with this case then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2953.123], "stop_times": [2955.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.123}, "reply_to": "15089__1_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_095", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2955.971], "stop_times": [2956.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2955.971}, "reply_to": "15089__1_094", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_096", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That so-called presumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2956.621], "stop_times": [2961.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.621}, "reply_to": "15089__1_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_097", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They -- I believe it is their position, that this -- that the effectiveness of counsel is a question which does depend upon retroactivity for its existence.\nIn other words, this is fundamental to a defendant's due process of law and an indigent defendant's equal protection laws consequently it would not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2961.012, 2974.775], "stop_times": [2974.775, 2986.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2961.012}, "reply_to": "15089__1_096", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_098", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I presume there are many lawyers who walked into courtroom in many cases, civil and criminal, didn't know anything about the case until they started.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2986.473], "stop_times": [2999.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.473}, "reply_to": "15089__1_097", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_099", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, that may very well be true, Your Honor, I would suggest that certainly as far as the -- as their client is concerned that they are in a rather precarious position.\nIn other words, once the state has appointed counsel for someone and that particular counsel chooses not to prepare the case and in effect renders ineffective assistance to counsel, or counsels appointed by the state merely is a perfunctory gesture so there is not sufficient time to prepare, then certainly, I think that it is our duty whether it's a persecutor saying or defense counsel or the court to step in and to rectify that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [2999.66, 3009.775], "stop_times": [3009.775, 3044.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2999.66}, "reply_to": "15089__1_098", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_100", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Is there anything or whatever in the record concerning the way the man tried the case or concerning any other facts that was established to show the Court that he wasn't an effective lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3044.831], "stop_times": [3058.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.831}, "reply_to": "15089__1_099", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_101", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, Your Honor, there's absolutely nothing to show that he was not an effective lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3058.942], "stop_times": [3062.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3058.942}, "reply_to": "15089__1_100", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_102", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And not going to accept to you as appointed that morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3062.891], "stop_times": [3065.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.891}, "reply_to": "15089__1_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_103", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nThere are the allegations made --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3065.575, 3067.511], "stop_times": [3067.511, 3068.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3065.575}, "reply_to": "15089__1_102", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_104", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Petitioner doesn't agree with you about that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3068.344], "stop_times": [3070.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.344}, "reply_to": "15089__1_103", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_105", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No.\nThere are of course allegations made that they should have filed these pretrial motions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3070.284, 3070.561], "stop_times": [3070.561, 3074.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3070.284}, "reply_to": "15089__1_104", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_106", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3074.205], "stop_times": [3075.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.205}, "reply_to": "15089__1_105", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_107", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And they should have asked -- they should have argued for severance.\nThey should have filed the pretrial motions to suppressed evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3075.066, 3078.163], "stop_times": [3078.163, 3081.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3075.066}, "reply_to": "15089__1_106", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_108", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Argued for sole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3081.856], "stop_times": [3083.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.856}, "reply_to": "15089__1_107", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_109", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And argued for severance.\nThey joined in the motion for severance.\nThey did not make a specific -- that particular counsel does not make a specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3083.453, 3086.201, 3088.615], "stop_times": [3086.201, 3088.615, 3092.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3083.453}, "reply_to": "15089__1_108", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_110", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Where there any reasons, any evidence shown here that severance would have been granted or is it in the reason that --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3092.275], "stop_times": [3098.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.275}, "reply_to": "15089__1_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_111", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No.\nAbsolutely none, Your Honor.\nAbsolutely none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3098.294, 3098.784, 3100.512], "stop_times": [3098.784, 3100.512, 3101.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3098.294}, "reply_to": "15089__1_110", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_112", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Sometimes the severance is not desired.\nIt's not at desirable thing for some defendant and they have nothing here to show that a severance would have helped them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3101.76, 3105.342], "stop_times": [3105.342, 3114.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.76}, "reply_to": "15089__1_111", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_113", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere's nothing to show that all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3114.437, 3114.936], "stop_times": [3114.936, 3115.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3114.437}, "reply_to": "15089__1_112", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_114", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Did they argue that there's anything that would have helped him in severance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3115.167], "stop_times": [3118.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.167}, "reply_to": "15089__1_113", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_115", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, they argue that Raymond Lawson, a co-defendant have been previously tried on a murder charge and that if they have known this, they never would have wanted Lawson to be able to testify his own behalf, because he apparently does not make a very credible witness.\nIt is our position that anyone of the co-defendants might have been more prejudiced by being tried with Chambers and vice versa because of the four of them Chambers was the one that was absolutely identified as the gunman in the two different robberies.\nConsequently, we don't feel that there's anything at all that would have aided chambers by being severed in the two cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3118.668, 3137.305, 3154.664], "stop_times": [3137.305, 3154.664, 3161.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3118.668}, "reply_to": "15089__1_114", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_116", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Petitioners refers primarily to the pretrial motion is suppress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3161.344], "stop_times": [3168.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.344}, "reply_to": "15089__1_115", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_117", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3168.416], "stop_times": [3170.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3168.416}, "reply_to": "15089__1_116", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_118", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And says that if counsel have known about this situation the lawyer individual lawyer known about this situation, he would have filed the motions to suppress and therefore wouldn't have been prejudiced by the later action of the Court admitting the evidence of the basis of the fact that the proper procedures hadn't been followed to suppress the evidence, isn't that his argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3170.575], "stop_times": [3190.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.575}, "reply_to": "15089__1_117", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15089__1_119", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That is his argument and our answer to that of course is that judge actually the trial judge ruled on the merits as did the federal judges who later have an opportunity to review this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3190.189], "stop_times": [3201.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3190.189}, "reply_to": "15089__1_118", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_120", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Was there any motion made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3201.994], "stop_times": [3204.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.994}, "reply_to": "15089__1_119", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_121", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "There was a motion, yes, Your Honor at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3204.83], "stop_times": [3207.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3204.83}, "reply_to": "15089__1_120", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_122", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "There is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3207.062], "stop_times": [3207.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.062}, "reply_to": "15089__1_121", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_123", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, at trial, a motion was made an objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3207.917], "stop_times": [3210.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3207.917}, "reply_to": "15089__1_122", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_124", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And was denied on the ground that it's too late?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3210.307], "stop_times": [3214.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.307}, "reply_to": "15089__1_123", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_125", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The trial judge in answering said you should have filed a motion to suppress and then he said however, I don't feel that this is evidence which should be suppressed consequently I will overrule your objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3214.742], "stop_times": [3229.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3214.742}, "reply_to": "15089__1_124", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_126", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "He overruled the objection to the motion to suppress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3229.98], "stop_times": [3233.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.98}, "reply_to": "15089__1_125", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_127", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nHe overruled the objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3233.439, 3234.216], "stop_times": [3234.216, 3235.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3233.439}, "reply_to": "15089__1_126", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_128", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "But he did so, on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3235.236], "stop_times": [3237.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.236}, "reply_to": "15089__1_127", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_129", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I believe, he did so directly on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3237.097], "stop_times": [3239.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3237.097}, "reply_to": "15089__1_128", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_130", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Ms. Los, was it on -- in Pennsylvania, on a motion to suppress, is the defendant allowed to put on evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3239.275], "stop_times": [3247.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.275}, "reply_to": "15089__1_129", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_131", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, he is Your Honor.\nThe burden shifts to the Commonwealth to prove the admissibility of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3247.535, 3248.348], "stop_times": [3248.348, 3253.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3247.535}, "reply_to": "15089__1_130", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_132", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3253.598], "stop_times": [3253.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.598}, "reply_to": "15089__1_131", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_133", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Then the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3253.904], "stop_times": [3255.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3253.904}, "reply_to": "15089__1_132", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_134", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The motion is made during the trial, is this case the judge said no evidence is in yet, right?\nAbout the seizure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3255.208, 3266.154], "stop_times": [3266.154, 3269.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.208}, "reply_to": "15089__1_133", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_135", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "As far the bullets were concerned that was not in evidence at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3269.115], "stop_times": [3273.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3269.115}, "reply_to": "15089__1_134", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_136", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Nothing in evidence except the bullets.\nAnd the judge says, you should have made this motion but since you didn't make it I will rule on it that the motion is denied without more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3273.863, 3276.605], "stop_times": [3276.605, 3286.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.863}, "reply_to": "15089__1_135", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_137", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If I may explain, Your Honor.\nInitially, there were two objections made at trial.\nOne was to the evidence found when the car at the search of the car.\nThe other was made to the bullets that were seized at the petitioner's home.\nAs far as the original one was concerned, an objection was made to the admission of that at trial not a formal motion to suppress but instead an objection to the evidence that had already been admitted into evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3286.689, 3288.259, 3290.866, 3294.996, 3300.822], "stop_times": [3288.259, 3290.866, 3294.996, 3300.822, 3313.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3286.689}, "reply_to": "15089__1_136", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_138", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And did they ever war there on that?\nAt that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3313.298, 3316.2], "stop_times": [3316.2, 3317.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.298}, "reply_to": "15089__1_137", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_139", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, they did not, Your Honor.\nThey did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3317.122, 3319.512], "stop_times": [3319.512, 3320.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3317.122}, "reply_to": "15089__1_138", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_140", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, what I'm trying to get is you are not telling us that at that stage a motion of trial is the same as the motion before trial, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3320.16], "stop_times": [3329.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.16}, "reply_to": "15089__1_139", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_141", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, I am not Your Honor, I am saying though.\nThat if the judge has an opportunity to rule on the merits as to whether or not it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3329.81, 3332.729], "stop_times": [3332.729, 3336.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3329.81}, "reply_to": "15089__1_140", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_142", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, what would were it merits, the bullets were there, what else were the merits, do you have any testimony at that stage as to how the bullets received?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3336.974], "stop_times": [3347.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.974}, "reply_to": "15089__1_141", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_143", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "At the time at the judge ruled on them, yes, the motion was made before the court.\nThe trial judge said, I will hear the evidence as far as the bullets are concerned.\nAs soon as when he heard the evidence, he ruled they were admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3347.744, 3354.537, 3362.38], "stop_times": [3354.537, 3362.38, 3365.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3347.744}, "reply_to": "15089__1_142", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_144", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Did he hear the defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3365.371], "stop_times": [3367.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.371}, "reply_to": "15089__1_143", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_145", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, he did not at that particular time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3367.059], "stop_times": [3368.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3367.059}, "reply_to": "15089__1_144", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_146", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Did eh hear the defendant's witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3368.05], "stop_times": [3370.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.05}, "reply_to": "15089__1_145", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_147", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, he did not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3370.068], "stop_times": [3370.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3370.068}, "reply_to": "15089__1_146", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_148", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Then how could he rule on the merits when he only heard one side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3370.706], "stop_times": [3374.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3370.706}, "reply_to": "15089__1_147", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_149", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Because, Your Honor, he has before him the warrant and the testimony of the police officer who served that warrant and who searched the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3374.619], "stop_times": [3385.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3374.619}, "reply_to": "15089__1_148", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_150", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And that's the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3385.827], "stop_times": [3387.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.827}, "reply_to": "15089__1_149", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15089__1_151", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI feel that he can make a judgment as to the admissibility of the evidence based upon that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3387.315, 3387.757], "stop_times": [3387.757, 3393.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3387.315}, "reply_to": "15089__1_150", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_152", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well was the defendant precluded at that time from putting in any evidence he wanted to on the subject matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3393.104], "stop_times": [3399.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3393.104}, "reply_to": "15089__1_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_153", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, he did not make an attempt to do so and later he didn't offer any defense.\nConsequently, I would presume that he didn't have anybody available to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3399.665, 3406.609], "stop_times": [3406.609, 3410.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3399.665}, "reply_to": "15089__1_152", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_154", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What was the evidence he did move to suppress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3410.783], "stop_times": [3415.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.783}, "reply_to": "15089__1_153", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_155", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "An objection was made initially to the evidence that was found when the car was searched at the police station.\nIt was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3415.347, 3422.177], "stop_times": [3422.177, 3422.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3415.347}, "reply_to": "15089__1_154", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_156", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What was there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3422.26], "stop_times": [3423.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.26}, "reply_to": "15089__1_155", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_157", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Two revolvers, two guns that were loaded, there was a glove full of change that was later identified as being taken from the Gulf service station robbery, there was several cards, identification cards, driver licenses that were taken, credits cards that were taken at a robbery one week previous to that, that was a bore on station robbery.\nThat was objected to at trial and admitted into evidence.\nThen counsel, Mr. Tamburo, suggested to the court that bullets were going to be introduced and he wanted to preclude the court from --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3423.27, 3450.803, 3455.911], "stop_times": [3450.803, 3455.911, 3468.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3423.27}, "reply_to": "15089__1_156", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_158", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What bullets?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3468.595], "stop_times": [3469.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.595}, "reply_to": "15089__1_157", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_159", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "These were bullets that were found after one had been served at the petitioner's house the day after the robbery.\nIt was in the morning of the robbery, a police officer went to the house, he went to the houses of all of the defendants but it was at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3469.646, 3476.247], "stop_times": [3476.247, 3484.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3469.646}, "reply_to": "15089__1_158", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_160", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What did -- what are the bullets for them to show?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3484.655], "stop_times": [3487.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3484.655}, "reply_to": "15089__1_159", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_161", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The bullets were of two characters.\nThey were short and long .38-caliber bullets, a good number of those bullets were dumdum bullets, which a police officer testified were rather rare in his experience.\nThey -- the prosecution then placed into evidence, the two revolvers that were seized from the car in which the petitioner was riding.\nThese two -- the bullets from those guns matched.\nIn other words they were .38-caliber long and short, some of them were dumdum bullets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3487.44, 3491.148, 3502.63, 3511.95, 3518.003], "stop_times": [3491.148, 3502.63, 3511.95, 3518.003, 3524.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3487.44}, "reply_to": "15089__1_160", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_162", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- it could have been fired in those pistols?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3524.015], "stop_times": [3526.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3524.015}, "reply_to": "15089__1_161", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_163", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That is true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3526.264], "stop_times": [3526.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3526.264}, "reply_to": "15089__1_162", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_164", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That was the object?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3526.613], "stop_times": [3527.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3526.613}, "reply_to": "15089__1_163", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_165", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "That was the object of admitting them into evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3527.653], "stop_times": [3530.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3527.653}, "reply_to": "15089__1_164", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_166", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "And where were the bullets found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3530.752], "stop_times": [3532.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3530.752}, "reply_to": "15089__1_165", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_167", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They were found in the petitioner's home, in his apartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3532.853], "stop_times": [3535.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3532.853}, "reply_to": "15089__1_166", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_168", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "In what?\nIn his apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3535.811, 3536.198], "stop_times": [3536.198, 3536.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3535.811}, "reply_to": "15089__1_167", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_169", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "His apartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3536.763], "stop_times": [3539.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3536.763}, "reply_to": "15089__1_168", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_170", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Given the merits, I don't recall the record at the moment but you spoke of eye witnesses, how many eyewitnesses identified this appellant-petitioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3539.596], "stop_times": [3549.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3539.596}, "reply_to": "15089__1_169", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_171", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "At the first -- as involves the first robbery there was only one witness, the fellow who was robbed, the gas station tenant.\nHe positively identified him.\nAt the -- for the second robbery, the fellow who was robbed stated that he was unable to identify him in Court because his physical appearance was somewhat changed.\nHe had a different -- it was different clothing, he was now wearing glasses, he had shaved the moustache that he was wearing at the time of the robbery.\nHowever, he did identify him within hours of the robbery as being the person who -- the gunman, who would come in to rob him.\nSo, these are the -- this is the eyewitness testimony that we have.\nThe teenagers who observed the car circling the area, a car which contained four Negro occupants, one was wearing a dark green pullover V-neck sweater, and another was wearing a light trench coat.\nAnd we know from the fellow who was robbed that one of the gunman was wearing a V-neck sweater and another was wearing a light tan trench coat.\nOf course, we have no eyewitness testimony from the two teenagers who observed this car because they couldn't identify anyone who was in the car other than their race and their dress, and they did not observe the robbery.\nI would like, just for a moment, if I may to reach the question of the search that was conducted at the police station.\nCertainly, if Chimel is retroactive, then I must concede this argument.\nBut it is our position, at the time that the police officers acted that the test must be the reasonable of the search that they made, they couldn't search the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3549.755, 3558.382, 3560.938, 3573.22, 3580.542, 3590.943, 3594.352, 3608.73, 3619.532, 3633.994, 3642.861, 3647.448], "stop_times": [3558.382, 3560.938, 3573.22, 3580.542, 3590.943, 3594.352, 3608.73, 3619.532, 3633.994, 3642.861, 3647.448, 3659.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3549.755}, "reply_to": "15089__1_170", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_172", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What do you do with Preston?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3659.263], "stop_times": [3661.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3659.263}, "reply_to": "15089__1_171", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_173", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3661.837], "stop_times": [3662.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3661.837}, "reply_to": "15089__1_172", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_174", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What do you do with Preston?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3662.176], "stop_times": [3663.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3662.176}, "reply_to": "15089__1_173", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_175", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "We believe that Preston is merely an extension of the reasonableness rule and in other words, that our facts, if we can differentiate then from Preston would be acceptable as far as the reasonableness test is determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3663.736], "stop_times": [3676.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3663.736}, "reply_to": "15089__1_174", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_176", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3676.013], "stop_times": [3677.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3676.013}, "reply_to": "15089__1_175", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_177", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well by saying this, Your Honor.\nFor one thing the -- we maintain that this was a search incident for a lawful arrest, that the search that was made at the police station was substantially contemporaneous with the arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3677.642, 3678.794], "stop_times": [3678.794, 3691.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3677.642}, "reply_to": "15089__1_176", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_178", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Was there any time for (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3691.528], "stop_times": [3693.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3691.528}, "reply_to": "15089__1_177", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_179", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "A very short time, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3693.577], "stop_times": [3695.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3693.577}, "reply_to": "15089__1_178", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_180", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3695.557], "stop_times": [3697.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3695.557}, "reply_to": "15089__1_179", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_181", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "No, we don't know precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3697.681], "stop_times": [3699.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3697.681}, "reply_to": "15089__1_180", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_182", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Any event was (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3699.185], "stop_times": [3701.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3699.185}, "reply_to": "15089__1_181", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_183", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Taken to the police station.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3701.826], "stop_times": [3702.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3701.826}, "reply_to": "15089__1_182", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_184", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "You take it and lock him --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3702.98], "stop_times": [3705.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3702.98}, "reply_to": "15089__1_183", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_185", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Yes, you're right, Your Honor.\nThey were inside the police station.\nI can't make a Cooper argument and say while the police were just attempting to inventory the car or to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3705.503, 3706.559, 3707.842], "stop_times": [3706.559, 3707.842, 3716.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3705.503}, "reply_to": "15089__1_184", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_186", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3716.378], "stop_times": [3717.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3716.378}, "reply_to": "15089__1_185", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_187", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Right.\nNo, they could not reach the car I will admit that.\nBut we are saying that the police officers would have placed themselves in danger because of the dark circumstances in this parking lot, the fact that it adjoined a bar where friends of the petitioner and his co-defendants were frequent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3717.007, 3717.17, 3719.874], "stop_times": [3717.17, 3719.874, 3733.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3717.007}, "reply_to": "15089__1_186", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_188", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "But where was the car when they searched it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3733.983], "stop_times": [3735.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3733.983}, "reply_to": "15089__1_187", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_189", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "When they search it, it was at the police station.\nThey took it by virtue of having Lawson drive it with the police officer to the station, and it was there that they searched it.\nWe are saying, if I may Your Honor, they couldn't search it in the dark parking lot.\nIt was too dangerous for them, the member of policemen that they have there.\nIt was too dark to be able to search the car effectively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3735.944, 3737.668, 3744.802, 3749.943, 3754.171], "stop_times": [3737.668, 3744.802, 3749.943, 3754.171, 3757.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3735.944}, "reply_to": "15089__1_188", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_190", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What I understand, what is your position? Once they gather to the station, they have expect the block -- they then hide the car where empty station --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3757.075], "stop_times": [3768.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3757.075}, "reply_to": "15089__1_189", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_191", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They had it in the driveway which adjoined the police station -- yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3768.909], "stop_times": [3772.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3768.909}, "reply_to": "15089__1_190", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_192", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Now, what (Inaudible) -- understanding they would want to search the -- where the -- was arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3772.917], "stop_times": [3783.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3772.917}, "reply_to": "15089__1_191", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_193", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Because Your Honor, we feel that there is a reason for nexus between the crime charged here, the fact that this was the escape automobile.\nWhereas in Preston, there was no connection between the search of the car and the vagrancy the reason why the men were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3783.13, 3790.265], "stop_times": [3790.265, 3796.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3783.13}, "reply_to": "15089__1_192", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_194", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3796.563], "stop_times": [3801.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3796.563}, "reply_to": "15089__1_193", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_195", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It is Your Honor, yes it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3801.144], "stop_times": [3803.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3801.144}, "reply_to": "15089__1_194", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_196", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3803.159], "stop_times": [3810.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3803.159}, "reply_to": "15089__1_195", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_197", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If that is a test, Your Honor.\nWe don't feel at that particular time is a test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3810.988, 3812.361], "stop_times": [3812.361, 3814.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3810.988}, "reply_to": "15089__1_196", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_198", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "What makes the custody of the car legal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3814.305], "stop_times": [3818.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3814.305}, "reply_to": "15089__1_197", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_199", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The car was taken Your Honor because it was suspected as being the escape vehicle.\nCertainly, if someone would have come to claim the car the police officers could not have detained it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3818.399, 3824.892], "stop_times": [3824.892, 3829.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3818.399}, "reply_to": "15089__1_198", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_200", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "The wife or brother or anybody else has showed up and take this car, just when they wanted to search it, they have to let it go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3829.836], "stop_times": [3836.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3829.836}, "reply_to": "15089__1_199", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_201", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "You're right, Your Honor.\nI would -- I would say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3836.814, 3837.413], "stop_times": [3837.413, 3838.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3836.814}, "reply_to": "15089__1_200", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_202", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Would you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3838.212], "stop_times": [3839.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3838.212}, "reply_to": "15089__1_201", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_203", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "-- I'm saying that if they have searched the car --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3839.407], "stop_times": [3843.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3839.407}, "reply_to": "15089__1_202", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_204", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "They could search it and they could search it, I don't think they can hold the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3843.087], "stop_times": [3847.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3843.087}, "reply_to": "15089__1_203", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_205", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "If they had not begun search by the time members of the family had come to take the car, I would presume because of the time laps there, it could not be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest.\nIf they have the right to search the car, the right extends as I feel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3847.399, 3862.152], "stop_times": [3862.152, 3866.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3847.399}, "reply_to": "15089__1_204", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_206", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3866.017], "stop_times": [3880.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3866.017}, "reply_to": "15089__1_205", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__1_207", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we know.\nI don't rely on that because I know that the witnesses could not specifically identify this particular automobile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3880.959, 3883.479], "stop_times": [3883.479, 3890.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3880.959}, "reply_to": "15089__1_206", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_208", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "But it was an automobile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3890.233], "stop_times": [3893.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3890.233}, "reply_to": "15089__1_207", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_209", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor?\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3893.465, 3894.307], "stop_times": [3894.307, 3894.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3893.465}, "reply_to": "15089__1_208", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_210", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "You say it was the automobile, I think it was identified enough, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3894.865], "stop_times": [3899.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3894.865}, "reply_to": "15089__1_209", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_211", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Well, yes it was, but as far as seizing it for purposes of evidence, in other words, having at been identified by someone as being the getaway car we could not do that because we know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3899.017], "stop_times": [3908.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3899.017}, "reply_to": "15089__1_210", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_212", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Whose car was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3908.661], "stop_times": [3910.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3908.661}, "reply_to": "15089__1_211", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15089__1_213", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "It belonged to Raymond Lawson who was a co-defendant and he was driving the automobile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3910.813], "stop_times": [3916.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3910.813}, "reply_to": "15089__1_212", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_214", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your time is up Ms. Los.\nBut I have one question for you.\nNeither you nor your friend seemed to cite the Harris or Harrison case out of the District of Colombia Circuit which at least a great many people read as considerable clarification of the Preston doctrine where the automobile was searched by the police without a warrant substantially after the time of the arrest and several miles away.\nAre you familiar with the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3916.347, 3917.51, 3919.292, 3941.121], "stop_times": [3917.51, 3919.292, 3941.121, 3942.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3916.347}, "reply_to": "15089__1_213", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__1_215", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I am Your Honor, unfortunately, it does escape me at the moment.\nI know that we did consider it we chose to rely on Dento which the circuit relied upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3942.665, 3945.515], "stop_times": [3945.515, 3953.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3942.665}, "reply_to": "15089__1_214", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15089__1_216", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I just wondered if there where any reason to think that it was not in the point as I sat on the case in the Court of Appeals and my recollection is that it's very much in point here.\nPerhaps Mr. Grogan will shed some light on it if he wishes to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3953.738, 3964.445], "stop_times": [3964.445, 3969.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3953.738}, "reply_to": "15089__1_215", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__2_000", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Your Honor, we also considered it.\nI frankly at this point don't recall what our reasons where when we prepared the brief for not including it.\nIf I may, there was one thing I would like to call to the Court's attention.\nIn connection with the waiver of the argument on the infectiveness of counsel, I think the case of Fay against Noia decided by this Court would have to indicate that there have been a knowing waiver and here counsel made this gratuitous statement in the course of the discussion and it was not participated in by the defendant in any fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [3969.643, 3971.073, 3980.136, 3986.048], "stop_times": [3971.073, 3980.136, 3986.048, 4010.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3969.643}, "reply_to": "15089__1_216", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__2_001", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "You have a substantial amount of time left if you wish for a rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4010.492], "stop_times": [4014.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4010.492}, "reply_to": "15089__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__2_002", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Oh, he's out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4014.195], "stop_times": [4015.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4014.195}, "reply_to": "15089__2_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15089__2_003", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Oh!", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4015.012], "stop_times": [4015.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4015.012}, "reply_to": "15089__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__2_004", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "I'm out of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4015.686], "stop_times": [4018.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4015.686}, "reply_to": "15089__2_003", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__2_005", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Excuse me, I'm looking at the wrong sheet and the wrong case and it showed nine minutes but I was mistaken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4018.84], "stop_times": [4023.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4018.84}, "reply_to": "15089__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__2_006", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4023.977], "stop_times": [4024.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4023.977}, "reply_to": "15089__2_005", "speaker": "vincent_j_grogan"}
{"id": "15089__2_007", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you for your submission and for yours.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4024.783, 4025.239, 4027.224], "stop_times": [4025.239, 4027.224, 4028.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4024.783}, "reply_to": "15089__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15089__3_000", "conversation_id": "15089", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_830", "start_times": [4028.677], "stop_times": [4030.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4028.677}, "reply_to": "15089__2_007", "speaker": "carol_mary_los"}
{"id": "15299__0_000", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Chandler against the Judicial Council.\nGood morning, Mr. Kenan, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [0.0, 25.991], "stop_times": [25.991, 28.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_001", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Thank you sir, may it please the Court.\nGentlemen, this is a case that's here on motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus in the matter of the Honorable Stephen Chandler, Judge of the Western District of Oklahoma against the Tenth Judicial Council of the United States.\nI will briefly state the facts in this matter.\nOn December 13, 1965, the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit entered a -- entered an order, held after a secret meeting at which Judge Chandler was not able to be present, and the order effectively stripped Judge Chandler of all of his powers.\nHe was ordered not to hear any of the cases assigned to him, nor was he to be allowed to hear any further cases that would be filed in his Court.\nThe other judges of his court were ordered to divide Judge Chan -- Judge Chandler's cases among themselves and to enter into a new order of business whereby none of the future cases filed in the court could be assigned to Judge Chandler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [28.808, 46.423, 64.397, 68.261, 89.921, 100.211], "stop_times": [46.423, 64.397, 68.261, 89.921, 100.211, 113.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 28.808}, "reply_to": "15299__0_000", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_002", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "How many judges are there in that district, Mr. Kenan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [113.32], "stop_times": [116.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.32}, "reply_to": "15299__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_003", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, I think there's three, maybe four -- four judges.\nThere's also an inactive judge, or there was at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [116.493, 120.857], "stop_times": [120.857, 123.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.493}, "reply_to": "15299__0_002", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_004", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "A senior judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [123.638], "stop_times": [124.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.638}, "reply_to": "15299__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_005", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThis order was signed by the members of the Judicial Council, not as members of Judicial Council but as circuit judges.\nIt was filed in the Tenth Circuit Court.\nIt was filed in the Western District Court and a Deputy Marshal was ordered to serve it on Judge Chandler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [124.446, 129.75, 137.78, 142.092], "stop_times": [129.75, 137.78, 142.092, 149.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.446}, "reply_to": "15299__0_004", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_006", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "How do you distinguish -- how do you discern the form in which they act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [149.989], "stop_times": [156.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.989}, "reply_to": "15299__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_007", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, sir, the order itself, the signators or the judges who signed it beneath their signators, they said Circuit Judge.\nThis point, Your Honor, I bring up because it does have some bearing upon the jurisdiction of this Court.\nIt does enter into that argument.\nIt does have to do with whether or not these judges were entertaining judicial powers or administrative powers.\nThey were clothing about themselves the powers of the judicial offices, which they held when they signed the order, Circuit Judge, filed at the court and they got a Deputy Marshal to serve it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [156.409, 163.951, 170.19, 172.613, 179.591], "stop_times": [163.951, 170.19, 172.613, 179.591, 194.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.409}, "reply_to": "15299__0_006", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_008", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, when all the judges -- all of the circuit judges of a given circuit assemble and meet to address themselves to any business other than an en banc hearing, are they not acting as a Judicial Council?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [194.828], "stop_times": [210.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.828}, "reply_to": "15299__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_009", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I don't believe they are, Your Honor.\nSection 332 of Title 28 provides that a meeting of the Judicial Council shall be called by the Chief Judge at least twice a year.\nI'm not convinced that the Chief Judge can't call a meeting of the circuit judges for other reasons.\nIf another a judge calls a meeting, is it a proper meeting of the Judicial Council?\nAccording to the statute, only the Chief Judge can call it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [210.164, 212.261, 223.057, 229.062, 234.379], "stop_times": [212.261, 223.057, 229.062, 234.379, 236.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.164}, "reply_to": "15299__0_008", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_010", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But some Judicial Councils meet once a month, sometimes twice a month, sometimes three times a month, depending on the nature and the quantity of the administrative problems they have before them.\nI'm speaking now of me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [236.843, 250.007], "stop_times": [250.007, 250.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.843}, "reply_to": "15299__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_011", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [250.863], "stop_times": [251.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.863}, "reply_to": "15299__0_010", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_012", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- as a counsel, not on a particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [251.19], "stop_times": [254.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.19}, "reply_to": "15299__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_013", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well sir, the statute provides only that they're required to meet at least twice a year.\nThey can certainly meet more often.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [254.93, 259.406], "stop_times": [259.406, 260.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.93}, "reply_to": "15299__0_012", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_014", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But you would not suggest that other meetings were not meetings of the council if they go beyond two meetings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [260.515], "stop_times": [267.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.515}, "reply_to": "15299__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_015", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No sir, I believe that this was a meeting of the Judicial Council.\nI'm not questioning that.\nIt was the Judicial Council which uttered the order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [267.289, 271.396, 273.386], "stop_times": [271.396, 273.386, 275.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.289}, "reply_to": "15299__0_014", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_016", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Oh, I was confused then by your comment about the signatures that the signed as circuit judges --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [275.651], "stop_times": [281.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.651}, "reply_to": "15299__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_017", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [281.606], "stop_times": [281.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.606}, "reply_to": "15299__0_016", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_018", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But of course, they hold their place on the council only by virtue of their being the circuit judges, is that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [281.975], "stop_times": [287.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.975}, "reply_to": "15299__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_019", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes sir, that is true.\nThat is true, Your Honor.\nI brought this up only for the jurisdictional problems, which I will come to a bit later.\nThis meeting effectively stripped Judge Chandler of all of his judicial powers.\nThere was not a slight semblance of due process at the meeting, he wasn't allowed to be present.\nHe didn't know what the charges were.\nHe wasn't allowed to cross-examine anyone, couldn't have counsel.\nThe order that was entered spoke in rather strange terms about why his cases were being taken away from him.\nIt mentioned the effect on the business of Judge Chandler's Court of his attitude and conduct.\nIt mentioned that he was a party defendant in both civil and criminal litigation and stated that one civil case was still pending and are -- there were also two disqualification proceedings against him.\nIt stated that after a review of the entire situation that Judge Chandler was either unable or unwilling to discharge efficiently the powers of his office, and that was why all of his cases were taken from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [287.055, 289.795, 290.538, 296.09, 303.637, 309.174, 311.217, 316.774, 324.048, 330.937, 345.066], "stop_times": [289.795, 290.538, 296.09, 303.637, 309.174, 311.217, 316.774, 324.048, 330.937, 345.066, 359.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.055}, "reply_to": "15299__0_018", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_020", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Mr. Kenan, I've seen the order quoted, excerpts from it quoted and described in these various briefs.\nDo we have a copy of the order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [359.372, 366.258], "stop_times": [366.258, 367.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.372}, "reply_to": "15299__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_021", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt is Exhibit A to the original motion for leave to file that was entered in this case, the first -- the first matter filed.\nAfter the -- after the handing down of the order, we filed a motion for leave to file for a writ of mandamus in this Court.\nWe also made application for stay of the Judicial Council's order.\nA few days later, there appeared, Solicitor General Marshall representing, the Judicial Council and he advised this Court that the order of the Judicial Council was intended to be temporary only, pending prompt further proceedings by the Judicial Council.\nHe stated that a hearing would be held, at which hearing, the Judicial Council would determine what powers to use.\nUnder three sections -- this is very interesting, Your Honors, it was cited not only Section 332, which provides administrative powers we believe for Judicial Councils, but Section 137 which provides a method whereby Judicial Councils can settle disputes among District Judges when they can't decide on how to assign new cases in their Court.\nBut Solicitor General Marshall mentioned that the Judicial Council wanted to consider what use of its power should be made under Section 372 (b), which as the members of this Court know a Section that bears upon the mental fitness of a federal judge.\nIn other words, he was suggesting to this Court that reason existed perhaps for the Judicial Council to certify to the President that Judge Chandler was permanently, mentally disabled.\nSolicitor General Marshall stated that the order had been issued only to keep Judge Chandler from filling his office while the conduct of his office was thus in question and he stated that the order was interlocutory.\nThat pending a full hearing into the fitness of Judge Chandler, and then the Solicitor General said that he had personally examined files in the Tenth Circuit and here in Washington that it was his conviction, conviction of the matter, warranted careful examination, that it was highly desirable to maintain the status quo and that public confidence in the Federal Judiciary would be inevitably impaired if Judge Chandler were to preside over his court while the question of his fitness to serve was under consideration.\nWell, we can quite understand why this Court denied the application for stay, based upon this very strong language of the Solicitor General.\nWe can understand it, we -- it happened, anyway, the application for stay was denied.\nAfter that was denied, the Judicial Council then did issue a second order.\nIn our opinion, this order did not call for the type of hearing that had been represented to you, gentlemen, by the Judicial Council would be held.\nJudge Chandler wasn't ordered to come to any hearing.\nHe was notified that a hearing would be held and that if he wanted to appear, he might, and that he could present to the hearing such matters as he deemed desirable.\nThere was no indication of any charges against him.\nHe wasn't ordered.\nThe county was told he could bring counsel if he wanted.\nWell, Judge Chandler advised both this Court and the Judicial Council that he would not attend such a hearing, that he challenged their jurisdiction to remove cases from him and upon that, the Judicial Council then decided that it would hold a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [367.829, 368.298, 382.862, 392.358, 397.909, 416.674, 424.024, 446.215, 463.939, 475.747, 494.183, 528.786, 540.518, 547.481, 554.373, 562.937, 566.253, 576.371, 579.641, 580.392, 583.15], "stop_times": [368.298, 382.862, 392.358, 397.909, 416.674, 424.024, 446.215, 463.939, 475.747, 494.183, 528.786, 540.518, 547.481, 554.373, 562.937, 566.253, 576.371, 579.641, 580.392, 583.15, 602.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.829}, "reply_to": "15299__0_020", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_022", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What the -- did the second order purport to do with reference to the first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [602.148], "stop_times": [607.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.148}, "reply_to": "15299__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__0_023", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the second order merely called for the hearing.\nAt the time that Judge Chandler stated that he wouldn't appear at the hearing, then the other District Judges in Judge Chandler's Court then advised Judge Chandler that the original order had ordered them to re-divide all the cases in the court.\nThis Court had denied his application for stay.\nIt appeared that we were in for a long session with respect to this matter.\nAt that point, the district judges advised Judge Chandler that they ought to do something with respect to complying to the first order of the Judicial Council.\nSo the judges --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [607.218, 611.801, 628.223, 631.846, 637.277, 647.156], "stop_times": [611.801, 628.223, 631.846, 637.277, 647.156, 648.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.218}, "reply_to": "15299__0_022", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_024", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Does the Council undertake to say that certain members of the Court of Appeals shall not sit in certain cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [648.402], "stop_times": [658.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.402}, "reply_to": "15299__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__0_025", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No sir, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [658.78], "stop_times": [660.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.78}, "reply_to": "15299__0_024", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_026", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Is this running just to the -- I know that Judge Chandler is a District Judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [660.204], "stop_times": [664.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.204}, "reply_to": "15299__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__0_027", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the Judicial Council is given the authority to examine the reports of the administrator of the U.S. Courts and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [664.896], "stop_times": [677.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.896}, "reply_to": "15299__0_026", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_028", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I understand that.\nI'm just asking as a matter of practice what is it that the Tenth Circuit done with respect to circuit judges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [677.362, 678.153], "stop_times": [678.153, 684.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.362}, "reply_to": "15299__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__0_029", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, as a matter of practice, the Judicial Council is the Tenth Circuit and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [684.742], "stop_times": [690.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.742}, "reply_to": "15299__0_028", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_030", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I know, but what have they done as respect to the Circuit?\nThis is pretty wide-roving power, it seems to me.\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [690.006, 691.887, 695.329], "stop_times": [691.887, 695.329, 695.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.006}, "reply_to": "15299__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__0_031", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I don't know what they've done with respect to the rest of the Circuit.\nI honestly don't, and I just know this one matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [695.985, 699.836], "stop_times": [699.836, 703.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.985}, "reply_to": "15299__0_030", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_032", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Section 300, in the last paragraph of Section 332, whether advertently or inadvertently, Congress provided only that district judges shall properly carry into effect all orders of the Judicial Council, it does not mention circuit judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [703.305], "stop_times": [721.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.305}, "reply_to": "15299__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_033", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's correct, sir.\nWell, after the District Judges then met to decide upon a new order of business since it appeared that Judge Chandler was going to require some time to settle this matter, Judge Chandler disagreed with the re-division of his standing cases, those already assigned to him among the other judges.\nAnd he did agree however that in order to keep this matter going and not to get into a complete brawl with the members of the District Court who were only trying to carry out the orders of the Judicial Council and were going to let Judge Chandler contest them, he agreed that he wouldn't hear any cases assigned, any future cases filed in his court, although he did not believe the Judicial Council had power to take those away from him, but he disagreed with respect to reassigning cases already assigned to him.\nAt that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [721.086, 725.605, 744.111, 778.715], "stop_times": [725.605, 744.111, 778.715, 780.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.086}, "reply_to": "15299__0_032", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_034", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I gather that the -- that District Court doesn't operate from a master calendar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [780.176], "stop_times": [785.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.176}, "reply_to": "15299__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15299__0_035", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The -- there is a system whereby the cases are arbitrarily assigned to judges, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [785.119], "stop_times": [790.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.119}, "reply_to": "15299__0_034", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_036", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "As they're filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [790.328], "stop_times": [791.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.328}, "reply_to": "15299__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15299__0_037", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "As they're filed, yes sir, by law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [791.075], "stop_times": [792.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 791.075}, "reply_to": "15299__0_036", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_038", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And that's criminal or civil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [792.755], "stop_times": [793.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 792.755}, "reply_to": "15299__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15299__0_039", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAfter this new division of order was entered into, the Judicial Council then did this next strange thing.\nIt said well, we now have power under Section 137 to allocate cases in this Court because there's a disagreement with respect to the division of cases already on file in Judge Chandler's Court, judge Chandler is disagreeing that these cases can be reassigned.\nTherefore -- and this was their decision -- we're going to let the present situation stand as to existing cases, but we're going to re-divide the newly filed cases.\nWell, it didn't make any sense but nevertheless, that's what happened and they superseded, they said, the old order.\nWell, gentlemen, at this point when the first order was superseded, what we're questioning here today is the first order.\nThere are other facts in this case that go on, which facts have a bearing upon whether or not this Court should exercise its discretion, which the granting of a writ of mandamus always is, because these further facts bear upon the attitude of the Judicial Council and the true spirit in which this punitive order was entered into.\nThese facts can be boiled down basically to one thing.\nFor a couple of years thereafter, the Judicial Council went through an elaborate procedure, designed to create a paper record that they were acting all along to assist Judge Chandler in cleaning up a crowded docket.\nThey got documents from the administrator of the court bearing upon his case load.\nThe facts were from the very beginning Judge Chandler's case load, was a number of cases less than he normally decides in a year.\nThe facts are that when the first order was issued, there was no mention made of a crowded case load.\nThis was an afterthought and it was designed by the Judicial Council to try to detain some kind of firm ground upon which to base their assault on Judge Chandler.\nYour Honor, we came here and we based the jurisdiction of this case upon the All Writs Act.\nThere is a very excellent inquiry into the jurisdictional problems of this case that the Solicitor General has in his brief, and also the counsel for the respondent.\nThese jurisdictional problems boil down basically to a single question.\nFor instance, both Solicitor General and Mr. Wright do not disagree that the All Writs Act does provide authority for this Court to act.\nThey disagree only on the constitutional ground, whether or not this case is within the appellate powers of this Court and all that question boils down to one point, was the Judicial Council acting as a lower court or an inferior tribunal rather than an administrative agency in this proceeding?\nSolicitor General Griswold contends that it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [793.947, 796.41, 803.008, 819.775, 828.756, 835.219, 842.895, 865.122, 868.559, 884.059, 888.816, 897.495, 905.771, 919.565, 925.01, 936.967, 941.743, 948.943, 971.074], "stop_times": [796.41, 803.008, 819.775, 828.756, 835.219, 842.895, 865.122, 868.559, 884.059, 888.816, 897.495, 905.771, 919.565, 925.01, 936.967, 941.743, 948.943, 971.074, 975.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 793.947}, "reply_to": "15299__0_038", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_040", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That it was what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [975.429], "stop_times": [976.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.429}, "reply_to": "15299__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_041", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That it was acting as a Court, as an inferior court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [976.645], "stop_times": [979.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.645}, "reply_to": "15299__0_040", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_042", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Inferior Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [979.135], "stop_times": [980.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.135}, "reply_to": "15299__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_043", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes sir, when it issued this order, stripping Judge Chandler of his powers.\nHe contends that no matter what their nature, that they were acting as a court would act.\nNow, Your Honor, I agree that Congress intended that the Judicial Council be an administrative agency.\nI agree entirely and yet, this council is composed of judges who have judicial power and they acted in a way that judges would act, and I contend that they were acting with the judicial powers of their offices.\nAnd I also will say this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [980.529, 985.678, 992.252, 999.02, 1014.257], "stop_times": [985.678, 992.252, 999.02, 1014.257, 1015.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.529}, "reply_to": "15299__0_042", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_044", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Would you say the same, Mr. Kenan, with respect to the judges sitting on the Judicial Conference of the United States which is also a statutory body?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1015.659], "stop_times": [1026.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.659}, "reply_to": "15299__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_045", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, I contend that the Judicial Conference could act in a way in which was an exercise of the judicial powers.\nFor instance, a Judicial Council is given the power to remove a referee in bankruptcy.\nNow, this is the exercise of judicial powers.\nIt's admitted by Mr. Wright that it's the exercise of judicial powers.\nThis is given to the Judicial Council statutorily, this right.\nSo Congress did give for instance to a Judicial Council at least one specific and explicit instance of the right to exercise judicial powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1026.671, 1033.726, 1040.675, 1044.034, 1047.826, 1051.41], "stop_times": [1033.726, 1040.675, 1044.034, 1047.826, 1051.41, 1059.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.671}, "reply_to": "15299__0_044", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_046", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You meant the Judicial Conference there, didn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1059.947], "stop_times": [1062.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.947}, "reply_to": "15299__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_047", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, I was back on the Judicial Council, Your Honor.\nI don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1062.299, 1065.992], "stop_times": [1065.992, 1066.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.299}, "reply_to": "15299__0_046", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_048", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What is the specific judicial power which has been vested in those terms in the Judicial Council to which you were referring?\nThe council now as (Voice overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1066.724, 1075.881], "stop_times": [1075.881, 1076.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.724}, "reply_to": "15299__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_049", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes sir, the Council -- the Council by statue of Congress is given the authority when the district judges cannot agree upon the removal of the referee in bankruptcy, to remove the referee in bankruptcy of their Court upon a hearing, and this is provided by Congress.\nSo it shows that in this one statute that the Congress does believe that a Judicial Council can't act with the judicial powers that the judges have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1076.982, 1094.705], "stop_times": [1094.705, 1107.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.982}, "reply_to": "15299__0_048", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_050", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Where is that in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1107.336], "stop_times": [1109.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.336}, "reply_to": "15299__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_051", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1109.388], "stop_times": [1111.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.388}, "reply_to": "15299__0_050", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_052", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Is that cited in your brief, that Section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1111.711], "stop_times": [1114.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.711}, "reply_to": "15299__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_053", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, that is cited in Mr. Wright's brief, the Section -- the statute -- I don't recall a particular statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1114.828], "stop_times": [1124.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.828}, "reply_to": "15299__0_052", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_054", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1124.108], "stop_times": [1124.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.108}, "reply_to": "15299__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_055", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- at this instant, but it is cited in there.\nIt's a footnote in the Solicitor General's brief.\nYour Honor, the question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1124.933, 1128.871, 1133.205], "stop_times": [1128.871, 1133.205, 1135.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.933}, "reply_to": "15299__0_054", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_056", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What makes that a judicial function, the removal of an officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1135.643], "stop_times": [1140.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.643}, "reply_to": "15299__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_057", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Removal of a bankruptcy -- of the referee in bankruptcy?\nWell, Your Honor, this referee in bankruptcy is acting over cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1140.698, 1145.795], "stop_times": [1145.795, 1150.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.698}, "reply_to": "15299__0_056", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_058", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I know, but it is removal, why is that a judicial function necessarily?\nI suppose the President has the power to remove from office various members of the Executive Branch?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1150.571, 1154.48], "stop_times": [1154.48, 1161.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.571}, "reply_to": "15299__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_059", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, but those are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1161.402], "stop_times": [1162.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.402}, "reply_to": "15299__0_058", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_060", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "[Inaudible] and when he does that, he's performing a judicial function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1162.549], "stop_times": [1165.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.549}, "reply_to": "15299__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_061", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, sir.\nHe's performing an executive function when he does that because these lesser officers are exercising part of the executive powers given to the President.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1165.16, 1165.579], "stop_times": [1165.579, 1174.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.16}, "reply_to": "15299__0_060", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_062", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you think when a judge, a District Judge removes a -- removes a probation officer, he's exercising a judicial function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1174.559], "stop_times": [1184.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.559}, "reply_to": "15299__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_063", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "If the judicial officer is able to employ discretion in the performance of his duties, which discretion you would ordinarily think are those of a judge, then I would say that judicial power is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1184.667], "stop_times": [1197.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1184.667}, "reply_to": "15299__0_062", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_064", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What about his law clerk, if he dismisses a law clerk or a secretary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1197.042], "stop_times": [1200.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.042}, "reply_to": "15299__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_065", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No sir, I wouldn't think so.\nThere, I think that's an administrative assistance to the judge.\nHe has full power to remove his law clerk --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1200.51, 1201.722, 1206.889], "stop_times": [1201.722, 1206.889, 1209.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.51}, "reply_to": "15299__0_064", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_066", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "How does a referee in bankruptcy get his position in the first place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1209.28], "stop_times": [1214.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.28}, "reply_to": "15299__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_067", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "By the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1214.361], "stop_times": [1215.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.361}, "reply_to": "15299__0_066", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_068", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Is that a judicial act when the court appoints him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1215.586], "stop_times": [1218.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.586}, "reply_to": "15299__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_069", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI think it is.\nI think that the court is appointing an officer to perform certain judicial functions.\nI think the referee performs judicial functions.\nI think it's a very high honor for -- for a lawyer to be appointed to this.\nIt certainly is in assistance of the judges of the court in their carrying out their judicial functions and I think that when a Judicial Council acts to remove from a judge all of his power to hear and decide cases that now, we have the strongest possible instance when someone is exercising judicial power.\nYour Honor, the main thing is the -- is this Section 332 which set up Judicial Councils and what it means.\nAnd I want to direct this Court's attention to I think the most significant part of this case, and that is, what is the meaning of Section 332 and it is our contention that in 1948 when there was a revision of the Judicial Code that there were important changes made that slipped by the Congress in such a manner that congressional intent could not have been involved and that these changes cannot be the law.\nThe Committee Report in 1948 stated, and it was only eight pages long with a big appendix to -- of the reviser's notes.\nThe Committee Report said, \u201cThe reviser's notes are akin to the sections of the revision and explain in detail every change made in the past.\u201d\nNow, that's the notice given to the Congress.\nThe reviser's notes on Section 332 said, \u201cChanges in phraseology were made,\u201d there were two other remarks, but they don't bear upon this case.\nWell, Your Honor, if you will compare the 1939 statute, which was the original one, and the 1948 statute, and I have these two statutes laid out side by side on page 13 of my brief.\nI think that you can see what violence was done to the 1939 statute.\nNow, the 1939 statute has cohesion and builds logically from first, the calling of council meetings to second, the submission to the meetings of the administrator of the U.S. Court Reports, next, to the taking of action thereon by the council, and finally, notice to the district judges of their duty to promptly carry out the directions of the Council as to the administration of business of their courts.\nYour Honors, in the 1948 revised version, there's been a lot said about the fact that the word \u201corder\u201d was substituted for the word \u201cdirections,\u201d that that's not the principal change that was made.\nThe principal change made is that in the 1948 Act, the Judicial Council was given two sources of authority.\nIn the 1939 Act, it was given a single source of authority.\nThe 1948 Act in the third paragraph, continues as the 1939 Act did, talks about the quarterly reports of the administrator of the Courts and then says, \u201cThe Council shall take such action thereon as may be necessary.\u201d\nThere is a source of power for Judicial Councils.\nThen it breaks a paragraph and it commences with the final paragraph, and it commences with a second source of power, which the 1939 Act didn't have.\nIt says, \u201cEach Judicial Council shall make all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the Courts within its circuit.\u201d\nIt's got two statements of authority; the 1939 Act had one and now, the sentence about the judges carrying into effect that directions or orders, I don't care what you call it, this Section is put at the bottom after the second source of power of Judicial Councils.\nNow, there's been a lot said about the powers of Judicial Councils being just about plenary, and I can see why because when this 1948 revision was made, there was slipped into this statute in the revis -- in the revising process, two sources of power for Judicial Councils, and that was not the intent in the 1939 Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1218.0, 1218.428, 1219.184, 1227.466, 1231.287, 1237.079, 1263.669, 1272.381, 1305.488, 1312.566, 1322.646, 1324.989, 1336.535, 1351.761, 1358.581, 1387.262, 1402.128, 1411.853, 1416.995, 1431.847, 1434.929, 1443.691, 1454.977, 1475.432], "stop_times": [1218.428, 1219.184, 1227.466, 1231.287, 1237.079, 1263.669, 1272.381, 1305.488, 1312.566, 1322.646, 1324.989, 1336.535, 1351.761, 1358.581, 1387.262, 1402.128, 1411.853, 1416.995, 1431.847, 1434.929, 1443.691, 1454.977, 1475.432, 1497.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1218.0}, "reply_to": "15299__0_068", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_070", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, do you recall the details of how that sent -- last sentence happened to get in there in the legislative history?\nI don't know whether you've covered that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1497.113, 1503.948], "stop_times": [1503.948, 1505.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.113}, "reply_to": "15299__0_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_071", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, sir, it was a very complicated and extended procedure.\nThe actual revising of the code; the bar was involved, the judges were involved, the justices were involved, law professors were involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1505.581, 1511.001], "stop_times": [1511.001, 1521.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.581}, "reply_to": "15299__0_070", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_072", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I was speaking of the specific sentence.\nWas that, my recollection may be faulty, but my recollection of the legislative history is that the time of the matter was before the Committee of the Judiciary of the Senate, some senators raised the question that this statute, proposed Section 332, had no teeth in it, had no teeth.\nAnd either a senator or a staff member, someone then reached into the 1939 Act and added this modification, which is the last sentence of the 1948 Amendment.\nDo you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1521.099, 1522.945, 1546.76, 1564.297], "stop_times": [1522.945, 1546.76, 1564.297, 1564.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.099}, "reply_to": "15299__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_073", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, my memory may be faulty ,but with all due respect, I do not believe you are correct.\nThe change that was made was made in the House in the 1948 revision, this was a House Bill.\nThe particular statement you're referring to about the Act has not teeth in it occurred in hearings before the Senate in the 1939 enactment.\nIn 1948, the Act originated in the House, was placed on the consent calendar of the House whereby it goes through automatically because the Committee Report says there really aren't any substantive changes made in the old law, and Congressmen are given this very slight notice of this Act is intended to change law and the appendix even said in the House Report that the law wasn't changed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1564.757, 1572.411, 1580.797, 1591.411], "stop_times": [1572.411, 1580.797, 1591.411, 1615.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.757}, "reply_to": "15299__0_072", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_074", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, whether it's in the 1939, even though this occurred in the 1939 setting or the 1948 setting, it was in the setting of members of the Senate who have thought the statute had to be strengthened to give bigger authority to the Council.\nIs that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1615.632, 1630.124], "stop_times": [1630.124, 1631.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.632}, "reply_to": "15299__0_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_075", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, I don't know if that was the intention of their questioning.\nThey did ask the question and I don't recall whether it was Chief Justice Groner or someone who -- I don't believe it was him as a matter of fact -- said in their opinion, there were sufficient teeth because if the Judicial Council made a direction that it would be carried out quite naturally and that no further words were needed.\nI believe that that is the desolation of the 1939 discussion about were teeth needed.\nI think that people may have been concerned at the time whether or not they could put additional teeth in there if it came to a point of taking a judge's cases away from him.\nWell, sir, Your Honor, the -- I think the history of the 1939 Act really is a history which shows that what was really intended to be done in 1939 was to set up an administrative procedure for the Courts to take away from the Attorney General the necessity of attending to these details.\nThey provided the administrator of the U.S. Court, a new office and they tied to the Judicial Council the preparation of these -- this data gathering and statistics compiling reports of the administrator of the courts and submitting these to the Councils and the Councils acting thereon, and then issuing directions to the judges who shall carry out the directions, in the words of the statute, as to the administration of the business of their respective courts.\nI contend that the 1948 revision, because of the Committee Report, which is the true legislative history of any enactment, because of the reviser's notes, the changes in phraseology were made; that's all.\nI contend the original intention of 1939 controlled and that the two sources of authority for Judicial Councils to act now don't really change what the law is because that wasn't the intention of Congress, Congress didn't intend to change the law.\nYour Honor, I notice that the Judicial Conference in 1961 issued a report entitled \u201cThe Powers and Responsibilities of the Judicial Councils.\u201d\nThis was a very elaborate document.\nSomeone got Chairman Celler to print it as a House document, and it's a fine and elaborate defense of the Judicial Councils.\nIn fact, it even appears to me as its an attempt to take care of any weaknesses in the authority of Judicial Councils.\nThis report immediately focuses on the Ninth -- the first thing it does is talk about the 1948 revision and particularly, the change of word of \u201cdirections\u201d to \u201corders.\u201d\nNow, that's strengthening word but that isn't a significant thing.\nNevertheless, the Judicial Conference says, \u201cThe changes are one of form and emphasis rather than substance.\u201d\nNo change in substance has occurred.\nThat was the conclusion of the Judicial Conference in 1961.\nIt's important that that document makes no mention of the fact that the 1948 statute carries two sources of powers for the Judicial Council whereby the 1939 Act only carried one.\nI submit the -- there's been no change in the -- any intention of Congress.\nYour Honor, I think that -- I think that there's another issue involved in this case, and that is that taking all the cases from a judge, all the cases, is tantamount to impeachment and I think there's a very serious question here.\nThe Constitution gave the impeachment powers to the House and to the Senate.\nThe Senate shall have the sole power to impeach this -- I mean the House -- the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.\nI think the history of the Constitution shows that there was no intention to provide any other means for removing a federal judge from the bench.\nFederal judges were given their offices during good behavior and yet the federalist in its number 78 and 79, devotes itself to proving how important judicial independence is to the rights and liberties of the people, and how the Constitution secures that.\nIt talks about then about the impeachment powers of the House and Senate and says, \u201cThis is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial carrier.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1631.533, 1634.655, 1657.078, 1664.973, 1677.598, 1697.483, 1728.461, 1742.62, 1762.855, 1773.065, 1775.669, 1782.668, 1790.648, 1801.842, 1805.558, 1813.939, 1817.464, 1821.573, 1836.323, 1842.735, 1862.194, 1867.962, 1876.833, 1888.266, 1905.842], "stop_times": [1634.655, 1657.078, 1664.973, 1677.598, 1697.483, 1728.461, 1742.62, 1762.855, 1773.065, 1775.669, 1782.668, 1790.648, 1801.842, 1805.558, 1813.939, 1817.464, 1821.573, 1836.323, 1842.735, 1862.194, 1867.962, 1876.833, 1888.266, 1905.842, 1916.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.533}, "reply_to": "15299__0_074", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_076", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Now, that -- your argument is made upon the premise that Judicial Council has taken all the cases away from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1916.893], "stop_times": [1927.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.893}, "reply_to": "15299__0_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_077", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "They did initially, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1927.333], "stop_times": [1928.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1927.333}, "reply_to": "15299__0_076", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_078", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, they did initially, but that was superseded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1928.457], "stop_times": [1931.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1928.457}, "reply_to": "15299__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_079", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1931.39], "stop_times": [1932.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1931.39}, "reply_to": "15299__0_078", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_080", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, am I incorrect in my understanding of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1932.023], "stop_times": [1936.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.023}, "reply_to": "15299__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_081", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "They did supersede it, but then they kept him from hearing any cases later filed in his Court and furthermore, they pressured him into all of this, Your Honor, that they've been acting against him ever since the first of (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1936.093], "stop_times": [1950.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1936.093}, "reply_to": "15299__0_080", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_082", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I understand your argument, all those arguments, but am I incorrect in my understanding that their action taking all the cases away from him was superseded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1950.298], "stop_times": [1961.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.298}, "reply_to": "15299__0_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_083", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1961.812], "stop_times": [1963.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1961.812}, "reply_to": "15299__0_082", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_084", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm incorrect in that, am I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1963.135], "stop_times": [1964.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.135}, "reply_to": "15299__0_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_085", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir -- you are correct, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1964.752], "stop_times": [1966.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1964.752}, "reply_to": "15299__0_084", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_086", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm right in that understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1966.93], "stop_times": [1968.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.93}, "reply_to": "15299__0_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_087", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1968.089], "stop_times": [1969.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1968.089}, "reply_to": "15299__0_086", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_088", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "So then, any argument based upon the premise that there's an outstanding order taking all the cases away from him is based upon incorrect premise, am I correct, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1969.112], "stop_times": [1980.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.112}, "reply_to": "15299__0_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_089", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, the order has been superseded because of the continuation of the Council to act and because of the importance to the judiciary of whether they can do this.\nSince the Judicial Council merely only has to supersede any order when challenged, we think that it is within the discretion of this Court to issue mandamus to the Judicial Council, to order them not to do this anymore and to cease any vestiges of its action against Judge Chandler otherwise, this question can never be litigated, so it meant some importance to the judiciary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [1980.414, 1990.495], "stop_times": [1990.495, 2009.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1980.414}, "reply_to": "15299__0_088", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_090", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Now, we come to Mr. Justice Stewart's question, what is the exact situation of Judge Chandler now?\nIs he being assigned cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2009.944, 2014.697], "stop_times": [2014.697, 2016.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.944}, "reply_to": "15299__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__0_091", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "His exact situation, Your Honor, is that he has the remnants of four or five cases that had been assigned to him before this matter arose, that he has the remnants of those still in his office.\nHe has heard the rest of the cases that had been assigned to him.\nHe and the other judges of his Court have agreed that no further cases will be assigned to him under the circumstances of this matter being before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2016.898, 2032.395, 2035.659], "stop_times": [2032.395, 2035.659, 2047.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2016.898}, "reply_to": "15299__0_090", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_092", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But that's backed up by an order of the Judicial Council because the time he agreed to that, he disagreed with the reassignment of cases that he already had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2047.111], "stop_times": [2061.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.111}, "reply_to": "15299__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_093", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "He disagreed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2061.685], "stop_times": [2062.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2061.685}, "reply_to": "15299__0_092", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_094", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And the Judicial Council then entered an order, didn't it, saying that he can keep his old cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2062.333], "stop_times": [2069.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.333}, "reply_to": "15299__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_095", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2069.849], "stop_times": [2070.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2069.849}, "reply_to": "15299__0_094", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_096", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But that he can't have any new ones?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2070.206], "stop_times": [2072.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.206}, "reply_to": "15299__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_097", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2072.877], "stop_times": [2073.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2072.877}, "reply_to": "15299__0_096", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_098", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, is that order still outstanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2073.704], "stop_times": [2075.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.704}, "reply_to": "15299__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_099", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That order was in effect until several months ago when the Judicial Council advised the members -- the other judges of Judge Chandler's Court and him that if they wish to enter into a new order for the division of business, they might do so.\nThe judges considered it and stated that under the circumstances, they will allow the existing order to continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2075.59, 2090.079], "stop_times": [2090.079, 2098.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2075.59}, "reply_to": "15299__0_098", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_100", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, let's assume that Judge Chandler said, \u201cI want to be assigned my full quota of the cases\u201d and the other two judges disagreed and said the present division should continue, then there would be a disagreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2098.972], "stop_times": [2117.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.972}, "reply_to": "15299__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_101", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2117.512], "stop_times": [2117.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2117.512}, "reply_to": "15299__0_100", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_102", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And let's assume then that the Council, the Judicial Council entered an order, saying no new cases.\nWould you say that was beyond their power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2117.705, 2127.351], "stop_times": [2127.351, 2130.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.705}, "reply_to": "15299__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_103", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "For him to -- yes sir, I would it was beyond their power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2130.768], "stop_times": [2132.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2130.768}, "reply_to": "15299__0_102", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_104", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "On the same grounds that you're using now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2132.515], "stop_times": [2135.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.515}, "reply_to": "15299__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_105", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I don't believe that the Judicial Council can -- cannot -- can make such an order as to take away all the cases of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2135.524], "stop_times": [2144.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2135.524}, "reply_to": "15299__0_104", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_106", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, it purported to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2144.038], "stop_times": [2145.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.038}, "reply_to": "15299__0_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_107", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It purported to, yes sir, and we challenge that decision before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2145.529], "stop_times": [2149.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2145.529}, "reply_to": "15299__0_106", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_108", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I don't know why you -- I don't know why you think the -- you think you have to argue about the old order when there's a -- when the superseded order -- I mean the order superseding the old order is in accordance with your approach just to suspect as the old one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2149.164], "stop_times": [2168.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.164}, "reply_to": "15299__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_109", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Oh!\nI certainly do, Your Honor.\nJudge -- the -- any disagreement in Judge Chandler's Court was forced upon the judges by the Judicial Council.\nThey questioned his fit -- they came before this Court and said, \u201cWell, we might have to act under 372 (b).\nHe may be mentally disabled\u201d and yet, they turned right around thereafter and say, \u201cWell, it's alright for him to hear all the cases assigned to him.\u201d\nThis whole thing, there is one cohesive thing.\nThis has been a struggle between the Judicial Council and Judge Chandler, and has continued down to this moment.\nAnd when the Judicial Council offered to the members of Judge Chandler's Court the ability finally to enter into a new order dividing the business of their Court without interference of the Judicial Council, the judges of this Court said, \u201cUnder the circumstances, the present order will stand.\u201d\nThe present order still stands, but is agreeable to the members of his Court under the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2168.777, 2168.88, 2171.206, 2179.805, 2186.52, 2196.854, 2200.099, 2206.516, 2223.436], "stop_times": [2168.88, 2171.206, 2179.805, 2186.52, 2196.854, 2200.099, 2206.516, 2223.436, 2229.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2168.777}, "reply_to": "15299__0_108", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_110", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Now, is it your contention that what you call the present order, which was promulgated under Section 137, is not authorized by Section 137, or is it your position that if authorized by 137, then Section 137 is unconstitutional as applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2229.888], "stop_times": [2249.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.888}, "reply_to": "15299__0_109", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_111", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It is not my contention that Section 137 is unconstitutional.\nI think it's quite constitutional, Your Honor.\nI do believe, however, that the congressional intent behind 137 was that the Judicial Council can divide the cases of a District Court in the event of a genuine disagreement of the judges of that Court as to the manner of dividing the cases.\nThis is not a genuine disagreement, this is one that the Judicial Council created.\nIt created the disagreement.\nI don't think that that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2249.766, 2253.266, 2255.631, 2272.579, 2277.83, 2279.072], "stop_times": [2253.266, 2255.631, 2272.579, 2277.83, 2279.072, 2279.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2249.766}, "reply_to": "15299__0_110", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_112", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, let's assume -- let's assume a genuine -- a genuine disagreement among the District Judges.\nWould you agree or disagree with the power of the Judicial Council to make such an order as was made here, that is that no new cases shall be assigned to Judge A and all new cases shall be assigned and divided among Judges B, C, and D?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2279.972, 2287.051], "stop_times": [2287.051, 2303.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.972}, "reply_to": "15299__0_111", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_113", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I would agree, Your Honor that's perfectly fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2303.058], "stop_times": [2305.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2303.058}, "reply_to": "15299__0_112", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_114", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "If Section 137 does authorize --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2305.063], "stop_times": [2306.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.063}, "reply_to": "15299__0_113", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_115", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2306.7], "stop_times": [2307.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2306.7}, "reply_to": "15299__0_114", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_116", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- the Council will do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2307.29], "stop_times": [2308.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.29}, "reply_to": "15299__0_115", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_117", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2308.637], "stop_times": [2308.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2308.637}, "reply_to": "15299__0_116", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_118", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And that that's a constitutional power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2308.923], "stop_times": [2311.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.923}, "reply_to": "15299__0_117", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_119", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2311.095, 2311.752], "stop_times": [2311.752, 2312.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2311.095}, "reply_to": "15299__0_118", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_120", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you say that \u2013 I thought awhile ago, you said that the Judicial Council could not have ordered saying that a judge could not have any new cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2312.328], "stop_times": [2325.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.328}, "reply_to": "15299__0_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_121", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, I said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2325.771], "stop_times": [2326.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2325.771}, "reply_to": "15299__0_120", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_122", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That would be a -- and you say that one -- and you say that Section 137 did not authorize what the Judicial Council did in this case by saying no to new cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2326.421], "stop_times": [2336.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.421}, "reply_to": "15299__0_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_123", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2336.952], "stop_times": [2339.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2336.952}, "reply_to": "15299__0_122", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_124", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You assume that 137 does authorize the second order of the Council, I assume that you would say it's unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2339.325], "stop_times": [2351.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.325}, "reply_to": "15299__0_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_125", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, the Section 137 certainly superficially authorizes the second order of the Judicial Council because the judges were disagreeing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2351.539], "stop_times": [2362.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2351.539}, "reply_to": "15299__0_124", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_126", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Alright, assume that it does.\nIs it constitutional or the -- the two District Judges say who declared, \u201cWe don't like the way you're deciding cases.\nWe don't think you ought any more to be assigned the cases\u201d and then, the third judge says, \u201cWell, I think I ought to have my quota of the cases.\u201d\nThen, it goes to the Council and the Council says, \u201cWell, you can't have any more cases.\nWe'll bring you to a new case.\u201d\nNow, assuming 137 authorizes that, you nevertheless say its constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2362.999, 2364.95, 2376.326, 2384.997, 2390.099, 2392.729], "stop_times": [2364.95, 2376.326, 2384.997, 2390.099, 2392.729, 2398.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.999}, "reply_to": "15299__0_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_127", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, I would say -- I would say, Your Honor, that that's alright.\nThat's the type of disagreement that the -- that Section 137 is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2398.762, 2401.329], "stop_times": [2401.329, 2404.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2398.762}, "reply_to": "15299__0_126", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_128", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I know, I know, but what about the constitutionality of Section 137 if so construed --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2404.865], "stop_times": [2413.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.865}, "reply_to": "15299__0_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_129", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You mean with respect to the Judicial Council removing the ability of a judge to hear any cases thereafter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2413.436], "stop_times": [2421.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2413.436}, "reply_to": "15299__0_128", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_130", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, as soon as he heard had lot of cases he isn't going to be hearing them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2421.245], "stop_times": [2425.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.245}, "reply_to": "15299__0_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__0_131", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Then they removed from his office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2425.862], "stop_times": [2427.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2425.862}, "reply_to": "15299__0_130", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_132", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, that -- when that point's raised -- reached, you might have a different case, but that point has not yet been reached in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2427.572], "stop_times": [2433.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.572}, "reply_to": "15299__0_131", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_133", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, effectively --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2433.411], "stop_times": [2433.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2433.411}, "reply_to": "15299__0_132", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_134", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2433.753], "stop_times": [2435.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.753}, "reply_to": "15299__0_133", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_135", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "He just has the remnants of a few cases around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2435.334], "stop_times": [2437.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2435.334}, "reply_to": "15299__0_134", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_136", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2437.664], "stop_times": [2441.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.664}, "reply_to": "15299__0_135", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_137", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I -- I want to understand what you are saying.\nAre you saying that the Judicial Council has constitutional authority to tell a federal District Judge appointed for life that he can't try any more cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2441.137, 2444.251], "stop_times": [2444.251, 2457.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.137}, "reply_to": "15299__0_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_138", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, that is just exactly what I am saying the Judicial Council cannot do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2457.996], "stop_times": [2462.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2457.996}, "reply_to": "15299__0_137", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_139", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Under the Constitution, not under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2462.607], "stop_times": [2465.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.607}, "reply_to": "15299__0_138", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_140", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "First of all, the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2465.549], "stop_times": [2466.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2465.549}, "reply_to": "15299__0_139", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_141", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm talking about, do you say that they can do that under the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2466.496], "stop_times": [2470.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2466.496}, "reply_to": "15299__0_140", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_142", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, sir, they cannot do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2470.469], "stop_times": [2471.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2470.469}, "reply_to": "15299__0_141", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_143", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2471.413], "stop_times": [2473.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.413}, "reply_to": "15299__0_142", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_144", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Because it -- is tantamount to impeachment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2473.098], "stop_times": [2479.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2473.098}, "reply_to": "15299__0_143", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_145", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Let's back that up a little bit, Mr. Kenan.\nSuppose you have a judge who has not decided any of his cases for five years and he's holding these cases, and this is an extreme case.\nNow, I'm suggesting this hypothesis and not your case here.\nFive years has gone by and he hasn't decided any of his cases, and the litigants are clamoring for action and the Council -- the other judges then on division, first under Section 137 decide that he gets no more new cases until he gets his old business taken cared of.\nNow, I understood your responses previously were, that that is a lawful power vested in the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2479.123, 2483.763, 2492.953, 2499.588, 2521.2], "stop_times": [2483.763, 2492.953, 2499.588, 2521.2, 2528.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.123}, "reply_to": "15299__0_144", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_146", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2528.552], "stop_times": [2529.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2528.552}, "reply_to": "15299__0_145", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_147", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And you -- do you suggest that's a judicial power or an administrative power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2529.094], "stop_times": [2534.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.094}, "reply_to": "15299__0_146", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_148", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I suggest that is a judicial power, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2534.007], "stop_times": [2537.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2534.007}, "reply_to": "15299__0_147", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_149", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But they can do it under the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2537.244], "stop_times": [2538.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.244}, "reply_to": "15299__0_148", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_150", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir, yes, sir.\nI think that what is -- what is involved there is -- is a legitimate determination that a judge is overworked under the circumstances.\nHe has a crowded docket and he should refrain temporarily in taking on new cases, but there, we have the facts supporting that, Your Honor.\nIn a case at bar, I contend we don't have the facts supporting it and without the factual basis for it, then that makes the difference between constitutionality and unconstitutionality.\nYour hypothetical is quite constitutional until the judge catches up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2538.398, 2540.631, 2550.627, 2559.62, 2570.657], "stop_times": [2540.631, 2550.627, 2559.62, 2570.657, 2574.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2538.398}, "reply_to": "15299__0_149", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_151", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I had rather thought that the judicial duty of a judge was to try lots of cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2574.038], "stop_times": [2579.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.038}, "reply_to": "15299__0_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_152", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2579.808], "stop_times": [2581.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2579.808}, "reply_to": "15299__0_151", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_153", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "So where he's in a trial of a lawsuit, in that administrative action that you were talking about, which you call judicial and which I would call administrative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2581.148], "stop_times": [2595.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.148}, "reply_to": "15299__0_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_154", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I just believe that -- that taking cases away from a judge is a judicial action.\nIt certainly is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2595.707, 2604.017], "stop_times": [2604.017, 2604.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2595.707}, "reply_to": "15299__0_153", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_155", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Why is it a judicial action?\nAre they trying the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2604.599, 2606.108], "stop_times": [2606.108, 2611.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.599}, "reply_to": "15299__0_154", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_156", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I don't know.\nTo tell you the truth --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2611.382, 2612.507], "stop_times": [2612.507, 2613.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2611.382}, "reply_to": "15299__0_155", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_157", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, we know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2613.14], "stop_times": [2613.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.14}, "reply_to": "15299__0_156", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_158", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- we may be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2613.405], "stop_times": [2613.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2613.405}, "reply_to": "15299__0_157", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_159", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- they're not trying the case loads, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2613.82], "stop_times": [2615.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.82}, "reply_to": "15299__0_158", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_160", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, it -- it may be we should draw a fine line here, that with respect to future cases, it's an administrative decision because the judge's powers have not yet been invoked.\nBut with respect to cases already assigned to the judge that are moving through the judicial process upon which hearings have been held, matters are ready for final determination, then they pluck a case away from a judge involves the judicial process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2615.696, 2627.148], "stop_times": [2627.148, 2642.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2615.696}, "reply_to": "15299__0_159", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_161", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Does it involve -- does it meet the standards of case or controversy under the Constitution, this action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2642.61], "stop_times": [2649.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.61}, "reply_to": "15299__0_160", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__0_162", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2649.719], "stop_times": [2651.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2649.719}, "reply_to": "15299__0_161", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_163", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "How does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2651.745], "stop_times": [2653.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.745}, "reply_to": "15299__0_162", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_164", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Judge Chandler is contesting the right of the Judicial Council to deny him the right to participate in the judicial process.\nHe had over a hundred cases already assigned to him, some were moving towards final judgment.\nHe was ordered to retire from those cases.\nThe appellate powers of the Court were involved, and Judge Chandler has contested the right of this body to take him out of those cases.\nThere is your controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2653.028, 2661.601, 2666.987, 2669.387, 2678.826], "stop_times": [2661.601, 2666.987, 2669.387, 2678.826, 2681.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2653.028}, "reply_to": "15299__0_163", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_165", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you concede, Mr. Kenan, that if this was administrative action rather than judicial action by the Judicial Council of the circuit that this Court is entirely without jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2681.028], "stop_times": [2697.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.028}, "reply_to": "15299__0_164", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__0_166", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Your Honor, I will concede that, but I want to make a careful point here.\nIn my opinion, the Congress intended to give to the Judicial Councils in this type of matter only administrative powers.\nI believe that the Judicial Council, which also has some judicial powers, exceeded its powers and assumed judicial powers.\nIt is a court and I believe that it should be confined to the proper exercise of its powers --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2697.013, 2703.042, 2712.143, 2720.193], "stop_times": [2703.042, 2712.143, 2720.193, 2726.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2697.013}, "reply_to": "15299__0_165", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_167", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2726.473], "stop_times": [2726.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.473}, "reply_to": "15299__0_166", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_168", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- but it was exercised --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2726.819], "stop_times": [2727.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2726.819}, "reply_to": "15299__0_167", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_169", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What did you say, is a court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2727.326], "stop_times": [2730.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.326}, "reply_to": "15299__0_168", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_170", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It -- the members of the Council are members of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2730.07], "stop_times": [2733.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2730.07}, "reply_to": "15299__0_169", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_171", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The members of the Council are judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2733.188], "stop_times": [2734.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.188}, "reply_to": "15299__0_170", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_172", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir, that's what I mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2734.969], "stop_times": [2735.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2734.969}, "reply_to": "15299__0_171", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_173", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you say that the members are, as a group, constitute a court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2735.921], "stop_times": [2741.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.921}, "reply_to": "15299__0_172", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__0_174", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, sir.\nNo, sir, I didn't.\nI didn't mean to imply that, Your Honor.\nI said that members of the Council are members of a Court and when they act with the full cloak of their office around them, sign their orders, Circuit Judge, file them in the Court records, get marshals to serve them, remove a judge from cases, they're acting as judges.\nThey're involved in the judicial process.\nThey should be confined to the rightful exercise of their -- of their duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2741.003, 2741.349, 2742.273, 2744.917, 2764.58, 2767.45], "stop_times": [2741.349, 2742.273, 2744.917, 2764.58, 2767.45, 2781.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2741.003}, "reply_to": "15299__0_173", "speaker": "thomas_j_kenan"}
{"id": "15299__0_175", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Mr. Shipley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2781.503], "stop_times": [2782.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.503}, "reply_to": "15299__0_174", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_000", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.\nIn view of the lineup in which presentations will be made in our time situation, I would like to anticipate some of the argument that the Solicitor General has included in his brief and some of the arguments which are presented by Professor Wright in his brief in this case.\nI think that in considering the matter, the Court necessarily must bear in mind the long history involving good behavior and the impeachment Sections of the Federal Constitution and major Section 332 of the statute and the action of the Judicial Council in this specific case against that long history.\nA part of these two briefs to which I refer address themselves to that problem, to the history and we all know that from the time that John Randolph in 1787 made his original resolutions respecting a national judiciary in the Continental Congress.\nAnd when Mr. Dickinson moved that the good behavior provision should be modified to follow the British pattern that where a -- and address by the Congress and the Senate to the President might result in the removal of a federal judge, that this was rejected in favor of the independence of the Federal Judiciary.\nWe'd recall that Thomas Jefferson of course strongly supported the idea of total independence, except for impeachment and then, a few years later, we find that he was criticizing the impeachment procedures as not being adequate.\nAnd against that background, we have to look at what's happened in this specific case.\nIt can only be characterized as outrageous.\nThere is a chief judge at federal district court who served with honor, with honesty, with efficiency for 26 years, who's been chief judge for 8 years.\nWe know from public documents that are a matter of public record in which in our brief, we've asked this Court to take judicial notice of and which it properly can take judicial notice of -- and which it should take judicial notice of that there's been a long friction in terms of jurisdiction between what the Tenth Judicial Circuit thought it could do honestly, I suppose, in terms of Section 332 and Section 137, Section 372, perhaps Section 371 of Title 28.\nAnd this -- a friction has manifested itself ultimately in the final order of the Judicial Council which was not its first order against this judge.\nIn the Solicitor General's brief, there are references to the Occidental Petroleum case and to the Texaco case that referred to the Judicial Council's order, not by name, but simply saying that the judge has been involved in criminal and civil litigation which has had some impact that speak of his attitude and his conduct and the efficiency of the Court without any factual showing as to how these relate in any manner to the difficulties any federal judge has over many years in dealing with complicated cases and complicated litigants.\nThe first question which concerns me against this historical background is the -- the threshold question, as the Solicitor General calls it, of whether this Court has jurisdiction, and which some of the justices have raised.\nOur position is that the Court does have jurisdiction under Section 1651 of Title 28, that being the All Writs Act, which incorporates as we understand it and as we understand, the Solicitor General understands it.\nIt incorporates the old Sections 13 and 14 of the original Judiciary Act of 1789.\nAnd although Judge McGruder and I guess the Josephson case perhaps it suggested that there had been some change by reason of the revision of these older sections into the present Section 1651, the All Writs Act.\nWe agree with the Solicitor General that this Court has jurisdiction by reason of that Act.\nA second point I think I would touch on briefly is that in our brief, we suggested that the Court had inherent power.\nAnd we also mentioned that it would have power under the due process proceed -- provisions of the Constitution to deal with the matter of this extraordinary significance, in this context, in this historical context, and in -- and then the practical immediate context because here, these are live judges operating a very important circuit of where we've had a long running situation that's resulted in an interference by somebody with the operation of that Court.\nOur position is the Tenth Judicial Council has unconstitutionally not impeached the judge and removed the judge from the office, but they've removed the office from the judge in a kind of reverse English procedure which certainly Congress could not possibly have intended because it would be unconstitutional in our judgment on the face.\nThe provisions of the Federal Constitution relating to this matter are so explicit in setting up a special court in the Senate that requires a two-thirds vote where everybody's on oath and it names who the chief justice and providing officers shall be, and exactly what the procedure shall be in the judicial proceeding to convict somebody.\nAnd all of these things we think come within the type of problem, which is contemplated, can be reached under Section 1651 under the extraordinary writs.\nThese are the kind of extraordinary circumstances, the actual Judicial Council here that -- that energize and bring the Section 1651 into play.\nNow, the inherent powers, we didn't just make up the term.\nThis Tenth Judicial Council and at least three of the cases cited in Solicitor General's brief, and I say the Solicitor General's brief does not touch on this.\nIt makes reference to the fact they never heard of this Court suggesting it had inherent powers.\nBut in the Ritter case cited in the Solicitor General's brief and the Texaco Case and the Occidental Petroleum Case, all three, the court there the Tenth Circuit said, \u201cWe're exercising our power under Section 1651 or our inherent appellate jurisdiction.\u201d\nThey didn't care which, and they specifically stated it in all three cases, and that's how they acted to -- to issue extraordinary writs against Judge Chandler in these specific cases, which lie at the base of the existing order which we challenge.\nNow, the second problem that seems to me that we're concerned with is the Solicitor General, and putting aside Professor Wright's position, that this Court has no jurisdiction, we follow the Solicitor General on that.\nWe think it does, for the reasons he addresses himself to and the reasons I have set forth.\nThe second problem is whether or not, and as I understand the Solicitor General's brief, he says, \u201cEither the case is moot or Judge Chandler is estopped from being here because he has agreed to the present division of business in his Court.\u201d\nOn the question of agreement, we have cited in our brief that this was a kind of a -- this was not the kind of a -- of an agreement that can lead to estoppel, just as it was not the kind of disagreement that would energize Section 137 of Title 28, that is the -- it would energize or activate the statutory authority whereby the Tenth Judicial Council could divide the business of the Court.\nAnd on that point, let me say I would not agree that an exercise of Section 137 so extreme that it deprived the judge of all his cases was a constitutional exercise of that authority.\nI think 137 has to be measured against what they're trying to do, and it cannot be used to deprive a judge of his office any more than Section 332 can.\nIt can be used when it's activated properly by a genuine and bona fide disagreement to divide the business of the Court so we can get on with the judicial business of the nation.\nNow, with respect to whether or not that first order, the order we challenge, was moot, I simply call the Court's attention to the Grant case we cite and to this Court's more recent case in the American Phosphate Exporters case, which was decided last November which addresses itself to this problem of mootness and I just have a -- just a word --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [2782.737, 2788.792, 2809.025, 2836.018, 2851.101, 2872.802, 2886.445, 2892.922, 2895.254, 2907.423, 2940.645, 2953.748, 2987.996, 3001.586, 3017.695, 3026.095, 3039.638, 3046.889, 3054.439, 3080.609, 3099.836, 3117.253, 3128.38, 3137.342, 3141.686, 3148.86, 3154.506, 3169.53, 3187.769, 3198.593, 3204.167, 3220.483, 3244.464, 3256.943, 3266.683, 3276.949], "stop_times": [2788.792, 2809.025, 2836.018, 2851.101, 2872.802, 2886.445, 2892.922, 2895.254, 2907.423, 2940.645, 2953.748, 2987.996, 3001.586, 3017.695, 3026.095, 3039.638, 3046.889, 3054.439, 3080.609, 3099.836, 3117.253, 3128.38, 3137.342, 3141.686, 3148.86, 3154.506, 3169.53, 3187.769, 3198.593, 3204.167, 3220.483, 3244.464, 3256.943, 3266.683, 3276.949, 3303.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2782.737}, "reply_to": "15299__0_175", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_001", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Mr. Shipley -- Mr. Shipley before you go on with that, could I ask you one question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3303.341], "stop_times": [3306.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.341}, "reply_to": "15299__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_002", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3306.256], "stop_times": [3307.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3306.256}, "reply_to": "15299__1_001", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_003", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You have now addressed yourself to the possibility that certain actions under 1 -- Section 137 might be lawful in the sense that they're authorized by the statute and they're authorized by the Constitution, I take it.\nIf they are to get on with the business of the court, but that in this case, you then raise a question of whether that was the good faith purpose.\nAre there any findings?\nHas there been any determination by anyone that we could review to determine whether they were in good faith or in bad faith?\nHow would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3307.539, 3323.27, 3333.433, 3334.897, 3342.707], "stop_times": [3323.27, 3333.433, 3334.897, 3342.707, 3342.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.539}, "reply_to": "15299__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_004", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3342.75], "stop_times": [3343.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3342.75}, "reply_to": "15299__1_003", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_005", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "How would this Court review that issue, your claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3343.304], "stop_times": [3347.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.304}, "reply_to": "15299__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_006", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I think the Court simply has to look at the record before it.\nThis matter came before this Court on the Tenth Judicial Council's original order of December 13, 1965 where they said, and I quote directly from the order, \u201cIn the past four years, the Judicial Council at many meetings has discussed and considered the business of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and has done so with particular regard to the effect thereon of the attitude and conduct.\u201d\nSo these are not words in any statute.\nThey made them up, and they could make up a lot more and any Judicial Council could at this Court authorize this kind of action.\nThe attitude and conduct of Judge Chandler, who as Chief Judge of the district, is primarily responsible for the administration of such business.\nDuring that period, Judge Chandler has been a party defendant in both civil and criminal litigation.\nOne civil case is still pending --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3347.692, 3350.667, 3375.658, 3377.793, 3383.895, 3391.432, 3396.839], "stop_times": [3350.667, 3375.658, 3377.793, 3383.895, 3391.432, 3396.839, 3401.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3347.692}, "reply_to": "15299__1_005", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_007", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "This recital comes from what the Council said, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3401.945], "stop_times": [3405.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.945}, "reply_to": "15299__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_008", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "This is the first order which we challenge and which we say is not moot, and we rely on the American Export case which points out that the mere fact that somebody takes subsequent curative action doesn't remove the question of whether or not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3405.188], "stop_times": [3422.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3405.188}, "reply_to": "15299__1_007", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_009", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm still at a loss as to just how or where there is something we could review that would shed any light on the presence or absence of good faith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3422.02], "stop_times": [3431.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.02}, "reply_to": "15299__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_010", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I think if you'll look at the order itself under Section 332 of the original order, which is not moot when you look at the cases, and which simply stated in terms that the judge was literally, his office was taken away from him then and there, and his cases were to be reassigned.\nSection 137 had not been energized.\nThey had no authority under Section 137.\nThere was no disagreement as to the assignment of the work.\nThere's no showing there was a backlog.\nThere was no showing the court wasn't operating efficiently.\nAs a matter of fact, the statistics from the office -- the administrative office showed just the opposite.\nHe was doing his work and everybody else was doing theirs.\nThere wasn't the slightest question of the efficiency of that court.\nThe question was just what they said, the attitude and conduct of the judge.\nThey plainly didn't like it.\nThere was no objection from the Bar Association, no objection from litigants, no objection from the lawyers in the town, no objection from anybody, except the Tenth Judicial Council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3431.472, 3446.712, 3448.855, 3450.712, 3452.592, 3454.606, 3458.796, 3462.278, 3464.311, 3466.969, 3469.791, 3471.478], "stop_times": [3446.712, 3448.855, 3450.712, 3452.592, 3454.606, 3458.796, 3462.278, 3464.311, 3466.969, 3469.791, 3471.478, 3479.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3431.472}, "reply_to": "15299__1_009", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_011", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Suppose there had been, you concede that the Council of judges would have had right to call Judge Chandler before them and try him to see whether or not he was tending to his business efficiently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3479.803], "stop_times": [3496.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3479.803}, "reply_to": "15299__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__1_012", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, sir.\nThey would have no such authority under the federal Constitution.\nI doubt that Congress would have the authority to give any such jurisdictional authority to anybody.\nThere's a lot of discussion overall these many years and pending bills in Congress, there'd been dozens and hundreds of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3496.901, 3497.305, 3499.828, 3506.923], "stop_times": [3497.305, 3499.828, 3506.923, 3512.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3496.901}, "reply_to": "15299__1_011", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_013", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Are you conceding that the Court has -- the Court of Appeals has such an inherent authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3512.204], "stop_times": [3518.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3512.204}, "reply_to": "15299__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__1_014", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, only the Tenth Circuit says it has it.\nIt says they have inherent appellate (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3518.833, 3520.696], "stop_times": [3520.696, 3521.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3518.833}, "reply_to": "15299__1_013", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_015", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Are you conceding that even this Court would have such an inherent authority to test the conduct of federal judges (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3521.892], "stop_times": [3529.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.892}, "reply_to": "15299__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__1_016", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, sir.\nI think the United States itself through the Solicitor General has weapons available, writ of quo warranto.\nIt could follow some of its own suggestions.\nIt could challenge any public officer who wasn't doing his duty in a certain way but it -- I think the Constitution sets up a special court to deal with judges and their tenure and just as the President has four years, a judge is appointed for good behavior.\nAnd when that question of good behavior is to be resolved, the Congress itself must do it in a special court provided in the Constitution with a two-thirds vote which no pardon can issue under the Constitution.\nThe President can't pardon the person and he's only removed from his office and if there's a crime or something else involved, then he can be subsequently subjected to double jeopardy, let us say, and prosecuted again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3529.814, 3531.021, 3537.513, 3541.033, 3555.21, 3566.206], "stop_times": [3531.021, 3537.513, 3541.033, 3555.21, 3566.206, 3575.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3529.814}, "reply_to": "15299__1_015", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_017", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Suppose the Council -- suppose the Council issued an order and he refused to obey it, do you agree then that you could be -- anything done to him, or do you agree with what Mr. Vanderbilt and Judge Groner said in the hearing that that would be perfectly just cause of a remedy and method of impeachment as provided by the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3575.36], "stop_times": [3599.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3575.36}, "reply_to": "15299__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__1_018", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I think impeachment would merely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3599.313], "stop_times": [3600.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3599.313}, "reply_to": "15299__1_017", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_019", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You don't believe that there's any other way to try it, except that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3600.162], "stop_times": [3603.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3600.162}, "reply_to": "15299__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__1_020", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, sir and the record of impeachments in the -- in the history of our country show that federal judges have been impeached for drunkenness and convicted.\nThey have been impeached for corruption.\nThere haven't been many because this -- these aren't the type of men that are appointed to the federal judiciary, but the weapon is there and can be used and the procedures are very adequate to serve so important purpose.\nMay I ask the clerk what the white light means?\nAm I out of time or am I within some minutes of being out of time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3603.249, 3610.798, 3612.23, 3623.788, 3625.789], "stop_times": [3610.798, 3612.23, 3623.788, 3625.789, 3628.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3603.249}, "reply_to": "15299__1_019", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_021", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You have five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3628.39], "stop_times": [3629.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3628.39}, "reply_to": "15299__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__1_022", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You have five minutes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3629.56], "stop_times": [3630.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3629.56}, "reply_to": "15299__1_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_023", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And the red light, I'll be out of time, because Mr. -- my colleague ran over so badly there, I don't know just where we are.\nI'll continue for the five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3630.056, 3636.329], "stop_times": [3636.329, 3637.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3630.056}, "reply_to": "15299__1_022", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_024", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You have -- you have -- you have just one minute left, Mr. Shipley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3637.325], "stop_times": [3640.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3637.325}, "reply_to": "15299__1_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_025", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Of the five minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3640.065], "stop_times": [3641.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3640.065}, "reply_to": "15299__1_024", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_026", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well now it's up -- over the five, yes.\nThe remainder is reserved for a rebuttal I take it, by Mr. Kenan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3641.932, 3644.547], "stop_times": [3644.547, 3649.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3641.932}, "reply_to": "15299__1_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__1_027", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I think we've run out of our time here and I do have some points I want to address myself, too, and I want to know when the time was up for our side in the matter.\nIf the Court please, a very -- another very important question which has come up is -- the Solicitor General I'm sure will address himself to is whether or not Judge Chandler has agreed to the present division of business.\nAnd that by this agreement, he's -- although the Solicitor General doesn't knew that he use the term that he's estopped, whether or not by this agreement, it makes the case moot or removes any colors for this Court to get into what the Solicitor General calls the delicate question, Constitutional questions involved in Section 332.\nWe've pointed out in our brief that Judge Chandler's agreement was not a bona fide agreement in the sense that the law would contemplate it that it should be to a estopping from complaining about something to which he had agreed.\nHis agreement was simply, he put right in the letter that he was signing under protest to avoid creating a disagreement and that he would expect to address himself to the constitutionality of the action of the Tenth Judicial Council, as outlined in our brief.\nI see that my time has come out, and I'll just close on saying this, that I -- we agree with Congressman Celler and other scholars who have said that good behavior, attitude, conduct in these matters are not just issue.\nThey're not questions that can be tried in any place except in the Senate of the United States acting as a Court of impeachment in accordance with the Constitution.\nAnd therefore, we would say this Court, in order to clarify the matter, not to avoid what's the delicate problem but to solve what's been 150 years of a complicated problem should speak forthrightly and completely and totally so that the federal judges will know, the Judicial Councils will know exactly where their authority begins and ends under Section 137 and under Section 332, because if this Court says it doesn't have jurisdiction and steps away from this case, it will compound what is a very serious situation which will continue in all the Judicial Circuits.\nSome of them may run wild.\nWe don't know what will happen, but certainly, these are human beings with the same personality frailties that have given rise to this case and brought all of us here today.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3649.159, 3657.892, 3671.09, 3691.148, 3706.39, 3724.279, 3737.183, 3745.279, 3773.505, 3774.764, 3782.674], "stop_times": [3657.892, 3671.09, 3691.148, 3706.39, 3724.279, 3737.183, 3745.279, 3773.505, 3774.764, 3782.674, 3783.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3649.159}, "reply_to": "15299__1_026", "speaker": "carl_l_shipley"}
{"id": "15299__1_028", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shipley.\nMr. Wright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3783.204, 3786.398], "stop_times": [3786.398, 3789.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3783.204}, "reply_to": "15299__1_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_000", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, if the Court please in my submission, the part of this case was in the question that Mr. Justice Stewart put to Mr. Kenan when he said, \u201cWould you agree that if the action of the Judicial Council was administrative in nature that this Court is entirely without jurisdiction to review the matter?\u201d\nAnd Mr. Kenan answered that question in the affirmative, an answer that I think is compelled by a line of authority going back to Marbury v. Madison, that unless the proceeding that is brought here is a judicial action by an inferior tribunal, but then this Court is being asked to exercise original jurisdiction and that it may do only in cases to which states were parties or ambassadors or consuls are involved.\nMr. Kenan having agreed with the basic premise then suggested that in this particular instance, the Judicial Council acted in a judicial fashion, an argument that I must confess I have some difficulty in following.\nHis view as I understand it is that Congress intended to create an administrative agency called the Judicial Council.\nI agree entirely.\nIt seems that legislative history is clear, that literature is all in one direction on this that no one, so far as prior to the Solicitor General's brief in this case, has ever suggested that a Judicial Council is vested with any part of the judicial power of the United States.\nThat it has always been understood to be merely an administrative agency.\nJustices Black and Douglas when this case was here before referred to it as a governmental agency with limited administrative power.\nNow, I agree entirely with this characterization of the Judicial Council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3789.106, 3808.834, 3838.619, 3857.005, 3867.211, 3868.717, 3890.453, 3895.085, 3903.079], "stop_times": [3808.834, 3838.619, 3857.005, 3867.211, 3868.717, 3890.453, 3895.085, 3903.079, 3908.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3789.106}, "reply_to": "15299__1_028", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_001", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But they -- an agency can produce a case or controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3908.187], "stop_times": [3912.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3908.187}, "reply_to": "15299__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__2_002", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Oh, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3912.623], "stop_times": [3913.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3912.623}, "reply_to": "15299__2_001", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_003", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And I suppose that there'd be no case or controversy more vital in the life of a District Judge in a proceeding to -- against him to toss him out of office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3913.433], "stop_times": [3925.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3913.433}, "reply_to": "15299__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__2_004", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But it would -- it would not be a case or controversy subject to review in this Court, Mr. Justice Douglas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3925.821], "stop_times": [3933.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3925.821}, "reply_to": "15299__2_003", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_005", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Where would it be subject to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3933.069], "stop_times": [3934.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3933.069}, "reply_to": "15299__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15299__2_006", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Administrative agencies are subject for review under special statutory provisions or non-statutory review under 1361 in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3934.029], "stop_times": [3942.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3934.029}, "reply_to": "15299__2_005", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_007", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And in this instance, it would be the latter, I gather?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3942.684], "stop_times": [3945.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3942.684}, "reply_to": "15299__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15299__2_008", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "In my view, an action would lie in the District Court under Section 1361, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3945.148], "stop_times": [3952.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3945.148}, "reply_to": "15299__2_007", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_009", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "So you used -- I read your brief differently.\nPerhaps I read it too fast, but you now say that there is a case or controversy but it's in the wrong court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3952.126, 3958.123], "stop_times": [3958.123, 3969.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3952.126}, "reply_to": "15299__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__2_010", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I think the term case or controversy may be used in two different sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3969.151], "stop_times": [3973.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3969.151}, "reply_to": "15299__2_009", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_011", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm just using it -- in the Article III sense of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3973.71], "stop_times": [3976.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3973.71}, "reply_to": "15299__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__2_012", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes sir.\nUndoubtedly, the proceeding between Judge Chandler and the Judicial Council, what we are arguing this morning is a case or controversy, though I submit that it is a case or controversy that this Court can't hear because it's not within your original jurisdiction.\nIn my submission, what the Judicial Council did, whether the relevant order be that of December 13, 1965 or as I think February 4, 1966 was not a case or controversy, that it bore none of the earmarks of a judicial determination, that as you've suggested, Mr. Justice Douglas, an administrative action may lead to a case or controversy.\nSomeone may be dissatisfied with what an administrator has done, and then challenge that.\nBut the appropriate place to challenge that is not in the first instance, the Supreme Court of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [3976.297, 3977.985, 3991.974, 4016.306, 4021.707], "stop_times": [3977.985, 3991.974, 4016.306, 4021.707, 4026.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3976.297}, "reply_to": "15299__2_011", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_013", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Suppose this had gone against the judge in the Circuit Court of Appeals?\nWould he have had to go to the District Court to try to assert his right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4026.769, 4031.533], "stop_times": [4031.533, 4037.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4026.769}, "reply_to": "15299__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_014", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "If the Judicial Council has power over a judge of the Court of Appeals, a question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4037.442], "stop_times": [4042.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4037.442}, "reply_to": "15299__2_013", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_015", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What if it has inherent power, well, I suppose it has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4042.817], "stop_times": [4046.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4042.817}, "reply_to": "15299__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_016", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4046.009], "stop_times": [4046.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4046.009}, "reply_to": "15299__2_015", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_017", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I don't believe though you, Mr. Wright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4046.8], "stop_times": [4048.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4046.8}, "reply_to": "15299__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_018", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm not relying on any inherent power, Justice Black.\nThe Judicial Council in my view has the powers that Congress has given it by statute and none other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4048.566, 4051.762], "stop_times": [4051.762, 4057.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4048.566}, "reply_to": "15299__2_017", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_019", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Suppose there was a statute because I (Inaudible) Court of Appeals, and they had removed it because the Court of Appeals judge the council has, would he have to go to the District Court to assert his rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4057.283], "stop_times": [4070.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4057.283}, "reply_to": "15299__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_020", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It seems to me that his remedy, if any, would be in the District Court, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4070.731], "stop_times": [4075.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4070.731}, "reply_to": "15299__2_019", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_021", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I suppose that would be true by the member of this Court.\nIf some administrative action were taken against him that he didn't like, if this Court -- not just because he happened to be a member of this Court, it doesn't change the basic jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4075.408, 4079.113], "stop_times": [4079.113, 4089.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4075.408}, "reply_to": "15299__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__2_022", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That is precisely my submission, Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4089.378], "stop_times": [4091.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4089.378}, "reply_to": "15299__2_021", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_023", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, let's suppose it was about his right to try cases, would he then have to go to the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4091.332], "stop_times": [4099.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4091.332}, "reply_to": "15299__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_024", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I think that it would have two remedies, Justice Black.\nHe could either go to the District Court or he -- if he believed the order were improper to refuse to obey it and the matter would then have to be tried by the Senate sitting as the Court of Impeachment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4099.331, 4101.33], "stop_times": [4101.33, 4112.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4099.331}, "reply_to": "15299__2_023", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_025", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What's the impeachment provision of the Constitution for it?\nWhat purpose would it serve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4112.563, 4117.179], "stop_times": [4117.179, 4119.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4112.563}, "reply_to": "15299__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_026", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4119.606], "stop_times": [4119.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4119.606}, "reply_to": "15299__2_025", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_027", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Appointed judges barred of his right to act as a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4119.852], "stop_times": [4123.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4119.852}, "reply_to": "15299__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_028", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I submit that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4123.154], "stop_times": [4123.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4123.154}, "reply_to": "15299__2_027", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_029", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "He can't rely on a provision of the Constitution whereby he can automatically be removed by impeachment.\nRemoval has taken away the right to try cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4123.956, 4129.827], "stop_times": [4129.827, 4133.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4123.956}, "reply_to": "15299__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_030", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I respectfully disagree, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4133.562], "stop_times": [4135.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4133.562}, "reply_to": "15299__2_029", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_031", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Oh, that's not it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4135.55], "stop_times": [4137.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4135.55}, "reply_to": "15299__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_032", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "This Court in Booth versus United States suggested that taking away the right to try cases is not removal so long as the office and the salary continue that the -- the taking away of the right to try cases is not barred by the Constitution, it is dictum (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4137.591], "stop_times": [4153.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4137.591}, "reply_to": "15299__2_031", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_033", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You mean this Court has held where it was a point to be decided in a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4153.158], "stop_times": [4157.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4153.158}, "reply_to": "15299__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_034", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, it was dictum by Justice Roberts in 291 U.S, but the position that we've take of course is that this Court has no occasion in this proceeding to decide whether impeachment is, as some people believe or as not as others believe, the only way that action can be taken against a federal judge.\nWe think that first, you lack jurisdiction to hear the case altogether, that the petitioner has misconceived the proper forum in which to seek a remedy.\nAnd second, we believe that if this Court had jurisdiction but on the merits it could not now reach the Court -- the question of whether or not the order of December 13th was an attempt to remove Judge Chandler, whether it was a proper order that this Court does not issue advisory opinions about things that have long since gone out of existence.\nThat the order is now in effect to those of February 4, 1966 and September, 1967 in which the Judicial Council has provided that Judge Chandler may hear the cases that Judge Chandler certified that he wanted to hear.\nUnder the order of the Judicial Council, anytime the judges of the western district agree on a new division, that will go into effect immediately.\nIf they disagree, they have only to disagree and evoke the statutory power of the Judicial Council and it then resolves the disagreement.\nThe one time there was a disagreement, it resolved to disagreement in the direction that Judge Chandler had asked for rather then the direction the other judges had asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4157.622, 4186.768, 4199.863, 4224.124, 4238.674, 4246.957, 4255.142], "stop_times": [4186.768, 4199.863, 4224.124, 4238.674, 4246.957, 4255.142, 4267.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4157.622}, "reply_to": "15299__2_033", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_035", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Professor, what would you say if there was a disagreement and there was a Council order saying that a judge should first clean up all of his cases before he takes any more?\nThat order goes into effect and he does clean up his cases and then he wants a change in the order.\nThe other District Judges don't want any change in the order.\nSo there's a disagreement and the Tenth -- and the Council then says, \u201cWe will have the order stand, no more cases.\u201d\nIs that within the reach of 137?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4267.819, 4284.905, 4294.757, 4298.572, 4308.827], "stop_times": [4284.905, 4294.757, 4298.572, 4308.827, 4316.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4267.819}, "reply_to": "15299__2_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_036", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I submit that it is clearly within the statutory power granted to the Judicial Council.\nA question could then arise whether that particular form of exercise of the power of the Judicial Council is constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4316.472, 4322.528], "stop_times": [4322.528, 4330.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4316.472}, "reply_to": "15299__2_035", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_037", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, but what about that?\nI know you don't think that question's here because there's no jurisdiction, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4330.155, 4332.452], "stop_times": [4332.452, 4336.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4330.155}, "reply_to": "15299__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_038", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I don't think that question is here because that's not this order, Justice White.\nThat is a hypothetical case that I've -- I think it would be amidst the difficulty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4336.523, 4339.997], "stop_times": [4339.997, 4345.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4336.523}, "reply_to": "15299__2_037", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_039", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you think it's no different -- the question isn't here because he still has five, the remnants of five cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4345.689], "stop_times": [4354.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4345.689}, "reply_to": "15299__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_040", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And if he wants more cases, he has only to (Voice Overlap),", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4354.53], "stop_times": [4357.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4354.53}, "reply_to": "15299__2_039", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_041", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And we don't know -- we don't really know that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4357.382], "stop_times": [4359.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4357.382}, "reply_to": "15299__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_042", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "We -- no, we don't know it.\nWe don't know it the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4359.697, 4360.853], "stop_times": [4360.853, 4362.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4359.697}, "reply_to": "15299__2_041", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_043", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's why -- that's why you take the position that the case isn't here, that case isn't here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4362.076], "stop_times": [4366.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4362.076}, "reply_to": "15299__2_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_044", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4366.641], "stop_times": [4367.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4366.641}, "reply_to": "15299__2_043", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_045", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, yes but the -- the Judicial Council has got some authority to enter an order upon -- upon a dispute, but what it knows, as well as anybody else knows, when the judge has tried these cases or has only one or two left, is it -- is it empowered to leave its order in effect or should it change it?\nIs it qualified to just sit there and say well, if the judges want to -- to leave this order in effect, that they may?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4367.545, 4395.887], "stop_times": [4395.887, 4407.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4367.545}, "reply_to": "15299__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_046", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I suggest that the Judicial Council has shown no inclination to do -- to take -- to further course of conduct, Justice White that you suggest.\nThe Judicial Council on its own initiative, noting that Judge Chandler had at that time only 12 cases left, suggested to the judges in the western district that they make a new division and the judges reported back and said, \u201cNo, the current division is agreeable to us.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4407.954, 4416.295], "stop_times": [4416.295, 4430.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4407.954}, "reply_to": "15299__2_045", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_047", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And so, the judicial said, \u201cWell, we'll just leave our order in effect,\u201d even though this means that Judge Chandler never gets another case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4430.057], "stop_times": [4438.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4430.057}, "reply_to": "15299__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_048", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "They leave the order in effect until the judges decide that they -- that they want to change the division of business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4438.101], "stop_times": [4446.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4438.101}, "reply_to": "15299__2_047", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_049", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Was that a division --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4446.846], "stop_times": [4447.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4446.846}, "reply_to": "15299__2_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_050", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What if someone disagrees with you as I do?\nI think the question is here but you say it's not here, in your judgment, is the action of the Council constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4447.136, 4450.079], "stop_times": [4450.079, 4459.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4447.136}, "reply_to": "15299__2_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_051", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I have no doubt, Mr. Justice Black, that the present orders of the Council are justified by the Constitution that they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4459.894], "stop_times": [4466.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4459.894}, "reply_to": "15299__2_050", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_052", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Are what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4466.188], "stop_times": [4466.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4466.188}, "reply_to": "15299__2_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_053", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Are justified by the Constitution that they (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4466.963], "stop_times": [4468.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4466.963}, "reply_to": "15299__2_052", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_054", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm talking about suppose you are wrong about what's here as I think you are, and maybe I don't know whether any others think so or not, but I certainly do, is that -- was that act of the Council constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4468.922], "stop_times": [4483.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4468.922}, "reply_to": "15299__2_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_055", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Given its overtly interlocutory nature, I would say yes.\nI would have serious doubt if the Council had purported to say, \u201cJudge X, you may never again hear a case,\u201d but when the Council, as it represented to the Court through its -- through the Solicitor General said that this was intended only to be an interlocutory until we could give a proper hearing to the matter, I think that that temporary power may constitutionally be exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4483.97, 4488.488], "stop_times": [4488.488, 4510.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4483.97}, "reply_to": "15299__2_054", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_056", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you think they could temporarily strip the judge of his power to try cases under the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4510.131], "stop_times": [4515.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4510.131}, "reply_to": "15299__2_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_057", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4515.759], "stop_times": [4518.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4515.759}, "reply_to": "15299__2_056", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_058", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And what about the original order of the Council then, you would think there was some question about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4518.025], "stop_times": [4524.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4518.025}, "reply_to": "15299__2_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_059", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Oh, I would think that if that had purported to be a permanent order, there would be the gravest question about it on procedural grounds alone without even reaching the substance.\nI would have great difficulty (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4524.437, 4535.055], "stop_times": [4535.055, 4535.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4524.437}, "reply_to": "15299__2_058", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_060", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, there weren't -- there wasn't any expiration date on it, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4535.628], "stop_times": [4538.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4535.628}, "reply_to": "15299__2_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_061", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It said until further order, and the Council then represented to this Court that it intended to dispose of the matter promptly and I believe that we have to accept what the Council has said at its face value.\nI think there are even some circumstances in which constitutionally, a Judicial Council or someone other than the Senate may tell a judge that he is not to hear any cases at all in the future.\nI think that when there is a certification under Section 372 (b) and a new judge is appointed, the judge who is found to be physically and mentally disabled under the statute becomes junior in seniority, but it would be unbelievable that a judge who has been found mentally disabled to act as a judge then be free to hear cases, and I can't conceive that that is what the statute contemplates or that is the practice, or that is what the Constitution would require under those circumstances.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4538.921, 4551.872, 4564.626, 4598.376], "stop_times": [4551.872, 4564.626, 4598.376, 4598.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4538.921}, "reply_to": "15299__2_060", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_062", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You mean that although the Constitution provides a way to remove judges, you think it's because of the necessity, might have somebody judgment prior he could be removed without impeachment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4598.972], "stop_times": [4611.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4598.972}, "reply_to": "15299__2_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_063", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4611.267], "stop_times": [4611.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4611.267}, "reply_to": "15299__2_062", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_064", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's what you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4611.95], "stop_times": [4614.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4611.95}, "reply_to": "15299__2_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_065", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4614.476], "stop_times": [4614.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4614.476}, "reply_to": "15299__2_064", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_066", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But could not deprive of the prerequisites of office in the form of his compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4614.565], "stop_times": [4620.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4614.565}, "reply_to": "15299__2_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_067", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That is right.\nThe title judge cannot be taken away.\nHis compensation cannot be taken away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4620.141, 4623.074, 4624.891], "stop_times": [4623.074, 4624.891, 4626.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4620.141}, "reply_to": "15299__2_066", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_068", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I think the only way he's granted independence is by getting his compensation?\nDo you think that's all our Constitution means about the independence of judges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4626.14, 4631.309], "stop_times": [4631.309, 4635.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4626.14}, "reply_to": "15299__2_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_069", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I think our Constitution means a great deal more than that about the independence of judges, Mr. Justice Black, but I think the judicial independence is a -- is a quality that goes far beyond the very limited issues that are here at stake.\nI think judicial independence means nobody is to tell a judge how he's to decide a case, that he's not to be answerable except to an appellate Court for his views of the law.\nJudicial independence means this and much else, but I do not think that judicial independence means that a person who has been found by a Judicial Council and by the President of the United States to be mentally unable to function as a judge be permitted to go ahead and function as a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4635.907, 4653.578, 4664.728], "stop_times": [4653.578, 4664.728, 4683.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4635.907}, "reply_to": "15299__2_068", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_070", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You mean that the President of United States in your judgment has the power on our Constitution to determine whether a judge is mentally able to try his cases?\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4683.138, 4694.748], "stop_times": [4694.748, 4695.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4683.138}, "reply_to": "15299__2_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_071", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm saying exactly that, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4695.941], "stop_times": [4698.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4695.941}, "reply_to": "15299__2_070", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_072", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I think I understand you now.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4698.741, 4700.139], "stop_times": [4700.139, 4702.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4698.741}, "reply_to": "15299__2_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_073", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It's exactly what the statute provides, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4702.583], "stop_times": [4705.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4702.583}, "reply_to": "15299__2_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__2_074", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It's precisely what the statute provides and again, the Constitution --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4705.63], "stop_times": [4708.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4705.63}, "reply_to": "15299__2_073", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_075", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Not this statute, but you were talking about (Voice overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4708.143], "stop_times": [4709.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4708.143}, "reply_to": "15299__2_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__2_076", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, this statute I have to say has no relevance to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4709.756], "stop_times": [4712.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4709.756}, "reply_to": "15299__2_075", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_077", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4712.848], "stop_times": [4714.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4712.848}, "reply_to": "15299__2_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__2_078", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The legislative history behind that statute indicates that Congress concluded that there should be means of relieving the public and the litigants from a disabled judge short of impeachment but without taking the office of judge or the salary away from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4714.448], "stop_times": [4735.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4714.448}, "reply_to": "15299__2_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_079", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Exactly, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4735.092], "stop_times": [4737.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4735.092}, "reply_to": "15299__2_078", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_080", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But I suppose the Constitution did an addition to providing for an independent judiciary also provides for good many other rather important things and one of them is the right of litigants to get due process of law, and presumably you can't get that from a mentally incompetent or physically incompetent judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4737.32], "stop_times": [4755.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4737.32}, "reply_to": "15299__2_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15299__2_081", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4755.559], "stop_times": [4756.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4755.559}, "reply_to": "15299__2_080", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_082", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But do you think it was negligent enough to leave it to be determined by the President of the United States, a political officer to decide whether judges are able to hold their jobs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4756.323], "stop_times": [4770.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4756.323}, "reply_to": "15299__2_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_083", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I believe that the Constitution left it to the Congress to create procedures for these exigencies that the Congress did sol many years ago, and this Court, again by way of dictum in Booth expressly spoke of that procedure as being a constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4770.584], "stop_times": [4786.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4770.584}, "reply_to": "15299__2_082", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_084", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Was that decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4786.911], "stop_times": [4788.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4786.911}, "reply_to": "15299__2_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_085", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That was by way of dictum, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4788.299], "stop_times": [4791.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4788.299}, "reply_to": "15299__2_084", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_086", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It was not decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4791.578], "stop_times": [4792.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4791.578}, "reply_to": "15299__2_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_087", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "It was not decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4792.65], "stop_times": [4794.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4792.65}, "reply_to": "15299__2_086", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_088", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But that statute is not involved in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4794.005], "stop_times": [4796.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4794.005}, "reply_to": "15299__2_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_089", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That statute was not involved in this case nor with respect in our view are many of the matters that we have been discussing here at oral argument.\nWhat is involved in this case is the original jurisdiction of this Court.\nWhat is involved in this case is an order resolving a disagreement among the district judges as to how that this should be divided.\nAnd in my view, it does not help us to speak hypothetically of what the sit -- the situation might be if some judge were to be told that he may not hear any cases.\nThat is not here, we have no judge who is in that position and I cannot think that it is the function of this Court to imagine unlikely hypothetical cases that may arise in the future and to pronounce judgment upon them before they come up.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4796.12, 4806.836, 4811.424, 4819.746, 4830.716, 4849.242], "stop_times": [4806.836, 4811.424, 4819.746, 4830.716, 4849.242, 4849.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4796.12}, "reply_to": "15299__2_088", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_090", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, do you mean to say this case is not here at this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4849.861], "stop_times": [4852.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4849.861}, "reply_to": "15299__2_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_091", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "This case is here, but the case of a judge who is -- who is not allowed to hear any case is not before us at this time.\nJudge Chandler has cases pending on his docket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4852.921, 4860.632], "stop_times": [4860.632, 4864.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4852.921}, "reply_to": "15299__2_090", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_092", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Which have been allotted, the only ones he'd been left with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4864.633], "stop_times": [4870.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4864.633}, "reply_to": "15299__2_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_093", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4870.017], "stop_times": [4871.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4870.017}, "reply_to": "15299__2_092", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_094", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But he's a judge appointed for life whom the litigants can't depend on to try their cases because other judges who are no more lifetime judges than he, have decided that it shouldn't take them without any authority, express authority of law, unless it could be drawn through vague provisions of the administrative --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4871.002], "stop_times": [4895.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4871.002}, "reply_to": "15299__2_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_095", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The litigants whose cases are pending before Judge Chandler will have their cases tried by Judge Chandler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4895.579], "stop_times": [4903.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4895.579}, "reply_to": "15299__2_094", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_096", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And has -- do I understand that as to the division of the cases after that, he has agreed with the other judges of his court, is that correct or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4903.197], "stop_times": [4913.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4903.197}, "reply_to": "15299__2_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_097", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4913.953], "stop_times": [4914.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4913.953}, "reply_to": "15299__2_096", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_098", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4914.662], "stop_times": [4915.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4914.662}, "reply_to": "15299__2_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_099", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Twice, on January 25, 1966 and again on September 1967.\nNow, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4915.521, 4920.276], "stop_times": [4920.276, 4920.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4915.521}, "reply_to": "15299__2_098", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_100", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's someone might call a shotgun wedding -- [Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4920.968], "stop_times": [4923.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4920.968}, "reply_to": "15299__2_099", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_101", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "In fairness to Judge Chandler, Mr. Chief Justice, I think it must be said that on the January 25th agreement, he noted that it was done under protest and that he did not want to waive any of this rights to challenge the then still existing order of December 13th.\nThe September 1967 agreement said the present division is agreeable under the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4923.44, 4942.358], "stop_times": [4942.358, 4948.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4923.44}, "reply_to": "15299__2_100", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_102", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Can I ask you this question, Mr. Wright?\nAssuming that on the time about Judge Chandler, Chandler runs out of business because he sensed that there is a disagreement among the district judges as to whether any more cases should be assigned him.\nIs there anything to show in this record that the Circuit Council would not step in and break that lock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4948.45, 4952.976, 4967.015], "stop_times": [4952.976, 4967.015, 4977.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4948.45}, "reply_to": "15299__2_101", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__2_103", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "There is nothing whatever in the record to show that the Council would not step in.\nThere is nothing whatever in the record to show that the Council would not give Judge Chandler whatever division he thought equitable.\nIt would be pure speculation to suppose anything to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4977.369, 4980.966, 4989.096], "stop_times": [4980.966, 4989.096, 4992.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4977.369}, "reply_to": "15299__2_102", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_104", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Why do you say that when they meant without his being there and (Inaudible) How can you say that?\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [4992.789, 5005.602], "stop_times": [5005.602, 5008.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4992.789}, "reply_to": "15299__2_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_105", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I find it difficult, Justice Black, to understand how the fact that they met without any precedent on December 13th says anything as to what they will do in the future, in the particular hypothesis put to me by Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5008.017], "stop_times": [5022.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5008.017}, "reply_to": "15299__2_104", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_106", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "There has been a statement for many years in which many people give some confidence, that coming events cast their shadows before them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5022.303], "stop_times": [5033.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5022.303}, "reply_to": "15299__2_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_107", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "We can all just deal with that case when it reaches here, of course, can't we, Professor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5033.294], "stop_times": [5036.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5033.294}, "reply_to": "15299__2_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__2_108", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, that -- that would be precise (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5036.203], "stop_times": [5037.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5036.203}, "reply_to": "15299__2_107", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_109", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But suppose someone -- some of us think it's here now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5037.746], "stop_times": [5040.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5037.746}, "reply_to": "15299__2_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_110", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, obviously some of you do, Justice Black.\nI could only respectfully disagree.\nThe jurisdictional question seems to me from the greatest importance, and this I think is a little different, Justice Black, from the matter that you and I just disagreed on.\nYou think that the December 13th order is before us -- before you.\nI would disagree on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5040.803, 5043.775, 5048.762, 5060.464, 5066.541], "stop_times": [5043.775, 5048.762, 5060.464, 5066.541, 5067.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5040.803}, "reply_to": "15299__2_109", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_111", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You think what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5067.752], "stop_times": [5068.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5067.752}, "reply_to": "15299__2_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_112", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You think that the order of December 13, 1965 is properly here.\nAs counsel, I disagree but there is a different question, and that is whether anything is properly here, even if the December 13th order was still in full force and effect, and it's an order of the constitutionality of which I think I can safely predict your view on at least that would not -- that would not create original jurisdiction in this Court.\nOriginal jurisdiction does not arise out of necessity.\nIt does not arise because something has happened that may be gravely unconstitutional.\nOriginal jurisdiction is carefully defined by the Constitution and the -- the best known case that this Court has ever decided so that you simply can't go beyond them.\nThe doctrine in drawing the line between original and appellate jurisdiction has been laid down many times.\nIt bears such famous names as Marshall Story, Tony Brandeis, and that is that this Court can act only if an inferior tribunal has acted judicially, and I submit that whatever the Judicial Council did, right or wrong, the Judicial Council is not a Court and what its action is it's not judicial.\nIt was administrative action.\nIt may have been, as my friends on this side of the table think and its someone outside of the bench think a very terrible thing that the Council did.\nBut administrative agencies on occasion did do terrible things, and that fact of itself is not enough to create original jurisdiction in this Court, nor does it permit this Court to act immediately on the theory that it might come here sometime and therefore, it's potentially within our appellate jurisdiction.\nThe appellate jurisdiction of this Court -- its potential appellate jurisdiction does not begin to exist until the case has reached some judicial tribunal of the United States.\nNow, I'm aware of course of the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in Hirota v. MacArthur suggesting a somewhat different view on that and with respect, I disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5068.831, 5073.566, 5095.192, 5098.794, 5104.942, 5117.084, 5125.733, 5147.957, 5149.879, 5159.509, 5178.781, 5190.702], "stop_times": [5073.566, 5095.192, 5098.794, 5104.942, 5117.084, 5125.733, 5147.957, 5149.879, 5159.509, 5178.781, 5190.702, 5205.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5068.831}, "reply_to": "15299__2_111", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_113", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But you indicated a moment ago that the names of the judges -- famous judge whose names were involved had passed on this question?\nIn what cases did they pass on the question before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5205.013, 5215.091], "stop_times": [5215.091, 5219.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5205.013}, "reply_to": "15299__2_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_114", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Marbury v. Madison, United States --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5219.649], "stop_times": [5220.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5219.649}, "reply_to": "15299__2_113", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_115", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you think that's on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5220.99], "stop_times": [5221.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5220.99}, "reply_to": "15299__2_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_116", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- v. Ferreira, Tuten v. United States -- yes, I think that they passed on exactly that I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5221.675], "stop_times": [5228.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5221.675}, "reply_to": "15299__2_115", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_117", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The question we have before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5228.4], "stop_times": [5230.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5228.4}, "reply_to": "15299__2_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__2_118", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5230.134], "stop_times": [5231.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5230.134}, "reply_to": "15299__2_117", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_119", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The jurisdictional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5231.17], "stop_times": [5232.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5231.17}, "reply_to": "15299__2_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__2_120", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The jurisdictional question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5232.265], "stop_times": [5236.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5232.265}, "reply_to": "15299__2_119", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_121", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Could I ask you this question?\nAs I understand (Inaudible) disagreements between you and the Solicitor General you're in disagreement on the basic question as to whether there's a judicial function, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5236.169, 5237.341], "stop_times": [5237.341, 5249.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5236.169}, "reply_to": "15299__2_120", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__2_122", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That it -- on whether or not this is a -- an attempt to invoke a regional jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5249.971], "stop_times": [5253.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5249.971}, "reply_to": "15299__2_121", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_123", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Right, and therefore from your point of view, that one in your position is acceptable that would -- you'd never get the questions and still be all (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5253.732], "stop_times": [5264.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5253.732}, "reply_to": "15299__2_122", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__2_124", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5264.635], "stop_times": [5266.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5264.635}, "reply_to": "15299__2_123", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_125", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "On the other hand, I understand you're in agreement with some of the topics in doubt that if the Solicitor General's position is accepted on the basic question as to whether this is administrative or judicial function you are in some doubt that you have been sharing his view that you always act would reach it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5266.486], "stop_times": [5284.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5266.486}, "reply_to": "15299__2_124", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__2_126", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Harlan.\nAnd then, when we go beyond that, I'm in agreement entirely with the Solicitor General -- (Voice Overlap) on everything going to the merits of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5284.971, 5288.154], "stop_times": [5288.154, 5295.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5284.971}, "reply_to": "15299__2_125", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_127", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "That's way on the record I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5295.772], "stop_times": [5298.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5295.772}, "reply_to": "15299__2_126", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__2_128", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5298.465], "stop_times": [5299.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5298.465}, "reply_to": "15299__2_127", "speaker": "charles_alan_wright"}
{"id": "15299__2_129", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Thank you, Professor Wright.\nMr. Solicitor General?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5299.342, 5307.335], "stop_times": [5307.335, 5310.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5299.342}, "reply_to": "15299__2_128", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_000", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "May it please the Court.\nFirst, I would like to correct a possible misunderstanding which results from the way this case was listed in the hearing list by the clerk's office.\nIt is there said that the Solicitor General will appear as a friend of the Court for the respondent.\nI do not understand that I am appearing for the respondent or for the petitioner and that was the first question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5310.378, 5313.051, 5325.599, 5334.083], "stop_times": [5313.051, 5325.599, 5334.083, 5344.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5310.378}, "reply_to": "15299__2_129", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_001", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I was going to ask you that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5344.104], "stop_times": [5345.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5344.104}, "reply_to": "15299__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15299__3_002", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, but simply as a friend of the Court, I have tried with the aid of my former associate, Philip Lacovara to make a complete on examination of the problems here as we could in an effort to be as helpful to the Court as possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5345.487], "stop_times": [5369.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5345.487}, "reply_to": "15299__3_001", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_003", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You are then what we sometimes -- or as sometimes referred to as a true friend of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5369.737], "stop_times": [5373.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5369.737}, "reply_to": "15299__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_004", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "A true -- [Laughter] A true friend of the Court.\nThe first question to which I will address myself is this Court's jurisdiction of this matter.\nIt is plain of course that the Court has jurisdiction only as an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, that this case is here as an original matter.\nIt is obvious that neither the United States nor a state nor a foreign minister or ambassador is a party and there is no basis for original jurisdiction.\nI may say that when I started consideration of this case, I had the tentative view that there was no jurisdiction here, that this was not an exercise of appellate jurisdiction.\nThat indeed, the argument presented by Professor Wright was the sound analysis.\nI learned my federal jurisdiction from Professor Frankfurter and I tend to take a rather strict view of these matters and also to regard them as important.\nBut after my associate, who I regret has now left the government service, Mr. Lacovara, presented me an elaborate memorandum on the matter and I discussed it with him at some length.\nI came to the conclusion that that was probably wrong.\nI would like to make it plain that I do not regard this as by any means a matter of black and white.\nIt will be clearer after this Court has decided it and it is not.\nBut it does not help it seems to me to say that this is administrative action.\nThat is an example of the tyranny of words because if this is a judicial administration, it may present a situation which is different than anything with which the Court has previously dealt.\nIt is of course clear and accepted in many fields that it is a Constitution we are dealing with and that the understanding of the Constitution grows and develops with the development of problems, and the approach is to problems.\nIt was probably true at an earlier time that we had a very small conception of judicial administration of the function and responsibility of courts in seeing to it that their business is soundly and effectively handled, in addition to the process of the actual decision of the case in court.\nOver the past generation, there's been a great expansion in the awareness of the importance of the function of the judicial administration, and we have people like Chief Justice Hughes and Chief Justice Groner and Judge Parker and Arthur Vanderbilt and others who were largely responsible for the development of the statutory provisions which now exist, establishing not only the Judicial Conference of the United States which is not involved here in any way whatever, but also the Judicial Councils.\nNow, the Judicial Council, it is perfectly plain or simply the Courts of Appeals sitting en banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5373.795, 5380.093, 5389.975, 5401.563, 5414.714, 5428.679, 5438.194, 5454.191, 5471.311, 5475.937, 5483.408, 5490.642, 5501.497, 5521.994, 5545.622, 5573.3, 5620.322], "stop_times": [5380.093, 5389.975, 5401.563, 5414.714, 5428.679, 5438.194, 5454.191, 5471.311, 5475.937, 5483.408, 5490.642, 5501.497, 5521.994, 5545.622, 5573.3, 5620.322, 5630.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5373.795}, "reply_to": "15299__3_003", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_005", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5630.337], "stop_times": [5633.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5630.337}, "reply_to": "15299__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__3_006", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "If --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5633.321], "stop_times": [5633.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5633.321}, "reply_to": "15299__3_005", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_007", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- and what -- in their one exception there, the District Judge (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5633.529], "stop_times": [5638.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5633.529}, "reply_to": "15299__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__3_008", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "There are no District Judges sitting on the Judicial Councils.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5638.925], "stop_times": [5641.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5638.925}, "reply_to": "15299__3_007", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_009", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "So they're not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5641.944], "stop_times": [5642.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5641.944}, "reply_to": "15299__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__3_010", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The Judicial Councils consist of simply the judges of the Courts of Appeals sitting en banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5642.755], "stop_times": [5650.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5642.755}, "reply_to": "15299__3_009", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_011", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5650.011], "stop_times": [5650.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5650.011}, "reply_to": "15299__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15299__3_012", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No more, no less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5650.357], "stop_times": [5653.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5650.357}, "reply_to": "15299__3_011", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_013", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Does any statute relating to the Judicial Councils in their formation refer to them as sitting en banc in those terms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5653.052], "stop_times": [5660.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5653.052}, "reply_to": "15299__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_014", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, it says -- the statute says that the -- the chief judge of each circuit, this is Section 332 of Title 28, shall call at least twice in each year and at such places as he may designate a council of the circuit judges for the circuit in regular active service at which he shall preside.\nEach circuit judge, unless excused by the chief judge, shall attend all sessions of the Council.\nNo reference to district judges, no exceptions from the judges of the Court of Appeals, except that it applies only to those in regular active service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5660.838, 5693.878, 5701.304], "stop_times": [5693.878, 5701.304, 5712.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5660.838}, "reply_to": "15299__3_013", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_015", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you -- you think the statue permits the Council to meet in executive private session on public not open to anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5712.962], "stop_times": [5724.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5712.962}, "reply_to": "15299__3_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_016", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I do, sir.\nI see no reason why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5724.903, 5726.913], "stop_times": [5726.913, 5728.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5724.903}, "reply_to": "15299__3_015", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_017", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Can they -- are you then suggesting they can carry out a judicial function in other than a public hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5728.731], "stop_times": [5735.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5728.731}, "reply_to": "15299__3_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_018", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "They can -- they can certainly engage in discussion as this Court engages in conferences which are not public sessions.\nWhether they can take actions which are valid in the form of orders in other than a public session, I do not know.\nI know that orders issued from this Court which do not come forth in a public session, I don't see why that is an earmark of judicial action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5735.562, 5746.17, 5757.469], "stop_times": [5746.17, 5757.469, 5770.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5735.562}, "reply_to": "15299__3_017", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_019", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But those processes are always preceded by an opportunity of argument in briefing and great many other things, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5770.586], "stop_times": [5783.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5770.586}, "reply_to": "15299__3_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_020", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Not always argument, Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5783.769], "stop_times": [5786.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5783.769}, "reply_to": "15299__3_019", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_021", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, argument in writing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5786.241], "stop_times": [5787.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5786.241}, "reply_to": "15299__3_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_022", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Sometimes, not much opportunity for briefing in terms of stay orders and things of that kind which are done by the court.\nI would like to suggest that in Section 137 of Title 28, the statute now reads that -- this is the last paragraph of Section 137 -- if the district judges in any district are unable to agree upon the adoption of rules or orders for that purpose, it now says the Judicial Council of the Circuit shall make the necessary orders.\nIt would be only a verbal difference if it said the Court of Appeals sitting en banc shall make the necessary orders.\nAnd similarly in Section 332, the last paragraph which is at the top of page 4 of my brief, it says, \u201cEach Judicial Council shall make all necessary orders.\u201d\nAnd there again, if it said each Court of appeal sitting en banc shall make all necessary orders, it would be exactly what we have here and I find it difficult to see that what is a verbal difference only, having no effect upon either of the persons who participate or the capacity in which they participate, should make this into something which is non-judicial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5787.751, 5801.779, 5826.472, 5835.276, 5848.876], "stop_times": [5801.779, 5826.472, 5835.276, 5848.876, 5880.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5787.751}, "reply_to": "15299__3_021", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_023", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, how is an en banc court convened?\nHow does it come into being under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5880.446, 5884.263], "stop_times": [5884.263, 5887.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5880.446}, "reply_to": "15299__3_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_024", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "The statue provides as to this that the chief judge shall convene --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5887.261], "stop_times": [5891.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5887.261}, "reply_to": "15299__3_023", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_025", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm speaking of a court en banc in the judicial sense, five votes, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5891.428], "stop_times": [5899.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5891.428}, "reply_to": "15299__3_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_026", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I'm sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, I do not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5899.129], "stop_times": [5902.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5899.129}, "reply_to": "15299__3_025", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_027", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, if you will assume I'm correct in stating that this statute requires that it takes five votes to convene a court en banc --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5902.072], "stop_times": [5910.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5902.072}, "reply_to": "15299__3_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_028", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, I -- I'm --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5910.973], "stop_times": [5911.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5910.973}, "reply_to": "15299__3_027", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_029", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Or -- if it's a nine-man court, the majority of the court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5911.426], "stop_times": [5915.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5911.426}, "reply_to": "15299__3_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_030", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Maybe (Voice overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5915.371], "stop_times": [5915.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5915.371}, "reply_to": "15299__3_029", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_031", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Majority of the Court of Appeals --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5915.847], "stop_times": [5917.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5915.847}, "reply_to": "15299__3_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_032", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Maybe a majority of the court, it couldn't take five votes in the First Circuit because there are only three there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5917.565], "stop_times": [5922.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5917.565}, "reply_to": "15299__3_031", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_033", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Takes the majority of the court to convene an en banc Court of Appeals, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5922.456], "stop_times": [5928.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5922.456}, "reply_to": "15299__3_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_034", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I do not know, Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5928.548], "stop_times": [5929.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5928.548}, "reply_to": "15299__3_033", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_035", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, that is the statute, Mr. Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5929.406], "stop_times": [5931.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5929.406}, "reply_to": "15299__3_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_036", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- whether the chief judge has any authority with respect to convening the Court en banc or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5931.15], "stop_times": [5937.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5931.15}, "reply_to": "15299__3_035", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_037", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "But he does have authority to convene on his own initiative the Council, does he not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5937.758], "stop_times": [5943.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5937.758}, "reply_to": "15299__3_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_038", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "And I could simply provide him the statute that the Court sitting en banc could be convened by the chief judge for this purpose.\nIt still seems to me that what the court is doing -- what the Judicial Council is doing here is exercising what has come to be recognized not only as judicial power but as an important judicial responsibility to see that the judicial business of the circuit is effectively and expeditiously administered.\nThis was not an accident.\nIt was not an arbitrary action.\nIt grew out of such experiences as those which Chief Justice Taft lived through in the 1920s when there was no such power.\nAnd I just happened on a letter written by Chief Justice Taft in the 1920s in Alpheus Mason's biography of Taft.\nHe wrote a letter to a district judge who had not disposed of a case which had been pending before him for four years and he felt that he had to put into that letter the following, and think of this from an ex-president and chief justice of the United States.\n\u201cOf course, I write this letter with no assumption that I may exercise direct authority over you in the discharge of your duties, but as head of the federal judiciary, I feel I do have to appeal to you in its interest and in the interest of the public whom it is created to serve to end this indefinite situation.\u201d\nAnd the objective, the intended objective was to provide a judicial authority within the judiciary, nobody outside, no executive authority, no legislative authority, but the courts were to run their own house or to do it without interference and their representative said that, \u201cGive us the chance.\nGive us that power and we will take care of it.\u201d\nNow, it is also clear that they contemplated that it would be -- that it would very rarely be necessary to do anything to enforce it.\nThese are high level people and if it became necessary for the Judicial Council to issue an order, the odds were very strong that it would be complied with however reluctantly.\nBut the statute does expressly give the Judicial Council, which I repeat is the Court of Appeals sitting en banc by another name.\nIt does give them expressly authority to make those orders and it provides that it shall be the duty of the District Judges to carry them out.\nSuch an order was issued in this case.\nI have no doubt that the constitutional requirement of case or controversy is met here.\nChief Judge Chandler sought leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to review the validity of that order.\nAnd though as I've said, it is not fully clear, it does seem to me that that was a judicial order entered by a judicial body in carrying out judicial responsibility and that the review of that order before this Court is an exercise of appellate and not original jurisdiction.\nNow, I would turn to the question on the merits where I do agree with Professor Wright's position in representation of the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council.\nIn the first place, the only paper before this Court, the only pleading before this Court is Judge Chandler's petition or motion for leave to file and petition for a writ or mandamus, which was filed in January 1966.\nAnd in that petition, he prays that a writ or prohibition or a mandamus be issued to restrain the respondent from exceeding its jurisdictional power.\nIn ordering that until its further order, the petitioner shall take no action whatsoever in any case or proceeding now or hereafter pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and that order no longer exists.\nIt was completely superseded on February 4, 1966 in the document which is marked F in the return or response, which has been filed by the Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference.\nAnd as far as the record is concerned, since that date, there has been no dispute, no controversy between the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council and Judge Chandler.\nNow, I think that that can most clearly be shown by examining the item, which is item K in the return of the Tenth Circuit, which is a letter on the stationery of Judge Chandler signed by all five judges of the Western District of Oklahoma, leading off with Stephen J. Chandler as the first signature addressed to the Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference in response to the letter of the Honorable Davis T. Lewis to the active judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.\nIn the minutes of the meeting of the Judicial Council attached thereto, \u201cWe advise that the current order for the division of business in this district is agreeable under the circumstances.\u201d\nNow Judge Chandler makes a lot out of that \u201cunder the circumstances.\u201d\nHe refers to the fact that his previous letter in February 1966 by which he joined with the other judges in agreement as to the division of the business was under protest.\nHe says that this is under duress.\nHowever, it seems to me clear that Judge Chandler cannot have it both ways.\nHe cannot either consent and not consent at the same time.\nBy this letter, he has consented.\nThere is thus no dispute between him and the Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [5943.356, 5956.216, 5991.514, 5994.004, 5998.89, 6012.149, 6025.723, 6044.798, 6067.148, 6091.378, 6095.162, 6106.012, 6124.008, 6136.635, 6147.38, 6150.745, 6162.894, 6176.333, 6212.661, 6231.781, 6253.762, 6266.378, 6285.717, 6306.999, 6322.084, 6368.619, 6381.938, 6387.382, 6403.453, 6406.217, 6412.289, 6418.202, 6421.103], "stop_times": [5956.216, 5991.514, 5994.004, 5998.89, 6012.149, 6025.723, 6044.798, 6067.148, 6091.378, 6095.162, 6106.012, 6124.008, 6136.635, 6147.38, 6150.745, 6162.894, 6176.333, 6212.661, 6231.781, 6253.762, 6266.378, 6285.717, 6306.999, 6322.084, 6368.619, 6381.938, 6387.382, 6403.453, 6406.217, 6412.289, 6418.202, 6421.103, 6426.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5943.356}, "reply_to": "15299__3_037", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_039", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "You mean unconditionally he consented?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6426.32], "stop_times": [6429.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6426.32}, "reply_to": "15299__3_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__3_040", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "He -- I'm sorry, Mr. Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6429.223], "stop_times": [6431.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6429.223}, "reply_to": "15299__3_039", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_041", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you mean unconditionally consented (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6431.637], "stop_times": [6433.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6431.637}, "reply_to": "15299__3_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__3_042", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice, I believe that he has unconditionally consented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6433.556], "stop_times": [6436.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6433.556}, "reply_to": "15299__3_041", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_043", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "What would you do with the under the circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6436.837], "stop_times": [6438.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6436.837}, "reply_to": "15299__3_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15299__3_044", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "I don't know what under the circumstances means there.\nThese are the -- I suppose anyone acts under the circumstances, any appearance or any consent is, but if Judge Chandler does not consent, all he has to do is to say so, in which case, it will become incumbent on the Judicial Council under Section 137 to issue an order for the division of judicial business in the Western District of Oklahoma.\nAnd if Judge Chandler doesn't like that order, he can take whatever steps may be appropriate at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6438.828, 6441.238, 6464.743], "stop_times": [6441.238, 6464.743, 6470.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6438.828}, "reply_to": "15299__3_043", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_045", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, Mr. Solicitor General, what do you think the Judicial Council should do when Judge Chandler is out of business, and his old cases or so called statute that to say he has all business is rather a (Inaudible).\nDo you think the Judicial Council is entitled to leave its order in effect just because the district judges say it's satisfactory to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6470.878, 6490.132], "stop_times": [6490.132, 6498.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6470.878}, "reply_to": "15299__3_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__3_046", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice, not only entitled but I don't believe they have any power with respect to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6498.336], "stop_times": [6504.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6498.336}, "reply_to": "15299__3_045", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_047", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "So two -- three district judges, as long as they all agree, can agree that one judge will never have any more cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6504.226], "stop_times": [6511.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6504.226}, "reply_to": "15299__3_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__3_048", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nOnly all of the judges of the -- of the Western District of Oklahoma can agree as to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6511.169, 6513.357], "stop_times": [6513.357, 6518.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6511.169}, "reply_to": "15299__3_047", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_049", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, that's what I just said.\nI just said, can all of the judges of a district agree that one judge will never be able to -- will never do any more work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6518.672, 6520.13], "stop_times": [6520.13, 6529.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6518.672}, "reply_to": "15299__3_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__3_050", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice, I believe they can, and I believe that if they do, the Judicial Council has no authority with respect to it and if that results in an inappropriate situation, it can be reported to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and they can consider whether this is an occasion for impeachment.\nNow, there may be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6529.488, 6551.143], "stop_times": [6551.143, 6551.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6529.488}, "reply_to": "15299__3_049", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_051", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6551.877], "stop_times": [6552.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6551.877}, "reply_to": "15299__3_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__3_052", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "-- possibilities under Section --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6552.559], "stop_times": [6553.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6552.559}, "reply_to": "15299__3_051", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_053", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Do you think that answer is essential to your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6553.535], "stop_times": [6555.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6553.535}, "reply_to": "15299__3_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15299__3_054", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nI'm about to qualify it, if I may be allowed to.\nThere may be possibilities under Section 332.\nI was thinking solely in terms of Section 137, the division of judicial business in the district.\nThere may be circumstances which would be relevant with respect to that under Section 332 under which each judicial council shall make all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the Courts within its circuit, and I suppose that if the -- all of the District Judges of the Western District of Oklahoma entered an order by which they agreed that no business would be assigned to any of them, that it would certainly be appropriate for the Judicial Council to act under Section 332 and it would then be the statutory duty, as well as the moral duty of the judges to carry out that order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6555.851, 6557.38, 6560.974, 6565.652, 6572.148], "stop_times": [6557.38, 6560.974, 6565.652, 6572.148, 6618.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6555.851}, "reply_to": "15299__3_053", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_055", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Well, the Section -- the situation you pose would arise equally, would it not, if without anything entering any order to that effect, they simply all refuse to do any work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6618.265], "stop_times": [6628.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6618.265}, "reply_to": "15299__3_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_056", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.\nThis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6628.793, 6629.967], "stop_times": [6629.967, 6630.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6628.793}, "reply_to": "15299__3_055", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_057", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "So it isn't the order that triggers this, it's the conduct, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6630.149], "stop_times": [6633.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6630.149}, "reply_to": "15299__3_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15299__3_058", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.\nIt's the -- it is the statutory responsibility of the Courts of Appeals sitting en banc and thereby being known as the Judicial Councils to make appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious handling of the business of the District Courts and a situation where all of the district judges in a district fail to meet their responsibilities would clearly be a situation calling for the exercise of that power.\nNow, various things have been said about the order which was entered by the Judicial Council in December of 1965 that it was done without a hearing and without notice and so on.\nIn our brief, we indicate that we think that as of that time, it may have been difficult to support that action.\nIt was quickly explained as having been interlocutory and I can conceive of situations where it would be appropriate for the Judicial Council to take action of this sort without a hearing and indeed without notice just as courts repeatedly grant temporary restraining orders on ex parte applications because something has to be done quickly.\nI can imagine a situation where a judge should go on stark raving mad and something had to be done.\nI can imagine situations where it would be entirely appropriate for the Judicial Council to order that no further cases be assigned to a judge and that he not sit on any pending cases presumably after a notice and a hearing.\nFor example, if a judge were indicted for having accepted bribes in connection with his handling of the cases and he announced, \u201cWell, who cares about that?\nI'll be in Court Monday, you can go ahead.\u201d\nI can imagine that it would be appropriate for the Judicial Council to issue an order such as was issued here or even stronger than was issued here, providing that he should no longer -- should not sit on pending matters and should have no new matters assigned to him until the indictment had been disposed of.\nNow, that is not this case.\nIn this case, it is my own view that the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council did not act with the proper procedures, but on February 4, 1966, that order was completely superseded, it is no longer in effect.\nI don't think the antitrust case of last year has any real application to this.\nThere is no -- there is no threat or risk that the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council will do further acts which would be inappropriate.\nSince February 4, 1966, the only order that has been outstanding has been one which is in entire accord with the position of Judge Chandler.\nItem one, Judge Chandler has agreed with the judges of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma that no new business will be assigned to him.\nAnd item two, all pending cases before Judge Chandler are left to him without interference in any way.\nHe thus has exactly what he asks for currently.\nIf he thinks that isn't all that he wants, he can change it.\nWith respect to pending cases that may soon be cleared out.\nWith respect to future cases, all he has to do is to tell his fellow district judges that he doesn't agree and that he wants some cases assigned to him.\nIf his fellow judges do agree to assign cases to him and he accepts that, there will be no disagreement and there will be no basis for the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council to act under Section 137.\nIf on the other hand his fellow district judges do not agree, then there will be a disagreement.\nIt will be appropriate for the Tenth Circuit to take whatever action may be appropriate under the circumstances, and I have no idea what that action would be.\nThus, I submit for the Court's consideration that although it is novel that this is a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, but that the motion for leave to file the petition for a writ of mandamus should be denied because there is no longer any existing controversy outstanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6633.523, 6634.523, 6673.478, 6696.626, 6711.255, 6737.351, 6746.904, 6764.275, 6776.23, 6779.313, 6801.807, 6805.379, 6827.684, 6833.614, 6847.19, 6858.886, 6869.412, 6877.938, 6882.2, 6887.767, 6893.281, 6903.796, 6916.815, 6922.637, 6933.287], "stop_times": [6634.523, 6673.478, 6696.626, 6711.255, 6737.351, 6746.904, 6764.275, 6776.23, 6779.313, 6801.807, 6805.379, 6827.684, 6833.614, 6847.19, 6858.886, 6869.412, 6877.938, 6882.2, 6887.767, 6893.281, 6903.796, 6916.815, 6922.637, 6933.287, 6959.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6633.523}, "reply_to": "15299__3_057", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15299__3_059", "conversation_id": "15299", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Solicitor General.\nThank you, Mr. Wright.\nThank you, Mr. Kenan and Mr. Shipley.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_2-MISC", "start_times": [6959.927, 6961.947, 6963.84, 6967.534], "stop_times": [6961.947, 6963.84, 6967.534, 6970.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6959.927}, "reply_to": "15299__3_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14916__0_000", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "We'll hear arguments in Number 41, Choctaw Nation and Chickasaw Nation against Oklahoma and Number 59, Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma.\nCounsel, I have an announcement to make of interest to you.\nYou observe Mr. Justice Harlan is not going to sit on this case.\nI will participate in the decision of the case based on the prior, all briefs records, the prior argument which I heard and the tape recordings of this argument, but will not remain present and not able to remain present in the courtroom for this argument but will take part in the decision.\nMr. Justice Black, if you will please take to preside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [0.0, 38.144, 41.88, 47.84, 68.82], "stop_times": [38.144, 41.88, 47.84, 68.82, 75.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14916__0_001", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "All right gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [75.191], "stop_times": [79.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.191}, "reply_to": "14916__0_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__0_002", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, may it please the Court.\nThe circuit court's decision from which this appeal was taken had turned on that Court's construction of this Court's decision in United States versus Holt, United States versus Holt State Bank.\nA review of the facts in United States versus Holt State Bank may of be of some help in the discussion of its application to the facts and the case at bar.\nIn United States versus Holt State Bank, Chippewas ceded to the United States their right of occupancy to a certain lands in Minnesota.\nIn return, the United States agreed to put the land up for sale and when it was sold, put the money into a trust fund to be used for the benefits of Chippewas.\nWithin the lands that the Chippewas ceded to the United States was a lake called Mud Lake.\nFollowing the treaty with the Chippewas, Minnesota became a state and later Mud Lake was drained and its bed became valuable for agricultural purposes.\nAfter Mud Lake was drained, the Government claimed that it was obligated to sell the bed of Mud Lake for the benefit of the Chippewas.\nThe defendants claimed that upon its admittance to the union, Minnesota became the owner of the bed under the equal footing doctrine and that they have succeeded to the rights of the state.\nThe case presented two issues.\nFirst, was the lake navigable and second, were the lands underlying the lake disposed of by the United States before Minnesota became a state.\nWell, the Court first found that the lake was navigable and then it addressed itself to the question of whether the United States has its post of those lands before Minnesota became a state.\nNow it was not claimed in Holt State Bank that United States have made an affirmative disposition of the bed of the lake, but only this was the only claim that was made, that the lake was in the limits of a reservation when Minnesota was admitted to the union.\nNow, in it's analysis of the facts in that case, this Court said, \u201cthe reservation came in to being through a succession of treaties with the Chippewas whereby they ceded to the United States, their aboriginal right of occupancy to the surrounding lands.\nThere was no formal setting apart of what was not ceded.\nThe effect of what was done was to reserve in a general way for the continued occupation of the Indians, what remained of their aboriginal territory and thus it came to be known and recognized as a reservation.\u201d\nThis Court in its decision in U.S. versus Holt State Bank referred to the equal footing doctrine and said, \u201cFirst that disposals by the United States during territorial days is not likely to be inferred and should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain.\u201d\nThis Court found nothing in the cession of a right of occupancy in exchange for a promise that the land would be sold and the money used for the benefit of the Chippewas, rightfully so I think is even approaching a grant by the Government to the Indians of the underlying navigable waters.\nAnd this Court did not find anything in this cession of a right of occupancy in exchange for the creation of a trust fund that would evince a purpose to depart from the established policy of treating such lands as held for the benefit of a future state and we take no issue with this Court's decision in Holt State Bank case.\nWe believe that -- we believe that it's a good decision and it's a sound decision and one that should be allowed a stand.\nBut it must be remembered that in Holt State Bank, the Chippewas were the grantors and the United States was the grantee.\nThe Court said there was no formal setting apart of that which was not ceded.\nWhat the Court is there saying is this.\nThe Chippewas were the grantors.\nHad they wanted to keep the soil and the minerals, underlying Mud Lake, they should have set them apart from their cession.\nBut in the case at bar, the shoe fits on the other foot.\nIn the case now at bar, the United States was the grantor in the patent of the Cherokees of 1838 and it was the grantor in the patent to the Choctaws in 1842.\nApplying the rule, enunciated in Holt State Bank, it must be said that had the United States in its patent to the Cherokees in 1838, its patent to the Choctaws in 1842, wanted to have reserve the soils and minerals underlying any portion of the Arkansas River, it should have done so.\nNow, it is said in Holt State Bank and we think that it is a sound rule that before a disposal of the bed of navigable waters by the United States can be inferred, its intent to do so should be made very plain.\nIf it appears then in this case that when the Indians moved from their ancestral homes in the south to the wild lands in the west, it was both their intention and the intention of the United States that the lands to which they were being moved would never be embraced in the state or territory.\nIf it appears from the negotiations leading up to the treaty, the language of the treaties themselves that it was the intention of the Indian tribes and the intention of the United States that the lands to which the Indians were being moved would never be embraced in a state or territory, then it is very plain.\nAnd the test established in Holt State Bank has been met, that the United States would have no reason to have retained the beds of the navigable streams in these lands.\nThe absence of the necessity for retaining such a bed coupled with the urgency associated with moving the Indians out of the southern states, makes the intent of the United States to dispose of the beds of the navigable streams within those lands to which the Indians were then being moved, very plain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [79.991, 85.869, 102.326, 118.63, 133.573, 147.148, 157.244, 172.471, 183.166, 197.259, 199.995, 211.816, 226.193, 249.418, 270.268, 277.278, 297.754, 324.188, 347.0, 376.42, 384.289, 400.093, 407.816, 411.428, 414.76, 430.407, 437.707, 454.89, 484.775, 509.376, 535.914, 571.213, 586.098], "stop_times": [85.869, 102.326, 118.63, 133.573, 147.148, 157.244, 172.471, 183.166, 197.259, 199.995, 211.816, 226.193, 249.418, 270.268, 277.278, 297.754, 324.188, 347.0, 376.42, 384.289, 400.093, 407.816, 411.428, 414.76, 430.407, 437.707, 454.89, 484.775, 509.376, 535.914, 571.213, 586.098, 618.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 79.991}, "reply_to": "14916__0_001", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "14916__0_003", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "But the treaty with the Cherokee said that they wouldn't be put out of the Cherokee land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [618.928], "stop_times": [625.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.928}, "reply_to": "14916__0_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__0_004", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That is indeed so.\nThe treaty with the Choctaw said that it should be theirs as long as they remained a nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [625.289, 626.422], "stop_times": [626.422, 633.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.289}, "reply_to": "14916__0_003", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "14916__0_005", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "When was that?\nWhen was that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [633.398, 635.27], "stop_times": [635.27, 635.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.398}, "reply_to": "14916__0_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__0_006", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "If you please, Mr. Justice Black the treaties were made with the Choctaws in 1820 and with the Cherokees in 1828 and another treaty with the Choctaw in 1832, a final treaty with the Cherokees in 1835.\nThe result of these treaties were the issuance of a patent.\nThe first patent that the United States Government ever gave to a tribe of Indians or it conveyed this land in fee simple to the Cherokees in 1938 and then there's another patent, being second patent in which United States Government have ever conveyed to fee simple title to an Indian tribe to the Choctaws in 1842.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [635.957, 652.638, 657.956], "stop_times": [652.638, 657.956, 682.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.957}, "reply_to": "14916__0_005", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "14916__0_007", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Does the case depend on written documents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [682.29], "stop_times": [689.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.29}, "reply_to": "14916__0_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__0_008", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes, I think so, I think it depends.\nI think that it depends upon the negotiations leading up to the treaties and the treaties themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [689.86, 693.734], "stop_times": [693.734, 702.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.86}, "reply_to": "14916__0_007", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "14916__0_009", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That has to be in writing I assume now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [702.448], "stop_times": [704.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 702.448}, "reply_to": "14916__0_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__0_010", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir and it is in writing and they are set out in our briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [704.483], "stop_times": [708.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.483}, "reply_to": "14916__0_009", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "14916__0_011", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And the patents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [708.247], "stop_times": [709.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.247}, "reply_to": "14916__0_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__0_012", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And the patents, the patents each convey a fee simple title.\nMy time has expired, I maybe excused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [709.475, 716.391], "stop_times": [716.391, 720.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.475}, "reply_to": "14916__0_011", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "14916__0_013", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [720.547], "stop_times": [739.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.547}, "reply_to": "14916__0_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_000", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "If the Court please.\nI think the background of this case has been fully covered except I would like briefly refer to the so-called Louisiana Purchase of 1883.\nThere has been great weight placed upon that by the respondents in that their interpretation of that purchase is that it was purchased for the purpose of the formation of future states and covered by the Louisiana Purchase.\nArticle III of that purchase and that's the only reference that provides that the inhabitants of this area that is ceded to the United States by France shall be -- they shall enjoy their freedom, their religion, their constitutional rights that the Federal Government would afford them hand that the inhabitants perhaps at some future date might become a citizen of the United States.\nThere was no reference to the creation of specific states --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [739.464, 743.55, 760.869, 782.823, 824.985], "stop_times": [743.55, 760.869, 782.823, 824.985, 828.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.464}, "reply_to": "14916__0_013", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_001", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Ford, do you have a separate brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [828.055], "stop_times": [830.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.055}, "reply_to": "14916__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_002", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [830.559], "stop_times": [831.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.559}, "reply_to": "14916__1_001", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_003", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Do you have a separate brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [831.515], "stop_times": [833.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.515}, "reply_to": "14916__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_004", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt's -- that is red, does that help you and I have a short reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [833.073, 836.451], "stop_times": [836.451, 852.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.073}, "reply_to": "14916__1_003", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_005", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I'll get them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [852.199], "stop_times": [853.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.199}, "reply_to": "14916__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_006", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That I would recommend to Your Honor merely because of its brevity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [853.556], "stop_times": [859.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.556}, "reply_to": "14916__1_005", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_007", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Because of its brevity?\nWill that help?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [859.643, 862.483], "stop_times": [862.483, 868.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.643}, "reply_to": "14916__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_008", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Now, the only thing having disposed of the Louisiana Purchase briefly rather than to recite school boy history that Jefferson was severely attacked by purchasing Louisiana as an executive.\nTo add on he had doubts in his own mind and due correspondence are indicators he thought a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to enact this territory.\nHe was apparently dissuaded on that decision, so the treaty was affirmed 24/7, I think on Christmas Eve 1903, I mean 1803, if I drop a century.\nBut the interesting part of that is in 1802, Georgia made a cession pact ceding part of their land right following that to the Osages and return for a certain land.\nThen in 1808, the Osages began a negotiation with treaty, ratified in 1810.\nBut in 1809, the Cherokees called upon Jefferson or they petitioned him in regard to the way they were being treated and so forth and their possible move to the west and this also was in between the negotiations with the Osage Treaty and ratification.\nThen in 1909, Jefferson said, gave his blessings and said to, \u201cMy children go forth and seek this land\u201d and directed them to the Arkansas and White Rivers and said the higher the better which incorporates part of the land that is in contention today.\nNow with reference to the treaties, the 1835 treaties in effect incorporates, I'm speaking of Cherokees, the treaty of 1817, of 1833 and 1835.\nIn Brewer v. Elliot, the Court clearly spoke that the Louisiana Purchase could not intervene where a tribe was granted a fee simple title.\nOf course, in Cherokee Tobacco, it was held that a treaty may suspend a prior Act of Congress and an Act of Congress may suspend the treaty.\nBy later treaties that the Louisiana Purchase had any validity, it certainly was not advocated, but modified by the subsequent treaty.\nBut the thing that we're trying to construe in this case in my mind is a clear language of the treaty prescribed in the 1833 Treaty adopted in the 1935 Treaty and the patent that was adopted in 1938 and the language in the treaty so far as the land covered is consistent with the patent, that position.\nAnd there are case after case, Creek case and I think Holden v. Joy and several other cases of this Court that holds that we did get title in fee simple for these five civilized tribes; Choctaw, Cherokees, Creek, Seminoles, Chickasaw.\nNow, as to the conveyance, it was a simple conveyance and as Holmes pointed out in the Fleming case, 215 U.S. that the United States would choose to use any language it wanted to, but it chose a simple language of conveyance that the average citizen would understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [868.54, 886.169, 899.912, 917.193, 937.64, 946.966, 976.754, 1010.522, 1027.903, 1041.592, 1054.567, 1066.025, 1097.39, 1132.281], "stop_times": [886.169, 899.912, 917.193, 937.64, 946.966, 976.754, 1010.522, 1027.903, 1041.592, 1054.567, 1066.025, 1097.39, 1132.281, 1161.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.54}, "reply_to": "14916__1_007", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_009", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Where is that quoted in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1161.222], "stop_times": [1163.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.222}, "reply_to": "14916__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_010", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "In my brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1163.547], "stop_times": [1164.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.547}, "reply_to": "14916__1_009", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_011", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1164.34], "stop_times": [1165.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.34}, "reply_to": "14916__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_012", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Fleming is not cited but it's 215 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1165.142], "stop_times": [1168.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.142}, "reply_to": "14916__1_011", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_013", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I meant the language to which you refer, the language to which you refer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1168.638], "stop_times": [1174.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.638}, "reply_to": "14916__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_014", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Of Holmes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1174.506], "stop_times": [1175.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.506}, "reply_to": "14916__1_013", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_015", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1175.644], "stop_times": [1177.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.644}, "reply_to": "14916__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_016", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "It's Fleming v. McCurtain, it's not cited in the brief but its 295 U.S.\nI've forgotten the language.\nHe also in that case spoken to the cessation of these tribes and said the Congress has spoken, as a simple answer to it, and were still in existence or any Act of Congress including the Act of 1894, of 1902, of 1906, of 1952 and of 1962 and as to the equal footing doctrine, Shively v. Bowlby, was decided in 1845.\nThere was a trust expressly created between Virginia and Georgia prior to that time to form the State of Alabama.\nAnd the United States attempted to grant land to a private party after statehood.\nIn Shively v. Bowlby and of course, that engrasped it for so-called public purpose exception, but before the Court agrees to that and it's pointed out in their reply brief.\nIn every case, from Shively v. Bowlby to Holt, the case is decided upon the facts that territorial status existing, that there was a Government in existence prior to status.\nIndian Territory was never a territory as such other than as you would speak with territory covering certain lands.\nOklahoma territory did enjoy territory status.\nIndian Territory did not and never became a territory of the United States.\nAnd I think the public purpose in this is so obvious that it hardly needs requisites.\nThe removal of the Indian which is an absolute necessity, as the compact of 1802 with Georgia which indicates the public purpose.\nThe power of Congress to convey this land is clear and simple and the so-called argument that the tribe might at sometime cease then as was pointed out in early days in a letter of one of the Indian commissioners in Holden v. Joy, I think, and it's simply an escheat provision.\nWe cease, the land goes back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1177.037, 1190.139, 1194.157, 1230.163, 1238.938, 1245.037, 1260.37, 1278.142, 1289.865, 1293.254, 1301.528, 1314.675, 1326.94, 1352.925], "stop_times": [1190.139, 1194.157, 1230.163, 1238.938, 1245.037, 1260.37, 1278.142, 1289.865, 1293.254, 1301.528, 1314.675, 1326.94, 1352.925, 1355.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.037}, "reply_to": "14916__1_015", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_017", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "What has made that land so valuable under the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1355.428], "stop_times": [1360.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.428}, "reply_to": "14916__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_018", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, there is as any river, it has certain agricultural --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1360.251], "stop_times": [1369.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.251}, "reply_to": "14916__1_017", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_019", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I wouldn't suppose they just re-litigate on what was the surface of the river.\nWhat is it, is it oil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1369.925, 1373.728], "stop_times": [1373.728, 1375.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.925}, "reply_to": "14916__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_020", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well it's a -- I think Mr. Kirk in his previous argument said it was oil and I think it was gas --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1375.655], "stop_times": [1385.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.655}, "reply_to": "14916__1_019", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_021", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think in the previous argument, and we heard that it wasn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1385.947], "stop_times": [1388.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.947}, "reply_to": "14916__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__1_022", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think it was gas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1388.455], "stop_times": [1389.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.455}, "reply_to": "14916__1_021", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_023", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "-- really that valuable as people had originally thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1389.088], "stop_times": [1390.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.088}, "reply_to": "14916__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__1_024", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, no, I don't think, that's for the Court to decide anyway, but the principal production is gas I think instead of oil.\nNow Mr. Kirk is far better informed in that subject than I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1390.252, 1398.658], "stop_times": [1398.658, 1402.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.252}, "reply_to": "14916__1_023", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_025", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, for what purpose can the Indians have use for it except for the gas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1402.441], "stop_times": [1407.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.441}, "reply_to": "14916__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_026", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Huh?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1407.226], "stop_times": [1407.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.226}, "reply_to": "14916__1_025", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_027", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "For what the purpose can the Indians use it except for the gas or oil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1407.711], "stop_times": [1414.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.711}, "reply_to": "14916__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_028", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "They could use the revenue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1414.949], "stop_times": [1416.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.949}, "reply_to": "14916__1_027", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_029", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The bed of the river -- of the stream?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1416.688], "stop_times": [1418.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.688}, "reply_to": "14916__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_030", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "They could use the revenue derived from the bed of the stream if that particular bed was productive of oil, gas --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1418.971], "stop_times": [1429.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1418.971}, "reply_to": "14916__1_029", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_031", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "But that's what this is about mainly, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1429.192], "stop_times": [1431.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.192}, "reply_to": "14916__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__1_032", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "It happens to be gas, do I have any more time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1431.943], "stop_times": [1440.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.943}, "reply_to": "14916__1_031", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_033", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "You have six minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1440.374], "stop_times": [1442.191], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.374}, "reply_to": "14916__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14916__1_034", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I'll reserve it for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1442.191], "stop_times": [1458.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.191}, "reply_to": "14916__1_033", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__1_035", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Claiborne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1458.036], "stop_times": [1459.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.036}, "reply_to": "14916__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_000", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and may it please the Court.\nThere are really two arguments made by the State of Oklahoma in order to claim the bed of the navigable portion of the Arkansas River which is in dispute here.\nThe first is that these Indian tribes never obtained title to the bed.\nThe second is that if they did, they lost it at some subsequent time.\nAs to the first proposition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1459.227, 1465.179, 1478.812, 1487.013, 1493.866], "stop_times": [1465.179, 1478.812, 1487.013, 1493.866, 1494.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1459.227}, "reply_to": "14916__1_035", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_001", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Lost in how?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1494.888], "stop_times": [1496.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.888}, "reply_to": "14916__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_002", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, they would say -- well, they don't press these arguments.\nThey have suggested here and there.\nI take it that they're not pressed as their main arguments, \u201clost by voluntarily relinquishment in the 1890's just prior to statehood,\u201d that is prior to Oklahoma statehood.\nThey have received that they have taken from them or that they gave it away when they agreed to an allotment of their land or were forced to allot their lands.\nThe second of these arguments would be that they cease to exist as a nation and therefore under the terms of the grants, these communal tribal lands reverted to United States and in turn inundate to the State of Oklahoma.\nThat is an argument which barely suggested by Oklahoma and I hope not seriously pressed.\nMore seriously, I think, they suggest that neither tribe the Choctaws, Chickasaws together nor the Cherokees ever obtained title to the bed of the river and I make two arguments in that respect.\nThe first is that as a technical manner conveyancing, these treaties and patents did not embrace the bed of the river.\nThe second is that even if the patents broadly embrace the bed that was an implied reservation by the United States in these grants for the benefit of some future state.\nAs to the first proposition, I think what is most noteworthy when one traces down the various descriptions and the various treaties and the various patents is that the grant to the Cherokees and the grants to the Choctaws are always defined one with relation to the other.\nThe boundary between them is spoken of as common corner, the Cherokee corner or the Choctaw corner at the extreme downward point of the Arkansas River.\nThere are references to the river which talk about down the main channel which doesn't sound like along the north bank.\nFinally, and I think most of persuasive, is the almost unthinkable proposition that in grants of this size and as the little map I have prepared for the Court indicates, the whole of the state of Oklahoma except the panhandle was granted to three Indian tribes.\nThe Cherokees at the north, the Creeks and Seminoles in the center, Choctaws and Chickasaws at the bottom, each of these grants is of a huge tract of land.\nIn the case of the Cherokees, it's an approximately 14 million acres, roughly three times the size of Maryland.\nThe Choctaw and the Chickasaw grant is considerably larger.\nAll of this territory, west of the Arkansas boundary was intended to be and to remain Indian Territory.\nThese enormous grants to what were then described as nations meant to remain forever as quasi-independent, quasi-sovereign states.\nIt is unthinkable, I think, that the riverbeds were meant to be left out when all of this territory west of the line was confined to the tribes all in contiguous grants.\nMuch the same considerations weigh against the second argument advanced by Oklahoma, which is that the United States impliedly reserved the beds even though they're caught within the description.\nI should emphasize that in one instance, it's quite clear that the bed of the river is caught within the description of that portion of the Arkansas River that is entirely embraced by Cherokee lands on both sides which runs from Fort Gibson to the confluence of the Arkansas with the Canadian River.\nNow the notion that the United States would have, in this instance, reserve to itself the benefit of a future state, the bed of the Arkansas River insofar as it was navigable is at odds both with the understanding of the times.\nFirst of all, that doctrine had not yet been articulated and it's only several years later, this Court for the first time developed that proposition.\nBut leaving that aside --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1496.505, 1499.896, 1502.29, 1515.508, 1524.555, 1540.775, 1547.962, 1563.352, 1574.544, 1590.995, 1615.894, 1633.762, 1643.073, 1667.106, 1680.059, 1686.605, 1691.637, 1701.642, 1718.441, 1736.429, 1750.07, 1773.476, 1793.647, 1803.621], "stop_times": [1499.896, 1502.29, 1515.508, 1524.555, 1540.775, 1547.962, 1563.352, 1574.544, 1590.995, 1615.894, 1633.762, 1643.073, 1667.106, 1680.059, 1686.605, 1691.637, 1701.642, 1718.441, 1736.429, 1750.07, 1773.476, 1793.647, 1803.621, 1804.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1496.505}, "reply_to": "14916__2_001", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_003", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "What about the other language, \u201cover to the Arkansas River and benched up the river so many miles?\u201d\nIs it your position that that means the whole bed of the river or half of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1804.871, 1811.451], "stop_times": [1811.451, 1817.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.871}, "reply_to": "14916__2_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__2_004", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, we do not take a position with respect to the intramural debate as between the two tribes.\nIt would seem to us that description is ambiguous.\nIt certainly does not show any intent to exclude the bed of the river.\nAs to which of the two tribes has the better claim is a matter which I should think this Court would leave to the lower courts which have not ruled on it in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1817.624, 1827.692, 1834.131, 1838.468], "stop_times": [1827.692, 1834.131, 1838.468, 1846.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1817.624}, "reply_to": "14916__2_003", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_005", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, isn't a part of the river that is on the boundary not between the two, but is there a part of the river that's on the boundary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1846.634], "stop_times": [1854.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.634}, "reply_to": "14916__2_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__2_006", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "There is -- there is Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1854.774], "stop_times": [1858.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1854.774}, "reply_to": "14916__2_005", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_007", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, you claim that whole river bed there or half of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1858.217], "stop_times": [1861.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.217}, "reply_to": "14916__2_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__2_008", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The Choctaws claim the whole of it, the Cherokees claim the north half of it.\nObviously, there's an overlapping claim here which I don't think is to be disposed of by this Court.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1861.875, 1867.44, 1873.224], "stop_times": [1867.44, 1873.224, 1889.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1861.875}, "reply_to": "14916__2_007", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_009", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Claiborne, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1889.195], "stop_times": [1892.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.195}, "reply_to": "14916__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_010", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and may it please the Court.\nPicking up from Mr. Justice Marshall's question, let me say broadly that the realistic situation here is that the Government of the United States determine that all lands west of a certain boundary that ultimately was the boundary of the State of Arkansas should be Indian lands, a whole enormous territory which includes present Oklahoma and some other lands.\nSubsequently, it was determined to divide that acreage between these several tribes.\nThe exact descriptions of that division should not be dispositive as to whether all of that Indian country was then meant to be and to remain an Indian territory.\nFrom that point on, from the 1820's on and later when this territory was called the Indian Territory, nobody ever thought that any portion of it had been kept back.\nThe exact boundaries between the several grants were matters of some dispute.\nSome of the grants originally were overlapping, were found to be overlapping and were then corrected, but the general picture and I think this is a fair statement, is that all of that land was meant to be Indian land in which white settlers were excluded and it ought not to be dispositive whether the coals in certain surveys exactly match or do not.\nAs a matter of fact, we think here that the descriptions do show a contiguous boundary between the Cherokee and the Choctaw grant where the Oklahoma -- where the Arkansas River is the boundary between them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1892.082, 1895.571, 1924.909, 1932.752, 1947.584, 1961.305, 1967.374, 1994.598], "stop_times": [1895.571, 1924.909, 1932.752, 1947.584, 1961.305, 1967.374, 1994.598, 2008.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1892.082}, "reply_to": "14916__2_009", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_011", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "When did this dispute arise first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2008.487], "stop_times": [2012.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.487}, "reply_to": "14916__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_012", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "This dispute as between the tribes of Oklahoma, Mr. Justice Black?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2012.259], "stop_times": [2015.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2012.259}, "reply_to": "14916__2_011", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_013", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2015.828], "stop_times": [2017.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.828}, "reply_to": "14916__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_014", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I suppose it was always there from the point when Oklahoma became a state.\nSince we have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2017.449, 2026.592], "stop_times": [2026.592, 2027.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2017.449}, "reply_to": "14916__2_013", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_015", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "When did it arise over the -- over the bottom of the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2027.369], "stop_times": [2031.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.369}, "reply_to": "14916__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_016", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, the letter from the interior department which is reprinted at the back of our brief in 1908 indicates that at that time, there was already some question with respect to whether the state or whether the tribes own the bed.\nAt that time it was simply sand and gravel removal, it was not oil or gas.\nThe value of the bed at that time I suppose was minimal.\nI may say also that to the extent that these tribes are taxed with not having brought this suit earlier, it was not at all clear.\nIn fact, it was assumed after Cherokee Nation versus Georgia that these tribes have no standing of their own to bring the suit in the federal court and because they couldn't bring one in the state court without the consent of the state.\nIt was only in your opinion Mr. Justice Black in the Creek case in 318 U.S. decided in 1944 that for the very first time it was said, it wasn't a holding, it was a dictum, but it was a clear dictum that these nations so-called, these civilized tribes did have standing to file a suit without a special Act of Congress authorizing it.\nThere were of course dozens of cases entitled Cherokee Nation versus United States --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2031.939, 2049.168, 2055.134, 2059.909, 2068.795, 2082.804, 2108.604], "stop_times": [2049.168, 2055.134, 2059.909, 2068.795, 2082.804, 2108.604, 2113.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2031.939}, "reply_to": "14916__2_015", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_017", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Have there been any opportunity get a special Act of Congress passed to Justice Black?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2113.051], "stop_times": [2117.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.051}, "reply_to": "14916__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_018", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I don't think up to that time and that was 1944, that still leaves some time between then and the time this suit was filed 20 years later.\nHowever, it's first to fact that the value of this property was not apparent until the discovery of gas in very recent years.\nSecondly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2117.33, 2125.811, 2137.441], "stop_times": [2125.811, 2137.441, 2138.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2117.33}, "reply_to": "14916__2_017", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_019", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Are you trying to say Mr. Claiborne that before to that opinion to which you referred in 318 U.S., there has been many cases, captioned such and such a Nation against the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2138.382], "stop_times": [2149.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.382}, "reply_to": "14916__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__2_020", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "But all of them except perhaps one and the one is entitled Cherokee Nation versus Hitchcock, the then the Secretary of the Interior which is cited by Mr. Justice Black in that opinion and the Creek case as authority.\nThere was another cited which is really not good a precedent because it was filed pursuant to special act terms.\nWhat I meant to say was that all of these suits with that possible exception were filed pursuant to specific authorization from the Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2149.85, 2163.269, 2171.111], "stop_times": [2163.269, 2171.111, 2181.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2149.85}, "reply_to": "14916__2_019", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_021", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The bills were passed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2181.437], "stop_times": [2183.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.437}, "reply_to": "14916__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__2_022", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Special bills were passed.\nUsually there were suits in Court of Claims.\nI may say even this suit could not have been brought under the decisions of this Court, but for the consent granted by Oklahoma or a waiver of its sovereign immunity.\nAnd we don't know whether Oklahoma was at all times willing to consent to the suite by these tribes.\nFinally, I should say in fairness that the tribes' approach the Department of Interior some years ago seeking to have the United States file the suit on behalf of the tribes which was then -- which has been an established practice.\nThe Department of Interior did not refuse to do so, but took it's time in processing the request and ultimately the tribes brought their own suits.\nNow, I don't mean to imply for a moment that the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice are not fully in support of the petitioners here as indeed my presence indicates and the Government appeared likewise in the courts below since the first appearance.\nGoing back, these grants were in no sense, as though they were grants to private owners of even large estates.\nThese were cessions made by treaty with what were considered independent nations or quasi-independent nations.\nThere were recognitions and grants, not only of property in the real estate sense, but a political power.\nThe treaties themselves and the opinions of this Court rendered just two and three years before in Cherokee Nation versus Georgia, and Worcester versus Georgia by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall indicated to what extraordinary extent these tribes, these civilized tribes were independent nations.\nThey were held not to be foreign states, but they were held in every other respect to be independent political sovereignties.\nUnder those circumstances and considering also the terminology of the grants which I remind the Court were in terms of a fee simple title, in terms of a permanent home for these tribes of Indians and with a special assurance that at no future time would a state be called out or surround them.\nIt is -- it seems to us that one cannot realistically suppose that there was any intention to retain for the benefit of the future state.\nThe beds of the Navajo Rivers that might exist within that enormous territory now ceded for the benefit of the tribes.\nIt does not appear why the United States would have wished for its own purposes to retain the bed of the river.\nIt did retain, as it always does, its navigational servitude, its right to use the river as a notary of commerce.\nIt had an interest in maintaining Fort Gibson that the head of navigation on the Arkansas River and its access to that fort was of course a matter of importance but that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2183.101, 2184.618, 2189.777, 2199.68, 2207.127, 2222.171, 2234.628, 2254.786, 2272.046, 2284.271, 2294.253, 2316.835, 2326.512, 2351.55, 2365.98, 2376.321, 2382.312, 2391.297], "stop_times": [2184.618, 2189.777, 2199.68, 2207.127, 2222.171, 2234.628, 2254.786, 2272.046, 2284.271, 2294.253, 2316.835, 2326.512, 2351.55, 2365.98, 2376.321, 2382.312, 2391.297, 2404.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2183.101}, "reply_to": "14916__2_021", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_023", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "This is usually presented in the [Inaudible] Creeks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2404.179], "stop_times": [2408.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.179}, "reply_to": "14916__2_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_024", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, Mr. Justice White because the Creeks do not have land bordering on any navigable portion of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2408.277], "stop_times": [2414.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2408.277}, "reply_to": "14916__2_023", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_025", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The Arkansas was considered navigable by the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2414.468], "stop_times": [2417.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.468}, "reply_to": "14916__2_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_026", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "According to this Court's opinion on Brewer-Elliot in 260 U.S., the Court there accepted the findings of the two courts below that the head of navigation on the Arkansas River was just above Fort Gibson, at the confluence of the Grand River and of the Arkansas River which is the point from which this dispute arises.\nThat case incidentally, the Brewer-Elliot decision, says in so many words that the reserved doctrine under which beds of navigational rivers are reserved may not be applicable with respects to these grants that being granted to the Cherokees and by the Cherokees to the Osages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2417.295, 2439.399], "stop_times": [2439.399, 2463.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2417.295}, "reply_to": "14916__2_025", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_027", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Is there a conflict between the Choctaws, the Chickasaws and Cherokees over the bed of the Canadian?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2463.883], "stop_times": [2472.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.883}, "reply_to": "14916__2_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_028", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think not, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2472.789], "stop_times": [2477.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2472.789}, "reply_to": "14916__2_027", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_029", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2477.75], "stop_times": [2481.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.75}, "reply_to": "14916__2_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_030", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think not but I'm not really am not clear.\nIf it is of course non-navigable, there wouldn't be any claim by the state.\nIt would simply be a claim as between the two tribes and I frankly don't know which ways it's resolved.\nI think there the patent is clear however that's it's the north bank of the -- of Canadian that's I think it's clear --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2481.839, 2485.487, 2489.768, 2495.531], "stop_times": [2485.487, 2489.768, 2495.531, 2503.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2481.839}, "reply_to": "14916__2_029", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_031", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2503.331], "stop_times": [2504.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.331}, "reply_to": "14916__2_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_032", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think the Cherokee grant resides the north bank of the Canadian and I think the Choctaw grant is not that specific, it simply says a territory between the Canadian and the Red River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2504.53], "stop_times": [2517.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2504.53}, "reply_to": "14916__2_031", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_033", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2517.781], "stop_times": [2529.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.781}, "reply_to": "14916__2_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_034", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I would think so, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2529.751], "stop_times": [2532.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2529.751}, "reply_to": "14916__2_033", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_035", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2532.151], "stop_times": [2537.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.151}, "reply_to": "14916__2_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_036", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "In terms yes, I think that's correct Mr. Justice White, but I really don't -- I'm not sufficiently informed on that question to be sure of my answer, that's my impression.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2537.69], "stop_times": [2548.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2537.69}, "reply_to": "14916__2_035", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_037", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2548.67], "stop_times": [2551.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.67}, "reply_to": "14916__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_038", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The Red River in this Court's decision in Oklahoma versus Texas was adjudicated to belong -- well, to be outside of Texas and to be within Oklahoma.\nIt was held to be non-navigable and the Indian allottees were held to own the bed where -- the entire bed where their allotments filled.\nThat dispute is only about a small portion of the Red River which was in what was called the least district of the Choctaw grant.\nNow, even in the equal footing doctrine is applicable, it is recognized that there's an exception where the United States for a public purpose grants the bed of the river, does not reserve it.\nHere, the public purpose is to satisfy the claims of the Eastern Seaboard States as to whom the United States have promised to extinguish Indian title and its resulting obligation to the Indian tribes to find a new home for them and to maintain the peace and avoid Indian wars.\nAll of those important public purposes were determinative in having the Government settle the tribes west of this Arkansas land and in the way that gave them an absolutely protected boundary into which no white man was permitted except by leave of the governments of these tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2551.472, 2564.143, 2577.94, 2589.596, 2606.057, 2630.233], "stop_times": [2564.143, 2577.94, 2589.596, 2606.057, 2630.233, 2662.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2551.472}, "reply_to": "14916__2_037", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_039", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Did the United States of America grant to Cherokees or Choctaw and take one the tribes and the patent fee of the patent, both said the north bank and north of the Arkansas River without regard of any presumptions or equal footing doctrine [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2662.854], "stop_times": [2708.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.854}, "reply_to": "14916__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_040", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, I think even there Mr. Justice White, there would be an argument that because this entire area have been carved out not so much as a land grant but as a political grant that the -- just as the state would own the bed, so here the intention was that these tribes as nations would stand in the shoes of a state with all of the same rights.\nIf there's any equal footing argument here, it's that the nations who receive these territories ought to stand on an equal footing with the other territories created from the Louisiana Purchase and the suggestion that Oklahoma is being treated as a second class state is rather out of place.\nIt's the Indian nations that are being treated as second class grantees if they are deprived of the bed.\nBut we would certainly strain to avoid a result which would leave a strip of land in the middle of Indian country reserved from those grants when one could imagine no purpose for doing so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2708.149, 2734.135, 2756.684, 2764.361], "stop_times": [2734.135, 2756.684, 2764.361, 2783.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2708.149}, "reply_to": "14916__2_039", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_041", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, I suppose they're conceived [Inaudible] navigable stream?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2783.474], "stop_times": [2790.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.474}, "reply_to": "14916__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_042", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "It's a sovereign servitude but not at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2790.17], "stop_times": [2793.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2790.17}, "reply_to": "14916__2_041", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_043", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2793.378], "stop_times": [2804.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.378}, "reply_to": "14916__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_044", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, no more than when a state is created out of the Louisiana territory, the United States retains its navigational servitude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2804.532], "stop_times": [2814.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2804.532}, "reply_to": "14916__2_043", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_045", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2814.208], "stop_times": [2824.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.208}, "reply_to": "14916__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__2_046", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, if that is -- that is an aspect of sovereignty, I suppose, that certainly the United States retained roughly the same sovereignty that it would with respect to the state carved out of the Louisiana territory or any other territory of the United States.\nIf I may trespass on the Court's time for a moment, I would say that with respect to the suggestions that somehow if they once got it, they subsequently lost the bed of the river.\nI think Oklahoma is hesitant to suggest that they gave it up because that would amount to an argument that they did so only by duress.\nIt being perfectly clear that the Cherokees and the Choctaws agreed to allotment only under pressures from the Congress and after the passage of the Curtis Act as to the proposition that they have ceased to be nations and that therefore under the terms of the grants, there was reversion to the United States.\nThis Court's decision in the Menominee case which holds that a tribe remains a tribe even after a Termination Act has been passed by the Congress would seem dispositive there.\nThese -- though there was at one time an intention to abolish the tribes and end their tribal community, they still retain tribal property, they are still tribes.\nThey do so in some rights of self-government and if all advance it would be unworthy to have destroyed the nation in order to rob it of its property.\nFor these reasons, we suggest that the judgment below should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2824.159, 2839.797, 2855.253, 2864.208, 2883.37, 2894.436, 2906.763, 2922.717], "stop_times": [2839.797, 2855.253, 2864.208, 2883.37, 2894.436, 2906.763, 2922.717, 2934.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2824.159}, "reply_to": "14916__2_045", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "14916__2_047", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Blackenship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2934.894], "stop_times": [2941.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.894}, "reply_to": "14916__2_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_000", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2941.775], "stop_times": [2944.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.775}, "reply_to": "14916__2_047", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_001", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2944.388], "stop_times": [2957.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.388}, "reply_to": "14916__3_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_002", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir I do.\nIt depends upon of course what degree of blood you're referring to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2957.045, 2960.17], "stop_times": [2960.17, 2965.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.045}, "reply_to": "14916__3_001", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_003", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "When you talk about members of the tribe, [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2965.206], "stop_times": [2970.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.206}, "reply_to": "14916__3_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_004", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, an estimated of a total of a quarter or more Indian blood; 25,000 Cherokees, 20,000 Chickasaws, 16,000 Choctaws and I will say this Mr. Justice White, the figures vary with what the authorities --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2970.479], "stop_times": [2984.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.479}, "reply_to": "14916__3_003", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_005", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2984.758], "stop_times": [2986.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.758}, "reply_to": "14916__3_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_006", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I don't have those figures sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2986.739], "stop_times": [2988.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.739}, "reply_to": "14916__3_005", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_007", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "So that there we have, say 40,000 Cherokees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2988.703], "stop_times": [2992.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.703}, "reply_to": "14916__3_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_008", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "25,000 of a quarter blood or more, about 5,100 full bloods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2992.521], "stop_times": [2997.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.521}, "reply_to": "14916__3_007", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_009", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And they have on the Choctaws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2997.99], "stop_times": [3000.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.99}, "reply_to": "14916__3_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_010", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The Choctaws about 16,000 of quarter or more, about 5,100 full bloods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3000.235], "stop_times": [3006.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.235}, "reply_to": "14916__3_009", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_011", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And the Chickasaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3006.109], "stop_times": [3007.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.109}, "reply_to": "14916__3_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_012", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "3,200 with about 1,400 full bloods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3007.971], "stop_times": [3012.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.971}, "reply_to": "14916__3_011", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_013", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And how about the population?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3012.187], "stop_times": [3015.083], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.187}, "reply_to": "14916__3_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14916__3_014", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Two-and-a-half million, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3015.083], "stop_times": [3017.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.083}, "reply_to": "14916__3_013", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_015", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Where do these Indians live?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3017.569], "stop_times": [3020.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.569}, "reply_to": "14916__3_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_016", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "All over, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3020.251], "stop_times": [3021.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.251}, "reply_to": "14916__3_015", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_017", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "All over what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3021.73], "stop_times": [3022.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.73}, "reply_to": "14916__3_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_018", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "All over the state of Oklahoma.\nPrimarily in the eastern part from the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3022.517, 3026.081], "stop_times": [3026.081, 3028.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.517}, "reply_to": "14916__3_017", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_019", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Do they all live in the State of Oklahoma?\"", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3028.057], "stop_times": [3031.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.057}, "reply_to": "14916__3_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_020", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe figures that I've been referring to are residents of the State of Oklahoma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3031.094, 3031.67], "stop_times": [3031.67, 3038.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.094}, "reply_to": "14916__3_019", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_021", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, I thought a large number of them left Oklahoma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3038.476], "stop_times": [3043.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.476}, "reply_to": "14916__3_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_022", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, we hope not sir, but I think the figures that I'm referring to are figures compiled from the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3043.126], "stop_times": [3052.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.126}, "reply_to": "14916__3_021", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_023", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Do they live on this particular land that was deeded to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3052.725], "stop_times": [3057.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.725}, "reply_to": "14916__3_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_024", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, you see most of the land has been allotted to the individual members of the tribe, most of it sometime ago.\nThere's still some land held in commoners or restricted land, but the vast majority of it was allotted to the individual members of the tribe.\nMy part in this effort today is somewhat limited.\nI come to you to -- I hope make a little clearer what the controversy at least from our view is really all about and will take but merely a few minutes of our time at which time I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Kirk who carried the argument on the occasion of the last appearance before this Court.\nBut before I do so, I have -- I would like to request permission of the Court to use a photograph which is merely -- which is not part of the record, but is in the matter of being informative which I think will assist the Court in understanding the controversy.\nI'd like to use it the same manner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3057.404, 3067.162, 3079.46, 3087.572, 3109.538, 3131.355], "stop_times": [3067.162, 3079.46, 3087.572, 3109.538, 3131.355, 3133.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.404}, "reply_to": "14916__3_023", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_025", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I don't suppose it would do us any harm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3133.517], "stop_times": [3135.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.517}, "reply_to": "14916__3_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_026", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Thank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3135.799], "stop_times": [3162.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.799}, "reply_to": "14916__3_025", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_027", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "This is the map?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3162.319], "stop_times": [3163.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.319}, "reply_to": "14916__3_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_028", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir.\nThis is an aerial photograph taken off the Arkansas River bed very near Fort Smith as you can see.\nThis picture was taken in 1963.\nIts only purpose is to help the Court in understanding that which the Court dealt into on the occasion of the last appearance here in which you Mr. Chief -- Mr. Justice Black asked about earlier today and that is what the controversy all about and you may note that in this picture there is an area called Old Channel.\nThat's a large ox-bow that was created by having the channels straightened through the efforts of the army engineers which is referred to as New Channel.\nNow, this particular photograph is a picture of a place called Bradens Bend.\nIt's near Fort Smith.\nIt contains about 5,000 acres of very valuable land.\nThe -- we have engineered it and we estimate that the land which has been uncovered as a result of straightening the riverbed for which rights of way were acquired and not in controversy here.\nThe surface of this uncovered land is valued somewhere around $7 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3163.929, 3165.1, 3172.263, 3174.918, 3201.199, 3213.98, 3219.614, 3220.742, 3228.579, 3243.987], "stop_times": [3165.1, 3172.263, 3174.918, 3201.199, 3213.98, 3219.614, 3220.742, 3228.579, 3243.987, 3250.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3163.929}, "reply_to": "14916__3_027", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_029", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Is there any water now flowing in the old channel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3250.716], "stop_times": [3253.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.716}, "reply_to": "14916__3_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_030", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3253.055], "stop_times": [3253.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3253.055}, "reply_to": "14916__3_029", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_031", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Is there any water flowing in the old channel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3253.89], "stop_times": [3256.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.89}, "reply_to": "14916__3_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_032", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Oh!\nYes sir.\nYou mean in the old channel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3257.963, 3256.726, 3258.191], "stop_times": [3256.726, 3258.191, 3259.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3257.963}, "reply_to": "14916__3_031", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_033", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3259.388], "stop_times": [3259.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.388}, "reply_to": "14916__3_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_034", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, because of the fact that it was covered for so many years, there have been some drainage problems but a great majority of it is useful for farming.\nNow, it's within the flood banks you see and on occasion of very high water very well maybe inundated at some future time, at which time it takes a couple of years for it to aerate and to be usable again but at the present time that that you see they refer to as the old channel can be farmed and is highly productive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3259.782, 3272.648], "stop_times": [3272.648, 3292.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3259.782}, "reply_to": "14916__3_033", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_035", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Is that at issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3292.475], "stop_times": [3294.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.475}, "reply_to": "14916__3_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_036", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That is what the controversy is all about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3294.868], "stop_times": [3298.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.868}, "reply_to": "14916__3_035", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_037", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3298.44], "stop_times": [3307.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.44}, "reply_to": "14916__3_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_038", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No sir, the new channel was acquired by purchase.\nIt's not an issue here, but when they diverted the river into the new channel then this land was uncovered and is part of the controversy here.\nAs you know, we're talking about from Fort Gibson down to the Arkansas line which is approximately 95 miles --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3307.288, 3314.858, 3325.673], "stop_times": [3314.858, 3325.673, 3333.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3307.288}, "reply_to": "14916__3_037", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_039", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3333.083], "stop_times": [3349.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.083}, "reply_to": "14916__3_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_040", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir and that land is the primary object of the controversy or land similar to, there are three of those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3349.538], "stop_times": [3358.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3349.538}, "reply_to": "14916__3_039", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_041", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And as you look at this photograph as I understand it to the right of the old channel is the Choctaws and Chickasaws and to the left is the Cherokees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3358.337], "stop_times": [3372.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.337}, "reply_to": "14916__3_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__3_042", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3372.288], "stop_times": [3375.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3372.288}, "reply_to": "14916__3_041", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_043", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And it's the old channel which is the boundary, not the new channel, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3375.046], "stop_times": [3381.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.046}, "reply_to": "14916__3_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__3_044", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3381.684], "stop_times": [3382.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3381.684}, "reply_to": "14916__3_043", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_045", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And therefore the land which has now been uncovered because of the construction of the new channel is that land that used to be under the old channel that is in issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3382.447], "stop_times": [3393.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.447}, "reply_to": "14916__3_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__3_046", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That is correct.\nIn addition to that, there are -- the mineral rights also are in controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3393.756, 3395.988], "stop_times": [3395.988, 3400.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3393.756}, "reply_to": "14916__3_045", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_047", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The land that was under it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3400.845], "stop_times": [3402.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.845}, "reply_to": "14916__3_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__3_048", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir, now in -- with regard to that that question was raised at the last argument and we have since taken steps to determine what's at stake there and the mineral interest which are presently under lease by various oil companies have been valued at a million dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3402.224], "stop_times": [3423.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3402.224}, "reply_to": "14916__3_047", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_049", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "At what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3423.916], "stop_times": [3424.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.916}, "reply_to": "14916__3_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_050", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "At a million dollars, the surface value is $7 million.\nThe riverbed in this navigable portion is about 95 miles long and contains 41,000 acres roughly during the length of that 95 miles and that which is primarily at issue here is the lower 17 miles for two reasons.\nFirst of all, it's the only area of the river bed that has any value for oil and gas discovery purposes and secondly, this is the area where the land flattened out and the riverbed straight all over the countryside.\nFarther back up north, it's contained within rather narrow boundaries and there is nothing particularly at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3424.594, 3434.395, 3454.346, 3469.727], "stop_times": [3434.395, 3454.346, 3469.727, 3476.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3424.594}, "reply_to": "14916__3_049", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_051", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "This is not one of the actions that was authorized by Congress by special bill, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3476.979], "stop_times": [3483.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3476.979}, "reply_to": "14916__3_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_052", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "This case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3483.913], "stop_times": [3484.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3483.913}, "reply_to": "14916__3_051", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_053", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3484.956], "stop_times": [3485.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3484.956}, "reply_to": "14916__3_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_054", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No sir.\nThe State of Oklahoma has exercised dominion over the riverbed since statehood, but issued -- but sold oil and gas leases starting in 1910 and the latest having been in 1966.\nSand and gravel leases were sold by the states starting in 1912 and for practically every year through and including 1969.\nThis case was filed in December of 1966.\nEarlier in that year, the state sold oil and gas leases valued well for approximately $500,000.00.\nSince statehood, the revenue from the riverbed has been a total of about $600,000.00, so you can see the largest amount of course is very recent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3485.469, 3489.079, 3508.468, 3520.822, 3525.172, 3534.394], "stop_times": [3489.079, 3508.468, 3520.822, 3525.172, 3534.394, 3546.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3485.469}, "reply_to": "14916__3_053", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_055", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That's the total --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3546.51], "stop_times": [3547.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3546.51}, "reply_to": "14916__3_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_056", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That's a total amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3547.623], "stop_times": [3548.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3547.623}, "reply_to": "14916__3_055", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_057", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "-- since statehood cumulated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3548.314], "stop_times": [3549.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3548.314}, "reply_to": "14916__3_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_058", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir, $600,000.00.\nThat money is in the School Land Commission permanent fund, the revenue from which is distributed to all of the public schools in the State of Oklahoma.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3549.774, 3552.076, 3564.046], "stop_times": [3552.076, 3564.046, 3565.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3549.774}, "reply_to": "14916__3_057", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_059", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Suppose I'd -- suppose the Court were to decide this that Oklahoma didn't own it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3565.097], "stop_times": [3570.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3565.097}, "reply_to": "14916__3_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_060", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I suspect we'd have to return that money to various entities.\nAs a matter of fact, that's the very reason why -- one of the reasons why we are here.\nWe have made a contractual arrangement with regard to the sale of these leases.\nWe have the largest economic interest that being the surface and that's the main purpose for which we appear is in defense of those interests.\nThe litigants, the Cherokees and the Choctaws and Chickasaws have no reservation in the State of Oklahoma.\nThey have no tribal system of schools.\nAs a matter of fact, what tribal schools they did have were transferred to the Department of Interior in 1906 and the only tribal school to my knowledge and that our research could reveal in existence at the present time is a vocational school in Tonkawa which is a very recent origin.\nThe plaintiffs in this particular action have never been in possession, physical possession of the land because the land was only recently uncovered.\nTherefore, it's not a case of having people -- scarce on the land were going to have it removed and physically and etcetera.\nThese are the facts which the Court inquired into on the case of our last oral argument and I thought it would be of assistance to the Court to know really what the physical facts were and the basis of the controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3570.983, 3576.038, 3583.797, 3589.235, 3598.896, 3608.336, 3612.042, 3637.941, 3650.123, 3659.75], "stop_times": [3576.038, 3583.797, 3589.235, 3598.896, 3608.336, 3612.042, 3637.941, 3650.123, 3659.75, 3677.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3570.983}, "reply_to": "14916__3_059", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_061", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "What do you mean by saying the Indians have never been in possession of any of the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3677.493], "stop_times": [3681.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3677.493}, "reply_to": "14916__3_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_062", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Physical possession of the riverbed because the riverbed was riverbed until the engineers --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3681.426], "stop_times": [3685.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3681.426}, "reply_to": "14916__3_061", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_063", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "You're speaking only of the riverbed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3685.466], "stop_times": [3687.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3685.466}, "reply_to": "14916__3_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__3_064", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir, until it was uncovered.\nThat concludes my remarks.\nIf there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3687.114, 3690.391, 3691.869], "stop_times": [3690.391, 3691.869, 3710.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3687.114}, "reply_to": "14916__3_063", "speaker": "g_t_blackenship"}
{"id": "14916__3_065", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Kirk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3710.179], "stop_times": [3710.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3710.179}, "reply_to": "14916__3_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_000", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and may I please the Court.\nWe have enlarged certain map appendices from our brief and we would like to have them distributed to the Court.\nWe think it would be easier for you to read after we have reduced them to the point where we could print them in our brief.\nWe found that they were rather difficult to read and we think this will be helpful to the Court if they were to be considered.\nThe first one, the large map here is attached to our brief as appendix three.\nWe have completed that and attached it on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3710.641, 3716.162, 3731.844, 3740.671, 3754.469, 3763.551], "stop_times": [3716.162, 3731.844, 3740.671, 3754.469, 3763.551, 3766.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3710.641}, "reply_to": "14916__3_065", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_001", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Which brief is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3766.966], "stop_times": [3768.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3766.966}, "reply_to": "14916__4_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_002", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3768.181], "stop_times": [3769.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3768.181}, "reply_to": "14916__4_001", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_003", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Which brief is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3769.153], "stop_times": [3770.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3769.153}, "reply_to": "14916__4_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_004", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "In the brief of the State of Oklahoma.\nThat is the map prepared by Isaac McCoy from which the Cherokee patent was prepared.\nIt is a map of the surveys under the direction of Isaac McCoy.\nThe other enlargement is the enlargement of our appendix four from our brief.\nThis enlargement is an enlargement of the copy of the field notes of the surveyor Donaldson who did this surveying under the direction of Isaac McCoy.\nThese we think will be helpful to the Court in locating the Cherokee and the Choctaw boundary lines particularly the Cherokee and in locating the Cherokee and the Choctaw corners at or near Fort Smith.\nNow, the trial court found and its finding was not challenged, that this stretch of the Arkansas River was navigable in fact and in law at the time the western domains, now a part of Oklahoma, were ceded to the Choctaw Nation and to the Cherokee Nation and at the time the treaties were made, pursuant to which the lands were ceded and also at the time Oklahoma was admitted to statehood on November 16, 1907.\nWe consider the fact of established navigability at the time these treaties were made to be a very important fact.\nThat was so found by the trial court and has not been challenged in this case.\nNow we, in substance, rest our case on the laws of governing navigable waters as laid down by this Court, particularly in the case of Pollard versus Hagan, Shively versus Bowlby and U.S.A. versus Holt State Bank.\nIn the case of Pollard versus Hagan, Mr. Justice McKinley in an opinion written in 1845 referring to an opinion written in 1842 by Mr. Justice Taney said in the case of Martin et. al. versus Waddell, 16 Peters 410, the present Chief Justice Taney in delivering the opinion of the Court said, \u201cWhen the revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution.\u201d\nIn the case of Pollard versus Hagan, the Court went on and said, \u201cWe have arrived at these general conclusions; First, the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the states respectively.\nSecond, the new states have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction over this subject as the original states.\nThe State of Oklahoma was admitted on an equal footing with the original states and we say that this law is it that was applicable, set forth in the case of Martin versus Waddell and the case of Pollard versus Hagan is still applicable today.\nNow, the most complete and erudite opinion that has been written on the subject of the rights of the states with respect to navigable waters was written by Mr. Justice Gray in the case of Shively versus Bowlby in 1893.\nIn that case Mr. Justice Gray commented that this was an occasion suitable for a complete review of the law as had been involved.\nHe went back to the beginning to the common law of England as applied in the American colonies to the common law as applied after the revolution.\nHe reviewed the whole range of decisions that had been handed down since then and wrote what seem us to be a guiding opinion in this litigation.\nNow, he did say that he -- when the United States acquires a territory, it does have a demonstrative jurisdiction over it and it holds it in trust for the formation of future states.\nNow, he says some certain dispositions can be made when necessary by the United States during territorial period.\nHe said we cannot doubt therefore, that Congress has the power to make grants of land below high watermark of navigable waters in any territory of the United States, whenever it becomes necessary to do so, first in order to perform international obligations; second to effect of improvement of such lands for promotion and convenience of the commerce with foreign nations and among the sovereign states; or third to carry out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States holds the territory.\nNow, he goes further in that opinion and he defines what the objects for which the United States holds the territory are.\nWith respect to that he said this, \u201cAnd the territories acquired by Congress whether by deed of cession from the original states or by treaty with a foreign country are held with the object as soon as their population and condition justify it of being admitted into the union as states upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects.\nThe Congress of the United States in disposing of the public lands has constantly acted upon the theory that those lands whether in interior or on the coast, above high water mark they be taken up by actual occupants in order to encourage the settlement of the country.\nBut the navigable waters and the soils under them whether within or above the ebb and flow of the tide shall be and remain public highways and being chiefly valuable for the public purposes of commerce, navigation and fishery for the improvements necessary to secure and promote those purposes shall not be granted away during the period of territorial Government, but unless in case of some international duty or public exigency shall be held by the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3770.138, 3775.594, 3789.184, 3797.805, 3806.482, 3826.142, 3852.434, 3895.754, 3904.661, 3908.833, 3935.871, 3993.829, 4021.437, 4032.551, 4051.876, 4077.584, 4091.86, 4110.078, 4127.883, 4145.752, 4155.694, 4201.451, 4212.666, 4245.362, 4263.546], "stop_times": [3775.594, 3789.184, 3797.805, 3806.482, 3826.142, 3852.434, 3895.754, 3904.661, 3908.833, 3935.871, 3993.829, 4021.437, 4032.551, 4051.876, 4077.584, 4091.86, 4110.078, 4127.883, 4145.752, 4155.694, 4201.451, 4212.666, 4245.362, 4263.546, 4300.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3770.138}, "reply_to": "14916__4_003", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_005", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Or something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4300.506], "stop_times": [4302.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4300.506}, "reply_to": "14916__4_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_006", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Or public exigency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4302.428], "stop_times": [4304.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4302.428}, "reply_to": "14916__4_005", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_007", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Or something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4304.124], "stop_times": [4305.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4304.124}, "reply_to": "14916__4_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_008", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, we have mentioned the one before.\nThe first three that we mentioned before: perform international obligations, effect improvement of lands for the promotion and convenience of commerce with foreign nations and among the sovereign states, or to carry out public purposes appropriate to the objects for which they hold the territory.\nAnd they defined objects for which the hold the territory as being the formation of a future state -- future states, that is the object that he's talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4305.104, 4310.202, 4330.366], "stop_times": [4310.202, 4330.366, 4344.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4305.104}, "reply_to": "14916__4_007", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_009", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "You don't think the -- do you think the [Inaudible] stay away from the navigable rivers for any domestic purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4344.291], "stop_times": [4358.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4344.291}, "reply_to": "14916__4_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_010", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I would say, I don't know what you mean by domestic purpose.\nI would say that the formation of the future state would be a domestic purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4358.329, 4364.232], "stop_times": [4364.232, 4370.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4358.329}, "reply_to": "14916__4_009", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_011", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Do you think that's an example that deed in this case expressly without any confrontations with the act [Inaudible] boundary of the area [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4370.355], "stop_times": [4400.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4370.355}, "reply_to": "14916__4_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_012", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I would say under Shively versus Bowlby, it certainly would not be one of the objects for which United States holds the territory, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4400.342], "stop_times": [4408.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4400.342}, "reply_to": "14916__4_011", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_013", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible] the patent to the Indians which is just [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4408.712], "stop_times": [4419.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4408.712}, "reply_to": "14916__4_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_014", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think it would be yes.\nI would question it under Shively versus Bowlby.\nNow we go further and say however we don't need to meet that because it didn't convey it to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4419.208, 4421.52, 4426.023], "stop_times": [4421.52, 4426.023, 4431.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4419.208}, "reply_to": "14916__4_013", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_015", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, I just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4431.816], "stop_times": [4433.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4431.816}, "reply_to": "14916__4_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_016", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I'll reach that in a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4433.57], "stop_times": [4436.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4433.57}, "reply_to": "14916__4_015", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_017", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, we'll reach the argument and talk about that briefly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4436.431], "stop_times": [4439.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4436.431}, "reply_to": "14916__4_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_018", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I am indeed sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4439.192], "stop_times": [4440.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4439.192}, "reply_to": "14916__4_017", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_019", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Did the boundaries of the Cherokees there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4440.523], "stop_times": [4443.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4440.523}, "reply_to": "14916__4_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_020", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Not within the boundaries of the Cherokee granted here, Mr. Justice White, according to our --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4443.486], "stop_times": [4448.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4443.486}, "reply_to": "14916__4_019", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_021", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The Cherokees hold there --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4448.26], "stop_times": [4450.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4448.26}, "reply_to": "14916__4_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_022", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That will be a part of my argument, Mr. Justice White.\nIn the case of United States versus Holt State Bank and I might say that we differ on the facts and the holding of that case, and the counsel for the Choctaws who has argued previously.\nWe have set forth however our understanding of the facts on the holding of that case on pages 35 to 37 of our brief and we refer the Court to that.\nI won't go into that in detail here at this time.\nBut to get -- in that case, the Court actually reaffirmed the principles laid down in Shively versus Bowlby where they said the United States early adopted and constantly hasn't heard to the policy of regarding lands under navigable waters and acquired territory while under its sole dominion.\nIt's held for the ultimate benefit of the future states and so has refrained from making any disposal thereof say in exceptional instances when impelled to particular disposals by some international duty or public exigency.\nIt follows from this that disposals by the United States during the territorial period are not likely to be inferred, should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain.\nThat language was used with respect to a statute, the United States statute in a form of a treaty with the Chippewas which set aside a reservation, a Red Lake Reservation.\nWithin the reservation was a navigable lake, Mud Lake.\nMud Lake was not mentioned as being conveyed to the Chippewas and the Court held it was not conveyed because there was not a specific reference to Mud Lake in the patent.\nThat was a holding in this case of this Court in Holt State Bank.\nWe say that applies with respect to the Arkansas River here and particularly with respect to the part where the Cherokees have land on each side.\nNow, there is -- with respect to the Chippewa title which has been questioned here; that title we think is a good reservation title.\nIt has been so defined and held in Minnesota versus Hitchcock 185 U.S. 373 and a similar type of title has been affirmed in the United States versus Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, 314 U.S. 339 with respect to the Hualapai tribe in Arizona.\nThe patents issued to the Cherokees and the Choctaws were authorized by the Indian Removal Act of May 28, 1830.\nThat provided that for granting patents in removed Indian tribes and contained a provision that provided always that such land shall revert to the United States if the Indians become extinct or abandon the same.\nSo, the Cherokee patent pursuant to that Indian Removal Act provides the lands hereby granted shall revert to the United States if the Cherokee Nation ceases and abandons the same.\nThe Choctaw patent provides, it shall inhere to them as long as they shall exist as a nation and live on it.\nNow, coming to the Cherokee treaties and the Cherokee patent on the subject that you expressed particular interest in, Mr. Justice White, the western Cherokees' first land in Oklahoma was acquired pursuant to the treaty of 1828, 7 Stat. 311.\nIn that treaty, it was agreed that seven million acres of land plus an outlet west should be conveyed to the Cherokees.\nThe description of the land was incomplete.\nWhen they got to the -- where the Arkansas comes to a confluence with the Canadian, they angled off up between the two and they didn't close it with the Arkansas state line, but they have provided they'd have a survey and which would correct all that.\nThe 1833 Treaty with the western Cherokees has also covered the same land substantially except that down toward the lower part, the boundary line between the Creeks and the Cherokees was straightened out and settled whereas under the 1828 Treaty it was left open up in the area, I might say it, but that boundary was left open to on the north westerly side.\nBut the parties had in mind having a survey and they did have a survey and it was conducted, shortly work on it was commenced, shortly after the 1828 Treaty, under the direction of Reverend Isaac McCoy who was commissioned to do the surveying by the war department.\nThe map which we have provided for the Court here is the result, the final result of Reverend McCoy's surveying work down under Reverend McCoy and his basis for the description in the Cherokee patent.\nThe field notes which we have provided the Court with copies on enlarged basis, both of which are in our briefs as appendix, describe the first line that was run by that surveying crew under McCoy's direction by a surveyor by the name of Donaldson.\nIn that line, he ran the line between the State of Arkansas and the Cherokees on the west and the state Arkansas on the east when he comes down to this corner and he uses as a reference point, the land in the Choctaw corner across the river which he fixes on the south bank of the river and he sets the Cherokee corner on the north bank of the river.\nNow, the Cherokee patent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4450.99, 4459.866, 4474.485, 4485.09, 4490.379, 4516.547, 4536.046, 4554.049, 4569.963, 4575.075, 4590.481, 4595.155, 4610.963, 4627.268, 4652.763, 4668.035, 4687.454, 4704.088, 4715.071, 4740.271, 4756.225, 4760.956, 4780.612, 4817.616, 4842.769, 4862.24, 4889.692, 4921.556], "stop_times": [4459.866, 4474.485, 4485.09, 4490.379, 4516.547, 4536.046, 4554.049, 4569.963, 4575.075, 4590.481, 4595.155, 4610.963, 4627.268, 4652.763, 4668.035, 4687.454, 4704.088, 4715.071, 4740.271, 4756.225, 4760.956, 4780.612, 4817.616, 4842.769, 4862.24, 4889.692, 4921.556, 4929.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4450.99}, "reply_to": "14916__4_021", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_023", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Was that to the -- just to the west of Fort Smith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4929.135], "stop_times": [4932.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4929.135}, "reply_to": "14916__4_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__4_024", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes, yes that's on the Arkansas line just west of Fort Smith.\nThe line that was run from north where the Arkansas River runs across the Arkansas state line, the line between Arkansas and the Cherokees.\nNow, in that -- in those field notes which you have a copy up there.\nThis surveyor, they are very voluminous, we have the field notes but they are about four inches thick.\nWe only put in the part referring to this problem and here's what the surveyor says in respect to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4932.488, 4941.845, 4954.224, 4960.24, 4970.267], "stop_times": [4941.845, 4954.224, 4960.24, 4970.267, 4981.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4932.488}, "reply_to": "14916__4_023", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_025", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Where are you quoting from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4981.245], "stop_times": [4982.992], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4981.245}, "reply_to": "14916__4_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14916__4_026", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I'm quoting from our appendix four, our appendix four which is there as marked in here on the copy you have there.\nMile 76 and set, 1250 change left came break and entered into open prairie bottom rich soil, 50, changed to [Inaudible] again, 80 changed to the north bank of the Arkansas River, set a stake and made round it from which 62 degrees 20 minutes west to cotton wood, marked [Inaudible] 76ms, 36 degrees, no minutes east, a cotton wood marked U.S. 76m.\nAt this point has fixed the southeast corner of the Cherokee lands.\nThat's along the channel of the river 664.50 chance to the south bank where the northern extremity of the eastern boundary of the Choctaw land strikes the river.\nNow, he does that for a reference point.\nHe's surveying the Cherokee boundary, but he is referring to another point which helped set up his point, the Cherokee corner on the left bank of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4982.992, 4992.873, 5020.74, 5027.772, 5041.398, 5045.214], "stop_times": [4992.873, 5020.74, 5027.772, 5041.398, 5045.214, 5059.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4982.992}, "reply_to": "14916__4_025", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_027", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And he says that's along the channel of the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5059.768], "stop_times": [5062.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5059.768}, "reply_to": "14916__4_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__4_028", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "It's a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5062.663], "stop_times": [5063.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5062.663}, "reply_to": "14916__4_027", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_029", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Rather than along the north bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5063.468], "stop_times": [5064.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5063.468}, "reply_to": "14916__4_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__4_030", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "On the north bank he says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5064.758], "stop_times": [5066.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5064.758}, "reply_to": "14916__4_029", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_031", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I thought you said, I thought you read that's along the channel of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5066.704], "stop_times": [5071.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5066.704}, "reply_to": "14916__4_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14916__4_032", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I said after he fixes the north bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5071.145], "stop_times": [5074.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5071.145}, "reply_to": "14916__4_031", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_033", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, across the south, at the point of the north bank is the point of the south of the Arkansas River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5074.227], "stop_times": [5080.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5074.227}, "reply_to": "14916__4_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_034", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5080.431], "stop_times": [5081.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5080.431}, "reply_to": "14916__4_033", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_035", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "There -- there across the bank of the south, move along the channel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5081.078], "stop_times": [5083.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5081.078}, "reply_to": "14916__4_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_036", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That's right, right, and right and there he fixes the Choctaw corner.\nSo he fixes the Cherokee corner on the north bank and the Choctaw corner on the south bank.\nNow, let's take the -- now those field notes are -- should be considered in connection with the Cherokee patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5083.899, 5092.707, 5099.302], "stop_times": [5092.707, 5099.302, 5109.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5083.899}, "reply_to": "14916__4_035", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_037", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, Mr. Kirk with boundaries on each side of the river for each nation, had that been a boundary line between two states, what would be the line in the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5109.918], "stop_times": [5122.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5109.918}, "reply_to": "14916__4_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_038", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I would say that if it's in the boundary line between the two states, the description would have called for it to be down the middle of the stream.\nWe have -- we have cited --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5122.797, 5132.943], "stop_times": [5132.943, 5133.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5122.797}, "reply_to": "14916__4_037", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_039", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, now we have a conveyance from the United States to a nation.\nWhy wouldn't that same rule of construction apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5133.404, 5140.001], "stop_times": [5140.001, 5143.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5133.404}, "reply_to": "14916__4_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_040", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "It's not a rule of construction, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nWe have cited on our brief the conveyance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5143.051, 5145.495], "stop_times": [5145.495, 5147.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5143.051}, "reply_to": "14916__4_039", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_041", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, in Louisiana against -- versus Mississippi, this Court found that it was.\nWhen a navigable river constitutes a boundary between two independent states, the line defining that point at which jurisdiction the two states have is the middle of the stream, the channel.\nThat what this Court said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5147.333, 5154.739, 5167.029], "stop_times": [5154.739, 5167.029, 5170.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5147.333}, "reply_to": "14916__4_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_042", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "well, we have a contemporaneous patent.\nWe have a contemporaneous definition of the line of the State of Missouri which we have cited on the brief which was made an 1820, almost contemporaneous with these documents and they called --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5170.768, 5174.237], "stop_times": [5174.237, 5187.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5170.768}, "reply_to": "14916__4_041", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_043", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, this is not a recent opinion.\nThe opinion it refers is in 1905.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5187.004, 5189.863], "stop_times": [5189.863, 5196.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5187.004}, "reply_to": "14916__4_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_044", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well, this is a navigable stream.\nIn this case there is no -- this particular authority, you're reading to me, I'm not sure the context of it, or what it would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5196.498, 5200.08], "stop_times": [5200.08, 5212.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5196.498}, "reply_to": "14916__4_043", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_045", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "It would be context between the State of Louisiana and Mississippi as to where their boundary line was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5212.247], "stop_times": [5219.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5212.247}, "reply_to": "14916__4_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_046", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes, well, Mr. Justice Marshall in any event, let me read from you from the language of this Court in the Mingus case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5219.023], "stop_times": [5231.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5219.023}, "reply_to": "14916__4_045", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_047", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Which case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5231.8], "stop_times": [5237.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5231.8}, "reply_to": "14916__4_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_048", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Atlantic Pacific Railroad Company versus Mingus, 165 U.S. 413 and referring to the -- these Indian tribes, the Cherokee tribe in particular, they said, in some respects they bear the same relation to the Federal Government as the territory did in its second grade of Government under the ordinance of 1787.\nSuch territory passed its own laws subject to the approval of Congress and its inhabitants were subject to the Constitution and Acts of Congress.\nThe principal difference consists in the fact that the Cherokees enact their own laws under the restriction stated, to appoint their own officers and pay their own expenses.\nThis however is no reason why the laws and the proceeds of the Cherokee territory so far as it relates to rights claimed under them should not be placed on the same footing as other territories in the union.\nIt is not a foreign, but a domestic territory, a territory which originated under our Constitution and laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5237.702, 5265.148, 5275.213, 5285.988, 5297.96], "stop_times": [5265.148, 5275.213, 5285.988, 5297.96, 5305.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5237.702}, "reply_to": "14916__4_047", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_049", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "But it's still a nation as of that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5305.574], "stop_times": [5309.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5305.574}, "reply_to": "14916__4_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_050", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "They are a domestic dependent nation, Mr. Justice Marshall as defined by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5309.629], "stop_times": [5319.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5309.629}, "reply_to": "14916__4_049", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_051", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "They didn't have any army and president, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5319.978], "stop_times": [5322.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5319.978}, "reply_to": "14916__4_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_052", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5322.567], "stop_times": [5323.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5322.567}, "reply_to": "14916__4_051", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_053", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "They didn't have any army, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5323.263], "stop_times": [5326.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5323.263}, "reply_to": "14916__4_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_054", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5326.499], "stop_times": [5327.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5326.499}, "reply_to": "14916__4_053", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_055", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "This nation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5327.031], "stop_times": [5328.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5327.031}, "reply_to": "14916__4_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_056", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Laughing]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5328.336], "stop_times": [5328.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5328.336}, "reply_to": "14916__4_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14916__4_057", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "They have no army, that's correct.\nThey have the word nation, but it was a very dependent nation.\nNow, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall even said that their lack of relationships like a ward to a guardian, that's how much of a nation they were.\nNow, the Cherokee patent conveys this land, covers this land pursuant to the survey, pursuant to the Isaac McCoy's survey.\nIt refers to the description in the survey.\nThe patent is dated December 31, 1838 and found at appendix nine of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5328.808, 5331.055, 5335.251, 5347.773, 5359.398, 5367.496], "stop_times": [5331.055, 5335.251, 5347.773, 5359.398, 5367.496, 5373.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5328.808}, "reply_to": "14916__4_056", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_058", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5373.85], "stop_times": [5389.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5373.85}, "reply_to": "14916__4_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_059", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Justice White, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5389.803], "stop_times": [5391.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5389.803}, "reply_to": "14916__4_058", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_060", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5391.521], "stop_times": [5394.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5391.521}, "reply_to": "14916__4_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_061", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I've been unable to find the language you're talking about.\nLet me read where it reaches that point.\nThe patent as I say which is found in appendix nine of our brief getting when it comes down to the Canadian River, thence down to the Canadian River on it's north bank to it's junction with the Arkansas River.\nExcuse me, I'll turn to that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5394.537, 5397.717, 5410.118, 5426.747], "stop_times": [5397.717, 5410.118, 5426.747, 5430.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5394.537}, "reply_to": "14916__4_060", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_062", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5430.019], "stop_times": [5434.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5430.019}, "reply_to": "14916__4_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_063", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Perhaps so, I'm not sure.\nAny out of patent is in -- the complete patents in appendix 9.\nThe complete patent is in appendix nine of our brief.\nIt's also on page 53 of our brief.\nAlright, and we get to this point, you find a point thence down the Canadian River on its north bank, \u201cThence down of the Canadian river to its north bank to its junction with the Arkansas River, thence down the main channel of Arkansas River to the western boundary of the State of Arkansas at the northern extremity of the eastern boundary of the lands of the Choctaws on the south bank of the Arkansas River, four chains and 54 lengths east of Fort Smith thence north and thence north.\u201d\nNow, we say that's a reference point.\nWe say the word \u201cat\u201d means in the vicinity and we say that it's simply a double reference for the surveyor's accuracy and it does not take the Choctaw bound -- the Cherokee boundary to the south bank of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5434.418, 5435.762, 5440.569, 5448.395, 5454.336, 5494.579, 5496.225], "stop_times": [5435.762, 5440.569, 5448.395, 5454.336, 5494.579, 5496.225, 5513.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5434.418}, "reply_to": "14916__4_062", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_064", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "So, you are saying, do you think that length is about the north side of the river and the south side of the river up to the north corner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5513.424], "stop_times": [5523.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5513.424}, "reply_to": "14916__4_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_065", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Right, right, opposite north corner, at the corner shown by the field notes of the survey and so that's where we say the description goes and by the way that is the only reference to any point south of the river in the old Cherokee patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5523.082], "stop_times": [5551.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5523.082}, "reply_to": "14916__4_064", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_066", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Have you included in your brief, to refer the record, a copy with the survey, notes of the [Inaudible] Indian Nations in 55, [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5551.743], "stop_times": [5571.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5551.743}, "reply_to": "14916__4_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_067", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, we have not included that Mr. Justice White.\nI may have but we didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5571.413, 5575.883], "stop_times": [5575.883, 5578.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5571.413}, "reply_to": "14916__4_066", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_068", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible] survey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5578.765], "stop_times": [5593.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5578.765}, "reply_to": "14916__4_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_069", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5593.956], "stop_times": [5595.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5593.956}, "reply_to": "14916__4_068", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_070", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "And they did survey and they did incorporate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5595.28], "stop_times": [5605.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5595.28}, "reply_to": "14916__4_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_071", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I may have read them, but I don't have them freshly in mind as now.\nBut we say this is contemporaneous.\nThe contemporaneous maps with field notes are the ones that are legally effective in this situation, in this case.\nNow, that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5605.27, 5612.335, 5615.042, 5627.299], "stop_times": [5612.335, 5615.042, 5627.299, 5635.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5605.27}, "reply_to": "14916__4_070", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_072", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "The instructions to the surveyor at that time, the instruction that's complete [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5635.033], "stop_times": [5650.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5635.033}, "reply_to": "14916__4_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_073", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "He may have been given those instructions but the land are previously been conveyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5650.952], "stop_times": [5656.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5650.952}, "reply_to": "14916__4_072", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_074", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5656.807], "stop_times": [5659.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5656.807}, "reply_to": "14916__4_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_075", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No it is not in the record.\nWe say that now we have another argument put forward by appellants to which I should give some note here.\nThey have argued that because there were provisions in the treaties that at no time would the lands ceded to them be included in the boundaries -- within the boundaries of a territory or state.\nThey contended that therefore there could not have been any holding in trust by the United States for a future territory or state.\nWe say that that conclusion is erroneous and faulty.\nWe say that the Cherokee treaty in particular says without their consent that practically implies that their consent could be sought and obtained that they might have in mind.\nWe have cited congressional reports and a great deal of other data which shows that future states were contemplated in this area.\nThe facts are that the lands conveyed to them were not included in a future territory or state without their consent.\nTheir consent was obtained.\nThey have made agreements with the United State Government for the allotment of their lands, made agreements that their tribal sovereignty should be relinquished in favor of the allottees, made agreements that the laws or their tribal law should be superseded by the laws of Arkansas.\nThey were admitted to citizenship in the United States as full citizens.\nThey put themselves and were put under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department as to all of their tribal affairs.\nWe say that they did consent to become a part of the future state.\nThey voted on the admission of Oklahoma as a future state and therefore the United States kept faith with them and they were included in the State of Oklahoma with their consent.\nIf there are no further questions, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5659.811, 5665.509, 5682.835, 5706.324, 5720.117, 5727.118, 5742.628, 5754.214, 5766.55, 5771.808, 5799.111, 5807.212, 5818.546, 5824.282, 5844.799], "stop_times": [5665.509, 5682.835, 5706.324, 5720.117, 5727.118, 5742.628, 5754.214, 5766.55, 5771.808, 5799.111, 5807.212, 5818.546, 5824.282, 5844.799, 5869.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5659.811}, "reply_to": "14916__4_074", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_076", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "My co-counsel has suggested to Mr. Justice White that I may have overlooked, you were referring to appendix F of the Cherokee brief.\nThe report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, John D.C. Atkinson \u2013 Atkins.\nIn that report he traces the various surveys that were made and comes to the \u2013 he shows that three earliest surveyors, either fixed the corners of the Cherokees or Choctaw or both on the north or south bank of the river respectively.\nHe himself later surveyed, the ones that you were talking about were seeking to relocate the old survey boundaries.\nI think this is what you were talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5869.939, 5879.82, 5887.298, 5920.349, 5929.558], "stop_times": [5879.82, 5887.298, 5920.349, 5929.558, 5931.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5869.939}, "reply_to": "14916__4_075", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_077", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5931.568], "stop_times": [5934.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5931.568}, "reply_to": "14916__4_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14916__4_078", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "No, we -- those have never been researched or provided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5934.454], "stop_times": [5939.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5934.454}, "reply_to": "14916__4_077", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_079", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "I think I believe, your time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5939.72], "stop_times": [5941.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5939.72}, "reply_to": "14916__4_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_080", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Is my time up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5941.633], "stop_times": [5943.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5941.633}, "reply_to": "14916__4_079", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_081", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "There seems to be a red light there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5943.21], "stop_times": [5944.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5943.21}, "reply_to": "14916__4_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__4_082", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Thank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5944.533], "stop_times": [5966.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5944.533}, "reply_to": "14916__4_081", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "14916__4_083", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Mr. Ford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5966.228], "stop_times": [5967.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5966.228}, "reply_to": "14916__4_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14916__5_000", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "Yes sir.\nI hope you won't turn the Court and engineer, we currently have, so I wish that you could compare the calls of the survey and the patent done by the Cherokee and they read the same in reverse.\nSo far as I can tell, there's a difference between 47 and 53 degrees; it might have around the three.\nWe have never claimed the half the river.\nIt's clearly stated in the patent and it's not inconsistent with the treaty.\nTwo, just to three in Alabama v. Texas in speaking of disposal of the public lands and the equal footing doctrine and the concurring opinion said specifically, United States has power to dispose of it's public lands under the power -- under the so called equal footing doctrine and it's not intended to equate the states on economic basis, but on a political basis.\nEach state can't hope to have it, either New York or Manhattan or gold or silver.\nThat's not the purpose and read as late as that said.\nThe -- I would like to call the Court's specific attention to the Enabling Act of Oklahoma which is cited on page 26 of our brief and the Oklahoma Constitution which specifically provides that these Indian tribes will be protected in the possession of their land.\nAnd the previous act which is referred to by Mr. Kirk in the court of law as extinguishing the tribe is simply without meaning.\nThe Court so far as this map is concerned then without relationship to what value there is, I don't know.\nCertainly, on February the 25th in the State of Arkansas v. Tennessee met and answered the same question concerning [Inaudible] accretion or erosion whether it be by natural or artificial means.\nThe Cherokees are an existing tribe.\nThey have some 41,000 enrolled, 4,000 full bloods and a total of descendants of 100,000.\nThe money that we have derived from any recovery in these cases outside of the per capita distributions to the Indians, not only in the so-called outlet case, but in many other cases that Mr. Pear participated then has gone in trust for the Indians and is used either for rehabilitation, higher education and various vocable projects.\nAny questions?\nWhen you said three minutes, I'm trying to obey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5967.891, 5976.179, 6003.09, 6013.299, 6016.01, 6023.421, 6056.309, 6064.97, 6073.634, 6106.131, 6121.937, 6135.725, 6160.502, 6165.464, 6179.23, 6217.778, 6220.969], "stop_times": [5976.179, 6003.09, 6013.299, 6016.01, 6023.421, 6056.309, 6064.97, 6073.634, 6106.131, 6121.937, 6135.725, 6160.502, 6165.464, 6179.23, 6217.778, 6220.969, 6232.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5967.891}, "reply_to": "14916__4_083", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "14916__5_001", "conversation_id": "14916", "text": "That's all then, Mr. Ford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [6232.411], "stop_times": [6239.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6232.411}, "reply_to": "14916__5_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_000", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Chief Justice may it please the Court.\nYesterday I had said that the conveyances to these two tribes the Cherokee and the Choctaws taken together encompassed the riverbed of the Arkansas River.\nIn one instance the riverbed or the river was entirely surrounded by Cherokee land in the other portion -- or the other portion, in dispute it formed the boundary between the territory granted to those two tribes.\nAs to that latter portion, the suggestion that somehow the bed of the Arkansas River was included in neither grant is somewhat comparable to what maybe a suggestion when say the states of Louisiana or Mississippi were admitted to the union where the Mississippi River is the boundary between them and because the acts of admission in each case read to the river or up the river or down the main channel of the river as these conveyances do.\nThe conclusion were reached that the Mississippi River were included neither in Mississippi nor in Louisiana, a result which we would strain to avoid because it obviously makes no sense.\nThat is quite comparable to the situation here.\nWe're not dealing with grants -- small grants to private landowners we are dealing with what amount to large territories ceded to quasi-sovereign tribes then defined as nations, in that time considered quasi-independent.\nThe treaties, the fact that we dealt with them by treaties of course indicates that approach of dealing with Indian tribes as independent entities.\nThe treaties themselves are recognized, powers extensive power of self-government in these tribes.\nIt would be inconsistent with that approach to reserve, to attempt to reserve, to wish to reserve, to have any interest in reserving the beds of navigable rivers or any other territory within the area ceded except only as the United States might have some special reason for doing so such as maintaining the area around Fort Gibson in the Middle of the Cherokee grants which was expressly done.\nSo here, they might have been interest in the United States in reserving a right of navigation on the Arkansas River and that can be read into this grants to the chapters in Cherokees but of course the navigational servitude which appertains to the United States in all states does not carry in it an ownership of the bed of the river and there is no reason to so read it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [0.0, 5.11, 19.371, 35.647, 67.393, 80.503, 84.204, 105.82, 117.085, 125.0, 159.565], "stop_times": [5.11, 19.371, 35.647, 67.393, 80.503, 84.204, 105.82, 117.085, 125.0, 159.565, 194.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_001", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is there any indication here that the bed of this river has any particular value for any by reason of any minerals or anything and its possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [194.403], "stop_times": [204.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.403}, "reply_to": "15290__0_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_002", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Precisely, Mr. Justice Black.\nAt that time, it was not known that the bed of this river would become valuable.\nThere was therefore no reason for the United States withhold for its own benefit of the bed of this river.\nAll it was concerned about or it could be concerned about was to preserve its right to maintain it as an open highway of commerce and as a way of access to Fort Gibson within the Indian territory but as to the bed there was no reason for the United States to wish to retrieve ownership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [204.509, 206.194, 211.362, 219.217], "stop_times": [206.194, 211.362, 219.217, 237.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 204.509}, "reply_to": "15290__0_001", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_003", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You didn't quite understand my question.\nIs anything in the record that indicates that the bed of the stream as such has embodied in it any minerals of any type that make it of a special value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [237.761, 240.166], "stop_times": [240.166, 251.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.761}, "reply_to": "15290__0_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_004", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Today, yes Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [251.203], "stop_times": [253.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 251.203}, "reply_to": "15290__0_003", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_005", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [253.379], "stop_times": [254.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.379}, "reply_to": "15290__0_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_006", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Its oil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [254.135], "stop_times": [255.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 254.135}, "reply_to": "15290__0_005", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_007", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Oil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [255.293], "stop_times": [256.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.293}, "reply_to": "15290__0_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_008", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And this controversy arises because very valuable oil deposits have been discovered in the bed of the river and so the matter becomes an important practical dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [256.341], "stop_times": [271.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 256.341}, "reply_to": "15290__0_007", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_009", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is the real pragmatic question then who owns the oil there, the Indians or the State Oklahoma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [271.253], "stop_times": [277.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.253}, "reply_to": "15290__0_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_010", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is exactly the practical questions Mr. Justice Black.\nNow, as to the equal footing doctrine, we say that the doctrine has no application here.\nFirst, we point out that it hadn't been invented yet Pollard versus Hagan, the first case in this Court to apply that rule thought from inevitable rule was some years after these grants to these Indian tribes.\nNow, I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [277.95, 281.78, 287.695, 303.322], "stop_times": [281.78, 287.695, 303.322, 304.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 277.95}, "reply_to": "15290__0_009", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_011", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Now, before you finish, does the United States can take the position that the Arkansas was then or is not now I guess then was not then navigable above fort Gibson.\nYesterday you said we are talking about the navigable portion of the Arkansas River.\nNow, I suppose their Indian lands border of the Arkansas River above Fort Gibson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [304.17, 322.316, 327.104], "stop_times": [322.316, 327.104, 335.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.17}, "reply_to": "15290__0_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__0_012", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "They were.\nThey certainly were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [335.333, 335.952], "stop_times": [335.952, 336.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 335.333}, "reply_to": "15290__0_011", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_013", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Are they still are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [336.79], "stop_times": [338.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.79}, "reply_to": "15290__0_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__0_014", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I think not Mr. Justice White but they could be -- they said it were Cherokee and creek lands bordering on the portion of the Arkansas River above Fort Gibson.\nI already am not, I'm not aware.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [338.447, 354.82], "stop_times": [354.82, 357.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 338.447}, "reply_to": "15290__0_013", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_015", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, many of that, they would be separated of the question for any of navigable portion of the Arkansas River in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [357.064], "stop_times": [369.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.064}, "reply_to": "15290__0_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__0_016", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is I think true, Mr. Justice White.\nI thought it was agreed by all parties and I made the misspeaking that the navigable course of the Arkansas River ends at Fort Gibson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [369.37, 371.716], "stop_times": [371.716, 382.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 369.37}, "reply_to": "15290__0_015", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_017", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Has that ever been litigated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [382.82], "stop_times": [385.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.82}, "reply_to": "15290__0_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__0_018", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I frankly cannot answer.\nPerhaps, one of the other counsel will know -- will know better.\nAs I say, the equal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [385.113, 386.99, 391.798], "stop_times": [386.99, 391.798, 392.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 385.113}, "reply_to": "15290__0_017", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_019", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What difference does it make to the point of view of the issue in this case whether it is navigable or not navigable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [392.826], "stop_times": [400.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.826}, "reply_to": "15290__0_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15290__0_020", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The only claim Oklahoma claim make to the bed of the river here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [400.792], "stop_times": [406.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 400.792}, "reply_to": "15290__0_019", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_021", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Oh, their argument it depends upon the hypothesis (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [406.648], "stop_times": [409.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.648}, "reply_to": "15290__0_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15290__0_022", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Except the only on the supposition that it was never included in any grants or any Indian in which event it still belongs to the United States or still did at the time of -- well I suppose it's --\nI am not sure.\nIt may still then belong to the United States.\nWell, never having been ceded to the state expressly but when --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [409.674, 422.012, 422.851, 425.055], "stop_times": [422.012, 422.851, 425.055, 430.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 409.674}, "reply_to": "15290__0_021", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_023", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Claiborne, excuse me.\nYou're finishing your answer (Voice Overlap).\nIn your submission yesterday you post that at least that as I understood it that the Indian tribes gave up and yielded land in Georgia and South Carolina in the Eastern interior states in exchange for this land, I suppose ,they surrendered all rights of every character to subsurface minerals and oils in those eastern lands, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [430.532, 432.964, 436.697], "stop_times": [432.964, 436.697, 471.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.532}, "reply_to": "15290__0_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__0_024", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I think that is true, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI should put, I'm not clear whether those grants were on as a categorically feasible grants.\nI am clear that those grant's were not made with stipulation which is quite relevant here that the present lands would never under any circumstance being incorporated within the State and that they will it in perpetuity as a permanent home.\nThis language being appropriate precisely because these tribes had been so often shifted Westwood that it was appropriate to at long last seem to be guaranteeing them a place from which they would not be evicted, though in the end they were evicted from Oklahoma as well.\nAs I said, the equal footing doctrine is inappropriate here, first because it haven't been device yet and therefore can hardly be suppose to have been in the mind of the grantors but mostly because that is a doctrine which is -- works to the benefit of the future State.\nHere we have an expressed decoration in both treaties to the effect that never will a State be created in this territory and therefore no occasion to reserve for the benefit of a future State that will never come into existence in the beds of navigable rivers.\nFor these reasons, we suggest that the judgment be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [471.401, 473.964, 482.393, 499.21, 521.054, 541.07, 560.44], "stop_times": [473.964, 482.393, 499.21, 521.054, 541.07, 560.44, 562.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 471.401}, "reply_to": "15290__0_023", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_025", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "May I ask you one question that is to the provisions?\nIf the Indians are awarded this land, how will the oil be administered?\nWill they own it in common, the tribe and if it has to be extolled, how will it be done, who will control?\nCan they do it themselves?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [562.963, 568.181, 574.955, 586.553], "stop_times": [568.181, 574.955, 586.553, 588.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.963}, "reply_to": "15290__0_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_026", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, as to your first question, the tribe retains an existence and does now have tribal property as oppose to the form of property which has been subdivided among the individual regions there is a tribal counsel, there is a tribal government, there are tribal funds which are administered for the common benefit of the tribe, some of those for school purposes.\nWhat would happen and how the Indians would choose to appropriate the revenues from these oil lands are not clear.\nIt might be that because technically, the property would lie in trust with the United States that some supervision of these revenues would lie with the department of interior.\nThat the question frankly hasn't been fully explored and I'm not sure how it would resolve, (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [588.258, 613.209, 620.873, 635.201], "stop_times": [613.209, 620.873, 635.201, 642.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 588.258}, "reply_to": "15290__0_025", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_027", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Did you say it will go to the schools?\nWhat schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [642.959, 645.003], "stop_times": [645.003, 646.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.959}, "reply_to": "15290__0_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_028", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There are, as I understand it Cherokee and Choctaw schools maintained with tribal funds derived from other common tribal property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [646.059], "stop_times": [655.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 646.059}, "reply_to": "15290__0_027", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_029", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Do they run there own schools still in that section of the country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [655.157], "stop_times": [658.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.157}, "reply_to": "15290__0_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__0_030", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "As I understand that they do, though some of them attend the State schools.\nThey're free to do it Your Honor.\nBut they do use some of the tribal funds, for that purpose, sole purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [658.698, 663.536, 664.934], "stop_times": [663.536, 664.934, 670.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 658.698}, "reply_to": "15290__0_029", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_031", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Now their educational systems, first grade to high school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [670.241], "stop_times": [676.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.241}, "reply_to": "15290__0_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__0_032", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I think that is correct Mr. Justice White, and not for the whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [676.159], "stop_times": [681.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 676.159}, "reply_to": "15290__0_031", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15290__0_033", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Claiborne.\nMr. Kirk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [681.047, 686.458], "stop_times": [686.458, 692.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.047}, "reply_to": "15290__0_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_000", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nOur friends, the Cherokees have produced a convenient map which I think will be helpful in following to the argument which I will make and I respectfully ask the Court to refer to that map.\nAlso, you might find it helpful to refer to the little map on page 25 of chapter 3.\nNow, this controversy involves the bed of the navigable portion of the Arkansas River.\nThe portion, selected by the Cherokees in bringing this suit in 1966 was the portion commencing at the Arkansas Line where the City of Fort Smith is located and ending where the Grand River flows into the Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [692.135, 698.001, 714.152, 724.871, 739.803], "stop_times": [698.001, 714.152, 724.871, 739.803, 759.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 692.135}, "reply_to": "15290__0_033", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_001", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Fort Gibson is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [759.299], "stop_times": [760.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.299}, "reply_to": "15290__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_002", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Where Fort Gibson is, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [760.028], "stop_times": [761.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 760.028}, "reply_to": "15290__1_001", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_003", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It's settled that the Arkansas was thought to be navigable by the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [761.733], "stop_times": [766.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.733}, "reply_to": "15290__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_004", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, it is settled that the Arkansas was then thought to be navigable.\nIt was established as navigable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [766.422, 769.923], "stop_times": [769.923, 772.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 766.422}, "reply_to": "15290__1_003", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_005", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Above that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [772.206], "stop_times": [774.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.206}, "reply_to": "15290__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_006", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, I'm not -- we're speaking only of the area in controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [774.073], "stop_times": [778.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 774.073}, "reply_to": "15290__1_005", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_007", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That wasn't settled that it was not navigable above Fort Gibson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [778.323], "stop_times": [783.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.323}, "reply_to": "15290__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_008", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The historical evidence is that there are a few miles of the Arkansas and a few miles of the Verdigris that are navigable and were-- would be legally sold but the Cherokees didn't choose to include that in these suits, so we have not treated it in the suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [783.042], "stop_times": [802.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 783.042}, "reply_to": "15290__1_007", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_009", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Certainly it is now, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [802.234], "stop_times": [804.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.234}, "reply_to": "15290__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_010", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, it is now.\nAnd at the times we're talking about, the times these treaties were made, it was very definitely navigable.\nThe stretch of the river is a meandering stream, as you see it from that map.\nAlthough it has not been pertinent in this case and no evidence has been introduced on it and our engineer estimates that there are a little over a 100 miles of riverbed in this stretch of the river.\nYou will note that the head of the stretch, Fort Gibson established in 1824 and at the foot of it, Fort Smith on which the first military establishment appeared in 1817.\nThis area has been substantially used in commerce during this decade previous to the time of the signing of these final treaties with the Cherokees and the Choctaws.\nNow, let us keep these dates in mind.\nThe first treaty that the Eastern Cherokees signed, and they constituted I believe about four-fifths of the entire tribe, was in 1835.\nAll treaties previous to that had been negotiated with the Western Cherokees, who then I believe constituted only about one-fifth of the Cherokee members.\nThey were a group that separate from the rest and went out voluntarily and the rest didn't want to negotiate over many years and finally arrived in the agreement in 1835.\nNow, the final Choctaw Treaty, the one on which superseded all previous treaties and the one upon which the Choctaw claims under patent is based was executed in 1830.\nSo, in this decade previous to that, this stretch of the Grand River, the Arkansas River up to the Grand was established as a useful artery of commerce.\nThe trial court examined into the available facts carefully and reached a very definite conclusion on that subject.\nThe trial court said, \u201cIt is the conclusion of the Court as to this issue that it was common knowledge in the legal sense from at least as early as 1824 until sometime after November 16, 1907, the day of Oklahoma State.\nThe Arkansas River in its natural state was a navigable river to below in its confluence with the Grand River regularly used throughout the remainder of its course in what is now Oklahoma as a highway of Commerce during the major portion of each year.\nAccordingly, it is the decision of this Court based upon judicial knowledge alone and without taking the evidence that this stretch of the Arkansas River was never navigable, in fact and in law at the time the western domains now a part of Oklahoma were ceded to the Choctaw nation and to the Cherokee nation and at that the time the treaties were made pursuant to which the lands were ceded, and also at the time when Oklahoma was admitted to statehood November 16, 1907.\nHistory records substantial riverbed navigation along that stretch of the Arkansas River but during this period there were regularly scheduled trips at the Ports of Fort Gibson and at the ports, free ports just above Fort Gibson.\nIn 1833, 17 boats regularly docked at Fort Gibson.\nThere were 22 established landings between Fort Smith and Fort Gibson and including Redland, Sallisaw, Webbers Falls and Vian.\nIt actually was the only method by which substantial commerce could come into this area and as a result of this navigable water, this part of Oklahoma became to be the first port that had any substantial settlements made in it.\nIt was a vital link between Fort Smith and Fort Gibson and the bottleneck between Fort Gibson and the outside world.\nHistory is complete with the records of substantial stores for the army post, recruits being brought in a great many of the Indians who later came in under this treaties were brought up this river in boats and steam boats.\nThey device the shallow draft steamboat which could negotiate this river very well in the major portions of each year and so there is no question that this was an established navigable body of water before these treaties were made.\nIt was so found by the trial court and has not been challenged in this case that I know of.\nThe ownership of the Mississippi River and its tributaries and I should say that the Arkansas River is a second longest tributary of the Mississippi, the longest being the Missouri.\nThe negotiators that appear into the Louisiana Treaty were quite cognizant of the necessity of securing all these waters because of navigation and many other reasons.\nIn a later date of May 13, 1803 from Robert Livingston and James Monroe to James Madison, the secretary of the State, the writer set the question of a full control on use of the Mississippi River and all streams that entered into it from their sources to the ocean was one of the paramount reasons culminating in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.\nPresident Jefferson in submitting the Louisiana Purchase Treaty to Congress to the Senate for ratification to Congress for the appropriation said, \u201cwhilst the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its waters secure and independent outlet for the produce of the Western States and the non-control of navigation through their whole course, free from collision with other powers and the dangers to our peace from that source, the fertility of the country its climate and extent prowess in dew season the important age to our treasury and ample provision for our posterity and the widespread for the blessings of freedom and the equal laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [804.887, 806.492, 817.255, 826.335, 846.126, 872.165, 892.316, 896.348, 911.067, 922.324, 935.844, 953.436, 969.358, 984.379, 1007.402, 1027.651, 1068.386, 1099.414, 1104.761, 1115.579, 1133.679, 1145.512, 1167.588, 1187.48, 1200.623, 1218.549, 1236.718, 1262.738], "stop_times": [806.492, 817.255, 826.335, 846.126, 872.165, 892.316, 896.348, 911.067, 922.324, 935.844, 953.436, 969.358, 984.379, 1007.402, 1027.651, 1068.386, 1099.414, 1104.761, 1115.579, 1133.679, 1145.512, 1167.588, 1187.48, 1200.623, 1218.549, 1236.718, 1262.738, 1316.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 804.887}, "reply_to": "15290__1_009", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_011", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Mr. Kirk, may I see if I can understand about everybody here about who do you represent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1316.582], "stop_times": [1322.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.582}, "reply_to": "15290__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_012", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "State of Oklahoma sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1322.807], "stop_times": [1324.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1322.807}, "reply_to": "15290__1_011", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_013", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Only the State of Oklahoma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1324.532], "stop_times": [1326.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.532}, "reply_to": "15290__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_014", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Just the State of Oklahoma, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1326.306], "stop_times": [1327.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1326.306}, "reply_to": "15290__1_013", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_015", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I see the attached names to your briefs.\nI should know the other counsel representing all respondents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1327.853, 1331.973], "stop_times": [1331.973, 1335.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.853}, "reply_to": "15290__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_016", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Pardon me, Mr. Justice Black I am representing actually all of the respondents which include the State of Oklahoma's lessees also its oil and gas lessees and its sand and gravel lessees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1335.504], "stop_times": [1350.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1335.504}, "reply_to": "15290__1_015", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_017", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It has -- the State of Oklahoma has already leased these lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1350.44], "stop_times": [1353.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.44}, "reply_to": "15290__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_018", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The State of Oklahoma has leased these lands.\nIn fact it has been leasing them since about 1908.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1353.951, 1357.205], "stop_times": [1357.205, 1362.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1353.951}, "reply_to": "15290__1_017", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_019", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Has there been any litigation about it before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1362.083], "stop_times": [1365.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.083}, "reply_to": "15290__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_020", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Not with the Cherokee tribe or the Choctaw tribe until this last lease was instituted in 1966.\nThe State of Oklahoma --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1365.227, 1372.989], "stop_times": [1372.989, 1373.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1365.227}, "reply_to": "15290__1_019", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_021", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Now, how long had the State of Oklahoma been making leases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1373.117], "stop_times": [1377.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.117}, "reply_to": "15290__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_022", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Nearly 60 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1377.357], "stop_times": [1379.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1377.357}, "reply_to": "15290__1_021", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_023", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And are they developing oil right now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1379.75], "stop_times": [1382.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.75}, "reply_to": "15290__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_024", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There is no oil developed thereon.\nMr. Claiborne I believe was mistaken on that subject sure he was in good faith there is some gas production.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1382.595, 1384.34], "stop_times": [1384.34, 1391.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1382.595}, "reply_to": "15290__1_023", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_025", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But these oil companies are represented, what's their representation if it is not for the oil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1391.045], "stop_times": [1396.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.045}, "reply_to": "15290__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_026", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It is because of the gas.\nThey have all gas leases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1396.801, 1398.695], "stop_times": [1398.695, 1400.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1396.801}, "reply_to": "15290__1_025", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_027", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is any of that being developed now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1400.591], "stop_times": [1402.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.591}, "reply_to": "15290__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_028", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, there is some gas production on some of the leases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1402.927], "stop_times": [1406.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1402.927}, "reply_to": "15290__1_027", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_029", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "How long has it been developed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1406.238], "stop_times": [1409.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.238}, "reply_to": "15290__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_030", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It's a quite recent, just in the last three or four years, I would think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1409.103], "stop_times": [1416.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1409.103}, "reply_to": "15290__1_029", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_031", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But who is this controversy really between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1416.776], "stop_times": [1419.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.776}, "reply_to": "15290__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_032", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "This controversy is between the State of Oklahoma and the Cherokee tribe and the Choctaw tribe (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1419.449], "stop_times": [1425.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1419.449}, "reply_to": "15290__1_031", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_033", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I know that one of this case but who is it actually between the oil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1425.605], "stop_times": [1429.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.605}, "reply_to": "15290__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_034", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The standard values of land should, could I say this Mr. Justice Black.\nThe values of the land involved far exceed the value of the minerals and the State of Oklahoma has no other claimant to the lands other than the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1429.785, 1434.623], "stop_times": [1434.623, 1446.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1429.785}, "reply_to": "15290__1_033", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_035", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Your claim here is that the State of Oklahoma was given the bed of the stream when it became a State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1446.777], "stop_times": [1456.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.777}, "reply_to": "15290__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_036", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1456.977], "stop_times": [1457.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1456.977}, "reply_to": "15290__1_035", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_037", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And it's owned it ever since and it never have been conveyed to anybody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1457.873], "stop_times": [1462.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.873}, "reply_to": "15290__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_038", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1462.524], "stop_times": [1463.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1462.524}, "reply_to": "15290__1_037", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_039", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Now, if you say that at the end of this lawsuit, our controversy between various oil companies as to whether the State can give it to them or the Indians can give it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1463.849], "stop_times": [1475.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.849}, "reply_to": "15290__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_040", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There is no controversy, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1475.466], "stop_times": [1477.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1475.466}, "reply_to": "15290__1_039", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_041", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well what would it be then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1477.793], "stop_times": [1481.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.793}, "reply_to": "15290__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_042", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There is no controversy between the State and the oil and gas lessees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1481.114], "stop_times": [1484.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1481.114}, "reply_to": "15290__1_041", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_043", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I'm not talking between the State, of the two groups of the oil companies that at the end of this, you're going to have a fight over which one gets it dependent upon whether it goes to the Indians or the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1484.577], "stop_times": [1497.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.577}, "reply_to": "15290__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_044", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, there is not.\nThe other gas lessees --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1497.511, 1500.685], "stop_times": [1500.685, 1501.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1497.511}, "reply_to": "15290__1_043", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_045", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What are all these oil companies whose name assigned to your brief?\nWhy are they interested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1501.881, 1505.542], "stop_times": [1505.542, 1506.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.881}, "reply_to": "15290__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_046", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Because they hold oil and gas leases from the State of Oklahoma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1506.877], "stop_times": [1510.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1506.877}, "reply_to": "15290__1_045", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_047", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "From the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1510.889], "stop_times": [1511.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.889}, "reply_to": "15290__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_048", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "From the state of Oklahoma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1511.917], "stop_times": [1512.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1511.917}, "reply_to": "15290__1_047", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_049", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And not from the Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1512.576], "stop_times": [1513.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.576}, "reply_to": "15290__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_050", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Not from the Indians, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1513.812], "stop_times": [1517.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1513.812}, "reply_to": "15290__1_049", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_051", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, they are bound they have to fight that out at the end of the lawsuit out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1517.533], "stop_times": [1521.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.533}, "reply_to": "15290__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_052", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, not if the State of Oklahoma prevails they have good leases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1521.852], "stop_times": [1526.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1521.852}, "reply_to": "15290__1_051", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_053", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's right.\nBut suppose the State of Oklahoma doesn't prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1526.504, 1527.353], "stop_times": [1527.353, 1529.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.504}, "reply_to": "15290__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_054", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "If the State of Oklahoma does not prevail then they would have to make their piece with whichever of the Indian tribes does prevail.\nAs stated yesterday by Mr. Kile, there is a conflict between the Choctaws and the Cherokees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1529.597, 1538.735], "stop_times": [1538.735, 1545.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1529.597}, "reply_to": "15290__1_053", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_055", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well now, do any of them who already have leases from the Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1545.769], "stop_times": [1550.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.769}, "reply_to": "15290__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_056", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "None that I know of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1550.537], "stop_times": [1552.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1550.537}, "reply_to": "15290__1_055", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_057", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You don't know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1552.324], "stop_times": [1553.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.324}, "reply_to": "15290__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_058", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I know of none and I've not heard of any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1553.46], "stop_times": [1558.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1553.46}, "reply_to": "15290__1_057", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_059", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Let me go back to something you said to Mr. Justice Black and you said the land and by that I assume, you mean the land under the bed of the river, the land of the riverbed is worth more than any estimated value of subsurface products.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1558.578], "stop_times": [1579.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.578}, "reply_to": "15290__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_060", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "In Oklahoma --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1579.225], "stop_times": [1579.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1579.225}, "reply_to": "15290__1_059", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_061", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is that in this record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1579.804], "stop_times": [1581.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.804}, "reply_to": "15290__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_062", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes the value is not, no.\nAnd the oil and gas development actually is not either but these are undisputable facts.\nThe law is and we have set it forth on our briefs that the State claims the riverbed between high watermarks and that was established years ago in the law of Oklahoma as being the States the extent of the states claim to the bed of a navigable stream, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd there the stream is being stabilized and in some places straightened by the United States Army Engineers in this navigation, Arkansas River Navigation Project that is going up there.\nAt least a considerable amount of area formerly covered by waters are better and Mr. Kile mentioned that in the talking about in the evasive bed and I believe that is what he intend to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1581.738, 1585.351, 1591.636, 1614.999, 1631.517], "stop_times": [1585.351, 1591.636, 1614.999, 1631.517, 1646.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1581.738}, "reply_to": "15290__1_061", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_063", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Mr. Kirk, can I ask the question because as you look at the briefs now, it looks like this is ultimately aside as that which all I have does and this will get the leases and that will depend on whether the State or the Indians own the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1646.256], "stop_times": [1664.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.256}, "reply_to": "15290__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_064", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Mr. Justice Black perhaps that could be assumed but it is not a fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1664.051], "stop_times": [1670.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.051}, "reply_to": "15290__1_063", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_065", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But what's they reason for all these briefs by the oil companies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1670.416], "stop_times": [1674.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.416}, "reply_to": "15290__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_066", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The oil companies are seeking to protect their respective leases.\nSome of the companies have only one lease on maybe very limited area of riverbed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1674.083, 1677.427], "stop_times": [1677.427, 1684.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1674.083}, "reply_to": "15290__1_065", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_067", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "On what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1684.89], "stop_times": [1685.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.89}, "reply_to": "15290__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_068", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Some of the oil companies do have only one lease on a very limited area of riverbed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1685.637], "stop_times": [1691.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1685.637}, "reply_to": "15290__1_067", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_069", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "This is about 25, it looks like to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1691.314], "stop_times": [1693.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.314}, "reply_to": "15290__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_070", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, I say one you may find one company that will have only one lease on one say 320-acre track which then composes a part of the riverbed but we have a 100 miles of riverbed here to consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1693.867], "stop_times": [1709.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.867}, "reply_to": "15290__1_069", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_071", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Are you representing the Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1709.312], "stop_times": [1711.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.312}, "reply_to": "15290__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_072", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, I am representing the State of Oklahoma and its lessees, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1711.514], "stop_times": [1716.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.514}, "reply_to": "15290__1_071", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_073", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And the oil companies that have leases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1716.183], "stop_times": [1718.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.183}, "reply_to": "15290__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_074", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Its lessees are the oil companies and the sand and gravel companies that are parties to this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1718.616], "stop_times": [1725.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1718.616}, "reply_to": "15290__1_073", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_075", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You've got a covenant in their leases guaranteeing the title?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1725.328], "stop_times": [1731.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.328}, "reply_to": "15290__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_076", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I'm --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1731.574], "stop_times": [1732.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.574}, "reply_to": "15290__1_075", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_077", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I suppose you're obliged to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1732.72], "stop_times": [1735.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.72}, "reply_to": "15290__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_078", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There is a representation of title yes.\nI'm certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1735.043, 1737.618], "stop_times": [1737.618, 1738.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.043}, "reply_to": "15290__1_077", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_079", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And as your -- you have usual royalty for your leases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1738.227], "stop_times": [1743.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.227}, "reply_to": "15290__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_080", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1743.604], "stop_times": [1744.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.604}, "reply_to": "15290__1_079", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_081", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "On the oil gas 1/8.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1744.063], "stop_times": [1746.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.063}, "reply_to": "15290__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_082", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I am not sure of the amount, what is the 1/8.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1746.561], "stop_times": [1750.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.561}, "reply_to": "15290__1_081", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_083", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Does that produce -- are those leases producing revenue for the State now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1750.87], "stop_times": [1755.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.87}, "reply_to": "15290__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_084", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "A few of them are.\nIt has not been out and said there was no oil, there is some gas and there has been rather difficulty.\nIt looked a lot better when the suit started and it does now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1755.362, 1756.408, 1762.983], "stop_times": [1756.408, 1762.983, 1767.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.362}, "reply_to": "15290__1_083", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_085", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "When was that?\nWhen did the suit actually started between the Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1767.482, 1769.019], "stop_times": [1769.019, 1772.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.482}, "reply_to": "15290__1_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_086", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The Indians brought to suit in December 1966, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1772.75], "stop_times": [1777.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.75}, "reply_to": "15290__1_085", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_087", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Had there been more suits before that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1777.908], "stop_times": [1779.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.908}, "reply_to": "15290__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_088", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's the first suit that the Indians have brought here on challenging this and Oklahoma has exerted dominion control over these river for 60 years prior to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1779.583], "stop_times": [1791.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.583}, "reply_to": "15290__1_087", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_089", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But you didn't use it prior to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1791.236], "stop_times": [1794.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.236}, "reply_to": "15290__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_090", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes we did, we exclude many all gas leases and sand and gravel leases to this market Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1794.108], "stop_times": [1799.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.108}, "reply_to": "15290__1_089", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_091", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Do I understand you to say that the past four years there has been a big jump in this game?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1799.308], "stop_times": [1804.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.308}, "reply_to": "15290__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_092", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Past three or four years, there has been a discovery of gas, a gas field over in this area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1804.795], "stop_times": [1809.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.795}, "reply_to": "15290__1_091", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_093", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's when the Indians --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1809.467], "stop_times": [1809.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.467}, "reply_to": "15290__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_094", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1809.975], "stop_times": [1810.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.975}, "reply_to": "15290__1_093", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_095", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "-- decided they were interested in the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1810.522], "stop_times": [1812.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.522}, "reply_to": "15290__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_096", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's right.\nThat got them interested and apparently they decided to file their suit then.\nThey stood by for 60 years without filing any suit or bringing the question to Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1812.027, 1814.495, 1819.329], "stop_times": [1814.495, 1819.329, 1825.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.027}, "reply_to": "15290__1_095", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_097", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What value is the riverbed in the State of Oklahoma other than the mineral production?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1825.165], "stop_times": [1830.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.165}, "reply_to": "15290__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_098", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The riverbed and composites within high watermarks are great deal of land and the land values are very substantial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1830.92], "stop_times": [1840.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.92}, "reply_to": "15290__1_097", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_099", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "For what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1840.669], "stop_times": [1841.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.669}, "reply_to": "15290__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_100", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Agriculture.\nThese river bottom lands that -- where the river is now being controlled through the navigation project are very valuable lands.\nThey can be smooth over with a bulldozer and put on production some of it has high bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1841.725, 1845.076, 1854.938], "stop_times": [1845.076, 1854.938, 1860.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1841.725}, "reply_to": "15290__1_099", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_101", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You mean when the river is deepened and channeled what used to be covered by water isn't (Voice Overlap) by water anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1860.821], "stop_times": [1868.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.821}, "reply_to": "15290__1_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_102", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1868.774], "stop_times": [1870.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1868.774}, "reply_to": "15290__1_101", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_103", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And those lands are then exposed they are ready for use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1870.459], "stop_times": [1873.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.459}, "reply_to": "15290__1_102", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_104", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1873.74], "stop_times": [1874.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.74}, "reply_to": "15290__1_103", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_105", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And those are the lands that Oklahoma would like to own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1874.629], "stop_times": [1877.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.629}, "reply_to": "15290__1_104", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_106", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's right.\nThat's the real value in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1877.861, 1879.057], "stop_times": [1879.057, 1881.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.861}, "reply_to": "15290__1_105", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_107", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Any other use except agriculture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1881.61], "stop_times": [1884.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.61}, "reply_to": "15290__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_108", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, of course, the gas production is something (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1884.672], "stop_times": [1888.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.672}, "reply_to": "15290__1_107", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_109", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Leaving that out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1888.67], "stop_times": [1890.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.67}, "reply_to": "15290__1_108", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_110", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1890.487], "stop_times": [1891.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.487}, "reply_to": "15290__1_109", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_111", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Raising lands here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1891.493], "stop_times": [1892.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.493}, "reply_to": "15290__1_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_112", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Probably yes, probably the new navigation channel makes certain areas along with the river bed valuable for sites for industrial plans or any number of things but the navigation project plus the gas development somewhat in different success probably have something to do with the Indians deciding in 1966 to file their suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1892.469], "stop_times": [1924.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.469}, "reply_to": "15290__1_111", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_113", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is there anything in this record showing the aggregate number of acres that lie between the high and low watermark in Oklahoma claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1924.552], "stop_times": [1932.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.552}, "reply_to": "15290__1_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_114", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, there's nothing in the record and actually we have never ascertained it.\nIt's a very difficult civil engineering job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1932.999, 1937.067], "stop_times": [1937.067, 1939.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.999}, "reply_to": "15290__1_113", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_115", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I should think it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1939.8], "stop_times": [1941.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.8}, "reply_to": "15290__1_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_116", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That will be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1941.095], "stop_times": [1941.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.095}, "reply_to": "15290__1_115", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_117", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You say it's very, it's a very substantial area in total.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1941.694], "stop_times": [1946.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.694}, "reply_to": "15290__1_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_118", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It is.\nNow, Mr. Kile in his argument yesterday, referred to our preliminary statement in our brief and states that he accepts the challenge in that statement.\nThat's at page 9 and if the Court cares to refer to it again and he read what we stated and I'm going to read it again because it is our position in this case on this point.\nPage 9 directly under preliminary statement, the question to be resolved is simple and direct.\nDid the United States convey or agreed to convey the riverbed to the Cherokees or Choctaws?\nThe answer is no.\nNot by the standards this Court has established for the beds of navigable waters or even by the accepted standards of ordinary conveyancing in the judgment of the courts below, there was no ambiguity on this subject and each of them concluded that the treaties and patents did not provide for a conveyance of the bed of the river.\nPetitioners not having met to burden of showing inclusion of the riverbed under their treaties or patents have sought to shift the burden by arguing that the State must show that the United States reserved the riverbed when it made the treaties and patents.\nSince the United States did not convey the riverbed, there was no need to reserve it.\nWe say that the riverbed was not conveyed and the Court of Appeals sustained us in that.\nNow, let us refer to the language of the treaties and the patents because there is where the languages upon which the Choctaws and the Chickasaws or the Cherokees must stand or fall.\nIn the treaty of October 18, 1820 with the Chocktaws, the treaty called the Treaty of Doak's Stand.\nThe lands ceded and I'm not going to read the whole lengthy description but just to part only part that refers to the Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1946.754, 1949.474, 1969.694, 1988.083, 1999.964, 2008.856, 2011.369, 2040.643, 2061.966, 2070.775, 2084.634, 2105.878, 2115.576], "stop_times": [1949.474, 1969.694, 1988.083, 1999.964, 2008.856, 2011.369, 2040.643, 2061.966, 2070.775, 2084.634, 2105.878, 2115.576, 2121.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.754}, "reply_to": "15290__1_117", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_119", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Where are you reading from this, the most convenient place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2121.802], "stop_times": [2126.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.802}, "reply_to": "15290__1_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_120", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well this is not in, this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2126.94], "stop_times": [2130.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.94}, "reply_to": "15290__1_119", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_121", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Not in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2130.7], "stop_times": [2131.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.7}, "reply_to": "15290__1_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_122", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "This is page 56.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2131.469], "stop_times": [2133.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2131.469}, "reply_to": "15290__1_121", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_123", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Of your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2133.114], "stop_times": [2133.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.114}, "reply_to": "15290__1_122", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_124", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "56 of our brief yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2133.791], "stop_times": [2135.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.791}, "reply_to": "15290__1_123", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_125", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Thank you.\nArticle 4?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2135.516, 2146.987], "stop_times": [2146.987, 2149.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.516}, "reply_to": "15290__1_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_126", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "A tract -- a treaty October 18, 1820 Doak's Stand, a tract of country and I haven't included all of this and I am not going to read all that might be the descriptions.\nA tribe and only the parts referring to the Arkansas River, a track of country west of the Mississippi River situate between the Arkansas and Red River and bounded as follows, beginning on the Arkansas where the lower boundary line on the Cherokees strike the sand, that's up the Arkansas to the Canadian Fork and up the same that source and so forth that is all of the set about the Arkansas River just dense up the Arkansas and that treaty but they do make it quite clear it's a vast track of land that lies between the Arkansas and the Red River.\nNow, if you'll look at that little map on page 25 of the Choctaw brief, you'll find an oversimplified but somewhat helpful map which shows where that boundary goes.\nThey have a vast track there between the Arkansas and the Red River and that's what the Government agreed to convey it to them.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2149.151, 2159.831, 2209.318, 2241.032, 2254.652], "stop_times": [2159.831, 2209.318, 2241.032, 2254.652, 2256.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.151}, "reply_to": "15290__1_125", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_127", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Let me go back to that language now that your emphasizing and see if I understand you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2256.337], "stop_times": [2260.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.337}, "reply_to": "15290__1_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_128", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2260.588], "stop_times": [2262.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.588}, "reply_to": "15290__1_127", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_129", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "In second line the middle of the first line where the lower boundary line of the Cherokees strikes the sand, that is strikes the Arkansas River, do you say that it strikes the high watermark or the low watermark or the center of the channel, where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2262.333], "stop_times": [2279.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.333}, "reply_to": "15290__1_128", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_130", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, they're really locating that because of the Arkansas State boundary.\nThe Cherokee southeastern corner was located by the surveyor Isaac McCoy who on whose basis who's surveying the Cherokee pattern was wrong.\nOn the north bank of the Arkansas and he located the northeastern boundary of the Choctaws on the South bank of the Arkansas.\nNow, let us take this treaty, final treaty between the Choctaws and the United States in which all the previous treaty was superceded and merged you might say, that's the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, September 13, 1830.\nYou will find that on page also a reference to that at page 59, I believe of our briefs, 56 of our brief, yes.\nNow, the beginning near Fort Smith where the Arkansas boundary crosses the Arkansas River running dense to the source of the Canadian Fork.\nNow, that is the only margin of the Arkansas River running dense to the source of the Canadian Fork.\nThat's all as said about the Arkansas River in that treaty and that's the final treaty.\nNow, their patent, their patent is shown -- the Choctaw's didn't set up their patent in their brief, so we had to set it out and it's shown on page, appendix 5 of our brief, patent issued to the Choctaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2279.595, 2289.879, 2306.489, 2322.123, 2349.135, 2374.163, 2387.404, 2393.58, 2398.161], "stop_times": [2289.879, 2306.489, 2322.123, 2349.135, 2374.163, 2387.404, 2393.58, 2398.161, 2428.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.595}, "reply_to": "15290__1_129", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_131", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And are you speaking of the Roman V designation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2428.712], "stop_times": [2432.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.712}, "reply_to": "15290__1_130", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_132", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well it is a Roman Numeral XI and appendix V.\nPatent to the Choctaws dated March 23, 1842.\nI won't read all of that I will read just a part that mentions the Arkansas River.\nThat however is before the Court and if you want to read everything that's said, it's there.\nThe United States under grant especially to be made by the press of the United States and they were citing the previous treaty the year 1933.\nThe United States under grant special to be made by the President of the United States shall cause to be conveyed to the Choctaw a tract of country west of the Mississippi River and fees to them and their descendants to inure to them why they shall exist as a nation and live on it.\nBeginning near Fort Smith where the Arkansas boundaries strike the Arkansas River running dense to source of the Canadian Fork.\nIf you are in the limits of the United States or to those limits hence due south to the Red River down the Red river to the west boundary of the territory of Arkansas.\nThence, north along the line to the beginning, now that is the description.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2432.075, 2439.9, 2450.818, 2454.835, 2463.476, 2479.06, 2503.716, 2515.139, 2525.759], "stop_times": [2439.9, 2450.818, 2454.835, 2463.476, 2479.06, 2503.716, 2515.139, 2525.759, 2537.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.075}, "reply_to": "15290__1_131", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_133", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Do you think that -- is that the coal of the respective Red River the same as that of the Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2537.613], "stop_times": [2544.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.613}, "reply_to": "15290__1_132", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_134", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct the Red River is a non-navigable stream.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2544.165], "stop_times": [2547.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.165}, "reply_to": "15290__1_133", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_135", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, I know but that will take a quite (Inaudible) whether the bed of the stream is included in the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2547.207], "stop_times": [2554.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.207}, "reply_to": "15290__1_134", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_136", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's correct but the rule is different on a navigable stream from a non-navigable stream.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2554.061], "stop_times": [2558.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.061}, "reply_to": "15290__1_135", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_137", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Oh it is but it may be -- it's clear that the patent included stream.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2558.381], "stop_times": [2564.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.381}, "reply_to": "15290__1_136", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_138", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well that's correct it seems clear to consider there.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2564.397, 2567.289], "stop_times": [2567.289, 2568.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.397}, "reply_to": "15290__1_137", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_139", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Other than the right of the Federal Government over the navigable stream, what is the difference so far as the State is concerned between navigable and a non-navigable stream?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2568.756], "stop_times": [2579.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.756}, "reply_to": "15290__1_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_140", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It is our position Mr. Justice Marshall that the State upon obtaining statehood acquires the bed of the navigable streams and that United States holds it in trust for the future states to be formed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2579.518], "stop_times": [2602.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.518}, "reply_to": "15290__1_139", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_141", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But does the state also takes jurisdiction of the non-navigable stream?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2602.48], "stop_times": [2608.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.48}, "reply_to": "15290__1_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_142", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, the State does not own any non-navigable streams.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2608.716], "stop_times": [2611.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.716}, "reply_to": "15290__1_141", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_143", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, then you say that the State that has no jurisdiction over the Red River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2611.319], "stop_times": [2616.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.319}, "reply_to": "15290__1_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_144", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2616.586], "stop_times": [2617.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.586}, "reply_to": "15290__1_143", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_145", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, who has jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2617.525], "stop_times": [2620.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.525}, "reply_to": "15290__1_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_146", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The riparian owners, I believe on the south side, I believe the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2620.228], "stop_times": [2625.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2620.228}, "reply_to": "15290__1_145", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_147", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, in this particular area of the Choctaw Nation, no base still on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2625.116], "stop_times": [2631.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.116}, "reply_to": "15290__1_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_148", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "As riparian owners on the north side I understand that they claim own to the middle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2631.255], "stop_times": [2636.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.255}, "reply_to": "15290__1_147", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_149", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "They're only the riparian owners but they this results as the treaty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2636.734], "stop_times": [2640.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.734}, "reply_to": "15290__1_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_150", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2640.738], "stop_times": [2642.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.738}, "reply_to": "15290__1_149", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_151", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But what about the provision of the treaty that they shall not give any of this to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2642.126], "stop_times": [2647.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.126}, "reply_to": "15290__1_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_152", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What is that Mr. Justice Marshall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2647.314], "stop_times": [2648.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.314}, "reply_to": "15290__1_151", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_153", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Part of the treaty would say none of these grants shall be able to be given to a State.\nCan you say that in the treaty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2648.38, 2654.516], "stop_times": [2654.516, 2655.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.38}, "reply_to": "15290__1_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_154", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, the treaty didn't say that the treaty said that the lands ceded to the Choctaws shall at no time be included within the limits of the future territory or State and the treaty with the Cherokees, I said the lands ceded to the Cherokees shall at no time be included within the limits of a future territory or State without their consent.\nWe think that getting the consent of the Choctaws could be implied, I mean they could always consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2655.464, 2687.552], "stop_times": [2687.552, 2695.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2655.464}, "reply_to": "15290__1_153", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_155", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Do you mean that the fact that they didn't object mean that they consent it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2695.284], "stop_times": [2701.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.284}, "reply_to": "15290__1_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_156", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Wasn't there a major treaty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2701.292], "stop_times": [2702.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.292}, "reply_to": "15290__1_155", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_157", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No they didn't consent.\nNo, I will tell you that there were later treaties in which I did consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2702.508, 2704.003], "stop_times": [2704.003, 2707.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.508}, "reply_to": "15290__1_156", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_158", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's what the Court says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2707.666], "stop_times": [2709.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.666}, "reply_to": "15290__1_157", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_159", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2709.818], "stop_times": [2710.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.818}, "reply_to": "15290__1_158", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_160", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But if the -- if it were held I suppose if this happens to the Cherokees and Choctaws and that's scoop up the bed of the Arkansas River, same exactly the same language should include then the Red River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2710.574], "stop_times": [2726.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.574}, "reply_to": "15290__1_159", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_161", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well,", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2726.387], "stop_times": [2727.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2726.387}, "reply_to": "15290__1_160", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_162", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, wouldn't it really --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2727.384], "stop_times": [2729.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.384}, "reply_to": "15290__1_161", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_163", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, they have to be expressly included, yes.\nThey have to expressly included.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2729.091, 2732.043], "stop_times": [2732.043, 2733.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.091}, "reply_to": "15290__1_162", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_164", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I am now asking you concede where your case is and if it were held in this case time whether your intentions, given intentions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2733.331], "stop_times": [2740.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.331}, "reply_to": "15290__1_163", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_165", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2740.158], "stop_times": [2741.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.158}, "reply_to": "15290__1_164", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_166", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That this happened to convey bed of the Red River and the bed of the Arkansas River to be shared on the north of the Choctaw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2741.026], "stop_times": [2748.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.026}, "reply_to": "15290__1_165", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_167", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2748.454], "stop_times": [2749.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.454}, "reply_to": "15290__1_166", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_168", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The same patent would convey the bed of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2749.59], "stop_times": [2754.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.59}, "reply_to": "15290__1_167", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_169", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, excuse me, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2754.528], "stop_times": [2756.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.528}, "reply_to": "15290__1_168", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_170", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That would be dependent on the riparian owners of themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2756.78], "stop_times": [2759.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.78}, "reply_to": "15290__1_169", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_171", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "My throat is getting a little hoarse and I'd like to water if I might please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2759.097], "stop_times": [2768.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.097}, "reply_to": "15290__1_170", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_172", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Will you get some water for Mr. Kirk?\nWe apologize that should have been placed there at the outset of your argument.\nWe will have it for you in a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2768.35, 2771.274, 2774.976], "stop_times": [2771.274, 2774.976, 2776.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.35}, "reply_to": "15290__1_171", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_173", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is anything said in any of these while they can call on previous advancements that refers to navigable particulars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2776.9], "stop_times": [2787.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.9}, "reply_to": "15290__1_172", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_174", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No there is no mentioned of navigability.\nNow, with respect to the Cherokee treaties and patents, we have and if you wish to follow it in page 50 in reference --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2787.789, 2791.789], "stop_times": [2791.789, 2804.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.789}, "reply_to": "15290__1_173", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_175", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "50 now of your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2804.003], "stop_times": [2805.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.003}, "reply_to": "15290__1_174", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_176", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Page 50 of our brief.\nThe reference is to the reference in the Cherokee Treaty of May 6, 1828.\nThe only reference to the Arkansas River is to the main branch of the Arkansas River to its junction with the Canadian River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2805.219, 2808.131, 2817.756], "stop_times": [2808.131, 2817.756, 2835.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.219}, "reply_to": "15290__1_175", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_177", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What part now?\nYou will help us if you identify it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2835.228, 2836.725], "stop_times": [2836.725, 2838.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.228}, "reply_to": "15290__1_176", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_178", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's on Page 50.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2838.182], "stop_times": [2841.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.182}, "reply_to": "15290__1_177", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_179", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Under Article 2?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2841.228], "stop_times": [2842.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.228}, "reply_to": "15290__1_178", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_180", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Of our brief.\nYes under Article 2.\nThe complete description is given there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2842.144, 2843.352, 2849.947], "stop_times": [2843.352, 2849.947, 2856.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.144}, "reply_to": "15290__1_179", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_181", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "How far down -- how far down from commencing is the pertinent part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2856.522], "stop_times": [2860.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.522}, "reply_to": "15290__1_180", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_182", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The only part that where Arkansas River is mentioned is to the main branch of the Arkansas River thence down said river to its junction with the Canadian River.\nNow, on that treaty the area of between Fort Smith and the confluence with the Canadian was entirely left open, it wasn't even mentioned.\nNow, that was a treaty with the Western Cherokees.\nWe have maps in back of our brief that shows it.\nNow, the Treaty of February 13, 1833.\nNow, that maybe found on the description on page 51 and omitting the previous language and going only to where it mentions the Arkansas thence down, let's see, down the old western territory line of Arkansas territory to the Verdigris and down into few miles and I know this first mentioned the Arkansas, to the Arkansas.\nThence down the Arkansas, as you can see is just a few miles there to a point, thence down the Canadian to the Arkansas, thence down the Arkansas to the point of the Arkansas where the Eastern Choctaw boundary strikes the said river.\nNow, the patent is the New Echota Treaty, the one which the Eastern Cherokees joined.\nDecember 29, 1835 the patent is shown in full in our Appendix 9, back to the Cherokees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2860.831, 2871.329, 2890.359, 2893.531, 2898.05, 2904.685, 2933.241, 2952.318, 2960.455], "stop_times": [2871.329, 2890.359, 2893.531, 2898.05, 2904.685, 2933.241, 2952.318, 2960.455, 2975.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2860.831}, "reply_to": "15290__1_181", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_183", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What's the Roman designation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2975.063], "stop_times": [2977.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.063}, "reply_to": "15290__1_182", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_184", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "29 in a Roman numeral page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2977.526], "stop_times": [2988.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2977.526}, "reply_to": "15290__1_183", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_185", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Which one of these -- in which one of these do your adversaries explained, they were conveyed the bed of the streams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2988.463], "stop_times": [2999.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.463}, "reply_to": "15290__1_184", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_186", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, they haven't been very specific about that, Mr. Justice Black, but apparently they invoke all these treaties.\nApparently, I hope to find an inclusion somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2999.763, 3010.192], "stop_times": [3010.192, 3014.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.763}, "reply_to": "15290__1_185", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_187", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But is that a claim that simply the conveying of the land conveys the bed of streams to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3014.941], "stop_times": [3022.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.941}, "reply_to": "15290__1_186", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_188", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Apparently, that is their contention.\nNow, the only place here in the patent where the Arkansas River is mentioned is where it says, in the patent on page 30 top of page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3022.145, 3025.357], "stop_times": [3025.357, 3048.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.145}, "reply_to": "15290__1_187", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_189", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We are still on the appendix now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3048.927], "stop_times": [3050.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.927}, "reply_to": "15290__1_188", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_190", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.\nIn my notes, I apologize.\nIn my notes, I'll try to leave out anything that didn't expressly refer to the Arkansas.\nWell, anyhow, this is taken from this treaty, thence down the main channel of the Arkansas River to the western boundary of the State of Arkansas.\nNow, that's only reference to the Arkansas River there except the reference above to the junction with the Arkansas River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3050.843, 3061.971, 3065.025, 3084.456, 3092.522], "stop_times": [3061.971, 3065.025, 3084.456, 3092.522, 3101.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.843}, "reply_to": "15290__1_189", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_191", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "May I ask to be clear about what you are -- why you are presenting these?\nAre you presenting these to show that at no place in any of the treaties that carry any reference to the bed of the streams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3101.052, 3104.842], "stop_times": [3104.842, 3113.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.052}, "reply_to": "15290__1_190", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_192", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right, right.\nAnd I'd like to call the attention of the Court to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals on that subject.\nNow, that is found in the appendix, the general appendix at page 144a, 144a of the appendix, the first grammatical paragraph.\nMr. Justice White asked a question on that yesterday which I believe was not answered correctly.\nI call attention to what the Court of Appeals said, \u201cThe Indians seek comfort from the technical language of the treaties and grants.\nThey attach significance to such phrases as to the Arkansas River.\nDown the Arkansas and thence down the main channel of the Arkansas.\nWe agree with Oklahoma that references to the Arkansas River are for the purpose of establishing reference points, monuments or boundaries.\nThey do not indicate an intent much less a clear intent to convey the riverbed.\u201d\nNow, that was the conclusion of the Court of Appeals in passing on these treaties and patents that I have gratefully referred to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3113.033, 3115.079, 3126.057, 3156.851, 3162.747, 3173.589, 3179.236, 3185.252, 3197.209, 3207.281], "stop_times": [3115.079, 3126.057, 3156.851, 3162.747, 3173.589, 3179.236, 3185.252, 3197.209, 3207.281, 3218.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.033}, "reply_to": "15290__1_191", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_193", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What about the point that if you read the Cherokee patent, the Cherokee lands straddle the Arkansas and you cross the Arkansas at one point to get south of the River and cross back to the north of another point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3218.606], "stop_times": [3241.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.606}, "reply_to": "15290__1_192", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_194", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3241.305], "stop_times": [3243.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.305}, "reply_to": "15290__1_193", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_195", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What are you going to do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3243.671], "stop_times": [3244.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.671}, "reply_to": "15290__1_194", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_196", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "As to that, that's about 40%, I would say of this riverbed, about 60% lies below the junction where the Canadian, about 40% has the Cherokee lands on both sides.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3244.078], "stop_times": [3256.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3244.078}, "reply_to": "15290__1_195", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_197", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But certainly the -- if you follow these calls, they gave and see simple and all there was, was in the boundaries is that needs some boundary description.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3256.033], "stop_times": [3271.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.033}, "reply_to": "15290__1_196", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_198", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is true but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3271.626], "stop_times": [3274.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.626}, "reply_to": "15290__1_197", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_199", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There was a riverbed clearly within the bounds where this meets and bound description.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3274.648], "stop_times": [3279.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.648}, "reply_to": "15290__1_198", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_200", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct, that is to that stretch of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3279.636], "stop_times": [3282.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.636}, "reply_to": "15290__1_199", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_201", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What is your answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3282.728], "stop_times": [3284.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.728}, "reply_to": "15290__1_200", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_202", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Our answer to that is that there was no clear indefinite specific description of the riverbed in the treaties or the patents referring to that portion or any portion of the Arkansas riverbed.\nThat under the authorities set forth in the decisions starting back with Martin versus Waddell, Pollard versus Hagan, Shively versus Bowlby, United States versus Holt State Bank.\nThe beds of navigable waters are held by these that were not under the Constitution conveyed to or relinquished to the Federal Government.\nThe 13 regional counties got the origin of the waterbeds of the navigable waters.\nThe states then submitted were admitted on an equal footing with the original 13 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3284.393, 3299.999, 3321.551, 3339.268, 3347.835], "stop_times": [3299.999, 3321.551, 3339.268, 3347.835, 3352.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3284.393}, "reply_to": "15290__1_201", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_203", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Your argument, those that you said those cases hold United States never owned the riverbeds to give away in the first place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3352.706], "stop_times": [3359.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3352.706}, "reply_to": "15290__1_202", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_204", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right so they had administration over them and they would only the policy of Congress as set forth exhaustibly in Shively versus Bowlby.\nIt expresses the fact that those -- the navigable waters are never, have not been conveyed away except under exceptional circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3359.381, 3372.162], "stop_times": [3372.162, 3384.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.381}, "reply_to": "15290__1_203", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_205", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But they do have title to convey away under certain circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3384.109], "stop_times": [3387.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.109}, "reply_to": "15290__1_204", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_206", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Under certain circumstances.\nThese circumstances are set forth in the opinion of Shively versus Bowlby.\nIn order to perform international obligations, to effect the improvement of such lands or the promotion and convenience of commerce with four missions and among the several States or to carryout other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States holds the territory.\nNow, a counsel for Cherokee is and Chocktaws have argued that they come within the last exception, you might say to the general rule.\nWe say they do not.\nThere was no reason for -- they're an agricultural people, they didn't make their living by fishing, they didn't make their living by commerce.\nThere was no purpose in conveying a highway of commerce already established to them in the treaties with them, and that therefore this purpose would not have been carried out in conveying to them.\nFurthermore, of course, we say they were not conveyed to them under the rule of Holt State Bank, United States versus Holt State Bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3387.261, 3388.896, 3396.459, 3420.917, 3434.831, 3437.266, 3448.526, 3468.234], "stop_times": [3388.896, 3396.459, 3420.917, 3434.831, 3437.266, 3448.526, 3468.234, 3476.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3387.261}, "reply_to": "15290__1_205", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_207", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I don't understand the -- your argument based on the fact that they were not a commercial people and were not fishermen.\nThis is doesn't have to do unless I'm quite mistaken with the work either for navigational purposes or fishing purposes or anything else.\nWe're talking about the bed of the river, the land under the river and the mineral reserves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3476.943, 3485.922, 3495.33], "stop_times": [3485.922, 3495.33, 3501.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3476.943}, "reply_to": "15290__1_206", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15290__1_208", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3501.089], "stop_times": [3502.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3501.089}, "reply_to": "15290__1_207", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_209", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There is no question about the continuing right of the United States always in any navigable stream, the navigational easement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3502.424], "stop_times": [3511.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3502.424}, "reply_to": "15290__1_208", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15290__1_210", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is correct.\nThey have done a few cases over on the west coast where small water covered area was conveyed.\nCertain Indians at the end of the reservation where they made their living by fishing and it was held at the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3511.431, 3513.395, 3521.603], "stop_times": [3513.395, 3521.603, 3530.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3511.431}, "reply_to": "15290__1_209", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_211", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But that has to do with the Water Fishing Rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3530.841], "stop_times": [3532.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3530.841}, "reply_to": "15290__1_210", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15290__1_212", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, that is right.\nWell, there is nothing like it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3532.406, 3533.332], "stop_times": [3533.332, 3534.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3532.406}, "reply_to": "15290__1_211", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_213", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The issue here is not water but land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3534.48], "stop_times": [3537.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3534.48}, "reply_to": "15290__1_212", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15290__1_214", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I agree with you Mr. Justice Stewart.\nNow the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3537.203, 3540.105], "stop_times": [3540.105, 3540.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3537.203}, "reply_to": "15290__1_213", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_215", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The Indian's position that land they left had all these rivers and everything on it and in ways to be assumed that what the Government gave them was the equivalent of what they gave up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3540.864], "stop_times": [3554.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3540.864}, "reply_to": "15290__1_214", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_216", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3554.632], "stop_times": [3555.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3554.632}, "reply_to": "15290__1_215", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_217", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's their position, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3555.92], "stop_times": [3560.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3555.92}, "reply_to": "15290__1_216", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_218", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, I think what they gave them was what those conveyed to them.\nNow, there is no evidence as to what they gave up.\nIn this case, what they got was what was conveyed to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3560.158, 3565.745, 3568.996], "stop_times": [3565.745, 3568.996, 3573.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3560.158}, "reply_to": "15290__1_217", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_219", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And they were conveyed property in fee simple?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3573.833], "stop_times": [3578.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3573.833}, "reply_to": "15290__1_218", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_220", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "They were conveyed the property in fee simple subject to certain very important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3578.721], "stop_times": [3586.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3578.721}, "reply_to": "15290__1_219", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_221", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well as to this land, they had land on both sides of the river.\nThey had fee simple to everything but the riverbed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3586.272, 3591.551], "stop_times": [3591.551, 3596.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3586.272}, "reply_to": "15290__1_220", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_222", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "They had fee simple except that they are the patents to them provided that the Choctaw patent provided that the lands hereby granted shall revert to the United States of the Cherokee Nation ceases and abandons the same as the Cherokee patent, excuse me.\nThe Choctaw patent provides that the land shall inure to them as long as they shall exist as a nation and live on it.\nOccupancy is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3596.479, 3613.294, 3620.917], "stop_times": [3613.294, 3620.917, 3623.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3596.479}, "reply_to": "15290__1_221", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_223", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I respectfully say it is not what I was asking you.\nYour argument was as I understood it and I now ask you is that your argument?\nThen where the river was in the middle of piece of the property that the nation was given fee simple of everything but the river bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3623.26, 3625.845, 3631.039], "stop_times": [3625.845, 3631.039, 3644.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3623.26}, "reply_to": "15290__1_222", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_224", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right.\nUnder the language I have just -- with the qualification I have just read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3644.618, 3646.233], "stop_times": [3646.233, 3649.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3644.618}, "reply_to": "15290__1_223", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_225", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, how can we spell that out, it leads the river by the mile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3649.854], "stop_times": [3653.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3649.854}, "reply_to": "15290__1_224", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_226", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We have because it was a navigable river bottom because it comes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3653.036], "stop_times": [3657.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3653.036}, "reply_to": "15290__1_225", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_227", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The river bottom is not navigable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3657.495], "stop_times": [3660.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3657.495}, "reply_to": "15290__1_226", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_228", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The river is navigable and the bottom follows the navigation rights established by the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3660.918], "stop_times": [3667.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3660.918}, "reply_to": "15290__1_227", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_229", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But it is not now, that river bottom is not the bottom of a navigable route.\nIs it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3667.291, 3673.756], "stop_times": [3673.756, 3675.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3667.291}, "reply_to": "15290__1_228", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_230", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The one we're talking about Mr. Justice Marshall is, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3675.792], "stop_times": [3679.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3675.792}, "reply_to": "15290__1_229", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_231", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, I thought you said it was one where there were miles of land that was just land and could be farmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3679.624], "stop_times": [3686.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3679.624}, "reply_to": "15290__1_230", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_232", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, that is land between the high watermarks previously established by the river before stabilization by the United States Army Engineers, which creates an artificial evulsive change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3686.307], "stop_times": [3699.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3686.307}, "reply_to": "15290__1_231", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_233", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "So, if you look at it as the time it was granted.\nThey did not have jurisdiction over the bed of the navigable river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3699.071, 3703.33], "stop_times": [3703.33, 3708.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3699.071}, "reply_to": "15290__1_232", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_234", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3708.508], "stop_times": [3708.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3708.508}, "reply_to": "15290__1_233", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_235", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "According to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3708.905], "stop_times": [3710.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3708.905}, "reply_to": "15290__1_234", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_236", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That's our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3710.163], "stop_times": [3710.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3710.163}, "reply_to": "15290__1_235", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_237", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And so now that it's now worth something to the State, the land but not the river now belongs to the State.\nYou didn't mind the board, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3710.979, 3721.669], "stop_times": [3721.669, 3726.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3710.979}, "reply_to": "15290__1_236", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_238", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It has been -- the State has collected a revenue over from this riverbed from sand and gravel and oil and gas leases for 60 years.\nIt has been of value to the State.\nIt has gotten more valuable lately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3726.22, 3737.302, 3739.428], "stop_times": [3737.302, 3739.428, 3743.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3726.22}, "reply_to": "15290__1_237", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_239", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Were the Indians making any claim through it at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3743.408], "stop_times": [3746.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3743.408}, "reply_to": "15290__1_238", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_240", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "They did not, not until the suit was filed in December 1966.\nNow, the Holt State Bank rule, in that case, there are certain reservations were established for the Chippewa Indian tribes.\nUnder certain treaties made prior to Minnesota statehood.\nThese treaties expressly described certain land as being reserved for these Indians.\nThey do create a reservation contrary to what counsel for the Cherokees and the Choctaws have argued.\nThe statute shows it.\nNow, in the Red Lake or Indian reservation were then the boundaries of that reservation was a lake called Mud Lake that the, in 1889 of the treaties last treaties were 1855 prior to Minnesota statehood, State being admitted in 1858, I believe.\nThe treaty of 1855 included just Mud Lake.\nIn 1889, the Government made a further treaty with the Indians in which the Red Lake Reservation was to be ceded by two of the government and was ceded back to the Government.\nThe Government was then going to divide the land into tracks and sell it off and deposit the money in a trust fund for the benefit of the Chippewa's.\nA number of tracks were sold to settlers by the Government and patents issued to the purchasers along the shores of Mud Lake.\nLater on, the Government developed a project to drain Mud Lake and that lay bearer certain valuable agricultural land between riparian lines of the settlers who have bought from the Government and the water placed to where the water had receded and they claimed as riparian proprietors under the Minnesota law.\nThe Federal Government suit on behalf of the Chippewa's contending that this lake was not a navigable lake.\nAnd not being a navigable lake that when it was drained, when the water was drained away the land lake bearer did not inure to the benefit of the riparian proprietors but they claimed that did inure to the benefit of the Chippewa's.\nIt was within Red Lake reservation boundaries and there is no question to that.\nThe Court held in substance that in the treaties with the Chippewa's, which did express to encompass this area within the boundaries.\nThe United States did not expressly and distinctly convey the navigable water bottoms.\nThe Court first held by the way that the lands, the bottoms were navigable contrary to United States that Mud Lake was navigable, contrary to the contention of the United States.\nAnd accordingly, the Court held since, there was no specific description of this land encompassed all around by the reservation boundaries.\nBut there could not be inferred any intention to convey the navigable water bottoms in view of the long established policy of this country to hold the beds of navigable waters in trust for future states.\nNow, that in substance is the holding in the Holt State Bank and we think it's the holding under which the part of the Arkansas River that has Cherokee land in both sides should continue to be owned and held by the State of Oklahoma.\nNow, the argument of counsel for the other side seems to be based principally on the agreement in the Cherokee Treaty that the land ceded to them should not at any future time be embraced within the boundaries of a future State without their consent, remember that, without their consent.\nThe Choctaw Treaty says, the lands ceded to them should at no time be included within the boundaries of a future territory or State.\nNow in 1893, by Act of Congress of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 645, Congress created a commission for the purpose of inducing the Cherokees and Choctaws and other tribes to relinquish tribal rights and to accept allotment of their lands in severalty to tribal members where the ultimate object of including said lands in a State.\nThe result of this Act and ensuing Acts of Congress were agreements with the Cherokees 32 Stat. 716 and with the Choctaws 30 Stat. 495, and 42 Stat. 641 in 1902, which provided for the allotment of the lands to individual members of the respective tribes and relinquishment of the general powers of the tribal governments.\nThese agreements were followed by the Act of April 28, 1904, 33 Stat. 573, which supplemented the tribal laws and put the laws of Arkansas in effect in Indian territory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3746.652, 3753.237, 3765.542, 3770.44, 3777.485, 3788.929, 3791.901, 3818.245, 3832.167, 3846.522, 3860.875, 3871.633, 3902.639, 3912.262, 3927.938, 3935.162, 3951.485, 3960.675, 3974.685, 3984.604, 4001.196, 4022.072, 4057.101, 4069.957, 4108.371, 4137.06], "stop_times": [3753.237, 3765.542, 3770.44, 3777.485, 3788.929, 3791.901, 3818.245, 3832.167, 3846.522, 3860.875, 3871.633, 3902.639, 3912.262, 3927.938, 3935.162, 3951.485, 3960.675, 3974.685, 3984.604, 4001.196, 4022.072, 4057.101, 4069.957, 4108.371, 4137.06, 4152.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3746.652}, "reply_to": "15290__1_239", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_241", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That part of Indian territory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4152.573], "stop_times": [4154.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4152.573}, "reply_to": "15290__1_240", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_242", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, that is correct.\nWell, the now in 1901 an Act of Congress was passed making all members of the Five Civilized Tribes including the Cherokees and Choctaws and Chickasaws making them citizens of the United States.\nNow, the Act of April 26, 1906, continuing tribal governments for limited purposes ending termination of some future state and for regulation of tribal affairs under the interior department.\nThe interior department was given complete and comprehensive regulation over the tribes.\nThe Cherokees and Choctaws became citizens of the United States as a result of these Congressional Acts.\nAs citizens of the territory, they voted with other citizens in the elections concerned with the admission of Oklahoma to the Union and Oklahoma was admitted on November 16, 1907.\nNow, the tribes continued to exist in a sort of a de jure form.\nThey have practically for everything.\nThere is very little that their tribal governments have to decide.\nThey have no legislative powers.\nThey have very limited administrative powers.\nEverything they do has to be proved by the department of the interior.\nMr. W.F. Semple, counsel for Choctaws for many years later on their Principal Chief, in a text book written by him on Oklahoma Indian Land Titles said, \u201cThe Act of Congress of April 26, 1906 in continuum of the tribal governments also provided that the President of the United States could remove the tribal chiefs or appoint one in case of death or removal.\u201d\nAll the five civilized tribes have a chief or governor although in the Cherokee and Seminole nations there are very few unsold common properties.\nThe duties principally are to sign deeds to the remaining lands and employ attorneys to handle claims against the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4154.397, 4156.214, 4176.807, 4194.029, 4203.325, 4209.012, 4223.545, 4230.878, 4233.636, 4237.508, 4240.171, 4244.89, 4251.764, 4282.138, 4293.273], "stop_times": [4156.214, 4176.807, 4194.029, 4203.325, 4209.012, 4223.545, 4230.878, 4233.636, 4237.508, 4240.171, 4244.89, 4251.764, 4282.138, 4293.273, 4302.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4154.397}, "reply_to": "15290__1_241", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_243", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "When did the Indians there become boarders in Oklahoma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4302.442], "stop_times": [4307.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4302.442}, "reply_to": "15290__1_242", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_244", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Upon Oklahoma statehood, November 16, 1908, I mean 1906, sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4307.181], "stop_times": [4313.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4307.181}, "reply_to": "15290__1_243", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_245", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I recall Senator Owen, we have called Senator Owens as a senator.\nWas he elected?\nThe Senate election or later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4313.207, 4318.115, 4320.041], "stop_times": [4318.115, 4320.041, 4321.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4313.207}, "reply_to": "15290__1_244", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_246", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Senator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4321.672], "stop_times": [4323.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4321.672}, "reply_to": "15290__1_245", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_247", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Senator Owens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4323.975], "stop_times": [4324.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4323.975}, "reply_to": "15290__1_246", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_248", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Senator Owens is elected first election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4324.894], "stop_times": [4327.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4324.894}, "reply_to": "15290__1_247", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_249", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "First election.\nYes, he was a Cherokee.\nSection 28 of the Act of April 26, 1906.\nI am still reading from Mr. Semple, says the tribal government shall be continued in full force and effect for all the purposes authorized by law unless otherwise provided by law.\nBut in fact, the legislative branches have long then ceased to function.\nThe tribal laws were supplemented by the Act of April 28, 1904, which equipped the laws of Arkansas in the force in effect for Indian Territory as to Indians, freed men and white persons alike.\nNow, some interest has been expressed as to the present status of the Indian tribes in Oklahoma and as to their schooling.\nWe have -- this is common knowledge, which counsel for Choctaws and Cherokees know.\nBut it has not been divorced, so we're going to site a report, House Report number 2503 dated December 15, 1952 but seems to be passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4327.387, 4327.966, 4335.02, 4338.671, 4348.917, 4353.636, 4365.978, 4378.04, 4384.88], "stop_times": [4327.966, 4335.02, 4338.671, 4348.917, 4353.636, 4365.978, 4378.04, 4384.88, 4393.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4327.387}, "reply_to": "15290__1_248", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_250", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It's not in your brief?\nNot in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4393.247, 4394.542], "stop_times": [4394.542, 4396.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4393.247}, "reply_to": "15290__1_249", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_251", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, it is not in the brief.\nWe didn't know that matter is going to the combination --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4396.149, 4397.247], "stop_times": [4397.247, 4401.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4396.149}, "reply_to": "15290__1_250", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_252", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Give us that citation again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4401.682], "stop_times": [4403.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4401.682}, "reply_to": "15290__1_251", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_253", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "House Report number 2503 82nd Congress, 2nd Session.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4403.359], "stop_times": [4409.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4403.359}, "reply_to": "15290__1_252", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_254", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Can you start that over for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4409.525], "stop_times": [4410.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4409.525}, "reply_to": "15290__1_253", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_255", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Dated December 15, 1952.\nThe only thing I want to read from you was that is this statement, \u201cThere are no reservations for Cherokees or Choctaws or Chickasaws in Oklahoma.\u201d\nNow I have another --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4410.89, 4417.737, 4429.509], "stop_times": [4417.737, 4429.509, 4430.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4410.89}, "reply_to": "15290__1_254", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_256", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "May I know why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4430.777], "stop_times": [4431.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4430.777}, "reply_to": "15290__1_255", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_257", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Reservations, their lands were allotted in severalty.\nThere are citizens.\nThey live in a community like everybody else with the exception of a very few.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4431.913, 4437.101, 4439.015], "stop_times": [4437.101, 4439.015, 4443.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4431.913}, "reply_to": "15290__1_256", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_258", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Is there anything in this record that says that they are not as of today nations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4443.187], "stop_times": [4451.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4443.187}, "reply_to": "15290__1_257", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_259", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well of course, actually I think the rest of the nation, those has put to rest in the case of Cherokee versus Georgia when Mr. Chief Justice Marshall stated that the Cherokees were not a nation, so that could bring an action in the United States Courts and he at that time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4451.389], "stop_times": [4474.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4451.389}, "reply_to": "15290__1_258", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_260", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "But is there anything in this record that show that they are not tribes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4474.329], "stop_times": [4480.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4474.329}, "reply_to": "15290__1_259", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_261", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No nothing, nothing.\nThey are certainly tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4480.276, 4482.222], "stop_times": [4482.222, 4484.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4480.276}, "reply_to": "15290__1_260", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_262", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, if they are tribes.\nWhy don't they have a right to maintain this suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4484.079, 4485.334], "stop_times": [4485.334, 4488.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4484.079}, "reply_to": "15290__1_261", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_263", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We don't question their right to maintain the suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4488.768], "stop_times": [4490.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4488.768}, "reply_to": "15290__1_262", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_264", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, what is the claim you are making on that particular point that they don't have reservations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4490.982], "stop_times": [4497.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4490.982}, "reply_to": "15290__1_263", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_265", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, the question, the Court was, was interested in that question that we simply supply the information.\nI don't think this particular material except that there are civilized members of the community.\nNow, the question was asked --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4497.317, 4505.481, 4511.756], "stop_times": [4505.481, 4511.756, 4513.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4497.317}, "reply_to": "15290__1_264", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_266", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There are citizens and office holders out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4513.211], "stop_times": [4515.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4513.211}, "reply_to": "15290__1_265", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_267", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right, they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4515.227], "stop_times": [4516.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4515.227}, "reply_to": "15290__1_266", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_268", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "All over the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4516.405], "stop_times": [4517.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4516.405}, "reply_to": "15290__1_267", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_269", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, you can't tell when you're talking to a Cherokee or a Choctaw in Oklahoma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4517.68], "stop_times": [4520.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4517.68}, "reply_to": "15290__1_268", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_270", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Go to schools like other people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4520.575], "stop_times": [4523.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4520.575}, "reply_to": "15290__1_269", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_271", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I have done the rest with them all my life and I never know when my member is a Cherokee or Choctaw or what he might be so they are mixed with whites so much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4523.168], "stop_times": [4531.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4523.168}, "reply_to": "15290__1_270", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_272", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Former Chief Justice of Court of Appeals, Judge Templar was a Cherokee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4531.378], "stop_times": [4536.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4531.378}, "reply_to": "15290__1_271", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_273", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right.\nThey are completely immense in the community of Oklahoma.\nJust like all the rest of us.\nIn fact, one of my co-counsel Mr. Groom is part Cherokee, if you would like to look at a Cherokee Indian.\nNow, on the question of schooling, we have a 1952 report.\nWe have here this is House Report number 2503 Union calendar 790, 82nd Congress second session.\nA report and it seems to be the last one that has been made.\nOn the agency area statistics on Indian education, on the data here that I'm going to read are data on Indian children ages 6 to 18 inclusive having one-fourth degree or more Indian blood and cover fiscal year in 1952.\nNow, Five Civilized Tribes there is nothing separate all the way through on separate tribes here.\nThey lumped the Five Civilized Tribes together, Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Seminoles and Creeks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4536.645, 4537.833, 4544.799, 4546.107, 4555.524, 4566.724, 4581.844, 4588.522, 4612.181, 4617.381], "stop_times": [4537.833, 4544.799, 4546.107, 4555.524, 4566.724, 4581.844, 4588.522, 4612.181, 4617.381, 4626.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4536.645}, "reply_to": "15290__1_272", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_274", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4626.853], "stop_times": [4628.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4626.853}, "reply_to": "15290__1_273", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15290__1_275", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And Creeks.\nChildren attending public schools perhaps of last tribes, 13,894, children attending Government schools, 1,864 roughly 90% are attending public schools and the others schools they attend are Government schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4628.051, 4631.742], "stop_times": [4631.742, 4659.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4628.051}, "reply_to": "15290__1_274", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_276", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Why don't we go back on involvement with you sir, is that your contention here that if the patent to either one of these tribes had specifically and expressly said that the riverbed of Arkansas is included in the grant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4659.368], "stop_times": [4679.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4659.368}, "reply_to": "15290__1_275", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_277", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4679.463], "stop_times": [4680.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4679.463}, "reply_to": "15290__1_276", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_278", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Would it then be a contention that there would have been no conveyance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4680.701], "stop_times": [4688.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4680.701}, "reply_to": "15290__1_277", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_279", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Fortunately, we don't make -- they have to make that contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4688.344], "stop_times": [4690.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4688.344}, "reply_to": "15290__1_278", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_280", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, I think you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4690.717], "stop_times": [4692.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4690.717}, "reply_to": "15290__1_279", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_281", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, if a sufficient -- if there were sufficient evidence for it I don't think Congress is powerless to deal with the lands of navigable waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4692.364], "stop_times": [4703.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4692.364}, "reply_to": "15290__1_280", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_282", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "If these patents are sufficiently clear in a sense that they fully intended to do convey all the part of the riverbed, you would say the United States had power to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4703.617], "stop_times": [4722.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4703.617}, "reply_to": "15290__1_281", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_283", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I would question that exercise of power, Mr. Justice White.\nFortunately, we don't have to do that.\nI would question that exercise of power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4722.672, 4726.363, 4728.756], "stop_times": [4726.363, 4728.756, 4730.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4722.672}, "reply_to": "15290__1_282", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_284", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, wouldn't you say that -- in looking at your brief it seems to me you've pretty well conceded that the patent to the Cherokee, for example, where from the mouth of the Canadian through the boundary of the Arkansas River to the boundary of State of Arkansas that if you just read that patent, you end up on the western ground of the State of Arkansas on the south side of the river.\nThat's what the patent says, \u201cTo the northerly point of the eastern boundary of Choctaw lands on the south of side of the river.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4730.872, 4767.179], "stop_times": [4767.179, 4778.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4730.872}, "reply_to": "15290__1_283", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_285", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I believe it says at the south side of the river, isn't that correct, which is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4778.705], "stop_times": [4786.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4778.705}, "reply_to": "15290__1_284", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_286", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You say it would've been a lot better that patent that said the opposite field.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4786.358], "stop_times": [4791.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4786.358}, "reply_to": "15290__1_285", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_287", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We said that in our brief that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4791.027], "stop_times": [4793.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4791.027}, "reply_to": "15290__1_286", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_288", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Have you resort to field notes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4793.43], "stop_times": [4795.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4793.43}, "reply_to": "15290__1_287", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_289", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4795.756], "stop_times": [4796.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4795.756}, "reply_to": "15290__1_288", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_290", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Have a survey.\nWhat is your understanding in Oklahoma's and what controls in a field or patent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4796.293, 4797.948], "stop_times": [4797.948, 4805.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4796.293}, "reply_to": "15290__1_289", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_291", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well the field notes are evidence, I would say and in this case they are evidence.\nWe are not saying this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4805.71, 4809.798], "stop_times": [4809.798, 4811.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4805.71}, "reply_to": "15290__1_290", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_292", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "You don't have any cases in Oklahoma where field notes override to clear (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4811.083], "stop_times": [4815.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4811.083}, "reply_to": "15290__1_291", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_293", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, I do not.\nI do not sir, we don't contend these field notes override (Voice Overlap).\nWe're just saying they're evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4815.594, 4816.912, 4821.251], "stop_times": [4816.912, 4821.251, 4824.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4815.594}, "reply_to": "15290__1_292", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_294", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Do you disagree then that the in this patent, the call for the southeastern corner of the Cherokee land was on the south side, on the south side of the Arkansas River?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4824.066], "stop_times": [4839.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4824.066}, "reply_to": "15290__1_293", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_295", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We said, we said it would be on the south bank of the Arkansas River.\nThat is a boundary.\nThe Arkansas River --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4839.356, 4843.106, 4843.815], "stop_times": [4843.106, 4843.815, 4844.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4839.356}, "reply_to": "15290__1_294", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_296", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The south bank -- now, remember the southeast --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4844.344], "stop_times": [4846.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4844.344}, "reply_to": "15290__1_295", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_297", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The Cherokees, no the Cherokee is on the north.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4846.15], "stop_times": [4848.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4846.15}, "reply_to": "15290__1_296", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_298", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Now, how do you -- how can you possibly read that patent that way when it says that the when you from Canadian down the river to the down Arkansas you end up to the point on the south, at the northeast point of Choctaw land and on the south side of the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4848.891], "stop_times": [4869.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4848.891}, "reply_to": "15290__1_297", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_299", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That is merely for the purpose of locating where that end --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4869.531], "stop_times": [4873.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4869.531}, "reply_to": "15290__1_298", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_300", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, where the southeast corner of Cherokee land is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4873.082], "stop_times": [4876.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4873.082}, "reply_to": "15290__1_299", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_301", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, I don't agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4876.274], "stop_times": [4879.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4876.274}, "reply_to": "15290__1_300", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_302", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, you don't explain it in your brief, so I was just wondering how you explain it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4879.106], "stop_times": [4885.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4879.106}, "reply_to": "15290__1_301", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_303", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We contend that as merely a location.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4885.558], "stop_times": [4889.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4885.558}, "reply_to": "15290__1_302", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_304", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The only thing you do is you want to talk about the field notes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4889.388], "stop_times": [4892.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4889.388}, "reply_to": "15290__1_303", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_305", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "We contend that as merely a location point under the evidence of the field notes is pertinent on the subject.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4892.462], "stop_times": [4902.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4892.462}, "reply_to": "15290__1_304", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_306", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And you say when the patent that says they are on the south side of the Arkansas River, you did not mean that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4902.679], "stop_times": [4913.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4902.679}, "reply_to": "15290__1_305", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_307", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, we don't exactly say that, we say no that's merely a location.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4913.742], "stop_times": [4919.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4913.742}, "reply_to": "15290__1_306", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_308", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "A location for what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4919.796], "stop_times": [4920.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4919.796}, "reply_to": "15290__1_307", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_309", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "A reference.\nIt is a location for the lower end of this land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4920.155, 4922.481], "stop_times": [4922.481, 4927.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4920.155}, "reply_to": "15290__1_308", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_310", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, that's -- that is not the issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4927.579], "stop_times": [4931.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4927.579}, "reply_to": "15290__1_309", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_311", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The issue is whether the entire bed of the river is included and if there is clear and definite language that would justify and warrant the inclusion of this entire bed of this river.\nWe say there is no such language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4931.779, 4949.066], "stop_times": [4949.066, 4951.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4931.779}, "reply_to": "15290__1_310", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_312", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, it says that one quarter of the Cherokee land is at the northern extremity of the eastern boundary of the lands of the Choctaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4951.923], "stop_times": [4964.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4951.923}, "reply_to": "15290__1_311", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_313", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The word \u201cat\u201d if you note the footnote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4964.921], "stop_times": [4969.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4964.921}, "reply_to": "15290__1_312", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_314", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It's at the more extremity of the eastern boundary of the land of the Choctaws on, on the south bank of the Arkansas River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4969.446], "stop_times": [4981.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4969.446}, "reply_to": "15290__1_313", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_315", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "All right \u201cat\u201d that point, and \u201cat\u201d does not mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4981.089], "stop_times": [4986.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4981.089}, "reply_to": "15290__1_314", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_316", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "It does not mean it's there though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4986.386], "stop_times": [4988.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4986.386}, "reply_to": "15290__1_315", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_317", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, no, that means the vicinity.\nWe have given a definition of that in the note there, the note in the brief.\nIt is our contention to review that this has establish a navigable water years prior to the time of these treaties and patents that when the treaties and patents were made, there was no description of the riverbed that would constitute a conveyance of the riverbed.\nWe contend that the provisions and the treaties to the effect that no future State, the lands ceded would never be included in any future territory or State, simply meant did not forever renounce the possibility of this land ever becoming a part of a future State or territory.\nThat the Government did not violate its covenant with the Indians, that it sought their consent, that it got their consent, that they agreed to the inclusion in a future territory or State and that the Government has kept faith with them and that the base of their entire argument falls.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [4988.34, 4991.115, 4999.489, 5033.124, 5060.487], "stop_times": [4991.115, 4999.489, 5033.124, 5060.487, 5088.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4988.34}, "reply_to": "15290__1_316", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_318", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "How long after the admission of Oklahoma to the Union was the first lease made the riverbed by the State of Oklahoma to outsiders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5088.417], "stop_times": [5100.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5088.417}, "reply_to": "15290__1_317", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_319", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "I have -- we do not have a record exactly of that.\nOf course, we have called the Court's attention to a ruling by the Interior Department of 1908 to the effect that the Cherokees do not own this land.\nIt was submitted to them and this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5100.33, 5107.527, 5121.167], "stop_times": [5107.527, 5121.167, 5124.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5100.33}, "reply_to": "15290__1_318", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_320", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Who submitted it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5124.102], "stop_times": [5132.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5124.102}, "reply_to": "15290__1_319", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_321", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The Lowry Record Company made a request or a lease from the Interior Department.\nA letter was written as an opinion by the acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.\nThis letter was written in response to an application made by the Lowry Record Company to Interior Department for permission to enter into a contract to take sand and gravel from the Arkansas River.\nIn denying jurisdiction in the matter, the acting commissioner said after citing authorities among them Shively versus Bowlby.\nIn other words, when the United States conveyed by warranty deed the lands occupied by the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles, it did not convey the ownership of a beds of navigable streams but reserve them for the benefit of the future State within whose boundaries they would fall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5132.964, 5154.998, 5166.564, 5177.985, 5187.343], "stop_times": [5154.998, 5166.564, 5177.985, 5187.343, 5205.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5132.964}, "reply_to": "15290__1_320", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_322", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And what is the date of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5205.554], "stop_times": [5208.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5205.554}, "reply_to": "15290__1_321", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_323", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "March 27, 1908 approved by the Secretary of the Interior.\nNow, that has remained unchallenged by either Cherokees or Choctaws for 60 almost 60 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5208.067, 5213.374], "stop_times": [5213.374, 5221.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5208.067}, "reply_to": "15290__1_322", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_324", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, then has Oklahoma been exercising dominion among other things by leasing the riverbed for 60 some years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5221.647], "stop_times": [5230.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5221.647}, "reply_to": "15290__1_323", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_325", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, now we have records in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma of cases from 1913 to 1940.\nI can give you citations of those.\nUnited States works also in the Federal Courts.\nSo, United States versus Mackey, 214 Federal 137, 1913, State versus Nolegs 139-943 1914, Brewer-Elliot Oil and Gas Company versus United States, 1922, a decision of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5230.272, 5237.785, 5239.47, 5243.191], "stop_times": [5237.785, 5239.47, 5243.191, 5260.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5230.272}, "reply_to": "15290__1_324", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_326", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "What is the thrust of these, what is the point of these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5260.312], "stop_times": [5263.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5260.312}, "reply_to": "15290__1_325", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_327", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "They all show the exercise of dominion over the riverbed by the State of Oklahoma in the official Court reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5263.129], "stop_times": [5271.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5263.129}, "reply_to": "15290__1_326", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_328", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "If you wish you may supply those citations if they're not in your briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5271.439], "stop_times": [5277.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5271.439}, "reply_to": "15290__1_327", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_329", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Very well, thank you, I will do so.\nSo, we have a ruling by the interior department on the subject.\nWe have these successive assertions of title by the State evidenced that in these various decisions I have cited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5277.508, 5283.643, 5288.923], "stop_times": [5283.643, 5288.923, 5299.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5277.508}, "reply_to": "15290__1_328", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_330", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And we also have the position of the United States as stated by the Solicitor General as of today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5299.373], "stop_times": [5305.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5299.373}, "reply_to": "15290__1_329", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15290__1_331", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, we have that but as stated today.\nThat's correct.\nThey differ from their previous position.\nAt least the Department of Justice does.\nNow, there is one thing Mr. Kile has called the Court's attention to the fact that should be controversy be decided in favor of the Indians.\nThere would have to -- there would be a controversy between the Cherokees and the Choctaws.\nIn the trial court and also appearing as amicus curiae in the Court of Appeals, we had a representative of certain of riparian land owners.\nWho if the Indians should become victorious on the tribe under whom they claim, they are the present grantees of the allottees of the riparian land from the Choctaws.\nThey undoubtedly will and their interest in this case was that they would seek to recover the riverbed from the Choctaws as riparian proprietors and those questions all would remain to be settled also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5305.85, 5308.968, 5310.236, 5313.408, 5321.55, 5344.358, 5350.656, 5361.199, 5377.196], "stop_times": [5308.968, 5310.236, 5313.408, 5321.55, 5344.358, 5350.656, 5361.199, 5377.196, 5400.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5305.85}, "reply_to": "15290__1_330", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_332", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Can I just ask you, you assert in your brief that the patent that says that this was prepared from Mr. McCoy's field notes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5400.892], "stop_times": [5411.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5400.892}, "reply_to": "15290__1_331", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_333", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5411.766], "stop_times": [5412.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5411.766}, "reply_to": "15290__1_332", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_334", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "And the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5412.864], "stop_times": [5413.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5412.864}, "reply_to": "15290__1_333", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_335", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5413.962], "stop_times": [5414.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5413.962}, "reply_to": "15290__1_334", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_336", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "How do you know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5414.589], "stop_times": [5416.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5414.589}, "reply_to": "15290__1_335", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_337", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, the records -- the records show that there were it is unchallenged.\nWe've made the assertion in our brief and there's some challenge but we can produce the records if you would like.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5416.523, 5422.6], "stop_times": [5422.6, 5428.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5416.523}, "reply_to": "15290__1_336", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_338", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "The Government would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5428.925], "stop_times": [5431.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5428.925}, "reply_to": "15290__1_337", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_339", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Well, if there would be I believe War Department instructed Mr. the Secretary of War instructed Mr. Isaac McCoy to make this survey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5431.428], "stop_times": [5444.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5431.428}, "reply_to": "15290__1_338", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_340", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There's no question you make the survey and filed these notes to the client.\nI'm just wondering other these records from Mr. McCoy's notes apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5444.379, 5448.289], "stop_times": [5448.289, 5455.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5444.379}, "reply_to": "15290__1_339", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_341", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "That stated to me the purpose on making the survey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5455.857], "stop_times": [5459.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5455.857}, "reply_to": "15290__1_340", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_342", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "There is no reference in the survey in the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5459.6], "stop_times": [5463.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5459.6}, "reply_to": "15290__1_341", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15290__1_343", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, the patent was granted after the survey.\nThey -- Your Honor, I believe my time has lapsed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5463.53, 5474.09], "stop_times": [5474.09, 5489.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5463.53}, "reply_to": "15290__1_342", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_344", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Not quite, not quite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5489.485], "stop_times": [5490.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5489.485}, "reply_to": "15290__1_343", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__1_345", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Are there any more questions you like to be asked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5490.962], "stop_times": [5494.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5490.962}, "reply_to": "15290__1_344", "speaker": "m_darwin_kirk"}
{"id": "15290__1_346", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "No, I think not.\nThank you very much, Mr. Kirk.\nMr. Ford, are you are dividing the remaining time or you're using it all?\nYou have 14 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5494.229, 5496.694, 5501.597, 5508.274], "stop_times": [5496.694, 5501.597, 5508.274, 5510.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5494.229}, "reply_to": "15290__1_345", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15290__2_000", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and while the Court has some questions to ask me, I have no rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5510.009], "stop_times": [5516.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5510.009}, "reply_to": "15290__1_346", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15290__2_001", "conversation_id": "15290", "text": "All right there is no indication of questions.\nGentlemen, we thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [5516.364, 5519.869, 5521.626], "stop_times": [5519.869, 5521.626, 5525.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5516.364}, "reply_to": "15290__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_000", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Number 41, Choctaw Nation against Oklahoma and others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [12.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_001", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "As with some other consolidated cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [12.852], "stop_times": [16.622], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 12.852}, "reply_to": "15354__0_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15354__0_002", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Oh, yes, and with 59, the Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Nations in Oklahoma, against Oklahoma.\nMr. Kile you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [16.622, 30.436], "stop_times": [30.436, 33.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 16.622}, "reply_to": "15354__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_003", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis action is on certiorari to the Tenth Circuit Court to review this decision affirming a pretrial order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma which in effect vested title to the map -- of course to the Arkansas River within the Oklahoma, in the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [33.118, 38.112], "stop_times": [38.112, 58.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 33.118}, "reply_to": "15354__0_002", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_004", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Kile, would you raise your voice a little -- the acoustics are less prefect here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [58.896], "stop_times": [63.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.896}, "reply_to": "15354__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_005", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes Your Honor, thank you.\nThis action involves the ownership of the ablest beds and the soil and the minerals and a short stretch of the Arkansas River that lies within Oklahoma.\nThe stretch of the river with which this case is concerned is navigable.\nOklahoma contends that in colonial days the crown on the beds are the navigable streams and then when the 13 colonies became independent, they succeeded to rights of the crown so that they then became the owners of the navigable -- of the beds of the navigable streams within their limits.\nAnd that afterwards, as each state entered the union, it entered on an equal footing with the original 13 colonies and thus said the state, when Oklahoma became a state in 1907, it succeeded to the title that the United States had in the navigable portion of the rivers within its borders and that it owns the ablest beds and the soil and minerals underlying the navigable portion of the Arkansas River within its borders --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [63.847, 65.873, 77.932, 83.852, 104.747], "stop_times": [65.873, 77.932, 83.852, 104.747, 143.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 63.847}, "reply_to": "15354__0_004", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_006", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Kile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [143.459], "stop_times": [143.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.459}, "reply_to": "15354__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_007", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- under the equal footing doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [143.689], "stop_times": [145.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.689}, "reply_to": "15354__0_006", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_008", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Is there any place, a map or a sketch or a drawing of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [145.769], "stop_times": [151.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.769}, "reply_to": "15354__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_009", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [151.354], "stop_times": [151.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.354}, "reply_to": "15354__0_008", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_010", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- what we're talking about.\nI find on page 89A of the appendix a -- what's denominated, exhibit b --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [151.531, 152.348], "stop_times": [152.348, 158.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 151.531}, "reply_to": "15354__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_011", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [158.866], "stop_times": [159.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.866}, "reply_to": "15354__0_010", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_012", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- which I have a little trouble understanding, I wanted to know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [159.921], "stop_times": [164.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.921}, "reply_to": "15354__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_013", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The brief from the Choctaw and the Chickasaw Nations has a map.\nIt is page 25 Your Honor of the brief of the Choctaw (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [164.012, 167.912], "stop_times": [167.912, 180.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.012}, "reply_to": "15354__0_012", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_014", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I believe (Voice Overlap) maps for distribution here, is that correct or someone has?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [180.697], "stop_times": [185.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.697}, "reply_to": "15354__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_015", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [185.869], "stop_times": [193.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.869}, "reply_to": "15354__0_014", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_016", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Here is the map for this -- they have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [193.421], "stop_times": [198.618], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 193.421}, "reply_to": "15354__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15354__0_017", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes.\nThat is correct.\nMay it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [198.618, 199.84, 219.479], "stop_times": [199.84, 219.479, 223.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.618}, "reply_to": "15354__0_016", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_018", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "What page of your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [223.55], "stop_times": [225.979], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 223.55}, "reply_to": "15354__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15354__0_019", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "25 Your Honor.\nThe Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations' brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [225.979, 227.459], "stop_times": [227.459, 235.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.979}, "reply_to": "15354__0_018", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_020", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Oh!\nWould you give us some idea as how we can make use of this?\nCan you relate the factual background to the map which has been distributed to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [235.827, 236.025, 239.313], "stop_times": [236.025, 239.313, 245.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.827}, "reply_to": "15354__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_021", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes -- yes Your Honor.\nThe significance of this map which actually was prepared by Mr. Ford in connection with his argument on -- and he will follow me in this.\nThe shaded portion in Arkansas was the lands originally allotted to the Cherokee Indians.\nThey moved there from Georgia in 1817 then it shows the area ceded to the Cherokees later by their treaties of 1828 and 1835.\nThe map that is on page 25 of the -- of our brief may be a little more helpful to the Court in following the argument.\nThe map on page 25 of our brief shows the lands allotted to the Cherokees and shows the lands allotted to the Choctaw.\nIt shows the confluence of the Grand River with the Arkansas and it is that portion of the Arkansas that lays below the confluence of the Grand River that is the subject matter of this lawsuit.\nThe Indian Tribes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [245.115, 253.51, 264.162, 270.669, 282.212, 294.423, 303.009, 321.195], "stop_times": [253.51, 264.162, 270.669, 282.212, 294.423, 303.009, 321.195, 322.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.115}, "reply_to": "15354__0_020", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_022", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "From Fort Gibson, Southeast and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [322.75], "stop_times": [324.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.75}, "reply_to": "15354__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_023", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd the -- as an aid to the Court we colored that just lightly heavier so that it would be easier to identify, but we so stated in our brief so that wouldn't be considered misleading.\nThe Indian Tribes contend that through a series of treaties commencing in 1820 and grants continuing through 1842, the United States ceded to the Indian Tribes the bed of all of the streams within what is now the portion of Oklahoma that's involved.\nThey say that the United States did that for these reasons the explosive development of the cotton economy around 18 hundred resulted in great pressures by the white planters upon the Federal Government to move the Indians out of the Southern States.\nAt the same time, the white planters were bringing great pressures to bear upon the Federal Government, the Governments of the Southern States themselves systematically harassed the Indians for the purpose of making their life in the Southern States unendurable.\nBy way of example, Georgia tore up the Federal Treaties with the Cherokees and annexed the territories of the Cherokees and the Creeks Nation within its territory.\nAnd Samuel Worcester, the principal figure in the celebrated case of Worcester versus Georgia, was a Presbyterian Minister, sentenced to four years of hard labor in a penitentiary in Georgia because he dared to live on Cherokee land without getting permission of the Governor of Arkansas.\nAlabama tore up its --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [324.782, 326.249, 339.162, 367.702, 386.342, 406.057, 419.048, 441.22], "stop_times": [326.249, 339.162, 367.702, 386.342, 406.057, 419.048, 441.22, 442.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.782}, "reply_to": "15354__0_022", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_024", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "In the Georgia or Arkansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [442.368], "stop_times": [446.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.368}, "reply_to": "15354__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15354__0_025", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Arkansas, I'm sorry, Georgia Your Honor, I had the Arkansas River on my mind.\nAlabama likewise tore up the Federal Treaties with the Choctaws and Mississippi by way of example made it a penitentiary events for any Indian to exercise the office of chief, mango (ph), headman or other post established by tribal customs.\nThe Louisiana purchase of 1803 provided a good place to move the Southern Indians if they could be induced to move there.\nAs a part of its efforts to persuade the Indians to give up their ancestral homes in the Southern States and move to the wild lands west of the Mississippi, the Federal Government constantly reminded them that it could not protect them either from the white people in the south or from the Governments of the Southern States.\nAnd just as constantly, it pledged to these Indian tribes that if they would give up their ancestral homes in the Southern States that the lands to be ceded to them west of the Mississippi would never be embraced in any state or territory.\nNow the Southern Indians did move west of the Mississippi.\nThey did give up their ancestral homes in the Southern States, but they did not do that because they were getting more land.\nThey did not do that because they were getting better land.\nThey did not do that because they were going to live under better conditions in the wild lands west of the Mississippi than they were in their ancestral homes.\nThey did it for one reason, and for reason alone.\nTheir reliance upon the promises of the United States given to them in their negotiations with the United States and reflected in their treaties with the United States that if they would move out of the Southern States, on to the wild lands west of the Mississippi, the land ceded to them would never be embraced in any state or territory.\nThat pledge was not only reflected in the negotiations leading up to the treaties, it was reflected in the treaties themselves and as they further assurance, the United States gave to the Southern Tribes and it gave this to no other tribe in the United States, a fee simple title to the lands west of the Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [446.024, 452.442, 477.643, 489.041, 513.934, 535.768, 540.678, 550.865, 556.011, 566.847, 573.123, 600.517], "stop_times": [452.442, 477.643, 489.041, 513.934, 535.768, 540.678, 550.865, 556.011, 566.847, 573.123, 600.517, 628.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.024}, "reply_to": "15354__0_024", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_026", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "What date was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [628.508], "stop_times": [629.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.508}, "reply_to": "15354__0_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15354__0_027", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [629.919], "stop_times": [630.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.919}, "reply_to": "15354__0_026", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_028", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "What date was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [630.983], "stop_times": [634.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.983}, "reply_to": "15354__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15354__0_029", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The treaty with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [634.813], "stop_times": [636.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.813}, "reply_to": "15354__0_028", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_030", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I mean the title -- fee simple title?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [636.606], "stop_times": [638.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.606}, "reply_to": "15354__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15354__0_031", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The fee simple title, 1835 for the Cherokees, 1842 for the Choctaws.\nNow it is well established by Shively versus Bowlby and other decisions of this Court that the United -- that while the United States holds land in territorial status, Congress has the power to make grants of land below high water marks of navigable waters in order to carry out a public purpose appropriate for the (Inaudible) for which the United States hold the territory.\nThere is just one question in this case if it please the Court, and that case is correctly stated by respondents at page 9 of their brief.\nThe respondents say and we agree, the question to be resolved is simple and direct.\nDid the United States convey or agreed to convey the river bed to the Cherokees or the Choctaws?\nThere is no other question, there is no other issue before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [638.465, 647.449, 678.859, 693.306, 702.78, 712.44], "stop_times": [647.449, 678.859, 693.306, 702.78, 712.44, 720.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.465}, "reply_to": "15354__0_030", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_032", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, I take it that the Choctaws were on this side of the river, the Cherokees in the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [720.561], "stop_times": [727.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.561}, "reply_to": "15354__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_033", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [727.019], "stop_times": [729.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 727.019}, "reply_to": "15354__0_032", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_034", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Let's assume that if 1936, the question that came up with respect to the Cherokees' referred, I take it, for the (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [729.924], "stop_times": [738.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.924}, "reply_to": "15354__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_035", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir.\nThe Cherokee -- the Choctaws were first in Oklahoma.\nThe Cherokees were first west of the Mississippi, but they came to Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [738.85, 739.331, 742.118], "stop_times": [739.331, 742.118, 744.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.85}, "reply_to": "15354__0_034", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_036", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Alright.\nBecause they -- who got the first grant here in Oklahoma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [744.101, 746.048], "stop_times": [746.048, 749.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.101}, "reply_to": "15354__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_037", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The Choctaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [749.042], "stop_times": [750.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.042}, "reply_to": "15354__0_036", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_038", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Immediately after that at least it should came up as to the ownership of the Arkansas River bed, would you say that Choctaws own the whole bed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [750.597], "stop_times": [761.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.597}, "reply_to": "15354__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_039", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Your Honor, that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [761.579], "stop_times": [761.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.579}, "reply_to": "15354__0_038", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_040", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "If the Arkansas River for being granted land on the bank, the Arkansas River?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [761.997], "stop_times": [766.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.997}, "reply_to": "15354__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_041", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "It was not granted on the banks of the Arkansas, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [766.012], "stop_times": [769.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.012}, "reply_to": "15354__0_040", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_042", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "What was it granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [769.566], "stop_times": [771.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.566}, "reply_to": "15354__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_043", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "It was granted, the bed of the Arkansas, the language --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [771.45], "stop_times": [774.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.45}, "reply_to": "15354__0_042", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_044", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "You mean to the Choctaws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [774.861], "stop_times": [775.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.861}, "reply_to": "15354__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_045", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "To the Choctaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [775.896], "stop_times": [776.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.896}, "reply_to": "15354__0_044", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_046", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "They were granted the bed of the Arkansas River?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [776.234], "stop_times": [777.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.234}, "reply_to": "15354__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_047", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [777.54, 778.554], "stop_times": [778.554, 778.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 777.54}, "reply_to": "15354__0_046", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_048", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well then, what did the Cherokees have to give?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [778.686], "stop_times": [781.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.686}, "reply_to": "15354__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_049", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, there is a dispute between the Choctaws and the Cherokees as to whether the Choctaws own it all or the Cherokees own the half of it.\nNow the District Court just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [781.902, 789.494], "stop_times": [789.494, 791.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.902}, "reply_to": "15354__0_048", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_050", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Are you saying that at least the grant to the Cherokees and the Choctaws of land adjoining the river carried with it the title to the river bed at least to the middle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [791.349], "stop_times": [803.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.349}, "reply_to": "15354__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_051", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir.\nI'm not saying it exactly that way.\nThe treaties set down the Arkansas, up the Arkansas, where the Arkansas border crosses the Arkansas River, then we say, \u201cHow shall that be construed?\nShall it be construed this up the Arkansas Main that you go up it till where it becomes non-navigable on one side and then you go down it where it is navigable?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [803.082, 803.377, 808.708, 824.332], "stop_times": [803.377, 808.708, 824.332, 835.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.082}, "reply_to": "15354__0_050", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_052", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well either the United States had the river bed left --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [835.847], "stop_times": [839.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.847}, "reply_to": "15354__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_053", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Or it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [839.758], "stop_times": [840.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.758}, "reply_to": "15354__0_052", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_054", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- to give some other to the current -- to the Cherokees --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [840.254], "stop_times": [843.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.254}, "reply_to": "15354__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_055", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [843.954], "stop_times": [844.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.954}, "reply_to": "15354__0_054", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_056", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- after having giving land to the Choctaws or it didn't, one or the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [844.433], "stop_times": [849.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.433}, "reply_to": "15354__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_057", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "That's right sir.\nYes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [849.664, 850.802], "stop_times": [850.802, 851.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.664}, "reply_to": "15354__0_056", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_058", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Now did it convey a way all the river bed to the Choctaws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [851.534], "stop_times": [854.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.534}, "reply_to": "15354__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_059", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat will be our position when the matter is reheard in the lower courts later if we prevail here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [854.572, 855.644], "stop_times": [855.644, 861.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.572}, "reply_to": "15354__0_058", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_060", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "And if you were (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [861.004], "stop_times": [862.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.004}, "reply_to": "15354__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_061", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "We will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [862.722], "stop_times": [863.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.722}, "reply_to": "15354__0_060", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_062", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "You are representing the Cherokees alone, I suppose you would say that the -- that language didn't convey all the river bed away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [863.792], "stop_times": [873.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.792}, "reply_to": "15354__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_063", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, I -- since I -- alright, for example the Choctaws, I would hate -- I would have to say what I would do if represent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [873.462], "stop_times": [881.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.462}, "reply_to": "15354__0_062", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_064", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "You deny that the Cherokees have an interest in the river bed then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [881.789], "stop_times": [886.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.789}, "reply_to": "15354__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_065", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, Your Honor We say that either are (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [886.052], "stop_times": [889.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.052}, "reply_to": "15354__0_064", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_066", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Because you got the title -- because you got title to it first under the same language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [889.798], "stop_times": [892.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.798}, "reply_to": "15354__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_067", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [892.31], "stop_times": [894.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.31}, "reply_to": "15354__0_066", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_068", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Although United States didn't try to give it away again to the Cherokees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [894.454], "stop_times": [900.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.454}, "reply_to": "15354__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_069", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, we don't think they tried to give it away.\nThey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [900.379, 902.526], "stop_times": [902.526, 902.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.379}, "reply_to": "15354__0_068", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_070", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, they tried to convey it away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [902.983], "stop_times": [905.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.983}, "reply_to": "15354__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_071", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "They referred to it in some of their treaties with the Cherokees.\nI'm not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [905.539, 909.865], "stop_times": [909.865, 910.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.539}, "reply_to": "15354__0_070", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_072", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "In the same way (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [910.292], "stop_times": [910.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.292}, "reply_to": "15354__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_073", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I'm not begging the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [910.6], "stop_times": [911.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.6}, "reply_to": "15354__0_072", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_074", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "In the same way they dealt with the Choctaws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [911.774], "stop_times": [915.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.774}, "reply_to": "15354__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_075", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir and we say that they didn't have anything to give at that time.\nThey had already received it.\nSo that brings us, I think to this point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [915.008, 918.565, 920.254], "stop_times": [918.565, 920.254, 923.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.008}, "reply_to": "15354__0_074", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_076", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, is that -- is the sum of your dispute then as to whether the State of Oklahoma, the Indians own the bed of the stream?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [923.376], "stop_times": [930.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.376}, "reply_to": "15354__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15354__0_077", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.\nAnd --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [930.816, 932.371], "stop_times": [932.371, 934.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.816}, "reply_to": "15354__0_076", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_078", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "There is then, if it's decided that the Indians own the bed of the stream, then there is a further dispute which was not reached by the District Court between the two Indian Nations, by the two Indian (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [934.113], "stop_times": [944.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.113}, "reply_to": "15354__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_079", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, that is entirely it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [944.974], "stop_times": [947.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.974}, "reply_to": "15354__0_078", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_080", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But the -- that's not an issue here before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [947.147], "stop_times": [949.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.147}, "reply_to": "15354__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__0_081", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir, it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [949.885], "stop_times": [951.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.885}, "reply_to": "15354__0_080", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_082", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, (Inaudible) that you would be -- in order to settle, it -- between the tribe, would still be giving -- the same language as if, you're dealing with here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [951.732], "stop_times": [964.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.732}, "reply_to": "15354__0_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_083", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [964.323], "stop_times": [965.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 964.323}, "reply_to": "15354__0_082", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_084", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Why not?\nI suppose you would (Inaudible) on words of this forever and walk down the Arkansas River, carried the title to the bed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [965.223, 967.189], "stop_times": [967.189, 975.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.223}, "reply_to": "15354__0_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_085", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [975.253], "stop_times": [975.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.253}, "reply_to": "15354__0_084", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_086", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- the United States didn't have anything more to give in writing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [975.951], "stop_times": [978.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.951}, "reply_to": "15354__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_087", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "That is right sir, yes, that is right.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [978.347, 982.016], "stop_times": [982.016, 982.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.347}, "reply_to": "15354__0_086", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_088", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But if the down the road -- down the Arkansas means along the Arkansas, then you have lost your claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [982.782], "stop_times": [992.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.782}, "reply_to": "15354__0_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__0_089", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir.\nI do not think so because we come to this question then, first, how shall that language be construed?\nWhat shall down the Arkansas, because that's a critical thing you see, because when you deal with Indian Nations and Indian Tribes and Treaties, you have to give the construction that is most favorable to the Indian Nation.\nIndeed the treaty with the Choctaws specifically provided, the Article 24, that if any reasonable doubt existed, it must be construed most favorably to the Choctaws.\nSo speaking generically now as the Indian Tribes, we say this, \u201cHow shall down the Arkansas be construed?\u201d\nWell the Court must say it must construed most favorably to the Indian Tribes.\nThen what is the most favorable construction down the width of the Arkansas, not down one bank or the other bank of the Arkansas, that's -- we deal with that in our briefs, perhaps that short statement is no over simplification of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [992.392, 994.254, 1006.027, 1018.828, 1030.97, 1039.313, 1043.694], "stop_times": [994.254, 1006.027, 1018.828, 1030.97, 1039.313, 1043.694, 1056.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.392}, "reply_to": "15354__0_088", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_090", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "And I have some problems with that when you and the Cherokees come to settle your problems --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1056.341], "stop_times": [1059.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.341}, "reply_to": "15354__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_091", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1059.964], "stop_times": [1060.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.964}, "reply_to": "15354__0_090", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_092", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- is that ever comes about, won't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1060.199], "stop_times": [1061.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.199}, "reply_to": "15354__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_093", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.\nWe will probably knock heads on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1061.865, 1064.57], "stop_times": [1064.57, 1067.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.865}, "reply_to": "15354__0_092", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_094", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But the -- must not a court in reaching that problem also bear in mind the historical background of coming from the colonial times of reservation, of the title to the bed of all navigable waters, isn't that part of the total equation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1067.755], "stop_times": [1084.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.755}, "reply_to": "15354__0_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_095", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes and I think that Your Honor reached the real crux of this case by that inquiry.\nWhen the United States held territorial lands, it held the beds on navigable rivers for the benefit of a future state, but the United States during territorial status had full authority to convey the river bed for purposes that were appropriate to the objects for which it held.\nThere have been any number of decisions on that.\nSo then we -- this point comes up, well why would the United States have held this bed back in 1820?\nWhat would it did -- wanted to hold the bed of the Arkansas, give everything all around it but withhold, not the whole Arkansas but just the navigable portion of it.\nWould it be holding it for a future state? They promised the Indians time after time that no -- that this area would never be embraced in any state or territory.\nThey not only promised it to them, they put it in their treaties.\nThey therefore could not have been in 1820, contemplating that they were reserving the navigable portion of the Arkansas for the benefit of a future state.\nWell, would it have been reserving it for the minerals that were in it?\nIt gave the Indian Tribes all the minerals that lay above the navigable portion, why would it hold it for the navigable portion?\nWhy would it want the ablest beds in 1820?\nWhy would it want the ablest beds of the Arkansas when it was giving all the lands on both sides to the Indian Tribes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1084.644, 1098.55, 1124.222, 1127.356, 1137.52, 1150.333, 1162.099, 1167.448, 1184.233, 1188.407, 1197.22, 1200.247], "stop_times": [1098.55, 1124.222, 1127.356, 1137.52, 1150.333, 1162.099, 1167.448, 1184.233, 1188.407, 1197.22, 1200.247, 1205.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.644}, "reply_to": "15354__0_094", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_096", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well if we accept your argument, Mr. Kile, would that mean that if the Indian Tribes controlled both banks and the bed, forgetting for a moment which tribe claimed which part --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1205.378], "stop_times": [1220.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.378}, "reply_to": "15354__0_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_097", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1220.292], "stop_times": [1220.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1220.292}, "reply_to": "15354__0_096", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_098", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- that they could exact a toll for example for boats using that navigable stream?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1220.896], "stop_times": [1225.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1220.896}, "reply_to": "15354__0_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_099", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir because under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the United States always has and controls the navigation of all of the navigable waters in Oklahoma, I mean the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1225.892], "stop_times": [1238.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.892}, "reply_to": "15354__0_098", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_100", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But if we apply literally your argument to what the Indians had a reason to believe, the Indians may have thought they were going to have control of that navigable stream, under that language of that treaty as I read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1238.866], "stop_times": [1253.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.866}, "reply_to": "15354__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_101", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir.\nIf the language of the treaty is and we've mentioned that in our brief, reserved to the United States, the navigation easement and it does so in a rather specific way.\nIt says that the United States, that the Choctaw shall have the right to use it just like any other people have.\nIn the treaty with the Cherokees, they specifically provided that the United States would have the right to use the river to supply its forts, its post offices and its post roads.\nSo all the United States did and the United States did that in its treaties with the Indians and we point that out in our brief that they reserved the navigation easement.\nIt has just never been disputed.\nThey've always exercised it.\nThey exercised it long after the Indians moved to Oklahoma.\nThey exercised it in fact until the railroads came.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1253.515, 1253.932, 1265.759, 1274.06, 1287.814, 1297.716, 1299.199, 1301.138, 1304.843], "stop_times": [1253.932, 1265.759, 1274.06, 1287.814, 1297.716, 1299.199, 1301.138, 1304.843, 1307.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.515}, "reply_to": "15354__0_100", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_102", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, what about other citizens other than the United States, would they be able to use that navigable water freely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1307.212], "stop_times": [1314.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.212}, "reply_to": "15354__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_103", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir, subject to the regulations of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1314.097], "stop_times": [1317.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.097}, "reply_to": "15354__0_102", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_104", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But not subject to any limitation by the Indian Tribes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1317.231], "stop_times": [1319.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.231}, "reply_to": "15354__0_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_105", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No sir.\nNo, the land -- the Indian Tribes could not impose any limitations on them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1319.941, 1320.949], "stop_times": [1320.949, 1325.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.941}, "reply_to": "15354__0_104", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_106", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I'm not sure what that signal meant, we have a confusing signal here.\nI have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1325.025, 1328.33], "stop_times": [1328.33, 1331.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.025}, "reply_to": "15354__0_105", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_107", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, that is five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1331.482], "stop_times": [1333.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.482}, "reply_to": "15354__0_106", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_108", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Five?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1333.003], "stop_times": [1334.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.003}, "reply_to": "15354__0_107", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__0_109", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Five minutes.\nMy time is rather brief and -- but I should like to call the Court's attention to the reliance on the three cases that Oklahoma relies on.\nTwo of them were decisions on the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and in none of these decisions, I will say were the Indian Tribes represented or was the Government represented on behalf of the Indian Tribes in any of these case nor were these treaties brought to the attention of the Court.\nThe two Oklahoma decisions are predicated upon the belief of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and the stated belief of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the bed of the river was being held for the benefit of a future state.\nAnd if it was the intention of the United States and the Indian Tribes in the early 1800's that this area would never be embraced in any state, then the premise upon which the decisions of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma are bottomed are paux.\nNow, there is one case, and counsel for Oklahoma must comment on it at great length and he must try to show that it is related to the facts in this case.\nI challenge him that he will not be able to do so and that is the Holt State -- United States versus Holt State Bank which is a decision of this Court.\nHolt State Bank arose in Minnesota when the Chippewas ceded their aboriginal lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a right of occupancy within a certain area.\nNow, it's important -- now later, they did in their session and the Chippewas were the granting party, they were the moving party and that distinguishes and interdicts the application of Holt State Bank to this case because in our case, the United States was the granting party.\nNow, in Holt State Bank, this Court said of the Chippewas, if they had wanted to keep the bed of Mud Lake, they should have made some provision for it in their cession to the United States, but when the teaching of Holt versus State -- the United States versus Holt State Bank is applied to the facts in our case, then we submit this Court would have said had the United States being the granting party wanted to reserve the bed of the Arkansas River, then it should have accepted it from its grant.\nNow, we say to the Court, that there was no grant moving from the United States to the Chippewas in Holt State Bank.\nWe say that it was a cession by the Chippewas to the United States.\nI notice at page 34 of the respondent's brief that they say that the petitioners and amici curiae, that they find in our briefs persistent misunderstandings in the constructions of the holding of this Court at Holt State Bank.\nBut on the same page --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1334.087, 1339.472, 1348.036, 1366.415, 1380.951, 1400.23, 1411.816, 1420.851, 1444.008, 1469.673, 1511.707, 1527.6, 1537.815, 1562.747], "stop_times": [1339.472, 1348.036, 1366.415, 1380.951, 1400.23, 1411.816, 1420.851, 1444.008, 1469.673, 1511.707, 1527.6, 1537.815, 1562.747, 1565.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1334.087}, "reply_to": "15354__0_108", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__0_110", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "What page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1565.1], "stop_times": [1566.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.1}, "reply_to": "15354__0_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15354__0_111", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Page 34 of Oklahoma's brief, but at -- in the first sentence on that page, they say that in Holt State Bank, the United States had granted an area by treaties to the Chippewas and on page 36, they again say that the United States was the granting party and on page 37, they say that the title was vested in the Chippewas when in fact the title was always vested in the United States, the Chippewas had only a right of occupancy.\nThis Court said in the last page of its decision in Holt State Bank or rather with the minute that's left of me, most of the reservations said this Court in Holt State Bank, including the part -- the vicinity of Mud Lake was relinquished and ceded by the Chippewas.\nThe session became effective through the President's approval, marks the board in 1890.\nAnd in the last page of the Court's decision, this Court said, \u201cThe reservation came into being through a succession of treaties with the Chippewas whereby they ceded to the United States for aboriginal right of occupancy to the surrounding lands.\nThere was no formal setting apart of what was not ceded.\nThe effect of what was done in a general way, the effect of what was done was to reserve in a general way for the continued occupation of the Indians what remained of their aboriginal territory thus again be known and recognized as a reservation.\nNow that fact is the distinguishing fact which interdicts the application of Holt State Bank to this case, but if the Court were applying the rule, the teachings in Holt State Bank to the facts in this case, it would have said this I believe.\nThe United States was the granting party and had it wanted to reserve the bed of the Arkansas River, the navigable portion of the Arkansas River, it should have done so in its grant.\nThe fact that it agreed with the Indians that this area would never be embraced with any future state or territory evinced the intent to depart from the established purpose of reserving the beds of navigable streams for the benefit of future states.\nWe respectfully submit that the United States had nothing, but a navigation easement on the Arkansas when Oklahoma became a state and Oklahoma therefore took no interest in the bed in the Arkansas River by being -- by a reason of it being admitted to the state, to the Union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1566.044, 1620.167, 1643.057, 1651.78, 1667.351, 1671.973, 1689.07, 1714.101, 1728.936, 1751.753], "stop_times": [1620.167, 1643.057, 1651.78, 1667.351, 1671.973, 1689.07, 1714.101, 1728.936, 1751.753, 1791.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1566.044}, "reply_to": "15354__0_110", "speaker": "lon_kile"}
{"id": "15354__1_000", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "If the Court please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1791.902], "stop_times": [1793.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1791.902}, "reply_to": "15354__0_111", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_001", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Ford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1793.298], "stop_times": [1795.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.298}, "reply_to": "15354__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__1_002", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- and I appear on behalf of the Cherokees.\nI had hoped to avoid any interest to say conflict between the tribes.\nAll that I would say to that question very briefly is one, we have received the first patent of these lands in 1838, signed by President Van Buren and in that we are given the land dents down the Canadian River on the North to a junction with the Arkansas River and dents down the main channel of the Arkansas.\nAnd that is all we claim as the thalweg of the river.\nIn that connection I might briefly show this map to Your Honors and that if you will notice between the 95th and 96th parallel on the lands marked to the Cherokees, I don't know what that section is, that the Arkansas River runs completely through the land of the Cherokees, i.e. it's bordered on both sides by the grant through the Cherokees in the Treaty of New Echota later -- of 1835 in the later patent, 1838.\nIt's after it comes to that line that there's a border between the Cherokees and the Choctaw.\nThat map asserted one other purpose too.\nIf you will look on the the appendix, page, Roman page XIII of the respondents' brief, they have reproduced the map from Mr. Royce who is an authority, perhaps the authority.\nIt's appendix 8, aren't we?\nNo, appendix 7, Roman XIII, the respondents' brief.\nJustice Douglas has it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1795.458, 1802.15, 1813.335, 1853.474, 1859.96, 1907.645, 1915.093, 1919.564, 1948.816, 1951.422, 1967.703], "stop_times": [1802.15, 1813.335, 1853.474, 1859.96, 1907.645, 1915.093, 1919.564, 1948.816, 1951.422, 1967.703, 1985.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1795.458}, "reply_to": "15354__1_001", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_003", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I think we all have it now Mr. Ford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1985.91], "stop_times": [1990.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.91}, "reply_to": "15354__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__1_004", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "They have a fact, similarly of the map reproduced in which you will notice the -- there -- to the north bank of the Arkansas, there's a very fine black line, runs from call 6, 5, 4; 7 is the bottom which would appear to indicate that that is the grant to the north bank of the Arkansas and that the Cherokees or the Indian Tribes went no further.\nWe have reproduced an exact reproduction of Royce's map which indicates merely a change in the color of the line for the river on that part of the Arkansas where the Cherokee lands meets the Arkansas at the 95th parallel, approximately.\nIn other words, that's a mere color, the line of the river, their map would indicate that the -- and I just don't want the Court mislead that the dark line would be the boundary of the grant for the Cherokee.\nI would like briefly to give a little background of the Cherokee Nation that prior to the revolution, its principal lands were North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia that consisted approximately some 80 million acres.\nThey had absolute dominion over this.\nFollowing the revolution, there was a Treaty of Hopewell entered into in 1785 where the Cherokees then swore allegiance to the U.S. and the U.S. Government in turn agreed to protect the tribe and recognize its sovereignty to all of those lands.\nNot too long after that that the conflict begun between the white settlers and the Cherokees and the Choctaws and the Chickasaws and the Creeks.\nThe Southern Indians had became five civilized tribes.\nThey were forced from Virgin -- North Carolina, Virginia, principally into Georgia.\nAt that time Georgia passed laws in effect providing that they could enjoy no rights that if any man or white man was found upon their land, that he -- that they had to have permission of the State of Georgia.\nFollowing this Marshall opinion in Worcester came down in which he clearly recognized the sovereign of the tribe set aside although Georgia heeded and they find in -- with somewhat certainty saying that the Cherokees had sovereignty over their tribal lands, that they had control of the traffic over the Tennessee River.\nThat they enjoyed all the rights of the river that the white man would have to get their permission in effect to use the river and the -- even in face of the Court's recognition of these rights and certainly the Cherokees were not going to accept less if they went west than what they had in Georgia.\nAnd even after Marshall spoke, the courts and the executive continued complete harassment of all these Southern Indian Tribes.\nFirst, the Cherokees moved to Arkansas in 1870 which became known as the old settlers and that was in exchange of land to move to Arkansas, but Arkansas was not satisfied with the Indians.\nThere was again the conflict between the whites and the Indians.\nSo following that, there was a treaty executed in 1828 between the Cherokees and the Government.\nAfter the Arkansas whites had again insisted that they move further west and this treaty in effect without detail moved the old settlers into Arkansas along the old settler Cherokees into the lands west of Arkansas which became Indian Territory along with the other Indians that were further east in Georgia and generally the treaty granted the same rights, all of these treaties of 1817 and 1828 and 1825.\nIt provided that this land was to be as Mr. Kile has said, \u201cTheir permanent home, it was never to be encroached upon by any territory or state.\u201d\nIt granted further and which one -- I think one Indian Commissioner in which -- in their speeches to Cherokees trying to get them to sign the Treaty of New Echota which shortly followed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit which was a treaty for the Choctaw that this was an awful, that they were getting fee simple title and as he expressed it, they were getting white man's title for the first time and this was the only title ever issued to any Indians and they were confined to the five civilized tribes that ultimately settled in Indian Territory.\nThe rest of the title were aboriginal titles which gave them the right of reservation and occupancy and so forth and now they could be given a clear promise of how they could be given a more complete jurisdiction over their territory is beyond me.\nAnd they agreed to possess to the Cherokees some 7,000 acres of land within this grant, I mean 7 million, excuse me, which show -- they started out with 80, it's not in exactly an excessive grant.\nThey also agreed by the treaties to issue the patent I have previously referred to, the patent granted this land in fee simple.\nThey gave them white man's title and it was described by meats and bounds and encompassed a whole grant.\nCertainly the United States didn't intend to exclude a meandering stream running through this grant unless they had chosen to say so and this people knew how to draft instruments.\nThey excluded the Fort Gibson, they excluded post roads, they excluded certain plains that would be available to all Indian Tribes.\nNow with that brief history, I'd like to go back and then to this Pollock case which is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [1990.202, 2037.603, 2074.784, 2104.048, 2122.314, 2125.854, 2153.21, 2163.897, 2168.991, 2174.771, 2190.264, 2223.028, 2246.127, 2261.476, 2284.16, 2290.727, 2298.763, 2343.486, 2355.427, 2397.874, 2420.102, 2442.17, 2455.453, 2467.219, 2487.123, 2494.885], "stop_times": [2037.603, 2074.784, 2104.048, 2122.314, 2125.854, 2153.21, 2163.897, 2168.991, 2174.771, 2190.264, 2223.028, 2246.127, 2261.476, 2284.16, 2290.727, 2298.763, 2343.486, 2355.427, 2397.874, 2420.102, 2442.17, 2455.453, 2467.219, 2487.123, 2494.885, 2500.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1990.202}, "reply_to": "15354__1_003", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_005", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Would you, before you finish your history, indicate what happened later, Mr. Ford?\nWas the -- what -- did there come a time when the tribe was dissolved or -- I don't know what that direct word or not, is it still an enrolled tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2500.821, 2507.956], "stop_times": [2507.956, 2519.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.821}, "reply_to": "15354__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_006", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2519.401], "stop_times": [2520.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2519.401}, "reply_to": "15354__1_005", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_007", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Was there some (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2520.508], "stop_times": [2525.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.508}, "reply_to": "15354__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_008", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- I might answer this shortly this way.\nIn 1898, 192, the so-called Curtis Act, passed the 196, I guess you'd say the Enabling Act was passed, but those Acts of Congress at that time made allotments to the given Indians or at the time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2525.426, 2528.881], "stop_times": [2528.881, 2547.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2525.426}, "reply_to": "15354__1_007", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_009", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "All the Indian lands, all the Indian lands except what we're talking about here I suppose (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2547.376], "stop_times": [2552.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.376}, "reply_to": "15354__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_010", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Oh!\nExcept tribal lands which includes which includes certain townships, schools, other lands that are owned in common by the tribe outside of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2552.808, 2553.08], "stop_times": [2553.08, 2561.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2552.808}, "reply_to": "15354__1_009", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_011", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But the -- but individual Indians were allotted parts of what had been the tribal land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2561.231], "stop_times": [2567.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.231}, "reply_to": "15354__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_012", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2567.734], "stop_times": [2569.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2567.734}, "reply_to": "15354__1_011", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_013", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "And the -- are the Indians still -- they were free to transfer to those lands individually, I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2569.353], "stop_times": [2579.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.353}, "reply_to": "15354__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_014", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, there's a known history of peace of the alien nation and what a full (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2579.095], "stop_times": [2583.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2579.095}, "reply_to": "15354__1_013", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_015", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yeah, but after allotment, after allotment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2583.445], "stop_times": [2586.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.445}, "reply_to": "15354__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_016", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Now still on that pre-allotment, there were some question of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2586.134], "stop_times": [2589.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2586.134}, "reply_to": "15354__1_015", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_017", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "How many Cherokees are there still there in the tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2589.611], "stop_times": [2596.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.611}, "reply_to": "15354__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_018", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "There are approximately -- are you correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2596.112], "stop_times": [2604.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2596.112}, "reply_to": "15354__1_017", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_019", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "42,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2604.145], "stop_times": [2605.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.145}, "reply_to": "15354__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_020", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "42,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2605.757], "stop_times": [2607.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2605.757}, "reply_to": "15354__1_019", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_021", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "And --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2607.162], "stop_times": [2607.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.162}, "reply_to": "15354__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_022", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Are these -- there is some -- I think 7,000 full bloods.\nIf you take the -- speak the native language, many of them don't speak English, if you take the descendants of them, they'd run about a hundred thousand and there were approximately nine judicial districts under their tribal government which is, I mean, when they had enjoyed that from sovereignty before they became citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2607.33, 2612.783], "stop_times": [2612.783, 2632.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2607.33}, "reply_to": "15354__1_021", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_023", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Do they -- the most of 42,000 live in -- on tribal lands or on their individually owned lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2632.253], "stop_times": [2642.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.253}, "reply_to": "15354__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_024", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well now, they live on their individually owned lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2642.672], "stop_times": [2646.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2642.672}, "reply_to": "15354__1_023", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_025", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2646.654], "stop_times": [2650.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.654}, "reply_to": "15354__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_026", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, I'm saying subject to certain jurisdiction (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2650.485], "stop_times": [2652.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2650.485}, "reply_to": "15354__1_025", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_027", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "When they live outside of (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2652.434], "stop_times": [2653.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.434}, "reply_to": "15354__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_028", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Of their counsel, they still enjoy sovereignty under the Acts passed by Congress.\nThere is a provision in the Act that that a river or any common held land as long as they exist to be a tribe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2653.864, 2660.188], "stop_times": [2660.188, 2666.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2653.864}, "reply_to": "15354__1_027", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_029", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yeah, but most of the common (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2666.224], "stop_times": [2667.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.224}, "reply_to": "15354__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_030", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- shall revert to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2667.394], "stop_times": [2669.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2667.394}, "reply_to": "15354__1_029", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_031", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Those are the commonly held lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2669.288], "stop_times": [2670.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.288}, "reply_to": "15354__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_032", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2670.959], "stop_times": [2671.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2670.959}, "reply_to": "15354__1_031", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_033", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "That way, you're living on your own land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2671.065], "stop_times": [2673.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.065}, "reply_to": "15354__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_034", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2673.443], "stop_times": [2674.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2673.443}, "reply_to": "15354__1_033", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_035", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I suppose your subject to ordinary state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2674.928], "stop_times": [2677.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.928}, "reply_to": "15354__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_036", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yeah, I mean, you've got fee simple title as any other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2677.171], "stop_times": [2680.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2677.171}, "reply_to": "15354__1_035", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_037", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Any Indians, individual Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2680.326], "stop_times": [2682.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.326}, "reply_to": "15354__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_038", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2682.151], "stop_times": [2683.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2682.151}, "reply_to": "15354__1_037", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_039", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Subject to the Indian -- the jurisdiction of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2683.218], "stop_times": [2686.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.218}, "reply_to": "15354__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_040", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, and subject to certain tribal jurisdictions.\nIt's still a tribal council, a chief, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2686.317, 2688.678], "stop_times": [2688.678, 2693.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2686.317}, "reply_to": "15354__1_039", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_041", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But subject to ordinary (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2693.303], "stop_times": [2693.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.303}, "reply_to": "15354__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_042", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "-- the council is made up of the former old judicial districts before statehood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2693.628], "stop_times": [2698.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2693.628}, "reply_to": "15354__1_041", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_043", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But do they run their own schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2698.732], "stop_times": [2700.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.732}, "reply_to": "15354__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_044", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes, some of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2700.59], "stop_times": [2702.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2700.59}, "reply_to": "15354__1_043", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_045", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But they can go state schools (Voice Overlap) --Yes sir and they enter as a tribe into a construction of common efforts from encouraging industry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2702.798], "stop_times": [2717.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.798}, "reply_to": "15354__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_046", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "There's a tribe for instance have a working now on a -- through the chief of the tribe, I mean the general counsel of the tribe, the chief (Inaudible) general counsel which as a Mr. Earl Boyd appears on the improvement of the housing and enjoying the public housing provisions and I might add in concluding that at this point, that this action was first brought by Mr. Earl Boyd Pierce as general counsel for the Cherokees and it was after this that the Choctaws were permitted to intervene in the action.\nWe brought an action for counting Oklahoma, a counterclaimed for the suit to acquire a title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2717.631, 2759.986], "stop_times": [2759.986, 2766.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2717.631}, "reply_to": "15354__1_045", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_047", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "But do the Cherokees have some schools which they themselves finance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2766.019], "stop_times": [2772.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.019}, "reply_to": "15354__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_048", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes and vocation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2772.117], "stop_times": [2773.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2772.117}, "reply_to": "15354__1_047", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_049", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "At the tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2773.543], "stop_times": [2775.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.543}, "reply_to": "15354__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_050", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2775.371], "stop_times": [2775.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2775.371}, "reply_to": "15354__1_049", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_051", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Out of tribal funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2775.685], "stop_times": [2776.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.685}, "reply_to": "15354__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__1_052", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir and vocational effort.\nAll the tribal funds came down the so-called outlet case had been devoted to the common efforts of the tribe and the funds that we hoped to receive if there'd be any, from the Arkansas River will be so usable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2776.857, 2780.539], "stop_times": [2780.539, 2801.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2776.857}, "reply_to": "15354__1_051", "speaker": "peyton_ford"}
{"id": "15354__1_053", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Thank you Mr. Ford.\nMr. Claiborne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2801.936, 2803.367], "stop_times": [2803.367, 2805.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.936}, "reply_to": "15354__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__2_000", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI hesitate to detain the Court much longer in these cases arguing on the same side but perhaps I can perform some service to the Court as an amicus curiae if I attempt to very briefly summarize and perhaps simplify the issues as we see them.\nThe first fact which we would stress in this case is that here we have clear cut conveyances of large tracts of lands to these three Indian tribes, Choctaws and the Chickasaws, together with Cherokees separately.\nThe sequence of those grants seems to us of no great importance.\nIt happens that from the point of view of the treaties the Choctaws come first and the Cherokee is second.\nFrom the point of view of the patents, it's the other way around.\nThe important thing however is that there were grants in fee simple to these tribes of very large tracts adjacent one to the other and between them, entirely surrounding and encompassing the navigable portion of the Arkansas River.\nBut the fact that there's a conveyance in fee simple immediately distinguishes the Holt State Bank case which is invoked by the State of Oklahoma.\nThere, there was no conveyance whatever nor was there even a setting aside of the portion of the aboriginal lands of the Chippewas which was reserved to the tribe.\nThose reserved lands, well lands which under the decisions of this Court, the United States always owned in -- always had the title to, the Indians simply had a right of occupancy.\nTherefore the United States always owned the beds of the navigable rivers and of the Mud Lake which was at issue in the Holt State Bank case and there was no act, no transaction which ever changed that situation, whereas here, there is.\nThe United States cedes these tracts to the Indian tribes and the burden it seems to us is on the other side to show why the beds of the river did not go with the grants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2805.134, 2809.255, 2832.796, 2850.565, 2856.779, 2864.851, 2870.171, 2889.834, 2899.115, 2911.584, 2925.617, 2943.983], "stop_times": [2809.255, 2832.796, 2850.565, 2856.779, 2864.851, 2870.171, 2889.834, 2899.115, 2911.584, 2925.617, 2943.983, 2958.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2805.134}, "reply_to": "15354__1_053", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_001", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "(Inaudible) lands involved from one side of the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2958.317], "stop_times": [2966.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.317}, "reply_to": "15354__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_002", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I think there would be a -- we could make the same argument Mr. Justice White.\nI think it helps us here that the river is entirely enveloped in Indian lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2966.955, 2972.477], "stop_times": [2972.477, 2978.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2966.955}, "reply_to": "15354__2_001", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_003", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "How about the service for a -- where a -- one tribe owns this land along this side of the river, on the other side of the river, its (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2978.048], "stop_times": [2987.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.048}, "reply_to": "15354__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_004", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "There is no such situation with respect to the navigable portion of the Arkansas in this case.\nIf perhaps Your Honor is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2987.329, 2992.872], "stop_times": [2992.872, 2994.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2987.329}, "reply_to": "15354__2_003", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_005", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "This is navigable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2994.667], "stop_times": [2996.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.667}, "reply_to": "15354__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_006", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The navigable portion.\nPerhaps though the physical situation ought to be clarified. Once again referring to page 25 of the brief filed on behalf of the Choctaw Nation, to the rather small white brief, a very simplified map which seems to me presents the situation as clearly as it can be.\nYou'll notice, there's a triangle, at the top of the triangle, Fort Gibson.\nOn the right hand side of that triangle is a portion of the Arkansas River.\nOn the left hand side of that triangle coming down is the more or less straight line which represents the western edge of the Cherokee grant and at the south is a portion of the Canadian River.\nNow that triangle is part of the Cherokee grant.\nSo is of course the portion indicated as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [2996.556, 2998.303, 3021.193, 3027.613, 3034.229, 3047.21, 3052.313], "stop_times": [2998.303, 3021.193, 3027.613, 3034.229, 3047.21, 3052.313, 3054.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2996.556}, "reply_to": "15354__2_005", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_007", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "How about the creeks seminal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3054.986], "stop_times": [3057.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.986}, "reply_to": "15354__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_008", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The Creeks' seminal claim begins west of that so-called straight line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3057.67], "stop_times": [3062.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3057.67}, "reply_to": "15354__2_007", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_009", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "(Inaudible) Choctaw is one of the -- or the Cherokee, the (Inaudible) on one side of the Arkansas River and the Creeks' seminal is on the other end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3062.295], "stop_times": [3071.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.295}, "reply_to": "15354__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_010", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No, Mr. Justice White that triangle belongs to the Cherokees.\nTherefore the Cherokees have land on both sides of the Arkansas River.\nThat triangle south of Fort Gibson is Cherokee land as is what is north and east of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3071.931, 3074.927, 3082.705], "stop_times": [3074.927, 3082.705, 3089.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3071.931}, "reply_to": "15354__2_009", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_011", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Creeks' seminal, those lands bordering the Arkansas River?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3089.636], "stop_times": [3092.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.636}, "reply_to": "15354__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_012", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "The non-navigable portion of the Arkansas River, but none which is relevant to the portion of the river which is in controversy here.\nBut the fact that this portion of the Arkansas River between Fort Gibson and its confluence with the Canadian River is entirely within the Cherokee grant, hence to simplify the matter in that here we at least we need not talk about which grant came first and whether the United States reserved to itself the portion that was not yet granted to an Indian tribe and yet the State of Oklahoma is -- makes the same argument here as it does further east.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3092.826, 3102.803], "stop_times": [3102.803, 3135.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3092.826}, "reply_to": "15354__2_011", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_013", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "And then from the confluence of the Canadian River and the Arkansas River then along the side of the Arkansas River as it flows southeasterly, that river is the boundary between the Choctaw and the Cherokee grant, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3135.6], "stop_times": [3152.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.6}, "reply_to": "15354__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__2_014", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Justice Stewart, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3152.334], "stop_times": [3155.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3152.334}, "reply_to": "15354__2_013", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_015", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "And we're talking in totality of a segment of the river that extends about the 60 miles or so, is that right, looks likely on the scale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3155.249], "stop_times": [3168.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.249}, "reply_to": "15354__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__2_016", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "That would seem to be right, I think.\nAnyway from Fort Gibson to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3168.852, 3170.681], "stop_times": [3170.681, 3172.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3168.852}, "reply_to": "15354__2_015", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_017", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "We're talking about the bed of the -- bed under that river for about 50-60 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3172.22], "stop_times": [3176.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.22}, "reply_to": "15354__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__2_018", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "That's correct.\nNow I would say that whether or not at the time of the first grant any of the bed was granted or whether all of it was granted in that first grant and or the second grant only came to the river's edge or the other way around is a debate as between the two tribes that need not concern this Court, that its not presented here and that would of course be reached in the event the Indians were to prevail here.\nI should say that the Cherokees' only claim to the thread where the river is the boundary between them whereas the Choctaw has claimed the whole of the bed, but we certainly take no position as to who is right or wrong in that debate nor should this Court at this time concern itself with that intramural --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3176.878, 3178.976, 3208.851], "stop_times": [3178.976, 3208.851, 3229.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3176.878}, "reply_to": "15354__2_017", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_019", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Well, except of the -- as Mr. Justice White's questions seem to point up the fact that there are two grants does go to the issues before the Court here, in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3229.582], "stop_times": [3244.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.582}, "reply_to": "15354__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15354__2_020", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart of course only as to the portion east of the confluence of the Arkansas and Canadian River and as to that, it seems to us that to the extent that the bed had not been included in the first grant, it must have been included in the second to -- except that it was already fully included in the first, it could of course not be included in the second.\nThe languages of the two events is not identical and is simply in each a reference to the river as a boundary without indicating, it seems to us in any clear way whether it goes to the thread, to the other bank or stops at the nearer bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3244.659, 3268.289], "stop_times": [3268.289, 3283.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3244.659}, "reply_to": "15354__2_019", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_021", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Mr. Claibrone (Inaudible) down the Arkansas River?\nWas there a claim that it meant alongside, along the bank of the Arkansas River?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3283.64, 3287.035], "stop_times": [3287.035, 3298.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.64}, "reply_to": "15354__2_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_022", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I think not Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3298.541], "stop_times": [3300.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3298.541}, "reply_to": "15354__2_021", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_023", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "(Ianudible) a construction of that language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3300.221], "stop_times": [3302.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.221}, "reply_to": "15354__2_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_024", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "No, I don't think the disposition of this case in either the court's below turned on that technical reading of the patent or of the treaty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3302.554], "stop_times": [3310.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3302.554}, "reply_to": "15354__2_023", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_025", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I suppose theoretically at least, the -- even if the Court of Appeals is wrong on the grounds that it used to (Ianudible) of this case, there could still be an argument that after all, the patent only granted lands, to the bank of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3310.8], "stop_times": [3328.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.8}, "reply_to": "15354__2_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_026", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I can't say that they couldn't believe such an argument Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3328.935], "stop_times": [3332.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3328.935}, "reply_to": "15354__2_025", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_027", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Was there a (Inaudible) in the case?\nI -- certainly its in the briefs there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3332.685, 3334.222], "stop_times": [3334.222, 3336.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.685}, "reply_to": "15354__2_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_028", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I think it is raised and certainly in a much more full fledged way now in the briefs in -- on the merits in this Court than it was before and really --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3336.092], "stop_times": [3346.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3336.092}, "reply_to": "15354__2_027", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_029", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "You don't think the -- do you think that you'd have to (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3346.067], "stop_times": [3351.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.067}, "reply_to": "15354__2_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15354__2_030", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "It seems to me evident that one cannot resolve the controversy simply by looking no further than the language of these conveyances.\nOne must construe them because they are ambiguous in terms of the apparent intent of the conveyor and the recipient.\nAnd it's to that -- it's on that basis, the Court of Appeal disposed of this case and to that extent, we agree that that's the correct basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3351.495, 3363.507, 3372.575], "stop_times": [3363.507, 3372.575, 3381.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3351.495}, "reply_to": "15354__2_029", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_031", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Would it not depend in part on the status of the convey -- the vendor's title at the time too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3381.263], "stop_times": [3388.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.263}, "reply_to": "15354__2_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__2_032", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "There is no quarrel Mr. Chief Justice at the time that the vendor, the United States had full on incumbent title.\nWhether it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3388.417, 3397.128], "stop_times": [3397.128, 3397.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3388.417}, "reply_to": "15354__2_031", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_033", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Put it this way, what -- what the vendor conveyed out at the time he had this full title.\nIf he conveyed out to the banks only on the first transfer, you have one result and if he conveyed to the far bank, you have another result, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3397.464, 3403.938], "stop_times": [3403.938, 3416.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.464}, "reply_to": "15354__2_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__2_034", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Quite so but it is our intent to show that the realities then prevailing would indicate that these conveyances ought to be construed so as to include and not exclude the bed of the Arkansas River in these large grants to Indian tribes in what was then thought to be a forever more Indian Territory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3416.285], "stop_times": [3444.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3416.285}, "reply_to": "15354__2_033", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_035", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "In both the grants, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3444.817], "stop_times": [3447.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.817}, "reply_to": "15354__2_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__2_036", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "In one or either or both grants taken together.\nWe must remember that these grants were both contemplated at the time either one was finalized because they had both had prior histories in the prior treaties that simply without finalizing made indications that this lands would become available to one tribe or the other.\nAs to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3447.574, 3452.119, 3474.172], "stop_times": [3452.119, 3474.172, 3475.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3447.574}, "reply_to": "15354__2_035", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_037", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "I think we're ready to terminate Mr. Claiborne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3475.385], "stop_times": [3478.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.385}, "reply_to": "15354__2_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15354__2_038", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "Yes sir, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3478.089], "stop_times": [3478.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3478.089}, "reply_to": "15354__2_037", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15354__2_039", "conversation_id": "15354", "text": "We'll finish up with you, you will have minutes left in the morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_41", "start_times": [3478.811], "stop_times": [3484.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.811}, "reply_to": "15354__2_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__0_000", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Number 101, City of Chicago against United States and 102, same parties.\nMr. MacDougall you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [0.0, 11.671], "stop_times": [11.671, 18.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__0_001", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI appear for the appellants and my argument time is being shared by counsel for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission because the Government has aligned itself in this case on appellant's side.\nThese are two direct appeals from two cases heard together by a three-judge District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.\nThe two cases were suits to review the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in allowing to be discontinued a portion of one passenger train and all of another passenger trains.\nThe partial discontinuance involved the Chicago to Evansville, Indiana segment of the Georgian train which operates from Chicago to Atlanta.\nA complete discontinuance was the Hummingbird train which operates from Cincinnati to New Orleans.\nThe interconnection is that national.\nThe appellants have a substantial interest in the service and these are the only trains, the only daily trains from Chicago to Terre, Vincennes, Evansville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Mobile, and are the only daily service from Chicago to Nashville and Montgomery, Alabama.\nThe court below dismissed both of the actions for lack of jurisdictions.\nThe Court said that Congress intended to deny judicial review to the public because when the carrier prevails at the ICC, the order is one discontinue the investigation.\nOn the other hand if the railroad loses that the ICC, the order is one requiring the continued train operations and the railroad can go to court.\nAnd we think this is unfair and the reason we think it's legally unfair is that Congress never intended the unfair result.\nAnd there's nothing in the legislative history to suggest that the public can't go to court but the railroads can go to court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [18.622, 21.98, 35.57, 42.704, 54.454, 63.14, 68.824, 71.705, 88.749, 93.243, 104.814, 115.202, 126.382], "stop_times": [21.98, 35.57, 42.704, 54.454, 63.14, 68.824, 71.705, 88.749, 93.243, 104.814, 115.202, 126.382, 132.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.622}, "reply_to": "15038__0_000", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_002", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I understand, what you mean is you think it's illegal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [132.503], "stop_times": [137.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.503}, "reply_to": "15038__0_001", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15038__0_003", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, the question we have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [137.203], "stop_times": [138.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.203}, "reply_to": "15038__0_002", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_004", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "You have reason to save question about unfairness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [138.043], "stop_times": [142.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.043}, "reply_to": "15038__0_003", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15038__0_005", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I just thought I mentioned the word unfairness since it's come up today.\nTwo of the lower court decisions which we rely on did use the word unfair and said that Congress could not be presumed to have intended such an unfair result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [142.155, 145.63], "stop_times": [145.63, 156.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.155}, "reply_to": "15038__0_004", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_006", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, that's quite a different argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [156.537], "stop_times": [158.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.537}, "reply_to": "15038__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15038__0_007", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The appellants here today are seven regulatory commissions, one state, nine communities, three labor organizations, and one railroad passenger association.\nWe are supported an amicus brief by the national association of regulatory commissioners until the commissioners representing all of the state commissions for the 50 states, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.\nAnd the appellees are the Chicago and East Illinois Railroad and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad.\nThe sole issue before the Court in our judgment is whether Congress did intend to deny judicial review to the public while granting such judicial review to the railroads.\nThere's no question of standing involved, eight district courts have expressly passed upon the issue.\nTwo early decisions in 1965, held it was no judicial review for the public and all of the decisions since then have held to the opposite that there is judicial review and one of these other decisions was granted by a three-judge court for the same Northern District of Illinois after the judges below were entered.\nNow the statute we have here is Section 13 (a) (1), of the Interstate Commerce Act which became a law in 1958.\nAnd contrary to the opinion below, there is nothing in the language or the legislative history of 13 (a) (1) to suggest that Congress intended to deny judicial review.\nThe general framework of the Interstate Commerce Act is that decisions of the Commission are subject to judicial review.\nThere's nothing unusual about an order discontinuing and investigation at the Commission.\nThis is what to do and virtually all of the rate cases and those decisions have been subject to review and reviewed by this Court.\nEver since the Rochester decision in 1939 and Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, the Commission institutes an investigation of a freight rate, the fines unlawful, the order is one discontinued investigation, exactly the one which appellants were denied judicial review for here.\nNow the lower court based its -- primarily based its opinion on the wording of the statute and they said that where the Railroad files a notice, and elects to supersede state jurisdiction, the ICC has authority in that 30-day notice period to either institute investigation or not.\nIt doesn't institute an investigation.\nThe lower court felt that the train off becomes effective pursuant to the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [158.477, 167.257, 179.165, 184.274, 193.76, 200.447, 222.147, 231.394, 241.254, 248.543, 252.8, 260.959, 281.22, 303.914, 305.753], "stop_times": [167.257, 179.165, 184.274, 193.76, 200.447, 222.147, 231.394, 241.254, 248.543, 252.8, 260.959, 281.22, 303.914, 305.753, 311.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.477}, "reply_to": "15038__0_006", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_008", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And does that -- do you concede that that if no investigation is initiated by the Commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [311.861], "stop_times": [317.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.861}, "reply_to": "15038__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_009", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "No, I don't think that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [317.711], "stop_times": [318.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.711}, "reply_to": "15038__0_008", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_010", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Within this period, then do you concede that that's the end of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [318.621], "stop_times": [322.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.621}, "reply_to": "15038__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_011", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "No, and I don't think so.\nIn fact, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [322.702, 324.055], "stop_times": [324.055, 324.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.702}, "reply_to": "15038__0_010", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_012", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I thought we decided that in the New Jersey case in 358 U.S.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [324.474], "stop_times": [329.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.474}, "reply_to": "15038__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_013", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Right.\nIn the New Jersey case, that was a per curiam affirmance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [329.08, 329.328], "stop_times": [329.328, 332.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.08}, "reply_to": "15038__0_012", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_014", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Yes, but nonetheless it was a decision on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [332.448], "stop_times": [335.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.448}, "reply_to": "15038__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_015", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, we don't first to answer question, we don't concede it and the Government in its brief does not consider.\nThey say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [335.428, 342.032], "stop_times": [342.032, 342.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.428}, "reply_to": "15038__0_014", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_016", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "They don't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [342.475], "stop_times": [343.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.475}, "reply_to": "15038__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_017", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "No, I think they use the word patent abuse.\nThey said the absent patent abuse.\nThere could be situations I think where the discretion of the Commission is subject to abuse and we can go to court.\nThe author of the opinion in New Jersey below did recognize such a situation later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [343.618, 346.741, 348.874, 357.356], "stop_times": [346.741, 348.874, 357.356, 363.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.618}, "reply_to": "15038__0_016", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_018", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [363.249], "stop_times": [364.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.249}, "reply_to": "15038__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_019", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "In that case, he was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [364.744], "stop_times": [365.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.744}, "reply_to": "15038__0_018", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_020", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Work type.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [365.759], "stop_times": [367.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.759}, "reply_to": "15038__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_021", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That's right it was work type.\nThe next case that come along at 200 F. Supp where you had another type situation.\nHe did because there, the question was whether the ICC had jurisdiction at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [367.713, 369.168, 375.508], "stop_times": [369.168, 375.508, 380.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.713}, "reply_to": "15038__0_020", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_022", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Did that case come here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [380.697], "stop_times": [382.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.697}, "reply_to": "15038__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_023", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And that case, did come here, he reversed on other grounds.\nThe New Jersey case was a ferry case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [382.438, 389.551], "stop_times": [389.551, 392.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.438}, "reply_to": "15038__0_022", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_024", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [392.034], "stop_times": [392.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.034}, "reply_to": "15038__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_025", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And before Section 1381 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [392.821], "stop_times": [394.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.821}, "reply_to": "15038__0_024", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_026", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I thought that was a West Bank at the Hudson District?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [394.379], "stop_times": [396.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.379}, "reply_to": "15038__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_027", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Right.\nIt was a ferry across the -- no, it was a person of a ferry from across the harbor there and the Commission had initially before 13 (a) (1) was passed had held that the ferry was unwarranted.\nAnd that was offset in Court on the grounds that it was not an entire abandonment of line.\nYou could have at least scholars across the harbor or something, so Congress passed 13 (a) (1), the carrier then invoked 13 (a) (1) and the Commission declined to institute an investigation and in its notice said one of the reasons is the prior report the Board investigated this.\nAnd that's the State of New Jersey case and I don't think that the courts are precluded from judicial review in this 30-day period.\nIt depends on the abuse of discretion and there she could have a bad enough case, corruption at the Commission or something like that possibly it had judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [396.043, 396.267, 409.681, 414.414, 432.171, 442.805], "stop_times": [396.267, 409.681, 414.414, 432.171, 442.805, 452.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.043}, "reply_to": "15038__0_026", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_028", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "But your argument there if I'm mistaken in thinking that your argument in no way depends upon that issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [452.991], "stop_times": [463.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.991}, "reply_to": "15038__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_029", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That's right.\nThis was given great weight by the court below.\nThey use this non-reviewability concept based on State of New Jersey and said well since that -- since the train would come off it the end of 30 days without --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [463.01, 464.214, 467.303], "stop_times": [464.214, 467.303, 477.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.01}, "reply_to": "15038__0_028", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_030", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That's your opponent argument but your argument in no way depend -- you could concede as I understand your argument at least that failure of the Commission to hold a hearing and then discontinuance of the service is non-reviewable and still make basically the argument you are making.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [477.992], "stop_times": [492.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.992}, "reply_to": "15038__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_031", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Yes, because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [492.731], "stop_times": [494.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.731}, "reply_to": "15038__0_030", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_032", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Which is the mutuality argument and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [494.579], "stop_times": [496.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.579}, "reply_to": "15038__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__0_033", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Right and I point out that Section 1336 (a) of Title 28 says that you can go to court for any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the question is whether in order to discontinue an investigation is such an order now.\nWhether Commission doesn't investigate a case, there's no order.\nThere's a notice.\nThere is no such thing as an order issue.\nAnd that really is our case in a nutshell.\nThe second reason given by the court below was that if you allowed judicial review, you'll have delays.\nAnd there's a congressional purpose to stop the delays that were occurring at the state commission level.\nAnd Congress set up a dual system.\nMost train of todays are as decided not to cite it before the state commissions not the ICC.\nSection 13 (a) (1) is not self-executing statutes.\nNot self-implementing a carrier has to file a notice and that acts supersedes a state jurisdiction.\nTherefore, we have a situation where this statute has been set up and Congress answered the delay problem by imposing a four-month limitation upon the Interstate Commerce Commission.\nThat's where they answer the delay you have judicial review of state commissions and there's no reason why you can't have judicial review of ICC decisions.\nThe Louisville and Nashville on brief suggest that if you have judicial review, you're going to have injunctions.\nOur answer to that is that that's alright but that issue is not before this Court because the Louisville and Nashville stop the train at Birmingham and an application for stay was denied so the questions of injunctions are stays pendente lite are not before the court.\nNow the sole issue is whether there is ultimate judicial review and as an important case to Chicago and the Southern States involved and to all the regulatory commissions and we ask that the judgments below be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [496.637, 510.476, 512.854, 513.928, 518.421, 524.626, 529.815, 537.074, 539.48, 546.624, 549.754, 558.233, 573.37, 583.183, 590.595, 606.864], "stop_times": [510.476, 512.854, 513.928, 518.421, 524.626, 529.815, 537.074, 539.48, 546.624, 549.754, 558.233, 573.37, 583.183, 590.595, 606.864, 627.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.637}, "reply_to": "15038__0_032", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__0_034", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Mr. Shapiro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [627.643], "stop_times": [628.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.643}, "reply_to": "15038__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__1_000", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, although defendants below supports the rights of the appellants to obtain judicial review of the Commission's decision permitting discontinuance of the trains involved in this case.\nWe do so for two legal reasons.\nFirst, that under the criteria applicable to review of administrative actions, as incorporated in the Administrative Procedure Act the Commission's decisions in these cases represent agency action which is reviewable.\nAnd second, nothing in the history of the statute or in its text indicates a congressional intent to foreclose judicial review that would otherwise be available.\nNow the Commission's decision in these two cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [628.624, 632.359, 644.578, 646.359, 661.001, 672.411], "stop_times": [632.359, 644.578, 646.359, 661.001, 672.411, 675.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 628.624}, "reply_to": "15038__0_034", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_001", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I thought you argued Congress intended to put up within the discretion of the agency hence, accepted from review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [675.098], "stop_times": [682.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.098}, "reply_to": "15038__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_002", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "No, Your Honor, I don't think that Congress did intend to put this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [682.614], "stop_times": [686.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 682.614}, "reply_to": "15038__1_001", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_003", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, what about the decision to investigate it all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [686.576], "stop_times": [689.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.576}, "reply_to": "15038__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_004", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The decision to investigate it all rest on a slightly different basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [689.683], "stop_times": [692.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 689.683}, "reply_to": "15038__1_003", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_005", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well that is within the discretion of the agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [692.873], "stop_times": [694.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.873}, "reply_to": "15038__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_006", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That is within the discretion of the agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [694.614], "stop_times": [696.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 694.614}, "reply_to": "15038__1_005", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_007", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Non-reviewable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [696.143], "stop_times": [697.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.143}, "reply_to": "15038__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_008", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And is non-reviewable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [697.452], "stop_times": [698.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 697.452}, "reply_to": "15038__1_007", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_009", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "So you agree with the New Jersey case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [698.953], "stop_times": [701.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.953}, "reply_to": "15038__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_010", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "We agree with the New Jersey case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [701.308], "stop_times": [703.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 701.308}, "reply_to": "15038__1_009", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_011", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "But once you start on taking investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [703.436], "stop_times": [706.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.436}, "reply_to": "15038__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_012", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Once an investigation is under your can't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [706.04], "stop_times": [707.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 706.04}, "reply_to": "15038__1_011", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_013", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "They can't even though you discontinue it?\nEven though you don't follow through but just as you did here as I understand it, didn't you?\nEnter an order of this (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [707.709, 711.055, 715.598], "stop_times": [711.055, 715.598, 717.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.709}, "reply_to": "15038__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_014", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Now let me turn to that order because I think that's really the heart of our problem here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [717.656], "stop_times": [723.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 717.656}, "reply_to": "15038__1_013", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_015", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "There wouldn't have been any need for an order, they can just quit over time, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [723.261], "stop_times": [725.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.261}, "reply_to": "15038__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15038__1_016", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That's right.\nIf Your Honors will look in the record at page 41 and at page 67, you'll see the two basic orders that the Commission entered here.\nNow those orders were entered after a full hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [725.991, 727.836, 746.666], "stop_times": [727.836, 746.666, 750.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 725.991}, "reply_to": "15038__1_015", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_017", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "What's the second page Mr. Shapiro?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [750.194], "stop_times": [751.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.194}, "reply_to": "15038__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_018", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "67, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [751.761], "stop_times": [752.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 751.761}, "reply_to": "15038__1_017", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_019", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [752.643], "stop_times": [753.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.643}, "reply_to": "15038__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_020", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Those orders were entered after a full hearing on the merits.\nIncidentally that is the only kind of investigation the Commission can give in this county under 13 (a) (1) if it is going to have power to order the railroad to continue the train.\nIt cannot order the railroad to continue the train without conducting a hearing.\nSo once it opens an investigation, there has to be a full hearing.\nNow what it does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [753.296, 759.956, 770.932, 774.023, 777.638], "stop_times": [759.956, 770.932, 774.023, 777.638, 778.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 753.296}, "reply_to": "15038__1_019", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_021", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Oh!\nYou have to go right through it.\nCan't you stop it in the middle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [778.529, 778.615, 779.771], "stop_times": [778.615, 779.771, 781.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.529}, "reply_to": "15038__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_022", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Oh!\nIt is a conceivable railroad --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [781.103, 781.369], "stop_times": [781.369, 783.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 781.103}, "reply_to": "15038__1_021", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_023", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And if you did then the Railroad simply discontinue the challenge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [783.048], "stop_times": [787.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.048}, "reply_to": "15038__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_024", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The Commission \u2013 it is conceivable the Commission might find that it opened its investigation improvidently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [787.928], "stop_times": [792.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 787.928}, "reply_to": "15038__1_023", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_025", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [792.615], "stop_times": [793.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 792.615}, "reply_to": "15038__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_026", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "But in this situation and in most situations it goes all the way through with the full administrative hearing in which it applies the substantive standard of Section 13 (a) (1).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [793.32], "stop_times": [805.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 793.32}, "reply_to": "15038__1_025", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_027", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Do you think maybe there may be some other situations besides opening decision to open the hearing where review wouldn't be have?\nBut if they go this far, in any way, there should be a review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [805.703, 814.418], "stop_times": [814.418, 818.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.703}, "reply_to": "15038__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_028", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWhat they do as the orders reflect at pages 41 and 67, is make findings of fact and conclusions which are incorporated into the Commission's order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [818.132, 819.084], "stop_times": [819.084, 831.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 818.132}, "reply_to": "15038__1_027", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_029", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "What would be the judicial remedy to continue the investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [831.966], "stop_times": [837.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.966}, "reply_to": "15038__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_030", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The judicial remedy for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [837.5], "stop_times": [839.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 837.5}, "reply_to": "15038__1_029", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_031", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Suppose the court thought the Commission was wrong assume that it is reviewable what would be the judicial remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [839.138], "stop_times": [847.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.138}, "reply_to": "15038__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_032", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "To set aside the Commission's order and to ban the case to the Commission --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [847.462], "stop_times": [853.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 847.462}, "reply_to": "15038__1_031", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_033", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "To continue the investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [853.721], "stop_times": [854.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.721}, "reply_to": "15038__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_034", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "-- and in effect to be discontinuing those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [854.583], "stop_times": [862.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 854.583}, "reply_to": "15038__1_033", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_035", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Has he ordered any discontinuance?\nThey just stop then the investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [862.434, 864.559], "stop_times": [864.559, 866.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.434}, "reply_to": "15038__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_036", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The Commission would have to reopen the matter and to make a redetermination looking toward a direction to the railroad --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [866.767], "stop_times": [872.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 866.767}, "reply_to": "15038__1_035", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_037", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Start anew and renew the investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [872.388], "stop_times": [874.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.388}, "reply_to": "15038__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_038", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Renew the investigation and -- cause if the court sets aside the Commission's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [874.625], "stop_times": [878.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 874.625}, "reply_to": "15038__1_037", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_039", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, let's start.\nI'm a little confused.\nI gather for example in this instance what happened was the formal order is of discontinuing the investigation.\nThat I take it means that the railroad then is free to go ahead with its discontinuance of the train.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [878.54, 879.435, 881.247, 888.773], "stop_times": [879.435, 881.247, 888.773, 894.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.54}, "reply_to": "15038__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_040", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "But the discontinuance if I can get back to these two orders, the discontinuance is based upon the commission's findings of fact that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [894.455], "stop_times": [902.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 894.455}, "reply_to": "15038__1_039", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_041", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [902.417], "stop_times": [903.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.417}, "reply_to": "15038__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15038__1_042", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And those findings in fact apply to substantive standards of the act.\nThose substantive --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [903.522, 907.124], "stop_times": [907.124, 907.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 903.522}, "reply_to": "15038__1_041", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_043", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I understand that but what I'm trying to get at is on judicial review, of this order, as I understand it, a few of the court disagree with the Commission's discontinuance of the investigation.\nOne is there left except that when it comes back to the Commission, the Commission orders the Railroad to continue the service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [907.461, 922.545], "stop_times": [922.545, 929.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.461}, "reply_to": "15038__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_044", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That is exactly what would happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [929.471], "stop_times": [930.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 929.471}, "reply_to": "15038__1_043", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_045", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That's all that will happen.\nThere'll be no more hearings or anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [930.642, 931.971], "stop_times": [931.971, 934.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.642}, "reply_to": "15038__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_046", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That would depend on the nature of the remand.\nPresumably if the Commission was found that there was no substantial evidence to support the decision or apply the wrong legal standard, then the Railroad would have to -- the Commission would have to direct the Railroad to continue the train in effect for another year which is what the statute would provide.\nSo that what we've got is an order here which does more than just discontinue the investigation.\nIt makes a substantive determination.\nAnd that substantive determination has a substantial impact on the communities affected and because of that impact it amounts to a reviewable order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [934.204, 937.382, 954.968, 959.231, 962.54], "stop_times": [937.382, 954.968, 959.231, 962.54, 974.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 934.204}, "reply_to": "15038__1_045", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_047", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, I think if you think then that as soon as they started an investigation, the standards of the Act take over.\nAnd that it has to be consistent with the public interest for the Commission would permit the change to be discontinued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [974.374, 980.667], "stop_times": [980.667, 988.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.374}, "reply_to": "15038__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_048", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That is correct.\nWhat the Commission has to decide --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [988.009, 989.057], "stop_times": [989.057, 990.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 988.009}, "reply_to": "15038__1_047", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_049", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Although the Act really puts the standard on only in the event they want to order the trains to be continued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [990.186], "stop_times": [997.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.186}, "reply_to": "15038__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_050", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well in determining whether they should be investigation of course, they have to consider the standards of the Act.\nBut there's more to it.\nWhen an agency is going to decide whether or not to investigate something, not only is it considering the substantive standards involved, it also has to make other to take into account other considerations, its resources, the situation, the importance of the termination to the area affected and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [997.341, 1001.956, 1004.364], "stop_times": [1001.956, 1004.364, 1023.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 997.341}, "reply_to": "15038__1_049", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_051", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "But tell me this Mr. Shapiro, I gather that Congress enacted this law as I recall it out of some impatience with the delays in getting trains to discontinue, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1023.272], "stop_times": [1036.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.272}, "reply_to": "15038__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_052", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1036.263], "stop_times": [1037.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1036.263}, "reply_to": "15038__1_051", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_053", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Where properly railroad should be allowed to discontinue service they were all tied up with the state and other Commission hearings and everything else, and sometimes years went on before they succeeded, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1037.26], "stop_times": [1048.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.26}, "reply_to": "15038__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_054", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "That is the purpose of the statute and that's what the Congress certainly --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1048.248], "stop_times": [1049.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1048.248}, "reply_to": "15038__1_053", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_055", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, that's what the Congress is concerned.\nWell, certainly, the statute contemplated some kind of summary procedure isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1049.373, 1050.323], "stop_times": [1050.323, 1054.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.373}, "reply_to": "15038__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_056", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "It contemplated an expedited procedure not necessarily a summary one, that's why they proposed a four months limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1054.543], "stop_times": [1059.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1054.543}, "reply_to": "15038__1_055", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_057", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Well, isn't it summary to the extent if the Commission decides not to investigate as I understand it?\nWhat was held in the New Jersey case is sound.\nNamely that's not judicially reviewable.\nThat ends the whole business and the railroad discontinued the service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1059.642, 1066.074, 1069.039, 1070.711], "stop_times": [1066.074, 1069.039, 1070.711, 1073.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.642}, "reply_to": "15038__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_058", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Yes, it does.\nAnd the reason it does Your Honor is because under the criteria governing judicial review in the Administrative Procedure Act the decision whether to open an investigation or not is committed to the Agency's discretion and hence is not reviewable, but once it has taken agency action which has a substantial impact on people who are protesting that action and who are affected by it then there is a right of review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1073.347, 1074.581], "stop_times": [1074.581, 1097.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1073.347}, "reply_to": "15038__1_057", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_059", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "And then of course the other thing is that you got only four months back when you do investigate them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1097.555], "stop_times": [1101.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.555}, "reply_to": "15038__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_060", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The Commission can take more than four months but its suspension of the Railroad's discontinuance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1101.482], "stop_times": [1107.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1101.482}, "reply_to": "15038__1_059", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_061", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Only four?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1107.557], "stop_times": [1108.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.557}, "reply_to": "15038__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_062", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Its only four months and the Commission endeavors to wind this proceedings up rapidly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1108.139], "stop_times": [1112.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1108.139}, "reply_to": "15038__1_061", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_063", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "None of those things that's unfair, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1112.375], "stop_times": [1115.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.375}, "reply_to": "15038__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15038__1_064", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "It boils down in a sense to a fairness question.\nI'd say only that on the law what you got here is a declaratory order in effect.\nOf the kind that was used in the Frozen Food Express case, and there, the Court held that an order would simply have the effect of declaring what certain rights -- a Commission order declaring certain rights under the agricultural exemption to the law was said to be reviewable.\nNow that order I might say in the Frozen Food Express case contained the same language that we have in this case.\nIt made -- the order made certain findings of -- the Commission made certain findings, it incorporated those findings and its order by reference and it said the investigation is discontinued.\nThere's nothing magic in that formula, well, that's just something the Commission says all the time.\nIt says it in rate proceedings as Mr. MacDougall pointed it out.\nWhat we've got here it seems to the Government is just a disregard of this Court's decision in Rochester Telephone Corporation against United States.\nHere we have people who go into the Commission and protest the discontinuance of a train.\nThey are asking the Commission to order something.\nOrder the continuance of that train.\nThey are denied that order.\nWhen they are denied in order, they have a reviewable situation.\nAnd in Rochester Telephone, this Court said, \"In order of the Commission dismissing a complaint on the merits and maintaining the status quo, is an exercise of administrative function no more and no less than an order directing some change in status.\"\nAnd the Court held that kind of an order to be reviewable in Rochester and that's all we got here.\nNow the lower courts have relied particularly on United States against Los Angeles Railway Company.\nThe granddaddy of this line of cases that says that these things aren't reviewable, is it State of Minnesota against United States to Minnesota Court decision which pick up the Los Angeles case, Los Angeles case involved a valuation order, and Justice Brandeis for this Court said that this order which simply declares what the value of the Railroads property is not a reviewable order.\nBecause nothing happens as a result but nobody's ordered to do anything and nobody is affected by it anyway.\nWell, this Court held only in that case that the valuation order since it didn't affect anything was not right for review.\nThe impact of that valuation order would be felt when and if the Commission did something on the basis of it.\nSo the Los Angeles case is only a ripeness case.\nAnd certainly not a basis for denying review in this kind of situation where I don't think there's any doubt that there's a direct impact which makes the case right for review.\nNow we've mentioned briefly the legislative history.\nThe desire to expedite the discontinuance of trains to avoid the delays that occurred in the state proceedings, now the desire for speed, the desire for expedition is not inconsistent with judicial review.\nAnd judicial review doesn't mean that in every case, a train whose discontinuance is permitted by the Commission will be kept in operation by the courts.\nOut of some 147 discontinuances, after investigation since the Commission or since the statute was adopted, I think there have been only six or I think it's nine, now there have been three more.\nThere had only been nine cases in which temporary relief has been granted pending judicial review.\nAnd of course, whether temporary relief is going to be granted at all in any of these cases and that's really what the Railroads are afraid of, is a matter of the kind of showing made by the plaintiff's in the case.\nYou don't get preliminary injunctions as a matter of course from three-judge courts.\nThe Urgent Deficiencies Act contemplates that the courts are going to act with expedition.\nAnd the real issue is expedition in the review process not denying review altogether.\nNow the only other two grounds that I relied on to deny review are first that there are some difference in the substantive standard between 13 (a) (1) which is the -- which governs interstate trains and 13 (a) (2) which governs intrastate trains.\nThe Railroad seemed to concede that under 13 (a) (2) there is judicial review.\nBut the answer to that is that this Court has said in Southern Railway Company against North Carolina that the substantive standards are the same and in fact if you look at them although there are some slight word in differences it amounts to the same thing.\nPublic convenience and well does the public convenience and necessity hereof require the continuance of the train.\nWill it unduly burden interstate commerce?\nI've mentioned we've discussed, I think at some length the other reason this a fortiori argument that if you open an investigation or if you don't open an investigation, it has the same effect as if you did open an investigation.\nThey are different because the standards for review are different.\nI think the best analogy one can give is the situation in which the general counsel at the NLRB issues a complaint.\nNow, his decision to issue a complaint or not issue a complaint is a matter of his discretion.\nIt's not reviewable.\nBut if he issues a complaint and the NLRB acts on that complaint, that is judicially reviewable.\nFor these reasons and the unfairness, of the standard the railroads are arguing which says that commuters and communities are not entitled to judicial review but railroads are.\nWe think the decision of the court below is wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1115.119, 1118.897, 1129.192, 1148.814, 1155.342, 1164.716, 1168.85, 1174.303, 1183.21, 1189.286, 1191.887, 1194.178, 1196.657, 1200.235, 1213.879, 1218.602, 1225.451, 1251.45, 1259.065, 1264.953, 1269.94, 1272.609, 1283.921, 1286.814, 1300.835, 1309.627, 1324.256, 1331.15, 1345.104, 1349.409, 1353.796, 1359.238, 1375.551, 1379.569, 1391.485, 1397.24, 1399.649, 1412.891, 1416.765, 1422.656, 1428.494, 1429.542, 1435.38, 1448.016], "stop_times": [1118.897, 1129.192, 1148.814, 1155.342, 1164.716, 1168.85, 1174.303, 1183.21, 1189.286, 1191.887, 1194.178, 1196.657, 1200.235, 1213.879, 1218.602, 1225.451, 1251.45, 1259.065, 1264.953, 1269.94, 1272.609, 1283.921, 1286.814, 1300.835, 1309.627, 1324.256, 1331.15, 1345.104, 1349.409, 1353.796, 1359.238, 1375.551, 1379.569, 1391.485, 1397.24, 1399.649, 1412.891, 1416.765, 1422.656, 1428.494, 1429.542, 1435.38, 1448.016, 1462.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1115.119}, "reply_to": "15038__1_063", "speaker": "howard_e_shapiro"}
{"id": "15038__1_065", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Mr. Hoeland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1462.236], "stop_times": [1464.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.236}, "reply_to": "15038__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__2_000", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nSection 13 (a) (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act is unique among the various provisions of the Act.\nAnd that the authority to discontinue interstate passenger trains comes directly from the statute and not from any action of the Interstate Commerce Commission.\nIt was passed by Congress to meet a pressing problem to enable Railroads to promptly and effectively remove unneeded and not used passenger trains from their system.\nAnd we submit respectfully that the concept of judicial review will frustrate the very intent that under which Congress enact Section 13 (a) (1).\nSection 13 (a) (1) is self-implementing.\nAnd it grants to the carrier upon posting of a 30-day notice the right to discontinue the train that in the Interstate Commerce Commission need do nothing.\nThe statute applies in 30 days of trains go off.\nNow if the Commission orders an investigation, they must notify the carriers at least 10 days before the train is to stop.\nThey don't do that.\nThe train goes off at the end of 30 days.\nThen the effect of the 30-day or the investigation is to postpone for an additional four-month period the time within which the railroads are authorize by statute to discontinue the trains.\nNow the investigation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1464.137, 1467.991, 1475.115, 1484.86, 1496.557, 1507.613, 1510.894, 1520.208, 1524.335, 1531.255, 1532.03, 1535.12, 1549.539], "stop_times": [1467.991, 1475.115, 1484.86, 1496.557, 1507.613, 1510.894, 1520.208, 1524.335, 1531.255, 1532.03, 1535.12, 1549.539, 1550.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1464.137}, "reply_to": "15038__1_065", "speaker": "james_w_hoeland"}
{"id": "15038__2_001", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "What happens Mr. Hoeland if the hearing proceeds and the decision is not to stop.\nNot to stop, is that subject to judicial review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1550.396, 1559.858], "stop_times": [1559.858, 1563.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.396}, "reply_to": "15038__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__2_002", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "It is indeed Your Honor because the Interstate Commerce Commission can prevent the discontinuance of an interstate train only on the finding by the Commission that a public need exist for the train and that it is not an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce for the train to be continued.\nNow this is the only order that can be issued in an investigation proceeding.\nTheir discontinuance although they label it in order, the Commission labels it in order is not in fact an order because the Railroads are simply taking advantage of what the statute grants them.\nThe right to discontinue the notice or order as the Commission calls it is simply a means of notifying the people who participated in the proceeding as to what the Commission has done with the case.\nIf they can't make the specific statutory findings and both of them, then there is no basis under which the railroad can be required to keep the trains on for a period of maximum period of one year.\nIn that regard, there is a great difference between the provisions of Section 13 (a) (1) and Section 13 (a) (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act.\nA railroad which wants to take off an intrastate passenger train must first proceed before the state regulatory body.\nIf that state does nothing within a 120 days or acts unfavorably within that period they then have the right to petition of the Interstate Commerce Commission and seek authority from the Commission.\nThis isn't a matter of authority coming from the statute.\nThis authority comes from the Commission and the Railroad has the burden of meeting both of the statutory standards.\nIn order to discontinue an intrastate train by contrast, the parties other than the Commission must find rather that both public need requires continued operation of the interstate commerce -- of an interstate train.\nAnd two, that an undue burden would not be placed upon the railroads by that continued operation.\nIn other words, the Commission has to meet both statutory standards for an interstate train to be taken of whereas the corollary has to be proven by the carriers.\nThe carriers have nothing to prove in the 13 (a) (1) proceeding.\nThey can take off an interstate train for any reason they choose.\nSo long as they publish the required notice.\nI think it is abundantly clear to everyone that Section 13 (a) is an altogether different section of the Interstate Commerce Act than any other section.\nThe District Court in the New Jersey case which this Court affirmed in County Bergen made the statement, Section 13 (a) (1) embodies a new and distinct exercise of the congressional power.\nIts language is clear and unambiguous.\nAnd therefore neither admits or nor requires any construction by comparison with any other section or subsection of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended.\nThe statute itself is self-implementing the other provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act or not.\nFor example, if a railroad seeks to abandon a line of railroad, it must do so by applying to the Commission and seeking the Commission's authority and the only basis under which that authority can be granted is by the Commission issuing a certificate at present or future public convenience and necessity permits.\nIt's the Commission's decision, the Commission's authority.\nIt is totally different than what you have involved in Section 13 (a) (1).\nI might say that that Commission itself has consistently recognized that it is not given the authority to approve or disapprove an interstate train can discontinuance under Section 13 (a) (1).\nIn the Great Northern Case at 307 ICC 59, page 76, they specifically held that we have no discretion to approve or disapprove a proposed discontinuance.\nOur duty is in appropriate cases to investigate the facts and only if such investigation warrants the findings specified in the statute may we require a railroad to continue or restore the service which is the subject of the investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1563.52, 1584.885, 1590.202, 1601.159, 1616.15, 1630.185, 1640.33, 1646.445, 1658.177, 1660.697, 1667.736, 1685.125, 1692.787, 1704.477, 1707.513, 1711.351, 1720.355, 1731.867, 1744.652, 1747.7, 1759.328, 1766.629, 1785.146, 1788.743, 1801.188, 1815.209, 1826.531], "stop_times": [1584.885, 1590.202, 1601.159, 1616.15, 1630.185, 1640.33, 1646.445, 1658.177, 1660.697, 1667.736, 1685.125, 1692.787, 1704.477, 1707.513, 1711.351, 1720.355, 1731.867, 1744.652, 1747.7, 1759.328, 1766.629, 1785.146, 1788.743, 1801.188, 1815.209, 1826.531, 1841.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1563.52}, "reply_to": "15038__2_001", "speaker": "james_w_hoeland"}
{"id": "15038__2_003", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "How do you distinguish that from let's say its non-approval or disapproval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1841.296], "stop_times": [1847.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.296}, "reply_to": "15038__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__2_004", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I distinguish that Your Honor on the -- with respect to perhaps a Section 13 (a) (2) proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission.\nThey are there called upon to approve or disapprove the proposal of the Railroad to discontinue the train.\nThe statute does not give -- 13 (a) (1) does not give to the Commission the power to disapprove or approve.\nThe statute gives the Commission only one-fifth of limited veto power.\nLimited jurisdiction to require the Railroad to continue to operate the trains for an additional year if the Commission finds after investigation: one, that there is a public need for the trains and two, that continued operation would not constitute an undue burden.\nUnless the Commission can make both of those findings, the Railroad discontinues a train by operation statute and not by any Commission order of lack of order and this is why you get into the question of fairness or lack of fairness.\nYou do not have -- you only have an order issued by the Commission in those instances and when the Commission orders a railroad to continue the operation for a year.\nAs this Court has held in the Atlantic Coast Line case, ICC versus Atlantic Coast Line that a Commission order is reviewable if it determines rights or obligations from which legal consequences may flow.\nI respectfully submit that there are no legal rights in the interest of the appellants in this case to which they are entitled to judicially review.\nAnd I think that this Court has answered that question in the New Jersey case because if the appellants have a right in a 13 -- Section 13 (a) proceeding, that right should certainly survive the decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission whether it would or would not investigate a train off case.\nIn those instances where the Commission refuses to investigate, the interest of communities in the State of New Jersey, its public service commission and the County of Bergen and all others certainly was as great as it is when the Commission sets a case down for hearing that this Court has held that there is no judicial review where the Commission does not investigate.\nNow, it certainly there's nothing in the manner in which Congress drafted Section 13 (a) (1) that suggest any fragmentizing of the question of judicial review depending on whether the ICC decides to investigate or whether it doesn't.\nAnd in a corollary to that point, I believe is the fact that the argument of the Government in this case is that the ICC decides whether judicial review is available.\nNow certainly Congress never intended that when they enacted Section 13 (a) (1).\nBut the Government says if the Commission does not investigate, then it is not subject to judicial review.\nHowever, if the Commission does investigate, it is subject to the judicial review.\nNow, the question of whether an investigation is held or not, is dependent according to government solely on the question of whether a substantial question exists.\nAnd so by the simple expedient of the Commission deciding whether or not a substantial question exists, judicial review is or is not had but it is not certainly in the statute that nor an intention of Congress when it enacted Section 13 (a) (1) that any such distinction could ever be drawn.\nI might say Your Honors, that in other point which bears very directly on this issue and that on the question of judicial review are the circumstances underlying the enactment of Section 13 (a) (1).\nIn 1958, the Railroads were in dire financial condition.\nThey were losing at the rate of about $700 million a year on their passenger train operations alone.\nTheretofore, the railroads were relegated to the piecemeal approach of going to each of the various states to which the interstate train operates and to seek their authority to discontinue train frequently that authority was denied or in many cases unduly delayed and as a consequence, Congress was highly concerned with the extensive delays that were being experience and the costly of delays and burdens on the railroads to operate unneeded and costly passenger trains.\nThis was the very purpose that Congress entered the field and when it did it gave the carriers the right to completely bypass any state regulatory proceeding by the expedient of filing a notice which in 30 days would enable them to discontinue the train unless postpone for another four months by the institution of an investigation.\nThe Government and appellants would have this Court believe that the concept of judicial review is not incompatible with the intent of Congress to dispose of these cases as promptly as possible.\nCongress has set a maximum period of five months under which a train has to be operated unless the Commission issues an order base on the two statutory standards previously mentioned requiring continued operation for one more year.\nBut the point I think is establish by the circumstances in number 102, the L & N trains that are involved in the so-called Hummingbird trains between Cincinnati and New Orleans.\nThe day before the discontinuance was to take effect, the appellants, filed suit in the federal court in Chicago and obtained the temporary restraining order which restraining order remained in effect for a period of nine months after the date that the L & N filed its notice to discontinue the trains.\nCongress set the period at five months as a maximum.\nAnd yet, here the L & N was operating a train that was losing money at the rate of a million dollars a year for an additional period time without any protection of the bond and I there say that if this Court had granted a stay at the District Court's order then we would still be operating it.We would be losing at the rate of a million and a half dollars would have lost it, at least a million and a half dollars by now and the continuing to operate until further order of the Court.\nI would certainly don't think that there's any consistency between the intention of Congress in enacting and putting on a maximum five months statutory suspension period and the concept to judicial review where railroads are frequently faced with temporary restraining orders where bonds are not given for the adequate protection of any damages that might be given.\nI might want to say one more thing if Your Honors please with respect to the Los Angeles case.\nAs this Court held in that proceeding that there are so-called orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission which are not subject to judicial review, with respect to the discontinuance of a proceeding under Section 13 (a) (1) that Commission does characterized its discontinuance as an order.\nThere is nothing in the statute that says they should characterize it as an order and in fact it's nothing more that a notice to the parties and if anything a housekeeping order.\nIt is not an order ordering anybody to do anything in this case.\nAnd under those circumstances, we respectfully submit that the decision of Los Angeles is in effect apposite to this point.\nAnd what is -- what the Commission has simply done in issuing its so-called order of noticing discontinuance, it is merely the statement of the results of its investigation.\nThank you Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [1847.866, 1857.995, 1864.513, 1874.348, 1878.969, 1897.821, 1910.049, 1921.963, 1938.875, 1948.542, 1969.933, 1990.784, 2010.997, 2024.375, 2028.745, 2036.228, 2040.756, 2050.233, 2072.194, 2085.911, 2089.719, 2096.726, 2126.891, 2151.221, 2166.468, 2183.219, 2194.609, 2215.92, 2222.211, 2248.79, 2272.404, 2280.473, 2300.801, 2310.742, 2316.826, 2325.909, 2340.49], "stop_times": [1857.995, 1864.513, 1874.348, 1878.969, 1897.821, 1910.049, 1921.963, 1938.875, 1948.542, 1969.933, 1990.784, 2010.997, 2024.375, 2028.745, 2036.228, 2040.756, 2050.233, 2072.194, 2085.911, 2089.719, 2096.726, 2126.891, 2151.221, 2166.468, 2183.219, 2194.609, 2215.92, 2222.211, 2248.79, 2272.404, 2280.473, 2300.801, 2310.742, 2316.826, 2325.909, 2340.49, 2343.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1847.866}, "reply_to": "15038__2_003", "speaker": "james_w_hoeland"}
{"id": "15038__2_005", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Thank you Mr. Hoeland.\nI think your time is entirely exhausted if I'm not correct.\nIs there any time remaining for the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [2343.181, 2344.107, 2349.017], "stop_times": [2344.107, 2349.017, 2357.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.181}, "reply_to": "15038__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15038__3_000", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "I'd like to just mention one or two things.\nThe first is that where the Commission does enter upon an investigation during the 30 days notice period and where it does issue an order requiring continued operation of the trains.\nAfter that point, the discontinuance of the trains does not come operative pursuant to the statute.\nIt becomes operative pursuant to the expiration of that Commission order, an order which the Commission determines it will not renew.\nSo, if there is a Commission approval or disapproval of the train off case, once they enter upon an investigation, now it's true that in the 30-day notice period if they decide not to investigate, the discontinuance would take place pursuant to the statute.\nNow that case is not before us today.\nWe're not rearguing the State of New Jersey or finding out what modification of it should be made.\nThe case we have here today is that the Commission did institute an investigation.\nAnd moreover, they held hearings and the statute requires a hearing.\nSection 13 (a) (1) (ph) requires a hearing requires evidence and requires findings under Section 14 (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act.\nOnce the Commission enters an investigation, it has to make findings and a report.\nAnd the last thing I'd like to say is that order simply discontinued an investigation is common at the Commission, common.\nIt hasn't come to before this Court perhaps to such a precise distinguishing between what do they do on remand if they set aside the court that is in order of discontinuing investigation but this is -- does happen behind the scenes of all of the freight rate cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [2357.834, 2360.913, 2376.109, 2382.538, 2392.303, 2409.881, 2412.648, 2418.858, 2423.045, 2427.086, 2435.792, 2441.215, 2448.496], "stop_times": [2360.913, 2376.109, 2382.538, 2392.303, 2409.881, 2412.648, 2418.858, 2423.045, 2427.086, 2435.792, 2441.215, 2448.496, 2464.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2357.834}, "reply_to": "15038__2_005", "speaker": "gordon_p_macdougall"}
{"id": "15038__3_001", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Does the statute require findings before an order of discontinuance?\nIt doesn't, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [2464.824, 2469.427], "stop_times": [2469.427, 2470.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.824}, "reply_to": "15038__3_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15038__4_000", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "The statute requires that the -- well, let's put in the other way.\nIt says if the Commission finds that continued operation is required to issue an order requiring continued operation, but the Commission has always held that the opposite applies that once they enter an investigation, once they hold hearings, that they have to make findings.\nFindings as to whether the trains are required by public convenience necessity whether they're not.\nAnd that decision is the Great Northern decision reported at 307 ICC.\nAnd also the, as I said Section 14 (a) requires findings and a report and I think also the Administrative Procedure Act requires it in any investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [2470.06, 2474.886, 2495.19, 2500.169, 2509.254], "stop_times": [2474.886, 2495.19, 2500.169, 2509.254, 2524.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2470.06}, "reply_to": "15038__3_001", "speaker": "james_w_hoeland"}
{"id": "15038__4_001", "conversation_id": "15038", "text": "Thank you gentlemen for your submissions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_101", "start_times": [2524.432, 2526.134], "stop_times": [2526.134, 2529.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.432}, "reply_to": "15038__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_000", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Number 1066, Phoenix against Kolodziejski.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [37.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_001", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [37.585], "stop_times": [39.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 37.585}, "reply_to": "14882__0_000", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_002", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Lee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [39.2], "stop_times": [42.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 39.2}, "reply_to": "14882__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_003", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The question in this case is whether the State of Arizona may constitutionally limit the right to participate in general obligation bond elections to real property taxpayers whose property in such an election, the City of Phoenix, will put up as collateral security for the repayment of the bond obligation.\nAnd whose property is subject to lien of those bonds during the life of the bonds.\nThe relevant facts in this particular case can be simply stated.\nOn June 10, 1969, there was submitted to the real property taxpayers in the City of Phoenix the largest aggregate of bond issues ever proposed by that city.\nCalling for a total of $170 million to finance very badly needed improvements in the City of Phoenix, urgently needed at that time and even more urgently needed at the present time.\nTwo of these issues related to general or revenue bond issues and the other eight were general obligation bond issues.\nSome six days after the election was held, this Court handed down its decisions in Kramer versus Union Free School District and Cipriano versus City of Houma.\nThe latter of which held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit non-property owners from voting in a revenue bond election.\nAccording to Cipriano applied its holding prospectively only and held open the question of the applicability of Cipriano to general obligation bonds.\nBecause of the cloud which Cipriano casts over the bonds of the City of Phoenix, because of the urgent need on the part of the City of Phoenix for the facilities which were to be financed by these bonds, this suit was just brought raising the question which this Court now has before it.\nMs. Kolodziejski, the plaintiff in this case, is an employee of the leading investment banking firm in the City of Phoenix specializing in municipal bonds.\nShe owns no real property and she rents her living quarters.\nIt's been stipulated that the real property taxes which her landlord pays have a material bearing on the amount of tax which or in the amount of rent which she is charged.\nA question which arises at the outset of this case concerns the relevant test which is to be applied to determine the right of the state through its Constitution and its statutes, to prescribe qualifications under which resident citizens of the City of Phoenix can participate in general obligation bond elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [42.012, 65.158, 70.401, 74.264, 86.998, 100.744, 109.737, 121.167, 130.398, 140.825, 161.392, 170.553, 174.902, 189.651], "stop_times": [65.158, 70.401, 74.264, 86.998, 100.744, 109.737, 121.167, 130.398, 140.825, 161.392, 170.553, 174.902, 189.651, 211.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 42.012}, "reply_to": "14882__0_002", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_004", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Could I ask you a preliminary question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [211.964], "stop_times": [213.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.964}, "reply_to": "14882__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_005", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [213.781], "stop_times": [215.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.781}, "reply_to": "14882__0_004", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_006", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Currently, if there is any answer to it.\nBut under your state law, did she have a tax to this bond issue as a matter of timeliness of an action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [215.655, 218.739], "stop_times": [218.739, 228.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.655}, "reply_to": "14882__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_007", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, in my opinion, the answer to that question is yes, but no one really knows the answer to that question.\nThe State of Arizona unlike the State of Louisiana does not have and so far as I know there's really only one state that has a statute exactly like the one with Louisiana does not have the kind of statute that provides what they call a preemption period at the end of which there is no further challenge.\nArizona is really at the other end of the spectrum in this sense.\nThe only election challenge statute that exists is a five-day period which was obviously intended to apply to election of people, election of officers.\nThere is one governing case which is rather difficult to read and lawyers could differ on exactly what it means.\nSuffice it to say there is serious question -- serious question under the laws of the State of Arizona whether there ever comes a time that there's no longer the opportunity to challenge a bond election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [228.449, 237.528, 255.361, 262.565, 273.304, 279.522], "stop_times": [237.528, 255.361, 262.565, 273.304, 279.522, 291.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.449}, "reply_to": "14882__0_006", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_008", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I bet you're not raising it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [291.147], "stop_times": [292.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.147}, "reply_to": "14882__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_009", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "No sir, indeed we're not.\nIndeed we're not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [292.742, 294.207], "stop_times": [294.207, 295.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.742}, "reply_to": "14882__0_008", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_010", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "As suppose the state can waive that you can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [295.045], "stop_times": [297.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.045}, "reply_to": "14882__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_011", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice White, in opinion we can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [297.341], "stop_times": [301.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.341}, "reply_to": "14882__0_010", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_012", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "You conceded the five-day limit here (Inaudible) but it have five days after the canvas, it could've been July 28 or June 22.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [301.64], "stop_times": [315.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.64}, "reply_to": "14882__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_013", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "All right, it would've been June 28, yes Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [315.917], "stop_times": [318.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.917}, "reply_to": "14882__0_012", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_014", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "It would've been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [318.582], "stop_times": [320.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.582}, "reply_to": "14882__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_015", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Before this action was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [320.426], "stop_times": [322.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.426}, "reply_to": "14882__0_014", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_016", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes, well, the Court -- whoever was excluded from the election and if they were included those appearances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [322.452], "stop_times": [332.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.452}, "reply_to": "14882__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_017", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That is correct.\nWe have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [332.801, 334.845], "stop_times": [334.845, 335.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.801}, "reply_to": "14882__0_016", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_018", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "So, they really had some time to file.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [335.831], "stop_times": [338.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.831}, "reply_to": "14882__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_019", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That is correct and if not filed within the five-day period.\nBut I reiterate.\nWe have not raised that as a defense and do not wish to at this time because we need this issue decided and we feel that under as the matter of Arizona State law; number one, there is a question whether she did or did not filed it within the proper period of time and number two, in my opinion it's a matter if this -- if this can be waived.\nAnd we are not relying on it.\nThis Court over a period of a century has laid down the very salutary rule and a rule as reflected at least half-a-dozen separate decisions of this Court that in determining which of it's citizens will be allowed to vote, the states are allowed a broad discretion setting qualifications and determining the circumstances and the qualifications under which of its resident citizens will be allowed to vote.\nThere was an exception carved out from that general rule by this Court's decision last term in Kramer versus Union Free School District and because that exception lies at the heart of the resolution of the issue on this case, it is important to know the precise circumstances under which that exception prevails.\nTherefore, it is important; I feel to look at the exact language of the Kramer case.\nKramer spelled out that the circumstances under which the exception to the general rule applies is as follows: that the broad latitude which usually accord to legislative judgments in this area is based on the assumption that the institutions of State Government are fairly constituted and that when the attack is an attack on that very assumption and the assumption itself can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality.\nIt follows, in the view of the Kramer Court that the general rule upholding the judgment of legislators were reasonable and I'm quoting now \u201cdoes not extend to decisions concerning which resident citizens may participate in the election of legislators and other public officials\u201d.\nAnd the Court was very specific on this point and reiterated it a number of times.\nNow, it is true as Justice Stewart pointed out in his dissent in Kramer that it was not limited to the election of the New York legislature which necessarily imposed that limitation.\nNevertheless, whether right or wrong in Kramer and I accept it as stare decisis whether right or wrong in Kramer, the rationale of Kramer was that that limitation applied only when you're electing people.\nWhen you're electing the general policy making bonds of the state on one of its political subdivisions; the state legislature, the school board in Kramer, the city council in this case and bond elections do not fit within that exception category.\nTherefore, we submit that the limitation involved in this case must be upheld --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [338.306, 341.081, 342.995, 363.542, 367.093, 404.172, 423.565, 430.18, 465.701, 485.699, 490.31, 501.645, 514.672, 529.7], "stop_times": [341.081, 342.995, 363.542, 367.093, 404.172, 423.565, 430.18, 465.701, 485.699, 490.31, 501.645, 514.672, 529.7, 535.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.306}, "reply_to": "14882__0_018", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_020", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "What do you do in Cipriano?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [535.389], "stop_times": [537.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.389}, "reply_to": "14882__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_021", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That Cipriano, Mr. Justice Harlan, is an enigma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [537.104], "stop_times": [540.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.104}, "reply_to": "14882__0_020", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_022", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Is it in the books.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [540.276], "stop_times": [542.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.276}, "reply_to": "14882__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_023", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That it's on the books but it did not overrule.\nIn fact both it and the Kramer decision itself specifically said we are not overruling Lassiter, Pope versus Williams, Mason versus Missouri, and Carrington versus Rash.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [542.37, 546.15], "stop_times": [546.15, 559.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.37}, "reply_to": "14882__0_022", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_024", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Those are these are -- are these some who joined the dissent in Kramer and found it impossible to the dissent in Cipriano?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [559.491], "stop_times": [568.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.491}, "reply_to": "14882__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_025", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "And the reason that you found it impossible in the dissent in Cipriano Mr. Justice Harlan is this.\nAs I read your dissent in Cipriano.\nThat under any circumstances --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [568.35, 574.388, 577.063], "stop_times": [574.388, 577.063, 577.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.35}, "reply_to": "14882__0_024", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_026", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "No, I was joining Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [577.941], "stop_times": [579.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.941}, "reply_to": "14882__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_027", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes and I realize you filed a separate one for other reasons.\nBut Mr. Justice Stewart's and Mr. Justice Black's dissent in that case pointed out that under any circumstances, there was not a reasonable basis for the exclusion in Cipriano and the reason was that there's simply was not a reasonable connection between exclusion of property orders in a revenue bonds election or not that hangs upon the difference between revenue bonds, the general obligation bonds and I propose that bear down very heavily on that distinction.\nThe most that can be said about Cipriano, Mr. Justice Harlan is that it was very bare dictum.\nIt's a pre curiam opinion have down the last day of the term and I don't want to -- all I can say is it was simply a kind of a wash over from Kramer and if you read Kramer carefully, it should not be made to extend to any kind of bond election and I do not feel to borrow the -- borrow the phrase used by the Solicitor General that a century of this Court's decisions should be laid to rest with nothing more than the simple statement of compelling state interest in the Cipriano opinion without any attempt to reconcile it with the rather careful reasoning, whether right or wrong that was set forth in Kramer.\nI turn then to the discussion of the real --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [579.616, 583.556, 607.919, 613.151, 663.377], "stop_times": [583.556, 607.919, 613.151, 663.377, 665.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.616}, "reply_to": "14882__0_026", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_028", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "(Voice Overlap) a lot of history too when we went to Reynolds and Sims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [665.93], "stop_times": [672.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.93}, "reply_to": "14882__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_029", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I recognize that Mr. Justice Harlan.\nAll I'm saying is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [672.185, 676.08], "stop_times": [676.08, 678.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.185}, "reply_to": "14882__0_028", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_030", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Do you intend to reargue that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [678.286], "stop_times": [679.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.286}, "reply_to": "14882__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_031", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "No, I do not intend to reargue Reynolds versus Sims Mr. Justice White but all I'm saying is that accepting Reynolds versus Sims, accepting Kramer for its reasoning, accepting Cipriano versus the City of Houma, this is a different case and for reasons which I have now about to discuss, the Court should go no further than it has gone in Reynolds versus Sims, Kramer and Cipriano and I submit Mr. Justice Harlan because I know of your feelings about stare decisis that this is a different issue, I mean it does not involve the same problem.\nThe reason that it doesn't involve the same problem rests upon the difference between a revenue bond election on the one hand and a general obligation bond election on the other hand.\nIn a general obligation bond election, there are two issues that are submitted to the electorate that that are relevant for present purposes.\nThe first of this is will a City of Phoenix obligate itself, borrow money and obligate itself to repay that money through the impartation of taxes, real property taxes perhaps supplemented by sales taxes.\nThat's one question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [679.891, 713.643, 725.619, 734.147, 749.088], "stop_times": [713.643, 725.619, 734.147, 749.088, 750.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.891}, "reply_to": "14882__0_030", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_032", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Are there -- are there anything else that is available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [750.294], "stop_times": [753.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.294}, "reply_to": "14882__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_033", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "It's available, that is correct Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [753.536], "stop_times": [757.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.536}, "reply_to": "14882__0_032", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_034", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Except some tax that is designated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [757.895], "stop_times": [760.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.895}, "reply_to": "14882__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_035", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Designated that is correct.\nIn Allison versus the City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court said that there was an obligation only to impose real property taxes were necessary but if the city had available some taxes from another source, they could use it, so I will agree Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [760.101, 762.844], "stop_times": [762.844, 778.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.101}, "reply_to": "14882__0_034", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_036", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The only thing that comes to bondholders are property tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [778.565], "stop_times": [781.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.565}, "reply_to": "14882__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_037", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The property tax must lien on the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [781.727], "stop_times": [783.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.727}, "reply_to": "14882__0_036", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_038", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "What point do they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [783.971], "stop_times": [785.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.971}, "reply_to": "14882__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_039", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "They promise me and by statute, the City of Phoenix is obligated to tax that property to a sufficient extent to repay the bonds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [785.586], "stop_times": [793.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.586}, "reply_to": "14882__0_038", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_040", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "And if they fail to do it, the mandamus is available, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [793.931], "stop_times": [797.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.931}, "reply_to": "14882__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_041", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That is correct and to the point of taking the property and selling it at a tax lien sale.\nAnd that brings me to the second issue in any general obligation bond election.\nI will concede that there might be -- Mrs. Kolodziejski may have about the same interest in the first question because it's true that maybe she is going to participate to some extent or another in the payment of the taxes on a year-to-year basis if things go well.\nBut there is a second issue really in any general obligation bond election and that is this.\nWill the City of Phoenix impose a lien by way of collateral security for the obligation that -- for the money that the City of Phoenix is borrowing on the property of each individual property within the City of Phoenix.\nThat's the real difference.\nThe City of Phoenix is borrowing money.\nIt is borrowing it on a secured obligation, unlike revenue bonds which are unsecured obligations.\nThe City of Phoenix is putting up security and this is at the case with any secured loan, it can get a better interest rate if it puts up security than if it doesn't put up security.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [797.185, 802.602, 807.302, 824.46, 829.894, 847.575, 850.367, 853.721, 859.877], "stop_times": [802.602, 807.302, 824.46, 829.894, 847.575, 850.367, 853.721, 859.877, 870.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.185}, "reply_to": "14882__0_040", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_042", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "When you say it puts up security, it puts up some security of someone else's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [870.492], "stop_times": [876.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.492}, "reply_to": "14882__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_043", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Someone else, precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [876.009], "stop_times": [877.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.009}, "reply_to": "14882__0_042", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_044", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Not its own property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [877.314], "stop_times": [878.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.314}, "reply_to": "14882__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_045", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "This property doesn't belong to the City of Phoenix.\nThe property that it's putting up a security belongs to the Robert Backsteins and the Fred Rosenfelds who live within the City of Phoenix.\nNow, under the normal course of events, if all goes well and we don't have any pressure and the City of Phoenix prosperous, then the City of Phoenix will probably be able to repay this bonus over the entire 21-year period from normal amount, our property tax revenues and from the sales taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [878.213, 881.365, 890.738], "stop_times": [881.365, 890.738, 910.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.213}, "reply_to": "14882__0_044", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_046", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "What's the rate of interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [910.306], "stop_times": [912.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.306}, "reply_to": "14882__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14882__0_047", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The maximum rate of interest, Mr. Justice Black, under the present statutory provisions of State of Arizona is 6%.\nProbably be able to repay it and it means very possible that the land owners and the Emily Kolodziejski's within the City of Phoenix won't notice a materially different impact from these bonds.\nBut undeniably, there is a difference in the risks that is assumed by the property taxpayers and the non-property taxpayers.\nAnd that the property taxpayers have themselves, have their property subjected to a lien.\nTheir property is put up as security for what the City of Phoenix has borrowed and I think the purest illustration of this lies in the bonds that are referred to by the amicus brief, it's been cited and been filed by the City of Salt Lake.\nThey referred there to effort revenue bonds which are revenue bonds and which the city anticipates will be paid from the revenues generated by the airport.\nBut the city wants to issue these as general obligation bonds because it can get a better interest rate.\nAnyone who has ever had any experience as I'm sure all the members of this Court have with commercial transaction knows that a loan can be made on conditions more favorable to the lender if he puts up some kind of security.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [912.302, 918.926, 932.77, 942.393, 948.67, 965.28, 975.17, 984.216], "stop_times": [918.926, 932.77, 942.393, 948.67, 965.28, 975.17, 984.216, 1001.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.302}, "reply_to": "14882__0_046", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_048", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Lee do you have sales tax in Phoenix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1001.007], "stop_times": [1004.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.007}, "reply_to": "14882__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__0_049", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes, sir we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1004.019], "stop_times": [1005.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.019}, "reply_to": "14882__0_048", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_050", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Personal property tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1005.165], "stop_times": [1009.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.165}, "reply_to": "14882__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__0_051", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1009.544], "stop_times": [1011.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.544}, "reply_to": "14882__0_050", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_052", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, it may also assume that some of the property there, the taxes are paid by the people who are renting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1011.281], "stop_times": [1017.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.281}, "reply_to": "14882__0_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__0_053", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1017.926], "stop_times": [1019.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1017.926}, "reply_to": "14882__0_052", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_054", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Is there money involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1019.551], "stop_times": [1021.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.551}, "reply_to": "14882__0_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__0_055", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Their money is involved, Mr. Justice Marshall in the annual repayment or maybe involved.\nThe difference between those people in the real property --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1021.974, 1028.73], "stop_times": [1028.73, 1031.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.974}, "reply_to": "14882__0_054", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_056", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "No.\nThis will settle my question.\nIs the payment of these bonds limited to real property taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1031.952, 1033.178, 1035.051], "stop_times": [1033.178, 1035.051, 1039.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.952}, "reply_to": "14882__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__0_057", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1039.253], "stop_times": [1040.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.253}, "reply_to": "14882__0_056", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_058", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That's all I'm on now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1040.23], "stop_times": [1043.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.23}, "reply_to": "14882__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__0_059", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Under the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in Allison versus the City of Phoenix, you can use sales taxes.\nYou must use property taxes necessary.\nMy point is there is not a constitutional difference or that we don't need to look that the difference in source of payment year by year for the constitutional difference.\nIn my view, the constitutional difference in here is in the fact of the risk that the property owner is taking.\nNow, if the City of Phoenix were saying, we're going to borrow money, we can get a more favorable interest rate on this money if we put up some security and the security that we're going to put up, the cash surrender value of life insurance of every citizen of the City of Phoenix, the stock and bond investment portfolio of every citizen in the City of Phoenix and the savings accounts, then I think we would have a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1043.273, 1050.537, 1053.663, 1065.722, 1072.122], "stop_times": [1050.537, 1053.663, 1065.722, 1072.122, 1099.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.273}, "reply_to": "14882__0_058", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_060", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Could they do that, those three (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1099.184], "stop_times": [1101.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.184}, "reply_to": "14882__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14882__0_061", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Being practical Mr. Justice -- it'll be impractical and the reason it would be impractical is because those things are made articles and those things don't necessarily stay within the City of Phoenix.\nThe only thing a value that clearly is going to stay within the City of Phoenix over the 21 period is the land.\nNow, in my view, it's the same as though we had two joined obligors on a promissory note.\nOnly one of them supplying security for the note and there is a material difference between the interest of those two and whether the bonds are to be sold or not.\nParticularly, when you bear in mind -- particularly, when you bear in mind that the election which is what we're talking about here is only the second step in a three-step process involved in the issuance of bonds.\nNo bonds are ever issued by any municipality in any of the states that have this kind of restriction.\nUnless, first of all the city council, the school board or someone determines that bonds should be issued.\nThat determination is made by a body that all of Kramer has been properly apportioned and elected fairly by all the people.\nThe election is the second step and the third step is the actual issuance in sale which again lies within the discretion of the city council or whatever the particular body maybe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1101.969, 1112.748, 1119.742, 1130.218, 1144.565, 1158.904, 1165.418, 1170.292, 1178.785], "stop_times": [1112.748, 1119.742, 1130.218, 1144.565, 1158.904, 1165.418, 1170.292, 1178.785, 1191.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.969}, "reply_to": "14882__0_060", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_062", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "This in -- this is an election by majority votes of voters without reference to (Voice Overlap) -- without reference to the amount of their property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1191.762], "stop_times": [1201.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.762}, "reply_to": "14882__0_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_063", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1201.848], "stop_times": [1203.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.848}, "reply_to": "14882__0_062", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_064", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I mean if I -- if a man owned $10.00 with the real estate, his vote counts as much as the man who owns a million dollars with real estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1203.245], "stop_times": [1208.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.245}, "reply_to": "14882__0_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_065", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "We don't have a Louisiana problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1208.238], "stop_times": [1209.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.238}, "reply_to": "14882__0_064", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_066", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That was different as Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1209.493], "stop_times": [1210.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.493}, "reply_to": "14882__0_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_067", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That is correct.\nNow, I'd like to devote just a few moments to the prospectivity retroactivity program against -- well, we do feel and I reiterate that under any conceivable test, there is a distinction between general obligation bonds and revenue bonds; the distinction which under this Court's authorities renders the Arizona law constitutional.\nHowever, in the event that this Court should disagree, I do suggest very strenuously that the decision should be prospective only.\nAnd I would like to discuss that briefly with the Court because of the great interest which has been created and because of the importance of this matter also for the City of Phoenix and its need for $170 million worth of financing.\nThe Court has noted I'm sure that there have been 12 different briefs filed from a collection of about eight different states across the country whose provisions are similar to those of Arizona.\nI would simply submit that as this Court held in Cipriano that the various interest bearing on retroactivity and vis-a-vis prospectivity indicated that the decision should be prospective only are compounded in the case of general obligation bonds and that there is even more reason why general obligations bonds or why the decision in this case, if the decision should affirm the lower court's decision should be held prospective only from the date of this Court's decision in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1210.641, 1212.987, 1243.425, 1253.071, 1268.28, 1281.074], "stop_times": [1212.987, 1243.425, 1253.071, 1268.28, 1281.074, 1313.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.641}, "reply_to": "14882__0_066", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_068", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "May I ask you what affect that would have in the City of Phoenix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1313.544], "stop_times": [1317.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.544}, "reply_to": "14882__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14882__0_069", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, we hope Mr. Justice Black that it would hold them that it would validate these bonds and let me say why I hope that this would be the case.\nMay I point out first of all what in the Allen case two terms ago which also involved in election under the \u201865 Voting Rights Act.\nThis Court held this decision prospective not only as to other elections but also as to the election involved in the particular case that was at issue.\nThe City of Phoenix held its election prior to Cipriano, six days prior to Cipriano.\nThere are three different questions that are raised by this Court's decision in Cipriano and in the Allen case that we feel are relevant and helpful in the determination as to prospectivity in the instant case.\nIn Cipriano, this Court mentioned the significant hardships which were the result from a retroactive decision.\nMay I simply point out but not only in this case of the City of Phoenix but also others, the hardships are much greater in the case of general obligation bonds than they are in the case of revenue bonds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1317.403, 1326.963, 1334.296, 1344.016, 1354.302, 1367.874, 1373.592], "stop_times": [1326.963, 1334.296, 1344.016, 1354.302, 1367.874, 1373.592, 1382.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.403}, "reply_to": "14882__0_068", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_070", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Lee, is Cipriano the one in which we drew the line pending on whether the election was still subject to challenge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1382.027], "stop_times": [1389.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.027}, "reply_to": "14882__0_069", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14882__0_071", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1389.76], "stop_times": [1390.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.76}, "reply_to": "14882__0_070", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_072", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That was Cipriano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1390.427], "stop_times": [1391.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.427}, "reply_to": "14882__0_071", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14882__0_073", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes, sir and I want to discuss that because that fits fine in Louisiana but not in Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1391.074], "stop_times": [1394.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.074}, "reply_to": "14882__0_072", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_074", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I just wonder how it helped you because by your own confession this election is subject to challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1394.595], "stop_times": [1402.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.595}, "reply_to": "14882__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_075", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Right and it maybe Mr. Justice White, we just don't know it.\nWell let me -- let me address myself to that problem.\nIn those states that have a Louisiana-type statute and all candor and I think there's only one.\nThen that rule works fine.\nIn those states which do not have that type of statute and Arizona does not, then we would submit that it should be -- that it should be the time of the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1402.821, 1410.134, 1414.571, 1421.096, 1423.479], "stop_times": [1410.134, 1414.571, 1421.096, 1423.479, 1435.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.821}, "reply_to": "14882__0_074", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_076", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Why should it be within the period of the election is subject to challenge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1435.146], "stop_times": [1440.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.146}, "reply_to": "14882__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_077", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Because we don't know what that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1440.394], "stop_times": [1442.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.394}, "reply_to": "14882__0_076", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_078", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I have to understand that if somebody wants to challenge elections in Arizona, I thought it was five days, five days after the canvass.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1442.927], "stop_times": [1452.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.927}, "reply_to": "14882__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_079", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "But that's not bond elections or we're not sure whether that's bond election.\nLet me tell you why that's not a good --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1452.158, 1456.936], "stop_times": [1456.936, 1458.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.158}, "reply_to": "14882__0_078", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_080", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "You mean -- you mean, there aren't any states that -- you mean it's more general than not the states have no time limit on when you can challenge a bond election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1458.094], "stop_times": [1468.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.094}, "reply_to": "14882__0_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_081", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Justice White, this is set --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1468.201], "stop_times": [1469.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.201}, "reply_to": "14882__0_080", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_082", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I wouldn't think the bond lawyers would ever -- ever pass it or given opinion on a bond issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1469.566], "stop_times": [1475.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.566}, "reply_to": "14882__0_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_083", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "We have a great battery of bond lawyers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1475.724], "stop_times": [1477.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.724}, "reply_to": "14882__0_082", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_084", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I see them here, I just wondered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1477.608], "stop_times": [1480.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.608}, "reply_to": "14882__0_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_085", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "They have informed me and I rely on their opinion that Louisiana stands alone in so far as that degree of protection.\nThat is a correction period to say that Idaho has one that is the closest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1480.003, 1488.428], "stop_times": [1488.428, 1492.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.003}, "reply_to": "14882__0_084", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_086", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well how does -- how does anyone know in your state then whether any bond is good, you can apparently challenge an election forever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1492.987], "stop_times": [1501.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.987}, "reply_to": "14882__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_087", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well you always have the argument obliges and there's always a possibility that there will come a time that it is not an identifiable time such as it was involved in Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1501.436], "stop_times": [1515.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.436}, "reply_to": "14882__0_086", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_088", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "What is that you're contending for Mr. Lee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1515.367], "stop_times": [1517.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.367}, "reply_to": "14882__0_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_089", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "For the date of the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1517.383], "stop_times": [1518.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.383}, "reply_to": "14882__0_088", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_090", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "You mean -- by that, you mean if I were to say that you lose on the other point that we should also say that only as to elections after the date of this opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1518.371], "stop_times": [1529.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.371}, "reply_to": "14882__0_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_091", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Of this court's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1529.457], "stop_times": [1530.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1529.457}, "reply_to": "14882__0_090", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_092", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yeah and that this one only for the State of Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1530.573], "stop_times": [1533.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.573}, "reply_to": "14882__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_093", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "No, I would hope for all the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1533.645], "stop_times": [1535.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.645}, "reply_to": "14882__0_092", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_094", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, how would this effect to we said in Cipriano, except --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1535.11], "stop_times": [1537.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.11}, "reply_to": "14882__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_095", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "It would -- it would, it would simply say that in those states as if Cipriano was where you have an identifiable time grid and that's the point.\nWhere you don't have it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1537.545, 1547.374], "stop_times": [1547.374, 1548.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1537.545}, "reply_to": "14882__0_094", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_096", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "But we have two rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1548.34], "stop_times": [1549.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.34}, "reply_to": "14882__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_097", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Have two rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1549.566], "stop_times": [1550.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1549.566}, "reply_to": "14882__0_096", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_098", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1550.452], "stop_times": [1551.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.452}, "reply_to": "14882__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_099", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "And how it is should be the date of the election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1551.58], "stop_times": [1553.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.58}, "reply_to": "14882__0_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_100", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The election.\nNow, here's the reason that I feel that it should be the date of the election.\nIt is after all the election that raises the constitutional question.\nThat's where people either do both or they don't.\nAnd here's another reason Mr. Justice White why I feel that it should be the election and answer to your earlier question.\nCity of Phoenix held its election on June the 10th.\nCipriano came down on June the 16th.\nNow, subsequent to that time, the City of Phoenix, acting in perfectly good faith took steps to have the question determined as to whether it's bonds are good or not and that's why we're here and we're here first.\nSubsequent to that time, there were a number of elections held.\nAnd as you look in the amici briefs that have been filed at Colorado, Louisiana, Utah didn't have one, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Florida, Idaho and Texas.\nAll of those have held elections subsequent to Cipriano.\nThe reason was of course that especially for schools and that's one reason why it's even more important to hold the prospective and general obligation bond context and it is in the revenue bond context.\nThat's the only way schools can finance and schools simply can't wait.\nAnd that's why you find so many school elections.\nThey have to be held.\nBut so under and that case is not here, many of those elections would be approved under any rule, under the Cipriano rule, keep it worthwhile here simply because they went ahead, held their election and the State of Texas actually sold their bonds.\nWe submit that there is no reason why the City of Phoenix should be in any or lesser position having proceeded in good faith as the City of Phoenix did in orderly way to get the question resolved.\nAnd really and frankly doing a service to other 13 states in this country and Cipriano where he candidly has through him, the municipal financing community in the 13 states into chaos.\nWhy we should be in any lesser position having performed the service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1553.334, 1553.784, 1557.245, 1561.676, 1564.131, 1569.588, 1572.674, 1576.227, 1588.889, 1592.27, 1603.62, 1607.79, 1618.088, 1621.649, 1623.703, 1626.555, 1643.623, 1656.127, 1667.164], "stop_times": [1553.784, 1557.245, 1561.676, 1564.131, 1569.588, 1572.674, 1576.227, 1588.889, 1592.27, 1603.62, 1607.79, 1618.088, 1621.649, 1623.703, 1626.555, 1643.623, 1656.127, 1667.164, 1671.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.334}, "reply_to": "14882__0_099", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_101", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "How much of this issue, how much of the total issue has been resolved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1671.833], "stop_times": [1676.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.833}, "reply_to": "14882__0_100", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_102", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "None, Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1676.192], "stop_times": [1677.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1676.192}, "reply_to": "14882__0_101", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_103", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "None of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1677.061], "stop_times": [1677.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.061}, "reply_to": "14882__0_102", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__0_104", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "None, none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1677.788], "stop_times": [1679.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.788}, "reply_to": "14882__0_103", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_105", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I supposed not any purchaser would demand a pretty big discount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1679.622], "stop_times": [1683.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.622}, "reply_to": "14882__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_106", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, the problem is we can't get any detail when to give us an approving in opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1683.764], "stop_times": [1686.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1683.764}, "reply_to": "14882__0_105", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_107", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1686.833], "stop_times": [1689.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.833}, "reply_to": "14882__0_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_108", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That's why you want one from us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1689.366], "stop_times": [1690.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.366}, "reply_to": "14882__0_107", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__0_109", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1690.761], "stop_times": [1694.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.761}, "reply_to": "14882__0_108", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_110", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "You concede the invalidity of the revenue bonds that were (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1694.883], "stop_times": [1698.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.883}, "reply_to": "14882__0_109", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_111", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I keep my (Voice Overlap) on that.\nIf I'm right that in non-Louisiana-type states the cutoff date should be the election date then this revenue bond election was before the Cipriano decision came back six days before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1698.903, 1705.298], "stop_times": [1705.298, 1717.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1698.903}, "reply_to": "14882__0_110", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_112", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes, but so I see you save your position with respect to the prospectivity retroactivity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1717.451], "stop_times": [1723.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.451}, "reply_to": "14882__0_111", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_113", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Only, only, other than that we agreed that Cipriano give its revenue bond elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1723.058], "stop_times": [1726.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1723.058}, "reply_to": "14882__0_112", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_114", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Makes them valid, that's the future --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1726.719], "stop_times": [1729.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.719}, "reply_to": "14882__0_113", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_115", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1729.312], "stop_times": [1729.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1729.312}, "reply_to": "14882__0_114", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_116", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1729.839], "stop_times": [1730.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.839}, "reply_to": "14882__0_115", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__0_117", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well what about in other states Mr. Lee that have held elections since Cipriano.\nCipriano would at least told them that it wouldn't have been anymore retroactive than Cipriano said special election revenue obligations were.\nSo the tendency of this case -- the dependency of this case, really doesn't seem to -- it shouldn't worry anybody, that that wouldn't be anymore retroactive than Cipriano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1730.106, 1738.393, 1750.825], "stop_times": [1738.393, 1750.825, 1762.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.106}, "reply_to": "14882__0_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_118", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice White, I hate to use up my time arguing for the other fellows but I do feel, you see in Cipriano, you said, you specifically held open the question of Cipriano's applicability of general obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1762.49], "stop_times": [1777.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1762.49}, "reply_to": "14882__0_117", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_119", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1777.346], "stop_times": [1778.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.346}, "reply_to": "14882__0_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_120", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yeah, you also said that Cipriano itself would be prospective only.\nI simply submit and I can do nothing more than that these states acted reasonably in light of both of those involved, in light of all those holdings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1778.314, 1784.093], "stop_times": [1784.093, 1793.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1778.314}, "reply_to": "14882__0_119", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_121", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I would think they would -- that recently holding elections, delve on why they worried about with consequences of decision in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1793.246], "stop_times": [1801.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.246}, "reply_to": "14882__0_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__0_122", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I would like to reserve a few moments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1801.016], "stop_times": [1809.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1801.016}, "reply_to": "14882__0_121", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__0_123", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Rosenfeld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1809.768], "stop_times": [1811.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.768}, "reply_to": "14882__0_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__1_000", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nOn behalf of Miss.Kolodziejski, we suggest that the Court reject the city's argument and affirm the decision of the lower court.\nIn relation to the city's argument which is in effect to limit both Kramer and Cipriano to the factual contents of each case, we feel this should be specifically rejected.\nThe Kramer case we will admit stated that the rule would apply and at the first instance, it seem to say the rule would apply to the election of officials.\nHowever, it went on and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1811.075, 1814.109, 1825.031, 1842.27, 1855.608], "stop_times": [1814.109, 1825.031, 1842.27, 1855.608, 1859.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1811.075}, "reply_to": "14882__0_123", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__1_001", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Number 1066, Phoenix against Kolodziejski.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1859.021], "stop_times": [1894.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.021}, "reply_to": "14882__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__2_000", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1894.632], "stop_times": [1896.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1894.632}, "reply_to": "14882__1_001", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__2_001", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Lee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1896.197], "stop_times": [1898.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.197}, "reply_to": "14882__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__2_002", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The question on this case is whether the State of Arizona may constitutionally limit the right to participate in general obligation bond elections to real property taxpayers whose property in such an election, the City of Phoenix will put up as collateral security for the repayment of the bond obligation and whose property is subject to the lien of those bonds during the life of the bonds.\nThe relevant facts in this particular case can be simply stated.\nOn June 10, 1969 there was submitted to the real property taxpayers in the City of Phoenix, the largest aggregate of bond issues ever proposed by that city.\nCalling for a total of a $170 million to finance very badly needed improvements in the City of Phoenix urgently needed at that time and even more urgently needed at the present time.\nTwo of these issues related to general or to revenue bond issues and the other eight were general obligation bond issues.\nSome six days after the election was held, this Court handed down its decisions in Kramer versus Union Free School District and Cipriano versus City of Houma.\nThe latter of which held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit non-property owners from voting in a revenue bond election.\nCourt in Cipriano applied its holding prospectively only and held open the question of the applicability of Cipriano to general obligation bonds.Because of the cloud which Cipriano cast over the bonds of the City of Phoenix, because of urgent need on the part of the City of Phoenix for the facilities which were to be financed by these bonds, this suit was brought raising the question which this Court now has before it.\nMs. Kolodziejski, the plaintiff in this case, is an employee of the leading investment banking firm in the City of Phoenix specializing in municipal bonds.\nShe owns no real property and she rents her living quarters.\nIt's been stipulated that the real property taxes which her landlord pays have a material bearing on the amount of tax which or on the amount of rent which she is charged.\nA question which arises at the outset of this case concerns the relevant test which is to be applied to determine the right of the state through its Constitution and its statutes to prescribe qualifications under which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [1898.969, 1927.411, 1931.281, 1943.985, 1957.694, 1966.762, 1978.16, 1987.418, 2018.391, 2027.57, 2031.897, 2046.577], "stop_times": [1927.411, 1931.281, 1943.985, 1957.694, 1966.762, 1978.16, 1987.418, 2018.391, 2027.57, 2031.897, 2046.577, 2065.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1898.969}, "reply_to": "14882__2_001", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__3_000", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Another thing to know in the Cipriano decision, the Court appeared as I stated to take the more rigid approach to that election the dissent, Mr. Black -- Justice Black's dissent used what I believed to be the rational basis doctrine or the general test for Fourteenth Amendment -- of the Fourteenth Amendment against the state statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2065.42], "stop_times": [2095.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2065.42}, "reply_to": "14882__2_002", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_001", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "The dissent of what case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2095.027], "stop_times": [2096.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.027}, "reply_to": "14882__3_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__3_002", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "In Cipriano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2096.216], "stop_times": [2097.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2096.216}, "reply_to": "14882__3_001", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_003", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "There was no dissent in Cipriano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2097.141], "stop_times": [2098.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.141}, "reply_to": "14882__3_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__3_004", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Excuse me, concurring opinion.\nI'm sorry, I'm sorry.\nI apologize.\nTo the effect that it was held and that the restriction was wholly irrational.\nNow, if it was wholly irrational, the Court -- if this is the opinion of the minority, it could also will have been the opinion of the majority but the majority opted for a more specific test, so we feel that in the reading of Kramer and Cipriano, there was ample reason for us to believe that the Court meant to apply this to all special elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2098.829, 2100.065, 2101.788, 2103.453, 2108.192], "stop_times": [2100.065, 2101.788, 2103.453, 2108.192, 2135.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2098.829}, "reply_to": "14882__3_003", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_005", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, if it applies to all special elections in Phoenix called an election to decide zoning rules for real property owners and restricted that the real property owners reproduce, what would you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2135.18], "stop_times": [2151.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.18}, "reply_to": "14882__3_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__3_006", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well then, then the test would have to apply, the test would be are those who are excluded substantially less interested and thus the exclusion promote a compelling state interest.\nIt wouldn't -- the neither case held at the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2151.702, 2162.288], "stop_times": [2162.288, 2165.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2151.702}, "reply_to": "14882__3_005", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_007", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I thought you said any special election that would be open to everyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2165.42], "stop_times": [2169.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.42}, "reply_to": "14882__3_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14882__3_008", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Oh no, I -- that's not my statement at all, the test applies -- excuse me if I did.\nI didn't mean to say that.\nI apologize.\nMy position is that the test is applicable not that all special elections must be thrown over.\nI do not espouse that position and I don't think this case is vehicle for anyone to espouse that positions.\nThe test set forth in the Kramer case as I've said is that of substantial interest and the exclusion must promote a compelling state interest.\nIn the Cipriano case, this was re affirmed.\nIn the Kramer case and also in the footnote in the Cipriano case, it appears to us that the test is so rigid that no tolerances whatsoever are allowed.\nIn the Kramer case, it is said that the statute must be tailored so that although and I underline all are substantially less interested than those who are allowed to vote.\nNow, let us apply this rule to the facts of this case.\nMs.Kolodziejski is a lessee.\nShe does not pay real property taxes, she owns no real property.\nShe owns no personal property subject to personal property taxes.\nShe -- however, it is stipulated that the rent that she pays takes the amount of the landlord's real property taxes into effect.\nTherefore, she will be affected by any increase in the real property taxes.\nShe also pays sales taxes which maybe used to defray the bonds but it's not an absolute requirement that the city continued to use the sales taxes for the purpose of defraying these bonds.\nThe facts also showed that she is interested in the city affairs of the City of Phoenix and that she wants to vote in all elections.\nThe facts further showed that the city has for the recent years use ad valorem taxes to pay only approximately two fifths of the annual debt service on its general obligation bonds.\nNow, in applying the substantial interest test, it is our position that appellee is as interested or is substantially interested in the outcome of this election.\nThere can be no question that she is subjectively interested in the election.\nThe facts bear that out.\nShe is also pecuniarily interested in the election in so far as her rent will be affected by any increase in the real property taxes.\nShe is also pecuniarily affected in so far as the money she pays and excise taxes will go if the city continues its present policy to the payment of the debt service on the general obligation bonds.\nAll residence of the City of Phoenix are affected by the increase in any tax where sales tax or real property tax because it will increase generally the cost of goods and services within the city.\nBesides being interested both subjectively and pecuniarily, we also feel that the appellee is interested and has an objective state in the outcome of this election.\nWe wish to point out that in all bond elections the bond authorization is not the only question before the voters.\nThere are other questions of political import in every bond election not just the debt.\nThe location and type of the improvement to be made is an important aspect of each bond election.\nObviously, I maybe induced to vote for the bond issue if they are going a place a school or library near my house.\nConversely, I maybe induced to vote against the bond election if the city intends to place a sewer plant or abattoir in the direct vicinity of my house.\nThis objective state is one that is shared by all residents of the city, not just by the real property taxpayers.\nIn fact, this objective state is affected, affects those people who are excluded from this election.\nFor example, if you have residents of slums or tenements which are almost universally owned by absentee landlords and if this is a dense population of people, the political power of the ballot to induce the city to place the municipal improvements desired by those voting is completely wiped out.\nI think one of the, one of the lessons of the election cases and voting rights cases and voting rights legislation that we've had over the past decade is the fact that the fruits of the election gravitate toward the political power.\nHere, we have a situation which is basically unfair.\nA class of people are in a position where they cannot exercise any power to end and I might say and I will speak from past experience in this area.\nThe general inclination on all bond elections is to have a purpose which will carry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2169.24, 2174.027, 2176.402, 2178.059, 2182.95, 2189.834, 2206.081, 2210.5, 2223.214, 2237.662, 2243.888, 2246.381, 2251.341, 2257.407, 2267.648, 2273.754, 2287.278, 2299.274, 2313.497, 2329.267, 2333.097, 2335.393, 2344.736, 2359.25, 2382.208, 2395.437, 2406.506, 2415.341, 2425.123, 2434.845, 2447.89, 2459.704, 2468.866, 2501.556, 2519.164, 2522.974, 2537.972], "stop_times": [2174.027, 2176.402, 2178.059, 2182.95, 2189.834, 2206.081, 2210.5, 2223.214, 2237.662, 2243.888, 2246.381, 2251.341, 2257.407, 2267.648, 2273.754, 2287.278, 2299.274, 2313.497, 2329.267, 2333.097, 2335.393, 2344.736, 2359.25, 2382.208, 2395.437, 2406.506, 2415.341, 2425.123, 2434.845, 2447.89, 2459.704, 2468.866, 2501.556, 2519.164, 2522.974, 2537.972, 2545.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2169.24}, "reply_to": "14882__3_007", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_009", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Is to what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2545.909], "stop_times": [2546.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.909}, "reply_to": "14882__3_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14882__3_010", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Is to carry, that the election will carry nine times out of 10 the purpose will be tailored toward those with the voting power.\nNow, if we exclude certain citizens from the elective process and if we exclude certain citizens who have a real state in municipal improvements in the area of schools it might be said that the renters in the slum areas have an even greater stake in the improvement or the construction of new schools in their area but when we take away this power to this power over the elective process, this power of the combined vote of the tenant class to carry the election then we have not only affected the tenant class to rents, maybe through excise taxes but we have affected their objective stake in the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2546.818, 2559.041], "stop_times": [2559.041, 2612.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2546.818}, "reply_to": "14882__3_009", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_011", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "But what you're really arguing now are those the wisdom of the Arizona structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2612.288], "stop_times": [2620.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.288}, "reply_to": "14882__3_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__3_012", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I'm arguing the interest.\nI have to say this, the footnote in the Kramer case seems to say that interest meant the intent to vote.\nMr. Justice Stewart's dissent said that is what the Court is intending to do that the mere interest is an interest sufficient to take demand of the polls to vote.\nBut I have tried to show that the interest of the tenant generally goes much further than that.\nThe interest of the tenant is cumulative.\nIt is subjective, pecuniarily and objective.\nNow, it also is I think of basic tenet of our civilization that the rent is going to be passed on to the tenant.\nThe appellant in the briefs state that the appellee is unique in this fashion, in this manner.\nHowever, this Court in the very recent case of Turner versus Fouche stated as follows.\n\u201cIt cannot be seriously urged that the citizen in all other respects qualify to sit in the school board must own property if he has to participate responsively in the educational decisions without regard to whether he is among other things, a lessee who effectively pays property tax as part of his rent.\u201d\nI think the Court has noted what to me is a fact, a basic tenet of our capitalistic society that the landlord in order to get a fair return must pass on the real property taxes as a cost of doing business.\nIf the real property taxes go up, his rents are going to go up accordingly so he can keep his fair return.\nNow, another thing in this -- another point in this argument turns on the fact that there is not qualifica -- there is no quality, qualitative approach on the part of the State of Arizona or the City of Phoenix to determine just how much real property is necessary in order to allow the elector to vote.\nIt is clear in my mind that so long as the man actively pays real property taxes, he may own one square inch of property then will be allowed to vote.\nA person leasing thousands of acres of property has no standing to vote in the same election.\nHowever, if we are talking about the mere tokenism of owning property, then we're in the situation which this Court condemned in Harper versus Virginia Board of Elections where it said that the test of wealth is not germaned to informity voting.\nIt is easy to draw an example where the owner of real property who would be allowed to vote could have a very small interest in the property that he owns.\nIf for example we have someone owning in $10.00 worth of taxable property at the assess level and we have B who owns, who leases a $10,000.00 home on the assess evaluation basis.\nWe have a situation where in one month, B is going to pay a bigger share of this -- of the debt incurred for these bonds that A will pay for the entire term.\nHowever, B will not be allowed to vote and A will.\nIt might also be pointed out that as I said, one of the tenets of our society is that the entrepreneur takes the risk.\nThe lessee of real property must live on property owned by somebody.\nIf it's a corporation, the corporation can't vote; if it is a private source, the private source could vote if he lived within the city.\nHowever, one of the risks that this entrepreneur takes is the risk that he will have a tenant throughout the life of his building.\nIn the event that taxes are to increase, this is part of the risk, so it's no grave imposition on the landed class to place to remove the restriction that only real property taxpayers may vote.\nIn our brief, we cited some examples and the only one that I wish to point out is the situation where under this particular type of statute, one person could own the entire municipality.\nNo civic improvement could be made unless that one person agreed to it.\nNow, this is not exactly too farfetched.\nIn my in brief, I pointed out two examples one were two people carry, here the vote carry two to nothing, one where the vote was defeated by score of one to nothing.\nWe feel that the statute and the constitution of the State merely requires a token ownership of property and that the interest effected is in no way relative to the fact that the man owns property because you can pay more in a lease in a month than the owner of a small piece of property could pay throughout the life of the bonds.\nToken as we feel should not be a constitutional distinction and yet that is what we have here.\nHowever, in the event it is shown that the appellee and her class are less interested than those who are allowed to vote, this does not carry the day for the appellant.\nThe appellant must also show that the interest, the state seeks to protect is compelling.\nI am at loss to know the appellants\u2019 position on compelling state interest.\nI have yet to learn the appellant\u2019s position on the goal the state articulates.\nHowever, the amici briefs are some help in this area.\nThe amici briefs boil this down to the protection of the land owner against the piling of indiscriminate debts by those who do not own the land.\nWe feel that the basic tenant of this type of articulated goal is mere protectionism against the way the population excluded might vote.\nThis same approach was denounced in Carrington versus Rash where the Court said, first the State says it has a legitimate interest in immunizing its elections from concentrated balloting of military personnel whose collective voice may overwhelm a small community.\nFencing out from the franchise of a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.\nThe exercise of right is so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions cannot constitutionally be obliterated because of the fear of the political refuse of the group of residents.\nI might note that the fencing out section was also sided in the Cipriano case.\nThat concludes my delivery insofar as the test of the Kramer and Cipriano cases are concerned.\nI feel a few words might necessary in relation to prospective application.\nIt is the statement of the city that the date of the election should carry the day in this situation.\nI feel that; one I feel if there is very little question in my own mind, personally that we do have a cut off date in Arizona; it is either the canvas date or the five day period thereafter.\nDifferent attorneys as Mr. Lee has stated have read the Morgan case in a different way.\nIt is my feeling that there is a legitimate cut off date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [2620.524, 2622.318, 2630.045, 2640.635, 2647.37, 2649.414, 2653.574, 2664.058, 2672.946, 2681.17, 2703.744, 2718.991, 2737.939, 2765.376, 2779.076, 2785.152, 2812.95, 2827.221, 2842.328, 2855.015, 2858.915, 2869.312, 2875.704, 2885.165, 2895.775, 2922.248, 2937.896, 2942.834, 2945.068, 2959.107, 2985.016, 2992.241, 3007.27, 3017.204, 3023.287, 3028.927, 3033.306, 3046.102, 3061.995, 3082.37, 3091.952, 3105.5, 3114.9, 3125.328, 3133.348, 3141.57, 3154.137, 3161.035], "stop_times": [2622.318, 2630.045, 2640.635, 2647.37, 2649.414, 2653.574, 2664.058, 2672.946, 2681.17, 2703.744, 2718.991, 2737.939, 2765.376, 2779.076, 2785.152, 2812.95, 2827.221, 2842.328, 2855.015, 2858.915, 2869.312, 2875.704, 2885.165, 2895.775, 2922.248, 2937.896, 2942.834, 2945.068, 2959.107, 2985.016, 2992.241, 3007.27, 3017.204, 3023.287, 3028.927, 3033.306, 3046.102, 3061.995, 3082.37, 3091.952, 3105.5, 3114.9, 3125.328, 3133.348, 3141.57, 3154.137, 3161.035, 3164.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2620.524}, "reply_to": "14882__3_011", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_013", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That\u2019s why it's still on books.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3164.538], "stop_times": [3167.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3164.538}, "reply_to": "14882__3_012", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__3_014", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, I think there is a cut off date insofar attacking, no there is a, there is a cut off date insofar as the application of the doctrine, but if the doctrine is a constitutional and a Federal Constitutional Doctrine then there is in my mind no legislative action that the state can take to deprive the Federal Courts of Jurisdiction and that\u2019s what, that\u2019s -- we would be doing here.\nExcuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3167.885, 3195.89], "stop_times": [3195.89, 3196.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3167.885}, "reply_to": "14882__3_013", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_015", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That ever been happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3196.63], "stop_times": [3199.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.63}, "reply_to": "14882__3_014", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__3_016", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I don\u2019t know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3199.06], "stop_times": [3200.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3199.06}, "reply_to": "14882__3_015", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_017", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "You mean the State has ever set a time beyond which you couldn\u2019t wait then raising a constitutional challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3200.032], "stop_times": [3207.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.032}, "reply_to": "14882__3_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__3_018", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "A Federal constitutional challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3207.552], "stop_times": [3209.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3207.552}, "reply_to": "14882__3_017", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_019", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Is that\u2019s your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3209.576], "stop_times": [3210.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.576}, "reply_to": "14882__3_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__3_020", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "That\u2019s my position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3210.397], "stop_times": [3211.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3210.397}, "reply_to": "14882__3_019", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_021", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well a state could certainly have a statute limitation generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3211.749], "stop_times": [3216.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.749}, "reply_to": "14882__3_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__3_022", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "It could have general statute limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3216.552], "stop_times": [3218.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3216.552}, "reply_to": "14882__3_021", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_023", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "And why wouldn't that apply to any attack, any lawsuit whether it would be based on statutory or common law or constitutional ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3218.83], "stop_times": [3226.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.83}, "reply_to": "14882__3_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14882__3_024", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "You must also note that the five day election contest period in question is a specific type of contest period.\nIt goes to the conduct of the election.\nWe have no quarrel with the conduct of the election per se.\nWe say what went on afterwards before there was authority to issue the bonds was sufficient to void the entire election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3226.94, 3236.293, 3239.375, 3243.003], "stop_times": [3236.293, 3239.375, 3243.003, 3253.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3226.94}, "reply_to": "14882__3_023", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_025", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Now you seem to be completely at odds with your colleague here, your opponent on whether there is a cut off date or not, but you speak with that assurance on it, could you give us cases on it, state cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3253.004], "stop_times": [3267.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.004}, "reply_to": "14882__3_024", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14882__3_026", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Well, the only case that it can't be applied is Morgan versus the Board of Supervisor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3267.499], "stop_times": [3272.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3267.499}, "reply_to": "14882__3_025", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_027", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Yes, but I thought you said after you said that that whatever cut off date there might be for some purposes you are perfectly clear in your mind that there is not in Arizona on a case like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3272.038], "stop_times": [3283.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.038}, "reply_to": "14882__3_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14882__3_028", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "On a case like this if the authority, if the canvas I will have to add this if the canvas has passed.\nWhen the canvas passes and the authority to issue the bonds or in the alternative when the five day period passes, if that transpired before Cipriano, before the Cipriano decision, then in my mind those elections are valid and they would not be affected by the Cipriano decision.\nOn the contrary, if as in the City of Phoenix election the authorization was not complete because those are the words used in the last paragraph of Cipriano, the authorization was not complete.\nThen Cipriano would apply and if Cipriano did apply notwithstanding whatever cut off date, whether it would be canvas or five days after the canvas would have no application because we are not talking about a question for suit to the election.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3283.238, 3291.488, 3312.954, 3328.869, 3347.872], "stop_times": [3291.488, 3312.954, 3328.869, 3347.872, 3350.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3283.238}, "reply_to": "14882__3_027", "speaker": "fred_h_rosenfeld"}
{"id": "14882__3_029", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Mr. Lee you have about one minute left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3350.606], "stop_times": [3356.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3350.606}, "reply_to": "14882__3_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14882__4_000", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "I don\u2019t really understand what Mr. Rosenfeld just said about whether there is or is not a cut off period, but I submit that my case is now made that there is a confusion on this point in the State of Arizona.\nNow there certainly is at the very least serious question as to whether there is and we do not have the type of situation that exists in the State of Louisiana.\nUnder those circumstances I simply reiterate my original position and that is, that the election is the thing that raises the constitutional question should be the election that should be the crucial date as of which any prospective decision, any question of prospectivity should be applied.\nI simply reiterate that there is no question, that this does involve an extension of Kramer and Cipriano viewed in any way, whether you take the Kramer dictum or not.\nI suggest to the Court that whether Kramer was a good decision or not in the first place, when you extend that compelling State interest test to real property owners in a general bond election, it involves the same kind of judicial intrusion into the traditional legislative field that this Court happily rejected in other fields in Nebbia versus New York, it should not be done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3356.448, 3367.658, 3377.399, 3397.082, 3408.926], "stop_times": [3367.658, 3377.399, 3397.082, 3408.926, 3430.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3356.448}, "reply_to": "14882__3_029", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14882__4_001", "conversation_id": "14882", "text": "Thank you Mr. Lee, thank you Mr. Rosenfeld.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1066", "start_times": [3430.595, 3432.447], "stop_times": [3432.447, 3435.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.595}, "reply_to": "14882__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_000", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Number 72, Coleman and Steven against Alabama.\nMr. Tarter, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [0.0, 39.293], "stop_times": [39.293, 42.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_001", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nOn July 24, 1966, in the city of Birmingham, Alabama on a dimly lit highway in Jefferson County of Alabama, several black individuals attacked a white man and his wife on the side of the road, while they were fixing a flat on their car.\nThese black individuals fired a pistol twice into the body of the gentleman fixing the car.\nA passing car coerced the individuals to flee from the scene and on September 29, 1969, approximately 1966 -- I beg your pardon approximately 2 months later, they were arrested.\nThey were interrogated.\nThey were placed in a line up.\nThey were taken before a magistrate for a preliminary hearing.\nThey were arraigned, they were tried, they were convicted just this case has sort his way to this Court.\nThe question is whether or not the preliminary hearing is a critical stage in the proceedings of a criminal case, requiring the presence of counsel.\nHowever, the real case here, real issue here if with regard to a poor man being a defendant in a preliminary hearing.\nThe Sixth Amendment says, \u201cIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.\u201d\nAnd I suggest to you there weren't not for the fact that these defendants are poor, they would not be here today.\nThe Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment to mean that counsel is needed at the accusatory stage, at the interrogation, at the lineup, at the arraignment, at the trial, at the appeal, at the probation hearing.\nBut it has excused and ignored the preliminary hearing, which is probably the most single, most important phase of criminal procedure.\nIn my county, these defendants could be tried at the county courthouse without a lawyer at the preliminary hearing.\nThey could walk three blocks down the street and have a lawyer at the preliminary hearing at the federal court.\nTo me that is not equal and exact justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [42.798, 52.367, 88.583, 107.381, 131.747, 134.278, 136.896, 142.475, 152.102, 166.59, 179.119, 192.852, 200.179, 212.445, 224.597, 237.087, 244.707], "stop_times": [52.367, 88.583, 107.381, 131.747, 134.278, 136.896, 142.475, 152.102, 166.59, 179.119, 192.852, 200.179, 212.445, 224.597, 237.087, 244.707, 248.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 42.798}, "reply_to": "15220__0_000", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_002", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You got to tell us, I hope -- what's your argument?\nJust what is the function of a preliminary hearing in your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [248.612, 253.148], "stop_times": [253.148, 257.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.612}, "reply_to": "15220__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_003", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [257.634], "stop_times": [257.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.634}, "reply_to": "15220__0_002", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_004", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "-- brief and what happens there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [257.802], "stop_times": [259.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.802}, "reply_to": "15220__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_005", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Getting to it right -- in just a moment, if Your Honor please I've listed 17 reasons in my brief.\nThe Court in the past has refused to call the preliminary hearing critical because a plea was not required, in White versus Maryland once again in Pointer versus Texas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [259.461, 266.962], "stop_times": [266.962, 280.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.461}, "reply_to": "15220__0_004", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_006", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Now, let me clear up one thing from my own situation.\nAt the time the -- an accused or a person goes to preliminary hearing in Alabama, is he then a defendant as any charge been launched against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [280.701, 285.646], "stop_times": [285.646, 297.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.701}, "reply_to": "15220__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_007", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nA warrant has obtained after his arrest.\nHe lodged in the city jail, warrant is obtained after his arrest, he had taken over to the county jail.\nA bond is set by the Sheriff, with the exception of a capital case.\nAnd then he has taken forthwith within ten days before magistrate, usually within ten days, before magistrate and there preliminary hearing is held or resemblance of a preliminary hearing without a lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [297.756, 298.324, 301.155, 307.017, 311.403], "stop_times": [298.324, 301.155, 307.017, 311.403, 323.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.756}, "reply_to": "15220__0_006", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_008", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "This is -- this is not the same minimal.\nIt was before the Court in Hamilton against Alabama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [323.876, 326.089], "stop_times": [326.089, 328.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.876}, "reply_to": "15220__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_009", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's a very confusing case, if Your Honor please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [328.464], "stop_times": [329.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.464}, "reply_to": "15220__0_008", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_010", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That was an arraignment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [329.63], "stop_times": [330.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.63}, "reply_to": "15220__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_011", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "-- they called in an arraignment and then the Court talks about a preliminary hearing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [330.818], "stop_times": [334.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.818}, "reply_to": "15220__0_010", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_012", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But there was in fact an arraignment at the indictment, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [334.384], "stop_times": [336.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.384}, "reply_to": "15220__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_013", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It wasn't arraigned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [336.965], "stop_times": [338.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.965}, "reply_to": "15220__0_012", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_014", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "After indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [338.025], "stop_times": [338.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.025}, "reply_to": "15220__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_015", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [338.795], "stop_times": [339.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.795}, "reply_to": "15220__0_014", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_016", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Or information.\nThis is quite different and this is pre indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [339.15, 339.867], "stop_times": [339.867, 343.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.15}, "reply_to": "15220__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_017", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThis is the preliminary hearing, which after preliminary hearing comes the grand jury action, then comes the indictment, then comes the arraignment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [343.142, 344.955], "stop_times": [344.955, 352.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.142}, "reply_to": "15220__0_016", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_018", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [352.814], "stop_times": [353.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.814}, "reply_to": "15220__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_019", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Then comes the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [353.199], "stop_times": [354.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.199}, "reply_to": "15220__0_018", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_020", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And was the arraignment that was involved in Hamilton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [354.035], "stop_times": [356.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.035}, "reply_to": "15220__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_021", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [356.323], "stop_times": [356.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.323}, "reply_to": "15220__0_020", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_022", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "All right, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [356.653], "stop_times": [360.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.653}, "reply_to": "15220__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_023", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It's understandable however that the Hamilton case is confusing, because of the preliminary -- being called a preliminary hearing and really is not, it's an arraignment, where plea is required.\nOur statute is very similar to the statute in the case of Pointer versus -- in Texas, in the case of Pointer versus Texas.\nThere the Court said, the preliminary hearing is not a critical stage, because a plea was not required, almost a verbatim statement as within the White case.\nHowever, the Court said and I quote from their opinion, \u201cWhether there might be other circumstances making a preliminary hearing, so critical as a defendant, as to call for an appointment of counsel.\u201d\nAt that stage we need not decide on this record and that question we reserve.\nIt is the question which you have decided in -- which you have reserved in Pointer versus Texas that we raise here.\nTo answer Mr. Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart, we would say the -- all for these reasons as to why preliminary hearing is important and encompasses more than simply probably cause or whether or not a plea is required.\nOne, it is the first opportunity that the defendant has to be adequately informed by an allegedly impartial person of that which he is charged.\nTwo, it is the first opportunity to be confronted by those who will testify against him.\nThree, it is the first opportunity to examine those who will testify against him and have their testimony reduced to writing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [360.304, 370.369, 377.326, 386.484, 396.702, 401.748, 409.312, 428.236, 437.205, 442.003], "stop_times": [370.369, 377.326, 386.484, 396.702, 401.748, 409.312, 428.236, 437.205, 442.003, 449.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.304}, "reply_to": "15220__0_022", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_024", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, let me ask this if I may interrupt, did you say to examine the witnesses against him?\nDo you mean by that the witnesses who are produced at the hearing or all witnesses who will be produced at the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [449.023, 456.665], "stop_times": [456.665, 462.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.023}, "reply_to": "15220__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_025", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "All other witnesses produced at the hearing and all of the witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant to testify in his own behalf.\nAnd any other witnesses that counsel can find the subpoena ought to have present at the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [462.734, 469.427], "stop_times": [469.427, 476.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.734}, "reply_to": "15220__0_024", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_026", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In this respect then its parallels of the federal situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [476.973], "stop_times": [481.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.973}, "reply_to": "15220__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_027", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn the sense that -- in a federal court, obviously the reason why preliminary hearings are not held, numerous preliminary hearing are not held, because of the liberal discovery rules and in the federal court.\nHowever, in the state court, there practically no discovery rules whatsoever.\nWhen a lawyer is appointed, such as I was in this case.\nJust before the arraignment, find absolutely nothing about the case, nothing. As a matter of fact, I was appointed the day before the case was arraigned and this was a case of great publicity.\nThey were out for two months, before they were arrested.\nNewspaper headlines for weeks and days and months, until they were arrested.\nPeople were upset.\nMoney was solicited by groups to help pay for the hospital bill and these old things of the victim's and it was a heinous and terrible crime.\nBut the point is that I had nothing -- I couldn't even talk to the witness, until the day the motions were tried before his Honor Judge Gideon, who phoned the direction to the District Attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [481.187, 481.951, 494.39, 498.936, 502.173, 512.672, 515.666, 520.756, 522.296, 534.378], "stop_times": [481.951, 494.39, 498.936, 502.173, 512.672, 515.666, 520.756, 522.296, 534.378, 545.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.187}, "reply_to": "15220__0_026", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_028", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, are you suggesting that the Alabama Statute contemplates that the preliminary hearing is to be a discovery mechanism?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [545.511], "stop_times": [553.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.511}, "reply_to": "15220__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_029", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It says, if Your Honor please, that it is to determine probable cause and to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [553.356], "stop_times": [558.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.356}, "reply_to": "15220__0_028", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_030", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Probable cause for what?\nTo upholding or holding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [558.469, 559.794], "stop_times": [559.794, 561.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.469}, "reply_to": "15220__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_031", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "To bind the defendant over to the grand jury.\nAs Your Honor, is well aware of course probable cause means more than just a brief statement by some individual that an act occurred in a particular venue and jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [561.061, 563.695], "stop_times": [563.695, 573.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.061}, "reply_to": "15220__0_030", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_032", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Mr. Tarter, what's difference between this preliminary hearing and the 937 Hamilton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [573.406], "stop_times": [579.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.406}, "reply_to": "15220__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_033", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In Hamilton, the case was in arraignment and not a preliminary hearing, if Your Honor please.\nIt is confusing, I have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [579.622, 584.749], "stop_times": [584.749, 586.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.622}, "reply_to": "15220__0_032", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_034", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "When is the arraignment, today?\nIs it after the preliminary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [586.589, 587.86], "stop_times": [587.86, 588.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.589}, "reply_to": "15220__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_035", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The arraignment comes after the preliminary hearing and subsequent to the indictment.\nThe arraignment is where the indictment is read to the defendant and a plea is entered at that time.\nBut no lawyer who is ever tried a criminal case in Alabama or anywhere else in a state court, where preliminary hearing is offered.\nWhat they're testifying that is not important.\nIt is probably the single most critical stage of all the proceedings.\nIt reduces a trial to a mere formality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [588.897, 592.732, 598.972, 608.791, 611.888, 617.582], "stop_times": [592.732, 598.972, 608.791, 611.888, 617.582, 623.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.897}, "reply_to": "15220__0_034", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_036", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Now, I want to ask you this question under you're Alabama procedure, could the state bypass the preliminary hearing 1031 go on right before the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [623.166], "stop_times": [635.304], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 623.166}, "reply_to": "15220__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_037", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It could, if Your Honor please.\nIt could do that, however we have introduced into our brief and into the trial of the motion that before his Honor Judge Gibson.\nThat 95% of all cases tried in Jefferson County and -- are taken by way of the preliminary hearing.\nVery, very few, as a matter I can't even remember one, since I've been practicing law, which is five years, where the case was taken directly to the grand jury without going to the preliminary hearings, just a matter of procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [635.304, 636.715, 644.918, 653.687], "stop_times": [636.715, 644.918, 653.687, 667.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.304}, "reply_to": "15220__0_036", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_038", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But it would be up for the states to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [667.169], "stop_times": [669.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 667.169}, "reply_to": "15220__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_039", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "They could do it, yes.\nThey could do it, but if they did, of course in populous county, such as Jefferson County, they might be there five years before they ever got to trial.\nIf every case had to go before the grand jury that upon which a warrant is thrown out on a felony, it's just not possible.\nSo, if the preliminary hearing weaves the cases out, so to speak, before they get to the grand jury. Of course, there's 17 reasons listed in my brief, I -- of course have collected manually, read the brief.\nThere's really no need in my -- just reading out of my brief, the 17 points that just first came into my mind, they're on page 11 and page 12, and page 13 of my brief, which list the many, many reasons for preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [669.855, 671.668, 681.552, 690.968, 707.719], "stop_times": [671.668, 681.552, 690.968, 707.719, 725.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.855}, "reply_to": "15220__0_038", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_040", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I've selected the basis that I heard you said in certain points.\nWhat do write about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [725.466, 729.497], "stop_times": [729.497, 732.495], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 725.466}, "reply_to": "15220__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_041", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Discovery is the most emphasis.\nMotion to suppress many times has been very favorable.\nThe -- in many cases have been dismissed in the preliminary hearing, as a result to motion to suppress.\nTherefore, the man hasn't had to sit in jail, and hasn't had to -- have his liberty restrained over six months or nine months that it takes to get to the trial and to the merits of the issue.\nNot to mention the practical aspect of it that you have a good motion to suppress then the state will let it pass for two years, and then eventually it would be dismissed.\nBut your client and I have several of these as many lawyers do rather than the case just being dismissed.\nBut it is the question reserved in Pointers versus Texas that we applied this particular case to.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [732.495, 735.303, 740.343, 747.338, 757.453, 768.034, 776.784, 784.483], "stop_times": [735.303, 740.343, 747.338, 757.453, 768.034, 776.784, 784.483, 785.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.495}, "reply_to": "15220__0_040", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_042", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What happens, I'm reading the sections of your statutes, on pages 3 and 4 of your brief.\nIt talks about one of the kind that must be discharged, in Section 139, then Section 140.\nIt talks about what happens if probably cause is shown. It must be discharged on bail, if he could make bail and -- but if a sufficient bail is not give, he must be committed to jail, then what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [785.349, 793.162, 799.78], "stop_times": [793.162, 799.78, 815.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.349}, "reply_to": "15220__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_043", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, then he awaits the action of the grand jury.\nThen the grand jury acts and an indictment is presented, then an arraignment is held.\nAnd counsel appointed if necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [815.451, 818.743, 823.977], "stop_times": [818.743, 823.977, 825.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.451}, "reply_to": "15220__0_042", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_044", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [825.818], "stop_times": [826.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.818}, "reply_to": "15220__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_045", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And then a plea is entered, and then a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [826.73], "stop_times": [828.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.73}, "reply_to": "15220__0_044", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_046", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, of course the grand jury might not indict him too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [828.749], "stop_times": [832.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.749}, "reply_to": "15220__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_047", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, that's possible, it is possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [832.632], "stop_times": [835.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.632}, "reply_to": "15220__0_046", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_048", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Do you have any practice of charges brought by information in your study?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [835.581], "stop_times": [839.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.581}, "reply_to": "15220__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_049", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, just in indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [839.373], "stop_times": [840.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.373}, "reply_to": "15220__0_048", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_050", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Just indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [840.184], "stop_times": [841.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.184}, "reply_to": "15220__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_051", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, it's possible of course, the grand jury wouldn't indict him, but I suggested that if the grand jury would indict him, it would be dismissed at the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [841.54], "stop_times": [849.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.54}, "reply_to": "15220__0_050", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_052", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well probably, but not always.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [849.695], "stop_times": [851.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.695}, "reply_to": "15220__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_053", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, of course we -- anything is possible, I suppose, but several years trying dozen of criminal cases before the preliminary hearing, both of them that are dismissed or simply dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [851.341], "stop_times": [864.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.341}, "reply_to": "15220__0_052", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_054", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But don't they -- don't your grand jury sometimes ignore it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [864.0], "stop_times": [868.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.0}, "reply_to": "15220__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_055", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Our District Attorney controls the grand jury, if Your Honor please, he's the only one in the grand jury room.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [868.21], "stop_times": [872.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.21}, "reply_to": "15220__0_054", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_056", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You're talking the latter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [872.47], "stop_times": [874.66], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 872.47}, "reply_to": "15220__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_057", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [874.66], "stop_times": [875.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.66}, "reply_to": "15220__0_056", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_058", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If your talking about the latter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [875.178], "stop_times": [876.469], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 875.178}, "reply_to": "15220__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_059", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The District Attorney controls the grand jury, he's only one in the grand jury, it's his witnesses that testify before the grand jury.\nSo, I would be shocked and amazed that if the case were dismissed by the preliminary hearing magistrate that the case will be picked up by the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [876.469, 883.547], "stop_times": [883.547, 892.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.469}, "reply_to": "15220__0_058", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_060", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, I mean opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [892.541], "stop_times": [893.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.541}, "reply_to": "15220__0_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_061", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Or the opposite, just the opposite, both of them would be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [893.9], "stop_times": [898.164], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 893.9}, "reply_to": "15220__0_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_062", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What's the -- or roughly what's the 1502 of time between preliminary hearing and the grand jury action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [898.164], "stop_times": [909.691], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 898.164}, "reply_to": "15220__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_063", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Anywhere from 30 to 90 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [909.691], "stop_times": [913.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.691}, "reply_to": "15220__0_062", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_064", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And is the defendant entitled to bail 1517?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [913.103], "stop_times": [918.475], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 913.103}, "reply_to": "15220__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__0_065", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, that's another question, he is entitled to bail of course.\nMy client is a -- due to the publicity case, had $20,000.00 bond set on both of them at the preliminary hearing without a lawyer, they have been sitting in jail, since July 29th -- I mean since September 29, 1969.\nOf course, they couldn't make a $200.00 bond, but a $20,000.00 bond on each of them.\nOf course, they had no counsel at the preliminary hearing.\nIf they have had counsel at the preliminary hearing, this case very well could have been won, if you read my brief carefully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [918.475, 921.504, 935.575, 944.068, 946.444], "stop_times": [921.504, 935.575, 944.068, 946.444, 953.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.475}, "reply_to": "15220__0_064", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_066", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Can you tell me why the testimony of the preliminary hearing is then described and what is done with it after it goes to the clerk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [953.459], "stop_times": [964.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.459}, "reply_to": "15220__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_067", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's an unusual thing, Justice Black probably is aware of this.\nWhat is over 75 years we've had a statute which requires that the transcript be -- the testimony be transcribed, recorded and certified to the circuit court, it has never been done, ever. It is completely ignored, as a matter of fact I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [964.534, 967.719], "stop_times": [967.719, 983.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 964.534}, "reply_to": "15220__0_066", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_068", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It's never -- as far as you know, that has never gone to the grand jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [983.802], "stop_times": [987.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.802}, "reply_to": "15220__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_069", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Never gone to the grand jury, and we as defense lawyers pay for Court reporter to go to the preliminary hearing and record the testimony and use it later on, in view of the statute.\nTheir statute offered a corporal punishment, for his -- Honor, failing to record and transcribe this testimony, unfortunately I had never had encourage enough to enforce them.\nBut this is not only true in Alabama, it isn't true in many other states, things such as this being ignored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [987.656, 1000.063, 1011.457], "stop_times": [1000.063, 1011.457, 1017.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.656}, "reply_to": "15220__0_068", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_070", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If you want the testimony, you get it, take it yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1017.993], "stop_times": [1022.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.993}, "reply_to": "15220__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_071", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1022.276], "stop_times": [1023.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.276}, "reply_to": "15220__0_070", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_072", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If I would give --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1023.416], "stop_times": [1024.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.416}, "reply_to": "15220__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_073", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If I had been there, if I've got appointed at the preliminary hearing, I would have paid for out of my own pocket and had one made in this case, as I did in another case.\nNow, I represent no group, and I represent no organization.\nI represent my client, period from the beginning to the end in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1024.069, 1032.333, 1034.898], "stop_times": [1032.333, 1034.898, 1039.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.069}, "reply_to": "15220__0_072", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_074", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Is that in transcript, when you make that your own instance have official status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1039.247], "stop_times": [1045.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.247}, "reply_to": "15220__0_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_075", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, because I bring the Court reporter and testify to its validity, you see.\nIt does not have official status, in the sense that it's a part of the Court record.\nOnly when I introduce an evidence and prove its validity and accuracy.\nBut then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1045.627, 1049.441, 1052.557, 1057.792], "stop_times": [1049.441, 1052.557, 1057.792, 1058.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.627}, "reply_to": "15220__0_074", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_076", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Is it done by the court reporter, the official court reporter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1058.281], "stop_times": [1061.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.281}, "reply_to": "15220__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_077", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, it is.\nOne of official --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1061.148, 1062.53], "stop_times": [1062.53, 1063.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.148}, "reply_to": "15220__0_076", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_078", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The state ever -- doesn't the state ever record these --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1063.01], "stop_times": [1065.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.01}, "reply_to": "15220__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__0_079", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, and they try to get my copy, once get it done.\nAs a matter of fact, let me -- it's really ridiculous and it's a vicious circle, so to speak, but let me give you a primary example of a preliminary hearing, which occurred three weeks ago with permission on the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1065.951, 1069.693], "stop_times": [1069.693, 1083.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.951}, "reply_to": "15220__0_078", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_080", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "We'll hear that after lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1083.74], "stop_times": [1086.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.74}, "reply_to": "15220__0_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_081", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1086.018], "stop_times": [1093.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.018}, "reply_to": "15220__0_080", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_082", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You may proceed Mr. Tarter.\nMr. Chief Justice, members of the Supreme Court.\nOver three minutes of my time, the first 20 minutes has expired now, I haven't even gotten to the second point here.\nHowever, I was about to tell you a case, I will say it is a preliminarily.\nThe state contends that the preliminary hearing is not critical, counsel is not necessary, you will have a note from my brief that the state always has counsel present at the preliminary hearing.\nThey always have counsel present to represent them and to examine the witnesses at the preliminary hearing.\nNow, my clients did not have counsel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1093.989, 1095.769, 1100.844, 1106.885, 1113.3, 1122.508, 1128.133], "stop_times": [1095.769, 1100.844, 1106.885, 1113.3, 1122.508, 1128.133, 1129.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.989}, "reply_to": "15220__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__0_083", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "They always do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1129.454], "stop_times": [1130.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.454}, "reply_to": "15220__0_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__0_084", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "They always do, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1130.691], "stop_times": [1132.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.691}, "reply_to": "15220__0_083", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_085", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "How long is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1132.272], "stop_times": [1134.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.272}, "reply_to": "15220__0_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__0_086", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Ever since I can remember, if Your Honor please, of course I can remember back when you were District Attorney, but I believe as a Solicitor.\nHowever, Mr. Bettor informed me that it was during his time, as far as he can remember.\nNow, as I say it is, this case was brought home to me and it's supporters --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1134.512, 1143.21, 1153.496], "stop_times": [1143.21, 1153.496, 1157.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.512}, "reply_to": "15220__0_085", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_087", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If you pardon me this, I think I established it when I was Solicitor, but having attorneys present in riming at the preliminary trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1157.533], "stop_times": [1168.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.533}, "reply_to": "15220__0_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__0_088", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Defense lawyers, judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1168.954], "stop_times": [1170.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.954}, "reply_to": "15220__0_087", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_089", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I -- I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1170.874], "stop_times": [1173.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.874}, "reply_to": "15220__0_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__0_090", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Defense lawyers or District Attorneys?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1173.007], "stop_times": [1174.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.007}, "reply_to": "15220__0_089", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_091", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1174.823], "stop_times": [1175.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.823}, "reply_to": "15220__0_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__0_092", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Defense lawyers or Solicitors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1175.422], "stop_times": [1178.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.422}, "reply_to": "15220__0_091", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_093", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Prosecuting Attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1178.745], "stop_times": [1179.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.745}, "reply_to": "15220__0_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__0_094", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Prosecuting Attorney, we have two full-time prosecuting attorneys at the preliminary hearing at Birmingham now.\nAs I've said, this case was brought home to me, the importance that it was brought home to me three weeks ago.\nMy client in this case, did not have counsel.\nThree weeks ago, at a preliminary hearing, which was held some times of a point in the trial, I was present, we examined the witnesses.\nWe record and transcribe the testimony, only two witnesses appear against my client in that particular matter, we recorded it.\nSubsequent to that, nine months later, when we got the trial of the case, one of the witnesses for the state did not appear.\nHe had a record.\nHe did not appear to testify against the defendant.\nOne witness did, he had forgotten what he said at the preliminary hearing.\nWe had it transcribed and record it.\nHe got up and committed perjury on the witness stand, in an effort to convict the defendants.\nThis is clear, its a matter of record, but with the transcript of the preliminary hearing, my client was found not guilty, only because of the transcript.\nWithout the transcript, he would then in penitentiary today, there's no doubt, no question about it, whatsoever.\nGetting three experience lawyers, in the city of Birmingham, with about 60 or 70 years total experience, between the 3 of them, testified that in their opinion the preliminary hearing was a critical stage in Alabama.\nThe attorney -- Assistant Attorney General who argued case before the Court of Appeals of Alabama, admitted before the Court of Appeals that the criminal -- that the preliminary hearing in the State of Alabama is a critical stage to the proceedings.\nHe's no longer with the Attorney General's office.\nGetting on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1179.693, 1187.782, 1194.763, 1197.373, 1205.417, 1213.681, 1221.198, 1221.847, 1224.929, 1228.546, 1231.086, 1235.38, 1244.286, 1253.016, 1268.129, 1282.217, 1286.104], "stop_times": [1187.782, 1194.763, 1197.373, 1205.417, 1213.681, 1221.198, 1221.847, 1224.929, 1228.546, 1231.086, 1235.38, 1244.286, 1253.016, 1268.129, 1282.217, 1286.104, 1286.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.693}, "reply_to": "15220__0_093", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_095", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Mr. Tarter, at the preliminary hearing, which is unfamiliar in jurisdiction rights, there the -- all the prosecution would do would be to make a prima facie case and the magistrate wouldn't even hear from the defense witnesses.\nI gather from your statute that yours is quite different, because it imposes the duty upon a magistrate, Section 138 to examine all of the witnesses, having any knowledge of any facts relevant to such investigation, whether such witnesses or some of them behalf of the state or the defendant.\nBut since, you've already told as that at least some of these statutes are dead letters.\nI wonder what the actual practices is in your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1286.538, 1301.982, 1318.521, 1322.872], "stop_times": [1301.982, 1318.521, 1322.872, 1325.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.538}, "reply_to": "15220__0_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_096", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The actual practice is to allow the defendant to subpoena witnesses and put them on for himself.\nAnd for the state -- the state may put on one or two witnesses.\nThey may have a list of witnesses that they have subpoenaed.\nIf they don't put them on, I do and examine them and get their statement down on a type-written record.\nMost every lawyer that I know -- This true in many, many parts of the countries that I've been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1325.469, 1332.429, 1336.084, 1339.273, 1345.56], "stop_times": [1332.429, 1336.084, 1339.273, 1345.56, 1349.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.469}, "reply_to": "15220__0_095", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_097", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Even your own witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1349.82], "stop_times": [1350.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.82}, "reply_to": "15220__0_096", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_098", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That I've been to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1350.24], "stop_times": [1351.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.24}, "reply_to": "15220__0_097", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_099", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Even your own witnesses --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1351.126], "stop_times": [1352.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.126}, "reply_to": "15220__0_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_100", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Even -- well, I may not put on my own witnesses.\nNo, I probably don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1352.206, 1354.524], "stop_times": [1354.524, 1355.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.206}, "reply_to": "15220__0_099", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_101", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, its Section 138 says it's the duty of the magistrate to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1355.808], "stop_times": [1359.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.808}, "reply_to": "15220__0_100", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_102", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, he can call him if he wishes to, but I don't subpoena --unless I have an excellent case, if Your Honor please, I don't subpoena witnesses --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1359.236], "stop_times": [1366.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.236}, "reply_to": "15220__0_101", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_103", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, it wouldn't occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1366.076], "stop_times": [1367.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.076}, "reply_to": "15220__0_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_104", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1367.516], "stop_times": [1367.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.516}, "reply_to": "15220__0_103", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_105", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It wouldn't be tactically very --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1367.914], "stop_times": [1369.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.914}, "reply_to": "15220__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__0_106", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It wouldn't be tactically correct, that's right.\nI don't put on my witnesses, but I do put on their witnesses if they don't.\nBut my time is up for the 20 minutes, but I haven't gotten to the identification question.\nBut, if you can visualize an answer to your question, the Court in there, the judge and the magistrate attempts, when he does not have a lawyer to try and convince him that he should waive to the grand jury and not examine the witnesses.\nIf you can visualize a magistrate with a prosecutor and the witnesses, and the defendant know nothing about the law, whatsoever.\nAll he can think of is to get out of jail.\nSo, he see if he go to the grand jury, he gets out there much quicker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1369.311, 1371.648, 1377.768, 1382.334, 1400.53, 1407.493, 1410.369], "stop_times": [1371.648, 1377.768, 1382.334, 1400.53, 1407.493, 1410.369, 1419.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1369.311}, "reply_to": "15220__0_105", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__0_107", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Mr. Clark.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1419.613], "stop_times": [1421.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.613}, "reply_to": "15220__0_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__1_000", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nOnly matter had been discussed so far and that is the question of preliminary hearing in Alabama.\nI would like to take issue with my opponent on that.\nThe preliminary hearing in Alabama is one of these things in which an accused may ask for a preliminary hearing.\nNow, when there is preliminary hearing, the magistrate looks into the matter.\nFirst, at the time whenever an offense has been committed and then if the probable cause that the person there committed the offense.\nAnd then, if that be so, it is such a matter, which is subject to bail.\nNow, in the largest cities, right they are in a place that preliminary is used in Alabama.\nAnd the reason for that is, these accused want to get out on bail, that's their avenue to get bail in Alabama, is what it amounts to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1421.061, 1426.081, 1433.859, 1437.944, 1448.202, 1453.445, 1462.702, 1469.302, 1478.372], "stop_times": [1426.081, 1433.859, 1437.944, 1448.202, 1453.445, 1462.702, 1469.302, 1478.372, 1488.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1421.061}, "reply_to": "15220__0_107", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_001", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Doesn't anybody get out on bail, except in the big cities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1488.717], "stop_times": [1492.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.717}, "reply_to": "15220__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_002", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Oh, if they wanted and they can request.\nThat's what it said, they may request a preliminary in any thought of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1492.232, 1494.13], "stop_times": [1494.13, 1499.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1492.232}, "reply_to": "15220__1_001", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_003", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well in this case, did the petitioner asked for a preliminary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1499.29], "stop_times": [1502.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.29}, "reply_to": "15220__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_004", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He did ask for preliminary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1502.525], "stop_times": [1504.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1502.525}, "reply_to": "15220__1_003", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_005", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He asked for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1504.085], "stop_times": [1504.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.085}, "reply_to": "15220__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_006", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I think that is correct sir. He asked for a preliminary hearing and it was had on October 14, 1966.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1504.925], "stop_times": [1513.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1504.925}, "reply_to": "15220__1_005", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_007", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The record will show that he asked for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1513.098], "stop_times": [1515.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.098}, "reply_to": "15220__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_008", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I think that is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1515.498], "stop_times": [1519.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1515.498}, "reply_to": "15220__1_007", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_009", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But he didn't have a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1519.038], "stop_times": [1520.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.038}, "reply_to": "15220__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_010", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Without the preliminary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1520.058], "stop_times": [1524.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.058}, "reply_to": "15220__1_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_011", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You may, you could file a -- and get that and they would say they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1524.604], "stop_times": [1528.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1524.604}, "reply_to": "15220__1_010", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_012", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Was their rule that doesn't have preliminary you can not get --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1528.384], "stop_times": [1534.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.384}, "reply_to": "15220__1_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_013", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It could be said by the judge or the clerk of the Court sometime in the small amount of misdemeanors and so forth, but if a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1534.148], "stop_times": [1543.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1534.148}, "reply_to": "15220__1_012", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_014", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You said that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1543.508], "stop_times": [1544.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.508}, "reply_to": "15220__1_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_015", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "A serious offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1544.348], "stop_times": [1545.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1544.348}, "reply_to": "15220__1_014", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_016", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The reason they have under, is to bail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1545.188], "stop_times": [1547.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.188}, "reply_to": "15220__1_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_017", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Is to get bail in a more serious offense.\nThis one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1547.108, 1549.667], "stop_times": [1549.667, 1549.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1547.108}, "reply_to": "15220__1_016", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_018", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Why -- why is that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1549.847], "stop_times": [1553.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1549.847}, "reply_to": "15220__1_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_019", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "To get -- that's the only way they can get it in a most -- the law said to that sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1553.627], "stop_times": [1559.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1553.627}, "reply_to": "15220__1_018", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_020", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The law says that unless you have a preliminary hearing, no bail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1559.507], "stop_times": [1563.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.507}, "reply_to": "15220__1_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_021", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, it sets out the Title 15, Section 138 and 139-40, I think sets out the ways of having a preliminary hearing to set bail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1563.167], "stop_times": [1577.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.167}, "reply_to": "15220__1_020", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_022", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "100 -- 140, on page of 4 of the petitioner's brief, is the one that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1577.267], "stop_times": [1581.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.267}, "reply_to": "15220__1_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_023", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1581.527], "stop_times": [1581.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1581.527}, "reply_to": "15220__1_022", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_024", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Imposes the duty to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1581.957], "stop_times": [1583.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.957}, "reply_to": "15220__1_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_025", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If it's a bailable offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1583.577], "stop_times": [1583.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1583.577}, "reply_to": "15220__1_024", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_026", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The large amounts bail payments --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1583.937], "stop_times": [1585.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.937}, "reply_to": "15220__1_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_027", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I thought your friend told us that sheriff occasionally set bail?\nIs that just in minor offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1585.925, 1589.164], "stop_times": [1589.164, 1591.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.925}, "reply_to": "15220__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__1_028", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's in very minor misdemeanor cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1591.431], "stop_times": [1596.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.431}, "reply_to": "15220__1_027", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_029", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "One of the -- what was indicated to -- I want to know that the prosecutor could pick a case directed to the grand jury rather than having a preliminary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1596.925], "stop_times": [1610.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.925}, "reply_to": "15220__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_030", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If the accused does not asked for a preliminary hearing, Your Honor, then, when the grand jury meets, the matter maybe presented to the grand jury, and indictment returned, and then of course, you have the arraignment entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1610.507], "stop_times": [1627.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1610.507}, "reply_to": "15220__1_029", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_031", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But if the accused said I waived of preliminary hearing, he is also waiving bail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1627.307], "stop_times": [1635.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.307}, "reply_to": "15220__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_032", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In effect, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1635.167], "stop_times": [1636.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1635.167}, "reply_to": "15220__1_031", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_033", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1636.907], "stop_times": [1637.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.907}, "reply_to": "15220__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_034", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1637.447], "stop_times": [1640.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.447}, "reply_to": "15220__1_033", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_035", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Can he secure bail after the indictment, by applying to the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1640.462], "stop_times": [1645.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.462}, "reply_to": "15220__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__1_036", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir, he did.\nUsually, at least going on that when they ask indictment return, the judge sets bail on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1645.082, 1646.273], "stop_times": [1646.273, 1655.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.082}, "reply_to": "15220__1_035", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_037", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "At the time of arraignment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1655.262], "stop_times": [1658.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.262}, "reply_to": "15220__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_038", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, sir.\nThe time of the arraignment, they register a trial then.\nThe arraignment sir is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1658.142, 1658.76, 1663.56], "stop_times": [1658.76, 1663.56, 1665.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.142}, "reply_to": "15220__1_037", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_039", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Where you plead guilty or not guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1665.231], "stop_times": [1666.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.231}, "reply_to": "15220__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_040", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1666.509], "stop_times": [1667.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.509}, "reply_to": "15220__1_039", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_041", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Or it opposed any other defenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1667.349], "stop_times": [1669.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.349}, "reply_to": "15220__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_042", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1669.149], "stop_times": [1670.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1669.149}, "reply_to": "15220__1_041", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_043", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "An answer to an indictment and then the trial starts two minutes after that in your state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1670.589], "stop_times": [1676.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.589}, "reply_to": "15220__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_044", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, sir.\nNot that quickly, but at that time of the arraignment, they could of course, and oppose any pleas they want to put in there in that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1676.649, 1677.189], "stop_times": [1677.189, 1687.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.649}, "reply_to": "15220__1_043", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_045", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Mr. Clark, is there some other reason for the preliminary examination other than bail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1687.616], "stop_times": [1694.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.616}, "reply_to": "15220__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_046", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, If thats the -- if Mr. Tarter pointed out, if there has been on offense committee, if this particular person accused is the one who --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1694.052], "stop_times": [1703.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.052}, "reply_to": "15220__1_045", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_047", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "There is something more than just bail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1703.008], "stop_times": [1704.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.008}, "reply_to": "15220__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_048", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Oh, yes.\nI was about to point out that was one of the things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1704.988, 1705.828], "stop_times": [1705.828, 1715.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.988}, "reply_to": "15220__1_047", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_049", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What about protection about reducing all these to writing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1715.683], "stop_times": [1720.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.683}, "reply_to": "15220__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_050", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That is a matter as Mr. Tarter has pointed out that is required in the code and there is a provision that is not done, the magistrate could be fine.\nNow, that is sometimes done and sometimes it isn't.\nI mean as far as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1720.858, 1732.548, 1735.02], "stop_times": [1732.548, 1735.02, 1736.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.858}, "reply_to": "15220__1_049", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_051", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You mean sometimes it's fine and sometimes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1736.28], "stop_times": [1737.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.28}, "reply_to": "15220__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_052", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, no I -- as a recording of the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1737.96], "stop_times": [1740.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.96}, "reply_to": "15220__1_051", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_053", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I see.\nWhat's the general policy in Birmingham, where these were?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1740.6, 1742.767], "stop_times": [1742.767, 1747.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.6}, "reply_to": "15220__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_054", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I think it is just as Mr. Tarter has pointed out that defense attorneys have it done.\nI do have a case from Birmingham area now, I believe at 2917, the next city, in which a preliminary was had and it was recorded and they used that sometimes to as Mr. Tarter pointed out to impeach a witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1747.207, 1753.595], "stop_times": [1753.595, 1770.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.207}, "reply_to": "15220__1_053", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_055", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But the state didn't provide it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1770.134], "stop_times": [1773.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.134}, "reply_to": "15220__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_056", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1773.614], "stop_times": [1774.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.614}, "reply_to": "15220__1_055", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_057", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Defense --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1774.634], "stop_times": [1775.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.634}, "reply_to": "15220__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_058", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In defense in that case.\nNow,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1775.534, 1777.574], "stop_times": [1777.574, 1777.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.534}, "reply_to": "15220__1_057", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_059", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "This defendant couldn't pay it for, you agree on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1777.88], "stop_times": [1784.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.88}, "reply_to": "15220__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15220__1_060", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I don't know this one matches.\nThat is -- at that time, I think Mr. Tarter said he was Court appointed, so I assumed the man did not have money to pay for it.\nNow, one of the contentions of Mr. Tarter of those 17 contentions, he points out in his brief the reason you should have an attorney is that this matter could be used at the main trail, the evidence had at the preliminary.\nAnd I would like to call the Court's attention to that, if the defendants will not represent by the -- by counsel at preliminary, any statements made by them, so would be inadmissible at the trial.\nNow that's -- appendix page 50 and 69, and record page 74 that was determined three times in the motion to suppress evidence and Mr. Tarter ask those matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1784.104, 1786.084, 1795.505, 1816.912, 1827.329], "stop_times": [1786.084, 1795.505, 1816.912, 1827.329, 1844.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.104}, "reply_to": "15220__1_059", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_061", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Give me those pages again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1844.008], "stop_times": [1845.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.008}, "reply_to": "15220__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__1_062", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAppendix page 50, 69, and then if Your Honors want to use the big transcript record, page 74.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1845.208, 1846.672], "stop_times": [1846.672, 1859.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.208}, "reply_to": "15220__1_061", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_063", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Why was decided by this Court in Pointer against Texas, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1859.748], "stop_times": [1862.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.748}, "reply_to": "15220__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_064", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWell, that was one of the contentions, so that as Mr. Tarter pointed out.\nBut, what I'm saying is that the testimony at the preliminary is only used occasionally to impeach a witness.\nSo, that actually really don't operative.\nNow, I would like to point out that that is would not be in conflict with the Barber versus Page which Mr. Justice Marshall in that particular case, I think they reach some evidence from a preliminary into the main trial.\nI would like to call the Court's attention to pages 7 and 8 of my brief in which I actually quoted the Court of Appeals there, because it's well worded, the purpose of the preliminary.\nI couldn't say it better, I think that covers it, to tell whether an offense has been committed and whether to hold a release the accused and the time of bail in the appropriate cases.\nThose are the purposes of the preliminary.\nI would like now if the Court had no further questions to go on this matter of line of this case the Court subsequent to the ruling in Stovall versus Denno, which declare that any confrontations after I believe June 12, 1967 as that Wade versus -- wade and Gilbert decision were not applicable as far as requiring an attorney.\nThis happened prior to Wade or Gilbert.\nTherefore, this would come up before the Court on the question of whether when at this pretrial lineup, when the defendant did not have counsel, whether based on the totality of the circumstances, the confrontation was such that so suggestive as to a course of misidentification.\nNow, this gets on the matter of totality of circumstances, which to my way of thinking is just does the evidence supported?\nNow reading the case over, the transcript -- I noticed that the first 123 pages and I think the appendix have sites those pages.\nNow, that dealt with a motion to suppress any state once made by the defendants or any statements that the detectives who interrogate defendants would testify to.\nAs well as any identification by case, Casey Frank Reynolds, the prosecuting witness in this case.\nNow, the state confess the motion as to any confessions or statements made to the detective and any statements made by the defendants in this case.\nThere were two defendants trying to join in the incident.\nThey confessed these motions, so the only thing that the Court overruled was the part about permitting Mr. Reynolds to testify as to identification.\nNow the -- that brings us really to the merits of the case, which is from record page 123 through 240 in the large record, which I understand the Court in addition to the little appendix we looked at.\nBriefly, this case was one in which a man and his wife had been to Coleman, Alabama on a Sunday.\nI believe it was July 24, 1966, they were returning to their home in Bluff Park which is a suburb in Birmingham, they had a flat tire.\nThe man got out to change the flat, while he was crashed over changing the tire, three men came cross, fired a shot, the first hit him in the neck.\nAnd then, one grabbed his wife and he said that he was about three feet away from the man who grabbed his wife and he saw his face clearly, that was John Henry Coleman, he identified him at the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [1862.634, 1865.214, 1870.857, 1879.417, 1882.177, 1903.657, 1919.707, 1931.587, 1940.594, 1973.414, 1978.567, 2007.492, 2018.975, 2045.99, 2059.09, 2069.05, 2087.161, 2090.53, 2105.443, 2125.666, 2135.284, 2145.678, 2158.596], "stop_times": [1865.214, 1870.857, 1879.417, 1882.177, 1903.657, 1919.707, 1931.587, 1940.594, 1973.414, 1978.567, 2007.492, 2018.975, 2045.99, 2059.09, 2069.05, 2087.161, 2090.53, 2105.443, 2125.666, 2135.284, 2145.678, 2158.596, 2173.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.634}, "reply_to": "15220__1_063", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_065", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What are you arguing now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2173.843], "stop_times": [2175.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.843}, "reply_to": "15220__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__1_066", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "On the merits of the case, to show that the lineup was alright.\nI don't know really many ways to show the lineup was properly, except these ways.\nI want to show that the identification, in Court identification was based on something other than viewing the lineup.\nTherefore, if the Court will indulge from a minute, I'll go into this.\nNow, he stated that about this time, another car came by the lights flashed, and these three men ramped across the road and as one, was about ten feet away from him, facing him.\nHe took a pistol and shot him, he said, \u201cI recognize that man who shot me as Ode Stevens and that I saw his face,\u201d and that's in the record.\nNow, Mr. Casey Frank Stevens was in the hospital for about eight or nine days.\nThey took him to a hospital and forcing his life safe.\nNow, in September, I believe the 29th, the police brought in several suspects.\nThey called Mr. Reynolds to come and look at the lineup.\nThere is a little discussion about whether they told him that these were or some of the people who shot him or not.\nHe said that he doesn't recall telling him that, but he assumed that that was on the purpose the least would have to call him if he had done nothing, no violation of the law in his part.\nSo, he went down there, they brought these men in the lineup, and I understand the lineup in the Birmingham area, there's a stand about four feet high and the man used the people come by.\nHe was there, by himself and incidentally there were no other prosecuting witnesses there to compare notes as to this one, as the one or what not, the case of Frank Reynolds.\nWell, the first man he saw, he said, \u201cThat's the man who shot me,\u201d identified Ode Stevens.\nThen they had the other ones lined up, there were six of them.\nFrom this lineup, he picked two of the men who had been in the assault, with intent to murder at the night of July the 24th.\nNow, I would like to call the Court's attention to appendix page 88 and 89.\nThere were six men in this lineup, Ode Stevens, if you will notice was 6'2\u201d, weighed a 173 lbs.\nThey had three men of approximately the six feet arrived in the same weight and size.\nNow, Coleman on the other hand, was a short man, five foot four and half inches tall.\nThey had three man of his approximate size, one was five foot seven, one was five eight, and goes Coleman.\nThis -- a reason I point that out gentlemen so many cases are reversed, because you might have something like this, the prosecuting witness would say, well he was a bald headed man, so they bring in three or four people.\nOne is bald headed, and the other three have a lot of hair, well he says well that's the one who did it, but what I'm pointing out here is these were the same size and types of people.\nNow, there is only one possible flow, and I don't think that's a flaw in it.\nColeman, one of the defendants had on a hat.\nNow, there was no testimony at the trial on the motion to suppress as to the fact who caused him to wear this hat, did the police require him to?\nHe wore a hat at the time of the assault, somewhere in the -- we have just to apply common sense, what was his hat is up to and did he wear a hat all the time?\nNow, or did somebody require to put it on.\nNow, he testified on the motion to suppress.\nHe testified again on the -- its principle trial I believe -- no where in there did he say, \u201cThey forced me to put on a hat.\u201d\nHe had able counsel at this trial 4121, they didn't bring it up.\nSo, it might be assumed that he wore a hat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2175.763, 2181.045, 2188.378, 2200.23, 2204.251, 2218.996, 2231.811, 2238.094, 2243.674, 2251.829, 2260.949, 2267.998, 2280.038, 2296.118, 2305.898, 2317.594, 2322.514, 2333.749, 2344.009, 2359.376, 2367.479, 2375.939, 2389.259, 2406.934, 2418.085, 2424.565, 2430.679, 2446.159, 2458.922, 2462.348, 2466.666, 2478.684, 2486.958], "stop_times": [2181.045, 2188.378, 2200.23, 2204.251, 2218.996, 2231.811, 2238.094, 2243.674, 2251.829, 2260.949, 2267.998, 2280.038, 2296.118, 2305.898, 2317.594, 2322.514, 2333.749, 2344.009, 2359.376, 2367.479, 2375.939, 2389.259, 2406.934, 2418.085, 2424.565, 2430.679, 2446.159, 2458.922, 2462.348, 2466.666, 2478.684, 2486.958, 2489.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.763}, "reply_to": "15220__1_065", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_067", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Where did this lineup take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2489.617], "stop_times": [2491.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.617}, "reply_to": "15220__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_068", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In Birmingham.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2491.602], "stop_times": [2492.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.602}, "reply_to": "15220__1_067", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_069", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, in Birmingham, but where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2492.502], "stop_times": [2494.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.502}, "reply_to": "15220__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_070", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And I believe in the city jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2494.149], "stop_times": [2496.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.149}, "reply_to": "15220__1_069", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_071", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Inside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2496.429], "stop_times": [2497.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.429}, "reply_to": "15220__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_072", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes sir, it was inside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2497.179], "stop_times": [2498.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.179}, "reply_to": "15220__1_071", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_073", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Four walls and a roof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2498.049], "stop_times": [2499.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.049}, "reply_to": "15220__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_074", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, as I point out there was -- they're saying about four feet high that they walked across this stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2499.789], "stop_times": [2505.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.789}, "reply_to": "15220__1_073", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_075", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In a room, inside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2505.009], "stop_times": [2505.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.009}, "reply_to": "15220__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_076", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In a room, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2505.759], "stop_times": [2508.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.759}, "reply_to": "15220__1_075", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_077", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What building did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2508.219], "stop_times": [2509.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.219}, "reply_to": "15220__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__1_078", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I believe it was Birmingham jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2509.911], "stop_times": [2512.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.911}, "reply_to": "15220__1_077", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_079", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Birmingham jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2512.491], "stop_times": [2513.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.491}, "reply_to": "15220__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__1_080", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes sir, in Birmingham.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2513.268], "stop_times": [2515.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.268}, "reply_to": "15220__1_079", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_081", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And does the record show, what kind of a hat this was, this man wore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2515.008], "stop_times": [2519.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.008}, "reply_to": "15220__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__1_082", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, sir.\nIt didn't say whether it's felt straw or what, I just said a hat.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2519.328, 2519.544, 2522.484], "stop_times": [2519.544, 2522.484, 2523.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.328}, "reply_to": "15220__1_081", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_083", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Was it -- does it show that was the same hat that he was wearing at the time of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2523.54], "stop_times": [2526.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.54}, "reply_to": "15220__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_084", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No sir, if that were (Voice Overlap).\nHe just said he have a hat and it's Mr. (Inaudible), Reynolds said that he had the hat down over his face, so he couldn't see his face and he asked him to move his hat back and followed it, which he did and then, I believe he took it off.\nAnd an identification was made, Mr. Reynolds said he thought that was the man as he thought with to make his identification part, that he had to remove his hat back, so he could see his face, that is in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2526.786, 2530.386, 2545.555], "stop_times": [2530.386, 2545.555, 2556.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.786}, "reply_to": "15220__1_083", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_085", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Move his hat down, down (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2556.377], "stop_times": [2558.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.377}, "reply_to": "15220__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_086", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He see, with hat down first, so he had to move his face, so he had him pushed it to back of his head.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2558.761], "stop_times": [2564.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2558.761}, "reply_to": "15220__1_085", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_087", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And at the time of the offense, was he testified he had it down or up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2564.182], "stop_times": [2569.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.182}, "reply_to": "15220__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_088", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Since you mention, it wouldn't -- he said he saw his face at the time that the Coleman grabbed Mr. Reynolds' wife, and he said he was three feet away from him.\nHe said, \u201cI saw his face.\u201d\nSo, I assume the hat was up and enough so he could see the man's face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2569.942, 2581.444, 2582.446], "stop_times": [2581.444, 2582.446, 2586.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.942}, "reply_to": "15220__1_087", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_089", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "From where, where these man brought into the lineup from -- from where were they brought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2586.734], "stop_times": [2592.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.734}, "reply_to": "15220__1_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_090", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "They were from the Birmingham area, I think they gave their addresses here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2592.745], "stop_times": [2599.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.745}, "reply_to": "15220__1_089", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_091", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, I mean directly, from where -- they came into the lineup, this (Voice Overlap) these petitioners came into the lineup from where?\nFrom outside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2599.449, 2608.263], "stop_times": [2608.263, 2610.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.449}, "reply_to": "15220__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_092", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I know that two or three of them were definitely arrested, let's see -- somewhere in the record, there is a evidence that I believe it was Coleman and Hudges were arrested on escape charges from the city.\nSo, they were brought in, they were arrested, I'm definite with that.\nWhether the other two or three were just people brought in, I believe Robert Steel was also brought in custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2610.523, 2629.958, 2634.183], "stop_times": [2629.958, 2634.183, 2645.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.523}, "reply_to": "15220__1_091", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_093", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, I'm just -- I'm interested in your theory that this man just had a habit of wearing a hat, 24 hours a day, inside, outside, and I just wonder if when they came into the lineup --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2645.587], "stop_times": [2658.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.587}, "reply_to": "15220__1_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_094", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He had a hat on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2658.423], "stop_times": [2659.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.423}, "reply_to": "15220__1_093", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_095", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He had a hat on, where did he come from at that time?\nFrom outside or from the jail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2659.574, 2662.793], "stop_times": [2662.793, 2663.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.574}, "reply_to": "15220__1_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_096", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, he -- no, he was in the jail, inside at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2663.151], "stop_times": [2666.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.151}, "reply_to": "15220__1_095", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_097", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Your suggestion is he just wears a hat all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2666.042], "stop_times": [2669.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.042}, "reply_to": "15220__1_096", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__1_098", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, I realized that's unusual, but some people do have few habits a way -- And as I point out, no way does he say, \u201cThey made me put a hat on.\u201d\nNow, he does say in the record, he said, \u201cThey made me say certain words.\u201d\nHe says, \u201cThey made me say certain words.\"\nThey made Ode Stevens say certain words, and they made Hudges say certain words, none of the others.\nNow, that is a variance with the testimony of Mr. Reynolds prosecuting witness, he said that he wanted them to say something and the police would not let in and those people say a word, the people in the lineup.\nSo, he couldn't identify by the words getting into the woods or anything of that nature.\nNow, I believe Lieutenant Hart, a detective said that he thought all six of them did, but and then I believe another one detective stated that yes, they said that it was after Mr. Reynolds have made the identification.\nNow, we feel that this lineup was fair, that this prosecuting witness made the identification. He saw the people who had shot him, who were involved in that night.\nNow, when he came to trial, we appoint this out that he made his identification, he said, \u201cThose are the men, Stevens is the man that shot me that night, and Coleman is the man that was three feet away from me and grab my wife, I saw both of their faces.\u201d\nSo, what I'm pointing out is that the -- in Court identification was not made from what he had seen at the lineup, but rather what he had seen at the time the assault was committed.\nI feel that on the -- circumstances, that is the real, meaning coconut so to speak is whether or not the identification was based on either some pictures or somebody he saw in the lineup and then he comes into Court and makes an in Court identification of whether it was something separate and apart from the lineup.\nWe maintain here with something separate the border line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2669.315, 2682.014, 2688.967, 2691.116, 2698.933, 2719.248, 2724.335, 2760.158, 2777.998, 2794.503, 2810.03, 2833.545], "stop_times": [2682.014, 2688.967, 2691.116, 2698.933, 2719.248, 2724.335, 2760.158, 2777.998, 2794.503, 2810.03, 2833.545, 2836.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.315}, "reply_to": "15220__1_097", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_099", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What broke up this attemppted to solve --or you attempted to solve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2836.407], "stop_times": [2840.611], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.407}, "reply_to": "15220__1_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__1_100", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "As I pointed out that there was a car coming on to this darken road and lights flashed on these people and the three men who were involved in the assault, rushed across the road and got in their car and left.\nAnd the person who was driving by stopped and picked up this Casey Frank Reynolds and took him to the hospital.\nHe was shot once in the throat and once in the neck.\nThere's a possibility he could have bled to death, as somebody not stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2840.611, 2853.424, 2861.64, 2864.026], "stop_times": [2853.424, 2861.64, 2864.026, 2868.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.611}, "reply_to": "15220__1_099", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_101", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Where did it occur exactly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2868.757], "stop_times": [2871.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.757}, "reply_to": "15220__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__1_102", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "On the Green Springs Highway, which is I'm saying just off a Highway 31 going towards Bluff Park.\nThis is not a well lighted highway, Your Honor.\nProbably know and just candid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2871.694, 2881.688, 2885.305], "stop_times": [2881.688, 2885.305, 2888.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.694}, "reply_to": "15220__1_101", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_103", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In the trial of the case, was there cross examination of the complaining witness as to the source of his identification, whether he recalled the faces from the night of the attack and that typical cross examination of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2888.827], "stop_times": [2909.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.827}, "reply_to": "15220__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__1_104", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI think that was all hand in cross examination.\nIn other words, the defense attorney had every opportunity to cross examination, the Court did not record his cross examination on.\nI feel that just about covers the matter, my time is getting short here.\nIf the court would like to ask me for further question, I would be glad to answer it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2909.254, 2909.49, 2913.071, 2933.292, 2939.508], "stop_times": [2909.49, 2913.071, 2933.292, 2939.508, 2943.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.254}, "reply_to": "15220__1_103", "speaker": "david_w_clark"}
{"id": "15220__1_105", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I think not Mr. Clark, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2943.337], "stop_times": [2953.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.337}, "reply_to": "15220__1_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_000", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "May it please the Court.\nTo answer Mr. Chief Justice's question, with regard to cross examination of the eye witness, it's the first time I ever had an opportunity to see a man in the witness stand that I was not allowed to talk to him anytime before he got on witness stand, at the direction of district attorney.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2953.075, 2957.881, 2975.067], "stop_times": [2957.881, 2975.067, 2975.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2953.075}, "reply_to": "15220__1_105", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_001", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I didn't quite hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2975.187], "stop_times": [2977.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.187}, "reply_to": "15220__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_002", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2977.538], "stop_times": [2978.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2977.538}, "reply_to": "15220__2_001", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_003", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I didn't quite hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2978.014], "stop_times": [2979.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.014}, "reply_to": "15220__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_004", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I said that was the first opportunity I ever had to see the man on the witness stand or to talk to him in any fashion, whatsoever at the direction of the district attorney, would not talk to him beyond any circumstances.\nAnd I tried most vigorous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2979.834, 2994.834], "stop_times": [2994.834, 2997.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2979.834}, "reply_to": "15220__2_003", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_005", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But you did cross examine the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2997.558], "stop_times": [2998.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.558}, "reply_to": "15220__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_006", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I did cross examine him, but what am I to cross examine him with, if Your Honor please, I had no transcript, I had not prior testimony, no statement.\nAny defense lawyer it goes into criminal courtroom without a prior statement of witness, could get on the witness stand and my judgment is negligent, and my judgment is uncommon to examine a witness on the witness stand.\nBut I could not do it, because he did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [2998.739, 3006.484, 3019.048], "stop_times": [3006.484, 3019.048, 3021.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2998.739}, "reply_to": "15220__2_005", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_007", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But if -- of course many times they have to do it without having a prior statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3021.138], "stop_times": [3025.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.138}, "reply_to": "15220__2_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_008", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nUnfortunately that's true and many times some people are convicted and sentenced to jail as a result of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3025.513, 3026.081], "stop_times": [3026.081, 3031.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3025.513}, "reply_to": "15220__2_007", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_009", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Sometimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3031.71], "stop_times": [3032.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.71}, "reply_to": "15220__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_010", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Sometimes, yes sir.\nWith regard to the totality of the circumstances and the lineup being unnecessarily suggested, let's look at that just a moment, about the lineup and whether or not it was unnecessarily suggested.\nThis is in the record, and I hope that the Court will take a careful look at the appendix and at the briefs in this particular case.\nOn at least six different occasions, prior to the lineup, and after viewing mug shots in the sheriff's office, the victims said and I quote, \u201cI don't believe I can identify the people.\u201d\nHe told that the sheriff deputy is this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3032.548, 3038.299, 3051.237, 3060.682, 3076.392], "stop_times": [3038.299, 3051.237, 3060.682, 3076.392, 3079.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3032.548}, "reply_to": "15220__2_009", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_011", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What do you say that was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3079.374], "stop_times": [3081.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.374}, "reply_to": "15220__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_012", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It's in the appendix, if your Honor please, I have it cited numerous time and during the course of my brief.\nHere's the description that he gave the sheriff deputies, not once but several times.\nThey were all black, they were about the same age, and they were about the same height.\nWell, the only thing they had in common, was the fact that they were black, because they were not the same age.\nOne was 18, and was 28, a substantial difference in age.\nOne was six feet, two inches tall and the other one was five feet four inches tall.\nI suggest that there's a substantial difference between six two and five four.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3081.183, 3089.117, 3093.611, 3101.157, 3107.818, 3112.096, 3117.322], "stop_times": [3089.117, 3093.611, 3101.157, 3107.818, 3112.096, 3117.322, 3122.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3081.183}, "reply_to": "15220__2_011", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_013", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Did you put your client on the stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3122.992], "stop_times": [3125.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.992}, "reply_to": "15220__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_014", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "During the trial of the case?\nNo, sir.\nThe case was lost before we walk into the courtrooms, so I didn't put in either one of them on the witness stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3125.978, 3127.516, 3127.998], "stop_times": [3127.516, 3127.998, 3133.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3125.978}, "reply_to": "15220__2_013", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_015", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I wonder why it's lost, while your walking into this courtroom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3133.738], "stop_times": [3137.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.738}, "reply_to": "15220__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_016", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If Your Honor please, the publicity in this case and the fact that we're unable to examine the eye witness in the case, before getting into the courtroom, without any preparation whatsoever, it just -- all we could do was cross examine the eye witness and that was about it.\nWe -- we could not prepare any defense in any way, shape or fashion or form.\nAnd as you very well know, of course it was a heinous crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3137.08, 3159.489, 3165.285], "stop_times": [3159.489, 3165.285, 3168.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3137.08}, "reply_to": "15220__2_015", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_017", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What was the defense, not guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3168.948], "stop_times": [3170.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.948}, "reply_to": "15220__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_018", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The defense was not guilty.\nOne of the defendants, John Henry Coleman, I'm confident was not there that night, the other one, Ode Stevens was in fact there that night.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3170.75, 3172.704], "stop_times": [3172.704, 3179.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3170.75}, "reply_to": "15220__2_017", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_019", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No alibi defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3179.629], "stop_times": [3182.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.629}, "reply_to": "15220__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_020", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He was with his mother and with his sister.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3182.102], "stop_times": [3184.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3182.102}, "reply_to": "15220__2_019", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_021", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Did you put that up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3184.875], "stop_times": [3186.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.875}, "reply_to": "15220__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_022", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, sir.\nI was going on this point and this point from the day that I got into the case to -- I was bound for the Supreme Court of the United States.\nAnd I knew that that was my defense, because two calling people on in a case like this, a mother and a sister saying, \u201cYes, he was at home watching television,\u201d in this case, would have been to say the least feeble.\nAnd I had a preliminary hearing, and had been to preliminary hearing, I feel confident it was been substantially different, as it has in many cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3186.084, 3187.19, 3196.389, 3213.333], "stop_times": [3187.19, 3196.389, 3213.333, 3222.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3186.084}, "reply_to": "15220__2_021", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_023", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What's the purpose of the preliminary hearing, as I understand it is to ascertain whether or not there's probable cause to bring to -- probable cause to think that an offense has been committed and this is the man who committed,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3222.25], "stop_times": [3239.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.25}, "reply_to": "15220__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_024", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3239.453], "stop_times": [3239.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3239.453}, "reply_to": "15220__2_023", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_025", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "-- is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3239.588], "stop_times": [3240.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.588}, "reply_to": "15220__2_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_026", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3240.046], "stop_times": [3240.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3240.046}, "reply_to": "15220__2_025", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_027", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And it's just been an adventitious use of -- by defense counsel that sprung out to take advantage of that for their own benefit, it isn't designed really for the purpose of later impeachment or discovery at the -- or particularly for the purposes of getting a transcript with those witnesses to impeach him later, it's purpose simply is to -- is what I stated, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3240.944], "stop_times": [3267.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.944}, "reply_to": "15220__2_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_028", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "To determine probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3267.831], "stop_times": [3269.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3267.831}, "reply_to": "15220__2_027", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_029", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Right, that an offense has been committed, and if this is the man who has done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3269.606], "stop_times": [3273.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.606}, "reply_to": "15220__2_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_030", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That is correct, that is the primary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3273.451], "stop_times": [3274.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3273.451}, "reply_to": "15220__2_029", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_031", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And if so, then his held for the grand jury and march or not bail for the meantime, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3274.583], "stop_times": [3279.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.583}, "reply_to": "15220__2_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_032", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That is the primary purpose of it, if Your Honor please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3279.803], "stop_times": [3282.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3279.803}, "reply_to": "15220__2_031", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_033", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It's the only purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3282.153], "stop_times": [3284.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.153}, "reply_to": "15220__2_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_034", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What does probable cause consist of, if Your Honor please, probable cause in the motion to suppress, dealing with arrest or search and seizures, an extremely complicated problem, and I'm sure Your Honor would not say that counsel is not necessary in a probable cause situation on a motion to suppress in a confession or in a arrest or in a search and seizure.\nProbable cause many times consist of far more than it consist of jurisdiction or problems, it consist of venue problems, it consist of identification problems, it consists of confessions of illegal obtained evidence, all of this thing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3284.413, 3305.163], "stop_times": [3305.163, 3318.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3284.413}, "reply_to": "15220__2_033", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_035", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But you can move these things later counsel.\nYou can move, following the preliminary hearing motions on all of those subjects, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3318.744, 3321.766], "stop_times": [3321.766, 3328.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.744}, "reply_to": "15220__2_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_036", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes sir, of course my client remains in jail, until we're able to get --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3328.447], "stop_times": [3331.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.447}, "reply_to": "15220__2_035", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_037", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I have not understood your argument to be that if counsel had been there.\nThere would have been any possibility in the world that these man would not have been bound over to the grand jury, I'd understood your argument to be that if counsel had been there, he could have arranged for a transcript of the testimony of the victims, the complaining witnesses to be later at the trial of these people, isn't that your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3331.464, 3338.675], "stop_times": [3338.675, 3359.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.464}, "reply_to": "15220__2_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_038", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That is correct, it could be, but of course it also possible, I suppose anything is possible, that the could have dismissed them, I don't know what this eye witness would have said at the preliminary hearing, ten days after they were arrested, that's what I'm saying.\nI'm saying that six months to nine months later, the eye witness said one thing, none of us are clairvoyant, so we can't say what would have happened at the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3359.173, 3373.821], "stop_times": [3373.821, 3382.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3359.173}, "reply_to": "15220__2_037", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_039", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And you don't know what did happen, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3382.628], "stop_times": [3384.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.628}, "reply_to": "15220__2_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_040", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I don't know what did happen at the preliminary hearing.\nThere's no way to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3384.075, 3387.352], "stop_times": [3387.352, 3388.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3384.075}, "reply_to": "15220__2_039", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_041", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Now, if you prevail here, there cannot possibly be a retrial and another conviction, can it?\nBecause we cannot turn back the clock, we cannot unring the bell, we cannot now provide counsel at that preliminary hearing many years ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3388.596, 3395.063], "stop_times": [3395.063, 3403.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.596}, "reply_to": "15220__2_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_042", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3403.422], "stop_times": [3403.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3403.422}, "reply_to": "15220__2_041", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_043", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "So, this man -- these people have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3403.901], "stop_times": [3404.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.901}, "reply_to": "15220__2_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_044", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The same as -- the same as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3404.847], "stop_times": [3406.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3404.847}, "reply_to": "15220__2_043", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_045", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "-- discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3406.316], "stop_times": [3406.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3406.316}, "reply_to": "15220__2_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_046", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's true as in other case, of course, with this Court have decided.\nThere's no other way, I cannot --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3406.815, 3410.343], "stop_times": [3410.343, 3411.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3406.815}, "reply_to": "15220__2_045", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_047", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What do you have said should be the result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3411.955], "stop_times": [3415.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.955}, "reply_to": "15220__2_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_048", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The result --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3415.966], "stop_times": [3417.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3415.966}, "reply_to": "15220__2_047", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_049", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If this was found, he's entitled to have a lawyer on the preliminary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3417.057], "stop_times": [3422.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3417.057}, "reply_to": "15220__2_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_050", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If he was entitled to have a lawyer in the preliminary hearing, I assert that they should be turned loose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3422.089], "stop_times": [3427.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.089}, "reply_to": "15220__2_049", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_051", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Is that the only alternative you can suggest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3427.626], "stop_times": [3430.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.626}, "reply_to": "15220__2_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_052", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "It's the alternative, only alternative I can see, if Your Honor please, there's no way to give us a new and fresh preliminary hearing.\nIf you could, I really would rather, it would be that way.\nI would give anything in the world, if this Court could give us a new and fresh preliminary hearing.\nBut of course, you cannot do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3430.046, 3437.339, 3440.446, 3445.496], "stop_times": [3437.339, 3440.446, 3445.496, 3448.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3430.046}, "reply_to": "15220__2_051", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_053", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Why not?\nI just suggested that it could not, but why do you think that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3448.093, 3449.435], "stop_times": [3449.435, 3451.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3448.093}, "reply_to": "15220__2_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_054", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, that the testimony is now -- the eye witness is now committed, you see.\nHe's now been -- well, we all know as practicing lawyers that a District Attorney spends a substantial time with the case like this on an eye witness.\nNow, I'm not saying that he told him to say this, but the power of suggestion is a magnificent thing.\nAnd, I'm saying that in this particular case, this witness have said numerous times that he could not identify these people, that he did not believe that he could identify him.\nHe gave a description totally opposite from that of the defendant's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3451.599, 3456.164, 3465.239, 3471.5, 3482.478], "stop_times": [3456.164, 3465.239, 3471.5, 3482.478, 3485.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3451.599}, "reply_to": "15220__2_053", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_055", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Did you offer that evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3485.713], "stop_times": [3487.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3485.713}, "reply_to": "15220__2_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_056", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt's in the record.\nI think, it's in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3487.691, 3488.089, 3489.4], "stop_times": [3488.089, 3489.4, 3489.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3487.691}, "reply_to": "15220__2_055", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_057", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "You offer that evidence, to show the jury that he had made such statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3489.751], "stop_times": [3495.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3489.751}, "reply_to": "15220__2_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_058", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, we did.\nWe offered --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3495.121, 3496.918], "stop_times": [3496.918, 3497.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3495.121}, "reply_to": "15220__2_057", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_059", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Was it admitted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3497.265], "stop_times": [3500.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.265}, "reply_to": "15220__2_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_060", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "As best as I can recall it was -- I think he denied it.\nOr he admit it at the motion to suppress and denied it at the trial, as my best judgment.\nBut, the best example to you, with regard to this state, believing in the confidence of the eyewitness.\nIn answer to your question is believe in the Congress -- they took a boy who was out there that night and granted him immunity and put him on the witness stand, in order to support the testimony of the eyewitness, which says to me they didn't have confidence in the eye witnesses testimony either, but they put him on there when they had him just as much did the right, so to speak on the identification, as they did with the petitioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3500.759, 3505.333, 3510.447, 3518.579], "stop_times": [3505.333, 3510.447, 3518.579, 3542.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3500.759}, "reply_to": "15220__2_059", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_061", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And that he identified both of these petitioners, as being his colleagues that night?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3542.691], "stop_times": [3546.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3542.691}, "reply_to": "15220__2_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_062", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "He said that both of them were there and John Hudge, another individual who was in the lineup, Ode Stevens testified -- Ode Stevens, one of the defendants testified at the trial that John Coleman was not there.\nHe testified that Robert Steel, the prosecuting witness granted immunity was in fact there.\nThey were the four that were there, not John Coleman, John Coleman was there, Ode Stevens admitted that he was there.\nSo, John Coleman is either -- is the innocent party, I appreciate the indulgence of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3546.933, 3561.008, 3568.23, 3574.869], "stop_times": [3561.008, 3568.23, 3574.869, 3580.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3546.933}, "reply_to": "15220__2_061", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_063", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Was it -- that the stated taken this case before the grand jury, wouldn't have done it that was anything before trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3580.924], "stop_times": [3587.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3580.924}, "reply_to": "15220__2_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_064", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That's correct, if Your Honor please, they don't do it in 95% of the cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3587.296], "stop_times": [3590.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3587.296}, "reply_to": "15220__2_063", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_065", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And you don't deny that they have the right to do that in Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3590.404], "stop_times": [3593.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3590.404}, "reply_to": "15220__2_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_066", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I don't deny that they have a right to do it.\nOnce again I say, they do it in 95% of the cases.\nI assumed if this Court decided that they were entitled to counsel, they could in fact reverse and go take all the cases to the grand jury, but if they did, it would shock everyone, including me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3593.051, 3595.497, 3599.081], "stop_times": [3595.497, 3599.081, 3611.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3593.051}, "reply_to": "15220__2_065", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_067", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Could I ask you one more question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3611.152], "stop_times": [3613.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3611.152}, "reply_to": "15220__2_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_068", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3613.189], "stop_times": [3614.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3613.189}, "reply_to": "15220__2_067", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_069", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Apart from what you argue might have been done, at the aid of this event.\nIf the preliminary hearing had been held to counsel, can you point that aid specific prejudice in the record that was altered from preliminary hearing themselves?\nIn other words, what I'm asking you, assuming you prevail on your basic point.\nIs there any margin for a harmless error rule in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3614.427, 3623.618, 3636.588, 3642.421], "stop_times": [3623.618, 3636.588, 3642.421, 3646.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3614.427}, "reply_to": "15220__2_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_070", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I don't think so, if your Honor please, there was the question brought up by Justice Stewart just a moment ago, with regard to the fact that Pointer versus Texas pointed out that if a statement was made at the preliminary hearing, that it could not be used against him at the trial without lawyer, but I suggest to you that here is the point that the Court has failed to see.\nIf a defendant without a lawyer makes a statement at the preliminary hearing, before the magistrate granted, it's not admissible at the trial.\nBut what if he said at the preliminary hearing, \u201cWell, I was at home with my mama and my sister.\u201d\nAnd then, okay that's not admissible, but then let's say that, he makes that statement at the trial of the case and the police take the fruits of that statement that he made at the preliminary hearing.\nThe results of the statement that he made at the preliminary and goes out to his mama and his sister and says, \u201cWait,\u201d or the next day or that afternoon and said, \u201cWas he there?\nWhat was he doing, blah, blah\u201d And a full statement from both of them, so they have taken the fruits of what they have said at the preliminary hearing and it would be prejudice.\nSo, I can't see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3646.421, 3665.269, 3673.245, 3679.222, 3691.235, 3699.946, 3708.689], "stop_times": [3665.269, 3673.245, 3679.222, 3691.235, 3699.946, 3708.689, 3708.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3646.421}, "reply_to": "15220__2_069", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_071", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "In your -- it wasn't called by the state, this preliminary hearing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3708.857], "stop_times": [3712.441], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3708.857}, "reply_to": "15220__2_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15220__2_072", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The -- as I understand, the magistrate asked him if -- asked both of them if they wish to make a statement, asked both of them if they wish to testify.\nNow, whether or not they were advised, they did not have to testify anything they said, as a result of it, it could be used against him and so on and so forth, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3712.441, 3720.48], "stop_times": [3720.48, 3727.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3712.441}, "reply_to": "15220__2_071", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_073", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "How do you have any -- excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3727.778], "stop_times": [3730.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3727.778}, "reply_to": "15220__2_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_074", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Did they testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3730.116], "stop_times": [3731.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3730.116}, "reply_to": "15220__2_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_075", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I believe that they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3731.307], "stop_times": [3734.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3731.307}, "reply_to": "15220__2_074", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_076", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Did what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3734.076], "stop_times": [3734.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3734.076}, "reply_to": "15220__2_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_077", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I believe that they did, there's not anything in the record to indicate I wasn't there, there wasn't no records, so I don't know.\nBut they may not have testified, they may have testified, I don't know, whether they did or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3734.872, 3741.869], "stop_times": [3741.869, 3746.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3734.872}, "reply_to": "15220__2_076", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_078", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "That was my question, how do you have any idea at all if what did happened at the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3746.573], "stop_times": [3752.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3746.573}, "reply_to": "15220__2_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_079", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Just the admission by the state that there was a preliminary hearing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3752.429], "stop_times": [3755.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3752.429}, "reply_to": "15220__2_078", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_080", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But, there was one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3755.111], "stop_times": [3756.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3755.111}, "reply_to": "15220__2_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_081", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And that they were bound over to the grand jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3756.03], "stop_times": [3762.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3756.03}, "reply_to": "15220__2_080", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_082", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "There was no transcript made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3762.726], "stop_times": [3763.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3762.726}, "reply_to": "15220__2_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15220__2_083", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No transcript made, I don't know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3763.998], "stop_times": [3766.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3763.998}, "reply_to": "15220__2_082", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_084", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What judge conducted the preliminary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3766.777], "stop_times": [3768.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3766.777}, "reply_to": "15220__2_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_085", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Judge Robert W. Gwen, you recall he used to be in Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3768.93], "stop_times": [3771.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3768.93}, "reply_to": "15220__2_084", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_086", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3771.912], "stop_times": [3774.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3771.912}, "reply_to": "15220__2_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_087", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Could he had been called at your earliest stages and asked to testify what had taken place at the preliminary hearing and was any effort made to get his testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3774.151], "stop_times": [3785.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3774.151}, "reply_to": "15220__2_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_088", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "The petitioners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3785.645], "stop_times": [3787.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3785.645}, "reply_to": "15220__2_087", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_089", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Oh, the judge's testimony, about what went on at the preliminary hearing to reconstruct the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3787.403], "stop_times": [3794.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3787.403}, "reply_to": "15220__2_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_090", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Here's what happened in that Mr. Chief Justice, I attempted to subpoena the judge in the records and the three lawyers to prove what happened at the preliminary hearing, the opinion as to the criticalness of the preliminary hearing.\nThere's -- some refused to allow me to get into it and I was almost --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3794.506, 3805.511], "stop_times": [3805.511, 3810.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3794.506}, "reply_to": "15220__2_089", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_091", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Refused to let you examine the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3810.239], "stop_times": [3812.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3810.239}, "reply_to": "15220__2_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_092", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Refused to let me go into this question of the lawyer appointment, then the critical stage of the preliminary hearing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3812.48], "stop_times": [3818.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3812.48}, "reply_to": "15220__2_091", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_093", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Well, did you summon the judge to attempt to prove by him or that had been said or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3818.755], "stop_times": [3824.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3818.755}, "reply_to": "15220__2_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_094", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes and Judge Gibson would not let me go into it.\nI simply proffered --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3824.037, 3827.133], "stop_times": [3827.133, 3828.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3824.037}, "reply_to": "15220__2_093", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_095", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Is that one of your basis of appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3828.523], "stop_times": [3831.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3828.523}, "reply_to": "15220__2_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_096", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, that's an evidentiary question, and I can't say that that question should be proffered before this Court as to whether or not it's admissible or not admissible.\nBut he did allow me to proffer what I would have offered, if he would have allowed it.\nNow, that's a ridiculous thing, but that's what happened.\nI just made a statement in the record that I would have offered the testimony of statistics to show that 95% of all criminal cases come to the preliminary hearing, before going to the grand jury.\nThat there was a preliminary hearing held and that they were bound over to the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3831.552, 3839.91, 3844.58, 3847.964, 3859.98], "stop_times": [3839.91, 3844.58, 3847.964, 3859.98, 3865.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3831.552}, "reply_to": "15220__2_095", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_097", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "But this is not the question that we have been pointed out at, at least that I have, the question was, did anyone prevent you from calling the judge who held the preliminary hearing and have that judge testify in a hearing what had taken place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3865.219], "stop_times": [3880.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3865.219}, "reply_to": "15220__2_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_098", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3880.534], "stop_times": [3880.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3880.534}, "reply_to": "15220__2_097", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_099", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Just that one thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3880.738], "stop_times": [3881.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3880.738}, "reply_to": "15220__2_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_100", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Yes, to answer your question in simple word, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3881.83], "stop_times": [3884.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3881.83}, "reply_to": "15220__2_099", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_101", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Where is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3884.444], "stop_times": [3885.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3884.444}, "reply_to": "15220__2_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_102", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "They would -- they would not let me go in to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3885.643], "stop_times": [3887.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3885.643}, "reply_to": "15220__2_101", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_103", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Where is that in the record?\nThat you summoned the judge and had in there and offered to prove by him, what had happened on the preliminary trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3887.346, 3890.473], "stop_times": [3890.473, 3907.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3887.346}, "reply_to": "15220__2_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15220__2_104", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No I didn't subpoena him, this was all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3907.843], "stop_times": [3909.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3907.843}, "reply_to": "15220__2_103", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_105", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "What part didn't have three lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3909.278], "stop_times": [3911.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3909.278}, "reply_to": "15220__2_104", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__2_106", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "No, neither did I have the three lawyers in the courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3911.3], "stop_times": [3913.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3911.3}, "reply_to": "15220__2_105", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_107", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "And they are offered proof, you didn't say you would have prove from the judge and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3913.737], "stop_times": [3920.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3913.737}, "reply_to": "15220__2_106", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15220__2_108", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "To be honest with you, I don't recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3920.841], "stop_times": [3923.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3920.841}, "reply_to": "15220__2_107", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_109", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "As I read that part of the transcript counsel, you offered to prove by lawyers, the importance and devaluing of the presence of the lawyer at a preliminary hearing and I do not recall that you had anything in your proffer relating to what the judge would say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3923.212], "stop_times": [3939.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3923.212}, "reply_to": "15220__2_108", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_110", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "I don't recall, of Your Honor please, I remember Judge Gwen was there earlier that morning when we're in the motion.\nAnd Judge Gibson informed me in his office, he would not let me go into it and wouldn't let me make a statement the following morning about this.\nNow, whether or not I did, I specifically, to say specifically that I did, I can't recall.\nI made a long statement in the record, of what I hope to prove, if it had been allowed.\nI simply do not recall specifically, I know that Judge Gwen is on the same floor, where this was held.\nI know that he was there, the morning before, but I do not recall whether or not I actually, specifically made the statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3939.705, 3946.12, 3952.78, 3958.967, 3966.022, 3971.797], "stop_times": [3946.12, 3952.78, 3958.967, 3966.022, 3971.797, 3979.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3939.705}, "reply_to": "15220__2_109", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_111", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "If at the time from examining this record, anything that shed light on this, you have liberty to call our attention to a specific part of the record, in which it appears and of course, send your friend a copy of whatever you send us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3979.769], "stop_times": [3994.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3979.769}, "reply_to": "15220__2_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_112", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "About the judge testifying or not testifying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3994.439], "stop_times": [3997.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3994.439}, "reply_to": "15220__2_111", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_113", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Right.\nNow Mr. Tarter, you acted at the appointment of the court, and we thank you for accepting that appointment for your assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [3997.389, 3998.558], "stop_times": [3998.558, 4004.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3997.389}, "reply_to": "15220__2_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15220__2_114", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [4004.795], "stop_times": [4005.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4004.795}, "reply_to": "15220__2_113", "speaker": "charles_tarter"}
{"id": "15220__2_115", "conversation_id": "15220", "text": "Thank you for your submission, gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_72", "start_times": [4005.574, 4006.965], "stop_times": [4006.965, 4008.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4005.574}, "reply_to": "15220__2_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_000", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Colonnade Catering Corporation against the United States.\nMr. Rogge you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [0.0, 7.302], "stop_times": [7.302, 10.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_001", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIn this case, the Court should have before it in addition to the single appendix of the petitioner's brief and the Government's brief, a blue back petitioner's reply brief.\nThis case presents the issue whether the premises of those whose services include the sale of alcoholic beverages are outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment.\nThe Government says they are, we say they are not.\nThe Government points to inspection statutes, we point to the provisions for a warrant procedure.\nThe Government points to the age of the inspection provisions, we point to the fact that there has consistently been provision for a warrant procedure.\nAs to the facts in this case, there isn't a dispute, on a Saturday afternoon, a crew of four, three internal revenue agents and Nassau County Policeman came in to the petitioner's premises and demanded to inspect.\nThe petitioner as a caterer who as part of his service dispenses liquor and therefore has a federal occupational liquor dealer stamp that costs him $54.00.\nAfter inspecting the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [10.001, 14.623, 29.17, 42.207, 47.003, 55.786, 68.253, 89.887, 105.592], "stop_times": [14.623, 29.17, 42.207, 47.003, 55.786, 68.253, 89.887, 105.592, 107.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.001}, "reply_to": "14925__0_000", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_002", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Is that annually renewable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [107.115], "stop_times": [108.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.115}, "reply_to": "14925__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_003", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [108.908], "stop_times": [109.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.908}, "reply_to": "14925__0_002", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_004", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "He has to get that every year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [109.217], "stop_times": [110.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.217}, "reply_to": "14925__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_005", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That's my understanding if Your Honor please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [110.527], "stop_times": [112.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.527}, "reply_to": "14925__0_004", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_006", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [112.699], "stop_times": [117.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 112.699}, "reply_to": "14925__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_007", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Now, after they had inspected the public premises, they demanded to see the non-public premises and without permission they did that going into the basement and then this crew of four --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [117.666], "stop_times": [132.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 117.666}, "reply_to": "14925__0_006", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_008", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "This crew, the officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [132.836], "stop_times": [134.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.836}, "reply_to": "14925__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_009", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Three officers of the Internal Revenue Service and one Nassau County Policeman, patrolman, they were officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [134.511], "stop_times": [142.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.511}, "reply_to": "14925__0_008", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_010", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I'm just a little disturbed by your reference to the crew --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [142.646], "stop_times": [146.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.646}, "reply_to": "14925__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_011", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [146.857], "stop_times": [147.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.857}, "reply_to": "14925__0_010", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_012", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I think they worked over shift?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [147.108], "stop_times": [149.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.108}, "reply_to": "14925__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_013", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "There were four people Mr. Justice Black that I think in this case were engaged in the kind of a general exploratory search which was one of the factors involved in the American revolution and which subsequently led to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, that's what I think happened in this case.\nNow, after inspecting the public premises and going into the basement, they were later joined by a district area supervisor, so you now have five individuals who demanded entrance to a locked liquor storeroom which was 75 feet off the main premises.\nThey had no warrant, they claimed under the inspection statutes.\nThey were entitled to go in, the petitioner refused, they then broke the lock and entered and seized 53 bottles of liquor, some filled, some partially filled and two funnels.\nNow, as to the 53 bottles of liquor they seized 38 of those and this their own receipt states which is at pages 11 (a) to 13 (a) to determine if genuine.\nThey seized 15 more bottles according to their own receipt as a comparative sample and they seized two funnels and they specifically stated that they seized those for evidence.\nThey said that in so many words.\nNow, they were not engaged in seeking to collect any taxes because the petitioner paid its $54.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [149.669, 169.995, 193.557, 197.845, 215.643, 234.402, 249.256, 254.264], "stop_times": [169.995, 193.557, 197.845, 215.643, 234.402, 249.256, 254.264, 262.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.669}, "reply_to": "14925__0_012", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_014", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Was that a license to refill empty bottles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [262.752], "stop_times": [265.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.752}, "reply_to": "14925__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_015", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [265.538], "stop_times": [268.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.538}, "reply_to": "14925__0_014", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_016", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, then what does the license have to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [268.356], "stop_times": [271.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.356}, "reply_to": "14925__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_017", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, they weren't seeking to collect taxes.\nNo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [271.048, 274.763], "stop_times": [274.763, 275.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.048}, "reply_to": "14925__0_016", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_018", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I wondered what was the nexus between the point you were making and the issue in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [275.368], "stop_times": [281.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.368}, "reply_to": "14925__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_019", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "What I really want to emphasize all the way through is that this was a general exploratory search for evidence and it was done without a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [281.412], "stop_times": [291.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.412}, "reply_to": "14925__0_018", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_020", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "But your point would be the same whether he had a license or whether he didn't have a license, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [291.019], "stop_times": [297.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.019}, "reply_to": "14925__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_021", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, I assume that he has to hang that license in the public premises and the premises were open and they could walk in and if they came in to see that he had the license, they didn't come in for that purpose, we wouldn't have any objection about that nor were they looking for a distillery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [297.928], "stop_times": [315.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.928}, "reply_to": "14925__0_020", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_022", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Rogge, does the record show how they broke the lock?\nWhat they used to break the lock with?\nWas it something they had or something was on the premises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [315.59, 318.496, 320.323], "stop_times": [318.496, 320.323, 323.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.59}, "reply_to": "14925__0_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__0_023", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That I can't answer because the record doesn't show, but it does show that they broke the lock.\nHere, what we have to rely on is the petitioner's affidavit, there's nothing in the Government's affidavit in opposition, it's simply a general statement to which you have added one thing.\nIn argument before District Judge Weinstein, Government counsel, and this is at pages 31 (a) and 32 (a), states that one of these very agents was at a (Inaudible) there the weekend before and he saw what looked to him to have been refilled bottles and so he went and put in a routine complaint which was being acted on this following Saturday.\nNow, that's all there is in the record, the petition does say they broke in.\nNow, what particular implement they used to break they did break a lock, there's no dispute about that.\nAs a matter of fact, the Government admits in its brief that this is the only case to their knowledge and this is at their brief page 30 note 26, this is the only case to their knowledge where force has been used to gain entry to the premises of a retail liquor dealer.\nSo, force was used but whether it was a hammer or whether it was crowbar that I can't tell you Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [323.757, 328.93, 340.915, 369.982, 377.288, 385.573, 405.272], "stop_times": [328.93, 340.915, 369.982, 377.288, 385.573, 405.272, 412.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.757}, "reply_to": "14925__0_022", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_024", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, what about the (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [412.037], "stop_times": [421.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.037}, "reply_to": "14925__0_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__0_025", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That I don't know whether they picked up a chair or something there to break it open.\nThere isn't any dispute but force was used to break open -- to break the lock, break open the door.\nNow, they weren't seeking to look for an elicit distillery because if they had been doing that, there is an expressed statutory provision which says that it shall be lawful for them to use such a force to gain entry as maybe necessary.\nNow, whatever maybe the constitutional status of that provision its there, they weren't operating under that.\nThey were simply as I have stated and I can emphasize it too much they were engaged in a general exploratory search of the kind that was one of the factors involved in the American revolution and which was the kind of thing that led to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment contains no exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [421.192, 425.493, 434.393, 450.089, 456.342], "stop_times": [425.493, 434.393, 450.089, 456.342, 480.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.192}, "reply_to": "14925__0_024", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_026", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, it was a little bit more or perhaps more accurately a little bit less than simply an exploratory search, wasn't it Mr. Rogge?\nHaven't one of the agents has been on the premises a week earlier and saw and observed what he thought were violations of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [480.526, 491.423], "stop_times": [491.423, 498.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.526}, "reply_to": "14925__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_027", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That was stated in argument before Judge Weinstein and I'm prepared to say that that's part of the record but there is nothing in the Government's affidavit in opposition which says anything about that, that's simply a statement of Government counsel before Judge Weinstein and if true, then I say the Government had a whole week to get a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [498.693], "stop_times": [517.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.693}, "reply_to": "14925__0_026", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_028", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "To get a warrant.\nThese premises were owned by the catering company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [517.126, 519.958], "stop_times": [519.958, 522.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 517.126}, "reply_to": "14925__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_029", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [522.4], "stop_times": [523.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.4}, "reply_to": "14925__0_028", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_030", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "This wasn't a catering company that went on to other ground -- into a home or a club and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [523.534], "stop_times": [528.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.534}, "reply_to": "14925__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_031", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, it does that too but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [528.222], "stop_times": [530.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.222}, "reply_to": "14925__0_030", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_032", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "These premises were the property of the catering company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [530.094], "stop_times": [532.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.094}, "reply_to": "14925__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_033", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Right, and they had a public part of the premises and there was -- there was a bar mitzvah, the Saturday before and there a bar mitzvah the Saturday afternoon --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [532.735], "stop_times": [542.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.735}, "reply_to": "14925__0_032", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_034", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "When this happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [542.682], "stop_times": [543.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.682}, "reply_to": "14925__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_035", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "When these agents and the patrolman and still a group of four, however I characterize them, I tried to find a word that was as mild as possible and that's why I called them a crew of four but there was a group of four and they were joined by a supervisor, so at the time that they broke open the door there were five of them demanding entry and without a warrant.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [543.272, 568.784], "stop_times": [568.784, 569.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.272}, "reply_to": "14925__0_034", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_036", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Do you in any way urge here that there was not a probable cause?\nI know you say there should have been a warrant even there is probable cause but as part of your case there was not a probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [569.587, 576.579], "stop_times": [576.579, 581.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.587}, "reply_to": "14925__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_037", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, I'm not saying that, I don't get into that part.\nThe way have handled that is in the reply brief in which I quote from Camara against Municipal Court.\nNow, did the Government counsel say that warrant procedure couldn't be used because well, they go into various reasons for that.\nOne of them is that they've been advised by the North Atlantic and Mid Atlantic regions that these inspections are based on some reason to believe or suspect less than probable cause, I don't think that's in here.\nI in response to that point out from a paragraph in the Court's opinion in Camara that the standard of reasonableness for probable cause will vary with the type of case involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [581.561, 585.043, 599.465, 610.685, 624.06], "stop_times": [585.043, 599.465, 610.685, 624.06, 635.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.561}, "reply_to": "14925__0_036", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_038", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, you just don't raise the issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [635.425], "stop_times": [639.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.425}, "reply_to": "14925__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_039", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, I don't know whether --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [639.509], "stop_times": [640.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.509}, "reply_to": "14925__0_038", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_040", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "So, we should take the case on the assumption that there was probable cause for the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [640.729], "stop_times": [645.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.729}, "reply_to": "14925__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_041", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.\nIn other words and again I'm taking it not from any affidavit but from a statement and argument before Judge Weinstein that one of the agents had been there at the briefs, seeding Saturday and I had seen would look to him like refilled bottles.\nNow, neither side is gone to what amounts to probable cause but that certainly seems to me to be enough probable cause to go and get a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [645.461, 648.312, 661.28], "stop_times": [648.312, 661.28, 669.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.461}, "reply_to": "14925__0_040", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_042", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, even without that incident, would you say that there was probable cause or would there have to be some specific evidence about a specific establishment to justify an entry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [669.715], "stop_times": [690.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.715}, "reply_to": "14925__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_043", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, as to the public part of the premises in the day time they could walk in but if they wanted to break in to something then I would say yes there has to be probable cause varying with the type of case which would have been enough for a warrant issue, yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [690.275], "stop_times": [707.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.275}, "reply_to": "14925__0_042", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_044", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "You wouldn't say that liquor inspectors could get a warrant from a Judge just by telling the Judge that we want to inspect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [707.006], "stop_times": [718.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.006}, "reply_to": "14925__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_045", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, that's not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [718.019], "stop_times": [719.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.019}, "reply_to": "14925__0_044", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_046", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "You wouldn't think that they are justified to have a routine inspection of private quarters in a liquor dispenser's establishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [719.922], "stop_times": [730.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.922}, "reply_to": "14925__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_047", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "If the premises are open, they can walk in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [730.622], "stop_times": [733.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.622}, "reply_to": "14925__0_046", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_048", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, I know but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [733.282], "stop_times": [734.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.282}, "reply_to": "14925__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_049", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "But if they want to make a search which is what these gentlemen five in number wanted to do, yes, they have to go before a Judge which satisfies this detached official rather than the agent in the field and get a warrant to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [734.021], "stop_times": [751.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.021}, "reply_to": "14925__0_048", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_050", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, that isn't what (Inaudible) said, is it Mr. Rogge?\n(Inaudible) didn't require that to get a warrant, you have to have some specific information about an establishment which led you to believe that there was a violation on the property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [751.972, 761.334], "stop_times": [761.334, 772.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.972}, "reply_to": "14925__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_051", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, as I read, Camara against Municipal Court was that the standard of reasonableness would vary with the particular type of case and that would surely be true of the administrative inspections that agents of the internal revenue service engaged in this inspection would have to supply.\nNow, neither brief has gone in but just how that would be spelled out in this particular case, I haven't spelled it out and neither has the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [772.921, 798.124], "stop_times": [798.124, 808.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 772.921}, "reply_to": "14925__0_050", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_052", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "So, you will assume that there was a probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [808.262], "stop_times": [810.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.262}, "reply_to": "14925__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_053", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [810.655], "stop_times": [813.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.655}, "reply_to": "14925__0_052", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_054", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Rogge, while we have you stopped for a moment, let me suggest a possible hypothetical, possibly a parallel.\nThe Government grants licenses to on a very limited basis as we know for the production of atomic energy privately.\nSomewhere in that statutory scheme, there are broad provisions for inspection of the premises producing the atomic energy obviously on a safety basis, I would assume that's the basis.\nWould you say that the Government inspectors with the statute permitting them to inspect at any time must have a warrant before they can enter any part of the premises where atomic energy is being produced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [813.43, 822.247, 831.412, 851.555], "stop_times": [822.247, 831.412, 851.555, 870.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.43}, "reply_to": "14925__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_055", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger, may I answer that by calling attention to the fact that there is a comparable provision in the case of distilleries where the statute provides that agents may enter -- the Government agents are supposed to have a key to distilleries, they may go in at any time and the statute specifically provides that if entry is denied they may use necessary force without a warrant to get in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [870.111], "stop_times": [899.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.111}, "reply_to": "14925__0_054", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_056", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [899.641], "stop_times": [899.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.641}, "reply_to": "14925__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_057", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Now, entirely apart from the question of -- if you would add to your case that the statute also says in the case of these atomic plants that agents may enter and I mean if you'll make the case comparable to that of distilleries and say that the statute specifically provides that if entry is denied they may use force to enter, I would say that I would have a great deal of that about the constitutionality of that but I would equally say in this case if you look at the statutory structure, you'd have to come to the conclusion that under this inspection statute, that result wouldn't follow because under this inspection statute, there are provisions for forfeiture of $500.00 for each refusal.\nThere's another provision making it a felony to obstruct internal revenue agents in carrying out their duties but where the Congress had in mind a warrant procedure, it specifically so provided and so it provided and this provision goes back, it was in the 1791 Act, it's in the revised statute and it's in the current Internal Revenue Code of 1954.\nIt's in 26 USC Section 7302 which provides a search.\nIf property is used or maybe used or has been used in violation of the revenue laws specifically provides a search warrant may issue as provided in chapter 205 of title 18 of the United States Code and the federal rules of criminal procedure.\nNow, there's also a provision in two instances for the use of force in the congressional statute.\nThere's one in the criminal code 18 USC Section 3109 which provides for the use of necessary force in the execution of a warrant, and there's another provision, there's one with reference to distilleries which provides for the use of necessary force without a warrant for the entry of a distillery, but there is no such provision with reference to these inspection statutes and I say just as a matter of statutory construction, this is now a part from the Fourth Amendment but as a matter of statutory construction if you look at this statutory scheme, Congress never intended the use of force if entry was denied.\nThey intended the use of a warrant procedure and there is specific provision for a warrant procedure.\nNow, I'm not familiar with the atomic energy provisions but I would say this that if there was a specific provision for entry without a warrant by the use of force if necessary, you'd have something that's comparable to what we have with reference to distilleries, I would doubt its constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment and I'll explain in a moment why.\nAnd if you had also in that statute a provision for a warrant procedure, I might form an opinion looking at the statutory scheme, I would if I could come up by saying that the Fourth Amendment protected it I would and I would do that for this reason.\nFor the past 300 years and more, these people had build up a right of privacy which Mr. Justice Brandeis in his dissenting opinion in 1813 called the right to be let alone --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [899.711, 948.144, 972.37, 977.618, 994.03, 999.919, 1037.583, 1043.637, 1066.293, 1082.668], "stop_times": [948.144, 972.37, 977.618, 994.03, 999.919, 1037.583, 1043.637, 1066.293, 1082.668, 1098.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.711}, "reply_to": "14925__0_056", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_058", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, is this right of privacy extended with the same force to people who are granted a special license to engage in activities that the generality of people are denied as it does to private homes and other circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1098.638], "stop_times": [1114.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.638}, "reply_to": "14925__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_059", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I would say yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1114.724], "stop_times": [1115.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.724}, "reply_to": "14925__0_058", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_060", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I meant the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1115.13], "stop_times": [1115.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.13}, "reply_to": "14925__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_061", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I would say yes if possible unless I found in the statutory scheme as I do with reference to distilleries, a specific provision that they may enter without a warrant by force if necessary but I would look for a provision like that and not only because we have build up this right of privacy of which the Fourth Amendment as this Court has repeatedly pointed out as an expression but you had another development which began really in 1864 and that is giving to administrative officials that began with a federal tax assessor in 1864 giving them power to issue a subpoena or power to make inspections or both.\nThere are now over two dozen federal administrative agencies which have either the power of subpoena or the power of inspection of both and I say in the face of that trend, it is necessary not to make them exception to the Fourth Amendment where all that you have are inspection statutes and where in that same statutory scheme you have a provision for a warrant procedure as you do, you'd have a provision for a forfeiture if there is a refusal and you'll have two provisions for the use of force, one in the execution of a warrant and one where you want to enter a distillery, neither of which are applicable to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1115.902, 1155.575], "stop_times": [1155.575, 1198.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.902}, "reply_to": "14925__0_060", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_062", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "What is the statutory scheme with respect to inspections by food and drug administration agents of the premises of producers of foods covered by that federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1198.979], "stop_times": [1212.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.979}, "reply_to": "14925__0_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_063", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I have the impression that they resort to a warrant procedure but I haven't covered that field --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1212.475], "stop_times": [1221.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.475}, "reply_to": "14925__0_062", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_064", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "You haven't toward it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1221.63], "stop_times": [1222.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.63}, "reply_to": "14925__0_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__0_065", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, but I do want to make another point in that connection.\nWith reference to applying the warrant procedure in this case which the Government says would be so burdensome.\nAccording to the Government's own brief, the Government conducts thousands of inspections.\nAccording to the Government's brief there are some 300,000 liquor dealers in the country.\nIn 1963, they made 24,000 inspections.\nIn 1964, they made 23,000.\nIn 1965, they made 13,000.\nApparently, the numbers of inspections are going down but that's still more than 60,000 inspections over a three-year period and what does the Government say in its own brief?\nThey say very few of these dealers refuse consent to an inspection.\nThey go on to point out in a footnote that the estimate of the refusal rate in the North Atlantic region was one out of 75.\nThey say that the area supervisors of the Mid Atlantic region could not recall any refusals or objections.\nNow, they don't tell us what happened in that one out of 75.\nThey don't tell us whether they went and got a warrant but they do say this in footnote 26 on page 30, that this is the only case to their knowledge in which force has been used.\nNow, it can't be so important to have an inspection procedure without a warrant procedure, if that's what the picture is.\nThey don't need to convert warrants into -- they don't need to convert inspection procedures into general warrants in order to carry out their duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1222.438, 1226.87, 1236.045, 1240.942, 1245.428, 1248.856, 1251.312, 1254.239, 1263.987, 1269.512, 1279.48, 1285.638, 1288.513, 1303.793, 1314.123], "stop_times": [1226.87, 1236.045, 1240.942, 1245.428, 1248.856, 1251.312, 1254.239, 1263.987, 1269.512, 1279.48, 1285.638, 1288.513, 1303.793, 1314.123, 1324.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.438}, "reply_to": "14925__0_064", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_066", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Of course, we don't know how many would refuse if it were decided that they didn't have to let them in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1324.601], "stop_times": [1331.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.601}, "reply_to": "14925__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14925__0_067", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Up to now, they have been confronted with committing a felony if they refused, haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1331.727], "stop_times": [1336.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.727}, "reply_to": "14925__0_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_068", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1336.489], "stop_times": [1337.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.489}, "reply_to": "14925__0_067", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_069", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "And that's perhaps had a tendency to induce cooperation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1337.65], "stop_times": [1342.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.65}, "reply_to": "14925__0_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_070", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I don't know about that Mr. Chief Justice Burger.\nI don't know how many knew this, I didn't know this until I saw the Government's brief that it was a felony but there are ample tools to deal with those who refuse access to private premises and what I'm really asking for here is not to make an exception to the Fourth Amendment, I don't think the framers intended it.\nThe framers in just so many words said the right of the people to be secured as against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.\nI think if they wanted to make an exception for liquor dealers or for distilleries, they would have said so, they didn't.\nAnd then they go on to provide --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1342.936, 1346.734, 1371.863, 1381.244, 1387.852], "stop_times": [1346.734, 1371.863, 1381.244, 1387.852, 1389.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.936}, "reply_to": "14925__0_069", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_071", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "You don't think that has anything to do with determining whether a cert was reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1389.375], "stop_times": [1395.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.375}, "reply_to": "14925__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_072", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That there were liquor dealers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1395.469], "stop_times": [1397.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.469}, "reply_to": "14925__0_071", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_073", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1397.027], "stop_times": [1398.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.027}, "reply_to": "14925__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_074", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "If Your Honor please, I see no such exception in the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1398.376], "stop_times": [1401.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.376}, "reply_to": "14925__0_073", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_075", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I'm not talking about exception, I'm talking about the interpretation of the word unreasonable searches.\nCan you see no difference searching of a private home far moved from anybody else and a searching of a place where they sell liquor, whether it's a reasonableness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1401.003, 1408.355], "stop_times": [1408.355, 1425.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.003}, "reply_to": "14925__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_076", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The standard for the reasonableness would vary, if Your Honor please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1425.619], "stop_times": [1429.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.619}, "reply_to": "14925__0_075", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_077", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Oh, that's what I was asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1429.074], "stop_times": [1430.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.074}, "reply_to": "14925__0_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__0_078", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.\nBut if it was at night for instance and those premises were closed, the fact that liquor is sold there, I don't think gives them warrant to go in or if the owner should close his establishment, he has a public place to dispense liquor and he's closed his establishment.\nI don't think that the agents without a warrant can go in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1430.152, 1430.87, 1446.814], "stop_times": [1430.87, 1446.814, 1453.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.152}, "reply_to": "14925__0_077", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_079", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The language of the amendment that you were paraphrasing, I don't suggest you were undertaking to quote it.\nFirst, to the right of the people to be secured in their houses and persons --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1453.032, 1460.67], "stop_times": [1460.67, 1465.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.032}, "reply_to": "14925__0_078", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_080", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "It says --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1465.926], "stop_times": [1466.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1465.926}, "reply_to": "14925__0_079", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_081", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Justice Black suggests that might be quite different from a factory or other place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1466.615], "stop_times": [1473.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.615}, "reply_to": "14925__0_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__0_082", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "It says persons, houses, papers, and the facts but Mr. Chief Justice Burger, I now have see against city of Seattle which says that the Fourth Amendment protects commercial premises and what I'm urging is, what I'm urging in the first place is that this Court at this late date should not breathe an exception into the Fourth Amendment which says that those who as part of their services dispense liquor, their premises are without the protection of the Fourth Amendment but I say in the second place, as a matter of statutory construction, this statutory scheme in this case provided merely for going in and inspecting.\nThe same statutory procedure also had a warrant procedure and that procedure should be held applicable particularly in this day of the great number of administrative agency, they should be told likewise, you must abide by the Fourth Amendment.\nI wish to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1473.61, 1520.083, 1537.848], "stop_times": [1520.083, 1537.848, 1539.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.61}, "reply_to": "14925__0_081", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__0_083", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Very well, Mr. Rogge.\nMr. Feit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1539.24, 1543.036], "stop_times": [1543.036, 1547.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.24}, "reply_to": "14925__0_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_000", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI'd like at the outset the point the specific statutory framework under which the agents proceeded in this case.\nThat's set forth at page 37 of our appendix, its title 265146 (b) of the Code and it says, \u201centry of premises for inspection, the secretary or his delegate may enter during business hours, the premises including places of storage of any dealer for the purpose of inspecting or examining any records or other documents required to be kept by such dealer under this chapter and any distilled spirits, wines or beer kept or stored by such dealer on such premises.\nThese two things clearly emerge from the statute.\nWe are not here talking about breaking of outer doors at all.\nThese are premises which are open to the public.\nThe excise tax, the occupational stamp tax is paid by the bar owner, the package store in Colonnade Catering Corporation which services parties and the actual inspection here occurred when the officers entered the premises with the consent of the employees there in charge, made an inspection of a public area and what we're talking about here is the breaking of a storeroom in the basement which as admitted no one was in there except liquor bottles.\nContrasting that situation with the See and Camara, as this Court will recall, both See and Camara dealt with broad housing and fire code provisions.\nWe've set out some of these provisions at page 18 of our brief, note 16 which gave wide discretion to the agent in the field as this Court pointed out neither the resident in Camara nor the owner in See had anyway of knowing whether the inspection of these premises was required to enforce the ordinance, did not know the nature or limits of the inspector's authority and did not know whether the inspector's attempt to gain entry stemmed from proper authorization.\nIndeed, it was only by facing a criminal prosecution the Court went on, that the validity of the entry could be put to a test and even then the owner of the premises or the occupant might never learn the reason for the entry, and this Court ruled that was precisely the kind of unfettered discretion of the officer in the field to invade private premises that required antecedent justification by a neutral judicial officer as to specifically delimit and make precise and give official sanction to the entry.\nThe Court went on in Camara to say broad statutory safeguards were no substitute for individual life review in this context.\nAs we have noted this statute is clearly at the opposite end of the spectrum.\nIt is a specific as the Fourth Amendment itself can require it under the warrant procedure.\nSpecifically describes the place to be inspected, business premises during business hours and the things to be inspected, liquor bottles.\nThese agents have no authority to roam at large for anything else but liquor bottles and to examine that the specific records which the dealer has to keep.\nThe dealer had a -- as a matter of fact, the 1791 statute which was enacted the year of the Fourth Amendment which authorized inspection of the premises of breweries and importers, it was in that provision, the right to inspect as well as the right to look at the records.\nThe Court in Camara and See are floated further that there was no showing nor even any argument in those cases that a warrant system would in any way hamper effective implementation of these municipal codes.\nAnd finally it observed there were manageable broad standards for these types of area inspection warrants by which the magistrate could determine if a particular area inspection at a particular time was warrant.\nConsiderations of these very same factors, the scope of the inspection authority, the knowledge of the owner of the premises, the public interest in this inspection and the standards to be applied by the magistrate all point we submit to a contrary ruling in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1547.982, 1551.077, 1558.879, 1595.079, 1598.368, 1602.821, 1606.548, 1642.479, 1653.903, 1683.819, 1719.43, 1728.827, 1735.297, 1741.094, 1751.756, 1762.803, 1783.525, 1799.717, 1814.121], "stop_times": [1551.077, 1558.879, 1595.079, 1598.368, 1602.821, 1606.548, 1642.479, 1653.903, 1683.819, 1719.43, 1728.827, 1735.297, 1741.094, 1751.756, 1762.803, 1783.525, 1799.717, 1814.121, 1830.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1547.982}, "reply_to": "14925__0_083", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_001", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Who indicated that these premises were open to the public that had not been my understanding and while in the Fourth Amendment cases so often the factual framework is very significant.\nI'd understood that these were own by the catering company that people who wanted to have a party whether it be bar mitzvah or wedding reception or some other kind of a party could rent the premises plus the services and so on that this was a private party, this wasn't an open to the public bar or grill or restaurant or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1830.643, 1842.866], "stop_times": [1842.866, 1860.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.643}, "reply_to": "14925__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__1_002", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, the party --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1860.638], "stop_times": [1861.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.638}, "reply_to": "14925__1_001", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_003", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "-- tavern, is that correct or am I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1861.668], "stop_times": [1863.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.668}, "reply_to": "14925__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__1_004", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, the record doesn't spell out precisely but I think that generally speaking you're correct but in this type of situation whatever the type of party, they rent it for a specific period of time.\nThere was a party in this one for example from 4:30 to 6, they used the ballroom --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1863.943, 1873.403], "stop_times": [1873.403, 1877.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.943}, "reply_to": "14925__1_003", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_005", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Now, it was open to the public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1877.446], "stop_times": [1878.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.446}, "reply_to": "14925__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__1_006", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "What was open was the the entrance way --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1878.627], "stop_times": [1879.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.627}, "reply_to": "14925__1_005", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_007", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "People right rightly there were the respondent and his employees plus the host and the guess of the party period, this wasn't open to the public was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1879.267], "stop_times": [1890.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.267}, "reply_to": "14925__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__1_008", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "What was open was the entrance way.\nWhat I meant to say was these places, this which have at some occasion you see, have an initial kind of entry area where coats are hung, and then they have -- you walk down a hall to this large ballroom.\nWhat I'm suggesting is that in this case, the agents entered this entry hall.\nThe record shows that at that time they were authorized and permitted to inspect the general area of the ballroom.\nThey didn't walk in to the ballroom as a matter of fact, they just looked inside.\nThey then wanted to look at the basement, they made clear what their purpose was to inspect for liquor.\nThey said -- they said we're not in consent to looking at the basement, nevertheless they went down and looked in the basement at the cellar.\nThere was -- 75 feet away from the ballroom was the storeroom in which the Colonnade kept its liquor, it was this that was broken in.\nMore than that may I suggest to Your Honor that to the extent that there was privacy, it was the privacy within the ballroom, the cloakroom area, the initial entry area was clearly open and there's no claim here that these premises were not open to the public or that this wasn't during business hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1890.551, 1892.87, 1907.594, 1913.085, 1922.334, 1925.813, 1933.382, 1940.895, 1953.105], "stop_times": [1892.87, 1907.594, 1913.085, 1922.334, 1925.813, 1933.382, 1940.895, 1953.105, 1976.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.551}, "reply_to": "14925__1_007", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_009", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "So, that's quite a different issue, quite a different question whether it's during the business hours but now it's as open to the general public --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1976.808], "stop_times": [1984.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.808}, "reply_to": "14925__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14925__1_010", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Though there was any search in the ballroom --\nThere was certainly no inspection made in the ballroom at all.\nThere was no attempt to interfere with the activities in the ballroom at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1984.772, 1986.526, 1990.136], "stop_times": [1986.526, 1990.136, 1995.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.772}, "reply_to": "14925__1_009", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_011", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Apart from the use of this in parties -- was this open to the public or the bar there or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [1995.955], "stop_times": [2004.163], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.955}, "reply_to": "14925__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14925__1_012", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The record does not show and as I understand these places are generally setup for parties.\nI do not think that this type of catering establishment has a public bar which you could walk into from the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2004.163, 2014.422], "stop_times": [2014.422, 2023.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.163}, "reply_to": "14925__1_011", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_013", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Does it have its office there, the proprietor there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2023.566], "stop_times": [2027.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.566}, "reply_to": "14925__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_014", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes, they have.\nAgain, the record doesn't spell this out and I must quote forth my own experience, they have an office there, someone generally an employee as in this case, several employees who are there to take -- answer the telephone, perhaps people calling in for other reservations, to see that things are kept in order, to help out during the party, there are number of parties during the day apparently here there was one at -- from four to six and one from seven till nine.\nSo, they have employees and people constantly on the premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2027.894, 2029.749, 2058.733], "stop_times": [2029.749, 2058.733, 2064.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.894}, "reply_to": "14925__1_013", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_015", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, I suppose what might be important in the area that Justice Stewart was probing at is whether if a potential costumer who wanted to make an arrangement for a party to be catered a week later could walk in the door without ringing or knocking and negotiate with someone to arrange that affair.\nNow, that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2064.581, 2087.37], "stop_times": [2087.37, 2089.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.581}, "reply_to": "14925__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_016", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Now, I think that that's quite clear that that is the practice, that this is in fact usually done, as a matter of fact, many times to see how well they run their establishment, the caterer will take in a prospective costumer to look at how the party is being run.\nThis is a very normal procedure in these types of catering establishments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2089.004, 2106.466], "stop_times": [2106.466, 2111.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.004}, "reply_to": "14925__1_015", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_017", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "But it's my understanding that the only thing the petitioner complaints about his privacy is the one locked room?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2111.728], "stop_times": [2119.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.728}, "reply_to": "14925__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_018", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "As far as I understand it that is the only claim of privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2119.574], "stop_times": [2124.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.574}, "reply_to": "14925__1_017", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_019", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "And that was not open to the public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2124.023], "stop_times": [2127.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.023}, "reply_to": "14925__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_020", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That was not open to the public but our position is that a retail dealer in liquor, in an industry that's been regulated since much before the foundation of this republic who under New York law must be licensed under a comprehensive system, who pays an annual occupational tax of $54.00 and receives each year, a booklet which indicates precisely the authority of the Internal Revenue agents to inspect his premises during business hours for liquor.\nIt's our position that he assumes a reasonable risk by entering that business that during business hours his liquor will be open to inspection.\nFor example, and he has an obligation in a bar seems to us that the same argument could be made that a bar keeper -- who keeps his liquor in a cabinet over the bar could simply lock the bar cabinet and say to the inspector you cannot look at the liquor.\nWe think under the Katz rationale that the assumption that he assumes contemplates that that inspection will take place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2127.4, 2163.011, 2173.769, 2188.645], "stop_times": [2163.011, 2173.769, 2188.645, 2200.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.4}, "reply_to": "14925__1_019", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_021", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "But why did the same series of statutes provide for a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2200.886], "stop_times": [2206.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.886}, "reply_to": "14925__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_022", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I think the warrant procedure relates to something different.\nFor example, 26 USC 5301, the refilling provisions which are set forth, now in the appendix of our brief talk about the refilled bottles which are on other premises.\nFor example, it may well be that our refill bottle is not on the premises of a retailed liquor dealer.\nIt may be taken elsewhere.\nQuite clearly, the statute gives no authority to the office to inspect that type of a whether a private home or anywhere else, search warrant applies there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2206.513, 2209.315, 2219.689, 2225.463, 2228.649], "stop_times": [2209.315, 2219.689, 2225.463, 2228.649, 2240.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.513}, "reply_to": "14925__1_021", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_023", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Suppose in this case, the Colonnade said as of that locked door that's my home?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2240.518], "stop_times": [2251.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.518}, "reply_to": "14925__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_024", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "It seems to me that Colonnade just can't say that and be in the liquor business.\nIf Colonnade wants --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2251.457, 2256.277], "stop_times": [2256.277, 2257.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.457}, "reply_to": "14925__1_023", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_025", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Why did --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2257.559], "stop_times": [2258.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.559}, "reply_to": "14925__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_026", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "If Colonnade wants that to be its home, it seems to me that it gets out of the liquor business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2258.777], "stop_times": [2263.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.777}, "reply_to": "14925__1_025", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_027", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "You had all this information a week before, am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2263.059], "stop_times": [2266.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.059}, "reply_to": "14925__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_028", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The question -- there are record references to the information which is set forth at page 26, 25, and 38 of the appendix are not clear.\nThe question of probable cause was never developed because no one or at least the Government's position was there was no need for a warrant procedure in this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2266.982, 2279.545], "stop_times": [2279.545, 2287.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.982}, "reply_to": "14925__1_027", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_029", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Do you think that this was just a routine inspection that was performed before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2287.084], "stop_times": [2290.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.084}, "reply_to": "14925__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_030", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No.\nNo, it was a routine inspection.\nWhat happened was that one of the agents had been to a party that Saturday before, he had seen what he thought was suspected was refilling as a guest. He then filed a complaint with his supervisor.\nThe following Saturday they proceeded to inspect the premises.\nIt is not clear in the first place, it's not clear from this record whether they did it, did or did not have probable cause and in any event, it is our position that in -- that we're talking about an inspection scheme where the magistrate really can serve no significant purpose to defend or protect privacy.\nThe statute is precisely narrow unlike Camara and See.\nThere was no similar standard for area inspections.\nWe're not dealing with rats or safety or fire ordinances, the Court in Camara and See pointed out in those situation there's general agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2290.138, 2290.835, 2293.21, 2309.901, 2315.537, 2339.554, 2344.514, 2347.371], "stop_times": [2290.835, 2293.21, 2309.901, 2315.537, 2339.554, 2344.514, 2347.371, 2357.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.138}, "reply_to": "14925__1_029", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_031", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, are there programs Mr. Feit for periodic inspections under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2357.331], "stop_times": [2361.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.331}, "reply_to": "14925__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__1_032", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "As I understand it, it operates dependent upon manpower.\nAt the present time in the North Atlantic and the Atlantic regions, they divide it into regions, they act on tips which is less than probable cause and the reason --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2361.248, 2365.778], "stop_times": [2365.778, 2376.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.248}, "reply_to": "14925__1_031", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_033", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "They don't in other words have any routine inspection or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2376.727], "stop_times": [2379.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.727}, "reply_to": "14925__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__1_034", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "They have no routine inspections.\nIt varies from area to area depending essentially upon their manpower situation.\nOf course, unlike the area inspection situations, we are ritualistic of periodic inspection.\nThe owner if he knows that on March 13, I believe he's going to clear up the violation, here, these are ongoing violations and the inspection may have occurred two weeks before, the dealer three weeks later may still be refilling bottles.\nSo that there's no -- in our view there's really nothing that the magistrate can do except to accept the word of the agent and indicate to the agent that what you say is correct and we think this is a waste for both for the magistrate's time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2379.331, 2380.972, 2387.133, 2396.203, 2410.151], "stop_times": [2380.972, 2387.133, 2396.203, 2410.151, 2428.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.331}, "reply_to": "14925__1_033", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_035", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "If you seek a search warrant for heroine, is anything else the magistrate can do other than take the agent's word?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2428.687], "stop_times": [2437.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.687}, "reply_to": "14925__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_036", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Now, but when you seek --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2437.328], "stop_times": [2438.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.328}, "reply_to": "14925__1_035", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_037", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2438.236], "stop_times": [2441.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.236}, "reply_to": "14925__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_038", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "He can, yes, no, he has a title --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2441.137], "stop_times": [2443.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.137}, "reply_to": "14925__1_037", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_039", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "But you still have to get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2443.818], "stop_times": [2447.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.818}, "reply_to": "14925__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_040", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "My answer is yes, you still have to get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2447.081], "stop_times": [2449.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.081}, "reply_to": "14925__1_039", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_041", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Why is the exception with whisky?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2449.146], "stop_times": [2452.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.146}, "reply_to": "14925__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_042", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The exception is that in order to get -- it's a historical notion.\nIt has always been deemed reasonable because of the significant pervasive Governmental interest in the liquor industry since 1300 in England that the Government is in fact, the Federal Government is in fact the senior partner.\nAt the time liquor was produced at the distilling plant, a Government inspector is there.\nWhen a vat is finished, it's under lock and key controlled by the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2452.064, 2458.139, 2477.348, 2484.749], "stop_times": [2458.139, 2477.348, 2484.749, 2490.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.064}, "reply_to": "14925__1_041", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_043", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Is that all by statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2490.105], "stop_times": [2492.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.105}, "reply_to": "14925__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_044", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That is all by statute dating back --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2492.74], "stop_times": [2495.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.74}, "reply_to": "14925__1_043", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_045", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "And there is no statute here that gives you the right to break and enter, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2495.572], "stop_times": [2501.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.572}, "reply_to": "14925__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_046", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "There is no statute.\nThe break and entering however was not of outer doors, not of residence.\nAs this Court in kerr and Your Honors opinion in Sabbath and in Miller talk to the problem of breaking in terms of the historical reasons for the rule, namely that if you break outer doors without first seeking to gain consent, of entry by consent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2501.727, 2503.737, 2509.502], "stop_times": [2503.737, 2509.502, 2528.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.727}, "reply_to": "14925__1_045", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_047", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "It's your position that if you come in to man's home with his permission, you can then break doors inside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2528.096], "stop_times": [2535.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.096}, "reply_to": "14925__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_048", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That's not this case ultimately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2535.68], "stop_times": [2538.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.68}, "reply_to": "14925__1_047", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_049", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2538.523], "stop_times": [2539.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.523}, "reply_to": "14925__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_050", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "My position, if one has a search warrant to search a private home for example, for stolen furs and we have probable cause to believe that there are stolen furs and one walks into the apartment with the warrant, the bedroom door is locked, the furs are in the closet of the storeroom, in the bedroom and he asked the occupant here is my warrant I want to go into -- can I have the authority, I want to open the door and he says no I will not.\nYes, our position is he could break down that door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2539.98, 2570.734], "stop_times": [2570.734, 2573.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.98}, "reply_to": "14925__1_049", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_051", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "But my case is, he has no warrant and he goes to the door and says, \u201cmay I come in\u201d, and he says, \u201cfine come on in\u201d, and he says, \u201copen the bedroom door\u201d, and he says, \u201cI wont\u201d.\nThat's my case I'm talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2573.4, 2587.921], "stop_times": [2587.921, 2589.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.4}, "reply_to": "14925__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_052", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I would say that in the case you give me where an agent or an officer proceeds with no warrant and of course Under Chimel even incident to an arrest, one cannot go beyond the limits of the arresting area.\nIn the case that you give me, private residence, I would agree with Your Honors conclusion that that in order to go and break the door, one must have probable cause, one must have a warrant.\nWhat I'm saying here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2589.854, 2605.167, 2619.12], "stop_times": [2605.167, 2619.12, 2620.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.854}, "reply_to": "14925__1_051", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_053", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Suppose this agent went into a private home and says, \u201cI want to come in since you're the owner of the Colonnade Company and see if you got any whisky bottles in here\u201d and the man says, \u201ccome on in\u201d.\nThere's a nice closet with label on it, whisky bottle and he says, \u201cI wont let you in there\u201d, he can break that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2620.044, 2635.625], "stop_times": [2635.625, 2642.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.044}, "reply_to": "14925__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_054", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, he can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2642.691], "stop_times": [2643.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.691}, "reply_to": "14925__1_053", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_055", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "What's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2643.921], "stop_times": [2644.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.921}, "reply_to": "14925__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_056", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Because his authority comes under the statute.\nThe statute says entry of premises during business hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2644.956, 2648.373], "stop_times": [2648.373, 2654.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.956}, "reply_to": "14925__1_055", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_057", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "It has to be that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2654.296], "stop_times": [2654.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.296}, "reply_to": "14925__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_058", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The agent has no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2654.698], "stop_times": [2655.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.698}, "reply_to": "14925__1_057", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_059", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "-- his business that it has to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2655.744], "stop_times": [2656.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.744}, "reply_to": "14925__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14925__1_060", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "It has to be his place of business.\nFor example there's a case in the Court of Appeals, the Frisch case which we cite in our brief.\nWe have a situation of a retail establishment and they live upstairs and the Court quite correctly ruled that the individual keeps his liquor in his private premises, the inspector has to have probable cause, we take no other position.\nOur --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2656.797, 2659.257, 2663.547, 2677.891], "stop_times": [2659.257, 2663.547, 2677.891, 2678.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.797}, "reply_to": "14925__1_059", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_061", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The statute is limited, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2678.084], "stop_times": [2679.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.084}, "reply_to": "14925__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_062", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "This is precisely opposite as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2679.296], "stop_times": [2680.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2679.296}, "reply_to": "14925__1_061", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_063", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Is it not limited -- excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2680.595], "stop_times": [2682.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.595}, "reply_to": "14925__1_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_064", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2682.288], "stop_times": [2682.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.288}, "reply_to": "14925__1_063", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_065", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Is it not limited to people who hold the license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2682.746], "stop_times": [2687.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.746}, "reply_to": "14925__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_066", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The Federal Government issues no license, the state issues the license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2687.616], "stop_times": [2690.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.616}, "reply_to": "14925__1_065", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_067", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, the statute, the operation of the statute is limited to the licensed operators and has nothing to do with private homes does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2690.578], "stop_times": [2698.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.578}, "reply_to": "14925__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_068", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2698.143], "stop_times": [2698.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.143}, "reply_to": "14925__1_067", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_069", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Did anybody live in this cellar downstairs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2698.506], "stop_times": [2702.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.506}, "reply_to": "14925__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__1_070", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The record certainly suggests nor such conclusion or is there any claim made as far as I've been able to ascertain, this was a storeroom which contained liquor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2702.772], "stop_times": [2715.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.772}, "reply_to": "14925__1_069", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_071", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, isn't it a little difficult to compare what's reasonable in connection with a private home and what is necessarily reasonable in connection with the place of business where they're selling liquor or dope?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2715.552], "stop_times": [2731.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.552}, "reply_to": "14925__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__1_072", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I agree and See itself while it does recognize protection of locked commercial premises points out that commercial premises may be entered on many more occasions than homes.\nThis Court has long recognized that what maybe reasonable in terms of a commercial factory or business may not be reasonable in terms of a home.\nSo, it is true Your Honor precisely that the Fourth Amendment's protection is the reasonableness of the inspection which depends upon the particular circumstances.\nOur position here is that in these particular circumstances, the offices acted reasonably because all they did --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2731.353, 2744.89, 2757.645, 2767.371], "stop_times": [2744.89, 2757.645, 2767.371, 2775.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2731.353}, "reply_to": "14925__1_071", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_073", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "As long as we get from either side, there's no reason on the earth talking about a home in connection with this place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2775.557], "stop_times": [2784.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.557}, "reply_to": "14925__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14925__1_074", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "None at all and that's precisely our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2784.228], "stop_times": [2787.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.228}, "reply_to": "14925__1_073", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_075", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I notice that in your brief, you have not made any analogy to the bank examiners.\nNow, I suppose it's a matter of judicial notice that bank examiner systems exist all over and when the bank examiners come in the bank during banking hours, they usually come in in teams, one of them goes to the main cash drawer and one of them goes somewhere else and they immediately move in take over.\nIs there any holding anywhere that said that they have to have a warrant to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2787.653, 2792.709, 2814.849], "stop_times": [2792.709, 2814.849, 2819.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.653}, "reply_to": "14925__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_076", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I know of none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2819.271], "stop_times": [2820.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.271}, "reply_to": "14925__1_075", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_077", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "The warrant is -- the substitute for the warrant is the statute giving them the authority to inspect licensed banks or the chartered banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2820.387], "stop_times": [2829.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.387}, "reply_to": "14925__1_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__1_078", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "That's right and I might bring to your attention -- to the Courts attention.\nThe Department of Agriculture has statutory authority to inspect with regard to the slaughtering of chickens and I spoke to them under their statute which is 21 USC 74 and they have an inspector there without a warrant who watches the actual physical act of the slaughtering take place.\nIt is our position in short that this case is entirely unlike dissimilar from clearly Camara and certainly See and that both the general inspection scheme here involved which is narrow and specific limited in its authority and the actual method of enforcing that inspection scheme in this case by the forcing open of a storage room containing liquor bottles was reasonable in all the circumstances, and we respectfully submit the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2829.158, 2834.416, 2858.149], "stop_times": [2834.416, 2858.149, 2900.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.158}, "reply_to": "14925__1_077", "speaker": "jerome_m_feit"}
{"id": "14925__1_079", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Thank you Mr. Feit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2900.964], "stop_times": [2902.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.964}, "reply_to": "14925__1_078", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_000", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "May it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2902.491], "stop_times": [2903.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2902.491}, "reply_to": "14925__1_079", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_001", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Rogge, do you care to comment on the possible analogy, the validity of any analogy between the bank examiner walking in and the liquor examiner walking in here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2903.595], "stop_times": [2915.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.595}, "reply_to": "14925__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_002", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger, I was going to address myself to that, going to do it last but I'll do it first.\nThen, I suppose that the president of that bank has locked in his desk, in his office certain papers and those bank examiners want to go in that locked desk, I would say there they would have to go and get a warrant based on probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2915.098, 2920.972], "stop_times": [2920.972, 2941.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2915.098}, "reply_to": "14925__2_001", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_003", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, that's confinement to the big vault which almost every bank has where they keep the cash which is the business function and the banker refuses to let them go in to the vault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2941.042], "stop_times": [2958.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.042}, "reply_to": "14925__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_004", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I have a great deal of difficulty in answering that without further study because I feel that we should extend the right of privacy rather than restrict it and I would look for ways, I would look at that statutes and if there was anything in the statutes as much as there are in these statutes where there is a warrant procedure, I haven't studied these banks statute but if I found that there was any indication in any of the statutory provisions relating to them that they should get a warrant then I should say the warrant procedure should be applicable.\nBut I haven't studied them enough so that I can answer Your Honor's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2958.554, 2989.094], "stop_times": [2989.094, 2992.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2958.554}, "reply_to": "14925__2_003", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_005", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "As you know the whole statutory scheme providing for bank examination is that the examiners must take the banker by surprise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2992.058], "stop_times": [2999.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.058}, "reply_to": "14925__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_006", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Absolutely correct and it's the same way with distilleries where there is a specific provision however that they may use force.\nI'd have to study the banking statutes.\nNow, Mr. Justice Stewart, you asked about the food and drug administration and I find in the Government's brief, my associate called my attention to it but I remember that I had read it, in Footnote 23 in the second paragraph where they say, we are advised that when food and drug administration inspectors are denied entry, they seek to obtain a warrant before returning to the premises sought to be inspected.\nNow, you also asked about the premises, I think we've given you as much help as we can on that although I did notice in looking at the petition in paragraph one, the petitioner does allege that this is his principal place of business and that's engaged in the catering business, I think it does mean that you come and engage, this is his private property and the people are there in a private party.\nNow, Mr. Justice Marshall, you asked specifically how they broke in and I went through the record again while I was listening to the Government's argument and I see on page 21 (a) of the appendix, says the investigators forcibly broke into the storeroom actually tearing the door latch from the door frame, but that's specific as I can be on that.\nAnd Mr. Chief Justice, I do want to come back to your example of the bank.\nI know that bank examiners are supposed to take the bank by surprise but I would have to look at the whole statutory scheme and if there is some way that I could argue that the Fourth Amendment warrant procedure should be applicable I would do so because I think in accordance with our own Courts as a people or to borrow the phrase of Mr. Chief Justice Warren, If we continue as a maturing society which he used in Trump against Dallas, in this day of these proliferating administrative agencies, if I could find an argument that I could make with my heart I would make it that there should be a certain area that's safeguarded to the individual free from intrusion by the state unless there is a specific provision for it and that surely doesn't exist in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [2999.412, 3007.506, 3009.262, 3035.101, 3061.448, 3094.277, 3099.585], "stop_times": [3007.506, 3009.262, 3035.101, 3061.448, 3094.277, 3099.585, 3158.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2999.412}, "reply_to": "14925__2_005", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_007", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Well, but then if you were addressing that relating it to the bank examiner, the bank examiner's function is as you agree to catch the banker by surprise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3158.053], "stop_times": [3170.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.053}, "reply_to": "14925__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_008", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3170.726], "stop_times": [3171.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3170.726}, "reply_to": "14925__2_007", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_009", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "And to see whether the books and the money and all of these things balance out in order to protect the depositors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3171.365], "stop_times": [3178.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.365}, "reply_to": "14925__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_010", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Correct and I have to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3178.636], "stop_times": [3179.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3178.636}, "reply_to": "14925__2_009", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_011", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "For the purpose of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3179.377], "stop_times": [3179.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.377}, "reply_to": "14925__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_012", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "-- have to repeat the case that I put to Your Honor, suppose he had some locked things in his desk now that's on the bank premises, could they break in there, they say well, we want to examine, we're entitled to examine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3179.964], "stop_times": [3188.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3179.964}, "reply_to": "14925__2_011", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_013", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "I was confining my analogy, my hypothetical case to the main vault.\nNow, if you were to suggest that a warrant have to be obtained, what would the bank examiner present to the magistrate as justification for the warrant except for the statutory authority to make the inspection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3188.699, 3194.26], "stop_times": [3194.26, 3206.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.699}, "reply_to": "14925__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_014", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "In that instance he might not have any, in this instance he did. So they say, he said he was there the week before, you'll find this at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3206.965], "stop_times": [3220.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3206.965}, "reply_to": "14925__2_013", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_015", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "You don't think that 5146 in itself would be enough if the revenue agents went to the magistrate and said here is the statute which allows us to inspect anytime during business hours and we want a warrant to examine these premises between 10 o'clock in the morning and 4 o'clock in the afternoon on a business day --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3220.448], "stop_times": [3247.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.448}, "reply_to": "14925__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_016", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3247.134], "stop_times": [3247.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3247.134}, "reply_to": "14925__2_015", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_017", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Would be enough to get a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3247.534], "stop_times": [3248.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.534}, "reply_to": "14925__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_018", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, if Your Honor please and it wouldn't be necessary to enforce this statutory scheme and certainly not in this particular case where an agent or where the Government states an argument before the trial Judge here.\nOne of these very agent was -- and this is at the bottom of 31 (a) top of 32 (a), was that a bar mitzvah there the weekend before and he saw what looked to him to have been refilled bottles and so he went and put in a routine complaint.\nNow, if this is true and this is the statement of the United States attorney, then I say he had probable cause and a week in which to get a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3248.666, 3264.191, 3275.69], "stop_times": [3264.191, 3275.69, 3283.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3248.666}, "reply_to": "14925__2_017", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_019", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Can I come back for my another question?\nSuppose he had no tip, no information at all and merely presented to the magistrate, this statutory provision said under the statute, we want to examine the premises please give us a warrant, would the magistrate be justified in giving a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3283.978, 3285.945], "stop_times": [3285.945, 3302.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.978}, "reply_to": "14925__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14925__2_020", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "No, if Your Honor please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3302.08], "stop_times": [3304.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3302.08}, "reply_to": "14925__2_019", "speaker": "o_john_rogge"}
{"id": "14925__2_021", "conversation_id": "14925", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.\nGentlemen, thank you for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_108", "start_times": [3304.374, 3306.692, 3307.498], "stop_times": [3306.692, 3307.498, 3309.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.374}, "reply_to": "14925__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_000", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Number 40, Conway against California Adult Authority.\nMr. Ralston you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [0.0, 31.452], "stop_times": [31.452, 34.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_001", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is on the writ of certiorari to review the denial by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals the Ninth Circuit of an application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal from the denial petition for writ of habeas corpus.\nThe Federal District Court had denied the petition on the merits without requiring either a response from the respondents here and without a hearing.\nIt was denied on the grounds of the petition failed to present a federal constitutional question and the certificates of probable cause were denied by both courts on the same ground.\nOur petitioner in this case, James Conway, was convicted in California in 1952 on two counts of a robbery in the first degree.\nHe -- since that time and his presently incarcerated by the State of California under the provisions of the California indeterminate sentence law and it is this law and the petitioners challenges to them that our issue in this case not only the law itself but the manner in which it has been administered by the California Adult Authority or the respondent in this case.\nPetitioner claims on a numbered basis that the law in manner of which it is administered violates of Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against the denial of due process.\nBefore discussing petitioner's contentions themselves, I'd like briefly to describe the functioning of the Adult Authority and the California in determining Sentencing Law in relation to the particular facts of petitioner's case as he is alleged in this petition for writ of habeas corpus.\nI stated before petitioner was convicted in 1952 on two counts of a robbery in the first degree.\nFollowing his conviction, petitioner was sentenced to state prison and in doing this the Court neither gave him a suspended sentence or gave him probation.\nParenthetically, it is not evident at all from the record in this case on what basis probation or suspended sentence was denied.\nIt might have been under the provisions of Section 1203 of the California Penal Code that at that time the Superior Court Judge was prohibited from granting probation.\nThat section particularly as it existed in 1952 contain the a prohibition against probation in the certain kinds of cases among them arm robbery for a deadly weapon was used.\nIn any of that, since no probation or suspended sentence was given, the judges action is governed by California Penal Code Section 1168.\nThat Section, specifically prohibits the judge from specifying the term or duration of sentence that requires him to merely sentenced the defendant to the term prescribed by law in state prison.\nFor the crime of robbery in the first degree, the law prescribes a five-year minimum term but establishes no maximum.\nSection 671 of the Penal Code states that where there is no maximum set by the specific statute but only a minimum term of years, then punishment shall be imprisonment during natural life subject to the provisions of part three of the penal code and part three is that section which deals with the powers in the duties of the California Adult Authority.\nSpecifically, Section 3020 of the Penal Code which states that for all persons sentenced under the provisions of Section 1168.\nThe California Adult Authority may determine and re-determine what length of time the person shall be imprison.\nYet, another section the Penal Code, Section 5077 delineates the two basic powers of the Adult Authority, the granting of the revocation of parole which is not involve in this case and the fixing of sentences which is the issue here.\nOur petitioner following his sentence by the Court, following his imprisonment, made the number of appearances before the Adult Authority.\nFinally, in 1959 after he's been imprisoned for some seven years, approximately, the Adult Authority acted pursuant to such in 3020 and fixed petitioners terms at two-five years sentences to be served consecutively.\nI just point out that the Superior Court Judge had specified that the sentences were to be served consecutively.\nAgain however, no term or whatsoever was that by the Superior Court Judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [34.175, 39.782, 43.453, 62.753, 76.836, 90.02, 104.498, 139.703, 155.309, 180.72, 189.301, 203.15, 213.098, 227.624, 243.879, 257.785, 277.358, 289.09, 322.151, 334.732, 347.579, 367.333, 379.929, 400.204, 410.058], "stop_times": [39.782, 43.453, 62.753, 76.836, 90.02, 104.498, 139.703, 155.309, 180.72, 189.301, 203.15, 213.098, 227.624, 243.879, 257.785, 277.358, 289.09, 322.151, 334.732, 347.579, 367.333, 379.929, 400.204, 410.058, 416.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 34.175}, "reply_to": "15079__0_000", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_002", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Mr. Ralston is it -- if you know is it usual for the Adult Authority to come in at a point and fix the sentence in the way it was done here, generally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [416.116], "stop_times": [432.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.116}, "reply_to": "15079__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_003", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "You mean in -- Well, under the statute, it has the duty to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [432.188], "stop_times": [437.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.188}, "reply_to": "15079__0_002", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_004", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, I understand they have the power and the duty, is there any pattern that is reflected as to when that power is exercised in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [437.555], "stop_times": [449.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.555}, "reply_to": "15079__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_005", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I do not have any specific information as to -- at what point this power is exercised.\nAs my understanding that these terms are in facts set at some point during the persons stay in the prison particularly to deal with once the minimum term is going to be served as to exactly the pattern that I could not say.\nPetitioner has claimed in his petition for habeas corpus that he believes the reason the Adult Authority do not act before it did.\nWas it he had refused to confess dealt to the crimes of which he was punished, convicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [449.63, 455.34, 476.804, 488.607], "stop_times": [455.34, 476.804, 488.607, 496.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.63}, "reply_to": "15079__0_004", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_006", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Is that apparently his challenge to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [496.419], "stop_times": [500.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.419}, "reply_to": "15079__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15079__0_007", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "No, this -- I do not believe the Attorney General has challenges his contention about the initial fixing.\nThe Attorney General has challenged that the revocation of that fixing was based on his later refusal but the petitioners also alleged that it is -- he believes that the Adult Authority did not set his sentenced prior to 1959 because he had consistently refused every time he came up before the Adult Authority to admit that he was guilty of the crimes.\nIt was only when he did in 1959 to say, \u201cI'm guilty\u201d that they then set the terms of the two to five years sentences of the minimum.\nAs to what the general practices the Adult Authority, this record is not reflected and on myself are not sure what the specific practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [500.529, 507.208, 534.208, 543.512], "stop_times": [507.208, 534.208, 543.512, 556.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.529}, "reply_to": "15079__0_006", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_008", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Unless that -- unless we know the factual basis for that action were how can we know that we have federal question here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [556.865], "stop_times": [570.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.865}, "reply_to": "15079__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15079__0_009", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, that's the problem in this case Mr. Justice Douglas is that there isn't -- there is an essence no record in this case.\nAll there is the petition for writ of habeas corpus and is because of the lower courts statement that there's no federal question presented at all by this challenge to the action in the Adult Authority and the dismissal on that basis it did not require response in the attorney general, no response his file, there is no evidence taken.\nIt was simply denied on its face as basic contention here is that at the least.\nThere should be remand to the lower court in order -- so that the facts can be develop to find out, what in fact the California Adult Authority did do in petitioners case.\nAnd also the allegations of the Attorney General made for the first time in this Court concerning the practices in terms of procedures available.\nThe unfortunate thing about this case, there is no record because of the attitude of the lower courts towards challenges to the Adult Authority.\nThey have simply in the sense said that the Adult Authority is insulated from constitutional challenge, so that state in set up this system and it can work on whatever the way it works and of these issues are not raisable in the federal habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [570.226, 579.401, 606.255, 614.247, 626.109, 639.312, 648.039], "stop_times": [579.401, 606.255, 614.247, 626.109, 639.312, 648.039, 664.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.226}, "reply_to": "15079__0_008", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_010", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "The state says you're out of time in the Court of Appeals, is that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [664.896], "stop_times": [668.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.896}, "reply_to": "15079__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_011", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe feel that the state has basically misconstrued the federal habeas corpus act the requirements.\nIt's clear from the record, the petitioner did file in the District Court in an application for a certificate of probable cause within 30 days from the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.\nThat was denied.\nHe attempted to file a notice of appeal according to the allegations of his affidavit which he filed in Ninth Circuit.\nThe District Court clerk refuse to take it, the notice of appeal presumably because there is some certificate of probable cause.\nHe then attempted to go the Ninth Circuit.\nThe Ninth Circuit that Judge Chambers treated the certificate of probable cause on its merits and denied it on its merits.\nWe believe that the correct approach in their correct rules was that taken by the Third Circuit in the case cited our reply brief.\nBut the crucial thing is that something showing adequately and clearly showing an intension to appeal be filed within 30 days after being initial denial, particularly when you have a state prisoner acting pro improper.\nOtherwise, the whole system gets encrusted with totally artificial high on time limits that are not warned by the habeas corpus act toward the federal rules or federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [668.569, 669.268, 676.861, 690.729, 692.533, 700.271, 707.495, 709.619, 717.102, 725.278, 739.402], "stop_times": [669.268, 676.861, 690.729, 692.533, 700.271, 707.495, 709.619, 717.102, 725.278, 739.402, 752.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.569}, "reply_to": "15079__0_010", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_012", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Technically at least to what we only have here is a denial of a certificate of probable cause by Chief Judge Chambers, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [752.435], "stop_times": [761.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.435}, "reply_to": "15079__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_013", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt's the same situation as House versus Mayo for example, where as Court decided that the denials is certificate of probable cause was in error send the case back down of the District Court for determination on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [761.171, 762.436], "stop_times": [762.436, 777.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.171}, "reply_to": "15079__0_012", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_014", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Under the statute after a denial by a circuit judge of the certificate of probable that can every in an application to justice for such a certificate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [777.243], "stop_times": [791.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.243}, "reply_to": "15079__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_015", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I am not sure, Mr. Justice Stewart.\nI cannot say.\nI think its clear though that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [791.089, 794.131, 794.906], "stop_times": [794.131, 794.906, 796.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 791.089}, "reply_to": "15079__0_014", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_016", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That would be what 2241 or 2242?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [796.205], "stop_times": [799.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.205}, "reply_to": "15079__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_017", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I think it's clear from cases such as House versus Mayo that the certiorari does lie from the denial of the certificate of probable itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [799.097], "stop_times": [808.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.097}, "reply_to": "15079__0_016", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_018", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "By a judge?\nBy one judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [808.984, 809.97], "stop_times": [809.97, 813.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.984}, "reply_to": "15079__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_019", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [813.124], "stop_times": [813.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.124}, "reply_to": "15079__0_018", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_020", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "How about by the District Judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [813.581], "stop_times": [816.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.581}, "reply_to": "15079__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_021", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, from the district judge but then -- then what has to be done as to go to the Circuit Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [816.555], "stop_times": [822.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.555}, "reply_to": "15079__0_020", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_022", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But not on the appeal?\nYou don't go to a Circuit Court on the appeal.\nYou go to a circuit judge and that you're asking him for a certificate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [822.692, 824.486, 826.053], "stop_times": [824.486, 826.053, 829.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.692}, "reply_to": "15079__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_023", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [829.816], "stop_times": [830.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.816}, "reply_to": "15079__0_022", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_024", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "And if that denied.\nIf there is authority then you apply to a justice, a circuit justice, or another justice shouldn't that be the way to proceed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [830.523, 833.695], "stop_times": [833.695, 847.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.523}, "reply_to": "15079__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_025", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Quite frankly, I have not looked into the specific matter.\nI believe, however, that it is proper to go on with the certiorari from the denial of the certificate of probable cause itself, to the new application for the certificate of probable cause from the justice.\nSome of circuit justice is not required and does not divest this court of jurisdiction over certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [847.521, 851.411, 865.438], "stop_times": [851.411, 865.438, 872.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.521}, "reply_to": "15079__0_024", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_026", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, I think you have some cases on your side, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [872.788], "stop_times": [877.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.788}, "reply_to": "15079__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15079__0_027", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I believe in the case of Maxwell versus Bishop as I recall and one of prior appearances this was a situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [877.11], "stop_times": [885.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.11}, "reply_to": "15079__0_026", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_028", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, how long these are -- when you're denied as strictly probable cause of the District Court and you don't -- you're not -- you don't go up on appeal then but you go to the Court of Appeals.\nIs there a time limit on when you have to go and you waited years to ask the Court of Appeals first of the probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [885.916, 894.661], "stop_times": [894.661, 901.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.916}, "reply_to": "15079__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_029", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Your Honor, the Third Circuit has essentially -- I don't believe set any particular time limit on it and their particular rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [901.316], "stop_times": [910.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.316}, "reply_to": "15079__0_028", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_030", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "If the appeal -- if the appeal time applied, you would be out of time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [910.466], "stop_times": [915.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.466}, "reply_to": "15079__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_031", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "If were the appeal from the denial for the certificate of probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [915.743], "stop_times": [919.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.743}, "reply_to": "15079__0_030", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_032", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [919.227], "stop_times": [919.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.227}, "reply_to": "15079__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_033", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "If that were the thirty day period.\nHowever, petitioner did file as an application received certificate of probable cause which clearly show his intention to appeal with the District Court within the thirty days and then he attempted and begin his affidavit demonstrated the team made every attempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [919.447, 921.92], "stop_times": [921.92, 942.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.447}, "reply_to": "15079__0_032", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_034", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That was a wrong route where his mistaken to say he was going to appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [942.289], "stop_times": [948.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.289}, "reply_to": "15079__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_035", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "To mean appeal to from the denial of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [948.475], "stop_times": [951.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.475}, "reply_to": "15079__0_034", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_036", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "He should have gone -- He should have gone to the Court of Appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [951.527], "stop_times": [954.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.527}, "reply_to": "15079__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_037", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, he attempted to do that.\nHis affidavit states that he had tried to file the appropriate papers to show his intention to appeal in the Court of Appeals within a time.\nBut this have been blocked by the actions of the State Prison Authority, who'd taking away his papers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [954.299, 955.667, 966.861], "stop_times": [955.667, 966.861, 972.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.299}, "reply_to": "15079__0_036", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_038", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But nevertheless his proper procedure was to ask the Court of Appeals for certificate of probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [972.42], "stop_times": [976.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.42}, "reply_to": "15079__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_039", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and the Judge Chambers treated the affidavit he filed as that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [976.941], "stop_times": [982.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.941}, "reply_to": "15079__0_038", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_040", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But the moment that you would say that he eventually did that and you would say there isn't any time limit on when you been asked for that certificate of probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [982.1], "stop_times": [991.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.1}, "reply_to": "15079__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_041", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "There might be some --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [991.526], "stop_times": [993.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 991.526}, "reply_to": "15079__0_040", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_042", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, isn't that -- Isn't what happens when you get a certificate of probable cause then there is an appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [993.3], "stop_times": [999.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.3}, "reply_to": "15079__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_043", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [999.189], "stop_times": [1000.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.189}, "reply_to": "15079__0_042", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_044", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "So what you're really saying is that you're going to have to perfect in the appeal and I were supposed the appellant time limit might relevant to when you have get organized to get a certificate of probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1000.405], "stop_times": [1018.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.405}, "reply_to": "15079__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_045", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut again the Third Circuit could set down notes specific guidelines as to how long or lapse their might be.\nBut again looking the facts in the situation, that it was action within the thirty days and every effort was made by petitioner.\nWho, again, was sitting in the prison acting on his own to get things filed in the Court of Appeals on time and it was block according to his affidavit by actions of the state.\nIt was perfectly proper for the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to accept that as a certificate of probable cause and denied on the merits which is what he did.\nNow in June of 1961, nine months before petitioners discharge date would have been set.\nThe petitioner appeared for what he alleges was an annual parole here.\nHe was asked what he planning to do in his release and he said, \u201che wish to return the Bakersfield to fight his case.\u201d\nAt this point, according to petitioner, objections are raised to his doing this and mentioned was made for the first time of extending his term to allow for a period, longer period of supervision of the parole.\nPetitioner declined, he said he wished to stay with his previous he set the sentence and served it and be released.\nThen subsequently at some later time not revealed by this record.\nThe Adult Authority revoke the two to five year terms would be effective re-sentencing petitioner to two consecutive life term.\nOur petitioner contends in this factual context, it is rights to do process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated in a number of respects.\nFirst, he urges that the California Adult Authority hasn't giving a broad and sweeping power to sentence and re-sentence on circumstance destroyed by any standards or controls or specific procedures that is it has an arbitrary power which he claims it is in fact exercised in petitioners case.\nBy revoking its prior determination in essence re-sentencing petitioner for an invalid reason.\nFrom this argument, our petitioner urges that the lack of either standards or constitutional inadequate procedures, permits the Adult Authority to revoke and refix for invalid reason.\nAnd essentially prohibits the petitioner from effectively influencing and bringing the bare on the determinations the Adult Authority.\nThose considerations which probably go into a fixing of the sentenced.\nPetitioner in this second major argument urges after refixing in the sentence once said and began to be served violated petitioners rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause as it applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNow, returning the point one petitioner, he contends of these cases govern in its essentials by this court's decision in numbered decisions and in a number of cases including Towns versus Burke, Nympha versus Ray, and North Carolina versus Pearce which is decided the last term of this Court.\nThese cases and others established beyond the question the requirements of the Due Process Clause do apply to the sentencing function.\nAnd what the State of California has done in this case is to transfer a substantial and significant portion of that sentencing function from the judge to an administrative agency the California Adult Authority.\nBut its doing so, it does not therefore divest that function of these constitutional protection.\nIn these protections as set out in the cases that I've mentioned involve the number of things.\nNympha for instance, involve the statutory scheme quite similar to California.\nWhere the judge is required to sentenced for the maximum terms for the actual fixing of the sentenced was done by a board.\nThe court there, although, it recognized that the sentencing judges functions had been circumscribe.\nSaid nevertheless is basic constitutional protection, must apply to even what the judge did which was simply to gather information to pass on the board which would make its eventual determination.\nIt would seem to follow necessarily that these same protections wouldn't hear through the board itself when it makes the determination it does.\nAnd among these protections, in addition to this involve directly in Nympha is that of not increasing or even originally setting a sentence for an improper reason.\nAnd petitioner has contented and seeks to show that there was in fact an improper reason for the Adult Authorities action in his case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1018.985, 1019.494, 1025.252, 1032.247, 1043.595, 1055.97, 1064.228, 1069.577, 1077.197, 1093.816, 1100.782, 1109.11, 1119.818, 1134.648, 1162.042, 1173.047, 1186.515, 1197.953, 1207.139, 1225.471, 1250.677, 1262.875, 1278.262, 1286.772, 1297.061, 1303.915, 1315.364, 1324.851, 1339.78, 1352.322, 1375.577], "stop_times": [1019.494, 1025.252, 1032.247, 1043.595, 1055.97, 1064.228, 1069.577, 1077.197, 1093.816, 1100.782, 1109.11, 1119.818, 1134.648, 1162.042, 1173.047, 1186.515, 1197.953, 1207.139, 1225.471, 1250.677, 1262.875, 1278.262, 1286.772, 1297.061, 1303.915, 1315.364, 1324.851, 1339.78, 1352.322, 1375.577, 1388.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.985}, "reply_to": "15079__0_044", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_046", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I think Mr. Ralston that permanently you're warning right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1388.879], "stop_times": [1392.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.879}, "reply_to": "15079__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_047", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "The act of this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1392.64], "stop_times": [1394.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.64}, "reply_to": "15079__0_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_048", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1394.107], "stop_times": [1399.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.107}, "reply_to": "15079__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_049", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That to an essence revoke a previous he set sentence and put a prisoner back on like term merely because he wishes to prove his innocence once he gets out.\nIt applies in the face of the rules and decisions of this Court and again for instance, the Pearce case, where an analogous situation.\nThis Court made it clear that the State could not imposed condition such as increase of the sentence on a petitioners trying to fight his case in another means through appeal or habeas corpus.\nIt might be noted in this case that there is no indication of the Adult Authority was it meant when it did not want petitioner to fight his case.\nIf the action of the Adult Authority can stand, it could very well set up and enforce a rule that a person who did not admit guilt and completely subject himself to the Adult Authority even to the extent of giving out any rights to legal process would not be let out or they term was set would be revoke and increase.\nFurther, petitioner contends that because the state of California has granted the kind of arbitrary power it has to the Adult Authority, that its action must be circumscribe by adequate procedures.\nSo that the reasons and basis for its actions appear.\nAnd so that again, the petitioner can adequately bring to bear whatever considerations he fills are necessary for the adult authorities' decision.\nThese procedures, again on the basis of this record, do not exist certainly nothing like the procedures of protections and here in when a judge in a court trial sentences and determines of sentences are here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1399.686, 1424.023, 1434.929, 1454.102, 1466.213, 1497.116, 1517.456, 1524.62, 1539.839], "stop_times": [1424.023, 1434.929, 1454.102, 1466.213, 1497.116, 1517.456, 1524.62, 1539.839, 1557.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.686}, "reply_to": "15079__0_048", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_050", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Would you concede Mr. Ralston that in this kind of sentencing scheme or system was that some considerable flexibility must be allowed to the state to deal with it, is that your point but you claim it needs procedural devices to protect it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1557.727], "stop_times": [1580.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.727}, "reply_to": "15079__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_051", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nFlexibility is one thing but arbitrariness is another in order the flexibility can be preserved in such a system with sufficient protection, so that the sentencing board does not just anything it feels like doing it is involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1580.182, 1581.27], "stop_times": [1581.27, 1598.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1580.182}, "reply_to": "15079__0_050", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_052", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, as I read your brief accurately.\nMy impression is that you say, once having fixed that they never can increase it, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1598.79, 1601.694], "stop_times": [1601.694, 1606.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.79}, "reply_to": "15079__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__0_053", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "This is the second part of the argument which is an independent from the first part and that very briefly and then -- unless there are any questions.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder my time for rebuttal.\nIs that a line of cases?\nA long line of cases in this Court and in virtually every Circuit Court has held at once a sentence has been set and fixed and begun to served it cannot then be reset.\nExcept appears allows an exception where the reason of sentence no longer exist is because in the appeal has been taken in one.\nThen under certain circumscribe situation a longer sentence maybe set but this is not this case.\nIn this case, there has been no appeal.\nThe sentence have not been set aside.\nIt is the same sentence and the petitioner contends that Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the resetting of it to higher amount after it is been fixed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1606.096, 1616.379, 1619.451, 1621.525, 1636.62, 1646.467, 1655.248, 1659.348, 1660.963], "stop_times": [1616.379, 1619.451, 1621.525, 1636.62, 1646.467, 1655.248, 1659.348, 1660.963, 1670.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.096}, "reply_to": "15079__0_052", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_054", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Can I ask you please?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1670.918], "stop_times": [1672.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.918}, "reply_to": "15079__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_055", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1672.463], "stop_times": [1672.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1672.463}, "reply_to": "15079__0_054", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_056", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Where in the petition for habeas corpus in the District Court, it is alleged that he was denied, his a parole -- his parole was revoke because he wouldn't confess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1672.711], "stop_times": [1684.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.711}, "reply_to": "15079__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_057", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere is a footnote on page 14 and again it was not parole revocation.\nPages 14 or 15 where it set out the colloquy between petitioner and the Adult Authority.\nAnd petitioners says that when he appeared before the Adult Authority, he was asked where he go if released on discharged and petitioner replied a Bakersfield.\nAnd then subsequently, they began discussing about why about increasing a parole and the bottom of the paragraph it says, \u201cand obviously, the only reason for this action was of course the petitioner to plead guilty and not challenges conviction after being released on this charge.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1684.428, 1685.007, 1694.491, 1705.07, 1721.534], "stop_times": [1685.007, 1694.491, 1705.07, 1721.534, 1741.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1684.428}, "reply_to": "15079__0_056", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_058", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "And but your only federal question you raised in the petition was that the California law was void as vague.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1741.208], "stop_times": [1751.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.208}, "reply_to": "15079__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_059", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "And also the double jeopardy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1751.531], "stop_times": [1754.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1751.531}, "reply_to": "15079__0_058", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_060", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1754.325], "stop_times": [1754.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.325}, "reply_to": "15079__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_061", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "-- issue was raised.\nYes, that is vague and uncertain to the extent to that it grants the Adult Authority.\nThe ability to act and this is in top of page 16 of their own will caprice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1754.904, 1756.581, 1767.451], "stop_times": [1756.581, 1767.451, 1772.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1754.904}, "reply_to": "15079__0_060", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_062", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, they ask but you just say it on the ground that's a sentences vague and uncertain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1772.938], "stop_times": [1780.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.938}, "reply_to": "15079__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__0_063", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, yes Your Honor but I think it was can be reasonably construed to include the issues of when the grant of this time has been giving that allows the Adult Authority to act again freely and had its own will in caprice.\nWith this requires certain times of the constitutional protections to have some assurance that this will not in fact happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1780.763, 1800.311], "stop_times": [1800.311, 1814.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1780.763}, "reply_to": "15079__0_062", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__0_064", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ralston.\nMr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1814.948, 1816.585], "stop_times": [1816.585, 1820.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.948}, "reply_to": "15079__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__1_000", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Your Honors, I might reply to your question if you look at page 4 Mr. Justice White will note --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1820.233], "stop_times": [1830.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1820.233}, "reply_to": "15079__0_064", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_001", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Of the Appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1830.455], "stop_times": [1831.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.455}, "reply_to": "15079__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__1_002", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Of the Appendix.\nThe document called the petition for writ of habeas corpus.\nHe does raised the issue of cause, denial for cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1831.421, 1833.607, 1838.695], "stop_times": [1833.607, 1838.695, 1842.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1831.421}, "reply_to": "15079__1_001", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_003", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Page what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1842.725], "stop_times": [1843.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.725}, "reply_to": "15079__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_004", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Page 4.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1843.891], "stop_times": [1844.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1843.891}, "reply_to": "15079__1_003", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_005", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Where, where, where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1844.847], "stop_times": [1845.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.847}, "reply_to": "15079__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_006", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Page 4 of the Appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1845.933], "stop_times": [1848.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1845.933}, "reply_to": "15079__1_005", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_007", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "For what of your Appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1848.157], "stop_times": [1849.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.157}, "reply_to": "15079__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_008", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Oh, C, 10C the printed appendix that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1849.013], "stop_times": [1852.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1849.013}, "reply_to": "15079__1_007", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_009", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "California includes submitting new evidence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1852.446], "stop_times": [1854.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.446}, "reply_to": "15079__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_010", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "C, under both 10 and 11.\nIt seeks to raise a issue of unconstitutional revocation or unconstitutional for lack of cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1854.492, 1856.593], "stop_times": [1856.593, 1866.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1854.492}, "reply_to": "15079__1_009", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_011", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "What's -- you have it -- that's what it raises state court and also, I'm trying to say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1866.045], "stop_times": [1872.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.045}, "reply_to": "15079__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__1_012", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "He's trying to raised those well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1872.083], "stop_times": [1874.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1872.083}, "reply_to": "15079__1_011", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_013", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "What --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1874.716], "stop_times": [1875.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.716}, "reply_to": "15079__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__1_014", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "We don't contest the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1875.113], "stop_times": [1876.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1875.113}, "reply_to": "15079__1_013", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_015", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "On page he says what the question he's presenting to the federal court in the California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1876.311], "stop_times": [1883.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.311}, "reply_to": "15079__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15079__1_016", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I can see directly the record is very confusing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1883.235], "stop_times": [1885.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1883.235}, "reply_to": "15079__1_015", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_017", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1885.341], "stop_times": [1886.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.341}, "reply_to": "15079__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_018", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I -- there are", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1886.058], "stop_times": [1886.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1886.058}, "reply_to": "15079__1_017", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_019", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "It does or does not California concede that repetition of serve, I mean, the petition for habeas alleged a federal question.\nDo you doubt you can see that?\nJust on the face of the petition for habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1886.785, 1896.873, 1899.845], "stop_times": [1896.873, 1899.845, 1903.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.785}, "reply_to": "15079__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_020", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Alleged the federal question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1903.268], "stop_times": [1904.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1903.268}, "reply_to": "15079__1_019", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_021", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes.\nDoes it or does not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1904.494, 1905.54], "stop_times": [1905.54, 1906.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.494}, "reply_to": "15079__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_022", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "It alleges of a violation of a constitutional right.\nYes.\nBut it is our contention, we have three contentions.\nFirst, we contend that this matter isn't even properly in this Court.\nFirst, because it was untimely appeal for the Court of Appeals.\nSecondly, as to the issue of an unconstitutional cause that that matter was not even properly before District Court in a review of the documents filed in this case indicates clearly that this contention was never presented to any California Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1906.506, 1910.388, 1912.534, 1915.263, 1920.341, 1926.866], "stop_times": [1910.388, 1912.534, 1915.263, 1920.341, 1926.866, 1947.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1906.506}, "reply_to": "15079__1_021", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_023", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, what I'm trying to get at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1947.281], "stop_times": [1948.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.281}, "reply_to": "15079__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_024", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Third --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1948.427], "stop_times": [1949.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1948.427}, "reply_to": "15079__1_023", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_025", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "In Federal District Court, if you say does the allegation of the habeas petition alleges as a substantial federal questions.\nHow can you say then that the -- a federal question was not before the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1949.283, 1957.544], "stop_times": [1957.544, 1963.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.283}, "reply_to": "15079__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_026", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But we say that federal -- we say that was no improper denial of the certificate of probable cause is our third point.\nBut the circuit judge here, base on the fact that the constitutionality of these statutes in determinant sentence law has been determined for some nearly 70 years has been nearly uniformly upheld this constitutional by circuit courts and state courts.\nThat it is our contention that if the chief judge cannot deny certificate of probable cause base on such a long life President, then the requirement of Congress, requiring as certificate of probable cause --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [1963.969, 1975.424, 1998.847], "stop_times": [1975.424, 1998.847, 2014.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1963.969}, "reply_to": "15079__1_025", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_027", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "-- that the only federal question raised was the constitutionality generally of the California statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2014.46], "stop_times": [2023.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.46}, "reply_to": "15079__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_028", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That is the raised also the question that cause --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2023.306], "stop_times": [2024.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2023.306}, "reply_to": "15079__1_027", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_029", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well after get at some point a little more.\nWhat this that was just been pointed out to this at footnote one.\nThis as the statement of the California Adult Authority have been accused of cursing each person that coming before them to plead guilty of a condition to getting a call of discharge before expiration the maximum sentence provided by law.\nNow, do you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2024.724, 2027.167, 2034.695, 2048.931], "stop_times": [2027.167, 2034.695, 2048.931, 2050.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.724}, "reply_to": "15079__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_030", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "We say that was not properly before the District Court, those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2050.844], "stop_times": [2054.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2050.844}, "reply_to": "15079__1_029", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_031", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Anyway, well this allegation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2054.717], "stop_times": [2055.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.717}, "reply_to": "15079__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_032", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That allegation was not properly before the Court and not properly before this Court for two reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2055.925], "stop_times": [2061.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2055.925}, "reply_to": "15079__1_031", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_033", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Why wasn't adopt properly before the District Court?\nIt was, was it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2061.864, 2063.898], "stop_times": [2063.898, 2065.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.864}, "reply_to": "15079__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_034", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "This is a footnote to a supplement to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which is unsworn to.\nWhich it appears in the printed record and appears in the record before the District Court.\nAs pointed out, we enter the case for the first time on the petition for served.\nWe will never served with the documents filed in the District Court as noted in the original denial of the petitions by the district judge and in fact have never received those documents.\nHowever, we contend that after this particular --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2065.054, 2074.889, 2080.167, 2086.416, 2099.266], "stop_times": [2074.889, 2080.167, 2086.416, 2099.266, 2103.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2065.054}, "reply_to": "15079__1_033", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_035", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "-- claim the supplement were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2103.785], "stop_times": [2105.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.785}, "reply_to": "15079__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_036", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, yes I can.\nIt's a supplement.\nThe petition for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2105.28, 2107.645, 2109.202], "stop_times": [2107.645, 2109.202, 2110.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2105.28}, "reply_to": "15079__1_035", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_037", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Where's that appear that it is a supplement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2110.48], "stop_times": [2112.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.48}, "reply_to": "15079__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_038", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, the petition for habeas corpus has starts at page 2.\nIt ends at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2112.145, 2121.357], "stop_times": [2121.357, 2122.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2112.145}, "reply_to": "15079__1_037", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_039", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Wait a minute now, page 2?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2122.293], "stop_times": [2123.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.293}, "reply_to": "15079__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_040", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes.\nIt ends a page 7 that's the form petition for habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2123.95, 2126.154], "stop_times": [2126.154, 2131.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2123.95}, "reply_to": "15079__1_039", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_041", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "What it is that start of page 8?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2131.631], "stop_times": [2133.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.631}, "reply_to": "15079__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_042", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Page 7.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2133.557], "stop_times": [2134.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2133.557}, "reply_to": "15079__1_041", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_043", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, what's start at page 8?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2134.397], "stop_times": [2135.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.397}, "reply_to": "15079__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_044", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "You'll that is your affidavit of property, that is sworn to.\nThe second document which is dated April 27th before file August 25th for reports that would be a petition for writ of habeas corpus.\nIt is a discussion, as you can see, of the statement of the case of the proceedings and state court in the review of the proceedings in the federal court.\nThere is a footnote to what is not clear whether it be to the proceedings in the state of the Federal Courts which contains these statements of fact.\nThis document is not sworn to as indicated by page 16.\nThere is no statement that your add is submitted a review of the original record on the file in this Court will indicate, why?\nThere was no jury on.\nIt was not sworn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2135.543, 2139.972, 2152.968, 2162.089, 2175.859, 2182.733, 2191.866, 2193.134], "stop_times": [2139.972, 2152.968, 2162.089, 2175.859, 2182.733, 2191.866, 2193.134, 2194.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2135.543}, "reply_to": "15079__1_043", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_045", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Does it appear whether the District Court acted -- well, let me put rather the other way.\nDoes it appear on what the District Court acted when it denied the state of federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2194.03, 2200.481], "stop_times": [2200.481, 2204.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.03}, "reply_to": "15079__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_046", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "It doesn't.\nThere are three documents --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2204.503, 2205.896], "stop_times": [2205.896, 2207.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2204.503}, "reply_to": "15079__1_045", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_047", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Do we know that it did not act on this for which you call supplement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2207.028], "stop_times": [2210.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.028}, "reply_to": "15079__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_048", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "What we say it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2210.838], "stop_times": [2212.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2210.838}, "reply_to": "15079__1_047", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_049", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "No, no.\nDo we know whether the district judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2212.375, 2212.904], "stop_times": [2212.904, 2214.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.375}, "reply_to": "15079__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15079__1_050", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "No, we do not.\nBut I say, he could not act on it because it was not a sworn to allegation statement of fact.\nWe cannot accepted this through in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2214.95, 2216.685, 2223.41], "stop_times": [2216.685, 2223.41, 2226.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2214.95}, "reply_to": "15079__1_049", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_051", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But if the certificate had been issued, you would have had hearing and you would have had to record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2226.382], "stop_times": [2234.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.382}, "reply_to": "15079__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_052", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2234.804], "stop_times": [2235.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2234.804}, "reply_to": "15079__1_051", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_053", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "And would have had quotes wrong testimony in Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2235.471], "stop_times": [2238.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.471}, "reply_to": "15079__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_054", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "What you mean if the district judge had issued in order to show cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2238.443], "stop_times": [2244.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2238.443}, "reply_to": "15079__1_053", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_055", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Sure!", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2244.221], "stop_times": [2244.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.221}, "reply_to": "15079__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_056", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, we would have -- the record have been developed that's correct.\nWe would have served, we would have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2244.878, 2248.529], "stop_times": [2248.529, 2249.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2244.878}, "reply_to": "15079__1_055", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_057", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Are these Adult Authority proceedings was transcribed?\nAnd if so, are they available to the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2249.365, 2255.852], "stop_times": [2255.852, 2259.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.365}, "reply_to": "15079__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_058", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "They are not transcribed.\nThe procedure -- the Adult Authority is to -- in the both in the fixing of terms and in the refixing of terms is a result of a hearing for quotes surround it with the inmate involve.\nAfter the correctional counsel and the Adult Authority have reveal the entire case final which includes what is called a case summary.\nWhich includes of reports of the psychological report, the psychiatric report, the vocational report, the educational report, the social report, and the custodial report.\nAll referring to is adjustment his rehabilitation as training, his if the guidance he is taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2259.27, 2261.244, 2281.892, 2297.103, 2311.047], "stop_times": [2261.244, 2281.892, 2297.103, 2311.047, 2317.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2259.27}, "reply_to": "15079__1_057", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_059", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, how can we ever find out as to whether or not the Adult Authority requires everybody to admit their guilt or they stay in?\nHow can we find out that whether that's a rule or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2317.948, 2330.159], "stop_times": [2330.159, 2332.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.948}, "reply_to": "15079__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_060", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, I think that there are two answers and I was hoping to summarize my argument but let me summarize that point of our argument right now.\nFirst, on this point it is our contention that due process does not required at this stage of the proceedings that refixing, the fixing of the term.\nAny moment then the Adult Authority or other body not at arbitrarily in capriciously or with invidious discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2332.512, 2344.358, 2359.954], "stop_times": [2344.358, 2359.954, 2368.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2332.512}, "reply_to": "15079__1_059", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_061", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "How do we find out whether its arbitrary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2368.981], "stop_times": [2371.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.981}, "reply_to": "15079__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_062", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, under the rule in the California Courts, it can call for and does call for the records of the Adult Authority which include the kind of document attached here, disciplinary proceedings, and the case summary, the correctional officer's case summary.\nAs our contention that that is the only open review require by due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2371.374, 2397.508], "stop_times": [2397.508, 2404.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2371.374}, "reply_to": "15079__1_061", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_063", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "You mean if you change your sentence from five years to light, you don't have to give any reasons for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2404.737], "stop_times": [2409.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.737}, "reply_to": "15079__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_064", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "No.\nIt is our contention first that that is not changing the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2409.98, 2411.327], "stop_times": [2411.327, 2416.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2409.98}, "reply_to": "15079__1_063", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_065", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2416.607], "stop_times": [2416.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.607}, "reply_to": "15079__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_066", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That under California law --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2416.815], "stop_times": [2418.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2416.815}, "reply_to": "15079__1_065", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_067", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, whether it state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2418.001], "stop_times": [2418.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.001}, "reply_to": "15079__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_068", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "It's only tentative.\nIt's not fix.\nIt's subject to being refix.\nIt's tentative only.\nIt's a no right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2418.977, 2421.282, 2422.27, 2424.925, 2426.718], "stop_times": [2421.282, 2422.27, 2424.925, 2426.718, 2427.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2418.977}, "reply_to": "15079__1_067", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_069", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, it's tentative in case he dies ahead of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2427.814], "stop_times": [2431.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.814}, "reply_to": "15079__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_070", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But no Your Honor.\nThey can be reason to reduced --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2431.275, 2433.109], "stop_times": [2433.109, 2433.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2431.275}, "reply_to": "15079__1_069", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_071", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But it is true that the Adult Authority can say, \u201cWe have decided at your sentence is five years.\u201d\nAnd then they called him in and say, \u201cDo you admit your guilty of this or not?\u201d\nI say, \u201cI'm not guilty.\u201d\n\u201cWell, now sentenced you to life.\u201d\nIs that possible?\nI'm not saying about this case, if that's possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2433.509, 2443.087, 2450.191, 2452.874, 2454.838, 2458.241], "stop_times": [2443.087, 2450.191, 2452.874, 2454.838, 2458.241, 2463.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.509}, "reply_to": "15079__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_072", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "If that allegation is made in the Court in California that his unconstitutional cause was the basis.\nIn other words, that the allegations that appear here for the first time in the District Court were made in the California Courts.\nThe California Court would inquire into it.\nIf the burden would shift in effect to the Adult Authority to contradict that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2463.297, 2471.497, 2480.676, 2485.035], "stop_times": [2471.497, 2480.676, 2485.035, 2490.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2463.297}, "reply_to": "15079__1_071", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_073", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I thought your point was in virtue of develop act to the alliance.\nTell us in which they brought the case here namely?\nIt is involved or initiated Mr. Justice Marshall was talking, in fact it is not showing by this record.\nIsn't that your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2490.469, 2494.409, 2497.688, 2504.689], "stop_times": [2494.409, 2497.688, 2504.689, 2505.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.469}, "reply_to": "15079__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15079__1_074", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2505.588], "stop_times": [2506.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2505.588}, "reply_to": "15079__1_073", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_075", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, I develop it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2506.624], "stop_times": [2508.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.624}, "reply_to": "15079__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15079__1_076", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2508.219], "stop_times": [2508.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2508.219}, "reply_to": "15079__1_075", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_077", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "-- clearly after lines its been here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2508.496], "stop_times": [2511.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.496}, "reply_to": "15079__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15079__1_078", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "You have a minute or two you have before we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2511.488], "stop_times": [2513.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.488}, "reply_to": "15079__1_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__1_079", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, let me address myself to that particular point.\nWhat we have here in the District Court are three documents.\nTwo of them labeled writs of that applications for petitions for writs of habeas corpus and another document which is labeled the 76 paid supplement.\nNow, when you examine those documents in the 76 paid supplement purports to include copies of documents filed another court stating back to 1963.\nThe examination of those documents, you will note that in none of it is there this allegation concerning to unconstitutional cause made.\nThe allegation was not made in the California Supreme Court or any other Federal or State Court.\nIt occurs for the first time in a document dated April 27, 1967, some six years later and several writs later.\nFor the first time in the footnote, to supplement to a petition which is not sworn to and I suggest that the District Court may well have considered the fact that this is a new a ennoble and improved allegation that did not appear before and indeed was not sworn to.\nTherefore, it is our contention that that matter was not before the District Court properly.\nIt is not properly here.\nWe need not accepted this true.\nShould not and cannot be considered as true for purposes of this proceeding.\nIt shows us that there was no exhaustion of state remedies on the very record file here.\nIt shows that it is simply unsworn footnote to a supplement to a petition which the District Court could not and should not of considered and which is should not and need not be consider as a factual truth, factual allegation in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2513.215, 2519.952, 2523.513, 2533.853, 2547.427, 2557.237, 2563.522, 2573.388, 2593.747, 2599.316, 2601.22, 2604.272, 2612.73, 2617.511], "stop_times": [2519.952, 2523.513, 2533.853, 2547.427, 2557.237, 2563.522, 2573.388, 2593.747, 2599.316, 2601.22, 2604.272, 2612.73, 2617.511, 2657.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2513.215}, "reply_to": "15079__1_078", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_080", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Mr. Smith, you may pick where you left off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2657.028], "stop_times": [2659.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.028}, "reply_to": "15079__1_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__1_081", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI would like to devote a few minutes to the question of the timeliness of this appeal.\nThe rules of Ninth Circuit are quite simple.\nIt requires as the federal statutes that there be a notice of appeal within 30 days from the file order of the District Court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and that pursuant to the statute requiring a certificate of probable cause that such a certificate be obtained either within 30 days after denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus or 30 days after a denial of the certificate of probable cause by the District Court.\nThese are four more liberal rules and that followed in after circuits such as the first and others.\nThe Court itself have the chief judge granted the certificate under the cases we've cited, the panel would have examined this question either on our motion or on its own motion and would have dismissed the case.\nThe rules are very liberal there, any paper that notes so intent to appeal will be deem as a notice of the appeal.\nAnd what happen here was that the district judge denied the petition on September 27th.\nOn October 10th, the petitioner filed eight application for a certificate of probable cause.\nHe denied -- the district judge denied that application on October 31st.\nHowever, under the rules of the Ninth Circuit, that application for certificate of probable cause maybe deemed a timely notice of appeal.\nBut of course, that does perfect the appeal, there must be a certificate of probable cause granted timely.\nThe application in subsequent denial by the District Court added to his time, 30 days from October 31st to apply for a certificate of probable cause in the Court of Appeals or as indicated by the earlier question the circuit with the judge designed of the circuit of the Supreme Court.\nHowever, nothing was done to the record reflects until December 14th.\nWhen the Clerk received the document labeled an affidavit in which two allegations are made.\nOne, that the petitioner had sought the file a notice of appeal in the District Court on November 17th and had tendered the $5.00 fee which was taken from the trust account of the fellow inmate and the Clerk had refused the file.\nWell, this is irrelevant because there is a good notice of appeal under the rules already filed.\nHe also asserts that he attempted the file in the Circuit Court.\nA writ of mandate, for a petition for writ of mandate, requiring the warden to permitting to withdraw $5.00 from the trust account of the same fellow inmate for the purpose of his filing fee which is of course inconsistent with his earlier statement that he tendered $5.00.\nThen, he ask generally for an extension of time but this is some 44 days after the denial of the certificate of probable cause in the District Court and some 74 days after or longer after the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus is out time.\nThe judge did deem this document to be an application for a certificate of probable cause and denied it.\nBut we say and reviewed the panel would have under the rules of that Court have filed it untimely.\nSuch a rule and certainly not unreasonable, certainly done in constitutional.\nThere must time limitations of policy of other of the statute requiring 30 days for a notice of appeal.\nCertainly contemplates that the time for appeal that notice be given timely and that clerk, the court, the parties, now that the appeal is pending and that the option for protecting the appeal are not be left with the petitioner.\nSecondly if facilitates the policy of Congress requiring in limiting the appeals in this kinds of cases by the virtue of a fact that in large major they place burden upon the Federal Courts and upon the states because as a plus they are generally in their authorities.\nFurthermore, this man is not cut off on any right.\nThe denial of their petition for an application of petition for habeas corpus is not filed, it always go back in front.\nFile, he's not anything as you like news are right to pursue a point in an appeal from the criminal conviction.\nFinally, we have argued that the -- there was no abuse of discretion here by the Circuit Court in the denial of the appli -- denial of the application for a certificate of probable cause based on the long standing precedents both of this Court and of the circuit courts.\nWe say that there was no substantial federal question presented.\nOur next contention is that on the facts of this case, the petitioner has in fact received what he claims he must received by the Adult Authority.\nHis term has been refixed for a cause and I might clarify the point raised earlier that this is not final, under state law there is in determined of the sentence.\nIn this case filed the life consecutive.\nIts fixed by statute at maximum.\nThe Adult Authority fixed it.\nThe term and the minimum in this case.\nThey then refixed it as they do in case of any violations at the maximum but that is not final.\nThey normally, usually, in virtually every case refixed it again at less than maximum.\nNow, in this case the petitioner, the record reflects that there was cause.\nHe was in fact and that he'd receive notice and a hearing.\nHe was engage in a -- his term was fixed in 1959.\nHe appeared before the board in 1960.\nDecember of 1960 engaged in the fight, fellow inmates.\nHe was given notice and a complaint which set out those facts.\nHe was notified there would be a hearing before the disciplinary board.\nThe hearing was granted.\nHe appeared.\nHe gave version of the facts.\nHe was found that he participated in this fight as report pursuing to the rules of the Adult Authority were forwarded to it.\nIt adopted the findings of the prison disciplinary group.\nIt sets his hearing over for six months.\nAt that hearing, the record reflects that by his own allegations that he discussed turn.\nHe had a hearing in that sense.\nHe had noticed and the notice original note is filed in the December indicated that one of the results of this hearing could be refixing.\nSo, he has notified in the writing.\nHe knew in fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [2659.803, 2662.745, 2670.516, 2673.887, 2708.126, 2715.549, 2732.002, 2742.166, 2748.284, 2756.116, 2761.473, 2771.57, 2778.993, 2806.426, 2812.572, 2819.816, 2836.542, 2844.095, 2848.714, 2870.615, 2893.45, 2901.746, 2909.099, 2914.791, 2923.472, 2940.854, 2969.629, 2974.757, 2982.143, 2993.562, 3014.768, 3019.746, 3033.418, 3046.309, 3049.323, 3051.497, 3053.76, 3056.804, 3065.376, 3075.634, 3084.113, 3089.363, 3095.269, 3097.773, 3101.943, 3105.903, 3109.219, 3110.295, 3110.942, 3113.984, 3121.018, 3128.331, 3132.772, 3141.805, 3144.428, 3153.674, 3156.686], "stop_times": [2662.745, 2670.516, 2673.887, 2708.126, 2715.549, 2732.002, 2742.166, 2748.284, 2756.116, 2761.473, 2771.57, 2778.993, 2806.426, 2812.572, 2819.816, 2836.542, 2844.095, 2848.714, 2870.615, 2893.45, 2901.746, 2909.099, 2914.791, 2923.472, 2940.854, 2969.629, 2974.757, 2982.143, 2993.562, 3014.768, 3019.746, 3033.418, 3046.309, 3049.323, 3051.497, 3053.76, 3056.804, 3065.376, 3075.634, 3084.113, 3089.363, 3095.269, 3097.773, 3101.943, 3105.903, 3109.219, 3110.295, 3110.942, 3113.984, 3121.018, 3128.331, 3132.772, 3141.805, 3144.428, 3153.674, 3156.686, 3159.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2659.803}, "reply_to": "15079__1_080", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_082", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "In California, what's the maximum for assault and battery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3159.957], "stop_times": [3164.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.957}, "reply_to": "15079__1_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_083", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Assault and battery?\nOh, this is a miss to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3164.937, 3166.351], "stop_times": [3166.351, 3168.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3164.937}, "reply_to": "15079__1_082", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_084", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Was the appellee was guilty of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3168.904], "stop_times": [3171.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.904}, "reply_to": "15079__1_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_085", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "You mean in this -- well, I don't know the facts the man had the cut -- cut lip by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3171.477], "stop_times": [3180.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3171.477}, "reply_to": "15079__1_084", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_086", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Well, assume they were just to fight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3180.086], "stop_times": [3181.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.086}, "reply_to": "15079__1_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_087", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That in assault by a prisoner of another prisoner serving a life term.\nIt's a very serious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3181.693, 3186.683], "stop_times": [3186.683, 3186.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3181.693}, "reply_to": "15079__1_086", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_088", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But my point is, if he had been charged -- If he'd been tried on the fight charge assault and battery, could he have gotten life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3186.741], "stop_times": [3199.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.741}, "reply_to": "15079__1_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_089", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "The answer of that is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3199.567], "stop_times": [3202.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3199.567}, "reply_to": "15079__1_088", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_090", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "But he did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3202.322], "stop_times": [3203.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.322}, "reply_to": "15079__1_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_091", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "He did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3203.977], "stop_times": [3205.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3203.977}, "reply_to": "15079__1_090", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_092", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "What did he get here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3205.203], "stop_times": [3205.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.203}, "reply_to": "15079__1_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_093", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "He got his term refixed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3205.84], "stop_times": [3207.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3205.84}, "reply_to": "15079__1_092", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_094", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "At what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3207.854], "stop_times": [3209.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.854}, "reply_to": "15079__1_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_095", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "At the maximum.\nBut subject to being refix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3209.758, 3210.616], "stop_times": [3210.616, 3212.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3209.758}, "reply_to": "15079__1_094", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_096", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Which is life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3212.383], "stop_times": [3213.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.383}, "reply_to": "15079__1_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15079__1_097", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "That's true but its not final, it tentative.\nHe can be refix at any point and it is end that.\nIt is no way a punishment for that act.\nIt simply an indication that he is not adjusted or rehabilitated.\nThere's not presented a sufficient risk to be placed on the parole and to have the term fixed and go into the community.\nThat is all that indicates.\nOur final argument is that, there is Constitution does not require in this situation, anymore than there be cause.\nDue process and I simply requires the Sixth Amendment is not applicable.\nThese are not criminal proceedings.\nThere is then an argument here that this is the keen to sentencing and that indeed the judges is very limited which is not so in California.\nAs we indicated in our brief, only 17% of those people convicted of felonies are ever sent to the State Prison.\nThe other 83% are given probation, jail, conditions of probation, sent to other institutions such as the Narcotic Treatment Center or mental ins -- other mental institutions.\nThe fact is that at that point, the punitive part of the criminal process has ended.\nThe punitive part of the prison term is that which is the minimum set for the legislature.\nBut he sentence him to the state prison, the minimum represent the legislature determination that fact will suffice -- that that will suffice to deter a third persons from committing these kinds of acts here arm robbery and that will serve to punish the individual involve.\nBut as Judge Goodrich has said, once the period of contentious litigations is over, when a man accused of crime its tried in the sentenced.\nNow, the problem becomes one of an attempt that rehabilitation.\nThere is no place for the punitive process once that minimum term in state prison is fixed.\nAs our contention that Minford versus Ray does not apply here as your other point out that involve counsel.\nThat on the revocation of parole, the sentence had not been entered.\nThe counsel was neither to marshal the facts one and you stated that even more important was the necessity of counsel to preserve rights which otherwise would have been lost to with an appeal and specifically, an appeal and a right to withdraw of that plea.\nNo rights are lost in this process.\nIt can always be fixed and refixed, there is nothing final.\nSecondly, the case of Minford versus Ray did not overrule the case of Williams versus New York, in which this Court stated it at that point at sentencing a man was not entitled to all of the procedural protections that were recorded to the man during the criminal trial.\nSpecifically, that he did not have the right of confrontation in cross examination.\nThat the judge could rely upon probation reports, hearsay as to the man background, he's social adjustment, his education, his training, his jobs, his family, all of those factors that go into the determination of sentence along with the punitive element in the sentence.\nThis Court has said in cases and indeed.\nMr. Justice Black said, \u201cthey have the Due Process Clause should not be treated as the device for freezing the evidential procedure of sentencing in the mold of trial procedure.\u201d\nAs our contention here that the kind of procedure and the very nature of the thing involve as indicated in numerous cases of such as Hannah versus Larthe.\nThe nature of the proceeding must be look to in determining what due process rights are applicable here.\nThe nature of the proceeding and the burden placed upon that proceeding.\nThe courts have indicated that they use a lot of terms that this is a privilege, it's a never of grace, its not an adjudication.\nBut I think that the Court miss the circuit properly pointed out that his characterization does not answer the question that we must look to the nature of what it is.\nNot simply characterized as a privilege or approach of right and the nature of what we are dealing with here is the determination by a group of experts who are concerned with the rehabilitation and the readjustment of people committed to the state prisons.\nAt the other hand, they must look at the risk they present to the public and there is one point I would like to make and that is that the in making these evaluations, the wider the latitude they have in making it, the greater possibility before error.\nThat is that there are greater possibility that they made a mistake, that the man maybe a bad risk.\nAnd on the other hand, the more difficult is it is for such groups to correct that error, then the less latitude they will have in making that determination.\nEither as a matter of fact or as a matter of state law.\nI say, we do the prisoners know service when we impose upon this procedure, any burden be on that that requires that agency to act with cause.\nI suggest that the board must and does look at his entire background in the fixing and refixing of these terms.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3213.439, 3216.132, 3222.976, 3229.911, 3233.761, 3244.357, 3247.938, 3259.521, 3266.273, 3268.219, 3282.503, 3291.527, 3307.619, 3316.827, 3326.141, 3346.001, 3358.741, 3363.43, 3376.011, 3386.927, 3391.179, 3408.597, 3410.89, 3415.711, 3438.32, 3444.147, 3467.61, 3470.981, 3482.619, 3494.269, 3501.195, 3505.597, 3515.16, 3530.228, 3556.885, 3577.154, 3584.248, 3599.954, 3604.503, 3623.212, 3638.564], "stop_times": [3216.132, 3222.976, 3229.911, 3233.761, 3244.357, 3247.938, 3259.521, 3266.273, 3268.219, 3282.503, 3291.527, 3307.619, 3316.827, 3326.141, 3346.001, 3358.741, 3363.43, 3376.011, 3386.927, 3391.179, 3408.597, 3410.89, 3415.711, 3438.32, 3444.147, 3467.61, 3470.981, 3482.619, 3494.269, 3501.195, 3505.597, 3515.16, 3530.228, 3556.885, 3577.154, 3584.248, 3599.954, 3604.503, 3623.212, 3638.564, 3639.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3213.439}, "reply_to": "15079__1_096", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__1_098", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Thank you Mr. Smith.\nMr. Ralston you have about one minute left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3639.033, 3640.945], "stop_times": [3640.945, 3644.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3639.033}, "reply_to": "15079__1_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__2_000", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "I -- thank you, Your Honor.\nI would like to make two very quick points.\nNumber one, the issue has been raised concerning whether there is an exhaustion of state remedies in this case.\nThe lower court did not dismiss this petition on the basis of exhaustion.\nNumber two, there are allegation in the second habeas petition on page 11 as to what was raised in the Supreme Court of California and his allegations are brief warden says in the Adult Authority took advantage of its loose definition to coerce petitioner making weaken submissive.\nWhat else may have been in this habeas petition is not set out here.\nIt is part of the record, it was part of the record in the lower court.\nAgain, this issue of exhaustion whether these issues are properly raised before the State Courts is a matter that could be best be resolved by the District Court on remand.\nThis is again the problem in this case for the dismissal without asking for response, without having a hearing, without exploring the record to find out what in fact has happened in this case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3644.047, 3645.712, 3648.195, 3656.876, 3663.571, 3684.669, 3689.3, 3693.44, 3702.242, 3714.022], "stop_times": [3645.712, 3648.195, 3656.876, 3663.571, 3684.669, 3689.3, 3693.44, 3702.242, 3714.022, 3714.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3644.047}, "reply_to": "15079__1_098", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__2_001", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Would it not be more accurate or perhaps accurate to say that the state -- that the federal court in the first go around had no occasion to or even reach the matter of exhaustion of state remedies?\nBy the way that the case was treated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3714.421, 3728.931], "stop_times": [3728.931, 3730.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3714.421}, "reply_to": "15079__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__2_002", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThey just said, no federal question was raised.\nSo, with that disposition, they wouldn't even consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3730.875, 3731.454, 3734.077], "stop_times": [3731.454, 3734.077, 3738.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3730.875}, "reply_to": "15079__2_001", "speaker": "charles_stephen_ralston"}
{"id": "15079__2_003", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Mr. Ralston, you acted that the request on the appointment of this Court and we thank you for you assistance to the Court.\nAnd of course, to the petitioner and to the whole system.\nThank you for your submission.\nWe thank you for your submission Mr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3738.636, 3744.7, 3748.84, 3749.858], "stop_times": [3744.7, 3748.84, 3749.858, 3752.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3738.636}, "reply_to": "15079__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15079__3_000", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3752.024], "stop_times": [3752.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3752.024}, "reply_to": "15079__2_003", "speaker": "arlo_e_smith"}
{"id": "15079__3_001", "conversation_id": "15079", "text": "The case is Submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_40", "start_times": [3752.293], "stop_times": [3755.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3752.293}, "reply_to": "15079__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_000", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Number 234, Czosek against O'mara.\nMr. Lyman, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [0.0, 9.7], "stop_times": [9.7, 13.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_001", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, honorable justices, this is a case which comes before this Court to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals below which partially reversed and partially affirmed a District Court judgment granting motions to dismiss a complaint.\nThe plaintiffs in this case before employees of the Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company which is the railroad formed as the result of the merger of the former Erie Railroad and the former Delaware Lackawanna & Western Railroad.\nThat merger took place in 1960.\nAnd in 1962, the plaintiffs and the allegations to their complaint which of course control the facts where situation here were furloughed from their employment as stationary engineers.\nThey alleged in the complaint several different theories of action.\nThey contend that that furlough being allegedly as a result of the merger of the railroads was the violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.\nThey allege that it was a violation of the implementing agreement without specification as to what a implementing agreement provided for or what provisions were relied upon.\nThey alleged that it was further violative of the Railway Labor Act and that they did not receive 30 days advance written notice of the fact that they were going to be furloughed.\nThey alleged that they received no compensation for their severance from employment or severance pay to which they say they were entitled to by the Interstate Commerce Act and the implementing agreement.\nThey assert that the furlough constituted a wrongful discharge because they were not subsequently recalled from the furlough or had not been up until the time of the suit which was filed in 1967, a predicate jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amounts on the Interstate Commerce Act Section 5 at sec and on the Railroad -- Railway Labor Act.\nThere was no specification of anything in the Interstate Commerce Act upon which they were relying to give rise to this action.\nThe only specific jurisdictional allegation as to the Railway Labor Act was this 30 day notice provision.\nAnd finally, in addition to all of these various allegations, they alleged that their union failed and refused to process the grievance and collect compensation for them after they had been furloughed or wrongfully discharged as the case maybe.\nAnd they say that this failure to process the grievance amounted to hostile discrimination, bad faith and so forth.\nThe District Court sustained the motions to dismiss that were filed by both defendants.\nFinding that there was no diversity of citizenship, the defendant Erie Lackawanna as a New York Corporation and the only union defendants were sued -- that were sued were also residents of the New York State.\nIt found that there was no basis for such an action or for jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act and that they were not relying on any provision of that Act or claiming any provision of the statute had been violated and that the only thing they were basically suing on was the implementing agreement.\nAs to the Railway Labor Act, they said that the adjustment board had exclusive jurisdiction in the contract claim.\nWith respect to the charge that the union had failed to properly represent them, the District Court ruled that although the plaintiffs used the first hostile discrimination and alleging that they fail to process their claims properly.\nUse of that phrase alone would not support jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act as an unfair representation claim.\nAnd the District Court further pointed out that the plaintiffs were not attacking the validity of any collective bargaining agreement and they were not claiming that they could not personally pursue their administrative remedies to enforce a contract rights under that agreement.\nAfter that ruling by the District Court, plaintiffs did not seek leave to file an amended complaint or attempt to file one but instead appeal from the decision of the District Court.\nThus, all we have in the record before the Court to support the factual questions involved are the complaint, they're too much to dismiss, plus so called affidavits that were filed with the District Court in connection with those motions to dismiss.\nThe unions defendants, petitioners here, file a regular motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter and failure to state a claim and filed no supporting affidavit, so that it was an ordinary motion to dismiss.\nThe railroad's motion was supported by an affidavit of counsel which appears at page 12 of the appendix which did recite some facts.\nOn page 13, the second complete paragraph of the page states the railroads version of the facts out of which the dispute arose.\nThe plaintiffs filed -- the plaintiff's attorney files his own affidavit in our position to the motions to dismiss.\nAppearing on page 15 of the appendix and which he does not state any facts simply recites what he contend, what he contended the nature of the action to be and then recited and I quote \u201cthat the plaintiffs do not have to allege facts or damages in their complaint under the federal rules.\u201d\nFollowing this decision of the District Court, plaintiff's appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the complaint was sufficient to state a federal claim against the union defendants for breach of they duty of fairer representation.\nBut as to the railroad defendant, it sustained the District Court's dismissal of the complaint for the reason that plaintiffs had to assert there claim for wrongful discharge against the railroad exclusively before the National Railroad Adjustment Board and further sustain the District Court's other findings as to the lack of any substance and the various jurisdictional allegations to the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [13.328, 44.843, 70.886, 76.17, 97.505, 106.357, 122.005, 137.957, 154.172, 172.871, 228.647, 244.802, 253.732, 280.145, 294.771, 307.522, 324.338, 353.331, 364.263, 398.349, 407.926, 433.964, 451.157, 477.076, 498.389, 519.71, 535.913, 549.227, 587.856, 609.06], "stop_times": [44.843, 70.886, 76.17, 97.505, 106.357, 122.005, 137.957, 154.172, 172.871, 228.647, 244.802, 253.732, 280.145, 294.771, 307.522, 324.338, 353.331, 364.263, 398.349, 407.926, 433.964, 451.157, 477.076, 498.389, 519.71, 535.913, 549.227, 587.856, 609.06, 643.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.328}, "reply_to": "15472__0_000", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_002", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Does the employee Mr. Lyman have any avenue through the adjustment board as you see it, and if so what is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [643.739], "stop_times": [652.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.739}, "reply_to": "15472__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_003", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Employee --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [652.474], "stop_times": [653.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.474}, "reply_to": "15472__0_002", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_004", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "In a proceeding against the union only wherein a claim, asserting a claim keeps the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [653.906], "stop_times": [660.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.906}, "reply_to": "15472__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_005", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No.\nYou may not proceed against the union only before the adjustment board.\nIt is our opinion or out contention that an employee cannot by a selective source of defendants have the alternative of either collecting damages from his union in a Court action or proceeding before the adjustment board against the railroad.\nIf an employee has an adequate administrative remedy, we contend that it must be resorted to and exhausted as -- or he must attempt to exhaust it or show that it would be futile to do so under the line of medics in Vaca against Sipes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [660.171, 661.036, 667.031, 696.438], "stop_times": [661.036, 667.031, 696.438, 714.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.171}, "reply_to": "15472__0_004", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_006", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Did he prevent it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [714.891], "stop_times": [717.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.891}, "reply_to": "15472__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_007", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [717.159], "stop_times": [718.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.159}, "reply_to": "15472__0_006", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_008", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Did he prevail against all sort of action against the union as such?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [718.025], "stop_times": [721.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.025}, "reply_to": "15472__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_009", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No because the adjustment board will make him entirely hold for the alleged wrongful discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [721.011], "stop_times": [725.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.011}, "reply_to": "15472__0_008", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_010", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Whom does he proceed against before the board, the employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [725.907], "stop_times": [728.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.907}, "reply_to": "15472__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__0_011", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [728.964], "stop_times": [729.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.964}, "reply_to": "15472__0_010", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_012", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Whom does the employee proceed against before the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [729.668], "stop_times": [733.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.668}, "reply_to": "15472__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__0_013", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [733.307], "stop_times": [734.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.307}, "reply_to": "15472__0_012", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_014", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Right, and suppose if he prevails, I gather your position as he has no cause of action against the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [734.782], "stop_times": [741.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.782}, "reply_to": "15472__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__0_015", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Because he has recovered fully for any damage or injury he suffered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [741.487], "stop_times": [746.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.487}, "reply_to": "15472__0_014", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_016", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "As he does not prevail, then does he have a cause of action against the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [746.902], "stop_times": [750.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.902}, "reply_to": "15472__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__0_017", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That we would contend not because in the Landmark case, recent decision of this Court in Vaca against Sipes, one of the basic element which an employee must sustain and action against his union for unfair representation is that his claim against the company is a good one on the merits.\nNow, this points up Mr. Justice Brennan, the problem and dilemma that the Court of Appeals left us in.\nIf he goes against the Railroad Company before the adjustment board, the adjustment board holds in an award which this Court has many times ruled, his final and binding and conclusive and the recent amendments of the statute say so.\nAnd then he has established the absence of any valid claim on the merits and we would say then it would be completely horrendous, if he could turn around and collect his full damages and an action against the union for unfair representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [750.908, 778.839, 791.202, 809.552], "stop_times": [778.839, 791.202, 809.552, 827.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.908}, "reply_to": "15472__0_016", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_018", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Isn't the -- the law doesn't require, does it?\nOr may be it does in the railroad area that in fact maybe awarded upon reinstatement?\nI suppose that's still --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [827.386, 831.937, 839.136], "stop_times": [831.937, 839.136, 841.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.386}, "reply_to": "15472__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_019", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The law --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [841.808], "stop_times": [844.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.808}, "reply_to": "15472__0_018", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_020", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I know they certainly can give it but if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [844.049], "stop_times": [847.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.049}, "reply_to": "15472__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_021", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "They normally do, that would depend on whether the contract entitled the man to it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [847.587], "stop_times": [851.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.587}, "reply_to": "15472__0_020", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_022", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And if the board said, if the board said, well that the only place you can get a remedy for reinstatement is from the employer.\nThe union certainly couldn't reinstate him but we think that the only reason the employer fired this man is because of the -- as the result of union's hostility, not because the employer want to because the union wanted the employer too.\nWe will not award him back pay against the employer, let him recover that from the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [851.366, 859.113, 873.886], "stop_times": [859.113, 873.886, 880.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.366}, "reply_to": "15472__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_023", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I have seen no such awards and of course you have no assurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [880.942], "stop_times": [885.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.942}, "reply_to": "15472__0_022", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_024", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Would you think it would be proper under the law for the board to deny full back pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [885.206], "stop_times": [893.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.206}, "reply_to": "15472__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_025", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, under Your Honors decision in Vaca against Sipes, if part of his damages were attributable to the unions action, the union of course should asses -- be assessed with that liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [893.341], "stop_times": [906.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.341}, "reply_to": "15472__0_024", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_026", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But the board can do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [906.983], "stop_times": [907.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.983}, "reply_to": "15472__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_027", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Prorating process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [907.974], "stop_times": [909.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.974}, "reply_to": "15472__0_026", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_028", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But the board couldn't do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [909.302], "stop_times": [911.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.302}, "reply_to": "15472__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_029", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I don't see how the board could make the decision for some Court before which the employer would go against the union and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [911.281], "stop_times": [921.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.281}, "reply_to": "15472__0_028", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_030", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But it could say that you won't give him back pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [921.816], "stop_times": [925.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.816}, "reply_to": "15472__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_031", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "As against the union, the union wouldn't even be a party to the claim you see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [925.112], "stop_times": [929.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.112}, "reply_to": "15472__0_030", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_032", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Or as against the employer they could say, we will not give him back pay.\nHe's going to get any back pay, he has to get it from the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [929.828, 934.082], "stop_times": [934.082, 937.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.828}, "reply_to": "15472__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_033", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Of course in Your Honor's decision in Vaca against Sipes, you pointed out that there is a little different situation presented when the -- when as in this case, the charge of unfair representation is based on failure to process a grievance which is caused by a completely unrelated independent breach of contract by the employer.\nThere is absolutely no allegation in this complaint, no intimation in any of the recitation of facts that the union was in any way responsible for precipitating the furlough or discharge of these men.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [937.456, 971.616], "stop_times": [971.616, 986.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.456}, "reply_to": "15472__0_032", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_034", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But that's a pleading problem, that's -- it may be that the union, that the employee against the union can't prove its case, unless it proves something like that but it does say that it was -- there was hostile -- the allegation is hostile discrimination by the union in the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [986.413], "stop_times": [1006.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.413}, "reply_to": "15472__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_035", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The only factual allegation of the complaint to support that conclusory styling of the action is the allegation that the union failed to process the grievance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1006.191], "stop_times": [1023.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.191}, "reply_to": "15472__0_034", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_036", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1023.396], "stop_times": [1024.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.396}, "reply_to": "15472__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_037", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "It alleges no motive, any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1024.048], "stop_times": [1027.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.048}, "reply_to": "15472__0_036", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_038", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, does it have to?\nWhy isn't that a matter of proof and discovery, things like that rather than having to plead your evidence in the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1027.525, 1028.43], "stop_times": [1028.43, 1040.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.525}, "reply_to": "15472__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_039", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, Your Honor pointed out that hostile discrimination, something akin to malice, actual malice, that sort of concept is of the essence of an unfair representation claim.\nWe don't understand that a union is going to be penalized for maybe failing to properly asses the merits of a claim unless there is some basic invidious discrimination that is involved and as failure to do so, that is absent in this case.\nPlaintiffs try to supply it by oral argument of his counsel even though he did not have the District Court level at least although he does now want to amend his complaint.\nBy arguing orally to the Court that maybe there was a political motive because these people were laid off but some former employees of the former Erie Railroad were kept on and that therefore there was political discrimination.\nNo rational basis is stated for any such charge of political discrimination as a matter of fact in its -- I might also almost go back to the words of this Court in 1854 case wholly baseless and without reason to think that a union stood to achieve any political gain or had any political motive by merely failing to collect severance pay for somebody that the company had furloughed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1040.984, 1054.446, 1079.999, 1095.978, 1117.308], "stop_times": [1054.446, 1079.999, 1095.978, 1117.308, 1154.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.984}, "reply_to": "15472__0_038", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_040", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But if as Justice White suggested, there is some underlying hostility on the part of the union officials, the steward toward this employee, that would be a factual, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1154.934], "stop_times": [1168.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.934}, "reply_to": "15472__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_041", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "If it was just personal spite and malice, I think it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1168.782], "stop_times": [1172.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.782}, "reply_to": "15472__0_040", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_042", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Perhaps it isn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1172.675], "stop_times": [1173.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.675}, "reply_to": "15472__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_043", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "There is no such allegation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1173.002], "stop_times": [1175.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.002}, "reply_to": "15472__0_042", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_044", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "He might have been an employee who hasn't cooperated with the union or who hasn't cooperated with the particular officers and therefore this was a retaliation.\nNow, we don't know that but would that not be a matter of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1175.254, 1183.886], "stop_times": [1183.886, 1186.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.254}, "reply_to": "15472__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_045", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Nor does the complaint suggested or alleged it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1186.048], "stop_times": [1188.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.048}, "reply_to": "15472__0_044", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_046", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Wouldn't that be a matter of proof rather than pleading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1188.833], "stop_times": [1191.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.833}, "reply_to": "15472__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_047", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, if it is, there is very little left to the part of Rule 12 that authorizes the dismissal of complaints for failure to state a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1191.615], "stop_times": [1207.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.615}, "reply_to": "15472__0_046", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_048", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well doesn't this completes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1207.346], "stop_times": [1208.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.346}, "reply_to": "15472__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_049", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "We're not contending that that detailed facts, common law pleading, technicalities must be observed, but there must be a pleading in the complaint of the basis for the charge that is being made even though it's not actually drawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1208.475], "stop_times": [1227.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.475}, "reply_to": "15472__0_048", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_050", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, the complaint does allege possible discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1227.97], "stop_times": [1231.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.97}, "reply_to": "15472__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_051", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "It alleges the pure conclusion but alleges nothing except the mere failure to process the grievance which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1231.676], "stop_times": [1240.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.676}, "reply_to": "15472__0_050", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_052", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I know but it does -- it does allege --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1240.231], "stop_times": [1241.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.231}, "reply_to": "15472__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_053", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Which they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1241.411], "stop_times": [1242.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.411}, "reply_to": "15472__0_052", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_054", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "It does allege in so many words, hostile discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1242.634], "stop_times": [1247.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.634}, "reply_to": "15472__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_055", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "It alleges that and some -- as other picturesque language in the paragraphs against the union but no facts except the very fact of not processing the grievance.\nNow, in Vaca against Sipes as in 2109, this Court also recognized the duty to exhaust remedies or attempt to exhaust them as a element of stating a claim and that was not done here and in fact on the record, in this Court of Appeal's brief, counsel for plaintiffs alleged -- admits that he could have gone to the adjustment board, it's well established that the adjustment board does take and is required to take submissions of individual employers and that 2153 eastern case, the board has in fact taken them.\nThe Court of Appeals in saying that the plaintiffs had to go against the railroad before the adjustment board, admitted ipso facto that plaintiffs do have a right to go to the board and it remanded them to the board where their claim against the railroad which was a claim for all of the damages that they have suffered.\nThere's no intimation which supports in the complaint or in the record anywhere that would support allocation of any portion of that remedy as against the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1247.698, 1264.867, 1318.54, 1343.773], "stop_times": [1264.867, 1318.54, 1343.773, 1357.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.698}, "reply_to": "15472__0_054", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_056", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That on the pleading question again, in addition to what Justice White has referred to about the allegation, the claim of hostile discrimination, there is an explicit allegation that the union breached its duty to the plaintiff as a member and violated the collective bargaining agreement by not representing him in the claim against the railroad.\nNow, how could he -- do you say that's not enough to raise the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1357.719, 1387.484], "stop_times": [1387.484, 1394.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.719}, "reply_to": "15472__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_057", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The allegation that he didn't -- that they did not represent them and prosecute their claim as a factual allegation.\nThe other is not the allegation in effect but a conclusion which, and again relying upon Vaca against Sipes, the mere failure to represent in process is not sufficient, it must be a malicious bad faith failure to represent a process.\nA union cannot be held to any standards of competence such as doctor is required to observe in malpractice suits and that sort of thing and there is nothing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1394.98, 1403.197, 1425.908], "stop_times": [1403.197, 1425.908, 1440.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.98}, "reply_to": "15472__0_056", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_058", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, there are cases which have held, I don't think in this Court but there are cases in the Court of Appeals which have held that the relationship between the union and its member is in the nature of the fiduciary relationship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1440.031], "stop_times": [1453.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.031}, "reply_to": "15472__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__0_059", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "We agree and where some factual basis alleged other than these bare statements showing that that fiduciary relationship was breached.\nShowing an act which by its nature would breach them, then it would be a different question.\nIf the Court please, I would like to reserve few minutes for rebuttal unless the Court has some further questions that they wish to ask now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1453.641, 1469.918, 1482.265], "stop_times": [1469.918, 1482.265, 1491.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.641}, "reply_to": "15472__0_058", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_060", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Could I ask you just one thing about -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1491.802], "stop_times": [1493.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.802}, "reply_to": "15472__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_061", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1493.011], "stop_times": [1494.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.011}, "reply_to": "15472__0_060", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_062", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "If there is a collective bargaining agreement, was there a collective bargaining agreement or this was in effect with the merger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1494.667], "stop_times": [1503.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.667}, "reply_to": "15472__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_063", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice White, there of course is all was the so called scheduled agreement on these railroad setting forth the basic rates of payrolls and working conditions then when --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1503.204], "stop_times": [1516.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.204}, "reply_to": "15472__0_062", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_064", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Is there anything that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1516.705], "stop_times": [1518.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.705}, "reply_to": "15472__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_065", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Then there was an implementing agreement to implement the merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1518.017], "stop_times": [1521.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.017}, "reply_to": "15472__0_064", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_066", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Is there any thing -- is there a provision in any of the agreements which indicate that the union has a duty, a contractual duty to represent the employee before the adjustment board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1521.255], "stop_times": [1533.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.255}, "reply_to": "15472__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_067", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Not that I know off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1533.375], "stop_times": [1535.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.375}, "reply_to": "15472__0_066", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_068", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Would you think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1535.174], "stop_times": [1535.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.174}, "reply_to": "15472__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_069", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And with the union, Railroad Unions in general have maintained the proposition that they may take employee's claims to the adjustment board or they may advise them that we don't think this a claim that has much merit but you're free to take it yourselves if you want to but we won't do it at the union expense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1535.499], "stop_times": [1558.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.499}, "reply_to": "15472__0_068", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_070", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Do you think the -- let's assume the union freely fits that it's a good claim but it just says we don't normally undertake this, is the employee permitted to go before the board by the law and let him go by himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1558.516], "stop_times": [1574.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.516}, "reply_to": "15472__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_071", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nI think the union could lawfully do that and perhaps the remedy for that if the employee wanted more extensive representation and activity by his union representative as to choose another union that will give it to him if he won't get it from that union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1574.483, 1575.76], "stop_times": [1575.76, 1594.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.483}, "reply_to": "15472__0_070", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_072", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Now, under the bargaining agreement, are the pre-board steps of the grievance procedure operable by the employee himself without the union's cooperation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1594.28], "stop_times": [1606.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.28}, "reply_to": "15472__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_073", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "We didn't get in to that in this case, on most properties, they are, as implementing agreement is not before the Court in the record.\nActually, I reviewed it recently and it is at the initial stages to be resorted to by the employee himself as I read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1606.389, 1619.117], "stop_times": [1619.117, 1630.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.389}, "reply_to": "15472__0_072", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_074", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Not from the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1630.818], "stop_times": [1631.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.818}, "reply_to": "15472__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_075", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No.\nAnd there is I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1631.847, 1632.322], "stop_times": [1632.322, 1635.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.847}, "reply_to": "15472__0_074", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_076", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "So that the employee --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1635.098], "stop_times": [1635.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.098}, "reply_to": "15472__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_077", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "-- 60 -- within 60 days of the time he claims is affected by the merger.\nThe employee is supposed to file on certain forms that were supplied, claim for compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1635.37, 1640.765], "stop_times": [1640.765, 1649.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1635.37}, "reply_to": "15472__0_076", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_078", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "So the employee is not barred from the grievance procedure because the union refuses to process it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1649.329], "stop_times": [1657.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.329}, "reply_to": "15472__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__0_079", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1657.144], "stop_times": [1660.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.144}, "reply_to": "15472__0_078", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__0_080", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Thank you Mr. Lyman.\nMr. Shea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1660.848, 1662.706], "stop_times": [1662.706, 1663.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.848}, "reply_to": "15472__0_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__1_000", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIt would appear that the chief thrust of the petitioner's argument of course is against the sufficiency of the claims.\nWith that in mind to be very candid to the Court, the employee respondents here rely on this Court's prior decision in Conley versus Gibson.\nAnd on page 7 of our brief, we quote \u201cwhat we believe to be the law of the United States related to the sufficiency of a complaint in the federal Court.\nThe Court indicated there that the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.\n\u201d Now, with this in mind, this is why I argued before the Circuit Court of Appeals in New York outside the record because there just isn't any record here outside the complaint and the affidavits of counsel.\nAnd the reason I did argue to the Second Court of Appeals as to what I believe is the factual background and which has not been disputed as far as I know by any of the counsel here as to the factual background which underlies the complaint in this case.\nNow, the respondent employees were four former members of the Delaware Lackawanna & Western Railroad that had varying periods of the service with that railroad ranging from 47 years to 9 years.\nOf course the merger took place in 1960 and these men were employed as stationary engineers in the city of Buffalo what was known as the Michigan Avenue Power Plant.\nThey were laid off during the summer which was the usual procedure with the company.\nThey were not called back to work for the fall season and the plant was closed down.\nNow of course, when the merger took place between the two railroads, there was a merger, if you will of the unions involved.\nThe employees were members of local 826 System Federation 78, counsel 2.\nNow, they were stationary engineers and they supplied the steam to provide heat for the power plant and also provided heat for the trains as they come in for the station.\nErie Railroad built a new station, a new plant in the City of Buffalo.\nThese four men, the respondent employees here as station engineers were not called back to work.\nTheir jobs were replaced by four former employees of the Erie Railroad and these four former employees of the Erie Railroad were not stationary engineers but they were laborers.\nAnd it was the contention of the employees and they had made this know through again, this is after -- this is not in the record but I feel like we have to bring it to the Court's attention with the Court's permission.\nThey brought this situation to the attention of the master mechanic for the railroad and the union representative.\nThe answer that they received from both parties was that the -- they were not affected employees with respect to the merger, that the reason that they lost their jobs or to use the word furlough as the other counsel used it, was because of the obsolescence of this Michigan Avenue Power Plant.\nNow, in the lower courts and the District Court and then the Court of Appeals, both the attorneys for the union and the attorneys for the Railroad indicated that these men have not lost their jobs, that they were just furloughed.\nOf course this is almost 8 years later and they still called it a furlough, they don't call it a wrongful discharge.\nThey did bring these -- they brought this attention of the situation to the master mechanic and the union representative as I indicated before, they got the same answer.\nAnd was written to the president of the union and he said that the reason that you were given before by the general chairman of the local counsel was the sufficient reason as to why you do not have your job, and that's the end of the matter.\nThere were no forms given to the employees here as to start any kind of action before the National Railroad Adjustment Board, nothing of this sort, nothing was done at all.\nAction was commenced in the Western District of New York.\nA complaint was filed and summonses were served on certain of the defendants.\nIt's the major contention of the employees here that this is a fair representation case against the union and that the National Railroad Adjustment Board under no decisions that I know of does not have jurisdiction over an unfair representation claim against the union alone.\nMy reading of cases in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, particularly the Cunningham case indicates that when a plaintiff has a claim against the union for unfair representation and also connected with that would have a wrongful discharge claim against the company that a better practice is not to disassociate the claims and make the plaintiff seek their relief in two different areas of law as it were but to let the employee plaintiff sue both people in the Federal District Court and it is my understanding of the Cunningham case as that what was done.\nJudge Medina indicated that in a closely integrated action that this is the better practice and this is what should be done and this is what I argued to the Court of Appeals in New York.\nAs to the argument of Mr. Lyman, relative to the company, the Railroad should not be led off, I agree but I think that the Court of Appeals in its opinion left the employees with and out as it were because they allowed us to amend our complaint if we could against the union, against the company, excuse me, alleging that if it wasn't -- not collusion but at least some kind of test that's understanding between the two defendants as to these job replacements.\nBecause, again, this is not in the record but the employees would attempt to prove that there was some kind of an agreement between the company and the union as represented by stronger people from the former Erie Railroad that there was some kind of agreement as to these four jobs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [1663.622, 1667.65, 1676.112, 1688.968, 1703.713, 1722.346, 1739.247, 1760.291, 1777.516, 1789.782, 1797.627, 1806.263, 1816.33, 1826.924, 1841.174, 1849.484, 1855.906, 1873.433, 1885.948, 1895.867, 1919.623, 1933.553, 1944.124, 1955.594, 1975.136, 1987.921, 1991.443, 1997.487, 2020.909, 2074.406, 2085.471, 2130.023], "stop_times": [1667.65, 1676.112, 1688.968, 1703.713, 1722.346, 1739.247, 1760.291, 1777.516, 1789.782, 1797.627, 1806.263, 1816.33, 1826.924, 1841.174, 1849.484, 1855.906, 1873.433, 1885.948, 1895.867, 1919.623, 1933.553, 1944.124, 1955.594, 1975.136, 1987.921, 1991.443, 1997.487, 2020.909, 2074.406, 2085.471, 2130.023, 2154.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1663.622}, "reply_to": "15472__0_080", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_001", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "How would you get around the rule that the board has exclusive jurisdiction to pass on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2154.963], "stop_times": [2165.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.963}, "reply_to": "15472__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_002", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Wrongful discharge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2165.304], "stop_times": [2166.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2165.304}, "reply_to": "15472__1_001", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_003", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes and other grievance type of cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2166.247], "stop_times": [2168.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.247}, "reply_to": "15472__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_004", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, as I understand the Cunningham case that as the posture, the case was tried on Mr. Justice White, a wrongful discharge along with the fair representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2168.716], "stop_times": [2180.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2168.716}, "reply_to": "15472__1_003", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_005", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I know but somebody might tell exactly here in this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2180.119], "stop_times": [2185.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.119}, "reply_to": "15472__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_006", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2185.547], "stop_times": [2186.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2185.547}, "reply_to": "15472__1_005", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_007", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "What if the Railroad which I take it would have the right under the law to take that kind of a case to the board, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2186.714], "stop_times": [2196.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.714}, "reply_to": "15472__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_008", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's my understanding of the law also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2196.924], "stop_times": [2199.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2196.924}, "reply_to": "15472__1_007", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_009", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And also, what if the Railroad says I insist on taking this to the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2199.022], "stop_times": [2203.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.022}, "reply_to": "15472__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_010", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, that would be the first time that the railroad is subject then because there is no allegation before that, they could have brought it to the board.\nAgain, then you come to the problem as the same factual set of circumstances that employees would I say be forced to go into two different forms to litigate the one question, really the one question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2203.391, 2210.355], "stop_times": [2210.355, 2225.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2203.391}, "reply_to": "15472__1_009", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_011", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Would you amend as the Court of Appeals suggest that you might --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2225.336], "stop_times": [2230.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.336}, "reply_to": "15472__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_012", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2230.69], "stop_times": [2232.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2230.69}, "reply_to": "15472__1_011", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_013", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Do I understand you to say that you concede that the railroad could take that case, the collusion case forward?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2232.285], "stop_times": [2239.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.285}, "reply_to": "15472__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_014", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2239.495], "stop_times": [2239.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2239.495}, "reply_to": "15472__1_013", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_015", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "You're saying only the discharge text, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2239.932], "stop_times": [2242.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.932}, "reply_to": "15472__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_016", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Correct Your Honor.\nAnd employees are suing, they are not suing for loss of seniority rights or anything like that.\nWe accept the furlough or discharge, whatever you want to call, its final and we're just pursuing along those remedies.\nThere is no other minor dispute category involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2242.517, 2243.347, 2248.17, 2255.844], "stop_times": [2243.347, 2248.17, 2255.844, 2260.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2242.517}, "reply_to": "15472__1_015", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_017", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "They just want money, they want the job back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2260.977], "stop_times": [2263.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.977}, "reply_to": "15472__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__1_018", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "They want retribution as far as money -- monetary damages are concerned here.\nThere has been no offer of severance pay or anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2263.233, 2267.769], "stop_times": [2267.769, 2269.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2263.233}, "reply_to": "15472__1_017", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_019", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But you still win your case even if you fail to win the -- even if you fail in your effort to join the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2269.91], "stop_times": [2280.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.91}, "reply_to": "15472__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_020", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I am not sure if I do win the case Your Honor, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2280.163], "stop_times": [2282.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2280.163}, "reply_to": "15472__1_019", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_021", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Why, why, your case is dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2282.503], "stop_times": [2286.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.503}, "reply_to": "15472__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_022", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Before the board you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2286.6], "stop_times": [2288.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2286.6}, "reply_to": "15472__1_021", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_023", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No, before in the Court, not dismiss the Court.\nDo you think the Second Circuit conditions your right to maintain the suit upon you joining the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2288.08, 2293.1], "stop_times": [2293.1, 2298.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.08}, "reply_to": "15472__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_024", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2298.89], "stop_times": [2299.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2298.89}, "reply_to": "15472__1_023", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_025", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No it didn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2299.726], "stop_times": [2300.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.726}, "reply_to": "15472__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_026", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's correct, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2300.328], "stop_times": [2301.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2300.328}, "reply_to": "15472__1_025", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_027", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But you can still proceed against the Union even if you didn't join the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2301.115], "stop_times": [2304.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.115}, "reply_to": "15472__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_028", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's true Your Honor, I could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2304.96], "stop_times": [2306.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2304.96}, "reply_to": "15472__1_027", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_029", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But your cause of action might require some kind of proof of employer participation, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2306.752], "stop_times": [2312.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.752}, "reply_to": "15472__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__1_030", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Even more than that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2312.863], "stop_times": [2313.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2312.863}, "reply_to": "15472__1_029", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_031", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Even against the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2313.354], "stop_times": [2314.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.354}, "reply_to": "15472__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_032", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Even more than that Mr. Justice Brennan because the -- of course the discharge was precipitated by the company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2314.257], "stop_times": [2322.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2314.257}, "reply_to": "15472__1_031", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_033", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "So your evidence would have to go to employer conduct whether or not you amend it to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2322.133], "stop_times": [2327.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.133}, "reply_to": "15472__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_034", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Would certainly be an evidentiary problem that District Court to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2327.563], "stop_times": [2332.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2327.563}, "reply_to": "15472__1_033", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_035", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "So you're not alleging a union caused discharge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2332.115], "stop_times": [2340.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.115}, "reply_to": "15472__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_036", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No, because in a pure sense, the union couldn't cause it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2340.102], "stop_times": [2342.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2340.102}, "reply_to": "15472__1_035", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_037", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "You just alleged remedy to discharge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2342.544], "stop_times": [2345.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.544}, "reply_to": "15472__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_038", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Right, at least collusion on part of the union with the Railroad, to cause the loss of employment by the employees here.\nAs far as the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2345.636, 2359.347], "stop_times": [2359.347, 2361.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2345.636}, "reply_to": "15472__1_037", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_039", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Suppose, in this posture now that employer were to go to the board on the discharge case, I gather the railroad could do that, couldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2361.164], "stop_times": [2368.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.164}, "reply_to": "15472__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_040", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes, it's my understanding --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2368.557], "stop_times": [2369.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2368.557}, "reply_to": "15472__1_039", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_041", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Even though you're not asking for reinstatement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2369.249], "stop_times": [2371.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.249}, "reply_to": "15472__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_042", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Correct, we are not asking for reinstatement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2371.102], "stop_times": [2372.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2371.102}, "reply_to": "15472__1_041", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_043", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Suppose a determination of the board favorable to the railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2372.926], "stop_times": [2377.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.926}, "reply_to": "15472__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_044", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Then these employees are out of the picture as far as the railroad is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2377.926], "stop_times": [2383.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2377.926}, "reply_to": "15472__1_043", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_045", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, What's the bearing of a determination of the board in favor of the railroad upon your lawsuit against the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2383.622], "stop_times": [2390.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.622}, "reply_to": "15472__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_046", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I just said, as far as the railroad is concerned.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2390.462, 2393.208], "stop_times": [2393.208, 2394.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2390.462}, "reply_to": "15472__1_045", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_047", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "You still have your cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2394.282], "stop_times": [2395.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.282}, "reply_to": "15472__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_048", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The case against the union, it's my understanding, we're still allowed to sue the union but again it's a practical problem, it's an evidentiary problem as far as these employees are concerned.\nWhy disjoint the case when it's a closely integrated problem and allow the plaintiffs to go into a Federal District Court at least expense to them and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2395.593, 2407.03], "stop_times": [2407.03, 2418.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2395.593}, "reply_to": "15472__1_047", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_049", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I expect there might be -- you don't concede there might be any kind of question at all about your lawsuit against the union if the board were to find in favor of the railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2418.08], "stop_times": [2428.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.08}, "reply_to": "15472__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__1_050", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, that's the reason I didn't want to go to the board naturally because the board is comprised of members of the union and the company.\nWhen you're alleged in a complaint such as this that there was some kind of -- conspiracy is kind of a bad word but some kind of collusion anyways against the employees by both sides as this Court indicated in Glover although that was a racial discrimination case, I really don't see too much distinction between this case and the Glover case as far as allowing these employees to go into a District Court and not to disassociate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2428.875, 2436.329], "stop_times": [2436.329, 2469.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2428.875}, "reply_to": "15472__1_049", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_051", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, if you want to you could decline the option that the Court of Appeals gave you and maintain the action against the union only, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2469.593], "stop_times": [2478.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.593}, "reply_to": "15472__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__1_052", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I could Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2478.214], "stop_times": [2479.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2478.214}, "reply_to": "15472__1_051", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_053", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And then except for the statutes of limitations if you didn't prevail there, you could seek against the railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2479.492], "stop_times": [2485.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.492}, "reply_to": "15472__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__1_054", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Which is very important in this case, the statute of limitations because of course it lays a point over the Court, it's almost 8 years old is the case now and my understanding of the procedure of the National Railroad Adjustment Board that's quite time consuming there as far as getting before the board and getting a decision.\nEssentially, that's the position of the employees of this case and unless the Court has any further questions, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2485.623, 2512.137], "stop_times": [2512.137, 2521.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2485.623}, "reply_to": "15472__1_053", "speaker": "james_p_shea"}
{"id": "15472__1_055", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Thank you Mr. Shea.\nMr. Griffin, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2521.522, 2527.679], "stop_times": [2527.679, 2530.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.522}, "reply_to": "15472__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__2_000", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Court, may it please the Court.\nOn behalf of the Erie Lackawanna, the respondent employer in the case, basically, it's our position that we had a right to have the question of this matter of whether the furloughing or discharge was right or wrong, whether it had anything to do with the merger, but basically, this is a question of an interpretation of agreements and then under the Railway Labor Act that the design of that is that where agreements are interpreted in this type of dispute that the National Railroad Adjustment Board is the one to interpret the agreements and accordingly, the plaintiffs had an obligation to take the case there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2530.73, 2535.186], "stop_times": [2535.186, 2582.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2530.73}, "reply_to": "15472__1_055", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_001", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Mr. Griffin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2582.682], "stop_times": [2583.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.682}, "reply_to": "15472__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_002", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2583.346], "stop_times": [2584.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2583.346}, "reply_to": "15472__2_001", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_003", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The railroad hasn't caused petitioned here, has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2584.311], "stop_times": [2586.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.311}, "reply_to": "15472__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_004", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2586.854], "stop_times": [2587.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2586.854}, "reply_to": "15472__2_003", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_005", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Are you objecting to a leave aloud the petitioners to other employees rather to amend?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2587.923], "stop_times": [2594.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.923}, "reply_to": "15472__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_006", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Am I objecting to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2594.804], "stop_times": [2596.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2594.804}, "reply_to": "15472__2_005", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_007", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2596.092], "stop_times": [2597.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.092}, "reply_to": "15472__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_008", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2597.046], "stop_times": [2597.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2597.046}, "reply_to": "15472__2_007", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_009", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, how can you -- you didn't cross petition that against you, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2597.881], "stop_times": [2603.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.881}, "reply_to": "15472__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_010", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No I did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2603.49], "stop_times": [2604.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2603.49}, "reply_to": "15472__2_009", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_011", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "The only as I understand it, all we have here is the union's petition, isn't that all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2604.459], "stop_times": [2610.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.459}, "reply_to": "15472__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_012", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's correct in terms of a petition Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2610.823], "stop_times": [2613.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2610.823}, "reply_to": "15472__2_011", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_013", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "What you mean is that you don't like it but you happen to be -- you haven't asked us to review it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2613.849], "stop_times": [2618.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.849}, "reply_to": "15472__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__2_014", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "No I haven't filed any formal petition.\nMy understanding was that all questions are before the Court and this Court has the power in the posture that it is to order reinstatement of the District Court decision which dismissed as against all defendants without any leave.\nAnd furthermore, although the main thrust of the union's argument is that the complaint should be dismissed as against it.\nIt also in its brief makes certain implicitly alternative arguments as against the railroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2618.192, 2621.334, 2643.055, 2655.74], "stop_times": [2621.334, 2643.055, 2655.74, 2663.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2618.192}, "reply_to": "15472__2_013", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_015", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But Mr. Griffin, you're a respondent, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2663.313], "stop_times": [2665.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.313}, "reply_to": "15472__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_016", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2665.872], "stop_times": [2666.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2665.872}, "reply_to": "15472__2_015", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_017", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Ordinarily, a respondent is here defending the judgment below, isn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2666.489], "stop_times": [2674.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.489}, "reply_to": "15472__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_018", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2674.179], "stop_times": [2675.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2674.179}, "reply_to": "15472__2_017", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_019", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And you're here attacking the judgment insofar as amendment against the railroad was permitted, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2675.065], "stop_times": [2683.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.065}, "reply_to": "15472__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_020", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "In part, that's my purpose Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2683.105], "stop_times": [2685.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2683.105}, "reply_to": "15472__2_019", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_021", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2685.008], "stop_times": [2685.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.008}, "reply_to": "15472__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_022", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I think that the -- it's my position that the gratuitous none asked for permission to start in effect another lawsuit against the railroad that the Second Circuit gave was improper and unnecessary and --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2685.463], "stop_times": [2702.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2685.463}, "reply_to": "15472__2_021", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_023", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "My question is whether you can bring that to us without having cross petition against the judgment which gave that leave to the -- your co-respondents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2702.242], "stop_times": [2712.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.242}, "reply_to": "15472__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_024", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "It's a good question and I'm frank to say that Your Honor, I'm not able to authoritatively respond.\nAt the time that the petition on behalf of the union was filed, I do recall that in our office, we went into that thing and it's my impression, I could be wrong that we determined at that time that if certiorari was granted by this Court on the union's application, then the Court would have the power once it was granted to review the particular issue that I'm referring to here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2712.523, 2718.916], "stop_times": [2718.916, 2748.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2712.523}, "reply_to": "15472__2_023", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_025", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Why would you ever -- class as a respondent in this case anyway, because you didn't petition, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2748.599], "stop_times": [2756.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.599}, "reply_to": "15472__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_026", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, I'm -- I was originally --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2756.669], "stop_times": [2757.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2756.669}, "reply_to": "15472__2_025", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_027", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Or a petitioner you're a respondent, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2757.961], "stop_times": [2760.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.961}, "reply_to": "15472__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_028", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's right.\nWas originally a defendant in the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2760.077, 2760.592], "stop_times": [2760.592, 2762.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2760.077}, "reply_to": "15472__2_027", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_029", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes, and you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2762.896], "stop_times": [2763.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.896}, "reply_to": "15472__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_030", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "--then I was an appellee in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2763.348], "stop_times": [2765.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2763.348}, "reply_to": "15472__2_029", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_031", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And you wanted to sustain the District Court's judgment of dismissal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2765.779], "stop_times": [2769.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.779}, "reply_to": "15472__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_032", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's correct insofar -- .", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2769.237], "stop_times": [2770.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2769.237}, "reply_to": "15472__2_031", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_033", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "And the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and you objected to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2770.671], "stop_times": [2774.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.671}, "reply_to": "15472__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_034", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That is correct.\nInsofar --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2774.914, 2776.195], "stop_times": [2776.195, 2777.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2774.914}, "reply_to": "15472__2_033", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_035", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "You and the union argued together in the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2777.805], "stop_times": [2780.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.805}, "reply_to": "15472__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15472__2_036", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's correct.\nWe were there to sustain Judge Henderson, the district judge's decision that there was no case in effect that we should be out 100%.\nAnd then the Second Circuit in effect sustained that on the basis of the case and pleadings before it but as I say gratuitously gave leave for the plaintiffs to start in effect another lawsuit against us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2780.421, 2781.473, 2791.897], "stop_times": [2781.473, 2791.897, 2804.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2780.421}, "reply_to": "15472__2_035", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_037", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "When you say gratuitously --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2804.474], "stop_times": [2806.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.474}, "reply_to": "15472__2_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__2_038", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well no one asked for it.\nThey say ab initio or on its own --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2806.478, 2808.987], "stop_times": [2808.987, 2812.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2806.478}, "reply_to": "15472__2_037", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_039", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "But there it is Mr. Griffin, it's a judgment and it's a judgment adverse to you and you have an appeal from it, part of it that is adverse to you, have you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2812.855], "stop_times": [2822.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.855}, "reply_to": "15472__2_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__2_040", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Are you sharing respondent's time here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2822.377], "stop_times": [2824.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.377}, "reply_to": "15472__2_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_041", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes, we made an application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2824.938], "stop_times": [2828.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2824.938}, "reply_to": "15472__2_040", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_042", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "For additional time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2828.379], "stop_times": [2829.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.379}, "reply_to": "15472__2_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15472__2_043", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "To divide the time Your Honor.\nWell, as I say I agree the kind of -- I apologize for our being unable to answer, if authoritative was -- that's my -- but on the question which is the other question that I think we're entitled to without question to address ourselves to and that is whether the railroad should be in the case at all and whether the exclusive remedy to the plaintiffs is not before the adjustment board, it's our position that this case must be in the adjustment board and that the exceptions to that that this Court has decided such as in the Glover case and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2829.578, 2834.113], "stop_times": [2834.113, 2878.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2829.578}, "reply_to": "15472__2_042", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_044", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Of course Mr. Griffin, if the employees don't amend as against the railroad, you have the case anyway, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2878.986], "stop_times": [2883.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.986}, "reply_to": "15472__2_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__2_045", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "That's right.\nAnd they never have amended --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2883.929, 2884.986], "stop_times": [2884.986, 2887.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2883.929}, "reply_to": "15472__2_044", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_046", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I wonder why you're here at all if I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2887.052], "stop_times": [2890.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.052}, "reply_to": "15472__2_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__2_047", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, if I knew --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2890.588], "stop_times": [2891.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2890.588}, "reply_to": "15472__2_046", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_048", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Or despite the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2891.06], "stop_times": [2892.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.06}, "reply_to": "15472__2_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__2_049", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2892.014], "stop_times": [2892.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2892.014}, "reply_to": "15472__2_048", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_050", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "I don't understand why you're here at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2892.187], "stop_times": [2893.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.187}, "reply_to": "15472__2_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__2_051", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, If I knew that the union in its brief did not suggest that this Court should make some adverse determination and maybe keep us in the lawsuit, then as far as that part of it, I wouldn't be here and I think that it's quite clear that we shouldn't be in the lawsuit and as I think Justice White developed in the question, this employee had all the chance in the world to go before the adjustment board, his counsel for years, his counsel decided not to go to the adjustment board and that was -- he had every opportunity in the world, there was nothing to prevent him but he didn't want to go there and this Court has consistently held that the Railway Labor Act provides exclusive remedy and has an obligation to go there.\nNow, Mr. Shea and I just will conclude with this went outside the record to argue about the merits of the case and I think I have to respond in this respect that he says that the Erie Railroad hired old employees of Erie that the merge railroad hired old employees to run a new power plant after the one power plant was closed down in Buffalo.\nWell, that's not a fact and it's not for you to decide whether or not it's a fact but he's gone into it and he never before put this in and they didn't build a new power station and hired new people because in Buffalo, the old Lackawanna had one of these great huge stations that you couldn't give away for years, finally it was sold for taxes or something and the power plant that he did it and so on came to an end and that's where these men worked.\nFor the limited time that there was passenger service, there was a source of steam elsewhere in Buffalo that was used and they didn't build a new power plant as Mr. Shea suggests.\nAnd accordingly, that's why all along they took the position that their jobs came to an end due to a railroad obsolescence, that the merger had nothing to do with it and accordingly that there's no case.\nAnd I think that that's what the Railroad Adjustment Board would hold, that there's no political discrimination, there's nothing in this case and that's why there's never been anything set forth in the pleadings because they don't have anything to set forth.\nIn the Glover's case where there was a futility question, the counsel went in great detail.\nAnd so in conclusion, it's our position very basically that the District Court was correct in dismissing this case 100% as against the defendant Erie Lackawanna, we feel that's where we should be.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [2893.916, 2946.328, 2970.041, 2999.472, 3013.037, 3026.253, 3038.391, 3043.782, 3057.173], "stop_times": [2946.328, 2970.041, 2999.472, 3013.037, 3026.253, 3038.391, 3043.782, 3057.173, 3059.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2893.916}, "reply_to": "15472__2_050", "speaker": "richard_f_griffin"}
{"id": "15472__2_052", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Mr. Lyman you have three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3059.071], "stop_times": [3064.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.071}, "reply_to": "15472__2_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__2_053", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Why did you make the railroad respondents Mr. Lyman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3064.626], "stop_times": [3068.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.626}, "reply_to": "15472__2_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__3_000", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Because the Court of Appeals left us as the sole defendants to defend against a charge claimed for damages based on the acts of the railroad company and not on our acts.\nAnd if the railroad had not been made the respondents, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3068.19, 3084.301], "stop_times": [3084.301, 3088.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3068.19}, "reply_to": "15472__2_053", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_001", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, you're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3088.627], "stop_times": [3089.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.627}, "reply_to": "15472__3_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__3_002", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "--we're out of it and we have to say their burden according to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3089.482], "stop_times": [3092.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3089.482}, "reply_to": "15472__3_001", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_003", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, your complaint is that instead of limiting the relief to the employees to amend on grounds of collusion against the railroad, you wanted the railroad what, make something else?\nAre you challenging the judgment as to the extent to which the railroad is kept in a way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3092.548, 3103.268], "stop_times": [3103.268, 3108.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.548}, "reply_to": "15472__3_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__3_004", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Under Vaca against Sipes, the Court made it very clear that the railroad cannot slip its burden off paying for its wrongful breach of contract off under the labor unions simply in a situation were like here, the union did not process the claim for the employees to complain about what the railroad had done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3108.203], "stop_times": [3131.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3108.203}, "reply_to": "15472__3_003", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_005", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, let me see if I get it right.\nYour point is you want out entirely on the pleading argument that there is no cause of actions unless against union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3131.775, 3133.18], "stop_times": [3133.18, 3138.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.775}, "reply_to": "15472__3_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__3_006", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3138.984], "stop_times": [3140.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3138.984}, "reply_to": "15472__3_005", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_007", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Well, if one has been, then you're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3140.627], "stop_times": [3144.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.627}, "reply_to": "15472__3_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__3_008", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Then we'll --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3144.734], "stop_times": [3144.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3144.734}, "reply_to": "15472__3_007", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_009", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "-- entitled to have the union of the employer as a full co-defendant, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3144.832], "stop_times": [3149.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.832}, "reply_to": "15472__3_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15472__3_010", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes, because their damages cannot properly be placed upon the union.\nNow, they leave to amend, to allege collusion that the Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs doesn't say this because on a remand, suppose, first they may not amend, may decide they'd rather just go against us then we're out, we're lost.\nIf they do amend and then the District Court finds there was no collusion as there is no suggestion in this case that there was except in the Court of Appeal's idea that maybe that was the kind of an action that could be brought jointly and that if there were no collusion, they could not proceed.\nIf they do amend, bring the railroad back in and suppose the railroad gets out and maybe even on a summary judgment showing there's no shed of support for the charge of collusive action.\nThen the case would be left in the same posture that it is now or a purely independent act, breach of contract by the railroad is being defended solely by the union.\nAnd --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3149.056, 3155.725, 3174.873, 3197.692, 3210.822, 3224.551], "stop_times": [3155.725, 3174.873, 3197.692, 3210.822, 3224.551, 3224.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3149.056}, "reply_to": "15472__3_009", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_011", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "One thing that does emerge here is that the Court of Appeals thought that these pleadings stated the cause of action against the union.\nThat is clear that they thought that whether correctly or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3224.799, 3233.121], "stop_times": [3233.121, 3236.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.799}, "reply_to": "15472__3_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15472__3_012", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Yes Your Honor and we think and we submit that they did not do so against the union and we've argued that at some length in our brief and decided, decisions from the Sixth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Tenth Circuit which I very clearly contrary to the holding of this Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3236.686], "stop_times": [3260.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3236.686}, "reply_to": "15472__3_011", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15472__3_013", "conversation_id": "15472", "text": "Thank you Mr. Lyman.\nThe case is submitted.\nThank you gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_234", "start_times": [3260.555, 3261.607, 3262.651], "stop_times": [3261.607, 3262.651, 3264.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3260.555}, "reply_to": "15472__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__0_000", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Number 131, Dandridge against Williams.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready Mr. Liebmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [0.0, 29.744], "stop_times": [29.744, 32.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__0_001", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nThe Court please.\nThis case involves the validity of a Maryland regulation.\nRegulation of the State Board of Social Services which has been in a fact in varying forms since 1947.\nWhich limits the total benefits payable to single family under the program to a families with dependent children $250.00 per month subject to certain exceptions none of which are here pertinent.\nThis regulation has either been in a fact or been under consideration.\nSince the inception of state wide need standards under the AFDC program in Maryland in 1944.\nTheir appears at page 116 of the record extract, a document generated of the time.\nIt was first considered imposing state wide \u201cneed standards\u201d and the last paragraph of that document indicates that the State Board will be considering the question of whether the regulation should permit the setting of a maximum amount above which no grant will go, that appears at page 119 of the record aspect.\nSubsequently in 1947, the first of this long serious maximum grant regulations was promulgate.\nThere are extensive materials in the record here which relate to the considerations of which entered into the promulgation of this regulation.\nThe materials in question minutes of State Board meetings and such appear at pages 127 through 147 of the record abstract.\nI will not undertake a detailed summary of these materials here.\nTheir also appears at page 165 of the record abstract.\nThe report of an unofficial committee of the body known as the Maryland Commission on Governmentally Efficiency in Economy in 1948 which shares the good deal of light on the thinking which entered into the promulgation of these maximum grant regulations beginning in 1947.\nBasically the thought behind the regulation, i think it's summed up in an affidavit of one of the veteran officials of the State Department of Social Services, an affidavit which appears at page 194 of the record abstract.\nAnd that affidavit states, it is my recollection that a maximum grant regulation has been in a fact in Maryland since approximately the time of inception of state wide \u201cneed standards\u201d in 1944.\nIt is also my recollection that these maximum grant regulations consist simply have received federal approval.\nI also recall, that one factor giving rise to these regulations was the strong feeling on the part of many county boards.\nParticularly during the period following adoption of state wide \u201cneed standards\u201d in 1944 that public assistants' payment shall not -- should not exceed the earnings of the head of a family when all for assistance and that the income of a public assistant recipient should not exceed that of his employed neighbors.\nI recall that at various times during the early years following the introduction of the maximum grant regulation.\nThe State Department of Public Welfare secured information as to way two levels from the state employment service that the information now secured with utilized in establishing maximum grant levels.\nNow, the Maryland regulation is innate, it finds -- there are similar regulations in some 20 out of a States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [32.549, 39.265, 41.756, 47.96, 57.885, 82.656, 91.454, 105.267, 116.234, 142.76, 152.914, 168.016, 184.168, 191.807, 196.985, 222.11, 244.169, 260.94, 268.581, 277.265, 299.369, 306.49, 319.622], "stop_times": [39.265, 41.756, 47.96, 57.885, 82.656, 91.454, 105.267, 116.234, 142.76, 152.914, 168.016, 184.168, 191.807, 196.985, 222.11, 244.169, 260.94, 268.581, 277.265, 299.369, 306.49, 319.622, 332.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 32.549}, "reply_to": "15262__0_000", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_002", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Through these two access, one on page of 119 and the other on page 194 indicate there are two quite disparate foundations for this maximum.\nOne being the matter of the sufficiency of funds available, that's on 119; And the other quite a different one and that is a matter of policy.\nSo, it's not to have people on welfare have a hiring from the people who were against the employer of work.\nIs that, do I understand that correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [332.516, 345.44, 356.332, 362.423], "stop_times": [345.44, 356.332, 362.423, 364.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.516}, "reply_to": "15262__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__0_003", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think Your Honor, that's correct in one sense.\nI think Your Honor that there was -- there is problem in -- there was a problem of insufficient funds.\nI'd rather put it this way.\nThere was a problem of insufficient funds and the board was confronted with the problem of making a choice between different means of carrying out of reduction.\nAnd for the policy reason that it thought that grant shouldn't exceed the income of employed families.\nIt choose the device of the maximum grant rather than the device of a presented reduction across the board for all AFDC recipients which is a devised, it's been employed in some other states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [364.882, 367.983, 375.178, 376.211, 385.507, 392.929], "stop_times": [367.983, 375.178, 376.211, 385.507, 392.929, 406.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 364.882}, "reply_to": "15262__0_002", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_004", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "So, what you are saying is that these are not independent and separate the reasons but rather relative reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [406.924], "stop_times": [412.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.924}, "reply_to": "15262__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__0_005", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think that's true Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [412.443], "stop_times": [414.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 412.443}, "reply_to": "15262__0_004", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_006", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Given insufficient funds, what shall we do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [414.106], "stop_times": [418.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.106}, "reply_to": "15262__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__0_007", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, they're always insufficient funds in almost any welfare program.\nThe question is where your -- how you're going to design the benefits structure to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [418.654, 423.264], "stop_times": [423.264, 430.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 418.654}, "reply_to": "15262__0_006", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_008", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "How do that suggest aspect to the reason this do fit family where there's no breadwinner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [430.652], "stop_times": [441.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.652}, "reply_to": "15262__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__0_009", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, we discussed this at some length in our brief and we suggest that in addition to the -- we suggest that there are several considerations which can support the regulation.\nOne of them is the element of work incentive.\nAnother, is the undesirability of establishing benefit levels at levels higher than prevailing wage rates in the community because of the effect of this may have on families that are not on welfare.\nBecause of the possible incentive to family breakup which can be created.\nAnd that I think is a major consideration behind the present discussion of welfare reform which would provide subventions to employed persons as well as unemployed persons that's concern.\nNot only with the effect of the regulations on people on welfare but appealing with this can't be divorce with consideration, problem consideration, of the effect of the regulations on people who are not on welfare.\nThere is another answer, I think to your question and that is that in speaking of families that don't have a breadwinner.\nYou are speaking of -- there are some families from which the male head is absent.\nThere are other families which male head is present but a disabled.\nThere're other families and which male head is present but unemployed.\nWith respect to the disable and unemployed categories, I think the Court is aware of the provisions of the state unemployment compensation and workman's compensation laws.\nWhich almost invariantly fixed benefits for the unemployed and for persons on workman's compensation at levels that are fraction of actual earnings.\nIn Maryland, I believe the fraction is too big and this is done even though there are elaborate procedures for insuring that people are not malingering on the workman's compensation rules or malingering on the unemployment roles.\nAnd the reason is I think, essentially a concession to administrative imperfection.\nA feeling that if you don't set the benefit levels at least somewhat below the wage level, there is going to be abuse.\nAnd I think that that feeling also enters into the maximum grant regulation even in its application to families which when you look at the main now appear to have a wage enter and that the breadwinner maybe disabled or maybe unemployed.\nI think if its rational really under the workman's compensation and unemployment insurance rules regulations for that reason it's rational here.\nI should point out also that the Maryland regulation has two elements which are not present in the welfare regulation or some of the other states.\nOne of them is that it's one of the highest such regulations.\nYou are dealing here with the regulation that really is at least somewhat related to the minimum wage rate or the average wage rate efforts.\nWhen the none taxability of the benefits, when the various forms of the aid and kind are available -- that are available are considered.\nYou're talking about the level of income that is in fact considerable higher than your minimum wage or even your average wage in some forms of employment.\nThat the second element and I think its worth expressing is that the Maryland regulation unlike those in some states such as Maine and Arizona is a limitation only on the amount of the grant and not on the amount of a welfare family's budget.\nThat is to say, if a family has state computed needs of $350.00 and the maximum of $250.00 in grant is applied to if the first $100.00 in earnings by a member of that family maybe retained without reducing the welfare grant.\nFor this reason, the Maryland regulation has some other important work incentive the facts which are not present in the regulations of those states such as Maine and Arizona that have a maximum budget limitation.\nNow, the complaint in this action made three claims.\nThe first was a claim of violation of state law.\nThat claim is contained in paragraph VII-C of the complaint.\nThe second was a claim of violation of the Preamble of the Social Security Act of 1935, which was sent to afford the basis for finding that this regulation was inconsistent with the Social Security Act.\nThere was no mention made in the complaint of any more specific violation of the Social Security Act.\nThe lower court in its initial opinion found a violation of Section 602(a)(9) of the Social Security Act and it conceded on re-argument that and I think I am quoting from a transcripts on re-argument.\nThe statutory argument is the basis of decision that was relatively speaking devised by the Court rather than the one that was impressed on the Court you and your colleagues addressing plaintiffs counsel.\nThat I think is true and on re-argument, the conclusion that the statute violated that provision the Social Security Act was withdrawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [441.08, 464.302, 468.214, 484.933, 493.118, 506.606, 523.453, 539.436, 548.127, 552.244, 558.513, 575.876, 586.782, 600.779, 607.617, 616.163, 644.485, 654.237, 665.556, 669.166, 679.089, 688.607, 701.241, 719.138, 741.6, 757.943, 763.376, 768.515, 775.398, 795.821, 802.388, 821.714, 836.051], "stop_times": [464.302, 468.214, 484.933, 493.118, 506.606, 523.453, 539.436, 548.127, 552.244, 558.513, 575.876, 586.782, 600.779, 607.617, 616.163, 644.485, 654.237, 665.556, 669.166, 679.089, 688.607, 701.241, 719.138, 741.6, 757.943, 763.376, 768.515, 775.398, 795.821, 802.388, 821.714, 836.051, 846.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 441.08}, "reply_to": "15262__0_008", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_010", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Which how does one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [846.952], "stop_times": [848.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.952}, "reply_to": "15262__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_011", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Was withdrawn.\nThe third contention was the violation of the Equal Protection Clause.\nI would like to deal with each of these three claims in turn.\nWith respect to the claim of the violation of state law.\nThe state filed a motion to dismiss on ground of equitable extension.\nThe court below declines to abstain and its oral opinion on this point is found at page 83 of the record abstract.\nAnd it cited the case of King versus Smith for the proposition that it was proper for a federal court to go forward with an adjudication on the merits irrespective of whether a state court by state construction of state law at some later date might achieve the same result.\nThat language doesn't appear anywhere in King versus Smith because I think it's clear that King v. Smith was concerned with the fact that there is no federal requirement of exhaustion of state administrative remedies.\nKing versus Smith was concerned with the exhaustion problem.\nThe question of equitable abstention in favor of state judicial remedies was not an issue in King versus Smith.\nNow, it's the state's position here that the claim, that the regulation was violated of state law should've been regarded as providing a basis for equitable abstention in the favor of a declaratory judgment action in the state courts.\nAnd that is I think clear from the cases under the Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act, that where the general validity of state's statute or regulation is a sale as it is here, that an action in a state courts for declaratory judgment would lie.\nState Courts of course could've determine all three questions raised by the complaint.\nThe federal court was effectively limited to the two federal questions and the reasons that you have this collision between the federal court and the state regulation was the failure to abstain in this case.\nWith respect to the federal statutory claim --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [848.924, 852.393, 856.563, 861.756, 866.189, 872.722, 884.201, 903.298, 919.261, 923.124, 932.972, 955.903, 973.754, 978.761, 992.989], "stop_times": [852.393, 856.563, 861.756, 866.189, 872.722, 884.201, 903.298, 919.261, 923.124, 932.972, 955.903, 973.754, 978.761, 992.989, 996.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 848.924}, "reply_to": "15262__0_010", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_012", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Is that your complete argument or first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [996.5], "stop_times": [1000.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.5}, "reply_to": "15262__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_013", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "On abstention Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1000.226], "stop_times": [1001.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1000.226}, "reply_to": "15262__0_012", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_014", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Alright, abstention?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1001.731], "stop_times": [1002.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.731}, "reply_to": "15262__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_015", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1002.96, 1006.72], "stop_times": [1006.72, 1006.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1002.96}, "reply_to": "15262__0_014", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_016", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It's been decided by question been decided by the Supreme Court of Maryland yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1006.964], "stop_times": [1013.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.964}, "reply_to": "15262__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_017", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, I think if not in the welfare context Your Honor, I think if when applies the tests announced by this Court in Harrison v. AACP and Sheckler v. Scooter to the situation in this case, abstention would be appropriate.\nThis is one of those cases where construction by the state courts of a none construed state law would have avoid the necessity of having -- that might have avoid that the necessity of having the federal court reach these questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1013.336, 1031.588], "stop_times": [1031.588, 1044.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1013.336}, "reply_to": "15262__0_016", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_018", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, that would divide one lawsuit, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1044.951], "stop_times": [1047.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.951}, "reply_to": "15262__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_019", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, Your Honor, because it would be open to them to raise the federal questions from the state court is also, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1047.498], "stop_times": [1054.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1047.498}, "reply_to": "15262__0_018", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_020", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "You have not -- your argument is they should not only abstain reference to the state question when it was asking declaratory judgment there, do you think can decide all the issues and then bring it up to the federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1054.024], "stop_times": [1067.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.024}, "reply_to": "15262__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_021", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think could Your Honor.\nIts no reason why they could and I am not suggesting that there's a requirement but they litigate the federal issues in the state Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1067.985, 1069.999], "stop_times": [1069.999, 1076.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1067.985}, "reply_to": "15262__0_020", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_022", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1076.943], "stop_times": [1077.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.943}, "reply_to": "15262__0_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_023", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And I am suggesting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1077.07], "stop_times": [1078.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1077.07}, "reply_to": "15262__0_022", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_024", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Not the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1078.11], "stop_times": [1078.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.11}, "reply_to": "15262__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_025", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The federal court should've abstain.\nWith respect to the federal statutory claim.\nThere are I think three points, three rule of fundamental points which I wish to make.\nThe first point is the obvious one and the one which the lower court took no doubt in its opinion on re-argument.\nAnd that is that this statute has on at least -- that the existence of state maximum grant regulations has own at least three occasions been expressly recognized by Congress in legislation.\nAnd that more of the Maryland regulation specifically has been on at least 20 occasions accepted for incorporation in the state plan by the Department of Health Education and Welfare.\nThis is unremitting course of construction and I think that when one looks at the fate for example of the regulation, the substitute for the regulations involved in the case of King versus Smith when they were submitted to the Department of Health Education and Welfare.\nAnd you had disapproval is not only of the Alabama regulation there at issue, but some of the regulations.\nNow the states, it's quite clear that contrary to the claim of the appellee is here.\nThe process of approval of state plan amendments by the Department of Health Education and Welfare, it's not a ministerial process.\nIt is a finding and it's required to be a finding that the regulation is in conformity with the federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1078.717, 1084.69, 1091.264, 1101.227, 1115.698, 1134.961, 1151.555, 1170.877, 1176.283, 1182.988, 1190.786], "stop_times": [1084.69, 1091.264, 1101.227, 1115.698, 1134.961, 1151.555, 1170.877, 1176.283, 1182.988, 1190.786, 1197.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1078.717}, "reply_to": "15262__0_024", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_026", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Could you state at least the -- I didn't understand it, which you understand that you would precisely should legally between you and the other parties, stately of the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1197.894], "stop_times": [1211.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.894}, "reply_to": "15262__0_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_027", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think the issue, the issue Your Honor is -- there are several issues and I think the basic issue is whether the lower court acted properly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1211.926], "stop_times": [1224.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1211.926}, "reply_to": "15262__0_026", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_028", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The crucial issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1224.964], "stop_times": [1225.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.964}, "reply_to": "15262__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_029", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The crucial issue is whether the lower court acted properly in validating this state maximum grant regulation on its phase under the Equal Protection Clause.\nWhen this regulation was concededly valid as to at least some of the people to whom it would be applied and when it was supported by several rational basics.\nI think if I had to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1225.904, 1244.464, 1258.221], "stop_times": [1244.464, 1258.221, 1259.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1225.904}, "reply_to": "15262__0_028", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_030", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Suppose the Court was wrong on that?\nWhat do you say should be done of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1259.327, 1261.982], "stop_times": [1261.982, 1265.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.327}, "reply_to": "15262__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_031", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I believe Your Honor that reversal -- I believe that the decision of the lower court should be reversed and the injunction dissolves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1265.292], "stop_times": [1282.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1265.292}, "reply_to": "15262__0_030", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_032", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "If the challenge to the court -- what if the challenge to executive in the state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1282.93], "stop_times": [1291.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1282.93}, "reply_to": "15262__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_033", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The challenge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1291.323], "stop_times": [1293.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1291.323}, "reply_to": "15262__0_032", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_034", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Beside to what's the aim --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1293.469], "stop_times": [1295.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.469}, "reply_to": "15262__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_035", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "What is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1295.82], "stop_times": [1296.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1295.82}, "reply_to": "15262__0_034", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_036", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "What's it aimed at?\nWhat is that part of statute is aimed at on its application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1296.615, 1299.507], "stop_times": [1299.507, 1303.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.615}, "reply_to": "15262__0_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_037", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The application of the maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1303.767], "stop_times": [1306.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1303.767}, "reply_to": "15262__0_036", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_038", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1306.064], "stop_times": [1306.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.064}, "reply_to": "15262__0_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_039", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1306.898], "stop_times": [1307.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1306.898}, "reply_to": "15262__0_038", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_040", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Does it claim that you cannot have maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1307.215], "stop_times": [1310.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.215}, "reply_to": "15262__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_041", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Its claim that you cannot have a family maximum.\nYes, it's the claim that you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1310.078, 1312.681], "stop_times": [1312.681, 1313.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1310.078}, "reply_to": "15262__0_040", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_042", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Cannot have a family maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1313.497], "stop_times": [1315.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.497}, "reply_to": "15262__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_043", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But you cannot have a family maximum which gives a large family less than what its members is might be entitle to if payments were made to them on what might be describe as a per capita basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1315.513], "stop_times": [1333.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1315.513}, "reply_to": "15262__0_042", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_044", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "What is -- how much is the maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1333.014], "stop_times": [1334.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.014}, "reply_to": "15262__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_045", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It's $250.00 per month of the stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1334.9], "stop_times": [1340.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1334.9}, "reply_to": "15262__0_044", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_046", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, that's on a matching basis, isn't it or what might be call as matching basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1340.346], "stop_times": [1347.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.346}, "reply_to": "15262__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__0_047", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, the consequence invalidation of this regulation was that in order to pay the families affected by of their full computed need, the additional money required had to come entirely out of state funds.\nThe Federal Government matches state contributions up to $32.00 per recipient and in Maryland, the per capita expenditure or something like $37.00 per recipient.\nSo that the entire additional cost here had to come out of state funds.\nI should've there that the federal matching takes place whether or not the state has a maximum preventing the payment of additional benefits as to certain members of the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1347.137, 1369.305, 1387.078, 1391.479], "stop_times": [1369.305, 1387.078, 1391.479, 1400.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1347.137}, "reply_to": "15262__0_046", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_048", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I thought there were two questions that the first I thought was whether or not this Maryland regulation conflicts with the Federal Social Security Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1400.6], "stop_times": [1409.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.6}, "reply_to": "15262__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_049", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1409.339], "stop_times": [1412.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1409.339}, "reply_to": "15262__0_048", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_050", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's a question that we have in another case is already been argued, the Rosado case, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1412.623], "stop_times": [1419.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.623}, "reply_to": "15262__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_051", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes sir.\nYour Honor, now that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1419.107, 1420.023], "stop_times": [1420.023, 1420.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1419.107}, "reply_to": "15262__0_050", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_052", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And the second question is whether the -- if it doesn't conflict to whether the regulation on its phase contravenes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nHave I miss interrupt the opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1420.749, 1432.099], "stop_times": [1432.099, 1435.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.749}, "reply_to": "15262__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_053", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nYou have not.\nBut I should observe the State has taken the appeal from a finding that there's been a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1435.378, 1436.357, 1436.961], "stop_times": [1436.357, 1436.961, 1442.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1435.378}, "reply_to": "15262__0_052", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_054", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1442.51], "stop_times": [1444.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.51}, "reply_to": "15262__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_055", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But the lower court abandoned this decision that there was a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1444.085], "stop_times": [1450.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.085}, "reply_to": "15262__0_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_056", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1450.046], "stop_times": [1450.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1450.046}, "reply_to": "15262__0_055", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_057", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "If they do at decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1450.284], "stop_times": [1451.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.284}, "reply_to": "15262__0_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_058", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Would do its decision, it just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1451.259], "stop_times": [1452.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1451.259}, "reply_to": "15262__0_057", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_059", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "To put its decision solely on Equal Protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1452.387], "stop_times": [1454.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.387}, "reply_to": "15262__0_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_060", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1454.737], "stop_times": [1456.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1454.737}, "reply_to": "15262__0_059", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_061", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "So the issue here is Equal Protection that except for the respondents would supported on the statutory ground also?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1456.009], "stop_times": [1464.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.009}, "reply_to": "15262__0_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_062", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's right Your Honor.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1464.16, 1465.204], "stop_times": [1465.204, 1465.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1464.16}, "reply_to": "15262__0_061", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_063", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "On this is following up on rather brother Douglas' question, the reason for the state court's first of all paragraph --sustained contention with the recipients on the statutory language was and I believe the examination you said without a mark him.\nBut has gone to statutory language, is that right?\nI mean, without more backtrack or expertise with everyone to go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1465.432, 1491.596, 1496.107], "stop_times": [1491.596, 1496.107, 1500.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.432}, "reply_to": "15262__0_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__0_064", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That is what the lower court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1500.946], "stop_times": [1502.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1500.946}, "reply_to": "15262__0_063", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_065", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That for have reached the conclusion that they have been decide one way or the other on one of the court consideration may -- would state the constitutional question, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1502.563], "stop_times": [1512.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.563}, "reply_to": "15262__0_064", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__0_066", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct and I think it's a reversal of what usually happens in these case where there's never --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1512.497], "stop_times": [1516.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1512.497}, "reply_to": "15262__0_065", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_067", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's longer on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1516.739], "stop_times": [1518.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.739}, "reply_to": "15262__0_066", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__0_068", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And I think that's correct Your Honor and so, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1518.763], "stop_times": [1521.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1518.763}, "reply_to": "15262__0_067", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_069", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, you're looking here for the expertise that -- you didn't find that in below, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1521.406], "stop_times": [1528.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.406}, "reply_to": "15262__0_068", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_070", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think that Your Honor is a -- I am not sure that I would put it in that way.\nI think our position is that courts by their very nature can have the expertise -- can have the expertise to apply the standard of review that the appellees here would have them applied to state Social and Economic regulations as be complicated to effect of this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1528.325, 1534.473], "stop_times": [1534.473, 1554.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1528.325}, "reply_to": "15262__0_069", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_071", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "We do not know as I understand any question of the state's contention by the state that it's not able to do this.\nIt cannot pay this magnitude.\nYou only have the statutory construction and of the Constitution from the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1554.446, 1563.866, 1567.319], "stop_times": [1563.866, 1567.319, 1573.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.446}, "reply_to": "15262__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_072", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, I would not say that for this reason.\nThis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1573.301, 1579.944], "stop_times": [1579.944, 1581.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1573.301}, "reply_to": "15262__0_071", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_073", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, there's no desire if it no ever get to get us to remand the state to raise the fund to pay the mention --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1581.13], "stop_times": [1591.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.13}, "reply_to": "15262__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_074", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, the lower courts Your Honor declined in terms to commend that state to pay them and issue to negative injunction which presented for the state with a abstinent choice of either finding and additional million dollars to pay --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1591.517], "stop_times": [1608.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1591.517}, "reply_to": "15262__0_073", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_075", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "You mean to make an appropriation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1608.276], "stop_times": [1609.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.276}, "reply_to": "15262__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_076", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, to the State either have to find their additional million dollars or would have been confronted with alternative of a 4% slash in all the welfare payments to the aged, the blind, the disabled, and other families under the AFDC program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1609.721], "stop_times": [1629.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1609.721}, "reply_to": "15262__0_075", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_077", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "This because of a forfeiture of the federal contribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1629.233], "stop_times": [1633.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.233}, "reply_to": "15262__0_076", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_078", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, there was no question of forfeiture of the federal contribution here.\nThis was because the Federal Government will match only up to a certain level per recipient and it already matched up to that level.\nSo, any additional money is have to come from state funds and this matter I think that appears quietly like --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1633.31, 1637.791, 1647.255], "stop_times": [1637.791, 1647.255, 1656.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1633.31}, "reply_to": "15262__0_077", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_079", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Do you think, do we have to pass it on in this case whatever the decision on effort commend the state to make a appropriations to pay make these payments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1656.502], "stop_times": [1670.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.502}, "reply_to": "15262__0_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_080", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, my answer to that question would be this.\nIn many of the states would have the regulations, the physical effects of their invalidation are so great that even where the relief granted by the District Court is negative in form even where it takes the form of a negative injunction.\nIn substance, it constitutes affirmative relief against the state Government of the type proscribe the Eleventh Amendment.\nAnd I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1670.17, 1675.865, 1696.819, 1706.063], "stop_times": [1675.865, 1696.819, 1706.063, 1706.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1670.17}, "reply_to": "15262__0_079", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_081", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "You mean, with reference in making appropriations having an excess for the legislate to make appropriate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1706.892], "stop_times": [1713.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.892}, "reply_to": "15262__0_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__0_082", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think Your Honor, the nature of the choice presented the State Governments by these decisions particularly when you look for example the decision in California where physical effects were in the order of $40 or $50 Million.\nThe nature of the choice presented to the state government involves such a fundamental ratio in a state expenditure program that this Court should take the view that the grant of an injunction even in negative in form of all circumstances is in the fact such an interference with the sovereign power of the state as to be proscribe by the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1713.97, 1729.774], "stop_times": [1729.774, 1757.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1713.97}, "reply_to": "15262__0_081", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_083", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I can see that stand is for was dilute, is it that the invalidation results that in the over all appropriation down there for welfare.\nYou now have to apply that 4% of what would be apply to other program in order to take care of this program, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1757.698, 1767.164], "stop_times": [1767.164, 1779.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.698}, "reply_to": "15262__0_082", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_084", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nThe state has presented with the choice either of creating of the programs or making additional appropriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1779.461, 1780.193], "stop_times": [1780.193, 1784.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1779.461}, "reply_to": "15262__0_083", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_085", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your doing appropriately or appropriating -- increasing what's now appropriated for welfare general --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1784.023], "stop_times": [1791.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.023}, "reply_to": "15262__0_084", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_086", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1791.053], "stop_times": [1791.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1791.053}, "reply_to": "15262__0_085", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_087", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "By sufficient sound to take care --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1791.297], "stop_times": [1794.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.297}, "reply_to": "15262__0_086", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_088", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1794.199], "stop_times": [1794.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1794.199}, "reply_to": "15262__0_087", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_089", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Who need requirements, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1794.407], "stop_times": [1796.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.407}, "reply_to": "15262__0_088", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__0_090", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and I think that the degree of rating of other programs as to take place is such not too much in Maryland but in some other states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1796.854], "stop_times": [1807.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1796.854}, "reply_to": "15262__0_089", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_091", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "This way you say it's a ultimate choice that you can't rate the other programs since you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1807.198], "stop_times": [1810.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.198}, "reply_to": "15262__0_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_092", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think that's true Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1810.989], "stop_times": [1811.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1810.989}, "reply_to": "15262__0_091", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_093", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "You have to appropriate additional sign to take care of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1811.855], "stop_times": [1815.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.855}, "reply_to": "15262__0_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_094", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And I think that's true.\nIt's less two in Maryland then it would be for example in West Virginia.\nWhere the additional amounts payable and what I understand would be such that the cuts would have to be much deeper in the other programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1815.091, 1815.867, 1820.428], "stop_times": [1815.867, 1820.428, 1827.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1815.091}, "reply_to": "15262__0_093", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_095", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "They have used the million dollar to save the additional amount pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1827.891], "stop_times": [1830.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.891}, "reply_to": "15262__0_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_096", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It's a million dollars in the Maryland and that's because we have a high maximum when the states their lower maximums and high welfare roles to some perfectly amends.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1830.906], "stop_times": [1839.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1830.906}, "reply_to": "15262__0_095", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_097", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But under the court of each state fixes its own need.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1839.426], "stop_times": [1843.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.426}, "reply_to": "15262__0_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__0_098", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1843.344], "stop_times": [1855.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1843.344}, "reply_to": "15262__0_097", "speaker": "george_w_liebmann"}
{"id": "15262__0_099", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Mr. Matera, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1855.58], "stop_times": [1867.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.58}, "reply_to": "15262__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_000", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger, associate justices of this Court, as I mentioned to the various arguments this morning.\nI couldn't help but notice how two often labels get put on the things including public of the lawyers.\nAnd I think it's important to point out that in this particular case as well, the State so often as we resorted to labels in some how covered over the real issues in this case.\nI think that it's important to point out from the very beginning.\nNow, the essential matter we're dealing with here are not such things as less eligibility principles, economic regulations.\nWe are dealing with the program of assistance to needy and dependent children which is very much given its guidelines in fact completely by the Social Security Act as implemented in each state.\nI think it's important to point out here that this maximum grant regulation in effect creates a class of none person of children who -- if they are unfortunate enough to be born the fourth child, the fifth child and a two parent family with a six child and a one parent are simply ignored by the state and computing their needs.\nThat as a matter of fact the state computes their needs and then simply ignores it.\nWe have here and I think it's important to point this out, two classes of individuals created by this regulation.\nThe one class are a children and families of six individuals or less.\nThe state computes what their minimal subsistence needs are in accordance with their own standards and then pays their full computed subsistence needs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1867.219, 1874.987, 1881.349, 1895.635, 1899.177, 1911.641, 1932.293, 1962.053, 1968.509, 1976.93, 1982.999], "stop_times": [1874.987, 1881.349, 1895.635, 1899.177, 1911.641, 1932.293, 1962.053, 1968.509, 1976.93, 1982.999, 1994.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1867.219}, "reply_to": "15262__0_099", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_001", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Now, may I ask that computation is rather complicated as it is not depending upon the sex and the age of the child and upon whether or not he is a third or fourth or fifth or sixth child?\nAm I or is it simpler or it is just that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [1994.121, 2006.742], "stop_times": [2006.742, 2008.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.121}, "reply_to": "15262__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_002", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It is simply Your Honor.\nIt said out in the appendix, you will find the State schedules in the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2008.969, 2010.448], "stop_times": [2010.448, 2027.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2008.969}, "reply_to": "15262__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_003", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And these computations by state law or Social Security Act standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2027.899], "stop_times": [2031.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.899}, "reply_to": "15262__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_004", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "These are computations by the State.\nThe State creates its own --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2031.837, 2033.649], "stop_times": [2033.649, 2034.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2031.837}, "reply_to": "15262__1_003", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_005", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "By its own standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2034.974], "stop_times": [2035.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.974}, "reply_to": "15262__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_006", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Its own standards and there is a diminishing rate as the family goes larger that's two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2035.962], "stop_times": [2044.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2035.962}, "reply_to": "15262__1_005", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_007", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But there is a point in the appendix to where those computations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2044.743], "stop_times": [2047.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.743}, "reply_to": "15262__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_008", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2047.546], "stop_times": [2048.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2047.546}, "reply_to": "15262__1_007", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_009", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Published?\nBecause I think in understanding of that may have perhaps no little relevance to the issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2048.183, 2051.904], "stop_times": [2051.904, 2064.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.183}, "reply_to": "15262__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_010", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, these computations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2064.916], "stop_times": [2073.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2064.916}, "reply_to": "15262__1_009", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_011", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's in quite wrong but if we are talking about Equal Protection here, I think it's important to know what the basic computations are up until you reach the maximum.\nWell, I don't want to undo of the record then your argument if you could --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2073.578, 2095.525], "stop_times": [2095.525, 2098.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.578}, "reply_to": "15262__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_012", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I will refer those around, yes.\nBut in effect these computations are do provide for the needs of each child and the family until the child becomes either the fifth child and two parent family or the sixth child in a one parent family.\nAnd then the computations is no longer provide for that child.\nTheir needs are computed but the state does not any longer provide for their needs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2098.702, 2101.815, 2116.237, 2120.498], "stop_times": [2101.815, 2116.237, 2120.498, 2125.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2098.702}, "reply_to": "15262__1_011", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_013", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Can you tell me just so I can call your argument.\nIt is a little bit more complicated than just $28.50 per month per child is something like that, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2125.036, 2126.81], "stop_times": [2126.81, 2134.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.036}, "reply_to": "15262__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_014", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Not anymore complicated than that Your Honor, that there is a schedule which sets out how much money a family for example of six would get?\nHow a family of seven would get?\nHow much a family of eight?\nThis schedule is contained on page 19 of the appendix and it talks about one person with a another individual or two or three and simply computes the need and then stops at $250.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2134.391, 2142.208, 2144.272, 2146.007], "stop_times": [2142.208, 2144.272, 2146.007, 2167.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2134.391}, "reply_to": "15262__1_013", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_015", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Now, with your equal protection like base on the facts that where is skip up this continuation and go above that amount.\nAre you giving some children more than others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2167.407, 2183.117], "stop_times": [2183.117, 2186.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.407}, "reply_to": "15262__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_016", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, the Equal Protection argument is based on the fact that the Act itself as Social Security Act provides that each individual, each needy individual should be given subsistence needs and that these subsistence needs are provided for needy dependent children and small families.\nBut that once the family gets beyond that, the state completely ignore those needs and that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2186.58, 2206.595], "stop_times": [2206.595, 2211.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2186.58}, "reply_to": "15262__1_015", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_017", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And then less.\nThey given the less?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2211.034, 2212.332], "stop_times": [2212.332, 2213.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.034}, "reply_to": "15262__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_018", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "They are given nothing, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2213.521], "stop_times": [2214.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2213.521}, "reply_to": "15262__1_017", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_019", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "When you have your families or the child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2214.148], "stop_times": [2215.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.148}, "reply_to": "15262__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_020", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "They give them -- that's right.\nThey give him nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2215.705, 2217.37], "stop_times": [2217.37, 2218.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2215.705}, "reply_to": "15262__1_019", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_021", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And that is the Equal Protection argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2218.336], "stop_times": [2220.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.336}, "reply_to": "15262__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_022", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And that in denying this assistance to families of five or six children or more that in denying assistance of these children, they are simply treating these children as none persons.\nWhich is a concept which this Court denounce then both Levy v. Louisiana and in Shapiro v. Thompson.\nI think perhaps if I turn first to the statutory argument that the matter will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2220.751, 2235.578, 2242.523], "stop_times": [2235.578, 2242.523, 2248.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2220.751}, "reply_to": "15262__1_021", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_023", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Would say that the State could give $30.00 per month for the first child that $25.00 in month for the second child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2248.032], "stop_times": [2258.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.032}, "reply_to": "15262__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_024", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That Your Honor is yes and they do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2258.666], "stop_times": [2261.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2258.666}, "reply_to": "15262__1_023", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_025", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2261.389], "stop_times": [2262.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.389}, "reply_to": "15262__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_026", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, they do because it's clearly seem that for a second, third or fourth child that because they all live in the same family, it requires less to take care of that period of fourth child because that child shares the needs --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2262.702], "stop_times": [2279.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2262.702}, "reply_to": "15262__1_025", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_027", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But further, do you think they at least must given something for the seventh child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2279.355], "stop_times": [2282.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.355}, "reply_to": "15262__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_028", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, they can completely ignore his needs as this particular regulation affects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2282.775], "stop_times": [2286.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2282.775}, "reply_to": "15262__1_027", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_029", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "This is all in the premise that whether it's $30.00 or $25.00, $15.00 whatever it might be depending the number of children, this is a bare subsistence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2286.875], "stop_times": [2295.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.875}, "reply_to": "15262__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_030", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2295.372], "stop_times": [2296.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2295.372}, "reply_to": "15262__1_029", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_031", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "This is what is the minimum that s for the child action to exist at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2296.258], "stop_times": [2301.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.258}, "reply_to": "15262__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_032", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct.\nIt's minimum subsistence needs --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2301.136, 2301.755], "stop_times": [2301.755, 2303.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2301.136}, "reply_to": "15262__1_031", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_033", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, kind of $250.00 and you have a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2303.242], "stop_times": [2306.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.242}, "reply_to": "15262__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_034", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No subsistence needs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2306.842], "stop_times": [2308.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2306.842}, "reply_to": "15262__1_033", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_035", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The whole nothing provided than nothing whatever is provided for the essentials of the family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2308.646], "stop_times": [2313.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.646}, "reply_to": "15262__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_036", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2313.125], "stop_times": [2313.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2313.125}, "reply_to": "15262__1_035", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_037", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But if your argument would preclude any maximum, any limit, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2313.197], "stop_times": [2319.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.197}, "reply_to": "15262__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_038", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Our argument would only state that, you cannot treat a class of children in a large family any different, when you treat a class of children in a small family, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2319.161, 2330.635], "stop_times": [2330.635, 2330.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2319.161}, "reply_to": "15262__1_037", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_039", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, suppose they fix the limited $400.00 which is just hypothetically?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2330.657], "stop_times": [2335.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.657}, "reply_to": "15262__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_040", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2335.474], "stop_times": [2336.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2335.474}, "reply_to": "15262__1_039", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_041", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I don't know just where the arithmetic is but then when you get up beyond the 12 of 15 children in one family, you have the same argument you have here today, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2336.063], "stop_times": [2346.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.063}, "reply_to": "15262__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_042", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "If there was a maximum based on family size which neglected the later -- children in the family yes, they are the same argument would prevail.\nThe same argument would be made by us, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2346.845, 2358.048], "stop_times": [2358.048, 2360.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2346.845}, "reply_to": "15262__1_041", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_043", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, in short, the State cannot could say maximum figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2360.551], "stop_times": [2367.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.551}, "reply_to": "15262__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_044", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The State cannot set a maximum figure which is based simply on arbitrary family size which denies assistance to one classification of needy dependent children or at the same time providing assistance for the second class in this particular case, children of small families.\nI think, if we look at the Social Security Act itself and Mr. Justice Douglas certainly did I think said out the real issues in this case.\nWe have contended from the beginning and we contend here today that the two basic issues in this case are; one, that the maximum grant regulation does violate the Social Security Act; And number two, that it does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNow, in what way does it violate the Social Security Act?\nThe very underlying purpose of the act itself is to strengthen family life and to keep families together.\nCongress itself saw the wisdom of same toward that children are allowed to be brought up in their homes.\nNow, when we turn to the stipulations in this case which are contained on page 71.\nAnd I would ask this Court to give special considerations to the stipulations.\nWe find this to be true that the Gary family -- Mr. and Mrs. Gary according to the computations of the welfare department itself would be entitled to $331.00 a month.\nAnd the Williams family according to the computations of the Welfare Department would be entitled to $296.00 a month, but because of the maximum grant regulation they are of course restricted to $250.00.\nHowever, there is a way that the Gary family and the children of that family who are ignored and treated as non-persons could receive benefits.\nAnd there is a way that the children in the Williams family could receive benefits.\nThey could receive benefits simply by leaving the home because the same regulations of this Welfare Department provide that if the Gary family would've place 200 children of 12 years old of between the ages of six and 12 rather the children are younger either with eligible relatives for an institutions.\nEach one of these children would be entitled to $65.00 a month and at the same time the Gary family would continue to receive the maximum grant of $250.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2367.991, 2386.509, 2397.073, 2414.331, 2418.77, 2426.793, 2434.716, 2441.061, 2446.481, 2462.304, 2476.138, 2485.119, 2490.375, 2512.541], "stop_times": [2386.509, 2397.073, 2414.331, 2418.77, 2426.793, 2434.716, 2441.061, 2446.481, 2462.304, 2476.138, 2485.119, 2490.375, 2512.541, 2523.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2367.991}, "reply_to": "15262__1_043", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_045", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Now, that $65 a month come under the same AFDC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2523.968], "stop_times": [2527.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.968}, "reply_to": "15262__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_046", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2527.629], "stop_times": [2528.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2527.629}, "reply_to": "15262__1_045", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_047", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It would, not a separate program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2528.217], "stop_times": [2530.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.217}, "reply_to": "15262__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_048", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "At the same time that the Williams family, Your Honor, should put if Mrs. William should put two of her children and there somewhat older over the age of 12 with eligible relatives or an institutions.\nThey would be entitled to $79.00 a month each.\nAnd at the same time, Mrs. Williams would continue to receive her grant of $250.00.\nThis completely undermines the very purpose of the Social Security Act which is to keep families together and to allow children to be brought up in their homes.\nNow, this was completely a recognized by the court below in their first opinion and they did not withdrawn their findings concerning their appealing of the statutory violations under the second opinion.\nThey felt that there was not enough evidence here to determine whether congress had ever approved or not and I will address myself to that.\nThis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2530.445, 2543.791, 2547.041, 2552.284, 2563.323, 2577.127, 2585.577], "stop_times": [2543.791, 2547.041, 2552.284, 2563.323, 2577.127, 2585.577, 2586.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2530.445}, "reply_to": "15262__1_047", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_049", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "There is no - I like to speak of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2586.238], "stop_times": [2591.687], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.238}, "reply_to": "15262__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15262__1_050", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I'm sorry sir, I didn't hear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2591.687], "stop_times": [2592.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2591.687}, "reply_to": "15262__1_049", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_051", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I said there is more amicus brief in the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2592.466], "stop_times": [2595.383], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.466}, "reply_to": "15262__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15262__1_052", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2595.383], "stop_times": [2596.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2595.383}, "reply_to": "15262__1_051", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_053", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Do you ever knew -- do you ever question to found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2596.85], "stop_times": [2600.773], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.85}, "reply_to": "15262__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15262__1_054", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I do not know sir.\nThe second basic fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act that we find violated in this case is requirement that of 602 (a)(10) which says that, all eligible individuals will receive assistance.\nIt does not in any way employer, any new eligibility requirement to that.\nIt says, all eligible individuals and certainly all of the children in those family are eligible individuals and this is a section of the Social Security Act which this Court in Smith v. King did pass on in King v. Smith, I'm sorry.\nAnd perhaps Justice Douglas was talking about expertise of this Court and regard to the Social Security Act, I think that opinion could be a points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2600.773, 2602.733, 2617.016, 2622.362, 2638.59], "stop_times": [2602.733, 2617.016, 2622.362, 2638.59, 2647.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2600.773}, "reply_to": "15262__1_053", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_055", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's suppose to be a joke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2647.358], "stop_times": [2651.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.358}, "reply_to": "15262__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15262__1_056", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I think certainly I would accept that opinion and showing a great deal of expertise, Justice Douglas because that opinion did point to the fact that Congress did intend that all eligible individuals receive assistance.\nNow obviously, certain eligible children in these families are not receiving assistance and so for those two fundamental reasons, we feel that this act clearly, this regulation does clearly violate the purposes of the Social Security Act.\nAnd it also violates the state act which use of the very same language as the Social Security Act.\nIt also violates what HEW itself has said about the purpose of strengthening family life and we refer to that in our brief as well.\nHEW has a very -- I think detailed definition of what the terms strengthening family life means and we would ask the Court to look to that in our appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2651.373, 2664.005, 2679.675, 2685.899, 2695.737], "stop_times": [2664.005, 2679.675, 2685.899, 2695.737, 2706.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2651.373}, "reply_to": "15262__1_055", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_057", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "May I ask you just one question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2706.894], "stop_times": [2708.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.894}, "reply_to": "15262__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_058", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2708.397], "stop_times": [2709.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2708.397}, "reply_to": "15262__1_057", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_059", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "On to that.\nThis goes here's a family with one and a family with three and a family with eight, is it your argument that under the law where this family of eight and each child was getting exactly this much as the child would by the family of only one or three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2709.454, 2710.24], "stop_times": [2710.24, 2737.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.454}, "reply_to": "15262__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_060", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, Your Honor, as a matter of fact as I pointed out earlier.\nThere is a sort of diminishing amount that's computed by the State as family gets larger.\nSo, that it is recognized --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2737.498, 2740.929, 2749.424], "stop_times": [2740.929, 2749.424, 2750.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2737.498}, "reply_to": "15262__1_059", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_061", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, I thought that was your Equal Protection claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2750.55], "stop_times": [2753.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2750.55}, "reply_to": "15262__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_062", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, the Equal Protection claim is where the state cuts off completely on assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2753.831], "stop_times": [2758.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2753.831}, "reply_to": "15262__1_061", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_063", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Cuts off completely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2758.436], "stop_times": [2760.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.436}, "reply_to": "15262__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_064", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2760.362], "stop_times": [2761.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2760.362}, "reply_to": "15262__1_063", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_065", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I understood because of the difference pay per child where there's one or three or eight, isn't that right?\nIs that your claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2761.362, 2771.539], "stop_times": [2771.539, 2772.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.362}, "reply_to": "15262__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_066", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It isn't the difference paid per child is to complete ignoring of the needs of children once they become --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2772.127], "stop_times": [2779.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2772.127}, "reply_to": "15262__1_065", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_067", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I wonder if we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2779.128], "stop_times": [2779.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.128}, "reply_to": "15262__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_068", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2779.41], "stop_times": [2780.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2779.41}, "reply_to": "15262__1_067", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_069", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I though you answer this question of Mr. Justice Black is asking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2780.532], "stop_times": [2783.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.532}, "reply_to": "15262__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_070", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2783.458], "stop_times": [2783.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2783.458}, "reply_to": "15262__1_069", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_071", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "When I asked you before, the idea is that there's only one child the computation of what the bare minimum subsistence requirement for that child is maybe $30.00 let's say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2783.975], "stop_times": [2796.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.975}, "reply_to": "15262__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_072", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2796.235], "stop_times": [2796.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2796.235}, "reply_to": "15262__1_071", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_073", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Let's say two children that bares subsistence requirement for the first maybe $30.00, but because there are two children but the bare subsistence requirement for the second child maybe only $25.00, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2796.675], "stop_times": [2809.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.675}, "reply_to": "15262__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_074", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2809.072], "stop_times": [2809.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2809.072}, "reply_to": "15262__1_073", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_075", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And you go on down $30.00, $25.00, $20.00 for the third child perhaps $15.00 for the fourth child, that's right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2809.701], "stop_times": [2815.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.701}, "reply_to": "15262__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_076", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2815.75], "stop_times": [2816.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2815.75}, "reply_to": "15262__1_075", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_077", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But once you get up to the total of $250.00.\nIf there are fifth, sixth, seven children, even though they compute what the bare subsistence requirement for the fifth, sixth and the seventh children maybe.\nThey make no provision for payment to the family for those --, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2816.368, 2819.686, 2829.642], "stop_times": [2819.686, 2829.642, 2834.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.368}, "reply_to": "15262__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_078", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2834.245], "stop_times": [2835.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2834.245}, "reply_to": "15262__1_077", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_079", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And your argument is that in cutting out which is the effect of the $250 maximum, the fifth, sixth and seventh children is the denial of Equal Protection as between them and the first, second and third, fourth children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2835.83], "stop_times": [2850.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.83}, "reply_to": "15262__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15262__1_080", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nI'd like to get into that Equal Protection argument as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2850.306, 2850.689], "stop_times": [2850.689, 2853.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2850.306}, "reply_to": "15262__1_079", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_081", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Even if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2853.942], "stop_times": [2854.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.942}, "reply_to": "15262__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_082", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2854.612], "stop_times": [2855.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2854.612}, "reply_to": "15262__1_081", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_083", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "If there's a $30.00 given for the first child and $10.00 for the second child.\nIsn't really the determination that the minimum subsistence is $20.00 for each child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2855.793, 2861.135], "stop_times": [2861.135, 2867.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.793}, "reply_to": "15262__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_084", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No that's not true Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2867.92], "stop_times": [2869.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2867.92}, "reply_to": "15262__1_083", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_085", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "So that in there's -- so the second child only needs $10.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2869.487], "stop_times": [2874.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.487}, "reply_to": "15262__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_086", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's not true, it's based on a standard of need and which these thing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2874.131], "stop_times": [2877.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2874.131}, "reply_to": "15262__1_085", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_087", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Is it the payment just to the family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2877.031], "stop_times": [2879.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.031}, "reply_to": "15262__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_088", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The payment is to the family but it's based on the needs of the number of individuals in that family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2879.632], "stop_times": [2885.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2879.632}, "reply_to": "15262__1_087", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_089", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The number of individuals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2885.176], "stop_times": [2886.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.176}, "reply_to": "15262__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_090", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2886.068], "stop_times": [2887.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2886.068}, "reply_to": "15262__1_089", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_091", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But $30.00 is allocated to A and $10.00 to B or anything like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2887.027], "stop_times": [2893.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.027}, "reply_to": "15262__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_092", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No sir, it depends upon the number of individual --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2893.214], "stop_times": [2895.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2893.214}, "reply_to": "15262__1_091", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_093", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "So, when the state has a maximum of $250.00 and that money is eligible among all members of the family.\nIt doesn't mean that the state doesn't think that the seventh child is going to not share at all with in $250.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2895.692, 2902.015], "stop_times": [2902.015, 2911.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.692}, "reply_to": "15262__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_094", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I would disagree in this respect Mr. Justice White because the State does think about it.\nBecause when they look at the Gary family and the number of people in that family, they said, \"You need in order to live $331.00 because the number of individuals in your family.\"", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2911.141, 2916.464], "stop_times": [2916.464, 2925.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2911.141}, "reply_to": "15262__1_093", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_095", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I understand that but the question I asked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2925.521], "stop_times": [2928.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.521}, "reply_to": "15262__1_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_096", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes, but of course -- yes, of course the Welfare Department, I assume, would believe that the mother would take of those funds which already are minimal and certainly divide in among the children because she would allow certain children to starve merely because their needs are not recognized as you see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2928.159], "stop_times": [2946.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2928.159}, "reply_to": "15262__1_095", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_097", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Which would mean that no one in the family gets what the State has determined to be that basic minimum essential for each person in the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2946.62], "stop_times": [2955.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.62}, "reply_to": "15262__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_098", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2955.54], "stop_times": [2956.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2955.54}, "reply_to": "15262__1_097", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_099", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Is that right?\nNo one gets of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2956.075, 2956.631], "stop_times": [2956.631, 2958.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.075}, "reply_to": "15262__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15262__1_100", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's correct if the mother certainly had to dilute the entire grant.\nEvery child in the family would suffer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2958.18, 2962.582], "stop_times": [2962.582, 2964.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2958.18}, "reply_to": "15262__1_099", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_101", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Suppose hypothetically no if I could ask you this question.\nThat the State of Maryland decided to accommodate you on this mathematics on your Equal Protection argument and taking this case with eight children as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2964.911, 2969.961], "stop_times": [2969.961, 2980.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.911}, "reply_to": "15262__1_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_102", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "We have eight children in each family, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2980.756], "stop_times": [2982.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2980.756}, "reply_to": "15262__1_101", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_103", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Divided that down so that they reduce the payment to families of two and three and four children.\nSo that $250.00 would not violate any conceivable Equal Protection Claim that you are not making.\nDoes the State of Maryland impend that power as a matter naked power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [2982.39, 2991.492, 2999.616], "stop_times": [2991.492, 2999.616, 3004.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.39}, "reply_to": "15262__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_104", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, I think certain states have as a matter of fact instituted ratable reductions they call it, percentage reduction programs.\nI think these programs are now under attack.\nI think their certain would be a different question as to their constitutionality than we have in this case.\nIn regard to the constitutional question in this case, I think the case -- the State was quite candid when we began this case before the first opinion.\nThey produced one witness in this case who came in and Mr. Smith and again, his testimony is on page 77 of the appendix.\nBut Mr. Smith's testimony was quite candid into the point that the purpose of this maximum ground regulation was to conserve state funds.\nNow, I think my brother here referred to several other people from the Welfare Department who testify in this regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3004.665, 3013.576, 3016.414, 3022.861, 3032.124, 3040.308, 3050.028], "stop_times": [3013.576, 3016.414, 3022.861, 3032.124, 3040.308, 3050.028, 3057.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3004.665}, "reply_to": "15262__1_103", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_105", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "A moment ago my real problem is, you seems they have the Equal Protection argument is in the guard to the extra children rather than the family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3057.82], "stop_times": [3073.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.82}, "reply_to": "15262__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15262__1_106", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That the Equal Protection argument refers Your Honor to the fact that children of large families are not having their needs recognized once they become unfortunately they fail for the sixth child on the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3073.689], "stop_times": [3086.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3073.689}, "reply_to": "15262__1_105", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_107", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That eight that long to us, they just means everybody who need less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3086.001], "stop_times": [3090.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.001}, "reply_to": "15262__1_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15262__1_108", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's in a fact what would happen, yes.\nBecause the mother would not sit there and allow other that or she would send the child out as she can do as I pointed out under the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3090.015, 3093.082], "stop_times": [3093.082, 3100.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3090.015}, "reply_to": "15262__1_107", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_109", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, I have great problem with the Equal Protection argument with out the first talking to with me, you got to get them both.\nI think you have to establish that this is basic subsistence and nothing unless will do.\nOtherwise, they have created trouble with the Equal Protection Law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3100.299, 3108.378, 3114.144], "stop_times": [3108.378, 3114.144, 3118.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.299}, "reply_to": "15262__1_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15262__1_110", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, Your Honor the needs are basic subsistence needs as established by the State and there are basic subsistence needs where families of each to compute it size.\nAnd I think, when the State talks about their rational purposes to say their regulation from falling under the Equal Protection case.\nI think they used the same approach that the state did used in the Shapiro v. Thompson case.\nThe same blond the bus approached that they talk for example that, the regulations in somehow incurred is employment.\nBut when we look at the facts in those case and we look at the less eligibility principle that was enunciated in England.\nI think in 1825, we know that we moved along way from then and this Court in Smith v. King -- King v. Smith did recognized that we have a much more sophisticated and in line of Welfare program now which looks toward rehabilitation and reeducation and retraining.\nAnd as a matter of fact, this 1967 Amendments to the Social Security Act, clearly provide for this kind of an approach to employment.\nIt sets up a very complicated scheme of a when program that requires welfare recipients to not only seek retaining but to seek employment.\nAnd in this particular light, the -- in light of the employment purpose pointed out by the State.\nThe regulation under the traditional test of Equal Protection and we have first argued in our brief in traditional test of Equal Protection.\nThis purpose is closely over inclusive for it would clearly involve people who has out name plaintiffs are not able to work both of our name plaintiffs in this case are disabled.\nIn addition to that, it's applied only against large families as if to assume that the heads of all large families are employable but that small families and the heads of small families somehow do not need this type of encouragement to work.\nSo, it is grossly over inclusive, it is under inclusive in the sense that it does not include this more family.\nSo, it suffers from this uniqueness of being not only over inclusive and but under inclusive.\nThe exhibits of the State and the State has referred to some of their exhibits point out for example that only a 167 -- 166 families on the whole welfare program were assisted with employment.\nNow, we have at least 2500 families who were affected by the maximum grant regulation.\nIn addition to that, the exhibits that have been put into this appendix by the state also indicate that even if all of the jobs in Maryland were somehow to be employed for welfare recipients still wouldn't be enough jobs.\nSo that this particular purpose really has no viability in light of the amendments to the Social Security Act.\nIn addition to that, the State talks about this regulation somehow acting as a family stabilizer.\nI think this purpose of ironic in a view of the stipulations which show how a family is encourage to disintegrate and instead of to stay together.\nAgain, it is over inclusive and exhibit which the state itself put into evidence in the court below and this is contained on page 154 of the appendix.\nPoints out that only 15% of families on welfare are on welfare because the head of the family dissert it.\nFor the purpose of encouraging heads of large families only no to dissert, we are going to punish 85% of the welfare case modes.\nThis is grossly over inclusive.\nIn addition, again, it has that uniqueness of being under inclusive for it is only applied against the heads of large families.\nFirmly, the state would talk about it being deceptive to child bearing.\nWell, this Court has spoken about the right to appropriation and marital privacy in Skinner and Griswold and Justice Douglas as I know was quite for me would this.\nAnd so, they would seek to invade this highly protected right of marital privacy and of right to procreation for the purpose of this particular regulation which again would affect only the heads of large families.\nSo that we are talking about a purpose which would begin to invade a fundamental right, the right of appropriation and the right to marital privacy.\nAnd this gets into the ladder part of our Equal -- I'm sorry sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3118.112, 3129.083, 3139.488, 3147.293, 3157.392, 3164.18, 3183.132, 3192.329, 3203.372, 3213.014, 3222.427, 3239.214, 3252.286, 3259.698, 3265.83, 3280.291, 3287.368, 3303.773, 3311.306, 3318.954, 3329.084, 3341.527, 3351.12, 3360.914, 3363.425, 3372.168, 3377.415, 3388.095, 3406.174, 3416.795], "stop_times": [3129.083, 3139.488, 3147.293, 3157.392, 3164.18, 3183.132, 3192.329, 3203.372, 3213.014, 3222.427, 3239.214, 3252.286, 3259.698, 3265.83, 3280.291, 3287.368, 3303.773, 3311.306, 3318.954, 3329.084, 3341.527, 3351.12, 3360.914, 3363.425, 3372.168, 3377.415, 3388.095, 3406.174, 3416.795, 3419.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3118.112}, "reply_to": "15262__1_109", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_111", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "How did the question get in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3419.643], "stop_times": [3422.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.643}, "reply_to": "15262__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_112", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Which is that sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3422.585], "stop_times": [3423.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3422.585}, "reply_to": "15262__1_111", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_113", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "I don't quite understand how that question gets in this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3423.775], "stop_times": [3427.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.775}, "reply_to": "15262__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_114", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, Your Honor in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Gary for example, all of their children were born prior to the time they were on welfare.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3427.548], "stop_times": [3435.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3427.548}, "reply_to": "15262__1_113", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_115", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "All of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3435.22], "stop_times": [3436.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.22}, "reply_to": "15262__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_116", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "All of them were born prior to the time Mr. and Mrs. Gary were required to seek welfare assistance.\nThe same thing is to with Mrs. Williams.\nSo in effect, they are being punished for exercising a constitutional right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3436.814, 3442.032, 3444.206], "stop_times": [3442.032, 3444.206, 3449.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3436.814}, "reply_to": "15262__1_115", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_117", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Or would it make any difference to your argument if these children were born and after they went on relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3449.815], "stop_times": [3456.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3449.815}, "reply_to": "15262__1_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_118", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor, we would still maintain that it is an evasion here of marital privacy and the right to procreation.\nWe still have to maintain that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3456.203, 3462.833], "stop_times": [3462.833, 3464.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3456.203}, "reply_to": "15262__1_117", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_119", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And so the time when they were born and relation for relief has nothing to do with the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3464.178], "stop_times": [3468.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.178}, "reply_to": "15262__1_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_120", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It has something to do with the case in this sense that we are punishing the parents of children for an act which they had a perfect legitimate right to exercise even prior to the time that they will require to seek welfare assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3468.264], "stop_times": [3483.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3468.264}, "reply_to": "15262__1_119", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_121", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, do I get out of that suggestion that the right is different after they go on relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3483.766], "stop_times": [3489.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.766}, "reply_to": "15262__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_122", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The right has no different Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3489.44], "stop_times": [3491.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3489.44}, "reply_to": "15262__1_121", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_123", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Well, then what's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3491.316], "stop_times": [3493.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3491.316}, "reply_to": "15262__1_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_124", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "It is only relevant in this case to point out how would affects families who perhaps have already had their children prior to the time they go on welfare.\nThey are being punished for exercising that right even before they needed welfare assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3493.082, 3501.13], "stop_times": [3501.13, 3507.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3493.082}, "reply_to": "15262__1_123", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_125", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "How they are being punished and who is punishing them or is it to being punish for what?\nUnder this if have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3507.002, 3512.389], "stop_times": [3512.389, 3514.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.002}, "reply_to": "15262__1_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_126", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes.\nThey're being punished Your Honor because of the fact that because their family have to be of a certain size, certain children in that family are simply considered none persons.\nThey are not given any assistance whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3514.732, 3515.177, 3527.165], "stop_times": [3515.177, 3527.165, 3529.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3514.732}, "reply_to": "15262__1_125", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_127", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "But though that they came here having reference from assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3529.6], "stop_times": [3534.303], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3529.6}, "reply_to": "15262__1_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15262__1_128", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3534.303], "stop_times": [3534.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3534.303}, "reply_to": "15262__1_127", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_129", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Whether it is your premise that it cause exactly the same to maintain the family of eight is it does the family of one per job?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3534.682], "stop_times": [3545.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3534.682}, "reply_to": "15262__1_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_130", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, Your Honor that wouldn't be part of our premise at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3545.365], "stop_times": [3547.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3545.365}, "reply_to": "15262__1_129", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_131", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's not part of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3547.349], "stop_times": [3548.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.349}, "reply_to": "15262__1_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_132", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, it wouldn't be part of our argument at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3548.205], "stop_times": [3550.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3548.205}, "reply_to": "15262__1_131", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_133", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "You wouldn't claim the Maryland couldn't make the difference?\nWould you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3550.204, 3553.518], "stop_times": [3553.518, 3553.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3550.204}, "reply_to": "15262__1_132", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_134", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "No, I would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3553.652], "stop_times": [3554.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3553.652}, "reply_to": "15262__1_133", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_135", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Between the amount of charge it would give to the family of eight and family of two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3554.464], "stop_times": [3559.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3554.464}, "reply_to": "15262__1_134", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15262__1_136", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Not at all.\nYour Honor, we have maintained that this regulation is unconstitutional under the traditional test.\nBut we would maintain that this Court should apply the special scrutiny or compelling state interest test because of the fact that there are fundamental rights involved here.\nNow, I have already talked about the right to narrow privacy and to appropriate.\nHowever, the regulation also creates a suspect classification.\nA classification that was struck down by this Court in Levy v. Louisiana.\nAs soon as a child is unfortunate enough under this regulation to be born to fifth child of a two parent family or the sixth child of a one parent family.\nHe is at that time, put into a suspect classification in that welfare assistance is that that point denied to him.\nThis Court has struck down such classifications in Levy v. Louisiana as well as in Shapiro v. Thompson and we would maintain that because the regulation creates a suspect classification.\nThe traditional test should not be applied here but that the compelling interest or a special scrutiny test should be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3559.575, 3561.032, 3568.262, 3577.182, 3581.173, 3586.501, 3592.651, 3602.543, 3611.658, 3623.917], "stop_times": [3561.032, 3568.262, 3577.182, 3581.173, 3586.501, 3592.651, 3602.543, 3611.658, 3623.917, 3629.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3559.575}, "reply_to": "15262__1_135", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_137", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "To whom does the welfare check go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3629.891], "stop_times": [3632.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3629.891}, "reply_to": "15262__1_136", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_138", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "The welfare check Your Honor goes to the head of the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3632.325], "stop_times": [3636.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3632.325}, "reply_to": "15262__1_137", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_139", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "If it's a single woman either because her spouses is about inherit or by there something goes to her, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3636.038], "stop_times": [3643.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3636.038}, "reply_to": "15262__1_138", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_140", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3643.542], "stop_times": [3644.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3643.542}, "reply_to": "15262__1_139", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_141", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "And if it's a matter of woman and both in capacity, it goes right to the man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3644.171], "stop_times": [3649.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3644.171}, "reply_to": "15262__1_140", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_142", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Yes Your Honor, the head of the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3649.021], "stop_times": [3651.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3649.021}, "reply_to": "15262__1_141", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_143", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "So that the people and presumably who is not to fifth or sixth or seventh or eighth child and necessarily suffers it's the whole family.\nSince income is reduced on a per capita basis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3651.681, 3660.506], "stop_times": [3660.506, 3664.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3651.681}, "reply_to": "15262__1_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_144", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Practical effect would be that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3664.401], "stop_times": [3665.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3664.401}, "reply_to": "15262__1_143", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_145", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "If that a smaller family at such the net effect, isn't that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3665.945], "stop_times": [3669.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3665.945}, "reply_to": "15262__1_144", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15262__1_146", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "That would be the practical effect because a parent would simply not let its child starve.\nBecause we feel the compelling interest test is appropriate here.\nThe State must look to less on these alternatives and we are fortunate here and not to have to talk about how these less owners alternatives could be devised because they have already been devised.\nThe 1967 Amendment to the Social Security Act do provide for a win program.\nThey do provide for means to find husbands and fathers who should be supporting children and they provide for a family program of control of family size.\nSo that all of the owners alternative already exist.\nIn closing, I would just say that as this Court found in King v. Smith --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3669.23, 3674.202, 3678.896, 3690.096, 3695.512, 3706.538, 3710.15], "stop_times": [3674.202, 3678.896, 3690.096, 3695.512, 3706.538, 3710.15, 3714.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3669.23}, "reply_to": "15262__1_145", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_147", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Your time is up counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3714.21], "stop_times": [3717.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3714.21}, "reply_to": "15262__1_146", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15262__1_148", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3717.52], "stop_times": [3720.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3717.52}, "reply_to": "15262__1_147", "speaker": "joseph_a_matera"}
{"id": "15262__1_149", "conversation_id": "15262", "text": "Mr. Liebmann, Mr. Matera thank your for your submissions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_131", "start_times": [3720.238, 3724.178], "stop_times": [3724.178, 3727.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3720.238}, "reply_to": "15262__1_148", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_000", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "You may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [9.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_001", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "If the Court please the appellant yesterday mentioned that you would accept the measure of involuntary custody.\nIt's a matter of determination is to whether or not the jury trial guarantee in a criminal case applies to juvenile court proceedings.\nOf course, we have that in the one hand and on the other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [9.358, 21.659, 33.999], "stop_times": [21.659, 33.999, 36.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 9.358}, "reply_to": "15002__0_000", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_002", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Could you tell me where the appellant is at the present time Is he in the regular prison of the state or is he in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [36.523], "stop_times": [46.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 36.523}, "reply_to": "15002__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15002__0_003", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, he is in the Men's Reformatory which is a part of the penal complex.\nHe is no longer in the training school to which he was ordered by the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [46.074, 52.251], "stop_times": [52.251, 58.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 46.074}, "reply_to": "15002__0_002", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_004", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I've been looking in the record to see when the transfer took place and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [58.1], "stop_times": [63.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.1}, "reply_to": "15002__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15002__0_005", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "It doesn't appear in the record Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [63.5], "stop_times": [65.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 63.5}, "reply_to": "15002__0_004", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_006", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Was it the -- as a result of him acquiring a certain age?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [65.525], "stop_times": [70.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.525}, "reply_to": "15002__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15002__0_007", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No.\nThis occurs as a matter of transfer by the Department of Institutions through a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [70.993, 71.982], "stop_times": [71.982, 82.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 70.993}, "reply_to": "15002__0_006", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_008", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Pure administrative --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [82.346], "stop_times": [83.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 82.346}, "reply_to": "15002__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15002__0_009", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, purely administrative and as I pointed out yesterday.\nThis matter whether or not this statute which allows this transfer is unconstitutional should be attack in that way rather than attacking the juvenile court system through this vehicle.\nBut the fact that he is in the penal complex is by virtue of a separate statute which is not at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [83.659, 89.568, 104.849], "stop_times": [89.568, 104.849, 112.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.659}, "reply_to": "15002__0_008", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15002__0_010", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, he is now in the penal institution where man or woman who is an adult would be if convicted of forgery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [112.962], "stop_times": [123.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 112.962}, "reply_to": "15002__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15002__0_011", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nThe basis for the transfer is a matter of the statute sets out if they become incorrigible they can be transferred and it was based on this that he was transferred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [123.042, 123.769], "stop_times": [123.769, 137.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 123.042}, "reply_to": "15002__0_010", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_012", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "As you terminated yesterday, I think you would just making the point that nowhere in this case is there any attack on the validity of this administrative process by which he was transferred out of a juvenile detention establishment into an adult penal institution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [137.723], "stop_times": [157.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.723}, "reply_to": "15002__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_013", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [157.917], "stop_times": [159.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 157.917}, "reply_to": "15002__0_012", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_014", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And I think your point was as you have just made it again, that if anything is the correct attack by collateral proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [159.435], "stop_times": [170.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.435}, "reply_to": "15002__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_015", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, by habeas corpus, then at the penal complex now to test the sufficiency or the constitutionality of this transfer rather than through the juvenile jury system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [170.42], "stop_times": [183.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 170.42}, "reply_to": "15002__0_014", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_016", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "While we have you have there, although it probably is not relevant here, was there any kind of hearing in the administrative process of making this transfer from one institution to the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [183.416], "stop_times": [196.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.416}, "reply_to": "15002__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_017", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, there is a hearing before the -- within the Board of Pardons and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [196.332], "stop_times": [212.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 196.332}, "reply_to": "15002__0_016", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_018", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But there are hearing of some kind --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [212.127], "stop_times": [213.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.127}, "reply_to": "15002__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_019", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Department of Public Institution, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [213.248], "stop_times": [215.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 213.248}, "reply_to": "15002__0_018", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_020", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [215.314], "stop_times": [215.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.314}, "reply_to": "15002__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_021", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "There is a hearing that determines this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [215.859], "stop_times": [217.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 215.859}, "reply_to": "15002__0_020", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_022", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Is an institutional hearing held in the penitentiary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [217.274], "stop_times": [221.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.274}, "reply_to": "15002__0_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_023", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Held -- I'm not certain just where they hold it.\nI would assume, I'm not familiar with this part, but I would assume that they hold it at the training school at Carnegie where the boy is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [221.983, 224.345], "stop_times": [224.345, 231.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 221.983}, "reply_to": "15002__0_022", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_024", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, did they have outsiders there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [231.462], "stop_times": [233.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.462}, "reply_to": "15002__0_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_025", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That I don't know Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [233.864], "stop_times": [237.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 233.864}, "reply_to": "15002__0_024", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_026", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, I mean when you say hearing, if all the hearing amounts to as a warden calls him in and talks to him, you wouldn't call a hearing, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [237.548], "stop_times": [245.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.548}, "reply_to": "15002__0_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_027", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No.\nNo, I wouldn't call that a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [245.594, 245.959], "stop_times": [245.959, 247.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 245.594}, "reply_to": "15002__0_026", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_028", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, you said hearing and the amount -- can you tell me how much of a hearing it is or do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [247.187], "stop_times": [253.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.187}, "reply_to": "15002__0_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_029", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I'm not familiar with this part of the of it Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [253.042], "stop_times": [257.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 253.042}, "reply_to": "15002__0_028", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_030", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The -- he was originally committed to the industrial school for -- until he reached the age of 21, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [257.76], "stop_times": [265.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.76}, "reply_to": "15002__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_031", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The -- yes sir.\nBasically, yes Your Honor.\nThe commitment is for an indeterminant period of time.\nThere is never a time stated in the order.\nThey are committed to the institution and whenever the institution feels that they are ready for release, they will release them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [265.301, 266.859, 268.106, 271.564, 275.187], "stop_times": [266.859, 268.106, 271.564, 275.187, 283.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 265.301}, "reply_to": "15002__0_030", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_032", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Is that statutory maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [283.426], "stop_times": [285.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.426}, "reply_to": "15002__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_033", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, the longest period of time that they can be kept is until they are 21.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [285.064], "stop_times": [290.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 285.064}, "reply_to": "15002__0_032", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_034", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "This subsequent transfer to the adult penal institution, did that or could that increase the length of the term of his custody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [290.847], "stop_times": [300.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.847}, "reply_to": "15002__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_035", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The amount of time is limited to two years by the statute.\nThey can only commit them for a term of two years to the penal complex under this administrative custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [300.787, 305.057], "stop_times": [305.057, 310.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 300.787}, "reply_to": "15002__0_034", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_036", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "They committed him two days before this man's 21st birthday, could it be then for an additional two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [310.475], "stop_times": [318.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.475}, "reply_to": "15002__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_037", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I'm not certain Your Honor.\nI would believe that they could, but I couldn't be certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [318.124, 321.691], "stop_times": [321.691, 324.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 318.124}, "reply_to": "15002__0_036", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_038", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But in any event it's your submission that that matter is not before us in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [324.024], "stop_times": [327.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.024}, "reply_to": "15002__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_039", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Right.\nThis is my contention that this is another matter which should be taken up.\nBut on the other side of this is a matter of the benefits which a child receives from a judicially oriented juvenile court system.\nThis against the involuntary custody idea in the training school, not in the penal complex.\nThere was some mentioned yesterday of the delinquency of being a violation of statute.\nThis is the definition that the Nebraska Statutes have of being a delinquent, any one who violates any of the state statutes or municipal ordinances, but it's more than just a violation that is involved that can involve involuntary custody.\nThe child in need of special supervision can be disposed of in exactly the same way as a child who is being charged of being a delinquent child which involves the commitment to the training school or to a foster home or probation or any of the other avenues open so far as a delinquent child is concerned.\nI might note in passing that even after a criminal trial, the District Judge has the option if he wishes to send the boy to the training school instead of sending him to the penal complex.\nThe fact that he has been convicted in District Court by a jury, doesn't necessarily mean that he is going to the penal complex.\nHe could be sent to the training school if the court felt that this was a proper disposition of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [327.626, 328.827, 336.121, 347.555, 355.769, 361.525, 379.97, 404.249, 419.737, 427.065], "stop_times": [328.827, 336.121, 347.555, 355.769, 361.525, 379.97, 404.249, 419.737, 427.065, 435.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 327.626}, "reply_to": "15002__0_038", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_040", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Could he be sent in the first instance by the juvenile court to the penal institution or must be first be sent to the juvenile institution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [435.116], "stop_times": [444.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.116}, "reply_to": "15002__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_041", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No.\nHe cannot be sent directly from the juvenile court to a penal institution.\nHe must -- the only place they can commit him is to a training school or to some foster home or some other disposition.\nThey cannot sentence to the penal complex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [444.492, 444.646, 448.855, 457.101], "stop_times": [444.646, 448.855, 457.101, 459.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 444.492}, "reply_to": "15002__0_040", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_042", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Then the Nebraska Statute in effect vests broader power in the administrative managers of the juvenile institution than they do in the juvenile judge himself, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [459.353], "stop_times": [473.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.353}, "reply_to": "15002__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_043", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, this would be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [473.061], "stop_times": [476.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 473.061}, "reply_to": "15002__0_042", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_044", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Any standards at all prescribed by statute for the transfer, guidelines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [476.313], "stop_times": [482.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.313}, "reply_to": "15002__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_045", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Incorrigibility is the one that I can recall right off hand as a basis for the transfer, but actually and with even neglected their dependent children if you're talking about involuntary custody, a neglected or dependent child can be taken from his home and placed in some other home, be at a state home for children or what it maybe.\nSo, even with a dependent or a neglected child, there can still be a matter of involuntary custody so to speak involved.\nIf this can be is the measure of whether or not it is a criminal matter guaranteed a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment which guarantees a jury trial in the criminal matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [482.742, 511.698, 522.395], "stop_times": [511.698, 522.395, 537.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 482.742}, "reply_to": "15002__0_044", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_046", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That would be -- that's so called custody however would be in a foster home, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [537.584], "stop_times": [542.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.584}, "reply_to": "15002__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_047", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, in a foster home or it could be in a state institution, a state home for children for this type of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [542.95], "stop_times": [550.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 542.95}, "reply_to": "15002__0_046", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_048", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Now, the fourth category provided by the statutes of your state seems to be a child in need of special supervision.\nYou have a neglected child, the dependent child, the delinquent child and fourthly, a child in need of special supervision.\nHow is such a child handles under your procedures?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [550.079, 559.172, 565.817], "stop_times": [559.172, 565.817, 569.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.079}, "reply_to": "15002__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_049", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The child in need of special supervision can be handled the same as the delinquent child.\nThe disposition can be the same.\nHowever, there is one restriction that in order for child in need of special supervision to be committed to an institution in the first instance, there must be a showing that it is for the -- that is necessary for the protection of the welfare of the child or of society in general.\nAnd this must be specifically shown alleged in the petition which is served and shown at the hearing before they can be committed in the first instance.\nOtherwise, there must be probation and/or some other type of disposition and if after a period of time, it's shown that there is not been the rehabilitation that should be, they can then be brought back into court and they can be sent to the training school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [569.123, 574.099, 575.932, 595.907, 606.387], "stop_times": [574.099, 575.932, 595.907, 606.387, 621.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 569.123}, "reply_to": "15002__0_048", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_050", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "To the very same place that this kid has been sent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [621.717], "stop_times": [623.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.717}, "reply_to": "15002__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_051", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nSo far as the benefits of not having the jury trial and juvenile court of concern, the two main things are the promptness of the disposition and avoiding the trauma of a public hearing.\nSo far as the prompt hearing is concerned, the jury trial in and of itself is a delay.\nJust simply setting up a jury trial where in addition to the people involved in the thing, you must get either six or 12 other people at a certain place at a certain time.\nSchedule --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [623.118, 631.634, 648.216, 655.881, 667.782], "stop_times": [631.634, 648.216, 655.881, 667.782, 668.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 623.118}, "reply_to": "15002__0_050", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_052", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Its you provided the jury trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [668.412], "stop_times": [672.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.412}, "reply_to": "15002__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__0_053", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, they do Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [672.213], "stop_times": [673.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 672.213}, "reply_to": "15002__0_052", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_054", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "How many are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [673.226], "stop_times": [674.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.226}, "reply_to": "15002__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__0_055", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I believe there are 12 jurisdictions I believe, I'm not sure that's all states.\nThe District of Columbia does have provision for a jury trial in their proceedings.\nI might point out that according to Judge Miller's testimony before the Senate that there were approximately 10% of the juveniles that asked for a jury trial and this 10% asking for a jury trial has caused approximately a six-year backlog in these trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [674.39, 681.025, 688.527], "stop_times": [681.025, 688.527, 712.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 674.39}, "reply_to": "15002__0_054", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_056", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That was the cost, they only handle 40 a year, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [712.518], "stop_times": [715.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.518}, "reply_to": "15002__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_057", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [715.687], "stop_times": [716.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 715.687}, "reply_to": "15002__0_056", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_058", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Less than one week?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [716.471], "stop_times": [717.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.471}, "reply_to": "15002__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_059", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nThis is what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [717.985, 719.318], "stop_times": [719.318, 719.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 717.985}, "reply_to": "15002__0_058", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_060", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The ways submission to the readings of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [719.466], "stop_times": [721.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.466}, "reply_to": "15002__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_061", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [721.805], "stop_times": [723.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 721.805}, "reply_to": "15002__0_060", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_062", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I didn't say an explanation for the reason they don't need the whole one week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [723.021], "stop_times": [727.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.021}, "reply_to": "15002__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_063", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I would assume that it is because of the other business of the Court that they can only schedule one per week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [727.901], "stop_times": [735.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 727.901}, "reply_to": "15002__0_062", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_064", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "You are speaking now of one jury trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [735.477], "stop_times": [737.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.477}, "reply_to": "15002__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_065", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "One jury trial, yes, one jury trial per week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [737.574], "stop_times": [740.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 737.574}, "reply_to": "15002__0_064", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_066", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And while they're doing one jury trial a week, they doing multitude of other non-jury trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [740.367], "stop_times": [749.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.367}, "reply_to": "15002__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__0_067", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "There were approximately --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [749.045], "stop_times": [749.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 749.045}, "reply_to": "15002__0_066", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_068", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Could that be remedied by more court rooms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [749.897], "stop_times": [753.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.897}, "reply_to": "15002__0_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_069", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I think this is what the judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [753.377], "stop_times": [754.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 753.377}, "reply_to": "15002__0_068", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_070", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "More judges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [754.256], "stop_times": [755.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.256}, "reply_to": "15002__0_069", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_071", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "This is what the judge was asking for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [755.311], "stop_times": [757.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 755.311}, "reply_to": "15002__0_070", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_072", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That can be remedied by money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [757.729], "stop_times": [760.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.729}, "reply_to": "15002__0_071", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_073", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [760.32], "stop_times": [760.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 760.32}, "reply_to": "15002__0_072", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_074", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That can be remedied by money, money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [760.816], "stop_times": [763.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.816}, "reply_to": "15002__0_073", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_075", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, by increasing it, there were approximately 2,500 cases that were handled during this year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [763.987], "stop_times": [771.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 763.987}, "reply_to": "15002__0_074", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_076", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Like it was a thousand, they could be handled by money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [771.214], "stop_times": [774.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.214}, "reply_to": "15002__0_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_077", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nThis is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [774.26, 775.615], "stop_times": [775.615, 776.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 774.26}, "reply_to": "15002__0_076", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_078", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The other point, what about the fact, is that not true that the -- all of these benefits that accrue from the standard juvenile court proceedings, isn't it possible that these juvenile or his lawyer or his parents could waive the jury trial and accept all of those nice benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [776.178], "stop_times": [797.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.178}, "reply_to": "15002__0_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_079", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, this presents a problem.\nIt was pointed out here yesterday that in Colorado where they allow jury trials that there were only two over a certain period of time.\nHowever, I believe this was prior to Gault when the Attorney was injected into the juvenile court proceedings.\nSince that time, there had been more and more juveniles with an Attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [797.452, 803.199, 810.656, 821.226], "stop_times": [803.199, 810.656, 821.226, 826.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 797.452}, "reply_to": "15002__0_078", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_080", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But they could waive it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [826.107], "stop_times": [827.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.107}, "reply_to": "15002__0_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_081", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nWell, this presents a problem, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [827.328, 827.701], "stop_times": [827.701, 830.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 827.328}, "reply_to": "15002__0_080", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_082", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, as I understand your argument, all of this is for the benefit of the juvenile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [830.498], "stop_times": [835.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.498}, "reply_to": "15002__0_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_083", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [835.177], "stop_times": [836.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 835.177}, "reply_to": "15002__0_082", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_084", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And if the juvenile wants of all of that benefit.\nHe can get it by merely not asking for a jury trial, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [836.229, 839.016], "stop_times": [839.016, 845.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.229}, "reply_to": "15002__0_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_085", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "He can get it with by waiving a jury trial, by pleading --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [845.977], "stop_times": [848.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 845.977}, "reply_to": "15002__0_084", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_086", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "So, what's wrong with allowing him to have a jury trial if he wants to waive all those benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [848.851], "stop_times": [854.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.851}, "reply_to": "15002__0_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_087", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "This brings up the problem of how does he waive it?\nHow does a youngster waive it?\nAttorneys are becoming more and more hesitant about waiving for a youngster because of the fact that he will discuss it with the youngster and the youngster will say later, I didn't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [854.632, 857.335, 861.374], "stop_times": [857.335, 861.374, 877.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 854.632}, "reply_to": "15002__0_086", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_088", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, it is possible that they were also discussing it with the parents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [877.759], "stop_times": [881.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.759}, "reply_to": "15002__0_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_089", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I would say -- I would say they should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [881.947], "stop_times": [882.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 881.947}, "reply_to": "15002__0_088", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_090", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But not be the usual gang?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [882.463], "stop_times": [884.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.463}, "reply_to": "15002__0_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_091", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But can the parent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [884.599], "stop_times": [885.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 884.599}, "reply_to": "15002__0_090", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_092", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Juvenile, the parents and the lawyer, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [885.858], "stop_times": [890.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.858}, "reply_to": "15002__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_093", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [890.425], "stop_times": [891.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 890.425}, "reply_to": "15002__0_092", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_094", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And they decide that they want a jury?\nThey want to give up all these benefits.\nWhat's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [891.422, 895.176, 898.223], "stop_times": [895.176, 898.223, 901.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.422}, "reply_to": "15002__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_095", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I don't know that they would be giving up the benefits of a court by asking for a jury trial.\nI don't think that this would necessarily be so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [901.733, 906.512], "stop_times": [906.512, 910.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 901.733}, "reply_to": "15002__0_094", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_096", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Because after the jury trial, the judge could still give him all of these benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [910.128], "stop_times": [914.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.128}, "reply_to": "15002__0_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_097", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Oh yes, he could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [914.71], "stop_times": [917.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 914.71}, "reply_to": "15002__0_096", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_098", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I'm not talking about the constitutionality of the claim for the jury trial.\nI'm just talking practically, there is very little problem there, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [917.169, 920.177], "stop_times": [920.177, 924.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.169}, "reply_to": "15002__0_097", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_099", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The problem is that the attorneys become hesitant about waiving because can a parent waive for a child or does the child have to understand is the child that has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [924.794], "stop_times": [938.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 924.794}, "reply_to": "15002__0_098", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_100", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "In the view will be thought, doesn't the in the regular proceeding is it normal for the judge to ask the parents about what they think, not that he is bound by the thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [938.14], "stop_times": [950.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.14}, "reply_to": "15002__0_099", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_101", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "In our proceedings at least, they are.\nThe matters discussed with the parents and with the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [950.058, 951.978], "stop_times": [951.978, 955.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 950.058}, "reply_to": "15002__0_100", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_102", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "So, it would be jury would find that, say they find the juvenile delinquent and the judge talks it over the time says, I really don't think this anything or behaved by putting this boy away out.\nDo what they would normally do.\nNothing is lost, but money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [955.44, 969.083, 971.225], "stop_times": [969.083, 971.225, 977.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.44}, "reply_to": "15002__0_101", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_103", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I'm not sure I follow you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [977.571], "stop_times": [979.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 977.571}, "reply_to": "15002__0_102", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_104", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I say, I don't think anything is lost, but the cost of the state of summoning the jury.\nWhat else is lost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [979.392, 986.556], "stop_times": [986.556, 987.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.392}, "reply_to": "15002__0_103", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_105", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "If there are a number of these, there can be a long delay during the period when they readjusting for this.\nThese things can't happen immediately.\nDuring this period of time, something has to be done with these youngsters.\nThey're at this time they're in their formative years.\nThey're in the period of time when they are forming themselves for later life and by not correcting the thing immediately or as close to the time of the incident as possible, you're really doing damage to the child rather than helping him.\nYou're hindering the child.\nYou're burdening the child with something that he shouldn't be.\nYou're burdening him with the delay that is really bad for him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [987.988, 997.041, 1000.445, 1006.011, 1009.0, 1029.403, 1031.549, 1035.503], "stop_times": [997.041, 1000.445, 1006.011, 1009.0, 1029.403, 1031.549, 1035.503, 1040.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 987.988}, "reply_to": "15002__0_104", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_106", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But which, he, his family and his lawyer agree they want?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1040.771], "stop_times": [1049.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.771}, "reply_to": "15002__0_105", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__0_107", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, and this my question is, is this right?\nIs this fair to thrust this thing in?\nI'm not sure I don't have any figures state wide in the particular county in which I am; population approximately 35,000.\nI would say that we run 30 to 35 juvenile cases a year in the juvenile court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1049.379, 1054.159, 1064.052, 1075.215], "stop_times": [1054.159, 1064.052, 1075.215, 1082.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1049.379}, "reply_to": "15002__0_106", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_108", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And the juvenile court in your county is just the same judge with the different hat on, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1082.741], "stop_times": [1091.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.741}, "reply_to": "15002__0_107", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_109", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes sir.\nWe use the -- there, we use the county judge which -- who serves as probate judge and has a -- it doesn't have general jurisdiction, but he has charge of probate matters and we use him as the juvenile judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1091.095, 1091.546], "stop_times": [1091.546, 1109.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1091.095}, "reply_to": "15002__0_108", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_110", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I suppose in the city like Omaha, special juvenile court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1109.832], "stop_times": [1112.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.832}, "reply_to": "15002__0_109", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_111", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "In Omaha in Lincoln, they do have special juvenile courts and I'm not familiar the figures there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1112.867], "stop_times": [1118.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1112.867}, "reply_to": "15002__0_110", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_112", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Just while interrupted you, I suppose that often there is a or at least infrequently, there maybe a adversity of interest between the juvenile's parents and the juvenile?\nIs that true often that parents be complaining witnesses, is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1118.831, 1131.36], "stop_times": [1131.36, 1137.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.831}, "reply_to": "15002__0_111", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_113", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "This is very true.\nThere can be a number of things.\nThe child -- the child's real problem is to where he is, maybe his parents.\nThis may well be, maybe his parents haven't provided him with the background that he needs.\nThis is a reason that he's into this difficulty.\nThis is a reason that he is going out and stolen or this type of thing and the parents maybe the real problem in the thing and having the parents waive or speak for him isn't doing justice for the child.\nSo far as the insistence of the appellant that he could have won the case in a criminal court to a jury there is other evidence that I have which is still in the file which had not used in this Court, in the juvenile court.\nI'm just as convinced that I could've convicted in a criminal case, however, my decision was that the possibilities for using the juvenile court could possibly save this young man and this was the reason that he was taken into juvenile court rather than taking into the criminal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1137.25, 1138.947, 1140.433, 1145.61, 1150.611, 1153.304, 1180.576, 1202.434], "stop_times": [1138.947, 1140.433, 1145.61, 1150.611, 1153.304, 1180.576, 1202.434, 1223.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1137.25}, "reply_to": "15002__0_112", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_114", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And you have absolute discretion on that as I understand it if you asking on it what, 48 hours or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1223.692], "stop_times": [1229.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.692}, "reply_to": "15002__0_113", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_115", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1229.924], "stop_times": [1230.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1229.924}, "reply_to": "15002__0_114", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_116", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And you have discretion with respect to a juvenile, what, between 16 and 18 or what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1230.26], "stop_times": [1237.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.26}, "reply_to": "15002__0_115", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_117", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No, I have discretion on at any age.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1237.977], "stop_times": [1241.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1237.977}, "reply_to": "15002__0_116", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_118", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "What if it is a 10-year-old boy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1241.092], "stop_times": [1243.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.092}, "reply_to": "15002__0_117", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_119", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I would have discretion there too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1243.251], "stop_times": [1245.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1243.251}, "reply_to": "15002__0_118", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_120", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "You would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1245.021], "stop_times": [1245.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.021}, "reply_to": "15002__0_119", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_121", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1245.605], "stop_times": [1247.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1245.605}, "reply_to": "15002__0_120", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_122", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Any and what if it's -- but the discretion was stopped at some age or what if it's a 50-year-old man, you don't have discretion of bringing him before the juvenile court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1247.586], "stop_times": [1254.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.586}, "reply_to": "15002__0_121", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_123", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No, no.\nThe top age is 18.\nWhen they reach their 18th birthday, they are no longer subject to the juvenile court.\nThen, they must go directly into criminal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1254.243, 1255.684, 1258.548, 1262.504], "stop_times": [1255.684, 1258.548, 1262.504, 1265.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1254.243}, "reply_to": "15002__0_122", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_124", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But 18 and below, you have discretion to initiate juvenile proceedings or to initiate criminal proceedings in the criminal court no matter how tender the age?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1265.234], "stop_times": [1275.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.234}, "reply_to": "15002__0_123", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_125", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1275.824], "stop_times": [1276.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1275.824}, "reply_to": "15002__0_124", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_126", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "So far as this statute goes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1276.25], "stop_times": [1277.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.25}, "reply_to": "15002__0_125", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_127", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nSo far as the statute is concerned.\nBy way of background, we do have the presumption that a 7-year-old cannot form intent and that someone between 7 and the 14, it's a rebuttable presumption whether or not they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1277.041, 1277.994, 1279.71], "stop_times": [1277.994, 1279.71, 1292.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1277.041}, "reply_to": "15002__0_126", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_128", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Was this matter taken up in the court, the Supreme Court of Nebraska?\nIt's a matter of your discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1292.749, 1298.378], "stop_times": [1298.378, 1301.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1292.749}, "reply_to": "15002__0_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__0_129", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "It was touched upon Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1301.128], "stop_times": [1302.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1301.128}, "reply_to": "15002__0_128", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_130", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "What did the court say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1302.48], "stop_times": [1304.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.48}, "reply_to": "15002__0_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__0_131", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I don't believe that court's opinion mentioned it, but it was simply touched upon and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1304.5], "stop_times": [1310.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1304.5}, "reply_to": "15002__0_130", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_132", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Did the courts in Nebraska construed it all of it's or dealt with this area of discretion?\nDo they say it's absolute or it is unreviewable or it is reviewable by the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1310.372, 1316.49], "stop_times": [1316.49, 1320.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.372}, "reply_to": "15002__0_131", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__0_133", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The closest thing to it is the Fugate versus Ronin case where they say that the prosecutor has an absolute discretion in it which is putting with this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1320.666], "stop_times": [1332.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1320.666}, "reply_to": "15002__0_132", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_134", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Standardless discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1332.264], "stop_times": [1334.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1332.264}, "reply_to": "15002__0_133", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__0_135", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, which is the basic concept of the prosecution throughout all of the United States, that prosecutor has discretion as to what he will file or whether it would be misdemeanor, felony or whatever it maybe.\nSo far as other jurisdictions which or other people which feel that a jury trial should not be had, there are of course 34 states which do not provide for a jury trial.\nOf course the District of Columbia as I've mentioned before does have a jury trial provision and at present time, there is a Bill in the House and in the Senate which is supported by the United States Attorney General's Office which among other things eliminates the provision for a jury trial for juveniles.\nThe President's Prime Commission Report, in their report they state that they do not feel that a jury trial serves any purpose in a juvenile proceeding.\nThe uniform Juvenile Court Act does not provide for a jury trial and the model rules for a juvenile court much is prepared by the National Council of Juvenile Judges does not provide for a jury trial in a juvenile court.\nReally, one other problem that you have in connection with a jury trial for a juvenile court, in a juvenile court, is the matter of finding a jury of peers.\nReally, the juvenile judge who by dealing with these children all the time is less apt to be shocked by the long hair, by the mannerisms, by the things that the children do than the average person from off of the street.\nYour juvenile judge is actually closer to being a peer of the juvenile than all of the juries as they are selected now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1334.494, 1370.411, 1385.251, 1405.692, 1418.113, 1438.731, 1451.43, 1471.742], "stop_times": [1370.411, 1385.251, 1405.692, 1418.113, 1438.731, 1451.43, 1471.742, 1485.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1334.494}, "reply_to": "15002__0_134", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_136", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "In your state, I suppose person has to be 21 years or older than the juror, is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1485.763], "stop_times": [1490.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.763}, "reply_to": "15002__0_135", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_137", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nThey just had recent legislation Your Honor, there used to be 25 I believe and they reduced it to either 20 or 21.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1490.608, 1493.24], "stop_times": [1493.24, 1499.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1490.608}, "reply_to": "15002__0_136", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_138", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But in any event you could not have teenage juror?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1499.197], "stop_times": [1501.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.197}, "reply_to": "15002__0_137", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__0_139", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No, there's no provision for teenage jurors.\nSo far as the Duncan Rule, the reason for this rule was the compliant or the bias or the eccentric judge, for protection against this type of thing.\nWhere in juvenile court, any judicially oriented juvenile court has another provision which protects against the same thing, the trial de novo, and either the District Court or in the Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1501.135, 1515.365, 1536.332], "stop_times": [1515.365, 1536.332, 1557.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1501.135}, "reply_to": "15002__0_138", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15002__0_140", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Thank you Mr. Kuhlman.\nMr. Scanlan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1557.155, 1568.002], "stop_times": [1568.002, 1569.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.155}, "reply_to": "15002__0_139", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__1_000", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe National Council of Juvenile Court Judges appears today as amicus to support the contention of the appellee with the Sixth Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth, does not require a jury trial in juvenile adjudications of delinquency.\nAnd secondly, to support its claim that the transfer or the exercise of the prosecutor's discretion to try a child as a juvenile rather than to accuse him as a criminal violated no requirement of due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1569.193, 1573.55, 1591.022], "stop_times": [1573.55, 1591.022, 1605.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1569.193}, "reply_to": "15002__0_140", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_001", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Do you take any position on the burden of proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1605.604], "stop_times": [1607.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.604}, "reply_to": "15002__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__1_002", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No Mr. Justice Stewart, we do not for several reasons.\nFrankly in this area at least, it seems to me the quantum of proof formula become more semantic than ever.\nMost juvenile court judges I'd to say as Dean Paulson points out, are not going to find the child guilty of the act of which he's accused, unless he is really convinced the boy did the act and I think -- I don't think it is a matter of great moment.\nIf this Court decides that the Sixth Amendment through the Fourteenth requires a jury trial it would seem to me quite obvious that you would follow it with the reasonable doubts standard.\nBut if the Court -- I can see the Court being troubled by the actual adjudication of delinquency in this case.\nA subsequent Nebraska case to which we refer in our brief Guy versus Bishop at page 8, in our view at least and in the view of the dissenting judge there, seem that the parts somewhat from the stricter preponderance of proof.\nNow, it is possible if the Nebraska court got another look at that particular issue in this case, it might reach a different result that.\nUnfortunately, the appellant elected to come to habeas corpus route.\nHe has chose to bring the direct appeal or it would have had a trial de novo in the District Court, and then again at -- I was amazed to find in the Nebraska that Supreme Court has rather broad powers in civil cases on the equity side in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.\nSo, that the sufficiency of the evidence question as I read this record was never squarely presented to the Nebraska Supreme Court.\nI would think since four judges went for him among the constitutional grounds he probably would have won the case if he went that way, but I don't know what the Nebraska Supreme Court would do if it went back in that posture.\nMaybe they, in Nebraska like most states you can't use habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal, I don't know what they do.\nI suppose it much would depend if there was a mandate from this Court on the particular issue.\nSo for those reasons, we have not taken up the standard of proof point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1607.753, 1613.167, 1620.952, 1633.656, 1644.645, 1653.131, 1667.302, 1675.235, 1680.46, 1696.957, 1704.542, 1719.015, 1727.3, 1732.029], "stop_times": [1613.167, 1620.952, 1633.656, 1644.645, 1653.131, 1667.302, 1675.235, 1680.46, 1696.957, 1704.542, 1719.015, 1727.3, 1732.029, 1737.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1607.753}, "reply_to": "15002__1_001", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_003", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "What's the appellate route?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1737.35], "stop_times": [1739.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.35}, "reply_to": "15002__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_004", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The appellate route is one of careful protection Mr. Justice White.\nThere would have been an appeal from the adjudication of the juvenile court judge here to the District Court, and there, there would be a trial de novo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1739.334, 1743.637], "stop_times": [1743.637, 1753.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1739.334}, "reply_to": "15002__1_003", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_005", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "With the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1753.004], "stop_times": [1753.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.004}, "reply_to": "15002__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_006", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Not with the jury, not with the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1753.662], "stop_times": [1754.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1753.662}, "reply_to": "15002__1_005", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_007", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "He couldn't get a jury in the District Court either?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1754.747], "stop_times": [1756.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.747}, "reply_to": "15002__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_008", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That's right.\nHe couldn't get a jury, I don't mean that to imply that and that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1756.78, 1757.095], "stop_times": [1757.095, 1759.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1756.78}, "reply_to": "15002__1_007", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_009", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And that's a repeat of the juvenile court proceeding in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1759.376], "stop_times": [1762.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.376}, "reply_to": "15002__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__1_010", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I gather it is, I gather it is.\nIt's a statute that goes a long way in protecting the juvenile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1762.564, 1764.714], "stop_times": [1764.714, 1767.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1762.564}, "reply_to": "15002__1_009", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_011", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The same judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1767.632], "stop_times": [1769.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.632}, "reply_to": "15002__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_012", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No in this -- no because in this county particularly, you only have like a county judge, it would not be the same judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1769.568], "stop_times": [1778.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1769.568}, "reply_to": "15002__1_011", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_013", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And then there would be a trial de novo in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1778.19], "stop_times": [1780.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.19}, "reply_to": "15002__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__1_014", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1780.591], "stop_times": [1780.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1780.591}, "reply_to": "15002__1_013", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_015", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And that did not happen in this case, you tell us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1780.857], "stop_times": [1783.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.857}, "reply_to": "15002__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__1_016", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Oh no, this was a habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1783.35], "stop_times": [1786.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1783.35}, "reply_to": "15002__1_015", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_017", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "State habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1786.119], "stop_times": [1786.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.119}, "reply_to": "15002__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__1_018", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1786.882], "stop_times": [1787.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1786.882}, "reply_to": "15002__1_017", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_019", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "State habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1787.521], "stop_times": [1787.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.521}, "reply_to": "15002__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__1_020", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That's right, in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1787.943], "stop_times": [1788.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1787.943}, "reply_to": "15002__1_019", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_021", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nThere was no direct --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1788.997, 1789.562], "stop_times": [1789.562, 1790.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.997}, "reply_to": "15002__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__1_022", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Just the constitutional issues presented to it, not the sufficiency of the evidence question. We turn then to -- I'm out of it -- well, I guess, we injected into the case, the retroactivity issue.\nAs I understand that Mr. Line's position, he stated it very candidly yesterday, it's sort of a simplistic syllogism.\nDuncan versus Louisiana and Bloom versus the United States require a jury trial in this serious criminal matter.\nDeprivation of a child of his liberty is a serious criminal matter, Q.E.D; a jury trial is required in adjudications of delinquency of this type.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1790.197, 1802.493, 1809.932, 1818.677], "stop_times": [1802.493, 1809.932, 1818.677, 1830.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1790.197}, "reply_to": "15002__1_021", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_023", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "What did he define a serious criminal matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1830.274], "stop_times": [1834.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.274}, "reply_to": "15002__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__1_024", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, I think he would say and we would admit Mr. Justice Blank that a proceeding that deprived the child of his liberty up to his 21st birthday was a serious matter.\nNow, I don't think it's important in this case that we bog down and label as if -- we want the -- those that support juvenile court jurisdiction have been accused of using labels to justify their conclusion that jury trials are not required in such proceedings, but I think this other side is guilty of the same thing.\nJuvenile court jurisprudence is something quite different, whether it finds its origins in the English Equity Courts or whether it has a relationship to American Criminal Justice, I don't think it's too important.\nIt's a creation of idealistic reformers.\nThe reforms might have bogged down here and there but it is something different.\nIt's like America administrative law is something different.\nIt's a civil proceeding, but it's different.\nSimilarly, I think a juvenile court jurisprudence, juvenile court justice is something different either from the parents patriarch business or from criminal justice and I think a decision has to be made, does the insertion of the jury system with all of it's delays, it's horrendous delays, is the insertion of that system into the juvenile court system.\nIs that going to contribute materially to the integrity of the efficacy of the fact finding process?\nIs it going to confer any substantial benefit on the child or rather might it not do some harm?\nNow, Mr. Justice Marshall talks about it only takes money.\nIt takes money in time.\nThe District of Columbia is -- how many judges can you pour into this situation and for what benefit?\nThe adverse publicity of a trial, the Sixth Amendment says \u201cpublic trial,\u201d I'm not going to have quiet little jury trials, \u201cpublic trials.\u201d\nI don't see how that can be advantageous to children in most instances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1834.74, 1847.087, 1868.369, 1880.06, 1882.724, 1887.123, 1890.765, 1892.863, 1919.558, 1926.088, 1931.826, 1935.368, 1938.488, 1945.87, 1955.713], "stop_times": [1847.087, 1868.369, 1880.06, 1882.724, 1887.123, 1890.765, 1892.863, 1919.558, 1926.088, 1931.826, 1935.368, 1938.488, 1945.87, 1955.713, 1960.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1834.74}, "reply_to": "15002__1_023", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_025", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Couldn't a juvenile waive the public trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1960.807], "stop_times": [1964.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.807}, "reply_to": "15002__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15002__1_026", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Marshall, a juvenile could waive a public trial.\nHe could waive a jury trial as Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1964.906, 1971.335], "stop_times": [1971.335, 1973.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1964.906}, "reply_to": "15002__1_025", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_027", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Over the -- over the objection of the prosecutor", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1973.496], "stop_times": [1977.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.496}, "reply_to": "15002__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_028", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Oh!\nI was contemplating the situation Mr. Justice Marshall envisioned.\nIn other words, we had a jury trial provided by statute.\nI didn't -- he said said by requirement of Constitution by statute and his question was couldn't he waive, and I would have to say, yes he could.\nHe could waive the jury trial.\nHe could waive the public aspect of the Sixth Amendment protections of the jury trial certainly.\nBut for the few children for whom that might be at some benefit, why do we have to undermine the whole system?\nGiving the jury trial, none of the evils at which this Court decision in Gault was directed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1977.616, 1979.235, 1983.693, 1988.252, 1996.725, 1997.972, 2004.003, 2015.496], "stop_times": [1979.235, 1983.693, 1988.252, 1996.725, 1997.972, 2004.003, 2015.496, 2020.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1977.616}, "reply_to": "15002__1_027", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_029", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Now, how about retroactivity which you said was injected in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2020.017], "stop_times": [2023.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.017}, "reply_to": "15002__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_030", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, I never did answer that, I'm sorry.\nI would say that in DeStefano versus the United States, this Court decided that it would not apply Duncan versus Louisiana retroactively.\nIn DeStefano, there was an attempt to expand the right of jury trial.\nThe precise question in that case was that whether having less than the unanimous jury in a non capital case violated the Sixth Amendment.\nThis was a new question.\nThis was going beyond Duncan, but this Court did not go beyond Duncan and DeStefano, rather it said no.\nWe're not going --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2023.433, 2026.516, 2036.645, 2041.865, 2050.357, 2051.938, 2059.442], "stop_times": [2026.516, 2036.645, 2041.865, 2050.357, 2051.938, 2059.442, 2059.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2023.433}, "reply_to": "15002__1_029", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_031", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "You just said that the Sixth Amendment didn't apply to the states until May 20, 1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2059.739], "stop_times": [2063.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.739}, "reply_to": "15002__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_032", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That's correct, that's correct.\nNow, it seems to me anomalous to say -- to hold that it doesn't apply to adult criminals until May 20, 1968, but would apply to juvenile criminals earlier than that date.\nThe fact that the Nebraska Supreme Court didn't consider it, You Honor I think it's easily explained by the fact that it's never presented to it.\nActually, I think the case wasn't argued in the Supreme Court of Nebraska after -- before DeStefano was even decided.\nI think that's the counters right on that.\nSo, I just think, if his whole case is -- I stand on Duncan versus Louisiana, they gave us the right, I'm entitled to that right.\nIt seems to me if you take Duncan versus Louisiana as the basis of your claim that you have a jury trial right, you have to take the restrictions on Duncan versus Louisiana as annunciated by this Court in DeStefano versus the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2063.402, 2065.083, 2077.719, 2085.077, 2092.159, 2094.408, 2103.463], "stop_times": [2065.083, 2077.719, 2085.077, 2092.159, 2094.408, 2103.463, 2118.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2063.402}, "reply_to": "15002__1_031", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_033", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, it doesn't quite make a -- he doesn't either in the jurisdictional statement or his brief argue the Equal Protection Clause, but he does arrive at the same result through the discretion argument to that adults have jury trials and he wants to have a jury trial, why the prosecutor is going to turn him down, he should have some decent reasons for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2118.993], "stop_times": [2142.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.993}, "reply_to": "15002__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__1_034", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, with respect to equal protection the amicus of course wouldn't as the question wasn't raised in that context, but that that's put that aside.\nIt seems to me the answer to the equal protection objection is that the decisions of this Court show that children can be treated differently from adults with respect to the application of the constitutional rights if it's for their benefits.\nOr the case is not that, the case here this morning is not as Mr. Line said is the Constitution for adults only.\nWe only need to go back to the Ginsberg case and the Prince case where this Court certainly did not give a child the protections which free speech would give an adult or the protections which the free exercise of Religion Clause would give an adult.\nSo clearly, the question is, is this a reasonable classification?\nChildren are treated differently because they have a condition of immaturity.\nIt distinguishes to them from adults.\nAs a result of that condition and other factors working on it, they get in situations where for their own benefit the society must do something.\nThe system that is growing up with all its imperfections to deal with children on a different basis than adults is the juvenile court system.\nIs that an unreasonable classification?\nIt seems to me when you have the Congress pushing to repeal the jury trial right in the District of Columbia, now, I don't know what reception that will get.\nBut there the Congress is taking up this matter.\nIn the name of heaven, can those legislatures that elected never to get in that tickle in the first place have violated Due Process of law?\nI don't think they have.\nThank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2142.491, 2151.645, 2170.088, 2178.063, 2193.987, 2198.402, 2202.268, 2204.629, 2213.494, 2221.271, 2224.086, 2235.137, 2238.25, 2249.366, 2250.812], "stop_times": [2151.645, 2170.088, 2178.063, 2193.987, 2198.402, 2202.268, 2204.629, 2213.494, 2221.271, 2224.086, 2235.137, 2238.25, 2249.366, 2250.812, 2256.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2142.491}, "reply_to": "15002__1_033", "speaker": "alfred_l_scanlan"}
{"id": "15002__1_035", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2256.016], "stop_times": [2257.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.016}, "reply_to": "15002__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_000", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nA few comments would be in order on the point if I'm not making a direct appeal from the juvenile court, and it's been pointed out that I did not attack the sufficiency of the evidence.\nOf course the reason that is obvious.\nThe evidence is more insufficient to sustain conviction of what he did and appeal on the insufficiency of the evidence would have been close to frivolous.\nThe jury question was another matter.\nWhen this boy's mother told him to sign his father's name to the check and that would have been established in front of a jury of citizens in the community, I believe that they would have exercise the pardoning power that jurors want to exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2257.846, 2263.223, 2281.424, 2282.791, 2294.026, 2298.867], "stop_times": [2263.223, 2281.424, 2282.791, 2294.026, 2298.867, 2323.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2257.846}, "reply_to": "15002__1_035", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_001", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Line, we might go we're on that point.\nSuppose that there were jury trial committed under the Nebraska statute and there were confronted with the situation of having the mother be entrusted with waiving or not waiving the jury trial.\nWould you think that the situation would be a desirable one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2323.104, 2326.922, 2340.208], "stop_times": [2326.922, 2340.208, 2346.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.104}, "reply_to": "15002__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_002", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, it's obvious that there would be situations where the -- that the child is adversary to the parent and it existed in the case.\nThe child is adversary to the father.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2346.902, 2358.327], "stop_times": [2358.327, 2360.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2346.902}, "reply_to": "15002__2_001", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_003", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But you think as suggested by either Mr. Kuhlman or Mr. Scanlan that this might be a very, very large proportion of all the juvenile cases coming before the courts?\nParents who are not responsible people, parents who do not have a relationship with trust and confidence with the child for whom they would be called upon to waive of the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2360.381, 2370.775], "stop_times": [2370.775, 2381.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.381}, "reply_to": "15002__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_004", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I think in -- certainly.\nI don't know what the percentage would be, but it could -- if it's as highest as 25 or 30% of the cases, it's substantial percentage and would present a problem.\nIn that case, it would seem to me that the responsibility would have to fall on the juvenile's lawyer, who after all, is the lawyer for the juvenile, not for the parents.\nI mean, if the lawyer sees a conflict of interest between juvenile and the parent, he's got to go with the juvenile.\nNow, if he is retained counsel and being paid by the parents to defend the child, there can be problems.\nOn the other hand in that case, if they're paying the lawyer to defend the child, they probably want the child to be defended and therefore there wouldn't be the conflict.\nThe conflict could arise in the case of appointed counsel.\nI could see where the parents would come in and say \u201cWe don't want this child.\nHe given us a hard time and so forth.\u201d\nThen I think that it's responsibility of an American lawyer and he's had a lot of responsibilities for long, long time and I think he can successfully fill that one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2381.687, 2383.781, 2394.639, 2406.012, 2417.033, 2424.064, 2435.145, 2439.716, 2446.799, 2449.078], "stop_times": [2383.781, 2394.639, 2406.012, 2417.033, 2424.064, 2435.145, 2439.716, 2446.799, 2449.078, 2460.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2381.687}, "reply_to": "15002__2_003", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_005", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "As a lawyer, as advocate or would he have to try to become a guardian ad litem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2460.912], "stop_times": [2467.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.912}, "reply_to": "15002__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_006", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Oh, he might have to take on some guardian ad litem functions, but again I think that the average lawyer views his responsibility differently in dealing with a juvenile.\nI think there is built in a vested adversarial feature about it.\nI think that the average lawyer wants to do something for the child and doesn't view in a hard core adversary fashion like you have to some adults.\nAs a matter of fact, I don't even know that at least in our area that the adult criminal process is so intensely adversary.\nAs I said, we dispose of them by pleas of guilty and so forth.\nOn this business of court's convenience and court administration, if the lawyers of Nebraska stop pleading people guilty, the system would seize function without many more judges, many more court houses and many more juries.\nThe criminal justice system in this country today, of course, functions on negotiation and I can't see any real marked differences between the adult criminals system and the juvenile system because the end result can be very much the same.\nTo clear up any misunderstanding on a transfer statute, I mentioned the transfer statute as to me an example, the ultimate example of the end result of the process.\nI would feel that Debacker was just as much deprived of its freedom, and would be just as much in a penal institution if he were in the training school at Carnegie.\nI don't' think that that's -- I think this Court said that in Gault that the no matter how euphemistically the title, the training school is a penal institution.\nSo, I don't think it makes any substantial difference.\nIt's just that on the basis of a hearing with no statutory standard at the pleasure of Board of Pardons.\nThe end result of the juvenile court process can be after an adjudication of delinquency can be confinement in a penal institution, whether it'd be call the Morris Training School or the Man's Reformatory.\nI think, it's basically a distinction without a difference, but as I say here is a boy in an adult penal institution with people who got there with constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2467.066, 2482.097, 2487.357, 2497.796, 2506.564, 2512.362, 2527.739, 2548.659, 2565.738, 2579.909, 2589.546, 2592.99, 2600.908, 2617.954], "stop_times": [2482.097, 2487.357, 2497.796, 2506.564, 2512.362, 2527.739, 2548.659, 2565.738, 2579.909, 2589.546, 2592.99, 2600.908, 2617.954, 2629.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2467.066}, "reply_to": "15002__2_005", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_007", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Would you care to comment on Mr. Justice Stewart's line of questioning I think to Mr. Scanlan awhile ago about whether there is a problem of a 16 or a 17-year-old getting a jury of his peers if the jury is 25 or older?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2629.364], "stop_times": [2651.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.364}, "reply_to": "15002__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_008", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I don't -- adults will do fine.\nI mean, if -- from my stand point, if wanted a -- I had to anticipated a -- if I got a jury in this case of adults, I don't believe that a juvenile is entitled a teenage jury.\nAnd again, I think, I think that's a decision that the lawyer makes, one of the first things that you do when you -- are defending an adult.\nIf you think do you hear the facts, you investigate the case, will a jury give him a run for his money.\nYou may not feel quite that way about a juvenile because you might feel of his need for treatment and as his guardian ad litem you might be a little more inclined to involve of yourself in the process.\nI mean, if an adult criminal defendant says \u201cI want a jury\u201d, why, he has one.\nYou don't want to attempt to talk to him out of it, because every time you plead the man guilty, you're running a risk of an accusation and confidence when he gets incarcerated and things don't took go well.\nSo, but that's a routine part of the perils of the profession and it is compensated by its advantages.\nSo no a jury of his peers I submit would be satisfied by jury of adults.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2651.015, 2653.583, 2668.118, 2678.913, 2686.597, 2699.709, 2703.623, 2713.152, 2723.881], "stop_times": [2653.583, 2668.118, 2678.913, 2686.597, 2699.709, 2703.623, 2713.152, 2723.881, 2732.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2651.015}, "reply_to": "15002__2_007", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_009", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Line, I'm looking at the record here.\nI don't see that you raised in the trial in the juvenile court this question of burden of proof or the degree of proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2732.485, 2735.464], "stop_times": [2735.464, 2741.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.485}, "reply_to": "15002__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_010", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No, I did not raise that in a juvenile court Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2741.84], "stop_times": [2745.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2741.84}, "reply_to": "15002__2_009", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_011", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And does it appear that the county, that the juvenile judge applied any standard of proof other than proof beyond the reasonable doubt?\nYou are just relying on what the statute does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2745.232, 2753.717], "stop_times": [2753.717, 2755.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.232}, "reply_to": "15002__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_012", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "On the statute, right.\nI -- he didn't -- he never articulated a standard and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2755.666, 2758.147], "stop_times": [2758.147, 2765.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2755.666}, "reply_to": "15002__2_011", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_013", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "He didn't say one word?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2765.132], "stop_times": [2766.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.132}, "reply_to": "15002__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_014", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "He didn't say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2766.054], "stop_times": [2766.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2766.054}, "reply_to": "15002__2_013", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_015", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And you did not object on that ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2766.765], "stop_times": [2770.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.765}, "reply_to": "15002__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_016", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No, on that ground, I didn't.\nI objected to the statute and as a matter of fact, the deprivation of the jury and standard of proof are together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2770.012, 2771.966], "stop_times": [2771.966, 2778.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2770.012}, "reply_to": "15002__2_015", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_017", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And besides, the quantum of the evidence in this case as far as the judge passing on it is concerned is that you said it didn't worry you too much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2778.675], "stop_times": [2786.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.675}, "reply_to": "15002__2_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__2_018", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No.\nI mean it's - it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2786.565, 2786.713], "stop_times": [2786.713, 2787.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2786.565}, "reply_to": "15002__2_017", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_019", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No matter what the standard was, it was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2787.561], "stop_times": [2789.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.561}, "reply_to": "15002__2_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15002__2_020", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No matter what the standard, that would fit a reasonable doubt standard, that evidence just doesn't insufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2789.138], "stop_times": [2797.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2789.138}, "reply_to": "15002__2_019", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_021", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, is yours statement along those lines beginning of your argument today that that let me look at this record and to wonder if you would objected to that?\nThat was of course discussed and decided by the Supreme Court of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2797.05, 2807.87], "stop_times": [2807.87, 2811.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.05}, "reply_to": "15002__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_022", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That was decided by the Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2811.91], "stop_times": [2813.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2811.91}, "reply_to": "15002__2_021", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_023", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But, I wonder if it really is in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2813.964], "stop_times": [2817.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.964}, "reply_to": "15002__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_024", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, in the second case that they talk about, the Douchcut case mentioned in the amicus curiae brief, there with obvious shades of division still burning deeply and they said, we won't get into it again.\nUnder this record, we will just apply it, under this record why the evidence was sufficient and then, they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2817.608, 2834.696], "stop_times": [2834.696, 2843.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2817.608}, "reply_to": "15002__2_023", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_025", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "The evidence was sufficient even under beyond a reasonable doubt standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2843.983], "stop_times": [2845.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.983}, "reply_to": "15002__2_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15002__2_026", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Even under a reasonable doubt standard, and I believe the dissenting justices in that case dissented only basically, I did -- we even talking about it again and then in the second case, Geiger case, it was a rerun of a Debacker case and the lines formed up again with the three to four division.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2845.752], "stop_times": [2869.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2845.752}, "reply_to": "15002__2_025", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_027", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Do you think an infant (Inaudible) juvenile court could've waive the right to be represented by lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2869.01], "stop_times": [2876.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.01}, "reply_to": "15002__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_028", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Could he have waived the right to be represented by a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2876.837], "stop_times": [2879.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2876.837}, "reply_to": "15002__2_027", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_029", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2879.472], "stop_times": [2880.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.472}, "reply_to": "15002__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_030", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Ah --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2880.511], "stop_times": [2881.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2880.511}, "reply_to": "15002__2_029", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_031", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "And if so, would it be him or his father or his mother and at what age could he do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2881.544], "stop_times": [2886.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.544}, "reply_to": "15002__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_032", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I think there you're getting into extremely touchy grounds.\nI suppose that in extremely intelligent, they're no.\nThe intelligent juvenile could waive a lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2886.913, 2892.224, 2895.994], "stop_times": [2892.224, 2895.994, 2901.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2886.913}, "reply_to": "15002__2_031", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_033", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But to end that trial to determine whether or not he is sufficiently intelligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2901.606], "stop_times": [2905.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.606}, "reply_to": "15002__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_034", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well it, that opens up a Pandora's Box, ah --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2905.699], "stop_times": [2912.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2905.699}, "reply_to": "15002__2_033", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_035", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Most of it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2912.858], "stop_times": [2913.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.858}, "reply_to": "15002__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_036", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "[Laughter attempt] I think Mr. Justice Black that from the practical standard, even the prosecutors today, are not trying to get juveniles to waive the right to a lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2913.812], "stop_times": [2931.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2913.812}, "reply_to": "15002__2_035", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_037", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I understand it but it could come up, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2931.948], "stop_times": [2935.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.948}, "reply_to": "15002__2_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_038", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "It could come up.\nI'm not prepared to tell this Court that a 16-year-old that can under no circumstances make an intelligent waived for a counsel.\nIt could cause some thorny problems later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2935.45, 2937.042, 2946.771], "stop_times": [2937.042, 2946.771, 2950.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2935.45}, "reply_to": "15002__2_037", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_039", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Suppose he is being tried for murder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2950.748], "stop_times": [2957.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.748}, "reply_to": "15002__2_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15002__2_040", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I doubt he would be permitted by our courts -- our court of general jurisdiction, knowing him personally is being is when permitted, I don't believe.\nThat would be his kind of own ad hoc determination in that case, but I don't will he will permit a juvenile to waive counsel in such a serious matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2957.658, 2970.981], "stop_times": [2970.981, 2984.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2957.658}, "reply_to": "15002__2_039", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_041", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Line, I think this problem of jury of peers is still presents a problem even though you as counsel in a particular juvenile case would not regard it as a problem.\nWhat do you think the constitution means by a jury of peers?\nThis is a term which has come back into currency in recent years are very peer conscious in our society at the moment.\nWhat do you think it means in this context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [2984.759, 3002.384, 3010.992, 3020.085], "stop_times": [3002.384, 3010.992, 3020.085, 3025.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.759}, "reply_to": "15002__2_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_042", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "A representative sample of the adult community as the typical Nebraska jury is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3025.861], "stop_times": [3037.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3025.861}, "reply_to": "15002__2_041", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_043", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, the Constitution doesn't say an adult jury it says a jury of peers, if I remember the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3037.301], "stop_times": [3047.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.301}, "reply_to": "15002__2_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_044", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That is correct.\nIt's still however it seems to me the peer -- I'm sorry to confess that in the study a lot of practicable, I never attempted to define it before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3047.517, 3053.376], "stop_times": [3053.376, 3066.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3047.517}, "reply_to": "15002__2_043", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_045", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "We know what it's meant in the society in which -- from which it was drawn.\nIt meant that a nobleman was entitled to be tried by nobleman and the gentleman by a gentleman and a peasant by a peasants and so forth, I'm not sure that's the precise classification, but enters the general idea.\nNow, what you think about of teenagers who would well press a moment to being peer conscious might -- one of them might demand you as his counsel that he wanted a jury of his peers, that is to say, a jury composed of people less than 18 years of age?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3066.278, 3072.173, 3086.739], "stop_times": [3072.173, 3086.739, 3107.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.278}, "reply_to": "15002__2_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_046", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well Mr. Chief Justice, I would tell him to forget it.\nIt would be my initial reaction to [Laughter attempt].", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3107.399, 3112.086], "stop_times": [3112.086, 3117.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3107.399}, "reply_to": "15002__2_045", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_047", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "You can see it post conviction attack on your effectiveness as counsel right there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3117.769], "stop_times": [3122.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.769}, "reply_to": "15002__2_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15002__2_048", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I can and I would be -- I guess, I would brace myself for the consequences.\nThe -- a couple of other points there was I think Mr. Justice Stewart questioned whether a boy could be committed for two years right before his 21st birthday, and I think the answer to that would be no.\nI believe our statute would be construed that there's a total loss of jurisdiction over a juvenile when he becomes 21.\nOne thing that should be made clear, under the Nebraska Juvenile Court Act there is no statutory requirement that the proceedings be closed now to the public.\nAnd there is no protection against publicity of the juvenile court proceedings other than the newspapers, since the public responsibility, it is the psychiatric reports, medical reports, probation officer reports are closed.\nBut if it could happen that a juvenile proceeding could get as much publicity for all practical purpose as an adult criminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3122.095, 3129.669, 3147.411, 3158.502, 3170.701, 3187.149], "stop_times": [3129.669, 3147.411, 3158.502, 3170.701, 3187.149, 3199.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3122.095}, "reply_to": "15002__2_047", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_049", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Mr. Line, may I open up with you again the question of retroactivity?\nIf we were able -- were to say that we ought not reach the question here because at any event, DeStefano -- how would you pronounce that -- would deny this appellant a jury trial but were agree with you that the have to be reversal on one of the other grounds burden of proof was the case maybe, what do you conceive would be the situation on retrial and matter of the jury trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3199.554, 3206.282], "stop_times": [3206.282, 3237.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.554}, "reply_to": "15002__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_050", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Are you asking me Mr. Justice Brennan whether the Nebraska Supreme Court might change its mind or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3237.058], "stop_times": [3242.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3237.058}, "reply_to": "15002__2_049", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_051", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "No, I just that -- we say, we can't reach issue of jury trial there.\nSince at any event, I couldn't apply and we don't decide the issue of jury trial in juvenile court proceedings because Bloom and Duncan were not retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3242.13, 3249.189], "stop_times": [3249.189, 3261.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.13}, "reply_to": "15002__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_052", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well possibly, a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3261.991], "stop_times": [3265.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3261.991}, "reply_to": "15002__2_051", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_053", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "But we do reverse --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3265.137], "stop_times": [3265.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.137}, "reply_to": "15002__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_054", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3265.212], "stop_times": [3266.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3265.212}, "reply_to": "15002__2_053", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_055", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "-- for example as premise one of the other grounds so there has to be a retrial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3266.417], "stop_times": [3270.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.417}, "reply_to": "15002__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_056", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Depending on how you said it.\nPerhaps, a fifth judge in Nebraska Supreme Court might --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3270.914, 3272.98], "stop_times": [3272.98, 3276.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3270.914}, "reply_to": "15002__2_055", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_057", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3276.01], "stop_times": [3277.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.01}, "reply_to": "15002__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_058", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "-- change his mind.\nBut really Mr. Justice Brennan, I don't think -- yesterday, that retroactivity was going to -- I don't think retroactivity is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3277.228, 3278.337], "stop_times": [3278.337, 3287.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3277.228}, "reply_to": "15002__2_057", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_059", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well I know, what y our argument is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3287.916], "stop_times": [3289.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.916}, "reply_to": "15002__2_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_060", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3289.571], "stop_times": [3290.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3289.571}, "reply_to": "15002__2_059", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_061", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "I'm just -- the premise is that we don't agree with you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3290.096], "stop_times": [3292.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.096}, "reply_to": "15002__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_062", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes.\nWell, it would depend on how you said it and what hints the Nebraska Supreme Court might get from the opinion, but since you are familiar whether the argument, it just seems to me that that you're not going to say until this case, whether a juvenile court case is is in fact a criminal prosecution, and that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3292.996, 3294.275], "stop_times": [3294.275, 3315.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3292.996}, "reply_to": "15002__2_061", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_063", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Yes, I know, you know Mr. Line that in Miranda warning area we have said that on retrial, the Miranda who did not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3315.414], "stop_times": [3325.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.414}, "reply_to": "15002__2_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_064", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, that is correct.\nTo me, the distinction is that there, you're talking about criminal cases have always been criminal cases.\nThe unique feature of this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3325.104, 3326.637, 3331.589], "stop_times": [3326.637, 3331.589, 3332.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3325.104}, "reply_to": "15002__2_063", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_065", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Well, that's your basic argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3332.977], "stop_times": [3334.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.977}, "reply_to": "15002__2_064", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15002__2_066", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "That's my -- that's my basic argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3334.018], "stop_times": [3338.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3334.018}, "reply_to": "15002__2_065", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15002__2_067", "conversation_id": "15002", "text": "Thank you Mr. Line.\nThe case is submitted.\nGentlemen, we thank each of you for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [3338.171, 3339.539, 3340.649], "stop_times": [3339.539, 3340.649, 3343.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.171}, "reply_to": "15002__2_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_000", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Number 15, DeBacker against Brainard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [39.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_001", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [39.241], "stop_times": [41.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.241}, "reply_to": "15219__0_000", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_002", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Mr. Line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [41.209], "stop_times": [42.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 41.209}, "reply_to": "15219__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_003", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThis case involves the question of whether equal justice under law means for adults only.\nClarence DeBacker is in the Nebraska State Reformatory as the result of a petition files against him in the Juvenile Court of Dodge County, Nebraska alleging his delinquency because of the uttering of a possession of a forged check within intent to utter as genuine.\nA jury trial was demanded and denied because a Nebraska Juvenile Court Act says that juvenile delinquency cases will be handled without a jury and a quantum of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.\nHabeas corpus was sought in the Court of General Jurisdiction.\nIt was denied and the Nebraska Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision, it was a type of decision where the minority prevailed, held that the Nebraska Juvenile Court Act met federal constitutional requirements.\nNebraska has a state constitutional provision requiring a concurrence of five judges to declare a state statute invalid.\nThe position of the appellant in this case has been referred to by some of the adversaries and amicus curiaes as being simplistic and, without the evil connotations of the word, it is precisely that.\nSince this Court\u2019s decision in Duncan, in Bloom, in Gault, a proceeding where a person can wind up in a penal institution for more than six months surely has all the attributes of a serious felony case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [42.93, 46.503, 61.443, 90.662, 109.866, 115.594, 135.761, 144.944, 171.438], "stop_times": [46.503, 61.443, 90.662, 109.866, 115.594, 135.761, 144.944, 171.438, 200.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 42.93}, "reply_to": "15219__0_002", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_004", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "When was he tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [200.134], "stop_times": [201.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.134}, "reply_to": "15219__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_005", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "He was tried in April of-- actually, February or March 1968 before Duncan and Bloom were decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [201.527], "stop_times": [214.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.527}, "reply_to": "15219__0_004", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_006", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "How do you argue (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [214.215], "stop_times": [218.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.215}, "reply_to": "15219__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_007", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I don\u2019t think they\u2019re even relevant on the retroactivity.\nI realize that they\u2019re not retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [218.902, 221.922], "stop_times": [221.922, 225.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.902}, "reply_to": "15219__0_006", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_008", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, some deal with Bloom that the state is not bound by the jury trial, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [225.872], "stop_times": [234.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.872}, "reply_to": "15219__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_009", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "They were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [234.697], "stop_times": [234.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.697}, "reply_to": "15219__0_008", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_010", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "At all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [234.923], "stop_times": [235.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.923}, "reply_to": "15219__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_011", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [235.593], "stop_times": [236.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.593}, "reply_to": "15219__0_010", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_012", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "At all.\nDeStefano was setting it up.\nIt would not be retroactive beyond what, May 20, 1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [236.325, 242.565, 244.714], "stop_times": [242.565, 244.714, 247.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.325}, "reply_to": "15219__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_013", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "May 20, 1968.\nThis case was orally argued in the Nebraska Supreme Court on May 29, 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [247.848, 250.7], "stop_times": [250.7, 255.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.848}, "reply_to": "15219__0_012", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_014", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "But this document said they\u2019re point in trials beginning after May 20, 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [255.588], "stop_times": [261.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.588}, "reply_to": "15219__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_015", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Right.\nMr. Justice White, the position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [261.305, 262.704], "stop_times": [262.704, 264.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.305}, "reply_to": "15219__0_014", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_016", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "So, how do you get around that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [264.853], "stop_times": [266.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.853}, "reply_to": "15219__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_017", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, Gault left open the question of whether there was-- a juvenile delinquency case was in fact a criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [266.445], "stop_times": [282.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.445}, "reply_to": "15219__0_016", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_018", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That\u2019s true, but even if it was the Sixth Amendment wouldn\u2019t bind the states to give a jury trial at the time of Gault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [282.561], "stop_times": [290.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.561}, "reply_to": "15219__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_019", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, they wouldn\u2019t at the time of Gault, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [290.357], "stop_times": [294.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.357}, "reply_to": "15219__0_018", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_020", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "And it wouldn\u2019t until May 20, 1968, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [294.567], "stop_times": [301.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.567}, "reply_to": "15219__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_021", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "My argument is based on this premise.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [301.016, 306.1], "stop_times": [306.1, 306.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.016}, "reply_to": "15219__0_020", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_022", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, do you rely on the Sixth Amendment at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [306.468], "stop_times": [309.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.468}, "reply_to": "15219__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_023", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "You have to rely on the Sixth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [309.59], "stop_times": [312.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.59}, "reply_to": "15219__0_022", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_024", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Why can\u2019t you rely on the Equal Protection Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [312.325], "stop_times": [314.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.325}, "reply_to": "15219__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_025", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "And on the Equal Protection Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [314.821], "stop_times": [316.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.821}, "reply_to": "15219__0_024", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_026", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "If the state does, in fact, give a jury trial, the adult--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [316.986], "stop_times": [320.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.986}, "reply_to": "15219__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_027", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [320.566], "stop_times": [320.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.566}, "reply_to": "15219__0_026", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_028", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That it must to juveniles, as situated as this one was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [320.907], "stop_times": [324.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.907}, "reply_to": "15219__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_029", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "For example, an adult in Nebraska due to Nebraska constitutional procedures, the statutory decisions, you get two jury trials for running a stop sign, six-man jury in the lower Court, the 12 men jury on appeal to the District Court.\nSo, that argument also we do rely on of course.\nIt seems to me that this is a new case basically, and until this Court decides this question, this is the case that will-- should decide once and for all whether these labels that everyone is so fund of are-- mean anything anymore.\nWhat this case is not about of course is the rehabilitative features of the juvenile Court.\nNo one has pointed out, in my opinion, any reason why a jury trial or an adjudication based upon a criminal standard of proof will interfere one with the ennoble benevolent features of the Juvenile Court system.\nFor example, I can imagine a Juvenile Court judge who has a delinquent before him being able to be much more parens patriae if he hasn\u2019t convicted him.\nSurely, he can say \u201cyou have been convicted by a jury of your peers.\nNow, let\u2019s see what we can do about you,\u201d and the juvenile is up to feel less resentment at the Juvenile Court process if he has been convicted by his fellow citizens with a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [324.885, 339.697, 347.298, 368.187, 376.993, 399.329, 411.752, 416.651], "stop_times": [339.697, 347.298, 368.187, 376.993, 399.329, 411.752, 416.651, 432.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.885}, "reply_to": "15219__0_028", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_030", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "What would you say if it was turned around the other way?\nThe judge might think he ought to be convicted, but the jury would say it was the other story.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [432.813, 436.764], "stop_times": [436.764, 443.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.813}, "reply_to": "15219__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15219__0_031", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That, I think, Mr. Justice Harlan, is the magic of the whole system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [443.029], "stop_times": [447.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.029}, "reply_to": "15219__0_030", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_032", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [447.397], "stop_times": [448.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.397}, "reply_to": "15219__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15219__0_033", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Is the magic of the whole system.\nI think that\u2019s the reason he ought to have it.\nVery occasionally, judges think people should be convicted and juries think they shouldn\u2019t, and that\u2019s the way it works out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [448.088, 449.834, 452.232], "stop_times": [449.834, 452.232, 461.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.088}, "reply_to": "15219__0_032", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_034", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Why haven\u2019t Juvenile Courts had told him and not turn all over the other courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [461.184], "stop_times": [465.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.184}, "reply_to": "15219__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15219__0_035", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, it seems to me that if the Juvenile Court system means anything at all, the theory, as I understand it, is you\u2019re not suppose to punish him.\nYou\u2019re supposed to rehabilitate him. Of course, I think modern penology is supposed to be arriving at that theory too.\nWe-- the thumb screw and the right and so forth, we understood it in rehabilitation.\nIt seems to me that it-- the Juvenile Court can still function.\nThat merely because you give a boy a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, that you don\u2019t then necessarily have to take away from him whatever benefits he had remained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [465.777, 479.453, 487.95, 495.402, 502.128], "stop_times": [479.453, 487.95, 495.402, 502.128, 513.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.777}, "reply_to": "15219__0_034", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_036", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Wasn\u2019t one of the purposes of the whole juvenile concept to spare the child, the juvenile, from the traumatic experience that accompanies the whole criminal process from indictment to the prison, that is, spear him among other things the panoply of a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [513.484], "stop_times": [531.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.484}, "reply_to": "15219__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_037", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [531.848], "stop_times": [532.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.848}, "reply_to": "15219__0_036", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_038", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Wasn\u2019t that in the minds of the conceivers?\nI\u2019m not talking about whether you agree with it, but wasn\u2019t that the conception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [532.209, 534.502], "stop_times": [534.502, 537.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.209}, "reply_to": "15219__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_039", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "No question about it.\nThat was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [537.891, 538.827], "stop_times": [538.827, 540.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.891}, "reply_to": "15219__0_038", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_040", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Would you agree that a jury trial can be a traumatic experience for both an adult and a child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [540.044], "stop_times": [546.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.044}, "reply_to": "15219__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_041", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "It can be, but I submit not near as traumatic as winding up in a penal institution on the say so of one man when you have asked for a jury trial and on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence.\nI think that is so much more traumatic than a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [546.848, 564.236], "stop_times": [564.236, 568.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.848}, "reply_to": "15219__0_040", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_042", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "In your brief, you almost seem to be asking for what Mr. Justice Harlan has just suggested, you say since his case is a criminal case in any realistic sense of the term.\nNow, if you add all these incidents of the other world, that is, of the adult world aren\u2019t you going to wind up having all juveniles tried in-- I\u2019m not talking about you personally, of course, Mr. Line.\nIf this process continues, aren\u2019t we indeed well on the way toward abolishing the whole Juvenile Court\u2019s concept and system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [568.574, 580.78, 596.537], "stop_times": [580.78, 596.537, 606.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.574}, "reply_to": "15219__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_043", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That is the other side of the coin.\nThe argument to that effect is made earnestly, but I don\u2019t believe realistically, Mr. Chief Justice, 90% or more criminal cases throughout this country are disposed of on pleas of guilty.\nJuvenile cases-- the argument is made in the amicus curiae briefs.\nOne reason that this Court shouldn\u2019t grant a jury trial is because it has been considered so invaluable it\u2019s never been demanded.\nI think a reference is made at Denver where there were only very few requests made over period of years.\nAnd then on the other side of the coin, they say, \u201con the other hand, if you do make it available nationwide then it will be in such demand that the system will breakdown.\nWe won\u2019t be able to administrate.\nWe won\u2019t be able to do this and we won\u2019t be able to do that, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [606.205, 609.227, 627.748, 632.233, 639.859, 645.73, 656.03, 657.385], "stop_times": [609.227, 627.748, 632.233, 639.859, 645.73, 656.03, 657.385, 659.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.205}, "reply_to": "15219__0_042", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_044", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I suppose we can take judicial notice, although it is also in the record here apparently, of the situation in the District of Columbia, for example, and you\u2019re aware of how far backed up they are because they have jury trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [659.765], "stop_times": [675.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.765}, "reply_to": "15219__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_045", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That is true and, again, if the-- surely, the availability of jury trial cannot depend upon the administrative convenience of a Court or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [675.248], "stop_times": [688.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.248}, "reply_to": "15219__0_044", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_046", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "What happens to the juvenile concept if we grant bail to the juvenile when he\u2019s 13 or 14 years old and he takes 5 or 6 years to get him to trial?\nHas-- is there any point in trying him then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [688.397, 699.053], "stop_times": [699.053, 701.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.397}, "reply_to": "15219__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_047", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, you\u2019ve run a ringer on me-- in on me on bail because that is not an issue that I am-- that I have addressed myself to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [701.445], "stop_times": [711.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.445}, "reply_to": "15219__0_046", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_048", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "It is part of the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [711.358], "stop_times": [711.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.358}, "reply_to": "15219__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_049", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "And, that is not presented by this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [711.555], "stop_times": [713.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.555}, "reply_to": "15219__0_048", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_050", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "It\u2019s part of the whole problem though, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [713.459], "stop_times": [715.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.459}, "reply_to": "15219__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_051", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "It\u2019s part of the whole problem but then, right there, I think you get into a whole new issue.\nIt\u2019s-- probably, people are acutely aware of it now because I read in the paper after I got here about the juvenile crime involving dropping a rock over-- off an overpass where he\u2019d been out on bail.\nAnd so, that becomes fresh in a person\u2019s mind but, again, bail is something that shouldn\u2019t perhaps be just automatic.\nCertainly, society can protect itself from people who are psychiatrically disturbed.\nIf they think there\u2019s going to be a high risk of danger to society, we-- the system should be able to take care of that.\nThe fact that there are problems and that perhaps if this Court decides that a juvenile is entitled to a jury trial, the fact that perhaps it might be used as a decision to later decision that bail rights should be enlarged I think is, I respectfully suggest, one step at a time.\nHere, I think the realities of the situation are-- Duncan said the purpose of the jury trial is to provide protection against an arbitrary persecutor or a biased judge.\nMost attorneys, I think, are willing to wave jury trial for juvenile.\nYou\u2019re not going to, as his counsel, you\u2019re not going to put him through this traumatic experience unless you think that it\u2019s in his best interest.\nI wanted to put Debacker through the traumatic experience because I was satisfied-- it was my judgment that he would be acquitted, although he was typically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [715.391, 729.318, 741.534, 754.892, 762.982, 774.877, 802.949, 821.814, 828.802, 838.616], "stop_times": [729.318, 741.534, 754.892, 762.982, 774.877, 802.949, 821.814, 828.802, 838.616, 848.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.391}, "reply_to": "15219__0_050", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_052", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "First of all, I suppose a jury trial would necessarily involve a public trial, wouldn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [848.478], "stop_times": [854.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.478}, "reply_to": "15219__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_053", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [854.046], "stop_times": [855.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.046}, "reply_to": "15219__0_052", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_054", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Which, of course, would run contrary to the idea, as the Chief Justice has said, which was in the minds of those who conceived the Juvenile Court system.\nOne of their ideas was that the proceedings be private.\nIsn\u2019t that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [855.595, 864.053, 866.786], "stop_times": [864.053, 866.786, 867.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.595}, "reply_to": "15219__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_055", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [867.241], "stop_times": [868.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.241}, "reply_to": "15219__0_054", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_056", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "But, beyond that, you keep talking about guilty of this offense, guilt or innocence, but the charge was that this young man, this juvenile, was a delinquent child and I suppose evidence of whether or not he was a delinquent child would go far beyond the evidence on the question of whether or not he committed a specific offense.\nIt would also involve all sorts of things about his previous record and about his conduct generally, and his environment and reputation, and all those things that generally are entirely inadmissible in a criminal trial when the only question is whether or not the defendant committed a particularly-- a particular offense defined in the indictment.\nIs that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [868.847, 894.572, 916.713], "stop_times": [894.572, 916.713, 917.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.847}, "reply_to": "15219__0_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_057", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That was going into the dispositional stage, Mr. Justice Stewart.\nIt was not referred to before the Juvenile Court judge made his adjudication, and our statute statutorily declares a person delinquent if he violates a statute of the state or a municipal ordinance.\nI mean, it\u2019s-- DeBacker was declared a delinquent because he violated the forged check statute.\nThen, after that, the judge did go into his background, prior offenses, prior troubles with the law in deciding apparently to commit him summarily to the Boy\u2019s Training School, but it was not an issue and the proceeding was not founded on the basis that he was delinquent generally.\nHe was delinquent because of a forged check.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [917.512, 920.999, 944.149, 952.8, 971.625], "stop_times": [920.999, 944.149, 952.8, 971.625, 974.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.512}, "reply_to": "15219__0_056", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_058", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "And, under the law, Nebraska is the only basis on which a person can found-- be found to be a delinquent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [974.375], "stop_times": [980.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.375}, "reply_to": "15219__0_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_059", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "No, they-- there\u2019s a special supervision portion of the statute and-- Your Honor, no.\nIt has to be-- he has to be-- violated any law of a state of any city or a village ordinance.\nIf he\u2019s hopeless, homeless, or destitute, he\u2019s under Section 43201.\nHe is a dependent child.\nHe\u2019s a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [980.602, 999.633, 1007.266, 1013.711, 1016.331], "stop_times": [999.633, 1007.266, 1013.711, 1016.331, 1020.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.602}, "reply_to": "15219__0_058", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_060", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "If they concede it involves an act to be violating a criminal statute-- They concede it involves--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1020.564], "stop_times": [1026.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.564}, "reply_to": "15219__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_061", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1026.847], "stop_times": [1027.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.847}, "reply_to": "15219__0_060", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_062", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Violating the criminal statute performed by the boy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1027.577], "stop_times": [1030.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.577}, "reply_to": "15219__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15219__0_063", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Necessarily so, is that true in Nebraska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1030.857], "stop_times": [1033.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.857}, "reply_to": "15219__0_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_064", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Yes, subdivision 4, delinquent child shall mean any child under the age of 18 years who has violated any law of the state or any city or village ordinance.\nSection 5, yes, a child in need of special supervision shall mean a child who is under the age of 18 years and is wayward, habitually truant, deports himself so as to endanger his morals or the morals of others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1033.759, 1046.746], "stop_times": [1046.746, 1063.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1033.759}, "reply_to": "15219__0_063", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_065", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Now can, under Nebraska law, can a child in need of supervision, as the statute define it, can such child be put into custody in an industrial school or a specialist?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1063.675], "stop_times": [1080.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.675}, "reply_to": "15219__0_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_066", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I believe that he could if-- but not as a delinquent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1080.356], "stop_times": [1095.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.356}, "reply_to": "15219__0_065", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_067", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "But your submission, as I understand it, is that any proceeding that can and does result in involuntary custody for a substantial period of time that, with respect to any such proceeding, the constitution provides the right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1095.517], "stop_times": [1114.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.517}, "reply_to": "15219__0_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_068", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "That\u2019s correct, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1114.227], "stop_times": [1115.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.227}, "reply_to": "15219__0_067", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_069", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "So if you\u2019re correct in your answer, your tentative answer, as to the Nebraska law with respect to a child in need of special supervision, a jury trial would follow would also be required for such proceedings.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1115.875, 1126.961], "stop_times": [1126.961, 1128.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.875}, "reply_to": "15219__0_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_070", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I think there is a difference.\nA child in need of special supervision, seems to me, to be a child in a status more than-- a delinquent child is a child who, by his voluntary volitional conduct, has violated the law of a state.\nI think that it wouldn\u2019t necessarily apply to a child in need of special supervision.\nFor example, if a child is found on a doorstep and becomes a ward of the Juvenile Court, I mean, the child doesn\u2019t need a jury trial to determine whether or not somebody will look after him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1128.793, 1132.229, 1154.322, 1160.71], "stop_times": [1132.229, 1154.322, 1160.71, 1173.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.793}, "reply_to": "15219__0_069", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_071", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well-- but you answered tentatively and I\u2019m not holding you to this at all but, that your impression is that if, in Nebraska, a child is determined to be one who is in need of special supervision, he can be sent to an industrial school and, thereby-- and, there, confined against his will for a substantial period of time.\nNow, let\u2019s assume that\u2019s true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1173.917, 1193.053], "stop_times": [1193.053, 1194.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.917}, "reply_to": "15219__0_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_072", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1194.574], "stop_times": [1195.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.574}, "reply_to": "15219__0_071", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_073", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Then I suppose it would follow from your argument that the constitution requires a jury trial before he can be found to be a child in need of special supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1195.043], "stop_times": [1205.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.043}, "reply_to": "15219__0_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__0_074", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I think so.\nI have some difficulty with this concept of how you determine in advance how serious a case is going to be, as to whether the jury trial is going to be available.\nWhat-- I think if you-- if it\u2019s contemplated in the process with this child that he\u2019s going to be confined for more than six months, then he ought to have a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1205.026, 1206.031, 1216.543], "stop_times": [1206.031, 1216.543, 1227.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1205.026}, "reply_to": "15219__0_073", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_075", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "In this gray zone, who would make that decision, Mr. Line, Court, prosecutor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1227.581], "stop_times": [1235.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.581}, "reply_to": "15219__0_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_076", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, who\u2019d make the decision in-- you say in the gray area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1235.139], "stop_times": [1241.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.139}, "reply_to": "15219__0_075", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_077", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "About the jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1241.556], "stop_times": [1242.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.556}, "reply_to": "15219__0_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_078", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1242.784], "stop_times": [1243.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.784}, "reply_to": "15219__0_077", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_079", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "If you add it as a matter of right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1243.857], "stop_times": [1246.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.857}, "reply_to": "15219__0_078", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_080", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, first of all, it would be-- I think it would require demand of the juvenile\u2019s counsel.\nSecond, I suppose then it requires the judge to search his mind and determine what he\u2019s going to do with the child and there, frankly, I have difficulty.\nThe Frank case that referred to probation being impossible for over six months without a jury trial and then if the probation is violated only a sentence of six months could be imposed.\nIt\u2019s-- I don\u2019t know how a judge can determine a case-- what he\u2019s going to do with the person before him until he knows what the facts of the case are but, apparently, it can be done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1246.982, 1254.938, 1265.683, 1285.538], "stop_times": [1254.938, 1265.683, 1285.538, 1299.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.982}, "reply_to": "15219__0_079", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_081", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Isn\u2019t that one of the considerations that led the founders of this system of Juvenile Courts to eliminate the jury and let, presumably, an expert in juvenile matters deal with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1299.533], "stop_times": [1313.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.533}, "reply_to": "15219__0_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__0_082", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Well, I think that is perhaps more the consideration but, certainly, a Juvenile Court judge is no particular expert in deciding whether or not DeBacker forged the check or broke into a filling station.\nThat, I think, is still within the traditional competence of the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1313.089, 1328.038], "stop_times": [1328.038, 1339.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.089}, "reply_to": "15219__0_081", "speaker": "william_g_line"}
{"id": "15219__0_083", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Mr. Kuhlman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1339.216], "stop_times": [1345.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.216}, "reply_to": "15219__0_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15219__1_000", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "If the Court please, first of all, I would like to point out that the reference to the young lad DeBacker being in the state reformatory, that he is there under a transfer statute which is not involve with deciding whether or not there should be a jury in juvenile cases.\nThis is a transfer statute where the young man is transferred after a hearing at corny, and I maintain that the method to attack this is to bring a habeas corpus at the penal complex to decide whether this transfer statute is unconstitutional.\nThis is a separate matter that should be determined.\nThe only thing here is whether or not the trial of the young man in County Court or in the Juvenile Court need be with a jury, and the fact that he was eventually transferred to the men\u2019s reformatory doesn\u2019t have anything to do with this jury question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1345.647, 1372.806, 1393.16, 1395.913], "stop_times": [1372.806, 1393.16, 1395.913, 1421.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1345.647}, "reply_to": "15219__0_083", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15219__1_001", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "As a separate lawsuit or a separate proceeding has been initiated attacking that transfer, did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1421.166], "stop_times": [1426.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.166}, "reply_to": "15219__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__1_002", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "No, there hasn\u2019t.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1426.82], "stop_times": [1427.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1426.82}, "reply_to": "15219__1_001", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15219__1_003", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1427.77], "stop_times": [1428.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.77}, "reply_to": "15219__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__1_004", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "I maintain that this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1428.144], "stop_times": [1429.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1428.144}, "reply_to": "15219__1_003", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15219__1_005", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "You say the way to do it is a separate proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1429.161], "stop_times": [1430.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.161}, "reply_to": "15219__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__1_006", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "This is the way to attack it rather than to say that the statute which says that the juvenile is not entitled to a jury should be attacked.\nThe attack should be against the statute that allows the transfer rather than the statute on the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1430.269, 1441.019], "stop_times": [1441.019, 1446.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1430.269}, "reply_to": "15219__1_005", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15219__1_007", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "And this petitioner was, in fact, now transferred to an adult penal institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1446.261], "stop_times": [1450.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.261}, "reply_to": "15219__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15219__1_008", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Yes, he is.\nThe Nebraska Juvenile Code is oriented along judicial lines rather than along social welfare lines.\nWe have included in the Nebraska statute the notice, which has always been there for years even prior to Gault, of the right to counsel, of the right to confrontation, the right to self-in-- against self-incrimination, the right to cross-examination, the right to a transcript of the proceedings, the right to appellate review.\nAll of these things have always been a part of Nebraska\u2019s Juvenile Court law, and this is the matter of the determination of due process.\nThe fact that the youngsters have always had this that this is oriented along judicial lines rather than along social welfare lines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1450.09, 1454.027, 1469.338, 1490.234, 1501.97], "stop_times": [1454.027, 1469.338, 1490.234, 1501.97, 1515.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1450.09}, "reply_to": "15219__1_007", "speaker": "richard_l_kuhlman"}
{"id": "15219__1_009", "conversation_id": "15219", "text": "Should this red light be on, Mr. Clerk?\nWhat does that mean?\nElectronic Inadvertence, I see.\nIt\u2019s not.\nWe will hear you tomorrow morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_15", "start_times": [1515.882, 1517.916, 1520.904, 1523.534, 1524.698], "stop_times": [1517.916, 1520.904, 1523.534, 1524.698, 1529.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.882}, "reply_to": "15219__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15153__0_000", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Shore Line against United Transportation Union.\nMr. Shea, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [0.0, 10.645], "stop_times": [10.645, 14.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15153__0_001", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nParties to this case are Detroit and Toledo Shore Line which I shall refer to Shore Line and UTU which is a merger of four operating Unions, I shall refer to it including the Firemen's Union.\nI shall to refer to it as the Union of the Firemen's union.\nThis case arises under the Railway Labor Act.\nAs Your Honors are well aware, there are two kinds of disputes that arise under that Act.\nThe so-called minor disputes which involve the interpretation or application of the existing agreements and they follow the course of negotiation and if that fails, compulsory arbitration before an Adjustment Board whose decisions are final and binding on the parties.\nAnd then there's the major dispute involving not the interpretation or application of existing agreements, but the making or changing of existing agreements and these follow a different course.\nSection 6 notice proposing a change is served as negotiation, mediation and proffer of arbitration in the discretion of the President's appointment of an Emergency Board and then the parties are free to exercise self-help at the end of that route.\nIn this case, an Adjustment Board determined that there was nothing in existing agreements which precluded Shore Line from establishing an outlying reporting point, the point at which a fireman might be required to report for work at the end of the day away from the main terminal.\nShore Line proposed to establish such a point.\nThe Union served a notice proposing that the exclusive reporting point should be at the home terminal at Toledo.\nAnd the court below held that in virtue of the mere filing of that notice to deprive Shore Line of its right under the existing agreement to establish an outlying terminal, that was accomplished and they were deprived of that right.\nNow, the facts are briefly these.\nShore Line is a small railroad.\nIt runs about 50 miles from Toledo to Detroit.\nLang Yard is the mainline.\nThe yard at Toledo is the yard just south of Detroit called Dearoad and there's one other geographic point I have in mind, that's at Trenton where there's the Edison Yard, that's about 35 miles north of Toledo.\nThere's a growing and large industrial development at Trenton.\nWhile outlying points have historically been established, for many years, Trenton was served by firemen who reported at the Toledo Yard and took their -- went with their engines up to Trenton, did the switching there, then went back to 35 miles and tied up at Toledo.\nIn 1961, this growing industrial development in the view of the railroad required that they establish an outlying point at Trenton and they served or they proposed to the Union that they would establish an outlying point at Trenton.\nThe Union served a Section 6 notice proposing negotiations on terms or conditions under which that outlying assignment should be established.\nNegotiations were to had, mediation was had, proffer of arbitration, finally, the matter was released.\nBut at that time there was no strike and at a subsequent point the Union withdrew that notice and there wasn't the establishment of the reporting point of Trenton.\nThe alternate year for switching at Montesanto by Shore Line could pass and they said we don't to propose to establish this point at Trenton.\nBut in the meantime late 1962 and in again September 1963, they established an outlying point just south of Detroit and called it Dearoad and on this occasion the Union pursued the minor dispute route.\nIt took it to an Adjustment Board and it urged that under existing agreements, and under their existing practices Shore Line was barred from establishing this outlying reporting point at Dearoad.\nThe Adjustment Board decided against them.\nThe Adjustment Board said there's nothing in the rule of agreement which precludes the establishment at that point and I think it's not contested that under the existing agreements then Shore Line was privileged to establish that outlying point.\nThey then proposed again to establish an outlying reporting point at Trenton and the response to that was a Section 6 notice proposing that the only point at which firemen might be required to report would be the Toledo Yard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [14.772, 18.791, 29.605, 36.924, 44.895, 51.262, 71.362, 88.008, 105.27, 132.799, 136.937, 145.808, 167.311, 171.643, 173.925, 180.732, 182.509, 201.929, 210.491, 233.957, 253.952, 267.025, 276.866, 290.814, 302.676, 326.642, 346.575, 348.951, 369.332], "stop_times": [18.791, 29.605, 36.924, 44.895, 51.262, 71.362, 88.008, 105.27, 132.799, 136.937, 145.808, 167.311, 171.643, 173.925, 180.732, 182.509, 201.929, 210.491, 233.957, 253.952, 267.025, 276.866, 290.814, 302.676, 326.642, 346.575, 348.951, 369.332, 392.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.772}, "reply_to": "15153__0_000", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_002", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "That is proposing the negotiation of a provision under the collective bargaining contract that would so provide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [392.922], "stop_times": [398.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.922}, "reply_to": "15153__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15153__0_003", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "That's right and which would deny Shore Line of the right that they then had to establish the outlying points.\nThere was a negotiation about this and that didn't get anywhere.\nThe Union invoked the issue and the mediation was pending at the time of this record was made.\nIn late September 1966, Shore Line being confronted with the immediate requirement again switching Montesanto with McClould having demanded a series of it, they posted a bulletin establishing an outlying assignment at Trenton for trains to operate in the switching of these industrial establishments at Trenton.\nAt that point, the Union threatened a strike.\nShore Line sought an injunction against the strike.\nThe Union counterclaimed for an injunction against the establishment of this outlying point.\nThe District Court denied the injunction against the strike, granted the injunction against the establishment of the outlying point.\nThe court below affirmed and the issue is, I suppose, is the correctness of the decision below on certiorari to this Court.\nNow, the only provisions of the Railway Labor Act which are actually involved here are Section 2 (7) and Section 6, the so-called status quo provision of Section 6, in fact you've indicated that these two sections have to be read together and may I read them to you.\nThe first appears on Section 2 (a), page 2 (a) of our brief and that Section 2 (7) which reads as follows: \u201cNo carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules or working conditions of its employees as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in Section 6 of the Act.\u201d\nNow, I think there's no contest about the fact that that bars only a change in the existing agreements.\nIt does not deprive the parties of the rights under the existing agreements.\nAnd Section 6 reads, carriers, that's on 5 (a) of the appendix, \u201ccarriers and representative to the employees shall give at least 30 days written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules or working conditions with time and place in the beginning of conferences between representatives of parties in such intended change should be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice.\nThat time should be within the 30 days provided in every case where such notice of an intended change has been given or conferences are being held with reference thereto of service of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon as required by Section 5 of this Act by the Mediation Board\u201d etcetera.\nNow, what we say that this provision of Section 6 means read together with Section 2 is what this Court said it meant in Williams against the Terminal Company.\nHere's what the Court said, \"The institution of negotiations,\" that is the filing of the Section 6 notice, \u201cthe institution of negotiations for collective bargaining does not change the authority of the carrier.\u201d\nThe prohibitions of Section 6, against change of wages or conditions pending bargaining and those of Section 2 (7) are aimed at preventing changes in conditions previously fixed by collective bargaining agreements.\nBut we say Section 6 means is again what this Court said it meant in Order of Railroad Conductors against Pitney.\nThere this Court said, 2 (7) of the Act provides that no carrier its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements under Section 6 of the Act.\nSection 6 as we have seen prohibits such change unless notice is first given and its requirements were otherwise complied with.\nSection 2 (10) of the Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by both fine and imprisonment for a carrier willfully that violates Section 6.\nThese sections, these sections make it clear that the only conduct which would violate Section 6 is a change of those working conditions which are embodied in agreements.\nNow, what we think it means is also what the Mediation Board has consistently interpreted as meaning.\nSince 1956, the Board repeated, Mediation Board repeatedly in its annual reports, in its instructions to mediate it, in its response to demands of the Unions, repeatedly they have said this, and I read their latest pronouncement, pronouncements earlier were of a kind.\nIn brief, \u201cthe rights of the parties which they had prior serving the notice of intention to change, that's part of the serving the Section 6 notice, the rights of the parties which they had prior to serving the notice of intention to change remained the same during the period the proposal is under consideration and remained so until the proposal is finally acted upon.\nThe Board has stated in instances of this kind that the serving of a Section 6 notice for a new rule or change, a change in an existing rule does not operate, does not operate as a bar to the carrier actions which were taken under rules currently in effect.\u201d\nWe also think, if the Court please, that the interpretation which we give Section 6 is the interpretation which was given in the making of the legislative history of that provision.\nSection 6, the initial Bill, which ultimately became in the subsequent year the 1926 Act, was called the Howell-Barkley Bill and Mr. Richberg in explaining the provision that became Section 6 from what was apparently a prepared text under the heading \u201cchanges of agreements\u201d had this to say.\n\u201cAn agreement that can be changed without notice is really no agreement at all.\nCertainly, the power on the one hand and the fear on the other of arbitrary change will read this Court not harmony.\u201d\nThere is provided in Section 6 that either party shall give at least 30 days written notice of an intended change and that the time and place of conference shall be agreed upon, thereafter a change and it seems to me clearly refers back to the change proposed, thereafter change is prohibited until machinery for peaceful adjustment has been fully utilized.\nNow, if the Court please, very important, I think important practical considerations which are entitled to weight.\nIf I understand the opposing counsel correctly, he says that these so-called status quo provisions briefly applicable, to indeed asserts, simply applicable to the Union and to the carrier and I put them below when he was not willing to bite the bullet then I doubt he will hear, I put in this situation or these two situations.\nOne of the most cherished rights of workmen in this field are their seniority rights.\nA place opens up, a desirable place, the man who has been there longest can be at the end and the place he opens up than the man with the next greatest seniority can bid that in and so forth.\nNow, the railroads will suppose serve a notice saying this is disrupting.\nFrom now on, we want to assign men to the post that they are investigated for.\nNow, for the long period, the intentionally long period to exhaust the procedures of the Railroad Labor Act, are the seniority right suspended or to take another situation which is not unusual that this negotiation of an agreement for an increase in wage is 3% next January, another 2% in July, another 3% the following January.\nThey negotiated that bargain and a couple of months later, the Shore Line, the carrier serves notice saying we're losing money and we want to freeze wages.\nThe length freeze wages for the lengthy period, a year, two years or more in which the procedures of the Railway Labor Act are being exhausted.\nNow, I say that if he agreed it would do that.\nI can think of nothing which would more be more disruptive of the stability of labor relations or more frustrating to the possibility of making and maintaining agreements in such a rule.\nNow, as I understand, as I understand his -- the main thrust of his argument, it is that while the provisions of Section 5, their status quo provisions of 5 and 10 which are not applicable to here because this is still in mediation and those are only applicable only after the mediation has terminated or after the Emergency Board is appointed.\nIf I understand the main thrust of his argument, it is that all of these provisions, not all, six, five and ten, must mean the same thing, not two because he concedes two doesn't, isn't to be read with all of them.\nNow this Court said that had to be read with six in Pitney.\nHe says, that that isn't the status quo provision after the major dispute is arisen.\nBut he says these three have to be read together and he gets some comfort from the language of 5 and 10.\nNow, I don't understand what comfort he gets from 10, indeed 5, but 10 says that after Emergency Board has been appointed for 30 days after the reports to the President, no change shall be made in the conditions out of which the dispute arose and I think the conditions out of which this dispute arises is that under existing agreements, we have the right to establish an outline point and they want to take it away from us and they proposed that change and it is that's what shouldn't be changed.\nWell, that means that our rights under the existing agreement shouldn't be changed for this period.\nNow, 5 provides that after the Mediation Board releases the dispute for 30 days, there shall be no change in rates of pay, rules, working conditions or working conditions or established practices.\nThere is little to indicate the reason for the introduction of established practices.\nWe've done a textual analysis which there isn't time for an oral argument, but I think I can point this out that that was introduced in the 34th Amendment and Eastman who drafted the 34th Amendment said that this was merely the plug a loophole which theretofore existed.\nPrior to that when mediation was terminated, the railroads would go in immediately and affected their changes even though later an Emergency Board might be established.\nAnd he said the only purpose of this is to hold it long enough to give the President the opportunity to establish an Emergency Board.\nCertainly, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [398.41, 408.822, 413.842, 424.871, 453.568, 461.472, 466.927, 475.189, 484.664, 496.864, 523.268, 554.324, 562.741, 569.096, 600.329, 632.828, 652.94, 671.788, 694.573, 705.373, 727.896, 740.371, 750.646, 769.717, 780.87, 811.82, 848.065, 874.254, 889.075, 916.863, 921.825, 928.526, 953.49, 964.765, 995.877, 1003.896, 1016.305, 1023.206, 1029.044, 1061.735, 1076.735, 1088.717, 1092.272, 1106.764, 1135.202, 1155.707, 1160.089, 1171.794, 1178.987, 1216.245, 1221.566, 1245.397, 1252.312, 1276.841, 1289.593, 1297.5], "stop_times": [408.822, 413.842, 424.871, 453.568, 461.472, 466.927, 475.189, 484.664, 496.864, 523.268, 554.324, 562.741, 569.096, 600.329, 632.828, 652.94, 671.788, 694.573, 705.373, 727.896, 740.371, 750.646, 769.717, 780.87, 811.82, 848.065, 874.254, 889.075, 916.863, 921.825, 928.526, 953.49, 964.765, 995.877, 1003.896, 1016.305, 1023.206, 1029.044, 1061.735, 1076.735, 1088.717, 1092.272, 1106.764, 1135.202, 1155.707, 1160.089, 1171.794, 1178.987, 1216.245, 1221.566, 1245.397, 1252.312, 1276.841, 1289.593, 1297.5, 1297.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.41}, "reply_to": "15153__0_002", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_004", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Mr. Shea, I take it that you would argue that if there were no agreement at all between a carrier and its employees, but they were in the process of negotiating agreements that the employer could, pending the working out of Section -- of these mediation procedures change wages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1297.552], "stop_times": [1325.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.552}, "reply_to": "15153__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_005", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I would because this Courts squarely so held in Williams.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1325.665], "stop_times": [1329.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.665}, "reply_to": "15153__0_004", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_006", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes, and would you say that the Union might waive its strike?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1329.029], "stop_times": [1337.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.029}, "reply_to": "15153__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_007", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I would say no because I think that was so held in Williams.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1337.474], "stop_times": [1342.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.474}, "reply_to": "15153__0_006", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_008", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "So, the Union is -- may not strike pending the resolution of the mediation procedures, but the carrier may change wages, hours or working conditions so long as they are not governed by an existing agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1342.218], "stop_times": [1358.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.218}, "reply_to": "15153__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_009", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "They may exercise -- yes, they may exercise those rights that they then have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1358.291], "stop_times": [1363.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.291}, "reply_to": "15153__0_008", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_010", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Well, and apparently you agree that this business of establishing an outlying terminal was subject to Section 6 procedures?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1363.975], "stop_times": [1376.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.975}, "reply_to": "15153__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_011", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "One subject to Section 6 procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1376.681], "stop_times": [1378.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.681}, "reply_to": "15153__0_010", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_012", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I mean it was proper for the Union --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1378.023], "stop_times": [1379.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.023}, "reply_to": "15153__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_013", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "We're not raising here the issue that this was purely a matter of managerial discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1379.292], "stop_times": [1384.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.292}, "reply_to": "15153__0_012", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_014", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Well, this was the point of the matter because as far as this case is concerned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1384.206], "stop_times": [1388.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.206}, "reply_to": "15153__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_015", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Well, I think it wasn't but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1388.031], "stop_times": [1389.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.031}, "reply_to": "15153__0_014", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_016", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Well, I know but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1389.725], "stop_times": [1390.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.725}, "reply_to": "15153__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_017", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "So far as the argument here is concerned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1390.314], "stop_times": [1392.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.314}, "reply_to": "15153__0_016", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_018", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "So far as the issue here is concerned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1392.616], "stop_times": [1393.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.616}, "reply_to": "15153__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_019", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1393.928], "stop_times": [1394.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.928}, "reply_to": "15153__0_018", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_020", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "-- this is just as though on wages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1394.45], "stop_times": [1399.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.45}, "reply_to": "15153__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_021", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes.\nI think that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1399.316, 1399.747], "stop_times": [1399.747, 1400.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.316}, "reply_to": "15153__0_020", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_022", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "In the absence of an agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1400.375], "stop_times": [1401.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.375}, "reply_to": "15153__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_023", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes, I think that's right.\nBut remember, if the Court please, that in the railroad industry, there is enhancement for a very long time detailed rules and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1401.889, 1404.061], "stop_times": [1404.061, 1418.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.889}, "reply_to": "15153__0_022", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_024", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "You mean agreed upon by the (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1418.219], "stop_times": [1419.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.219}, "reply_to": "15153__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_025", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes, but also have this in mind that very often, there will be a controversy and it will be allowed to drop if there were a decision which required that every right the railroad had had to be in that agreement, you'd compromise the possibilities of reaching agreements very largely indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1419.731], "stop_times": [1443.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.731}, "reply_to": "15153__0_024", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_026", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I take it that (Voice Overlap) -- I take it that you would take this as no difference than if the railroad proposed to build a spur and the Union didn't want the spur built, so they filed a Section 6 notice to keep the railroad from building the spur.\nYou would say the railroad ought to be and they'll go ahead and build this spur regardless of a notice and the Union says it shouldn't build the spur regardless of the notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1443.052, 1464.751], "stop_times": [1464.751, 1472.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.052}, "reply_to": "15153__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__0_027", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "If it's entitled to honor existing agreements, I should say, certainly they ought to be permitted to go in and build it.\nThere's one other point by respondent -- there's one other point which I like just to touch on before concluding and that is this.\nOpposing counsel has raised in this Court, he didn't plead it, he didn't raise it in the District Court, he didn't raise it in the Court of Appeals, he raises it for the first time in this Court.\nHe urges that under our obligation to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements under the 2 (1) of the Act, we are barred from taking unilateral action as to any matter which is a subject of discussion under -- which is a subject to discussion in the negotiations and he relies on Fibreboard and Katz.\nFirst of all, I would like to observe that if the Court was going to get into this area, I would suppose they would want the considered views of the court below and they haven't those views because the issue wasn't raised in the court below.\nSecondly, this Court has warned against importing these provisions of the LMRA into the -- and particularly in a case like this where you have specific provisions from Railway Labor Act dealing with the problem of status quo.\nBut finally, it seems to me that these two cases are wholly in apposite in any event, I think all this Court held in Fibreboard, if I read it correctly, was that contracting out work in the certain instances of that case, where the contracting out was going to discharge all them and destroy the Union.\nContracting out of that work was a mandatorily bargainable issue that the company had refused to bargain and that the Labor Board didn't abuse its discretion in fashion of the remedy it did and that is no complement to that kind here.\nYou talked to them for five years about it.\nSecondly, and there's nothing irreversible about this action which has been taken here.\nSecondly, as to Katz, if I read Katz correctly, what Katz holds is that you can't -- there was a proposal for increase of wages, proposals as to merit increases, proposals as to sick leave, you can't when you're in a process of negotiation, I think go directly to the man and offer them something without giving the Union notice and without discussing it with the Union.\nNow, Katz said, however, if understand expressly, from the statement of the question by reference to the Bradley case and the Landis case, said expressly that this is to be distinguished from the case for instance where the Unions demanded a 16-cent raise, the company has offered 10, the Union rejected it and the company then said, we're not going to give it and do give it, that did not involve any validation.\nI don't see that you have any, there's anything apposite about that opinion here because there has been a lengthy discussions, we let them know about it and we try to work out the arrangements for bunkhouse etcetera with them.\nThere's nothing here that can be urged.\nThere's an undercutting of the Union.\nThere's a as going behind the bargaining agent to go directly to the men.\nIf the Court please, that's our submission unless there are questions from the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1472.119, 1478.566, 1491.657, 1504.834, 1541.525, 1560.63, 1581.145, 1605.647, 1625.568, 1629.102, 1637.948, 1685.098, 1722.039, 1740.083, 1742.999, 1744.963, 1752.529], "stop_times": [1478.566, 1491.657, 1504.834, 1541.525, 1560.63, 1581.145, 1605.647, 1625.568, 1629.102, 1637.948, 1685.098, 1722.039, 1740.083, 1742.999, 1744.963, 1752.529, 1759.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1472.119}, "reply_to": "15153__0_026", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__0_028", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shea.\nMr. Lyman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1759.139, 1762.702], "stop_times": [1762.702, 1764.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.139}, "reply_to": "15153__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15153__1_000", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and Honorable Justices.\nI represent the respondents in this case who consist of a successor organization to one of the original defendants, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and two of its officers, President and the General Chairman of their brotherhood.\nOriginally, when the case was filed and tried below in the District Court, another organization was co-defendant and the suit was brought to enjoin both the firemen and the brotherhood of railroad trainmen from striking.\nThey had both been in these original 1961 negotiations, but the firemen at the time they decided to take their case to the Special Board of Adjustment have withdrawn their 1961 Section 6 notice.\nThe trainmen however had not, therefore, the trainmen had a live matured right to strike and the District Court so held and denied the railroad an injunction against a strike by the trainmen.\nNow, of course, no strike has in fact taken place since that division or has there has been any threat of one over this dispute because the fact that the railroad was enjoined from doing the thing that the threatened strike was alleged to have been about.\nIn the District Court, Shore Line raised three contentions in defending their action.\nThey said, one, this was a minor dispute, not a major dispute; two, it involved a non-bargainable matter in any event and therefore, the brotherhoods did not have or the respondent firemen did not have a valid Section 6 notice pending; and three, they argue the status quo question which is before this Court.\nIn the Court of Appeals below, they no longer argued the minor dispute question, but relied down in the two arguments, managerial prerogative and the status quo argument and in this Court, they have abandoned and have not placed before the Court the managerial prerogative argument.\nThe fact is of course, that this operating change in starting assignments at Trenton was objected to by the Union from the point of view of its impact on the employees in the sense of reporting to and from duty.\nThe District Court did not enjoin the railroad from making any changes in its physical facilities or plant set up that it desired to do and the Court of Appeals makes this very clear that it didn't constrain the District Court as enjoining any such thing which might be in the area of managerial prerogatives.\nNow basically Shore Line is contending here that the status quo requirements of the Railway Labor Act designed to protect the public and preserve industrial peace are strictly limited to what the railroad has already bound itself to contractually.\nTurning on Mr. Justice White's a little further in an employment at will, they would say during all the course of this major dispute procedures, they were free to change anything and everything.\nIn this case, it's their contention that part of the area of wages, rules and working conditions is not covered by the agreement and therefore that as to that part of the working condition area not covered by the agreement, they are free to change those, even though bargaining under the Railway Labor Act is proceeding.\nEven though at the time this case came before the District Court, the Mediation Board had accepted jurisdiction and the parties were waiting assignment of a mediator, they wanted to have this unilateral change.\nThat theory can only be supported if we say ultimately that an employment at will or an area of working conditions outside the coverage of the current contract, the phrase working conditions is used in the statute and which Congress required the (Inaudible) to preserve during this procedure only means such things as are contractually covered.\nIn other words, carrier's argument and it is set forth in their briefs is that here the working conditions applicable to this particular dispute merely consisted of the carriers' right to change working conditions as it thought fit.\nNow, we submit that that is a very sophistical approach to the count -- to the problem and we contend rather that working conditions are things which are in effect and which are being observed and have been observed from the employees' point of view.\nThe employee when he goes to work doesn't have an idea of his job as a set of things that management can do or can't do in the abstract, he's interested in where he goes to work and how much he's paid, those sort of things and there is a change certainly from his point view and from any realistic point of view, if all of a sudden, operating changes are made by management whether or not in the exercise of claimed rights under the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [1764.709, 1768.486, 1789.145, 1807.322, 1824.912, 1841.925, 1865.137, 1877.569, 1904.713, 1925.969, 1945.147, 1974.636, 2004.612, 2018.602, 2043.477, 2060.344, 2105.615, 2128.122, 2153.165], "stop_times": [1768.486, 1789.145, 1807.322, 1824.912, 1841.925, 1865.137, 1877.569, 1904.713, 1925.969, 1945.147, 1974.636, 2004.612, 2018.602, 2043.477, 2060.344, 2105.615, 2128.122, 2153.165, 2187.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.709}, "reply_to": "15153__0_028", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_001", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Leaving more than claimed rights under the agreement in this particular case, aren't they Mr. Lyman, hadn't that.\nAs I understand it, there had been a minor dispute as to the meaning and application of the collective bargaining agreement with respect to management's making outlying work assignments.\nThat had been concluded against your position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [2187.251, 2192.134, 2204.429], "stop_times": [2192.134, 2204.429, 2209.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.251}, "reply_to": "15153__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15153__1_002", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes, I would like to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [2209.505], "stop_times": [2210.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.505}, "reply_to": "15153__1_001", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_003", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "It was decided by the -- by an Adjustment Board that under the existing collective bargaining agreement, management had the right to make outlying assignments.\nSo, this is just some claimed right as was decided by the (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [2210.094, 2219.391], "stop_times": [2219.391, 2221.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.094}, "reply_to": "15153__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15153__1_004", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I think that should be defined somewhat because it may enter into Your Honor's consideration of this matter.\nI think there could well be a difference in a situation where something is specifically provided for in an agreement and a situation where something is simply management's right by default for the reason that the agreement doesn't cover the subject matter.\nMr. Shea remarked that the Special Board, boards award conclusively established that management was privileged to do this only in the sense that the Special Board held that there was no prohibition in the agreement against it.\nThe parties aren't bargaining.\nThere was no clause in the agreement that said from time to time, management may change the reporting points for these men.\nNow, I think that brings me into the argument that Mr. Shea made at the conclusion about seniority and couldn't they go ahead and make the usual bumps, and furloughs and recalls and so forth with the agreement provided for if there was notice pending.\nOf course, they could because the agreement specifically called for that and it set it out and that was an established working condition without any question.\nBut whether there's something in this notice or not -- something in this nether -- netherland of employment at will, managerial prerogatives, then the same consideration is (Inaudible) over to and I think that we can only have meaningful bargaining where management refrains from going at and doing whatever it wants to regardless of the fact that it is currently bargaining about whether it's going to do it.\nNow, the contention has been made here that Section 2 (7) and Section 6 of the statute that are involved in this case.\nIt was further contended in the reply brief that we had conceded at section -- that there were four section, pardon me, four status quo sections in the Railway Labor Act; Section 2 (7), Section 6, Section 5 and Section 10.\nOur position, of course, has been very clearly stated in our brief.\nWe contend Section 2 (7) is not a status quo provision at all.\nIt is simply a prohibition against changes of agreements unilaterally.\nAnd it says that when there is a written agreement, a carrier and it speaks only in terms of the carrier because they are the ones that apply and administer the agreement and the only ones that have the power to change agreements unilaterally.\nIt says they can't change it unilaterally, they got to do it by the notice procedure of Section 6.\nNow, that notice procedure in Section 6 in the first part of it where they talk about giving notice of changes in agreements in abiding rates of payrolls and working conditions, that is not really a status quo requirement.\nIt is again simply a statement of the mechanism by which you change agreements.\nThis notice procedure -- provision for arranging for conference within 10 days after the notice requirement of the conference be held within 30 days after the notice, but it's at the later part of Section 6 that you then get into the true status quo provisions in major disputes handling.\nAnd there it says that while these things are going on, neither party may change rates of rules -- rates of payrolls or working conditions and it doesn't -- in the later part of that paragraph use the any reference to agreements.\nSection 5, providing the status quo to be observed after Mediation Board takes over and after it's handled and after it has failed in its efforts.\nThat does not speak in terms of agreements at all.\nIn Section 10, the Emergency Board status quo provision say nothing about agreements and to speak in terms that are completely inconsistent with the theory that all this is limited to this thorough coverage of an existing contract.\nNow, it's been suggested that perhaps we will have to read Section 2 (7) and Section 6 as meaning something separate and apart from Section 5 and Section 10 and that maybe, maybe we might be right in our interpretation of Sections 5 and 10 but something different in the way of a status quo should be required for Section 6.\nThis Court very recently in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen against Terminal Company, Jacksonville Terminal case that was decided early this year had an introductory description of the major disputes procedures in the Act which we think completely refutes any theory that these should be divided into two stages and that maybe the carrier could do what it wanted to do for a while, but then was it going to have to pull it hard and go back to the original status quo if we get into Section 5 and Section 10.\nIn that decision in the Terminal Company case, and I must apologize for not having the official paging but it's 22 Lawyers' Edition, page 354 in the Lawyer's Edition paging.\nThe Court concluded its description of those major disputes handling with this language.\n\u201cWhile the dispute is working its way through these stages, neither party may unilaterally alter the status quo, citing Sections 2 (7), 5 (1), 6 and 10.\u201d\nThe Court clearly does not on the basis of their opinion contemplate any division in what is meant by a status quo.\nIt's a uniform sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [2221.465, 2229.906, 2250.228, 2267.415, 2269.352, 2280.986, 2305.186, 2315.805, 2370.754, 2390.213, 2411.182, 2417.726, 2427.184, 2438.329, 2456.896, 2464.562, 2481.554, 2490.328, 2515.864, 2538.308, 2553.071, 2557.157, 2575.112, 2614.016, 2662.673, 2689.983, 2700.608, 2717.305, 2728.7], "stop_times": [2229.906, 2250.228, 2267.415, 2269.352, 2280.986, 2305.186, 2315.805, 2370.754, 2390.213, 2411.182, 2417.726, 2427.184, 2438.329, 2456.896, 2464.562, 2481.554, 2490.328, 2515.864, 2538.308, 2553.071, 2557.157, 2575.112, 2614.016, 2662.673, 2689.983, 2700.608, 2717.305, 2728.7, 2739.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.465}, "reply_to": "15153__1_003", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_005", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "What weight should be given to the Board's interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [2739.942], "stop_times": [2744.725], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.942}, "reply_to": "15153__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15153__1_006", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I think the legislative history which we've been criticized for our references on the basis that they refer only to Sections 5 and 10, but as I say, I think we must consider this whole status quo together and in view of that legislative history, the Mediation Board's interpretation is clearly unattainable.\nI don't think that you have to accord controlling effect to the interpretations of administrative tribunal if those interpretations are preferably in conflict with the statutory scheme and language and in conflict with the very clear legislative history that we find in the Railway Labor Act of 1926.\nWe have referred to that legislative history in our brief commencing at page 12 and that language is just completely irreconcilable with any thought that status quo means just the terms of a contract that's currently existing.\nAt page -- at the bottom of page 12, top of page 13, I'm reading from Mr. Richberg's comments before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, he said, the thought was to include in the broadest way all the factors which contributed to what is commonly called the status quo.\nThe purposes that can preserve, unchanged all the conditions involved in the controversy until there's full opportunity for presidential investigation within 30-day report.\nHe further said and we quote this at the bottom of page 13, \u201cit was the desire of those who attempted to work out an agreement on this to have a phrase here which would be broad enough so that in the ordinary interpretation of language in its natural meaning, it would be well understood what was intended.\u201d\nAnd then this is quite pertinent to our case too I believe, he goes on following the statement that I just read, with these comments.\n\u201cIt was not the desire of either parties right in the Section of the Bill something that had not been written in anywhere else and that was an absolute prohibition and a compulsion against one party alone of the Bill.\u201d\nA question was raised as to strikes, this is not a one sided affair and then he went on to point out that the intent of management and labor which had concurred of course and agreed upon the draft to the 1926 Act which was presented to Congress currently.\nTheir purpose was to have status quo that applied to both parties not just one and of course, they couldn't have worked out any agreement among themselves.\nWhat the Shore Line contends here is true in that what the Unions were giving up was the -- their most cherished right to strike and in exchange only got from the carrier a commitment that well it would do what it contracted to do and nothing else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [2744.725, 2773.05, 2803.56, 2831.564, 2856.941, 2873.908, 2896.677, 2906.263, 2921.789, 2951.737, 2968.358], "stop_times": [2773.05, 2803.56, 2831.564, 2856.941, 2873.908, 2896.677, 2906.263, 2921.789, 2951.737, 2968.358, 3001.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.725}, "reply_to": "15153__1_005", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_007", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "What do you think that committee reports (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3001.809], "stop_times": [3011.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.809}, "reply_to": "15153__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_008", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I have been unable find anything helpful in the committee reports.\nI think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3011.677, 3018.472], "stop_times": [3018.472, 3020.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.677}, "reply_to": "15153__1_007", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_009", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "These statements are different again upon the (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3020.382], "stop_times": [3024.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.382}, "reply_to": "15153__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_010", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes, the hearings of witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3024.615], "stop_times": [3028.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.615}, "reply_to": "15153__1_009", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_011", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Are you speaking to the (Inaudible) Richberg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3028.831], "stop_times": [3032.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.831}, "reply_to": "15153__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_012", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Mr. Richberg spoke for the labor unions and Mr. Thom spoke for the carriers.\nMr. Richberg put in practically all of the testimony on the status quo provision.\nMr. Thom --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3032.035, 3038.908, 3050.859], "stop_times": [3038.908, 3050.859, 3052.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.035}, "reply_to": "15153__1_011", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_013", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Were they both testifying under the same bill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3052.07], "stop_times": [3055.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.07}, "reply_to": "15153__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_014", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Yes.\nThis was a bill that jointly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3055.429, 3056.248], "stop_times": [3056.248, 3058.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.429}, "reply_to": "15153__1_013", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_015", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Jointly drafted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3058.452], "stop_times": [3059.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.452}, "reply_to": "15153__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_016", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Was jointly drafted by railroad management and railroad labor.\nMr. Thom was designated as the representative before Congress of the railroad industry and Mr. Richberg was the representative of the Unions.\nIn other words, they were co-sponsors of the Bill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3059.308, 3064.501, 3076.886], "stop_times": [3064.501, 3076.886, 3080.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.308}, "reply_to": "15153__1_015", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_017", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Did Mr. Thom disagree with anything Mr. Richberg said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3080.381], "stop_times": [3085.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.381}, "reply_to": "15153__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_018", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "No sir, he did not.\nIn fact, it was made clear to Congress by both Mr. Thom and Mr. Richberg that the joint support of this Bill was contingent upon the Congress accepting it as presented to Congress.\nNeither side wanted Congress to change one sentence in the Bill and in fact, they said that this had been bargained long and hard and that each side had given up things in order to reach an agreement on a Bill.\nThe compulsion behind this joint effort I suppose was the fact that both management and labor were interested in preserving their right to bargain on a voluntary basis and the primary concern was to convince Congress that they did not need to have compulsory arbitration that they did not need to have Interstate Commerce Commission review of wages and that sort of thing and that -- and in order to convince Congress of that, they felt that they had to draft very strong status quo measures for the protection of the public against railroad strikes because that ultimately was Congress' primary interest in the Railway Labor Act in avoiding interruptions to commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3085.406, 3087.45, 3107.607, 3126.253], "stop_times": [3087.45, 3107.607, 3126.253, 3195.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3085.406}, "reply_to": "15153__1_017", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_019", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "And why is there a difference between the Section 2 (7) and Section 6 as far status quo is concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3195.984], "stop_times": [3203.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.984}, "reply_to": "15153__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_020", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Section 2 (7) is not a status quo section.\nSection 2 (7) accords, you might say, legal effect to collective bargaining agreements and in fact, it goes beyond that.\nIt imposes a criminal sanction under the Railway Labor Act of violation of Section 2 (7) is made a crime punishable under prosecution made by a United States Attorney.\nIncidentally, it's not true although the Court in Pitney made this observation.\nIt's not true that a violation of Section 6 is a crime, but perhaps that I assume that observation was made because Courts have commonly attended to take the first half of Section 6 and treated as an extension of Section 2 (7) on this serving of notice.\nSo, that in many instances, you will find a Court talking about to 2 (6) when it's -- I mean, Section 6 when it's really 2 (7) that is involved and it is 2 (7) and 2 (7) only that was involved in Pitney.\nThere was no Section 6 notice extended in Pitney, but rather, the Union was trying to enjoin the trustees of the railroad from changing things without resorting to Section 6 under a notice procedure.\nI think that the Williams case can hardly be considered determinative here both in its facts and the considerations before the Court.\nPrimarily, it involved the question of the railroad's obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.\nI don't see in analyzing the facts where the railroad made any change in working conditions or wages.\nThe home porters received the same pay or more after the Act when went into effect as they had previously.\nBefore they just get their tips then the railroad realized that it have to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act.\nSo, they said, well, if your tips don't make it up, then we'll give you enough above your tips to meet our obligation.\nSo, from the employee's point of view, there was no defect or change in their working conditions at all.\nCounsel for petitioner has written to the Court advising that they were an error in the contention in the statement that the organization relied on Section 6.\nBefore I close, I would very much like to direct --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3203.984, 3209.681, 3225.15, 3239.945, 3248.617, 3274.95, 3293.973, 3327.852, 3347.541, 3358.712, 3369.348, 3381.418, 3390.109, 3398.226, 3407.359, 3423.313], "stop_times": [3209.681, 3225.15, 3239.945, 3248.617, 3274.95, 3293.973, 3327.852, 3347.541, 3358.712, 3369.348, 3381.418, 3390.109, 3398.226, 3407.359, 3423.313, 3430.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3203.984}, "reply_to": "15153__1_019", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_021", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "But there's a pretty square statement in Williams about the way the Court read Section 6?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3430.343], "stop_times": [3437.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.343}, "reply_to": "15153__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15153__1_022", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "There again, it may be that the Court had this sort of overlapping between Section 6 and 2 (7) in mind and not that -- the Terminal Company did not have to serve the Unions with the Section 6 notice in order to make this change in the arrangement for bookkeeping and the wages.\nIn any event, some two years after this change was made, the parties signed a collective bargaining agreement which did not even include the subject of wages.\nParties were clearly content to treat this not as a bargaining matter, but as an argument about what the Fair Labor Standards Act required and of course, in any event, that's not something that the parties could control by their bargaining statute of the United States, of course, takes proceedings over what's in the bargaining agreement.\nJust last week Your Honors, the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit came to my attention.\nIt was decided September 23, National Airlines against Machinists unofficially reported at 72 Labor Relations Reference Manual 2294 which I would like to direct the Court's attention to without commenting on it except for this comment, leading in hands to another case citation.\nOn two or three different occasions in the course of its opinion, the Fifth Circuit cited with approval the opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall then sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Rutland Railway Corporation against Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers which is cited in all of the briefs here.\nI particularly would like to direct the Court's attention to that dissenting opinion as rather complete statement in exposition of the position that we take in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3437.712, 3468.155, 3481.824, 3506.377, 3515.895, 3543.869, 3573.481], "stop_times": [3468.155, 3481.824, 3506.377, 3515.895, 3543.869, 3573.481, 3589.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3437.712}, "reply_to": "15153__1_021", "speaker": "richard_r_lyman"}
{"id": "15153__1_023", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lyman.\nMr. Shea, you have just one minute left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3589.567, 3592.301], "stop_times": [3592.301, 3594.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3589.567}, "reply_to": "15153__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15153__2_000", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "Unless the Court has questions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3594.859], "stop_times": [3597.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3594.859}, "reply_to": "15153__1_023", "speaker": "francis_m_shea"}
{"id": "15153__2_001", "conversation_id": "15153", "text": "I think not.\nThe case is submitted.\nMr. Shea and Mr. Lyman, thank you for your submissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_29", "start_times": [3597.935, 3599.464, 3601.186], "stop_times": [3599.464, 3601.186, 3604.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3597.935}, "reply_to": "15153__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_000", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Number 728, Dickey against Florida will be the next case heard.\nMr. Buchanan, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [0.0, 34.406], "stop_times": [34.406, 38.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_001", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThe nature of this case is one where the petitioner was convicted of a robbery charge, sentence to 10 years in the State Penitentiary.\nThe trial had been delayed for a period of eight years.\nThe case was duly appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeals, raising the constitutional question, the Sixth Amendment.\nThe issue in this case before this Court is whether the petitioner was denied the right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution United States to put this case in proper perspective.\nThis is a continuation of what developed in Smith v. Hooey.\nI would like to discuss the facts first as they're most important.\n28th of June, 1960, a robbery occurred in Gadsden County, Florida.\nOn the 1st of July, 1960, a warrant for the petitioner's arrest was sworn at.\nAt that time, petitioner was in the custody of the federal authorities on related charges of bank robbery.\nThe petitioner was in the jurisdiction of Florida from July until September 1960.\nIn September 1960, petitioner was transferred into the custody of the federal authorities and subsequently sent to Leavenworth Penitentiary.\nDuring the period from July until September 1960, the State of Florida made no effort whatsoever to execute the warrant other than to place it into the hands of the sheriff.\nSeveral years expired and in October of the 29th, 1962, the petitioner filed a written demand with the Circuit Court of Gadsden County requesting that he be brought back to Florida or that the charges be dismissed against him.\nThe court in an order denied this request stating that there was no authority upon the State of Florida to return petitioner to Florida to stay in trial since he was detained in federal custody, and that he was there because of his own doings.\nPetitioner subsequently filed two more written demands.\nHe filed one in April 1963 and another in March 1968.\nAfter that, the petitioner filed original mandamus proceedings in the Florida Supreme Court, and the Florida Supreme Court in a decision held that either Florida had to return petitioner to stay in trial or else to drop the detainer charges against him.\nPetitioner then filed a motion to dismiss in September 1, 1967, requesting that the charges be dropped against him.\nThere was no action on this motion.\nThe state in an ex parte order on December 15, 1967, obtained an order from the trial court having jurisdiction which ordered the petitioner back to Florida to stay in trial on January 23, 1968.\nPetitioner was brought back into custody on that date.\nAnd on that date, an arraignment was held and he was ordered to trial on that Friday, but over objection of counsel, the trial was continued until January 31, 1968.\nOn January 30, 1968, the petitioner filed two motions.\nThe first motion was a content motion for a continuance based upon the fact that he was unable to locate two defense witnesses; one by the name of Dolan who would have cooperated certain testimony that he had been in the place that had been robbed, and another by the name of Strickland who would have testified that on the night that the robbery occurred in Florida that the petitioner was in Waycross, Georgia.\nThe court granted the motion for continuance, and on the same date, the petitioner filed a motion to quash the information based upon the fact that he had been denied the right of speedy trial.\nThe court withheld ruling on this motion.\nHe also filed with the motion an affidavit stating that one of his witnesses had died in 1964.\nOn February, the court then continued the trial of the case until February 13, 1968.\nOn February 12, 1968, the petitioner then filed another motion for continuance based upon the fact that one Strickland and aid by Strickland still could be not located.\nBy that time, the witness Dolan had been located, had been subpoenaed for the trial.\nThe court on February 13, 1968 denied the motion to quash based upon the constitutional grounds and ordered petitioner to trial.\nDuring the course of the trial, the deputy sheriff who testified for the state, testified that he had destroyed the notes that he had taken down in connection with the description given to him by the victim when the robbery had occurred, which brings us to the contention in this case.\nAs we're dealing with the Sixth Amendment case and in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.\nAs I mentioned previously, this picks up where Smith v. Hooey left off decided by this Court last term.\nNow, the general reasoning has been that where a person can show that there is prejudice to the defense, this has been sufficient to establish that the defendant would not get a fair trial.\nIf in fact he could show that witnesses were dead or missing, that witnesses couldn't be gotten in time for the trial.\nNow, the State's contention is, in this case at one, they gave the petitioner a speedy trial, and two, there was no prejudice to the defense.\nIt is our position that there was a prejudice to the defense because of the eight-year delay because that a witness was unavailable to support the petitioner's contention, and three, that a witness had died, and four, that vital evidence had been destroyed not maliciously by the state, but simply because as the Deputy Sheriff said that he didn't know when this man would come to trial.\nNow, 20 year --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [38.63, 41.338, 53.756, 60.005, 71.028, 86.411, 93.887, 98.972, 105.995, 112.54, 120.338, 131.66, 141.512, 156.389, 174.043, 195.208, 198.986, 207.732, 225.372, 236.285, 238.681, 255.833, 259.06, 273.092, 280.74, 311.31, 324.907, 327.434, 336.135, 343.372, 355.753, 361.608, 373.916, 399.086, 409.93, 419.708, 440.932, 452.33, 463.532, 496.088], "stop_times": [41.338, 53.756, 60.005, 71.028, 86.411, 93.887, 98.972, 105.995, 112.54, 120.338, 131.66, 141.512, 156.389, 174.043, 195.208, 198.986, 207.732, 225.372, 236.285, 238.681, 255.833, 259.06, 273.092, 280.74, 311.31, 324.907, 327.434, 336.135, 343.372, 355.753, 361.608, 373.916, 399.086, 409.93, 419.708, 440.932, 452.33, 463.532, 496.088, 498.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 38.63}, "reply_to": "14879__0_000", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_002", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I thought there's a statute limitations I suppose for robbery in Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [498.163], "stop_times": [502.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.163}, "reply_to": "14879__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_003", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Pardon me Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [502.605], "stop_times": [503.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.605}, "reply_to": "14879__0_002", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_004", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I suppose there's a statute limitations for robbery in Florida, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [503.409], "stop_times": [506.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.409}, "reply_to": "14879__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_005", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir, but the statute of limitations said and told in this case, that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [506.996], "stop_times": [511.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.996}, "reply_to": "14879__0_004", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_006", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It's told when he's out of the state.\nAnd when does it begin to run, at the time of the indictment or at the time of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [511.386, 513.368], "stop_times": [513.368, 517.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.386}, "reply_to": "14879__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_007", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The statute of limitations in Florida is told when the warrant is placed in the sheriff's hands, and that stops whether he's in the state or out of state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [517.916], "stop_times": [533.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.916}, "reply_to": "14879__0_006", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_008", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It's told?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [533.22], "stop_times": [534.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.22}, "reply_to": "14879__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_009", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It's told.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [534.107], "stop_times": [535.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.107}, "reply_to": "14879__0_008", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_010", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Told, as I understand that word means it's suspended, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [535.668], "stop_times": [538.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.668}, "reply_to": "14879__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_011", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [538.585], "stop_times": [539.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.585}, "reply_to": "14879__0_010", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_012", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It stops running?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [539.024], "stop_times": [539.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.024}, "reply_to": "14879__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_013", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [539.824], "stop_times": [541.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.824}, "reply_to": "14879__0_012", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_014", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And now you say it's told when the warrant as placed in the sheriff's hand, I don't understand really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [541.041], "stop_times": [543.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.041}, "reply_to": "14879__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_015", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir, the case that we have cited in the brief which is Rosengarten versus State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [543.619], "stop_times": [552.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.619}, "reply_to": "14879__0_014", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_016", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But when does it begin to run in Florida, at the time of the indictment ordinarily, forget this case, just -- let's talk about an ordinary robbery case in Florida when the man presumably remains in Florida.\nWhat is the statute of limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [552.862, 566.706], "stop_times": [566.706, 567.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.862}, "reply_to": "14879__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_017", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "My understanding of it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [567.924], "stop_times": [569.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.924}, "reply_to": "14879__0_016", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_018", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What is the statute of limitations?\nHow many years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [569.044, 570.456], "stop_times": [570.456, 570.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.044}, "reply_to": "14879__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_019", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Two years.\nOn a non-capital case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [570.724, 571.12], "stop_times": [571.12, 572.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.724}, "reply_to": "14879__0_018", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_020", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And when does it begin to run?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [572.62], "stop_times": [574.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.62}, "reply_to": "14879__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_021", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It begins to run as soon as the offense is committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [574.893], "stop_times": [580.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.893}, "reply_to": "14879__0_020", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_022", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "So under your statute as you described the sheriff has got the power to told.\nThe statute just by holding a warrant and deliberately not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [580.627, 587.03], "stop_times": [587.03, 589.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.627}, "reply_to": "14879__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_023", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe way I understand the ruling is in Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [589.908, 590.503], "stop_times": [590.503, 593.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.908}, "reply_to": "14879__0_022", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_024", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Even if the defendant is within the jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [593.326], "stop_times": [597.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.326}, "reply_to": "14879__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_025", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Even if the defendant is within the jurisdiction because the defendant then has the availability of Florida statutes, 91501 and 91502 which gives him the right to demand trial and push the case alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [597.431], "stop_times": [618.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.431}, "reply_to": "14879__0_024", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_026", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "So in the ordinary case, within two years after the offense is committed, the warrant has to be placed in the sheriff's hands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [618.002], "stop_times": [625.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.002}, "reply_to": "14879__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_027", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nNow, if the defendant is out of state, no warrant has been placed in the sheriff's hand.\nThen, that withhold the statute of limitations in this absence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [625.493, 626.532, 632.321], "stop_times": [626.532, 632.321, 635.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.493}, "reply_to": "14879__0_026", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_028", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "His absence from the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [635.966], "stop_times": [636.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.966}, "reply_to": "14879__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_029", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [636.817], "stop_times": [637.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.817}, "reply_to": "14879__0_028", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_030", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [637.357], "stop_times": [641.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.357}, "reply_to": "14879__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_031", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [641.564], "stop_times": [647.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.564}, "reply_to": "14879__0_030", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_032", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "You say that party could have had him any time they wanted to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [647.395], "stop_times": [651.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.395}, "reply_to": "14879__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_033", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat was constitutional authority.\nFlorida had on its books, 94105 which was a statute permitting it to obtain a prisoner from another state.\nNow, I would like to point out --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [651.26, 651.744, 653.726, 662.849], "stop_times": [651.744, 653.726, 662.849, 663.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.26}, "reply_to": "14879__0_032", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_034", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is that a regular extradition process if he is a person in custody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [663.753], "stop_times": [668.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.753}, "reply_to": "14879__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_035", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.\nThis would be a little different proceeding, 94105.\nNow, Florida had not.\nNow, this case went to the Florida Supreme Court.\nFlorida had never ruled until the Dickey case went to the Florida Supreme Court of whether the state had a constitutional duty to bring an individual back from another state who is in some type of custody.\nIn Dickey v. -- the Circuit Court of Gadsden County which is cited in the brief, the, the Florida Supreme Court held that the State had the constitution of duty to bring an individual back to Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [668.525, 668.873, 671.556, 673.257, 678.174, 691.91], "stop_times": [668.873, 671.556, 673.257, 678.174, 691.91, 707.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.525}, "reply_to": "14879__0_034", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_036", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Isn't it true that they bring him back to the nearest federal penitentiary?\nThe federal Government does bring him and close to the county as possible and then let's the county come and pick him up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [707.025, 712.532], "stop_times": [712.532, 718.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.025}, "reply_to": "14879__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__0_037", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, sir, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [718.521], "stop_times": [721.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.521}, "reply_to": "14879__0_036", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_038", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And that could have been done --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [721.656], "stop_times": [723.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.656}, "reply_to": "14879__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__0_039", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That could've been done here even without the decision in Dickey versus The Circuit Court of Gadsden County, yes Your Honor.\nNow, the discussing the question of the prejudice in this case, we have not dwelt on this in any length because I think the decisions are apparent to this Court.\nThere's -- on page 17 and 18 of our brief, there are a number of decisions where there is shown prejudice to the defense.\nAnother argument may be made that assuming that all witnesses were present, would this still have been prejudicial in this case.\nWe contend it would've.\nWe contend that anytime there is a lengthy delay that the guilt determination process is eroded simply because of virtue of the fact that witnesses forget as the years pass what they're supposed to remember in order to testify to.\nAnd obviously, the guilt that obviously the right of cross-examination is lost to the defendant.\nThe trial itself literally becomes a mockery because the witnesses cannot recall events that had happened many years ago.\nNow, in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina, which was decided by this Court, the commentators have said that there has been no prejudice discussed in this case, but we do note that as noted by this Court in Klopfer that the delay which an accused is subjected to that his movement, his freedom of movement is curtailed, the suspicion that he committed the crime, that the community is actually interested in an early trial, and that these factors are sufficient among the others to show that there was prejudice and in this case to Mr. Dickey.\nNow, I would like to point out that the respondent claims that the petitioner, Dickey, did not comply with the Florida statutes.\nFlorida has on its books 91501 and 91502.\nIn 91501, if a person is free and he can demand trial in three terms of court, and if he complies with these statutory regulations and he is not brought to trial within three terms of court, then the charge is dismissed completely and forever barred.\nNow, 91502 says the same thing except for a person who is in custody.\nNow, the State of Florida contends that the petitioner never complied with these statutes and we will agree with that and there is no argument.\nBut I would like to point out to this Court that when the petitioner filed his written demand with the court having jurisdiction the first time it was laid, when he filed his second demand, that he was right on time but that court then said, \u201cWe have no authority to bring you back from another jurisdiction.\u201d\nSo he was neither fished nor found.\nHe couldn't get the benefits of the Florida statutes that which the other people who were incarcerated and present in that state were entitled to and who could've had a speedy trial.\nSo I don't think the argument that he failed to comply with the statutes is sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [723.331, 735.672, 755.544, 765.706, 778.374, 780.223, 799.802, 806.465, 818.822, 872.464, 882.492, 888.847, 911.785, 919.977, 929.448, 952.242, 955.023, 965.02], "stop_times": [735.672, 755.544, 765.706, 778.374, 780.223, 799.802, 806.465, 818.822, 872.464, 882.492, 888.847, 911.785, 919.977, 929.448, 952.242, 955.023, 965.02, 975.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.331}, "reply_to": "14879__0_038", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_040", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What is that, a waiver argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [975.931], "stop_times": [980.102], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 975.931}, "reply_to": "14879__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__0_041", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nWe're contending that there was no waiver here on the part of the petitioner because he filed his written demand, even though he didn't track the Florida statutes.\nWe're also contending that the state is contending that he got a speedy trial.\nWe're saying that an eight-year delay is not a speedy trial.\nWe're saying that the factors in this case of the dead and missing witnesses that the destruction of the notes are sufficient in itself to show a prejudice to the defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [980.102, 980.467, 990.883, 995.371, 1000.369], "stop_times": [980.467, 990.883, 995.371, 1000.369, 1014.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.102}, "reply_to": "14879__0_040", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_042", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Where was he during that eight years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1014.101], "stop_times": [1016.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.101}, "reply_to": "14879__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__0_043", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He was in federal prison Your Honor, Leavenworth and Alcatraza prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1016.261], "stop_times": [1020.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.261}, "reply_to": "14879__0_042", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_044", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "For what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1020.88], "stop_times": [1022.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.88}, "reply_to": "14879__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__0_045", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Bank robberies which he had pled guilty to in Florida, but they were federal charges.\nThe state has also raised a contention that he should not have applied or gone about raising the question of the right to the speedy trial after conviction.\nThe state is contending in their brief that he should have by the writ of prohibition.\nThe answer to this is that our office was appointed to represent the petitioner on January 23, 1968 at the time of arraignment, and the trial court at that time set the trial which was a matter of eight days later that we did not have the opportunity in which to raise these questions by writ of prohibition.\nNow, I would like to point out to this Court that already, the trial court had determined that they weren't going to answer the question of whether there's prejudice in the defense when he filed his first written demand for a speedy trial.\nNow, when this case went up to the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court had before it the factual situation that this man had not been tried in seven-and-a-half years and they refused at that point to answer the question whether there's going to be prejudice to his defense, always deferring back that when you get the trial, then the trial court can make this determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1022.256, 1030.839, 1043.862, 1052.754, 1077.159, 1092.294], "stop_times": [1030.839, 1043.862, 1052.754, 1077.159, 1092.294, 1114.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.256}, "reply_to": "14879__0_044", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_046", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "When was the first request filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1114.055], "stop_times": [1117.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.055}, "reply_to": "14879__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__0_047", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "For the speedy trial Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1117.062], "stop_times": [1118.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.062}, "reply_to": "14879__0_046", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_048", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1118.32], "stop_times": [1118.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.32}, "reply_to": "14879__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__0_049", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It was October 29, 1962.\nSo, it is our \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1118.724, 1124.629], "stop_times": [1124.629, 1125.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.724}, "reply_to": "14879__0_048", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_050", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Was he already in prison in Alcatraz?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1125.523], "stop_times": [1128.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.523}, "reply_to": "14879__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__0_051", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir, or Leavenworth, one of the other.\nSo, it is our position that the writ of prohibition route would have resulted in the same thing that this was too premature in order to decide the question of whether this defendant was denied the right of speedy trial.\nI would like to point a few other matters.\nThe state has alleged that one of the witnesses, Mary McCalcline was not called as a witness at this trial.\nI don't think this was known to counsel for the respondent, but that she had died in 1960.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1128.177, 1132.41, 1146.89, 1152.305, 1161.493], "stop_times": [1132.41, 1146.89, 1152.305, 1161.493, 1172.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.177}, "reply_to": "14879__0_050", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_052", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That wasn't the sister to whom he allegedly made a telephone call?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1172.766], "stop_times": [1175.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.766}, "reply_to": "14879__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__0_053", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.\nThat was the one which the counsel refers to as the woman who was with him the night that they were supposed to be in Waycross, Georgia, or \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1175.76, 1177.125], "stop_times": [1177.125, 1196.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.76}, "reply_to": "14879__0_052", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_054", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Would you say that eight years is enough time lapse so that you wouldn't have to show any prejudice at all or prejudice should be presumed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1196.516], "stop_times": [1208.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.516}, "reply_to": "14879__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__0_055", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Your Honor, I think \u2013- yes sir.\nI think you can almost say that in every case that there is some inherent prejudice in extremely long delay.\nEven assuming that every witness was there, even assuming that the documentary evidence was there.\nI think it's inherent.\nIt's just a common known fact that delay itself fades the memory of people.\nI recall of a book by Mr. Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination, where a little mock scene was demonstrated before the class he reports and then different conflicting reports, and there, it was only a matter of a few minutes.\nFor the reasons \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1208.662, 1212.114, 1220.844, 1228.312, 1230.493, 1240.854, 1259.554], "stop_times": [1212.114, 1220.844, 1228.312, 1230.493, 1240.854, 1259.554, 1262.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.662}, "reply_to": "14879__0_054", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_056", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What do you suppose that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1262.473], "stop_times": [1265.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.473}, "reply_to": "14879__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__0_057", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Your Honor \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1265.886], "stop_times": [1267.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1265.886}, "reply_to": "14879__0_056", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_058", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It doesn't reveal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1267.036], "stop_times": [1272.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.036}, "reply_to": "14879__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__0_059", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It really doesn't because most of the commentators have said that the benefit ignores to the defendant.\nI think this is erroneous.\nOnce you get down the line, you're taking a gamble.\nThey can ignore to the detriment of either the defendant or to the prosecution.\nWell, if it adored to him, obviously -\u2013 let's assume that he would go for the not guilty type of situation, but in that case looking at it in its broad perspective, I don't think the answer justice are concerned.\nWe're not getting a fair trial at that point.\nIt suddenly becomes a gamble.\nWho can outlast who?\nWhether the prosecution can outlast the defendant or the defendant can outlast the prosecution?\nSo you're literally losing that, the way I understand, the adversary system, the very vital thing that this is an attempt to get at the truth.\nAnd when you get the situation there, I don't think you can say either side about this Your Honor.\nNow for those reasons, request of the District Court of Appeal decision be reversed and that the petitioner be discharged from this conviction in sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1272.416, 1279.373, 1281.712, 1285.734, 1297.492, 1314.096, 1316.043, 1317.989, 1319.23, 1324.854, 1334.571, 1340.982], "stop_times": [1279.373, 1281.712, 1285.734, 1297.492, 1314.096, 1316.043, 1317.989, 1319.23, 1324.854, 1334.571, 1340.982, 1353.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.416}, "reply_to": "14879__0_058", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__0_060", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Mr. Georgieff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1353.434], "stop_times": [1356.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.434}, "reply_to": "14879__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_000", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1356.632], "stop_times": [1358.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1356.632}, "reply_to": "14879__0_060", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_001", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Would you help me write at the outsets if you could, just some sort you got the fact picture before us.\nIf you'd suggest what to -\u2013 what reasons that were, if any impediments that were at Florida in getting this man out of the penitentiary and bringing him back for trial.\nDid Florida try to do in and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1358.83, 1363.567, 1375.848], "stop_times": [1363.567, 1375.848, 1378.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.83}, "reply_to": "14879__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_002", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1378.226], "stop_times": [1378.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1378.226}, "reply_to": "14879__1_001", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_003", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Were they frustrated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1378.302], "stop_times": [1380.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.302}, "reply_to": "14879__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_004", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No.\nThey made no attempt whatsoever to secure his return until after the decision in Dickey was rendered by the Florida Supreme Court, none whatsoever.\nAt that time, Mr. Dickey petitioned on a mandamus proceeding to say look, make it or miss.\nEither get me back down there and try me, or get this detainer off my back so that I can get parole from the federal authorities.\nNow, that's the posture which he put his pleading and in light thereof, they issued their opinion which is a part of the record here.\nOn that occasion, Mr. Hopkins, the State Attorney, secured an order to have Mr. Dickey return for purposes of trial.\nHe was brought back and as Mr. Buchanan explained, the results that follow did follow.\nNow on the first occasion when an attempt was made with the federal authorities to get him back, they complied and we did get him back, tried and convicted him and he sits in (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1380.592, 1380.851, 1390.897, 1397.269, 1405.095, 1413.17, 1421.39, 1427.14], "stop_times": [1380.851, 1390.897, 1397.269, 1405.095, 1413.17, 1421.39, 1427.14, 1435.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1380.592}, "reply_to": "14879__1_003", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_005", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "So, that's (Inaudible) had to have the authorities who tried earlier would've had been the same result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1435.45], "stop_times": [1441.95], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.45}, "reply_to": "14879__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_006", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes and back home again I guess yes, it does.\nNow, the question \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1441.95, 1444.853], "stop_times": [1444.853, 1447.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1441.95}, "reply_to": "14879__1_005", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_007", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Can you suggest any hypothesis as to why this was not done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1447.003], "stop_times": [1450.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.003}, "reply_to": "14879__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_008", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Only because there was no duty to do it constitutionally, either at the state or federal level.\nUntil Dickey in Florida and Klopfer here, there was never any commandment that you do this.\nNow, there were times when you approved cases in which a complaint was made regarding a speedy trial at the federal level.\nThere were times when you disapproved them, but you never did it under a constitutional mandate.\nFlorida never did it until Dickey, and that's why I took the position of Judge Taylor to whom these complaints were brought, and I call them complaints because they weren't demands for a speedy trial.\nI call them complaints and I say that he was not in error is because as occurred with Gideon, many people bore the brunt of that who perhaps properly didn't deserve it.\nNow, that's neither here or there; it's done.\nBut it's a little unfair to say to somebody you should've done this because you were compelled by law to do it when even you haven't said that that was the case.\nNow, I am sure that Judge Taylor doesn't need my personal protection, don't misunderstand, but if we're talking about the man having a right, I say that it came into being first when you rendered your decision in Klopfer and then when Dickey acknowledged that out of our Supreme Court said now in light of Klopfer, it is now a situation where when you do make a demand, we are saying \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1450.44, 1455.627, 1462.654, 1471.345, 1475.965, 1486.998, 1498.952, 1501.361, 1510.012], "stop_times": [1455.627, 1462.654, 1471.345, 1475.965, 1486.998, 1498.952, 1501.361, 1510.012, 1533.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1450.44}, "reply_to": "14879__1_007", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_009", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What year did we decided about this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1533.949], "stop_times": [1535.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.949}, "reply_to": "14879__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_010", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "'68.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1535.567], "stop_times": [1537.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1535.567}, "reply_to": "14879__1_009", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_011", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "'68?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1537.343], "stop_times": [1538.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.343}, "reply_to": "14879__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_012", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1538.134], "stop_times": [1538.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1538.134}, "reply_to": "14879__1_011", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_013", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is this the fact of the argument that the Klopfer should not be retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1538.546], "stop_times": [1542.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.546}, "reply_to": "14879__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_014", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1542.511], "stop_times": [1543.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1542.511}, "reply_to": "14879__1_013", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_015", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1543.293], "stop_times": [1543.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.293}, "reply_to": "14879__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_016", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh yes.\nI don't have to mislead you about that.\nI can't hide behind it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1543.778, 1544.733, 1546.14], "stop_times": [1544.733, 1546.14, 1547.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1543.778}, "reply_to": "14879__1_015", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_017", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Now, if there was any such thing as a due process, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1547.054], "stop_times": [1550.689], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.054}, "reply_to": "14879__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_018", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, I can't say that Mr. Justice Harlan because how do I explain those situations in which you did grant relief before Klopfer you see?\nNow, let me put it this way, suppose we have a gross situation of a man who committed a crime some 20 odd years ago and through some dodge of one kind or another, and he lived in asylum pure life and between it, it was brought to you on very painful circumstances.\nI remember of myself from losses that I've suffered here myself that as often is not these things have an effect on the decision making process.\nAfter all, when it is a gross situation, the state is fair game and perhaps they should be since they do have the power.\nBut when you do have situations like that, you haven't backed away from it.\nI simply submit that Klopfer was not retroactive and ought not to be because if we don't go to that situation, then the situation becomes one in which everybody will say, \u201cWell now look, you got me in jail as a fourth time loser and the last three times, it was four-and-a-half years before they tried me.\nI have a right to be out and you've got to remove the stigma, the fourth time loser, and the life sentence by the way, which is enhanced penalty in Florida.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1550.689, 1558.616, 1574.527, 1584.398, 1591.389, 1596.975, 1615.88], "stop_times": [1558.616, 1574.527, 1584.398, 1591.389, 1596.975, 1615.88, 1623.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1550.689}, "reply_to": "14879__1_017", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_019", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "There wouldn't be this case because he asked eight years, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1623.377], "stop_times": [1628.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.377}, "reply_to": "14879__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_020", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, counsel says he asked and it may be that you'll decide that he did.\nI contend that he did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1628.046, 1631.468], "stop_times": [1631.468, 1632.967], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.046}, "reply_to": "14879__1_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_021", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is it in \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1632.967], "stop_times": [1634.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.967}, "reply_to": "14879__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_022", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Didn't the judge say that I will not do this because you have absented yourself from the state voluntarily?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1634.869], "stop_times": [1641.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.869}, "reply_to": "14879__1_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_023", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That was a part of the order Mr. Justice Marshall, but that's not the predicate for his conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1641.532], "stop_times": [1647.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.532}, "reply_to": "14879__1_022", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_024", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is there a record, the statement of why you requested it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1647.074], "stop_times": [1651.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.074}, "reply_to": "14879__1_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_025", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I beg your pardon, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1651.346], "stop_times": [1652.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.346}, "reply_to": "14879__1_024", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_026", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Does the record contain a written request from him for a trial at any time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1652.566], "stop_times": [1658.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.566}, "reply_to": "14879__1_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_027", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It contains three writings Mr. Justice Black and I don't call them demands because I don't think they are.\nIt contains \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1658.122, 1664.682], "stop_times": [1664.682, 1664.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.122}, "reply_to": "14879__1_026", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_028", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "They are all requests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1664.754], "stop_times": [1666.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.754}, "reply_to": "14879__1_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_029", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No.\nHe puts it in the alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1666.914, 1667.956], "stop_times": [1667.956, 1669.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.914}, "reply_to": "14879__1_028", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_030", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What is his alternative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1669.716], "stop_times": [1670.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.716}, "reply_to": "14879__1_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_031", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Bring me back or take away the detainer, one of them he says, \u201cTry me or release me.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1670.747], "stop_times": [1676.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.747}, "reply_to": "14879__1_030", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_032", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Where is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1676.592], "stop_times": [1687.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.592}, "reply_to": "14879__1_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_033", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "On page 9 of the appendix Mr. Justice Black, the next to the last paragraph reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1687.7], "stop_times": [1695.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.7}, "reply_to": "14879__1_032", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_034", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is that the only one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1695.598], "stop_times": [1696.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.598}, "reply_to": "14879__1_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_035", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, that's the one that would be pertinent to your inquiry, I think.\nI'll read you the others if you like.\nYour petitioner now moves and phrases honorable court to cause petitioner to be brought to appear before it by means of the proper process of the law, namely a writ arising out of this Court ordering petitioner before it for a trial by jury or that an order be issued dismissing said charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1696.833, 1699.821, 1702.882], "stop_times": [1699.821, 1702.882, 1718.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.833}, "reply_to": "14879__1_034", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_036", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What date was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1718.575], "stop_times": [1722.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.575}, "reply_to": "14879__1_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_037", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That was on \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1722.415], "stop_times": [1725.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.415}, "reply_to": "14879__1_036", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_038", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "'62 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1725.278], "stop_times": [1725.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.278}, "reply_to": "14879__1_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_039", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "29th of October, '62, that was his first one, 30 months after he went to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1725.675], "stop_times": [1731.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.675}, "reply_to": "14879__1_038", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_040", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is that fully prepared request for the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1731.176], "stop_times": [1733.194], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.176}, "reply_to": "14879__1_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_041", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I beg your pardon, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1733.194], "stop_times": [1733.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.194}, "reply_to": "14879__1_040", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_042", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is that fully prepared request for the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1733.864], "stop_times": [1736.694], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.864}, "reply_to": "14879__1_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_043", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1736.694], "stop_times": [1737.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.694}, "reply_to": "14879__1_042", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_044", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I thought you said that you didn't have any request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1737.529], "stop_times": [1740.671], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.529}, "reply_to": "14879__1_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_045", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I said there was one of the three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1740.671], "stop_times": [1743.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.671}, "reply_to": "14879__1_044", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_046", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "How about the one in '55?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1743.031], "stop_times": [1745.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.031}, "reply_to": "14879__1_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_047", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "'55?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1745.513], "stop_times": [1746.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.513}, "reply_to": "14879__1_046", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_048", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1746.275], "stop_times": [1749.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.275}, "reply_to": "14879__1_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_049", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "This didn't occur until 1960 sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1749.192], "stop_times": [1750.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.192}, "reply_to": "14879__1_048", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_050", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh no, that's right, 29th of October, '62.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1750.997], "stop_times": [1754.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.997}, "reply_to": "14879__1_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_051", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's just the one I read sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1754.079], "stop_times": [1755.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1754.079}, "reply_to": "14879__1_050", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_052", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes.\nWell, did you read that he asked that above named respondent to permit an immediate trial in order to enable your petitioner to properly protest his right as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1755.44, 1756.871], "stop_times": [1756.871, 1771.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.44}, "reply_to": "14879__1_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_053", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Except that it wasn't guaranteed until Klopfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1771.935], "stop_times": [1775.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.935}, "reply_to": "14879__1_052", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_054", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But he's asked -\u2013 if this is the way he's asked, was any doubt that when you read this that he's asking for a speedy trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1775.192], "stop_times": [1781.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.192}, "reply_to": "14879__1_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_055", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well sir, now, I've got to be allowed to go back to 91502, and if I am, then there is considerable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1781.351], "stop_times": [1788.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.351}, "reply_to": "14879__1_054", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_056", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Really?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1788.065], "stop_times": [1790.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.065}, "reply_to": "14879__1_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_057", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "After all, let's say we have a paid defendant and he's hired counsel who's very expensive and very good and very efficient.\nNo Court would suffer the man that complained about a demand for a speedy trial unless he met the requirements of 91502.\nI submit that Dickey is not a super class citizen just because he didn't have a lawyer.\nNow, if we hold the pace --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1790.334, 1797.808, 1805.14, 1810.255], "stop_times": [1797.808, 1805.14, 1810.255, 1811.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.334}, "reply_to": "14879__1_056", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_058", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Where was he at 50 -- what was it, '62?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1811.051], "stop_times": [1815.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.051}, "reply_to": "14879__1_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_059", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He was in Leavenworth or Alcatraz, I'm not certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1815.474], "stop_times": [1818.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.474}, "reply_to": "14879__1_058", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_060", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, wasn't' one of them filed while he was still in Florida?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1818.313], "stop_times": [1820.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.313}, "reply_to": "14879__1_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_061", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1820.937], "stop_times": [1821.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.937}, "reply_to": "14879__1_060", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_062", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "In the federal penitentiary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1821.702], "stop_times": [1823.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.702}, "reply_to": "14879__1_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_063", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1823.093], "stop_times": [1824.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.093}, "reply_to": "14879__1_062", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_064", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Mr. Georgieff, did you say that's the only explicit demand for jury trial or at least that he made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1824.76], "stop_times": [1830.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.76}, "reply_to": "14879__1_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_065", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I think so, that wasn't an alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1830.452], "stop_times": [1833.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.452}, "reply_to": "14879__1_064", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_066", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What's this at page 17, this apparently is another petition being sworn to (Inaudible) in 1963?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1833.247], "stop_times": [1843.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.247}, "reply_to": "14879__1_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_067", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Alright sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1843.011], "stop_times": [1843.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.011}, "reply_to": "14879__1_066", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_068", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It wasn't the same one, wasn't it?\nTo be brought and appeared before it by means of proper process of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1843.498, 1846.048], "stop_times": [1846.048, 1849.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.498}, "reply_to": "14879__1_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_069", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He copied that paragraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1849.826], "stop_times": [1851.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.826}, "reply_to": "14879__1_068", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_070", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "-- with arising out of this Court order the petition of report for the trial by the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1851.074], "stop_times": [1855.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.074}, "reply_to": "14879__1_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_071", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He copy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1855.418], "stop_times": [1855.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.418}, "reply_to": "14879__1_070", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_072", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Put that in order the issue that this was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1855.885], "stop_times": [1857.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.885}, "reply_to": "14879__1_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_073", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He copied that paragraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1857.99], "stop_times": [1859.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.99}, "reply_to": "14879__1_072", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_074", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, he copied, he didn't lie, the second time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1859.673], "stop_times": [1862.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.673}, "reply_to": "14879__1_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_075", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1862.249], "stop_times": [1862.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.249}, "reply_to": "14879__1_074", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_076", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "-- explicitly demanded a trial or release, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1862.551], "stop_times": [1865.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.551}, "reply_to": "14879__1_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_077", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's correct.\nThat one was right on the book and on the first day of the turn, the first one was 28 days late.\nThe third one spanned 36 months before he made it after having made the second one.\nNow I ask you, he talks about prejudice.\nI don't mean to question you of course but I ask the question.\nWhere is the prejudice if he waits 30 months before he makes his first demand if the passage of time is what we're asked to believe as the predicate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1865.513, 1867.106, 1873.465, 1880.873, 1883.82, 1887.633], "stop_times": [1867.106, 1873.465, 1880.873, 1883.82, 1887.633, 1896.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.513}, "reply_to": "14879__1_076", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_078", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, if he got it then, he might not be complaining now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1896.341], "stop_times": [1899.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.341}, "reply_to": "14879__1_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_079", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That is a fact, and if he got the third time running, he certainly wouldn't have had any trouble coming here, or if he'd raised it by prohibition, he wouldn't be sitting in Raifordre for today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1899.602], "stop_times": [1911.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.602}, "reply_to": "14879__1_078", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_080", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He didn't know about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1911.728], "stop_times": [1913.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.728}, "reply_to": "14879__1_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_081", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Didn't know about what sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1913.291], "stop_times": [1914.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.291}, "reply_to": "14879__1_080", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_082", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1914.588], "stop_times": [1915.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.588}, "reply_to": "14879__1_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_083", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He had a counsel at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1915.902], "stop_times": [1918.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1915.902}, "reply_to": "14879__1_082", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_084", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Now, you speak --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1918.428], "stop_times": [1918.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.428}, "reply_to": "14879__1_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_085", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The counsel didn't know about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1918.727], "stop_times": [1920.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.727}, "reply_to": "14879__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_086", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "You're referring to the time factor counsel.\nI thought I remembered one English case which is cited in the Court of Appeals in recent years in which they held that two years.\nIt wasn't inherently oppressed at the time beyond which, there could be no delay without per se prejudice.\nI hear that you've got eight years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1920.762, 1923.175, 1931.284, 1945.143], "stop_times": [1923.175, 1931.284, 1945.143, 1947.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.762}, "reply_to": "14879__1_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_087", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, I understand it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1947.644], "stop_times": [1948.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.644}, "reply_to": "14879__1_086", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_088", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And does that State of Florida have any hypothesis as to why they could not have brought him back and tried him promptly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1948.389], "stop_times": [1957.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.389}, "reply_to": "14879__1_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_089", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well sir, I don't put it on the basis of that they have no way in which they could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1957.234], "stop_times": [1962.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.234}, "reply_to": "14879__1_088", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_090", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1962.86], "stop_times": [1963.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.86}, "reply_to": "14879__1_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_091", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Obviously, if they didn't, we wouldn't even be here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1963.028], "stop_times": [1965.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.028}, "reply_to": "14879__1_090", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_092", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh, but isn't -- apart from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and any in the speedy trial provisons didn't it just simply basic sound administration in prosecutions to try these cases promptly and get them out of the way?\nI'm frankly very puzzled by the delay of that length.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1965.674, 1981.798], "stop_times": [1981.798, 1985.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.674}, "reply_to": "14879__1_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_093", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, it depends on whether we call it a delay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1985.676], "stop_times": [1990.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.676}, "reply_to": "14879__1_092", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_094", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, eight years look like a delay?\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1990.877, 1992.684], "stop_times": [1992.684, 1993.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.877}, "reply_to": "14879__1_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_095", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, it's an interval -- it's an interval with which I would rather not be saddled but I am.\nI didn't make it just as Mr. Buchanan inherited the situation as it came.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [1993.073, 1999.158], "stop_times": [1999.158, 2004.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.073}, "reply_to": "14879__1_094", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_096", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I wasn't undertaking the tax you would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2004.373], "stop_times": [2006.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.373}, "reply_to": "14879__1_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_097", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2006.723], "stop_times": [2007.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.723}, "reply_to": "14879__1_096", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_098", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "-- either you could offer a hypothesis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2007.357], "stop_times": [2009.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.357}, "reply_to": "14879__1_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_099", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But perhaps, I can put it this way and make it a little more palatable, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2009.432], "stop_times": [2015.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.432}, "reply_to": "14879__1_098", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_100", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2015.735], "stop_times": [2018.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.735}, "reply_to": "14879__1_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_101", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "By all means, go ahead Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2018.568], "stop_times": [2020.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.568}, "reply_to": "14879__1_100", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_102", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What was the charge upon if he gets to Mr. Georgieff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2020.915], "stop_times": [2023.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.915}, "reply_to": "14879__1_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_103", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I don't know.\nThat's a good question.\nDecember 15, 1967 is when the information was filed by the State Attorney.\nThat means that it was tried within 55 days of that charge.\nNow, comes the question of what are we talking about.\nAre we talking about July 1, 1960 or are we talking about December 15, 1967?\nI cannot resolve that for you.\nAll I can do is tell you that if Dickey had been brought back in 1963, what would he have been brought back to?\nI'll tell you what -- award that had never even been served on him by the U.S. Marshal.\nNow, Mr. Justice Stewart inquired I think of Mr. Buchanan as to statute of limitations.\nWell, all the replies are accurate, except that when it's served, is when the thing goes into effect for purposes of tolling the statute.\nNow, they gave it to the U.S. Marshal.\nHe declined to take it at Marianna where they were keeping him as a federal prisoner on the Malone bank robbery.\nHe said, \u201cWait until we get him assigned to a federal institution after his plea.\nThen you send it in and, then we'll serve it on.\u201d\nLo and behold, that's what they did but nobody ever served it on him.\nThey simply put it in his file as a detainer and that made the predicate for the complaint that he wanted to get out from under that detainer and subject himself to parole if the federal authorities were going to give it to him.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2023.423, 2023.816, 2026.29, 2032.964, 2037.837, 2041.04, 2048.539, 2050.567, 2058.385, 2065.386, 2072.364, 2081.888, 2083.737, 2089.831, 2095.792, 2098.79, 2102.419, 2114.287], "stop_times": [2023.816, 2026.29, 2032.964, 2037.837, 2041.04, 2048.539, 2050.567, 2058.385, 2065.386, 2072.364, 2081.888, 2083.737, 2089.831, 2095.792, 2098.79, 2102.419, 2114.287, 2114.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.423}, "reply_to": "14879__1_102", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_104", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's right when he was taken about --when he was at Marianna, the state could have taken him then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2114.85], "stop_times": [2119.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.85}, "reply_to": "14879__1_103", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_105", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No, they could not sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2119.112], "stop_times": [2120.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.112}, "reply_to": "14879__1_104", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_106", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "With the permission of the federal authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2120.283], "stop_times": [2122.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.283}, "reply_to": "14879__1_105", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_107", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2122.468], "stop_times": [2125.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.468}, "reply_to": "14879__1_106", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_108", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2125.65], "stop_times": [2126.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.65}, "reply_to": "14879__1_107", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_109", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, because he was being held for trial by the federal authorities on the Malone bank robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2126.424], "stop_times": [2130.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.424}, "reply_to": "14879__1_108", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_110", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, where was he tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2130.956], "stop_times": [2133.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.956}, "reply_to": "14879__1_109", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_111", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "On that charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2133.283], "stop_times": [2133.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.283}, "reply_to": "14879__1_110", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_112", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2133.964], "stop_times": [2134.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.964}, "reply_to": "14879__1_111", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_113", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I would assume in Marianna.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2134.356], "stop_times": [2136.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.356}, "reply_to": "14879__1_112", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_114", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "After that, couldn't the state have asked for those crimes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2136.356], "stop_times": [2139.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.356}, "reply_to": "14879__1_113", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_115", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well now, they asked to serve the warrant on him Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2139.47], "stop_times": [2144.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.47}, "reply_to": "14879__1_114", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_116", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Petition for writ of habeas corpus and prosecute him.\nThey could have asked him right then and then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2144.47, 2147.723], "stop_times": [2147.723, 2150.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.47}, "reply_to": "14879__1_115", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_117", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But now, you're talking about within 10 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2150.014], "stop_times": [2154.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.014}, "reply_to": "14879__1_116", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_118", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I think speedy means speedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2154.525], "stop_times": [2157.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.525}, "reply_to": "14879__1_117", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_119", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, how about one day?\nI'm not being funny but really, we got a statute that says three terms of court, presumably unless you strike it down as being oppressive, if we meet that, we're at business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2157.374, 2158.338], "stop_times": [2158.338, 2168.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.374}, "reply_to": "14879__1_118", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_120", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "My point is, the old question was, you rely on the fact that he was taken out of the state by the federal authorities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2168.205], "stop_times": [2178.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.205}, "reply_to": "14879__1_119", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_121", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2178.135], "stop_times": [2178.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.135}, "reply_to": "14879__1_120", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_122", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I'm asking you, couldn't the state have said to the federal authorities, leave him here so we can try him on our charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2178.27], "stop_times": [2184.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.27}, "reply_to": "14879__1_121", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_123", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I understand sir, but they didn't because the federal authorities wouldn't even accept the warrant for service on demand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2184.998], "stop_times": [2192.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.998}, "reply_to": "14879__1_122", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_124", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "They don't have to accept the warrant.\nI'm saying, the local procedure which is set out in Smith and Hooey of how you get a federal prisoner.\nAnd it's undisputed, they were never asked for the federal authorities have turned the prisoner over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2192.369, 2194.253, 2201.36], "stop_times": [2194.253, 2201.36, 2208.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.369}, "reply_to": "14879__1_123", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_125", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, I'm stuck with the fact that that wasn't done no matter what our positions, where he becomes is what we did a constitutional deprivation of a right that you recognized in Klopfer or isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2208.677], "stop_times": [2223.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.677}, "reply_to": "14879__1_124", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_126", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, as I understand it, you allowed -- the eight years would allow that the federal feature took it out of the state and that's true among the 01 instead of 02, instead of 01.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2223.066], "stop_times": [2235.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.066}, "reply_to": "14879__1_125", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_127", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's correct.\nBut imply but, it would have been 02 all the same if he were a prisoner not in federal custody, it simply has to do with one at liberty or one in custody you see.\nAnd that my point that up because we have a case called Lloyd versus Grayson and it's possibly eight or nine years old, maybe a little older in which a man out on bond complained because he hadn't been tried in 25 terms of court.\nAnd they said, look man, if you didn't make a complaint about it, when you are out enjoying your liberty and the custody (Inaudible), you can't be heard to complain about it.\nI don't rely on that, you know, but the difference is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2235.911, 2237.229, 2247.67, 2261.113, 2269.997], "stop_times": [2237.229, 2247.67, 2261.113, 2269.997, 2273.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.911}, "reply_to": "14879__1_126", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_128", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Because here, he did ask three different times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2273.229], "stop_times": [2275.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.229}, "reply_to": "14879__1_127", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_129", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, but he did it badly and not in accord with the law.\nI've got nothing left but that.\nNow, either he is required to follow that or he is not, I contend that just because he is in a federal penitentiary, doesn't excuse him from complying with it, especially since he waited 30 months before he complained --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2275.722, 2278.537, 2280.886], "stop_times": [2278.537, 2280.886, 2293.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2275.722}, "reply_to": "14879__1_128", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_130", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What is that he didn't do?\nHe didn't come there in person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2293.919, 2294.883], "stop_times": [2294.883, 2298.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.919}, "reply_to": "14879__1_129", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_131", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.\n91502 says, within 30 days of the first day of each term of the court in which you're going to be tried, you file a demand for a speedy trial, serving a copy on prosecution for each of three successive terms, and if they don't do it, you're home free.\nNow, he didn't do that.\nNow, that's not an oppressive requirement, not of him or anybody else.\nNobody says you have to do it in beautiful words in this or that setting, just do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2298.088, 2298.534, 2314.893, 2317.967, 2322.25], "stop_times": [2298.534, 2314.893, 2317.967, 2322.25, 2326.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.088}, "reply_to": "14879__1_130", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_132", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "All that is to let this Court know that you are pushing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2326.699], "stop_times": [2330.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.699}, "reply_to": "14879__1_131", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_133", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No, the prosecution not the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2330.667], "stop_times": [2333.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.667}, "reply_to": "14879__1_132", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_134", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh, the prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2333.068], "stop_times": [2334.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.068}, "reply_to": "14879__1_133", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_135", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe court doesn't decide when he is to be tried, prosecution does.\nThe State Attorney has the option of doing it or not and the court can't force him to do it at least in Florida.\nNow, that may sound peculiar but in the last analysis, he functions pretty much as a grand jury does.\nSuppose they don't want to indict.\nNo court can make him indict.\nAnd that's how we have the peculiar situation.\nThat's why we have to have the individual advice of State Attorney or the solicitor as the case maybe.\nLook, I am pressing for a trial and I want it now or I want it out for a month, that puts him on notice, but that did not happen here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2334.027, 2334.99, 2339.478, 2346.648, 2351.762, 2353.461, 2355.569, 2358.299, 2363.723], "stop_times": [2334.99, 2339.478, 2346.648, 2351.762, 2353.461, 2355.569, 2358.299, 2363.723, 2371.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.027}, "reply_to": "14879__1_134", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_136", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, we had three notices, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2371.902], "stop_times": [2374.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.902}, "reply_to": "14879__1_135", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_137", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, spanning some seven years sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2374.232], "stop_times": [2377.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.232}, "reply_to": "14879__1_136", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_138", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2377.12], "stop_times": [2377.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.12}, "reply_to": "14879__1_137", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_139", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Spanning a total of seven years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2377.703], "stop_times": [2380.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.703}, "reply_to": "14879__1_138", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_140", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, spending over at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2380.255], "stop_times": [2382.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.255}, "reply_to": "14879__1_139", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_141", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That doesn't sound like the man is complaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2382.082], "stop_times": [2384.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.082}, "reply_to": "14879__1_140", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_142", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "(Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2384.083], "stop_times": [2385.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.083}, "reply_to": "14879__1_141", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_143", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2385.764], "stop_times": [2386.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.764}, "reply_to": "14879__1_142", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_144", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Who did they go to?\nWho did those notices --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2386.293, 2386.867], "stop_times": [2386.867, 2387.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.293}, "reply_to": "14879__1_143", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_145", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "They went to the Circuit Court, to the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2387.844], "stop_times": [2390.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2387.844}, "reply_to": "14879__1_144", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_146", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Circuit Court, to the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2390.841], "stop_times": [2393.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.841}, "reply_to": "14879__1_145", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_147", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's correct.\nIn all three instance Judge Hugh Taylor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2393.342, 2394.514], "stop_times": [2394.514, 2395.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.342}, "reply_to": "14879__1_146", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_148", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2395.756], "stop_times": [2399.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.756}, "reply_to": "14879__1_147", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_149", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nAnd I'll tell you why that's not the proper vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2399.112, 2400.314], "stop_times": [2400.314, 2402.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.112}, "reply_to": "14879__1_148", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_150", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, that's a proper one or not is in fact as good as the layman would know it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2402.763], "stop_times": [2406.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.763}, "reply_to": "14879__1_149", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_151", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, here we go.\nWe're saying that whether it's proper or not or whether it was timely or not, why are we bothering with answers, we're talking about eight years.\nWe could lay it on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2406.634, 2407.465, 2415.401], "stop_times": [2407.465, 2415.401, 2416.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.634}, "reply_to": "14879__1_150", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_152", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It was a signal to the court that he wanted a trial each time they heard from him, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2416.536], "stop_times": [2422.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.536}, "reply_to": "14879__1_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_153", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2422.729], "stop_times": [2424.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.729}, "reply_to": "14879__1_152", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_154", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And you say that the prosecutor hasn't control.\nYou say that there's been an inherent power and a corresponding duty on the court to see that cases are tried promptly no matter what the prosecutor does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2424.401, 2428.406], "stop_times": [2428.406, 2437.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.401}, "reply_to": "14879__1_153", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_155", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, I know of no way in which a charge can be filed by the court Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2437.821], "stop_times": [2442.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.821}, "reply_to": "14879__1_154", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_156", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The court has got the power but the prosecutor doesn't, he would just call him and say put this case down next term or I'll dismiss it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2442.313], "stop_times": [2449.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.313}, "reply_to": "14879__1_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_157", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well look, they can lean on him.\nOf course they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2449.558, 2450.652], "stop_times": [2450.652, 2451.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.558}, "reply_to": "14879__1_156", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_158", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And they do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2451.876], "stop_times": [2453.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.876}, "reply_to": "14879__1_157", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_159", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "On occasion, I'm sure that they have at least I know that I have been done and properly so most of the time.\nBut I don't back off on that.\nThe point is, here's the man complaining and he says, \u201cLook, I ought to have a speedy trial.\nThe first thing that he didn't do was to move forward when he could have.\nHe had 30 months within which he would have had 12 remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2453.213, 2458.215, 2460.655, 2463.993, 2467.171], "stop_times": [2458.215, 2460.655, 2463.993, 2467.171, 2471.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.213}, "reply_to": "14879__1_158", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_160", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But he did do it three times, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2471.151], "stop_times": [2473.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.151}, "reply_to": "14879__1_159", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_161", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well suppose Mr. Justice Black, he'd awaited 25 years to do it three times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2473.827], "stop_times": [2478.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.827}, "reply_to": "14879__1_160", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_162", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But he's got to do it at a certain particular date and certain that hour of the day and the certain day of the month?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2478.07], "stop_times": [2484.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.07}, "reply_to": "14879__1_161", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_163", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No, just within 30 days of the first term -- first day of the term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2484.101], "stop_times": [2486.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.101}, "reply_to": "14879__1_162", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_164", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Just within 30 days and then he can do it again, can he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2486.991], "stop_times": [2491.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.991}, "reply_to": "14879__1_163", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_165", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, he can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2491.799], "stop_times": [2493.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.799}, "reply_to": "14879__1_164", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_166", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Would you mind telling me when the warrant was sworn out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2493.11], "stop_times": [2496.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.11}, "reply_to": "14879__1_165", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_167", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "July 1, 1960.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2496.464], "stop_times": [2498.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.464}, "reply_to": "14879__1_166", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_168", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "1960.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2498.177], "stop_times": [2499.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.177}, "reply_to": "14879__1_167", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_169", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "June 28, I'm sorry and that was served on the first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2499.583], "stop_times": [2501.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.583}, "reply_to": "14879__1_168", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_170", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What happened to it then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2501.064], "stop_times": [2503.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.064}, "reply_to": "14879__1_169", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_171", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It was lodged with the U.S. Marshal's office in Marianna.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2503.393], "stop_times": [2506.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.393}, "reply_to": "14879__1_170", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_172", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "U.S. Marshal's office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2506.742], "stop_times": [2508.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.742}, "reply_to": "14879__1_171", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_173", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2508.022], "stop_times": [2508.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.022}, "reply_to": "14879__1_172", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_174", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And never was filed in the state court of it, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2508.963], "stop_times": [2513.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.963}, "reply_to": "14879__1_173", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_175", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No, because it -- no return made on it had been served.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2513.425], "stop_times": [2518.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.425}, "reply_to": "14879__1_174", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_176", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Are you arguing that as a defense that it was not filed in the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2518.077], "stop_times": [2524.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.077}, "reply_to": "14879__1_175", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_177", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, I will argue anything that I think I can use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2524.151], "stop_times": [2525.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.151}, "reply_to": "14879__1_176", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_178", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I understand it but are you arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2525.955], "stop_times": [2528.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.955}, "reply_to": "14879__1_177", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_179", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No, I'll tell you this very simple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2528.185], "stop_times": [2529.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.185}, "reply_to": "14879__1_178", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_180", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What is your defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2529.723], "stop_times": [2531.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.723}, "reply_to": "14879__1_179", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_181", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "My defense is very simple that he has waived his right to complain about it because he didn't meet the requirements of 91502.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2531.801], "stop_times": [2540.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.801}, "reply_to": "14879__1_180", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_182", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "By filing a certain notice on the 91502.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2540.165], "stop_times": [2543.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.165}, "reply_to": "14879__1_181", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_183", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Three times running, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2543.382], "stop_times": [2545.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2543.382}, "reply_to": "14879__1_182", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_184", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Three times running.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2545.388], "stop_times": [2546.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.388}, "reply_to": "14879__1_183", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_185", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's what the statute says sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2546.383], "stop_times": [2548.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.383}, "reply_to": "14879__1_184", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_186", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "When he did it three times running, they ran over several years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2548.286], "stop_times": [2552.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.286}, "reply_to": "14879__1_185", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_187", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Ran over quite a few years and I might add --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2552.087], "stop_times": [2554.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.087}, "reply_to": "14879__1_186", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_188", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Where did you get discouraged -- gotten over the first 62 or 63?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2554.142], "stop_times": [2560.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.142}, "reply_to": "14879__1_187", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_189", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It's possible that he didn't want to go to trial until somebody else died.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2560.425], "stop_times": [2563.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.425}, "reply_to": "14879__1_188", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_190", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I asked you though, but suppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2563.791], "stop_times": [2564.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.791}, "reply_to": "14879__1_189", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_191", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2564.649], "stop_times": [2565.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.649}, "reply_to": "14879__1_190", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_192", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "-- why did you discourage --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2565.359], "stop_times": [2566.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.359}, "reply_to": "14879__1_191", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14879__1_193", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I don't think so sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2566.282], "stop_times": [2567.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.282}, "reply_to": "14879__1_192", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_194", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I guess the essence to your position as my understanding is that up until the proper, there is no federal right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2567.953], "stop_times": [2577.421], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2567.953}, "reply_to": "14879__1_193", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_195", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2577.421], "stop_times": [2578.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.421}, "reply_to": "14879__1_194", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_196", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That all he had up to the Klopfer was the state right and he didn't comply with the terms and state statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2578.856], "stop_times": [2585.484], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.856}, "reply_to": "14879__1_195", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_197", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2585.484], "stop_times": [2586.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.484}, "reply_to": "14879__1_196", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_198", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And then, following the Klopfer, your court moved into actual Klopfer --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2586.237], "stop_times": [2590.946], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.237}, "reply_to": "14879__1_197", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_199", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Virtually, immediately.\nThey acknowledged what you said in Klopfer as their predicate, said alright Mr. Hopkins, either make it or miss, he made it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2590.946, 2592.924], "stop_times": [2592.924, 2600.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.946}, "reply_to": "14879__1_198", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_200", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "What did Klopfer hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2600.032], "stop_times": [2601.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.032}, "reply_to": "14879__1_199", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_201", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I beg your pardon -- well, it was literally an automatic reversal, you didn't discuss prejudice.\nHe said I would have to assume that you're talking about the delay of time.\nIt becomes a commandment under the Sixth Amendment.\nWhat you did is extended protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2601.634, 2605.795, 2609.754, 2612.221], "stop_times": [2605.795, 2609.754, 2612.221, 2613.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.634}, "reply_to": "14879__1_200", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_202", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "But the Sixth Amendment was in effect all of that time, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2613.691], "stop_times": [2617.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.691}, "reply_to": "14879__1_201", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_203", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2617.69], "stop_times": [2618.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.69}, "reply_to": "14879__1_202", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_204", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The Sixth Amendment was in affect at the time the warrant was sworn until he finally filed his last notice, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2618.642], "stop_times": [2628.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.642}, "reply_to": "14879__1_203", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_205", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well certainly, the Sixth Amendment was there, but I understand what you mean by in effect sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2628.199], "stop_times": [2631.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.199}, "reply_to": "14879__1_204", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_206", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, wasn't -- it was all in the book wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2631.9], "stop_times": [2634.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.9}, "reply_to": "14879__1_205", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_207", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2634.859], "stop_times": [2635.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.859}, "reply_to": "14879__1_206", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_208", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Your find is that although it was on the books -- it was on the books against the federal Government and not against the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2635.786], "stop_times": [2641.591], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.786}, "reply_to": "14879__1_207", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_209", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That is a fact and I think that is what I said in my brief that Klopfer makes no difference except as to those states which had no state provision regarding speedy trial.\nThat gave a complaining individual a right to come to you with, although the federal violation as you enunciated it in Klopfer.\nUntil you did, all that can be said is the Sixth sat there until you decided that it was going to be applied to the state through the Fourteenth.\nNow, I don't need to be evasive but that's what I understand you did in Klopfer.\nNow, if he didn't meet Florida's requirement at a time when he could have and secured his relief and didn't have the option of doing it under Klopfer because all of his moves had been made by then, then I submit that our court was not in error, and his demand for a speedy trial was made at a time when he had no assurance without compliance with the state law or guarantee under the federal that he was going to get it simply by the passage of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2641.591, 2654.011, 2662.015, 2671.401, 2676.113], "stop_times": [2654.011, 2662.015, 2671.401, 2676.113, 2702.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.591}, "reply_to": "14879__1_208", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_210", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "You have a point, the judge never mentioned the fact that this piece of paper didn't comply with the Florida rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2702.235], "stop_times": [2709.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.235}, "reply_to": "14879__1_209", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14879__1_211", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Once again, I would say like I did the last time I was here in November, it doesn't make any difference that he did or didn't Mr. Justice Marshall.\nThe outcome was correct whatever his reason.\nNow, I don't like to say that on one side top and bottom on the other, but I have to take the order as I can support it without the regard of what he said.\nConceivably, he could have said something which simply didn't make any legal sense and it might never less have been a good order.\nSo, very simply I would say, we talk about but Strickland and he talks about prejudice -- do we have to assume that if but Strickland was there to testify it, he wouldn't be complaining about the loss of memory?\nI don't think so.\nI think he waited and he waited conveniently.\nNow, his sister died --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2709.727, 2716.995, 2720.429, 2729.387, 2735.258, 2749.186, 2750.935, 2753.929], "stop_times": [2716.995, 2720.429, 2729.387, 2735.258, 2749.186, 2750.935, 2753.929, 2755.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.727}, "reply_to": "14879__1_210", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_212", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He sent these notices.\nHe didn't wait that long, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2755.173, 2757.678], "stop_times": [2757.678, 2759.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.173}, "reply_to": "14879__1_211", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_213", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Until his third one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2759.966], "stop_times": [2762.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.966}, "reply_to": "14879__1_212", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_214", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, the sent -- first and when was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2762.092], "stop_times": [2765.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.092}, "reply_to": "14879__1_213", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_215", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The first one was in '62, 30 months after he was jailed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2765.339], "stop_times": [2769.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.339}, "reply_to": "14879__1_214", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_216", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "About two years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2769.21], "stop_times": [2771.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.21}, "reply_to": "14879__1_215", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_217", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "About 29 months -- 30 months.\nSo, he wasn't so much interested in a speedy trial then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2771.87, 2775.354], "stop_times": [2775.354, 2779.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.87}, "reply_to": "14879__1_216", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_218", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, he asked for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2779.047], "stop_times": [2781.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.047}, "reply_to": "14879__1_217", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_219", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, but 12 months after he would've been out for (Inaudible) you see.\nThree terms the Circuit Court run 18 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2781.065, 2785.961], "stop_times": [2785.961, 2787.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2781.065}, "reply_to": "14879__1_218", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_220", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "If he had known the state law, he probably didn't know anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2787.622], "stop_times": [2791.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.622}, "reply_to": "14879__1_219", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_221", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2791.211], "stop_times": [2792.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.211}, "reply_to": "14879__1_220", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_222", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He probably didn't know the state law --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2792.304], "stop_times": [2793.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.304}, "reply_to": "14879__1_221", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_223", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He sure did know it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2793.512], "stop_times": [2795.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.512}, "reply_to": "14879__1_222", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_224", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2795.251], "stop_times": [2797.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.251}, "reply_to": "14879__1_223", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_225", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He filed within 28 days of the first and, then on the button on the second and almost did on the button of the third.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2797.201], "stop_times": [2803.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.201}, "reply_to": "14879__1_224", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_226", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Did he cite the state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2803.739], "stop_times": [2805.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.739}, "reply_to": "14879__1_225", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_227", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2805.406], "stop_times": [2806.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.406}, "reply_to": "14879__1_226", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_228", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "How do you know that he knew about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2806.94], "stop_times": [2808.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.94}, "reply_to": "14879__1_227", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_229", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Look, I'm assuming.\nI take the position that he did by virtue of the fact of the time of his filing, but I will go better than that.\nSuppose that he didn't know it, does he enjoy a better status because he doesn't know it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2808.994, 2810.335, 2814.67], "stop_times": [2810.335, 2814.67, 2820.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.994}, "reply_to": "14879__1_228", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_230", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, I'm just trying to get to how he knew it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2820.185], "stop_times": [2823.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.185}, "reply_to": "14879__1_229", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_231", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, he certainly knew enough to make a demand for a trial when whatever fashion he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2823.242], "stop_times": [2828.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.242}, "reply_to": "14879__1_230", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_232", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He used the words of constitution, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2828.89], "stop_times": [2831.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.89}, "reply_to": "14879__1_231", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14879__1_233", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh yes, but I don't think that that's quite enough until what you said in Klopfer.\nWe can always --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2831.226, 2836.092], "stop_times": [2836.092, 2836.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.226}, "reply_to": "14879__1_232", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_234", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Is that your position that this right didn't really attach -- put any duties on the State of Florida until the court spoke in Klopfer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2836.595], "stop_times": [2845.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.595}, "reply_to": "14879__1_233", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_235", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That's correct at the federal level.\nNow, in order for him to have a right to complain about a federally assured right to a speedy trial, I contend Klopfer, first put it into effect.\nIf we go back to Florida's time, then he didn't comply with 91502 and the court so stated in Dickey and just as soon as they said, now is the time Mr. Hopkins for you to move, he did move and they got him back.\nAnd 55 days later, he was tried.\nBut about the prohibition, I can't stress that too strongly.\nIf it was a fact that this man was not going to be stuffed with flagging memories or anything like that, why didn't he bring prohibition which is available to him?\nHe says that the result would be automatic, what was the point in bringing it?\nWell, if it is automatic, then that's exactly what he should have done.\nThere's no point in him sitting in Raiford right now under criminal conviction when he knew what the outcome would be and could come to you and say, well now look here, they denied me my prohibition, and on the face of it, I was entitled of a speedy trial because I made these demands.\nHe took a chance and he lost and he doesn't like it.\nThat I understand but it doesn't qualify him for relief under the status of the cases and existence of the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2845.696, 2848.255, 2857.753, 2871.346, 2873.944, 2877.83, 2888.053, 2891.285, 2895.843, 2911.863, 2914.088], "stop_times": [2848.255, 2857.753, 2871.346, 2873.944, 2877.83, 2888.053, 2891.285, 2895.843, 2911.863, 2914.088, 2921.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2845.696}, "reply_to": "14879__1_234", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_236", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Where is he incarcerated now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2921.627], "stop_times": [2922.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.627}, "reply_to": "14879__1_235", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_237", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Raiford, Florida State Penitentiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2922.898], "stop_times": [2926.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.898}, "reply_to": "14879__1_236", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_238", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The federal sentence is terminated in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2926.068], "stop_times": [2932.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.068}, "reply_to": "14879__1_237", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_239", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I don't know that it is terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2932.253], "stop_times": [2933.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.253}, "reply_to": "14879__1_238", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_240", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Your friend doesn't seem to agree with you.\nPerhaps, you will clear it that up later with him then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2933.758, 2935.362], "stop_times": [2935.362, 2937.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2933.758}, "reply_to": "14879__1_239", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_241", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "It's possible that they'll send him back for the federal penitentiary, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2937.514], "stop_times": [2940.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.514}, "reply_to": "14879__1_240", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_242", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And what was the sentence in Florida?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2940.859], "stop_times": [2942.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.859}, "reply_to": "14879__1_241", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_243", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I think he got 20 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2942.919], "stop_times": [2945.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.919}, "reply_to": "14879__1_242", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_244", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Do you think that if Klopfer had to come up on the books and (Inaudible), is there anything wrong keeping him still in the jail without being convicted and giving rise to any constitutional claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2945.883], "stop_times": [2957.236], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.883}, "reply_to": "14879__1_243", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_245", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "No sir.\nConsidering the majesty of their order in Dickey and I was on short end of that one, I can guarantee you that it wouldn't have been without regard to Klopfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2957.236, 2957.738], "stop_times": [2957.738, 2968.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.236}, "reply_to": "14879__1_244", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_246", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "That was all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2968.486], "stop_times": [2969.417], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.486}, "reply_to": "14879__1_245", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_247", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Oh yes.\nAll I'm doing is guessing -- I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2969.417, 2971.612], "stop_times": [2971.612, 2973.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.417}, "reply_to": "14879__1_246", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_248", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Your argument leaves out one very important factor and that is that due process right of this man to have a speedy trial or some kind of the trial that the state affords independently of Klopfer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2973.855], "stop_times": [2989.143], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.855}, "reply_to": "14879__1_247", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__1_249", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes, he did.\nAll I say is that we must measure it on the pan with all of what he did and all about which he complains.\nIf you take it isolated, of course he qualifies.\nWho wouldn't like to come to you and say eight years?\nCome on -- I think those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [2989.143, 2989.894, 2996.03, 2999.058, 3001.298], "stop_times": [2989.894, 2996.03, 2999.058, 3001.298, 3001.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.143}, "reply_to": "14879__1_248", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_250", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I think we have your point on that.\nWe have your point there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3001.785, 3004.725], "stop_times": [3004.725, 3006.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.785}, "reply_to": "14879__1_249", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__1_251", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Alright, I contend that the action of the District Court below should be affirmed or at least this case should not be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3006.085], "stop_times": [3014.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.085}, "reply_to": "14879__1_250", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "14879__1_252", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Mr. Buchanan, would you clear, where is the defendant now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3014.872], "stop_times": [3018.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.872}, "reply_to": "14879__1_251", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__2_000", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe petitioner is presently incarcerated at Leavenworth.\nHis sentence expires in 1971.\nHe was given a 10-year sentence to run consecutively to any presently existing sentences.\nSo, he will not be back in the State of Florida until 1971.\nI would like to make --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3018.741, 3020.673, 3024.158, 3027.824, 3033.647, 3038.969], "stop_times": [3020.673, 3024.158, 3027.824, 3033.647, 3038.969, 3039.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3018.741}, "reply_to": "14879__1_252", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_001", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "And then he will begin to serve --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3039.965], "stop_times": [3041.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.965}, "reply_to": "14879__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__2_002", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "The Florida sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3041.42], "stop_times": [3042.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3041.42}, "reply_to": "14879__2_001", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_003", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Nine more years minimum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3042.822], "stop_times": [3046.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.822}, "reply_to": "14879__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__2_004", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Good time but his sentence is 10 because the order read consecutively beyond existing sentence.\nI would like to clear up one point here.\nCounsel has made the statement that he did not comply with the statutes.\nThe way I read the order of the trial judge on December 1, 1962 even assuming that the petitioner have complied with 91502, this judge would not have returned him to Florida that it wasn't until Dickey versus the Circuit Court which came at and marked but in June 14, 1967, did Florida say, they created a third statute in the sense, and that statute was that people who were incarcerated outside the territorial limits of Florida, could be brought back in for a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3046.223, 3051.581, 3056.182, 3060.626], "stop_times": [3051.581, 3056.182, 3060.626, 3097.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3046.223}, "reply_to": "14879__2_003", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_005", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Do you think before that, this judge even if he complied with Florida statutory provisions would have said, well, later it will apply to you because you're a prisoner outside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3097.767], "stop_times": [3105.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.767}, "reply_to": "14879__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14879__2_006", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat is my position.\nCounsel has made -- in other words that he had counsel during this period while he was at Leavenworth, he did not have counsel.\nAnd for those reasons, I mean -- Your Honor, yes.\nIf this Court -- this is a fundamental right, if this court has said that the Sixth Amendment right is as these fundamental right to counsel, I think that it was always there Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3105.536, 3106.242, 3108.272, 3120.902, 3132.202], "stop_times": [3106.242, 3108.272, 3120.902, 3132.202, 3147.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3105.536}, "reply_to": "14879__2_005", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_007", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "So by that you mean it is retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3147.192], "stop_times": [3149.377], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.192}, "reply_to": "14879__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__2_008", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3149.377], "stop_times": [3149.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3149.377}, "reply_to": "14879__2_007", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_009", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Klopfer is retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3149.88], "stop_times": [3150.801], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.88}, "reply_to": "14879__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14879__2_010", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3150.801], "stop_times": [3152.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3150.801}, "reply_to": "14879__2_009", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_011", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Well, is it the Klopfer that's retroactive or the constitution itself in the sense that if Klopfer have not been decided, he had this right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3152.115], "stop_times": [3163.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.115}, "reply_to": "14879__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__2_012", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "He had this right, yes Your Honor, always.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3163.324], "stop_times": [3166.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3163.324}, "reply_to": "14879__2_011", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_013", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "I suppose that this is a semantical difference, but in this Court, it's an important --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3166.51], "stop_times": [3173.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.51}, "reply_to": "14879__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14879__2_014", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "-- I understand.\nI have no further --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3173.333, 3176.119], "stop_times": [3176.119, 3176.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3173.333}, "reply_to": "14879__2_013", "speaker": "john_d_buchanan_jr"}
{"id": "14879__2_015", "conversation_id": "14879", "text": "Thank you Mr. Buchanan.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_728", "start_times": [3176.96, 3178.918], "stop_times": [3178.918, 3181.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.96}, "reply_to": "14879__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__0_000", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Dutton against Evans.\nGood morning, Gentlemen.\nYou may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready, Mr. Evans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [0.0, 8.036, 8.919], "stop_times": [8.036, 8.919, 13.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__0_001", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger and may it please the Court.\nThis case presents the question of whether the hearsay rule is to be read into and equated with this Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\nThe factual setting in which the setting arose was petitioner Evans\u2019 trial for murder in connection with the slaying of three police officers in Gwinnett County, Georgia.\nThe principal witness for the state was Wade Truett, an accomplice who turns state evidence.\nTruett has testified as an eyewitness to all material details of the triple slaying.\nTruett\u2019s testimony is not here in question and I will not go into it in great detail.\nHowever, I do think it may be appropriate to touch upon the highlights of his testimony.\nAfter relating the essential elements of a car theft conspiracy, Truett testified how long with the petitioner Evans and one Venson Eugene Williams, they stole a car in Atlanta, Georgia.\nThe stolen car was driven to a rural location in nearby Gwinnett County where they decided they would change the license place-- plates and the ignition switch.\nWhile in the process of changing the plates and the switch, they were apprehended by the three soon-to-die police officers.\nUnfortunately, the youngest officer, while bending over the front seat of the car to examine the ignition switch, put himself in such a position as to enable Evans to remove his revolver.\nEvans ordered all three officers to raise their hands.\nThey were then disarmed and manacled with their own handcuffs.\nAt this point, Truett took the police car and drove it off into the woods for concealment.\nAs he was returning to the spot where Evans and Williams were with the three police officers, he heard what sounded to him to be-- he described it as a nickel pack of firecrackers going off.\nUpon his arrival, he saw the police officers on the ground still handcuffed together.\nOne police officer was making a peculiar sound.\nHe then saw Williams bend over and fire two or three more times into the police officer while Evans held the flashlight.\nTruett\u2019s testimony was corroborated by physical evidence as well as the evidence of other witnesses.\nIt is a testimony of one of the corroborating witnesses which gives rise to the questions which are presented to the Court today.\nThe witness in question is Linwood Shaw.\nShaw was a fellow inmate of Venson Eugene Williams in the Federal Penitentiary at the time Williams was arraigned for the murder.\nOn the day following his arraignment, Shaw asked Williams how he made out.\nThe rather spontaneous exclamation reply was \u201cif it hadn\u2019t been for that dirty SOB Alex Evans, we wouldn\u2019t be in this now.\u201d\nThe testimony was admitted over objection.\nThe Trial Court based its ruling upon the fact that the state, in the opinion of the Trial Court, had made out a prima facie case of an auto theft conspiracy and the statement was therefore admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule for co-conspirators, an exception which is provided by statute in Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [13.544, 17.224, 27.115, 38.747, 46.013, 52.035, 57.135, 62.334, 80.469, 93.799, 103.418, 116.739, 120.264, 124.322, 130.449, 142.101, 147.241, 151.373, 160.196, 167.855, 175.97, 179.24, 189.384, 195.007, 206.887, 210.115], "stop_times": [17.224, 27.115, 38.747, 46.013, 52.035, 57.135, 62.334, 80.469, 93.799, 103.418, 116.739, 120.264, 124.322, 130.449, 142.101, 147.241, 151.373, 160.196, 167.855, 175.97, 179.24, 189.384, 195.007, 206.887, 210.115, 230.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.544}, "reply_to": "15464__0_000", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_002", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Evans was tried separately--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [230.537], "stop_times": [232.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.537}, "reply_to": "15464__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_003", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [232.425], "stop_times": [232.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.425}, "reply_to": "15464__0_002", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_004", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "This is not a joint trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [232.672], "stop_times": [233.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.672}, "reply_to": "15464__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_005", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "In Georgia, when you have a situation like this, it is a matter of right that the accused can have a separate trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [233.601], "stop_times": [241.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.601}, "reply_to": "15464__0_004", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_006", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "That is, it\u2019s the right of the accused if he wanted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [241.227], "stop_times": [243.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.227}, "reply_to": "15464__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_007", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [243.099], "stop_times": [244.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.099}, "reply_to": "15464__0_006", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_008", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And so, Evans was tried separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [244.074], "stop_times": [246.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.074}, "reply_to": "15464__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_009", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "They were tried separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [246.895], "stop_times": [247.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.895}, "reply_to": "15464__0_008", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_010", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And Williams was tried separately?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [247.895], "stop_times": [249.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.895}, "reply_to": "15464__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_011", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [249.98], "stop_times": [250.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.98}, "reply_to": "15464__0_010", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_012", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And Truett was not tried at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [250.84], "stop_times": [252.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.84}, "reply_to": "15464__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_013", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Truett was not tried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [252.024], "stop_times": [253.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.024}, "reply_to": "15464__0_012", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_014", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "He turned state evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [253.803], "stop_times": [254.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.803}, "reply_to": "15464__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_015", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "He turned state evidence and there was a grant of immunity.\nThere was full disclosure of that fact to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [254.397, 256.988], "stop_times": [256.988, 260.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.397}, "reply_to": "15464__0_014", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_016", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Would you mind stating again what the exception to the hearsay rule was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [260.413], "stop_times": [265.461], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 260.413}, "reply_to": "15464__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15464__0_017", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The exception was that the state had shown a prima facie conspiracy to steal automobiles.\nThe rule in Georgia, as I think in virtually all other states and in the Federal system, is that the statement of a co-conspirator is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.\nIt was admitted on this basis, that it was an exception to the hearsay rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [265.461, 274.848, 287.432], "stop_times": [274.848, 287.432, 291.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.461}, "reply_to": "15464__0_016", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_018", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The statute to which you refer appears at the bottom of page 3 of your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [291.052], "stop_times": [294.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.052}, "reply_to": "15464__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__0_019", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThere is one printed error in that.\nIt should read \u201cupon the showing of the fact.\u201d\nI think in the printing of it, it came out \u201cfacts.\u201d\nIt should be singular of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [294.837, 296.26, 298.627, 302.606, 305.396], "stop_times": [296.26, 298.627, 302.606, 305.396, 307.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.837}, "reply_to": "15464__0_018", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_020", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "After the fact that conspiracy shall be proven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [307.086], "stop_times": [308.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.086}, "reply_to": "15464__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__0_021", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [308.549], "stop_times": [310.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.549}, "reply_to": "15464__0_020", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_022", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "How about the equivalence of that rule that this conspiracy exception continues after the crime has been committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [310.463], "stop_times": [323.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.463}, "reply_to": "15464__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_023", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThis is, of course-- I-- this is a distinction between what I believe is a majority rule in the states and the rule in the Federal Courts.\nThis Court, in cases such as Krulewitch, decided that the pendency of the conspiracy is at an end upon the last overt act.\nIn Krulewitch, this Court expressly noted that the view was to the contrary in many states, including Georgia.\nThe Court noted that Georgia\u2019s rule was different.\nThere was no criticism of the Georgia rule and the Court clearly, as I see it, indicated that it was ruling on a rule of evidence to be applied in Federal Courts and not a constitution standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [323.542, 323.888, 334.752, 345.786, 353.436, 355.601], "stop_times": [323.888, 334.752, 345.786, 353.436, 355.601, 366.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.542}, "reply_to": "15464__0_022", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_024", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "You know what the new code of evidence promulgated by Judicial Conference Committee says about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [366.667], "stop_times": [374.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.667}, "reply_to": "15464__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_025", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, no, sir.\nI\u2019m not sure what the new code on-- of the Federal Committee has to say.\nI know the trend in most of the model codes has been to either terminate, abrogate, or greatly restrict the present hearsay rule.\nThe trend has been against the exclusion of hearsay.\nThat has been the trend in most model codes.\nIn any event, this evidence was admitted.\nPetitioner Evans was convicted.\nHe raised the issue, among others, in his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\nHis conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and this Court denied certiorari.\nHaving exhausted his direct appeals, petitioner Evans turned to the United States District Court where he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus.\nThe District Court denied the writ, citing Wigmore to the effect that the evidentiary rule and the constitutional standard are not the same, and that the Confrontation Clause does not describe what kinds of testimonial statements may be given by a witness who is on the stand and is available for cross-examination.\nUpon appeal, however, the Court of Appeals took an entirely different view of the matter.\nUnlike Wigmore, unlike the District Court, and I think unlike the prior decisions of this Court, the Court of Appeals viewed the constitutional standard as one which incorporates the exclusionary rule of evidence known as hearsay, nor did the Court of Appeals stop where the generally recognized exceptions to the rule begin.\nTo the contrary, it said that, in the future, all stated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [374.936, 375.781, 381.167, 389.279, 393.304, 397.23, 400.236, 402.619, 407.037, 413.396, 423.827, 444.597, 449.741, 471.959], "stop_times": [375.781, 381.167, 389.279, 393.304, 397.23, 400.236, 402.619, 407.037, 413.396, 423.827, 444.597, 449.741, 471.959, 476.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.936}, "reply_to": "15464__0_024", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_026", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "What did Bruton hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [476.311], "stop_times": [479.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.311}, "reply_to": "15464__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_027", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "There\u2019s a very interesting footnote in Bruton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [479.494], "stop_times": [482.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.494}, "reply_to": "15464__0_026", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_028", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, yes, but what Bruton--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [482.546], "stop_times": [484.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.546}, "reply_to": "15464__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_029", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The Bruton, of course the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [484.345], "stop_times": [484.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.345}, "reply_to": "15464__0_028", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_030", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Gave the Confrontation Clause to statements of a co-defendant, didn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [484.465], "stop_times": [489.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.465}, "reply_to": "15464__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_031", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt was a statement of a co-defendant and it was a confession, if you will, of a co-defendant in a trial which we think is a situation quite different from this.\nAnd, Bruton expressly pointed out in a footnote to the decision, I think a very important footnote, it stated that the evidence there in question was not admissible under any recognized exception to the hearsay rule and, in Bruton, the Court went on to say that it did not mean to imply in any manner whatsoever that exceptions to the hearsay rule necessarily raise problems under the Confrontation Clause.\nIn so doing, it cited Wigmore, the particular section on which we rely in Wigmore, and it also cited the prior decision of this Court in Mattox in which we also rely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [489.841, 490.243, 499.244, 528.84], "stop_times": [490.243, 499.244, 528.84, 538.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.841}, "reply_to": "15464__0_030", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_032", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, Bruton at least said that, in some situations, the Confrontation Clause is not satisfied simply by confronting a witness on the stand, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [538.192], "stop_times": [550.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.192}, "reply_to": "15464__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_033", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI think there is probably some overlap.\nIn this Court, it is a difficult task, but I think the task for this Court is to delineate the scope of the Confrontation Clause.\nOf course, this was somewhat an academic matter prior to Pointer when the Sixth Amendment was first applied to the states.\nUntil that time, it really didn\u2019t matter too much to the federal criminal defendant whether his reversal was based upon a procedural rule of hearsay or the Confrontation Clause.\nIn any event, the Court of Appeals stated that, hence, for all state exceptions would have to continually scrutinized and re-evaluated and that the state exceptions would be permitted only where supported by salient and cogent reasons.\nBeing of the opinion that the reasons in the case at bar were not sufficiently salient or cogent, the Court of Appeals reversed saying that the Georgia statutory exception, as construed by the Supreme Court of Georgia and as applied under the facts and circumstances of the case at bar, violated Evans\u2019 confrontation rights.\nNow, in our brief, we set forth four reasons why we think the Court of Appeals was wrong and ought to be reversed.\nFirst and foremost, we think the Court of Appeals erred when it elevated that ancient and much maligned exclusionary rule, known as the hearsay rule, to the level of a constitutional mandate.\nThe view stated by Wigmore, which we think to be the correct view under prior decisions of this Court is that the constitution, does not deal with the questions of what kinds of testimonial statements must be given infra-judicially, this being dependent upon the law of evidence for the time being, but only upon what procedure shall be followed, which is of course a cross-examining procedure by the old-- which, as to that testimony which is required by the ordinary rules of evidence to be given infra-judicially.\nThis appears to be the view which this Court followed in Mattox versus United States where it pointed out that the Confrontation Clause was designed primarily to exclude ex parte affidavits and depositions, but not to go to the competency of testimony of a witness who does appear in Court and is available for cross-examination.\nI\u2019ve already pointed out that, in Bruton, the Court pointed out that the evidence there in question was not recognized by any exception to the rule and that it-- the Court intimated no view whatever that hearsay exceptions necessarily raise questions under the Confrontation Clause, and it cited a particular provision of Wigmore to which I refer and also to the Mattox decision which we cited in our brief.\nWe urge the Court not to read the hearsay rule with or without exceptions into the Confrontation Clause.\nWe think it is a rule singularly undeserving of the honor.\nIt is unknown-- as far as I am aware, in any system of jurisprudence other than the annual Jackson system, to the best of my knowledge it has been roundly criticized by every scholar of our system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [550.991, 552.678, 555.432, 563.366, 570.322, 583.298, 598.643, 621.004, 628.552, 643.049, 676.4, 698.388, 726.06, 732.965, 736.853], "stop_times": [552.678, 555.432, 563.366, 570.322, 583.298, 598.643, 621.004, 628.552, 643.049, 676.4, 698.388, 726.06, 732.965, 736.853, 749.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.991}, "reply_to": "15464__0_032", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_034", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, do you think that these two men have been tried together by Williams and Evans that if Williams\u2019 statement had been admissible at the trial, he\u2019d be happy to testify?\nI mean, an exception, would you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [749.961, 763.046], "stop_times": [763.046, 765.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.961}, "reply_to": "15464__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_035", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir, because I think that-- as I re--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [765.21], "stop_times": [767.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.21}, "reply_to": "15464__0_034", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_036", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Bruton just wouldn\u2019t cover this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [767.58], "stop_times": [768.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.58}, "reply_to": "15464__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_037", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir.\nI think Bruton applies.\nIn the first place, Wigmore and the other authorities usually distinguish between a confession which is an admission as to every material element of the crime and other admissions and, particularly, of course you have the situation in Bruton where the confession was to police authorities.\nI think it was a postal authority in Bruton, as I recall it.\nNow, we think that the situation respecting the confession, particularly a confession to public authorities is quite different from an admission-- actually, I don\u2019t know how much an admission this statement was.\nTo me, it\u2019s a rather cryptic statement but, presumably, an admission against penal interest at best.\nWe think the situation is quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [768.594, 769.071, 771.492, 789.155, 792.239, 807.779, 813.167], "stop_times": [769.071, 771.492, 789.155, 792.239, 807.779, 813.167, 815.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.594}, "reply_to": "15464__0_036", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_038", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, is this an argument, Mr. Evans, if Williams had taken the stand-- if they had been tried jointly and Williams had taken the stand and had testified as he did here and said-- put these words in Evans\u2019 mouth that Bruton would not have applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [815.445], "stop_times": [832.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.445}, "reply_to": "15464__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_039", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir, I don\u2019t think Bruton would have applied because, as I read Bruton, it applies to confessions and particularly confessions to police officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [832.045], "stop_times": [839.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.045}, "reply_to": "15464__0_038", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_040", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Let\u2019s put it this way then.\nWilliams did not take the stand but they introduced a confession of Williams against Williams which contain this statement of Williams about evidence.\nWould Bruton there apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [839.775, 841.02, 851.102], "stop_times": [841.02, 851.102, 853.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.775}, "reply_to": "15464__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_041", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I think it would possibly apply if the confession had been made to police officers.\nI think the distinction is this, Mr. Justice Brennan.\nA confession made to police officers obviously cannot be consistent with the conspiracy.\nIt is a negation of a conspiracy.\nIt ends the conspiracy.\nI don\u2019t think this is necessarily the same as a confession to a fellow inmate in a prison, who, one might assume, would not, as it were, spill the beans.\nI think there is a distinction between the two situations plus the fact that, here, this statement, by no stretch of the imagination, could be considered full confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [853.009, 857.804, 862.026, 868.02, 870.103, 871.605, 882.797], "stop_times": [857.804, 862.026, 868.02, 870.103, 871.605, 882.797, 891.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.009}, "reply_to": "15464__0_040", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_042", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "So Williams had told Shaw \u201cYes, we did it.\nI was party to it.\u201d\nAnd then had said what he did about evidence.\nBecause this was not said to a police officer but to Shaw, Bruton would not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [891.122, 894.694, 896.281, 899.199], "stop_times": [894.694, 896.281, 899.199, 905.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.122}, "reply_to": "15464__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_043", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Of course, this issue has never been decided.\nI personally would urge that rule.\nYes, sir, because I would urge that comes in the co-conspirator exception if it\u2019s made to a prisoner during the concealment period when the conspiracy is still in effect.\nIn other words, that is the distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [905.089, 907.343, 908.787, 917.875], "stop_times": [907.343, 908.787, 917.875, 919.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.089}, "reply_to": "15464__0_042", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_044", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Bruton didn\u2019t address itself to the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [919.366], "stop_times": [921.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.366}, "reply_to": "15464__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_045", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir.\nBruton--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [921.946, 922.647], "stop_times": [922.647, 922.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.946}, "reply_to": "15464__0_044", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_046", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "It saved it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [922.838], "stop_times": [923.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.838}, "reply_to": "15464__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_047", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Bruton-- as I read Bruton, it addressed itself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [923.827], "stop_times": [925.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.827}, "reply_to": "15464__0_046", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_048", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If the co-defendant-- if there had been a conspiracy shown in Bruton, then that would be a different matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [925.005], "stop_times": [932.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.005}, "reply_to": "15464__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_049", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If the confession were made, I would say, during the pendency of the conspiracy and if it were made to a person other than a public authority, such as-- I think you\u2019d have to-- you\u2019d have to get into the facts of the particular situation, but I think it would be possible that it would be admissible under Bruton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [932.523], "stop_times": [948.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.523}, "reply_to": "15464__0_048", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_050", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But what\u2019s the basis of the distinction, Mr. Evans, whether the confession is made through a public officer or to someone else, what\u2019s the basis for that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [948.583], "stop_times": [956.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.583}, "reply_to": "15464__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_051", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The basis of the distinction would be that, in a conspiracy situation, it is consistent with continuation of the conspiracy to have a statement made to another individual.\nIt is consistent with the continuance of the conspiracy.\nHowever, if it\u2019s made-- if there is a confession to a police officer, I think that is obviously inconsistent with the continuance of a conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [956.149, 966.916, 970.331], "stop_times": [966.916, 970.331, 979.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.149}, "reply_to": "15464__0_050", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_052", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Is there not also another factor that the police officer in that circumstance has a or is thought to have sometimes by some to have a special interest in helping to convict the man, whereas the co-conspirator would not be in that character?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [979.082], "stop_times": [993.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.082}, "reply_to": "15464__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__0_053", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Ordinarily, I would think it would be the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [993.474], "stop_times": [998.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.474}, "reply_to": "15464__0_052", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_054", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "What do you think the basis for the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [998.853], "stop_times": [1004.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.853}, "reply_to": "15464__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_055", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, the traditional view has been along an agency theory that when people are acting together to accomplish an illegal purpose that the acts and statements of one party are admissible in evidence against all other parties because they\u2019re working together as agents, and of course the law has always taken a view that there is something more inherently evil about a combination to commit crime than the perpetration by a single individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1004.06], "stop_times": [1032.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.06}, "reply_to": "15464__0_054", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_056", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "All that means is that you can describe the co-conspirator statement to the defendant himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1032.561], "stop_times": [1039.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.561}, "reply_to": "15464__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_057", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt\u2019s a rule of evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1039.106, 1039.467], "stop_times": [1039.467, 1043.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.106}, "reply_to": "15464__0_056", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_058", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And you don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything in the fact that there\u2019s some substitute for cross-examination in this exception maybe that there\u2019s some indicia of reliability so that you don\u2019t need cross-examination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1043.182], "stop_times": [1058.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.182}, "reply_to": "15464__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_059", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1058.437], "stop_times": [1058.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.437}, "reply_to": "15464__0_058", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_060", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Such as in a state it is made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1058.947], "stop_times": [1059.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.947}, "reply_to": "15464__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_061", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "In this particular state and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1059.942], "stop_times": [1061.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.942}, "reply_to": "15464__0_060", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_062", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "It\u2019s an admission against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1061.086], "stop_times": [1062.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.086}, "reply_to": "15464__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_063", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I think in this particular statement, to go into the question of trustworthiness which, of course, is one of the usual justifications for an exception to the hearsay rule.\nI think that this statement is probably trustworthy for several reasons.\nIn the first place, it is not a long narrative in which the danger of error in the retelling would be very great.\nIt\u2019s a specific response to a very specific question.\nNow, if the witness had testified as to a physical impression such as anger, flushed face, I think no one would question that that would be admissible.\nIs there any good reason for discriminating against auditory perceptions in favor of a visual perception when the statement is so brief, so short?\nI think not.\nSecondly, it is a statement which is against the penal interest of the declarant.\nThis is a statement which ordinarily would not be made, I think, unless true.\nFinally, when you compare it to the other recognized exceptions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1062.776, 1073.224, 1078.628, 1086.933, 1090.272, 1100.882, 1110.654, 1111.836, 1117.907, 1122.971], "stop_times": [1073.224, 1078.628, 1086.933, 1090.272, 1100.882, 1110.654, 1111.836, 1117.907, 1122.971, 1126.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.776}, "reply_to": "15464__0_062", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_064", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "So this is another exception entirely, isn\u2019t it, to the co-- in addition to the co-conspirator exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1126.133], "stop_times": [1131.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.133}, "reply_to": "15464__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_065", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir, but I\u2019m saying that-- I\u2019m saying why this particular statement in the case at hand I think is trustworthy, for what it\u2019s worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1131.924], "stop_times": [1139.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.924}, "reply_to": "15464__0_064", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_066", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Do you think Williams\u2019 testimony would\u2019ve been admissible?\nSay, the rule in Georgia were the rule in Federal Court as far as the co-conspirator is concerned.\nWould this statement by Williams to Shaw have been admissible anyway on the basis that it was a declaration against penal interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1139.614, 1142.276, 1149.098], "stop_times": [1142.276, 1149.098, 1157.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.614}, "reply_to": "15464__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_067", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I really cannot answer that.\nThat was not the grounds urged by counsel and, therefore, I can\u2019t answer what the rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1157.873, 1159.075], "stop_times": [1159.075, 1163.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.873}, "reply_to": "15464__0_066", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_068", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, your argument goes in that direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1163.073], "stop_times": [1165.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.073}, "reply_to": "15464__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_069", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "My argument goes in that direction for purposes of demonstrating, I hope, to the Court that the statement was trustworthy, only for a demonstration.\nI might point out that this Court has consistently recognized exceptions such as dying declaration.\nI would think the statement like this is at least trustworthy as a dying declaration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1165.394, 1174.356, 1181.381], "stop_times": [1174.356, 1181.381, 1185.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.394}, "reply_to": "15464__0_068", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_070", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But, Mr. Evans, hasn\u2019t this really boiled around an argument that any hearsay statement of which it can be said they\u2019re indicia of trustworthiness is admissible without regard to whether it\u2019s within any of the exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1185.313], "stop_times": [1202.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.313}, "reply_to": "15464__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_071", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, sir, if there is an error in hearsay, I do-- I agree.\nI do not think it necessarily reaches a problem with constitutional dimensions if there\u2019s an error in the admission of hearsay.\nOf course, it is always true in hearsay that hearsay per se relates to the declara-- to an out-of-court declaration.\nSo, to that extent, anytime there\u2019s any hearsay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1202.177, 1205.202, 1212.737, 1222.13], "stop_times": [1205.202, 1212.737, 1222.13, 1224.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.177}, "reply_to": "15464__0_070", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_072", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, the trend you mentioned earlier, to admit hearsay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1224.615], "stop_times": [1228.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.615}, "reply_to": "15464__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_073", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1228.853], "stop_times": [1229.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.853}, "reply_to": "15464__0_072", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_074", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I gather, it rests in part, doesn\u2019t it, on questions of the trustworthiness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1229.928], "stop_times": [1236.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.928}, "reply_to": "15464__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_075", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The trustworthiness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1236.079], "stop_times": [1236.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.079}, "reply_to": "15464__0_074", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_076", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "For liability of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1236.675], "stop_times": [1238.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.675}, "reply_to": "15464__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_077", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Trustworthiness and also the general feeling that, after all, the purpose of evidence is to shed light and many judges have written that they feel that the suppression of hearsay, more often than not, keeps light off the matter under investigation and that it causes more damages than good.\nIn any event, the test has been roundly criticized by all legal scholars and we feel that it would be a pity if the reformers have to fight the constitutional standard as well as what we think is far too many hearings of inertia.\nNow, while we think the primary legal error of the Court of Appeals was its equating of the evidentiary rule and constitutional standard, we feel that the far greater mischief potential in its decision was the test it set forth for review by federal judges of the application state exceptions.\nAccording to the Court of Appeals, no matter how settled a state exception might be, its application by a state judge in a state criminal proceeding is subject to reversal by a reviewing federal judge if the federal judge is of the opinion that the reasons in the particular case for the adherence to state law were not sufficiently salient or cogent.\nIn reality, this is just a pure second guessing test.\nThe entirely subjective nature of this test, we think, contribute only further to the lamentable trend for state criminal proceedings to be conducted as ping pong matches between state and federal tribunals.\nWe hope, first and foremost, that this Court will decline to elevate the hearsay rule to a constitutional standard.\nBut, should the Court disagree, we hope at the very minimum that the Court will provide some intelligible object of standards so that trial judges-- state trial judges may have some idea as to how to conduct criminal trials when the question of hearsay arises.\nWe think this much is necessary to the orderly disposition of state criminal trials.\nNow, I\u2019ve already dealt very briefly with the distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1238.058, 1260.457, 1274.734, 1297.684, 1320.911, 1324.497, 1339.41, 1346.786, 1364.037, 1373.496], "stop_times": [1260.457, 1274.734, 1297.684, 1320.911, 1324.497, 1339.41, 1346.786, 1364.037, 1373.496, 1377.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.058}, "reply_to": "15464__0_076", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_078", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "How would you take the situation that was involved in Pointer against Texas would meet with your-- how would that get into what you\u2019re suggesting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1377.62], "stop_times": [1387.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.62}, "reply_to": "15464__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_079", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Of course, Pointer-- the decision of Pointer versus Texas is perfectly consistent with the Wigmore rule.\nThe Wigmore rule is that confrontation relates to the procedure, by which evidence is placed before a jury.\nPointer involved a transcript.\nThis Court has always said that the fundamental purpose of the hearsay-- excuse me, of the confrontation standard is to prevent trials upon depositions and ex parte affidavits.\nI recognize that even to this rule, the confrontation rule, there are exceptions, but that is the purpose of the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1387.787, 1393.54, 1400.815, 1403.499, 1416.053], "stop_times": [1393.54, 1400.815, 1403.499, 1416.053, 1423.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1387.787}, "reply_to": "15464__0_078", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_080", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "To ensure that there\u2019ll be a live witness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1423.323], "stop_times": [1425.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.323}, "reply_to": "15464__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_081", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1425.484], "stop_times": [1426.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.484}, "reply_to": "15464__0_080", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_082", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Subject to confront--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1426.252], "stop_times": [1427.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.252}, "reply_to": "15464__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_083", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1427.993], "stop_times": [1428.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.993}, "reply_to": "15464__0_082", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_084", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Who would be confronted and cross-examined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1428.042], "stop_times": [1429.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.042}, "reply_to": "15464__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_085", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir, but not going to the question of the competency of this testimony.\nThat is the traditional, what I call, the Wigmore rule which I think is a traditional rule which this Court has followed in past decisions.\nIn Stine versus New York and said it would not read the hearsay rule into the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThere is of course the problem if we are wrong, if this Court decides that the hearsay rule and the confrontation clause are to be equated, you then reach, I think, the exceedingly difficult problem of how to treat long standing state exceptions to the rule, particularly this problem is acute where the state and the federal rule vary.\nThis is a situation with respect to the co-conspirator exception to the Hearsay Clause.\nI\u2019ve already mentioned that in Krulewitch.\nThis Court took the view that the conspiracy ends upon completion of the last overt act of the conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1429.365, 1432.59, 1439.595, 1447.347, 1469.014, 1474.613, 1476.701], "stop_times": [1432.59, 1439.595, 1447.347, 1469.014, 1474.613, 1476.701, 1482.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.365}, "reply_to": "15464__0_084", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_086", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, also, I-- perhaps I\u2019m mistaken, but my impression is that the rule doesn\u2019t come into play at all in the federal system unless the charge is a conspiracy charge and, in here, there was no charge of conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1482.622], "stop_times": [1494.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.622}, "reply_to": "15464__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_087", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir.\nUntil one year ago, there was no general crime of conspiracy in Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1494.872, 1495.313], "stop_times": [1495.313, 1500.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.872}, "reply_to": "15464__0_086", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_088", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1500.375], "stop_times": [1501.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.375}, "reply_to": "15464__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_089", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "It is an evidentiary rule, no question about that.\nFinally, I would say that even if there has been constitutional error we think, in this case it is, beyond all reasonable doubt, harmless error.\nThis man was convicted upon the testimony of Wade Truett, an eyewitness.\nThe record shows ample corroboration both by physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses.\nWe think that even under Chapman, the ruling of Chapman that the error here, if error existed, was harmless error beyond all reasonable doubt.\nI would like to save what remaining time I have for rebuttal.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1501.388, 1504.635, 1518.079, 1523.925, 1531.718, 1540.371, 1547.454], "stop_times": [1504.635, 1518.079, 1523.925, 1531.718, 1540.371, 1547.454, 1552.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.388}, "reply_to": "15464__0_088", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__0_090", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Mr. Thompson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1552.914], "stop_times": [1554.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.914}, "reply_to": "15464__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_000", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If it please the Court, I would like to, for purposes of placing this issue and where I can say it to be the context of the matter, describe what the Georgia statute is held by the Supreme Court and by the Appellate Courts of Georgia to mean.\nThis statute, as applied by the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Appellate Courts of Georgia, and if it\u2019s from the federal rule substantial and if as we submit from the rules of all of the states that we plainted with, the statute provides that once the fact of conspiracy has been established, the acts and declaration of all conspirators are admissible into evidence against each of them.\nOne of the flagrant things that\u2019s missing from that statute, as construed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, that is present in all of the other interpretations of similar exceptions is that the statement or declaration must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nThat is to say that where two, for instance, might conspire to burglarize a grocery store, if one of the conspirators were setting in the automobile outside the grocery store and the other one in it, I\u2019m satisfied that evidence as to the acts of each can be admitted against the other to prove the conspiracy itself and to prove the concert of action.\nLikewise, if some declaration was made in furtherance of the conspiracy once it had been established, that is, using a similar example, if one of the conspirators had been designated the function of going to purchase a gun and maybe the two of them went together to purchase it and one of them did all of the talking, the testimony with regard to what this man stated to the gun merchant would be admissible against both of them if the two were otherwise connected because these acts or these declarations would have been or could be construed to have been in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nNow, the Supreme Court of Georgia-- I refer to the Supreme Court after I refer to the Court of Appeals.\nWe have a Court of Appeals and a Supreme Court in Georgia.\nThese two Appellate Courts have, in the past, recognized the rule to be, as we have stated it, similar to the founder of federal rule.\nThat is, if the act or if the declaration were in furtherance of the conspiracy which have been proved, it would be admissible against any co-conspirator who was shown to be a member of the conspiracy.\nIn the older Georgia cases, we have cited some in our brief, have gone along with this rule but, somewhere along the line without ever overruling that rule, the Appellate Courts of Georgia have dropped the furtherance requirement and recognize only that if a statement is made during the course of a conspiracy during its pendency then it\u2019s admissible against all of the co-conspirators whether or not it was in furtherance of the conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1554.676, 1574.306, 1603.203, 1622.485, 1649.577, 1692.6, 1698.804, 1702.077, 1710.684, 1725.923], "stop_times": [1574.306, 1603.203, 1622.485, 1649.577, 1692.6, 1698.804, 1702.077, 1710.684, 1725.923, 1758.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1554.676}, "reply_to": "15464__0_090", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_001", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "How long has this statute been on the books?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1758.283], "stop_times": [1761.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.283}, "reply_to": "15464__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_002", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If it please the Court, the statute has been on the books since the Parks Annotated Code which is our oldest code, I believe, in Georgia.\nIt came from decisional law.\nOur code in Georgia, our Criminal Code, is based upon decisional law basically and it has grown from that, and this is one of the basic statutes that we had in the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1761.193, 1771.3, 1774.831], "stop_times": [1771.3, 1774.831, 1786.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.193}, "reply_to": "15464__1_001", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_003", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But this is an enactment by the Georgia legislature, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1786.109], "stop_times": [1789.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.109}, "reply_to": "15464__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_004", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, it\u2019s enacted by the Georgia legislature in this sense, if it please the Court.\nA Code Committee was appointed and I can\u2019t tell you when it was.\nIt formulated a code for the State of Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1789.028, 1793.578, 1798.387], "stop_times": [1793.578, 1798.387, 1802.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.028}, "reply_to": "15464__1_003", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_005", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "It codifies the decisional law in this area and then submits it to the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1802.372], "stop_times": [1806.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.372}, "reply_to": "15464__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_006", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And the legislature enacted it, more or less, in both as a code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1806.425], "stop_times": [1810.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1806.425}, "reply_to": "15464__1_005", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_007", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, the statute is written.\nIt is the conventional co-conspirator rule, is it not?\nIt is written and it\u2019s the palimony of the gloss, the judicial gloss is put down during the period of the conspiracy.\nIt runs to the point where the concealment period as well as the operational period of the conspiracy.\nIsn\u2019t that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1810.231, 1813.134, 1816.667, 1824.376, 1831.743], "stop_times": [1813.134, 1816.667, 1824.376, 1831.743, 1834.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.231}, "reply_to": "15464__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_008", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI cannot state-- I understand the Court\u2019s question.\nI cannot state whether it is the typical co-conspirator rule.\nI don\u2019t know of one actually.\nThe Georgia statute and the federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1834.167, 1835.497, 1838.362, 1842.577, 1846.283], "stop_times": [1835.497, 1838.362, 1842.577, 1846.283, 1849.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.167}, "reply_to": "15464__1_007", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_009", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I think the federal rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1849.498], "stop_times": [1850.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.498}, "reply_to": "15464__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_010", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Rules of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1850.193], "stop_times": [1850.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.193}, "reply_to": "15464__1_009", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_011", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "In accordance with the federal rule, statements of one co-conspirator made during the course of a conspiracy against the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1850.866], "stop_times": [1857.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.866}, "reply_to": "15464__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_012", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I believe that the federal rule includes and is made during the course of and in furtherance of conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1857.541], "stop_times": [1862.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.541}, "reply_to": "15464__1_011", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_013", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "That\u2019s hearsay during the course of it but, during the course of it it\u2019s, by judicial gloss, extended to the period of concealments of thought as well as the active operations.\nIsn\u2019t it true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1862.942, 1873.632], "stop_times": [1873.632, 1874.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.942}, "reply_to": "15464__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_014", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThe question of concealment is a second vice that we have not urged this boldly as we have the question of furtherance in this case.\nThe Court of Appeals recognized both of these problems in its opinion.\nWe were, at that point, dwelling on the question of furtherance.\nUnder the Georgia rule, of course the Courts have construed a conspiracy to continue so long as the co-conspirators are in any way attempting to conceal the fact of the crime.\nAnd, as we understand the decisions of the Georgia Court, actually up until the time the co-conspirators are electrocuted, so long as one or more of them deny the crime, we have taken the leap that the point have in our brief and in our argument not attacking so much that facet of the law, although we do attack it but attacking the facet that makes the declaration admissible although it not be in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nWe think that this is much more important for these reasons.\nWe think that a statement made during the course of a conspiracy which is not in furtherance of the conspiracy could be much more harmful than a statement made during a period of time when the conspiracy is being concealed if it were in some way in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nWe depict the situation there where, during the concealment period, the-- one of the defendants or one of the co-conspirators continues laying the groundwork for future evidentiary matters which would attempt further to conceal it or, for that matter, there\u2019s some act they would attempt to conceal it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1874.238, 1874.56, 1886.231, 1893.484, 1897.277, 1910.772, 1945.557, 1949.798, 1968.903], "stop_times": [1874.56, 1886.231, 1893.484, 1897.277, 1910.772, 1945.557, 1949.798, 1968.903, 1989.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.238}, "reply_to": "15464__1_013", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_015", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "What if this statement of Mr. Williams had developed in this way?\nSuppose in a fit of remorse after this offense he had slashed his throat or cut his arteries somewhere and lay dying on the floor of the cell and uttered these same words to either one of the co-conspirators or to someone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1989.744, 1995.846], "stop_times": [1995.846, 2015.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.744}, "reply_to": "15464__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_016", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2015.399], "stop_times": [2015.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.399}, "reply_to": "15464__1_015", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_017", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Would it be admissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2015.41], "stop_times": [2016.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.41}, "reply_to": "15464__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_018", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir, I think not.\nWe have there, as I see Chief Justice\u2019s question, the question of whether or not a dying declaration would be admissible, however, a dying declaration would not be admissible under even the dying declaration exception unless it\u2019s permanent to the facts or otherwise admissible.\nHere, what if he had said, for instance, that Evans and I had robbed every bank in the country?\nThis would not be relative to the murder issue and it would not be in furtherance of the conspiracy, and we submit that even as a dying declaration under the facts that the Chief Justice stated, that it would not be admissible because it would not have been in furtherance of the conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2016.785, 2018.817, 2035.687, 2043.336], "stop_times": [2018.817, 2035.687, 2043.336, 2060.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.785}, "reply_to": "15464__1_017", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_019", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, but that\u2019s-- well, the Chief Justice\u2019s example is quite a different and distinct exception to the hearsay rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2060.136], "stop_times": [2067.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.136}, "reply_to": "15464__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_020", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2067.025], "stop_times": [2067.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2067.025}, "reply_to": "15464__1_019", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_021", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "i.e., the dying declaration exception.\nIt doesn\u2019t purport to come with under the conspiracy exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2067.483, 2070.003], "stop_times": [2070.003, 2075.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.483}, "reply_to": "15464__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_022", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2075.511], "stop_times": [2076.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.511}, "reply_to": "15464__1_021", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_023", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And your answer was that would be inadmissible because of the Sixth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2076.208], "stop_times": [2080.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.208}, "reply_to": "15464__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_024", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir.\nIt would be inadmissible too for the reason that it would not be relevant.\nIt would not have been in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2080.625, 2081.44, 2087.556], "stop_times": [2081.44, 2087.556, 2091.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.625}, "reply_to": "15464__1_023", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_025", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, in the hypothetical, he-- Williams dying on the floor where he said exactly the same words as he said here, and if these words are irrelevant then the same words would be equally relevant, wouldn\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2091.712], "stop_times": [2105.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.712}, "reply_to": "15464__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_026", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, I think that\u2019s the very point that I\u2019m making.\nIt would not have been in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nWe submit that these were not in furtherance of the conspiracy and that would not have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2105.34, 2107.909, 2110.24], "stop_times": [2107.909, 2110.24, 2114.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.34}, "reply_to": "15464__1_025", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_027", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But the dying dec--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2114.187], "stop_times": [2114.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.187}, "reply_to": "15464__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_028", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "We are not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2114.729], "stop_times": [2115.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.729}, "reply_to": "15464__1_027", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_029", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But the dying declaration exception is a different exception, as Mr. Justice Stewart has pointed out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2115.109], "stop_times": [2121.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.109}, "reply_to": "15464__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_030", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWe would submit that if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2121.645, 2121.902], "stop_times": [2121.902, 2122.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.645}, "reply_to": "15464__1_029", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_031", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But is it any-- do you regard it as any more or less reliable than the statement made here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2122.883], "stop_times": [2130.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.883}, "reply_to": "15464__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_032", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Under the concept of the law, as I understand it, it has some reliability and trustworthiness because a man under the dying declaration statute does not make a statement until such time that he is in extremes that he knows that he is and that he is told he\u2019s about to meet his maker and he would not lie.\nThis is a theory of it.\nI think though we go that far-a-field from what we\u2019re talking about here, they-- we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2130.329, 2148.523, 2149.859], "stop_times": [2148.523, 2149.859, 2156.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.329}, "reply_to": "15464__1_031", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_033", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "You must necessarily be talking about here is not that-- you got to argue more than that the Georgia exception to the hearsay rule as a matter of policy and perhaps too broad.\nYou have to argue necessarily, since you\u2019re in a federal Court here, you\u2019ve got to argue that it violates some provision of the constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2156.301, 2170.439], "stop_times": [2170.439, 2178.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.301}, "reply_to": "15464__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_034", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "That is correct and we contend that it violates, of course, the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2178.4], "stop_times": [2184.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.4}, "reply_to": "15464__1_033", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_035", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Would you, in answer to the Chief Justice\u2019s hypothetical question, would you also think that the dying declaration exception, under circumstances that he described, would-- that the Sixth Amendment would prevent the admission of a statement made under the conditions he described?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2184.023], "stop_times": [2200.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.023}, "reply_to": "15464__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_036", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If it please the Court, I think that the exception as to the dying declaration is so well-established in our law, both in a federal and in a state law, that I would have a difficulty attacking that.\nI noticed in his argument the Solicitor General, of course, would do away with the hearsay rule.\nWe are familiar with the textual authorities that would.\nOf course, we would disagree with it but, in this situation, the dying declaration situation, since we do not have that case here, I\u2019m not prone to argue and I\u2019m not prepared to argue.\nI would say that I would not be on it as firm ground since the exception is so ancient and well-recognized.\nThe Court and, again, point to the decisions of this Court which we think are relevant, although all of them are not directly in point with the issue we have here.\nPointer has been mentioned and I would, just as not by way of refreshment as much as anything else, say that in Pointer, testimony of a witness given at a preliminary examination at a time when the defendant did not have an attorney present was admitted against Pointer on the trial, at the primary trial of his case.\nThis was admitted on the theory that the witness since left the state and did not intend to return to the state.\nNow, the Court held that this was a denial of confrontation.\nThe question was asked during the course of this argument of the Solicitor General-- the Attorney General with regard to the distinction between the transcript and the-- the transcript that was admitted and oral testimony.\nActually, we think it is none.\nThe Court did not point out in its decision in the Pointer case.\nAs a matter of fact, we would think that the transcript would be much more reliable than the oral testimony of one who heard the testimony of one who put the transcript in the form it was in, the Court reporter for instance.\nNow, in most states, I think in the federal Courts, that where a witness has since died and has previously testified and been subject to cross-examination, his testimony might be related during a subsequent trial to the jury from the memory of one who heard it.\nThis is a further exception.\nWhat I am pointing out here is that, in Pointer, we were talking about confrontation as we\u2019re talking about confrontation here, and it was not significant, we submit, in Pointer that this was a transcript as oppose to oral testimony.\nWe think the fact that something has reduced the writing, as in some distinction has been attempted by the Attorney General, has no significance whether it be oral or in writing.\nIt is a question on confrontation nevertheless.\nIn any event, that was the situation in pointer.\nIn Douglas, the Court will recall as Douglas versus Alabama cited in our brief, the Court will recall that the co-defendant was placed on the witness stand.\nHe was asked to-- some questions and refused to testify on the grounds that his testimony might incriminate him.\nAnd, significantly or interestingly, this situation was somewhat like the situation we have here.\nThe co-defendant had previously been tried and convicted in a separate trial from the time he was on trial.\nIn any event, the District Attorney was permitted to read to the co-defendant a confession that the co-defendant had given which involve the defendant on trial.\nAnd, as he read it from line to line or phrase to phrase, he would ask the co-defendant who was physically on the witness stand whether or not he had made such a statement, and on each occasion the co-defendant would state \u201cI refuse to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate me.\u201d\nAfter having this placed before the jury, actually not in the form of evidence, the confession of the co-defendant, the Solicitor or the District Attorney put a witness on the stand to prove that the co-defendant who had refused to testify have given a confession had it identified, but the confession was never introduced into evidence and indeed, under the law of Alabama, apparently it was not admissible.\nSo here, again, we have a situation where we have oral testimony.\nWe\u2019re not dealing with something necessarily physical: a writing or a transcript or a written confession.\nThe Court, of course, in that case held that the co-defendant, the one on trial, although the witness against him was physically on the witness stand, was denied the right of confrontation.\nIn Bruton versus United States, this was a Court-- a case that arose in the federal Courts and it\u2019s so recent, I\u2019m satisfied, that the justices remember the facts of the case but, in subsequence, a confession of one co-conspirator or co-defendant was admitted in the course of the trial under the then approved instructions that it would be considered only as to him and not as to the co-defendant that was mentioned in it but who did not get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2200.479, 2214.008, 2218.414, 2223.505, 2235.366, 2249.344, 2261.78, 2285.047, 2293.361, 2298.985, 2314.538, 2316.198, 2321.928, 2334.906, 2356.715, 2358.982, 2373.479, 2384.46, 2387.993, 2391.498, 2402.304, 2413.331, 2420.826, 2427.95, 2438.687, 2455.615, 2487.297, 2490.889, 2497.362, 2512.439], "stop_times": [2214.008, 2218.414, 2223.505, 2235.366, 2249.344, 2261.78, 2285.047, 2293.361, 2298.985, 2314.538, 2316.198, 2321.928, 2334.906, 2356.715, 2358.982, 2373.479, 2384.46, 2387.993, 2391.498, 2402.304, 2413.331, 2420.826, 2427.95, 2438.687, 2455.615, 2487.297, 2490.889, 2497.362, 2512.439, 2541.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.479}, "reply_to": "15464__1_035", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_037", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But wasn\u2019t it a co-conspirator, was it or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2541.712], "stop_times": [2545.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.712}, "reply_to": "15464__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__1_038", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2545.323], "stop_times": [2545.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.323}, "reply_to": "15464__1_037", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_039", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Was it a co-conspirator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2545.954], "stop_times": [2547.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.954}, "reply_to": "15464__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15464__1_040", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Co-defendant, as I understand.\nI don\u2019t recall whether it was a conspiracy issue or not.\nAs I recall Bruton, it was a confession of a co-defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2547.13, 2548.796, 2553.95], "stop_times": [2548.796, 2553.95, 2558.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.13}, "reply_to": "15464__1_039", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_041", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "As I understand your Georgia rule, the one at issue here, it really applies whenever there are co-defendants.\nThere doesn\u2019t need to be a conspiracy charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2558.914, 2567.992], "stop_times": [2567.992, 2570.322], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.914}, "reply_to": "15464__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15464__1_042", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "This is correct, sir, and I would get to that in just a moment.\nI wanted to get that into context of the decisions of this Court and there are only two others that I wanted to discuss briefly and one of them-- and Bruton is the one.\nI would state that, under Bruton, the-- under the Georgia rule, under the statute that we have here involved in Georgia, that the confession in the Bruton case in a Georgia Court would have been admitted without error.\nIt is admissible under the rule that we have here in question and we have, again, cited a case to that in our brief where a confession of a co-conspirator, co-defendant not on trial was admitted against the defendant on trial.\nUnder this particular rule, it said that the Court said in the Evans case and the one we have here under review, the Courts said under this rule it was a statement made during the pendency of a conspiracy.\nThe conspiracy contended until the men are finally brought to justice.\nAs long as one of them went on denying their guilt, there is a conspiracy.\nTherefore, this is admissible.\nEven though under Bruton and, actually, under the decisions prior to Bruton, it would not have been admitted in federal Court and we contend, under the Confrontation Clause, we have decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2570.322, 2574.567, 2587.341, 2605.548, 2624.195, 2637.111, 2641.32, 2645.339, 2647.186], "stop_times": [2574.567, 2587.341, 2605.548, 2624.195, 2637.111, 2641.32, 2645.339, 2647.186, 2658.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.322}, "reply_to": "15464__1_041", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_043", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Had the Bruton case been decided here at the time that this present case was considered by the Georgia Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2658.881], "stop_times": [2664.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.881}, "reply_to": "15464__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_044", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir, it had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2664.947], "stop_times": [2666.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.947}, "reply_to": "15464__1_043", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_045", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And it\u2019s--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2666.176], "stop_times": [2667.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.176}, "reply_to": "15464__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_046", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Excuse me, sir.\nI think that it had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2667.018, 2667.741], "stop_times": [2667.741, 2670.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.018}, "reply_to": "15464__1_045", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_047", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Do you remember if it\u2019s discussed and is distinguished in the Georgia Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2670.059], "stop_times": [2672.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.059}, "reply_to": "15464__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_048", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If it please the Court, I will apologize.\nIt had not been because I recall actually writing a letter to the Clerk of the Court calling the Bruton case to the Court\u2019s attention while this case was pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\nSo, it would not have been decided at the time the Georgia Supreme Court made its decision.\nAs a matter of fact, I might mention that this point, so fixed in Georgia law, is the concept of this statute as it is applied in this case and would have been applied in Bruton that I cannot get the Supreme Court of Georgia to even comment on the argument that I\u2019m making here before the Court today.\nI attack the constitutionality of this statute in the District Court and I attacked the constitutionality on the same grounds we urge here in the Supreme Court of Georgia while this case was on appeal.\nThe Supreme Court decided this Code Section and said the conspiracy was pending therefore, this was admissible and let it ride.\nOn a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court, I-- in order to get down to the real issues involved, eliminating argument on many of the other issues, hoping that the Court would comment at least on this issue, the Court denied the motion for rehearing without comment on the constitutional issue.\nIn any event, we submit that under Darden v. State which is cited in our brief, a Georgia Supreme Court defendant, the confession in Bruton would have been admissible in Georgia under the Georgia rule.\nBrookhart v. Janis, I believe, perhaps was the first of these decisions that I am in-- chronologically, that I have recited in the Court but, whether or not it was, in that case, the defendant had waived counsel and waived certain of the rights at the preliminary hearing and on the trial of the case in an effort-- well, not an effort that was made.\nThe testimony that was given at the preliminary hearing was introduced into evidence against Janis.\nThe Court, there, held that this was a denial of confrontation.\nJanis did not have an attorney or Brookhart, whichever one was the complaining party, did not have an attorney at the preliminary hearing and had not intelligently waived his right to cross-examination, as we recall that case.\nRoberts against Russell, which is also cited in our brief, merely holds that the Bruton rule is applicable to State Courts.\nNow, with regard to the Georgia statute in answering Mr. Justice Stewart\u2019s question, at the time this case was tried there was no conspiracy laws that was stated by the Attorney General, there was no conspiracy statute, general conspiracy statute in Georgia.\nOne might be indicted in a-- in this case, he was-- they were, in an indictment charging the offense of murder without the mention of any conspiracy.\nHowever, as the law have developed, the decisional law, again, that Georgia had developed, conspiracy, as we know it, was a rule of evidence and the fact of the commission of the crime could be proved by what the Court would call or what we might refer to as conspiracy evidence.\nIn the particular indictments in this case, no conspiracy was mentioned but the case was tried on a theory of conspiracy.\nI have already alluded to the federal rule.\nI had-- with regard to the federal rule of evidence in conspiracy cases, this is a-- the rule that requires that the statement must have been made during the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy to be admissible.\nThe Attorney General, in his brief, gives some recognition to the fact that the rule is this.\nIt gives lip services.\nWe understand it to the proposition that drew list that the-- in order to be admissible and to meet constitutional standards and to actually be an exception to the hearsay rule.\nConstitutionally exception, I might say, not a constitutionally provided exception but an exception which would meet constitutional standards that the evidence must be in furtherance of a conspiracy.\nOf course, we have submitted that in this case-- none of the facts of this case is no concept under which the statement under which the statement attributed to Williams could have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy or could have furthered it in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2672.721, 2675.263, 2688.638, 2694.905, 2715.689, 2728.693, 2738.849, 2760.354, 2777.393, 2801.725, 2808.748, 2813.648, 2827.389, 2840.686, 2864.421, 2877.078, 2896.992, 2906.387, 2910.859, 2931.901, 2941.929, 2943.283, 2956.645, 2970.684], "stop_times": [2675.263, 2688.638, 2694.905, 2715.689, 2728.693, 2738.849, 2760.354, 2777.393, 2801.725, 2808.748, 2813.648, 2827.389, 2840.686, 2864.421, 2877.078, 2896.992, 2906.387, 2910.859, 2931.901, 2941.929, 2943.283, 2956.645, 2970.684, 2986.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.721}, "reply_to": "15464__1_047", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_049", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "What is the purport of the statement as you understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2986.73], "stop_times": [2990.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.73}, "reply_to": "15464__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_050", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "It is-- as I understand the statement, it is an accusatory statement in the nature of an accusation and perhaps a confession as far as Williams is concerned.\nIt\u2019s a rather cryptic statement to admit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [2990.836, 3006.003], "stop_times": [3006.003, 3007.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.836}, "reply_to": "15464__1_049", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_051", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "It is.\nDo you understand it as implying that Evans was the ringleader?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3007.366, 3008.494], "stop_times": [3008.494, 3015.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.366}, "reply_to": "15464__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_052", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "He was either the ringleader or the murderer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3015.211], "stop_times": [3018.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.211}, "reply_to": "15464__1_051", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_053", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I mean the statement itself.\nIs that the-- is that its impact?\n\u201cIf it hadn\u2019t been for that SOB Alex Evans, we wouldn\u2019t be in this now.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3018.029, 3019.247, 3022.716], "stop_times": [3019.247, 3022.716, 3028.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.029}, "reply_to": "15464__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_054", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The impact is that he was the instigator of a moving party.\nI might-- I don\u2019t--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3028.04, 3032.179], "stop_times": [3032.179, 3034.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3028.04}, "reply_to": "15464__1_053", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_055", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "The other-- the evidence-- the other evidence was, as I so read it, while Evans was certainly a participant, I\u2019m talking now about the eyewitness testimony of the participant who turn states evidence, that while Evans was a participant, it was actually Williams who was the triggerman, isn\u2019t that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3034.021], "stop_times": [3054.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.021}, "reply_to": "15464__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_056", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "According to the evidence disposed on the record.\nWe might state that this is one of the-- it points out why we needed to cross-examine the offer of the utterer of that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3054.67, 3056.977], "stop_times": [3056.977, 3067.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.67}, "reply_to": "15464__1_055", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_057", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Could you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3067.44], "stop_times": [3067.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.44}, "reply_to": "15464__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_058", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Just what he did mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3067.786], "stop_times": [3070.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.786}, "reply_to": "15464__1_057", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_059", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Could you have called Shaw? Or, no-- Shaw testified, didn\u2019t he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3070.105], "stop_times": [3077.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.105}, "reply_to": "15464__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_060", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3077.088], "stop_times": [3077.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.088}, "reply_to": "15464__1_059", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_061", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes.\nCould you call Williams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3077.368, 3078.896], "stop_times": [3078.896, 3080.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.368}, "reply_to": "15464__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_062", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "We could have called Williams to the witness stand as a witness, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3080.165], "stop_times": [3083.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3080.165}, "reply_to": "15464__1_061", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_063", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "You had that right under Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3083.73], "stop_times": [3084.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.73}, "reply_to": "15464__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_064", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "We had the right to call him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3084.956], "stop_times": [3086.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.956}, "reply_to": "15464__1_063", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_065", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And you can call him on cross-examination, for the purposes of the cross-examination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3086.219], "stop_times": [3090.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.219}, "reply_to": "15464__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_066", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I might state in that connection, if it please the Court, of course he had been tried one week earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3090.64], "stop_times": [3096.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.64}, "reply_to": "15464__1_065", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_067", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And convicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3096.675], "stop_times": [3097.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.675}, "reply_to": "15464__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_068", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And convicted, and whether or not he would have testified, I do not know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3097.317], "stop_times": [3104.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3097.317}, "reply_to": "15464__1_067", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_069", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "But you had the, at least the power, the right to call him as a witness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3104.264], "stop_times": [3108.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.264}, "reply_to": "15464__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_070", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3108.316], "stop_times": [3108.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.316}, "reply_to": "15464__1_069", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_071", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And subpoena.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3108.819], "stop_times": [3109.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.819}, "reply_to": "15464__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_072", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "We had subpoena right.\nActually, we would never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3109.344, 3110.702], "stop_times": [3110.702, 3111.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.344}, "reply_to": "15464__1_071", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_073", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And did not exercise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3111.254], "stop_times": [3112.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.254}, "reply_to": "15464__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_074", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Do this by habeas corpus as a test as we can, but we wouldn\u2019t have that right.\nI\u2019m certain that it would\u2019ve been a void test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3112.585, 3117.026], "stop_times": [3117.026, 3119.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3112.585}, "reply_to": "15464__1_073", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_075", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And did not try to exercise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3119.128], "stop_times": [3121.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.128}, "reply_to": "15464__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_076", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir, we did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3121.557], "stop_times": [3122.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.557}, "reply_to": "15464__1_075", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_077", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3122.705], "stop_times": [3124.686], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.705}, "reply_to": "15464__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15464__1_078", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "There are a number of reasons.\nAs a criminal practitioner, I followed the practice not to use co-conspirators as witnesses in a case generally because I feel that a jury will not accept that testimony.\nCertainly, if they will not accept the testimony of the defendant himself, they\u2019ll not accept the testimony of Williams.\nSecondly, I was aware of the fact this was a well-publicized transaction in Gwinnett County, Georgia.\nI recognize the fact that I had an uphill struggle in selecting the jury to try my case and I was aware of the fact that 12 men had, only a week earlier, summons him today.\nI thought from a strategy from the standpoint that it would not be well to call Williams.\nI might add also that Williams has a rather wrong chi, if that\u2019s a good term to use, criminal record.\nHe could be very successfully impeached by use of his criminal record.\nWe felt that it would not be availing to use in both from a strategy standpoint and a practical standpoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3124.686, 3127.126, 3140.53, 3146.786, 3154.895, 3168.474, 3173.839, 3180.656, 3186.0], "stop_times": [3127.126, 3140.53, 3146.786, 3154.895, 3168.474, 3173.839, 3180.656, 3186.0, 3191.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3124.686}, "reply_to": "15464__1_077", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_079", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Could you have called him on cross-examination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3191.561], "stop_times": [3193.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.561}, "reply_to": "15464__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_080", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3193.73], "stop_times": [3193.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3193.73}, "reply_to": "15464__1_079", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_081", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "i.e., as an adverse witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3193.762], "stop_times": [3195.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.762}, "reply_to": "15464__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_082", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I would not have had that power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3195.555], "stop_times": [3197.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3195.555}, "reply_to": "15464__1_081", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_083", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3197.134], "stop_times": [3199.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.134}, "reply_to": "15464__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_084", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Mr. Thompson, what do you say of the state\u2019s argument about the Chaplin case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3199.244], "stop_times": [3203.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.244}, "reply_to": "15464__1_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15464__1_085", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "About the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3203.785], "stop_times": [3204.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3203.785}, "reply_to": "15464__1_084", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_086", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "On this area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3204.758], "stop_times": [3206.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.758}, "reply_to": "15464__1_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15464__1_087", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I wanted to get to that and I was saving that for last, and I\u2019m about to approach that unless the Court would like for me to approach it at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3206.136], "stop_times": [3221.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.136}, "reply_to": "15464__1_086", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_088", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Let me remind you, counsel, you have about only two minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3221.317], "stop_times": [3224.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.317}, "reply_to": "15464__1_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__1_089", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Alright, sir.\nI will make it in two minutes then.\nI would point out that what actually the state is attempting to do in this case is to get the Court to reverse Pointer or overrule Pointer, Douglas, Brookhart, Bruton, and Roberts.\nWe think that in order to rule as the state would have the Court rule.\nIn this case, it would be necessary for the Court to overrule those decisions to certainly diminish their effects from substantially.\nUnder the harmless error rule, as decided by this Court in Chaplin versus California, the Court would have to declare that it was a harmless error beyond reasonable doubt before that would be applicable here.\nThis Court is incidentally, as we understood Brookhart v. Janis, as we understood the code in that case, it said this error is so fundamental that it isn\u2019t-- the denial of confrontation is isn\u2019t so fundamental that prejudice need not be shown, that it will be presumed.\nThat since that time the Court has decided that, very recently, the case of Harrington versus California in which it held that the denial of confrontation to be harmless error, but I will hastily run over reasons why I think this is not harmless error.\nFirst of all, under Georgia law, in order for a conspiracy to be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the testimony by a-- an accomplice, I should say, the testimony must be corroborated.\nThis was a corroboration of the testimony.\nWe think that this tended to corroborate the testimony of Truett and, therefore, could not have been harmless.\nTruett was the only real evidenced in the case, what he testified to.\nUnder the evidence in the case, he had been given immunity from prosecution for triple murder also have been promised assistance in securing parole from a federal summons that he was serving and perhaps other inducements.\nWe think that this was a post case from that standpoint, and that shows testimony as to a statement made by a co-defendant might well have turned the tide.\nThe statement, as we stated, is an accusatory statement.\nWe are satisfied of that.\nThe state thought so at the time it brought Mr. Shaw from federal penitentiary in Atlanta to Gwinnett County to testify solely to this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3224.079, 3225.263, 3227.522, 3239.168, 3243.111, 3254.441, 3269.479, 3286.155, 3302.463, 3317.27, 3321.117, 3328.682, 3334.062, 3348.398, 3359.602, 3362.917, 3364.61], "stop_times": [3225.263, 3227.522, 3239.168, 3243.111, 3254.441, 3269.479, 3286.155, 3302.463, 3317.27, 3321.117, 3328.682, 3334.062, 3348.398, 3359.602, 3362.917, 3364.61, 3371.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.079}, "reply_to": "15464__1_088", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_090", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Is that all Shaw testified to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3371.944], "stop_times": [3374.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.944}, "reply_to": "15464__1_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_091", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThis was the only testimony that Mr. Shaw testified to.\nHe lied on his own and I assume, under the rules, I\u2019d have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3374.35, 3374.741, 3378.046], "stop_times": [3374.741, 3378.046, 3380.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3374.35}, "reply_to": "15464__1_090", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_092", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "I have one other question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3380.682], "stop_times": [3382.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.682}, "reply_to": "15464__1_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_093", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3382.21], "stop_times": [3382.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3382.21}, "reply_to": "15464__1_092", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_094", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Is your client now under sentence of death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3382.746], "stop_times": [3385.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.746}, "reply_to": "15464__1_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__1_095", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir, he is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3385.827], "stop_times": [3391.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3385.827}, "reply_to": "15464__1_094", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__1_096", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Mr. Evans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3391.019], "stop_times": [3393.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3391.019}, "reply_to": "15464__1_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__2_000", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "May it please the Court.\nI would comment only on two matters.\nFirst, dealing with the last question, I think there\u2019s no doubt that if the case should be remanded, Witherspoon would be applied and, therefore, it would not be a death penalty.\nSecondly, I would like to comment briefly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3393.411, 3394.366, 3397.065, 3407.954], "stop_times": [3394.366, 3397.065, 3407.954, 3410.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3393.411}, "reply_to": "15464__1_096", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_001", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "You\u2019re conceding that there were violations of the Witherspoon Doctrine in the qualification of the trial jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3410.011], "stop_times": [3415.442], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.011}, "reply_to": "15464__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15464__2_002", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt was held in the case, this has already been held in the Williams case and we would concede that there would have to be a commutation of the penalty to life in prison, yes, sir.\nSecondly, I would just like to touch briefly on the furtherance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3415.442, 3417.855, 3428.233], "stop_times": [3417.855, 3428.233, 3431.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3415.442}, "reply_to": "15464__2_001", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_003", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, has it been commuted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3431.397], "stop_times": [3434.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3431.397}, "reply_to": "15464__2_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15464__2_004", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3434.194], "stop_times": [3434.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3434.194}, "reply_to": "15464__2_003", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_005", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3434.931], "stop_times": [3435.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.931}, "reply_to": "15464__2_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15464__2_006", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Because the-- in the Williams case, the Court of Appeals remanded for the application of Witherspoon.\nIn this case, they held a new trial was required because of a denial of confrontation and said, therefore, they did not reach Witherspoon.\nHowever, they suggested upon retrial that the Court consider these problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3435.886, 3445.428, 3454.495], "stop_times": [3445.428, 3454.495, 3459.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3435.886}, "reply_to": "15464__2_005", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_007", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "No, I mean it\u2019s my understanding that the Attorney General of Georgia agrees that the Witherspoon case requires that the sentence be commuted.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3459.39, 3469.623], "stop_times": [3469.623, 3470.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.39}, "reply_to": "15464__2_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15464__2_008", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThis will be required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3470.304, 3470.924], "stop_times": [3470.924, 3471.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3470.304}, "reply_to": "15464__2_007", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_009", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "And my answer is-- my question, why hasn\u2019t it been?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3471.13], "stop_times": [3477.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3471.13}, "reply_to": "15464__2_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15464__2_010", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, I suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3477.446], "stop_times": [3478.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3477.446}, "reply_to": "15464__2_009", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_011", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Because if you\u2019re opponent wins, it will be much more than a commutation.\nIt will be a new trial or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3478.074, 3481.439], "stop_times": [3481.439, 3481.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.074}, "reply_to": "15464__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__2_012", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Right, it will be a new trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3481.589], "stop_times": [3482.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3481.589}, "reply_to": "15464__2_011", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_013", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Maybe a verdict of acquittal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3482.461], "stop_times": [3483.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3482.461}, "reply_to": "15464__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15464__2_014", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, but it will be commuted.\nThere\u2019s no question. It will be commuted.\nThe other-- my only other comment has to do with the furtherance rule.\nThere are many variants of furtherance in the various states.\nThe Georgia view is-- they interpret it.\nThey don\u2019t use the word \u201cfurtherance.\u201d\nThey say \u201crelevancy.\u201d\nIn our brief, we cite a federal Court which interpreted \u201cfurtherance\u201d exactly the same way.\nI think that it is not the rule anywhere that I know of that the actual statement itself must further conspiracy.\nI think it is sufficient that it relates to acts taking place during a conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3483.228, 3485.139, 3487.91, 3493.238, 3497.733, 3500.215, 3501.96, 3503.301, 3508.692, 3516.14], "stop_times": [3485.139, 3487.91, 3493.238, 3497.733, 3500.215, 3501.96, 3503.301, 3508.692, 3516.14, 3521.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3483.228}, "reply_to": "15464__2_013", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_015", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "May I ask you one question?\nWhy would the Witherspoon case compel a commutation of sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3521.2, 3522.395], "stop_times": [3522.395, 3528.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.2}, "reply_to": "15464__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15464__2_016", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Well, of course, Mr. Justice Black, there were many errors alleged in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3528.177], "stop_times": [3533.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3528.177}, "reply_to": "15464__2_015", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_017", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "What if it should be tried again for a jury and the Witherspoon question didn\u2019t come in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3533.696], "stop_times": [3538.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.696}, "reply_to": "15464__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15464__2_018", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Of course if the new trial is granted, yes, this is so.\nIf the new trial is granted then, of course, you would have a new jury and, in that case, the Wither-- there might-- could be a death penalty if the new trial is granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3538.505, 3541.746], "stop_times": [3541.746, 3550.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3538.505}, "reply_to": "15464__2_017", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__2_019", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "There\u2019d be no commutation required, you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3550.551], "stop_times": [3553.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3550.551}, "reply_to": "15464__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15464__2_020", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI\u2019m assuming that, on remand, if the case is remanded to the Fifth Circuit under this trial, the trial which we have had, Witherspoon is applicable.\nOf course, if there is a new trial, presumably, the District Attorney would examine the witness in such a way as to comport to Witherspoon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3553.167, 3553.611, 3562.878], "stop_times": [3553.611, 3562.878, 3573.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3553.167}, "reply_to": "15464__2_019", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15464__3_000", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "If it please the Court, I know I\u2019m out of order to ask you one moment, one summons to come answer what had just been said, but I would like to state that under the Georgia Supreme Court in cases such as this, has now held that a case otherwise subject to Witherspoon would be remanded to the Trial Court for a trial on the issue of penalty only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3573.621], "stop_times": [3597.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3573.621}, "reply_to": "15464__2_020", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__3_001", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "On the what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3597.48], "stop_times": [3598.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3597.48}, "reply_to": "15464__3_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15464__3_002", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "On the issue of penalty only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3598.586], "stop_times": [3602.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3598.586}, "reply_to": "15464__3_001", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15464__3_003", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Mr. Thompson and Mr. Evans, we thank you for your submission, and the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3602.421], "stop_times": [3608.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3602.421}, "reply_to": "15464__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15464__3_004", "conversation_id": "15464", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [3608.268], "stop_times": [3609.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3608.268}, "reply_to": "15464__3_003", "speaker": "robert_b_thompson"}
{"id": "15565__0_000", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "We\u2019ll hear arguments in number 10, Dutton against Evans.\nMr. Evans you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [0.0, 35.418], "stop_times": [35.418, 39.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15565__0_001", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger and may it please the Court.\nThis case presents problems which stand from the relationship between the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\nThe issues arose during the trial of the -- here appellee, Alex Evans for murder in connection with slaying of three police officers in Gwinnett County, Georgia.\nEvans was convicted primarily by the testimony of one Wade Truett, an accomplice who turned state\u2019s evidence.\nTruett was an eyewitness to all the material details of the client --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [39.303, 43.219, 54.541, 66.385, 75.518], "stop_times": [43.219, 54.541, 66.385, 75.518, 80.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.303}, "reply_to": "15565__0_000", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_002", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "When did these events occur, Mr. Evans?\nDo you recall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [80.33, 84.562], "stop_times": [84.562, 85.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.33}, "reply_to": "15565__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15565__0_003", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThe murder was on the evening about April 17, 1964.\nThe trial was approximately a little over a year later in October 1965.\nIn any event as I was saying Truett testified as to all material details of the triple slaying.\nTruett\u2019s testimony is not here in question and shan\u2019t go into it in great detail.\nHowever, I do think it might be appropriate to summarize a few of the highlights so as to put the issues which I will come to discuss in their proper factual context.\nAccording to Truett, he, Evans, and Venson Eugene Williams have been engaged in a plan in concert of action to steal automobiles.\nThe basic nature of the plan was as follows: they would first purchase a vehicle which had been wrecked beyond the point where it could be commercially repaired.\nBy this, I mean to commercially repair a wrecked vehicle entails the purchase of spare automotive parts.\nThey would first purchase a vehicle which was so badly repaired that the purchase of the automotive parts would cost more and they could recover on the subsequent resale of the vehicle.\nThat was the first step of their operation.\nThe second step was to steal an identical vehicle.\nBy doing this, they could pirate the required parts from the stolen vehicle, put them on direct vehicle and sell it at very a substantial profit.\nIn addition, they could use the spare parts of the stolen vehicle for resale and make a profit on these parts as well.\nIn pursuing this plan, it\u2019s important to note that cars were stolen before at the time of and after the slaying of the three police officers.\nThe slaying itself grew out of the theft of an automobile.\nThe car in question was an Oldsmobile.\nIt was stolen during the early morning hours of April 17, 1964 following their ordinary course of operations; they drove the automobile to a rural location in nearby Gwinnett County, Georgia for the purpose of as quickly as possible changing the ignition and also the license plates on the car.\nWhile they were doing this, a person in the vicinity saw the lights and it was a little bit unusual in this particular area of Gwinnett County, so he called the police.\nThe police dispatched three officers in a car to investigate.\nThe police officers arrived and apprehended the three criminals.\nThen unfortunately, the youngest police officer made a bad mistake which was to cause him and the two other officers of their lives.\nHe bent over in the front seat of the automobile to examine the Ignition switch.\nAs he was doing this, he apparently was a little bit careless about where Evans was.\nEvans was standing near him as he was bending over; Evans managed to grab his revolver, his police revolver.\nHe ordered all of the officers to put their hands up which they did.\nThe officers were promptly disarmed and manacled with their own handcuffs.\nAt this point, either Evans or Williams told Truett to get the police car off the road.\nTruett backed the police car off the road into a field.\nAs he returned to where the officers were, he heard what sound to him like a pack of firecrackers going off.\nHe arrived.\nHe saw the three police officers still manacled with their own handcuffs on the ground.\nOne -- two were quiet, one was making the rather peculiar rasping noise.\nTruett testified that he then saw Williams bend over and shoot the officer making the noise two or three times more while Evans, the petitioner in this case here the appellee, held a flashlight for him.\nAfter this was done, the three car thieves turned murderers sped off into the night.\nNow, Truett\u2019s testimony was corroborated by an abundance of physical evidence such as location of the automobile, the location of the pistols which were later found as well as a testimony of various other witnesses.\nAs I stated earlier, none of the testimony which I have related to this point is it all an issue in this case.\nThe testimony which is an issue is a testimony given by one of the corroborating witnesses.\nThis testimony is a testimony given by one Lynwood Shaw.\nShaw was fellow inmate in the Federal Penitentiary some approximately year after the crime at the time Venson Eugene Williams was arraigned in connection with the triple slaying.\nOn the day following his arraignment when he was back in the federal prison, his fellow inmate Shaw asked Williams, \u201cHow did you make out?\u201d\nThe reply was, \u201cIf it hadn\u2019t been for that dirty SOB Alex Evans, we wouldn\u2019t be in this now.\u201d\nThis testimony was subjected to by Evans during his trial on the ground that violated both the hearsay rule and his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\nThe trial court admitted the evidence on the ground that there had clearly been of showing of a car theft conspiracy and that the statement had been made during the continuance of the conspiracy, therefore, being admissible under Georgia statutory exception to the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [85.667, 86.136, 91.943, 99.491, 106.743, 112.982, 127.782, 140.69, 153.046, 162.015, 173.471, 175.958, 180.884, 191.144, 201.833, 213.738, 219.868, 222.689, 247.76, 259.899, 264.523, 270.291, 279.395, 285.636, 292.096, 301.299, 308.378, 314.3, 322.441, 327.803, 336.543, 337.702, 343.674, 350.394, 370.736, 378.599, 394.071, 401.511, 408.131, 412.696, 427.852, 437.814, 447.657, 460.177], "stop_times": [86.136, 91.943, 99.491, 106.743, 112.982, 127.782, 140.69, 153.046, 162.015, 173.471, 175.958, 180.884, 191.144, 201.833, 213.738, 219.868, 222.689, 247.76, 259.899, 264.523, 270.291, 279.395, 285.636, 292.096, 301.299, 308.378, 314.3, 322.441, 327.803, 336.543, 337.702, 343.674, 350.394, 370.736, 378.599, 394.071, 401.511, 408.131, 412.696, 427.852, 437.814, 447.657, 460.177, 479.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 85.667}, "reply_to": "15565__0_002", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_004", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Mr. Evans, why (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [479.947], "stop_times": [486.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.947}, "reply_to": "15565__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15565__0_005", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "It\u2019s solely is corroborating the testimony.\nThere was an eyewitness under Georgia law testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by other evidence.\nThere were several witnesses which were corroborating witnesses.\nOne, with M.C. Perry, I couldn\u2019t name the others or several.\nThis was one corroborating witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [486.394, 491.191, 499.597, 502.698, 507.443], "stop_times": [491.191, 499.597, 502.698, 507.443, 509.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.394}, "reply_to": "15565__0_004", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_006", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "And you\u2019re asked to mention what they\u2019re insufficient corroboration about this particular testimony of Shaw?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [509.601], "stop_times": [515.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.601}, "reply_to": "15565__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15565__0_007", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Yes sir, I don\u2019t there\u2019s any questions to that.\nIn fact it was much weaker corroborating testimony than the testimony of one M.C. Perry as an example.\nYes, it was merely cumulative, corroborating testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [515.109, 517.417, 526.439], "stop_times": [517.417, 526.439, 530.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.109}, "reply_to": "15565__0_006", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_008", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "What was the testimony of Perry to which you\u2019ve just referred if you\u2019ll highlight that again?\nWhich you said in response to Justice Blackmun was stronger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [530.833, 536.162], "stop_times": [536.162, 539.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.833}, "reply_to": "15565__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15565__0_009", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWell, Perry testified the he had been conversing with both Evans and Williams about stealing an Oldsmobile right before the Oldsmobile was stolen.\nHe testified that actually they almost went in with them, but he didn\u2019t mainly because they had it at overprice what he would get for helping them.\nHe also testified that shortly after the crime in a conversation with Evans he indicated to Evans that I think along the line I can\u2019t quote it exactly of course, but he talked to Evans indicating that he had some idea of who was responsible for the murders which of course had hit the newspapers by that time.\nEvans grabbed him, punched him in the chest and in effect told them he thought he knew anything he better keep quiet about it and this is of course in addition to the physical evidence as to the crime itself which of course did not directly tie evidence to the crime.\nWe would have to concede that.\nIt did tend to verify Truett\u2019s testimony generally the location of the pistols.\nTruett testified that pistols have been thrown out of the window of the car as they sped along toward the expressway.\nThis is where the pistols were found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [539.973, 540.407, 553.06, 563.175, 585.542, 603.544, 604.912, 610.112, 616.427], "stop_times": [540.407, 553.06, 563.175, 585.542, 603.544, 604.912, 610.112, 616.427, 620.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.973}, "reply_to": "15565__0_008", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_010", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "What I\u2019m trying to get out though is, is your attitude as to whether conceivably this was harmless error, are you taking the position it was harmless error in any event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [620.825], "stop_times": [632.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.825}, "reply_to": "15565__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15565__0_011", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWe think that this evidence in light of the overwhelming evidence produced in this case.\nWe think that this particular testimony beyond all reasonable doubt could not have possibly affected the verdict.\nThat is our view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [632.341, 632.716, 638.428, 647.222], "stop_times": [632.716, 638.428, 647.222, 648.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.341}, "reply_to": "15565__0_010", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_012", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Did the Georgia Court itself on the direct appeal address itself to the harmless error aspect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [648.891], "stop_times": [653.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.891}, "reply_to": "15565__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15565__0_013", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [653.869], "stop_times": [654.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.869}, "reply_to": "15565__0_012", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_014", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "The dissenting judge refers to it however did he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [654.872], "stop_times": [660.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.872}, "reply_to": "15565__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15565__0_015", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "I am not certain, sir. I have to answer that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [660.845], "stop_times": [662.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.845}, "reply_to": "15565__0_014", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_016", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "But you are taking the position that in any event this is harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [662.988], "stop_times": [666.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.988}, "reply_to": "15565__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15565__0_017", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Most definitely, sir.\nIn any event, Evans appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\nThe Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed under the longstanding Georgia Rule that the pendency of a conspiracy encompasses the period of concealment after the accomplishment of the unlawful objective.\nAlthough, I point out here that we say unlawful objective the conspiracy we know extended beyond the actual time of the murder because there is testimony that cars were stolen after the time the murder have been completed.\nEvans --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [666.27, 670.81, 677.084, 693.186, 708.343], "stop_times": [670.81, 677.084, 693.186, 708.343, 709.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.27}, "reply_to": "15565__0_016", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_018", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "They must rest the harmless error aspect at all.\nIt\u2019s purely on matter of the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [709.322, 711.347], "stop_times": [711.347, 714.644], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 709.322}, "reply_to": "15565__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15565__0_019", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "This was the ruling of the Supreme Court, yes sir.\nEvans appealed this point after losing the Georgia Supreme Court.\nHe applied for certiorari to this Court the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [714.644, 719.3, 722.997], "stop_times": [719.3, 722.997, 726.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.644}, "reply_to": "15565__0_018", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_020", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "May I interrupt you once more now.\nReading from the dissent, his testimony was hearsay and why the admission of hearsay (Inaudible)?\nIn this instance, it\u2019s obviously to be interpreted (Inaudible)?\nWhy do you think the Georgia Court not respond without intervention if they thought it was harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [726.021, 729.237, 737.001, 743.109], "stop_times": [729.237, 737.001, 743.109, 752.797], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 726.021}, "reply_to": "15565__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15565__0_021", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "I think I did not say that Georgia Supreme Court, I do not believe consider the harmless error issue because the Georgia Supreme Court did not consider it error in the first place.\nThey thought that the majority thought it was properly admitted.\nSo therefore, obviously they did not treat on harmless error because they thought there was no error at all, harmless or otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [752.797, 762.765, 766.011], "stop_times": [762.765, 766.011, 774.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.797}, "reply_to": "15565__0_020", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_022", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Well, if they were wrong enough in that respect, would it been helpful if they could\u2019ve concluded it was harmless, couldn\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [774.157], "stop_times": [779.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.157}, "reply_to": "15565__0_021", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15565__0_023", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "In retrospect, I would certainly agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [779.776], "stop_times": [781.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.776}, "reply_to": "15565__0_022", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_024", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [781.838], "stop_times": [785.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.838}, "reply_to": "15565__0_023", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15565__0_025", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "In any event, this Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari.\nUnsuccessful in his direct appeals, Evans next turn to the United States District Court where he continued what has lamentably become an integral part of the appellate process.\nIn other words, he filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.\nThe District Court denied the writ.\nIt sided with more to the effect that the evidentiary rule in constitutional standard are not the same and that the Confrontation Clause does not go to the scope of testimony which can be given by a witness who is on the stand and available for a cross-examination.\nUpon appeal however, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit took a different view.\nUnlike Wigmore, unlike the District Court and we respectfully submit unlike both of the prior and subsequent decisions of this Court.\nThe Court of Appeals equated hearsay with the Confrontation Clause.\nI should say, it acquitted the exclusionary aspects of the hearsay rule with the Confrontation Clause.\nNow, I emphasize this point because the Court of Appeals did not stop where the customary exceptions and of course they are numerous exceptions to the rule begin.\nTo the contrary it said, first, that all state exceptions to the rule must be continually scrutinized and reevaluated by federal courts.\nAnd second, they said that state exceptions to the rule would be permitted only where in the light of the facts of the case, the admission of the evidence was supported by \u201csalient and cogent reasons\u201d being of the opinion that the facts and circumstances in this case were not such as to render the admission salient and cogent.\nThe Court held that as applied, Georgia\u2019s hearsay, statutory exception to the hearsay rule was unconstitutional because it violated Evans\u2019 rights under the Confrontation Clause.\nIn our brief, we set forth four reasons why we think the Court of Appeals ought to be reversed.\nFirst and foremost, we think the Court of Appeals erred in equating the evidentiary rule with the constitutional standard.\nUnder the traditional or Wigmore view, which we urge to be the appropriate view, there is an important difference between the two.\nUnder Wigmore, the hearsay rule deals with the competency of evidence.\nUnder whatever existing rules of evidence are then in effect, the Confrontation Clause according to Wigmore deals with the procedure by which testimony is presented to the jury and that is that it must be presented by live witnesses who are available for cross-exam and not by ex parte affidavits or the depositions.\nUnlike a live witness, a piece of paper cannot be cross-examined.\nIn Maddox versus United States, this Court cited with approval a great number of decisions of state courts such as Simmons versus Ohio which clearly pointed out that the Confrontation Clause was not intended to effect the nature or scope of testimony given by a witness who was on the stand and available for cross-examination.\nSince, I last argued this case of course this Court decided California versus Green which we think goes a considerable way toward upholding our position on this threshold error of the Court of Appeals.\nThat decision appeared to reaffirm the statement in Stein versus New York that the hearsay rule was not to be read in to the Constitution.\nSurely, it is a rule which is singularly undeserving of constitutional status.\nThe hearsay rule is unknown in most every civilized system of jurisprudence.\nThe continental lawyer throws up his hands and wonders when you try to explain it to him.\nWithin the systems which do have the hearsay rule, it is -- I would say universally criticized by the writers, the law review articles.\nYou find as a rare person that has much good to say about the hearsay rule.\nI think it would be a great pity if the reformers all -- virtually all of whom are either for a total obligation or drastic revision must now fight the Constitution as well as too many years of inertia.\nWe urge the Court to reiterate and affirm that hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause.\nMoving beyond this threshold error, we would say that perhaps the greatest potential for mischief in the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision is the wholly subjective test it device for federal judges to second guess state judges.\nAccording to the Court of Appeals no matter how settled the state exception to the hearsay rule might be.\nThe application of a state evidentiary rule in a state criminal proceeding by a state judge is now to be subject to reversal if a reviewing federal judge perhaps many years later feels that as he sees the facts of the case, the reasons for admission were not sufficiently to cite the words of the Court of Appeals salient or cogent.\nNow, of course this is no guide at all for the state trial judge who must make a decision during trial.\nHe can\u2019t obviously to have a recess and phone the Court of Appeals or the Federal Court of Appeals or a District Court judge to get agreement as to whether the reasons are salient or cogent.\nWe hope the Court will reverse the Circuit Court on the grounds of the threshold error.\nHowever, if the Court should disagree with this, if hearsay to some extent or other is to be equated with the Confrontation Clause, we sincerely hold that this Court will come up with some intelligible objective standards so that a state trial judge will have some idea of what to do when the hearsay question comes up during the trial of the criminal case.\nNow, of course if we are incorrect in our view that the hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause are different or for that matter, if the overlap is substantial and if the overlap does affect the scope of testimony as well as the use of ex parte affidavits or depositions.\nWe must then deal with the question of the status of both long recognized and for that matter any new state exceptions to the rule.\nOne such exception of longstanding is the exception under which the evidence here was admitted -- the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. In Georgia as elsewhere, the declaration of one conspirator subject to certain restrictions is admissible against other conspirators.\nOne general can restriction is that the statement must be made during the pendency of the conspiracy but at last there is great disagreement as to what the pendency is.\nIn Georgia, as in many and I'm not sure perhaps most States, the conspiracy is viewed as continuing into the period of concealment after the primary unlawful act or objective has been accomplished.\nThis view is supported by Wharton\u2019s Criminal Evidence and is based on what I think is rather a common sense approach that a conspirator has in his mind or he has an interest I should say in accomplishing all objectives of the conspiracy.\nNow, can one say that the avoidance of detection is any less an objective than committing the crime on the first instance?\nI think not.\nWe recognized of course that the federal view difference in cases as Krulewitch, this Court has held that in potential criminal proceedings the conspiracy terminates upon completion of the last overt act in its furtherance.\nBut Krulewitch clearly shows that this is but the supervision of this Court over the evidentiary rules in federal criminal proceedings.\nIn fact, Krulewitch referred to Georgia and other states which have a different view.\nIt did not hint that there was anything unconstitutional about Georgia or the other States adhering to this view.\nIn any event, we find it hard to think of any reason why this difference of view should be a Constitutional issue.\nSurely, it has no bearing upon the trustworthiness justification which is ordinarily used in support of the rules exceptions.\nWe think that statement in question clearly bears all the earmarks of being trustworthy.\nTo start with, it was not a long narrative statement where the error or the danger of error in the retailing would be great.\nIt was a spontaneous and a simple spontaneous exclamation really in the nature of ouch to a specific question which the declarant -- excuse me in answer to a question post to the declarant.\nI assumed there would have been no objection at all if the witness had testified as to the physical reaction to his question such as, anger, tears or flash face.\nWhat logical reason can there be for distinguishing between the auditory and visual perceptions of the witness who was on the stand of the course.\nMoreover, the statement to the extent that it has any significance at all is obviously a declaration against interest.\nMost use -- most normally declarations against interests are not made unless they are true.\nIf measured by the trustworthiness criterion, we think that this spontaneous exclamation against interest is at least as trustworthy as the dying declaration exception about which apparently no one disagrees.\nWe think it is far more trustworthy than reputation evidence which is admissible on criminal cases and as the Court is aware, reputation evidence not only can be hearsay, it must be hearsay and can be nothing but hearsay.\nWe think the Georgia\u2019s co-conspirator exception to the rule both on its face and as applied in this case is reasonable, serves a valid purpose of shedding more rather than less light on the question at issue and ought not to be held unconstitutional whether or not the hearsay rule in Confrontation Clause are to be equated.\nComing then to harmless error, we think that even if the admission of the declaration should against our contentions be held to be a violation of the Confrontation Clause.\nWe think that it could not conceivably have influenced the verdict or prejudice the accused in anyway.\nIt was a testimony of Wade Truett which convicted Evans.\nShaw\u2019s testimony was a wholly corroborative and even as corroborative evidence, it was really so constraint compared with the corroborative evidence of witnesses such as M.C. Perry.\nThis Court has held that where the erroneous submission is merely cumulative and will not affect the result, the error is harmless.\nWe think that Harrington versus California ought to control it on this point.\nI should like to save my reserve time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [785.388, 793.156, 806.434, 810.918, 813.204, 832.436, 838.037, 847.575, 854.462, 862.597, 875.089, 884.679, 912.146, 925.159, 932.718, 941.859, 950.539, 956.923, 981.688, 986.34, 1009.623, 1025.144, 1034.31, 1040.689, 1046.949, 1054.058, 1063.912, 1068.697, 1084.887, 1095.211, 1110.919, 1117.482, 1144.45, 1151.279, 1162.736, 1170.157, 1196.843, 1215.296, 1225.013, 1244.557, 1257.375, 1273.076, 1289.812, 1297.239, 1298.775, 1314.096, 1323.115, 1329.831, 1336.452, 1343.3, 1352.4, 1357.494, 1367.316, 1382.791, 1393.122, 1403.273, 1411.868, 1419.331, 1434.769, 1450.876, 1474.075, 1486.046, 1491.663, 1496.242, 1507.921, 1517.518, 1521.665], "stop_times": [793.156, 806.434, 810.918, 813.204, 832.436, 838.037, 847.575, 854.462, 862.597, 875.089, 884.679, 912.146, 925.159, 932.718, 941.859, 950.539, 956.923, 981.688, 986.34, 1009.623, 1025.144, 1034.31, 1040.689, 1046.949, 1054.058, 1063.912, 1068.697, 1084.887, 1095.211, 1110.919, 1117.482, 1144.45, 1151.279, 1162.736, 1170.157, 1196.843, 1215.296, 1225.013, 1244.557, 1257.375, 1273.076, 1289.812, 1297.239, 1298.775, 1314.096, 1323.115, 1329.831, 1336.452, 1343.3, 1352.4, 1357.494, 1367.316, 1382.791, 1393.122, 1403.273, 1411.868, 1419.331, 1434.769, 1450.876, 1474.075, 1486.046, 1491.663, 1496.242, 1507.921, 1517.518, 1521.665, 1525.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.388}, "reply_to": "15565__0_024", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_026", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1525.032], "stop_times": [1525.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.032}, "reply_to": "15565__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15565__0_027", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "I should like to save my remaining time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1525.856], "stop_times": [1526.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.856}, "reply_to": "15565__0_026", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15565__0_028", "conversation_id": "15565", "text": "Yes, you have five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_10", "start_times": [1526.884], "stop_times": [1530.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.884}, "reply_to": "15565__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_000", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Number 60, Evans and others against Abney and others.\nMr. Nabrit you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [0.0, 7.156], "stop_times": [7.156, 10.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_001", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is here on certiorari to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia.\nIt is a sequel to Evans versus Newton decided here in January 1966.\nThe issue then as well as the Georgia Courts could substitute private trustees for the City of Macon in order to permit a municipal park given to the city in a will probated in 1914 to continue to be operated only for white people as the testator directed.\nThat part of the controversy was settled by this Court's decision which is now the law of the case, that the park is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination.\nThe issue now is different, I think radically different.\nIt is whether the decision of this Court can practically -- can be practically frustrated and subverted by the holding now here, the holding of the Georgia Courts that a municipal park is forfeited and reverts to the heirs of the long dead testator merely because the constitution in this Court's decision requires that the city admit negroes to the park along with whites.\nThe petitioners are negro citizens of Macon who argue that Baconsfield Park must be operated as a public park without racial discrimination and we contend for several reasons that the Georgia Court's ruling, that the public must forfeit this park to the testator's estate violates the federal constitution, specifically, the Supremacy Clause of article six and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNow the factual record in this case is also radically different in that it is much more complete than the record in Evans against Newton.\nLet me briefly describe the background of the case.\nAugustus Octavius Bacon died in 1914.\nHe had been elected to four terms in the United States Senate and he was also a distinguished lawyer who, it is relevant to, of note, had published a digest of the opinions of the Judges of the Supreme Court in 1872.\nHe wrote his 32-page will in his own hand in 1911 and that Will left Bacon's farm and trust to his wife and surviving daughter during their lives, and after their deaths, in trust for and I quote \u201cThe sole perpetual and unending use, benefit and enjoyment of the white women, white girls, white boys and white children of the City of Macon.\nThe Will made no provision for any reversion of the property and it was not a conditional gift.\nRather Bacon conveyed to the city and again I quote, \u201call right, title and interest in and to said property here and before described and bounded both legal and equitable, including all remainders and reversions in every estate in the same of whatsoever kind.\u201d\nBacon's will provide that the land should be forever used and enjoyed as a park and pleasure ground and he said that under no circumstances should it be sold or alienated or dedicated to any other use.\nThe will mentioned that he wanted the park to be a memorial for his two dead sons that he had no descendants baring the name Bacon and he stipulated that the park should forever be known as Baconsfield.\nNow as my adversary has emphasized, Bacon quite plainly stated that he did not want negroes to use this park, and this was not he said because of any unkindness or want of consideration for negroes but because he thought that the two races should be separate in social relations and should not occupy the same recreation grounds.\nSo we cheerfully concede that it violates Bacon's solemn intent for negroes to use this park but we also want it to be clear that it equally violates Bacon's intent to destroy the park and revert it to his heirs but he never contemplated this situation.\nHis will contains nothing to indicate that Bacon prefer that his park be destroyed and revert to his heirs rather than to have negroes use it.\nHis intent on this question cannot be known, it's unknowable and that's conceded in the opinion below in the brief and opposition to certiorari.\nNow the city acquired Baconsfield actually in 1920, but buying the heir's interest during the life of Bacon's surviving daughter for an annuity for $1,665.00 yearly.\nThe city paid that to the heirs for 25 years and it ultimately cost the city over $41,000.00.\nIncidentally that 1920 deed indicates that the total land involved was a 117.7 acres at 1917, 1920.\nSince 1920 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [10.238, 13.36, 18.248, 24.437, 42.983, 55.465, 59.916, 85.661, 114.207, 124.013, 127.596, 132.129, 146.709, 171.312, 177.168, 194.438, 208.381, 221.01, 240.19, 257.42, 266.159, 276.775, 289.358, 295.883, 306.687], "stop_times": [13.36, 18.248, 24.437, 42.983, 55.465, 59.916, 85.661, 114.207, 124.013, 127.596, 132.129, 146.709, 171.312, 177.168, 194.438, 208.381, 221.01, 240.19, 257.42, 266.159, 276.775, 289.358, 295.883, 306.687, 307.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.238}, "reply_to": "15187__0_000", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_002", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "The effect of that was simply to accelerate the transfer of the property to the city, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [307.606], "stop_times": [312.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.606}, "reply_to": "15187__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15187__0_003", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "That's right, Bacon's surviving daughter didn't die until 1944.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [312.913], "stop_times": [316.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.913}, "reply_to": "15187__0_002", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_004", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "And so it accelerated that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [316.235], "stop_times": [317.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.235}, "reply_to": "15187__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15187__0_005", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "So the city would not have had this park until 1944 if Bacon's Will had been followed literally but they got the park in 1920 and since then, it has been of the -- that's in those in the fifty years since then there has been a vast and direct investment of public funds.\nOf course the property has been tax-exempt for this nearly fifty years and that represents a large subsidy but beyond this, the basic development and landscaping of this park was done by the WPA the Works Progress Administration and Agency of the United States.\nThe City Parks Superintendent testified that until the time he went out there with the WPA work as mere set him out he said.\n\u201cBaconsfield was a wilderness to use his word, this was around 1935.\u201d\nIt was just a wilderness and the WPA met under his supervision work for a year, or more than a year, cutting down the underbrush, laying out the pass, digging the ponds, building benches and transforming Baconsfield from a wilderness into a usable park.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [317.443, 336.375, 353.568, 360.694, 364.914], "stop_times": [336.375, 353.568, 360.694, 364.914, 381.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.443}, "reply_to": "15187__0_004", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_006", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Do you know of any reason Mr. Nabrit why the -- assuming a reversion would be otherwise valid which of course we haven't come to yet.\nDo you know of any reason why the reversion couldn't be subjected to the lien of all this costs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [381.217, 392.054], "stop_times": [392.054, 397.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.217}, "reply_to": "15187__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_007", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I have not -- I have no knowledge as to what the United States policy is on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [397.932], "stop_times": [408.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.932}, "reply_to": "15187__0_006", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_008", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I assume that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [408.131], "stop_times": [409.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.131}, "reply_to": "15187__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_009", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "There are specific statutory rights that the United States might have which I'm going to come to particularly with regard to the clubhouse building that the WPA built, a major building on the property and in that case the Mayor of the city and the Treasurer of the city made specific assurances to the United States that this property would not be released by the city during its useful life of the improvements and further, amazingly, that there would be no discrimination in this park property of the city, the city solemnly swore that this property was for the public at large in 1939.\nThe conception of the public didn't include negroes apparently.\nI didn't mean to evade your question about the land but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [409.317, 451.717, 457.563], "stop_times": [451.717, 457.563, 460.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.317}, "reply_to": "15187__0_008", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_010", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I can well say it too and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [460.682], "stop_times": [462.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.682}, "reply_to": "15187__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_011", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I think there might be one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [462.638], "stop_times": [464.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.638}, "reply_to": "15187__0_010", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_012", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "As a litigation matter I can see why the person, the clients you represent would not undertake to raise that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [464.165], "stop_times": [472.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.165}, "reply_to": "15187__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_013", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I don't -- if there's a -- I don't know that -- my client's contribution has been the contribution of tax payers generally to this park, city taxpayers and federal taxpayers and in all these capacities they have an investment in this park.\nThe roads through the park were built by the city, there's a swimming pool out there that cost the city a hundred thousand dollars.\nThere's a bath house that cost $40,000.00 in 1948, $17,000.00 worth of improvements added to that in subsequent years.\nAll these was taxpayers money invested in this property and all of it's been reverted by the judgment below stands.\nThe -- when we inspected this clubhouse building I mentioned a moment ago with Superior Court's permission, my colleague, William Alexander found the WPA plaque, all this WPA buildings have a plaque, you know.\nMy colleague found this WPA plaque with only with some difficulty on that women's clubhouse because someone had hung a mirror over it during a redecoration so another plaque coding the racial limitation in Bacon's will was rather prominently displayed.\nI think there's no little irony in that considering the solemn assurances of none discrimination that the city official sign.\nAll the maintenance in this park until 1964 was done by the City Park Department.\nThey treated this just like any other park and the man who had been superintendent for -- since 1915 testified.\nHe treated Baconsfield like all the rest of his parks.\nThe only exception was that some of the thrust income was used to add, to help beautify Baconsfield in addition to city funds.\nThe thrust property I quickly want to mention that's been reverted also includes a shopping center across this street from this park and furnishes $5.00 or $7,000.00 a year annually.\nThis was income for the thrust, it also includes a $131,000.00 or more in cash or bonds in the bank that they got for the highway condemned further the property but this case involves -- this case involves more than who gets this money when it's the people they ask.\nIt involves principle.\nIt involves whether or not the law is going to -- they are going to perpetuate this kind or racism.\nWhen negroes began using Baconsfield in 1963 the city concluded that it could not exclude them from the park and that was obviously correct since this Court had ruled as early as 1955, park segregation was unconstitutional and it ruled in 1957 that a municipal trust couldn't be discriminatory in the Girard College case, Pennsylvania against the Board of City trust and the city's answer in this case in the Superior Court stating that they couldn't discriminate was filed.\nIt happens the day that this district Court decided right against Georgia where the Court invalidated Savannah's effort that keeps negroes out of the city park.\nWhen the Georgia Courts approve the city's resignation to -- to attempt to continue the park as an all-white facility, this Court reversed.\nSo now in response, the Georgia Courts have ruled that the trust failed and accordingly returned to our arguments.\nWe are given --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [472.881, 491.003, 500.242, 509.55, 520.22, 538.487, 556.374, 568.126, 573.316, 583.089, 585.921, 595.741, 606.076, 621.968, 623.643, 631.695, 664.102, 674.301, 682.86, 691.042], "stop_times": [491.003, 500.242, 509.55, 520.22, 538.487, 556.374, 568.126, 573.316, 583.089, 585.921, 595.741, 606.076, 621.968, 623.643, 631.695, 664.102, 674.301, 682.86, 691.042, 691.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.881}, "reply_to": "15187__0_012", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_014", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Did you said they have rule?\nWhat did you say that Georgia Supreme Court had now ruled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [691.729, 693.743], "stop_times": [693.743, 696.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.729}, "reply_to": "15187__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__0_015", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "That the trust has failed and I'm about to argue why I think that decision of Georgia law violates the command of the federal constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [696.565], "stop_times": [708.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.565}, "reply_to": "15187__0_014", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_016", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "With what consequence do they say that trust has failed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [708.196], "stop_times": [711.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.196}, "reply_to": "15187__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__0_017", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "They say that the trust has failed and that accordingly the land and the other assets revert to the donor's estate as a resulting trust and that therefore it's to be distributed as part of his estate in accordance with the Will provision of the residual estate.\nNow I think each of the four arguments we make is sufficient to justify a reversal.\nLet me identify the four arguments each in a sense or two before beginning to develop the first one.\nThe first point is, that the decision below which forfeits public property applies a sanction against a federal interest and violates doctrines of national supremacy running all the way back to McCulloch against Maryland.\nThis forfeiture has affected in a way it happens which also discourages desegregation and is done without any justification.\nThe second point we will make is that, since nothing has happened --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [711.098, 733.802, 741.055, 749.011, 764.734, 773.706], "stop_times": [733.802, 741.055, 749.011, 764.734, 773.706, 777.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.098}, "reply_to": "15187__0_016", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_018", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Can I ask you a question, would you be making that argument if they are going to specific or ordinary clause in the will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [777.801], "stop_times": [784.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.801}, "reply_to": "15187__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15187__0_019", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Harlan, I think that the reason -- that I would argue if I had to face that more difficult question that our legal system, that our Courts can't be used by dead men to perpetuate their bigotry in the law, and that racism has to die with the bigot and that the legal system can't give it perpetuity.\nSo I don't believe, if I had the case here, that I would concede or I believe that I would argue, that racist trust can't be enforced but I don't think that case is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [784.617, 812.818], "stop_times": [812.818, 826.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.617}, "reply_to": "15187__0_018", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_020", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Perhaps that case here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [826.427], "stop_times": [828.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.427}, "reply_to": "15187__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15187__0_021", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [828.591], "stop_times": [829.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.591}, "reply_to": "15187__0_020", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_022", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Suppose we -- since we have you stopped for a moment, suppose you have a case that case here where -- that donor in 1925 or 30 had given land for use as an airport and for no other purpose.\nWith either whether private reversion clause in the gift or subject to a state reversion by law and then time passed and the city grew and the airplanes got bigger and neither the runways and by rezoning became illegal to run an airport at that place so that you have a comparable posture illegal to use it for the original purpose.\nWould you -- do you see any parallel there or is that a totally different kind of problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [829.318, 847.254, 874.844], "stop_times": [847.254, 874.844, 881.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 829.318}, "reply_to": "15187__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_023", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "The way we analyze this case, Mr. Chief Justice and this has to do with the second argument I was going to summarize, is that that hasn't quite happened here.\nWe don't think the uses, that the purpose of the trust has become illegal in our case.\nThe park is still there for the white women and children, the boys of Macon to play in.\nNothing has happened which keeps them the beneficiaries from getting the benefit of the trust.\nNow something has happened which keeps them from getting the sole use and Bacon wanted them to have the sole use to be sure but he didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [881.491, 895.155, 900.482, 906.183, 914.02], "stop_times": [895.155, 900.482, 906.183, 914.02, 922.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.491}, "reply_to": "15187__0_022", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_024", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "But the purpose described in the limitation is illegal now, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [922.031], "stop_times": [927.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.031}, "reply_to": "15187__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__0_025", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "No I think not.\nThe purpose of providing a park for the white women and children can still be fulfilled.\nThey cannot have sole use of it.\nNegroes have to be admitted too but the point is, that negro use in this kind of a situation at least where you have a vast park land, negro use doesn't diminish the white use.\nIt's not a case like, as for example where you have a trust fund and if it went to one group, it had to be divided with another group, the only amount left for the first group would be diminished.\nThat kind of trust was the -- if a trust for whites only had been declared, scholarship funds had been declared unconstitutional when Evans against Newton, it would be plain that the whites would have less if they had to share it with the blacks but that's not true in a public park.\nThere's nothing that's happened.\nThe white children of Macon today are in fact using Baconsfield Park because it was a state as in effect and the park is there open to public today.\nSo I think it's not like an airport where the runways are too short for the planes.\nThe park is big enough for everybody now.\nThe third argument and I -- let me make an overall point.\nI think there is nothing special about Trust Law that exempts it from the command of the Equal Protection clause.\nNot as the fact that the law involved is common law and that statute law place it outside the reach of the constitution.\nWe think this point is amply established by the decision last termed in Presbyterian Church against the Hall church where the Court unanimously concluded that Georgia Courts deciding a common law trust law must do so in conformity with the First Amendment guarantees made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.\nInnumerous cases and all -- in different context make the point of our common law.\nJudge May law being subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNew York Times against Sullivan makes that point in very plain language.\nThe state's libel law has to march the Fourteenth Amendment and Edwards against South Carolina involving a common law crime illustrates the same idea in another context.\nOf course trust law is normally a matter for state determination.\nOf course Georgia has the last word in defining its common law trust as a general matter but that only opens the question we submit of whether the law is settled by Georgia conforms to the command of the constitution as to that question that I address myself with these four arguments.\nOur first argument as I indicated is rooted in the fundamental proposition announced in McCulloch against Maryland in 1890.\nThe states have no power to take action hostile to a national interest not even as then when using the basic taxing problem may they penalize a federal interest.\nAnd we think the decision below violates the command of federal supremacy, not because this Court's mandate has been directly flouted, but rather because the state has decreed that valuable city property must be forfeited entirely on the ground that the constitution and the decision of this Court require that the city admit negroes to Baconsfield.\nWe complain not that there will still be segregation.\nWe can't know how the heirs will use the land.\nWe complain about the fact of the forfeiture itself and this valuable facility which is valuable to the taxpayers in part because of its -- of the original value and in part because the taxpayers have added to it in multiple ways, is being taken away solely to prevent negroes from using this park.\nThis is a direct drastic sanction against compliance with what the constitution compelled and this Court's decision compel.\nNow here the sanction has the added characteristic and the added impact of discouraging this desegregation just as in the Prince Edward County School closing case.\nThe case -- the closing of the park conveys to negroes unmistakably the plain message that if you will search your Fourteenth Amendment rights it won't get you anything.\nAll you'll do is destroy the parks for everyone and that obviously discourages compliance with the constitution.\nThat might be our -- the only possible justification that might be offered for such a forfeiture would be a clear direction by attesting that Bacon made no such choice.\nThe Georgia Courts made this choice.\nOur respondents argue that the trust fails automatically on January 17, 1966, the day the moment this Court announced its decision.\nThat's a groundless and artificial argument.\nThey never adopted it until a month -- more than a month later.\nThe minutes of their board meeting at page 346 of the appendix show that in the Board of Marriages of Baconsfield discussing this Court's decision didn't conclude that it reverted.\nIt was only after the Georgia Supreme Court in March that reverted, the disposition became announced for many of them the only sound jurisprudential view is that the Georgia law comes from human decisions and this is the premise on which such basic law is Uriah against Tompkins stands.\nI have talked a little bit about our second argument, the fact that nothing's happened which prevents white women and children from using the park and the point we make in our brief is that the only manner in which the State Court could have logically reached its conclusion that the uses of the trust have failed is by a legal premise, an implicit legal premise, that negro use as a matter of law diminishes the white use because negroes are per se offensive or obnoxious.\nAnd such a ground we say, imposes a badge of inferiority on blacks which the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits.\nWe do not contend that this was consciously the theory adopted.\nIt never said anything like that.\nWhat we contend is that's the only logical foundation on which the conclusion can rest.\nThe case might be more difficult if the court below had not have had no alternative under its law but it play -- but there were no Georgia decisions.\nNo one has come up with any settled Georgia case law that forced this resolve.\nThe side place statute offer plain alternative and the only case that has ever been cited, it is not cited, the respondents don't cite it here but they didn't -- in the court below.\nThis is Adams against Bass case, but in 1855 Georgia refused to apply cy pres to resettle slaves in certain states on the grounds of that particular states would not receive them and that's the only case they've found.\nIt is before the civil war amendments and in any event it had to be read in the light of the Georgia law which made it illegal to free a slave.\nOur third argument which I will not have time to argue because I would like to reserve some of my time but I will state it.\nIt follows the reasoning in Mr. Justice White's concurring opinion in evidence against Newton, we add to that only that this Georgia law in 1905 which provided for racially oriented parks it facilitated testators making brands of this kind but beyond that we think that the law plainly encouraged racial discrimination, and it -- as Mr. Justice White's opinion in 1966 stated, we think incurably taints the racial condition in the trust and we think that tainted provision should not be given any effect, should not be even be given effect in effecting the reverter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [927.618, 928.724, 934.62, 936.839, 949.73, 964.458, 986.913, 989.346, 1004.454, 1009.592, 1014.321, 1022.436, 1030.608, 1040.348, 1061.538, 1067.204, 1070.887, 1075.775, 1089.028, 1093.607, 1114.073, 1122.611, 1135.677, 1159.778, 1162.491, 1165.353, 1186.648, 1195.267, 1206.081, 1214.505, 1221.719, 1232.454, 1238.071, 1247.508, 1250.732, 1256.309, 1269.679, 1289.435, 1320.769, 1330.101, 1333.564, 1335.64, 1340.726, 1349.016, 1353.417, 1364.605, 1378.97, 1388.229, 1398.504], "stop_times": [928.724, 934.62, 936.839, 949.73, 964.458, 986.913, 989.346, 1004.454, 1009.592, 1014.321, 1022.436, 1030.608, 1040.348, 1061.538, 1067.204, 1070.887, 1075.775, 1089.028, 1093.607, 1114.073, 1122.611, 1135.677, 1159.778, 1162.491, 1165.353, 1186.648, 1195.267, 1206.081, 1214.505, 1221.719, 1232.454, 1238.071, 1247.508, 1250.732, 1256.309, 1269.679, 1289.435, 1320.769, 1330.101, 1333.564, 1335.64, 1340.726, 1349.016, 1353.417, 1364.605, 1378.97, 1388.229, 1398.504, 1447.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.618}, "reply_to": "15187__0_024", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_026", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Mr. Nabrit would it have been illegal for him to, for the testator to have left the park for joint use of whites and negroes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1447.902], "stop_times": [1459.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.902}, "reply_to": "15187__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15187__0_027", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I think it's still, as to judges the white women and children and negro women and children I think there is plainly no authorization for it so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1459.265], "stop_times": [1465.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.265}, "reply_to": "15187__0_026", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_028", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "You mean as a matter of trust law or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1465.974], "stop_times": [1467.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.974}, "reply_to": "15187__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15187__0_029", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "No, well I am talking about 69504 now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1467.541], "stop_times": [1471.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1467.541}, "reply_to": "15187__0_028", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_030", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "But was there a law against whites and negroes using public parks together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1471.723], "stop_times": [1480.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.723}, "reply_to": "15187__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15187__0_031", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I am -- I have not found a law making it a crime, statewide.\nThere were certainly local laws of that kind.\nThat was one in the Holmes case, Holmes against --I know of none applying to, to make it in 1914 ,1912.\nBut well let me amend that.\nSection 69505 which is the companion to 69504 made it the obligation of the city to use its police powers to enforce the racial condition in Bacon's trust.\nSo as soon as the city accepted Bacon's trust, Bacon's command the racism did become the law of Macon and for that reason additionally we urge that the case ought to be treated like an invalid city code.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1480.801, 1486.827, 1488.601, 1502.55, 1505.58, 1522.68, 1541.847], "stop_times": [1486.827, 1488.601, 1502.55, 1505.58, 1522.68, 1541.847, 1548.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.801}, "reply_to": "15187__0_030", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15187__0_032", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Mr. Claiborne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1548.931], "stop_times": [1550.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.931}, "reply_to": "15187__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__1_000", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIt seems to us relevant that this case is both a Wills case and a packs case neither one alone but both together.\nAnd yet it is not a case about how to construe a will nor is it even a case about which restrictions in Wills should be enforced nor even which racial restrictions are bad at which to be ignored.\nWe are dealing with a racial restriction made some years ago, half a century ago, and the question is, what effect, if any, can be given to it now, half a century later, in light of the constitutional rule which has become clearer in that span of time but importantly also we are dealing with the provision in the will that affects not any sort of property but public property, a public facility of some substance here in the city of Macon.\nAnd in that sense we are concerned with the question whether a public facility shall be closed because the rule of non-discrimination has been held to apply to it as this Court held two terms ago.\nWe are not saying simply that State Courts can never enforce a restrictive covenant or restrictive provision in the will.\nWe are saying rather that a provision which has been held unenforceable.\nNo question about that at this point.\nThis is not Shelly and Kraemer.\nThe Court has held that this restrictive covenant with respect to this park cannot be enforced.\nSo the question is rather whether indirect effect can be given to that provision by decreeing a reversion, the effect of which is to withdraw a public facility from the municipality which otherwise enjoyed it and from all the people in it, and to do so with the inevitable impact that effect of discouraging those who in similar circumstances would sue to gain entry as they have a constitutional right to do when we are dealing with this sought public facility.\nWe might rest on the proposition that when this factors coincide, the State Court cannot effectuate a racial covenant by decreeing a reversion even if the testator had provided specifically that that should be the result in the event that segregation were no longer possible in this public facility.\nIt seems to us however that this case is a good deal easier because here clearly the State Court had alternatives.\nWe are not faced with Senator Bacon's clear intent that in these circumstances there shall be a reversion.\nNor are we faced with a state law that does not provide for some accommodation when the exact intention of the testator is impossible.\nWe're not faced with one of those few states where cy pres is not the law.\nHere we have a Georgia law which on its face seems to permit carrying out the dominant purpose of the testator and varying some of his incidental provisions when they become impossible of performance as here the racial limitation has become impossible at the foremost.\nThe case is easy both because it seems obvious that the Georgia Courts had options and because having options and having seemed to strain, the injury is all the greater to those who -- because of whose threatened presence in the park, the park is closed.\nWhenever the stage is seen to strain on the face of it in order to prevent the rule of desegregation from going into effect, obviously the injury to those excluded is all the greater and the discouragement in like circumstances is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1550.666, 1555.574, 1566.717, 1588.286, 1622.998, 1644.07, 1653.982, 1661.49, 1663.494, 1665.907, 1675.693, 1718.101, 1749.573, 1759.321, 1766.828, 1776.344, 1780.534, 1804.021, 1831.694], "stop_times": [1555.574, 1566.717, 1588.286, 1622.998, 1644.07, 1653.982, 1661.49, 1663.494, 1665.907, 1675.693, 1718.101, 1749.573, 1759.321, 1766.828, 1776.344, 1780.534, 1804.021, 1831.694, 1857.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1550.666}, "reply_to": "15187__0_032", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15187__1_001", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "What would you think Mr. Claiborne about the hypothetical case I suggested to Mr. Nabrit, if the illegality which was used to trigger a reversion was a rezoning which had made the use of the land no longer legal and permissible as an airport?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1857.613], "stop_times": [1880.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.613}, "reply_to": "15187__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__1_002", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I would think there were two answers Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe ones Mr. Nabrit gave which is that in that circumstance there was no way of approximating the purpose of the testator in providing funds for an airport.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1880.921, 1882.977], "stop_times": [1882.977, 1895.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1880.921}, "reply_to": "15187__1_001", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15187__1_003", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Now are you talking about some form of cy pres?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1895.996], "stop_times": [1900.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.996}, "reply_to": "15187__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__1_004", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "In that circumstance cy pres would not seem to offer an obvious alternative but more importantly from the point of view of this Court there it seems to me there'll be no federal constitutional question there because there is no denial of equal protection in those circumstances.\nHere we're dealing not merely with withdrawal from the public of a public facility which injures everybody.\nWe are dealing with a withdrawal of a public facility on account of race which in both concrete and other ways injures a particular class of citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1900.096, 1920.651, 1927.531], "stop_times": [1920.651, 1927.531, 1943.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1900.096}, "reply_to": "15187__1_003", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15187__1_005", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "But it injures them all equally, does it not here?\nI think in several respects it does not injure them all equally Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst it is -- I think plain that the least advantage members of the community have the greater need for the park and therefore suffer more by its closure.\nBut that is a small part of our argument.\nIt does favor discrimination and discourage challenges to discrimination in comparable circumstances when challenging the exclusionary policy of any public facility which is subject to this sort of condition and when the result is that the facility is closed and you gain nothing by your efforts, obviously this has been a discouragement to the exercise of the constitutional right to seek entry on a non discriminatory basis to public facilities.\nAnd finally there is always the injury which results when the state puts its power, its prestige, its official declaration, on the side of discrimination and sends in effect the entry of these negroes to this park would be so obnoxious that we presume Senator Bacon would have closed his park rather than to have allowed them in.\nThe case would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1943.642, 1947.22, 1951.839, 1964.464, 1967.147, 2004.772, 2034.032], "stop_times": [1947.22, 1951.839, 1964.464, 1967.147, 2004.772, 2034.032, 2034.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.642}, "reply_to": "15187__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__1_006", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "May I ask you, suppose Senator Bacon, the day after he died, this Court had ended down an opinion that the park could not be run as this one he directed it be run and his heirs had two days later raised the question on it in challenge.Would you like to make the same arguments you are making now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2034.192], "stop_times": [2060.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.192}, "reply_to": "15187__1_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__1_007", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "I think the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2060.971], "stop_times": [2061.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2060.971}, "reply_to": "15187__1_006", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15187__1_008", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Then so dedicated to the public that it couldn't be withdrawn.\nI think that argument might be available Mr. Justice Black.\nI think this case is far stronger because the park has operated for half a century as a public facility which not only increases the injury which results from its closure, the implications involved in that closure on account of race, but also in the traditional terms of the cy pres doctrine, the effort to continue a Will which has taken effect, which has been in existence for some time is recognized as being much stronger than in the event --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2061.71, 2065.341, 2067.974], "stop_times": [2065.341, 2067.974, 2109.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.71}, "reply_to": "15187__1_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__1_009", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "3509", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2109.086], "stop_times": [2109.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.086}, "reply_to": "15187__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__1_010", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "-- when it is simply declared at the beginning that the trust has failed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2109.114], "stop_times": [2111.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2109.114}, "reply_to": "15187__1_009", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15187__1_011", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "You mean constitutional this far?\nWhat provision of the constitution will make it strong there to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2111.737, 2114.509], "stop_times": [2114.509, 2120.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.737}, "reply_to": "15187__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__1_012", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "That there I think it's only in terms of the injury, Mr. Justice Black, but also in terms of the options available to the estate after all, constitutional law is some measure a question of possibilities and alternatives when the alternatives are evenly balanced, it may be that the constitution views the act as neutral.\nWhen withdrawing a public facility after half a century is done for the sole purpose of avoiding a mixing of the races in that public area.\nIt seems all the more a reflection of an official policy against desegregation and that is constitutionally relevant.\nThis case, it seems to us in the end when we talk about the Georgia Court having preferred one option to another, we don't of course impugn the individual judges to judge the Courts involved.\nThe case would be perfectly clear, I suggest if the Georgia Courts had been applying a federal, a state statute which provide it in these terms whenever a racial restriction is included in the Will which establishes a public facility notwithstanding any indication as to the testator's intent as to what should happen when that racial restriction that can no longer be enforced, there shall be a reversion.\nThat would be the clearest indication of the state's singling out this condition as critical as distinguished from all the other circumstances where cy pres would be applied.\nThat is really this case.\nFor these reasons we suggest that the judgment below should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2120.365, 2146.047, 2160.962, 2176.552, 2193.296, 2227.943, 2240.3, 2243.324], "stop_times": [2146.047, 2160.962, 2176.552, 2193.296, 2227.943, 2240.3, 2243.324, 2258.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2120.365}, "reply_to": "15187__1_011", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15187__1_013", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Mr. Jones you have only about three minutes, do you wish to outline a few preliminary matters for us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2258.556], "stop_times": [2268.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.556}, "reply_to": "15187__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15187__2_000", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Yes, I'll take advantage of that opportunity.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.\nThe case for the respondents can be stated very simply I believe.\nSenator Bacon devised his property in trust with the sole and exclusive benefit of the white women and children of the city of Macon.\nThis Court decided in Evans versus Newton that Baconsfield cannot be operated in accordance with that racial restriction, either by the city of Macon is trustee or by private trustees, excepting and acting in accordance with that decision.\nThe Supreme Court of Georgia then held that under state law, the sole purpose for which this trust was created applying several rules of construction under state law had failed that the trust terminated for that reason without regard to the racial limitation in the slightest.\nAnd because of a state statute providing that whenever a trust failed for any reason, a resulting lack of trust is implied for the benefit of the donor or testator or his heirs because of that statute again having nothing to do with race or discrimination in any respect, this property reverts under state law back to the heirs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2268.0, 2270.568, 2274.378, 2279.288, 2288.317, 2304.492, 2324.292], "stop_times": [2270.568, 2274.378, 2279.288, 2288.317, 2304.492, 2324.292, 2346.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.0}, "reply_to": "15187__1_013", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15187__2_001", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "How long is that statute applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2346.022], "stop_times": [2348.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.022}, "reply_to": "15187__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15187__2_002", "conversation_id": "15187", "text": "Your honor it is a statute of long vintage.\nIt's certainly predated 1911 when this will was made.\nSo far as I know its been in the Georgia Law for a hundred years or more.\nI could get the exact date if the Court would like to have it.\nIt's a statute of long-standing.\nSo our position may it please the court, the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court involved nothing more than the application of state law to a state will and is completely consistent with the holding of this court in Evans versus Newton.\nWe say that no constitutional rights of the petitioners in this case have been denied and respectfully urge that the Supreme Court of Georgia decision should be availed.\nI'll complete my argument tomorrow sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2348.616, 2351.209, 2354.67, 2358.303, 2361.265, 2364.139, 2378.945, 2388.256], "stop_times": [2351.209, 2354.67, 2358.303, 2361.265, 2364.139, 2378.945, 2388.256, 2395.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.616}, "reply_to": "15187__2_001", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_000", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "You may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [4.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__0_001", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Thank you sir.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nBefore attempting to reply in detail that the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and the assistance list to general.\nI would like to address myself briefly to the record, particularly, because when this case was here before there was no factual record before the court.\nIt seems to us, first of all, that the exact language of either man of Senator Bacon's will is of great importance to every question which is presented in this litigation.\nAfter first directing that this property something over a hundred acres originally, beheld entrust for the benefit of his wife and two daughters during their lifetimes.\nSenator Bacon then provided following the death of the last of them for the creation of this charitable trust.\nUsing the following language and with the indulgence I quote \u201centrust for the sole, perpetual and on and then use benefit and enjoyment of the white women, white girls, white boys, and white children of the City of Macon to be by them forever use then enjoyed us a park and pleasure ground subject to the restrictions Government, Management rules and control of the Board of Managers is here enough to provide it for.\u201d\nThe said property onto no circumstances or at any time for any reason devoted to any other purpose or use except in so far as here ends specifically authorized.\nHe further stated and I quote, \u201cI thank occasion to say that I'm limiting the use and enjoyment of this property perpetually to white people.\nI am not influenced by any on kindness or feeling or one of consideration for the Negroes.\nI am however without hesitation and the opinion that are in the social relations for two races white and negro should be forever suffered and that they should not have pleasure or recreation grounds to be use or enjoyed together and in common.\u201d\nIn family, in explaining the motivation for this request Senator Bacon stated first of all that it was in appreciation to the citizens of Macon a propaganda that had been bestowed upon him.\nBut especially, it was a memorial to his two decease sons.\nUsing the language, I should at the same time link their memories with the pleasures and enjoyments of the women and children and girls and boys of there own race in the community of which they once belong to happy the part.\nNow, we submit that Senator Bacons purpose and intent was stated as clearly as is possible in the English language.\nThere are no conflicts or inconsistencies in this language.\nHe spelled out one purpose and one purpose only and that was the operation of a park on a racially restricted basis for the sole and exclusive benefit of the white citizens or segment of them of the city of Macon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [4.122, 9.859, 14.049, 23.967, 35.154, 47.679, 58.374, 64.968, 93.224, 105.282, 114.051, 119.668, 134.688, 146.933, 151.323, 164.937, 172.63, 176.4], "stop_times": [9.859, 14.049, 23.967, 35.154, 47.679, 58.374, 64.968, 93.224, 105.282, 114.051, 119.668, 134.688, 146.933, 151.323, 164.937, 172.63, 176.4, 190.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4.122}, "reply_to": "15396__0_000", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_002", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "What was the provision and will is with respects the use of authority with white adult?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [190.088], "stop_times": [195.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.088}, "reply_to": "15396__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15396__0_003", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "It was provided, Your Honor, that with the permission on of the Board of Managers which how speak about in just a moment that white men and the community would be permitted to use authority.\nThat was a discretionary use so in the discretion of the Board of Managers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [195.457, 205.466], "stop_times": [205.466, 209.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 195.457}, "reply_to": "15396__0_002", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_004", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "How would the direct and how that provision is administered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [209.875], "stop_times": [213.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.875}, "reply_to": "15396__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15396__0_005", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir, I think of fast statement is that the record indicates that white men were permitted over the years to use authority freely without restriction.\nIt seems to us that the argument that there with two purposes.\nA preeminent park on the one hand and a park only for white persons on the other simply cannot be supported by any fair reading of the language of the will itself.\nNext, I'd like to direct the attention of the Court briefly to the matter of city control of the park.\nIt seems to us that opposing counsel have attempted to create the impression that the City of Macon somehow round up with a matter to this simple ownership of this property.\nWe say the record not only fails to support this conclusion but clearly shows a contrary was true.\nTo begin with, all though Senator Bacon and the will named the City of Macon as the trustee and authorized it to appoint the first Board of Managers.\nHe gave the city no power or whatever with respect to the operation of the park.\nInstead, he provided that the seven member Board of Managers which would be a self perpetuating body accepted only to the right of the city to confirm any successor appointment to that board, \u201cshall at all times they have complete an unrestricted control and management of the said property with power to make all need for regulations for the preservation and improvement of the same and rules for the use and enjoyment there on.\nWith power to exclude it anytime, any place on all person of either sex and maybe deemed objectionable on whose conduct or character made by said Board be a judge or considered objectionable or such as to render for any reason and the judgment of said board.\nTheir presence and said grounds inconsistent with on prejudicial that a proper and law successful use and enjoyment of the same for the purposes here in contemplated.\u201d\nAgain, it seems to us that by the clearest possible language Senator Bacon best total control of the operation of the park not in the City of Macon but in this independent group of private citizens.\nHe authorized the board, furthermore, to use a portion of the property lying to the east of a street man owners North Avenue \u201cin any amount of they may deem best\u201d for producing income to defray expenses connected with the operation management and preservation of the property and in various other way is given total and absolute control.\nThe Board of Managers was not made answerable at any way of a city and the city had no authority to remove any member of the board or otherwise to exercise supervision over at in any way.\nThe record further shows that the Board of Managers did in fact exercise complete management that control exactly as contemplated by Senator Bacon.\nThe record include detailed the minutes of many leadings of the board over a period of 30 years in which the most minute matters were carefully considered and decided.\nThe record shows a city that did nothing without the authorization and approval of the board.\nThe serious conduct in interest in Baconsfield were at all times completely consistent with its limited status as holder of the naked legal title.\nIn no time that the city treat the property as being \u201cpublic property\u201d as it has been referred to in the brief of opposing counsel.\nThe city did not treat this property in the same way at all that the city treated the 40 or 50 other city parks which won in free sample by city.\nI think an excellent example of this is the way in which the swimming pool has been referred to in this case before it was handled.\nThe land on which this pool was constructed was not in the park proper but in the income producing area lying to the east of what is now known as North Avenue.\nThe pool was constructed in 1948.\nIt was constructed on a property that was leased by the Board of Managers to the City of Macon.\nCopy of the lease is in the record.\nI think of reference to it clearly demonstrates that it is a standard lease similar to the other types of leases of property and income producing area.\nThe lease capital resides that the premises and the pool to be constructed by the city shall be use and operated in accordance with item 9 of Senator Bacons will.\nAnd in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board of Managers and it was provided that the board contaminate the agreement in the event of a breach not corrected within five days after written notice.\nI'll take it a self evident that if the City of Macon at ever --at any time regarded this as being public property in the sense in which that expression has been use in the brief of opposing counsel.\nThere would never had been in any such a lease arrangement is that why that with respect to the swimming pool.\nCounsel has suggested in this case that there is some significance of a special nature to the 1920 deed that's been referred to.\nI think as we've pointed out completely in our brief that that had absolutely no effect upon the nature of the interest of a city.\nIt was provided as I pointed out that the charitable trust would not come into being until after the death of the survivor of Senator Bacon's widow and two children.\nAnd the sold papers as the record clearly shows of a 1920 deed was to make it possible for the vesting of possession in the city as trustee to commence in 1920 rather than being postponed until the death of the survivor of those three members of Senator Bacon's family.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWhen this case was here before there was no factual record of any kind before the Court.\nThere was nothing specifically to show the extend of the city involvement at that time.\nIn consequently the assumption is recorded in the majority opinion that it was assumed that there was a continuation of city involvement in the operation of the park.\nThe record mail before the Court is a fully developed record.\nIt shows clearly and without contradiction that since 1964 when the City of Macon resigned its trustee and its resignation was accepted by the trial court.\nThe city has had no involvement of any kind or character with Baconsfield Park.\nNo funds had been provided.\nNo city employees have assisted in maintenance or preservation has been absolutely nothing in the way of involvement or a connection by the City of Macon with the operation or maintenance of this park.\nThe Board of Managers since 1964 has provided all of the funds for the operation and maintenance of the park using the income produced from the leases of property and the income producing area for that purpose.\nIn 1968 to complete the record on that park, receivers were appointed by the trial court and a continuing to operate the park gestures of the Board of Managers had done part of that time pending the final outcome of this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [213.069, 222.977, 226.258, 237.142, 242.82, 253.071, 259.855, 269.416, 274.379, 302.199, 317.187, 326.864, 338.999, 360.052, 370.897, 380.346, 389.864, 394.912, 404.199, 412.671, 422.343, 429.876, 440.352, 444.244, 449.724, 451.471, 460.354, 470.374, 482.421, 493.67, 499.945, 509.039, 517.6, 527.255, 549.183, 551.127, 557.135, 563.139, 573.47, 577.083, 589.021, 594.563, 596.13, 608.262, 621.288], "stop_times": [222.977, 226.258, 237.142, 242.82, 253.071, 259.855, 269.416, 274.379, 302.199, 317.187, 326.864, 338.999, 360.052, 370.897, 380.346, 389.864, 394.912, 404.199, 412.671, 422.343, 429.876, 440.352, 444.244, 449.724, 451.471, 460.354, 470.374, 482.421, 493.67, 499.945, 509.039, 517.6, 527.255, 549.183, 551.127, 557.135, 563.139, 573.47, 577.083, 589.021, 594.563, 596.13, 608.262, 621.288, 635.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 213.069}, "reply_to": "15396__0_004", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_006", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "How many acres of land in this park?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [635.026], "stop_times": [638.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.026}, "reply_to": "15396__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_007", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honors as we now estimated that's about 50 to 60 acres of substantial portion of the acre.\nIt was taken by a condemnation for an understate highway.\nThat 50 to 60 acres, we believe includes not only the park property proper but also the income producing area of some 5 to 10 acres lying to the east of North Avenue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [638.208, 644.051, 648.852], "stop_times": [644.051, 648.852, 658.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 638.208}, "reply_to": "15396__0_006", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_008", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Who got the money for the condemn property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [658.919], "stop_times": [662.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.919}, "reply_to": "15396__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_009", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "That money was received by the Board of Managers and expressed with being held by the receivers appointed by the trial court pending the final disposition of this litigation.\nNow with respect to the city and the park --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [662.999, 673.842], "stop_times": [673.842, 675.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 662.999}, "reply_to": "15396__0_008", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_010", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "You say the city is never treated this property as public property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [675.876], "stop_times": [679.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.876}, "reply_to": "15396__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_011", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [679.118], "stop_times": [681.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 679.118}, "reply_to": "15396__0_010", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_012", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Did it treated as public property of dealing with the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [681.082], "stop_times": [685.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.082}, "reply_to": "15396__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_013", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor that is perhaps the sole exception to the statement that I made.\nIt is correct that Mr. Nabrit and Mr. Claiborne had pointed out.\nThat certain representations were made in documents furnished by the City of Macon in connection with the WPA financing.\nAs to why that happened or the circumstances that surrounding it, the record itself.\nThere is nothing in the record to show that the Board of Managers in any way authorized or consented to those representations by the city and save and accept that sole dealing with the Federal Government.\nI know of no enters in this record in which the city has treated this as public property.\nCertainly as far as in relations between the city and the Board of Managers are concerned, every action of the city has been consistent with its limited status as trustee and with the recognition of complete control on the part of the Board of Managers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [685.743, 689.733, 694.203, 701.766, 706.245, 716.802, 721.411], "stop_times": [689.733, 694.203, 701.766, 706.245, 716.802, 721.411, 734.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 685.743}, "reply_to": "15396__0_012", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_014", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "But they've been in charged of the improvements placed on this property haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [734.456], "stop_times": [739.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.456}, "reply_to": "15396__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_015", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No sir, the Board of Managers has been in charged of the improvements.\nIt is correct as the record shows that city employees have assisted in the operation and preservation of the park and city farms of obviously to that extent were involve.\nAt the same time, the Board of Managers as I was about to point out in connection with pre 1964 involvement have utilized perhaps $100,000.00 or I think you're right in that neighborhood of money made available from the income producing property also for the preservation and maintenance of the park.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [739.484, 743.045, 755.387], "stop_times": [743.045, 755.387, 772.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 739.484}, "reply_to": "15396__0_014", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_016", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "For what proportion of the maintenance cost to pay the city funds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [772.012], "stop_times": [777.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.012}, "reply_to": "15396__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15396__0_017", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Mr. Justice Brennan, that's very difficult to the term when precisely from the record but I was about to make a statement that it appears that at least 50% of the total cost of operation and maintenance found its source and the income produce from the income producing property left by Senator Bacon.\nAnd the perhaps 50% or less of the total cost of operation and maintenance is attributable to city funds directly or indirectly.\nThe record as completed this as is simply impossible mathematically to determine the exact percentage of support from the city and from the Board of Managers.\nIn our view of the evidences as to pre 1964 involvement by the city is largely immaterial to the issues that are presented in the present posture of this case.\nAnd I mention these facts solely because in our judgment with due respect opposing counsel if greatly over emphasized the extent in nature of that involvement.\nIt is true as I have already pointed out that WPA funds were made available in 1935 in connection with the development of the park and cities labor was made available thereafter for a period of perhaps 30 years in connection with the operation of the park.\nBut I would ask the Court to keep in mind as the record shows that this property consists largely of grass and strawberry and trees.\nWell over 50% out of it or at least 50% is in trees.\nThe only structure of any kind on the property other than in the income producing area to the east of North Avenue is the club house that has been referred to by counsel in the argument yesterday.\nAs I mentioned just a moment ago during the same period perhaps a $100,000.00 of income attributable to Senator Bacons own the quest has also been use in the operation and maintenance of the park.\nWe would also direct the Courts attention to the fact that the record shows that in 1920 when the early vesting of possession in the city was agreed upon at that same time $13,000.00 in bonds and interest that had been left by Senator Bacon for this purpose were turned over to the city.\nAnd the city agreed to make a 5% annual payment on the $13,000.00 or $650.00.\nI think this is of significance in the total picture I would calculate that the amount of the principal and interest of the bonds that were turned over to the city in 1920, plus the 5% payments that it was obligated to make went over the year have amounted to about $43,000.00.\nSo that to that extent that part of the city involvement is attributable directly to funds left by Senator Bacon himself four years in connection with the development of the property.\nThat in addition to the about $100,000.00 it came from the income on the income producing property to the east.\nFinally with respect to that evidence, again I'll make the statement that the record never shows in anyway that the city is sole to exercise control in its dealings with the Board of Managers.\nBut instead everything that it did in those dealings was entirely consistent with its limited status as hold her own leave the naked legal title recognizing complete control on the Board of Managers.\nThis case, may it please the Court, has been before the Supreme Court of Georgia on three occasions.\nTwice seems the decision of this Court and Evans versus Newton.\nShortly after Evans versus Newton was handed down in March of 1966, the Supreme Court of Georgia held at the sole purpose for which the trust was created has become impossible of accomplishment and has been terminated.\nThis being based upon the decision of this Court and Evans versus Newton that it was impossible for Senator Bacons trust to be carried out on the Court with a racial restriction.\nTo respond that held by the Supreme Court that a resulting trust under a Georgia statute was implied for the benefit of the heirs of the testator.\nIncidentally, I checked on that statute suggest today and I find that it's been in the Georgia law at least since the code of 1863 which was the earliest available code from my inspection.\nSo far as I know, it's purely declaratory of the common law and has been in the Georgia code since the first code was prepared.\nThe case was remanded by the Supreme Court of Georgia to the trial court for determination and ask to who were the heirs of Senator Bacon.\nIn the third and final appearance of this case before the state Supreme Court in December 1968, the decision with respect towards the writ was granted.\nThe Supreme Court reiterated its holding that the trust terminated under state law. Noting that petitioners had sought no review of that ruling by this Court.\nHe held further that the cy pres doctrine could not be applied on the Georgia law and rejected various other contentions of petitioners including all of those urge before the Court yesterday and today.\nIt held that in short applying state law or trust created under a Georgia will and relating to Georgia property had failed.\nAnd again on the state law, the property had reverted to the heirs of the testator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [777.252, 794.766, 803.555, 814.428, 826.107, 837.027, 854.156, 862.358, 866.26, 878.807, 891.025, 913.097, 920.63, 938.205, 948.397, 957.911, 969.352, 981.708, 987.415, 992.553, 1010.563, 1020.788, 1029.315, 1039.794, 1047.464, 1055.747, 1065.661, 1075.64, 1087.821, 1098.275], "stop_times": [794.766, 803.555, 814.428, 826.107, 837.027, 854.156, 862.358, 866.26, 878.807, 891.025, 913.097, 920.63, 938.205, 948.397, 957.911, 969.352, 981.708, 987.415, 992.553, 1010.563, 1020.788, 1029.315, 1039.794, 1047.464, 1055.747, 1065.661, 1075.64, 1087.821, 1098.275, 1102.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 777.252}, "reply_to": "15396__0_016", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_018", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I'd like to ask you a question Mr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1102.54], "stop_times": [1104.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.54}, "reply_to": "15396__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_019", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.\nPerhaps the petition also answered.\nIs there any contention in this case that in dealing with desired first statute your decide first statute of the Georgia Court and parted when the Courts decision as doctrine involved when the general under Georgia law.\nIn other words, is there any contention with this case that is been discriminatory applications aside for the statute of the Georgia Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1104.586, 1104.903, 1109.522, 1126.644], "stop_times": [1104.903, 1109.522, 1126.644, 1134.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1104.586}, "reply_to": "15396__0_018", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_020", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor as I understand that position, they claim only to this discriminatory and its effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1134.217], "stop_times": [1139.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1134.217}, "reply_to": "15396__0_019", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_021", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes, that's not my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1139.205], "stop_times": [1142.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.205}, "reply_to": "15396__0_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_022", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I do not understand their contention to be that there's been an in discriminatory application of the doctrine itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1142.006], "stop_times": [1147.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1142.006}, "reply_to": "15396__0_021", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_023", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Or completely if one note to go of the Georgia cy pres decisions which were discern in those decisions something that indicates a different result with the brief been reach to this instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1147.483], "stop_times": [1159.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1147.483}, "reply_to": "15396__0_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_024", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Absolutely not.\nYour Honor, I think as we've developed fully in our brief the holding of the Georgia Supreme Court with respect to cy pres is completely consistent with the body of law that has been developed in the state and the state Supreme Court apply the cy pres doctrine as we read the decision in as I understand what they did totally without regard to the racial limitation being a feature in this instance.\nIt was simply an application of state law to a will drawn by Georgia testator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1159.031, 1161.783, 1185.605], "stop_times": [1161.783, 1185.605, 1190.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1159.031}, "reply_to": "15396__0_023", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_025", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Mr. Jones, let us assume that the testator leaves a sum of money to build a hospital to serve exclusively tubercular patients.\nAnd as this time goes on the other treatment for tuberculosis and the patients run out.\nI suppose, their scores of tuberculosis hospital around the country that had been cy pres in the serving other purposes.\nEventhough the testators have clearly indicated that they wanted the hospitals limited to protrude tubercular patients and now what was the calculus who entered into the Georgia Supreme Courts decision here that no cy pres?\nClearly it's just like in a tubercular case specified that the park was to be limited to whites but that's only the beginning of the question of the argument, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1190.723, 1201.779, 1207.735, 1216.627, 1235.95], "stop_times": [1201.779, 1207.735, 1216.627, 1235.95, 1246.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.723}, "reply_to": "15396__0_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_026", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.\nI would answer that in two ways.\nFirst of all, the Supreme Court of Georgia construed the will particular the language which are quoted at the outset of my argument are saying, that not just a purpose but the sole and exclusive purpose of the will was to provide for the park --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1246.764, 1247.381, 1249.385], "stop_times": [1247.381, 1249.385, 1264.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1246.764}, "reply_to": "15396__0_025", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_027", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I would suggest that there are a lot of wills and gives on tuberculosis -- to tuberculosis hospitals.\nIt is said sole purpose is that so and so made them cy pres.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1264.011, 1272.24], "stop_times": [1272.24, 1276.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.011}, "reply_to": "15396__0_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_028", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor.\nWe'll further develop that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1276.759, 1278.124], "stop_times": [1278.124, 1278.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1276.759}, "reply_to": "15396__0_027", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_029", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, go ahead that is that the sole purpose and therefore what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1278.843], "stop_times": [1282.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.843}, "reply_to": "15396__0_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_030", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "They said the sole purpose was the operation of a park for white citizens on racially restricted basis and furthermore, that under Georgia Law which I take is also a general law but at least a state law that the cy pres doctrine can never be applied in a way to defeat the intention of the testament.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1282.264], "stop_times": [1298.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1282.264}, "reply_to": "15396__0_029", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_031", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes, yes, but you say the cy pres doctrine in Georgia has never been applied to cy pres into a different use in a situation where the testators said, its the sole use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1298.723], "stop_times": [1314.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.723}, "reply_to": "15396__0_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_032", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1314.17], "stop_times": [1314.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1314.17}, "reply_to": "15396__0_031", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_033", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Sole use.\nNow that's the end of the \u2013 is that the end of the argument then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1314.42, 1315.306], "stop_times": [1315.306, 1318.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.42}, "reply_to": "15396__0_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_034", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I don't think that the Georgia Supreme Court decision was based simply on the language with the sole purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1318.719], "stop_times": [1324.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1318.719}, "reply_to": "15396__0_033", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_035", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, let go ahead.\nWhat else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1324.21, 1324.927], "stop_times": [1324.927, 1326.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.21}, "reply_to": "15396__0_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_036", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "In addition to saying the sole purpose, it was further stated to be use exclusively by them and so forth.\nAnd then the spelling out of Senator Bacons personal and social philosophy that he was fundamentally opposed to the mixing of the races.\nAnd finally, the underscoring of this entire motivation with the reference to the his two decease sons and the use enjoyment of members their race only of this park.\nI'm not seeking to justify that philosophy but the Supreme Court of Georgia construed all of that language together on the settled principles of state law as manifesting the sole and indivisible purpose.\nBut did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1326.163, 1331.74, 1340.187, 1350.146, 1361.246], "stop_times": [1331.74, 1340.187, 1350.146, 1361.246, 1362.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1326.163}, "reply_to": "15396__0_035", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_037", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Do you think they meant this to ask to what would Senator Bacon have done, if he had known that a restricted park was unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1362.414], "stop_times": [1378.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.414}, "reply_to": "15396__0_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_038", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Are you asking me sir if the Supreme Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1378.526], "stop_times": [1380.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1378.526}, "reply_to": "15396__0_037", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_039", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "It is -- I just wonder if that's the approach they took or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1380.583], "stop_times": [1384.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.583}, "reply_to": "15396__0_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_040", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I don't think they took that approach at all.\nI think they look solely to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1384.583, 1386.429], "stop_times": [1386.429, 1387.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1384.583}, "reply_to": "15396__0_039", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_041", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, how can they say what his intention was it if they didn't", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1387.028], "stop_times": [1391.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.028}, "reply_to": "15396__0_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_042", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Under state law Your Honor, by looking to the language of the will itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1391.761], "stop_times": [1395.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1391.761}, "reply_to": "15396__0_041", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_043", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, I know but what question are they answering?\nWhat would he have done if he had known that a restricted part was unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1395.673, 1398.295], "stop_times": [1398.295, 1404.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.673}, "reply_to": "15396__0_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_044", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No sir, I don't think that's the approach.\nIt has to be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1404.812, 1406.447], "stop_times": [1406.447, 1407.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1404.812}, "reply_to": "15396__0_043", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_045", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Then you are talking about his intention, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1407.213], "stop_times": [1410.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.213}, "reply_to": "15396__0_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_046", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I think it divides into two branches.\nMr. Justice White first of all I think the inquiry of the state Supreme Court laws.\nWhat was the purpose of the trust as expressed by the creator himself?\nAnd secondly, having ascertained what that purpose was could operate be applied?\nThey concluded first of all that the sole purpose was I've stated and secondly, that under the Georgia cy pres statute.\nCy pres applies only first of all where there is a general charitable intent and where there is simply a failure of the mode of carrying that intend into effect and secondly, cy pres is never applied where it would defeat the purpose of the intention of the testator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1410.237, 1412.603, 1417.371, 1421.93, 1427.387, 1434.661], "stop_times": [1412.603, 1417.371, 1421.93, 1427.387, 1434.661, 1450.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1410.237}, "reply_to": "15396__0_045", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_047", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, that's cy pres is I would suggested in Georgia the cy pres is applied all the time to defeat the purpose of a trust because as if you suddenly find a trust serving a different purpose then it was, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1450.048], "stop_times": [1465.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.048}, "reply_to": "15396__0_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_048", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I don't believe it.\nObviously, I can't speak with authority with respect to the cy pres law of any other state.\nBut I don't interpret the holding of the state Supreme Court as being what you just suggested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1465.839, 1468.252, 1472.552], "stop_times": [1468.252, 1472.552, 1478.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1465.839}, "reply_to": "15396__0_047", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_049", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Anytime it's suggested the trust serve a different purpose that it did that the suggestion is refuse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1478.029], "stop_times": [1487.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.029}, "reply_to": "15396__0_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_050", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No sir, I supposed and all can do would be a question of degree.\nThat if there is a slight inability to carry out the terms of a trust that would be one matter.\nBut the Georgia Supreme Court felt it from the language that we use very precisely and fully by Senator Bacon.\nThat the assembly was a total failure of carrying out of this trust because of the decision of this Court and Evans versus Newton that is it was impossible to operate a racially restricted park and if that was a sole and exclusive purpose of the creator of the trust.\nI don't think they'd all directed the inquire to what Senator Bacons faults or intention may have been 50 years later, if he had been a way of a change of social philosophy and a change of illegal rulings as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1487.832, 1492.141, 1497.918, 1505.11, 1521.232], "stop_times": [1492.141, 1497.918, 1505.11, 1521.232, 1534.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1487.832}, "reply_to": "15396__0_049", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_051", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "May I ask you one question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1534.704], "stop_times": [1536.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.704}, "reply_to": "15396__0_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_052", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1536.78], "stop_times": [1537.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1536.78}, "reply_to": "15396__0_051", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_053", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Judgment at the Supreme Court of Georgia rendered after the case went bad, first judgment.\nDid you say that those who have contesting this now did not appear in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1537.139, 1545.038], "stop_times": [1545.038, 1550.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.139}, "reply_to": "15396__0_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_054", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No, sir.\nThey did appear on that case.\nThey have appeared on both occasions since the case went back from this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1550.934, 1551.264, 1553.258], "stop_times": [1551.264, 1553.258, 1557.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1550.934}, "reply_to": "15396__0_053", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_055", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "And what position did they take in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1557.02], "stop_times": [1562.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.02}, "reply_to": "15396__0_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_056", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor, there was no oral argument before the court and briefs was submitted or memorandum was submitted by the parties in response to a request from the Supreme Court of Georgia.\nAnd somewhat on \u2013 that is not in the record and I'm a little uncertain to the exact position that was taken by counsel with petitioners at that time perhaps Mr. Nabrit could respond to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1562.11, 1579.434], "stop_times": [1579.434, 1589.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1562.11}, "reply_to": "15396__0_055", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_057", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I assume that wouldn't change the aspect to the legal questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1589.545], "stop_times": [1593.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.545}, "reply_to": "15396__0_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_058", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No , sir not the slightest in our judgments.\nDealing with the questions one by one very briefly.\nWe submit, first of all, that all of the petitioners contentions in this case ignore the distinction that must made between the Federal question of the manner in which the park would have to be operated if it continued in existence as a park.\nAnd the state law questions involving the construction of Senator Bacon will.\nAs we see it, the federal interest of petitioners is simply that if Baconsfield will continued an operation as a park.\nIt would have to be operated on a nondiscriminatory basis by whoever save this trustee in obedience to Evans versus Newton.\nThere is no basis in Evans versus Newton as we read it on the other hand or any other decision of this Court for petitioner's argument that there is an additional federal requirement that the state courts must construed Senator Bacon will and an amount of it will resolved in Baconsfield continuing as a park.\nWhen such a construction would be directly contrary to the clear expression of the testator himself.\nAs we understand the proud decision of this Court, the construction of a will and the determination of the matter of reversion or state law questions to be determined by state courts.\nAs responded out by Mr. Justice Black in the descending opinion on Evans versus Newton.\nSo far as I have been able to find the power of the state to decide such a question that of reversion has been taken for granted and every proud opinion in this Court is ever written in touching the subject.\nWe ask that the Court keep in mind that this was in its some exceptions Senator Bacons private property.\nIt never became \u2018public property\u201d.\nIt was left and trust for the exclusive benefit of a limited class of persons.\nThe racial limitation was a product exclusively of Senator Bacons personal social philosophy and not that of the city or state.\nAs we see it when this case was remanded to the Supreme Court of Georgia by this Court and Evans versus Newton.\nThe Supreme Court of Georgia had before it two facts that were controlling upon it.\nFirst of all, this Court that held at Baconsfield could not be operated in accordance with the racial restriction contained in Senator Bacons will by anyone its trustee.\nAnd secondly, the will itself is clear that he wanted a park operated only in accordance with the racial restriction and not otherwise that was further found as a matter of an interpretation of the will by the Supreme Court of Georgia itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1593.126, 1596.926, 1602.124, 1617.089, 1622.41, 1629.55, 1638.085, 1656.276, 1664.637, 1675.712, 1680.96, 1693.247, 1699.343, 1702.395, 1707.812, 1717.455, 1723.88, 1729.123, 1739.621], "stop_times": [1596.926, 1602.124, 1617.089, 1622.41, 1629.55, 1638.085, 1656.276, 1664.637, 1675.712, 1680.96, 1693.247, 1699.343, 1702.395, 1707.812, 1717.455, 1723.88, 1729.123, 1739.621, 1753.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1593.126}, "reply_to": "15396__0_057", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_059", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "-- dispute on that because you ask for that position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1753.547], "stop_times": [1756.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.547}, "reply_to": "15396__0_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__0_060", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No, sir.\nI understood Mr. Nabrit to say to the Court yesterday that he conceded that the sole purpose of Senator Bacon was the operation of a park on racially restricted basis.\nBut he has sought to develop the thesis that two purposes can be found.\nOne a preeminent park;\nAnd secondly, a racially restricted park.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1756.619, 1756.956, 1767.288, 1771.28, 1773.306], "stop_times": [1756.956, 1767.288, 1771.28, 1773.306, 1776.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.619}, "reply_to": "15396__0_059", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_061", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "But didn't he say in this argument that the certainly its purpose was to have a park for whites and you can still have a park for white.\nAnd that the reversion defeats the purpose to have a park for white?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1776.084, 1786.884], "stop_times": [1786.884, 1792.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.084}, "reply_to": "15396__0_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_062", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor, I understand this argument to be that, yes.\nBut its base on that to abiding the purposes and into two parts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1792.568, 1795.532], "stop_times": [1795.532, 1799.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.568}, "reply_to": "15396__0_061", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_063", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "There was a purpose to have a park for the white, wasn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1799.524], "stop_times": [1802.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.524}, "reply_to": "15396__0_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_064", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "There was a purpose to have a park for whites only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1802.332], "stop_times": [1805.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.332}, "reply_to": "15396__0_063", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_065", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "And then you are used at the answer that he was also however didn't want a park for Negro and whites together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1805.484], "stop_times": [1812.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.484}, "reply_to": "15396__0_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_066", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No, sir.\nIf I may respectfully disagree.\nThe Supreme Court of Georgia and we interpret the will not as saying two things but is saying one thing and that is the operation of a park only for white persons and not with the mixing of the races.\nNot to tell what two purpose is one to have a park for whites, and secondly, a purpose that there not be a mixing of the races in the park but a single indivisible purpose.\nAnd that was a construction and interpretation of the will placed upon it on the state law by the Supreme Court of Georgia.\nFace as we see at with the impossibility of reconciling those two facts.\nThe Supreme Court then held or Georgia held that on the state law that trust had failed and the property had reverted.\nIt seems to us that the state Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with racial discrimination as such because that issue was eliminated by this court and Evans versus Newton.\nHolding the park could no longer be operated on accordance with the racial limitation.\nWe disagree very strongly with the statement in their brief and I believe Mr. Nabrit repeated this in oral argument that the Georgia decision might be sided, \u201cfor the proposition that state court may generally decree reversion of properties for a breach of a racial condition.\u201d\nIt seems to us that by that argument they forget that this should not involve property of pledge to a subject to a racial condition nor doesn't involve property that was originally perfect nor does involve property between public properties in the full sense of that time.\nIt was an inception of Senator Bacon's property and it is fundamental as we understand the law that a person who creates a charitable trust may condition the use of his property.\nWe do not argue with the testator can require that its property be use in a manner contrary to law.\nBut on the other hand, we do say that this property may not be use in a manner of violating above the expressed conditions or imposed upon the use of a property.\nBut under those circumstances, there would be a failure of the trust and the property would go according to whatever the applicable law of this state might be.\nIt seems to us further that that contention that Negroes might be discourages by the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court from asserting their rights as a hollow argument.\nThis was not again public property in the usual sense of that time.\nIt was trust property.\nThe use of which was subject to condition set for in the Senator Bacon's will.\nAs a practical matter furthermore, it seems to us unlikely that there is a similar situation in existence anyway on the country and more over, the Georgia decision could hardly encourage some of the testamentary trust because Evans versus Newton is now the law of the land establishing that first of all a person cannot effectively device all conveyors property to municipal corporation and trust where racial condition.\nAnd secondly, a municipality cannot accept such a trust to his trustee.\nSo, we don't see have a decision of the Georgia Court which is an obedience to that mandate of this court could be set in any respect to encourage similar or racially oriented testamentary trust.\nAs we understand the effect of the argument that's being made by petitioners.\nThey say that the Supreme Court of Georgia or not in applying federal law but in its determination and application of state law.\nI'd like to comment specifically on that in more detailed and just a moment in replying to the argument of Mr. Claiborne for the United States.\nFinally with reference to this branch in my argument, it seems to us that the mere recognition by the state's Supreme Court that the trust is failed does not end of itself constitute impermissible state action.\nThe fact that the Georgia Court run to decision which is not in accord with the contention of the petitioners, doesn't mean in and out itself that the state has denied them any constitutionally protected rights.\nAs we see it one must have a right before it can be denied and neither the negro citizens nor the whites citizens of the City of Macon have the right on the federal state law to require that Bacons property be use as an integrated park in direct violation of the expressed terms of his will.\nWe don't believe at persons belonging to a particular class or group or religion may create rights simply by setting claims in the state court and having them denied and as we see it that is the effect of the position of the petitioners in the present case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [1812.678, 1812.935, 1814.722, 1826.216, 1835.189, 1843.176, 1847.575, 1854.694, 1864.596, 1870.452, 1888.236, 1902.971, 1914.12, 1920.144, 1929.269, 1939.052, 1950.435, 1954.906, 1956.713, 1961.462, 1986.657, 1991.495, 2004.61, 2009.71, 2017.757, 2026.421, 2040.398, 2053.161, 2074.904], "stop_times": [1812.935, 1814.722, 1826.216, 1835.189, 1843.176, 1847.575, 1854.694, 1864.596, 1870.452, 1888.236, 1902.971, 1914.12, 1920.144, 1929.269, 1939.052, 1950.435, 1954.906, 1956.713, 1961.462, 1986.657, 1991.495, 2004.61, 2009.71, 2017.757, 2026.421, 2040.398, 2053.161, 2074.904, 2091.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.678}, "reply_to": "15396__0_065", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_067", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "What would you suppose what have happen or what would be the law if the city had simply opened the park to white person or to the Negros and why is it like?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2091.71], "stop_times": [2103.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.71}, "reply_to": "15396__0_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_068", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Rather than resigning as trustee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2103.002], "stop_times": [2104.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.002}, "reply_to": "15396__0_067", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_069", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Any guess?\nAnd then the -- then the heirs of Senator Bacon's sue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2104.856, 2107.192], "stop_times": [2107.192, 2112.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.856}, "reply_to": "15396__0_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_070", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor, I think the posture of the case would still be the same when it got back to the Supreme Court following Evans versus Newton.\nIf the trial court originally had same feat to remove the city as trustee in voluntarily.\nIf the trial court had removed the city in voluntarily and this case had come to the Court as indeed an Evans versus Newton.\nThe same result would have taken place that is a holding that the park could not be operated as a racially restricted park.\nI don't believe the Court meant to suggest in Evans versus Newton that the city could be compelled to save his trustee against his wishes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2112.709, 2119.633, 2125.111, 2132.066, 2139.746], "stop_times": [2119.633, 2125.111, 2132.066, 2139.746, 2146.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.709}, "reply_to": "15396__0_069", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_071", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "You think the state is entitled to the use its courts to enforce a private discriminatory decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2146.261], "stop_times": [2152.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.261}, "reply_to": "15396__0_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_072", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No, sir --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2152.936], "stop_times": [2153.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.936}, "reply_to": "15396__0_071", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_073", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I refer to the contrary to the desires of those presently in position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2153.203], "stop_times": [2160.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.203}, "reply_to": "15396__0_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_074", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "We do not take that position and don't feel that that's what been done in this case.\nWe feel that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2160.02, 2164.579], "stop_times": [2164.579, 2165.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.02}, "reply_to": "15396__0_073", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_075", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "What is that have been done in the case I closed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2165.525], "stop_times": [2169.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.525}, "reply_to": "15396__0_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_076", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I think in view of the holding in Evans versus Newton that that would have been the effect of it.\nYes, because this court is now establish to the law of this case that the park cannot be operated either by the city or by private trustees and according to the racial restriction.\nAnd that being so, I think their involuntarily removal of the city as trustee would have been held by this Court to have been impermissible state action.\nWe are not seeing this as involving state action at all, however, and what took place following Evans versus Newton because it was purely and simply a question of whether not the trust had fail and that event what happen on the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2169.405, 2173.079, 2184.486, 2191.631], "stop_times": [2173.079, 2184.486, 2191.631, 2206.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.405}, "reply_to": "15396__0_075", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_077", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "If the city hadn't resigned and they had merely open the park to whites and blacks alike, and if then the state could not have been forced with private restriction in its course.\nShould this case be any different its because the city resigned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2206.061, 2220.166], "stop_times": [2220.166, 2224.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.061}, "reply_to": "15396__0_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15396__0_078", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "In the final analysis, I don't think the fact that the resignation was voluntarily and it makes any difference on the question that are now presented to the court because in like ultimately the question, same question would have risk in either one of them.\nFirst of all the purpose of the trust that failed and secondly and so what happened to the property on the state law.\nWith reference to the cy pres doctrine itself, again, I've largely set forth my thoughts and response to questions about it.\nBut again, I would make the point that the only concern of the state Supreme Court was rather the use of the park by Negroes would violate Bacon's restriction.\nAs a matter of his personal social philosophy, he expressed the purpose set forth in this trust.\nAs we see it the argument of cy pres is directly contrary to state law and has been so held by the state Supreme Court based on the two propositions I mentioned.\nFirst of all, cy pres is applied only where there is a general charitable intent and a failure of the mode of execution of it.\nAnd secondly, on the state law is never applied would be directly contrary to the intent of the testator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2224.835, 2236.667, 2244.68, 2255.226, 2265.989, 2273.502, 2283.223, 2291.851], "stop_times": [2236.667, 2244.68, 2255.226, 2265.989, 2273.502, 2283.223, 2291.851, 2298.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.835}, "reply_to": "15396__0_077", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_079", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Mr. Jones, in that connection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2298.496], "stop_times": [2299.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.496}, "reply_to": "15396__0_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__0_080", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2299.702], "stop_times": [2300.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.702}, "reply_to": "15396__0_079", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_081", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "And parking back to the earlier question put to you by Mr. Justice Harlan as I read the petitioners brief, they claim at least that this was a new application basically of the cy pres law of Georgia and I'm reading from page 57 of their brief.\nBriefly, they say after the case of Evans that didn't pass and we remember what that was.\nNo Georgia case has been found in which a trust was allowed to fail on that beneficiaries and trustee were still on being and when the intended benefit could still be received merely because the trust could not be carried out in a manner directed by the said law or because its benefit were extended to a larger class without it anyway diminishing the enjoyment of the intended beneficiaries and then they put note to your position that speaks to the case it barres having been decided under well settled principles of Georgia law but point out that you site an old cases anywhere to back up that statement as if.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2300.129, 2321.711, 2327.435], "stop_times": [2321.711, 2327.435, 2366.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.129}, "reply_to": "15396__0_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__0_082", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor, I will answer that this way that the will settled principles of state law or two codes sections which obviously set forth the law of the state as clearly as possible.\nSecondly, we know of no case factually related that it is all some of this under the law of Georgia.\nBut I take it that the best authority would be one of the highest Court of the state held itself with respect to this very of question phrase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2366.929, 2377.193, 2382.411], "stop_times": [2377.193, 2382.411, 2388.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.929}, "reply_to": "15396__0_081", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_083", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Not in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2388.507], "stop_times": [2389.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.507}, "reply_to": "15396__0_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__0_084", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2389.74], "stop_times": [2390.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.74}, "reply_to": "15396__0_083", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_085", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "But --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2390.129], "stop_times": [2390.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.129}, "reply_to": "15396__0_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__0_086", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I would assume that to be the most respectable possible authority that we could site to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2390.928], "stop_times": [2395.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.928}, "reply_to": "15396__0_085", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_087", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "But I gather as I said the claim is made that this case is noble application or failure to apply the cy pres.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2395.205], "stop_times": [2401.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.205}, "reply_to": "15396__0_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__0_088", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes, we disagree with that most strongly if it suggests novelty as far as the law is concerned.\nI think its noble only in the factual situation that was presented to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2401.999, 2408.085], "stop_times": [2408.085, 2413.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.999}, "reply_to": "15396__0_087", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_089", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Will you distinguish which is I follow your argument Mr. Jones between the situation in which the cy pres doctrine could be applied so as to have a results which was within reason consistent with the original intent and one which is diametrically opposed than you say as I understand that that there is no purpose to which they could put this park as a park.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2413.732], "stop_times": [2447.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.732}, "reply_to": "15396__0_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__0_090", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2447.694], "stop_times": [2448.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.694}, "reply_to": "15396__0_089", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_091", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Which would not be diametrically opposed to the expressed intents, is that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2448.021], "stop_times": [2452.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.021}, "reply_to": "15396__0_090", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__0_092", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes sir, that is it exactly and I think that argument is well founded, first of all, in the language of the will itself;\nAnd secondly, the will has been so interpreted on the rules of construction by the state Supreme Court.\nBut there was a single sole indivisible exclusive purpose and it would not be possible now to operate the park without doing so directly in violation of the terms of Senator Bacon's will.\nAnd at that and that alone is a reason trust failed under the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2452.383, 2458.479, 2464.854, 2476.189], "stop_times": [2458.479, 2464.854, 2476.189, 2479.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.383}, "reply_to": "15396__0_091", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_093", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "And do you think it makes no difference that those terms are terms which are no longer constitutionally permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2479.79], "stop_times": [2488.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.79}, "reply_to": "15396__0_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__0_094", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Your Honor obviously, that made a difference in Evans versus Newton.\nI don't think it make a difference in applying the rules of state law.\nIt would apply on remand to the Georgia Supreme Court.\nI don't think you can ignore any part of the will, eventhough, it may have become constitutionally impermissible because of decisions of this Court.\nStill on the set of rules of construction had becomes the burden of the state court to determine first of all the purpose of the creator;\nAnd secondly, if that purpose has failed and specified whether or not cy pres could be applied and they resolved both of those questions unfavorably to the position of the petitioners in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2488.467, 2492.015, 2495.965, 2500.047, 2507.141, 2514.105], "stop_times": [2492.015, 2495.965, 2500.047, 2507.141, 2514.105, 2525.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.467}, "reply_to": "15396__0_093", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_095", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "On that theory, if I follow your argument on that point.\nConstitutional factors come into play only as to the use of the park not as to the reversion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2525.558, 2530.381], "stop_times": [2530.381, 2538.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.558}, "reply_to": "15396__0_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__0_096", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAs Mr. Justice Black stated in this dissenting opinion, so far as he had found at that time there has been no proud to say into this court questioning the fact that the matter of reversion is a state law of question.\nI've -- we've decided in our briefs other cases to the same effects such as a holding of this court in Marsh versus Alabama were the appoint was made on a footnote very effectively lived dedication has always been regarded as a state law question that is whether there was a dedication of this and so of the extent of dedication.\nAnd as our position and answer that question that those are state law questions.\nMy time is about up soon if I could take the last remaining moment to reply briefly to the contentions of Mr. Claiborne.\nWe received that memorandum only this passed out of the end.\nI would respectfully request leave to make brief written response to it.\nWe have no opportunity to do so proud to the hearing of yesterday and today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2538.459, 2539.287, 2552.074, 2570.136, 2575.783, 2583.336, 2586.108, 2589.787], "stop_times": [2539.287, 2552.074, 2570.136, 2575.783, 2583.336, 2586.108, 2589.787, 2594.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.459}, "reply_to": "15396__0_095", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_097", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "That would be granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2594.705], "stop_times": [2596.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.705}, "reply_to": "15396__0_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__0_098", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Secondly, as we see it the entire burden of the memorandum filed by the Solicitor General is at this Court should not accept the judgment of the state Supreme Court as to what a state law but instead should make its own independent determination of what is state law.\nAs we see it that would be an ultimately if it's followed to its logical conclusion destructive of the state judicial assistance.\nAs we see it all of the proud decisions of this Court if recognized as on state law questions the decision of the highest Court of the state will be accepted by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2596.442, 2615.912, 2623.495], "stop_times": [2615.912, 2623.495, 2635.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.442}, "reply_to": "15396__0_097", "speaker": "frank_c_jones"}
{"id": "15396__0_099", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Thank you Mr. Jones.\nMr. Nabrit you have about five minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2635.447, 2639.988], "stop_times": [2639.988, 2644.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.447}, "reply_to": "15396__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__1_000", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIt seems to me that Mr. Claiborne yesterday post the question that I suggest must be confronted.\nIsn't it really true as he said that the state statute which provide and in terms of what has actually been done in this case would be pretty obviously on Constitution?\nThat hypothetical law would say something like this that even if a testator expresses no intent on the issue of reversion.\nAnd even if there were no difficulties in administering apart nonracially and even if the name beneficiaries could still get benefit and there benefit was not diminish.\nFor the charitable trust to the way racial limitation fails if Federal law prevents that racial limitation from being imposed.\nAs I hear urge yesterday, I don't think if really can make a difference that the rule have just stated is not Georgia's common law and not a statute law rule.\nThe essence of the case I think is simply that Georgia acting through its Courts has chosen to give special emphasis to the racial rule and to destroy a public park and give it away or rather to have it integrated.\nBy this decision the state is chosen to regard the racial rule as the essential and to reject the idea that a perpetual park is the purpose.\nA park for the benefit of white people is not becoming possible or illegal and this is clear I think, if one accepts the simple proposition the park still benefits white people even if Negroes are admitted to the park at the same time.\nAnd today, if maybe supposed that the Alexander school number three, a public school right across the street from the park is using that playground then white - negro children at that school are playing in the park today.\nThe judgment stands this will be destroyed.\nMr. Justice Harlan asked yesterday, if our position would be different.\nIf the testator provided for a racial reverted and I said, no.\nI think, I should add to my answer that the definitive article on this subject was written by Professor Hilarious Clark in the LRU in 1957.\nIn that article I think, contains all the arguments that charitable trust are really totally involved in state action.\nBut the case relied on by the heirs, this North Carolina Barringer case.\nI think, it shows the difference between that kind of case, on the present one.\nIn that case which is discussed at pages 47 and 48 of our brief, the North Carolina Court had two deeds before it.\nAnd one deed had an expressed racial reverted and the Court gave effect to it.\nAnd we think that was wrong not for the reasons I have expressed yesterday.\nBut the other deed in that case didn't have it good -- it had a racial limitation but didn't provide a condition and the North Carolina Court said, it wouldn't step in and make the racial choice.\nThat's what -- and it said second situation that something comfortable to that second deed in the North Carolina case that we have here.\nIt's the Georgia Court that stepped in and made the choice that today no park is to be preferred to an integrated park and Bacon really didn't make that choice.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2644.406, 2649.227, 2658.327, 2672.63, 2681.673, 2693.198, 2703.549, 2715.117, 2730.67, 2741.578, 2756.618, 2769.736, 2775.038, 2780.595, 2786.561, 2800.153, 2808.567, 2815.703, 2822.355, 2833.779, 2840.408, 2845.286, 2858.609, 2867.672, 2881.902], "stop_times": [2649.227, 2658.327, 2672.63, 2681.673, 2693.198, 2703.549, 2715.117, 2730.67, 2741.578, 2756.618, 2769.736, 2775.038, 2780.595, 2786.561, 2800.153, 2808.567, 2815.703, 2822.355, 2833.779, 2840.408, 2845.286, 2858.609, 2867.672, 2881.902, 2883.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2644.406}, "reply_to": "15396__0_099", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_001", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "That's -- what is that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2883.187], "stop_times": [2884.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.187}, "reply_to": "15396__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__1_002", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "That's the case is at the citation of the bottom of page 47 of our brief.\nIt's called Charlotte Park and Recreation Commission against Maryland, the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2884.934, 2893.568], "stop_times": [2893.568, 2898.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2884.934}, "reply_to": "15396__1_001", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_003", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Thank you I understood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2898.346], "stop_times": [2899.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.346}, "reply_to": "15396__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15396__1_004", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Mr. Nabrit you have just said that Senator Bacon did not make that choice.\nThe Georgia Court is of course said if I didn't read there opinion correctly that he did make that choice.\nDo you agree that that's the predicate of the Georgia Supreme Court holding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2899.524, 2909.484, 2917.416], "stop_times": [2909.484, 2917.416, 2922.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.524}, "reply_to": "15396__1_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__1_005", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "No, no, I think not.\nI think that they don't -- I don't read them to interpret Bacon's will to me that this will do me anything other than what we contend.\nThat he wanted a park, that they wanted it for white people and they didn't want Negroes in it, that's the purpose of the park.\nThere is no -- their decision was that when Negroes had to be admitted to the park somehow it became impossible to have a park, did become impossible to have an all white park.\nI make to be sure there is a kind of equality created by destroying the park for everyone since before only Negroes were excluded and now everyone is excluded.\nBut that kind of superficial equality doesn't for me fulfill the states obligation to afford Negroes.\nThe equal protection of the laws but we object to it the forfeiture itself.\nAnd the message of that kind of forfeiture decreed by state law it seems to me is pretty plain.\nSays something like this to Negroes, it says that the law honor us a will leaving land to a city for whites only.\nMore than it honors your right to come on city property and says that your presence eventhough lawful, so it changes the character of a public park that the law prefers no park to a park open to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [2922.224, 2925.973, 2939.763, 2949.852, 2973.686, 2989.336, 2996.14, 3003.102, 3009.737, 3021.622], "stop_times": [2925.973, 2939.763, 2949.852, 2973.686, 2989.336, 2996.14, 3003.102, 3009.737, 3021.622, 3036.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2922.224}, "reply_to": "15396__1_004", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_006", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I think your time is up Mr. Nabrit.\nI think I may have interrupted someone on this side of the bench to who have a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3036.593, 3038.503], "stop_times": [3038.503, 3045.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.593}, "reply_to": "15396__1_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15396__1_007", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I think I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3045.607], "stop_times": [3046.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3045.607}, "reply_to": "15396__1_006", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_008", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I have two questions on Mr. Nabrit.\nWhat do you say before your views to whether or not these holdings to the state of Georgia cases are recommended to or did not give a deviation according to law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3046.942, 3050.326], "stop_times": [3050.326, 3065.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.942}, "reply_to": "15396__1_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__1_009", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "My view is that there were no Georgia cases which clearly determined this that the statute Mr. -- these two statutes Mr. Jones has referred to set out on page 55 of our brief.\nOur what the Georgia Court was using and if those statutes only have any meaning when the testators intend can't be follow.\nThat's the only time that you use this statutes it is the first one, when a valid charitable be quest is incapable for some reason of execution in the exact manner provided by the testator, donor or founder.\nThe Court of Equity will carried into effect in such a way as will as nearly as possible effectuate is intention.\nObviously, Bacon's will couldn't be carried out exactly as he intended it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3065.63, 3081.126, 3093.451, 3108.5, 3117.064], "stop_times": [3081.126, 3093.451, 3108.5, 3117.064, 3121.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3065.63}, "reply_to": "15396__1_008", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_010", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, as I understand at Georgia Courts opinion said as I phrase statute didn't come in to play at all because under Georgia law given the provision to Mr. Bacon's will, Senator Bacon's will, there you were selecting the general charitable purpose and my question is, if that holding represent a deviation beside Georgia law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3121.725], "stop_times": [3145.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.725}, "reply_to": "15396__1_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__1_011", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "My answer is the same I think, we don't contend that we've no found any case like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3145.334], "stop_times": [3151.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3145.334}, "reply_to": "15396__1_010", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_012", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I have just have one other question.\nSupposing this has been entirely city owned property and run no desegregation this is of course would the city would abandon that park?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3151.29, 3153.037], "stop_times": [3153.037, 3166.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.29}, "reply_to": "15396__1_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__1_013", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Well, I think that wherever city makes a present political judgment, prudential judgment that it wants to abandon a public facility that maybe done.\nHowever, I think that kind of decision is subject to examination by a proper court as to whether or not to substitute is to whether they are really doing this as a method affording desegregation, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3166.38, 3179.397], "stop_times": [3179.397, 3191.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3166.38}, "reply_to": "15396__1_012", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_014", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "But that's that they'll be no federal right involved with the city makes abandon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3191.319], "stop_times": [3198.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.319}, "reply_to": "15396__1_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__1_015", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I think the qualification for practical purposes the qualification I made is the important thing because here the purpose is admitted there is no doubt at all.\nBut the purpose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3198.885, 3214.382], "stop_times": [3214.382, 3215.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3198.885}, "reply_to": "15396__1_014", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_016", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Where do you find that discriminatory involvement issues hence that in may have whether that you would say that did regards to the federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3215.251], "stop_times": [3222.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.251}, "reply_to": "15396__1_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15396__1_017", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "I find that the discriminatory motive in this case from the start to the finish really from the 1905 statute which would started all off, from the action of the Georgia Courts in running heir as a white only park all those years using the taxpayers money, in the Georgia perhaps city running at all issues using the taxpayers money.\nFrom the action of the Georgia Courts in trying to evade the admission of Negroes by removing the city's trustee and now in the present decision to close the park rather than that they have Negroes in it.\nSo, I think the state action in that case start to finish.\nThank you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3222.99, 3250.192, 3263.059, 3267.304], "stop_times": [3250.192, 3263.059, 3267.304, 3267.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3222.99}, "reply_to": "15396__1_016", "speaker": "james_m_nabrit_iii"}
{"id": "15396__1_018", "conversation_id": "15396", "text": "Thank you Mr. Nabrit.\nCase is submitted.\nThank you Mr. Jones, Mr. Nabrit, Mr. Claiborne for your submissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_60", "start_times": [3267.483, 3269.19, 3270.018], "stop_times": [3269.19, 3270.018, 3274.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.483}, "reply_to": "15396__1_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__0_000", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Number 236, Evans against Tillye Cornman and others.\nMr. Sweeney, you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [0.0, 31.308], "stop_times": [31.308, 36.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__0_001", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIt is not without some regret that the State of Maryland arises this morning as the appellant in this case because we are not without sympathy for the plight in which the appellees have found themselves.\nThey are citizens of the United States of America.\nThey reside within the geographical boundaries of the State of Maryland.\nThey pay certain taxes to the State of Maryland and most understandably, they are desirous of having the right to vote.\nI might also say that where there\u2019s a matter of personal discretion, for the Attorney General of Maryland before the Governor of Maryland with whom I have discussed this, we, out of sympathy will extend that right to vote to them.\nBut we also submit to the Court, that in a government of laws and not of men, that this question is one that should not and cannot be decided out of sympathy for the plaintiffs or the appellees\u2019 position but it is a question to which the laws of the United States, the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Maryland must be applied and a decision rendered after consideration of those laws.\nI further suggest to the Court that the opinion of the District Court below, a District Court which we believe is one of the finest District Courts in the United States, notwithstanding its occasional err as in the instant case.\nThat the opinion of the District Court below was decided from an overabundance of sympathy for the plaintiffs and that that opinion, we respectfully submit is mistaken in fact and erroneous in law.\nAt the outset, let me state that appellants and appellees alike concede that the land in question here is that over which the Government of the United States has exclusive legislative jurisdiction.\nIt was not the policy of the State of Maryland in ceding jurisdiction to the federal government on any of the many federal reservations scattered throughout our state to reserve to ourselves concurrent jurisdiction, except that reservation which has become almost standard, the reservation as to serving process.\nThe question as to whether or not a resident of a federal enclave over which the United States exercised exclusive legislative jurisdiction, whether those individuals were entitled to vote was considered by the Court of Appeals of Maryland as recently as 1963 when some residents of the Perry Point Naval Hospital in Cecil County in Maryland applied for the right to register, were refused that right and appealed to the court.\nIn the Court of Appeals decision in that case, Royer versus the Board of Election Supervisors, the Maryland Court of Appeals, carefully considered the long line of cases in which the courts throughout this nation have considered this same question and after consideration of those cases and after review of what we believe to be the pertinent federal law on this question concluded that these individuals residing on these reservations were not in fact residents of the state of Maryland.\nIt appears to us from our study of the law that dating from almost -- from 1811 down to as recently as six months ago in New Mexico, the courts throughout the United States have held that persons residing on federal reservations over which there is exclusive legislative jurisdiction vested in the Congress by virtue of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, those persons are not residents of the state.\nThey are not -- do not have the same political right as to the residents of the state which surrounds them and that the sovereignty and the authority and the dominion of those states, of the state surrounding these reservations does not exist over the individuals residing therein.\nIn this long line of cases considered by the courts throughout the country, there are but three representing a minority view or there were but three representing a minority view until the decision of the District Court.\nTwo of those three are not really applicable to the case at hand because one of those involved a state which had reserved to itself concurrent jurisdiction.\nAnother involved a state which -- a state statute and only one, the decision of the -- an Intermediate Court of Appeals in California followed the line of reasoning which was adopted by the District Court in this case.\nMay it please the Court, the arguments which we present today would appear to be, the first arguments addressed to this Court on this specific question, on the question of whether or not the residents of these enclaves must be granted the right to vote.\nBut the question itself is not a question of first impression to this Court.\nIt is not a question of which this Court has not taken notice on prior occasions.\nBecause the Court in surplus trading in 1930, in holding that certain blankets in the hands of a traitor on the federal reservation were not subject to state taxation.\nThis Court, set out at great length in this opinion and adopted, we believe the language of some of the state courts which had held and quoted the language of the state courts which had held that the residents of these federal enclaves were not entitled to vote, to be treated for voting purposes like the citizens of the states surrounding them.\nThe District Court decision from which we have appealed starts out by restating the premise that where the United States exercises this exclusive legislative jurisdiction over land within the state that the persons residing thereon are not, are not residents and need not be granted the vote.\nThen having, we believe, correctly stated the law, the Court goes on to examine the so-called retrocession statutes, various statutes by which the Congress of the United States, from 1928 on, has purportedly retroceded to the states certain jurisdiction over the inhabitants of these reservations and the Court after review of these statutes then concludes that the United States in fact having retroceded its jurisdiction in what it says is all or substantially all of the important matters of state sovereignty and authority that this jurisdiction is not exclusively federal but is concurrent between the state and the federal government and it being concurrent to state, the District Court said is required to extend that most precious right of all, it says the right to vote to the petitioners.\nWe submit, Your Honor, first of all that an examination of these retrocession statutes will quickly reveal that they do not retrocede to the State of Maryland or to any other state the all or substantially all of the state sovereignty over these areas nor do they give to the state concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government in the important areas of sovereignty.\nWhat do they do, quickly stated, one extends to the residents of these enclaves, the benefits and the detriments of the State of Maryland\u2019s wrongful death statute.\nAnother extends to them the benefits and the detriments of our workmen's compensation laws and of our unemployment insurance laws, the two that seem to be a third dealt with the right of the state to tax the lessee\u2019s interest in commercial properties, rented by the Government to entrepreneurs within the reservation.\nThe two retrocession statutes that were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [36.717, 41.272, 55.91, 59.437, 65.238, 73.789, 89.241, 121.411, 137.405, 156.824, 172.334, 197.961, 232.909, 267.111, 300.06, 322.393, 337.678, 350.931, 370.098, 390.409, 396.186, 402.051, 414.221, 440.275, 464.805, 529.448, 557.851, 568.283, 592.039], "stop_times": [41.272, 55.91, 59.437, 65.238, 73.789, 89.241, 121.411, 137.405, 156.824, 172.334, 197.961, 232.909, 267.111, 300.06, 322.393, 337.678, 350.931, 370.098, 390.409, 396.186, 402.051, 414.221, 440.275, 464.805, 529.448, 557.851, 568.283, 592.039, 594.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 36.717}, "reply_to": "15342__0_000", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_002", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How about state income and sales and gasoline taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [594.787], "stop_times": [598.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.787}, "reply_to": "15342__0_001", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__0_003", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I was just about to say, Mr. Justice Marshall that two that were of most interest to the District Court were the Buck Act and the Lee Act which gave to the states the right to exact income and sales taxes, that's the Buck Act and the Lea Act which gave to the states the right to levy taxes on motor fuel sold in the enclave.\nThese obviously were of great interest to the District Court and I submit to Your Honors, it is because of the application of the Buck Act and the application of the Lea Act that the District Court reached its conclusion.\nThe Buck Act gave to the State of Maryland the right to levy certain taxes on the residents of these enclaves.\nIt gave the state the right to levy income taxes and it gave the state the right to levy sales and use taxes.\nFurther, the District Court noted that although the State of Maryland has absolutely no jurisdiction of any kind to try one situated in a federal reservation for any crime, any criminal violation of the state law, the District Court noted that the Congress had enacted as long ago as 1825 the Assimilative Crimes Act and the Court says then, this substantially means that the state criminal laws are enforced on the reservation and it was really because of these, because we exact income and sales taxes and because of the Assimilative Crimes Act that I believe the District Court found that we had all or substantially all of the sovereignty over these individuals as we do our residents of the state.\nAnd it is in this, Mr. Justice Marshall that we say that the Court has been mistaken in the facts.\nFirst of all, I think this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the income taxes and the sales taxes of any state are levied for the purpose of providing the moneys which are used for such public projects as highways, schools, colleges, libraries and we believe that enacting the Buck Act, giving us the right to impose sales and income taxes on these residents, the Congress of the United States was merely saying to the State of Maryland and to the other states that we recognize that these individuals who were employed by us within the geographical borders of your states are utilizing certain state services and we recognize the inequity of your proving these services for them without any return on your part and so we believe, Your Honors, that the passage of the Buck Act was merely an exercise in congressional equity giving to the state that which the state was already entitled from the services which we supply to the appellees and I might also point out, as the District Court did not, that when the Congress of the United States enacted the Buck Act, they appended to that Act a phrase which said, that nothing contained herein shall be held to have surrendered the exclusive legislative jurisdiction that the Congress of the United States exercises under Article I, Section 8 over the lands here in question.\nI believe that this, may it please the Court, is strongly persuasive of the fact that the District Court erred when it held to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [598.69, 620.876, 637.234, 648.383, 657.889, 707.387, 718.642, 820.459], "stop_times": [620.876, 637.234, 648.383, 657.889, 707.387, 718.642, 820.459, 830.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 598.69}, "reply_to": "15342__0_002", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_004", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "May I ask you a question Mr. Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [830.864], "stop_times": [832.303], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 830.864}, "reply_to": "15342__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__0_005", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [832.303], "stop_times": [833.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 832.303}, "reply_to": "15342__0_004", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_006", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I suppose the foundation of this constitutional challenge is the Equal Protection Clause, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [833.78], "stop_times": [838.939], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 833.78}, "reply_to": "15342__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__0_007", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [838.939], "stop_times": [839.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 838.939}, "reply_to": "15342__0_006", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_008", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How would you describe the state interest, what state interest is being served in making this distinction between those on the enclave who are otherwise residents of the enclave and others?\nWhat is the state interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [839.404, 854.653], "stop_times": [854.653, 857.406], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 839.404}, "reply_to": "15342__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__0_009", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "The state's interest in this cause is this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [857.406], "stop_times": [859.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 857.406}, "reply_to": "15342__0_008", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_010", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well, you've got it in the law, you have it on your books, I know but you have to defend it in terms of some kind of a rational or some kind of an Equal Protection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [859.968], "stop_times": [867.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.968}, "reply_to": "15342__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "15342__0_011", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "The simple fact that it is unjust and discriminatory to the other citizens of Maryland, those who reside within our geographical borders but off the reservation.\nIt is unjust to them to extend, for us to extend the vote to persons living on the reservation over whom we have absolutely no sovereignty, over whom we have absolutely no authority and no dominion, accepting that authority and sovereignty granted to us which we hold at the sufferance of another sovereign.\nWe can do absolutely nothing on this reservation and that's the interest, the state interest in this question.\nAre we to be required by the District Court or by the courts of the United States to give the right to vote to people who are completely immune from a state criminal prosecution of any kind while on the land on which they reside?\nThe Assimilative Crimes Act that my brother in his brief says as the District Court, that substantially the same end is achieved, that the federal government, under the Act of 1825 and as amended will enforce on the reservation the laws of the state and we say that there is a material difference between having the laws of the State of Maryland enforced on that reservation by the United States attorney, that first of all, it means that the State of Maryland does not decide whom it shall prosecute.\nA state prosecuting officer does not decide, shall I now process this case.\nShall I step --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [867.444, 883.667, 908.646, 915.713, 935.03, 971.077, 975.951], "stop_times": [883.667, 908.646, 915.713, 935.03, 971.077, 975.951, 976.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 867.444}, "reply_to": "15342__0_010", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_012", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "And the state does not pay the expense of a prosecution or a court or a jury or a prosecutor or a policeman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [976.524], "stop_times": [983.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.524}, "reply_to": "15342__0_011", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__0_013", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Beyond question but these are the burdens of sovereignty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [983.806], "stop_times": [986.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 983.806}, "reply_to": "15342__0_012", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_014", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "As to the people themselves, not the government.\nBut as to the residents on it, with exception of not paying real property taxes, what else is that they don't have to do for the state, that every other citizen does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [986.936, 991.521], "stop_times": [991.521, 1005.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.936}, "reply_to": "15342__0_013", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__0_015", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "In the traditional phrase, thank you for asking that question, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nWe believe that an examination of the laws of Maryland will reveal that there are substantial burdens which are carried by the people of Maryland from which the defendants, from which the appellees are exempted.\nFirst of all and this Court will know as students of the law and as men versed in government, that a substantial body of law of every government is contained in the regulations and rules of the governmental agencies aside from that which appears on the statute books.\nThe persons living on federal reservations within the State of Maryland are totally and completely exempt from the regulatory authority of the 220 various agencies, boards and commissions of state government and from an unknown number of county governments in the county or municipal governments in the county in which they are situation.\nNow, are these mere words or are these matters of substance?\nLet me, if I may point out several instances which I believe will show that this is a question of substance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1005.474, 1012.153, 1024.665, 1045.342, 1067.807, 1072.466], "stop_times": [1012.153, 1024.665, 1045.342, 1067.807, 1072.466, 1080.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1005.474}, "reply_to": "15342__0_014", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_016", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I thought this is a good point to terminate.\nWe are going to take a recess until an indefinite time after lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1080.117, 1081.826], "stop_times": [1081.826, 1086.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.117}, "reply_to": "15342__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__0_017", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\n[Lunch Recess]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1086.755, 1087.699], "stop_times": [1087.699, 1103.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1086.755}, "reply_to": "15342__0_016", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_018", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Mr. Sweeney, you may pick up where you left off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1103.737], "stop_times": [1108.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.737}, "reply_to": "15342__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__0_019", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "May it please the Court.\nJust prior to luncheon recess, Mr. Justice Marshall had asked me what authority the state could not exercise over the residents of federal enclaves.\nJust to hit the highlights of some of that authority, I mentioned that they are completely exempt from the regulatory authority of the 220 odd boards, agencies and commissions of the state and of all similar county agencies which means that for example the State of Maryland is completely without power to enforce within the boundaries of the federal enclave the liquor control statutes of the state or of the county.\nThe State of Maryland is completely without authority to enforce within the confines of the enclave such state health department regulations as those which require compulsory vaccination obviously of paramount concern to the health of all in the vicinity, on or off the enclave.\nThe doctors who practice their profession on the National Institute of Health and the attorneys who practice there are free to do so without being required to subject themselves for licensing or examination by the State Board of Medical Examiners or by the State Board of Law Examiners and are not subject to the authority of the lawyers for example, not subject to the rules and procedure laid down by the Maryland Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1108.206, 1109.558, 1123.598, 1163.715, 1185.994], "stop_times": [1109.558, 1123.598, 1163.715, 1185.994, 1213.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1108.206}, "reply_to": "15342__0_018", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_020", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "So there's a lawyer, are there any lawyers on the enclave that is practicing law, just taking drop-in clients from the public --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1213.009], "stop_times": [1221.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.009}, "reply_to": "15342__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_021", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I am aware of none, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1221.891], "stop_times": [1223.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1221.891}, "reply_to": "15342__0_020", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_022", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "They're all employees of the Government aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1223.374], "stop_times": [1224.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.374}, "reply_to": "15342__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_023", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, they are sir and I mentioned these merely to show that these are the areas over which we have no authority.\nWe have no dominion, not that these specific instances operate to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1224.998, 1233.097], "stop_times": [1233.097, 1243.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1224.998}, "reply_to": "15342__0_022", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_024", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "What if it were a crime to practice law without a license in Maryland and someone on the federal enclave was permitted by the federal government to open a law office there and just engage in practice, would you say that Maryland couldn\u2019t stop him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1243.784], "stop_times": [1261.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.784}, "reply_to": "15342__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_025", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I say this, Mr. Justice White, that there is a total absence of authority for the proposition that the federal government may prosecute on a federal reservation under the Assimilative Crimes Act for violation of a state regulation even with that regulatory measure has criminal sanction attached to it.\nSo in the instance that you gave, perhaps, it would fall within the area of a substantial crime but in the great majority of regulatory measures, even though our statutes might provide that violations of any of the regulations of the Health Department or the Department of Natural Resources amount to a misdemeanor, if it is in fact a regulatory agency and I am citing the interdepartmental report on the status of federal enclaves, there is absolutely no authority for the proposition that the federal government may prosecute under the Assimilative Crimes Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1261.909, 1283.289], "stop_times": [1283.289, 1316.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1261.909}, "reply_to": "15342__0_024", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_026", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Because there are a lot of legislative acts of the legislature of Maryland that have to be obeyed on the enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1316.149], "stop_times": [1327.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.149}, "reply_to": "15342__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_027", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "You mean those, yes, under the act, under the Crimes Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1327.462], "stop_times": [1331.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1327.462}, "reply_to": "15342__0_026", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_028", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, so you do have some legislative authority over the residents of the enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1331.26], "stop_times": [1336.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.26}, "reply_to": "15342__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_029", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Beyond dispute and I think I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1336.369], "stop_times": [1337.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1336.369}, "reply_to": "15342__0_028", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_030", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "And quite a few enclaves, as a matter of facts, have quite a few powers over the residents so as a pure thought that you say the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction even though they\u2019ve ceded a good deal of it back to the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1337.997], "stop_times": [1354.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.997}, "reply_to": "15342__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_031", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "We say that -- I'm sorry, go ahead sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1354.527], "stop_times": [1356.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1354.527}, "reply_to": "15342__0_030", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_032", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Do you say that because you think the federal government could take it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1356.037], "stop_times": [1360.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.037}, "reply_to": "15342__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_033", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I think that again there is a question of law that to which there is no answer at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1360.326], "stop_times": [1365.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1360.326}, "reply_to": "15342__0_032", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_034", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But assume they could take it back, nevertheless at the present time that federal government is not exercising exclusive legislative authority over the enclave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1365.205], "stop_times": [1372.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.205}, "reply_to": "15342__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_035", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "We say that they are, that the only authority --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1372.564], "stop_times": [1376.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1372.564}, "reply_to": "15342__0_034", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_036", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How can it be exclusive if several, if substantial blocks of the Maryland laws apply to enclave residents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1376.065], "stop_times": [1384.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.065}, "reply_to": "15342__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_037", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Because one, Article I, Section 8 says it\u2019s exclusive and two, that which we exercise, we exercise by virtue of the federal congressional enactment.\nWe are exercising their powers and not our own.\nIn that sense, it is not concurrent so it's a question of semantics but the powers we exercise are saved by their sufferance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1384.843, 1394.856, 1399.352], "stop_times": [1394.856, 1399.352, 1409.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1384.843}, "reply_to": "15342__0_036", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_038", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But when you, now, one passes or amends its murder statutes or its burglary statute or something else, that applies to enclave residents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1409.136], "stop_times": [1421.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.136}, "reply_to": "15342__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_039", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "It does, under the Assimilative Crimes Act.\nUnless there is a similar federal statute and if there is a similar federal statute, then that prevails or unless the state criminal statute is contrary to the public policy of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1421.048, 1423.758], "stop_times": [1423.758, 1434.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1421.048}, "reply_to": "15342__0_038", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_040", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "And whenever you raise your sales tax, enclave residents pay it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1434.626], "stop_times": [1440.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.626}, "reply_to": "15342__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_041", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, they do.\nBut again as I've mentioned earlier, that in our position is merely in return for the services which we provide and with mention of sales taxes, let me make one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1440.703, 1441.937], "stop_times": [1441.937, 1456.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1440.703}, "reply_to": "15342__0_040", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_042", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How many voters are there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1456.219], "stop_times": [1457.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.219}, "reply_to": "15342__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_043", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I'm sorry sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1457.689], "stop_times": [1458.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1457.689}, "reply_to": "15342__0_042", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_044", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How many voters in that enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1458.449], "stop_times": [1460.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.449}, "reply_to": "15342__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_045", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "In this particular enclave, perhaps my brother could tell you, Mr. Justice Black.\nI'm --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1460.86, 1464.858], "stop_times": [1464.858, 1465.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1460.86}, "reply_to": "15342__0_044", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_046", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "You know by how many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1465.371], "stop_times": [1466.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.371}, "reply_to": "15342__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_047", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "38.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1466.551], "stop_times": [1468.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.551}, "reply_to": "15342__0_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_048", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "38, my brother says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1468.062], "stop_times": [1469.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1468.062}, "reply_to": "15342__0_047", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_049", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Are there any other enclaves like that in Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1469.252], "stop_times": [1471.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.252}, "reply_to": "15342__0_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_050", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Oh!\nYes, sir, there are many.\nPerry Point Naval Hospital I mentioned earlier and there are the military establishments, the military residents of which are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1471.614, 1471.783, 1475.748], "stop_times": [1471.783, 1475.748, 1481.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1471.614}, "reply_to": "15342__0_049", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_051", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How is the state really being injured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1481.879], "stop_times": [1484.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.879}, "reply_to": "15342__0_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_052", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I beg your pardon, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1484.661], "stop_times": [1487.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1484.661}, "reply_to": "15342__0_051", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_053", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I'm trying to see what this fight is really about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1487.65], "stop_times": [1490.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.65}, "reply_to": "15342__0_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_054", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "The state\u2019s being injured in that we are being required to extend the vote in the State of Maryland to persons living on an area over which we do not have sovereignty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1490.457], "stop_times": [1503.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1490.457}, "reply_to": "15342__0_053", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_055", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Is that the only theoretical injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1503.551], "stop_times": [1505.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.551}, "reply_to": "15342__0_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_056", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, it is and that is the only theoretical injury but I think it is more than theory.\nTo me, it's a basic and fundamental --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1505.739, 1511.719], "stop_times": [1511.719, 1513.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1505.739}, "reply_to": "15342__0_055", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_057", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Why is it?\nWhy is it more than theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1513.826, 1514.683], "stop_times": [1514.683, 1516.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.826}, "reply_to": "15342__0_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_058", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1516.228], "stop_times": [1517.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1516.228}, "reply_to": "15342__0_057", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_059", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Do they trade over in Maryland any?\nDo you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1517.808, 1519.346], "stop_times": [1519.346, 1520.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.808}, "reply_to": "15342__0_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_060", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I would assume that they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1520.066], "stop_times": [1521.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1520.066}, "reply_to": "15342__0_059", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_061", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Buy most of the goods over there, groceries and so forth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1521.887], "stop_times": [1524.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.887}, "reply_to": "15342__0_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_062", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well, in some cases yes, on some of the military establishments, of course they would buy from post exchanges and also on the military base itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1524.571], "stop_times": [1533.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1524.571}, "reply_to": "15342__0_061", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_063", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But they live on the enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1533.843], "stop_times": [1537.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.843}, "reply_to": "15342__0_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_064", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "They live on the enclave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1537.541], "stop_times": [1538.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1537.541}, "reply_to": "15342__0_063", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_065", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Have residences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1538.079], "stop_times": [1539.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.079}, "reply_to": "15342__0_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_066", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, sir.\nNow as this question of taxation, may it please the Court and it is yes, it is certainly the Buck Act which led the District Court to its conclusion in this case.\nTheir theory being, you would levy income taxes on them and sales tax that substantially what you take from other citizens, we're going to make you give them this right.\nAnd I say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1539.601, 1541.643, 1550.535, 1559.058], "stop_times": [1541.643, 1550.535, 1559.058, 1560.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1539.601}, "reply_to": "15342__0_065", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_067", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Can you collect income tax from them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1560.485], "stop_times": [1563.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.485}, "reply_to": "15342__0_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_068", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1563.548], "stop_times": [1565.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1563.548}, "reply_to": "15342__0_067", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_069", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Income tax and sales tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1565.163], "stop_times": [1566.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.163}, "reply_to": "15342__0_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_070", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, sir by virtue of the Buck Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1566.553], "stop_times": [1570.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1566.553}, "reply_to": "15342__0_069", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_071", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I'm trying to figure out where really Maryland is injured.\nIt seems to me like this is, if I may be permitted to say it's much ado about nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1570.035, 1572.444], "stop_times": [1572.444, 1579.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.035}, "reply_to": "15342__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_072", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "In number, yes.\nIn principle, may it please the Court, our position is that we're in substantially the same position as if the District Court had said to us, you must give the right to vote to aliens who are resident in Maryland and who pay income tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1579.496, 1580.671], "stop_times": [1580.671, 1593.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1579.496}, "reply_to": "15342__0_071", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_073", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well, there are not quite like aliens are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1593.57], "stop_times": [1595.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.57}, "reply_to": "15342__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_074", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I understand that they're not but they're alien to Maryland by a long line of holdings of the state courts and by approval of this Court or by citation of this Court in Surplus and other cases.\nThey are alien to Maryland and that they are not residents of Maryland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1595.724, 1607.101], "stop_times": [1607.101, 1611.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1595.724}, "reply_to": "15342__0_073", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_075", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I don't suppose you forbid them to trade in Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1611.363], "stop_times": [1613.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.363}, "reply_to": "15342__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_076", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "We do not sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1613.967], "stop_times": [1615.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1613.967}, "reply_to": "15342__0_075", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_077", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Tell me Mr. Sweeney, is the Buck Act something that makes this Maryland sales tax like federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1615.531], "stop_times": [1622.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.531}, "reply_to": "15342__0_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_078", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No, what the Buck Act does is say to Maryland, you can collect taxes from them, these specific taxes, not all taxes, these specific taxes.\nIt concludes as I mentioned earlier by saying this is not to be taken as the termination of exclusive federal jurisdiction therein.\nIt's permitting us to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1622.943, 1633.828, 1643.628], "stop_times": [1633.828, 1643.628, 1644.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1622.943}, "reply_to": "15342__0_077", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_079", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I know but is it -- I'm familiar with the idea that it may have a federal law but what it is, is borrowed a state law.\nWhat I'm trying to get at, are you arguing that all of these Maryland laws that apply in the enclave are really borrowed federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1644.737, 1653.217], "stop_times": [1653.217, 1661.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.737}, "reply_to": "15342__0_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_080", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I'm saying that we exercise all of them only at the sufferance of the federal context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1661.656], "stop_times": [1666.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1661.656}, "reply_to": "15342__0_079", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_081", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well, I take it you ought to be making the same argument if the federal government said to you, you may collect all -- you may apply all of your laws on this enclave and you may collect property taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1666.118], "stop_times": [1680.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.118}, "reply_to": "15342__0_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_082", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No, sir.\nI would not make the same argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1680.007, 1681.434], "stop_times": [1681.434, 1682.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1680.007}, "reply_to": "15342__0_081", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_083", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But why not?\nIt would still be exclusive federal jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1682.412, 1682.834], "stop_times": [1682.834, 1686.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.412}, "reply_to": "15342__0_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_084", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No sir, I'm sorry.\nThen we -- our suggested solution to this is the passage by the Congress of a Bill such as was introduced first under President Eisenhower and has been considered by a succession of Congresses which would retrocede to the state all of the jurisdiction on these areas, all of it which the federal government does not need for the specific purpose for which they are utilizing these premises.\nThen, then we say we will have concurrent jurisdiction, not exclusive but concurrent and if it is in fact, truly concurrent, then I think under the weight of the cases throughout the United States, they would be entitled to the franchise.\nBut not here, not where we are not free to apply our administrative law, not where we are not free to elect for ourselves will we prosecute or will we forebear prosecution.\nLet me, because I do not wan t--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1686.183, 1688.311, 1716.391, 1731.508, 1741.634], "stop_times": [1688.311, 1716.391, 1731.508, 1741.634, 1744.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1686.183}, "reply_to": "15342__0_083", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_085", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How large is this enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1744.402], "stop_times": [1746.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.402}, "reply_to": "15342__0_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_086", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "In size?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1746.421], "stop_times": [1751.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1746.421}, "reply_to": "15342__0_085", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_087", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "The record says 317 acres.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1751.264], "stop_times": [1754.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.264}, "reply_to": "15342__0_086", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15342__0_088", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Justice Douglas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1754.017], "stop_times": [1755.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1754.017}, "reply_to": "15342__0_087", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_089", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Are there people working on the enclave who reside outside of the enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1755.432], "stop_times": [1760.079], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.432}, "reply_to": "15342__0_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__0_090", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1760.079], "stop_times": [1760.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1760.079}, "reply_to": "15342__0_089", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_091", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "And those people can vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1760.753], "stop_times": [1762.068], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.753}, "reply_to": "15342__0_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__0_092", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Beyond question.\nThey are fully in every sense citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1762.068, 1762.859], "stop_times": [1762.859, 1766.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1762.068}, "reply_to": "15342__0_091", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_093", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Is there any requirement with respect to those living on the enclave which requires them to live there and they wish to vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1766.032], "stop_times": [1775.392], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1766.032}, "reply_to": "15342__0_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__0_094", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I know of none, Mr. Justice Harlan and it's a point that I wanted to make.\nWith all due respect to these individual plaintiffs, they have opted to remove themselves from Maryland\u2019s jurisdiction.\nThey live there by their choice and I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1775.392, 1778.775, 1785.998], "stop_times": [1778.775, 1785.998, 1789.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1775.392}, "reply_to": "15342__0_093", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_095", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I guess that is why they give them that building -- they have to pay rent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1789.599], "stop_times": [1793.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.599}, "reply_to": "15342__0_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__0_096", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, sir, they have I am sure comfortable and desirable quarters, have reasonable rentals close to their place of employment.\nThe people who work at the next laboratory desk next to them, however and who don't have those same quarters live off the reservation and are subject to all of Maryland\u2019s authority and to those, we have freely given every incidence of citizenship.\nMay I say a word about the question of property taxes?\nAgain because the District Court and because this Court obviously is so interested in the question of taxation, that we do not and cannot collect property taxes from these individuals on this.\nUnder no circumstances could we assume the federal government retains title to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1793.605, 1801.964, 1816.099, 1819.446, 1831.476], "stop_times": [1801.964, 1816.099, 1819.446, 1831.476, 1835.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1793.605}, "reply_to": "15342__0_095", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_097", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "There isn't any, there probably is not privately owned real property in it anyway, so having the right to collect property taxes wouldn\u2019t --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1835.776], "stop_times": [1839.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.776}, "reply_to": "15342__0_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__0_098", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No, sir.\nI fully understand it.\nBut the District Court makes much of the fact that we collect income tax on these residents and if we collect sales tax from it, it says therefore they pay their cost of government and they are in substantially the same position as one who lives off the reservation.\nThey even go on to cite in there that although they don't pay the county taxes which are primarily real estate taxes that the federal government through the impacted areas school assistance program makes up the deficit through impacted area funds.\nI would like the Court to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1839.654, 1846.875, 1848.592, 1863.615, 1880.354], "stop_times": [1846.875, 1848.592, 1863.615, 1880.354, 1881.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1839.654}, "reply_to": "15342__0_097", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_099", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Counsel, your time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1881.753], "stop_times": [1882.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.753}, "reply_to": "15342__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__0_100", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Thank you very much Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1882.857], "stop_times": [1888.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1882.857}, "reply_to": "15342__0_099", "speaker": "robert_f_sweeney"}
{"id": "15342__0_101", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Mr. Schifter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1888.906], "stop_times": [1891.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.906}, "reply_to": "15342__0_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_000", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe basic issue as focused on very early in the argument by Justice Harlan is the contention of the plaintiffs that the action of the State of Maryland in classifying these plaintiffs as nonresidents of the state constitutes an arbitrary unreasonable classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1891.872, 1897.128], "stop_times": [1897.128, 1922.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1891.872}, "reply_to": "15342__0_101", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_001", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Is that the provision of the Constitution you are resting your case on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1922.624], "stop_times": [1926.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.624}, "reply_to": "15342__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__1_002", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1926.617], "stop_times": [1927.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1926.617}, "reply_to": "15342__1_001", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_003", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Equal Protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1927.052], "stop_times": [1927.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.052}, "reply_to": "15342__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__1_004", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Equal Protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1927.929], "stop_times": [1929.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1927.929}, "reply_to": "15342__1_003", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_005", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Or something might turn on what tests the equal protection use.\nIs it the conventional or rationality test?\nIf it's the compelling interest test, which the argument in this Court has held flatly complies in voting cases, this case is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1929.481, 1935.321, 1943.473], "stop_times": [1935.321, 1943.473, 1955.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.481}, "reply_to": "15342__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_006", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I believe, Your Honor that we can assert our right on both tests and in that connection, I would like to point us that it might be usable for us to focus on the specific facts surrounding the acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction by the United States over the track of an issue here.\nThe track in which we are dealing is a track lying in Montgomery County to which the United States acquired title in the 1930s and then built national institutes of health on them.\nThe plaintiffs in this case moved on to the track in the 1940s, became registered voters, some around 1950 and later.\nOthers moved onto the track in the 1950s.\nIt was only in 1953 that the legislature of the State of Maryland ceded jurisdiction and thus created the exclusive jurisdiction right of the United States to this area under the Forts and Dock-yards Clause of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [1955.079, 1980.84, 1995.258, 2003.928, 2007.541], "stop_times": [1980.84, 1995.258, 2003.928, 2007.541, 2027.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1955.079}, "reply_to": "15342__1_005", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_007", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "When was the date, 1940?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2027.689], "stop_times": [2029.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.689}, "reply_to": "15342__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_008", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "1953.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2029.552], "stop_times": [2031.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2029.552}, "reply_to": "15342__1_007", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_009", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's the first time that it occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2031.446], "stop_times": [2034.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.446}, "reply_to": "15342__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_010", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2034.181], "stop_times": [2035.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2034.181}, "reply_to": "15342__1_009", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_011", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2035.132], "stop_times": [2035.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.132}, "reply_to": "15342__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_012", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right, Mr. Justice Black.\nWhat happened here was the United States first acquired title and only years later in 1953, did the State of Maryland cede jurisdiction and thus vest in the United States the exclusive jurisdiction claim under Clause 17, Section 8, Article I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2035.802, 2037.505], "stop_times": [2037.505, 2059.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2035.802}, "reply_to": "15342__1_011", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_013", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Was there any objection raised by Maryland, the State of Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2059.167], "stop_times": [2063.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.167}, "reply_to": "15342__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_014", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No, it did not.\nThe State of Maryland, in 1953 ceded jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2063.109, 2064.317], "stop_times": [2064.317, 2070.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2063.109}, "reply_to": "15342__1_013", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_015", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Voluntarily?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2070.751], "stop_times": [2071.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.751}, "reply_to": "15342__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_016", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, voluntarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2071.938], "stop_times": [2075.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2071.938}, "reply_to": "15342__1_015", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_017", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Do you think that the Congress of the United States to pass the law?\nGiving to people the right to vote in federal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2075.362, 2081.17], "stop_times": [2081.17, 2085.565], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.362}, "reply_to": "15342__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__1_018", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, the United States can do that.\nThe contention of the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2085.565, 2096.159], "stop_times": [2096.159, 2098.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2085.565}, "reply_to": "15342__1_017", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_019", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Why wouldn't that be enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2098.074], "stop_times": [2100.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.074}, "reply_to": "15342__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_020", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2100.414], "stop_times": [2101.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2100.414}, "reply_to": "15342__1_019", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_021", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Why wouldn't that really be enough if they live on the enclave?\nWhy wouldn't that give them all they need with reference to voting, if they've got it from the government which has the enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2101.131, 2109.053], "stop_times": [2109.053, 2117.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.131}, "reply_to": "15342__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_022", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Your Honor, the United States, however, the Congress of the United States has not done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2117.389], "stop_times": [2122.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2117.389}, "reply_to": "15342__1_021", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_023", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well it could, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2122.599], "stop_times": [2124.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.599}, "reply_to": "15342__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_024", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Oh!\nYes, they could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2124.883, 2124.993], "stop_times": [2124.993, 2125.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2124.883}, "reply_to": "15342__1_023", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_025", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Are you as clear about that?\nThe reason I asked the question is because I am pretty sure there is obviously no doubt about it and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2125.979, 2130.068], "stop_times": [2130.068, 2138.971], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.979}, "reply_to": "15342__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__1_026", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, under -- as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, I believe that this particular right could be said to be vested in the Congress of the United States.\nIt would not be the case perhaps with regard to other offices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2138.971, 2151.878], "stop_times": [2151.878, 2157.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2138.971}, "reply_to": "15342__1_025", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_027", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Senators?\nNot the case with the senators?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2157.006, 2159.007], "stop_times": [2159.007, 2161.961], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.006}, "reply_to": "15342__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__1_028", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I would say it would be a more difficult issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2161.961], "stop_times": [2163.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2161.961}, "reply_to": "15342__1_027", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_029", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How about representatives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2163.96], "stop_times": [2166.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.96}, "reply_to": "15342__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_030", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "It would be the same difficulty issue.\nI think with regard to House of Representatives, it would be most--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2166.147, 2167.225], "stop_times": [2167.225, 2169.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2166.147}, "reply_to": "15342__1_029", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_031", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "So in any case, you don't think Congress could -- franchise the residents to vote in state elections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2169.512], "stop_times": [2176.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.512}, "reply_to": "15342__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_032", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Constitute?\nNo, certainly not.\nAnd that therefore can only be done by asserting a right under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe position of the State of Maryland is basically that we're dealing here with a geographic area which is not part of the State of Maryland, the Doctrine of Extraterritoriality which was first enunciated by the State Courts in the 19th century particularly by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1841 in the opinion of the Justices and thereafter in Sinks versus Reese, 1869 by the Supreme Court of Ohio.\nIt is very significant to note that at both instances in the case of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and again the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the fact that the residents of the enclave, as they existed then, had no obligations whatever toward the states in question, Massachusetts and Ohio and both Courts, placed the thrust of the decisions of the decision of both of these Courts was that because there was no obligation owed by an enclave resident to the state, it was for that reason that there was no concurrent or no right arising out of it to vote in that particular state.\nAs the District Court, three-judge court in this particular case pointed out, the situation was abruptly changed when a federal government in the late 1920s and 30s, enacted a series of statues which in effect extended the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland over the enclave and enclave residents for practically all purposes other than criminal jurisdiction and this is really what we are down to.\nIt is only as far as the enforcement of the criminal laws is concerned that there is a continuing, exclusive authority vested in the United States Government for all the rest of it in terms of the daily lives of the residents of the enclaves.\nWe are dealing with people who are in every other way subject to the laws and duties of citizens of Maryland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2176.454, 2176.975, 2178.279, 2190.345, 2220.741, 2268.721, 2300.054, 2315.113], "stop_times": [2176.975, 2178.279, 2190.345, 2220.741, 2268.721, 2300.054, 2315.113, 2323.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2176.454}, "reply_to": "15342__1_031", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_033", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How could they enforce a law with reference to speeding in the enclaves for instance in Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2323.379], "stop_times": [2331.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.379}, "reply_to": "15342__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_034", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "If that would be done, Mr. Justice Black by the -- in the United States Courts by the commissioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2331.59], "stop_times": [2339.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2331.59}, "reply_to": "15342__1_033", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_035", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "The what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2339.317], "stop_times": [2340.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.317}, "reply_to": "15342__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_036", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "By United States Commissioners.\nIn other words, the speeding law would be enforced --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2340.294, 2341.864], "stop_times": [2341.864, 2346.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2340.294}, "reply_to": "15342__1_035", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_037", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "What control does Maryland have over the enclave, you said all but criminal and what does that include?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2346.175], "stop_times": [2353.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.175}, "reply_to": "15342__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_038", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Taxation, as far as all taxes to which these people would be subject if they were not living on the enclave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2353.063], "stop_times": [2362.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2353.063}, "reply_to": "15342__1_037", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_039", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "In other words, income tax --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2362.37], "stop_times": [2365.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.37}, "reply_to": "15342__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_040", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right, income tax, sales tax, motor vehicle tax and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2365.173], "stop_times": [2369.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2365.173}, "reply_to": "15342__1_039", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_041", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "So you can -- you do have that much interest in the election of officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2369.483], "stop_times": [2374.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.483}, "reply_to": "15342__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_042", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right.\nAs a matter of fact, Your Honor I wish to point out that what we are dealing with here is a situation in which the plaintiffs are deprived of the right to vote for all offices from President of the United States on down to local members of the Board of Education.\nAnd in each of these offices, save one, these residents have a very deep interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2374.029, 2374.946, 2392.986], "stop_times": [2374.946, 2392.986, 2401.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2374.029}, "reply_to": "15342__1_041", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_043", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Does this record show how many children there are resident in this enclave who are attending schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2401.126], "stop_times": [2409.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.126}, "reply_to": "15342__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_044", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "We have, Your Honor, the record only shows which of the plaintiffs have children and that they did attend schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2409.898], "stop_times": [2416.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2409.898}, "reply_to": "15342__1_043", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_045", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2416.836], "stop_times": [2418.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.836}, "reply_to": "15342__1_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_046", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "What schools do they attend?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2418.101], "stop_times": [2419.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.101}, "reply_to": "15342__1_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_047", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Schools of Montgomery County, Maryland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2419.695], "stop_times": [2422.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2419.695}, "reply_to": "15342__1_046", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_048", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That gives them quite an interest in Montgomery County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2422.439], "stop_times": [2424.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.439}, "reply_to": "15342__1_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_049", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, it certainly does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2424.36], "stop_times": [2426.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2424.36}, "reply_to": "15342__1_048", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_050", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "The preschool, public schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2426.129], "stop_times": [2427.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.129}, "reply_to": "15342__1_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_051", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, public schools of Montgomery County.\nThe record points out quite a number of the plaintiffs were members of the PTAs of Montgomery Country, that in every other way, they were part of the Montgomery County community and I wish to point out that prior to 1953, the issues as to whether they are or are not members of the Montgomery County really could not even have been raised.\nIt was simply that the state law ceding jurisdiction in 1953, simply drew a line along Wisconsin Avenue and Old Georgetown Road which said from here on end, there shall be no criminal jurisdiction by the State of Maryland over this particular area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2427.161, 2429.731, 2448.068], "stop_times": [2429.731, 2448.068, 2464.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2427.161}, "reply_to": "15342__1_050", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_052", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "When did this particular controversy come up and how?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2464.752], "stop_times": [2468.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.752}, "reply_to": "15342__1_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_053", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "It came up in 1968, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2468.92], "stop_times": [2471.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2468.92}, "reply_to": "15342__1_052", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_054", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2471.394], "stop_times": [2472.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.394}, "reply_to": "15342__1_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_055", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes and it developed in the following --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2472.1], "stop_times": [2474.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2472.1}, "reply_to": "15342__1_054", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_056", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "And Maryland made no effort to prevent that voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2474.903], "stop_times": [2478.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.903}, "reply_to": "15342__1_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_057", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right until 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2478.831], "stop_times": [2481.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2478.831}, "reply_to": "15342__1_056", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_058", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Then how did it happen, was there a state law, or anything like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2481.018], "stop_times": [2484.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.018}, "reply_to": "15342__1_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_059", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "What happened was the following, the residents of another enclave in Cecil County, Maryland, had been prevented by the Board of Supervisors of Elections of their country from voting.\nThey went into the Maryland Courts and in 1963, the Maryland Court of Appeals in the Royer case decided against them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2484.64, 2502.974], "stop_times": [2502.974, 2513.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2484.64}, "reply_to": "15342__1_058", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_060", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Decided against people who wanted to vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2513.081], "stop_times": [2514.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.081}, "reply_to": "15342__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_061", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2514.769], "stop_times": [2515.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2514.769}, "reply_to": "15342__1_060", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_062", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Now, what enclave was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2515.725], "stop_times": [2518.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.725}, "reply_to": "15342__1_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_063", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That was Perry Point Naval Hospital, Veterans Hospital, Perry Point in Cecil Country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2518.759], "stop_times": [2528.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2518.759}, "reply_to": "15342__1_062", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_064", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "How many voters there?\nI wonder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2528.901, 2529.799], "stop_times": [2529.799, 2531.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.901}, "reply_to": "15342__1_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_065", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I suppose a small number.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2531.937], "stop_times": [2534.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2531.937}, "reply_to": "15342__1_064", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_066", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Not in the size where the installation has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2534.193], "stop_times": [2538.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.193}, "reply_to": "15342__1_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_067", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "250 I am told.\nIt took, Mr. Justice Black, about five years before the news of the Royer case somehow got down to the Board of Election Supervisors in Montgomery Country and beginning early 1968 they decided to turn people down if they tried to register to vote if they were residents of the NIH enclave and in the months following when the point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2538.703, 2541.867], "stop_times": [2541.867, 2565.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2538.703}, "reply_to": "15342__1_066", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_068", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I assume Maryland is not objecting to them paying taxes ever?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2565.296], "stop_times": [2569.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.296}, "reply_to": "15342__1_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_069", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No, it did not and it has been collecting taxes all along.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2569.132], "stop_times": [2573.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2569.132}, "reply_to": "15342__1_068", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_070", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Has there been an effort, a political effort in the state legislator to include these people in a state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2573.01], "stop_times": [2580.546], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.01}, "reply_to": "15342__1_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15342__1_071", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Harlan, there has been and it has failed.\nIt also, it was proposed as a provision of the -- proposed new constitution in the State of Maryland voted on in 1968 and the proposed new constitution failed too.\nI would have to go outside the record.\nI think I have an idea as to why there is some difficult as to why it's going through them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2580.546, 2583.756, 2601.173, 2602.717], "stop_times": [2583.756, 2601.173, 2602.717, 2607.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2580.546}, "reply_to": "15342__1_070", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_072", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Difficulty as to what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2607.584], "stop_times": [2610.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.584}, "reply_to": "15342__1_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_073", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Why the legislation is not going through.\nI believe the delegation of Ann Arundel County has some doubts about military installations in that particular county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2610.087, 2616.231], "stop_times": [2616.231, 2624.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2610.087}, "reply_to": "15342__1_072", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_074", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "You mean they didn't want them?.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2624.081], "stop_times": [2625.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.081}, "reply_to": "15342__1_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_075", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right.\nI believe that is a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2625.774, 2626.374], "stop_times": [2626.374, 2627.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2625.774}, "reply_to": "15342__1_074", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_076", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "They didn't want them voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2627.861], "stop_times": [2629.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.861}, "reply_to": "15342__1_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_077", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "They didn't want the military installation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2629.089], "stop_times": [2631.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2629.089}, "reply_to": "15342__1_076", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_078", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "There wanted the military installation but they didn't want to vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2631.188], "stop_times": [2633.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.188}, "reply_to": "15342__1_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_079", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, I do want to emphasize an explanation however --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2633.233], "stop_times": [2636.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2633.233}, "reply_to": "15342__1_078", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_080", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Did they want it?\nDo I understand you said they wanted the installation but they didn't want them to vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2636.662, 2637.741], "stop_times": [2637.741, 2641.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.662}, "reply_to": "15342__1_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_081", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That's right.\nThey are dealing among other things with the naval academy, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2641.721, 2642.122], "stop_times": [2642.122, 2645.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2641.721}, "reply_to": "15342__1_080", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_082", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "They didn't want it in Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2645.196], "stop_times": [2647.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.196}, "reply_to": "15342__1_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_083", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "They would not want the residents of these military installations to be voting at Anne Arundel County.\nThat is my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2647.348, 2654.556], "stop_times": [2654.556, 2656.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2647.348}, "reply_to": "15342__1_082", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_084", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Has there ever been any objection to the installations being there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2656.718], "stop_times": [2660.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.718}, "reply_to": "15342__1_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_085", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I don't think so.\nI do want to emphasize --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2660.015, 2663.271], "stop_times": [2663.271, 2664.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2660.015}, "reply_to": "15342__1_084", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_086", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But suppose the theory behind that is that their people without a permanent attachment to the State of Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2664.781], "stop_times": [2670.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.781}, "reply_to": "15342__1_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_087", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the issue that I would like to press home here is that that is not the point that we are making.\nThe State of Maryland retains the full power to define residents in terms of the bona fides of a particular persons living in a particular locality.\nIn the case of an Annapolis for example, the State of Maryland could perfectly well hold that a midshipman entering the academy for four years is not a bona fide resident of Maryland.\nHowever, a member of the faculty who plans to spend his entire life there and lives on the enclave should be considered a permanent resident of Maryland.\nThe same is true at Fort Meade, somebody who is there on a temporary tour of duty can very well be denied his right to vote but somebody who again is there, as part of the permanent cadre should have a right to vote in the state of Maryland.\nSo the distinction can still be made, the issue that is raised here is whether a person living in a particular locality and planning to live there for the rest of his life should be deprived forever of his right to vote as long as he chooses to live at that particular locality even though he is paying taxes to the state and is as the court below pointed out also subject to the criminal laws of the state through the Assimilative Crimes Act.\nThe only issue, the only point of distinction as I have mentioned before is the point of distinction with regard to the enforcement of the criminal laws and to return to Mr. Justice Harlan's question, I would say that if the state were to provide that residents of the enclaves may not vote for a state\u2019s attorney Montgomery Count, I would say that there would be a rational reason for depriving them of that right to vote because a state's attorney of Montgomery County does indeed have no jurisdiction over the enclave.\nBut every other officer of government for whom these residents may not vote under the theory of the other state, is a person in whom, in whose services have a vital interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2670.446, 2679.472, 2695.706, 2709.464, 2720.23, 2734.686, 2765.506, 2798.741], "stop_times": [2679.472, 2695.706, 2709.464, 2720.23, 2734.686, 2765.506, 2798.741, 2815.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2670.446}, "reply_to": "15342__1_086", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_088", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Now, I am not sure I quite understand your statement of fact but the state's attorney is the only officer without at least some if not complete jurisdiction over these would-be voters.\nWhy doesn't he under the Assimilative Crimes Act, he does not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2815.946, 2827.282], "stop_times": [2827.282, 2832.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.946}, "reply_to": "15342__1_087", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15342__1_089", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No he does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2832.093], "stop_times": [2832.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2832.093}, "reply_to": "15342__1_088", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_090", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I mean if there is a robbery or a murder or a rape or criminal assault and battery, the state substantive law applies out of the Assimilative Crimes Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2832.76], "stop_times": [2841.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.76}, "reply_to": "15342__1_089", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15342__1_091", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "It does but it is enforced by the U.S. Attorney in the federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2841.653], "stop_times": [2844.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2841.653}, "reply_to": "15342__1_090", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_092", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "In the federal courts, I see.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2844.836, 2846.192], "stop_times": [2846.192, 2846.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.836}, "reply_to": "15342__1_091", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15342__1_093", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Not in Assimilative Crimes Act.\nThis is why he is the only person that has no jurisdiction over them at their place of residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2846.272, 2847.815], "stop_times": [2847.815, 2853.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2846.272}, "reply_to": "15342__1_092", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_094", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I'm just wondering whether you're giving away too much.\nWho enforces the income tax violation criminal?\nIf somebody on the enclaves refused to pay his taxes, estate taxes, who enforces that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2853.503, 2855.717, 2862.432], "stop_times": [2855.717, 2862.432, 2871.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.503}, "reply_to": "15342__1_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__1_095", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I assume that this would be done as far as the civil action is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2871.73], "stop_times": [2878.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2871.73}, "reply_to": "15342__1_094", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_096", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Criminal action.\nIs it a crime in Maryland not to pay income tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2878.51, 2881.111], "stop_times": [2881.111, 2887.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.51}, "reply_to": "15342__1_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__1_097", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I suppose it is a crime to falsify your return, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nThe enforcement I would assume would still be vested in the U.S. Attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2887.111, 2894.055], "stop_times": [2894.055, 2900.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2887.111}, "reply_to": "15342__1_096", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_098", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "That coincides with the answer you just gave me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2900.395], "stop_times": [2901.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.395}, "reply_to": "15342__1_097", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15342__1_099", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, I cannot find any way out of that.\nThe states attorney just has no jurisdiction.\nThe U.S. Attorney would have to proceed in terms of enforcing the criminal laws of the state under the Assimilative Crimes Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2901.974, 2905.236, 2908.681], "stop_times": [2905.236, 2908.681, 2917.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2901.974}, "reply_to": "15342__1_098", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_100", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Is the naval hospital across the street, an enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2917.885], "stop_times": [2922.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.885}, "reply_to": "15342__1_099", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_101", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I assume it is, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2922.802], "stop_times": [2926.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2922.802}, "reply_to": "15342__1_100", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_102", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Same problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2926.347], "stop_times": [2928.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.347}, "reply_to": "15342__1_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_103", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I assume it would arise there.\nIn the case of military personnel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2928.579, 2931.116], "stop_times": [2931.116, 2932.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2928.579}, "reply_to": "15342__1_102", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_104", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Do you have many people living --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2932.864], "stop_times": [2935.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2932.864}, "reply_to": "15342__1_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_105", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I assume we do not and the point is that in case of military personnel, the issue arises much less because they vote back home in their permanent place of residence.\nIn this particular case, we are dealing with a group of people who have made their home there for decades and who plan to stay there for good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2935.329, 2945.181], "stop_times": [2945.181, 2954.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2935.329}, "reply_to": "15342__1_104", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_106", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well, I assume that's true over at Aspen?\nA lot of them stay there for years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2954.023, 2957.097], "stop_times": [2957.097, 2961.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.023}, "reply_to": "15342__1_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15342__1_107", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But do they live --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2961.266], "stop_times": [2961.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.266}, "reply_to": "15342__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_108", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "There still would be a tour of duty --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2961.567], "stop_times": [2962.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2961.567}, "reply_to": "15342__1_107", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_109", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "-- are there residences on the naval enclave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2962.182], "stop_times": [2967.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.182}, "reply_to": "15342__1_108", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_110", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2967.128], "stop_times": [2967.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2967.128}, "reply_to": "15342__1_109", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_111", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Do they have residences for the permanent staff -- medical staff on the enclave or do they live over in Montgomery Country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2967.982], "stop_times": [2974.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.982}, "reply_to": "15342__1_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15342__1_112", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I am not sure Mr. Chief Justice.\nI suppose they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2974.535, 2976.337], "stop_times": [2976.337, 2978.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2974.535}, "reply_to": "15342__1_111", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_113", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But there are a number of residences around the hospital.\nBut I do not know whether the hospices or their doctors.\nI understand they live outside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2978.297, 2983.059, 2986.594], "stop_times": [2983.059, 2986.594, 2989.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.297}, "reply_to": "15342__1_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15342__1_114", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I suppose some live there and others may live in homes on the reservation off the enclave.\nWith regard to the basic question of whether the absence of criminal jurisdiction can deprive a voter or a resident of a particular locality of the right to vote as to place of residence, I would like to direct the attention of the Court to the analogy in the cases involving American Indians who though they live in Indian reservations are and are not under the criminal jurisdiction of the states in most instances, do have the right to vote under the various decisions of the State Supreme Court since 1948.\nWe have referred in our brief to the decisions both in Arizona and New Mexico on this particular question.\nThe issue in that instance is the same one that arises here that in the absence of criminal jurisdiction of a state over the people living on the reservation, the right to vote can nevertheless not be denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [2989.009, 3000.199, 3045.722, 3053.995], "stop_times": [3000.199, 3045.722, 3053.995, 3075.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2989.009}, "reply_to": "15342__1_113", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_115", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "What if someone opens up a liquor store on the enclave without complying with Maryland's laws for running retail liquor stores.\nCan those who enforce those laws come and seize the liquor, perhaps the state's attorney couldn't prosecute you say but could they come on and close up the store?\nPadlock it and seize the liquor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3075.275, 3086.262, 3097.391], "stop_times": [3086.262, 3097.391, 3099.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.275}, "reply_to": "15342__1_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_116", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I assume Mr. Justice White, they cannot.\nThey would have to proceed through the United States Attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3099.073, 3101.244], "stop_times": [3101.244, 3104.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3099.073}, "reply_to": "15342__1_115", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_117", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Why would that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3104.054], "stop_times": [3106.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.054}, "reply_to": "15342__1_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_118", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I believe that this is inherent in the right of -- in the fact that the United States has -- starts out with exclusive jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3106.146], "stop_times": [3116.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3106.146}, "reply_to": "15342__1_117", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_119", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "So you're saying civilly too then that the enforcement proceedings of any kind of Maryland's laws, civil or criminal are in the hands of the United States Attorney?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3116.453], "stop_times": [3131.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3116.453}, "reply_to": "15342__1_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_120", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Civil proceedings I would assume could be initiated in a certain court of Montgomery Country, Maryland against the violators --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3131.096], "stop_times": [3142.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3131.096}, "reply_to": "15342__1_119", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_121", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Well, could they come and serve warrants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3142.576], "stop_times": [3144.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3142.576}, "reply_to": "15342__1_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_122", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, they can.\nSince the very beginning of the experience under the Forts and Dock-yard Clause, an exemption has always been written into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3144.915, 3147.377], "stop_times": [3147.377, 3155.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3144.915}, "reply_to": "15342__1_121", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_123", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "For subpoenas and things like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3155.954], "stop_times": [3157.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.954}, "reply_to": "15342__1_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_124", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes, both civil and criminal.\nThis goes back --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3157.419, 3159.793], "stop_times": [3159.793, 3160.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3157.419}, "reply_to": "15342__1_123", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_125", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Serving summons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3160.459], "stop_times": [3161.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.459}, "reply_to": "15342__1_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_126", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Yes.\nAll that can be done and has been -- that was something that started way back early 19th century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3161.838, 3163.783], "stop_times": [3163.783, 3170.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3161.838}, "reply_to": "15342__1_125", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_127", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But you could probably take somebody's car away because it hadn't been inspected or didn't have a license on it, Maryland couldn\u2019t do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3170.648], "stop_times": [3179.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.648}, "reply_to": "15342__1_126", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15342__1_128", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3179.733], "stop_times": [3180.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3179.733}, "reply_to": "15342__1_127", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_129", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I understand from the government, from the appellant's brief that they can't serve on a jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3180.736], "stop_times": [3187.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.736}, "reply_to": "15342__1_128", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15342__1_130", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "This as I pointed out, Mr. Justice Douglas is a circular argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3187.359], "stop_times": [3193.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3187.359}, "reply_to": "15342__1_129", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_131", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "It is a fact I mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3193.156], "stop_times": [3195.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.156}, "reply_to": "15342__1_130", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15342__1_132", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "May I just explain.\nThe new state law provides that jurors shall be drawn from listed registered voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3195.307, 3197.645], "stop_times": [3197.645, 3206.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3195.307}, "reply_to": "15342__1_131", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_133", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3206.222], "stop_times": [3206.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.222}, "reply_to": "15342__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15342__1_134", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "And if they aren't on the list then they will be -- can't be jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3206.794], "stop_times": [3209.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3206.794}, "reply_to": "15342__1_133", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_135", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "But they can't be committed to a civil institution.\nIs that right?\nI gather that from the appellant's brief, that they can't be committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3209.624, 3215.776, 3218.276], "stop_times": [3215.776, 3218.276, 3225.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.624}, "reply_to": "15342__1_134", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15342__1_136", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "I suppose that we are dealing in that particular situation with a no man's land, will be very well be true.\nSome of -- we have point out that in terms of the real factors involving people's lives, on a day to day basis, we're dealing here fundamentally with the point that the residents of enclaves pay the taxes that all other residents of Maryland similarly situated pay and are subject to the same laws that other residents of the State of Maryland are in terms of again, the daily life that the average resident of any part of the United States participates in.\nThe only opportunity that these people have to vote is to vote as residents of the enclave.\nIf they are deprived of the opportunity of voting on the enclave, they are totally deprived of the opportunity of voting anywhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3225.794, 3234.03, 3275.512, 3283.207], "stop_times": [3234.03, 3275.512, 3283.207, 3293.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3225.794}, "reply_to": "15342__1_135", "speaker": "richard_schifter"}
{"id": "15342__1_137", "conversation_id": "15342", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schifter.\nThank you for your submissions gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_236", "start_times": [3293.929, 3296.103, 3298.039], "stop_times": [3296.103, 3298.039, 3300.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.929}, "reply_to": "15342__1_136", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_000", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "First National Bank versus Dickinson and the Camp versus Dickinson.\nMr. Springer, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [0.0, 18.186], "stop_times": [18.186, 20.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_001", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThese are two consolidated cases reviewing the same decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.\nThe ultimate question presented is whether state banking authorities can prevent a National Bank from providing its customers with an armored car messenger service to and from the bank, if they can do so on the theory that such a service amounts to the operation of a branch governed by a state law under the National Bank Act.\nSection 36 (c) of that Act provides in general term that a National Bank may establish and operate a branch if a state bank similarly situated would be authorized under state law to do so.\nFlorida, where this case arises is a state that does not permit branch banking at all and it is further established for present purposes at least that a Florida State Bank would not be permitted by the state authorities to operate the messenger service here in question.\nI might say parenthetically the reason it's established for present purposes only is that the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that there is litigation pending in a Florida State Court where this issue had been raised for the first time that will resolve presumably as a matter of state interpretation whether or not this kind of service is in fact prohibited by the Florida statute.\nHowever, subject to the outcome of that litigation which the Florida Court has stayed until this Court decides this case, the Court of Appeals accepted the interpretation of the Florida State Banking Commissioner who was one of the respondents here that the Florida Statute would prohibit this kind of service subject only to a retention of jurisdiction by the District Court to change its order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [20.646, 23.704, 30.483, 50.444, 66.135, 82.379, 108.084], "stop_times": [23.704, 30.483, 50.444, 66.135, 82.379, 108.084, 132.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 20.646}, "reply_to": "15006__0_000", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_002", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Let's see Mr. Springer, the Florida Court would say that this is not prohibited by a part of a statute then the issue we have here wouldn't be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [132.282], "stop_times": [140.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.282}, "reply_to": "15006__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_003", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, yes, that is correct Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [140.473], "stop_times": [142.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.473}, "reply_to": "15006__0_002", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_004", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Instead of putting the cart before the horse, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [142.466], "stop_times": [144.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.466}, "reply_to": "15006__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_005", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "In fact, it seemed a little strange to me that the Florida Court would stay itself pending determination of this case, but it in fact until is done so.\nIn any event, nobody knows what will happen to that litigation and unless something does happen, the Court of Appeals has in effect decided that this service cannot proceed.\nThe issue therefore in this case is whether the kind of messenger service involved here is a branch, being of course the term of order of the National Bank Act.\nIf it's a branch then 36 (c) of the National Bank Act makes its legality depend upon state law and as I have said, state law for present purposes forbids it.\nIf it is not a branch then its legality depends only upon the provisions of the National Bank Act relating to the powers of National Banks which do not refer to state law and are not in issue in this case.\nAs we see it, the definitional problem that this case presents breaks down really into two questions.\nThe first question is the threshold question of where we look for the criteria to determine, \u201cWhat is a branch?\u201d\nWe say that naturally enough one would look to subsection (f) of the branching section of the National Bank Act Section 36, which says that the term \u201cbranch\u201d is used in this Section shall be held to include any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional office or any branch place of business at which deposits are received or checks paid or money lent.\nThe Court of Appeals said however, that 30 -- Section 36 (f) is hardly adequate as a definition, those are the words that it used, and therefore that the law of Florida should determine what is a branch for purposes of this incorporation of state law that's provided for in Section 36 (c).\nAs I've indicated if the Court of Appeals was right that in the case here, if we're right there remains a further question whether the District Court properly held that the armored car messenger service in question here was not branch banking as a matter of purely federal law under the Section 36 definition which the District Court treated as the exclusive definition and of course if the District Court was right, then Florida law has nothing to do with the case.\nThere are -- these main two cases, there are two petitioners here, Comptroller of the Currency who has authorized the service in question and the First National Bank in Plant City, Florida, which is the bank that's conducting the service.\nThere will be argument on behalf of each petitioner.\nIn my argument I plan to cover the first of the questions that I've mentioned, the choice of law question, which has importance not only for this particular kind of service but for a variety of other services that National Banks offer or may wish to offer.\nMr. Edwards who will be arguing on behalf of the bank will deal primarily with the second question which assumes that of course that if we prevail on the first question, the question as to how the facts of this particular service relate to the federal definition in Section 36 (f) if that is in fact the governing definition.\nThat question of course also has great importance because there are a great variety or a great number of National Banks throughout the country that provides services or interested in providing services of the general nature of the services that are involved in Plant City.\nBecause of this division, I would hope to limit my statement of the case to a very brief statement of how the case arouse and the fundamental facts, leaving for Mr. Edwards a more detailed description of the messenger service that's involved in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [144.834, 154.128, 167.172, 178.207, 189.703, 205.178, 211.752, 218.455, 238.827, 257.134, 288.8, 303.301, 305.3, 320.36, 344.396, 365.253], "stop_times": [154.128, 167.172, 178.207, 189.703, 205.178, 211.752, 218.455, 238.827, 257.134, 288.8, 303.301, 305.3, 320.36, 344.396, 365.253, 383.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.834}, "reply_to": "15006__0_004", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_006", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Could you raise your voice a little, Mr. Springer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [383.51], "stop_times": [386.087], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 383.51}, "reply_to": "15006__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__0_007", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [386.087], "stop_times": [386.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.087}, "reply_to": "15006__0_006", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_008", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Hard feelings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [386.74], "stop_times": [390.118], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 386.74}, "reply_to": "15006__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__0_009", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "In October 1966, after consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency's office, the Plant City National Bank began to operate its messenger service.\nIt was designed for the benefit of customers primarily stores in the outlying areas of Plant City, Florida which is a city of about 18,000 people some 20 miles inland from Tampa.\nThe messenger service has two elements.\nFirst, an armored car, which pursues a daily route between the bank's office and the costumers' places of business.\nA messenger arrives on that truck and he receives from the customer's sealed bags containing funds for deposit in the bank which he then delivers to a teller at the bank's office who opens the bags and then treats the contents as deposits when they are received at the bank.\nThe messenger also delivers to the customers upon prior order by the customers sealed bags that contains change or funds for use in their businesses which have been withdrawn from the customers accounts before the truck leaves the bank.\nThe second element of the messenger service is a secured receptacle, which is literally a hole in the wall and at shopping center with the drop slot where sealed bags or envelops containing funds for deposit in the bank can be left for pickup by the messenger service during the course its daily rounds.\nThe armored car operation was designed to comply specifically with paragraph 7490 of the Comptroller's Manual for National Banks, which is a compilation of pertinent regulations among other things.\nThat paragraph authorizes such an operation subject to the condition that the customer understands the messenger as his agent and not the bank's and that any funds received are not actually deposits until the teller at the bank accepts them.\nThe bank also obtained with respect to the shopping center pickup point a specific ruling from the Comptroller's office that that was permissible subject generally to the same conditions that I mentioned.\nUnderlying both rulings of course was a determination by the Comptroller's office that such operations subject to these conditions were sound and safe services authorized by the National Bank as incidence to the conduct of a banking business and that they did not operate to the -- amount to the operation of a branch as to which of course state law would be pertinent.\nJust as the messenger service was about to begin its operations, the respondent Dickinson, who was the Florida State Banking Commissioner sent a letter to the president of the bank and expressing the view that the services would violate Florida law and threatening suit if the bank did not cease and desist.\nThe bank promptly began this suit in the District Court seeking declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent such state interference with the operation.\nThe Comptroller of the Currency subsequently intervened as a plaintiff and the respondent, state bank here also intervened as defendants on the side of the state commissioner.\nAt the outset of litigation, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction allowing messenger service to continue and in fact that preliminary injunction has continued in effect until now so the service has been proceeding.\nThen after exploration of the facts and affidavits and upon reading in depth voluminous depositions that were taken in the case, the District Court entered summary judgment in behalf of the National Bank and the Comptroller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [390.118, 402.095, 415.848, 418.452, 426.661, 445.138, 459.341, 481.225, 496.872, 510.811, 525.541, 549.666, 567.36, 577.91, 592.152, 606.865], "stop_times": [402.095, 415.848, 418.452, 426.661, 445.138, 459.341, 481.225, 496.872, 510.811, 525.541, 549.666, 567.36, 577.91, 592.152, 606.865, 622.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.118}, "reply_to": "15006__0_008", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_010", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Would you mind stating precisely the nature of business of the alleged so-call branch bank, the messenger bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [622.01], "stop_times": [632.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.01}, "reply_to": "15006__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_011", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "As I indicated Mr. Justice Black, I had hoped perhaps that Mr. Edwards in his portion of the argument could describe that more fully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [632.617], "stop_times": [639.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.617}, "reply_to": "15006__0_010", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_012", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I would like --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [639.419], "stop_times": [639.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.419}, "reply_to": "15006__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_013", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [639.935], "stop_times": [640.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.935}, "reply_to": "15006__0_012", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_014", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I know more about the case if you would do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [640.286], "stop_times": [644.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.286}, "reply_to": "15006__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_015", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, as I indicate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [644.52], "stop_times": [645.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.52}, "reply_to": "15006__0_014", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_016", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That -- if it bothers you, you waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [645.414], "stop_times": [648.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.414}, "reply_to": "15006__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_017", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It does not bother me Mr. Justice Black.\nI did try to outline the general language it operates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [648.42, 650.299], "stop_times": [650.299, 654.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.42}, "reply_to": "15006__0_016", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_018", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I didn't (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [654.499], "stop_times": [654.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.499}, "reply_to": "15006__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_019", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It involves an armored car which picks up from customers, generally business enterprises in the outlying areas of Plant City, sealed canvass bags containing funds which they wish to deposit at the main office of the bank in downtown Plant City.\nIt receives those, turns them over to a teller, actually two officials of the bank at the office who then open the bags, count the money, treat the money as if it were then deposited at the point when it reaches the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [654.842, 675.402], "stop_times": [675.402, 690.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.842}, "reply_to": "15006__0_018", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_020", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "You go and pick it -- do they go and pick it up at the individual stores in the outlying (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [690.327], "stop_times": [694.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.327}, "reply_to": "15006__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_021", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The messenger on the armored car does do that, yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [694.221], "stop_times": [697.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.221}, "reply_to": "15006__0_020", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_022", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "How far does he go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [697.648], "stop_times": [699.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.648}, "reply_to": "15006__0_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_023", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [699.371], "stop_times": [700.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.371}, "reply_to": "15006__0_022", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_024", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Does he go to any other villages or town?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [700.064], "stop_times": [702.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.064}, "reply_to": "15006__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_025", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I -- and Mr. Edwards may correct me and I believe not.\nI believe it's only incorporated more or less rural areas surrounding this shopping center.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [702.338, 705.365], "stop_times": [705.365, 712.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.338}, "reply_to": "15006__0_024", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_026", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But these are employees of the bank, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [712.022], "stop_times": [714.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.022}, "reply_to": "15006__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_027", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [714.561], "stop_times": [715.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.561}, "reply_to": "15006__0_026", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_028", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And the truck is owned by the bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [715.247], "stop_times": [717.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.247}, "reply_to": "15006__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_029", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [717.395], "stop_times": [718.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.395}, "reply_to": "15006__0_028", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_030", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And they're controlled by the bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [718.332], "stop_times": [721.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.332}, "reply_to": "15006__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_031", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, in the sense that any employee would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [721.369], "stop_times": [722.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.369}, "reply_to": "15006__0_030", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_032", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "There are routes -- their daily activities are directed by the bank as principle as the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [722.168], "stop_times": [728.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.168}, "reply_to": "15006__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_033", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice though of course the con -- there are contractual relationships.\nThere's a specific contract with each customer upon whom the truck calls.\nThere's a contract in which the customer states that he understands it that in fact the messenger is his agent not the banks and that money is not treated as a deposit until it is actually received at the bank which of course has substantial practical significance.\nIf the truck were robbed, the money would still be the customer's money and not the bank's money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [728.098, 732.956, 741.216, 759.766], "stop_times": [732.956, 741.216, 759.766, 766.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.098}, "reply_to": "15006__0_032", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_034", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But it's not sure (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [766.692], "stop_times": [767.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.692}, "reply_to": "15006__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_035", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's true that there is insurance but it would not be a deposit until the customer for example, in a case of a robbery, obtained recovery from the insurance company and then gave that money to the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [767.843], "stop_times": [779.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.843}, "reply_to": "15006__0_034", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_036", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And who provides the insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [779.478], "stop_times": [781.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.478}, "reply_to": "15006__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_037", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The bank pays for the insurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [781.341], "stop_times": [783.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.341}, "reply_to": "15006__0_036", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_038", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Does the depositor pay anything for this service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [783.97], "stop_times": [787.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.97}, "reply_to": "15006__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__0_039", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, he does not Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI understand that though it's -- I suppose not strictly part of the record though it has been contemplated that when the service shakes down, and I don't know exactly when that would be and some allocation of costs could be made then perhaps insurance would be paid by the customers, but it is true that there is now no charge to the customers.\nAs I indicated, the District Court agreed with what this -- in substance our position here that the determination whether or not this service amounts to a branch is one of purely federal law in the application of the definition that's set forth in the National Bank Act.\nHe further determined that this service did not amount to a branch that the Comptroller had properly so determined and accordingly the service was allowed.\nThe Fifth Circuit reversed, taking the approach that the question whether or not this was a branch and therefore whether Florida law would be incorporated and therefore whether Florida law would be allowed to prohibit this service was a question of state law and that since Florida law as the Court understood it regarded this activity as a branch therefore, Section 36 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [787.95, 789.653, 812.95, 833.43, 842.504], "stop_times": [789.653, 812.95, 833.43, 842.504, 867.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.95}, "reply_to": "15006__0_038", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_040", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Now wait, what was the source of that Florida law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [867.205], "stop_times": [870.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.205}, "reply_to": "15006__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_041", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The source of that Florida law as to what was a branch, was ultimately the Court of Appeals' notion of the meaning of a Florida statute, which in fact says nothing about branching or about branches in terms.\nIt simply says any bank or trust company shall have only one place of doing business and skipping a bit and the business of the bank or trust company shall be transacted at its banking house and not elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [870.211, 889.955], "stop_times": [889.955, 902.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.211}, "reply_to": "15006__0_040", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_042", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That there are no Florida decisions would support the Court of Appeals' interpretation you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [902.024], "stop_times": [906.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.024}, "reply_to": "15006__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_043", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That is true Mr. Justice Brennan.\nThere is a fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [906.601, 908.125], "stop_times": [908.125, 908.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.601}, "reply_to": "15006__0_042", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_044", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That what -- is that issue now before the Florida (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [908.416], "stop_times": [910.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.416}, "reply_to": "15006__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_045", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "As I say is that the issue in a court and a case which is now on a -- at a lower court in Florida which of course may work its way up through the system.\nThe Court of Appeals did as I indicated note review of the Florida banking commissioner and did to be frank indicate that it thought that was a reasonable position, so it was not and an out reliance simply upon the ruling of a Florida official.\nThe Fifth Circuit's decision leaves us what seems to us an anomalous principle one which is apparently repudiated in this Court by the respondents, but which is enthusiastically supported by the amicus brief that's been filed on behalf of the National Association of State Bank Supervisors who I understand will be presenting oral argument and who represent all 50 of the state banking commissioners, including the one who is a respondent here.\nWe believe that the principle followed by the Court of Appeals is erroneous and that it is one that would be highly damaging to the proper regulation of the National Bank system.\nWe think that a straight forward reading to begin with of Section 36 of the National Bank Act makes it quite clear that Section 36 is designed to establish a uniform and exclusive definition of what is a National Bank branch.\nThe structure of Section 36 remains now very much as it was when it was first enacted in 1927 as Section 7 of the McFadden Act which for the first time allowed National Banks to engage in branch banking, generally speaking on the same terms as state banks.\nThe introductory paragraph of Section 36 provides that the conditions upon which a National Bank -- Banking Association may retain or establish and operate a branch or branches are the following and the word \u201cbranch\u201d appears throughout the Section notably in subsection (c) to which I have referred, which says that \u201ca National Banking Association may with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency establish and operate new branches if such establishment and operation are at the time expressly authorized to state banks by the law of the state in question.\u201d\nNow, there are further refinements there which I won't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [910.534, 918.73, 942.285, 972.94, 986.386, 1003.611, 1027.89, 1060.271], "stop_times": [918.73, 942.285, 972.94, 986.386, 1003.611, 1027.89, 1060.271, 1062.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.534}, "reply_to": "15006__0_044", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_046", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Springer, do you read the Court of Appeals' opinion and citing that the -- whether this is a branch under federal law and wholly irrelevant to consideration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1062.462], "stop_times": [1074.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.462}, "reply_to": "15006__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_047", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of not entirely clear language in the opinion.\nI think that the ultimate -- the court's statement of what it was holding and it's holding in fact can only be read as a holding that if state law regards it's as a branch, it is therefore a branch for purposes of federal law and therefore state substantive law of branching is incorporated by Section 36 (c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1074.224, 1081.345], "stop_times": [1081.345, 1105.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.224}, "reply_to": "15006__0_046", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_048", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "With respect to whether looking at it simply because the court findings of the federal law, it's a branch or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1105.478], "stop_times": [1113.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.478}, "reply_to": "15006__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__0_049", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, in fact the Court of Appeals said that the federal law is hardly adequate as a definition and as we read it, I have seen -- as the state bank supervisors read it, I believe that in substance it does amount to saying that if state law calls it a branch, you don't have to look at the federal law.\nThat seems to us a highly anomalous reading of a subsection of a federal statute which says that the term \u201cbranch\u201d is used in this Section shall be held to include any branch bank office, agency, additional office at which deposits or receive checks paid or loans or money lent.\nCongressman McFadden who is of course the sponsor of the Act said at his own analysis of the act upon its passage that subsection (f) and now I'm quoting from his language defines the term \u201cbranch\u201d and he plays outside of the way -- or away from the main office where the bank carries on its business or receiving deposits, paying checks, lending money or transacting business at the main office is a branch.\nAnd of course this question of \u201cWhat is a branch?\u201d\nis relevant for a variety of purposes other than subsection (c) to which who we refer in our brief, including sections where there is no semblance of any incorporation of state law.\nIt seems unusual that Congress would expect that these -- that the definition of branch for these purposes would vary according to the state where the particular National Bank in question is located and it seems even more anomalous to treat the word \u201cbranch\u201d as having different meanings in different subsections of the same section enacted at the same time.\nAs we further detail in our brief, the Comptroller, the Attorney General and until this case, the Federal Courts have all treated the question of whether or not a particular enterprise is a branch as a question of federal law unaffected by local law0 and of course this is consistent with the general principle that when Congress uses a word unless there's some reason to believe, otherwise, Congress intended that that word should be defined and interpreted as a matter of federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1113.765, 1136.546, 1163.502, 1190.369, 1192.784, 1209.032, 1233.453], "stop_times": [1136.546, 1163.502, 1190.369, 1192.784, 1209.032, 1233.453, 1262.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.765}, "reply_to": "15006__0_048", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_050", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Springer, is it true in the Plant City, a state bank could not operate this service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1262.058], "stop_times": [1268.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.058}, "reply_to": "15006__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__0_051", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It -- as I -- subject to what I said before that that is true, subject to a possible decision of the contrary by the Florida Courts where the question as -- but for present purposes, that is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1268.314], "stop_times": [1277.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.314}, "reply_to": "15006__0_050", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_052", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But as (Voice Overlap) and now as the way the law it now stands in Florida, a state bank could not give its depositors this additional free service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1277.201], "stop_times": [1289.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.201}, "reply_to": "15006__0_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__0_053", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1289.13], "stop_times": [1290.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.13}, "reply_to": "15006__0_052", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_054", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But a National Bank can?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1290.261], "stop_times": [1292.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.261}, "reply_to": "15006__0_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__0_055", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes.\nWe say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1292.231, 1293.546], "stop_times": [1293.546, 1294.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.231}, "reply_to": "15006__0_054", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_056", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Isn't that contrary to the Act itself, the purpose of the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1294.011], "stop_times": [1300.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.011}, "reply_to": "15006__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__0_057", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's argued of course that that is contrary to a supposed principle of competitive equality and of course that principle was articulated and followed by this Court in the Walker Bank case.\nAs to that, of course the Walker Bank case involved the situation where nobody questioned that what was involved was a branch and that there was an incorporation of state law.\nThe question there was, \u201cIs all of the state law incorporated or as the Court put it, only some of it?\u201d\nThe Comptroller made a valiant uphill argument that it was only the law relating to location that was incorporated and not the law relating to the manner in which a branch can be establish.\nThis case on the other hand, raises the question whether there is any incorporation of state law at all.\nThere is such an incorporation only if there is a branch.\nWe would submit that the policy of \u201ccompetitive equality\u201d which is a genuine policy comes into play only to the extent that there is in the Act an incorporation of state law.\nIt is not an all pervading absolute policy that runs throughout every provision of the National Bank Act and of course there are great many things that National Banks can do that states banks cannot do and there are a great many things that state banks cannot do that National Banks can -- state banks can do that National Banks cannot do.\nSo, that we say that while \u201ccompetitive equality\u201d is a very genuine principle, it is a principle that applies only in the instances where Congress has specifically provided for a reference to state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1300.126, 1316.496, 1327.22, 1335.171, 1352.587, 1361.516, 1365.944, 1379.147, 1398.151], "stop_times": [1316.496, 1327.22, 1335.171, 1352.587, 1361.516, 1365.944, 1379.147, 1398.151, 1414.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1300.126}, "reply_to": "15006__0_056", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_058", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- that where amongst the questions of government law lose that part of this [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1414.99], "stop_times": [1420.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.99}, "reply_to": "15006__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__0_059", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, that is certain true Mr. Justice White and I'm relying on my colleague primarily to convince you that that as a matter of the federal definition this act, this pickup and delivery service does not amount to the conduct of a branch and more particularly in the words of the statute does not amount to the receipt of deposits or the payment of checks.\nThe effect of the Court of Appeals' notion of the all pervading applicability of a principle of competitive equality is delegate to the states a broad control over perhaps any off-premise activity by a National Bank.\nAll the state has to do is call it a branch and then like calling it a branch, the state can succeed in having its own substantive law which may permit it or may prohibit it, incorporate it, purportedly through subsection (c) of Section 36.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1420.277, 1449.428, 1471.7], "stop_times": [1449.428, 1471.7, 1488.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.277}, "reply_to": "15006__0_058", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_060", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, if a state did that, I suppose the Court might be interested in whether the state was doing something of the same general character and not calling it a branch, wouldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1488.003], "stop_times": [1497.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.003}, "reply_to": "15006__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_061", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Oh!\nIt would certainly be turned.\nOf course the state Comptrollers say that, \u201cWhy should anybody be worried?\u201d\nThe state Comptrollers can prohibit an act by a National Bank only if they are also willing to prohibit it by a state bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1497.371, 1497.498, 1498.311, 1502.651], "stop_times": [1497.498, 1498.311, 1502.651, 1512.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.371}, "reply_to": "15006__0_060", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_062", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And you indicated I think earlier that the state does not permit this activity for a state bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1512.315], "stop_times": [1519.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.315}, "reply_to": "15006__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__0_063", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes.\nOf course the effect of this is -- first, to move from the federal Comptroller to the state officials or at least to the state legislature, a broad range of control over the incidental services that a National Bank can perform off its premises.\nThis involves not only armored car service of this type but involves a broad range of activities related to the lending of money which is another issue of some kind of importance in the area.\nPotentially, it could involve things like a bank credit card for example, which I suppose a state Comptroller could regard as a banking activity being carried on off the banks premises.\nAnd if the state Comptroller chose to prohibit it, he could prohibit it and under the Fifth Circuit's theory, it appears that that would mean that in that particular state a National Bank cannot carry on that kind of activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1519.144, 1520.753, 1540.173, 1554.687, 1569.977], "stop_times": [1520.753, 1540.173, 1554.687, 1569.977, 1582.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.144}, "reply_to": "15006__0_062", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_064", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Does a messenger a lien man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1582.592], "stop_times": [1585.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.592}, "reply_to": "15006__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_065", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, there is no, I believe there's no issue whatever in this case Mr. Justice Black of lending.\nI am just saying that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1585.172, 1590.14], "stop_times": [1590.14, 1590.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.172}, "reply_to": "15006__0_064", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_066", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "(Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1590.804], "stop_times": [1591.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.804}, "reply_to": "15006__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_067", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- of course the principle of a aligning the states in to this extent would permit them to govern when to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1591.032], "stop_times": [1596.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1591.032}, "reply_to": "15006__0_066", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_068", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "(Voice Overlap) lending activities, the reason I asked the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1596.334], "stop_times": [1600.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.334}, "reply_to": "15006__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_069", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, certainly on the facts of this case, there is no question of lending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1600.64], "stop_times": [1605.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1600.64}, "reply_to": "15006__0_068", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_070", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's all they do to accept deposit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1605.25], "stop_times": [1608.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.25}, "reply_to": "15006__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_071", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, in a technical sense at least they do not accept deposits.\nThey accept money for deposit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1608.452, 1611.73], "stop_times": [1611.73, 1613.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.452}, "reply_to": "15006__0_070", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_072", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1613.615], "stop_times": [1613.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.615}, "reply_to": "15006__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_073", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The deposit taking place when the teller --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1613.96], "stop_times": [1616.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1613.96}, "reply_to": "15006__0_072", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_074", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is that all they do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1616.064], "stop_times": [1618.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.064}, "reply_to": "15006__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_075", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And they also deliver funds withdrawn from a customer's account to the customer's store.\nHe can call in and say, \u201cWould you please take (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1618.429, 1627.215], "stop_times": [1627.215, 1630.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.429}, "reply_to": "15006__0_074", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_076", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Do they cash check?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1630.081], "stop_times": [1632.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.081}, "reply_to": "15006__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__0_077", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, they do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1632.189], "stop_times": [1635.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1632.189}, "reply_to": "15006__0_076", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_078", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "With no charge, no extra charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1635.044], "stop_times": [1637.442], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.044}, "reply_to": "15006__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__0_079", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, it's true there is no -- there is at present no charge to the customer other than the charges of having the account at the bank and of course there's the factor that generally the people who use this are relatively large customers from whom of bank presumably receives relatively large service charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1637.442], "stop_times": [1655.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1637.442}, "reply_to": "15006__0_078", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_080", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "However, this is based with the case that colleague [Inaudible] of argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1655.216], "stop_times": [1660.712], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.216}, "reply_to": "15006__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__0_081", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, so of course I'm happy to answer.\nSo, as I have indicated we think that does have broad significance, some of which has been indicated in some detail by the brief filed by the Bank of Cornelia and a group of other national banks throughout the country as amicus curiae in this case.\nIn sum, we think on this choice of law issue that the District Court gave Section 36, a simple straight forward and sensible reading.\nThe act provides according to that reading which seems not only sensible, but the least complicated approach which has some virtue that National Banks can have branches where state banks can have branches, but as befits a comprehensive scheme of federal regulation, the act specifies that uniformed nationwide set of criteria for determining what is a branch and therefore when we look to state law.\nI might just say a word by way of introduction to Mr. Edwards' point that of course the Comptroller in promulgating the rulings pursuant to which these activities are being carried on made a determination that this pickup and delivery services do not amount to branch banking.\nThe Federal Reserve Board for its own purposes which involve its regulation of state banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System which are governed by the same law, the same federal law with respect to branching has made exactly the same determination.\nWe believe that those interpretations are first the only reasonable ones that can be given of the federal statute assuming we are treating the question as a matter of federal law.\nIn any event, we believe that the expert interpretations of the law that they are directed to administer by these two federal agencies is entitled to a certain amount of deference.\nIf there's an area of reasonableness that determination should be set aside only if it is found to be unreasonable.\nTherefore, we believe first that the question is before this Court is one of federal law and that the federal law was properly interpreted with respect to this kind of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1660.712, 1667.002, 1685.029, 1697.162, 1722.818, 1743.838, 1762.946, 1773.909, 1785.267, 1795.689], "stop_times": [1667.002, 1685.029, 1697.162, 1722.818, 1743.838, 1762.946, 1773.909, 1785.267, 1795.689, 1808.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1660.712}, "reply_to": "15006__0_080", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_082", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What's the language that you're relying on, the Court of Appeals' opinion which excludes any necessity for examining the -- arraignment here, in terms of federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1808.831], "stop_times": [1822.642], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.831}, "reply_to": "15006__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__0_083", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We have set forth some of that on our reply brief at page three.\nFirst of all, the Court starts of early in its opinion by saying that the controlling issue of law in this appeal concerns the District Court's choice of law.\nThat is that court's failure to consult state law in determining whether First National's activities constitute branch banking.\nThen it goes on to say First National attempts us to convince -- attempts to convince us that Section 36 (f) is the sole and monolithic definer of branch then by taking us through some level [Inaudible] and meandering past of the laws of agency in contract.\nFirst National seeks to demonstrate that it is not a established offices or agencies whereas specified in Section 36 (f), deposits are received or checks paid or money lent.\nSuch a line of argument is the Court of Appeals said in the principle and finally, it's said towards the end of its opinion we therefore refuse to pass the twisting pass of agency in contracts urged upon us in this case and look instead to the laws of Florida.\nI think as I have said that considering that language plus the result, we have to say that in effect the Court of Appeals have said that the language of 36 (f) is superfluous.\nIt's there, but it really doesn't have any meaning because if the state calls it a branch, then it is a branch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1822.642, 1830.202, 1838.314, 1848.878, 1862.867, 1873.596, 1890.816, 1905.747], "stop_times": [1830.202, 1838.314, 1848.878, 1862.867, 1873.596, 1890.816, 1905.747, 1913.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1822.642}, "reply_to": "15006__0_082", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15006__0_084", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Thank you Mr. Springer.\nMr. Edwards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1913.571, 1915.694], "stop_times": [1915.694, 1920.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.571}, "reply_to": "15006__0_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_000", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI'd like to begin if I might by addressing myself just generally to how we got in to this situation.\nI represent the First National Bank in Plant City who filed the suit for declaratory relief in the Federal District Court, in the Northern District of Florida where Mr. Dickinson resides in Tallahassee.\nWe were faced with the situation of where we had gone to this Comptroller of the Currency who is our supervisor and our boss as it were and had cleared with him and had -- having analyzed his regulations and rulings that we could carry on this transaction that we do now carry on.\nWe had prepared and began to render this service when we received a letter directed to us by the Assistant Deputy Banking -- the Deputy Banking Commissioner of the State of Florida simply telling us to cease and desist that their activities constituted branch banking under Section 659.06 of the Florida law and indicated that if we did not elect to cease and desist that they would take action as they had just recently filed against a bank in Panama City to require us to terminate this type of service that we were rendering.\nIt was much later in -- as a matter of fact after a favorable decision by the Federal District Court and the appeal was well on to the Circuit Court of Appeals whenever the state court was first involved in this litigation by a service that was began by a bank in Tallahassee.\nSo, that the state litigation arose much later in the course of time and there was no state litigation available or state decisions available that would guide anybody at the time that the District Court made its decision in this matter.\nI might as a matter of passing point out to you that much later even after the Circuit Court of Appeals had entered its decision, there was a case in -- the Greater Mine and Financial Corporation against Dickinson decided by the Supreme Court of Florida wherein the Supreme Court Florida declined to determine that Section -- that Chapter 659 made the activities of a broker who was soliciting and accepting deposits for transmittal to a savings and a loan association in the state of California as a banking activity.\nThe Supreme Court at that instance said that the receipt of these moneys by this broker to transmit to Tal -- California did not constitute the acceptance of a deposit which would violate Chapter 659 of the banking law and in essence make that broker a banker.\nSo, that that decision by the Supreme Court is available to us from the state of Florida.\nThere were no other decisions.\nThere are no other decisions.\nThe Circuit Court which is the court of original jurisdiction in Florida elected to simply wait the outcome of this case since the activities had been began on the base -- based on the District Court's opinion or decision that it was lawful.\nI need to speak to also to the fact that we have been characterized as carrying on a subterfuge in our activities in Plant City.\nAnd I need to say to you that Plant City is a small community located 20 miles from Tampa, 11 miles from Lakeland.\nWe are a very small community between two larger communities and we are a large developing area.\nWe serve a much larger community than 18,000 people.\nWe had a real need shown to us by several of our customers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [1920.161, 1923.022, 1929.809, 1941.522, 1959.188, 1989.331, 2006.056, 2020.661, 2051.551, 2066.773, 2070.947, 2072.356, 2073.704, 2088.312, 2096.326, 2103.318, 2108.031, 2112.477], "stop_times": [1923.022, 1929.809, 1941.522, 1959.188, 1989.331, 2006.056, 2020.661, 2051.551, 2066.773, 2070.947, 2072.356, 2073.704, 2088.312, 2096.326, 2103.318, 2108.031, 2112.477, 2114.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1920.161}, "reply_to": "15006__0_084", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_001", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What is the population of Plant City?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2114.812], "stop_times": [2116.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.812}, "reply_to": "15006__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_002", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I beg your pardon sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2116.927], "stop_times": [2117.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2116.927}, "reply_to": "15006__1_001", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_003", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What is the population of Plant City?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2117.469], "stop_times": [2119.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.469}, "reply_to": "15006__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_004", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Within the incorporated limits, our Chamber of Commerce claims 18,000 people.\nWe hasten it always --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2119.798, 2124.748], "stop_times": [2124.748, 2125.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2119.798}, "reply_to": "15006__1_003", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_005", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Are there any other banks there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2125.228], "stop_times": [2126.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.228}, "reply_to": "15006__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_006", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "There are -- there's one other bank, a state chartered bank that's been existing since 1905.\nIt is the Hillsborough Bank and one of the interveners here.\nWe also have two other interveners which is the People's Bank of Lakeland which is 11 miles away in the city of Lakeland and the First State Bank of Ruskin which is approximately 25 miles south of us.\nThese three banks or three state banks are interveners in this cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2126.783, 2131.897, 2136.173, 2147.657], "stop_times": [2131.897, 2136.173, 2147.657, 2151.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2126.783}, "reply_to": "15006__1_005", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_007", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Interveners and what's their position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2151.897], "stop_times": [2154.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.897}, "reply_to": "15006__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_008", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "They are on the side of the state banking commissioner.\nThey have actively carried on the litigation on behalf of the banking commissioner of Florida, resisting the decision of the Federal District Court and sustaining or promoting the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.\nThe Hillsborough Bank has long been in existence, the state banking in the city of Plant City.\nWe were -- became a charter bank in 1957 and as such was the baby bank, the one that needed to get out and to do things in order to get deposits and in order to be able to render a service to the community and thereby grow.\nWe are the smaller bank of the two banks in the community.\nWe found ourselves in 1966 and 19 -- actually in 1965 with the situation where our city which had been long a very small city was beginning to develop and the first shopping center was coming in.\nIt was located approximately a mile from town.\nWe elected or we researched under the federal ruling that was available to us, this idea of how we could render a service to this shopping center approximately a mile from town.\nWe determined that the locating of a drop, some -- very similar, a matter of fact identical to the night depository which we had at the bank.\nIn that shopping center, would render a very great service to this area because we have all these mini-stores that were confronted with the problem of getting after closing hours, getting from that place to our banking premises hopefully and possibly to the other banking premise to deposit the collections of the day carrying with them all of the attended problems that goes with transporting money after dark and so forth.\nWhen we were able to determine that the Comptroller of the Currency felt that if we complied with these rulings that this drop would not go to and become within the ambit of the definition of a branch bank.\nWe begin this service and incidentally this service is now being rendered by several other banks within the State of Florida.\nThis service is simply a place for people to bring their night bags and drop then into the night depository.\nSo that they will be picked up by our armored car messenger service and transmit it to the bank either that evening or the next morning thereby eliminating the problem that is very difficult for them.\nNow, we also elected at the same time because the definite -- or because there were -- our comptroller's regulations indicated that it could be done to assign contracts with various other business people in the area which said that we would agree to transmit their funds to the bank for deposit.\nAs agent with the clear understanding on the basis of the contract that was signed that their deposits would become deposits when they reached the bank, the bank's teller and thereby we felt that we had adequately met the test that the federal definitions set up.\nWhen we examined Section 36 (f), it was very clear to say that branch banking would be considered and we would become under the Florida regulations when we established a branch place of business or another business office at which we elected to accept deposits or pay checks or lend money.\nAnd we were very careful not because of any subterfuge, but simply because we wanted to stay within the rules and render the service that was needed to have an understanding with our people that this is what we are doing.\nAnd I would submit to you that on the basis of that, we have a clear understanding with these people and that we cannot go beyond that and that we will not go beyond that and that this is a very definite and clear place where you can draw the line.\nAnd that this is what Congress we believe intended to do.\nThat we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2154.966, 2158.295, 2176.344, 2182.229, 2197.083, 2200.144, 2212.243, 2215.159, 2225.886, 2234.424, 2258.138, 2271.647, 2278.395, 2285.205, 2297.294, 2313.847, 2334.229, 2355.069, 2366.714, 2379.162, 2382.554], "stop_times": [2158.295, 2176.344, 2182.229, 2197.083, 2200.144, 2212.243, 2215.159, 2225.886, 2234.424, 2258.138, 2271.647, 2278.395, 2285.205, 2297.294, 2313.847, 2334.229, 2355.069, 2366.714, 2379.162, 2382.554, 2382.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2154.966}, "reply_to": "15006__1_007", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_009", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I'd like to ask you a little more about the factual setting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2382.718], "stop_times": [2385.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.718}, "reply_to": "15006__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_010", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Please do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2385.963], "stop_times": [2386.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2385.963}, "reply_to": "15006__1_009", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_011", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- that I think Mr. Justice Black was addressing himself to a while ago.\nThey carry money both ways, do they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2386.382, 2391.047], "stop_times": [2391.047, 2393.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.382}, "reply_to": "15006__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_012", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2393.075], "stop_times": [2394.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2393.075}, "reply_to": "15006__1_011", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_013", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Suppose a customer who is a contractor calls the bank and said that he wanted $10,000.00 in small bills delivered in a certain way and delivered to the job site where the contractor was performing work in order to pay off his employees, would the bank -- would the First National carry out that instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2394.742], "stop_times": [2424.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.742}, "reply_to": "15006__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_014", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "If he has own deposit in the First National Bank $10,000.00 and has previously signed this contractual arrangement with us whereby we have agreed to charge his account.\nThen, we will charge his account, place this money in a sealed container outlining the moneys that is in there carry it to the person who has requested it, obtain a receipt from him where he by he acknowledges that we have charged his account at the bank and deliver those moneys to him, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2424.544, 2436.035], "stop_times": [2436.035, 2454.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2424.544}, "reply_to": "15006__1_013", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_015", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Would they put it in envelopes with names on it specifying amounts for each person so that these envelopes could be handed out to the employees on the job site?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2454.894], "stop_times": [2466.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.894}, "reply_to": "15006__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_016", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We do that quite frequently for people in our -- to come to our drive-in window -- if they asked for a pay -- that a payroll will be made up, yes we do that and place it within the bag and it can be picked up in our drive-in window at the bank.\nNow, I say that because I don't believe that we've been asked to do that in our service.\nWe have not been called on, but the answer is that is probably we would Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2466.779, 2478.571, 2483.372], "stop_times": [2478.571, 2483.372, 2487.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2466.779}, "reply_to": "15006__1_015", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_017", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "How far?\nWhat would be the range of the territory that you would make that delivery to the job site of the contractor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2487.349, 2487.866], "stop_times": [2487.866, 2495.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.349}, "reply_to": "15006__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_018", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, there is no rule on it.\nThe practical economics of the situation would govern.\nWe -- our truck does go out as far as 20 miles in one or two instances and some other instances are in all honesty the trucks range much further than that.\nIt -- there is no rule within the federal system that says that we can go only so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2495.049, 2497.004, 2500.127, 2509.812], "stop_times": [2497.004, 2500.127, 2509.812, 2515.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2495.049}, "reply_to": "15006__1_017", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_019", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But a state bank could not or could it afford that service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2515.99], "stop_times": [2521.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.99}, "reply_to": "15006__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_020", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Under the present circumstances in Florida, it could not because it has been held by Comptroller Dickinson to be a matter of branch banking and they would not allow that.\nI think that would bring us well to this idea of the competitive equality which has been the overriding problem in the situation all along.\nAnd I would like to call to this Court's attention --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2521.107, 2530.161, 2537.445], "stop_times": [2530.161, 2537.445, 2538.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2521.107}, "reply_to": "15006__1_019", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_021", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Do you go to villages outside of Plant City?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2538.698], "stop_times": [2541.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.698}, "reply_to": "15006__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_022", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes we do, some very small villages are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2541.725], "stop_times": [2544.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2541.725}, "reply_to": "15006__1_021", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_023", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What size?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2544.568], "stop_times": [2545.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.568}, "reply_to": "15006__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_024", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Of one store or two stores, fill-in stations and a store combined to something in its stature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2545.709], "stop_times": [2550.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2545.709}, "reply_to": "15006__1_023", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_025", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Do you have any bank in any of those other places?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2550.822], "stop_times": [2552.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.822}, "reply_to": "15006__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_026", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, there is not.\nHowever, I would want to say to the Court that we have not set our rules that would prohibit us to go into another bank's community.\nWe simply feel that we could legitimately do that as that bank, for instance the People's Bank in Lakeland comes in to our community constantly in advertising and lending money and so forth so that we are constantly competitive with those other banks in the other communities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2552.706, 2553.782, 2561.817], "stop_times": [2553.782, 2561.817, 2575.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2552.706}, "reply_to": "15006__1_025", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_027", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Did you say you had a night depository at some of these places?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2575.746], "stop_times": [2579.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.746}, "reply_to": "15006__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_028", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We have a night depository or we have a drop at the shopping center that is the same thing as a night depository.\nIt is at a shopping center approximately a mile from our main banking office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2579.582, 2587.468], "stop_times": [2587.468, 2591.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2579.582}, "reply_to": "15006__1_027", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_029", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is that the only one you have there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2591.373], "stop_times": [2592.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.373}, "reply_to": "15006__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_030", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's the only one that we have, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2592.688], "stop_times": [2594.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2592.688}, "reply_to": "15006__1_029", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_031", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "In other places, you just simply move in there and carry their money --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2594.781], "stop_times": [2599.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.781}, "reply_to": "15006__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_032", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Our truck drives to their door and our messenger carries it to the business house which is previously contracted with us for this service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2599.153], "stop_times": [2607.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2599.153}, "reply_to": "15006__1_031", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_033", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And you get deposits from them, money which is to be deposited then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2607.675], "stop_times": [2612.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.675}, "reply_to": "15006__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_034", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We -- that is correct sir.\nWe pick up sealed bags upon which there is listed on the outside on a transmittal slip the moneys that is contained therein.\nThis transmittal slip also has printed on the back side the contract under which we operate specifying that its being transmitted as their agent and that it will become a deposit when it has reached the bank then received by a teller and the deposit slip completed, main deposit slip completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2612.231, 2613.641, 2621.026], "stop_times": [2613.641, 2621.026, 2636.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2612.231}, "reply_to": "15006__1_033", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_035", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Suppose the night depository out there is broken into, who is responsible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2636.233], "stop_times": [2642.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.233}, "reply_to": "15006__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_036", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Under the contract, the funds have not become deposit funds in the First National Bank.\nHowever, we obtained from the insurance company which writes our bond and our insurance a special writer whereby they agreed that they were insuring those funds for the benefit of those persons who have placed the funds in that night depository.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2642.378, 2647.04], "stop_times": [2647.04, 2662.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2642.378}, "reply_to": "15006__1_035", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_037", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, then what outside of the technicality is the difference between deposit and out then deposited in your night depository, your night depository in them?\nWhat is the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2662.21, 2670.528], "stop_times": [2670.528, 2671.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.21}, "reply_to": "15006__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_038", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "There is no difference in that -- in deposit to get out there and the night depository which is located adjacent to our bank, but we would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2671.74], "stop_times": [2678.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2671.74}, "reply_to": "15006__1_037", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_039", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And your night depository is admittedly a part of the banking business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2678.505], "stop_times": [2683.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.505}, "reply_to": "15006__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_040", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It is a part of the banking --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2683.962], "stop_times": [2684.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2683.962}, "reply_to": "15006__1_039", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_041", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And why -- isn't that the one out at the shopping center \u201ca part of the banking business?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2684.965], "stop_times": [2692.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.965}, "reply_to": "15006__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_042", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It is a part of the banking business as it were for terms of the -- of a bank's activities and perhaps comes within the ambit of the Florida statute, I say perhaps.\nHowever, if we go back to the proposition that we must look first to Section 36 (f) of the Federal Statute to determine what is branch banking and therefore what is controlled by the federal law, the deposit contract becomes a very key situation.\nIn other words, it is the place where we draw the line.\nIt is the place where we mark the outer limit as this Court said in the Agricultural Bank concerning the right to tax.\nIt's the line of demarcation which we believe is a very clear mind -- line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2692.343, 2704.091, 2719.843, 2722.974, 2730.277], "stop_times": [2704.091, 2719.843, 2722.974, 2730.277, 2732.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2692.343}, "reply_to": "15006__1_041", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_043", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, why do you -- well, why do you insure it if it's not your money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2732.732], "stop_times": [2737.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.732}, "reply_to": "15006__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_044", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We insure it because it is a service to our customer and we feel that the customers would be at lost without it.\nHowever, we are very careful to help the customer understand and the insurer to understand that there is a contract protecting them.\nAnd for that reason therefore --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2737.042, 2743.375, 2751.836], "stop_times": [2743.375, 2751.836, 2752.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2737.042}, "reply_to": "15006__1_043", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_045", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "There are two contracts taken there, one is the contract and the other is an insurance policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2752.864], "stop_times": [2759.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.864}, "reply_to": "15006__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_046", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The contract that they have with us is a definitive contract as the type of service that we're rendering them.\nThe contract protecting them is the insurance contract which is a separate contract, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2759.455, 2765.267], "stop_times": [2765.267, 2770.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2759.455}, "reply_to": "15006__1_045", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_047", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, you have your own liability for the money after all you have custody of it, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2770.707], "stop_times": [2775.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.707}, "reply_to": "15006__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__1_048", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, we have a possible liability except for the fact that we have a clear contractual understanding that the money is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2775.588], "stop_times": [2782.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2775.588}, "reply_to": "15006__1_047", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_049", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "So, one way of satisfying that contingent liability to insure your customer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2782.97], "stop_times": [2788.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.97}, "reply_to": "15006__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__1_050", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That's correct sir and that's what we've elected to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2788.933], "stop_times": [2791.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2788.933}, "reply_to": "15006__1_049", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_051", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "If there was a holdup on the way in of this truck, they would not be robbing the National Bank, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2791.496], "stop_times": [2800.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.496}, "reply_to": "15006__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__1_052", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, under the contract that exist they would not be and we of course would look to the insurance company for their reimbursement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2800.206], "stop_times": [2808.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2800.206}, "reply_to": "15006__1_051", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_053", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Edwards, suppose that the shopping center is set up in building which you called a bank and said that this is a limited bank, all we do is take in money and pay out money, we do not render any other banking services, would that be a branch bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2808.212], "stop_times": [2823.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.212}, "reply_to": "15006__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_054", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, I think we would definitely have reached --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2823.908], "stop_times": [2826.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2823.908}, "reply_to": "15006__1_053", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_055", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "(Voice Overlap) what's the difference except you don't have a big building, you just have a little truck?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2826.543], "stop_times": [2830.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.543}, "reply_to": "15006__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_056", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, to begin with we have no people there.\nIt simply a hole in the wall where you can go and leave it but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2830.084, 2832.38], "stop_times": [2832.38, 2835.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2830.084}, "reply_to": "15006__1_055", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_057", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "You have messengers there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2835.199], "stop_times": [2836.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.199}, "reply_to": "15006__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_058", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2836.632], "stop_times": [2837.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2836.632}, "reply_to": "15006__1_057", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_059", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "You have messengers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2837.004], "stop_times": [2838.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.004}, "reply_to": "15006__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_060", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, the messengers does not stay there, he simply calls picks up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2838.34], "stop_times": [2840.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2838.34}, "reply_to": "15006__1_059", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_061", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "If he goes there, he pick it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2840.635], "stop_times": [2841.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.635}, "reply_to": "15006__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_062", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes he does, very definitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2841.698], "stop_times": [2842.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2841.698}, "reply_to": "15006__1_061", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_063", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "He picks it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2842.581], "stop_times": [2843.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.581}, "reply_to": "15006__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__1_064", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "He does.\nBut the point being is that if we could go back to the night depository, we have a clear understanding by contract -- the established night depository law that when you drop in to the night depository at the bank, you have not made a deposit.\nAnd we believe that this definitive, this definition, is very important in defining this -- the state versus the national situation and that it is a breaking point that it is the proper breaking point.\nIf we did set up this building that you talk about and render these services, we are clear -- clearly within the deposit window situation that is anticipated by Congress and we believe that we still -- or without that whenever we have rendered the service on this basis.\nWe would like to point out to the Court there's a very definite and a clear reason for wanting to do this because it does render our service and it constitutes a banking service rather than branch banking which is prescribed by the federal and state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2843.396, 2844.195, 2856.687, 2868.876, 2882.188], "stop_times": [2844.195, 2856.687, 2868.876, 2882.188, 2895.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2843.396}, "reply_to": "15006__1_063", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_065", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "How would you characterize this as a branch or not a branch within the federal test theory, federal laws controlling, is the function of -- the functional activity of the bank or other [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2895.447], "stop_times": [2911.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.447}, "reply_to": "15006__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__1_066", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, to begin with, I believe that when we start dealing with deposit law or contract law and move over into the functional definition rather than the strict contract law which now exists as well developed throughout the United States and it is now in our brief that we are beginning to deal with a lot of problems.\nFDIC insurance coverage and many other areas so that if the Court would choose to say, \u201cWell, functionally anything that looks like at depositor, smells like a deposit is,\u201d I think you've opened the door to liability on parts of banks in night depository situations, in FDIC situations and many other situations that would be a very big problem and I think that this is an area that would -- that should be looked out there closely based on the well-developed contract law as it now exists.\nIf I could say one thing concerning this competitive equality.\nCompetitive equality cannot be a mirror image in my judgment and by imposing the competitive equality that the Circuit Court has elected to do, the result of the situation has been that I as a federal -- as a first -- a national bank customer must go and ask my -- supervisors, the Comptroller of the Currency, may I do this and once he says, \u201cYes, I can or no, then I must go ask the state supervisor also, \u201cMay I do this?\u201d\nIn your judgment is a branch banking does -- and if he says, \u201cNo I can't,\u201d I can't.\nThe result of this situation is that I am placed in the -- at the butt-end of the most restrictive ruling of either the state or the national comptroller.\nAnd where the national comptroller says, \u201cNo, you can't do it,\u201d the State Bank still may be able to do it in this range or ambit of other competitive items and there are numerous but I cannot do this because I am held down by both of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [2911.52, 2931.777, 2960.526, 2964.119, 2990.141, 2995.027, 3004.148], "stop_times": [2931.777, 2960.526, 2964.119, 2990.141, 2995.027, 3004.148, 3016.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2911.52}, "reply_to": "15006__1_065", "speaker": "robert_s_edwards"}
{"id": "15006__1_067", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Thank you Mr. Edwards.\nMr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3016.601, 3019.686], "stop_times": [3019.686, 3021.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.601}, "reply_to": "15006__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__2_000", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nBefore I finally deliver what prepared remarks I have, I'd like to speak to some of the questions which arose from the bench.\nI don't want Mr. Edwards to appear to be the only expert on Plant City Florida here and as much as that's where I was reared.\nAnd the other bank, the State Bank, the Hillsborough Bank is the bank in which my family is interested, so we have a little local situation here.\nMr. Springer talked about the messenger riding the truck.\nSomehow, it's been overlooked that there's also a trained, paid teller on this truck, trained by the bank to do all of the functions that a teller does in a bank.\nBoth of these gentlemen have referred to the depository as a hole in the wall in the shopping center.\nI invite the Court's attention to page 387 of the appendix in this cause to take a look at the hole in the wall.\nWhat happened here was is that Plant City got its first large shopping center in its history and First National went out to that shopping center and rented a store and then set up its depository in the store within the interior mall next to the new chain stores which were moving into the community.\nAnd when the shopping center opened, what happened?\nFirst National got every new account, every large new account out of that shopping center because it got the advantage of location which is so important in banking.\nThe Hillsborough Bank, the older bank, the larger bank, the one that one might assume would get a little business out of it got absolutely not a new customer.\nThe picture shows that there's a good deal and more there than a hole in the wall and that is my point.\nSecondly, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3021.797, 3025.464, 3033.355, 3039.505, 3048.249, 3051.672, 3062.545, 3068.709, 3077.252, 3100.775, 3104.188, 3114.289, 3124.229, 3131.744], "stop_times": [3025.464, 3033.355, 3039.505, 3048.249, 3051.672, 3062.545, 3068.709, 3077.252, 3100.775, 3104.188, 3114.289, 3124.229, 3131.744, 3132.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3021.797}, "reply_to": "15006__1_067", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_001", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I take it that the Florida statute forbids the bank, Oh!\nNever mind, go ahead, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3132.421, 3138.506], "stop_times": [3138.506, 3141.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.421}, "reply_to": "15006__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_002", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It does, sir.\nWe so interpret it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3141.877, 3142.918], "stop_times": [3142.918, 3143.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3141.877}, "reply_to": "15006__2_001", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_003", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Never mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3143.86], "stop_times": [3145.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.86}, "reply_to": "15006__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_004", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Would you mind telling me what's it at the core of this controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3145.775], "stop_times": [3151.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.775}, "reply_to": "15006__2_003", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_005", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, there are two arguments, Mr. Justice Black.\nI think, first is, what is the test to determine branching under 12 U.S.C.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3151.456, 3153.704], "stop_times": [3153.704, 3159.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3151.456}, "reply_to": "15006__2_004", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_006", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I'm not talking about legally speaking, I'm talking about practically speaking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3159.081], "stop_times": [3163.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.081}, "reply_to": "15006__2_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_007", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Practically speaking, what is it the core of it is that the National Bank through the ruling of the Comptroller of the Currency which completely reverses the rulings that the Comptroller of the Currency had been making for over 40 years as to armored cars and as to depositories has gained a competitive advantage over the State Banks in the State of Florida in the performance of basic essentials of banking.\nTo use a not very polite term, the guts of banking, may it please the Court, are the getting hold of money, getting deposits.\nThe cash -- paying of checks and the making of loans and Congress said under 36 (f) that anyone of those things which should be defined as a branch for purposes of 36 (f) and ultimately for purposes of reference to State Law.\nAnyone of them and certainly one is clearly involved here which is receiving deposits and I'm talking about the functional act of receiving deposits, the getting the advantage of getting the money which is precisely what First National is doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3163.444, 3186.868, 3197.296, 3211.394], "stop_times": [3186.868, 3197.296, 3211.394, 3226.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3163.444}, "reply_to": "15006__2_006", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_008", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That's it -- let's take a village at a little distant from Plant City, 20 miles and you find that the Plant City sends this traveling bank or traveling whatever it is into that community and it can get the deposits.\nNow, how can the State Bank at Plant City compete with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3226.46, 3246.258], "stop_times": [3246.258, 3250.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.46}, "reply_to": "15006__2_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_009", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That's right.\nExcept the -- in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3250.406, 3252.556], "stop_times": [3252.556, 3254.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3250.406}, "reply_to": "15006__2_008", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_010", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Of course you'd say it should pass the law and not authorize it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3254.715], "stop_times": [3257.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.715}, "reply_to": "15006__2_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_011", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Oh!\nYes sir, it can.\nBut that's a matter of policy that Congress left for local determination saying that a state would have to decide whether branching in this area should or should not be allowed.\n[Inaudible] state bank can't dictate state policy on those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3257.421, 3257.633, 3258.49, 3269.272], "stop_times": [3257.633, 3258.49, 3269.272, 3272.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3257.421}, "reply_to": "15006__2_010", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_012", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But they can send in their deposits by mail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3272.338], "stop_times": [3275.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.338}, "reply_to": "15006__2_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_013", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, that is true.\nThey could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3275.69, 3277.267], "stop_times": [3277.267, 3278.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3275.69}, "reply_to": "15006__2_012", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_014", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is that a satisfactory way of doing business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3278.832], "stop_times": [3282.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.832}, "reply_to": "15006__2_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_015", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "A satis -- its certainly not a satisfactory way to combat the armored car operations because it does a good deal more, may it please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3282.523], "stop_times": [3289.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3282.523}, "reply_to": "15006__2_014", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_016", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Do you take the position that the armored car is in effect a moving ambulatory bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3289.078], "stop_times": [3294.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.078}, "reply_to": "15006__2_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_017", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I do indeed sir.\nUnder Section 36 (f), I do indeed.\nIt is an -- that 36 (f) says, any place is the branch bank which is an agency, an office or a place of business where either deposits are received, checks are paid or money is lent and that's precisely what's involved here.\nWe've certainly -- the armored car is either an agency or an office or a place of business.\nSo too is the depository.\nWe have lots of laundromats in that part of the world but you don't have any people out there but they are certainly places of business and this depository in the shopping center is clearly a place of business where First National Bank gets a competitive advantage in the control of an essential of banking, that is receiving deposits and their only, only way they seek to avoid the argument which I make and the way that the Comptroller of the Currency said is the way the Comptroller of the Currency said they could.\nThe Comptroller as I have said, reversed himself.\nThey're over 20 inconsistent rulings since 1929 with the ruling the comptroller made when he authorized this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3294.856, 3296.363, 3299.125, 3316.395, 3322.55, 3324.056, 3356.46, 3359.117], "stop_times": [3296.363, 3299.125, 3316.395, 3322.55, 3324.056, 3356.46, 3359.117, 3368.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3294.856}, "reply_to": "15006__2_016", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_018", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Why did -- you said the rule had been otherwise for 20 years, what had been the rule for 20 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3368.828], "stop_times": [3373.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.828}, "reply_to": "15006__2_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_019", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The Comptroller of the Currency had disapproved and discouraged armored car operations and depository operations of this sort on the ground that they were branch banking under 36 (f).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3373.747], "stop_times": [3384.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3373.747}, "reply_to": "15006__2_018", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_020", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "On the ground, is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3384.579], "stop_times": [3386.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.579}, "reply_to": "15006__2_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_021", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.\nWe subpoenaed the complete precedence file of the Comptroller of the Currency.\nWe tried to take his deposition, they wouldn't let us do that, but we got the complete precedence file and it is in evidence in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3386.977, 3387.991, 3392.89], "stop_times": [3387.991, 3392.89, 3401.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3386.977}, "reply_to": "15006__2_020", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_022", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "They had been called branch banks for 20 years, this level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3401.393], "stop_times": [3405.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.393}, "reply_to": "15006__2_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_023", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The comptroller is saying that they were not authorized in states which were non-branching states because they would violate the provisions of 36 (f) and (c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3405.38], "stop_times": [3415.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3405.38}, "reply_to": "15006__2_022", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_024", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Do you quarrel with Mr. Springer's argument of the so-called choice of law question?\nDo you first have to look at this in terms of federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3415.455, 3420.1], "stop_times": [3420.1, 3426.833], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.455}, "reply_to": "15006__2_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__2_025", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I don't know what Mr. Springer's argument is, may it please the Court.\nIt may be precisely what ours is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3426.833, 3429.994], "stop_times": [3429.994, 3432.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3426.833}, "reply_to": "15006__2_024", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_026", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "(Voice Overlap) The way you've been carrying you're argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3432.091], "stop_times": [3432.981], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3432.091}, "reply_to": "15006__2_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__2_027", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3432.981], "stop_times": [3434.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3432.981}, "reply_to": "15006__2_026", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_028", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I rather got the impression that you were not quarreling over that that you were locking more into the question as to whether this was a branch and not branch under federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3434.494], "stop_times": [3444.196], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.494}, "reply_to": "15006__2_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__2_029", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Respondents take this position, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nWe say that there are about four different views which have been advanced to you.\nThe first is that 36 (f) is to be narrowly construed without any reference whatsoever to the competitive equality upon which the Section clearly was based in its enactment.\nWe say that's wrong.\nWe made this argument before the District Court.\nIt took that view but we say, even, even in that event, if that is the correct view, then we still should have prevailed because the contractual arrangement or fictitious the Court should look the form to substance, there is no real agency relationship and accordingly even by a common law principle, agent to the bank are authorized to receive deposits and are therefore receiving deposits off-premises.\nThat's the first argument.\nThe second argument is, we made an argument that 36 (f) was exclusively def -- exclusively federal.\nIt was a complete definition without any reference to state law, but it should be construed broadly and liberally for the purpose of effectuating competitive equality.\nAnd this view incidentally is one of the position which is taken in a little pamphlet by the legislative reference section of the Library of Congress in evaluating certain of Mr. Saxon's rulings and it suggests a broad construction.\nWe argued that construction before the District Court until we found Judge Lindberg's unpublished opinion in State Chartered Banks then we had an authority better than a pamphlet from Library of Congress.\nAnd so we began to rely without moving away from the other argument, but arguing in the alternative, we began to rely on Judge Lindberg's State Chartered Bank's decision which is that 36 (f) is a partial definition where function is the important thing.\nFunction and physicality that is presents a prima facie test of banking, of branch banking under the federal definition and if the operation meets that prima facie test, then the threshold is crossed and you look to State Law.\nNow, we support that view before this Court and recommend it to this Court as being the best view.\nIt provides guidelines.\nIt's flexible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3444.196, 3448.93, 3453.204, 3463.676, 3465.802, 3468.054, 3494.802, 3496.219, 3503.219, 3515.99, 3529.695, 3541.208, 3560.487, 3576.027, 3581.848, 3583.679], "stop_times": [3448.93, 3453.204, 3463.676, 3465.802, 3468.054, 3494.802, 3496.219, 3503.219, 3515.99, 3529.695, 3541.208, 3560.487, 3576.027, 3581.848, 3583.679, 3584.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3444.196}, "reply_to": "15006__2_028", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_030", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What did he hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3584.727], "stop_times": [3585.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.727}, "reply_to": "15006__2_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_031", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3585.885], "stop_times": [3587.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3585.885}, "reply_to": "15006__2_030", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_032", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What did he hold precisely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3587.044], "stop_times": [3589.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3587.044}, "reply_to": "15006__2_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_033", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Judge Lindberg faced with a similar problem --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3589.632], "stop_times": [3592.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3589.632}, "reply_to": "15006__2_032", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_034", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Where was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3592.675], "stop_times": [3593.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3592.675}, "reply_to": "15006__2_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_035", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "He is a District Judge in Washington sir and he was the one who -- one of the ones who grappled with this thing in greatest depth first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3593.968], "stop_times": [3602.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3593.968}, "reply_to": "15006__2_034", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_036", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What did he hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3602.842], "stop_times": [3603.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3602.842}, "reply_to": "15006__2_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_037", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "He took the position that 36 (f) provided a partial functional definition of branch banking and that if a given activity met that functional definition then the threshold was crossed and one should look to state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3603.944], "stop_times": [3620.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3603.944}, "reply_to": "15006__2_036", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_038", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, I suppose, you would admit this is a progressive service in the banking business, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3620.968], "stop_times": [3627.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3620.968}, "reply_to": "15006__2_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_039", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, I think, I would have to admit that but I would also point out that in 1927 in the Mc -- at the time that McFadden Act was being debated, that there were many people who argued that branch banking was a progressive service.\nThat it offered service and convenience to the customer and Congress decided in phrasing the McFadden Act as it did and taking the approach that it did, that the question of service and convenience in this area should be left for local determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3627.755, 3641.686], "stop_times": [3641.686, 3656.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3627.755}, "reply_to": "15006__2_038", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_040", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is this national problem or a local problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3656.71], "stop_times": [3661.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3656.71}, "reply_to": "15006__2_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_041", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I beg your pardon sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3661.561], "stop_times": [3662.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3661.561}, "reply_to": "15006__2_040", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_042", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is this a national or local problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3662.298], "stop_times": [3664.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3662.298}, "reply_to": "15006__2_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_043", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "In terms of the operation in hand, I would say, it was national sir.\nI think it's that the operations of this sort are being considered and battled all over the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3664.867, 3668.175], "stop_times": [3668.175, 3673.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3664.867}, "reply_to": "15006__2_042", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_044", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I presume this system of making deposits is intended to supplant the old way of sending in the deposits by mail, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3673.786], "stop_times": [3684.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3673.786}, "reply_to": "15006__2_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_045", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I don't think it is, may it please the Court, I just -- I think it's a different method of operation in addition to sending them in by mail.\nThe advertisement of this bank, advertisers that they have banking by mail and say they also furnish this service.\nTo be perfectly candid sir, I see no justification for this operation whatsoever in the way that First National set it up except to gain a competitive advantage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3684.826, 3695.164, 3702.949], "stop_times": [3695.164, 3702.949, 3711.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3684.826}, "reply_to": "15006__2_044", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_046", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It seems to me that a justification to it pragmatically speaking, I thought you were arguing on the legal basis that it's not fair competition.\nI grew up in a town which was a village which was 400 people and 25 miles from the closest bank.\nAll our business was done by mail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3711.631, 3725.923, 3733.106], "stop_times": [3725.923, 3733.106, 3735.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3711.631}, "reply_to": "15006__2_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_047", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3735.724], "stop_times": [3736.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3735.724}, "reply_to": "15006__2_046", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_048", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And of course, that would've been -- we would've had a great advantage.\nWe would have had this system of making deposits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3736.957, 3740.8], "stop_times": [3740.8, 3743.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3736.957}, "reply_to": "15006__2_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_049", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes, sir, I understand that.\nAnd my response to the need of your village sir was that -- is that in the context of this lawsuit, if the service was needed and the State of Alabama decided that it should allow the activity then that's properly the case but it was for Alabama to decide that and not for the Federal Government when one is dealing with the three essential functions here.\nI say not with the Federal Government, I don't really mean to say that because Congress can change the definition of 36 (c) and 36 (f) if it wants to.\nCongress can take an entirely different approach, but I respectfully submit that it is solely for Congress to do it and it is not for the Comptroller of the Currency by rulings, it's not for the First National Bank of Plant City and indeed with respect, it's not (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3743.519, 3745.895, 3769.979, 3778.716], "stop_times": [3745.895, 3769.979, 3778.716, 3792.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3743.519}, "reply_to": "15006__2_048", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_050", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And you're telling that Congress hasn't done this, but the Comptroller of the Currency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3792.23], "stop_times": [3796.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3792.23}, "reply_to": "15006__2_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_051", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3796.311], "stop_times": [3796.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3796.311}, "reply_to": "15006__2_050", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_052", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It abandoned the old practice which has been existing for 20 years and done this and then it violates the Federal Law, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3796.753], "stop_times": [3805.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3796.753}, "reply_to": "15006__2_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_053", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat is precisely my point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3805.593, 3807.053], "stop_times": [3807.053, 3808.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3805.593}, "reply_to": "15006__2_052", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_054", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Smith, do you know how many states prohibit this type of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3808.062], "stop_times": [3813.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3808.062}, "reply_to": "15006__2_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15006__2_055", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, I don't.\nI don't know that much about banking.\nMr. Bell who'll speak in a few minutes and he is much better informed in that area than I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3813.772, 3814.525, 3817.12], "stop_times": [3814.525, 3817.12, 3823.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3813.772}, "reply_to": "15006__2_054", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_056", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is this precedence file or whatever you call it in the appendix?\nIn appendix (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3823.705, 3827.622], "stop_times": [3827.622, 3828.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3823.705}, "reply_to": "15006__2_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_057", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Not in the appendix, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3828.022], "stop_times": [3829.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3828.022}, "reply_to": "15006__2_056", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_058", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But is in the original record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3829.388], "stop_times": [3830.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3829.388}, "reply_to": "15006__2_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_059", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It is in the original record, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3830.229], "stop_times": [3832.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3830.229}, "reply_to": "15006__2_058", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_060", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Smith, if an independent contractor in your city set up an armored car service, having no connection with any bank, could he -- would he be prohibited or controlled in any way by the local banking laws of Florida in performing precisely the same service that's performed here as agent for the putative depositors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3832.515], "stop_times": [3857.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3832.515}, "reply_to": "15006__2_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__2_061", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, he would not, so long as he was a common carrier for hire and had certificate from our public utilities commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3857.528], "stop_times": [3863.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3857.528}, "reply_to": "15006__2_060", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_062", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "He'd merely have to have the same kind of relations than that of a bus company or a truck line would have; a local?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3863.923], "stop_times": [3871.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3863.923}, "reply_to": "15006__2_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__2_063", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "For the purpose of going out to say a large commercial customer who wanted its moneys taken into the bank but there's a great distinction, may it please the Court, between the Brinks for example, offering that service and the First National Bank in Plant City either offering it through its own armored car are alternatively through First National hiring and controlling Brinks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3871.191], "stop_times": [3897.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3871.191}, "reply_to": "15006__2_062", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_064", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Let me pursue it a little bit in the situation that I set up hypothetically, the customer would have to pay for the service of the transit, would he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3897.466], "stop_times": [3909.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3897.466}, "reply_to": "15006__2_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__2_065", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3909.23], "stop_times": [3910.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3909.23}, "reply_to": "15006__2_064", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_066", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Would it violate any banking law of Florida if the bank offered to reimburse any -- credit the account of any customer for whatever amount he had to pay for that transit service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3910.645], "stop_times": [3924.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3910.645}, "reply_to": "15006__2_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__2_067", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I'm not sure sir.\nI think the Public Utilities Commission of Florida is going to have a little of this before its over because when the bank begins to receive money for the service, it is in my judgment at least going to be involved in operating common carrier for hiring, we're going to have a new battle over that setting.\nThat's the reason, they're not charging at the present time.\nThey're afraid to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3924.134, 3926.188, 3941.916, 3944.733], "stop_times": [3926.188, 3941.916, 3944.733, 3947.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3924.134}, "reply_to": "15006__2_066", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_068", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Smith, I take it that the Florida statute which requires that a banking law do all of its business in one place would might well bar things that aren't -- that no one would call branch banking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3947.971], "stop_times": [3966.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3947.971}, "reply_to": "15006__2_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_069", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, I think that is possible, it could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3966.606], "stop_times": [3969.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3966.606}, "reply_to": "15006__2_068", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_070", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "If the bank wanted to set up a new business office in some new development, put an agent out there to give him an office to develop some customer.\nI suppose banks have their new business people going out, calling on people all the time, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3969.596, 3978.72], "stop_times": [3978.72, 3984.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3969.596}, "reply_to": "15006__2_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_071", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, I think we have to be careful with our example, Mr. Justice White but to take an easy one; the bank can operate a travel agency, a state bank can operate a travel agency in Florida as part of the business of banking and I certainly wouldn't get --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [3984.566], "stop_times": [4001.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3984.566}, "reply_to": "15006__2_070", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_072", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is it -- you can do it as an (Voice Overlap) to do it in the premises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4001.29], "stop_times": [4004.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4001.29}, "reply_to": "15006__2_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_073", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4004.782], "stop_times": [4005.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4004.782}, "reply_to": "15006__2_072", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_074", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Does it -- they'd have to do it on the banking premises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4005.165], "stop_times": [4006.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4005.165}, "reply_to": "15006__2_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_075", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "So far as I know, it does it on the premises, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4006.406], "stop_times": [4010.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4006.406}, "reply_to": "15006__2_074", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_076", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But generally, you would think that the -- if possible, the Florida law might prevent things that aren't franchise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4010.588], "stop_times": [4021.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4010.588}, "reply_to": "15006__2_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_077", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I think that is possible, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4021.748], "stop_times": [4023.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4021.748}, "reply_to": "15006__2_076", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_078", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And that the federal -- and that a National Bank could engage in those practices because they aren't branching?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4023.495], "stop_times": [4029.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4023.495}, "reply_to": "15006__2_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_079", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4029.207], "stop_times": [4030.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4029.207}, "reply_to": "15006__2_078", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_080", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And that's the argument here, I suppose.\nThe argument here is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4030.699, 4034.081], "stop_times": [4034.081, 4035.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4030.699}, "reply_to": "15006__2_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_081", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That the argument here is the reverse of that, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4035.086], "stop_times": [4036.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4035.086}, "reply_to": "15006__2_080", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_082", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The argument here is that all the bank -- Plant City Bank argues this isn't a branch and therefore it can do it, no matter what federal -- no matter what Florida law is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4036.797], "stop_times": [4048.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4036.797}, "reply_to": "15006__2_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_083", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, we go back to the test, how do we get there?\nIn the first place, is this an activity which falls within 36 (f) from a functional point of view.\nDoes it involve the basic essentials of banking?\nWe say that it does.\nTherefore, the reference must the state law.\nAt that level, national and state banks will be treated exactly the same --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4048.805, 4051.731, 4057.523, 4060.281, 4061.795, 4064.351], "stop_times": [4051.731, 4057.523, 4060.281, 4061.795, 4064.351, 4069.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4048.805}, "reply_to": "15006__2_082", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_084", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But you were saying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4069.332], "stop_times": [4069.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4069.332}, "reply_to": "15006__2_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_085", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- by Florida law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4069.557], "stop_times": [4070.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4069.557}, "reply_to": "15006__2_084", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_086", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Anything that the -- anything that federal law, that Florida law would call a branch would control 36?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4070.629], "stop_times": [4078.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4070.629}, "reply_to": "15006__2_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_087", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, I don't make that argument.\nI make the argument that first, federal law --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4078.338, 4080.725], "stop_times": [4080.725, 4082.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4078.338}, "reply_to": "15006__2_086", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_088", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But isn't that the word branch isn't in the Florida statute at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4082.934], "stop_times": [4086.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4082.934}, "reply_to": "15006__2_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_089", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That is true sir.\nI make the argument that when one is dealing with the essentials of banking as is the case here, that in order to determine whether the activity is a branch, you first must apply 36 (f).\nIn the event that the activity is one of those three things then the reference is the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4086.008, 4087.806, 4101.077], "stop_times": [4087.806, 4101.077, 4107.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4086.008}, "reply_to": "15006__2_088", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_090", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "As to that -- because, once it sets its -- does one of those three things, it is a branch for purposes of federal law, you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4107.258], "stop_times": [4114.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4107.258}, "reply_to": "15006__2_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_091", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It is a branch for purposes of 36 (f), yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4114.01], "stop_times": [4117.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4114.01}, "reply_to": "15006__2_090", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_092", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, that's because in your view, that's a place at which deposits are received, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4117.17], "stop_times": [4122.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4117.17}, "reply_to": "15006__2_091", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_093", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4122.805], "stop_times": [4123.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4122.805}, "reply_to": "15006__2_092", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_094", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "So that using the illustration that you suggested yourself of a travel agent, if out this shopping center, this national bank maintains not to strap but they -- travel agency service at that place.\nIt might be that Hillsborough would be prohibited from doing that by Florida law, but I gather under your view of the branching provision, 36 (f) and that would be inapplicable to the maintenance of a travel agency, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4123.846, 4143.182], "stop_times": [4143.182, 4156.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4123.846}, "reply_to": "15006__2_093", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_095", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, I think that result can be reached Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4156.665], "stop_times": [4158.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4156.665}, "reply_to": "15006__2_094", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_096", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "So there -- so to that extent, there could be an inequality of competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4158.541], "stop_times": [4163.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4158.541}, "reply_to": "15006__2_095", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_097", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That is true and Congress was not concerned with and did not try in the McFadden Act in this branching area to give complete equality.\nWe don't contend that complete equality is required.\nWe contend that a competitive equality is required as to the basic functions of banking and that no contract, no notice can change the fact that what First National doing here is getting control of money off-premises.\nThe contracts don't mean a hill of banes to the local expression, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4163.46, 4173.033, 4175.638, 4191.1], "stop_times": [4173.033, 4175.638, 4191.1, 4196.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4163.46}, "reply_to": "15006__2_096", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_098", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's local in quite a few places.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4196.589], "stop_times": [4199.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4196.589}, "reply_to": "15006__2_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__2_099", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "May I ask you what, what is meant by on pages -- the pictures you showed us on page 389.\nThat shows that the names indicate that the armor car carries two bank tellers, is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4199.129, 4205.199], "stop_times": [4205.199, 4211.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4199.129}, "reply_to": "15006__2_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_100", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I'm sorry sir.\nI can't hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4211.656, 4212.409], "stop_times": [4212.409, 4213.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4211.656}, "reply_to": "15006__2_099", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_101", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The reading seems to indicate that the armored car carries two bank tellers, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4213.504], "stop_times": [4220.024], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4213.504}, "reply_to": "15006__2_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15006__2_102", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "They never put two aboard sir but that is an interesting fact.\nIt is -- the presentation has been made here that they -- they only were -- or doing a rather limited thing but it must be remembered that this litigation broke out almost contemporaneously with the commencement of these two operations.\nAnd the early advertising within days before the litigation commenced, as Mr. Justice Black notes on page 389 the record says, Richard was the bank's president, described the car as a mobile drive-in, staffed by an armed guard and two tellers.\nIt has a large window where customers may be served and a communication system.\nNow, they contend that they haven't served any customers from this counter, this complete teller's window which is on the side of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4220.024, 4223.51, 4238.806, 4255.014, 4260.198], "stop_times": [4223.51, 4238.806, 4255.014, 4260.198, 4268.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4220.024}, "reply_to": "15006__2_101", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_103", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What's the difference in that and a -- if any and I presume there must be some.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4268.195], "stop_times": [4273.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4268.195}, "reply_to": "15006__2_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_104", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That it's just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4273.09], "stop_times": [4273.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4273.09}, "reply_to": "15006__2_103", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_105", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Than a regular bank if you go to in your car and you stand there in your car and give the money to the teller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4273.409], "stop_times": [4282.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4273.409}, "reply_to": "15006__2_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_106", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "There's none sir.\nAnd at that place that to which you refer, they are receiving deposits and therefore, if they do it to the armored car, they are likewise receiving deposits.\nThere is one point that I would like to refer to before it slips my mind.\nThe presentation is -- has been made here that all that is -- has happened in this operation is that money has been delivered to customers and picked up and brought back.\nThis is done routinely, six days a week by the armored car.\nThe armored car calls upon the depository, twice everyday.\nAt the depository, it is not only night bags that are placed into the depository, but also envelopes containing the transmittal slip which is really just a regular deposit slip with the conjured language on the back of it in trying to make an agency out of it and this is the most important point because it should resolve this case below and we should have never been here.\nThe District Court held as a matter of fact that the First National was paying checks through this operation because it would actually deliver the cash to a customer, say it, over a cash store and take a check in return drawn on the bank that is paying checks, that's a Section 36 function.\nBut the District Court strangely enough said, it isn't going to approve that, but it will approve the rest of the operation because the First National is otherwise substantially complied with the Comptroller of the Currency's ruling.\nAnd we've never been on this -- we've constantly argued that this was wrong, we made this point to the Fifth Circuit but the Fifth Circuit didn't reach it.\nWe do not see how if in the course of the operation of the armored car.\nThere was a paying of check operation that that can be ignored for the purposes of definition of 36 (f).\nThe argument is made that the question is moot because First National promised to stop it, but number one, the record doesn't show that they stopped it; number two, they're not restrained by the District Court from doing it; number three, we are restrained from interfering with them, so we can't find out what's going on; and number four, the promise to stop a wrong -- sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4282.558, 4285.866, 4294.461, 4303.245, 4318.063, 4322.644, 4327.017, 4355.062, 4377.268, 4390.205, 4402.76, 4412.11, 4421.98], "stop_times": [4285.866, 4294.461, 4303.245, 4318.063, 4322.644, 4327.017, 4355.062, 4377.268, 4390.205, 4402.76, 4412.11, 4421.98, 4445.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4282.558}, "reply_to": "15006__2_105", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_107", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Not in other (Voice Overlap) you're restrained from doing what, from interfering with them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4445.693], "stop_times": [4450.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4445.693}, "reply_to": "15006__2_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_108", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "With these operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4450.463], "stop_times": [4452.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4450.463}, "reply_to": "15006__2_107", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_109", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What, by some sort of an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4452.486], "stop_times": [4453.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4452.486}, "reply_to": "15006__2_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_110", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "By the District Court's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4453.982], "stop_times": [4457.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4453.982}, "reply_to": "15006__2_109", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_111", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, he has decided against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4457.124], "stop_times": [4458.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4457.124}, "reply_to": "15006__2_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_112", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Sir?\nWhich decided (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4458.742, 4459.66], "stop_times": [4459.66, 4460.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4458.742}, "reply_to": "15006__2_111", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_113", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "You were the plaintiff.\nYou were the plaintiff, there's no restraining order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4460.162, 4460.988], "stop_times": [4460.988, 4462.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4460.162}, "reply_to": "15006__2_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_114", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No, we were the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4462.238], "stop_times": [4464.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4462.238}, "reply_to": "15006__2_113", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_115", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "That's right, I see that, but is there a restraining order against you from interfering with them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4464.791], "stop_times": [4468.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4464.791}, "reply_to": "15006__2_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_116", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "There is actually, the order wasn't entered --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4468.601], "stop_times": [4469.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4468.601}, "reply_to": "15006__2_115", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_117", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I just didn't understand (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4469.647], "stop_times": [4470.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4469.647}, "reply_to": "15006__2_116", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_118", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- because the parties agreed to abide by the Court's decision but it's the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4470.71], "stop_times": [4476.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4470.71}, "reply_to": "15006__2_117", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_119", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, from what kind of interfering with them?\nI just didn't understand your point three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4476.52, 4478.493], "stop_times": [4478.493, 4482.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4476.52}, "reply_to": "15006__2_118", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_120", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "From interfering with these operations in any way.\nSee, I now -- I'm speaking here not only for the intervener state banks whom I represented in the first instance but I speak here also for the State Comptroller --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4482.407, 4484.92], "stop_times": [4484.92, 4491.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4482.407}, "reply_to": "15006__2_119", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_121", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "State Comptroller --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4491.543], "stop_times": [4492.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4491.543}, "reply_to": "15006__2_120", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_122", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- of the State of Florida and the Court entered an order that the Comptroller at the State of Florida should no longer interfere with these operations by First National Bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4492.167], "stop_times": [4501.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4492.167}, "reply_to": "15006__2_121", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_123", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I thought you were speaking on behalf of the - of your bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4501.122], "stop_times": [4504.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4501.122}, "reply_to": "15006__2_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15006__2_124", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, I'm trying to wear two hats here.\nI'd like to make this particular point because we think it's most important.\nThe argument is made that the use of these contractual arrangements are not subterfuges.\nIt is now been suggested that they have some sort of a practical value.\nThis record will not support that whatsoever.\nWe made the argument from the commencement and sought to prove it as much as we could, that the use of these contractual arrangement was solely for the purpose of evading the effect of federal law and particularly the effect of 36 (f) and 36 (c).\nWe showed that the Comptroller had reversed himself when the Comptroller became Mr. Saxon.\nWe showed that Mr. Saxon's letters in explaining his rulings, expressly said that the contractual arrangements were used so that 36 (f) should not be applicable.\nWe also showed that First National Bank by its letters to the comptroller expressly said that we are using these contractual arrangements because exactly as you required.\nThese were used for the purpose of meeting the Controller's regulation and avoiding the effect of Section 36 and for no other purpose.\nNow, it's been suggested that there might be another legitimate reason for using the contracts, the contractual arrangements.\nThat simply won't hold water.\nAll one has to do is to look at the two basic contracts that are involved, the so-called dual comptroller contract on page 91 of your appendix and the so-called transmittal slip on page 1 to 23 of your appendix.\nAnd any lawyer reading that can see quite clearly that there wasn't any attempt here to limit liability.\nThese are vastly different in language from the classical night depository agreement where specifically a bailment is spelled out.\nThe District Court did not make a finding of fact that First National was not receiving deposits off-premises.\nThe District Court said as a matter of law that these contracts are clear and unambiguous on their face and the District Court therefore refused to consider the purpose, the intent of the contract whatsoever.\nWe made the same presentation to the Court of Appeal.\nThe Court of Appeal agreed with us and the Court of Appeal expressly says that it -- it finds plaintiffs' arguments of agency and a contract indefensible.\nIt finds that it's engaged in the use of paper evasions and admittedly, parties can contract, a bank and its customer can contract as to when a deposit is received.\nBut this cannot be done for the purpose of frustrating public policy for the purpose of evading law and that is precisely the only reason these arrangements were used and one can look all day but with an honest heart, you can find no other answer but that.\nNow, I'd like to say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4504.657, 4513.536, 4519.842, 4527.164, 4533.157, 4537.321, 4552.547, 4557.366, 4571.729, 4584.415, 4593.206, 4603.629, 4605.794, 4619.89, 4625.862, 4636.906, 4645.989, 4663.698, 4667.819, 4679.758, 4693.875, 4716.476], "stop_times": [4513.536, 4519.842, 4527.164, 4533.157, 4537.321, 4552.547, 4557.366, 4571.729, 4584.415, 4593.206, 4603.629, 4605.794, 4619.89, 4625.862, 4636.906, 4645.989, 4663.698, 4667.819, 4679.758, 4693.875, 4716.476, 4717.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4504.657}, "reply_to": "15006__2_123", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_125", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4717.543], "stop_times": [4718.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4717.543}, "reply_to": "15006__2_124", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_126", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4718.992], "stop_times": [4721.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4718.992}, "reply_to": "15006__2_125", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_127", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Your position doesn't depend upon with succeeding with that argument, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4721.763], "stop_times": [4726.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4721.763}, "reply_to": "15006__2_126", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_128", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4726.814], "stop_times": [4727.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4726.814}, "reply_to": "15006__2_127", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_129", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Even if these are perfectly [Inaudible] by the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4727.452], "stop_times": [4730.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4727.452}, "reply_to": "15006__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_130", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "We've made that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4730.244], "stop_times": [4730.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4730.244}, "reply_to": "15006__2_129", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_131", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "They set up all of these relationships just as a -- I gather, you would still argue that this is a service which is a branching service, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4730.873], "stop_times": [4739.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4730.873}, "reply_to": "15006__2_130", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_132", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, we've made just about all the alternative arguments that we could and we take that one too.\nWe do think however that that's very -- that is an important point, Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4739.096, 4745.493], "stop_times": [4745.493, 4750.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4739.096}, "reply_to": "15006__2_131", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_133", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, but that, I just want to be clear, you don't think it's so important that your case stands or falls on your succeeding here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4750.208], "stop_times": [4757.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4750.208}, "reply_to": "15006__2_132", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_134", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, we've argued as I've said, four different points of view, all bringing us to the same conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4757.394], "stop_times": [4763.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4757.394}, "reply_to": "15006__2_133", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_135", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Neither did the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4763.934], "stop_times": [4766.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4763.934}, "reply_to": "15006__2_134", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__2_136", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The Government hasn't advanced that argument.\nI would like to close by saying one thing about the Fifth Circuit's opinion.\nIt's been urged that the Fifth Circuit's opinion doesn't follow the Judge Lindberg approach which we urged before it, but that somehow, it brings into effect a fourth point of view, a fourth approach which is that the policy of competitive equality is so pervasive that virtually all of premises operation are going to be defined by State law.\nWe do not support that view as respondents, but I will confess, we'll be perfectly glad to accept it because our point here is to win a lawsuit and that point of view will win our lawsuit as well as the others will.\nWe do say however that the Fifth Circuit holding does not stand for that proposition.\nThe Fifth Circuit did not hold so broadly.\nAnd we call attention to this fact.\nThe Fifth Circuit's opinion must be read in the context of the arguments which were made before it.\nWe argued alternative positions as we do here, but we argued primarily first that the contractual arrangements are evasions to obviate the effect of Section 36 (f) and to frustrate competitive equality.\nSecondly, we relied upon the functional test set forth in Judge Lindberg's opinion.\nAnd thirdly, we said that this approach made Florida law applicable.\nAnd the fifth court expressly holds seriatim.\nFirst, that it rejects petitioner's arguments of agency and contract, that it finds the contractual arrangements and attempt to evade the wishes of Congress, that Judge Lindberg's approach is approved and only then does the Fifth Circuit look to the Florida law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4766.455, 4772.526, 4780.777, 4804.229, 4819.889, 4826.3, 4829.143, 4830.876, 4836.627, 4850.153, 4855.276, 4859.704, 4864.762], "stop_times": [4772.526, 4780.777, 4804.229, 4819.889, 4826.3, 4829.143, 4830.876, 4836.627, 4850.153, 4855.276, 4859.704, 4864.762, 4883.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4766.455}, "reply_to": "15006__2_135", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_137", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is your basic argument that this is a branch plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4883.846], "stop_times": [4886.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4883.846}, "reply_to": "15006__2_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_138", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4886.554], "stop_times": [4887.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4886.554}, "reply_to": "15006__2_137", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_139", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is your basic argument that this messenger service (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4887.495], "stop_times": [4890.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4887.495}, "reply_to": "15006__2_138", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_140", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is a branch bank for (Voice Overlap), it is sir for the purposes of Section 36 (f), for the purposes of determining whether it is a branch at -- Section 36 said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4890.575], "stop_times": [4901.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4890.575}, "reply_to": "15006__2_139", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_141", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Does the building use it -- the place you pointed out, have a sign in it showing that that's a branch, that's the bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4901.899], "stop_times": [4909.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4901.899}, "reply_to": "15006__2_140", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_142", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4909.534], "stop_times": [4910.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4909.534}, "reply_to": "15006__2_141", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_143", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "(Voice Overlap) bank premises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4910.211], "stop_times": [4911.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4910.211}, "reply_to": "15006__2_142", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_144", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, and lots of nice sign both on the side of the armored car and in the depository area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4911.044], "stop_times": [4917.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4911.044}, "reply_to": "15006__2_143", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_145", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "In the depository?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4917.813], "stop_times": [4918.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4917.813}, "reply_to": "15006__2_144", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_146", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, there is no question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4918.911], "stop_times": [4920.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4918.911}, "reply_to": "15006__2_145", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_147", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Where is that depository?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4920.088], "stop_times": [4921.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4920.088}, "reply_to": "15006__2_146", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_148", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's on the inside mall of the city's only large shopping center, right next door to all of the new chain stores that moved in to town.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4921.904], "stop_times": [4932.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4921.904}, "reply_to": "15006__2_147", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_149", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And has a sign there (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4932.683], "stop_times": [4933.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4932.683}, "reply_to": "15006__2_148", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_150", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "And says this is the First National Bank's messenger service.\nThe point I make is an important -- the point I make is an important one for this reason.\nAs I pointed out, number one, First National got all of their big accounts out of this shopping center because of the location of its depositories.\nSecondly, at the time that First National sought authority from the Comptroller of the Currency for these two operations, the Hillsborough Bank was building its first new bank building in 40 years.\nIt was the only bank in Plant City that survived the depression and it took a long time to get enough money to build a new bank.\nFirst National, rather, Plant City's Hillsborough's banking experience had indicated that within a given period of time, the deposits at the Hillsborough because of the new building should increase by about $2 million.\nWhen that time arrived, the deposits had increased only $200,000 and by that time, First National was handling over a $1 million a week through this service ranging over 18 miles going into additional trade areas serving, incidentally, Mr. Justice Black, the little city of Dover is served by this armored car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [4933.972, 4940.589, 4946.651, 4957.854, 4969.247, 4977.515, 4992.798], "stop_times": [4940.589, 4946.651, 4957.854, 4969.247, 4977.515, 4992.798, 5018.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4933.972}, "reply_to": "15006__2_149", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_151", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5018.147], "stop_times": [5018.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5018.147}, "reply_to": "15006__2_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_152", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "A little city of Dover, Florida and it's a good deal more than two filling stations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5018.714], "stop_times": [5024.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5018.714}, "reply_to": "15006__2_151", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_153", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Is there any other bank there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5024.454], "stop_times": [5026.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5024.454}, "reply_to": "15006__2_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15006__2_154", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir, there is no bank there.\nOf course, it's argued in briefs that these things which the First National has got and the Hillsborough lost just show the value of the service of convenience.\nBut I point out again that this is precisely the question which Congress was concerned with when it faced this problem in enacting the McFadden Act and it held a service and convenience is the question for local determination.\nAnd if that's to be changed, if operations off-premises that affect the basic like blood function of bank are to be, or not to fall within Section 36 (f), we submit that it is solely for Congress to make that decision.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5026.024, 5030.003, 5039.662, 5054.918, 5072.959], "stop_times": [5030.003, 5039.662, 5054.918, 5072.959, 5080.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5026.024}, "reply_to": "15006__2_153", "speaker": "william_reece_smith_jr"}
{"id": "15006__2_155", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Bell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5080.132], "stop_times": [5081.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5080.132}, "reply_to": "15006__2_154", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__3_000", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe 50 officials of the State Government responsible for the supervision and regulation of the 6,400 State chartered banks of the country have filed in a brief as an amicus curiae with this Court urging affirmation of the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nNow, because both our position and the opinion of the court below had been characterized in a manner by the petitioners with which we do not agree, I would like at the outset of my argument to pose the issue as we see it and its resolution by the Court of Appeals below.\nNow, the petitioners argued that the determination of what off-premise business activities of a national bank amount to a branch is governed exclusively by 36 (f).\nAnd they contend that all that is involved in a case of this type a technical analysis of the understanding between the bank and the customer in the light of applicable agency contract of commercial law to determine whether there's been a loan, deposit or check transaction away from the bank's business.\nNow, if there has been no transaction, there's no branch and no reference to state law is required or permitted in this analytical process.\nNow, under this reasoning, the Comptroller of the Currency has recently ruled that national banks are not branching when they engage in the check cashing or deposit making process through off-premise shopping center depositories or mobile facilities or when they engage in a loan making process through off-premise loan production offices.\nNow, if the result is to -- is a competitive disadvantage for state banks who have prohibited such activity by state branch policy embedded in state law, the petitioners assert that this is precisely what Congress intended.\nNow, the construction of Section 36 (f) which we support, which is the principal argument presented by the respondents and which is the one reflected in the decision of the Court of Appeals is this, the Court of Appeals started with this Court's decision in the Walker Bank case and there this Court has exhaustively studied the legislative history of the branching provisions of the McFadden Act of 1927 and the Banking Act of 1933 and reached the conclusion that the dominant intent of Congress was to establish competitive equality between national and state banks in the matter of branching based on State law.\nAnd the Court then concluded that the only way to reconcile Section 36 (f), the definitional section and Section 36 (c), the branching section within the framework of this Congressional intent, was to consider Section 36 (f) as a functional definition.\nIf there is an off-premise facility at which activities are performed, essential to the loan, deposit or check paying process, then reference must be made to state branching policy in a state law to determine if the off-premise activity would be a branch.\nNow, in other words, the Court of Appeals considered Section 36 as a substantive definition of essential banking functions not as a technical delineation of the party's rights.\nFor the whole controversy in the McFadden Act of 1927 when both Section 36 (c) and (f) were adopted and later in the Banking Act of 1933, revolved around the dispute between unit banking and branch banking.\nAnd in the real world of banking, the resolution of that dispute is not made by a contractual relationship described in small print on a transmittal slip.\nIt is made by a determination of the extent to which banks can compete off-premises in the functional essentials of banking, loans, deposits and checks.\nNow, that is what the Court of Appeals did and there is no conflict or obscurity about it.\nIt said that if no matter how you look at it, unless you want to throw away all the concepts of the functional business of banking, the off-premise activities in the case, in this case, inaugurated by the petitioners below involved a deposit-making process and a similar determination had been made by the state chartered banks case court and so they turned to state law and found that off-premise activity would be prohibited.\nState banks under the branching policy of the State as reflected in its state branch statutes and they therefore concluded, it would be unlawful for national banks and that is the decision which we too seek.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5081.637, 5084.788, 5100.963, 5120.134, 5131.412, 5150.747, 5160.229, 5182.348, 5198.248, 5240.146, 5260.204, 5279.386, 5293.893, 5311.53, 5323.036, 5335.447, 5341.611, 5368.092], "stop_times": [5084.788, 5100.963, 5120.134, 5131.412, 5150.747, 5160.229, 5182.348, 5198.248, 5240.146, 5260.204, 5279.386, 5293.893, 5311.53, 5323.036, 5335.447, 5341.611, 5368.092, 5380.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5081.637}, "reply_to": "15006__2_155", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_001", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Would you agree that Congress could authorize national banks to do all the things that are challenged here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5380.977], "stop_times": [5388.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5380.977}, "reply_to": "15006__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15006__3_002", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes Mr. Chief Justice.\nThere's no argument that the Congress of the United States could have given national banks this authority.\nThe question is one of statutory construction did it.\nNow, I would like to turn, if I may, at this point to some of the lines of arguments advanced by the petitioners against this position.\nThe first one, I think frankly it is directed to the wrong forum, to the Courts rather than to the Congress, but basically it's this.\nImaginative and vigorous national banks are developing modern concepts of banking which would be frustrated under the ruling of the court below because it would subject national banks to unfriendly state legislation construed by unfriendly state banking departments and would result in a disparity of treatment of national banks by the various states.\nThis line of argument errs on at least six accounts.\nFirst, there is a disparity of treatment of national banks by the various states in the matter of branching today.\n12 permit unlimited branching, 15 prohibited altogether and the remaining 23 adopt a middle ground with widely varying restrictions offering some of the benefits of banking, but trying to protect small country banks, for example, by expansion of city banks.\nSo, diversity was specifically intended by Congress when it rejected the concept that branching should be determined by federal law.\nSo, the very diversity that the petitioners decry is what Congress wanted because in every state, there are differing economies as well as divergent issues on the issue of branch versus unit banking and Congress sought to adopt that standard as a measure of off-premise or branching activities of banks.\nSecond, with regard to this high qualification of unfriendly state legislation, the idea that a state is a going to pass branching legislation designed to hurt national banks, when that legislation is equally applicable to state banks, is simply totally unsupportable.\nAnd when petitioners make this assertion, all they are doing as opponents of unit banking are saying they don't like any restrictions of branching, but that is a matter which Congress has decided the state should decide.\nNow, somehow, the third, the concept that imaginative national banks are trying to keep up with the times and are being rewarded is deserving of the same answer.\nFor what may be imaginative expansion to some may spell a break down in unit banking and banking concentration to others.\nMr. Hanson has filed a brief for the Independent Banker's Association making this point very strongly.\nNow, there are states which permit precisely the type of activity for which petitioners argue here, California for example.\nBut those states with a strong policy favoring unit banking such as Florida do not and there are arguments on both sides of this issue.\nCongress has said State legislatures should be the forum and national banks as well as state banks can go into a state legislature anytime they want to, to change the policy of their state.\nFourth, the concept that the decision below somehow rather places national banks at the mercy of supervisors or indeed as the Comptroller posed the question this morning that state banks supervisors can prevent something, we believe is totally unwarranted.\nThe source of state law is not supervisor imagination but the statutes of a state reflecting its branch banking policies.\nNow, this whole field of off-premise activity is relatively new today.\nSo, there are not many State judicial decisions and as each instance arises, the questions comes up is this in accord with or contrary to the branching policy of the state.\nAnd in the absence of judicial decisions, supervisors usually seeking the advice of the State Attorney's General have been called upon to construe the statute.\nNow, each ruling is non-discriminatory, equally applicable to both state and national banks.\nEach ruling is subject to judicial review for its correctness and indeed as has been pointed out here, the ruling of the supervisor of Florida itself is now before Florida courts for decision.\nNow fifth, the argument of the Comptroller that somehow the result of the decision below is tantamount to supervisor approval of Comptroller decisions is equally without merit.\nOf course, the comptroller doesn't have to seek supervisor approval of his decisions, but since Congress has provided a statutory framework with an intermeshing of Federal and State law relating to branching, surely that doesn't mean that an iron curtain has to descend between the comptroller's office and the state supervisors.\nConsultation as to the meaning of state law is not tantamount to supervisor approval of the decisions of the comptroller.\nAnd indeed, the Sixth Circuit in the Wayne, Oakland Bank case has held that this intermeshing demonstrates that Congress intended consultation and cooperation between the two agencies.\nNow, also and finally, the petitioners in their supporting amici have compiled a fearsome list of activities which they assert that state supervisors can strike down under the decision of the court below on the guise of their branches forbidden under state law.\nNow, the functional definition of Section 36 (f) does not go to all banking activities, it goes to the essentials of banking activities relating to loan, deposits, and checks and therefore, such activities assigning a trust agreement in a law firm's office and turning that law firm's office into a branch clearly wouldn't even pass the functional definition.\nBanking by mail, new business solicitation clearly doesn't have off-premise additional office or facility.\nSo, what we're talking about here is that a loan, check, or deposit function of a type where there is a competition with other banks in the -- for the public for the banking business.\nBecause that's what the preservation of the unit banking system and those states that have adopted depends upon.\nWhen you go out and set up a facility such as the set up in this case and get a million dollars worth of deposits in a week, it is darn competitive facility and this is what the Court -- this is what the Congress was talking about when it was talking about giving the States the right to determine whether or not you are going to have a unit or a branch banking system.\nIf you really follow the Comptroller's argument to its ultimate decision, what he is saying is that anything that goes on in a main banking office can go on anywhere else as long as you surround it with the whole bunch of agency contracts or other types of contractual relationships so that the ultimate responsibility or the technical completion of a loan, check or deposit process doesn't take place until you have gotten back to the main banking office.\nAnd if national banks can go into a shopping center and set up a loan production office here and right next door, a depository with a desk, etcetera and right to next to that, a whole series of customers where you can pick up checks and cash by mobile deposits, I ask the question, who needs a branch?\nObviously, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5388.165, 5389.722, 5395.357, 5399.941, 5408.625, 5418.614, 5439.876, 5444.678, 5451.674, 5470.039, 5479.359, 5501.775, 5517.822, 5531.822, 5541.861, 5552.109, 5558.182, 5567.08, 5575.928, 5588.976, 5605.811, 5615.494, 5620.863, 5633.308, 5643.708, 5651.169, 5664.011, 5676.041, 5696.853, 5704.702, 5717.217, 5733.4, 5756.807, 5764.168, 5777.846, 5785.364, 5807.934, 5839.422, 5859.143], "stop_times": [5389.722, 5395.357, 5399.941, 5408.625, 5418.614, 5439.876, 5444.678, 5451.674, 5470.039, 5479.359, 5501.775, 5517.822, 5531.822, 5541.861, 5552.109, 5558.182, 5567.08, 5575.928, 5588.976, 5605.811, 5615.494, 5620.863, 5633.308, 5643.708, 5651.169, 5664.011, 5676.041, 5696.853, 5704.702, 5717.217, 5733.4, 5756.807, 5764.168, 5777.846, 5785.364, 5807.934, 5839.422, 5859.143, 5859.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5388.165}, "reply_to": "15006__3_001", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_003", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Could you draw any distinction in your own line between the armored car service and the depository?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5859.425], "stop_times": [5867.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5859.425}, "reply_to": "15006__3_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_004", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, the armored car service --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5867.575], "stop_times": [5868.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5867.575}, "reply_to": "15006__3_003", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_005", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "For purposes of Section 36?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5868.559], "stop_times": [5870.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5868.559}, "reply_to": "15006__3_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_006", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir.\nIn my opinion, they are -- both involve essential elements relating to the deposit -- make deposits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5870.657, 5871.475], "stop_times": [5871.475, 5876.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5870.657}, "reply_to": "15006__3_005", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_007", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "But you have to call -- can you really call an armored car service that's moving around a place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5876.058], "stop_times": [5882.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5876.058}, "reply_to": "15006__3_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_008", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "I think that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5882.22], "stop_times": [5882.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5882.22}, "reply_to": "15006__3_007", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_009", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Or a branch office or a branch agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5882.8], "stop_times": [5887.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5882.8}, "reply_to": "15006__3_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_010", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It's an additional --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5887.253], "stop_times": [5888.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5887.253}, "reply_to": "15006__3_009", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_011", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Or a branch?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5888.091], "stop_times": [5889.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5888.091}, "reply_to": "15006__3_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_012", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It is a place of business, I would suggest, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5889.152], "stop_times": [5892.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5889.152}, "reply_to": "15006__3_011", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_013", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "A branch or place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5892.961], "stop_times": [5894.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5892.961}, "reply_to": "15006__3_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_014", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "It is a branch, place of business --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5894.745], "stop_times": [5897.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5894.745}, "reply_to": "15006__3_013", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_015", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5897.443], "stop_times": [5897.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5897.443}, "reply_to": "15006__3_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_016", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "-- at which essential activities relating to the deposit making process are going on because I do not see how you construe, can construe Section 36 (f) in any other way and still reconcile it with the basic competitive equality of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5897.576], "stop_times": [5916.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5897.576}, "reply_to": "15006__3_015", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_017", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Do you think the president of the bank every now and then stops by a customer's place and picks up his deposits; that's a branch place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5916.093], "stop_times": [5926.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5916.093}, "reply_to": "15006__3_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_018", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir.\nI think that if you're talking about new business solicitation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5926.206, 5926.538], "stop_times": [5926.538, 5928.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5926.206}, "reply_to": "15006__3_017", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_019", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Because (Voice Overlap) under 36, you don't only need the acceptance of deposits but you need to have those accepted at a place of business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5928.247], "stop_times": [5936.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5928.247}, "reply_to": "15006__3_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_020", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.\nI think that there always are going to be gray areas in any operation of this type but I think if you look at Section 36 (f) within the framework of what Congress was trying to achieve, competitive equality with regard to the banking business and locations of the banking business that the construction of the court below was the correct one which was to refer to the state grants policy as reflected in state statutes.\nNow, you're asking me a whole series of hypotheticals under the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5936.731, 5937.93, 5972.756], "stop_times": [5937.93, 5972.756, 5976.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5936.731}, "reply_to": "15006__3_019", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_021", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Also you think [Inaudible] this is hypothetical because an armored car service is here as well as the depository.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5976.995], "stop_times": [5982.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5976.995}, "reply_to": "15006__3_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_022", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir.\nI think the deposit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5982.496, 5983.441], "stop_times": [5983.441, 5984.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5982.496}, "reply_to": "15006__3_021", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_023", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "[Inaudible] hypothetical about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5984.463], "stop_times": [5985.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5984.463}, "reply_to": "15006__3_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15006__3_024", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "The depository and the armored car service are essential elements relating to the depository --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5985.392], "stop_times": [5990.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5985.392}, "reply_to": "15006__3_023", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_025", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "[Inaudible] together or does each separately a branch place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5990.07], "stop_times": [5995.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5990.07}, "reply_to": "15006__3_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__3_026", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "They are together in the sense of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5995.664], "stop_times": [5998.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5995.664}, "reply_to": "15006__3_025", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_027", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "[Inaudible] only the armored car service without the supermarket or a shopping center depository.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [5998.089], "stop_times": [6003.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5998.089}, "reply_to": "15006__3_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__3_028", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "No sir.\nI think that if you can -- if the -- that if you can go out and serve your comp -- your customers in a 20-mile area of your bank, to say that you are operating solely within the framework of your main banking business is simply impossible within the framework of branch policy definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [6003.47, 6005.031], "stop_times": [6005.031, 6022.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6003.47}, "reply_to": "15006__3_027", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_029", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, (Voice Overlap) your position is if we had built depository at the location of the shopping center.\nIf there were none there, he would still say that there was a branch place of business in the armored car service alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [6022.118, 6033.24], "stop_times": [6033.24, 6042.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6022.118}, "reply_to": "15006__3_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__3_030", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "If it was going out to pick up deposits from a customer's place of business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [6042.527], "stop_times": [6044.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6042.527}, "reply_to": "15006__3_029", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_031", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Well, (Voice Overlap) we're stopping at these various chain stores, establishments rather than going to depository [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [6044.318], "stop_times": [6050.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6044.318}, "reply_to": "15006__3_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15006__3_032", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Yes sir, clearly, because you could not compete, where the bank that didn't have that authority, if you couldn't do the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [6050.707], "stop_times": [6060.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6050.707}, "reply_to": "15006__3_031", "speaker": "james_f_bell"}
{"id": "15006__3_033", "conversation_id": "15006", "text": "Your time is up.\nMr. Springer, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bell, we thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_19", "start_times": [6060.206, 6062.321, 6067.853], "stop_times": [6062.321, 6067.853, 6070.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6060.206}, "reply_to": "15006__3_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_000", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "And we will hear now Loflin against Albert.\nExcuse me, Goldberg against Kelly.\nMr. Loflin and Mr. Albert as counsel.\nMr. Loflin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [0.0, 11.881, 15.575, 55.511], "stop_times": [11.881, 15.575, 55.511, 55.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_001", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "May it please the Court.\nIn this case unlike the California case you just have described, there were two separate statutory forms of benefits involved.\nThe federal benefits which are substantially the same as those in the California case and what in New York is known as home relief.\nThe presence of the home relief recipients as plaintiffs in the cases that are here consolidated accounted for at least in part the decision of the court below to reach constitutional issues rather than leave the decision to rest upon a statutory basis.\nThey reasoned that even if they could resolve the case as to the federal beneficiaries, they would still have to face the problem of what to do about the state recipients.\nSo without pausing on that question, they went into the constitutional area.\nThese three cases here consolidated as per substantially identical relief, that is, as it went to the three-judge court below, plaintiffs were asking for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to cease terminations without having a prior hearing which according to plaintiff's judgment would meet the standards of due process of law.\nIn addition, they wanted a declaratory judgment.\nAs we got to the three judge hearing stage, the declaratory judgment section of their relief focused upon a new New York State regulation which was in fact promulgated after the first of these cases was filed.\nI would like to dwell for a moment on the sequence of events because it did have some influence I believe on the decisions below.\nAt the time the first of these cases was filed in New York, there was no pre-termination conference hearing procedure.\nIt was entirely possible and frequently happened that a beneficiary would simply receive a notice in saying your benefits have been cutoff, refer to your handbook or your pamphlet as to any rights you might have to have a fair hearing.\nThis led to unfortunate circumstances, unfortunate damage to a number of recipients and led directly to the filing of a lawsuit.\nShortly after the suit was filed, New York State followed California in adopting a pre-termination regulation.\nNow this is a regulation which is here before this Court, Number 351.26.\nAs you may know in the State of New York, well over half of the total welfare recipients reside in the City of New York.\nThe state however promulgated this new regulation without consultation with the city; it reached the city officials in late February and was to become effective by its terms on March 1.\nThe state however did not provide hearing officers or training or any real guidelines much less any financing so that this machinery could be setup on what was at the time two or three days notice.\nThe city reacted to this by asking for conferences with the state officials to see if the impact of this new procedure on the city administration could be less.\nIn fact, after a series of conferences at which the difficulties of enforcing the new state regulation in a city with approximately 1 million people on welfare was pointed out.\nThe state resented its original regulation and then at the same time put out the regulation which is now before this Court.\nIt consists of two parts, 351.26 (a) and 351.26 (b).\nA welfare district which New York City is one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [55.939, 61.416, 71.449, 80.168, 102.588, 113.731, 120.504, 146.19, 151.504, 166.37, 174.46, 183.769, 198.713, 209.372, 217.173, 224.934, 232.338, 244.777, 258.661, 270.421, 282.681, 292.175, 298.946], "stop_times": [61.416, 71.449, 80.168, 102.588, 113.731, 120.504, 146.19, 151.504, 166.37, 174.46, 183.769, 198.713, 209.372, 217.173, 224.934, 232.338, 244.777, 258.661, 270.421, 282.681, 292.175, 298.946, 302.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.939}, "reply_to": "15313__0_000", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_002", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Excuse me counsel, where -- could you -- could find in the -- briefs are -- the record will be (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [302.069], "stop_times": [308.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.069}, "reply_to": "15313__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_003", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, in the record its set forth at 127 (a).\nAnd that's the regulation as finally adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [308.447, 316.172], "stop_times": [316.172, 318.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.447}, "reply_to": "15313__0_002", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_004", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Is that the same as in your brief on pages 2 to 4?2 to 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [318.222], "stop_times": [322.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.222}, "reply_to": "15313__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_005", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.\n351.26 (a) and (b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [322.122, 322.659], "stop_times": [322.659, 323.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.122}, "reply_to": "15313__0_004", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_006", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "2 to 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [323.281], "stop_times": [326.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.281}, "reply_to": "15313__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_007", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "They are quoted in several different places, that's one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [326.263], "stop_times": [328.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.263}, "reply_to": "15313__0_006", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_008", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Does that fall in your brief, pages 2 to 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [328.715], "stop_times": [335.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.715}, "reply_to": "15313__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_009", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [335.786], "stop_times": [336.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.786}, "reply_to": "15313__0_008", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_010", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Was the date April 26, 1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [336.301], "stop_times": [338.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.301}, "reply_to": "15313__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_011", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [338.793], "stop_times": [339.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.793}, "reply_to": "15313__0_010", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_012", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's the one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [339.204], "stop_times": [339.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.204}, "reply_to": "15313__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_013", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.\nNow, both of these subparagraphs that is (a) and (b) were challenged by the plaintiffs below.\nThe court examined both of them, held in fact that subparagraph (b) which had been adopted in New York City was unconstitutional as not affording proper due process of law and in particular, the deficits that they pointed out were the lack of confrontation and cross examination.\nThe three-judge court in the southern district saw no room for that in the procedure before it under subparagraph (b) and held that those were essential elements which must be present.\nAnd since there was some ambiguity as to subparagraph (a), they construed subparagraph (a) to require confrontation and cross examination of adverse witnesses and said in effect, \u201cIf you don't operate it in that fashion, that Section too would be unconstitutional and a denial of due process of law.\u201d\nThe state did not appeal in this case.\nThe city with an interest in subparagraph (b) is here before the court.\nIt is vital to our case for the court to understand that we do not rest alone on subparagraph (b) of 351.26.\nIt is the pattern or regulation in the State of New York for a city welfare district particularly, one of the size of the city in New York to adopt its own implementing regulations subject to state approval.\nThat was done in this case.\nOur local regulation is known as procedure 68-18.\nNow that is set forth in the record following pages 147 and 148.\nI stress the importance of our local procedure because I think the court needs to have the full process before you and understand particularly how the client first becomes involved in these procedural steps.\nUnder our local procedure, the caseworker is obliged to notify the client when information comes to him indicating there is a question as a continued eligibility to receive benefits.\nThe caseworker has the duty of calling the client in and discussing these matters with them in a face to face conference.\nThe client is in a position then to discover what it is that has led the city to believe that this person is no longer eligible.\nThat client is in a position to tell the city why it is making a mistake if it is and to correct error if error there be.\nIn the event, the caseworker determines after a conference with the client that there is probable reason to conclude that the client is in fact no longer eligible, the case file in the caseworker's recommendation go to the unit supervisor where the entire matter is subject to review.\nIt is only if the unit supervisor concurs in the judgment of the caseworker, does the formal notice contemplated by 351.26 (b) issues -- that notice tells the recipient --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [339.838, 344.358, 354.637, 376.052, 389.019, 411.428, 413.902, 422.496, 433.224, 445.467, 447.893, 452.964, 459.796, 474.017, 488.915, 496.281, 505.102, 514.068, 533.992], "stop_times": [344.358, 354.637, 376.052, 389.019, 411.428, 413.902, 422.496, 433.224, 445.467, 447.893, 452.964, 459.796, 474.017, 488.915, 496.281, 505.102, 514.068, 533.992, 546.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.838}, "reply_to": "15313__0_012", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_014", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Is that what you consider due process notice as -- is what you're talking about now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [546.712], "stop_times": [552.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.712}, "reply_to": "15313__0_013", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_015", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Your Honor I believe that the due process as I see it begins at the point where the client is called in for the conference with the caseworker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [552.69], "stop_times": [560.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.69}, "reply_to": "15313__0_014", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_016", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "So your idea of due process is that the caseworker calls the person and just two of them in the room and he gives them notice and that's the type of notice that still process notice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [560.487], "stop_times": [572.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.487}, "reply_to": "15313__0_015", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_017", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's where the process begins Your Honor.\nIf it stop --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [572.127, 573.867], "stop_times": [573.867, 574.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.127}, "reply_to": "15313__0_016", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_018", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "But is that a due process notice or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [574.194], "stop_times": [576.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.194}, "reply_to": "15313__0_017", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_019", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "For the purposes of this case, under these facts, I believe that it is, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [576.71], "stop_times": [580.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.71}, "reply_to": "15313__0_018", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_020", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, how does that fit with the constitution of your idea of what due process is?\nDo you want to call this due process or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [580.993, 587.331], "stop_times": [587.331, 591.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.993}, "reply_to": "15313__0_019", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_021", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I have accepted the fact that a welfare recipient faced with termination is entitled to due process appropriate to the circumstances.\nThis to me does not necessarily mean the type of due process that would be appropriate under circumstances of criminal law or civil case law or any number of other factual patterns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [591.714, 602.362], "stop_times": [602.362, 613.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.714}, "reply_to": "15313__0_020", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_022", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, what is it similar to?\nOr do you say if something as peculiar to welfare?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [613.66, 617.509], "stop_times": [617.509, 621.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.66}, "reply_to": "15313__0_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_023", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "There are many facets which are peculiar to welfare.\nThere is no other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [621.735, 624.052], "stop_times": [624.052, 624.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.735}, "reply_to": "15313__0_022", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_024", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Do you have any other cases that you could cite to, other than a welfare case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [624.769], "stop_times": [630.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.769}, "reply_to": "15313__0_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_025", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "As was adverted to earlier this morning, it bears some resemblance to the cases where public employees have been called up on charges and suspended but later given an opportunity to be heard.\nThere is a situation where monetary benefits of one sort or another or ultimately cutoff --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [630.587, 642.383], "stop_times": [642.383, 646.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.587}, "reply_to": "15313__0_024", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_026", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "But do you see any difference between a government employee making 20 thousand a year and a welfare worker as to be -- in able to live doing this due process period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [646.98], "stop_times": [657.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.98}, "reply_to": "15313__0_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_027", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, obviously the impact on the individual is much worse if we make an error in the case of someone who is destitute than if we make an error in the case of someone who is well off.\nI don't doubt that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [657.579, 665.792], "stop_times": [665.792, 666.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.579}, "reply_to": "15313__0_026", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_028", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, why wouldn't you then be inclined to give them some due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [666.493], "stop_times": [670.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.493}, "reply_to": "15313__0_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_029", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I definitely would be inclined and my position is that this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [670.932], "stop_times": [673.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.932}, "reply_to": "15313__0_028", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_030", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Your idea of due process is that the caseworker that's investigated it and has made up his or her mind that this recipient doesn't deserve it anymore calls him in and gives him a notice and hearing and the termination, that's your idea of due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [673.837], "stop_times": [692.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.837}, "reply_to": "15313__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_031", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I don't accept the hypothesis sir that the caseworker has a closed mind at the time he advised the client to come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [692.618], "stop_times": [698.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.618}, "reply_to": "15313__0_030", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_032", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, who investigated it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [698.167], "stop_times": [700.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.167}, "reply_to": "15313__0_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_033", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It may be the caseworker, information may come from other sources.\nInformation comes to the welfare department from many sources.\nIt may come from a bank, from a landlady, from a friend --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [700.644, 704.196, 706.76], "stop_times": [704.196, 706.76, 708.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.644}, "reply_to": "15313__0_032", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_034", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, wouldn't the caseworker asked him to come in if the caseworker hadn't thought that there was bare possibility that perhaps the recipient might be wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [708.262], "stop_times": [720.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.262}, "reply_to": "15313__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_035", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's the reason he is called in. the caseworker has some information which he wants clarified.\nHe gets hold of information which is of sufficient weight that he says, \u201cI need a personal conference with this person to hear their side of the story and maybe he can explain this away.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [720.745, 725.624], "stop_times": [725.624, 735.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.745}, "reply_to": "15313__0_034", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_036", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, a personal conference is nothing close to a due process hearing, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [735.065], "stop_times": [742.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.065}, "reply_to": "15313__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_037", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Your Honor I contend that it is part of a procedure which when taken in its entirety constitutes such basic fairness that it is due process of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [742.711], "stop_times": [752.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.711}, "reply_to": "15313__0_036", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_038", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's your idea of fairness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [752.765], "stop_times": [754.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.765}, "reply_to": "15313__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_039", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Taken altogether, it is my idea of fairness but not truncating it and chopping it off at one little chapter and saying, \u201cWell, this is all the due process the person is going to get.\u201d\nThat's not my position.\nBut that's not the end of the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [754.941, 763.261, 764.926], "stop_times": [763.261, 764.926, 768.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.941}, "reply_to": "15313__0_038", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_040", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "When the supervisor says, \u201cIt's alright\u201d?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [768.951], "stop_times": [771.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.951}, "reply_to": "15313__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_041", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [771.44], "stop_times": [772.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.44}, "reply_to": "15313__0_040", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_042", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [772.612], "stop_times": [774.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.612}, "reply_to": "15313__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_043", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "We've had the meeting with the caseworker.\nWe've had the review by the unit supervisor.\nWe've had the notice go out to the client that gives him seven days to come in with any written information with the aid of counsel he'd like to present.\nThat is then reviewed by still a third level of officials who has no personal involvement in the decision at the caseworker level.\nThis supervisory person gets the record and anything submitted by the client, reviews the entire matter and its only after he is satisfied that the person is ineligible that the benefits are cutoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [774.169, 775.854, 777.78, 785.084, 795.412], "stop_times": [775.854, 777.78, 785.084, 795.412, 806.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.169}, "reply_to": "15313__0_042", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_044", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's your idea of due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [806.278], "stop_times": [807.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.278}, "reply_to": "15313__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_045", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think that meets due process, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [807.921], "stop_times": [810.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.921}, "reply_to": "15313__0_044", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_046", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Loflin, I suppose up in Mariposa County where they have a few recipients and few staff members, it would be possible that the man who made the decision to grant the benefit in the first place might be the same man who listened to the recipient in this process you're describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [810.592], "stop_times": [832.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.592}, "reply_to": "15313__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_047", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "New York regulation prevents those decisions being all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [832.734], "stop_times": [835.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.734}, "reply_to": "15313__0_046", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_048", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I'm transporting Mariposa in New York and I suppose that's not right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [835.992], "stop_times": [840.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.992}, "reply_to": "15313__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_049", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I have to admit I'm not as (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [840.242], "stop_times": [840.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.242}, "reply_to": "15313__0_048", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_050", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Suppose you (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [840.949], "stop_times": [841.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.949}, "reply_to": "15313__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_051", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "-- with Mariposa County as might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [841.73], "stop_times": [843.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.73}, "reply_to": "15313__0_050", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_052", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "A small community in New York that would not have a large staff of workers or a large number of recipients, if you have any such a community.\nIs it possible then that the man who granted the relief might be the man who was considering its termination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [843.535, 852.361], "stop_times": [852.361, 859.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.535}, "reply_to": "15313__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_053", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I believe that would not comply with the state regulation in New York (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [859.364], "stop_times": [863.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.364}, "reply_to": "15313__0_052", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_054", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Under the new regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [863.425], "stop_times": [864.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.425}, "reply_to": "15313__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__0_055", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Under the new regulation, that's right, whether it could happen, I can't tell you.\nIt is not administratively set up that way in the city of New York where of course we do have the highest the volume in the country.\nSo, we have gone through these three layers of administrative review before any action adverse to the welfare recipient is taken.\nIf the decision ultimately after the review officer has gone over the entire matter and reached the conclusion, if he decides that benefits are to be terminated, a notice to that effect is sent to the client and a notice also includes a clear statement to the effect that the decision may be reviewed in a fair hearing.\nAnd what I suggested to Mr. Justice Marshall that the entire process has to be looked on in order to see whether or not due process has been observed, I think it starts with the initial conference with the caseworker and does not conclude until after the fair hearing.\nNow true --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [864.147, 867.379, 876.447, 890.442, 915.464, 932.971], "stop_times": [867.379, 876.447, 890.442, 915.464, 932.971, 933.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.147}, "reply_to": "15313__0_054", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_056", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "After the fair hearing is an opportunity for judicial review, is there not (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [933.849], "stop_times": [936.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.849}, "reply_to": "15313__0_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__0_057", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir, under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, any decision of a hearing officer that results in a denial of benefits, the person whose benefits denied is considered an aggrieved person and he may sue the state hearing officer and have it -- the entire package, the record of the case reviewed by a State Supreme Court justice.\nSo, we do have this gap that can occur and Mr. Justice Marshall is entirely right and there's no denying that a person who is in fact destitute can be heard between the period when the review officer cuts off the benefits and the time when in fact we are wrong, the state's fair hearing officer restores those benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [936.824, 961.177], "stop_times": [961.177, 983.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.824}, "reply_to": "15313__0_056", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_058", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Is there any way of knowing how long that time is on the average or in the typical situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [983.332], "stop_times": [990.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.332}, "reply_to": "15313__0_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__0_059", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, there is evidence in the case that it varies tremendously.\nNew York had fallen behind beginning about in 1967.\nI might point out in the first half of 1967, fair hearings were running at the rate of 200 or 300 per month.\nIn the last half of 1967, they jumped to as high as eleven hundred per month.\nNow, this problem has been alleviated somewhat the total number of hearing officers has been increased by 50%.\nWe had only 8 for the state.\nAt the beginning of this period we now have 12 and additional staff has been provided so as Mrs. Palmer advised the court, California has responded to the increased case loads so as New York.\nI can't tell you that we have completely caught up on our backlog, we haven't but we're making deep inroads into it and we hope to bring the State of New York into compliance with the time table that the Federal Government has proposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [990.904, 997.701, 1002.941, 1010.003, 1015.838, 1023.389, 1025.046, 1037.994], "stop_times": [997.701, 1002.941, 1010.003, 1015.838, 1023.389, 1025.046, 1037.994, 1050.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.904}, "reply_to": "15313__0_058", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_060", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "And that's 50 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1050.976], "stop_times": [1051.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.976}, "reply_to": "15313__0_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__0_061", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.\nNow I would point out to you that in this case in addition to the constitutional issues which drew the focus of attention in the court below, there is a statutory regulatory scheme which provides a framework with when -- within which the case could also be examined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1051.937, 1053.351], "stop_times": [1053.351, 1073.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.937}, "reply_to": "15313__0_060", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_062", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Which are you rest in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1073.02], "stop_times": [1075.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.02}, "reply_to": "15313__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__0_063", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I will rest on either Your Honor.\nI claim that we have granted due process if it's to be measured by constitutional standards.\nI also claim here and I believe that the record will show we are in compliance with the HEW regulations on this subject.\nHereto, this was a development during the course of this case; the regulation to which I refer became effective July 1, 1968 well after this cases had started.\nBut the regulation is set forth in part on page 12 of Solicitor General's brief and it's very brief if I may refer to it, its cited to the HEW handbook, Section 2300 (d) (5) and it states that advanced notice of questions, it has about an individual's eligibility so that a recipient has an opportunity to discuss the situation before receiving formal written notice of reduction in payment or termination of assistance is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1075.493, 1077.078, 1082.55, 1091.539, 1101.451], "stop_times": [1077.078, 1082.55, 1091.539, 1101.451, 1131.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.493}, "reply_to": "15313__0_062", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_064", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, I gather Mr. Loflin that like California, the city also concedes that constitutionally there is some obligation of some form of due process before termination may be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1131.714], "stop_times": [1143.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.714}, "reply_to": "15313__0_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__0_065", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes.\nWe have not denied that.\nI just point this regulatory framework out to afford another basis for the court's examination if you wish.\nThe court below turned away from that entirely and went to the constitutional issue.\nBut we do not here claim that a welfare beneficiary whose benefits are about to be terminated is not entitled to some pre-termination procedures -- constitutionally entitled to some pre-termination procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1143.701, 1143.978, 1145.379, 1151.546, 1156.27], "stop_times": [1143.978, 1145.379, 1151.546, 1156.27, 1169.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.701}, "reply_to": "15313__0_064", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_066", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Do you think that New York's procedure satisfies the federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1169.764], "stop_times": [1175.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.764}, "reply_to": "15313__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_067", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I do sir.\nYou will note that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1175.368, 1176.741], "stop_times": [1176.741, 1177.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.368}, "reply_to": "15313__0_066", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_068", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I take the New York statute goes as far as, according to the due process, before the termination as the Solicitor General's brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1177.68], "stop_times": [1190.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.68}, "reply_to": "15313__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_069", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I believe it goes as far as the Solicitor General's brief says is required.\nI would point out to you that annex to the reply brief filed by my opponent is another brief filed in the court below in which the Federal Government took the position explicitly that both subparagraph (a) of the regulation and (b) complied with the federal regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1190.755, 1195.225], "stop_times": [1195.225, 1214.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.755}, "reply_to": "15313__0_068", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_070", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What is there that New York statute requires (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1214.85], "stop_times": [1219.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.85}, "reply_to": "15313__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_071", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That comes up under our procedure 68-18, the local procedure adopted to implement the state regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1219.404], "stop_times": [1226.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.404}, "reply_to": "15313__0_070", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_072", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Under what paragraph?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1226.794], "stop_times": [1228.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.794}, "reply_to": "15313__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_073", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Under paragraph (b).\nAnd that procedure had to obtain state's approval.\nIn other words we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1228.303, 1229.86, 1232.983], "stop_times": [1229.86, 1232.983, 1233.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.303}, "reply_to": "15313__0_072", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_074", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1233.492], "stop_times": [1236.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.492}, "reply_to": "15313__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__0_075", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe procedure 68-18 appears in the record following pages 147, 148A.\nIt's annex to an affidavit of the appellate here, the Commissioner of Social Welfare, Jack Goldberg.\nI consider those procedures adopted through the local regulation as complimentary to the state regulation.\nWe couldn't have implemented the state regulation without adopting local procedures and I believe that we are properly entitled to be judged by what we actually did, not by theoretically what we might have done and these procedures of course were before the court below.\nThey were not adopted after the decisions at that time.\nThe regulation by the state came out in the spring of 1968, the revised regulation.\nIt took -- I would say roughly close to a month before the regulation became effective in New York City.\nDuring part of that month, the review officers had to be selected and guidelines had to be developed.\nIn addition, the procedure that the city of New York intended to follow had to be submitted to the state for its approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1236.681, 1237.184, 1244.407, 1253.992, 1262.275, 1278.962, 1284.489, 1291.722, 1301.372, 1307.807], "stop_times": [1237.184, 1244.407, 1253.992, 1262.275, 1278.962, 1284.489, 1291.722, 1301.372, 1307.807, 1314.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.681}, "reply_to": "15313__0_074", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_076", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Do you state actual city procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1314.663], "stop_times": [1320.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.663}, "reply_to": "15313__0_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__0_077", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt is the city's procedure which imposes first of all the duty on the case worker to call the client in for a conference and explain to him the reasons why his benefits may be terminated.\nI stress the fact, maybe terminated nothing has happen at this point.\nThe client has called in and told that we have certain information which leads us to believe that you may no longer be eligible.\nThe client of course has an opportunity to rebut, to explain or to say anything he had liked in response to this information.\nFollowing that conference which is summarized in some detail by the caseworker, all of the information concerning this matter is referred to the unit supervisor.\nThis is a man next up the ladder above the caseworker.\nThe unit supervisor reviews the whole matter and that it is only -- if only concurs that the notice contemplated by this paragraph be goes out, still no benefits have been terminated.\nThe client receives a notice saying that your benefits may be terminated within seven days, unless you request a review.\nThe reasons for the proposed termination are as follows and then the reasons are explained and it further goes on to say that if you which to have a review, you may submit anything you would like for review by a review officer and you may have the assistance of counsel in submitting anything that you would like.\nNow, this submission does not constitute a hearing in the classic sense in our confrontation with witnesses.\nBut it is the continuation of the process that began with a face to face meeting between the caseworker and the client and it does bring in to play another and a higher official who has no stake in the decision reached by those subordinate officials below.\nAnd it is only after his review that any impact in any monetary sense is felt by the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1320.358, 1320.675, 1331.392, 1334.303, 1340.778, 1347.874, 1358.715, 1362.36, 1374.155, 1385.917, 1403.691, 1411.635, 1428.687], "stop_times": [1320.675, 1331.392, 1334.303, 1340.778, 1347.874, 1358.715, 1362.36, 1374.155, 1385.917, 1403.691, 1411.635, 1428.687, 1434.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.358}, "reply_to": "15313__0_076", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_078", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I noticed in this notice of decision, it says, \u201cIf you were to satisfy this decision, you may request a fair hearing in capital in writing or orally.\u201d\nIs that word fair hearing declared in the state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1434.75, 1447.65], "stop_times": [1447.65, 1454.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.75}, "reply_to": "15313__0_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_079", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "There is state law provisions for fair hearings but it -- the reason that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1454.444], "stop_times": [1457.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.444}, "reply_to": "15313__0_078", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_080", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Because if you used that term and does it define what it mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1457.604], "stop_times": [1461.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.604}, "reply_to": "15313__0_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_081", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1461.405], "stop_times": [1463.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1461.405}, "reply_to": "15313__0_080", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_082", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Where is that?\nI'd like to see just what statutory thing we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1463.222, 1466.505], "stop_times": [1466.505, 1471.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.222}, "reply_to": "15313__0_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_083", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, the fair hearing requirement originates in federal law and any state plans submitted to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1471.668], "stop_times": [1478.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.668}, "reply_to": "15313__0_082", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_084", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "You mean there's no definition of it in the state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1478.145], "stop_times": [1481.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.145}, "reply_to": "15313__0_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_085", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir, there is.\nI can't cite it to you off hand but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1481.221, 1482.213], "stop_times": [1482.213, 1483.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.221}, "reply_to": "15313__0_084", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_086", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, what is it in the state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1483.684], "stop_times": [1485.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.684}, "reply_to": "15313__0_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_087", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Alright, that's easier for me.\nA state fair hearing is a hearing in the traditional sense.\nBy that I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1485.328, 1489.386, 1493.174], "stop_times": [1489.386, 1493.174, 1493.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.328}, "reply_to": "15313__0_086", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_088", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "You're not talking about judgment now, what does the statute make a fair hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1493.58], "stop_times": [1498.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.58}, "reply_to": "15313__0_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_089", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "There is a state hearing officer first of all, not a city official.\nThese original decisions that I'm talking about to terminate are at the city level.\nThe hearing officer on a state fair hearing is a state official.\nEvidence is introduced although it is administrative rules of evidence that apply and by that I mean it is possible that some hearsay may be introduced as is true in most administrative proceedings.\nThe client whose benefits may be terminated or restored has a right to examine before the hearing any evidence that the state or the city intends to introduce against him.\nIn other words, if there are written documents involved, they must be displayed to the recipient or his counsel in advance of the hearing.\nWitnesses are examined and a verbatim transcript is made of the proceedings and a writ --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1498.223, 1503.279, 1507.0, 1511.636, 1524.394, 1539.753, 1547.516], "stop_times": [1503.279, 1507.0, 1511.636, 1524.394, 1539.753, 1547.516, 1552.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.223}, "reply_to": "15313__0_088", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_090", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Does the statute require that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1552.519], "stop_times": [1553.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.519}, "reply_to": "15313__0_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_091", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "The regulations require that sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1553.976], "stop_times": [1556.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.976}, "reply_to": "15313__0_090", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_092", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "He defines that as a part of a fair hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1556.198], "stop_times": [1559.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.198}, "reply_to": "15313__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_093", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1559.725], "stop_times": [1561.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1559.725}, "reply_to": "15313__0_092", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_094", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "But Mr. Loflin --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1561.684], "stop_times": [1562.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.684}, "reply_to": "15313__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_095", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "And finally a written decision comes down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1562.475], "stop_times": [1564.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1562.475}, "reply_to": "15313__0_094", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_096", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Isn't there in New York statute that says that you shall have a fair hearing in certain cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1564.363], "stop_times": [1573.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.363}, "reply_to": "15313__0_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_097", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1573.286], "stop_times": [1573.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.286}, "reply_to": "15313__0_096", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_098", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Certain -- isn't there a statute that says just that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1573.575], "stop_times": [1576.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.575}, "reply_to": "15313__0_097", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_099", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1576.325], "stop_times": [1578.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.325}, "reply_to": "15313__0_098", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_100", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's what I think Mr. Justice Black had.\nDo you have citations of that statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1578.001, 1580.156], "stop_times": [1580.156, 1581.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.001}, "reply_to": "15313__0_099", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__0_101", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I will give it to you subsequently.\nI don't have it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1581.676, 1583.284], "stop_times": [1583.284, 1583.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1581.676}, "reply_to": "15313__0_100", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_102", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What I want to know is what New York have said as a fair hearing cause I'm not familiar with that term in the constitution and I want to see it in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1583.961], "stop_times": [1595.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.961}, "reply_to": "15313__0_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__0_103", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I have reserved one or two minutes for rebuttal and when I rebut, I will give you the precise citation to the statute and to the regulations that give you the details.\nThey are substantially as I have outlined them to Your Honor and I will reserve that opportunity if I may for that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1595.573, 1603.744], "stop_times": [1603.744, 1625.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.573}, "reply_to": "15313__0_102", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__0_104", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Albert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1625.79], "stop_times": [1626.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.79}, "reply_to": "15313__0_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_000", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIn discussing the procedures that had been added since this case was or the administrative changes since this case was before the District Court in -- between January and June 1968, it is well, I think to look at briefly the situation, the procedures used for the terminations of the 20 appellees, not each one, individually of course in this very case.\nEach of them --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1626.047, 1629.99, 1655.179], "stop_times": [1629.99, 1655.179, 1656.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1626.047}, "reply_to": "15313__0_104", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_001", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Are those the ones that you are trying to contest upon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1656.265], "stop_times": [1659.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.265}, "reply_to": "15313__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_002", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Those I think are the situations Mr. Justice White that present the typical issues of a contested termination.\nThat is to say the typical kind of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1659.778, 1666.976], "stop_times": [1666.976, 1669.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.778}, "reply_to": "15313__1_001", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_003", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "How about my question, are those the ones that we have to decide on this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1669.812], "stop_times": [1673.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.812}, "reply_to": "15313__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_004", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Those are certainly the people who still -- who -- but for this lawsuit and the injunction below are faced with the same kinds of termination problems that they already experienced.\nMany of them were restored to aid solely by virtue of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1673.999, 1684.307], "stop_times": [1684.307, 1686.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1673.999}, "reply_to": "15313__1_003", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_005", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I mean the change in the New York situation doesn't change anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1686.925], "stop_times": [1692.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.925}, "reply_to": "15313__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_006", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Justice White, some of the interveners in this suit were actually terminated under the New York change, that is the Option B procedure the city wishes to reinstate by virtue of this appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1692.954], "stop_times": [1703.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.954}, "reply_to": "15313__1_005", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_007", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Some of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1703.144], "stop_times": [1704.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.144}, "reply_to": "15313__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_008", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's correct Mr. Justice White.\nOthers --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1704.05, 1705.378], "stop_times": [1705.378, 1706.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.05}, "reply_to": "15313__1_007", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_009", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "So which ones are we going to be arguing about, all of them or just some of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1706.407], "stop_times": [1711.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.407}, "reply_to": "15313__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_010", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think Mr. Justice White, all of them present the kinds of that the -- and because they continue to receive welfare benefits and therefore are confronted with the same kinds of issues of termination or unlikely to be confronted with such issues very similar to a kind of union employer continuing relationship, one strike being settled doesn't necessarily solve all the legal problems for the future.\nI think that the -- we're really confronted with all those cases of the people who still continue to receive benefits who still are involved in this case, work relationship.\nThe terminations of the appellees, I think can be grouped briefly and to several categories.\nIt's important to note that all of them had a conference or interview with their caseworker before termination.\nIndeed, that interview which is part of -- which is long been required for the periodic recertification of eligibility in New York and most other states, all other states was actually the cause of termination in many of this cases.\nFor example, appellee John Kelly, a New York peevee terminated because during that interview, they had a dispute with the caseworker about where they should live.\nAs a result of their disagreement with the caseworker over where they should live that they were terminated.\nTwo weeks before Angela Velez who has discussed the opinion of Judge Feinberg below, before she was terminated, she had an argument with her caseworker over an extraneous matter, over a special grant and she asked, actually asked the caseworker to leave the home.\nTwo weeks later, she received the notice of termination informing her I should say, she was terminated for concealment of assets, nothing further.\nDuring a hearing subsequently it was found out that refer to a landlady's report to the caseworker that her husband had returned home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1711.085, 1736.745, 1746.483, 1753.676, 1760.721, 1774.319, 1783.176, 1788.971, 1803.425, 1811.195], "stop_times": [1736.745, 1746.483, 1753.676, 1760.721, 1774.319, 1783.176, 1788.971, 1803.425, 1811.195, 1819.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.085}, "reply_to": "15313__1_009", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_011", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Were this under the -- were this action taken out on the procedures that are now before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1819.409], "stop_times": [1825.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.409}, "reply_to": "15313__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_012", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart all the procedures except for -- well, some of them have taken place under all the procedures Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1825.705], "stop_times": [1831.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.705}, "reply_to": "15313__1_011", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_013", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, I'm talking about this (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1831.9], "stop_times": [1832.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.9}, "reply_to": "15313__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_014", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "These particular ones, there was no Option B.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1832.979], "stop_times": [1835.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.979}, "reply_to": "15313__1_013", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_015", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Exactly and that's (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1835.541], "stop_times": [1836.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.541}, "reply_to": "15313__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_016", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "And that opportunity --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1836.815], "stop_times": [1837.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.815}, "reply_to": "15313__1_015", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_017", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Voice Overlap) my Brother White's question and what's before us now is Option B as part and parcel of a whole procedural process that's been described by counsel for the city, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1837.786], "stop_times": [1848.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.786}, "reply_to": "15313__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_018", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "But Mr. Justice Stewart all -- the process that has been described by the city -- the city does not rely on Option B as a particularly important element.\nI don't think in that process, they rely on the whole process.\nI'm merely trying to establish Mr. Justice Stewart that there was a certainty -- the caseworker interview and the unit supervisor approval, the consultation with the unit supervisor that Mr. Loflin has mentioned long before Option B was added, Option B provides one further step.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1848.722, 1858.67, 1861.271], "stop_times": [1858.67, 1861.271, 1877.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.722}, "reply_to": "15313__1_017", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_019", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1877.595], "stop_times": [1878.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.595}, "reply_to": "15313__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_020", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That one -- that several of the appellees did invoke in this case, for example, one of the appellees Antonio Sotto was terminated for he received a notice informing him failure to attend rehabilitation COC, and I should say Your Honors that that notice meant as much to him at that point as it may mean to you now.\nHe did not know what rehabilitation COC was.\nIt turns out upon investigation that the caseworker believed that he was taking drugs and they had a dispute over that and she wanted him to attend some particular rehabilitation center.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1878.098, 1899.649, 1902.538], "stop_times": [1899.649, 1902.538, 1915.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.098}, "reply_to": "15313__1_019", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_021", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, wouldn't you think there was a reasonable administrative basis for some ambiguity on that notice so as not to --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1915.26], "stop_times": [1923.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.26}, "reply_to": "15313__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_022", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "The basis I think for the ambiguity is the fact that we're dealing with formed notices issued by caseworkers with very, very heavy caseloads and this is to be sure an assembly line type of operation in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1923.522], "stop_times": [1936.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.522}, "reply_to": "15313__1_021", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_023", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes, but he knows that his benefits are being at least questioned and he has already waited to find out what they have in mind by these symbols?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1936.789], "stop_times": [1947.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.789}, "reply_to": "15313__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_024", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, in fact in his particular case, he unlike most welfare recipients did have an attorney to assist them Mr. Chief Justice and his attorney found out the case unit to find out some information.\nThat's reflected in the record and his attorney, Mr. Greenberg, has written an affidavit that's in this record.\nThe information wasn't very helpful.\nHe, unlike most recipients received a copy of the review decision under this Option B which Judge Feinberg refers to in his opinion below and the review decision by the case supervisor, this neutral official states that Mr. Sotto was terminated because he was a parricide, because he was playing a game.\nI'm quoting from that decision and which is also printed in the record Mr. Chief Justice.\nAs to the facts involved, Mr. Sotto has never yet learned just what this dispute was about nor has his attorney Mr. Greenberg.\nUpon intervention in this lawsuit, the city dropped the term \u201cparricide and playing a game\u201d and restart them to the roles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [1947.213, 1957.6, 1963.789, 1966.1, 1985.108, 1989.909, 1998.069], "stop_times": [1957.6, 1963.789, 1966.1, 1985.108, 1989.909, 1998.069, 2007.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.213}, "reply_to": "15313__1_023", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_025", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, was his restoration retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2007.446], "stop_times": [2011.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.446}, "reply_to": "15313__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_026", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "His restoration probably was retroactive Mr. Chief Justice but I'm not clear on that.\nCertainly from July 1, 1968, upon subsequent vindications in the subsequent fair hearing, the payments themselves are retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2011.3, 2017.533], "stop_times": [2017.533, 2028.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.3}, "reply_to": "15313__1_025", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_027", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Then his complaints have been redressed in that respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2028.386], "stop_times": [2038.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.386}, "reply_to": "15313__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_028", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "His benefits were not terminated for any length of time because he was -- he did intervene in this lawsuit soon afterwards.\nI think in terms of your question, I think one -- if one looked at the cases such as -- there are few interveners here.\nThe harms in this case were minimized for most of the appellees by virtue of this lawsuit.\nThere were a few however who came into this lawsuit, who came to attorneys, late in the process of termination while they were awaiting the fair hearing as in the case of (Inaudible) and Angela Velez.\nIn their particular cases, as this record makes clear, they suffered eviction, living in one room with four children in a Sister's overcrowded apartment, living on handouts, attending Harlem Hospital for treatment of dysentery.\nMrs. (Inaudible) in the welfare center while waiting for an emergency grant for food.\nThe retroactive payments based on the amount of money that she would have received had the case -- had this not been -- had there been deliberation before termination.\nHad there been an examination of this decision that she contested from the outset surely cannot in any way be commensurate or in any way repair ameliorate those kinds of indignities, those kinds of harms and of course no one is entitled to damages for those kinds of injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2038.407, 2043.232, 2049.656, 2055.213, 2065.685, 2080.304, 2084.561, 2095.733], "stop_times": [2043.232, 2049.656, 2055.213, 2065.685, 2080.304, 2084.561, 2095.733, 2113.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.407}, "reply_to": "15313__1_027", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_029", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, is this still a relevant problem for us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2113.659], "stop_times": [2118.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.659}, "reply_to": "15313__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_030", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "A -- it most certainly is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2118.634], "stop_times": [2119.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.634}, "reply_to": "15313__1_029", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_031", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Under the new regulations, under the change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2119.746], "stop_times": [2122.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.746}, "reply_to": "15313__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_032", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It most certainly is Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2122.957, 2126.171], "stop_times": [2126.171, 2126.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.957}, "reply_to": "15313__1_031", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_033", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "For this particular person?\nI thought you said he was reinstated and got retroactive benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2126.733, 2129.945], "stop_times": [2129.945, 2133.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.733}, "reply_to": "15313__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_034", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "He was vindicated after this procedure was passed in the fair hearing.\nHe is still or she, I should say and most of these appellees are still receiving welfare benefits and still face the procedures that are to be used in regard to a termination of those benefits.\nIndeed some of the termination issues in regard to some of the appellees, he was never even resolved the city just because of this lawsuit finding these people as something different because of this lawsuit dropped the matter of termination.\nWe think that the -- were the -- they're not in these lawsuits, they are faced with that ever present danger and of course they do represent the class of individuals very similarly situated.\nOur legal argument is based essentially on three prepositions.\nThe first is that the due process guarantees to the Fourteenth Amendment against Government arbitrariness and capriciousness apply to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2133.098, 2137.639, 2150.785, 2164.812, 2177.75, 2183.551], "stop_times": [2137.639, 2150.785, 2164.812, 2177.75, 2183.551, 2190.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.098}, "reply_to": "15313__1_033", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_035", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Now did you say that -- because the due process (Inaudible) those words?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2190.738], "stop_times": [2197.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.738}, "reply_to": "15313__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_036", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "No.\nThe due process -- the guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, that guarantee we submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2197.432, 2197.888], "stop_times": [2197.888, 2207.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.432}, "reply_to": "15313__1_035", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_037", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That proceeding, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2207.708], "stop_times": [2209.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.708}, "reply_to": "15313__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_038", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2209.159], "stop_times": [2209.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.159}, "reply_to": "15313__1_037", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_039", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Were that the proceedings required by law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2209.79], "stop_times": [2212.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.79}, "reply_to": "15313__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_040", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Without due process of law, without the proceedings --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2212.736], "stop_times": [2214.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.736}, "reply_to": "15313__1_039", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_041", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Voice Overlap) proceedings required by law or the proceedings, a majority of this Court might think were arbitrary or unreasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2214.827], "stop_times": [2221.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.827}, "reply_to": "15313__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_042", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Black.\nWe're not relying on notions of reasonableness or arbitrariness --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2221.654, 2222.56], "stop_times": [2222.56, 2225.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.654}, "reply_to": "15313__1_041", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_043", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "They are used a number of times?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2225.21], "stop_times": [2227.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.21}, "reply_to": "15313__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_044", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "With -- we're relying on the well-established obligation in the decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2227.504], "stop_times": [2234.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.504}, "reply_to": "15313__1_043", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_045", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Are you relying on obligations imposed by the language of the constitution outside of due process for this latitude and area in definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2234.043], "stop_times": [2243.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.043}, "reply_to": "15313__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_046", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "We think that the procedural aspect of due process is not -- does not permit the latitude or leave the justices at bay in the sense that substantive due process may be said to.\nWe're talking about those procedures which this Court time and time again has deemed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2243.363, 2258.177], "stop_times": [2258.177, 2264.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.363}, "reply_to": "15313__1_045", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_047", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "You mean, notice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2264.169], "stop_times": [2265.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.169}, "reply_to": "15313__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_048", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "We -- I mean notice and the elements --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2265.41], "stop_times": [2266.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.41}, "reply_to": "15313__1_047", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_049", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "No doubt the constitution uses the word \u201cnotice\u201d, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2266.728], "stop_times": [2271.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.728}, "reply_to": "15313__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_050", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think due process, its well accepted Mr. Justice Black but due process refers to a adversary proceeding proceeded by notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2271.657], "stop_times": [2281.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.657}, "reply_to": "15313__1_049", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_051", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "The well-established thing you're talking about certainly had considerable questioning, come year to year and decade to decade during this century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2281.573], "stop_times": [2290.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.573}, "reply_to": "15313__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_052", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "There may be some question as to what context, what it requires in certain context but I think the point here is that it's conceded Mr. Justice Black that the due process guarantees against our government arbitrariness and capriciousness apply to public assistance programs.\nThat's not really an issue here.\nNone of the parties --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2290.442, 2303.64, 2306.438], "stop_times": [2303.64, 2306.438, 2307.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.442}, "reply_to": "15313__1_051", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_053", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Do you mean it's not an issue between the parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2307.179], "stop_times": [2309.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.179}, "reply_to": "15313__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_054", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Nor is it an issue -- certainly its not an issue in the Government's view also in its memorandum and nor I think properly viewed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2309.452], "stop_times": [2316.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.452}, "reply_to": "15313__1_053", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_055", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Which a part of preposition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2316.169], "stop_times": [2317.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.169}, "reply_to": "15313__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_056", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Certainly not Mr. Justice White and that is one of the reasons why we established that preposition de novo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2317.833], "stop_times": [2323.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.833}, "reply_to": "15313__1_055", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_057", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2323.08], "stop_times": [2326.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.08}, "reply_to": "15313__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_058", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think -- I'm sorry Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2326.08], "stop_times": [2328.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.08}, "reply_to": "15313__1_057", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_059", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What are you going to think in response to this, don't you think in responding to Mr. Justice Black's question, we have to really --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2328.276], "stop_times": [2335.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.276}, "reply_to": "15313__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_060", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Say why it does, no question, I do.\nAnd I'd like to briefly address myself to why that concession is well founded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2335.038, 2337.486], "stop_times": [2337.486, 2343.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.038}, "reply_to": "15313__1_059", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_061", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Are you arguing that it's arbitrary and capricious for the Government to cutoff a gift or gratuity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2343.101], "stop_times": [2353.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.101}, "reply_to": "15313__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_062", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think one has to make some certain distinctions Mr. Justice Black.\nIf you're talking about an emergency handout program in a period of disaster or if we're talking about the 19th century pattern of relief, the 19th century distribution of benefits, private or public for which there was very little distinction, I think it's quite different from the kinds of programs we're dealing with here.\nConcededly these programs establish a statutory entitlement for all eligible individuals.\nConcededly that entitlement cannot be denied or revoked I should say without an administrative finding that the person is no longer eligible.\nConcededly, eligibility -- that finding must be supported by evidence.\nConcededly where a caseworker to merely terminate a person because I don't like -- because he didn't like the color of his hair for example, that would be arbitrary administrative action under these programs and unconstitutional, that would be a denial of due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2353.538, 2357.533, 2376.091, 2382.078, 2392.259, 2397.858], "stop_times": [2357.533, 2376.091, 2382.078, 2392.259, 2397.858, 2413.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.538}, "reply_to": "15313__1_061", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_063", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, that's quite a difference between what you are saying there and this law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2413.265], "stop_times": [2419.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.265}, "reply_to": "15313__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_064", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Justice Black I think it's very important that -- we recognize we're not dealing with the kind of program that you've mentioned regarding the civil war.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2419.579], "stop_times": [2428.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.579}, "reply_to": "15313__1_063", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_065", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I would gather from your -- I would rather -- your argument be hard to repeal of gratuity once you've given it on the ground be to arbitrary and capricious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2428.878], "stop_times": [2436.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.878}, "reply_to": "15313__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_066", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2436.746], "stop_times": [2437.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.746}, "reply_to": "15313__1_065", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_067", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Albert the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2437.066], "stop_times": [2437.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.066}, "reply_to": "15313__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_068", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think the question of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2437.527], "stop_times": [2438.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.527}, "reply_to": "15313__1_067", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_069", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Albert if you will bear the pending question in mind, we will recess at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2438.587], "stop_times": [2443.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.587}, "reply_to": "15313__1_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_070", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Certainly Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2443.113], "stop_times": [2459.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.113}, "reply_to": "15313__1_069", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_071", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Before we resume arguments, we will again entertain the motion of Mr. Hill.\nMr. Hill this was in -- Mr. Albert you may resume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2459.356, 2473.405], "stop_times": [2473.405, 2479.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.356}, "reply_to": "15313__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_072", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWe left off before the lunch time, recess on the threshold and fundamental question of whether the due process procedural guarantees apply to public assistance benefits at all.\nIf one looks to the nature of the factors that this Court has traditionally deemed relevant, the nature of the individual interest, the nature of the Government interest, the burden on the program or proceedings, one finds that all of those factors compel one answer.\nThe nature of the individual interest is what's examined is in a statutory entitlement of enormous value to the beholders, a statutory entitlement on which the very quality of life depends.\nThis record makes very clear the consequences of erroneous withdrawal of that entitlement.\nIt is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2479.073, 2480.978, 2490.362, 2504.004, 2516.848, 2522.271], "stop_times": [2480.978, 2490.362, 2504.004, 2516.848, 2522.271, 2522.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2479.073}, "reply_to": "15313__1_071", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_073", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What's the closest case in this Court for that preposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2522.448], "stop_times": [2525.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.448}, "reply_to": "15313__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_074", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think that factor of gravity of harm Mr. Justice White is reflected in for example the deportation of alien cases in which the agency is held to the highest degree of procedural safeguards before an alien may be deported though he has no vested right to remain here.\nBut because as this Court once said, deportation may deprive one of all that makes life worth living.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2525.749, 2542.32], "stop_times": [2542.32, 2546.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.749}, "reply_to": "15313__1_073", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_075", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What about Fleming and Nestor, is it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2546.862], "stop_times": [2548.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.862}, "reply_to": "15313__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_076", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Fleming and Nestor refers to -- the question in Fleming -- Fleming and Nestor is support for our proposition.\nIt certainly said that the statutory entitlement under OASDI is within the due process guarantees against arbitrariness and capriciousness.\nIt only went on to say an issue not involved here, whether it's vested in all circumstances or other circumstances where it's not vested.\nWe are not arguing with the substantive grounds but they're relevant to the procedures.\nWe're not arguing with the substantive grounds of revocation whatsoever nor are we arguing with Congress' power or the state's power to answer those grounds or indeed -- to use an extreme example to do away with these programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2548.669, 2554.706, 2562.657, 2570.425, 2574.734], "stop_times": [2554.706, 2562.657, 2570.425, 2574.734, 2589.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.669}, "reply_to": "15313__1_075", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_077", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2589.382], "stop_times": [2590.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.382}, "reply_to": "15313__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_078", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Programs exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2590.016], "stop_times": [2591.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.016}, "reply_to": "15313__1_077", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_079", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Excuse me, you finish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2591.431], "stop_times": [2592.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.431}, "reply_to": "15313__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_080", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2592.297], "stop_times": [2593.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.297}, "reply_to": "15313__1_079", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_081", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It just occurred to me that the deportation process is final and they're irrevocable so far as the administrative process goes, whereas, this is not, this is subject to a so-called fair hearing review in which as I understand it, you concede all of the due process qualities that you're asserting are necessary are in fact accorded.\nI think it's very important in looking to that to recognize that the subsequent fair hearing in the light of these circumstances is largely an illusory and certainly an ineffective remedy.\nI think this is one of those situations not dissimilar to Sniadach in this respect that the delay in relief, the operative, putting the decision into operation before an opportunity to contest it all but precludes the opportunity to contest.\nIf one looks to the fair hearing figures, over a course of years on termination, they're not reflected in the 6,000 hearings that were talked about by California.\nThey're not reflected in the many more hearings talked about by New York.\nThey're talked -- they're reflected in figures amounting in many states to zero out of thousands and thousands of terminations.\nIn New York they amount to the subsequent fair hearing approximately 50 a month from the city of New York out of 10,000 terminations and about a lesser number from upstate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2593.777, 2616.48, 2630.964, 2647.091, 2655.939, 2658.777, 2665.492], "stop_times": [2616.48, 2630.964, 2647.091, 2655.939, 2658.777, 2665.492, 2675.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.777}, "reply_to": "15313__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_082", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Of course that could lead to quite a different inference also, couldn't it?\nIt could lead to an inference that people are terminated with the exception of only about 50 a month only when its very clear that they should be terminated and if they're -- as only a few as 50 a month where there's any real doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2675.871, 2678.954], "stop_times": [2678.954, 2691.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.871}, "reply_to": "15313__1_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_083", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It certainly could Mr. Justice Stewart except for the -- what we do, except for the fact that we have figures in this record and no one really argues about them at the rate of administrative error in denying or terminating aid is enormous.\nThe rate reflect on the face of case records.\nThis only is the caseworker's version of why she terminated it which is meant to obviously reflect a proper version to sustain the decision so to speak.\nThe national rate there is between 6% and 7% on the face of the case record of erroneous terminations.\nThe figures upon the reversals in those hearings and in particular on the prior hearings, range from at least 25% to up to 51% in New York City today.\nIt can't be said that the contested decision is to terminate.\nWe agree that people come on welfare in periods of temporary crisis and they go off welfare.\nAnd usually most terminations are by agreement with caseworker.\nThose we have no concern with.\nOur concern is with those in which the recipient disagrees with the caseworker and wishes to contest that caseworker's decision.\nIn that narrow group of cases, we find that the times in which the recipient as opposed to the caseworker is correct is enormous, the rate of error is just startling, it's singular I think in the Government benefit program.\nNonetheless, these decisions are not vindicated in subsequent fair hearings for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that the overwhelming impact, the interim deprivations and equally important the fact that the timing of the hearing is wholly in the hands of the Government is not without significance here.\nNo one really argues that the HEW 60 day rule now enforce for several years is anything but theoretical.\nThe period reflected in this case and still reflected in New York range from anything from 4 months to as much as 8 months.\nWe're not using used examples.\nBut for 4 months to 8 months or even 60 days Mr. Justice Stewart to go without the very subsistence, food, for clothing, shelter and money for -- I'm sorry Your Honors, money for food, clothing and shelter does not leave one in any positions -- engaged in a legal wrangle with the welfare department.\nWe don't know what happens to those people.\nThe mystery though is by no means reassuring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2691.956, 2704.801, 2706.852, 2715.375, 2720.865, 2733.946, 2737.058, 2743.109, 2746.65, 2748.879, 2757.854, 2774.765, 2793.893, 2802.074, 2807.862, 2810.584, 2833.176, 2835.462], "stop_times": [2704.801, 2706.852, 2715.375, 2720.865, 2733.946, 2737.058, 2743.109, 2746.65, 2748.879, 2757.854, 2774.765, 2793.893, 2802.074, 2807.862, 2810.584, 2833.176, 2835.462, 2839.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.956}, "reply_to": "15313__1_082", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_084", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What about the voluntary legal aid program in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2839.122], "stop_times": [2843.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.122}, "reply_to": "15313__1_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__1_085", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, there's nothing one can do about the systematic sustained delay in the fair hearing process.\nIndeed the attempts to retain civil relief in the New York Courts is met with the answer that this is directory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2843.803, 2851.576], "stop_times": [2851.576, 2856.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.803}, "reply_to": "15313__1_084", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_086", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Voice Overlap) with your point that they didn't have money enough to process their appeal, that was all I was (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2856.647], "stop_times": [2862.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.647}, "reply_to": "15313__1_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15313__1_087", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI didn't mean to imply they didn't have money to process their appeal.\nThere isn't a cost in processing the appeal.\nThey didn't have the wherewithal, they didn't have the weight, they were concerned with the problems of daily living and survival, the eviction and the like which accounts for this kind of low rate.\nIt certainly isn't in the timing of the hearing, the fact or significance in the timing, it is not the practicalities of the situation, that is the kind of hearing involved, the number of issues or witnesses that account for a delay.\nAs we well know, welfare termination hearings unlike most administrative proceedings of this court deals with -- involved one or two issues at most one outside source of information or to take utmost a half to 1 one hour.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2862.105, 2863.049, 2866.423, 2869.1, 2881.71, 2893.335], "stop_times": [2863.049, 2866.423, 2869.1, 2881.71, 2893.335, 2908.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.105}, "reply_to": "15313__1_086", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_088", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What are those one or two issues?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2908.992], "stop_times": [2910.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.992}, "reply_to": "15313__1_087", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_089", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "How -- I'm sorry Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2910.81], "stop_times": [2912.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.81}, "reply_to": "15313__1_088", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_090", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I said, what are those one and two issues?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2912.169], "stop_times": [2913.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.169}, "reply_to": "15313__1_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_091", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Those one and two issues fall into several categories.\nOne is, the landlady said that her husband has returned home.\nThe Board of Education says she's working for her now.\nJust to use the instant cases, which aren't too typical or the caseworker says you haven't co-operated properly.\nYou haven't permitted to see this.\nYou haven't cooperated in bringing your missing husband to heal.\nAnd these are all evaluative judgments that the \u2013 under very vague standards which arise from this very personal relationship and very singular to welfare, I should say, between a caseworker and a recipient.\nThat relationship being imbued with notions of warship treatment, rehabilitation as well as the pleasing function of eligibility.\nThose are the typical issues in contested terminations.\nAnd we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2913.635, 2917.193, 2922.383, 2926.333, 2932.362, 2934.761, 2938.285, 2953.088, 2960.059, 2963.459], "stop_times": [2917.193, 2922.383, 2926.333, 2932.362, 2934.761, 2938.285, 2953.088, 2960.059, 2963.459, 2963.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.635}, "reply_to": "15313__1_090", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_092", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What must be the financial condition of the person in New York to be eligible for this list?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2963.555], "stop_times": [2969.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.555}, "reply_to": "15313__1_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_093", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "One cannot --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2969.9], "stop_times": [2970.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.9}, "reply_to": "15313__1_092", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_094", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "And how much does he get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2970.24], "stop_times": [2974.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.24}, "reply_to": "15313__1_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__1_095", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "He gets an average grant Mr. Justice Black for approximately $60 to 65$ a month, somewhat less for children.\nAnd that is to take care of all -- plus rent, I'm sorry, plus rent.\nThat has taken all his non-rent needs, rent is paid within certain limits as it's actually incur and nothing more.\nThere's no question that the level of aid is penurious an to an extreme.\nThe resource policy requiring you to yield resources when you're found eligible and to continue to yield resources to the welfare department afterwards ensures that you cannot budget for any contingency including administrative error.\nIt is not though the practicalities that protract the hearing process, that's revealed in the fact that in those states in which prior hearings are now afforded.\nThe pattern of timing is from one to two weeks and that's really what we're talking about when we looked to the so-called cost of the extra costs or the burdens on the system which has certainly been a relevant -- is a relevant factor.\nWe do not argue the constitution requires the impractical or the impossible.\nThere is neither of that here.\nNor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [2974.808, 2980.822, 2983.726, 2993.007, 2996.829, 3013.583, 3026.052, 3037.122, 3040.774, 3042.321], "stop_times": [2980.822, 2983.726, 2993.007, 2996.829, 3013.583, 3026.052, 3037.122, 3040.774, 3042.321, 3042.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.808}, "reply_to": "15313__1_094", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_096", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Did you say Mr. Albert that there are some states that provide trial type hearings before termination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3042.38], "stop_times": [3048.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.38}, "reply_to": "15313__1_095", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_097", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I certainly did Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3048.495], "stop_times": [3049.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.495}, "reply_to": "15313__1_096", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_098", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "How many are there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3049.654], "stop_times": [3050.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.654}, "reply_to": "15313__1_097", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_099", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "There are approximately four or five pursuant to court orders who are agreements, stipulations during the course of (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3050.755], "stop_times": [3055.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.755}, "reply_to": "15313__1_098", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_100", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "You mean all states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3055.902], "stop_times": [3057.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.902}, "reply_to": "15313__1_099", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_101", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "New York State is the best example of that.\nIn New York State, New York City in particular, it is the largest welfare department in the country including any state welfare department I should add.\nBut the largest number of recipients presumably relatively more sophisticated recipients, relatively greater access to legal assistance to -- so it provides a good test case for the notion of what kind of burden this will incur.\nThe burden that incurs, one or evidence in the fact that New York State which shares half of these costs is not here today.\nThe burden that incurs is more better revealed in the fact that out of 60,000 terminations and of course the five months in New York City, there were 1,000 prior hearings requested out of which 51% were the recipient prevailed.\nEven under the Government's test in its memorandum of whether more eligible than ineligible people request these hearings, we would prevail in this case.\nThe city -- in comparing also those additional costs for the one or two weeks and after all the only -- we believe permissible additional costs that can be considered here are those that are ultimately one or two week payments to people who are ultimately found ineligible.\nIn comparing that, one must also look to the kind of cumbersome procedure that New York City seems to offer.\nWe would say it's totally an effective one, the written review type thing and all these supervisors talking to each other.\nBut that certainly must cost and take time too.\nThe entire operation in New York City with 10,000 closings a month entails six review officers.\nNow, I will grant you compared to the state fair hearing process which only has ten altogether for the entire state, that's quite a few.\nBut in terms of actual monetary burdens on the system, six review officers, we submit in a welfare department with a budget of the City of New York such as it has, is de minimis, its just not a factor that really can be accounted for.\nWe also would ask this Court to recognize in looking at the burdens or non-burdens that there can be no question that the effect of the present procedure of postponing and seriously postponing the fair hearing is to deter and discourage its use to the extent that prior hearings will be used more as a result of removing this deterrence.\nWe don't think those are appropriate costs for the simple reason we think if any policy of deliberately forestalling a constitutional opportunity to be heard in order to discourage its use regardless of the merits of the claims, we think would be impermissible, the right to be heard and must be more than a theoretical or a nominal one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3057.217, 3059.676, 3066.873, 3079.725, 3086.247, 3101.698, 3111.595, 3130.111, 3135.624, 3140.857, 3143.694, 3149.913, 3157.2, 3172.629, 3193.482], "stop_times": [3059.676, 3066.873, 3079.725, 3086.247, 3101.698, 3111.595, 3130.111, 3135.624, 3140.857, 3143.694, 3149.913, 3157.2, 3172.629, 3193.482, 3211.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.217}, "reply_to": "15313__1_100", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_102", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, I take it that the content of the hearing you urge goes beyond what the Federal Government thinks is warranted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3211.703], "stop_times": [3220.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.703}, "reply_to": "15313__1_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_103", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "The Federal Government isn't talking about a hearing Mr. Justice White when it talks about the advanced notice of questions.\nIt talks about a caseworker which has been done for a long time, it's really nothing new, tells a recipient -- involves the recipient in the re-determination process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3220.666, 3225.651], "stop_times": [3225.651, 3234.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3220.666}, "reply_to": "15313__1_102", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_104", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I take it though that -- you would also --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3234.01], "stop_times": [3235.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.01}, "reply_to": "15313__1_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_105", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "We're talk --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3235.502], "stop_times": [3236.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.502}, "reply_to": "15313__1_104", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_106", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "You would also go beyond what the District Court said was required (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3236.182], "stop_times": [3239.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.182}, "reply_to": "15313__1_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_107", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Absolutely not Mr. Justice White.\nWe're talking about the absolute rudiments of an adversary proceeding where the recipient requests it.\nBy that we mean, only that the caseworker presents the case to a relatively uninvolved official, the recipient hears the case, after all that's the first opportunity the recipient has to learn of the cases at this hearing, those cryptic notices will not reveal the case.\nHas an opportunity to hear the evidence and question the caseworker of course and those are facts about the recipient, functionally, those are facts very intimately about that particular person and obviously our -- the assumption of our system is that that person is in the best position to refute them --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3239.86, 3241.239, 3246.902, 3262.146], "stop_times": [3241.239, 3246.902, 3262.146, 3276.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.86}, "reply_to": "15313__1_106", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_108", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, then what if the -- what if there's a conflict on the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3276.317], "stop_times": [3279.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.317}, "reply_to": "15313__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_109", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Where there is -- where the termination, which is not all the cases Mr. Justice White rest entirely on third party information, the landlady said \u201cblank.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3279.027], "stop_times": [3287.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.027}, "reply_to": "15313__1_108", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_110", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Or on part, yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3287.309], "stop_times": [3288.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.309}, "reply_to": "15313__1_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_111", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Or in part, well, alright, or in part and not substantiated by other documentary evidence that say to third parties.\nYes, in that case where the credibility of those witnesses is called into question, we say those witnesses have to be there so that the recipient can question and there is no way to rebut anonymous accusations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3288.409, 3297.439], "stop_times": [3297.439, 3309.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3288.409}, "reply_to": "15313__1_110", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_112", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I didn't think the District Court would go that far in all cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3309.947], "stop_times": [3313.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.947}, "reply_to": "15313__1_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_113", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "In cases it said, \u201cWhere the veracity -- where the evidence depends on the veracity or credibility of third parties.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3313.188], "stop_times": [3320.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3313.188}, "reply_to": "15313__1_112", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_114", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Or it's critical to the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3320.012], "stop_times": [3321.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.012}, "reply_to": "15313__1_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_115", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "And critical to the case, yes.\nMr. Justice White, we're not asking to spell out a code of welfare procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3321.548, 3323.514], "stop_times": [3323.514, 3326.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3321.548}, "reply_to": "15313__1_114", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_116", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, what about the situation where there are no factual -- or just a questioning of the law or a question of the (Voice Overlap) or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3326.885], "stop_times": [3333.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3326.885}, "reply_to": "15313__1_115", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_117", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "This -- well, this issue really is not involved in this case there's not one of the appellees who raisethe question of law.\nWe are not arguing now, lets be clear, we are not -- to use the Government's example that -- we're not arguing that where there's across the board reduction by the legislature or the regulation, in those -- and the validity of that reduction is being challenged as a legal matter.\nIn those situations you're entitled to prior hearings.\nWe agree that questions of statutory validity or constitutional validity are much more appropriate for the judicial process than for administrative hearings.\nAdministrative agencies don't have the power to resolve those questions.\nWe're not talking about that.\nThe application of regulations as in the case of Mrs. Guzman for example, we are including of course, that's where the caseworkers states that she thinks there's a policy of this kind of cooperation, the recipient states that there's no such policy, certainly the policy is based on whether there are justifiable reasons not to participate in this lawsuit.\nThe department recognizes that and that kind of a situation, that's an application of a regulation in the evaluative regulation at that.\nWe submit that that requires the hearing but not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3333.822, 3341.337, 3353.996, 3356.228, 3364.034, 3367.4, 3368.802, 3389.223, 3396.248], "stop_times": [3341.337, 3353.996, 3356.228, 3364.034, 3367.4, 3368.802, 3389.223, 3396.248, 3399.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3333.822}, "reply_to": "15313__1_116", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_118", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I take it that if a -- if you've got the kind of a hearing prior to termination, prior to the termination that you want, that would be the end of the matter as far as the -- that state's due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3399.088], "stop_times": [3410.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.088}, "reply_to": "15313__1_117", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_119", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Certainly as far as the Due Process Clause in the constitution is concerned, we are not asking for two hearings, we are not asking for appeals, we don't care if the hearing examiner salary is paid by the city or the state.\nWe think there are different view points on that as indicated in the state commissioner's view point and HEW's -- perhaps HEW view point.\nThose are considerations that really have little to do with the Due Process Clause.\nWe're only asking for one constitutionally adequate opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time, at a time when recipients can use that at a time when the remedy can be effective, that is to say one when it can provide relief against the kinds of harms that are reflected in this record.\nWe think that one thing that has been left out that should be stressed here is that a good part of the reason for due process procedural guarantees is because Government arbitrariness regardless of the context is still Government arbitrariness and therefore unconstitutional.\nWe think that the dangers of arbitrariness in this system are about as great as any administrative program one can think of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3410.853, 3420.865, 3428.47, 3433.496, 3450.664, 3469.985], "stop_times": [3420.865, 3428.47, 3433.496, 3450.664, 3469.985, 3476.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3410.853}, "reply_to": "15313__1_118", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_120", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, would you say that if you prevail a fortiori, the same would apply to city employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3476.088], "stop_times": [3482.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3476.088}, "reply_to": "15313__1_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_121", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Absolutely not, first --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3482.298], "stop_times": [3483.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3482.298}, "reply_to": "15313__1_120", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_122", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3483.366], "stop_times": [3484.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.366}, "reply_to": "15313__1_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_123", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, for factors one observed in Cafeteria Workers against McElroy, the Government engaged in a managerial function as employer to the discretionary kinds of decisions which are slightly different and three, the question of a suspension of an employee may well fall into one of those extraordinary situations laid out by this Court where for example, the employee represents some immediate threat to the service or the department.\nThat is not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3484.129, 3508.211], "stop_times": [3508.211, 3509.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3484.129}, "reply_to": "15313__1_122", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_124", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Voice Overlap) -- I asked you about the ordinary case where the ordinary employee know unusual circumstances except someone just wants to fire you.\nWould you say there is some due process requirements before stopping the salary or the wage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3509.5, 3519.163], "stop_times": [3519.163, 3529.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.5}, "reply_to": "15313__1_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_125", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "There might be at least the requirement of -- as indeed, there's the practice in the federal civil service --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3529.78], "stop_times": [3535.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3529.78}, "reply_to": "15313__1_124", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_126", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "But if you prevail that would be more likely that the (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3535.046], "stop_times": [3537.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3535.046}, "reply_to": "15313__1_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_127", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I don't -- but I think an important -- I agree with you Mr. Justice White.\nBut I think it's important to recognize that we are not litigating a variety of Government benefit programs or Government employment which involves factors that are very different than the ones here.\nThere are many benefit programs that provide for benefits to continue after eligibility is ceased, social security, OASDI and disability.\nThe one area where there might be dispute is one of those programs, civil service mentions another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3537.624, 3540.374, 3552.242, 3559.509], "stop_times": [3540.374, 3552.242, 3559.509, 3563.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3537.624}, "reply_to": "15313__1_126", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_128", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I think that is going beyond the response, unless there are other questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3563.262], "stop_times": [3565.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3563.262}, "reply_to": "15313__1_127", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_129", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3565.025], "stop_times": [3567.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3565.025}, "reply_to": "15313__1_128", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_130", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I'd like to ask one question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3567.075], "stop_times": [3567.832], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3567.075}, "reply_to": "15313__1_129", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15313__1_131", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes, by all means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3567.832], "stop_times": [3570.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3567.832}, "reply_to": "15313__1_130", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_132", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I saw on the papers that had been filed, a reference to a federal regulation that require in relation to DC, for example, a relief, a continuance of benefit payments, even though they were terminated under pre-occurrence stage until the final hearing, post terminations, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3570.977], "stop_times": [3607.088], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3570.977}, "reply_to": "15313__1_131", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15313__1_133", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It's correct Mr. Justice Harlan.\nThat was promulgated a year ago by HEW.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3607.088, 3608.253], "stop_times": [3608.253, 3610.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3607.088}, "reply_to": "15313__1_132", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_134", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What bearing does that have on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3610.587], "stop_times": [3612.968], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3610.587}, "reply_to": "15313__1_133", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15313__1_135", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Ithink it verifies that the fair hearing requirement of the Federal Act which after all does import notions of due process into it cannot be truly effective unless the hearing is prior.\nAnd that's what HEW said when it promulgated the regulation.\nIt has been postponed Mr. Justice Harlan till next July over opposition, over a variety of oppositions.\nSome like New York which prefers the local agency hearings.\nSome states just don't like federal encouragence, additional procedural impositions under HEW's power.\nWe think the relevance is that it represents the judgment of the administrative agency charged knowing something about these matters that that is required and that still current federal policy although not presently not \u2013 it's effective data is postponed.\nIt's still part of the federal regulations as is the federal matching formulas to encourage states to continue aid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3612.968, 3624.992, 3627.953, 3633.68, 3636.253, 3645.849, 3659.436], "stop_times": [3624.992, 3627.953, 3633.68, 3636.253, 3645.849, 3659.436, 3665.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3612.968}, "reply_to": "15313__1_134", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_136", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Was that the be a requirement Mr. Albert?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3665.382], "stop_times": [3668.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3665.382}, "reply_to": "15313__1_135", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_137", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It's still supposed to be a requirement of that Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3668.382], "stop_times": [3670.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3668.382}, "reply_to": "15313__1_136", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_138", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That is when it goes to the fact that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3670.483], "stop_times": [3672.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3670.483}, "reply_to": "15313__1_137", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_139", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "If it -- if and when it goes into effect, it will be a coercive requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3672.057], "stop_times": [3674.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3672.057}, "reply_to": "15313__1_138", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_140", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Then what -- if it were in effect now, what effect would it have in this cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3674.707], "stop_times": [3678.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3674.707}, "reply_to": "15313__1_139", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_141", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It would have the effect in the AFDC recipients here providing them with relief they want as interpreted by the Government in its brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3678.251], "stop_times": [3685.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3678.251}, "reply_to": "15313__1_140", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_142", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "In other words, say it's going to be obliged by the federal regulation not to terminate until what, until when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3685.461], "stop_times": [3693.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3685.461}, "reply_to": "15313__1_141", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_143", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Until the actual subsequent statutory hearing before the state agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3693.814], "stop_times": [3696.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3693.814}, "reply_to": "15313__1_142", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_144", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "So that for a fair hearing has been (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3696.616], "stop_times": [3698.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3696.616}, "reply_to": "15313__1_143", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_145", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3698.392], "stop_times": [3699.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3698.392}, "reply_to": "15313__1_144", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_146", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What's the situation now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3699.166], "stop_times": [3701.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3699.166}, "reply_to": "15313__1_145", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_147", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "The situation now is that the regulation is not effective.\nThe states must not -- it's not coercive until July 1, 19 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3701.261, 3704.049], "stop_times": [3704.049, 3705.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3701.261}, "reply_to": "15313__1_146", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_148", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Until the regulation (Voice Overlap) effective, what's the situation as far as federal matching money is --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3705.506], "stop_times": [3709.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3705.506}, "reply_to": "15313__1_147", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_149", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "The situation as far as federal matching money is concerned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3709.989], "stop_times": [3712.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3709.989}, "reply_to": "15313__1_148", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_150", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "(Voice Overlap) the choice, the state can do it either way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3712.287], "stop_times": [3714.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3712.287}, "reply_to": "15313__1_149", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_151", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It's both, that the state can do it either way but it's soon to be stated quite under to the in that -- the matching formula provides for continuation of payments for federal funds for continuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3714.004], "stop_times": [3724.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3714.004}, "reply_to": "15313__1_150", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_152", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Up to the case hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3724.223], "stop_times": [3724.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3724.223}, "reply_to": "15313__1_151", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15313__1_153", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Up to the fair hearing, regardless when a fair hearing is held by the way.\nRegardless of the HEW time limits also the matching formulas does provide 90 days for the local agency to investigate, decide and implement a decision of ineligibility.\n90 days is well -- it -- within those 90 days, the local hearing, the two week hearing we talk of here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3724.985, 3728.116, 3738.355], "stop_times": [3728.116, 3738.355, 3745.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3724.985}, "reply_to": "15313__1_152", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_154", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Mr. Albert, you said that HEW regulation, its effective date has been postponed.\nI take it HEW could rescind tomorrow, couldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3745.116, 3749.582], "stop_times": [3749.582, 3752.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3745.116}, "reply_to": "15313__1_153", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__1_155", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It most certainly couldn't (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3752.669], "stop_times": [3754.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3752.669}, "reply_to": "15313__1_154", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_156", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Was that promulgated by the last administration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3754.716], "stop_times": [3756.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3754.716}, "reply_to": "15313__1_155", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15313__1_157", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It was Mr. Justice Brennan.\nAlthough it was promulgated actually in final form in January 1969, during the transition, I think fair to say with concurrence of both administrations but the postponement is of this administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3756.761, 3758.03], "stop_times": [3758.03, 3766.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3756.761}, "reply_to": "15313__1_156", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_158", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Alright, that regulation, there's no offense (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3766.857], "stop_times": [3773.347], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3766.857}, "reply_to": "15313__1_157", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15313__1_159", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That is correct Mr. Justice Harlan.\nIt would not resolve the issue in the home relief program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3773.347, 3774.774], "stop_times": [3774.774, 3779.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3773.347}, "reply_to": "15313__1_158", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15313__1_160", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Thank you Mr. Albert.\nHow much time does Mr. Loflin have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3779.437, 3787.284], "stop_times": [3787.284, 3789.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3779.437}, "reply_to": "15313__1_159", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15313__1_161", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "About 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3789.21], "stop_times": [3793.034], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3789.21}, "reply_to": "15313__1_160", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15313__2_000", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "If the Court please.\nI ask -- particularly believe that Mr. Justice Black to check the citation.\nYou had asked me sir where we could find the regulations that would describe the rights afforded, those who appear in a state fair hearing.\nIt is in our record, following page 160.\nAnd I particularly refer to you -- to Section 84 of the state regulations and more particularly beginning on page 2, it describes the entire procedure from the time a request was made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3793.034, 3794.487, 3801.713, 3810.541, 3814.878], "stop_times": [3794.487, 3801.713, 3810.541, 3814.878, 3829.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3793.034}, "reply_to": "15313__1_161", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__2_001", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "What page was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3829.585], "stop_times": [3830.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3829.585}, "reply_to": "15313__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__2_002", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "It follows page 160 of the record.\nImmediately following that page is a resolution of the state board of social welfare which goes for two pages and then begins Regulation Number 84.2 and that entire regulation deals with the procedure under the state fair hearings.\nAnd you will find among other things, there is a notice of the hearing which gives all the details, you would need to note to go the proper place and tell you who you're going to appear before and advice you of the right of each party to be represented to testify, produce witnesses, to present documentary evidence and to examine opposing witnesses and evidence.\n84.9 gives you the right to examine the other sides evidence in advance of the hearing.\nIt points out that the hearing is to be conducted by any impartial hearing officer.\nIt goes on to detail the burden of the hearing officer to render a written opinion, what the content shall be that the decision must be sent to the client and that he be advised upon recede of the decision of his right to judicial review under New York law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3830.714, 3836.196, 3852.651, 3874.387, 3880.178, 3884.288], "stop_times": [3836.196, 3852.651, 3874.387, 3880.178, 3884.288, 3903.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3830.714}, "reply_to": "15313__2_001", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__2_003", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Is there anything in there that proscribes exactly when the hearings have taken place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3903.892], "stop_times": [3910.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3903.892}, "reply_to": "15313__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__2_004", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Well, under federal regulations, they're supposed to take place and be completed within 60 days.\nThis is the 60 day period that has been referred to previously in the discussion this morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3910.125, 3915.197], "stop_times": [3915.197, 3919.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3910.125}, "reply_to": "15313__2_003", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__2_005", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "That is for termination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3919.755], "stop_times": [3921.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3919.755}, "reply_to": "15313__2_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15313__2_006", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3921.318], "stop_times": [3922.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3921.318}, "reply_to": "15313__2_005", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__2_007", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Justice Marshall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3922.498], "stop_times": [3923.742], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3922.498}, "reply_to": "15313__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15313__2_008", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3923.742], "stop_times": [3925.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3923.742}, "reply_to": "15313__2_007", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__2_009", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Does the state law with respect to home relief in other general assistance program as the state law alone provide any time limitation?\n(Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3925.341, 3936.016], "stop_times": [3936.016, 3936.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3925.341}, "reply_to": "15313__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15313__2_010", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "I don't of any.\nThe pattern would not be much different under the home relief cases under any of the others.\nNow I would refer if I may to the section of my main brief on pages 14 and 15.\nOur procedures have been sharply criticized here and it has been pointed out by my adversary that under paragraph (a) which is his preferred procedure, a number of reversals of caseworker decisions have occurred.\nWe had a brief period, just a few months roughly from June to November of 1968 during which the City of New York operated under the provisions subparagraph (b) in its local procedure, 6818.\nDuring that period, approximately 44% of the decisions to terminate were reversed as a result of our own procedures.\nI submit to the Court that our procedures were working and during that same period of time, as is true now, some of our cases then went on to the fair hearing stage.\nDuring those same months, the reversals on termination cases after fair hearings did not exceed three cases per month and in one month, September 1968, there were no reversals.\nI think this is a demonstration that goes beyond the face of the regulations itself that the procedure is designed to be fair.\nIt is designed to weed out error and it works.\nThis Court has on other occasions and in other contexts molded constitutional requirements appropriate to the facts.\nDue process has been described as a flexible, not a fixed concept.\nIt might also be noted that under the Fourth Amendment, in the Kamara and See cases where there was a question of the burden of proof on a locality before a warrant should be issued.\nIt was found by this Court that the burden of proof need not be quite as high as in a traditional criminal warrant search and seizure.\nThere is room for innovation at the local level, in state and local governments and I feel that our innovation meets the standards that this Court has indicated or required for due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [3936.291, 3937.424, 3943.727, 3951.165, 3965.429, 3982.079, 3991.031, 4001.842, 4013.864, 4022.755, 4026.878, 4036.057, 4041.617, 4052.278, 4059.171], "stop_times": [3937.424, 3943.727, 3951.165, 3965.429, 3982.079, 3991.031, 4001.842, 4013.864, 4022.755, 4026.878, 4036.057, 4041.617, 4052.278, 4059.171, 4070.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3936.291}, "reply_to": "15313__2_009", "speaker": "john_j_loflin_jr"}
{"id": "15313__2_011", "conversation_id": "15313", "text": "Thank you Mr. Loflin.\nUnless there are any other questions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_62", "start_times": [4070.123, 4071.628, 4073.23], "stop_times": [4071.628, 4073.23, 4076.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4070.123}, "reply_to": "15313__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__0_000", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Number 66, Goldstein against Cox.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [41.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__0_001", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [41.138], "stop_times": [42.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 41.138}, "reply_to": "15524__0_000", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_002", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Vintilla.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [42.154], "stop_times": [43.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 42.154}, "reply_to": "15524__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__0_003", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "May it please the Court.\nWe have here before the Court today a problem, which this Court had occasion approximately two years ago to review the pass judgment on it.\nWe have in review here, the so-called Iron Curtain Statute for the State of New York known as the New York Surrogate's Procedure Act to formerly Section 269-a and now for the reason amendment of June of '68 known as Section 2218.\nNow, this statute in substance provides that an heir legatee or beneficiary of funds from the state or other source in New York who happens to reside in one of so-called Iron Curtain countries that the State of New York will protect this particular citizen national of that country by withholding the transmittal of his distributive share to funds that he is entitled to.\nIf he would not have the benefit or use for control of the money or other property to him or if there are other special circumstances that make a desirable of such payment it should be withheld.\nNow, this law of New York is substantially identical to one of the three provisions of the Oregon statute, which this Court struck down as an impermissible interference with federal power over foreign affairs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [43.1, 47.392, 61.665, 85.051, 125.529, 140.72], "stop_times": [47.392, 61.665, 85.051, 125.529, 140.72, 161.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 43.1}, "reply_to": "15524__0_002", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_004", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Is there any escheat provision in the New York law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [161.672], "stop_times": [165.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.672}, "reply_to": "15524__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_005", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Your Honor, the New York law is a custodial in nature that provides -- does not provide for escheat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [165.682], "stop_times": [172.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 165.682}, "reply_to": "15524__0_004", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_006", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Under any circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [172.536], "stop_times": [173.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.536}, "reply_to": "15524__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_007", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Under any circumstances.\nThe money is placed in all appellates, its placed in the deposit in one of the banks in New York until such time as the particular heir or beneficiary is representing and could come in and satisfy the court that he will have the use benefit or that circumstances of change and then the Court could reconsider the matter.\nAs a practical matter funds belonging to Romania nationals of been brought in excess of 25 years as the matter now stands.\nThere was one challenge to the statute by Romania heirs the Greenburg case, which we mentioned in our brief and in that case the heir sought to establish to the satisfaction onto a surrogate of New York county that they do have to use benefit and control in that circumstances are such in Romania that that to be permitted to have their money.\nAnd, the surrogate there found that the evidence was in such an issue to convince him that they would have to use benefit in control or the circumstance of change.\nNow, this matter was appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York and they denied leave to appeal allow the surrogate's decision and the Appellate Court which affirm and allow that decision to stand.\nNow, in our case, citizens who are entitled to have been or are entitled to funds which are bring withheld from them challenged the New York Statute by filing an action in the United States District Court for the southern district of New York.\nChallenged the constitutionality of that statute then sought to have its application enjoined and so far as the rights of Romania national are concerned.\nAt the same time, they asked for the convening of a three-judge court to hear the Congressional challenges to the New York Statute.\nThe district judge initially denied the convening of a three-judge court on the ground that he thought the constitutional challenges were frivolous and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals.\nThe Court right from the bench affirmed the district judge in holding that the constitutional challenge is not serious enough to convene a court in upon certiorari granted by this Court.\nNow, this Court some merely reversed and remanded the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for further conservation in the light of Zschernig v. Miller which this Court had decided while the petition for certiorari was pending initially.\nNow, at that stage, we had thought upon reading discerning decision that because of the swiping rational of the majority in the concurring opinion that -- and the New York statute being so similar to the Oregon's statute that, that question would put to rest.\nThat similar statutes which such as New York were unconstitutional because they were enacted in such a fashion that they compel the courts to intrude into an area.\nThat is the exclusive domain of the federal government.\nUpon hearing by the three-judge court, -- the three-judge court found otherwise, the matter was heard in -- before the three-judge court in June of 25th, 1968 and sure that before that the New York Court of Appeals had occasion for the first time since Zschernig to review the New York law in the light of the Zschernig decision.\nAnd that was the case which is mentioned in both brief the matter of liken, and in that case, New York Court of Appeals felt that under record of that case, there was no showing that the New York courts have engaged in any of the activities that were proscribe by Zschernig.\nAnd, felt that the statute of New York is not unconstitutional.\nWell, the same conclusion was reached by the three-judge court.\nThe three-judge court felt that upon the record before it that the -- there is no showing that the New York Courts have engaged in the activities proscribe by Zschernig.\nNow, the matter of court -- the three-judge court in our case had the matter before on a motion for some re-judgment.\nThe matter was filed before the decision of Zschernig and after the decision of this Court in Zschernig, the appellants filed a motion for some re-judgment on the strength of the conclusions that put to be drawn from a Zschernig.\nAnd in support of that motion for some re-judgment, the appellants attached an affidavit and which there were set fort many cases and instances which appellant sought to establish that the New York courts in interpreting and in construing the New York statute were in the fact engaging in activities proscribed by Zschernig.\nNow, in the case of the Romanian interest, Greenburg has established a precedent that as a result of that -- as a result of the finding in Greenburg that all other courts and followed Greenburg as holding that the mere fact that you are resident for City of Romani, thereby you were not entitled to have your money because of that decision of the policy of the state of New York in withholding these funds from these appellants.\nNow, it is interesting that in Greenburg, the three-judge court had determined that there was no showing that any courts had engaged in any proscribe of activities yet, the Greenburg decision which was before the court very clearly shows that the court engaged in such post crime activities in seeking to convince the court that money should be released.\nThe parties, the Romanian and plaintiffs in that case had summoned the chief for the counselors section of a domain in the legation at that time and to testify with reference to the inheritance laws of Romania and to the relevant laws would reference to the problem at hand.\nAnd, after establishing his expertise in the matter, and testifying that there are no restrictions, the court refused to give any credence to the testimony of this expert who according to my understand ever who was not impeached in anyway.\nAnd, moreover, the Court in reaching his conclusion had to consider the foreign exchange control of the laws of Romania and, in doing so, the court found that he did not like the rate of exchange that these citizens of Romania were receiving and therefore held that in effective of confiscatory and by reason of that, that they would not have to use benefit in control of the funds.\nThis same position on the foreign exchange allows was also taken by the Appellate Court which affirmed to decision of the surrogate and the surrogate somehow and I'm not familiar where the surrogate came to the conclusion that Romanian lei which is the Romanian currency could be purchased here in the United States and New York had a very high rate of exchange certainly much higher than the official exchange and use that as a basis to conclude that the -- since the exchange are such of discrepancy and what you can buy currency in New York and what official exchanges that therefore these people were not getting all they what they are entitled to.\nNow, I don't know where that Greenburg Court had got in the exchange of 31 and \u00be of my understanding Romanian law does not permit any of their currency to come in from abroad or, they do not sell it as far as I could ascertain official anywhere in the world that 31 and \u00be allay to a dollar presumably there is a black market in that exchange.\nBut I don't see how a black market rate of exchange could furnish the basis of illegal decision.\nBut, in any event, we have other showings in the affidavit that support of the motion for some re-judgment showing that the various attitudes of the state controller who has some of these funds under his custody.\nAnd, the courts that they have engaged in attitude that certainly clearly proscribe by a Zschernig.\nNow, interestingly enough, the only authority is in the United States that I have knowledge of a do not or still at here to this iron curtain statute in type of law is the state in New York and the Attorney General of Montana.\nBut, in my experience, in the last 10 years in many of other jurisdictions of Florida and Maryland and Connecticut and New Jersey and Ohio and Michigan all have statutes which I think were copied from the New York statute which are substantially identical.\nAnd, these are -- all of these of jurisdictions and the courts in these jurisdictions have not applied their iron curtain statute to the rights of the Romanian interest once they were aware and were pointed with the financial agreement of 1960 between Arab country and Romania whereby our country had released all blocking controls and restriction regarding the transmittal of public funds to Romanian.\nAnd, ever since then, they have been sending such things as social security benefits and various pensions and other public funds.\nAnd, more interesting since Zschernig, the State of Oregon has held its statute to be unconstitutional.\nCalifornia is -- and the reason appellate decision on October 9th of this year in California State of Kramer also follows there and he held that by reason of the holding in Zschernig that their statute is unconstitutional.\nAnd, in Montana, we have the situation in ad valorem case, there was up before this Court and decided in January of this year were the appropriate court found that in view of Zschernig and the concurring opinion of the court in Vorem versus Fall that there is no question that the statute cannot be applied constitutionally.\nAnd, therefore, did not follow it however, the Attorney General disagreed and he presently have filed an appeal to the probate court's decision appeal to the Supreme Court of Montana.\nNow, we have a recent decision from three-judge court for the northern district of Ohio, eastern division which to my knowledge is not reported where an identical action was filed challenging the iron curtain statute of Ohio by a certain Czechoslovakian heirs.\nAnd, the statute in Ohio is substantially identical as the New York statute, it's a custodial statute and it provides that the heir has the burden to prove that he has the use for control of -- would have the use and control of the funds or that special circumstances in the country of his residence would not prevent him from using and enjoying his property without confiscation or hold or impart.\nAnd, I think that my position would reference to the New York statute is very well said out by the three-judge district court in this Ohio case of Maro versus Batten.\nThey may are all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [173.225, 174.55, 198.045, 211.988, 236.655, 247.652, 262.031, 285.093, 294.302, 304.498, 317.363, 330.573, 344.939, 364.263, 375.494, 379.841, 404.916, 425.784, 432.66, 437.607, 454.878, 463.522, 477.49, 505.372, 542.434, 584.883, 605.264, 624.016, 661.092, 712.96, 740.74, 746.632, 764.724, 775.705, 792.384, 809.717, 838.535, 847.507, 857.159, 871.799, 893.207, 908.362, 935.021, 974.196, 989.654], "stop_times": [174.55, 198.045, 211.988, 236.655, 247.652, 262.031, 285.093, 294.302, 304.498, 317.363, 330.573, 344.939, 364.263, 375.494, 379.841, 404.916, 425.784, 432.66, 437.607, 454.878, 463.522, 477.49, 505.372, 542.434, 584.883, 605.264, 624.016, 661.092, 712.96, 740.74, 746.632, 764.724, 775.705, 792.384, 809.717, 838.535, 847.507, 857.159, 871.799, 893.207, 908.362, 935.021, 974.196, 989.654, 991.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 173.225}, "reply_to": "15524__0_006", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_008", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Is that in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [991.02], "stop_times": [994.051], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 991.02}, "reply_to": "15524__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_009", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "No, I don't believe we have it in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [994.051], "stop_times": [995.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 994.051}, "reply_to": "15524__0_008", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_010", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "So, will you make that available to us if you want to have any reliance on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [995.317], "stop_times": [1000.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.317}, "reply_to": "15524__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__0_011", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, I have -- the matter was unreported.\nI thought it would be reported and therefore and have guessed we over looked it and we have not cited in our brief.\nIt was decide in July of this year by a three-judge court, we certainly will furnish the court if the Court's question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1000.25, 1004.095, 1010.405], "stop_times": [1004.095, 1010.405, 1017.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1000.25}, "reply_to": "15524__0_010", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_012", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Is it still unreported?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1017.88], "stop_times": [1019.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.88}, "reply_to": "15524__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_013", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes, as far as I know yes Your Honor, it's unreported and it's Maro versus Batten.\nAnd, in that -- they have the same problem, the same action challenging the constitutional.\nI'm asking for convening of the three-judge court and that court in striking down and following Zschernig states that it follows.\nThe so-called iron curtain statute such 211381 and that is the Ohio statute were recently considered by the United Stated Supreme Court in Zschernig versus Miller and then it goes on to elaborate on the type of statue of Oregon have the three provisions.\nAnd then in its appeal in the court when I to say further \u201cin passing upon the validity of the statute,\u201d the Supreme Court consider the whole area of reciprocal inheritance statutes.\nThe Court drew a distinction between reciprocal inheritance statutes which permits the state court only to re-construe on the apply laws of foreign nation.\nAnd, those which permit the court -- state court to launch enquiries and to the type of governments that obtain in a particular foreign nation.\nCiting its earlier decision in Clark versus Allen, the Court noted that state courts are not precluded from really construing and applying laws of a foreign nation.\nThe court held however that where statute permits inquiry and to the type of government existing in a foreign nation.\nOr into the operation of that government or into the question of whether the legal rights guaranteed by the nation or rights in fact or into the question of whether statements by the representatives of foreign nations are credible or made in good faith.\nOr into the likelihood that the legatees will actually receive the property left to them such statutes so applied intrudes into the exclusive right of Congress to regulate foreign policy.\nSection 211381, Ohio revised code which is a statute that issue in the present case is someone different from the Oregon statute involved in Zschernig.\nIn Ohio, the statute requires the probate court to determine whether or not the foreign legatee will have to been further use or control of the money left him because of circumstances prevailing at that the place of residence of such legatee.\nThe Ohio statute does appear to be directed had an inquiry into the operation of the foreign government and into the political economic and social conditions prevailing in the foreign country.\nThis type of inquiry is specifically prohibited by the doctrine of Zschernig versus Miller and we say that that exact language had exact argument as applicable to the New York statute here under review because this statute also provides that if there is a special circumstance -- special circumstances that the points of residence which would make it appear that the party would have not have the money then the court could withhold the funds.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1019.273, 1023.91, 1028.542, 1039.664, 1056.21, 1067.924, 1077.604, 1086.413, 1096.273, 1102.595, 1115.601, 1126.863, 1136.213, 1154.513, 1166.074, 1204.797], "stop_times": [1023.91, 1028.542, 1039.664, 1056.21, 1067.924, 1077.604, 1086.413, 1096.273, 1102.595, 1115.601, 1126.863, 1136.213, 1154.513, 1166.074, 1204.797, 1205.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1019.273}, "reply_to": "15524__0_012", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_014", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Do I understand Mr. Vintilla that you're going to supply us with the copies of that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1205.395], "stop_times": [1210.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.395}, "reply_to": "15524__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_015", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Maro versus Batten issue", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1210.848], "stop_times": [1211.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1210.848}, "reply_to": "15524__0_014", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_016", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Maro, But where is that the Northern district of Ohio?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1211.845], "stop_times": [1214.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.845}, "reply_to": "15524__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_017", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Northern district, the eastern division.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1214.388], "stop_times": [1216.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1214.388}, "reply_to": "15524__0_016", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_018", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Last summer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1216.12], "stop_times": [1216.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.12}, "reply_to": "15524__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_019", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes, for three-judge court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1216.745], "stop_times": [1217.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1216.745}, "reply_to": "15524__0_018", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_020", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "What's the name of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1217.583], "stop_times": [1219.105], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1217.583}, "reply_to": "15524__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_021", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Maro versus Batten.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1219.105], "stop_times": [1223.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1219.105}, "reply_to": "15524__0_020", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_022", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Maro?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1223.429], "stop_times": [1224.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.429}, "reply_to": "15524__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_023", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nIt was decided in July of 69, but since so far as I know and as I have been asked, naval ascertain, it's unreported.\nNow, in so far as this statute is concerned, I think this Court in the majority and Mr. Justice Stewart's concurring opinion made it clear that the fatality of the infection that's involved is that the statute is freeing in such a manner that they compels the Court to go into internal matters, to go into the nature of the government, the policy of the government, the laws of the government and the laws of the government were relations to their citizens.\nAnd because these statutes are framed in such a way, the conclusion is inescapable that these courts are intruding into an area that's the exclusive domain or the federal government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1224.356, 1224.952, 1236.402, 1266.741], "stop_times": [1224.952, 1236.402, 1266.741, 1278.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1224.356}, "reply_to": "15524__0_022", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_024", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Vintilla, in all modesty you can't really rely on a concurring opinion, is that what's the court opinion said presumably there would not been a necessity for a concurring opinion to say something?\nWell, that is true but we believe that the majority opinion not so succinctly, not so directly this is said about the same thing that these courts are injected into this area whether because to make these inquiries and to make inquiries based consideration which are political in nature and which are involves, which are on an area that's involved the conduct of foreign relations.\nAnd because of that, this statute is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1278.605, 1295.224, 1327.033], "stop_times": [1295.224, 1327.033, 1331.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.605}, "reply_to": "15524__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__0_025", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, haven't the courts been dealing with the operation of foreign laws taking evidence, making findings on the operation of foreign laws in other areas for many years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1331.945], "stop_times": [1342.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.945}, "reply_to": "15524__0_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__0_026", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Oh yes and they still -- I would and I think Zschernig makes it clear that they still have a right to applying construe and this Maro case say so.\nBut, in our situation they are not applying and construing, they are going much further.\nThe way the statute is framed, it's even difficult to determine what evidence you would need to convince a court that they have to use benefit from all the cases and the cases are repelled what example or you bring an expert.\nYou bring an expert to testify, we have that case and we have a case in New York in the matter of Dragonov involving Bulgarian areas.\nAnd they brought a specialist -- an attorney from Bulgaria specializes in civil family law and in inheritance law and a member of a firm in Sophia and this is what the court said were reference to his testimony.\nThe court cannot disregard the fact of Mr. Stephanof.\nHe is not a free and independent attorney and an impression he sought to create as a member of a lawyer's collective subject to the restrictive pressures commonly applied in iron curtain countries.\nAs he was about to return to Bulgaria, he cannot be expected to say anything interrogation of his government or its physical policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1342.073, 1350.21, 1356.428, 1371.364, 1380.296, 1395.11, 1397.991, 1409.212], "stop_times": [1350.21, 1356.428, 1371.364, 1380.296, 1395.11, 1397.991, 1409.212, 1417.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1342.073}, "reply_to": "15524__0_025", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_027", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Vintilla, has the state department shown any interest in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1417.873], "stop_times": [1423.334], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.873}, "reply_to": "15524__0_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_028", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, the state department is sometimes on both sides --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1423.334], "stop_times": [1427.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1423.334}, "reply_to": "15524__0_027", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_029", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, they file brief as amicus in a jury case which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1427.239], "stop_times": [1430.38], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.239}, "reply_to": "15524__0_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_030", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Not in this case Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1430.38], "stop_times": [1433.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1430.38}, "reply_to": "15524__0_029", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_031", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Not in your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1433.238], "stop_times": [1433.916], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.238}, "reply_to": "15524__0_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_032", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "No, not in the present case.\nThere is -- where there is a letter that the state department sent to Governor Rockefeller after the financial agree when 1960 requested that he advice the New York authorities that the federal policy now permits the transfer of funds to Romania and that evidence he was ignored by the state authority to probate surrogate judges.\nAnd at the same time which we have letters in the state department saying that, this is a purely a matter of a state law the administration (Voice Overlaps)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1433.916, 1435.811, 1460.208], "stop_times": [1435.811, 1460.208, 1467.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1433.916}, "reply_to": "15524__0_031", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_033", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The reason I asked a question, my recollection is that maybe wrong but I think I'm correct.\nIn attorney case they filed amicus briefs and the laws kind of administration these laws now passed in the final collection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1467.429, 1472.8], "stop_times": [1472.8, 1481.304], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.429}, "reply_to": "15524__0_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_034", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "That is true Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1481.304], "stop_times": [1481.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1481.304}, "reply_to": "15524__0_033", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_035", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "I was wondering whether or not the point of view were changed or what do you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1481.461], "stop_times": [1486.533], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.461}, "reply_to": "15524__0_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_036", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, we -- I know that they have not filed any brief here as amicus through in any capacity whatsoever.\nThey have not taken any official position insofar as I am aware in this -- come before the court.\nWe feel that the state department is not injecting itself for directly.\nPerhaps, I think there has been some letters that other attorneys and I think it's in amicus brief that they shall await the outcome of this particular problem before the court the today.\nBut, I think that the reading of Zschernig, I think that the reasonable conclusion be drawn from that that New York connected to such statute because it dislikes the particular governmental systems and the policies of these countries.\nAnd that was the New York's way of reacting in a hostile fashion saying, where do you -- you appropriate properties of our nationals and you have a system where you deny your citizens the right to private property and because of that, they have enacted the statute to react to say, well, if you do all those things, we're going to withhold funds belonging to your citizens.\nAnd this type of conduct is the one that causes the statute to invalid because this is not a function of the state.\nA very state in our union would react in such a of fashion and go different ways on a purely international problem we have chaos.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1486.533, 1495.899, 1509.452, 1517.302, 1533.047, 1556.782, 1583.216, 1590.202], "stop_times": [1495.899, 1509.452, 1517.302, 1533.047, 1556.782, 1583.216, 1590.202, 1599.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1486.533}, "reply_to": "15524__0_035", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_037", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "That's if he know question as to the power of Congress who step in, is that defends the law of many statement has there been enacting the surrogate statute to this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1599.832], "stop_times": [1610.949], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.832}, "reply_to": "15524__0_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__0_038", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, I think Congress certain to federal government this is an area that they can legislate on certainly government could've Congress can act in this area and any action taken by the federal government was certainly be overwriting and the certain any state law that contravenes it would have to fall.\nI think that in our situation here with this financial agreement I think as Mr. Justice Douglas said in the Gorum case and which was joined by Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Fortas he said that federal policy permits the free flow of funds to Romania which is true and that no state judge, they make or apply rule.\nThat is contrary to that policy which is true, I think -- I don't think the problem is a difficult to see and our estimation of it perhaps we're so obsessed and studies for many years.\nBut, if your federal government does one thing and the state comes and says, well because the federal government for awhile was permitting funds.\nAnd there are still countries where he did step in an action this area but when he steps in the area made a determination that these people will have the use of benefit.\nThere is a reasonable insurance conditions are such for a state to come in and make a contrary determination to that made by the federal government which is entrusted with these matters which is in a better position to make such a determination and New York has said this.\nAnd interestingly enough in the area where they refuse to transmit money, they were allowed federal policy.\nThey have said in the leading case prior case that the federal government in the better position to know what the situation is in Romania.\nAnd therefore since the federal government does not permit the sending of fund, we can rely and follow that policy and withhold the transcript of fund.\nYet, when the federal government has taken the position of free flow, the New York is still maintain the other position and that is the followed federal policy that would satisfy them and when they like federal policy, when they didn't like federal policy they refuse to go on.\nAnd I think that is the problem here, there's no question about it and the states who seen it except New York.\nAll of the authorities have seen it and there are many states which would not in that such a law.\nIllinois refused Governor Kerner refused to approve such a law difficult all because he says \u201cWe're getting in to an area that will exceed the constitutional authority of the state and we should enact in such an area and let the federal government act in such an area.\u201d\nAnd therefore, I say, that the decision below is clearly contrary to the constitutional conclusion of this Court in Zschernig and should be reversed and these people are dire need of their money.\nMany of them have passed away and many amounts are very modest should have their money at the earliest possible moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1610.949, 1628.752, 1652.77, 1662.591, 1671.324, 1683.871, 1700.329, 1708.974, 1716.298, 1724.993, 1738.618, 1743.738, 1747.917, 1762.06, 1774.462], "stop_times": [1628.752, 1652.77, 1662.591, 1671.324, 1683.871, 1700.329, 1708.974, 1716.298, 1724.993, 1738.618, 1743.738, 1747.917, 1762.06, 1774.462, 1780.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1610.949}, "reply_to": "15524__0_037", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_039", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Did the state of New York pass the statute that no, none residence and alien could inherit New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1780.212], "stop_times": [1786.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.212}, "reply_to": "15524__0_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__0_040", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, I think that that may and they treat everyone equally without discriminating with aliens.\nIt's traditionally, the authority of a state in that area to perhaps eliminate but I think they have to do on a constitutional fashion.\nAnd they -- it was in the confines of their traditional probate authority without exceeding is they have here and what I'm trying to make foreign policy as New York is in our opinion and thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1786.45, 1793.989, 1804.398], "stop_times": [1793.989, 1804.398, 1822.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1786.45}, "reply_to": "15524__0_039", "speaker": "john_r_vintilla"}
{"id": "15524__0_041", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1822.025], "stop_times": [1826.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.025}, "reply_to": "15524__0_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__1_000", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis appeal is before the Court after the denial of the motion for summary judgment by the appellants.\nMatter is before the three-judge court solely upon the basis of affidavits.\nThe Attorney General was prepared in connection with this case to go ahead with a trial of issue that have been presented by the pleadings here in order to have determine the issue which is presented by these plaintiffs of whether the New York statute which has under prior decisions been held to be valid on its face.\nDetermine have a three-judge court determine whether the statute was being applied in an unconstitutional manner.\nNow, this Court had before a similar appeal from the denial of motion for summary judgment in Gloren against Follo, and the Court as I see it pretty much unanimously decided in that case that the summary judgment motion on appeal from the Montana District Court have been properly denied.\nThere was a dissent in Gloren which was predicated upon the fact that in Gloren, the District Court had completely dismissed the complaint which have been filed in that case in Montana.\nAnd the dissent was based upon the theory that this Court whatever its prior decisions for the relation to abstention should have directed the Montana District Court to retain jurisdiction of the case to see what the state court would do where a relation to the decisions of this Court in the Zschernig case.\nNow, in the instant case the Attorney General has never moot to dismiss the complaint in this action.\nDespite the provisions of Section 2283, despite the fact that there are proceedings pending that were referred to in the complaint.\nBefore the surrogate's court, before the various surrogates that are named as defendants in this case, despite that there are actual pending state court proceedings which the complaint seeks to enjoin and despite the fact that as I pointed out to this Court in the IANU case which was before this Court several years ago that the doors of the surrogate's court are constantly open to the making of any application to withdraw these funds so that instead of coming into the federal courts through the District Court through the three-judge court not to the Supreme Court.\nThese Romanian heirs are still in the position where they can go to the surrogate's court in New York and to apply from the withdrawal of the funds that have been withheld.\nNow, in the IANU case where the matter came before this Court after the decision in Zschernig, a dissent was written by Justice Douglas saying, we should -- this Court should not compel the applicant to go all the way down that the surrogate's court and come back up here again.\nIn IANU, an application was made to the surrogate for the withdrawal of funds and the application which was made in that case by an assignee of a none resident alien was approved despite the fact that there was a conflict between the assignee and other claimant who have a power of attorney from the none resident alien beneficiary.\nThe surrogate determined the dispute between the two conflicting claims and directed payment to IANU in the America state, IANU getting of the amount which was on deposit with the New York Surrogate.\nNow to a certain extent, the appellants here are pretty much beating a dead horse, because the talking about a situation to a certain extent which existed at the time of the complaint was filed in those actions.\nThey disregarded all of the things that have occurred in the Surrogate's Courts in New York.\nSince that time, the fact of the matter is that with relation to claims by Romanian none resident aliens, all of the judges within the limits of the city of New York who were designated as defendants in this suit.\nSurrogates within that area have been transmitting funds to none resident aliens.\nThe amounts that have been involved in these states are varied in $5000.00 to $35,000.00, this is my up-to-date information and these funds have been directed to be transmitted by the surrogates and Mr. Vintilla if he goes into the surrogate's court at this particular point, I think we'll have no real difficulty if he is able to supply sufficient prove to the surrogates with relation of the validity of his claims.\nThe Attorney General as I stated was prepared in connection with this matter before the three-judge court to indicate that even at the time of the hearing before the three-judge court, a year ago.\nIn a substantial portion of the cases that were coming before the New York Surrogates direction were being made to transmit funds are condition in some cases with relations of some of the countries that the amounts be limited with relation to say Poland to $5000.00 and two check certificates with relation to Russia that the amounts that were transmissible should not exceed the sum of $10,000.00 to any beneficiary.\nThe Court of Appeals for the State of New York in the Lycan case which was decided just a few days before the argument, before the three-judge court, held that the New York Statute was a statute which was capable of being enforced without animate versions with relation to the fund, to the governments of foreign countries.\nThe District Court here has indicated clearly that they find that this record is inadequate to justify this Court in holding summarily that Section 2218 is unconstitutional upon the Zschernig rule.\nWithout any evidence and this was the situation before the District Court, Mr. Vintilla was given the opportunity to present evidence, he did not.\nWithout any evidence whatever is to how Section 2218 has been applied in this case, we are unable to say that it has been applied in such a way as to interfere with the foreign relations of the United States.\nWe interrupt the Supreme Court's recent ruling denying a rehearing in IANU as at least that indication that evidence of improper application of that statute is necessary.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [1826.409, 1841.071, 1855.153, 1863.959, 1905.241, 1918.086, 1953.597, 1975.268, 2004.91, 2016.26, 2026.635, 2080.867, 2094.202, 2122.678, 2159.562, 2177.2, 2195.974, 2201.994, 2223.752, 2232.416, 2267.108, 2287.391, 2331.363, 2364.159, 2387.604, 2396.956, 2411.43, 2425.759], "stop_times": [1841.071, 1855.153, 1863.959, 1905.241, 1918.086, 1953.597, 1975.268, 2004.91, 2016.26, 2026.635, 2080.867, 2094.202, 2122.678, 2159.562, 2177.2, 2195.974, 2201.994, 2223.752, 2232.416, 2267.108, 2287.391, 2331.363, 2364.159, 2387.604, 2396.956, 2411.43, 2425.759, 2426.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1826.409}, "reply_to": "15524__0_041", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_001", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "How much money is involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2426.733], "stop_times": [2428.877], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.733}, "reply_to": "15524__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15524__1_002", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "In this -- this is an attempt to set up a representative lawsuit on behalf of various Romanian beneficiaries and they are all fairly small estates.\nAs I understand that are represented by these particular plaintiffs and the actual disposition that would be made with relation to a claimant, they went back into the Surrogate's Court would undoubtedly at this particular state is be favorable.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2428.877, 2444.069, 2469.168], "stop_times": [2444.069, 2469.168, 2470.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2428.877}, "reply_to": "15524__1_001", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_003", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "How do the complaint start, what was the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2470.511], "stop_times": [2474.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.511}, "reply_to": "15524__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_004", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The complaint alleged and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2474.097], "stop_times": [2475.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2474.097}, "reply_to": "15524__1_003", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_005", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "And what court was affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2475.523], "stop_times": [2477.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.523}, "reply_to": "15524__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_006", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The complaint was a complaint filed in the southern district of New York stating that the plaintiffs were nationals of Romania and specify that certain particular surrogates -- there are 62 counties in the New York state.\nAnd these are surrogates just in poor of the counties in the state of New York stated that this surrogates were withholding moneys of these beneficiaries -- these Romanian nationals who were resident in the Romania.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2477.574, 2494.825], "stop_times": [2494.825, 2514.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2477.574}, "reply_to": "15524__1_005", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_007", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Is it named who they were?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2514.91], "stop_times": [2517.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.91}, "reply_to": "15524__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_008", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "It named certain specified --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2517.103], "stop_times": [2520.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2517.103}, "reply_to": "15524__1_007", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_009", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Is it a genuine lawsuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2520.813], "stop_times": [2525.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.813}, "reply_to": "15524__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_010", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The -- yes, there are lawsuits pending to the extent that there are claims that have been filed with surrogates in Bronx county in New York county, Queen's county and King's county where funds have been withheld where they can still go back into these various surrogates -- before these various surrogates.\nActually, two of the surrogates that are named here are no longer serving in the particular offices which they held at the time by reason of the exploration of their terms.\nThe successors are paying out moneys and not only to the applicants from these countries, but I understand that one of them abused the Zschernig decision as the sufficient warrant to pay the pay moneys to certain of the countries which has to which fund is oblige.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2525.679, 2548.643, 2560.063], "stop_times": [2548.643, 2560.063, 2584.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2525.679}, "reply_to": "15524__1_009", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_011", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "What relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2584.098], "stop_times": [2585.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.098}, "reply_to": "15524__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_012", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Red China.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2585.551], "stop_times": [2586.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2585.551}, "reply_to": "15524__1_011", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_013", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Was asked for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2586.545], "stop_times": [2588.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.545}, "reply_to": "15524__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_014", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The relief that was asked before here was a declaratory judgment and injunction against the surrogates in forcing the statute of the state of New York which was then Section 269-(a) of the Surrogates Court Act and now as Section 2218 of the Surrogates Court Procedure Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2588.968], "stop_times": [2612.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2588.968}, "reply_to": "15524__1_013", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_015", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Did I understand you to say previously that some of the surrogates there were ordered and the money should be paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2612.823], "stop_times": [2620.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.823}, "reply_to": "15524__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_016", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Some of the surrogates are ordering the money to be paid and some of the surrogates were ordering the money to be paid that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2620.529], "stop_times": [2629.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2620.529}, "reply_to": "15524__1_015", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_017", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "What about these particular surrogates here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2629.503], "stop_times": [2634.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.503}, "reply_to": "15524__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_018", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, the -- as to the particular surrogates who were included in the -- as defendants here, the names Cox as a surrogate was no longer sitting, Duffey who was sitting, he is paid.\nSilver is no longer sitting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2634.395, 2648.879], "stop_times": [2648.879, 2650.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2634.395}, "reply_to": "15524__1_017", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_019", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "What did you say about that second one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2650.83], "stop_times": [2652.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.83}, "reply_to": "15524__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_020", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The second one, Judge Duffey though is making payments and directing transmissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2652.691], "stop_times": [2658.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2652.691}, "reply_to": "15524__1_019", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_021", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Such as requested by the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2658.185], "stop_times": [2659.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.185}, "reply_to": "15524__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_022", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Such as requested by this plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2659.388], "stop_times": [2661.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2659.388}, "reply_to": "15524__1_021", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_023", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Now, what about the third?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2661.532], "stop_times": [2664.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.532}, "reply_to": "15524__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_024", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Silver is no longer sitting, but he has successor Judge Soper --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2664.091], "stop_times": [2668.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2664.091}, "reply_to": "15524__1_023", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_025", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Silver is no longer sitting has he been changed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2668.339], "stop_times": [2671.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.339}, "reply_to": "15524__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_026", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "His term of office expired and he was succeeded by another surrogate.\nAnd then the successor surrogate has been paying, the money is not only to people who were like those represented here, but also paying them to the residence of countries of which are -- has to which funds oblige.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2671.686, 2676.927], "stop_times": [2676.927, 2697.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2671.686}, "reply_to": "15524__1_025", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_027", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "What about the fourth one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2697.148], "stop_times": [2699.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.148}, "reply_to": "15524__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_028", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Surrogate McGrath is awaiting the decision of this Court with relation to the constitutionality, but in the meantime, he is paying the amounts out in to Romanian representatives in small amounts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2699.418], "stop_times": [2730.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2699.418}, "reply_to": "15524__1_027", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_029", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Mr. Cohen, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2730.605], "stop_times": [2736.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.605}, "reply_to": "15524__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15524__1_030", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "The Attorney General is not familiar with the decision which was called your attention by Mr. Vintilla and his argument.\nBut, I have called his attention, a law review article which is about to be published in my Baylor University, School of Law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2736.536, 2749.88], "stop_times": [2749.88, 2767.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2736.536}, "reply_to": "15524__1_029", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_031", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "So it's about to be published?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2767.349], "stop_times": [2768.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.349}, "reply_to": "15524__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15524__1_032", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes, I -- shortly after I completed my brief and had at file for this Court, I received a copy of the letter from an Assistant Professor Marian A. Farwell at Stetson University College of Law indicating that he had or become familiar with this case and have a strong interest in the final outcome thereof.\nAnd had prepared an LLM thesis for his studies at George Washington University Law School.\nNow, he sent me a copy in Xerox form which I have duplicated and which I have left with a clerk so that it will available for the court counsel for the appellants has received a copy of it.\nAnd I would like to just read a few sentences from the letter of transmission from Professor Farwell.\nI corresponded with counsel in most of the major cases decided prior to your case, the subject of the thesis is state probate laws alien heirs the Zschernig legacy.\nI corresponded with counsel and most of the major cases decided prior to your case including Mr. Vintilla with other law professors concerned with the problem and was able to get some information from the various agencies involved when there was in Washington.\nThese research in my opinion has turned up some interesting question about Zschernig against Miller its firm applications and which to the best my knowledge have not been considered by the court of any of the accommodations who have commented on the problem.\nIt's my hope the court will not extend Zschernig to the point where there will be required to hold the New York's Statute and similar ones to be unconstitutional per se.\nI have the taken the liberty of volunteering this thesis in a hope that you may find that to some use in the Goldstein case.\nMy interest in the case is string and I am hopeful that the court will affirm the lower court's decision.\nSo have an -- I wish you success etcetera.\nThe reasons as I particularly want to have this thesis by a law professor before you is that in fact most of the testimony that has been adduced in various proceedings in the New York Surrogates Court and recent years has not been ambassadors or representatives of foreign government.\nBut, the testimony has been there of a Professor Meyer of Harvard Law School who has been testifying on the basis of the fee of $500 per day for testimony to show that in these various iron curtain countries.\nThe persons who were named as beneficiaries will actually receive the used benefit in control of the legacies which are involved.\nNow, the purpose of the New York statute is not what the plaintiffs have stated that to be.\nThe statute used benefit control to something design to see to what the persons who were named and will persons who have a natural objects of bounty who would get distributives shares under the New York distributions statute will actually receive their legacies or the distributive shares.\nThe statute on its face contains no language, which might be considered any sort of animate version.\nI think that the thesis which is submitted by Professor Farwell will indicate probably a response to the Chief Judge's question.\nMany statutes which deal which deal with problems of foreign law or raggedly treated by our courts, that they're treated in a way which does not require any eminent version, doesn't require any interference with foreign relations.\nThat it is not necessary for the disposition of this sort of case to bring in a foreign consul and to place him in a disparaging position.\nWe were prepared to show that even before the decision in the Zschernig case, that various surrogates throughout the state had upon appropriate testimony directed distribution of shares where the records in the cases before them warranted such disposition.\nIn my 1967 brief before this Court in opposition to the petition for cert which was filed by the plaintiffs here.\nI cited the Sidla case.\nIn that case, money had been withheld amend despite my argument in the third department for the situation does not the third department of New York Court System that the testimony was still substantially of the same was have been originally at use before the surrogate.\nThe appellate division and the third department directed transmission.\nThe moneys involved there where Hungarian moneys, but the situation has no different from that involved in this Romanian case.\nNow, we believe that New York just like in other litigant before this Court is entitled to due process.\nReversal of this decision would place New York where in a situation where it had not actually been granted the hearing as to how its statute was being administered.\nWith relation to remarks that are made by or have been made by certain of the surrogates or to have -- are alleged to have been made by the surrogates that might have been disparaging.\nI might say this, this Court has sustained to also of other attempts at the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of press.\nIt seems to me that surrogates of our courts if they go beyond their duties in no worst position then individuals who seek to state their own opinions with relation to matters that may affect public policy.\nHowever, the statute which you have is a statute which deals with the transmission of private funds.\nIt does not in anyway contradict the state department arrangements with Romania which deal simply with the transmission of public funds.\nIn answer of the question that was addressed to appellant's counsel as to whether there has been any state department expression.\nI have a next essay and appendix to my brief, a letter which was written to counsel for the amicus curiae in this case which states that since the administration of a state is not a federal function.\nThe remittance of inheritances to far and beneficiaries including those in the Soviet Union, that was the country as to which the question was addressed does not normally come to the attention of this department.\nThe department of state is therefore not make position to know or to make judgment on the basis for the small member of cases that which the department has become aware in which Soviet as I believe to receive benefit from the remittances of the state shares where the funds sent to persons resident.\nIn the Soviet Union from the United States are generally received by them and fully available and then for use in benefit.\nThis letter was dated June 1968.\nNow, the Attorney General respectfully submits upon the record in this case dealing solely with the question of whether summary judgment should've been granted or denied that summary judgment was properly denied.\nAnd that this Court need not at this time pass upon the question is to what would happen if the federal government through its Congress determine to pass a law which prohibited this type of state's statute.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [2768.772, 2798.841, 2818.229, 2838.709, 2847.144, 2861.724, 2876.545, 2892.364, 2908.162, 2915.832, 2921.541, 2924.692, 2954.754, 2971.747, 2982.683, 2990.846, 3014.396, 3023.141, 3035.306, 3051.904, 3064.809, 3085.664, 3094.996, 3097.289, 3118.193, 3123.231, 3131.809, 3139.706, 3153.009, 3166.856, 3177.413, 3200.318, 3209.839, 3226.492, 3234.56, 3251.084, 3264.388, 3282.132, 3289.849, 3294.196, 3312.557, 3333.105], "stop_times": [2798.841, 2818.229, 2838.709, 2847.144, 2861.724, 2876.545, 2892.364, 2908.162, 2915.832, 2921.541, 2924.692, 2954.754, 2971.747, 2982.683, 2990.846, 3014.396, 3023.141, 3035.306, 3051.904, 3064.809, 3085.664, 3094.996, 3097.289, 3118.193, 3123.231, 3131.809, 3139.706, 3153.009, 3166.856, 3177.413, 3200.318, 3209.839, 3226.492, 3234.56, 3251.084, 3264.388, 3282.132, 3289.849, 3294.196, 3312.557, 3333.105, 3333.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2768.772}, "reply_to": "15524__1_031", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_033", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "As you submit the case the question before us is fairly narrow as I --whether or not the court -- the three-judge District Court was in error in failing and refusing the grant of summary judgment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3333.664], "stop_times": [3350.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.664}, "reply_to": "15524__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__1_034", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3350.647], "stop_times": [3350.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3350.647}, "reply_to": "15524__1_033", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_035", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "At the behest to the plaintiff, that's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3350.973], "stop_times": [3353.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3350.973}, "reply_to": "15524__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__1_036", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "That's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3353.466], "stop_times": [3353.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3353.466}, "reply_to": "15524__1_035", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_037", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "That's a narrow issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3353.682], "stop_times": [3355.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.682}, "reply_to": "15524__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15524__1_038", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "You know in narrow issue and I don't think it's necessary to pass upon any other question at this stage of this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3355.048], "stop_times": [3362.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3355.048}, "reply_to": "15524__1_037", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_039", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "But the -- such as whether the statute showed on that the invalidate on its face?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3362.048], "stop_times": [3371.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.048}, "reply_to": "15524__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15524__1_040", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, it seems to me that the prior decisions in this case including the remission of this case to the District to the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3371.583], "stop_times": [3385.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3371.583}, "reply_to": "15524__1_039", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_041", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Well, if the -- but if the -- if this statute were invalid on its face, there wouldn't be any need for a trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3385.083], "stop_times": [3394.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.083}, "reply_to": "15524__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15524__1_042", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes Your Honor, you're right about that.\nI would again need that file.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3394.309, 3395.905], "stop_times": [3395.905, 3397.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3394.309}, "reply_to": "15524__1_041", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_043", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "And you simply assert to that in Zschernig it's an application question rather than a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3397.687], "stop_times": [3403.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.687}, "reply_to": "15524__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15524__1_044", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3403.058], "stop_times": [3403.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3403.058}, "reply_to": "15524__1_043", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_045", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "As a matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3403.873], "stop_times": [3405.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.873}, "reply_to": "15524__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15524__1_046", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "As the opinion was written in Zschernig by Mr. Justice Douglas, he indicated that when Clock against Allen as before this Court -- the only question that was before the Court in Clock against Allen just whether the statute that involved in that case was a statute with one valid on its face and it didn't have before the question of application of that statute.\nAnd it seems to me that as the opinion is written, the opinion rests primarily with relation to the misapplication of the statute upon various law review articles which indicate such misapplication.\nNow, that those law review articles including the one which was written by Mr. Meyer are not the product of our judicial system where you get into court and try a case and where you find out what actually happened.\nThe man who wrote -- I said Meyer, I meant Mr. Berman.\nThe Berman articles are written by somebody who has been testifying at the rate of $500 per day as an expert witness to sustain that position that has been put for in these various cases by iron curtain claimants.\nNow, we believe that we are entitled to an opportunity not only to test Mr. Berman's testimony upon a trial but possibly has followed a job as Mr. Justice Douglas did in analyzing the law review articles at that time that perhaps Mr. Justice Harlan did his homework better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3405.408, 3432.887, 3450.569, 3469.498, 3474.369, 3491.108], "stop_times": [3432.887, 3450.569, 3469.498, 3474.369, 3491.108, 3518.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3405.408}, "reply_to": "15524__1_045", "speaker": "daniel_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15524__1_047", "conversation_id": "15524", "text": "Thank you Mr. Cohen.\nThe case is submitted.\nThank you for submission gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_66", "start_times": [3518.321, 3519.168, 3520.226], "stop_times": [3519.168, 3520.226, 3521.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3518.321}, "reply_to": "15524__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_000", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing against Bresler.\nMr. Chasanow, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [0.0, 10.605], "stop_times": [10.605, 17.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_001", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe petitioners in this case contend that the evidence is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment and as a basis for that contention, they refer to three of the 45 exhibits which were introduced by the respondent which the trial court instructed the jury it was to consider and which it did in fact consider.\nNow, some of those exhibits are contained in the printed record, others which are not as important as the major exhibits are in the transcript.\nBut the Court of Appeals specifically made mention of the fact that in addition to the publications that Mr. Bresler had committed blackmail, there were publications that he had engaged in an unethical trade, had been guilty of skullduggery, had had legal proceedings started against him for failure to make construction, corrections in accordance with county standards.\nThese allegations were injurious to Mr. Bresler and his business as a contractor and were libelous per se.\nThe Court had also previously referred in its opinion to another article which was published prior to the three foregoing articles.\nOn April 22, 1965, before the blackmail articles and before Mr. Bresler became a candidate for comptroller and that was headlined, City Battles Bresler on Two Fronts.\nThere was a sub caption court suit, it was written by petitioner Skolnick and it falsely alleged that the city and Bresler will also be at odds this week when the suit filed by the city against Ivy Homes, Inc. and Boxwood Village Inc. comes before the Circuit Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [17.254, 24.72, 59.212, 72.145, 96.608, 104.372, 115.67, 129.092], "stop_times": [24.72, 59.212, 72.145, 96.608, 104.372, 115.67, 129.092, 147.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 17.254}, "reply_to": "15092__0_000", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_002", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Do you think the disparities are characterized [Inaudible] rather than that the Court of Appeals to think that Bresler [Inaudible] charged with the blackmail charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [147.723], "stop_times": [162.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.723}, "reply_to": "15092__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15092__0_003", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No, Your Honor, we do agree --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [162.339], "stop_times": [163.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 162.339}, "reply_to": "15092__0_002", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_004", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "The evidence is all the way through it with some of these other matters because as I read the opinion, the essence of it was the blackmail charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [163.957], "stop_times": [172.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.957}, "reply_to": "15092__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15092__0_005", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "We do not dispute the fact that this was the principle charge but I'd like to point out that in the second blackmail article for example, there was the word skullduggery and when the -- Mr. Skolnick was asked on the stand about the word skullduggery, he said, this is the word that the reporter used in the article.\nWhen the reporter testified for the petitioners, she said, I did not use that word, that was inserted and as frequently happens.\nNow this was a change and this was what the Court of Appeals also said was intended to impute dishonesty on the part of Bresler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [172.778, 192.456, 206.453], "stop_times": [192.456, 206.453, 216.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 172.778}, "reply_to": "15092__0_004", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_006", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What did the trial court refer to in instructions to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [216.948], "stop_times": [222.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.948}, "reply_to": "15092__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_007", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "The trial court specifically said of course that the jury should consider all of the articles in evidence and also instructed the jury that it was to consider the entire context.\nNow, I emphasize that because one of their principle arguments says that the word blackmail was taken out of context and it didn't mean what it said.\nWell, first, they had taken it out of context but publishing it as a caption in the first article.\nSecondly, the reporters both said that they had not published all of their notes concerning the meeting but that they had used the word blackmail.\nThe second reporter, the reporter who wrote the second article said, I selected out the word blackmail to show it was Mr. Herling's word.\nBut she said, I didn't use all my notes and when I asked her why she selected out the word, she said, well, it had been used, the word the week before and I felt it was proper to use it again in the article.\nThe Court of Appeals makes one other important point and that is that these people --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [222.823, 239.854, 251.524, 258.89, 267.793, 278.063, 289.732], "stop_times": [239.854, 251.524, 258.89, 267.793, 278.063, 289.732, 293.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 222.823}, "reply_to": "15092__0_006", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_008", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yeah!\nBut I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [293.359, 293.474], "stop_times": [293.474, 294.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.359}, "reply_to": "15092__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_009", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I'm sorry sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [294.454], "stop_times": [295.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 294.454}, "reply_to": "15092__0_008", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_010", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Did the Trial Court refer specifically to some document?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [295.206], "stop_times": [299.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.206}, "reply_to": "15092__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15092__0_011", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Oh!\nYes.\nThe second blackmail article, exhibit 2 in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [299.868, 300.005, 301.389], "stop_times": [300.005, 301.389, 306.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 299.868}, "reply_to": "15092__0_010", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_012", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [306.181], "stop_times": [307.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.181}, "reply_to": "15092__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_013", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "It referred to the blackmail article -- well, actually the Court said, it was not going to comment particularly on the facts but just briefly said what the -- what some of the witnesses said, but it didn't go into detail on the facts itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [307.741], "stop_times": [324.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 307.741}, "reply_to": "15092__0_012", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_014", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "They just and in its instruction to the jury as far as any particular document is concerned, it only referred to the blackmail article?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [324.204], "stop_times": [332.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.204}, "reply_to": "15092__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_015", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No sir, as a matter of fact, I don't recall that there was specific --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [332.524], "stop_times": [338.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 332.524}, "reply_to": "15092__0_014", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_016", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [338.024], "stop_times": [339.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.024}, "reply_to": "15092__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_017", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I'm sorry sir.\nThe Court of Appeals made one other point which is important to this issue.\nTo distinguish it from other articles, which are published by a newspaper in which intemperate statements are made.\nIt said that there -- this was not a disinterested or impartial publishing of a report of what was said at a public meeting and it pointed out that the people who had made the statement, there was a relationship between them.\nThe Court said specifically -- I'm sorry.\nOh!\nYes.\nThe Court repealed -- referred and I quote, \u201cThe close connection between the Skolnicks, Mrs. Bergemann, Mrs. Rosetti and Mr. Herling, those to whom the word blackmail was attributed, Mrs. Sucher and Mrs. Williamson who wrote the articles and Charles Schwan, the President of GHI and the principal opponent of Bresler on the high school and zoning issues.\nNow, I think it might be, well, at this point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [339.186, 342.05, 347.066, 355.939, 374.803, 393.111, 393.277, 394.907, 417.751], "stop_times": [342.05, 347.066, 355.939, 374.803, 393.111, 393.277, 394.907, 417.751, 420.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 339.186}, "reply_to": "15092__0_016", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_018", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Excuse me, Mr. Chasanow, may I ask?\nDo I understand that the respondent concedes that he had the burden of satisfying the New York Times test to get a recovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [420.778, 423.506], "stop_times": [423.506, 434.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.778}, "reply_to": "15092__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_019", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "We did concede that, Your Honor, I mean for a purpose to void and the Court of Appeals said, arguendo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [434.808], "stop_times": [440.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 434.808}, "reply_to": "15092__0_018", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_020", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, I'm asking, but the respondent does concede the judgment sustains only if it satisfied The Times standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [440.634], "stop_times": [449.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.634}, "reply_to": "15092__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_021", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "May I make an exception to that, Your Honor, I think that this question to public official which would -- has never been clearly defined is an important issue in this case in this respect that their only constitutional defense was that Bresler was a public official.\nThe evidence showed that at the time of the first two series of articles, Bresler was a member of the House of Delegates from Montgomery County, a different county, not Prince George's County.\nThere is no mention in any of the 45 exhibits that Bresler was a member of the House of Delegates and none of the articles pertained in any way to his official conduct which is emphasized in New York Times versus Sullivan.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [449.204, 468.81, 482.341, 498.221], "stop_times": [468.81, 482.341, 498.221, 498.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 449.204}, "reply_to": "15092__0_020", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_022", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What difference would that make, Mr. Chasanow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [498.45], "stop_times": [500.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.45}, "reply_to": "15092__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_023", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [500.348], "stop_times": [500.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 500.348}, "reply_to": "15092__0_022", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_024", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "-- if he is a public official?\nMust they identify him each time by his office in order to bring themselves under the Times and Sullivan rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [500.92, 503.639], "stop_times": [503.639, 512.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.92}, "reply_to": "15092__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_025", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No sir, I say this because normally, reference is made to official conduct which has to identify the official.\nThis case has nothing to do with official conduct and they didn't even think that they were -- there was any privilege attached to the fact that he was a public official because they didn't mention it.\nEven the article was a published fact that it was going to be announced that he was to run for state comptroller, that governor, later Vice President Agnew had asked him to run.\nIn that article, there was no mention of the fact that he was a member of the House of Delegates.\nIt had nothing to do with this case.\nWe say they are using this just as a cloak in order to say he was fair game because he happened to be a member of the House of Delegates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [512.125, 520.023, 530.298, 542.434, 546.273, 548.467], "stop_times": [520.023, 530.298, 542.434, 546.273, 548.467, 556.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 512.125}, "reply_to": "15092__0_024", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_026", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well reading the -- what I must confess a rather confusing instructions of the trial judge particularly on two occasions as I read it, the jury was called back and given rather explicit instructions as I understand it quoting verbatim not only from Sullivan but also from Garrison and from Rosenblatt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [556.41], "stop_times": [578.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.41}, "reply_to": "15092__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_027", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [578.438], "stop_times": [579.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 578.438}, "reply_to": "15092__0_026", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_028", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "And that's why I asked you how -- this case certainly was tried wasn't it, on the premise that the respondent recovered only if he satisfied the Times malice test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [579.468], "stop_times": [589.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.468}, "reply_to": "15092__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_029", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes, sir, that was the specific instruction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [589.692], "stop_times": [591.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 589.692}, "reply_to": "15092__0_028", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_030", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "And are we then to regard that the issues that we have to decide as on the premise that this is a case within the Times-Sullivan requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [591.437], "stop_times": [605.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.437}, "reply_to": "15092__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_031", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes, if Your Honor will draw the distinction, Mr. Justice Brennan, between the Sullivan case and I'd like to point that in my brief, I have indicated there are numerous exceptions.\nOne I'd like to mention particularly, in Mr. Justice Black's dissenting opinion, in the Butts case, he referred -- I'm sorry, New York Times rather, concurring opinion -- a separate concurring opinion, he referred to New York Times as an outside agitator.\nIn the posture of the case, here was the New York Times facing a hostile and prejudiced community which -- in which they could hardly hope for a fair trial.\nThe respondent in that case, Commissioner Sullivan was a resident of Montgomery County, he was tried by a jury composed of residents of Montgomery County.\nHe was attacking this foreign newspaper which was coming in and trying to tell them what to do.\nWe have actually the inverse situation in this case.\nMr. Bresler was the foreigner, he was the outsider.\nHe was coming into Greenbelt.\nNow, in order to put this case in proper perspective, I'd like to mention one thing that the Court of Appeals noted.\nThe respondent -- the petitioner Skolnick was a member of this organization identified as GHI Greenbelt Homes which had once owned the land in controversy plus some 300 acres more.\nThe federal government had sold that land together with the house in Greenbelt to this corporation and said, \u201cWe want you to control the development around it.\nSo we're selling you this land at a low price.\u201d\nInstead of developing it, they took a quick profit, they sold it.\nThen they realized that they might have made a mistake that somebody else was making the profits that they might have made and then stepping in the first blackmail article, one of the councilmen said, and he was a member of GHI, how much profit is he going to make?\nThis was a burning question.\nThe other was that Mr. Bresler and his associate had plans which were interfering with their own plans, for example on this matter of the townhouses.\nParcels one and two were adjacent to Greenbelt homes property.\nThey were fighting, the townhouses on that -- those parcels because the fact, they were going to build their own townhouse.\nAs a matter of fact, they've built there as in Bresler hasn't built a single townhouse on parcel one and two.\nThen also, they were going to tell the school board where to put the school.\nNow, the school board planned a high school and two other schools and they said, we don't want the high school next door.\nWe want you to build a high school on parcel 15 which was remote and much more expensive which was next to the beltway which was undesirable for a number of reasons and even filed suit against the school board to prevent them from building the school on parcels one and two.\nThey were also saying to the Park and Planning Commission which was the official professional planning organization for the entire county, we don't want you to zone this property for townhouses.\nNow, they were trying to dictate even though they had once owned and controlled this property, they were trying to dictate how this property was going to be developed and this is a conflict.\nThese were amateur planners who were trying to tell the professionals what to do.\nI think that in order to recognize the posture of this case, let me jump to the articles which start with the announcement that Mr. Bresler was going to run for comptroller.\nI had not realized until recently --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [605.94, 617.357, 638.382, 648.76, 659.347, 664.572, 668.299, 671.925, 674.53, 680.571, 695.343, 703.939, 706.732, 712.013, 725.65, 727.38, 738.325, 742.031, 750.323, 755.873, 760.936, 768.738, 786.554, 801.934, 812.355, 817.4, 829.934], "stop_times": [617.357, 638.382, 648.76, 659.347, 664.572, 668.299, 671.925, 674.53, 680.571, 695.343, 703.939, 706.732, 712.013, 725.65, 727.38, 738.325, 742.031, 750.323, 755.873, 760.936, 768.738, 786.554, 801.934, 812.355, 817.4, 829.934, 831.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 605.94}, "reply_to": "15092__0_030", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_032", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "It is hard to escape the impact of New York Times, that you have to show that Mr. Bresler was neither a republic official nor a public figure, the later by virtue -- the majority in Butts [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [831.453], "stop_times": [851.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.453}, "reply_to": "15092__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15092__0_033", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well this -- well, let me say this, we had felt that actually Butts was a dominating case because we felt that he was not really a public official at least as it had been previously defined in other cases by this Court.\nHe didn't come within any categories of St. Amant or a commissioner as in New York Times or deputy sheriff or any of the other categories and this Court has specifically said that we're not saying how far we're going to go and we certainly won't go all the way down the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [851.971, 870.006], "stop_times": [870.006, 888.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 851.971}, "reply_to": "15092__0_032", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_034", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What about General Walker in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [888.378], "stop_times": [890.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.378}, "reply_to": "15092__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_035", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "As a public figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [890.878], "stop_times": [892.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 890.878}, "reply_to": "15092__0_034", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_036", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [892.201], "stop_times": [892.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.201}, "reply_to": "15092__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_037", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, General Walker was a nationally known figure, no question of this.\nThe Court of Appeals, they couldn't comment it, that they would not have found Bresler to be a public figure.\nNow, I'd like to make this clear.\nWe did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [892.655, 896.832, 901.882, 903.593], "stop_times": [896.832, 901.882, 903.593, 903.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 892.655}, "reply_to": "15092__0_036", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_038", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What?\nWhat was that?\nThe Court if Appeals --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [903.756, 903.895, 905.125], "stop_times": [903.895, 905.125, 905.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.756}, "reply_to": "15092__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_039", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "The Court of Appeals said that they would not have found Bresler to be either a public official or a public figure but they said arguendo since the trial court had instructed the jury on the basis of both public official and public figure that the question is really academic.\nBut, Mr. Bresler --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [905.467, 926.636], "stop_times": [926.636, 928.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 905.467}, "reply_to": "15092__0_038", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_040", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, are you arguing here -- you're arguing here then that even if these instructions don't pass muster under New York Times or even if the evidence is insufficient to prove malice under New York Times that you're nevertheless home free on a non-New York Times basis because this isn't a New York Times case, is that your position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [928.395], "stop_times": [953.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.395}, "reply_to": "15092__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_041", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I think that would be one aspect in view of the fact that there are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [953.234], "stop_times": [957.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 953.234}, "reply_to": "15092__0_040", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_042", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, if it's not a New York Times case, then actually that principle doesn't apply and is there anything that this Court's ever said what the federal constitution does about a state's libel action?\nIf he's not either a public official or a public figure, why is the case here at all", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [957.977, 975.165], "stop_times": [975.165, 980.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.977}, "reply_to": "15092__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_043", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, that's a question I asked.\nNow, let me say this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [980.424, 982.689], "stop_times": [982.689, 984.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 980.424}, "reply_to": "15092__0_042", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_044", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Are you asserting here that -- you don't concede here then I take it that this isn't -- that this gentleman was a -- was either a public figure or a public official?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [984.38], "stop_times": [997.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 984.38}, "reply_to": "15092__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_045", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "He was a public figure in Greenbelt because the newspaper made him one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [997.13], "stop_times": [1001.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 997.13}, "reply_to": "15092__0_044", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_046", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, then do you concede that the New York Times rules apply to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1001.043], "stop_times": [1005.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.043}, "reply_to": "15092__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_047", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I don't think it would apply to this entire case Mr. Justice White for this reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1005.598], "stop_times": [1009.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1005.598}, "reply_to": "15092__0_046", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_048", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, it's only one case, one figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1009.73], "stop_times": [1011.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.73}, "reply_to": "15092__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_049", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes sir.\nBut I'm saying that there are some of these libels which had no application whatsoever to as -- his activities as a public figure.\nFor example, the accusations that there had been suits filed against him for violation of county building standards.\nThis had nothing -- this was a private enterprise, this had nothing to do with the public issue with -- which they were emphasizing land and zoning and we think that it would be carrying the public figure concept too far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1011.201, 1012.016, 1023.068, 1033.814], "stop_times": [1012.016, 1023.068, 1033.814, 1048.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1011.201}, "reply_to": "15092__0_048", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_050", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What about skullduggery and blackmail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1048.876], "stop_times": [1053.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.876}, "reply_to": "15092__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_051", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Again, we don't think that those would apply.\nWe think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1053.615, 1057.056], "stop_times": [1057.056, 1058.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1053.615}, "reply_to": "15092__0_050", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_052", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, then you say that New York Times has no relevance to this case here?\nThere's no applicability to this case, they don't -- if it doesn't apply to that, that those statements about this gentleman, you're saying that he just isn't a -- either a public figure or a public official.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1058.141, 1063.829], "stop_times": [1063.829, 1076.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.141}, "reply_to": "15092__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_053", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I don't think New York Times does apply.\nI think that if there's any application it might be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1076.339, 1078.351], "stop_times": [1078.351, 1081.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1076.339}, "reply_to": "15092__0_052", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_054", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "But you certainly made no objection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1081.43], "stop_times": [1083.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.43}, "reply_to": "15092__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_055", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1083.562], "stop_times": [1083.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1083.562}, "reply_to": "15092__0_054", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_056", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "-- as I read the instructions correctly.\nI think you were party weren't you, you tried this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1083.898, 1086.718], "stop_times": [1086.718, 1089.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.898}, "reply_to": "15092__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_057", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes sir.\nAs a matter of fact I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1089.499, 1089.808], "stop_times": [1089.808, 1090.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1089.499}, "reply_to": "15092__0_056", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_058", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "And you were party to those supplemental instructions which I mentioned to you earlier that borrowed in terms from the New York Times a series of cases to instruct the jury, not only didn't object to it but as I understand it, you participated in that, didn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1090.25], "stop_times": [1108.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.25}, "reply_to": "15092__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__0_059", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes sir because we wanted the case to go to the jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1108.773], "stop_times": [1111.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1108.773}, "reply_to": "15092__0_058", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_060", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Then, how can you tell us now that this case doesn't involve the application of New York Times principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1111.902], "stop_times": [1119.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.902}, "reply_to": "15092__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_061", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I was in effect assuming arguendo because I wanted the instructions of the jury to be as broad as possible.\nI did not want any decision to rest on any narrow definition and the Court of Appeals said the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1119.034, 1125.428], "stop_times": [1125.428, 1133.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1119.034}, "reply_to": "15092__0_060", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_062", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, you do now though apparently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1133.286], "stop_times": [1135.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.286}, "reply_to": "15092__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_063", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1135.11], "stop_times": [1136.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1135.11}, "reply_to": "15092__0_062", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_064", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "You would like to now though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1136.141], "stop_times": [1141.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.141}, "reply_to": "15092__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_065", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Only insofar as this Court itself has narrowed.\nFor example, in New York Times, the Court said about eight times that this referred to the official conduct of a public official.\nThen -- there's nothing to do with the official conduct of Mr. Bresler.\nSo we say if New York Times applies, then perhaps, it's just as Goldberg's statement which says it doesn't apply to the private activities of a public official.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1141.719, 1144.877, 1156.83, 1160.034], "stop_times": [1144.877, 1156.83, 1160.034, 1169.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1141.719}, "reply_to": "15092__0_064", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_066", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, now you say he is a public figure in Greenbelt and he wasn't at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1169.993], "stop_times": [1177.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.993}, "reply_to": "15092__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_067", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes, sir, we couldn't, we couldn't deny it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1177.264], "stop_times": [1177.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1177.264}, "reply_to": "15092__0_066", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_068", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "And in what respect was he a public figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1177.91], "stop_times": [1180.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.91}, "reply_to": "15092__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_069", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "The fact that they had made him one, as one who was participating -- well, I'd have to go back to 1934 -- I mean, 60 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1180.493], "stop_times": [1187.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1180.493}, "reply_to": "15092__0_068", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_070", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, I would suppose that these are -- some of these allegations are certainly related to whatever it was that made him a public figure, namely his activities in the construction business and his relationships with the county board.\nThat's what made him a public figure.\nWeren't these allegations relate to his -- the conduct of his business with the county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1187.837, 1204.135, 1206.162], "stop_times": [1204.135, 1206.162, 1211.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.837}, "reply_to": "15092__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__0_071", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No sir, I think I could point out more clearly what made him a public figure.\nIn 1964 on May 7 when there was some dispute, some discussion of the council, the News Review published a report that the council and the audience decided it made much more sense to it, stop attacking each other and concentrate on a common target, Bresler who wasn't there and that was when they decided that they had to have a scapegoat because Bresler only owned a minority interest in these properties.\nHe was not the major owner.\nThere were others who owned more of an interest than he, but they had to have a name and his was a name that was selected.\nThey were -- this was followed up by the group sponsored by Greenbelt Homes.\nMr. Schwan who was president, in which they announced on April, 8, 1965 that the saved Greenbelt Group gets its officers a name CFPG and they formed this organization with Mr. Schwan with Mayor Smith with Albert Herling who made one of the blackmail accusations with Mrs. Skolnick and then on April, 22, they announced not only a citizenship assistant wide -- a citywide membership drive but had an article, City Battles Bresler on Two Fronts.\nHe was singled out by the News Review and that was when they made the false allegation with the subtitle court suit that the city and Bresler will be at odds.\nNow, Bresler was not a defendant in that case and they knew it.\nEven later, on May, 6, after there had been a hearing and after the Court had issued an order against Ivy Homes, Inc. in which Bresler had no interest whatsoever, this was what the News Review said, \u201cAt a hearing held two weeks ago, a court order was issued to the builders of Boxwood, another Bresler development.\u201d\nBresler had nothing to do with that development to which the court urged, but they wanted to feature his name.\nThe exhibit showed that they constantly featured his name.\nThis is like the man who pleaded for leniency on the ground that he was an orphan after he had shot his parents.\nThey had made him a public figure and they were using this.\nThey were using the public official defense even though they knew that there was no relation and there was no mention in the articles.\nBut getting through the time when they announced Charles Bresler to run for state comptroller on June, 9, 1966, and this is where we get into the question of malice.\nNow, they point out that this lawsuit that was filed about Mr. Bresler was subsequent, it had nothing to do.\nBut taking the chronology --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1211.891, 1216.389, 1247.62, 1250.302, 1257.884, 1266.83, 1302.789, 1312.561, 1316.556, 1339.11, 1344.914, 1347.887, 1356.076, 1360.371, 1368.642, 1380.057, 1387.257], "stop_times": [1216.389, 1247.62, 1250.302, 1257.884, 1266.83, 1302.789, 1312.561, 1316.556, 1339.11, 1344.914, 1347.887, 1356.076, 1360.371, 1368.642, 1380.057, 1387.257, 1388.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1211.891}, "reply_to": "15092__0_070", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_072", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Is this -- he was charged from your standpoint you just made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1388.201], "stop_times": [1390.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.201}, "reply_to": "15092__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15092__0_073", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I'm sorry sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1390.995], "stop_times": [1392.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1390.995}, "reply_to": "15092__0_072", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_074", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Is this the charge to which you referring to[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1392.62], "stop_times": [1396.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.62}, "reply_to": "15092__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15092__0_075", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No this was after the blackmail charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1396.815], "stop_times": [1398.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1396.815}, "reply_to": "15092__0_074", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_076", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1398.985], "stop_times": [1399.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.985}, "reply_to": "15092__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15092__0_077", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "After the blackmail charge, there were other defamations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1399.625], "stop_times": [1403.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1399.625}, "reply_to": "15092__0_076", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_078", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Which one do you consider was the worst?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1403.988], "stop_times": [1406.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.988}, "reply_to": "15092__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15092__0_079", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "We consider that the blackmail, skullduggery, false reports of lawsuits for violation of building standards which damaged him as a builder, those were probably the most serious.\nThere were other articles about possible corrupt influence on the school board in which his name was mentioned in connection with the suit against the school board.\nHe was not a party to the case but they mentioned -- they featured his name.\nIt's hard to say which draw broke the camel's back but we thought there was an accumulation which certainly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1406.79, 1424.556, 1433.462, 1437.887], "stop_times": [1424.556, 1433.462, 1437.887, 1443.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1406.79}, "reply_to": "15092__0_078", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_080", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Are you sure that the accumulation broke its back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1443.932], "stop_times": [1447.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.932}, "reply_to": "15092__0_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15092__0_081", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "It certainly made him the most hated man in Greenbelt.\nI don't think there'd be any dispute about that and we think that the accumulative effect of these articles, even those which were not necessarily libelous per se, which were intended to and did in fact damage him, but describe it to indicate the process.\nThey announced he was going to run for state comptroller on June 9 and that's when they have the article which had several false statements and this time, in that article, he was identified as a builder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1447.443, 1451.791, 1473.259], "stop_times": [1451.791, 1473.259, 1483.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1447.443}, "reply_to": "15092__0_080", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_082", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "As a what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1483.374], "stop_times": [1484.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.374}, "reply_to": "15092__0_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15092__0_083", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "As a builder.\nNot to mentioned as a member of the House of Delegates, but as a developer and builder.\nIt said he is currently faced with a series of legal actions instituted by the city of Greenbelt and referred to this suit which had been dismissed almost a year before and then also that false report that a number of homeowners in Lake Crescent Parks with developed and started legal proceedings against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1484.101, 1486.116, 1492.302], "stop_times": [1486.116, 1492.302, 1511.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1484.101}, "reply_to": "15092__0_082", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_084", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, if they had said in the article builder and prominent political figure or builder and political leader, would then -- you'd have no objection to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1511.38], "stop_times": [1521.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.38}, "reply_to": "15092__0_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_085", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No sir.\nI don't believe that it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1521.19, 1521.725], "stop_times": [1521.725, 1523.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1521.19}, "reply_to": "15092__0_084", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_086", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "If they did, if they did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1523.855], "stop_times": [1525.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.855}, "reply_to": "15092__0_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_087", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Oh, I'm sorry sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1525.543], "stop_times": [1526.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1525.543}, "reply_to": "15092__0_086", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_088", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "You seem to be making a point of their omission of his political affiliations.\nIf they said builder and political figure, builder and political leader, builder and member of the House of Delegates or whatever he is called there, would that make it alright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1526.376, 1532.094], "stop_times": [1532.094, 1547.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.376}, "reply_to": "15092__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_089", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "It not -- would not be the governing factor but I think it would at least if they were saying we have the right to criticize a candidate for office, there certainly might be some reference to the fact that he does hold the political office.\nIf there was a question he was qualified for that office, may be there should be some question about it but we don't contend this is a major premise.\nWe merely wanted to point out that this was damaging as we alleged to his reputation as a builder, his violation of county building standards had nothing to do with any public issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1547.961, 1564.124, 1571.461], "stop_times": [1564.124, 1571.461, 1581.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1547.961}, "reply_to": "15092__0_088", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_090", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, suppose the governor for example coming to the end of a session of legislature announces publicly, a speech or something that if the legislature doesn't do certain things, he's going to call him back in a special session.\nThen some member of the legislature makes some statement to the press that the governor is engaging in blackmail against -- do you think that's libelous per se?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1581.702, 1595.965], "stop_times": [1595.965, 1608.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.702}, "reply_to": "15092__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__0_091", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No, sir, I think there is a difference though.\nThere had been articles published about the time.\nThere still are, there was one in this morning about bribe -- relating to bribery on zoning in Prince George, this had been a burning issue in Prince George's County and Virginia.\nThe people in Greenbelt were very aware of this.\nNow, to them, the fact that somebody was threatening to prevent the building of a school, I would think would be much more serious than just bribing some official with a couple hundred dollars.\nThe jury obviously felt that they intended to accuse him of blackmail.\nAs a matter of fact, Mrs. Skolnick when asked, did you believe that -- or did you intend to accuse him of blackmail or did you think that the article -- that the statements were intended to accuse him of blackmail were proper, she said yes, in the context of the meeting they were proper.\nThere was no question that they intended to defame him.\nThese were not someone whom the News Review was reporting, these were their own people making these statements so the News Review could publish them and it was intended to inflame the people to the point where they felt he had committed a crime.\nI certainly think that anyone who would stop the building of a school would be verging on something criminal particularly when they themselves in their brief mention coerced and threatened.\nThis is what the general public feels, this blackmail, coercion and threats.\nI think the whole posture of the case that the fact that at that meeting, they read an inflammatory statement to begin with by Mr. Schwan and then the statements were made indicate the whole purpose was to cause these inflammatory statements to be made so they could publish them and republish them the following week when Mr. Herling was a member of that group, made the blackmail statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1608.092, 1610.762, 1613.345, 1623.462, 1625.798, 1637.95, 1641.193, 1662.282, 1664.765, 1679.366, 1693.203, 1700.305], "stop_times": [1610.762, 1613.345, 1623.462, 1625.798, 1637.95, 1641.193, 1662.282, 1664.765, 1679.366, 1693.203, 1700.305, 1720.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1608.092}, "reply_to": "15092__0_090", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_092", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Is it true that there was no evidence of pecuniary loss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1720.715], "stop_times": [1726.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.715}, "reply_to": "15092__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15092__0_093", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No, we did not claim any pecuniary loss because how can we prove that people would not buy any of the houses because he wasn't building according to county standards, there is no way of proving that Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1726.03], "stop_times": [1737.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1726.03}, "reply_to": "15092__0_092", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_094", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Did the jury gave 5000 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1737.319], "stop_times": [1739.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.319}, "reply_to": "15092__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15092__0_095", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes sir, they felt I'm sure that there had been pecuniary loss as well as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1739.41], "stop_times": [1744.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1739.41}, "reply_to": "15092__0_094", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_096", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, obviously the jury didn't agree with you that he'd been made out as the worst person in the county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1744.945], "stop_times": [1750.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.945}, "reply_to": "15092__0_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15092__0_097", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, I think they were conditioned by the statements made about this poor newspaper.\nI think that there might have been a lot greater, in fact, my discussion with a couple of jurors later indicated that it could have been a good deal more.\nI think the jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1750.951, 1754.795, 1764.417], "stop_times": [1754.795, 1764.417, 1765.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1750.951}, "reply_to": "15092__0_096", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_098", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Of course, your discussion with the jurors was not before us I hope?[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1765.168], "stop_times": [1770.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.168}, "reply_to": "15092__0_097", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15092__0_099", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I'm sorry sir, but I think that they tried to be temperate.\nI think it indicated that they did reach what they felt was a verdict fair to both sides.\nWe think that this whole pattern and I'm sorry that the exhibits are not in chronological order indicated that they were leading up to, as a matter of fact, the filing of the suit against Mr. Bresler which was an absolutely privileged action was followed shortly after the announcement of his candidacy and we felt that this whole pattern of announcement week after week with a combination of a suit and the misrepresentation as to the purpose of collecting the money for the suit was an indication that they had intended to damage him all the way through that this was a continuing action.\nWe think that obviously the jury was convinced that they intended to accuse him of blackmail and that is what a layman reading the article would have felt, particularly when there was no reason to publish the caption blackmail unless they wanted to invite attention to the fact that he had been accused of blackmail, that he was a criminal.\nI thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1770.832, 1774.052, 1783.618, 1825.743, 1850.944], "stop_times": [1774.052, 1783.618, 1825.743, 1850.944, 1851.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1770.832}, "reply_to": "15092__0_098", "speaker": "abraham_chasanow"}
{"id": "15092__0_100", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chasanow.\nMr. Clark, you have nine minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1851.416, 1853.588], "stop_times": [1853.588, 1856.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.416}, "reply_to": "15092__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__1_000", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI would just like to comment briefly on Justice White's question about the instructions.\nI think it's very clear from the instructions, Mr. Justice White that the trial court singled out only the blackmail article.\nIn fact, he referred to it three times in his instructions and did not refer to any of the other articles which the only other article --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1856.783, 1858.432, 1862.985, 1869.883], "stop_times": [1858.432, 1862.985, 1869.883, 1877.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1856.783}, "reply_to": "15092__0_100", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_001", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Except generally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1877.908], "stop_times": [1879.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.908}, "reply_to": "15092__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_002", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Except generally, the only other article that he relied on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1879.119], "stop_times": [1882.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1879.119}, "reply_to": "15092__1_001", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_003", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "He told the jury to consider all 45 exhibits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1882.187], "stop_times": [1885.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.187}, "reply_to": "15092__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_004", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1885.143], "stop_times": [1887.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1885.143}, "reply_to": "15092__1_003", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_005", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "[Voice Overlap] before the jury and so we have no idea what the jury thought was of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1887.596], "stop_times": [1892.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.596}, "reply_to": "15092__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15092__1_006", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I think that you -- from the -- reading the instructions though, you will see that the focus of the case, and so only the focus of the Court of Appeals' opinion is on the term blackmail and that was the -- you get that clearly from reading the joint extract, you get that clearly from reading the opinion of the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1892.972], "stop_times": [1912.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1892.972}, "reply_to": "15092__1_005", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_007", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Insofar as those two courts went but it was the jury that decided the factual issues and awarded the damages and there's just no way on earth to know what they might have felt was crucial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1912.609], "stop_times": [1922.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.609}, "reply_to": "15092__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15092__1_008", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's right Your Honor except that there's only one other article in issue about which there was evidence that it was factually inaccurate. Not just one about the homeowners' proceedings which is just a really piddling inaccuracy when you take it against the fact that they knew in the way they reported it.\nThis reference in the instructions to the blackmail I think is helpful in answering the question, the point that you made Mr. Justice Brennan about the explicit references to New York Times at the end of this -- at the end of the Court's instructions.\nThe Court instructed that the jury that -- going to the factor of truth, there was no contention in this case.\nIt is conceded by the defendants that these allegations were not true, that Bresler committed the crime of blackmail, that Bresler was guilty of blackmail.\nSo in the background of that reference when the Court after it instructed the jury that malices, ill wills, spite or hostility --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1922.993, 1942.662, 1959.112, 1967.473, 1978.529], "stop_times": [1942.662, 1959.112, 1967.473, 1978.529, 1988.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1922.993}, "reply_to": "15092__1_007", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_009", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well now, on that, didn't the -- if jury as I read this, like it came back twice and on the second occasion, the judge -- is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1988.232], "stop_times": [1998.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.232}, "reply_to": "15092__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_010", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "The second is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1998.934], "stop_times": [2000.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1998.934}, "reply_to": "15092__1_009", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_011", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2000.446], "stop_times": [2000.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.446}, "reply_to": "15092__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_012", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "It is essentially right as the judge instructed after the lunch break.\nThe jury hadn't been out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2000.633, 2003.791], "stop_times": [2003.791, 2004.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2000.633}, "reply_to": "15092__1_011", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_013", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Oh, I see.\nBut when they came back, he didn't say in so many words, forget everything I said to you about spite, ill will and so forth.\nThe law of the case is the New York Times rule and any, as I read it, what he did was read them the actual language out of the opinions in Times, Garrison and Rosenblatt, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2004.807, 2005.798, 2014.61], "stop_times": [2005.798, 2014.61, 2026.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.807}, "reply_to": "15092__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_014", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2026.853], "stop_times": [2028.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2026.853}, "reply_to": "15092__1_013", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_015", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Did he -- did what -- did the jury then have the case on the basis, forget all about everything I said to you on spite, ill will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2028.047], "stop_times": [2036.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.047}, "reply_to": "15092__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_016", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "If he had said that, I think that would've cured substantially much of the error that had taken place but he didn't simply give the New York Times instruction, this is why I get back to this, a bit about we conceded that the allegations of blackmail were false because when he gets into the New York Times instruction at the end, he prefaces his comment with, there is no contention here that the statements regarding blackmail were true.\nSo he's really instructing the jury that we had conceded the statements were false, that meets the New York Times -- would meet the New York Times, does in effect -- underwrites the instruction completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2036.363, 2062.63], "stop_times": [2062.63, 2073.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2036.363}, "reply_to": "15092__1_015", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_017", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Oh, no, no.\nConceding that the allegations were false, doesn't concede any knowledge of the falsity at the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2073.043, 2075.074], "stop_times": [2075.074, 2083.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.043}, "reply_to": "15092__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_018", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, it -- the fact that we did not contend that the articles were true meant that we conceded that this is what the instruction -- that we conceded that they can -- that the allegations were false.\nNow, we if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2083.025, 2099.853], "stop_times": [2099.853, 2100.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2083.025}, "reply_to": "15092__1_017", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_019", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "You conceded that if they were given the meaning of charging a crime --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2100.892], "stop_times": [2103.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.892}, "reply_to": "15092__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_020", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "But if we concede, yes, that's exactly right and that's what the Court, led -- I believe led the jury to believe that we had conceded that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2103.724], "stop_times": [2112.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2103.724}, "reply_to": "15092__1_019", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_021", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "But the judge also in defining libel, however, if the jury thought that -- it was left for the jury to determine whether or not to charge you with blackmail the way it was used, was the charge deferred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2112.176], "stop_times": [2127.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.176}, "reply_to": "15092__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_022", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's right, and then he further instructed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2127.464], "stop_times": [2129.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2127.464}, "reply_to": "15092__1_021", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_023", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "And the jury could not sign for the plaintiff unless they believe that the way blackmail was used was meant to charge a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2129.508], "stop_times": [2140.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.508}, "reply_to": "15092__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_024", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Charged a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2140.247], "stop_times": [2141.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2140.247}, "reply_to": "15092__1_023", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_025", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2141.279], "stop_times": [2141.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.279}, "reply_to": "15092__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_026", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Charged a crime.\nAnd then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2141.556, 2142.679], "stop_times": [2142.679, 2143.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2141.556}, "reply_to": "15092__1_025", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_027", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "And then we had to believe that before they could find --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2143.106], "stop_times": [2144.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.106}, "reply_to": "15092__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_028", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's right but then he gives --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2144.302], "stop_times": [2145.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2144.302}, "reply_to": "15092__1_027", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_029", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Under these instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2145.339], "stop_times": [2146.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.339}, "reply_to": "15092__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_030", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "He gives them the further instruction that we conceded that, that we conceded that the allegations were not true, that Bresler was guilty of blackmail.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2146.207, 2156.354], "stop_times": [2156.354, 2156.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2146.207}, "reply_to": "15092__1_029", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_031", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "You do, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2156.894], "stop_times": [2157.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.894}, "reply_to": "15092__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_032", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No, I don't concede the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2157.859], "stop_times": [2159.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2157.859}, "reply_to": "15092__1_031", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_033", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, you do if they have -- if -- let's assume that the judge ruled as a matter of law that these words charged a crime, you disagree with that but let's assume that he ruled that way.\nBut then he asked if you concede that the so construed, those words were false, you would concede it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2159.457, 2176.216], "stop_times": [2176.216, 2183.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.457}, "reply_to": "15092__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_034", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I would concede that, but I wouldn't concede that the allegations in the article are false and I think that was misleading to the jury.\nWhat's lacking here obviously is an instruction, that clear instruction that the defendant, that the defendants not only charged this but that they knew they were charging, that they intended to charge this strained and really ludicrous meaning that they knew it, they knew it was false.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2183.631, 2190.448], "stop_times": [2190.448, 2207.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2183.631}, "reply_to": "15092__1_033", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_035", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, may I ask this?\nI gather from what you said to me earlier.\nAfter the New York Times charge was given, the correct one, Mr. Clark, that was trial counsel I gather for the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2207.541, 2209.829, 2213.217], "stop_times": [2209.829, 2213.217, 2220.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.541}, "reply_to": "15092__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_036", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2220.252], "stop_times": [2222.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2220.252}, "reply_to": "15092__1_035", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_037", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "-- said that he still objected in view of the prior instructions that have gone before this in which malice is averted to as involving hostility that this should be made clear to the jury that evidence of evil motive, ill will, hostility does not constitute malice within the definition of the Constitution.\nI gather even had that been given, you'd still be here, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2222.318, 2238.768], "stop_times": [2238.768, 2242.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.318}, "reply_to": "15092__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_038", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Yes, I certainly would still be here because I don't think the evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to make that finding.\nI think for a jury to find that this article charge was the crime of blackmail --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2242.542, 2248.511], "stop_times": [2248.511, 2253.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2242.542}, "reply_to": "15092__1_037", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_039", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, do you think there is any issue whether this is a case involving the Times test, in that event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2253.624], "stop_times": [2259.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.624}, "reply_to": "15092__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_040", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I think that's very clear that this is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2259.695], "stop_times": [2263.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2259.695}, "reply_to": "15092__1_039", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_041", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "[Voice Overlap] a public figure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2263.268], "stop_times": [2264.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.268}, "reply_to": "15092__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_042", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That he is a public figure.\nNot only did he concede that he was a public figure but there was previous widespread publicity in the Washington Post and other metropolitan papers about his -- the magnitude and importance of his duties.\nThere are vast private developments planned in 25-year-old community lauding Mr. Bresler's activities and the scope and magnitude of those activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2264.257, 2265.209, 2275.957], "stop_times": [2265.209, 2275.957, 2283.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2264.257}, "reply_to": "15092__1_041", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_043", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, was any -- did Mr. Bresler take the position at trial at any time that he was not a public figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2283.787], "stop_times": [2290.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.787}, "reply_to": "15092__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_044", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No, in fact his counsel conceded it in his opening statement and the articles went to -- the blackmail articles went to a public issue that he raised the issue with the city council by making a proposal to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2290.128], "stop_times": [2301.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2290.128}, "reply_to": "15092__1_043", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_045", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, apparently the Maryland Court of Appeals had some question about it because it did say to treat the case as a Times case was more favorable to your client than what's he entitled to on the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2301.589], "stop_times": [2315.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.589}, "reply_to": "15092__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_046", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, I don't think the [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2315.058], "stop_times": [2316.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2315.058}, "reply_to": "15092__1_045", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_047", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's what the Court of Appeals said wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2316.379], "stop_times": [2318.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.379}, "reply_to": "15092__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_048", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's what the Court of Appeals said and I don't think there is any substance but I don't think they were looking to the fact that his public official capacity only [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2318.699], "stop_times": [2327.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2318.699}, "reply_to": "15092__1_047", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_049", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "In any event, you can see we have to be satisfied he's at least a public figure before we have any question before us at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2327.769], "stop_times": [2334.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.769}, "reply_to": "15092__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15092__1_050", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That's right and I think that the citizens of Greenbelt had as much interest in this zoning proposal which affected how a large proportions of their community was going to be developed as much interest certainly as the general public had in Wally Butts' college football experience.\nThe only other reference --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2334.274, 2356.199], "stop_times": [2356.199, 2357.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2334.274}, "reply_to": "15092__1_049", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_051", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well the Court did end up saying that you can only find for the plaintiff if you find knowing falsity or reckless disregard, you can only find for the plaintiff if you find that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2357.031], "stop_times": [2369.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.031}, "reply_to": "15092__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_052", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Preference to -- by the -- reference to the fact that we conceded the statements were false --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2369.544], "stop_times": [2374.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2369.544}, "reply_to": "15092__1_051", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_053", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "But he ended up by saying it wouldn't be enough to find hostility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2374.015], "stop_times": [2377.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.015}, "reply_to": "15092__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_054", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "In a very lengthy and confused instruction that you could recover on other basis.\nThe other thing quickly is the skullduggery comment.\nThe skullduggery comment is a rather a novel theory. There is no -- it doesn't refer to Bresler.\nThere's no indication that the -- it -- the condensation of the skullduggery word, the condensation was inaccurate.\nThere's no indication of the underlying comments were inaccurate.\nAll it was, was criticism of the school board in delaying the condemnation actually but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2377.822, 2384.265, 2386.872, 2391.961, 2401.442, 2404.195], "stop_times": [2384.265, 2386.872, 2391.961, 2401.442, 2404.195, 2409.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2377.822}, "reply_to": "15092__1_053", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_055", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "But do you think skullduggery is a libelous word?\nNow let's just assume why if that -- you say that so and so is guilty of skullduggery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2409.676, 2415.264], "stop_times": [2415.264, 2420.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.676}, "reply_to": "15092__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_056", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I don't think it's certainly a very serious --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2420.945], "stop_times": [2423.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2420.945}, "reply_to": "15092__1_055", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_057", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, I know but is it or isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2423.348], "stop_times": [2426.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.348}, "reply_to": "15092__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_058", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I would have to say no.\nCertainly when it's directed to a public body, an impersonal reference to an official action by a public body as we had in the Rosenblatt case, I would have to say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2426.4, 2428.013], "stop_times": [2428.013, 2438.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2426.4}, "reply_to": "15092__1_057", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_059", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "[Voice Overlap] free, a newspaper is completely free to charge anybody it wants to, private citizen or not with skullduggery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2438.391], "stop_times": [2445.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.391}, "reply_to": "15092__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_060", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, I don't have to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2445.597], "stop_times": [2445.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2445.597}, "reply_to": "15092__1_059", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_061", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "It's just not the kind [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2445.994], "stop_times": [2446.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.994}, "reply_to": "15092__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_062", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I don't have to reach that in this case Mr. Justice White because they didn't charge a private citizen, they charged the school board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2446.518], "stop_times": [2452.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2446.518}, "reply_to": "15092__1_061", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_063", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "I know but that is -- wouldn't make it as far as being libelous is concerned?\nWouldn't make any difference whether it's a private citizen or public figure as to whether or not it satisfies the definition of libel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2452.203, 2456.019], "stop_times": [2456.019, 2464.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.203}, "reply_to": "15092__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15092__1_064", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "In the context of what was involved, in other words, the postponement of a condemnation action by an official governmental body, I don't believe that that arises to be stature of a libelous statement under the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2464.327], "stop_times": [2481.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2464.327}, "reply_to": "15092__1_063", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_065", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Is it your point that this was a group libel in effect by addressing the term skullduggery to the conduct of the entire board, not any one person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2481.79], "stop_times": [2494.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.79}, "reply_to": "15092__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__1_066", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "That certainly is my point and also there is just no showing it's false.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2494.288], "stop_times": [2501.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2494.288}, "reply_to": "15092__1_065", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_067", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Well, before you [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2501.359], "stop_times": [2501.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.359}, "reply_to": "15092__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__1_068", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "No attempt to make that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2501.892], "stop_times": [2503.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2501.892}, "reply_to": "15092__1_067", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_069", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Before you could show falsity you'd enough to have a pretty firm definition of what skullduggery is wouldn't you, that would be hard to come by perhaps?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2503.225], "stop_times": [2512.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.225}, "reply_to": "15092__1_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15092__1_070", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2512.681], "stop_times": [2515.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2512.681}, "reply_to": "15092__1_069", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15092__1_071", "conversation_id": "15092", "text": "Thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [2515.574, 2516.826], "stop_times": [2516.826, 2519.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.574}, "reply_to": "15092__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_000", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Number 413, Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing against Bresler.\nMr. Clark, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [0.0, 19.944], "stop_times": [19.944, 22.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_001", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis is an action for alleged libel.\nPetitioners are a small community newspaper, the Greenbelt News Review and its president.\nThe respondent, Bresler is a major builder/developer in Greenbelt whose building activities there have previously received wide publicity as to their importance and magnitude in the community.\nMr. Bresler had numerous dealings with the city council and other government agencies in an effort to get their approval for his zoning plans.\nAnd his counsel conceded in his opening statement that Mr. Bresler was a public figure in Greenbelt.\nAlso during this period, he was a member of the state legislature and later a candidate for comptroller of the state.\nNo actual damages were shown or claimed.\nThe jury verdict was entered for $5,000.00 compensatory damages, $12,500.00 punitive damages which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.\nTwo of the three articles which the Court of Appeals relies upon to support this judgment are accurate reports of public debate that two city council meetings, two Greenbelt city council meetings regarding Bresler's proposal to the city in which he tried to pressure the city into supporting his request for higher density zoning for a large tract of land in the center of the city.\nHe did this by saying that he would agree to sell another tract which he owned in the city and unfortunately the school board wanted -- which the school board want to build a school which the city desired, he would sell that only if the city agreed to his zoning request.\nOtherwise, he would insist on lengthy condemnation proceedings which would delay construction of a high school site.\nNow, the first of the two articles relied upon by the Court of Appeals is in the joint appendix at page 211 and if I may since it's so critical to my argument, I would like to go through that article just the key points shortly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [22.706, 26.654, 29.377, 35.218, 48.795, 58.231, 64.227, 70.914, 74.904, 84.893, 112.159, 130.961, 138.117], "stop_times": [26.654, 29.377, 35.218, 48.795, 58.231, 64.227, 70.914, 74.904, 84.893, 112.159, 130.961, 138.117, 153.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 22.706}, "reply_to": "15566__0_000", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_002", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Before you do Mr. Clark, may I just remind you and I don't want you inhibit you about reading it that you're not going to ask us to decide whether the material should've justified the verdict, I take it but rather your obligation here is to point out what error there was in the submission of the case to the jury, is that primarily it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [153.611], "stop_times": [175.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.611}, "reply_to": "15566__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_003", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "That's correct Your Honor and my argument is primarily that there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to let this case go to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [175.419], "stop_times": [185.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 175.419}, "reply_to": "15566__0_002", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_004", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "In the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [185.005], "stop_times": [185.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.005}, "reply_to": "15566__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_005", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "In the first place and therefore the court erred in denying my motions for directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v.\nI'm also --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [185.921, 193.748], "stop_times": [193.748, 194.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 185.921}, "reply_to": "15566__0_004", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_006", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Not resting on the record rather than the infringement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [194.115], "stop_times": [196.548], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 194.115}, "reply_to": "15566__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_007", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "I am resting on the record, yes Your Honor.\nGoing to the article that forms the basis of this suit, the article is entitled School Site Stirs up Council, Rezoning Deal Offer Debated.\nArticle makes clear that the -- the article is now discussing a proposal to the city council and the debate on that proposal.\nThe first paragraph of the article, delaying construction of a new Greenbelt high school is the lever by which a local developer is pressuring the city to endorse his bid for higher density rezoning.\nSo citizens were told at a crowded meeting in the city council.\nThe next two paragraphs explain how the school board had previously been trying to get the land.\nAnd at the top of the next page or the fourth paragraph in the article, the proposal, Bresler's proposal to the city council is fully and accurately set forth.\nIt's only at that point after it's clearly established in the article that the conduct being criticized is the proposal.\nThe proposal is set forth clearly.\nThe fact that it was publicly made is set forth and the fact that what was involved here was merely a threat to use his legal right to delay the condemnation edges, the right of any landowner to insist upon a condemnation proceeding.\nIt's only at this point that the article begins to describe the very hostile public reaction, the city council meeting to this proposal and the sixth paragraph, that accurately reports that a number of people at the meeting accurately characterized -- I mean a number of people has just been actually -- excuse me, the article accurately reports that a number of people at the meeting characterized this proposal as an attempt to blackmail the city.\nThe -- looking on the sixth paragraph, it says, it seems that this is a slight case of blackmail commented Mrs. Marjorie Bergemann and the word was echoed by many speakers from the audience.\nImmediately after that reference to Mrs. Bergemann, a city councilman was quoted as saying that it's not blackmail.\nHe preferred to call it just two-way negotiations and the article goes on and lists other criticisms of the thing and the following comment demonstrates exactly what the people at the council meeting objected to.\nHe said, \u201cEverybody knows there is a need for a school.\u201d\nThe developer knows there is a need and says, \u201cWe'll meet your need if you meet our need.\u201d\nThat's what the people were referring to when they were referring to this article as blackmail.\nThe second article is much the same thing.\nIt's the report of a second city council meeting and at which there was further debate on the same proposal and the city council finally voted four to one to reject that.\nIn that article, another participant is quoted the same, \u201cFight Bresler's blackmail\u201d in an attempt to tell the city to vote the proposal down.\nRight after that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [196.548, 199.645, 211.637, 219.407, 231.806, 236.058, 243.925, 257.238, 265.74, 268.522, 282.713, 318.361, 327.958, 334.386, 347.766, 350.802, 356.352, 361.662, 363.442, 373.366, 381.718], "stop_times": [199.645, 211.637, 219.407, 231.806, 236.058, 243.925, 257.238, 265.74, 268.522, 282.713, 318.361, 327.958, 334.386, 347.766, 350.802, 356.352, 361.662, 363.442, 373.366, 381.718, 383.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 196.548}, "reply_to": "15566__0_006", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_008", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Where is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [383.285], "stop_times": [384.673], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 383.285}, "reply_to": "15566__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_009", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "That would be on page two, 16.\nAnd right after that, another participant debate is quoted as saying that, \u201cThis isn't blackmail but the legitimate advance in Mr. Bresler's right to advance his rights to develop his land.\u201d\nNow, the decision below rests on the proposition, the incredible proposition I believe that these articles charged Bresler with the crime of blackmail and the petitioners knew they were charging him with the crime of blackmail and there was no evidence that anybody interpreted this article as charged in a crime of blackmail.\nBresler could identify no one who read the articles that way.\nHe couldn't explain why he himself claimed that they charged him with a crime of blackmail.\nHe couldn't explain what conduct he was supposed to have been charged with that would constitute the crime of blackmail.\nNor was he able to explain why he ignored the articles for nine months until he brought this $2 million libel suit at a time when he was in the midst of his campaign for state comptroller and the news review was accurately criticizing his disregard of certain land covenants and his misrepresentations to the city council in connection therewith that -- on another matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [384.673, 389.491, 405.148, 430.782, 434.186, 440.468, 446.234], "stop_times": [389.491, 405.148, 430.782, 434.186, 440.468, 446.234, 472.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 384.673}, "reply_to": "15566__0_008", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_010", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Am I wrong that the jury should not have and would not have found for the plaintiff here unless it believed and understood the article in the paper to charge criminal blackmail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [472.698], "stop_times": [492.219], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 472.698}, "reply_to": "15566__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_011", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "I don't think so Your Honor the -- for the reason stated on my brief, the instructions permitted the jury to allow recovery if they found that this was an intemperate or excessive statement and it was motivated by a sense of spite or hostility.\nThat report so I don't think the jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [492.219, 512.259], "stop_times": [512.259, 514.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 492.219}, "reply_to": "15566__0_010", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_012", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "You mean that was the way -- that's the way libel is defined in Maryland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [514.394], "stop_times": [517.724], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 514.394}, "reply_to": "15566__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_013", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "No, libel, this was the instruction that was given to the jury that you could find that a -- on the Maryland rule of fair comment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [517.724], "stop_times": [529.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 517.724}, "reply_to": "15566__0_012", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_014", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "At first it had to find that there was libel and the libelous statement made wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [529.721], "stop_times": [533.561], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 529.721}, "reply_to": "15566__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_015", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "They first had to find that a libelous statement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [533.561], "stop_times": [535.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 533.561}, "reply_to": "15566__0_014", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_016", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "And what was that libelous statement, did you think it found?\nThey couldn't have found that it was a libelous statement unless they thought it was criminal blackmail that was charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [535.411, 539.408], "stop_times": [539.408, 550.407], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 535.411}, "reply_to": "15566__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_017", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, I don't think so under the instructions that were given.\nThe instructions were rather lengthy and somewhat confusing but I think the jury could very well have found from the instructions given that the defendant could recover if they found that a statement was solely intemperate or excessive as to indicate that it was other --could only have been activated by actual malice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [550.407, 554.965], "stop_times": [554.965, 576.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 550.407}, "reply_to": "15566__0_016", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_018", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well then the jury was disregarding its instructions there, I suppose?\nI mean it first had to find there was a libelous statement made, libel per se, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [576.686, 581.637], "stop_times": [581.637, 587.244], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 576.686}, "reply_to": "15566__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_019", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Under the instructions of the Court, it had to find a libelous statement.\nHowever, when you read --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [587.244, 591.554], "stop_times": [591.554, 592.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 587.244}, "reply_to": "15566__0_018", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_020", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, did it -- did it find it?\nI guess it did find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [592.986, 594.542], "stop_times": [594.542, 596.317], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 592.986}, "reply_to": "15566__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_021", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, my point is that there is insufficient evidence here.\nIf you read the articles, anybody who reads the articles to that point is -- it is clear to them what conduct is involved here and that that conduct has no relationship to the crime of blackmail.\nIf the jury found that, and I don't believe they did under the instructions.\nIf the jury found that, my position here is that there is insufficient evidence from which they could make that judgment.\nMoreover there is no evidence that the petitioners intended this strained meeting.\nThe only evidence relied upon by the Court was petitioner's testimony that the word blackmail in another context could charge the commission of a crime.\nAnd that there was nothing at the meeting which indicated that Bresler committed the crime of blackmail.\nNow, the Court of Appeals concluded on that testimony alone which assumed that the petitioners intended to charge a crime didn't -- there was no evidence, they just assumed that, that it would difficult to conceive of a case in which there was more convincing evidence that appellants had knowledge of a falsity of the charge or in fact entertain serious doubts.\nThis holding I submit is nothing less than a mockery of the New York Times role.\nYou can't establish falsity much less knowing falsity by taking a word out of context and ascribing to a meaning -- ascribing to it a meaning that is wholly different from that which it cont -- it's context dictates.\nNo one I submit reasonably can conclude from this article that the petitioners intended to charge Mr. Bresler with the crime of blackmail which was defined to the jury in the Court's instructions is the extortion of money by threats of criminal prosecution or embarrassment, threats of disclosure.\nThe article by making it clear what conduct that Bresler was being criticized, what that conduct was, that it was publicly made, a proposal publicly made in the city completely negates any reasonable finding that the crime of blackmail was charged or that the petitioners intended the crime -- the charge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [596.317, 599.784, 612.72, 616.899, 624.781, 632.1, 643.297, 649.572, 677.585, 683.064, 700.857, 728.259], "stop_times": [599.784, 612.72, 616.899, 624.781, 632.1, 643.297, 649.572, 677.585, 683.064, 700.857, 728.259, 747.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 596.317}, "reply_to": "15566__0_020", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_022", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Are you saying that read as a whole, the articles say in effect that Bresler was engaging in high pressure tactics to force the city to do something he wanted done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [747.097], "stop_times": [759.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.097}, "reply_to": "15566__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_023", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "That's exactly right and the use of the word blackmail to characterize that is no more stronger and temperate than you see everyday in major metropolitan newspapers, responsible newspapers.\nI have collected those articles in appendix 8 of our brief and you'll see that both the Post and the Star reported Channing Phillips characterization of Congressman Natcher's delaying the subway funds on the construction of the Three Sisters Bridge is blackmail.\nThe Post characterized editorially.\nSenator Fulbright's attempt to force a change in Vietnam policy by stalling legislation is nothing less than blackmail.\nThese strong expressions are the essence of spirited debate.\nThey're the essence of the robust uninhibited wide open debate that this Court has sought to protect in the Sullivan case and all the cases that have burrowed from it.\nIf the press must run the risk that they will be taken out of context and given an ominous meaning to support substantial libel judgments, then debate will clearly be inhibited.\nI think the respondent recognizes the weakness of this central holding of the Court by attempting to shift the focus to other articles that were in issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [759.586, 771.773, 787.847, 790.479, 799.241, 805.104, 815.094, 829.959], "stop_times": [771.773, 787.847, 790.479, 799.241, 805.104, 815.094, 829.959, 840.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 759.586}, "reply_to": "15566__0_022", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_024", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "How much was the verdict in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [840.096], "stop_times": [842.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.096}, "reply_to": "15566__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_025", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "$5,000.00 compensatory damages and $12,000 by -- $12,500.00 punitive damages which had a far greater impact on this small paper than the $500,000.00 judgments against the New York Times in the Sullivan case.\nAs I say, respondent focused --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [842.16, 858.586], "stop_times": [858.586, 860.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 842.16}, "reply_to": "15566__0_024", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_026", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "What did they have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [860.994], "stop_times": [861.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.994}, "reply_to": "15566__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_027", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [861.814], "stop_times": [862.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 861.814}, "reply_to": "15566__0_026", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_028", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "What was the legal basis for the punitive damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [862.031], "stop_times": [864.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.031}, "reply_to": "15566__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_029", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "One of two meetings, one at the (Inaudible) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [864.82], "stop_times": [865.816], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 864.82}, "reply_to": "15566__0_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15566__0_030", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "The -- well, of course the jury verdict does not make that clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [865.816], "stop_times": [868.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 865.816}, "reply_to": "15566__0_029", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_031", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Yes, did you have -- what was the legal basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [868.742], "stop_times": [872.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.742}, "reply_to": "15566__0_030", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_032", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [872.038], "stop_times": [872.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 872.038}, "reply_to": "15566__0_031", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_033", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Upon which they were charged, and they had a right to yield punitively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [872.441], "stop_times": [879.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.441}, "reply_to": "15566__0_032", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_034", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "They were given the standard instructions on punitive damages that if they found that the defendant's acted with spite or hostility that they would -- to be allowed to recover punitive damages.\nThe only other article and issue which the Court relies on the support of this verdict is an article entitled Charles Bresler to Run for State Comptroller and it listed on the eve of his announcement as a candidate for state comptroller, lists his dealings in the community and there's a statement in there that a number of homeowners had started legal proceedings against him for failure to make construction corrections in accordance with county standards.\nNow, the basis for this article was clearly set forth in the record.\n15 to 20 homeowners at a public meeting told the news review's reporter after a public meeting, told the news review reporter that they had gone to their lawyers and they had filed complaints with county officials regarding their homes which the reporter interpreted as starting legal proceedings.\nMany of these people were personally known to the reporter, Mrs. Skolnick or they -- she recognized them as residents of the community.\nShe'd has also previously heard similar complaints from other people in the developments.\nAll of the homeowners with whom she talked identified Bresler as the builder that -- with whom they were dealing.\nBresler himself conceded that he'd received a number of complaints and that he responded to those complaints.\nMoreover, it subsequently turned out that one suit had been filed and two suits were subsequently filed, they got three suits were subsequently filed against corporations in which he was a principal.\nNow, the claim of falsity here is very narrow.\nThe claim of falsity is that by saying started legal proceedings is -- that statement is false because no suit had been filed against him personally.\nNow, the gist of the article of course that a number of homeowners, substantial number of homeowners in the community were complaining about defects in his homes, that was true.\nThe trial court paid little attention to this article.\nHe mentioned in his -- in denying the motion for a directed verdict that this article didn't bother him.\nThe Court of Appeals, however, said that the failure by the reporter to check court records or to call Bresler before reporting this information was sufficient evidence to constitute a fining of recklessness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [879.176, 895.476, 927.536, 932.034, 951.405, 961.374, 966.938, 975.982, 983.555, 994.196, 997.913, 1009.922, 1020.625, 1023.239, 1029.115], "stop_times": [895.476, 927.536, 932.034, 951.405, 961.374, 966.938, 975.982, 983.555, 994.196, 997.913, 1009.922, 1020.625, 1023.239, 1029.115, 1045.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 879.176}, "reply_to": "15566__0_033", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_035", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Now, specifically which information was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1045.046], "stop_times": [1048.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.046}, "reply_to": "15566__0_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_036", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "The information that the Court said that Mrs. Skolnick should have checked the court records to determine whether lawsuits had actually been filed against Bresler personally, and this finding is completely at odds with the holdings of this Court in Garrison and St. Amant that there must be some evidence that the publisher was aware of a possible inaccuracy or probable inaccuracy in this article.\nThere's no finding or evidence here that petitioners had any doubt as to the accuracy of this report.\nSince they have gotten their information from a number of homeowners who were apparently responsible and who presumably were speaking from firsthand knowledge and who had in fact complained to Bresler and in fact gone to their lawyers, they had not reason to doubt their -- this information or to investigate further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1048.21, 1077.228, 1083.986], "stop_times": [1077.228, 1083.986, 1100.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1048.21}, "reply_to": "15566__0_035", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_037", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "What was Bresler's connection with the company, in your opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1100.376], "stop_times": [1103.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.376}, "reply_to": "15566__0_036", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_038", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, Bresler was a part owner and at the trial, he denied that at this point in time he was active in the corporation.\nHowever, a contemporaneous affidavit which he filed in another case, completely unrelated case, filed right at the same time said he was the vice president of the corporation in charge of all sales and the critical thing from the standpoint of the reporter's was that Bresler was the one who dealt with all of the complaining homeowners, homeowners naturally personalize the builder.\nThey don't think it's X corporation or Y corporation.\nThey think about it in terms of Zeckendorf or Yonas or whoever the builder happens to be, they tend to personalize this and they were talking about Bresler and Bresler was the one who responded to their --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1103.772, 1116.126, 1141.412, 1143.674], "stop_times": [1116.126, 1141.412, 1143.674, 1156.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1103.772}, "reply_to": "15566__0_037", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_039", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Were they accused (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1156.713], "stop_times": [1158.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.713}, "reply_to": "15566__0_038", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_040", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "What?\nThey were saying that he had failed to make corrections in their homes in accordance with county standards.\nThere was -- were claiming that he had failed to correct deficiencies in their homes, that his development built.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1158.134, 1159.082, 1167.307], "stop_times": [1159.082, 1167.307, 1173.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1158.134}, "reply_to": "15566__0_039", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_041", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Correct what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1173.2], "stop_times": [1174.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.2}, "reply_to": "15566__0_040", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_042", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Deficiencies in the homes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1174.127], "stop_times": [1176.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1174.127}, "reply_to": "15566__0_041", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_043", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "As an officer of the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1176.408], "stop_times": [1179.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.408}, "reply_to": "15566__0_042", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_044", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, they were equating him with the company and the developer.\nHe was the -- to them, Bresler was the builder.\nHe was the one that acted for the builders, it as his corporation that was failing to perform.\nSo they were equating Bresler with his corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1179.162, 1183.319, 1188.07, 1196.894], "stop_times": [1183.319, 1188.07, 1196.894, 1199.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1179.162}, "reply_to": "15566__0_043", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_045", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "And exactly what they accuse him of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1199.965], "stop_times": [1202.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.965}, "reply_to": "15566__0_044", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_046", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "A failing to make corrections to bring their houses up to snuff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1202.159], "stop_times": [1208.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1202.159}, "reply_to": "15566__0_045", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_047", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Is that all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1208.295], "stop_times": [1210.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.295}, "reply_to": "15566__0_046", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15566__0_048", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "That's all.\nNow, the court responding to Mr. Justice White's observation start, I do claim that the instructions here are clearly wrong.\nThroughout the instructions, the court repeatedly instructed that the defendants could recover, I mean the plaintiff could recover if he showed actual malice which was defined as spite, hostility or deliberate intention to harm.\nNow the clause of the -- his instructions, the Court did give an instruction, an incomplete instruction on the New York Times rule, but he failed to instruct the Court that spite, hostility and ill will as he had repeatedly defined it before was not sufficient to permit recovery.\nAlso the Court refused to rule out near negligence as a proof of references.\nI don't emphasize here these erroneous instructions because as I've pointed out, the three articles upon which the court relied, are clearly insufficient as a matter of law to permit recovery under the New York Times rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1210.627, 1211.525, 1222.236, 1241.014, 1264.453, 1268.772], "stop_times": [1211.525, 1222.236, 1241.014, 1264.453, 1268.772, 1286.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1210.627}, "reply_to": "15566__0_047", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_049", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "Well, then is it your position that even if the instructions were correct the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1286.068], "stop_times": [1289.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.068}, "reply_to": "15566__0_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15566__0_050", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "You could not but you could be -- you could not recover and that our position also is that this unfounded litigation as such -- been such a strain on this small newspaper that if we -- if you simply reverse on the basis of the instructions which are clearly erroneous as there will be a denial of the First Amendment protection.\nTherefore I ask the Court to review the record and determine that it does not contain evidence sufficient to support a verdict under the constitution.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1289.957, 1311.794, 1319.291], "stop_times": [1311.794, 1319.291, 1322.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1289.957}, "reply_to": "15566__0_049", "speaker": "roger_a_clark"}
{"id": "15566__0_051", "conversation_id": "15566", "text": "I observed that you've only got two minutes left of today.\nI think we won't ask you to split your argument to such a fragment so we'll adjourn for the day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_413", "start_times": [1322.308, 1326.727], "stop_times": [1326.727, 1342.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.308}, "reply_to": "15566__0_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__0_000", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We will resume the arguments in number 7, Gunn against the University Committee.\nMr. Louisell you may pick up where you left off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [0.0, 11.123], "stop_times": [11.123, 14.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__0_001", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "If your Honors please, in view of the time limits, we must submit the matter of appealability that we were discussing yesterday on our supplemental brief.\nWe submit that it's covered there.\nIf not a judgment we have here under the statute a reviewable order.\nI might only say that the appellees themselves in their motion to affirm with great candor acknowledge this, so far as it's relevant, and they pointed out on page 2 of their motion to affirm that under Reynolds against Sims, a reapportionment case, they had no doubt about the appealability of the order here.\nIt would of course be very unfortunate I think from a viewpoint of judicial administration.\nThe case have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [14.148, 24.821, 27.994, 35.669, 60.047, 64.7], "stop_times": [24.821, 27.994, 35.669, 60.047, 64.7, 65.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.148}, "reply_to": "14915__0_000", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_002", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "If the Court was going to request, was all the question would not be appealability of an order, but whether there was any order at all which would be appealable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [65.391], "stop_times": [73.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.391}, "reply_to": "14915__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14915__0_003", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [73.606], "stop_times": [74.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 73.606}, "reply_to": "14915__0_002", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_004", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That's what bothered me about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [74.385], "stop_times": [76.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.385}, "reply_to": "14915__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14915__0_005", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And of course as we point out in the supplemental brief but there is, is in the last paragraph --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [76.546], "stop_times": [81.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 76.546}, "reply_to": "14915__0_004", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_006", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [81.874], "stop_times": [82.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.874}, "reply_to": "14915__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14915__0_007", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- of the Court's opinion.\nYour Honors, it seems to us that the crux of this case, the real turning point when it might have gone the right way was on the motion by the appellants to dismiss made very promptly within a day or two after all of the criminal complaints in the state court had been dismissed.\nAt that point, we submit to Your Honors, there was no case or controversy.\nAnything more to be done was a simple matter of advice and advisory opinion and from the beginning of this nation to the present time, the teaching of this Court is there was no occasion, no reason, no right to go ahead and render an advisory opinion.\nThe Court insisted on so-called using the phrase \u201cwe will carry this motion with the case.\u201d\nIf it had faced up to the motion explicitly, what happened might not have happened.\nNow remember, if I may say as far as Dombrowski goes and I wish there were time for a full review of it although there has been so much rethinking and refreshing by the Court in any event, I doubt it would be necessary.\nBut far from the facts here invoking Dombrowski where there was a bona fide allegation of deliberate, intentional, none of good faith used of the very complicated statute to effect racial repression far from those facts being involved here, and even assuming every disputed fact or anything that we can imagine was disputed here in favor of the appellees, this was a one-shot proposition.\nThis wasn't a continuing concert of effort to deprive anybody of his rights.\nInstead of Dombrowski being controlling, I submit to you there are controlling words in Cameron against Johnson.\nIf the mere possibility of erroneous application of the statute, the mere possibility of such erroneous application of the statute does not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state procedure.\nAll the good that may be done --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [82.48, 87.04, 110.164, 116.27, 138.91, 145.053, 156.194, 170.323, 207.747, 212.788, 222.123, 245.615], "stop_times": [87.04, 110.164, 116.27, 138.91, 145.053, 156.194, 170.323, 207.747, 212.788, 222.123, 245.615, 248.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 82.48}, "reply_to": "14915__0_006", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_008", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well the -- are you saying there was no case of controversy or that there was not, but there was -- but the Court should not have entered either at the third for a judgment or an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [248.485], "stop_times": [259.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.485}, "reply_to": "14915__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__0_009", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I'm saying that when those criminal cases were dismissed Mr. Justice White, there was no longer a case or controversy.\nThe state had given up every effort.\nThere was no reason to go ahead with the federal three-judge case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [259.108, 268.022, 271.537], "stop_times": [268.022, 271.537, 277.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.108}, "reply_to": "14915__0_008", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_010", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Even if they had in this Mr. Louisell, I suppose you would say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [277.844], "stop_times": [280.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.844}, "reply_to": "14915__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14915__0_011", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I would still say that it wasn't the type of situation, but with the dismissal any pretense of excuse --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [280.162], "stop_times": [286.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.162}, "reply_to": "14915__0_010", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_012", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You mean that brings it within Golden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [286.744], "stop_times": [289.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.744}, "reply_to": "14915__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14915__0_013", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Within Golden of course and the necessary or the necessary distinction between the declaratory judgment and injunction thinking, I invoke all that.\nBut even within Golden, I would say would confirm, make more explicit of what I've said about the applicability of Cameron against Johnson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [289.453, 300.282], "stop_times": [300.282, 309.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.453}, "reply_to": "14915__0_012", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_014", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "What would you say if criminal charges were dismissed and no criminal charges were pending but there were allegations that because of the statute and because of past conduct, we are now deterred from taking some following of course that we would have otherwise.\nWould that amounts to a case in controversy in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [309.903, 332.258], "stop_times": [332.258, 336.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.903}, "reply_to": "14915__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__0_015", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "If there were a genuine position to that effect, there might be within the doctrine of Golden from Dombrowski through Golden, there might have been.\nBut there was nothing here far from meeting the strong requirement of the very words of Dombrowski.\nThere wasn't even a serious claim that there was any concerted effort to keep --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [336.389, 345.581, 353.069], "stop_times": [345.581, 353.069, 358.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.389}, "reply_to": "14915__0_014", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_016", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Oh, I understand that.\nThere were no allegations of harassment or non-good faith application of the law, but the allegation is or suppose the allegation was that we know that the statute might be applied in these circumstances and we are now not holding anymore demonstrations or expressing our views at all because of the statute, and that gives us a case or controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [358.599, 360.407], "stop_times": [360.407, 385.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.599}, "reply_to": "14915__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__0_017", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, if there were a bona fide -- if there were a real showing, a real position that they were so inhibited by the statute; that would be one thing, but I want to come to that and show that the statute has construed never in Texas had been attempted to reach the content of the speech.\nIt was only a method of controlling disturbance in the historical meaning of disorderly conduct statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [385.878, 405.687], "stop_times": [405.687, 412.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.878}, "reply_to": "14915__0_016", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_018", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, was there an actual allegation here of deterrence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [412.641], "stop_times": [417.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.641}, "reply_to": "14915__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__0_019", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "There was an actual allegation of deterrence, but I submit there's absolutely nothing, but for narrow, conslusary mere allegation.\nNow, we all know even from the view point of the strongest support of the Dombrowski philosophy, Dombrowski is strong medicine in the federal state relationship and I respectfully submit that unless taken according to prescription, strong medicine is poison.\nBut giving to the claims of the appellees every possible intend and then every assumption.\nMr. Justice White, if it's true that they were being kept out of the county by a concert of action between these people, wasn't the remedy to grant an injunction against that sort of an abuse rather than to reach out and declare unconstitutional, a conventional orthodox disorderly conduct statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [417.917, 426.874, 452.219, 460.629], "stop_times": [426.874, 452.219, 460.629, 485.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.917}, "reply_to": "14915__0_018", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_020", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "They declare the whole statute unconstitutional --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [485.221], "stop_times": [487.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.221}, "reply_to": "14915__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_021", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The whole statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [487.438], "stop_times": [488.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.438}, "reply_to": "14915__0_020", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_022", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [488.471], "stop_times": [489.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.471}, "reply_to": "14915__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_023", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "At one point, they seem to be emphasizing one part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [489.118], "stop_times": [492.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.118}, "reply_to": "14915__0_022", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_024", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [492.518], "stop_times": [493.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.518}, "reply_to": "14915__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_025", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But the net conclusion is in the assumption among the lower courts of Texas apparently is the justices that all of 474 has gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [493.03], "stop_times": [503.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.03}, "reply_to": "14915__0_024", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_026", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Because that's one the difficulties in this case, there being no injunction you can't tell this part one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [503.305], "stop_times": [508.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.305}, "reply_to": "14915__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_027", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You can't tell the precise notion the Court had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [508.911], "stop_times": [512.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.911}, "reply_to": "14915__0_026", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_028", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [512.964], "stop_times": [513.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.964}, "reply_to": "14915__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_029", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But they did say entitlement to injunctive relief.\nI want to reserve a few minutes so I would just say now that of course historically, the purpose of this statute I supposed was to meet the conventional types of disorder, things on the street, disturbances in church and so forth.\nToday, the need for this kind of a statute is the kind of a situation where a mob may come to a school room, a classroom, and screech and shout so as to disrupt.\nYour Honors, that has nothing more to do with free speech than the fact that it involves the noise from the vocal chords.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [513.557, 516.763, 531.647, 545.732], "stop_times": [516.763, 531.647, 545.732, 555.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.557}, "reply_to": "14915__0_028", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_030", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You do understand that the District Court in fact did declare null and void under the constitution, those parts of the statute that have to do with indecent exposure and firearms and so on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [555.191], "stop_times": [569.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.191}, "reply_to": "14915__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_031", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Of course, they didn't direct themselves to that specifically, but in the final conclusion of the Court, the whole statute went.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [569.603], "stop_times": [576.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.603}, "reply_to": "14915__0_030", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_032", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "They didn't carve out any exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [576.564], "stop_times": [578.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.564}, "reply_to": "14915__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__0_033", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No exceptions to the condemnation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [578.045], "stop_times": [580.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.045}, "reply_to": "14915__0_032", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_034", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But it did say that the state could pass it as legal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [580.645], "stop_times": [584.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.645}, "reply_to": "14915__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__0_035", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "They did say that.\nWell of course, the next session of the legislature met and adjourned without taking any action as we point out in our supplemental brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [584.172, 585.588], "stop_times": [585.588, 593.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.172}, "reply_to": "14915__0_034", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_036", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Because that's the difficulty in the case when there's actually no injunction.\nYou can't tell and that's the reason for the rule under law that it requires an injunction to be very carefully and precisely drafted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [593.831, 596.96], "stop_times": [596.96, 606.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.831}, "reply_to": "14915__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_037", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [606.131], "stop_times": [606.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.131}, "reply_to": "14915__0_036", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_038", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And here's no injunction at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [606.293], "stop_times": [608.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.293}, "reply_to": "14915__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_039", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "There is the concluding paragraph and of course, if we did have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [608.991], "stop_times": [613.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.991}, "reply_to": "14915__0_038", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_040", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "If the statement, if there any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [613.806], "stop_times": [614.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.806}, "reply_to": "14915__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__0_041", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- If the Court had been obedient to the notion that Your Honor just put, we would have a specific injunction.\nBut you can go to the whole opinion of the Court including the so-called addendum opinion to see the completeness of the condemnation of Section 474.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [614.457, 620.856], "stop_times": [620.856, 632.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 614.457}, "reply_to": "14915__0_040", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__0_042", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Thank you Mr. Louisell.\nMr. Clinton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [632.273, 634.056], "stop_times": [634.056, 636.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.273}, "reply_to": "14915__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_000", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWe think the disposition of this case here for reasons about to be stated is rather simple matter and suggests that that disposition is to affirm what the District Court has done and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with whatever action the Court does take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [636.763, 642.979], "stop_times": [642.979, 673.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 636.763}, "reply_to": "14915__0_042", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_001", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, are you addressing to that observation to the limitation of the injunction so that if they have some rational relationship to the events?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [673.485], "stop_times": [685.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.485}, "reply_to": "14915__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_002", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I am addressing it to remanding it to the court in order that then the court can actually enter an order for injunction if the court deems it now appropriate to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [685.286], "stop_times": [704.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 685.286}, "reply_to": "14915__1_001", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_003", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We don't have any power at all to review a case in which an injunction hasn't either been granted or denied.\nAnd here your suggestion is we now remand it so an injunction can be granted.\nWe don't have any jurisdiction to this case unless an injunction has been granted or denied under Section 1253.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [704.919, 713.294, 717.994], "stop_times": [713.294, 717.994, 724.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.919}, "reply_to": "14915__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__1_004", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Of course, the real problem here is I suggest that the -- that Court in real deference to the legislature of the State of Texas stayed any action under its opinion and with that occurring, counsel, prevailing counsel has just the practical matter is not going to try to bother the court below as getting some kind of order.\nWe're still waiting for the legislative action.\nAnd may I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [724.359, 758.179, 761.858], "stop_times": [758.179, 761.858, 762.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 724.359}, "reply_to": "14915__1_003", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_005", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But then as a practical matter, this Court has no jurisdiction to review anything under Section 1253.\nYou know what its words say, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [762.54, 770.026], "stop_times": [770.026, 772.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.54}, "reply_to": "14915__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__1_006", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [772.081], "stop_times": [773.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 772.081}, "reply_to": "14915__1_005", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_007", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And it was very understandable the courtesy and deference that the three-judge court showed to the sovereign State of Texas I suggest that the result of what it did is quite unfortunate because it leaves an essentially advisory committee -- essentially advisory opinion unreviewable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [773.61], "stop_times": [794.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.61}, "reply_to": "14915__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__1_008", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, the opinion does in the last paragraph say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [794.118], "stop_times": [804.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 794.118}, "reply_to": "14915__1_007", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_009", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Express and reviewed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [804.969], "stop_times": [805.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.969}, "reply_to": "14915__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__1_010", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- we are entitled --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [805.34], "stop_times": [806.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 805.34}, "reply_to": "14915__1_009", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_011", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- entitled to an --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [806.642], "stop_times": [807.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.642}, "reply_to": "14915__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__1_012", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We are entitled to declaratory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [807.395], "stop_times": [809.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 807.395}, "reply_to": "14915__1_011", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_013", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But there is no order granting an injunction, there is no injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [809.687], "stop_times": [813.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.687}, "reply_to": "14915__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__1_014", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I -- certainly, that's true.\nMay I however clear up one thing that arose yesterday as to whether the District Court's own suspension of its order later somehow became effective by reason of a legislature meeting and adjourning.\nWhat actually happened was, the legislature did meet on June 4, 1968 in special session that was scheduled by the normal course of events to adjourn on July 3.\nIn the meanwhile, the state, the appellants here applied to His Honor, Mr. Justice Black, and he on June the 12 I believe entered a stay order which in effect superseded whatever the District Court's stay of mandate meant and actually, we are still today under that stay order.\nI want to discuss what counsel says is the crux of the case that being the motion to dismiss and I'd like to put that in the context, if I may, of the events that led up to that.\nThis particular occurrence was on December the 12.\nWe filed our complaint by the 21.\nThe single-judge granted a temporary restraining order holding things in status quo.\nWe also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and requesting the convening of the three-judge court.\nIn January 2, the TRO was extended as I recall by agreement.\nOn the 19, the defendant's filed an answer to the motion for injunction joining issue on our allegations.\nAnd on January the 23, the TRO was extended to February the 23 which was also the date of the hearing set for the three-judge court.\nSo by January of 23, everybody had their pleadings in order and the three-judge court had been convened and the application for the preliminary injunction was then pending.\nIt was February 15, some two or three weeks later that for the first time, the motion to dismiss surfaced and was called to the attention of the Court in connection with a contemporaneously filed motion for a continuance seeking to have the Court put off the hearing that had already been scheduled on the pleadings and concentrate only on the motion to dismiss.\nThe Court on February 20, three days before the previously scheduled hearing entered an order deferring the motion to dismiss or carrying it along with the case as we say down there and denying the motion for continuance.\nAnd then on the 23, the hearing was held on which date incidentally and for the first time the defendant's filed any character of proof, this being in the form of affidavits from some of them and some of the deputies.\nI think and submit that the Court was entitled with respect to the motion dismissed to be very suspicious of the validity of the good faith, coming not only as a matter of time when it did, and in fact as I recall, the presiding judge, Judge Thornberry raised that very question during the hearing as to the timing of that motion.\nIf you thought he said, if you thought that these events had occurred on a federal enclave over which the state had no jurisdiction, why have you waited this long to call it to our attention?\nBut in any event, the motion to dismiss if the Court please is directed only to that event.\nThe motion to dismiss is limited to the fact that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [813.261, 818.045, 841.133, 858.79, 893.466, 922.289, 929.848, 934.464, 944.561, 952.699, 959.813, 969.78, 989.164, 1007.874, 1041.258, 1057.504, 1080.218, 1116.015, 1129.815, 1159.952], "stop_times": [818.045, 841.133, 858.79, 893.466, 922.289, 929.848, 934.464, 944.561, 952.699, 959.813, 969.78, 989.164, 1007.874, 1041.258, 1057.504, 1080.218, 1116.015, 1129.815, 1159.952, 1165.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 813.261}, "reply_to": "14915__1_013", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_015", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Where does that appear Mr. Clinton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1165.266], "stop_times": [1166.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.266}, "reply_to": "14915__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_016", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "It's page 16 of the brown appendix, page 16.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1166.198], "stop_times": [1171.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1166.198}, "reply_to": "14915__1_015", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_017", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1171.607], "stop_times": [1174.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.607}, "reply_to": "14915__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_018", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The last two sentences, the defendants would show the Court that no useful purpose could now be served by granting an injunction to prevent the prosecution of these suits because the same no longer exists.\nPlaintiffs can asked no greater relief in the instant case than that the complaints heretofore filed be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.\nWell of course, we can, not only can but did ask for more relief than just to stop to pending prosecutions where we had a prayer for declaratory judgment that the statute be declared unconstitutional.\nWe had a prayer for preliminary injunction later permanent injunction.\nWe have a prayer for general relief that I submit is so broad that if relief could be granted, we could still ask for monetary damages for the action vested upon the appellees here.\nAnd the Court had this kind of evidence before it too which I think this Court can easily conclude that the District Court not only considered but was impressed by it to justify this kind of evidence, to justify the sworn testimony in the sense of affidavits, we agreed and the stipulation that those affidavits meant that those people given the affidavits if called to testify would testify in the fashion shown on the affidavits, this was all done by agreement for the convenience of the Court.\nThe appellees here, the three young men who were handled in Bell County as they were and other affiance called as witnesses through their affidavits, who were there also as a part of the demonstration, all said that they were limiting their activities in the committee it's peaceful protest that they would not return to Bell County, that they would not engage in any demonstrations in Bell County and some said elsewhere, so long as the statute was being used in the fashion that it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1174.85, 1187.84, 1196.61, 1211.222, 1215.752, 1230.615, 1273.85], "stop_times": [1187.84, 1196.61, 1211.222, 1215.752, 1230.615, 1273.85, 1324.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1174.85}, "reply_to": "14915__1_017", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_019", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Could that conceivably be form of protest against the statute as well as bona fide expression of a fear, -- the statute it's got to be a fear, an apprehension, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1324.223], "stop_times": [1340.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.223}, "reply_to": "14915__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_020", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, I think it's an expression of fear maybe not or maybe it was stated directly to the statute itself, but it was stated in terms of if this is the way the statute -- if people can be charged for disturbing the peace for what we've done, well then, we are not going to do it until something is done about the statute.\nThe point that I'm trying to get to is to suggest to the Court that when the District Court accepted those statements not only by the appellees but by their witnesses who were there in the demonstration, they have very good reason for accepting him and believing him and get writing relief based on that or indicating that we were entitled to relief based on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1340.071, 1367.993], "stop_times": [1367.993, 1397.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1340.071}, "reply_to": "14915__1_019", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_021", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Professor Louisell, I think argued yesterday Mr. Clinton that the 1871 Statute was not aimed at isolated or sporadic enforcement of a particular statute in a particular way, but systematic or pattern of the use of local statutes to inhibit constitutional rights.\nDo you think that going back to your original pleading, do you think you have a case of systematic conduct or pattern of conduct to deprive people of their constitutional rights here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1397.54, 1426.089], "stop_times": [1426.089, 1442.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.54}, "reply_to": "14915__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_022", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We did not allege that the defendants, the appellants here had previously used this statute, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1442.994], "stop_times": [1457.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1442.994}, "reply_to": "14915__1_021", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_023", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Let's suppose, let me try hypothetical case that might illustrated that.\nI think someone said Texas had 365 or 367 counties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1457.365, 1460.79], "stop_times": [1460.79, 1465.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.365}, "reply_to": "14915__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_024", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "It's actually 254.r.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1465.575], "stop_times": [1467.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1465.575}, "reply_to": "14915__1_023", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_025", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "254?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1467.367], "stop_times": [1468.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.367}, "reply_to": "14915__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_026", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1468.056], "stop_times": [1468.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1468.056}, "reply_to": "14915__1_025", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_027", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well that's still quite a few --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1468.325], "stop_times": [1469.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.325}, "reply_to": "14915__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_028", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes, it's still --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1469.503], "stop_times": [1470.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1469.503}, "reply_to": "14915__1_027", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_029", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Suppose you got a prosecutor in each county and you have one prosecutor in one of those counties who has some aberrations about a Texas statute and enforces it in a certain way.\nIs that the kind of state action which 1871 Act contemplated where it's one prosecutor in one of 265 counties or is that must have be something broader than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1470.59, 1486.541], "stop_times": [1486.541, 1505.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.59}, "reply_to": "14915__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_030", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, I thought -- I think it is especially in this case where our Attorney General -- where the Attorney General appear -- our State Attorney General appears in the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1505.965], "stop_times": [1518.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1505.965}, "reply_to": "14915__1_029", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_031", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1518.934], "stop_times": [1519.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.934}, "reply_to": "14915__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_032", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- a part of the State of Texas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1519.236], "stop_times": [1520.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1519.236}, "reply_to": "14915__1_031", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_033", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That's after the event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1520.667], "stop_times": [1522.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.667}, "reply_to": "14915__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_034", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, but he is in effect saying as he did in the pleadings that the statute was valid, that the events that occurred there were the disturbance of the peace and he's alleging really that local event in Bell County was proper and is effect for the State of Texas adapting that position.\nI think the Court was entitled to consider that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1522.589, 1548.878], "stop_times": [1548.878, 1554.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1522.589}, "reply_to": "14915__1_033", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_035", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That's an argument over the factual issue of whether this was a disorderly conduct case or whether it was a repression of First Amendment rights, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1554.338], "stop_times": [1568.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.338}, "reply_to": "14915__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_036", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1568.281], "stop_times": [1568.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1568.281}, "reply_to": "14915__1_035", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_037", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "He's defending on the different ground quite different from your attack?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1568.686], "stop_times": [1576.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.686}, "reply_to": "14915__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_038", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We contend it and we allege that what was happening in Bell County which is a focal point for such demonstrations for the reason that counsel pointed out was deterring the exercise of free speech of people that wanted to go to Bell County to demonstrate.\nWe did not contend that the same thing was happening in other parts of the state because we weren't really trying that that all of these are true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1576.419, 1591.249], "stop_times": [1591.249, 1604.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.419}, "reply_to": "14915__1_037", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_039", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But did you allege anything in your complaint that indicated that there was something you wanted to do that you hadn't done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1604.328], "stop_times": [1613.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.328}, "reply_to": "14915__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_040", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Actually wanted to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1613.117], "stop_times": [1614.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1613.117}, "reply_to": "14915__1_039", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_041", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That you haven't been?\nI mean specifically other than just generalities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1614.884, 1615.976], "stop_times": [1615.976, 1620.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.884}, "reply_to": "14915__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_042", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We alleged what the university committee did in terms of not only activities -- in terms of its activities, demonstrations, distribution of literature -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1620.039], "stop_times": [1629.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.039}, "reply_to": "14915__1_041", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_043", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That you alleged you've seized it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1629.351], "stop_times": [1631.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.351}, "reply_to": "14915__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_044", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And said that it had been -- if various individuals handle it different way, some individual says we have seized all activities, other said we have seized any activity in Bell County, we will not go back to Killeen in Bell County and the Fort Hood area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1631.304], "stop_times": [1650.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.304}, "reply_to": "14915__1_043", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_045", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "This was in your complaint or in the affidavits or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1650.85], "stop_times": [1655.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.85}, "reply_to": "14915__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_046", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I believe it's in both.\nWe allege in our complaint --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1655.085, 1661.682], "stop_times": [1661.682, 1665.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1655.085}, "reply_to": "14915__1_045", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_047", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You just said you say will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1665.533], "stop_times": [1667.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.533}, "reply_to": "14915__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_048", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That the sole purpose of these activities about the defendants were to deter, intimidate, hinder, prevent plaintiffs and the members from -- members of the university committee, his friends and supporters from exercising the rights guaranteed.\nWe say unless the court restrains the operation and enforcement of the void and valid unconstitutional statute, plaintiffs and members of the committee will suffer immediate the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1667.844, 1684.308], "stop_times": [1684.308, 1693.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1667.844}, "reply_to": "14915__1_047", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_049", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes, I know, I know, but that's a long way from saying that you had actually had then deterred from a course the conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1693.581], "stop_times": [1705.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.581}, "reply_to": "14915__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_050", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, we say as long as the charges are pending, we would it be fearful of exercising the rights, our federal rights guaranteed and then the affidavits come along and say that they have indeed ceased activities either state wide in the event of some of the parts or just in Bell County in the case of others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1705.303], "stop_times": [1726.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.303}, "reply_to": "14915__1_049", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_051", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "So, the details were in the affidavits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1726.673], "stop_times": [1730.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.673}, "reply_to": "14915__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14915__1_052", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The details are in the affidavits and what I want to try to point out at this time is to show why the court below was justified in accepting those statements against the background of the other evidence that was before the court, what counsel labeled yesterday as unfortunate events.\nSome of those unfortunate events included the following based on the evidence that was before the Court, Sheriff Gunn himself said to two of the demonstrators who were not actually handled, who were not arrested, who were not jailed Sue Granville and Phillip Juvenville get out of my county and don't come back, don't ever want to see your faces in Bell County again.\nNow Gunn contrary to counsels' suggested yesterday does not deny having made those statements.\nHe denies having said other things to the specific appellees here in and out of the jail but he does not deny in his affidavit making those statements to Sue Granville and Phillip Juvenville.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1730.663, 1749.074, 1780.893, 1789.274], "stop_times": [1749.074, 1780.893, 1789.274, 1807.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.663}, "reply_to": "14915__1_051", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_053", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Mr. Clinton, my problem is assuming that the officials in this county did exactly everything that you alleged they did, why is that sufficient ground to not have the the state wide statute?\nDo you allege that any other counties are going to enforce it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1807.394, 1832.334], "stop_times": [1832.334, 1838.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.394}, "reply_to": "14915__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_054", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No, we do not allege any experience in any other counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1838.029], "stop_times": [1843.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.029}, "reply_to": "14915__1_053", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_055", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You alleged that any other person police official is going to use it the way it was used here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1843.077], "stop_times": [1850.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.077}, "reply_to": "14915__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_056", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "This case relates solely to what happened, arises solely from what happened in the Bell County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1850.527], "stop_times": [1857.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.527}, "reply_to": "14915__1_055", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_057", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "So, could you get the same relief by enjoining those officials from acting without knocking the statute out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1857.46], "stop_times": [1865.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.46}, "reply_to": "14915__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_058", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, it occurs to me that if the statute is of course it was invalid in Bell County, its invalid state wide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1865.537], "stop_times": [1873.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.537}, "reply_to": "14915__1_057", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_059", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1873.061], "stop_times": [1873.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.061}, "reply_to": "14915__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_060", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And it's just -- excuse me, It just happens that this situation arose from Bell County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1873.125], "stop_times": [1878.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.125}, "reply_to": "14915__1_059", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_061", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, I respect to submit the situation would not arise again in Bell County unless the President of the United States came down now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1878.671], "stop_times": [1888.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.671}, "reply_to": "14915__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_062", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, no sir.\nThat's exactly another threat of -- the point that's made throughout these affidavits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1888.566, 1889.743], "stop_times": [1889.743, 1895.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.566}, "reply_to": "14915__1_061", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_063", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, I can't leave that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1895.112], "stop_times": [1897.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.112}, "reply_to": "14915__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_064", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, may I comment about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1897.049], "stop_times": [1899.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.049}, "reply_to": "14915__1_063", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_065", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well at first I want to know, can you get your relief without knocking the statute out?\nIf so, you're going to understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1899.074, 1905.352], "stop_times": [1905.352, 1907.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.074}, "reply_to": "14915__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_066", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I don't see how we could.\nWe'd have to allege as I understanding it under Dombrowski that the statute is unconstitutional, and that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1907.118, 1910.842], "stop_times": [1910.842, 1917.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.118}, "reply_to": "14915__1_065", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_067", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, what did Dombrowski said the statute was being used systematically over and over and over again.\nYou say the statute was used once by one group of officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1917.683, 1927.617], "stop_times": [1927.617, 1931.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.683}, "reply_to": "14915__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_068", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, we say it was used on this occasion and that they were threatening us in effect with using it again and again and again if we came back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1931.788], "stop_times": [1940.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.788}, "reply_to": "14915__1_067", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_069", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Where do you get that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1940.564], "stop_times": [1942.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.564}, "reply_to": "14915__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_070", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I infer that from all of these events that happened.\nThe sheriff's saying \u201cdon't come back, we don't want to see your face here again.\n\u201c The other things that -- I have to call to the Court's attention, these other evidentiary events that happened at Fort end what would happen in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1942.156, 1945.485, 1949.486], "stop_times": [1945.485, 1949.486, 1960.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.156}, "reply_to": "14915__1_069", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_071", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, if this case -- did you ever apply for an injunction after the judgment in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1960.534], "stop_times": [1970.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.534}, "reply_to": "14915__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_072", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "After the -- I'm sorry, I don't get your timing there, after the Court handed down its shall we say opinion?\nWe did not apply because the Court said we're deferring any further action until the legislature acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1970.604, 1979.052], "stop_times": [1979.052, 1984.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.604}, "reply_to": "14915__1_071", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_073", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And then the legislature closed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1984.513], "stop_times": [1987.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.513}, "reply_to": "14915__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_074", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The legislature met.\nThe legislature -- while the legislature was in session, Mr. Justice Black entered a stay order which is still in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1987.871, 1989.721], "stop_times": [1989.721, 1997.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.871}, "reply_to": "14915__1_073", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_075", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Still in effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1997.678], "stop_times": [1999.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.678}, "reply_to": "14915__1_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_076", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1999.189], "stop_times": [1999.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.189}, "reply_to": "14915__1_075", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_077", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But if this case is decided and sent back, then you apply for an injunction, will you get it or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1999.661], "stop_times": [2008.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.661}, "reply_to": "14915__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_078", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2008.984], "stop_times": [2010.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.984}, "reply_to": "14915__1_077", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_079", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Will you get that back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2010.758], "stop_times": [2011.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.758}, "reply_to": "14915__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_080", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "As we pointed out in our brief, we will appear before the Court and make application for whatever relief then appears to be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2011.464], "stop_times": [2022.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.464}, "reply_to": "14915__1_079", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_081", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, what other relief is appropriate other than an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2022.48], "stop_times": [2029.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.48}, "reply_to": "14915__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_082", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We think frankly that the declaration of the statute is unconstitutional, is sufficient to preclude any other bona fide prosecutions under the statute.\nWe believe the state and local district county attorney will follow the law if it's declared unconstitutional, they won't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2029.908, 2042.864], "stop_times": [2042.864, 2051.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.908}, "reply_to": "14915__1_081", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_083", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Say you wouldn't ask for an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2051.928], "stop_times": [2055.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.928}, "reply_to": "14915__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_084", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We may not in view of the problems that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2055.596], "stop_times": [2058.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2055.596}, "reply_to": "14915__1_083", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_085", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, If you're not interested in an injunction, where do we get our jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2058.603], "stop_times": [2063.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.603}, "reply_to": "14915__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_086", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, I don't suggest we were not interested.\nI say we may not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2063.322, 2065.261], "stop_times": [2065.261, 2067.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.322}, "reply_to": "14915__1_085", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_087", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "[Attempt to Laughter] What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2067.447], "stop_times": [2069.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.447}, "reply_to": "14915__1_086", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_088", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We may not, but I must again emphasize this point that I'm trying to make that the Court below acted very properly in seeing that there was a case and there was a controversy that it was continuing, that it was very live because of what the appellees said as to restricting their activities, and if they were justified and accepting that by reason of what had happened to them in Bell County and what was threatened would reoccur in the event, they went back to Bell County.\nI have indicated what the sheriff himself said when they were taken before the justice of the peace.\nHe greeted them under the evidence of this case, he greeted them with the statement, \u201cWe don't like traitors around here.\n\u201d And he said -- he says, \u201cYou can plead guilty, you'd fined $200.00 or you can plead not guilty and I'll put you in jail until you can make $500.00 bond.\n\u201d And one of the appellees here said isn't that a little high?\nAnd he said \u201cwell sure, it's high, but I want you to make sure you're back here because I want to see that this case is tried.\n\u201d While after that happened, an officer of the law is there in JP's office and he confronts one of the appellees and he is toying with live bullets in his hands.\nAnd he says, \u201cYou know sonny, I shot a lot of mad dogs in my day and I could shoot a traitor, I could shoot a traitor and never give it a thought.\nIt'd be just like shooting a mad dog.\n\u201d And then when they finally get moved from the Killeen City Jail and to be taken over to Belton community or town some 15 or 20 miles away to be put in that jail, the Killeen police chief tells them, \u201cDon't come back here.\nWe don't like your kind around here and tell your University of Texas friends the same thing because we got all the education we need right here at the junior college.\n\u201d All of these activities, all of this evidence, the whole point of bringing it up is to justify what the Court below found was a live controversy, a genuine good faith, solid based statement by each of the appellees and their associates that they were no longer going to engage in demonstrations because this is what happened to them and would happen to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2069.853, 2108.047, 2113.726, 2121.193, 2131.366, 2136.35, 2144.062, 2157.543, 2166.612, 2169.538, 2189.439, 2201.529], "stop_times": [2108.047, 2113.726, 2121.193, 2131.366, 2136.35, 2144.062, 2157.543, 2166.612, 2169.538, 2189.439, 2201.529, 2231.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.853}, "reply_to": "14915__1_087", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_089", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Let's assume they could have demonstrated with solid evidence that all of those allegations were true, those are just allegations now of course, do you think those allegations if true would bring it within the systematic pattern of conduct that Dombrowski case was talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2231.014], "stop_times": [2251.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.014}, "reply_to": "14915__1_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_090", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, -- not state wide, obviously not state wide but this -- sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2251.594], "stop_times": [2257.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.594}, "reply_to": "14915__1_089", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_091", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- in Dombrowski, it was sustained over a period of time.\nDombrowski opinion describes the series of events which had this inhibiting effects drying up contributions, acts that took place over a period of many months if not years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2257.267, 2261.724], "stop_times": [2261.724, 2278.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.267}, "reply_to": "14915__1_090", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_092", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2278.175], "stop_times": [2278.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.175}, "reply_to": "14915__1_091", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_093", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Here you have one event on one day, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2278.358], "stop_times": [2280.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.358}, "reply_to": "14915__1_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_094", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "One event on one day with a threat of what would happen if they came back to have any other event on any other day.\nI don't -- It's occurs to me that we should not be required to keep testing the statements that these officers had made in order to have standing to complaint and say we're being put up on and we're being mistreated and we can't get a fair trial up there and come into federal courts for relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2280.64, 2286.868], "stop_times": [2286.868, 2307.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.64}, "reply_to": "14915__1_093", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_095", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, that goes back again to what was suggested about the 1871 Act.\nIt was aimed only at sustaining systematic, organized patterns of harassment of a particular group of people or a particular kind of conduct.\nIs that not true the 1871 statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2307.385, 2312.124, 2325.08], "stop_times": [2312.124, 2325.08, 2330.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.385}, "reply_to": "14915__1_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_096", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I'll accept the professor's statement on that, but view that carefully --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2330.093], "stop_times": [2337.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.093}, "reply_to": "14915__1_095", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_097", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I think the Dombrowski case opinion reflects that too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2337.539], "stop_times": [2343.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.539}, "reply_to": "14915__1_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__1_098", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I'm suggesting to the Court that we have definitely shown in this case a chilling effect by reason of acts of conduct that happened there and that are threatened to reoccur every time any of these people or their associates or their friends and supporters ever again enter Bell County in order to engage in a peaceful demonstration.\nIn order to do as what the counsel himself said to the Court yesterday was nothing improper about their protest and may I hark right back to the business about the President of the United States and that to show that not only does this evidence show that any other time they went up there for any other purpose, the same as likely to reoccur, but also to suggest that to protect the President on this occasion, all that was necessary was to once whoever the officers were that seized them and detained them and walked them out to the edge of crowd was then to suggest that they leave.\nThere was no necessity in protecting the President.\nFor these deputy sheriffs then, to seize them and handcuff them and frisk them and put them in the cars and take them down to the Killeen jail choking them along the way while they were down there and engaging in this further activity that really gave rise to the complaints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2343.521, 2372.015, 2423.477, 2428.33], "stop_times": [2372.015, 2423.477, 2428.33, 2443.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.521}, "reply_to": "14915__1_097", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_099", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Do you, since you push that point so far, do you think the sheriff or any of his people had the slightest idea that they will be going to use this statute where they just working them over?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2443.084], "stop_times": [2459.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.084}, "reply_to": "14915__1_098", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_100", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Weren't they just what sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2459.474], "stop_times": [2460.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.474}, "reply_to": "14915__1_099", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_101", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Working them over, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2460.495], "stop_times": [2462.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.495}, "reply_to": "14915__1_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_102", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Oh, no.\nNo.\nThey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2462.643, 2463.173, 2463.493], "stop_times": [2463.173, 2463.493, 2463.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2462.643}, "reply_to": "14915__1_101", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_103", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And then later, they found the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2463.777], "stop_times": [2465.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.777}, "reply_to": "14915__1_102", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_104", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No.\nThe sheriff while still -- the sheriff -- while an evidence shows, the sheriff while still at the scene told his deputy, who Deputy Strange, I believe his name is and Deputy Strange confirms this that while he was taking the appellees into the Killeen jail, he was in communication with the sheriff and told him to file disturbing of peace complaints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2465.758, 2466.003], "stop_times": [2466.003, 2490.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.758}, "reply_to": "14915__1_103", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_105", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That was afterwards, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2490.728], "stop_times": [2492.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.728}, "reply_to": "14915__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_106", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, with just a matter of minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2492.537], "stop_times": [2495.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.537}, "reply_to": "14915__1_105", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_107", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, I mean but it was after.\nAll I'm trying to say is your complaint is against some police officials of that county, not against the statute.\nSuppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2495.005, 2496.7, 2505.664], "stop_times": [2496.7, 2505.664, 2506.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.005}, "reply_to": "14915__1_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_108", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No, wait.\nWe don't think at this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2506.244, 2507.465], "stop_times": [2507.465, 2507.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.244}, "reply_to": "14915__1_107", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_109", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- suppose there had been a Texas statute, a disorderly conducts statute that was satisfactory to you and the nine of us, and they did the same thing and you, there's no doubt, they would, you wouldn't be able to get to the statute, would you?\nThe statute was just an excuse, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2507.566, 2528.451], "stop_times": [2528.451, 2530.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.566}, "reply_to": "14915__1_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_110", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "If the statute -- you're suggesting if the statute were constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2530.617], "stop_times": [2533.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.617}, "reply_to": "14915__1_109", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_111", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2533.892], "stop_times": [2534.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.892}, "reply_to": "14915__1_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_112", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, no.\nWe'd have to complain about the abuse of the statute, but here we're complaining about both.\nThere's unconstitutional and we also alleged the other branch of Dombrowski too below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2534.982, 2535.524, 2540.176], "stop_times": [2535.524, 2540.176, 2547.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.982}, "reply_to": "14915__1_111", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_113", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I know, but the Court took one problem, the statutes were unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2547.138], "stop_times": [2552.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.138}, "reply_to": "14915__1_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__1_114", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That's correct, yes, sir.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2552.064, 2553.899], "stop_times": [2553.899, 2556.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.064}, "reply_to": "14915__1_113", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "14915__1_115", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Thank you Mr. Clinton --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2556.258], "stop_times": [2559.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.258}, "reply_to": "14915__1_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__2_000", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "If the Court please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2559.686], "stop_times": [2560.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2559.686}, "reply_to": "14915__1_115", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_001", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Mr. Louisell, you have two minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2560.704], "stop_times": [2564.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.704}, "reply_to": "14915__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__2_002", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Before I forget, I just wanted to point out all that this Court has done to make freedom of speech really viable when it has an orderly procedure before it as contrasted with what went on here, I simply refer to your own recent decision in the Bachelor case for Maryland.\nAnd if I may add two California cases, certainly a court trying to be obedient to your teaching on free speech, they were too late to get into the brief.\nThese case has shown how you don't reach out to strike down the California disorderly conduct statute because you got to grant some kind of relief, In re Cay in 1 California 3rd 930, In re Bushman, 1 California 3rd 767.\nNow the one thing that Mr. Justice Stewart directed himself to us all I will have time to comment upon, but I would like to call Your Honors' attention to the fact that we're not dealing here with Rule 65 that uses the phraseology preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order and permanent injunction.\nWe're dealing with Section 1253, an order fortunately, I need to take Your Honor if even I had a time on this, Your Honors had occasion carefully to rethink this problem in the Goldstein case.\nIn the Cole against Richardson proposition, that was referred to from the bench yesterday, that as I understand it from the concurring opinion, there was only very brief per curiam order and the dissenting opinion, in that case, the matter was one of mootness.\nThere was no possible claim of mootness here Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2564.399, 2585.924, 2595.88, 2618.603, 2639.221, 2653.699, 2671.865], "stop_times": [2585.924, 2595.88, 2618.603, 2639.221, 2653.699, 2671.865, 2674.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2564.399}, "reply_to": "14915__2_001", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_003", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No, no.\nI had in mind Section 1253 and I point out to your own words and your motion for a new trial to the District Court.\nI'm quoting from you motion, you said that \u201cthe Court had given not a declaratory judgment, but an advisory opinion.\n\u201d And so according to your submission to that Court with which I agree, the Court has not even given a declaratory judgment much less entered or refused to enter an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2674.773, 2675.38, 2682.003, 2690.536], "stop_times": [2675.38, 2682.003, 2690.536, 2703.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.773}, "reply_to": "14915__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_004", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But wouldn't it be a very serious commentary on judicial administration if an opinion that is so effective but for Mr. Justice Black's restraining order, his stay of mandate that is so effective as a practical matter and remember, there's no other review except to this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2703.229], "stop_times": [2721.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2703.229}, "reply_to": "14915__2_003", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_005", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "An outrageous situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2721.424], "stop_times": [2722.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.424}, "reply_to": "14915__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_006", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "An outrageous situation and also I invoke, I invite the attention of Your Honor to the fact that you can't blame counsel for the appellants or for appellees for that matter because the very last sentence of Rule 58 provides \u201cattorney shall not submit forms of judgment except upon direction of the Court, and these direction shall not be given as a matter of course.\n\u201d I have to leave it to the Court to find a way of avoiding the continuation of a reprehensible order that's operating de facto as an advisory opinion and arrest the processes of enforcing the law in the state.\nSomething has to be done or the situation will become impossible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2722.719, 2747.41, 2767.901], "stop_times": [2747.41, 2767.901, 2772.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2722.719}, "reply_to": "14915__2_005", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_007", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Just to pursue the point that I think Justice Stewart raised earlier, isn't the very function of the judgment which ordinarily follows the opinion on the expression of the Court as to what it's going to do, isn't the very function of that judgment defined precisely and narrowly and specifically the general thrust which the Court's memorandum opinion has articulated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2772.429], "stop_times": [2800.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.429}, "reply_to": "14915__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__2_008", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2800.503], "stop_times": [2801.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2800.503}, "reply_to": "14915__2_007", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_009", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "And wouldn't that be very likely that an injunction of this stringent nature would have been very precise and very specific as against the broad and sweeping language of the Court's opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2801.265], "stop_times": [2814.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.265}, "reply_to": "14915__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14915__2_010", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Hopefully, certainly it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2814.125], "stop_times": [2816.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2814.125}, "reply_to": "14915__2_009", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_011", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Where can you find any such judgment in this appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2816.245], "stop_times": [2818.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.245}, "reply_to": "14915__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_012", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "In the appendix Your Honor, and I again call your attention to the fact that in the docket entries, it is referred to as a judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2818.923], "stop_times": [2828.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2818.923}, "reply_to": "14915__2_011", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_013", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes, but where can you find the judgment, any judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2828.429], "stop_times": [2830.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.429}, "reply_to": "14915__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_014", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You must turn to the last paragraph of the opinion.\nYou don't find as I said yesterday, you do not find any separately entered document.\nRule 58 was again violated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2830.413, 2834.841, 2841.721], "stop_times": [2834.841, 2841.721, 2844.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2830.413}, "reply_to": "14915__2_013", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_015", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- It's not even judgment here, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2844.162], "stop_times": [2845.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.162}, "reply_to": "14915__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_016", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But Your Honors --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2845.564], "stop_times": [2846.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2845.564}, "reply_to": "14915__2_015", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_017", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "-- paragraph of an opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2846.672], "stop_times": [2847.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.672}, "reply_to": "14915__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_018", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "You will remember in how many instances, in fact the very rules provide that if findings of fact and conclusions are embraced within an opinion you can use that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2847.839], "stop_times": [2859.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2847.839}, "reply_to": "14915__2_017", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_019", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We're asking no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2859.396], "stop_times": [2860.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2859.396}, "reply_to": "14915__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_020", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Now, if you can substance a judgment is embraced within a form of words concluding an opinion, even though it isn't entered as the rule requires on a separate piece of paper, we respectfully submit it can constitute at least, I submit this Court should refrain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2860.197], "stop_times": [2879.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2860.197}, "reply_to": "14915__2_019", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_021", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Did you go back to the Court at any time asking them to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2879.364], "stop_times": [2885.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.364}, "reply_to": "14915__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14915__2_022", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "No, and I think -- of course, I have nothing to do with the case at that stage but the Attorney General's office --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2885.316], "stop_times": [2891.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2885.316}, "reply_to": "14915__2_021", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_023", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "I'm talking about the last year.\nYou had something to do with last year, didn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2891.288, 2893.926], "stop_times": [2893.926, 2896.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.288}, "reply_to": "14915__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14915__2_024", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes.\nThe argument of first appeal, but the attorney --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2896.683, 2898.192], "stop_times": [2898.192, 2901.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2896.683}, "reply_to": "14915__2_023", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_025", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "My question was did any of the parties asked the Court since the last argument?\nThis is the question raised last time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2901.45, 2908.027], "stop_times": [2908.027, 2910.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.45}, "reply_to": "14915__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14915__2_026", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "To my knowledge, no.\nBut Your Honors will note again the last sentence of Rule 58, this is a matter that's left to the Court and the Court has never entered what it should have done Rule 58, but that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2910.483, 2912.972], "stop_times": [2912.972, 2927.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2910.483}, "reply_to": "14915__2_025", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_027", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, lawyers had something to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2927.96], "stop_times": [2930.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.96}, "reply_to": "14915__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14915__2_028", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "That isn't the question as we respectfully submit the question issue, Mr. Justice Douglas.\nThe question is there any kind of an order under 1253 of the judicial code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2930.034, 2935.334], "stop_times": [2935.334, 2941.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2930.034}, "reply_to": "14915__2_027", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_029", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2941.722], "stop_times": [2942.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.722}, "reply_to": "14915__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14915__2_030", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The language of 1253 is not in terms of a preliminary injunction.\nIt is an interlocutory order granting or denying relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2942.985, 2948.477], "stop_times": [2948.477, 2955.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2942.985}, "reply_to": "14915__2_029", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_031", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, is this anything more than a judgment of the Court that we will hold this case and retain jurisdiction?\nIs there anything else in that last paragraph?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2955.002, 2965.75], "stop_times": [2965.75, 2969.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.002}, "reply_to": "14915__2_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__2_032", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "There is, the explicit provision that the Court stay expires upon the termination of the next session of the state legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2969.324], "stop_times": [2978.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2969.324}, "reply_to": "14915__2_031", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_033", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Stay of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2978.097], "stop_times": [2979.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.097}, "reply_to": "14915__2_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_034", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The stay of what the Court conceived out as its injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2979.27], "stop_times": [2983.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2979.27}, "reply_to": "14915__2_033", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_035", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "There is no injunction.\nWe can agree there is no injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2983.834, 2984.898], "stop_times": [2984.898, 2987.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.834}, "reply_to": "14915__2_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_036", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Your Honor, words are words, owe to distinguish the reality of things, criteria --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2987.257], "stop_times": [2992.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2987.257}, "reply_to": "14915__2_035", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_037", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Let me reiterate in more questions I haven't implied any criticism of you at all sir.\nI just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2992.908, 2997.944], "stop_times": [2997.944, 2998.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.908}, "reply_to": "14915__2_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14915__2_038", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "May I ask you one thing Professor?\nHow can anybody given contempt to that piece of paper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2998.253, 3000.849], "stop_times": [3000.849, 3006.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.253}, "reply_to": "14915__2_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__2_039", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "The whole problem of an establishment of a contempt of course would be a very difficult thing, but with the clear intend, with the intention that is deducible from the words of the opinion, I would say it's conceivable in any, you have being subject to a contempt order is not the definition of Section 1253 Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [3006.489], "stop_times": [3031.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3006.489}, "reply_to": "14915__2_038", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_040", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "But, it has something closely resembling an order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [3031.646], "stop_times": [3036.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.646}, "reply_to": "14915__2_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__2_041", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Yes, but any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [3036.443], "stop_times": [3037.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3036.443}, "reply_to": "14915__2_040", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_042", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Well, you don't have an order here, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [3037.584], "stop_times": [3039.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.584}, "reply_to": "14915__2_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14915__2_043", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "We have what the judge intended to embrace within his opinion as an order.\nHowever, it had to -- such a thing was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [3039.824, 3044.852], "stop_times": [3044.852, 3051.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3039.824}, "reply_to": "14915__2_042", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14915__2_044", "conversation_id": "14915", "text": "Thank you Professor Louisell.\nThank you Mr. Clinton.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [3051.249, 3054.056, 3055.949], "stop_times": [3054.056, 3055.949, 3058.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.249}, "reply_to": "14915__2_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15167__0_000", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Lester Gunn et al., appellants versus University Committee to End the War in Vietnam et al.\nMr. Clinton, you may continue your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [0.0, 27.101], "stop_times": [27.101, 30.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__0_001", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nFor just a moment, I would like to put back into perspective what we were speaking of yesterday afternoon.\nThese events occurred on December 12 within nine days.\nThe plaintiffs filed a complaint in the three-judge court below -- in the court below, thereafter the three-judge court was convened.\nAbout 60 days after, the complaint had been filed the events occurred, the defendants below, the law enforcement officers in Bell County and the county attorney moved to dismissed the complaint.\nNow, certainly I think that based upon the allegations, the facts that were later shown in support of those of allegations at the time the complaint was filed, there was a clear case or controversy.\nAnd to the extent that it is argued that the court did not have jurisdiction certainly at that point, the court clearly had jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [30.005, 36.021, 42.385, 47.265, 57.653, 79.081, 95.036], "stop_times": [36.021, 42.385, 47.265, 57.653, 79.081, 95.036, 104.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 30.005}, "reply_to": "15167__0_000", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_002", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Well, the test in Zwickler was whether there is substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy in reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.\nI don't see that the opinion considered whether on the question of declaratory judgment.\nThis record then did show a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy in reality.\nWhat is it -- what do you rely that did exist such --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [104.769, 120.988, 130.002, 136.223], "stop_times": [120.988, 130.002, 136.223, 140.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.769}, "reply_to": "15167__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_003", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I don't know that the court put it in those terms, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [140.223], "stop_times": [143.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 140.223}, "reply_to": "15167__0_002", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_004", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I don't read the opinion as having addressed itself to that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [143.606], "stop_times": [147.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.606}, "reply_to": "15167__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_005", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "We rely for immediacy and reality on the fact that charges that the disturbing of the complaints -- disturbing of the peace complaints that we're filed when it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the facts that there was no chance of proven any guilt.\nThey were simply --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [147.929, 164.47], "stop_times": [164.47, 164.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 147.929}, "reply_to": "15167__0_004", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_006", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "But at the time as I understand it that at the time that the declaratory judgment -- of this opinion was filed following the hearing, those complaints had already been withdrawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [164.947], "stop_times": [173.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.947}, "reply_to": "15167__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_007", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Yes, but that's only the part of what we rely on.\nWe rely upon the harassing -- we rely upon the whole course of conduct in Bell County from that time right on down including all of the harassment, the handcuffing, the jailing, the frisking, the stripping, the threatening, the calling of traitors, all of those things plus the comments of the chief of police, get out of my town and don't come back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [173.49, 176.252], "stop_times": [176.252, 198.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 173.49}, "reply_to": "15167__0_006", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_008", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Did all of these antedate the dismissal of those charges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [198.881], "stop_times": [202.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.881}, "reply_to": "15167__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_009", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Oh, yes it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [202.853], "stop_times": [204.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 202.853}, "reply_to": "15167__0_008", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_010", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Anything at following the dismissal of the charges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [204.22], "stop_times": [206.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.22}, "reply_to": "15167__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_011", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "There's no evidence of that, no evidence whatsoever, one way or another.\nWe further plead below that the statute was unconstitutional.\nWe plead this acts of intimidation, harassment and so on ask for injunctive relief against them.\nWe think, I guess the showing of what the purpose of the University Committee is, and the chilling effect that it had and that these actions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [206.628, 212.105, 219.264, 226.657], "stop_times": [212.105, 219.264, 226.657, 236.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 206.628}, "reply_to": "15167__0_010", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_012", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "May I ask, does the record show whether the Committee had demonstrated that any other place in that county except Fort Hood at anytime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [236.288], "stop_times": [243.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.288}, "reply_to": "15167__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_013", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I'm not sure the record does show.\nThe record shows that the Committee has it its purpose.\nThe appearing for purposes of demonstration any place within the vicinity of 100 miles of the University where any representatives of the administration that we're promoting the foreign policy at which the Committee opposed would appear that it was their policy to do so, as far as the record was showing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [243.879, 245.264, 248.348], "stop_times": [245.264, 248.348, 271.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 243.879}, "reply_to": "15167__0_012", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_014", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "But as far as the record is concerned, the only actual demonstration in Bell was this demonstration on the 12th of December when President was at Fort Hood?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [271.62], "stop_times": [280.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.62}, "reply_to": "15167__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_015", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "That's correct.\nNow, what we think the defendants really argued below and their motion says was a motion to dismiss, but it was based solely -- it was directed solely to the dismissal of that part of the injunctive -- on the prayer which sought injunctive relief against the pending charges.\nThe motion to dismiss was not specifically directed to that part of the prayer that sought the permanent relief of injunctive relief, of restraining enforcement of the declaratory judgment directing itself.\nThe court was aware of that and pointed out that it was perfectly clear in the court below that they no longer had to consider our prayer for temporary relief as to the pending charges since those hadn't been dismissed.\nThe court went on to say and we think quite correctly that the motion to dismiss was not specifically directed to the ultimate prayer of declaratory judgment or for permanent injunction against enforcement of this statute, and then the court went ahead to find that it was unconstitutional.\nAnd to say that we were entitled to injunctive relief, but as I pointed out yesterday did not actually issue any order in the form of an injunction.\nNow in connection with those pending charges --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [280.918, 283.443, 308.406, 324.171, 337.444, 353.944, 365.253], "stop_times": [283.443, 308.406, 324.171, 337.444, 353.944, 365.253, 368.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 280.918}, "reply_to": "15167__0_014", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_016", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "The judgment for the declaratory judgment and the injunction stand on the same footing, I take it.\nI mean, if there's a judgment for one, is the judgment for the other, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [368.784, 375.678], "stop_times": [375.678, 379.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.784}, "reply_to": "15167__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_017", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I suppose we're dealing in semantics, the court handed down an opinion in which it said it detail in, the plaintiffs are entitled to their declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.\nNow, following that there has never been any kind of paper entitled judgment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [379.867, 391.126], "stop_times": [391.126, 395.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 379.867}, "reply_to": "15167__0_016", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_018", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "But even to be -- even to be here, there has to be a judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [395.032], "stop_times": [398.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.032}, "reply_to": "15167__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_019", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [398.078], "stop_times": [398.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 398.078}, "reply_to": "15167__0_018", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_020", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "So, there is a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [398.988], "stop_times": [400.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.988}, "reply_to": "15167__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_021", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "To the extent that it's in that opinion, there is a judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [400.989], "stop_times": [403.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 400.989}, "reply_to": "15167__0_020", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_022", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "And it's reviewable here.\nBut to the extent it's there, it's for both declaratory judgment and injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [403.752, 405.104], "stop_times": [405.104, 409.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.752}, "reply_to": "15167__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_023", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Yes sir, without any specificity as to what they are joined from doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [409.544], "stop_times": [413.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 409.544}, "reply_to": "15167__0_022", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_024", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "But isn't the -- isn't under Zwickler the -- at least the not of the criminal charges are dismissed, doesn't the -- isn't the injunctive judgment at least an error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [413.366], "stop_times": [426.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.366}, "reply_to": "15167__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_025", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "The court only said we were entitled to an injunction.\nThey are not actually an issue and I think that -- frankly, the place to take care of that part of the case is back below if the court hopefully affirms and remands back for the actual preparation (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [426.33, 429.356], "stop_times": [429.356, 439.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 426.33}, "reply_to": "15167__0_024", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_026", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I know but there was a judgment for one, there's a judgment for the other.\nThere's a judgment that there isn't and that he's entitled to an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [439.688, 443.978], "stop_times": [443.978, 447.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.688}, "reply_to": "15167__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_027", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Yes, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [447.538], "stop_times": [447.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 447.538}, "reply_to": "15167__0_026", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_028", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "But isn't that judgment wrong under Zwickler?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [447.918], "stop_times": [451.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.918}, "reply_to": "15167__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_029", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Well, no sir.\nI don't think it's wrong. I think we've still shown it not only did the acts have a chilling effect, but to completely froze all the speech and activity and expression, and that we're -- if shown however, irreparable injury as stated in Dombrowski and also in Zwickler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [451.18, 451.632], "stop_times": [451.632, 469.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 451.18}, "reply_to": "15167__0_028", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_030", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I thought that this is the matter of comity, you could expect the state courts to recognize that if this statute is bad as a declaratory judgment says it was, that the state court would enforce -- would recognize it was bad, and would recognize some constitutional defense to a prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [469.61], "stop_times": [489.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.61}, "reply_to": "15167__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_031", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "A state court it's conceivable might do that, and that's one reason I say we think that we need to take that up with the court below, but there's no assurance that the defendant, Sheriff Gunn, will do that or that the justice of the peace will not again require them to post the $500.00 bond and to go through all of those things before we ever get to a court of record who would be aware of decisions of this Court and follow them, and in that connection, I made a mistake with yesterday as I want to correct.\nI indicated an answer to a question, I actually I kind of volunteered that the trial in a JP court was on an information following the complaint, it's not correct.\nThe trial in the county court is on the information.\nIn the JP court is tried upon a complaint, then we're entitled to appeal de novo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [489.229, 520.784, 532.898, 536.582], "stop_times": [520.784, 532.898, 536.582, 542.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 489.229}, "reply_to": "15167__0_030", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_032", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Have they tried on the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [542.414], "stop_times": [547.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.414}, "reply_to": "15167__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_033", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "That is actually appended to, yes sir.\nIt's in the record.\nIn the JP court from which if convicted, we have an appeal to a county court;\nin county court, proceedings about information --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [547.68, 549.789, 551.059, 555.501], "stop_times": [549.789, 551.059, 555.501, 559.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 547.68}, "reply_to": "15167__0_032", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_034", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [559.516], "stop_times": [564.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.516}, "reply_to": "15167__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_035", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "The information would not come into play until we appeal to the county court in where we have our trial de novo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [564.112], "stop_times": [568.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 564.112}, "reply_to": "15167__0_034", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_036", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [568.484], "stop_times": [571.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.484}, "reply_to": "15167__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_037", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Oh, I think the question really is after the charges have been dismissed whether the matter became moot, and it seems to me that this Court's very recent decision in Carroll versus The President and Commissioners of Princess Anne answers that question in our favor.\nWe view it as authority for us rather than counsel does as thought it for them for there clearly, you have similar situation and that the underlying controversy between our committee and its members and the law enforcement officers in Bell County continues to exist.\nThere's nothing in this record that suggest that the Sheriff of Bell County would not once again enforce or attempt to enforce against the plaintiffs.\nArticle 474, if they went back up there and anywhere in Bell County and to the contrary, the sheriff has said don't come back to my county, I don't want to see you faces here again.\nMuch the same situation that existed in Princess Anne there, there was a temporary injunction at issue that was the cause of the chilling effect on the amendment rights.\nMoreover, another case referred to in that opinion was the situation in -- to the situation of ICC orders where they were only issued for a short time and then could be reissued and in that fashion, review is precluded.\nI say to the court is not a thing in the world to prevent the sheriff and the county attorney from doing the same thing here.\nCharges as they did and then when we get to the proposition that we were trying to defend our case, turned around and dismiss complaints again and try to deny us any kind of found determination that this statute is unconstitutional and should be in forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [571.797, 588.152, 607.055, 616.171, 627.7, 642.611, 659.31, 665.683], "stop_times": [588.152, 607.055, 616.171, 627.7, 642.611, 659.31, 665.683, 683.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 571.797}, "reply_to": "15167__0_036", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_038", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Counsel, did you say tell us whether this Committee still exists and is it active?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [683.993], "stop_times": [690.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.993}, "reply_to": "15167__0_037", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15167__0_039", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I will say to the court that it does exist (Voice Overlap) and it is active although I must admit the record does not show anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [690.421], "stop_times": [698.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 690.421}, "reply_to": "15167__0_038", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_040", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "What is the meaning of that statement that it is still exists?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [698.412], "stop_times": [702.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.412}, "reply_to": "15167__0_039", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15167__0_041", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "It exists as an approved on campus group at the University of Texas.\nIt continues to hold meetings in the university areas, it continues to distribute.\nI don't know about the distribution by like handbilling but through the mail and through advertisements, it continues to state its positions on things in the university area.\nFor whatever its worth, I again emphasize that it is a group that is approved an all campus group at the University of Texas.\nI'm not sure how much time I have made, but I'd like to spend that talking just a little bit about Article 474.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [702.221, 708.092, 715.913, 729.822, 736.834], "stop_times": [708.092, 715.913, 729.822, 736.834, 743.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 702.221}, "reply_to": "15167__0_040", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_042", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Before you get to that, may I just ask one question.\nAre their findings of fact that the sheriff and JP said the things that you've been telling us about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [743.015, 746.534], "stop_times": [746.534, 753.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.015}, "reply_to": "15167__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_043", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "No sir, there are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [753.397], "stop_times": [755.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 753.397}, "reply_to": "15167__0_042", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_044", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Those are just in the affidavits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [755.269], "stop_times": [756.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.269}, "reply_to": "15167__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_045", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "They are in the affidavits, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [756.823], "stop_times": [759.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 756.823}, "reply_to": "15167__0_044", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_046", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "And there are no findings other than those that you can glean from the opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [759.861], "stop_times": [766.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.861}, "reply_to": "15167__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_047", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "The court below rendered the main opinion, then something called addendum on motion for new trial, but those are the only two papers handed down by the three-judge court.\nAnd whatever actual findings, in fact there are or in one or another by those opinions.\nIn that connection, it is perfectly clear that the court below was satisfied from the evidence through affidavits that the University Committee members, the named plaintiffs, some of whom were not members of the University Committee, but rather sympathizers, supporters, and associates that all of them had seized certainly in Bell County any type of activity, peaceful activity designed to carry out the purposes of the Committee.\nOne or two of the plaintiffs indicated that he had seized all activity everywhere because he said this was a state statute and he was afraid that the same thing would happen to him in any county if he engage in similar protest activity as it happened in the Bell County and he did not again want to be subjected to charges, to making bonds and to court appearances and things of that nature and accordingly, he had seized all activities by way of freedom of expression.\nArticle 474 I think, clearly on its face and in view of decisions of this Court from Cantwell versus Connecticut to Ashton versus Kentucky.\nArticle 474 must follow because of that phrase in there, \u201cloud or vociferous language or indecent.\u201d\nWhatever it is, the operative things, then going down to calculated to disturb the inhabitance of the place where the event takes place.\nCertainly, 1966 in Ashton versus Kentucky, in almost identical terms, calculated, I believe was there said calculated to create a disturbance or breach of peace and here, we have calculated to disturb.\nThis Court said that that sort of a standard, at least wide open, the standard of responsibility and involves calculation as to the boiling point and does not in any way involved in appraisal of the comments per se.\nThat's the same fault that Article 474 has.\nIt is vague because of that language.\nIt will leave to the police officer, to the deputy sheriff a determination at that moment as to whether the language is such as to create the boiling point on water more of the listeners involved and it is overbroad because it obviously includes expression.\nTherefore, it must fall under Terminiello and Edwards v. Cox.\nIt is a combination of both overbreadth and vagueness and as we think essentially, the same -- it presents the same type of problem that this Court resolved easily in the Cox versus Louisiana in which the breach of the peace statute there was condemned, where the Louisiana court had held that it was -- it meant to breach of the peace to agitate, to disquiet, to arouse from a state of repose that those were terms were both vague and overly broad, and that they would sweep within their scope, permissible activities under the First Amendment.\nThe state here that tries to defend Article 474 by saying that it only prohibits or proscribes conducts in which there is involved so great in amount of noise that is calculated to disturb.\nWe submit that that is not a saving interpretation at all.\nIt would outlaw practically all modern demonstrations, some of which had been approved by this Court.\nIn Edwards versus South Carolina, there was singing, handclapping, marching, and things of that nature.\nClearly, a lot amount of noise and no doubt as I believe the record shown in that case, there were some people disturbed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [766.017, 779.364, 787.617, 825.586, 861.448, 878.611, 888.315, 901.079, 917.082, 932.062, 936.963, 939.397, 962.177, 966.902, 1012.06, 1028.655, 1032.344, 1038.391, 1047.777], "stop_times": [779.364, 787.617, 825.586, 861.448, 878.611, 888.315, 901.079, 917.082, 932.062, 936.963, 939.397, 962.177, 966.902, 1012.06, 1028.655, 1032.344, 1038.391, 1047.777, 1055.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 766.017}, "reply_to": "15167__0_046", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_048", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Both of those were public places, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1055.782], "stop_times": [1059.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.782}, "reply_to": "15167__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_049", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Yes sir.\nEdwards v. South Carolina --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1059.045, 1060.397], "stop_times": [1060.397, 1061.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1059.045}, "reply_to": "15167__0_048", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_050", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Do you any of the cases in which there's -- in which the court said that First Amendment protects loud or vociferous conduct or noises in your private law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1061.699], "stop_times": [1075.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.699}, "reply_to": "15167__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_051", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "No, but we don't have that here.\nThese events in case, these events took place clearly in the public place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1075.332, 1077.282], "stop_times": [1077.282, 1081.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1075.332}, "reply_to": "15167__0_050", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_052", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Where did they take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1081.053], "stop_times": [1081.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.053}, "reply_to": "15167__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_053", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "College campus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1081.937], "stop_times": [1084.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1081.937}, "reply_to": "15167__0_052", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_054", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Where are the college campuses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1084.201], "stop_times": [1086.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.201}, "reply_to": "15167__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_055", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Well, it was right adjacent to the parking lot --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1086.213], "stop_times": [1090.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1086.213}, "reply_to": "15167__0_054", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_056", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Do you think there's any distinguished, anything that distinguished between college campus and a street?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1090.625], "stop_times": [1097.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.625}, "reply_to": "15167__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_057", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Not in the particular incidence (Voice Overlap) or where there was a public program in some 30,000 other people or various attendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1097.646], "stop_times": [1105.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1097.646}, "reply_to": "15167__0_056", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_058", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "What campus was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1105.745], "stop_times": [1106.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.745}, "reply_to": "15167__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_059", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "This Campus of the Central Texas College near Collin, Texas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1106.971], "stop_times": [1111.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1106.971}, "reply_to": "15167__0_058", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_060", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Public knowledge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1111.27], "stop_times": [1113.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.27}, "reply_to": "15167__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_061", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Well, I don't believe the records shows, but I assume that it is.\nIt's (Voice Overlap) private sectarian college.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1113.766, 1118.106], "stop_times": [1118.106, 1121.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1113.766}, "reply_to": "15167__0_060", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_062", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "It is or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1121.178], "stop_times": [1121.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.178}, "reply_to": "15167__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_063", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "No, it is not a private sectarian.\nI'm satisfied as a public college and since the tax money are there.\nThe record doesn't show of any of that, but the record does show that on this occasion, there were some 30,000 people there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1121.959, 1123.714, 1127.002], "stop_times": [1123.714, 1127.002, 1133.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1121.959}, "reply_to": "15167__0_062", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_064", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Would you think just because a crowd of people are invited on a certain piece of property that another crowd of people can come on and make all the noise that they want?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1133.295], "stop_times": [1142.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.295}, "reply_to": "15167__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_065", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I think in this instance under these circumstances that these plaintiffs could come on as they intended to do what merely display signs, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1142.845], "stop_times": [1150.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1142.845}, "reply_to": "15167__0_064", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_066", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I know you say that, if you mean just in these circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1150.831], "stop_times": [1153.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.831}, "reply_to": "15167__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__0_067", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "In these circumstances, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1153.661], "stop_times": [1168.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1153.661}, "reply_to": "15167__0_066", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15167__0_068", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Mr. Louisell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1168.53], "stop_times": [1169.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.53}, "reply_to": "15167__0_067", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_000", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "May it please the Court, of course, the situation in the Princess Anne County just referred to by counsel was that there was an extent injunction that was a precedent and that the officials were relying upon to prevent another meeting before this Court struck down that injunction.\nIn submitting this case, Your Honors, I have only two points to make at this time.\nFar from sustaining the heavy burden of showing a Texas policy to use Article 474 to staple speech, I don't think I exaggerate when I say there's hardly any showing of such a policy, except the conclusory statements in the affidavits that their rights are chilled because of what took place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1169.62, 1189.786, 1198.126], "stop_times": [1189.786, 1198.126, 1227.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.62}, "reply_to": "15167__0_068", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_001", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Can you say to what temperature are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1227.527], "stop_times": [1229.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.527}, "reply_to": "15167__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15167__1_002", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1229.61], "stop_times": [1230.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.61}, "reply_to": "15167__1_001", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_003", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Does it indicate to what temperature the rights are chilled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1230.705], "stop_times": [1234.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.705}, "reply_to": "15167__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15167__1_004", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "What if that was chilled to any extent Your Honor.\nThey must be very chillable people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1234.176, 1237.314], "stop_times": [1237.314, 1241.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.176}, "reply_to": "15167__1_003", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_005", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Would you suppose there's more of a real controversy here though than there was in Epperson case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1241.724], "stop_times": [1247.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.724}, "reply_to": "15167__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15167__1_006", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "In the Epperson case however as the court very carefully pointed out, it was from a state court where the trial court had granted the relief, where the appellate court of the state wrote that two sentence opinion, and where as the writer of this Court's opinion say of the case is here from a state court which we think is an entirely distinguishable situation.\nNow in this case, there is no suspicion, there's even no possibility of suspecting racial prejudice in the case at bar because local counsel inform me all the persons involved were white people.\nIf you go to all the Texas cases in both of our brief, you won't find I don't believe Your Honors, one, that even concerns the content of speech, except one involving cursing, and there the court said, isn't enough show cursing to justify a conviction, the cursing must be shown to have done -- have been done in a manner reasonably calculated to disturb the peace.\nI think we can almost take.\nI don't exaggerate when I say we can almost take judicial notice that protesting, including protesting about Vietnam is as open, uninhibited at the University of Texas in Austin as it is in Berkley, California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1247.099, 1271.914, 1288.632, 1322.455, 1325.28], "stop_times": [1271.914, 1288.632, 1322.455, 1325.28, 1344.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.099}, "reply_to": "15167__1_005", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_007", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Professor, I'm just wondering in view of your statement that this was not a lawful procedure, this arrest that was made, and that therefore, haven't been dismissed and none of that was forced, what is there to prevent the same people from doing what they said they would do, just to piss saying, you stay out of our county, we don't want people like you, and the chief of police calling them traitors and telling what he would do.\nWhat is there to prevent those people from doing the same thing they did here, and then when the -- on the ordinances attack for the better in which is being used to dismiss it again and put them to that trouble again, and give them a $500.00 bail from the maximum punishment was $200.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1344.873, 1385.135], "stop_times": [1385.135, 1406.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.873}, "reply_to": "15167__1_006", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_008", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "It was a $400.00 bail Your Honor, where the maximum (Voice Overlap) punishment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1406.577], "stop_times": [1410.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.577}, "reply_to": "15167__1_007", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_009", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "-- four is still twice as much (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1410.48], "stop_times": [1411.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.48}, "reply_to": "15167__1_008", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_010", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Twice as much and of course, nobody would justify that Your Honor.\nNo sensible person would stand before this tribunal and justify that.\nWhen you take into account, the circumstances though, if there was overreaction here Your Honor, the tremendous nerve-racking circumstances of that event, will that be likely to reoccur again?\nThese local people, a lay justice of the peace, and if there is that kind of abuse, it is with pride that I can say that this Court had made clear the right to a remedy under the Civil Rights Act in Monroe against Pape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1411.884, 1415.449, 1419.365, 1432.177], "stop_times": [1415.449, 1419.365, 1432.177, 1446.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.884}, "reply_to": "15167__1_009", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_011", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Is there one word in the record by affidavit or anything else from the chief of police, the sheriff or anybody that said they won't do this again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1446.925], "stop_times": [1456.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.925}, "reply_to": "15167__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15167__1_012", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "There is nothing to that effect, but there is in the affidavits of the sheriff and the deputy sheriffs any deny \u2013 denial of any mistreatment. (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1456.375], "stop_times": [1467.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1456.375}, "reply_to": "15167__1_011", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_013", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "But is there anything using those words?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1467.28], "stop_times": [1469.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.28}, "reply_to": "15167__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15167__1_014", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I don't believe that those words.\nI forget exactly to whom was attributed of the word traitor, but I don't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1469.926, 1475.32], "stop_times": [1475.32, 1480.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.926}, "reply_to": "15167__1_013", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_015", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I think that was chief of police if I remember correctly, and I think the justice of peace was accused of saying that he put the bail at $400.00 because he wanted to see that they came back and he could try them for the offense and that they didn't want people of that kind in the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1480.425], "stop_times": [1503.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.425}, "reply_to": "15167__1_014", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_016", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "For that reprehensible conduct, there is an adequate remedy under this Court's decisions in Monroe against Pape, but the remedy isn't Your Honor to reach out and declare unconstitutional statute in the abstract.\nIf this -- if the court below is right about 474, Article 474 in declaring in the abstract for facial unconstitutionality so-called, I submit to this Court as far as I can find every disturbing of the peace, every breach of the peace and probably every disorderly conduct statute in this country would fall.\nCan society afford that?\nThis free speech required that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1503.777, 1518.941, 1545.093, 1548.28], "stop_times": [1518.941, 1545.093, 1548.28, 1550.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.777}, "reply_to": "15167__1_015", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_017", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Is it necessary to declare this ordinance unconstitutional on its face in order to get a declaratory judgment, an injunction against this kind of conduct on the part of the chief of police and the justice of peace?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1550.003], "stop_times": [1568.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.003}, "reply_to": "15167__1_016", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_018", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Why, no?\nIf the judge is being willing to go into the question, the lower court judge, the three-judge, if they had been willing to go into it, but they deliberately said we won't examine into the application of the statute to the facts here.\nWe insist upon doing this in the abstract.\nNow Your Honor, I see my time is up and in submitting this case, I just want to say this, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1568.528, 1569.278, 1583.475, 1586.865], "stop_times": [1569.278, 1583.475, 1586.865, 1592.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1568.528}, "reply_to": "15167__1_017", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_019", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "May I ask you one question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1592.172], "stop_times": [1593.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.172}, "reply_to": "15167__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15167__1_020", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1593.262], "stop_times": [1593.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.262}, "reply_to": "15167__1_019", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_021", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "You said yesterday but I didn't exactly get it.\nWhom do you represent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1593.77, 1596.802], "stop_times": [1596.802, 1598.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.77}, "reply_to": "15167__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15167__1_022", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "I represent the three appellants; the sheriff, the justice of the peace, and the county attorney of the county involved.\nThe state came into the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1598.751, 1610.929], "stop_times": [1610.929, 1612.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.751}, "reply_to": "15167__1_021", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_023", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Is that in effect the State of Texas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1612.208], "stop_times": [1614.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.208}, "reply_to": "15167__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15167__1_024", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "The State of Texas is in no way a party.\nThe Attorney General as the senior law officer of the state in view of the nature of this attack on the statute of the state took part in assisted in the defense of these three appellants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1614.466, 1617.311], "stop_times": [1617.311, 1630.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1614.466}, "reply_to": "15167__1_023", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_025", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "It is view -- I mean on the record in this Court, the Attorney General?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1630.179], "stop_times": [1636.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.179}, "reply_to": "15167__1_024", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_026", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Yes Your Honor, that is the at least the Assistant Attorney General, the act of trial counsel in this case is a party to the brief in this Court, yes.\nWhen a group for example comes to a classroom door or window, and by shrieky and raising a great den disrupts that class with the purpose of doing that; is that free speech?\nYour Honors, that is the thing that prevents free speech, and it is exactly at that type of failure that 474, Article 474 is aimed in order to continue a civilization that will make free speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1636.263, 1648.72, 1671.666], "stop_times": [1648.72, 1671.666, 1694.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1636.263}, "reply_to": "15167__1_025", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15167__1_027", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "Do we have the -- professor, do we to justify that kind of conduct in order to consider this justiciable today and to grant some relief to this man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1694.679], "stop_times": [1708.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.679}, "reply_to": "15167__1_026", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15167__1_028", "conversation_id": "15167", "text": "There is no question.\nIf their allegations however deny they are by the affidavits of the sheriff and the deputies and so forth, if those allegations are in good faith allegations, if in fact they are true, they have every right to relief.\nIn fact, the complaint presumably also seeks a relief in dollars.\nThey have every right under the Monroe case, if there is any truth at all to those allegations.\nAnd I wouldn't for a moment deny, but to reach out and declare in the abstract a statute is unconstitutional that would strike down every other statute in the union of a comparable nature, I submit is not in the interest of free speech in any possible way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1708.607, 1710.165, 1725.045, 1733.509, 1740.786], "stop_times": [1710.165, 1725.045, 1733.509, 1740.786, 1764.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1708.607}, "reply_to": "15167__1_027", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_000", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Number 269, Lester Gunn et al., appellants versus University Committee to End the War in Vietnam et al.\nMr. Louisell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [0.0, 18.141], "stop_times": [18.141, 18.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15275__0_001", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nFew cases that I have seen in recent years, so much invoke the ancient admonition owe to distinguish the reality of things from the tyranny of labels, or as this Court put it I believe in Trop against Dulles, how simple would be the task of constitution of adjudication if the decision of specific problems were a matter of selecting the labels pasted upon them.\nWe respectfully submit Your Honors that the court, the three-judge District Court below in the Western District of Texas by seizing upon the label of Dombrowski against Pfister without penetrating through to the context and the meaning in context of that teaching of this Court that the three-judge court has done violence to the realities of the situation as defied logic experience and history and requires reversal.\nNow, our facts here Your Honors are from a stipulation between the appellants and the appellees counsel and from the affidavits filed by the individual plaintiffs and the few of their fellow students and the affidavits of the sheriff of Bell County, Texas and his deputies.\nThat's the source of the facts here, those stipulation and affidavits.\nVery briefly on December 12, 1967, just a little more than four years within the shadow of Dallas, the President went to Central Texas College to make a dedicatory speech.\nThe night before his arrival, the secret service had a conference with the local police officers of the surrounding cities, with the sheriffs of both counties, the land involved here lies in both Bell and Coryell counties had a conference soliciting cooperation in protection of the defendant -- in protection of the president.\nOn the morning of December 12, the plaintiffs and others, member of the committee, our associates, hearing that this event was going to take place started out from Austin about 60 or 70 miles from Collin and proceeded to the neighborhood of Collin, Texas.\nThis college is near Collin. Collin serves one of the biggest military reservations in the United States Fort Hood, thousands of troops stationed there, many of them on the way to Vietnam, many of them just returned from Vietnam.\nThese people at least seven in number and at least in two automobiles proceeded to the area of the college where the president was to speak and when they arrived there, he had begun to speak or was about to begin.\nThey have their signs, their signs of protest against the war in Vietnam.\nVery shortly, almost immediately I think I can say, after their arrival on the scene, violence broke out.\nI think I can put in a nutshell the condition of the violence by reference to one item in the evidence, a big burly sergeant was heard to remark, \u201cLet me add them, they'd never seen blood.\u201d\nThere were 50 cops, their signs were torn to shreds, it was a dangerous situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [18.957, 24.367, 62.125, 108.471, 139.532, 146.135, 171.217, 200.128, 228.975, 251.433, 268.787, 277.296, 288.207, 306.542], "stop_times": [24.367, 62.125, 108.471, 139.532, 146.135, 171.217, 200.128, 228.975, 251.433, 268.787, 277.296, 288.207, 306.542, 318.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.957}, "reply_to": "15275__0_000", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_002", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "On the basis of those of facts, I have a little difficulty seeing how they fit within the language of the Texas statute appearing on the bottom of page 3 and the top of page -- above page 2 and the top of page 3 of your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [318.765], "stop_times": [333.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.765}, "reply_to": "15275__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15275__0_003", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is correct.\nI don't see how it was possible.\nOf course, we are dealing here with the rural area, a non-lawyer justice of the peace and so forth, how it was possible to concede that that statute would have any application anything that these plaintiffs had been involved in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [333.816, 335.521, 338.283], "stop_times": [335.521, 338.283, 355.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 333.816}, "reply_to": "15275__0_002", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_004", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [355.624], "stop_times": [355.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.624}, "reply_to": "15275__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15275__0_005", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I want to enlarge if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [355.943], "stop_times": [357.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.943}, "reply_to": "15275__0_004", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_006", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "The statute seems to require at least some kind of noise, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [357.61], "stop_times": [361.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.61}, "reply_to": "15275__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15275__0_007", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Precisely.\nIt just had nothing to do with this particular statute with any of the facts that the record shows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [361.709, 363.196], "stop_times": [363.196, 371.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.709}, "reply_to": "15275__0_006", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_008", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "It either noise or something it can -- indecent exposure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [371.998], "stop_times": [376.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.998}, "reply_to": "15275__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15275__0_009", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That's precisely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [376.796], "stop_times": [377.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.796}, "reply_to": "15275__0_008", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_010", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Or they displaying of a weapon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [377.984], "stop_times": [380.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.984}, "reply_to": "15275__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15275__0_011", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Whoever as the statute reads, whoever shall go into or near any public place or into or near any private house and shall use loud and vociferous or obscene vulgar or indecent language, or swear or curse, or yell or shriek, or expose his or her person to another person at the age of 16 years or over.\nAnother statute of course rules under 16 or rudely display any pistol or deadly weapon in a manner calculated to disturb the person of person's present at such place or house shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $200.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [380.593, 406.616], "stop_times": [406.616, 422.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 380.593}, "reply_to": "15275__0_010", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_012", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I suppose that could be argued that the use of not of loud and vociferous certainly, but the use of obscene vulgar or indecent language could be by writing rather than orally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [422.78], "stop_times": [438.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.78}, "reply_to": "15275__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15275__0_013", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Oh!\nUndoubtedly but there's no indication that there was any obscenity involved in the language here or any indecent protest involved in the language.\nThe important thing to stress it seems to me in the study of the facts here that despite of the occasion and there were about 25,000 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [438.561, 438.621, 450.509], "stop_times": [438.621, 450.509, 463.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 438.561}, "reply_to": "15275__0_012", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_014", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Who do you represent counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [463.422], "stop_times": [464.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.422}, "reply_to": "15275__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_015", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I represent the appellants, the sheriff, the county attorney and the justice of the peace. Despite --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [464.71], "stop_times": [475.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.71}, "reply_to": "15275__0_014", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_016", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I confess I'm confused.\nYou just conceded with statute and the lack of ability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [475.887, 478.869], "stop_times": [478.869, 482.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 475.887}, "reply_to": "15275__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_017", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I say that they were charged.\nThe charge under the statute did not cover any of the conduct that the record alleges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [482.881, 484.885], "stop_times": [484.885, 493.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.881}, "reply_to": "15275__0_016", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_018", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I thought the three-judge court would struck down the statute for overbreadth, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [493.321], "stop_times": [498.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.321}, "reply_to": "15275__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_019", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "It struck down the statute as nearly as one can tell for overbreadth and it struck it down in the abstract and it's specifically said it wasn't examining into the application of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [498.72], "stop_times": [510.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.72}, "reply_to": "15275__0_018", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_020", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, your position that is, is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [510.376], "stop_times": [512.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.376}, "reply_to": "15275__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_021", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Our position is twofold.\nFirst of all, that in the situation that developed here with a dismissal of these foolish criminal charges under the so-called \u201cdisturb or dist the peace\u201d complaint that had been filed.\nThe dismissal of those charges and the complete absence of the scintilla of indication that the State of Texas was using this statute to repress freedom of speech rendered the case surely an advisory proposition, and that the three-judge court should have grant the motion to dismissed.\nThat's the first proposition.\nThe second proposition is that if you do have to reach the question of the statutes constitutionality or if the court below had to on its face did as clearly nothing unconstitutional statute as vague or overbroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [512.851, 515.965, 532.416, 553.593, 555.779], "stop_times": [515.965, 532.416, 553.593, 555.779, 573.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.851}, "reply_to": "15275__0_020", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_022", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Do you conceive that as it was interpreted the law that it was unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [573.547], "stop_times": [581.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.547}, "reply_to": "15275__0_021", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15275__0_023", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "They didn't interpret it below Your Honor.\nThat -- I will excuse that, I mean they didn't apply it to the facts.\nYou will note from the opinion of the court below on page 89, the court said before we discuss the issues presented as to the merits of this controversy, it may be wise to state what is not involved, at the top of page 89.\nThis case does not involve in any way an appraisal of the constitutionality of the application of the statutes to the plaintiffs.\nWe do not evaluate whether Article 474 was constitutionally applied to these plaintiff's activity.\nOur sole concern is the determination of whether Article 474 on its face is -- and so forth unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [581.252, 583.605, 588.436, 612.668, 620.819, 627.256], "stop_times": [583.605, 588.436, 612.668, 620.819, 627.256, 637.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.252}, "reply_to": "15275__0_022", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_024", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "But with the injunction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [637.99], "stop_times": [640.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.99}, "reply_to": "15275__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_025", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "The injunction and I must admit it is couched in very unusual format.\nThe injunction comes at the very end of that opinion on page 92 at the very bottom of the page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [640.904, 648.614], "stop_times": [648.614, 662.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.904}, "reply_to": "15275__0_024", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_026", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "There is probably a declaratory judgment that the statute is impermissibly and constantly broad and to injunctive relief against the enforcement of Article 474 is not worthy insofar as any specialized guarantee under circumstances, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [662.924], "stop_times": [679.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.924}, "reply_to": "15275__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_027", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is correct.\nAnd it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [679.121, 680.436], "stop_times": [680.436, 681.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.121}, "reply_to": "15275__0_026", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_028", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Is that all you gamble the way with orders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [681.694], "stop_times": [683.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.694}, "reply_to": "15275__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_029", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is all we have by way of a judgment in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [683.319], "stop_times": [687.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.319}, "reply_to": "15275__0_028", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_030", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And is that what you recourse for review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [687.069], "stop_times": [689.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.069}, "reply_to": "15275__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_031", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And that is why it's here, that is the appeal was taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [689.006], "stop_times": [693.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.006}, "reply_to": "15275__0_030", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_032", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And you say that what we should do is reverse that order that you brought it, and what, remand the direction to dismiss the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [693.425], "stop_times": [702.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.425}, "reply_to": "15275__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_033", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That would be the correct procedure, reverse with instructions to dismiss the complaint as utterly a non-existent controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [702.298], "stop_times": [711.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.298}, "reply_to": "15275__0_032", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_034", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "We never reverse the case of a moot case and vacate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [711.817], "stop_times": [717.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.817}, "reply_to": "15275__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_035", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I believe -- yes Your Honor.\nBut, it would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [717.264, 719.931], "stop_times": [719.931, 720.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.264}, "reply_to": "15275__0_034", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_036", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "This is a non-existence of a non-existing controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [720.508], "stop_times": [723.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.508}, "reply_to": "15275__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_037", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is precisely right, and I think that can be shown by -- if you wish, I get right into that.\nI might just mention a little more of the chronology here in case it isn't completely clear, the point I wanted to stress about the facts is that no state official, no state trooper, no sheriff, no city policemen did anything to inhibit these people coming in making their protest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [723.41, 735.834], "stop_times": [735.834, 755.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.41}, "reply_to": "15275__0_036", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_038", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Counsel, may I ask you this question.\nYou have two problems here as I understand this case.\nOne is the Dombrowski issue of jurisdiction, the other is a question as to whether this statutes unconstitutional on its face.\nNow, what actually happened here is that there was a criminal prosecution of these people who are here as appellants, and that was dismissed.\nNo basis for them and the statute according to the Texas courts, that's not this case.\nSubsequently --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [755.379, 758.084, 761.854, 771.309, 782.231, 787.521], "stop_times": [758.084, 761.854, 771.309, 782.231, 787.521, 787.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.379}, "reply_to": "15275__0_037", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15275__0_039", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "May I just state the exact thesis of the dismissal logs that it took place on the federal enclave and was not even within the jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [787.689], "stop_times": [795.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.689}, "reply_to": "15275__0_038", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_040", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Alright, subsequently, this suit was instituted by the people who appear here as appellees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [795.732], "stop_times": [801.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.732}, "reply_to": "15275__0_039", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15275__0_041", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [801.638], "stop_times": [802.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.638}, "reply_to": "15275__0_040", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_042", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And the -- before three-judge court, that three-judge court granted a declaratory judgment and entered the order that you said, men said we state the mandate and we won't actually enter an order of injunction right now but a declaratory judgment was granted, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [802.896], "stop_times": [827.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.896}, "reply_to": "15275__0_041", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15275__0_043", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, they said they would await any further injunctive order until a meeting of the Texas legislature, which legislature has convene --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [827.213], "stop_times": [836.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.213}, "reply_to": "15275__0_042", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_044", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Alright, they grant -- they did say that plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment and that they won't do anything further by way of injunction until after the Texas legislature met, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [836.102], "stop_times": [847.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.102}, "reply_to": "15275__0_043", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15275__0_045", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "But they also said that plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [847.546], "stop_times": [852.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.546}, "reply_to": "15275__0_044", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_046", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I understand that.\nNow, what your argument here is that there was no jurisdiction under Dombrowski to entertain this action, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [852.436, 853.74], "stop_times": [853.74, 861.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.436}, "reply_to": "15275__0_045", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15275__0_047", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [861.662], "stop_times": [862.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.662}, "reply_to": "15275__0_046", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_048", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And do you also argue that if jurisdiction lies and nevertheless a statute is not unconstitutional on its face?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [862.89], "stop_times": [871.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.89}, "reply_to": "15275__0_047", "speaker": "j__abe_fortas"}
{"id": "15275__0_049", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Precisely, those were the two points that I wish to emphasize.\nNow, to make the rest of the chronology very brief, remember if I may say this that it was the military police who detain these plaintiffs, and it was only after they had detained and that they were brought into the presence of the state people that they were taken by the state people to the jail were this charge which it hadn't been dismissed because of the federal enclave, certainly, would have had to be dismissed for the reasons already suggested from the bench.\nThey were release on bail.\nTheir attorney promptly came and got them release on bail, and it was on December 21st that they started this three-judge suit.\nOn February 13 as I already mentioned, all these criminal charges were dismissed, February 13, 1968.\nOn February 15 therefore, the defendants, the appellants here, defendants in the three-judge suit move to dismiss the suit for the reasons already suggested from the bench.\nCounsel for these appellants wanted the motion, in fact, he made a special motion to have his motion to dismiss her at first, but the court insisted on merging the motion to dismiss with a hearing on the merits and filed the opinion that we've just read from that concluding order part of it on April 10th.\nThere was a motion for a new trial that was denied a so-called the addendum opinion written and the appeal was taken to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [871.857, 878.981, 913.407, 917.069, 928.373, 936.419, 953.665, 978.518], "stop_times": [878.981, 913.407, 917.069, 928.373, 936.419, 953.665, 978.518, 988.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.857}, "reply_to": "15275__0_048", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_050", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "On page 18, I gather, those are the copies of the plaintiff files --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [988.94], "stop_times": [994.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.94}, "reply_to": "15275__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_051", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [994.629], "stop_times": [995.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.629}, "reply_to": "15275__0_050", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_052", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Now I am just confused.\nAre you saying that that complaint is not taking charge of the Section 474?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [995.984, 998.669], "stop_times": [998.669, 1003.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.984}, "reply_to": "15275__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_053", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I'm saying that I cannot concede how that complaint would make a charge that is a sustainable charge under 474.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1003.338], "stop_times": [1012.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.338}, "reply_to": "15275__0_052", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_054", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "(Inaudible) lawfully and willfully, I guess that may disturb the peace, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1012.67], "stop_times": [1025.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.67}, "reply_to": "15275__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_055", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That's right.\nRemember, this was a form of course in print, it looks as though it were a new document, but it was a form merely filled in by the justice with those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1025.358, 1025.846], "stop_times": [1025.846, 1033.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.358}, "reply_to": "15275__0_054", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_056", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, this is not a charge of 474, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1033.21], "stop_times": [1037.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.21}, "reply_to": "15275__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_057", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it was intended undoubtedly by the lay justice of the peace to be in charge, but you don't charge a person with disturbing peace.\nYou may as a preliminary matter hoping for a plea of guilty, but his sustainable legal charge would have to be in the language that you're complaining about, that they did viably and vociferously in a public place and so forth.\nJust like you don't charge a man with murder, you charge him with having on such and such a date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1037.079, 1045.801, 1059.826], "stop_times": [1045.801, 1059.826, 1065.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.079}, "reply_to": "15275__0_056", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_058", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I know.\nWhat I was trying to get at, are you telling us there's no reason Rule 6 -- 474 before us and never has been a rule of case, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1065.106, 1065.543], "stop_times": [1065.543, 1073.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.106}, "reply_to": "15275__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_059", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That it never was a valid criminal charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1073.261], "stop_times": [1076.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.261}, "reply_to": "15275__0_058", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_060", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1076.525], "stop_times": [1077.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.525}, "reply_to": "15275__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_061", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "-- made against these people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1077.112], "stop_times": [1078.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.112}, "reply_to": "15275__0_060", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_062", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That's not my question.\nAre you telling us that this complaint makes no charge in the 474 and therefore, no question about it based otherwise that 474 is even in this litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1078.617, 1079.942], "stop_times": [1079.942, 1090.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.617}, "reply_to": "15275__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_063", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I'd say that 4 -- this was not a sustainable legal charge under 474 in my judgment.\nBut I don't suppose that's too important because in any event, this was dismissed.\nThis was dismissed because of the federal enclave proposition.\nBut have not been dismissed Your Honor because of the federal enclave.\nIt seems to me that the justice unless it where amended correctly to state a charge, would have had to throw it all upon motion of the defendants, and he didn't certainly the criminal Court of Appeals would've thrown that.\nAnd therefore when they come into federal court, with a three-judge suit, there's just no real fight of any true kind to complain about.\nNow, if I may come to the substance of the case as already been indicated from the bench from a legal viewpoint, this really merges into the two points you indicated Mr. Justice Fortas, the advisory point and the question of the official so-called unconstitutionality of the statute.\nIn addition to the cases in our brief on the advisory point, this Court will remember just of the last term that comprehensive review of the whole Frothingham problem in Flast against Cohen where the court had occasioned to go, I think to the philosophic depths of the whole notion of justiciability and the advisory opinion as a function of it.\nAnd in addition to the case as cited to in the brief, I invite particular attention to cases as old as the famous Muskrat case and even older, the case cited in the Flast against Cohen opinion, California against the San Pablo Railroad, and the other case cited in the Flast opinion.\nBut if really seems to me, it really seems to me that the most recent cases of this Court just the Princess Anne County Commission case decided at this very term wherein even tending order was set aside because it was ex parte with no chance for an advisory exchange.\nThat case although brought up by the appellees I think is excellent authority where realistic appraisal of whether there was any contest, any genuine justiciable controversy before the federal three-judge court.\nOn the constitutionality of the statute, if that has to be reached, let me just say that if this statute is on Constitution when he brought is guilty of overbreadth or of vagueness, what about our California comparable Section 415 of the Penal Code?\nWhat about the New York's Section on disorderly conduct revised as recently as 1965, Section 24.20 of McKinney's New York statute?\nWhat about the Connecticut statute that is set forth in detail in the case we cite, the case of Barber against Kinsella?\nWhat about the Minnesota statute to pick up the western jurisdiction?\nMinnesota statutes annotated Section 609.72 even the American High Institute hasn't been able to do anything much more satisfactory than this Texas language.\nIn its proposed Section 250.2 on disorderly conduct makes unreasonable annoy or offensively course utterance and so forth.\nI submit in confidence that a condemnation of the Texas statute written of course not scientific judge and not so many decibels, but in the common part of the country, it's perfectly beyond the path on its face as unconstitutional.\nIf it's even a been or it can ever it is applied in such a way is to deny people their first amendment rights or to inhibit in any realistic sense, not only this Texas law, but federal law under this Court's holding Monroe against Pape provides a very fine remedy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1090.667, 1099.958, 1106.66, 1111.209, 1115.359, 1129.777, 1148.497, 1181.131, 1213.032, 1236.981, 1266.666, 1282.423, 1312.151, 1326.387, 1335.791, 1340.252, 1356.338, 1370.632, 1394.218], "stop_times": [1099.958, 1106.66, 1111.209, 1115.359, 1129.777, 1148.497, 1181.131, 1213.032, 1236.981, 1266.666, 1282.423, 1312.151, 1326.387, 1335.791, 1340.252, 1356.338, 1370.632, 1394.218, 1417.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.667}, "reply_to": "15275__0_062", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_064", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, since that (Voice Overlap) this complaint was dismissed wherein the course of this civil proceeding in California, are you also making the argument that in mere fact that the dismissal now remove any basis upon which three-judge court that either render a declaratory judgment or a comfortable relief there's nothing will enjoin, no prosecution to enjoin and nothing about what's to give a declaratory judgment since there was no threat of invoking the statute against these people, did you notice that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1417.361], "stop_times": [1454.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.361}, "reply_to": "15275__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_065", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Not precisely that because if in fact the threat of the statute's application to inhibit First Amendment rights, lurked in the background like in the Dombrowski case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1454.914], "stop_times": [1469.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.914}, "reply_to": "15275__0_064", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_066", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "What do you do with Zwickler and Krueger?\nZwickler and Krueger where we set wholly, when we set back to the three-judge court, you said no, this may not be a situation for declaratory judgment at all.\nAnd there are elements required to maintain the declaratory judgment.\nWe told them they couldn't have any injunction in that case each time to post to a declaratory judgment but only if that's the proper suit or a declaratory judgment for such (Inaudible), well then the element is in control, is that what this is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1469.043, 1470.658, 1481.524, 1486.285], "stop_times": [1470.658, 1481.524, 1486.285, 1500.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.043}, "reply_to": "15275__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_067", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Not at all.\nIn that case, of course, there's a very serious basic substantive conflict of offering a free speech --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1500.86, 1501.876], "stop_times": [1501.876, 1507.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.86}, "reply_to": "15275__0_066", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_068", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "What do you mean so anxiously to give us to say that they were wrong on reaching the constitutional question of this -- on the basis?\nIf it was, then it was not a proper suit for declaratory judgment or injunction otherwise, is that the end of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1507.962, 1520.209], "stop_times": [1520.209, 1528.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.962}, "reply_to": "15275__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_069", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is, it isn't the proper suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1528.252], "stop_times": [1530.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1528.252}, "reply_to": "15275__0_068", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_070", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "We don't have to say they were wrong or the statute and wholly that the statute is unconstitutional, that's the basic rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1530.468], "stop_times": [1537.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.468}, "reply_to": "15275__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_071", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, I don't say you have to reach that question, no.\nBut if you do reach it, I do say the answer is very clear and I think that could a situation is very clearly distinguishable, there as I read the opinion of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1537.612, 1540.454], "stop_times": [1540.454, 1551.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1537.612}, "reply_to": "15275__0_070", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_072", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I don't understand why you want to distinguish it, I'm trying to help you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1551.24], "stop_times": [1554.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.24}, "reply_to": "15275__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_073", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, (Voice Overlap) the Krueger case has gone back to the District Court where there is relief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1554.363], "stop_times": [1559.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.363}, "reply_to": "15275__0_072", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_074", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "No, what you said and what we said included that.\nYes, in the way a declaratory judgment even though not to an injunction under the circumstances is not much different, unless what, it's not even entirely to the declaratory judgment unless you're satisfied with the elements which make up that, that's that true facts aren't satisfactory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1559.008, 1562.988], "stop_times": [1562.988, 1579.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.008}, "reply_to": "15275__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__0_075", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That is right.\nI'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1579.12, 1581.304], "stop_times": [1581.304, 1583.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.12}, "reply_to": "15275__0_074", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "15275__0_076", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "You may.\nMr. Clinton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1583.777, 1588.587], "stop_times": [1588.587, 1589.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.777}, "reply_to": "15275__0_075", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15275__1_000", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI think in the essence what counsel was indicating when you said that this statute was not applicable, was that my clients were not guilty of violating the statute, and of course, that's clear.\nIt not been has much to do with the issue but I gather that's what he was saying, which brings us to what this lawsuit is all about, the University Committee and the named plaintiffs feeling that there was the chilling effect that this Court has spoken up in similar type cases.\nA chilling effect on the exercise of their First Amendment rights, they sued in the court below and the three-judge court was convened.\nThey asked for three things essentially, declaratory relief that Article 474 was basically invalid.\nSecond --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1589.914, 1596.222, 1611.442, 1631.488, 1643.11, 1651.82], "stop_times": [1596.222, 1611.442, 1631.488, 1643.11, 1651.82, 1652.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.914}, "reply_to": "15275__0_076", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_001", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "The question in fact where these complaints, these criminal complaints dismissed before that proceeding was concluded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1652.287], "stop_times": [1659.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.287}, "reply_to": "15275__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_002", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "No sir -- oh, before it was concluded I'm sorry.\nThe underlying complaints were dismissed after the three-judge court had been convened and the manner was noticed for hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1659.226, 1663.575], "stop_times": [1663.575, 1672.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.226}, "reply_to": "15275__1_001", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_003", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "But before it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1672.561], "stop_times": [1673.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.561}, "reply_to": "15275__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_004", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "But before we actually got before the court for our hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1673.347], "stop_times": [1676.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1673.347}, "reply_to": "15275__1_003", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_005", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "They got it for the price that they had been dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1676.371], "stop_times": [1679.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.371}, "reply_to": "15275__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_006", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "By motion (Voice Overlap) by motion, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1679.046], "stop_times": [1681.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.046}, "reply_to": "15275__1_005", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_007", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, then what -- how do you justify the three-judge court going on with your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1681.627], "stop_times": [1687.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.627}, "reply_to": "15275__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_008", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "The same way that the three-judge court justified it with emphasis if I may.\nThe three-judge court found based upon uncontroverted evidence before it in this case in the form of agreed, a testimony in a form of agreed affidavits and if the people were in court so testified, this is what they testified to.\nNot only the three plaintiffs, but the two appellants who were a part of the party of seven represented to the court under oath that they had felt the chilling effect of these prosecutions and worse and had seized all activities in behalf of the University Committee to End the War in Vietnam that they knew others who had done so and it was all for this reason that the court said we do have a not just a broad curtailment of activities, but a suspension of expression altogether, and went on to find that the dispute was the liable, a very liable because here people, we're saying to the court were no longer taking part in these activities that we have before.\nWe were handled in the way we were handled up in Bell County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1687.623, 1694.099, 1711.675, 1766.866], "stop_times": [1694.099, 1711.675, 1766.866, 1770.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.623}, "reply_to": "15275__1_007", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_009", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Was there anything the stipulation whether there was any subjective if the statute was going to be enforced against others in this situation, a protest against Vietnam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1770.519], "stop_times": [1782.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.519}, "reply_to": "15275__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_010", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "There was a suggestion in two ways;\nOne, in the pattern of a conduct of at least two of the defendants -- I'm sorry, the appellants here who were the defendants below.\nThe sheriff and the justice of the peace that well, to put bluntly the sheriff said in the record that, you folks get out of my county and don't come back, we don't like people like you around here.\nThe JP said, the justice of the peace said, when the people come before him, we don't like traitors in this county and I'm setting a $500.00-bond on your case although the maximum fine was $200.00 to make sure that you come back because I want to try this case.\nThere are other matters --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1782.001, 1784.833, 1793.842, 1805.602, 1825.531], "stop_times": [1784.833, 1793.842, 1805.602, 1825.531, 1826.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.001}, "reply_to": "15275__1_009", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_011", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I suppose that all was flat on the complaint to dismiss --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1826.777], "stop_times": [1830.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.777}, "reply_to": "15275__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_012", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, that particular part collapse, but the court -- but you were asking about any continuing threat, and here, they're telling them don't come back.\nIf you do, we're in effect I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1830.078, 1837.513], "stop_times": [1837.513, 1840.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.078}, "reply_to": "15275__1_011", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_013", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Is there anything happens then -- where any of these folks prosecuted for anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1840.016], "stop_times": [1844.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.016}, "reply_to": "15275__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_014", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "There's no evidence that any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1844.424], "stop_times": [1845.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.424}, "reply_to": "15275__1_013", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_015", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Any demonstrations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1845.681], "stop_times": [1848.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.681}, "reply_to": "15275__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_016", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, the people say they are not going to demonstrate in Bell County as long as the sheriff acts like he does and the JP puts the on the $500.00 invokes the statutes the counsel now tells the court we're in no manner guilty of, and that's the thrust of their basis of saying that they are therefore not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1848.034], "stop_times": [1867.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.034}, "reply_to": "15275__1_015", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_017", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Is this declaratory judgment stop him from saying I don't want you in my county.\nIf you come near again, I will give you $500.00 fine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1867.599, 1871.611], "stop_times": [1871.611, 1874.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.599}, "reply_to": "15275__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15275__1_018", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "No sir, declaratory judgment that -- may I preface to that answer by saying actually the court I think has not -- the court below has not issued either declaratory judgment or an injunction.\nThey have said in an opinion that we are entitled to it, but there's been -- they've state their mandate, pending the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1874.246, 1887.707], "stop_times": [1887.707, 1895.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.246}, "reply_to": "15275__1_017", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_019", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That's the final judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1895.272], "stop_times": [1896.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.272}, "reply_to": "15275__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15275__1_020", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1896.49], "stop_times": [1897.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.49}, "reply_to": "15275__1_019", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_021", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Do you think there's a final judgment or purpose to sustain any jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1897.019], "stop_times": [1899.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.019}, "reply_to": "15275__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15275__1_022", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, I mentioned that it -- at the beginning of my motion to affirm, but since it has been used in other this similar type thing has happened in particularly some reapportionment cases, I figure that it was probably fine when the court kind of thought so too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1899.732], "stop_times": [1916.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.732}, "reply_to": "15275__1_021", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_023", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, there's a judgment here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1916.677], "stop_times": [1919.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.677}, "reply_to": "15275__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15275__1_024", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "There's the opinion -- we have not entered any kind of order of injunction.\nThere's no language agreed upon as to some sort of order that would follow the opinion.\nThe reason that the court did that, it sets out they state their mandate because the legislature was coming into session.\nThey wanted to give the Texas legislature a chance to work on the statute.\nThen, the legislature it happened almost coincidentally.\nIt met in special session as distinguished from regular session and adjourned without taking any action because of the limited nature of that section.\nBefore then we could go back to the three-judge court for any further action, papers where filed in this Court and the mandate was state further.\nAnd so, that's the situation as far as the outstanding nature of any kind of order, there just isn't any way we have the opinion and it's been state, the mandate was state first by the court below would now by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1919.801, 1925.405, 1931.723, 1938.078, 1943.815, 1948.354, 1957.544, 1969.688], "stop_times": [1925.405, 1931.723, 1938.078, 1943.815, 1948.354, 1957.544, 1969.688, 1984.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.801}, "reply_to": "15275__1_023", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_025", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I would like to see -- are you suggesting if the law enforcement with authority of the county, that would demonstrate they now looked at you, we don't like that space and if you try to demonstrate here we're going to prosecute you under the statute that in and of itself, that's not to authorize a kind of District Court that would consider the constitutionality of the statute mentioned by the law enforcements, and if they found it unconstitutional on its face to enjoin its (Inaudible), is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1984.097], "stop_times": [2019.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.097}, "reply_to": "15275__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_026", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, though I think there's more to it.\nThere's more to this case than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2019.239, 2021.135], "stop_times": [2021.135, 2023.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.239}, "reply_to": "15275__1_025", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_027", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, it wasn't the beginning but what was their absent complaint more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2023.032], "stop_times": [2027.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.032}, "reply_to": "15275__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_028", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I'm satisfied that the court below took into consideration, perhaps the good faith of even the dismissal of the complaints for example.\nYou see, there is absolutely no evidence in this record that these events did in fact take place on what is now described as a federal enclave.\nThere is simply no evidence that that's so.\nIn fact, circumstantially is if counsel says, the military police first put their hands on the protesters and then delivered them into the hands of the deputy sheriff while still on a college campus suggest it, maybe it wasn't truly on the federal enclave where criminal jurisdiction have been ceded.\nAnd so I say first that I think the court below may be looked at the timing of the filing of a motion to dismiss and the grounds of the motion to dismiss and the fact that there was no evidence in support of it, plus the court obviously looked to the things that I'm suggesting should be looked to the continuing suspension by these persons of their own activities in Bell County, particularly.\nAnd I think it ought to be said about Bell County that housing or being the home as it is all Fort Hood and being a military installation, this particular committee that I represent looks upon it as a proper place in which to spread its views, and so, it is more than just borrowing or these people feeling they can't go to Bell County but the Bell County is a place that they think they ought to be, as distinguished from even some of the adjoining counties, it is of special significance to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2027.461, 2038.99, 2047.538, 2050.001, 2072.076, 2101.682], "stop_times": [2038.99, 2047.538, 2050.001, 2072.076, 2101.682, 2142.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.461}, "reply_to": "15275__1_027", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_029", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "That statute is the only breach of peace statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2142.932], "stop_times": [2146.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.932}, "reply_to": "15275__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15275__1_030", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "It's the -- it no, it is not the only one.\nIt is the general statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2146.794, 2150.904], "stop_times": [2150.904, 2152.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.794}, "reply_to": "15275__1_029", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_031", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "How could they charge that kind of statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2152.529], "stop_times": [2155.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.529}, "reply_to": "15275__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15275__1_032", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, we allege that that's what we involved and the appellants here denied in their answer that the 474 was unconstitutional and we stipulated in that stipulation that what was in issue was Article 474.\nAll of which, it was raised before the three-judge court on the motion to a new trial analyzed by a three-judge court and the three-judge court says clearly, we've been litigate in Article 474 here, we would have been here to start with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2155.281, 2173.18], "stop_times": [2173.18, 2185.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.281}, "reply_to": "15275__1_031", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_033", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2185.262], "stop_times": [2186.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.262}, "reply_to": "15275__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15275__1_034", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "No sir.\nBut I want to answer the other question because behind Article 474, there are other statutes that may be said to relate to breach of peace but this is the one that is -- has the short title, disturbing the peace, and this is the one that we've all agreed that was raised here and was involved.\nOne other sort of technical matter, what you have before you or what we have before us, it was dismissed was a complaint filed by the sheriff or a deputy sheriff before the justice of the peace, and that insofar as counsel says that it is inadequate to allege an offense, of course we don't stand trial necessarily on the offense, we stand trial on any information that is later issued by the county attorney based upon that charge has been found.\nWe have to make bond, we go -- we put to jail on the charge and we have to make bond to be release from the charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2186.829, 2187.937, 2207.952, 2240.975], "stop_times": [2187.937, 2207.952, 2240.975, 2247.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.829}, "reply_to": "15275__1_033", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_035", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And you don't get to know the facts until the only information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2247.123], "stop_times": [2251.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.123}, "reply_to": "15275__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_036", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2251.006], "stop_times": [2251.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.006}, "reply_to": "15275__1_035", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_037", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "You would not know until the information what charge you have to defend against.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2251.673], "stop_times": [2257.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.673}, "reply_to": "15275__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_038", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Right.\nWhat's specific part of that very broad and multi-positive --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2257.36, 2257.697], "stop_times": [2257.697, 2262.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.36}, "reply_to": "15275__1_037", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_039", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "What court will the information be charged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2262.228], "stop_times": [2264.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.228}, "reply_to": "15275__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_040", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "The justice of the peace in this instance, the same justice of the peace who made -- who --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2264.124], "stop_times": [2270.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.124}, "reply_to": "15275__1_039", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_041", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "And that was, is there appeal de novo or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2270.005], "stop_times": [2272.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.005}, "reply_to": "15275__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_042", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "To the -- no, there's -- yes.\nThere is an appealed novo, I'm sorry.\nIt depends on the amount of fine as to which direction you go.\nLet's say generally, they would be an appeal de novo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2272.63, 2278.017, 2279.444, 2281.906], "stop_times": [2278.017, 2279.444, 2281.906, 2286.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.63}, "reply_to": "15275__1_041", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_043", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "No indication that the justice of the peace had filed before him or on the appeal de novo that any defense, constitutional or otherwise would not be entertained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2286.904], "stop_times": [2299.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.904}, "reply_to": "15275__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_044", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "Well, after the justice of the peace was saying what he had done, we didn't look forward to a trial before him.\nHe said it to as soon as they were brought before him that he didn't like traitors in his county, and then he put -- imposed -- he said well, you can plead guilty and the fine would be $200.00 which is the maximum incidentally.\nOr you can make a bond of $500.00.\nAnd when our plaintiffs -- I'm sorry, when the appellees who are plaintiffs below protested that that was rather excessive, he said well, I just want to make sure you're here so I can try this case.\nI want to be -- they did not believe that they had much future here before him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2299.456, 2306.304, 2318.91, 2321.722, 2333.221], "stop_times": [2306.304, 2318.91, 2321.722, 2333.221, 2339.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.456}, "reply_to": "15275__1_043", "speaker": "sam_houston_clinton_jr"}
{"id": "15275__1_045", "conversation_id": "15275", "text": "We'll recess now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [2339.248], "stop_times": [2341.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.248}, "reply_to": "15275__1_044", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "23707__0_000", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "We'll hear arguments in Number 7, Gunn against the University Committee.\nMr. Louisell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [0.0, 40.784], "stop_times": [40.784, 42.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23707__0_001", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIn some ways, this is the most unusual of all three-judge cases because as I think I can show, the one issue that was, at least arguably involved here, the three-judge court insisted explicitly on ignoring it.\nAnd an issue that really wasn't at all involved, they insisted on rendering an advisory opinion of it.\nAfter I argued this case in January of 1969 in reflecting immediately afterwards on some of the questions from the bench, I realized that I hadn't probably early enough in my argument made it very clear just who the parties are and that the State of Texas as such is not a party to this case.\nThis was a three-judge suit brought by the committee and by three individuals apparently purporting to represent classes of people and the suit was brought under the Dombrowski theory basically.\nThe defendants, the county attorney of the county involved here and the other two defendants, the sheriff and the justice of the peace are the appellants in this Court.\nThe Attorney General of Texas as the senior law enforcement officer of Texas took over the defense of three-judge case but the state itself is not a party to the suit.\nNow, Your Honors after the last argument because of some questions addressed from the bench primarily, we filed a supplemental brief and the only briefs before the Court on the merits here are our opening brief, the brief for appellees that was not replied to as such and our supplemental brief.\nIt seems to me that it's very important, as always of course, but perhaps particularly here because of the nature of what the three judges did below to be very observant of the facts.\nOn December 12, 1967, President Johnson, and the press of course announced it a little bit ahead of time so that excitement, interest was aroused, went to make an address and to inspect Fort Hood in Central Texas.\nThe speech was to be a dedicatory speech at Central Texas College.\nThe Secret Service summoned all the local law enforcement people to help prepare for this event.\nThe Sheriff of Bell County and Coryell, the adjacent county, the local police chiefs were all summoned and urged to lend of course their aid in the protection of the President and in appraisal of the facts here, the Court of course will be aware that this was within about just a little more than four years of the shadow of Dallas, Texas of November 1963.\nSeven, at least seven members from the University of Texas and presumably a number of them members of this committee organized a protest the war in Vietnam, came to the premises shortly after the President had begun to speak and they had their protest signs.\nI perhaps should, again, remind Your Honors that Fort Hood, I think is the largest armored fort in the United States, at least 25,000 or 35,000 people on duty there and at least 25,000 gathered to hear the President's address.\nMany of the people stationed at Fort Hood are veterans who have returned from Vietnam or are on their way to Vietnam, personnel on their way to Vietnam.\nWhen the protesters, including the three individual plaintiffs here arrived at the premises, they started to approach with their signs and there's no claim that there was any impropriety about the signs.\nOf course, there's no claim that they weren't perfectly within their right in a peaceful protest.\nBut immediately or almost immediately, perhaps not quite, and unfortunately one of these cases tried only on affidavits like our equity practice before in 1912, I can't really say that to the extent there is a dispute in the facts that there's any real resolution of the facts in the opinion of the three-judge court, but most of the facts, most of the significant facts are not really undisputed.\nVery soon, violence started. One of the protesting young men was attacked.\nA burly sergeant is reported as having said they have never seen blood.\nTerrible commotion commenced and it is important I think Your Honors to note that the first intervention was not by the Texas Sheriff or the Texas Police or any other Texas official.\nThe first attempt to prevent the serious potential violence was by the Military Police there.\nThe Military Police took control, took custody of these men and then turned them over to the sheriff.\nApparently, there was some momentary dispute, that is turn them over to the deputy sheriff, actually, the sheriff himself was at a distant point near to the presidential stand and when he saw the commotion, he came over to see what should be done about it.\nThese three plaintiffs were turned over to one of the deputy sheriffs.\nThere was some momentary confusion as to whether the exact locus was in Bell County or Coryell County but they ended up in Bell County and when it was decided that it had been within the territorial limits of Bell County, the sheriff authorized a disturbing of the peace charge against these three people who had been taken in custody.\nIt's very important at least I think it's an interest to note that this disturbing of the peace statute as it then existed in Texas and as it is reported, printed on page 12 of our brief -- excuse me, page 12 of the joint appendix and it also appears in our brief, provides a penalty in the maximum amount of $200.00 but there is no provision for a jail sentence.\nMore lenient for example than some of our other similar statutes, my own California statute for example, has a 90-day jail provision in it too.\nThere were some things that took place and here of course, you have some conflict in the affidavits.\nThe affidavit of the sheriff of Bell County denies any brutality, denies anything approaching brutality.\nIn fact, shows relatively I would say courteous treatment, they were allowed to continue to watch for example the television of the President's speech but they are some things that are unfortunate things from the view point of a precise correct administration of the law.\nOf course, this is a rural community between Austin and Waco, Texas, a lay justice of the peace and so forth and the justice of the peace according to one of the affidavits of one of the young men, fixed the bail of $500.00 where the maximum penalty was $200.00.\nThe bail was immediately made or maybe I shouldn't say immediately but very promptly made.\nThe lawyer came very informally and quickly provided the bail requirement and they were released.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [42.144, 46.972, 69.277, 78.175, 104.552, 137.764, 161.764, 179.914, 212.662, 230.43, 251.515, 257.305, 268.831, 302.463, 328.188, 346.042, 359.461, 381.377, 393.468, 424.68, 433.564, 441.004, 458.14, 466.94, 480.896, 503.482, 509.151, 539.342, 574.278, 585.312, 592.57, 603.852, 626.106, 652.479, 658.098], "stop_times": [46.972, 69.277, 78.175, 104.552, 137.764, 161.764, 179.914, 212.662, 230.43, 251.515, 257.305, 268.831, 302.463, 328.188, 346.042, 359.461, 381.377, 393.468, 424.68, 433.564, 441.004, 458.14, 466.94, 480.896, 503.482, 509.151, 539.342, 574.278, 585.312, 592.57, 603.852, 626.106, 652.479, 658.098, 669.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 42.144}, "reply_to": "23707__0_000", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_002", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Are you suggesting possibly Mr. Louisell that the atmosphere at the moment was affected by the fact that the safety and security of the President of the United States was thought to be involved and that it wasn't just an ordinary disturbance at the county fair, is that what you're suggesting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [669.727], "stop_times": [691.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.727}, "reply_to": "23707__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23707__0_003", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Precisely that, and of course with what had taken place just four years earlier, one can understand the state of even not only concerned but of extreme anxiety but I'm also suggesting as the sheriff makes clear in his affidavit that there wasn't any intention upon the part of Texas officials to organize against a reasonable protest.\nThey weren't the ones to seize these people and as the sheriff pointed out in his affidavit, the one very happy thing about the event was that these people who dared to go into that environment under those circumstances escaped substantially uninjured.\nOne did have, I believe some bleeding from the mouth for awhile.\nNow, this all took place on December 12, 1967 and incidentally the bleeding of the mouth, from the mouth was from the assault of one of the soldiers, it had nothing to do with any action of the Texas sheriff or police officials.\nOn December 21, the three-judge suit was started invoking the usual sections of the Judicial Code 1983, the Declaratory Judgment Act and asking for a declaration and an injunction against enforcement of the section of the Texas Penal Code, I have already referred to, the so-called disturbing of the peace section, Article 474.\nA temporary restraining order was granted.\nThis was extended from time to time until the hearing but before the hearing which occurred on February 23, 1968, before the hearing, all these charges of disturbing the peace against these three plaintiffs and they are reproduced in the joint appendix and you will note of course, that they were printed forms and merely filled in.\nOf course, this doesn't show up in the printing of them, that is in the printing of the record but they simply filled in in this layman language, \u201cdist. the peace.\u201d\nOn February 13, all three of these charges were dismissed by the county attorney because he was advised that the actual incidence had taken place on a federal enclave, a part of the territory pertinent to Fort Hood and that the state had ceded jurisdiction and there was no state jurisdiction at all so they were dismissed.\nIn all candor, I think I said at the last argument and I believe it is firmly now as then, that if they hadn't been dismissed for this reason, they would've been dismissed because of the facts.\nThere had been no disturbing of the peace, at least as far as we can tell from this cold record.\nMaybe it might have been appropriate to charge them with an affray under the Texas Code, but certainly if the justice of the peace hadn't been forced by the reason of the thing to dismiss these charges, the County Court on appeal where you have a de novo trial, from a conviction by a justice of the peace, they would've been found before it -- and to throw them out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [691.418, 721.06, 740.275, 746.086, 766.767, 800.2, 803.806, 837.303, 853.988, 883.577, 901.578, 912.194], "stop_times": [721.06, 740.275, 746.086, 766.767, 800.2, 803.806, 837.303, 853.988, 883.577, 901.578, 912.194, 938.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.418}, "reply_to": "23707__0_002", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_004", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Mr. Louisell, now what happened to the temporary restraining order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [938.219], "stop_times": [941.002], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 938.219}, "reply_to": "23707__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "23707__0_005", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "The temporary restraining order was continued from time to time in all the entrances, the entries I should say of continuing are in the docket orders.\nIt was continued right up until the time of the hearing on February 23 and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [941.002, 953.048], "stop_times": [953.048, 958.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 941.002}, "reply_to": "23707__0_004", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_006", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Was it dissolved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [958.894], "stop_times": [960.62], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 958.894}, "reply_to": "23707__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "23707__0_007", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "There was no explicit dissolution of it that I can find indicated in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [960.62], "stop_times": [966.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.62}, "reply_to": "23707__0_006", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_008", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "[Inaudible] do we have a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [966.818], "stop_times": [970.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.818}, "reply_to": "23707__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_009", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Well, this is another unusual thing, yes, you do have a judgment or if not a judgment, something equally as appealable, but let me point out to you that we hovered this in our supplemental brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [970.795], "stop_times": [989.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.795}, "reply_to": "23707__0_008", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_010", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "For example only recently, we dismissed that view they contained from three judges, [Inaudible] because while there was an opinion and the opinion --conclusion submitted in the opinion is not embodied in the judgment [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [989.719], "stop_times": [1007.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.719}, "reply_to": "23707__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_011", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "I believe that is correct but a very important distinction is apparent, it was at the Goldstein case, a very recent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1007.76], "stop_times": [1015.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.76}, "reply_to": "23707__0_010", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_012", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "[Voice Overlap] the Richardson case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1015.0], "stop_times": [1016.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.0}, "reply_to": "23707__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_013", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1016.358], "stop_times": [1017.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.358}, "reply_to": "23707__0_012", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_014", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "It's the Richardson case, not the Goldstein case, that involved a different question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1017.049], "stop_times": [1021.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.049}, "reply_to": "23707__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_015", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "That involved a declaratory judgment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1021.83], "stop_times": [1024.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.83}, "reply_to": "23707__0_014", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_016", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "But the point was, it was no -- the case in which we dismissed recently, there was an opinion about the -- that holding in the opinion was not embodied in the judgment.\nAnd we held it was a direct appeal, we held it not -- it was not an appealable judgment, and dismissed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1024.511, 1035.863], "stop_times": [1035.863, 1041.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.511}, "reply_to": "23707__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_017", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Here is the situation on that as I see it Your Honor.\nFirst of all, as we show in the supplemental brief, the appeal from a final judgment here is governed or from an interlocutory order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1041.335, 1047.342], "stop_times": [1047.342, 1061.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.335}, "reply_to": "23707__0_016", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_018", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "I agree it is but where is it, I can't find that out of the order or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1061.044], "stop_times": [1064.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.044}, "reply_to": "23707__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_019", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Well, it's in the last paragraph --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1064.513], "stop_times": [1067.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.513}, "reply_to": "23707__0_018", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_020", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Of the opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1067.345], "stop_times": [1067.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.345}, "reply_to": "23707__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_021", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "-- of the Court's opinion.\nThe Court did not comply with Rule 58 that requires the entry of a separate document as a judgment, one of the recent amendments to federal Rule 58.\nIt did not do that but it did specify of course, the entitlement to the injunction and to the declaratory judgment and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1067.627, 1069.535, 1080.086], "stop_times": [1069.535, 1080.086, 1090.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.627}, "reply_to": "23707__0_020", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_022", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "But then didn't it suspend it pending something in the Texas Legislature [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1090.348], "stop_times": [1094.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.348}, "reply_to": "23707__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_023", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "They suspended it pending a meeting of the legislature of Texas.\nThat legislative session did meet and did nothing about this Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1094.209, 1101.153], "stop_times": [1101.153, 1106.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.209}, "reply_to": "23707__0_022", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_024", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "And after that nothing was done about the suspension?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1106.817], "stop_times": [1109.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.817}, "reply_to": "23707__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_025", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "And nothing was done about the suspension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1109.265], "stop_times": [1111.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.265}, "reply_to": "23707__0_024", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_026", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1111.644], "stop_times": [1111.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.644}, "reply_to": "23707__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_027", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "But of course that suspension expired of its own weight by the very terms of what the judge -- the Court had written.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1111.753], "stop_times": [1120.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.753}, "reply_to": "23707__0_026", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_028", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "And you suggest that then converts the last paragraph into a judgment for purposes of a [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1120.333], "stop_times": [1125.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.333}, "reply_to": "23707__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "23707__0_029", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "The last -- certainly he intended as a judgment Your Honor because the very docket entry shows, the docket entry of April 10, 1926, judgment filed and entered.\nSecondly, even if it isn't a judgment, it is currently an interlocutory order that is explicitly appealable under 28 U.S. Code 1253 and in studying that section, may I suggest you also study 2101 which makes even more clear the appealability of this particular order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1125.808, 1139.166], "stop_times": [1139.166, 1161.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.808}, "reply_to": "23707__0_028", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "23707__0_030", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "I think we'll suspend for 10 'o clock, Professor Louisell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1161.373], "stop_times": [1164.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.373}, "reply_to": "23707__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23707__0_031", "conversation_id": "23707", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_7", "start_times": [1164.603], "stop_times": [1165.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.603}, "reply_to": "23707__0_030", "speaker": "david_w_louisell"}
{"id": "14951__0_000", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Gutknecht against the United States.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready Mr. Tigar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [0.0, 6.144], "stop_times": [6.144, 9.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_001", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case presents a serious question, here in Oestereich against the Selective Service Board, but not decided in that case.\nOf whether the selective service system is being used to punish or sanction this ancient behavior without due process, without congressional authorization and on the standards so vague and broad as to offend the First Amendment.\nThere is in addition here, two serious questions, there are here two serious questions, concerning criminal procedure in the 9.7% of all federal criminal prosecutions, which are represented by selective service prosecutions today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [9.288, 11.814, 14.93, 22.567, 36.16], "stop_times": [11.814, 14.93, 22.567, 36.16, 52.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.288}, "reply_to": "14951__0_000", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_002", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "There almost 10% of all federal prosecutions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [52.168], "stop_times": [54.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.168}, "reply_to": "14951__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_003", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Stewart, 9.7% I believe in the last report.\nThe petitioner, David Gutknecht anticipated in an antiwar, anti-draft demonstration on the 16th of October, 1967, in the course of which he dropped his registration certificate and notice of classification, along with the mimeograph statement of position on the Vietnam war and conscription, at the feet of the United States Martial, in front of the Federal building in Minneapolis.\nEight days later, on the 24th of October, 1967, General Hershey, the Director of the Selective Service System, issued the letter to all local boards and local board memorandum number 85, which are reprinted in Appendix B to the petitioner's brief which was an issue in Oestereich.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [54.507, 60.053, 83.218], "stop_times": [60.053, 83.218, 100.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 54.507}, "reply_to": "14951__0_002", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_004", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "What was the petitioner's classification at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [100.575], "stop_times": [103.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.575}, "reply_to": "14951__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_005", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "At that time Mr. Chief Justice he was classified 1-A, although he had an appeal pending, which meant that he could not be inducted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [103.597], "stop_times": [112.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.597}, "reply_to": "14951__0_004", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_006", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Does the record show anything about how long the time is involved in processing appeals in that particular board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [112.922], "stop_times": [122.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 112.922}, "reply_to": "14951__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_007", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice it does not.\nThe average time is a meaningless figure.\nIt varies greatly depending on the workload.\nThose figures are collected most recently in the Marshall Commission report in pursuit of equity.\nThe local board memorandum and letter, urged local boards to use the delinquency power to reclassify and order for priority induction, registrants who engaged in illegal demonstrations.\nAs soon as it could under the regulations, the petitioner's board on December 21, 1967, sent him a delinquency notice, reprinted at page 44 of the appendix.\nAnd a weekend, a day and Christmas day after that, sent him an order to report for priority induction.\nTaking him out of his statutorily and regulatory mandated position in the order of call and ordering him for military service, ahead of the time, when he would otherwise have to report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [122.076, 124.076, 127.005, 129.384, 138.153, 151.396, 161.836, 168.654], "stop_times": [124.076, 127.005, 129.384, 138.153, 151.396, 161.836, 168.654, 180.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.076}, "reply_to": "14951__0_006", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_008", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Now, was his appeal still pending from his 1-A classification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [180.868], "stop_times": [183.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.868}, "reply_to": "14951__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_009", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, if it had been pending Mr. Justice Stewart, it would have been illegal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [183.792], "stop_times": [187.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.792}, "reply_to": "14951__0_008", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_010", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [187.597], "stop_times": [187.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.597}, "reply_to": "14951__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_011", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Under the regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [187.749], "stop_times": [188.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.749}, "reply_to": "14951__0_010", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_012", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But it was not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [188.493], "stop_times": [189.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.493}, "reply_to": "14951__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_013", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It was not pending.\nThe petitioner concededly reported for induction, but did not obey the orders of the induction center officials relating to his processing.\nA prosecution for refusal to report for and submit to induction followed then, he is currently under sentence of four years imprisonment.\nThe delinquency regulations, if the Court please, provide that when a registrant fails to perform any duty, a term given no further definition, under the act or regulations, he may in the unfettered discretion of the board be declared delinquent.\nIf he is to further exempt, he may again in the unfettered discretion of the board be classified in the class available for service.\nIf he's already 1-A, he is sent to the head of the list for induction.\nNow, if he is reclassified out of the deferred or exempt status, he has a personal appearance before the board and an appeal.\nIf like the petitioner, he is already 1-A, he is entitled to no hearing whatever before the local board under the regulations.\nSay that hearing which the board in its absolute discretion may choose to give him.\nThe decision to declare, retain, or remit delinquency status, resides under the regulations in the discretion of the board.\nIt's our contention, set forth in our brief, that this kind of administrative sanctioning procedure, involving the summary deprival of a benefit or privilege, under a regulatory system, knows no parallel in federal administrative law today.\nAnd when coupled with administration under the broad ranging directive of the director of Selective Service to have local boards reach out to get at the sanctioned behavior, the regulations have a fearsome deterrent effect upon the exercise of protected freedoms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [189.235, 192.762, 200.121, 208.955, 224.172, 231.348, 236.369, 242.625, 250.98, 255.891, 268.379, 287.295], "stop_times": [192.762, 200.121, 208.955, 224.172, 231.348, 236.369, 242.625, 250.98, 255.891, 268.379, 287.295, 304.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.235}, "reply_to": "14951__0_012", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_014", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "How much of your case depends upon whether he did or did not have a right to a hearing at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [304.247], "stop_times": [312.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.247}, "reply_to": "14951__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_015", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I would say our case depends not at all upon that point.\nWe do of course contend that the regulations impose punishment and therefore, he was entitled to a judicial trial.\nSecond, that they impose a sanction at least and he is entitled to due process and adversary hearing.\nBut, even if the Court should decide those questions against us, we believe that Green and McElroy compels reversal here.\nGreen and McElroy will be recalled, did not require the Court to reach the constitutional issue.\nAll the Court held was that given our presumption in favor of fairness, we would not presume that the Congress authorized an administrative agency to dispense with these fundamental procedural decencies, without an expressed statement by the Congress and an expressed statement by the president of an intention to do so.\nAnd if the Court were to adapt that position, which seems to me sensible and supported by the former decisions of the Court, the constitutional issue need not be reached.\nHowever, we do believe that if the constitutional issue must be reached, should be decided in our favor.\nThese regulations in their purpose, their language, their administration, and their effect are punitive.\nEven the Government cannot evade this issue and it's brief that a search on the one hand that they are not punitive and in the appendix to its brief reprints a letter from General Hershey to Mendel Rivers, which makes their punitive intent abundantly clear.\nOn page 81, General Hershey says that Selective Service should not be used for punitive purposes, if by that it's meant that one should be inducted to the Armed Forces as punishment for an offense, which is not related to Selective Service, leaving the regulations to be applied in that vast number of federal offenses which maybe found in trusteeses of the Selective Service Act and Regulations.\nIndeed, the delinquency regulations are far broader than is necessary to achieve the limited, non punitive purpose which the Government would describe to them.\nUnder the regulations, a registrant is presumed to be 1-A, unless he supplies the board with information about his status.\nAnd perhaps, properly so that compels him to go in there, and tell the local board what he's been doing and whether he's entitled to a deferment or exemption.\nA delinquency system, which limits the local board discretion, and which provided that a registrant's classification was to be frozen, it was to be frozen in 1-A for example, and that no requests for deferment would be considered, until he started cooperating with the local board in supplying information.\nIf again, placed under a limited, non discretionary, regulatory scheme, might be non-punitive, but taking the further step of prior to induction illustrates I think the punitive purpose, which lies at the base of these regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [312.987, 318.299, 323.996, 330.399, 337.58, 342.48, 364.518, 375.428, 381.369, 390.044, 403.959, 434.508, 446.465, 452.345, 461.165, 478.985], "stop_times": [318.299, 323.996, 330.399, 337.58, 342.48, 364.518, 375.428, 381.369, 390.044, 403.959, 434.508, 446.465, 452.345, 461.165, 478.985, 499.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.987}, "reply_to": "14951__0_014", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_016", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Within that hypothetical, just get into that limitation, let's say that the regulation is so construed, he's authorized by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [499.292], "stop_times": [511.697], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 499.292}, "reply_to": "14951__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14951__0_017", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Harlan, we would not.\nI think that this regulatory scheme finds no authorization, whatever in the Selective Service Center.\nAnd that it ought to be held unauthorized and the president left, if he wishes to, to -- excuse me, I misunderstood your question.\nIf the regulations were redrafted with the limitation I've just suggested, perhaps this Court could find them approved under the statute or authorized under the president's general rule making power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [511.697, 513.99, 520.102, 531.733], "stop_times": [513.99, 520.102, 531.733, 544.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.697}, "reply_to": "14951__0_016", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_018", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That was my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [544.21], "stop_times": [545.211], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 544.21}, "reply_to": "14951__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14951__0_019", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That would be a different case, yes Mr. Justice Harlan.\nThe presence scheme reposing in local boards, there's absolute discretion, finds no authorization in the statute.\nAnd, there is no indication that the Congress has ever explicitly and carefully considered it, as it has explicitly and carefully considered every other federal regulatory scheme that I know of, which involves the imposition of the sanction of this character.\nWe turn therefore, to the inhibitory effect of the Hershey directive, upon the exercise of protective freedoms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [545.211, 552.041, 558.996, 585.616], "stop_times": [552.041, 558.996, 585.616, 594.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.211}, "reply_to": "14951__0_018", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_020", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Where did you say that letter was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [594.596], "stop_times": [597.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.596}, "reply_to": "14951__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14951__0_021", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "The letter Mr. Justice Black, it appears at page 81 of the Government's brief, it is a response to a letter from -- or to a request from Mendel Rivers for information.\nThe Government has attempted to evade the free speech issue in this case.\nIn its brief and in oral argument yesterday, by denying that it exists.\nIt underscores this by saying that the petitioner's turning in of his card is not protected conduct.\nWe argue in our brief that it is, but the Court needn't reach that issue, in order to find the First Amendment fault in the Hershey directive.\nThe record in this case indicates that the board had before it, the following information. First, a letter from the United States Attorney, reprinted at page 42 and 43 of the appendix, stating that the petitioner had participated in an antiwar, anti-draft demonstration and turn in this Court.\nSecond, the board had before it the indubitably persuasive words of General Hershey counseling it to use its broad-ranging discretionary powers to punish behavior which the five lay members of the board conceived to be illegal.\nAnd finally, there is the delinquency notice.\nWe have here a case therefore, in which the directive, the regulatory scheme, the Hershey directive, the local board memorandum supplemented by this very vague system of procedural provisions in the delinquency regulations is unconstitutional on it's face.\nAnd here, as in NAACP and Button, as in Freidman and Maryland, as in Aptheker against the Secretary of State, it doesn't matter whether the petitioner's conduct could be reached and punished under a more narrowly drawn regulatory and statutory scheme.\nThe directive being unconstitutional on it's face.\nThe regulations supplementing this chilling effect by their vagueness and the discretion they vest in local boards, requires a reversal of the petitioner's conviction.\nThis reading is indeed supported by the only prior selective service decision of this Court, which is in point, Sicurella against United States.\nIn Sicurella, the local board had before it, the illegal recommendation by the Department of Justice, that the petitioner's conscientious objector claim be not sustained and the Court held that given this -- the presence of this persuasive though mistaken recommendation, that the conviction had to be reversed because it did not affirmatively appear in the selective service file, that the board had disavowed the unlawful and mistaken views of the Department of Justice.\nThe final point to which I would address myself in oral argument today, leaving the remainder of rather technical arguments to our very lengthy brief is the variance question.\nThat is the petitioner was indicted, if the Court for refusal to report for and submit to induction.\nIn a part of our brief and I don't propose to argue, we say that that indictment fails to state in offense, because it's bad under rule seven of the rules of criminal procedure.\nBut that aside, concededly the petitioner reported, the Government doesn't deny that.\nHe then, went to the induction center and when there, refused, the records shows, to obey certain orders by induction center officials that he submit to processing.\nHe was never given an opportunity to refuse to submit to induction.\nSubmitting to induction, as this Court had occasion, in Mr. Justice Douglas' opinion for the Court in Billings and Truesdale to consider at some length is a well defined orderly step in the process of selection of man into the Armed Forces of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [597.009, 611.359, 617.938, 624.834, 631.008, 640.708, 662.15, 678.696, 681.954, 701.204, 718.378, 723.05, 734.279, 744.377, 787.743, 802.671, 810.729, 821.202, 826.949, 840.875, 847.508], "stop_times": [611.359, 617.938, 624.834, 631.008, 640.708, 662.15, 678.696, 681.954, 701.204, 718.378, 723.05, 734.279, 744.377, 787.743, 802.671, 810.729, 821.202, 826.949, 840.875, 847.508, 866.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.009}, "reply_to": "14951__0_020", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_022", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "What do you say he did, if he did not refuse to submit to induction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [866.835], "stop_times": [871.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.835}, "reply_to": "14951__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_023", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, there is an offense.\nIt is a duty of a registrant to obey the orders of the induction center officials.\nAnd the failure to perform that duty can be prosecuted under Section 12 (a).\nWe have here therefore a case that is on all force with Stirone against United States, in which the indictment charged a conspiracy respecting the importation of sand into Pennsylvania and the proof at trial showed a conspiracy involving both the importation of sand and the exportation of steel.\nIn other words, the proof of trial was quite different from the offense with which the petitioner was charged.\nAnd, I would say that that is a not inconsiderable problem, given the large number of these offenses that are being prosecuted in the Courts, it devolves upon the Government with a special burden, I think to plead with accuracy and above all to present to the grand jury all of the facts.\nSo that at the time the charge is laid, there's been a thorough and full consideration of what it is the defendant should be prosecuted for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [871.493, 874.962, 880.007, 884.271, 905.193, 914.108, 935.952], "stop_times": [874.962, 880.007, 884.271, 905.193, 914.108, 935.952, 944.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.493}, "reply_to": "14951__0_022", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_024", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well perhaps, I didn't make my question clear enough, Mr. Tigar.\nIf the man presents himself at the induction center and let us say refuses to take the medical examination or refuses to fill out forms, as he refused to comply with induction orders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [944.724, 949.82], "stop_times": [949.82, 966.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.724}, "reply_to": "14951__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_025", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "He has Mr. Chief Justice, refused to comply with that part of the induction process that deals with the physical and mental examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [966.627], "stop_times": [976.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.627}, "reply_to": "14951__0_024", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_026", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Is that an offense under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [976.043], "stop_times": [977.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.043}, "reply_to": "14951__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_027", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, it is.\nIt's an offense under the regulations in the statute, Section 12 (a) of the Act, makes it a crime to refuse to perform any duty under the regulations.\nThe regulations make it a duty to comply with those orders of induction center officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [977.612, 978.745, 986.011], "stop_times": [978.745, 986.011, 990.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.612}, "reply_to": "14951__0_026", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_028", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But do I understand that you're to say that he did not refuse to comply with induction orders, which the statute contemplates to make out an offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [990.536], "stop_times": [1002.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.536}, "reply_to": "14951__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_029", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice that is not my point.\nMy point is that if he committed any offense at all, it was the offense of refusing to obey orders that he take physical and mental examinations at the induction center.\nAnd it was not the offense of which he was indicted, the refusal to submit to induction, which is a very precisely defined offense in the Selective Service and Army regulations, which this Court had before it, in Billings against Truesdale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1002.094, 1004.572, 1019.183], "stop_times": [1004.572, 1019.183, 1036.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.094}, "reply_to": "14951__0_028", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_030", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "And was that raised at the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1036.653], "stop_times": [1039.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.653}, "reply_to": "14951__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_031", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "The variance question?\nNo, Mr. Chief Justice it was not raised at the trial.\nIf the issue arose during the trial and I think from the record in the Court of Appeals, the contention that was focused on was the failure of the indictment to inform the petitioner of the offense with which he was charged.\nI think that this question is fairly composed within that.\nAnd it is certainly a question upon which certiorari was granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1039.892, 1042.637, 1046.352, 1060.962, 1065.301], "stop_times": [1042.637, 1046.352, 1060.962, 1065.301, 1068.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.892}, "reply_to": "14951__0_030", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_032", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Is it your position that every destruction or failure to carry a draft card in possession is an exercise of First Amendment rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1068.648], "stop_times": [1083.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.648}, "reply_to": "14951__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_033", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the destruction question I believe is foreclosed by the Court's decision in O'Brien against United States.\nIt is our position that under the circumstances of this case, in which the surrender of the card was a part of a constitutionally protected course of conduct that it was a protected First Amendment activity.\nThat is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1083.938, 1090.597, 1105.487], "stop_times": [1090.597, 1105.487, 1106.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.938}, "reply_to": "14951__0_032", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_034", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Assuming that it's surrender, the act of surrendering falls in that category, does that mean the actor is forever thereafter excused from complying with the requirement to carry the draft card in its possession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1106.244], "stop_times": [1131.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.244}, "reply_to": "14951__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_035", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I would say not Mr. Chief Justice, although it's a question that had not occurred to me until you asked it.\nIf the board would have send him another card and if his failure to possess it is unrelated to a course of conduct in which he's exercising his First Amendment right of dissent.\nThen, I think that would be a different case than the one that we have before us.\nOur point there is only that there is a difference as I believe, the Court said in O'Brien between permanently rendering one certificate unavailable and the abandonment of it.\nAnd that there has been by the Government no showing that this conduct by the petitioner or similar conduct by others across the country is interfered with the operation of the Selective Service System.\nThus, we do not have a showing by the Government that the countervailing interest is paramount, cogent, important, strong or any of the other words, which the Court has used in defining the permissible scope of limitation of speech and non-speech conduct, when they're brigaded together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1131.882, 1138.746, 1155.232, 1160.863, 1172.181, 1184.3], "stop_times": [1138.746, 1155.232, 1160.863, 1172.181, 1184.3, 1208.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.882}, "reply_to": "14951__0_034", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_036", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Is it the duty of the board to send somebody another card, when it learns that that person's card has been -- or learns from third parties, (Inaudible) that person's card has been lost or destroyed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1208.371], "stop_times": [1225.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.371}, "reply_to": "14951__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_037", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I find in the regulation Mr. Justice Stewart no statement that the board has such a duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1225.442], "stop_times": [1230.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.442}, "reply_to": "14951__0_036", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_038", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I suppose a registrant who loses his card, it's really his own negligence or carelessness or because it's stolen or something that can apply and get a new one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1230.92], "stop_times": [1242.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.92}, "reply_to": "14951__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_039", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, he can a duplicate card.\nThe difficulty, it was another difficulty with these regulations of course, is that if the board gets a card, which the registrant has lost, it has no way of knowing the reason why he is abandoned it.\nAnd there's no provision under the regulations to give him a hearing.\nIndeed, in this record the board never had any evidence that the petitioner surrendered his card.\nSelective Service certificates aren't even in the file.\nI don't know where they are.\nThe only evidence the board had was the United States Attorney's letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1242.018, 1244.435, 1255.155, 1258.166, 1263.276, 1265.626, 1267.38], "stop_times": [1244.435, 1255.155, 1258.166, 1263.276, 1265.626, 1267.38, 1271.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.018}, "reply_to": "14951__0_038", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_040", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well, if that was here say evidence, but there's no dispute about what did happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1271.441], "stop_times": [1276.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.441}, "reply_to": "14951__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__0_041", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "There is no dispute.\nNo, but I think it underscores one of the dangers in this regulatory scheme sir.\nI want --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1276.744, 1277.747, 1283.562], "stop_times": [1277.747, 1283.562, 1284.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.744}, "reply_to": "14951__0_040", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_042", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Do they need a regulation of any kind to guide the board in what to do if a trashed card turns up under some lost and found process?\nDo they need a regulation to tell the board to send that card to the registrant again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1284.362, 1297.174], "stop_times": [1297.174, 1302.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.362}, "reply_to": "14951__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_043", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice, I would not say that they would.\nAnd if the actions of boards were limited to sending the card back to the registrant, we wouldn't have the case we have.\nIt's only when the board seeks to use the coming into its office of card, as the predicate for deprival of a benefit conferred with the statute in regulation that a quite serious congressional authorization and due process problems is raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1302.705, 1305.691, 1311.903], "stop_times": [1305.691, 1311.903, 1327.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1302.705}, "reply_to": "14951__0_042", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_044", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Would it make a difference in that situation, whether the board was aware that it had been a deliberate disposition of the card, as compared within inadvertent loss of the card?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1327.591], "stop_times": [1339.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.591}, "reply_to": "14951__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_045", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice, it would not make a difference, unless that determination were made after the kind of adversary hearing, which this Court has in other cases involving imposition of sanctions regardless indispensable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1339.028], "stop_times": [1351.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.028}, "reply_to": "14951__0_044", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_046", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well, do I understand you to be suggesting that if the card shows up that the board by any process, they must hold an adversary hearing to determine whether it was lost or deliberately thrown away?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1351.756], "stop_times": [1368.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.756}, "reply_to": "14951__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__0_047", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It is our position that the regulations are invalid for failure to provide such a hearing.\nYes, that seems reasonable that if the board is going to take away the registrant statutorily and regulatory mandated position in the manpower pool, that it ought to have some means reliable, fair, orderly means of informing itself.\nThat is our position.\nIn conclusion, I find it quite difficult to state my sense of urgency about this case.\nAnd Mr. Ruckelshaus perhaps set our theme for us yesterday in Breen.\nThere is today a rising tide of protest activity.\nMuch of that activity involves conduct, which under this Court's decision can clearly be punished.\nThat is not the issue in this case.\nThe war in Vietnam is not the issue in this case nor its conscription.\nThe issue is whether having chosen to fight a war in Vietnam with a conscript army.\nWe ought to tolerate in doing so, departure from the principle, that delegations of power are mistrusted when personal liberty is at stake. That no man should be condemned before his heard.\nAnd that however outrageous a man's political conduct, it cannot be punished by invoking a system of rules which are vague and overbroad on their face.\nI think if we depart from these principles than in these very difficult times we've constitutional compact is more than dishonored, it will become the cruelest of illusions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1368.07, 1372.423, 1392.587, 1400.559, 1411.454, 1416.252, 1420.095, 1426.484, 1428.883, 1434.449, 1442.126, 1455.642, 1468.08], "stop_times": [1372.423, 1392.587, 1400.559, 1411.454, 1416.252, 1420.095, 1426.484, 1428.883, 1434.449, 1442.126, 1455.642, 1468.08, 1486.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.07}, "reply_to": "14951__0_046", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__0_048", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Ruckelshaus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1486.453], "stop_times": [1489.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.453}, "reply_to": "14951__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__1_000", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI think again today we find ourselves at the outset faced with the same problem that we faced at the outset of the Green case.\nAnd that is that throughout both Green and Gutknecht, throughout the briefs file by the petitioners in both cases and throughout the amicus briefs filed in both cases, there is this overtone or undertone of accusation against the Selective Service System focused in on the Hershey directive, somehow implying that the reason people are being declared registrants are being declared delinquent in this country today is because of their protest activities.\nNow, I don't happen to believe that that is true.\nHowever, even if it is true, it has not been proven in either one of these cases.\nLet me give just one fact that was omitted.\nOn December 20th Mr. Gutknecht was declared delinquent.\nThe Hershey directive was issued in October.\nOn December 9th at page 41 of our brief is reprinted in Breen.\nThe brief in Breen has printed the joint statement of then Attorney General Ramsey Clark and General Hershey, specifically, repudiate the idea that any registrant could be inducted or his induction could be accelerated, because of his belief, because of any protest activity unrelated to any violation of a delinquency regulation that he engaged in.\nIn the court below --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1489.155, 1493.981, 1503.546, 1542.679, 1546.222, 1554.397, 1559.099, 1564.21, 1568.707, 1575.584, 1603.653], "stop_times": [1493.981, 1503.546, 1542.679, 1546.222, 1554.397, 1559.099, 1564.21, 1568.707, 1575.584, 1603.653, 1605.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1489.155}, "reply_to": "14951__0_048", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_001", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Where?\nI can't find that, I'm looking for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1605.023, 1605.522], "stop_times": [1605.522, 1606.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.023}, "reply_to": "14951__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__1_002", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That's on page 41 of our brief, Mr. Justice Stewart not in this brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1606.701], "stop_times": [1611.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1606.701}, "reply_to": "14951__1_001", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_003", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1611.809], "stop_times": [1615.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.809}, "reply_to": "14951__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__1_004", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Now, this as the boards in the Selective Service System had this directive or had this joint memorandum of General Hershey and then Attorney General Clark before them after they had the Hershey directive before them.\nIn the court below, on page 35 of the appendix, the Court states, defendant now claim that he was being unlawfully punished for his political views on the Vietnam war and states that the board's punitive action was in violation of his First Amendment Rights.\nThis is the Appellate Court speech.\nThe District Court however found that there was no evidence at trial to support defendant's contention that his delinquency order was based upon his political views.\nThe District Court found that the delinquency order was based upon the defendant's violation of the regulation that he had the required cards in his possession at all time, that's what involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1615.253, 1632.825, 1653.707, 1655.924, 1667.422], "stop_times": [1632.825, 1653.707, 1655.924, 1667.422, 1682.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.253}, "reply_to": "14951__1_003", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_005", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I thought something different was involved?\nCertainly, we don't sit to pass judgment on whether the large number of protest result in revocation of classification.\nWe are only concerned with this man and I thought the question was whether or not as a matter of procedural due process or statutory requirement, he should be entitled to a hearing on whether or not what the District Court said and the Court of Appeals said is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1682.221, 1685.685, 1699.194], "stop_times": [1685.685, 1699.194, 1716.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.221}, "reply_to": "14951__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14951__1_006", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Justice Douglas that is certainly part of this case, but what I am attempting to do at the outset is define narrowly just what it is involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1716.956], "stop_times": [1724.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.956}, "reply_to": "14951__1_005", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_007", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It seems to be that would be the narrowest one, -- as a matter of statutory, not constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1724.76], "stop_times": [1731.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.76}, "reply_to": "14951__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14951__1_008", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I think that's correct Mr. Justice Douglas, they have launched in their brief a rather massive attack on the delinquency regulations themselves saying that they were not authorized by statute that even if they were authorized, the statute is so vague, it's to be devoid of standards, then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1731.349], "stop_times": [1747.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.349}, "reply_to": "14951__1_007", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_009", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I don't know why, I spent a lot of time in the Oestereich case, reading the brief filed by the Solicitor General and it didn't seem to be that the attack made by this petitioner was more massive and the one made by the Solicitor General who I see is absent from this particular brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1747.653], "stop_times": [1765.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.653}, "reply_to": "14951__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14951__1_010", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Justice Douglas, the Solicitor General in his brief, in Oestereich suggested that sound arguments could be made along the lines that petitioner here makes them.\nI think that if there is any disagreement, it would be that I would delete the word \u201csound.\u201d\nI think an argument can be made along the lines the petitioner has made them.\nBut I don't believe that they're sound and I think that in our brief we relate while we believe they're not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1765.905, 1778.496, 1784.45, 1788.514], "stop_times": [1778.496, 1784.45, 1788.514, 1795.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.905}, "reply_to": "14951__1_009", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_011", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I think you're protected by the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1795.244], "stop_times": [1802.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.244}, "reply_to": "14951__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14951__1_012", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Now, Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nNow, the court below decided this question on rather narrow grounds.\nOn the validity of the delinquency regulations in acceleration within a class, within the class in this case 1-A.\nI think that question is covered in our brief, but I think the overall question of the validity of the delinquency regulations, as far as reclassification is concerned, is what -- is either going to be before this Court.\nIn this case, if they decide not to take it on the narrow grounds or will be in some other cases that are pending here on petition for certiorari.\nAnd for that reason I think this argument can best be had in terms of a broader questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1802.16, 1806.755, 1811.569, 1822.961, 1832.739, 1840.907], "stop_times": [1806.755, 1811.569, 1822.961, 1832.739, 1840.907, 1851.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.16}, "reply_to": "14951__1_011", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_013", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "In this case, the man had actually has his draft card stolen from him, or burned, or lost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1851.344], "stop_times": [1860.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.344}, "reply_to": "14951__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_014", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "If it were burned without his consent or without his knowledge.\nI think clearly Mr. Justice Marshall that if this happened, and it came to the board's attention, and they sent him a notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1860.69, 1866.364], "stop_times": [1866.364, 1872.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.69}, "reply_to": "14951__1_013", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_015", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "The notice says this didn't come to him, the only thing came to the board's attention was he didn't have his card.\nUnder these regulations, is it not probable, but is it possible that a board could accelerate in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1872.926, 1878.609], "stop_times": [1878.609, 1887.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.926}, "reply_to": "14951__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_016", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I think it is possible that a board could do so, but I think if they did Mr. Justice Marshall, it would be a clear abuse of their discretion.\nAnd if this happened we would -- and if this is what had happened in this case, we would not be here in this Court today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1887.557, 1895.006], "stop_times": [1895.006, 1900.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.557}, "reply_to": "14951__1_015", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_017", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1900.201], "stop_times": [1901.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.201}, "reply_to": "14951__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_018", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Because we would have confessed there prior to coming here.\nNow, I think if under our interpretation of the regulations, if a regulation is violated by inadvertence or by mistake of the registrant and the board attempts to accelerate him under a strict reading of the regulations that this is a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the board.\nThat it is only willful violations on the part of registrants and not only willful, but a violation in which the registrant shows no desire to come back in to compliance again with the regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1901.162, 1906.29, 1925.865], "stop_times": [1906.29, 1925.865, 1939.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.162}, "reply_to": "14951__1_017", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_019", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Was he have offered a new draft card?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1939.809], "stop_times": [1942.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.809}, "reply_to": "14951__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_020", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "He was not offered a new draft card, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1942.333], "stop_times": [1945.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.333}, "reply_to": "14951__1_019", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_021", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Have you ever suggested that he apply for one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1945.12], "stop_times": [1947.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.12}, "reply_to": "14951__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_022", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But on page 44 of the appendix is a copy of the delinquency notice that was sent to Mr. Gutknecht in this case.\nAnd in that delinquency notice, in paragraph two it said, \u201cYou are hereby directed to report to the local board immediately in person or by mail or to take this notice to the local board nearest to you for advice as to what you should do.\u201d\nNow, Mr. Gutknecht did not do that, he said that because five days later, he was reclassified that this in effect did not give him the amount of notice that he needed to bring himself back into compliance.\nIf he had tried to get himself back into compliance by showing a willingness to possess his cards at anytime, prior to induction or certainly prior to the notice of induction, I think that again clearly the board would have been abusing its discretion by not permitting him to come back into compliance.\nThis is consistent with our theory of the delinquency regulations not being punishment, but being remedial in their effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [1947.341, 1955.188, 1971.321, 1985.393, 2002.577], "stop_times": [1955.188, 1971.321, 1985.393, 2002.577, 2009.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.341}, "reply_to": "14951__1_021", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_023", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "The regulation don't get any of that protection, none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2009.335], "stop_times": [2014.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.335}, "reply_to": "14951__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_024", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2014.386], "stop_times": [2014.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.386}, "reply_to": "14951__1_023", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_025", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It leaves it up to the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2014.945], "stop_times": [2017.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.945}, "reply_to": "14951__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_026", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well, I respectfully would state Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2017.029], "stop_times": [2020.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.029}, "reply_to": "14951__1_025", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_027", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Just in point at words, may as if the authority that the board has, uncontrolled authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2020.378], "stop_times": [2030.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.378}, "reply_to": "14951__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_028", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well, the board has given discretion without question under the regulation, but I think like any discretionary grant, there is -- there are times when that can be abused.\nAnd it is our contention that consistent with the analysis of civil contempt in this case that where someone attempts to bring himself back into compliance for the regulations.\nThere's a clear abuse and in this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2030.443, 2041.702, 2052.46], "stop_times": [2041.702, 2052.46, 2054.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.443}, "reply_to": "14951__1_027", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_029", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I wonder if the Breen case, I would assume that he couldn't get into Court before that, could he?\nYour position in the Breen case, he couldn't have litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2054.841, 2061.889], "stop_times": [2061.889, 2065.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.841}, "reply_to": "14951__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_030", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "In Breen he could bring himself back into compliance, by simply agreeing to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2065.632], "stop_times": [2070.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.632}, "reply_to": "14951__1_029", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_031", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But I mean when he was classified and gotten -- that notice in five days to report.\nHe couldn't have litigated that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2070.608, 2077.079], "stop_times": [2077.079, 2078.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.608}, "reply_to": "14951__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_032", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, he was not -- in Breen, he has never been given an induction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2078.772], "stop_times": [2081.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.772}, "reply_to": "14951__1_031", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_033", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "No, I mean in this case.\nThis man could litigate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2081.896, 2082.913], "stop_times": [2082.913, 2085.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.896}, "reply_to": "14951__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_034", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "He has never been given -- Yes, he has never been given a notice of induction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2085.241], "stop_times": [2089.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.241}, "reply_to": "14951__1_033", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_035", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well, how can this man in this case test out the discretion of the draft board, legally and of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2089.167], "stop_times": [2096.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.167}, "reply_to": "14951__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_036", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "He's doing it in a criminal action, which were here before this court, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2096.931], "stop_times": [2101.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.931}, "reply_to": "14951__1_035", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_037", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It's the only way he could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2101.203], "stop_times": [2102.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.203}, "reply_to": "14951__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_038", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That's right, under the regulation, under the law, under Section 10 (b) 3 this is the vehicle which he can use to test his rights.\nAnd that's precisely what he's doing here in this Court and as a further example of what I'm saying in number 623, before this Court.\nNow, Troutman against United States, a confession of error, a virtual confession of error will be filled by the Justice Department, by the Solicitor General, but tomorrow where Mr. Troutman attempted to bring himself back into compliance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2102.701, 2112.638, 2122.22], "stop_times": [2112.638, 2122.22, 2137.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.701}, "reply_to": "14951__1_037", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_039", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But that won't help this man's four years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2137.842], "stop_times": [2141.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.842}, "reply_to": "14951__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_040", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, what I'm saying is that attempting to focus what Mr. Gutknecht could have done in order to bring himself back into compliance and to focus on the fact that if the draft boards, if the boards themselves do not permit him to come back into compliance, we're prepared to confess error, we're prepared to admit that they have abused their discretion.\nAnd I think in the grant, in the regulations themselves, where it says he may -- the board itself may change its mind at anytime.\nAnd another regulation writ says it may reopen the whole proceedings as to his classification at anytime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2141.917, 2164.731, 2175.111], "stop_times": [2164.731, 2175.111, 2180.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.917}, "reply_to": "14951__1_039", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_041", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "My real difficulty is that as to whether or not the Government confesses error is up to one person, the Attorney General of the United States, his uncontrolled discretion.\nWe had the uncontrolled discretion to the board, controlled only by the uncontrolled discretion of the Attorney General of the United States.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2180.555, 2194.047, 2204.849], "stop_times": [2194.047, 2204.849, 2207.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.555}, "reply_to": "14951__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_042", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, I don't think that we can look at a discretionary grant assuming that is going to be abused.\nObviously, with over four thousand draft boards in this country, there are abuses.\nI would not stand here and say they weren't, but where abuses are found, where abuses of that discretionary grant to the board are found, there is a process by which those abuses can be set right and I think just as any administrative board is given a discretion, where that discretion is abused, the person who is wrong has a power and a right to raise that wrong in the Court of law.\nAnd if it comes to the attention of those who are meant to enforce the law, then this is the way it works in any case, that the Attorney General would be the last one to admit the abuse of discretion or the Solicitor General in this Court.\nI don't see that that's any difference, in terms of a grant of discretion to the draft boards and it is to any other administrative agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2207.979, 2216.476, 2221.366, 2246.662, 2261.337], "stop_times": [2216.476, 2221.366, 2246.662, 2261.337, 2270.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.979}, "reply_to": "14951__1_041", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_043", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I only raised it because you said that's what cured the discretion of the draft board.\nThat's the only reason I'm raising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2270.932, 2276.789], "stop_times": [2276.789, 2279.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.932}, "reply_to": "14951__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_044", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I don't think that's only thing that cures it, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI don't think the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2279.569, 2282.463], "stop_times": [2282.463, 2283.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.569}, "reply_to": "14951__1_043", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_045", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "You think case like this could cure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2283.518], "stop_times": [2287.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.518}, "reply_to": "14951__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_046", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Could cure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2287.114], "stop_times": [2287.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.114}, "reply_to": "14951__1_045", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_047", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2287.765], "stop_times": [2289.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.765}, "reply_to": "14951__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_048", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Well, he has the right --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2289.376], "stop_times": [2291.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.376}, "reply_to": "14951__1_047", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_049", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "To raise --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2291.073], "stop_times": [2291.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.073}, "reply_to": "14951__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_050", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2291.395], "stop_times": [2292.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.395}, "reply_to": "14951__1_049", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_051", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Nobody blocks it?\nYou didn't it block it, you let him raise it and now it's up to you, that's the way you should think it should be done.\nI don't see anything wrong with that position, for me to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2292.555, 2293.853, 2299.38], "stop_times": [2293.853, 2299.38, 2302.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.555}, "reply_to": "14951__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14951__1_052", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Ruckleshaus, are you saying to us that any registrant, any draft registrant who loses his card or is otherwise dispossessed of it through inadvertence and not intent has the key to the solution of his problem by simply getting another card and putting himself back in compliance at any stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2302.802], "stop_times": [2324.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.802}, "reply_to": "14951__1_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__1_053", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Absolutely, Mr. Chief Justice, this is our position.\nThis is our position that this is clearly what is intended by the regulations themselves, when they say that the classification maybe reopened at anytime, without regard to other regulations.\nThat he has the right, when he's reclassified to notice that he has a right to a hearing and he has the right to an appeal to the state appeal board.\nThat the -- that these regulations read as a whole clearly draw the analogy between civil contempt that we have drawn and make then remedial.\nThe question of punishment that Mr. Justice Marshall addressed himself to yesterday, I think is very much involved in this case as to whether the delinquency regulations themselves amount to punishment, the acceleration and that if it does amount to punishment, is it done so without due process or the Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantee.\nNow, yesterday when I just mentioned in passing your question Mr. Justice Marshall, about what the punishment -- the question that bothered you that there maybe elements of punishment in the delinquency regulations.\nThe counsel jumped with glee in his rebuttal argument that I was willing to admit there maybe elements of punishment.\nI think that really it would do this Court a little good to get into so many called argument of just exactly what amounts to punishment.\nIt is our position on page 39 and following of our brief that some of the indicia of legal punishment are present here, just as they were -- the outlined in the Kennedy Mendoza case.\nAmong those indicia that are outline of that case is their sanctions that are here, ultimately involved an affirmative disability.He is going to be restrained, if he's in the Army.\nSecondly, it comes in to play on finding of scienter, this is in line with our theory that there has to be a willful violation of the regulations and a willful refusal to come back into compliance for the regulations, before the board has properly exercised this discretion in declaring some one delinquent.\nThirdly, the behavior to which it applies is already a crime and this is true in this case.\nIt is already a crime of the violation to the regulations.\nDoes it promote one of the traditional aims of punishment, in deterrence and retribution, which were named in the Kennedy-Mendoza case.\nNow, I think that while there are some questions about the deterrence as being only used and only defined in terms of punishment that there are deterrent aspects of this.\nBut, there are indicia that do not point to punishment, as outlined in the Kennedy-Mendoza.\nInduction is not historically been regarded as punishment.\nSecondly, whether there's an alternative purpose maybe assigned, a non penal purpose assigned into the regulations involved. And I think delinquency regulations do have an alternative purpose.\nThe purpose of the regulations is essentially two fold, is to induce cooperation with the Selective Service System on the part of all draft eligible men and this is where the civil contempt analogy comes in.\nBecause if we're trying to define this in a remedial sense, that we're trying to get cooperation here, just as in a civil contempt proceeding if somebody comes back into compliance.\nAnd if he does what the regulations say, then he will be put back into his prior classification, otherwise there would be an abuse of discretion.\nAnd in this case, the purpose of the regulations is to cure what has happened and not to punish what has happened and just as in the Troutman case, we have confessed there and I think we would be willing to do so in any instance in this Court or in any Court, where it was shown that an effort was made to cure the error.\nThe second purpose -- which is a non penal purpose, is the maintenance of the non delinquent morale.\nThose who do comply with the regulations, it should not, it seems to me be discouraged by the success of those who do not.\nAnd for this reason, I think there is a good purpose of the -- alternative purpose of the statute.\nBut as I said at the beginning, I think to get into an argument in this Court about whether this amounted to legal punishment might really cause the Court to miss the point.\nBecause the point in this case is why are we talking about punishment?\nWe're talking about punishment, in terms of the delinquency regulations to find whether he has been deprived of due process or is stiff in Sixth Amendment rights.\nAnd what is in this case the punishment of which Mr. Gutknecht the petitioner complains.\nIt is accelerated induction.\nThis is what he complaints of and before he can be inducted in an accelerated manner, he has the right to refuse induction, just as he did here.\nAnd thereby, submit himself to a criminal prosecution in which he has the full panoply of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.\nAnd, I think this is a clear distinction between this case and the case in Mendoza-Martinez, where the Court went in to the admittedly difficult question of what amounts to punishment and what doesn't.\nBecause Mr. Mendoza was never given a hearing, he was denationalized.\nHe left the country, in order to avoid the grant and having left, he was immediately denationalized.\nHe had no right to a hearing, to contest their denationalization.\nThere was no way he could bring up a contesting of his rights and the Court there said that that was punishment and without the due process or Fourth or Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights which he should have.\nI think we can draw an analogy between what has happened here and a grand jury proceeding.\nNow, when a man is indicted under a grand jury proceeding, he is in a very real sense punished.\nHe maybe put in jail if he is indicted and without bail, if it's a non-bailable offense or bail maybe set so high that he can't meet it, and he stayed there. He has had none of his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights and probably a little due process at that time.\nBut in this case, where the board itself has found him delinquent, because he's violated one of the regulations, I say the analogy between this and the grand jury is very close.\nAnd secondly, as far as the board hearing itself is concerned, he is given notice of the delinquency itself.\nThe notice that I read, they're right on page 44 of the appendix, where it says, \u201cCome in, until let us tell you how we can show you how to avoid a further delinquency.\u201d\nIn this case, he would have in my estimation, although it is contested by the petitioners, if he had asked for a hearing, he would have been given one.\nThere's no evidence that he asked for a hearing in this case, because what was there to hear?\nHe had turned in his draft card.\nThey're not going to hear whether he is willing to take them back or not, there is no fact situation for the board to hear.\nThere is a clear regulation, which Mr. Gutknecht violated and under that regulation, it's within the discretion of the board to apply the delinquency regulations, which they did in this case.\nNow, again under our theory, he would have the right to purge himself from this violation because I think had he shown a desire to do so and the board had refused to let him do it, we would have been the first to confess error, but he made no effort to do that.\nAnd in this case, I submit that there is no fact situation, which would have -- this Court could focus on, to say whether the procedural due process in the hearing at the board level has been violated.\nNow, I submit that the Kennedy-Mendoza analysis is simply not sufficient in this case to determine that what we're talking about is legal punishment.\nI think there are some differences, but even if you find that the line between punishment and non punishment.\nIf you find this false slightly over the line toward punishment.\nI think that even if that is true, he has been given at one stage, at the end of this process, all of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.\nHe has been given a complete due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2324.52, 2327.215, 2340.131, 2348.417, 2359.768, 2382.446, 2395.561, 2403.62, 2411.28, 2427.156, 2437.613, 2456.96, 2462.043, 2465.527, 2473.441, 2484.395, 2491.091, 2496.223, 2509.658, 2524.137, 2536.288, 2545.548, 2565.286, 2572.777, 2581.435, 2589.12, 2601.655, 2605.744, 2615.91, 2621.141, 2623.979, 2633.104, 2641.241, 2652.482, 2657.017, 2663.078, 2666.557, 2681.618, 2686.74, 2693.25, 2707.31, 2718.156, 2726.018, 2736.151, 2745.046, 2750.532, 2752.896, 2759.005, 2771.115, 2785.132, 2798.765, 2811.488, 2817.637, 2821.463, 2830.627], "stop_times": [2327.215, 2340.131, 2348.417, 2359.768, 2382.446, 2395.561, 2403.62, 2411.28, 2427.156, 2437.613, 2456.96, 2462.043, 2465.527, 2473.441, 2484.395, 2491.091, 2496.223, 2509.658, 2524.137, 2536.288, 2545.548, 2565.286, 2572.777, 2581.435, 2589.12, 2601.655, 2605.744, 2615.91, 2621.141, 2623.979, 2633.104, 2641.241, 2652.482, 2657.017, 2663.078, 2666.557, 2681.618, 2686.74, 2693.25, 2707.31, 2718.156, 2726.018, 2736.151, 2745.046, 2750.532, 2752.896, 2759.005, 2771.115, 2785.132, 2798.765, 2811.488, 2817.637, 2821.463, 2830.627, 2833.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.52}, "reply_to": "14951__1_052", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_054", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That is in this criminal trial, you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2833.32], "stop_times": [2835.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.32}, "reply_to": "14951__1_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__1_055", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, that's right, Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThis is the statutory framework that the Congress has setup whereby this man could raise his rights and there is no such statutory framework in the Kennedy-Mendoza situation.\nNow, the other argument of the petitioner was in their brief that even if it wasn't punishment, we have not provided the procedural due process that is necessary and I think in pointing out that he did receive notice, it is our contention that a fair reading of the regulations would be that he could receive a hearing, if he so requested.\nNow, this is a completely speculative question before this Court, because he didn't request to hear it.\nEither before he received the delinquency notice or after he received his reclassification.\nAnd I don't see how it can be heard to complain here, when he has not asked for a hearing.\nAs far as the variance between the charge and the proof is concerned, I think that that is fairly stated in the brief and that I think that question, plus the argument that the affidavit itself, where indictment itself was duplicitous, boarders on the frivolous.\nNow, there are cases cited in our brief, which I think clearly point out that the questions involved.\nYesterday, we discussed the problem of congressional authorization.\nAnd I think that in the broad sense, that the delinquency regulations are a fair grant to the administrative branch by Congress of an effort to implement what is admittedly a difficult statute.\nTo implement a selective service law in a time in this country in which many people are opposed to the results that might occur from going into the Army.\nBut I think that given the policy as set down by the Congress in the executive branch, that this is a fair way of implementing that policy.\nAnd that this Court should affirm the Court below and uphold the delinquency regulations as adapted by the President.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2835.351, 2836.995, 2851.334, 2871.94, 2877.223, 2883.503, 2889.942, 2908.089, 2915.016, 2918.853, 2937.233, 2950.777, 2959.719], "stop_times": [2836.995, 2851.334, 2871.94, 2877.223, 2883.503, 2889.942, 2908.089, 2915.016, 2918.853, 2937.233, 2950.777, 2959.719, 2971.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.351}, "reply_to": "14951__1_054", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "14951__1_056", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ruckelshaus.\nMr. Tigar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2971.332, 2972.527], "stop_times": [2972.527, 2979.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.332}, "reply_to": "14951__1_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__2_000", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIf it is the Government's position that these regulations ought to be limited, the president has the power to limit them by a stroke of the pen.\nSelective Service System is exempt from the rule making requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and in tomorrow morning's federal register, the position of the executive branch could be made indisputably clear.\nBut if that is not to be done, then we accept the Government's concession that willfulness is required and that a hearing must be given if one is asked for.\nAnd this conviction must therefore be reversed, because there is in this record, in the Selective Service file, which as this Court held in Cox against United States is the sole basis of review.\nNo finding of willfulness and there is no showing that the petitioner was ever offered a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [2979.144, 2982.5, 2990.143, 3001.765, 3011.267, 3021.233], "stop_times": [2982.5, 2990.143, 3001.765, 3011.267, 3021.233, 3026.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2979.144}, "reply_to": "14951__1_056", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_001", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "What he had this -- I'm looking at page 30 of the appendix, which is an opinion of the Court of Appeals, which indicates that there was contained in the Selective Service board file in this case, the information as to the circumstances under which the petitioner separated himself from his draft card.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3026.591], "stop_times": [3057.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.591}, "reply_to": "14951__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_002", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Stewart, there is on page 42 and 43 that information, it consists of the appendix.\nIt consists of a letter from an Assistant United States Attorney to the Deputy State Director of the Selective Service System.\nIt would be our position that that could not be relied upon to establish --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3057.172, 3063.774, 3075.027], "stop_times": [3063.774, 3075.027, 3078.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3057.172}, "reply_to": "14951__2_001", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_003", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "There was information in the record, if this is accurately reproduced here in the appendix as to the circumstances under which this man and his draft card became separated, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3078.898], "stop_times": [3092.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.898}, "reply_to": "14951__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_004", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3092.834], "stop_times": [3093.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3092.834}, "reply_to": "14951__2_003", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_005", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Indicating a willful separation on his part, is contrasted to a careless or negligent or accidental one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3093.528], "stop_times": [3100.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.528}, "reply_to": "14951__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_006", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "It is true Mr. Justice Stewart that there is evidence in the record.\nIf I said there was none, I misspoke my self.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3100.063, 3103.371], "stop_times": [3103.371, 3105.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3100.063}, "reply_to": "14951__2_005", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_007", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I understood you say that there was none, I just wanted to be sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3105.265], "stop_times": [3107.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.265}, "reply_to": "14951__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_008", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, I misspoke myself, our position would be and it is there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a finding by the board of willfulness.\nAnd I believe I went on to say that there was no finding, by the board of willfulness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3107.925, 3116.205], "stop_times": [3116.205, 3121.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3107.925}, "reply_to": "14951__2_007", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_009", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Do you think that in the trial, in the District Court there is a factual basis for finding of willfulness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3121.724], "stop_times": [3129.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.724}, "reply_to": "14951__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__2_010", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "There is Mr. Chief Justice, a factual basis there, but the review of Selective Service decisions is on the file made by the Selective Service System and the registrant.\nIt brings me to another point here, Mr. Ruckelshaus has said that the criminal trial that a registrant receives is a substitute for the due process hearing, which we claim he's entitled to before the agency.\nOf course that trial has the most constricted standard of judicial review of board determinations, particularly factual determinations of any judicial review, of any administrative action, that the Courts have the power to review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3129.989, 3139.766, 3152.476], "stop_times": [3139.766, 3152.476, 3167.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3129.989}, "reply_to": "14951__2_009", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_011", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "And by the same token the standard of proof on the Government is infinitely higher, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3167.79], "stop_times": [3173.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.79}, "reply_to": "14951__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__2_012", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But only as to factual issues, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe issue whether there is any evidence in the file to support the board's determination has this Court has held the character of an issue of law.\nAnd therefore, the Government does not have the obligation of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, with respect to it.\nSo that there is not that safeguard provided, with respect to the facts presented to the agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3173.851, 3178.387, 3186.426, 3191.914], "stop_times": [3178.387, 3186.426, 3191.914, 3200.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3173.851}, "reply_to": "14951__2_011", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_013", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Was Mr. Gutknecht alluded in the defense that he was allowed to tender during the trial of this case?\nAs to the -- and did he put in, as defensive matter, the First Amendment claim and so that's what I gather from the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3200.592, 3212.898], "stop_times": [3212.898, 3221.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.592}, "reply_to": "14951__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_014", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, the First Amendment claims were raised --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3221.111], "stop_times": [3222.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3221.111}, "reply_to": "14951__2_013", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_015", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "The Court of Appeals had written that he was permitted to do so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3222.386], "stop_times": [3224.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.386}, "reply_to": "14951__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_016", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes.\nThose two were issues of law, which he would be entitled to present, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3224.328, 3226.791], "stop_times": [3226.791, 3229.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3224.328}, "reply_to": "14951__2_015", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_017", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "And was in time to present.\nI mean he was allowed to present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3229.789, 3231.714], "stop_times": [3231.714, 3232.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.789}, "reply_to": "14951__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14951__2_018", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Yes, he was.\nYes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3232.801, 3233.336], "stop_times": [3233.336, 3235.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3232.801}, "reply_to": "14951__2_017", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_019", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "What is your position?\nYou assume that record does show that his conduct was willful and the lawsuit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3235.894, 3237.699], "stop_times": [3237.699, 3247.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.894}, "reply_to": "14951__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14951__2_020", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Our position then Mr. Justice Black is that the regulations are invalid as not having been authorized by Congress.\nThat they're nonetheless invalid for failure to provide procedural safeguards and that the Hershey Memorandum is an incommunicable system of regulation or scheme regulation, which violates the First Amendment on its face so that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3247.632, 3253.986], "stop_times": [3253.986, 3269.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3247.632}, "reply_to": "14951__2_019", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_021", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Are you saying, valid because of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3269.25], "stop_times": [3271.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.25}, "reply_to": "14951__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14951__2_022", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "That the regulations here, the delinquency regulations, the Hershey Memorandum and the local board memorandum taken together, are a scheme for regulating dissent, which is unconstitutional on it's face.\nAnd that therefore, because the board acted in reliance upon a part of the scheme, the conviction must be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3271.804, 3285.062], "stop_times": [3285.062, 3292.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3271.804}, "reply_to": "14951__2_021", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_023", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "I would understand that argument a great deal better if you were arguing to us that when he received his delinquency notice, he had asked for a hearing and had been refused a hearing but he did not ask, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3292.947], "stop_times": [3308.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.947}, "reply_to": "14951__2_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__2_024", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the regulations do not provide for a hearing, a fair reading of Regulation 1642.14B establishes that in a case such as this, where the registrant is already 1-A, that the only hearing, that can be granted repossess in the absolute unfettered discussion of the local board.\nSecond --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3308.528, 3328.721], "stop_times": [3328.721, 3329.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3308.528}, "reply_to": "14951__2_023", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_025", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "But that is not tested out by asking for it, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3329.839], "stop_times": [3334.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.839}, "reply_to": "14951__2_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14951__2_026", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "My response to that would be twofold, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst, the delinquency notice, although it asked the registrant to come in to a local board, says he can come in to any local board.\nThe regulations provide that what is to happen to him there is not telling him that he's entitled to a hearing.\nSecond, as this Court held in McKart against United States, he would be excused from fetter to exhaust because of the futility of doing so, we will forget the Selective Service board, 372 Federal 2d, 817.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3334.92, 3338.072, 3344.724, 3351.499], "stop_times": [3338.072, 3344.724, 3351.499, 3362.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3334.92}, "reply_to": "14951__2_025", "speaker": "michael_e_tigar"}
{"id": "14951__2_027", "conversation_id": "14951", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Tigar.\nThank you for your submission.\nThank you for your submission, Mr. Ruckelshaus.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_71", "start_times": [3362.616, 3364.138, 3365.612, 3367.914], "stop_times": [3364.138, 3365.612, 3367.914, 3371.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.616}, "reply_to": "14951__2_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_000", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Number 230, Porter Company against the National Labor Relations Board.\nPlease give us a moment if you will counsel.\nMr. Winson, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [0.0, 26.622, 40.181], "stop_times": [26.622, 40.181, 42.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_001", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is before the Court on short certiorari to review a per curiam order of the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia which enforce a supplemental order of National Labor Relations Board.\nThe Board's order was entered that gives the petitioner H. K. Porter Company supposedly as a remedy for bad-faith bargaining in violation of Section 885 of the National Labor Relations Act.\nMore specifically, the company was found to have refused to agree to a union's demand for a dues checkoff provision for the purpose of frustrating an agreement with the union.\nThe Board supplemental order which is the focal point of this controversy before this Court requires the company to \u201cgrant to the union a contract clause providing for the checkoff of union dues.\u201d\nThe very precise, very clear cut issue now presented is whether the Board under the National Labor Relations Act has the power to order a party to agree to a substantive provision of a collective-bargaining agreement.\nThe company of course takes position that Board has not has such power.\nThe Board now says that it has the power to order agreement to a substantive provision.\nThe bargaining that's actually involved in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [42.81, 46.648, 59.106, 72.911, 84.863, 100.882, 115.97, 119.972, 127.866], "stop_times": [46.648, 59.106, 72.911, 84.863, 100.882, 115.97, 119.972, 127.866, 131.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 42.81}, "reply_to": "15414__0_000", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_002", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What substantive provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [131.321], "stop_times": [132.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.321}, "reply_to": "15414__0_001", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_003", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The substantive provision Mr. Justice Black was a dues checkoff provision -- a provision of course and a collective-bargaining agreement by which the company pays and assist the union in the collection of dues by deducting the due -- union dues from the employees\u2019 wages and then transmits them to the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [132.862], "stop_times": [152.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.862}, "reply_to": "15414__0_002", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_004", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "In other words that the Board said that this was a demand of the union to which the company must agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [152.606], "stop_times": [163.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.606}, "reply_to": "15414__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_005", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The way the case worked out Mr. Justice -- Mr. Chief Justice, it actually worked that way.\nThe Court of Appeals is actually if I may say so the instigator of the remedy here is as to what has occurred.\nThis case went through the Examiner.\nThe Examiner recommended the general bargaining order.\nThe case then went up to the Board, the Board adopted the general bargaining order, it went to the District of Columbia Circuit.\nThe District of Columbia Circuit enforced and refused the union's request for a direct order which we are now arguing about which was later entered but on the first time up the District of Columbia rejected the union\u2019s petition, District of Columbia Circuit Court.\nThen, after that occurred, we filed a petition for certiorari with this Court.\nWe took the position that because of the wording used in the opinion, it seemed to us that the Court of Appeals was telling us if you want to avoid contempt, you had better agree without any further talking.\nWell, when the Court -- when this Court denied our petition for cert, we then took the interpretation which we felt we had to under the laws.\nWe interpret the law that the general bargaining order required us to bargain over a dues collection system but not simply to walk in and agree.\nThe union took the position of those subsequent negotiations said, no Porter you are now required to agree and we don\u2019t have to talk to you any more about it.\nYou are required to agree to do dues checkoff provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [163.555, 169.344, 177.088, 180.04, 183.002, 189.013, 204.028, 209.708, 221.193, 227.993, 236.588, 244.94], "stop_times": [169.344, 177.088, 180.04, 183.002, 189.013, 204.028, 209.708, 221.193, 227.993, 236.588, 244.94, 247.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.555}, "reply_to": "15414__0_004", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_006", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, did not the original opinion of the Court of Appeals suggest that very thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [247.698], "stop_times": [251.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.698}, "reply_to": "15414__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_007", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It suggested that in order to avoid contempt.\nThe Court could not see how we could avoid agreeing.\nWell, Mr. Chief Justice, when we went then went -- gone in the position of the verge of interpretations of this original bargaining order.\nThe union then asked the Board to initiate a contempt proceeding.\nThe Board's Regional Director advised the parties that the company had now complied with the bargaining order and that the case was thereby closed.\nThe union then found a motion for clarification with the District of Columbia Circuit Court.\nThe first time, the Circuit Court denied the motion for clarification and said, we think contempt is a proper route to test compliance.\nThen, the union went back to the Court of Appeals for the second motion asking for reconsideration of the earlier motion.\nThis time, the Court of Appeals came up with an opinion of course remanded the case to the Board and that's why we have a supplemental order before this Court and instead of the original order.\nThe Court of Appeals in its second opinion, its clarifying opinion told the Board that we feel under the -- that Section 8 (d) of the Act does not prohibit the Board for entering an order to agree to a substantive contract provision and that the Board can either order agreement directly or it can compel a concession that will be given in exchange for the demanded provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [251.586, 254.565, 258.17, 265.11, 270.434, 279.99, 285.126, 292.841, 300.682, 310.057], "stop_times": [254.565, 258.17, 265.11, 270.434, 279.99, 285.126, 292.841, 300.682, 310.057, 338.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.586}, "reply_to": "15414__0_006", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_008", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Now, why are you using citation to a place where the Board compelled by words the other party to agree to specific provision on the contrary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [338.909], "stop_times": [351.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.909}, "reply_to": "15414__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_009", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It is in the supplemental order issued by the Board and shown Mr. Justice Black on page 4 of Porter\u2019s brief under statement of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [351.059], "stop_times": [361.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.059}, "reply_to": "15414__0_008", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_010", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Is it in the appendix also?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [361.358], "stop_times": [362.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.358}, "reply_to": "15414__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_011", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, it's in the appendix also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [362.685], "stop_times": [364.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.685}, "reply_to": "15414__0_010", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_012", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You can get to us in both -- give us both citations if you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [364.216], "stop_times": [366.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.216}, "reply_to": "15414__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_013", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [366.377], "stop_times": [367.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.377}, "reply_to": "15414__0_012", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_014", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Now, what part of the appendix, I now have it before me?\nWhat page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [367.647, 370.893], "stop_times": [370.893, 372.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.647}, "reply_to": "15414__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_015", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It's on page 137 of the appendix, supplemental orders first on left hand side page 136.\nA general bargaining order is first entered and at the top of the right hand page 137, the order is grant to the union a contract clause providing for the checkoff of union dues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [372.313, 380.269], "stop_times": [380.269, 391.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.313}, "reply_to": "15414__0_014", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_016", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's the phrase that you relied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [391.747], "stop_times": [393.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.747}, "reply_to": "15414__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_017", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes.\nThis case presents to the Board or presents to this Court for the first time in the 35-year history of the National Labor Relations Act a situation in which the Board has ordered one party to agree to a contract term.\nWe submit that this order violates both the specific intent of Congress as expressed in the wording of Section 8 (d) of the Act as well as the basic premise of freedom of contract as contained and has been recognized to exist in Section 8 (d).\nThis Section of the Act provides that the obligation to bargaining good faith does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession and of course this Court in both the American National Insurance case and the Insurance Agents case recognized Section 8 (d) as prohibiting the Board from either directly or indirectly, compelling concessions or from otherwise sitting in judgment on the terms that collective-bargaining agreements.\nIt's true that Section 10 (c) of the Act permits the Board to enter such remedial orders such affirmative orders as will effectuate the policies of the Act.\nWe recognized the distinction that the Court of Appeals and the Board and the union are now arguing that Section 8 (d) itself does not directly relate by express terms to the scope of the remedy.\nBut it certainly expresses a fundamental policy of the Act that of freedom of contract.\nThis Court and the cases I cited a moment ago recognized that that -- the intent of Congress and the legislative history was well cited by Mr. Justice Brennan in the Insurance Agents case that the intent of Congress was to keep the Board from either directly or indirectly compelling agreements.\nWe contend that the supplemental order is in clear derogation in violation of this fundamental policy and it\u2019s interesting that the Board until a supplemental order took exactly the same position.\nThe Board did not enter even though union demanded that the Board did not enter a direct order to agree initially.\nAnd in fact, when we filed our petition for cert the first time in this Court, the Board took the position that if bargaining order did not violate Section 8 (d) that it merely orders to bargain in good faith and they pointed out specifically that they had not violated Section 8 (d).\nThe Court of Appeals --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [393.853, 398.892, 414.53, 431.899, 462.886, 473.84, 487.502, 493.199, 511.654, 525.884, 533.181, 552.007], "stop_times": [398.892, 414.53, 431.899, 462.886, 473.84, 487.502, 493.199, 511.654, 525.884, 533.181, 552.007, 553.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.853}, "reply_to": "15414__0_016", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_018", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Where is that in the record?\nDo you have it off hand to page 9 of the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [553.77, 555.459], "stop_times": [555.459, 557.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.77}, "reply_to": "15414__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__0_019", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes.\nWe cited in our brief -- that would be on page 15 of the Porter brief Mr. Justice Stewart.\nRight inside of a page and this was an answer to our petition for certiorari the first time and the Board pointed out there that the original order did not violate the provisions of 8 (d) if I may address one moment.\nYou'll recall that we were arguing that the effect of the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion was to cause us to agree and the Board points out that the original order did not violate Section 8 (d), that a statutory duty to bargain does not require to making of a concession.\nThe Board's order merely directs the company to bargain in good faith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [557.161, 561.009, 575.254, 587.756, 602.649], "stop_times": [561.009, 575.254, 587.756, 602.649, 606.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.161}, "reply_to": "15414__0_018", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_020", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You don't know where that is in the appendix, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [606.729], "stop_times": [609.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.729}, "reply_to": "15414__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__0_021", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I doubt if the briefs would be in the appendix Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [609.085], "stop_times": [612.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.085}, "reply_to": "15414__0_020", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_022", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I know, I mean the -- wouldn't that order of the Board be in appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [612.681], "stop_times": [616.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.681}, "reply_to": "15414__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__0_023", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The original Board -- order of the Board is in the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [616.934], "stop_times": [619.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.934}, "reply_to": "15414__0_022", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_024", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's what I mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [619.928], "stop_times": [627.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.928}, "reply_to": "15414__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__0_025", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The original order is on page 55.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [627.477], "stop_times": [633.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.477}, "reply_to": "15414__0_024", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_026", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "So, it will be somewhere there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [633.229], "stop_times": [634.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.229}, "reply_to": "15414__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__0_027", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [634.467], "stop_times": [636.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.467}, "reply_to": "15414__0_026", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_028", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Of the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [636.121], "stop_times": [637.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.121}, "reply_to": "15414__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_029", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, they adopted the recommended orders.\nI should refer you to page 52 for the Examiner's recommended order.\nThe Board merely having adopted that and the recommended order was a negative and an affirmative cease and desist from refusing the bargain in good faith and affirmatively bargain.\nAnd of course I point out that the Board's Regional Director subsequent to this original bargaining order found that the company had bargained.\nThis is when the company came to the union and said, we are ready to bargain now over a dues collection system and the union took the position.\nNo, you are required merely to agree now and then when the union asked the Board to initiate contempt, the union adv -- pardon me, the Board advised the parties by letter that the company had complied of both the negative and the affirmative requirements to that original order and that the case was hereby closed.\nNow, I point this out very frankly it has nothing to do with the issue now before this Court except that the union and the Board in their briefs argue appropriateness.\nThey say very little I suggest about the statutory power or what we contend be the lack of statutory power but it do argue appropriateness even though they contempt, we haven't raised the issue.\nWell, I submit to you that a general bargaining order must be appropriate in the very case in which the Board found that it effectuated the desired result that is it got the employer to bargain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [637.799, 639.601, 643.297, 654.196, 663.956, 672.127, 691.274, 700.944, 712.925], "stop_times": [639.601, 643.297, 654.196, 663.956, 672.127, 691.274, 700.944, 712.925, 728.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.799}, "reply_to": "15414__0_028", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_030", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "As I read the Government's brief and its questions that were presented, it agrees with you that the issues whether it has power to compel the making of that agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [728.094], "stop_times": [741.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.094}, "reply_to": "15414__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_031", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, that is the issue Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [741.044], "stop_times": [744.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.044}, "reply_to": "15414__0_030", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_032", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Is there any denial of it in any other part of the Government's brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [744.647], "stop_times": [750.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.647}, "reply_to": "15414__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_033", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is the issue, we're all in agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [750.308], "stop_times": [753.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.308}, "reply_to": "15414__0_032", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_034", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "All agreed that the question is, whether under the law the Board on any circumstances has power to compel a company to agree to a specific term in the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [753.052], "stop_times": [765.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.052}, "reply_to": "15414__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__0_035", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is -- I think we are all in agreement that that is the specific issue.\nI would like to call the Court\u2019s attention if I may to the approach used by the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals very properly recognized that freedom of contract is a fundamental policy and premise of the Act and they agreed that remedies which impinge on it are not to be lightly undertaken.\nBut they then pointed out under that Section 10 (c) the Board is to balance the policies and this is to try to move forward onto all policies.\nThey then cited the -- what they considered to be an equal policy and that is a policy of the Act to equalize the bargaining power of an employees and employers by assuring the right of workers to bargain collectively.\nThe Court of Appeals then proceeded to cite such alleged facts as the fact that the dues checkoff provision is in 92% of industry contracts, the dues checkoff is likely to be a life or death import to a fledgling union.\nThe dues checkoff provision and ordering evidence is only a minor intrusion on freedom of contract.\nThey even cited the fact that the union\u2019s nearest office was 85 miles away that the employees were scattered over a wide area.\nThe Court concluded that the collection of dues without dues checkoff provision had presented the union with a substantial problem of communication in transportation.\nWe submit that this approach although laudatory in the balancing of the policies but this approach of looking at the need of the union for this provision and in saying its of little effect to the company and of course it has been cited all through the record at the original hearing.\nThe company said, we're not objecting as a matter of inconvenience and so forth cost.\nI submit that this is exactly what 8 (d) prohibits that 8 (d) and that this Court has recognized that 8 (d), the Congress prohibited the board from policing the needs, from sitting in judgment on whether one party should have had the provision and the other party didn\u2019t have good enough reason for denying it.\nIn fact, I also suggest that this area of whether a business reason is needed for refusing a contract demand by the other bargaining party is part of the issue of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [765.657, 769.228, 774.953, 787.622, 797.023, 811.356, 828.862, 834.36, 842.157, 852.716, 870.145, 874.689, 896.702], "stop_times": [769.228, 774.953, 787.622, 797.023, 811.356, 828.862, 834.36, 842.157, 852.716, 870.145, 874.689, 896.702, 912.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.657}, "reply_to": "15414__0_034", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_036", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, Mr. Winson I gather that the Board found here that Porter had taken a bad faith or otherwise impermissible bargaining position, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [912.771], "stop_times": [925.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.771}, "reply_to": "15414__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_037", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [925.606], "stop_times": [925.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.606}, "reply_to": "15414__0_036", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_038", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Or did so fine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [925.83], "stop_times": [927.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.83}, "reply_to": "15414__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_039", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Brennan the actual --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [927.181], "stop_times": [929.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.181}, "reply_to": "15414__0_038", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_040", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And I understand the Board's argument to be that 8 (d), it doesn't permit a party to refuse to agree to a proposal or a reason which violates the statute, do you take a different position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [929.497], "stop_times": [943.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.497}, "reply_to": "15414__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_041", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [943.024], "stop_times": [943.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.024}, "reply_to": "15414__0_040", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_042", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And that is you take the position that 8 (d) protection with regard to good or bad faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [943.978], "stop_times": [949.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.978}, "reply_to": "15414__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_043", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think it has to Mr. Justice Brennan for the very reason that everybody is in agreement to the 8 (d) prohibits the Board from using a refusal to agree as evidence of bad faith.\nWell, to me it seems illogical to say this and at the same time say that once bad faith is found on the basis of other evidence and this is all subjective intent that then the Board can order agreement on the very same contract --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [949.35, 961.988], "stop_times": [961.988, 975.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.35}, "reply_to": "15414__0_042", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_044", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Is there any in the legislative history of 8 (d) which indicates the Congress dealt with its application in the context of a finding of bad faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [975.555], "stop_times": [987.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.555}, "reply_to": "15414__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_045", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "In the context of the finding of bad faith, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [987.542], "stop_times": [989.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.542}, "reply_to": "15414__0_044", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_046", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "There is in the legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [989.924], "stop_times": [992.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.924}, "reply_to": "15414__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_047", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, I think we're all in agreement that on the finding of bad faith that is on the use of a refusal to agree as evident to bad-faith bargaining that I think the intent of Congress is clear than everybody agrees with it.\nIt's on the scope of the remedy which is where we\u2019re running into our problem now.\nIt's on the scope of the remedy and of course to us, if the evil to be cured -- the evil that Congress was after here was to keep the Board from intruding into the collective-bargaining process.\nWell, to prohibit the use of a refusal to agree as evidence, but at the same time for Congress to have permitted an order to agree to that very same contract provision.\nThis doesn't make sense it seems to us.\nNow, the legislative history and as this Court has recognized the intent of Congress is too broad for that we submit.\nIt's too much for example for this Court to say that the Board was prohibited from directly or indirectly sitting in judgment for example.\nNow, what the Court of Appeals just I cited a moment ago --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [992.193, 1004.666, 1008.963, 1022.0, 1033.675, 1036.323, 1043.727, 1052.522], "stop_times": [1004.666, 1008.963, 1022.0, 1033.675, 1036.323, 1043.727, 1052.522, 1054.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.193}, "reply_to": "15414__0_046", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_048", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Of course Insurance Agents didn't involve the situation like this whether is a finding of bad faith on the part of the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1054.686], "stop_times": [1065.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.686}, "reply_to": "15414__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_049", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, it was not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1065.511], "stop_times": [1067.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.511}, "reply_to": "15414__0_048", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_050", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That actually was conduct of the union, wasn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1067.956], "stop_times": [1070.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.956}, "reply_to": "15414__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_051", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes and that was a case of regulating the economic weapons.\nI would submit Mr. Justice Brennan.\nThere is a closer analogy of the Insurance Agents\u2019 case of this one is merely the wording in your opinion which of course we rely heavily upon.\nAnd I cite -- I must give credit to the Chief Justice for my argument on this point, but he dissented.\nThe Chief Justice dissented in the Ronald case in the District of Columbia Circuit which happened by coincidence via dues checkoff case also.\nAnd as the Chief Justice pointed out there, the grant or refusal, the presence or absence of a dues checkoff provision is in effect an economic weapon in the sense that the union without a dues checkoff provision is there's no doubt in many cases.\nThey are under an economic pressure but as Chief Justice pointed out in his dissenting opinion in that Ronald case, an employer with his employees on a strike is harmed even more.\nAlso, we're talking in effect I think about the bargaining tool of bargaining tactic granted Porter did not say that the union in this case.\nWe are withholding or refusing to agree the dues checkoff because we wanted to trade it next year, but the more a union would demand the provision like this, obviously, the more the employer is going to resist to the point of getting something in return --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1070.299, 1075.396, 1078.098, 1087.921, 1096.215, 1104.0, 1126.041, 1136.897, 1145.587], "stop_times": [1075.396, 1078.098, 1087.921, 1096.215, 1104.0, 1126.041, 1136.897, 1145.587, 1159.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1070.299}, "reply_to": "15414__0_050", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_052", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Do you support taxes, any support for the -- or is there any problem fuel up, to put it that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1159.035], "stop_times": [1165.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.035}, "reply_to": "15414__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_053", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It doesn't present any particular problem, I don't think it present any particular problem for me, what do you have in mind specifically Mr. Justice Brennan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1165.714], "stop_times": [1173.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.714}, "reply_to": "15414__0_052", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_054", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, that was an instance wasnt it of conduct on the part of an employer which was in violation of that statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1173.163], "stop_times": [1182.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.163}, "reply_to": "15414__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_055", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But I don't believe there was an order, I don't believe the order went beyond a restoration type remedy, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1182.526], "stop_times": [1189.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.526}, "reply_to": "15414__0_054", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_056", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, it didn't try.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1189.692], "stop_times": [1191.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.692}, "reply_to": "15414__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_057", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And the union of the Board or cites that as a \u201cbasis.\u201d\nThis case, I don\u2019t think this Court will argue beyond our brief.\nThis case certainly goes beyond the restoration of status quo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1191.424, 1195.007, 1197.94], "stop_times": [1195.007, 1197.94, 1201.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.424}, "reply_to": "15414__0_056", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_058", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, may I ask you Mr. Winson.\nDo you -- perhaps I'm only repeating the question I asked you earlier.\nI gather your position is that in the application of 8 (d), it's immaterial whether the employer\u2019s conduct was in good or bad faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1201.909, 1204.526, 1208.842], "stop_times": [1204.526, 1208.842, 1220.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.909}, "reply_to": "15414__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_059", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, no Mr. Justice Brennan for the reason that the bad faith has to be there or we wouldn't be to the point of the remedy in a bargaining case.\nIn other words, in 8 (a) 5 case except for a mere refusal but I mean that of course is bad faith, but what I'm saying is that where the parties have bargain or has sat down and mend there the finding of an 8 (a) 5 violation, then that has to be premised of course on bad faith.\nSo we're now at the point of a remedy for the union in the Board to argue here that there is a line that can be drawn by this Court.\nWe submit is it's just not practical to talk for example was the union does of run-of-the-mill cases that by all might, they wouldn't suggest that this kind of an order could be entered in a run-of-the-mill bargaining cases.\nWho's to determine what is the run-of-the-mill bargaining case?\nTaking the Court of Appeals words they say, this is only a minor intrusion.\nWho's to determine whether it's a minor intrusion?\nAll of these is what Congress told the Board to stay out of with Section 8 (a) 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1220.567, 1230.816, 1246.874, 1254.585, 1265.568, 1268.674, 1272.646, 1275.144], "stop_times": [1230.816, 1246.874, 1254.585, 1265.568, 1268.674, 1272.646, 1275.144, 1281.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1220.567}, "reply_to": "15414__0_058", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_060", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I'm not too clear on your response about the factor of good faith.\nLet me try it with a hypothetical.\nSuppose in a period when and in an area when increases are being granted of 5 cents in hour widely in an industry, a particular employer receives an offer from the union -- demand from the union for 5-cent an hour increase very modest demand, much below the others and an employer refuses to grant any increase.\nDo you think that the Board can inquire into the good faith or bad faith or presence or absence of either and use it as a basis to direct the employer to grant a 5-cent an hour increase?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1281.966, 1288.014, 1289.672, 1318.278], "stop_times": [1288.014, 1289.672, 1318.278, 1337.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.966}, "reply_to": "15414__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_061", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Of course taking the last part, I take the position that in no circumstances can a party be ordered to agree.\nBut to take your question you've asked me, of course the Board if these were charged and if the complaint was issued by the Board then obviously the question to be answer by the Examiner at that point by the Board would be did the employer bargain in good faith?\nThat is subjective intent and I'm sure that this charge wouldn't have been filed merely on a refusal in nickel-wage increase at least I don\u2019t think so.\nYou'll notice for example in this case, it wasn't merely refusal to agree.\nThe Examiner set the refusal to agree was to frustrate an agreement then they took it a different step.\nIt's a little different from Ronald in this extent you'll recall.\nBut in the hypothetical, you're asking me certainly the question has to be was it good faith or bad faith, but once the Board found that yes the employer refuse to agree to a nickel-wage increase in bad faith in the sense he was bargaining in bad faith and there must have some other reasons.\nThey had a secret motive of trying to get rid of that particular union president or business agent.\nIn other words, some doctrines were discovered in some extrinsic evidence find that the employers now have been found guilty of bad-faith bargaining in violation of 8 (a) 5.\nBut we submit that at that point, the Board cannot order the company to agree to that provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1337.282, 1342.507, 1359.271, 1366.894, 1370.419, 1376.601, 1379.91, 1397.691, 1403.05, 1412.418], "stop_times": [1342.507, 1359.271, 1366.894, 1370.419, 1376.601, 1379.91, 1397.691, 1403.05, 1412.418, 1418.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.282}, "reply_to": "15414__0_060", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_062", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But we are only dealing with the remedy problem here, aren't we.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1418.111], "stop_times": [1421.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.111}, "reply_to": "15414__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_063", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It's only a remedy problem where the Court of Appeals distinguishes and says that it's a matter that 8 (a) 5 is relating only to the determination issue -- the evidence issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1421.626], "stop_times": [1434.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.626}, "reply_to": "15414__0_062", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_064", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, but even though it's only a remedy problem, am I wrong in thinking that your position is that the language of 8 (d) that such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of the concession that that language operates as a limitation upon any remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1434.189], "stop_times": [1455.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.189}, "reply_to": "15414__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_065", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Oh!\nYes, I'm talking about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1455.59, 1455.855], "stop_times": [1455.855, 1456.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.59}, "reply_to": "15414__0_064", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_066", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's your basic position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1456.941], "stop_times": [1457.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.941}, "reply_to": "15414__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_067", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's the position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1457.944], "stop_times": [1459.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1457.944}, "reply_to": "15414__0_066", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_068", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It doesn't make any difference to all whether the position that the company has taken in bargaining is a good faith, bad faith, one or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1459.508], "stop_times": [1469.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.508}, "reply_to": "15414__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_069", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's my position, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1469.246], "stop_times": [1471.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.246}, "reply_to": "15414__0_068", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_070", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And 10 (c) may be a broad power to the Board to address grievances but it doesn't a 10 (c) however broad doesn\u2019t go that far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1471.259], "stop_times": [1482.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.259}, "reply_to": "15414__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_071", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It doesn't go that far because the 8 (d) policy stands on its way.\nSomething is coming in here we mentioned a moment ago is this, this business reason the Board and the union in their briefs.\nThe Board on its opinion in support of a supplemental order talked in terms that the company did not have a business reason.\nI know of no law that says that you have to have a business reason.\nAgain, I cite the Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion to say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1482.203, 1488.761, 1494.539, 1502.753, 1506.295], "stop_times": [1488.761, 1494.539, 1502.753, 1506.295, 1509.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.203}, "reply_to": "15414__0_070", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_072", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That won't help much here.\nEven the majority opinion doesn't help you very much from the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1509.249, 1510.528], "stop_times": [1510.528, 1514.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.249}, "reply_to": "15414__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_073", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You mean on the Ronald case?\nOn the Ronald case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1514.394, 1516.75], "stop_times": [1516.75, 1518.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1514.394}, "reply_to": "15414__0_072", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_074", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You must pick a much better authority from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1518.694], "stop_times": [1520.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.694}, "reply_to": "15414__0_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__0_075", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think your reasoning Mr. Chief Justice is completely applicable here and that is the question of holding even though you don't have a business reason.\nYou just don't agree to the provision because the union wants it so badly that when they give you something forth maybe not this year but the following year.\nThis is what bargaining is all about, we submit.\nWe submit this is what bargaining.\nIt has to do with here.\nWe think it's redundant to say that the Board can order a party to agree and that he can order -- that the Board can order into agree and order to effectuate the requirements of bargaining --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1520.404, 1529.961, 1537.213, 1539.814, 1542.541, 1543.881], "stop_times": [1529.961, 1537.213, 1539.814, 1542.541, 1543.881, 1555.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.404}, "reply_to": "15414__0_074", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_076", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That I take it it's one thing Mr. Winson about the issue of checkoff is either there will be or there won't be checkoff it\u2019s not to compromise that one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1555.656], "stop_times": [1567.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.656}, "reply_to": "15414__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_077", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1567.766], "stop_times": [1568.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1567.766}, "reply_to": "15414__0_076", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_078", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Are there other any middle grounds of whether the will it won't be a checkoff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1568.34], "stop_times": [1571.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.34}, "reply_to": "15414__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_079", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "There are middle grounds of course in dues collection and this is what the company offered to discuss with the Board after the original or with the union after the original board order.\nIt offered to discuss a method -- a satisfactory methods that are satisfactory to both parties for the collection of the union dues because there are other methods involved.\nI mean there could be other ways in collecting the union dues, but generally speaking in this country in labor contracts, I would agree that it is usually either a checkoff provision or there isn't a checkoff provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1571.929, 1581.187, 1591.003], "stop_times": [1581.187, 1591.003, 1602.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.929}, "reply_to": "15414__0_078", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_080", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But that's not the only provision of collective-bargaining contract it's either or is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1602.391], "stop_times": [1609.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.391}, "reply_to": "15414__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__0_081", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No it isn't.\nThat's exactly what I suppose to say.\nThis is only one provision Mr. Justice Brennan and it's obviously a provision that can be traded.\nYou'll recall from the facts involved in this case that the union at every bargaining meeting in fact that they've already involved here insistent they would never sign a contract without a dues checkoff provision.\nWe submit that this case is a landmark case and presents threshold issue to this Court and if the supplemental order is permitted to stand after this long 35-year history without this type of a remedy that we're going to have a new scheme of bargaining.\nWe're going to have exactly what happened in this case.\nOne in which the parties go as far as they can over the bargaining table and then one of the parties usually the union, of course will come to the Board and say that the company failed the bargain in good faith, we then have a finding of bad faith argue Mr. Justice Brennan on your hypothetical again, then the question of remedy.\nNow, since it's been a finding of bad-faith bargaining there may be primary -- preliminary issues of whether it\u2019s a run-of-the-mill case that was suggested to us or it may be a question of whether it would be a minor intrusion or so forth, that's been suggested to us.\nBut in any event, the Board would have a power to order the company to agree to the very contract provision which the union could not obtain at the bargaining tables.\nIf the Court have any further questions, I didn't reserve any time.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1609.429, 1610.292, 1611.953, 1617.968, 1634.803, 1653.991, 1656.649, 1675.373, 1687.706, 1700.997, 1705.179], "stop_times": [1610.292, 1611.953, 1617.968, 1634.803, 1653.991, 1656.649, 1675.373, 1687.706, 1700.997, 1705.179, 1714.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1609.429}, "reply_to": "15414__0_080", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__0_082", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1714.517], "stop_times": [1715.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.517}, "reply_to": "15414__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__1_000", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI'm appearing here today in behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States because we in agreement with Mr. Winson believe that this is a landmark case with the National Labor Relations.\nIt involves the question as we have indicated of whether the National Labor Relations Board may dictate the terms of collective-bargaining agreements.\nIt has never done this before and it seeks to do so here and notwithstanding the clear language of Section 8 (d).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1715.322, 1719.323, 1729.694, 1736.781], "stop_times": [1719.323, 1729.694, 1736.781, 1742.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1715.322}, "reply_to": "15414__0_082", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_001", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You said I understood both of you say the petition has never been presented to the Court before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1742.939], "stop_times": [1748.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.939}, "reply_to": "15414__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__1_002", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, I said the Board neither the Board nor the Court nor even any commentator has suggested up to this case that the Board has the power to dictate and tell the parties to a collective-bargaining association that these are the terms you must agree to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1748.439], "stop_times": [1764.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1748.439}, "reply_to": "15414__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_003", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That you must never been a Court which never been presented to us without standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1764.644], "stop_times": [1769.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.644}, "reply_to": "15414__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__1_004", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It's never been directly presented to this Court, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1769.133], "stop_times": [1771.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1769.133}, "reply_to": "15414__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_005", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Argued?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1771.678], "stop_times": [1772.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.678}, "reply_to": "15414__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__1_006", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And it's never been argued to this Court of course by implication in numerous decisions of this Court.\nThis Court has indicated that that is not the function of the Board and Congress indicated that's not the function of the Board.\nSo that that is really the question that we have here today as whether Congress meant what it said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1772.689, 1778.606, 1784.463], "stop_times": [1778.606, 1784.463, 1789.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1772.689}, "reply_to": "15414__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_007", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, Mr. Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1789.196], "stop_times": [1790.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.196}, "reply_to": "15414__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_008", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1790.088], "stop_times": [1791.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1790.088}, "reply_to": "15414__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_009", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Has there ever been an order like this requiring agreement of the insertion of a particular provision in a collective-bargaining agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1791.154], "stop_times": [1799.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.154}, "reply_to": "15414__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_010", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "This is the first case that's ever involved this question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1799.122], "stop_times": [1801.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1799.122}, "reply_to": "15414__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_011", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's good reason why it's never been here before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1801.406], "stop_times": [1803.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.406}, "reply_to": "15414__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_012", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1803.525], "stop_times": [1804.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1803.525}, "reply_to": "15414__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_013", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's your very point.\nThis has never been done in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1804.675, 1805.632], "stop_times": [1805.632, 1806.737], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.675}, "reply_to": "15414__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15414__1_014", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's right, it is the point.\nOn a point that it\u2019s never been done because it\u2019s going to presumes that the Board this is the kind of a decision that the Board should not be required to make and should not be made by virtue of Section 8 (d).\nSection 8 (d) is not a limitation only on the Board\u2019s finding of good faith, it affects all the policies of the Act that can this Court indicated in defense deal case.\nThe Board seeks in this case that also to invoke this remedy not withstanding that it is decided that the remedy wasn't required here and the fact to decide that that contempt powers of the Court of Appeals which is the traditional means of obtaining compliance with Board orders should not be utilized in this case.\nIt's difficult to understand therefore how this case can be viewed by the respondent is one of only minor significance.\nIf the Board has the power in this case, there has a power in any case whatever it concludes that a party either a company or a union did not articulate the sufficient justification or a sufficient business reason or a union reason for refusing to accept the proposal that he could then compel acceptance to that proposal and regulate the results of collective-bargaining (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1806.737, 1808.57, 1819.51, 1828.798, 1846.121, 1852.247], "stop_times": [1808.57, 1819.51, 1828.798, 1846.121, 1852.247, 1873.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1806.737}, "reply_to": "15414__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_015", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Is there in your remedy if it was same and clearly shown under your argument as the employer has just decided he will not agree to anything, he will not sign the contract, he keeps it going for 5 to 10 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1873.712], "stop_times": [1890.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.712}, "reply_to": "15414__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__1_016", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think Mr. Justice Black that employer cannot use bargaining as a cloak cause I think the Fifth Circuit, a cloak or a device to preclude agreement.\nI think the question is, did he seek an overall agreement.\nI think the Board cannot say by virtue of Section 8 (d) that an employer who refuses to accept any particular proposal has therefore violated the Act.\nIt is not a per se type of violation, you offer to checkoff, we do not accept that therefore, we have violated the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1890.294, 1900.803, 1903.84, 1913.951], "stop_times": [1900.803, 1903.84, 1913.951, 1921.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1890.294}, "reply_to": "15414__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_017", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well I gather anyway Mr. Cohen, really isn't your position that no matter how intransitive an employer may be, all that can happen is an order to bargain collectively may be met?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1921.278], "stop_times": [1937.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.278}, "reply_to": "15414__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_018", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1937.161], "stop_times": [1939.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1937.161}, "reply_to": "15414__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_019", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And if the -- well, some order of that kind but no remedy in any event goes far as require the employer to execute a particular provision or particular agreement is within the power the Board to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1939.328], "stop_times": [1952.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.328}, "reply_to": "15414__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_020", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1952.039], "stop_times": [1952.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1952.039}, "reply_to": "15414__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_021", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Isn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1952.607], "stop_times": [1953.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.607}, "reply_to": "15414__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_022", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1953.278], "stop_times": [1953.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1953.278}, "reply_to": "15414__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_023", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And that if there are if an employer simply -- is the kind that Mr. Justice Black suggest and then you get that what order as you can get than to be exist in his intransigents and you have to go to contempt to some other way of reaching it, isn\u2019t that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1953.636], "stop_times": [1970.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.636}, "reply_to": "15414__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_024", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I suggest that the Board has not only a general bargaining power that's remedial action.\nIt has numerous weapons.\nIt has a lot of ingenuity in devising appropriate remedies.\nIf those remedies fail for some reason, then there is a contempt power of the Court of Appeals.\nFor example, the Court of Appeals here in viewing this case in contempt would now look to the narrow question.\nDid you or did you command a checkoff.\nThey found bad faith in this case originally because the employer had an anti -- had negotiated with anti-union animus.\nHe refused to accept any form of dues collection not only a checkoff.\nHe voiced an attitude here that which the Board felt dissipated indicated disparagement of the union.\nSo that when a case we arrived in a contempt, the Court of Appeals would indicate does the employer still using the same negotiator?\nHas he gone up for any form of dues collection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [1970.002, 1974.704, 1975.976, 1980.213, 1984.823, 1989.633, 1991.853, 1998.755, 2002.565, 2010.321, 2016.271], "stop_times": [1974.704, 1975.976, 1980.213, 1984.823, 1989.633, 1991.853, 1998.755, 2002.565, 2010.321, 2016.271, 2017.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1970.002}, "reply_to": "15414__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_025", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes but when -- no matter how bad his conduct has been, your position is that in any event the Board has absolutely no power under any circumstances to require and agree to a particular provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2017.944], "stop_times": [2032.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.944}, "reply_to": "15414__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_026", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's correct and if that it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2032.256], "stop_times": [2034.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2032.256}, "reply_to": "15414__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_027", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Unless all these by force of the language of 8 (d)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2034.59], "stop_times": [2037.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.59}, "reply_to": "15414__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__1_028", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "By force of the language of the 8 (d) and the policy that purveys the Act that the parties are the ones to decide what other kinds of a collective-bargaining agreement.\nIt suggested in the brief of the union that what they're trying to do here is an effect engaged in a test or remedial reform that because of this problem that you just post which I think is the rare one, but because of their problem, the Board has to devise some kind of weapon here.\nWell, that's true and I don't accept it to be the bet.\nBut if that's true then that is the function of the legislature I suggest and not of the courts.\nIf the remedies are inadequate here, if there's a case in which it's absolutely necessary that there be a compelled agreement despite language in 8 (d), then the legislature should put that in the Act.\nThere's nothing in the legislative history the Act that indicates that that's what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2037.692, 2048.623, 2065.56, 2067.878, 2073.139, 2084.315], "stop_times": [2048.623, 2065.56, 2067.878, 2073.139, 2084.315, 2089.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2037.692}, "reply_to": "15414__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_029", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Actually, you're saying is the prohibition in the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2089.909], "stop_times": [2092.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.909}, "reply_to": "15414__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15414__1_030", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "There is a direct prohibition in the Act and because of their prohibition, Section 8 (d) as you cannot compel agreement, that's not a bad faith.\nBut the device of issuing a remedy correct their problem is indeed compelling agreement and that's the crux that I think about our position here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2092.466, 2099.823], "stop_times": [2099.823, 2117.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2092.466}, "reply_to": "15414__1_029", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__1_031", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Come.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2117.73], "stop_times": [2119.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.73}, "reply_to": "15414__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_000", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWe believe that although this is a noble remedy this is far from a landmark case for the simple reason that the remedies stems on the basis of the facts of the particular case which are very unique.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2119.9, 2133.199], "stop_times": [2133.199, 2154.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2119.9}, "reply_to": "15414__1_031", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_001", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I just want to get your position straight to you.\nIt is clear is it not that it's first time of the Board never done this ordered either party to a collective-bargaining, to agree to a particular provision in the contract, is that correct or incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2154.421, 2159.741], "stop_times": [2159.741, 2176.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.421}, "reply_to": "15414__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__2_002", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I believe that is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2176.474], "stop_times": [2178.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2176.474}, "reply_to": "15414__2_001", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_003", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And you say that this is therefore not a very important but nonetheless it is not a very important case because this is unique (Voice Overlap) it's not very unique but I think that\u2019s tautological if it's unique, it\u2019s unique.\nThat's a first time that the Board has ever ordered this remedy and you must be saying I suppose that this is the first that an employer has ever behaved this way and it\u2019s through the Board, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2178.572, 2191.769], "stop_times": [2191.769, 2204.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.572}, "reply_to": "15414__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__2_004", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct as I will attempt to show very, very briefly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2204.32], "stop_times": [2208.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2204.32}, "reply_to": "15414__2_003", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_005", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I ask about one question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2208.479], "stop_times": [2210.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.479}, "reply_to": "15414__2_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_006", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2210.359], "stop_times": [2211.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2210.359}, "reply_to": "15414__2_005", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_007", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I thought I had a big recollection that we had in a point of any contempt case before, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2211.103], "stop_times": [2221.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.103}, "reply_to": "15414__2_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_008", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Not, to my knowledge Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2221.686], "stop_times": [2226.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2221.686}, "reply_to": "15414__2_007", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_009", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Because you'll probably know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2226.017], "stop_times": [2228.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.017}, "reply_to": "15414__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_010", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The closest that this Court has had has been a case like Times for example very early today where an employer agreed to a contract and refuse to put it into writing and that situation the Board ordered him to execute the contract and this Court sustained that remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2228.879], "stop_times": [2254.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2228.879}, "reply_to": "15414__2_009", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_011", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, he must do that, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2254.577], "stop_times": [2256.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.577}, "reply_to": "15414__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_012", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The Act now in 8 (d) specifically says that he must do that.\nNow, the employer here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2256.237, 2263.32], "stop_times": [2263.32, 2264.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2256.237}, "reply_to": "15414__2_011", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_013", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I ask this Mr. Come?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2264.827], "stop_times": [2265.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.827}, "reply_to": "15414__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15414__2_014", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2265.939], "stop_times": [2266.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2265.939}, "reply_to": "15414__2_013", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_015", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I take it if the Board has this power, this is a two-way street and then maybe circumstances in which the union can be require to sign a -- accept a particular course, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2266.652], "stop_times": [2278.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.652}, "reply_to": "15414__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15414__2_016", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That might be if you get a union in the situation that this employer got himself into.\nI think that this employer as I will attempt to show very briefly faded himself into such a corner that the considerable freedom that he had to bargain he deliberately gave up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2278.783, 2285.49], "stop_times": [2285.49, 2305.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2278.783}, "reply_to": "15414__2_015", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_017", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Did the Board see in that light in the first instance before it went to the Court of Appeals, first time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2305.59], "stop_times": [2313.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.59}, "reply_to": "15414__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_018", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think that the Board did Your Honor in so far as the basic violation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2313.23], "stop_times": [2321.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2313.23}, "reply_to": "15414__2_017", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_019", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But you can do with this remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2321.291], "stop_times": [2323.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.291}, "reply_to": "15414__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_020", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The Board thought that the stereo type refusal of the bargain remedy would cure the situation but in the light of the post decree and negotiations, the further in like moment that the Court of Appeals gave the Board and after all the Board and the Court of Appeals are partners in this business of trying to work out a satisfactory administration of the Act, long appreciated that for this unusual type of situation something more than the conventional order to bargain was required.\nNow, this is a situation whereon the Board's unfair labor practice findings which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals and which this Court denied the company\u2019s petition for certiorari on.\nWe have a situation where an employer has twice been found to have refused to bargain in good faith with the union -- the purpose of frustrating an agreement with the union -- any agreement with the union.\nAnd the last --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2323.155, 2371.316, 2387.474, 2405.256], "stop_times": [2371.316, 2387.474, 2405.256, 2406.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2323.155}, "reply_to": "15414__2_019", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_021", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "How would the refusal to agree with checkoff frustrates any agreement with the union unless the union said they wouldn\u2019t agree to any contract without a checkoff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2406.62], "stop_times": [2419.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.62}, "reply_to": "15414__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_022", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2419.505], "stop_times": [2421.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2419.505}, "reply_to": "15414__2_021", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_023", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's the only way it could produce some impasse, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2421.127], "stop_times": [2426.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.127}, "reply_to": "15414__2_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_024", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It could produce an improper impasse if the employer's reasons for refusing to agree are bad faith reasons.\nNow, here is a situation where after the first refusal to bargain order -- I might say that the union was first certified in 1961 for the next -- the first set of negotiations broke off in 1962.\nThe Board found that the company was refusing the bargain in good faith and that order was enforced by the Fourth Circuit.\nThey then resumed negotiations in October of 1963 and they had 21 meetings and had still not reached in agreement.\nIt was only after the 20th meeting that the company gave up on one of the demands that was found to be a basis for the refusal of the bargain the first time.\nAt the end of the 21st meeting, you had three issues which was still unresolved -- wages, insurance and the union's request for a checkoff provision.\nNow, the record showed that the company did not resist a checkoff because there was any convenience to the company.\nYou have the chief negotiator of the company admitting that in the record or for any other business reason or because there was a company policy against the checkoff.\nHe pointed out that the company regularly made payroll deductions at this plant for Government bonds, for health insurance, for united fund which is equivalent to the united giver\u2019s fund to a good neighbor or sunshine fund and he conceded that there was no more inconvenience in checking off union dues and there was in checking off for these other purposes.\nHe further --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2426.1, 2436.408, 2458.492, 2467.566, 2478.983, 2489.343, 2501.51, 2509.949, 2521.635, 2553.064], "stop_times": [2436.408, 2458.492, 2467.566, 2478.983, 2489.343, 2501.51, 2509.949, 2521.635, 2553.064, 2554.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2426.1}, "reply_to": "15414__2_023", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_025", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What if the employer wanted to save the checkoff concession for a year when he couldn't depart to give a very large wage increase?\nOnce he knew it was quite important to the union, was that -- would that be a legitimate business reason to save it for the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2554.159, 2568.226], "stop_times": [2568.226, 2578.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.159}, "reply_to": "15414__2_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_026", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I know that Your Honor has suggested that would be so in the Ronald case (Voice Overlap) and I think I could assume arguendo that perhaps it might be, but there was no suggestion that there was anything like that here because you had five years of bargaining negotiations, there was no suggestion at all that the checkoff was being used as a trading device certainly in the course of five years of negotiations where you are bargaining back and forth if the checkoff is going to be use as a trading device, that would have appear.\nThe company negotiator frankly conceded at the Board hearing that is only reason for not giving the checkoff was that the company was not going to aid and comfort the union at this location.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2578.279, 2622.604], "stop_times": [2622.604, 2637.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2578.279}, "reply_to": "15414__2_025", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_027", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Is that an illegitimate reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2637.961], "stop_times": [2641.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.961}, "reply_to": "15414__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__2_028", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I submit that in the context of this case, it is an illegitimate reason that has hypothetical to the basic tenants of bargaining in good faith because if you have to recognize a union as the collective bargaining representative as this employer did in bargain in good faith with a view toward entering into a contract -- anything that you're given a contract is going to give aid and comfort to the union.\nAnd this employer was making that a touchstone.\nIn the context of this case, it indicated it beyond that that really the reason that he wasn't giving it was just because the union was asking for it because he had agreed to checkoff for other purposes.\nHe agreed that there was no greater inconvenience in doing it for union dues.\nAnd indeed, the further conceded that at other plants they did checkoff union dues and as the company counsel stated at one point in the record that page 16 that perhaps our refusal to grant the checkoff clause has been harassed of the international union.\nNow, given this history in this context, the Board was justified in concluding as it did and as the Court of Appeals agreed that this was not a company that had a good faith reason for withholding the checkoff.\nWe are not suggesting that an employer has to grant a checkoff, they cannot in good faith refuse to grant a checkoff, but this was an employer who withhold a checkoff for the sole reason of blocking an agreement with the union and that indeed he had indicated that not only was this his reason but he had no other reason for withholding a checkoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2641.894, 2673.628, 2678.209, 2695.798, 2703.628, 2730.722, 2754.931], "stop_times": [2673.628, 2678.209, 2695.798, 2703.628, 2730.722, 2754.931, 2788.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2641.894}, "reply_to": "15414__2_027", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_029", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I say this as I understand your adversary's argument do you think could good faith has nothing to do with that the law does not justify the Board in commanding that the particular provision be put on contract, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2788.067], "stop_times": [2806.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.067}, "reply_to": "15414__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_030", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct Your Honor and I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2806.894], "stop_times": [2808.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2806.894}, "reply_to": "15414__2_029", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_031", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I suppose Congress will pass the law providing the checkoff, can you think of any constitutional objection to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2808.824], "stop_times": [2818.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.824}, "reply_to": "15414__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_032", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, I cannot.\nI think that the short answer to their argument, I think is the one that Justice Brennan suggested in which I intend to come to in a moment namely that 8 (d) has to be read in the light of 10 (c) in the legislative history of 8 (d) in so far as I've been able to ascertain and I've studied that rather carefully shows no indication that Congress was concerned with the problem of a remedy once you had established that the refusal of bargain was in bad faith.\nThe main thrust of 8 (d) is that the Board in determining whether there is a -- has been a refusal of bargain in good or bad faith should not regard as decisive or determinate that there -- in determining bad faith whether or not the employer did or did not or the union did or did not agree to a certain substantive proposals as to whether they were reasonable (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2818.744, 2822.45, 2869.198], "stop_times": [2822.45, 2869.198, 2905.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2818.744}, "reply_to": "15414__2_031", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_033", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Where Mr. Come assuming the breath that you argued for in 10 (c) as a -- to that extent at least some qualification on the prohibition of 8 (d), where do you draw the line on this?\nWhat's the point in which you say, yes 10 (c) goes so far that we can ignore 8 (d) in this case, what's the standard by which is to be decided when you may and when you may not ignore 8 (d)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2905.08, 2918.495], "stop_times": [2918.495, 2935.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.08}, "reply_to": "15414__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__2_034", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think that key is to the -- that the nature of a violation afford the standard where you have a situation like you have here where the employer has not only bargained in bad faith but he has indicated that he has no legitimate reason for withholding agreement other than this bad faith reason.\nAnd the nature of the proposal is one like a checkoff whereas you have pointed out.\nIt's a party cut and drive proposition.\nI mean that it is unlike wages in the sense that there is most unlikely.\nThere can be any economic or business consideration that would qualify the amount of the inquiries.\nCertainly, in that kind of a case namely the checkoff situation it is not doing violence to the policy of 8 (d) to say that the Board under 10 (c) can provide this kind of a remedy because otherwise --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [2935.403, 2975.341, 2983.263, 2986.04, 2995.676, 3009.047], "stop_times": [2975.341, 2983.263, 2986.04, 2995.676, 3009.047, 3033.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2935.403}, "reply_to": "15414__2_033", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_035", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I ask you one other question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3033.867], "stop_times": [3035.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.867}, "reply_to": "15414__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_036", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3035.032], "stop_times": [3035.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3035.032}, "reply_to": "15414__2_035", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_037", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It seems to me like most of this is rare, what do you mean by bad faith and what that means?\nDo you mean by bad faith that they have just decided they're not going to make any agreement and they are offering the excuses to keep on doing so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3035.8, 3041.708], "stop_times": [3041.708, 3056.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.8}, "reply_to": "15414__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__2_038", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think so.\nI think that they (Voice Overlap) they have used their refusal to agree to a checkoff as a cloak for not agreeing to any contract with the union at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3056.385, 3057.018], "stop_times": [3057.018, 3069.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3056.385}, "reply_to": "15414__2_037", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_039", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Do you say they're going through a form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3069.799], "stop_times": [3071.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.799}, "reply_to": "15414__2_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_040", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3071.941], "stop_times": [3072.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3071.941}, "reply_to": "15414__2_039", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_041", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Of collective-bargaining and agreeing to bargain but in reality they won't bargain --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3072.735], "stop_times": [3077.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.735}, "reply_to": "15414__2_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_042", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3077.794], "stop_times": [3078.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3077.794}, "reply_to": "15414__2_041", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_043", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Now, what is the remedy if this is not the remedy I mentioned it sometimes for years to state, well, I don\u2019t want to do this, right?\nI would say that many of the things, I'm not going to collect dues from my workers.\nI just don't -- that\u2019s not a part of my business, I don't want to have bookkeeper for that, could that be legitimate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3078.304, 3087.323, 3092.912], "stop_times": [3087.323, 3092.912, 3099.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.304}, "reply_to": "15414__2_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_044", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "If that were his reason and that is all that you had, there was no -- there would not be an unfair labor practice finding here to begin with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3099.571], "stop_times": [3110.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3099.571}, "reply_to": "15414__2_043", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_045", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But on the other hand if instead that being, you say the Board is entrusted with the power to determine.\nWell, that's not your real reason; your real reason is you just don't want to make any bargaining, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3110.735, 3118.766], "stop_times": [3118.766, 3124.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.735}, "reply_to": "15414__2_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_046", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3124.933], "stop_times": [3125.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3124.933}, "reply_to": "15414__2_045", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_047", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You're not bargaining at all.\nTherefore, that would it not sometime get to a position if that is right.\nWell, if you cannot order that the contract be signed on a point that the Board sales and that the men could keep it going on forever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3125.481, 3127.388, 3133.387], "stop_times": [3127.388, 3133.387, 3147.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.481}, "reply_to": "15414__2_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_048", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct Your Honor and that is exactly what happened here because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3147.41], "stop_times": [3152.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3147.41}, "reply_to": "15414__2_047", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_049", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I frankly think then that your answer to Mr. Justice Black's question would mean that the Board could impose this remedy in any 8 (b) and (c) (5) violation.\nWhenever there's the finding of lack of good faith bargaining it seems to me then the Board would have power to impose it somehow.\nAnd I think that might has to be your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3152.143, 3165.143, 3173.035], "stop_times": [3165.143, 3173.035, 3175.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.143}, "reply_to": "15414__2_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__2_050", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I respectfully disagree, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3175.803], "stop_times": [3181.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3175.803}, "reply_to": "15414__2_049", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_051", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But isn't that broad Mr. Come?\nWhat about arbitration clause?\nI don't think things have changed much since I was in the practice.\nEmployers views about arbitration clauses where much as you described what you say was the position taken here by the spokesman for the company as to the checkbook.\nCan you conceive that the Board, there'd circumstances in which the Board could compel an employer decide an arbitration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3181.636, 3183.26, 3187.517, 3191.731, 3202.641], "stop_times": [3183.26, 3187.517, 3191.731, 3202.641, 3213.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.636}, "reply_to": "15414__2_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__2_052", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Let me add to that, especially if the corporation said if the employers said, we're a corporate body and our ability to agree cannot be to make contracts, cannot be delegated by us to anyone else, suppose they added that to Justice Brennan\u2019s?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3213.456], "stop_times": [3228.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.456}, "reply_to": "15414__2_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_053", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think the usual argument; I used to make that kind of argument in Court.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3228.516], "stop_times": [3233.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.516}, "reply_to": "15414__2_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__2_054", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think as an original proposition those are all valid, good faith reasons for refusing an arbitration of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3233.887], "stop_times": [3246.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3233.887}, "reply_to": "15414__2_053", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_055", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, the law in the area of aid and comfort, they're not going to lend that practically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3246.934], "stop_times": [3250.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3246.934}, "reply_to": "15414__2_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15414__2_056", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think that aid and comfort in this case has to be read in the light of all of the facts that I have laid up which shows that this isn't an employer who has turned down a checkoff either because he doesn\u2019t want to get in to the dues collection business because it\u2019s inconvenient for him.\nHe doesn't want to prefer the union to other predators of his company or other legitimate reasons that you could think of which would be perfectly okay.\nIt wouldn't have any 8 (a) 5 finding to begin with and you'd never get to the remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3250.566, 3275.962, 3298.499], "stop_times": [3275.962, 3298.499, 3304.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3250.566}, "reply_to": "15414__2_055", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_057", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What about saving it for the future that I mentioned before, would that be a legitimate business reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3304.991], "stop_times": [3313.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.991}, "reply_to": "15414__2_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_058", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think that it might be yes, but this record, I\u2019m not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3313.911], "stop_times": [3319.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3313.911}, "reply_to": "15414__2_057", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_059", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "We are not coming to other thing.\nAre you suggesting that it\u2019s the obligation of either the union or the employer all these to reveal all the reasons why they do or do not agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3319.545, 3321.172], "stop_times": [3321.172, 3331.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.545}, "reply_to": "15414__2_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_060", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think that at some point those reasons should come out if you're going to have good faith bargaining as this Court pointed out in Detroit case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3331.986], "stop_times": [3345.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3331.986}, "reply_to": "15414__2_059", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_061", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "In which case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3345.068], "stop_times": [3345.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.068}, "reply_to": "15414__2_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_062", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "In Detroit case which Your Honor it involves the problem as to whether or not an employer who claims inability to pay had to substantiate his claim at some point by bringing forth his records.\nI think that claims made in bargaining if they're in good faith have to be honest claims and at some point the cards have to be laid on the table and certainly after six years of negotiations as we had here if the company's real motive was to hold off the checkoff for trading purposes that should have come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3345.839, 3361.967], "stop_times": [3361.967, 3389.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3345.839}, "reply_to": "15414__2_061", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_063", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I thought it was the essence of negotiation that a negotiator was entitled to keep his cards covered.\nI think we\u2019ll stop for lunch now.\n[Lunch Recess]\nWell, we have you stopped counsel.\nLet me put another hypothetical to you to pursue something that Justice Brennan opened up on the reciprocity or two-way aspect of this kind of a remedy.\nSuppose for example an employer made a demand for a provision in the union contract that the bargaining team they made up of such officers as the union would designate but that it would always include three members of the workforce of the particular unit.\nAnd that he then asserted that this was because he wanted to encourage the union democracy and develop the sense of responsibility to the leadership of the union etcetera.\nThe union says, no, we'll do this our own way.\nBusiness agents as we -- I don't want any spies in here.\nAnd they found her on that demand and have a complete impasse and get to just about where we are here.\nDo you think the Board could order the union to agree to that provision under any circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3389.914, 3395.981, 3407.674, 3415.987, 3418.732, 3432.878, 3462.017, 3474.02, 3479.629, 3484.096, 3493.383], "stop_times": [3395.981, 3407.674, 3415.987, 3418.732, 3432.878, 3462.017, 3474.02, 3479.629, 3484.096, 3493.383, 3499.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.914}, "reply_to": "15414__2_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_064", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I don't think so Your Honor because I don\u2019t think you\u2019d have an unfair labor practice there to begin with for two reasons.\nAnd the first place I think that the composition of the union bargaining team would not be a mandatory subject for collective-bargaining, it does not within the area of wages hours and other terms and conditions of (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3499.402, 3505.939], "stop_times": [3505.939, 3521.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3499.402}, "reply_to": "15414__2_063", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_065", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "How did dues checkoff get to be negotiable bargaining issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3521.672], "stop_times": [3526.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.672}, "reply_to": "15414__2_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_066", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think that it is well settled and the company does not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3526.729], "stop_times": [3533.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3526.729}, "reply_to": "15414__2_065", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_067", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I mean how did it generally?\nI suppose when unions began they didn't have any checkoff, it's a fairly recent development, isn't it in the history of bargaining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3533.906, 3535.801], "stop_times": [3535.801, 3546.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.906}, "reply_to": "15414__2_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_068", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I don't know that it is that recent but in any event most people in the field would readily agree that that is within the area of wages, hours and other conditions -- terms and conditions of employment.\nBut the composition of the union bargaining team had vast a permissive subject of collective-bargaining like the strike valid clause or who signs the agreement type of thing that the Court had in Borg-Warner and the Court indicated there that with respect to that sort of stuff although the parties may be able to propose.\nThey cannot insist on impasse.\nSecondly, even if it were within the area of mandatory bargaining on the set of facts that you give me, it seems to me that the union has a valid justification for refusing to enlarge the bargaining team.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3546.511, 3564.348, 3592.588, 3595.852, 3617.741], "stop_times": [3564.348, 3592.588, 3595.852, 3617.741, 3619.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3546.511}, "reply_to": "15414__2_067", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_069", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Would it be certainly be consistent with the spirit of the Labor Act and the Landrum-Griffin and the great many things to improve union democracy this way, wouldn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3619.268], "stop_times": [3628.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3619.268}, "reply_to": "15414__2_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_070", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, that may well be, Your Honor but as yet the statute only requires bargaining about wages, hours, other terms and conditions of employment.\nThat\u2019s the area of mandatory bargaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3628.049, 3640.696], "stop_times": [3640.696, 3642.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3628.049}, "reply_to": "15414__2_069", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_071", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well then you picked one that would be within the orbit of mandatory bargaining.\nCan you suggest one that under any circumstance that the Board could ever order the union to agree to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3642.945, 3647.802], "stop_times": [3647.802, 3657.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3642.945}, "reply_to": "15414__2_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_072", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I haven't thought about it Your Honor.\nI'm not but I think that the essential predicate though that to order in this case and that I find lacking in the hypothetical case that I've been getting is that in this case there was a threshold finding by the Board that the refusal to grant the checkoff was in bad faith.\nAnd that the sole purpose for refusing to grant it was to frustrate in agreement with the union as Justice Black said.\nThe company went through the motions of bargaining what it really didn\u2019t want in agreement and it was holding off on the checkoff because that was the way of carrying out its scheme of frustrating an agreement.\nNow, further more you have a record which shows did not only was this employer has reason but he had no other conceivable reason for opposing a checkoff so that you'll have a refusal to bargain in good faith over the checkoff based upon this kind of evidence.\nAnd the limited question in this case is not whether the Board has power to compel concessions under other circumstances but whether given this particular unfair labor practice finding that it is grounded as I have indicated the Board as a remedy for the refusal -- that kind of a refusal bargain clearly order a checkoff.\nAnd we submit that if you get this kind of a unique situation, a checkoff -- in order to grant the checkoff is really the only frank thing to do because an order to bargain in good faith suggests that there's something left that you could bargain about.\nNow, in the situation that I have presented, the employer has so painted himself into the corner that there is nothing to talk about -- talk would only make for additional delay because as the Court of Appeals pointed out when he goes back he can't give the same reasons that he gave before for refusing a checkoff and to permit him at this point to manufacture new reasons that he admitted before were not a factor but make a mockery of the collective-bargaining process.\nSo what we're left with then is whether or not 8 (d) in this particular situation that I'm talking about would preclude the Board from using its 10 (c) powers which would otherwise be broad enough to permit this kind of a remedy when absolutely by the Board in this situation from ordering a checkoff.\nWe submit that it does not for the reason that the legislative history of 8 (d) shows that what Congress was concerned about there was the Board making the initial finding of bad faith based upon the failure of the employer to concede or to a union proposal because of the Board\u2019s judgment that since it was a reasonable proposal, it was unreasonable and therefore bad faith for him to refuse to agree.\nThat is not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3657.309, 3665.151, 3697.445, 3706.998, 3722.539, 3747.272, 3774.969, 3798.423, 3834.292, 3862.364, 3894.683], "stop_times": [3665.151, 3697.445, 3706.998, 3722.539, 3747.272, 3774.969, 3798.423, 3834.292, 3862.364, 3894.683, 3895.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3657.309}, "reply_to": "15414__2_071", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_073", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I ask you about that legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3895.414], "stop_times": [3897.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3895.414}, "reply_to": "15414__2_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_074", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3897.267], "stop_times": [3898.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3897.267}, "reply_to": "15414__2_073", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_075", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I was over there at that time and I don't know but is there anything that you see in any way indicated that any of the Senators or Congress had in mind that the Board could do this or is it more in the line but following the ideas of the Railroad Labor Act which when you reach the end you still got to strike a lockout.\nNow what did you find in the legislative history that indicated caution?\nI'm kind of to agree with you logically as to what should be done if they want to force you for governmental action.\nWell, what do you find that indicates that there was any desire in anybody to force you by governmental action except by degree (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3898.128, 3924.51, 3929.247, 3935.082], "stop_times": [3924.51, 3929.247, 3935.082, 3946.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3898.128}, "reply_to": "15414__2_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_076", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think that the legislative history was silent on the question of what kind of remedy the Board could impose once it found an unfair labor practice.\nThe history is directed to the elements that go into finding a refusal to bargain in good faith or bad faith to begin with.\nAnd there, the history indicates that Congress didn't want the Board to make a bad faith bargaining finding based merely on the fact that the employer had refused to make a concession.\nThat's as far as the history of 8 (d) carries you and as I showed you earlier the Board's bad faith finding here is not based on any such consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [3946.507, 3960.434, 3970.568, 3993.279], "stop_times": [3960.434, 3970.568, 3993.279, 4007.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3946.507}, "reply_to": "15414__2_075", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_077", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Now, Mr. Come surely the very basic premise of our whole labor relations instruction is that it regulated to see that the parties sit down to bargaining table and come out with agreements that they agreed upon and that Government shall not voice agreements upon them.\nThat's the very essential of our own protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4007.557, 4026.302], "stop_times": [4026.302, 4028.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4007.557}, "reply_to": "15414__2_076", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__2_078", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is correct Your Honor but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4028.651], "stop_times": [4030.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4028.651}, "reply_to": "15414__2_077", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_079", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Doesn't -- does it whether under the guides of remedy or anything else, isn't that rather to assert such power to that in conflict with that basic premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4030.194], "stop_times": [4042.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4030.194}, "reply_to": "15414__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__2_080", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think there are two answers to that.\nThe first place, this Court recognized even in Insurance Agents (Voice Overlap) that even in finding the -- whether or not there has been an initial refusal of bargain in good faith.\nThere is a tension between the freedom of contract and the duty to bargain in good faith.\nJudge Magruder put it and read in parens, you can't be blinded wholly to the reasonableness of the proposals.\nI mean if there -- but beyond that once you have found on the basis of ample evidence that has nothing to do the reasonableness of the proposals that the employer has bargained in bad faith.\nYou have to balance the freedom of contract policy of 8 (d) against other policies of the Act -- the policy of bargaining in good faith toward an agreement is the policy of an effect or providing effective remedies for serious -- for refusals to bargain and are meaningful in the particular context.\nThen when you balance those policies against the freedom of contract policy in a particular situation that we have here, we submit that on balance the Board could reasonably conclude that the policy of 10 (c) predominates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4042.783, 4045.533, 4063.97, 4070.557, 4079.752, 4098.83, 4127.6], "stop_times": [4045.533, 4063.97, 4070.557, 4079.752, 4098.83, 4127.6, 4147.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4042.783}, "reply_to": "15414__2_079", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_081", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Come is there any finding here that the purpose of the employer view is to weaken the union because of an agreement checkoff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4147.002], "stop_times": [4161.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4147.002}, "reply_to": "15414__2_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15414__2_082", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4161.511], "stop_times": [4162.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4161.511}, "reply_to": "15414__2_081", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_083", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I didn't see anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4162.421], "stop_times": [4165.424], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4162.421}, "reply_to": "15414__2_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15414__2_084", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The finding of the Board was most clearly rearticulated in its supplemental decision where on page 135 whereas it says, as the respondent has repeatedly violated Section 8 (a) 5 admittedly had no business for opposing the checkoff and has its only reason for such our opposition was to frustrate agreement with the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4165.424], "stop_times": [4196.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4165.424}, "reply_to": "15414__2_083", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_085", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I know, but that's not the question I'm putting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4196.222], "stop_times": [4201.517], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4196.222}, "reply_to": "15414__2_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15414__2_086", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4201.517], "stop_times": [4201.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4201.517}, "reply_to": "15414__2_085", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_087", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "(Voice Overlap) that's what I'm putting to use whether there was a finding, the affirmative reason, the real reason just as to weaken the position of the union.\nAnd my next question was do you think you have given case where you can find such a finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4201.989, 4212.293], "stop_times": [4212.293, 4218.179], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4201.989}, "reply_to": "15414__2_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15414__2_088", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I don't think that the Board specifically found that the purpose was to weaken the union.\nI think that that is the implicit in the finding that the sole purpose and only purpose was to frustrate in agreement because that has been necessary consequence of refusing to agree in bad faith over a period of five years as went on here.\nI think that the history of why 8 (a) 5 was put into the Act shows that Congress recognized that was so to take put in an affirmative obligation to bargain in good faith because it was recognized by Senator Wagner and others that a mere obligation to recognize doesn't mean anything unless there is a bar an obligation to bargain in good faith with the view to arriving in an agreement because if you don\u2019t do that in good faith and try to coming on an agreement that is necessarily going to wear down the union and weaken it.\nAnd that I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4218.179, 4223.06, 4247.827, 4294.265], "stop_times": [4223.06, 4247.827, 4294.265, 4297.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4218.179}, "reply_to": "15414__2_087", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_089", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Going back to the question of Chief Justice asked you a little earlier as to practice issue, how does this frustrate the agreements?\n(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4297.878, 4304.506], "stop_times": [4304.506, 4312.847], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4297.878}, "reply_to": "15414__2_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15414__2_090", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is quite true.\nHowever, the union is entitled to hold out for a checkoff so long as the employer is in bad faith refusing to give up on the checkoff.\nHere, the employer, he\u2019s not refusing a checkoff for a valid reason which he could do and if the union refuse to give up on the checkoff, that would be a frustrating if the agreement that would not be a violation of the statute.\nBut where the refusal to get an agreement is due to the employer's bad faith refusal to give you the checkoff, then it is a refusal to bargain in good faith because what the employer is doing there is he is using the refusal to give you the checkoff really as a sham for not dealing with this union at all and that is what the noble this case is and the question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4312.847, 4314.042, 4328.938, 4349.598], "stop_times": [4314.042, 4328.938, 4349.598, 4384.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4312.847}, "reply_to": "15414__2_089", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_091", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I ask you one question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4384.884], "stop_times": [4385.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4384.884}, "reply_to": "15414__2_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_092", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Black has a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4385.524], "stop_times": [4387.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4385.524}, "reply_to": "15414__2_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__2_093", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I happen to know a man in Alabama who's a big employer.\nI have no doubt on this about why he would've objected.\nHe didn't like the union.\nHe didn't like to deal with it and he would rather surrender almost a bit that's not the deal.\nNow, I had no thought that the Board would have power to make him deal with them that way to certain terms.\nThey can make them bargain and negotiate it.\nNow, I never thought of that Act as being anything more than one which is like the labor relations to let him on as far as you could lead him and when he got a daggers point to let him fight it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4387.863, 4392.576, 4397.696, 4399.696, 4407.761, 4418.674, 4421.537], "stop_times": [4392.576, 4397.696, 4399.696, 4407.761, 4418.674, 4421.537, 4434.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4387.863}, "reply_to": "15414__2_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_094", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4434.324], "stop_times": [4436.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4434.324}, "reply_to": "15414__2_093", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_095", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Let's assume you could put the presence of this company in jail for civil contempt, for an indefinite period until he bargain if your findings that you all seem to agree upon are correct.\nIt has bad faith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4436.042, 4448.09], "stop_times": [4448.09, 4449.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4436.042}, "reply_to": "15414__2_094", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15414__2_096", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And that's why we feel that it's a much more forthright thing for the Board to specifically tell the company in its order what it is that is needed to demonstrate his good faith.\nThat's why the whole order here was made specific.\nNow, cut to come back to your example Justice Black.\nI think that there's no point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4449.073, 4463.376, 4470.376, 4474.862], "stop_times": [4463.376, 4470.376, 4474.862, 4476.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4449.073}, "reply_to": "15414__2_095", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_097", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I take it that man testified in this hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4476.985], "stop_times": [4480.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4476.985}, "reply_to": "15414__2_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_098", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What's that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4480.36], "stop_times": [4480.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4480.36}, "reply_to": "15414__2_097", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_099", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I would-- may say that that man testified at this hearing I was talking about or the act and he testified against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4480.727], "stop_times": [4491.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4480.727}, "reply_to": "15414__2_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_100", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4491.145], "stop_times": [4492.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4491.145}, "reply_to": "15414__2_099", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_101", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I don't see how logically you're right if we won the case to the end where the Government on a force an agreement not which would keep him strike, which the court give him in a lockout.\nI agree as Justice Douglas asked you, you could try to contempt.\nYou put him in jail for contempt.\nHe has his word I don't want to deal with unions.\nAnd you say well, that's not it if you just don't want to make any contract at all.\nAnd you get that finally on a bad basis to prosecute him in criminally, but I cannot see why accepting what you say because it seems to me here by and to decide in all (Inaudible) experience for a man who cross that way.\nI'd say he just (Inaudible) around it's a sham, it's a sham.[Laughter Attempt]\nBut that's a pretty, that\u2019s a pretty thin ground on which a man to send a jail for contempt to, and that's what it will finally come to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4492.132, 4506.85, 4513.941, 4516.3, 4520.319, 4526.028, 4542.067, 4547.637], "stop_times": [4506.85, 4513.941, 4516.3, 4520.319, 4526.028, 4542.067, 4547.637, 4555.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4492.132}, "reply_to": "15414__2_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_102", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I think that if you have to distinguish a hard bargaining case from a case that such as we have here only -- there's no question that has original proposition an employer doesn't have to agree to proposals that the -- just because of the union is making them I mean there's plenty of room for good faith collective-bargaining even though that means that he end up at low overheads and the union has the option of either striking or the employer of lacking up.\nThat is not in this case, this is an employer --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4555.379, 4610.711], "stop_times": [4610.711, 4614.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4555.379}, "reply_to": "15414__2_101", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_103", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Why is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4614.397], "stop_times": [4615.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4614.397}, "reply_to": "15414__2_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_104", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, on the findings of the Board that were affirmed by the Court of Appeals this is a case of an employer who is going through bargaining --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4615.735], "stop_times": [4630.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4615.735}, "reply_to": "15414__2_103", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_105", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Intended to object on one ground when in reality it was objected on another and that\u2019s the question you'd have to submit to a jury in a contempt case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4630.513], "stop_times": [4642.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4630.513}, "reply_to": "15414__2_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_106", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But by making the requirement specific you avoid a contempt action with the \u2013 because the employer knows what he has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4642.181], "stop_times": [4655.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4642.181}, "reply_to": "15414__2_105", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_107", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I agree but Congress has yet said it want to go that far I'm afraid in connection with the employer is due just as it puts on (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4655.596], "stop_times": [4668.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4655.596}, "reply_to": "15414__2_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_108", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Your Honor I submit that this is a remedy problem for a very unusual type of situation and that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4668.559], "stop_times": [4680.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4668.559}, "reply_to": "15414__2_107", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_109", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I would think it would be many.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4680.879], "stop_times": [4683.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4680.879}, "reply_to": "15414__2_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_110", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What's that Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4683.144], "stop_times": [4684.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4683.144}, "reply_to": "15414__2_109", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_111", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I would think it would be many.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4684.094], "stop_times": [4686.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4684.094}, "reply_to": "15414__2_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_112", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No because in the usual situation, you cannot or you either find that there's just been a hard bargaining or you will find that the -- that if the employer has acted in good faith you cannot say from the record that further bargaining would be meaningless.\nI mean he has not indicated as this employer has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4686.667, 4714.651], "stop_times": [4714.651, 4720.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4686.667}, "reply_to": "15414__2_111", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_113", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But there can no further bargaining because the Board has ordered that he has except the provision to which either both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4720.597], "stop_times": [4726.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4720.597}, "reply_to": "15414__2_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_114", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, the Board has done that only because in his initial bargaining he indicated that he had no reason other than the invalid reason for opposing the checkoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4726.867], "stop_times": [4737.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4726.867}, "reply_to": "15414__2_113", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_115", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I'm not criticizing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4737.054], "stop_times": [4738.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4737.054}, "reply_to": "15414__2_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_116", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And that's what this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4738.244], "stop_times": [4738.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4738.244}, "reply_to": "15414__2_115", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_117", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What they want (Voice Overlap) is our proposition just like we are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4738.543], "stop_times": [4741.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4738.543}, "reply_to": "15414__2_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__2_118", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4741.558, 4742.708], "stop_times": [4742.708, 4743.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4741.558}, "reply_to": "15414__2_117", "speaker": "norton_j_come"}
{"id": "15414__2_119", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Thank you Mr. Come.\nMr. Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4743.607, 4748.224], "stop_times": [4748.224, 4749.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4743.607}, "reply_to": "15414__2_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__3_000", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWe had initially filed the motion to leave to argue in 15 minutes which was granted but I see that some part of their time has been assumed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4749.337, 4752.096], "stop_times": [4752.096, 4759.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4749.337}, "reply_to": "15414__2_119", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__3_001", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, you got about 10 minutes that is left I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4759.768], "stop_times": [4763.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4759.768}, "reply_to": "15414__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__3_002", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The company and the Chamber are here Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4763.547], "stop_times": [4765.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4763.547}, "reply_to": "15414__3_001", "speaker": "lawrence_m_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__3_003", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Whom do you represent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4765.869], "stop_times": [4767.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4765.869}, "reply_to": "15414__3_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_000", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "United Steelworkers of America, we\u2019re the charging party for the National Labor Relations Board, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4767.479], "stop_times": [4773.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4767.479}, "reply_to": "15414__3_003", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_001", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Counsel, if you run under pressure we will take that into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4773.203], "stop_times": [4775.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4773.203}, "reply_to": "15414__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_002", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Thank you, sir.\nThe company and the Chamber are here today not to challenge any of the findings or fact made by National Labor Relations Board not to question the fact that they were motivated by bad faith and refuse to enter into a collective-bargaining agreement and not to question whether or not in this particular case if the Board had the power to compel a concession.\nThis case was a proper exercise of that power.\nThe company and the Chamber are here on the bold face of legal proposition that irrespective of bad faith, irrespective of their recidivism, irrespective of all of these things.\nThe simple fact remains the Board lacks the power to compel them to exact a concession of the kind that was exacted in this case.\nNow, in support of that legal position, the company and the Chamber have relied --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4775.996, 4777.206, 4804.569, 4809.309, 4823.211, 4832.993], "stop_times": [4777.206, 4804.569, 4809.309, 4823.211, 4832.993, 4839.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4775.996}, "reply_to": "15414__4_001", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_003", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Isn't that the concession, is that actual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4839.64], "stop_times": [4843.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4839.64}, "reply_to": "15414__4_002", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15414__4_004", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Compel an agreement -- to compel an agreement, require an agreement or compel a concession.\nI was using the word \u201cexact\u201d with compel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4843.744, 4848.847], "stop_times": [4848.847, 4850.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4843.744}, "reply_to": "15414__4_003", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_005", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Is it concession knowing where you sign this agreement or else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4850.168], "stop_times": [4854.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4850.168}, "reply_to": "15414__4_004", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15414__4_006", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, I'm referring Your Honor to the statutory language of making a concession in the company\u2019s view this was making them concede to something by having to execute it to the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4854.653], "stop_times": [4865.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4854.653}, "reply_to": "15414__4_005", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_007", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But the very word \u201cconcession\u201d implies agreement however reluctant doesn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4865.396], "stop_times": [4871.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4865.396}, "reply_to": "15414__4_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_008", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "It required an agreement of this nature.\nI don't think there's any question about that.\nNow, in support of this proposition, the company relies on what it looks to the statutory language of 8 (d) and the legislative history of 8 (d).\nNow, we submit and we have dealt with this at length on our brief that 8 (d) was the setup and established to define more clearly what the statutory obligation to confer in good faith meant and the whole thrust of 8 (d) is conferring in good faith.\nIt is true that to the extent that Congress recognized that an employer who is bargaining in good faith is entitled to the freedom of contract principles.\nThat employer who was bargaining in good faith cannot be compelled to make a concession and cannot be required to make an agreement.\nThat is the express statutory language and the legislative history is quite clear and that there's no illusion whatsoever to the question of what about this employer who's acting in bad faith, what Congress was disturbed about and what the language of the Section is addressed himself to is the question of the Board\u2019s prior practice of having look into the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a company response to a union demand at the bargaining table and say, well, the union's demand look fairly reasonable and therefore when the company responded negatively, that\u2019s indicia of bad faith, that's the practice that Congress was addressing itself.\nThat is not a situation we have here, there's no argument being made by the Chamber or the company that the Board\u2019s finding of fact namely that the company\u2019s position with respect to dues checkoff was taken for the sole purpose of frustrating agreement transgress 8 (d).\nThe company isn't arguing that the basic finding of a statutory violation here in anyway was precluded by 8 (d).\nOn the contrary, the company in effect is saying that we not withstanding our bad faith have been giving an (Inaudible) by the Congress in that this basic freedom of contract principle found in 8 (d) which are obviously are not entitled to under the little language of 8 (d) because we were not conferring in good faith.\nNonetheless, that language is imported and transformed over the 10 (c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [4871.272, 4873.745, 4876.042, 4886.769, 4907.659, 4919.027, 4928.099, 4970.322, 4990.151, 4998.982, 5019.414], "stop_times": [4873.745, 4876.042, 4886.769, 4907.659, 4919.027, 4928.099, 4970.322, 4990.151, 4998.982, 5019.414, 5023.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4871.272}, "reply_to": "15414__4_007", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_009", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But Mr. Cohen, does that answer the problem for us even if you had no 8 (d) would this problem still?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5023.49], "stop_times": [5031.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5023.49}, "reply_to": "15414__4_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__4_010", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No.\nYour Honor that doesn't answer the problem first and we have addressed themselves to that in a brief and I will be delighted briefly to do so here.\nBut it seems that what we are saying here is we have a serious question whether or not a bad faith employer or bad faith any party has any right at all to rely on the statutory language of 8 (d).\nWe acknowledge however that not withstanding this foreclosure that there's still is running through the Labor Act a basic policy of freedom of contract.\nBut of course as this Court said in the Machinist Local versus NLRB, when you look at the Act, there's only one way to determine the National Labor policy, that's not one section of the Act, that's the entire Act.\nAnd as a result of that fact, this Court on numerous instances has mandated an approach to remedy which in effect says many times we have to fashion competing, balancing, conflicting policies.\nThis is one such instance we say Mr. Justice Brennan.\nThis is an instance quite obviously and indeed the court below recognized this very fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5031.427, 5031.675, 5038.51, 5053.375, 5062.936, 5076.929, 5092.043, 5095.054], "stop_times": [5031.675, 5038.51, 5053.375, 5062.936, 5076.929, 5092.043, 5095.054, 5099.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5031.427}, "reply_to": "15414__4_009", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_011", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And I suppose that it is an arguable that because of the basic premise of regulation to bring about collective bargaining ought to leave the terms of the agreement to the parties are also -- will be the agreement.\nIf that is essentially the basis of the -- behind the legislation then that doesn't raise the question whether on that circumstance, the Board can assert this problem, Mr. Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5099.539, 5115.722], "stop_times": [5115.722, 5128.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5099.539}, "reply_to": "15414__4_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__4_012", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think I would respond by saying when you say \u201cbut to leave the substantive terms to the parties.\u201d\nThis is always on the assumption that we have people who are in good faith trying to arrive at the collective-bargaining agreement.\nThis is and this is what was recognized by the court below and they said, we recognized that is here a minor intrusion into the freedom of contract even if the employer is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5128.54, 5134.704, 5142.223], "stop_times": [5134.704, 5142.223, 5153.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5128.54}, "reply_to": "15414__4_011", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_013", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I should go a little beyond that.\nWhat I was trying to suggest was that others have to do deliberation decided that Government was not going to write labor contract and it wasn\u2019t going to allow any agents of the Government proscribe so (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5153.424, 5156.244], "stop_times": [5156.244, 5170.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5153.424}, "reply_to": "15414__4_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__4_014", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5170.749], "stop_times": [5171.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5170.749}, "reply_to": "15414__4_013", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_015", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Now, if that so then I would suppose that\u2019s very powerful argument that the Board can assert in the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5171.221], "stop_times": [5180.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5171.221}, "reply_to": "15414__4_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15414__4_016", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, that language I believe, that holds segment of the legislative history which you have so ably referred to in Insurance Agents.\nThat all, I repeat presupposes a good faith bargaining posture.\nNow, there is nothing in the legislative history when we transpose it into look at 10 (c).\nThe Board is empowered with the broad authority to effectuate the policies of the Act.\nNow, when Mr. Justice Black at an earlier time the hearing raised the question of, is there anything in the legislative history that points the giving the Board this power.\nI think the answer is twofold.\nObviously, 8 (d) didn\u2019t addressed itself to this problem because 8 (d) presuppose good faith bargaining but in 10 (c), numerous congressmen got up and said, now, what kinds of problems are going to be confronted to the Labor Board and how can we delineate what their authority should be in remedying those problems.\nAnd the Congress came to the conclusion and this Court has referred to this fact in many of their decisions Sever-up Bottling, Phelps Dodge, there is an enormous amalgam of potential problems, very bold depending on the facts of every case.\nWhat we are going to do is empower the Board to issue what affirmative action it believes will effectuate the policies of the Act.\nObviously, that is not unreviewable unlimited discretion, but it is a basic discretion and indirectly I would submit to you.\nIt addressed itself to the type of problem that you are speaking about.\nI would say indirectly in 10 (c), there is always the possibility that the Board could issue an order of that sort that it issued here.\nAnd what we say is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5180.02, 5187.201, 5193.304, 5200.428, 5206.492, 5215.91, 5217.955, 5238.597, 5252.851, 5262.416, 5270.791, 5275.288, 5284.786], "stop_times": [5187.201, 5193.304, 5200.428, 5206.492, 5215.91, 5217.955, 5238.597, 5252.851, 5262.416, 5270.791, 5275.288, 5284.786, 5286.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5180.02}, "reply_to": "15414__4_015", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_017", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "May I -- I thought you're arguing on the other side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5286.52], "stop_times": [5289.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5286.52}, "reply_to": "15414__4_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_018", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5289.771], "stop_times": [5291.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5289.771}, "reply_to": "15414__4_017", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_019", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Are you arguing against the Board's order or Court\u2019s order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5291.98], "stop_times": [5294.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5291.98}, "reply_to": "15414__4_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_020", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No, I'm arguing for the Board\u2019s order and I'm suggesting that the Board discretion that the Congress left would be NLRB in Section 10 (c) supports the issuance of a remedy that was issued in this particular case.\nIt involved the problem having to fashion and compete conflicting policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5294.04, 5310.991], "stop_times": [5310.991, 5315.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5294.04}, "reply_to": "15414__4_019", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_021", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Are you concurring the Act?\nWho the sole giving to the Board dealt five conditions, are you -- it must be accept?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5315.36, 5316.741], "stop_times": [5316.741, 5323.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5315.36}, "reply_to": "15414__4_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_022", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "No Your Honor I'm not but I am -- what I'm saying is 10 (c) empowers the Board to take the effective action that is necessary to remedy the particular violation found in giving case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5323.251], "stop_times": [5333.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5323.251}, "reply_to": "15414__4_021", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_023", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, do you think if remedy is necessary to tell people they got to sign a contract with that power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5333.818], "stop_times": [5342.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5333.818}, "reply_to": "15414__4_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_024", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "There could certainly be a situation where a -- this is happened numerous times before this case so yes Your Honor but there's been a violation found.\nLet's talk in terms of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5342.684, 5354.499], "stop_times": [5354.499, 5356.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5342.684}, "reply_to": "15414__4_023", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_025", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But I say the violation is that they just stick to one view and they won't leave it five years.\nWhat is your opinion on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5356.664, 5364.726], "stop_times": [5364.726, 5365.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5356.664}, "reply_to": "15414__4_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_026", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "You mean are they bargaining in bad faith that we got a basic finding of bad-faith bargaining when you say stick to one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5365.909], "stop_times": [5372.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5365.909}, "reply_to": "15414__4_025", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_027", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Do you mean then that if the Board finds a reasonable fact, reasonable support theory that the man really is not interested in against union\u2019s checkoff but then they can force him to sign a checkoff provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5372.912], "stop_times": [5389.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5372.912}, "reply_to": "15414__4_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_028", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, the mere fact that an interest that they are not interested, I don't think it would be determined.\nI think this case highlights that problem.\nHere, is an employer who -- for the sole purpose of frustrating agreement over this five-year period took a position on dues checkoff.\nHe went to the union jaggedly.\nHe knew this is what the union wanted, he made the judgment that he was not going to execute an agreement and he was going to use dues checkoff as a device to frustrate reaching an agreement.\nBut we had something beyond that year because not only was he using it as a device to frustrate agreements, he went on to acknowledge that he had no possible conceivable legitimate purpose for refusing to grant the checkoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5389.911, 5395.297, 5397.893, 5408.207, 5410.093, 5422.945], "stop_times": [5395.297, 5397.893, 5408.207, 5410.093, 5422.945, 5437.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5389.911}, "reply_to": "15414__4_027", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_029", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "He did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5437.573], "stop_times": [5438.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5437.573}, "reply_to": "15414__4_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_030", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "In this case, yes Your Honor.\nHe acknowledged that there was no administrative inconvenience indeed he had been checking off --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5438.602, 5440.227], "stop_times": [5440.227, 5445.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5438.602}, "reply_to": "15414__4_029", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_031", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Sure thing but he was against it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5445.774], "stop_times": [5447.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5445.774}, "reply_to": "15414__4_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_032", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "He was against it -- he was against it for a bad faith purpose of frustrating collective-bargaining that was the key to the finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5447.925], "stop_times": [5455.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5447.925}, "reply_to": "15414__4_031", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_033", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, suppose the union have been bucking, it said, we don\u2019t want the checkoff, we want to collect that money out of sales appear to word, is that compare?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5455.696], "stop_times": [5468.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5455.696}, "reply_to": "15414__4_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_034", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "If it could be demonstrated that we had no bad faith on either side of table then we wouldn\u2019t have a violation that we wouldn\u2019t be involved in these remedies (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5468.356], "stop_times": [5478.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5468.356}, "reply_to": "15414__4_033", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_035", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "How are going to be able to demonstrate bad faith so that you can read it real loud as not to put a man in jail for contempt to court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5478.212], "stop_times": [5488.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5478.212}, "reply_to": "15414__4_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_036", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, bad faith has we all acknowledged and we realized when it was written into the statute is a subjective standard but nevertheless, it is one of the basic course of the entire Labor Act.\nIt is true that it requires the determination of what was the employer\u2019s motivation but as you indicated earlier today let's assume that an employer setout with the purpose to frustrate reaching an agreement, but he had to make a judgment.\nHow I'll going to keep from reaching an agreement with this union?\nI'll look to what one of their key where that key demand us and I'll use that.\nI'll use that as the device to foreclose reaching an agreement and that's exactly what happened here.\nThe company --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5488.704, 5501.783, 5518.394, 5522.062, 5527.484, 5533.559], "stop_times": [5501.783, 5518.394, 5522.062, 5527.484, 5533.559, 5533.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5488.704}, "reply_to": "15414__4_035", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_037", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The counsel this morning Mr. Cohen mentioned that the union come witness for speaking for the union said, they would never agree to agreement without a checkoff, is that in the record something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5533.706], "stop_times": [5546.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5533.706}, "reply_to": "15414__4_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_038", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I believe it is clearly in the record that the union was insisting on a dues checkoff provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5546.851], "stop_times": [5553.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5546.851}, "reply_to": "15414__4_037", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_039", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "And they would not sign a contract without it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5553.271], "stop_times": [5555.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5553.271}, "reply_to": "15414__4_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_040", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I don't know of those specific words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5555.933], "stop_times": [5558.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5555.933}, "reply_to": "15414__4_039", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_041", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Let's assume for the moment whoever said that was accurate, would you think that was in adamancy (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5558.979], "stop_times": [5565.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5558.979}, "reply_to": "15414__4_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_042", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Absolutely, but the key distinguishing factor Mr. Chief Justice is nothing under this Act to preclude a party from adamantly in good faith insisting on a particular bargaining position.\nNo one has suggested to the contrary, the key thing that distinguishes this particular case and in a sense you referred to it in your dissent in Ronald was the crucial finding that it was bad faith that motivated this employer.\nHe chose to pick the dues checkoff issue as his device to frustrate reaching the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5565.99, 5579.833, 5595.528], "stop_times": [5579.833, 5595.528, 5601.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5565.99}, "reply_to": "15414__4_041", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_043", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, you're then doing on the same theory that Mr. Come suggested that a bargainer is always obliges to state all of his reasons (Voice Overlaps) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5601.864], "stop_times": [5609.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5601.864}, "reply_to": "15414__4_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_044", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That is not the problem that we have before us Your Honor.\nThis is not a question of being -- of standing forth forward ones position.\nThis is a case (Voice Overlaps) and we say it was a finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5609.57, 5612.274, 5617.48], "stop_times": [5612.274, 5617.48, 5619.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5609.57}, "reply_to": "15414__4_043", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_045", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The reasons I'm talking about the reasons for the position.\nI have thought it was the essence of the bargaining that you are not obliged to disclose all your reasons and to think (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5619.286, 5622.943], "stop_times": [5622.943, 5629.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5619.286}, "reply_to": "15414__4_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_046", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "The essence of bargaining is I'm sure you are well aware is to behave in a manner consistent with the good faith requirement of the statute and where that finding is made as it was made here and where this company has put themselves into this box where they were using the checkoff to frustrate reaching an agreement.\nAnd indeed had no legitimate reason, we say that would be inappropriate remedy in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5629.953, 5650.817], "stop_times": [5650.817, 5659.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5629.953}, "reply_to": "15414__4_045", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_047", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Let me pursue the question on 10 (c) that you mentioned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5659.311], "stop_times": [5663.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5659.311}, "reply_to": "15414__4_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_048", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5663.013], "stop_times": [5663.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5663.013}, "reply_to": "15414__4_047", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_049", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "-- the latter part of 10 (c) where the statute discusses under what circumstances where it says, and to take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without bad faith.\nNow, I would assume you would agree that the drastic remedy applied here is something more stringent than a command signed a particular contract.\nWouldn't you think that if Congress intended to include any such provision as a command to agree in a particular clause they would\u2019ve listed that in this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5663.078, 5679.435, 5693.492], "stop_times": [5679.435, 5693.492, 5704.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5663.078}, "reply_to": "15414__4_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_050", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, I would answer that by saying this, I don't -- as a so often the case, the legislative history of statutes don't communicate there are the legislature\u2019s concern with every potential problem that could have been post.\nAnd I think quite the contrary that Congress intentionally left 10 (c) framed in a very broad terms that was framed namely as will effectuate the policies of the Act because they recognized that they're were going to be on entirely difficult number of situations that were going to come up and they didn\u2019t want to confine the agency that was administering the statute to one limited or two or three specified remedies.\nBut I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5704.634, 5720.388, 5749.503], "stop_times": [5720.388, 5749.503, 5750.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5704.634}, "reply_to": "15414__4_049", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_051", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "I think your time is up now Mr. Cohen if you got to close.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5750.183], "stop_times": [5753.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5750.183}, "reply_to": "15414__4_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__4_052", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Before you close, I like to say I had the (Inaudible) comment said Mr. Cohen representing the Chamber of Commerce and that's acted and (Voice Overlaps) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5753.889], "stop_times": [5762.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5753.889}, "reply_to": "15414__4_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_053", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Well, Your Honor we have an extra ordinarily unique situation there is a Mr. Cohen represented Chamber of Commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5762.865], "stop_times": [5767.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5762.865}, "reply_to": "15414__4_052", "speaker": "george_h_cohen"}
{"id": "15414__4_054", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "But either is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5767.428], "stop_times": [5769.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5767.428}, "reply_to": "15414__4_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__4_055", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "We have two, you should get along better.[Laughing]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5769.597], "stop_times": [5775.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5769.597}, "reply_to": "15414__4_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__5_000", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I understand from the marshal we have a couple of minutes left here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5775.718], "stop_times": [5779.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5775.718}, "reply_to": "15414__4_055", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__5_001", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That's right you have -- Mr. marshal will you indicate it?\nEleven minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5779.945, 5784.619], "stop_times": [5784.619, 5785.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5779.945}, "reply_to": "15414__5_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15414__5_002", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Thank you very much I'll just take couple of those minutes if I may to answer the question that was post a minute ago, the record does show that the union adequately insist upon a dues checkoff provision and although I couldn't quickly find the record reference Judge Miller in his dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals refers to what even to the extent that the counsel for the Board's general counsel told the Examiner that his own inquiry showed that the union would not sign a contract without a dues checkoff provision.\nThere have been references now throughout the briefs in the argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5785.36, 5818.687], "stop_times": [5818.687, 5823.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5785.36}, "reply_to": "15414__5_001", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__5_003", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "What if they went odd.\nThere was odd, one of them said, I won\u2019t do it if it\u2019s in there; and the other one said, I won't do it unless it isn\u2019t.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5823.742, 5825.088], "stop_times": [5825.088, 5831.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5823.742}, "reply_to": "15414__5_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15414__5_004", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "That\u2019s right Mr. Justice Black and the company was found to a bargain of bad faith for the purpose of frustrating an agreement.\nIncidentally, that raises a question of whether it's a mandatory subject and then somebody said it never been raise.\nIn the earlier proceedings before the Court of Appeals, we did argue that where we were not convinced that at that time I'm not personally not convince now that it is a mandatory subject.\nBut obviously it was not something to be raise in this proceeding before this Court.\nSo we have not -- do not have this as an issue right now, but there have been references characterizing this case in a number in different ways now.\nAs we mentioned earlier, the union in its brief talks of this that this remedy that they're after here could not be use is a Ronald case.\nThe Court of Appeals said that in ordering a checkoff is only a minor intrusion on agreement contract.\nNow, today, it said that this is a unique situation.\nWell, as Judge Miller in his dissenting opinion initially on the merits of this case, he concluded by saying that he never seen case so barren of support for the bad faith finding found by the Examiner and adopted by the Board.\nNow, we're not here to argue the facts obviously but all I'm saying is that for anybody to say this case is unique or this or that case is where the Miller, that\u2019s always a decision that has to be made their people when you disagree.\nCongress in its wisdom did not, and nobody has cited any authority that Congress empower the Board to decide on the basis of characterizing cases whether it can order agreement or whether it couldn\u2019t.\nCounsel for the Board argued today when asked the question, well, where do we draw the line, where do you suggest we draw the line?\nHe said this about the present case where he says that it's within the imaginary line.\nHere, there was a bargaining in bad faith.\nWell, there's a bargaining in bad faith in every case you don't approach the remedy.\nThe question of 8 (a) 5 remedy unless there's bad faith bargaining.\nHe said there was no business or legitimate reason.\nI know of no law I don\u2019t think there's law right now to the extent that you have to have a business reason.\nI don't think our law has approach that point and I suggest to that is probably an important issue now or an important consideration in this case whether business reasons are or not needed.\nThe third thing, he said was a checkoff provision as cut-and-dry.\nWell, I wonder sometimes whether a checkoff is cut-and dry.\nIt can affect other provisions, it can affect the wage provisions for example obviously if the union wants the checkoff provision badly enough, they're going to give up 2 cents an hour to get it or 3 cents what have you.\nSo I suggest that these two considerations that have been brought forth today are exactly in the character of the Congress told the Board to stay away from in 8 (a) 5 and that is a sitting in judgment on whether the case is unique, whether it\u2019s cu-and-dry, whether there were good reasons for refusing the provision.\nI suggest this, I would conclude with the point from the Chamber\u2019s brief of footnote.\nIt pointed out that be sitting here today that this question of Board intrusion in the bargaining process did not come anew in 1947.\nI'm referred to the legislative history back with the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and the is footnote on page 5 of the Chamber's brief where Senator Wolf, chairman of the Committee in Education and Labor said that nothing in this Bill allows the federal government or any agency to fix wages, regulates rates of pay and so forth.\nThere is nothing in this Bill that compels any employer to make any agreement about wages, hours, employment or working conditions.\nI merely suggest that this treat of freedom of contract in the basic premise throughout the Act Section 8 (d) is the focal point by which is brought forth but this basic premise is there the Court of Appeals did not deny it.\nThe Board and the union in our brief do not deny.\nInstead, they say that they should be allowed to agree whenever the intrusion of freedom contract is only minor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [5831.239, 5837.659, 5843.657, 5853.667, 5858.497, 5866.344, 5875.739, 5882.382, 5886.968, 5904.059, 5917.223, 5929.989, 5936.948, 5941.883, 5944.305, 5948.6, 5952.345, 5955.292, 5961.147, 5971.897, 5976.342, 5979.816, 5991.939, 6013.157, 6021.772, 6034.013, 6054.428, 6061.69, 6078.196, 6080.305, 6088.998], "stop_times": [5837.659, 5843.657, 5853.667, 5858.497, 5866.344, 5875.739, 5882.382, 5886.968, 5904.059, 5917.223, 5929.989, 5936.948, 5941.883, 5944.305, 5948.6, 5952.345, 5955.292, 5961.147, 5971.897, 5976.342, 5979.816, 5991.939, 6013.157, 6021.772, 6034.013, 6054.428, 6061.69, 6078.196, 6080.305, 6088.998, 6090.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5831.239}, "reply_to": "15414__5_003", "speaker": "donald_c_winson"}
{"id": "15414__5_005", "conversation_id": "15414", "text": "Thank you Mr. Winson.\nThank you for your submission gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_230", "start_times": [6090.222, 6092.475, 6093.905], "stop_times": [6092.475, 6093.905, 6096.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6090.222}, "reply_to": "15414__5_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__0_000", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Number 37, Hadley against the Junior College District.\nWe'll wait for two minutes here Mr. Achtenberg.\nMr. Achtenberg you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [0.0, 8.91, 22.852], "stop_times": [8.91, 22.852, 24.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__0_001", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis is a voting rights case.\nThis case originated in the trial court in Missouri by a petition filed by residents in a junior college district to a state junior college district in two counts.\nThe first count, the plaintiffs sought to question the right of the trustees of the junior college to locate a college site in a suburban area rather than locating it closer to the center of population of the community.\nIn the second count and the only count which is before this Court, the plaintiffs raised the question of the constitutional permissibility of the Missouri statutory formula for selection of junior college trustees.\nThe trial court dismissed most counts for failure to state a cause of action; plaintiffs dismissed their count with regard to site location and took the appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court on the constitutional question raised as to trustee selection.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court sustained the trial court citing the Sailors case of this Court as support for its position in distinguishing the case from the Avery case decided by this Court.\nThe plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.\nThe issue is a relatively simple one and it is thus the \u201cone man, one vote\u201d doctrine an application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevent or is it violated by the Missouri peculiar statutory provision for the selection of state junior college trustees from election districts within the junior college district.\nIf I may, I think the issue might be broken into two sub-issues.\nFirst of all, does the \u201cone man, one vote\u201d doctrine apply to school districts such as the one here.\nSecondly, if as the appellants met the doctrine does apply, then thus the Missouri statutory provision constitute invidious discrimination and is it violative of the principle.\nThe appellants believe that that -- believe that the doctrine does apply and we believe that the Missouri statutory provisions not only permit but in fact compel by statutory formula that there'd be invidious discrimination by residents of voters and that that discrimination is directed in only one direction and favors the suburban or the small component school district voters as against the voters in the large central city district.\nThe facts are presented or rather the facts present the issue with almost (Inaudible) simplicity.\nUnder Missouri statutes, a junior college district may be formed by the voters of a group of adjacent school districts simply by their majority vote.\nThey may form a junior college, a state junior college district which then has as its boundaries the outer boundaries of the component school districts.\nNow at this point, the school districts as such cease to have any role to play in the functioning of the junior college district.\nBy the formula, they simply become election districts thereafter for the election of junior college districts and of course the junior college boundaries are co-terminus with the boundaries of the school districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [24.924, 27.985, 31.042, 44.003, 63.421, 79.524, 96.711, 112.963, 116.823, 143.388, 148.532, 155.611, 171.217, 205.466, 212.548, 226.271, 240.13, 250.273], "stop_times": [27.985, 31.042, 44.003, 63.421, 79.524, 96.711, 112.963, 116.823, 143.388, 148.532, 155.611, 171.217, 205.466, 212.548, 226.271, 240.13, 250.273, 266.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 24.924}, "reply_to": "15534__0_000", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_002", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Achtenberg who takes the lead in the formation of the coalition of these school districts in order to form a junior college district, how does that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [266.114], "stop_times": [277.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.114}, "reply_to": "15534__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_003", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I suppose Mr. Justice that it occurs at most citizen action occurs, I suppose groups get together and talk to their legislators or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [277.936], "stop_times": [287.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.936}, "reply_to": "15534__0_002", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_004", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The legislators don't have anything to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [287.874], "stop_times": [288.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.874}, "reply_to": "15534__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_005", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "-- or rather in this case a petition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [288.161], "stop_times": [291.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.161}, "reply_to": "15534__0_004", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_006", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The legislators as I understand it don't have anything to do with it, would it now that they have passed this authorizing law, isn't it correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [291.389], "stop_times": [297.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.389}, "reply_to": "15534__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_007", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct, yes sir.\nThe -- it's by a petition and then by a vote of the people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [297.353, 298.415], "stop_times": [298.415, 303.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.353}, "reply_to": "15534__0_006", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_008", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Petition of a certain X percentage of all the people that put up -- put the issue on the ballot, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [303.535], "stop_times": [309.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.535}, "reply_to": "15534__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_009", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [309.21], "stop_times": [311.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.21}, "reply_to": "15534__0_008", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_010", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "But who is it who selects the -- that the proposed schools that they -- proposed junior college district shall be these seven counties for example.\nThey're probably not important in this case although I think that's not -- that it may be of some importance to make out of the purpose of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [311.407, 323.909], "stop_times": [323.909, 358.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.407}, "reply_to": "15534__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_011", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The statute provides and I'll read it whenever a petition is signed by voters in each component school district within a proposed junior college district equal number to 5% of the number of votes cast for the direct to receiving the greatest number of votes within each component school district at the last proceeding school action, in each school district at which a director was elected is presented to the State Board of Education praying the junior college district be organized for the purpose of offering junior college, 13th and 14th year courses.\nAnd the State Board of Education determines that the area proposed to be included within the districts meets the standards established by it under the provision of Sections 178, 770, the 890 each or an election held with the proposed -- within the proposed district, to vote under the proposed to elect trustees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [358.368, 389.674], "stop_times": [389.674, 406.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.368}, "reply_to": "15534__0_010", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_012", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The legislature does not impose any limitation upon how many school district shall coalesce to form a (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [406.337], "stop_times": [410.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.337}, "reply_to": "15534__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_013", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It does not sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [410.95], "stop_times": [412.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.95}, "reply_to": "15534__0_012", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_014", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And nor any minimum number --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [412.345], "stop_times": [415.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.345}, "reply_to": "15534__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_015", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [415.013], "stop_times": [415.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.013}, "reply_to": "15534__0_014", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_016", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [415.429], "stop_times": [416.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 415.429}, "reply_to": "15534__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_017", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [416.201], "stop_times": [416.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.201}, "reply_to": "15534__0_016", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_018", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And so as a matter of voluntarily getting the other of a number of school districts in order to form a junior college district with the 5% of the vote in each school district and the -- somebody obviously has to take the leadership in proposing the size and contours of the proposed junior college district and as I understand the statute, it doesn't provide who shall take the leadership, this is citizen leadership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [416.872], "stop_times": [441.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.872}, "reply_to": "15534__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_019", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It would be simply citizen action by voluntary citizen's groups --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [441.609], "stop_times": [446.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.609}, "reply_to": "15534__0_018", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_020", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [446.75], "stop_times": [447.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.75}, "reply_to": "15534__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_021", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "-- who simply get together and decide that it would be an advantage to the community to have a state junior college district (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [447.125], "stop_times": [453.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.125}, "reply_to": "15534__0_020", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_022", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Do a community made up of several school districts and I suppose as an incentive, I suppose typically, if this one is typical, it's a core metropolitan school district plus some satellite rural or village school district --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [453.907], "stop_times": [468.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.907}, "reply_to": "15534__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_023", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct,", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [468.747], "stop_times": [469.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.747}, "reply_to": "15534__0_022", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_024", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "-- isn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [469.166], "stop_times": [469.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.166}, "reply_to": "15534__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_025", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [469.433], "stop_times": [470.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.433}, "reply_to": "15534__0_024", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_026", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And I suppose there has to be some incentive to the rural or village satellite districts to join this core area in order to form a junior college district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [470.526], "stop_times": [481.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.526}, "reply_to": "15534__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_027", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, that's the assumption which I think is made in the appellee's brief, we deny it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [481.287], "stop_times": [484.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.287}, "reply_to": "15534__0_026", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_028", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I was wondering if it is an assumption or if it is a reality that was the purpose of my questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [484.744], "stop_times": [489.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.744}, "reply_to": "15534__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_029", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I think it is equally arguable that the advantages of the district or is advantageous to all the members who come in that they should come in on an equal basis.\nI don't think that there is any statutory or community history which indicates that the persuasion was made to the suburban districts that they would get a weighted vote by coming in or that the people within the inner city who have said, \u201cWe are told that you will not get a weighted vote.\u201d\nIt seems to me that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [489.997, 505.35, 526.6], "stop_times": [505.35, 526.6, 529.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.997}, "reply_to": "15534__0_028", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_030", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, that's what they were told by the legislature, they set up this system in fact if to use your phrase, weighted vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [529.978], "stop_times": [538.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.978}, "reply_to": "15534__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_031", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, the statute certainly does provide a weighted vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [538.81], "stop_times": [540.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.81}, "reply_to": "15534__0_030", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_032", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And it was against that background that the -- this junior college district was created.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [540.958], "stop_times": [546.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.958}, "reply_to": "15534__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_033", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I can only say that I know of no factual history background to support this and I would argue that if there is such a background, it is no more constitutionally permissible then perhaps the historical development of the one legislator per county which this Court struck down in Reynolds versus Sims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [546.798], "stop_times": [569.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.798}, "reply_to": "15534__0_032", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_034", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "How new is this legislation, this authorizing legislation, junior college district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [569.268], "stop_times": [574.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.268}, "reply_to": "15534__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_035", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "About six years.\nThe Kansas City (Voice Overlap) district was formed in about '64.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [574.9, 576.499], "stop_times": [576.499, 581.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.9}, "reply_to": "15534__0_034", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_036", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Thank you, I'm sorry to take this much of your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [581.488], "stop_times": [586.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.488}, "reply_to": "15534__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_037", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Then having formed the college district, we are now concerned with the statutory provision by which the trustees are elected and that is by uniquely Missouri formula which deals not with population but what is quote in Missouri statutes, school enumeration.\nIn school enumeration by statute is simply the annual enumeration in a school district of those persons from the ages of six to 20.\nAnd I presume that the purpose -- well, first of all, the purpose for this enumeration is for allocation of funds to school districts.\nAnd I assume that the purpose for using enumeration in terms of the election structure in junior college district is that it is a figure which is providable in each school district whereas population figures might not be broken down by a school district.\nBut in any event, the statute does provide that where that -- first of all, the general provision is that election of junior college trustee shall be at large with the exception however that if in that junior college district there is what we would call a component school district having a school enumeration of more than one third or less than 50% of the total school enumeration of the junior college district, then the voters of that component school district shall have one third.\nAnd since there are six trustees provided by law, they will have two of the six trustees.\nAnd in any district where a component school district has half to two-thirds of the enumeration of the total district, then the voters of that district shall vote for three of the six trustees and in the third bracket to the formula if any component school district has from two-thirds upwards of the entire junior college district then it shall have two-thirds or four.\nNow, in each case, the remainder of the trustees are not elected by the other component school district but by what I would call an election district formed of all the remaining school districts within the junior college district.\nSo what we have is that the large district traditionally and in fact normally the central city district becomes one election district and the grouping of the small satellite or suburban school districts become another election district whether they be more or less in fact than the total of the central school district.\nNow, of course the central district would have only a third so that although the formula by automatic effect is weighted in favor of the suburban districts, you could have a situation where the suburban districts actually have a greater majority of the total school situation or the school enumeration than the central city district.\nAs you make it clear that this is not a question of a limited vote, all voters throughout the entire district vote and the school boards themselves have no role whatsoever to play once the district is formed in the operation or the functioning of the junior college district.\nNow, how does it work in practice?\nAs we have set out in our briefs and in the appendix, since this formation the Kansas City School District has had from 59 and a half to 63 and a half percent of the total enumeration of the junior college district of greater Kansas City.\nAnd yet during that period by the formula, it has always had only half or three of the six trustees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [586.299, 607.296, 618.355, 627.478, 645.037, 680.976, 688.392, 717.878, 736.493, 766.208, 790.474, 810.948, 813.303, 831.09], "stop_times": [607.296, 618.355, 627.478, 645.037, 680.976, 688.392, 717.878, 736.493, 766.208, 790.474, 810.948, 813.303, 831.09, 837.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.299}, "reply_to": "15534__0_036", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_038", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "How would you give them what they deserve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [837.988], "stop_times": [843.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.988}, "reply_to": "15534__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__0_039", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, we point out to the Court that under the statute if the court invalidates simply the sub-district or component district formula, the trustees under the remaining portion of the statute may be elected at large.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [843.305], "stop_times": [856.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.305}, "reply_to": "15534__0_038", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_040", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That would mean that Kansas City would have all of them, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [856.925], "stop_times": [860.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.925}, "reply_to": "15534__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_041", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That has not been historically true.\nI think that that when the community works as a group, subordinate groups have their voice heard.\nThe city is not homogenous.\nOn the issue for example of minority rights, the poverty program, the blacks in the inner city.\nThere are many people within the city itself that are against what I would think of as progressive schools so that the city, the central city is not homogenous.\nAnd in producing this elective or voters result, there are many small divergent groups which work together.\nAnd it's the process in at large election by which different groups are represented and I could illustrate that very easily in Kansas City where our city council is elected in part at large.\nThe Negro population of Kansas City which is far less than half has one Negro Councilman at large not because of their power of their vote as a majority but because as a minority, they can exercise a voice which is heard in the combined elective process.\nI think the same process would work here.\nHowever, we are not I -- and this Court is not committed to telling the State of Missouri that it must leave the statute so that these trustees are elected at large.\nThe legislature of Missouri has the right to rewrite this law and to set up election districts and there are certainly arguments for election districts so that if there are area of view points so as view points may be represented.\nAlways say is, if such sub-election districts are established that they be equal in population so that one group in one area does not have a greater weight in proportion to his population than does the group in another area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [860.446, 863.078, 875.571, 877.725, 883.644, 893.854, 902.23, 915.61, 935.383, 938.374, 949.939, 964.38], "stop_times": [863.078, 875.571, 877.725, 883.644, 893.854, 902.23, 915.61, 935.383, 938.374, 949.939, 964.38, 980.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.446}, "reply_to": "15534__0_040", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_042", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "This is population, not school enumeration?\nWhen you say equal in population, you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [980.302, 983.996], "stop_times": [983.996, 986.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.302}, "reply_to": "15534__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_043", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, for purposes of our discussion and throughout this case, we have considered that school enumeration being a segment of the population is proportionate to population.\nThere is no evidence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [986.519, 999.286], "stop_times": [999.286, 999.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 986.519}, "reply_to": "15534__0_042", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_044", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is it in fact -- it isn't like that registered voter situation we had in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [999.908], "stop_times": [1005.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.908}, "reply_to": "15534__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_045", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1005.523], "stop_times": [1006.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.523}, "reply_to": "15534__0_044", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_046", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is that like the registered voter situation we had in the (Inaudible) case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1006.374], "stop_times": [1009.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.374}, "reply_to": "15534__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_047", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I would say so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1009.838], "stop_times": [1011.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.838}, "reply_to": "15534__0_046", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_048", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1011.082], "stop_times": [1011.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.082}, "reply_to": "15534__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_049", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The statistics have not been assembled in an -- any encyclopedic way but basically the six to 20 population would tend to follow the general population.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1011.856], "stop_times": [1023.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.856}, "reply_to": "15534__0_048", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_050", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I think we said in Burns that the registered voters might be a permissible base provided it was the substantial equivalent of a general population base.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1023.006], "stop_times": [1031.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.006}, "reply_to": "15534__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_051", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1031.686], "stop_times": [1032.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.686}, "reply_to": "15534__0_050", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_052", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And you're suggesting that could apply here using a school enumeration base?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1032.257], "stop_times": [1036.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.257}, "reply_to": "15534__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_053", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "We do sir.\nWe say simply that if the Court proceeds on the premise which we've believed to be a fact that school enumeration is proportionate, then we are simply establishing a formula for population.\nAnd then the discriminatory formula of the bracketing moving in one direction makes it an improper population formula.\nOn the other hand, if the appellees argue that enumeration is not proportionate to population and there is no evidence in the record to support any such position, but if they are to argue that this is a different method of calculation then its our position that there is no -- first of all, that this is not the special group that votes, the six to 20 year old is not a limited electorate such as was considered by this Court in the Kramer, the entire population votes.\nIt simply would then be an argument that that area which has a different ratio of six to 20 year olds, all the voters in that area should have a specially weighted vote and we argue that this would be a violation of the \u201cone man, one vote\u201d doctrine.\nI would like to say expanding the facts in Missouri beyond the Kansas City School, the Junior College District that the same thing has happened throughout the state.\nThere are nine state junior college districts, three of them do not have any district in which the fraction of formula applies so their trustees are elected at large.\nAnd the remaining six districts where the situation does pertain, we find that in five of the six, the discriminatory formula has operated so that in the statistics in our brief, we show that in five out of the six, the discrimination proceeds to the cause, to the extreme range of the violation.\nSo that what we have is that in five out of the six, the weighting of the vote is from one and a half to one to two to one against the large component school district.\nNow, I'd like to summarize very quickly the functions of a junior college under Missouri law.\nIt may sue and be sued.\nIt may levy and collect taxes and may issue bonds, if they exercise the corporate powers of other school districts, provide instructions, set these, conduct hearings on disciplinary charges, make rules and regulations for its organization in the governing of the district, LET contracts, employ and discharge teachers, approve bills, appoint employees and define their duties and compensation as on the annexation of additional school districts to the junior college district, acquire property of a condemnation, hold a title to the property of the district, provide for its maintenance and make rules and govern the schooling of its students.\nNow, as to the decisional developments of the \u201cone man, one vote\u201d doctrine, to the point where we believe, it applies in this situation.\nThis Court first applied the doctrine in Reynolds versus Sims to state legislatures and in Wesberry versus Sanders, that extended the doctrine or applied it to Congressional districts.\nAnd then in Avery, it extended it to courts or governing bodies of counties and certainly in the language of that decision by Justice White, the concept of local governments included not only counties but city councils and school boards.\nThis Court had not directly faced the problem in a school district.\nOther courts have however.\nThe Iowa Supreme Court in Meyer versus Board of Education held that the doctrine did apply.\nTennessee District Court, Strickland versus Burns found it applicable and in Delozier versus Tyrone School Board, the Federal District Court in Pennsylvania applied the doctrine.\nOther courts have also applied the doctrine to cities.\nIn fact the Missouri Supreme Court itself applied it to a city council of a city of about 500 -- 5,000 population, something less perhaps than the student population of this junior college in Armentrout versus Schooler.\nThe Fourth Circuit in Ellis versus Baltimore, or City Council of Baltimore applied this doctrine to a city council.\nWe believe that the constitutional principle which is enunciated by these cases is that where a governmental agency making substantial governmental decisions is elected by vote of the general electorate, each men's vote must be weighted equally and as a corp --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1036.39, 1037.653, 1052.251, 1062.161, 1094.129, 1113.388, 1123.59, 1134.916, 1160.428, 1177.024, 1184.058, 1186.192, 1228.027, 1237.775, 1249.249, 1270.255, 1276.021, 1277.438, 1283.201, 1296.109, 1298.783, 1314.778, 1322.371], "stop_times": [1037.653, 1052.251, 1062.161, 1094.129, 1113.388, 1123.59, 1134.916, 1160.428, 1177.024, 1184.058, 1186.192, 1228.027, 1237.775, 1249.249, 1270.255, 1276.021, 1277.438, 1283.201, 1296.109, 1298.783, 1314.778, 1322.371, 1343.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.39}, "reply_to": "15534__0_052", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_054", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "By what -- by virtue of what provision of the constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1343.536], "stop_times": [1348.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.536}, "reply_to": "15534__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_055", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1348.2], "stop_times": [1350.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.2}, "reply_to": "15534__0_054", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_056", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Then it had nothing to do with the Sanders case, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1350.507], "stop_times": [1354.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.507}, "reply_to": "15534__0_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_057", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm sorry sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1354.078], "stop_times": [1354.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.078}, "reply_to": "15534__0_056", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_058", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had nothing to do with the Wesberry case, do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1354.582], "stop_times": [1358.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.582}, "reply_to": "15534__0_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_059", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The Wesberry was versed on -- was based on Article 1 but it seems that -- seems to me that whether we're relying on that provision of the constitution of the Fourteenth Amendment that the constitutional concept of the voter's rights and the equality of voter's rights is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1358.392], "stop_times": [1376.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.392}, "reply_to": "15534__0_058", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_060", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That was the reason for my question.\nWhere in the constitution will you find that?\nYou find that overwriting -- by that overwriting concept that apparently overrides into our Article -- the original Article 1 as well as to the 1868 Amendment in Amendment Fourteenth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1376.473, 1379.305, 1381.398], "stop_times": [1379.305, 1381.398, 1392.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.473}, "reply_to": "15534__0_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_061", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I would say so although this Court has seem to place the Congressional districting on Article 1 and the legislative districting and county districting on the Fourteenth Amendment seems to me that the underlying democratic constitutional principle is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1392.965], "stop_times": [1411.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.965}, "reply_to": "15534__0_060", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_062", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I just want to -- where did you find that underlying concept in the constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1411.172], "stop_times": [1416.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.172}, "reply_to": "15534__0_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_063", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "In both of those clauses.\nAnd I suppose the -- in the federalist papers and the constitution proceedings of the constitutional convention with which I won't quarrel to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1416.994, 1419.943], "stop_times": [1419.943, 1432.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1416.994}, "reply_to": "15534__0_062", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_064", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Would you mind telling me of -- I guess it doesn't, but the record shows anywhere what's really the cause of this fight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1432.554], "stop_times": [1448.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.554}, "reply_to": "15534__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_065", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, that requires me to express my opinion.\nIt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1448.752, 1454.045], "stop_times": [1454.045, 1454.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.752}, "reply_to": "15534__0_064", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_066", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I said if the record shows it all and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1454.41], "stop_times": [1457.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.41}, "reply_to": "15534__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_067", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, the -- I think I can answer it this way on the record, this suit was brought by voters in the central city district or the Kansas City School District portion of the junior college district in two counts.\nAnd the first count sought to resist the decision of the Board of Trustees to locate the first junior college campus in the suburbs rather than in the central city.\nAnd I would say that implicit in the litigation is the conflict perhaps between the people who moved to the suburbs and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1457.584, 1475.229, 1489.696], "stop_times": [1475.229, 1489.696, 1500.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1457.584}, "reply_to": "15534__0_066", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_068", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That isn't -- city in the suburb?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1500.783], "stop_times": [1502.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.783}, "reply_to": "15534__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_069", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I would say so, yes sir and the existing conflict which confronts our school systems today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1502.479], "stop_times": [1509.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.479}, "reply_to": "15534__0_068", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_070", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is Missouri elect all of its school trustees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1509.571], "stop_times": [1515.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.571}, "reply_to": "15534__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_071", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1515.936], "stop_times": [1517.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.936}, "reply_to": "15534__0_070", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_072", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "College and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1517.054], "stop_times": [1518.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.054}, "reply_to": "15534__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_073", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1518.402], "stop_times": [1518.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.402}, "reply_to": "15534__0_072", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_074", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "-- High school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1518.469], "stop_times": [1520.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.469}, "reply_to": "15534__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_075", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1520.126], "stop_times": [1520.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.126}, "reply_to": "15534__0_074", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_076", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "College and high school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1520.723], "stop_times": [1522.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.723}, "reply_to": "15534__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_077", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, no.\nThe -- what we call three and six direct or school districts which include most of the grade and high school and the consolidated districts, those call for election by the general electorate.\nThe only trustees in our Missouri system which are not elected are the trustees of the state university and state college which are appointed by the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1522.259, 1523.161, 1539.826], "stop_times": [1523.161, 1539.826, 1552.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.259}, "reply_to": "15534__0_076", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_078", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "How are they selected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1552.516], "stop_times": [1553.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.516}, "reply_to": "15534__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_079", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Appointment by the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1553.535], "stop_times": [1556.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.535}, "reply_to": "15534__0_078", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_080", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I presume the Governor could appoint, the law could provide for the Governor to appoint these trustees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1556.154], "stop_times": [1564.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.154}, "reply_to": "15534__0_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_081", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice you asked me a question which I think is not encompassed within the issues in this case and again its my opinion and I don't think this Court has yet faced that question.\nThere were some suggestion in Sailors that or more than a suggestion that the County Board of Education there was such a governmental agency that appointment was acceptable because this Court based its decision on that case and the fact that the selection of the trustees of the County Board by appointment from the boards of the school districts within the county was an appointment process -- I questioned whether an operating school district at the local level would -- I question from a democratic process, standpoint whether it be desirable that they be appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1564.976, 1578.041], "stop_times": [1578.041, 1629.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.976}, "reply_to": "15534__0_080", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_082", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm not talking about desirable, its constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1629.769], "stop_times": [1634.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.769}, "reply_to": "15534__0_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_083", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I don't know.\nThis Court has not given me any guidance on that point and I don't think it's presented in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1634.61, 1636.115], "stop_times": [1636.115, 1638.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.61}, "reply_to": "15534__0_082", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_084", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Did anybody challenge such a law --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1638.646], "stop_times": [1640.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.646}, "reply_to": "15534__0_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_085", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1640.717], "stop_times": [1641.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.717}, "reply_to": "15534__0_084", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_086", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Did anybody challenge such a law in any of these states as providing that the Governor can appoint trustees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1641.492], "stop_times": [1650.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.492}, "reply_to": "15534__0_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_087", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, certainly in the Sailors case, this Court said that by its decision that the -- in a different type of a school district, a County Board of Education that the appointive process was acceptable.\nNow I see great differences between a County Board of Education where there are -- the local area school boards or boards of education and the situation here, the County Boards of Educations or a rather atrophied in -- and the vestigial type of a Governmental agency in many cases they are being abolished.\nThey are not districts which operate school systems.\nAnd I think really Mr. Justice you're presenting the question of the legislative versus administrative question which has been presented in several of this cases.\nAnd it seems to be, it may have to be decided on a case by case basis where there is a law requiring or providing for appointment if it were to be challenged, it would have to be on the basis of, \u201cIs there a substantial governmental function here which requires election by the people?\u201d\nI do not think it's in anyway presented in this case because the statute in the determination of the legislature of Missouri, was this be an elective process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1650.793, 1664.623, 1687.311, 1694.796, 1708.567, 1730.29], "stop_times": [1664.623, 1687.311, 1694.796, 1708.567, 1730.29, 1739.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1650.793}, "reply_to": "15534__0_086", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_088", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "A great many important Government functions are performed by non-elected officials, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1739.68], "stop_times": [1745.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.68}, "reply_to": "15534__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__0_089", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.\nAnd I simply say that we're not faced the decision in this case as to deciding whether or not this should be an appointive or an elective office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1745.591, 1748.02], "stop_times": [1748.02, 1754.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1745.591}, "reply_to": "15534__0_088", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_090", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And when these functions are preformed by such a point of officials, you cannot get the prefect distribution that you are -- not necessarily that you are aiming for but is involved in a district by district selection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1754.709], "stop_times": [1769.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.709}, "reply_to": "15534__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__0_091", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir, you're correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1769.595], "stop_times": [1769.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1769.595}, "reply_to": "15534__0_090", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_092", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1769.812], "stop_times": [1770.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.812}, "reply_to": "15534__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__0_093", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It is true.\nI'd like to take just a moment on the question of substantial Government function.\nThe appellees speak of school districts in the context of special districts.\nWe submit that that language is a little meaningless and in any event a school district is much closer to a city council or a county government than to the traditional concept of a special district.\nI would prefer to call them special youth districts, special assessment districts or special benefit districts.\nThey have normally three characteristics.\nFirst of all, they specifically affect one area of the community.\nThe water district, the sewer district, the levy district affects the property owners directly who are protected by that improvement.\nSecondly, normally the assessment, the taxing for that improvement is against that special benefited group.\nAnd thirdly, it is common for that specially benefited and specially taxed group to have the right to be the special electorate.\nNow, not one of these criteria exists in terms of a school district.\nUnder the decisions of this Court in our traditional concepts of the American public school system, all the people of the community are benefited by the existence of public schools.\nSecond of all, by Missouri law, all the citizens of the community are taxed for the schools either by the real property tax or through the personal property tax or to some extent by the state income tax.\nAnd thirdly, we have a general electorate, so that none of the criteria of the special district apply.\nIn terms of function, I think it equally significant that we are not talking about the narrow function of a special youth district.\nThe sewer district, you run a sewer, the water district, you want to walk or you run a water line, it's a one step operation and from then on, the function of that board whether it be elected or appointed is simply a minor matter of collection of angular assessments and maintenance of the improvement.\nThis is a far cry from the complex problems presented in the context of the day's educational problems by our school systems.\nIf the Court please, I will reserve the balance for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1770.964, 1780.637, 1786.236, 1793.978, 1808.753, 1816.368, 1819.471, 1826.495, 1837.004, 1845.886, 1855.247, 1860.285, 1873.057, 1887.536, 1895.39, 1905.549, 1923.874, 1933.855], "stop_times": [1780.637, 1786.236, 1793.978, 1808.753, 1816.368, 1819.471, 1826.495, 1837.004, 1845.886, 1855.247, 1860.285, 1873.057, 1887.536, 1895.39, 1905.549, 1923.874, 1933.855, 1936.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1770.964}, "reply_to": "15534__0_092", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_094", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Could I ask you just a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1936.49], "stop_times": [1938.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.49}, "reply_to": "15534__0_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_095", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1938.355], "stop_times": [1941.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1938.355}, "reply_to": "15534__0_094", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_096", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Are the policies of the local school district's circumscribed by the policies announced by State Board of Education?\nAre they under the control of a state board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1941.165, 1953.907], "stop_times": [1953.907, 1956.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.165}, "reply_to": "15534__0_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_097", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, to some side it extends but basically the school boards are autonomous.\nThey make all the major decisions.\nThere are prescribed to a limited extent by a vote of the people in terms for example of capital improvements or changes in school levies, school boards --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1956.942, 1965.755, 1969.121], "stop_times": [1965.755, 1969.121, 1978.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1956.942}, "reply_to": "15534__0_096", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_098", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "What about curriculum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1978.138], "stop_times": [1980.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.138}, "reply_to": "15534__0_097", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__0_099", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Curriculum is the decision of the trustees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1980.604], "stop_times": [1985.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1980.604}, "reply_to": "15534__0_098", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_100", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And the qualifications of teachers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1985.407], "stop_times": [1988.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.407}, "reply_to": "15534__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__0_101", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1988.48], "stop_times": [1989.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1988.48}, "reply_to": "15534__0_100", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_102", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The state board doesn't prescribe the curriculum and qualification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1989.88], "stop_times": [1994.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.88}, "reply_to": "15534__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__0_103", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, as my understanding that the State Board of Education is in a sense advisory, our state laws give great power to the local school boards except for the familiar exception of arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power.\nBut other than that, it -- my understanding that basically the State Board is advisory, educational in aspect, forward thinking in terms of planning but it is not a step in a governmental structure.\nIt's the -- the local boards run their schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [1994.851, 2013.276, 2031.951], "stop_times": [2013.276, 2031.951, 2036.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1994.851}, "reply_to": "15534__0_102", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_104", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Did I understand you to say sometime ago and reading over the list of powers of these trustees, they have the power to levy taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2036.179], "stop_times": [2047.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.179}, "reply_to": "15534__0_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_105", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "As subject to a vote or approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2047.233], "stop_times": [2051.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2047.233}, "reply_to": "15534__0_104", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_106", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Subject to what approval?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2051.282], "stop_times": [2052.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.282}, "reply_to": "15534__0_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_107", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Vote or approve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2052.831], "stop_times": [2052.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2052.831}, "reply_to": "15534__0_106", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_108", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Vote or approval?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2052.879], "stop_times": [2053.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.879}, "reply_to": "15534__0_107", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_109", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2053.779], "stop_times": [2055.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2053.779}, "reply_to": "15534__0_108", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_110", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "They have to submit it to the voter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2055.098], "stop_times": [2056.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.098}, "reply_to": "15534__0_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__0_111", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2056.456], "stop_times": [2066.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2056.456}, "reply_to": "15534__0_110", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__0_112", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Burrell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2066.652], "stop_times": [2067.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.652}, "reply_to": "15534__0_111", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__1_000", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI think it is important here that we go into some slight -- more detail to the type of district in junior college which we are talking about and to how is it organ -- how it is organized.\nSome of this has been alluded to.\nIn the first place, there must be under this 1961, the Missouri legislature, a petition from the voters of a certain percentage of the voters of each component school district, are these component school districts generally have been furnishing elementary and secondary education to the youth in their particular district.\nAnd they must sign this petition of certain percentage of them and each component school district to form a junior college district comprising a number usually, it could be one but in practice it has been a number of component school districts.\nOnce this petition has been signed by the proper number of voters, it has to be approved by the State Board of Education which is an appointed body, appointed by the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2067.829, 2073.597, 2089.072, 2092.11, 2121.459, 2140.307], "stop_times": [2073.597, 2089.072, 2092.11, 2121.459, 2140.307, 2153.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2067.829}, "reply_to": "15534__0_112", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_001", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "You mean by that Mr. Burrell that the state board could retail the construction of the junior college district --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2153.23], "stop_times": [2160.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.23}, "reply_to": "15534__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_002", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Justice Brennan that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2160.632], "stop_times": [2162.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2160.632}, "reply_to": "15534__1_001", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_003", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2162.316], "stop_times": [2163.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.316}, "reply_to": "15534__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_004", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Either board could veto it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2163.553], "stop_times": [2165.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2163.553}, "reply_to": "15534__1_003", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_005", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Has the board given any standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2165.402], "stop_times": [2167.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.402}, "reply_to": "15534__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_006", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes.\nThe standards given to the board are three, the need which is somewhat general for the junior college in the area and whether or not there are a sufficient number of high school students and whether or not there is a tax base sufficient to support a junior college.\nAnd once the State Board of Education has approved this petition and there -- then there is an at large election in the proposed junior college -- in the entire proposed junior college district as to whether or not there should be a junior college district organized in that area.\nAnd only if a majority of all the voters in at large election approve this petition can a junior college district be organized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2167.191, 2167.607, 2185.671, 2209.484], "stop_times": [2167.607, 2185.671, 2209.484, 2220.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2167.191}, "reply_to": "15534__1_005", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_007", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "There need not be a majority in each component school district, am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2220.59], "stop_times": [2223.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.59}, "reply_to": "15534__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_008", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.\nThat is correct but there must be a majority in an at large election in the entire district.\nThen the state board certifies that this petition has been passed and the trustees are to be elected and there is and that is what is before the court here, a statutory formula for the election of the trustees of the junior college.\nAnd in spite of all that has been said here, all that this board does or this six member board of trustees is operate one junior college in the junior college district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2223.853, 2225.604, 2233.852, 2254.647], "stop_times": [2225.604, 2233.852, 2254.647, 2269.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2223.853}, "reply_to": "15534__1_007", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_009", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Was all this legislation passed together about six years ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2269.687], "stop_times": [2272.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.687}, "reply_to": "15534__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_010", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It was all passed substantially in 1961.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2272.852], "stop_times": [2277.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2272.852}, "reply_to": "15534__1_009", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_011", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Before that you didn't -- did you have any provision for junior colleges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2277.057], "stop_times": [2279.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.057}, "reply_to": "15534__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_012", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Before that the individual component school districts could have their own junior college just like they have their own high school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2279.996], "stop_times": [2288.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2279.996}, "reply_to": "15534__1_011", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_013", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "As to one district junior college?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2288.638], "stop_times": [2290.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.638}, "reply_to": "15534__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_014", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2290.456], "stop_times": [2291.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2290.456}, "reply_to": "15534__1_013", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_015", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "One school district junior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2291.13], "stop_times": [2292.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.13}, "reply_to": "15534__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_016", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And at that time and it is of, I think considerable importance, there were seven such junior colleges in Missouri where the total number of students of what -- of somewhat over 5,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2292.069], "stop_times": [2304.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2292.069}, "reply_to": "15534__1_015", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_017", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "My question -- my question was directed to the inquiry of whether or not its of any significance that this whole creation of this junior college district with by a majority referendum was against the background of this very legislative provision for your representation that's now being attack whether or not it was in other words of action and reliance so to speak.\nThe voters against the -- that this was part in parcel of the whole system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2304.118, 2332.223], "stop_times": [2332.223, 2336.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.118}, "reply_to": "15534__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_018", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm not sure that I understand the question but I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2336.18], "stop_times": [2338.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2336.18}, "reply_to": "15534__1_017", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_019", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm not sure I do either but I'm just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2338.234], "stop_times": [2339.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.234}, "reply_to": "15534__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_020", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "If the law was passed in order to foster and encourage the development of the junior college system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2339.828], "stop_times": [2347.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2339.828}, "reply_to": "15534__1_019", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_021", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "By encouraging several school districts to get together to form a junior college district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2347.551], "stop_times": [2353.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.551}, "reply_to": "15534__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_022", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2353.266], "stop_times": [2354.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2353.266}, "reply_to": "15534__1_021", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_023", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And the -- those that did get together who had did so against their understanding that they would be represented, on that board, that was my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2354.183], "stop_times": [2362.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.183}, "reply_to": "15534__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__1_024", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.\nAnd as a result of that, there are today, I think if it was at the time this brief were filed, ten junior college districts in Missouri with about 29,000 students and today there are twelve, I think with somewhat over 30,000 students and was component to covering an area of component school district of somewhere near a hundred and 20 as opposed to the seven junior colleges in seven component districts that were affected in 1961.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2362.558, 2364.108], "stop_times": [2364.108, 2399.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2362.558}, "reply_to": "15534__1_023", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_025", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It's probably not material here but as the curriculum compared with the curriculum of your state university?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2399.842], "stop_times": [2406.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.842}, "reply_to": "15534__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__1_026", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I will say this that the -- and I this were to answer in part the question of Mr. Justice White, the curriculum is uniform curriculum of -- for all the junior colleges is controlled by the state board of education with the view that the -- by a statute, they must consider the admission requirements of the University of Missouri.\nAnd so that's -- this is really designed I know that a year ago, for example, in Kansas City, we could enter a charge to the students in our district was $4 to $20.\nOr if you took an ordinary course of fifteen hours, it was $60.00 tuition.\nBut the students in our district could graduate and the curriculum is adjusted so that they can go from the junior college to the University of Missouri if they desire to follow tat type of program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2406.93, 2435.475, 2450.682, 2455.671], "stop_times": [2435.475, 2450.682, 2455.671, 2469.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2406.93}, "reply_to": "15534__1_025", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_027", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Burrell, who determines the location of the junior college.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2469.517], "stop_times": [2473.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.517}, "reply_to": "15534__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_028", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is determined by the board of trustees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2473.45], "stop_times": [2475.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2473.45}, "reply_to": "15534__1_027", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_029", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And is that subject to a veto of any state board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2475.982], "stop_times": [2480.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.982}, "reply_to": "15534__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_030", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "No, it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2480.736], "stop_times": [2481.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2480.736}, "reply_to": "15534__1_029", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_031", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And who determines how much it's going to cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2481.771], "stop_times": [2487.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.771}, "reply_to": "15534__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_032", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, with respect to getting the money to build the building and require the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2487.562], "stop_times": [2493.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2487.562}, "reply_to": "15534__1_031", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_033", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2493.407], "stop_times": [2493.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.407}, "reply_to": "15534__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_034", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That would have to be normally done by a bond issue which would be voted upon by the people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2493.733], "stop_times": [2501.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2493.733}, "reply_to": "15534__1_033", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_035", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "But the design of the buildings and the amount going to be spent in their construction and all that, is that all determined by the board of trustees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2501.128], "stop_times": [2511.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.128}, "reply_to": "15534__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_036", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Subject to getting the money by the bond approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2511.264], "stop_times": [2514.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2511.264}, "reply_to": "15534__1_035", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_037", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "But that's a bond approved by the voters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2514.012], "stop_times": [2516.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.012}, "reply_to": "15534__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_038", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.\nThat would require actually a two-thirds vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2516.28, 2517.301], "stop_times": [2517.301, 2519.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2516.28}, "reply_to": "15534__1_037", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_039", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And did I understand Mr. Achtenberg to say that the real basis of the dispute here was among trustees whether the location should be in the suburbs from the central city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2519.826], "stop_times": [2531.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.826}, "reply_to": "15534__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_040", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I think that that is the way as -- it was -- it conceivably started.\nIt was count one of the petition here.\nWas an objection to the location of the campus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2531.305, 2535.399, 2538.549], "stop_times": [2535.399, 2538.549, 2543.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2531.305}, "reply_to": "15534__1_039", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_041", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "What's the term of office of the trustee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2543.894], "stop_times": [2546.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.894}, "reply_to": "15534__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15534__1_042", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The term of office is six years.\nBut there are -- they're staggered, so there're two elected each two years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2546.347, 2549.476], "stop_times": [2549.476, 2555.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2546.347}, "reply_to": "15534__1_041", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_043", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "How about the current expenses, current running expenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2555.542], "stop_times": [2561.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.542}, "reply_to": "15534__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_044", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "By -- when the voters vote to organize the district they specifically authorize a levy in our district of up to ten cents for a hundred dollar evaluation in our district by the board of trustees without voter approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2561.001], "stop_times": [2581.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2561.001}, "reply_to": "15534__1_043", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_045", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, what's the difference between that and the regular school district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2581.958], "stop_times": [2586.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.958}, "reply_to": "15534__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_046", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, there's quite a little difference -- there's quite a little difference in amount for example --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2586.721], "stop_times": [2592.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2586.721}, "reply_to": "15534__1_045", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_047", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "No, I mean as to how it's done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2592.41], "stop_times": [2597.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.41}, "reply_to": "15534__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_048", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I don't think that basically there is any general difference there.\nWe -- in the junior college district, it can levy up to ten cents without voter approval.\nIt has been authorized however, the voters have been presented that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2597.276, 2603.488, 2608.599], "stop_times": [2603.488, 2608.599, 2612.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2597.276}, "reply_to": "15534__1_047", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_049", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "But they all vote -- that's all into one package they agreed on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2612.075], "stop_times": [2615.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.075}, "reply_to": "15534__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_050", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct Mr. Justice.\nThat is one package they agreed on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2615.556, 2617.904], "stop_times": [2617.904, 2619.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2615.556}, "reply_to": "15534__1_049", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_051", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, essentially what's the difference between that and the City of Kansas City school boards as to their authority, their money, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2619.748], "stop_times": [2631.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.748}, "reply_to": "15534__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_052", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, the Kansas City School Board I believe is -- this is correct, it can go up to three dollars and 75 cents for a hundred dollar (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2631.328], "stop_times": [2637.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2631.328}, "reply_to": "15534__1_051", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_053", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "So I mean, how the members pay it or the Kansas City Board --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2637.255], "stop_times": [2639.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.255}, "reply_to": "15534__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_054", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "How would the members pay -- there is a new law which just went into effect in January with the Kansas City School Board an I'm not certain about the exact provisions of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2639.768], "stop_times": [2650.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2639.768}, "reply_to": "15534__1_053", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_055", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "What about the old ones, were they elected or appointed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2650.212], "stop_times": [2654.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.212}, "reply_to": "15534__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_056", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Under the old law, if I'm not mistaken, we had two political parties select half of the board and each political party and then they were all voted on and this by -- some understanding there was never any opposition if my recollection is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2654.092], "stop_times": [2673.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2654.092}, "reply_to": "15534__1_055", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_057", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, the trustee board here is performing an essential governmental function, its governing, it use the authority of the state, no question about any of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2673.351], "stop_times": [2684.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.351}, "reply_to": "15534__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_058", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I would -- there is no question that it is an instrumentality of the state.\nI would suggest that it is a special purpose body with the sole function of operating a two year college.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2684.679, 2689.858], "stop_times": [2689.858, 2700.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2684.679}, "reply_to": "15534__1_057", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_059", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, is there any fundamental difference between the school board that operates a two year college and the school board that operates eight year.\nThere's no fundamental difference in the governmental structure (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2700.194, 2709.135], "stop_times": [2709.135, 2710.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.194}, "reply_to": "15534__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_060", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "There's no fundamental difference except in degree and I suppose junior college has less impact on the entire area than the elementary and the high schools do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2710.356], "stop_times": [2724.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2710.356}, "reply_to": "15534__1_059", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_061", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "But it's the same type of function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2724.086], "stop_times": [2727.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.086}, "reply_to": "15534__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_062", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Or its education, its education.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2727.582], "stop_times": [2729.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2727.582}, "reply_to": "15534__1_061", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_063", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "The same type of function as any other function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2729.74], "stop_times": [2731.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.74}, "reply_to": "15534__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_064", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "It's same type of function, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2731.55], "stop_times": [2733.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2731.55}, "reply_to": "15534__1_063", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_065", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I am -- I mean I'm not trying to -- I was just trying to get in into perspective as to a regular school board.\nAnd the difference when this law was passed, you had junior colleges before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2733.345, 2741.488], "stop_times": [2741.488, 2746.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.345}, "reply_to": "15534__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_066", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2746.337], "stop_times": [2747.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2746.337}, "reply_to": "15534__1_065", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_067", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And they were operated by whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2747.254], "stop_times": [2750.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.254}, "reply_to": "15534__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_068", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "They were operated by the various component by -- component school districts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2750.142], "stop_times": [2754.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2750.142}, "reply_to": "15534__1_067", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_069", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Like a county board and a city board or were they junior college board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2754.809], "stop_times": [2759.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.809}, "reply_to": "15534__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_070", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "No, they were what we would call -- most of it are what we call a six member board, local school districts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2759.05], "stop_times": [2767.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2759.05}, "reply_to": "15534__1_069", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_071", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's what I mean but they wouldn't be just for the junior college.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2767.699], "stop_times": [2770.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.699}, "reply_to": "15534__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_072", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "No.\nThey would -- under the old system, they would've operated the junior college, the high school, the elementary school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2770.185, 2770.844], "stop_times": [2770.844, 2777.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2770.185}, "reply_to": "15534__1_071", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_073", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2777.135], "stop_times": [2779.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.135}, "reply_to": "15534__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15534__1_074", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I might say here that the -- we have six trustees and the allocation is on the basis of school enumeration which has been as suggested to you, the number of persons in the component school district between the ages of six and twenty.\nAnd I think that is related to the interest of the particular component school district in the junior college program.\nAnd the formula we -- which we submit is not -- is invidious and is reasonable is that if their one component has a third of the trustees, it may select two of the six, if it has 50% it may select three, if it has two-thirds, it may select four.\nThe remaining trustees are selected if -- from the remaining component school districts is conceivable here that you could have two component district each selecting two trustees with the remainder selected outside these two component school districts.\nThe metropolitan junior college district is the one that is before the court at the time that this action was instituted.\nWe had 63% of the school enumerated persons in our districts and elected three trustees at the time of these briefs, we had 59, I think at the present time, we have 57% of the total number of school enumerated persons in the entire junior college district.\nIt is an urban, suburban rural composite; I think that was what we do have in most of our junior college systems, a combination of urban, suburban and rural areas.\nWe have in Kansas City 8 component school districts, a 400 square miles in all embracing at least parts of 4 counties.\nI think that the metropolitan junior college district or junior college district in Missouri is truly a special purpose body.\nThe court below, the Missouri Supreme Court in a six-to-one decision upholding this law held it to be or stated it is truly a special purpose unit.\nThe dissent, there was one dissent below conceded that this is not primarily a legislative body exercising general governmental functions.\nThe United States has filed the brief here, its amicus curiae and as stated in essence the basic function of the district is to supervise the operation and program of a two-year public education at the college level.\nThe court below in its opinion stated, we hold that the defendant is essentially an administrative body created by the legislature for the sole and special purpose of conducting a two-year college institution.\nAnd that it is not a unit of local government having general governmental powers over the entire geographic are observed by the body.\nOf course that is the language that was used by this Court in Avery.\nIts powers are circumscribe, the taxing power and bonding power was -- it had no parties or any bond without the approval of two-third of the voters.\nIt is under the supervision of the state board of education by statute.\nThe statute provides that the initiation for the development of the junior college must come from the people.\nThe statute does not organize any junior college, it merely sets forth a system whereby a junior college, a community in effect or metropolitan junior college may be formed.\nThe statute which is the appendix on appendix 2a of the brief of appellees provides that the budgeting policies, the curriculum, the entrance requirements are all under the state board of education as to all of the junior colleges formed under this particular law.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court below has stated and I think it is very accurate that this body has no power to do the multitude o things which a city or a county may do under this broad delegation of powers and under its inherent powers.\nIts duties, its authorities are essentially administrative and this certainly is language as has been used by this Court, its powers are not legislative in the classical sense.\nIt doesn't pass laws, it doesn't have the police powers, the Government has acknowledge here that our situation is somewhat a typical in that we are not the common type of elementary and secondary school district which is common throughout the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [2779.825, 2802.973, 2813.382, 2834.378, 2855.033, 2865.849, 2894.538, 2913.83, 2927.529, 2940.172, 2956.298, 2972.159, 2994.385, 3011.433, 3021.879, 3028.031, 3041.867, 3048.86, 3059.287, 3074.237, 3100.871, 3123.14, 3135.76], "stop_times": [2802.973, 2813.382, 2834.378, 2855.033, 2865.849, 2894.538, 2913.83, 2927.529, 2940.172, 2956.298, 2972.159, 2994.385, 3011.433, 3021.879, 3028.031, 3041.867, 3048.86, 3059.287, 3074.237, 3100.871, 3123.14, 3135.76, 3158.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2779.825}, "reply_to": "15534__1_073", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_075", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "How is its powers different from the powers of -- that were involved in the -- by the kind of board, there was a school board that was involved in the Kramer case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3158.68], "stop_times": [3170.939], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.68}, "reply_to": "15534__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_076", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I don't know that I can remember in detail there as I recall there in Kramer, they established a school district which furnished education for the entire district --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3170.939], "stop_times": [3188.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3170.939}, "reply_to": "15534__1_075", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_077", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Around the schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3188.216], "stop_times": [3189.272], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.216}, "reply_to": "15534__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_078", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Around the schools and we run one junior college.\nIt's a matter of degree plausibly more than in substance, however, there is some differences, there's considerable difference in the impact on the community, we are not affected by compulsory attendant school laws, it's a voluntary program insofar as entering a school is concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3189.272, 3194.299], "stop_times": [3194.299, 3213.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3189.272}, "reply_to": "15534__1_077", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_079", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is there something in the nature of running a school or junior college district which would indicate that, say 10,000 people in school district A only have a certain vote in the junior college but 10,000 people in another district should only have half that much influence in the running of the junior college.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3213.937], "stop_times": [3236.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.937}, "reply_to": "15534__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_080", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I wouldn't know about -- no, sir -- I do not know of any said principle of that, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3236.941], "stop_times": [3242.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3236.941}, "reply_to": "15534__1_079", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_081", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, is there any -- what is the state's interest in the allocating the board in a way that it -- that the statute allocates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3242.16], "stop_times": [3251.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.16}, "reply_to": "15534__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_082", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Oh, I think the statute starts out of course it says that first that the trustee shall be elected at large except --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3251.216], "stop_times": [3262.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3251.216}, "reply_to": "15534__1_081", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_083", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Except when, yeah?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3262.731], "stop_times": [3263.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3262.731}, "reply_to": "15534__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_084", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Except -- and then is it except if one component school district has once third and elects two except that it has half, it elects three.\nSo I think there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3263.558, 3273.581], "stop_times": [3273.581, 3275.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3263.558}, "reply_to": "15534__1_083", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_085", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, is -- I take it that at some point in that progression, the same number of people in Kansas City won't have as much influence in running the junior college as the same number of people in the inter land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3275.555], "stop_times": [3290.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.555}, "reply_to": "15534__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_086", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, there -- that would not be -- there can't be a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3290.908], "stop_times": [3294.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3290.908}, "reply_to": "15534__1_085", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_087", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I'm not saying that's the -- I'm not saying that's invidious, I'm just saying that's the fact though that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3294.827], "stop_times": [3299.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.827}, "reply_to": "15534__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_088", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I would say that that would be a fact and it would have to be in any system where you are going to have bodies joining together and recognize boundary line, you're going to have some of that situation is going to exist like as you have pointed out if you had 57% which we have now and we're going -- we have six trustees, we either have to elect three or four if we're going to have that system.\nAnd in doing -- which ever way we go, we're going to have some disparity from perfection and apportionment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3299.029, 3328.518], "stop_times": [3328.518, 3335.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3299.029}, "reply_to": "15534__1_087", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_089", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "You're saying there's really nothing but just sort of an arithmetic necessity to do it this way rather than -- you don't feel that there's anything inherent in running this school district that requires this kind of malapportionment, if I could call it that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3335.868], "stop_times": [3354.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.868}, "reply_to": "15534__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_090", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I would disagree with the term malapportionment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3354.574], "stop_times": [3357.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3354.574}, "reply_to": "15534__1_089", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_091", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Oh, I will call it, would you say this particular method is distributing governing power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3357.121], "stop_times": [3363.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.121}, "reply_to": "15534__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_092", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I don't think there's anything -- that it has to be this way.\nI don't think there's anything invidious or unreasonable about the formula.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3363.08, 3367.981], "stop_times": [3367.981, 3372.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3363.08}, "reply_to": "15534__1_091", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_093", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Do you think -- you think this form -- this kind of a formula is required or that it required to achieve a junior college district or that it makes it more likely that there will be junior college district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3372.522], "stop_times": [3383.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.522}, "reply_to": "15534__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_094", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Oh, I think very definitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3383.61], "stop_times": [3384.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3383.61}, "reply_to": "15534__1_093", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_095", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "But why is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3384.834], "stop_times": [3386.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.834}, "reply_to": "15534__1_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_096", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I think because it encourages the -- particularly the outlying area is recognized that they will have some trustees on the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3386.04], "stop_times": [3396.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3386.04}, "reply_to": "15534__1_095", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_097", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Some trustee, more than their population would entitle them to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3396.498], "stop_times": [3400.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.498}, "reply_to": "15534__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_098", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I would hope that that would not be their motive.\nI don't think that -- I think for example that a larger district would recognize it would have -- if it had a third of the trustees that it would have two whereas if it was in that large election, it might not have any.\nI don't think that at large, well, in that large election is strict compliance with \u201cone man, one vote.\u201d\nIt leaves much to be desired insofar as reasonable representation is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3400.308, 3402.44, 3417.786, 3425.23], "stop_times": [3402.44, 3417.786, 3425.23, 3433.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3400.308}, "reply_to": "15534__1_097", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_099", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I trusted (Inaudible) in forming the junior college district, the district is formed, you are (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3433.57], "stop_times": [3445.418], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.57}, "reply_to": "15534__1_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_100", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is the way the law is established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3445.418], "stop_times": [3448.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3445.418}, "reply_to": "15534__1_099", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_101", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Not the majority (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3448.05], "stop_times": [3449.56], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3448.05}, "reply_to": "15534__1_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_102", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That isn't -- that is correct.\nThat is correct.\nAnd I think essentially the members of the board are selected to run this school and to act essentially in an administrative capacity and not as a representation of the constituents in the districts from which they are elected.\nI think in the review that has been made here that it is quite clear that a junior college district is not a unit of local government having general governmental powers over the entire geographic areas served by the body.\nNow, that is the language which was used by this Court in Avery with respect to the Midland County Commissioner's Court.\nThis junior college body is not a body having general governmental powers over an entire geographic area, again language used by this Court in Avery.\nIt is not a representative of most of the general governing bodies of American cities, counties, towns and villages as was the Midland County Commissioner's Court held to be in the Avery decision.\nAnd I think with respect to some of our discussion as to population that we've entered into here in Sailors which involved a school board, there was a disparity of 201,000 in one district to 99 in another although concededly, while the local boards were elected, the county board was appointed.\nIn Avery, there was a disparity of 67,000 to 414.\nIn Dusch versus Davis which -- raised, fairly recently decided which had a residency requirement.\nThere was a difference there of 29,000 to 33.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3449.56, 3452.133, 3457.157, 3481.687, 3503.866, 3513.707, 3527.671, 3546.049, 3572.344, 3579.23, 3588.368, 3592.814], "stop_times": [3452.133, 3457.157, 3481.687, 3503.866, 3513.707, 3527.671, 3546.049, 3572.344, 3579.23, 3588.368, 3592.814, 3592.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3449.56}, "reply_to": "15534__1_101", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_103", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3592.82], "stop_times": [3595.495], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3592.82}, "reply_to": "15534__1_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_104", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3595.495], "stop_times": [3596.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3595.495}, "reply_to": "15534__1_103", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_105", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3596.88], "stop_times": [3601.033], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3596.88}, "reply_to": "15534__1_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_106", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "-- at the present time in our district, we don't have any -- our apportionment is based on school enumeration, I don't -- and we have 57%, the district has of the school enumerated persons in the entire district and we select three of the six trustees.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3601.033, 3627.907], "stop_times": [3627.907, 3628.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3601.033}, "reply_to": "15534__1_105", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_107", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3628.147], "stop_times": [3641.33], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3628.147}, "reply_to": "15534__1_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_108", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I think that would be quite a problem to substitute something that the legislature would deem -- that would be willing to pass, it could substitute an at large throughout the entire -- throughout the -- are which of course is what the legislature didn't want to do in the first instance.\nIt could of course require that there'd be six sub-districts of equal population, that's always certainly could be possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3641.33, 3663.362], "stop_times": [3663.362, 3672.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3641.33}, "reply_to": "15534__1_107", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_109", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Burrell, this law was passed I suppose before this Court decided the Virginia City case, Virginia Beach case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3672.991], "stop_times": [3682.27], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3672.991}, "reply_to": "15534__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__1_110", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3682.27], "stop_times": [3682.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3682.27}, "reply_to": "15534__1_109", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_111", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Dusch against Davis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3682.729], "stop_times": [3683.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3682.729}, "reply_to": "15534__1_110", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_112", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3683.826], "stop_times": [3685.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3683.826}, "reply_to": "15534__1_111", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_113", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And there is a formula for giving smaller districts a guarantee in smaller districts representation either of their population doesn't necessarily warranted.\nAnd it was -- and one of the reasons for the decision was to enable what was to facilitate consolidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3685.215, 3697.885], "stop_times": [3697.885, 3708.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3685.215}, "reply_to": "15534__1_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_114", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3708.733], "stop_times": [3709.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3708.733}, "reply_to": "15534__1_113", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_115", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And here I suppose you could if a -- even though all the trustees were elected at large there could be residence qualifications put on one, two or three of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3709.89], "stop_times": [3723.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3709.89}, "reply_to": "15534__1_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_116", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That is a possible.\nThat is a possible plan whether or not the legislature would be able to pass for -- the law was fair and it would encourage a development of the system as it has developed is another question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3723.484, 3725.927], "stop_times": [3725.927, 3743.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3723.484}, "reply_to": "15534__1_115", "speaker": "william_j_burrell"}
{"id": "15534__1_117", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3743.101], "stop_times": [3744.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3743.101}, "reply_to": "15534__1_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15534__1_118", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Thank you Mr. Burrell.\nMr. DeFeo.\nIts beginning to emerge to us that we probably didn't need to allow as long a time that has been allowed for this case and we hope you would not use all your time and that you're friend in rebuttal will have the same thing in mind but we'll continue so you can get home tonight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3744.331, 3749.668, 3755.496], "stop_times": [3749.668, 3755.496, 3772.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3744.331}, "reply_to": "15534__1_117", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__2_000", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "I will never -- to be as brief as possible.\nI would direct my remarks to two factors, one, the justification for the component district system of election.\nAnd secondly, that the junior college district that we are dealing with here is not a general governing body in the sense that it's discussed in Avery.\nFirst of all, the legislative officers as I see them in electing trustees of this junior college district are three, possibly four as an alternative.\nOne, they could be elected at large, two, they could be elected from equal arbitrarily drawn election districts and three, they can be elected from the component public school districts as in fact as the statute here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3772.009, 3774.602, 3782.948, 3792.454, 3802.354], "stop_times": [3774.602, 3782.948, 3792.454, 3802.354, 3815.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3772.009}, "reply_to": "15534__1_118", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_001", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "If they were elected at large, they are -- the first to be all was the risk that they'd all be elected from one end of the areas, is it not possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3815.241], "stop_times": [3823.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3815.241}, "reply_to": "15534__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__2_002", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes and in particular this question was brought out earlier and the counsel for the appellant said that there were a slight chance of this happening in fact but I know in Kansas City public school district, where directors were formerly elected at large that it is either four of the six or five of the six who come from the same high school attendants area.\nSo this is what would happen we feel at an at large election which justifies the legislature and not using the at large method.\nFurther, I think the at large method although if you can mathematically say one man's vote is equal to another dilutes minority's effectiveness in the community.\nThis is true of the Negro population, the rural population and may be the inner city population.\nThey could not in many cases as a practical matter elect a trustee who represented their interest.\nEven where there is a residence qualification, is off times the case that the persons elected are favorable to the majority grouping although they physically reside in one other -- in another area.\nI think that some distinction between the junior college district and public school districts in general must be made at the outset.\nJunior college -- public school districts directors have always been elected at large in Missouri with one exception that was recently made.\nIn comparison junior college district directors are elected from component school districts.\nFurthermore which is even more critical, there is an overlapping of jurisdictions, I like to refer this to this as a federation.\nA junior college district is a federation, that's not strictly true but I think it reflects the essence of component public school districts joined together in forming a junior college district which has taken over a particular function that was formally operated by the public school district that is of 13th and 14th year of education.\nI think the component system is justified by the history of junior college education in Missouri which has been touched on already here.\nIt is formally -- this was handled by each public school district itself and they have given up a part of their function to chart it over to the junior college district.\nMoreover they may, even under present laws still continue to operate junior colleges each public school district.\nFurthermore the method of organization manifest this federation, this simply was already been discussed adequately and I'll pass on to the next point.\nThe system of component districts also promotes organization and I think this is probably one of the most important things as reflected by the statistics that Mr. Burrell cited that enrollment has gone from 6 to about 30,000 students.\nThe curriculum offerings, I don't have any statistics but I know from representing the State Board of Education have developed greatly by this method of providing junior college education.\nNext, I would like to point as a justification for the component district system that the component school district is an established community of interest.\nIt is not an arbitrary election district or that it is setup only for the purpose of election.\nThe component school district is a public school district that educates children from 5 years to 16 years, from kindergarten through senior year of high school.\nThe people in that district are accustomed to joining in a concern for education.\nThey are concerned about their high school graduates.\nThey have developed communication channels for the purpose of providing education in that area.\nTherefore it is almost a natural society, a natural unit to be represented in the junior college district and under the present method they can elect a trustee that reflects this community of interest.\nFurthermore, the component school district system facilitates the administration of education.\nSchool district boundary lines change very rapidly, much more rapidly than municipality boundary lines.\nSchool districts can change their boundaries in Missouri by annexation, by consolidation, by boundary change elections by reorganization and this occur almost daily throughout the state.\nUnder the present component district system, the boundaries of the school district and this component districts change simultaneously, they are always coincident.\nFurthermore there is economics and facility administration in holding elections.\nUnder the present component district system, junior college district trustees are elected at the same time as public school trustees, the component district trustees thus you avoid the necessity of two elections.\nNow, if we had equally divided election districts rather than components, it would be necessary in many years to have separate elections for trustees because there's a difference between the time of election of different component school districts.\nFurthermore, since both of these agencies, the component and the junior college are supervised by the State Board of Education in curriculum and other matters.\nThis facilitates the State Administration of Education in preserving the component district system.\nI think also the component district system is valuable because these trustees directly responsible to a smaller area.\nIt is the decentralization argument that is presented to you in the amicus brief of the Attorney General of New York.\nAlso, it facilitates the urban, suburban, rural alliance which has already been discussed I believe in length here.\nI would like to move to my second point that is, that a junior college district, what we are talking about here is not a general governing body as is discussed in the Avery case.\nCounties, cities which have been held under the equal protection, one man, one vote rule, -- excuse me, have quasi sovereignty.\nThey have clearly identifiable units which reflect the three branches of our Angle-Saxon government, executive, legislative and judicial.\nThey make laws.\nThey enforce laws.\nThey adjudicate them.\nFurthermore, and I think is very critical here, general governing bodies, cities and counties have the police power.\nThey license professions.\nThey regulate businesses.\nThey provide for the safety of the general public.\nThey provide for general health.\nThey provide for general welfare.\nThey also provide numerous common services like police protection and fire protection.\nNone of these things does the junior college, the District of Metropolitan, Kansas City did.\nThey're in business for one purpose and there is education.\nI think the junior college district of Kansas City is much more comparable to a private incorporated college than it is to a general governing body.\nIf we look at the enumerated powers that Mr. Achtenberg mentioned to the court earlier, the junior college district can sue so can a private college.\nThe junior college district can issue bonds, so can a private corporation.\nThe junior college districts employs these teachers and other persons, so does a private college.\nJunior college districts hold title and control property, so does a private college. Junior college district governs pupils, so does a private college.\nThere are only two distinctions that I am able to find, the first is that the junior college district can tax and private colleges do not a taxing power.\nBut I would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [3823.508, 3845.956, 3857.822, 3870.512, 3876.607, 3884.721, 3901.283, 3910.125, 3918.18, 3925.822, 3932.629, 3955.581, 3964.065, 3974.745, 3981.919, 3992.313, 4009.602, 4022.101, 4032.776, 4038.93, 4048.533, 4054.345, 4057.338, 4065.227, 4082.209, 4092.13, 4099.462, 4112.031, 4124.277, 4130.517, 4142.679, 4161.152, 4169.837, 4176.504, 4186.747, 4192.791, 4200.623, 4213.856, 4224.321, 4232.916, 4233.756, 4234.958, 4236.799, 4243.022, 4244.471, 4246.298, 4248.796, 4250.562, 4252.741, 4258.341, 4263.48, 4268.407, 4277.021, 4285.629, 4289.579, 4294.149, 4302.238, 4311.242], "stop_times": [3845.956, 3857.822, 3870.512, 3876.607, 3884.721, 3901.283, 3910.125, 3918.18, 3925.822, 3932.629, 3955.581, 3964.065, 3974.745, 3981.919, 3992.313, 4009.602, 4022.101, 4032.776, 4038.93, 4048.533, 4054.345, 4057.338, 4065.227, 4082.209, 4092.13, 4099.462, 4112.031, 4124.277, 4130.517, 4142.679, 4161.152, 4169.837, 4176.504, 4186.747, 4192.791, 4200.623, 4213.856, 4224.321, 4232.916, 4233.756, 4234.958, 4236.799, 4243.022, 4244.471, 4246.298, 4248.796, 4250.562, 4252.741, 4258.341, 4263.48, 4268.407, 4277.021, 4285.629, 4289.579, 4294.149, 4302.238, 4311.242, 4311.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3823.508}, "reply_to": "15534__2_001", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_003", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, what about the comparison between this school board and the ordinary local school board from the first grade to the twelfth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4311.305], "stop_times": [4324.043], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4311.305}, "reply_to": "15534__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__2_004", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "So far as taxing powers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4324.043], "stop_times": [4325.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4324.043}, "reply_to": "15534__2_003", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_005", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "No, as far as -- being a subject to the one man, one vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4325.593], "stop_times": [4333.226], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4325.593}, "reply_to": "15534__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__2_006", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, my first premise would be that the rule does not apply to the normal public school district but going directly to your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4333.226], "stop_times": [4340.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4333.226}, "reply_to": "15534__2_005", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_007", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's -- you're doing the same arguments, the normal public schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4340.888], "stop_times": [4344.363], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4340.888}, "reply_to": "15534__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__2_008", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes.\nI think this is the same thing that I -- these powers have enumerated are as the same with a public school district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4344.363, 4344.946], "stop_times": [4344.946, 4349.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4344.363}, "reply_to": "15534__2_007", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_009", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "When you talk about -- they're having a taxing power, do they really have a taxing power.\nThey can ask the voters to levy a tax but that's merely a budget request, isn't it in effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4349.129, 4353.782], "stop_times": [4353.782, 4362.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4349.129}, "reply_to": "15534__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__2_010", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4362.779], "stop_times": [4363.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4362.779}, "reply_to": "15534__2_009", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_011", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Hardly it's happening though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4363.065], "stop_times": [4363.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4363.065}, "reply_to": "15534__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__2_012", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "In the sense that it cannot be at arbitrary with themselves.\nThey must have been on the electric (Voice Overlap) before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4363.484, 4365.577], "stop_times": [4365.577, 4368.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4363.484}, "reply_to": "15534__2_011", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_013", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "On the legislature, levy is taxes or other bodies do it.\nThey don't have to ask the voters what they think of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4368.098, 4375.33], "stop_times": [4375.33, 4378.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4368.098}, "reply_to": "15534__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__2_014", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4378.671], "stop_times": [4378.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4378.671}, "reply_to": "15534__2_013", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_015", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "They levy it, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4378.982], "stop_times": [4380.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4378.982}, "reply_to": "15534__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__2_016", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "In normal circumstances, unless there is a referendum or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4380.202], "stop_times": [4384.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4380.202}, "reply_to": "15534__2_015", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_017", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Every year, every time they tax, every year they don't go to voters?\nThey get (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4384.572, 4389.749], "stop_times": [4389.749, 4390.725], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4384.572}, "reply_to": "15534__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__2_018", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Originally when they organize, the voters authorize ten cents.\nNow, if they want to exceed that, they have to hold an election, the Missouri constitution provides that you -- if you get a certain percentage of the vote, its good for up to I think four years if you just get a -- simple majority is only good for one year so you have to go back every year for an additional amount.\nI would further add that a private college has almost the same powers and that they are often -- receive the benefit of federal lands, state -- governmental moneys through assistance.\nAnd the only other power that I can find that is somewhat different is that a junior college district can condemn property.\nBut this is true also of many quasi public corporations, public utilities, railroads, telephone companies, etcetera.\nSo, basically I find the junior college district much more akin to a private incorporated college than it is to a city or county or other generally -- general governing body.\nTherefore, I would conclude to say that the one man, one vote rule should not be extended to include this junior college district.\nThat it is not a general governing body as the term has been -- as I understand the term as expressed in the court's present opinions.\nBut further that Missouri and other states should have the flexibility to innovate, to experiment, to find methods of education that are tailored to the local need in the local circumstances and this is what the component system is.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4390.725, 4394.287, 4410.611, 4420.779, 4427.275, 4436.206, 4448.423, 4458.054, 4465.218, 4482.615], "stop_times": [4394.287, 4410.611, 4420.779, 4427.275, 4436.206, 4448.423, 4458.054, 4465.218, 4482.615, 4483.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4390.725}, "reply_to": "15534__2_017", "speaker": "louis_c_defeo_jr"}
{"id": "15534__2_019", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Thank you Mr. DeFeo.\nMr. Achtenberg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4483.64, 4485.589], "stop_times": [4485.589, 4488.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4483.64}, "reply_to": "15534__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15534__3_000", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWe refuse to accept and we ask this Court not to accept any argument which says that people living in the suburbs have problems different in regard to schools whether they be local -- lower level schools or high level schools.\nThey have more problems than do the people in the cities such that this Court should justify a mathematical statutory formula which guarantees a weighted vote in favor of the suburbs.\nI'd like to repeat if I may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4488.295, 4492.31, 4508.475, 4524.343], "stop_times": [4492.31, 4508.475, 4524.343, 4526.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4488.295}, "reply_to": "15534__2_019", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_001", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Is that what's done now, do you think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4526.873], "stop_times": [4529.202], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4526.873}, "reply_to": "15534__3_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__3_002", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4529.202], "stop_times": [4529.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4529.202}, "reply_to": "15534__3_001", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_003", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Do you think if that's done now, guarantee you to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4529.778], "stop_times": [4533.489], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4529.778}, "reply_to": "15534__3_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15534__3_004", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe statutory formula with which we are dealing in effect guarantees the small component district voters, a weighted vote.\nThe only situation, purely theoretical in which the vote would be equal would be if the large component school district has exactly one third or exactly 50% or exactly two thirds.\nThe minute its -- it falls to one side or the other of that exact one vote, it then becomes a prejudicial formula which moves in the direction of prejudice of the large component school district.\nBecause you start with the third and if you have exactly a third, you get one third of the votes.\nYou're from one third to a half, you still get a third.\nYou must proceed to the exactitude of a half to get what you're entitled to as half.\nAnd the minute you pass over that then you become -- again discriminated against until you reach the exact mathematical point of two thirds.\nNow, no place in the evidence and no place in the arguments is any rational distinction given for the need to have such a weighted voting formula.\nThe argument is made and it was heard before in the legislative redistricting cases that the -- in that case, it was the rural minority, in this case, it's the suburban minority needs protection.\nWhat we think should be said is that all minorities need to have a vote in proportion to their voting strength and we say that this formula denies that.\nIt favors one group whether it be a minority or in some situations a majority.\nIt gives that one group a vote weighted against its actual population strength.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4533.489, 4534.161, 4545.152, 4560.811, 4577.824, 4582.893, 4586.633, 4591.658, 4602.483, 4615.248, 4630.166, 4641.15, 4647.313], "stop_times": [4534.161, 4545.152, 4560.811, 4577.824, 4582.893, 4586.633, 4591.658, 4602.483, 4615.248, 4630.166, 4641.15, 4647.313, 4653.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4533.489}, "reply_to": "15534__3_003", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_005", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "What formula would avoid that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4653.045], "stop_times": [4654.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4653.045}, "reply_to": "15534__3_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__3_006", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4654.776], "stop_times": [4655.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4654.776}, "reply_to": "15534__3_005", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_007", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "What formula would avoid that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4655.487], "stop_times": [4657.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4655.487}, "reply_to": "15534__3_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__3_008", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, the Kansas City school system has been mentioned, at least this Kansas school district, the component district involved here.\nAnd it now has a formula which does avoid that and it's relatively simple.\nIt elects six trustees from sub districts or six directors as they call it.\nAnd by the statute, those districts must be of equal population and then it elects three at large.\nThe proposal of -- or rather the formula mentioned by Justice White in the Davis versus Dusch is another which would give representation.\nI say frankly that in a large election would probably do the same thing because of the diverse small interest group reacting in terms --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4657.715, 4665.55, 4670.318, 4677.106, 4686.88, 4696.441], "stop_times": [4665.55, 4670.318, 4677.106, 4686.88, 4696.441, 4705.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4657.715}, "reply_to": "15534__3_007", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_009", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "At large election, did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4705.281], "stop_times": [4707.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4705.281}, "reply_to": "15534__3_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__3_010", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4707.089], "stop_times": [4707.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4707.089}, "reply_to": "15534__3_009", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_011", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Did you say an at large election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4707.682], "stop_times": [4708.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4707.682}, "reply_to": "15534__3_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__3_012", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4708.957], "stop_times": [4710.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4708.957}, "reply_to": "15534__3_011", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_013", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "From where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4710.75], "stop_times": [4711.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4710.75}, "reply_to": "15534__3_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__3_014", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4711.993], "stop_times": [4712.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4711.993}, "reply_to": "15534__3_013", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_015", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Trustees to be from where, anywhere in the whole district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4712.596], "stop_times": [4717.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4712.596}, "reply_to": "15534__3_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15534__3_016", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Well, I'm simply giving several alternatives with the emotions developed in school district problems.\nI think -- if we're thinking of wisdom whether than -- rather than constitutionality that perhaps either the district selection from equal population districts or the Davis versus Dusch formula would be more responsive to the wishes or to -- would more clearly express the wishes of people in terms of school problems.\nI think it should be clear that there are two issues not presented in this case.\nWe're not talking about whether or not this board may be appointive or elective.\nThe statute and the legislature have decided that this is a governmental body affecting the public interest to the point they felt it should be an elective board.\nWe simply don't have the question in Sailors.\nSecondly, we don't have the question of a limited electorate as there was in Kramer because here, again the legislature saw fit to have a vote by all qualified voters in the entire district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4717.23, 4726.251, 4750.161, 4754.019, 4758.705, 4768.733, 4771.356], "stop_times": [4726.251, 4750.161, 4754.019, 4758.705, 4768.733, 4771.356, 4785.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4717.23}, "reply_to": "15534__3_015", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_017", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Are these trustees paid offices or unpaid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4785.937], "stop_times": [4792.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4785.937}, "reply_to": "15534__3_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__3_018", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That -- I'm told not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4792.786], "stop_times": [4794.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4792.786}, "reply_to": "15534__3_017", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_019", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Told that they're unpaid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4794.533], "stop_times": [4795.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4794.533}, "reply_to": "15534__3_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__3_020", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4795.713], "stop_times": [4797.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4795.713}, "reply_to": "15534__3_019", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_021", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "And they're non-partisan, I suppose that that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4797.151], "stop_times": [4799.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4797.151}, "reply_to": "15534__3_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__3_022", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4799.339], "stop_times": [4799.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4799.339}, "reply_to": "15534__3_021", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_023", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "-- so far as party, partisanship goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4799.696], "stop_times": [4801.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4799.696}, "reply_to": "15534__3_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15534__3_024", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "That's correct, simply by petition without a party identification.\nI'd like to conclude with our thinking in terms of the importance of schools and in that context, the junior college has the same powers as any public school in Missouri.\nIt has three campuses.\nIt has all the myriad problems confronting schools today and I submit that schools involve more tensions, more strife and more controversy than the county court involved in Avery versus Midland.\nThe statistics obligingly furnished by the Solicitor General and his brief in this case indicate that the school boards are the most numerous of all forms of local government.\nThey're over 21,000 school districts in this country and they constitute over one fourth of all local governmental units and about 10% of those elect from districts.\nAbout one half of all local governmental expenditures go for education.\nNow, these are quantitative figures but it seems to me that in the qualitative aspect, the qualitative impact of school operations, of public school operations on our governmental concerns.\nAnd in that respect that the concerns of citizens for the functioning of their schools is clearly a matter of governmental concern in which each voters rights should be weighed as every other voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4801.994, 4807.81, 4822.814, 4825.887, 4841.922, 4853.945, 4867.087, 4873.968, 4889.543], "stop_times": [4807.81, 4822.814, 4825.887, 4841.922, 4853.945, 4867.087, 4873.968, 4889.543, 4904.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4801.994}, "reply_to": "15534__3_023", "speaker": "irving_achtenberg"}
{"id": "15534__3_025", "conversation_id": "15534", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you for your submission gentlemen.\nCase is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_37", "start_times": [4904.049, 4904.731, 4906.395], "stop_times": [4904.731, 4906.395, 4909.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4904.049}, "reply_to": "15534__3_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_000", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Number 39, Hall against Beals and others.\nMr. Hall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [0.0, 21.607], "stop_times": [21.607, 22.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_001", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [22.483], "stop_times": [23.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.483}, "reply_to": "15106__0_000", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_002", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [23.611], "stop_times": [26.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 23.611}, "reply_to": "15106__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_003", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI am Richard Hall, appellant pro se in this case.\nI appear this morning to appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, which decision upheld the constitutionality of a Colorado law which requires that a voter be a resident of the State of Colorado for six months before being allowed to vote for president and vice-president.\nI must state to the Court that the law has since been amended by the Colorado legislature and it now requires a two-month residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [26.813, 30.324, 34.973, 59.419], "stop_times": [30.324, 34.973, 59.419, 69.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 26.813}, "reply_to": "15106__0_002", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_004", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But you're position is the two months is just as bad as six months or one year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [69.586], "stop_times": [75.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.586}, "reply_to": "15106__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_005", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThe facts in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [75.793, 78.037], "stop_times": [78.037, 79.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.793}, "reply_to": "15106__0_004", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_006", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Although, if it had been two month at the time you wanted to vote, you wouldn't have been able to bring this lawsuit, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [79.023], "stop_times": [87.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 79.023}, "reply_to": "15106__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_007", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I wouldn't have been able to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [87.116], "stop_times": [88.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 87.116}, "reply_to": "15106__0_006", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_008", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [88.102], "stop_times": [88.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.102}, "reply_to": "15106__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_009", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [88.312], "stop_times": [88.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.312}, "reply_to": "15106__0_008", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_010", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But you could've voted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [88.769], "stop_times": [89.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.769}, "reply_to": "15106__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_011", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, but at the time, I was disenfranchised and I am now the representative of a class of all voters who were disenfranchised by similar qualms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [89.917], "stop_times": [102.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.917}, "reply_to": "15106__0_010", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_012", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, you -- well, we both know there's a mootness question in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [102.908], "stop_times": [107.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.908}, "reply_to": "15106__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_013", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [107.786], "stop_times": [108.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.786}, "reply_to": "15106__0_012", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_014", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I presume you'll address yourself to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [108.096], "stop_times": [109.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.096}, "reply_to": "15106__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_015", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [109.87], "stop_times": [110.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.87}, "reply_to": "15106__0_014", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_016", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You can be representative of the class and not be a member of it, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [110.457], "stop_times": [114.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.457}, "reply_to": "15106__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_017", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I was a member of the class at the time the -- of my case, Your Honor, and I was disenfranchised and was prevented from voting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [114.188], "stop_times": [123.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 114.188}, "reply_to": "15106__0_016", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_018", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "By any residence requirement, it wouldn't matter as to the class what the length of the residence requirement was, I gather, is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [123.69], "stop_times": [132.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.69}, "reply_to": "15106__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_019", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, the residence requirements vary per state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [132.588], "stop_times": [134.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.588}, "reply_to": "15106__0_018", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_020", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, in other words, at the time you brought the lawsuit, you could've --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [134.527], "stop_times": [138.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.527}, "reply_to": "15106__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_021", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It was six months and I was disenfranchised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [138.755], "stop_times": [139.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.755}, "reply_to": "15106__0_020", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_022", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, and you couldn't appear for anyone except the resident at Colorado, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [139.921], "stop_times": [145.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.921}, "reply_to": "15106__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_023", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I believe the problem is similar in all the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [145.907], "stop_times": [150.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 145.907}, "reply_to": "15106__0_022", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_024", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I know, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [150.503], "stop_times": [151.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.503}, "reply_to": "15106__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_025", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It isn't my problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [151.04], "stop_times": [152.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.04}, "reply_to": "15106__0_024", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_026", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But as a class action, could you appear for a class of residents of New York, for example, in the juris --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [152.126], "stop_times": [156.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.126}, "reply_to": "15106__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_027", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir.\nMy class was the class in Colorado.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [156.286, 156.703], "stop_times": [156.703, 159.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.286}, "reply_to": "15106__0_026", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_028", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "So then, at that time, it was six months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [159.098], "stop_times": [161.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.098}, "reply_to": "15106__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_029", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [161.084], "stop_times": [162.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 161.084}, "reply_to": "15106__0_028", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_030", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Now, it's two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [162.122], "stop_times": [163.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.122}, "reply_to": "15106__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_031", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [163.05], "stop_times": [163.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.05}, "reply_to": "15106__0_030", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_032", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Did you represent, at the time you brought the action, anyone less than two months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [163.809], "stop_times": [169.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.809}, "reply_to": "15106__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_033", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I would've represented everyone from six months on down which would've included people who'd been there two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [169.735], "stop_times": [175.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.735}, "reply_to": "15106__0_032", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_034", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Down to one day?\nHow far down do you go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [175.895, 179.426], "stop_times": [179.426, 181.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.895}, "reply_to": "15106__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_035", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, it's my contention, Your Honor, that no period longer than the registration period should be required by the state.\nColorado allows people to appear and register up until the Friday before the election.\nThey evidently feel that that's the amount of time they need to process registration applications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [181.23, 189.34, 196.174], "stop_times": [189.34, 196.174, 203.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.23}, "reply_to": "15106__0_034", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_036", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Mr. Hall, where is it that you said people in Colorado?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [203.453], "stop_times": [208.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.453}, "reply_to": "15106__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_037", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I beg your pardon, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [208.804], "stop_times": [209.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.804}, "reply_to": "15106__0_036", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_038", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Did you say your class is limited to people in Colorado?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [209.81], "stop_times": [214.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.81}, "reply_to": "15106__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_039", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I think, as a technical matter of the drafting of my complaint, that's the class I attempted to represent, but I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [214.728], "stop_times": [222.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.728}, "reply_to": "15106__0_038", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_040", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, wouldn't your class rather be people who, at the present time, are in Colorado but who weren't there when you brought the case, because all those who were there when you brought the case are now franchised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [222.064], "stop_times": [238.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.064}, "reply_to": "15106__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_041", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and, of course, the question won't come up again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [238.757], "stop_times": [241.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.757}, "reply_to": "15106__0_040", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_042", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You got a little technical problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [241.41], "stop_times": [243.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.41}, "reply_to": "15106__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_043", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThe question won't come up again until 1972, maybe people who are in Colorado now who will not be there then and maybe people who will move into Colorado --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [243.484, 243.941], "stop_times": [243.941, 252.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.484}, "reply_to": "15106__0_042", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_044", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, what would be your status if you leave Colorado next week and then come back two years from now?\nYou wouldn't be allowed to vote as it now stands, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [252.861, 260.546], "stop_times": [260.546, 265.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.861}, "reply_to": "15106__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_045", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "If I acquired a residence in another state and then move back into Colorado less than two months before the National Election, no, I would not be allowed to vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [265.225], "stop_times": [274.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.225}, "reply_to": "15106__0_044", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_046", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, doesn't that give you status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [274.997], "stop_times": [277.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 274.997}, "reply_to": "15106__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_047", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I would feel it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [277.842], "stop_times": [279.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.842}, "reply_to": "15106__0_046", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_048", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I'm just worried about you giving up so quick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [279.417], "stop_times": [283.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.417}, "reply_to": "15106__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__0_049", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think, first, I do face the problem I've pointed out in the amicus briefs that I may move again in the future.\nI, in an analogous situation of the taxpayer, Glass versus Collin, I have an interest in other people being allowed to vote.\nTheir ability to register and become a qualified elector affects their right to join a political party and other items, and I do believe that the class that I represent is, first, nationwide and, secondly, that it affects people who will be affected.\nWe don't know who they are, but we know, as a statistical matter, that they will certainly exist in 1972.\nAnd, I think the question every one of those voters will face will be the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [283.886, 295.89, 307.143, 329.903, 337.206], "stop_times": [295.89, 307.143, 329.903, 337.206, 342.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.886}, "reply_to": "15106__0_048", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_050", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Mr. Hall, is one of the purposes of the residence requirement to protect the integrity of the elective process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [342.121], "stop_times": [351.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.121}, "reply_to": "15106__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_051", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI believe that is one of the purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [351.719, 352.046], "stop_times": [352.046, 353.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.719}, "reply_to": "15106__0_050", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_052", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, if you could vote in Colorado by arriving there on Friday to regis -- in time to register with no other requirement, this would mean that you can vote by absentee ballot in New York and move to Colorado or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [353.803], "stop_times": [373.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.803}, "reply_to": "15106__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_053", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, if you would tip to that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [373.593], "stop_times": [374.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.593}, "reply_to": "15106__0_052", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_054", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And vote in Colorado again.\nIsn't that possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [374.232, 376.078], "stop_times": [376.078, 379.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.232}, "reply_to": "15106__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_055", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, if one attempted that, he would be in violation of the law because when you apply in Colorado, you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [379.043], "stop_times": [384.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.043}, "reply_to": "15106__0_054", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_056", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I suppose anytime anybody ever votes twice he's violating some rule, wouldn't that be true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [384.59], "stop_times": [387.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.59}, "reply_to": "15106__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_057", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, yes, sir.\nThe question is whether the waiting period serves that purpose.\nColorado has determined that you don't have to apply for the ballot until the Friday before the election.\nSo, they don't, evidently, feel that they need the six month or the two months in which to process the application, perform any checks, nor does Colorado attempt to contact the old state from which one moved.\nThey make no attempt to contact California, in my case.\nSo, I don't believe, Your Honor, that they used the waiting period for the purpose you ascribe to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [387.792, 389.626, 395.225, 400.579, 413.959, 418.045], "stop_times": [389.626, 395.225, 400.579, 413.959, 418.045, 424.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.792}, "reply_to": "15106__0_056", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_058", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, how about other states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [424.343], "stop_times": [425.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.343}, "reply_to": "15106__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_059", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Some states, Your Honor, do have the new resident fill out what amounts to a postcard --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [425.768], "stop_times": [430.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.768}, "reply_to": "15106__0_058", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_060", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You're asking us to lay down, to decide a basic constitution that anything should -- as long as two months is invalid, which has some impact beyond Colorado.\nColorado may think it only needs three days and somebody else may think they need two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [430.908, 446.594], "stop_times": [446.594, 452.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.908}, "reply_to": "15106__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_061", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, the question is whether the waiting period serves any state purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [452.58], "stop_times": [458.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.58}, "reply_to": "15106__0_060", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_062", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, you admit --\nYou admit the need for some way to get through to you.\nI think I read your brief that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [458.128, 458.904, 462.627], "stop_times": [458.904, 462.627, 465.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.128}, "reply_to": "15106__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_063", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [465.152], "stop_times": [466.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.152}, "reply_to": "15106__0_062", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_064", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Why?\nAnybody could --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [466.288, 467.434], "stop_times": [467.434, 468.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.288}, "reply_to": "15106__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_065", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I think the question of the purity of election is a legitimate state concern.\nThe question is how long a period the state needs to serve that concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [468.031, 473.568], "stop_times": [473.568, 478.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.031}, "reply_to": "15106__0_064", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_066", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Any state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [478.526], "stop_times": [480.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.526}, "reply_to": "15106__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_067", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I think the question is similar for all the states, yes, sir.\nAnd, in particular, Colorado, first, does not make the attempt to contact the old state and they feel that three days is sufficient time for their purposes.\nAnd, I would suggest to the Court that that, therefore, might be an appropriate period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [480.332, 484.507, 496.788], "stop_times": [484.507, 496.788, 503.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.332}, "reply_to": "15106__0_066", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_068", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You can't in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [503.125], "stop_times": [504.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.125}, "reply_to": "15106__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_069", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [504.453], "stop_times": [505.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 504.453}, "reply_to": "15106__0_068", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_070", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You think the same -- you'd have the same -- what's the rule in California, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [505.609], "stop_times": [508.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.609}, "reply_to": "15106__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_071", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It's 54 days, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [508.888], "stop_times": [511.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.888}, "reply_to": "15106__0_070", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_072", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Do you think that's unreasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [511.779], "stop_times": [513.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.779}, "reply_to": "15106__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_073", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, the State of New York has an amicus for the State of Colorado said that they have more people, maybe that a state could show that they have added problems because of an increase population and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [513.883], "stop_times": [528.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.883}, "reply_to": "15106__0_072", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_074", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Are you suggesting that -- you're suggesting then that we might hold this waiting period unconstitutional in Colorado, but wholly constitutional in California and New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [528.4], "stop_times": [537.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.4}, "reply_to": "15106__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_075", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I think the particular states would have to show a legitimate state interest to support their particular requirement.\nNew York claims in its brief that they had added problems that Colorado evidently appeals it did not have.\nSo, we would contend, Your Honor -- yes, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [537.834, 544.774, 556.022], "stop_times": [544.774, 556.022, 559.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.834}, "reply_to": "15106__0_074", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_076", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "As I understand it, you would say that it's some sort of a burden, and I gather you think a rather heavy burden on a state to show a need for this sort of a residence requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [559.674], "stop_times": [571.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.674}, "reply_to": "15106__0_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_077", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [571.035], "stop_times": [571.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.035}, "reply_to": "15106__0_076", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_078", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [571.806], "stop_times": [572.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.806}, "reply_to": "15106__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_079", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [572.821], "stop_times": [573.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.821}, "reply_to": "15106__0_078", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_080", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "In view of Article 2 Section 1 and of the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [573.229], "stop_times": [578.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.229}, "reply_to": "15106__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_081", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [578.95], "stop_times": [579.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.95}, "reply_to": "15106__0_080", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_082", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Which, effectively provides that this is up to each state legislature, why do you think the state has to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [579.428], "stop_times": [584.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.428}, "reply_to": "15106__0_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_083", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [584.289], "stop_times": [584.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.289}, "reply_to": "15106__0_082", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_084", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Bestow such a burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [584.911], "stop_times": [585.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.911}, "reply_to": "15106__0_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_085", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Article 2 Section 1 provides that the state can't chose the man in which presidential electors are appointed, but once they decide that it's to be done by popular election.\nI would suggest that Harper versus Virginia Board of Elections case, for example, says once the franchise is granted to the electorate, you can't have classifications that invidiously discriminate.\nAnd, I think this case affects both the right to vote and the right to travel, both of which have been held by this Court very recently to be among the most fundamental and precious rights we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [585.165, 595.669, 608.696], "stop_times": [595.669, 608.696, 620.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.165}, "reply_to": "15106__0_084", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_086", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, the right of free interstate travel, of course, is a constitutional right, as has been held --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [620.95], "stop_times": [626.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.95}, "reply_to": "15106__0_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_087", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [626.76], "stop_times": [627.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.76}, "reply_to": "15106__0_086", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_088", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Repeatedly and very recently by this Court.\nThat the -- I don't know that it's ever -- I know, so far as I do know, that it's never been held that the right to vote is a constitutional right, a federal constitutional right.\nIn fact, there are statements that it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [627.437, 630.546, 639.398], "stop_times": [630.546, 639.398, 641.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.437}, "reply_to": "15106__0_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_089", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I believe those statements come from cases decided in an earlier day, Your Honor.\nI believe the recent case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [641.652, 650.065], "stop_times": [650.065, 651.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.652}, "reply_to": "15106__0_088", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_090", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Under the same constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [651.194], "stop_times": [652.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.194}, "reply_to": "15106__0_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_091", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, but I believe the recent cases such as Kramer, Williams versus Roads, and others suggest that the right to vote is a fundamental right that the Court protects with the most rigid scrutiny and that applies a compelling interest test.\nAnd, the question is whether the waiting period portion of the residence requirement serves a compelling state interest.\nMy question is what interest it serves at all.\nI don't believe it serves, as applied in the State of Colorado, any administrative purposes.\nFurthermore, the traditional justifications that one should be a member of the community in which he seeks to vote and that he'd be familiar with the candidates and issues, I don't believe apply in the particular context of a presidential election because the would-be voter is a member of the community, which I would contend is a national one.\nThe President and Vice-President are the only people elected by the nation as a whole that govern the nation as a whole.\nAnd, I believe that a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [652.876, 670.036, 677.658, 682.311, 689.522, 713.218, 719.75], "stop_times": [670.036, 677.658, 682.311, 689.522, 713.218, 719.75, 720.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.876}, "reply_to": "15106__0_090", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_092", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, are they elected by the people as a whole under the constitution as it now stands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [720.706], "stop_times": [728.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.706}, "reply_to": "15106__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_093", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, they are elected at the present time under the electoral college system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [728.024], "stop_times": [731.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.024}, "reply_to": "15106__0_092", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_094", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, but that isn't under people as a whole.\nThat's what the great parent debate is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [731.925, 733.766], "stop_times": [733.766, 736.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.925}, "reply_to": "15106__0_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_095", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, that's correct, Your Honor, but I believe that the popular view is that they're elected by the people that it's expression of the national --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [736.861], "stop_times": [750.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.861}, "reply_to": "15106__0_094", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_096", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, the popular view --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [750.199], "stop_times": [751.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.199}, "reply_to": "15106__0_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_097", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [751.224], "stop_times": [751.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.224}, "reply_to": "15106__0_096", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_098", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "May be one thing, but the fact is another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [751.971], "stop_times": [756.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.971}, "reply_to": "15106__0_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_099", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, that may be, Your Honor, but in the Williams versus Roads case, for example, the state attempted to rely on Article 2 Section 1 and this Court said that Article 2 Section 1 does not allow a state to set up requirements that violate the Equal Protection Clause.\nSo, the question then turns whether it does violate the Equal Protection Clause.\nIt's my contention, under the compelling interest test which has been developed by this Court in right to vote cases, that it does not serve any state purpose.\nThe State of Colorado --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [756.752, 777.592, 781.846, 794.796], "stop_times": [777.592, 781.846, 794.796, 795.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 756.752}, "reply_to": "15106__0_098", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_100", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You mean the two months restriction doesn't?\nYou'd say some kind of restriction would be -- would serve a compelling state interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [795.174, 798.528], "stop_times": [798.528, 805.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.174}, "reply_to": "15106__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_101", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The State of Colorado, Your Honor, has said you could register up until Friday before the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [805.17], "stop_times": [810.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.17}, "reply_to": "15106__0_100", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_102", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Would you say they can have a three-day period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [810.379], "stop_times": [812.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.379}, "reply_to": "15106__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_103", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI think if they feel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [812.682, 813.17], "stop_times": [813.17, 813.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.682}, "reply_to": "15106__0_102", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_104", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That serves a compelling state interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [813.877], "stop_times": [816.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.877}, "reply_to": "15106__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_105", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "They apparently feel that it does, Your Honor.\nI think that would be sufficient short.\nI would be in favor of having as many people vote as possible, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [816.847, 818.539, 821.599], "stop_times": [818.539, 821.599, 825.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.847}, "reply_to": "15106__0_104", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_106", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But would you -- if they only had a three-day waiting period, would you attack that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [825.594], "stop_times": [836.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.594}, "reply_to": "15106__0_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_107", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I doubt it, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [836.704], "stop_times": [838.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.704}, "reply_to": "15106__0_106", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_108", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That would serve a compelling state interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [838.56], "stop_times": [841.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.56}, "reply_to": "15106__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_109", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Arguably, Your Honor, and I don't believe I would.\nAnd, I think that there are no special voting lists to be made up or holding places to be established.\nIn the State of Colorado, you go to vote at the County Clerk's Office --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [841.749, 844.854, 852.212], "stop_times": [844.854, 852.212, 856.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.749}, "reply_to": "15106__0_108", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_110", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And would you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [856.112], "stop_times": [856.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.112}, "reply_to": "15106__0_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_111", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "On a special machine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [856.216], "stop_times": [857.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.216}, "reply_to": "15106__0_110", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_112", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Would you have a different view if this was for a state office, this election was for state office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [857.112], "stop_times": [861.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.112}, "reply_to": "15106__0_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_113", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, I would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [861.5], "stop_times": [862.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.5}, "reply_to": "15106__0_112", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_114", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Why?\nWhat compelling state interest would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [862.485, 862.923], "stop_times": [862.923, 864.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.485}, "reply_to": "15106__0_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_115", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I think there is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [864.45], "stop_times": [865.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.45}, "reply_to": "15106__0_114", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_116", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Suffice a jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [865.291], "stop_times": [865.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.291}, "reply_to": "15106__0_115", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_117", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Question of ensuring that the voter is familiar with the state candidates and the state issues so that he can vote intelligently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [865.754], "stop_times": [874.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.754}, "reply_to": "15106__0_116", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_118", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And you don't think that's relevant in voting for electors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [874.392], "stop_times": [877.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.392}, "reply_to": "15106__0_117", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_119", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir.\nI think the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [877.979, 878.282], "stop_times": [878.282, 880.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.979}, "reply_to": "15106__0_118", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_120", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You don't think electors should really understand the problems of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [880.203], "stop_times": [885.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.203}, "reply_to": "15106__0_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_121", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The electors, perhaps, Your Honor, but the people who vote for the electors vote on the basis of national issues for national candidates.\nThe information they learned about the candidates comes from national sources.\nI feel that I was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [885.044, 893.816, 900.473], "stop_times": [893.816, 900.473, 900.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.044}, "reply_to": "15106__0_120", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_122", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Do you think voters ought to know the difference between presidential candidates in terms of, say, their views on reclamation or water or natural resources?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [900.627], "stop_times": [911.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.627}, "reply_to": "15106__0_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_123", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I feel the dominant issues in, for example, last year's campaign, Your Honor, were national in scope.\nI think the critical issues with the war and civil rights, and inflation and crime, I think those are national problems.\nI don't believe that the effect of state issues placed at large apart in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [911.154, 919.717, 926.265], "stop_times": [919.717, 926.265, 932.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.154}, "reply_to": "15106__0_122", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_124", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "In whether a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [932.27], "stop_times": [932.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.27}, "reply_to": "15106__0_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_125", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "A selection of a pres --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [932.772], "stop_times": [933.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.772}, "reply_to": "15106__0_124", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_126", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "In whether a President carries a state, the western state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [933.748], "stop_times": [940.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.748}, "reply_to": "15106__0_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_127", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor.\nI think the majority of the voters vote on national issues.\nThey may have a different feel about some of those national issues, but I think that they are paramount issues or national in scope.\nSo, I think a voter is able to case an intelligent ballot and I think that meets the interest of the state in that particular question, and that's why it's different than a state or local election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [940.141, 941.166, 945.111, 954.587], "stop_times": [941.166, 945.111, 954.587, 971.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.141}, "reply_to": "15106__0_126", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_128", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, that is contrary, is it not, both to the original theory of the constitution of Article 2 Section 1 as well, I suppose, to statistical fact even in modern contemporary elections?\nWhole areas will go -- a series of states will be for one candidate and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [971.549, 985.474], "stop_times": [985.474, 990.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.549}, "reply_to": "15106__0_127", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_129", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, as I say, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [990.867], "stop_times": [991.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.867}, "reply_to": "15106__0_128", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_130", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Another area is for another, and I said -- and can't -- you mean, you cannot concede that a person who is familiar with a particular problem, say, of the western slope of the rocky mountains in Colorado might be quite differently attuned to a national election based upon the candidate's views of some of the issues that my brother White has mentioned - reclamation, conservation, water.\nThen, that same person might be, if he lived in the lower east side of New York City and they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [991.195, 1016.79], "stop_times": [1016.79, 1022.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.195}, "reply_to": "15106__0_129", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_131", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "First, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1022.307], "stop_times": [1022.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.307}, "reply_to": "15106__0_130", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_132", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Are attuned and familiar with the problems of that sort of an urban society?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1022.362], "stop_times": [1025.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.362}, "reply_to": "15106__0_131", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_133", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I believe, Your Honor, that the problems you mention are local instances of other national problems.\nThe question of conservation and water usage is a national one.\nI think the question of gun-control, for example, might be looked at one way in the western states as opposed to the eastern states but, nevertheless, it is a national problem.\nThe people in the eastern states are aware of the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1025.271, 1033.898, 1039.625, 1049.946], "stop_times": [1033.898, 1039.625, 1049.946, 1053.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.271}, "reply_to": "15106__0_132", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_134", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1053.299], "stop_times": [1053.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.299}, "reply_to": "15106__0_133", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_135", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And furthermore, Your Honor, I don't believe that if that is the justification the state wishes to comply, as expressed in Carrington versus Rash, I don't believe a state has the right to prevent people from voting because of a concern as to which way they would vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1053.847], "stop_times": [1070.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.847}, "reply_to": "15106__0_134", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_136", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I know, but the -- one of the justifications asserted here is that a state has an interest and a right in seeing to it that its voters are familiar with local problems, and it's your submission, as I understand it that local problems or local impact, if you will, of national issues is of absolutely no relevance whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1070.147], "stop_times": [1088.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.147}, "reply_to": "15106__0_135", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_137", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I don't claim it's of absolutely no relevance, Your Honor, but I do think that the dominant influence on a voter in the presidential election are national issues.\nLocal issues may have an effect, but I don't believe they have controlling facts.\nI don't believe they had a sufficient effect to meet a compelling state interest.\nI contend, Your Honor, that the question is whether the resident's waiting period serves a legitimate interest, in that, it affects both the right to vote and the right to travel and that both these rights are protected by the compelling interest test.\nI would contend that the residence requirement, in particular as applied by the State of Colorado, serves none of these purposes, that it, therefore, sets up a discrimination between voters that is not supported by any reason and, therefore, would be in violation of the constitution.\nThis is a problem of, I would contend, some national significance.\nFigures have shown recently that disenfranchised voters number into the millions, and I would point out to the Court that two of our last three elections have been very, very close.\nAnd, I would contend, first, as just the magnitude of the civil liberties problem involved that five million voters are disenfranchised and, I would contend, for no legitimate reason, that this is a problem that merits correction.\nThe District Court in Colorado itself recognized that the situation was, in their words, unfair and unjust.\nAnd, I would hope that the problem could be corrected.\nI feel that the requirement is unconstitutional, both the original six-month requirement and as amended down to two months.\nI don't believe the State of Colorado can show that it needs the two months for any purpose.\nThey do not attempt to use the two months for any purpose.\nThey do not attempt to notify the old state and take the voter off the roles to prevent double voting.\nIt may be that that would be a good idea, but they don't attempt to do it.\nSo, I don't believe they could claim at this time that that's one of the justifications for the law.\nI don't believe that the case of Drueding versus Devlin, which was affirmed by this Court in pre curium four years ago on similar situation, necessitates an affirmance in this case.\nI believe the law, since Drueding, has been modified.\nThe compelling interest test has come into play by this Court.\nThe right to travel in the Shapiro versus Thompson case involving welfare residents requirements as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1088.174, 1100.129, 1104.398, 1113.914, 1132.584, 1156.403, 1161.582, 1175.773, 1191.076, 1200.595, 1203.824, 1212.298, 1218.781, 1223.433, 1232.373, 1236.334, 1245.265, 1259.738, 1263.056, 1272.073], "stop_times": [1100.129, 1104.398, 1113.914, 1132.584, 1156.403, 1161.582, 1175.773, 1191.076, 1200.595, 1203.824, 1212.298, 1218.781, 1223.433, 1232.373, 1236.334, 1245.265, 1259.738, 1263.056, 1272.073, 1280.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.174}, "reply_to": "15106__0_136", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_138", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "When you say that the decision in Drueding doesn -- against Devlin doesn't necessitate a decision against you, what -- I suppose you do concede we have to overrule Drueding in order to decide this case in your favor, would we not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1280.736], "stop_times": [1296.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.736}, "reply_to": "15106__0_137", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_139", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, first, Your Honor, the right to travel theory that came up in the Shapiro versus Thompson was not before the Drueding Court.\nSo, there is a different theory involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1296.449, 1306.769], "stop_times": [1306.769, 1308.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.449}, "reply_to": "15106__0_138", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_140", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, but we'd have to overrule that decision in order to rule in this case in your favor, assuming this case is not moot, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1308.426], "stop_times": [1314.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.426}, "reply_to": "15106__0_139", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_141", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, I believe that's correct, but I believe that a different theory is present here.\nA different standard of evaluation has come into effect since then.\nI believe that Article 2 Section 1 has been downgraded somewhat since then.\nSo, I don't believe there are any obstacles to it.\nFurthermore, I believe the District Court in Drueding failed to analyze the National Community Doctrine and, of course, the case wasn't argued here.\nIt wasn't submitted on briefs.\nSo, the Court didn't have an opportunity to consider it as fully as they have here.\nSo, I don't believe that it constitutes a scope of an obstacle that some cases might --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1314.65, 1322.406, 1329.024, 1338.371, 1341.56, 1354.71, 1356.805, 1363.402], "stop_times": [1322.406, 1329.024, 1338.371, 1341.56, 1354.71, 1356.805, 1363.402, 1371.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.65}, "reply_to": "15106__0_140", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_142", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, we'd have to overrule it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1371.024], "stop_times": [1372.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.024}, "reply_to": "15106__0_141", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_143", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1372.805], "stop_times": [1376.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.805}, "reply_to": "15106__0_142", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_144", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, whatever obstacle that might constitute for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1376.106], "stop_times": [1379.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.106}, "reply_to": "15106__0_143", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_145", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1379.066], "stop_times": [1379.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.066}, "reply_to": "15106__0_144", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_146", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Various members of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1379.225], "stop_times": [1379.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.225}, "reply_to": "15106__0_145", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_147", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, nor do I believe, Your Honors, that the question is moot.\nFirst, the fact that the election is over, I don't believe makes the case moot because another presidential election will appear in 1972.\nAs a matter of statistical certainty, we know under the present framework of the laws that millions of voters will be disenfranchised.\nThis is what the statistics show us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1379.922, 1388.192, 1400.094, 1408.925], "stop_times": [1388.192, 1400.094, 1408.925, 1411.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.922}, "reply_to": "15106__0_146", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_148", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Are there any reliable records anywhere on how many people who moved and sought and could not vote in the new place of residence, reliable statistics?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1411.408], "stop_times": [1423.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.408}, "reply_to": "15106__0_147", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_149", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I have referred in brief, Your Honor, to statistics introduced by Senator Kennedy in support of a Bill he introduced in Congress, which he had prepared by the Bureau of the Census, and those figures are set forth in a particular page in the congressional order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1423.782], "stop_times": [1440.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1423.782}, "reply_to": "15106__0_148", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_150", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, those are people who moved, not -- that doesn't go to the -- that's an objective factor.\nThat doesn't go to the subject or factor of how many of them applied before and were denied permission to vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1440.488, 1445.971], "stop_times": [1445.971, 1451.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.488}, "reply_to": "15106__0_149", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_151", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir.\nI don't believe there are any figures that show how many people actually applied.\nIt may be that they made private inquiry and found out that the rule was and simply didn't bother to apply, but the rule was there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1451.807, 1452.15, 1456.071], "stop_times": [1452.15, 1456.071, 1463.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.807}, "reply_to": "15106__0_150", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_152", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "So, when we're talking about millions of people being disenfranchised, we don't know whether they were disenfranchised or whether they just didn't care one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1463.051], "stop_times": [1473.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.051}, "reply_to": "15106__0_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_153", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, we don't know that, Your Honor, but, as I say, they may have made private inquiry or articles come out in the paper before election about what the registration requirements are and they could just, in the privacy of their living room, read that they are not eligible and not make the effort to go down and apply.\nSo, I don't believe that we could hold that against the question.\nThere are reliable statistics that a substantial number anywhere from two million which was Senator Kennedy's figures, five million which was the result of a statistical survey by the ballot poll, eight million which was the result of a presidential commission which studied the problem.\nSo, I would suggest, Your Honor, that the figure is in the millions of people who could've been disenfranchised.\nAnd, we have no way of knowing how many people actually made application.\nSo, I would suggest that the question is not moot because the 1968 election is over because we're going to have another presidential election in four years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1473.129, 1490.932, 1495.892, 1513.125, 1520.773, 1527.788], "stop_times": [1490.932, 1495.892, 1513.125, 1520.773, 1527.788, 1534.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.129}, "reply_to": "15106__0_152", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_154", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You're not s -- you're not asking that the 1968 election be set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1534.963], "stop_times": [1539.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.963}, "reply_to": "15106__0_153", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_155", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir, nor do I feel that the amendment of the law down to two months makes the case moot, first, because I feel that the two-month requirement still has the question of being unreasonable and, secondly, there are 20 states in the Union that still have a requirement of six months or longer.\nSo, as a national problem, and I would contend that it is a national problem, the issues involved are the same for all the states that six months, as a standard, is still the precedent of the United States.\nIt's still affecting voters.\nAnd, if I have -- if I represent the class of voters throughout the United States, which I would certainly suggest, then the question of six months is still before the Court.\nSo, I don't believe the question is moot.\nI do feel that the law, since Drueding, undercuts the theory of that case.\nThe right to vote and the right to travel have both been protected by very strict scrutiny and compelling interest test, and I would ask that this Court set the matter or declare the Colorado requirement unconstitutional on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1539.296, 1563.66, 1576.628, 1578.613, 1590.272, 1592.8, 1601.41], "stop_times": [1563.66, 1576.628, 1578.613, 1590.272, 1592.8, 1601.41, 1617.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1539.296}, "reply_to": "15106__0_154", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_156", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "What is the lowest requirement of any state, Mr. Hall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1617.17], "stop_times": [1620.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.17}, "reply_to": "15106__0_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_157", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The lowest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1620.578], "stop_times": [1621.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1620.578}, "reply_to": "15106__0_156", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_158", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1621.349], "stop_times": [1622.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.349}, "reply_to": "15106__0_157", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_159", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The State of Wisconsin has no requirement at all, Your Honor.\nAs I understand the Wisconsin law, you could come in the day of election and sign up.\nNebraska and -- Nebraska has two days.\nAlaska and Ohio have four days.\nNorth Dakota has 10 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1622.538, 1626.031, 1630.713, 1637.524, 1639.658], "stop_times": [1626.031, 1630.713, 1637.524, 1639.658, 1641.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1622.538}, "reply_to": "15106__0_158", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_160", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "For both national and state now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1641.24], "stop_times": [1643.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.24}, "reply_to": "15106__0_159", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__0_161", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir, just for the presidential election.\nMany states have made special provision for just the presidential election because they realize that the issues involved are different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1643.28, 1645.745], "stop_times": [1645.745, 1653.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1643.28}, "reply_to": "15106__0_160", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_162", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "As has Colorado?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1653.606], "stop_times": [1654.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.606}, "reply_to": "15106__0_161", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15106__0_163", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "As has Colorado, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1654.646], "stop_times": [1656.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1654.646}, "reply_to": "15106__0_162", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_164", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The --\nExcuse me.\nI'm not sure you were finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1656.532, 1657.671, 1658.049], "stop_times": [1657.671, 1658.049, 1659.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.532}, "reply_to": "15106__0_163", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_165", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, I am finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1659.224], "stop_times": [1663.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.224}, "reply_to": "15106__0_164", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_166", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "There's no very clear definition that I can find in your complaint or elsewhere as to the class that you purportedly represent.\nYou talk about other similarly situated and that could be giving --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1663.766, 1672.548], "stop_times": [1672.548, 1675.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.766}, "reply_to": "15106__0_165", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_167", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1675.697], "stop_times": [1676.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.697}, "reply_to": "15106__0_166", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_168", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "A broad or a narrow definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1676.254], "stop_times": [1677.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.254}, "reply_to": "15106__0_167", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_169", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That question wasn't decided by the District Court because they decided against me personally.\nI would contend that the class is everyone who was disenfranchised by a similar state or precinct and county.\nI think the issues are the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1677.747, 1685.116, 1692.226], "stop_times": [1685.116, 1692.226, 1693.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.747}, "reply_to": "15106__0_168", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_170", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Wherever -- in any of the 50 states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1693.793], "stop_times": [1695.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.793}, "reply_to": "15106__0_169", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_171", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir, that would be my contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1695.833], "stop_times": [1699.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1695.833}, "reply_to": "15106__0_170", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_172", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That would be someone at your class.\nThe class that you are representing at the time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1699.52, 1702.013], "stop_times": [1702.013, 1706.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.52}, "reply_to": "15106__0_171", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_173", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, at the time, I was representing people trying to vote in 1968, but I would contend that I -- the question is the same and will come up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1706.137], "stop_times": [1713.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1706.137}, "reply_to": "15106__0_172", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_174", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The class is constantly changing every --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1713.4], "stop_times": [1715.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.4}, "reply_to": "15106__0_173", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_175", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But it constantly exists.\nWe know that it will exist in 1972.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1715.972, 1717.942], "stop_times": [1717.942, 1720.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1715.972}, "reply_to": "15106__0_174", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_176", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "So, all the people you represent when the case started have to qualify to vote, but there are some new ones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1720.549], "stop_times": [1725.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.549}, "reply_to": "15106__0_175", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__0_177", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We know that there will be new ones, Your Honor.\nThat's just what statistics tell us.\nThey will move and, in 1972, they will be disenfranchised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1725.897, 1727.459, 1729.723], "stop_times": [1727.459, 1729.723, 1735.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1725.897}, "reply_to": "15106__0_176", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_178", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Really, you represent, I suppose you might assert, every adult in the United States because anybody in any state might want to move --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1735.798], "stop_times": [1744.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.798}, "reply_to": "15106__0_177", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_179", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Prospectively, that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1744.579], "stop_times": [1746.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1744.579}, "reply_to": "15106__0_178", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_180", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Probably before the next presidential election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1746.33], "stop_times": [1747.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.33}, "reply_to": "15106__0_179", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_181", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And also, I would point out --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1747.534], "stop_times": [1748.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1747.534}, "reply_to": "15106__0_180", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_182", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Do you represent everybody in the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1748.49], "stop_times": [1752.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.49}, "reply_to": "15106__0_181", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__0_183", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Everyo -- prospectively, you could say that.\nYes, sir.\nAlso, as the amicus brief of Mr. Harvey Burg points out, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts is presently withholding a decision in a case compiled there, pending the determination of this case.\nSo, we have at least one District Court of the United States that's specifically waiting to see how this case comes out because they feel it will affect their decision.\nSo, the question is still with us, Your Honors, and I don't believe it's moot.\nI would ask that the Court decide it and that the unfairness and injustice, as the District Court puts it, of disenfranchising that many voters for the most important election in the country be removed.\nIf the Court please, I shall close at this time in grants of a few closing remarks after Mr. Baker is finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1752.724, 1755.276, 1756.48, 1770.488, 1778.993, 1782.376, 1798.046], "stop_times": [1755.276, 1756.48, 1770.488, 1778.993, 1782.376, 1798.046, 1805.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1752.724}, "reply_to": "15106__0_182", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__0_184", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hall.\nMr. Baker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1805.225, 1809.899], "stop_times": [1809.899, 1812.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.225}, "reply_to": "15106__0_183", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_000", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI would like to briefly introduce my associates who have worked with me in this case, Mr. Carol Moltz, Deputy District Attorney of Alpasa County, Colorado and the District Attorney, Mr. Robert Russell.\nGentlemen, Colorado is not trying to disenfranchise anyone.\nColorado is merely trying to protect the electoral process for presidential elections.\nColorado, in furtherance of a constitutionally delegated responsibility under Article 2 Section, Colorado, in furtherance of that responsibility, has enacted legislation, of course, the history of the legislation going back to the time when it in fact became a state.\nAnd, this legislation's primary purpose is to protect the purity of the election process in keeping with the constitution.\nColorado maintains that when there is responsibility delegated under the constitution, in this case Article 2 Section 1, that there must be the corresponding authority to carry out the responsibility and do it in an equitable way, a reasonable way.\nAnd, we maintain that this is what Colorado has done.\nYour Honors, before I get into the substance of my argument, I would like to clarify the Colorado election law.\nIt has been misstated.\nThe Colorado election law at issue, Colorado Revised Statutes 49-24-1, with reference to the three-day that Mr. -- three days that Mr. Hall makes reference to, Your Honors, these three days refers to the time when a new resident can vote.\nHe must vote three days precedent to the regular election under Colorado law because a special polling place has been setup for him since they are in a status by themselves, since our general requirement is one year for our local elections.\nWe, like many states, have enacted a special legislation for presidential and vice-presidential electors.\nAnd, under that special provision of the election, the new resident casts his vote, applies for his ballot not later than three days before the elections for president.\nHowever, as the law reads, such new resident must have been dully registered as required by the provisions of this article.\nThis throws back to the general registration provision, namely 20 days, so a new resident must have registered to vote in order to pick up his ballot.\nThe -- three-day prior to election, he must have been registered 20 days prior to the election as every other elector in the state.\nSo, we're talking about 20 days where the registration is cut off.\nThe new resident must comply with that also.\nSo, Colorado has not cut themselves down to three days in view of their two-month residency requirement for new residents.\nWe also would contend that Mr. Hall does not represent even a class in Colorado.\nOn October 22, 1968, after filing his original complaint on October 4, 1968, Mr. Hall filed a motion that he be considered a member of the class.\nThis was done on October 22, 1968.\nThe District Court never ruled as to whether he was or was not representative of a class.\nThe motion was never ruled upon.\nTherefore, we would have to say, under the law, since he wasn't affirmatively declared by the District Court representative of a class, that he is not in fact representative of a class in the State of Colorado.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [1812.212, 1816.222, 1831.132, 1840.565, 1851.805, 1876.587, 1889.112, 1907.146, 1913.046, 1921.521, 1925.566, 1950.266, 1972.961, 1979.901, 1992.617, 2005.364, 2018.101, 2027.229, 2032.727, 2037.946, 2051.917, 2057.763, 2071.047, 2074.714, 2082.746, 2085.886], "stop_times": [1816.222, 1831.132, 1840.565, 1851.805, 1876.587, 1889.112, 1907.146, 1913.046, 1921.521, 1925.566, 1950.266, 1972.961, 1979.901, 1992.617, 2005.364, 2018.101, 2027.229, 2032.727, 2037.946, 2051.917, 2057.763, 2071.047, 2074.714, 2082.746, 2085.886, 2099.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.212}, "reply_to": "15106__0_184", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_001", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Suppose Mr. Hall leaves Colorado tomorrow and returns 30 days before election day in 1972.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2099.766], "stop_times": [2108.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.766}, "reply_to": "15106__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_002", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2108.071], "stop_times": [2109.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.071}, "reply_to": "15106__1_001", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_003", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "He couldn't vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2109.141], "stop_times": [2111.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.141}, "reply_to": "15106__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_004", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor.\nHe is dully registered to vote now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2111.146, 2111.947], "stop_times": [2111.947, 2114.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.146}, "reply_to": "15106__1_003", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_005", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But he leaves tomorrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2114.499], "stop_times": [2116.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.499}, "reply_to": "15106__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_006", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And becomes a resident of another state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2116.519], "stop_times": [2117.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.519}, "reply_to": "15106__1_005", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_007", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Becomes a resident of another state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2117.852], "stop_times": [2120.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.852}, "reply_to": "15106__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_008", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2120.21], "stop_times": [2120.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.21}, "reply_to": "15106__1_007", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_009", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And returns to Colorado, well, would that be 59 days before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2120.27], "stop_times": [2127.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.27}, "reply_to": "15106__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_010", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, two months.\nHe would then once again, having lost his residency, have to pick it up once again and be such a resident for two months prior to the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2127.17, 2128.679], "stop_times": [2128.679, 2136.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.17}, "reply_to": "15106__1_009", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_011", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "He would not be able to vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2136.634], "stop_times": [2138.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.634}, "reply_to": "15106__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_012", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Not if he returned within 30 days and established a new residency in Colorado at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2138.399], "stop_times": [2143.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.399}, "reply_to": "15106__1_011", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_013", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "So, this case is moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2143.091], "stop_times": [2145.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.091}, "reply_to": "15106__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_014", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Your Honor, we certainly declare that this case -- maintain that this case is moot as to all of the issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2145.603], "stop_times": [2154.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.603}, "reply_to": "15106__1_013", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_015", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, would you think for a moment and tell me how a person in Mr. Hall's situation could ever litigate this matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2154.06], "stop_times": [2164.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.06}, "reply_to": "15106__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_016", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "He can litigate it as he did at the District Court level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2164.319], "stop_times": [2168.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.319}, "reply_to": "15106__1_015", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_017", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And if he loses there, is there any way under the sun for him to get here before election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2168.762], "stop_times": [2179.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.762}, "reply_to": "15106__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_018", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Your Honor, I would feel that the suit should have been filed in a timely manner so that time could've been allowed for review, although your point is certainly well taken, Mr. Justice Marshall, namely that it would be very difficult.\nIt would be very difficult for the matter to be heard when the suit is filed in October and the election is held in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2179.822, 2195.078], "stop_times": [2195.078, 2203.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.822}, "reply_to": "15106__1_017", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_019", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You wouldn't go as far as impossible, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2203.009], "stop_times": [2205.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.009}, "reply_to": "15106__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_020", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, sir.\nNow, going to this mootness question, we rely upon the authority of the landmark case of Mills v. Green.\nThat case holding of course that it was now impossible to grant any effectual relief and that did involve an election, the old Mills v. Green case decided in 1895 by this Court.\nAnd, I'm sure the Court is well aware of the law in this case that when it's impossible to give an effective remedy because of changed conditions, the Court is reluctant, well, in this case says \u201cwe'll not consider -- we'll not proceed to a formal judgment but we'll dismiss the appeal.\u201d\nYour Honors, in view of the six-month amendment down to two months, we feel this is really the telling point in this case.\nColorado, by its legislative enactment on April 23 of this year, amended their statute down to two months.\nApparently, the legislature of Colorado themselves thought that action needed to be taken to lower that requirement.\nThey took such action, signed in the law.\nWe now have a two-month requirement.\nAnd, under the precedence of this Court, namely the Carpenter v. Wabash Railway case, 309 US 23 at 1940 and the Hines v. Davidowitz outlined in our brief at 312 US 52 1941 case, this Court held that when a subsequent legislative enactment occurs which has a bearing upon a case, the case, when it goes up on appeal, must be considered in light of the subsequent legislative enactment.\nAnd, therefore, the issue before this Court now is really moving into the equal protection argument, the reasonableness of two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2205.138, 2212.406, 2222.224, 2238.744, 2261.311, 2271.239, 2280.858, 2288.855, 2292.094, 2294.656, 2325.883], "stop_times": [2212.406, 2222.224, 2238.744, 2261.311, 2271.239, 2280.858, 2288.855, 2292.094, 2294.656, 2325.883, 2339.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.138}, "reply_to": "15106__1_019", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_021", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's never been passed on the Registration Board in Colorado?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2339.667], "stop_times": [2343.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.667}, "reply_to": "15106__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__1_022", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nSix months was the basis of the Federal Court decision in Denver in October of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2343.045, 2345.115], "stop_times": [2345.115, 2351.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.045}, "reply_to": "15106__1_021", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_023", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But they held the six months reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2351.18], "stop_times": [2352.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.18}, "reply_to": "15106__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_024", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "They held the six months reasonable, Your Honor, yes.\nWe go back to the constitution itself.\nWe don't feel that any part of the constitution should be downgraded, as the term was used here.\nWith -- the constitution is a living instrument all alive, and Article 2 Section 1, of course, gives the states the power, the responsibility to establish voter qualifications, both in federal and state elections.\nNow, with this constitutional prerogative, many cases of course have interpreted this prerogative and have not downgraded this prerogative one iota.\nThis is a viable prerogative, a responsibility.\nGoing as far back of course as Pope v. Williams and Miner v. Happersett, 1875 case, Pope v. Williams 1904, and then working forward all away up to Drueding v. Devlin where Drueding took this same case, the same facts, almost identical.\nThe issue is certainly identical.\nThere, a one-year residency requirement in the State of Maryland was held -- affirmed per curium by this Court in March of 1965, upholding a three-judge District Court for the District of Maryland.\nAnd, the District Court in Maryland said that the one-year is not unreasonable.\nNow, I'm not going to argue for one year.\nI'm not really going to argue for six months.\nColorado argues for the present law.\nColorado -- El Paso County, Colorado is the appellee in this case and we have a two-month law and we are here to uphold that law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2352.956, 2359.085, 2362.787, 2370.382, 2392.146, 2405.754, 2415.7, 2439.751, 2442.691, 2458.006, 2466.909, 2471.556, 2474.407, 2477.696], "stop_times": [2359.085, 2362.787, 2370.382, 2392.146, 2405.754, 2415.7, 2439.751, 2442.691, 2458.006, 2466.909, 2471.556, 2474.407, 2477.696, 2489.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.956}, "reply_to": "15106__1_023", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_025", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Didn't the Maryland say in the last paragraph that we've been assured by the Attorney General that the General Assembly of Maryland is going to change the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2489.135], "stop_times": [2499.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.135}, "reply_to": "15106__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_026", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "There was some mention made to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2499.883], "stop_times": [2500.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.883}, "reply_to": "15106__1_025", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_027", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And didn't he also say that the plaintiff did a wonderful job in getting it changed, assuming that they would change it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2500.888], "stop_times": [2508.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.888}, "reply_to": "15106__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_028", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, I recall there was some reference to that, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nAnd who knows what the motives of our legislature were?\nI certainly do not.\nI do know that they changed this law and Colorado, of course, is not unhappy that it was changed to two months.\nNow, going from this fundamental power that rests with the states, we move to the traditional equal protection test.\nIs there a rational relationship?\nWhat state interest is Colorado trying to protect here?\nVery briefly, Your Honors, if I may refer to our brief.\nThe interest that Colorado is furthering is, one, to preserve the purity of the elections to identify the voter so that double voting could be prevented.\nPicture the situation of a Manhattan precinct and Newark, New Jersey across the Hudson and Greenwich, Connecticut up the line a short distance away.\nWhere, if there were no state residency requirements whatsoever, there would be no check upon wholesale moving across state lines.\nWe really feel this is a legitimate view.\nAnd, if there were no residency requirements whatsoever, our state lines would be a Mecca for voter fraud.\nWe really feel this.\nNow, if one day is not sufficient to ensure some check on a boarder, how can we say that two months is unreasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2508.796, 2513.274, 2516.971, 2518.18, 2527.121, 2536.365, 2538.201, 2543.022, 2550.39, 2563.064, 2579.703, 2589.475, 2593.734, 2601.998, 2604.073], "stop_times": [2513.274, 2516.971, 2518.18, 2527.121, 2536.365, 2538.201, 2543.022, 2550.39, 2563.064, 2579.703, 2589.475, 2593.734, 2601.998, 2604.073, 2615.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.796}, "reply_to": "15106__1_027", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_029", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Wouldn't that voter who went from New York to New Jersey be subject to the same criminal penalties of the voter that went from Wart 6 to Wart 8 in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2615.213], "stop_times": [2627.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.213}, "reply_to": "15106__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_030", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2627.7], "stop_times": [2628.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.7}, "reply_to": "15106__1_029", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_031", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And do you -- you're sure that that happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2628.656], "stop_times": [2632.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.656}, "reply_to": "15106__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_032", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But the criminal penalty --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2632.253], "stop_times": [2632.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.253}, "reply_to": "15106__1_031", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_033", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "There is illegal voting in every state, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2632.9], "stop_times": [2636.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.9}, "reply_to": "15106__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_034", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI'm afraid --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2636.547, 2637.388], "stop_times": [2637.388, 2637.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.547}, "reply_to": "15106__1_033", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_035", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And I assume that they are punishable and this person would be punishable here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2637.632], "stop_times": [2644.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.632}, "reply_to": "15106__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_036", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "He would be punishable, but the election would be over and, no doubt, the electoral college would've met on December 5 of the particular presidential election year and we would have an election on the books.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2644.801], "stop_times": [2654.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.801}, "reply_to": "15106__1_035", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_037", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That goes where they have great congressional investigations as to vote frauds in certain states.\nIt doesn't affect the election.\nNow, why is two months necessary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2654.975, 2660.92, 2664.476], "stop_times": [2660.92, 2664.476, 2668.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.975}, "reply_to": "15106__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_038", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Two months is necessary, Your Honor, for this reason.\nWe have a new resident coming into the state.\nAs a new resident, he of course has a residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2668.003, 2672.173, 2675.68], "stop_times": [2672.173, 2675.68, 2679.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.003}, "reply_to": "15106__1_037", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_039", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "This resident here bought a home, registered his car, and paid taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2679.103], "stop_times": [2685.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.103}, "reply_to": "15106__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_040", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2685.69], "stop_times": [2685.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.69}, "reply_to": "15106__1_039", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_041", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "What else would you need to find out about him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2685.924], "stop_times": [2688.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.924}, "reply_to": "15106__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_042", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, we feel that tying all these other requisites you've mentioned, Your Honor, go to status and we don't feel that that's at all legitimate.\nIn other words, reasonable residence requirement would go to whether he owns a car or whether he's bought a house.\nCertainly, this status cries in the face of our system.\nSo, time is the most fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2688.805, 2696.473, 2701.548, 2705.523], "stop_times": [2696.473, 2701.548, 2705.523, 2707.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2688.805}, "reply_to": "15106__1_041", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_043", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, what makes him --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2707.633], "stop_times": [2707.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.633}, "reply_to": "15106__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_044", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We need some indicia --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2707.708], "stop_times": [2709.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.708}, "reply_to": "15106__1_043", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_045", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "What makes him such a good citizen in two months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2709.474], "stop_times": [2713.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.474}, "reply_to": "15106__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_046", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "In two months, Your Honor, there is time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2713.255], "stop_times": [2714.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.255}, "reply_to": "15106__1_045", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_047", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "What else could he do in two months, other than to buy a home, register his car, pay his taxes, and do everything that any other resident does?\nWhat else could he do under the two-month period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2714.608, 2724.583], "stop_times": [2724.583, 2727.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.608}, "reply_to": "15106__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_048", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The two months is not giving him status to vote, Your Honor.\nThe two months is time to check out whether he is a legitimate resident.\nThis is the primary purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2727.107, 2731.824, 2736.386], "stop_times": [2731.824, 2736.386, 2736.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.107}, "reply_to": "15106__1_047", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_049", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Couldn't you check these facts in two minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2736.535], "stop_times": [2739.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.535}, "reply_to": "15106__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_050", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "This is administrative -- this is an administrative reason to protect the period of election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2739.162], "stop_times": [2743.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.162}, "reply_to": "15106__1_049", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_051", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "How long would it take you to find out that he owned a home, owned a car and registered the car, and paid his taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2743.844], "stop_times": [2751.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.844}, "reply_to": "15106__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_052", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "On a full-scaled basis, Your Honor, our legislature -- this indicia, our legislature has determined that it takes two months on a new resident to legitimately check out these things.\nThese things take time.\nWe're talking about many people now.\nWe have people employed by our county to check out these things and a new resident, because his ties to the community are newer, it is reasonable that it takes longer to check out his legitimate residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2751.103, 2763.384, 2764.339, 2766.717], "stop_times": [2763.384, 2764.339, 2766.717, 2779.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.103}, "reply_to": "15106__1_051", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_053", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, they changed it from six to two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2779.702], "stop_times": [2782.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.702}, "reply_to": "15106__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_054", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2782.593], "stop_times": [2783.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.593}, "reply_to": "15106__1_053", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_055", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "They changed it from six months to two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2783.225], "stop_times": [2785.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.225}, "reply_to": "15106__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_056", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2785.897], "stop_times": [2786.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.897}, "reply_to": "15106__1_055", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_057", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Because, obviously, they thought six months was wrong.\nThey'd made a mistake about six months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2786.977, 2790.405], "stop_times": [2790.405, 2793.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.977}, "reply_to": "15106__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_058", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "They -- I'm not conceding --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2793.087], "stop_times": [2794.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.087}, "reply_to": "15106__1_057", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_059", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Couldn't I assume that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2794.017], "stop_times": [2795.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.017}, "reply_to": "15106__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_060", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I won't concede that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2795.122], "stop_times": [2796.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.122}, "reply_to": "15106__1_059", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_061", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I could assume that, couldn't I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2796.202], "stop_times": [2797.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.202}, "reply_to": "15106__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_062", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I will concede that in order to make it as far as possible, humanly possible, they took it down to two months.\nI will not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2797.55, 2806.819], "stop_times": [2806.819, 2806.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.55}, "reply_to": "15106__1_061", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_063", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Like the fact that the difference between the six-month period and the two, you had an increase in population, haven't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2806.949], "stop_times": [2813.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.949}, "reply_to": "15106__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_064", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Colorado, like many states -- western states, is noting a great increase in population.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2813.451], "stop_times": [2815.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.451}, "reply_to": "15106__1_063", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_065", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "So, there's a good possibility we're wrong about the six months.\nI say that because my second question is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2815.996, 2820.454], "stop_times": [2820.454, 2821.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.996}, "reply_to": "15106__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_066", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, I can't second guess the legislature, Your Honor, whether they felt they were wrong or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2821.454], "stop_times": [2824.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.454}, "reply_to": "15106__1_065", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_067", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, speaking for myself, if I assumed that maybe they were wrong about the six months, a few years from now they might find they were wrong about the two.\nWould that follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2824.757, 2836.546], "stop_times": [2836.546, 2838.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.757}, "reply_to": "15106__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_068", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, it could follow, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2838.648], "stop_times": [2841.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.648}, "reply_to": "15106__1_067", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_069", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But you apparently don't place any reliance at all on the factor of identification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2841.42], "stop_times": [2848.647], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.42}, "reply_to": "15106__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_070", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, we certainly do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2848.647], "stop_times": [2849.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.647}, "reply_to": "15106__1_069", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_071", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "State --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2849.763], "stop_times": [2850.719], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.763}, "reply_to": "15106__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_072", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "This is second --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2850.719], "stop_times": [2850.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.719}, "reply_to": "15106__1_071", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_073", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "They are state concerns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2850.959], "stop_times": [2853.203], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.959}, "reply_to": "15106__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_074", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "This is secondary.\nYes, we certainly do.\nAs a western state, we get back to the states under our system, electing the president.\nThis is the way it's set up.\nAnd, since the states elect the president, each state -- when our constitution was formulated, the framers knew that each state had certain interests.\nThis is why the states elect the president.\nNow, in Colorado, we certainly have unique interests, our western spoke proclamation, our water, our atomic energy experiments that are going on out there that have caused a great deal of concern, our poisonous gas storage in Denver, Colorado at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.\nI could go one with many other issues and I'm sure each state has its own unique issues where the state feels that there should be some identification.\nWe don't want that identification to be burdensome and we don't feel that two months is a burdensome identification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2853.203, 2854.289, 2855.165, 2860.764, 2862.754, 2871.287, 2873.648, 2890.813, 2898.969], "stop_times": [2854.289, 2855.165, 2860.764, 2862.754, 2871.287, 2873.648, 2890.813, 2898.969, 2905.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.203}, "reply_to": "15106__1_073", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_075", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "If I may ask you this question, is there a difference in the residence requirement for being a state voter in the state elections and in the national?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2905.845], "stop_times": [2915.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.845}, "reply_to": "15106__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15106__1_076", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe -- like the majority -- great majority of states, Colorado has a one-year residency requirement for their so-called elections, all elections other than presidential and vice-presidential.\nTherefore, it was necessary, in order to separate these people, because Colorado did recognize the problem, it was necessary to enact special legislation knocking their requirement down to two months because, and this is just for -- these people only vote for presidential and vice-presidential electors only and the two months, as opposed to one year, for all other elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2915.634, 2916.64, 2928.416], "stop_times": [2916.64, 2928.416, 2951.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.634}, "reply_to": "15106__1_075", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_077", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "To return to the expedience that you've been arguing just a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2951.261], "stop_times": [2959.747], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2951.261}, "reply_to": "15106__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_078", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2959.747], "stop_times": [2960.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.747}, "reply_to": "15106__1_077", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_079", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's the basis of the differentiation between presidential voters and state voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2960.107], "stop_times": [2968.079], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.107}, "reply_to": "15106__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_080", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We would namely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2968.079], "stop_times": [2969.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.079}, "reply_to": "15106__1_079", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_081", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Now that your state concern with the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2969.607], "stop_times": [2972.541], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.607}, "reply_to": "15106__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_082", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We would maintain that election, when it's wholly local, of course the local interest predominate in that particular election and, therefore, it requires a one-year identification with these particular local problems.\nA presidential election of course, being the embodiment of the federal system, that is, the national issues and the state issues and the nexus between the two, that the balance goes to these national issues enough to bring it down to two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2972.541, 2984.246], "stop_times": [2984.246, 2997.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.541}, "reply_to": "15106__1_081", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_083", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "As a matter of degree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [2997.907], "stop_times": [3000.081], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.907}, "reply_to": "15106__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15106__1_084", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3000.081], "stop_times": [3000.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.081}, "reply_to": "15106__1_083", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_085", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Does Colorado have a residence res -- retention law in the event -- assume a Colorado resident moves out to Kansas, does Colorado permit him to retain his residence for voting purposes for any period of time?\nSome states do, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3000.768, 3016.843], "stop_times": [3016.843, 3018.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.768}, "reply_to": "15106__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_086", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Colorado -- if a person manifests his desire to establish residence elsewhere, of course, he has lost his Colorado residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3018.929], "stop_times": [3029.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3018.929}, "reply_to": "15106__1_085", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_087", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And so you don't let him --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3029.285], "stop_times": [3030.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.285}, "reply_to": "15106__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_088", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But we go back to fundamental common law test, Your Honor, as to whether one has lost his residence or not.\nI believe that's our law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3030.012, 3035.469], "stop_times": [3035.469, 3037.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.012}, "reply_to": "15106__1_087", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_089", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I suppose you might argue that the proper defendant in a case like this should've been California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3037.136], "stop_times": [3043.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.136}, "reply_to": "15106__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_090", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We've often thought that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3043.162], "stop_times": [3045.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.162}, "reply_to": "15106__1_089", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_091", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I take it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3045.026], "stop_times": [3045.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.026}, "reply_to": "15106__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_092", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "California would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3045.236], "stop_times": [3046.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.236}, "reply_to": "15106__1_091", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_093", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That would've accommodated everybody's interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3046.841], "stop_times": [3050.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.841}, "reply_to": "15106__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_094", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "California, very much, was at issue in this case also.\nNow, if I may, moving on to my example of the Manhattan precinct, we feel that since one day is not sufficient, certainly, two months -- can we say that two months is an unreasonable period of time?\nAnd, we must maintain is two months is certainly reasonable under this equal protection test.\nNow, whether it's the compelling state interest test or the traditional test, this of course is a very new development in the decisions of this Court.\nThe compelling state interest test, we maintain, does not apply in this particular incident even under the Kramer v. Union Free School District case, the City of Cipriano versus Home, quoted by Mr. Hall, and Williams v. Roads because these cases placed these other requirements on voting, namely property and so on.\nOver and above a superstructure, if you have, over and above the fundamental requirements of residency, United States citizenship, and age, these three fundamental things are fundamental.\nNow, these other cases dealt with things superimposed over and above different requirements there, they apply the compelling state interest status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3050.003, 3056.079, 3074.044, 3080.609, 3089.853, 3111.022, 3124.137], "stop_times": [3056.079, 3074.044, 3080.609, 3089.853, 3111.022, 3124.137, 3132.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.003}, "reply_to": "15106__1_093", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_095", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "So you're -- but your test isn't critical in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3132.901], "stop_times": [3136.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.901}, "reply_to": "15106__1_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_096", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We feel, Your Honor, it's the rationally, traditional, reasonable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3136.232], "stop_times": [3139.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3136.232}, "reply_to": "15106__1_095", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_097", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I know but the -- which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3139.356], "stop_times": [3140.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.356}, "reply_to": "15106__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_098", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Furtherance of legitimate status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3140.803], "stop_times": [3141.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.803}, "reply_to": "15106__1_097", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_099", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The question of which test is to be applied isn't critical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3141.741], "stop_times": [3144.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.741}, "reply_to": "15106__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_100", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We feel it is not, Your Honor, because we feel that we do have compelling interest.\nThat's a fortiori.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3144.913, 3148.095], "stop_times": [3148.095, 3149.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3144.913}, "reply_to": "15106__1_099", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_101", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It could be -- I take it, the appellant concedes that some period justified by helping the interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3149.52], "stop_times": [3159.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.52}, "reply_to": "15106__1_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15106__1_102", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We know that mentions in his brief that some period of time is necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3159.162], "stop_times": [3163.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.162}, "reply_to": "15106__1_101", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_103", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But didn't he think fix that at three days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3163.092], "stop_times": [3165.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.092}, "reply_to": "15106__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_104", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Pardon me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3165.308], "stop_times": [3166.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.308}, "reply_to": "15106__1_103", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_105", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Didn't he fix that at three days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3166.035], "stop_times": [3168.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.035}, "reply_to": "15106__1_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_106", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "He mentioned the three days.\nHe didn't specifically hang his head at three days reading his brief, but he mentions the three day as -- that Colorado apparently only needs three days which is incorrect.\nWe have 20 days for everybody at the minimum because the three-day person, the new resident must have a 20-day registration.\nYour Honor, moving on to the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we hold that there's no case that has ever held that the right to vote for president and vice-president is a federal privilege and immunity.\nThere's no case that has ever held that.\nIn fact, this case has held that the right to vote for president and vice-president is something springing out of state citizenship.\nNow, you take your congressional elections, your Congress.\nThere, under Article 1 Section 4, setting up the Congress originally, there the federal government was given certain prerogatives of control.\nIt was a dual thing, the Congressional, but the president and vice-president were given exclusively to the states.\nSo, they're in a different category and those cases like ex parte Yarbrough and so on that are quoted by appellant apply only to Congressional elections and do not apply to the presidential and vice-presidential elections.\nAnd, I would please ask that you please consider this at your decision.\nVery briefly, to conclude, we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3168.279, 3170.932, 3181.103, 3190.596, 3205.472, 3209.094, 3216.581, 3220.122, 3235.868, 3241.914, 3254.82, 3262.428], "stop_times": [3170.932, 3181.103, 3190.596, 3205.472, 3209.094, 3216.581, 3220.122, 3235.868, 3241.914, 3254.82, 3262.428, 3265.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.279}, "reply_to": "15106__1_105", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_107", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I think we'll terminate at this point, counsel, unless you're ready to conclude.\nYou were not quite finished I think when we recessed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3265.153, 3291.613], "stop_times": [3291.613, 3296.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.153}, "reply_to": "15106__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_108", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "May it please the Court, Mr. Chief Justice, and please the other members of the Court.\nTo synopsize what Colorado's position is in this matter, we've outlined the state interest that we feel are wholly legitimate and reasonable that we are trying to further in our two-month residency requirement the administrative reasons, the feeling that it takes two months when thousands of voters a day in El Paso County Register in the last days prior to the election with a new resident, since his ties to the community are two, it takes that much additional time to check his legitimate status out.\nThen, going to the member of the community argument, weighing the state citizenship in the one hand, the federal citizenship on the other hand, the dual citizenship of a new resident of Colorado, we feel that two months does, to some small degree, identify him with the problems of Colorado so that when he casts his vote, Colorado interest have some bearing in his decision as a new resident of that state since, of course, the president under the constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3296.252, 3303.156, 3348.144], "stop_times": [3303.156, 3348.144, 3384.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.252}, "reply_to": "15106__1_107", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_109", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "What was the reasoning behind the passing of this Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3384.14], "stop_times": [3387.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.14}, "reply_to": "15106__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_110", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The two-month Act, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3387.641], "stop_times": [3389.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3387.641}, "reply_to": "15106__1_109", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_111", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3389.735], "stop_times": [3391.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.735}, "reply_to": "15106__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_112", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The reasoning behind it, to further the state interest that I have mentioned.\nFirst, we have the one-year general residency requirement going down to two months for the new resident for president and vice-president.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3391.27, 3396.478], "stop_times": [3396.478, 3404.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3391.27}, "reply_to": "15106__1_111", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_113", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Only?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3404.36], "stop_times": [3405.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3404.36}, "reply_to": "15106__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_114", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, and the reasoning is to bring it down to two months so that, since his federal citizenship has such a predominant interest in his vote as well as some balance to the citizenship aspect, that two months was a reasonable requirement to fulfill both objectives, fulfill both aspirations, both citizenships, both state and federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3405.3], "stop_times": [3427.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3405.3}, "reply_to": "15106__1_113", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_115", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Is he required to be -- have been a resident with the intention of remaining a resident?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3427.561], "stop_times": [3432.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.561}, "reply_to": "15106__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_116", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Oh yes, our test for residency, of course, we utilize the traditional common law test for residency, that is, actual, physical presence plus the intention to remain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3432.463], "stop_times": [3444.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3432.463}, "reply_to": "15106__1_115", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_117", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "When was the -- when was the six-month statute passed?\nHow long ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3444.032, 3449.05], "stop_times": [3449.05, 3450.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.032}, "reply_to": "15106__1_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_118", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That was passed, Your Honor, back in 1963, to the best of my knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3450.036], "stop_times": [3454.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3450.036}, "reply_to": "15106__1_117", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_119", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It came from one year down to six-months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3454.725], "stop_times": [3457.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3454.725}, "reply_to": "15106__1_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_120", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3457.547], "stop_times": [3457.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3457.547}, "reply_to": "15106__1_119", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_121", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "And then down to two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3457.807], "stop_times": [3459.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.807}, "reply_to": "15106__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_122", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Right, following a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3459.013], "stop_times": [3460.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3459.013}, "reply_to": "15106__1_121", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_123", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I suppose modern communication, modern methods of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3460.548], "stop_times": [3465.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.548}, "reply_to": "15106__1_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_124", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We are computerizing now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3465.965], "stop_times": [3466.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3465.965}, "reply_to": "15106__1_123", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_125", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Getting information around enters into this too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3466.853], "stop_times": [3469.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.853}, "reply_to": "15106__1_124", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_126", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We have been computerizing that interim which I would feel would be one of the reasons the legislature amended down.\nWe are not computerized in many counties in Colorado.\nEl Paso County is partially computerized and become more so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3469.995, 3476.25, 3478.895], "stop_times": [3476.25, 3478.895, 3484.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3469.995}, "reply_to": "15106__1_125", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_127", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "What was the reasoning behind the six-month statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3484.113], "stop_times": [3487.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3484.113}, "reply_to": "15106__1_126", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_128", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Once again, going down, first, starting with the one-year to come down to six months to give those new residents --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3487.394], "stop_times": [3492.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3487.394}, "reply_to": "15106__1_127", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_129", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "You mean you fought down the one year with reference to a resident?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3492.837], "stop_times": [3497.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3492.837}, "reply_to": "15106__1_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_130", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "One year being the general requirement for local elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3497.238], "stop_times": [3499.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3497.238}, "reply_to": "15106__1_129", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_131", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's the general requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3499.374], "stop_times": [3500.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3499.374}, "reply_to": "15106__1_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_132", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3500.799], "stop_times": [3501.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3500.799}, "reply_to": "15106__1_131", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_133", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That didn't distinguish between who was voting for president in those voting requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3501.867], "stop_times": [3506.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.867}, "reply_to": "15106__1_132", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_134", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The six-month statute distinguished between those voting for president.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3506.997], "stop_times": [3509.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3506.997}, "reply_to": "15106__1_133", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_135", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It did but was it the first one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3509.47], "stop_times": [3511.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.47}, "reply_to": "15106__1_134", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_136", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It was the first one, Your Honor, yes, following a recommendation of the National Conference of Commissioners on uniformed state laws.\nIn other words, six months was the time they were talking about in the early \u201860s, and whether they've come off of that or not, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3511.825, 3518.032], "stop_times": [3518.032, 3524.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3511.825}, "reply_to": "15106__1_135", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_137", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "On what reason, what reason did they give?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3524.222], "stop_times": [3527.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3524.222}, "reply_to": "15106__1_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_138", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The reason being that we are a more mobile society in that a state, in protecting its interest, make every possible concession to lower those voting requirements down so that more people could vote for president and vice-president and not be disenfranchised.\nIn other words, on the one hand, preserve the compelling state interest, the reasonable requirements.\nOn the other hand, giving that voter as much of a break as possible at new residence so that he can vote if he fulfill certain minimum residency requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3527.454, 3544.885, 3550.881], "stop_times": [3544.885, 3550.881, 3559.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3527.454}, "reply_to": "15106__1_137", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_139", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "I presume that in some it could be found to prevent duplication of voting in different states for the lines that are always close together, that that argument would support a one-day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3559.623], "stop_times": [3575.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3559.623}, "reply_to": "15106__1_138", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_140", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, this is the problem, Your Honor.\nThe states have this responsibility under the constitution and one day certainly would not be enough.\nWe feel that two months --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3575.442, 3577.509, 3585.511], "stop_times": [3577.509, 3585.511, 3585.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3575.442}, "reply_to": "15106__1_139", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_141", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It wouldn't be enough to show residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3585.948], "stop_times": [3588.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3585.948}, "reply_to": "15106__1_140", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_142", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3588.114], "stop_times": [3588.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3588.114}, "reply_to": "15106__1_141", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_143", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "It wouldn't be enough to show residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3588.621], "stop_times": [3590.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3588.621}, "reply_to": "15106__1_142", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_144", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3590.615], "stop_times": [3591.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3590.615}, "reply_to": "15106__1_143", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_145", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "But it would be enough to show that he's a man away from his home.\nWe let him vote, if that's the argument behind the whole law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3591.603, 3596.663], "stop_times": [3596.663, 3601.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3591.603}, "reply_to": "15106__1_144", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15106__1_146", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Our argument is that it takes a certain amount of time to ensure that this voter votes once and only once in a presidential election.\nHe votes through a state.\nAnd, we've determined that two months is a reasonable time to make these checks to ensure that he is, in fact, a resident of Colorado and will not vote elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3601.701, 3609.034, 3610.784], "stop_times": [3609.034, 3610.784, 3619.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3601.701}, "reply_to": "15106__1_145", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_147", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's not your only justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3619.78], "stop_times": [3621.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3619.78}, "reply_to": "15106__1_146", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15106__1_148", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Oh no, Your Honor, but that's the compelling one and there are other compelling ones also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3621.028], "stop_times": [3624.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3621.028}, "reply_to": "15106__1_147", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_149", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "How can you be sure he won't vote some place else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3624.938], "stop_times": [3630.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3624.938}, "reply_to": "15106__1_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_150", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "We, in that two-month period, can check back to the state of his former residence to see whether to inform that other state that he is going to vote in Colorado, that he is registered to vote as a new resident and that, therefore, it's our understanding in Colorado that you, California, or you, New York, or you, Illinois, he's not going to vote there, and this is done.\nThe states are sending out letters doing this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3630.039, 3655.715], "stop_times": [3655.715, 3660.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3630.039}, "reply_to": "15106__1_149", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_151", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Can't you do that in 20 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3660.114], "stop_times": [3663.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3660.114}, "reply_to": "15106__1_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_152", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "20 days counts awfully short, Your Honor, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3663.458], "stop_times": [3668.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3663.458}, "reply_to": "15106__1_151", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_153", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "There must be some reasoning toward the 20-day rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3668.935], "stop_times": [3673.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3668.935}, "reply_to": "15106__1_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_154", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "The 20-day rule is the general registration requirement, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3673.801], "stop_times": [3677.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3673.801}, "reply_to": "15106__1_153", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_155", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Well, that's the only reason to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3677.095], "stop_times": [3679.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3677.095}, "reply_to": "15106__1_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15106__1_156", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's the general registration requirement.\nThe new resident, of course, we need more indicia of evidence of his residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3679.329, 3681.652], "stop_times": [3681.652, 3688.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3679.329}, "reply_to": "15106__1_155", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_157", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3688.024], "stop_times": [3688.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3688.024}, "reply_to": "15106__1_156", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_158", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "That's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3688.224], "stop_times": [3689.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3688.224}, "reply_to": "15106__1_157", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_159", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Thank you, counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3689.09], "stop_times": [3690.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3689.09}, "reply_to": "15106__1_158", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__1_160", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Thank you very much, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3690.318], "stop_times": [3692.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3690.318}, "reply_to": "15106__1_159", "speaker": "bernard_r_baker"}
{"id": "15106__1_161", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Mr. Hall, do you have any -- do we have any more time?\nYou have one minute, Mr. Hall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3692.751, 3696.863], "stop_times": [3696.863, 3697.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3692.751}, "reply_to": "15106__1_160", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15106__2_000", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Yes, sir.\nVery briefly, Your Honor.\nI'm sorry if I misstated the Colorado law.\nI quoted what I thought was the controlling statute that's contained on page 31 of my brief, and I did understand that they could apply up to three days before the election.\nOn the question of mootness, Mr. Baker relies on Mills versus Green which was decided in 1895.\nI would rely on Moore versus Ogilvie which was decided six months ago, which held that a continuing problem such as this and that case involved Illinois election law, was not moot.\nI think the fact the District Court upheld the reasonableness of six months is not controlling because they did so under the traditional test and did apply the compelling interest test that now applies to the right to vote.\nAny reliance on the case of Pope versus Williams is misplaced because that particularly left opened the question of presidential electors.\nThis question of voting in more than one state, we do not argue against the requirement that you be a resident of the state in which you vote.\nAnd, as in Carrington versus Rash, the state can impose reasonable requirements to see that you're a resident, but we would contend that the waiting period is not reasonable.\nThank you very much, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3697.639, 3698.114, 3699.831, 3703.192, 3714.67, 3721.035, 3734.231, 3749.512, 3758.207, 3766.272, 3777.162], "stop_times": [3698.114, 3699.831, 3703.192, 3714.67, 3721.035, 3734.231, 3749.512, 3758.207, 3766.272, 3777.162, 3778.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3697.639}, "reply_to": "15106__1_161", "speaker": "richard_a_hall"}
{"id": "15106__2_001", "conversation_id": "15106", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you, Gentlemen, for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_39", "start_times": [3778.51, 3779.759, 3781.915], "stop_times": [3779.759, 3781.915, 3784.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3778.51}, "reply_to": "15106__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__0_000", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Number 661, Hellenic Lines against Rhoditis.\nMr. Estabrook, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [0.0, 8.714], "stop_times": [8.714, 12.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__0_001", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI represent the petitioner herein in a petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit.\nGeorge Wood, the original counsel of record who tried this case in Mobile and who argued the case in the Fifth Circuit is very sorry he's unable to be here.\nHe called me about two weeks ago and said he had the recurrence of a heart condition, asked me if I could possibly argue.\nI agreed.\nI was hoping to see him here but unfortunately his brother passed away on Saturday right after a golf game and George was unable to attend.\nI represent not only the petitioners herein but I also submitted a brief amicus for the Royal Greek Government.\nAs I said before this is an appeal -- a petition for certiorari by Hellenic Lines Limited and Universal Cargo Carriers from a decision of the Fifth Circuit affirming an admiralty decree in the Southern District of Alabama Southern Division in favor of the libellant below the respondent here.\nThe accident occurred August 3, 1965 in a libel in rem and in personam was filed August 13, 1965.\nSo the case came up under the old admiralty rules.\nBriefly, the facts which are pertinent are that Rhoditis, the libellant below and the respondent here was a Greek seaman with a wife and two children in Greece.\nHe is a resident of Greece.\nHe joined the Greek Flag Motorship Hellenic Hero in Heraklion Crete.\nHe signed the standard Greek articles.\nWhile the opinion of the District Court contained in the findings and conclusions stated he is illiterate.\nHe is practically illiterate in English.\nThe record is disclosing that he can read and write only figures and write only his address in English but that he can read and write Greek since he can write letters to his wife and he can read Greek.\nThe Hellenic Hero, a Greek flag vessel was sailing in the United States, India, Pakistan Trade.\nAt the time the depositions herein were taken, the Suez Canal was either open or had just been closed.\nNow, this trade through Suez no longer exists.\nThe practical difference, however, is this that whereas in -- when the depositions were taken and on the record it appears that Hellenic Lines had 20 ships, 24 ships sailing out of New York and U.S. ports and only 12 ships out of European ports based on Pireas at present.\nThe American-based ships are down to 20 and the European ships are up to 19.\nThe -- also there is some --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [12.212, 13.351, 18.028, 25.782, 37.625, 44.502, 45.738, 56.904, 64.075, 83.704, 92.526, 96.606, 110.629, 112.921, 119.182, 123.118, 129.404, 132.007, 146.161, 153.604, 162.497, 167.145, 191.385, 199.266], "stop_times": [13.351, 18.028, 25.782, 37.625, 44.502, 45.738, 56.904, 64.075, 83.704, 92.526, 96.606, 110.629, 112.921, 119.182, 123.118, 129.404, 132.007, 146.161, 153.604, 162.497, 167.145, 191.385, 199.266, 201.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.212}, "reply_to": "15514__0_000", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_002", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, is this not a situation which fluctuates from time to time depending on the demands for shipping?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [201.446], "stop_times": [208.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.446}, "reply_to": "15514__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__0_003", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Of course it does.\nThe demands of this case happened to be away from the American trade and in favor to foreign trade also there while the report, the facts as stated by the trial judge stated there was no intermediate traffic at present time, there is a considerable amount of trade between intermediate ports particularly between the Indian, Pakistan ports and South Africa.\nBriefly, the acts did occur in this manner.\nAs the Hellenic Hero was tying up, and the purpose of this is to show how the acts had really involves only the people of the ship, he was tying up in New Orleans.\nThey have the lines opened and the spring line or a line leading from the bow aft not directly to dock but aft to keep the ship from surging ahead was being secured where that is working up in the bow.\nThis spring line was secured around the winch and they had been taking the strain on it and when they are going to tie the ship up, they had to take this line which is a heavy wire rope off the winch drum and bend it around bollards which are two iron columns about three feet high and about three feet apart like two fourplex and you bend this wire around the bollards making about eight -- figure eights and that's how you secure the ship.\nBut when you take the wire off the winch drum, it's necessary to secure it by a small piece of chain which the interpreter and the record referred to as a keeper.\nActually the correct term is stopper and you take the slide chain and you wind it around the wire tying some knots on it and that will take the strain off the wire in the drum because the end of the chain is secured to the bits.\nThen with the strain off the wire and the drum, you can loosen the wire on the drum and put it on the bits.\nWell, they did that.\nThey -- the stopper or keeper looked new, looked to be in good condition.\nThey put it on.\nThey took the wire off the drum and they were putting it on the bits and as they were putting it the second turn, the chain suddenly broke as the engines of the ship went ahead.\nThat's the testimony.\nWhy they went ahead, nobody knows, but of course that would put extra strain and the line leading aft extra strain on the chain.\nThe chain broke and the piece of a chain struck Rhoditis in the leg.\nRhoditis was then taken to a hospital in New Orleans after his first cast was removed.\nAs soon as he was able to travel, he was moved to Greece and he was able to return to work according to the trial court the next March.\nHellenic Lines, the employer is a Greek corporation.\nIt had in its employ some 1100 seamen.\nIt paid taxes last year of over $5 million to Greece.\nSome old repair bills were paid to Greece of about the same amount.\nIt, however, did have a New York office and in the New York office, the record shows it employed between 75 to 100 people depending on whether it appeared to the testimony.\nIt has a New Orleans office, 10 to 15 people and the Pireas office of 70 to 75.\nIf you disregard the seaman, then you do have more people employed in the offices in New York than in Greece but if you take the seaman into account and they are all Greeks then you have a pronounced Greek flavor to the company.\nThere are also some longshoremen employed in New York , stevedores, but we also have longshoremen abroad and actually you employ a lot more longshoremen abroad than you do in this country because you have better machinery in this country.\nSo in any international run, you tend to have more longshoremen than the other side.\nWe believe this -- however there are some American features the operation.\nThe substantial part of Hellenic Heroes trade is to and from the United States.\nWhile Hellenic Lines is a Greek corporation, the majority stockholder and the principal executive officer or general manager of the company is a resident of the United States although a citizen of Greece.\nWe have in our brief for the petitioner and the record indicates he received several honors from the kingdom of Greece.\nWe are not claiming sovereign immunity, diplomatic immunity or anything like that.\nMr. Callimanopoulos has been of assistance, the Greek mission.\nHe is receiving official Greek passport from time to time and the purpose of this proof in the record is to show his allegiance to Greece.\nHe is a bona fide Greek citizen.\nHe performs duties to the Greek Government.\nWe believe this case comes squarely under the doctrine of Larsen against Lauritzen because both these cases emphasized two things, the primacy of the flag, that is very important.\nThe flag of a ship should determine the law applicable to the ship and also the fact that it's important that there will be an available forum.\nThere is an available forum in this case.\nMr. Rhoditis can pursue his claim for compensation in Greece, and there we must pay him under Greek law and under the collective bargaining agreement.\nIn fact, the collective bargaining agreement specifies particularly the adoption of Greek law and this is very similar to the collective bargaining agreement that was followed by this Court in Larsen against Lauritzen which provided for determination of disputes in Denmark.\nThe -- in Larsen against Lauritzen, we had an accident in Havana where the ship sailing between United States and the West Coast of South America.\nBoth -- that ship never did go to Denmark in a regular trade.\nBoth vessels had crews of substantially crews of the citizenship of the flag.\nThey -- the Randa did have a few Chileans but all the officers and most of the crew were Danes.\nIn both cases, the -- we claim the place of the acts in this is unimportant.\nIn the Randa the man was injured in Havana yet he was brought to the United States for medical treatment and he remained.\nLarsen actually remained in the United States until he was able to sail again, so the medical testimony was readily available here yet the Court held that Jones Act did apply.\nIn both cases, the court was based for the seaman who was engaged under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated with the assistance of the national union and the national association of shipowners.\nWe the petitioner here and the Greek Government are both very much opposed to the \"runaway flag\".\nInsofar as the respondent and his amici argue against the runaway flag were or in fully in a Court.\nWe believe that argument is solved but we say it does not apply to this case.\nOur position is that as stated in the Larsen case and quoted in my brief amicus, \"Each state under international law\" it's page 3 \"may determine for itself the conditions upon which you can grant us nationality to a merchant ship thereby accepting responsibility for it and acquiring authority over it.\nWe believe that the phrase \"accepting responsibility\" is important.\nIf a nation does not accept responsibility for its merchant ships then that you have a runaway flag situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [208.267, 209.423, 234.83, 238.186, 247.942, 263.068, 294.0, 304.577, 321.989, 329.743, 331.414, 337.22, 338.428, 351.85, 353.624, 361.372, 367.387, 374.552, 385.34, 391.8, 398.118, 401.583, 405.294, 416.853, 424.902, 439.798, 452.319, 459.018, 466.165, 474.339, 491.528, 500.926, 506.332, 511.322, 521.083, 523.263, 527.659, 542.678, 555.745, 558.43, 568.725, 585.364, 595.896, 603.464, 609.483, 617.474, 623.478, 630.116, 639.744, 656.879, 664.006, 676.14, 682.673, 703.81, 709.203], "stop_times": [209.423, 234.83, 238.186, 247.942, 263.068, 294.0, 304.577, 321.989, 329.743, 331.414, 337.22, 338.428, 351.85, 353.624, 361.372, 367.387, 374.552, 385.34, 391.8, 398.118, 401.583, 405.294, 416.853, 424.902, 439.798, 452.319, 459.018, 466.165, 474.339, 491.528, 500.926, 506.332, 511.322, 521.083, 523.263, 527.659, 542.678, 555.745, 558.43, 568.725, 585.364, 595.896, 603.464, 609.483, 617.474, 623.478, 630.116, 639.744, 656.879, 664.006, 676.14, 682.673, 703.81, 709.203, 717.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.267}, "reply_to": "15514__0_002", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_004", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Mr. Estabrook does his remedy that you have referred to under Greek law still subsists?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [717.389], "stop_times": [725.784], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 717.389}, "reply_to": "15514__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__0_005", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [725.784], "stop_times": [726.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.784}, "reply_to": "15514__0_004", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_006", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Statute of limitations is not involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [726.962], "stop_times": [730.29], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 726.962}, "reply_to": "15514__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__0_007", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He can -- it still subsists, that was -- we have the same thing in Tsakonites, Your Honor.\nTsakonites brought his case up in the Second Circuit.\nThis Court denied certiorari and thereupon Tsakonites commenced proceedings in the Greek court and recovered and that is exhibit A on the Greek Government's brief.\nIf you don't accept responsibility for a ship then you have true runaway flag.\nFor instance, you may have a ship under say Panamanian or Liberian Registry with a Cayman Island crew, Norwegian officers and Spanish engineers.\nYou don't have the regular inspection that we have.\nThe Greek Government insists on regular inspections of the ship, regular surveys.\nIt insists on Greek ownership.\nIf you have a foreign corporation owning a Greek ship then does exists here then the technical ownership was in universal cargo carriers, a Panamanian corporation but the ship was in fact operated by Hellenic who hired the crew then you must under Greek law have an agent in Greece who can make the reports necessary.\nYou must have the ship under the Greek flag.\nI mean you do have a -- you must also have a Greek crew.\nYou must have Greek officers.\nYou have a pension plan in Greece known as NAT capital N, capital A, capital T to which all Greek seamen must contribute.\nTo this doctrine of recognizing responsible flags has been followed by this Court not only Larsen against Lauritzen in 1953 but again in 1959, in Romero case where a Spanish seaman was injured on a Spanish ship in the port of New York, the Court held that Spanish laws should and not the Jones Act.\nA similar case in McCulloch against Honduran Union quoted in the petitioner's brief where the Court -- this Court held that the National Labor Relations Act would not apply to Honduran flag ships with Honduran crews operated by Honduran corporations between New York and Honduras even though the Honduran corporations were subsidiaries of an American corporation.\nThe -- they recognized the law of the flag as being a responsible flag for the reason that these Honduran ships were actually meant by Hondurans and they had Honduran officers.\nThe background being of course that these ships were carrying bananas and one of the conditions for granting banana concessions, the fruit company would be that bona fide Honduran ships would be used to transport bananas and while the ultimate directions of these ships is in the United States, the allegiance of the owner, a Honduran corporation was to the Republic of Honduras.\nFor that reason when the Court declined to apply the National Labor Relations Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [730.29, 735.744, 739.394, 755.122, 760.103, 771.53, 774.031, 779.62, 783.052, 812.601, 817.061, 819.792, 821.972, 837.095, 864.347, 895.696, 911.402, 936.597], "stop_times": [735.744, 739.394, 755.122, 760.103, 771.53, 774.031, 779.62, 783.052, 812.601, 817.061, 819.792, 821.972, 837.095, 864.347, 895.696, 911.402, 936.597, 941.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.29}, "reply_to": "15514__0_006", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_008", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "May I ask you whether your problem is based on a statute or the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [941.792], "stop_times": [949.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.792}, "reply_to": "15514__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_009", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "My problem, Your Honor, is based on the statute, the Jones Act and possibly on the General Maritime Law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [949.49], "stop_times": [959.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.49}, "reply_to": "15514__0_008", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_010", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The famous Jones Act had some provision in it that prevent this trial in this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [959.547], "stop_times": [967.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.547}, "reply_to": "15514__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_011", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, the Jones Act, Your Honor, provides has been interpreted as applying not to the rights of foreign crews on foreign ships but to the rights of American seamen on American ships.\nBut the Jones Act and this Court was held not apply to the rights of a Danish seaman on a Danish ship in Lauritzen against Larsen or to the rights of a Spanish seaman on a Spanish ship in Romero against International Terminal Operating Corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [967.4, 980.401], "stop_times": [980.401, 995.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.4}, "reply_to": "15514__0_010", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_012", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Do you question one of the jurisdictions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [995.928], "stop_times": [998.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.928}, "reply_to": "15514__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_013", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, sir.\nThere's no question of jurisdiction here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [998.134, 998.805], "stop_times": [998.805, 1000.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 998.134}, "reply_to": "15514__0_012", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_014", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Do you think the courts had jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1000.773], "stop_times": [1002.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.773}, "reply_to": "15514__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_015", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "There are jurisdiction in rem and in personam, yes Your Honor.\nThis was in admiralty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1002.719, 1005.3], "stop_times": [1005.3, 1008.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.719}, "reply_to": "15514__0_014", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_016", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What you're saying is some statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1008.862], "stop_times": [1013.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.862}, "reply_to": "15514__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_017", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, the Jones Act --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1013.457], "stop_times": [1014.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.457}, "reply_to": "15514__0_016", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_018", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Can you find something in that statute that shows that the case could be tried here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1014.076], "stop_times": [1020.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.076}, "reply_to": "15514__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_019", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The Jones Act, Your Honor has been interpreted by this Court in 19 -- it does, there's in the statute.\nNow, I brief this point thoroughly in my Randall, Larsen -- Lauritzen against Larsen case.\nThe Jones Act is Section 20 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.\nCertain sections of that Act specifically apply to foreign ships.\nI'm talking primarily about the provision against advances that applies to foreign ships as well as to American ships and so states in the statute.\nThere's another section, the so-called penalty wage statute that specifically applies to foreign vessels.\nThat requires a shipowner to pay half earned wages in an intermediate port and all of the earned wages within four days after arriving from a foreign voyage at the port of destination.\nNow, the history is rather interesting.\nWhen those two sections were originally enacted, I believe it was the Shipping Act of 1916 or maybe a little earlier.\nThey were in general terms such as the Jones Act.\nThe courts construe both those sections in the first instance as not applying either to advances made in a foreign port or to foreign ships.\nAt that point, both sections were amended specifically to apply foreign vessels.\nConsequently, cases like Strathearn against Dillon read that the Congress had the power to apply a statute to foreign vessels but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1020.662, 1027.458, 1035.007, 1039.744, 1045.621, 1056.586, 1062.946, 1077.844, 1079.878, 1086.968, 1091.277, 1103.74, 1111.772], "stop_times": [1027.458, 1035.007, 1039.744, 1045.621, 1056.586, 1062.946, 1077.844, 1079.878, 1086.968, 1091.277, 1103.74, 1111.772, 1123.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.662}, "reply_to": "15514__0_018", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_020", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What was the power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1123.047], "stop_times": [1124.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.047}, "reply_to": "15514__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_021", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "To apply statutes as to pay and as permitting advances to foreign vessels but unless it specifically applies to foreign vessels then they shouldn't be construed so as to apply the foreign vessels and the reason for that is this, other sections of the Shipping Act refer to the rights of any shipowner who call in American consul in a foreign port must submit disputes in a foreign port.\nWell, obviously, you wouldn't expect the British or Japanese or Greek ship to see an American consul in London.\nHe'd go to his own consul if he had trouble.\nSo the statute, the Jones Act has been construed as not applying to foreign crews despite the broadness of the terms and this construction of the Jones Act in the Larsen case of 1953 was followed by the Romero case is 1959 and yet Congress did nothing to amend the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1124.16, 1152.85, 1158.092, 1161.643], "stop_times": [1152.85, 1158.092, 1161.643, 1183.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.16}, "reply_to": "15514__0_020", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_022", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Are you (Voice Overlap) to decisions for this Court or statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1183.584], "stop_times": [1187.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.584}, "reply_to": "15514__0_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_023", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The decision of this Court, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1187.006], "stop_times": [1189.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.006}, "reply_to": "15514__0_022", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_024", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You're not relying on the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1189.552], "stop_times": [1190.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.552}, "reply_to": "15514__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_025", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1190.992], "stop_times": [1191.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.992}, "reply_to": "15514__0_024", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_026", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You're not relying on the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1191.751], "stop_times": [1192.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.751}, "reply_to": "15514__0_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_027", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I'm relying -- I'm relying on the decisions of this Court construing the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1192.498], "stop_times": [1197.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.498}, "reply_to": "15514__0_026", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_028", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, you mean construing, well, that's difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1197.656], "stop_times": [1199.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.656}, "reply_to": "15514__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_029", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1199.658], "stop_times": [1200.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.658}, "reply_to": "15514__0_028", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_030", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You are relying basically on a statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1200.325], "stop_times": [1203.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.325}, "reply_to": "15514__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_031", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, I'm relying basically under the decisions of this Court construing the statute.\nI'm saying that the statute does not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1203.204, 1208.162], "stop_times": [1208.162, 1210.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.204}, "reply_to": "15514__0_030", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_032", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You wouldn't say the construction by this Court was different from the statute, would you?\nYou seem to draw a distinction between the decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1210.238, 1214.458], "stop_times": [1214.458, 1217.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.238}, "reply_to": "15514__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_033", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, I was -- I was afraid you might ask me for the words of the statute I was relying on and there aren't any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1217.484], "stop_times": [1222.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.484}, "reply_to": "15514__0_032", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_034", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I was thinking about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1222.393], "stop_times": [1224.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.393}, "reply_to": "15514__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_035", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "There aren't any words Mr. Justice Black but the words I rely on are the decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1224.858], "stop_times": [1230.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.858}, "reply_to": "15514__0_034", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_036", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Now, you say the Court does have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1230.38], "stop_times": [1233.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.38}, "reply_to": "15514__0_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_037", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1233.613], "stop_times": [1234.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.613}, "reply_to": "15514__0_036", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_038", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Our courts.\nOur courts have jurisdictions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1234.002, 1235.93], "stop_times": [1235.93, 1237.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.002}, "reply_to": "15514__0_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_039", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, no question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1237.732], "stop_times": [1239.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.732}, "reply_to": "15514__0_038", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_040", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And suppose they are tried the case what -- would it be governed by Greek law or by American law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1239.378], "stop_times": [1247.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.378}, "reply_to": "15514__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_041", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It should be governed by Greek law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1247.067], "stop_times": [1249.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.067}, "reply_to": "15514__0_040", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_042", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Altogether?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1249.197], "stop_times": [1250.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.197}, "reply_to": "15514__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_043", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1250.349], "stop_times": [1252.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.349}, "reply_to": "15514__0_042", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_044", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1252.004], "stop_times": [1252.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.004}, "reply_to": "15514__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_045", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Because this is an act of internal management of a Greek ship.\nI think the Court will be better advised to decline jurisdiction.\nMost of our courts in the Second Circuit in the situation like this actually declined jurisdiction on the condition that the shipowner appear in the forum of its native country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1252.834, 1257.708, 1261.215], "stop_times": [1257.708, 1261.215, 1276.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1252.834}, "reply_to": "15514__0_044", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_046", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Suppose the man live here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1276.324], "stop_times": [1282.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.324}, "reply_to": "15514__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_047", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "We have that in O'Neil against Cunard Your Honor where I believe a resident of the United States was injured on a British ship and the Court declined jurisdiction.\nHe was not permitted to sue under the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1282.128, 1297.022], "stop_times": [1297.022, 1299.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.128}, "reply_to": "15514__0_046", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_048", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He's trying to exercise it or said he didn't have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1299.133], "stop_times": [1303.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.133}, "reply_to": "15514__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_049", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "My recollection is that they said the Jones Act did not apply and since the man was insisting in a jury trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1303.488], "stop_times": [1309.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.488}, "reply_to": "15514__0_048", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_050", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Was the complaint in this case based wholly on the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1309.941], "stop_times": [1313.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.941}, "reply_to": "15514__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_051", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, it was not Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1313.193], "stop_times": [1314.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.193}, "reply_to": "15514__0_050", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_052", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What other laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1314.277], "stop_times": [1315.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.277}, "reply_to": "15514__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_053", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "General Maritime Law of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1315.479], "stop_times": [1318.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.479}, "reply_to": "15514__0_052", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_054", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Maritime Law of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1318.481], "stop_times": [1320.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.481}, "reply_to": "15514__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_055", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1320.485], "stop_times": [1322.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.485}, "reply_to": "15514__0_054", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_056", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, that's not based on the statute.\nWell, your -- your prior argument is not based on the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1322.748, 1326.039], "stop_times": [1326.039, 1329.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.748}, "reply_to": "15514__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_057", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "On that point, my argument is based in the committee of nations and the application of the Greek law.\nI say that neither the General Maritime Law of the United States has applied the internal management of the ships nor the Jones Act is applicable.\nThis man's rights should be bound under the Greek law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1329.46, 1334.23, 1343.031], "stop_times": [1334.23, 1343.031, 1345.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1329.46}, "reply_to": "15514__0_056", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_058", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Suppose all the evidence and everything in connection with the case shows that that it was thoroughly inconvenient to find in a way except in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1345.943], "stop_times": [1356.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.943}, "reply_to": "15514__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_059", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, in that case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1356.54], "stop_times": [1356.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.54}, "reply_to": "15514__0_058", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_060", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Don't you have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1356.948], "stop_times": [1358.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.948}, "reply_to": "15514__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_061", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "In that case Your Honor, the Courts have tried the cases.\nThat's the old case I think of Gambera against Bergoty and I believe -- I believe that is a correct decision.\nIf we don't have a convenient forum I agree with Mr. Chief Justice Clark on television on a Sunday, one of the big injustices is delay and if we don't have a convenient forum and the man cannot get a proper decision in one place, he should get it in another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1358.633, 1362.172, 1369.356], "stop_times": [1362.172, 1369.356, 1385.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.633}, "reply_to": "15514__0_060", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_062", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Do you agree then that this case -- this Court might not have or merely have jurisdiction but might have the power to try and probably and could be of should be tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1385.849], "stop_times": [1396.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.849}, "reply_to": "15514__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_063", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I think so but I think it should also apply the Greek law.\nI think they've applied the wrong law.\nThey applied the general maritime law of the United States and the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1396.236, 1399.438, 1402.459], "stop_times": [1399.438, 1402.459, 1406.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.236}, "reply_to": "15514__0_062", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_064", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What injury will it do to the defendant to try a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1406.511], "stop_times": [1414.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.511}, "reply_to": "15514__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_065", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "In this -- our particular case, it does this injury.\nIf that -- if a seaman is repaid greater to Greece under Greek law he gets his remedy right away and he goes ahead and if he goes into the office with a medical certificate, he gets his money and the existence of the suit in this country is not a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1414.873, 1417.893], "stop_times": [1417.893, 1433.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.873}, "reply_to": "15514__0_064", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_066", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "(Voice Overlap) based on the fact that he thinks he made a mistake, he can get a better remedy in Greece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1433.991], "stop_times": [1441.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.991}, "reply_to": "15514__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_067", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "In this case, he very likely could because this remedy in this country is rather small when you consider the seriousness of the injuries and when you consider that he got I believe $6,000.00 in this country and that's all he gets, he can't go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1441.197], "stop_times": [1455.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.197}, "reply_to": "15514__0_066", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_068", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Where is he now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1455.789], "stop_times": [1457.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.789}, "reply_to": "15514__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_069", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He's sailing in big ships out of Greece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1457.336], "stop_times": [1459.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1457.336}, "reply_to": "15514__0_068", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_070", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Out of Greece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1459.35], "stop_times": [1459.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.35}, "reply_to": "15514__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_071", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.\nHe returned to Greece in about a month after the accident.\nHe was repatriated to Greece and at any time after September, I believe, he could have started this action, this proceeding in Greece and in fact he got some money in Greece when he first got there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1459.993, 1460.606, 1465.865], "stop_times": [1460.606, 1465.865, 1477.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.993}, "reply_to": "15514__0_070", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_072", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "If the statute does not provide automatically, if he cannot possibly have a remedy in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1477.717], "stop_times": [1484.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.717}, "reply_to": "15514__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_073", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, he does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1484.276], "stop_times": [1486.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.276}, "reply_to": "15514__0_072", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_074", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, then why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1486.442], "stop_times": [1487.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.442}, "reply_to": "15514__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_075", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, the Greek law is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1487.688], "stop_times": [1488.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.688}, "reply_to": "15514__0_074", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_076", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Why is it a question of discretion in each case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1488.456], "stop_times": [1491.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.456}, "reply_to": "15514__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_077", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, because first of all, you have a question of congestion in the Courts and the second place, the Greek remedy is similar to workman's compensation.\nIt's very similar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1491.045, 1499.116], "stop_times": [1499.116, 1499.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.045}, "reply_to": "15514__0_076", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_078", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Are you arguing that the Greek remedy is better but maybe the man who is hurt doesn't think so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1499.42], "stop_times": [1505.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.42}, "reply_to": "15514__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_079", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I'm arguing that the Greeks think the Greek remedy is better and the Greeks have provided the Greek remedy for Greek seamen somewhat a workman's compensation with punitive damages in the event there's a violation of the safety law or a safety regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1505.053], "stop_times": [1520.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.053}, "reply_to": "15514__0_078", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_080", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But does you adversary agree with you here that it will be better if he's tried to have his case tried in Greece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1520.459], "stop_times": [1526.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.459}, "reply_to": "15514__0_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_081", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I doubt it very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1526.753], "stop_times": [1529.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.753}, "reply_to": "15514__0_080", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_082", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "So you're not -- you're not standing here firm in that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1529.229], "stop_times": [1534.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.229}, "reply_to": "15514__0_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_083", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But I'm saying that he has -- by Greek rights an adequate remedy in Greece as provided for by Greek law and in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, in accordance with Larsen against Lauritzen, in accordance with the Romero case, the correct law to be applied is the Greek law and under the Greek law, he will get --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1534.314], "stop_times": [1560.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1534.314}, "reply_to": "15514__0_082", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_084", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But then sometimes you mean.\nYou don't mean always under all circumstances, I understood you to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1560.698, 1562.363], "stop_times": [1562.363, 1566.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.698}, "reply_to": "15514__0_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_085", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, I believe in circumstances where you have a seaman on -- injured on a ship which is a bona fide foreign flag operator.\nIn other words, the country of the flag has responsibility for the ship that it cruise the ship, it supervises the ship and where there's a forum readily available, then I believe it will be better for these -- our courts that decline jurisdiction and in any event, this decision below --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1566.61, 1578.745], "stop_times": [1578.745, 1599.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1566.61}, "reply_to": "15514__0_084", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_086", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It will be better to decline if it's a matter of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1599.922], "stop_times": [1602.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.922}, "reply_to": "15514__0_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_087", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.\nBut I say this decision is wrong because they did apply United States law not Greek law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1602.568, 1603.038], "stop_times": [1603.038, 1610.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.568}, "reply_to": "15514__0_086", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_088", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Could he have his recovery here and also have recovery under the Greek law?\nIs there any danger of double liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1610.502, 1616.179], "stop_times": [1616.179, 1618.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.502}, "reply_to": "15514__0_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_089", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, there's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1618.858], "stop_times": [1621.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.858}, "reply_to": "15514__0_088", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_090", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You said the existence of a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1621.072], "stop_times": [1623.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.072}, "reply_to": "15514__0_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_091", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Actually there's not too serious a danger.\nThat there's a danger some double liability because I believe he collected $140.00 in Greece before Pireas was advised of the existence of the suit in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1623.416, 1627.368], "stop_times": [1627.368, 1639.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.416}, "reply_to": "15514__0_090", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_092", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And they stopped paying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1639.788], "stop_times": [1641.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.788}, "reply_to": "15514__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_093", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Then they -- then they stopped paying, yes.\nBecause he had -- this is a technical violation of the articles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1641.717, 1643.272], "stop_times": [1643.272, 1647.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1641.717}, "reply_to": "15514__0_092", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_094", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Let's assume that the Jones Act expressly applied to accidents on foreign flag ships sailing in American waters but the parties as in this case contracted out, attempted to contract out, the parties here expressly agreed to the application of Greek law I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1647.654], "stop_times": [1670.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.654}, "reply_to": "15514__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_095", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes they did.\nIf the Jones Act expressly applied to foreign flag vessels sailing in American waters, then a number of sections of the Jones Act specifically invalidate any contractual exemption from the Act.\nThere is a section of the Railway Labor Act which is incorporated in reference by the Jones Act which makes an attempt to avoid the Act by contract invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1670.858, 1673.973, 1688.059], "stop_times": [1673.973, 1688.059, 1697.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1670.858}, "reply_to": "15514__0_094", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_096", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What about contracting out of the application of the General Maritime Law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1697.188], "stop_times": [1703.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.188}, "reply_to": "15514__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_097", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That would be valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1703.645], "stop_times": [1705.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1703.645}, "reply_to": "15514__0_096", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_098", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, that's another basis for your argument I take it that the parties here have agreed to the application of a foreign law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1705.912], "stop_times": [1711.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.912}, "reply_to": "15514__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_099", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's right.\nThat is correct.\nThat is one basis but this principle basis of my argument is this case comes squarely under Larsen -- Lauritzen against Larsen and Romero.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1711.007, 1712.121, 1713.371], "stop_times": [1712.121, 1713.371, 1721.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1711.007}, "reply_to": "15514__0_098", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_100", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But certainly it's fortified by the parties expressed agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1721.562], "stop_times": [1725.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.562}, "reply_to": "15514__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_101", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's right, it is.\nAnd Lauritzen against Larsen so states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1725.648, 1726.769], "stop_times": [1726.769, 1730.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1725.648}, "reply_to": "15514__0_100", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_102", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I understand the part of your argument is based on the fact that this will be better for this man to sue in Greece.\nHow do you explain this suing in this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1730.24, 1737.393], "stop_times": [1737.393, 1739.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.24}, "reply_to": "15514__0_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__0_103", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Because he can get -- he can get more money quicker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1739.821], "stop_times": [1742.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1739.821}, "reply_to": "15514__0_102", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__0_104", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, probably better, would you while I'm here.\nI would think that would be decided then if you have a lawsuit to be able to get more money quicker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1742.881, 1749.133], "stop_times": [1749.133, 1754.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.881}, "reply_to": "15514__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__0_105", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But sometimes if you have an accident like this, this act could flare up later, you can lose in the long run.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1754.289, 1760.985], "stop_times": [1760.985, 1764.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1754.289}, "reply_to": "15514__0_104", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__1_000", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please this honorable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1764.526], "stop_times": [1766.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.526}, "reply_to": "15514__0_105", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_001", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Mr. Stahl.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1766.224], "stop_times": [1767.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1766.224}, "reply_to": "15514__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_002", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMay it please this Honorable Court.\nAccording to this Court in the Lauritzen case, there are two justifications for disregarding the law of the nation of the vessel's foreign flag in order to apply American law in a suit such as this.\nThe first justification is if the flag is merely one of convenience and not bona fide.\nThe other is if there exists some heavy account of weight to even a bona fide foreign flag, we contend in this case that this is -- this Greek flag is a flag merely of convenience by virtue of the following facts which I shall attempt to state as briefly as possible.\nThe ship owner in this case Mr. Callimanopoulos, a Greek citizen concededly and the owner of the petitioner corporations started a shipping business in Greece in 1935.\nThis Greek operation operated from Greece was reduced to absolutely nothing in World War II by sinking an enemy action.\nAt the end of World War II during which incidentally the Greek Government had confiscated his ships for military defense purposes, in 1945 he came to the United States and started over a completely anew in the shipping business such that there was no continuum of Greek operation and Greek flag used.\nHe started over here as if he had never been in any shipping business anywhere else.\nAnd the fact is that now, he has been a domiciliary of this country for 25 years.\nDuring the last 19 of which, he has enjoyed permanent resident alien status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1767.638, 1768.939, 1770.286, 1780.888, 1785.951, 1802.681, 1813.426, 1821.329, 1841.608, 1847.001, 1853.408], "stop_times": [1768.939, 1770.286, 1780.888, 1785.951, 1802.681, 1813.426, 1821.329, 1841.608, 1847.001, 1853.408, 1857.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1767.638}, "reply_to": "15514__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_003", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's the end of (Inaudible), you mean the owner of the ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1857.541], "stop_times": [1860.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.541}, "reply_to": "15514__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_004", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1860.064, 1860.781], "stop_times": [1860.781, 1861.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.064}, "reply_to": "15514__1_003", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_005", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Where was the ship built?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1861.238], "stop_times": [1863.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.238}, "reply_to": "15514__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_006", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Some of them in Japan, some of them in Germany, some of them I believe in this country.\nThe record does not develop that quite extensively although there is an indication that the first five --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1863.491, 1870.154], "stop_times": [1870.154, 1876.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.491}, "reply_to": "15514__1_005", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_007", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Are any of them -- are any of them American built ships?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1876.266], "stop_times": [1879.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.266}, "reply_to": "15514__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_008", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, the very first five ships he bought were American Liberty ships which incidentally he bought from the United States Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1879.617], "stop_times": [1887.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.617}, "reply_to": "15514__1_007", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_009", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I don't think an individual owned those ships.\nThat was a corporation owned 90-95% by this resident of Greenwich, Connecticut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1887.717, 1889.275], "stop_times": [1889.275, 1895.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.717}, "reply_to": "15514__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_010", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That is correct.\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1895.954, 1897.53], "stop_times": [1897.53, 1897.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.954}, "reply_to": "15514__1_009", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_011", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "So an individual doesn't own a ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1897.76], "stop_times": [1900.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.76}, "reply_to": "15514__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_012", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The corporation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1900.527], "stop_times": [1901.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.527}, "reply_to": "15514__1_011", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_013", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "-- owns the ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1901.316], "stop_times": [1901.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.316}, "reply_to": "15514__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_014", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The registered owner is a Panamanian corporation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1901.575], "stop_times": [1904.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.575}, "reply_to": "15514__1_013", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_015", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Hellenic Lines Limited is the owner of the ships, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1904.193], "stop_times": [1907.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.193}, "reply_to": "15514__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_016", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Not the registered owner, no, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1907.193], "stop_times": [1909.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.193}, "reply_to": "15514__1_015", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_017", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Universal Cargo Carriers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1909.271], "stop_times": [1911.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.271}, "reply_to": "15514__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_018", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, it's potentially Universal Cargo Carriers Corporation which is a Panamanian corporation.\nAll the stock in which is owned petitioner Hellenic, 99% of the stock in which is owned by Mr. Pericles Callimanopoulos, 99 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1911.025, 1915.605], "stop_times": [1915.605, 1923.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.025}, "reply_to": "15514__1_017", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_019", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "99 and what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1923.211], "stop_times": [1924.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.211}, "reply_to": "15514__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_020", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Just 99%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1924.512], "stop_times": [1925.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.512}, "reply_to": "15514__1_019", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_021", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He only owns 99%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1925.874], "stop_times": [1927.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.874}, "reply_to": "15514__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_022", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1927.644], "stop_times": [1929.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.644}, "reply_to": "15514__1_021", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_023", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He is a -- he is a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1929.198], "stop_times": [1929.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.198}, "reply_to": "15514__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_024", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What's Panama have to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1929.766], "stop_times": [1932.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.766}, "reply_to": "15514__1_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_025", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Absolutely nothing except that is a symbol of convenience for this man because apparently of its lax shipping laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1932.019], "stop_times": [1938.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.019}, "reply_to": "15514__1_024", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_026", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You have to be an American citizen at organizing corporation, 99% of the stock and what do they do for Panama, what they get from Panama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1938.98], "stop_times": [1949.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.98}, "reply_to": "15514__1_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_027", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He registered the ownership of 19 of 22 of his United States line of service vessels to a Panamanian corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1949.357], "stop_times": [1957.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.357}, "reply_to": "15514__1_026", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_028", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "How long has he been a resident of this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1957.003], "stop_times": [1959.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.003}, "reply_to": "15514__1_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_029", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "25 years and he's been a domiciliary for that long and for the last 19 he has had permanent resident alien status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1959.009], "stop_times": [1966.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.009}, "reply_to": "15514__1_028", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_030", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Who is the owner of this other 1% of the stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1966.692], "stop_times": [1969.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.692}, "reply_to": "15514__1_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_031", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "His son who also lives here, a Mr. Gregory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1969.498], "stop_times": [1972.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.498}, "reply_to": "15514__1_030", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_032", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Where does his son live?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1972.603], "stop_times": [1973.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.603}, "reply_to": "15514__1_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_033", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Also in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1973.976], "stop_times": [1977.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.976}, "reply_to": "15514__1_032", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_034", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He's not an American citizen, is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1977.103], "stop_times": [1978.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.103}, "reply_to": "15514__1_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_035", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I don't believe his son is either although the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1978.892], "stop_times": [1980.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.892}, "reply_to": "15514__1_034", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_036", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Neither one is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1980.896], "stop_times": [1981.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.896}, "reply_to": "15514__1_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_037", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Neither one are American citizens, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1981.774], "stop_times": [1983.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.774}, "reply_to": "15514__1_036", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_038", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "They're both Greek nationals, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1983.222], "stop_times": [1985.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.222}, "reply_to": "15514__1_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_039", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I would not call them nationals.\nI would call them nominal citizens Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1985.977, 1987.448], "stop_times": [1987.448, 1991.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.977}, "reply_to": "15514__1_038", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_040", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, where did they get a passport if they want to travel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1991.135], "stop_times": [1995.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.135}, "reply_to": "15514__1_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_041", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, I'm not familiar with the regulations for foreign travel, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1995.908], "stop_times": [1999.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.908}, "reply_to": "15514__1_040", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_042", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But they are Greek nationals who were domiciled in the United States.\nThat's the factual and legal situation, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [1999.752, 2003.111], "stop_times": [2003.111, 2006.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.752}, "reply_to": "15514__1_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_043", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, it is but I argue that the domicile in the United States in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2006.121], "stop_times": [2011.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.121}, "reply_to": "15514__1_042", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_044", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, you may argue the significance of the domicile but that doesn't change the fact that he's a Greek national.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2011.812], "stop_times": [2017.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.812}, "reply_to": "15514__1_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_045", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI'm sorry, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2017.649, 2018.142], "stop_times": [2018.142, 2018.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.649}, "reply_to": "15514__1_044", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_046", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He's a Greek national who chooses to live in this country with his family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2018.785], "stop_times": [2023.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.785}, "reply_to": "15514__1_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_047", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nContinuing on factually, he finances his entire operation with money borrowed from New York banks and always has.\nThe claims manager of petitioner, Hellenic, is the United States citizen in domiciliary.\nIts treasurer who collects freight rates charged all over the world is a United States citizen domiciliary and one of its directors is the United States citizen in domiciliary.\nHis ships are operated from the United States in five regular line of services.\nThat is the operating instructions emanate from offices in New York City.\nAll the voyages of which line of services originate and terminate the United States with all cargos thereon originating and terminating in the United States ports.\nHe is charging freight rates fixed by United States line of conference systems of which his corporations are members.\nHe handles virtually no trade with the nation from which he came, Greece, but trades actively with 15 other nations.\nHe owns his docks in New York.\nHe employs regularly in this country approximately 215 people and employs only at most a total 75 in Greece but more significant and I'm getting at what I think establishes the broad of the connection with the United States.\nIt is the policy of his company that all cargos including European cargos are solicited only by his New York office even in situations were the Greek office learns of their movement first in Greece, they are required by the rules of the company to relay this information to petitioners U.S. office so that the latter, not the Greek office, may solicit such cargo and most significant, getting to this Panamanian corporation.\nIn 1956, Mr. Callimanopoulos registered the ownership of most of his U.S. line of service vessels to two Panamanian corporations created by him especially for this purpose, Trans Pacific Cargo Carriers, Inc. and petitioner, Universal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2023.297, 2025.841, 2036.313, 2040.626, 2050.19, 2054.716, 2058.871, 2067.027, 2073.61, 2080.547, 2083.02, 2098.614, 2125.735], "stop_times": [2025.841, 2036.313, 2040.626, 2050.19, 2054.716, 2058.871, 2067.027, 2073.61, 2080.547, 2083.02, 2098.614, 2125.735, 2143.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.297}, "reply_to": "15514__1_046", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_048", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Supposing this accident had occurred in a foreign port, and would it be your view that they're subject to getting a personal jurisdiction or in rem jurisdiction in the United States, this action could have been brought under the Jones Act here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2143.486], "stop_times": [2161.611], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.486}, "reply_to": "15514__1_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_049", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Your Honor, Mr. Justice Harlan, I think that that inquiry emphasizes the importance of the place of the wrongful act and I would have to say that because of the overwhelming preponderance of his contacts with the United States.\nIf the seamen were able to perfect his suit by process in the United States even for an injury in a foreign port, the Jones Act would be applicable.\nI think that the seven factors emphasized by Lauritzen when weighed here under these circumstances even changing the place of the wrongful act would indicate that the Jones Act would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2161.611, 2176.511, 2186.607], "stop_times": [2176.511, 2186.607, 2201.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.611}, "reply_to": "15514__1_048", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_050", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What are his contacts with the Greek Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2201.342], "stop_times": [2204.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.342}, "reply_to": "15514__1_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_051", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "To my way of thinking, the only contacts are really convenient economic one.\nHe buys the flags that he flies on his ships.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2204.587, 2208.962], "stop_times": [2208.962, 2212.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.587}, "reply_to": "15514__1_050", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_052", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He buys what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2212.103], "stop_times": [2212.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.103}, "reply_to": "15514__1_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_053", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The flags that he flies on his vessels in Greece and he hires his crews in Greece.\nNow, he is obliged by Greek law to deduct from the wages he pays his seamen certain money for taxes which he pays in Greece and before the Suez Canal closed, some of the vessels he operated exclusively between Europe and Turkey were repaired in Greece but none of these U.S. line of service vessels to which the Jones Act was applied in this case.\nThose are his only contacts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2212.841, 2220.372, 2244.953], "stop_times": [2220.372, 2244.953, 2246.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.841}, "reply_to": "15514__1_052", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_054", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What are his contacts with Panama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2246.338], "stop_times": [2250.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.338}, "reply_to": "15514__1_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_055", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Nothing but a paper corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2250.865], "stop_times": [2253.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.865}, "reply_to": "15514__1_054", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_056", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You mean there's no corporation that was organized in Panama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2253.357], "stop_times": [2256.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.357}, "reply_to": "15514__1_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_057", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It was really organized in New York City and some papers were mailed to Panama according to a routine that they have for establishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2256.1], "stop_times": [2263.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.1}, "reply_to": "15514__1_056", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_058", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Panamanian corporation owned by the man 99%, his son, the other 1%, it does -- didn't premier in Greece, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2263.401], "stop_times": [2274.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.401}, "reply_to": "15514__1_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_059", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No he doesn't do any significant -- he does practically no shipping of cargo to Greece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2274.804], "stop_times": [2280.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.804}, "reply_to": "15514__1_058", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_060", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But what does he do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2280.742], "stop_times": [2281.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.742}, "reply_to": "15514__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_061", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He ships cargos between the United States and 15 other nations besides Greece, India, Pakistan and Burma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2281.927], "stop_times": [2287.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.927}, "reply_to": "15514__1_060", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_062", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He doesn't ship any from Greece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2287.31], "stop_times": [2289.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.31}, "reply_to": "15514__1_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_063", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He testified himself and so did his claims management only occasionally do they handle cargo to and from Greece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2289.6], "stop_times": [2296.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.6}, "reply_to": "15514__1_062", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_064", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But he has nice paper relationship with Greece, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2296.779], "stop_times": [2300.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.779}, "reply_to": "15514__1_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_065", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I feel that that's all he has with Greece, Your Honor, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2300.16], "stop_times": [2305.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.16}, "reply_to": "15514__1_064", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_066", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Was there any American, a workman or a citizen, or an American contact involved in the occurrence of this accident?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2305.521], "stop_times": [2318.262], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.521}, "reply_to": "15514__1_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_067", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The only contact with American workman that could have been had and this was developed by counsel for petitioners when the deposition of the respondent was taken was that the ship was in tow by an American tug but there was never any attempt either on the part of my side of the case or that of my opponents to show that he tug was responsible for the parting of the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2318.262], "stop_times": [2341.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.262}, "reply_to": "15514__1_066", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_068", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What -- what public policy would you bring to bear in your view that enacted the Jones Act that there was an American interest did you say in the circumstances of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2341.538], "stop_times": [2357.37], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.538}, "reply_to": "15514__1_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_069", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Absolutely none Your Honor but I don't think that this Court need justify its affirmation of the Fifth Circuit in this case on those kinds of considerations.\nThe considerations that I have urged for an affirmance are technical legal ones based on the rules laid down by this Court in the Lauritzen amici curiae who have taken my side of this case have argued that it would help to equalize competition between American and foreign shipping if the Jones Act were applied to foreign operators that come in to our ports.\nBut Mr. Justice Jackson in the Lauritzen case indicated that the argument of that type was misaddressed to this Court and it should have been taken over that at Congress and if it was in the interest of the United States, it was not for this Court to legislate it but for Congress to do so and I don't think that that is necessary to justify an affirmation of the Fifth Circuit's decision in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2357.37, 2366.291, 2389.864], "stop_times": [2366.291, 2389.864, 2412.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.37}, "reply_to": "15514__1_068", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_070", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It would equalize competition if this Court did order all foreign flag ships to pay the same rates of pay for their seamen as we do, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2412.044], "stop_times": [2422.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.044}, "reply_to": "15514__1_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_071", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2422.685], "stop_times": [2423.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.685}, "reply_to": "15514__1_070", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_072", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But we haven't any power to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2423.348], "stop_times": [2425.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.348}, "reply_to": "15514__1_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_073", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I don't think you do but I don't think that that's fatal to my cause here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2425.178], "stop_times": [2429.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.178}, "reply_to": "15514__1_072", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_074", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Mr. Stahl, what about the union contract that applies Greek law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2429.44], "stop_times": [2435.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.44}, "reply_to": "15514__1_073", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__1_075", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "First, let me say that the Larsen -- this court in the Lauritzen case specifically ruled out the law provided for by the contract and they in fact that that could determine or even effect the application of the Jones Act.\nMany readers of the decision have been mislead into thinking so but what the case actually says is that the place of the contract while it has some weak significance, the law of the contract has none and this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2435.885, 2448.978], "stop_times": [2448.978, 2462.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.885}, "reply_to": "15514__1_074", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_076", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's not my understanding of Mr. Estabrook's argument.\nHis argument is that once the Court took jurisdiction, it was bound by the Greek law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2462.393, 2465.098], "stop_times": [2465.098, 2472.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.393}, "reply_to": "15514__1_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__1_077", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2472.333], "stop_times": [2472.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.333}, "reply_to": "15514__1_076", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_078", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's his point.\nCan you give me your answer to that specific point?\nOnce the court takes jurisdiction, it should apply the Greek law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2472.797, 2474.752, 2478.27], "stop_times": [2474.752, 2478.27, 2483.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.797}, "reply_to": "15514__1_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__1_079", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Our argument is that what law applies is the question, the answer to which must be arrived at through the course of testing the seven factors enunciated in Lauritzen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2483.291], "stop_times": [2493.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.291}, "reply_to": "15514__1_078", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_080", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Why do you -- why do you set aside the special agreements would apply to Greek because of the provisions of your Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2493.869], "stop_times": [2500.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.869}, "reply_to": "15514__1_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_081", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, I will explain that fully.\nWell, that's part of it, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2500.195, 2502.255], "stop_times": [2502.255, 2503.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.195}, "reply_to": "15514__1_080", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_082", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I thought that's Mr. Justice Marshall's question.\nHow do you get around the agreement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2503.235, 2505.351], "stop_times": [2505.351, 2507.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.235}, "reply_to": "15514__1_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_083", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's part of it, yes.\nThe Jones Act of course itself says that any contract rule regulation or device whatsoever the purpose intended which shall be to abrogate the common carriers' liability with this chapter to that extent shall be void and this Court in Lauritzen recognized and the specific language was but we think another result would follow if the contract attempted to avoid applicable law.\nNow, the significance of that can only be that something besides the contract was determined in the first place, what law is applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2507.273, 2508.376, 2531.617], "stop_times": [2508.376, 2531.617, 2539.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.273}, "reply_to": "15514__1_082", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_084", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, I know but absent such provision of contract, maybe you could -- maybe you could inquire the general principles on what will happen out there once that discloses the agreement sometimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2539.952], "stop_times": [2556.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.952}, "reply_to": "15514__1_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_085", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Lauritzen does.\nIt says, you must find the answer through the seven factors that this Court listed and once that determination is reached, the contract cannot shake it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2556.286, 2557.198], "stop_times": [2557.198, 2567.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.286}, "reply_to": "15514__1_084", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_086", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What about, did you sue here under the General Maritime Law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2567.458], "stop_times": [2571.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2567.458}, "reply_to": "15514__1_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_087", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "We did, Your Honor, and that's -- well, that is an alternative argument of mine that even if Your Honors don't apply the Jones Act, the District Court was well within its discretion to take jurisdiction and apply our law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2571.211], "stop_times": [2586.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.211}, "reply_to": "15514__1_086", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_088", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What about the agreement of the parties -- that is the Greek law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2586.586], "stop_times": [2591.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.586}, "reply_to": "15514__1_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_089", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.\nI'm glad Your Honor asked me that because I do have a succinct answer to it.\nIt has been held in general maritime law cases which I've cited in my brief, notably the Blanco versus Phoenix Compania De Navegacion, S.A. out of the Fourth Circuit that two things must concur when a seaman signs a restrictive provision in employment contract.\nThe first is that regardless of his literacy well-known, the restrictive provision be explained to him and the second is that he be paid extra compensation for his agreement so restrict his rights.\nThe evidence in this case indicated that neither was the provision explained to him.\nHe was completely unaware of its existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2591.386, 2591.676, 2595.642, 2613.805, 2628.412, 2632.563], "stop_times": [2591.676, 2595.642, 2613.805, 2628.412, 2632.563, 2634.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.386}, "reply_to": "15514__1_088", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_090", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It doesn't matter to the lower courts whether it was decided to the lower court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2634.132], "stop_times": [2641.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.132}, "reply_to": "15514__1_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_091", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, they are in evidence and they sustained the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2641.701], "stop_times": [2644.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.701}, "reply_to": "15514__1_090", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_092", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You would sustain (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2644.673], "stop_times": [2649.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.673}, "reply_to": "15514__1_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_093", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I don't know if Your Honor would see fit to it.\nBut they are in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2649.547, 2653.234], "stop_times": [2653.234, 2654.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.547}, "reply_to": "15514__1_092", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_094", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's your only answer though of the General maritime Law that yes you would by the agreement parties, in those conditions (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2654.822], "stop_times": [2668.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.822}, "reply_to": "15514__1_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_095", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I would say that not as the between respondent and petitioner Universal.\nPetitioner Universal is a Panamanian corporation and a contract between a Greek citizen and a Panamanian corporation for the application of Greek law, I don't think would be entitled to any greater weight because there's no exclusive ruling out of the contract in the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2668.162, 2672.469], "stop_times": [2672.469, 2694.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.162}, "reply_to": "15514__1_094", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_096", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What is the general rule as part of the contract with respect to a particular body of law who may know that they're going to be operating within the area of several nations involved?\nCan they pick one up and one who (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2694.44, 2709.436], "stop_times": [2709.436, 2714.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.44}, "reply_to": "15514__1_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__1_097", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "This Court said in the Lauritzen case that in contract matters, in a suit for breach of contract for specific performance, then they would be bound by the law chosen in the contract but the Court pointed to the obvious that a Jones Act suit is for tort and such a contract cannot control what law applies in a tort case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2714.464], "stop_times": [2738.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.464}, "reply_to": "15514__1_096", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_098", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Was there any finding in the courts below that the registering of new ship is simply one that provides convenience?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2738.161], "stop_times": [2746.489], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.161}, "reply_to": "15514__1_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_099", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, that was in effect the decision of the Fifth Circuit and of the District Court but I'm not certain in what sense -- I am arguing that this is a flag of convenience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2746.489], "stop_times": [2760.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.489}, "reply_to": "15514__1_098", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_100", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "As I know it, you're arguing about some other states, are there any findings of fact that support that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2760.724], "stop_times": [2770.112], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.724}, "reply_to": "15514__1_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_101", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Specifically, I don't recall that language in the District Court but I do in the Fifth Circuit's opinion.\nThat was their exact language but let me say this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2770.112, 2774.879], "stop_times": [2774.879, 2778.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.112}, "reply_to": "15514__1_100", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_102", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Then what is the theory that causes this to be called a Greek ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2778.627], "stop_times": [2782.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.627}, "reply_to": "15514__1_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_103", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I beg your pardon, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2782.935], "stop_times": [2784.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.935}, "reply_to": "15514__1_102", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_104", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "On what theory was this called a Greek ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2784.26], "stop_times": [2787.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.26}, "reply_to": "15514__1_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_105", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Merely because of the flag which it flies, it has a Greek flag.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2787.294], "stop_times": [2793.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.294}, "reply_to": "15514__1_104", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_106", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, it could fly a Panamanian flag, couldn't it, I guess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2793.846], "stop_times": [2798.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.846}, "reply_to": "15514__1_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_107", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "If the owner saw fit to purchase a flag in Panama, I'm sure he could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2798.288], "stop_times": [2804.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.288}, "reply_to": "15514__1_106", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_108", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, do you rule out the significance that the owner of the -- the owners of the stock are Greek nationals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2804.309], "stop_times": [2814.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.309}, "reply_to": "15514__1_107", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_109", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2814.415], "stop_times": [2815.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.415}, "reply_to": "15514__1_108", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_110", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And say that has no significance at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2815.03], "stop_times": [2817.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.03}, "reply_to": "15514__1_109", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_111", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I would not only say that but I would say that if these were American citizens that that has no significance at all.\nWhen you're dealing with the question of the national allegiance of a corporation, which is what we're dealing with here, and the law to which its subject, the U.S. citizenship of its stockholders could not render American law applicable to it.\nIf this was so, American citizens would have the power to taint and stigmatized bona fide foreign enterprises by buying their stock and thereby subjecting them to more stringent American laws.\nAnd when it comes to a corporation, it's my understanding of a basic corporation law that presence of principal actors and parties in a forum state of the corporation and conduct in the forum of the corporation's principal business including all managerial and operational functions far outweighs the naked fact that the incorporation elsewhere as far as determining that the law of the forum is applicable to such a corporation and this has been the decision of many of our district in the circuit courts in cases specifically involving the application of the Jones Act of foreign registered corporations.\nWhat they have looked to is not the citizenship of the stockholders but to the place where the corporation makes its money.\nAny other result would result in chaos.\nIf corporations were held subject to the laws of the place where they paid dividends to their stockholders or to the law of the place where they borrowed the money to finance their operations, this would indeed result in chaos and do more to blight international commerce in the application of the Jones Act to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2817.82, 2824.461, 2838.163, 2852.838, 2887.939, 2894.255, 2896.608], "stop_times": [2824.461, 2838.163, 2852.838, 2887.939, 2894.255, 2896.608, 2913.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.82}, "reply_to": "15514__1_110", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_112", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But when you're dealing with a company that ships in and out of 15 nations, you can hardly say it makes its money in any one of those places, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2913.915], "stop_times": [2924.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.915}, "reply_to": "15514__1_111", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_113", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, I would say that if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2924.862], "stop_times": [2926.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.862}, "reply_to": "15514__1_112", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_114", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It makes its money on the high seas, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2926.219], "stop_times": [2929.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.219}, "reply_to": "15514__1_113", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_115", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, that is of course a legitimate invalid way of looking at it but the money is paid in New York City, that's where the checks or the credits are forwarded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2929.374], "stop_times": [2939.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2929.374}, "reply_to": "15514__1_114", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_116", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, suppose he had arranged then to meet your point to have all of his payment, all payments made through a bank in Zurich, Switzerland, would that undermine your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2939.934], "stop_times": [2951.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2939.934}, "reply_to": "15514__1_115", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_117", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, I would clarify it in order to maintain and say that it is the base of operation or the commercial domicile.\nThe place where the corporation carries on its principal business and when I said the place where it makes money, I meant the place where it does what it has to do to make the money.\nHe's running ships from New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2951.419, 2958.723, 2968.641], "stop_times": [2958.723, 2968.641, 2972.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.419}, "reply_to": "15514__1_116", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_118", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Does the record show how many of these liberty ships he had bought from the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2972.18], "stop_times": [2976.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.18}, "reply_to": "15514__1_117", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_119", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He started off buying five but then apparently he is a very intelligent operator and he made enough money to build up to a fleet of what now totals approximately 40 ships which has been built all over the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2976.696], "stop_times": [2991.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.696}, "reply_to": "15514__1_118", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_120", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Now, suppose this gentleman had determined instead of organizing a corporation on paper somewhere in Panama or I believe anywhere around the world, just to run it himself like he's actually doing with his son, what would have been the law of the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [2991.654], "stop_times": [3008.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.654}, "reply_to": "15514__1_119", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_121", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It would depend on the place from which he run it to my way of thinking.\nIt would depend -- if we are to look at the corporations and ask -- in other words, if we only look at this corporate fa\u00e7ade and ask what is the allegiance of this corporations, I would say it is the place where the corporations do their business but if on the other hand, we are to look at the individual, I think we should do what this Court did in the Lauritzen case and that is look to the national allegiance of this individual shipowner and I've cited a body of law of what I think is impressive universality and maturity going back 150 years according to which in the eyes of the law of nations, a man's national allegiance is deemed to be to that nation where he has his domicile because domicile is prima facie evidence of national character susceptible of course at all times to explanations.\nIf it be for a special purpose and transient in its nature then it does not derogate from or destroy the prior or original national character but if it be taken up with the intention of remaining as here, then it substitutes for the original or prior national character, the disabilities and penalties as well as the privileges and immunities of the United States citizen.\nYour Honor, Mr. Justice Black, held that in the case of Kwong Hai Chew versus Colding in which the Justice Department attempted to deport without a hearing a resident alien and he claimed that the constitutional privileges were available to him.\nI see if I may so that the Honorable Mr. Davis here represented the Government in that case and Your Honor held that even though Congress had never said it, and the constitutional convention didn't put it in the Constitution, Your Honor held that the constitutional protections were available to resident aliens and these cases which I've cited, have held further resident aliens are subject to our draft laws.\nThey must pair all their lives for the honor of this country's defense even though they are not citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3008.411, 3012.584, 3059.868, 3083.474, 3097.87, 3121.664], "stop_times": [3012.584, 3059.868, 3083.474, 3097.87, 3121.664, 3125.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.411}, "reply_to": "15514__1_120", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_122", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I take it there is no legislative history for purpose of the Jones Act pointing either directions for coverage of the Jones Act in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3125.901], "stop_times": [3135.744], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.901}, "reply_to": "15514__1_121", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_123", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "There is none in the legislative history.\nI would like to emphasize --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3135.744, 3137.915], "stop_times": [3137.915, 3138.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.744}, "reply_to": "15514__1_122", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_124", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Were there any bills have been introduced in the Congress that follows Lauritzen or Romero?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3138.918], "stop_times": [3145.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.918}, "reply_to": "15514__1_123", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_125", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No there were not.\nLet me say this.\nThough I think there's a good reason based on language of Mr. Justice Jackson in the Lauritzen case, he pointed that the laws of this -- the shipping laws of this country which are contained in Title 46 are many and of those very few are specific in their language, in their application either to American or foreign shipping operations and this is what he said about that.\nHe said many give no evidence that Congress addressed itself to their foreign application and are in general terms which leave their application to be judicially determined from context and circumstance.\nHe decided that where Congress has been silent, while it is not -- the courts not only made but they must speak on what they mean and then specifically with reference to the Jones Act, he said Congress could not have been unaware of the necessity of construction imposed upon courts by such generality of language and was well warned but in the absence of the more definite directions than are contained in the Jones Act, it would be applied by the courts two foreign advanced ships and foreign seamen in accordance with the usual doctrine and practices of maritime law.\nSo apparently Congress has felt that the courts must and are able to determine in each case whether they are sufficient contacts of the United States as weighed by the seven factors to Lauritzen test to warrant or justify the application to foreign transactions or not.\nSo that in effect, it has not been necessary for Congress to legislate on that.\nI think it would even be dangerous for Congress to legislate on that because these shipping operators -- the national symbols for which they surround themselves are but part and parcel of the paraphernalia that's dictated by the exigencies and convenience of their economics and commerce and the scrambled types of transactions at which we have a wonderful example here are just typical.\nAnd it would be very difficult for Congress to comprehend in one act something that would slice the line between a bona fide foreign operator like Mr. Jay Lauritzen of Denmark who has always incidentally been a Danish domiciliary and an operator like Mr. Pericles Callimanopoulos who is enjoying the privileges and the immunities as American citizen by living here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3145.095, 3145.941, 3146.778, 3170.015, 3184.296, 3217.903, 3237.966, 3242.657, 3264.222], "stop_times": [3145.941, 3146.778, 3170.015, 3184.296, 3217.903, 3237.966, 3242.657, 3264.222, 3292.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.095}, "reply_to": "15514__1_124", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_126", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Do you have any statistics on the number of ships bought from the American Government on five terms that operate under Panamanian registry although they do all their business practices in this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3292.921], "stop_times": [3308.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.921}, "reply_to": "15514__1_125", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__1_127", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I do not Your Honor and they are certainly would not make a matter of proof in this case.\nLet me if I may dwell upon the Tsakonites decision as Your Honors I believe have been made aware, this case comes to you on a conflict between the circuits that Tsakonites court decided on identical facts that the Jones Act did not apply.\nIncidentally, with regard to what I contend as a flag of convenience here, I would be the first to say that if Mr. Callimanopoulos had just recently come over here, -- if he had just recently come here and then only temporarily to get started, a United States office is merely a small branch to a Greek office and they were a continued and uninterrupted use of Greek flags as part of a principal business in Greece which is not the case and even Your Honor would say that the Court of the United States would be stretching matters rather far to brand his flags as flags of convenience but whereas here, there's an overwhelming preponderance of contacts with the United States as I've outlined and corporate registry in Panama, it is obvious that what this man is doing is dictated by convenience.\nAnd if the Court is prepared to say that even under these circumstances, such a flag is a bona fide flag, then I would conclude that the United States has become a fair game to a certain extent for economic parasites to entrust themselves like binnacles in the whole of our maritime commerce.\nBut getting to Tsakonites, in Tsakonites, the basis of the decision was, I beg your pardon, let me say that no case has really set forth guidelines as to what determines whether a flag is one of convenience or not.\nOur courts have had no difficulty for instance in saying that where American citizens domiciled here and operating ships from here, have gone shopping abroad in a foreign marketplace of flags and gotten a foreign flag, and such a flag is obviously not a good faith flag and on the other hand, where it is foreign citizens with a bona fide foreign operation and the foreign flag of the same nation, then that is obviously a bona fide flag.\nBut these facts are in between and I would think that the Court would be doing a service at least to the Circuit Courts Of Appeal to tell us what is the flag of convenience so that never again shall two circuit Courts Of Appeal look at identical facts and come up with opposite conclusions as the Fifth and the Second have done here.\nNow, this was the reason for the Second Circuit's decision in Tsakonites.\nIt was the law of the contract.\nThey conceded their own confusion as a result of the facts.\nThey said, \"We must concede that these -- this constellation of facts\" and I'm only paraphrasing, \"presents a combination never before seen in any other case and they took the easy but the wrong way out and decided the case on the law of the contract which as I believe has been well dealt with cannot wag the dog, that's only the tail and the act of the law must be determined on the basis of the seven Lauritzen factors.\nI believe I have also indicated that it is not necessary for Your Honors to decide that this flag is one of convenience in order to uphold the Fifth Circuit even if it is a bona fide flag in accordance with Lauritzen, there exists to it that heavy counterweight of the domicile and national allegiance of the shipowner.\nMay I have an alternative argument that the General Maritime Law would be applicable here as not being repugnant to the law of Greece under two theories.\nTwo cases which I have not cited in my brief, one from this Court, the Scotland and the other Heredia versus Davies held that in matters of this type where foreign law is not proved, it may be presumed to be the same as the law of the United States.\nThat being the case, then there is nothing repugnant to the law of Greece in applying the General Maritime Law of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3308.942, 3316.1, 3335.177, 3388.197, 3405.071, 3421.021, 3448.043, 3466.803, 3470.244, 3471.868, 3475.33, 3503.321, 3525.132, 3537.417, 3549.743], "stop_times": [3316.1, 3335.177, 3388.197, 3405.071, 3421.021, 3448.043, 3466.803, 3470.244, 3471.868, 3475.33, 3503.321, 3525.132, 3537.417, 3549.743, 3558.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3308.942}, "reply_to": "15514__1_126", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_128", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What was the amount of the judgment that (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3558.02], "stop_times": [3561.422], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3558.02}, "reply_to": "15514__1_127", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_129", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "$6,000.00 and I'd like to say that this is about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3561.422], "stop_times": [3564.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3561.422}, "reply_to": "15514__1_128", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_130", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Do you know what he would get under Greek law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3564.498], "stop_times": [3568.689], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3564.498}, "reply_to": "15514__1_129", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_131", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Approximately one-thirtieth of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3568.689], "stop_times": [3571.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3568.689}, "reply_to": "15514__1_130", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_132", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "One-thirteenth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3571.54], "stop_times": [3572.391], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3571.54}, "reply_to": "15514__1_131", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_133", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "One thirtieth.\nThere was a testimony in the District Court.\nI beg your pardon, he would have been able to get 4800 drachmas, I think it was and that's divided by 30, it's a $160.00 which they did pay him and incidentally that payment was made to my client after the petitioners were on notice that he was represented by counsel.\nThis was an attempt to label money as part of a foreign remedy in order to try to determine applicable law.\nIt was a payment made to a known represented claimant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3572.391, 3573.3, 3578.376, 3595.802, 3602.402], "stop_times": [3573.3, 3578.376, 3595.802, 3602.402, 3606.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3572.391}, "reply_to": "15514__1_132", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_134", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He was rehabilitated.\nI mean repatriated to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3606.529, 3607.875], "stop_times": [3607.875, 3610.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3606.529}, "reply_to": "15514__1_133", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_135", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, he was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3610.022], "stop_times": [3610.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3610.022}, "reply_to": "15514__1_134", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_136", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "-- Greece at the expense of the shipowner wasn't he, or ship operator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3610.516], "stop_times": [3613.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3610.516}, "reply_to": "15514__1_135", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_137", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That is correct.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3613.3, 3614.252], "stop_times": [3614.252, 3614.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3613.3}, "reply_to": "15514__1_136", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_138", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And how about medical care?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3614.833], "stop_times": [3617.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3614.833}, "reply_to": "15514__1_137", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_139", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He received most of that in Greece although he was hospitalized for approximately two weeks in the United States but that is a factor which if I may say has never been given any weight by any court.\nWell, I understand.\nI just asked.\nWhat were -- what were the nature and extent of his injuries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3617.57, 3626.105, 3626.967, 3628.434], "stop_times": [3626.105, 3626.967, 3628.434, 3632.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3617.57}, "reply_to": "15514__1_138", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_140", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "His injuries were merely two puncture fractures of the small bone or fibula of his lower leg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3632.052], "stop_times": [3639.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3632.052}, "reply_to": "15514__1_139", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_141", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "When I say puncture fractures, it was made by broken chain lengths, so there were two prongs and they're just punctured about half an inch deep and just made some chunky fractures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3639.251], "stop_times": [3648.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3639.251}, "reply_to": "15514__1_140", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_142", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Is that a line part or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3648.622], "stop_times": [3651.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3648.622}, "reply_to": "15514__1_141", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_143", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3651.487], "stop_times": [3652.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3651.487}, "reply_to": "15514__1_142", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_144", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "A line part, is that what you call that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3652.087], "stop_times": [3653.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3652.087}, "reply_to": "15514__1_143", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15514__1_145", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3653.78], "stop_times": [3656.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3653.78}, "reply_to": "15514__1_144", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_146", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I notice in the Lauritzen versus Larsen case, the last footnote is 29, that's for the judgment does it, may I just quote, \"cases such as that now in judgment be administered to public law of nations and are not at liberty to inquire what is for the particular advantage or disadvantage of our own or another country.\"\nDo you know what the law of nations would require you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3656.912, 3682.646], "stop_times": [3682.646, 3686.07], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3656.912}, "reply_to": "15514__1_145", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_147", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well a law --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3686.07], "stop_times": [3686.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3686.07}, "reply_to": "15514__1_146", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_148", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And where would we find this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3686.61], "stop_times": [3688.504], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3686.61}, "reply_to": "15514__1_147", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15514__1_149", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "A long time ago, this Court, I believe in the Osceola decided that the maritime law of nations at least as far as it applies to seamen is that they have a right of action for damages for unseaworthiness but since that time, the General Maritime Law has come to be viewed as the General Maritime Law of the United States as distinguished from whatever the international maritime law and the law of nations is.\nBut I think that that quotation taken in connection with his dispensing or giving short shrift to the argument that the interest of the seamen in that case were the interest of the United States because if he were granted recovery, it would equalize competition, this was I believe Mr. Justice Jackson's way of saying that we cannot consider the interest of the United States in this kind of a contact -- context in order to oust some applicable law of another foreign nation, of a foreign nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3688.504, 3712.911], "stop_times": [3712.911, 3748.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3688.504}, "reply_to": "15514__1_148", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_150", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stahl.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3748.521], "stop_times": [3749.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3748.521}, "reply_to": "15514__1_149", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__1_151", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3749.476], "stop_times": [3750.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3749.476}, "reply_to": "15514__1_150", "speaker": "joseph_b_stahl"}
{"id": "15514__1_152", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Mr. Estabrook.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3750.489], "stop_times": [3750.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3750.489}, "reply_to": "15514__1_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__2_000", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I think I have a couple of minutes, Your Honor.\nI would just like to point out none of the courts below considered at all the number of Greek seamen on these ships.\nThere are over 1100 seamen to back up our point that this is a bona fide Greek operation.\nWe also have another resting opinion from Judge Hoffman in Virginia which is the next to the supplemental brief which he goes in great detail to the point raised by Mr. Justice White on the application of the contract restrictions to determine the law to be applied and finally, we have the fact that Mr. Callimanopoulos, he may be a binnacle, but he's a fair paying binnacle.\nAs a domiciliary, he is required to pay income taxes here and he isn't trying to avoid any of his American obligations.\nHe has obligations to America, and to Greece and as far as his allegiance to Greece is concerned, he is a citizen of Greece and the Larsen case definitely stated, it was the allegiance of the shipowner that should be considered as one of the primary points.\nHis allegiance was to Greece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3750.805, 3752.99, 3762.596, 3769.103, 3796.42, 3805.58, 3823.456], "stop_times": [3752.99, 3762.596, 3769.103, 3796.42, 3805.58, 3823.456, 3825.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3750.805}, "reply_to": "15514__1_152", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_001", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Mr. Estabrook, are they part of the reason for the large number of Greek seaman be the factor that there are cheaper labor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3825.033], "stop_times": [3833.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3825.033}, "reply_to": "15514__2_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_002", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "One -- one of the points, things Your Honor, there are over 100,000 Greek seamen and one of the largest groups of seamen in the world and I think the principal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3833.399], "stop_times": [3841.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3833.399}, "reply_to": "15514__2_001", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_003", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Well, is the standard wages for Greek seamen equal to that of the United States, the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3841.487], "stop_times": [3848.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3841.487}, "reply_to": "15514__2_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_004", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Of course not.\nIt is higher though than say Spanish seamen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3848.948, 3849.822], "stop_times": [3849.822, 3852.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3848.948}, "reply_to": "15514__2_003", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_005", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But we're dealing with the United States here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3852.787], "stop_times": [3855.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3852.787}, "reply_to": "15514__2_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_006", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It is lower and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3855.629], "stop_times": [3858.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3855.629}, "reply_to": "15514__2_005", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_007", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Does he pay taxes in Greece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3858.276], "stop_times": [3860.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3858.276}, "reply_to": "15514__2_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_008", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, he does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3860.29], "stop_times": [3862.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3860.29}, "reply_to": "15514__2_007", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_009", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And does he pay on these insurance policies over there, working compensation clauses, or do the seamen pay that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3862.071], "stop_times": [3870.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3862.071}, "reply_to": "15514__2_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_010", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He pays on -- he pays that there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3870.883], "stop_times": [3873.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3870.883}, "reply_to": "15514__2_009", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_011", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I thought you said the seamen pay them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3873.055], "stop_times": [3875.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3873.055}, "reply_to": "15514__2_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_012", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "The seamen -- no, the seamen contribute and he contributes to a seaman's pension fund, NAT, N-A-T.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3875.237], "stop_times": [3884.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3875.237}, "reply_to": "15514__2_011", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_013", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Oh!\nWell, that's not involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3884.74, 3884.935], "stop_times": [3884.935, 3886.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3884.74}, "reply_to": "15514__2_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_014", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, that's not involved here.\nThis -- this man is getting his NAT and he will get his NAT when he retires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3886.105, 3887.433], "stop_times": [3887.433, 3891.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3886.105}, "reply_to": "15514__2_013", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_015", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But do you agree that he will end up with a $160.00 he got if he went back to Greece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3891.887], "stop_times": [3896.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3891.887}, "reply_to": "15514__2_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_016", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He'll get more than that Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3896.79], "stop_times": [3897.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3896.79}, "reply_to": "15514__2_015", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_017", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "How much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3897.922], "stop_times": [3899.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3897.922}, "reply_to": "15514__2_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_018", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3899.675], "stop_times": [3901.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3899.675}, "reply_to": "15514__2_017", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_019", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "165?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3901.07], "stop_times": [3903.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3901.07}, "reply_to": "15514__2_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_020", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No.\nHe was just disabled for I think seven months.\nHe got 40 pounds a month.\nHe'd probably get $500.00 or $600.00 as wages, he'd get medical but the most important thing he'd get in Greece would be that this should reactivate itself.\nHe would then get further medical attention and a further payment along the lines of workman's compensation.\nThe Greek law is actually designed to be similar like the New York State Workman's Comp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3903.279, 3905.243, 3909.99, 3916.551, 3924.982, 3933.912], "stop_times": [3905.243, 3909.99, 3916.551, 3924.982, 3933.912, 3939.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3903.279}, "reply_to": "15514__2_019", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_021", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He gets paid while he's working?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3939.848], "stop_times": [3942.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3939.848}, "reply_to": "15514__2_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_022", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He gets paid while he's disabled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3942.681], "stop_times": [3945.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3942.681}, "reply_to": "15514__2_021", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_023", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But he's working now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3945.045], "stop_times": [3946.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3945.045}, "reply_to": "15514__2_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_024", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "He's working now.\nHe won't get paid if a thing should --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3946.134, 3946.769], "stop_times": [3946.769, 3948.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3946.134}, "reply_to": "15514__2_023", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_025", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "So what would he get now?\n$260.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3948.602, 3951.6], "stop_times": [3951.6, 3952.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3948.602}, "reply_to": "15514__2_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_026", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, he'd get more than that.\nHe got paid once.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3952.977, 3954.489], "stop_times": [3954.489, 3954.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3952.977}, "reply_to": "15514__2_025", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_027", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But you don't know how much more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3954.964], "stop_times": [3956.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3954.964}, "reply_to": "15514__2_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_028", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I don't know how much more and if there's any -- I don't -- this Court found no disability so he'd get --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3956.355], "stop_times": [3961.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3956.355}, "reply_to": "15514__2_027", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_029", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Couldn't I assume from the fact that you're defending this case that there would be more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3961.365], "stop_times": [3969.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3961.365}, "reply_to": "15514__2_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_030", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "We're defending this case because as a matter of principle --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3969.877], "stop_times": [3972.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3969.877}, "reply_to": "15514__2_029", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_031", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3972.949], "stop_times": [3973.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3972.949}, "reply_to": "15514__2_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15514__2_032", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "-- he'd get more.\nI can assure you that as far as this, if it were not for the principle involved, this case would never be here, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3973.416, 3974.671], "stop_times": [3974.671, 3981.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3973.416}, "reply_to": "15514__2_031", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_033", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But you would be making the same argument whether the -- suppose that this individual was a Greek or an American, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3981.542], "stop_times": [3989.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3981.542}, "reply_to": "15514__2_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_034", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "On this ship, yes.\nI'd say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3989.88, 3991.145], "stop_times": [3991.145, 3991.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3989.88}, "reply_to": "15514__2_033", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_035", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "So it's really irrelevant about the allegiance of the majority stockholder of this corporation, your argument would be the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [3991.287], "stop_times": [4002.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3991.287}, "reply_to": "15514__2_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_036", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's right.\nIn fact the McCulloch case says it is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4002.291, 4002.64], "stop_times": [4002.64, 4004.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4002.291}, "reply_to": "15514__2_035", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_037", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And you're -- and the owner of the ship anyway is a Panamanian corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4004.527], "stop_times": [4011.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4004.527}, "reply_to": "15514__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_038", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "All of the stock of which is owned by a Greek Corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4011.232], "stop_times": [4014.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4011.232}, "reply_to": "15514__2_037", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_039", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "By a Greek Corporation and 99% of which is owned by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4014.913], "stop_times": [4018.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4014.913}, "reply_to": "15514__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_040", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "A Greek citizen domiciled in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4018.792], "stop_times": [4021.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4018.792}, "reply_to": "15514__2_039", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_041", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But those things are really irrelevant, aren't they, to your argument because as long as the ship is registered in Greece --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4021.22], "stop_times": [4028.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4021.22}, "reply_to": "15514__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_042", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4028.562], "stop_times": [4029.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4028.562}, "reply_to": "15514__2_041", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_043", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "-- carrying the foreign flag and a Greek crew --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4029.101], "stop_times": [4031.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4029.101}, "reply_to": "15514__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_044", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4031.561], "stop_times": [4032.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4031.561}, "reply_to": "15514__2_043", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_045", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "-- it's irrelevant to your argument who the owner is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4032.093], "stop_times": [4034.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4032.093}, "reply_to": "15514__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_046", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's -- yes, that follows the argument in the McCulloch.\nNow, in Larsen against Lauritzen, the allegiance of the owner, the fact the owner is a Greek citizen is important and the same way in the Romero case which followed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4034.791, 4037.848], "stop_times": [4037.848, 4046.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4034.791}, "reply_to": "15514__2_045", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_047", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "You say there are no such things as flags of convenience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4046.622], "stop_times": [4049.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4046.622}, "reply_to": "15514__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_048", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I say there are many flags of convenience but this isn't one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4049.611], "stop_times": [4055.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4049.611}, "reply_to": "15514__2_047", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_049", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "This isn't one of them because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4055.234], "stop_times": [4056.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4055.234}, "reply_to": "15514__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_050", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Because of the fact the Greek Government is responsible for the good order and maintenance of the ship.\nThey have a Greek crew on board this ship.\nThey have Greek licensed officers.\nThey have Greek inspections.\nThis is a bona fide Greek operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4056.911, 4063.153, 4065.607, 4067.151, 4068.962], "stop_times": [4063.153, 4065.607, 4067.151, 4068.962, 4071.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4056.911}, "reply_to": "15514__2_049", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_051", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And that -- and that anybody from anywhere around the world can go and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4071.721], "stop_times": [4076.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4071.721}, "reply_to": "15514__2_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_052", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4076.049], "stop_times": [4076.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4076.049}, "reply_to": "15514__2_051", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_053", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And get -- and get their ships that are -- that may be built abroad, owned abroad and licensed in Greece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4076.843], "stop_times": [4084.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4076.843}, "reply_to": "15514__2_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15514__2_054", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe Greek law set forth in my brief requires over 50% of the stock ownership of a corporation with a Greek flag ship being Greek.\nThat's right in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4084.865, 4085.879, 4096.233], "stop_times": [4085.879, 4096.233, 4096.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4084.865}, "reply_to": "15514__2_053", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_055", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It is not true here though, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4096.557], "stop_times": [4098.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4096.557}, "reply_to": "15514__2_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_056", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4098.001], "stop_times": [4099.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4098.001}, "reply_to": "15514__2_055", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_057", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I thought you said 99% was owned by one man who lives in this country --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4099.02], "stop_times": [4105.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4099.02}, "reply_to": "15514__2_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_058", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And is a Greek citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4105.265], "stop_times": [4105.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4105.265}, "reply_to": "15514__2_057", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_059", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And 1% by his son.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4105.591], "stop_times": [4107.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4105.591}, "reply_to": "15514__2_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_060", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "No, I will say that 99% --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4107.745], "stop_times": [4110.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4107.745}, "reply_to": "15514__2_059", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_061", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4110.778], "stop_times": [4111.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4110.778}, "reply_to": "15514__2_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_062", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "I will say that 99% was owned by one man --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4111.158], "stop_times": [4114.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4111.158}, "reply_to": "15514__2_061", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_063", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "In this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4114.953], "stop_times": [4115.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4114.953}, "reply_to": "15514__2_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_064", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "A Greek citizen with allegiance to Greece.\nHe's a Greek citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4115.773, 4118.515], "stop_times": [4118.515, 4118.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4115.773}, "reply_to": "15514__2_063", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_065", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "But he lives in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4118.741], "stop_times": [4120.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4118.741}, "reply_to": "15514__2_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_066", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, he does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4120.216], "stop_times": [4120.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4120.216}, "reply_to": "15514__2_065", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_067", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "And did his business in this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4120.837], "stop_times": [4122.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4120.837}, "reply_to": "15514__2_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_068", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, but he is a Greek citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4122.546], "stop_times": [4123.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4122.546}, "reply_to": "15514__2_067", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_069", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Had been living here many years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4123.772], "stop_times": [4125.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4123.772}, "reply_to": "15514__2_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_070", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4125.52], "stop_times": [4126.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4125.52}, "reply_to": "15514__2_069", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_071", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "May I ask you just one other question about the contract?\nSuppose the Government -- the federal law did govern our law, when this man was to make his contract, they have said, \"Well, you got to sign this contract which agrees that we will not owe you any money under your American law,\" would that have been valid under America?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4126.459, 4129.455], "stop_times": [4129.455, 4150.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4126.459}, "reply_to": "15514__2_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_072", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Under the Jones Act, it would not be valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4150.392], "stop_times": [4153.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4150.392}, "reply_to": "15514__2_071", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_073", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "It would not be valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4153.145], "stop_times": [4154.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4153.145}, "reply_to": "15514__2_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_074", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "There's a specific provision of the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4154.063], "stop_times": [4156.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4154.063}, "reply_to": "15514__2_073", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_075", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4156.376], "stop_times": [4157.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4156.376}, "reply_to": "15514__2_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_076", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4157.152], "stop_times": [4157.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4157.152}, "reply_to": "15514__2_075", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_077", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Alright, that's I wanted to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4157.843], "stop_times": [4159.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4157.843}, "reply_to": "15514__2_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15514__2_078", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Estabrook.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4159.953], "stop_times": [4161.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4159.953}, "reply_to": "15514__2_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15514__2_079", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4161.136], "stop_times": [4161.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4161.136}, "reply_to": "15514__2_078", "speaker": "james_m_estabrook"}
{"id": "15514__2_080", "conversation_id": "15514", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stahl.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_661", "start_times": [4161.688, 4162.566], "stop_times": [4162.566, 4165.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4161.688}, "reply_to": "15514__2_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__0_000", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Number 82, Hester against Illinois.\nMr. Kaplan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [0.0, 29.999], "stop_times": [29.999, 31.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__0_001", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [31.772], "stop_times": [32.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 31.772}, "reply_to": "15427__0_000", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_002", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "You may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [32.43], "stop_times": [33.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 32.43}, "reply_to": "15427__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__0_003", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis case is before this Court to review the murder conviction of a 14-year old fifth grade elementary school negro boy on the south side of Chicago.\nThe confession that he gave primarily, being responsible for his subsequent conviction in the Criminal Court of Cook County Illinois and his subsequent incarceration for 55 years in the Illinois state penitentiary.\nOn April 20, 1961 at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the body of a school teacher in the Lewis Champlain Elementary School on the south side of Chicago Illinois was found, she was dead.\nShe had been stabbed numerous times and it appeared that she had been sexually molested.\n16 hours after her body was found, Lee Arthur Hester was removed from his school room at the Lewis Champlain school which would put it at approximately 8 o'clock am.\nFrom 8 o'clock am on April 21, a Friday 1961 to the minute I stand before you, Lee Arthur Hester has been incarcerated.\nMost of the time at the Illinois State penitentiary, part of the time in the Cook County Jail and some other time in the Audi home, the Juvenile Detention Home in Chicago Illinois.\nThe school where Lee Arthur Hester attended had approximately 2,600 students attending in double shifts.\nHester going from 8 to 12 in the morning and another group going from 12 to approximately 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon.\nOn the same grounds of this school was a high school called the Englewood High School just separated a little distance away through a courtyard or field and that had 2,000 students approximately and then there was a continuation school.\nA school in Chicago which houses and teaches older students who drop out of school who because the state law are required to attend school until a certain age, 16 or 17 years of age.\nTwo police officers came to Hester's room shortly before 8 o'clock a.m. in a company of a gym teacher, who had stated to the officers that she had seen Hester in the hall, sometime the day before, and I believe she said she saw him running.\nThe officers rummaged through the records of the teacher that -- in whose room, Hester was a student.\nWhen the teacher came to the room, they told everyone to see Lee Arthur.\nShe told this to Lee Arthur, she sent him out of the room, they kept him a couple of minutes, they sent him back and the teachers says -- said and she testified to this.\nWhat -- or he testified to this.\n\"What do they want from Lee Arthur?\"\nHe says \u201cthey think I killed Mrs. Keen\u201d.\nAnd the whole room started to laugh.\nFrom that moment until a confession was signed, sometime between 8:15 and 8:30 in the evening of Friday, that day was Friday, April 21, 1961.\nLee Arthur Hester was in to a continuous unbroken custody of at least 7 Police Officers of the Chicago Police Department who kept Hester from about 8 o'clock in the morning until 8:45 a.m. questioning him.\nThose two officers, Sheldon R. Teller and another officer by the name of Anton Franco who then turned Hester over to another officer by the name of Feliz in the principal's office who kept him for approximately 15 minutes, who then turned Hester over to two other officers, Robert Perkins and an officer by the name of Harold Thomas who then took Hester to a Police Station in the neighborhood.\nThey switched automobiles and they took him to the Audi home, the Juvenile detention home.\nHester was searched at the Juvenile detention home.\nAll of his clothing was removed and from his pockets, all of his belongings removed including and I beg Your Honor to consider what was removed from the pockets, marbles.\nNow at this time, Hester was 14 years 5 days of age.\nHis IQ was either 75 or 82 and the reason that it is either that there are a couple of test included in the record submitted an evidence, one shows he was 75 and the other that his IQ was 82.\nHe was one of 8 children of a ghetto family.\nHis reading rate was approximately that of a second grader in grammar school that slightly lower going to the school records.\nHis mathematics ability was graded at approximately third grade.\nHis school records indicate from psychological testing that his maximum, his maximum emotional growth was 9 years of age or as the record show, 4.7 excuse me, 4 A grammar school.\n4 A grammar school usually a child of normal progression school reaches the Fourth Grade when he is 9 years old.\nIn my petition for a writ of certiorari, I have an error I believe at page 6 I'm not sure.\nI say that the -- I made a mistake and said that the maximum emotional growth was 11 years old.\nMr. Justice Underwood who wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court said that the defendant had a maximum emotional growth or a mentality.\nWe find he had a mentality of an 11 year old although he was qualified to give a confession.\nAnyway, not to interrupt the chronology of what happened, at approximately 4 o'clock in the afternoon, after having been detained from 10:30 in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon, Lee Arthur Hester was interrogated by four obliged police officers.\nNow, Hester was 5 feet one and a half inches tall I believe, a 111 and a half inch -- a 111 and a half pounds.\nHester could barely read.\nHester could barely compute.\nHester could barely understand.\nHester was not insane and we admit it.\nNot once in the entire day that he was kept either in custody or interrogated, was he permitted to see his mother whom he repeatedly requested to see \u201cI want to see my mama.\u201d\nNot once was he permitted to see a probation officer.\nNot once was he permitted to see his father or lawyer or anyone standing in loco parentis to him, not once.\nEvery single witness who testified for the prosecution testified that we did not warn him that he need not make a statement.\nThat we did not warn him that anything he said could be used against him.\nThat we did not warn him he was entitled to counsel and we did not warn him if he couldn't afford counsel, we give him counsel.\nNow I know that those are the four requirements of Miranda versus Arizona.\nNow, our basic point today Your Honors is that in three ways, this confession must fall.\nThe first way that basically, specifically and unequivocally, you cannot take a confession from a person almost illiterate.\nNow when he is 14 years old, you must couple that with what we know we cannot forget as lawyers what we know as men.\nI believe Justice Frankfurter once said that and I think it was in Kolom versus Connecticut.\nWe can't forget that a 14 year old in the ghetto who can barely read has no experience with life.\nWe cannot forget that a 14 year old in to custody of approximately 7 police officers is no match for these police officers.\nWhen you couple that with the fact that these four police officers walked in to a room at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and testified, that's in the record when my associate who was sitting at that table asked him.\n\"What did you say to Lee Arthur when you walked in?\"\n\"We introduced ourselves.\"\n\"And how long did you stay?\"\n\"Five minutes.\"\nAnd after five minutes, after they told him to get it off his chest, the words came tumbling out.\nHe confessed.\nThis interrogation then resumed with two officers leaving and the two negro officers staying.\nThe defendant testifying that they told me that they -- that the white officers were going to throw my head through a wall unless, I told them what they wanted to hear.\nThey showed him enumerable pictures he testified to.\nAnd from these pictures he told them what happened and then they called in the other two officers who had left.\nThey went through this whole business again.\nFinally, they took him down and got him a pair of shoes.\nAnd at approximately 6:30, an Assistant States Attorney was called who testified that he went through the whole business with Lee Arthur.\nWent through what happened then finally at 6:45 o'clock in the evening, a written confession was commenced in the presence of an Assistant States Attorney, a Sergeant Keating for the Chicago Police Department and a Donald Flanery, a Court reporter.\nSubsequently this was transcribed in an approximately 8:15 to 8:30 in the evening, Lee Arthur has to sign the confession.\nNow, it is the contention of the defendant that in and under conventional principles of due process forgetting the retroactivity or lack thereof of Miranda and Escobedo that you cannot take the confession of a 14-year old of the type that I have described after incommunicado holding of him, failing to give him even the barest rudiments of representation or having anybody stand in loco parentis to him.\nNumber two, forgetting about conventional principles of due process, it is a violation of due process not to take a statement, excuse me, it is a violation of due process to take a statement without making some equalization in the procedure used in making a statement between a juvenile and an adult and may I point it out.\nIn a golf game we give a handicap.\nIn a bowling tournament, we give pins to a less capable bowler as opposed to a bowler who is more capable.\nIn a horse race we add weights to the faster horse.\nI say that even if you were to anoint Lee Arthur Hester with the finest of oils and place him in a room with a swimming pool and velvet walls, you cannot take a confession from Lee Arthur Hester without providing him some rudiments of due process.\nFairness that in order to assure that the confession is voluntary, when you take it in a setting of an incommunicado holding, when you take it in the presence of only police officers without any protections whatsoever, a bell must ring, a light must go on.\nAnd the greatest conceivable care must be given so that the confession is voluntary.\nThird, in our brief ask the Court to abolish the taking of Juvenile confessions because there is no possible way at least Lee Arthur Hester can be adequately advised of his rights.\nAdvising Lee Arthur Hester of his rights is like advising a deaf man of his rights.\nHe may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [33.765, 37.524, 50.306, 69.495, 83.948, 91.366, 104.099, 116.07, 128.567, 135.683, 145.051, 160.935, 171.764, 191.152, 200.128, 203.606, 212.436, 216.111, 217.917, 219.859, 222.297, 238.121, 255.04, 284.856, 289.119, 291.901, 308.537, 312.921, 326.303, 329.709, 337.724, 343.172, 358.283, 366.441, 371.04, 377.099, 388.971, 394.087, 414.018, 420.734, 423.693, 425.905, 428.244, 433.502, 445.813, 449.112, 455.708, 465.725, 468.92, 474.203, 478.802, 489.2, 502.839, 513.152, 517.765, 524.533, 535.048, 548.659, 551.274, 553.541, 554.599, 556.587, 562.619, 565.66, 574.153, 585.857, 588.917, 597.006, 599.51, 603.599, 610.158, 627.939, 635.917, 666.688, 691.559, 693.936, 702.443, 705.713, 722.454, 744.103, 751.305, 765.484, 774.533], "stop_times": [37.524, 50.306, 69.495, 83.948, 91.366, 104.099, 116.07, 128.567, 135.683, 145.051, 160.935, 171.764, 191.152, 200.128, 203.606, 212.436, 216.111, 217.917, 219.859, 222.297, 238.121, 255.04, 284.856, 289.119, 291.901, 308.537, 312.921, 326.303, 329.709, 337.724, 343.172, 358.283, 366.441, 371.04, 377.099, 388.971, 394.087, 414.018, 420.734, 423.693, 425.905, 428.244, 433.502, 445.813, 449.112, 455.708, 465.725, 468.92, 474.203, 478.802, 489.2, 502.839, 513.152, 517.765, 524.533, 535.048, 548.659, 551.274, 553.541, 554.599, 556.587, 562.619, 565.66, 574.153, 585.857, 588.917, 597.006, 599.51, 603.599, 610.158, 627.939, 635.917, 666.688, 691.559, 693.936, 702.443, 705.713, 722.454, 744.103, 751.305, 765.484, 774.533, 775.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 33.765}, "reply_to": "15427__0_002", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_004", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "As the rule you are asking this for there to say that that was not so constitutional prohibition against taking the confession of a juvenile no matter what the circumstance is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [775.145], "stop_times": [785.126], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 775.145}, "reply_to": "15427__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__0_005", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "In my brief Your Honor.\nI will be very candid with you.\nI asked you to make a rule like that.\nI think it's the only workable rule with the Juvenile.\nHowever, this case can be decided under the narrowest, the narrowest principle.\nBut to be candid, yes I did ask to make that rule.\nAnd that this case can be examined, we must look at what kind of an individual is Lee Arthur Hester.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [785.126, 786.312, 787.554, 791.134, 795.105, 801.834, 805.824], "stop_times": [786.312, 787.554, 791.134, 795.105, 801.834, 805.824, 815.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.126}, "reply_to": "15427__0_004", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_006", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well what about the 18 year old who was a genius and was seen in, was in college?\nSame rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [815.201, 824.344], "stop_times": [824.344, 826.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.201}, "reply_to": "15427__0_005", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__0_007", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "We have a problem and I'll be frank to admit Your Honor.\nI don't know how to resolve that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [826.251, 830.463], "stop_times": [830.463, 831.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.251}, "reply_to": "15427__0_006", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_008", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well you do have a problems with all general rules like that don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [831.863], "stop_times": [834.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.863}, "reply_to": "15427__0_007", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__0_009", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Your Honor, we have a problem.\nEveryday of our --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [834.99, 837.457], "stop_times": [837.457, 838.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.99}, "reply_to": "15427__0_008", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_010", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Why don't you stick to the case you have which is a 14 year old with nine years of mentality?\nWhy don't you stick with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [838.833, 848.865], "stop_times": [848.865, 850.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.833}, "reply_to": "15427__0_009", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__0_011", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nNow going back to the basic facts in this case and conventional due process rules, this case can be resolved by placing this case within the purport and the ambit of all of those cases that this Court had decided from Graham versus Mississippi up to and including Miranda versus Arizona.\nAnd although Johnson versus New Jersey may not require -- does not require Miranda to be applied to pre Miranda cases.\nNevertheless, effect that a man was held incommunicado, that he was never advised of his rights, that he has a mentality of an 8 year old, that we have a 14 year old person chronologically 14 with the mind of an 8 year old.\nWe really in effect have nothing more than an 8 year old being interrogated by police officers with whom he could not possibly cope with.\nNot only that, Lee Arthur Hester failed in school 6 times, he flunked in the vernacular of the street.\nHe even flunked in kindergarten.\nRecords concerning this were introduced in evidence not objected to by the states.\nA psychologist testified completely as to his school records.\nMr. Justice Shafer of the Supreme Court of Illinois who dissented in this case really succinctly laid out what the state failed to do in this case.\nMr. Justice Shafer said that he would reverse this conviction.\nHe would suppress this confession because the state failed to sustain its burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntary.\nTwo police officers on the motion to suppress evidence, one who was present at the oral -- that the first oral statement and shortly after 4:00 and a Court reporter was all the state called on the motion to suppress.\nThat's all they called, they rested.\nNow, this is the first case that I ever tried.\nYoung counsel who should have been given more courtesy and more leniency and the judge had have extended himself much more in a 14-year old -- to a 14-year old defendant then he ever would be required to do if he had an adult defendant.\nSo, we ask the Court prior to the hearing commencing to exclude witnesses.\nWe noticed all the police officers sitting in the Court.\nJudge says \u201cI'm only going to exclude witnesses on direct.\nI do not exclude rebuttal witnesses.\u201d\nSo, all of the witnesses except the two I mentioned were called as rebuttal witnesses and I think we made the motion to exclude at least three times.\nSo, the rebuttal witnesses sat in the courtroom, heard what all of the other rebuttal witnesses had to say and purely by the Court exercising its discretion and not excluding rebuttal witnesses permitted just two witnesses.\nOnly one neither of whom were both present at both confession.\nOne officer was present at the oral and the Court reporter transcribed the confession and that was enough to force us to go forward.\nMaybe we shouldn't have gone forward.\nMaybe we should have rested at that time.\nNow the burden of proving a confession voluntary, I don't believe that this Court has really ever stated who has the burden of proving the confession voluntary.\nMr. Justice White in Jackson v. Denno set forth rather succinctly the procedure that must be followed in a motion to suppress a confession but who has the burden.\nOr under Illinois law and to the line cases that Mr. Justice Shafer cites in his dissent, there is no doubt that an Illinois law, the stake has the burden of proving the confession voluntary.\nAll the state put on was police officers and a Court reporter.\nAnd we have the age old problem that existed in this Court up to Miranda versus Arizona of the state puts on to police and the defendant puts on the defense, the jury heard the facts, the jury made its conclusion and the jury rules.\nIt's impossible when all you have is a 14 year old with an 8 year old mind.\nIt's impossible to do other than put him on and say Lee Arthur tell us what happened that day.\nYou just can't do anything else.\nThe police get on and say we treated him fine.\nBut they admit that they kept him all day.\nThey even admit that it was in the Audi home which is a stones throw a walk, a long cuff from the hallway of the Audi home over to at least 3 sitting Juvenile Court Judges.\nNot once, not once in this entire matter was Lee Arthur taken from the moment of his arrest until the moment of his arraignment after indictment by a grand jury two weeks later, not once did he see an examining magistrate, not once.\nNot once that he see a lawyer until Monday morning when my associate and I were permitted to see him in a barred room which was guarded outside.\nNot once was he permitted to see his mother.\nSo that when you examine the mentality of the defendant, his ability to withstand pressure, the fact that he was held incommunicado, the fact that he was never taken before magistrates, the fact that he could not possibly cope with the scepters, the fact that when you take a confession from a boy like this, it's like the proverbial taking candy from a baby.\nNow in this age of enlightenment, in this progress we are making under criminal law can anyone logically say that it would have been improper or would have hindered the administration of justice to take this boy, a 14 before a magistrate.\nThis boy who is probably by my search is, I can't find anybody younger, probably the youngest defendant in the history of the United States Supreme Court.\nI don't think there has ever been a case before this Court where the mentality was any lower and those cases were it was just as bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [850.372, 852.401, 874.871, 882.471, 900.56, 911.937, 920.828, 924.305, 929.172, 936.237, 948.09, 954.489, 966.121, 980.554, 983.487, 987.927, 1009.949, 1014.65, 1017.672, 1020.904, 1024.641, 1034.046, 1052.406, 1057.39, 1065.981, 1067.341, 1070.561, 1083.874, 1095.014, 1110.124, 1115.536, 1131.904, 1137.512, 1147.63, 1149.405, 1153.183, 1157.376, 1170.654, 1187.45, 1195.266, 1199.494, 1234.119, 1252.565, 1265.261], "stop_times": [852.401, 874.871, 882.471, 900.56, 911.937, 920.828, 924.305, 929.172, 936.237, 948.09, 954.489, 966.121, 980.554, 983.487, 987.927, 1009.949, 1014.65, 1017.672, 1020.904, 1024.641, 1034.046, 1052.406, 1057.39, 1065.981, 1067.341, 1070.561, 1083.874, 1095.014, 1110.124, 1115.536, 1131.904, 1137.512, 1147.63, 1149.405, 1153.183, 1157.376, 1170.654, 1187.45, 1195.266, 1199.494, 1234.119, 1252.565, 1265.261, 1275.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.372}, "reply_to": "15427__0_010", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_012", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "How old is Gallegos?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1275.34], "stop_times": [1277.242], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.34}, "reply_to": "15427__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__0_013", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Gallegos was 14.\nHailey was 15.\nNow on my brief, I placed a great stress on Hailey and I placed a great stress on Gallegos.\nGallegos confessed within two minutes after his apprehension and was kept in a juvenile detention home for some 4 to 5 days and then made a written confession, in fact I think more than written confession.\nHailey was 15, a senior in high school, 15 years 8 months, a senior in high school who was questioned for five hours.\nIn both those cases, there is no question of brutality.\nHailey, a senior high school at age 15 was at least I think two years ahead of what the usual high school student would be at that time.\nAnd this Court said in Hailey and this Court said in Gallegos that we must be extremely careful when we take confessions from juveniles.\nCourt pointed out that they are not a match and never can be for a large and experienced police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1277.242, 1281.659, 1283.649, 1292.646, 1306.328, 1316.476, 1320.031, 1331.656, 1342.023], "stop_times": [1281.659, 1283.649, 1292.646, 1306.328, 1316.476, 1320.031, 1331.656, 1342.023, 1352.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.242}, "reply_to": "15427__0_012", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_014", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "You have a juvenile Courts system in Illinois started?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1352.465], "stop_times": [1355.73], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.465}, "reply_to": "15427__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__0_015", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes, we have a juvenile Court system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1355.73], "stop_times": [1357.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1355.73}, "reply_to": "15427__0_014", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_016", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Are there any in this stage of this proceeding where there is a possible this, this young man was to undergo before the juvenile Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1357.038], "stop_times": [1366.502], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.038}, "reply_to": "15427__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__0_017", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Oh yes!\nBut they got around that real, got around that real good in this case.\nIn the record I filed Mr. Justice Harlan in this case, I included the Juvenile Court proceedings in this case.\nSaturday morning, the day after Hester's confession, Saturday morning, a petition for delinquency was filed in the Cook County Juvenile Court which is now branch of Circuit Court of Cook County.\nThat petition still sits to this day undisposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1366.502, 1367.011, 1371.646, 1377.442, 1392.136], "stop_times": [1367.011, 1371.646, 1377.442, 1392.136, 1396.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.502}, "reply_to": "15427__0_016", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_018", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Filed by whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1396.615], "stop_times": [1397.749], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.615}, "reply_to": "15427__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__0_019", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Filed by -- it's under the auspices and the States Attorney of Cook County.\nAnd our statute at that time stated that the Juvenile Courts could relinquish its jurisdiction to the criminal Court of Cook County, which it never did because we have two old Illinois Supreme Court cases which say that a Juvenile Court or court of inferior jurisdiction and a criminal Courts a Court of superior jurisdiction.\nAnd therefore that section of the statute permitting the Juvenile Court to waive its jurisdiction, has no application to this case.\nHester was interrogated in the Juvenile Court.\nHe was interrogated in an office of the States Attorney in a cubicle existing in the Juvenile Court.\nEverything in this case started out as a juvenile case.\nA confession was taken under Juvenile Court even though we have a statute in Illinois which I cite in my brief which precludes the admission at any time of a confession taken under the auspices of the Family Court Act.\nI desire to save some time for rebuttal if you don't have any questions, I would like to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1397.749, 1403.782, 1424.745, 1433.993, 1438.541, 1446.272, 1450.671, 1466.721], "stop_times": [1403.782, 1424.745, 1433.993, 1438.541, 1446.272, 1450.671, 1466.721, 1471.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.749}, "reply_to": "15427__0_018", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_020", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Very well Mr. Kaplan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1471.489], "stop_times": [1472.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.489}, "reply_to": "15427__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__0_021", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1472.984], "stop_times": [1477.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1472.984}, "reply_to": "15427__0_020", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__0_022", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Mr. Flaum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1477.241], "stop_times": [1479.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.241}, "reply_to": "15427__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__1_000", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nYou have before you a case where the proof of guilt we suggest is overwhelming.\nThat statement we make in consideration even if the confession were to be said to one side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1479.174, 1484.943, 1491.558], "stop_times": [1484.943, 1491.558, 1498.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1479.174}, "reply_to": "15427__0_022", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_001", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Just Shafer said the opposite?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1498.035], "stop_times": [1499.788], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.035}, "reply_to": "15427__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__1_002", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes he did Your Honor.\nYes he did.\nAnd we feel that the majority in the opinion reflected by Mr. Chief Justice Underwood, now Chief Justice Underwood where they felt a scientific evidence was so overwhelming.\nThat it is on that we base it Mr. Justice Harlan.\nThe difficulty at first in rebuttal is that counsel for the respondent find it very difficult to recognize this case from the facts as presented by the petitioner.\nBut before I make any reference to that, let me just say that the petitioner raised the host of points in this petition for certiorari in brief.\nWe feel one of his only constitutional dimension.\nThat is the one he has chose and argue this morning.\nWe put aside those others.\nWe will address ourselves to the confession.\nIn 1961, the petitioner Hester was 14 years old.\nHe was in the fifth grade.\nHe was not given Miranda warnings before he confessed after five minutes of interrogation.\nThose confessions were voluntarily given we suggest and this conviction should be sustained.\nIf we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1499.788, 1500.973, 1501.285, 1513.022, 1518.247, 1533.676, 1541.648, 1544.37, 1546.715, 1548.504, 1553.178, 1557.603, 1559.259, 1567.587, 1573.872], "stop_times": [1500.973, 1501.285, 1513.022, 1518.247, 1533.676, 1541.648, 1544.37, 1546.715, 1548.504, 1553.178, 1557.603, 1559.259, 1567.587, 1573.872, 1574.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.788}, "reply_to": "15427__1_001", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_003", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "The year was 61?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1574.779], "stop_times": [1575.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.779}, "reply_to": "15427__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15427__1_004", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "61 Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1575.183], "stop_times": [1577.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1575.183}, "reply_to": "15427__1_003", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_005", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Pre Miranda?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1577.429], "stop_times": [1578.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.429}, "reply_to": "15427__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15427__1_006", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Pre Miranda, April of 61 is the date of the commission of the crime, the conviction is October of '61.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1578.331], "stop_times": [1586.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1578.331}, "reply_to": "15427__1_005", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_007", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "I wonder when did you give this for his see his mother?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1586.187], "stop_times": [1588.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.187}, "reply_to": "15427__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_008", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "He saw his mother Your Honor at 10 am the following morning.\nThe statement made by counsel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1588.328, 1593.43], "stop_times": [1593.43, 1595.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1588.328}, "reply_to": "15427__1_007", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_009", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "When did he first have a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1595.478], "stop_times": [1597.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.478}, "reply_to": "15427__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_010", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "He had it on Monday morning Your Honor, 48 hours right off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1597.495], "stop_times": [1602.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1597.495}, "reply_to": "15427__1_009", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_011", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "48 hours, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1602.593], "stop_times": [1603.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.593}, "reply_to": "15427__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_012", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "And he was not informed of his right to have counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1603.476], "stop_times": [1608.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1603.476}, "reply_to": "15427__1_011", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_013", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "I'm wondering when did you give this boy his mother?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1608.623], "stop_times": [1611.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.623}, "reply_to": "15427__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_014", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "At 10 am the next morning Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1611.998], "stop_times": [1614.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1611.998}, "reply_to": "15427__1_013", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_015", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "That was after the confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1614.907], "stop_times": [1616.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.907}, "reply_to": "15427__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_016", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "After the confession.\nConfession was signed at 8 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1616.211, 1617.443], "stop_times": [1617.443, 1618.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1616.211}, "reply_to": "15427__1_015", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_017", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Prior to the time he was picked up, is the prior and up to the time that he made the confession that was written down, he saw nobody that was friend to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1618.655], "stop_times": [1629.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.655}, "reply_to": "15427__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_018", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1629.113], "stop_times": [1631.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1629.113}, "reply_to": "15427__1_017", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_019", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "And obviously there is no reason for depriving him of that was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1631.029], "stop_times": [1634.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.029}, "reply_to": "15427__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_020", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well Your Honor, we suggest that this is the situation, 1961, what did the prosecuting authorities of Cook County have by the way of case law to rely upon.\nThere was no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1634.18, 1644.221], "stop_times": [1644.221, 1644.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.18}, "reply_to": "15427__1_019", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_021", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "They have mothers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1644.406], "stop_times": [1645.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.406}, "reply_to": "15427__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_022", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Excuse me Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1645.742], "stop_times": [1646.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.742}, "reply_to": "15427__1_021", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_023", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "They had mothers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1646.386], "stop_times": [1648.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.386}, "reply_to": "15427__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_024", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "I understand Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1648.22], "stop_times": [1648.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1648.22}, "reply_to": "15427__1_023", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_025", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "And they knew this was a Juvenile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1648.718], "stop_times": [1650.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.718}, "reply_to": "15427__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_026", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1650.805], "stop_times": [1651.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.805}, "reply_to": "15427__1_025", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_027", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "They knew he was a 14-year old stuttering I guess, wasn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1651.135], "stop_times": [1656.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.135}, "reply_to": "15427__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_028", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Your Honor, that -- there is where we take strong exception if I may.\nThere is no abstract in this case, there is a record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1656.621, 1660.914], "stop_times": [1660.914, 1663.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.621}, "reply_to": "15427__1_027", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_029", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well what grade was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1663.838], "stop_times": [1664.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.838}, "reply_to": "15427__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_030", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "And the record -- he was in the Fifth Grade Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1664.545], "stop_times": [1666.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.545}, "reply_to": "15427__1_029", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_031", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "At the age of 14.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1666.837], "stop_times": [1668.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.837}, "reply_to": "15427__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_032", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "He was a poor reader.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1668.478], "stop_times": [1669.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.478}, "reply_to": "15427__1_031", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_033", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Something was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1669.362], "stop_times": [1670.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.362}, "reply_to": "15427__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_034", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well Your Honor, the test that Hester underwent as does any ghetto youth in 1961 and hopefully it's different today, are structured for white urban culture.\nHester can be best judged by his dialog with the police in the trial transcript here.\nI suggest he was not a retiring youth.\nHe is an aggressive youth, that's what the records indicate the psychological --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1670.514, 1681.101, 1686.545, 1688.771], "stop_times": [1681.101, 1686.545, 1688.771, 1692.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.514}, "reply_to": "15427__1_033", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_035", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "But he was 14.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1692.79], "stop_times": [1694.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.79}, "reply_to": "15427__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_036", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "He was 14 Your Honor and he only reached the fifth grade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1694.202], "stop_times": [1696.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.202}, "reply_to": "15427__1_035", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_037", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Deprived him of his family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1696.464], "stop_times": [1699.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.464}, "reply_to": "15427__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_038", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "There's no request for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1699.767], "stop_times": [1700.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1699.767}, "reply_to": "15427__1_037", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_039", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Until after you got the confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1700.523], "stop_times": [1702.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.523}, "reply_to": "15427__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_040", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well Your Honor, if I may, the circumstances to that confession on how quickly that was obtained.\nThere was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1702.716, 1708.232], "stop_times": [1708.232, 1709.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.716}, "reply_to": "15427__1_039", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_041", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Were the 7 policeman around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1709.079], "stop_times": [1710.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.079}, "reply_to": "15427__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_042", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "There were none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1710.834], "stop_times": [1712.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1710.834}, "reply_to": "15427__1_041", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_043", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Nine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1712.21], "stop_times": [1713.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.21}, "reply_to": "15427__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_044", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1713.025], "stop_times": [1713.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.025}, "reply_to": "15427__1_043", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_045", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "How many were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1713.895], "stop_times": [1715.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.895}, "reply_to": "15427__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_046", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Hester was confronted at 8 am in his school by two policeman.\nAfter being questioned and interviewed for 45 minutes in the school balcony by two policeman, he was taken to the principals office or a sub office.\nIn that sub office, no interrogation went on.\nThere was no admission of guilt during the 45 minute interview and Hester says, as fast as they ask me question, I gave it back to them.\nThat's the incompetent shy retiring 14-year old shown by counsel.\nI suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1715.427, 1721.046, 1732.649, 1735.855, 1743.89, 1749.095], "stop_times": [1721.046, 1732.649, 1735.855, 1743.89, 1749.095, 1749.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.427}, "reply_to": "15427__1_045", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_047", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "That might be a stupid one too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1749.213], "stop_times": [1751.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.213}, "reply_to": "15427__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_048", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think the record will reflect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1751.831], "stop_times": [1753.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1751.831}, "reply_to": "15427__1_047", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_049", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well, when did you bring the four police in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1753.523], "stop_times": [1756.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.523}, "reply_to": "15427__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_050", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "I will come to that.\nThe next period Your Honor, he stays in that room for 15 minutes with one police officer.\nThe two bring him to a sergeant Feliz, he remains there and nothing is done.\nTwo policeman transport him to the Audi Juvenile Detention Home.\nAt that time he is left there for 6 hours from 10 to 4 in custody but not in direct police custody.\nHe has never -- under the supervision, he was placed in an infirmary room --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1756.625, 1757.69, 1762.144, 1766.422, 1772.457, 1779.974], "stop_times": [1757.69, 1762.144, 1766.422, 1772.457, 1779.974, 1782.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.625}, "reply_to": "15427__1_049", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_051", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "When was his mother notified he was arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1782.985], "stop_times": [1785.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.985}, "reply_to": "15427__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_052", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Your Honor, the record there has a problem.\nThe mother testifies that two officers came at 1:30 that afternoon.\nIn other words, within a few hours after his apprehension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1785.564, 1789.067, 1794.998], "stop_times": [1789.067, 1794.998, 1799.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.564}, "reply_to": "15427__1_051", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_053", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "4 Hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1799.861], "stop_times": [1801.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.861}, "reply_to": "15427__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_054", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes Your Honor, it would be about 4 hours.\nThe police officers testify actually that they came a half hour to 45 minutes later.\n2:30 to 3.\nBecause -- and Justice Shafer points this out in his dissent.\nBecause of objections by both sides, the actual testimony of what occurred with these officers, what they said to the mother and what the mother said to them is never in this record and they must be candid about that.\nThe majority of the Illinois Supreme Court concludes that if the officers went to his house at 1:30 within 4 hours after his arrest and before any confession was obtained, they went to inform her.\nBut the record is not clear on the exact language used and so I don't want to make the representation.\nWe can -- I rely only on our State Supreme Court and that's the view we take, that they went to inform in nearly afternoon.\nNow, he is left alone from 10 till 4.\nI say left alone and of course he is in custody of the Audi Home but he is not interrogated in any way.\nHe is given a medical examination and lunch.\nAt 4 o'clock, 4 officers come.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1801.921, 1804.849, 1809.8, 1812.47, 1815.934, 1830.451, 1844.591, 1850.841, 1859.537, 1862.241, 1868.463, 1871.502], "stop_times": [1804.849, 1809.8, 1812.47, 1815.934, 1830.451, 1844.591, 1850.841, 1859.537, 1862.241, 1868.463, 1871.502, 1873.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.921}, "reply_to": "15427__1_053", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_055", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Why four?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1873.7], "stop_times": [1875.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.7}, "reply_to": "15427__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_056", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Why four o'clock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1875.367], "stop_times": [1876.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.367}, "reply_to": "15427__1_055", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_057", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "No, there were not four officers for a five foot, how tall was he?\nWhat do you need four for?\nWas there anything in the record to show why you needed four?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1876.689, 1881.914, 1883.458], "stop_times": [1881.914, 1883.458, 1886.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.689}, "reply_to": "15427__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_058", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Why there had be four officers at the scene?\nThere is nothing to indicate why there were four.\nTwo were from homicide, two -- I don't recall the exact area they identified, two homicide officers in the city of Chicago working there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1886.375, 1888.779, 1890.787], "stop_times": [1888.779, 1890.787, 1898.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.375}, "reply_to": "15427__1_057", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_059", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Nobody in the room with the four and this boy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1898.072], "stop_times": [1902.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.072}, "reply_to": "15427__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_060", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well, at 4 o'clock, they come -- the four officers confront this boy Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1902.124], "stop_times": [1906.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.124}, "reply_to": "15427__1_059", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_061", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "All by himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1906.572], "stop_times": [1907.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.572}, "reply_to": "15427__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15427__1_062", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "All by himself for five minutes.\nAnd then the two of the four officers leave.\nTwo of the officers revealed to Hester that certain lab tests were conducted at an intervening 10 am to 4 pm period, and they showed results connecting him with the crime.\nTwo officers leave and as counsel says, one of the officers says get it off of your chest, within a five minute period, that's all I described occurs in a five minute period.\nHester starts to make a statement.\nIt is admittedly exculpatory.\nHe calls it an accident.\nAnd if I can just make one passing mention to the kind of individual, we suggest Hester is, and how he should be viewed.\nHester later continued to talk to the officers for approximately 45 minutes.\nAt 5 o'clock, given a medical examination and left alone.\nSo we have -- within 5 minutes of the initial contact with the officers at confession, 45 minutes approximately of explanation and then he's left alone, and an Assistant States Attorney comes which is quite often a practice in homicide cases in Cook County where an assistant takes the formal confession.\nWhen that confession was taken, corrections were made by Hester.\nThis is the kind of corrections for example, he made.\nHester would suggest where he had said \"I kicked certain books going into the book room\", which was the scene of the murder.\nHester changed them to \"I tripped over them.\"\nI think the reflection shown by the corrections in the confession which are contained of course in the record, belay the fact that we have the kind of individual suggested by the petitioner in his statement of facts.\nThe early 45 minute interview in the school produced absolutely no admissions by Hester.\nAnd he made the statement \u201cas fast as they could ask me, I could answer the questions\u201d.\nThis case we suggest is not Hailey.\nIn Hailey Your Honor, is what the state of Illinois had to rely upon in 1961.\nIn Hailey, you have questioning of a 15 year old in a dead of night.\nThe questioning takes 5 hours.\nThere is a detention in a jail not a juvenile home.\nThere is relay questionings were there -- which was totally absent Your Honors in Hester.\nThere is a suggestion of brutality because the mother testified as to seeing certain evidences of blood and bruises, and I believe the majority opinion suggests that there is a discounting of a police testimony in that case.\nIn Hester, you have custody in the middle of the same school day.\nHis interrogation and the words admitting guilt came out within five minutes.\nThere was a 45 minute period -- interview period proceeding the arrest.\nHe was detained in a juvenile home and left alone and he was interviewed by two officers, no relay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [1907.795, 1913.225, 1918.913, 1936.246, 1947.074, 1950.088, 1952.526, 1954.449, 1963.092, 1969.264, 1973.617, 1990.233, 1998.17, 2001.668, 2009.241, 2012.492, 2031.941, 2038.528, 2046.16, 2048.578, 2055.224, 2059.741, 2063.009, 2066.045, 2072.109, 2087.844, 2093.072, 2098.468, 2102.551], "stop_times": [1913.225, 1918.913, 1936.246, 1947.074, 1950.088, 1952.526, 1954.449, 1963.092, 1969.264, 1973.617, 1990.233, 1998.17, 2001.668, 2009.241, 2012.492, 2031.941, 2038.528, 2046.16, 2048.578, 2055.224, 2059.741, 2063.009, 2066.045, 2072.109, 2087.844, 2093.072, 2098.468, 2102.551, 2109.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.795}, "reply_to": "15427__1_061", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_063", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Was there any effort made to take this case to the federal habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2109.218], "stop_times": [2115.19], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.218}, "reply_to": "15427__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__1_064", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "No Your Honor.\nThis case is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2115.19, 2115.916], "stop_times": [2115.916, 2117.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.19}, "reply_to": "15427__1_063", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_065", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "I know this is on direct appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2117.064], "stop_times": [2118.91], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.064}, "reply_to": "15427__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__1_066", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Yes it is Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2118.91], "stop_times": [2119.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.91}, "reply_to": "15427__1_065", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_067", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "You realize that?\nYou have to review, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2119.397, 2120.978], "stop_times": [2120.978, 2121.944], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.397}, "reply_to": "15427__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__1_068", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "No, I don't believe so.\nI don't want to speak --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2121.944, 2123.435], "stop_times": [2123.435, 2123.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.944}, "reply_to": "15427__1_067", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_069", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "As I listen to the arguments of both sides, the kind of an argument where you are asking us to, or of being asked to reassess the facts.\nI have not heard yet anybody, the assertion of any principle of law --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2123.919, 2132.167], "stop_times": [2132.167, 2139.342], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.919}, "reply_to": "15427__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__1_070", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2139.342], "stop_times": [2139.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.342}, "reply_to": "15427__1_069", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_071", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "-- that we have laid down so far that was misapplied in the judgment of the state Court made on this confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2139.808], "stop_times": [2145.675], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.808}, "reply_to": "15427__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15427__1_072", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well Your Honor we suggest there has been no misapplication of the law.\nWe feel that the law that applies here is the totality of circumstances test.\nIn 1962, this Court in Gallegos said there is no guide for the cases as such as these unless it's totality.\nIt is that test which we ask this Court to apply and it firmed the Illinois Supreme Court in its application of totality.\nWe feel that there is nothing inherently coercive about the period of custody of the five minutes from 4:00 to 4:05 when the words came out.\nIn Hailey and Gallegos, there is a suggestion of an anonymous casted a detention, we suggest that is not here, it cannot be fairly said about this case.\nWe contend that when viewing this in the totality of circumstances test, the crucial period of custody was only five minutes.\nThe comparisons with Hailey and Gallegos therefore must pale, the questioning was briefed, it indeed unless you elevate to a constitutional status to claim that any questioning of any type is impermissible, could a petitioner succeed in casting doubt about the validity of the the state was made to him during the interview.\nAs to the age and condition of the suspect, we fill that the petitioner while admittedly having lagging mental achievement when reading the record reflects not an individual whose will was over borne within the five minute period of his questioning.\nWe suggest there has been -- that the calling for a per se rule in this case which maybe supported by some of the dictum in Gallegos would do great harm to the administration of criminal justice.\nWe feel that if Hester's case came up today, which it could not come up in the same posture because of Miranda.\nThat the Miranda warnings together with a strict application of the totality test cause no new rule of perse to be established.\nWe feel for this case, totality is the only test that totality when viewed in the facts in light of this case, finds this case not wanting or full of the inherent coercion found in the Hailey and Gallegos test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2145.675, 2149.806, 2154.158, 2163.036, 2171.684, 2182.583, 2195.619, 2204.146, 2225.375, 2244.718, 2263.468, 2274.025, 2287.46], "stop_times": [2149.806, 2154.158, 2163.036, 2171.684, 2182.583, 2195.619, 2204.146, 2225.375, 2244.718, 2263.468, 2274.025, 2287.46, 2308.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.675}, "reply_to": "15427__1_071", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_073", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Did Justice Shafer dissent on any ground except the admissibility of the confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2308.83], "stop_times": [2314.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.83}, "reply_to": "15427__1_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__1_074", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "He denies Your Honor, at no point that he challenged anything other than the admissibility of the confession.\nI suggest that the lower courts which have had occasion to apply the totality rule to juveniles have not found it an impossible test.\nAdmittedly, it's a heavier burden.\nAdmittedly, the circumstances surrounding it must be found to be -- if there's possible most grossly scrutinized than in an adult case.\nAnd we feel that that kind of scrutiny took place in this case, that the period of questioning being short, the lack of inherent coercion, the fact that in 1961, prosecution authorities had Hailey to Hailey to upon.\nHad Hailey's was to come -- Gallegos was to come that they acted properly.\nThat their actions are those of professional officers seeking to solve a crime admittedly but in no way overboard the will of a 14 year old who was reluctant to confess.\nYour Honor, the testimony of all police officers in this case went un-rebutted.\nWe suggest that there was a finding even by Justice Shafer's dissent of no criticism of the action of the officers only speaking of the failure to prove beyond the preponderance.\nI will conclude with this unless the Court has other question.\nThat society is always paid and this is a quote from Justice Harlan, a stiff price for law and order and peaceful interrogation is that one of the dark moments of the law.\nWe feel that the application and the calling for the per se rule, number one is totally unwarranted by the petitioner that the facts that he alleges are not those reflected in the record.\nAnd those reflected in the record do not cause this case to fall under totality.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2314.379, 2342.904, 2351.661, 2353.723, 2365.669, 2383.057, 2390.572, 2414.116, 2419.92, 2438.28, 2442.903, 2450.028, 2462.461, 2469.57], "stop_times": [2342.904, 2351.661, 2353.723, 2365.669, 2383.057, 2390.572, 2414.116, 2419.92, 2438.28, 2442.903, 2450.028, 2462.461, 2469.57, 2473.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.379}, "reply_to": "15427__1_073", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15427__1_075", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Mr. Kaplan you have about six minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2473.617], "stop_times": [2476.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.617}, "reply_to": "15427__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__2_000", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Thank you. I had been tended to say something else with Mr. Justice Harlan raised the point and perhaps Mr. Boudin didn't say enough about the law.\nThere is no doubt that whether it's 1961 pre-Miranda or 1969 post Miranda.\nThere is no doubt that in our premises you cannot take the confession from a boy like this.\nThis case must be examined as this Court has always said in the confession case.\nWe can look to the entire record.\nIn fact, the record was so long in this case, the Court asked that this case be considered on the entire record and after counsel and I prepared stipulations for record designations to prepare appendix in this case, the clerk notified us there would be no appendix, it was too long.\nWhen reviewing each factor about this boy, when coupling that with the fact that it took seven, eight, nine, ten different individuals, seven policeman, a states attorney, the head of the juvenile detention home, when you coupled that with the inability of the defendant.\nWhen you add to that Hailey versus Ohio and Gallegos versus Colorado.\nIt's just impossible to say that under conventional principles of due process, just because fortuitously it happened to be 1961 instead of 1969 that the police department didn't know that they shouldn't take the confession below 14 year old almost imbecile.\nIf a police department in an urban center like Chicago with a population of three-and-a-half million, a county of 6 million in Cook, doesn't know that they can't question a 14-year-old (Inaudible) without this Court telling them that they can't and they don't deserve to be the police department.\nNow I can see that there are cases that this Court has decided that may fairly have a price prosecuting authorities of police authorities of what the law was after the case was decided.\nBut conventional due process looking at kolom versus Connecticut although there was physical brutality there.\nHailey versus Ohio, Gallegos versus Colorado, Fikes versus Alabama, Blackburn versus Alabama.\nEvery single case talks about psychological coercion.\nNow, Lee Arthur Hester can't take the punishment that some big, tall, strapping fellow who streetwise as we say and sometimes I hear in the courthouse that he has got the smarts.\nHere is a 14 year old living in a community where he sees almost only black people.\nHis primary association with white people is in a school.\nHere is a boy who has no possible association at all with police per se.\nWhen he is put in a room and he is interrogated by four officers, one officer could have done the job --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2476.076, 2484.837, 2494.587, 2499.95, 2504.417, 2506.965, 2525.039, 2548.649, 2556.024, 2573.209, 2592.368, 2607.559, 2612.957, 2618.267, 2622.821, 2637.29, 2645.045, 2648.458, 2657.024], "stop_times": [2484.837, 2494.587, 2499.95, 2504.417, 2506.965, 2525.039, 2548.649, 2556.024, 2573.209, 2592.368, 2607.559, 2612.957, 2618.267, 2622.821, 2637.29, 2645.045, 2648.458, 2657.024, 2664.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2476.076}, "reply_to": "15427__1_075", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__2_001", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Counsel, are you going to tell us at some point whether there is any legal question other than the confession, the involuntariness of the confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2664.06], "stop_times": [2675.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.06}, "reply_to": "15427__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__2_002", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "No, I have other points in the brief.\nThe search and seizure was improper.\nThere was no reason to take all of his clothes and leave him naked like -- and then except with a smack on him which is similar to Malinski versus New York.\nThere was no reason that they couldn't have gone before a magistrate, they couldn't even got the warrant.\nBoy is in school, they could have watched him.\nThey took all of his clothes, they hustle these clothes to a crime lab which took three or four weeks analyzing the clothes and in the course of their conversation with him, told him that all the evidence shows that it's your blood.\nA hair of the lady is on your jacket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2675.631, 2677.731, 2682.593, 2690.969, 2696.348, 2699.017, 2710.838], "stop_times": [2677.731, 2682.593, 2690.969, 2696.348, 2699.017, 2710.838, 2712.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2675.631}, "reply_to": "15427__2_001", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__2_003", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Well if the arrest, if the detention in the first instance was lawful, do you contend there was anything wrong if they are sending his clothes to the laboratory for analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2712.702], "stop_times": [2724.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.702}, "reply_to": "15427__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__2_004", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "I do, yes in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2724.561], "stop_times": [2726.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2724.561}, "reply_to": "15427__2_003", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__2_005", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "And on what grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2726.805], "stop_times": [2727.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.805}, "reply_to": "15427__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__2_006", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "That they could have gotten the warrant.\nThey're all -- I know what the general rule is Your Honor.\nThat the general rule that in a lawful arrest, you are entitled to make a reasonable search.\nI have realized that.\nBut they could have -- but to go to a magistrate in this case would have destroyed the subsequent examination and interrogation of the squad because ones he is before a magistrate, a detailed inquiry of whether this is the guy, a detailed inquiry would have been made.\nAnd lastly Your Honor that when you take this case, and the total absolute inability to cope with his captors plus the fact that this is an innocent boy sitting in the penitentiary.\nThat an offer of proof as to a truth serve test was made and then he passed a truth serum test, that he denied unequivocally that he had any knowledge of how the woman had met her demise.\nI say that when a judge in chambers is presented with testimony like that, although I can't find any basis in the law to admit a truth serum test into evidence.\nThat once he knows that a boy has passed a truth serum test, some inquiry has to be made as to whether or not the right guy is on trial.\nYou just can't bury your head in the sand and say, \"Well, the law doesn't allow the truth serum test to be admissible in evidence.\"", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2727.903, 2729.499, 2732.54, 2738.213, 2741.178, 2757.784, 2771.467, 2784.814, 2796.773, 2805.937], "stop_times": [2729.499, 2732.54, 2738.213, 2741.178, 2757.784, 2771.467, 2784.814, 2796.773, 2805.937, 2814.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2727.903}, "reply_to": "15427__2_005", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__2_007", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Are you suggesting that if the state had taken such a test and that he had -- the contrary result that it would have been admissible against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2814.485], "stop_times": [2823.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.485}, "reply_to": "15427__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__2_008", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "No I don't.\nIt would not have been admissible.\nNot under Illinois law.\nAll I'm saying is that you had to live with this case.\nMy associates and I under the law of 1961 couldn't get a dime to hire competent people to come to the state or people from our own state to testify, that's where we spent $12,000.00 trying and appealing this case.\nSo we could bring in a blood expert, a pathologist, a hand writing expert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2823.097, 2823.689, 2824.597, 2825.909, 2829.004, 2844.851], "stop_times": [2823.689, 2824.597, 2825.909, 2829.004, 2844.851, 2850.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2823.097}, "reply_to": "15427__2_007", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__2_009", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "The time is up Mr. Kaplan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2850.678], "stop_times": [2852.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.678}, "reply_to": "15427__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15427__2_010", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2852.102], "stop_times": [2852.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2852.102}, "reply_to": "15427__2_009", "speaker": "marshall_kaplan"}
{"id": "15427__2_011", "conversation_id": "15427", "text": "Thank you for you submission.\nThank you gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_82", "start_times": [2852.463, 2853.927, 2854.583], "stop_times": [2853.927, 2854.583, 2857.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.463}, "reply_to": "15427__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_000", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "We\u2019ll hear arguments in a few moments, we are awaiting Justice Douglas in Number 51, Hill against California but we\u2019ll wait on Mr. Justice Douglas.\nMr. Amato, you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [0.0, 121.021], "stop_times": [121.021, 124.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_001", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI\u2019ll be rather brief in as much as this re-argument and some of the factual arguments have been made by prior counsel today.\nI would like to briefly, if I may, go over the facts of this particular case.\nWe had a situation in this case, where there was a robbery, four individuals robbed a particular residence and then took some money, canvas and some other personal property.\nThe day after the robbery which was June 4th, the robbery date being June 4th.\nOn June 5th, two of the four accomplices to this particular robbery were captured in a narcotics situation.\nAnd they were captured in the car of the petitioner Archie Hill, along with other personal property that was recovered.\nThe two particular individuals that were captured told the officers that Archie Hill was one of the four participants in this robbery.\nThey implicated him to this particular crime.\nThe police then checked out the association, the petitioner Archie Hill with the other two participants in the police records that they had available.\nThey got the description of Archie Hill which was approximately 5\u201910\u201d, 160 Lbs.\nThey got the address and so forth. On the 6th of June, they proceeded to the residence of Archie Hill, the petitioner.\nAt that time, the petitioner was not in his apartment.\nWe\u2019re talking about a four room apartment, one bedroom.\nThere was a Mr. Miller in the apartment.\nThe officers came in to the apartment and upon noticing Mr. Miller, made an immediate arrest, thereafter shoving Miller aside, searching the other rooms and finding nothing.\nAt that time Mr. Miller indicated that he was Mr. Miller.\nHe showed the officers identification showing that he was Mr. Miller.\nHe further indicated that he was waiting for Mr. Hill.\nThe officers in this case did not ask permission to search the premises.\nThereafter, they spent approximately two hours, making an extensive search of the particular apartment.\nNow, the primary purpose of the search was to recover the personal property, additional personal property and the weapons which included two knives and two guns in the apartment house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [124.439, 125.812, 130.214, 140.18, 145.588, 163.253, 168.292, 178.966, 187.819, 199.609, 204.158, 215.362, 221.938, 232.314, 237.789, 241.349, 244.806, 258.572, 262.869, 268.824, 275.898, 280.631, 289.372], "stop_times": [125.812, 130.214, 140.18, 145.588, 163.253, 168.292, 178.966, 187.819, 199.609, 204.158, 215.362, 221.938, 232.314, 237.789, 241.349, 244.806, 258.572, 262.869, 268.824, 275.898, 280.631, 289.372, 302.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.439}, "reply_to": "14928__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_002", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Didn\u2019t also the search take placed before Archie Hill was arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [302.519], "stop_times": [307.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.519}, "reply_to": "14928__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_003", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The search took place after Mr. Miller was arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [307.105], "stop_times": [310.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.105}, "reply_to": "14928__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_004", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "After Mr. Miller was arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [310.753], "stop_times": [312.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.753}, "reply_to": "14928__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_005", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [312.474], "stop_times": [313.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.474}, "reply_to": "14928__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_006", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Before Mr. Hill was arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [313.381], "stop_times": [315.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.381}, "reply_to": "14928__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_007", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Mr. Hill was not in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [315.583], "stop_times": [316.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.583}, "reply_to": "14928__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_008", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "(Voice Overlap) -- they never got to -- the point of getting arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [316.914], "stop_times": [319.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.914}, "reply_to": "14928__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_009", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [319.85], "stop_times": [320.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.85}, "reply_to": "14928__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_010", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I\u2019m not sure you made this cast of characters very clear as to who the man in the room said he was and who he really was and who the police thought he was.\nI think it might help if you\u2019d go over that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [320.567, 330.306], "stop_times": [330.306, 332.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.567}, "reply_to": "14928__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_011", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.\nYes, Mr. Miller who in fact was Mr. Miller was arrested.\nHe stated that he was Mr. Miller.\nThe police said that the identification meant nothing to them that he flipped the description of Mr. Hill exactly.\nAnd therefore, they felt that because criminals tend to in many instances, to avoid arrest, they will falsify their identification.\nSo in this situation, Mr. Miller was in fact Mr. Miller.\nMr. Hill was not in the apartment at all.\nNow, the search was very extensive.\nThey went all over.\nAnd what they recovered which is extremely damaging to the petitioner in this action was a personal diary in a drawer, in the dresser.\nAnd the reason why this particular evidence is extremely damaging even though they found other evidence associated with the crime, is because Bader who was one of the four accomplices lived with the petitioner.\nAnd he stated that he was involved in the particular crime.\nNow the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [332.05, 333.543, 338.346, 340.816, 350.485, 361.528, 365.462, 369.323, 372.49, 373.887, 384.377, 396.796, 400.531], "stop_times": [333.543, 338.346, 340.816, 350.485, 361.528, 365.462, 369.323, 372.49, 373.887, 384.377, 396.796, 400.531, 401.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.05}, "reply_to": "14928__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_012", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Could I interrupt you a second, going back to the Chief Justice\u2019s question.\nIs there any question, is there any contention in this case that the police in arresting Miller turned out to be not Mr. Hill, were acting in bad faith when they arrested him in thinking he was Mr. Hill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [401.478, 405.826], "stop_times": [405.826, 423.392], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 401.478}, "reply_to": "14928__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14928__0_013", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think the Court of Appeal that reversed this, indicated that police were acting in good faith when they did reverse the conviction.\nThere is certainly evidence in there that could be argued.\nThat they were not exercising good faith but the Court of Appeal in reversing stated that the officers apparently acted in good faith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [423.392, 432.403, 435.62], "stop_times": [432.403, 435.62, 444.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.392}, "reply_to": "14928__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_014", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "What about the trial court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [444.759], "stop_times": [447.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.759}, "reply_to": "14928__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_015", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The trial court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [447.056], "stop_times": [447.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.056}, "reply_to": "14928__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_016", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "What's the record in the trial court on that score?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [447.854], "stop_times": [449.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.854}, "reply_to": "14928__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_017", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The trial court in this situation, I think it is important what the trial court said and what they were thinking at that time.\nThey took two days after this trial.\nExcuse me, after this matter was submitted to make a determination.\nAnd in the trial record, the Court indicated that the officers were acting in good faith.\nHowever, the Court further indicated that he realized that he may be opening Pandora\u2019s box that Rabinowitz and Harris was never intended to go this far.\nNow, certainly we contend strongly right from the outset that Rabinowitz and Harris are not applicable to this particular case.\nCertainly, counsel in the prior cases have already indicated this, insofar as the factual details of Rabinowitz and Harris.\nThe location, the office in Rabinowitz, the public manner and so forth, the fact that a continuing crime was committed, and then when you compare it to a particular diary, something that the officers, even if they have the knowledge of that diary.\nEven if they had plenty of time, could never have gotten a search warrant for that diary.\nAnd yet --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [449.345, 455.858, 459.675, 463.355, 469.447, 482.69, 494.843, 505.341, 523.505, 529.74], "stop_times": [455.858, 459.675, 463.355, 469.447, 482.69, 494.843, 505.341, 523.505, 529.74, 530.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.345}, "reply_to": "14928__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_018", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Where was that diary found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [530.24], "stop_times": [531.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.24}, "reply_to": "14928__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_019", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The diary was found in a dresser drawer in the bedroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [531.861], "stop_times": [538.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.861}, "reply_to": "14928__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_020", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Was it the entire diary or just a couple of pages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [538.022], "stop_times": [540.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.022}, "reply_to": "14928__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_021", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Just a couple of pages, but they were the damning pages implicating the petitioner in this -- and really --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [540.147], "stop_times": [545.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.147}, "reply_to": "14928__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_022", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "(Voice Overlap) As a matter of fact, did the officers take the couple of pages from -- a diary or just a couple of pages in the drawer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [545.762], "stop_times": [552.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.762}, "reply_to": "14928__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_023", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is not clear from the record Your Honor but it is just a couple of pages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [552.389], "stop_times": [556.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.389}, "reply_to": "14928__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_024", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Incidentally, I gather you could object on Fifth Amendment grounds, could you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [556.692], "stop_times": [561.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.692}, "reply_to": "14928__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_025", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Your Honor, I didn\u2019t handle this matter in the trial level and the only reason I didn\u2019t object was the same basis that I didn\u2019t object to the fact that he was found guilty of kidnapping under in effect the Lindbergh law.\nAnd clearly the facts that I\u2019ve stated here, do not indicate any type of kidnapping.\nFortunately, the Superior Court in San Francisco County has reversed that to habeas corpus.\nAnd this leaves, I think possibly to another matter here where we are talking about the second degree robbery.\nHere is an individual serving the fifth year in the state prison on an effect, a one year minimum prison sentence.\nThe Rabinowitz case and the Harris case, I think when you review those cases very carefully, it\u2019s interesting to know that they infer throughout the decision itself that it should apply to those particular facts in Rabinowitz and Harris.\nBut unfortunately, this Court did not see fit to expressly state that.\nAnd as a result, the states across this country have just murdered this decision, giving it unrealistic results as far as this particular petitioner\u2019s contentions concerned are.\nCertainly, the factual situations when you put Rabinowitz and Harris together come up with a situation where really you could almost fit, nearly every factual situation to a situation where you do not need a search warrant and if you get the search warrant, you\u2019re better off without it because you can go further like in this particular case, they never could have got any search warrant for that diary and yet because they have gone beyond the scope, they\u2019re able to bring in this extremely damaging evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [561.871, 576.103, 581.411, 587.809, 595.244, 606.679, 629.621, 635.403, 647.755], "stop_times": [576.103, 581.411, 587.809, 595.244, 606.679, 629.621, 635.403, 647.755, 683.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.871}, "reply_to": "14928__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_026", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Why couldn\u2019t they get the diary into a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [683.382], "stop_times": [686.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.382}, "reply_to": "14928__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_027", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, in this particular case they -- in the first place, they knew absolutely nothing about the particular diary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [686.661], "stop_times": [691.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.661}, "reply_to": "14928__0_026", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_028", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well I gather that -- I mean is there anything apart from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [691.174], "stop_times": [695.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.174}, "reply_to": "14928__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_029", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, yes Your Honor then there\u2019d be a strong Fifth Amendment objection compelling the particular petitioner to get evidence of this sort which is self incriminating, if in fact they knew this particular evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [695.586], "stop_times": [710.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.586}, "reply_to": "14928__0_028", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_030", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, what about Warden and Hayden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [710.063], "stop_times": [715.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.063}, "reply_to": "14928__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_031", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, I think this is different than Warden and Hayden and several --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [715.048], "stop_times": [719.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.048}, "reply_to": "14928__0_030", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_032", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, this question was reserved in Warden and Hayden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [719.565], "stop_times": [723.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.565}, "reply_to": "14928__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_033", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I\u2019m sorry Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [723.305], "stop_times": [723.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.305}, "reply_to": "14928__0_032", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_034", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "This question was reserved, wasn\u2019t it, Warden --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [723.823], "stop_times": [725.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.823}, "reply_to": "14928__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_035", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s right Your Honor it was.\nNow, insofar as retroactivity and I think all the other points are spelled out in the brief and since this is re-argument, I will at least reserve until I hear the Attorney General, as far as the retroactivity is concerned, I don\u2019t think this Court has to go that far.\nI don\u2019t think and of course, the arguments I would espouse would be the same as adequate expressed in the Williams case that here is a case that is on direct appeal.\nThat one of the differences and big differences that I think this Court should consider when a case is on direct appeal and one that is being attacked collaterally from the stand point of retroactivity is the fact that on direct appeal, certainly the Government and the Attorney General and all those prosecutors should be fully aware that there is always the possibility that the case will be reversed and they should keep their witnesses and keep their evidence and keep all the things necessary to prosecute the case again in advance pending the possibility of a reversal.\nThis is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [725.966, 731.786, 751.948, 762.943, 798.796], "stop_times": [731.786, 751.948, 762.943, 798.796, 799.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.966}, "reply_to": "14928__0_034", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_036", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "How long do you think they should be obliged to keep the case together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [799.632], "stop_times": [804.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.632}, "reply_to": "14928__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_037", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well Your Honor, I don\u2019t believe there to be any time limit but a direct appeal expressly on the issues that are involved.\nNow, I believe the Government in the prior case just mentioned that if bringing up appeals on various other matters, well, not relevant to the particular issues that are involved here.\nAnd then they come in on that way, there could be exceptions to that extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [804.922, 812.825, 826.745], "stop_times": [812.825, 826.745, 831.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.922}, "reply_to": "14928__0_036", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_038", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "In California, if they went back for another trial, may they use the recorded testimony of the missing witness who testified at the prior trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [831.53], "stop_times": [843.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.53}, "reply_to": "14928__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_039", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Under certain exceptions Your Honor, provide he is unavailable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [843.005], "stop_times": [846.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.005}, "reply_to": "14928__0_038", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_040", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s what I mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [846.049], "stop_times": [846.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.049}, "reply_to": "14928__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_041", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [846.909], "stop_times": [847.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.909}, "reply_to": "14928__0_040", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_042", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I mean, unavailable, a missing witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [847.072], "stop_times": [848.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.072}, "reply_to": "14928__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_043", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [848.375], "stop_times": [849.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.375}, "reply_to": "14928__0_042", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_044", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "In other words, no different from the federal --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [849.223], "stop_times": [851.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.223}, "reply_to": "14928__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_045", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct Your Honor.\nI think in conclusion here at this time, I would just like to indicate to the Court that this case right from the outset was attacked on the Rabinowitz and Harris theory that really Chimel was not a criteria so far as taking this case up and that during the whole procedure up, it was a very difficult question.\nAnd I think that the reason it was difficult was because of the expanded critical decisions of Rabinowitz and Harris as we have gone along in time.\nAnd the Trial Court, when they indicated, they are open at Pandora\u2019s door was not as the Attorney General indicates in this case.\nOpening a situation where if every case, there is a person who is not in that particular apartment, then all of a sudden, you have opened the door in that area.\nWhat they are talking about really was Rabinowitz and Harris gave the Government wide latitudes in the search.\nNow, we are going to a situation where the person doesn\u2019t even have to be there, then all of a sudden, you come to a situation where really there just isn\u2019t going to be any exceptions to amount to a material reason why they cannot search once they have the arrest.\nAnd I would submit in the interest of justice, particularly in this case.\nAnd I\u2019m arguing particularly in this case because of the situation where the equities should come out where here, an individual has served in his fifth year on a minimum one year has never been up for parole because he was convicted of a kidnapping charge that he clearly did not do at the time.\nAnd the Courts are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [851.097, 859.957, 885.338, 896.902, 906.134, 916.572, 924.443, 944.129, 948.508, 967.473], "stop_times": [859.957, 885.338, 896.902, 906.134, 916.572, 924.443, 944.129, 948.508, 967.473, 968.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.097}, "reply_to": "14928__0_044", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_046", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "You say that conviction has been set aside and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [968.126], "stop_times": [970.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.126}, "reply_to": "14928__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_047", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [970.141], "stop_times": [970.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.141}, "reply_to": "14928__0_046", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_048", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "In other proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [970.437], "stop_times": [971.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.437}, "reply_to": "14928__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_049", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [971.376], "stop_times": [971.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.376}, "reply_to": "14928__0_048", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_050", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "-- on habeas --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [971.653], "stop_times": [972.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.653}, "reply_to": "14928__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__0_051", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "This year, it was set aside.\nAnd I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [972.229, 974.466], "stop_times": [974.466, 975.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.229}, "reply_to": "14928__0_050", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_052", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Isn\u2019t that the problem of the State Courts of California to deal with the length of this subject?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [975.261], "stop_times": [979.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.261}, "reply_to": "14928__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_053", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes Your Honor, I\u2019m --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [979.105], "stop_times": [980.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.105}, "reply_to": "14928__0_052", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_054", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Is that issue before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [980.188], "stop_times": [981.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.188}, "reply_to": "14928__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__0_055", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "It really is not.\nI\u2019m just indicating this as an equitable situation when you\u2019re drawing a very close line in this case because the trial courts in California knew about Rabinowitz, knew about Harris.\nThe trial court made that statement in the record at the time.\nThe Court of Appeal reversed 3:0 against and it\u2019s just not that clear cut of a case.\nAnd I think some times in those type of cases the information like that might be helpful.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [981.932, 982.998, 995.952, 998.937, 1004.492, 1011.686], "stop_times": [982.998, 995.952, 998.937, 1004.492, 1011.686, 1013.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 981.932}, "reply_to": "14928__0_054", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__0_056", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amato.\nMr. George, you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1013.295, 1016.147], "stop_times": [1016.147, 1023.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.295}, "reply_to": "14928__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__1_000", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "This is a re-argument in a direct appeal from a state conviction.\nThe sole issues in this case involve the search and seizure which occurred in the petitioner\u2019s apartment in 1966.\nAnd beside from the issue of the retroactivity of the Chimel decision there are two or three issues involving the legality of the search under pre-Chimel law.\nBefore reaching these issues however I\u2019d like to quickly dispose off the new element that petitioner has injected into the case, namely this collateral proceeding in the California Courts whereby I believe within a month previously, the kidnapping count was set aside but that was on a state law ground and that is not even a final judgment that is being appealed to the Court of Appeal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1023.039, 1028.407, 1037.618, 1051.688], "stop_times": [1028.407, 1037.618, 1051.688, 1082.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1023.039}, "reply_to": "14928__0_056", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_001", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "You said a month previously --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1082.996], "stop_times": [1084.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.996}, "reply_to": "14928__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__1_002", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "must lead to this state, sometime within the last month, I believe it was, and that\u2019s not even final yet and frankly I don\u2019t see any bearing on it.\nThe kidnapping count is gone but the robbery counts which carry a maximum of life imprisonment remain.\nIn fact, although petitioner\u2019s minimum is one year since that time not applicable to him, the statute provides for a 15 year minimum whereas here, there is a bodily injury to the victim.\nSo that\u2019s really something collateral.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1084.777, 1094.287, 1101.184, 1115.793], "stop_times": [1094.287, 1101.184, 1115.793, 1116.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1084.777}, "reply_to": "14928__1_001", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_003", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, let\u2019s not spend anymore time on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1116.399], "stop_times": [1118.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.399}, "reply_to": "14928__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__1_004", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "So basically, getting to the search and seizure issue, I would like to again outline the facts, although counsel has because they are a bit confusing and I don\u2019t think a complete statement has been given.\nOn Saturday, June 4th, 1966, a robbery is committed, involving a brutal assault and unnecessary assault by gang of fur armed men.\nOne of whom is petitioner and this is part of a series of robberies in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles.\nNow, two days later, the police acquired probable cause to arrest petitioner.\nAnd petitioner at page 10 of his opening brief really concedes that there is probable cause to arrest him.\nSo there\u2019s no need to dwell in detail on that.\nWhat the police do is they proceed to petitioner\u2019s apartment.\nThey do not have a search warrant or an arrest warrant.\nThey go in order to seize the weapons and the stolen property that\u2019s involved with the robbery in the present case.\nAnd this is even arguably done with the consent of the one of the other robbery gang members who is in custody.\nBut that is not central to the case.\nThe police --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1118.875, 1133.319, 1143.723, 1152.317, 1157.31, 1165.519, 1170.713, 1174.191, 1178.7, 1191.363, 1199.216, 1201.592], "stop_times": [1133.319, 1143.723, 1152.317, 1157.31, 1165.519, 1170.713, 1174.191, 1178.7, 1191.363, 1199.216, 1201.592, 1202.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1118.875}, "reply_to": "14928__1_003", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_005", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To whom are you referring when you say in custody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1202.819], "stop_times": [1205.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.819}, "reply_to": "14928__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__1_006", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is Mr. Bader.\nHe is one of the four men, Baum and Bader were arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1205.614, 1207.831], "stop_times": [1207.831, 1211.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1205.614}, "reply_to": "14928__1_005", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_007", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "And he has told them about all this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1211.66], "stop_times": [1213.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.66}, "reply_to": "14928__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__1_008", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "He has told them about this and they have independent information in their files connecting petitioner with these two men and with the series of robberies in that area.\nSo the police --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1213.195, 1224.623], "stop_times": [1224.623, 1225.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1213.195}, "reply_to": "14928__1_007", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_009", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Bader was the petitioner\u2019s roommate, wasn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1225.752], "stop_times": [1229.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.752}, "reply_to": "14928__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_010", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Roommate, that\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1229.895], "stop_times": [1231.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1229.895}, "reply_to": "14928__1_009", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_011", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "And is it -- it\u2019s not your submission, is it or is it that Bader gave consent to this search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1231.511], "stop_times": [1237.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.511}, "reply_to": "14928__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_012", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well I stated that arguably he did because he said \u201cYou can go to the apartment.\u201d\nAnd that\u2019s where the loot is and the weapons are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1237.5, 1244.349], "stop_times": [1244.349, 1248.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1237.5}, "reply_to": "14928__1_011", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_013", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That wasn\u2019t the basis on which this was upheld by the Supreme Court attorney, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1248.107], "stop_times": [1252.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.107}, "reply_to": "14928__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_014", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No, it isn\u2019t.\nNo, although I noted briefly in our respondents brief that we don\u2019t think that\u2019s dispositive, the fact that that was not a ground upheld by the appellate Court.\nI just injected that that we seek to uphold the validity of the search on other grounds.\nNow, what the police do is they knocked and they identified themselves and they\u2019re confronted by a man who opens the door and who looks exactly like petitioner Hill.\nAnd they have descriptions of petitioner Hill from the victims of which there were three.\nAlthough not all of them gave full description.\nBut they have general descriptions and they have of course a description from petitioner\u2019s roommate and they have their own information from their files involving previous arrest of petitioner.\nSo they go there and there is a man who the record Bader indicates is only 10 Lbs off in weight and 2 inches in height.\nAnd these are discrepancies which would not necessarily be apparent to the officers and could be accounted for by any -- let\u2019s say ambiguity in the victim\u2019s description.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1252.559, 1253.806, 1265.787, 1273.627, 1287.659, 1293.561, 1296.542, 1307.333, 1317.059], "stop_times": [1253.806, 1265.787, 1273.627, 1287.659, 1293.561, 1296.542, 1307.333, 1317.059, 1328.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1252.559}, "reply_to": "14928__1_013", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_015", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Two Courts, the trial court has found as a matter of fact there was no bad faith and the Court of Appeals says affirmative, don\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1328.983], "stop_times": [1335.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.983}, "reply_to": "14928__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__1_016", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is correct.\nSo I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1335.699, 1336.902], "stop_times": [1336.902, 1337.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1335.699}, "reply_to": "14928__1_015", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_017", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and then it was state took it to the Supreme Court where it was affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1337.729], "stop_times": [1344.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.729}, "reply_to": "14928__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_018", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is correct but the Court of Appeals did affirm the validity of the arrest as such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1344.936], "stop_times": [1349.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1344.936}, "reply_to": "14928__1_017", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_019", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "In good faith, yes, good faith, yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1349.231], "stop_times": [1350.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.231}, "reply_to": "14928__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_020", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes.\nAnd of the arrest as such, they had a rather curious approach to the legality of the search which I\u2019ll mention in passing.\nNow, what happens is before the officers even enter the apartment, they see a gun with a loaded clip in plain view from the threshold to the apartment sitting on the coffee table.\nThey asked this man, what do you know about guns being on the premises?\nHe says \u201cI don\u2019t know about guns being on the premises.\u201d\nWell what about this one?\nYou know, this already certainly alerts them as to evasive conduct by the person they suspect being the member of the robbery gang.\nSo, he is also unable to give any satisfactory explanation for this presence.\nHe is asked how did he get in here, \u201cWell, I don\u2019t know, I just got in here.\u201d\nWhere is petitioner Hill?\n\u201cOh, I don\u2019t know where he is, you know.\u201d\nSo, then he says \u201cI\u2019m Miller and I\u2019ve got identification to prove it.\u201d\nBut are the officers supposed to believe that when he tells them he doesn\u2019t know anything without a gun in plain sight?\nSo they are entitled -- as Justice Black stated in a previous argument today to assume that the person who opens the door especially when he matches the tenant\u2019s description is the person in control.\nNow, this is where the divergence begins in the treatment of the case between the Court of Appeal and the State Supreme Court.\nThe Court of Appeal adopted the approach suggested by petitioner that somehow what is important in ascertaining the legality of a search is not the dominion and control of the person over the premises, in a physical sense but at somehow his proprietary control that matters.\nWell, this is a concept that I believe this Court has rejected time and time again in the Jones case, Silverman case and I think finally buried in the Katz case.\nThat the right to search incident to arrest, whatever its scope does not depend upon proprietary matters but rather upon the physical dominion and control because after all, it\u2019s for the officer\u2019s protection.\nAnd I think that Katz indicates that clearly, we\u2019re concerned with the ability of the person to grab a weapon, all of these cases indicate this is the consideration.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1350.196, 1351.112, 1360.986, 1378.769, 1384.821, 1387.39, 1388.598, 1399.119, 1405.497, 1408.545, 1410.803, 1413.407, 1418.341, 1424.855, 1440.683, 1450.359, 1471.841, 1483.9, 1499.057, 1522.129], "stop_times": [1351.112, 1360.986, 1378.769, 1384.821, 1387.39, 1388.598, 1399.119, 1405.497, 1408.545, 1410.803, 1413.407, 1418.341, 1424.855, 1440.683, 1450.359, 1471.841, 1483.9, 1499.057, 1522.129, 1523.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1350.196}, "reply_to": "14928__1_019", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_021", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Is it your theory, do you submit at all that it was -- you suggest Igave mean that Miller gave consent to this search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1523.609], "stop_times": [1530.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.609}, "reply_to": "14928__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_022", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No, not that Miller did.\nWe have never made that contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1530.355, 1532.002], "stop_times": [1532.002, 1533.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1530.355}, "reply_to": "14928__1_021", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_023", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "You suggested that Bader might have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1533.893], "stop_times": [1535.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.893}, "reply_to": "14928__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_024", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes, that is the case, not that Miller, no.\nMiller did not.\nNow, hearing the arguments in the White case involving electronic surveillance and it seemed to me that the Katz decision has its one of its facets of the protection of the right to privacy, a concern really with assuming a risk of invasion of privacy and I think that\u2019s really the key to this aspect of this case.\nThe risk that the public will have access to the person\u2019s words or his property.\nIf you leave that telephone booth door open, it\u2019s a different matter.\nIf you leave your front door open or if you invite people into your premises that\u2019s a different matter and that\u2019s exactly what we think is the case here.\nThere is a certain assumption of the risk by having visitors in your apartment.\nIf you invite the visitor in, let\u2019s say Hill had been there and they had come to arrest Miller.\nIt was Hill\u2019s place.\nI don\u2019t think that the fact that Miller had no proprietary control over the premises, it would mean that the officers would have to say \u201cwe\u2019re not going to search here because we\u2019re invading Hill\u2019s privacy.\u201d\nI think that Miller could\u2019ve grabbed a weapon of a drawer next to him even under the Chimel scope and injured the officer.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1535.879, 1538.981, 1542.708, 1573.546, 1579.922, 1583.77, 1593.796, 1598.118, 1604.146, 1605.435, 1616.811, 1626.903], "stop_times": [1538.981, 1542.708, 1573.546, 1579.922, 1583.77, 1593.796, 1598.118, 1604.146, 1605.435, 1616.811, 1626.903, 1627.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1535.879}, "reply_to": "14928__1_023", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_025", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Mr. George, is there anything in the record as to how he did happen to be there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1627.313], "stop_times": [1631.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.313}, "reply_to": "14928__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__1_026", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "There was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1631.493], "stop_times": [1632.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.493}, "reply_to": "14928__1_025", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_027", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I don't think that has much to do with thise case, but I would assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1632.129], "stop_times": [1634.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.129}, "reply_to": "14928__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__1_028", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I\u2019m curious about it myself and I have no idea from the record or from any other source.\nAll I know is that he was asked for an explanation.\nHe was unable to give one apparently.\nNow, I think that the Stoner opinion itself recognizes that apparent authority can provide the basis for searching even when there is a mistake.\nNow, I think what\u2019s important here is that if you assume that Hill was there, the search that took place was totally proper.\nIt was a type of search that would have been permissible under pre-Chimel law and the fact that this mistake occurred in good faith should make no difference and the treatment of it.\nOtherwise, certainly any felon could frustrate any search by claiming to be somebody other than the petitioner and unless the officer had personally seen them, that would just automatically preclude further search.\nAnd I think that Frazier versus Cupp also speaks in terms of assumption of the risk as far as the scope of permissible search.\nNow, one thing I would like to get in to, after concluding now that the scope of the search was unexceptional.\nThe items being found in the bedroom is this question of the diary.\nI think, other than that, there can\u2019t be any particular novelty to this case under pre-Chimel law.\nNow, first of all, we\u2019d like to state strenuously that we believe that issue is improperly raised before this Court.\nIt\u2019s been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1634.579, 1641.727, 1644.813, 1650.464, 1664.984, 1679.265, 1689.847, 1702.83, 1716.16, 1724.556, 1731.754, 1740.506, 1749.255], "stop_times": [1641.727, 1644.813, 1650.464, 1664.984, 1679.265, 1689.847, 1702.83, 1716.16, 1724.556, 1731.754, 1740.506, 1749.255, 1749.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.579}, "reply_to": "14928__1_027", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_029", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The Supreme Court has no objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1749.751], "stop_times": [1752.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.751}, "reply_to": "14928__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_030", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Not on this ground.\nNo, in fact, perhaps the making of an objection on other grounds is affirmatively indicative of the waiver of an objection on this ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1752.034, 1753.412], "stop_times": [1753.412, 1762.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.034}, "reply_to": "14928__1_029", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_031", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The objection I think was made was on Fourth Amendment ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1762.529], "stop_times": [1765.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.529}, "reply_to": "14928__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_032", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "On Fourth Amendment grounds to all of the evidence in general.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1765.272], "stop_times": [1768.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.272}, "reply_to": "14928__1_031", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_033", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "What would you do with that statement in void, the way you\u2019re dealing with something like diary and the -- incriminated statement, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment is almost --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1768.694], "stop_times": [1781.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.694}, "reply_to": "14928__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_034", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well that language does appear.\nI think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1781.3, 1783.535], "stop_times": [1783.535, 1784.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.3}, "reply_to": "14928__1_033", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_035", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I mean for the purposes of the sufficiency of the objection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1784.623], "stop_times": [1787.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.623}, "reply_to": "14928__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_036", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Of the objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1787.668], "stop_times": [1789.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.668}, "reply_to": "14928__1_035", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_037", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1789.002], "stop_times": [1791.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.002}, "reply_to": "14928__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_038", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, I don\u2019t think that that can really be dispositive of the issue or even that significant.\nBecause after all, if we look at the purpose of an objection, it\u2019s to appraise opposing counsel and the trial court of the basis for the objection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1791.636, 1797.305], "stop_times": [1797.305, 1807.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.636}, "reply_to": "14928__1_037", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_039", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes, but doesn\u2019t the objection on Fourth Amendment grounds as to the diary, necessarily implicate the Fifth Amendment consideration on the issue of reasonableness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1807.042], "stop_times": [1818.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.042}, "reply_to": "14928__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_040", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I would say particularly not in view of the novel nature of this allegation because I know of no cases under California law or under federal law applicable to the states where it has been held that because this is a document, that alone bars its admission and evidence.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1818.583, 1838.831], "stop_times": [1838.831, 1838.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.583}, "reply_to": "14928__1_039", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_041", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Incidentally are those pages anywhere in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1838.953], "stop_times": [1842.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.953}, "reply_to": "14928__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_042", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The objections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1842.808], "stop_times": [1844.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.808}, "reply_to": "14928__1_041", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_043", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "All the diary pages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1844.34], "stop_times": [1845.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.34}, "reply_to": "14928__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_044", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes.\nThe diary can be found at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1845.488, 1846.005], "stop_times": [1846.005, 1852.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.488}, "reply_to": "14928__1_043", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_045", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The diary said, is on page 77 of the appendix of the Footnote to the opinion of the Supreme Court of California by dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1852.525], "stop_times": [1859.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.525}, "reply_to": "14928__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_046", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "And on page 41 itself.\nIt is as the Supreme Court of California concluded a damning account of petitioner\u2019s involvement really.\nIt\u2019s a rather unusual thing, it relates the fact of the robbery and some of this is in criminal jargon but in effect some of the members of the gang including petitioner went to TJ, that\u2019s Tijuana and scored 7k\u2019s which means purchasing seven kilos of marijuana.\nAnd that when they came back, they went to bed and then couple of them went out to get something to eat and then \u201cthis turned out to be mistake because they got busted.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1859.661, 1862.982, 1871.274, 1895.748], "stop_times": [1862.982, 1871.274, 1895.748, 1904.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.661}, "reply_to": "14928__1_045", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_047", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well this is just about the detailed confession for the commission of the crime, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1904.771], "stop_times": [1908.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.771}, "reply_to": "14928__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_048", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nMade under absolutely no compulsion whatsoever, in view of the fact that the criminals do not customarily confess their crimes with the introductory phrase \u201cdear diary, yesterday I did so and so.\u201d\nThis is something that is totally volunteered and that brings me really to the merits of this claim of a Fifth Amendment basis, let me just state briefly though this was not raised at the preliminary hearing, not at the trial court, not at the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court of California, not even in the petition for writ of certiorari.\nSo under the Cardinal versus Louisiana decision and this Rule 40 of this Court\u2019s rules, I think that precludes it but on the merits, I think that Guled itself who\u2019s mere evidence rule was at least to a very substantial degree rejected in Warden v. Hayden precludes the claim made here.\nAnd I think it\u2019s --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1908.393, 1909.837, 1923.274, 1947.142, 1972.514], "stop_times": [1909.837, 1923.274, 1947.142, 1972.514, 1973.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.393}, "reply_to": "14928__1_047", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_049", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well I know but wasn\u2019t this -- this very question was reserved in Warden and Hayden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1973.75], "stop_times": [1980.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.75}, "reply_to": "14928__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_050", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To a certain extent it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1980.331], "stop_times": [1981.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.331}, "reply_to": "14928__1_049", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_051", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To a certain extent it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1981.734], "stop_times": [1983.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.734}, "reply_to": "14928__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_052", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "But this I think is dispositive, the following sentence if I may note from Guled itself.\nThere is no special sanctity in papers as distinguished forms of property to render them in unit from search and seizure if only they fall within the scope of the principles of the cases in which other property maybe seized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1983.629, 1991.017], "stop_times": [1991.017, 2006.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.629}, "reply_to": "14928__1_051", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_053", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes, but at 302 and 303 of Warden and Hayden, we were dealing there with clothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2006.657], "stop_times": [2012.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.657}, "reply_to": "14928__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_054", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Clothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2012.695], "stop_times": [2013.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.695}, "reply_to": "14928__1_053", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_055", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "And we sent the the items of clothing involved in this case and that testimonial are communicative in nature and their introduction therefore did not compel the respondent,become a witness against themselves and violation of the Fifth Amendment.\nThis case thus does not require that we consider whether there are items of evidential value whose very nature precludes them from being the object to release in search and seizure. And that reserve this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2013.281, 2026.621], "stop_times": [2026.621, 2039.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.281}, "reply_to": "14928__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_056", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I think that that language in conjunction with whatever this Court would want to do in the future certainly leaves the Court open to hold the documents are in a special class.\nMy only statement is that Guled in effect said, there is a mere evidence rule and it\u2019s not because of documents.\nDocuments and clothing, everything is the same way.\nSo once this Court in Warden dealt narrowly with the issue before it, namely non documentary evidence, I think that by the weight of that language, despite the reservation of the questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2039.153, 2048.876, 2056.398, 2059.402], "stop_times": [2048.876, 2056.398, 2059.402, 2071.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.153}, "reply_to": "14928__1_055", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_057", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well I suppose documents and documents but what we have here really is as you can see, the detailed confession of this very crime.\nThat\u2019s what he wrote down on his diary, a very peculiar thing but that\u2019s what it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2071.484, 2079.409], "stop_times": [2079.409, 2083.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.484}, "reply_to": "14928__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_058", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is true and if it is testimonial however, it is not under any compulsion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2083.844], "stop_times": [2088.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.844}, "reply_to": "14928__1_057", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_059", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well I can imagine a jury wouldn\u2019t have filed that very effective evidence upon which to convict with, that confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2088.764], "stop_times": [2096.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.764}, "reply_to": "14928__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_060", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes, but I hardly view that as the test.\nI think the test is of course whether this was given under any compulsion and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2096.237, 2098.633], "stop_times": [2098.633, 2104.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.237}, "reply_to": "14928__1_059", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_061", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well he certainly didn\u2019t make and expecting included in his door expecting some police officer to find it, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2104.548], "stop_times": [2111.741], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.548}, "reply_to": "14928__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14928__1_062", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well I don\u2019t think that the compulsion goes to the manner in which the document was acquired by the police.\nI think the compulsion goes to the making of the statement and of course when the statement was made, it bears all the indicia of reliability.\nHere\u2019s a man in his own apartment writing down his own thoughts, events of the day.\nSo I think that there\u2019s no compulsion whatsoever.\nIt\u2019s not as if the officer had said, \u201cYou\u2019re under arrest.\nNow write down what you\u2019ve done the last 24 hours.\nNow, some question was raised at the previous argument about why the officers looked to this diary.\nWell, I stated that hypothetically, the police might have been concerned with finding a weapon or some contraband there and I think that the events of the last day or two, give some way to my hypothetical.\nIt was interesting to read in the Washington Post yesterday about a man who attempted to escape from death row in Chicago, and had in a hallowed out book of the collected works of Edgar Allen poke a pistol.\nAnd he succeeded I believe in wounding some of the guards and there\u2019s --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2111.741, 2117.62, 2127.238, 2134.685, 2137.517, 2140.932, 2145.281, 2155.87, 2172.193, 2188.026], "stop_times": [2117.62, 2127.238, 2134.685, 2137.517, 2140.932, 2145.281, 2155.87, 2172.193, 2188.026, 2192.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.741}, "reply_to": "14928__1_061", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_063", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To the extent you claim this search was valid based on consent of the absent owner co-tenant really doesn\u2019t make much difference where they were looking, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2192.777], "stop_times": [2204.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.777}, "reply_to": "14928__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_064", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No.\nTo that extent it would not make any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2204.77, 2205.258], "stop_times": [2205.258, 2207.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.77}, "reply_to": "14928__1_063", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_065", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "And the California Supreme Court referred to the consent issue and relied on itself, didn\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2207.673], "stop_times": [2212.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.673}, "reply_to": "14928__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_066", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No.\nIn all fairness, I must say they did not uphold this on the consent issue, they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2212.885, 2213.571], "stop_times": [2213.571, 2217.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.885}, "reply_to": "14928__1_065", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_067", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "What did they say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2217.529], "stop_times": [2219.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.529}, "reply_to": "14928__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_068", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "There was a footnote in there opinion and that can be found in the appendix on page 76, footnote 2 that the consent issue would not be decided by that Court because the facts surrounding it whether it was not a mere submission to authority, not bound up with unlawful conduct were never developed.\nSo, in other words, the Supreme Court of California chose to uphold the search on grounds other than consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2219.392, 2246.582], "stop_times": [2246.582, 2257.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.392}, "reply_to": "14928__1_067", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_069", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "The Court upheld it as a search incident to a lawful arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2257.18], "stop_times": [2261.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.18}, "reply_to": "14928__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_070", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2261.569], "stop_times": [2261.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.569}, "reply_to": "14928__1_069", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_071", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "All be it a mistaken identity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2261.945], "stop_times": [2264.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.945}, "reply_to": "14928__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_072", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2264.251], "stop_times": [2264.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.251}, "reply_to": "14928__1_071", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_073", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2264.719], "stop_times": [2265.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.719}, "reply_to": "14928__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_074", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2265.515], "stop_times": [2266.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.515}, "reply_to": "14928__1_073", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_075", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "And decided the case before this Court\u2019s decision in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2266.189], "stop_times": [2273.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.189}, "reply_to": "14928__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_076", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Chimel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2273.344], "stop_times": [2274.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.344}, "reply_to": "14928__1_075", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_077", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Chimel, however it\u2019s pronounced.\nAnd the question is whether this search was consistent with Fourth Amendment as construed in the Chimel and if not, whether or not Chimel should be given retroactivity, retroactive application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2274.967, 2279.078], "stop_times": [2279.078, 2297.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.967}, "reply_to": "14928__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_078", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2297.28], "stop_times": [2297.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2297.28}, "reply_to": "14928__1_077", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_079", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Is that about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2297.462], "stop_times": [2298.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.462}, "reply_to": "14928__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_080", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes, that is it and this issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2298.274], "stop_times": [2300.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.274}, "reply_to": "14928__1_079", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_081", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Then there are other complications in this case stemming from the mistaken identity and from the fact that a diary was among -- that they were to recall and is used against the person and perhaps and the possibility of Bader\u2019s consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2300.277], "stop_times": [2316.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.277}, "reply_to": "14928__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__1_082", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes.\nOn the diary, I would like to add a couple more comments.\nFirst of all, Schmerber itself notes the shift in the Fourth Amendment view from property to persons and their right of privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2316.148, 2319.816, 2324.303], "stop_times": [2319.816, 2324.303, 2337.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.148}, "reply_to": "14928__1_081", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_083", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Was the Fifth Amendment issue presented to the California Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2337.162], "stop_times": [2340.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.162}, "reply_to": "14928__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_084", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No, not anywhere, not anywhere from the preliminary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2340.192], "stop_times": [2343.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.192}, "reply_to": "14928__1_083", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_085", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "So you don't have any state decision on this at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2343.161], "stop_times": [2345.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.161}, "reply_to": "14928__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__1_086", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No, none whatsoever.\nNot even in the petition for writ of certiorari.\nFor the very first time of the opening brief, I would like to note one thing perhaps a little bit collaterally but the enormous effect of any ruling by this Court holding that papers are somehow sacrosanct was brought home to me recently working on the preparation of this Sirhan Sirhan case involving the diary of a political assassin.\nI think that if there somehow is going to be a special rule for papers that the Court has to be fully aware of the ramifications of this giving special treatment to that.\nNow, I\u2019d like to cover one aspect of the search before getting to the retroactivity question.\nNamely the lawfulness of the search under Chimel because we do not in any way feel that the retroactivity issue is dispositive of this case and I think it\u2019s important to note that Chimel and the cases upon which it relies have held that the requirement for the search warrant should not routinely be dispensed with.\nBut that word is impracticable to obtain a search warrant that one need not to be obtained and this is precisely a case that comes within the exigent circumstances exception to Chimel.\nIn Chimel of course, the officers had weeks to obtain a search warrant.\nHere, let\u2019s look at the chronology leading up to the search.\nThe offense was committed late on a Saturday night only after 5:30 pm on the following Monday, two days later that the officers require their probable cause to arrest petitioner.\nThis was after Court hours.\nThey would have had to wait well over 12 hours to obtain a search warrant and perhaps more.\nIt occurred to me that the first Tuesday in California at least is a Court holiday in the month of June in election year.\nSo, this really might be a 36 hour wait, instead of a 12 hour wait.\nNow, was there any reason why they shouldn\u2019t wait this day or two?\nWell, the officers knew that there was a fourth member of the robbery gang at large.\nThis gang was armed and dangerous.\nThey had committed several other robberies in the area.\nThe officers knew that the weapons and the stolen property were at petitioner\u2019s apartment.\nThus time was of the essence.\nThe officers were confronted with what was very close to a hot pursuit situation.\nAnd there were these reasons for not delaying the search until the search warrant could be obtained.\nPetitioner and the fourth member of the gang, (Inaudible) were at large and they could still be committing other assaults and robberies.\nSecondly, the arrest of two members of the gang, just two-and-a-half hours before the search here, might alert petitioner to flee from his apartment and perhaps from the jurisdiction.\nAnd thirdly, if petitioner were arrested that evening and then search of the apartment delayed another day or two, that fourth man back -- might have come back being alerted by petitioner\u2019s arrest or the arrest of the two other man Bader and Baum and realized that the officers would have seen incriminating evidence when they arrested petitioner and then might have removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2345.747, 2347.49, 2351.302, 2377.194, 2390.362, 2399.052, 2422.628, 2438.379, 2443.036, 2447.97, 2461.635, 2464.533, 2469.339, 2479.219, 2485.153, 2489.234, 2494.6, 2497.006, 2499.632, 2504.554, 2506.7, 2512.745, 2518.376, 2526.967, 2539.873], "stop_times": [2347.49, 2351.302, 2377.194, 2390.362, 2399.052, 2422.628, 2438.379, 2443.036, 2447.97, 2461.635, 2464.533, 2469.339, 2479.219, 2485.153, 2489.234, 2494.6, 2497.006, 2499.632, 2504.554, 2506.7, 2512.745, 2518.376, 2526.967, 2539.873, 2564.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.747}, "reply_to": "14928__1_085", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_087", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "When was the petitioner was arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2564.236], "stop_times": [2566.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.236}, "reply_to": "14928__1_086", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__1_088", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Petitioner?\nHe was arrested about Thursday or Friday of that week but that is not on the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2566.867, 2568.196], "stop_times": [2568.196, 2575.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.867}, "reply_to": "14928__1_087", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_089", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, I mean, is the only submergence for the hot pursuit, you know you didn\u2019t get it until Thursday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2575.368], "stop_times": [2581.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.368}, "reply_to": "14928__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__1_090", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "But they didn\u2019t know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2581.028], "stop_times": [2582.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.028}, "reply_to": "14928__1_089", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_091", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Can I ask if you got warrant then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2582.131], "stop_times": [2585.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.131}, "reply_to": "14928__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__1_092", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "No.\nThere was -- I don\u2019t know if there was a warrant or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2585.294, 2585.598], "stop_times": [2585.598, 2589.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.294}, "reply_to": "14928__1_091", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_093", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Don\u2019t you think it\u2019s of interest to some people as to whether you have an arrest warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2589.016], "stop_times": [2593.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.016}, "reply_to": "14928__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__1_094", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "It\u2019s a great interest to me to but it\u2019s no where in the record, not even in the local Courts record.\nNow, I think any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2593.512, 2605.732], "stop_times": [2605.732, 2608.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.512}, "reply_to": "14928__1_093", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__1_095", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "May I interrupt you a moment?\nHow much will you want for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2608.902, 2610.652], "stop_times": [2610.652, 2613.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.902}, "reply_to": "14928__1_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__2_000", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "One minute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2613.254], "stop_times": [2614.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2613.254}, "reply_to": "14928__1_095", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__2_001", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2614.043], "stop_times": [2617.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.043}, "reply_to": "14928__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__3_000", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I think it\u2019s significant that the officers knew that both guns in the robbery and all of the remaining stolen property were on these premises and that these were armed and dangerous men and they had to act quickly.\nNow, I won\u2019t go into it in detail but the problem of exigent circumstances is graphically demonstrated in the amicus curiae brief filed by the Americans for effective law enforcement.\nThey demonstrate the practical necessities for having a meaningful exigent circumstances exception to the Chimel rule.\nThe brief that that organization has filed, details a couple of presently pending cases where the murder weapon itself was disposed off, during the time that the officers sought to comply with Chimel and went out to try and get the search warrant.\nNow, one related problem of course is what can be done to secure the premises and that\u2019s one of the most serious problems and in California, our view is that the premises cannot be secured to the extent that people who are not involved in criminal conduct are restrained, their movements are followed around the house.\nPerhaps a matron has to come because the wife of the petitioner is there, she wants to use the facilities.\nShe could dispose off evidence, you have to have an armada men and equipment there to follow everybody around the house.\nSo I think that there is a serious problem about that.\nAnd that is what has been most difficult to leave with, under the Chimel decision.\nNow as far as retroactivity is concerned, we detailed our views in the brief and I think it\u2019s important of course to apply a fully prospective test to the Chimel decision.\nThe purpose of the decision of course is to deter unlawful police conduct.\nThat\u2019s not going to be deterred by punishing police officers for what they did relying on the existing law as decided by this Court several years ago.\nAnd up to two or three years ago, specifically at the time this search was conducted.\nThere certainly has been reliance and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of this Chimel decision would be I submit greater than the effect of any decision of this Court on the administration of justice.\nJust thousands of prisoners would be sent back for new trials and only questionably could be retried.\nAnd I\u2019d like to launch with the Court an original and ten copies of a memorandum which I have provided petitioner here, a manhour cost study regarding the Chimel decision.\nAnd that report is very significant in indicating that annually, the Chimel decision will cost the Los Angeles Police Department alone an additional 86,000 manhours.\nAnd the monetary cost is close to half-a-million dollars.\nAnd that is just for police officers, not the clerical help and the equipment that this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2617.419, 2630.551, 2645.223, 2655.237, 2675.949, 2700.516, 2707.164, 2713.981, 2716.292, 2721.658, 2738.939, 2743.567, 2754.254, 2759.698, 2773.669, 2783.644, 2797.26, 2816.791, 2820.13], "stop_times": [2630.551, 2645.223, 2655.237, 2675.949, 2700.516, 2707.164, 2713.981, 2716.292, 2721.658, 2738.939, 2743.567, 2754.254, 2759.698, 2773.669, 2783.644, 2797.26, 2816.791, 2820.13, 2826.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.419}, "reply_to": "14928__2_001", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__3_001", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Is there anything there by what the cost would be to get search warrants in Los Angeles County?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2826.106], "stop_times": [2831.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.106}, "reply_to": "14928__3_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__3_002", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "This is what I\u2019m referring to, Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2831.98], "stop_times": [2833.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.98}, "reply_to": "14928__3_001", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__3_003", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I thought you are talking about how many people you have to have in the building and all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2833.947], "stop_times": [2837.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.947}, "reply_to": "14928__3_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__3_004", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To get search warrants.\nIt\u2019s a very involved process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2837.735, 2839.078], "stop_times": [2839.078, 2840.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2837.735}, "reply_to": "14928__3_003", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__3_005", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To prepare search warrants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2840.185], "stop_times": [2841.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.185}, "reply_to": "14928__3_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__3_006", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2841.545], "stop_times": [2841.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.545}, "reply_to": "14928__3_005", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__3_007", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "So it\u2019s limited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2841.788], "stop_times": [2843.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.788}, "reply_to": "14928__3_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14928__3_008", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "To obtain search warrants, that\u2019s all that I\u2019m talking about here to draw of affidavits.\nI see my time is up.\nCould I prevail upon the Court for an additional minute?\nAnd this is just the cost to police officers.\nNot clerical, personnel.\nNow, this I believe averages out to about 30 extra police officers for the City of Los Angeles a year because of this.\nAnd consequently, one can imagine the retroactive application of this.\nAnd what I would like to note in conclusion as far as the impact of this decision is that, this strikes at the most sensitive nature of police work.\nThe type of property crime, burglaries particularly where the rate of recovery is lowest it might be of interest to Your Honors to note that less than 10% of stolen property is recovered.\nNow, when the time that takes to obtain a search warrant and each case which is several hours is multiplied by the hundreds of situations, every day that occurred necessitating one under the Chimel decision, one can see the impact of this decision.\nOne can easily point to one case or at the other case and say a warrant could have been obtained here.\nBut if one looks at the overall impact, it\u2019s quite apparent with two million burglaries being committed annually in this country, 265,000 of them in California.\nThat there is indeed a real problem of just not getting slowed under by police work.\nSo for these reasons, we would submit very strongly that the date of prospectivity should be adopted that all searches conducted previous to the date of Chimel, not be governed by the rule of that decision and we urge that the search and seizure in this case is lawful in all respects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2843.55, 2849.597, 2850.903, 2854.843, 2859.486, 2863.081, 2870.531, 2882.806, 2894.464, 2908.207, 2925.281, 2929.875, 2941.901, 2948.687], "stop_times": [2849.597, 2850.903, 2854.843, 2859.486, 2863.081, 2870.531, 2882.806, 2894.464, 2908.207, 2925.281, 2929.875, 2941.901, 2948.687, 2971.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.55}, "reply_to": "14928__3_007", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "14928__3_009", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you.\nThe document you referred to, will be considered as lodged with the Court, the Court will past on it in due time.\nMr. Amato.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2971.475, 2971.981, 2980.189], "stop_times": [2971.981, 2980.189, 2984.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.475}, "reply_to": "14928__3_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__4_000", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I\u2019d like to just hit on four points Your Honor very briefly.\nThe first one insofar as the Fifth Amendment was concerned, of course the problem there, it is an involvement with the Fourth Amendment in many respects.\nThe reason it wasn\u2019t specifically brought out on appeal is because it wasn\u2019t objected to at the trial.\nI have no where indicated anytime during the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court or petition, that this wasn\u2019t a consideration.\nIt was only not mentioned because the trial attorney at that time didn\u2019t object the most particular grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2984.197, 2988.469, 2997.929, 3004.843, 3012.734], "stop_times": [2988.469, 2997.929, 3004.843, 3012.734, 3018.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2984.197}, "reply_to": "14928__3_009", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_001", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Could it have been raised?\nIs there rule in California that says you may not bring before the Court, something that wasn\u2019t raised in the court below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3018.86, 3020.355], "stop_times": [3020.355, 3026.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.86}, "reply_to": "14928__4_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__4_002", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Well, that\u2019s correct Your Honor.\nThere is a Court rule that you cannot.\nI could have brought it in -- in effect of counsel.\nHowever, he -- I didn\u2019t think was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3026.783, 3028.451, 3029.882, 3033.877], "stop_times": [3028.451, 3029.882, 3033.877, 3035.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3026.783}, "reply_to": "14928__4_001", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_003", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Did you brief it, even to the extent you did here in the California Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3035.887], "stop_times": [3040.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.887}, "reply_to": "14928__4_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__4_004", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nOh, as far as the briefing, no Your Honor, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3040.94, 3041.983], "stop_times": [3041.983, 3044.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3040.94}, "reply_to": "14928__4_003", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_005", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "You did not brief it?\nYour brief Buoy here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3044.078, 3045.256], "stop_times": [3045.256, 3046.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.078}, "reply_to": "14928__4_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__4_006", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3046.881], "stop_times": [3047.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3046.881}, "reply_to": "14928__4_005", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_007", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "You did not in the California --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3047.768], "stop_times": [3048.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.768}, "reply_to": "14928__4_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14928__4_008", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct, I did not.\nThe second basis now is Bader\u2019s consent.\nNow, insofar as consent, the petitioner contends strongly that there was no consent given.\nI think, the words in the transcript are and I quote \u201cthat he could go to petitioner\u2019s apartment.\u201d And I think that\u2019s a far cry from giving consent to search into drawers in the bedroom.\nThe third point that I\u2019d like to add is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3048.877, 3052.218, 3057.181, 3065.154, 3078.706], "stop_times": [3052.218, 3057.181, 3065.154, 3078.706, 3081.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3048.877}, "reply_to": "14928__4_007", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_009", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "A bit on that question.\nWhat do you suppose that an officer would think he was being authorized to do if Mr. Bader said, \u201cYou may go to my apartment.\u201d\nJust look at the apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3081.687, 3084.211, 3093.092], "stop_times": [3084.211, 3093.092, 3094.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.687}, "reply_to": "14928__4_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__4_010", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "-- go see Mr. Hill and inquire Mr. Hill what the circumstances were.\nAnd if he doesn\u2019t say you can search my drawers, or search my places, I would indicate and go to the apartment and meet Mr. Hill at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3094.616, 3099.519], "stop_times": [3099.519, 3105.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3094.616}, "reply_to": "14928__4_009", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_011", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Suppose, instead of Mr. Hill or Mr. Miller or anybody else being around, there was a cleaning lady there that day and they said \u201cMr. Bader has told us we could come to the apartment.\u201d\nAnd so she let them in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3105.87, 3117.45], "stop_times": [3117.45, 3118.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.87}, "reply_to": "14928__4_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__4_012", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I would still say Your Honor the same thing applies.\nI think, on two counts.\nOne is, he wasn\u2019t given expressed permission to search.\nAnd secondly, there is another serious questions to whether another person can give up the constitutional privacy, another part.\nNow, insofar as the amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Attorney General of Colorado and the police chiefs across the country.\nI too believe that this is a good case.\nThat guidelines could be set as to what the police can and cannot do.\nBut it still doesn\u2019t take even those examples really go back to this particular case.\nThe examples there are pretty extreme and yet that the Attorney General points out in Colorado.\nAnd yet in all those cases that he points out, those extreme examples where certainly there is a necessity for guidelines.\nThe Attorney General was able to get convictions in all of those matters expressed even though they had to go and get the search warrant.\nIn this case, I think it isn\u2019t that close of an issue.\nNow insofar as retroactivity and counsel has indicated that 30 officers in Los Angeles will be required if it is made retroactive, the Chimel decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3118.922, 3121.167, 3124.077, 3128.865, 3143.013, 3151.318, 3153.701, 3158.159, 3166.886, 3173.906, 3181.559, 3190.757, 3197.034], "stop_times": [3121.167, 3124.077, 3128.865, 3143.013, 3151.318, 3153.701, 3158.159, 3166.886, 3173.906, 3181.559, 3190.757, 3197.034, 3210.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3118.922}, "reply_to": "14928__4_011", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_013", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "I\u2019d understood him to say that 30 officers, additional officers in Los Angeles will be required just to carry out the Chimel decision, I don\u2019t -- I think that argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3210.549], "stop_times": [3222.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.549}, "reply_to": "14928__4_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__4_014", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "That\u2019s correct Your Honor, that\u2019s what I was alluding to, improperly stated.\nThe point that I would like to make is that we draw some happy median and drop it from maybe 30 officers to one officer on direct appeal.\nThose cases certainly outnumber, at least on a 30:1 basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3222.224, 3226.453, 3235.241], "stop_times": [3226.453, 3235.241, 3242.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3222.224}, "reply_to": "14928__4_013", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_015", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "A retroactivity wouldn\u2019t require any officers now.\nYou can\u2019t un-ring a bell, you can\u2019t -- if this was an unconstitutional search, there\u2019s no way to constitutionalize it now.\nYou can\u2019t go back and get a search warrant and go on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3242.806, 3246.979, 3255.458], "stop_times": [3246.979, 3255.458, 3258.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.806}, "reply_to": "14928__4_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14928__4_016", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Then I ask, what is the purpose of the 30 officers?\nWhat difference does that basically make?\nIn other words, the inference that I got and although I didn\u2019t quite understand it, if you need 30 officers, on something that\u2019s already passed, you don\u2019t need any officers, what differences does it make?\nI thought the point he was trying to bring out was the fact that if you make it completely retroactive, you\u2019re going to have to accumulate a lot of this evidence based on past cases.\nAnd now, I\u2019m saying that if you have to get additional man power, that if you make it only on direct appeals, certainly a 30:1 ratio isn't unreasonable in light of all the years that are involved prior to Chimel versus the cases on direct appeal.\nI like to conclude with this last point that I wasn\u2019t going to mention until counsel mentioned about the numbers of crime and so forth.\nI don\u2019t stand up here for a crime.\nI hope no attorney or citizen does.\nCertainly, numbers can be misleading.\nAnd I think earlier in this case, I pointed that out where the gravity of this plan was elevated to kidnapping where in fact Harold Chessman died under the same penal code section.\nAnd this Court knows the facts of this case and certainly he was subjected to the death penalty also.\nAnd yet, there would have been totally unreasonable in this case.\nJust as we indicated, it\u2019s been totally unreasonable to go into the bedroom and to get that diary and there\u2019s no indication that this particular diary wasn\u2019t a book.\nThe only evidence and if it wasn\u2019t a book, it should have been brought out by the prosecution.\nThe only evidence is that there was two pages of a diary.\nNo weapons could have been or supposedly no weapons could have been within those two pages.\nThere is no evidence to indicate that it was anything different from the ordinary two sheets of paper.\nI would submit strongly Your Honor, in the interest really of justice in this particular case that this case -- that this Court reverse the Supreme Court and affirm the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3258.093, 3261.975, 3264.856, 3275.453, 3286.549, 3305.449, 3314.578, 3316.658, 3321.237, 3324.346, 3338.743, 3345.081, 3349.545, 3361.1, 3365.819, 3370.556, 3376.771, 3381.869], "stop_times": [3261.975, 3264.856, 3275.453, 3286.549, 3305.449, 3314.578, 3316.658, 3321.237, 3324.346, 3338.743, 3345.081, 3349.545, 3361.1, 3365.819, 3370.556, 3376.771, 3381.869, 3394.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3258.093}, "reply_to": "14928__4_015", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_017", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3394.632, 3395.784], "stop_times": [3395.784, 3396.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.632}, "reply_to": "14928__4_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__4_018", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3396.924], "stop_times": [3398.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3396.924}, "reply_to": "14928__4_017", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "14928__4_019", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Counsel, you were appointed to act in this case and acted at our request at our appointment.\nOn behalf of the Court, I want to thank you for your assistance, not only to the petitioner, your client, but your assistance to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3398.767, 3405.107], "stop_times": [3405.107, 3410.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.767}, "reply_to": "14928__4_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14928__4_020", "conversation_id": "14928", "text": "Thank you very much Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3410.905], "stop_times": [3419.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3410.905}, "reply_to": "14928__4_019", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_000", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Number 730, Amato, Hill against California.\nMr. Amato, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [0.0, 9.284], "stop_times": [9.284, 14.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__0_001", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nHonorable Chief Justice, Associate Justices, this is another case that we have here in a long history of cases that the United States Supreme Court has decided in the past regarding the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.\nThat amendment reads as follows, \u201cThe right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\u201d\nCertainly, this Court has treated the rights of private citizen in the past with great emphasis.\nWeeks versus United States has held that a search based upon reasonable cause is allowed incidental to arrest providing that that search is reasonable.\nBefore we go into long facts situation of this particular case, I think it should be pointed out that the petitioner in this case is alleging that his particular arrest which was an invalid arrest and then subsequently the police went on with an unreasonable search that this was a violation to his Fourth Amendment rights even prior to this Court's decision last year in People versus Chimel.\nCertainly, in this particular case, the petitioner appealed and opposed all information and all evidence regarding that particular case at the trial level, at the Court of Appeal, at the Supreme Court and now here before the United States Supreme Court.\nThe particular trial court at the time they were ruling on the evidence of particularly the diary which is really the relevant issue in this particular case because without the diary, the evidence is insufficient to convict the particular petitioner, that at the time the trial judge ruled upon the admissibility of the particular evidence and the diary that the trial judge made a statement that a ruling adverse to the prosecution would open Pandora's box to the particular evidence that was included in this particular case.\nAnd what the Court meant, what the trial court meant at that time was not that this factual situation would open the Court, but this was opening such a vast exception to what this Court has ruled in the past.\nIt wouldn't fit, allow, and arrest, an arrest that was not a valid arrest, and this arrest of a mistaken person.\nAnd then to go from that arrest on to search the premises, to search for things that are not necessarily connected with the crime or the fruits of the particular crime the police were searching for.\nWell, the Court of Appeal after taking --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [14.264, 48.616, 64.998, 90.212, 99.83, 113.725, 145.6, 164.667, 201.175, 214.215, 223.452, 239.83], "stop_times": [48.616, 64.998, 90.212, 99.83, 113.725, 145.6, 164.667, 201.175, 214.215, 223.452, 239.83, 243.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.264}, "reply_to": "15493__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_002", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Part of Chimel was carried backwards, then in this case, does this satisfy Chimel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [243.734], "stop_times": [253.818], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 243.734}, "reply_to": "15493__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15493__0_003", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI believe we have a question that this comes within the rule of Chimel that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [253.818, 254.643], "stop_times": [254.643, 261.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.818}, "reply_to": "15493__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_004", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "You mean it's invalid under Chimel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [261.527], "stop_times": [263.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.527}, "reply_to": "15493__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_005", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It's invalid under Chimel.\nYes, Your Honor.\nI don't believe that this is the big issue in this particular case although I'm sure that the Court has granted certiorari on the basis of Chimel and the decision on whether to make it retroactive or not but the petitioner in this particular case had this go on the Court of Appeal.\nThe Court of Appeal of California reversed based upon the law of Rabinowitz and Harris and then the Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction in using those same two cases as guidelines.\nIt would seem based on the factual situation in this case that what we have here is the petitioner absent from his residence that the police finding information out from co-companions this case as the Court is aware of involved four individuals robbing a particular house and then two of those individuals shortly thereafter, a day or two thereafter was captured by the police on an unrelated crime possession of marijuana.\nThe police at that time had information from those particular police officers and the victims of the robbery itself also a bystander.\nSo it is not the petitioner's contention that there was not reasonable cause to arrest Hill.\nClearly, there was but it is the petitioner's contention that the rights of privacy that this Court has constantly held is the rights of privacy of the house and not the fact that reasonable cause allowed a mistaken arrest to then give effect and authority to an unreasonable search.\nFirst of all, the arrest itself was made which the -- excuse me, the petitioner contends in debatably good faith.\nFirst of all, there were four officers in this case.\nTwo of them carrying shot guns entered into the office of Hill.\nI should say the apartment of Hill.\nMiller was there.\nMiller answered the particular door and immediately thereafter, the officers arrested Miller.\nMiller stated that he was not Miller.\nMiller gave identification showing that he was not Miller and then when the officers asked whether or not Miller or -- knew where Hill was, Miller replied no, that he did not know where Hill was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [263.167, 264.741, 266.077, 286.16, 301.496, 333.835, 346.891, 352.553, 373.107, 383.7, 387.18, 391.789, 394.465, 396.342, 404.421, 407.559], "stop_times": [264.741, 266.077, 286.16, 301.496, 333.835, 346.891, 352.553, 373.107, 383.7, 387.18, 391.789, 394.465, 396.342, 404.421, 407.559, 421.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.167}, "reply_to": "15493__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_006", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well I'm not -- I'm not sure the significance of his disavowal or his claim that he was Miller and not Hill.\nThat is not unusual for people engaged in this kind of business to carry false identity cards and a lot of other things, is that no so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [421.246, 430.433], "stop_times": [430.433, 439.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.246}, "reply_to": "15493__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__0_007", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor but I think from the standpoint, when you take all these factors, the fact that there was couple inches in discrepancy in the height, 10 pounds in the weight that that could be said that he was Miller and that he was in Hill's apartment that at this particular point in time, he showed identification that he was Miller.\nThere's no information that the officers had prior to go into the residence of Hill that there was another person and there was no indication that Miller knew that the officers were coming in there or Hill.\nSo the officers and I think the case cited in the friend of the court brief shows that the officers are required to use diligence and prudence when they arrest the particular person and most of these cases hold that when a person or officer does not use diligence that in fact is an -- a bad faith arrest.\nIn one particular case cited by the friend of the court brief, it even held that particular officer liable in damages for an amount of $1,500.00 and in that particular dissenting opinion and I'm referring to Walton versus Will, 66 Cal. 2d 509, the dissenting opinion stated that in all respects the description of accused was either identical with or closely approximated that of respondent and that was a particular same name case.\nIn this situation, the names were not the same at all.\nArchi --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [439.782, 457.839, 470.434, 497.958, 533.728, 537.289], "stop_times": [457.839, 470.434, 497.958, 533.728, 537.289, 537.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.782}, "reply_to": "15493__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_008", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Would you have expressed the language by the state courts officers though mistaken in their identification, (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [537.506], "stop_times": [547.661], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 537.506}, "reply_to": "15493__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15493__0_009", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [547.661], "stop_times": [548.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.661}, "reply_to": "15493__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_010", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "So you have to start with that practice; your argument also starts with that practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [548.115], "stop_times": [554.628], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 548.115}, "reply_to": "15493__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15493__0_011", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, I think it starts from that premise from the standpoint --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [554.628], "stop_times": [558.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.628}, "reply_to": "15493__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_012", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "-- those findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [558.022], "stop_times": [559.276], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 558.022}, "reply_to": "15493__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15493__0_013", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nBut I think in all these particular search and seizure cases that all the facts are important that this initial arrest should also be considered in light of the total search itself which the petitioner contends is unreasonable so then we go on to the search itself.\nThe search was directed towards the bedroom, a material search which disclosed a particular diary and some of the other fruits of the search.\nA diary is the area that the petitioner contends as totally unreasonable as far as the search is concerned and that it is totally inconsistent with Rabinowitz, with Harris or any other cases that this particular Court has decided.\nFirst of all, the officers had no way of getting the search warrant based upon the information they had regarding the diary.\nThe fact that they were able to search that particular residence and assuming they are allowed to search the drawers and rummage through the particular dresser drawers, this Court has always state in the past that because you have a lawful search does necessarily mean that you have a right to seize.\nIn the respondent's brief, it is indicated that they came across this particular diary in the search for other items and we're talking about cameras, we're talking about clothes and certain types of hoods that the particular suspects wore during the commission of the robbery.\nEven in People versus Harris which is probably the most liberal decision allowing the police to search, this Court held that not in all cases will they allow such an extensive search.\nCertainly, in Harris they were looking for checks, two to $10,000.00 checks and by the nature of the search, by the nature of the things that they were looking for, it would require looking into a particular drawer or books or personal belongings.\nBut what information the officers had in this particular case did not require that type of search.\nAnd if in fact they did and as concluded by this Court, that they made a reasonable search then it's submitted by the petitioner that it was an unlawful seizure.\nAnd Boyd versus United States has held that an unlawful search or an unlawful seizure are not dependent upon each other.\nSo certainly, the petitioner is strongly contending for that one item alone that it was an unreasonable search and seizure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [559.276, 560.58, 579.752, 590.137, 607.143, 617.07, 638.992, 662.158, 677.847, 696.694, 704.008, 715.879, 729.541], "stop_times": [560.58, 579.752, 590.137, 607.143, 617.07, 638.992, 662.158, 677.847, 696.694, 704.008, 715.879, 729.541, 738.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.276}, "reply_to": "15493__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_014", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And that's a proceeding on the premise that there was a probable cause to make an arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [738.347], "stop_times": [746.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.347}, "reply_to": "15493__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_015", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Your Honor, we assume --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [746.035], "stop_times": [747.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.035}, "reply_to": "15493__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_016", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Of Hill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [747.217], "stop_times": [748.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.217}, "reply_to": "15493__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_017", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI don't believe there's any question.\nWe have not raised issues that we don't think are extremely material and relevant or strong issues so to speak.\nWe have raised issues relevant to the arrest itself and the seizure itself and certainly we wanted the arrest itself, the fact that it wasn't the person that the officers were there to make sure that all the circumstances of the case were before the Court.\nCertainly, it doesn't need dwelling on that Rabinowitz and Harris which the California Supreme Court relied on to affirm the conviction of the petitioner is totally different from the fact situation in this case.\nI already indicated this in my particular brief and I don't believe it needs elaboration on at this time but certainly we are emphasizing at this time that there is really no degree of consistency with the fact situation, the application of the Fourth Amendment in that case as compared to the case at bar.\nI would like to go to the second point and that's to the determination of whether or not this Court will make Chimel, People versus Chimel retroactive or not.\nIn this particular case, I think it directly comes into play another part, another exception, another area on the part of the prosecution to press their case.\nI think it's another area that this Court could reverse in addition to the very initial contention the petitioners made.\nAnd that is the fact that Chimel, People versus Chimel decided last year clearly limits the police to search a particular residence and while many questions have been raised as to how far the police are allowed to search certainly, this instance where the particular arrest was made in the living room or this Court hasn't cited that as not a material fact.\nThen the search was made beyond the immediate scope of the particular petitioner that I quote, \u201cpetitioner because in fact he was not even present that the arrest could not or search could not pursue into the living room, into drawers and in fact the general and exploratory search to find evidence of the crime.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [748.456, 750.516, 752.242, 758.928, 781.412, 799.582, 835.411, 848.923, 865.602, 875.851, 908.269], "stop_times": [750.516, 752.242, 758.928, 781.412, 799.582, 835.411, 848.923, 865.602, 875.851, 908.269, 932.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 748.456}, "reply_to": "15493__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_018", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "This was -- how big was this apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [932.488], "stop_times": [934.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.488}, "reply_to": "15493__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_019", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "This apartment was a one bedroom, kitchen and a small living room apartment, a four-room apartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [934.589], "stop_times": [942.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.589}, "reply_to": "15493__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_020", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Four-room apartment including the kitchen.\nAnd Miller was in the living room, was he, when the police came in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [942.766, 946.003], "stop_times": [946.003, 950.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.766}, "reply_to": "15493__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_021", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nMiller was lying on the couch.\nWhen the four policemen came in, he went to the door and was immediately arrested at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [950.806, 951.333, 953.029], "stop_times": [951.333, 953.029, 957.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.806}, "reply_to": "15493__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_022", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And the diary was found in the drawer of the desk or closet or be over something in what room?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [957.797], "stop_times": [965.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.797}, "reply_to": "15493__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_023", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It was found in the bedroom, in a small drawer in the bedroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [965.255], "stop_times": [968.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.255}, "reply_to": "15493__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_024", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "In the bedroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [968.563], "stop_times": [973.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.563}, "reply_to": "15493__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__0_025", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Now, insofar as retroactivity on this particular case, certainly, this Court has decided that it depends on a case by case basis, depending on the law, the actual effect that will have in the administration of justice and whether or not it will serve to a good effect on the past content of the courts.\nNow, it is contended that the administration of justice will be strongly effective as a result of making Chimel retroactive.\nThe petitioner contends that this will not in fact be the case, that the courts are extremely flexible, and in the past, time and time again, the courts on major counties have been able to take some of their civil judges and utilize them for criminal manners and this happens on occasion even if when there is no strong decision from this Court changing the particular law.\nThe petitioner strongly contends that making Chimel retroactive will not have that greater effect on the particular administration of justice from the standpoint of having a lot of criminals who've been unconstitutionally convicted are being released.\nPetitioners contended in his reply brief that surely the appeals that are pending now could easily affect the laws as this Court has enunciated in People versus Chimel.\nIt seems appropriate that when you review the cases regarding this particular problem in Alaska Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals in New Mexico that these cases have applied Chimel on direct appeals only and then when you review the cases you also see that they applied to these particular cases without opinion.\nAnd when the cases are not utilizing Chimel on direct appeal that they seem to state what this Court has stated in Stovall versus California and the Desist case setting forth the three criteria that this Court strongly considers in their determination of whether or not a case in criminal law should be made retroactive or not.\nBut that the courts in fact have just come to a conclusion that when there is a constitutional finding before it that they review the facts as the law as it is in that pending appeal.\nAnd it doesn't have to be satisfied with the law of opinion or justification but that in fact it seems reasonable to those particular judges that this case should be made as the law has stated by this Court and that set some date that when a particular case, an arrest was made two to three years ago and have all those particular arrests, then based upon whether or not it was constitutional or not constitutional and that's immaterial because the date of the arrest to Chimel, the date of seizure, search and seizure is not the same date as specified in the pending appeal.\nThis particular case was close to Chimel.\nThe petitioner contended at the time that the Court of Appeal that this was not a case where the law of Rabinowitz and Harris and I am referring back to the first issue if I may was not constitutionally sanctioned to search even at that time.\nSo certainly insofar as Chimel is concerned which far limits the courts and far limits the courts in affirming the rights of the police officers to search.\nIt would be submitted by this petitioner that certainly Chimel should made retroactive at least that the case is on direct appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [973.682, 1006.15, 1017.675, 1047.353, 1067.341, 1084.582, 1110.468, 1137.218, 1154.024, 1200.999, 1207.015, 1232.051, 1249.697], "stop_times": [1006.15, 1017.675, 1047.353, 1067.341, 1084.582, 1110.468, 1137.218, 1154.024, 1200.999, 1207.015, 1232.051, 1249.697, 1266.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.682}, "reply_to": "15493__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__0_026", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amato.\nMr. George.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1266.069, 1267.542], "stop_times": [1267.542, 1274.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.069}, "reply_to": "15493__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_000", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "The sole issues in this case are whether the search of petitioner's one-bedroom apartment was lawful under then existing law, and secondly, if the search was not lawful under present law as defined by this Court's decision seven months ago in Chimel versus California whether Chimel is to be applied retroactively.\nThe factual setting in which the lawfulness of the search arises is a rather unusual one and I therefore like to chronicle it briefly.\nOn June 4, 1966, a robbery involving a brutal assault was committed by a gang of four armed men, one of whom was petitioner.\nAs part of the series of robberies committed by this gang or we can say which this gang was suspected, in a particular district in Los Angeles.\nTwo days later after this robbery, in the evening, the police acquired probable cause to arrest petitioner and this is conceded by petitioner in this Court.\nI won't dwell upon the probable cause to arrest petitioner.\nThat's clear and as I said conceded.\nThe police then proceed to petitioner's apartment in order to arrest petitioner and to retrieve the weapons used in the assault and robberies and in order to retrieve the disguises in stolen property.\nIn fact, this is done with the consent of one Bader who is one of the members of the gang, Bader and one other man have been placed in custody and Bader is petitioner's roommate.\nThe police knock and identified themselves and they're confronted by somebody who later turns out to be Mr. Miller.\nNow, Miller is the sole occupant of the apartment at this time, and he opens the door.\nHe looks almost identical to petitioner.\nIn fact, the discrepancies are almost negligible, brown hair, brown eyes, almost the same height and weight.\nIn fact, petitioner was two inches shorter, 5'10\" instead of 6 feet and he was 10 pounds lighter as well.\nBut that is a negligible discrepancy and one that certainly isn't necessarily apparent to the officers or one that need not be apparent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1274.609, 1295.97, 1305.534, 1315.093, 1327.122, 1338.971, 1342.532, 1345.616, 1361.465, 1376.108, 1384.416, 1391.344, 1395.572, 1403.445, 1411.818], "stop_times": [1295.97, 1305.534, 1315.093, 1327.122, 1338.971, 1342.532, 1345.616, 1361.465, 1376.108, 1384.416, 1391.344, 1395.572, 1403.445, 1411.818, 1421.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1274.609}, "reply_to": "15493__0_026", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_001", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That issue is foreclosed unless we're going to review the findings of fact, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1421.401], "stop_times": [1426.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.401}, "reply_to": "15493__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_002", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I would think so, yes because the trial court and the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court all found that the officers did act with good faith and I know this Court has stated that good faith is not a substitute for probable cause but of course there's no substitution here.\nThere is ample probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1426.167, 1445.591], "stop_times": [1445.591, 1447.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1426.167}, "reply_to": "15493__1_001", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_003", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "By good faith in this context, do you mean that the -- you submit that there was a finding by both of the courts state or all three of the courts of the state that the officers genuinely believe that Miller was Hill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1447.446], "stop_times": [1463.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.446}, "reply_to": "15493__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_004", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1463.816], "stop_times": [1464.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1463.816}, "reply_to": "15493__1_003", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_005", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Do I understand you correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1464.457], "stop_times": [1465.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.457}, "reply_to": "15493__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_006", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That is correct.\nYes.\nAnd there are many things that support this, this person in addition to, is almost identical physical description.\nHe suspiciously and evasively denied having seen any guns in the apartment yet when the officers are standing outside the apartment after the door has been opened they see an automatic and a loaded clip right on the coffee table in plain view.\nThe person denies being petitioner but he's unable to give any satisfactory explanation for his presence in the apartment.\nHe says he had some kind of identification showing his name to be Miller but this doesn't mean much to the arresting officer as the Chief Justice noted, it's commonly known and the trial court took judicial notice of this fact that many criminals at least in California do carry false identification.\nIt's an easy thing to combine.\nAnd why should the officers believe this identification when they -- when he just lied about the gun not knowing there was a gun in plain view.\nThe small part was then searched incident to this valid but mistaken arrest of Miller and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1465.427, 1466.334, 1468.273, 1475.511, 1491.965, 1499.379, 1519.323, 1522.265, 1531.281], "stop_times": [1466.334, 1468.273, 1475.511, 1491.965, 1499.379, 1519.323, 1522.265, 1531.281, 1538.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1465.427}, "reply_to": "15493__1_005", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_007", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "What were they searching for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1538.696], "stop_times": [1540.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.696}, "reply_to": "15493__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_008", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "They were searching for the weapons which they've been told would be at the apartment.\nThe weapons used in this crime and disguises which they had heard were there and presumably some of the stolen property as well which they had reason to believe were there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1540.371, 1545.974], "stop_times": [1545.974, 1556.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1540.371}, "reply_to": "15493__1_007", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_009", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "So diary was just a windfall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1556.62], "stop_times": [1558.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.62}, "reply_to": "15493__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_010", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That is correct.\nThey had no idea and it's not even suggested that anybody had any idea there was such a diary.\nI don't think it's something we would assume that a person would write, \u201cDear diary, yesterday I committed a crime.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1558.923, 1560.11, 1566.402], "stop_times": [1560.11, 1566.402, 1570.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1558.923}, "reply_to": "15493__1_009", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_011", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, if you by any chance have gone for a search warrant, you wouldn't have been able to mention that diary, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1570.767], "stop_times": [1579.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.767}, "reply_to": "15493__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_012", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, it would've happen, we would submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1579.0], "stop_times": [1580.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1579.0}, "reply_to": "15493__1_011", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_013", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1580.474], "stop_times": [1581.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.474}, "reply_to": "15493__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_014", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, I will answer that.\nI think that one could have obtained this diary with a search warrant in a following way by searching for weapons, for looking for weapons in a place where weapons might logically be a bedroom, a dresser drawer opening up the drawer, seeing the diary opened to that current page and then going to use that information lawfully.\nWhy don't you get a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1581.926, 1583.543, 1604.09], "stop_times": [1583.543, 1604.09, 1605.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1581.926}, "reply_to": "15493__1_013", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_015", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "What if the constitutional requirement to specify what you're searching for and where you search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1605.221], "stop_times": [1611.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.221}, "reply_to": "15493__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_016", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1611.997], "stop_times": [1612.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1611.997}, "reply_to": "15493__1_015", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_017", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Is that gone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1612.523], "stop_times": [1613.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.523}, "reply_to": "15493__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_018", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That is not gone.\nBut the officers would've acquired information lawfully by being where they had a right to be in a place where they might find --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1613.715, 1614.624], "stop_times": [1614.624, 1622.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1613.715}, "reply_to": "15493__1_017", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_019", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, you still will agree, will you not that you would be a little better off if you have that search warrant, just a little bit better off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1622.073], "stop_times": [1628.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.073}, "reply_to": "15493__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_020", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "We would be better off but of course that was not the law at the time and we have an alternate argument that even under current law, there were exigent circumstances here which would have not require the officers to obtain a search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1628.768], "stop_times": [1643.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1628.768}, "reply_to": "15493__1_019", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_021", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "What were the exigent circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1643.025], "stop_times": [1645.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.025}, "reply_to": "15493__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_022", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "The exigent circumstances were as follows.\nThe officers have two suspects of the four robbery gang members in custody.\nThey knew that there was a series of robbery being committed.\nThey just found out that petitioner was one of the men and this was after court hours.\nThere was a great likelihood that other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1645.197, 1648.171, 1655.832, 1659.159, 1666.857], "stop_times": [1648.171, 1655.832, 1659.159, 1666.857, 1669.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.197}, "reply_to": "15493__1_021", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_023", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, the still have dates straightened out.\nThey got this information on June 4, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1669.355, 1672.397], "stop_times": [1672.397, 1676.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.355}, "reply_to": "15493__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_024", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, I'll give a chronicle if Your Honor please.\nOn June 4, the robbery was committed, at 10:30 p.m., that's a Saturday night.\nOn June 6, Monday, at 5:30 p.m., the officers commenced their talk with Baum and Bader who are in custody.\nThat talk finishes sometime thereafter, we don't know exactly when.\nAt 8:15, that same evening, they go to the apartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1676.025, 1679.836, 1686.201, 1696.229, 1700.149], "stop_times": [1679.836, 1686.201, 1696.229, 1700.149, 1705.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.025}, "reply_to": "15493__1_023", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_025", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Same evening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1705.144], "stop_times": [1706.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.144}, "reply_to": "15493__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_026", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Same evening.\nNow, there were two members of the gang at large.\nWe submit that the officers did not have to wait and worry about these fellows committing other crimes.\nAlso the -- there was a distinct possibility that petitioner would learn of the fact that two of the members of the gang have been taken into custody and would remove these weapons from the apartment.\nAnd finally, what one could say well, why they didn't go ahead and seized petitioner, arrest him and then the next day go back to the search warrant.\nWell, we have this fourth member of the gang back out who was still at large and he might be alerted by the fact that these three members were placed in custody and might remove the property before a search warrant could be obtained.\nSo, this is not the type of situation that Chimel criticizes where the officers routinely as a matter of course dispensed with the requirement of a search warrant.\nChimel itself is replete with language recognizing that there are situations where a search without a search warrant is justifiable and we would submit strongly that this is one of those situations.\nNow, this is an alternate argument because we urge very strongly that Chimel is not retroactive but in turn I feel that the search passes master under either Chimel or pre-Chimel law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1706.084, 1707.465, 1710.64, 1718.066, 1731.051, 1740.25, 1754.396, 1766.206, 1779.389], "stop_times": [1707.465, 1710.64, 1718.066, 1731.051, 1740.25, 1754.396, 1766.206, 1779.389, 1796.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.084}, "reply_to": "15493__1_025", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_027", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Suppose it -- suppose it were retroactive, why do say it's a safe to reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1796.055], "stop_times": [1801.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.055}, "reply_to": "15493__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__1_028", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Because the officers were confronted with a situation where time was of the essence.\nThis gang was going around assaulting and robbing people.\nThe evidence might be removed from the apartment if the other members of the gang at large were apprised of the fact that some of their members had been arrested.\nAnd it's pretty clear that they all had access to this apartment which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1801.712, 1809.632, 1813.555, 1825.557], "stop_times": [1809.632, 1813.555, 1825.557, 1829.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.712}, "reply_to": "15493__1_027", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_029", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Mr. George, directing your attention to page 76 which appears to be the opinion of the Supreme Court.\nIt said that they were arrested on June 5th and the information was obtained on June 5th and again on June 6th, am I reading it right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1829.935, 1837.743], "stop_times": [1837.743, 1853.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.935}, "reply_to": "15493__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_030", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And again, in June -- you know, I read that over last night and I thought I've been missing something.\nI come to that record Baum and Bader were only spoke -- only spoke once to the arresting officer.\nThere was no telling him and not telling him again --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1853.359, 1858.483, 1864.986], "stop_times": [1858.483, 1864.986, 1867.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.359}, "reply_to": "15493__1_029", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_031", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, how in the world did the Supreme Court of California make this mistake?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1867.702], "stop_times": [1871.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.702}, "reply_to": "15493__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_032", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, as this Court has found previously, they are not infallible and I submit this is a mistake on their part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1871.926], "stop_times": [1880.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.926}, "reply_to": "15493__1_031", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_033", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Occasionally, this Court makes factual errors in its opinions too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1880.053], "stop_times": [1883.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.053}, "reply_to": "15493__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_034", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes.\nBut I -- I just last night looked over this and read the entire record carefully including the state court record and it's clear that this officer spoke only once to Bader and Baum and that was the only information he had from them, that he acquired it 5:30 on June the 6th.\nAnd I think these state findings are entitled to great weight where they are supported by the evidence especially regarding the good faith of the officers here.\nAnd I think too the fact of judicial notice where the Court can consider as evidence these facts of common knowledge that the false identification is being carried and that although the man was booked under this different name that in California you're booked under the name you give.\nSo clearly, the officers did consider Miller to be Hill.\nNow, I think we get to the heart of the case here.\nWe have a valid arrest and we assume it's a valid arrest.\nNow, a search incident to arrest, of course, is permissible.\nThe scope bearing with the time, we submit, that the search occurred, pre-Chimel and post-Chimel.\nNow, the question is what is the effect of this mistake?\nFirst of all we'd like to note that it's highly unlikely that upholding this search would open up a Pandora's Box.\nThe party's diligent research does not disclose this factual situation arising in any other state or federal case.\nIt's a highly unusual situation and the Fourth Amendment bars only unreasonable searches.\nNow, what is their unreasonable in conducting the same type of search which would have been permissible had the arrestee in fact and the petitioner and the officers not have made this reasonable mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [1883.42, 1884.075, 1905.844, 1918.099, 1938.45, 1944.902, 1949.441, 1954.325, 1959.216, 1965.961, 1971.059, 1979.83, 1987.184, 1995.397], "stop_times": [1884.075, 1905.844, 1918.099, 1938.45, 1944.902, 1949.441, 1954.325, 1959.216, 1965.961, 1971.059, 1979.83, 1987.184, 1995.397, 2008.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1883.42}, "reply_to": "15493__1_033", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_035", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "What did you expect to find with the diary, a book?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2008.182], "stop_times": [2012.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.182}, "reply_to": "15493__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_036", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It's not clear.\nAll that was introduced are two pieces of paper.\nNow, we don't know if they were in notebook form or what.\nThey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2012.23, 2013.259, 2017.666, 2022.744], "stop_times": [2013.259, 2017.666, 2022.744, 2022.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.23}, "reply_to": "15493__1_035", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_037", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Why do you expect to find in a book?\nYou're searching for weapons or disguises.\nDo you expect to find something in a -- the book may have been in plain sight in those places where you were entitled if you were to look for some other things but all you can see was the book.\nWhat makes -- what entitles you to look inside a book?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2022.881, 2025.378, 2027.81, 2038.887], "stop_times": [2025.378, 2027.81, 2038.887, 2042.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.881}, "reply_to": "15493__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_038", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "We don't know.\nThey did look inside the book.\nWe don't know that there was a book.\nIt might have been opened like that if there were book, since that was the current period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2042.021, 2043.404, 2044.522, 2045.896], "stop_times": [2043.404, 2044.522, 2045.896, 2049.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.021}, "reply_to": "15493__1_037", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_039", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Why would you read it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2049.893], "stop_times": [2052.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.893}, "reply_to": "15493__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_040", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "You might just see it.\nYou might open up a drawer and there it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2052.185, 2053.976], "stop_times": [2053.976, 2056.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.185}, "reply_to": "15493__1_039", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_041", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "You see some pages but you just don't automatically know what those words say unless you take the trouble to read it.\nWhat right did you have to read those materials anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2056.353, 2063.71], "stop_times": [2063.71, 2068.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.353}, "reply_to": "15493__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_042", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2068.072], "stop_times": [2068.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.072}, "reply_to": "15493__1_041", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_043", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It's just a Fourth Amendment argument, is the Fifth Amendment argument here or was that raised in the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2068.333], "stop_times": [2075.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.333}, "reply_to": "15493__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_044", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "The Fifth Amendment point is made somewhat inappropriately by petitioner in this Court because it was not at all raised in either of the four courts in the state proceedings and it was not raised in the petition for certiorari, so in effect it's what Justice Jackson called the Irving case smuggling in an issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2075.382], "stop_times": [2096.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.382}, "reply_to": "15493__1_043", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_045", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "So you think it's just a Fourth Amendment question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2096.534], "stop_times": [2098.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.534}, "reply_to": "15493__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_046", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2098.964], "stop_times": [2100.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.964}, "reply_to": "15493__1_045", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_047", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Would you think you could have looked assuming the search you were making was valid, could you look in a sealed envelope?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2100.042], "stop_times": [2108.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.042}, "reply_to": "15493__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_048", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "In a sealed envelope?\nI think it would depend on the envelope.Maybe there would be a knife between the pages of the book.\nRemember there were two knives used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2108.75, 2110.3, 2115.21], "stop_times": [2110.3, 2115.21, 2116.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.75}, "reply_to": "15493__1_047", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_049", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It's been little narrow -- little narrow sealed envelope?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2116.744], "stop_times": [2121.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.744}, "reply_to": "15493__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_050", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I don't think that the officers could look inside that kind of envelope.\nNo, not that it might at the present day law anyway and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2121.033, 2125.612], "stop_times": [2125.612, 2132.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.033}, "reply_to": "15493__1_049", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_051", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Or even pre-Chimel law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2132.533], "stop_times": [2135.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.533}, "reply_to": "15493__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_052", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, under pre-Chimel I think that they could really because the scope was not restricted and they can look for evidence, they can look for stolen property and they can look for pretty much what so legitimate matter of concern and I don't think there's any basic limitation on that.\nI think the mere evidence rule being rejected in Warden v. Hayden eliminates this distinctions where we worry about one piece of paper which in one case maybe a so-called instrumentality by the court reaching a strained application of that doctrine, save it from a mere evidence.\nI think that you can certainly look inside envelopes under pre-Chimel law.\nI don't think there's any problem but again that's not our situation here.\nThe officers are looking only in places where a weapon could reasonably be.\nNow, basically what the petitioner is relying on here in his attempt to persuade us that the search is unreasonable is an outmoded and totally inappropriate concept of property law.\nHe's saying, well fine the arrest is alright and this defendant here, he had the control over the premises in the sense of physical control, he could go and grab a weapon.\nHe could go run over to evidence but he didn't have control in a proprietary sense.\nWell, that's a totally inappropriate standard.\nI think that Katz has effectively buried these distinctions and the -- I think what the Silverman opinion says is very appropriate here.\nIt cautions that the scope of the Fourth Amendment cannot be ascertained by resort of the ancient niceties of tort or real property law.\nAnd the Jones case, the opinion by Justice Frankfurter says the same thing.\nNow, I think the principles involved in this case are graphically illustrated by considering the following hypothetical situation.\nLet's assume that Miller was arrested in petitioner's apartment but the petitioner was right there.\nAnd the police wanted to arrest Miller that they knew he was visiting there.\nCertainly, even under Chimel, the police could search the area within the reach of the visitor.\nThe officer need not decide, well this is really Hill's apartment here and I have to risk being shot by Miller who might grab a weapon, he has the right to a certain extent invade the privacy of the proprietor of these premises.\nNow, question is why.\nWell, I think that there's a certain assumption of risk on the part of the defendant.\nHere, the petitioner talks about the risk that the invasion of the petitioner's privacy.\nWell, one takes a risk in inviting a visitor on the premises, just as one may risk tort liability if he falls over the carpet.\nI think it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2135.3, 2153.237, 2175.281, 2181.122, 2186.344, 2192.816, 2210.714, 2222.334, 2229.22, 2233.225, 2243.195, 2252.283, 2259.85, 2269.595, 2277.287, 2287.005, 2295.171, 2312.704, 2315.455, 2320.855, 2327.35, 2336.547], "stop_times": [2153.237, 2175.281, 2181.122, 2186.344, 2192.816, 2210.714, 2222.334, 2229.22, 2233.225, 2243.195, 2252.283, 2259.85, 2269.595, 2277.287, 2287.005, 2295.171, 2312.704, 2315.455, 2320.855, 2327.35, 2336.547, 2337.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.3}, "reply_to": "15493__1_051", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_053", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "This risk being that your visitor, your social guest may be somebody whom the police are pursuing or want to arrest for some reason and therefore going to enter your house and in the restriction search of your guest, they're going to an extent invade the privacy of your house, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2337.315], "stop_times": [2361.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.315}, "reply_to": "15493__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_054", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, exactly.\nI think similarly, if one gives a key to ones apartment to somebody else or leaves the door unlock, one assumes certain risks.\nMaybe a thief will enter.\nMaybe a pursued felon will enter and that's the situation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2361.196, 2362.621, 2370.984, 2373.341], "stop_times": [2362.621, 2370.984, 2373.341, 2377.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.196}, "reply_to": "15493__1_053", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_055", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "How did Miller get into this house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2377.917], "stop_times": [2379.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.917}, "reply_to": "15493__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_056", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "We don't know.\nAnd he gave a very strange explanation.\nApparently, just didn't come right out and say, \u201cWell, I got in this way or so.\u201d\nHe fudged around a bit and Frazier versus Cupp, the recent opinion of this Court stated with reference to the search of a duffle bag there.\nWell, so and so's roommate didn't have authority to give consent.\nWell, the Court said look and I believe it was Justice Marshall's opinion, \u201cYou left that bag there in his custody and you sort of assume the risk that he'd say, well, look through the bag.\u201d\nAnd I think that's what we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2379.553, 2380.347, 2383.02, 2387.809, 2397.286, 2400.557, 2411.229], "stop_times": [2380.347, 2383.02, 2387.809, 2397.286, 2400.557, 2411.229, 2413.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.553}, "reply_to": "15493__1_055", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_057", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Is there anything in the record to show that held up Miller in custody in the apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2413.412], "stop_times": [2418.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.412}, "reply_to": "15493__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_058", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, there's nothing to show that.\nBut he obviously got in somehow and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2418.5, 2421.162], "stop_times": [2421.162, 2423.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.5}, "reply_to": "15493__1_057", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_059", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That's different from the duffle bag.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2423.095], "stop_times": [2424.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.095}, "reply_to": "15493__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_060", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And I think what's interesting is that absolutely no defense was offered at the preliminary hearing or at the trial.\nNot one word of evidence to come forward and indicate that this apartment had been locked or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2424.444, 2431.971], "stop_times": [2431.971, 2441.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.444}, "reply_to": "15493__1_059", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_061", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, you mean no claim that he was a trespasser?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2441.38], "stop_times": [2443.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.38}, "reply_to": "15493__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_062", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2443.807], "stop_times": [2444.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.807}, "reply_to": "15493__1_061", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_063", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No claim by Hill that Miller was a trespasser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2444.336], "stop_times": [2446.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.336}, "reply_to": "15493__1_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_064", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "There's no claim whatsoever.\nSimilarly, I think that if Miller's -- Miller had been arrested in his own apartment, in Miller's apartment and this had all been a mistake, what would happen if the officers found marijuana on Miller's pocket, let's say or in the drawer.\nI think it would be clearly admissible against Miller despite the invasion of his privacy, if it was a reasonable mistake to arrest Miller and to search his premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2446.836, 2449.365, 2463.774], "stop_times": [2449.365, 2463.774, 2473.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.836}, "reply_to": "15493__1_063", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_065", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "You mean if a man, a word comes out that a six-foot, 200-pound blonde man committed the crime then the police have a right to go into anybody's apartment that fits that description.\nCertainly, you don't mean that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2473.931, 2486.979], "stop_times": [2486.979, 2488.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.931}, "reply_to": "15493__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_066", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, and I didn't mean to imply that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2488.905], "stop_times": [2490.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.905}, "reply_to": "15493__1_065", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_067", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I thought so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2490.873], "stop_times": [2491.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.873}, "reply_to": "15493__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_068", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "There's much more evidence here.\nIt would have to be a reasonable mistake and that's always going to be a case by case basis.\nLet's say somebody says it's a six-foot, 200-pound blonde who lives in Apartment 6 at 1931 so and so drive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2491.36, 2492.855, 2497.461], "stop_times": [2492.855, 2497.461, 2505.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.36}, "reply_to": "15493__1_067", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_069", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "But you said, anyone I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2505.608], "stop_times": [2507.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.608}, "reply_to": "15493__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_070", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, I didn't mean to imply it would be that broad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2507.531], "stop_times": [2510.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.531}, "reply_to": "15493__1_069", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_071", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And you understand Chimel to say that if you arrest the man to live in room, you could search every room in the apartment that he is able to walk into?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2510.694], "stop_times": [2519.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.694}, "reply_to": "15493__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_072", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "When there are exigent circumstances that this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2519.185], "stop_times": [2521.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.185}, "reply_to": "15493__1_071", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_073", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That would go to a three-storey house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2521.974], "stop_times": [2524.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.974}, "reply_to": "15493__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_074", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, not necessarily.\nI would want to say what it is in the Warden versus Hayden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2524.951, 2526.458], "stop_times": [2526.458, 2530.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.951}, "reply_to": "15493__1_073", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_075", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I thought Chimel said what was it would then where he could reach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2530.005], "stop_times": [2533.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.005}, "reply_to": "15493__1_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_076", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It said that is the normal rule and not to dispense with that, you would have to have exceptional circumstances and normally --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2533.758], "stop_times": [2541.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2533.758}, "reply_to": "15493__1_075", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_077", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And what's the exceptional circumstance here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2541.257], "stop_times": [2543.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.257}, "reply_to": "15493__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_078", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I attempted to outline --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2543.495], "stop_times": [2545.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2543.495}, "reply_to": "15493__1_077", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_079", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That he will go in and get a gun and shoot somebody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2545.277], "stop_times": [2548.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.277}, "reply_to": "15493__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_080", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, that there were other robbers in this gang at large and that when they heard that petitioner's confederates were arrested or that petitioner was there, then they would come and remove these weapons from the premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2548.231], "stop_times": [2563.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.231}, "reply_to": "15493__1_079", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_081", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, couldn't they stay there until somebody got a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2563.971], "stop_times": [2567.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.971}, "reply_to": "15493__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_082", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It's an interesting question.\nI'm fairly rather pessimistic under California law.\nOfficers have asked me that.\nI don't know under California law what would give the right to camp out in the apartment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2567.584, 2568.772, 2571.963, 2573.244], "stop_times": [2568.772, 2571.963, 2573.244, 2578.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.584}, "reply_to": "15493__1_081", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_083", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "For the same night that would give them a right to tear the door down, and say right I would assume, if they got one, they got the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2578.823], "stop_times": [2584.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.823}, "reply_to": "15493__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_084", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, there was no tearing down of any door here.\nThis was a perfectly legitimate search.\nThey knocked and identified themselves.\nThey followed all the proper rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2584.561, 2586.819, 2590.129, 2592.07], "stop_times": [2586.819, 2590.129, 2592.07, 2593.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.561}, "reply_to": "15493__1_083", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_085", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "They identified themselves, and this man says, \u201cCome on in, fine.\u201d\nI just happen to have a loaded revolver laying on the table there which you can see that I'm a criminal.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2593.436, 2598.013], "stop_times": [2598.013, 2603.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.436}, "reply_to": "15493__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15493__1_086", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, he says, \u201cI don't have a loaded revolver and its right there.\u201d\nThat's quite a different situation.\nAnd there's a lot of other circumstances.\nIn other words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2603.242, 2606.996, 2609.184, 2611.243], "stop_times": [2606.996, 2609.184, 2611.243, 2611.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.242}, "reply_to": "15493__1_085", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_087", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "When he entered the room counsel, when he entered the room, could he, the officer at that time or the officers see whether there was more than one person, one occupant of the apartment at once?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2611.737], "stop_times": [2627.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.737}, "reply_to": "15493__1_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_088", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, they could -- they could not.\nThey had to of course look into areas where a person could be secreted but we're not going to claim the extreme position that they could look inside the drawer, because obviously a person can't be secreted there.\nSo we're justifying it on this other basics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2627.728, 2629.544, 2643.982], "stop_times": [2629.544, 2643.982, 2647.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.728}, "reply_to": "15493__1_087", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_089", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "But they could look in every opening from that main room in which someone might be able to conduct an ambush of the officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2647.058], "stop_times": [2657.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.058}, "reply_to": "15493__1_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_090", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Certainly.\nLet's say under a bed or in the closet or in another room.\nThey certainly have the right to do that, we would submit.\nI think that if the Court would conclude otherwise, you know any felon could frustrate an arrest and search.\nAll he'd have to do is say, \u201cI'm not the defendant.\nI'm not the man you're looking for\u201d and especially if he has phony ID.\nThen what does the officer have to do.\nThen he would stopped as a matter of law from continuing, he would have to go away and find some 100% proof that this in fact was the criminal and then perhaps the evidence could be removed.\nThis would really give the criminal a veto power over every search.\nHe just have to claim, \u201cI'm not the man.\u201d\nNow, go prove it.\nNow, I won't discuss this purported issue under the Fifth Amendment.\nWe pointed to that it was deliberately waived, I think, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2657.923, 2658.407, 2661.716, 2665.105, 2673.332, 2676.921, 2681.541, 2684.393, 2697.056, 2701.746, 2705.377, 2710.1, 2713.925], "stop_times": [2658.407, 2661.716, 2665.105, 2673.332, 2676.921, 2681.541, 2684.393, 2697.056, 2701.746, 2705.377, 2710.1, 2713.925, 2718.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.923}, "reply_to": "15493__1_089", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_091", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Let's assume -- assume for the moment it isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2718.488], "stop_times": [2721.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.488}, "reply_to": "15493__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_092", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2721.461], "stop_times": [2722.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.461}, "reply_to": "15493__1_091", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_093", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It isn't waived.\nDo you think he's got a good Fifth Amendment claim in the introduction of the diary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2722.151, 2724.818], "stop_times": [2724.818, 2730.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.151}, "reply_to": "15493__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_094", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No.\nI -- I certainly don't.\nI think that Gullett itself.\nI think it's noteworthy that Gullett said, there is no special sanctity and papers as distinguished from other forms of property to render them immune from search and seizure if only they fall within the scope of the principles of the cases in which other property may be seized.\nSo then we have Warden v. Hayden dispensing with this mere evidence rule.\nNow, if we allow confessions from a man's lips.\nWe allow blood to be taken from his veins without a warrant under Schmerber.\nIs paper more sacred than this?\nI don't see how it can be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2730.217, 2730.517, 2731.823, 2733.595, 2749.43, 2753.567, 2758.275, 2763.802, 2766.904], "stop_times": [2730.517, 2731.823, 2733.595, 2749.43, 2753.567, 2758.275, 2763.802, 2766.904, 2768.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.217}, "reply_to": "15493__1_093", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_095", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "His testimony would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2768.97], "stop_times": [2771.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.97}, "reply_to": "15493__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_096", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I don't think its testimonial in a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2771.028], "stop_times": [2773.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.028}, "reply_to": "15493__1_095", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_097", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "(Inaudible) isn't that testimonial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2773.828], "stop_times": [2777.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.828}, "reply_to": "15493__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_098", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "It's not testimonial in a compulsive sense.\nI think that's what essential.\nThe Fifth Amendment is a safeguard against compulsory --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2777.703, 2780.749, 2784.536], "stop_times": [2780.749, 2784.536, 2790.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.703}, "reply_to": "15493__1_097", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_099", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Isn't the blood testimonial if it's got some alcohol showing in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2790.422], "stop_times": [2797.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.422}, "reply_to": "15493__1_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_100", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That I think is equally testimonial and it's probably a lot more compulsive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2797.331], "stop_times": [2801.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.331}, "reply_to": "15493__1_099", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_101", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "(Voice Overlap) that wasn't testimonial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2801.895], "stop_times": [2804.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.895}, "reply_to": "15493__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_102", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "As if to the extent that one would assume it to be testimonial, blood is certainly as much though I would think but this Court has ruled at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2804.512], "stop_times": [2812.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.512}, "reply_to": "15493__1_101", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_103", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Do you want us to overrule Schmerber?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2812.619], "stop_times": [2814.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.619}, "reply_to": "15493__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_104", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2814.549], "stop_times": [2815.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.549}, "reply_to": "15493__1_103", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_105", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Do you want us to overrule Schmerber?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2815.309], "stop_times": [2817.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.309}, "reply_to": "15493__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_106", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2817.734], "stop_times": [2818.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.734}, "reply_to": "15493__1_105", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_107", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I didn't think you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2818.281], "stop_times": [2819.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.281}, "reply_to": "15493__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_108", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, what about the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2819.364], "stop_times": [2820.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.364}, "reply_to": "15493__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15493__1_109", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I can't see a distinction though if we uphold that in Schmerber, I think we have to uphold it here and I think it's like a spy's paper where we say spy's papers enable, those are instrumentalities but the same papers are mere evidence or political assassins' notebooks, are those instrumentalities or are they mere evidence.\nI think we could get into an awful lot of problems in this situation.\nFinally, I have only about three or four minutes, I'd like to note our views on the retroactivity issue.\nI think it's significant -- first of all, under Chimel, I try to indicate the exigent circumstances and then it was after court hours and the time was of the essence but we would submit that Chimel should not be applied retroactively and first of all, I'd like to ask leave of the Court to file a letter a listing recent decisions on the question of retroactivity if I might do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2820.523, 2842.808, 2850.694, 2861.303], "stop_times": [2842.808, 2850.694, 2861.303, 2886.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.523}, "reply_to": "15493__1_108", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_110", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "As a supplemental memorandum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2886.735], "stop_times": [2888.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.735}, "reply_to": "15493__1_109", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_111", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, it's giving citations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2888.398], "stop_times": [2891.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.398}, "reply_to": "15493__1_110", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_112", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, you may file it.\nFurnish your friend with a copy of it of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2891.03, 2892.318], "stop_times": [2892.318, 2895.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.03}, "reply_to": "15493__1_111", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__1_113", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, I did this morning.\nI've indicated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2895.013, 2896.258], "stop_times": [2896.258, 2896.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2895.013}, "reply_to": "15493__1_112", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_114", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Can you help me out (Inaudible) California?\nWe pronounce this Chimel against Chimel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2896.548, 2898.683], "stop_times": [2898.683, 2900.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.548}, "reply_to": "15493__1_113", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_115", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, I have it from the horse's mouth that it's Chimel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2900.731], "stop_times": [2903.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.731}, "reply_to": "15493__1_114", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_116", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Chimel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2903.189], "stop_times": [2904.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.189}, "reply_to": "15493__1_115", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_117", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, although there have been five or six variance of the pronunciation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2904.099], "stop_times": [2910.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.099}, "reply_to": "15493__1_116", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_118", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Chimel is the official correct pronunciation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2910.422], "stop_times": [2912.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.422}, "reply_to": "15493__1_117", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15493__1_119", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "According to Mr. Chimel.\nYes.\nThere are three federal circuits and five states that have held that Chimel is fully prospective.\nIt applies only to searches conducted after the date of that decision.\nIn Alaska, New Mexico where the only jurisdictions that have decided to the contrary, we submit that Desist is the governable standard here.\nDesist set forth the function of the three considerations, the purpose to be served, the extent of reliance and the effect on the administration of justice.\nChimel stresses in footnote 12 that the Fourth Amendment's purpose is to prevent not simply to redress unlawful police action.\nWell, I don't see how it would help deter illegal police conduct to punish in effect police and prosecutors who would justifiably relied on this Court's decisions of many years standing and conducted searches in total compliance with those standards.\nWe're not talking about unreliable or false evidence.\nIt's only a procedural question not affecting the issue the guilt or innocence.\nSo in effect, and certainly the extent of reliance by law enforcement is clear, this Court two years before Chimel and one year after the present search in the Cooper case quoted that statement in Rabinowitz that has since been disapproved and I think it's significant that within three weeks of the decision in Chimel, 70% of the states joined respondents in a petitioning for rehearing and this shows the impact of this decision and it's been evident to me in going around explaining the police officers.\nThey regard this as a greater impact than Miranda.\nThey regard this as a greatest impact on their day to day enforcement techniques of any decision that has come down in the criminal field in recent years and the memorandum which is attached to this letter of the Los Angeles municipal court shows how that Court has had to completely revise its procedures and place judges on call nights and weekends to issue search warrants because of Chimel.\nAnd we would submit that there would be an enormous impact on the courts in requiring them to retry a multitude of cases decided in reliance on Chimel and if there is any case in which this Court still believes that a new rule of constitutional law should be applied prospectively, this is certainly the case under the standards which this Court has held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [2912.849, 2914.457, 2918.128, 2924.413, 2931.25, 2941.522, 2951.008, 2959.144, 2977.383, 2979.906, 2984.82, 3017.878, 3021.524, 3047.108], "stop_times": [2914.457, 2918.128, 2924.413, 2931.25, 2941.522, 2951.008, 2959.144, 2977.383, 2979.906, 2984.82, 3017.878, 3021.524, 3047.108, 3070.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.849}, "reply_to": "15493__1_118", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_120", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Of course that argument can be made.\nIt's a bit circular and I'd say was suggested, as I remembered in Desist that the time this happened, this was not any sort of a violation of the Constitution even in the retrospective wisdom of Chimel because the Constitution itself prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3070.294, 3071.611], "stop_times": [3071.611, 3096.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.294}, "reply_to": "15493__1_119", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_121", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I know.\nI believe it was Your Honor in that footnote 12 in Desist to note that it can't be unreasonable if that was the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3096.562, 3096.884], "stop_times": [3096.884, 3100.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3096.562}, "reply_to": "15493__1_120", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_122", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "And (Voice Overlap) agents who rely on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3100.551], "stop_times": [3103.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.551}, "reply_to": "15493__1_121", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_123", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3103.064], "stop_times": [3104.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3103.064}, "reply_to": "15493__1_122", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_124", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "-- decisions of the courts can hardly be said to be acting unreasonably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3104.194], "stop_times": [3108.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.194}, "reply_to": "15493__1_123", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_125", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, we certainly concur with that.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3108.148, 3110.417], "stop_times": [3110.417, 3110.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.148}, "reply_to": "15493__1_124", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_126", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, I say that's kind of a circular in argument.\nBut it's not lacking in realism, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3110.759, 3114.052], "stop_times": [3114.052, 3116.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.759}, "reply_to": "15493__1_125", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15493__1_127", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I think not in view of the particular wording of the Fourth Amendment that searches are to be judged in light of their reasonableness and that certainly must imply what the law is at the time the search was conducted.\nI see my time is up.\nThat's all we have unless there are any questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3116.905, 3129.305, 3131.042], "stop_times": [3129.305, 3131.042, 3134.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3116.905}, "reply_to": "15493__1_126", "speaker": "ronald_m_george"}
{"id": "15493__1_128", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Thank you.\nYou have something further counsel?\nYou have 10 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3134.41, 3136.396, 3138.961], "stop_times": [3136.396, 3138.961, 3141.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.41}, "reply_to": "15493__1_127", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_000", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nIn answering the last question first, Your Honor, as far as the reasonableness of the search in this particular case, each case is certainly decided by its own facts.\nNow, Justice Frankfurter in dissent in Harris indicated what is the criteria that the officers have when they make the particular search.\nHow far it can go?\nAnd really, the decisions aren't that clear.\nYou can't determine what is reasonable and what is unreasonable as far as the extent of the search.\nNow, how far can you go?\nCan you go upstairs?\nCan you go to the third floor, to the fourth floor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3141.981, 3143.988, 3155.098, 3168.131, 3170.165, 3173.585, 3179.626, 3181.955, 3183.28], "stop_times": [3143.988, 3155.098, 3168.131, 3170.165, 3173.585, 3179.626, 3181.955, 3183.28, 3185.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3141.981}, "reply_to": "15493__1_128", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_001", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, we don't have to worry about that here, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3185.805], "stop_times": [3188.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.805}, "reply_to": "15493__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_002", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I believe you do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3188.266], "stop_times": [3189.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3188.266}, "reply_to": "15493__2_001", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_003", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "We just have to decide this case which is all on one floor in a moderately small apartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3189.618], "stop_times": [3195.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.618}, "reply_to": "15493__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_004", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That -- that part is true but as far as now to the extent of the search.\nNow, how could you make a search in a particular apartment of a diary when in fact, even before they went to that particular apartment, they could have gotten a search warrant.\nThey didn't know enough information within that particularity to get a magistrate to sign a search warrant specifying that particular diary.\nThe information that they have available did not include that information.\nThey could have got a search warrant for the particular information that they knew about from their co-defendants in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3195.681, 3200.407, 3213.271, 3222.509, 3226.679], "stop_times": [3200.407, 3213.271, 3222.509, 3226.679, 3234.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3195.681}, "reply_to": "15493__2_003", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_005", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "What if the warrant's application recited under warrant in turn recited, \u201cAny books papers and records relating to the alleged crime?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3234.672], "stop_times": [3246.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.672}, "reply_to": "15493__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_006", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, I think that is so general in nature, Your Honor.\nYou would have to specify what type of books, what general -- you're talking about maybe the county --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3246.683, 3250.614], "stop_times": [3250.614, 3255.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3246.683}, "reply_to": "15493__2_005", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_007", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, what in the Constitution would require you to particularize more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3255.812], "stop_times": [3260.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.812}, "reply_to": "15493__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_008", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, well Your Honor I think the Fourth Amendment states in itself that you have to be more specific than just to be so general.\nThat's why the general warrant has been outlawed in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3260.715, 3268.476], "stop_times": [3268.476, 3272.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3260.715}, "reply_to": "15493__2_007", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_009", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, it says describing -- describing the particularity or substantially that, if you said books, any books papers and records relating to the crime.\nIsn't that quite particular?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3272.001, 3284.107], "stop_times": [3284.107, 3284.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.001}, "reply_to": "15493__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_010", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I say that is insufficient to justify a search warrant and I don't think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3284.282], "stop_times": [3289.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3284.282}, "reply_to": "15493__2_009", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_011", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, would the search warrant be invalid then in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3289.708], "stop_times": [3292.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.708}, "reply_to": "15493__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_012", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Not the total search warrant.\nI think it will be justified from the standpoint of the parts that they set forth with clarity and it would extend to the diary which would be illegal at which if they brought in the diary it would be insufficient but as far as the evidence it would be alright as far as the courts are concerned.\nNow, counsel brought out a fact that Bader who was in custody consented to the officers to go to the petitioner's apartment.\nI think the California court simply stated in my reply brief that Bader who has held in custody does not have the authority to strip the petitioner of all of his constitutional rights.\nAnd certainly because Bader said he could go to that particular apartment doesn't mean that he can go ahead, the officer can go ahead and search it and as far as the petitioner contends, an unreasonable search.\nNow, this point about this Bacca, B-A-C-C-A.\nNow, Bacca was the third person who was not in custody.\nMeaning two of the defendants were in custody, the petitioner was not available.\nSo the respondent says, there's a very big emergency here, \u201cWe can't go back and get a search warrant.\u201d\nWell, what is the emergency here?\nWhat we're talking about its four individuals, police officers, two shotguns would have already arrested Miller.\nNow, we have in fact if they thought it was Miller then they have three of the four.\nThe fourth man is not in custody.\nThe fourth man has access into this particular place.\nSo it seemed to me, that if they wanted to get this particular and protect the particular goods that were in that apartment and search it more in detail at a later time, proper and reasonable police procedure would be to have the officers stay at the apartment to survey it and if that fourth suspect comes back then they can make the arrest at that time, it would seem that that would be an asset to not search the apartment rather than have to search it right away and be fearful that this particular Bacca would come back and take the goods from that particular apartment.\nNow, in so far as this diary and this is what the petitioner is contending at this time is completely unreasonable.\nThe other items that were searched, the petitioner contends, it is possible under Rabinowitz and Harris that these items may have been able to been searched and properly seized by the officers.\nBut in so far as that particular diary is concerned, I think it's the burden upon the prosecution when they are attempting to make exceptions to the Fourth Amendment that the particular officer show enough authority and enough diligence and prudence to justify that particular search and to show it into evidence and not have the petitioner show that he has the right supported by the Fourth Amendment but rather have the prosecution show the exceptions to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3292.696, 3294.149, 3311.32, 3324.024, 3337.192, 3352.36, 3360.011, 3364.34, 3369.099, 3377.082, 3379.056, 3387.142, 3392.565, 3395.668, 3399.438, 3441.257, 3449.77, 3462.702], "stop_times": [3294.149, 3311.32, 3324.024, 3337.192, 3352.36, 3360.011, 3364.34, 3369.099, 3377.082, 3379.056, 3387.142, 3392.565, 3395.668, 3399.438, 3441.257, 3449.77, 3462.702, 3500.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3292.696}, "reply_to": "15493__2_011", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_013", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Do you concede that everything about the search was valid except the taking of the diary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3500.672], "stop_times": [3505.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3500.672}, "reply_to": "15493__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15493__2_014", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "No, Your Honor, I concede only that it may have possibly been.\nCertainly, this case regarding the diary to me seems so clear cut in reviewing the case decisions in Rabinowitz and Harris and all the other decisions, Weeks and Leftkowitz, Go-Bart Company and reviewing in the light of Chimel, all these cases make it so crystal clear to myself and that the particular seizure, search and seizure of the diary was improper.\nThe most you can get I think is the search was valid, the seizure is difficult to comprehend as far as, in light of the Court's decisions in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3505.608, 3509.622, 3538.28], "stop_times": [3509.622, 3538.28, 3548.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3505.608}, "reply_to": "15493__2_013", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_015", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, do you claim that the seizure and the things seized were not relevant in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3548.448], "stop_times": [3554.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3548.448}, "reply_to": "15493__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__2_016", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think that they were making in general exploratory search --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3554.962, 3555.463], "stop_times": [3555.463, 3559.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3554.962}, "reply_to": "15493__2_015", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_017", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I'm not talking about the search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3559.008], "stop_times": [3561.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3559.008}, "reply_to": "15493__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__2_018", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Or seizure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3561.072], "stop_times": [3561.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3561.072}, "reply_to": "15493__2_017", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_019", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I'm talking about, you do not assert, do you, that a diary which contains the confession of a man guilty of a crime is not relevant evidence against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3561.303], "stop_times": [3571.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3561.303}, "reply_to": "15493__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__2_020", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Oh!\nYour Honor, that's relevant and material, no question about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3571.763, 3571.948], "stop_times": [3571.948, 3575.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3571.763}, "reply_to": "15493__2_019", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_021", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Thereto and if an officer seize it, do you say though that he couldn't get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3575.062], "stop_times": [3582.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3575.062}, "reply_to": "15493__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__2_022", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "That's without a search warrant, Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3582.838], "stop_times": [3584.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3582.838}, "reply_to": "15493__2_021", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_023", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Without a search warrant even though he sees it.\nSuppose he saw a weapon exactly of a description that was used to shoot a man, would you say they couldn't get that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3584.752, 3587.649], "stop_times": [3587.649, 3594.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.752}, "reply_to": "15493__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__2_024", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "I would say Your Honor.\nI think it depends on circumstances.\nIn the first instance if the officers knew or had reason or any evidence or any probable cause --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3594.636, 3595.562, 3598.1], "stop_times": [3595.562, 3598.1, 3603.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3594.636}, "reply_to": "15493__2_023", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_025", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Suppose they didn't have evidence, but when they looked at it, they saw it was highly relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3603.767], "stop_times": [3609.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3603.767}, "reply_to": "15493__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15493__2_026", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I'll say that they cannot seize that particular evidence without a search warrant.\nI have no further question, Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3609.766, 3617.963, 3619.214], "stop_times": [3617.963, 3619.214, 3619.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3609.766}, "reply_to": "15493__2_025", "speaker": "joseph_amato"}
{"id": "15493__2_027", "conversation_id": "15493", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amato.\nThank you for your submissions gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_51", "start_times": [3619.691, 3620.829, 3622.361], "stop_times": [3620.829, 3622.361, 3625.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3619.691}, "reply_to": "15493__2_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_000", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "May it please the Court.\nBefore proceeding with argument at the suggestion of the office of the clerk this morning, I was informed that correspondent from respondent's attorney failed to reach the Court that was dated February 20 at 1970.\nIn that correspondence the asked that the Court please disregard the second argument entitled the case is moot, to the extent that the Court to entertain that and unless there are questions in that regard, the petitioner would stand on his brief on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [0.0, 4.408, 19.86], "stop_times": [4.408, 19.86, 38.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_001", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "We take a note of that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [38.3], "stop_times": [40.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 38.3}, "reply_to": "15456__0_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_002", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [40.169], "stop_times": [41.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 40.169}, "reply_to": "15456__0_001", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_003", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Do you agree that the case is not moot, do you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [41.63], "stop_times": [44.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 41.63}, "reply_to": "15456__0_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_004", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, we do Your Honor.\nWe argued at some length in our brief, it would want to \u2013 with this position I would like to go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [44.763, 46.903], "stop_times": [46.903, 54.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 44.763}, "reply_to": "15456__0_003", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_005", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's no longer an issue between.\nYou keep your voice on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [54.45, 56.622], "stop_times": [56.622, 58.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.45}, "reply_to": "15456__0_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_006", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, Your Honor I will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [58.65], "stop_times": [60.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 58.65}, "reply_to": "15456__0_005", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_007", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Now who filed this, you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [60.857], "stop_times": [62.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 60.857}, "reply_to": "15456__0_006", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15456__0_008", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, Justice Douglas this was filed by the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [62.994], "stop_times": [65.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 62.994}, "reply_to": "15456__0_007", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_009", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "By you or by the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [65.893], "stop_times": [67.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.893}, "reply_to": "15456__0_008", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15456__0_010", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The State of Illinois, is the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [67.45], "stop_times": [71.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 67.45}, "reply_to": "15456__0_009", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_011", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I know but I said who filed this memo on mootness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [71.173], "stop_times": [74.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 71.173}, "reply_to": "15456__0_010", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15456__0_012", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The point was raised in the respondent's brief, we replied in a reply brief.\nAnd then the letter was forth coming last week from the respondent asking that it would be withdrawn as a point.\nTurning to the instant case, Your Honor, the case which we feel is one of the first impressions certainly, factually before this Court.\nHowever, a little more than 100 years ago in the federal district court in New York, when George Davis was put on trial for perjury, shortly after the onset of that trial, the defendant became unruly.\nThis was during certain statements being made by the prosecutor.\nThe defendant was removed from the court during a motion for a new trial, the trial judge ruled.\nHe was absent during a part of the opening only because of his own disorderly conduct.\nIt does not lie in his mouth to complain of an order which was made necessary by his own misconduct.\nNow, 101 years later people in the State of Illinois asked this Court to review and reverse Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Illinois v. Allen.\nAllen was indicted for armed robbery in 1956, tried in the criminal court of Cook County Illinois and sentenced to a term of 10 to 30 years in the penitentiary.\nHe is presently on parole and I am informed that parole -- from beginning of the trial, Allen insisted on his right to question jurors on the voir dire examination, embarked on deliberate and knowing course of disruption outburst and threats which finally culminated in his removal from the courtroom during most of the presentation of a states' case.\nWe contend the facts are not in dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [74.922, 82.343, 91.79, 101.977, 115.761, 120.198, 129.767, 133.787, 141.799, 153.37, 163.801, 186.823], "stop_times": [82.343, 91.79, 101.977, 115.761, 120.198, 129.767, 133.787, 141.799, 153.37, 163.801, 186.823, 189.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 74.922}, "reply_to": "15456__0_011", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_013", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Was he present for some part of the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [189.418], "stop_times": [192.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.418}, "reply_to": "15456__0_012", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15456__0_014", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He was present Your Honor for the entire defense.\nIn fact, relative calm was to obtain when the defense began its presentation.\nHe was left; he was taken out during the voir dire examination which he was conducting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [192.252, 196.136, 201.987], "stop_times": [196.136, 201.987, 208.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 192.252}, "reply_to": "15456__0_013", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_015", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "So, he was not there for the opening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [208.539], "stop_times": [210.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.539}, "reply_to": "15456__0_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_016", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He was not there for the opening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [210.191], "stop_times": [211.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 210.191}, "reply_to": "15456__0_015", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_017", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Nor for any of the evidence in states' case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [211.155], "stop_times": [213.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.155}, "reply_to": "15456__0_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_018", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Not of the states' case.\nHe was given opportunity to come back immediately after and before the voir dire, and immediately before the presentation of the states' case.\nInvitation was extended by the trial judge through counsel to have him return.\nThe dialog upon his return was such that it clearly informed the trial judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [213.245, 214.328, 223.028, 228.849], "stop_times": [214.328, 223.028, 228.849, 233.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 213.245}, "reply_to": "15456__0_017", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_019", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "There was appointed counsel was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [233.42], "stop_times": [235.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.42}, "reply_to": "15456__0_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_020", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "There was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [235.088], "stop_times": [236.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 235.088}, "reply_to": "15456__0_019", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_021", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He was present throughout the states' case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [236.403], "stop_times": [238.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.403}, "reply_to": "15456__0_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_022", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Throughout the entire states' case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [238.061], "stop_times": [239.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 238.061}, "reply_to": "15456__0_021", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_023", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And did he cross-examine the witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [239.603], "stop_times": [242.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.603}, "reply_to": "15456__0_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_024", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [242.192], "stop_times": [242.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 242.192}, "reply_to": "15456__0_023", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_025", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Did he make an opening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [242.692], "stop_times": [243.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.692}, "reply_to": "15456__0_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_026", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He did, Your Honor I would draw that I'm not sure if he chose to be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [243.663], "stop_times": [247.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 243.663}, "reply_to": "15456__0_025", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_027", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What is the Illinois practice?\nWas the opening made immediately after jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [247.641, 248.709], "stop_times": [248.709, 251.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.641}, "reply_to": "15456__0_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_028", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "There is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [251.709], "stop_times": [253.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 251.709}, "reply_to": "15456__0_027", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_029", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "By both side and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [253.123], "stop_times": [254.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.123}, "reply_to": "15456__0_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_030", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "By both.\nThe reason we contend the facts in this case are not in dispute is that pleading of the Court of Appeals even in its majority opinion as well as in the Seventh Circuit -- the dissent of Seventh Circuit and the opinion -- per curiam opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court clearly on agreement on the nature of the conduct here.\nOf the 10 reviewing judges who had an opportunity to examine the record all 10 agreed on the conduct only two felt constrained by the constitutional prohibition as they read it to rule that Allen was unlawfully removed from his trial.\nJust briefly, the respondent threatened the life of the trial judge, ripped his attorney's file and arranged the court in such a way that the judge felt his removal was necessary.\nI might add that there was a warning in all of these cases.\nSome of the commentators on this area have suggested that if this rule of exclusion is allowed that it be appropriately done in areas where there are warning.\nThe Court of Appeals in its majority opinion found adequate warning by the trial judge and I suggest there is more than one warning included in the administrators from the trial court for the respondent to remain silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [254.137, 258.257, 277.769, 295.484, 307.576, 311.17, 321.145], "stop_times": [258.257, 277.769, 295.484, 307.576, 311.17, 321.145, 340.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 254.137}, "reply_to": "15456__0_029", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_031", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "How long is the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [340.713], "stop_times": [342.16], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 340.713}, "reply_to": "15456__0_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15456__0_032", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, I believe the trial took approximately two-and-a half days.\nIt was a jury trial; it was a simple case of an armed robbery of a tavern.\nAllen was identified by the bartender and in turn Allen identified the victim.\nThe defense was insanity in -- the year-and-a-half before the defendant had been declared incompetent.\nHe had been restored and his defense from sanity was rejected by the trier of fact.\nWe are here today because we feel, we have asked this Court to review because we do not believe that the constitution in the United States compels the result which the Seventh Circuit reluctantly I might add arrived at.\nWe feel that the right of confrontation through its birth in the common law, certainly and its adoption by the Sixth Amendment wasn't meant to broaden the exceptions that the common law recognizes.\nAnd this Court in 1926 in Salinger versus United States specifically mentioned that while the common law was brought into the purview of the Sixth Amendment's right to confrontation it certainly wasn't meant to make the exceptions not included in that new amendment.\nThis Court had in Diaz versus the United States in 1912 clearly addressed itself to the issue of waiver.\nNow, in that case the murder case out of the Philippines tried on the Philippine Code, the court concluded that what they were reviewing was a substantial equivalent of the Sixth Amendment.\nThe court -- the issue in Diaz as presented or the claim made was that the Supreme Court -- in the Supreme Court here that he did not waive the right of confrontation but that he could not waive it.\nThis Court held that waiver was possible, was permissible and did obtain in that case.\nIn that case, the defendant voluntarily left.\nThe Court sent a message to the presiding judge that he wouldn't return.\nSignificant, we feel in this case are two things.\nOne, the Davis case which the only direct American president other than the prior Illinois case in 1956.\nOn this point was mentioned in Davis favorably -- in Diaz favorably and what is significant is that Diaz they're residing Davis which was an involuntary removal case.\nWe feel that if waiver is recognized, certainly the waiver by an escapee from a courtroom that the unruly defendant is not be accorded treatment different in the escapee.\nDiaz makes it clear that a defendant walks out or escapes, waives his right to be present as the trial can continue.\nWe believe there's no difference between a defendant who walks out of the courtroom and a defendant who was ordered to move because his courtroom conduct makes a fair and orderly trial impossible.\nIf there's waiver in the prior case -- the former case, we think there's waiver in a latter.\nNow, on the issue of whether waiver has been recognized our research indicates only the Davis case in 1869, two English cases, one a felony case, one is misdemeanor case, Rex v. Brown and Rex v. Berry, also in the 19th century.\nBut it's been never rejected by court of review as we confine.\nFurther, we suggest that this Court in dictum in the Diaz case in a subsequent case in Schneider versus Massachusetts has adopted the waiver principal and that the dictum allows for its application here.\nI might add that in dictum, in Schneider versus Massachusetts the capital case involving whether the defendant was entitled to view the scene when the jury left to do that.\nMr. Justice Cardozo specifically added -- no doubt, the privilege of confrontation may be lost by consent or even at times by misconduct.\nSo, in the Schneider versus Massachusetts case that wasn't an issue when we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [342.16, 346.476, 354.672, 360.235, 368.228, 378.913, 392.621, 405.043, 425.367, 436.737, 451.401, 465.918, 472.989, 477.075, 482.62, 485.395, 493.395, 513.698, 529.199, 535.293, 544.79, 551.33, 570.281, 574.817, 593.137, 605.978, 634.97], "stop_times": [346.476, 354.672, 360.235, 368.228, 378.913, 392.621, 405.043, 425.367, 436.737, 451.401, 465.918, 472.989, 477.075, 482.62, 485.395, 493.395, 513.698, 529.199, 535.293, 544.79, 551.33, 570.281, 574.817, 593.137, 605.978, 634.97, 639.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 342.16}, "reply_to": "15456__0_031", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_033", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I'm just wondering, is the correct analysis really that waiver or is it rather when may a courtroom, the right to be present by this conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [639.973], "stop_times": [653.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.973}, "reply_to": "15456__0_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_034", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Your Honor we have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [653.546], "stop_times": [654.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 653.546}, "reply_to": "15456__0_033", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_035", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "It just doesn't seem to me in this instance as I understand it this respondent was funded protested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [654.565], "stop_times": [660.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.565}, "reply_to": "15456__0_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_036", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes he did.\nYes he did Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [660.335, 661.082], "stop_times": [661.082, 661.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 660.335}, "reply_to": "15456__0_035", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_037", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "His removal from the beginning.\nNow, really he was absent voluntarily in that sense, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [661.847, 664.15], "stop_times": [664.15, 668.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.847}, "reply_to": "15456__0_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_038", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [668.38], "stop_times": [669.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 668.38}, "reply_to": "15456__0_037", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_039", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And we dealt waiver, haven't we ordinarily and in terms of a voluntary relinquishment of a known right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [669.167], "stop_times": [676.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.167}, "reply_to": "15456__0_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_040", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I think that's true Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [676.59], "stop_times": [677.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 676.59}, "reply_to": "15456__0_039", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_041", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Then why is it this really a question whether the constitutional right has been forfeited by the conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [677.458], "stop_times": [685.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.458}, "reply_to": "15456__0_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_042", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [685.478], "stop_times": [689.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 685.478}, "reply_to": "15456__0_041", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_043", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Isn't that at least more realistic perhaps more honest analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [689.974], "stop_times": [692.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.974}, "reply_to": "15456__0_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_044", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I think in -- if I might disagree to an extent Mr. Justice Brennan, I feel waiver is applicable in this case for this reason.\nThe dialogue between the judge and the defendant in this case was one of not a lack of communication.\nThey seem to be understanding, the warning seem to be clear.\nCertainly when one reads the record in this case, the defendant had no problem in making his intentions known.\nThe Court of Appeals found, they set a patient and very tolerant judge.\nI think that when the dialog reaches the level it did in this case where the inclusions of the warnings, which might result if in fact the conduct does not cease that waiver would not be stretching the concept to apply it here.\nI think it would also lend to a more flexible rule of discretion and if I might suggest a more easy handle for courts below, if this Court so ruled that waiver was permissible in this instance.\nWe find that the commentators while acknowledging limited authority on the case seem to be pretty much unanimous in their feeling at least to the visceral one that removal is the appropriate remedy.\nWe in our study found that the development of the right to be present was early cast in jurisdictional terms and we suggest that if it has any vitality today it may only be perhaps in capital cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [692.511, 702.217, 709.613, 713.267, 722.624, 727.914, 742.294, 762.92, 776.558], "stop_times": [702.217, 709.613, 713.267, 722.624, 727.914, 742.294, 762.92, 776.558, 791.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 692.511}, "reply_to": "15456__0_043", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_045", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Did you say removal is the remedy or one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [791.39], "stop_times": [795.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.39}, "reply_to": "15456__0_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_046", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "One of the remedies Mr. Justice Marshall.\nWe suggest that we just broaden the trial judge's discretion to include this as one along with content and what apparently has been permitted by lower court's binding and gagging.\nOur feeling is that it doesn't fall outside binding and gagging.\nIn fact, it's a much more reasonable and much more desirable end for justice to have the exclusion when it's positive under the case like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [795.779, 799.862, 813.12, 817.175], "stop_times": [799.862, 813.12, 817.175, 828.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 795.779}, "reply_to": "15456__0_045", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_047", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [828.026], "stop_times": [840.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.026}, "reply_to": "15456__0_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_048", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And that Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [840.392], "stop_times": [841.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 840.392}, "reply_to": "15456__0_047", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_049", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [841.165], "stop_times": [843.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.165}, "reply_to": "15456__0_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15456__0_050", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I will.\nWe feel that there is -- the policy reasons toward adopting the exclusion over other forms are one, contempt may not really satisfy the situation.\nIn this case, we had a man faced to the possible life sentence.\nOur feeling is that contempt in cases like that may not live level well with a defendant bent on disrupting the trial.\nWe feel the scene of binding and gagging and I question whether the right of confrontation is any better preserved by the defendant found gagging and maniacal.\nIt brings the service to the Court that in which this action takes place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [843.475, 848.174, 860.111, 864.147, 872.248, 885.18], "stop_times": [848.174, 860.111, 864.147, 872.248, 885.18, 890.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 843.475}, "reply_to": "15456__0_049", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_051", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Inaudible) would you say, we must find the facts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [890.295], "stop_times": [904.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.295}, "reply_to": "15456__0_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_052", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, in this case below, the defendant at the outset announced his unwillingness really to participate in the trial processing.\nHe informs the judge (voice overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [904.927, 917.083], "stop_times": [917.083, 919.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 904.927}, "reply_to": "15456__0_051", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_053", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "To do w hat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [919.047], "stop_times": [920.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.047}, "reply_to": "15456__0_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_054", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That he would not participate in the trial.\nNot in a voluntary passion.\nHe informed the court, \u201cYou have a right to restrain me, but you haven't got the right to remove me and you're not going to remove me.\u201d\nAnd that the court replied, we will determine that.\nThe defendant, \u201cNo you're not, there's not going to be a trial, I'm going to sit here and you're going to talk and you can bring out your shackles and straight jacket and put them on me and take my mouth but it will do no good because there's going to be no trial.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [920.273, 923.794, 925.754, 931.952, 934.064], "stop_times": [923.794, 925.754, 931.952, 934.064, 947.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 920.273}, "reply_to": "15456__0_053", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_055", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And at what time at one point he said the judge is going to be a corps here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [947.683], "stop_times": [952.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.683}, "reply_to": "15456__0_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_056", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes he did, prior to noon recess, -- another time I mean to stress very strongly Your Honors how tolerant this trial judge was.\nThe defendant announced that the judge would be a corps upon his return -- defense return from the lunch time -- lunch recess.\nThere is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [952.096, 962.926, 973.843], "stop_times": [962.926, 973.843, 974.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 952.096}, "reply_to": "15456__0_055", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_057", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is he out on bail or he is in custody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [974.39], "stop_times": [976.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.39}, "reply_to": "15456__0_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_058", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He was in custody Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [976.696], "stop_times": [978.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 976.696}, "reply_to": "15456__0_057", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_059", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, that was slightly of (Inaudible), wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [978.387], "stop_times": [982.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.387}, "reply_to": "15456__0_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_060", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, the record is vague but there is some indication that when this defendant left the courtroom and went to the anteroom he intended to be a little physical with the property in the lock up.\nSo, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [982.155, 997.82], "stop_times": [997.82, 998.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 982.155}, "reply_to": "15456__0_059", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_061", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That is what I was saying.\nIsn't it your position just to say that in the courtroom could be a matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [998.159, 998.911], "stop_times": [998.911, 1003.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.159}, "reply_to": "15456__0_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_062", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, yes it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1003.569], "stop_times": [1004.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1003.569}, "reply_to": "15456__0_061", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_063", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well I'm still in fact, you don't have to argue that this is better than Shack (ph) v. Williams.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1004.988], "stop_times": [1010.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.988}, "reply_to": "15456__0_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_064", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No I do not, I think it's a lesser --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1010.382], "stop_times": [1011.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1010.382}, "reply_to": "15456__0_063", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_065", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "It was on the same level, it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1011.851], "stop_times": [1013.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.851}, "reply_to": "15456__0_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_066", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No, Your Honor I would suggest that this is a milder form of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1013.818], "stop_times": [1017.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1013.818}, "reply_to": "15456__0_065", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_067", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But you don't have to win that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1017.977], "stop_times": [1019.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.977}, "reply_to": "15456__0_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_068", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No, I understand.\nBut when you said it's on the same level I -- we might --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1019.389, 1020.413], "stop_times": [1020.413, 1023.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1019.389}, "reply_to": "15456__0_067", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_069", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I was saying that Second Circuit case which we will be shackling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1023.759], "stop_times": [1026.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.759}, "reply_to": "15456__0_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_070", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Inaudible) yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1026.666], "stop_times": [1028.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1026.666}, "reply_to": "15456__0_069", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_071", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1028.627], "stop_times": [1029.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.627}, "reply_to": "15456__0_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_072", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yeah, well I think the exclusion is much more preferable remedy to that and a much milder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1029.097], "stop_times": [1034.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1029.097}, "reply_to": "15456__0_071", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_073", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Does the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit which reverse a conviction because the court shackled the gaged of the defendant.\nOther remedies should have been taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1034.873, 1045.316], "stop_times": [1045.316, 1048.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.873}, "reply_to": "15456__0_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_074", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, that's our view that it would the shackling and gagging what it's brought with is the parallel prejudice to the existing procedure in addition to disruptive conduct that may be taking place by the defendant's actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1048.826], "stop_times": [1062.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1048.826}, "reply_to": "15456__0_073", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_075", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Now, this disruptive conduct began at the very moment that the proceedings opened before they had picked the jury, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1062.159], "stop_times": [1068.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.159}, "reply_to": "15456__0_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_076", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "In fact, Mr. Chief Justice it preceded that because in pretrial before another judge of the Cook County Circuit Court where he made a motion for a change of judges -- substitution judges we thought is based on prejudice.\nHe again there caused some sort of a scene and we -- so you can trace it back there.\nBut, yes this started immediately and we suggest upon no propagation.\nThere's an absence totally of any dialog for example between a prosecutor and the defendant.\nSo, there's no act of -- to state apart from the judge in incurring the raft of the defendant by any spoken word in the opening statement or the like.\nYour Honors, we would add one other fact and that is that we recognized in whenever asking this Court to acknowledge broader jurisdiction discretion and a trial judge -- that's a weighty problem.\nHowever, if the police of this country can be entrusted with stock and first discretion which we suggest is a low visibility situation.\nCertainly, the entrusting to a trial judge subject to appropriate review of the opportunity to expel and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1068.749, 1083.511, 1088.631, 1092.92, 1097.511, 1108.858, 1120.955, 1130.208], "stop_times": [1083.511, 1088.631, 1092.92, 1097.511, 1108.858, 1120.955, 1130.208, 1139.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1068.749}, "reply_to": "15456__0_075", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_077", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Voice Overlaps) -- I'm just quite to say your analogy, the police can't be trusted with what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1139.268], "stop_times": [1142.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.268}, "reply_to": "15456__0_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_078", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No Mr. Justice Stewart, our position is this, that we recognize we're asking for the recognition of a broad discretion in the trial judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1142.914], "stop_times": [1150.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1142.914}, "reply_to": "15456__0_077", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_079", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1150.854], "stop_times": [1151.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.854}, "reply_to": "15456__0_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_080", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And recognizing that in any discretion case, there's a chance that the review is always difficult because of the area of discretion and is quite often intruded by Court of Appeals in very limited fashion entrusting great beliefs that a trial judge normally acts very fairly. We say this is not a low visibility situation.\nWe're trying to lay any fear in that regard that this will not become a wholesale tool of a judge annoyed with the look, smart talk of a defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1151.747, 1176.682], "stop_times": [1176.682, 1188.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1151.747}, "reply_to": "15456__0_079", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_081", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Certainly, I suppose General Flaum that all would agree that a trial judge is in trust of a great discretion and what procedures he is going to follow and keeping order in this court room.\nNo question about that but here we have a claim of a violation of a specific constitutional right that i.e, the right of confrontation.\nSo, the fact, there's great discretion really doesn't meet the claim of your adversaries, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1188.302, 1200.51, 1210.172], "stop_times": [1200.51, 1210.172, 1218.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.302}, "reply_to": "15456__0_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_082", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "On that specific point Mr. Justice Stewart I would agree.\nHowever, on the violation of the constitutional right, constitutional right commentators in this Court have recognized is mainly to ensure the opportunity for cross-examination and it's a collateral benefit of that, the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.\nCertainly, exclusion --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1218.751, 1221.367, 1235.863], "stop_times": [1221.367, 1235.863, 1236.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1218.751}, "reply_to": "15456__0_081", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_083", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "They have to face the witnesses and have the witnesses on the stand facing the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1236.94], "stop_times": [1243.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.94}, "reply_to": "15456__0_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_084", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's true but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1243.682], "stop_times": [1244.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1243.682}, "reply_to": "15456__0_083", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_085", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And there are at least three ingredients for this confrontation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1244.505], "stop_times": [1246.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.505}, "reply_to": "15456__0_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_086", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I would suggest Mr. Justice Stewart in Barber and Page the last Sixth Amendment case, not at all on point but written by this Court in '68.\nThe first to stress that I don't mean to exclude that the third but -- in more field that first to it are the greater.\nIn this case, the counsel continued with the cross-examination -- there wasn't that denial of the right of confrontation and the demeanor of the witnesses certainly remained a possibility because none of them were excluded.\nIt seems to us that he reach a point and that constitutional right, you cannot have both -- you can't be entitled the both, the right and a ruin of it.\nAnd it seems that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1246.225, 1255.751, 1263.021, 1278.191, 1287.506], "stop_times": [1255.751, 1263.021, 1278.191, 1287.506, 1288.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1246.225}, "reply_to": "15456__0_085", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_087", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "By a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1288.165], "stop_times": [1288.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.165}, "reply_to": "15456__0_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_088", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The ruin of it, and it seems here that we have a case where defendant is bent on and clearly by his statements so destroying any right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1288.894], "stop_times": [1299.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1288.894}, "reply_to": "15456__0_087", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_089", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well didn't he tell the judge that in so many words at the outset there is going to be no trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1299.857], "stop_times": [1306.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.857}, "reply_to": "15456__0_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_090", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1306.602], "stop_times": [1306.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1306.602}, "reply_to": "15456__0_089", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_091", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "How to make me sit down, there's going to ramping in the courtroom.\nAnd you'll have to carry me out.\nThat a current stage of the judge that he was going to destroy the trial (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1306.999, 1311.156, 1314.526], "stop_times": [1311.156, 1314.526, 1318.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.999}, "reply_to": "15456__0_090", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_092", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "We feel Mr. Chief Justice that's at least one of three clear indications that he -- when brought back and insisted that there would be no trial in two of the returns where the invitation of the judge that you have a record that seems to me patently clear in an attempt by the judge to bring the defendant around to reasonable conduct and a clearing decision by the defendant to in no way entertain it until and this is significant until the defense began and then there was calm.\nIn fact, we found the defendant stating in affect that he realized that his conduct was improper.\nIt can also stand as a certain reflective process that he probably had throughout the trial but just chose to use in one case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1318.523, 1353.038, 1358.875], "stop_times": [1353.038, 1358.875, 1367.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1318.523}, "reply_to": "15456__0_091", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_093", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But how many times did the court warn him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1367.607], "stop_times": [1370.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.607}, "reply_to": "15456__0_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_094", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "We find at least three and perhaps four -- for the fourth one, Mr. Chief Justice has to be a reading into statements.\nIt does include the word, \u201cwarn.\u201d\nCourt of Appeal's majority opinion in reversing concluded that he was warned and did not spell it up.\nBut they found as well as the Supreme Court of Illinois, a warning encompassed in the dialog between the judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1370.344, 1378.587, 1380.754, 1385.536], "stop_times": [1378.587, 1380.754, 1385.536, 1392.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1370.344}, "reply_to": "15456__0_093", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_095", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Your reading of the opinion and judgment with the Court of Appeals, this man is free, is that right?\nI don't see anything about right on Illinois to try him again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1392.591, 1399.369], "stop_times": [1399.369, 1403.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.591}, "reply_to": "15456__0_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_096", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, this man is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1403.116], "stop_times": [1406.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1403.116}, "reply_to": "15456__0_095", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_097", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I mean, legally free not illegally as he is now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1406.62], "stop_times": [1409.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.62}, "reply_to": "15456__0_096", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_098", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Right, he is on parole.\nAnd if this court were to affirm the Court of Appeals, he would be no longer subject to any of the vital consequences that stem from a pro-violator and he has year or so or more to go.\nSo we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1409.917, 1412.839, 1426.688], "stop_times": [1412.839, 1426.688, 1427.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1409.917}, "reply_to": "15456__0_097", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_099", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "As you read the Court of Appeals' opinion, and this same matter comes up tomorrow in Cook County, how would -- could the judge legally handle that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1427.135], "stop_times": [1436.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.135}, "reply_to": "15456__0_098", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_100", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, as I read the Court of Appeals Your Honor, we feel that he can either try a contempt citation or he has to bind and gag him and in this -- in my jurisdiction and in my city we had the unsightly scene of a bound and gag defendant recently with the Federal Marshall placing his hands in front of the gag so that no words would come forward through the gag.\nNow -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1436.282, 1460.843], "stop_times": [1460.843, 1460.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1436.282}, "reply_to": "15456__0_099", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_101", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "On the Second Circuit we didn't have that problem.\nWhen he would gag he would gag.\nThe Court of Appeals upheld him (Voice Overlaps).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1460.993, 1464.496, 1468.072], "stop_times": [1464.496, 1468.072, 1471.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.993}, "reply_to": "15456__0_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__0_102", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes I do, I'm familiar with that case.\nI would suggest Mr. Justice Marshall, that it's our view that not only must justice be done but there ought to be the appearance of justice and if I might in that assumption, we do a tremendous disservice to promoting that kind of a scene and in the rewarding conduct which in no way one can sympathize with.\nIf we have got an incompetent defendant then he shouldn't be on trial.\nBut certainly one which is a pure deliberate act of volition as it was in this case, it's very hard to not find that the limits of the constitutional right have been exhausted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1471.32, 1475.643, 1497.134, 1500.195], "stop_times": [1475.643, 1497.134, 1500.195, 1511.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1471.32}, "reply_to": "15456__0_101", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_103", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I understand that your theory to be that he waive the right of confrontation or that there was no denial of the right of confrontation?\nI thought your argument was the former when it began but when you began talking about how he really did have the right of cross-examinations through counsel than that (Voice Overlaps) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1511.807, 1521.402], "stop_times": [1521.402, 1533.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.807}, "reply_to": "15456__0_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_104", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "We acknowledge in the stricter sense Mr. Justice Stewart that there was a classic denial -- if the denial of the right of confrontation presupposes never removing a defendant from the view of the actual trial scene and we acknowledge that.\nWhat I was suggesting perhaps not too clearly was that of the -- what commentators have suggested are meaningful benefits of the right of confrontation.\nWe're not totally denied when he had counsel continuing to go forward with the cross-examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1533.065, 1546.538, 1556.052], "stop_times": [1546.538, 1556.052, 1562.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1533.065}, "reply_to": "15456__0_103", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_105", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But your argument is that he waived it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1562.546], "stop_times": [1564.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1562.546}, "reply_to": "15456__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_106", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That he waived it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1564.187], "stop_times": [1565.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1564.187}, "reply_to": "15456__0_105", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_107", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And you do concede that it was technically violent.\nIf he had not waived, it was violent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1565.549, 1571.678], "stop_times": [1571.678, 1572.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.549}, "reply_to": "15456__0_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_108", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, it was violent.\nThe removal is a technical violation, if one can call up into play the word \u201cviolation\u201d if you buy our waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1572.748, 1574.031], "stop_times": [1574.031, 1582.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1572.748}, "reply_to": "15456__0_107", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_109", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, had there been no waiver, it would have been a violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1582.866], "stop_times": [1584.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.866}, "reply_to": "15456__0_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_110", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "It would have been a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1584.736], "stop_times": [1586.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1584.736}, "reply_to": "15456__0_109", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_111", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "As I read the Supreme Court of Illinois opinion, they didn't say it was a waiver but that is conduct operated as a waiver.\nIs that not about the way they put it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1586.275, 1596.744], "stop_times": [1596.744, 1599.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.275}, "reply_to": "15456__0_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_112", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes it is Mr Chief Justice I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1599.003], "stop_times": [1601.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1599.003}, "reply_to": "15456__0_111", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_113", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "They equated it to a waiver rather than saying that it was a waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1601.281], "stop_times": [1605.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.281}, "reply_to": "15456__0_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_114", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's correct, I would imagine that I've been opposing simply because as a trial, I'm used to the waiver of the signed paper, of the jury waiver or whatever but you're absolutely correct.\nThey did not call it direct waiver as much as they did by interpreting it from the conduct (Voice Overlaps)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1605.196, 1617.561], "stop_times": [1617.561, 1623.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1605.196}, "reply_to": "15456__0_113", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_115", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is it not a forfeiture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1623.707], "stop_times": [1625.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.707}, "reply_to": "15456__0_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_116", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Not a forfeiture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1625.618], "stop_times": [1626.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1625.618}, "reply_to": "15456__0_115", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_117", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "You don't set that suggestion, I think very wisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1626.238], "stop_times": [1629.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.238}, "reply_to": "15456__0_116", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__0_118", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yeah, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1629.885], "stop_times": [1630.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1629.885}, "reply_to": "15456__0_117", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_119", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He waived anything.\nWhat if he waives during the trial, did you tell him he was not going to be tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1630.232, 1631.117], "stop_times": [1631.117, 1636.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.232}, "reply_to": "15456__0_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_120", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, there is right of the state Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1636.859], "stop_times": [1639.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1636.859}, "reply_to": "15456__0_119", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_121", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1639.163], "stop_times": [1639.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.163}, "reply_to": "15456__0_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_122", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "We feel that the right of the state cannot be denied to the trial and to acknowledge his --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1639.948], "stop_times": [1648.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1639.948}, "reply_to": "15456__0_121", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_123", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Voice Overlaps) You say he waived what?\nWhy didn't he waive the whole but he had told you he didn't want to be tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1648.252, 1649.945], "stop_times": [1649.945, 1653.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.252}, "reply_to": "15456__0_122", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_124", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, we feel he does not lie within his kin to make that ultimate decision.\nI think he didn't -- I think he did not want to be tried or he certainly he didn't want or perhaps I might suggest Mr. Justice Black that maybe he did want to be tried but in furtherance of his particular defense, this kind of disrupted conduct may have been very calculated.\nThat's just our position of course in (Voice Overlaps).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1653.404, 1657.711, 1672.966], "stop_times": [1657.711, 1672.966, 1674.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1653.404}, "reply_to": "15456__0_123", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_125", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What \u2013 you must be talking about trial or talking about forfeiture and talking about waive?\nWhat you have here is the man who defies the court and told he was not to be tried.\nIsn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1674.574, 1680.732, 1686.212], "stop_times": [1680.732, 1686.212, 1687.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.574}, "reply_to": "15456__0_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_126", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes it is.\nThose are his statements, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1687.03, 1688.338], "stop_times": [1688.338, 1689.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1687.03}, "reply_to": "15456__0_125", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_127", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And he kept making a noise to keep himself from being tried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1689.142], "stop_times": [1693.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.142}, "reply_to": "15456__0_126", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_128", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1693.346], "stop_times": [1694.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1693.346}, "reply_to": "15456__0_127", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_129", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What difference it would make whether you call it the forfeiture or waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1694.31], "stop_times": [1697.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.31}, "reply_to": "15456__0_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__0_130", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I just suggested that our theory be labeled waiver, we felt because it's one that we think is very workable if in -- by that I mean the trial judge reasonably interpreting conduct can find a waiver in a situation like that.\nThat's why we have leaned toward the waiver conducts also because as our reading of the dictum of cases that could preferably dealt with waiver in this Court that words like -- that he can waive it by his misconduct as Mr. Justice Cardozo said, suggest to us that was the route that we might appropriately offer up to this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1697.624, 1712.747], "stop_times": [1712.747, 1735.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1697.624}, "reply_to": "15456__0_129", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_131", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, Mr. Flaum I gather when the Illinois Supreme Court said they equated it to it, and when you equate something to something -- it's not the something, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1735.572], "stop_times": [1745.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.572}, "reply_to": "15456__0_130", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_132", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Technically that's correct Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1745.714], "stop_times": [1747.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1745.714}, "reply_to": "15456__0_131", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_133", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Technically, actually.\nWell, all you're saying, when you say it's equated the waiver is that you arrive at the same result as if he would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1747.289, 1748.524], "stop_times": [1748.524, 1755.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.289}, "reply_to": "15456__0_132", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__0_134", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "As if he would, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1755.655], "stop_times": [1757.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1755.655}, "reply_to": "15456__0_133", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_135", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, their precise language was such misconduct was in turn effective as a waiver.\nIt has the operative effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1757.835, 1765.635], "stop_times": [1765.635, 1767.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.835}, "reply_to": "15456__0_134", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__0_136", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes sir.\nPerhaps we should have practiced our claims of waiver as effective as a waiver.\nWe just felt, it would not be misleading to offer up to this Court the concept nakedly as waiver and that it would not be difficult one of the application if accepted by the Court.\nI wonder if I might reserve a minute or two for reply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1767.392, 1770.051, 1775.672, 1787.687], "stop_times": [1770.051, 1775.672, 1787.687, 1791.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1767.392}, "reply_to": "15456__0_135", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__0_137", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Very well.\nMr. Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1791.382, 1798.113], "stop_times": [1798.113, 1809.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.382}, "reply_to": "15456__0_136", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_000", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Court, may it please the Court.\nThe facts are not in dispute but I believe they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1809.059, 1815.853], "stop_times": [1815.853, 1819.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1809.059}, "reply_to": "15456__0_137", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_001", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Would you raise your voice counsel, we seem to have a little difficulty with acoustics today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1819.059], "stop_times": [1824.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.059}, "reply_to": "15456__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_002", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The effects are not in dispute but I feel that they need some elaboration -- so that the Court can more accurately understand the situation of this trial.\nThe respondent William Allen on August 12, 1956 at about 3 o'clock in the morning walked into a tavern, went to a corner of the bar where no one was around and when the bartender came over to ask him what he wanted to drink, the bartender saw a gun -- Allen said, \u201cI want the money,\u201d the bartender took the money and gave it to him and Allen left.\nA few hours later Allen was apprehended.\nHe was searched, no gun, but approximately $200.00 was found in his presence.\nThe officer said, \u201cWhere did you get the money?\u201d\nAnd Allen said, \u201cOh I robbed this bar this evening.\u201d\nWith that, he was taken to the police station and subsequently there was a line up.\nWhen Allen was walked in with several other suspects to be viewed by the owner of the bar and the bartender both of whom were in the bar when the robbery occurred before he could be identified, Allen said, \u201cHey, I recognize you, you look familiar, didn't I rob you this night?\u201d\nLast night?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1824.238, 1837.014, 1859.043, 1862.062, 1867.905, 1870.274, 1874.017, 1879.296, 1895.682], "stop_times": [1837.014, 1859.043, 1862.062, 1867.905, 1870.274, 1874.017, 1879.296, 1895.682, 1898.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1824.238}, "reply_to": "15456__1_001", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_003", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "How is this relevant now on our issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1898.046], "stop_times": [1900.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.046}, "reply_to": "15456__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_004", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Because I'm trying to explain Allen's behavior.\nAllen was then indicted and while in jail, there were several attempted suicides.\nAllen had a prior mental history back in the early 50's -- he was committed and served some time in a mental hospital.\nSubsequently, a pretrial sanity hearing was held in 1956, it was determined that he could not cooperate with his attorney and he was sentenced to a mental institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1900.76, 1905.167, 1910.69, 1918.833], "stop_times": [1905.167, 1910.69, 1918.833, 1929.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1900.76}, "reply_to": "15456__1_003", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_005", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But that issue is out of this case long since, isn't it?\nYou haven't raised it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1929.384, 1932.356], "stop_times": [1932.356, 1933.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.384}, "reply_to": "15456__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_006", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No, I have not raised but it bears to -- I think it's important for the Court to realize the type of person who Allen was and what the trial judge was confronted with.\nI don't feel that the trial judge in the warnings realized that he was dealing with a person who has a prior mental history and may not -- although the issue is not before this Court and may not have been in full control of his faculties at the time he was tried.\nAnd the fact that you may say to someone, if you don't sit-down and be quiet you're going to be removed and warn him once or twice and he continues to disrupt the proceedings and to remove that person -- that's different than dealing with a person who has complete control of his faculties who may realize what the Court is saying.\nWhen Allen was subsequently --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1933.179, 1945.624, 1962.887, 1982.781], "stop_times": [1945.624, 1962.887, 1982.781, 1984.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1933.179}, "reply_to": "15456__1_005", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_007", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Did Allen realize what he was saying when he said, \u201cYou're not going to hold any trial (Inaudible)?\"\nYou have been talking about what the judge didn't understand but I mean -- do you say Allen didn't mean that when he said it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1984.309, 1993.515], "stop_times": [1993.515, 1999.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.309}, "reply_to": "15456__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_008", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No, he did mean that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [1999.593], "stop_times": [2000.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1999.593}, "reply_to": "15456__1_007", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_009", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2000.842], "stop_times": [2001.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.842}, "reply_to": "15456__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_010", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He did mean that because he wanted to conduct his own trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2001.28], "stop_times": [2004.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2001.28}, "reply_to": "15456__1_009", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_011", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What should the Court do then?\nLet him break up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2004.947, 2007.138], "stop_times": [2007.138, 2008.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.947}, "reply_to": "15456__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_012", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, no.\nBecause, when Allen was brought to trial, he requested the right to represent himself and the Court granted him that right.\nHe began to conduct a voir dire examination and during the conduct of that examination -- after some 14 pages of transcript of examining the first witness, he began to make statements about his case.\nThe state objected.\nThere then became a dialog between Allen and the judge.\nThe judge warned him not to make statements, conduct himself only to the qualifications of the jurors.\nThe dialog continued, Allen said he was going to conduct this trial as he knew how the judge warned him, any statements and I'm going to deny you the right to represent yourself.\nSome more dialog, Allen continued to be disrespectful to the court because he wanted to conduct his defense the only way he knew how.\nHe is not a skilled attorney, he is an indigent who was on trial for his life but this time he said life and the judge said liberty.\nBut the issue involved is because Allen at this time was a three time loser.\nThis was his fourth conviction.\nAnd it was possible for him to be sentenced for the rest of his natural life in the penitentiary and this may explain that the court be the dialogue between the judge and Allen with respect to life and liberty but the court was arguing him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2008.431, 2009.372, 2019.154, 2031.612, 2033.738, 2038.644, 2044.613, 2057.96, 2066.101, 2073.753, 2079.13, 2080.684], "stop_times": [2009.372, 2019.154, 2031.612, 2033.738, 2038.644, 2044.613, 2057.96, 2066.101, 2073.753, 2079.13, 2080.684, 2091.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2008.431}, "reply_to": "15456__1_011", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_013", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What was the judge did do have been?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2091.764], "stop_times": [2094.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.764}, "reply_to": "15456__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_014", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2094.496], "stop_times": [2094.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2094.496}, "reply_to": "15456__1_013", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_015", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What was judge to do then?\nLet him conduct the trial the way he wanted to conduct it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2094.792, 2097.452], "stop_times": [2097.452, 2101.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.792}, "reply_to": "15456__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_016", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, if he did not, if the judge felt that Allen had the competence to conduct the trial in the beginning he should have let him proceed.\nIf he felt that he did not have the competence but he began --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2101.638, 2109.746], "stop_times": [2109.746, 2112.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2101.638}, "reply_to": "15456__1_015", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_017", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, he didn't know he was going to carry on like that at the beginning, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2112.203], "stop_times": [2115.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.203}, "reply_to": "15456__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_018", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, then you don't begin a dialogue for two minutes and say, \u201cNow, do it right, do it the way it should be done or I'm going to deny that right.\nWhy don't you have a recess, why not go into the chambers, why not sit down with the man?\"\nIf the judge knew that he had a prior --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2115.801, 2123.281, 2127.629], "stop_times": [2123.281, 2127.629, 2128.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2115.801}, "reply_to": "15456__1_017", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_019", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, who got in the courtroom -- in the mean time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2128.72], "stop_times": [2134.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.72}, "reply_to": "15456__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_020", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But the judge realized this before he gave him the right.\nHe should have known that a person he was dealing with and if he is going to give that person the right --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2134.629, 2137.109], "stop_times": [2137.109, 2139.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2134.629}, "reply_to": "15456__1_019", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_021", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, how could he have known that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2139.908], "stop_times": [2142.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.908}, "reply_to": "15456__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_022", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Because his record was before him.\nThe judge had -- I presume --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2142.74, 2144.579], "stop_times": [2144.579, 2145.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2142.74}, "reply_to": "15456__1_021", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_023", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The record was before the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2145.434], "stop_times": [2147.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.434}, "reply_to": "15456__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_024", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, the judge knew of his prior commitment to a mental hospital because the defendant made a request to the court that he wanted an order from a prior judge.\nThis order was a commitment of him to a mental institution several years ago.\nI'm sure that the trial judge must have known that this man was just restored to sanity after being committed only a years ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2147.552, 2159.024, 2163.212], "stop_times": [2159.024, 2163.212, 2169.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2147.552}, "reply_to": "15456__1_023", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_025", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Voice Overlaps) Do you have any reasons form to know that?\nNobody raised it.\nDid the lawyer raise it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2169.27, 2171.347, 2173.229], "stop_times": [2171.347, 2173.229, 2175.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.27}, "reply_to": "15456__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_026", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "It wasn't raised by the lawyer but when --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2175.107], "stop_times": [2177.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2175.107}, "reply_to": "15456__1_025", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_027", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Was it raised by him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2177.128], "stop_times": [2179.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.128}, "reply_to": "15456__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_028", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "By Allen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2179.066], "stop_times": [2180.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2179.066}, "reply_to": "15456__1_027", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_029", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2180.03], "stop_times": [2181.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.03}, "reply_to": "15456__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_030", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Only with respect to a -- reference to a order from a previous judge as to his commitment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2181.732], "stop_times": [2187.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2181.732}, "reply_to": "15456__1_029", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_031", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And when was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2187.25], "stop_times": [2188.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.25}, "reply_to": "15456__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_032", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That was during this dialogue between the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2188.686], "stop_times": [2191.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2188.686}, "reply_to": "15456__1_031", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_033", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well I'm saying at that stage, what should the judge do then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2191.495], "stop_times": [2195.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.495}, "reply_to": "15456__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_034", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He should recess the court, sit-down with the defendant in chambers, take five minutes out and explain to him very simply in a calm passion rather than an argumentative passion and say, \u201cHere's what's going to happen.\"\nI mean they conducted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2195.567, 2208.536], "stop_times": [2208.536, 2209.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2195.567}, "reply_to": "15456__1_033", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_035", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I would suggest that he would go in and ask the defendant, \u201cHow do you want me to run the trial?\nIs that what you want?\"\nIn that situation, the judge had a choice according to the Court of Appeals of three things and he chose one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2209.339, 2215.652, 2219.022], "stop_times": [2215.652, 2219.022, 2228.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.339}, "reply_to": "15456__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_036", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, there were two rights which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2228.977], "stop_times": [2231.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2228.977}, "reply_to": "15456__1_035", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_037", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "We have already talked of binding and gagging?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2231.221], "stop_times": [2233.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.221}, "reply_to": "15456__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_038", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2233.534], "stop_times": [2234.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2233.534}, "reply_to": "15456__1_037", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_039", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2234.494], "stop_times": [2235.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.494}, "reply_to": "15456__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_040", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Pardon me.\nThere were two elements, first was, denial of Allen's right to represent himself.\nThis was denied first.\nThis is what brought about the second confrontation between Allen and the court because Allen objected that he is not being permitted to continue to represent himself.\nThe court had appointed an attorney that day to sit with him to protect the record.\nThere is no evidence in the record that Allen and this attorney had any discussions about his case whatsoever.\nAllen did not want him.\nHe refused to accept him, but the judge said, \u201cYou sit down, he is going to conduct your defense.\"\nHe said, \u201cNo, he is not.\nI don't want him.\"\nThe judge says, \u201cYou sit down and be quiet or else I'm going to have you removed.\"\nAllen refused to sit and be quiet.\nHe didn't want the attorney who was being appointed.\nThe judge says, \u201cremove him\" and he was taken out of court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2235.078, 2237.129, 2243.611, 2245.654, 2254.408, 2259.184, 2264.977, 2266.522, 2271.884, 2273.319, 2275.309, 2280.306, 2281.847, 2284.193], "stop_times": [2237.129, 2243.611, 2245.654, 2254.408, 2259.184, 2264.977, 2266.522, 2271.884, 2273.319, 2275.309, 2280.306, 2281.847, 2284.193, 2286.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2235.078}, "reply_to": "15456__1_039", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_041", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is that still a choice made by Allen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2286.877], "stop_times": [2289.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.877}, "reply_to": "15456__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_042", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2289.596], "stop_times": [2290.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2289.596}, "reply_to": "15456__1_041", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_043", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is that a choice he made that judge says, \u201cYou need to keep quiet or get out\" and he didn't keep quiet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2290.317], "stop_times": [2297.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.317}, "reply_to": "15456__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_044", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He has a choice, after he has given the right to defend himself and that right and is now denied, just sits still and sit in a chair and have an attorney who he doesn't know represent himself, have an attorney who he hasn't talked to or who may know nothing at all about the case.\nIs he to just sit there or is he permitted to protest when he thinks our violation of his rights.\nAnd at this point in time (Voice Overlaps) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2297.213, 2315.05, 2320.682], "stop_times": [2315.05, 2320.682, 2321.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2297.213}, "reply_to": "15456__1_043", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_045", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But how the court does by saying you're going to be at corps on lunch time, is that protest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2321.636], "stop_times": [2326.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.636}, "reply_to": "15456__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_046", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, Allen was in custody, I am sure that this is something that was said in the heat of the dispute between the court and Allen and I doubt very much if the judge took that seriously.\nOf course the Judge was a form of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2326.259, 2341.368], "stop_times": [2341.368, 2344.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2326.259}, "reply_to": "15456__1_045", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_047", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "In the New York case, Ben Vento (ph) picked up an old chair and told him and mentioned the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2344.453], "stop_times": [2354.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.453}, "reply_to": "15456__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_048", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes he did, but that was after the trial had commenced. In Allen, it was a logical growth from his being denied his right to represent himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2354.432], "stop_times": [2362.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2354.432}, "reply_to": "15456__1_047", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_049", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Mr. Harris, are you arguing that as a matter of the Confrontation Clause, there are no circumstances under which and if defendant may be removed from the courtroom for misconduct and the trial proceed without him.\nAre you going that far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2362.764, 2378.498], "stop_times": [2378.498, 2379.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.764}, "reply_to": "15456__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_050", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I am going that far because I believe that under today's technological advances there are alternatives for dealing with the unruly defendant which will preserve his right to confront the witnesses.\nI do not believe that an attorney without his client to communicate with him is capable of properly conducting a cross-examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2379.878, 2392.114], "stop_times": [2392.114, 2401.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2379.878}, "reply_to": "15456__1_049", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_051", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What are the alternatives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2401.63], "stop_times": [2403.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.63}, "reply_to": "15456__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_052", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The alternatives are a glass sound proof booth which could be constructed.\nSuch a booth was actually used during a sanity hearing in 1956 in California, and I have in my possession photographs of that booth.\nThe defendant, the State of California built a booth which was 12 by 12, that was sound proof glass, it was air conditioned, there was a telephone in the booth.\nIn the booth was a guard with the defendant.\nWhen the defendant first got in the booth as soon as the hearing began he picked up the chair, he was sitting in and he smashed against the glass.\nThey recessed the court and then built an iron chair which was bolted to the floor.\nThere were clamps which were built onto that chair so the defendant was then seated in the chair with the clamps around his leg, he had a telephone with which to communicate as soon as his attorney who was sitting just outside the booth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2403.089, 2408.444, 2417.694, 2428.506, 2433.153, 2441.972, 2447.009], "stop_times": [2408.444, 2417.694, 2428.506, 2433.153, 2441.972, 2447.009, 2459.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2403.089}, "reply_to": "15456__1_051", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_053", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "This is all very interesting but did you propose that some time or did the counsel propose (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2459.928], "stop_times": [2465.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.928}, "reply_to": "15456__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_054", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I propose that to the Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit and I'm late --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2465.942], "stop_times": [2470.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2465.942}, "reply_to": "15456__1_053", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_055", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "It was a little late wasn't it?\nIt wasn't proposed to the trial judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2470.067, 2473.538], "stop_times": [2473.538, 2475.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.067}, "reply_to": "15456__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_056", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No it wasn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2475.138], "stop_times": [2475.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2475.138}, "reply_to": "15456__1_055", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_057", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Do you suggest that was a viable alternative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2475.722], "stop_times": [2479.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.722}, "reply_to": "15456__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_058", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No, I did not and it was not proposed at that time.\nBut this is a possible solution.\nThe only problem with this solution --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2479.772, 2484.513, 2487.316], "stop_times": [2484.513, 2487.316, 2488.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2479.772}, "reply_to": "15456__1_057", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_059", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is there any other?\nDo you suggest the gagging or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2488.474, 2489.161], "stop_times": [2489.161, 2490.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.474}, "reply_to": "15456__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_060", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I suggest the possibility of close circuit televising the trial to another room where again he can see the proceedings and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2490.961], "stop_times": [2498.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2490.961}, "reply_to": "15456__1_059", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_061", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What about gagging?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2498.847], "stop_times": [2501.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.847}, "reply_to": "15456__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_062", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I feel that he should be -- if the court will not accept close circuit television or a booth then he should be gagged, he should remain in court because even though he's gagged and he can't talk to his attorney, you can still hear what's going on.\nAnd it's completely different for a defendant to be in court and to hear what's going on so at a recess he can talk to his attorney rather than try and read a transcript during a recess and tell him what should or should not happen or should be set in cross-examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2501.859, 2516.421], "stop_times": [2516.421, 2531.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2501.859}, "reply_to": "15456__1_061", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_063", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, now certainly you don't contest the very premise all of the gag which is that the government has a right to try in the key, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2531.816], "stop_times": [2541.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.816}, "reply_to": "15456__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_064", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2541.767], "stop_times": [2542.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2541.767}, "reply_to": "15456__1_063", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_065", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is that the very premise of at least are just safeguards about the accused to see that he gets the kind of trial that the constitution guarantees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2542.513], "stop_times": [2554.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.513}, "reply_to": "15456__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_066", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2554.627], "stop_times": [2555.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2554.627}, "reply_to": "15456__1_065", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_067", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But certainly, he has to recognize the government's right to trial, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2555.218], "stop_times": [2563.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.218}, "reply_to": "15456__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_068", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes.\nAnd I also believe now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2563.038, 2565.255], "stop_times": [2565.255, 2566.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2563.038}, "reply_to": "15456__1_067", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_069", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Doesn't that suggest that he may then by his misconduct that he prevents the government from trying it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2566.69], "stop_times": [2575.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.69}, "reply_to": "15456__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_070", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well I think I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2575.039], "stop_times": [2576.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2575.039}, "reply_to": "15456__1_069", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_071", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "And he may by that misconduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2576.597], "stop_times": [2580.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.597}, "reply_to": "15456__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_072", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I do not believe that we can permit or the court should permit a defendant to disrupt the trial, to cause a mistrial to delay the trial by conduct.\nAnd I feel that his right to be in court is mandatory so he can see what is happening and confer with his attorney.\nIf he attempts to purposely disrupt the court, I do not think that a contempt sentence is going to be effective because assuming a series of contempt convictions over a period of time during this time there maybe witnesses who could testify, who will now no longer be available and thereby through indirection he may be serving three or four contempt terms and avoid serving a much more serious term for the charges that are brought against them.\nI think that there are more effective ways of gagging and binding a defendant rather the one which was used in the recent trial in Chicago where the seven defendants.\nBobby Seals was chained with a sort of a make shift gag on his mouth.\nHad the court used a straight jacket and the hospital gag as we used in a recent Ohio trial.\nThe defendant would have been immobile and he wouldn't have been able to bite through the gag and other noises to disrupt the proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2580.148, 2594.147, 2604.909, 2635.359, 2647.417, 2652.938, 2662.787], "stop_times": [2594.147, 2604.909, 2635.359, 2647.417, 2652.938, 2662.787, 2670.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2580.148}, "reply_to": "15456__1_071", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_073", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I take it if you have a number of defendants who are equally abstract with your thought would be that each should have to have his own cubicle, state would have to provide -- what is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2670.534], "stop_times": [2685.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.534}, "reply_to": "15456__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15456__1_074", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, to close circuit the trial, I mean a cubicle I think is impractical because as was done in the senate hearing in California when the defendant got in the cubicle as a last effort to disrupt the proceeding -- he then pretended to be asleep during the entire hearing which lasted two or three weeks.\nI think the close circuit television could be -- it's mobile, it could be setup and the cost is nominal.\nEvery bank and savings and loan association and the basis of a country have closed circuit TV every time (Voice Overlaps) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2685.026, 2706.782, 2714.314], "stop_times": [2706.782, 2714.314, 2720.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2685.026}, "reply_to": "15456__1_073", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_075", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Probably that doesn't preserve his right to confrontation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2720.329], "stop_times": [2722.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.329}, "reply_to": "15456__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__1_076", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, but at least he will be seen the witnesses and he will be able to communicate with his attorney and tell him how to cross-examine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2722.749], "stop_times": [2728.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2722.749}, "reply_to": "15456__1_075", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_077", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "It preserves some time but it does not preserve his right to confrontation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2728.225], "stop_times": [2734.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.225}, "reply_to": "15456__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15456__1_078", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, that depends on how the right of confrontation is defined.\nHe is to confront him for what purpose?\nI think the purposes were there one so the -- he can face the witness, the defendant and cross-examine.\nThere is a second reason for the jury to see the witness.\nAnd reflect on his demeanor and his testimony.\nI don't think either of these rights would be violated if he is placed in a separate room.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2734.1, 2740.009, 2743.477, 2756.036, 2761.131, 2764.879], "stop_times": [2740.009, 2743.477, 2756.036, 2761.131, 2764.879, 2769.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2734.1}, "reply_to": "15456__1_077", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_079", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Suppose he is put in a separate room or in the chamber and we find at the end of the trial that the telephone which sometimes happen, is that all in 15 minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2769.867], "stop_times": [2786.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.867}, "reply_to": "15456__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_080", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "If the phone is out of order --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2786.972], "stop_times": [2788.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2786.972}, "reply_to": "15456__1_079", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_081", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Do we have new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2788.8], "stop_times": [2789.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.8}, "reply_to": "15456__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_082", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "No, because I would think that there should -- there would be a marshal in the room with the defendant who could -- if the phone is out of order, he could very simply communicate by a runner to the court that the phone is not working and let's get it repaired or recess for 10 or 15 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2789.917], "stop_times": [2806.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2789.917}, "reply_to": "15456__1_081", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_083", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But if he didn't do it, does he have to have a new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2806.282], "stop_times": [2810.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.282}, "reply_to": "15456__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_084", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2810.609], "stop_times": [2811.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2810.609}, "reply_to": "15456__1_083", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_085", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, he didn't have is right of confrontation for 15 minutes I understand that's your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2811.744], "stop_times": [2817.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.744}, "reply_to": "15456__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_086", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, he would still have the opportunity to see what is proceeding if the phone is not working because he now tries the phone to his attorney, it would only be a matter of minutes for him -- for a runner to go from the room where he's watching the trial to the court.\nLet's say the phone is not working, that's recess.\nDuring that time he can communicate with his attorney and they can very simply go over what he was unable to tell him on the telephone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2817.49, 2835.795, 2838.232], "stop_times": [2835.795, 2838.232, 2846.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2817.49}, "reply_to": "15456__1_085", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_087", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He says from the beginning and sticks to it and I am not going to be tried.\nI will do anything to prevent the trial and what (Inaudible) is the telephone -- he still wouldn't be tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2846.81, 2853.695], "stop_times": [2853.695, 2861.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.81}, "reply_to": "15456__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_088", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2861.186], "stop_times": [2862.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2861.186}, "reply_to": "15456__1_087", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_089", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's his plan but he intends, what goes with that?\nWhy should the state have to govern, would have to go to all of that trouble to try unless the court should become absolutely impetus to carry on the responsibilities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2862.932, 2868.207], "stop_times": [2868.207, 2878.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.932}, "reply_to": "15456__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_090", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Because the court still has a responsibility and the courts do have a responsibility and we should not permit certain defendants to use of the power of the courts and dictate to them what or what is not going to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2878.799], "stop_times": [2893.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2878.799}, "reply_to": "15456__1_089", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_091", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Let's say but I'm not going to be tried well would he cooperate anymore if you put him on somewhere where he could get a telephone and call up his lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2893.924], "stop_times": [2903.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.924}, "reply_to": "15456__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_092", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, but at least he would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2903.86], "stop_times": [2904.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2903.86}, "reply_to": "15456__1_091", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_093", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Voice Overlap) for other reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2904.992], "stop_times": [2906.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.992}, "reply_to": "15456__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_094", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But he is not disrupting the orderly process of the trial which is going on.\nHe would not be disrupting the orderly process of the trial.\nThe trial would proceed, he would not have the opportunity to disrupt it which could be done if he was gagged or bound in court.\nOr by ranting and raving because the question then becomes at what point in time does a trial judge say to a defendant who is objecting certain things which a trial judge may be saying that he has now waived his right to be present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2906.617, 2911.068, 2915.605, 2925.937], "stop_times": [2911.068, 2915.605, 2925.937, 2941.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2906.617}, "reply_to": "15456__1_093", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_095", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, as a lawyer, what do you think is, what would you suggest that a judge is under a duty to do but the defendant announces you will not be tried and conducts himself so as to prevent a trial in the courtroom?\nOr do you think would really be the best?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2941.852, 2960.707], "stop_times": [2960.707, 2962.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.852}, "reply_to": "15456__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_096", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I would either have him bound and gagged or I would build a glass --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2962.7], "stop_times": [2966.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2962.7}, "reply_to": "15456__1_095", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_097", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "(Voice Overlaps), wouldn't it?\nAfter about an hour to alternative, that was pretty bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2966.158, 2968.601], "stop_times": [2968.601, 2972.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.158}, "reply_to": "15456__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_098", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Why should that look bad? Historically this right has been -- defendant has always been bound and gagged, if he tries to cause a disturbance.\nAnd the court is almost every state in the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2972.308, 2981.641], "stop_times": [2981.641, 2983.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2972.308}, "reply_to": "15456__1_097", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_099", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But, you take (Voice Overlaps) better.\nNow, what else would you think would be better?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2983.422, 2984.869], "stop_times": [2984.869, 2986.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.422}, "reply_to": "15456__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_100", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I think the best thing is the closed circuit to trial too.\nI think the next best thing would be the close circuit television of the trial to the defendant.\nRemove him so he doesn't disturb --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2986.485, 2990.047, 2995.192], "stop_times": [2990.047, 2995.192, 2996.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2986.485}, "reply_to": "15456__1_099", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_101", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What are you going to do when you get out of the small county like our practice at once he didn't have anything like that, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [2996.748], "stop_times": [3002.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.748}, "reply_to": "15456__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_102", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Okay, if you can't televise the trial, if you can't build a glass booth, then bind him and gag him and keep him in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3002.256], "stop_times": [3011.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3002.256}, "reply_to": "15456__1_101", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_103", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Now, this seems to be the theory that this numbly disabled defendant had from the start and reading from a transcript here where he said to the judge after getting his second warning, you have the right to restrain me but you haven't got the right to remove me and you're not going to remove me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3011.153], "stop_times": [3030.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.153}, "reply_to": "15456__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_104", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3030.637], "stop_times": [3031.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3030.637}, "reply_to": "15456__1_103", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_105", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That's the theory of your case here and that was his theory of case of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3031.237], "stop_times": [3034.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.237}, "reply_to": "15456__1_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_106", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3034.874], "stop_times": [3038.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3034.874}, "reply_to": "15456__1_105", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_107", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Pretty good analysis on his part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3038.908], "stop_times": [3041.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.908}, "reply_to": "15456__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_108", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, he spent a lot of time in prison reading law books Your Honor and he relied on that recent Illinois Supreme Court decision, the Decimian (ph) case which counsel referred to where a defendant did cause a disruption -- he was removed from the courtroom for a moment and at which time the attorneys approached the bench.\nThey discussed with the court that this might be a violation of his rights at which time he was brought back in.\nHis conviction was subsequently reversed on other grounds but the respondent has advised me that he had read that case and he realized that he had certain rights and he was going to preserve his rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3041.054, 3066.395, 3074.792], "stop_times": [3066.395, 3074.792, 3089.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3041.054}, "reply_to": "15456__1_107", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_109", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I'm not saying it should have been done but of course, we are not ready to say (Voice Overlaps) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3089.391], "stop_times": [3094.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.391}, "reply_to": "15456__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_110", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3094.086], "stop_times": [3094.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3094.086}, "reply_to": "15456__1_109", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_111", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Suppose the judge could simply say, \u201cAlright, you say you will not be tried, I will let you go to jail and stay until you're ready for a trial.\nI will declare mistrial in this case and when you want a trial you can get him.\"", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3094.532, 3105.538], "stop_times": [3105.538, 3110.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.532}, "reply_to": "15456__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_112", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, I think the court had the right to do that but the problem inherent in that is that there were four witnesses against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3110.927], "stop_times": [3116.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3110.927}, "reply_to": "15456__1_111", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_113", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But that is about the claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3116.274], "stop_times": [3117.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3116.274}, "reply_to": "15456__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_114", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yeah -- no, I don't because there were four witnesses against the respondent.\nLet's say he goes to jail for six months for contempt of the court.\nHe comes out, the judge says, \u201ccan you stand a trial again,\" he says, \u201cno I'm not.\"\nHe's back in jail for contempt.\nHe is in jail for six months.\nMeanwhile, one of the witnesses now moves to California, one dies, one become sick and something happens to the other one.\nHe comes back, he is not ready to stand trial Your Honor try me and there's no more witnesses.\nSo, he has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3117.564, 3122.335, 3125.371, 3128.683, 3130.336, 3131.669, 3137.756, 3142.918], "stop_times": [3122.335, 3125.371, 3128.683, 3130.336, 3131.669, 3137.756, 3142.918, 3143.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3117.564}, "reply_to": "15456__1_113", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_115", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, that's the life \u2013 things that happen and different would always happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3143.68], "stop_times": [3148.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.68}, "reply_to": "15456__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_116", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, but you see if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3148.304], "stop_times": [3150.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3148.304}, "reply_to": "15456__1_115", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_117", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I remember trying a case once in 12 years that's a murder was committed.\nIt's no plenty witnesses there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3150.171, 3154.35], "stop_times": [3154.35, 3155.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.171}, "reply_to": "15456__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_118", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, but there are certain circuits in where witnesses may disappear, they may die.\nOne of the problems inherent in this case -- this case would be retried today.\nI believe that two of the witnesses have died and one has subsequently been indicted by the grand jury in Cook County, Illinois.\nSo, all the four witnesses against him, there would just be one witness who can possibly testify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3155.965, 3162.445, 3166.829, 3178.118], "stop_times": [3162.445, 3166.829, 3178.118, 3181.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3155.965}, "reply_to": "15456__1_117", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_119", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "You would agree, won't you that something has to be done to keep the court -- the big subject to such indignity with such frustrations of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3181.551], "stop_times": [3192.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.551}, "reply_to": "15456__1_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_120", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Yes, I do.\nBut, now to continue on with what happens at Allen is that once the trial began he was brought in, after the voir dire was concluded.\nThe judge says, \u201cYou can stay here if you remain quiet.\"\nHe was non-committal as to what he was going to do.\nThe trial began, the first thing that was done is that his court appointed attorney made a motion of good witnesses.\nThe respondent looked around he didn't see his friends who were supposed to be in court.\nHis sister -- he got up and said, \u201cwhere's my witnesses?\nHow can this trial go on?\"\nAnd with that the judge ordered him removed out of court.\nHe was in court four times the next, that afternoon which was during the prosecution's entire case.\nThere were four witnesses.\nTwo testified -- they saw him commit the crime, two testified that he admitted to him that he committed the crime.\nAnd the point in testimony was reached, \u201cdo you see the man who did that?\"\nAnd the witness would look around and say, \u201cno, I don't\" and the judge would say, \u201cbring in the defendant\" and they dragged this guy in with handcuffs in a prison uniform that was stenciled across the front maximum security and they'd say, \u201cthat's the man.\"\nAnd then they say, \u201cRemove the defendant,\" they drag him out again four times in and out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3192.335, 3196.591, 3208.53, 3212.905, 3216.311, 3222.91, 3226.877, 3229.18, 3230.539, 3234.188, 3239.399, 3240.547, 3245.951, 3249.832, 3262.552], "stop_times": [3196.591, 3208.53, 3212.905, 3216.311, 3222.91, 3226.877, 3229.18, 3230.539, 3234.188, 3239.399, 3240.547, 3245.951, 3249.832, 3262.552, 3266.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3192.335}, "reply_to": "15456__1_119", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_121", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "But I thought you were arguing a little earlier that he shouldn't been bound and gagged and kept all the time, wouldn't that be (Voice Overlaps) reminder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3266.29], "stop_times": [3273.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.29}, "reply_to": "15456__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__1_122", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Sure, keep him in court, but don't bring him in and out of the court every time you want to identify him.\nI mean, even in the most primitive of identification in police line up, they just don't bring one person out and say, \u201cis that the man who did it,\" they at least bring several out.\nHere, he said, \u201cDid you see the man in the courtroom when you look around?\"\nThere are several faces, \u201cno I don't.\"\n\u201cOkay, bring in the defendant.\"\nOne guy comes in, that's the man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3273.976, 3278.41, 3290.844, 3292.859, 3294.374, 3295.459], "stop_times": [3278.41, 3290.844, 3292.859, 3294.374, 3295.459, 3297.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3273.976}, "reply_to": "15456__1_121", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_123", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Don't you think this man was given about as fair a trail as it would possible for him to get?\n(Voice Overlaps) in the courtroom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3297.553, 3304.625], "stop_times": [3304.625, 3306.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.553}, "reply_to": "15456__1_122", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15456__1_124", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "In the reading in the record, I will acknowledge that the court appointed attorney for him did an excellent job.\nThe trial judge who was in his 70's who may have had certain preconceived notions about justice because he was a former prosecutor for many years as a first instance -- in Cook County, was also very tolerant with this defendant.\nHowever, I felt that he should have been more tolerant.\nI felt that once this dispute began, he should have taken the opportunity to sit-down with this defendant and explain to him what he was going to do in a conversational tone in chambers, the whole thing would have taken five minutes and not in the heat of argument where the defendant may not be paying attention on what's going on because he wants to preserve his right to represent himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3306.172, 3312.752, 3332.653, 3335.072], "stop_times": [3312.752, 3332.653, 3335.072, 3358.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3306.172}, "reply_to": "15456__1_123", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_125", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "How many times does this man had been convicted?\nThree times?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3358.164, 3360.217], "stop_times": [3360.217, 3361.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.164}, "reply_to": "15456__1_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_126", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He was convicted three times and I'm advised that there were other charges against him which he was never prosecuted on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3361.84], "stop_times": [3369.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3361.84}, "reply_to": "15456__1_125", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_127", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "How old was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3369.669], "stop_times": [3372.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3369.669}, "reply_to": "15456__1_126", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_128", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "When he was convicted -- he is 38 now, he was convicted in 57, he was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3372.347], "stop_times": [3378.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3372.347}, "reply_to": "15456__1_127", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_129", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I was wondering about why he needs all these fatherly discussion.\nHe is quite a mature person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3378.036, 3382.651], "stop_times": [3382.651, 3387.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.036}, "reply_to": "15456__1_128", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_130", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "He -- well, I don't I -- it's not so much him, it's what he stands for which is the right of the defendant to be tried and preserve his rights and protect those rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3387.947], "stop_times": [3402.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3387.947}, "reply_to": "15456__1_129", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_131", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "What I don't understand is under your theory every other person in that courtroom has to act with demeanor in respect for the court except the defendant.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3402.2, 3417.379], "stop_times": [3417.379, 3419.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3402.2}, "reply_to": "15456__1_130", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_132", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "I think that the defendant also has to conduct himself with respect but you can exclude a spectator from the courtroom without violating the constitutional rights of the defendant but I believe that you cannot do that to the defendant because he has the right -- the defendant was on trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3419.181], "stop_times": [3438.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3419.181}, "reply_to": "15456__1_131", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_133", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Regardless of what he does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3438.9], "stop_times": [3441.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.9}, "reply_to": "15456__1_132", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_134", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Regardless of what he does, he has -- if he wants to go to sleep during the trial, that's his right.\nBut if he demands the right to be there, don't exclude him so he can't see what's going on.\nAnd if he tries to disrupt the proceedings, don't let him be successful, deal with him, but preserve his right in the event all of a sudden he gets a change of heart that he wants to know what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3441.441, 3451.332, 3456.391], "stop_times": [3451.332, 3456.391, 3466.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3441.441}, "reply_to": "15456__1_133", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_135", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "All your point is it is why he wants to be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3466.924], "stop_times": [3470.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.924}, "reply_to": "15456__1_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_136", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, anytime a defendant is tried, that's all the court really knows it, that is there because you have no knowledge as to what he is doing in his mind whether he is thinking about the baseball game that may be going on next week or something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3470.8], "stop_times": [3483.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3470.8}, "reply_to": "15456__1_135", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_137", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Is that your idea of confrontation, he is there bound and gagged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3483.475], "stop_times": [3487.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.475}, "reply_to": "15456__1_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_138", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "The constitution does not require that the defendant sit and be alert and pay attention to the trial -- it just requires that he be there so he has the right to confront the witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3487.608], "stop_times": [3497.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3487.608}, "reply_to": "15456__1_137", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_139", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, what's the difference between him sleeping outside and sleeping inside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3497.172], "stop_times": [3502.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.172}, "reply_to": "15456__1_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_140", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Because, if he changes his mind that he wants to pay attention and wants to defend himself he can then do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3502.49], "stop_times": [3508.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3502.49}, "reply_to": "15456__1_139", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_141", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, he had four chances to change his mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3508.695], "stop_times": [3510.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.695}, "reply_to": "15456__1_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15456__1_142", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Well, no, he was warned once about conducting his trial then that right was denied him.\nI believe he was just warned twice about his being removed and when he didn't pay attention he was then removed.\nAnd I don't think those warnings were sufficient.\nThis is actually a case of first impression; this court has never really ruled on this issue.\nThe case as I cite -- the Hopt, case, the Shields to the Lewis case deal with examination of jurors or jury instruction outside the presence of the defendant and these cases rely on due process of the Fifth Amendment.\nThe Diaz case came out of the Philippines which although the Philippine Government Act had a similar provision as the right of confrontation which was supposedly based on the Sixth Amendment.\nDiaz expressly waived his right to be present during the trial.One of the reason it was because the trial took several months and they would recess for 30 or 60 days and he has lived way far from the court and it was inconvenient from the Bean (ph) court so we said, \"We'll proceed without him, there's only one or two \u2013 it's just going to be heard,\" \"my attorney will be there, he can handle it for me.\"\nI don't believe that would, what Mr. Justice Cardozo said in Schneider is applicable because that was a case involving whether a defendant had the right to go to a view of a scene with the jury under Massachusetts law that right did not exist although the right exists in most of the jurisdictions.\nMr. Justice Cardozo was in the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because at this time the certain rights out of the Sixth Amendment first time have been said that and incorporated and applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe Sixth Amendment historically -- the right of confrontation, it's not clear where it came from.\nSome people say that some commentators say it comes basically from the evils of the Star Chamber proceedings in England.\nOthers say it stems from the injustice which happened to Sir Walter Raleigh who was tried in 1603 for treason.\nThis in effect was really an early political trial.\nQueen Elizabeth had died and her successor, I believe was King Charles wasn't pleased with Rollie.\nRollie had caused the death of the (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3510.967, 3517.233, 3521.268, 3529.628, 3535.199, 3551.811, 3563.695, 3585.542, 3606.184, 3626.867, 3632.731, 3639.77, 3652.372, 3655.964, 3665.337], "stop_times": [3517.233, 3521.268, 3529.628, 3535.199, 3551.811, 3563.695, 3585.542, 3606.184, 3626.867, 3632.731, 3639.77, 3652.372, 3655.964, 3665.337, 3669.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3510.967}, "reply_to": "15456__1_141", "speaker": "h_reed_harris"}
{"id": "15456__1_143", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Very well, you have one minute left Mr. Flaum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3669.422], "stop_times": [3673.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3669.422}, "reply_to": "15456__1_142", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15456__2_000", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nJust on the two main cases relied upon by the respondent writing in Schneider versus Massachusetts, Mr. Justice Cardozo stated Hopt v. Utah has been distinguished and limited and what was said in Hopt v. Utah under subject of the presence of the defendant was dictum and no more, we may say the same of Lewis versus the United States and if I might state the second on the state of the record Mr. Kelly who was counsel for the defendant below was appointed on October 14th the next proceedings were December 11 in the case.\nHe was granted the right to be co-counsel in his case.\nIt was only when he was disrupted during the voir dire that the judge asked that he let his counsel take over and that's when first right ensued, and leave the court with Justice Stewart.\nThe Court of Appeal's decision can be sustained only by the most slavish reading of the Sixth Amendment.\nI respectfully ask this Court to reverse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3673.7, 3676.437, 3708.282, 3711.522, 3720.974, 3727.905], "stop_times": [3676.437, 3708.282, 3711.522, 3720.974, 3727.905, 3731.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3673.7}, "reply_to": "15456__1_143", "speaker": "joel_m_flaum"}
{"id": "15456__2_001", "conversation_id": "15456", "text": "Thank you Mr. Flaum.\nThank you Mr. Harris.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_606", "start_times": [3731.374, 3732.806, 3734.015], "stop_times": [3732.806, 3734.015, 3736.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3731.374}, "reply_to": "15456__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_000", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "513, we'll hear arguments in the matter of Dan A. Spencer.\nNow as to number 4, Younger against Harris, we'll ask counsel to standby for a while and perhaps at the half break when we're certain that we are going to have this case completed with no emergencies then counsel could be excused at 2:30 if no emergencies arise.\nMr. Wulf, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [0.0, 7.604, 34.136], "stop_times": [7.604, 34.136, 39.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_001", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis contempt -- conviction of an attorney is here on appeal from the Louisiana Supreme Court.\nThere -- jurisdiction was postponed pending argument on the merits and there are some jurisdictional problems.\nBefore discussing those, I would like to describe the facts of the conviction itself because of the facts of the conviction also involved some of the jurisdictional problems.\nThe appellant in this case, Mr. Spencer is an attorney, member of the Louisiana Bar who appeared before a Judge Dixon, a District Court judge in the Louisiana courts representing one, Mr. Hopkins in a hearing in a divorce case.\nIt was an uncontested divorce suit and the purpose of the hearing was, according to Louisiana practice, to confirm default in Mr. Hopkins favor.\nAfter testimony was taken by -- was given by Mr. Hopkins and witness on his behalf, Judge Dixon denied the divorce because the testimony didn't show abandonment by the spouse but showed only that Mr. Hopkins and Mrs. Hopkins have had argument and that they decided that one of them should leave and Mrs. Hopkins was the one to leave.\nThe following day after the denial of the divorce, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial on behalf of his client Mr. Hopkins on the ground that the decision by Judge Dixon was erroneous in fact and in law.\nSimultaneously with filing the motion for a new trial, he also filed a motion to recuse Judge Dixon.\nThe motion to recuse which he filed was set out in the back of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [39.223, 42.275, 50.344, 60.296, 75.48, 91.301, 102.873, 129.471, 148.086, 156.659], "stop_times": [42.275, 50.344, 60.296, 75.48, 91.301, 102.873, 129.471, 148.086, 156.659, 162.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.223}, "reply_to": "15252__0_000", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_002", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Did that motion contain any new matter that he hadn't known the day before or the week before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [162.871], "stop_times": [170.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.871}, "reply_to": "15252__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_003", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The record doesn't show, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [170.85], "stop_times": [172.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.85}, "reply_to": "15252__0_002", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_004", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, is it reasonable, can any inferences be drawn as to whether this was some discovery overnight or whether it was a new idea after he learned that he had received an adverse decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [172.519], "stop_times": [185.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.519}, "reply_to": "15252__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_005", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Oh, I don't know what one -- I believe that one cannot draw inferences from the record because there isn't anything in the record at all to suggest when this impeachment proceeding was initiated, if it was initiated and was initiated and what the -- what any of the facts surrounding that proceeding were.\nWhat if any of the facts are on that petition were but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [185.158, 205.438], "stop_times": [205.438, 210.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.158}, "reply_to": "15252__0_004", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_006", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But we don't even know whether this is true or false, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [210.788], "stop_times": [214.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.788}, "reply_to": "15252__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_007", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We don't know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [214.021], "stop_times": [214.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.021}, "reply_to": "15252__0_006", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_008", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The factual statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [214.175], "stop_times": [214.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.175}, "reply_to": "15252__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_009", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We don't know it's true or false, Your Honor.\nOne of the reasons we don't know whether it's true or false is that the judge who sat on the contempt proceeding itself the year later wouldn't allow any such testimony to be entered.\nNow the record is ambiguous as to whether any such testimony was attempted to be put in by the appellant but it becomes perfectly clear from the statement of Judge Williams himself that he was the judge who sat on the contempt hearing that -- and this is contained in the record of the case and also in the back of the jurisdictional statement.\nHe, Judge Williams in opposing Mr. Spencer's application for writs of certiorari to Louisiana Supreme Court said in and I quote, well, I'm sorry I don't quote, but in his application with -- in his opposition to the application which is in the record, Judge Williams said himself that he refused to admit any such evidence concerning the truth of the assertion in the motion to recuse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [214.898, 217.078, 229.798, 255.734], "stop_times": [217.078, 229.798, 255.734, 285.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.898}, "reply_to": "15252__0_008", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_010", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And we don't know if Mr. Hopkins was a lawyer or what he was so far as the record goes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [285.202], "stop_times": [294.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.202}, "reply_to": "15252__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_011", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We don't know, I don't -- I think Mr. Hopkins was not a lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [294.574], "stop_times": [299.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.574}, "reply_to": "15252__0_010", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_012", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And we -- do we know and we don't know anything about Mr. Charles Anderson, III?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [299.565], "stop_times": [304.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.565}, "reply_to": "15252__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_013", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir, less in about him than about that of Mr. Hopkins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [304.341], "stop_times": [307.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.341}, "reply_to": "15252__0_012", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_014", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And do we know anything -- suppose we could take judicial notice, although I certainly don't have any actual notice of how in New Orleans you get a judge remove from office as being unfit therefore or for any other reason.\nWe don't know if these are members of the state legislature, if they are what -- we don't know anything about this case, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [307.324, 324.564], "stop_times": [324.564, 331.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.324}, "reply_to": "15252__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_015", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, we do know that there was then a procedure under the Louisiana Constitution, Article 9 of the Constitution which provided that upon the petition of any 25 citizens of the state in which they alleged that a judge was guilty of one of a fairly long list of offenses ranging from high crimes and misdemeanors to habitual drunkenness and including incompetency, corruption, favoritism, extortion, oppression in office, and gross misconduct that upon a filing of a petition with the district attorney by 25 citizens so alleging that the district attorney had to initiate impeachment proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [331.076], "stop_times": [373.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.076}, "reply_to": "15252__0_014", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_016", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Where, before what form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [373.889], "stop_times": [377.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.889}, "reply_to": "15252__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_017", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The Supreme Court of Louisiana, Your Honor.\nHowever that statute which was in effect at the time -- this motion to recuse was filed was repealed not long afterwards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [377.769, 380.014], "stop_times": [380.014, 388.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.769}, "reply_to": "15252__0_016", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_018", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Do we know Mr. Wulf how judge -- how it came about that Judge Dixon ceased to hold office as a judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [388.021], "stop_times": [394.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 388.021}, "reply_to": "15252__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_019", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He was elevated to the -- to an appellate court in Louisiana not long after this trial also, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [394.855], "stop_times": [406.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.855}, "reply_to": "15252__0_018", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_020", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Are you -- you're going to address yourself to whether you are legally here at all on the question whether there is an appeal here, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [406.105], "stop_times": [416.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.105}, "reply_to": "15252__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_021", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, sir, I am and if I may just finish the recital of facts I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [416.75], "stop_times": [422.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.75}, "reply_to": "15252__0_020", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_022", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I'm sorry to have interrupted, I shall --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [422.649], "stop_times": [427.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.649}, "reply_to": "15252__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_023", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The motion to recuse contained the following paragraphs.\nParagraph 4 and it's set out at page 8 of the appendix, the separate appendix.\nIt says, \u201cThe plaintiff herein, Louis B. Hopkins, Jr. and his chief witness in this case, Mr. Charles Anderson, III are presently engaged in the process of attempting to have Judge Dixon removed from office as being unfit therefore by virtue of corruption, favoritism, oppression and misfeasance in office.\u201d\nAnd the next paragraph said that because of the -- this activity by Mr. Hopkins that the Judge is therefore interested in the cause and bias, prejudice and harbors personal animosity towards the plaintiff.\nIn the motion to recuse was filed pursuant to a Louisiana statute which permits motions to recuse on allegations that filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [427.22, 431.086, 435.998, 455.0, 470.611], "stop_times": [431.086, 435.998, 455.0, 470.611, 478.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.22}, "reply_to": "15252__0_022", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_024", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "At some point, will you develop what could be the nexus or what is the nexus as you see it between the allegations of corruption and the allegations of bias or perhaps indicate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [478.546], "stop_times": [492.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.546}, "reply_to": "15252__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_025", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [492.525], "stop_times": [492.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.525}, "reply_to": "15252__0_024", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_026", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "If there is none, I'm puzzled by that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [492.723], "stop_times": [494.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.723}, "reply_to": "15252__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_027", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the nexus is that judge inferentially knowing about the motion to impeach about the proceeding to impeach initiated by the plaintiff in the case would necessarily be biased against him on the fair assumption that it certainly isn't something that we're going endear the plaintiff to the judge.\nThat -- and that was the essence of the claim of bias and personal animosity, a fair implication, I would think.\nThis motion to recuse having been filed the judge several days later issued an order for a rule to show cause why appellant, Mr. Spencer what not be held in contempt.\nAnd the order is set out in page 10 of the appendix, it's very brief and it says using the language of the Louisiana contempt statute that he did file a pleading which contains scandalous, insulting and abusive language and a relevant criticism of the judge of said court, which pleading is attached hereto and made a part hereof in which language particularly in paragraph 4 which is the paragraph I read relating to the impeachment proceedings thereof, impairs the dignity of the court and the respect for his authority contrary to the law of the State of Louisiana.\nAt that point the appellant here initiated collateral proceedings, United States District Court of Louisiana to enjoin the contempt proceedings.\nI don't think that's directly relevant now.\nThat was an attack on the sta --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [494.774, 519.562, 536.263, 552.522, 589.241, 598.582, 602.16], "stop_times": [519.562, 536.263, 552.522, 589.241, 598.582, 602.16, 602.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 494.774}, "reply_to": "15252__0_026", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_028", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Did you -- what was the basis though of your client, was it due process of the First Amendment or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [602.941], "stop_times": [609.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.941}, "reply_to": "15252__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_029", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "In the collateral actions, Your Honor?\nThat was an 1983 civil rights action based partially on Dombrowski v. Pfister to enjoin the contempt proceeding against the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [609.011, 610.786], "stop_times": [610.786, 619.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.011}, "reply_to": "15252__0_028", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_030", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "As depriving you of what federal right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [619.805], "stop_times": [624.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.805}, "reply_to": "15252__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_031", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I'm afraid I can't recall, the free speech, yes, precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [624.929], "stop_times": [628.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.929}, "reply_to": "15252__0_030", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_032", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And that was decided against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [628.358], "stop_times": [629.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.358}, "reply_to": "15252__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_033", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He alleged a free -- he alleged that the statute -- Louisiana contempt statute violated the First Amendment on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [629.713], "stop_times": [636.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.713}, "reply_to": "15252__0_032", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_034", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [636.125], "stop_times": [636.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.125}, "reply_to": "15252__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_035", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [636.233], "stop_times": [636.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.233}, "reply_to": "15252__0_034", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_036", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That was decided against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [636.961], "stop_times": [638.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.961}, "reply_to": "15252__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_037", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That was decided against appellant, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [638.171], "stop_times": [640.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.171}, "reply_to": "15252__0_036", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_038", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Under what, a summary judgment or just?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [640.841], "stop_times": [645.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.841}, "reply_to": "15252__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_039", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "On a summary judgment, yes.\nThere was a -- there was initially a three-judge court and then they -- I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [645.038, 646.596], "stop_times": [646.596, 649.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.038}, "reply_to": "15252__0_038", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_040", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And he didn't appeal that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [649.377], "stop_times": [651.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.377}, "reply_to": "15252__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_041", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He filed those on appeal and then withdrew it afterwards, yes.\nAnother part of that proceeding was that I think it's fair to say out of that proceeding, that Judge Dixon disqualified himself from sitting on the contempt hearing itself and another judge was assigned to actually hear the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [651.091, 654.41], "stop_times": [654.41, 667.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.091}, "reply_to": "15252__0_040", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_042", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Is that -- are the issues in that federal court action being raised in this action too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [667.573], "stop_times": [674.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.573}, "reply_to": "15252__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_043", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the only issue that was disposed of in the federal court action was the constitutionality of the contempt statute on its face although that was raised here initially in the jurisdictional statement from our supplemental brief you'll see that we're confessing that that ought not be here because it was not properly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [674.73], "stop_times": [692.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.73}, "reply_to": "15252__0_042", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_044", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.\nAnd the -- when was it -- when was the -- when were your other issues ever raised in the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [692.609, 693.483], "stop_times": [693.483, 699.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.609}, "reply_to": "15252__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_045", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the other issues by which you mean the whole three of the general issues, the three --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [699.989], "stop_times": [703.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.989}, "reply_to": "15252__0_044", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_046", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "On the -- the other issues you want litigate it here, you want to decide here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [703.608], "stop_times": [706.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.608}, "reply_to": "15252__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_047", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "They were raised -- the invalidity of the conviction was raised in the motion to recuse in the course of the hearing before Judge Williams and in the appellant's application for writs of certiorari to Louisiana Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [706.661], "stop_times": [723.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.661}, "reply_to": "15252__0_046", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_048", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, if you didn't raise it in the trial court however, you might be at some trouble even if you raised it in the petition for cert in the state court, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [723.929], "stop_times": [732.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.929}, "reply_to": "15252__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_049", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, but it was raised in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [732.416], "stop_times": [733.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.416}, "reply_to": "15252__0_048", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_050", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Where?\nWhere was that?\nIt must be on the record here somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [733.826, 734.123, 734.75], "stop_times": [734.123, 734.75, 736.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.826}, "reply_to": "15252__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_051", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It is on the record.\nThat was most explicitly raised in the course of the oral argument before Judge Williams at page -- well, its raised in a couple of places.\nAt page 18 (Voice Overlap) in the appendix in the first full paragraph, the first words are Holt versus Virginia, that's Mr. Spencer engaging in colloquy with Judge Williams.\nAnd at the bottom of that paragraph, what he -- quote some of the language from the Holt case and then at the conclusion, it says under these circumstances, the decision decided by 8 judges, the one that said, the Supreme Court, meaning this Court found that these constitutionally protected, expressions of free speech that I would submit that the same thing is true here.\nThe other issue that he persistently raised was the issue of his right to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [736.155, 742.897, 755.76, 770.719, 802.467], "stop_times": [742.897, 755.76, 770.719, 802.467, 809.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.155}, "reply_to": "15252__0_050", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_052", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Excuse me Mr. -- do you mean, the -- this addresses itself to 2 (22) (3) as applied, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [809.413], "stop_times": [817.467], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 809.413}, "reply_to": "15252__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_053", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, the reference to Holt, yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [817.467], "stop_times": [820.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.467}, "reply_to": "15252__0_052", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_054", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [820.003], "stop_times": [820.011], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 820.003}, "reply_to": "15252__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_055", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [820.011], "stop_times": [820.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.011}, "reply_to": "15252__0_054", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_056", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "This is what -- you say this addresses itself to the constitutionality of the Section we have before us, 2 (22) (3), isn't that it, as applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [820.678], "stop_times": [828.53], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 820.678}, "reply_to": "15252__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_057", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, it addressed its -- it addressed itself to the charge against -- it addressed himself to the charge against --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [828.53], "stop_times": [832.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.53}, "reply_to": "15252__0_056", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_058", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I know but what we're dealing with here is the jurisdiction -- our jurisdiction here this, aren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [832.535], "stop_times": [838.996], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 832.535}, "reply_to": "15252__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_059", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We are and I have in our supplemental brief conceded that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [838.996], "stop_times": [843.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.996}, "reply_to": "15252__0_058", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_060", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "What was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [843.364], "stop_times": [845.263], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 843.364}, "reply_to": "15252__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_061", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Conceded that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [845.263], "stop_times": [846.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.263}, "reply_to": "15252__0_060", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_062", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That on its face, so you have no -- you can't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [846.053], "stop_times": [848.321], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 846.053}, "reply_to": "15252__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_063", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I have -- we have abandoned the attack on the contempt statute on its face because in my opinion it was impossible to assert that there -- that it had been joined in issue properly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [848.321], "stop_times": [856.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.321}, "reply_to": "15252__0_062", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_064", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Can I Mr. Wulf, then I come back to my question, then you go on as I read your supplemental brief to say that the -- you do the constitutionality of 2 (22) (3) based upon the First Amendment as applied, is that right?\nIs that what you're saying there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [856.289, 873.765], "stop_times": [873.765, 874.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 856.289}, "reply_to": "15252__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_065", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, what I'm say -- what I'm saying now here is that what we are attacking is not the statute either on its face but certainly not on its face, what we're attacking is the validity of the conviction itself.\nI have had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [874.912, 887.684], "stop_times": [887.684, 887.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.912}, "reply_to": "15252__0_064", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_066", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I know but you're here by appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [887.716], "stop_times": [890.227], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 887.716}, "reply_to": "15252__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_067", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I am here by appeal.\nI am on -- in a supplemental brief I confess that you -- we are here incorrectly by appeal.\nAnd in the supplemental brief I have asked the -- pursuant to Section 20 103 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [890.227, 891.332, 896.79], "stop_times": [891.332, 896.79, 901.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.227}, "reply_to": "15252__0_066", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_068", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And you got it as a cert?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [901.181], "stop_times": [902.728], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 901.181}, "reply_to": "15252__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_069", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- that we -- that the case to be treated as a petition for certiorari which in fact was one of the alternative prayers in the jurisdictional statement and that certiorari would be granted and that the surviving issues apart from the constitutionality of the statute on its face, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [902.728], "stop_times": [921.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.728}, "reply_to": "15252__0_068", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_070", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Oh, I know, what are these -- alright, what are the cert issues now that you want us --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [921.219], "stop_times": [925.093], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 921.219}, "reply_to": "15252__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_071", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The cert issue -- the central cert issue of course is the validity --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [925.093], "stop_times": [927.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.093}, "reply_to": "15252__0_070", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_072", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But the point -- excuse me, before you get to the cert issue let me put this question to you.\nIf what is now disposed in your supplemental brief had been included in your jurisdictional statement, is it possible that the -- it would've been a dismissal out of hand of the whole proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [927.883, 932.525], "stop_times": [932.525, 950.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.883}, "reply_to": "15252__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_073", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I wouldn't make that prediction Your Honor.\nIf I had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [950.173, 952.598], "stop_times": [952.598, 952.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.173}, "reply_to": "15252__0_072", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_074", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, why not?\nIf you admit now that you had no basis for being here on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [952.91, 953.495], "stop_times": [953.495, 956.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.91}, "reply_to": "15252__0_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_075", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I have no basis for being here on appeal I think that we have very excellent basis for being here by way of certiorari and if I have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [956.731], "stop_times": [961.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.731}, "reply_to": "15252__0_074", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_076", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, but you -- you hadn't filed a petition for certiorari, you had filed an appeal, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [961.227], "stop_times": [967.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.227}, "reply_to": "15252__0_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_077", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But if -- yes, the appeal, those appeal was filed from the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court and then a jurisdictional statement was filed here.\nThe jurisdictional statement in its conclusion at page 13 said that the questions presented by appeals, substantial, etcetera, then alternatively in the event that this appeal shall either reject the appellant, prays that the papers herein be treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari.\nIf I have joined that that docket -- I can't say, I would've made the petition for certiorari in the first place and necessarily we are now here asking that it be treated as a petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [967.729, 979.252, 999.26], "stop_times": [979.252, 999.26, 1010.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.729}, "reply_to": "15252__0_076", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_078", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Now, where else Mr. Wulf did you raise this in any federal constitutional matters in the trial court other than the page 18?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1010.423], "stop_times": [1023.077], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.423}, "reply_to": "15252__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_079", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I think that was the most explicit, if I may just look through here a second.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1023.077], "stop_times": [1030.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.077}, "reply_to": "15252__0_078", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_080", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And while you're about it Mr. Wulf, will you then point out what the issues on cert are that you thinking now before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1030.33], "stop_times": [1035.964], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.33}, "reply_to": "15252__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_081", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1035.964], "stop_times": [1036.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.964}, "reply_to": "15252__0_080", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_082", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I gather this is First Amendment issues, isn't it?\nYou rely on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1036.226, 1039.68], "stop_times": [1039.68, 1039.733], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.226}, "reply_to": "15252__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_083", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, it's essentially a Holt versus Virginia issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1039.733], "stop_times": [1043.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.733}, "reply_to": "15252__0_082", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_084", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, I mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1043.335], "stop_times": [1043.811], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.335}, "reply_to": "15252__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_085", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- which is a due process First Amendment and the void of evidence issue as I read that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1043.811], "stop_times": [1049.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.811}, "reply_to": "15252__0_084", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_086", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We know, do you -- anything that Holt against Virginia dealt with is raised by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1049.239], "stop_times": [1052.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.239}, "reply_to": "15252__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_087", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Is was raised by that comment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1052.686], "stop_times": [1054.847], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.686}, "reply_to": "15252__0_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_088", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1054.847], "stop_times": [1055.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.847}, "reply_to": "15252__0_087", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_089", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "You hope?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1055.557], "stop_times": [1056.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.557}, "reply_to": "15252__0_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__0_090", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, I hope.\nYes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1056.235, 1057.332], "stop_times": [1057.332, 1058.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.235}, "reply_to": "15252__0_089", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_091", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, what other cert issues are there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1058.697], "stop_times": [1059.976], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.697}, "reply_to": "15252__0_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_092", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, certainly the central Holt issue is raised here, I mean by referring explicitly to Holt in the course of the argument at the trial court and by repeating those assertions in his applications for writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court, he certainly raised -- he certainly properly raised and preserved the Holt issue.\nHe raised it I think in a way that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1059.976, 1078.676], "stop_times": [1078.676, 1081.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.976}, "reply_to": "15252__0_091", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_093", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But they denied certiorari.\nWe don't know whether they -- didn't -- they may have denied it because you haven't raised anything in the lower court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1081.258, 1083.309], "stop_times": [1083.309, 1088.583], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.258}, "reply_to": "15252__0_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_094", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, they not only denied certiorari Your Honor but if you -- they also have said there is no error of law in the ruling --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1088.583], "stop_times": [1095.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.583}, "reply_to": "15252__0_093", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_095", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And what's that mean in Louisiana, I used to know I don't remember now, it has something to do with merits, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1095.334], "stop_times": [1102.794], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.334}, "reply_to": "15252__0_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_096", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I haven't frankly examined that precise question in terms of what it means Louisiana law.\nI would think that its plain meaning is that there is no error of law in the ruling --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1102.794, 1107.959], "stop_times": [1107.959, 1111.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.794}, "reply_to": "15252__0_095", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_097", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I think it has some technical significant system, the substantive quasi, but I don't know.\nWhich would be for you of Virginia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1111.114, 1121.684], "stop_times": [1121.684, 1127.171], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.114}, "reply_to": "15252__0_096", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_098", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, perhaps, I don't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1127.171], "stop_times": [1128.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.171}, "reply_to": "15252__0_097", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_099", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "(Voice Overlap) the determination on the merits, you see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1128.148], "stop_times": [1129.97], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.148}, "reply_to": "15252__0_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_100", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I don't think that this position by Louisiana Supreme Court is particularly -- is directly relevant to whether we properly raised the certiorari issues here as long as we properly raised them in the applications to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for certiorari, the fact that they declined to exercise jurisdiction doesn't denigrate the fact that we properly raised them in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1129.97], "stop_times": [1153.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.97}, "reply_to": "15252__0_099", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_101", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I know but if there were a rule in Louisiana that you must raise the issues in the trial court to have them considered in the appellate court then you haven't raised the issue as soon as you can in the state court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1153.301], "stop_times": [1168.339], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.301}, "reply_to": "15252__0_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_102", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, we raised the Holt -- our assertion is that we raised the Holt issue in the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1168.339], "stop_times": [1173.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.339}, "reply_to": "15252__0_101", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_103", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the other side of it anyway, what I'm suggesting Mr. Wulf is something about this Louisiana practice that makes that form a disposition on the merits not merely a denial of review where cert would be here but when I used that form for disposition of a petition for a writ as I recall that constitutes also a disposition on the merit that no merit in the points raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1173.167], "stop_times": [1198.449], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.167}, "reply_to": "15252__0_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_104", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1198.449], "stop_times": [1199.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.449}, "reply_to": "15252__0_103", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_105", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Assuming they were raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1199.206], "stop_times": [1200.419], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.206}, "reply_to": "15252__0_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_106", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, I didn't look into that.\nIf the Court wants a supplementary brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1200.419, 1202.126], "stop_times": [1202.126, 1203.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.419}, "reply_to": "15252__0_105", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_107", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, perhaps your adversary put a light on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1203.319], "stop_times": [1206.593], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.319}, "reply_to": "15252__0_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_108", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But, in any case I -- if it were a disposition on the merits, obviously the case would be strong.\nI don't think frankly it's any less weak if it's a discretionary denial because the question isn't whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court decided it.\nThe question is whether it was presented to them, entertained and rejected either just on -- by denial of certiorari or on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1206.593, 1213.969, 1221.954], "stop_times": [1213.969, 1221.954, 1230.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1206.593}, "reply_to": "15252__0_107", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_109", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I know I'm taking it too much of your time and apologize but what other cert issues are there that you think are before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1230.02], "stop_times": [1236.25], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.02}, "reply_to": "15252__0_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_110", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "These -- the three cert issues which are before us all revolved around the Holt issue and they are that the conviction violates the First Amendment right of courtroom advocacy by an attorney.\nThe whole Holt versus Virginia issue itself that denial of due process because of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and for counsel to plead and the no evidence rule.\nAnd frankly all of this, Holt is the centerpiece of these three questions because I think Holt can be looked upon as something of a free speech case.\nWe looked upon as the right of free speech advocacy in the courtroom as Mr. Justices Douglas and Black once referred to in Fisher v. Pace in a dissenting opinion there.\nSo it has been treated or considered to be a First Amendment right.\nThe second issue is the square Holt versus Virginia issue vainly the right of a lawyer on behalf of his client to file relevant pleadings in order to try to secure a floor which is free of bias so that could be either a motion to recuse as in this case or a motion for a change of venue as was the case in Holt.\nAnd the last issue is a no evidence issue along the line of Thompson v. Louisville which in fact was one of the grounds in the Holt case although it didn't precisely refer to Thompson v. Louisville in any of its progeny but the Court here did say in Holt that speaking of the convictions for contempt, they rest on nothing whatever except allegations made in motions for change of venue.\nThe -- each of those issues were raised below and are here properly having been raised and preserved below --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1236.25, 1249.696, 1261.71, 1275.172, 1288.253, 1295.2, 1316.185, 1345.095], "stop_times": [1249.696, 1261.71, 1275.172, 1288.253, 1295.2, 1316.185, 1345.095, 1355.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.25}, "reply_to": "15252__0_109", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_111", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, they're here now as you concede only if we grant petition for certiorari, am I correct --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1355.38], "stop_times": [1359.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.38}, "reply_to": "15252__0_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_112", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1359.684], "stop_times": [1360.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.684}, "reply_to": "15252__0_111", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_113", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- in your submission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1360.925], "stop_times": [1362.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.925}, "reply_to": "15252__0_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_114", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1362.221], "stop_times": [1363.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.221}, "reply_to": "15252__0_113", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_115", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "This therefore is a -- I gather is of inadvertent misstatement in the -- in your opening brief to the effect that the jurisdictional statement was filed on August 1969 and probable jurisdiction was noted on February 2, 1970.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1363.619], "stop_times": [1380.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.619}, "reply_to": "15252__0_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_116", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1380.584], "stop_times": [1381.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.584}, "reply_to": "15252__0_115", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_117", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That's a misstatement of facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1381.576], "stop_times": [1382.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.576}, "reply_to": "15252__0_116", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_118", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That is a misstatement which I corrected in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1382.519], "stop_times": [1383.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.519}, "reply_to": "15252__0_117", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_119", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We postponed jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1383.726], "stop_times": [1385.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.726}, "reply_to": "15252__0_118", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_120", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- in the supplemental brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1385.031], "stop_times": [1386.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.031}, "reply_to": "15252__0_119", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_121", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And you now concede that there is no proper appeal here and that what you're presenting here is of now a petition for certiorari, that you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1386.658], "stop_times": [1392.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.658}, "reply_to": "15252__0_120", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_122", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1392.973], "stop_times": [1394.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.973}, "reply_to": "15252__0_121", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_123", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- are asking us to grant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1394.065], "stop_times": [1395.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.065}, "reply_to": "15252__0_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_124", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd grant and deal on with the merits precisely as it would've dealt with the merits of the appeal if the appeal were properly here.\nAnd I just might say that with respect to the application for certiorari that this Court has -- not infrequently considered issues of contempt on law -- visited on lawyers by the bench as a very important aspect both of its constitutional duty and as its supervisory duty over the conduct of litigation on the lower federal courts.\nThere have been several dozen contempt cases here in one form or another.\nAnd I would suggest that that itself indicates the significance of these kinds of cases where lawyers are held to contempt by the bench and I think that the issue quite apart from that even if there had never been a case of this sort here before that quite apart form that it is an important question on its own merits and does implicate the independence of the bar and raise serious questions about the bar being free from the imposition of arbitrary sanctions by judges and members of the bench.\nI would just like to concentrate for a moment on the -- on this case in its relationship to Holt versus Virginia.\nI think that -- looked at in that light, it's a very easy and that it is controlled directly and entirely by Holt versus Virginia.\nIn Holt there are two -- two lawyers were held in contempt for filing a motion for change of venue in that case in which they charged that the judge there \u201cis now in effect and or in fact acting as police officer, chief prosecution witness, adverse witness for the defense, grand jury, chief prosecutor and judge.\u201d\nAnd it also charged that the judge had intimidate and harass Attorney Holt at an earlier hearing on the contempt proceeding and the judge thereupon hearing this motion read in open court said, \u201cI think the plea is contemptuous.\u201d\nAnd the Virginia Supreme Court held that the language in that motion violated the Virginia contempt statute which authorized summary punishment of a person who \u201cmisbehaves\u201d in the presence of a court so as to obstruct justice or uses \u201cvile, contemptuous or insulting language\u201d which is language not unlike that contained in the Louisiana contempt statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1395.398, 1396.18, 1404.488, 1431.941, 1435.992, 1481.39, 1491.183, 1502.303, 1527.814, 1543.707], "stop_times": [1396.18, 1404.488, 1431.941, 1435.992, 1481.39, 1491.183, 1502.303, 1527.814, 1543.707, 1566.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.398}, "reply_to": "15252__0_123", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_125", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I don't have this quite clear Mr. Wulf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1566.723], "stop_times": [1568.2], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.723}, "reply_to": "15252__0_124", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_126", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1568.2], "stop_times": [1568.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1568.2}, "reply_to": "15252__0_125", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_127", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The language, I'm looking at page 8 of the motion on order for recusation, paragraph 4 refers to the client Hopkins as engaged in the process of attempting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1568.57], "stop_times": [1579.844], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.57}, "reply_to": "15252__0_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_128", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1579.844], "stop_times": [1579.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.844}, "reply_to": "15252__0_127", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_129", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- and removed from office for \u201cas being unfit therefore by virtue of corruption, favoritism, oppression and misfeasance in office.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1579.884], "stop_times": [1587.354], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.884}, "reply_to": "15252__0_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_130", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1587.354], "stop_times": [1587.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1587.354}, "reply_to": "15252__0_129", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_131", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Now, do I understand you that that's the exact language from the statute under which Hopkins was bringing his proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1587.445], "stop_times": [1594.807], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.445}, "reply_to": "15252__0_130", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_132", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, except misfeasance is not included in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1594.807], "stop_times": [1598.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1594.807}, "reply_to": "15252__0_131", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_133", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I see, now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1598.623], "stop_times": [1599.353], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.623}, "reply_to": "15252__0_132", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_134", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But corruption, favoritism and oppression is included in Article 9, Section 1 of the Louisiana Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1599.353], "stop_times": [1606.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.353}, "reply_to": "15252__0_133", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_135", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Now, it was his use of that language in the motion which was a basis for the discipline, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1606.231], "stop_times": [1611.673], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.231}, "reply_to": "15252__0_134", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_136", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The sole basis for the contempt was this paragraph of the motion to recuse which you must note is not the words of the appellant, the lawyer himself but as merely an assertion by Mr. Spencer that his client, Mr. Hopkins, had initiated a petition for removal of Judge Dixon and that it -- and that that petition was written in terms of corruption, favoritism, oppression and misfeasance.\nThey are not Mr. -- they're not the appellant's words.\nThey're not the words of the lawyer.\nThey're merely the assertion by the lawyer in a pleading that this was an activity in which his client was presently engaged and that therefore the judge would be prejudiced against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1611.673, 1642.726, 1645.394, 1646.958], "stop_times": [1642.726, 1645.394, 1646.958, 1661.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1611.673}, "reply_to": "15252__0_135", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_137", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, it surely do -- the lawyer drafted that, I suppose some typist actually did the writing on it but the lawyer drafted that language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1661.977], "stop_times": [1669.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.977}, "reply_to": "15252__0_136", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_138", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the lawyer drafted the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1669.382], "stop_times": [1671.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1669.382}, "reply_to": "15252__0_137", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_139", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And they're his therefore they are his words and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1671.248], "stop_times": [1673.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.248}, "reply_to": "15252__0_138", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_140", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The lawyer drafted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1673.771], "stop_times": [1674.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.771}, "reply_to": "15252__0_139", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_141", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- we don't know if they're true or false.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1674.385], "stop_times": [1676.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.385}, "reply_to": "15252__0_140", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_142", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The lawyer drafted the motion for recusation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1676.308], "stop_times": [1678.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1676.308}, "reply_to": "15252__0_141", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_143", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1678.35], "stop_times": [1678.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.35}, "reply_to": "15252__0_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_144", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I don't know who drafted the petition to remove Judge Dixon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1678.728], "stop_times": [1684.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1678.728}, "reply_to": "15252__0_143", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_145", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, no we're talking now about paragraph 4 here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1684.433], "stop_times": [1686.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.433}, "reply_to": "15252__0_144", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_146", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Oh, that's right.\nYes, of course, I assume that the lawyer drafted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1686.554, 1687.088], "stop_times": [1687.088, 1688.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.554}, "reply_to": "15252__0_145", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_147", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Those are lawyer's words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1688.967], "stop_times": [1690.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.967}, "reply_to": "15252__0_146", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__0_148", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- drafted and signed this pleading.\nThere's no question about that.\nBut this isn't the characterization of the (Voice Overlap) by the lawyer.\nThis is merely, if you'll read it, it merely asserts that his client, Mr. Hopkins is engaging in the process of attempting to have Judge Dixon remove from office as being unfit therefore by virtue of corruption --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1690.349, 1691.835, 1693.492, 1697.945], "stop_times": [1691.835, 1693.492, 1697.945, 1713.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.349}, "reply_to": "15252__0_147", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_149", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Do you say this is just the equivalent if he said, my client has got a proceeding to remove the judge brought under Section so and so, the Louisiana statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1713.225], "stop_times": [1723.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.225}, "reply_to": "15252__0_148", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15252__0_150", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Precisely.\nIndeed, in this language except for the use of misfeasance which made the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1723.345, 1724.474], "stop_times": [1724.474, 1727.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1723.345}, "reply_to": "15252__0_149", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_151", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "What sentence, what was the penalty that was imposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1727.399], "stop_times": [1730.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.399}, "reply_to": "15252__0_150", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15252__0_152", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "24 hours and a hundred dollars which was a statutory maximum for a first contempt offense by an attorney of Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1730.188], "stop_times": [1736.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1730.188}, "reply_to": "15252__0_151", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_153", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Is it a basis for a disbarment and conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1736.906], "stop_times": [1743.362], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.906}, "reply_to": "15252__0_152", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_154", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It could be, I'd fair, I don't know whether there are disbarment proceedings.\nI suppose it could be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1743.362, 1747.522], "stop_times": [1747.522, 1749.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1743.362}, "reply_to": "15252__0_153", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_155", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Do you suppose it would've been more a lawyerlike to have filed a document in the form that Mr. Justice Harlan just suggested --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1749.546], "stop_times": [1757.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.546}, "reply_to": "15252__0_154", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_156", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, that's where the other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1757.473], "stop_times": [1757.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1757.473}, "reply_to": "15252__0_155", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_157", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- where he is incorporating by reference and drawing the court's attention to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1757.842], "stop_times": [1761.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.842}, "reply_to": "15252__0_156", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_158", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, that's what the other side suggested too in one of their briefs in opposition to the jurisdictional statement but I don't know that any of us can really say that the way we draw papers as opposed the way some (Inaudible) draws papers is the proper way to do it.\nSome lawyers prefer to be more precise.\nI think that this is more precise than merely referring to the statutory language.\nI might have preferred to statutory language, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1761.707, 1781.333, 1783.993, 1790.162], "stop_times": [1781.333, 1783.993, 1790.162, 1793.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1761.707}, "reply_to": "15252__0_157", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_159", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "More precise but also less polite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1793.787], "stop_times": [1798.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.787}, "reply_to": "15252__0_158", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15252__0_160", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, it's certainly more distinct which may be a consideration when you're trying to show to a judge that he may be biased against your client.\nYou want to make this, I would think, I have -- myself have never filed such a motion so I can't claim any great experience in the area but I would think that if I were to file such motion that I would want to make as explicit and as possible what I believe the basis for the possible bias might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1798.377, 1809.337], "stop_times": [1809.337, 1828.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1798.377}, "reply_to": "15252__0_159", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_161", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, are you suggesting that the judge in question wasn't aware of the existence of this document?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1828.643], "stop_times": [1834.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.643}, "reply_to": "15252__0_160", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_162", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the implication is that he was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1834.043], "stop_times": [1836.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1834.043}, "reply_to": "15252__0_161", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_163", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, and therefore would it not have been at least more lawyerlike to have simply called attention to the existence, dependency of such a matter by reference to the document and let the document speak for itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1836.491], "stop_times": [1852.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.491}, "reply_to": "15252__0_162", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_164", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It may have been more prudent, I don't know whether it would've more lawyerlike, I don't know if those two terms are interchangeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1852.85], "stop_times": [1859.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1852.85}, "reply_to": "15252__0_163", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_165", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, you perhaps wouldn't be here if that course had been followed, is that likely in your judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1859.029], "stop_times": [1868.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.029}, "reply_to": "15252__0_164", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_166", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I really can't say, I think that would depend on Judge Dixon temperament.\nAnd I don't know anything about Judge Dixon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1868.467, 1872.699], "stop_times": [1872.699, 1873.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1868.467}, "reply_to": "15252__0_165", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_167", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, it might have been done in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1873.875], "stop_times": [1880.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.875}, "reply_to": "15252__0_166", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__0_168", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It might depend on that also but I think primarily it would depend on the temperament of Judge Dixon.\nAs contempt proceedings, I think, it ought always depend on the temperament of the judge who issues the contempt and I think its precisely the over sensitive judge who is the danger to the independent court but I think it's this Court's duty to interpose itself between such insensitivity and the right of a lawyer aggressively to represent the interest of his client and I think that's what the appellant is doing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1880.027, 1886.184], "stop_times": [1886.184, 1913.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1880.027}, "reply_to": "15252__0_167", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__0_169", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, Sixth Amendment issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1913.799], "stop_times": [1915.272], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.799}, "reply_to": "15252__0_168", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__0_170", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wulf.\nMr. Dixon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1915.272, 1918.758], "stop_times": [1918.758, 1935.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.272}, "reply_to": "15252__0_169", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_000", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWe would address ourselves first the jurisdictional problem.\nWe submit that even treating the petition is a petition for certiorari does not cross the jurisdictional issues raised here.\nWe have briefed the issue that appeal was from the wrong court.\nThe same holdings, same cases creating these rules were also had held that certiorari is from the wrong court.\nJurisdiction here is based only on Section 12 (57) either for appeal or for certiorari requiring that it be from \u201cthe highest court of a state in which a decision could be had.\nThis Court has of many occasions in the cases cited on the jade of brief held that when a higher state court declines discretionary review --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [1935.576, 1939.962, 1943.578, 1954.96, 1963.207, 1975.75, 1991.433], "stop_times": [1939.962, 1943.578, 1954.96, 1963.207, 1975.75, 1991.433, 2002.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.576}, "reply_to": "15252__0_170", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_001", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, will you tell me Mr. Dixon, what is the significance of there is no error of law in the ruling complained of.\nIt's my impression if that somehow deals with the merits, am I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2002.08, 2008.477], "stop_times": [2008.477, 2010.652], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.08}, "reply_to": "15252__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_002", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor that is not -- that is not my intention of (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2010.652], "stop_times": [2013.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.652}, "reply_to": "15252__1_001", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_003", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, then I'm quite wrong, you know better than I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2013.668], "stop_times": [2015.636], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.668}, "reply_to": "15252__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_004", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Oh, it is -- it may have been at one time, I do not know but that is not my opinion of Louisiana law, I would direct Your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2015.636], "stop_times": [2023.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.636}, "reply_to": "15252__1_003", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_005", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2023.362], "stop_times": [2023.634], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.362}, "reply_to": "15252__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_006", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- Honors attention to the case cited by us on page 8 of American Express Company versus Levee came from Louisiana in which that same situation existed as I recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2023.634], "stop_times": [2036.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.634}, "reply_to": "15252__1_005", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_007", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2036.801], "stop_times": [2037.377], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.801}, "reply_to": "15252__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_008", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "As I recall also in Levee that question was asked in this Court.\nI think the Court said we find no error of law so this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2037.377, 2040.831], "stop_times": [2040.831, 2043.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.377}, "reply_to": "15252__1_007", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_009", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2043.45], "stop_times": [2043.847], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.45}, "reply_to": "15252__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_010", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- this Court was wondering what that -- in that or somebody raised the issue.\nAgain, the American Express Company versus Levee, the case came out of the Second Circuit, Louisiana Court of Appeals.\nCertiorari was applied to Louisiana Supreme Court certiorari denied, writs applied to here from the Louisiana circuit, Second Circuit Court of Appeal.\nThe appellee filed a motion to dismiss saying that it -- the writ should have come to the Louisiana Supreme Court, this Court said that the writs properly laid to the Court of Appeal, not the highest court declining it's a discretionary review.\nIn the instant case, the highest court -- involved is the First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish, Louisiana.\nNo appeal was taken from that court.\nNo notice of appeal and conformity with the rules of this Court, it was filed within the first judicial District Court.\nThe record of the First Judicial District Court has never been filed in these proceedings except by respondent trial judge, Judge Williams, against support of his motion to dismiss.\nAppellant has not complied either, we submit with the statute or with the rules of this Court or either certiorari or for appeal and for that reason we submit that this case is not properly before this Court on any issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2043.847, 2050.635, 2057.203, 2067.715, 2085.031, 2094.851, 2097.18, 2104.568, 2117.624], "stop_times": [2050.635, 2057.203, 2067.715, 2085.031, 2094.851, 2097.18, 2104.568, 2117.624, 2133.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.847}, "reply_to": "15252__1_009", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_011", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, how about the question of \u2013 let's assume that the writ was issued to the right court, do you have any object -- other objections towards jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2133.339], "stop_times": [2145.949], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.339}, "reply_to": "15252__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_012", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The record was not filed, Your Honor.\nThe record in this case was filed by appellee so that this Court could pass on appellee or respondent (Inaudible) motion to dismiss.\nRecord has never been filed here by appellant in conformity with the rules of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2145.949, 2148.716, 2156.801], "stop_times": [2148.716, 2156.801, 2161.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.949}, "reply_to": "15252__1_011", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_013", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Because they just filed a record before the Supreme Court of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2161.907], "stop_times": [2167.624], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.907}, "reply_to": "15252__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_014", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Of the State of Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2167.624], "stop_times": [2168.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.624}, "reply_to": "15252__1_013", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_015", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Namely just their petition for a cert?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2168.847], "stop_times": [2171.349], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.847}, "reply_to": "15252__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_016", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "There were other attachments to that petition.\nThe Supreme Court of Louisiana has its own rules as to what goes in a petition for certiorari but it does not include everything, it does not include the whole record.\nIt does not include what is printed in the appendix now.\nThis appendix would not exist but for the filing of appellee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2171.349, 2175.114, 2183.929, 2188.324], "stop_times": [2175.114, 2183.929, 2188.324, 2192.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.349}, "reply_to": "15252__1_015", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_017", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Would you think the questions were adequately raised in the trial court, these questions that contained in the petition for certiorari --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2192.699], "stop_times": [2204.237], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.699}, "reply_to": "15252__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_018", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2204.237], "stop_times": [2204.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.237}, "reply_to": "15252__1_017", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_019", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- or the statement of jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2204.444], "stop_times": [2207.545], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.444}, "reply_to": "15252__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_020", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I do not say or adequately raise under the standards of this Court.\nIn fairness to appellant, there was another place other than pointed out in which an issue was raised and we refer to you on page 13 of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2207.545, 2214.474], "stop_times": [2214.474, 2229.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.545}, "reply_to": "15252__1_019", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_021", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Page what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2229.503], "stop_times": [2230.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.503}, "reply_to": "15252__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_022", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Page 13 Your Honor.\nIn Article 4 of his response to the rule, you said, in further defense of the rule, respondent place the truth of all the charges against Judge Dixon on the motion to recuse.\nThe hearing above describe expressions by respondent are constitutionality protected exercise of free speech.\nThat's the only other point than those pointed out by appellant that any constitutional issue was raised and I do not believe that they have been adequately raised below.\nNo, sir.\nWe would proceed then assuming that this Court had jurisdiction, first I would like to mention the statement of the case, appellant claimed in his first jurisdictional statement that he was denied the right to introduce testimony concerning the proof, the charge -- the truth of the charges made against Judge Dixon.\nWe refer the court to appendix, page 22.\nWe have a full transcript of the hearing on contempt.\nAppellant was not denied the right to introduce any covered evidence other than evidence of testimony of the co-judges of Judge Dixon in an attempt to inquire into the motive of Judge Dixon for filing the contempt.\nAppellant was asked by Judge Williams, \u201cHave you anything else to offer?\u201d\nAppellant said, \u201cNo.\u201d\nAt no time has appellant attempted to introduce any evidence.\nAt no time has he been denied a constitutional right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2230.403, 2232.576, 2244.963, 2251.925, 2261.832, 2269.952, 2295.335, 2300.221, 2305.173, 2324.694, 2329.962, 2332.502, 2338.376], "stop_times": [2232.576, 2244.963, 2251.925, 2261.832, 2269.952, 2295.335, 2300.221, 2305.173, 2324.694, 2329.962, 2332.502, 2338.376, 2342.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.403}, "reply_to": "15252__1_021", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_023", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, Mr. Dixon on this constitutional right, would you think it would be within due process to establish a rule that where a -- you and I have a dispute as to facts of law that I should the arbiter as to which one of us is right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2342.993], "stop_times": [2362.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.993}, "reply_to": "15252__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_024", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor, I think you must be the arbiter of which one of us is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2362.725], "stop_times": [2365.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.725}, "reply_to": "15252__1_023", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_025", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, no.\nDo you take that on the question of facts?\nThe dispute is not between two people.\nIt's between you and me.\nAnd I decide who is right.\nWell, let's put it on page 14 of the record, The Court: \u201cMr. Spencer, are you representing yourself?\u201d\nMr. Spencer: \u201cYes, I am.\u201d\nThe Court: \u201cThis shall we say will be treating yourself in this court?\u201d\nNow who was the umpire there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2365.801, 2367.737, 2369.841, 2372.44, 2375.734, 2378.966, 2387.721, 2389.103, 2395.803], "stop_times": [2367.737, 2369.841, 2372.44, 2375.734, 2378.966, 2387.721, 2389.103, 2395.803, 2400.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.801}, "reply_to": "15252__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_026", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor, at this stage of the proceeding, Judge Williams is trying to contempt.\nJudge Dixon is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2400.762, 2410.35], "stop_times": [2410.35, 2412.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.762}, "reply_to": "15252__1_025", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_027", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "What do you mean by between you and me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2412.472], "stop_times": [2416.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.472}, "reply_to": "15252__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_028", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "This is ---", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2416.507], "stop_times": [2416.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.507}, "reply_to": "15252__1_027", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_029", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That is the actual (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2416.762], "stop_times": [2417.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.762}, "reply_to": "15252__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_030", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- the status of every contempt hearing that has ever been held, every direct contempt hearing that has ever been held in the history of direct contempt, it is a question between the court and the counsel or the court and the party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2417.337], "stop_times": [2430.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.337}, "reply_to": "15252__1_029", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_031", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But this was a different judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2430.135], "stop_times": [2431.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.135}, "reply_to": "15252__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__1_032", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "This is a different judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2431.452], "stop_times": [2432.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.452}, "reply_to": "15252__1_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_033", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "This is a different judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2432.118], "stop_times": [2433.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.118}, "reply_to": "15252__1_032", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_034", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, how can you say it's between you and me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2433.905], "stop_times": [2436.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.905}, "reply_to": "15252__1_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_035", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Because if contempt is always between the court and counsel or the court and the contemptor.\nWhen the judge says it is between you, he means the contemptor and me, he means the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2436.376, 2443.17], "stop_times": [2443.17, 2449.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.376}, "reply_to": "15252__1_034", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_036", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Which court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2449.145], "stop_times": [2449.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.145}, "reply_to": "15252__1_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_037", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He does not mean R. B. Williams, Judge, he means the First Judicial District Court, a court of the State of Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2449.21], "stop_times": [2455.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.21}, "reply_to": "15252__1_036", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_038", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, he is not the District Court.\nHe's one judge of it.\nI don't think this language is significant.\nIt will be between you and me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2455.503, 2457.631, 2460.367, 2462.171], "stop_times": [2457.631, 2460.367, 2462.171, 2466.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.503}, "reply_to": "15252__1_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_039", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor, every contempt cite -- every contempt conviction that this Court has sustained in history has been between the court and the counsel.\nI'll refer you to Sacher, that it -- that probably the most famous case of contempt to come before this Court.\nCame out of the Dennis trial.\nIt was between Judge Medina and Sacher.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2466.494, 2478.101, 2484.907, 2487.469], "stop_times": [2478.101, 2484.907, 2487.469, 2490.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.494}, "reply_to": "15252__1_038", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_040", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Did Judge Medina ever say it's between you and me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2490.572], "stop_times": [2494.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.572}, "reply_to": "15252__1_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_041", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He didn't say it, Your Honor he simply (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2494.119], "stop_times": [2495.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.119}, "reply_to": "15252__1_040", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_042", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, the other court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2495.78], "stop_times": [2497.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.78}, "reply_to": "15252__1_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_043", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- and sentenced him to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2497.557], "stop_times": [2499.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.557}, "reply_to": "15252__1_042", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_044", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, that difference is this is another judge.\nIt says, it's a personal front to me, personally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2499.249, 2501.612], "stop_times": [2501.612, 2505.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.249}, "reply_to": "15252__1_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_045", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, what did the judge say here in fact on page 14, in the middle of the page, counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2505.115], "stop_times": [2514.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.115}, "reply_to": "15252__1_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_046", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I do not think that there is any other party at interest other than the official body of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2514.342], "stop_times": [2519.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.342}, "reply_to": "15252__1_045", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_047", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I'm speaking of the sentence that begins right in the middle, this shall we say will be -- be between yourself and this Court, and this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2519.088], "stop_times": [2529.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.088}, "reply_to": "15252__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_048", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.\nYes sir, that is my view of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2529.313, 2530.602], "stop_times": [2530.602, 2533.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.313}, "reply_to": "15252__1_047", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_049", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I don't that he said between yourself and me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2533.217], "stop_times": [2537.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.217}, "reply_to": "15252__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_050", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2537.689], "stop_times": [2538.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.689}, "reply_to": "15252__1_049", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_051", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "At that point, does he say that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2538.75], "stop_times": [2539.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.75}, "reply_to": "15252__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_052", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir.\nNow it may say it elsewhere, I don't know what page Justice Marshall is quoting from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2539.972, 2540.451], "stop_times": [2540.451, 2543.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.972}, "reply_to": "15252__1_051", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_053", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "At the same page, that's just what I read to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2543.541], "stop_times": [2548.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.541}, "reply_to": "15252__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_054", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He starts out with (Voice Overlap) saying I do not think there is any other party in interest other than the official body of the court as I see it which is in the middle of page 14.\nWhich is what every contempt case is and I think that Judge Williams has done nothing more than say that.\nThat's what Sacher was.\nThat was sustained by this Court.\nThat's what Terry was cited in our brief.\nThat was sustained by this Court that came out of Texas.\nThat's what every direct contempt is.\nIt was only in the rare instance that you have an out of court contempt with proof elements that a court calls on counsel.\nNow, throughout the nation, I don't know of any general practice of a court calling on counsel to handle direct contempts.\nCertainly in no reported decision of this Court has that been the case that I have ever been able to find in a direct contempt case.\nI have noticed an order from this Court doing it, yes sir in a contempt citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2548.764, 2563.338, 2570.335, 2571.853, 2574.028, 2577.764, 2581.095, 2584.942, 2596.726, 2608.421, 2623.14], "stop_times": [2563.338, 2570.335, 2571.853, 2574.028, 2577.764, 2581.095, 2584.942, 2596.726, 2608.421, 2623.14, 2628.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.764}, "reply_to": "15252__1_053", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_055", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Wasn't there a case in the federal court in your state in which the lawyer was tried for contempt several weeks after the contempt by another judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2628.065], "stop_times": [2639.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.065}, "reply_to": "15252__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_056", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But we have a trial by another judge here, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2639.264], "stop_times": [2642.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.264}, "reply_to": "15252__1_055", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_057", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That's right.\nBut I thought you said it can always happen the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2642.028, 2642.464], "stop_times": [2642.464, 2646.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.028}, "reply_to": "15252__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_058", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, sir, I am talking about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2646.017], "stop_times": [2646.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.017}, "reply_to": "15252__1_057", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_059", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "On the same statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2646.629], "stop_times": [2647.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.629}, "reply_to": "15252__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_060", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I'm talking about hiring about the court appointing counsel to prosecute which seems to be what Your Honor is intimating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2647.438], "stop_times": [2654.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.438}, "reply_to": "15252__1_059", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_061", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, no.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2654.993, 2656.641], "stop_times": [2656.641, 2657.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.993}, "reply_to": "15252__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_062", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Because in this case we do not have the trial judge.\nThe trial -- the judge making the contempt citation hearing it, this is another judge hearing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2657.488, 2660.691], "stop_times": [2660.691, 2666.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.488}, "reply_to": "15252__1_061", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_063", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Could I ask you -- I don't suppose that it could be held contemptuous if a -- if an attorney asks the judge to recuse himself for bias against this client because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2666.446], "stop_times": [2679.144], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.446}, "reply_to": "15252__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_064", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Absolutely not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2679.144], "stop_times": [2681.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2679.144}, "reply_to": "15252__1_063", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_065", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And if the judge says, well, what makes you think I am biased?\nAnd he says, well my client has -- trying to get you impeached for biased and for corruption.\nNow, that's quite relevant to the bias charge, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2681.046, 2685.682, 2692.773], "stop_times": [2685.682, 2692.773, 2697.43], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.046}, "reply_to": "15252__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_066", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir, under this circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2697.43], "stop_times": [2700.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.43}, "reply_to": "15252__1_065", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_067", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Why not?\nWhy not for having --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2700.152, 2700.866], "stop_times": [2700.866, 2701.632], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.152}, "reply_to": "15252__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_068", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "We have first a multiple court judge in the First Judicial District Court.\nWe had an attorney who did not like a ruling of the judge.\nThe ruling was correct but the attorney didn't like it.\nSo the attorney wanted to try again before anther judge.\nSo he advises the judge who has no other way of knowing it.\nHe advises the judge that judge my clients think you are corrupt therefore recuse yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2701.632, 2709.217, 2713.32, 2716.571, 2720.733, 2727.847], "stop_times": [2709.217, 2713.32, 2716.571, 2720.733, 2727.847, 2736.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.632}, "reply_to": "15252__1_067", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_069", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, let's assume that were true that his clients had actually filed a formal petition against the judge to get him impeached and the lawyer then files a motion in court for a recusal saying my clients have filed this petition alleging that you're corrupt and hence I think you should recuse yourself for bias.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2736.969], "stop_times": [2764.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.969}, "reply_to": "15252__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__1_070", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Like you need two things, you'd need --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2764.177], "stop_times": [2765.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.177}, "reply_to": "15252__1_069", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_071", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But unless -- just take those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2765.498], "stop_times": [2768.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.498}, "reply_to": "15252__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__1_072", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Those facts haven't set enough, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2768.189], "stop_times": [2770.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.189}, "reply_to": "15252__1_071", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_073", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2770.762], "stop_times": [2770.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.762}, "reply_to": "15252__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15252__1_074", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I think that the judge -- that the counsel must have alleged, Louisiana is a fact pleading state.\nIt is not a -- what do you call it in common law, issue pleading.\nLouisiana is a fact pleading.\nYou have omitted the essential fact and that is you judge are aware that my client thinks you are corrupt.\nAre you judge are aware that my client has filed a petition against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2770.786, 2776.542, 2781.97, 2783.506, 2791.667], "stop_times": [2776.542, 2781.97, 2783.506, 2791.667, 2798.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.786}, "reply_to": "15252__1_073", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_075", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I'll put that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2798.327], "stop_times": [2798.735], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.327}, "reply_to": "15252__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_076", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Now, put that in -- he cannot be held for contempt.\nNow he may be guilty of certain other disciplinary action but put that in and he cannot be held for contempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2798.735, 2802.273], "stop_times": [2802.273, 2808.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.735}, "reply_to": "15252__1_075", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_077", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "So you say can be held in contempt here because what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2808.192], "stop_times": [2815.581], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.192}, "reply_to": "15252__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_078", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I say he does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2815.581], "stop_times": [2816.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.581}, "reply_to": "15252__1_077", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_079", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Because he does allege that he is planning --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2816.095], "stop_times": [2817.209], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.095}, "reply_to": "15252__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__1_080", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, let me back up.\nThe corruption is unnecessary to the first charge, is unnecessary to the plea.\nAll he has to say is, I have filed a motion for your -- or my clients are seeking your removal and I've filed a petition for your removal.\nHe never has to repeat the allegation corruption anywhere in order to achieve his ends, that is obtain the recusation.\nAnytime he uses the word corruption under our pleading he is using a word that is irrelevant to his pleading and is irrelevant -- criticism of a trial judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2817.209, 2818.976, 2825.991, 2833.943, 2845.305], "stop_times": [2818.976, 2825.991, 2833.943, 2845.305, 2861.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.209}, "reply_to": "15252__1_079", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_081", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "If it had been any quotes, would it have helped him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2861.445], "stop_times": [2864.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2861.445}, "reply_to": "15252__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_082", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I don't think so Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2864.34], "stop_times": [2865.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2864.34}, "reply_to": "15252__1_081", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_083", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2865.911], "stop_times": [2867.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.911}, "reply_to": "15252__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_084", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And I would say this, there's talk in the brief about it being a lawyerlike language.\nIt is no more lawyerlike than to file a motion before a court saying the court should recuse itself because it's guilty of murder, burglary, rape or what have you.\nAll of these terms are lawyerlike when used in the proper context, every one of them.\nBut words that a lawyer uses in one case may not be appropriate to another case.\nAnd the appropriateness of the charge is the one foundation and we submit the only foundation laid down by this Court in Holt versus Virginia, appellant has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2867.495, 2872.572, 2882.838, 2888.881, 2895.22], "stop_times": [2872.572, 2882.838, 2888.881, 2895.22, 2907.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.495}, "reply_to": "15252__1_083", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_085", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Did I understand you correctly that if he had said that you know that my client has publicly charged you with corruption that would be alright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2907.675], "stop_times": [2920.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.675}, "reply_to": "15252__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_086", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I think, Your Honor you -- if we take that exact quotation that you used and nothing more.\nI think that it could be.\nYou know that my client has charged you with you corruption.\nNow we have here a different circumstances, we say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2920.55, 2930.134, 2931.262, 2933.891], "stop_times": [2930.134, 2931.262, 2933.891, 2935.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2920.55}, "reply_to": "15252__1_085", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_087", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes but (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2935.869], "stop_times": [2936.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.869}, "reply_to": "15252__1_086", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_088", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- we say, filed a -- or attempting to remove you from office but just limited to the words that you used.\nMr. Justice, I think that it could not be contempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2936.429, 2943.374], "stop_times": [2943.374, 2945.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.429}, "reply_to": "15252__1_087", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_089", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Oh, you mean that he has filed a petition to remove him from office because he charges you with being corrupt.\nThat would be alright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2945.565, 2953.796], "stop_times": [2953.796, 2955.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.565}, "reply_to": "15252__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_090", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I do not know that it would be alright.\nWe do not have that issue but I do not think it would be alright because then the word corrupt is unnecessary to the pleading.\nIn your first time with it the word was necessary to the pleading.\nHere it is, is not necessary.\nThe standard that this Court said in Holt -- set in Holt versus Virginia was whether or not the language was appropriate, the wording by this Court was wholly appropriate to the charge made.\nNow we submit that our read -- in our reading of Holt versus Virginia, this Court does not reach or come close to reaching a free speech issue and that Holt versus Virginia cannot be relied on as ever having raised a free speech issue.\nHolt versus Virginia dealt with a very basic, basic right, our right which Louisiana grants by statute and that is the right of a litigant to a trial before a fair tribunal.\nFor attempting to exercise that right in Virginia, Mr. Holt was cited for contempt.\nLouisiana spells out the methods of exercising that right.\nWe have such things as motions for recusal.\nWe have motions for change of venue.\nIn Holt versus Virginia, the language wasn't a change of venue.\nI would urge that your -- that Your Honors review the language used in Holt and compare it with the language used by Mr. Spencer.\nThe language used in Holt is quoted in appellants brief on page 13 and 14 and we submit is -- takes it entirely out of the realm of with what we are dealing with in the instant case.\nThe charge made in Holt was entirely appropriate to a charge of bias.\nThe strongest language used in Holt versus Virginia that could have possibly been considered as impinging upon the sensitivities of the trial judge was that the trial had been intimidating counsel.\nBut now that allegation under certain circumstances might be contempt.\nBut it could never be direct contempt when filed in a petition to recuse.\nIf a judge has been intimidating counsel, counsel is entitled to have the judge recuse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [2955.022, 2956.825, 2963.653, 2966.996, 2969.535, 2983.296, 3000.041, 3015.498, 3021.488, 3026.291, 3030.905, 3034.167, 3038.151, 3047.893, 3063.909, 3072.429, 3087.265, 3091.704, 3097.208], "stop_times": [2956.825, 2963.653, 2966.996, 2969.535, 2983.296, 3000.041, 3015.498, 3021.488, 3026.291, 3030.905, 3034.167, 3038.151, 3047.893, 3063.909, 3072.429, 3087.265, 3091.704, 3097.208, 3103.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.022}, "reply_to": "15252__1_089", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_091", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "As the exact language therefore, what do you think he was filing for contempt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3103.091], "stop_times": [3107.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.091}, "reply_to": "15252__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_092", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "In Holt versus Virginia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3107.831], "stop_times": [3108.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3107.831}, "reply_to": "15252__1_091", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_093", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I mean in our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3108.973], "stop_times": [3113.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.973}, "reply_to": "15252__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_094", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The exact language, Your Honor is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3113.39], "stop_times": [3121.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.39}, "reply_to": "15252__1_093", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_095", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "In the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3121.044], "stop_times": [3139.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.044}, "reply_to": "15252__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_096", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor first, I would not limit it to the -- to one group of words in the motion because the order of contempt does not so limit it.\nThe order of contempt refers to the petition as a whole and then says particularly Article 4 thereof on pages 8 and 9 in which the words are repeated, corruption, favoritism, oppression and misfeasance in office.\nThe -- at the very top of page 9, corruption, favoritism, oppression and misfeasance in office.\nThese words are also conclusion, words of conclusion.\nI mention before we are a fact-pleading state not an issue-pleading state.\nThere is no allegation in this motion connecting any corruption, favoritism, oppression or misfeasance with the trial of the separation suit then pending before the court.\nThese words do not have to be contempt if under some wild set of facts.\nA -- the corruption of a judge has some connexity with the litigation pending before it.\nBut absent such connexity which we submit that these words are in of themselves offensive and the word offensive again is the word of this Court in Holt versus Virginia.\nIn Holt versus Virginia, they said the words of counsel are not offensive in and of themselves.\nWe submit that with these words as here used are offensive in and of themselves.\nThe fact that a word may be contained in a statute or a constitution does not mean that within all context it cannot be offensive in and of itself.\nThe fact that favoritism, corruption, murder and rape may be all statutory words does not mean that they cannot be words if used in a charge against a judge that are offensive in and of themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3139.633, 3152.033, 3170.941, 3177.525, 3181.349, 3185.599, 3196.891, 3205.608, 3213.222, 3227.573, 3232.773, 3238.315, 3247.188], "stop_times": [3152.033, 3170.941, 3177.525, 3181.349, 3185.599, 3196.891, 3205.608, 3213.222, 3227.573, 3232.773, 3238.315, 3247.188, 3258.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.633}, "reply_to": "15252__1_095", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_097", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Was the statement in for the statement of fact?\nWas it a fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3258.91, 3262.521], "stop_times": [3262.521, 3267.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.91}, "reply_to": "15252__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_098", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3267.514], "stop_times": [3269.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.514}, "reply_to": "15252__1_097", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_099", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Would you mind reading it and say whether or not it was a fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3269.057], "stop_times": [3271.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.057}, "reply_to": "15252__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_100", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "The plaintiff herein, Luis B. Hopkins and his chief witness in this cause, Charles Anderson are presently engaged in the process of.\nYour Honor this allegation was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3271.983, 3279.739], "stop_times": [3279.739, 3280.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.983}, "reply_to": "15252__1_099", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_101", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Was that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3280.32], "stop_times": [3281.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.32}, "reply_to": "15252__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_102", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- made on March the 21st.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3281.368], "stop_times": [3283.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.368}, "reply_to": "15252__1_101", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_103", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, was this true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3283.891], "stop_times": [3285.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.891}, "reply_to": "15252__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_104", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir, it was not true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3285.352], "stop_times": [3286.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3285.352}, "reply_to": "15252__1_103", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_105", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It was not true that they had made that statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3286.554], "stop_times": [3290.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.554}, "reply_to": "15252__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_106", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Throughout --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3290.762], "stop_times": [3290.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3290.762}, "reply_to": "15252__1_105", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_107", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I'm not talking about whether --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3290.868], "stop_times": [3291.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.868}, "reply_to": "15252__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_108", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- the protracted collateral federal proceedings and throughout this proceeding there is nothing anywhere to indicate that Mr. Hopkins or Mr. Anderson even had any ill-will to Judge Dixon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3291.746], "stop_times": [3304.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3291.746}, "reply_to": "15252__1_107", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_109", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I understand that but that's not what's alleged here, is it?\nWhat is alleged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3304.073, 3310.549], "stop_times": [3310.549, 3311.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.073}, "reply_to": "15252__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_110", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It is alleged that Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Anderson are attempting to have him removed from office throughout --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3311.338], "stop_times": [3317.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3311.338}, "reply_to": "15252__1_109", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_111", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "As being unfit therefore by virtue of corruption, favoritism, oppression and misfeasance in office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3317.43], "stop_times": [3325.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.43}, "reply_to": "15252__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_112", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3325.28], "stop_times": [3325.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3325.28}, "reply_to": "15252__1_111", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_113", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Now was that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3325.659], "stop_times": [3327.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.659}, "reply_to": "15252__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_114", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Your Honor, that was not true, I've been attempting not to get beyond the record.\nJudge Dixon of course is my brother but that was not true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3327.139, 3330.372], "stop_times": [3330.372, 3332.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3327.139}, "reply_to": "15252__1_113", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_115", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I -- that's alright but I'm not asking if the statement is true.\nI'm asking if the statement is true that they had made that statement in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3332.21, 3339.167], "stop_times": [3339.167, 3345.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.21}, "reply_to": "15252__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_116", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "They have certainly did not made that statement in court, Your Honor.\nNo, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3345.232, 3348.175], "stop_times": [3348.175, 3348.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.232}, "reply_to": "15252__1_115", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_117", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, what was this referred to, was it a statement referred to in court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3348.909], "stop_times": [3353.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.909}, "reply_to": "15252__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_118", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, sir.\nWe don't know what it referred to.\nNow, presumably --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3353.863, 3354.659, 3356.991], "stop_times": [3354.659, 3356.991, 3357.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3353.863}, "reply_to": "15252__1_117", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_119", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "They say they are presently engaged in the process of attempting to have Judge Dixon removed from office being unfit therefore, was that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3357.598], "stop_times": [3369.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.598}, "reply_to": "15252__1_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_120", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I do not think it was true, Your Honor.\nThere has never been a petition for his removal filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3369.081, 3371.027], "stop_times": [3371.027, 3373.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3369.081}, "reply_to": "15252__1_119", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_121", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Were they not engaged in that effort?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3373.58], "stop_times": [3376.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.58}, "reply_to": "15252__1_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_122", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "To my knowledge they did not.\nMay I point this out Your Honor, it takes but 25 irate litigants within a large metropolitan area to file a mandatory petition for removal with the Attorney General.\nSuch a petition was never filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3376.311, 3378.61, 3392.883], "stop_times": [3378.61, 3392.883, 3395.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3376.311}, "reply_to": "15252__1_121", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_123", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But was any petition filed anywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3395.566], "stop_times": [3398.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3395.566}, "reply_to": "15252__1_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_124", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir, no where.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3398.106], "stop_times": [3400.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3398.106}, "reply_to": "15252__1_123", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_125", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "They had not proceeded against him on that basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3400.277], "stop_times": [3403.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.277}, "reply_to": "15252__1_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_126", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "They have never proceeded, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3403.304], "stop_times": [3405.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3403.304}, "reply_to": "15252__1_125", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_127", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "At any way or time or place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3405.494], "stop_times": [3407.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3405.494}, "reply_to": "15252__1_126", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_128", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Any where or time or place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3407.493], "stop_times": [3407.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3407.493}, "reply_to": "15252__1_127", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_129", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Now, is that shown to be untrue in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3407.961], "stop_times": [3416.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3407.961}, "reply_to": "15252__1_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_130", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Only to this extent.\nWe argue it Your Honor to this extent only.\nOn March the 20th, the day of the separation hearing, there must have existed no ground for recusation for if they did, counsel was remiss in not having filed his motion within 24 hours, counsel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3416.29, 3418.24, 3422.01], "stop_times": [3418.24, 3422.01, 3435.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3416.29}, "reply_to": "15252__1_129", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_131", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I understand that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3435.616], "stop_times": [3436.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.616}, "reply_to": "15252__1_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_132", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- then raises it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3436.215], "stop_times": [3436.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3436.215}, "reply_to": "15252__1_131", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_133", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3436.944], "stop_times": [3438.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.944}, "reply_to": "15252__1_132", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_134", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3438.088], "stop_times": [3438.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3438.088}, "reply_to": "15252__1_133", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_135", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But here is a statement made and I judge that what you say, that is the basis of the conviction.\nNow, does the record show that that statement was not true whether we just have to infer it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3438.103, 3446.931], "stop_times": [3446.931, 3456.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.103}, "reply_to": "15252__1_134", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_136", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "It depends on what the line between inference and showing.\nMy view is that it shows -- I think your view would be that it infers it, Your Honor.\nIt infers it only that it no time in either the federal court proceeding which is fully reported we might add.\nOr in this proceeding, the trial of which took place about 18 months after the occurrence.\nWas there ever again any mention of the existence of such a petition?\nDuring the federal court litigation with the intending -- with the attendant ill-publicity Judge Dixon was elected by the voters of his district to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly an event consistent with an action for his removal for corruption, favoritism oppression and misfeasance in office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3456.73, 3461.518, 3466.43, 3473.886, 3480.807, 3487.884], "stop_times": [3461.518, 3466.43, 3473.886, 3480.807, 3487.884, 3509.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3456.73}, "reply_to": "15252__1_135", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_137", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Sometimes that happens to men.\nYou charge by the right person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3509.591, 3511.293], "stop_times": [3511.293, 3513.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.591}, "reply_to": "15252__1_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_138", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "In defense of the voters of the City of Shreveport, Your Honor, it never helps to be accused of corruption under any circumstances anytime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3513.812], "stop_times": [3521.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3513.812}, "reply_to": "15252__1_137", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_139", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But sometimes, I have known people that get great benefit out of it because it wasn't true and they knew that the man made it, you avoid it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3521.701], "stop_times": [3529.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.701}, "reply_to": "15252__1_138", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_140", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Let me go to the time of the hearing before Judge Williams --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3529.361], "stop_times": [3533.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3529.361}, "reply_to": "15252__1_139", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_141", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3533.522], "stop_times": [3533.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3533.522}, "reply_to": "15252__1_140", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_142", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "-- the judge who was going to hear the contempt.\nAt that time did the petitioner here put into evidence any document or any evidence by any process indicating that before he filed this pleading, there had been a petition of some kind filed alleging these acts of misconduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3533.639, 3537.243], "stop_times": [3537.243, 3561.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.639}, "reply_to": "15252__1_141", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__1_143", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, he did not and we submit that that is a very significant fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3561.364], "stop_times": [3566.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3561.364}, "reply_to": "15252__1_142", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_144", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, didn't the court prevent him offering any evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3566.453], "stop_times": [3569.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3566.453}, "reply_to": "15252__1_143", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_145", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No sir, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3569.033], "stop_times": [3571.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3569.033}, "reply_to": "15252__1_144", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_146", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3571.138], "stop_times": [3571.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3571.138}, "reply_to": "15252__1_145", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_147", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3571.854], "stop_times": [3572.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3571.854}, "reply_to": "15252__1_146", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_148", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "What was it they kept him from doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3572.89], "stop_times": [3575.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3572.89}, "reply_to": "15252__1_147", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_149", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Mr. Spencer subpoenaed the three co-judges or four co-judges of Judge Dixon.\nThose who sat on the bench with him and wanted to ask them specific questions set out in the record to establish --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3575.541, 3581.697], "stop_times": [3581.697, 3592.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3575.541}, "reply_to": "15252__1_148", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_150", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I thought the court refused to let them ask any questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3592.609], "stop_times": [3596.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3592.609}, "reply_to": "15252__1_149", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_151", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "To ask them the questions he's -- he was given the opportunity Your Honor.\nJudge Williams said, \u201cWhat do you want to prove by it, Mr. Spencer?\u201d\nHe said, \u201cHere's what I want to prove by them.\u201d\nThe judge says, \u201cThat is not admissible.\nMr. Spencer, have you anything else to offer?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3596.205, 3600.844, 3603.97, 3605.782, 3608.113], "stop_times": [3600.844, 3603.97, 3605.782, 3608.113, 3609.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3596.205}, "reply_to": "15252__1_150", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_152", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "What was it he said he wanted to prove by?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3609.82], "stop_times": [3611.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3609.82}, "reply_to": "15252__1_151", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__1_153", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "He wanted prove that Judge Dixon had filed -- had conferred with them and filed a contempt charge without any expectation of obtaining a conviction.\nHe had had to make that condition across the street, in the federal court to bring it -- to get him a three-judge court.\nAnd that he wanted to file -- he said something vaguely about his long disputation between himself and Judge Dixon.\nPart of which is reported in the -- its not rather reported but a case that arose out of it was Spencer versus Dixon to the Louisiana Supreme Court in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held Mr. Spencer in contempt for the same situation for having called the Louisiana Supreme Court corrupt.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3611.875, 3624.691, 3634.393, 3642.401], "stop_times": [3624.691, 3634.393, 3642.401, 3662.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3611.875}, "reply_to": "15252__1_152", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_154", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But in no time, did he put on any evidence of the -- about this petition that had been filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3662.331], "stop_times": [3667.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3662.331}, "reply_to": "15252__1_153", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15252__1_155", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "At no time did he put on any and there's no time once he denied the right to put on any.\nAnd the last fact we submit is the significant fact that removes this from all of the constitutional issues raised by appellant.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3667.924, 3673.819, 3683.116], "stop_times": [3673.819, 3683.116, 3686.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3667.924}, "reply_to": "15252__1_154", "speaker": "neil_dixon"}
{"id": "15252__1_156", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Mr. Wulf, your time is up but I'd like to ask you a question and if you please confine yourself just to answering questions of any members of the court at this stage.\nDo you claim that in this record anywhere, there is evidence of the filing of the kind of petition that was alluded to in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, or 7 or any other part of that petition which created all this problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3686.218, 3695.293], "stop_times": [3695.293, 3711.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3686.218}, "reply_to": "15252__1_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_000", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Nothing whatsoever one way or the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3711.608], "stop_times": [3713.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3711.608}, "reply_to": "15252__1_156", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_001", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "In the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3713.961], "stop_times": [3714.791], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3713.961}, "reply_to": "15252__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__2_002", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "In the record.\nHowever, Mr. Spencer did assert over and over again that he had been denied the right to file any evidence -- to produce any evidence of that petition having been filed.\nAnd as I read on my principal presentation, Judge Williams himself in his opposition to the appellant's application for writs in the Louisiana Supreme Court, and you'll find this at page 21 of the jurisdictional statement.\nHe says, this is Judge Williams who was on the hearing, he said, \u201cApplicant in his petition, page 5, paragraph (e), section 5, assigns this error, the trial court not allowing a defense of truth to the contempt charge.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3714.791, 3715.784, 3729.848, 3744.188], "stop_times": [3715.784, 3729.848, 3744.188, 3757.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3714.791}, "reply_to": "15252__2_001", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_003", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Sorry, sorry, because this is quite important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3757.784], "stop_times": [3759.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3757.784}, "reply_to": "15252__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__2_004", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3759.731], "stop_times": [3760.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3759.731}, "reply_to": "15252__2_003", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_005", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "You're in the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3760.697], "stop_times": [3761.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3760.697}, "reply_to": "15252__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__2_006", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, I'm on the jurisdictional statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3761.189], "stop_times": [3762.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3761.189}, "reply_to": "15252__2_005", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_007", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3762.815], "stop_times": [3763.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3762.815}, "reply_to": "15252__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15252__2_008", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "What page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3763.24], "stop_times": [3764.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3763.24}, "reply_to": "15252__2_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15252__2_009", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Page 21 of the jurisdictional statement which reproduces beginning at page 16, Judge Williams' response to the application for writs of certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court.\nThat at page 21, I just read the first sentence, the second sentence says, Judge William, and this is Judge William himself speaking in the third person.\nJudge William refused to admit any such evidence.\nAnd then he goes on to cite a case, Getro v. Getro (ph) in Louisiana Supreme Court which held in 1952, the justification is not a defense for contempt of court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3764.52, 3777.699, 3785.789, 3789.29], "stop_times": [3777.699, 3785.789, 3789.29, 3801.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3764.52}, "reply_to": "15252__2_008", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_010", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "You don't suggest that when -- that that's statement refers to the kind of a petition that we're talking about in the question I put to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3801.903], "stop_times": [3811.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3801.903}, "reply_to": "15252__2_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_011", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Though this statement refers to the appe -- to Mr. Spencer's efforts to establish that such a petition was actually being circulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3811.434], "stop_times": [3822.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3811.434}, "reply_to": "15252__2_010", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_012", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And I can't read it that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3822.308], "stop_times": [3824.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3822.308}, "reply_to": "15252__2_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_013", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, that's why I read it.\nThe science is error.\nThe trial court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3824.036, 3825.23, 3826.198], "stop_times": [3825.23, 3826.198, 3826.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3824.036}, "reply_to": "15252__2_012", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_014", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "That can relate only to the judge's refusal to let the four judges testify on the grounds that you said it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3826.664], "stop_times": [3834.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3826.664}, "reply_to": "15252__2_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_015", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "No, all of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3834.55], "stop_times": [3836.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3834.55}, "reply_to": "15252__2_014", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_016", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "And if you look on page 21 of your appendix, you'll see that Judge Williams asked him whether there was anything else he had to offer and said at the top of page 21, the court feels, he will be glad to see what you have to offer.\nAnd he said, he couldn't find it for a few minutes.\nThe judge gave him a recess for five minutes.\nAnd all he came back with after the five minute recess was that he would like to point out some further cases, some citations, not facts, not documents, not reference to any kind of a petition that supported his statement in paragraph 4 or 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3836.011, 3851.621, 3853.91, 3859.121], "stop_times": [3851.621, 3853.91, 3859.121, 3877.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3836.011}, "reply_to": "15252__2_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_017", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Yes.\nI don't disagree with that at all though the witness says he tried to bring back at that time had no relevancy at all to the existence or non-existence of such a petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3877.335, 3877.916], "stop_times": [3877.916, 3887.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3877.335}, "reply_to": "15252__2_016", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_018", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I'd like to ask you a further question in view of the colloquy with your adversary, Mr. Dixon here, would you care to comment on his statement that you said was going outside the record that in fact, no petition under the section has ever been filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3887.4], "stop_times": [3904.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3887.4}, "reply_to": "15252__2_017", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15252__2_019", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "All I can say as I was told that such a petition was circulated was drawn up and circulated.\nIt may not have been filed.\nThey may not have been able to secure the necessary 25 signatures.\nBut that isn't the -- that isn't the assertion in the motion to recuse.\nIt isn't that it was filed.\nIt was said that they're presently engaged in the process of attempting to have Judge Dixon removed, the implication being that they were trying to get the necessary 25 signatures.\nBut I'm told that such a petition was typed up and was in existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3904.128, 3910.691, 3911.617, 3914.793, 3918.336, 3919.866, 3928.577], "stop_times": [3910.691, 3911.617, 3914.793, 3918.336, 3919.866, 3928.577, 3932.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3904.128}, "reply_to": "15252__2_018", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_020", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Don't you think it was incumbent on Mr. Spencer at some time to produce that and put it on the record so that you could have it here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3932.918], "stop_times": [3941.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3932.918}, "reply_to": "15252__2_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_021", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "I surely do unless what Judge Williams says is accurate that he refused to admit any such evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3941.172], "stop_times": [3946.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3941.172}, "reply_to": "15252__2_020", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_022", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "(Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3946.91], "stop_times": [3947.697], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3946.91}, "reply_to": "15252__2_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15252__2_023", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "But I perfectly -- I agree 100% that there has nothing in the record one way or the other which shows whether or not such a petition exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3947.697], "stop_times": [3957.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3947.697}, "reply_to": "15252__2_022", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_024", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Well, I can't see how it's possible to read Judge Williams statement as meaning what you say it means but only relating to the testimony of the four judges which he excluded on the ground that the justification was not admissible evidence.\nBut if any such document, if you wish to supplement this record, I think we would invite you to supplement the record in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3957.084, 3972.722], "stop_times": [3972.722, 3983.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3957.084}, "reply_to": "15252__2_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_025", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Alright, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3983.29], "stop_times": [3985.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3983.29}, "reply_to": "15252__2_024", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "15252__2_026", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.\nThank you, gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3985.289, 3985.661, 3987.085], "stop_times": [3985.661, 3987.085, 3987.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3985.289}, "reply_to": "15252__2_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15252__2_027", "conversation_id": "15252", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_513", "start_times": [3987.907], "stop_times": [3988.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3987.907}, "reply_to": "15252__2_026", "speaker": "melvin_l_wulf"}
{"id": "14856__0_000", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Number 778 in the matter of Samuel Winship.\nMrs. Uviller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [0.0, 21.209], "stop_times": [21.209, 22.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_001", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case presents the first clear opportunity for the Court to determine one of the implications of a landmark case In re Gault.\nIt affords on a good record, an opportunity which this Court sought, but was unable to seize most recently in the case of Debacker versus Brainard, an opportunity to determine whether a juvenile, maybe found guilty of a law violation and confined for a number of years unless been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that is on proof less than that customarily considered, the highest measure of proof in criminal proceedings.\nIn this case, the 12-year old appellate was found guilty of an act of larceny in violation of the New York Penal Law and while he could have been confined for a maximum of five years, had he been an adult, he faced a maximum confinement of six years because he was tried in a juvenile proceeding in the New York Family Court.\nThe determination that he was guilty of this act of larceny was based expressly upon the provision of the New York statute which provides for such finding by mere preponderance of the evidence.\nThe issue arose briefly in the following context.\nThe juvenile was tried in a fact-finding hearing in the Family Court and at that hearing, the complainant, a saleslady testified that one night she was at work and while the store was open for business, she and her coworkers did not believe any other people were in the premises, that they were no costumers present.\nHowever, she became alerted at some point that a lavatory door in the back of the premises was locked and a moment or two later, the door opened and a young boy scooted out of the store and out into the street.\nThe lady testified that she really had at the most 10 seconds to observe him in profile as he darted by and she saw him from a distance of about 20 feet.\nShe then proceeded into --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [22.52, 26.283, 36.205, 67.626, 90.668, 103.997, 108.85, 129.5, 143.057, 154.659], "stop_times": [26.283, 36.205, 67.626, 90.668, 103.997, 108.85, 129.5, 143.057, 154.659, 155.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.52}, "reply_to": "14856__0_000", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_002", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But if you see someone that you have known before, isn't one second sometimes enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [155.842], "stop_times": [161.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.842}, "reply_to": "14856__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_003", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes, Your Honor but in this case really it emerged that she knew this boy previously, not at that time but she was confronted by him in a one-to-one confrontation the next night in the police station.\nThere is nothing in this record to indicate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [161.865, 175.656], "stop_times": [175.656, 177.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 161.865}, "reply_to": "14856__0_002", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_004", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What difference does it make which time she drew those conclusions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [177.365], "stop_times": [182.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.365}, "reply_to": "14856__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_005", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, it's unclear from this record and I would suggest that the family court judge, in finding a boy guilty, conceded that there was a reasonable doubt in this case about I don't -- it's unclear as to whether he was -- what the doubt was about that the lady had an opportunity to see him or when she made the determination that this was someone that she had known previously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [182.855], "stop_times": [206.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.855}, "reply_to": "14856__0_004", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_006", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What did she say about having known him previously?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [206.877], "stop_times": [209.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.877}, "reply_to": "14856__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_007", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "She said -- after she saw the boy scoot out she called the police office and she was then called to the police station the next night where she saw the boy and she testified in court that she knew this boy very well.\nAnd she said that she had seen him on many previous occasions when he had come to her store and that she had thrown him out as a matter of fact.\nThe boy of course and his mother and his uncle all testified that he was not at all -- that he was home and could not possibly have been out of his house that entire evening and testified to an alibi.\nHe of course also denied that he ever knew this lady before, but I would suggest that it would be inappropriate here for us to again consider what entered into the fact finder's mind when he was making this determination.\nHe did assess the credibility of various witnesses and had before him the fact that the lady did see him in an inherently suggestive situation the next night and determine that he did have a reasonable doubt about this boy's guilt.\nThis was quite developed in a record and the judge most candidly noted that he was applying a different standard of proof then would have applied in adult situation and that therefore the finding was not ascertain.\nAnd I would submit that at this point, what we are here to consider is the appropriateness of the measure of proof that the fact finder applied as opposed to what went into his determination that the child was guilty by the standard the he applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [209.641, 221.563, 234.191, 247.221, 264.02, 278.18, 289.787], "stop_times": [221.563, 234.191, 247.221, 264.02, 278.18, 289.787, 305.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.641}, "reply_to": "14856__0_006", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_008", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Certainly, in other words, you suggest it's not up to us here to say, well, we reviewed the evidence and we think he could have found the beyond a reasonable doubt that this young fellow stole the purse.\nYou say it's none of our --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [305.688, 316.54], "stop_times": [316.54, 317.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.688}, "reply_to": "14856__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_009", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right, Mr. Justice Stewart.\nI would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [317.518, 320.338], "stop_times": [320.338, 320.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.518}, "reply_to": "14856__0_008", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_010", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You recall of any case in this Court similar with what the court has said at least without standard in federal case constitutes then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [320.469], "stop_times": [329.719], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 320.469}, "reply_to": "14856__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_011", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan there is no express holding to that effect, but I would suggest that the reason of that is so is that this so widespread standard, it has such fundamental antecedents that holding to that effect has never been necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [329.719], "stop_times": [344.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.719}, "reply_to": "14856__0_010", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_012", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Is that the standard in each of the 50 states here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [344.396], "stop_times": [346.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.396}, "reply_to": "14856__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_013", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes it is, Your Honor.\nI would like to say at the outset that to seek a denomination of the proceeding here involved, either civil or criminal, would be futile and would really only obscure the question that we have to deal with because it is our basic contention that whatever we call these proceedings, juvenile proceedings, to find a child guilty of law violation and to incarcerate him for a substantial period of time unless, unless then the most certain standard of proof known to our law is a violation of due process and it is a violation of due process, I would submit, however that concept maybe defined.\nWhether it is as in Mr. Justice Black's, view the law of the land where an adult is accused of a crime and confined or whether it is considered the fundamental fairness of the proceedings and although much has been said by this Court and other courts about the fairness of this standard where liberty is at stake for law violation, I would just like to reiterate a couple of considerations and that is the standard after all expresses an attempt to reduce the chance of risk when an innocent person is going to be convicted.\nIt is a flag as it were to the fact finder that you must be very, very certain that this is the person that did the act and in fact as this Court noted in Coffin against the United States many times, many years ago, it is really in fact a corollary to the presumption of innocence and I would doubt that anyone would suggest that that most fundamental presumption should not attach to somebody who is accused merely because of his age and of course a reasonable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [346.475, 349.071, 389.359, 426.661], "stop_times": [349.071, 389.359, 426.661, 456.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.475}, "reply_to": "14856__0_012", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_014", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, is that the only reason for it, merely because of his age or is it because whether misguided or well-advised, a system of juvenile courts was set up to take people under a given age out of the criminal process and away from the stream of criminal proceedings and to protect them, isn't that the background?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [456.25], "stop_times": [478.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.25}, "reply_to": "14856__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_015", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, yes precisely and we make no challenge to the policy of a legislature, which seems to be uniformed throughout the country, to establish separate courts apart from the criminal process to try and deal with young offenders.\nWe don't challenge the assumptions on which that legislative policy is based.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [478.108, 497.148], "stop_times": [497.148, 501.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.108}, "reply_to": "14856__0_014", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_016", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "In New York, is there a judgment of guilt in a criminal act in this kind of a proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [501.009], "stop_times": [507.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.009}, "reply_to": "14856__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_017", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "He was found guilty of a law violation.\nMy only contention is that within these specialized courts, designed as you suggest to save youngsters before they become perhaps \u201cnon-rehabilitatable,\u201d if there's such a word, to offer them special kinds of services, but we only ask that within these special courts the limitations of the Constitution apply, so that fundamental fairness is recognized and observed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [507.129, 510.336], "stop_times": [510.336, 536.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.129}, "reply_to": "14856__0_016", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_018", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's really a demand for the best of both worlds, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [536.668], "stop_times": [540.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.668}, "reply_to": "14856__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_019", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes and I think a child, a young offender, is indeed entitled to that and I would like to just for a moment deal with one of the contentions that the city has raised about this confinement procedure.\nThe City of New York has suggested well, there are other kinds of confinement that are based upon a preponderance of the evidence and suggest this is -- does not differ from those kinds of confinement.\nAnd the city cites such things as the confinement of mentally ill people and alcoholics and narcotics addicts and I would say that it really strains the analogy to compare this kind of a case with that kind of case.\nIn those cases, you're dealing essentially with the distillation of medical testimony relating to a physical or mental condition.\nExpert opinions, subject to very honest differences of opinion, what is an alcoholic or how sick is this person, but here we're talking about, did Johnny Jones do X on Y night?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [540.399, 558.015, 569.979, 584.244, 594.669], "stop_times": [558.015, 569.979, 584.244, 594.669, 607.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.399}, "reply_to": "14856__0_018", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_020", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, let's assume you may be right with respect to commitment of the incompetence or narcotics addicts or alcoholics and so on, but coming closer to home right here in New York, as I understand the city's argument that children maybe confined and maybe confined in substantially or exactly the same place that this young man was confined after finding that there are persons in need of supervision and I would gather that doesn't need all sorts of expert testimony.\nThat's not a -- and would you concede that in order to support a finding that a young person is in need of supervision that preponderance of the evidence is all that's required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [607.208, 642.739], "stop_times": [642.739, 656.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.208}, "reply_to": "14856__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_021", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Stewart, I would say that of course there is some distinction because in one case we're talking about a law violation and in another case not but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [656.297], "stop_times": [664.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.297}, "reply_to": "14856__0_020", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_022", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But doesn't the young person -- isn't that -- if possible he's going to end up in the same institution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [664.926], "stop_times": [670.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.926}, "reply_to": "14856__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_023", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Very likely that he will.\nI would say, however, that the way the statute reads in New York, there is some question and it's rather broadly defined.\nHowever, as a matter of practical, as a practical matter, in New York, the courts have required that when someone is charged with being a person in need of supervision that he's incorrigible, that one may not merely accuse him of being incorrigible that one must charge specific acts of misconduct.\nOne must show that Johnny Jones was out away from home for two weeks from such and such date to another date, that he has been drinking intoxicating beverages, that he's associating with bad company namely, Sam Smith etcetera, etcetera, and that must be proved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [670.131, 671.33, 680.36, 698.465], "stop_times": [671.33, 680.36, 698.465, 714.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.131}, "reply_to": "14856__0_022", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_024", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But none -- and none of these things so far that you've mentioned and I suppose truancy would be another --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [714.127], "stop_times": [718.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.127}, "reply_to": "14856__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_025", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [718.305], "stop_times": [718.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.305}, "reply_to": "14856__0_024", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_026", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "-- would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [718.741], "stop_times": [721.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.741}, "reply_to": "14856__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_027", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "No, I -- it would not but I would suggest that the only implication of the case today is that perhaps the PINS case has says they're called should also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [721.231], "stop_times": [733.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.231}, "reply_to": "14856__0_026", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_028", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Of a person in need of supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [733.712], "stop_times": [734.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.712}, "reply_to": "14856__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_029", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes and the reason I suggest that is that again although it has no corollary in the criminal law, it is an allegation of misconduct and would seem intolerable for two boys to be in precisely of the same institutions; one, on a higher standard of proof, one on the lower standard of proof, both having been found guilty of misconduct.\nAnd I would also think perhaps --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [734.302, 757.886], "stop_times": [757.886, 759.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.302}, "reply_to": "14856__0_028", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_030", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "So, so -- at least arguendo you concede the city is right to that extent in its -- in its what are we coming to argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [759.468], "stop_times": [768.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.468}, "reply_to": "14856__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_031", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, in only to that extent.\nThe city has suggested in its brief, well, if this Court finds today that a finding of wrong doing must meet high standards of reliability, that means the whole panoply of criminal procedures will apply, that means it will be jury trials and every other protection.\nI maintain that it's absolutely not so.\nThis is an entirely separable issue.\nIt is perfectly possible for this Court to find that it is required as a matter of fundamental fairness that the fact finder to be very certain of the child's guilt and not accord or determine any one of these other protections.\nIt may well be that this Court will at some time determine that these other things are necessary, but certainly not as a result to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [768.765, 770.902, 791.206, 793.651, 796.087, 810.467], "stop_times": [770.902, 791.206, 793.651, 796.087, 810.467, 819.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.765}, "reply_to": "14856__0_030", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_032", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But just as so I understand it you -- I understood that you would say that logic which compelled the result that if a standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required here in Constitution and the same standard would be required in the New York system to prove that a young person was a person in need of supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [819.802], "stop_times": [841.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.802}, "reply_to": "14856__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_033", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Precisely, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [841.172], "stop_times": [842.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.172}, "reply_to": "14856__0_032", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_034", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Do you have to go no further in this case to prevail and say that where the charge against the delinquent is a criminal charge, a charge, an act which is committed by an adult, it would be a crime that if no circumstances you'd be proofed beyond a reasonable doubt or whatever label you put on it is required.\nYou don't have to go any further than that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [842.816, 866.329], "stop_times": [866.329, 869.249], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 842.816}, "reply_to": "14856__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_035", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I would say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [869.249], "stop_times": [870.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.249}, "reply_to": "14856__0_034", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_036", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You might want to but you don't have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [870.989], "stop_times": [872.685], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 870.989}, "reply_to": "14856__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_037", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You don't have to, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [872.685], "stop_times": [874.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.685}, "reply_to": "14856__0_036", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_038", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You want -- do you want all these children put right into the criminal court system tried under criminal, full-scale criminal standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [874.128], "stop_times": [882.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.128}, "reply_to": "14856__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_039", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI think if I may say, I think that the intention of the reformers when the juvenile system began in this country at the turn of the century was to try to bring to bear upon the young offender whatever notions of psychology, sociology, rehabilitating and early training that was possible and deemed it advisable to do these in separate courts with different procedures and I'm not quarreling with that.\nI think that that is perfectly appropriate but I think maybe at this point, it's important to note that that hope of the reformers will not be affected by finding that, that fact finder be very sure that the child has demonstrated in need for those rehabilitative services and perhaps describing the New York system would best explain how this works and why the finding -- the holding that we urge today will not detract from what you concede up as the efforts of the juvenile system to rehabilitate youngsters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [882.965, 883.629, 912.061], "stop_times": [883.629, 912.061, 947.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.965}, "reply_to": "14856__0_038", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_040", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, but aren't you moving -- aren't you moving every point in your case toward a criminal proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [947.922], "stop_times": [956.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.922}, "reply_to": "14856__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_041", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI would say that this finding, this -- what we are urging today is really even more fundamental than the rights accorded to children in Gault.\nI would say that to ask the fact finder to be very sure that the child has committed the act which indicates he needs rehabilitation, that he'd be very certain of that, will change the court in it's everyday functioning much less than for example according a child the privilege against self-incrimination.\nThat goes much closer to changing the posture of the Court perhaps not in New York but elsewhere than a simple requirement that before you give the child these services, and there is some debate as to how effective they are, you must be very sure that he really needs them, that he has committed that robbery that shows that he needs help.\nIn New York, for example, if I may explain for a moment the hearing is bifurcated one.\nIt's a two-stage proceeding.\nA child is brought to the fact finding hearing.\nThere, he's given a petition which has the charge in it and the judge hears the fact, he may only consider competent, relevant, and material evidence.\nNo social history is permitted of the judge at that time by New York statute.\nThey can have big case on his family's problems and the boy's psychiatric history but the judge may not see it.\nHe must make an independent determination whether the boy committed this act or not.\nOnce that finding of guilt is made, the child then must attend what is known as a dispositional hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [956.231, 957.83, 968.284, 986.782, 1010.11, 1015.686, 1017.563, 1020.44, 1029.338, 1034.185, 1040.726, 1045.76], "stop_times": [957.83, 968.284, 986.782, 1010.11, 1015.686, 1017.563, 1020.44, 1029.338, 1034.185, 1040.726, 1045.76, 1052.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.231}, "reply_to": "14856__0_040", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_042", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It's not however a finding of guilt as such, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1052.296], "stop_times": [1056.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.296}, "reply_to": "14856__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_043", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It would be a euphemism to call it anything else than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1056.168], "stop_times": [1058.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.168}, "reply_to": "14856__0_042", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_044", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, what if in New York -- to explain in the New York system, what does New York call it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1058.327], "stop_times": [1061.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.327}, "reply_to": "14856__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_045", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It's called a fact finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1061.93], "stop_times": [1065.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.93}, "reply_to": "14856__0_044", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_046", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well isn't that -- isn't that the predicate of the whole system?\nDidn't these reformers who set up the system which the courts are now dismantling piece by piece originally say that no lawyers could be there, the judge wouldn't have a robe, there wouldn't be a bench, it couldn't be any newspaper reporters there and no one could mention his name, weren't all these steps done to protect the child from the traumatic experience of the criminal court setting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1065.938, 1068.637], "stop_times": [1068.637, 1092.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.938}, "reply_to": "14856__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_047", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice they were but I think Gault quite documented the fact that the hopes that the child would unequivocally stand to benefit from these procedures.\nIt has not been realized and I don't think here it would appropriate to go into a reevaluation of how successful the system has been in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1092.721, 1105.839], "stop_times": [1105.839, 1114.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.721}, "reply_to": "14856__0_046", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_048", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But the Court has started to do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1114.684], "stop_times": [1116.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.684}, "reply_to": "14856__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_049", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, I would like to say in that respect that the Court of Appeals in New York stressed the benefits to the juvenile of these --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1116.974], "stop_times": [1125.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.974}, "reply_to": "14856__0_048", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_050", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm speaking of this Court.\nThis Court started to make that evaluation of the \u201cunwisdom\u201d of the system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1125.031, 1126.198], "stop_times": [1126.198, 1131.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.031}, "reply_to": "14856__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_051", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It has made that evaluation and therefore I \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1131.107], "stop_times": [1134.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.107}, "reply_to": "14856__0_050", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_052", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It's a very sound legislative evaluation probably?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1134.35], "stop_times": [1140.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.35}, "reply_to": "14856__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_053", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "A sound legislative evaluation that that the \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1140.073], "stop_times": [1143.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.073}, "reply_to": "14856__0_052", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_054", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That the system isn't working very well, but is it -- is it -- is it up to us to be amending and is up to the people who made it to be amending?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1143.005], "stop_times": [1151.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.005}, "reply_to": "14856__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_055", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, I think we're not asking this Court to amend it.\nWe're only saying that within the legislative structure, the elements of fair play prevail.\nSimply that I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1151.395, 1156.017, 1166.577], "stop_times": [1156.017, 1166.577, 1168.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.395}, "reply_to": "14856__0_054", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_056", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But is it your position that the only thing you're complaining about is the standard of proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1168.248], "stop_times": [1174.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.248}, "reply_to": "14856__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__0_057", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1174.679], "stop_times": [1174.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.679}, "reply_to": "14856__0_056", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_058", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You don't complain about the judge, how he acts, where the trial is, what the proceeding is, what the rules, all you want is that -- is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1174.766], "stop_times": [1185.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.766}, "reply_to": "14856__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__0_059", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's precisely right, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1185.328], "stop_times": [1187.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.328}, "reply_to": "14856__0_058", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_060", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You don't want to give up any of the other benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1187.537], "stop_times": [1189.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.537}, "reply_to": "14856__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__0_061", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right.\nI want, we want as it has been suggested, the best of both worlds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1189.666, 1190.234], "stop_times": [1190.234, 1194.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.666}, "reply_to": "14856__0_060", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_062", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And if your rule were the rule when this case with tried this fellow would have been turned loose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1194.023], "stop_times": [1201.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1194.023}, "reply_to": "14856__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__0_063", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1201.775], "stop_times": [1202.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.775}, "reply_to": "14856__0_062", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_064", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Under the judge's own statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1202.915], "stop_times": [1204.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.915}, "reply_to": "14856__0_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__0_065", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right.\nI think a word should be said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1204.316, 1206.724], "stop_times": [1206.724, 1208.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1204.316}, "reply_to": "14856__0_064", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_066", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Who was the trial judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1208.723], "stop_times": [1210.281], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.723}, "reply_to": "14856__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_067", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1210.281], "stop_times": [1210.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.281}, "reply_to": "14856__0_066", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_068", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Who was the trial judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1210.845], "stop_times": [1211.954], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.845}, "reply_to": "14856__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_069", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It was a judge of the family court, Judge Madonick who's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1211.954], "stop_times": [1216.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.954}, "reply_to": "14856__0_068", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_070", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, a lot of them in Court of Appeals, Judge Fuld, Heaney and somebody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1216.295], "stop_times": [1221.6], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.295}, "reply_to": "14856__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_071", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Judge Fuld, Judge Heaney and Judge Burke, I believe.\nI would like to just make one note about the alleged benefits that the Court of Appeals stressed in its opinion.\nThe Court of Appeals in discussing the advantages of the trial of this so-called secrecy and non-stigma of the proceedings, neglected of course to underscore the harsh reality that when a child is found guilty in this Court, he is subjected to substantial confinement and the facilities which even in New York are subject to a great deal of criticism.\nNow, the city in its brief has a compounded this omission by the Court of Appeals by again stressing the benefits of the New York system without -- and suggest of the problems with the institutions have never been shown to be relevant to New York and the Attorney General in his amicus brief doubly compounds this by actually suggesting that this is summer camp and that children just can't wait to go to the training school.\nI would say here that we would insist that the standard of proof be high even if these were model institutions, but I cannot let the suggestion of the Attorney General go un-contradicted at this point.\nA recent study by the New York Community Service Society, one of the oldest, private service organizations in New York, has issued a report indicating that the facilities in New York are very poor indeed, that rehabilitation and counseling range from token to nonexistent, that there are inadequate provisions not only for vocational training but for even ordinary schooling.\nThat there are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1221.6, 1226.689, 1237.557, 1262.745, 1291.184, 1304.819, 1336.036], "stop_times": [1226.689, 1237.557, 1262.745, 1291.184, 1304.819, 1336.036, 1336.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1221.6}, "reply_to": "14856__0_070", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_072", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Aren't these -- aren't these propositions that should be addressed to the legislature and not to this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1336.744], "stop_times": [1341.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.744}, "reply_to": "14856__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_073", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I only -- I only raised them here Your Honor because it has been suggested by my adversary that all theses criticisms that would make it question of fundamental fairness to have a high standards of proof are not relevant in New York because New York's institutions are so marvelous and I would just suggest this is totally contrary to the fact and that there is out -- in short, there's ample a basis for the conclusion of the Community Service Society that the children in these institutions validly view their stay there as doing time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1341.366], "stop_times": [1374.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.366}, "reply_to": "14856__0_072", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_074", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, but isn't \u2013- am I not correct that PINS people end up there too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1374.913], "stop_times": [1380.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.913}, "reply_to": "14856__0_073", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_075", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1380.807], "stop_times": [1381.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.807}, "reply_to": "14856__0_074", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_076", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Persons in need of supervision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1381.043], "stop_times": [1381.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.043}, "reply_to": "14856__0_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_077", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes they do indeed.\nI would say roughly half or not quite half of the children in the, I believe, in these institutions are there as persons in need of supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1381.97, 1384.336], "stop_times": [1384.336, 1393.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.97}, "reply_to": "14856__0_076", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_078", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And they're in need of supervisions and as to whom has been no finding probably at least certainly hasn't necessarily been any finding that they have performed any act that if committed by an adult would be a criminal offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1393.636], "stop_times": [1407.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.636}, "reply_to": "14856__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_079", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1407.645], "stop_times": [1408.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.645}, "reply_to": "14856__0_078", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_080", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And no judgment that they are delinquent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1408.459], "stop_times": [1410.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.459}, "reply_to": "14856__0_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_081", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And no judgment they're delinquent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1410.658], "stop_times": [1411.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.658}, "reply_to": "14856__0_080", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_082", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But just that they are persons in need of supervision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1411.781], "stop_times": [1414.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.781}, "reply_to": "14856__0_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_083", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1414.138], "stop_times": [1414.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.138}, "reply_to": "14856__0_082", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_084", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What happens to neglected children or defective children or dependent children in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1414.201], "stop_times": [1419.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.201}, "reply_to": "14856__0_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_085", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Neglected children are sent to completely separate institutions and while I'm sure there is again always room for improvement in these facilities, these are not locked shelters.\nAnd a -- finding that a child has committed a violation of law also subjects him to a temporary detention.\nThere is -- there are statistics to the effect that some 35% of the children who are found guilty of law violations spend some time in the temporary detention facility and of those some 40% I believe are there beyond 30 days.\nNow, it takes just one visit to that detention facility in New York to convince one that we're not talking about an open, free shelter for little children.\nIt is a facility where you cannot walk 30 feet but that the custodian doesn't have to unlock the doors to let you go through the corridors and children are locked into their rooms at night.\nNow, there are various branches.\nThere are some facilities that are somewhat more open for the younger children, but the essential facility in Bronx County is the kind that I described", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1419.932, 1432.946, 1440.113, 1456.289, 1467.262, 1476.944, 1478.371], "stop_times": [1432.946, 1440.113, 1456.289, 1467.262, 1476.944, 1478.371, 1485.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.932}, "reply_to": "14856__0_084", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_086", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You've been making the same argument surely, wouldn't you and disagreed on both sides of the physical facilities of these institutions as pertinent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1485.964], "stop_times": [1495.472], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.964}, "reply_to": "14856__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__0_087", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I would, I would Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI would say that we want without arguing about although I have been arguing about the inadequacy of the facilities but even assuming they were a model --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1495.472, 1497.331], "stop_times": [1497.331, 1509.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.472}, "reply_to": "14856__0_086", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_088", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, except I think your argument necessarily depends, does it not, on persuading the Court that this is punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1509.686], "stop_times": [1518.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.686}, "reply_to": "14856__0_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_089", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, it helps it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1518.304], "stop_times": [1519.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.304}, "reply_to": "14856__0_088", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_090", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, it's necessary in the argument, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1519.351], "stop_times": [1520.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.351}, "reply_to": "14856__0_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_091", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes [Attempt to Laughter].", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1520.925], "stop_times": [1522.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.925}, "reply_to": "14856__0_090", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_092", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It is punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1522.12], "stop_times": [1523.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.12}, "reply_to": "14856__0_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__0_093", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I understood that the only question you brought up, the only question you raised, the only question the Court decided was whether or not an infant could be found guilty of an offense on proof of a mere preponderance of evidence or whether he has a proof of beyond a reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1523.11], "stop_times": [1543.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.11}, "reply_to": "14856__0_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__0_094", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Mr. Justice Black.\nI'm only trying to somewhat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1543.995, 1544.51, 1545.774], "stop_times": [1544.51, 1545.774, 1547.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.995}, "reply_to": "14856__0_093", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_095", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I say though, isn't that the only question before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1547.269], "stop_times": [1549.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.269}, "reply_to": "14856__0_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__0_096", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.\nYes it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1549.782, 1550.995], "stop_times": [1550.995, 1551.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1549.782}, "reply_to": "14856__0_095", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_097", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And whether the Constitution requires to be beyond a reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1551.232], "stop_times": [1554.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.232}, "reply_to": "14856__0_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__0_098", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1554.834], "stop_times": [1556.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.834}, "reply_to": "14856__0_097", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_099", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Do you know of any constitutional prohibition against this Court deciding that the preponderance of evidence should be rule in all full scale criminal cases in all the states and in the federal courts?\nWhat in the Constitution would prohibit that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1556.57, 1571.962], "stop_times": [1571.962, 1576.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.57}, "reply_to": "14856__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_100", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Nothing would prohibit it.\nI would think we're determining what is concept of a fair trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1576.122, 1577.198], "stop_times": [1577.198, 1581.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.122}, "reply_to": "14856__0_099", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_101", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm not in favor of it, if you understand it, I'm just asking whether we have the power to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1581.987], "stop_times": [1586.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.987}, "reply_to": "14856__0_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__0_102", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes you do, I would say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1586.553], "stop_times": [1588.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.553}, "reply_to": "14856__0_101", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_103", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You're relying with the due process law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1588.908], "stop_times": [1590.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.908}, "reply_to": "14856__0_102", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_104", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1590.593], "stop_times": [1592.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.593}, "reply_to": "14856__0_103", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_105", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Then that's certainly the idea of a fair trial, fundamental fairness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1592.22], "stop_times": [1595.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.22}, "reply_to": "14856__0_104", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_106", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1595.134], "stop_times": [1597.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.134}, "reply_to": "14856__0_105", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_107", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What happens in your family court when there is a fact finding and then the question of whether he's delinquent comes out, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1597.251], "stop_times": [1606.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.251}, "reply_to": "14856__0_106", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_108", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, there's a fact finding and then he goes to disposition at this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1606.503], "stop_times": [1610.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.503}, "reply_to": "14856__0_107", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_109", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But there is no finding of delinq -- conclusion of delinquency at the fact finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1610.128], "stop_times": [1615.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.128}, "reply_to": "14856__0_108", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_110", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I would say that even if there is, even if it is assumed after dispositional hearing that he does not require the supervision of the Court and he's dismissed therefore, there is still a finding of guilt against him and that finding of guilt carries with it the same stigma --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1615.145], "stop_times": [1630.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.145}, "reply_to": "14856__0_109", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_111", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But how is that expressed?\nThe under the law he's either a delinquent or he's innocent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1630.52, 1631.806], "stop_times": [1631.806, 1634.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.52}, "reply_to": "14856__0_110", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_112", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, it is expressed that he has been found guilty of a certain criminal act or an act, which would be a crime.\nHowever, we do not adjudicate him a delinquent because he has not demonstrated that he needs confinement or supervision.\nHowever, the effect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1634.819, 1640.82, 1646.983], "stop_times": [1640.82, 1646.983, 1648.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.819}, "reply_to": "14856__0_111", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_113", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And then what happens in that case, probation or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1648.087], "stop_times": [1651.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.087}, "reply_to": "14856__0_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_114", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "No, he might not -- it's like a suspended judgment.\nI would suggest it's very much like a -- like a suspended sentence.\nThe child is determined to have committed act but it is dismissed, so-called because he does not require probation say.\nHowever, in future years, when these records become pertinent in his life, as in the military, all schools have a record of these proceedings, they will check and they will know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1651.949, 1655.15, 1658.546, 1666.095], "stop_times": [1655.15, 1658.546, 1666.095, 1676.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1651.949}, "reply_to": "14856__0_113", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_115", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And you would say that even if their fact finding is followed by no conclusion about delinquency, no commitment that fact finding must be beyond a reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1676.827], "stop_times": [1686.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.827}, "reply_to": "14856__0_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__0_116", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes, I would say so and I would say Your Honor, it is a very, analogous to the Specht v. Patterson kind of cases where the Court is required to hold a separate hearing to determine whether the individual will have a certain special kind of sentence imposed upon him, but this does not reduce the state's burden to provide the -- to prove the underlying law violation by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAnd the suggestion by the city that this two-stage proceeding somehow relieves the state of proving the underlying act by the highest standard of proof is really essentially an unsound one.\nIn sum, we're merely suggesting that let the state services whether they're good or bad be reserved for children against to whom it's been demonstrated really require them by having prove the acts, requires such rehabilitation.\nI'll reserve the rest of my time, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1686.855, 1712.365, 1726.487, 1743.259], "stop_times": [1712.365, 1726.487, 1743.259, 1753.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.855}, "reply_to": "14856__0_115", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__0_117", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Mr. Buchsbaum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1753.118], "stop_times": [1753.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.118}, "reply_to": "14856__0_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_000", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nAt the outset, I want to take a moment on the finding by the court below.\nI think that it may be a little misleading to suggest that the judge in the family court said that if the standard of proof was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he would have reached a different result.\nAnd early in my brief, I discussed this in quote from the appendix as to what happened at that point and if this becomes an element in the case which I rather doubt, I think the Court should look at what happened.\nBecause the judge made his finding in accordance with the law and then counsel for the trial started what ended up as philosophic discussion about the various standards of proof and the judge then made some remarks which in the appellant's brief have all been telescoped even though they're page apart and gives the feeling that he is talking about this specific case, when apparently he is talking about determinations in general.\nNow, let me turn to the central issue.\nThe question is whether the Constitution requires that in the proceeding of this kind, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that the preponderance of the evidence standard is inadequate.\nNow, there is no specific constitutional provision.\nSo the question comes down to whether due process requires it.\nAnd as I see it that either must go along one of two paths; either that in a criminal case, you must have such proof and this is a criminal case or two the nature of what happens after this proceeding, the loss of liberty, the incarceration, the possibility of that is of such a nature that due process requires that standard of proof.\nAside from those two paths, I cannot see how this can be decided as a constitutional question.\nNow, much of the discussion we've had in this field and I've seen it in some opinions in the Law Review articles discuss this without referring to the Constitution on the assumption that due process is what I think is wise and if I think this is wise, the Constitution requires it and obviously, this court does not approach the problem that way.\nNow, let's see whether this is a criminal proceeding and here I suggest that Mr. Justice Fortas in the Gault opinion was writing far ranging.\nHe was writing about the entire juvenile system and he was dealing with a case which at least to me seemed quite horrendous.\nAnd what he did was from all the writings, studies, very often students at the law school probably had never seen a juvenile court, what they wrote, he was picking out all the things that went wrong.\nIf something went wrong in Oregon which didn't go wrong in any other state that was listed.\nNow, it seems to me that we're dealing with the question of whether the Court is the equivalent of a criminal court, we must deal in this case with the New York Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [1753.431, 1757.686, 1765.362, 1781.73, 1798.786, 1832.784, 1837.878, 1855.817, 1859.191, 1864.675, 1900.035, 1906.81, 1933.978, 1951.192, 1961.212, 1980.064, 1988.651], "stop_times": [1757.686, 1765.362, 1781.73, 1798.786, 1832.784, 1837.878, 1855.817, 1859.191, 1864.675, 1900.035, 1906.81, 1933.978, 1951.192, 1961.212, 1980.064, 1988.651, 2001.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1753.431}, "reply_to": "14856__0_117", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_001", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Let me ask you a question, supposing now, you say there's no due process question here, supposing New York passed a law saying our juvenile calendar load is very, very heavy and we will amend our laws so that these children who may be in trouble need supervision and need something.\nThey can be found juvenile delinquents upon the judge finding that there's probable cause to believe they are.\nWould you think that was it?\nDo you think that'll raise a question under the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2001.459, 2029.579, 2037.963, 2040.273], "stop_times": [2029.579, 2037.963, 2040.273, 2044.316], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.459}, "reply_to": "14856__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_002", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I would want to think it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2044.316], "stop_times": [2045.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.316}, "reply_to": "14856__1_001", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_003", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "You think it would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2045.816], "stop_times": [2047.86], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.816}, "reply_to": "14856__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_004", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "If it's just -- what I understand probable cause is a probability not a finding of decision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2047.86], "stop_times": [2055.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.86}, "reply_to": "14856__1_003", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_005", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It was in the sense of getting a search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2055.797], "stop_times": [2059.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.797}, "reply_to": "14856__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_006", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "The judge has a smell for it and he thinks the chances are pretty good that this youngster is a juvenile delinquent and that would be enough under the hypothetical statute I'm talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2059.585], "stop_times": [2071.844], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.585}, "reply_to": "14856__1_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_007", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I would think that almost anything which depends upon someone saying, I think, this maybe so when therefore finality results from it.\nWhat we're dealing with a subject altogether different from a juvenile delinquency would raise a due process question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2071.844, 2084.214], "stop_times": [2084.214, 2092.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.844}, "reply_to": "14856__1_006", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_008", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Do you think it would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2092.248], "stop_times": [2093.257], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.248}, "reply_to": "14856__1_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_009", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I think in a purely civil case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2093.257], "stop_times": [2097.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.257}, "reply_to": "14856__1_008", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_010", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "There's nothing in the Constitution that says it does except the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2097.083], "stop_times": [2103.277], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.083}, "reply_to": "14856__1_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_011", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "No but I think due process does require that there must be some element of logic in reaching a conclusion and that there's something lacking in logic if you say something must happen as a finality in a case in any type of case simply because someone thinks it might have happened.\nNo conclusion as to this happened or this didn't happen, I think that would raise a due process question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2103.277, 2124.946], "stop_times": [2124.946, 2132.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.277}, "reply_to": "14856__1_010", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_012", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, I suppose it would follow a fortiori that if New York had a rule that when some juvenile was charged without more of the Court would incarcerate him, so that what you're saying is that this is a spectrum and under the Due Process Clause it's question of degree if it's a due process question at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2132.319], "stop_times": [2159.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.319}, "reply_to": "14856__1_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_013", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.\nI think that's true, but I think if you're going to hold out from all your cases those which to which you must apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I only see two basis for selecting the juvenile delinquency proceeding.\nIt's falling into that category.\nOne, either that it's so akin to the criminal case that requires it or two, that's a proceeding which may lead to loss of liberty and therefore requires it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2159.415, 2160.016, 2180.906, 2182.799], "stop_times": [2160.016, 2180.906, 2182.799, 2198.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.415}, "reply_to": "14856__1_012", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_014", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What do you call a charge if a 12-year-old broke into a house and stole a television set, is that anything other than a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2198.64], "stop_times": [2212.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.64}, "reply_to": "14856__1_013", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_015", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That depends upon whether you're going to say that any attempt to make reform, you just look through it and we had at Rhode Island a judge who reached the conclusion that the appellant seeks and in his opinion, he said the murder is murder, burglary is burglary and we must recognize it, but that's exactly what the juvenile court system was aimed to prevent.\nIt was a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2212.761, 2241.802], "stop_times": [2241.802, 2242.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.761}, "reply_to": "14856__1_014", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_016", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, what was he charged with in the juvenile court, what act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2242.896], "stop_times": [2250.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.896}, "reply_to": "14856__1_015", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_017", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "There is no question that under the New York law, to start a juvenile delinquency proceeding, you must charge someone with an act which have committed by an adult would constitute a crime.\nNow, I'm going to suggest that this constitutional question cannot depend upon that because suppose New York passes a law next year, lumps persons in need of supervision and the present juvenile proceeding on under a title deviant conduct, deviant conduct and says that you can bring this proceeding and show that the child's conduct deviates from what is regarded as a desirable norm and then proceed.\nI don't think that change would make something constitutional which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2250.159, 2264.557, 2301.172], "stop_times": [2264.557, 2301.172, 2304.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.159}, "reply_to": "14856__1_016", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_018", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I don't think there would be any problem with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2304.86], "stop_times": [2308.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.86}, "reply_to": "14856__1_017", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_019", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Either even though the deviating conduct would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2308.802], "stop_times": [2311.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.802}, "reply_to": "14856__1_018", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_020", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I don't see any difference in what you label it.\nHe is charged with break-in and entry and taking something that belongs to somebody else for the purpose of depriving that person of the use thereof and to me that sound very much a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2311.743, 2314.623], "stop_times": [2314.623, 2329.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.743}, "reply_to": "14856__1_019", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_021", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2329.168], "stop_times": [2329.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.168}, "reply_to": "14856__1_020", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_022", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And I just want to say that one point is in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2329.809], "stop_times": [2333.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.809}, "reply_to": "14856__1_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_023", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I concede that, that there's no question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2333.097], "stop_times": [2334.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.097}, "reply_to": "14856__1_022", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_024", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's the only point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2334.226], "stop_times": [2336.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.226}, "reply_to": "14856__1_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_025", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I don't think there was an issue about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2336.234], "stop_times": [2336.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.234}, "reply_to": "14856__1_024", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_026", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But you don't need reasonable doubt to find out that he in fact was the one who did it.\nYou don't need reasonable doubt for that, the reason about standard, solely because he was 12 years old.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2336.842, 2345.992], "stop_times": [2345.992, 2352.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.842}, "reply_to": "14856__1_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_027", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Not solely because he is 12 years old, but because being 12 years old, this is not regarded as a crime and he is not being treated as a criminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2352.137], "stop_times": [2362.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.137}, "reply_to": "14856__1_026", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_028", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What you are saying as I understand it is that New York has a right if it wants to pass a law that says that a person of 12 years of age shall not be charged with or tried, or convicted for any crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2362.433], "stop_times": [2376.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.433}, "reply_to": "14856__1_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_029", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right and in this proceeding, the things that occur in this proceeding are not to be distorted as the equivalent of his having been charged with a crime or having been found guilty of a crime and that's why it's labeled a fact finding determination and then you have a dispositional hearing which is not a suspended sentence.\nNo matter what the child did, no matter how if it serious a crime that would have been done, considered if committed by an adult, a clear cut evidence the child did it, if they find that this child does not need confinement or supervision to avoid this happening again or avoid similar conduct happening again, he is not found to be a juvenile delinquent and the case would have been dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2376.579, 2406.355], "stop_times": [2406.355, 2442.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.579}, "reply_to": "14856__1_028", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_030", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "How do you say that New York has passed such a law as I've mentioned that no child of 12, shall be charged with or convicted of a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2442.414], "stop_times": [2455.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.414}, "reply_to": "14856__1_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_031", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right, Your Honor and there's no such thing as waiving to the criminal court in New York.\nNo such thing at all as long as the charge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2455.039, 2460.22], "stop_times": [2460.22, 2461.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.039}, "reply_to": "14856__1_030", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_032", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Do you say that law has been construed as meaning a child of 12 shall not be convicted or charged for the crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2461.781], "stop_times": [2470.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.781}, "reply_to": "14856__1_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_033", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2470.358], "stop_times": [2473.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.358}, "reply_to": "14856__1_032", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_034", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But he can be put in a prison for six years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2473.281], "stop_times": [2480.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.281}, "reply_to": "14856__1_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_035", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "He can be confined in appropriate institution for a limited period which after being reviewed maybe extended to a longer period where if the child is 12 could possibly be extended.\nThere is time to succeed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2480.424, 2498.928], "stop_times": [2498.928, 2499.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.424}, "reply_to": "14856__1_034", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_036", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And precisely the same thing can happen to a child found to be in need of supervision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2499.838], "stop_times": [2504.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.838}, "reply_to": "14856__1_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_037", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2504.29], "stop_times": [2505.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.29}, "reply_to": "14856__1_036", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_038", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Or insane.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2505.369], "stop_times": [2507.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.369}, "reply_to": "14856__1_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__1_039", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Or insane, you also can be confined in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2507.467], "stop_times": [2511.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.467}, "reply_to": "14856__1_038", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_040", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Or having small pox for something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2511.494], "stop_times": [2515.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.494}, "reply_to": "14856__1_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14856__1_041", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But also just to point out the types of distinctions, the civil commitment at least in New York and I think in many other states does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\nNow, New York limits civil commitments generally, but other the states do not limit the period of times as much in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2515.795, 2527.567], "stop_times": [2527.567, 2534.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2515.795}, "reply_to": "14856__1_040", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_042", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Is the child required to respond to questions in the New York proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2534.018], "stop_times": [2540.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.018}, "reply_to": "14856__1_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_043", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "The answer is no.\nEverything that was found to be wrong in the Gault case, New York by statute had cured long before the Gault case.\nI will not attempt to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2540.539, 2542.161, 2553.079], "stop_times": [2542.161, 2553.079, 2553.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.539}, "reply_to": "14856__1_042", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_044", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, the Gault case doesn't say anything about the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2553.769], "stop_times": [2560.4], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.769}, "reply_to": "14856__1_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_045", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It said that the child need not to -- could remain silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2560.4], "stop_times": [2564.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.4}, "reply_to": "14856__1_044", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_046", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2564.921], "stop_times": [2566.028], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.921}, "reply_to": "14856__1_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_047", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It said that the child may remain silent.\nThat was the one aspect in which the Gault case did touch upon this as though it was an issue of due process which would -- as to all other aspects as spoken by due process and civil or criminal cases required certain things.\nIn this respect, it said that this was analogous to a criminal case.\nAlthough it went on immediately after it showed that that remark was unnecessary because in Arizona the child still could have been waived to a criminal court and tried on a criminal basis.\nWell, what I suggest and I'm not going to attempt to cover all of the various aspects in which this juvenile court in New York differs from a criminal court, but there are these differences.\nThere is not this finding of guilt as we're told and while the places of confinement may be not be ideal and much can be done to prove it.\nWe do find in New York, there is a constant restudy on this field, there is a constant attempt to improve far too slow, far too slow and often inadequate, but there are constant changes and while I hesitate to speak of the manner of confinement without knowing precisely and it wasn't evident from the record, the brief of the Attorney General, submitted, does point out and I'm not saying that anyone is willing to go to these places, that the training schools operate under a college unit system which generally is made up of semi-independent groups, many of which a limited to 20 young people that there are in an open setting without the restraint of locks or bars, that house parents live on the premises and act as guides and mentors as well as supervisors, that home visits are made by the boys and girls on a regular basis and vocational academic features are provided.\nNow, perhaps this is the idea that they aim at and perhaps they don't always comply but this is what they're trying to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2566.028, 2571.668, 2588.921, 2594.896, 2610.505, 2627.981, 2640.18, 2708.128], "stop_times": [2571.668, 2588.921, 2594.896, 2610.505, 2627.981, 2640.18, 2708.128, 2715.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.028}, "reply_to": "14856__1_046", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_048", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "As suggested by the Chief Justice and Mrs. Uviller directed herself to this, this really doesn't have much to do with the issue before us.\nNow, except insofar as it that may go to whether or not what happened here was the equivalent of a finding of guilt and the imposition of punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2715.655, 2724.928], "stop_times": [2724.928, 2735.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.655}, "reply_to": "14856__1_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_049", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2735.546], "stop_times": [2735.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.546}, "reply_to": "14856__1_048", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_050", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's the -- and if it is -- if it is tantamount to that, and if the constitution requires that in a criminal case where the issue is the determination or guilt and the imposition of punishment, the due process or some other provision of the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and Mrs. Uviller is correct and if -- but whether or not these are well or badly run institutions or how many house mothers they have and how big the cottages are and so on.\nExcept insofar as it goes, maybe its your submission that this is not the equivalent of guilt and punishment, those issues are really for the New York state legislature, not for the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2735.708, 2766.511], "stop_times": [2766.511, 2777.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.708}, "reply_to": "14856__1_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_051", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Exactly.\nNow, Mr. Justice Marshall has suggested that the mere fact that this starts off because of an act which would constitute a crime, everything flows to it.\nI think that's a suggestion and it must be treated as a crime and all these trimmings that you're putting on and all you've got is a criminal court trying a criminal case to put somebody of way as you do in the criminal court and therefore at least in approach, in answer to that approach, I think it's important to consider every element from the intake procedure where even though a petition is drawn up which says that the child committed an act which would be a crime by an adult and a substantial portion of the case is they review this and never even reaches a fact finding stage and they decide even though the evidence is there, this doesn't call for juvenile delinquency proceeding in this child.\nThrough the dispositional hearing, where after the evidence may be proved on a basis which go far beyond proof beyond a reasonable doubt, an absolute certainty, nevertheless, there is no finding of juvenile delinquency because the child doesn't need confinement or supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2777.179, 2777.805, 2790.393, 2839.265], "stop_times": [2777.805, 2790.393, 2839.265, 2856.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.179}, "reply_to": "14856__1_050", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_052", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, then that problem doesn't arise in this case wasn't it as I was saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2856.704], "stop_times": [2862.349], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.704}, "reply_to": "14856__1_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_053", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes but I'm suggesting that all these elements should be considered in deciding whether this is really a criminal proceeding.\nNow, if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2862.349, 2872.405], "stop_times": [2872.405, 2872.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.349}, "reply_to": "14856__1_052", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_054", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Aren't you really arguing that because of the protection putting around the juvenile in these special court proceedings in the all that is balanced off as in the excuse for not using reasonable doubt as the standard, is that what you are arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2872.953], "stop_times": [2895.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.953}, "reply_to": "14856__1_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_055", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I can only respond this way.\nThat when this started off, Judge Julian Mack, Rascoe Pound and others, who are the strong proponents of the children's court, certainly did not think that they had found a way of evading constitutional requirements with respect to criminal law and I respectfully submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2895.911, 2899.541], "stop_times": [2899.541, 2923.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2895.911}, "reply_to": "14856__1_054", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_056", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm just asking about your position.\nI'm not interested in being Pound or any other people.\nI'm asking is that what you're arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2923.245, 2925.061, 2928.754], "stop_times": [2925.061, 2928.754, 2931.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.245}, "reply_to": "14856__1_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_057", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, I hardly thought so until Your Honor suggested me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2931.284], "stop_times": [2934.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.284}, "reply_to": "14856__1_056", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_058", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "The only -- as I understand the petitioner's only point is the denial of the standard of reasonable doubt, that's the only point.\nThey want to keep all of the other parts, all the good parts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2934.647, 2943.819], "stop_times": [2943.819, 2948.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.647}, "reply_to": "14856__1_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__1_059", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And what I -- what I thought I was trying to do was to try to analyze whether there is a constitutional requirement that in this type of proceeding, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI didn't think I was trying to distort the nature of the proceeding and I thought I was trying to analyze as to whether a juvenile delinquency court, the juvenile proceeding as designed by its original proponents as revised over the years with attempts to have due process requirements is subject to a further constitutional requirement that you must prove the wrong doing beyond a reasonable doubt or the improper conduct beyond a reasonable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2948.487, 2962.195], "stop_times": [2962.195, 2996.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.487}, "reply_to": "14856__1_058", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_060", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "May I ask you one or two questions to clarify my mind which you argue.\nSuppose this child have not been a child but he's been 25 years old and charged with a crime, do you think the Constitution requires the proof to convict -- the Constitution, I'm not talking about anything but the Constitution, requires the proof to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [2996.088, 3000.32], "stop_times": [3000.32, 3025.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.088}, "reply_to": "14856__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_061", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Put this, Your Honor.\nPut it \u2013 he is charged with a crime --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3025.262, 3026.01], "stop_times": [3026.01, 3029.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.262}, "reply_to": "14856__1_060", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_062", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Charged with the crime, the measure of proof, do you think that the Constitution requires that his proof of guilt be shown beyond a reasonable doubt or that it could be satisfied by showing his guilty by preponderance of the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3029.006], "stop_times": [3047.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.006}, "reply_to": "14856__1_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_063", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I have found no case that decides that issue.\nI would be inclined to think that this Court probably if faced with that issue would reach the conclusion that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI think, it would say that since --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3047.902, 3051.354, 3061.079], "stop_times": [3051.354, 3061.079, 3063.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3047.902}, "reply_to": "14856__1_062", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_064", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, they'd have to do that on the basis of a criterion that I don't agree to of course which is question of fairness that we have a right to decide what's fair and if we decide it's not fair say it's unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3063.294], "stop_times": [3076.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.294}, "reply_to": "14856__1_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_065", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Not necessarily because if you took the reasoning of Judge Fuld in New York in his dissent in this case, you would say that the -- or could argue at least that the requirement of a finding beyond a reasonable doubt was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Fifth Amendment unless a juvenile is not a person within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.\nThat was his argument, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3076.253, 3101.63], "stop_times": [3101.63, 3104.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.253}, "reply_to": "14856__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14856__1_066", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Perhaps I misread it.\nI didn't quite read it that way.\nI thought he was saying that this is a requirement of the, that it become so habitual in this country, that it was necessary but perhaps I misread it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3104.976, 3106.037, 3108.076], "stop_times": [3106.037, 3108.076, 3121.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.976}, "reply_to": "14856__1_065", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_067", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well he ties it to the Fifth Amendment and I don't know if that's the argument, but this amendment uses the word in any criminal case, shall be compelled in any criminal case and the Sixth Amendment uses a phrase, \u201cand all criminal prosecutions.\u201d\nSo the question really is whether assuming that reasonable doubt standard is applicable as well as this is a criminal case or what is a criminal prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3121.862, 3136.655], "stop_times": [3136.655, 3146.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.862}, "reply_to": "14856__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14856__1_068", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm afraid I'm a little dull on that because there's no claim here that the child is required to give any evidence against himself.\nNow what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3146.566, 3159.215], "stop_times": [3159.215, 3159.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.566}, "reply_to": "14856__1_067", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_069", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm not saying that that he was.\nI'm just saying that in terms of the -- of what you call the proceeding, a criminal proceeding, Constitution has called criminal case or criminal prosecution, whether or not those standards would come in to this kind of a proceeding.\nThat's our --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3159.986, 3161.578, 3181.993], "stop_times": [3161.578, 3181.993, 3183.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.986}, "reply_to": "14856__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14856__1_070", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That is the essence of the question there and that's why I keep speaking about whether this is truly a criminal proceeding and why I suggest that you can't decide that it's a criminal proceeding just because the trigger that's starts it off is an act which if done by an adult would be a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3183.28], "stop_times": [3202.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.28}, "reply_to": "14856__1_069", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_071", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Isn't the corollary to that statement, if done by an adult would be crime, but if not done by an adult, it is not a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3202.261], "stop_times": [3211.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.261}, "reply_to": "14856__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_072", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But certainly that's the intent of the New York law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3211.283], "stop_times": [3213.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3211.283}, "reply_to": "14856__1_071", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_073", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I should think it would be the only logical corollary available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3213.806], "stop_times": [3217.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.806}, "reply_to": "14856__1_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_074", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, I think in justice to the other side, if that were a deliberate intent to mislead or even if would not deliberate, if in fact what you really had was a criminal case than just labeling it is not being criminal case would not get by, but it's not merely the label, it's not merely calling in a civil proceeding that makes it any less a criminal case.\nThe question is, looking at the thing as a whole from beginning to end in every feature of it, is this a criminal proceeding and I submit that while you may find a juvenile court set up in some states, where you'd reach the conclusion, this is nothing but a criminal proceeding that you cannot so find in New York.\nNow, it's also been suggested, certainly in my arguments that if you reach this conclusion you must end up with the jury trial in the juvenile courts and if you reach it on the basis of this being a criminal proceeding.\nAnd my suggestion that if you base it on loss of the liberty that this may have an impact on the insanity proceedings and the narcotic addicts proceedings and the civil contempt proceeding and not the issues before this Court but I submit that in this case, the Court will decide which path will be taken down the certain hill and it's hard for me to conceive ever going back up that hill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3217.08, 3246.471, 3270.214, 3283.81], "stop_times": [3246.471, 3270.214, 3283.81, 3312.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.08}, "reply_to": "14856__1_073", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_075", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What is New York's standard for civil commitment proceedings because of mental disorder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3312.232], "stop_times": [3318.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.232}, "reply_to": "14856__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_076", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "As I understand it's preponderance of evidence as in the other proceeding, any other civil --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3318.925], "stop_times": [3324.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3318.925}, "reply_to": "14856__1_075", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_077", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And you're suggesting there is no difference in these two.\nIt's just the situations, but if you can put a man in a mental institution for perhaps five or ten years by a preponderance you can put juvenile in a non-criminal proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3324.162, 3327.655], "stop_times": [3327.655, 3340.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.162}, "reply_to": "14856__1_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_078", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Now -- well, also I might mention at this point that there's been a good deal of emphasis on well, this child might have been confined for six years and if he were an adult it would only be five years.\nThis may happenstance because the adult who might have been confined for life, the child does the same act and he's 14 years old can at most be confined for four years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3340.798, 3353.869], "stop_times": [3353.869, 3372.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.798}, "reply_to": "14856__1_077", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_079", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "This -- while your on that subject I think I saw in the brief that this person has now been released, is that correct or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3372.258], "stop_times": [3381.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.258}, "reply_to": "14856__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_080", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That's as far as we can determine from the court records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3381.933], "stop_times": [3385.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3381.933}, "reply_to": "14856__1_079", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_081", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Is there any question of mootness here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3385.855], "stop_times": [3389.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.855}, "reply_to": "14856__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_082", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I would hesitate to suggest that there is mootness.\nThis is at least I think even if it were moot it would come under the rule that a recurring problem should be disposed of, recurring problem of public importance.\nSecondly, the suggestion is made by the appellants that even though there is all this confidentialities, somehow, someway, it may leak out and this casts a reflection on the child which argument if accepted might pull it out of the mootness area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3389.626, 3394.353, 3407.547], "stop_times": [3394.353, 3407.547, 3430.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3389.626}, "reply_to": "14856__1_081", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_083", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Is the same risk of publicity and of a record and so on being made available to employers in the military and to sentencing judges in criminal cases when the person becomes an adult and so on.\nIs that same risk present with respect to a child has been found to be a person in need of supervision or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3430.999, 3445.734], "stop_times": [3445.734, 3454.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.999}, "reply_to": "14856__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_084", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I can't even speak about the first risk.\nSee, that's one of the difficulties in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3454.775, 3457.161], "stop_times": [3457.161, 3460.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3454.775}, "reply_to": "14856__1_083", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_085", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It's represented that there is some risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3460.039], "stop_times": [3463.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.039}, "reply_to": "14856__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_086", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes but I don't know how they know.\nSomebody found out in the District of Columbia that there is such a risk and there seems to be an assumption that there is such a risk in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3463.259, 3465.92], "stop_times": [3465.92, 3472.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3463.259}, "reply_to": "14856__1_085", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_087", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, as I -- as I remember the briefs, it was represented and as a matter of fact and perhaps of law if this person later as an adult commits a criminal offense is found guilty of the criminal offense then his juvenile record is made available to the sentencing judge, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3472.707], "stop_times": [3489.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3472.707}, "reply_to": "14856__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_088", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "To the sentencing judge, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3489.112], "stop_times": [3490.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3489.112}, "reply_to": "14856__1_087", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_089", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3490.621], "stop_times": [3491.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3490.621}, "reply_to": "14856__1_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_090", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3491.326], "stop_times": [3492.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3491.326}, "reply_to": "14856__1_089", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_091", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "And is that true also with respect to a person who as a juvenile has been found to be a person in need of supervision, that's my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3492.551], "stop_times": [3501.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3492.551}, "reply_to": "14856__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__1_092", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm afraid that I don't know the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3501.612], "stop_times": [3503.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3501.612}, "reply_to": "14856__1_091", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_093", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What happens if the prospected employer who wants to know whether the child or the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3503.829], "stop_times": [3510.435], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3503.829}, "reply_to": "14856__1_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_094", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "From all I can hear he is not given any such information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3510.435], "stop_times": [3517.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3510.435}, "reply_to": "14856__1_093", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_095", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "What about the military?\nEven on request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3517.622, 3519.429], "stop_times": [3519.429, 3521.373], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3517.622}, "reply_to": "14856__1_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__1_096", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Even on request.\nI just don't know about the military and I hesitate to ask because there was no one I could ask who would give me an answer that I would feel assured of is certainty.\nSo, if I got the answer that would be favorable to my position, I might be misleading the Court if I gave my answer.\nI do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3521.373, 3524.148, 3538.64, 3546.537], "stop_times": [3524.148, 3538.64, 3546.537, 3546.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3521.373}, "reply_to": "14856__1_095", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_097", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Did I understand you to say that definitely that this person has been discharged on this particular case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3546.805], "stop_times": [3557.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3546.805}, "reply_to": "14856__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_098", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3557.28], "stop_times": [3558.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3557.28}, "reply_to": "14856__1_097", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_099", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "How was he discharged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3558.739], "stop_times": [3560.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3558.739}, "reply_to": "14856__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_100", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, here's what happened, he went away and after he was away for 10 months, he was allowed to live with his parents.\nThen apparently as they put it in the docket, he absconded from his parents' home and was picked up on a direction that he sent away for a year.\nThat year period has passed and there is nothing on the record to indicate that anything further has been done, any other attempt to confine him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3560.669, 3571.685, 3588.056], "stop_times": [3571.685, 3588.056, 3598.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3560.669}, "reply_to": "14856__1_099", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_101", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "He is not under confinement now under this charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3598.327], "stop_times": [3601.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3598.327}, "reply_to": "14856__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14856__1_102", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "As far as under this charge or apparently under any other charges as far as we can find from the records.\nI gather my time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3601.686, 3608.634], "stop_times": [3608.634, 3613.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3601.686}, "reply_to": "14856__1_101", "speaker": "stanley_buchsbaum"}
{"id": "14856__1_103", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Your time is exhausted, Mrs. Uviller, but if there are perhaps any questions from the Court, you may respond to them in three minutes?\nNo there's no time left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3613.004, 3622.683], "stop_times": [3622.683, 3624.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3613.004}, "reply_to": "14856__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14856__1_104", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I have one question Chief Justice and I'd like to ask a little collateral agreement.\nWho handles these cases for the advisory of the judge, representative of the District Attorney's Office or what?\nDo they have stand for their own or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3624.41, 3629.458, 3637.956], "stop_times": [3629.458, 3637.956, 3640.603], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3624.41}, "reply_to": "14856__1_103", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__2_000", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWhere the petitioner or the complainant is a police officer, a representative of the legal bureau of the police department of the City of New York has been serving as the prosecuting attorney.\nThere were any questions about mootness I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3640.603, 3641.5, 3653.55], "stop_times": [3641.5, 3653.55, 3656.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3640.603}, "reply_to": "14856__1_104", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__2_001", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "I'm interested in the mootness question Mrs. Uviller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3656.01], "stop_times": [3659.548], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3656.01}, "reply_to": "14856__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__2_002", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Well, I'd like to say when notice of appeal was filed to this Court, this child was under confinement and he was discharged from confinement I believe 10 days or two weeks before this Court noted probable jurisdiction which was some seven months I believe after notice of appeal was filed in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3659.548], "stop_times": [3679.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3659.548}, "reply_to": "14856__2_001", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__2_003", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "He had been released before we noted problem of jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3679.186], "stop_times": [3681.847], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3679.186}, "reply_to": "14856__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__2_004", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "He was released two weeks before you noted probable jurisdiction but seven months after, the notice of appeal was filed to this Court and as far as the mootness question is concerned in dealing with Sibron criteria, I would say that the military does know about these things.\nIt does have an effect.\nOne need only go into family court.\nI've seen the stack of requisitions from the military which have requested information because the child is asked to disclose it or otherwise he doesn't qualify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3681.847, 3699.723, 3700.992, 3702.71], "stop_times": [3699.723, 3700.992, 3702.71, 3713.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3681.847}, "reply_to": "14856__2_003", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__2_005", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Is that a violation of law in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3713.612], "stop_times": [3716.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3713.612}, "reply_to": "14856__2_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14856__2_006", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "It's not a violation because the law only says, the Court, the record shall not be open to indiscriminate public review, but the court in its discretion may reveal it to anybody and it is done both in civil service and in the military situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3716.003], "stop_times": [3729.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3716.003}, "reply_to": "14856__2_005", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__2_007", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "But you do.\nIt is clear, isn't it and you don't dispute that these appellant have been released from custody and was released from custody indeed before we noted probable jurisdiction, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3729.462, 3730.524], "stop_times": [3730.524, 3741.881], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3729.462}, "reply_to": "14856__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14856__2_008", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes, but I would say that the stigma is still bring it within the Sibron criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3741.881], "stop_times": [3743.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3741.881}, "reply_to": "14856__2_007", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__2_009", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes, I understand your argument in Sibron.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3743.905], "stop_times": [3746.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3743.905}, "reply_to": "14856__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14856__2_010", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "Yes, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3746.006], "stop_times": [3748.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3746.006}, "reply_to": "14856__2_009", "speaker": "rena_k_uviller"}
{"id": "14856__2_011", "conversation_id": "14856", "text": "The case is submitted.\nThank you for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_778", "start_times": [3748.387, 3749.238], "stop_times": [3749.238, 3751.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3748.387}, "reply_to": "14856__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__0_000", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Mr. Waldman in 231 International Longshoremen against the Ariadne Shipping Co.\nMr. Waldman you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [0.0, 11.955], "stop_times": [11.955, 15.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__0_001", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case brings up for review an order of the District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida which affirms a permanent injunction against picketing.\nThe picketing was of the kind that is generally known as area standards picketing.\nBy which we mean that a union which does not necessarily represent the employees in a particular establishment than in this case the union did not, but which does represent employees engaged in the same work in other establishments in the area pickets to publicize the failure of the employer to meet the wage standards or other employment conditions under which his own employees are being employed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [15.96, 19.724, 29.496, 34.233], "stop_times": [19.724, 29.496, 34.233, 60.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 15.96}, "reply_to": "15213__0_000", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_002", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Does that claim depend upon whether this record does or does not show the participation in Longshoremen work by American nationals not part of the ship's crew?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [60.884], "stop_times": [74.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 60.884}, "reply_to": "15213__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__0_003", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No, no.\nWe take the position Your Honor that record is quite clear and that there is no evidence to the contrary that there was participation by American nationals not part of the ship's crew, but we take the alternative condition -- alternative position that have the facts been otherwise and had the record been quite different from what it is and had the record disclosed which it did not, that all of the longshore work but admittedly longshore work was performed by members of the ship's crew than the National Labor Relations Board would still have exclusive jurisdiction and this Court's cases as I shall develop later dealing solely with shipboard relations, labor relations between the crew acting qua crew and the vessel have no applicability to longshore work and do not withdraw jurisdiction from the National Labor Relations Board over longshore labor disputes resulting out of operations wholly within the territorial confines of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [74.32, 77.016], "stop_times": [77.016, 137.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.32}, "reply_to": "15213__0_002", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_004", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "In other words, foreign-flag ship can't bring its own longshoremen as part of the ship's company and escape the reach of the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [137.044], "stop_times": [147.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.044}, "reply_to": "15213__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__0_005", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nAs I shall develop, it is no different from any foreign employer employing aliens wholly within the geographical jurisdiction of the United States to sift the Fiat automobile manufacturing company of Italy where to establish an automobile plant then Detroit and try to staff it wholly with Italian nationals as suppose is conceivable.\nWe have no question and that is what we urge upon this Court that in that situation, that operation would be subject to the federal labor laws as well as other federal regulatory laws, and we are in effect no different.\nThis is work not traditionally seamen's work.\nThis is work performed as much on shore as on ship.\nIt is work wholly within the geographical confines and the considerations which impel this Court to hold in the three cases relied upon by the Florida courts that shipboard labor relations are not within the jurisdiction of the labor board are totally absent here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [147.612, 148.436, 171.233, 183.511, 187.111, 190.187], "stop_times": [148.436, 171.233, 183.511, 187.111, 190.187, 207.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 147.612}, "reply_to": "15213__0_004", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_006", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "There maybe one remaining issue may their not which you assume to be resolved and assume to be a fact, and that is that longshoremen's work is involved here.\nNow, as I understand as they claim these ships carry no freight, no cargo, no automobiles anymore, and that what's involved here is simply carrying passenger suitcases onboard, didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [207.557, 221.766], "stop_times": [221.766, 233.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.557}, "reply_to": "15213__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_007", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [233.582], "stop_times": [233.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.582}, "reply_to": "15213__0_006", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_008", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "May there not be an issue as to whether or not that is traditionally work of the crew, the purser staff and so on of ship or whether it is necessarily longshoreman's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [233.674], "stop_times": [242.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.674}, "reply_to": "15213__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_009", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, Your Honor again, I have got to distinguish between what the record shows and what they contend.\nAnd again, I have to make an alternative contention.\nI have to say that on the basis of this record that point does not arise, but were the record to be otherwise, we would still take sharp issue with them.\nFirst, the record does show and it is the only testimony in the record that there was loading of cargo, automobiles, etcetera.\nThey claim the contrary; there is no evidence to that effect in the record.\nSecond of all however, they admit that there was the loading and unloading of baggage and there was the loading aboard of ship stores.\nThere is actually other work such as handling of lines that is traditionally longshore work and we pointed out particularly in our reply brief that this is work that the National Labor Relations Board has already traditionally and as a matter of it's rulings held to be longshore work, and it has done that on the basis of the industrial practice that prevails in this country.\nWe have cited for example the NLRB certification of the longshore unit in the port of New York, which is of course by far the largest port in the nation, and that certification in express terms applies to the loading of cargo including baggage and ship stores.\nWe have cited the case on the West Coast in which the board assumed jurisdiction over a jurisdictional dispute under Section 10 (k) involving expressly the handling of passenger baggage aboard a foreign cruise ship.\nAnd again on the basis of industrial practice where this is longshore work and is historically longshore work awarded this work to the employees represented by the Longshoremen's Union on the West Coast.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [242.531, 249.467, 252.135, 262.556, 270.184, 275.284, 282.534, 307.235, 327.784, 343.128], "stop_times": [249.467, 252.135, 262.556, 270.184, 275.284, 282.534, 307.235, 327.784, 343.128, 358.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.531}, "reply_to": "15213__0_008", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_010", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And you say line handling?\nLine handling is traditionally longshore work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [358.42, 360.383], "stop_times": [360.383, 362.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.42}, "reply_to": "15213__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_011", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes sir, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [362.104], "stop_times": [363.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.104}, "reply_to": "15213__0_010", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_012", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, I just couldn't physically be -- have been done by members of the crew because they couldn't get back aboard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [363.854], "stop_times": [369.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.854}, "reply_to": "15213__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_013", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Certainly as a ship is coming in unless they are going to jump ashore before the lines are cast ashore that has to be shore-based employees working is, and what's performed here and was I think here, this is where factually their wrong.\nIt was performed by shore-based terminal labor.\nActually, there is another record in another case which so indicates on these vessels and that is why we say, Yes, granted the facts as they say, they're still wrong but the facts are not as they say.\nAnd we would say Your Honor that if there is any real issue as to whether or not this work which was admittedly performed as longshore work, that is for the labor board to determine just as the labor board must determine threshold jurisdictional questions such as the status of employees, as supervisors or \u201cemployees\u201d within the meaning of act whether an organization is a labor organization within the meaning of the act.\nOtherwise, you have opened up the possibility of a state court, perhaps a hostile state court fashioning its findings in such a way as to exclude from the National Labor Relations Board that jurisdiction which Congress intended it to have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [369.084, 384.38, 389.007, 403.284, 431.238], "stop_times": [384.38, 389.007, 403.284, 431.238, 446.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.084}, "reply_to": "15213__0_012", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_014", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, a mere claim however doesn't take jurisdiction away from the Courts, does it?\nI mean that would violate everything that the Incres case and its companion's stand point which is the labor board doesn't have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the seagoing crew of foreign-flag ships.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [446.676, 450.51], "stop_times": [450.51, 463.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.676}, "reply_to": "15213__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_015", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [463.448], "stop_times": [464.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.448}, "reply_to": "15213__0_014", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_016", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And I think so far as the other crew of the ships.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [464.018], "stop_times": [466.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.018}, "reply_to": "15213__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_017", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [466.839], "stop_times": [466.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.839}, "reply_to": "15213__0_016", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_018", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And the mere claim that they are doing some sort of work that somewhere in the United States is done by somebody else except for the cruise ships doesn't take all jurisdiction away from the Courts I should say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [466.987], "stop_times": [478.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.987}, "reply_to": "15213__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_019", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, of course, then you get to the question of who decides it if the claim is well found.\nAt some point, you're starting off with the claim.\nSomebody has got to make a claim first in some form before they can be proof for deuced.\nLet's assume the claim is made that this crew is going inland several miles and picking up ship supplies out of a warehouse and doing work there and that has created a jurisdictional dispute, a labor dispute because this is traditionally teams to work under the teams just contract for that very establishment, and there's a dispute that arises then, a claim is made.\nI would have to say Your Honor that I would think that would be for the labor board to determine in the first instance.\nI suppose you can get frivolous claims, but I don't read the Court's decisions and Incres and Sociedad Nacional to say that when there is a dispute about the nature of the work whether it seamen's work or otherwise, that is a dispute to be determined judicially.\nI don't think those cases pose that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [478.465, 482.811, 484.94, 490.569, 511.326, 516.874, 532.851], "stop_times": [482.811, 484.94, 490.569, 511.326, 516.874, 532.851, 534.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.465}, "reply_to": "15213__0_018", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_020", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "There was no such thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [534.684], "stop_times": [535.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.684}, "reply_to": "15213__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_021", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's right Your Honor and I don't think the question has reached the Court but the answer is how I would say it would be determined which I emphasize is not presented in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [535.406], "stop_times": [545.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.406}, "reply_to": "15213__0_020", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_022", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What do you claim that the crew is doing longshoremen's work or that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [545.523], "stop_times": [549.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.523}, "reply_to": "15213__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_023", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [549.564], "stop_times": [550.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.564}, "reply_to": "15213__0_022", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_024", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- some independent shore based crew?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [550.317], "stop_times": [552.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.317}, "reply_to": "15213__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_025", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Both.\nThe record Your Honor and I emphasize the only record in this case of any evidence is the transcript of the hearing on the application for a temporary restraining order held three days after commencement of this action at which the respondents here as plaintiffs introduce no evidence whatsoever but as to which there was a single witness on this issue called by the union and the union's president who testified three things in essence and it's really only kicks up two pages in the record.\nFirst, that the signs were protesting or publicizing substandard wages; second, that the kind of work which was involved which they were protesting was longshore work, loading cargo, loading automobile, the ship stores, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [552.365, 554.79, 584.435], "stop_times": [554.79, 584.435, 600.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.365}, "reply_to": "15213__0_024", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_026", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Do you claim that even if it was the ship based crew that was doing this work that there is preemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [600.833], "stop_times": [608.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 600.833}, "reply_to": "15213__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_027", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes Your Honor, we do.\nBut the third point that I am --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [608.657, 609.964], "stop_times": [609.964, 610.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.657}, "reply_to": "15213__0_026", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_028", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "The side of Incres in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [610.767], "stop_times": [612.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.767}, "reply_to": "15213__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_029", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nIf I may just say the third --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [612.025, 613.729], "stop_times": [613.729, 614.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.025}, "reply_to": "15213__0_028", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_030", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And how about the third point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [614.398], "stop_times": [615.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.398}, "reply_to": "15213__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_031", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "The third point he said was, he was asked who is doing this now and he said partly the crew and partly American residents hired locally and specially for the occasion.\nSo that you -- now, the record does not disclose what combination these two groups worked out in performing it whether there was any functional division, how many they were of one group and how many of the other obviously we know in the nature of the case that handling of ships line, shore-based had to be done by employees other than the ship's crew.\nThere is no indication at all as to the functional commingling that was involved there, but there is in the record without contradiction that the two groups were involved.\nNow after -- the union threw out of course contended both that the issues were preempted by the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board and that they were abridgements involved in any attempt to enjoin this conduct of the union's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to publicize its disputes, and these issues were preserved for argued throughout.\nAfter a temporary restraining order was issued on the basis of the fact that this work performed for a foreign-flag vessel and after the trial court in the hearing ruled that there was no abridgment of free speech because this was a violative of Florida law, albeit, there was no evidence or claim of violence or obstructionism.\nNo attribution in evidence or in the record at all of any particular objective to the union's picketing let alone any illegal objective.\nNo indication by the Court as to what state rule of law, statutory or judge made was violated by the objective or type of picketing involved, merely the naked assertion that this was in violation of state law on the basis of this the Court rejected the free speech argument as well as the preemption contention raised by the union issued a temporary restraining order.\nOn interlocutory appeal raising the preemption question, the District Court of Appeal the firm the plaintiffs respondents here went back to the trial court, moved for summary judgment without any affidavits.\nThe union opposed on the grounds that there were factual issues to be developed.\nI assume the factual issues of Justice Stewart and Justice White have raised in the questioning here.\nThe trial judge granted the motion for summary judgment.\nAgain, we are granted a permanent injunction that was affirmed by the District Court of Appeals.\nWe are here now on a record that doesn't show a scintilla of evidence, not a line of testimony by a single witness on behalf of plaintiffs as to which a permanent injunction is now outstanding against any area standard to picketing, any substandard wage picketing on the part of this union that I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [615.46, 624.83, 649.768, 661.513, 687.232, 717.505, 727.194, 751.813, 766.476, 770.291, 776.85, 782.01, 787.442], "stop_times": [624.83, 649.768, 661.513, 687.232, 717.505, 727.194, 751.813, 766.476, 770.291, 776.85, 782.01, 787.442, 806.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.46}, "reply_to": "15213__0_030", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_032", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Say do you -- do you challenge the injunction in its entirety?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [806.4], "stop_times": [810.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.4}, "reply_to": "15213__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_033", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No Your Honor.\nThere are provisions of the injunction that relate to so called safety signs which at the time were also being displayed by the union.\nAfter the preliminary hearings and prior to the -- no, I'm sorry.\nAfter the hearings in the trial court, after the grant of the permanent injunction but before the appeal to the Florida Appellate Courts, the union expressly abandoned its objections to that portion of the injunction dealing with safety signs because the federal authorities have tightened safety regulations on foreign cruise ships touching American ports as well domestic ships and the union regard that this no longer important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [810.519, 811.712, 821.397, 827.423], "stop_times": [811.712, 821.397, 827.423, 851.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.519}, "reply_to": "15213__0_032", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_034", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What paragraph of the injunction that are considered to be valid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [851.891], "stop_times": [853.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.891}, "reply_to": "15213__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_035", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "One and two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [853.854], "stop_times": [854.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.854}, "reply_to": "15213__0_034", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_036", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "One and two, and you challenge both three and four?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [854.918], "stop_times": [856.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.918}, "reply_to": "15213__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_037", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, four as I read under some ambiguity, as I read the opinion of the District Court of Appeals, I think the District Court of Appeals intended to annul paragraph four in it's entirety, although that's not entirely clear.\nSo, it is really paragraph three of the numbered paragraphs that is an issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [856.926, 872.435], "stop_times": [872.435, 878.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.926}, "reply_to": "15213__0_036", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_038", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What if paragraph four was not annulled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [878.053], "stop_times": [879.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.053}, "reply_to": "15213__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_039", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "A fortiori, we would challenge that, that's even broader than paragraph three.\nAnd we would also challenge the preliminary unnumbered paragraphs which appear to be decreedal in nature, though they don't appear to be enjoining the union for many conduct.\nBut it is primarily paragraph three that is that issue.\nNow on the preemption point, it is our contention essentially that the considerations which led to this Court's decision in the seamen's cases have no bearing here.\nIn those cases, this Court was persuaded by not the possibility of a conflict with foreign law, foreign regulations, international treaties to which this nation was a party, but the inevitability of such conflict.\nThe relations between seamen and the ship necessarily continue wherever the ship goes throughout the high seas and that any port of call including ports in the United States and ports in the nation of registry.\nThey're kind in the nature of the case to be only a single set of laws governing this unitary relationship, a single union representing the crew.\nYou can't have separate unions depending on which port of the ship is in it any one moment, etcetera.\nAnd for these reasons, there has developed the law of the flag and the principle generally that as a pragmatic expedient that there being one law that must predominate the law of the flag will be that law, and it was this principle in effect that court invoked in the seamen's cases in saying that although the language of the National Labor Relations Act maybe sufficiently broad to cover this type of dispute absent any clearer expression of congressional intent, the Court would not assume that Congress intended to very so the general relations among the nations.\nNow this just doesn't apply at all when there is a longshore dispute even if exclusively the ship's crew were involved in performing the work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [879.769, 883.813, 895.292, 900.32, 918.834, 935.42, 949.694, 959.673, 964.796, 1004.924], "stop_times": [883.813, 895.292, 900.32, 918.834, 935.42, 949.694, 959.673, 964.796, 1004.924, 1012.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.769}, "reply_to": "15213__0_038", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_040", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Let me get it straight you -- I thought you said a moment ago that this picketing was as far as this record shows on the evidence was directed in both the ship's crew --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1012.97], "stop_times": [1025.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.97}, "reply_to": "15213__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_041", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1025.387], "stop_times": [1025.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.387}, "reply_to": "15213__0_040", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_042", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- and third party longshoremen work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1025.832], "stop_times": [1028.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.832}, "reply_to": "15213__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_043", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1028.145], "stop_times": [1028.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.145}, "reply_to": "15213__0_042", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_044", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1028.816], "stop_times": [1029.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.816}, "reply_to": "15213__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_045", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1029.488], "stop_times": [1030.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1029.488}, "reply_to": "15213__0_044", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_046", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well then, you don't agree Mr. Waldman or maybe I misread this footnote six in the Government's brief.\nThe Government's brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1030.29, 1036.523], "stop_times": [1036.523, 1037.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.29}, "reply_to": "15213__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_047", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Insofar --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1037.232], "stop_times": [1037.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.232}, "reply_to": "15213__0_046", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_048", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Says here, \u201cAmerican longshoremen will locally hire to do the longshore work and the union was seeking to carry its dispute to them.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1037.42], "stop_times": [1045.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.42}, "reply_to": "15213__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_049", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, that is correct partially.\nWe were objecting to whoever was performing the longshore work and on this record, it was two classes of people.\nInsofar as this footnote indicates that we were only -- we might have only been objecting to the work insofar as performed only by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1045.862, 1048.502, 1055.397], "stop_times": [1048.502, 1055.397, 1064.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.862}, "reply_to": "15213__0_048", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_050", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But we already answered this Mr. Waldman, but let me ask it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1064.439], "stop_times": [1067.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.439}, "reply_to": "15213__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_051", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1067.162], "stop_times": [1067.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.162}, "reply_to": "15213__0_050", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_052", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Even if the ship's crew were the only ones doing this longshore work --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1067.808], "stop_times": [1071.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.808}, "reply_to": "15213__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_053", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1071.997], "stop_times": [1072.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1071.997}, "reply_to": "15213__0_052", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_054", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "It'd still be here with us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1072.583], "stop_times": [1073.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.583}, "reply_to": "15213__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_055", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1073.798], "stop_times": [1074.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.798}, "reply_to": "15213__0_054", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_056", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1074.413], "stop_times": [1074.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.413}, "reply_to": "15213__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_057", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1074.686], "stop_times": [1075.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.686}, "reply_to": "15213__0_056", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_058", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Let's assume you're wrong on that, that and it was only the ship's crew, there is no preemption on your inquest in those cases.\nAssume that that is the law, then, what would should be the result if both the ship's crew and third parties are being picketed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1075.149, 1083.752], "stop_times": [1083.752, 1092.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.149}, "reply_to": "15213__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_059", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Then it should go to the National Labor Relations Board to determine how the combined set of facts and the considerations that apply to the combined set of facts yield a result consonant with the terms of the act and this Court's decisions beginning --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1092.878], "stop_times": [1111.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.878}, "reply_to": "15213__0_058", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_060", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well Mr. Waldman for that extent, then do you-- you do agree with this sentence in Footnote 6 to the Government's brief, were there any risk of improperly involving the ship's crew that could be accommodated in the first instance by the board in any proceedings before it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1111.234], "stop_times": [1129.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.234}, "reply_to": "15213__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_061", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Mr. Justice White has in his question assumed I was wrong on my primary legal thesis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1129.72], "stop_times": [1138.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.72}, "reply_to": "15213__0_060", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_062", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I am too, but I am dismissed here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1138.141], "stop_times": [1140.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.141}, "reply_to": "15213__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_063", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes.\nIf I make that same assumption, the reason I have to those, I didn't know whether that assumption implicit in your part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1140.005, 1141.01], "stop_times": [1141.01, 1146.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.005}, "reply_to": "15213__0_062", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_064", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "With that assumption but a mixed mixture of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1146.081], "stop_times": [1148.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.081}, "reply_to": "15213__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_065", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "With that assumption, I agree with Footnote 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1148.204], "stop_times": [1150.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.204}, "reply_to": "15213__0_064", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_066", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1150.972], "stop_times": [1151.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.972}, "reply_to": "15213__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_067", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Without that assumption and on my argument as it is, I disagree with Footnote 6 of the board's brief.\nPerhaps the board was burned a little too much in Incres in this withdrawing more than it should.\nI would not say that this should be a balancing of contacts in longshore disputes any more than the Court felt contrary to the position expressed both by the Department of Justice and the board in Incres that a balancing of contacts to some extent should apply in the seamen's case.\nI think the balancing of contacts if we're going to talk of that should be performed by this Court as it did in the seamen's case but with the opposite result.\nWe say the labor board does have jurisdiction, we would be here complaining if they decline jurisdiction whether the work were performed by the ship's crew or by a mixed group.\nThis work has no extraterritorial consequences.\nThe board's assumption of jurisdiction applies totally within American territories.\nThere is no indication in this record or in any brief that the -- any foreign nation has sought to regulate purely longshore labor disputes in ports of another country.\nThis would be contrary not only to the international law, the law of the flag and its converse, the law of territorial jurisdiction.\nIt is contrary to industrial reality throughout the world because when we emphasize this in our briefs, the longshoreman is not a uniquely American industrial creation.\nWe haven't cut out excised a portion of the normal seamen's trade and given it to some other group of people.\nThe longshoremen and the seamen are functionally and individually diverse in every country of the world in every major part of the world as far as I know.\nWe've cited international conventions, international labor enactments which apply to the work of a longshoreman, the loading and unloading of cargo.\nWe've cited domestic laws to the same effect.\nWe are dealing here with an American situation which parallels the international situation and in other countries as well, they expect to and do regulate their longshore labor disputes under their own laws no matter who is performing the work, and that is precisely what we say should apply here.\nWe have -- may I just raise one other point in connection with the record?\nNow this relates primarily to something that Mr. Justice White mentioned.\nIn terms of the state of the record, I do want to emphasize what we pointed out in our briefs that the District Court of Appeals in Florida seemed to view this case somewhat as the Government's Brief Footnote 6 does, it although affirming described the picketing as protesting the employment of American residents; perhaps I can say that is more favorable to us than need be.\nI merely emphasize that certainly the District Court of Appeal did not rest its decision on the ground that this was the foreign crew performing the work.\nThey seem to exclude the foreign crew as longshore labor or entirely in the District Court of Appeals opinion.\nThey rested exclusively on the fact that this was a foreign-flag vessel, so that we do not have a case where the state courts contrary to the record adopted the position urged by respondents.\nThis is not one of those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1151.541, 1162.211, 1168.528, 1187.409, 1201.942, 1214.381, 1219.191, 1224.958, 1239.29, 1247.976, 1259.113, 1266.896, 1276.258, 1287.375, 1290.363, 1313.132, 1317.651, 1322.114, 1347.936, 1357.504, 1365.977, 1382.248], "stop_times": [1162.211, 1168.528, 1187.409, 1201.942, 1214.381, 1219.191, 1224.958, 1239.29, 1247.976, 1259.113, 1266.896, 1276.258, 1287.375, 1290.363, 1313.132, 1317.651, 1322.114, 1347.936, 1357.504, 1365.977, 1382.248, 1383.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.541}, "reply_to": "15213__0_066", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_068", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "It sounds like the factual matters aren't very well taken care off, but we have to disagree with you on what the results should be if with respect to a ship's crew doing longshoremen's work, wouldn't there have to be some clarification in the facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1383.298], "stop_times": [1408.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.298}, "reply_to": "15213__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__0_069", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I would think Your Honors that they should still be reversal on the ground that this records shows without contradiction that this work was being performed at least impart by American residents hired locally.\nIn which case, we would urge that Footnote 6 of the Government brief correctly sets forth the result, namely that the NLRB still has jurisdiction in the first instance to consider that.\nAnd this is not the case where the record facts are in contradiction.\nThey're very clear as to what they show.\nRespondents may disagree, but respondents did not bring that disagreement to the trial court or to any other Florida state court in the form of evidence or the like.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1408.569, 1423.508, 1435.164, 1439.544, 1443.692], "stop_times": [1423.508, 1435.164, 1439.544, 1443.692, 1455.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1408.569}, "reply_to": "15213__0_068", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_070", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "The only problem that the Government's brief and in it stating the facts as it does in Footnote 6 is that it was filed many days before the respondent's brief and the Government wasn't aware of the claims, at least that the respondent was going to make in it's brief about that or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1455.803], "stop_times": [1473.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.803}, "reply_to": "15213__0_069", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__0_071", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's correct, that's correct Your Honor.\nNow, I just want to emphasize what I said earlier.\nIf one were to immunize the work performed by the ship's crew from labor board jurisdiction when that work is not seamen's work, when that work is performed within American territorial confines exclusively, when that work is performed on shore, then I think a Pandora's Box has been opened.\nThe ship's crew of foreign-flag vessels that traditionally paid well below American standards, their conditions generally are well below American standards, and there would be no problem at all in the ship went in port, assigning its crew to do terminal work, to do not only the loading and the unloading of the ship but to do the loading and unloading of the trucks, bringing in cargo or taking cargo away, to do ship repair work and dry dock, and as I say even to go inland and pick up supplies.\nAnd to me at least, it would be unthinkable but given a statute which is expressly designed to eliminate or minimize disruptive industrial disputes and to secure uniformity that the national board would be powerless to step in to the kind of labor disputes that would inevitably ensue in that kind of a situation.\nWe just think that it's perfectly clear that the board has and must have jurisdiction.\nAnd if I may just very briefly touch on the free speech point, this Court has held that in applying the constitutional protections of free speech to picketing.\nPicketing is free speech plus and therefore one must balance the union's rights to express and publicize its disputes and the states rights to control the plus element.\nBut in doing that, this Court has set forth certain conditions to circumscribe the state because there are constitutional considerations.\nFirst, the state must define the unlawful objective.\nSecond, the evidence must be federally reviewable and must support the conclusion that there has been this unlawful objective.\nAnd third, the unlawful objective must pass federal constitutional muster.\nFor example, the states may not demand contract privity as a necessary condition of picketing; that is an archaic economically unrealistic limitation of the boundaries of labor dispute and this Court as so held for 30 years.\nHere, there is no evidence.\nThere is no state articulation of the unlawful objective.\nThere is no state finding or conclusion or expression in any opinion as to what objective they do think the union had, and there is no indication what particular rule of law the union is supposed to have violated.\nThere is no opportunity for this Court or any court to pass upon the states standards because they never express.\nAnd we think that this record fails so abysmally to meet the standards of the Court has set in the picketing cases.\nIt almost reaches a due process point of the kind expressed in Thompson against Louisville and Gregory against Chicago and similar cases.\nUnless there are further question, if I had time, I would like to reserve that for rebuttal.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1473.417, 1477.765, 1483.01, 1509.662, 1543.698, 1569.497, 1573.687, 1587.958, 1598.067, 1606.284, 1609.678, 1617.383, 1623.185, 1637.743, 1640.295, 1643.676, 1657.424, 1664.141, 1671.386, 1679.482, 1683.075], "stop_times": [1477.765, 1483.01, 1509.662, 1543.698, 1569.497, 1573.687, 1587.958, 1598.067, 1606.284, 1609.678, 1617.383, 1623.185, 1637.743, 1640.295, 1643.676, 1657.424, 1664.141, 1671.386, 1679.482, 1683.075, 1683.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.417}, "reply_to": "15213__0_070", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__0_072", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Very well Mr. Waldman, thank you.\nMr. Leslie you may proceed whenever you're ready?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1683.791, 1687.014], "stop_times": [1687.014, 1690.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.791}, "reply_to": "15213__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_000", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice, honorable Justices; May it please the Court.\nThere is no longshoring here.\nThere is no cargo here.\nThere wasn't in 1966, there isn't in 1970 and if there was cargo here, if there were cars here, we'd have a different case.\nIn fact, we might even go so far to say maybe the injunction should be dissolved unless you want to increase Incres.\nThese aren't the facts before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1690.141, 1692.944, 1697.674, 1700.148, 1701.969, 1710.878, 1717.331], "stop_times": [1692.944, 1697.674, 1700.148, 1701.969, 1710.878, 1717.331, 1719.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.141}, "reply_to": "15213__0_072", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_001", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Where are the facts in the records?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1719.619], "stop_times": [1720.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.619}, "reply_to": "15213__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_002", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right, well that's what I want to point out Mr. Justice Stewart.\nSince I have had the privilege to represent this client since the first day which was the 23rd of May in 1966, the virtue who verified complaint, I feel it's my obligation to this Court to state all the facts and circumstances and to avoid any risk that this Court could be misled into a ruling on a basis of inaccurate facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1720.929, 1724.694], "stop_times": [1724.694, 1742.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.929}, "reply_to": "15213__1_001", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_003", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Of course, where confined to the facts of record and what we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1742.277], "stop_times": [1745.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.277}, "reply_to": "15213__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_004", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right, let me start with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1745.201], "stop_times": [1745.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.201}, "reply_to": "15213__1_003", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_005", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "made traditionally know which isn't very much in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1745.35], "stop_times": [1748.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.35}, "reply_to": "15213__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_006", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right, let me start with Tim Kaine's deposition.\nThis is a record at page 53-54.\nTim Kaine is a Vice President of Eastern Steamship Line.\nNow, this is in this case before you.\nIt's Mr. Gutman who had been the Union Attorney all the way through asking about the loading and unloading, and he says in the middle of the page about the ship's crew with the Bahama Star, what else do they do?\nAnd it goes on to say that the ship's crews are employed to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1748.125, 1751.228, 1754.424, 1758.276, 1760.199, 1771.442], "stop_times": [1751.228, 1754.424, 1758.276, 1760.199, 1771.442, 1774.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.125}, "reply_to": "15213__1_005", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_007", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Now where -- excuse me counselor, are you in the appendix on page 53?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1774.307], "stop_times": [1777.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.307}, "reply_to": "15213__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_008", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No, no.\nI'm in the record on page 53-54.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1777.519, 1778.113], "stop_times": [1778.113, 1781.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1777.519}, "reply_to": "15213__1_007", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_009", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Where is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1781.852], "stop_times": [1785.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.852}, "reply_to": "15213__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_010", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Inadvertently, I can't understand this.\nBut inadvertently, the deposition was left out in the appendix, this whole deposition testimony, although you'll find it related in the record.\nThe entire 25 -- 35 pages of questions by Mr. Gutman of Mr. Kaine have been left out of the appendix, but they are in the record.\nAnd let me read you from that because this is extraordinarily --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1785.629, 1787.518, 1794.756, 1805.215], "stop_times": [1787.518, 1794.756, 1805.215, 1808.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.629}, "reply_to": "15213__1_009", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_011", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "It's not a printed record is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1808.753], "stop_times": [1810.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.753}, "reply_to": "15213__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_012", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I beg your pardon.\nIn the printed record before this Court, yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1810.686, 1811.831], "stop_times": [1811.831, 1815.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.686}, "reply_to": "15213__1_011", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_013", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But not in the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1815.152], "stop_times": [1816.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.152}, "reply_to": "15213__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_014", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "It's not in the appendix --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1816.899], "stop_times": [1817.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.899}, "reply_to": "15213__1_013", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_015", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Pardon me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1817.565], "stop_times": [1818.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.565}, "reply_to": "15213__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_016", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- and I didn't realize that before -- until I got before you all today that that somehow was omitted, it must have just have been an error in my part because I didn't put together the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1818.036], "stop_times": [1825.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.036}, "reply_to": "15213__1_015", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_017", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, it's up to the parties to get to the end of the appendix what they want to bring to the attention to the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1825.221], "stop_times": [1829.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.221}, "reply_to": "15213__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_018", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's right Your Honor but I understand Mr. Justice Stewart, according to the rules that it is still before the Court, even if not including appendix.\nI believe if you also obtain --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1829.656, 1835.913], "stop_times": [1835.913, 1835.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.656}, "reply_to": "15213__1_017", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_019", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Now, if you also relied with the Court but it does.\nI have met the rules before me but as I have -- because I have them in mind and recollect them, those rules may can come that upon the parties to put in to this printed appendix such parts of the record that the parties, they want to bring before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1835.99, 1838.937], "stop_times": [1838.937, 1853.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.99}, "reply_to": "15213__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_020", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well respectfully Your Honor, I check that rule because I saw that this wasn't here in the Rule 17 on page 15 of the Supreme Court rules and it says that everything in the record is before this Court.\nBut that's why I want to tell you what the facts are because this has been found three times as to this no cargo, no cars and therefore no longshoring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1853.191, 1863.217], "stop_times": [1863.217, 1873.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.191}, "reply_to": "15213__1_019", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_021", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, in doing so, you may represent properly only matters which are in the record itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1873.313], "stop_times": [1881.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.313}, "reply_to": "15213__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_022", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Surely Your Honor, and that is why I put the record at pages 53 and 54 which at pages 28 and 29 of the original transcript which I have and be reading from and unfortunately, I have not done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1881.171], "stop_times": [1892.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.171}, "reply_to": "15213__1_021", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_023", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "When is that before it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1892.609], "stop_times": [1894.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.609}, "reply_to": "15213__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_024", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes, it is Your Honor because it is in the record of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1894.172], "stop_times": [1898.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.172}, "reply_to": "15213__1_023", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_025", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "It's in the record on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1898.953], "stop_times": [1900.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.953}, "reply_to": "15213__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_026", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1900.963], "stop_times": [1901.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.963}, "reply_to": "15213__1_025", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_027", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And that record is on file but is not printed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1901.711], "stop_times": [1905.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.711}, "reply_to": "15213__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_028", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That part unfortunately was not printed with the appendix.\nIt is on file but not printed with the appendix.\nAnd Mr. Gutman ask exactly what the crews do and they went on and said about the passenger baggage and told about that area and the record page 54, page 29, they asked, \u201cWhat else that ship's crew does?\u201d\nAnd they say, \u201csome are employed the load stores.\u201d\nHe said, \u201cDoes that include food?\u201d\nAnd he said, \u201cyes.\u201d\nQuestion, \u201cIs that all sir?\u201d\n\u201cThat is all.\u201d\nNow, that's the point we're trying to make because Mr. Gutman, the Union Attorney, knew this very well because this is on this record on the 16th of August, 1966.\nHe recalled this case started with our injunction in May of 1966.\nBut even before that, there was a case called Easter versus Longshoremen.\nSame ships, same facts.\nAnd that same facts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1905.12, 1908.079, 1910.839, 1923.86, 1926.214, 1928.049, 1929.565, 1931.272, 1932.143, 1943.257, 1947.485, 1952.016, 1954.014], "stop_times": [1908.079, 1910.839, 1923.86, 1926.214, 1928.049, 1929.565, 1931.272, 1932.143, 1943.257, 1947.485, 1952.016, 1954.014, 1954.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.12}, "reply_to": "15213__1_027", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_029", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And what about this loading of stores?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1954.11], "stop_times": [1957.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.11}, "reply_to": "15213__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_030", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I beg your pardon Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1957.065], "stop_times": [1958.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.065}, "reply_to": "15213__1_029", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_031", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "The loading of stores, food, alcoholic beverages, all type of food beverages supplies of all nature, this is your idea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1958.359], "stop_times": [1968.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.359}, "reply_to": "15213__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_032", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1968.696], "stop_times": [1969.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.696}, "reply_to": "15213__1_031", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_033", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Of page 53?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1969.937], "stop_times": [1971.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.937}, "reply_to": "15213__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_034", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1971.262], "stop_times": [1972.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.262}, "reply_to": "15213__1_033", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_035", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Was that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1972.512], "stop_times": [1973.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.512}, "reply_to": "15213__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_036", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's true.\nThe ship's crew does that.\nThey take aboard the provisions of the ship; no doubt about it.\nAnd they also handle the baggage; no doubt about that.\nBut that's why I'm pointing out on these three different occasions not only this time, but three days before this Court in Eastern and that is why I put that in my brief because it was laid out so clearly there.\nIn there when Mr. Gutman asked the question about cargo, he was told by the same man again under oath, no cargo at all.\nAnswer, \u201cNo, Mr. Gutman has no cargo at all.\u201d\nQuestion, \u201cOn either vessel?\u201d\nAnswer, \u201cEither vessel.\u201d\nQuestion, \u201cDo you load or ship automobiles?\u201d\n\u201cNo, sir not anymore, I haven't done it for a long time.\u201d\n\u201cYou used to?\u201d\n\u201cDon't take charge either way.\u201d\nNow, there was a third time that Mr. Gutman and I won't bore the Court with the details, but there was a third time that this man was on a deposition again that was June '66, May, June and August, and he was asked again about cargo and again, there was nothing there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [1973.291, 1973.844, 1975.015, 1978.144, 1980.803, 1991.51, 1999.351, 2002.165, 2003.666, 2004.97, 2007.397, 2010.274, 2011.262, 2013.155], "stop_times": [1973.844, 1975.015, 1978.144, 1980.803, 1991.51, 1999.351, 2002.165, 2003.666, 2004.97, 2007.397, 2010.274, 2011.262, 2013.155, 2028.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.291}, "reply_to": "15213__1_035", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_037", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Is there uncontradicted testimony if they were American longshoremen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2028.227], "stop_times": [2032.916], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.227}, "reply_to": "15213__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15213__1_038", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2032.916], "stop_times": [2033.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.916}, "reply_to": "15213__1_037", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_039", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Likely do this operation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2033.349], "stop_times": [2034.735], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.349}, "reply_to": "15213__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15213__1_040", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No sir and I would like to read that testimony because I think that is very important.\nIn the transcript, the hearing, now this is 44 (a) of the appendix.\nIt starts with Cleveland Turner being sworn.\nApparently, this is somewhat of an omission here too because the first thing that Mr. Gutman asked was permission to proffer this testimony, but then Mr. Turner was sworn --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2034.735, 2040.052, 2043.499, 2046.917], "stop_times": [2040.052, 2043.499, 2046.917, 2055.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.735}, "reply_to": "15213__1_039", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_041", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What page in the appendix again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2055.351], "stop_times": [2057.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.351}, "reply_to": "15213__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_042", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "44.\nAnd when -- and let me give you one further fact on this that is going to be helpful in your understanding of what this testimony is.\nThere where at that time two ships involved, the Bahama Star which sailed out of Miami, that is Dade County, Florida.\nThe Ariadne, which is what's before you now, Bahama Star no longer operates.\nIt's not owned by this company, it's not even here.\nThe Ariadne operates out of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Port Everglades, 25 miles apart and I point that out because when you seer what Mr. Turner who newly took over this union, apparently, he succeeded the Judge Henderson.\nYou'll see that his testimony is only as to Miami and it's only as to the type of picketing.\nHe's asked at the bottom of page 44 specifically what type of work were you interested in.\nHe wasn't asked what work was done on that ship.\nHe wasn't asked whether there was cargo or cars, but what type of work were you interested in.\nAnd he says the loading of the ship; stowage, loading of automobiles, loading of cargo, ship stowage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2057.219, 2059.705, 2066.81, 2074.181, 2078.235, 2081.261, 2097.791, 2104.618, 2113.002, 2115.846, 2120.925], "stop_times": [2059.705, 2066.81, 2074.181, 2078.235, 2081.261, 2097.791, 2104.618, 2113.002, 2115.846, 2120.925, 2126.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.219}, "reply_to": "15213__1_041", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_043", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What about the question and answer to the top of 45?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2126.989], "stop_times": [2130.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.989}, "reply_to": "15213__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_044", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "45 he says, where these performed by employees of the ship?\nPart of it by employees of the ship and some of it but outside labor.\nThese words outside labor are the only words that give comfort to the union's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2130.709, 2134.926, 2139.287], "stop_times": [2134.926, 2139.287, 2144.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.709}, "reply_to": "15213__1_043", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_045", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, that's right now because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2144.135], "stop_times": [2145.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.135}, "reply_to": "15213__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_046", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right.\nWell, let me answer that.\nThat's why I pointed out Fort Lauderdale and Miami.\nIf you'll notice, I only asked him a few questions because I saw he had his days mixed up and I went down in here and this is question in the middle of the page and I said, \u201cThat's the one you've been enjoined\u201d, I mean enjoining the other cases.\n\u201cI mean did you have a sign saying the area and they paid substandard wages.\u201d\n\u201cMonday I didn't, but I had on the ship Monday in Miami.\u201d\nHe means the Bahama Star.\nThis is the first time we ever heard of wages.\nOur compliant asked for an injunction as to safety.\nBut even there, it shows that this, the Bahama Star in Miami, 25 miles different from Port Everglades and the Ariadne.\nAs far as we know, there was never a sign of this.\nBut what we're trying to say is this outside labor is not the fact in this case, and I go so far to say if there's a question outside labor, if you think that we hire people to do it, then that's why I said since I have been it since 1966, I have to bring the true facts to you at the risk of going outside the record, of course with your permission.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2145.555, 2146.098, 2147.787, 2150.472, 2164.716, 2169.559, 2174.431, 2176.28, 2178.431, 2182.423, 2190.518, 2193.795, 2213.771], "stop_times": [2146.098, 2147.787, 2150.472, 2164.716, 2169.559, 2174.431, 2176.28, 2178.431, 2182.423, 2190.518, 2193.795, 2213.771, 2213.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.555}, "reply_to": "15213__1_045", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_047", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, if you go outside the record, I remind you again it must be within the four corners of this transcript or else we don't want you to go outside the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2213.795], "stop_times": [2221.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.795}, "reply_to": "15213__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_048", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But Mr. Chief Justice, what I mean is if you think there is outside labor here, we'd ask that the case be remanded for further testimony.\nThere is not outside labor here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2221.818, 2229.973], "stop_times": [2229.973, 2232.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.818}, "reply_to": "15213__1_047", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_049", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "You mean in connection with the Ariadne?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2232.0], "stop_times": [2233.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.0}, "reply_to": "15213__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_050", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "In connection with either ships.\nI pointed out with Ariadne here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2233.968, 2235.819], "stop_times": [2235.819, 2238.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.968}, "reply_to": "15213__1_049", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_051", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "There is the testimony outside labor and I didn't see -- I didn't see that you are going to be used testimony the -- to contradiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2238.368], "stop_times": [2248.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.368}, "reply_to": "15213__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_052", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Frankly Your Honor, we didn't because it has never been raised until we came up here because there was never any question in the counsel's mind who was in Miami, nor in the judge's mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2248.35], "stop_times": [2257.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.35}, "reply_to": "15213__1_051", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_053", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What's the -- what did the state court say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2257.667], "stop_times": [2260.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.667}, "reply_to": "15213__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_054", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's why I'd like to further go with the sequence so you see what happened in this case.\nAfter we are at temporary injunction which of course is a fairly quick proceeding, then, and this is a verified complaint by the way Your Honors.\nIt wasn't as if there was no evidence before the Court, and the answer which came a few weeks later while after the order was entered was not verified.\nIt was just the denial.\nBut when it went to the appellate court, the appellate court affirmed on the basis of the same facts that there was no outside labor and this is what we have argued all the way through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2260.221, 2263.994, 2273.276, 2282.359, 2284.09], "stop_times": [2263.994, 2273.276, 2282.359, 2284.09, 2293.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.221}, "reply_to": "15213__1_053", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_055", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Where is that -- where is it that the state court say there was no outside labor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2293.012], "stop_times": [2299.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.012}, "reply_to": "15213__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_056", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I couldn't pull it out of the decision.\nBut as my understanding from arguing the case that they accepted opposition, I can't point to a word in there where they said there is no outside labor involved.\nI didn't mean to say that if I did.\nBut then this case came back again, and it came back again under our summary judgment procedure when we asked for a temporary injunction.\nWe asked for temporary injunction in May of \u201866 and then a permanent injunction March 31, 1967, nine months later.\nUnder our procedure, we have to allow a minimal of 20 days for hearings.\nWe have to allow the other side to put in affidavits.\nIf there was any cargo, if there are any automobiles, if there was any outside labor certainly of the side that had lost, the union would bring this in.\nBut there were no further facts because these have never been argued, because at that time, we were only talking safety.\nIf you notice the hand billing in there, that says the safety.\nWages never came up until a cold record was read, that's why I said I felt that my obligation since I had started this case in 1966 to try and tell you all of the facts.\nNow, this is March 31, 1967.\nThe order for a permanent injunction isn't until May 1, 1967 almost 11 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2299.68, 2302.401, 2311.196, 2314.808, 2323.862, 2335.187, 2338.928, 2342.409, 2353.2, 2359.906, 2363.416, 2374.352, 2378.065], "stop_times": [2302.401, 2311.196, 2314.808, 2323.862, 2335.187, 2338.928, 2342.409, 2353.2, 2359.906, 2363.416, 2374.352, 2378.065, 2383.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.68}, "reply_to": "15213__1_055", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_057", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Mr. Leslie , if I can interrupt you a moment.\nI didn't get the -- you are interested in telling us all the facts that record pointing out, all the facts of the record and you referred to pages in the original record showing that there was no outside labor involved here.\nI am afraid I did get those pages.\nI have the original record here in front of me now and I will be interested in getting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2383.954, 2386.272, 2398.259, 2399.978], "stop_times": [2386.272, 2398.259, 2399.978, 2403.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.954}, "reply_to": "15213__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_058", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No Your Honor.\nWhat I said or what I meant to say if I misunderstood -- if I didn't express myself clearly was that this was the only testimony as to outside labor.\nThis gentleman, Mr. Turner said outside labor, those words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2403.852, 2405.077, 2414.744], "stop_times": [2405.077, 2414.744, 2418.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.852}, "reply_to": "15213__1_057", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_059", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Plot wise, the only testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2418.461], "stop_times": [2420.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.461}, "reply_to": "15213__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_060", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2420.229], "stop_times": [2420.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.229}, "reply_to": "15213__1_059", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_061", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Plot wise, where does it appear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2420.895], "stop_times": [2422.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.895}, "reply_to": "15213__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_062", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Oh, it's his testimony Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2422.565], "stop_times": [2423.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.565}, "reply_to": "15213__1_061", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_063", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But where can I find it that you say is the only testimony as to outside labor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2423.685], "stop_times": [2428.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.685}, "reply_to": "15213__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_064", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "His testimony is in the appendix on page 45.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2428.347], "stop_times": [2430.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.347}, "reply_to": "15213__1_063", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_065", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes, well I have seen that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2430.886], "stop_times": [2432.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.886}, "reply_to": "15213__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_066", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Where he says some but -- by outside labor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2432.003], "stop_times": [2433.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.003}, "reply_to": "15213__1_065", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_067", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I've seen that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2433.992], "stop_times": [2434.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.992}, "reply_to": "15213__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_068", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2434.686], "stop_times": [2434.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.686}, "reply_to": "15213__1_067", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_069", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No, that's not my question to you at all.\nMy question is this.\nYou began early in your argument by saying that telling us that the record, the original record and here it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2434.837, 2436.588, 2437.568], "stop_times": [2436.588, 2437.568, 2443.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.837}, "reply_to": "15213__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_070", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2443.645], "stop_times": [2444.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.645}, "reply_to": "15213__1_069", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_071", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Shows that in fact there was no outside labor and I simply didn't get the pages of the original record to which you refer this.\nI am interested in getting those copies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2444.45, 2452.401], "stop_times": [2452.401, 2453.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.45}, "reply_to": "15213__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_072", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No sir.\nI meant to say there was no cargo, there was no cars, and I took that on the original record from what I have as page 28 and 29 which is the record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2453.141, 2453.706], "stop_times": [2453.706, 2466.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.141}, "reply_to": "15213__1_071", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_073", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "28 and 29?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2466.286], "stop_times": [2467.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2466.286}, "reply_to": "15213__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_074", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- which is the record page 53-54.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2467.492], "stop_times": [2470.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.492}, "reply_to": "15213__1_073", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_075", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But now, which is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2470.014], "stop_times": [2471.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.014}, "reply_to": "15213__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_076", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Both of those pages.\nThat is the two pages that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2471.443, 2472.929], "stop_times": [2472.929, 2474.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.443}, "reply_to": "15213__1_075", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_077", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Page 28 and 29 and pages 53 and 54?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2474.473], "stop_times": [2477.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.473}, "reply_to": "15213__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_078", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's right.\nI think I just right you down --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2477.773, 2478.703], "stop_times": [2478.703, 2478.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.773}, "reply_to": "15213__1_077", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_079", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Now that past information I have has one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2478.814], "stop_times": [2481.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.814}, "reply_to": "15213__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_080", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- 28 and 29 of the original deposition.\nThat is the record, pages 53 and 54.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2481.459, 2484.054], "stop_times": [2484.054, 2486.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.459}, "reply_to": "15213__1_079", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_081", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "So you are referring me to the same thing; 28 and 29 is the same thing that I defined on 53 and 54.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2486.903], "stop_times": [2493.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.903}, "reply_to": "15213__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_082", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes sir, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2493.657], "stop_times": [2494.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.657}, "reply_to": "15213__1_081", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_083", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "It's 28 and 29 of the original deposition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2494.385], "stop_times": [2496.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.385}, "reply_to": "15213__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_084", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2496.991], "stop_times": [2497.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.991}, "reply_to": "15213__1_083", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_085", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- which is 53 and 54 of the original record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2497.371], "stop_times": [2499.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.371}, "reply_to": "15213__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_086", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Right, which I just respectfully can't explain why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2499.711], "stop_times": [2502.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.711}, "reply_to": "15213__1_085", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_087", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, I have it here.\nI just wanted to get the pages.\nThat's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2502.761, 2503.434, 2504.588], "stop_times": [2503.434, 2504.588, 2504.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.761}, "reply_to": "15213__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_088", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right.\nBut our point is since we have this all the through, three times that there were no cars, no cargo, there is no longshoring.\nThere's no one to hire and what is before this Court is basically the case as it was before Incres, and I would like to go down some more of the factual part to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2504.801, 2505.928, 2513.479], "stop_times": [2505.928, 2513.479, 2528.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.801}, "reply_to": "15213__1_087", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_089", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "What about all the machinery on the dock and the man to handle it?\nHe was dock side wasn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2528.347, 2533.247], "stop_times": [2533.247, 2534.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.347}, "reply_to": "15213__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_090", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Your Honor, there is no machinery in the dock.\nThere's no man to handle it.\nThere are no hoists --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2534.916, 2536.974, 2539.667], "stop_times": [2536.974, 2539.667, 2540.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.916}, "reply_to": "15213__1_089", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_091", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I meant in this record here that there was a man that was hired specifically to make sure that the machinery, the belts and all didn't breakdown, am I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2540.091], "stop_times": [2551.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.091}, "reply_to": "15213__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_092", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Respectfully, I don't know where that is, I know of no such machinery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2551.917], "stop_times": [2554.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.917}, "reply_to": "15213__1_091", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_093", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "On the series?\nMy brother Stewart gets away with it.\nI'll help you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2554.781, 2556.189, 2557.877], "stop_times": [2556.189, 2557.877, 2561.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.781}, "reply_to": "15213__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_094", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "There are no hoist, there are no cranes, there is no cargo hatches.\nThese are three and four day cruises to Nassau and sometimes await cruise to the various ports there.\nBut what I want to show again about the time sequence was the injunction May of '66, the summary judgment asking for a permanent injunction in '67, 11 months later.\nWhen he grants this, when Judge Lee grants this May 1, 1967, then the union has 10 days to ask for rehearing.\nThey did this, that's May 9, 1967.\nIt went all the way until September 1967, 16 months later before the rehearing was denied.\nAgain, no affidavit by the union, no fact; no fact of cars, cargo, outside labor.\nWhat we are saying is the only words in here that this case could be reversed on respectfully are Cleveland Turners words on page 45, some of it by outside labor.\nHe didn't say American residence, he didn't say union, he didn't say non-union, he said outside labor.\nAll the way to here in for years, there's been no contention on this because those are the facts, and that's why I went so far opening statement to say if you had any idea these were the facts, remand this case for testimony.\nI'll even go so far as to say if we've carried a car in four years dissolve injunction as the cars, if we've carried cargo, it doesn't happen.\nWe are talking about 15 room stewards on the Ariadne.\nThese people stay with the passengers throughout the trip.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2561.364, 2565.606, 2572.478, 2583.676, 2592.381, 2596.383, 2602.571, 2610.41, 2621.96, 2630.138, 2642.626, 2651.277, 2656.183], "stop_times": [2565.606, 2572.478, 2583.676, 2592.381, 2596.383, 2602.571, 2610.41, 2621.96, 2630.138, 2642.626, 2651.277, 2656.183, 2658.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2561.364}, "reply_to": "15213__1_093", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_095", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Are any of the residents of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2658.731], "stop_times": [2661.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.731}, "reply_to": "15213__1_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_096", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "They are all foreign crew members.\nAs far as these room stewards go --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2661.186, 2662.856], "stop_times": [2662.856, 2663.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.186}, "reply_to": "15213__1_095", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_097", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No, they're all board or any of them reside in this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2663.181], "stop_times": [2665.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.181}, "reply_to": "15213__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_098", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "None of the room stewards and I cannot relate every crew member.\nSome of the other crewmembers might.\nIt's nowhere in the record.\nIt's only that they're totally foreign crews.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2665.736, 2669.132, 2670.916, 2672.494], "stop_times": [2669.132, 2670.916, 2672.494, 2673.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.736}, "reply_to": "15213__1_097", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_099", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "There's none of the citizens here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2673.853], "stop_times": [2676.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.853}, "reply_to": "15213__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_100", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I don't think so, but I hesitate on that because that has never been raised because they were under the Liberian articles and they were signed as foreign crewmen and they worked as foreign crewmen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2676.431], "stop_times": [2687.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.431}, "reply_to": "15213__1_099", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_101", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, the opinion as the Florida District Court of Appeals says that the facts tended to show the following that the union was attempting to inform the public that the American residents who were working on the cruise ships were being paid substandard wages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2687.363], "stop_times": [2707.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.363}, "reply_to": "15213__1_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_102", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Mr. Justice White --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2707.023], "stop_times": [2707.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.023}, "reply_to": "15213__1_101", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_103", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I think if they are referring not to the room stores or anybody but I think that they're referring to some American residents who are doing longshoremen's work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2707.162], "stop_times": [2717.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.162}, "reply_to": "15213__1_102", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_104", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All I can say is they adopted the union position and they adopted the words American residents.\nYou'll never see the words American residents in this transcript.\nI mean in the record anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2717.572, 2723.807, 2726.879], "stop_times": [2723.807, 2726.879, 2727.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.572}, "reply_to": "15213__1_103", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_105", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well then, I don't -- but here's the Florida court they say we've look to the testimony, the testimony tends to show the following that there were American residents working on the cruise ships.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2727.54], "stop_times": [2738.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.54}, "reply_to": "15213__1_104", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_106", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, we could never explain that.\nAll I can say as they said those words.\nIt's not in the record.\nTheir decision as has been all the way through five court's now.\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2738.839, 2741.34, 2743.439, 2744.491, 2747.882], "stop_times": [2741.34, 2743.439, 2744.491, 2747.882, 2748.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.839}, "reply_to": "15213__1_105", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_107", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I think it though that they couldn't have been saying suggesting that part of the crew that some members of the crew were American residents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2748.0], "stop_times": [2756.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.0}, "reply_to": "15213__1_106", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_108", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "If they were Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2756.169], "stop_times": [2756.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.169}, "reply_to": "15213__1_107", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_109", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "You do deny it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2756.807], "stop_times": [2757.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.807}, "reply_to": "15213__1_108", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15213__1_110", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "If they were, they were guessing.\nAll I checked so I could represent this to you because it's not in the record was these 15 room stewards.\nThey're foreign.\nI didn't check every one of the -- I think it is 180 crew members to see if they're foreign.\nThey all were hired foreign as foreign crew members; they are all under foreign articles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2757.871, 2759.392, 2765.654, 2766.609, 2771.884], "stop_times": [2759.392, 2765.654, 2766.609, 2771.884, 2776.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.871}, "reply_to": "15213__1_109", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_111", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "We'll Mr. Leslie if you will look at the 52 (a) which I believe is what Mr. Justice White is looking at, the Florida court did not say that there was any evidence of American residents.\nThey said the union was attempting to inform the public that there were American residents involved.\nIt is not a suggestion of fact but merely a statement of what the union was claiming to be the fact that justifies it's picketing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2776.476, 2790.108, 2797.958], "stop_times": [2790.108, 2797.958, 2806.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.476}, "reply_to": "15213__1_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_112", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Apparently, the union has said that Your Honor.\nWe find that nowhere in the record, we don't think it's factual.\nIt's just as the union has said throughout that there were American longshoremen, but those words are never in the record.\nThey're relying on the two words outside labor by Cleveland Turner who we say is mistaken.\nWe're saying that the judge on a verified complaint saying this was a passenger ship and on the testimony of deposition of Tim Kaine that all the crew was doing was baggage and ship stores that this is enough to sustain in our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2806.342, 2808.66, 2812.22, 2818.372, 2823.835], "stop_times": [2808.66, 2812.22, 2818.372, 2823.835, 2837.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2806.342}, "reply_to": "15213__1_111", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_113", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Who handles the lines on the dock when the ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2837.299], "stop_times": [2840.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.299}, "reply_to": "15213__1_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_114", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well, that was interesting Mr. Justice Stewart when you ask that because there has never been any handling of lines in the case.\nI have no ideas.\nI agree with you.\nSomebody have to do it from there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2840.027, 2847.061, 2848.09, 2849.085], "stop_times": [2847.061, 2848.09, 2849.085, 2851.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.027}, "reply_to": "15213__1_113", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_115", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "For where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2851.776], "stop_times": [2852.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.776}, "reply_to": "15213__1_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_116", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But my note on when you asked that question before and the opposing counsel replied is that there is no handling of lines.\nI don't know.\nI am sure lines are throwing off.\nIf they're throwing off the longshoremen, I don't know.\nIt's certainly never been in our case.\nAs a matter of fact right before that as long as I'm addressing this to Your Honor, you hit the what we thought was the point of our case exactly was that here as an interest.\nYou have a foreign crew doing acts and there is never been any doubt of that, and the only acts of their doing that could be in contention are the 50-feet that they move the baggage from the customs area to the gangway, everything else was aboard ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2852.73, 2859.415, 2860.371, 2862.601, 2866.324, 2869.236, 2885.342], "stop_times": [2859.415, 2860.371, 2862.601, 2866.324, 2869.236, 2885.342, 2900.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.73}, "reply_to": "15213__1_115", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_117", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Well with respect to this question I just asked you, it couldn't possibly be aboard ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2900.342], "stop_times": [2904.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.342}, "reply_to": "15213__1_116", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_118", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2904.366], "stop_times": [2904.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.366}, "reply_to": "15213__1_117", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_119", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Because if you are aboard --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2904.678], "stop_times": [2905.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.678}, "reply_to": "15213__1_118", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_120", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "They have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2905.089], "stop_times": [2905.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.089}, "reply_to": "15213__1_119", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_121", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "the ship, you can't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2905.189], "stop_times": [2905.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.189}, "reply_to": "15213__1_120", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_122", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- to leap off the ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2905.746], "stop_times": [2906.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.746}, "reply_to": "15213__1_121", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_123", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "-- be on the dock and somebody has to be on the dock to handle the lines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2906.463], "stop_times": [2910.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.463}, "reply_to": "15213__1_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_124", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's never come up in this case, but I agree there must be someone in the dock.\nI don't sell it could be ship's crew.\nWell, they theoretically sure they could because we have a long pile of both, they could go in that way, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2910.134, 2914.354, 2916.837], "stop_times": [2914.354, 2916.837, 2921.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.134}, "reply_to": "15213__1_123", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_125", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Be very in most rig and dig corporation to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2921.633], "stop_times": [2924.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.633}, "reply_to": "15213__1_124", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15213__1_126", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right.\nI just -- I don't think its' possible.\nI think what have to be somewhere or other than the ship's crew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2924.629, 2924.982, 2927.021], "stop_times": [2924.982, 2927.021, 2931.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.629}, "reply_to": "15213__1_125", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_127", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But I don't know that it's relevant Mr. Leslie , but it is not unknown for a ship in considering itself in a hostile port so send a line crew aboard by attainder, ashore by attainder.\nNow, I don't suppose we can speculate on that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2931.846, 2946.853], "stop_times": [2946.853, 2950.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.846}, "reply_to": "15213__1_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_128", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No that was point respectfully Mr. Chief Justice is that we can't speculate on that.\nBut, this isn't a hostile port.\nThis is work that has always been done by these people.\nI heard the comments of counsel about what happened in Europe and other places.\nIt doesn't happen here, and that's why I want to tell this Court what these room stewards do.\nWhen someone comes to the ship, they buy a ticket and they are on a dock there, and they have hand baggage.\nThey don't have steamer trunks, they are not going to Europe, and this room steward comes down asking what room their in and he carries their bags to 50-feet, that's in this record that Tim Kaine testified to, the 50-feet from a customs area to the gangway, up the gangway into their room.\nThe same room steward is with these people throughout the trip.\nHe moves the bags when they get ready to get off, whether it's in Nassau or foreign port, to the rail and down on the gangway, and then maybe 50-feet in the customs area.\nNobody else goes into the customs area.\nThere just isn't any longshoring in this case.\nWell, I've heard longshoring out my ears and there isn't any longshoring.\nThere aren't any cargo carriers.\nThere isn't any longshore of men employed, and I don't mean to make that point so strongly and I would like to go down some of the points that were raised in opposing counsel's argument.\nWhen Mr. Chief Justice Burger asked, he received this comment from counsel that foreign-flag ships can bring their own longshoreman and avoid the board.\nWell, if he will agree to that, heavens, we haven't even done that.\nWe've just brought our crew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [2950.442, 2954.754, 2956.685, 2959.062, 2963.389, 2968.624, 2975.257, 2991.083, 2994.825, 3006.357, 3008.795, 3011.204, 3016.443, 3018.689, 3033.293, 3043.328, 3047.12], "stop_times": [2954.754, 2956.685, 2959.062, 2963.389, 2968.624, 2975.257, 2991.083, 2994.825, 3006.357, 3008.795, 3011.204, 3016.443, 3018.689, 3033.293, 3043.328, 3047.12, 3047.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.442}, "reply_to": "15213__1_127", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_129", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Of course Mr. Waldman did not agree with that.\nMr. Waldman said if you bring your own longshoremen your still -- those longshoremen are subject to the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3047.317, 3049.643], "stop_times": [3049.643, 3054.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.317}, "reply_to": "15213__1_128", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__1_130", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Oh, I misunderstood of him because that's even further than we would go.\nWe just have a crew.\nIt does one thing.\nIt takes orders from its foreign officers who tell it its responsibilities.\nAnd unlike American crews, it works probably a longer day.\nWages, I don't know if these people get more or less, the record is bear of this.\nThe unions never told you about wages.\nThey've never said that our people get more or less.\nThere are no facts like this before Your Honors.\nIt's a guess, a conjecture.\nI conjecture we get more.\nI don't know.\nIf these were the facts again in the 16 months from a temporary injunction which naturally is granted a little bit in haste, in those 16 months couldn't some of these facts been brought up?\nWe suggest that the only reason why this case is here is that of a union says we have the titled union and we want to organize people and therefore, we'll try it on these ships in spite of Benz, in spite of McCulloch, Sociedad, and in spite of Incres, and there's no use to argue Your Honor what those cases held.\nI can see from your questions that they are even six years old, their vivid in your mind.\nAnd under Incres, you can't do what they're doing.\nSo they try and get away from Incres and say this isn't a ship's crew.\nThis is longshoremen.\nAnd your questions point that out.\nIt's not longshoremen.\nIt's the ship's crew that is almost --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3054.605, 3059.455, 3060.279, 3061.262, 3066.328, 3070.762, 3076.64, 3079.024, 3081.768, 3084.359, 3086.25, 3087.964, 3089.375, 3100.735, 3120.741, 3125.061, 3127.974, 3131.315, 3132.858, 3134.658, 3136.085], "stop_times": [3059.455, 3060.279, 3061.262, 3066.328, 3070.762, 3076.64, 3079.024, 3081.768, 3084.359, 3086.25, 3087.964, 3089.375, 3100.735, 3120.741, 3125.061, 3127.974, 3131.315, 3132.858, 3134.658, 3136.085, 3138.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.605}, "reply_to": "15213__1_129", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_131", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Can I ask you one and two questions and see if I can get my mind here.\nI don't quite understand quite the difference between here.\nSuppose you are wrong and the facts which they say are true, should you win or lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3138.673, 3144.713, 3148.459], "stop_times": [3144.713, 3148.459, 3156.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.673}, "reply_to": "15213__1_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_132", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No.\nIf I am wrong on the facts, if they are American residents doing longshoring work, if it's not the crew, then I've got a good chance to lose.\nThe only way I could win then is for you people to say as you said in Incres that well it is still basically a foreign crew.\nBut that is why I go so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3156.958, 3157.616, 3166.829, 3175.048], "stop_times": [3157.616, 3166.829, 3175.048, 3175.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3156.958}, "reply_to": "15213__1_131", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_133", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And now you say that you are right on the facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3175.988], "stop_times": [3178.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.988}, "reply_to": "15213__1_132", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_134", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3178.794], "stop_times": [3179.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.794}, "reply_to": "15213__1_133", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_135", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Although, they are not printed in this printed parts; now what do you ask us to do to find out who's right on the facts?\nIs there any part of the records that is before us that we can tell who's right or wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3179.211, 3189.385], "stop_times": [3189.385, 3194.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.211}, "reply_to": "15213__1_134", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_136", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, what I would say to that is number one you take the verified complaint which says passenger ships and this three or four-day trips and nothing about cargo or anything like that.\nThen you go to the deposition of Tim Kaine which is not nearly as clear in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3194.888, 3206.24], "stop_times": [3206.24, 3210.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3194.888}, "reply_to": "15213__1_135", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_137", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Where is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3210.335], "stop_times": [3211.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.335}, "reply_to": "15213__1_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_138", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's the part that we had so much trouble with the record that the pages 20 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3211.368], "stop_times": [3216.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3211.368}, "reply_to": "15213__1_137", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_139", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's the part --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3216.676], "stop_times": [3217.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.676}, "reply_to": "15213__1_138", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_140", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's the pages --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3217.426], "stop_times": [3217.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.426}, "reply_to": "15213__1_139", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_141", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's the part which is type written here before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3217.516], "stop_times": [3219.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.516}, "reply_to": "15213__1_140", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_142", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's right, 53 and 54 of the record.\nAnd the reason why I quoted the other two types --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3219.692, 3222.145], "stop_times": [3222.145, 3224.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3219.692}, "reply_to": "15213__1_141", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_143", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Now, is that the part you're relying on 53 and 54?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3224.531], "stop_times": [3229.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.531}, "reply_to": "15213__1_142", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_144", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3229.099], "stop_times": [3229.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3229.099}, "reply_to": "15213__1_143", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_145", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Does that show all that you claim it shows and can we look at that page 53 and 54 and decide this disputed question between here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3229.718], "stop_times": [3240.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.718}, "reply_to": "15213__1_144", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_146", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Not as clearly as if when you also read 53 and 54.\nYou looked at the other two depositions of Tim Kaine under oath by Mr. Gutman where he sets his questions out little better.\nYou see, that's why we pointed out to this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3240.391, 3245.096, 3253.411], "stop_times": [3245.096, 3253.411, 3255.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.391}, "reply_to": "15213__1_145", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_147", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "And you claim that shows what, that don't talk likes you pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3255.462], "stop_times": [3258.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.462}, "reply_to": "15213__1_146", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_148", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "All right.\nThat shows that there was no cargo, but there were no automobiles, that the ship hadn't carried these.\nAnd therefore, there could be no longshoring work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3258.404, 3259.245, 3265.357], "stop_times": [3259.245, 3265.357, 3267.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.404}, "reply_to": "15213__1_147", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_149", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's the crucial point in your judgment in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3267.778], "stop_times": [3271.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.778}, "reply_to": "15213__1_148", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_150", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3271.274], "stop_times": [3272.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.274}, "reply_to": "15213__1_149", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_151", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "As to which side we should decide for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3272.092], "stop_times": [3274.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.092}, "reply_to": "15213__1_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_152", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "That's right.\nWe would ask that if you did not affirm this case that you remand it for that testimony because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3274.51, 3275.148], "stop_times": [3275.148, 3282.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.51}, "reply_to": "15213__1_151", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_153", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But why would we need the testimony if you say it is on these pages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3282.263], "stop_times": [3287.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.263}, "reply_to": "15213__1_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_154", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Because the clearest testimony is the Eastern versus Ariadne -- is the case where Eastern Steamship Lines was against this union.\nYou see these people took their signs --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3287.111, 3296.603], "stop_times": [3296.603, 3298.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3287.111}, "reply_to": "15213__1_153", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_155", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "But that's another case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3298.082], "stop_times": [3300.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.082}, "reply_to": "15213__1_154", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_156", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Yes Your Honor, but it has been considered by each of the courts so long as a companion case and Judge Lee when he decide this case was aware of the Eastern case and stated that he was aware of it.\nAnd of course, it's in the same Circuit Court in Dade County in the same court house, its public record and we would say judicial notice.\nBecause I can't express this strongly enough, the signs started out saying Eastern Safety Conditions.\nThey pasted over the sign and put the word Ariadne and put the word Bahama Star.\nThey didn't even change their signs.\nThey were not aware of Incres, they were not aware of the foreign-flag cases.\nThey said that they just have the wrong defendant when they had Eastern; that's the ships agent.\nYou would think Eastern own the ships probably if you just looked at sales brochure that says our general agents.\nThat's why I'm trying to show you the sequence of this over these four years because the facts are so clear and the record only has these little bitty parts, the outside labor contention that the union relies on and our two pages of deposition and our verified complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3300.02, 3311.953, 3318.152, 3326.318, 3332.916, 3334.786, 3339.114, 3343.253, 3348.718], "stop_times": [3311.953, 3318.152, 3326.318, 3332.916, 3334.786, 3339.114, 3343.253, 3348.718, 3365.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3300.02}, "reply_to": "15213__1_155", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_157", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Is there any other part of the record which we could ask the court below to send to us that was absolutely dispute between you two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3365.824], "stop_times": [3376.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.824}, "reply_to": "15213__1_156", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15213__1_158", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "The other two depositions which I have in my brief taken by the same attorney, Mr. Gutman for a union for the same man Mr. Tim Kaine, and that's the part I read.\nNo cargo, not at all.\nNo cars, not at all.\nWithout cars and cargo, you have no longshoring -- Mr. Justice White asked in spite of Incres, if the crew did this, could that get around Incres?\nThat's our point exactly.\nThe crew is doing this.\nYou said in Incres, foreign-flag ships, foreign crews that is a little area that has been carved away.\nThat's taken out of the preemption.\nThat's exactly our position.\nI can't even say it as well.\nAnd also Footnote 6 of the Government's brief, we didn't have the Government's brief when we wrote our brief, and consequently, I wrote to the Government and said heavens, how can you write this kind of a brief?\nAnd I was fortunate in getting back two letters from the Solicitor General Mr. Griswold saying if under Footnote 6, it was the crew, then there might be a different result and he put it very, very clearly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3376.716, 3386.723, 3388.658, 3390.419, 3407.276, 3408.71, 3410.07, 3418.032, 3419.682, 3421.959, 3428.049, 3441.707], "stop_times": [3386.723, 3388.658, 3390.419, 3407.276, 3408.71, 3410.07, 3418.032, 3419.682, 3421.959, 3428.049, 3441.707, 3460.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3376.716}, "reply_to": "15213__1_157", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_159", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3460.281], "stop_times": [3462.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.281}, "reply_to": "15213__1_158", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_160", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "The two letters --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3462.586], "stop_times": [3462.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3462.586}, "reply_to": "15213__1_159", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_161", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Is that in either the appendix or this type written record or is it in this Court room at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3462.692], "stop_times": [3469.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3462.692}, "reply_to": "15213__1_160", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15213__1_162", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "No Your Honor.\nThose were letters, the first one is dates December 30, 1969, the second one was send up to me when I got here was dated January 1, 1969.\nThe last sentence says we have made it clear in Footnote 6 of our brief that if the facts are as you have stated the result might have been different.\nThat's the point that Your Honors brought up on Footnote 6.\nWe say that is the case and we say it has been through five courts, a judge for a temporary injunction, an appeal that for that same judge 12 to 16 months later, another appeal.\nIf the facts were different and I was on the losing side, certainly, I would have brought in those facts.\nBut they're not, and that's why I said to begin with, I didn't want this Court to possibly be misled because it isn't as clearer record as it could be.\nIt never is in a temporary injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3469.498, 3470.627, 3478.901, 3487.007, 3490.522, 3501.569, 3507.045, 3515.72], "stop_times": [3470.627, 3478.901, 3487.007, 3490.522, 3501.569, 3507.045, 3515.72, 3519.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3469.498}, "reply_to": "15213__1_161", "speaker": "richard_m_leslie"}
{"id": "15213__1_163", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Thank you Mr. Leslie.\nYou have one minute Mr. Waldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3519.263, 3520.563], "stop_times": [3520.563, 3523.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3519.263}, "reply_to": "15213__1_162", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15213__2_000", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "I can't do too much in a minute but may I just make these brief points.\nMr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Stewart asked the question about handling of lines.\nMr. Leslie 's memory failed him because of the deposition of Mr. Kaine's in the Eastern case, not in this case and I don't think it is properly before the Court, but it is there on pages 12 and 13 of that deposition.\nMr. Kaine said, \u201cThe handling of lines is done by a shore side employees; not by ship's crew by a shore gang\u201d so that is in the record of the Eastern case.\nBut this Kaine deposition baffles me.\nThis is a deposition taken in a lawyer's office in another case that apparently somehow is filed in this case; I can't see the slightest procedural way that it ever came to the attention of the Court in this case.\nI see no reference to it in any motion preserving order, statement by the Court or by counsel, I don't think the judge was ever aware of it, I don't see how any counsel can argue to a Court let alone the Supreme Court that facts are established by a deposition taken in another case by a lawyer in his office that never comes to the attention of a Court.\nYour Honors I won't trespass any further.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3523.347, 3526.946, 3532.45, 3548.355, 3556.635, 3559.606, 3573.192, 3594.583, 3596.53], "stop_times": [3526.946, 3532.45, 3548.355, 3556.635, 3559.606, 3573.192, 3594.583, 3596.53, 3596.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3523.347}, "reply_to": "15213__1_163", "speaker": "seymour_m_waldman"}
{"id": "15213__2_001", "conversation_id": "15213", "text": "Thank you Mr. Waldman.\nThank you Mr. Leslie.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_231", "start_times": [3596.707, 3597.739, 3598.601], "stop_times": [3597.739, 3598.601, 3601.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3596.707}, "reply_to": "15213__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__0_000", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "The state board of education, where we left off yesterday afternoon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [15.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__0_001", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI will conclude argument for the respondents in this manner.\nI would like to call the Court's attention to an article written by Professor Charles Allen Wright in connection with speech to be delivered on Vanderbilt University campus on October 1969 entitled \u201cThe Constitution on the Campus.\u201d\nThis is one of the Oliver Womble Holm series and I think that it is one of the best written articles I have ever read and I recommend it to the Court if they haven't already seen it.\nIn it though, Professor Wright basically wound up by saying that expression can be restrictive, if at any time, if material substantially interferes with a normal procedures of the university or with the wraps of other.\nNow, it is our contention that the basic issue involved here is just the action that this student has been accused and found guilty of committing based primarily under his First Amendment rights.\nYesterday --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [15.559, 18.232, 24.677, 42.507, 54.175, 72.252, 89.521], "stop_times": [18.232, 24.677, 42.507, 54.175, 72.252, 89.521, 91.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 15.559}, "reply_to": "15159__0_000", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_002", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "There were additional findings of the violation for regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [91.057], "stop_times": [97.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.057}, "reply_to": "15159__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15159__0_003", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere was a finding that he had committed a misdemeanor and found guilty in court in violation of the student handbook which had been a specific charge against him in addition.\nThey also found that he lied to the committee while before ti and openly before it and I might say this, it is not only just, he just told the president of the effect that he was lying in front of this outstanding faculty group and other students and even the press was present when this happened which compounded the disrespect that he showed to president on this occasion.\nYesterday, I had the feeling that there was some question in the mind of perhaps Associate Justice Marshall in regard to why this action on the leafleting or the boycott literature didn't result in any kind of a serious incident.\nI didn't called the Court's attention to this but I would like to do it this time.\nMr. Jones at the time that he passed out this leaflet had already been temporarily suspended from school.\nHe was not on the campus at that time as a student.\nWhen he passed out this literature he was awaiting his hearing to see whether or not he would be admitted in the full term or not.\nThis literature was passed out on August 18, 1967 which according to the calendar which you have in the appendix in the student handbook part of it which begins on page 175 of the joint appendix, a calendar of the school.\nHere, you'll find that this was the last day of final examinations for the last term of the summer quarter.\nWhen he did this, the baccalaureate services follow that by two days and school was out then until the following term started.\nThat is the reason there was no more commotion following it.\nHowever, I direct your attention to the fact that this was followed -- itself following by just a couple of weeks or so, arrived on the campus and tensions were high.\nNow admittedly, the faculty hasn't in it's findings written out that as a result of this literature been passed out on the final examination day that John Smith came to him and said, \u201cWell, that bothers me and I couldn't correctly answer one of the questions on the examination\u201d or anything like that, but they found it as a matter of their interpretation.\nThey were there on the campus.\nWe're not talking about some rural constable or something like that that might be found in my home county of Pickett.\nWe're talking about nine of the outstanding members of the faculty on Tennessee State University's campus.\nWe're talking about the vice president Maritus (ph), who was the Chairman of the Faculty Advisory Committee with 30 some years of experience there as a school administrator.\nWe are talking about Dr. J.A. Payne who acted because of Dr. Boswell's poor health as the presiding officer over this faculty advisory meeting with the great many years of experience on the campus and as being the students.\nWe're talking about the dean of women and the dean of men.\nSchool administrators, practically all if not all of them hold doctorate degrees and had the combined experience of well and in excess of 100 years there on the campus, that's who we're talking about, substituting the judgment on as to what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [97.263, 97.978, 109.663, 133.906, 150.724, 156.231, 163.106, 167.521, 176.372, 197.986, 205.055, 215.165, 218.105, 229.741, 254.608, 256.757, 264.632, 272.319, 282.394, 296.976, 301.369], "stop_times": [97.978, 109.663, 133.906, 150.724, 156.231, 163.106, 167.521, 176.372, 197.986, 205.055, 215.165, 218.105, 229.741, 254.608, 256.757, 264.632, 272.319, 282.394, 296.976, 301.369, 315.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 97.263}, "reply_to": "15159__0_002", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_004", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Supposing this temperate document that had been passed around speaks exactly about diversity.\nWhat would you say about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [315.917, 331.243], "stop_times": [331.243, 333.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.917}, "reply_to": "15159__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15159__0_005", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I should call the events --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [333.103], "stop_times": [333.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 333.103}, "reply_to": "15159__0_004", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_006", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "-- still a justice on the [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [333.758], "stop_times": [337.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.758}, "reply_to": "15159__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15159__0_007", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes sir and I think it would be all together a different situation.\nI think you could perhaps of even gone across the street a little ways to centennial park and got up on a bench and maybe made a speech on it and it would have been somewhat different.\nHere, it is calculated to do one thing, calls unrest and tried to prevail his ideas and his desires on to the student body there.\nHe had already been suspended.\nHe -- it wasn't a matter for him not to register.\nHe was trying to ask everybody else to join with him because his conduct had caused him to be suspended where he wasn't permitted to continue during the summer quarter and was called on them to do so.\nNow as to the type of thing that was in this makes very important.\nThere was really more to it than just boycott.\nSo far as it being designed to create unrest and we got to keep in mind now that this was fall on a period of great deal of disturbance on the campus where property was destroyed and people were injured.\nSome of the things that he says for example anything that give the puppets, I'm talking about school administrators now.\nThat's a reference that he makes to them.\nHe calls them puppets throughout this.\nI want to adapt civilized tactics used by the man and that sort of thing.\nThen he goes on with words like \u201cdoes the campus will become a concentration camp controlled and contained by the legislation of the raciest dogs' downtown.\u201d\nThe acts of the puppet administrators here at the end referring to these people for whom he had already been advised that he was going and have to come and clearance have with before he could be re-enrolled.\nThe Billy clubs and guns of Nashville's raciest cops and ultimately the gestapo tactics of the honorable National Guard whose pale faces have already been seen in Memphis, Nashville.\nWe as intelligent black students will not be guarded by trampling parialist idiots who call themselves administrators.\nNow that's what he's saying about the school administrators.\nHe said earlier that he came down to Tennessee to go to school because he investigate and found that it was a great school and he wanted to go down there.\nYet in his first year there an 18-year-old boy, he conducts himself in such a way and has the all that has come out with something like this and talking this very school administrators whom he had chosen to go to earn an education.\nAnd he closed it then with this article and counts and brought and bribed heavy counts.\nCast your vote for student power.\nBoycott registration, September 23 and for as long as the puppet administration refuses to acknowledge that this is our university.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [337.679, 340.633, 350.052, 361.944, 363.376, 366.011, 377.408, 381.388, 383.801, 398.24, 406.556, 408.367, 410.964, 419.146, 429.854, 442.485, 456.268, 464.566, 468.197, 475.608, 489.329, 495.425, 498.239], "stop_times": [340.633, 350.052, 361.944, 363.376, 366.011, 377.408, 381.388, 383.801, 398.24, 406.556, 408.367, 410.964, 419.146, 429.854, 442.485, 456.268, 464.566, 468.197, 475.608, 489.329, 495.425, 498.239, 507.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 337.679}, "reply_to": "15159__0_006", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_008", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What do you mean by the boycott part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [507.585], "stop_times": [510.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.585}, "reply_to": "15159__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__0_009", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Registration.\nHe was -- they asked them not to come in and register for classes and just to freeze the university so to speak and to bring it to a complete start, that would be the effect of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [510.068, 511.196], "stop_times": [511.196, 523.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 510.068}, "reply_to": "15159__0_008", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_010", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And when was this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [523.038], "stop_times": [525.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.038}, "reply_to": "15159__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__0_011", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "This happened on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [525.469], "stop_times": [526.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 525.469}, "reply_to": "15159__0_010", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_012", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "-- that they handed out this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [526.556], "stop_times": [527.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.556}, "reply_to": "15159__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__0_013", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "On August the 18 to which was the last day of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [527.687], "stop_times": [531.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 527.687}, "reply_to": "15159__0_012", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_014", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Summer term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [531.816], "stop_times": [531.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.816}, "reply_to": "15159__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__0_015", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "-- summer term, yes sir, the -- they have two terms during the summer there and operate on the quarter hour basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [531.948], "stop_times": [539.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 531.948}, "reply_to": "15159__0_014", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_016", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Suppose in the -- they have forgotten to urge these boys and girls not to register, just used the childish, foolish, silly names but respectable people, what would you say about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [539.424], "stop_times": [556.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.424}, "reply_to": "15159__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15159__0_017", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "May it please the Court, I think that it was to be serious enough about urging the boycott, but you can't separate it.\nIt was all one article.\nHe did all of it for design for one purpose that the administrators found that it was for the purpose of disrupting the school, and that didn't entitle him to remain on the campus any longer as a result of it.\nNow, if the judicial branch is going to substitute its judgment for people of a character that I have described of this Faculty Advisory Committee, on this question of fact and really it is a question of fact of whether or not these things, these acts committed were tapped that would be disruptive on the school campus or were just playing free expression or not, and they found otherwise.\nNow if we're going to get into this field, where are we going to stop?\nWouldn't the next logical place be to examine the examination papers given to a student and the time of whether the professor you've given him a passing mark or not?\nAfter all, you can effectively expel in that way.\nIf he doesn't, then any practical any university in the country if he doesn't make his grades, he's not entitled to enroll the next quarter.\nYou could eliminate him in that manner.\nI just respectfully urge the Court to give some support and some credit to these men of outstanding ability and making the determination that it involves a factual matter and if you do so, I feel that the Court will affirm the action in it and I thank you for your kind attention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [556.801, 562.329, 563.504, 576.322, 607.12, 611.925, 623.178, 626.489, 634.993, 637.199], "stop_times": [562.329, 563.504, 576.322, 607.12, 611.925, 623.178, 626.489, 634.993, 637.199, 666.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 556.801}, "reply_to": "15159__0_016", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15159__0_018", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Mr. Boult, you have about nine minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [666.587], "stop_times": [672.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.587}, "reply_to": "15159__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_000", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [672.075], "stop_times": [672.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 672.075}, "reply_to": "15159__0_018", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_001", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [672.781], "stop_times": [676.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.781}, "reply_to": "15159__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_002", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, if those two convictions are to be considered, we have to reopen the entire disciplinary procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [676.877], "stop_times": [684.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 676.877}, "reply_to": "15159__1_001", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_003", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Is it in the record, any place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [684.459], "stop_times": [686.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.459}, "reply_to": "15159__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_004", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "They are mentioned at several places in the record Your Honor, page 48 for example and various other places.\nThe sequence on that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [686.731, 694.823], "stop_times": [694.823, 695.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 686.731}, "reply_to": "15159__1_003", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_005", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "If it is to be un-contradicted in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [695.934], "stop_times": [699.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.934}, "reply_to": "15159__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_006", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Certainly.\nHe was convicted and it was on appeal at the time the hearing was going on there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [699.508, 699.941], "stop_times": [699.941, 704.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 699.508}, "reply_to": "15159__1_005", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_007", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And it was a part of the charge against it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [704.868], "stop_times": [707.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.868}, "reply_to": "15159__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_008", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It was a part of the charge against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [707.038], "stop_times": [708.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 707.038}, "reply_to": "15159__1_007", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_009", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And it wasn't answered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [708.211], "stop_times": [710.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.211}, "reply_to": "15159__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_010", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "There was no conviction so to speak of the Faculty Advisory Committee on these charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [710.232], "stop_times": [717.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 710.232}, "reply_to": "15159__1_009", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_011", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well, it's not sufficient to discipline them, to be convicted in the criminal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [717.74], "stop_times": [724.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.74}, "reply_to": "15159__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_012", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I don't think the issues in the case Your Honor, I doubt it.\nIf I would to argue that point, if I thought the point were in the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [724.982, 729.724], "stop_times": [729.724, 733.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 724.982}, "reply_to": "15159__1_011", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_013", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Does it violate these rules found on pages 75 or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [733.203], "stop_times": [738.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.203}, "reply_to": "15159__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_014", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "The rule on being convicted of being the city to council leads to federal offense.\nI don't think it does because it was not filed, it was on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [738.988, 745.847], "stop_times": [745.847, 751.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 738.988}, "reply_to": "15159__1_013", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_015", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It was not found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [751.744], "stop_times": [753.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.744}, "reply_to": "15159__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_016", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It was not, the conviction was not found.\nThe cases were on appeal at the time of these procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [753.297, 756.095], "stop_times": [756.095, 758.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 753.297}, "reply_to": "15159__1_015", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_017", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "But that doesn't appear in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [758.923], "stop_times": [761.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.923}, "reply_to": "15159__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15159__1_018", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes it does, I believe Your Honor at page 48.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [761.137], "stop_times": [767.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 761.137}, "reply_to": "15159__1_017", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_019", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What is happened since?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [767.043], "stop_times": [770.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.043}, "reply_to": "15159__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_020", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I don't know Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [770.142], "stop_times": [772.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 770.142}, "reply_to": "15159__1_019", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_021", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "You don't know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [772.922], "stop_times": [774.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.922}, "reply_to": "15159__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_022", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "No I don't -- see this issue has really not been in the case throughout any of the lower courts because the Faculty Advisory Committee exonerated him on these charges.\nHe was not dismissed for school for having violated that particular rule.\nThe Chairman of the committee so testified, the charges make no mention about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [774.878, 790.415, 794.595], "stop_times": [790.415, 794.595, 799.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 774.878}, "reply_to": "15159__1_021", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_023", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "But that doesn't means they ignored it, that means they didn't -- they ignored it.\nThey didn't say they exonerated him on that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [799.644, 805.37], "stop_times": [805.37, 808.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.644}, "reply_to": "15159__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_024", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well, they did not dismiss him from school for that charge.\nThey're up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [808.769, 815.343], "stop_times": [815.343, 815.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 808.769}, "reply_to": "15159__1_023", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_025", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "-- to have it adequate other examples.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [815.536], "stop_times": [819.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.536}, "reply_to": "15159__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_026", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Possibly so.\nThey were half a dozen charges against him and of the three students involved in the whole thing, there were about 18 charges and there were only findings of shall we said guilt on a smaller number of these charges.\nWe assumed, it has been assumed up to this level always with the case that if Faculty Advisory Committee did not make a finding that a student had done what -- on a particular charge, then, they were not disciplining him for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [819.992, 821.052, 835.857], "stop_times": [821.052, 835.857, 854.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 819.992}, "reply_to": "15159__1_025", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_027", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "But is the conduct in which these criminal charges developed on the campus or off the campus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [854.961], "stop_times": [859.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.961}, "reply_to": "15159__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_028", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Off the campus, totally unrelated to campus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [859.685], "stop_times": [862.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 859.685}, "reply_to": "15159__1_027", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_029", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Do you suggest that he could not be dismissed laying aside the notice fact that he could not be dismissed for conduct off the campus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [862.099], "stop_times": [873.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.099}, "reply_to": "15159__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_030", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It depends on the conduct Your Honor.\nThis particular conduct, I would say not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [873.402, 875.455], "stop_times": [875.455, 879.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 873.402}, "reply_to": "15159__1_029", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_031", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [879.531], "stop_times": [880.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.531}, "reply_to": "15159__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_032", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Disorderly conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [880.879], "stop_times": [882.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 880.879}, "reply_to": "15159__1_031", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_033", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [882.174], "stop_times": [884.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.174}, "reply_to": "15159__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_034", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "As I recall the facts of the case, there are not of record, it was an argument with a police officer, leaves us vagrancy and disorderly conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [884.629], "stop_times": [894.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 884.629}, "reply_to": "15159__1_033", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_035", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Just an argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [894.732], "stop_times": [896.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.732}, "reply_to": "15159__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_036", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Just an argument.\nHe's coming out of his house.\nHe was well-known around town, was unpopular.\nHe was arrested on one of these general dragnet laws and I'm talking outside the record because this was -- this point would have developed, had it been in the case at the time but was not.\nThe vagrancy statute in Tennessee in which he was arrested has since been declared unconstitutional.\nAnd that disorderly conduct statute is similar to the one under consideration by this Court in the case of Gunn versus the University Committee.\nSo this particular conviction would probably be unconstitutional.\nMr. Roberts says -- he mentioned that the handing out of this leaflet falls around by couple of weeks; that is not true.\nHe mentioned that Mr. Jones had already been suspended at the time he handed out the offending leaflet.\nThe suspension was clearly unconstitutional on any of the lower court decisions on student's rights and with no notice, no hearing, no nothing, and ultimately, it was rescinded.\nHe was suspended on three vague charges, none of which were pressed later on in these proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [896.483, 897.023, 898.487, 900.589, 913.454, 917.992, 925.446, 935.271, 949.862, 957.789, 972.573], "stop_times": [897.023, 898.487, 900.589, 913.454, 917.992, 925.446, 935.271, 949.862, 957.789, 972.573, 985.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 896.483}, "reply_to": "15159__1_035", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_037", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Now the only findings against this man as I understand appear on page 31, at the bottom of the page 30 and top page 31 of the appendix, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [985.386], "stop_times": [998.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.386}, "reply_to": "15159__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__1_038", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [998.565], "stop_times": [999.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 998.565}, "reply_to": "15159__1_037", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_039", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Which consist of -- that's well ambiguous, but the only explicit thing is distributing literature, although it's on different occasions to promote unrest on the campus by such actions as distributing literature, designed for that purpose, that's one of the findings and the other is he didn't tell the truth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [999.985], "stop_times": [1020.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.985}, "reply_to": "15159__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__1_040", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "That's right Your Honor.\nIn dealing with the case, we have given the benefit of the ambiguity to the university and assume that it was about the literature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1020.794, 1024.242], "stop_times": [1024.242, 1033.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1020.794}, "reply_to": "15159__1_039", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_041", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1033.325], "stop_times": [1035.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.325}, "reply_to": "15159__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__1_042", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "If --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1035.627], "stop_times": [1035.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1035.627}, "reply_to": "15159__1_041", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_043", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "-- so far as they given the -- well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1035.798], "stop_times": [1038.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.798}, "reply_to": "15159__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__1_044", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "If on the other hand --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1038.762], "stop_times": [1039.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1038.762}, "reply_to": "15159__1_043", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_045", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It certainly finds it, it's certainly finds that he did that.\nDid he promoted unrest by distributing literature and the ambiguity is whether the findings include other ways in which he promoted unrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1039.387, 1042.57], "stop_times": [1042.57, 1053.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.387}, "reply_to": "15159__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__1_046", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes, and if there are other ways we would say that due process has been violated, because the man has not been told what he is being disciplined for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1053.473], "stop_times": [1065.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1053.473}, "reply_to": "15159__1_045", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_047", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Now he was charged, he was totally charge for including those criminal convictions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1065.433], "stop_times": [1069.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.433}, "reply_to": "15159__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15159__1_048", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes, but not convicted, not disciplined for it, not told that he had been found guilty of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1069.428], "stop_times": [1080.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1069.428}, "reply_to": "15159__1_047", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_049", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Are you arguing that a college would not have a right to expel a man if they caught him in an outright falsehood?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1080.184], "stop_times": [1092.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.184}, "reply_to": "15159__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_050", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I don't think that issue is in case Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1092.756], "stop_times": [1095.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1092.756}, "reply_to": "15159__1_049", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_051", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well, that's what they found him guilty of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1095.278], "stop_times": [1097.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.278}, "reply_to": "15159__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_052", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "They never charged him for telling falsehood.\nThey never even gave him a chance to say I didn't tell a falsehood.\nThey just came down one day and said you lied, you're gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1097.757, 1099.583, 1102.804], "stop_times": [1099.583, 1102.804, 1105.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1097.757}, "reply_to": "15159__1_051", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_053", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "But if the falsehood is committed as part of the response to other charges, do you mean to suggest they have to start all over and give them some new charges when they -- the very people sitting in the room have heard him commit what they regard as a falsehood?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1105.678], "stop_times": [1121.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.678}, "reply_to": "15159__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_054", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It's just to analogize to the outside world, it would a perjury proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1121.475], "stop_times": [1127.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1121.475}, "reply_to": "15159__1_053", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_055", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well, this isn't a criminal proceeding counsel.\nYou're trying to equate this to a criminal proceeding with all the constitutional protections of criminal proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1127.843, 1131.868], "stop_times": [1131.868, 1138.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.843}, "reply_to": "15159__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_056", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Not all Your Honor, I think at that the very least notice an opportunity to defend has been settled ever although this Court has not direct to pass on it, it has been considered to be settled since the Dixon case in 1961 or 1962.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1138.501], "stop_times": [1156.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1138.501}, "reply_to": "15159__1_055", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_057", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Are you arguing that if a man called up before the board of college administrators, that's a charge, and he delivered and falsifies in their presence on that the charges that they would not have a right to remove him from school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1156.178], "stop_times": [1173.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.178}, "reply_to": "15159__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_058", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Not at all Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1173.534], "stop_times": [1174.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1173.534}, "reply_to": "15159__1_057", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_059", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well, that's what they said here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1174.864], "stop_times": [1177.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.864}, "reply_to": "15159__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_060", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I'm arguing that if he deliberately -- if he is thought to have deliberately falsified something, they should charge him with that and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1177.011], "stop_times": [1186.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1177.011}, "reply_to": "15159__1_059", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_061", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "When you talk -- you mean to have to charge him in advance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1186.247], "stop_times": [1190.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.247}, "reply_to": "15159__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_062", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "At least --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1190.316], "stop_times": [1190.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1190.316}, "reply_to": "15159__1_061", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_063", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "The object of the school I would suppose is try to get the students who learn, take part in a regular business and I wouldn't suppose at least in the schools I went to, they were compelled to give me formal charges of anything if they want to get me up and they came to move me without formal charges, I would think.\nYou don't think so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1190.746, 1216.206], "stop_times": [1216.206, 1217.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.746}, "reply_to": "15159__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_064", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I don't think so Your Honor.\nI don't think the law has been so for the last six great years, although --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1217.353, 1218.568], "stop_times": [1218.568, 1222.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1217.353}, "reply_to": "15159__1_063", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_065", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What case has held to contrary, I'm just curious?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1222.819], "stop_times": [1226.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.819}, "reply_to": "15159__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_066", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1226.097], "stop_times": [1227.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1226.097}, "reply_to": "15159__1_065", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_067", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What case has held to the contrary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1227.2], "stop_times": [1230.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.2}, "reply_to": "15159__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_068", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Starting with Dixon versus Alabama State Board of Education, Knight versus State Board of Education.\nProbably, I would say 30 or 40 disciplinary cases in the meantime ending most recently or more recently was Cagen versus Lincoln Memorial University, Western District of Wisconsin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1230.22, 1238.706], "stop_times": [1238.706, 1254.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1230.22}, "reply_to": "15159__1_067", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_069", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Any of those in this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1254.011], "stop_times": [1255.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.011}, "reply_to": "15159__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15159__1_070", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "None of those in this Court Your Honor.\nA number of them approved in a footnote in Tinker, cited approvingly in the footnote in Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1255.836, 1257.313], "stop_times": [1257.313, 1265.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1255.836}, "reply_to": "15159__1_069", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_071", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "May I ask if that sentence of 31 is at the hearing, he demonstrated this indifference to the two by denying that he passed up such literature despite positive statements by cafeteria personal and the president of the university.\nMaybe he'd done so and my question is did the cafeteria personnel and the president of the university testify at his hearing in his presence that he had done so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1265.216, 1282.617], "stop_times": [1282.617, 1293.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.216}, "reply_to": "15159__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_072", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "The cafeteria worker testified at his hearing in his presence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1293.843], "stop_times": [1298.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1293.843}, "reply_to": "15159__1_071", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_073", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Was the cafeteria worker -- was he represented by counsel at the hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1298.056], "stop_times": [1303.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.056}, "reply_to": "15159__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_074", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Mr. Jones?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1303.132], "stop_times": [1303.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1303.132}, "reply_to": "15159__1_073", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_075", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1303.997], "stop_times": [1304.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.997}, "reply_to": "15159__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_076", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1304.228], "stop_times": [1304.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1304.228}, "reply_to": "15159__1_075", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_077", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And with that witness from the cafeteria cross examined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1304.879], "stop_times": [1310.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.879}, "reply_to": "15159__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_078", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes, and he was brought out that she was testifying that the leaflet was handed out three months before it was prepared, so that the testimony was rendered wholly incredible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1310.637], "stop_times": [1319.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1310.637}, "reply_to": "15159__1_077", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_079", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What about the president of the university, he testified at his hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1319.362], "stop_times": [1323.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.362}, "reply_to": "15159__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_080", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "He testified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1323.648], "stop_times": [1326.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1323.648}, "reply_to": "15159__1_079", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_081", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And was he cross examined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1326.423], "stop_times": [1327.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.423}, "reply_to": "15159__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_082", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "He was cross examined.\nIt appears in the record at page 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1327.347, 1329.744], "stop_times": [1329.744, 1334.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1327.347}, "reply_to": "15159__1_081", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_083", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well, then I don't quite understand your point that the charge was not or the fact of his lying or allegation that he would have lied.\nAs I gather, your point is that that was not a basis for the discipline that was imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1334.134, 1345.582], "stop_times": [1345.582, 1355.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.134}, "reply_to": "15159__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_084", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "He had never -- it was not a basis for the discipline to anyone's knowledge until the findings came out some 10 days after period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1355.008], "stop_times": [1364.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1355.008}, "reply_to": "15159__1_083", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_085", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Well was surely, he must have known that the hearing itself that the issue of his veracity was in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1364.627], "stop_times": [1374.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.627}, "reply_to": "15159__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_086", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Your Honor, the next event at the hearing after the president testified was Mr. Jones' testimony.\nHis testimony contradicted that of the president and it simply Mr. Jones, we presumed thought he was telling the truth.\nHe asserted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1374.789, 1382.496, 1392.37], "stop_times": [1382.496, 1392.37, 1393.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1374.789}, "reply_to": "15159__1_085", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_087", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Do you want us to reexamine the issue of credibility in this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1393.51], "stop_times": [1398.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.51}, "reply_to": "15159__1_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_088", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I don't think it's all necessary Your Honor.\nI think every examination of credibility --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1398.462, 1400.14], "stop_times": [1400.14, 1402.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1398.462}, "reply_to": "15159__1_087", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_089", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Yes, but the finding -- the finding of the committee was that we have no doubt that the student did not tell the truth.\nSo, as between his testimony and that of the president and the cafeteria worker, at least this committee resolved the question against the Jones, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1402.745, 1408.062], "stop_times": [1408.062, 1418.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.745}, "reply_to": "15159__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_090", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And when the -- yes, and when the question is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1418.255], "stop_times": [1420.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1418.255}, "reply_to": "15159__1_089", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_091", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "And you suggest that was not a basis for its action in imposing discipline?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1420.345], "stop_times": [1425.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.345}, "reply_to": "15159__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_092", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I don't think a man can be disciplined for defending himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1425.134], "stop_times": [1432.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1425.134}, "reply_to": "15159__1_091", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_093", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "You mean he's got a license to lie in his defense with impunity, could that be the essence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1432.503], "stop_times": [1439.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.503}, "reply_to": "15159__1_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_094", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "The essence is if he's accused of lying, he should have the chance to prove that whether he was or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1439.607], "stop_times": [1447.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1439.607}, "reply_to": "15159__1_093", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_095", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "That's the new proceeding you think like a perjury proceeding in the criminals case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1447.104], "stop_times": [1451.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.104}, "reply_to": "15159__1_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15159__1_096", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "I think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1451.877], "stop_times": [1453.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1451.877}, "reply_to": "15159__1_095", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_097", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What kind of school is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1453.974], "stop_times": [1455.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.974}, "reply_to": "15159__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_098", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "It's a state university for Negroes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1455.92], "stop_times": [1458.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1455.92}, "reply_to": "15159__1_097", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_099", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "State what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1458.848], "stop_times": [1459.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.848}, "reply_to": "15159__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_100", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "A state university for Negroes since --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1459.598], "stop_times": [1462.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1459.598}, "reply_to": "15159__1_099", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_101", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "How many people are on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1462.249], "stop_times": [1464.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.249}, "reply_to": "15159__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_102", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "By terms of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1464.974], "stop_times": [1466.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1464.974}, "reply_to": "15159__1_101", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_103", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Are the instructors colored or white?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1466.176], "stop_times": [1468.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.176}, "reply_to": "15159__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_104", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Largely, roughly 80% Negro I think, it has since been put under desegregation plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1468.246], "stop_times": [1473.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1468.246}, "reply_to": "15159__1_103", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_105", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "What was the president of the school who testified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1473.906], "stop_times": [1476.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.906}, "reply_to": "15159__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15159__1_106", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "He was Negro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1476.702], "stop_times": [1483.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1476.702}, "reply_to": "15159__1_105", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15159__1_107", "conversation_id": "15159", "text": "Thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1483.831, 1485.44], "stop_times": [1485.44, 1488.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.831}, "reply_to": "15159__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_000", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Number 731, Jones against the State Board of Education of Tennessee.\nMr. Boult you may precede whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [0.0, 12.389], "stop_times": [12.389, 19.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_001", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Associate Justices.\nThis case concerns a college student, not a school child, a college student, who was dismissed from State University for handing out one leaflet on the campus not in or about any classroom.\nThe issues break down into four.\nThe regulations involved prohibit disrespect for authority and any other conduct requiring severe discipline.\nWe contend that these are void for vagueness and over over breadth, primarily our First Amendment contention, the Fourteenth Amendment due process notice is also subsumed in the question.\nNext, we contend simply that they are void as applied, you cannot outlaw the distribution of literature or more specific to this case put somebody out of school for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [19.345, 23.154, 42.098, 46.147, 61.442, 76.388], "stop_times": [23.154, 42.098, 46.147, 61.442, 76.388, 93.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 19.345}, "reply_to": "15223__0_000", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_002", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "As I understand this record, there were six students who were dismissed or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [93.047], "stop_times": [101.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.047}, "reply_to": "15223__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15223__0_003", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Three in this package Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [101.942], "stop_times": [104.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 101.942}, "reply_to": "15223__0_002", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_004", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes.\nWhat happened to the other two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [104.142, 104.421], "stop_times": [104.421, 106.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.142}, "reply_to": "15223__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15223__0_005", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Certiorari was denied as to the other two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [106.687], "stop_times": [110.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 106.687}, "reply_to": "15223__0_004", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_006", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "So, we only have this one student in this one case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [110.675], "stop_times": [114.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.675}, "reply_to": "15223__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15223__0_007", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Douglas.\nThe three -- the four issues, three of the four issues were identical to all three petitioners.\nThe factual issue varied as to each of the three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [114.102, 116.798, 125.091], "stop_times": [116.798, 125.091, 128.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 114.102}, "reply_to": "15223__0_006", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_008", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "If we agree with you, then this distribution of leaflets [Inaudible] we have to reach the others, they don't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [128.053], "stop_times": [134.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.053}, "reply_to": "15223__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_009", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "You do not have to Your Honor.\nIn some cases, it's done for example Auburn v. Laurie (ph) held the Georgia statute both -- unconstitutional both on its face and as applied.\nThere is no choice between the two issues -- between the two approaches on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [134.571, 136.384, 146.199], "stop_times": [136.384, 146.199, 151.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 134.571}, "reply_to": "15223__0_008", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_010", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Oh, I'm thinking particularly on the issue that you -- I say you point to the vagueness, regulations whether we have to reach that if we in any event a conduct conduct is [Inaudible].", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [151.574], "stop_times": [166.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 151.574}, "reply_to": "15223__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_011", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "That's right Your Honor.\nI would suggest that in the way the First Amendment litigation is going nowadays, so many Dombrowski type actions, it -- the first point of reference is more often the facial unconstitutionality rather than the applicatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [166.65, 168.53], "stop_times": [168.53, 187.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 166.65}, "reply_to": "15223__0_010", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_012", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Is the link that you would turn with the distributing the representation for this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [187.963], "stop_times": [193.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.963}, "reply_to": "15223__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__0_013", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes.\nIt's plaintiff's exhibit six which appears at page 175 of the record.\nAnd the other two issues involved are due process issues, one having to do with the composition of panel and its conduct.\nIn fact, the advisory committee that is the University disciplinary committee, its confusion of functions being essentially everything and therefore inherently biased, presumptively biased.\nAnd I think in this case also biased as a matter of proof.\nAnd fourth, procedural due process time and type of notice and in fact that a new contention was brought in at the hearing, they found without ever bringing it up at the hearing, the hearing of the -- in fact, the advisory committee's findings said that the student had not told the truth at the hearing, of course, he never had the chance to rebut this.\nThe facts on the leafleting issue are very brief.\nHe handed it.\nHe was found to have handed out, that's plaintiff's exhibit six although there is considerable doubt whether he actually did hand it out or not, hand it to the president of the university.\nThe president was the only solid witness on this point.\nOne other witness testified that she saw him hand it out in the cafeteria.\nHowever, she testified that she saw him do this some two, three or four months before the leaflet was prepared.\nSo, we assumed that there is only witness against him, the president of the university and the president incidentally only testified that he received one personally.\nHe did not see it hand it to anyone else.\nJones himself mentioned that he offered one to the president of the student body, who didn't want it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [193.509, 196.815, 208.823, 219.68, 234.165, 240.751, 271.371, 275.836, 277.695, 290.469, 295.294, 300.318, 307.071, 318.878, 322.722], "stop_times": [196.815, 208.823, 219.68, 234.165, 240.751, 271.371, 275.836, 277.695, 290.469, 295.294, 300.318, 307.071, 318.878, 322.722, 331.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 193.509}, "reply_to": "15223__0_012", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_014", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "This plaintiff's exhibit six it's supposed to be on page 175 of this appendix here, this pagination is a bit confusing to me at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [331.399], "stop_times": [343.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.399}, "reply_to": "15223__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__0_015", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "The confusion of the pagination I believe Your Honor I suppose from the inclusion in the appendix of the student handbook --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [343.804], "stop_times": [350.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 343.804}, "reply_to": "15223__0_014", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_016", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [350.737], "stop_times": [351.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.737}, "reply_to": "15223__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__0_017", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "-- which runs from a 177 to a 178, but takes some seventy odd pages to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [351.955], "stop_times": [360.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 351.955}, "reply_to": "15223__0_016", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_018", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes, I see.\nI think I now have this.\nIt's on page -- well, the 175 marked in the upper right hand corner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [360.356, 361.246, 363.336], "stop_times": [361.246, 363.336, 367.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.356}, "reply_to": "15223__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__0_019", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Upper right hand corner yes sir --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [367.563], "stop_times": [370.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 367.563}, "reply_to": "15223__0_018", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_020", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Getting in the earlier to the civil rights movement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [370.637], "stop_times": [373.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.637}, "reply_to": "15223__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__0_021", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [373.735], "stop_times": [374.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 373.735}, "reply_to": "15223__0_020", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_022", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [374.448], "stop_times": [379.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.448}, "reply_to": "15223__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__0_023", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Also at the disciplinary hearing, there was no evidence presented whatsoever of disruption of the campus, eminent disruption, proposed disruption, suspicion to disruption, possible disruption, none, it was just not coming for it.\nAt the hearing in the District Court, there was no evidence of actual disruption.\nThe only evidence of possible or prospective disruption was the president of the university is, you know to use the phrase vague and undifferentiated fear just been taken.\nHe referred that as inflammatory, get students all stirred up, talking about other things.\nOh, there was one other bit of testimony on that, the Dean of Students objected that the students received the leaflet as they're walking across the campus, they would stop and read it.\nAnd the case, the disciplinary action was not taken until at least one month after the leaflet was handed out, so that this is not a case where we really need to rely on forecasts.\nThe idea of whether the -- on first issue, whether the void for vagueness doctrine should apply on the campus, I believe is aptly covered on the brief.\nI will only mention here that it just seemed inconceivable that it shouldn't.\nIt seems much more reasonable to me to apply it there where you got the people thinking about things, erudite, literally, scholarly, talented, to write rules than in the small towns that are held so rigidly to First Amendment standards as specificity in drafting their ordinances.\nAs to what the standard might be, I think the same approach as was taken in Dombrowski v. Pfister.\nDombrowski referred to the loyalty oath cases as setting forth an appropriate standard for other contexts.\nThis is really not much of a different context though because we're still on the campus, at least not that much of a different context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [379.048, 399.33, 407.873, 421.731, 426.861, 443.752, 465.88, 476.223, 484.5, 508.612, 516.994, 525.174], "stop_times": [399.33, 407.873, 421.731, 426.861, 443.752, 465.88, 476.223, 484.5, 508.612, 516.994, 525.174, 532.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 379.048}, "reply_to": "15223__0_022", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_024", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But aren't these regulations in a different category?\nThey're provided for an institution of learning, at least don't have the stature or status of the law, statute or city ordinance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [532.061, 535.85], "stop_times": [535.85, 547.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.061}, "reply_to": "15223__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_025", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "They have considerably greater effect on those who must live by them than say it's on the conduct statute which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [547.957], "stop_times": [555.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 547.957}, "reply_to": "15223__0_024", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_026", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But on the other hand, the people who were doing the drafting at least at the time and in the context in which they were originally drafting were probably proceeding on the assumption that these students were coming to these institutions to study and to learn, and they didn't give them perhaps the kind of detailed attention they would give them if they were rewriting them today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [555.168], "stop_times": [580.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.168}, "reply_to": "15223__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_027", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Your Honor, they -- I would hope they would give them more detailed attention if they're rewriting them today.\nThis hope will be one result of this case.\nThe regulations were revised every year though.\nThere were quite current at the time in 1967 and some of the regulations involved on the procedures followed by the disciplinary committee had been rewritten that very year.\nThe regulations were rewritten immediately after this case was brought.\nI do not know what the result is; perhaps the opposing counsel can help us on that.\nAnd whether we're talking about the facial or applicatory constitutionality of this situation, I think the case does have to be considered in light of what the university is first and it is considerably more than just a group of scholars and learners and second, in light of what is happening in universities today and as obviously, there is much unrest.\nVarious authorities have attributed this to the failure to extend constitutional rights in the universities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [580.323, 586.404, 592.288, 596.139, 611.002, 615.12, 628.891, 671.842], "stop_times": [586.404, 592.288, 596.139, 611.002, 615.12, 628.891, 671.842, 683.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 580.323}, "reply_to": "15223__0_026", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_028", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Is the leaflet that is in controversy on -- printed on page 175 of the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [683.962], "stop_times": [690.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.962}, "reply_to": "15223__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15223__0_029", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd I think we should also consider that this university, Tennessee State University as is true with so many of the smaller universities, state universities around the nation, trains a lot of teachers.\nAnd as this Court has recognized for many years, in the McLaurin v. Oklahoma, the training someone to be a leader and trainer of others.\nI rather say that they're educating someone to be a leader and educator of others, but I think it's more accurately stated the first way.\nAnd further that those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly effected by the education he receives.\nEducation that the students of Tennessee State University are receiving is not one calculated to make things sensitive to the demands of the Bill of Rights.\nI think this statement is accurate with regard to other state universities, like these another one before the Court right now in the record of Norton versus Disciplinary Committee of East Tennessee State University, petition for certiorari filed approximately a month ago.\nAnd it's our position that the full First Amendment canopy of rights should apply, in fact, must apply to students.\nIt has, as many student case, in this case, a college student case on his rights in this Court for many years, I think it's appropriate in this case to state that henceforth when they come, the issue will be whether or not the First Amendment has been violated and will be treated in the same terms as if it were a non-student case.\nThe tests under the First Amendment would be quite ample, either for vagueness overbreadth or for the actual activity, ample to deal with problems on the campus and no toe-test of preparing a group for violent or lawless or destructive or disruptive action and stimulant to that action is necessary before speech can be curtailed of the Brandenburg, Whitney, (Inaudible) test eminent lawless action must be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [690.393, 701.436, 719.525, 730.13, 739.782, 751.931, 765.9, 786.538, 802.66, 832.169], "stop_times": [701.436, 719.525, 730.13, 739.782, 751.931, 765.9, 786.538, 802.66, 832.169, 873.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 690.393}, "reply_to": "15223__0_028", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_030", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Would you say that the standards which you're challenging are not adequate to give warning that language used in the exhibit six about puppet fools and racist dogs and so forth address toward the university authorities is not covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [873.069], "stop_times": [903.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.069}, "reply_to": "15223__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_031", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "In other words that they would be -- that those words would be disrespectful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [903.581], "stop_times": [909.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 903.581}, "reply_to": "15223__0_030", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_032", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "You say that that does not give notice that the university would regard that as disrespectful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [909.515], "stop_times": [916.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.515}, "reply_to": "15223__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_033", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "I think a direct insult would generally be considered disrespectful.\nNow, the First Amendment voidness doctrines do not look to the specific conduct involved where over breadth is involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [916.436, 920.935], "stop_times": [920.935, 934.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 916.436}, "reply_to": "15223__0_032", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_034", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But if we were dealing a libel case under Times and Sullivan, I could understand your argument a little bit better that you -- under Times and Sullivan, you could call the president of the university or the Senator, almost anyone else a racist pig or what not with some considerable impunity, but this is not a libel case.\nThis is a situation or regulations that were trying to govern conduct, so that civilized people could function in the university complex without friction, without conflict with each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [934.324, 961.272], "stop_times": [961.272, 976.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.324}, "reply_to": "15223__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_035", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "I have never observed a university yet in which people functioned without friction, without conflict with each other, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [976.678], "stop_times": [983.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 976.678}, "reply_to": "15223__0_034", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_036", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Oh, they had existed in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [983.231], "stop_times": [986.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.231}, "reply_to": "15223__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_037", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Well, even when I went to and quite times 10 to 15 years ago was there, but more basically, the reason for Times v. Sullivan was the First Amendment and the reason a person under Times v. Sullivan can call one a racist pig or liar or whatever it was is the First Amendment.\nAnd that fact that it was a libel case, simply a fact of the case, as the fact that this is a student case is simply a fact of the case, we're relying on the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [986.557, 1010.559], "stop_times": [1010.559, 1022.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 986.557}, "reply_to": "15223__0_036", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_038", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Now in this Court, when a lawyer submitted, you've heard the oath many times and you took it yourself.\nIt's an oath to conduct oneself uprightly and according to law.\nNow suppose in the course of an argument, one counsel addressed another as a racist pig, do you think that would be beyond the reach of that rule because that rule is too vague, it's over broad that oath of office, the rule of conduct within the chambers of this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1022.035, 1027.348, 1033.669], "stop_times": [1027.348, 1033.669, 1052.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.035}, "reply_to": "15223__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_039", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "We do -- no and we don't contend and it is not contended generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1052.458], "stop_times": [1057.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1052.458}, "reply_to": "15223__0_038", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_040", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Well, the First Amendment prevails in this room --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1057.809], "stop_times": [1060.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.809}, "reply_to": "15223__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_041", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Certainly and we do not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1060.852], "stop_times": [1061.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1060.852}, "reply_to": "15223__0_040", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_042", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "-- and it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1061.52], "stop_times": [1062.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.52}, "reply_to": "15223__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_043", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "-- but we're talking about outdoors on the campus.\nWe're not talking about inside the classroom.\nWe're not talking about inside the court room.\nThe First Amendment in its prevalence, in its prevailing does take into account the circumstances.\nAnd if I should do that here, this is quite different from my writing it down and hanging out on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1062.756, 1066.277, 1068.495, 1071.326, 1079.929], "stop_times": [1066.277, 1068.495, 1071.326, 1079.929, 1091.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1062.756}, "reply_to": "15223__0_042", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_044", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But you couldn't write in a brief without getting into very grave trouble could you in this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1091.373], "stop_times": [1100.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.373}, "reply_to": "15223__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_045", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "I have such a difficult time conceiving myself writing it in the brief. [Attempt to Laughter]\nBut if the standard rules against scandalous and impertinent matter in pleadings and briefs would apply, and I should think it should be stricken --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1100.85, 1108.866], "stop_times": [1108.866, 1118.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1100.85}, "reply_to": "15223__0_044", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_046", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But the university can't have a rule like that for the conduct of students on the campus and buildings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1118.213], "stop_times": [1129.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.213}, "reply_to": "15223__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_047", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Not any different from say the city could have it on the streets.\nWe're not talking about inside the classrooms in the same sense that the city when it passes ordinances is not talking about in offices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1129.288, 1137.56], "stop_times": [1137.56, 1146.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1129.288}, "reply_to": "15223__0_046", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_048", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But if we disbarred a lawyer for this kind of conduct, that would be a pretty severe penalty, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1146.298], "stop_times": [1153.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.298}, "reply_to": "15223__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_049", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1153.678], "stop_times": [1154.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1153.678}, "reply_to": "15223__0_048", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_050", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "And I take it you more or less concede that we might to take very severe action against a lawyer who engaged in this kind of utterance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1154.597], "stop_times": [1163.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.597}, "reply_to": "15223__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_051", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "I really don't know Your Honor.\nI would -- my first assumption would be if it will be written, it would be immediately stricken with a rather harsh reprimand.\nIf it happened orally, I don't know.\nAnd on the third of the issues involved, the composition of the disciplinary committee, the issue illustrates a point that runs throughout the case.\nThe treatment of the issue in the Court of Appeals, the same court below including one of the same judges on the panel, says several years ago, the case for the American Sinemet case cited in our brief on confusion of functions and presumptive bias, not actual bias, which would seem to apply right down the line here.\nIt was not even mentioned in opinion, although the issue was amply raised and case cited.\nHere, we have a situation where the panel was just these students.\nThe sole witness for the panel was the reviewing authority with absolutely empower what the panel did, or the only essential witness.\nHe appointed the panel.\nOne of the other panel members has strong personal feelings about the person involved, not about the issue, that would not be a disqualifying matter, but about the person involved.\nThe student personnel committee overlapped with the disciplinary committee, therefore, it had done much investigation.\nThe Dean of Students, chairman of the committee had compiled a list and investigate it.\nIn fact, the advisory committee conducted an in-depth investigation itself of the students.\nThey drew the charges, they counseled the students, it called the witnesses and it presented documentary evidence and did not even follow its own rules as to how the matters should have been handled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1163.649, 1166.309, 1174.834, 1194.646, 1221.56, 1248.599, 1256.448, 1261.295, 1273.931, 1277.673, 1291.19, 1302.575, 1307.387, 1312.837], "stop_times": [1166.309, 1174.834, 1194.646, 1221.56, 1248.599, 1256.448, 1261.295, 1273.931, 1277.673, 1291.19, 1302.575, 1307.387, 1312.837, 1333.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1163.649}, "reply_to": "15223__0_050", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_052", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "You still have more time left counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1333.418], "stop_times": [1334.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.418}, "reply_to": "15223__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__0_053", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "I'll save the remaining time for the rebuttal if I may?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1334.436], "stop_times": [1337.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1334.436}, "reply_to": "15223__0_052", "speaker": "reber_f_boult_jr"}
{"id": "15223__0_054", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1337.084], "stop_times": [1343.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.084}, "reply_to": "15223__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__1_000", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1343.914], "stop_times": [1345.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1343.914}, "reply_to": "15223__0_054", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_001", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Mr. Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1345.999], "stop_times": [1346.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.999}, "reply_to": "15223__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15223__1_002", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "-- associate Justices.\nI want to first take care a little matter of the reply brief.\nIt was made in my brief in which it alleged that I had made some erroneous statements.\nOnly two points that I want to raise in connection to that.\nOne is to the effect that I have left the impression at least that the leafleting activity that this petitioner has been charged with and found guilty of was connected in some way with the arrival on the campus, Mr. Carmichael when ensuing riot that occurred.\nI am wrong about that and I apologize to the Court and to opposing counsel.\nThere had been a number of leaflets passed out at about this time and some of them before and that some after the riot occurred down the campus in the summer of 1967.\nThere was one of them for instance that demanded that the administration invite Mr. Carmichael there.\nThey later did and the riot did result.\nHowever, this particular leaflet which advocated and urged the student body to boycott registration at the school was passed out after the riot had occurred.\nNow, the second point that I would make in the reply brief is in regard to the charge against this petitioner of being in violation of city county or state laws.\nIt is urged here that by the words of Dr. Payne who was the Dean of Students and who presided over these hearings that he agreed that this was not used against the student and the hearings,. The record will not bear Mr. Boult out on that.\nI think he has failed to read the entire record in regard to it.\nWhat actually took place, Mr. Hedgepeth on page 12 of the transcript of the proceedings of the FAC hearing made it clear that we were, or the school was relying upon any disorderly conduct or conduct unfitting a student or any that violated the rule of the handbook there at the institution.\nFurther on and about 70 to 78, there were about eight-full pages where it was developed as to just what Mr. Jones had been convicted of and paid the fine in the Metropolitan Court IV.\nSo, those are the two points I want to raise on that.\nThe -- we have made two issues out of the four that the petitioner had.\nWe feel that there only two things involved, one is the entire matter of the procedure including the due process rights of these petitioners.\nAs stated earlier, there were five original petitioners, two of them were dismissed at the time of the hearing, I mean charges against them were dismissed.\nThe other three were found guilty of acts that warranted their suspension.\nNow, that's another thing that I want to make clear to the Court and that is the fact that these students were not expelled, they were suspended.\nThey have not -- this petitioner has not gone back to school and sought readmission since the suspension.\nI don't know whether the school would allow him readmittance or not.\nHis was an out of state student and he came down there and he did things that they felt to be and found to be disruptive.\nThis one piece of literature tried to impress his will upon the other students, for example and calls them not to register for school and thereby disrupt the entire procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1346.692, 1350.249, 1354.412, 1359.528, 1362.378, 1386.162, 1391.63, 1406.817, 1413.266, 1417.151, 1429.189, 1441.893, 1460.438, 1464.654, 1491.029, 1508.95, 1512.587, 1519.14, 1529.383, 1540.797, 1547.287, 1557.209, 1567.151, 1571.616, 1578.853], "stop_times": [1350.249, 1354.412, 1359.528, 1362.378, 1386.162, 1391.63, 1406.817, 1413.266, 1417.151, 1429.189, 1441.893, 1460.438, 1464.654, 1491.029, 1508.95, 1512.587, 1519.14, 1529.383, 1540.797, 1547.287, 1557.209, 1567.151, 1571.616, 1578.853, 1591.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1346.692}, "reply_to": "15223__1_001", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_003", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Is there anything the petitioner did other than to pass out that leaflet which is in there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1591.899], "stop_times": [1596.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.899}, "reply_to": "15223__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_004", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir.\nOne thing else that he did there in connection with the leaflet, he lied about it.\nHe said that he did not do it despite of the fact that the president of the university says he handed it me one himself right in front of the administration building and he had about 50 of them in his hands when he did it.\nLater down in the cafeteria testified that if there was some discrepancy about the date that she claimed that it was passed out, but she said there wasn't any question in her mind but that was the piece of literature was.\nShe went over and picked it up and read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1596.694, 1598.369, 1603.917, 1615.315, 1627.224], "stop_times": [1598.369, 1603.917, 1615.315, 1627.224, 1629.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1596.694}, "reply_to": "15223__1_003", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_005", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "With the exception of passing out the leaflet and lying about it, that's all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1629.312], "stop_times": [1633.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.312}, "reply_to": "15223__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_006", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "No sir, then the third thing is that he violated the rules of the student handbook and that he was convicted and fined in Metropolitan Court for two charges of disorderly conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1633.891], "stop_times": [1645.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1633.891}, "reply_to": "15223__1_005", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_007", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Involving the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1645.649], "stop_times": [1647.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.649}, "reply_to": "15223__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_008", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Sir, no sir and this didn't have anything to do with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1647.993], "stop_times": [1650.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1647.993}, "reply_to": "15223__1_007", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_009", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "For the passing out leaflets?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1650.708], "stop_times": [1652.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.708}, "reply_to": "15223__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_010", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1652.653], "stop_times": [1653.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1652.653}, "reply_to": "15223__1_009", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_011", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Well, they didn't find that, did they?\nThe board --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1653.998, 1656.724], "stop_times": [1656.724, 1656.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.998}, "reply_to": "15223__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__1_012", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir, they found that he was guilty of conviction or the committee found that Mr. Jones has seized upon opportunity on different occasions to promote unrest on the campus with such actions as distributing literature designed for the purpose -- and then at the hearing, he demonstrate his matter -- over the truth --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1656.783], "stop_times": [1677.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1656.783}, "reply_to": "15223__1_011", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_013", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Did you find anything about his conviction?\nThat was just in the charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1677.795, 1682.976], "stop_times": [1682.976, 1684.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.795}, "reply_to": "15223__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__1_014", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Considering all that matters before this committee, we feel that Mr. Kenneth Jones has violated the rules of conduct, governing students at this end and in the university such an extent that he should be suspended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1684.919], "stop_times": [1695.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1684.919}, "reply_to": "15223__1_013", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_015", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "There haven't of been any express finding on anything but the leaflet matter on any specific conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1695.206], "stop_times": [1704.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.206}, "reply_to": "15223__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__1_016", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "No sir, no more than one of the things, specifically in there and was that if he was found to be in violation of any state, county or city or federal law that that is one of the things that has listed as being requiring sever discipline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1704.604], "stop_times": [1720.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1704.604}, "reply_to": "15223__1_015", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_017", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Was the charge about lying about the leaflet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1720.72], "stop_times": [1723.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.72}, "reply_to": "15223__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__1_018", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "No sir, he hadn't been charged with that of course we insist that he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1723.888], "stop_times": [1728.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1723.888}, "reply_to": "15223__1_017", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_019", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "You don't rest the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1728.505], "stop_times": [1729.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.505}, "reply_to": "15223__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15223__1_020", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1729.846], "stop_times": [1732.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1729.846}, "reply_to": "15223__1_019", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_021", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "How can you if he wasn't charged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1732.511], "stop_times": [1735.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.511}, "reply_to": "15223__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15223__1_022", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "For this reason, he -- of course, we think that the notice required for most things wouldn't apply to personal conduct of that kind which he did knowingly.\nHe had the first notice of anybody that he was going to be made the resolve within himself to tell lie in that committee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1735.335, 1746.775], "stop_times": [1746.775, 1756.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1735.335}, "reply_to": "15223__1_021", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_023", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "My difficultly is I would have supposed that the discipline would have -- a committee would have to rest the discipline on a charge that he had lied about it before you could support the discipline on the basis of his lying about it, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1756.212], "stop_times": [1775.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.212}, "reply_to": "15223__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15223__1_024", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "If the Court please, I think it would be somewhat comparable to this.\nThis morning, you graciously permitted me to practice for this Court.\nPart of what you based that on was on the application that I filed.\nSuppose that I lied in that application and you brought me in here for a hearing and to determine whether I should have that privilege you gave me revoked and while in here, I openly and blatantly lied --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1775.536, 1778.681, 1783.369, 1788.128], "stop_times": [1778.681, 1783.369, 1788.128, 1800.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1775.536}, "reply_to": "15223__1_023", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_025", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "I don't think we do that without making a charge to that effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1800.57], "stop_times": [1808.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.57}, "reply_to": "15223__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15223__1_026", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Well of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1808.836], "stop_times": [1809.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1808.836}, "reply_to": "15223__1_025", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_027", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "And then if you came here in defense of that charge and lied again, I expect you have that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1809.818], "stop_times": [1815.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.818}, "reply_to": "15223__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15223__1_028", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir.\nWell of course, I think that it really becomes moot anyway if you'll recall that after this hearing and he certainly had notice at that time about it and was accused of lying to them, we had a full rest court hearing in the US District Court in Middle Tennessee and imagine and Judge Miller agreed of course with the university officials in connection with all of these things that they found against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1815.494, 1815.737], "stop_times": [1815.737, 1845.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1815.494}, "reply_to": "15223__1_027", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_029", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But do you contend that -- I take it, it is that soliciting or hand billing students not to register, soliciting and hand billing them not to boycott registration is enough of a disruption of university affairs to warrant exclusion from the university?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1845.084], "stop_times": [1864.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.084}, "reply_to": "15223__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__1_030", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir, I certainly do.\nNow, Mr. Jones claimed that he only passed up some other leaflets, one of them I think was called the black thesis which was more or less philosophical piece of writing.\nNow, that wasn't so far as I can see anything in there that would have been disruptive.\nBut suppose had been able to persuade even a substantial number of these students to refuse to register when the term started, certainly that would disrupt the school --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1864.638, 1866.018, 1879.335, 1883.885], "stop_times": [1866.018, 1879.335, 1883.885, 1894.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1864.638}, "reply_to": "15223__1_029", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_031", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Was it -- how many days was it before he distributed these and then he brought up on charges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1894.31], "stop_times": [1901.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.31}, "reply_to": "15223__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_032", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "It was approximately a month-and-a-half.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1901.796], "stop_times": [1906.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1901.796}, "reply_to": "15223__1_031", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_033", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "And has there been any disruption as a result of it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1906.118], "stop_times": [1910.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.118}, "reply_to": "15223__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_034", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "No.\nBut they stopped in course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1910.134, 1910.439], "stop_times": [1910.439, 1912.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1910.134}, "reply_to": "15223__1_033", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_035", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "That you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1912.091], "stop_times": [1912.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.091}, "reply_to": "15223__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_036", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "-- they didn't permit him to go that summer.\nThis happened during the summer and they'd already sent him notice that he had not been cleared for attendance here on the summer term of school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1912.511, 1914.34], "stop_times": [1914.34, 1923.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1912.511}, "reply_to": "15223__1_035", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_037", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But he didn't disrupt anything, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1923.027], "stop_times": [1925.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.027}, "reply_to": "15223__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_038", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Those were it didn't turn out that way, but I don't think that you have to wait till the horse is out of the barn before you are allowed to close the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1925.674], "stop_times": [1931.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1925.674}, "reply_to": "15223__1_037", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_039", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Will you show me on the record where those two convictions are you were talking about, if you don't mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1931.804], "stop_times": [1936.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.804}, "reply_to": "15223__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15223__1_040", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe charge itself charged in with him and they readily admitted it and they are on page 70 to 78.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1936.896, 1942.084], "stop_times": [1942.084, 1952.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1936.896}, "reply_to": "15223__1_039", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_041", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Here's the charge above this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1952.28], "stop_times": [1954.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.28}, "reply_to": "15223__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15223__1_042", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1954.771], "stop_times": [1955.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1954.771}, "reply_to": "15223__1_041", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_043", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "And your record where is the charge against him printed in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1955.123], "stop_times": [1960.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.123}, "reply_to": "15223__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15223__1_044", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Well, it's in my brief on page 5, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1960.062], "stop_times": [1964.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1960.062}, "reply_to": "15223__1_043", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_045", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But where is it in the record, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1964.732], "stop_times": [1969.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.732}, "reply_to": "15223__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15223__1_046", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "It's in the lower court's opinion in the record 186 as the charge against Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1969.275], "stop_times": [1974.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.275}, "reply_to": "15223__1_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15223__1_047", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Yes sir.\nAnd the entire discussion about the criminal activity that he was charged with takes place on between pages and 70 and 78 of the transcript of the FAC here as also of course in the transcript of the court hearing before the Judge Miller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1974.339, 1976.854], "stop_times": [1976.854, 1993.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1974.339}, "reply_to": "15223__1_046", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_048", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Well, now it's between 70 and 78, and you don't mean apparently 70 to 78 of this printed appendix?\nI've looked there and found nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [1993.769, 2000.787], "stop_times": [2000.787, 2003.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.769}, "reply_to": "15223__1_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__1_049", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "No sir.\nWe had the part of the record, though here is the FAC transcript of the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [2003.008, 2003.608], "stop_times": [2003.608, 2009.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2003.008}, "reply_to": "15223__1_048", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_050", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "But the excerpts in that transcript containing the evidence we're now discussing, that is these convictions is not anywhere in this appendix, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [2009.772], "stop_times": [2018.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.772}, "reply_to": "15223__1_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__1_051", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "-- No sir ti should be, it's on page 48 of here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [2018.99], "stop_times": [2023.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2018.99}, "reply_to": "15223__1_050", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "15223__1_052", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Thank you, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [2023.349], "stop_times": [2031.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.349}, "reply_to": "15223__1_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15223__1_053", "conversation_id": "15223", "text": "Of course we feel that the most serious thing that took place was the matter of this leaflet which he attempted to disrupt orderly activities of the school and even in Tinker it was stated clear that the orderly activities of the school is not subject to First Amendment rights.\nWe think that registration certainly is an orderly and part of the record functions on school.\nMy time is expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_731", "start_times": [2031.571, 2053.065, 2060.838], "stop_times": [2053.065, 2060.838, 2069.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2031.571}, "reply_to": "15223__1_052", "speaker": "robert_h_roberts"}
{"id": "14948__0_000", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Number 829, Lewis and others against Martin.\nMr. Amsterdam, you may proceed when you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [0.0, 9.5], "stop_times": [9.5, 13.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_001", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe basic issues in this welfare case have become somewhat clouded by the promulgation of new state welfare regulations since the beginning of the suit by the enactment of a new state statute since the decision below by the promulgation of proposed regulations under that state statute not yet in effect and by the variety of decisions taken by the parties and the amici in this Court.\nFor this reason, I think it useful at the outset to describe and to distinguish several different factual situations that is family situations which are represented by the several plaintiffs and the plaintiff's interveners in this case to identify the legal issues presented in each of those situations, and then to describe what is and what is not still an issue in this case.\nNow, the appellants in this Court include the individual plaintiffs below, the individual plaintiff interveners below and the classes which they represent.\nAll of these persons are members of households which are eligible to receive or which claim eligibility to receive welfare benefits under the federally supported AFDC program that is Aid to Families with Dependent Children established by the Social Security Act.\nIn each case, the family unit which is eligible for such assistance consists of a mother and her natural children.\nThe children are under both federal and state law, dependent children because their natural father is continually absent from home.\nIt is that circumstance that is there being dependent children which renders them eligible for assistance if in addition to being dependent, they are also needy and it is that circumstance which requires the determination of the extent of their need for purposes of determining their assistance levels.\nNow, in each of these cases, each and all, California has taken account in determining need of financial factors relating to the presence in the household of a man who is not the natural or the adoptive father of the dependent children.\nI will come shortly to the legal basis for California's action for the present, it is important simply to know that the varying relations of the male figure to the children and to the mother create three distinct factual situations which have differing legal import.\nThe first of these is what we would call the stepfather situation, and the stepfather situation is a case in which the man in the house is ceremonially married to the mother.\nThis is the case of a plaintiff's interveners, the Bell family and the Sims family.\nThe second situation is what is in the jargon known as the MARS situation.\nMARS is an acronym for Man Assuming the Role of Spouse, and this is a situation in which the man is not ceremonially married to the mother and is not the father of any of her children.\nThe third situation is the so called unmarried father situation.\nThe unmarried father situation is a case in which the man is not ceremonially married to the mother but he is the father of at least one of her children in the household.\nNow, that child would not be the AFDC eligible child ordinarily because having both parents in the house it would be not be dependent.\nThere are special programs and situations in which he might be but for purposes of these cases, the AFDC child does not include that common child, but the common child is important because of the way California law treats these cases, the matter I will come to shortly.\nThe first thing I want to look at in all three situations though briefly is how federal law and particularly the federal HEW regulation which applies to this situation that is 45 CFR Section 203.1 treats these cases.\nUnder Federal law, the three cases are treated exactly the same.\nThat is to say that in all of them, if there are any actual contributions by the man, the MARS, the stepfather, the unmarried father to the support of the children, to the upkeep of the house; that is considered income to the household, what is known as the FBU Family Budget Unit, for purposes of computing whether or not the family is needy and the extent of the need.\nHowever, no income maybe assumed to be received from any of these three male figures for purposes of determining eligibility as needy or for purposes of determining the extent of the need.\nAnd this is so because under the relevant federal regulation, income maybe assumed to be coming to an eligible AFDC family only, if it is coming to a natural or adoptive parent of the AFDC children, or if it is coming to a stepparent who fulfills four criteria, that he be ceremonially married to the mother, that he be legally obligated to support the child, that that legal obligation be under a state law of general applicability, and that the state law be one which requires stepparents to support their stepchildren to the same extent that natural or adoptive parents are required to support their children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [13.339, 19.665, 50.715, 80.661, 94.402, 114.598, 125.126, 137.021, 157.806, 178.854, 197.86, 211.816, 218.31, 224.362, 238.319, 243.45, 253.782, 263.694, 279.919, 300.893, 304.462, 337.507, 357.162], "stop_times": [19.665, 50.715, 80.661, 94.402, 114.598, 125.126, 137.021, 157.806, 178.854, 197.86, 211.816, 218.31, 224.362, 238.319, 243.45, 253.782, 263.694, 279.919, 300.893, 304.462, 337.507, 357.162, 410.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 13.339}, "reply_to": "14948__0_000", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_002", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [410.365], "stop_times": [410.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.365}, "reply_to": "14948__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_003", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [410.564], "stop_times": [412.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 410.564}, "reply_to": "14948__0_002", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_004", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "-- am I right in understanding that you've just been describing the HEW regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [412.588], "stop_times": [418.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.588}, "reply_to": "14948__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_005", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [418.87], "stop_times": [419.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 418.87}, "reply_to": "14948__0_004", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_006", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Right, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [419.426], "stop_times": [420.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.426}, "reply_to": "14948__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_007", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "This -- a way -- what I'm doing is to describe its effect not yet with regard to California law, but to say the need of the three sets of situations here.\nThe HEW regulation would very plainly say no assumption of income.\nNow, I'm describing the terms of that regulation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [420.676, 428.491, 431.587], "stop_times": [428.491, 431.587, 433.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 420.676}, "reply_to": "14948__0_006", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_008", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's what I understood you would be describing, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [433.834], "stop_times": [436.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.834}, "reply_to": "14948__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_009", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Now, the result of course is that all of these three situations in terms of assumption in income.\nThe MARS, the unmarried father not ceremonially married but the much more important aspect which also applies to stepfathers is that there is no here obligations under state law of general applicability which is to the same extent as the liability which California puts for the support on the natural father.\nI want to come back and take those requirements report in detail because they're the nub of this case, but I want to pass to what California does with these three situations to indicate what I think is still a live issue in this Court.\nAt the time this suit was filed, California also treated all three situations the same.\nThat is to say that in each and every case, the stepfather, the MARS, the unmarried father, California said that, \"any income which he received whether or not he actually contributed to the family was treated as income to the family after certain deductions were taken.\n\" He was allowed certain kinds of deductions spelled out in state law.\nBut once those deductions were taken, California law simply assumed that the rest of his income was available to the family and either deducted that amount from the need in order to reduce the welfare grant or if it reduced that so the family was no longer needy within the definition, the family simply became ineligible.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [436.684, 448.211, 466.9, 478.611, 483.807, 506.428, 510.384, 530.955], "stop_times": [448.211, 466.9, 478.611, 483.807, 506.428, 510.384, 530.955, 531.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 436.684}, "reply_to": "14948__0_008", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_010", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Just so I can understand California's view on this, if an unmarried father were living as the husband of another woman and with eleven children of theirs, if he were an unmarried father of a child in an AFDC household with another mother and one child of that family, he would -- his income would be attributable to that second unit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [531.487], "stop_times": [562.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.487}, "reply_to": "14948__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_011", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, no, no.\nI may not understand the question Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThe unmarried father situation only exists where the man is now living in this household.\nIf he is living in this household and has one child in common with the mother in this household, then he is an unmarried father.\nNow the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [562.705, 564.975, 567.222, 574.674, 582.679], "stop_times": [564.975, 567.222, 574.674, 582.679, 584.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 562.705}, "reply_to": "14948__0_010", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_012", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I see.\nIt's only applicable if he's living in the household?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [584.482, 584.816], "stop_times": [584.816, 586.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.482}, "reply_to": "14948__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_013", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's right.\nThe effect of this regulation only deals if a man is in the house, that's the whole issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [586.497, 587.324], "stop_times": [587.324, 592.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 586.497}, "reply_to": "14948__0_012", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_014", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Alright, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [592.06], "stop_times": [592.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.06}, "reply_to": "14948__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_015", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, he might be living in more than one household, is that not possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [592.996], "stop_times": [596.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.996}, "reply_to": "14948__0_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_016", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Pardon me Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [596.907], "stop_times": [597.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 596.907}, "reply_to": "14948__0_015", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_017", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "He might be living in more than one household, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [597.679], "stop_times": [599.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.679}, "reply_to": "14948__0_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_018", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes, he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [599.836], "stop_times": [599.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 599.836}, "reply_to": "14948__0_017", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_019", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "-- is that not possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [599.923], "stop_times": [601.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.923}, "reply_to": "14948__0_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_020", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes he might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [601.136], "stop_times": [601.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 601.136}, "reply_to": "14948__0_019", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_021", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's partly at least what I suggest Mr. Justice Stewart had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [601.857], "stop_times": [605.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.857}, "reply_to": "14948__0_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_022", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "We had no such situations in any of these cases.\nThat is California as far as these cases go, they are dealing with a situation where a man has a stable relationship in this one household.\nNow, I have some very real question as to whether he might be living in one household -- more than one household for the purposes of characterization.\nObviously, he couldn't be more than one kind of a stepfather.\nHe's only ceremonially married to one woman at once except in extreme cases which we might conjecture.\nAs far as the MARS situation goes, I think he would not meet the MARS definition because he probably couldn't be holding himself out to be married, again and except the extreme situation that we might conjecture in a way, it would be treated as a MARS.\nThe unmarried father might very well end up by living in two houses because the only thing that is required is that he live there and that he has a child in the house, and if he in fact splits his time, then, he maybe in two households.\nWe have no such situation.\nNow, the important change in California law is reflected by the enactment effective November 10, 1969 of a new statute which is set out on page 93 in the appendix to our brief which changes the California rules as to the MARS; that is the Man Assuming the Role of Spouse.\nIt is no longer the case that his income minus deductions is attributed to the family.\nNow, he is required to make an agreement with the mother relating to the amount which he shall contribute and the statute requires that he makes a contribution which is no less than what it would cost to provide himself with an independent living arrangement.\nAll of this is governed also by proposed regulations.\nAnd then -- the effect of the new California statute is to attribute to the family a proportion of the amount of that contribution payment which he is required to maintain.\nNow, let me describe then the effect of this new statute on our three sets of situations.\nOne as to the stepfather, absolutely no effect; we are still talking at this point in time about Section 11351 which is a statute which this suit originally challenged.\nIt is still in full force in effect as to stepfathers.\nAnd therefore as to all past and future matters, that is a live issue here with regard to the stepfather that is the plaintiff interveners here.\nWith respect to them what we seek in this case is a declaration of the validity of the federal regulation under the statute.\nA consequent declaration by this Court of the illegality because inconsistent with statute on the constitution of 11351.\nAnd if the court upholds the federal regulation, there's an end of 11351 because California has admitted from the beginning of this case that it was inconsistent with the federal regulations.\nThe court below so held and we think there's going to be no question about that, and in fact that also will be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [605.75, 609.806, 617.217, 626.781, 630.202, 636.633, 651.6, 663.883, 665.997, 687.576, 693.722, 710.616, 714.274, 728.979, 737.238, 748.772, 751.87, 761.822, 771.377, 780.861, 791.002], "stop_times": [609.806, 617.217, 626.781, 630.202, 636.633, 651.6, 663.883, 665.997, 687.576, 693.722, 710.616, 714.274, 728.979, 737.238, 748.772, 751.87, 761.822, 771.377, 780.861, 791.002, 796.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 605.75}, "reply_to": "14948__0_021", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_023", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That would result in the affirmance of those three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [796.61], "stop_times": [799.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.61}, "reply_to": "14948__0_022", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_024", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That would result in a reversal of the judgment below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [799.978], "stop_times": [804.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 799.978}, "reply_to": "14948__0_023", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_025", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "But as respect to those three, you said that the court held that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [804.53], "stop_times": [808.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.53}, "reply_to": "14948__0_024", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_026", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "The court held the federal regulation invalid and therefore allowed California to enforce its rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [808.752], "stop_times": [814.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 808.752}, "reply_to": "14948__0_025", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_027", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "As respect to these three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [814.845], "stop_times": [817.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.845}, "reply_to": "14948__0_026", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_028", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Pardon me Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [817.17], "stop_times": [817.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 817.17}, "reply_to": "14948__0_027", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_029", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "As respect to the group you're now talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [817.736], "stop_times": [820.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.736}, "reply_to": "14948__0_028", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_030", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes, yes.\nWith respect to all parties at that time.\nThe new statute wasn't in effect and the decision was made as to all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [820.572, 821.532, 823.338], "stop_times": [821.532, 823.338, 826.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 820.572}, "reply_to": "14948__0_029", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_031", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "But you are now talking about the regulation that was promulgated after this decision was made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [826.041], "stop_times": [832.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.041}, "reply_to": "14948__0_030", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_032", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No.\nWhat was promulgated after the decision was made was not a new HEW regulation, not a new state statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [832.971, 834.379], "stop_times": [834.379, 838.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 832.971}, "reply_to": "14948__0_031", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_033", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I understand, I understand, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [838.648], "stop_times": [840.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.648}, "reply_to": "14948__0_032", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_034", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "As to that, there has been no determination below and I'm not asking this Court to rule on that, no that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [840.944], "stop_times": [845.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 840.944}, "reply_to": "14948__0_033", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_035", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "You confused me because you referred us to page 93 of your appendix that has that new statute in it.\nWell, I thought you were talking about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [845.608, 852.705], "stop_times": [852.705, 855.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.608}, "reply_to": "14948__0_034", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_036", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No, I'm sorry.\nThe new statute simply raises the issue which I'm addressing at the moment of what's moot and what's not.\nWith regard to the old statute which is set forth in the first appendix to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [855.79, 857.373, 864.975], "stop_times": [857.373, 864.975, 871.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 855.79}, "reply_to": "14948__0_035", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_037", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I know where it is.\nI understand the case, but I thought that you are all from the new statute, you are not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [871.118, 872.226], "stop_times": [872.226, 875.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.118}, "reply_to": "14948__0_036", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14948__0_038", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No, no.\nI'm going to come now to the effect of the new statute which is that in the MARS situation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [875.599, 877.04], "stop_times": [877.04, 882.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 875.599}, "reply_to": "14948__0_037", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_039", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Now before you do that Mr. Amsterdam, what weight do we give the new statute except for purposes of possibly evaluating mootness of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [882.323], "stop_times": [892.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.323}, "reply_to": "14948__0_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_040", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Absolutely none.\nI think that we would challenge the new statute or I'm about to say is I don't challenge it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [892.738, 893.9], "stop_times": [893.9, 898.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 892.738}, "reply_to": "14948__0_039", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_041", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "You do not challenge it now --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [898.297], "stop_times": [899.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.297}, "reply_to": "14948__0_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_042", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "We are not and we do not and that's exactly what I want to say that with regard to the MARS situation, there is a question of mootness as to future relief.\nOn the other hand, the case is not moot because past payments which are a law borne to California law is still an issue up to date of a new statute with regard even to the MARS cases.\nAnd what we ask this Court to do is to the MARS statute is that after reaching the issues in this case which are required by the presence of stepfathers that is holding the federal regulation valid and 11351 state statutes invalid, simply to remand the case to the District Court to allow the parties to frame the issues under the new statute, to challenge it if they please, see how the state regulation solidify and in effect, equitably clean up the case after this Court makes the major decision which we think is the validity of the federal regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [899.931, 910.125, 919.494], "stop_times": [910.125, 919.494, 950.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 899.931}, "reply_to": "14948__0_041", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_043", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, isn't there an alternative approach to it to and that's to just wash the case up and let the litigation resolve itself under the new regulations and statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [950.422], "stop_times": [962.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.422}, "reply_to": "14948__0_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_044", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well this Court would have to remand if it resolved the case by holding the federal regulation valid.\nThe court would have to remand for disposition on a number of issues.\nThe amount of back payments and that sort of thing and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [962.185, 968.617, 972.14], "stop_times": [968.617, 972.14, 974.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 962.185}, "reply_to": "14948__0_043", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_045", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well I didn't say we would have to, I mean it would be wise to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [974.244], "stop_times": [980.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.244}, "reply_to": "14948__0_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_046", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Oh, it would be ordinary to do so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [980.846], "stop_times": [983.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 980.846}, "reply_to": "14948__0_045", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_047", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Usual --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [983.935], "stop_times": [984.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.935}, "reply_to": "14948__0_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__0_048", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I think appropriate in the sense that there are number of unresolved issues that would then be cleaned up.\nBut I think that this Court needs are not entangled itself, is only what I'm saying in any consideration of the new statute and my answer to the Chief Justice's question is precisely, that statute should have no effect here as to mootness or anything else.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [984.737, 989.405, 1004.086], "stop_times": [989.405, 1004.086, 1006.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 984.737}, "reply_to": "14948__0_047", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_049", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I'm a bit confused too.\nDo I understand that the new legislation, your position is has no bearing whatever in the stepfather situation that's precisely as it was when the case was brought here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1006.974, 1009.844], "stop_times": [1009.844, 1022.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.974}, "reply_to": "14948__0_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_050", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1022.188], "stop_times": [1023.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1022.188}, "reply_to": "14948__0_049", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_051", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And that that presents the question, the basic question of the validity of the federal regulation held invalid by the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1023.266], "stop_times": [1032.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.266}, "reply_to": "14948__0_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_052", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1032.114], "stop_times": [1032.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1032.114}, "reply_to": "14948__0_051", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_053", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And also the validity of the state regulations or statute as the case maybe, but only in the stepfather situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1032.9], "stop_times": [1042.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.9}, "reply_to": "14948__0_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_054", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, that's unclear, that's the one additional point I wanted to make.\nThe regulations under the new statute for reasons it escaped me as a matter of the California law continue to treat the unmarried father as he was treated under the old law.\nI see no basis in California law for that and I think we just got to wait and see and again, this is why it's going to go back to the District Court for resolution of these kinds --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1042.66, 1046.259, 1057.633], "stop_times": [1046.259, 1057.633, 1065.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1042.66}, "reply_to": "14948__0_053", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_055", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well are you going to tell us, you've already told us that the stepfather situation, we needn't be concerned with the new statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1065.41], "stop_times": [1071.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.41}, "reply_to": "14948__0_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_056", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1071.558], "stop_times": [1072.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1071.558}, "reply_to": "14948__0_055", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_057", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well now, what is in the MARS situation and the unmarried father situation that the new statute says that makes doubtful whether those cases are here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1072.372], "stop_times": [1085.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.372}, "reply_to": "14948__0_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_058", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, the new statute changes the entire method of California's treatment of income in those cases as it no longer is the case that the income to the male is treated as income to the family unit after deduction.\nNow, there is a new requirement which is that he make a contribution which is described in detail, it has to be the same then he would make the support himself independently to the families and a percentage of that is treated as income.\nWe don't really know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1085.391, 1102.111, 1115.044], "stop_times": [1102.111, 1115.044, 1116.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1085.391}, "reply_to": "14948__0_057", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_059", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, and because of this change I gather, there could be no conflict with the federal regulation if the federal regulation is valid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1116.528], "stop_times": [1126.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.528}, "reply_to": "14948__0_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_060", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Oh, there may or there may not be but until we know what the new state proposed regulation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1126.61], "stop_times": [1131.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1126.61}, "reply_to": "14948__0_059", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_061", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "We needn't deal with it, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1131.323], "stop_times": [1134.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.323}, "reply_to": "14948__0_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__0_062", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "It's not here now because we just don't know.\nIt's simply is not right as the answer I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1134.128, 1137.336], "stop_times": [1137.336, 1140.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1134.128}, "reply_to": "14948__0_061", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_063", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "-- written papers filed here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1140.103], "stop_times": [1143.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.103}, "reply_to": "14948__0_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__0_064", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1143.702], "stop_times": [1144.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1143.702}, "reply_to": "14948__0_063", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_065", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Is any of this discussions about the new statute or the new regulation in the brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1144.188], "stop_times": [1148.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.188}, "reply_to": "14948__0_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__0_066", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "We have both the new statute in the brief and that in the last appendix to our brief, the discussion of the effect of it, yes.\nBut not for the purpose having this Court decide.\nNow, coming briefly to two sets of questions of letting in the federal regulation and the constitutional issues, I propose to start with the validity of the federal regulation.\nI think that that is not with all due respect to the court below, very difficult question.\nLet's take a look at what this regulation does and does not do.\nIt does not restrict in anyway state power to decide how much income a family has to have or lack before they are needy.\nIn that sense, the determination of need is left to the state that what is needy.\nIt doesn't restrict in anyway state power to limit how much of a family's need the state is going to supply.\nAs far as this regulation goes maximum grants and that sort of thing are unaffected.\nMoreover, it does not restrict in anyways, state power to determine how much income or resources an AFDC family has for the purpose of determining whether it's needy.\nInsofar as it weighs the actual income received, if any actual income is received, the federal regulation allows the state to treat it as income to the family.\nWhat it does do is to deny the state, to treat as income and as its resources.\nMoneys which are not proved to be actually available to the AFDC family except under specified conditions which are designed to assure that the situation is one in which even without proof of actual availability of money.\nMeaningful economic protection of the AFDC child is support.\nNow, I want to make very clear that I'm going to come to the specific regulation in a moment but a vitally important part of this case is that this particular regulation, the HEW regulation is only one sub species, a particularized aspect of a more general HEW regulatory policy.\nSince 1967, HEW has provided that only income and resources that are in fact available to an applicant or a recipient for current use on a regular basis are to be taken into account in determining need and the amount of payment.\nAnd for example, HEW says that in a case where a child has a support obligation under a court order from the father that the state may not free as income, the amount which the court has ordered to pay, unless it's actually paid.\nNow, the importance of that in this case is that the ground of California's position here and the District Courts decision below doesn't just knock out this HEW regulation.\nIt would knock out every HEW regulation which announces the general or specific policies of non-assumption of income because what California says it has a right to do is to treat as an income to the AFDC family, any and every legal obligation created by state law without proof of actual receipt.\nNow, HEW has found over the course of many years of administering this program, if there's one thing that have a bird in a bush and I would have a bird in a hand as far as an AFDC family goes.\nThere are lots of legal obligations that just don't come off and don't come through, and it is the purpose of the HEW regulation to assure that except in a vividly class of cases where one can be very sure that legal obligations are in fact likely to come through, that states are not going to be permitted to assume income.\nNow, we think that the position of the court below in California is wrong.\nInsofar as they purport absolutely to preclude HEW from limiting state power to treat non-received theoretically available resources as income to the family.\nOur position is that the statute precisely because it requires the HEW to approve state plans which are required to provide for a consideration of income and resources, plus HEW to decide what kind of income and resources are meant by that and if HEW reasonably sets restrictions on what the state can assume in the way of income, those restrictions are valid.\nHere in light of the shortness of time, I mean to refer to only two of the restrictions and show how obviously consistent with statute they are.\nHEW following King v. Smith required that, before income be assumed, state law imposed a legal obligation, and that the legal obligation being a general one, that is under a state statute of general applicability and the same as the father.\nSome just start with the same as the fathers.\nUnder California law as under MARS law, father's obligation is not defeasible if the father leaves the home.\nHe can be pursued and be required to support his child anytime, anywhere.\nThe obligation imposed by this particular California law exists so long and only so long as in the man is in the home, and that's true with regard to stepfather, MARS and everybody.\nAs soon as he leaves the house, the right ceases.\nNow, of course HEW could require that California assure something like a parental obligation to support and not the half baked right that California has given children in the situations presented in this case because California -- HEW Cannon says must give them a full fledged right, one which is not useless simply because if a mother threatens to enforce it, the man leaves and there's an end of the right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1148.553, 1156.248, 1159.244, 1170.758, 1177.638, 1181.213, 1189.291, 1194.367, 1199.641, 1205.259, 1215.678, 1224.187, 1232.187, 1250.199, 1254.944, 1274.823, 1291.115, 1307.94, 1318.115, 1341.904, 1352.65, 1372.11, 1377.267, 1391.602, 1414.099, 1422.557, 1438.872, 1442.596, 1449.815, 1455.227, 1465.376, 1468.599], "stop_times": [1156.248, 1159.244, 1170.758, 1177.638, 1181.213, 1189.291, 1194.367, 1199.641, 1205.259, 1215.678, 1224.187, 1232.187, 1250.199, 1254.944, 1274.823, 1291.115, 1307.94, 1318.115, 1341.904, 1352.65, 1372.11, 1377.267, 1391.602, 1414.099, 1422.557, 1438.872, 1442.596, 1449.815, 1455.227, 1465.376, 1468.599, 1499.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1148.553}, "reply_to": "14948__0_065", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_067", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I thought there was some dispute even with respect to whether the law is that even though he was in the house or there was a legally enforceable obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1499.202], "stop_times": [1509.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.202}, "reply_to": "14948__0_066", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__0_068", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, the Government --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1509.207], "stop_times": [1512.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1509.207}, "reply_to": "14948__0_067", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_069", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "-- by the brief exactly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1512.351], "stop_times": [1513.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.351}, "reply_to": "14948__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__0_070", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's one of the issues -- with more time I might have tried to clarify somewhat more.\nWe don't take that position and candidly it's for this reason.\nYou've got three California judges below, the California District Court; they said it was an enforceable obligation.\nThere is no California law one way or the other that square on it.\nThere is a recent case that is cited in the California's brief that I might give the court a full --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1513.586, 1519.238, 1523.041, 1529.863, 1533.147], "stop_times": [1519.238, 1523.041, 1529.863, 1533.147, 1540.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1513.586}, "reply_to": "14948__0_069", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_071", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "You don't have to do that because I understand your position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1540.588], "stop_times": [1545.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.588}, "reply_to": "14948__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__0_072", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Fine, and we need only relayed and not got this regulation on the proposition that the duty of support is not the same and it's not under a generally applicable statute, an additional reason why the Secretary could insist that the obligation be the same is fairly evident from the facts of this case.\nIt is an affirmative purpose of this statute to keep families together.\nIf California is permitted to put in a regulation which says that \u201cincome is to be assumed because a man is required to support children only when he's in the home\u201d the effect of that is to drive him out of the home.\nIn two of these cases that's what exactly happened.\nNow to prevent this result and to assure economic security, HEW, it is our position could properly promulgate this regulation it is valid and accordingly the state statute inconsistent with it is invalid.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1545.488, 1563.776, 1567.293, 1578.7, 1580.912, 1594.317], "stop_times": [1563.776, 1567.293, 1578.7, 1580.912, 1594.317, 1595.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1545.488}, "reply_to": "14948__0_071", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14948__0_073", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amsterdam.\nMr. Beytagh?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1595.61, 1603.868], "stop_times": [1603.868, 1608.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.61}, "reply_to": "14948__0_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_000", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI should like at the beginning to indicate that the Government's position with respect to the significance of the new California statute and question of mootness is as stated by Mr. Amsterdam, we feel the case is not moot.\nThe essential questions presented to the court when prior to the enactment of the California statute are still here, those basic questions relate to the validity of the HEW regulation.\nWe agree as well that the most appropriate course would be for the court as to the effect of the new California statute assuming the reversal of the decision below to remand it to the lower court for the proceedings to determine just what that particular statute means as to those situations affected by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1608.391, 1611.993, 1628.103, 1641.933], "stop_times": [1611.993, 1628.103, 1641.933, 1666.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1608.391}, "reply_to": "14948__0_073", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_001", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I'd like to ask you one question Mr. Beytagh that may give me a better background to understand some of the problem independent that whatever right the parties have laying other side for the moment.\nCan you tell us whether in a given situation, if a state program under its statute is not in compliance with HEW regulations whether the federal Government may terminate the grants to the state and terminate participation in the program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1666.262, 1680.601], "stop_times": [1680.601, 1700.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.262}, "reply_to": "14948__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_002", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "My understanding is that the federal Government can do that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1700.099], "stop_times": [1703.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1700.099}, "reply_to": "14948__1_001", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_003", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And that would produce a result that was across the board would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1703.591], "stop_times": [1707.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.591}, "reply_to": "14948__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_004", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's correct, and a result that of course is not one which is desired either by the federal Government or I would think by the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1707.949], "stop_times": [1714.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1707.949}, "reply_to": "14948__1_003", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_005", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Obviously result with a great deal of disaster involved in it but this is the hold which the federal program has on each of the states basically, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1714.157], "stop_times": [1726.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.157}, "reply_to": "14948__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_006", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I think that's one way to express it, yes Your Honor.\nThe statute clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Secretary and one of those responsibilities is to pass on state plans and very elaborate scheme is set out for the state plans and what they should entail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1726.957, 1729.537], "stop_times": [1729.537, 1746.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1726.957}, "reply_to": "14948__1_005", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_007", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Isn't that the best method of enforcement of federal regulations rather than piecemeal litigation by individual recipients?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1746.434], "stop_times": [1757.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.434}, "reply_to": "14948__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_008", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I think it may well be a better means of effectuating that.\nHowever, the situation that we have here as the court well knows came out of its decision King versus Smith prior to that time, HEW had not felt itself in a position to enforce rigidly on the states, the rules that it had promulgated bolstered by King versus Smith, the Alabama substitute father case, HEW has now sought to enforce those regulations in this case of course came along at this time.\nWe attempted to intervene below and we were not permitted to do so and therefore we are appearing in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1757.584, 1762.29, 1796.771], "stop_times": [1762.29, 1796.771, 1803.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1757.584}, "reply_to": "14948__1_007", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_009", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "In this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1803.052], "stop_times": [1803.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.052}, "reply_to": "14948__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_010", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1803.921], "stop_times": [1804.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1803.921}, "reply_to": "14948__1_009", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_011", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "You attempted to intervene, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1804.105], "stop_times": [1805.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.105}, "reply_to": "14948__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_012", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, may I ask you?\nEven if the HEW regulation is valid contrary to the conclusion of the three-judge court, do I understand your answer to the Chief Justice to mean this that if California persists with its regulation, the only consequence is that it may forfeit its federal contribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1805.877, 1808.62], "stop_times": [1808.62, 1835.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.877}, "reply_to": "14948__1_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_013", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I don't think that that's the only consequence -- the consequence would be that the Secretary would have the option of terminating a program as to California, in fact do that or not I don't know because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1835.29], "stop_times": [1849.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1835.29}, "reply_to": "14948__1_012", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_014", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, are you taking the position that there's before us not only the question of the validity of the federal regulation, but assuming that we conclude contrary to the three-judge court that it is valid that we must also determine the validity of the state regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1849.546], "stop_times": [1869.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.546}, "reply_to": "14948__1_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_015", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I don't think that's necessary because there's so a reconcilable and necessarily in conflict that California --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1869.363], "stop_times": [1876.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1869.363}, "reply_to": "14948__1_014", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_016", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well I know, they maybe in conflict but does that make the California regulation invalid or does it mean only that the Secretary may then exercise the option to cut off the federal contribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1876.357], "stop_times": [1887.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.357}, "reply_to": "14948__1_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_017", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No.\nBut the Secretary is authorized by provisions of the Act to promulgate rules and regulations to implement it.\nHe has done this in promulgating this regulation that we have before us now, and I think the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1887.013, 1887.231, 1895.221], "stop_times": [1887.231, 1895.221, 1900.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1887.013}, "reply_to": "14948__1_016", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_018", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And if it's valid, does that then supersede so as to make invalidly the California regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1900.836], "stop_times": [1905.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.836}, "reply_to": "14948__1_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_019", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes, I think it does under the Supremacy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1905.149], "stop_times": [1910.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1905.149}, "reply_to": "14948__1_018", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_020", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well that goes a little further than just forfeiture of the federal contribution in it, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1910.017], "stop_times": [1916.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.017}, "reply_to": "14948__1_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_021", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No.\nIt seems to me all that it results in is that California must have a program as some 40 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1916.61, 1916.994], "stop_times": [1916.994, 1924.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1916.61}, "reply_to": "14948__1_020", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_022", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "But suppose California says, \u201cWe want no part of your federal contribution.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1924.637], "stop_times": [1928.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.637}, "reply_to": "14948__1_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_023", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well then, they don't have to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1928.426], "stop_times": [1929.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1928.426}, "reply_to": "14948__1_022", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_024", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well then they can go ahead and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1929.552], "stop_times": [1931.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.552}, "reply_to": "14948__1_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_025", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1931.456], "stop_times": [1932.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1931.456}, "reply_to": "14948__1_024", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_026", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Then, all we -- how do we then declare their regulation invalid that's what I'm trying to get at?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1932.42], "stop_times": [1938.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.42}, "reply_to": "14948__1_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_027", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, if the HEW regulation is held valid by this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1938.858], "stop_times": [1943.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1938.858}, "reply_to": "14948__1_026", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_028", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1943.274], "stop_times": [1943.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.274}, "reply_to": "14948__1_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_029", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Then the California statute is necessarily invalid since it's inconsistent that way --Now California --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1943.912], "stop_times": [1949.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1943.912}, "reply_to": "14948__1_028", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_030", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "It's not invalid if California wants to go on its own without any federal contributions in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1949.962], "stop_times": [1957.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.962}, "reply_to": "14948__1_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_031", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No, that's correct.\nBut the likelihood of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1957.126, 1958.26], "stop_times": [1958.26, 1959.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1957.126}, "reply_to": "14948__1_030", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_032", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, then all we hold is that the cost of federal regulation is valid if we do, that then leaves the Secretary in a position where he can say to California, \u201cNow you get rid of that regulation of yours so you don't get any federal contribution.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1959.983], "stop_times": [1979.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.983}, "reply_to": "14948__1_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_033", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's correct, just as in the Alabama case, Alabama after King versus Smith could have I suppose said that it no longer wanted to have anything to do with the federal program and gone off and continued to have its substitute father rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1979.547], "stop_times": [1993.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1979.547}, "reply_to": "14948__1_032", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_034", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well this isn't the kind of preemption supersession whatever words you want to use.\nNow, we ordinarily have when there's a conflict between a federal regulation and the state regulation as in the Avocado cases for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1993.27, 1999.347], "stop_times": [1999.347, 2007.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.27}, "reply_to": "14948__1_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14948__1_035", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No, that's true, but I think we have to look at the thing in context.\nThe California statute is written specifically to apply only in federal AFDC program cases.\nIt was obviously designed for that purpose, that's the only situation in which it applies.\nNow, California if it didn't like the HEW regulation could obviously draft another statute entirely unrelated to the federal program for welfare assistance, but I think the practical likelihood of that happening is very remote.\nThe federal assistance here is substantial as Your Honor knows and I think that the state simply couldn't function anywhere near a reasonable level that it didn't have a federal matching assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2007.666, 2012.094, 2020.351, 2025.135, 2041.728], "stop_times": [2012.094, 2020.351, 2025.135, 2041.728, 2055.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2007.666}, "reply_to": "14948__1_034", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_036", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "It seems to me that the long and short of what you say here is that the government cannot force the state to make payments, according to its regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2055.743], "stop_times": [2065.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.743}, "reply_to": "14948__1_035", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__1_037", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I think that's correct Your Honor.\nIt's a program of assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2065.751, 2067.587], "stop_times": [2067.587, 2069.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2065.751}, "reply_to": "14948__1_036", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_038", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And how could we determine the questions here such as are presented in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2069.005], "stop_times": [2075.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.005}, "reply_to": "14948__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__1_039", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, I think that it's quite appropriate to determine --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2075.663], "stop_times": [2079.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2075.663}, "reply_to": "14948__1_038", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_040", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "To determine, I suppose this and it's regulations is valid, the state regulation is contrary to it that whatever the state wants to do they cannot use federal money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2079.619], "stop_times": [2091.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.619}, "reply_to": "14948__1_039", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__1_041", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's -- or at least that the Secretary has the option of cutting them off for failure to comply --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2091.136], "stop_times": [2097.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2091.136}, "reply_to": "14948__1_040", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_042", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Hasn't -- there's a matter of supremacy of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2097.578], "stop_times": [2102.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.578}, "reply_to": "14948__1_041", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__1_043", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2102.931], "stop_times": [2104.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2102.931}, "reply_to": "14948__1_042", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_044", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "The state can't use federal money --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2104.252], "stop_times": [2106.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.252}, "reply_to": "14948__1_043", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14948__1_045", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "As a matter of federal supremacy, all he can do is go pay these people himself he can't support California to mix up its fund to the federal money and then according to the federal business desires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2106.819], "stop_times": [2121.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.819}, "reply_to": "14948__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14948__1_046", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well the Act requires that the state be in compliance with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2121.852], "stop_times": [2128.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2121.852}, "reply_to": "14948__1_045", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_047", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Yes, but it can if it wants to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2128.25], "stop_times": [2130.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.25}, "reply_to": "14948__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14948__1_048", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2130.948], "stop_times": [2131.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2130.948}, "reply_to": "14948__1_047", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_049", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2131.854], "stop_times": [2132.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.854}, "reply_to": "14948__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14948__1_050", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's correct.\nThe essence of this case is the validity of the regulation promulgated by HEW which provides in substance that only actual support payments, the actual contributions made to AFDC families should be taken into account in determining the level of need as Mr. Amsterdam has indicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2132.856, 2135.762], "stop_times": [2135.762, 2161.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2132.856}, "reply_to": "14948__1_049", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_051", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And suppose the thrust of these various questions is that the effect that the effect that this litigation may be premature that not until or unless the Secretary of HEW cuts off funds to California on the basis of his regulation, would that regulation or of its validity become a litigable question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2161.427], "stop_times": [2187.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.427}, "reply_to": "14948__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__1_052", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "I think that would be a rather harsh approach --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2187.436], "stop_times": [2189.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2187.436}, "reply_to": "14948__1_051", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_053", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "It would be a harsh approach as contrary to King against Smith, but certainly there's a great deal of logic in it isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2189.254], "stop_times": [2196.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.254}, "reply_to": "14948__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__1_054", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, there's some logic in it but in the meantime, you would have to force the Secretary to terminate a program --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2196.143], "stop_times": [2202.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2196.143}, "reply_to": "14948__1_053", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_055", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "No, you wouldn't force him if he wants to continue to pay out the money, then he is just not relying on his regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2202.955], "stop_times": [2211.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.955}, "reply_to": "14948__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__1_056", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "But then, there's no way -- there's no way that then the Secretary could get the validity of his regulation litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2211.029], "stop_times": [2217.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2211.029}, "reply_to": "14948__1_055", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_057", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "This could be alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2217.54], "stop_times": [2218.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.54}, "reply_to": "14948__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14948__1_058", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "That's up to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2218.777], "stop_times": [2219.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.777}, "reply_to": "14948__1_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__1_059", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Well, the Secretary doesn't think that's alright and with all respect, I don't think he should have to.\nIt seems to me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2219.257, 2225.775], "stop_times": [2225.775, 2226.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2219.257}, "reply_to": "14948__1_058", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_060", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "This is a very strange thing.\nThis, in no way does this California regulation violate federal law but constitutional question aside, Equal Protection question aside.\nIt simply violates it's alleged a condition on the payment of federal money.\nIt doesn't violate anything in the Supremacy Clause or any preemptive thing.\nIt's just a condition that it has to meet to receive federal largess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2226.368, 2227.623, 2237.525, 2243.689, 2248.974], "stop_times": [2227.623, 2237.525, 2243.689, 2248.974, 2254.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.368}, "reply_to": "14948__1_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14948__1_061", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "The state merely refuses to go in to partnership with the federal Government on its terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2254.655], "stop_times": [2261.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.655}, "reply_to": "14948__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14948__1_062", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "Your Honors with all respect, I think that this legislation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2261.467], "stop_times": [2265.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2261.467}, "reply_to": "14948__1_061", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_063", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "And it has a right to do so, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2265.519], "stop_times": [2268.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.519}, "reply_to": "14948__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14948__1_064", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "We don't disagree with that.\nWe agree that it has a right to do so but as to the question of rightness, it seems to me that forcing the federal Government to cut off the funds to a state that does not want to comply with what HEW feels is a reasonable regulation promulgated pursuant to the authority of the Act, the Secretary is charged with administering, is not a desirable way to go about handling this matter and the court, it seems to me decided that in King versus Smith.\nI see that the red light --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2268.011, 2269.301, 2303.236], "stop_times": [2269.301, 2303.236, 2304.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2268.011}, "reply_to": "14948__1_063", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "14948__1_065", "conversation_id": "14948", "text": "We'll suspend until morning.\nThank you Mr. Beytagh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2304.602, 2306.549], "stop_times": [2306.549, 2314.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.602}, "reply_to": "14948__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_000", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Number 829.\nMr. Beytagh, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [0.0, 13.257], "stop_times": [13.257, 17.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_001", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn view of the few minutes remaining to me, I'd like to turn first to the substance of the position of the Government which in essence says that the court below improperly determined that that the HEW regulation in question here conflicted with the statute.\nIf time permits, I should like then to have an opportunity to respond further to the jurisdictional point that Mr. Justice Stewart raised yesterday.\nThe statute that is in question here is Section 402 (a) 7.\nIt's reprinted in the Government's -- the appendix to the Government's brief in pertinent part, it provides that a state plan for aid and services to needy families with children must provide that the state agency shall in determining need take into consideration any other income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid to families with dependent children.\nThe HEW regulation construes that critical language any other income and resources as meaning actual income, actual contributions made by stepfather or a MARS.\nCalifornia's approach is to the contrary.\nThey assumed that where there is a stepfather or a MARS that his income is attributable and is a resource of the child without any actual proof.\nThat's the essence of the controversy here.\nNow, California agrees and the court below agreed that if HEW's regulation is valid, as a proper implementation of the act, that California's conflicting statute must necessarily fall in the sense that California can no longer continue to be entitled to receive benefits should the secretary determine to cut them off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [17.094, 20.277, 40.429, 52.092, 58.648, 82.802, 98.086, 101.312, 113.393, 116.62], "stop_times": [20.277, 40.429, 52.092, 58.648, 82.802, 98.086, 101.312, 113.393, 116.62, 142.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 17.094}, "reply_to": "15449__0_000", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_002", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Under the Federal regulation, so I understand it, it would be incumbent upon California to prove or to show or to ascertain to its own satisfaction perhaps, how much in fact your stepfather or the man assuming the role of spouse actually does contribute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [142.483], "stop_times": [165.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.483}, "reply_to": "15449__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_003", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's -- that's correct Your Honor.\nI think there are three positions that you could take, one is California which is essentially an irrebuttable presumption of support --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [165.754, 166.984], "stop_times": [166.984, 174.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 165.754}, "reply_to": "15449__0_002", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_004", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [174.176], "stop_times": [174.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.176}, "reply_to": "15449__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_005", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "From the very fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [174.429], "stop_times": [175.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 174.429}, "reply_to": "15449__0_004", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_006", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It's an attribution of support by what [Voice Overlap].", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [175.179], "stop_times": [178.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.179}, "reply_to": "15449__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_007", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The other is an approach that could be regarded as consistent with the HEW regulation but I don't think it is, that is if the burden of proof is on the recipients to show that the income was not actually received.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [178.738], "stop_times": [192.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 178.738}, "reply_to": "15449__0_006", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_008", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, that's what I was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [192.122], "stop_times": [193.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.122}, "reply_to": "15449__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_009", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But -- but our view is that the regulation -- the language of the regulation speaks in terms of actual contributions and income actually received and attempts to track King versus Smith in this respect, so I think that it's the third category which is that the burden of proof is on the state to show that the income was in fact received so as to reduce -- in extreme cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [193.326], "stop_times": [217.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 193.326}, "reply_to": "15449__0_008", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_010", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I suppose this might vary from months to months and even from week to week or even from day to day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [217.049], "stop_times": [222.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.049}, "reply_to": "15449__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_011", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, and California has raised the question that we think is reasonable question here about seriousness of the administrative burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [222.829], "stop_times": [230.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 222.829}, "reply_to": "15449__0_010", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_012", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [230.575], "stop_times": [231.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.575}, "reply_to": "15449__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_013", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Now, we have checked as best we can, HEW has checked on my behalf determined that some 40 states have programs that do exactly this, to track the HEW regulation.\nI have attempted to ascertain whether the feeling of these states and their administrators is that that's a practicable way to proceed, and the answer has been yes.\nIt's not a complete survey but as best we could sample it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [231.287, 243.903, 252.039], "stop_times": [243.903, 252.039, 255.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 231.287}, "reply_to": "15449__0_012", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_014", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, how do they deal with the fact this maybe a changing pattern?\nI mean, the stepfather may have all good intentions and one month might contribute, the next month he might stop at bar and grill and drink up or gamble away all the money and not contribute that month.\nWhat is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [255.294, 258.301, 269.951], "stop_times": [258.301, 269.951, 270.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.294}, "reply_to": "15449__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_015", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Most of them proceed as we proceed in the income tax context, they require self disclosure and self reporting.\nPerhaps to the surprise of some, they've found that in most cases this works.\nThat people receiving welfare benefits are prepared and do disclose honestly what income they do receive from other sources.\nThis is the basic trust of President Nixon's welfare message, the notion of self reporting and self disclosure.\nBesides that there are case workers that proceed to investigate and talk to these people.\nThey talk to the man and they talk to the women, whatever.\nThe problem there is very significant, there's no doubt about it but most of the states have not thought that they are insurmountable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [270.439, 278.955, 283.294, 291.656, 302.597, 307.873, 311.917], "stop_times": [278.955, 283.294, 291.656, 302.597, 307.873, 311.917, 319.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 270.439}, "reply_to": "15449__0_014", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_016", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Do you know of any case in this Court where it has ever held, where two litigants have a controversy among themselves, there can be a case or controversy within the constitutional sense, when one of them has the right to settle the case on his own territory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [319.692], "stop_times": [344.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.692}, "reply_to": "15449__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_017", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I'm not sure that I understand Your Honor(Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [344.34], "stop_times": [345.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 344.34}, "reply_to": "15449__0_016", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_018", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, the Government here has a right to decline that the state have money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [345.639], "stop_times": [351.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.639}, "reply_to": "15449__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_019", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [351.222], "stop_times": [352.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 351.222}, "reply_to": "15449__0_018", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_020", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What's the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [352.01], "stop_times": [352.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.01}, "reply_to": "15449__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_021", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The Government is not a litigant in this case Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [352.63], "stop_times": [356.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 352.63}, "reply_to": "15449__0_020", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_022", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It's not a litigant but it's involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [356.372], "stop_times": [358.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.372}, "reply_to": "15449__0_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_023", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It's involved, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [358.85], "stop_times": [359.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 358.85}, "reply_to": "15449__0_022", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_024", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And that's what you try and decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [359.587], "stop_times": [361.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.587}, "reply_to": "15449__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_025", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But the litigation here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [361.484], "stop_times": [362.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 361.484}, "reply_to": "15449__0_024", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_026", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What should be a controversy between the Government and the state and the state can determine for itself whether it accepts the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [362.368], "stop_times": [372.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.368}, "reply_to": "15449__0_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_027", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [372.739], "stop_times": [373.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 372.739}, "reply_to": "15449__0_026", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_028", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Why should that be a case of controversy which calls for the attention of this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [373.444], "stop_times": [378.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.444}, "reply_to": "15449__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_029", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think that the controversy is between the people who consider themselves entitled under the federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [378.586], "stop_times": [385.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 378.586}, "reply_to": "15449__0_028", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_030", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But they're trying to get around by -- around at all by saying, \u201cWell, the state would do what it should, we'd get our money\u201d.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [385.362], "stop_times": [395.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.362}, "reply_to": "15449__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_031", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [395.838], "stop_times": [396.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 395.838}, "reply_to": "15449__0_030", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_032", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The state doesn't have to do it.\nThe state can decline to do it and the Government can decline to that amount of money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [396.073, 397.745], "stop_times": [397.745, 401.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.073}, "reply_to": "15449__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_033", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, the state can theoretically decline a debt but California like virtually every state has a specific statute that says that if any of their statutes and rules and regulations in the welfare context are inconsistent with Federal rules and regulations, the Federal rules and regulations shall prevail.\nSo, while theoretically California may be in a position to simply remove itself from the Federal program however impractical as a practical matter, they have made this judgment.\nTheir statute Section 11003 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code says exactly this.\nWe've checked other states statutes.\nNew York has even more explicit statute that says --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [401.317, 420.797, 433.771, 440.687, 442.287], "stop_times": [420.797, 433.771, 440.687, 442.287, 445.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 401.317}, "reply_to": "15449__0_032", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_034", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But with reference to everyone out there.\nThe Government can settle it by not letting them have any money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [445.727, 448.916], "stop_times": [448.916, 454.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.727}, "reply_to": "15449__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_035", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The Government can do this but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [454.451], "stop_times": [456.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 454.451}, "reply_to": "15449__0_034", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_036", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "On its own.\nWhy should this Court with all the burdens it has multitudinous cases that are becoming before, undertake a case of controversy when there is not a case of controversy between the two main persons who are interested in this, namely the state and the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [456.162, 457.574], "stop_times": [457.574, 475.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.162}, "reply_to": "15449__0_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_037", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Your Honor, I think Congress intended when it passed the Social Security Act for needy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [475.062], "stop_times": [481.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 475.062}, "reply_to": "15449__0_036", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_038", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Social Security is a different thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [481.274], "stop_times": [484.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.274}, "reply_to": "15449__0_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_039", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "This --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [484.308], "stop_times": [484.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 484.308}, "reply_to": "15449__0_038", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_040", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Why do you collect your money for social security?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [484.608], "stop_times": [485.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.608}, "reply_to": "15449__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_041", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "This is a part of the Social Security Act enacted in 1935 as Your Honor knows and this AFDC program has been in existence since that time.\nCongress intended I think it's quite clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [485.812, 493.99], "stop_times": [493.99, 496.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 485.812}, "reply_to": "15449__0_040", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_042", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's an obligation on the part of the Government, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [496.016], "stop_times": [500.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.016}, "reply_to": "15449__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_043", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It's an obligation on the part of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [500.734], "stop_times": [502.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 500.734}, "reply_to": "15449__0_042", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_044", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [502.775], "stop_times": [504.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.775}, "reply_to": "15449__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_045", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's correct, to assist the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [504.207], "stop_times": [505.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 504.207}, "reply_to": "15449__0_044", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_046", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "This is an obligation to a certain extent on the part of the state, to certain extent on the part of the Federal Government under to be -- based on agreement which they can reach or not reach as they seek it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [505.95], "stop_times": [520.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.95}, "reply_to": "15449__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_047", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But they've all seemed fit to do that and they all as we know is practical matter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [520.621], "stop_times": [525.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 520.621}, "reply_to": "15449__0_046", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_048", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The controversy here as to what the state can do and what the Federal Government can do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [525.231], "stop_times": [529.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.231}, "reply_to": "15449__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_049", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I think there's a very real controversy, these people --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [529.778], "stop_times": [532.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 529.778}, "reply_to": "15449__0_048", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_050", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The Government has its own sanction in its own hand.\nIt can stop paying the state any money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [532.969, 536.386], "stop_times": [536.386, 539.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.969}, "reply_to": "15449__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_051", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, in this particular case, these people claim benefits and the claimed that California --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [539.486], "stop_times": [544.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 539.486}, "reply_to": "15449__0_050", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_052", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yeah -- yeah, right indirect claim benefit, you get a lawsuit settled between the state and Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [544.996], "stop_times": [553.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.996}, "reply_to": "15449__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_053", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I understand the difficulties with this Court not wanting to become the Court of last resort and welfare disputes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [553.972], "stop_times": [560.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 553.972}, "reply_to": "15449__0_052", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_054", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, why won't this place us right there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [560.806], "stop_times": [563.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.806}, "reply_to": "15449__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_055", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I don't think it will place you right there Your Honor.\nIt seems to me that if the law in this area is clarified so that the states understand the obligations they have and I think King versus Smith went a long way in that direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [563.555, 565.664], "stop_times": [565.664, 574.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 563.555}, "reply_to": "15449__0_054", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_056", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If the states understand it, why should we have to decide it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [574.189], "stop_times": [577.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.189}, "reply_to": "15449__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_057", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What I'm suggesting is that when cases like this are decided, it will be clear what the obligations of the states are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [577.806], "stop_times": [584.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 577.806}, "reply_to": "15449__0_056", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_058", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "To that extent, but they change with these changing dates.\nWe need the changing litigants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [584.476, 588.801], "stop_times": [588.801, 591.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.476}, "reply_to": "15449__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_059", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, Your Honor with all respect I don't think that the federal approach is changed the thing and so long as the Court establishes that the federal construction of the Act is the appropriate one in this area, then the state will necessary have to abide by it.\nAnd I think California and New York and the other states have already made this judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [591.862, 607.258], "stop_times": [607.258, 610.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 591.862}, "reply_to": "15449__0_058", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_060", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We will have to abide by it, and if we don't the Government has its relief in its own hand.\nIt can decline to let him have the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [610.066, 615.024], "stop_times": [615.024, 616.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.066}, "reply_to": "15449__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_061", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's correct but that's circular because they've already made this judgment unless California resends the statute, it's made a judgment that it will exceed to the Federal rules and regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [616.813], "stop_times": [627.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 616.813}, "reply_to": "15449__0_060", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_062", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And the Federal Government can at this moment withdraw its funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [627.024], "stop_times": [630.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.024}, "reply_to": "15449__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_063", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Correct.\nAnd that's correct they can but whether that's a reasonable or practical courses would carry not just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [630.943, 631.401], "stop_times": [631.401, 638.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 630.943}, "reply_to": "15449__0_062", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_064", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Probably more reasonable and to get this Court mixed status in every welfare case that arises in the whole range of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [638.413], "stop_times": [647.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.413}, "reply_to": "15449__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_065", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But the approach you suggest would carry over to every Federal matching grant program Your Honor and would simply say that there's no justiciable controversy here and that the way to proceed is for the Federal Government always to cut off funds and I don't think the Court has proceeded that way in the past and I don't think that it's a reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [647.678], "stop_times": [667.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 647.678}, "reply_to": "15449__0_064", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_066", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We haven't had this case before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [667.228], "stop_times": [670.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.228}, "reply_to": "15449__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_067", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Your Honor with all respect in King versus Smith, the Court said there is of course no question that the Federal Government unless barred by some controlling constitutional prohibition may impose the terms and conditions upon which its money allotments to the state shall be dispersed and that any state law or regulation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [670.277], "stop_times": [689.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 670.277}, "reply_to": "15449__0_066", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_068", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It is supported by this Court would deny that statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [689.501], "stop_times": [692.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.501}, "reply_to": "15449__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_069", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And that any state law or regulation inconsistent with such federal terms and conditions is to that extent invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [692.426], "stop_times": [699.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 692.426}, "reply_to": "15449__0_068", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_070", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, when it's raised in a case of controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [699.155], "stop_times": [702.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.155}, "reply_to": "15449__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_071", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I think that King versus Smith was as much a case of controversy as the present case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [702.638], "stop_times": [708.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 702.638}, "reply_to": "15449__0_070", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_072", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Is there any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [708.491], "stop_times": [708.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.491}, "reply_to": "15449__0_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_073", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, even if it was, there's no sign we should continue to be bound by if it's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [708.849], "stop_times": [716.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.849}, "reply_to": "15449__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_074", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, I'm suggesting Your Honor that if the Court clarifies the questions raised in this case and other cases that there's no reason to expect that the Court will continue to be involved year after year in these disputes over the welfare law.\nOnce the secretary has his authority made clear, I think that it's reasonable for the Court to expect that he allied.\nBut there have been serious questions about this, they have been raised in litigation and they are before the Court presently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [716.672, 733.234, 740.912], "stop_times": [733.234, 740.912, 746.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 716.672}, "reply_to": "15449__0_073", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_075", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But the custom is now arrived whereby everybody bringing every kind of welfare case for this state bringing in a lap number of controversies that we are simply not capable on account of the lack of numbers, the lack of scope to handle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [746.917], "stop_times": [768.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.917}, "reply_to": "15449__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__0_076", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I suppose it's complicated somewhat for the fact that the statute is now amended and the regulations are amended.\nAnd so, we'll have a whole new set of statutes and regulations to deal with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [768.129, 774.007], "stop_times": [774.007, 780.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.129}, "reply_to": "15449__0_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_077", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that I'm clear on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [780.607], "stop_times": [785.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 780.607}, "reply_to": "15449__0_076", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_078", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "There are a new set of regulations of HEW are there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [785.503], "stop_times": [789.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.503}, "reply_to": "15449__0_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_079", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, there is not any new set of regulations there on the question here at issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [789.397], "stop_times": [794.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 789.397}, "reply_to": "15449__0_078", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_080", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "How about the new California statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [794.171], "stop_times": [796.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.171}, "reply_to": "15449__0_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_081", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, the new California statute as Mr. Amsterdam discussed yesterday does raise with respect to parts of the controversy before the Court, some questions that have to be resolved I think on remand by the District Court but it doesn't do away with the entire matter here.\nIt doesn't touch the step father questions and California is continuing to act as far as we know under the old statute.\nThey have not yet promulgated regulations -- officially adopted regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [796.215, 814.321, 822.928], "stop_times": [814.321, 822.928, 827.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 796.215}, "reply_to": "15449__0_080", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_082", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "When does the new statute go in to effect again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [827.624], "stop_times": [829.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.624}, "reply_to": "15449__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_083", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, the new statute was enacted in November 1969 and we agreed that there are questions that properly should be probed as to that statute and its effect on the MARS, man assuming the role of a spouse because that's all that it relates to by the District Court and we suggest to that extent to the remand of that Court would be appropriate but that doesn't (Inaudible) --\nYour Honor, I really have had a chance on behalf of HEW to make the affirmative argument and could I have several minutes to do so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [829.657, 856.767], "stop_times": [856.767, 866.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 829.657}, "reply_to": "15449__0_082", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_084", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The affirmative argument on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [866.997], "stop_times": [868.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.997}, "reply_to": "15449__0_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_085", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "On the validity of its regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [868.661], "stop_times": [871.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 868.661}, "reply_to": "15449__0_084", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_086", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "For how long do you think you'd need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [871.185], "stop_times": [872.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.185}, "reply_to": "15449__0_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_087", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "About five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [872.538], "stop_times": [873.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 872.538}, "reply_to": "15449__0_086", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_088", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I will grant you five minutes and extend accordingly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [873.933], "stop_times": [877.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.933}, "reply_to": "15449__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_089", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [877.427], "stop_times": [879.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 877.427}, "reply_to": "15449__0_088", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_090", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We can trade on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [879.359], "stop_times": [880.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.359}, "reply_to": "15449__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_091", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We think that the regulation is valid for a number of reasons.\nFirst, we think that the presumption of validity always attaches and as this Court has said a number of times to the administrative interpretation by a Government official charged with the responsibility for administering a particular act.\nAs Mr. Amsterdam indicated yesterday, the same approach, the approach of requiring proof of actual income before reduction of benefits has been applied across the board in other categorical public assistance programs by HEW.\nMoreover, we think that in 1967 Congress at least implicitly approved the HEW regulation when it reenacted the Act and in an act of certain amendments to these provisions knowing what HEW's construction had been and not seeking to change it.\nMoreover, we think that it's quite clear in King versus Smith, the Court specifically referred to predecessor regulation and said regulations of HEW, this is in footnote 16 of King versus Smith, regulations of HEW which clearly comport with the statute, restrict the resources which are to be taken into account under Section 602 to those that, \"are in fact available to an applicant or recipient for current use on a regular basis.\"\nThis regulation properly excludes from consideration resources which are merely assumed to be available to the needy individual.\nMoreover, the Court earlier this term summarily affirmed the decision by the Court -- the District Court in Connecticut in Salman versus Shapiro which is reported at 396 US file which held the HEW regulation valid and an inconsistent Connecticut practice to be invalid.\nMoreover, we think that the HEW's approach is consistent with the purpose of the act which is to provide economic security to the five million plus children that are covered by this act.\nIt's a massive act.\nThis regulation is an important part of it.\nThe -- the whole program involves expenditure of over $2 billion by the Federal Government each year, a total expenditure close to $4 billion.\nCalifornia statute we think conflicts with this regulation and since California has a statute that I already have referred to which says that when it's rules and regulations conflict the federal rules shall prevail, we think whatever the relevance of this supremacy clause that in this context the District Court improperly struck down the HEW regulation and improperly upheld the California approach.\nCalifornia's approach of assuming support simply is contrary to fact in most cases.\nMoreover, it is inconsistent with King versus Smith for the reasons that I've indicated earlier.\nThere's some language in that opinion that counsel might prefer to but that language is always accompanied by the reference to support in fact and while the Court referred to a legal obligation, it also referred to support in fact as coupled therewith.\nThe Court was referring King versus Smith, we think to a legal obligation of general applicability not the strange sort of thing that California sought to carve out.\nIndeed, if California is right, Alabama could have avoided the decision there by just enacting a statute which said \u201cOkay, substitute fathers have a legal obligation of support whether it was enforceable or not what difference it would have complied.\u201d\nNow, we don't think the Court intend to that King versus Smith.\nWe don't think that makes good sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [880.65, 884.501, 899.356, 913.915, 932.92, 963.275, 971.394, 992.434, 1004.1, 1005.054, 1009.547, 1021.871, 1045.503, 1051.595, 1056.415, 1071.7, 1081.635, 1096.001, 1098.963], "stop_times": [884.501, 899.356, 913.915, 932.92, 963.275, 971.394, 992.434, 1004.1, 1005.054, 1009.547, 1021.871, 1045.503, 1051.595, 1056.415, 1071.7, 1081.635, 1096.001, 1098.963, 1101.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 880.65}, "reply_to": "15449__0_090", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_092", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think, he would followed from what California has done that the family would not be eligible for AFDC grants at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1101.905], "stop_times": [1111.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.905}, "reply_to": "15449__0_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_093", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think Your Honor, that's the ultimate conclusion that you reach here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1111.361], "stop_times": [1114.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1111.361}, "reply_to": "15449__0_092", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_094", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You mean it would be the same as the situation in King and Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1114.307], "stop_times": [1117.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.307}, "reply_to": "15449__0_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_095", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That -- well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1117.401], "stop_times": [1118.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1117.401}, "reply_to": "15449__0_094", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_096", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Because the families are eligible only if one parent is dead or absent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1118.107], "stop_times": [1123.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.107}, "reply_to": "15449__0_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_097", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's correct.\nIf you pressed it to the ultimate they are making these people parents and by definition they're not eligible -- but California doesn't want that of course, because the statute we're talking about here is specifically tailored to AFDC and relates only to that context.\nSo, they are simply trying to reduce the benefits that people receive by assumed support they get from these men without any acts of proof of it, and I think that if California were pressed too, there are some state -- a couple of states have adopted statutes that at least as the stepfathers place a general obligation.\nAs to those we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1123.059, 1123.828, 1141.558, 1162.809], "stop_times": [1123.828, 1141.558, 1162.809, 1163.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1123.059}, "reply_to": "15449__0_096", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_098", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And that makes the family --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1163.22], "stop_times": [1164.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.22}, "reply_to": "15449__0_097", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__0_099", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As to those we would agree.\nYes, and that's Washington adopted statute and I think a couple of our states.\nThat's quite right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1164.232, 1165.759, 1170.038], "stop_times": [1165.759, 1170.038, 1170.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1164.232}, "reply_to": "15449__0_098", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_100", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You mean, if California had a general statute applying to the MARS that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1170.697], "stop_times": [1177.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.697}, "reply_to": "15449__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_101", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I couldn't really conceive one applied to MARS but stepfathers is a reason -- I think is a feasible thing as I indicated some states too.\nAnd that makes the stepfather -- the regulation itself, the first part which I didn't read specifically provides that.\nIt says that born relation to a child's stepparent who is ceremonially married to the child's natural or adopted parent and is legally obligated to support the child under state law of general applicability which requires stepparents to support stepchildren to the same extent that natural or adopted are required to support their children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1177.827, 1186.105, 1195.752], "stop_times": [1186.105, 1195.752, 1215.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1177.827}, "reply_to": "15449__0_100", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_102", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But why would you say that was alright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1215.636], "stop_times": [1218.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.636}, "reply_to": "15449__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_103", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I think the judgment is that you have then a real and enforceable obligation that's analogues to the obligation of a natural or an adoptive parent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1218.498], "stop_times": [1229.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1218.498}, "reply_to": "15449__0_102", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_104", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, if the state can substantiate the fact that there's a legal obligation to support the children in the house, his living in the house there's a legal obligation under the state law to support those children and if it's enforceable you would say the state regulation is alright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1229.194], "stop_times": [1250.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.194}, "reply_to": "15449__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_105", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, it has to be one that meets all the criteria that this regulation spells out which is one of general -- the person becomes just as natural or adoptive father or stepfather.\nNow, most of these people simply don't want to be put in that position and I don't think most states are going to adopt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1250.567, 1263.872], "stop_times": [1263.872, 1272.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1250.567}, "reply_to": "15449__0_104", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_106", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well no, but when you say that that would be alright, what you are really doing is assuming income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1272.807], "stop_times": [1278.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.807}, "reply_to": "15449__0_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_107", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But your -- well yes, and just as you're assuming income as to natural parent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1278.515], "stop_times": [1281.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1278.515}, "reply_to": "15449__0_106", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_108", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "With a parent.\nWith their parent, with a natural parent living at home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1281.743, 1282.583], "stop_times": [1282.583, 1285.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.743}, "reply_to": "15449__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_109", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1285.049], "stop_times": [1286.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1285.049}, "reply_to": "15449__0_108", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_110", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And then the parent moves out you no longer assume income, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1286.305], "stop_times": [1289.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.305}, "reply_to": "15449__0_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_111", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1289.509], "stop_times": [1290.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1289.509}, "reply_to": "15449__0_110", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_112", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And but as long as he is at home you assume income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1290.644], "stop_times": [1294.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.644}, "reply_to": "15449__0_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_113", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1294.036], "stop_times": [1294.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1294.036}, "reply_to": "15449__0_112", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_114", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Do you say you would be willing to assume income if the state had the proper law with respect to stepfather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1294.774], "stop_times": [1299.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.774}, "reply_to": "15449__0_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_115", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think that that's a necessary conclusion, that's the way the regulation reads and for good or for bad, we have to support the regulation.\nBut I think that it coincides with the common sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1299.944, 1307.533], "stop_times": [1307.533, 1310.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1299.944}, "reply_to": "15449__0_114", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_116", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You think it really -- you think this represents a professional expert judgment as to what likely reality is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1310.913], "stop_times": [1322.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.913}, "reply_to": "15449__0_115", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_117", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I think that the idea is that when you have a man that's willing to do this much but then you have a more or less stable family unit that does not fit under the category --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1322.166], "stop_times": [1332.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1322.166}, "reply_to": "15449__0_116", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_118", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But the experience would show that in the MARS situation it's just contrary to the reality assumingly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1332.865], "stop_times": [1341.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1332.865}, "reply_to": "15449__0_117", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_119", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think so, I think that as soon as you try to put an obligation, a real obligation of support on these MARS people at least, their alternative is simply to get out and that California's statute both as to stepfathers and as to MARS provides that they have an obligation of support only when they're in the home, if they leave then they don't have an obligation, it evaporates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1341.021], "stop_times": [1366.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1341.021}, "reply_to": "15449__0_118", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_120", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Sure, sure well that's the result of this regulation has been to -- that some MARS have left.\nDoes that happen in one or two of these cases or why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1366.725, 1375.166], "stop_times": [1375.166, 1378.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.725}, "reply_to": "15449__0_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_121", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I don't know whether it has been the result --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1378.506], "stop_times": [1384.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1378.506}, "reply_to": "15449__0_120", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_122", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It must be that the California regulation has some real teeth in the thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1384.143], "stop_times": [1389.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.143}, "reply_to": "15449__0_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_123", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, it has real teeth when it deprives people that need support of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1389.84], "stop_times": [1392.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1389.84}, "reply_to": "15449__0_122", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_124", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I know that it deprives MARS out of the family must be because there's a real obligation as long as they stay there, then why isn't the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1392.738], "stop_times": [1400.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.738}, "reply_to": "15449__0_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__0_125", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, the reason they don't stay there is because the money is cut off and since their income is assumed to be available but it is not really available because they have other children to support or whatever, then they move out because they are not in fact able to provide support.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1400.137], "stop_times": [1421.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1400.137}, "reply_to": "15449__0_124", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_126", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But I think there is another hypothesis for their moving out too and wasn't it one of the considerations in the development of the scheme namely that when they aid to dependent children stopped, the free boarder left because the income stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1421.712], "stop_times": [1440.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.712}, "reply_to": "15449__0_125", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_127", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1440.511], "stop_times": [1440.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1440.511}, "reply_to": "15449__0_126", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_128", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That didn't -- doesn't that show up in the legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1440.837], "stop_times": [1445.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.837}, "reply_to": "15449__0_127", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_129", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Your Honor, I think it shows up in the early legislative history.\nIn King versus Smith, I think the Court made clear that the notion of punishing the kids by seeking to legislate morality for the mother had been abandoned by Congress in subsequent amendments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1445.231, 1448.48], "stop_times": [1448.48, 1461.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1445.231}, "reply_to": "15449__0_128", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_130", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I'm talking about the punishment of the children aspect, I'm talking about what you were addressing yourself to the reasons for the departure of this putative --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1461.261], "stop_times": [1474.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.261}, "reply_to": "15449__0_129", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__0_131", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But to the extent that there is a notion of having stable family units, it seems to me that HEW's approach and not California fosters that because HEW's approach allows the reduction in the amount of benefit payments only when there is proof of actual income and therefore, when there is not actual income the MARS or the stepfather I assume will continue to reside with the children.\nNow, to the extent that that's a value worth preserving, HEW's approach preserves, the California's does not.\nCalifornia forces the man to move out of the house when he doesn't have income that helps support the children so that they won't receive the reduction, it won't be cutoff as to some of the people on this case were.\nThe reasons that we submitted and the reason stated in the brief, we think the District Court erred and the judgment should be reversed and remanded for further --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1474.094, 1502.252, 1509.578, 1524.36], "stop_times": [1502.252, 1509.578, 1524.36, 1531.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1474.094}, "reply_to": "15449__0_130", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_132", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yeah, but the Supreme Court of California has a chance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1531.74], "stop_times": [1535.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.74}, "reply_to": "15449__0_131", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__0_133", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Alright.\nYour Honor, my understanding is that Supreme Court of California has not had a chance to pass squarely on this.\nThere's some lower California Appellate Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1535.351, 1536.168, 1542.03], "stop_times": [1536.168, 1542.03, 1545.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1535.351}, "reply_to": "15449__0_132", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_134", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You don't know how they would construe their law on the later amendment to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1545.451], "stop_times": [1550.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.451}, "reply_to": "15449__0_133", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__0_135", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That correct but I don't think that really the law needs too much construction perhaps counsel from California will illuminate us on this but the intermediate appellate court decision are quite ambiguous.\nFrankly, they speak in terms of the obligation of support not being a general one that applies across the board but one tailored to AFDC.\nWell, that's quite right it is one tailored to AFDC.\nThere was a case where one of these people said that this law was a deprivation of his right of property.\nCalifornia couldn't do this and the Court said no that's not right, he is not being deprived of anything.\nHe simply -- his income is simply being assumed to have been transferred to the support of the children.\nSo, to the extent that this California authority, it's confusing and ambiguous but it at least raises questions as to whether the duty of support is anything more than a loser one.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1550.664, 1562.616, 1571.033, 1573.775, 1582.018, 1587.029, 1593.667, 1606.502], "stop_times": [1562.616, 1571.033, 1573.775, 1582.018, 1587.029, 1593.667, 1606.502, 1607.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1550.664}, "reply_to": "15449__0_134", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15449__0_136", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Thank you, Mr.Beytagh.\nMr.Linderman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1607.099, 1608.174], "stop_times": [1608.174, 1612.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1607.099}, "reply_to": "15449__0_135", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_000", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI might -- I might start Mr. Justice Black in trying to answer your question regarding a determination by the Secretary of HEW of whether California is in compliance and if not, why not cut California off.\nWhen this litigation started in the District Court, California officials were in the process then of trying to determine from HEW whether in fact, HEW felt that the California statute and regulations were in conflict and we were unable to even receive a definitive statement from HEW whether or not the secretary considered California to be in compliance or not.\nAnd we urge the various correspondents on this subject was attached to our motion to dismiss filed in the District Court and we urge the District Court at that time that there is a procedure in the Social Security Act for resolving disputes between the states and HEW as to whether a state plan does or does not comply.\nThe secretary makes a determination of noncompliance.\nThe state is given the authority to petition the Court of Appeals for the particular circuit for determination of that specific issue.\nWe urge the District Court to allow us to do that or at least to first allow us to receive a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1612.905, 1616.589, 1630.379, 1660.82, 1688.81, 1692.169, 1704.232], "stop_times": [1616.589, 1630.379, 1660.82, 1688.81, 1692.169, 1704.232, 1711.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1612.905}, "reply_to": "15449__0_136", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_001", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It allows you to do what now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1711.319], "stop_times": [1713.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.319}, "reply_to": "15449__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_002", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "To utilize the procedure set forth --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1713.908], "stop_times": [1716.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1713.908}, "reply_to": "15449__1_001", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_003", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1716.752], "stop_times": [1718.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.752}, "reply_to": "15449__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_004", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "In the Social Security Act provides a procedure for resolving a dispute between the states and HEW.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1718.285], "stop_times": [1725.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1718.285}, "reply_to": "15449__1_003", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_005", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1725.839], "stop_times": [1728.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.839}, "reply_to": "15449__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_006", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What is the procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1728.24], "stop_times": [1729.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1728.24}, "reply_to": "15449__1_005", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_007", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1729.425], "stop_times": [1730.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.425}, "reply_to": "15449__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_008", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If HEW makes a determination of noncompliance of a state plan, the state may go to the Court of Appeals for the particular circuit in which the state is located.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1730.16], "stop_times": [1742.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1730.16}, "reply_to": "15449__1_007", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_009", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "May I just interrupt you for a moment.\nIt has to be formal disapproval about the state plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1742.049, 1743.669], "stop_times": [1743.669, 1747.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.049}, "reply_to": "15449__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_010", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "My understanding Mr. Justice is that it has to be a determination, the languages is a determination that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1747.479], "stop_times": [1757.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1747.479}, "reply_to": "15449__1_009", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_011", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Except but it does some kind of a formal determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1757.431], "stop_times": [1761.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.431}, "reply_to": "15449__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_012", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "A -- a formal determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1761.375], "stop_times": [1763.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1761.375}, "reply_to": "15449__1_011", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_013", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "They seek determination.\nIs there a hearing, what happens there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1763.431, 1764.983], "stop_times": [1764.983, 1767.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.431}, "reply_to": "15449__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_014", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It -- in California what was happening at the time this suit started was considerable correspondence going back and forth between the governor and the director of the state primary social welfare.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1767.678], "stop_times": [1779.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1767.678}, "reply_to": "15449__1_013", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_015", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Did he took by correspondent with the state officials and the HEW?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1779.485], "stop_times": [1783.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.485}, "reply_to": "15449__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_016", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And the secretary at that time is Secretary Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1783.894], "stop_times": [1786.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1783.894}, "reply_to": "15449__1_015", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_017", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But nothing in the way of a formal proceeding administratively before the board or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1786.506], "stop_times": [1792.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.506}, "reply_to": "15449__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_018", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Nothing at that point because when the suit was filed, California was still in the process of trying to find out whether the secretary had even made a determination that California was not in compliance and then this lawsuit was filed in the middle of it, and we urge the District --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1792.952], "stop_times": [1812.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1792.952}, "reply_to": "15449__1_017", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_019", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And we suggested that the review expressly provided that the statute in the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, a review of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1812.322], "stop_times": [1821.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.322}, "reply_to": "15449__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_020", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Of the question of whether the state plan conflicts or conforms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1821.577], "stop_times": [1827.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1821.577}, "reply_to": "15449__1_019", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_021", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But wouldn't have to be reviewed some formal determination sometime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1827.394], "stop_times": [1833.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.394}, "reply_to": "15449__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_022", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I would assume so yes and that is what we were attempting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1833.071], "stop_times": [1837.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1833.071}, "reply_to": "15449__1_021", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_023", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I assume--\n(Inaudible) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1837.522, 1838.637], "stop_times": [1838.637, 1843.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.522}, "reply_to": "15449__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_024", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I would assume that it is a written communicate from the Secretary of HEW that, dear Governor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1843.786], "stop_times": [1851.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1843.786}, "reply_to": "15449__1_023", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_025", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "For example, would this be the case?\nIf your California officials had received from HEW a letter which said, we don't think that California plan complies with the federal regulations.\nYou could have judicial review on the Ninth Circuit of that letter of determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1851.208, 1853.945, 1864.81], "stop_times": [1853.945, 1864.81, 1870.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.208}, "reply_to": "15449__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_026", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Questionable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1870.513], "stop_times": [1871.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1870.513}, "reply_to": "15449__1_025", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_027", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, these are compliance proceedings under the statute aren't they?\nThe HEW as I understand is only proceeded against two states and there's long history of this.\nOne is Connecticut and the other is Nevada, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1871.096, 1875.219, 1880.864], "stop_times": [1875.219, 1880.864, 1884.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.096}, "reply_to": "15449__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_028", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, Nevada.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1884.291], "stop_times": [1885.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1884.291}, "reply_to": "15449__1_027", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_029", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Those are compliance proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1885.242], "stop_times": [1888.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.242}, "reply_to": "15449__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_030", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "This is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1888.239], "stop_times": [1889.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1888.239}, "reply_to": "15449__1_029", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_031", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "They come into -- they come up to adjudication whether they can be reviewed has never been determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1889.96], "stop_times": [1895.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.96}, "reply_to": "15449__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_032", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think that's correct but what happened in the California instance was the state director of social welfare did receive a letter from the secretary, then Secretary Cohen setting forth various reasons why the secretary felt that California was not in compliance.\nThe director from California then wrote back to the secretary and said, \u201cIf this is a determination of noncompliance, then we respectfully request reconsideration but please tell us what it is that you are saying\u201d and we never received a reply to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1895.128, 1913.039], "stop_times": [1913.039, 1930.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1895.128}, "reply_to": "15449__1_031", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_033", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Is that correspondence in the appendix here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1930.93], "stop_times": [1934.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.93}, "reply_to": "15449__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_034", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It's not in the correspondence Mr.Justice, it is attached to the motion to dismiss which the state filed in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1934.046], "stop_times": [1942.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1934.046}, "reply_to": "15449__1_033", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_035", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "So that would in the whole record that's here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1942.202], "stop_times": [1944.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.202}, "reply_to": "15449__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_036", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It's in the record but it's not in the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1944.028], "stop_times": [1946.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1944.028}, "reply_to": "15449__1_035", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_037", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And do you have statutory citation to this review procedure to which you refer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1946.169], "stop_times": [1951.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.169}, "reply_to": "15449__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_038", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I believe its Section 1116 of the Social Security Act.\nI don't have the US Code citation but it is I believe its Section 1116.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1951.087, 1955.954], "stop_times": [1955.954, 1962.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1951.087}, "reply_to": "15449__1_037", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_039", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Was it while the state and Federal Government when negotiation with reference to whether or not your state was in compliance that this suit was filed on the part of the led individual beneficiary in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1962.764], "stop_times": [1981.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.764}, "reply_to": "15449__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_040", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I believe the timing Mr. Justice Black, the correspondence was in the summer of 1968, and the first of these two consolidated cases was filed in October of '68, but as far as the state was concerned, we had never received any definitive statement from the secretary as to whether we were or we're not in compliance when the lawsuit was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [1981.566], "stop_times": [2010.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1981.566}, "reply_to": "15449__1_039", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_041", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Have you ever received ever since --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2010.813], "stop_times": [2012.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.813}, "reply_to": "15449__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_042", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Never since, other the appearance of HEW as amicus in this proceeding alleging that we are not in compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2012.526], "stop_times": [2023.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2012.526}, "reply_to": "15449__1_041", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_043", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Between you and the alleged beneficiaries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2023.451], "stop_times": [2026.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.451}, "reply_to": "15449__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_044", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2026.032], "stop_times": [2026.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2026.032}, "reply_to": "15449__1_043", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_045", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As between California and the alleged beneficiary, that's the lawsuit now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2026.555], "stop_times": [2032.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.555}, "reply_to": "15449__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_046", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Right.\nThe lawsuit now is the alleged beneficiaries against the state alleging that the state is not in compliance with Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2032.858, 2033.171], "stop_times": [2033.171, 2042.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2032.858}, "reply_to": "15449__1_045", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_047", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Has any Court of Appeals has been called upon to act under this procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2042.73], "stop_times": [2048.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.73}, "reply_to": "15449__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_048", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "To my -- I am not familiar with any Justice --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2048.009], "stop_times": [2052.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2048.009}, "reply_to": "15449__1_047", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_049", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It hardly strikes me as an ideal way to litigate a complex legal questions that go directly on no record from an administrative determination to the Court of Appeals.\nAt least in all the other administrative reviews by the Court of Appeals there is a complete record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2052.746, 2066.337], "stop_times": [2066.337, 2074.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.746}, "reply_to": "15449__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_050", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I'm not certain that that's anymore improper or inappropriate method than coming directly to the United States Supreme Court to resolve the same question with not much more record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2074.303], "stop_times": [2085.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2074.303}, "reply_to": "15449__1_049", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_051", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, actually that could be done, couldn't it in quite a different way if the executive branch of the United States of America cutoff a lot in California because you were not in compliance with the conditions under which those funds are made available under these categorical existence program.\nCalifornia could then sue the United States of America in this Court as a Nisi Prius Court, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2085.213, 2107.211], "stop_times": [2107.211, 2115.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.213}, "reply_to": "15449__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_052", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, I would think so Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2115.029], "stop_times": [2117.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2115.029}, "reply_to": "15449__1_051", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_053", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, if United States voted that, do you think the alleged beneficiaries all over the state could sue you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2117.013], "stop_times": [2125.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.013}, "reply_to": "15449__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_054", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Could sue the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2125.397], "stop_times": [2126.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2125.397}, "reply_to": "15449__1_053", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_055", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2126.553], "stop_times": [2130.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.553}, "reply_to": "15449__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_056", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I'm not certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2130.025], "stop_times": [2131.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2130.025}, "reply_to": "15449__1_055", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_057", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What's the difference with that lawsuit at this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2131.068], "stop_times": [2133.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.068}, "reply_to": "15449__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_058", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, your state could have a Social Security wholly independent of ideal funds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2133.474], "stop_times": [2140.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.474}, "reply_to": "15449__1_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_059", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Of course, it could but I doubt very much.\nI think I can speak for the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2140.456, 2143.059], "stop_times": [2143.059, 2144.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2140.456}, "reply_to": "15449__1_058", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_060", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Not constitutionally speaking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2144.652], "stop_times": [2146.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.652}, "reply_to": "15449__1_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_061", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Of course, of course but I think I can speak for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2146.54], "stop_times": [2150.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2146.54}, "reply_to": "15449__1_060", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_062", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Would it have a right to administer, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2150.182], "stop_times": [2153.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.182}, "reply_to": "15449__1_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_063", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As it chose, I would think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2153.269], "stop_times": [2156.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2153.269}, "reply_to": "15449__1_062", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_064", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Subject to only the constitutional restrictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2156.432], "stop_times": [2157.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.432}, "reply_to": "15449__1_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_065", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Constitutional restrictions would be the only one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2157.965], "stop_times": [2160.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2157.965}, "reply_to": "15449__1_064", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_066", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And as I understand it, there's no one to get challenge.\nThat there is no constitutional provision which will prevent California from spending its own fund in its own way, if it doesn't mix them up with the federal receipts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2160.837, 2164.895], "stop_times": [2164.895, 2175.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.837}, "reply_to": "15449__1_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_067", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I think the appellants in this case are arguing that irrespective of the supremacy clause problem in the case that even assuming that there's no problem there that California is distributing its funds in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2175.913], "stop_times": [2194.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2175.913}, "reply_to": "15449__1_066", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_068", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Absolutely and that same argument would be made whether or not to any federal funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2194.776], "stop_times": [2198.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.776}, "reply_to": "15449__1_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_069", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Definitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2198.5], "stop_times": [2199.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2198.5}, "reply_to": "15449__1_068", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_070", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "How do they raise it under the Equal Protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2199.875], "stop_times": [2204.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.875}, "reply_to": "15449__1_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_071", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Their allegation is that the obligation which California places on MARS in a welfare home only as opposed to a MARS in a non-welfare home denies Equal Protection to the children in the welfare home and to the MARS in the welfare home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2204.112], "stop_times": [2229.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2204.112}, "reply_to": "15449__1_070", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_072", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That would raise a question purely under the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2229.802], "stop_times": [2233.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.802}, "reply_to": "15449__1_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_073", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "They are raising the question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2233.492], "stop_times": [2234.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2233.492}, "reply_to": "15449__1_072", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_074", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And you could sue the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2234.387], "stop_times": [2236.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.387}, "reply_to": "15449__1_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_075", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "They are raising --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2236.841], "stop_times": [2237.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2236.841}, "reply_to": "15449__1_074", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_076", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That wouldn't be tied up at all with the Federal Government's position in connection with compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2237.232], "stop_times": [2246.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.232}, "reply_to": "15449__1_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_077", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, it would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2246.956], "stop_times": [2247.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2246.956}, "reply_to": "15449__1_076", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_078", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As I understand that lawsuit is based on quite a different theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2247.38], "stop_times": [2252.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.38}, "reply_to": "15449__1_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_079", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Oh, it is.\nBut this is an aspect of their lawsuit also as the Equal Protection problem which assuming that California were running its own welfare program, not receiving federal matching funds presumably the same constitutional limitations are going to have to apply.\nThe only ones that would be eliminated would be the regulations of HEW and the act of Cardozo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2252.196, 2253.127, 2272.712], "stop_times": [2253.127, 2272.712, 2285.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2252.196}, "reply_to": "15449__1_078", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_080", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I'd suppose that all of these was answered by Cardozo in that initial case in the Stewart Machine Company case back in 1936.\nThese are the conditions upon which the states would participate, the state need not participate.\nThey do participate unless -- to get federal funds, they must participate on the federal condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2285.942, 2296.12, 2302.122], "stop_times": [2296.12, 2302.122, 2308.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.942}, "reply_to": "15449__1_079", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15449__1_081", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We don't question the fact that California must comply with valid HEW regulations and an act of Congress in order to be able to qualify to receive the federal funds.\nWe are not disputing that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2308.764, 2322.268], "stop_times": [2322.268, 2325.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2308.764}, "reply_to": "15449__1_080", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_082", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And suppose that's -- any question has been raised about that by anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2325.088], "stop_times": [2329.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.088}, "reply_to": "15449__1_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_083", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "None whatsoever and nor do we question the authority of the secretary of HEW to issue rules and regulations to fill up the details of the Social Security.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2329.101], "stop_times": [2341.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2329.101}, "reply_to": "15449__1_082", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_084", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If state wants to participate it would have to comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2341.008], "stop_times": [2344.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.008}, "reply_to": "15449__1_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15449__1_085", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No question about it Mr. Justice Black.\nOur position however is though that the secretary of HEW in his regulations has exceeded the scope of authority given to him by Congress in the Social Security Act.\nWe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2344.585, 2346.864, 2363.251], "stop_times": [2346.864, 2363.251, 2363.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2344.585}, "reply_to": "15449__1_084", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_086", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "There is no question that that's controversy between that's involved in this case even though the parties of the State of California and the welfare benefit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2363.538], "stop_times": [2374.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.538}, "reply_to": "15449__1_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_087", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No question that that's the crucial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2374.044], "stop_times": [2375.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2374.044}, "reply_to": "15449__1_086", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_088", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "There's no question that that issue is a case of controversy properly before this Court for decision making.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2375.647], "stop_times": [2383.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.647}, "reply_to": "15449__1_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_089", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I would not -- I would conceive that yes.\nMy point initially was that there is an alternative procedures that the controversy could first be resolved in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nI don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2383.015, 2386.868, 2398.655], "stop_times": [2386.868, 2398.655, 2399.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2383.015}, "reply_to": "15449__1_088", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_090", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, I guess what's you were addressing yourself earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2399.92], "stop_times": [2402.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.92}, "reply_to": "15449__1_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_091", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Exactly.\nI assume though that even if that were resolved in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that sooner or later it would reach here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2402.81, 2404.101], "stop_times": [2404.101, 2412.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2402.81}, "reply_to": "15449__1_090", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_092", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But you'd manage to do something somehow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2412.372], "stop_times": [2414.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.372}, "reply_to": "15449__1_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_093", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.\nThe HEW regulation has two parts to it.\nThe first one is the secretary's definition of who maybe a parent which of course goes to the question of is the child a dependent child and eligible or not eligible for assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2414.446, 2416.615, 2420.006], "stop_times": [2416.615, 2420.006, 2435.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2414.446}, "reply_to": "15449__1_092", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_094", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "At all but that doesn't go to the question of the amount of money, it goes to the question of eligibility at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2435.735], "stop_times": [2440.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2435.735}, "reply_to": "15449__1_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_095", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "At all.\nIf the person is determined to be a parent, there is no eligibility with the exception of the unemployed parent and the optional AFDC --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2440.745, 2441.627], "stop_times": [2441.627, 2450.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2440.745}, "reply_to": "15449__1_094", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_096", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, with some if you have a chance but generally speaking if both parents are in the house ineligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2450.623], "stop_times": [2456.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.623}, "reply_to": "15449__1_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_097", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "By definition, Social Security Act sets up AFDC eligibility for a child who is deprived of parental support because on the absence of a parent.\nHEW in subsection A of its regulation 203.1 says that, the only person who can be a parent is a natural father, an adopted father or a stepfather who is legally obligated to support the child to the same extent as a natural or adoptive father.\nIf that's correct -- now California is not attempting to define children living with a MARS or stepfather as non-dependent children.\nWe are not trying to call the stepfather or the MARS a parent.\nBut under HEW's definition, the only thing California did wrong was to limit the stepparent liability to a stepparent in a welfare home.\nIf California had imposed an obligation on all stepfathers to support their children, then it seems to me that under the HEW regulation, California could determine all needy children in a home with a stepfather totally ineligible for aid and it certainly escapes me how the child -- the needy child in a welfare home derives anymore economic protection from the extension of the stepfather liability to a stepfather in a non-welfare home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2456.35, 2470.188, 2493.051, 2501.809, 2506.426, 2518.527], "stop_times": [2470.188, 2493.051, 2501.809, 2506.426, 2518.527, 2556.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2456.35}, "reply_to": "15449__1_096", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_098", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But if you're right then you are violating the Federal law in a different way because you're spending federal money that you're not authorized to spend because you're giving it to children who are ineligible under the federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2556.28], "stop_times": [2568.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.28}, "reply_to": "15449__1_097", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_099", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But we can easily remedy the situation Mr. Justice Stewart by simply exchanging our support obligation statute and making all stepfathers liable for the support of their children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2568.176], "stop_times": [2579.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2568.176}, "reply_to": "15449__1_098", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_100", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As I say if you do that, then if you give any money to a family of the stepfather then you're making an unauthorized expenditure of federal money and you're violating the federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2579.153], "stop_times": [2592.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.153}, "reply_to": "15449__1_099", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_101", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Which to me would be frustrative of the purposes of AFDC which is to impose a support obligation on a stepfather in a relatively affluent family.\nCertainly, it gives no economic protection to the child with a stepfather in a poor family.\nIt makes no sense but if the HEW regulation is valid, I think I can state with relative certainty that California will just extend its stepfather liability statute and cut off all children in stepfather homes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2592.729, 2606.253, 2617.66], "stop_times": [2606.253, 2617.66, 2634.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2592.729}, "reply_to": "15449__1_100", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_102", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And that in turn will be litigated I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2634.177], "stop_times": [2637.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.177}, "reply_to": "15449__1_101", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_103", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I would assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2637.519], "stop_times": [2639.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2637.519}, "reply_to": "15449__1_102", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_104", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, you won't care about unless the stepfather has an income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2639.42], "stop_times": [2644.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.42}, "reply_to": "15449__1_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_105", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Assuming an employed stepfather because if you were unemployed then the family would qualify under California's optional AFDCU in the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2644.274], "stop_times": [2656.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2644.274}, "reply_to": "15449__1_104", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_106", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You won't cut off anymore children as you are now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2656.729], "stop_times": [2659.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.729}, "reply_to": "15449__1_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_107", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We are not cutting off children now though Mr. Justice White, we're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2659.502], "stop_times": [2664.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2659.502}, "reply_to": "15449__1_106", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_108", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You are reducing payments by assuming the income of the stepfather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2664.82], "stop_times": [2670.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.82}, "reply_to": "15449__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_109", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We're reducing payments --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2670.273], "stop_times": [2671.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2670.273}, "reply_to": "15449__1_108", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_110", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Availability --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2671.419], "stop_times": [2674.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.419}, "reply_to": "15449__1_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_111", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Assumed availability because of the support obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2674.468], "stop_times": [2678.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2674.468}, "reply_to": "15449__1_110", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_112", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Sure, so you reduce the payments on accountability.\nOne, you wouldn't do it -- you wouldn't cut off anymore if you extend that your obligation is right across the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2678.461, 2682.376], "stop_times": [2682.376, 2690.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.461}, "reply_to": "15449__1_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_113", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Some children living with stepfathers are still receiving aid because the stepfather's net income is insufficient to bring the family up to the states' maximum budget for the family.\nBut if we extend the stepfather liability to non AFDC family stepfathers, then the children in the AFDC family with the stepfathers are going to be totally cutoff.\nThere are now children in the AFDC stepfather family who are still receiving aid, all be it less aid because of the obligation of support on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2690.643, 2707.759, 2721.143], "stop_times": [2707.759, 2721.143, 2733.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2690.643}, "reply_to": "15449__1_112", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_114", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What about the MARS?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2733.665], "stop_times": [2736.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.665}, "reply_to": "15449__1_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_115", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "It seems to me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2736.848], "stop_times": [2737.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2736.848}, "reply_to": "15449__1_114", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_116", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If your old law, you said you changed it, you put the obligation on him to do so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2737.819], "stop_times": [2743.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.819}, "reply_to": "15449__1_115", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_117", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The old -- it still does in a different fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2743.797], "stop_times": [2747.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2743.797}, "reply_to": "15449__1_116", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_118", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "-- you've modified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2747.711], "stop_times": [2748.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.711}, "reply_to": "15449__1_117", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_119", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We've modified it but the statute which was the subject of litigation in the court below, the obligation was that the MARS had to support the children in his home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2748.663], "stop_times": [2761.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2748.663}, "reply_to": "15449__1_118", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_120", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Just like the stepfather does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2761.69], "stop_times": [2762.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.69}, "reply_to": "15449__1_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_121", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Like the stepfather and I would submit that if HEW thinks that you can extend statewide general law of amicability to a stepfather and thereby make no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2762.586], "stop_times": [2776.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2762.586}, "reply_to": "15449__1_120", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_122", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Can do it with the man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2776.772], "stop_times": [2778.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.772}, "reply_to": "15449__1_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_123", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Can do it with the man equally as well and in fact, I would think might have to do it not because of any moral antipathy to the common law marriage but if you don't do it, a man is crazy to marry the welfare mother.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2778.262], "stop_times": [2796.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2778.262}, "reply_to": "15449__1_122", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_124", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But what the -- is the MARS issue a live, a real issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2796.532], "stop_times": [2802.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.532}, "reply_to": "15449__1_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_125", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Oh, I think very definitely so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2802.002], "stop_times": [2803.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2802.002}, "reply_to": "15449__1_124", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_126", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Because of back payments or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2803.94], "stop_times": [2806.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.94}, "reply_to": "15449__1_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_127", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2806.379], "stop_times": [2807.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2806.379}, "reply_to": "15449__1_126", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_128", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Is that all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2807.903], "stop_times": [2810.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.903}, "reply_to": "15449__1_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_129", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "There --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2810.227], "stop_times": [2811.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2810.227}, "reply_to": "15449__1_128", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_130", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Because the new regulation is not an issue in this suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2811.172], "stop_times": [2814.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.172}, "reply_to": "15449__1_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_131", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No yet, there's -- no, it is not an issue in this suit but the same problem, the problem of assuming that there is a meaningful support obligation that's a different kind of obligation now.\nBut the same question of whether the obligation that California imposes is an enforceable one and a source of a resource to the child will remain even under the new regulation, it will take on different --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2814.004, 2827.493], "stop_times": [2827.493, 2844.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2814.004}, "reply_to": "15449__1_130", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_132", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Don't you -- wouldn't you suppose though that as a matter of experience you could justify assuming income -- assuming availability of income where the real parent is living at home and have a wholly different experience with stepfathers or MARS who are living in the home, just in terms actual availability of income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2844.008], "stop_times": [2872.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.008}, "reply_to": "15449__1_131", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_133", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If your question is directed to the point isn't a natural father more apt to support his child than a stepfather, is that the gist of your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2872.334], "stop_times": [2880.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2872.334}, "reply_to": "15449__1_132", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_134", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's part of it, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2880.376], "stop_times": [2883.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.376}, "reply_to": "15449__1_133", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_135", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I would say, yes, if the kind of stepfather or the man in the house that California is talking about is the same kind of a man as Alabama had in King versus Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2883.134], "stop_times": [2893.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2883.134}, "reply_to": "15449__1_134", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_136", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, then why isn't the Federal regulation --a valid expression of a -- valid judgment along those lines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2893.238], "stop_times": [2906.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.238}, "reply_to": "15449__1_135", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_137", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Because the Federal regulation Mr. Justice White is not geared to the factual realities of who these men are that California is concerned with.\nThey are not the midnight visitor in King versus Smith who had a family of his own and nine children and no income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2906.202, 2917.436], "stop_times": [2917.436, 2925.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2906.202}, "reply_to": "15449__1_136", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_138", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I would think the invalidity of it might be is it permit the assumption of income or availability of income where there is a statewide law of general applicability if that's contrary to experience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2925.927], "stop_times": [2939.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.927}, "reply_to": "15449__1_137", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_139", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think the Social Security Act compels assumption of income though where there's a law of support.\nAs this Court interpreted the purposes of AFDC in King versus Smith, it was to provide support for children without -- who could not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2939.506, 2945.649], "stop_times": [2945.649, 2957.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2939.506}, "reply_to": "15449__1_138", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_140", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Do you think it would be invalid under the Social Security Act for HEW to provide by regulation that income of natural parents, availability of income or the natural parent living in the home will not be assumed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2957.813], "stop_times": [2974.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.813}, "reply_to": "15449__1_139", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_141", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, I think it would be invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2974.983], "stop_times": [2976.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2974.983}, "reply_to": "15449__1_140", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_142", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2976.724], "stop_times": [2977.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.724}, "reply_to": "15449__1_141", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_143", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Under the Social Security Act as interpreted by this Court in King versus Smith.\nThat Congress expects that when there is a breadwinner in the home that the breadwinner will support the child and the Social Security Act says that the state has to -- the second part of this is that the state has to determine the extent of need of the children in the home and the child is deemed less needy because of the resource which is assumed by Congress in view to the benefit of the child because of the support obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [2977.942, 2982.88], "stop_times": [2982.88, 3024.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2977.942}, "reply_to": "15449__1_142", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_144", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Mr.Linderman, I think you used the term that the assumption was compelled.\nNow, that assumption also depends upon the enforceability of the support against this man in the house.\nIs that a safe assumption or rational assumption that there is any real enforceability against the man in the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3024.686, 3033.759, 3043.694], "stop_times": [3033.759, 3043.694, 3052.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.686}, "reply_to": "15449__1_143", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_145", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think there is Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3052.288], "stop_times": [3055.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3052.288}, "reply_to": "15449__1_144", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_146", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "How?\nBy suits against the man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3055.811, 3056.634], "stop_times": [3056.634, 3059.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.811}, "reply_to": "15449__1_145", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_147", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3059.42], "stop_times": [3060.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3059.42}, "reply_to": "15449__1_146", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_148", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "How many lawyers is it going to take the deal with the 500,000 people on welfare in Los Angeles alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3060.582], "stop_times": [3067.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.582}, "reply_to": "15449__1_147", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_149", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I appreciate that problem but it's not any different than the child living with a natural father who may not support it.\nThe child or his mother has to sue the man not the state.\nThe state doesn't pay aid and then pursue the man.\nThe child has to get the money from the man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3067.855, 3079.438, 3084.727, 3088.702], "stop_times": [3079.438, 3084.727, 3088.702, 3092.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3067.855}, "reply_to": "15449__1_148", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_150", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Does this record show what is the ratio of unemployed natural fathers whose children are receiving this aid as compared with the man in the house type of situation, any information on that at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3092.278], "stop_times": [3107.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.278}, "reply_to": "15449__1_149", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_151", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Unemployed fathers, not that I know of Your Honor.\nThere are statistics that would indicate how many families we're talking about which contain -- the figures are July 1968 and at that time there were roughly 191,000 families -- AFDC families in California and of that there were 6,700 families with the stepfather and 2,800 families with the MARS.\nA total of roughly 9,500 families out of 191,000 families but of the 191,000, I am not familiar with the statistics on how many of those are unemployed fathers.\nI could easily obtain them and supply them to the Court if you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3107.876, 3112.152, 3149.364, 3165.951], "stop_times": [3112.152, 3149.364, 3165.951, 3170.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3107.876}, "reply_to": "15449__1_150", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_152", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I'm not sure if that's necessary unless someone else wants it.\nWhat I'm trying to get at is that this assumption that you are talking about is based on further assumption of the enforceability against this man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3170.216, 3174.381], "stop_times": [3174.381, 3188.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.216}, "reply_to": "15449__1_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_153", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's correct and it's the same assumption as applies with a natural father in the home and it's an assumption that there is an enforceability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3188.192], "stop_times": [3196.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3188.192}, "reply_to": "15449__1_152", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_154", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But wouldn't you concede that it is easier to enforce that claim against the natural father by the usual traditional processes that it is against these transient men in the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3196.263], "stop_times": [3211.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.263}, "reply_to": "15449__1_153", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_155", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But Your Honor by definition these men are not transients.\nThese are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3211.231, 3215.072], "stop_times": [3215.072, 3215.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3211.231}, "reply_to": "15449__1_154", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_156", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "By whose definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3215.308], "stop_times": [3216.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.308}, "reply_to": "15449__1_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_157", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "By the state definition before the application of the rule even can begin the person -- the man in the house by definition is living in the home and is, in stepfather case, ceremonially married to the mother or in the MARS case is living in the home and has either assumed financial obligations on behalf of the family or comports himself in the community as husband and wife.\nAnd one of the crucial criteria of determining who is the MARS is that he has no other alternative place of residence.\nJust as his family and to the extent that he is a trencher the moment he leaves the home the child is restored the eligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3216.881, 3250.996, 3260.615], "stop_times": [3250.996, 3260.615, 3271.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3216.881}, "reply_to": "15449__1_156", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_158", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Mr. Linderman, do I understand you correctly that the child and the wife have to go to Court to get the support from the husband who left?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3271.092], "stop_times": [3281.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.092}, "reply_to": "15449__1_157", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_159", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Who has left?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3281.607], "stop_times": [3282.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3281.607}, "reply_to": "15449__1_158", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_160", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3282.7], "stop_times": [3284.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.7}, "reply_to": "15449__1_159", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_161", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "They would have to go to Court only to the extent to collect back payments that might be due.\nOnce the man leaves the house --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3284.323, 3290.21], "stop_times": [3290.21, 3293.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3284.323}, "reply_to": "15449__1_160", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_162", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "In the California welfare system, you mean that welfare system doesn't do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3293.849], "stop_times": [3300.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.849}, "reply_to": "15449__1_161", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_163", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Not to collect the back payments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3300.354], "stop_times": [3304.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3300.354}, "reply_to": "15449__1_162", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_164", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You don't have a special department that that's all they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3304.212], "stop_times": [3308.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.212}, "reply_to": "15449__1_163", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_165", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Not for the MARS or the stepfather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3308.53], "stop_times": [3311.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3308.53}, "reply_to": "15449__1_164", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_166", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, no I said for the legitimate father.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3311.105], "stop_times": [3313.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.105}, "reply_to": "15449__1_165", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_167", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "For the legitimate father, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3313.467], "stop_times": [3315.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3313.467}, "reply_to": "15449__1_166", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_168", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "So you go after him to make him pay his debts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3315.633], "stop_times": [3318.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.633}, "reply_to": "15449__1_167", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_169", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "After he leaves the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3318.617], "stop_times": [3320.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3318.617}, "reply_to": "15449__1_168", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_170", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "After he leaves his house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3320.238], "stop_times": [3321.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.238}, "reply_to": "15449__1_169", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_171", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "After he leaves the house but not one of his --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3321.647], "stop_times": [3323.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3321.647}, "reply_to": "15449__1_170", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_172", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I thought you said the responsibility was upon the children?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3323.996], "stop_times": [3327.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3323.996}, "reply_to": "15449__1_171", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_173", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "While the man is in the house.\nWhile the man is in the house be he a natural father or adoptive father or stepfather or MARS, the state does not pursue his resources for the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3327.65, 3331.113], "stop_times": [3331.113, 3341.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3327.65}, "reply_to": "15449__1_172", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_174", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Even if the wife applies for relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3341.307], "stop_times": [3347.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3341.307}, "reply_to": "15449__1_173", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_175", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If the wife applies for relief in the natural father case and he is living in the home, relief is denied, they are ineligible by definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3347.918], "stop_times": [3359.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3347.918}, "reply_to": "15449__1_174", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_176", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The minute he leaves, the welfare makes him pay if they find that he has the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3359.772], "stop_times": [3365.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.772}, "reply_to": "15449__1_175", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15449__1_177", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "If they can find it.\nBut with MARS, the state does not pursue it because there's no more obligation and the state pays aid at that point in time.\nThe other one important resource which I think is unique in the West, particularly in California, in the case of the stepfather is that under California community property law, the earnings of the stepfather are community property in which the wife, the welfare mother has a vested present one-half interest.\nHalf of his earnings are hers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3365.028, 3366.896, 3378.673, 3406.799], "stop_times": [3366.896, 3378.673, 3406.799, 3409.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3365.028}, "reply_to": "15449__1_176", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_178", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's with the ceremonial marriage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3409.623], "stop_times": [3411.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.623}, "reply_to": "15449__1_177", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_179", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's what the stepfather only.\nYes, after the ceremonial marriage, there is no community property in a putative marriage.\nThere is in a meretricious -- in the putative there is, in a meretricious there is not.\nIn other words, these people know they are not married, the MARS and the mother and there is no community property there.\nIf one of them harbors the mistake and belief that they are married, there can be community property there.\nBut I'm talking about the situation where the mother has ceremonially married the man.\nCommunity property then attaches to his earnings, and half of his earnings are hers.\nI would submit that if there is anything that is a resource which the Social Security Act commands California to consider in determining need, that is a resource.\nAgain, the mother may have to take legal action to protect her half interest, but that's no different than the mother living with the natural father of her children.\nShe also may have to take legal recourse but the obligation is clearly enforceable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3411.559, 3413.128, 3420.5, 3427.971, 3434.53, 3441.287, 3449.006, 3456.763, 3468.709, 3486.359], "stop_times": [3413.128, 3420.5, 3427.971, 3434.53, 3441.287, 3449.006, 3456.763, 3468.709, 3486.359, 3494.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3411.559}, "reply_to": "15449__1_178", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_180", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What specific language in the Social Security Act do you rely on for arguing that the Federal regulation is invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3494.663], "stop_times": [3507.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3494.663}, "reply_to": "15449__1_179", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_181", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Section 402(a)(7) which is 42 U. S. C., Section 602(a)(7).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3507.553], "stop_times": [3515.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3507.553}, "reply_to": "15449__1_180", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_182", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Do you have that in appendix to your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3515.262], "stop_times": [3517.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3515.262}, "reply_to": "15449__1_181", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_183", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, it appears at several places.\nIt's in the appendix -- it's cited throughout all the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3517.368, 3520.72], "stop_times": [3520.72, 3529.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3517.368}, "reply_to": "15449__1_182", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_184", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I wanted a quick easy place where we can find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3529.021], "stop_times": [3532.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3529.021}, "reply_to": "15449__1_183", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_185", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "What is the specific language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3532.357], "stop_times": [3536.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3532.357}, "reply_to": "15449__1_184", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_186", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I read the language.\nThe place is the first page of the appendix in the Government's brief.\nThis is Section 602(a)(7).\nIt's one of the series of requirements of the Social Security Act as to what state plan must provide and says that a state plan for aid and services to needy families with children must, underscore must, provide that the state shall in determining need take into consideration any other income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3536.4, 3537.382, 3544.842, 3549.863], "stop_times": [3537.382, 3544.842, 3549.863, 3582.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3536.4}, "reply_to": "15449__1_185", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_187", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "We're talking about income and resources.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3582.833], "stop_times": [3585.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3582.833}, "reply_to": "15449__1_186", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_188", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3585.501], "stop_times": [3585.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3585.501}, "reply_to": "15449__1_187", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_189", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Now, you are saying that the emphasis of that act have a regulation says that income and sources are not going to be assumed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3585.863], "stop_times": [3597.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3585.863}, "reply_to": "15449__1_188", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_190", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3597.579], "stop_times": [3599.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3597.579}, "reply_to": "15449__1_189", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_191", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That the statute requires that you assume that was Social Security?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3599.643], "stop_times": [3605.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3599.643}, "reply_to": "15449__1_190", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_192", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Not assumed.\nNo, no, our position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3605.369, 3606.515], "stop_times": [3606.515, 3609.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3605.369}, "reply_to": "15449__1_191", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_193", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "You're talking about income and resources of the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3609.785], "stop_times": [3614.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3609.785}, "reply_to": "15449__1_192", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_194", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, of the child or the mother.\nSee, it's income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3614.394, 3617.349], "stop_times": [3617.349, 3622.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3614.394}, "reply_to": "15449__1_193", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_195", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And who's claiming aid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3622.764], "stop_times": [3624.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3622.764}, "reply_to": "15449__1_194", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_196", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The mother and the child.\nThat's the child or the mother.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3624.165, 3625.993], "stop_times": [3625.993, 3628.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3624.165}, "reply_to": "15449__1_195", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_197", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "So you've got to say that income don't have to assume the availability of income from the MARS and stepfather.\nEither to the mother of the child.\nYou said that Act requires that.\nWhether it's a MARS in the house or stepfather in the house and the state has legal obligation that this Act requires that you assume that that income is available to the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3628.097, 3640.498, 3644.84, 3647.426], "stop_times": [3640.498, 3644.84, 3647.426, 3665.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3628.097}, "reply_to": "15449__1_196", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_198", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Assume that it is available because it is a resource.\nIt's something in addition to prove an income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3665.371, 3669.015], "stop_times": [3669.015, 3671.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3665.371}, "reply_to": "15449__1_197", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_199", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Although, it is the natural resource must be factual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3671.781], "stop_times": [3674.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3671.781}, "reply_to": "15449__1_198", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_200", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But neither is the resource of the child living with a natural father.\nThe natural father may not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3674.919, 3679.979], "stop_times": [3679.979, 3683.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3674.919}, "reply_to": "15449__1_199", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_201", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That is the point for you and I would make the same argument that perhaps the HEW did say that it is the parent living in the house as I am going to assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3683.287], "stop_times": [3698.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3683.287}, "reply_to": "15449__1_200", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_202", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As this Court pointed out in King versus Smith, if there is a legal obligation of support, proof of actual contribution cannot be determinative.\nThat's the language --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3698.834, 3711.469], "stop_times": [3711.469, 3712.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3698.834}, "reply_to": "15449__1_201", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_203", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "They may not be determinative of the -- you pick the regulation which requires proof of active contribution as invalid to --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3712.621], "stop_times": [3724.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3712.621}, "reply_to": "15449__1_202", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_204", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes, because it defines a child in California to be resourceless.\nThe child can have nothing other than the income that the state through some administrative miracle can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3724.989, 3735.832], "stop_times": [3735.832, 3742.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3724.989}, "reply_to": "15449__1_203", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_205", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "As far as regularly and definitely, that would be the excuse to contribute anything to the support the child regardless of the legal obligation for him imposed by the state, is that what you were saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3742.232], "stop_times": [3760.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3742.232}, "reply_to": "15449__1_204", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_206", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No, but the mother will undoubtedly kick the man out of the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3760.262], "stop_times": [3765.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3760.262}, "reply_to": "15449__1_205", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_207", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's another assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3765.704], "stop_times": [3768.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3765.704}, "reply_to": "15449__1_206", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_208", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "But it is a weapon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3768.371], "stop_times": [3769.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3768.371}, "reply_to": "15449__1_207", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_209", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "That's not very relevant for a legal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3769.762], "stop_times": [3772.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3769.762}, "reply_to": "15449__1_208", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15449__1_210", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think it is Mr. Justice White.\nIt's a weapon.\nIt's a method of enforcement of the obligation that the state is reducing the grant and the mother can say with real meaning support me or get out.\nAnd the facts of this case, the complaints in this case despite their protestations that the men are not supporting the children in the house.\nThe complainants themselves admit that due to the emergency as the language that the plaintiff appellant used that due to the emergency caused by this state statute, the men are supporting the children until the statute is declared invalid.\nThe statute does work, it is enforceable and the men are supporting the children at least some of the names plaintiffs are and the record will show that.\nThe other fact is that in the case of the stepfather and presumably in the MARS as well.\nIt's literally impossible for them not to support them at least in some of these cases where the man has taken the welfare mother and her children into his home.\nHe has put a roof over their head which is the case in several of the named plaintiffs in this appeal.\nThe man has brought the children into his home.\nNow, certainly to some extent, he is putting a roof over their head which is a lessened need for public expense to support that family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3772.008, 3774.037, 3775.649, 3793.334, 3804.463, 3821.929, 3833.775, 3843.846, 3853.017, 3861.352, 3863.921], "stop_times": [3774.037, 3775.649, 3793.334, 3804.463, 3821.929, 3833.775, 3843.846, 3853.017, 3861.352, 3863.921, 3876.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3772.008}, "reply_to": "15449__1_209", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_211", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "California does have a maximum grant regulation, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3876.82], "stop_times": [3880.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3876.82}, "reply_to": "15449__1_210", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_212", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Under challenge.\nYes, it does have a maximum grant and the case has been argued before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3880.016, 3882.428], "stop_times": [3882.428, 3886.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3880.016}, "reply_to": "15449__1_211", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_213", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Right, and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3886.265], "stop_times": [3887.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3886.265}, "reply_to": "15449__1_212", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_214", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3887.556], "stop_times": [3889.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3887.556}, "reply_to": "15449__1_213", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_215", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "And do you have -- if you work out a standard of need of your system and it varies as far as not with the kind of living, with the kind of shelter that they have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3889.863], "stop_times": [3908.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3889.863}, "reply_to": "15449__1_214", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_216", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "There is a maximum amount of shelter need.\nAlthough, there is another case in California on that issue, that the state law and the Social Security Act although the argument is compelled the state pay actual shelter needs.\nBut the -- the current system is that there are allocated specific amounts for each of the various needs, shelter, food, clothing, and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3908.537, 3913.178, 3928.812], "stop_times": [3913.178, 3928.812, 3942.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3908.537}, "reply_to": "15449__1_215", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_217", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Right.\nBut with a maximum per family unit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3942.852, 3947.396], "stop_times": [3947.396, 3950.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3942.852}, "reply_to": "15449__1_216", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_218", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "With a maximum per family unit up to the point, I believe it's ten children and from that point on there is $6.00 added per child after ten children which the attack of the statute is in that force is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3950.263], "stop_times": [3970.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3950.263}, "reply_to": "15449__1_217", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_219", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "--is violative of the Federal statute and violative of the Equal Protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3970.637], "stop_times": [3975.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3970.637}, "reply_to": "15449__1_218", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_220", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3975.098], "stop_times": [3975.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3975.098}, "reply_to": "15449__1_219", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_221", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3975.529], "stop_times": [3987.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3975.529}, "reply_to": "15449__1_220", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15449__1_222", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I believe Mr. Chief Justice through the questioning that I've covered most of the points that I wished to cover unless the Court has further question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3987.877], "stop_times": [3996.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3987.877}, "reply_to": "15449__1_221", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_223", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Would it be fair to say that part of the problem or at least -- or part of the problem as to what extent leverage may be used against the children to enforce obligations against the adults?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [3996.759], "stop_times": [4020.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3996.759}, "reply_to": "15449__1_222", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_224", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think that is somewhat fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4020.718], "stop_times": [4024.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4020.718}, "reply_to": "15449__1_223", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_225", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Would you -- would you state it in your own way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4024.962], "stop_times": [4028.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4024.962}, "reply_to": "15449__1_224", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_226", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "I think the question is how much -- taking King versus Smith as the starting point of what it is and what is not allowable.\nThe child in a home where there is a legally obligated man -- a support obligated man, a burden may fall on that child because the person, the man may not be performing his duty.\nTo that extent, inherent in the Social Security Act, in the AFDC program is that the child may be harmed because of a delinquent father.\nBut so long as he remains in the house, the burden is the child's and our essential argument is that the support obligation which California imposes on MARS or stepfather in the house may put a burden on the child.\nAlthough, we question that factually that does happen that often as we think the record in this case will show that it is not as absurd as the appellants would argue to expect that a man will support someone other than his own children.\nBut to the extent that there is a support obligation, the Social Security Act resubmit, makes that child either a non-dependent child because it's a natural parent or a less needy child because of a perhaps lesser support obligation, clearly enforceable but the extent of the obligation on the man may be less in terms of dollar amount.\nThe support obligation on natural father is without limitation.\nThe support obligation on the MARS and the stepfather, as the state computes the amount of the obligation may turn out to be a lesser amount than the amount the natural father would have to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4028.597, 4042.999, 4069.275, 4083.26, 4105.791, 4125.154, 4158.609, 4164.64], "stop_times": [4042.999, 4069.275, 4083.26, 4105.791, 4125.154, 4158.609, 4164.64, 4181.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4028.597}, "reply_to": "15449__1_225", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_227", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Well, if you have a natural working father, if you let me put this hypothetically to you, a natural father who is working but who more or less regularly drinks up half of his earnings.\nThen, we have deprived children then as a result, can they get aid to the dependent children while he is living in the house gainfully employed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4181.357, 4194.362], "stop_times": [4194.362, 4202.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4181.357}, "reply_to": "15449__1_226", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_228", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4202.046], "stop_times": [4204.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4202.046}, "reply_to": "15449__1_227", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_229", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "So that you have children who suffer as consequence of the conduct of the adults which is beyond the reach of Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4204.101], "stop_times": [4212.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4204.101}, "reply_to": "15449__1_228", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15449__1_230", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "The Social Security Act is only one of many programs to try alleviate poverty.\nBut to the -- it's limited, it is to provide support for children who do not have some breadwinner to look to.\nIt's not essentially that the breadwinner perform his duty of supporting the children.\nCongress expected that the bread winner would support the children in his home.\nCalifornia expects the same thing but the natural father or the MARS or the stepfather may spend his earnings on wine, women or so or whatever, the children may suffer but the social -- but the AFDC program is not the way that you solve that problem.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4212.738, 4220.114, 4233.139, 4240.609, 4247.35, 4273.68], "stop_times": [4220.114, 4233.139, 4240.609, 4247.35, 4273.68, 4274.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4212.738}, "reply_to": "15449__1_229", "speaker": "jay_s_linderman"}
{"id": "15449__1_231", "conversation_id": "15449", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Linderman.\nI am not sure whether there is any time left or not, my markings are not clear.\nApparently, there is no time left because you consumed it all.\nThank you for your submissions.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_829", "start_times": [4274.117, 4284.254, 4288.873, 4293.13, 4294.714], "stop_times": [4284.254, 4288.873, 4293.13, 4294.714, 4298.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4274.117}, "reply_to": "15449__1_230", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14895__0_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Number 622, William L. Maxwell, petitioner versus O.E. Bishop, Superintendent, Arkansas State Penitentiary.\nMr. Amsterdam.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [0.0, 20.898], "stop_times": [20.898, 22.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__0_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis is a federal habeas corpus proceeding on behalf of William Maxwell.\nIt condemned challenging the sentence of death imposed upon him by an Arkansas jury.\nUnlike the Boykin case which the Court has just heard.\nNo question is presented here with regard to the ultimate power of the State of Arkansas to use death as a penalty for crime.\nEven for the crime of rape of which William Maxwell was convicted.\nThe Questions presented relate entirely to the procedures by which the death penalty is administered in the State of Arkansas and by which out of the total number of persons convicted of the crime of rape, some are selected to live and others are selected to die.\nWe have two federal constitutional claims against the Arkansas procedure which for short reference I may term the standards claim and the single verdict claim.\nIn order to put this into prospective and to show their relationship because I think they are eminently related.\nI would like to take a hard look at the outset if I may at the procedure by which Arkansas does determine case by case and individual cases whether persons convicted of rape shall live or shall go to their death in the electric chair.\nNow under Arkansas law, there is one statutory provision which provides that the punishment for the crime of rape is death.\nIn other statute, in effect since 1915 provides that in any case in which the punishment is death by law, the jury may return instead a verdict of imprisonment for life in state penitentiary.\nThe effect of these two statutes therefore is to create an authorization.\nThe availability of returning the death penalty in a broad range of cases but to require the death penalty and not thereby both supposing that selection is possible among the total number of persons convicted of rape and requiring that selection must in fact be made among the total number of persons convicted of rape of some smaller number who shall suffer death, the extreme penalty for that crime.\nNow, it\u2019s not surprising that such a selective process is set in motion by Arkansas law because the crime of rape is in Arkansas as elsewhere.\nA crime that includes a wide range of factual situations, it is simply any consummated sexual assault.\nIt can be committed against a mature woman, against a child, with a weapon endangering life, or not endangering life.\nThe victim can be permanently, physically injured or not permanently physically injured.\nTremendous range of factual situations involved any large range of offenders and in fact on this record one can say that only about a quarter, 25 out of a 100 of the persons actually convicted of rape get to death sentence.\nNow, I put the focus here at the beginning to point out what I -- where I think the focus has to be in this case.\nOn the process by which that selective judgment is made, this is not an insignificant or non-important process.\nIt is literally vital but it is also vital and legal sense because the law of Arkansas as to whether rape is or is not a capital offense is in fact being made case by case as in each individual adjudication the determination is made whether the defendant lives or dies.\nIt is a law making process the penalty for rape in Arkansas is not death.\nIt is subjection to this decisional process and the question which this case presents is whether the specific procedure here is in Arkansas.\nTo make that decision, comport with the Constitution.\nNow, how is the decision in fact made.\nIt is made in each case by a jury.\nA jury cannot be waived in a death case in Arkansas.\nIf as petitioner Maxwell did, the defending contest guilt if the intensity is innocent, a jury is in impaneled to decide two distinct questions whether he is guilty of the crime of rape and if so, what punishment shall be imposed upon it.\nAs to the first of these two decisions whether or not the defendant is guilty of rape, the jury is guided as it is in any criminal case by the law defining the crime of rape and the trial in the capital case in Arkansas is not unusual in this regard.\nThe jury can\u2019t convict the defendant simply because they don\u2019t like him or because he\u2019s unpleasant or because they don\u2019t like the color or his skin or for any other reason.\nIt can convict him only if they find each element of the offense established beyond a reasonable doubt on the record.\nThe definition of the crime of rape gives the jury something to talk about.\nWhen they go back to decide the case, they talk with each other about what is the elements of the offense they\u2019re made out and the rule of law that is being applied by the jury to decide the guilt question and only the guilt question is the same rule of law.\nIt applies to every other person in Arkansas as previously been tried for rape or will be.\nWhen we get to the penalty question, on the other hand, we are in a different world because on the penalty question the jury is given no instructions.\nThe jury is given no principles to guide its decisions.\nThe ordinary procedure in Arkansas is simply to give the jury two forms, a death form which rates we find the defending guilty as charge and a life form which says we find the defendant guilty as charge and sentence him to imprisonment for life.\nNo instructions are given.\nThe jury is simply told, take your choice.\nNow, we have characterized that process of decision making in our brief not in the constitutional sense or simply a descriptive sense as arbitrary.\nAnd I might rest on that because neither California nor Arkansas in response as coupled with that question only they defend the process of sentencing as I understand it on the ground that it constitutes a beneficent arbitrariness.\nBut I think it is helpful to examine in somewhat more detail exactly what is entailed in what I call an arbitrary process.\nThe jury is given in making its determination of life or death a choice which it may make without any prerequisite findings of fact.\nThat is to say the ordinary procedures that we all know as lawyers, it ordinarily go on in courts of law.\nWhere a judge says to a jury if you find \u201cx\u201d then the result would be \u201cy.\u201d\nSimply it doesn\u2019t apply.\nThere are no required findings of fact.\nThe jury need not find that the defendant use the weapon or permanently injured the victim or that he had a prior record or any such thing.\nAny and every offense of rape may be punished by death nor required findings of fact.\nNot only are there no specific required findings of fact in the nature of aggravating circumstances in that sort of thing.\nThere are no general findings of fact put to the jury.\nThe question is not asked would society be safe if this man were incarcerated in the penitentiary for life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [22.596, 27.582, 34.0, 43.201, 47.948, 59.1, 64.92, 86.609, 104.394, 112.874, 132.477, 143.149, 158.273, 164.362, 194.985, 205.338, 214.569, 222.121, 227.087, 244.225, 251.543, 258.178, 275.716, 281.996, 290.934, 294.523, 298.287, 300.645, 305.433, 321.846, 337.148, 344.883, 353.746, 357.401, 369.693, 375.744, 388.346, 392.66, 408.181, 409.524, 412.471, 424.192, 439.531, 451.206, 461.671, 467.04, 473.077, 474.062, 476.699, 486.282, 491.51, 497.305, 500.473], "stop_times": [27.582, 34.0, 43.201, 47.948, 59.1, 64.92, 86.609, 104.394, 112.874, 132.477, 143.149, 158.273, 164.362, 194.985, 205.338, 214.569, 222.121, 227.087, 244.225, 251.543, 258.178, 275.716, 281.996, 290.934, 294.523, 298.287, 300.645, 305.433, 321.846, 337.148, 344.883, 353.746, 357.401, 369.693, 375.744, 388.346, 392.66, 408.181, 409.524, 412.471, 424.192, 439.531, 451.206, 461.671, 467.04, 473.077, 474.062, 476.699, 486.282, 491.51, 497.305, 500.473, 508.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.596}, "reply_to": "14895__0_000", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We\u2019ll recess now Mr. Amsterdam.\nYou may continue your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [508.866, 513.049], "stop_times": [513.049, 515.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.866}, "reply_to": "14895__0_001", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__0_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nIf I may, I would like to resume a brief description of the exact nature of the discretion that the Arkansas jury has in capital sentencing.\nAs I have said, there are no prerequisite factual findings to return a death verdict.\nThe jury may need to find nothing specific in aggravation.\nOf the sort that for example the European Codes used that the offense was committed with the weapon or that the defendant had a prior conviction of a similar offense or any such thing.\nThere are -- is no general required finding of fact such as that the defendant is unreformable or recidivist or incurable or any such thing.\nThere are no preclusive findings of fact that is findings which will exclude the death penalty.\nThe jury is not told if you find that the defendant was suffering a mental disease or defect which rendered him unstable or that the defendant has no prior record or that the victim did not use a great degree of force and resistance or that the defendant did not use the weapon you may not sentence to death.\nAnd there are similarly no general preclusive findings of the nature of emotional disorder or any such thing.\nThere is no direction to the jury that it shall take consideration of any particular range or realm of fact.\nThe jury is not told in deciding whether the sentence to defend into life or death you shall take into account whether the defendant used the weapon or whether the victim was previously chased or the character of the defendant or any of those things.\nThere\u2019s not even an authorization which would direct their attention to some things you may take account of such and such and the jury is not told that there are things they may not take account of.\nYou may not take account of race.\nYou may not take account of anything that the legislature thinks irrelevant to its purposes in enacting the death penalty.\nThere are no principles for judgments.\nNo standards for judgments given to the jury at all.\nNot even a kind of vague standard that is the minimum we use in any kind of other judicial proceedings such as reasonable man.\nIt\u2019s sometimes easy to forget how much the reasonable man standard does direct the jury in a civil damage case.\nAt least the jury knows that the defendant\u2019s obligation is to exercise reasonable care, the care that the reasonable man would exercise toward the plaintiff.\nOur whole law assumes that that has significance.\nIt\u2019s different from the duty the defendant owes to a trespasser to exercise somewhat less care that he might owe to someone who he has special duty to care for.\nThe jury in the civil case isn\u2019t told that they may return a verdict against the defendant if they don\u2019t like him or if there\u2019s something offensive about him or any such thing.\nThe issue is framed.\nHe owes a duty of care.\nHow much care?\nThe care that a reasonable man would exercise.\nThere\u2019s no such thing in the capital sentencing discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [515.706, 518.88, 530.403, 536.616, 540.745, 550.663, 559.626, 565.116, 584.296, 592.287, 600.042, 614.189, 623.243, 625.233, 632.308, 634.978, 639.658, 646.688, 654.084, 663.13, 665.228, 674.541, 682.753, 683.751, 685.273, 685.917, 687.63], "stop_times": [518.88, 530.403, 536.616, 540.745, 550.663, 559.626, 565.116, 584.296, 592.287, 600.042, 614.189, 623.243, 625.233, 632.308, 634.978, 639.658, 646.688, 654.084, 663.13, 665.228, 674.541, 682.753, 683.751, 685.273, 685.917, 687.63, 690.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.706}, "reply_to": "14895__0_002", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_004", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Are there any more standards given to a judge if he does the sentencing normally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [690.921], "stop_times": [698.734], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 690.921}, "reply_to": "14895__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_005", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Is your asking of capital sentencing or regular sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [698.734], "stop_times": [701.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.734}, "reply_to": "14895__0_004", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_006", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Neither one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [701.592], "stop_times": [703.429], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 701.592}, "reply_to": "14895__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_007", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In capital sentencing, ordinarily there are no greater standards given.\nIn non-capital sentencing, there may or not be but even if there are no standards given, explicitly by statute, the kind of discretion he exercises is very different than that which a jury exercises in sentencing to death for a number of reasons.\nOne is that the judges are professional sentencer and although we certainly make no attack on the jury system as such we think that we need not get any or near attacking the jury as an administrator of rules.\nIt is very clear that a professional sentencer is better at formulating rules adjudication by adjudication than in ad hoc where people in my point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [703.429, 710.359, 735.03, 752.008], "stop_times": [710.359, 735.03, 752.008, 764.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.429}, "reply_to": "14895__0_006", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_008", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "This point rests on your faith in a profession rather the state having furnished any statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [764.223], "stop_times": [770.585], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 764.223}, "reply_to": "14895__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_009", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There are number or relevant points in nine capital sentencing, apart from the professional quality of the judge, professionalism Your Honor is a number of things all wrapped into one.\nWhen the fact that the judge sentences a number of cases involved some consistency, he is the man that does at each time if only the consistency of his habit, there\u2019s a consistency there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [770.585, 781.128], "stop_times": [781.128, 790.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.585}, "reply_to": "14895__0_008", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_010", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "But all the statement -- the states contribution to it is furnishing the professionalize I take it rather than furnishing the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [790.37], "stop_times": [797.7], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 790.37}, "reply_to": "14895__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_011", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I think that\u2019s right except in so far as certain standards are built-in to the assumptions of the system which are not built-in to capital sentencing such as rehabilitation.\nWhen a judge sentences, he knows that the man whom he is going to sentence is going to come out after a period of time.\nAnd he has to make a judgment as to whether the period is so severe that the man is going to be a serious danger from rehabilitative standpoint.\nAfterwards, it\u2019s not true of the capital sentencing decision.\nIt\u2019s also true that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [797.7, 805.582, 812.253, 819.928, 823.734], "stop_times": [805.582, 812.253, 819.928, 823.734, 825.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.7}, "reply_to": "14895__0_010", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_012", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, are there any -- are there any -- do you know of any statutes that direct the judge specifically to take rehabilitation into account?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [825.256], "stop_times": [834.351], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 825.256}, "reply_to": "14895__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_013", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You know our statutes that do, do that in some states but the model sentencing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [834.351], "stop_times": [840.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.351}, "reply_to": "14895__0_012", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_014", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Not great normal, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [840.037], "stop_times": [841.042], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 840.037}, "reply_to": "14895__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_015", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, it is not.\nIt is not indeed.\nOn the other hand, the judge inevitably is going to do so and the development in evolution of sentencing counsels, appellate review in some greater or lesser form affects --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [841.042, 841.879, 842.844], "stop_times": [841.879, 842.844, 852.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.042}, "reply_to": "14895__0_014", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_016", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "This recent practice and the accumulation of this from experience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [852.824], "stop_times": [861.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.824}, "reply_to": "14895__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14895__0_017", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "A practice that is possible because the state provides an institutional nexus for it.\nBoth the professional sentence or in the assumptions of the system, neither which are true in capital sentencing, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [861.097, 866.639], "stop_times": [866.639, 872.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.097}, "reply_to": "14895__0_016", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_018", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What would you say about the statute Mr. Amsterdam that is called the mandatory death sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [872.894], "stop_times": [879.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 872.894}, "reply_to": "14895__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_019", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "A mandatory death sentence it would have none of the problems that this case raises Your Honor.\nI would have troubles depending on the nature of the statute under other constitutional provision but none that are involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [879.095, 883.355], "stop_times": [883.355, 891.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.095}, "reply_to": "14895__0_018", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_020", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Now, I realize that.\nThere are no standards that I am trying to involve there, except the legislative judgment in this particular crime without more carried in the legislative point of view against them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [891.677, 894.549], "stop_times": [894.549, 906.168], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 891.677}, "reply_to": "14895__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_021", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Your Honor, that is the standard though.\nIf everyone who is convicted of a given crime is sentence to death, you don\u2019t have what we are complaining about in this case in individualizing process which selects without where more reason, one person to die and the other person to live.\nA jury sitting in one case determining not perhaps because it takes a different view of the facts of this case than the facts of another case but because it may take a totally different view of the legal determiners that may find that it need not to have legal determiners.\nIt may sentence one man to live and another to die.\nNow that is the essence of the standards of this complaint that we make.\nAnd it does not involve where you have mandatory capital sentencing because every one in the class is treated identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [906.168, 907.557, 922.169, 937.922, 939.931, 945.218], "stop_times": [907.557, 922.169, 937.922, 939.931, 945.218, 951.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.168}, "reply_to": "14895__0_020", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_022", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, there is a rule for which you are contending here confined to capital cases, now there are in some states or procedures by which a non-capital cases juries fix the penalty and they have a range of discretion as a constitutional rule for which you are here contending such as to --- such that it would follow that standards would have to be proscribed in such cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [951.465], "stop_times": [985.151], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 951.465}, "reply_to": "14895__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_023", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Our contention is limited to capital cases and the justification for us so limiting it is -- it lies in three things I think.\nFirst, this Court has made clear for considerable period of time that the degree of arbitrariness, it is permissible in a sentencing system is less where the penalty is grave where I speak of Skinner and Oklahoma.\nNow Skinner held that you couldn\u2019t sterilize thieves if you didn\u2019t sterilize embezzlements.\nI think that nobody on the unanimous court have decided that case assume that indeed the opinions of the contrary that you couldn\u2019t sentence embezzlers to 15 years and certain thieves to 10.\nAt that level of discrimination or determination, there\u2019s no question about distinguishing between embezzlers and thieves.\nWhen you sterilize them or when you kill them, that\u2019s something else again.\nThe second consideration I think is that and this goes to Mr. Justice White\u2019s point as well.\nThat when you are dealing with a non-capital sentencing regime, there are number of considerations that come into play that justify more arbitrary individualize judgments than when you\u2019re dealing with a capital sentencing regime.\nNon-capital sentencing inevitably involves in some point the question of reformation and the only tools with which we as a society at the moment come to grips with the question of reformation are the highly individualize diagnostic judgment that are made of particular individuals.\nNow I myself have very serious troubles with the infusion of therapy in the sentencing because sentencing becomes a mixed bag of individual I supposedly helpful therapeutic considerations and penal judgments but the question is to what kind of standards to imply on that process is much a little more like the question involved in the McGautha case as to how much you can justify some arbitrariness in the imposition of penal sanctions in order to serve therapeutic ends which require extreme flexibility.\nIn capital sentencing, there is no therapeutic need and no therapeutic justification.\nThe death penalty is the one penalty of which one can say cannot be justified for purposes of reformation or rehabilitation.\nIt is a writing off of this human preacher as fit for rehabilitation and no individualize judgments of the sort that need to be made diagnostically enter into the judgment.\nSo that there\u2019s no excuse for the degree of individualization without rules of law in capital sentencing that there is non-capital sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [985.151, 992.571, 1007.866, 1014.114, 1025.134, 1031.286, 1035.238, 1042.544, 1058.643, 1075.857, 1110.029, 1114.613, 1122.294, 1132.636], "stop_times": [992.571, 1007.866, 1014.114, 1025.134, 1031.286, 1035.238, 1042.544, 1058.643, 1075.857, 1110.029, 1114.613, 1122.294, 1132.636, 1140.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.151}, "reply_to": "14895__0_022", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_024", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I want to be sure I understand you.\nAre you saying that in your view, a Constitution presents no barrier to a state system under which for example the jury might be given discretion to impose a sentence of one -- in between one year and 100 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1140.55, 1143.279], "stop_times": [1143.279, 1166.902], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.55}, "reply_to": "14895__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_025", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Your Honor, I\u2019m simply saying that this case doesn\u2019t present that question.\nMy personal view is that there is a grave constitutional deficiency in such a system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1166.902, 1171.028], "stop_times": [1171.028, 1176.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.902}, "reply_to": "14895__0_024", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_026", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That\u2019s what in order to find out.\nI know this case doesn\u2019t present quite that but I take it that the theory that you\u2019re advocating here might extend to that and by the same token, I suppose it would extend to something like the California Adult Authority procedure, that is to say that at the same problems as to whether that procedure might be defective for the lack of standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1176.31, 1177.555], "stop_times": [1177.555, 1209.098], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.31}, "reply_to": "14895__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_027", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I think that a great deal depends on several things.\nWhat decision is being made?\nThe importance of the decision, a life and death quality decision is in my judgment unique.\nWho is making the decision?\nI think there\u2019s a difference between the judge and the jury.\nI think that the (Inaudible) case which requires certain standards for jury action may not mean that a judge has sub-standards in taxing costs.\nI think that the parameters, the outer boundaries of judgment are very important.\nIf I may let me try to frame this issue in terms of one that is more familiar to this court\u2019s jurisprudence historically.\nThe question that is raise as I see by our standards attack is in not a typical question of how you limit discretion and keep it within constitutional confines.\nIf you take for example a legislature that wants to regulate parades in the state it could simply pass a permit statute that says no one may conduct a procession without the permit from the chief of police.\nNow that would raise the greatest constitutional difficulties under the decisions of this Court.\nNow if it wanted to enact to one that delimited the discretion how might it go about it.\nThere are whole host of ways in which it might go about it.\nOne it might say whoever conducts a procession with vehicles or a procession on the streets or a procession on Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th Street and the capital that delimits the range of cases within which the judgment is being made.\nSecondly, it might say that in determining whether a permit shall issue the chief of police shall take account of traffic congestion, the movement of emergency vehicles, simply whether there is another parade or procession the same day and that sort of thing.\nThird, it might subject the judgment of the permit issuer to review by another agency by a court.\nNow each one of this without getting rid of discretion totally delimits the discretion and again it would make a considerable difference whether the permit is totally unavailable or whether the permit issuer only had the power to put it off for a day set it some time within the week but not in a particular day requested and that sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1209.098, 1213.051, 1214.647, 1219.766, 1221.075, 1223.066, 1231.823, 1236.481, 1245.366, 1257.727, 1271.289, 1275.917, 1280.538, 1283.215, 1299.634, 1316.345, 1323.677], "stop_times": [1213.051, 1214.647, 1219.766, 1221.075, 1223.066, 1231.823, 1236.481, 1245.366, 1257.727, 1271.289, 1275.917, 1280.538, 1283.215, 1299.634, 1316.345, 1323.677, 1343.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.098}, "reply_to": "14895__0_026", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_028", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, unhappily your last discussion suggest the possibility that you might have two questions.\nOne the immediate question or standards necessary and the other the next question, the next -- when the next ball game is played which is are these particular standards appropriate or adequate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1343.212, 1351.854], "stop_times": [1351.854, 1364.567], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.212}, "reply_to": "14895__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_029", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Precisely and what -- where I think we are in this case is where this Court was in 1930 when they first began to enact permit ordinances.\nIt simply has to say whether an Arkansas procedure which has available to it, all of the different devices by which they might control the discretion limiting the range of cases to which it applies providing for aggravating circumstances and prerequisite findings of fact precluding the death penalty when certain mitigating findings are made.\nEstablishing rules or principles or even just telling the jury so that they have something to talk about when they go back there and they all have to agree that you must come to a decision consonant with some certain principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1364.567, 1373.45, 1393.415], "stop_times": [1373.45, 1393.415, 1403.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.567}, "reply_to": "14895__0_028", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_030", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And just so there won\u2019t be any misunderstanding again as far as I\u2019m concerned with respect to judge sentencing, are you saying that as a matter of your understanding of the Constitution of the United States, it is not necessary that the standards be proscribe to guide the judge for the reasons that you are so well stated here in deciding whether he will impose a death sentence or something less?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1403.933], "stop_times": [1434.849], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.933}, "reply_to": "14895__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_031", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I am not saying that the Constitution does not require standards to be judge.\nI\u2019m --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1434.849, 1439.049], "stop_times": [1439.049, 1439.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.849}, "reply_to": "14895__0_030", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_032", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Would you say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1439.117], "stop_times": [1439.287], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.117}, "reply_to": "14895__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_033", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Saying only that this case does not raise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1439.287], "stop_times": [1441.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.287}, "reply_to": "14895__0_032", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_034", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That\u2019s what I wanted to be clear on now.\nFinally and this is my last question of you.\nWhat we have been discussing in this colloquy would apply more or less to the same to your second point namely the need for unitary.\nYour objection to a unitary trial, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1441.585, 1443.9, 1447.375, 1459.57], "stop_times": [1443.9, 1447.375, 1459.57, 1462.941], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.585}, "reply_to": "14895__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_035", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1462.941], "stop_times": [1465.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.941}, "reply_to": "14895__0_034", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_036", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You, in answer to Mr. Justice Fortas\u2019 initial question in this series about distinguishing a capital sentence from an ordinary sentence and you said there were three distinctions you got as far as to the Skinner against Oklahoma distinction and the absence of any therapeutic possible arguable therapeutic purpose and a capital sentence follows the third.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1465.849], "stop_times": [1492.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.849}, "reply_to": "14895__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14895__0_037", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Thank you Mr. Justice Stewart, I -- the third is more limited to Arkansas and to this case and it is that the Arkansas Supreme Court does review sentences imposed by juries in non-capital cases and it does not in capital cases.\nAnd as I was trying to sketch out, it makes for me a great deal of difference whether the discretion is limited by a review or whether it is not.\nThat\u2019s one of the factors that makes the discretion given juries in death cases totally arbitrary with no restraint, no protection against us.\nNow, I\u2019m not passing at this point beyond the standards argument.\nI launch to offend this and the court simply of describing the standard was trial.\nI\u2019d like to finish if I may my description of the trial process and then state briefly the two constitutional contentions that emerge from it.\nThe Arkansas jury not only makes the guilt and penalty determinations but make some at one sitting if the defendant contests guilt.\nAll the evidence be it on all questions is submitted at once.\nThe jury goes out and returns a verdict both on guilt and on punishment.\nNow, the effect of this, the most immediate effect of this is fairly obvious.\nIf the defendant takes the stand to speak to have his voice heard by the people of the power of life and death decision over him, he runs into all of the prejudices that the privilege against self-incrimination is intended to protect him against.\nFirst, if he takes the stand and doesn\u2019t claim innocence he is going to be convicted.\nThere is just no doubt that the jury will convict him when he gets on the stand, testifies and doesn\u2019t say, I didn\u2019t do it.\nIf he gets on the stand and he does testify that he didn\u2019t do it.\nBe subject to cross-examination which is clearly potentially incriminating.\nIn addition to that under Arkansas procedure, he is subjected to impeachment of the most vicious sort.\nLiterally, every bad act however remote and whether reduced to conviction or not can come in against them with inevitable prejudice on the guilt determination.\nOn the other hand, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1492.441, 1506.198, 1516.324, 1528.037, 1532.004, 1538.241, 1547.384, 1559.062, 1562.812, 1568.174, 1575.036, 1591.277, 1596.695, 1604.08, 1606.69, 1612.656, 1618.877, 1628.486], "stop_times": [1506.198, 1516.324, 1528.037, 1532.004, 1538.241, 1547.384, 1559.062, 1562.812, 1568.174, 1575.036, 1591.277, 1596.695, 1604.08, 1606.69, 1612.656, 1618.877, 1628.486, 1629.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.441}, "reply_to": "14895__0_036", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_038", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You mean every act throughout his life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1629.224], "stop_times": [1632.576], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.224}, "reply_to": "14895__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_039", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There is only one limitation that I know of Your Honor.\nThere are couple of Arkansas cases that say that a bad act which is too remote may not be proved but the Arkansas Court has admitted for example a minor liquor violation, 20 years old and an automobile accident, 24 years old those sorts of things.\nSo, I think the remoteness requirement is insignificant and the practical fact of the matter is that however prejudicial, for example we have cited in our brief.\nCases in which the man on in trial for murder who took the stand was impeached by showing that he had committed a prior murder.\nIt\u2019s relevance to credibility is questionable but it\u2019s prejudiced on the guilt issue as obvious.\nNow this is the kind of thing for which he let\u2019s himself in if he takes the stand.\nOn the other hand, if he doesn\u2019t take the stand, he literally goes to slaughter like a dumb beast.\nHe is deprived of his best witness on facts and mitigation.\nHe is the only person who can tell about his motivation particular circumstances that may have let out to the act for which he subsequently convicted which may convince the jury in its totally unfettered discretion not to sentence him to death.\nHe is the best witness on background facts.\nFacts about his childhood, his upbringing that jury may take into account.\nMore than that, his testimony is the only thing that can bring home to the jury that they are sentencing a human being, a live human being who may have heard speak like other human beings and lies the characteristic of speech that human beings have.\nThey are sentencing such a person to death.\nAnd what happens in a case like William Maxwell is that if a defendant decides that he is going to exercise his privilege against self-incrimination and not take the stand and not be subject to impeachment.\nAnd not proved guilt out of his own mouth.\nHe goes to life or death decision without the jury\u2019s ever having heard a word uttered by him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1632.576, 1635.898, 1652.254, 1661.017, 1667.263, 1672.357, 1675.899, 1681.988, 1687.939, 1701.39, 1703.728, 1707.854, 1722.874, 1725.241, 1737.349, 1740.692], "stop_times": [1635.898, 1652.254, 1661.017, 1667.263, 1672.357, 1675.899, 1681.988, 1687.939, 1701.39, 1703.728, 1707.854, 1722.874, 1725.241, 1737.349, 1740.692, 1746.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1632.576}, "reply_to": "14895__0_038", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_040", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, you stated earlier in your argument that in Arkansas, as I suppose in other states the statutory offense of rape covers can cover a very wide spectrum actually of human conduct.\nAs far as I can see, we don\u2019t have anything of the facts of this case.\nWe don\u2019t have the trial transcript.\nWe don\u2019t have any description what the actual conduct was here and I suppose that the theory of Arkansas might be wrongly as that the jury\u2019s discretion is to be exercised in a light of what they here from the witness stand as to the particular circumstances constituting this particular statutory violation and that we don\u2019t adhere at all.\nI wondered if it is available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1746.533, 1764.134, 1768.85, 1770.563, 1792.437], "stop_times": [1764.134, 1768.85, 1770.563, 1792.437, 1794.484], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.533}, "reply_to": "14895__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_041", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I would say the facts are described in the Arkansas Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in 370 S.W.2nd and I think this Court could notice the facts described in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1794.484], "stop_times": [1802.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1794.484}, "reply_to": "14895__0_040", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_042", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We don\u2019t have a transcript of the trial of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1802.431], "stop_times": [1804.408], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.431}, "reply_to": "14895__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_043", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "The trial transcript Your Honor is not in this record and there is a recitation of the facts as fairly complete by the Arkansas Supreme Court on Appeal.\nAs to Arkansas is taking any position to the jury thus indeed rely on those facts, the answer is we simply don\u2019t know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1804.408, 1816.266], "stop_times": [1816.266, 1822.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1804.408}, "reply_to": "14895__0_042", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_044", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We\u2019ll I suppose that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1822.905], "stop_times": [1823.756], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.905}, "reply_to": "14895__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_045", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It\u2019s not required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1823.756], "stop_times": [1825.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1823.756}, "reply_to": "14895__0_044", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_046", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, a jury hears the case for the prosecution on the issue of innocence or guilt and I say that you rightly point out that\u2019s about all here.\nAnd so I suppose the theory must be that it\u2019s so to exercise its sentencing discretion based upon where it\u2019s heard from the witness stand with respect to circumstance of this statutory violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1825.663, 1836.219], "stop_times": [1836.219, 1848.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.663}, "reply_to": "14895__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_047", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I suppose that might be.\nThe proof doesn\u2019t seem to meet the theory because the evidence that we have gathered indicates that there are three factors which distinguish people who are sentenced to death from people who are sentence to life generally in Arkansas race.\nThe commission of the contemporaneous offense, some other offense like robbery which Maxwell did not commit and a prior record imprisonment and we do not know whether Maxwell has any such prior record in imprisonment on this record.\nIt may well be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1848.537, 1849.852, 1865.756, 1880.292], "stop_times": [1849.852, 1865.756, 1880.292, 1880.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1848.537}, "reply_to": "14895__0_046", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_048", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, do we know -- did we know from the trial record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1880.626], "stop_times": [1884.4], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.626}, "reply_to": "14895__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_049", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We would not know from the trial record Maxwell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1884.4], "stop_times": [1886.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1884.4}, "reply_to": "14895__0_048", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_050", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "He did not take the stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1886.01], "stop_times": [1887.255], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.01}, "reply_to": "14895__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_051", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "By exercising the privilege avoided going into the question of background at all with the result and this is not a typical that a defendant who claims the privilege has the jury decide whether or not he should leave based on five minutes of his life or 10 minutes of his life.\nAll they know about this man is what they have heard that he did in the few minutes constituting the crime.\nNo more than that is known.\nNow, whether or not the theory of Arkansas is that they act on that.\nOur theory is that they need not act on that under Arkansas law.\nArkansas law allows the jury to act on something broader than that if it is present, but the defending can present it only at the cause of waiving his federal constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1887.255, 1905.027, 1911.288, 1913.025, 1917.934, 1921.562], "stop_times": [1905.027, 1911.288, 1913.025, 1917.934, 1921.562, 1932.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1887.255}, "reply_to": "14895__0_050", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_052", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Is the trial transcript, I think I saw somewhere in the briefs that this, the trial transcript was available in the United States District Court and the Federal Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1932.692], "stop_times": [1944.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.692}, "reply_to": "14895__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14895__0_053", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart, the status of the trial transcript in this case is very confused.\nLet me state it briefly as best as I can.\nThe pretrial order of the federal district judge in this case provided that the transcript would be available and that portions of it might be put in to the record by counsel if they wish.\nNo portions were formally put into the record.\nOn the other hand, the trial transcript had been around in the district court for a long while.\nThis being Maxwell second habeas corpus petition and the district judge in fact relied on it in some part although none of it was formally introduced for some of his findings such as a finding that Maxwell did not take the stand.\nThe transcript because it was not in the record in the district court did not go up to the Eighth Circuit.\nShortly before the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the clerk of that court wrote counsel asking the copy of the trial transcript be furnished and the Court of Appeals also relied on certain aspects of it such as portions of the opening argument by defense counsel in that sort of thing.\nAgain, formally it\u2019s not here.\nI do not think that the transcript is in fact before this Court.\nIt is not physically here but I do not think that it is in fact here.\nHowever, certainly, those facts which appear in the opinions below or in the opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court might properly be relied on by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1944.804, 1950.453, 1953.453, 1965.122, 1968.094, 1971.805, 1985.193, 1990.321, 2008.357, 2010.681, 2014.714, 2018.569], "stop_times": [1950.453, 1953.453, 1965.122, 1968.094, 1971.805, 1985.193, 1990.321, 2008.357, 2010.681, 2014.714, 2018.569, 2026.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1944.804}, "reply_to": "14895__0_052", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_054", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I suppose it\u2019s a public record that which we could take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2026.032], "stop_times": [2028.985], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.032}, "reply_to": "14895__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_055", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Oh yes and I don\u2019t think there\u2019s \u2013 indeed, we've going to the point of actually in our appendix say according portion of it none otherwise because they think it\u2019s non-controversial and it is a public record of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2028.985], "stop_times": [2040.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2028.985}, "reply_to": "14895__0_054", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_056", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And it\u2019s now lodge so far as you know with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2040.971], "stop_times": [2043.873], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.971}, "reply_to": "14895__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_057", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I don\u2019t know when it\u2019s technically lodged there.\nIt certainly was sent there and they do have a copy.\nNow if I may briefly pass from what I had intended to be merely descriptive to the argument.\nThe standards question seems to be resolved by the briefing in this case into a relatively simple matter.\nWe contend that the power given Arkansas jury\u2019s to sentence to life or death is legally arbitrary in violation in the rule of due process.\nIt offense we think every aspect of the rule of law that this Court has found previously in the due process clause.\nFirst of all, it involves sentencing on a case by case basis by jurors who need not even discuss why they choose to send the man to death.\nIf they do discuss why and they decide on a common ground, there is no assurance that that ground is common to any other defendant but this defendant.\nThe man who was just tried and just convicted and just sentenced to life might have facts like identical with those of the defendant who now goes to death.\nThe only difference being that because Arkansas provides no help, the jury state different views neither of the facts but of the law.\nA necessary consequence of that kind of arbitrariness and decision making is that people are unequally treated in violation of the notion basic we submit to both due process in equal protection that requires evenhanded administration of justice.\nPeople treated similarly.\nIt doesn\u2019t mean no individualization in sentencing.\nBut it means individualization on a rational basis not on a hit or miss flip basis that arises from having no standards whatever from making the sentencing decision.\nIt also means that not only are the people who are sentence to death treated unevenly, unequally as against those sentenced to life.\nBut they are treated irrationally, in the sense that there is no relationship, no assured connection between the purposes for having a death penalty at all and its imposition in this case.\nThere is nothing to assure that whatever Arkansas may want to achieve by allowing rapes to be punished by death.\nThat on the fact of this particular case with justification attaches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2043.873, 2045.446, 2050.759, 2063.885, 2074.018, 2086.085, 2096.539, 2108.351, 2117.706, 2126.034, 2135.441, 2152.439, 2154.594, 2158.045, 2167.925, 2177.473, 2188.984, 2196.531], "stop_times": [2045.446, 2050.759, 2063.885, 2074.018, 2086.085, 2096.539, 2108.351, 2117.706, 2126.034, 2135.441, 2152.439, 2154.594, 2158.045, 2167.925, 2177.473, 2188.984, 2196.531, 2201.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2043.873}, "reply_to": "14895__0_056", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_058", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Do the Arkansas practice differ in many way from the practice in Federal Courts and the statutes the death penalty is permitted?\nThis apply the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2201.048, 2211.116], "stop_times": [2211.116, 2212.98], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.048}, "reply_to": "14895__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_059", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It is not Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2212.98], "stop_times": [2214.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2212.98}, "reply_to": "14895__0_058", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_060", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There is not difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2214.688], "stop_times": [2216.59], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.688}, "reply_to": "14895__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_061", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, it depends.\nNow, again the federal statute is somewhat different.\nSome of them give the judge sentencing power or just give the jury sentencing power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2216.59, 2218.403, 2221.784], "stop_times": [2218.403, 2221.784, 2225.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2216.59}, "reply_to": "14895__0_060", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_062", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Are those not like the kidnapping or (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2225.373], "stop_times": [2229.505], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.373}, "reply_to": "14895__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_063", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "As to the federal statutes that give the jury sentencing power, they do it in the same that Arkansas does.\nAnd that indeed is true.\nI\u2019m quick to admit of most jurisdictions.\nNow there are differences in terms of there were degree of reviewability of the jury\u2019s judgment, some jurisdictions provide that they jury must make the determination on the evidence of record but Arkansas does not.\nThere are also is about the minor differences but the major thrust of the Arkansas procedure is not use in the federal courts in jury sentencing and elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2229.505, 2237.545, 2238.664, 2241.397, 2253.617], "stop_times": [2237.545, 2238.664, 2241.397, 2253.617, 2262.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2229.505}, "reply_to": "14895__0_062", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_064", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, almost everywhere (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2262.489], "stop_times": [2265.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.489}, "reply_to": "14895__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14895__0_065", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Pardon me, Mr. Justice Brennan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2265.93], "stop_times": [2266.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2265.93}, "reply_to": "14895__0_064", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_066", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Does the procedure anywhere differ materially from the Arkansas procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2266.823], "stop_times": [2274.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.823}, "reply_to": "14895__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14895__0_067", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, in Illinois for example, the concurrence of the trial judge and the jury is necessary.\nIn Arkansas, the jury alone makes a decision and as I\u2019ve indicated I think there are may be difference in response to Mr. Justice Fortas\u2019 question.\nThere may be a difference if you have a judge sentencing.\nThere may not but there may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2274.407, 2282.278, 2289.823, 2292.542], "stop_times": [2282.278, 2289.823, 2292.542, 2294.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2274.407}, "reply_to": "14895__0_066", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_068", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m addressing myself to those jurisdictions where the imposition of the death penalty is by the jury and the jury alone where it has a choice between the imposing death or fixing life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2294.158], "stop_times": [2307.514], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.158}, "reply_to": "14895__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_069", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "The only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2307.514], "stop_times": [2308.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2307.514}, "reply_to": "14895__0_068", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_070", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m just wondering.\nIs there any jurisdiction where the regime in that regard is substantially different from what it is in Arkansas as you described?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2308.941, 2309.689], "stop_times": [2309.689, 2318.168], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.941}, "reply_to": "14895__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_071", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, I think, I think not except to the extent.\nIt does come to the interrelatedness of our two arguments where you have a split verdict procedure.\nWe have a two-trial procedure.\nThe effect may be different because the jury has a plenary penalty trial as more to basic judgment on.\nBut in specific response to Your Honor\u2019s question, the answer is that they are equally without standards.\nFrankly, what has happened simply is this.\nThe legislature had passed the buck all over.\nWe have mandatory capital sentencing for an off a long time.\nAnd when that became politically impossible to maintain, instead of proceeding to determine in what case is the death penalty would be implied the legislatures all over simply said we can\u2019t decide this so I\u2019m going to pass it under the jury and they simply made it discretionary.\nThey did -- they are differing forms of substance of crime, differing procedures the notions of discretion is essentially common.\nNow the -- a third, I think vitally important thing you recognize in the regime which is common and in practice in Arkansas is simply that the jury can get away with the most flagrant violations of clear constitutional rights without getting caught at.\nOne of the purposes of the rule of law of the requirement that procedures be regular systematically apply and applicable to all like cases is simply to prevent against abuse.\nNow what we have in Arkansas and this is what I think is the relevance of the racial evidence on this record is a sentencing pattern of clear racial discrimination.\nIt couldn\u2019t be caught said the District Court because the factors that go into the jury\u2019s decision case by case are so intangible, so difficult to catch on to that you can\u2019t prove that even a jury which even a set of juries of which convict Negroes of raping white victims and sentence them to death disproportionately frequently or in fact discriminate.\nWe don\u2019t know.\nThey may be all sorts of intangible factors other than race that affects it.\nThe Eighth Circuit took the view that somewhat more hardheaded that probably juries are in fact discriminated generally.\nBut Maxwell\u2019s theory probably didn\u2019t discriminate.\nAgain, how do you know?\nThere\u2019s no way.\nThe jury didn\u2019t have to have any reason little on any specific reason for fixing the death penalty and so what happens under a regime of this sort is not only that the giving up of all political responsibility in the representatives of the people, legislature to fix standards of general application passing the buck in effect to individual juries.\nBut when individual juries react in a way which violates the most clear and unequivocal commands of the Constitution, a court can\u2019t catch them out.\nNow, our submission essentially is that such a regime violates a rule of law basic to do process.\nThat there is in here in the very notion of due process of law, the requirement of a rule of law which governs light cases and applies.\nI think that this Court would not for example sustain an Arkansas sentencing procedure which provided that every man convicted of rape should roll a dice and if it came up 7 or 11, he would die.\nAnd any other numbers, he would live.\nActually, what Arkansas has done is worst.\nIt\u2019s worst because I assume that the dice would not discriminate on grounds of race and its worst because the 2 out of 12 chances that each man would have are at least identical.\nWe have not even that assurance.\nAnd the argument is made by Arkansas and it\u2019s made by California and everybody is being treated evenhandedly and equally under the sentencing procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2318.168, 2321.758, 2327.54, 2329.732, 2335.295, 2340.976, 2343.636, 2345.956, 2350.35, 2365.771, 2374.107, 2395.744, 2409.361, 2419.672, 2444.626, 2445.068, 2449.373, 2457.83, 2460.769, 2462.262, 2462.845, 2485.052, 2494.0, 2500.393, 2509.247, 2524.049, 2526.699, 2529.661, 2545.289, 2547.158], "stop_times": [2321.758, 2327.54, 2329.732, 2335.295, 2340.976, 2343.636, 2345.956, 2350.35, 2365.771, 2374.107, 2395.744, 2409.361, 2419.672, 2444.626, 2445.068, 2449.373, 2457.83, 2460.769, 2462.262, 2462.845, 2485.052, 2494.0, 2500.393, 2509.247, 2524.049, 2526.699, 2529.661, 2545.289, 2547.158, 2553.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2318.168}, "reply_to": "14895__0_070", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_072", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, have you attempted to formulate a kind of standard that you think would be constitutionally acceptable?\nI know it\u2019s not involved in this case.\nBut it probably is the next step if you prevail here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2553.527, 2561.774, 2565.026], "stop_times": [2561.774, 2565.026, 2569.251], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.527}, "reply_to": "14895__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_073", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I would be glad to address that.\nThere are several ways I think a legislature could go about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2569.251, 2574.197], "stop_times": [2574.197, 2577.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2569.251}, "reply_to": "14895__0_072", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_074", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, it have to be legislatives.\nSuppose that it took the form of instructions by the judge.\nWould that satisfy you or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2577.383, 2579.022, 2584.695], "stop_times": [2579.022, 2584.695, 2587.184], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.383}, "reply_to": "14895__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_075", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "As far as the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2587.184], "stop_times": [2587.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2587.184}, "reply_to": "14895__0_074", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_076", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Does it satisfy you or not?\nI beg your pardon, I mean of course in terms of your or view of the constitutional requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2587.79, 2589.161], "stop_times": [2589.161, 2595.879], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.79}, "reply_to": "14895__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_077", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "As far as the federal constitution was concerned, it would satisfy our demands for a constitutional rule of law provided that the following conditions were met.\nOne, that the standards were announced by the highest court of the state or at least approved by it so that the same standards were now as by different trial judges in different cases.\nTwo, that the standards were made clear before the trial so that the defendant would have a fair opportunity to know what he was trying at the trial provided that those two conditions were met.\nAnd that the standards themselves met the substantive requirements of definiteness for standards.\nIt wouldn\u2019t matter whether they were done legislatively or judicially and I would think it\u2019s a matter of state policy.\nIt would be quite improper for a court to promulgate this justice I as I was going to suggest, I\u2019m troubled about suggesting specific standards to this Court because the individual standards that one designs are responsive to the most fundamental penological policy questions as to why you use the death penalty and when and that\u2019s a matter of legislative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2595.879, 2608.623, 2618.266, 2629.949, 2637.414, 2643.41], "stop_times": [2608.623, 2618.266, 2629.949, 2637.414, 2643.41, 2664.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2595.879}, "reply_to": "14895__0_076", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_078", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I understand that but so far as I\u2019m concerned that\u2019s a little difficult to think about your point in the abstract without having some fairly specific idea what kinds of standards or what kind or kinds of standards the federal constitution with regard as within the limit of constitutional toleration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2664.81], "stop_times": [2688.796], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.81}, "reply_to": "14895__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_079", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Let me respond to that in two ways.\nFirst, by saying that I have in mind something not terribly unlike the approach taken by the Model Penal Code although that\u2019s not an exclusive approach and then although again I voice caution for two reasons.\nFirst of all the Model Penal Codes description of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and that sort of thing applies to murder and not rape and so it\u2019s of no use particularly in drafting a rape statute and also because I have very grave trouble about certain of the specific formulations of the Model Penal Code.\nFor example, one of the aggravating circumstances that is it a crime is attrocious.\nThat troubles me.\nI think that they could describe and get out what they want in terms of it being committed on a minor child or helpless person or being committed with considerable willful infliction of pain so that there are number of details about the Model Penal Code.\nI might quarrel that the approach is a not insignificant model.\nNow, second way to respond to that is to try to give you what I think of it some ways in which a legislature concerned with the crime of rape might put standards into a sentencing statute.\nOne way, they might go about it is in the manner I suggested in describing what Arkansas didn\u2019t have.\nYou can have required factual findings, prerequisite factual findings.\nYou can consider them if you will aggravate in circumstances.\nThe jury may not impose the death penalty unless it finds that the defendant used a weapon that he injured the victim permanently in a physical way that he committed the offense on a victim of gravely disparate age.\nOne can enumerate half dozen by of course, it simply indicate that\u2019s one approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2688.796, 2690.599, 2701.254, 2721.513, 2725.831, 2727.047, 2741.974, 2746.44, 2760.391, 2765.445, 2771.517, 2774.38, 2793.745], "stop_times": [2690.599, 2701.254, 2721.513, 2725.831, 2727.047, 2741.974, 2746.44, 2760.391, 2765.445, 2771.517, 2774.38, 2793.745, 2798.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2688.796}, "reply_to": "14895__0_078", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_080", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It would say the diffuculty that that raises I\u2019m sure it\u2019s obvious to you is that suppose a legislature says, \u201cOh, no, no, no Mr. Amsterdam, that\u2019s not what we mean.\nWe mean any of the kind of rape.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2798.025, 2809.567], "stop_times": [2809.567, 2812.877], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.025}, "reply_to": "14895__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_081", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2812.877], "stop_times": [2813.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2812.877}, "reply_to": "14895__0_080", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_082", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In other words, what you\u2019re talking about is standards which in effect redefine the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2813.22], "stop_times": [2820.116], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.22}, "reply_to": "14895__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_083", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2820.116], "stop_times": [2820.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2820.116}, "reply_to": "14895__0_082", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_084", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m not talking about purely what shall I say things like pervasives due process standards such as that was done.\nIt was done in the course of the commission of another crime or even that get into the area.\nBut it it\u2019s not like a reasonable man the example or pre-meditation or this more generalize things when you start talking about inflict the death penalty if the victim was of a disparate age.\nWhat you\u2019re really saying to the legislature no.\nYou may not impose the death penalty except for this kind of rape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2820.389, 2833.8, 2838.959, 2857.633, 2862.419], "stop_times": [2833.8, 2838.959, 2857.633, 2862.419, 2868.375], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.389}, "reply_to": "14895__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_085", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s necessarily so.\nI have trouble in conceiving the matter that way for two reasons.\nOne, the Arkansas legislature hasn\u2019t release any other kind of rape.\nIt said that that penalty is available for any other kind of rape but we don\u2019t really expect that it will be impose of any other kind of rape.\nIt\u2019s going to be imposed either wholly or arbitrarily or in some set of sub-classes and it\u2019s made no attempt whatever to define those sub-classes but in addition to that this is only one of the ways in which a legislature might regularize the procedure.\nIf a legislature said that the governing issue was the atrocity of the crime.\nAt least that would allow the jury to consider that in focus as distinguished from the character of the defendant.\nIf the legislature said yes, any old kind of rape but the issue is how bad is the defendant?\nIs he reformable?\nWill the public safety be served adequately by imprisoning him for life instead of killing of him?\nThat would be a test the jury could apply which would focus in far more than we have the issue before the jury.\nIf I may, I\u2019d like to simply state that the essence of our constitutional contention with regard to the single trial procedure is related but distinct from the attack on the standard was penalty trial related because as the factual description I\u2019ve given you in the case.\nAny defendant, who claims his privilege against self-incrimination necessarily goes to trial for his life in front of a jury which is totally uninformed, totally deprived of the requisites of information for rationally sensing it and therefore the arbitrariness which the standard list discretion allows.\nAlmost inevitably in fact is what occurs in sentencing the jury has no basis on which to sentence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2868.375, 2870.798, 2875.07, 2878.536, 2885.117, 2899.514, 2905.118, 2911.183, 2916.903, 2918.377, 2923.026, 2931.421, 2953.437, 2975.262], "stop_times": [2870.798, 2875.07, 2878.536, 2885.117, 2899.514, 2905.118, 2911.183, 2916.903, 2918.377, 2923.026, 2931.421, 2953.437, 2975.262, 2980.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2868.375}, "reply_to": "14895__0_084", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_086", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "The part of your submission that the states may not limit considerations encompassing to just a crime, are they constitutionally required to consider the possibilities of rehabilitation or the character?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2980.449], "stop_times": [3002.152], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.449}, "reply_to": "14895__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_087", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "This case and our submission do not raise that question.\nI think that other provisions of the Constitution and those we invoke here do require that.\nBut that\u2019s no point of our submission here.\nWhat we do say is this, that where a state authorizes each jury to take any view of the law and any view of the facts and sentence the defendant to life or death on any basis that if it then requires the defendant to forego the exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination as the cost of putting before the jury material on which rational sentencing decision can be based that he has so burdened the exercise of the privilege and so deprived of rationality the determination which is ultimately made by the jury of the defendant exercises his privilege that the due process, of course along with the Fifth Amendment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3002.152, 3007.153, 3011.548, 3013.544], "stop_times": [3007.153, 3011.548, 3013.544, 3054.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3002.152}, "reply_to": "14895__0_086", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_088", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You know whether in Arkansas in non-capital cases there is a provision for pre-sentence reports?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3054.456], "stop_times": [3062.482], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.456}, "reply_to": "14895__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_089", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I do not know whether there is a provision for pre-sentence reports in non-capital cases.\nI would assume that there was none.\nI would assume so because non-capital sentencing is also done by jury in Arkansas in the ordinary procedure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3062.482, 3067.068, 3070.696], "stop_times": [3067.068, 3070.696, 3076.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3062.482}, "reply_to": "14895__0_088", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_090", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "But I take it in those cases, the judge does sometimes participate in the sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3076.402], "stop_times": [3082.36], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.402}, "reply_to": "14895__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_091", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I would assume.\nIf I may, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3082.36, 3085.144], "stop_times": [3085.144, 3085.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3082.36}, "reply_to": "14895__0_090", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_092", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Excuse me.\nI\u2019m sorry.\nI was asking question.\nWhat under Arkansas law our counsel permitted to argue to the jury in their closing argument with respect to the imposition of the death sentence or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3085.995, 3086.991, 3089.437, 3092.555], "stop_times": [3086.991, 3089.437, 3092.555, 3104.765], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.995}, "reply_to": "14895__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_093", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Counsel are permitted to argue to the jury, yes.\nAnd both counsels may argue to the jury with regard to the death sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3104.765, 3107.953], "stop_times": [3107.953, 3112.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3104.765}, "reply_to": "14895__0_092", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_094", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "As --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3112.163], "stop_times": [3112.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.163}, "reply_to": "14895__0_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14895__0_095", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Of course, the difference is that prosecution is also of good things to argue from, his got the crime and defense counsel if the defendant exercised the privileges nothing argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3112.374], "stop_times": [3122.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3112.374}, "reply_to": "14895__0_094", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_096", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I remember a case that came here from Ohio back in the 1920s in which I remember it because my father was counsel for the petitioner of the case when I was a little boy in which Ohio which has somewhat similar system to Arkansas but this was for first-degree murder had not allowed the counsel for the defendant to even argue to the jury that they should extend or recommend mercy as that states has and that decision was either affirmed or certiorari was denied here.\nI\u2019ve forgotten which but I wondered if in the case law of Arkansas if some of the standards have not been evolved in deciding what is permissible to be argued to the jury with respect to the imposition of penalty in the capital case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3122.149, 3153.974], "stop_times": [3153.974, 3171.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.149}, "reply_to": "14895__0_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14895__0_097", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart, my statement that counsel are permitted to argue to the jury arises from my observation of reading a transcripts in Arkansas death cases.\nThere is no decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court which specifically talks about counsel arguing to the jury at all.\nLet alone defines what arguments are proper and what arguments are not.\nOne can find nothing in Arkansas case law that is instructive about standards that stems from the argument.\nI simply state from observation that counsel are indeed permitted by the Trial Court to argue the penalty issue of the jury although as Your Honor suggests in other states not even that is permitted, the discretion is suppose to be so arcained a matter that it emerges services and works its doings only in the jury room.\nThat\u2019s not so in Arkansas.\nIf I may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3171.397, 3180.517, 3187.256, 3190.713, 3197.541, 3217.993, 3221.275], "stop_times": [3180.517, 3187.256, 3190.713, 3197.541, 3217.993, 3221.275, 3221.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3171.397}, "reply_to": "14895__0_096", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_098", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "So far as it appears, they can argue anything?\nThey could argue anything I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3221.623, 3225.247], "stop_times": [3225.247, 3227.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.623}, "reply_to": "14895__0_097", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14895__0_099", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "So far as I know, there is no -- there has been no reported decision challenging a prosecutor\u2019s argument or sustaining a defense counsel\u2019s argument or whatever but the discretion is absolute and one would assume that if the discretion is absolute that absolutely anything may be argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3227.417], "stop_times": [3244.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3227.417}, "reply_to": "14895__0_098", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_100", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3244.192], "stop_times": [3244.554], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.192}, "reply_to": "14895__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_101", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "If I may just add to one question.\nGetting back to your colloquy with Justice White, I know that your position that this question isn\u2019t here in this case.\nBut suppose we had a legislature say in a trial for the crime of rape.\nThe Court shall instruct the jury that the death penalty may be imposed if the jury is of the view that death is a punishment that should be imposed for the crime committed by this defendant.\nThat\u2019s all the statute says.\nWould that standard be unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3244.554, 3248.103, 3254.867, 3264.367, 3286.055, 3288.225], "stop_times": [3248.103, 3254.867, 3264.367, 3286.055, 3288.225, 3289.761], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.554}, "reply_to": "14895__0_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_102", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, but it would be better than Arkansas because at least the focus is on the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3289.761], "stop_times": [3293.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3289.761}, "reply_to": "14895__0_101", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_103", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Because looking at the facts as you referred to.\nYou referred this to the Supreme Court opinion.\nI would suspect that on these facts that if there was that kind of instruction required that the facts of this particular crime perhaps would have brought the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3293.864, 3298.913, 3301.636], "stop_times": [3298.913, 3301.636, 3311.962], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.864}, "reply_to": "14895__0_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_104", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Oh, I must therefore Your Honor.\nI think that\u2019s not so every rape crime is a serious crime there\u2019s no doubt about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3311.962, 3314.362], "stop_times": [3314.362, 3319.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.962}, "reply_to": "14895__0_103", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_105", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I know, but this one -- this one dragging her out of the house, taking her two blocks away, beating her father, beating her, cutting her up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3319.31], "stop_times": [3330.096], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.31}, "reply_to": "14895__0_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_106", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, cutting her up, she suffered some cuts and bruises.\nYou -- no.\nYour Honor, must remember, what we are talking about is a state in which we have intra-racial crimes, 14% of the cases get out.\nNow, one asks you know just guessing whether this isn\u2019t the most serious 14% of the cases.\nI would say, having seen a lot this cases that in my judgment at least that it is not but that is a judgment in any event that I leave to Your Honor.\nHowever, the important thing is the jury doesn\u2019t think about that.\nJury doesn\u2019t have to care whether this is atrocious not atrocious, heinous, where the victim was injured where, the cuts were accidental, how long they lasted, whether they were cured, any of those things.\nNone of that\u2019s relevant.\nThe jury does goes out and decides.\nBut maybe they don\u2019t like to follow the defendant.\nMay sense some, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3330.096, 3336.854, 3337.756, 3349.081, 3355.48, 3364.838, 3368.232, 3378.202, 3379.103, 3381.39, 3382.936], "stop_times": [3336.854, 3337.756, 3349.081, 3355.48, 3364.838, 3368.232, 3378.202, 3379.103, 3381.39, 3382.936, 3384.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3330.096}, "reply_to": "14895__0_105", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_107", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I don\u2019t know whether they count this or not.\nWhat\u2019s your position of the appeal of the statute and give the judge the right to sentence again.\nWithout more, no standards and no everything, in Arkansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3384.091, 3385.511, 3391.643], "stop_times": [3385.511, 3391.643, 3399.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.091}, "reply_to": "14895__0_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_108", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "My position would be that something which simply gave a judge the power to do the same arbitrate test the jury is now doing would not be constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3399.093], "stop_times": [3408.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3399.093}, "reply_to": "14895__0_107", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_109", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "But that\u2019s not question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3408.351], "stop_times": [3409.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.351}, "reply_to": "14895__0_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_110", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3409.97], "stop_times": [3410.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3409.97}, "reply_to": "14895__0_109", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_111", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "My question was, if they repealed the statute and reenact the statute which says that the judge has the sole right to sentence in rape cases or any other case, period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3410.042], "stop_times": [3428.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.042}, "reply_to": "14895__0_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_112", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "If they did that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3428.602], "stop_times": [3431.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3428.602}, "reply_to": "14895__0_111", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_113", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Could have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3431.397], "stop_times": [3433.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3431.397}, "reply_to": "14895__0_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_114", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3433.906], "stop_times": [3434.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3433.906}, "reply_to": "14895__0_113", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_115", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3434.932], "stop_times": [3437.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.932}, "reply_to": "14895__0_114", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_116", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, although it\u2019s worst to give a jury this kind of discretion, it seems to me that what one does when it passes it to the judge with no more than that is essentially to again permit a judge to make individual judgments case by case which need to have no relationship to the judgment pass in the next case.\nNow there\u2019s not quite as that in the jury because a judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3437.402, 3457.539], "stop_times": [3457.539, 3460.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3437.402}, "reply_to": "14895__0_115", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_117", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It would offset in many a criminal statute?\nNow in existence or do you limit it to rape cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3460.345, 3464.676], "stop_times": [3464.676, 3470.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.345}, "reply_to": "14895__0_116", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_118", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m not sure I understand the question, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3470.999], "stop_times": [3473.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3470.999}, "reply_to": "14895__0_117", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_119", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, embezzlement.\nThe judge now sentences without any standards, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3473.137, 3477.214], "stop_times": [3477.214, 3480.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3473.137}, "reply_to": "14895__0_118", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_120", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Non-capital, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3480.114], "stop_times": [3481.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3480.114}, "reply_to": "14895__0_119", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_121", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, without any standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3481.741], "stop_times": [3484.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3481.741}, "reply_to": "14895__0_120", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_122", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3484.767], "stop_times": [3485.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3484.767}, "reply_to": "14895__0_121", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_123", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And that can run from zero to a hundred years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3485.578], "stop_times": [3491.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3485.578}, "reply_to": "14895__0_122", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_124", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "A hundred years in some offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3491.448], "stop_times": [3494.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3491.448}, "reply_to": "14895__0_123", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_125", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, exactly, consecutive sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3494.846], "stop_times": [3497.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3494.846}, "reply_to": "14895__0_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_126", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Oh, Yes, Your Honor certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3497.52], "stop_times": [3499.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3497.52}, "reply_to": "14895__0_125", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_127", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Without any standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3499.032], "stop_times": [3501.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3499.032}, "reply_to": "14895__0_126", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_128", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Except those which are assumed within the preconditions of the judicial role or which emerged form the fact that it\u2019s Mr. Justice White has put it, you have a professional sentencer subject to common aspirations, common experience --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3501.255], "stop_times": [3518.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3501.255}, "reply_to": "14895__0_127", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_129", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Those wouldn't be enought to say -- I think it's (Inaudible) in your view though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3518.035], "stop_times": [3522.666], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3518.035}, "reply_to": "14895__0_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_130", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In my judgment, I would not although again I must refer the Court to a distinction that I think is crucial between capital and non-capital sentencing.\nI think there are justifications for a more clinical case by case approach in non-capital sentencing that are not available in capital sentencing and I am clear from the decisions of this COurt that the degree of arbitrariness allowable is greater with the imposition is greater and the death penalty is the greatest known demand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3522.666, 3531.195], "stop_times": [3531.195, 3551.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3522.666}, "reply_to": "14895__0_129", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_131", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You limit it to -- for this case you are perfectly right to limit that that face is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3551.9], "stop_times": [3557.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3551.9}, "reply_to": "14895__0_130", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_132", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "For this case, I have no intentions to go and step behind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3557.659], "stop_times": [3559.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3557.659}, "reply_to": "14895__0_131", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_133", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well I dont see why you should go further than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3559.822], "stop_times": [3562.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3559.822}, "reply_to": "14895__0_132", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14895__0_134", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I have very great difficulty with the whole regime of sentencing in the discretion that we had.\nAnd so to a lot of other people but I need to know further in this case and death cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3562.523, 3568.143], "stop_times": [3568.143, 3573.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3562.523}, "reply_to": "14895__0_133", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_135", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It\u2019s a great deal of the rational Mr. Amsterdam of the opinion in the Witherspoon case was based upon the very premise that a jury under our system, the system followed conventionally and most of the states is allowed to roam essentially at large in deciding whether or not to impose capital punishment and that therefore it became awfully important that the jury in so far as possible would be -- would represent the conscience of the community.\nThat premise is I say was at the base of it, largely at the base of what was decided in the Witherspoon case, isn\u2019t that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3573.496, 3601.527], "stop_times": [3601.527, 3609.248], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3573.496}, "reply_to": "14895__0_134", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_136", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It was not a constitutional assumption.\nIt was assumption as to what Illinois law required.\nIf a state, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3609.248, 3610.758, 3614.337], "stop_times": [3610.758, 3614.337, 3615.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3609.248}, "reply_to": "14895__0_135", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_137", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3615.093], "stop_times": [3615.453], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3615.093}, "reply_to": "14895__0_136", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_138", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "The court said permits this kind of discretion then it cannot stuck the jury in exercising the discretion.\nBut I think the Court needed to make none and made none of the kind of assumption that is of the constitutional nature that only could do this.\nThe question was not raise in Witherspoon whether Illinois did do it.\nIt appear that Illinois had done it and the question was whether you can give the jury unfettered discretion and then skew people who exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3615.453, 3622.694, 3630.936, 3633.955], "stop_times": [3622.694, 3630.936, 3633.955, 3642.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3615.453}, "reply_to": "14895__0_137", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_139", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In a jurisdiction where you have a diminished responsibility rule, if the diminished responsibility instruction as given in all capital cases, I don\u2019t know whether this or not.\nBut if that is, would that take care of the requirement as you see it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3642.443, 3656.878], "stop_times": [3656.878, 3661.464], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3642.443}, "reply_to": "14895__0_138", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_140", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, although it would present a limitation in each question of diminished responsibility or narrower definition of the crime or whatever.\nNow is the outer parameters if the discretion and therefore --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3661.464, 3673.499], "stop_times": [3673.499, 3677.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3661.464}, "reply_to": "14895__0_139", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_141", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I understand that but I was just wondering why that it wouldn\u2019t satisfy a constitutional requirement by a sort of it\u2019s backwards if you will.\nBut the finding circumstances are much less than the death penalty may be given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3677.054, 3688.572], "stop_times": [3688.572, 3695.278], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3677.054}, "reply_to": "14895__0_140", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__0_142", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "If it were put in as a limitation on the death penalty, as distinguished from a limitation on conviction.\nIt might do that but then again you fall into the problem of the single verdict trial.\nWe don\u2019t know whether Maxwell has to diminish responsibility or anything else because it couldn\u2019t present evidence on that without waiving the privilege.\nAgain, the interrelatedness of the two issues becomes apparent.\nThe diminished responsibility alone would solve neither of our two constitutional contentions separately or together.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3695.278, 3700.52, 3706.113, 3711.855, 3715.442, 3724.565], "stop_times": [3700.52, 3706.113, 3711.855, 3715.442, 3724.565, 3726.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3695.278}, "reply_to": "14895__0_141", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_143", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, your time has expired but you may have five minutes to close if you will -- if you wish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3726.01], "stop_times": [3733.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3726.01}, "reply_to": "14895__0_142", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__0_144", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019d prefer to reserve it if I\u2019m right for rebuttal.\nI\u2019ve gone a way and I would not take the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3733.08, 3735.765], "stop_times": [3735.765, 3737.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3733.08}, "reply_to": "14895__0_143", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_145", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You don\u2019t have anything to reserve but I said if you wanted to take five minutes in rebuttal, you might do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3737.634], "stop_times": [3742.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3737.634}, "reply_to": "14895__0_144", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__0_146", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3742.869], "stop_times": [3744.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3742.869}, "reply_to": "14895__0_145", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__0_147", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And of course, counsel may have five minutes to work also.\nMr. Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3744.224, 3756.301], "stop_times": [3756.301, 3758.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3744.224}, "reply_to": "14895__0_146", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__1_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI\u2019m here on behalf of the State of California as amicus curiae, in behalf of the respondent, and with the permission of the Attorney General of Arkansas speaking here particularly and exclusively with respect to the first question that is presented in this case.\nCalifornia and Arkansas in this matter of sentencing procedures in capital cases share really only one common element and that is the element of living it to the jury to determine whether or not life sentence should be imposed instead of a death sentence without any standards, without any restrictions without as we put it in our instruction, in your absolute and sole discretion.\nThat\u2019s the common element we share and that\u2019s why we\u2019re here and that\u2019s why we\u2019re concerned about this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3758.879, 3763.07, 3783.642, 3812.679], "stop_times": [3763.07, 3783.642, 3812.679, 3818.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3758.879}, "reply_to": "14895__0_147", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You have this hypothetical ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3818.342], "stop_times": [3820.45], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3818.342}, "reply_to": "14895__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, we do Your Honor.\nWe have a so-called bifurcated trial where the -- at the outset that jury returns the verdict on guilt and on guilt alone, and then usually a couple of weeks later, they start a penalty hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3820.45, 3821.422], "stop_times": [3821.422, 3837.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3820.45}, "reply_to": "14895__1_001", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Same jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3837.076], "stop_times": [3837.681], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3837.076}, "reply_to": "14895__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_004", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Same jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3837.681], "stop_times": [3838.834], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3837.681}, "reply_to": "14895__1_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_005", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Normally it\u2019s the same jury.\nThe trial judge has the authority to convene a new jury upon good cause shown.\nBut normally, it is the same jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3838.834, 3840.274, 3845.765], "stop_times": [3840.274, 3845.765, 3848.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3838.834}, "reply_to": "14895__1_004", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_006", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And the bifurcated part of it is required in every capital case, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3848.903], "stop_times": [3853.446], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3848.903}, "reply_to": "14895__1_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_007", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3853.446], "stop_times": [3854.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3853.446}, "reply_to": "14895__1_006", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_008", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There's no discretion to say in this case, we\u2019re just going to have a single jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3854.627], "stop_times": [3859.121], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3854.627}, "reply_to": "14895__1_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_009", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Oh, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3859.121], "stop_times": [3859.214], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3859.121}, "reply_to": "14895__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_010", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In order to determine at the same time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3859.214], "stop_times": [3860.754], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3859.214}, "reply_to": "14895__1_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_011", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, it has to be done in two stages in every case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3860.754], "stop_times": [3864.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3860.754}, "reply_to": "14895__1_010", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_012", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "How long has that been the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3864.111], "stop_times": [3866.877], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3864.111}, "reply_to": "14895__1_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_013", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, it\u2019s been the law as long as I can even concern about it.\nI guess since -- it must be a good 15 years, maybe longer than that.\nI really don\u2019t know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3866.877, 3870.56, 3879.195], "stop_times": [3870.56, 3879.195, 3880.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3866.877}, "reply_to": "14895__1_012", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_014", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Up to this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3880.543], "stop_times": [3881.461], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3880.543}, "reply_to": "14895__1_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_015", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Not longer than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3881.461], "stop_times": [3884.987], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3881.461}, "reply_to": "14895__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_016", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Up to that time what kind of trial do they have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3884.987], "stop_times": [3888.528], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3884.987}, "reply_to": "14895__1_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_017", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Pardon me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3888.528], "stop_times": [3889.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3888.528}, "reply_to": "14895__1_016", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_018", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Up to that time, what kind of trial was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3889.274], "stop_times": [3892.287], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3889.274}, "reply_to": "14895__1_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_019", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, we had a unitary trial as they do in Arkansas and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3892.287], "stop_times": [3898.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3892.287}, "reply_to": "14895__1_018", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_020", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Do you have unitary trials for non-capital cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3898.48], "stop_times": [3902.02], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3898.48}, "reply_to": "14895__1_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_021", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In California?\nAt the present time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3902.02, 3902.839], "stop_times": [3902.839, 3903.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3902.02}, "reply_to": "14895__1_020", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_022", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3903.845], "stop_times": [3904.427], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3903.845}, "reply_to": "14895__1_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_023", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3904.427], "stop_times": [3905.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3904.427}, "reply_to": "14895__1_022", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_024", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And jury sentencing in any of them or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3905.211], "stop_times": [3909.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3905.211}, "reply_to": "14895__1_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_025", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Very, very little jury sentencing.\nIt wasn\u2019t a great a while.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3909.511, 3911.5], "stop_times": [3911.5, 3912.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3909.511}, "reply_to": "14895__1_024", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_026", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3912.541], "stop_times": [3913.053], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3912.541}, "reply_to": "14895__1_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_027", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "But very little.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3913.053, 3914.411], "stop_times": [3914.411, 3915.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3913.053}, "reply_to": "14895__1_026", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_028", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There have been objections to yours on the ground that it violated the principles of fundamental fairness until -- what do you think about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3915.088], "stop_times": [3927.506], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3915.088}, "reply_to": "14895__1_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_029", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, that\u2019s one of the reasons that we\u2019re here Your Honor.\nThis issue was very thoroughly got into before the California Supreme Courts last year and this particular attack on the question of lack of standards was raised and resolved by the California Supreme Court in favor of the established practice.\nSo we submit that it is valid and unconstitutional for a jury to not to be restricted in determining whether the return of life sentence instead of a death sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3927.506, 3931.084, 3949.721], "stop_times": [3931.084, 3949.721, 3961.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3927.506}, "reply_to": "14895__1_028", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_030", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Was that the original basis of the jury trial?\nThat they would act to that in their discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3961.32, 3965.748], "stop_times": [3965.748, 3969.396], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3961.32}, "reply_to": "14895__1_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_031", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, that\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3969.396], "stop_times": [3969.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3969.396}, "reply_to": "14895__1_030", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_032", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Members of the community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3969.731], "stop_times": [3974.377], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3969.731}, "reply_to": "14895__1_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_033", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nWell, basically the, it seems to me the same rule is followed in Arkansas as far as the lack of any standards or any restrictions on the jury is concerned is precisely the same rule that this Court required in the Winston case some 70 years ago.\nWhen you held that it was improper for a trial judge to give a standard to the jury and to say to them you should return a death sentence unless you find mitigating circumstances in this case.\nNow you held that was not correct that the trial judge should leave it to the jury in their absolute discretion and not tilt the scale one way or the other.\nNow that is precisely the case in California.\nAnd the jury has told that in no uncertain terms and it\u2019s my understanding that that is the case in Arkansas.\nBut I want to make it clear that on this question of the unitary trial, we do not express any view because we, in this guilt proceeding, meet the objections that are raised in terms of information being made available to the jury.\nBoth sides are free to put in evidence in mitigation or evidence in aggravation.\nThey\u2019re both free to go into the background of the defendant and to go into anything that is relevant.\nOf course it has to be competent evidence.\nAnd it is very common to call psychiatrist.\nThe defendant may call a psychiatrist who says he\u2019s examined the defendant and is familiar with criminal characters and is in his judgment this man can be rehabilitated.\nNow, there\u2019s all sorts of evidence and certainly all of the things that would go into judge sentencing on the basis of a probation report or a diagnostic reports in our non-capital cases.\nSo, I think as far as that objection is raised and of course it\u2019s tied into the lack of standards, we meet that very well in California.\nNow, I\u2019m not so sure it\u2019s a benefit to the defendant.\nCertainly, the bifurcated trials enacted as a means of giving a jury the fullest information before past sentence.\nAnd I think that\u2019s a good idea.\nTo say with the benefits, the defendant is something else again because the defendant is stuck with his own record.\nHe made his life and if it hasn\u2019t been a good one he\u2019ll suffer for it in the penalty trial.\nThere\u2019s no question about it.\nAnd it can be very difficult for the defendant whether or not in the long run it\u2019s better to bifurcate or whether it\u2019s better and gives the defendant a better shot at it to let it all go in one trial, limit the jury to what\u2019s admissible on the murder charge or rape charge or whatever is quite another question.\nIn any event, we recede on the bifurcated trial.\nWe also have some previsions for review which have been mentioned in the briefs particularly filed by the petitioner who argues that the Arkansas jury verdict is under review.\nUnreviewable for all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3974.377, 3975.031, 3992.317, 4004.812, 4015.037, 4018.042, 4024.964, 4045.288, 4051.615, 4059.295, 4061.021, 4064.341, 4076.906, 4091.447, 4102.127, 4107.214, 4116.518, 4118.232, 4124.045, 4129.738, 4131.575, 4155.803, 4160.477, 4175.776], "stop_times": [3975.031, 3992.317, 4004.812, 4015.037, 4018.042, 4024.964, 4045.288, 4051.615, 4059.295, 4061.021, 4064.341, 4076.906, 4091.447, 4102.127, 4107.214, 4116.518, 4118.232, 4124.045, 4129.738, 4131.575, 4155.803, 4160.477, 4175.776, 4176.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3974.377}, "reply_to": "14895__1_032", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_034", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Before you get to that, may I ask you whether at the end of the penalty trial, there are any instructions given by the judge and if so what they are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4176.702], "stop_times": [4185.582], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4176.702}, "reply_to": "14895__1_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_035", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAt the end of the penalty jury trial, the jury is instructed in a standard instruction that it is the duty of the jury to determine which of the penalty is either death sentence or life imprisonment should we impose.\nI won\u2019t read the whole thing but just basically, you should consider all of the evidence received here in court presented by the people and defendants throughout the trial before this jury.\nAnd that would normally include all the evidence on the guilt face as well.\nYou may consider, may also consider all of the evidence of the circumstances surrounding a crime of the defendant\u2019s background and history.\nAnd of the facts in aggravation or mitigation of the penalty which has been received here in Court.\nHowever, it is not essential to your decision that you find mitigating circumstances on the one hand or evidence in aggravation of the offense on the other.\nIt\u2019s the law of the state that every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall suffer death or confinement in the state prison for life at the discretion of the jury.\nAnd then they\u2019re told they have to indicate in their verdict which of the two either death as its put here or life they prefer.\nAnd then they\u2019re told there\u2019s notwithstanding facts if any proved in mitigation or aggravation.\nIn determining which punishment shall be inflicted, you are entirely free to act according to your own judgment, conscience, and absolute discretion.\nThat verdict must express the individual opinion of each juror.\nBeyond prescribing the two alternative penalties, the law itself provides no standard for the guidance of the jury and the selection of the penalty but rather commits the whole matter of determining which of the two penalties shall be fixed to the judgment, conscience, and absolute discretion of the jury.\nAnd the determination of that matter if the jury does agree, it must be anonymous as to which of the two penalties is imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4185.582, 4188.264, 4202.751, 4212.358, 4216.757, 4225.161, 4231.212, 4242.242, 4255.031, 4263.935, 4271.508, 4281.792, 4286.937, 4303.387], "stop_times": [4188.264, 4202.751, 4212.358, 4216.757, 4225.161, 4231.212, 4242.242, 4255.031, 4263.935, 4271.508, 4281.792, 4286.937, 4303.387, 4311.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4185.582}, "reply_to": "14895__1_034", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_036", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Is that in your brief or is it instruction in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4311.681], "stop_times": [4318.606], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4311.681}, "reply_to": "14895__1_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_037", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I don\u2019t --it certainly not set forth in full Your Honor.\nIt may be referred to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4318.606, 4322.176], "stop_times": [4322.176, 4323.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4318.606}, "reply_to": "14895__1_036", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_038", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Could that be left filed with this please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4323.75], "stop_times": [4326.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4323.75}, "reply_to": "14895__1_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_039", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019d be very happy to do them.\nThere are some other instructions that come in for example at California Supreme Court had a great problem over the last few years about arguments that while this man if he give him a life sentence might be paroled after seven years and go back and commit another crime and we have a special instruction now that covers that face, what a life sentence means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4326.537, 4328.505], "stop_times": [4328.505, 4352.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4326.537}, "reply_to": "14895__1_038", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_040", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4352.999], "stop_times": [4354.156], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4352.999}, "reply_to": "14895__1_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_041", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4354.156], "stop_times": [4354.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4354.156}, "reply_to": "14895__1_040", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_042", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What gives the special instruction on that subject?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4354.759], "stop_times": [4357.427], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4354.759}, "reply_to": "14895__1_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_043", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, that\u2019s -- see, it's quite a long one Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4357.427], "stop_times": [4362.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4357.427}, "reply_to": "14895__1_042", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_044", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I mean there\u2019s a substitute or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4362.273], "stop_times": [4363.995], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4362.273}, "reply_to": "14895__1_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_045", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What it is basically is that the jury is told that a life sentence means that he may be paroled at some time.\nBut that it\u2019s up to the adult authority to determine that\u2019s a separate agency in California to determine when if ever he is released and in general, you\u2019re not suppose to be concerned about that anyhow.\nThey\u2019ll do their job.\nProperly, you do your job properly.\nThat\u2019s the gist of it.\nThat he can be paroled but they shouldn\u2019t enter into your considerations as yours.\nI -- we submit that the California procedure and I think it\u2019s basically the same on its element of lack of standards was adopted originally to benefit the defendant -- defendants in capital cases and its easier to say that the legislature passed the buck that it didn\u2019t want to decide the hard question of who should be executed and who shouldn\u2019t be.\nBut I don\u2019t think that was the basis for it.\nI think the basis for it was in the experience of all of us who know anything about capital cases that is impossible, at least I think its impossible to set out in advance those considerations exclusively.\nNew cases come along.\nNew situations developed.\nSome of the considerations are those referred to human qualities and emotions that we can\u2019t reduced to a formula.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4363.995, 4376.402, 4390.56, 4392.471, 4394.499, 4396.132, 4403.05, 4429.773, 4432.366, 4449.84, 4452.416, 4455.502], "stop_times": [4376.402, 4390.56, 4392.471, 4394.499, 4396.132, 4403.05, 4429.773, 4432.366, 4449.84, 4452.416, 4455.502, 4464.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4363.995}, "reply_to": "14895__1_044", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_046", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, it\u2019s because of that that I confess a little surprise that you are fairly willing to accept identification of your procedure on this point with that of Arkansas.\nThe word standard is a word of great difficulty and I think that whether the absence of standards has reaches constitutional proportion is a question that may appear quite differently in the context of Arkansas procedure on the one hand and the context of California\u2019s on the other because it\u2019s at least arguable.\nI should think that under the California procedure, whether or not you say there are standards, the jury\u2019s attention in the second penalty trial is specifically focused upon the qualitative judgments that I suppose or at least arguably relevant to the kind of penalty that ought to be imposed whereas in the Arkansas procedure as I understand it that this moment that does not happen therefore the two systems in this respect are not necessary properly equated even before the application of constitutional concepts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4464.23, 4478.657, 4507.531], "stop_times": [4478.657, 4507.531, 4559.722], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4464.23}, "reply_to": "14895__1_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_047", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well I certainly didn\u2019t mean Your Honor to convey the impression that the two systems are the same or that if one falls, the other must inevitably fall but we, and we do not identify our system with Arkansas.\nIn fact, I have attempted to point out here some of the differentiating factors.\nBut in -- when you go pin it right down to the question of lack of standards and isolate that I think we are in the same footing.\nNow, it may be that there are other aspects of the procedure which would say that even if the Court felt there was some defect in the Arkansas procedure.\nWe certainly hope to the Court would recognize the national impact of its rulings and that\u2019s one of the reasons that we wanted to present our position here and that our State Supreme Court has just resolve these questions squarely and upheld the absence of the standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4559.722, 4574.149, 4580.063, 4588.318, 4598.845], "stop_times": [4574.149, 4580.063, 4588.318, 4598.845, 4622.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4559.722}, "reply_to": "14895__1_046", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_048", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "How did the courts quit on that, I forgot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4622.801], "stop_times": [4625.126], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4622.801}, "reply_to": "14895__1_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_049", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It was four to three, Your Honor.\nThere is one other face of the differentiation in our system.\nYour Honor, after the jury comes to its verdict the trial judge has a power to an emotion for new trial to review all of the evidence, everything in the case.\nAnd determine in his discretion, death sentence having been returned by the jury whether the sentence should be life instead of a death sentence.\nHe can\u2019t of course go up to death if the jury returns life.\nBut he can in effect reduce the sentence and that does not have to be because of some error but because of his appraisal of the -- all of the evidence in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4625.126, 4632.278, 4640.258, 4653.149, 4662.294, 4667.256], "stop_times": [4632.278, 4640.258, 4653.149, 4662.294, 4667.256, 4678.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4625.126}, "reply_to": "14895__1_048", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_050", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Is it your understanding that that is the same in Arkansas or is it different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4678.658], "stop_times": [4683.841], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4678.658}, "reply_to": "14895__1_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_051", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, it was my -- well, in my understanding Your Honor is that it is different but I\u2019m certainly not, I have to rely pretty much on what\u2019s been said by the parties.\nI\u2019m not qualified to speak on that.\nI don\u2019t think they have that power.\nThey may have.\nWe certainly have the power.\nIt is true that the on appellate review, the Supreme Court of California and that\u2019s where all death penalty cases go in California.\nThere\u2019s no other review and its automatic in all death cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4683.841, 4695.992, 4698.442, 4699.819, 4701.069, 4702.716, 4709.381], "stop_times": [4695.992, 4698.442, 4699.819, 4701.069, 4702.716, 4709.381, 4713.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4683.841}, "reply_to": "14895__1_050", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_052", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m sure the judge in Arkansas must have a power to set aside a judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4713.884], "stop_times": [4720.025], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4713.884}, "reply_to": "14895__1_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_053", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4720.025], "stop_times": [4722.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4720.025}, "reply_to": "14895__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_054", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, I\u2019m sure he would for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4722.912], "stop_times": [4723.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4722.912}, "reply_to": "14895__1_053", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_055", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Under the old theory is, you think it\u2019s so outrageous at all that you want to do so.\nI may be and I don\u2019t know?\nDo you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4723.981, 4730.061, 4732.218], "stop_times": [4730.061, 4732.218, 4733.038], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4723.981}, "reply_to": "14895__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_056", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I wouldn\u2019t want to -- I certainly wouldn\u2019t want to act as if I were an authority Your Honor.\nI just don\u2019t know.\nLet me put it that way.\nI do know that it\u2019s done in California and it doesn\u2019t have to be done for error.\nWe done simply because the judge in his judgment, but again would no more standards of the jury had to start with things that a life sentence should be imposed.\nIn addition, there is still a further review and I think it\u2019s important to make sure that there is no that this is not an arbitrary decision passed in a vacuum or something.\nThere is a review by the trial judge.\nThere is a review by the state Supreme Court, none of the question of whether it should be a death sentence or a life sentence.\nBut on the question of any error that may have occurred during the penalty trial and the least error, will the Court reverse it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4733.038, 4739.868, 4740.748, 4741.831, 4746.58, 4758.713, 4774.574, 4776.62, 4783.881], "stop_times": [4739.868, 4740.748, 4741.831, 4746.58, 4758.713, 4774.574, 4776.62, 4783.881, 4790.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4733.038}, "reply_to": "14895__1_055", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_057", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "The Supreme Court can raise the law of the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4790.81], "stop_times": [4793.202], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4790.81}, "reply_to": "14895__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_058", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No.\nNo, they can review the record Your Honor, for error in the penalty trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4793.202, 4794.312], "stop_times": [4794.312, 4797.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4793.202}, "reply_to": "14895__1_057", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_059", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "But they can\u2019t just decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4797.764], "stop_times": [4800.068], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4797.764}, "reply_to": "14895__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_060", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That\u2019s the view, it\u2019s -- we have one justice now who is of the view that they can in a death case but the established law in California is that they cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4800.068], "stop_times": [4808.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4800.068}, "reply_to": "14895__1_059", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_061", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There are six under the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4808.059], "stop_times": [4810.085], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4808.059}, "reply_to": "14895__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_062", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I think it was six, yes.\nNow those are some of the things but if I could come back to this basic idea, it seems to me its base on two things.\nOne is the, as I said, it\u2019s so difficult to attempt to formulate in advance this considerations.\nAnd the result is that a case comes along where you -- where everybody involved feels that the death sentence should not be imposed.\nBut it may not fall within some predetermined categories.\nAnd when you get into things like pity and sympathy and kindness and compassion, how you can reduce that to any kind of a standard and the due process sense of the statute defining conduct?\nI don\u2019t understand in the petitioners haven\u2019t told us.\nAgain in California, for example the jury is told in the guilt case of the case, any of those two, any case.\nYou can\u2019t take into account any pity or sympathy you might feel for this defendant no matter how down and obvious you have to decide the facts.\nIs he guilty of murder whatever might be robbery, you have to put pity and sympathy out of your mind.\nNow, if you\u2019re trying a capital case and they\u2019re given that instruction of a guilt plea then you have to correct that impression in the penalty face because they can\u2019t properly be guided by such things in determining penalty in sentencing just like a trial judge can be take consideration or take these things into consideration.\nAnd unless it\u2019s the position of the appellant, petitioner here, that pity and kindness and compassion should be excluded from the sentencing process and indeed must be excluded as a matter of constitutional law and it seems to me that he can\u2019t prevail.\nThe Model Code certainly says nothing as I recall about kindness or compassion.\nNo states to my knowledge has ever enacted standards of a kind that are suggested here, the ones that a Model Penal Code have been around for some time they have never been adopted by anybody.\nThis discretionary sentencing in capital cases has been with us just like as I pointed out earlier was at the instance of this Court some 70 years ago that the federal courts commenced this procedure.\nWe\u2019ve known about it, we haven\u2019t been offended by it.\nI think the results have been by enlarged, a vital large pretty good with undoubtedly they\u2019re always arguable cases but no court has ever held that this is a constitutional defect in sentencing.\nOnly two years ago, this Court agreed to adhere to the decision in Williams against New York which in evaluating a sentencing procedures in New York in a capital case permitted the trial judge to consider matters in the probation report and other sources and it considered things that have not been testified to an open court so that in effect the defendant had no right to cross-examine.\nThe witnesses that -- and the information sources of information that the trial judge considered and in that case, the trial judge in the face of a recommendation of a life sentence by the jury after reviewing these matters that came to him not from the witness stand that by way of reports imposed the death sentence in his good judgment, again without any standards as far as I can tell and this Court affirmed it.\nAnd two years ago, in Patterson -- Specht against Patterson, you said, you\u2019ve given it some thought that you adhered to that decision in Williams against New York and it seems to me they -- that of course the issues are different in this case.\nBut that the sentencing procedure in Arkansas and the sentencing procedure in California and in the Federal Courts and everywhere in United States as far as I know that this aspect of the sentencing procedure does comport with due process of law and with equal protection of the laws.\nThe -- there is no problem here in my judgment of undue vagueness in the law.\nGranted there are no standard specifically set forth but the definition of the crimes that calls for capital punishment, everywhere is very specific.\nCertainly, it\u2019s in Arkansas it is in California those crimes are set forth whatever they might be.\nWhether in the first degree, rape, however the legislature wants to apply it.\nAnd the fact that the defendant doesn\u2019t know and indeed no one knows and no one in this room knows whether if he undertakes a murder in the first degree, a jury will ultimately return a death sentence or a life sentence as one of those risks that he has to take in this life.\nHe doesn\u2019t know if Governor will grant him clemency.\nHe doesn\u2019t know if the District Attorney and whatever county happens to be in throughout the United States will ask for a death sentence.\nHe doesn\u2019t even know what the higher Courts may rule in some things that might happen to him in the course of this procedure.\nOf course, he doesn\u2019t know these things.\nBut he knows this if he commits a murder in the first degree.\nHe is subject to the death penalty.\nNow giving the jury the discretion to return a life sentence was the humanitarian step this Court has recognized that and in determining guilt, and there has to be this prior determination of guilt before we ever get around this sentencing.\nThe defendant has the benefit of all of the constitutional protections.\nWe don\u2019t see any unfairness in this situation.\nWe don\u2019t see any uneven application of the law.\nThe same rule is applicable to everybody that goes before the jury.\nEverybody who commits a murder in the first degree or rape in the State of Arkansas, they all have the same opportunity.\nBe in fact they even have -- they have a better opportunity to seek a life sentence under the discretionary procedure than they would under any of these conceivable standards.\nHere the whole thing is wide open.\nAnything that a defense attorney can conceive of to say that might persuade a juror, mind you need a unanimous verdict in this cases.\nThink of its one juror that there should be a life sentence why he\u2019s accomplished the purpose and the only bounds are his own imagination and his own ingenuity.\nNow again his status are going to limit that.\nThere is another point here too, I think and I forgot to mention that in our discussion earlier about the California Procedure that it is clear in California that you -- the trial judge can on requests advice the jury about factors that they might consider and references made to the Model Penal Code.\nIt would have to be made very clear to the jury that these were not controlling in any sense but if that were done, it would certainly, I think the jury could be told of those factors.\nThey can be told they can take kindness and so forth into account.\nSo we submit that the mere absence of standards does not in any way make the Arkansas procedure for that reason unconstitutional if there other objections that we don\u2019t share with Arkansas in terms of procedure, I\u2019m sure the Attorney General form Arkansas was prepared to deal with those.\nI have just one closing remark, and that is I think that in light of your decision in Witherspoon wherein you recognize that under Illinois law the conscience of the community was focus on this man and what have you done.\nAnd there was no guide given to the jury and you insisted that that jury should be fairly composed and that was undisputed about whether that one was but nevertheless it would have to be fairly composed to reflect the conscience of the community.\nThat rule in Illinois, in the absence of standards is essentially the same thing.\nYou have to face an Arkansas on the same thing that we have in California and it seems to me that having recognized that and having -- making sure as you have made sure that the jury must be a fair representation of the community because you are invoke in their conscience.\nYou're invoking their -- the qualities as I have referred to kindness, compassion, not simply an arid determination of facts but a real judgment in the -- and not on the legal sense but in the general sense.\nThe judgment of what should be done with this person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4810.085, 4813.402, 4818.847, 4827.158, 4836.082, 4840.533, 4856.073, 4860.307, 4866.605, 4875.544, 4882.193, 4903.358, 4923.156, 4928.679, 4941.031, 4955.704, 4958.025, 4975.082, 5006.276, 5035.799, 5050.098, 5069.821, 5076.349, 5088.891, 5094.659, 5100.758, 5122.808, 5125.082, 5133.617, 5142.196, 5143.423, 5146.801, 5149.344, 5169.312, 5173.573, 5175.967, 5181.406, 5186.414, 5193.93, 5204.676, 5209.001, 5218.103, 5230.696, 5233.223, 5256.24, 5271.38, 5278.824, 5304.868, 5324.495, 5346.201, 5352.874, 5375.98, 5394.186], "stop_times": [4813.402, 4818.847, 4827.158, 4836.082, 4840.533, 4856.073, 4860.307, 4866.605, 4875.544, 4882.193, 4903.358, 4923.156, 4928.679, 4941.031, 4955.704, 4958.025, 4975.082, 5006.276, 5035.799, 5050.098, 5069.821, 5076.349, 5088.891, 5094.659, 5100.758, 5122.808, 5125.082, 5133.617, 5142.196, 5143.423, 5146.801, 5149.344, 5169.312, 5173.573, 5175.967, 5181.406, 5186.414, 5193.93, 5204.676, 5209.001, 5218.103, 5230.696, 5233.223, 5256.24, 5271.38, 5278.824, 5304.868, 5324.495, 5346.201, 5352.874, 5375.98, 5394.186, 5396.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4810.085}, "reply_to": "14895__1_061", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_063", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Harris how was the jury qualified at the trial of this case?\nI don\u2019t know because I haven\u2019t seen the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5396.627, 5400.948], "stop_times": [5400.948, 5403.693], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5396.627}, "reply_to": "14895__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_064", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, Your Honor, in our brief, amicus brief, we suggest that the Court should give some consideration to that very point.\nThe case was tried back in 1962.\nWe did not at that time have the transcripts.\nWe thought it was probably a good guess.\nThere might be a violation of it -- of the Witherspoon rule.\nIn the meantime and in fact yesterday morning -- excuse me.\nI examined the transcript.\nIt\u2019s right here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5403.693, 5412.86, 5416.271, 5419.019, 5420.298, 5424.596, 5431.836, 5432.841], "stop_times": [5412.86, 5416.271, 5419.019, 5420.298, 5424.596, 5431.836, 5432.841, 5435.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5403.693}, "reply_to": "14895__1_063", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_065", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5435.803], "stop_times": [5437.133], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5435.803}, "reply_to": "14895__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_066", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5437.133], "stop_times": [5437.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5437.133}, "reply_to": "14895__1_065", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_067", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I thought its -- I thought it was back in the Eighth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5437.526], "stop_times": [5440.864], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5437.526}, "reply_to": "14895__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_068", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, this is a copy, I dont know, it looks like the original to me but here it is.\nAnd I took the opportunity to go over it.\nAnd sure enough there are at least seven jurors about in this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5440.864, 5447.306, 5450.692], "stop_times": [5447.306, 5450.692, 5455.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5440.864}, "reply_to": "14895__1_067", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_069", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Witherspoon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5455.227], "stop_times": [5458.033], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5455.227}, "reply_to": "14895__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_070", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, it hasn\u2019t been raised Your Honor.\nHasn\u2019t been raised apparently, any place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5458.033, 5460.263], "stop_times": [5460.263, 5462.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5458.033}, "reply_to": "14895__1_069", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_071", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5462.164], "stop_times": [5464.252], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5462.164}, "reply_to": "14895__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_072", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well you came down -- handed down a ruling in Witherspoon which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5464.252], "stop_times": [5468.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5464.252}, "reply_to": "14895__1_071", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_073", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I guess it\u2019s been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5468.082], "stop_times": [5469.712], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5468.082}, "reply_to": "14895__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_074", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "This is federal habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5469.712], "stop_times": [5470.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5469.712}, "reply_to": "14895__1_073", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_075", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "This is federal habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5470.709], "stop_times": [5474.907], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5470.709}, "reply_to": "14895__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_076", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I think you could.\nI don\u2019t want to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5474.907, 5476.197], "stop_times": [5476.197, 5477.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5474.907}, "reply_to": "14895__1_075", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_077", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "All that\u2019s being attacked in this case is the sentence of death, it's -- am I right about that?\nNot the convciton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5477.54, 5481.496], "stop_times": [5481.496, 5482.865], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5477.54}, "reply_to": "14895__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_078", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That\u2019s my understanding.\nThat\u2019s the sentence of death is being attacked and not the conviction, at least at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5482.865, 5483.875], "stop_times": [5483.875, 5489.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5482.865}, "reply_to": "14895__1_077", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_079", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, does the record show --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5489.714], "stop_times": [5492.168], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5489.714}, "reply_to": "14895__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_080", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, I don\u2019t want to make its between the State of Arkansas and the attorney for Mr. Maxwell but just been going over it, for example of it there was seven jurors perspective jurors who were excused on this ground that they were opposed capital punishment.\nI think you have to look at each one of them and the first one -- this is about all there was in this as to the Mr. McCleary the first man to be excused.\nHe was asked to entertain any other conscientious scruples about imposing the death penalty.\nHe -- and he said, \u201cYes, I am afraid I do.\u201d\nAnd he was excused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5492.168, 5510.814, 5520.762, 5526.197, 5529.681], "stop_times": [5510.814, 5520.762, 5526.197, 5529.681, 5531.573], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5492.168}, "reply_to": "14895__1_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_081", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5531.573], "stop_times": [5533.466], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5531.573}, "reply_to": "14895__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_082", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes.\nAnd then another one said, \u201cI would not sentence the death penalty.\u201d\nThat I suppose you might argue meant I wouldn\u2019t in any case but it wasn\u2019t spelled out.\nThere\u2019s another one who said, \u201cNo sir, I don\u2019t believe in capital punishment\u201d and went off.\nAnd as I say there are total of four -- a total of seven.\nThe last one said, \u201cI am against capital punishment.\u201d\nI suppose there could be argument on each side as to whether or not this complied with Witherspoon but certainly arguable and it did not.\nWe think you could reach that.\nWe think that issue might very well be resolved in favor of the petitioner and that would save him from all that he seeks to get at this point and that is to save his life.\nHaving that issue, there\u2019s no need that you go into this other question.\nBut we submit that if you do, we submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5533.466, 5536.492, 5540.385, 5546.438, 5552.662, 5555.623, 5560.372, 5570.864, 5572.283, 5586.825, 5593.464], "stop_times": [5536.492, 5540.385, 5546.438, 5552.662, 5555.623, 5560.372, 5570.864, 5572.283, 5586.825, 5593.464, 5596.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5533.466}, "reply_to": "14895__1_081", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_083", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What you\u2019re saying is that the record shows in your judgment an indication that the Witherspoon would violate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5596.984], "stop_times": [5606.382], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5596.984}, "reply_to": "14895__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_084", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5606.382], "stop_times": [5606.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5606.382}, "reply_to": "14895__1_083", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_085", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "And that I believe that Justice Douglas wrote an opinion several years ago in which he said, \u201cThis Court see no reason to send it back to go to a habeas corpus and then unnecessary habeas corpus when the record plainly shows here that some rules have been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5606.508], "stop_times": [5627.758], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5606.508}, "reply_to": "14895__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_086", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, of course you don\u2019t have the transcript before you now but I\u2019m sure you could secure it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5627.758], "stop_times": [5631.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5627.758}, "reply_to": "14895__1_085", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_087", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That transcript was not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5631.895], "stop_times": [5635.579], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5631.895}, "reply_to": "14895__1_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_088", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It\u2019s not part of the appendix, it\u2019s here.\nIt\u2019s on the table.\nIt\u2019s not part of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5635.579, 5637.531, 5638.326], "stop_times": [5637.531, 5638.326, 5640.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5635.579}, "reply_to": "14895__1_087", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_089", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It\u2019s here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5640.043], "stop_times": [5640.796], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5640.043}, "reply_to": "14895__1_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_090", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It\u2019s printed.\nYes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5640.796, 5641.275], "stop_times": [5641.275, 5641.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5640.796}, "reply_to": "14895__1_089", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_091", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Part of the record.\nIt was before the judges whose judgment we are -- had happen to that and was not part of it in the rule.\nBut I certainly was for the case in Justice Douglas rule.\nWe shouldn\u2019t go through a vain and useless cert sending the case back all of the delay that would occur when direct of the matter is plainly before I will notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5641.403, 5642.389, 5650.148, 5654.933], "stop_times": [5642.389, 5650.148, 5654.933, 5669.17], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5641.403}, "reply_to": "14895__1_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_092", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5669.17], "stop_times": [5669.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5669.17}, "reply_to": "14895__1_091", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_093", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Is there any objection by either side to having this transcript before the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5669.354], "stop_times": [5676.938], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5669.354}, "reply_to": "14895__1_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_094", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We certainly have no objection.\nBelongs to Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5676.938, 5678.691], "stop_times": [5678.691, 5678.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5676.938}, "reply_to": "14895__1_093", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__1_095", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Sustained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5678.955], "stop_times": [5681.163], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5678.955}, "reply_to": "14895__1_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__1_096", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5681.163], "stop_times": [5682.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5681.163}, "reply_to": "14895__1_095", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__2_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We have no objection in having the Court have the transcript before it.\nI would like to speak in rebuttal as to the propriety of ruling on the witness per issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5682.26, 5685.256], "stop_times": [5685.256, 5689.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5682.26}, "reply_to": "14895__1_096", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__2_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5689.262], "stop_times": [5689.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5689.262}, "reply_to": "14895__2_000", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__2_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We certainly have no objection on the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5689.612], "stop_times": [5691.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5689.612}, "reply_to": "14895__2_001", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__2_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Very well then, if you\u2019ll leave it with the Court, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5691.926], "stop_times": [5695.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5691.926}, "reply_to": "14895__2_002", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__3_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nMy time that we\u2019ve been allotted has expired.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5695.129, 5696.214, 5699.153], "stop_times": [5696.214, 5699.153, 5704.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5695.129}, "reply_to": "14895__2_003", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "14895__3_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Mr. Langston.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5704.713], "stop_times": [5706.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5704.713}, "reply_to": "14895__3_000", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__4_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "May it please the Court.\nI checked this transcript out of the Supreme Court Clerk\u2019s Office in Arkansas last Friday with the specific purpose of bringing it here for your consideration.\nAnd I will lodge it with the clerk but I do, whenever you\u2019re finished with it I would like for him to return it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5706.414, 5709.201, 5719.348], "stop_times": [5709.201, 5719.348, 5726.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5706.414}, "reply_to": "14895__3_001", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "You would let?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5726.329], "stop_times": [5727.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5726.329}, "reply_to": "14895__4_000", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__4_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Like for him to return it, at least so that I can file it back in the Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5727.273], "stop_times": [5731.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5727.273}, "reply_to": "14895__4_001", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5731.46], "stop_times": [5735.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5731.46}, "reply_to": "14895__4_002", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__4_004", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I was going to mention about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5735.1], "stop_times": [5736.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5735.1}, "reply_to": "14895__4_003", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_005", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Do you agree this is a proper record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5736.003], "stop_times": [5738.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5736.003}, "reply_to": "14895__4_004", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__4_006", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "This is the -- this is the original transcript filed in the Arkansas Supreme Court and it has also been considered by this Court on certiorari from the Arkansas Supreme Court.\nI see it here marked on it \"received September 22, 1966, Office of the Clerk Supreme Court of the United States.\u201d\nIn Arkansas, we have five crimes which we -- which our legislature has determined or bad enough to require the death sentence.\nThey -- those are murder in the first degree, rape, kidnapping, treason, and burning of prisons by convicts.\nOur law ever since these crimes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5738.572, 5749.913, 5761.87, 5776.543, 5787.484], "stop_times": [5749.913, 5761.87, 5776.543, 5787.484, 5792.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5738.572}, "reply_to": "14895__4_005", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_007", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What was the fourth one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5792.951], "stop_times": [5795.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5792.951}, "reply_to": "14895__4_006", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__4_008", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5795.073], "stop_times": [5797.65], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5795.073}, "reply_to": "14895__4_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_009", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Burning of prisons by convicts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5797.65], "stop_times": [5799.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5797.65}, "reply_to": "14895__4_008", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_010", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, how about the one before it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5799.815], "stop_times": [5803.223], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5799.815}, "reply_to": "14895__4_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_011", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Treason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5803.223], "stop_times": [5804.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5803.223}, "reply_to": "14895__4_010", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_012", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Treason.\nOh, I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5804.051, 5804.595], "stop_times": [5804.595, 5809.285], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5804.051}, "reply_to": "14895__4_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_013", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In Arkansas these five crimes were originally punishable by death.\nThat was the only sentence.\nIt was automatic on the finding of guilt in those particular cases that the person be sentence to death.\nBut in 1915, our legislature saw fit to allow some discretion by the jury and enacted the statute which allows the jury in its discretion to return in sentence, a life sentence.\nIn this particular case, the verdict form was at that top of the page it said, \u201cWe the jury found the defendant not guilty.\u201d\nThe second form was, \u201cWe, they jury have found the defendant guilty of rape and fixed his punishment at life imprisonment.\u201d\nThe third form was, \u201cWe, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the information.\u201d\nAnd when the jury brought in, the verdict saying, \u201cWe, the jury found the defendant guilty of rape as charged in the information\u201d that ended their proceedings.\nIt was then mandatory upon the judge to -- under the law to sentence the defendant to death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5809.285, 5815.559, 5816.679, 5824.272, 5840.618, 5848.977, 5855.648, 5863.954, 5874.418], "stop_times": [5815.559, 5816.679, 5824.272, 5840.618, 5848.977, 5855.648, 5863.954, 5874.418, 5883.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5809.285}, "reply_to": "14895__4_012", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_014", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Suppose as I think Mr. Justice Black raised in his colloquy that this judge thought this was outrageous or it shocked his conscience or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5883.506], "stop_times": [5898.129], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5883.506}, "reply_to": "14895__4_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_015", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Your Honor, we didn\u2019t --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5898.129], "stop_times": [5899.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5898.129}, "reply_to": "14895__4_014", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_016", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Couldn\u2019t he set is aside or sent it back to the jury for reconsideration or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5899.003], "stop_times": [5908.609], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5899.003}, "reply_to": "14895__4_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_017", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Of course, one, he can -- when a motion for new trial is filed for the defendant, he can grant his motion for a new trial and give him a complete new trial.\nWe didn\u2019t cite it in our brief that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5908.609, 5918.081], "stop_times": [5918.081, 5919.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5908.609}, "reply_to": "14895__4_016", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_018", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Any limitations on that?\nBecause it have to be four errors committed in the trial or can we just say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5919.303, 5921.917], "stop_times": [5921.917, 5926.407], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5919.303}, "reply_to": "14895__4_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_019", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I believe that the defendant could probably say in his motion for new trial that the judgment is contrary to law and that it is excessive and that would be an error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5926.407], "stop_times": [5936.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5926.407}, "reply_to": "14895__4_018", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_020", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That it is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5936.613], "stop_times": [5937.725], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5936.613}, "reply_to": "14895__4_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_021", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That would be an error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5937.725], "stop_times": [5939.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5937.725}, "reply_to": "14895__4_020", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_022", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5939.098], "stop_times": [5939.633], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5939.098}, "reply_to": "14895__4_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_023", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That the judgment is contrary to law and that it is excessive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5939.633], "stop_times": [5942.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5939.633}, "reply_to": "14895__4_022", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_024", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Oh, excessive, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5942.912], "stop_times": [5944.284], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5942.912}, "reply_to": "14895__4_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_025", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "But it has to be contrary to law.\nbut what law is it contrary to if it\u2019s just shocks the conscience or to use Mr. Justice Black\u2019s word, outrageous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5944.284, 5946.541], "stop_times": [5946.541, 5956.413], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5944.284}, "reply_to": "14895__4_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_026", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I think that under that he could set it aside just being arbitrary.\nI don\u2019t see any recourse that the state would have in appealing case with the Supreme Court of Arkansas on his judgment or setting it aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5956.413, 5960.015], "stop_times": [5960.015, 5967.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5956.413}, "reply_to": "14895__4_025", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_027", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Is that -- but that\u2019s not -- is that acknowledged in any statute or any of decided case?\nOr is that just something that judges do when there\u2019s conscience of shock or it\u2019s outrageous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5967.744, 5974.246], "stop_times": [5974.246, 5979.693], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5967.744}, "reply_to": "14895__4_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_028", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "There is nothing on the motion for new trial Your Honor.\nThere\u2019s no case -- reported cases on that.\nWe do.\nI was going to give you a second statute which I think would give the judge the authority to reduce the sentence.\nIt\u2019s never been passed on by our Supreme Court and we didn\u2019t cite it in our brief and its 43.\nIt\u2019s Arkansas Statute 43-2310.\nThat statute reads, I have it here before me, it reads, \u201cThe courts, this is the trial court, shall have the power in all cases of conviction to reduce the extent or duration of the punishment assessed by jury if in the opinion of the court the conviction is proper and the punishment assessed is greater than under the circumstances of the case ought to be inflicted so that the punishment be not in any case reduced below the limit prescribed by law in such cases.\u201d\nThat statute does appear to give him the power to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment and if he so desires.\nIt\u2019s never been passed on by our court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5979.693, 5981.984, 5983.914, 5984.684, 5995.845, 6002.114, 6006.258, 6034.743, 6041.075], "stop_times": [5981.984, 5983.914, 5984.684, 5995.845, 6002.114, 6006.258, 6034.743, 6041.075, 6045.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5979.693}, "reply_to": "14895__4_027", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_029", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I see.\nDo you know of any instance in which that power has been exercised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6045.898, 6046.076], "stop_times": [6046.076, 6050.146], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6045.898}, "reply_to": "14895__4_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_030", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I would imagine that it has never been exercised.\nI wouldn\u2019t want to speculate on that but ordinarily our judges follow what the jury says.\nThey\u2019re elected in Arkansas and I imagine they wouldn\u2019t want to go around setting aside jury verdicts because it would look bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6050.146, 6052.539, 6059.27], "stop_times": [6052.539, 6059.27, 6067.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6050.146}, "reply_to": "14895__4_029", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_031", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In whose eyes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6067.114], "stop_times": [6069.443], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6067.114}, "reply_to": "14895__4_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_032", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "In the eyes of the community which he is serving and has to run for re-election every four years.\nMr. Amsterdam said something about impeachment in his -- impeachment of a defendant who takes a stand when he was -- when he testifies in his own behalf and I believe he went further than Arkansas procedure allows.\nOn impeachment, you can\u2019t ask him about all kinds of bad conduct but if he denies it you are bound by his answer.\nYou cannot.\nYou cannot introduce independent evidence of that bad conduct.\nYou have to live with his answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6069.443, 6081.541, 6096.433, 6102.937, 6104.615, 6108.155], "stop_times": [6081.541, 6096.433, 6102.937, 6104.615, 6108.155, 6111.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6069.443}, "reply_to": "14895__4_031", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_033", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Against the charge of perjury?\nHe lives with his answer plus a charge of perjury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6111.721, 6116.431], "stop_times": [6116.431, 6118.948], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6111.721}, "reply_to": "14895__4_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_034", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I imagine it would, Your Honor.\nWe think that the Arkansas, that the standards in Arkansas death cases our sit by the statute whenever in a rape case whenever the jury finds that a defendant has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will that it can bring him the death sentence.\nThose standards are the elements of the crime.\nNow in its mercy the jury can bring him life imprisonment.\nBut I would do want to emphasize that the made -- that the penalty actually is death and not life imprisonment.\nAnd that appears that the Arkansas procedures sort of reverse from some of these others.\nIn California, theirs is the ultimate but ours is the mandatory sentence of death but with the statute, the jury can its discretion recommend life imprisonment with the judge must abide by.\nNow in Arkansas, same when the crime of larceny which carries a penalty from 1 to 21 years, all that the jury has before them is the evidence in the definition of the elements of larceny and they can sit that punishment at any point in that extent of time they want to.\nThere -- the prosecutor gets up there and argues that he ought to have 21 years.\nThe defense gets up there and argues that he ought to get the minimum sentence.\nAnd the jury then sets it somewhere in between that.\nIt appears from my reading of the federal statutes that there\u2019s procedure in death sentences as the same as it is in Arkansas, that they have a unitary jury at one jury, and that they bring in the verdict of guilt and fix the punishment at the same time.\nSo what appears to us that if the Arkansas statutes are stricken down by this Court that the federal rule would also follow with it.\nIn this case and the transcript going back to the Witherspoon argument that the jury is the conscience of the community and that is a sort of a standard.\nThe court\u2019s instruction in number 2 on page 3 (a) of this transcript be among other things tells him that in reaching your verdict exercise your judgment, your common sense and reason in passing a bonus case and give the testimony of any and all witnesses such weight as you think it is entitled to and let your verdict be in accordance with the truth and the law.\nWhen the state proved that this person intruded.\nWhen the state proved that Maxwell entered into his victim\u2019s home, beat her up, drove her across the street, and attacked her in the vacant lot in the state proved the case for death.\nThe only was he can get anything less is for the jury to exercise mercy which he had declined to do under the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6118.948, 6128.763, 6150.576, 6154.102, 6165.345, 6174.469, 6180.176, 6194.771, 6220.411, 6225.485, 6230.18, 6237.493, 6259.197, 6273.402, 6286.716, 6315.366, 6320.826, 6338.345], "stop_times": [6128.763, 6150.576, 6154.102, 6165.345, 6174.469, 6180.176, 6194.771, 6220.411, 6225.485, 6230.18, 6237.493, 6259.197, 6273.402, 6286.716, 6315.366, 6320.826, 6338.345, 6349.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6118.948}, "reply_to": "14895__4_033", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_035", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Forgive me for this -- raising this, this may not be directly irrelevant, but I always have difficulty when counsel referred to a jury as reflecting the conscience of the community.\nNow particularly in this penalty matters, it might very well be that if he took a vote in the community, the prevailing settlement would be to lynch him or hang him or electrocute her or the Lord knows what.\nBut that -- the material that is there before the jury might indicate a reasonable man who is a human being that some other consequence ought to be attached and one of the fundamental perhaps it\u2019s philosophical are rather than strictly legal, one of the fundamental questions that all of this raises is what the jurors suppose to do.\nAnd I had thought the juror was suppose to bring the bear upon the material before him as comprehended by his senses, his qualities as a human being subject to the law and the standards if and if that were given to him rather than to reflect what might be a community attitude towards rape or murder or this particular fellow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6349.118, 6363.958, 6378.426, 6417.554], "stop_times": [6363.958, 6378.426, 6417.554, 6457.821], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6349.118}, "reply_to": "14895__4_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_036", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Well, of course I think that the jury, I don\u2019t know whether this answers your question or not, but I don\u2019t think the jury can live its conscience outside of the jury box.\nI think they take everything in their boxes or prejudices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6457.821, 6465.824], "stop_times": [6465.824, 6468.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6457.821}, "reply_to": "14895__4_035", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_037", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "No, that\u2019s -- their conscience they bring not -- but not the conscience necessarily the conscience in the sense of a growth of their reaction grossly of the people at large who don\u2019t have before them what the juror is suppose to have before him and that is as I was trying to suggest perhaps not very articulately related to the question that is being argued here namely the question as to whether in bringing to bear his own conscience, his own qualities as a human being, his own comprehension upon the material before him if that\u2019s the jurors function rather than just to reflect the gross reaction of the community.\nThe juror must as a matter of constitutional principle have the guidance of some standards in at least a philosophical sense that may be may light perhaps at the close to the heart of the issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6468.449, 6520.915], "stop_times": [6520.915, 6539.794], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6468.449}, "reply_to": "14895__4_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__4_038", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Of course we don\u2019t -- we think that the standard is said in the statute and we don\u2019t see how you could draft to set the standards that would tell the jury what to do in each particular case, I think the legislature to adopt standards would have to be in session all the time and enact almost ex post facto laws to cover every situation and that is what are our argument is that the only thing that you could -- we don\u2019t think whether to use a weapon or whatever you do makes any difference.\nWe think that the evidence before the jury that that is the standard that they\u2019re going to go by is the evidence that is presented in the case.\nThere are no further questions, that\u2019s our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6539.794, 6572.646, 6588.708], "stop_times": [6572.646, 6588.708, 6591.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6539.794}, "reply_to": "14895__4_037", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__4_039", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Very well.\nWell Mr. Amsterdam.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6591.816, 6593.375], "stop_times": [6593.375, 6595.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6591.816}, "reply_to": "14895__4_038", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "14895__5_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nI would like to address three things if I may in rebuttal.\nOne, the substantive arguments for the States of California and Arkansas, only very briefly.\nTwo, the Witherspoon question in this case.\nAnd three, the point brought up by California as the differences between California and Arkansas procedure and the relevance of that for disposition of this matter.\nMy response on this substantive level can be, I think very brief.\nAs I understand that both California and Arkansas admit that we got an arbitrary procedure going here and they defended simply on the ground that it\u2019s necessary, they can\u2019t do anything else whether it\u2019s beneficial to the defendant.\nBoth in reading the brief and in hearing the oral argument, I was struck that I heard this argument somewhere before.\nAnd so I look around I found it indeed, I have.\nThis -- the argument that you have to allow arbitrary discretion so is to individualize on the facts of each individual cases, originally written by William Taylor in 1785.\nHe was defending the English Bloody Code under which 250 crimes were capital.\nAnd he defended that on the ground that you couldn\u2019t get a narrower formulation.\nJust no way I which you could cut down on some of these crimes by fixing standards, taking somewhat might have been careful.\nHe said, the preference for the English system of having a broad net in which he can make capital punishment available and then letting the Executive commute was in the consideration that the selection of proper objects for capital punishment depends principally upon circumstances which however easy to perceive in each particular case after the crime is committed.\nIt is impossible to enumerate or define before him and so on.\nAnd he concluded eventually that the Law of England was based on the wise policy of sweeping into the net every crime which under any possible circumstances may marred the punishment of death and then letting individual circumstances furthered out and concluded that the wisdom and humanity of this design furnish a just excuse for the multiplicity of capital offenses which the Laws of England are accused to creating beyond those of other countries as the Bloody Code was justified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6595.685, 6598.766, 6601.652, 6609.983, 6613.693, 6625.111, 6631.084, 6646.161, 6652.362, 6656.755, 6672.116, 6679.188, 6683.933, 6690.73, 6711.589, 6715.871], "stop_times": [6598.766, 6601.652, 6609.983, 6613.693, 6625.111, 6631.084, 6646.161, 6652.362, 6656.755, 6672.116, 6679.188, 6683.933, 6690.73, 6711.589, 6715.871, 6743.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6595.685}, "reply_to": "14895__4_039", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__5_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "How many capital crimes were there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6743.56], "stop_times": [6746.597], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6743.56}, "reply_to": "14895__5_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__5_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "About 250, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6746.597], "stop_times": [6748.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6746.597}, "reply_to": "14895__5_001", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__5_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "What year was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6748.025], "stop_times": [6749.751], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6748.025}, "reply_to": "14895__5_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__6_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "He wrote in 1785 originally.\nNow, of course weighing indeed go about it was a simply cut back more and more.\nThey first of all removed the death penalty for stealing from bleaching grounds and then for pickpocketing and then for taking (Inaudible) and what have you.\nUntil they got it down eventually to murder and then in 1957 notwithstanding the real commissions recommendation which the California cites in its brief saying it was very difficult to get down any narrower as a matter of category English went ahead again.\nIn 1957, and delimited capital punishment by categories.\nNow, the only other thing I think need to answer --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6749.751, 6752.494, 6757.347, 6765.012, 6782.115, 6787.263], "stop_times": [6752.494, 6757.347, 6765.012, 6782.115, 6787.263, 6789.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6749.751}, "reply_to": "14895__5_003", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__6_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Was that done by parliament or with the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6789.777], "stop_times": [6791.745], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6789.777}, "reply_to": "14895__6_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__6_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "It was done by parliament.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6791.745], "stop_times": [6793.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6791.745}, "reply_to": "14895__6_001", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "14895__6_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "With the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6793.253], "stop_times": [6793.879], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6793.253}, "reply_to": "14895__6_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__7_000", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nThe only other thing I need to answer to this suggestion that the arbitrary discretion is justified by necessity or beneficence is that it makes an awful difference who you are being beneficent to.\nIt might well be that you defendants might get a better shake.\nA lot of them would get more even handy justice and makes difference whether it was white or black defendants that you\u2019re talking about in terms of whether this are good or bad system.\nBut in any event I want to emphasize that our argument does not take discretion, compassion, or anything else out of the system.\nThat is what Mr. Justice Fortas was talking about when he spoke about the next question or the next case.\nThe question is whether standards can be devised which lead compassion in but narrow the range of discretion beyond what Arkansas allowed and our only contention here is that Arkansas has found the net too broadly and delimited to discretion too little.\nWe do not contend for mandatory categories which we throw out wisdom and pity and compassion.\nWe simply contend for rule of law that limits the application of the death penalty much more narrow that Arkansas does.\nNow the second thing I want to address myself to is Witherspoon.\nI hope that in looking at the transcript of -- what we argue in this case this Court will remember a number of things.\nFirst, Witherspoon has been generally cut to ribbons by the courts below.\nAnd I don\u2019t think the court can likely assume --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6793.879, 6795.995, 6808.799, 6811.981, 6820.316, 6826.746, 6832.12, 6845.922, 6851.686, 6859.888, 6865.542, 6871.78, 6876.153], "stop_times": [6795.995, 6808.799, 6811.981, 6820.316, 6826.746, 6832.12, 6845.922, 6851.686, 6859.888, 6865.542, 6871.78, 6876.153, 6880.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6793.879}, "reply_to": "14895__6_003", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__7_001", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "By the Courts below are you saying?\nThey don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6880.405, 6882.99], "stop_times": [6882.99, 6883.229], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6880.405}, "reply_to": "14895__7_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__7_002", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "Not Arkansas Your Honor, by every Lower Court that I\u2019ve seen decided Witherspoon case since Witherspoon earlier.\nThere are dozens of them pending on certiorari here.\nThe kind of cutting the ribbons I\u2019m talking about is that the lower courts (a) have eased up on the kind of opposition to the death penalty that permits exclusion.\nSecondly, they have authorized exclusion where question is asked which the pretty good Witherspoon question but the answer is equivocal.\nThey authorize exclusion.\nThree, they read pre-Witherspoon records and saw they were done in light up Witherspoon assume that the jury is saying something that meets the Witherspoon testing.\nGo ahead and let him sit for a number of courts have held that if only a couple of jurors are thrown off under Witherspoon, it doesn\u2019t make it bad as only a couple were here.\nFive, The courts have held that if the prosecutor\u2019s remaining pre-emptor challenges exceed the number of juries in question that that sentence doesn\u2019t get vacated under Witherspoon.\nI raised all these for this reason.\nThis case has never had a Witherspoon claim at.\nThe habeas petition was filed prior to Witherspoon.\nThe District Court specifically since this is a second federal habeas corpus petition as whether there were other issues in the case.\nWitherspoon was never put in here.\nThe court said, you know I\u2019m going to be very weary about -- weary and wary about entertaining a third.\nI just wouldn\u2019t simply assume that this case going to be settled or that Maxwell is going to stay alive for vindication of some Witherspoon claim and again I\u2019m worried about the Witherspoon claims on this record in term unless this Court sets right.\nAll of the developments of post-Witherspoon law which it made a very limited ruling indeed out of Witherspoon, more than that, Maxwell has been on death row in Arkansas since 1962.\nHe has twice come within a few days of his death, the last time to be saved only by a stay issued by Mr. Justice White of this Court.\nWhat a lot of courts are doing in light of Witherspoon is the same, we vacate the death since we give them a new trial, new penalty trial now to determine whether he should live or die.\nIt would be inhumanity second only to killing this man.\nNot to resolve the issue now finally presented whether the State of Arkansas has any right to be trying this man for his life under the unconstitutional procedures that we are challenging.\nI can appreciate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6883.229, 6888.688, 6892.923, 6907.279, 6914.791, 6916.205, 6925.781, 6937.305, 6947.235, 6949.493, 6951.823, 6955.16, 6961.937, 6963.51, 6970.217, 6984.522, 6996.319, 7003.914, 7012.106, 7015.794, 7026.087], "stop_times": [6888.688, 6892.923, 6907.279, 6914.791, 6916.205, 6925.781, 6937.305, 6947.235, 6949.493, 6951.823, 6955.16, 6961.937, 6963.51, 6970.217, 6984.522, 6996.319, 7003.914, 7012.106, 7015.794, 7026.087, 7026.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6883.229}, "reply_to": "14895__7_001", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__7_003", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I suppose you contemplated the possibility that a proscription of standards may result in more and not fewer death penalties.\nHave you got a reaction on that, Mr. Amsterdam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7026.182, 7037.706], "stop_times": [7037.706, 7040.042], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7026.182}, "reply_to": "14895__7_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__7_004", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I don\u2019t.\nI think I have two reactions to it.\nOne, I doubt it.\nDepends on what standards they are.\nAnd it assumes, it assumes that our argument is an argument for mandatory categories which would take compassion out of the system.\nWe don\u2019t argue for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7040.042, 7041.28, 7045.239, 7046.481, 7048.724, 7057.025], "stop_times": [7041.28, 7045.239, 7046.481, 7048.724, 7057.025, 7057.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7040.042}, "reply_to": "14895__7_003", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__7_005", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I\u2019m not -- that\u2019s not what I have in mind.\nBut necessarily, there is a possibility in a way and the man may reasonably differ as to how important it is that proscribing standards for the imposition of the death penalty may result in more death penalties and would come about if the juries were just left free and do what they choose.\nAnd I assume you have considered that and that you've concluded that it\u2019s not really relevant to legal argument that you make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7057.642, 7061.747, 7085.342], "stop_times": [7061.747, 7085.342, 7093.784], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7057.642}, "reply_to": "14895__7_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14895__7_006", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "I have Your Honor and I will add this.\nThere are to the best of my knowledge, 475 men on death row at this moment in the country, 470 of them were sentence by juries exercising discretion akin to or in some way like Arkansas.\nThe decision in this case which we asked for would vacate or lay the ground for vacating.\nA number of death sentence as we contend are unconstitutional.\nThe Governor of Arkansas has 14 men on death row whose executions he has held out pending disposition of this case.\nThis Court has before it petitions for certiorari from Alabama, from New Jersey, from North Carolina, from California raising this issue.\nI am very sensitive to the notion that this Court should not decide constitutional questions prematurely.\nBut if eminent death of dozens of people can make an issue not premature, the issues presented here are not premature.\nThere is no question of no adversity, there\u2019s enough adversity in this case to float a dozen constitutional issues.\nThere is not enough.\nThere\u2019s no question here of an unfocused nature of the issues.\nThe issues are clearly focused and the question is presented for decision\nWe suggest that for this Court to put up on speculation of Witherspoon or something else.\nThe contention between this parties Arkansas contending he has a right to try William M. Maxwell and kill him without standards and are contending that for eight, the better part is six years.\nHe\u2019s been on death row and for longer than that under jeopardy of death under an unconstitutional regime.\nThat\u2019s the issue we put this Court.\nWe ask this Court to decide the Arkansas procedure is unconstitutional for violation of the rule of law and we hope that it will reach and decide the issue in this case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7093.784, 7096.446, 7115.026, 7125.174, 7128.77, 7135.845, 7145.188, 7150.888, 7157.573, 7164.29, 7164.889, 7168.879, 7172.718, 7178.303, 7192.661, 7198.188, 7199.706, 7208.475], "stop_times": [7096.446, 7115.026, 7125.174, 7128.77, 7135.845, 7145.188, 7150.888, 7157.573, 7164.29, 7164.889, 7168.879, 7172.718, 7178.303, 7192.661, 7198.188, 7199.706, 7208.475, 7209.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7093.784}, "reply_to": "14895__7_005", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "14895__7_007", "conversation_id": "14895", "text": "We\u2019ll recess now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7209.517], "stop_times": [7211.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7209.517}, "reply_to": "14895__7_006", "speaker": "j__earl_warren"}
{"id": "15365__0_000", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "-- per argument in Maxwell against Bishop.\nMr. Amsterdam you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [0.0, 44.471], "stop_times": [44.471, 50.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_001", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe Court is thoroughly familiar with this case, which has been the subject of one prior oral argument here and a briefing -- voluminous briefing by the parties and various amici curiae.\nAs I see the matter, there are at this time four questions before the Court.\nThe first two are the questions on which this Court granted certiorari in December of 1968.\nNumber one, whether the Arkansas practice of giving its juries unlimited, unguided, and unreviewable power to sentence persons convicted of rape to live or die, violates the rule of law fundamental to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nTwo, whether the Arkansas practice of trying simultaneously, in a capital case the issues of guilt and of punishment also violates Fourteenth Amendment.\nThose are the questions which in the jargon of this case are non-respectively as a standards issue and the single verdict issue.\nThe third question is one which arises from this Court's decision in Boulden versus Holman.\nIn that case as in this one, a state prisoner condemned to death, brought a federal habeas corpus proceeding.\nIn the course of which, he presented no client prior to the appearance of the case in this Court, challenging the selection of the jury that condemned him to die.\nNotwithstanding that issue had not been presented in the lower courts and is not included in the application for certiorari here, this Court held that it could notice that the record in his case disclosed a violation of the rule of Witherspoon versus Illinois, in the process by which jurors had been death qualified in the selection of this jury.\nAnd the Court therefore, vacated and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration of that Witherspoon client.\nThat I will refer to in this case as to Witherspoon issue.\nThe fourth question presented to the Court is not a substantive one.\nIt is simply which in how many of the first three questions this Court will address.\nI would like, if I may to begin with that with a question, unless I waste the Court's time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [50.83, 57.023, 78.236, 89.029, 102.863, 127.786, 143.481, 153.574, 162.347, 175.589, 188.724, 214.57, 224.815, 229.293, 235.333, 242.611], "stop_times": [57.023, 78.236, 89.029, 102.863, 127.786, 143.481, 153.574, 162.347, 175.589, 188.724, 214.57, 224.815, 229.293, 235.333, 242.611, 248.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.83}, "reply_to": "15365__0_000", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_002", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What's your last question there once again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [248.352], "stop_times": [251.417], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 248.352}, "reply_to": "15365__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_003", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [251.417], "stop_times": [251.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.417}, "reply_to": "15365__0_002", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_004", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The fourth question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [251.883], "stop_times": [252.832], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 251.883}, "reply_to": "15365__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_005", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The fourth question is not a substantive question, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nIt is which of the first three the Court ought to reach.\nAnd rather than launch in to discussion of the first three, I'd like to talk a little about that fourth.\nNow, I recognize in talking about the fourth that this is uniquely a matter for the judgment and for the discretion of this Court.\nBut I do want to state some facts that I think it is important that the Court know in exercising that discretion.\nTo my knowledge there are somewhat more than 67 death cases pending on petitions for writs of certiorari in this Court.\nIn the past weeks, I have caused examination to be made of all of the ones that we could identify, and we have examined 67.\nThere are 45 cases, out of that 67 coming from 18 states, which present either the standards issue or the split verdict issue.\nTo be specific, the standards issue is presented in 43 cases.\nThe split verdict issue is presented in 18.\nAgain, to the best of my current information, there are presently on the death rows in this country, approximately 510 condemned men.\nThe decision of this Court in the Maxwell case on the standards issue, would potentially affect all but five of those 510 condemned men, that is better than 500.\nThe decision of this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [252.832, 256.834, 261.851, 267.056, 277.268, 288.253, 301.492, 312.818, 325.459, 331.18, 337.358, 351.643, 370.028], "stop_times": [256.834, 261.851, 267.056, 277.268, 288.253, 301.492, 312.818, 325.459, 331.18, 337.358, 351.643, 370.028, 372.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.832}, "reply_to": "15365__0_004", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_006", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, may I ask why the five, were they convicted in the state that does have juries instructed with standards or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [372.344], "stop_times": [381.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.344}, "reply_to": "15365__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_007", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Stewart, although there are in the statute books of several states mandatory capital crimes.\nThere's only one active mandatory capital crime in the sense that people are being tried for, there's no anybody on death row for it.\nThe five people to whom I refer are five California convicts who are presently on death row, because of conviction of a crime, which carries a mandatory death penalty (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [381.83, 390.024, 396.301], "stop_times": [390.024, 396.301, 408.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 381.83}, "reply_to": "15365__0_006", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_008", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Where the jury doesn't have any discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [408.203], "stop_times": [410.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.203}, "reply_to": "15365__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_009", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Death penalty with standards are mandatory death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [410.049], "stop_times": [412.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.049}, "reply_to": "15365__0_008", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_010", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I see, I see, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [412.609], "stop_times": [416.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.609}, "reply_to": "15365__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_011", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The split verdict issue would potentially effect to the best of my calculation and this is a very rough one, 380 to 390 of the 510 men are on death row.\nAnd this Mr. Justice Stewart is of course because several of the states, including those with the major death row populations, such as California have split verdict, so that the number is very significantly reduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [416.086, 432.673], "stop_times": [432.673, 447.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.086}, "reply_to": "15365__0_010", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_012", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How many states have split verdicts now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [447.11], "stop_times": [450.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.11}, "reply_to": "15365__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_013", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Justice Brennan five: Connecticut, New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas has it, and here's what causes the difficulty in my figuring out how many men are involved.\nTexas has it, but only put it in recently, so that some people on death row in Texas were convicted under a single verdict procedure.\nTexas now has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [450.776, 465.78, 472.086], "stop_times": [465.78, 472.086, 472.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.776}, "reply_to": "15365__0_012", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_014", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How long has New York had it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [472.858], "stop_times": [474.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.858}, "reply_to": "15365__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_015", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [474.347], "stop_times": [474.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 474.347}, "reply_to": "15365__0_014", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_016", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How long has New York had it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [474.794], "stop_times": [475.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.794}, "reply_to": "15365__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_017", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "New York put it, I believe as a result of the interim report of the committee whose final report led to abolition and that would have been back around 1965.\nHowever, there are very few people on death row in New York, as a result of the almost total abolition now of the death penalty in that state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [475.981, 487.083], "stop_times": [487.083, 494.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.981}, "reply_to": "15365__0_016", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_018", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The Texas statute is the one we noticed briefly perhaps in Spencer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [494.262], "stop_times": [503.86], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 494.262}, "reply_to": "15365__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_019", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It was -- I think that the split verdict for capital trials wasn't involved in Spencer there.\nTexas, since Spencer has revised both the procedure for recidivist trials and the procedure for sentencing in capital cases.\nThe one other area that I think I want to bring to the Court's attention, in connection with the question of what issues it's had reached comes from experience of about five years in dealing with these cases.\nPrior to the time when this Court granted review in Maxwell versus Bishop, the job of getting stays of execution for condemned men was an incredibly difficult, perilous job.\nOn occasions, courts would stay executions.\nOccasionally, we would have to come to the justices of this Court to get stays of execution a day, two days before the execution dates were set, as we did in this Maxwell case.\nSince the grant of review in Maxwell versus Bishop, it has been far easier to get courts to be willing to stay an execution, until this Court finally disposed of the issues in this case.\nAnd the question of getting stays of execution is a vital one, literally of course.\nBut also a troublesome one, because many of the men on death row are still not represented, and those of us who are trying to represent them very often don't learn, until the last minute that an execution date has been set.\nSince Maxwell v. Bishop was brought before this Court, the governors of several states, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Washington, have agreed to hold up all executions in the state, pending decisions of these issues by this Court.\nHowever, if this Court should dispose of the Maxwell versus Bishop case on a ground, which does not resolve the standards and the single verdict issues, and if it does not simultaneously grant review on those issues in one of the other pending cases.\nThe problem of getting stays of execution will not be even what it was before the grant of review in Maxwell versus Bishop, it will be far worst.\nThe reason for that is this, that in recent years, and for the most part, since the grant of review in Maxwell versus Bishop, the highest courts of 17 states, including the states with the eight largest death row populations in this country have rejected the standards client.\nThere are on the death rows of those states about 380 condemned men.\nAnd the claim has also have been rejected by the federal Courts of Appeals of the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits with a result that federal stays of execution in habeas corpus would also not likely be available.\nThe standards issue, pardon me, split verdict issue has at the same time been rejected by the highest courts of 11 states, having about 220 men on their death rows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [503.86, 512.764, 525.106, 542.349, 559.796, 564.638, 577.415, 595.752, 601.956, 616.844, 631.759, 652.433, 661.247, 685.012, 693.294, 706.27], "stop_times": [512.764, 525.106, 542.349, 559.796, 564.638, 577.415, 595.752, 601.956, 616.844, 631.759, 652.433, 661.247, 685.012, 693.294, 706.27, 721.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.86}, "reply_to": "15365__0_018", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_020", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "This may be tangential, how many states have still got capital punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [721.548], "stop_times": [725.882], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 721.548}, "reply_to": "15365__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_021", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [725.882], "stop_times": [726.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.882}, "reply_to": "15365__0_020", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_022", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How many states still have capital punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [726.62], "stop_times": [729.949], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 726.62}, "reply_to": "15365__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_023", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "All but 13, Mr. Justice Harlan and of course, that simply a pragmatic answer, that is I'm not treating states, which have it for treason, but don't use it to answer.\nWhat this means in effect is that if ever there were an issue of grave national importance, it is the issue presented in the questions, on which this Court granted review in this case, in December of 1968.\nIt may well be that the constitutional contentions raised by Maxwell and by these other condemned men are not going to be sustained, but I would only ask that this Court pass upon those issues in this case or in another before the executions, which will surely follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [729.949, 741.955, 758.858], "stop_times": [741.955, 758.858, 780.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.949}, "reply_to": "15365__0_022", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_024", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "However, do you think you can indicate to grant them, if only the split verdict issue were determined and not the standards issue, what then would be the situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [780.701], "stop_times": [793.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.701}, "reply_to": "15365__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_025", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "If the split verdict issue and not the standards issue were decided Mr. Justice Brennan, I would estimate that there would be 130 men on death row in principally three states.\nThe other two states that have split verdict don't have very many men on death row.\nBut there would be approximately 130 men on death row in three states, who would still go to their death with the issue of standards unresolved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [793.499, 808.681, 813.836], "stop_times": [808.681, 813.836, 821.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 793.499}, "reply_to": "15365__0_024", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_026", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "This would be in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [821.323], "stop_times": [822.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.323}, "reply_to": "15365__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_027", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "California, which has 85 -- 90 men on death row, Pennsylvania which has 20 men on death row.\nAnd whatever number in Texas were tried under the new split verdict procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [822.965, 833.336], "stop_times": [833.336, 839.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.965}, "reply_to": "15365__0_026", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_028", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, would it be fair to say that your burden here is not to persuade us that the bifurcated trial or split verdict, and the standards to guide the jury are a wise and a sound thing, but that the Constitution requires that they be provided, the narrow issue, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [839.13], "stop_times": [867.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.13}, "reply_to": "15365__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_029", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I am asserting only that the Constitution compels the procedure of providing standards of some sort to guide a jury in its discretion.\nAnd that it requires some form of trial, not necessarily the single verdict trial in fact been used in California or Pennsylvania, that's a matter of the state to decide what procedure it wants to use.\nBut that the Constitution requires some form of trial, which does not whipsaw a capital defendant between his privileges against self-incrimination, and his right to provide the jury with adequate information to make an informed sentencing choice.\nI want to make that very plain because I think in the last oral argument, I failed to do so, and I'm not at all clear we've done so in the briefs.\nI do not regard this case, as a case which poses any newfangled notions of due process or any notions of an expanding, collapsing concept to due process into which I am asking the judges of this Court to pour their own penological judgments, that is not this case, and that is not this kind of due process.\nThe kind of due process that's involved in this case is the most fundamental, basic, traditional, classical concept of due process, simply, due process as the law of the land, in the meaning of Magna Carta, a requirement of legality, a requirement of lawfulness.\nAnd Mr. Chief Justice, it is our assertion not that the procedures that we are urging are better procedures or more humane procedures, or even more beneficial procedures to the defendant.\nSeveral points have been made on several occasions, that some of the procedures we're arguing for might be worst for defendants.\nDefendants who have worst backgrounds and worst histories, would be worst sought, if there were standards which what the juries takes those things into a cam.\nI'm not standing here to ask for something here better for defendants or worst for defendants, or more humane, or a better of way of doing it.\nWhat the Constitution requires is law.\nIt requires a regularized system for the adjudication of issues by courts, and that is what a procedure we are challenging in this case last.\nNow, if I may focus in on that procedure and talk then first about the standards question.\nI think there is something of a misconception in the approach to the jury sentencing in capital cases, which suggest that what the jury is doing in a death case is to exercise some sort of clemency or mercy, or as Mr. Harris called it in the last argument here, compassion.\nI think that in an examination, both of the practice in Arkansas and elsewhere.\nAnd if the statute in Arkansas and elsewhere makes very clear that the claimed of determination that is being when juries choose between the penalties of life and death.\nIt's a very different business than the release of some few people from what is otherwise a mandatory or even a normal punishment for the offense for which they have been convicted.\nWhat the statute in Arkansas does is not to make death \u201cthe penalty\u201d for a rape.\nIt is not to make death the penalty for any in all varieties of rape or even for some special varieties of rape.\nIt is to make it unavailable penalty with an equally available penalty of life imprisonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [867.642, 882.934, 893.464, 907.947, 916.721, 939.406, 960.576, 971.298, 976.817, 987.408, 994.614, 998.142, 1009.34, 1024.957, 1048.191, 1054.82, 1065.772, 1080.412, 1088.134, 1095.465], "stop_times": [882.934, 893.464, 907.947, 916.721, 939.406, 960.576, 971.298, 976.817, 987.408, 994.614, 998.142, 1009.34, 1024.957, 1048.191, 1054.82, 1065.772, 1080.412, 1088.134, 1095.465, 1102.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.642}, "reply_to": "15365__0_028", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_030", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "When did the -- when did Arkansas take the death -- put the death penalty in the hands of the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1102.913], "stop_times": [1108.684], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.913}, "reply_to": "15365__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_031", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In 1915 Mr. Justice Harlan, that's 1915, 1-9-1-5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1108.684], "stop_times": [1115.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.684}, "reply_to": "15365__0_030", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_032", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And before that Mr. Amsterdam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1115.168], "stop_times": [1117.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.168}, "reply_to": "15365__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_033", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Before that it was mandatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1117.847], "stop_times": [1119.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.847}, "reply_to": "15365__0_032", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_034", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mandatory death sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1119.69], "stop_times": [1120.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.69}, "reply_to": "15365__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_035", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1120.8], "stop_times": [1122.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.8}, "reply_to": "15365__0_034", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_036", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And that typically is historically the fact in most these states, is it not that they -- states move from a mandatory death sentence, upon conviction of first-degree murder or in this case a rape move from a mandatory death sentence, upon conviction to giving the jury discretion to avert that death sentence in their verdict.\nIsn't that historically the way that this develop in most states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1122.333, 1149.011], "stop_times": [1149.011, 1151.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.333}, "reply_to": "15365__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_037", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Stewart, if there were any states that didn't follow that course, I don't know of them.\nThe ordinary practice in every state that I know of was exactly that, that after the mandatory death penalty became for some reason intolerable and impossible to maintain, legislatures instead of attempting to define subclasses of cases, in which it might be permissible to sentence a man to death, simply said let the jury have it, the jury can decide.\nAnd it is -- I'm talking nothing under the rug, its a general practice.\nIt is the universal practice for the states to simply turn it over to the jury.\nAnd for the most part, this is a twentieth century phenomena, this doesn't go back much further than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1151.126, 1155.847, 1181.87, 1186.91, 1191.776], "stop_times": [1155.847, 1181.87, 1186.91, 1191.776, 1196.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.126}, "reply_to": "15365__0_036", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_038", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And in some states, it takes affirmative action of the jury to avert the death penalty.\nIn some states, it takes an affirmative action of the jury nowadays to impose a death penalty.\nAnd some states it's verbalized in terms as in my State of Ohio, it's verbalize in terms of jury recommendation of mercy, but the jury is instructed by the judge, what the effect of that so-called recommendation of mercy will be, it will be to convert death sentence in those sentence of life imprisonment, and so on.\nBut basically, the historical pattern is as I described it, is it not of a development of --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1196.792, 1203.163, 1207.558, 1227.907], "stop_times": [1203.163, 1207.558, 1227.907, 1234.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.792}, "reply_to": "15365__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_039", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's right.\nThe difference is the matters of detail.\nThe matters of detail, I may be critical for constitutional purpose, such as the detail as to whether or not the judge may review the jury's determination.\nBut for a general overall description of the kind of institution, we're talking about.\nWe are talking about one that in virtually all states is the same and involves exactly the process that Your Honors described.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1234.083, 1234.593, 1237.18, 1246.318, 1251.098], "stop_times": [1234.593, 1237.18, 1246.318, 1251.098, 1258.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.083}, "reply_to": "15365__0_038", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_040", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is that also true, Mr. Amsterdam in the non-death cases, the jury sentencing in other cases, likewise of relatively recent development?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1258.527], "stop_times": [1271.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.527}, "reply_to": "15365__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_041", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor, there is jury sentencing in non-capital cases, in a number of states.\nI'm not a student of this, but my impression is that they are largely southern states.\nArkansas is one such state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1271.928, 1280.478, 1285.312], "stop_times": [1280.478, 1285.312, 1287.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.928}, "reply_to": "15365__0_040", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_042", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But is that practiced older than jury sentencing in death cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1287.333], "stop_times": [1292.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.333}, "reply_to": "15365__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_043", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nMy belief is that it is, but I would not be sure of that.\nThere is a parallel development Mr. Justice White.\nIt is true in penology generally that the law has moved from -- mandated legislatively fix sentences for specified crimes to a range of sentences available for the crime.\nNow, I'm quite sure that it was in the process of that, the juries were given discretion in the states, in which they now have it.\nBut whether it came earlier later than the development in capital cases, I'm not sure, because there's so many other devices in non-capital cases that came in too.\nGiving the judge a range of sentences, the maximum, minimum, the indeterminate sentence, all of those things.\nI'm not sure historically when that came in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1292.127, 1293.811, 1298.004, 1301.847, 1317.923, 1324.689, 1333.079, 1338.099], "stop_times": [1293.811, 1298.004, 1301.847, 1317.923, 1324.689, 1333.079, 1338.099, 1340.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.127}, "reply_to": "15365__0_042", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_044", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, it's only about 10 years ago that Congress, as the legislative body for the District of Columbia abolished mandatory capital punishment and created a mechanism, somewhat like the one you've described, the more flexible one, is that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1340.745], "stop_times": [1358.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.745}, "reply_to": "15365__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_045", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's right.\nThe District of Columbia was one of the last three jurisdictions in this country to have a mandatory death penalty.\nAgain, I'm talking about a mandatory death penalty for murder.\nThere's still some mandatory death penalties on the books but they simply are not used, and the reason they're on the books is that it's not being used.\nThere'd been no pressure to take them off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1358.122, 1359.359, 1365.836, 1370.213, 1375.844], "stop_times": [1359.359, 1365.836, 1370.213, 1375.844, 1377.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.122}, "reply_to": "15365__0_044", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_046", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "For purposes of this argument, it doesn't make any difference or does it in your view, what the crime is, but only what the punishment is?\nIsn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1377.36, 1385.265], "stop_times": [1385.265, 1386.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.36}, "reply_to": "15365__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_047", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Let me put it this way Mr. Chief Justice, I have no hesitation in contending that anytime that a legislature gives a jury completely arbitrary power to single out from among the total number of people convicted of any crime.\nSome who will live, and some who will die without standards for that determination, without guidelines, and it does violate the Constitution.\nBut, I could see a distinction being drawn between crimes.\nI do -- I would not drag, but I would urge that in this case, the case of rape, you have a somewhat easier case than you do a first-degree murder.\nAnd the reason for that is that the amount of discretion that may be tolerable.\nI keep saying discretion; it isn't discretion in any legal sense.\nThe amount of raw naked power to take a life or save a life that can be given may depend on the range of cases, within which the jury can exercise it.\nNow, what is rape?\nIs a very broad range of offenses, it ranges from anything from a fellow and a girl, who had been going together, getting into a situation, and he going too far over resistance to a brutal beating of a child with permanent physical injury or torture rape or something like that.\nIt's just a tremendous range of factual situations encompassed within the notion of rape.\nSo that the idea that the offensive rape sets any limitation or gives guidance to the jury, is just totally (Inaudible).\nThere are within the total gambit of cases in which convictions of rape come down, an infinite variety of factual circumstances.\nNow, the theory seems to be that the jury somehow, that 12 men brought off the street, who have never sentenced anybody else, and will never sentence anybody else again, who have no way of making the judgment that they pass in this case consistent with the judgment that's been passed or will be passed on any other human being convicted of this crime, that they somehow will look at all the facts of this case come out with circumstances that warrant the death penalty and impose it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1386.98, 1405.683, 1412.517, 1419.04, 1427.507, 1434.453, 1437.67, 1447.453, 1449.536, 1469.211, 1475.912, 1484.601, 1492.988], "stop_times": [1405.683, 1412.517, 1419.04, 1427.507, 1434.453, 1437.67, 1447.453, 1449.536, 1469.211, 1475.912, 1484.601, 1492.988, 1519.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1386.98}, "reply_to": "15365__0_046", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_048", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is that any different from the function of the jury, the traditional function of a jury, which passes on the damages in an automobile accident case or breach of contract that they never before and never again will deal with that kind of a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1519.684], "stop_times": [1534.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.684}, "reply_to": "15365__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_049", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes it is vastly, vastly different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1534.656], "stop_times": [1536.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1534.656}, "reply_to": "15365__0_048", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_050", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I'm talking about their function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1536.451], "stop_times": [1539.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.451}, "reply_to": "15365__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_051", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I am talking also, Mr. Chief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1539.717], "stop_times": [1540.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1539.717}, "reply_to": "15365__0_050", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_052", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Obviously, the difference doesn't lie.\nIn terms of the function, is it any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1540.145, 1542.852], "stop_times": [1542.852, 1545.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.145}, "reply_to": "15365__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_053", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, the function is vastly different and explicitly stated by California and Arkansas to be different.\nWhen a jury passes on a question of negligence, they go in and they hear the evidence on both sides.\nAnd the judge said to them, \u201cLadies and gentlemen in the jury, if you find that the defendant failed to exercise toward the plaintiff, that amount of care that a reasonable man would have exercised, you must find for the plaintiff.\u201d\nNow, of course reasonable man is a standard, which is not as specific as Section 3355 of the Revenue Code, but it does direct the jury's attention to an issue.\nIt is a very different question from saying to the jury if you find that the plaintiff should win this case, you should find for the plaintiff.\nAt least, telling them that the defendant must exercise care, which a reasonable man would exercise, let's them go back and talk about something, one juror can say to another juror, \u201cWell, what is the amount of care that in this particular automobile case, a reasonable man would have exercised?\u201d\nIt is more than the amount of care that has to be exercise with regard to a trespasser and less than the amount of care that has to be exercised with regard to -- for example somebody to whom you owe a special duty of care.\nThe whole up is based on making those kinds of distinctions, and the fact that not anyone of them will bring you out, computer-like to a conclusion, doesn't mean that there aren't standards involved there.\nWhen the jury goes out to talk about the death penalty in a rape case in Arkansas, they can't ask whether or not it's reasonable to impose a death penalty or anything else, when juror may vote for the death penalty, because the defendant was black and the victim was white.\nAnd I think this is a very important matter also in describing the function Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt would shock me and it would demonstrate, I think that our entire court system is not functioning at all.\nIf you did a study of cases in which plaintiffs had sued defendants and juries had come up with a verdict, in negligence cases.\nAnd you found that there was no correlation, whatever, ascertainable between the facts of the case and the juries verdicts.\nI think that you would find and inevitably find that the higher the rate the speed of the car with which the defendant hit the plaintiff or the murkier than night on which it was occurring, or the worst of breaks the more you're going to find plaintiffs recovering the defendants.\nSuch a study was done in Arkansas.\nThree factors emerged that characterized the cases, in which persons get the death penalty: race, the commission of contemporaneous offense, a prior record of imprisonment.\nA prior record of imprisonment may have nothing to do with the jury's determination rationally of it, because a jury ordinarily doesn't know about a prior record.\nSo that I think that both in legal theory and in fact, this is a very different business from the juries going out and in a negligence case in saying, \u201cWell, did that defendant have a duty of care?\nWhat was that duty of care?\nDid he act the way a reasonable man would act?\u201d\nIn Arkansas, none of those questions need to be asked, and in performance the juries do very different things.\nIn the one case the jury acts consistently with a pattern, a system defined by law and ordained by law, and in death sentencing juries act simply, except for the factor of race, irrationally.\nNow, the question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1545.84, 1552.81, 1559.392, 1575.924, 1589.944, 1597.877, 1614.094, 1627.948, 1638.97, 1656.771, 1662.457, 1670.015, 1680.641, 1689.724, 1706.14, 1708.446, 1720.911, 1730.622, 1747.317, 1748.782, 1750.588, 1756.36, 1770.438], "stop_times": [1552.81, 1559.392, 1575.924, 1589.944, 1597.877, 1614.094, 1627.948, 1638.97, 1656.771, 1662.457, 1670.015, 1680.641, 1689.724, 1706.14, 1708.446, 1720.911, 1730.622, 1747.317, 1748.782, 1750.588, 1756.36, 1770.438, 1773.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.84}, "reply_to": "15365__0_052", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_054", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You said that the history of this transition from the mandatory death sentence to jury fixing the death sentence is the product, the way I understood it is quiet to the mandatory death sentences without regard to the question of whether it was in the element the of compassion entering into it.\nIs that born out by the history of this change over?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1773.229, 1795.0], "stop_times": [1795.0, 1801.609], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.229}, "reply_to": "15365__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_055", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan this is one of those questions of history that turn on what your personal point of view is.\nI would put it this way from my personal point of view that it became simply intolerable for society to uniformly sentence to death, the total number of people convicted of any offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1801.609, 1808.844], "stop_times": [1808.844, 1820.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1801.609}, "reply_to": "15365__0_054", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_056", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that's would I -- that's what I gathered.\nThere is no documentation that you can bring the bare bones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1820.933, 1823.967], "stop_times": [1823.967, 1827.507], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.933}, "reply_to": "15365__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_057", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No there isn't, there is not.\nIt simply -- we know as a phenomenon that at some point of time, legislatures in large numbers began to take the mandatory death penalty off the book and replace it with the discretionary form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1827.507, 1829.046], "stop_times": [1829.046, 1841.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1827.507}, "reply_to": "15365__0_056", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_058", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And as I understand it, to date, your argument would be the same, if Arkansas had never changed to allowing the jury to exercise its discretion with reference to the -- what you call the demand for standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1841.269], "stop_times": [1858.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.269}, "reply_to": "15365__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_059", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Black our argument would be vastly different.\nWhat Arkansas had prior to allowing jury's discretion was a mandatory death sentence for all persons convicted of a crime.\nNow, mandatory death sentences would raise serious constitutional questions, but they are not the constitutional questions of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1858.459, 1862.073, 1871.994], "stop_times": [1862.073, 1871.994, 1879.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1858.459}, "reply_to": "15365__0_058", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_060", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What would they raise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1879.092], "stop_times": [1881.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.092}, "reply_to": "15365__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_061", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think they would raise a very serious question -- I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1881.159], "stop_times": [1884.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1881.159}, "reply_to": "15365__0_060", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_062", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Cruel and unusual punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1884.28], "stop_times": [1885.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.28}, "reply_to": "15365__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_063", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think cruel and unusual punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1885.152], "stop_times": [1886.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1885.152}, "reply_to": "15365__0_062", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_064", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's the only constitutional question raised, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1886.778], "stop_times": [1890.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.778}, "reply_to": "15365__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_065", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There may be procedural questions, but in terms of the major question, I think cruel and unusual is the only question that it might raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1890.536], "stop_times": [1899.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1890.536}, "reply_to": "15365__0_064", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_066", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That was a question that's already been more or less decided in the Witherspoon case.\nYou'd have that issue in jury selection, but you wouldn't have either of your basic arguments if Arkansas law was the way it used to be before the turn of the century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1899.317, 1904.776], "stop_times": [1904.776, 1914.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.317}, "reply_to": "15365__0_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_067", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, you would not.\nYou wouldn't have two issues to try, so you wouldn't have a single verdict issue, you'd only have a single issue and of course there's no discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1914.118, 1915.021], "stop_times": [1915.021, 1918.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1914.118}, "reply_to": "15365__0_066", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_068", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "(Voice Overlap) precisely, then you wouldn't have any statute for the jury to follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1918.307], "stop_times": [1921.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.307}, "reply_to": "15365__0_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__0_069", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I quite agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1921.79], "stop_times": [1922.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1921.79}, "reply_to": "15365__0_068", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_070", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, how many jurisdictions provide for judicial review of the imposition of the death penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1922.679], "stop_times": [1931.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.679}, "reply_to": "15365__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_071", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's very, very difficult to say.\nI cannot say that courts have exercised judicial review of a death sentence in more than 11 or 12 jurisdictions.\nNow, there are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1931.541, 1935.419, 1945.28], "stop_times": [1935.419, 1945.28, 1946.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1931.541}, "reply_to": "15365__0_070", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_072", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But doesn't the new District of Columbia statute have something like this or not?\nI'm not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1946.622, 1951.496], "stop_times": [1951.496, 1951.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.622}, "reply_to": "15365__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_073", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Arkansas has its statute, it's been pointed out, it's 4323-10, I believe.\nIn Arkansas, which says and this is common in United States, this is where I have to give an uncertain answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1951.898, 1958.359], "stop_times": [1958.359, 1963.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1951.898}, "reply_to": "15365__0_072", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_074", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, what I meant was, any explicit provision that even though the jury imposes a death sentence, the judge can cancel it and impose life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1963.199], "stop_times": [1973.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.199}, "reply_to": "15365__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_075", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, there you have to distinguish between trial judges and appellate judges (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1973.72], "stop_times": [1978.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1973.72}, "reply_to": "15365__0_074", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_076", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'm speaking of trial judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1978.825], "stop_times": [1980.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.825}, "reply_to": "15365__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_077", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Trial judges?\nI would guess eight to ten states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1980.12, 1980.942], "stop_times": [1980.942, 1982.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1980.12}, "reply_to": "15365__0_076", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_078", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1982.836], "stop_times": [1984.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.836}, "reply_to": "15365__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_079", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1984.05], "stop_times": [1984.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1984.05}, "reply_to": "15365__0_078", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_080", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is that a fairly recent innovation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1984.646], "stop_times": [1986.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.646}, "reply_to": "15365__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__0_081", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "A relatively recent innovation and it takes three different forms, which one has to watch out for, but I don't think they make much difference.\nOne is that the judges charge, this is the Maryland situation, a judge is charged with actually passing the sentence when the jury has made a recommendatory body, but as a matter of practice, the judge almost fall as a jury.\nThe only known version, a very recent thing is that judge and jury must concur, that it puts the initial on a signboard.\nThey both independently and infuriately have to come out with a judgment.\nThen the third is a form that's a little older, but still I think largely a recent innovation, that says if the judge may set aside a jury verdict, even though he finds no error in it, but if he simply disagrees with the penalty imposed.\nNow, it's the latter form that is very difficult to determine by head count.\nHow many states have, because there are number of states, which for example Arkansas has a statute that seems to give a judge the power to reduce jury sentences?\nNow, it's couched in language that I do not think it applies to capital cases.\nThere has never been a case, in which the Arkansas Supreme Court had said that it implies to capital cases.\nAnd in the last argument here, counsel for the state say he knew of no cases in which a judge ever done that.\nAnd I made inquiry of Arkansas counsel, and we know of no case, in which the judges ever done it.\nSo, I would deny that in Arkansas, there is such a thing.\nBut one couldn't, by looking at the statute books of the states come out with.\nThe general practice Mr. Justice Brennan, I am confident is that there is no judicial review.\nIn some states, we know there is.\nIn California, we know there is.\nNot by statute but because the California Supreme Court said so.\nBut in most jurisdictions, I would think there was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [1986.943, 1996.116, 2008.811, 2016.356, 2020.067, 2034.191, 2040.459, 2050.808, 2055.277, 2060.033, 2066.165, 2070.483, 2073.914, 2077.286, 2082.302, 2083.594, 2085.65, 2089.395], "stop_times": [1996.116, 2008.811, 2016.356, 2020.067, 2034.191, 2040.459, 2050.808, 2055.277, 2060.033, 2066.165, 2070.483, 2073.914, 2077.286, 2082.302, 2083.594, 2085.65, 2089.395, 2092.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1986.943}, "reply_to": "15365__0_080", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_082", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Do these questions, in exchanges Mr. Amsterdam suggest that legislative bodies have considerable advantage over this Court, for example in terms of flushing out all the facts, getting all the information, finding out precisely what is done, and what the experiments, and innovations have led to?\nAs for example it was done 10 years ago when the Congress conducted extensive hearings and amended, abandoned this mandatory capital punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2092.612, 2116.873], "stop_times": [2116.873, 2127.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.612}, "reply_to": "15365__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_083", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It certainly does Mr. Chief Justice and indeed my whole position is that they ought to do that.\nI'm not suggesting for one moment that this Court ought to set standards or that this Court ought to review any legislative judgment.\nNo legislative judgment has been made, except the legislative judgment that no judgment can be made.\nAnd I am asking this Court to determine whether it is consistent with the rule of law, which is fundamental to due process for the legislatures to say, we are going to kill people and we are not going to undertake an investigation to determine which classes of people should live, and which classes of people should die.\nWe're not going to set down rules, we're simple going to let a jury determine like rolling the dice, which person is going to live and which person is going to die.\nI concede the benefits of legislative judgment view and a ruling by this Court, that lawlessness in the process of killing people is unconstitutional will precisely put back to the legislature the kind of question that it is uniquely fitted to deal with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2127.337, 2133.544, 2143.396, 2149.867, 2165.598, 2176.059], "stop_times": [2133.544, 2143.396, 2149.867, 2165.598, 2176.059, 2193.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2127.337}, "reply_to": "15365__0_082", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_084", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, if we start with your conclusion, which you seem to pose as a premise, we start with your conclusion that there must be standards, Mr. Amsterdam, then while you're not quite home free or lonely down the road, isn't there a very, very large question of judgment, whether any standards at all are feasible?\nIsn't that a large question, however it's answered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2193.525, 2215.769], "stop_times": [2215.769, 2218.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.525}, "reply_to": "15365__0_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_085", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It is indeed Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2218.216], "stop_times": [2220.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2218.216}, "reply_to": "15365__0_084", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_086", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Did you enlarge your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2220.029], "stop_times": [2220.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.029}, "reply_to": "15365__0_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_087", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "(Voice Overlap) question, but the courts review of that question is a different matter than reviewing a legislature's judgment as to standards, because neither facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2220.851], "stop_times": [2228.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2220.851}, "reply_to": "15365__0_086", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_088", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Because it's in this Court to make that judgment, when we have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2228.009], "stop_times": [2232.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.009}, "reply_to": "15365__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_089", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I'm not sure that the legislature has made that judgment.\nI'm not sure that the legislature --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2232.931, 2235.989], "stop_times": [2235.989, 2237.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2232.931}, "reply_to": "15365__0_088", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_090", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But you're asking us to make the judgment, that standards are imperatively required under the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2237.146], "stop_times": [2243.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.146}, "reply_to": "15365__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_091", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I am asking this Court to say that standards are imperatively required under the Constitution, but I'm not asking you to review a judgment of a legislature that standards are not practicable, which is I thought the question Your Honor asked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2243.668], "stop_times": [2255.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2243.668}, "reply_to": "15365__0_090", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_092", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I'm doing -- both are involved, but if you say to us, as you are, if understand you that we must mandate that the Constitution requires some standards, but leaving it to someone else to decide what those standards would be.\nIsn't that quite a large blank check, constitutional blank check?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2255.371, 2275.208], "stop_times": [2275.208, 2281.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.371}, "reply_to": "15365__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_093", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, no, I think in terms of what least left, Your Honor later, yes I think that the legislatures do have a fairly large blank check.\nI have no doubt about that.\nThe primary power of a legislature to fix sentences or offenses is a very broad check constitutionally, there's no doubt about that.\nThis Court has a very limited review over what legislatures do in determining sentences, as is it a very limited review over the penological judgment, same I can define in crimes.\nThe only power that this Court has to enforce the Constitution and the only that I'm asserting the Constitution requires is a rule of law.\nAnd I do not think that this Court is being asked thereby to review any legislative judgments, and standards are not practicable.\nIn the absence of somebody asserting to a legislature that they're desirable or necessary, we don't even really know that any legislature has made the judgment that they're impractical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2281.143, 2289.859, 2291.519, 2301.826, 2312.919, 2320.46, 2326.885], "stop_times": [2289.859, 2291.519, 2301.826, 2312.919, 2320.46, 2326.885, 2336.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2281.143}, "reply_to": "15365__0_092", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_094", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But do you have any (Voice Overlap) doubt whatever that if followed your recourse, and the legislatures of the several states undertook to carry that out, that the first time a death penalty was invoked to someone would be up here saying those standards are not adequate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2336.712], "stop_times": [2356.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.712}, "reply_to": "15365__0_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_095", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I agree with that and I will admit that I will probably be among the people, who will be up here asserting that.[Laughter]\nBut I don't think that that is the question as before the Court.\nThis Court back in the early 1930s had the question of whether or not a city, which wanted to control parading on its streets.\nIt could simply say, \u201cYou got to get a permit from the Chief of Police.\nIt's illegal to parade without a permit, get a permit, and you can parade.\u201d\nNow of course, it was a fact that if this Court said, \u201cWell, standards are required for the issuance of a permit that 25 years or 30 years of litigation, which we have had would ensue with regard to what the kind of standards should be.\u201d\nNow, I don't know how much litigation is going ensue from a decision requiring standards.\nBut I do know that the only question before the Court at this point is a question was before the Court back in 1930 in the permit case, whether any kinds of standards are required.\nA legislature may do a very good job, and this Court may be able to decide within a year or two years that the standards which have been defined are adequate.\nIt may do a very bad job, and certainly the standards will be challengeable.\nIt is a very function of the rule of law that have things that can be tested legally, that's what we don't now have and that's what we're contending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2356.936, 2364.019, 2370.544, 2381.968, 2385.687, 2389.893, 2404.763, 2409.946, 2419.448, 2427.775, 2431.438], "stop_times": [2364.019, 2370.544, 2381.968, 2385.687, 2389.893, 2404.763, 2409.946, 2419.448, 2427.775, 2431.438, 2438.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2356.936}, "reply_to": "15365__0_094", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_096", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Could I put a hypothetical to you preliminary to lunch now, it's prompted by the colloquy between you and the Chief Justice.\nSupposing a legislature said that the jury is to fix the death penalty based only upon the record and only upon the evidence that's introduced, it's relevant to guilt; would you regard that as a standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2438.391, 2446.688], "stop_times": [2446.688, 2467.399], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.391}, "reply_to": "15365__0_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_097", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I would regard that as a standard and far better than what Arkansas has, but I would not regard it as an adequate standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2467.399], "stop_times": [2474.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2467.399}, "reply_to": "15365__0_096", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_098", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that opens up the question that Chief Justice says, I would assume that your answer will be there -- was a standard, but it's not good enough, and that plunges the Court, doesn't it, into the Chief Justice's suggested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2474.463], "stop_times": [2486.436], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.463}, "reply_to": "15365__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_099", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2486.436], "stop_times": [2488.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2486.436}, "reply_to": "15365__0_098", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_100", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think I'll let you ponder on that while turning in your lunch hour, Mr. Amsterdam.\n[Lunch Recess]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2488.779, 2493.818], "stop_times": [2493.818, 2494.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.779}, "reply_to": "15365__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_101", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2494.12], "stop_times": [2496.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2494.12}, "reply_to": "15365__0_100", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_102", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, you had the chance to ponder on Justice Harlan's question, if you want to address yourself to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2496.264], "stop_times": [2501.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.264}, "reply_to": "15365__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_103", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I have indeed, and I do.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMr. Justice Harlan, I believe that the Court will not be setting its foot on a primrose path, if it demands that the states set some standards for the penalty determination.\nI believe that statutes are draftable, which will provide adequate constitutional standards.\nI say that in view of two major considerations.\nFirst, I think we already had some models.\nI think that the ALI Model Penal Code, model for a capital punishment statute, although I might not agree with all of its details is a workable model.\nSecondly, again I'd like to advert, if I may to the history of the Court's experience in dealing with ordinances, it regulates parades in that certain time.\nI think it might have been arguable, and it might have looked very plausible before this Court's decision in 1938 in Lovell and Griffin, to say that you could not draft an ordinance, that would take account of all of the imponderables that had to do with the question of whether or not you would let a parade go down the street.\nYou have to worry about traffic, you have to worry about crowd control, you have to worry about the availability of police, you have to worry about emergency vehicles, you have to worry about a thousand contingencies.\nNevertheless, it was not three years after this Court's decision in Lovell versus Griffin, requiring standards, that this Court sustained a statute as a having standards in Cox in New Hampshire in 1941.\nAnd the fact that there's been 30 years of experience in which this Court has had to knock down various ordinances for lack of standards it's not because it was impossible to draft standards, but simply because there was a willful refusal to comply with what this Court demand.\nAnd I say willful advisably, because the considerations that kept open-handed discretion in the hands of police chiefs to regulate parades is very much the same thing that is being given to juries in capital punishment.\nThere is simply feeling that if you really brought up to the surface and articulated the considerations that the legislature was attending to effect juries, like race, they wouldn't stand the light of debt.\nNow, I think that it is possible to draft a statute, which will withstand the constitutional scrutiny of this Court.\nAnd I think that insistence by this Court that the legislature address itself, tearing its undoubtedly greater wisdom, and it's undoubtedly more appropriate penological judgment to that question will advance, the cause of the drafting of adequate statutes.\nI think that if this Court hadn't decided in Lovell and Griffin that it was necessary, the legislatures never would have caught.\nNow, that they've tired, they've succeeded.\nI think that if this Court insist that the rule of law requires the drafting of standards in this area, that it will be possible to do, and I think that the Model Penal Code, although I have some questions about details of it, and although it's applicable to murder and not to rape is a fair example of what legislatures can do if they try.\nNow, there is -- though I think a second answer to that question.\nIf I were to conclude that it was impossible to draft a statute which would impose the rule of law on a decision, whether or not men should live or die.\nSo, that it was impossible to reconcile the basic requirement of lawfulness in proceedings with the death penalty, I have no doubt which of the two institutions, the constitution say should prevail.\nIf the cause of a system of capital punishment is lawlessness in its administration, the Constitution forbids that kind of lawlessness.\nAnd that causes me to revert to what I think is essentially wrong with Arkansas' procedure for determining who lives and who dies in a capital case.\nThat is a decision, as I have said which is not the dispensation of mercy.\nOn this record it appears that less than a quarter of the total number of persons convicted of a crime of rape are sentenced to death, and that appears to be a very high figure.\nThe general statistics that are available, and we put them in the appendix to our brief and they have a great deal of trouble analytically, but nevertheless one can draw some implications from it, the general statistics that are available appear to show that not more than 10% of people convicted of capital rape were in fact sentenced to die, and that for murder, it may be up in a neighborhood of 20%.\nNow, the process by which jurors take, out of all the persons convicted of a like harm, one-tenth or one-fifth of those persons and subject them to the most extreme penalty known to our law has got to be under the Constitution I submit, a rational, regular, and lawful process.\nI do not think that this Court for one moment would sustain a state enactment of a statute that said that out of every five persons convicted of murder, and out of every ten persons convicted of rape, they shall meet in the state penitentiary and draw straws to see who will die.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2501.941, 2504.494, 2508.716, 2525.246, 2533.578, 2539.588, 2541.96, 2555.593, 2566.912, 2585.312, 2595.885, 2609.027, 2625.219, 2638.361, 2651.425, 2658.313, 2676.13, 2682.176, 2684.213, 2702.917, 2709.571, 2723.982, 2740.049, 2749.97, 2762.55, 2768.271, 2782.378, 2805.79, 2828.125], "stop_times": [2504.494, 2508.716, 2525.246, 2533.578, 2539.588, 2541.96, 2555.593, 2566.912, 2585.312, 2595.885, 2609.027, 2625.219, 2638.361, 2651.425, 2658.313, 2676.13, 2682.176, 2684.213, 2702.917, 2709.571, 2723.982, 2740.049, 2749.97, 2762.55, 2768.271, 2782.378, 2805.79, 2828.125, 2850.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2501.941}, "reply_to": "15365__0_102", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_104", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But you don't think if this is like Cox, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2850.683], "stop_times": [2853.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.683}, "reply_to": "15365__0_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_105", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think this is worst Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2853.142], "stop_times": [2855.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2853.142}, "reply_to": "15365__0_104", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_106", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2855.022], "stop_times": [2855.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.022}, "reply_to": "15365__0_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_107", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes it is, because there it is every bit as arbitrary in that, the factors which determine whether or not a person lives or dies.\nAlthough there are subject to the appraisal of a particular jury rather than a straw or the dice are not subject to that jury's consideration in light of any rules that are applied in this case and the next.\nThere is no assurance that what makes this jury sentence this man to death pick him from nine or ten other people exactly like it, responds to any rule applied at any other ends case, where there it will be applied in any other man's case.\nAnd what's worst --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2855.95, 2866.864, 2880.405, 2895.098], "stop_times": [2866.864, 2880.405, 2895.098, 2896.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2855.95}, "reply_to": "15365__0_106", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_108", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Are you saying exactly like even if you are not on the jury, you didn't hear the evidence, those jurors are suppose to have some knowledge to the facts of life and evidently they -- well their opinion, may be right or wrong, they will depend that this was an extraordinary bad case of rape?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2896.167], "stop_times": [2917.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.167}, "reply_to": "15365__0_107", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_109", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, I don't think one can fairly draw that inference, and I'll tell you two reasons why I think one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2917.349], "stop_times": [2922.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2917.349}, "reply_to": "15365__0_108", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_110", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Why do you think they draw that interference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2922.658], "stop_times": [2925.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.658}, "reply_to": "15365__0_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_111", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Because we have examined that factors that bring about death verdicts in the State of Arkansas, and we have not found in any of the characteristics that you or I or twelve jurors could agree, made those cases, bad cases, in fact, bring about the death verdict.\nWhat we found is, if there are three factors that show up in death cases as this thing, which from my cases, race, prior imprisonment which the jury doesn't know about, unless the defendant forgoes this privilege and takes the stand; and commission of a contemporaneous offense, which didn't happen in Maxwell's case.\nSo, that I think that if you examined the performance of juries, you must conclude that they are not in fact, reserving the death penalty for the most serious kinds of offenses or a particularly bad kind of offense.\nThey are applying it in fact, in light of those factors randomly, exactly the way a roll of the dice would.\nBut what they are doing is worst than that, because the dice at least don't discriminate racially in Arkansas juries do.\nAt least with the dice, a black man would have an even chance of getting the death penalty with a white male.\nAnd in fact in Arkansas, 50% of the black chart of interracial rate get the death penalty and 14% of persons charged with intra-racial case get the death --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [2925.02, 2940.867, 2960.188, 2972.762, 2979.718, 2987.758, 2993.651], "stop_times": [2940.867, 2960.188, 2972.762, 2979.718, 2987.758, 2993.651, 3003.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2925.02}, "reply_to": "15365__0_110", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_112", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Have you looked up the statistics in every state of the union on that affecting race on the verdict by juries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3003.113], "stop_times": [3012.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.113}, "reply_to": "15365__0_111", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_113", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "They're not of record Mr. Justice Black.\nWe have put in our brief however, every statistic that has ever been produced, which the Court can't properly, judicially notice, and everyone points to the same conclusion.\nWe have other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3012.112, 3014.095, 3026.096], "stop_times": [3014.095, 3026.096, 3026.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3012.112}, "reply_to": "15365__0_112", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_114", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In reference to all the states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3026.764], "stop_times": [3029.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.764}, "reply_to": "15365__0_113", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_115", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Pardon me, Mr. Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3029.003], "stop_times": [3030.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3029.003}, "reply_to": "15365__0_114", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_116", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'm talking about was reference to all the states, are you saying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3030.082], "stop_times": [3033.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.082}, "reply_to": "15365__0_115", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_117", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'm talking --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3033.515], "stop_times": [3034.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3033.515}, "reply_to": "15365__0_116", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_118", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You referred to Arkansas only, are you saying that doesn't -- that never enters into the matter in other state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3034.001], "stop_times": [3040.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.001}, "reply_to": "15365__0_117", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__0_119", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nI think it does Mr. Justice Black.\nI think it enters into the matters in all of the states.\nAnd that's exactly why we argue for a constitutional ruling, it's applicable to all the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3040.59, 3040.981, 3042.985, 3045.261], "stop_times": [3040.981, 3042.985, 3045.261, 3049.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3040.59}, "reply_to": "15365__0_118", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_120", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What would you say if the death penalty is put in solely in the hands and the sole discretion of the judge, would you say it's standing from necessary thereto?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3049.554], "stop_times": [3060.731], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.554}, "reply_to": "15365__0_119", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_121", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, I would say that the Constitution forbids arbitrary discretion in the hands of the judge, as it does with the jury.\nBut, again I can see a distinction between the two cases, and I believe that a holding with regard to juries would not necessarily apply with regard to judges.\nAgain, I do not think that Giaccio versus Pennsylvania, which says that a jury can't have an utterly freehand in setting cost.\nIt means that the judge doesn't have a freehand in setting cost in cases.\nI think that the fact that you have 12 men brought in for a particular occasion, who are not professional sentencers, who do not have even the consistency of their own performance from case to case to guide them creates a different background for the exercise of that discretion, and therefore, it may be constitutionally impermissible to give it a jury, but not to a judge.\nMy own view that it's equally bad to give it to a judge, but I don't think that issue is presented in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3060.731, 3069.998, 3080.571, 3087.506, 3091.75, 3113.2], "stop_times": [3069.998, 3080.571, 3087.506, 3091.75, 3113.2, 3117.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3060.731}, "reply_to": "15365__0_120", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_122", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How about the non-capital issue, Mr. Amsterdam, whether the judge or the jury imposes the penalty where there is no standard to guide even one of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3117.464], "stop_times": [3127.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.464}, "reply_to": "15365__0_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_123", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The rule for which we're contending in this case is limited to capital cases.\nAgain, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3127.798, 3131.826], "stop_times": [3131.826, 3132.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3127.798}, "reply_to": "15365__0_122", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_124", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I know that's what you said.\nBut I wonder how you would really actually distinguish a death case from a non-capital case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3132.634, 3134.053], "stop_times": [3134.053, 3141.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.634}, "reply_to": "15365__0_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_125", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "On several grounds, the most significant one, I think is simply that, where more is at stake for the defendant, the requirements of due process for a regularized decision-making procedure are more exact then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3141.554], "stop_times": [3163.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3141.554}, "reply_to": "15365__0_124", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_126", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well of course, the level (Inaudible) or anything just to ask a question whether somebody have a parade on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3163.991], "stop_times": [3173.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.991}, "reply_to": "15365__0_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_127", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I quite agree, but there we have a First Amendment concern, as well.\nI think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3173.547, 3178.08], "stop_times": [3178.08, 3178.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3173.547}, "reply_to": "15365__0_126", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_128", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I know you got possibly like the prison arrangement penalty from a year to life sentence and no standards, whatsoever to guide the jury, as the jury sentencing the same or it does (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3178.478], "stop_times": [3195.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.478}, "reply_to": "15365__0_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_129", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I -- my own personal position again would be that standards are required of juries and of judges in non-capital sentencing under the Constitution.\nBut I think that since Skinner and Oklahoma, it has been cleared that this Court has drawn a distinction.\nIn Skinner, the Court said that you couldn't sterilize thieves, unless you sterilize embezzlers.\nNow, nobody has ever argued that you can't punish theft by 15 years of imprisonment, and punish embezzlement by 10.\nThose kinds of penological judgments are simply of a different order of magnitude in the choice of life or death, and the Court has required different degrees of regularity in the procedures, and even handedness in the procedures from posing the penalties.\nA second consideration and I think is vitally important is this one.\nWhen you are talking about non-capital sentences, you have a consideration that just doesn't enter into the equation, when you talk about capital sentences, that the rehabilitative aspects.\nNow, I am not ascertain, I'll make this very clear that the Constitution requires that states take rehabilitation into account, in their sentencing.\nBut I am asserting that inevitably states do take rehabilitation into account, for a simple fact that if you send a fellow away to prison, he's going to come out, and everybody wants to come out, better of it than worse from the point of view of society.\nNow, we simply do not have the calibers of this stage of a science to reduce the rehabilitation factor to categorical judgments, which permit themselves to be articulated in standards.\nWhen you make the decision, however, to sentence a man to die, instead of to live, you're making a decision, to take him out of the rehabilitative regime entirely.\nAnd that kind of standard it seem to me, can't barrel the benefits of what we don't know about rehabilitation.\nSo I think that again, non-capital sentencing has a factor, it has a wild card, it has a joke that justifies --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3195.557, 3205.701, 3212.458, 3217.747, 3224.572, 3240.156, 3244.751, 3257.153, 3266.987, 3280.53, 3297.054, 3306.437, 3313.873], "stop_times": [3205.701, 3212.458, 3217.747, 3224.572, 3240.156, 3244.751, 3257.153, 3266.987, 3280.53, 3297.054, 3306.437, 3313.873, 3321.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3195.557}, "reply_to": "15365__0_128", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_130", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "So, you would say that a non-capital case statement simply came out and said are merely and punishment is serving rehabilitative goals only that we just do that without any sense at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3321.372], "stop_times": [3338.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3321.372}, "reply_to": "15365__0_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_131", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No I don't -- again, Mr. Justice White, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3338.799], "stop_times": [3340.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3338.799}, "reply_to": "15365__0_130", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_132", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The way they said they can't be articulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3340.915], "stop_times": [3342.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.915}, "reply_to": "15365__0_131", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_133", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think that it's of a rational line to draw, that the Court could say that where rehabilitation is an issue, that a great deal of torments will be allowed because of the imprecision of the art of sentencing and the right of rehabilitation.\nMy own view is not that, but I think it's a logical --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3342.747, 3354.522], "stop_times": [3354.522, 3357.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3342.747}, "reply_to": "15365__0_132", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_134", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Do you submit to tell a jury or a judge, that rehabilitation is our goal, now make up your mind, the sentence will be sort of like saying -- make up your mind, what do you care?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3357.939], "stop_times": [3371.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.939}, "reply_to": "15365__0_133", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_135", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It would be midway between due care and what we have in capital sentencing, because at least the focus would be on something rehabilitation, and that's exactly what is wrong with the Arkansas procedure.\nIt is unclear, whether a jury which goes back, unclear to anyone of those called jurors, whether he is to take for example the possible reformation of the defendant into a capital deciding whether he shall live or die.\nIt is perfectly consistent for one jury to ask himself the question, \u201cWell, is this man rehabilitative?\nWe're going to sentence him to death only, if he's not.\u201d\nAnother juror might go back and simply ask the question, \u201cIs he black, and was he's victim white?\u201d\nAnother one might go back and ask the question, \u201cIs this a particularly heinous case of rape in one sense or another?\u201d\nThe legislature hasn't even focus in on what the genuine purpose of capital punishment, so that the jurors can talk meaningfully about it.\nAnd jurors from case to case can act meaningfully in light of, some general purpose for capital punishment.\nNow, the black-white business has one additional very important factor, a very important implication in this case that emerges from this Court's decision in Pearce versus North Carolina.\nPearce is a decision in which this Court has required standards for sentencing, where a particular kind of danger was perceived, and that was the danger that a judge viewing of the defendant's access on appeal with this favor would be vindictive and penalizing for that.\nIt would to me be an anomaly of a highest degree if this Court were willing to exact the more demanding requirement of Pearce, not simply that there'll be standards for the decision, but the reasons for the application of those standards be articulated.\nWhere the risk is -- and although I think there is a risk, I think it's not a terribly great one, that a judge would be vindictive, and not to require standards, where the danger is that a person will be sentenced to death on account of his race, where in Arkansas specifically and in this country generally, everybody who has examined this question has concluded, that in fact jurors are racially discriminating in the imposition of the death penalty.\nBut danger of that, of a flagrant and otherwise unprevalent violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, should require this Court to assure that the procedure comes up to visibility, in a way in which that racial factor will not have the effect that we know it now has in capital sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3371.536, 3382.845, 3394.098, 3399.094, 3402.286, 3406.639, 3413.326, 3421.894, 3428.472, 3443.269, 3469.602, 3486.072, 3513.048], "stop_times": [3382.845, 3394.098, 3399.094, 3402.286, 3406.639, 3413.326, 3421.894, 3428.472, 3443.269, 3469.602, 3486.072, 3513.048, 3532.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3371.536}, "reply_to": "15365__0_134", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_136", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, would it help avoid that where juries or the jury sentences at all?\nDo you think if you -- if you draft to the set of standards and of permitted jury, the juries to sentence, do you think those standards would really get you far along the line on --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3532.574, 3541.325], "stop_times": [3541.325, 3553.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3532.574}, "reply_to": "15365__0_135", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_137", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice White for two reasons.\nFirst of all, I am not only talking about the kind of discrimination that occurs from perverse and willful disregard of a legal requirement.\nIn Arkansas, a juror might believe that it is legal and permissible and the charge he's given to take account of the fact that the defendant is black and the victim is white, and that at least would be flushed out.\nJurors would not openly be able to say to each other, \u201cLet us sentence this man to death, because he was black and his victim as white.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3553.818, 3556.015, 3567.737, 3580.602], "stop_times": [3556.015, 3567.737, 3580.602, 3586.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3553.818}, "reply_to": "15365__0_136", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_138", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Will you solve that in the end together this -- that face of the case, the only standard you'd need was an instruction that you must not let race be taken into account in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3586.33], "stop_times": [3599.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3586.33}, "reply_to": "15365__0_137", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_139", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think that any instruction would help.\nI think that an instruction to that effect would help, but then we get into the second --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3599.989, 3602.441], "stop_times": [3602.441, 3606.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3599.989}, "reply_to": "15365__0_138", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_140", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, is that all that would be necessary to eliminate the racial part of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3606.339], "stop_times": [3610.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3606.339}, "reply_to": "15365__0_139", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_141", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I think it would not.\nAnd the reason for that is this, I think the juries may well discriminate on account of race and find the defendant is guilty of crimes, as well as you convict him, but there all sorts of judicial methods of control that are available there, that are not available in the absence of standards.\nThe only way in which a judge can determine, whether there's a rational basis in the record, whether the jury could have decided to impose a death penalty on this case, on any other ground than race, is if there's some standards.\nThere is no doubt that if all the other factors, which allowed the imposition of the death penalty, under appropriate standards existed in the case, the jury might still discriminate on account of race, as they may now in finding guilt, if the evidence is insufficient to make out all of the elements of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3610.67, 3612.414, 3628.611, 3640.94], "stop_times": [3612.414, 3628.611, 3640.94, 3660.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3610.67}, "reply_to": "15365__0_140", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_142", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "By the split verdict, are you going to get to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3660.954], "stop_times": [3664.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3660.954}, "reply_to": "15365__0_141", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__0_143", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I am afraid my time is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3664.427], "stop_times": [3666.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3664.427}, "reply_to": "15365__0_142", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_144", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, I was just coming to that, you're practically out of time.\nWe'll enlarge your time 10 minutes and we'd enlarge with your friend's time at same degree.\nAnd perhaps you'd better address yourself to that point now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3666.067, 3669.968, 3676.301], "stop_times": [3669.968, 3676.301, 3683.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3666.067}, "reply_to": "15365__0_143", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_145", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice I thank you and I shall.\nI simply would want to imply whether there's also any purpose in my addressing myself to the Witherspoon point.\nI think Witherspoon is open and shut on this record, and I would prefer to -- unless the Court has questions in connection with Witherspoon, simply pretermit discussion of that.\nSeven jurors were excluded they are pretty (Voice Overlap) Witherspoon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3683.467, 3687.048, 3695.129, 3704.312], "stop_times": [3687.048, 3695.129, 3704.312, 3707.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3683.467}, "reply_to": "15365__0_144", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_146", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "If you don't get any questions, you can assume that it can be submitted on the brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3707.765], "stop_times": [3712.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3707.765}, "reply_to": "15365__0_145", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_147", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Fine.\nNow, again with regard with the split verdict issue, I want to make very clear that we are not relying on some general notion of fairness, which is to be spelled out in due process clause of the Constitution.\nWe are relying in this case on what I think is a palpable inconsistency between the federally protected privilege against self-incrimination of the defendant, and is equally protected set of federal constitutional rights in assuring a rational sentencing decision.\nThose latter rights include: right to a hearing on a question which is as considerable as the question of life or death, and the opportunity to present defensive evidence addressed to that question.\nNow in a single verdict trial, a defendant who, like William Maxwell, exercises his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination allows the jury to decide whether he shall live or die, without presenting a slightest bit of evidence relevant to the choice of life or death, except the evidence that comes in on the guilt issue.\nNow again, I am not asserting and it is not the basis of our constitutional submission that a state is constitutionally precluded from permitting the decision as to life or death to be made on the facts of the offence if the state does that, but the State of Arkansas does not do that.\nIt is very clear that the State of Arkansas permits the decision as to life or death to be made on a broad basis, including background information, and any other material that may in the unfetter discretion of the jury affects it's choice.\nNow this means that a defendant is paid a very high price for giving up the privilege against self-incrimination.\nIf he chooses either to plead guilty and limit the trial to the issue of punishment or to take the stand, raise all of the question of background, talk to the jurors, show them that he is a human being, show them that he has a voice, explain what led him to what he did, and asked for mercy, in light of those considerations.\nHe stands a far better chance that the decision will be made on a full and rational basis, than if he is simply exercises his privilege and does not testify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3712.426, 3714.198, 3730.388, 3751.877, 3768.412, 3797.837, 3815.653, 3830.315, 3839.973, 3859.975], "stop_times": [3714.198, 3730.388, 3751.877, 3768.412, 3797.837, 3815.653, 3830.315, 3839.973, 3859.975, 3868.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3712.426}, "reply_to": "15365__0_146", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_148", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Have you considered this question of a bifurcated trials, as you all been longing in this point of it might be easily be called a right of allocution whether in the technical sense of that term or whether in the sense of as it's developed in some states at least, a right to put in evidence and litigations not relevant to the issue of guilt?\nI didn't see anything in your brief that touch that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3868.848, 3892.775], "stop_times": [3892.775, 3898.085], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3868.848}, "reply_to": "15365__0_147", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_149", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice Harlan we do see the right of allocution as sort of a comprehensive summary of what we think the Constitution entitles the defendant to any capital case.\nAgain, we quarrel with the observations of this Court in Hill that in certain kinds of cases, allocution may not arise in constitutional dimensions.\nWhat we say is that in a capital case, where allocution has been historically recognized as far more significant, where more is at stake for the defendant, where the practice not only precludes, as the Arkansas practice touch, is talking to the jury, but is presenting any evidence or his counsel even meaningfully arguing that issue, in light of a full record, that the Constitution does require more allocution than the Arkansas procedure allows to a fellow who claims his privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3898.085, 3911.343, 3920.06], "stop_times": [3911.343, 3920.06, 3945.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3898.085}, "reply_to": "15365__0_148", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_150", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, Arkansas has that an allocution, generalized allocution statute.\nHow does it operate in these capital cases, where the jury, not the judge fixes the penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3945.614, 3951.086], "stop_times": [3951.086, 3957.35], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3945.614}, "reply_to": "15365__0_149", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_151", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It does not, if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3957.35], "stop_times": [3958.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3957.35}, "reply_to": "15365__0_150", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_152", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Do they have any at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3958.462], "stop_times": [3960.373], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3958.462}, "reply_to": "15365__0_151", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_153", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There is no right of allocution in a capital case.\nThe issue is submitted to jury on both guilt and punishment after trial of guilt face.\nThe defendant has no opportunity to make a statement, either of technical allocution in order to present any evidence that goes to sentencing as such after verdict.\nNow, he might present evidence relevant to sentencing before a verdict, with all that implies for giving up the privilege against self-incrimination and prejudicing himself on the guilt issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3960.373, 3964.645, 3969.158, 3978.275], "stop_times": [3964.645, 3969.158, 3978.275, 3987.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3960.373}, "reply_to": "15365__0_152", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_154", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And I was just coming to that on another form of Justice Harlan's question, namely: would it solve your purposes, would it meet your problems, if the defendant could either under oath or not under oath be permitted to address himself, by his own testimony, by his own statements to the question of litigation, and then apply the familiar rule that cross-examination would be limited to the scope of the direct testimony?\nIn the single trial, now this gets out I think out, perhaps what just Justice Harlan was probing out, in terms of a right to speak to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [3987.042, 4020.833], "stop_times": [4020.833, 4032.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3987.042}, "reply_to": "15365__0_153", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_155", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It would help, but I don't think it would satisfy the constitutional requirement, because there would still be.\nI don't know what that such a rule would do for impeachment for example, because I assume that his credibility would be an issue, with regard to even those factors that he spoke, simply going to mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4032.921, 4041.067], "stop_times": [4041.067, 4051.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4032.921}, "reply_to": "15365__0_154", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_156", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Do you think it should not be an issue?0", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4051.126], "stop_times": [4053.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4051.126}, "reply_to": "15365__0_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__0_157", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think that it should be an issue, most assuredly and therefore, if he were permitted to make such a statement, after the jury had determined guilt.\nI would have no problem, but the difficulty is in Arkansas, impeachment involves the admission against the defendant of literally every bad act in his life.\nAnd I think that again, the tension that's created, that would persuade the defendant not to take the stand, to give up his right to speak in mitigation, because of the tremendously prejudicial impact to that on the guilt phase would be constitutionally intolerable.\nHowever, that again is not this case, although I would have my constitutional doubts about that, the Court doesn't even have to reach that question again as in the question of standards.\nWhat we have here is an Arkansas procedure, which permits arbitrariness and irrationality by giving no standards to the jury in sentencing.\nAnd then virtually requires that the decision be arbitrary, if the defendant doesn't take the stand, because there's simply no basis for the juries determining the facts relevant to the critical sentencing decision.\nNow, any of those factors are changed, we have a different constitutional case.\nWhat we have in Arkansas is the irrational trial process at its worst.\nIf I may reserve --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4053.64, 4061.851, 4071.536, 4090.713, 4102.215, 4111.978, 4124.7, 4128.846, 4134.996], "stop_times": [4061.851, 4071.536, 4090.713, 4102.215, 4111.978, 4124.7, 4128.846, 4134.996, 4136.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4053.64}, "reply_to": "15365__0_156", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_158", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Let me ask you one question, before you leave this phase of argument.\nDoes Arkansas permit the state itself as distinguished as a defendant to introduce in this case and achieve the evidence as relevant to sentencing but would not be admissible on the issue of guilt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4136.064, 4141.316], "stop_times": [4141.316, 4155.682], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4136.064}, "reply_to": "15365__0_157", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_159", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4155.682], "stop_times": [4156.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4155.682}, "reply_to": "15365__0_158", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_160", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It does not prevent that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4156.877], "stop_times": [4157.915], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4156.877}, "reply_to": "15365__0_159", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__0_161", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, and that is what creates the constitutional dilemma, if the state could do that, whether or not the defendant testify, then you would not have the tension between constitutional rights.\nBut the defendant subject himself to that only if he makes character an issue or if he testifies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4157.915, 4168.279], "stop_times": [4168.279, 4178.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4157.915}, "reply_to": "15365__0_160", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__0_162", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4178.099, 4183.497], "stop_times": [4183.497, 4185.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4178.099}, "reply_to": "15365__0_161", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_000", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "May it please the Court.\nAs the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in this case said when it was before them that guilt or innocence is not an issue in this case.\nOur State's Supreme Court has held in this case that the evidence made an overwhelming fashion, all of the requirements for conviction, for the offensive rape, as it was defined in 1962.\nOf course, our rape statute has been changed, since that time in 1967, it was changed for three degrees of rape, and the penalty was changed for first degree rape, which this would have fit into, if it has occurred after 1967.\nThe new penalty for rape, first-degree rape is 30 years to life or death, in the discretion of the jury, which this offense would fall into.\nThe facts of this particular case do not appear to be an issue that as the Eight Circuit characterized it, that the circumstances of this crime, as usual are sorted.\nA few of the background facts is that on November 3, 1961, in the early morning of -- in that early morning, a 35-year-old white woman was brutally beaten and raped by the petitioner in this case.\nAnd her 90-year-old helpless father was also beaten.\nShe was then dragged to the vacant lot down the street and attacked.\nWe feel that guilt or innocence is not an issue in this case as are other issues, which Mr. Amsterdam has mentioned in his brief and his oral argument here.\nIn Arkansas, there are five offenses, which are punishable by death.\nOne is kidnapping, also rape, murder in the first degree, a treason, and burning of prisons by convicts.\nAs originally enacted in Arkansas, these statutes provided automatically for the death penalty.\nIn 1915, the Arkansas legislature, as Mr. Amsterdam has mentioned, enacted Arkansas Statute 43-2153, which gave the jury the discretion of imposing a sentence of life imprisonment, instead of death.\nNow, petitioner and some of briefs that were filed on his behalf about others contend that the death penalty should be voided and abolished as cruel and unusual punishment.\nWhile the State of Arkansas recognizes that there may be some movement in that direction, that issue is not before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4185.265, 4187.727, 4199.621, 4212.677, 4229.499, 4242.681, 4259.638, 4276.794, 4280.872, 4286.868, 4299.329, 4306.034, 4317.087, 4324.634, 4343.952, 4355.336], "stop_times": [4187.727, 4199.621, 4212.677, 4229.499, 4242.681, 4259.638, 4276.794, 4280.872, 4286.868, 4299.329, 4306.034, 4317.087, 4324.634, 4343.952, 4355.336, 4365.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4185.265}, "reply_to": "15365__0_162", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_001", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Does it have to be a unanimous verdict of the jury or is it something less unanimous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4365.492], "stop_times": [4371.51], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4365.492}, "reply_to": "15365__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_002", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Unanimous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4371.51], "stop_times": [4371.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4371.51}, "reply_to": "15365__1_001", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_003", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Between a life or death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4371.867], "stop_times": [4373.226], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4371.867}, "reply_to": "15365__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_004", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Unanimous, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4373.226], "stop_times": [4374.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4373.226}, "reply_to": "15365__1_003", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_005", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Unanimous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4374.155], "stop_times": [4374.434], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4374.155}, "reply_to": "15365__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_006", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "All verdicts of criminal cases have to be unanimous.\nIn civil cases, nine can bring in a verdict.\nOr what it's worth to this Court, in 1967, a bill was introduced in the Arkansas legislature to abolish capital punishment, public hearings were held, and the issues were debated, and the bill got no word, it wasn't fitted overwhelmingly.\nAlso, senses kick --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4374.434, 4377.33, 4382.362, 4402.108], "stop_times": [4377.33, 4382.362, 4402.108, 4404.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4374.434}, "reply_to": "15365__1_005", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_007", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What was the rule?\nWas he sure of both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4405.532, 4404.546], "stop_times": [4404.546, 4406.686], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4405.532}, "reply_to": "15365__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_008", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't remember, Your Honor.\nAlso, since this case was argued last year, there had been some eight death verdicts returned in Arkansas, at least six of them were white people, two of them were black people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4406.686, 4409.768], "stop_times": [4409.768, 4423.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4406.686}, "reply_to": "15365__1_007", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_009", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "If you can get those statistics, would you mind getting them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4423.384], "stop_times": [4429.052], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4423.384}, "reply_to": "15365__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_010", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The vote on the bill, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4429.052], "stop_times": [4431.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4429.052}, "reply_to": "15365__1_009", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_011", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4431.016], "stop_times": [4432.921], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4431.016}, "reply_to": "15365__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_012", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "All right.\nAlso, in this case in the briefs, also in the argument here today about Mr. Amsterdam, they want to inject the issue of discrimination and race in this case.\nPetitioners and some of the briefs filed in his behalf vote a lot of their argument on this point.\nWe can only state that discrimination and imposition of this death penalty was advanced by petitioner in his petition for certiorari, and was rejected by this Court.\nIt was rejected by the District Court.\nIt was also rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\nWhat this case actually concerns, itself with is the validity of procedural means used in imposing the death penalty on a criminal defendant, whether he be white or black.\nWe contend that this case in effect really involves issue of whether the jury system is a workable procedure in capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4432.921, 4440.122, 4454.39, 4460.988, 4472.125, 4474.632, 4478.615, 4493.683], "stop_times": [4440.122, 4454.39, 4460.988, 4472.125, 4474.632, 4478.615, 4493.683, 4502.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4432.921}, "reply_to": "15365__1_011", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_013", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Wherein a charge is asked in this case, on that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4502.103], "stop_times": [4505.683], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4502.103}, "reply_to": "15365__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_014", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4505.683], "stop_times": [4506.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4505.683}, "reply_to": "15365__1_013", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_015", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And not race?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4506.145], "stop_times": [4508.818], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4506.145}, "reply_to": "15365__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_016", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4508.818], "stop_times": [4510.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4508.818}, "reply_to": "15365__1_015", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_017", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What does that judges do down there?\nAs someone says, you should not consider the race of the person, of the witness, of the person's race.\nIs any history of what the judge charges the jury, have requested in that field?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4510.222, 4511.711, 4519.929], "stop_times": [4511.711, 4519.929, 4525.694], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4510.222}, "reply_to": "15365__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_018", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I know of no case where that has ever been requested your Honor.\nI've read it in some of these briefs, where in some of these statistical studies that from the transcripts and the case that you could not tell the race of the victim or the race of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4525.694, 4530.284], "stop_times": [4530.284, 4542.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4525.694}, "reply_to": "15365__1_017", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_019", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, they know it, don't they -- I would suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4542.008], "stop_times": [4545.054], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4542.008}, "reply_to": "15365__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_020", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I mean you can't tell it from the transcript, whenever they were given the statistics for the district court trial.\nYes sir, the jury can tell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4545.054, 4552.032], "stop_times": [4552.032, 4553.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4545.054}, "reply_to": "15365__1_019", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_021", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You're point, I take it as merely that the measurement of this is therefore becomes a very difficult -- because you don't label the record, one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4553.625], "stop_times": [4564.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4553.625}, "reply_to": "15365__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_022", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nThe decision of the District Court on standards held that the Untied States Constitution did not make it necessary that trial courts in Arkansas charge or instruct juries regarding standards or guidelines to guide them in assessing life or death.\nThe court reasoned that Arkansas procedure, rested the decision, in the discretion of the jury to be exercised in the light of judgment, common sense, and experience of the jurors, and the jurors are presumed to be persons of good judgment and common sense.\nWe advance that argument here today also on the single verdict procedure, the District Court held that while some states may have split verdicts.\nNo court has held or it does not think that is constitutionally required that any court have a split verdict.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals went along the same line.\nIt rejected the petitioner's contentions in these cases, and we recommend that opinion to this Court in deciding this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4564.001, 4568.106, 4583.916, 4602.564, 4616.392, 4625.186, 4629.184], "stop_times": [4568.106, 4583.916, 4602.564, 4616.392, 4625.186, 4629.184, 4637.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4564.001}, "reply_to": "15365__1_021", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_023", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "May I ask you of the definition, statutory definition of rape?\nIs in your record somewhere, in Arkansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4637.76, 4642.545], "stop_times": [4642.545, 4646.738], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4637.76}, "reply_to": "15365__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_024", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes sir, its defined in the jury instructions and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4646.738], "stop_times": [4650.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4646.738}, "reply_to": "15365__1_023", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_025", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But where is it in this record, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4650.231], "stop_times": [4653.083], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4650.231}, "reply_to": "15365__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_026", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It would be in the jury instruction.\nWe have filed the transcript of the original case with this Court.\nI suppose it still has it.\nAnd the Court defines rape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4653.083, 4655.362, 4660.068, 4662.196], "stop_times": [4655.362, 4660.068, 4662.196, 4666.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4653.083}, "reply_to": "15365__1_025", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_027", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is that in the same -- is that definition of rape in the same statute that fixes the punishment for rape?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4666.994], "stop_times": [4677.39], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4666.994}, "reply_to": "15365__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_028", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I believe that they are separate Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4677.39], "stop_times": [4680.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4677.39}, "reply_to": "15365__1_027", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_029", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4680.951], "stop_times": [4681.733], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4680.951}, "reply_to": "15365__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_030", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I don't recall, because we've changed our rape statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4681.733], "stop_times": [4684.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4681.733}, "reply_to": "15365__1_029", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_031", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, could you mind letting us know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4684.301], "stop_times": [4686.214], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4684.301}, "reply_to": "15365__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_032", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Alright, Your Honor.\nSince this case argued before this Court, some federal and state courts have decided that these two issues against the petitioner.\nAnd we recommend those cases to the Court.\nThey are cited on pages 31 and 32 of petitioner's supplemental brief to enlarge the issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4686.214, 4699.29, 4709.663, 4712.455], "stop_times": [4699.29, 4709.663, 4712.455, 4719.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4686.214}, "reply_to": "15365__1_031", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_033", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Can you weigh the jury trial on that application (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4719.718], "stop_times": [4722.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4719.718}, "reply_to": "15365__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_034", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor, it cannot.\nIf you plead guilty, the jury has to be impaneled and the state puts on a prima facie case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4722.777, 4725.766], "stop_times": [4725.766, 4732.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4722.777}, "reply_to": "15365__1_033", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_035", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Of guilt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4732.582], "stop_times": [4733.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4732.582}, "reply_to": "15365__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_036", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Of guilt, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4733.507], "stop_times": [4734.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4733.507}, "reply_to": "15365__1_035", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_037", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And what do you do about that, if there's a plea of guilty, then there is a jury convened, do you have to put on a prima facie case of guilty?\nBut does it go any farther in that case and does it move for a trial, in terms of the factors that goes with the penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4734.235, 4745.924], "stop_times": [4745.924, 4755.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4734.235}, "reply_to": "15365__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_038", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Ordinarily, the trial would be very short and just enough -- ordinarily, it would be probably the fact that in a murder case that a murder has occurred, and that the defendant has confessed to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4755.852], "stop_times": [4767.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4755.852}, "reply_to": "15365__1_037", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_039", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What's that -- how do you view Arkansas' theory of punishment in this type of a case?\nDoes the jury question and decide the penalty base on acts of a crime only?\nI suppose -- or at least the facts that come out in connection with this deciding guilt or innocence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4767.506, 4776.121, 4785.347], "stop_times": [4776.121, 4785.347, 4791.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4767.506}, "reply_to": "15365__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_040", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think those factors are quite an effort for the jury to make an intelligent position on punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4791.818], "stop_times": [4795.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4791.818}, "reply_to": "15365__1_039", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_041", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, yes but what is the -- do you think that the jury should confine itself to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4795.463], "stop_times": [4802.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4795.463}, "reply_to": "15365__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_042", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's our position, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4802.205], "stop_times": [4804.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4802.205}, "reply_to": "15365__1_041", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_043", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, what if -- what if in a non-capital case, where -- does the judge ever sentence in Arkansas for certain -- for felonies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4804.334], "stop_times": [4816.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4804.334}, "reply_to": "15365__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_044", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In felonies, only in cases where the jury cannot agree, then he can set the punishment.\nWhat they had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4816.079, 4820.799], "stop_times": [4820.799, 4821.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4816.079}, "reply_to": "15365__1_043", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_045", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And when he does so, do you have the presentence reports?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4821.19], "stop_times": [4823.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4821.19}, "reply_to": "15365__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_046", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, your Honor, we do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4823.92], "stop_times": [4825.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4823.92}, "reply_to": "15365__1_045", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_047", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You just go on the record displayed on presenting guilt or on a deciding guilt or innocence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4825.664], "stop_times": [4830.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4825.664}, "reply_to": "15365__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_048", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.\nWhat happens is the jury goes out and decides guilt and then it reports back to the judge that it has decided on guilt or innocence, but cannot reach a verdict on punishment.\nThen the judge takes the case -- he takes the verdict of guilt, then he sets the punishment -- punishment within statutory limits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4830.587, 4831.688, 4843.625], "stop_times": [4831.688, 4843.625, 4849.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4830.587}, "reply_to": "15365__1_047", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_049", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And all he knows is what's in the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4849.892], "stop_times": [4853.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4849.892}, "reply_to": "15365__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_050", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What's he's heard is what the jury has heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4853.607], "stop_times": [4857.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4853.607}, "reply_to": "15365__1_049", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_051", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "So there are no presentence reports or -- in Arkansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4857.075], "stop_times": [4861.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4857.075}, "reply_to": "15365__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_052", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There is a statute in Arkansas that whenever a person is sentenced to the penitentiary that there will be -- the judge will send along with the prisoner his remarks, the prosecuting attorney will send his remarks along with it.\nIt sort of a presentence report, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4861.328, 4874.594], "stop_times": [4874.594, 4876.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4861.328}, "reply_to": "15365__1_051", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_053", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I know but it isn't used for the purpose of deciding the length of time, where which the person is committed to a prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4876.339], "stop_times": [4888.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4876.339}, "reply_to": "15365__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_054", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4888.169], "stop_times": [4889.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4888.169}, "reply_to": "15365__1_053", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_055", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Langston, is there any allocution out in Arkansas at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4889.787], "stop_times": [4895.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4889.787}, "reply_to": "15365__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_056", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There might -- could be some, under the statute that we have cited if when the defendant would file a motion for a new trial, which is the overruling of this motion is what you appeal from in Arkansas is from a motion, from the denial of your motion for new trial.\nHe may -- if the judge in his discretion wants to, he may hear some evidence in allocution, but I don't think it's very common in Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4895.639, 4911.769], "stop_times": [4911.769, 4919.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4895.639}, "reply_to": "15365__1_055", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_057", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Did you not required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4919.153], "stop_times": [4920.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4919.153}, "reply_to": "15365__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_058", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4920.747], "stop_times": [4922.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4920.747}, "reply_to": "15365__1_057", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_059", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And Arkansas does not normally give any instruction on this regarding race?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4922.017], "stop_times": [4927.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4922.017}, "reply_to": "15365__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_060", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor, it do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4927.655], "stop_times": [4929.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4927.655}, "reply_to": "15365__1_059", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_061", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And so, they don't give any instructions on the proper person to be sentenced to the proper number of years or anything at all in that sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4929.22], "stop_times": [4939.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4929.22}, "reply_to": "15365__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_062", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4939.012], "stop_times": [4940.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4939.012}, "reply_to": "15365__1_061", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_063", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And that's left after the \u201cuntrammeled discretion\u201d of the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4940.184], "stop_times": [4945.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4940.184}, "reply_to": "15365__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_064", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Ordinarily, they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4945.567], "stop_times": [4946.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4945.567}, "reply_to": "15365__1_063", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_065", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And is it true that under the law of Arkansas, a juror can use any whim he wants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4946.39], "stop_times": [4953.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4946.39}, "reply_to": "15365__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_066", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It's an unfettered discretion.\nOrdinarily the judge instructs them on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4953.356, 4956.281], "stop_times": [4956.281, 4958.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4953.356}, "reply_to": "15365__1_065", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_067", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, how could you find -- you agreed that you can normally find abuse of discretion from a judge, can't you?\nWas there in anyway to find abuse of discretion from the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4958.572, 4967.124], "stop_times": [4967.124, 4970.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4958.572}, "reply_to": "15365__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_068", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I doubt it, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4970.445], "stop_times": [4971.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4970.445}, "reply_to": "15365__1_067", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_069", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I kind of hope this isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4971.749], "stop_times": [4974.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4971.749}, "reply_to": "15365__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_070", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I didn't get your last word?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4974.021], "stop_times": [4974.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4974.021}, "reply_to": "15365__1_069", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_071", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I kind of hope this isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4974.598], "stop_times": [4977.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4974.598}, "reply_to": "15365__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_072", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, we think that discretion of the jury is a good thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4977.366], "stop_times": [4983.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4977.366}, "reply_to": "15365__1_071", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_073", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I presume that there were facts in this case, from which the jury can discern itself about it, was there none?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4983.873], "stop_times": [4992.156], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4983.873}, "reply_to": "15365__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_074", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4992.156], "stop_times": [4992.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4992.156}, "reply_to": "15365__1_073", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_075", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But what were those facts that cause the jury, it must have been something that do with the jury sentencing to death.\nHow did this crime occur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [4992.661, 5000.071], "stop_times": [5000.071, 5002.008], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4992.661}, "reply_to": "15365__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_076", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Your Honor, in the early morning hours on November 3, 1961, the defendant, the white woman, 35-year-old white woman, living with her invalid 90-year-old father, heard someone trying to break in to their house.\nShe went to the door and told the man to leave, and said she would call the police.\nHe had a stocking he was trying to pull down over his head.\nSo, he wouldn't -- he kept advancing toward her, so she got on the telephone, and got the operator, who when the man attacked the woman, she started screaming, so the operator connected the telephone with the police, and the police heard the screams over the telephone and they were struggling there.\nHer invalid father came in to assist her.\nThe defendant put his hand over her mouth, she bit his finger, and bit his hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5002.008, 5019.191, 5024.184, 5029.375, 5049.613, 5052.898], "stop_times": [5019.191, 5024.184, 5029.375, 5049.613, 5052.898, 5058.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5002.008}, "reply_to": "15365__1_075", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_077", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Bit whose finger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5058.553], "stop_times": [5059.567], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5058.553}, "reply_to": "15365__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_078", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Bit the defendant's finger and his hand.\nHis father could not help her, so he went to the window and started yelling for help.\nOf course, the police were trying to locate where the telephone call is coming from.\nSo the defendant then dragged the victim from her house, down the street to up of embankment, up to a vacant lot.\nThere were cuts and bruises on her feet, she was in her pajamas.\nAnd there were cuts all over and they struggling up there in the lot, and he threatened to kill her, if she told, and that's basically the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5059.567, 5064.973, 5069.074, 5073.533, 5086.2, 5090.425], "stop_times": [5064.973, 5069.074, 5073.533, 5086.2, 5090.425, 5100.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5059.567}, "reply_to": "15365__1_077", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_079", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What about the attack on the father?\nYou referred that before, that he was beaten.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5100.388, 5101.773], "stop_times": [5101.773, 5105.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5100.388}, "reply_to": "15365__1_078", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_080", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He beat the father too, and so the father said, \u201cI just can't help you anymore,\u201d and so went to the window and tried to yell for help.\nAnd he dragged the victim out from the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5105.624, 5112.789], "stop_times": [5112.789, 5115.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5105.624}, "reply_to": "15365__1_079", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_081", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, how did he beat the father in what way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5115.45], "stop_times": [5119.639], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5115.45}, "reply_to": "15365__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_082", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Just his fist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5119.639], "stop_times": [5121.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5119.639}, "reply_to": "15365__1_081", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_083", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How old was her father?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5121.675], "stop_times": [5123.484], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5121.675}, "reply_to": "15365__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_084", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "90.\n90 years old.\nAnd he was an invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5123.484, 5124.729, 5126.314], "stop_times": [5124.729, 5126.314, 5128.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5123.484}, "reply_to": "15365__1_083", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_085", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Was he killed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5128.301], "stop_times": [5130.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5128.301}, "reply_to": "15365__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_086", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5130.248], "stop_times": [5131.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5130.248}, "reply_to": "15365__1_085", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_087", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Tell me, what -- seems your statute, as I understand, puts all criminal offenses in the hands of the jury in sentencing, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5131.966], "stop_times": [5144.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5131.966}, "reply_to": "15365__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_088", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5144.575], "stop_times": [5147.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5144.575}, "reply_to": "15365__1_087", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_089", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Does that mean that there's no allocution anymore in Arkansas at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5147.162], "stop_times": [5152.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5147.162}, "reply_to": "15365__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_090", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5152.121], "stop_times": [5153.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5152.121}, "reply_to": "15365__1_089", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_091", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What about the situation, where you say a non-capital case, if I understood correctly, the jury can't agree on the penalty, perhaps that's true also in the capital cases.\nWhat happens then?\nDoes the judge fix the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5153.47, 5167.713, 5168.497], "stop_times": [5167.713, 5168.497, 5170.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5153.47}, "reply_to": "15365__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_092", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5170.203], "stop_times": [5171.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5170.203}, "reply_to": "15365__1_091", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_093", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "So that in this case, if the jury said they couldn't agree on life or death, the judge would have fixed the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5171.073], "stop_times": [5176.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5171.073}, "reply_to": "15365__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_094", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor, he can't do that in capital cases, you cannot do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5176.7], "stop_times": [5179.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5176.7}, "reply_to": "15365__1_093", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_095", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In non-capital case you can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5179.938], "stop_times": [5181.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5179.938}, "reply_to": "15365__1_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_096", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5181.521], "stop_times": [5181.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5181.521}, "reply_to": "15365__1_095", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_097", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Now, what happens in those situations?\nIs it under your statute, does the defendant have a right of allocution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5181.923, 5184.345], "stop_times": [5184.345, 5189.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5181.923}, "reply_to": "15365__1_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_098", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor.\nI don't know of any -- I do not know of any case that would hold that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5189.365, 5190.463], "stop_times": [5190.463, 5198.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5189.365}, "reply_to": "15365__1_097", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_099", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Your allocution statute is in relative, is it as far as having any applications for this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5198.068], "stop_times": [5206.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5198.068}, "reply_to": "15365__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_100", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I believe your correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5206.075], "stop_times": [5207.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5206.075}, "reply_to": "15365__1_099", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_101", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It's still on the books.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5207.524], "stop_times": [5211.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5207.524}, "reply_to": "15365__1_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_102", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, it applies only to cases where the sentence is fix by the judge, is that what you're telling us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5211.761], "stop_times": [5220.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5211.761}, "reply_to": "15365__1_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_103", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Your Honor, I don't believe that they have any allocution in our state courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5220.426], "stop_times": [5226.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5220.426}, "reply_to": "15365__1_102", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_104", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Even when the judge sentences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5226.066], "stop_times": [5228.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5226.066}, "reply_to": "15365__1_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_105", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5228.003], "stop_times": [5229.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5228.003}, "reply_to": "15365__1_104", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_106", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But you've got a statute, haven't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5229.22], "stop_times": [5231.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5229.22}, "reply_to": "15365__1_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_107", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I wasn't aware of it, Mr. Amsterdam we do, but I wasn't aware of the allocation statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5231.658], "stop_times": [5238.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5231.658}, "reply_to": "15365__1_106", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_108", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Haven't you looked up and I thought you have?\nAs you just told me, maybe that's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5238.086, 5240.191], "stop_times": [5240.191, 5246.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5238.086}, "reply_to": "15365__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_109", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Have you read the statute to which you refer us now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5246.305], "stop_times": [5249.227], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5246.305}, "reply_to": "15365__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_110", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I do not -- I didn't -- I don't know of the statute that says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5249.227], "stop_times": [5254.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5249.227}, "reply_to": "15365__1_109", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_111", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Aren't you familiar enough for the day-to-day practice, so that you can say you -- that you know the right is not accorded to a defendant, when the judge is sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5254.486], "stop_times": [5265.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5254.486}, "reply_to": "15365__1_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_112", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I know that -- I've tried some criminal cases and it's never done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5265.521], "stop_times": [5271.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5265.521}, "reply_to": "15365__1_111", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_113", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You mean he's never asked the defendant to say anything, in connection with his (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5271.531], "stop_times": [5276.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5271.531}, "reply_to": "15365__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_114", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, whatever he sentence -- whenever he sentences, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5276.228], "stop_times": [5279.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5276.228}, "reply_to": "15365__1_113", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_115", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'm not talking about a formal allocution, do you mean that he never, the judge who tries a man, before he sentence him, never asked him or gives him a chance to say anything about it at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5279.038], "stop_times": [5291.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5279.038}, "reply_to": "15365__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_116", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Your Honor, he brings in a judgment, if the judge is trying it himself, trial before the court, he brings in the judgment.\nOf course, and he waits the statutory, the limit of time before he sentences him, then he does asked him he has anything to say in his behalf or nearly nothing he's saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5291.137, 5298.359], "stop_times": [5298.359, 5307.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5291.137}, "reply_to": "15365__1_115", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_117", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nThat's the allocution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5307.152, 5307.528], "stop_times": [5307.528, 5308.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5307.152}, "reply_to": "15365__1_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_118", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's allocution.\nHe does ask?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5308.193, 5311.559], "stop_times": [5311.559, 5312.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5308.193}, "reply_to": "15365__1_117", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_119", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5312.999], "stop_times": [5313.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5312.999}, "reply_to": "15365__1_118", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_120", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is he required to do that by your statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5313.777], "stop_times": [5316.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5313.777}, "reply_to": "15365__1_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_121", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5316.878], "stop_times": [5319.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5316.878}, "reply_to": "15365__1_120", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_122", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But it is regularly done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5319.844], "stop_times": [5322.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5319.844}, "reply_to": "15365__1_121", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_123", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5322.412], "stop_times": [5324.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5322.412}, "reply_to": "15365__1_122", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_124", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And what is -- is there a time lag that the judgments wait before he sentences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5324.664], "stop_times": [5329.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5324.664}, "reply_to": "15365__1_123", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_125", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "48 hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5329.43], "stop_times": [5330.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5329.43}, "reply_to": "15365__1_124", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_126", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "48 hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5330.452], "stop_times": [5331.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5330.452}, "reply_to": "15365__1_125", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_127", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Of course, this can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5331.901], "stop_times": [5332.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5331.901}, "reply_to": "15365__1_126", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_128", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't get this Mr. Langston.\nYou say it's regularly done, but it's never done in the jury,  where the jury fixes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5332.588, 5334.71], "stop_times": [5334.71, 5340.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5332.588}, "reply_to": "15365__1_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_129", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "By statute in Arkansas, you have to wait 48 hours before you can sentence a person --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5340.679], "stop_times": [5344.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5340.679}, "reply_to": "15365__1_128", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_130", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, no, but were the jury fixes the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5344.409], "stop_times": [5350.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5344.409}, "reply_to": "15365__1_129", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_131", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The jury fixes the sentence, I mean the jury fixes the punishment, the judgment is in and on that verdict and then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5350.173], "stop_times": [5357.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5350.173}, "reply_to": "15365__1_130", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_132", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There's no allocution then, well is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5357.393], "stop_times": [5359.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5357.393}, "reply_to": "15365__1_131", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_133", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5359.122], "stop_times": [5360.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5359.122}, "reply_to": "15365__1_132", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_134", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think that answer came in response to my question, Mr. Justice Brennan, relating to non-jury penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5360.318], "stop_times": [5369.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5360.318}, "reply_to": "15365__1_133", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_135", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Where juries had been waived, is that it?\nYou're just talking about bench trials now, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5369.353, 5372.756], "stop_times": [5372.756, 5375.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5369.353}, "reply_to": "15365__1_134", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_136", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5375.025], "stop_times": [5375.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5375.025}, "reply_to": "15365__1_135", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_137", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Not jury trials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5375.643], "stop_times": [5376.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5375.643}, "reply_to": "15365__1_136", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_138", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, they always asked them.\nThe judge always asked, whenever he sentences in any trial, he ask if he has anything to say before sentence is passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5376.905, 5378.025], "stop_times": [5378.025, 5386.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5376.905}, "reply_to": "15365__1_137", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_139", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And does he have a mo -- does he have a right to make a motion, a new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5386.703], "stop_times": [5390.612], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5386.703}, "reply_to": "15365__1_138", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_140", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5390.612], "stop_times": [5391.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5390.612}, "reply_to": "15365__1_139", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_141", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "On what ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5391.559], "stop_times": [5393.742], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5391.559}, "reply_to": "15365__1_140", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_142", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There are several, newly discovered evidence, any errors occurred during trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5393.742], "stop_times": [5401.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5393.742}, "reply_to": "15365__1_141", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_143", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "They have a right to make a motion for new trial and now they get before the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5401.65], "stop_times": [5405.495], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5401.65}, "reply_to": "15365__1_142", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_144", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And put on evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5405.495], "stop_times": [5408.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5405.495}, "reply_to": "15365__1_143", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_145", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And argued that it was wrong thing and erroneous to convict him or sentence at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5408.123], "stop_times": [5412.98], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5408.123}, "reply_to": "15365__1_144", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_146", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5412.98], "stop_times": [5414.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5412.98}, "reply_to": "15365__1_145", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_147", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Langston I'm confused.\nThe jury finds a man guilty of crime of robbery and fixes the sentence of 20 years.\nAnd the judge calls him in and said, \u201cDo you have anything to say?\u201d\nWell, what can the judge do, regardless of what the man says?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5414.512, 5417.538, 5428.481, 5435.443], "stop_times": [5417.538, 5428.481, 5435.443, 5443.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5414.512}, "reply_to": "15365__1_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_148", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Of course, he could set the verdict decide if he desires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5443.851], "stop_times": [5447.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5443.851}, "reply_to": "15365__1_147", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_149", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, what is the reason for saying, \u201cWhat do you have to say before I give you the sentence, which I'm going to give you?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5447.28], "stop_times": [5455.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5447.28}, "reply_to": "15365__1_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_150", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Your Honor, I just know that that's done.\nI don't know that it has any effect at all or (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5455.225, 5456.751], "stop_times": [5456.751, 5460.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5455.225}, "reply_to": "15365__1_149", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_151", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What effect?\nI'm asking you what effect could it have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5460.132, 5460.812], "stop_times": [5460.812, 5463.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5460.132}, "reply_to": "15365__1_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_152", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I suppose that anything he said that would be relevant to his sentence could be said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5463.623], "stop_times": [5467.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5463.623}, "reply_to": "15365__1_151", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_153", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, the judge couldn't change the sentence, does he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5467.94], "stop_times": [5471.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5467.94}, "reply_to": "15365__1_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_154", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The 43-2310 says, that if the judge, in cases of conviction, doesn't think that the punishment sentence is correct, he has the power to reduce the extent or duration of the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5471.704], "stop_times": [5490.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5471.704}, "reply_to": "15365__1_153", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_155", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, then the jury doesn't then finally fix the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5490.731], "stop_times": [5495.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5490.731}, "reply_to": "15365__1_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_156", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In effect, in Arkansas the jury it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5495.727], "stop_times": [5498.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5495.727}, "reply_to": "15365__1_155", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_157", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'd understood that was a dead letter in that statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5498.603], "stop_times": [5501.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5498.603}, "reply_to": "15365__1_156", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__1_158", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "As far as I know what's never been interpreted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5501.547], "stop_times": [5503.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5501.547}, "reply_to": "15365__1_157", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_159", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That was my understanding from the last argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5503.311], "stop_times": [5505.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5503.311}, "reply_to": "15365__1_158", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__1_160", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5505.243], "stop_times": [5506.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5505.243}, "reply_to": "15365__1_159", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_161", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You mean it's in the statute, but judges never exercised that already (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5506.813], "stop_times": [5513.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5506.813}, "reply_to": "15365__1_160", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_162", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Your Honor, it's never been interpreted by our Supreme Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5513.421], "stop_times": [5515.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5513.421}, "reply_to": "15365__1_161", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_163", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It's never been interpreted, but it hasn't ever been used to your knowledge, by trial judge to change the sentence imposed by a jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5515.876], "stop_times": [5525.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5515.876}, "reply_to": "15365__1_162", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_164", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I haven't found any cases on it, but I have been told by some judges that it has been done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5525.047], "stop_times": [5529.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5525.047}, "reply_to": "15365__1_163", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_165", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That it has been done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5529.773], "stop_times": [5530.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5529.773}, "reply_to": "15365__1_164", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_166", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5530.766], "stop_times": [5531.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5530.766}, "reply_to": "15365__1_165", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_167", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And so the judge has the right to reset the punishment?\nThat he doesn't agree with the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5531.937, 5536.019], "stop_times": [5536.019, 5537.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5531.937}, "reply_to": "15365__1_166", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_168", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.\nYour Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5537.654, 5538.129], "stop_times": [5538.129, 5539.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5537.654}, "reply_to": "15365__1_167", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_169", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The judge could that on a motion for a new trial, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5539.344], "stop_times": [5542.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5539.344}, "reply_to": "15365__1_168", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_170", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I believe he could, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5542.583], "stop_times": [5544.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5542.583}, "reply_to": "15365__1_169", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_171", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But he can't do it a capital case?\nIn a capital case, he can't do it, that I understood you to say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5544.282, 5547.33], "stop_times": [5547.33, 5550.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5544.282}, "reply_to": "15365__1_170", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_172", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I am advised that it has been done but the case didn't go to the Supreme Court, maybe there was something in the trial that the judge was -- I don't know what it could have occurred during the trial, but the judge thought on motion of the defendant that he should reduce it from death down to life, and that it has been done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5550.236], "stop_times": [5569.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5550.236}, "reply_to": "15365__1_171", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_173", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Did he do it in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5569.26], "stop_times": [5571.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5569.26}, "reply_to": "15365__1_172", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_174", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5571.567], "stop_times": [5572.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5571.567}, "reply_to": "15365__1_173", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_175", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Did he give him any chance to speak in this case, after the jury came in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5572.585], "stop_times": [5579.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5572.585}, "reply_to": "15365__1_174", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_176", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't recall whether he did or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5579.443], "stop_times": [5583.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5579.443}, "reply_to": "15365__1_175", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_177", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Langston, what you said is so, we got a very different case here, and I thought we have.\nYou see if I get this correctly, are you telling us that under your statutes, the trial judge if they're satisfied with the sentence imposed by the jury, whether the case is a capital or a non capital case, can change the jury sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5583.74, 5590.339], "stop_times": [5590.339, 5608.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5583.74}, "reply_to": "15365__1_176", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_178", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's what the statute it appears to say, Your Honor, 43-2310.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5608.183], "stop_times": [5612.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5608.183}, "reply_to": "15365__1_177", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_179", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Would you read that to us, so we can get it before us.\nDo you mind Mr. Justice Brennan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5612.913, 5615.981], "stop_times": [5615.981, 5617.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5612.913}, "reply_to": "15365__1_178", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_180", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I wish he would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5617.199], "stop_times": [5618.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5617.199}, "reply_to": "15365__1_179", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_181", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The court shall have power in all cases of conviction to reduce the extent or duration of the punishment assessed by the jury.\nIf in the opinion of the court, the conviction is proper, and the punishment assessed is greater than under the circumstances of the case, ought to be inflicted, so that the punishment be not, in any case, reduced below the limit prescribed by law in such cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5618.685, 5627.09], "stop_times": [5627.09, 5643.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5618.685}, "reply_to": "15365__1_180", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_182", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that seems that a face value would seem to judge the right but didn't agree with the juries' death sentence, then he can set it aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5643.084], "stop_times": [5655.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5643.084}, "reply_to": "15365__1_181", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_183", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's what I argued the last time we were up here, but there's been no interpretation by our Supreme Court of this statute.\nAnd it would appear on its face, to allow him to reduce the verdict --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5655.357, 5662.208], "stop_times": [5662.208, 5667.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5655.357}, "reply_to": "15365__1_182", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_184", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that is a great deal of evidence.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5667.059], "stop_times": [5689.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5667.059}, "reply_to": "15365__1_183", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_185", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't know of any one, Your Honor.\nI don't know of any Supreme, Arkansas Supreme Court cases on it.\nAnd the only way you could do it was probably to survey the -- make a survey of the Circuit Judges in Arkansas, and see if they have ever done it, the current ones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5689.553, 5691.609, 5695.139], "stop_times": [5691.609, 5695.139, 5703.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5689.553}, "reply_to": "15365__1_184", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_186", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that's what the statute seem to say on its face?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5703.925], "stop_times": [5706.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5703.925}, "reply_to": "15365__1_185", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_187", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5706.984], "stop_times": [5708.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5706.984}, "reply_to": "15365__1_186", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_188", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And then, do you know whether a judge -- even if he didn't reset the sentence, if he disagreed with it he can order a new trial, because he thought the sentence was improper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5708.143], "stop_times": [5722.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5708.143}, "reply_to": "15365__1_187", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_189", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think he could, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5722.898], "stop_times": [5724.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5722.898}, "reply_to": "15365__1_188", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_190", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "If you think he could, how about the practice?\nDo you know if it's ever done, that the judge says I'm dissatisfied with the sentence and I would modify it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5724.958, 5728.042], "stop_times": [5728.042, 5735.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5724.958}, "reply_to": "15365__1_189", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_191", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I would think if he were only dissatisfied with the sentence, he would just modify it and not have a complete trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5735.814], "stop_times": [5742.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5735.814}, "reply_to": "15365__1_190", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_192", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But there's no -- there's no provision in Arkansas for a judge giving a new trial only on the penalty.\nIf he disagrees with the penalty, he'd either got to set it or order a compete new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5742.709, 5750.5], "stop_times": [5750.5, 5755.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5742.709}, "reply_to": "15365__1_191", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_193", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I would believe so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5755.771], "stop_times": [5756.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5755.771}, "reply_to": "15365__1_192", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_194", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I'm waiting.\nIs that right?\nYou just told us under that statute, if death was imposed under that statute, the judge fix it at light, instead.\nIs that you contend?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5756.856, 5758.808, 5759.69, 5767.588], "stop_times": [5758.808, 5759.69, 5767.588, 5769.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5756.856}, "reply_to": "15365__1_193", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_195", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's my interpretation of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5769.425], "stop_times": [5774.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5769.425}, "reply_to": "15365__1_194", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_196", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He doesn't have to order a new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5774.033], "stop_times": [5776.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5774.033}, "reply_to": "15365__1_195", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_197", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5776.245], "stop_times": [5776.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5776.245}, "reply_to": "15365__1_196", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_198", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He doesn't have to because if he didn't want to take the responsibility himself I suppose he would -- his only alternative would be to order a new trial completely because he couldn't order death penalt", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5776.524], "stop_times": [5788.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5776.524}, "reply_to": "15365__1_197", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_199", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5788.025], "stop_times": [5788.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5788.025}, "reply_to": "15365__1_198", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_200", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "When was the statute enacted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5788.882], "stop_times": [5793.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5788.882}, "reply_to": "15365__1_199", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_201", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I suppose, it's been in the revised statutes, Chapter 45, so it's -- it is as old as the -- I imagine it was back whenever the Arkansas came into the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5793.1], "stop_times": [5810.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5793.1}, "reply_to": "15365__1_200", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_202", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And you -- you don't have any idea and you're attorney general -- Deputy Attorney General, and you've never heard of it, of every being used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5810.294], "stop_times": [5819.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5810.294}, "reply_to": "15365__1_201", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_203", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5819.891], "stop_times": [5820.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5819.891}, "reply_to": "15365__1_202", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_204", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And you know it's never interpreted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5820.813], "stop_times": [5823.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5820.813}, "reply_to": "15365__1_203", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_205", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It's never been interpreted by the Supreme Court.\nI have been advised that a case -- that the Circuit Judge has reduced them, one from death to life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5823.065, 5825.121], "stop_times": [5825.121, 5833.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5823.065}, "reply_to": "15365__1_204", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_206", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Once.\nIn the whole history of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5833.108, 5833.76], "stop_times": [5833.76, 5835.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5833.108}, "reply_to": "15365__1_205", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_207", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's all I know of, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5835.275], "stop_times": [5837.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5835.275}, "reply_to": "15365__1_206", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_208", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is there any procedure under your statutes, where it really doubt about those things?\nThis Court could ask for a certificate in the Arkansas court, what that statute mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5837.321, 5843.699], "stop_times": [5843.699, 5852.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5837.321}, "reply_to": "15365__1_207", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_209", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5852.286], "stop_times": [5852.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5852.286}, "reply_to": "15365__1_208", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_210", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is there such a procedure in some states, others are barred and we reserved it a couple of times, have you got anything like that in your state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5852.571], "stop_times": [5860.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5852.571}, "reply_to": "15365__1_209", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_211", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Not that I know of, our Supreme Court has held in its decision, if it does not give advisory opinions, only when there's a case or controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5860.401], "stop_times": [5872.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5860.401}, "reply_to": "15365__1_210", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_212", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Can a judge set a judgment aside?\nI presume he can, I think -- I thought he could never stay in the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5872.985, 5875.944], "stop_times": [5875.944, 5879.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5872.985}, "reply_to": "15365__1_211", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_213", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5879.678], "stop_times": [5880.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5879.678}, "reply_to": "15365__1_212", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_214", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The only ground that it's run through it, are the weight of the evidence.\nCan he set aside a conviction on the ground that's been run through the weight of the evidence, and se aside this sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5880.156, 5884.8], "stop_times": [5884.8, 5890.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5880.156}, "reply_to": "15365__1_213", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_215", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think he can, your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5890.821], "stop_times": [5892.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5890.821}, "reply_to": "15365__1_214", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_216", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You think?\nYou don't know it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5892.276, 5892.717], "stop_times": [5892.717, 5893.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5892.276}, "reply_to": "15365__1_215", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_217", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I know he can, yes sir.\nThe Supreme Court of Arkansas as the petitioner's cited in his brief says that the Supreme Court of Arkansas can set aside a death verdict whenever there's not enough evidence to support it.\nBut just ordinarily, they can't do like -- the statute here says, they have said that they themselves do not have the power, unless the evidence is not enough to support the change --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5893.542, 5897.162, 5911.154], "stop_times": [5897.162, 5911.154, 5920.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5893.542}, "reply_to": "15365__1_216", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_218", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that's conferred on the weight of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5920.508], "stop_times": [5923.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5920.508}, "reply_to": "15365__1_217", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__1_219", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5923.154], "stop_times": [5924.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5923.154}, "reply_to": "15365__1_218", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_220", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But you talked about not enough evidence to support a death penalty.\nDo you mean not enough evidence to support rape one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5924.704, 5931.43], "stop_times": [5931.43, 5938.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5924.704}, "reply_to": "15365__1_219", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_221", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Those cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5938.742], "stop_times": [5940.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5938.742}, "reply_to": "15365__1_220", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_222", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You mean it's enough to support the judgment, not the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5940.631], "stop_times": [5944.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5940.631}, "reply_to": "15365__1_221", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__1_223", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5944.733], "stop_times": [5945.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5944.733}, "reply_to": "15365__1_222", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_224", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, a sentence without a judgment wouldn't be worthless, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5945.944], "stop_times": [5948.78], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5945.944}, "reply_to": "15365__1_223", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_225", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5948.78], "stop_times": [5950.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5948.78}, "reply_to": "15365__1_224", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_226", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, isn't under the Arkansas statute, isn't this sentence part of the judgment, when the jury has made a combined verdict of guilty and fix the penalty?\nYou don't have two documents for the judgment, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5950.534, 5962.084], "stop_times": [5962.084, 5965.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5950.534}, "reply_to": "15365__1_225", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_227", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5965.497], "stop_times": [5966.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5965.497}, "reply_to": "15365__1_226", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_228", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Just one judgment which is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5966.231], "stop_times": [5969.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5966.231}, "reply_to": "15365__1_227", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__1_229", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The court enters judgment upon the verdict of the jury, which is entered.\nMr. Justice White asked Mr. Amsterdam, concerning other felonies or other criminals conduct in Arkansas standards.\nWe believe that in this particular case, that to accept their argument, that standards must be applied in capital punishment or life imprisonment cases that are set for the jury that the court would have no alternative, but to order standards in, say cases of larceny or burglary, and Arkansas burglary is 2 to 21 years, larceny is 1 to 21 years.\nWe can see if the Court accepts it here that they could perhaps -- they would perhaps -- the next step would be to put in those types of cases.\nAnd we would -- in Arkansas, of course, we would almost have to try every one of our cases over again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [5969.008, 5975.807, 5986.316, 6012.488, 6022.208], "stop_times": [5975.807, 5986.316, 6012.488, 6022.208, 6028.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5969.008}, "reply_to": "15365__1_228", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_230", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Because if jury sentence it in all felony cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6028.275], "stop_times": [6031.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6028.275}, "reply_to": "15365__1_229", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_231", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6031.719], "stop_times": [6034.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6031.719}, "reply_to": "15365__1_230", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_232", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Unless, the jury is waived?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6034.758], "stop_times": [6036.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6034.758}, "reply_to": "15365__1_231", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_233", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6036.969], "stop_times": [6037.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6036.969}, "reply_to": "15365__1_232", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_234", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And, in non-capital cases, you can waive the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6037.96], "stop_times": [6040.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6037.96}, "reply_to": "15365__1_233", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_235", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6040.35], "stop_times": [6041.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6040.35}, "reply_to": "15365__1_234", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_236", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And tried by the judge, then judge sentence it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6041.031], "stop_times": [6043.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6041.031}, "reply_to": "15365__1_235", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_237", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6043.5], "stop_times": [6044.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6043.5}, "reply_to": "15365__1_236", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_238", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But in those cases, as I understand you, the judge sentences only on the record that's made in determining guilty or innocent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6044.09], "stop_times": [6051.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6044.09}, "reply_to": "15365__1_237", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_239", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.\nOnly single verdict procedure, the way I gathered from the petitioner's argument, he is saying that either one he would have a separate penalty trial with the same jury or two, he would have a separate jury for penalty, or three, that he would have the judge set the penalty after a hearing on allocution.\nWe submit that this Court has never held that any states should have to have a double jury, have a double hearing on this particular aspect or case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6051.06, 6057.663, 6080.327], "stop_times": [6057.663, 6080.327, 6093.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6051.06}, "reply_to": "15365__1_238", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_240", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Tell Mr. Langston, of course, this petitioner did not take the stand, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6093.86], "stop_times": [6099.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6093.86}, "reply_to": "15365__1_239", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_241", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6099.202], "stop_times": [6100.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6099.202}, "reply_to": "15365__1_240", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_242", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "When -- in your experience, when an accused does take a stand, what's the scope of the cross-examination permitted the prosecutor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6100.047], "stop_times": [6111.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6100.047}, "reply_to": "15365__1_241", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_243", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He is treated as any other witness would be, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6111.2], "stop_times": [6114.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6111.2}, "reply_to": "15365__1_242", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_244", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What's that mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6114.089], "stop_times": [6115.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6114.089}, "reply_to": "15365__1_243", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_245", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He can be asked about the prior acts of misconduct, felony convictions, and things of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6115.372], "stop_times": [6121.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6115.372}, "reply_to": "15365__1_244", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_246", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Not alone prior convictions, but also prior acts of misconduct, whether or not they resulted in prosecutions or crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6121.718], "stop_times": [6129.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6121.718}, "reply_to": "15365__1_245", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15365__1_247", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6129.608], "stop_times": [6131.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6129.608}, "reply_to": "15365__1_246", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_248", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is there any cautionary instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6131.765], "stop_times": [6134.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6131.765}, "reply_to": "15365__1_247", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__1_249", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6134.464], "stop_times": [6135.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6134.464}, "reply_to": "15365__1_248", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_250", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Even it would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6135.146], "stop_times": [6136.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6135.146}, "reply_to": "15365__1_249", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__1_251", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The judge gives a cautionary instruction that is only to go to test his credibility as a witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6136.424], "stop_times": [6144.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6136.424}, "reply_to": "15365__1_250", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_252", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But it's just not limited then to prior convictions of crime, but any acts of misconduct all his life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6144.619], "stop_times": [6153.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6144.619}, "reply_to": "15365__1_251", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__1_253", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's my understanding of the law, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6153.711], "stop_times": [6155.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6153.711}, "reply_to": "15365__1_252", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_254", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I mean may a prosecutor exist without knowledge of any actual acts misconduct, employ a form of examination to enlist it?\nDid you ever get into trouble before, that you ever get the trouble in school, all that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6155.483, 6165.377], "stop_times": [6165.377, 6170.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6155.483}, "reply_to": "15365__1_253", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__1_255", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "If the defendant answers in the negative, that ends the matter though, Your Honor.\nHe can't come back and introduce independent evidence that he did, do these acts.\nHe must take his answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6170.709, 6173.951, 6179.758], "stop_times": [6173.951, 6179.758, 6183.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6170.709}, "reply_to": "15365__1_254", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_256", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He's made his witness for that purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6183.402], "stop_times": [6185.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6183.402}, "reply_to": "15365__1_255", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_257", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct, he must take his answer, he cannot come back and introduce, he can ask him if he's been convicted of a felony, excuse me, has been guilty of acts of misconduct, if he denies, and said he did not, and he can't bring in a witness and say, \u201cYes, he did do it.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6185.192], "stop_times": [6202.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6185.192}, "reply_to": "15365__1_256", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_258", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But, the prosecutor says, \u201cDo you ever engage in a demonstration against the Vietnam War?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6202.045], "stop_times": [6208.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6202.045}, "reply_to": "15365__1_257", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__1_259", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "These -- the cases in Arkansas sort of go more to acts of misconduct, toward moral turpitude than anything else.\nLike indecent conduct or things of that nature.\nI believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6208.196, 6220.027, 6227.823], "stop_times": [6220.027, 6227.823, 6228.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6208.196}, "reply_to": "15365__1_258", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_260", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is there anything like that been asked in this case?\nNot the Vietnam War?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6228.371, 6231.654], "stop_times": [6231.654, 6233.254], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6228.371}, "reply_to": "15365__1_259", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_261", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The defendant did not take the stand, Your Honor in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6233.254], "stop_times": [6237.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6233.254}, "reply_to": "15365__1_260", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_262", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Did the state trying to bring anything like that in at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6237.777], "stop_times": [6240.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6237.777}, "reply_to": "15365__1_261", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__1_263", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI believe I turn the rest the case over to Mr. Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6240.511, 6242.845], "stop_times": [6242.845, 6256.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6240.511}, "reply_to": "15365__1_262", "speaker": "don_langston"}
{"id": "15365__1_264", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6256.367], "stop_times": [6258.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6256.367}, "reply_to": "15365__1_263", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_000", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.\nThe interest of California in this case is a fairly narrow one, in terms of the questions that were -- or the issues that was set forth by Mr. Amsterdam at the start of his argument.\nWe are not concerned about the single verdict procedure, because we have in common with a number of other states, a bifurcated trial, and we have separate verdicts for both guilt and a verdict for the penalty in capital cases only.\nOtherwise, almost all sentencing in California is by the judge and usually where the presentence report and all a number of other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6258.135, 6262.994, 6276.168, 6292.085], "stop_times": [6262.994, 6276.168, 6292.085, 6302.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6258.135}, "reply_to": "15365__1_264", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_001", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How many states, besides California have different theory based on the evidence, with reference to guilt and the reference to sentence presented?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6302.771], "stop_times": [6315.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6302.771}, "reply_to": "15365__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_002", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, first of all we don't have a different jury.\nIt's normally the same jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6315.062, 6318.818], "stop_times": [6318.818, 6320.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6315.062}, "reply_to": "15365__2_001", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_003", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "On a different trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6320.792], "stop_times": [6321.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6320.792}, "reply_to": "15365__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_004", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But it's a different trial.\nIt's a different face of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6321.733, 6322.862], "stop_times": [6322.862, 6324.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6321.733}, "reply_to": "15365__2_003", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_005", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, how many states, besides California do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6324.878], "stop_times": [6328.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6324.878}, "reply_to": "15365__2_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_006", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't know categorically, Your Honor.\nI think Mr. Amsterdam said about eight this morning, and I would accept that as an accurate statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6328.084, 6330.625], "stop_times": [6330.625, 6336.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6328.084}, "reply_to": "15365__2_005", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_007", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Has there been any change in California law since the Henderson opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6336.773], "stop_times": [6343.727], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6336.773}, "reply_to": "15365__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_008", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, there are always changes in California law, Your Honor but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6343.727], "stop_times": [6346.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6343.727}, "reply_to": "15365__2_007", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_009", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I mean that decision hasn't been qualified or modified or--?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6346.862], "stop_times": [6350.253], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6346.862}, "reply_to": "15365__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_010", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I don't believe that it has, at least nothing connects at the moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6350.253], "stop_times": [6355.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6350.253}, "reply_to": "15365__2_009", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_011", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I take it Mr. Harris, if the defendant takes that stand at the guilt side or he cannot, a cross-examination be asked about as an Arkansas acts of misconduct of prior convictions, and that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6355.849], "stop_times": [6371.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6355.849}, "reply_to": "15365__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_012", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, he can only be asked the same questions as any other witness could be asked.\nHe could be asked about a prior felony, and so far as that would impeach his credibility.\nHe could be asked about questions that might reflect on bias and so forth, but he couldn't be asked generally about prior misconduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6371.278, 6374.736, 6378.647], "stop_times": [6374.736, 6378.647, 6387.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6371.278}, "reply_to": "15365__2_011", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_013", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But he could be asked about prior convictions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6387.315], "stop_times": [6389.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6387.315}, "reply_to": "15365__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_014", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, to impeach his credibility, any witness can about it, with a prior felony conviction in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6389.908], "stop_times": [6395.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6389.908}, "reply_to": "15365__2_013", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_015", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "So, he's up against the same difficulty, about taking the stand then as sort of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6395.57], "stop_times": [6401.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6395.57}, "reply_to": "15365__2_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_016", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I don't think he's up to the -- anywhere near the same difficulty.\nHe doesn't have to take the stand in the guilt phase, of course, no comment can be made on if he doesn't.\nHe can take the stand in a penalty phase, after guilt has already been determine, and give whatever explanation he has.\nBy the same token, the people can show in that proceeding, anything in his history a background that in their judgment reflects adversely on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6401.662, 6405.928, 6411.543, 6420.542], "stop_times": [6405.928, 6411.543, 6420.542, 6428.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6401.662}, "reply_to": "15365__2_015", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_017", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, but I mean, he does -- he is -- has something with dilemma at the guilt trial, whether or not to take the stand if he is previously been convicted of the crime, does he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6428.132], "stop_times": [6439.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6428.132}, "reply_to": "15365__2_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_018", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that's true and that's true and that's true of any witness who might be called by anyone.\nHe's subject to cross examination, and his credibility has to be assessed, just like any other witness' credibility.\nBut we don't have any special rules as to criminal defendants, except that I think there's more of a tendency to limit cross-examinations, so you don't get beyond the scope of what he has waived by taking the stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6439.053, 6447.63, 6454.577], "stop_times": [6447.63, 6454.577, 6468.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6439.053}, "reply_to": "15365__2_017", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_019", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And that the guilt -- that the penalty phase, the state can introduce prior conduct, whether the defendant takes the stand or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6468.857], "stop_times": [6475.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6468.857}, "reply_to": "15365__2_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_020", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct your Honor, the state can prove prior crimes, if they do, they have to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, the juries so instructed and things of that nature.\nNow, we are also not concern with the Witherspoon question, as that has been presented here, leaving that to the parties.\nOur interest in this case, and the reason we're appearing here is solely on the question of whether the Constitution somehow requires the juries be given some limiting and restricting standards in deciding on the question of whether life imprisonment or a death sentence should be imposed in capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6475.846, 6488.736, 6498.141], "stop_times": [6488.736, 6498.141, 6517.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6475.846}, "reply_to": "15365__2_019", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_021", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "You mean some standards in addition, the standards they have set out to finding the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6517.091], "stop_times": [6523.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6517.091}, "reply_to": "15365__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_022", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, those standards of course, are very clear and specific as to whether or not there is a murder on the first degree.\nI presume a rape in Arkansas or whatever the crime might be.\nThese would be standards, and really limitations and restrictions going solely to the question of penalty, having nothing to do with guilt, that having been determined already by definition.\nIt's done formally in California, in Arkansas it isn't and I don't want to enter in that dispute.\nI would like to clarify one point, because of the national implications that were made clear by Mr. Amsterdam, and that's another reason why we're here.\nIn California, there is a process, by which the judge can pass in his discretion, and it's the same kind of absolute discretion without reference to any formal standards that the jury is suppose to exercise.\nOne there has been a death penalty, and he can if he sees fit in light of all the evidence, all of the factors that are involved, reduce it to a life sentence, and there it is forevermore a life sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6523.739, 6530.202, 6534.082, 6544.925, 6552.473, 6561.159, 6577.603], "stop_times": [6530.202, 6534.082, 6544.925, 6552.473, 6561.159, 6577.603, 6589.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6523.739}, "reply_to": "15365__2_021", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_023", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That is the trial judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6589.132], "stop_times": [6590.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6589.132}, "reply_to": "15365__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_024", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That is the trial judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6590.517], "stop_times": [6592.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6590.517}, "reply_to": "15365__2_023", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_025", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In his discretion without giving any reasons of any kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6592.154], "stop_times": [6596.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6592.154}, "reply_to": "15365__2_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_026", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He doesn't have to give any reasons and probably it's better if he didn't, but he has the same scope of discretion that the jury has, that's my point, there is judicial review at the trial level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6596.1], "stop_times": [6606.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6596.1}, "reply_to": "15365__2_025", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_027", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "General has -- when in the appellate don't they have right too?\nIt's easy for me, we saw one recently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6606.93, 6611.177], "stop_times": [6611.177, 6614.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6606.93}, "reply_to": "15365__2_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__2_028", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, Your Honor, the appellate court can of course, find for example the evidence isn't sufficient for murder in the first degree, and so it make it murder second.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6614.75], "stop_times": [6623.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6614.75}, "reply_to": "15365__2_027", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_029", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6623.748], "stop_times": [6624.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6623.748}, "reply_to": "15365__2_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__2_030", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But they have said, although it was \u2013 Justice Peters of the court takes a counter review that they will not, as a matter of discretion and judgment reduce a death sentence to a life sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6624.358], "stop_times": [6635.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6624.358}, "reply_to": "15365__2_029", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_031", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But what they often do, in my observation, perhaps I'm dreaming, is to affirm the conviction that set aside the death sentence imposed in the penalty phase of the trial, because of error occurring in that phase of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6635.349], "stop_times": [6649.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6635.349}, "reply_to": "15365__2_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_032", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That very commonly occurred, your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6649.6], "stop_times": [6651.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6649.6}, "reply_to": "15365__2_031", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_033", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I thought so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6651.021], "stop_times": [6651.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6651.021}, "reply_to": "15365__2_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_034", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Then, you get a new jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6651.864], "stop_times": [6653.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6651.864}, "reply_to": "15365__2_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_035", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Pardon me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6653.603], "stop_times": [6654.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6653.603}, "reply_to": "15365__2_034", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_036", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Then when it goes back, you have a different jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6654.198], "stop_times": [6656.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6654.198}, "reply_to": "15365__2_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_037", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's correct, you have a different jury or you can waive a jury if he's so inclined, provided the people way of his wealth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6656.468], "stop_times": [6664.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6656.468}, "reply_to": "15365__2_036", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_038", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I suppose, for this absolute unreviewable discretion of the trial judge to reduce from death to a life sentence, this mean of course, that if there are some judges who have conscientious objections, and scruples about the death penalty, they would set aside death penalties more readily and no one could review that, is that correct?\nNo one can question the judge about his decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6664.558, 6691.509], "stop_times": [6691.509, 6694.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6664.558}, "reply_to": "15365__2_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_039", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No one can question the judge, in terms of an appeal from his judgment, that's correct Your Honor.\nNow, there may be some questions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6694.527, 6701.739], "stop_times": [6701.739, 6702.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6694.527}, "reply_to": "15365__2_038", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_040", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I suppose I could some of Mr. Amsterdam's arguments that bartered on unequal protection to now with equal protection might reach your situation too, for such similar case here today, so I won't burden you with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6702.143], "stop_times": [6720.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6702.143}, "reply_to": "15365__2_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_041", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, it's a -- I think there's another facet of the situation in California, as well, that distinguishes it from a single verdict situation and meet some of the objections that have been raised here, and that is the objection generally that -- what the jury does on penalties is an uninformed judgment, maybe it's arbitrary, maybe it's even discriminatory.\nIn California with the entire procedure is such that evidence can be introduced by both sides and commonly is, but it's not unusual at all.\nA psychiatric evidence can be introduced, sociological evidence, anything that in the opinion of the district attorney or the defense attorney might carry some weight with jury on the matter of penalty.\nAll of this evidence comes in and the only restrictions that I'm familiar with are those upon the prosecution, which cannot show certain things.\nFor example, you can't prove a crime, unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you fail on that burden of proof, this would be as to prior crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6720.075, 6748.955, 6758.025, 6770.947, 6780.909], "stop_times": [6748.955, 6758.025, 6770.947, 6780.909, 6789.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6720.075}, "reply_to": "15365__2_040", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_042", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, it's certainly just the -- you could -- couldn't you just do some documentary evidence of a conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6789.741], "stop_times": [6797.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6789.741}, "reply_to": "15365__2_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_043", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, you could do that.\nWhat I had in mind, crimes that are not necessarily been reduced to a conviction, those could be proven too.\nOr the defendant can prove his good record or whatever he thinks may be in his behalf, he can call witnesses, he call clergymen, psychiatrist, as I say, and a like (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6797.001, 6799.47, 6805.415], "stop_times": [6799.47, 6805.415, 6820.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6797.001}, "reply_to": "15365__2_042", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_044", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is there a summing up to the jury by counsel for each side after the evidence on this penalty thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6820.149], "stop_times": [6826.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6820.149}, "reply_to": "15365__2_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_045", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "There is a very protracted, a very commonly, very protracted summing up, yes.\nFull argument on both sides, and that at that point, the case is submitted to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6826.629, 6832.76], "stop_times": [6832.76, 6837.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6826.629}, "reply_to": "15365__2_044", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_046", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Under what kind of instructions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6837.882], "stop_times": [6839.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6837.882}, "reply_to": "15365__2_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_047", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, the instruction is based basically upon the statute and in light of Mr. Amsterdam's remarks this morning about the lack of legislative determination of some of these problems.\nI took a look at our statute, which is Section 190.1 of the Penal Code, rather long section, but it explains in a good deal of detail and nature of the penalty hearing, what kind of evidence can be introduced, and what the jury is suppose to do.\nNow, they're not left in the dark by any means.\nIt's provided specifically that evidence may be produced at the penalty trial of the circumstances surrounding the crime, of the defendant's background and history, and of any facts and aggravation or mitigation of the penalty.\nThe determination and this is what they say to the jury and to the judge, this is what our legislature is so, the determination of the penalty of life imprisonment or death shall be in the discretion of the court or jury, trying the issue of fact on the evidence presented.\nAnd the penalty fixed shall be expressly stated in the decision or verdict.\nNow, I think it's clear that this does not anticipate any kind of an arbitrary judgment by the jury or the judge.\nAnd he is to make the -- he or the juries to make the decision on the evidence presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6839.778, 6854.32, 6871.508, 6874.45, 6893.19, 6910.226, 6916.148, 6925.787], "stop_times": [6854.32, 6871.508, 6874.45, 6893.19, 6910.226, 6916.148, 6925.787, 6931.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6839.778}, "reply_to": "15365__2_046", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_048", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I asked too, what sort of instruction is there are given to the jury?\nDoes that judge normally just quote the statutory language that you read to us in reaching the decision, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you should consider the circumstances of the crime, the defendant's background and history, any other facts or circumstances that may \u2013 whatever you read to us, does he say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6931.803, 6937.26], "stop_times": [6937.26, 6954.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6931.803}, "reply_to": "15365__2_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_049", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's essentially -- you may consider all of the evidence of those things that you've just mentioned, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6954.289], "stop_times": [6958.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6954.289}, "reply_to": "15365__2_048", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_050", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I'm just trying to remember what you read to us, but I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6958.662], "stop_times": [6961.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6958.662}, "reply_to": "15365__2_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_051", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It's phrased in terms of you may do this and you may do that, but basically it's the statutory language.\nThey're also told this, and this seems to be the heart of the petitioner's compliant.\nHowever, it is not essential to your decision that you find mitigating circumstances on the one hand or evidence in aggravation of the offense on the other.\nAnd this of course, is the more or less the -- represents the historical process that was discussed this morning.\nThey're also told this, and I think this excludes arbitrariness, and I think it excludes any of the things that we heard this morning.\nNotwithstanding facts if any proved in mitigation or aggravation.\nIn determining which punishment shall be inflicted, you are entirely free to act according to you own judgment, conscience, and absolute discretion.\nThat verdict must express the individual opinion of each juror.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [6961.829, 6967.351, 6973.366, 6982.752, 6992.178, 7000.577, 7005.961, 7016.17], "stop_times": [6967.351, 6973.366, 6982.752, 6992.178, 7000.577, 7005.961, 7016.17, 7020.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6961.829}, "reply_to": "15365__2_050", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_052", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But you knew in California has some kind of standing also, maybe not enough if I understand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7020.526], "stop_times": [7027.866], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7020.526}, "reply_to": "15365__2_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_053", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think that's true Mr. Justice Harlan, and I think perhaps we've too readily accept that the working proposition with the purposes of argument that there are no standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7027.866], "stop_times": [7039.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7027.866}, "reply_to": "15365__2_052", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_054", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well its absolute discretion of those imposing words?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7039.221], "stop_times": [7042.241], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7039.221}, "reply_to": "15365__2_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_055", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That is -- those are two words, \u201cabsolute discretion.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7042.241], "stop_times": [7044.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7042.241}, "reply_to": "15365__2_054", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_056", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is that a standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7044.615], "stop_times": [7046.204], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7044.615}, "reply_to": "15365__2_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_057", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, it's a standard, as standards have developed in this kind of -- this (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7046.204], "stop_times": [7054.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7046.204}, "reply_to": "15365__2_056", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_058", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "(Voice Overlap) determination of what the legislature in California wants a jury to consider in this penalty phase of the trial, is it not?\nTo consider those \u2013 that statutory language, but ultimately in the end saying, it's entirely up to your discretion.\nAt least, that's a clear expression of the legislature that was their intent.\nIt wasn't done -- we don't have a situation that's been created by inadvertence, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7054.711, 7063.417, 7071.42, 7074.696], "stop_times": [7063.417, 7071.42, 7074.696, 7080.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7054.711}, "reply_to": "15365__2_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_059", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Certainly not, I can't imagine anymore specific statement of the legislative intent, and its clear recognition of the problem.\nNow, it may not be the best solution, it may be better, it may be more logical, and it may be you've added symmetry to the law to say, you have to have mandatory death standards.\nIt may be that the \u2013 or standards for mandatory death sentences, it may be the Constitution requires that this Court move back 70 or 100 years, I suppose, and say well you have a death sentence that has to be a mandatory sentence with no discretion.\nI find that hard to believe.\nThe decision of this Court over 70 years ago in Winston against the United States, today I think as well as any other -- anything I've ever read sums up the kind of considerations that I think any of us would agree, should be considered by a jury.\nAnd I'm not talking about impermissible considerations, but you'll recall in Winston, the Court, this Court rejected a standard and held that a standard should not be implied, that death should be returned in the absence of mitigating circumstances.\nNow, that's a standard of sorts, perhaps not a very specific one, but it is a standard.\nThis Court held that that did not express the intent of Congress, as manifest in the legislation.\nBut in discussing this, the Court pointed to some of the things that they thought should be considered, and would seem to me they should be considered today.\nThey said, how far considerations of age, sex, ignorance, illness, or intoxication of human passion or weakness, of sympathy or clemency, or the irrevocableness of an executed sentence of death or an apprehension that explanatory facts may exists, which have not been brought to light or any other consideration or whatever, should be allowed to wait in deciding the question whether the accused should or should not be capitally punished as committed by the act of Congress to the sound discretion of the jury and of the jury alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7080.814, 7091.01, 7102.079, 7118.153, 7120.225, 7137.528, 7153.207, 7158.415, 7166.126, 7175.657], "stop_times": [7091.01, 7102.079, 7118.153, 7120.225, 7137.528, 7153.207, 7158.415, 7166.126, 7175.657, 7214.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7080.814}, "reply_to": "15365__2_058", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_060", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's a shaping of standards in a way, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7214.668], "stop_times": [7218.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7214.668}, "reply_to": "15365__2_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_061", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "It's certainly a discussion of the factors, a statement listing of the factors Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7218.515], "stop_times": [7225.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7218.515}, "reply_to": "15365__2_060", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_062", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Harris, your brief refers throughout to your standard in this procedure from this connection, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7225.257], "stop_times": [7234.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7225.257}, "reply_to": "15365__2_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__2_063", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes it does, Your Honor, we've --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7234.59], "stop_times": [7236.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7234.59}, "reply_to": "15365__2_062", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_064", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Standard in this procedure and you read somewhere in the language of this Court, from the Witherspoon case, as I read your brief.\nThat a juror that must choose between life imprisonment and capital punishment can do little more and must do nothing less to express the conscience of the community on the question of life and death.\nThat's what you quoted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7236.888, 7248.288, 7264.058], "stop_times": [7248.288, 7264.058, 7265.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7236.888}, "reply_to": "15365__2_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__2_065", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, we quoted that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7265.251], "stop_times": [7266.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7265.251}, "reply_to": "15365__2_064", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_066", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In connect with your standards, this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7266.089], "stop_times": [7271.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7266.089}, "reply_to": "15365__2_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15365__2_067", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's right, and we think in doing that, and the legislature in setting up the structure before doing that is not required to limit or restrict the discretion of the jury in anyway.\nThat essentially what standard means in this context, I think.\nCertainly, it doesn't mean that anyone can be taken off the street and because the jury doesn't like him executed.\nThe ball of question arises only after a conviction of a capital offense and as to that the standards are very strict.\nHistorically, it's clear that the motivation here was to permit juries to draw distinctions in terms of humane and emotional considerations, and I think the thought in the minds of legislatures, that we can't list everything that might be material.\nWe cannot anticipate everything and we don't want to limit the discretion of the jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7271.436, 7287.44, 7292.537, 7299.051, 7306.524, 7324.885], "stop_times": [7287.44, 7292.537, 7299.051, 7306.524, 7324.885, 7330.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7271.436}, "reply_to": "15365__2_066", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_068", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Harris, do you allow judicial sentencing in pleas of guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7330.063], "stop_times": [7336.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7330.063}, "reply_to": "15365__2_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_069", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That's the standard, pardon me.\nIn death, in capital cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7336.504, 7338.762], "stop_times": [7338.762, 7340.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7336.504}, "reply_to": "15365__2_068", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_070", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7340.179], "stop_times": [7341.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7340.179}, "reply_to": "15365__2_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_071", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, it's up to the defendant --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7341.761], "stop_times": [7344.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7341.761}, "reply_to": "15365__2_070", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_072", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What if he waives the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7344.167], "stop_times": [7345.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7344.167}, "reply_to": "15365__2_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_073", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "He has the right to a jury, if he waives it we permit sentencing by the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7345.668], "stop_times": [7349.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7345.668}, "reply_to": "15365__2_072", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_074", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "What standards are provided for him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7349.829], "stop_times": [7352.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7349.829}, "reply_to": "15365__2_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_075", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "None, except those that I have alluded to and supplied to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7352.382], "stop_times": [7358.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7352.382}, "reply_to": "15365__2_074", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_076", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But you do, I take it that if the judges sentencing, does he have a presentence report or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7358.059], "stop_times": [7365.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7358.059}, "reply_to": "15365__2_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_077", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, in a capital case, I don't think a capital case would be handled exactly that way.\nI think you would a more formal proceeding, that simply presentence report.\nIt would certainly be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7365.605, 7371.882, 7376.937], "stop_times": [7371.882, 7376.937, 7379.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7365.605}, "reply_to": "15365__2_076", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_078", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But the judge would -- if he waives the jury trial of the sentence, part of it, why the judge would just try that on the same evidence, and the jury would hear it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7379.599], "stop_times": [7390.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7379.599}, "reply_to": "15365__2_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15365__2_079", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I believe that's true, yes sir, it would be -- that's not uncommon to have a trial before the judge on this issue of penalty, with the same evidence, with the same considerations in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7390.76], "stop_times": [7401.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7390.76}, "reply_to": "15365__2_078", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_080", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But may there also be a waiver just on the guilt -- plea of guilty to the crime, but then a jury trial on penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7401.649], "stop_times": [7408.398], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7401.649}, "reply_to": "15365__2_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_081", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Exactly, and that happens not infrequently.\nAnd this -- it seems to be underlying, this whole argument of the petitioner here, the notion that unless there is uniform treatment handed out in convicted criminals, that there has been some violation of some provision of the Constitution.\nNow, if there's one thing that's clear over the last half century, it is -- and this Court expressed very clearly and noted with approval, the practice of fitting the punishment not to the crime, but to the offender.\nAnd it's not uncommon to have a whole variety of penalties handed out to a number of people, who have committed precisely the same crime, because you look to their background, you look to their role in the crime, you look to the nature of what each of those persons did.\nAnd the Court has found nothing of constitutional dimensions in any way to bar this kind of procedure.\nNow, we think that the leaving to the jury, the opportunity to extend mercy to a man who is convicted of a crime, potentially involved in a capital punishment, is simply an application of fitting the punishment to the offender and not to the crime.\nNow, there's nothing -- not only is there nothing wrong with that, we think that's a -- and I think there's general agreement among people who know about these things that this what science has taught us, this is what everything we've learned has taught us.\nAnd the capital sentencing is very typical of other sentencing in that respect in fitting the punishment to the offender.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7408.398, 7417.347, 7436.741, 7454.086, 7470.992, 7479.617, 7496.822, 7511.37], "stop_times": [7417.347, 7436.741, 7454.086, 7470.992, 7479.617, 7496.822, 7511.37, 7520.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7408.398}, "reply_to": "15365__2_080", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_082", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The guilty verdict, not in terms of the penalty, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7520.8], "stop_times": [7524.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7520.8}, "reply_to": "15365__2_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_083", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, that's true Your Honor, but these are standards, and as I understand it, we're mitigating circumstances are listed as in the Model Penal Code, that is it, if you don't come under one of those, there's no way you can go to the jury and say this poor man should have his life spared, because he was good to his mother or something like and we can do that in California.\nThe only limitation on the defense in California is the ingenuity and the resourcefulness of the defense.\nIf he think of something that might appeal to one person on the jury, which is really all you need because you need unanimous jury.\nHe's free to urge it, and we see nothing wrong with that, and we don't see anything that necessarily or even logically would result in arbitrariness.\nWe think it's fair, and has worked pretty well over the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7524.924, 7545.627, 7551.422, 7559.028, 7567.985], "stop_times": [7545.627, 7551.422, 7559.028, 7567.985, 7571.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7524.924}, "reply_to": "15365__2_082", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_084", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But if there's a -- if the jury can't agree on that, does it automatically get life -- what happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7571.034], "stop_times": [7575.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7571.034}, "reply_to": "15365__2_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_085", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, there are alternative provisions, if the jury disagrees, the judge can either impanel a jury or he can take the case and give him a life sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7575.888], "stop_times": [7585.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7575.888}, "reply_to": "15365__2_084", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_086", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "The judge can?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7585.751], "stop_times": [7586.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7585.751}, "reply_to": "15365__2_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_087", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "That judge can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7586.33], "stop_times": [7586.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7586.33}, "reply_to": "15365__2_086", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_088", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But he cannot do more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7586.917], "stop_times": [7588.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7586.917}, "reply_to": "15365__2_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15365__2_089", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, he can't do anymore than that.\nNow, I think if look a little -- and I think we have to look at what is it that the states should do, and what should the federal government do, if what we do now is wrong, in terms of standards.\nAnd I'm not talking about the single verdict, but in terms of standards, if what we're doing now is wrong, what is it that we should do?\nNow, this is something that was covered in Witherspoon very carefully.\nAt least in noting what was not forbidden in Witherspoon, and giving the states guidelines as to what to do with these cases when they came back.\nNow in listening to the argument today and in the reading the briefs, I haven't seen anything that's specifically points to the what the states could do to meet the standards that the petitioners submit have to be established.\nThey say if you look at the Model Penal Code, you'll find one you've limited defendants, there are things they can't urge.\nAnd I don't think the people want that situation.\nEven under the Model Penal Code you get down to formulations like this, it's easy to talk about standards, but what is the final formulation to a jury under the Model Penal Code.\nWell, if found an aggravating circumstance, which could be -- for example he killed more than one person or he committed a felony in certain kinds and in connecting with the killing.\nIf you find an aggravating circumstance, you may return a death a sentence, you don't have to, you may, but then you have to determine whether the mitigating circumstances are not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.\nNow, what's the jury's told, that's the instruction.\nAnd that would be my guess that a jury would go back and talk about these mitigating circumstances, and come back with a judge, and say well you told us what we could consider.\nBut how do we weigh each of these items, and how we determine when a particular circumstance is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.\nAnd I think the judge would have to say, \u201cWell, you use your discretion, that's what then your sound discretion.\u201d\nSo, where are you except that you have limited the defendant, and you set up a kind of an artificial and a structure that meets what the petitioners think all statutes should consist of and you ignored the experience of all the states that have the death sentence, and the United States Government, and for what end.\nI think as the end would be a jury, still left with having to come to that fundamental decision.\nIs this man going to die or is he going to live, and bare in mind that it's a man who has committed a capital offense and has been found guilty.\nIt's not someone off the street.\nAnd one thing that has been emphasized in California, and there are number of cases that repeat this theme, and it runs through all of the death penalty cases.\nWe have many, many cases that deal only with penalty procedures, many appellate decisions.\nAnd we've had countless retrials, solely on penalty, but a theme that runs through all of those decisions is this, you've got to convince the juror that it's his individual responsibility for that verdict.\nWhen he goes out of that courtroom or he comes back with a verdict, it's his decision that this man should die.\nHe cannot leave the decision in someone else's hand.\nYou can't tell him the governor may grant clemency, because he's not supposed to think about such things.\nIf he mentions anything about parole, he's not supposed to worry about the parole board making a mistake.\nIt has to be his individual decision, and anything that has impeached that individual decision has been held bad in California.\nNow, I think this is the -- the best way to administer this system if the death penalty is to continue and its validity asset is not an issue in this case.\nIf it's going to continue, and if you're going to conclude that not every member, not every person who commits murder one, should be executed.\nThen, I think that the -- what we do is the fairest and the most rational, if I may use that word, way of concluding who should be executed that I have heard about.\nAnd I think it's far preferable to the Model Penal Code, and I certainly think the legislature would reject notions of mandatory death sentences, in light of our whole experience.\nEmphasizing this individual responsibility, I think gives the defendant the fair shake, and emphasizing to the jury that they have to consider the evidence, that they have to consider things that are produced in court, excludes, I think the possibility of any of the arbitrariness that's been mentioned here, earlier.\nI have no doubt that a jury in California can't point to any decision, but I have no doubt that if a defendant thought that racial prejudice, status, class, position, or anything of that sort might possibly influence any single juror that he could ask the judge to please instruct them to get such things out of their minds.\nI don't think those -- it's very unlikely that that would enter the minds of the jurors, but if there were any possibility, that could certainly be excluded.\nThey wouldn't have anymore of a standard, but should be telling you, you can't rely on these things.\nThat could be done, whether it could be done in Arkansas, I don't know, probably --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7588.668, 7591.116, 7602.916, 7608.958, 7613.043, 7621.896, 7636.815, 7643.27, 7647.902, 7656.663, 7667.166, 7684.358, 7688.006, 7697.824, 7708.375, 7715.194, 7737.746, 7745.707, 7753.062, 7755.447, 7764.28, 7769.669, 7782.424, 7788.621, 7792.465, 7797.209, 7802.062, 7811.868, 7826.452, 7834.418, 7846.863, 7858.933, 7879.325, 7901.591, 7911.836, 7916.105], "stop_times": [7591.116, 7602.916, 7608.958, 7613.043, 7621.896, 7636.815, 7643.27, 7647.902, 7656.663, 7667.166, 7684.358, 7688.006, 7697.824, 7708.375, 7715.194, 7737.746, 7745.707, 7753.062, 7755.447, 7764.28, 7769.669, 7782.424, 7788.621, 7792.465, 7797.209, 7802.062, 7811.868, 7826.452, 7834.418, 7846.863, 7858.933, 7879.325, 7901.591, 7911.836, 7916.105, 7922.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7588.668}, "reply_to": "15365__2_088", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_090", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Harris, may I ask a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7922.873], "stop_times": [7923.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7922.873}, "reply_to": "15365__2_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_091", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7923.773], "stop_times": [7927.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7923.773}, "reply_to": "15365__2_090", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_092", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "We have vast reports about how many they are in death row in California.\nDo you know how many they are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7927.425, 7932.454], "stop_times": [7932.454, 7935.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7927.425}, "reply_to": "15365__2_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_093", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, I think Mr. Amsterdam gave the figure of 85 to 90, which about thelast I heard.\nI could get the precise figure for you, Your Honor.\nBut it's in that dimension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7935.596, 7941.188, 7943.657], "stop_times": [7941.188, 7943.657, 7945.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7935.596}, "reply_to": "15365__2_092", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_094", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, does that -- that seems to be a great many more than any in the other states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7945.214], "stop_times": [7953.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7945.214}, "reply_to": "15365__2_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_095", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes sir, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7953.08], "stop_times": [7954.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7953.08}, "reply_to": "15365__2_094", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_096", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Does that indicate that the more executions in California than in other states, percentage of according to the population?\nHow do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7954.533, 7964.768], "stop_times": [7964.768, 7965.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7954.533}, "reply_to": "15365__2_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_097", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't know about the statistics over time Your Honor.\nI think that the accumulation at the moment is due to the stays over the last eight years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7965.993, 7968.58], "stop_times": [7968.58, 7975.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7965.993}, "reply_to": "15365__2_096", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_098", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No doubt about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7975.798], "stop_times": [7976.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7975.798}, "reply_to": "15365__2_097", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_099", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But the stays have been applicable in great many other states too, have they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7976.869], "stop_times": [7980.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7976.869}, "reply_to": "15365__2_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__2_100", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, they have.\nI think the last figure for jury verdicts of death that I saw was around 20.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7980.733, 7982.074], "stop_times": [7982.074, 7988.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7980.733}, "reply_to": "15365__2_099", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_101", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Do you know whether been any effect on the amount of death sentences by dividing it up that you do between the original trial and the sentencing trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [7988.346], "stop_times": [8001.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7988.346}, "reply_to": "15365__2_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_102", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In terms of numbers, I don't Mr. Justice Black.\nI have no information on that as far as the number.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8001.935, 8005.174], "stop_times": [8005.174, 8007.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8001.935}, "reply_to": "15365__2_101", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_103", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I wonder if you could supply us of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8007.966], "stop_times": [8009.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8007.966}, "reply_to": "15365__2_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_104", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8009.888], "stop_times": [8010.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8009.888}, "reply_to": "15365__2_103", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_105", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Maybe you could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8010.31], "stop_times": [8010.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8010.31}, "reply_to": "15365__2_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_106", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I can certainly try to and if I can get it out, I'd be glad to supply the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8010.786], "stop_times": [8013.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8010.786}, "reply_to": "15365__2_105", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_107", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Excuse Mr. Harris, I didn't understand.\nYou say 20 was the number of jury imposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8013.183, 8014.596], "stop_times": [8014.596, 8019.522], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8013.183}, "reply_to": "15365__2_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_108", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think that's the last figure I saw.\nWe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8019.522, 8021.321], "stop_times": [8021.321, 8021.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8019.522}, "reply_to": "15365__2_107", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_109", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Who imposed the rest of them, of the 80 to 90?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8021.913], "stop_times": [8023.937], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8021.913}, "reply_to": "15365__2_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_110", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nThese go back, my gosh!\nThey go back ten years.\nI mean for one year, there were some 20 (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8023.937, 8024.073, 8025.84, 8027.386], "stop_times": [8024.073, 8025.84, 8027.386, 8029.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8023.937}, "reply_to": "15365__2_109", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_111", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nIn a single year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8029.86, 8030.351], "stop_times": [8030.351, 8030.991], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8029.86}, "reply_to": "15365__2_110", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_112", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In a single year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8030.991], "stop_times": [8031.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8030.991}, "reply_to": "15365__2_111", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_113", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nI see, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8031.406, 8031.788], "stop_times": [8031.788, 8032.737], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8031.406}, "reply_to": "15365__2_112", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_114", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "And the 80 or the 90 or whatever it is goes -- I know of some that go back at least ten years.\nSo, I think that's a typical of the situation arising from stays.\nAnd I think the submission of the petitioner here that this Court should, as far as the standards issue goes, as I understood Mr. Amsterdam this morning, in effect or it says it directly, set aside 505 approximately death sentences imposed throughout the United States.\nFor some defect, that it is also submitted cannot be corrected at least in terms of anything that we've been able to discuss here today and anything that you could tell to the states and to the Congress of the United States, in terms of this is what you should do, instead of what you've done.\nI think this would be a very unfortunate situation.\nAnd what the inability to articulate standards, I think doesn't show a lack of resourcefulness, but it shows us of the equalities that are involved here and the problems that are involved here are just such that we cannot reduce the problem to specific factors and way each any arbitrary manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8032.737, 8038.847, 8045.734, 8066.394, 8088.27, 8092.571], "stop_times": [8038.847, 8045.734, 8066.394, 8088.27, 8092.571, 8115.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8032.737}, "reply_to": "15365__2_113", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_115", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nWhat -- what, as you experienced, I'm trying to pass it to the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8115.067, 8115.219], "stop_times": [8115.219, 8119.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8115.067}, "reply_to": "15365__2_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_116", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8119.445], "stop_times": [8120.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8119.445}, "reply_to": "15365__2_115", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_117", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Talk about standard, standard of course, the basic standard for any crime is the death admission of the crime.\nDo you have a definition in your state for offensive rape?\nNow, I could assume that the no purpose for standard, except to try divide up the types of crime, with reference to that atrocity, that ruthlessness, defendant's past experience, but can you think of any way as an Attorney General that you could that with just that simply saying that you've got to divide the crime of rape up into a number of different crimes of different degrees according to the circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8120.652, 8129.489, 8133.739], "stop_times": [8129.489, 8133.739, 8167.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8120.652}, "reply_to": "15365__2_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_118", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think you have to -- well, you would have to redefine the crime and say in effect will only allow the death penalty in a smaller class of cases.\nAs Your Honor said, in certain kinds of rape or by the same token in murder, and there's been no suggestion here that State of California has gone too far in defining first-degree murder or brought in cases that constitutionally can't be brought in.\nAnd as I understand the argument, there would be no objection whatever, as far as this argument goes, if the State of California said humane considerations don't concern us, we'll impose a death penalty straight out, as to every man convicted of murder in the first degree.\nAnd I can't believe that the Constitution of the United States requires that the people of California take that view, which 100 years ago might have been acceptable, but it's not acceptable today, simply for these artificial reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8167.901, 8177.357, 8192.549, 8209.273], "stop_times": [8177.357, 8192.549, 8209.273, 8224.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8167.901}, "reply_to": "15365__2_117", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_119", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "How can you define standard without having some kind of a step-by-step as to enormity of the crime that you think it's been committed?\nAnd how can you get that in any language that could be administered in a decent way of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8224.155, 8233.701], "stop_times": [8233.701, 8241.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8224.155}, "reply_to": "15365__2_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15365__2_120", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I don't think you can Mr. Justice Black, and meet the needs of the society and anticipate giving the defendant every opportunity to show that his life should be spared.\nAnd I don't see how you can put qualities, as I mentioned a year ago of mercy and compassion in a scale of standards.\nAnd assign some arbitrary weight or even if you please define what mercy or compassion mean.\nAnd I don't think that judges are anymore capable of extending mercy than the citizens on a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8241.778, 8255.924, 8266.385, 8275.036], "stop_times": [8255.924, 8266.385, 8275.036, 8283.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8241.778}, "reply_to": "15365__2_119", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_121", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Does your Adult Authority play any part of death sentencing position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8283.077], "stop_times": [8287.468], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8283.077}, "reply_to": "15365__2_120", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_122", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, it plays no role whatever in the death sentencing, Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8287.468], "stop_times": [8290.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8287.468}, "reply_to": "15365__2_121", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_123", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Is there any debate going on in California now as to the abolition of the death sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8290.911], "stop_times": [8296.278], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8290.911}, "reply_to": "15365__2_122", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_124", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Oh!\nI'm sure there is, there's debate about everything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8296.278, 8296.45], "stop_times": [8296.45, 8298.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8296.278}, "reply_to": "15365__2_123", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_125", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Nothing or anything.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8298.509], "stop_times": [8300.056], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8298.509}, "reply_to": "15365__2_124", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__2_126", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "No, I'm not, I think a bill has been introduced, one always is, I don't think it is really a major public issue at the moment.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8300.056, 8308.54], "stop_times": [8308.54, 8308.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8300.056}, "reply_to": "15365__2_125", "speaker": "albert_w_harris_jr"}
{"id": "15365__2_127", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Thank you General Harris.\nMr. Amsterdam, you have just a few minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8308.91, 8311.0], "stop_times": [8311.0, 8315.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8308.91}, "reply_to": "15365__2_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__3_000", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I would like to speak to questions of Arkansas law that came up and not reopen the constitutional questions.\nFirst, with regard to Mr. Justice Brennan's question, we have dealt at pages 66 through 69 of our brief with the kind of evidence that comes in from impeachment and that sort of thing.\nIt is indeed very broad, for example the right case we mentioned here, in which the rape defendant was asked whether several persons had not told him to quit hanging around their places of business, because he made indecent proposals to women?\nThat's the kind of thing. And there is one limitation though, I don't want to say there are no limitations.\nApparently, if in a negative act, the bad act, an evil act is not reduced to conviction and it's too remote, it may not be shown, but what that means we don't know.\nA 20-year old liquor, misdemeanor liquor violations have come in to impeach.\nSo really even that, it's just no limitations and the answer is, that in effect, it is the whole defendant's life on rebuttal for impeachment if he takes the stand.\nNow, with regard to --Mr. Justice Harlan asked at one point, whether the jury had to be unanimous in Arkansas, the answer that Mr. Langston gave, as I understand it was that they did, but I want to make clear that it has to be unanimous either way, not the kind of situation you have in California, where one juror can prevent a death penalty.\nIf the jury hangs, the jury is discharged and they try the case again.\nAnd that also, I want to make clear, it tends to point the way the construction of this statute that Mr. Langston has twice mentioned, this 43-2310, which he said gives trial courts the power to set aside verdict on the ground that they don't -- they find outrageous which some such thing a jury death verdict.\nTo start with, I don't think the statute allows that, it predates the 1915 statute, which crease discretion in capital cases, and would seem to apply in non-capital cases only.\nThere is in other statute that the Court might want to look at, which is 43-2306, which provides that when a jury find the verdict of guilt and failed to agree on the punishment or do not declare such punishment, and the judge renders judgment.\nNow, Mr. Langston admits that doesn't apply in capital cases, plays in the same terms as the power to reduce the verdict.\nAnd the reason it does is for the same reason that 43-2310 does it.\nIt was inactive before the 1915 statute.\nIt was no designed to deal with capital cases.\nNow, I'm not asserting here as a matter of Arkansas law, I can tell you that that's statute doesn't give judges the power to set aside verdicts.\nIt doesn't look that way.\nAnd I have asked questions of Arkansas lawyers, as well as to whether they know of any case in which a judge has done so, and the answer has been no.\nWhen Mr. Langston was asked the question last time up in oral argument, he may say he didn't think they ever done so.\nNow, I'm not denying that they may have done so, I have never heard of it.\nI know in California they have that power and I know it for two reasons.\nOne, that California Supreme Court has said so in an opinion, and two, Judge Phillips, for example in Oakland has done so.\nAnd I can name the judge, and I can name the time, and I know the case.\nIn Arkansas that has never happen.\nAnd that is one of the several things that differentiates Arkansas from California.\nMost of the things we have heard from Mr. Harris seem to me to demonstrate of anything, the entire lawlessness of the procedure in Arkansas.\nCalifornia --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8315.044, 8325.778, 8337.777, 8350.642, 8355.668, 8370.802, 8375.317, 8386.236, 8405.536, 8410.517, 8429.283, 8440.258, 8455.061, 8461.217, 8465.148, 8467.392, 8470.135, 8477.287, 8479.357, 8486.665, 8491.907, 8495.006, 8498.561, 8504.982, 8508.273, 8510.582, 8517.105, 8524.715], "stop_times": [8325.778, 8337.777, 8350.642, 8355.668, 8370.802, 8375.317, 8386.236, 8405.536, 8410.517, 8429.283, 8440.258, 8455.061, 8461.217, 8465.148, 8467.392, 8470.135, 8477.287, 8479.357, 8486.665, 8491.907, 8495.006, 8498.561, 8504.982, 8508.273, 8510.582, 8517.105, 8524.715, 8526.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8315.044}, "reply_to": "15365__2_127", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_001", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8526.643], "stop_times": [8527.579], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8526.643}, "reply_to": "15365__3_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__3_002", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8527.579], "stop_times": [8528.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8527.579}, "reply_to": "15365__3_001", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_003", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Finish what you're going to say, because I want you to ask you a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8528.064], "stop_times": [8530.928], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8528.064}, "reply_to": "15365__3_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__3_004", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I was simply going to reserve for a California case Mr. Justice Harlan, whether the California procedure was good or bad.\nBut as Mr. Harris has told us, it is far better than Arkansas.\nAnd everything he says about what California has done suggest the deficiencies in the Arkansas procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8530.928, 8537.028, 8541.495], "stop_times": [8537.028, 8541.495, 8548.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8530.928}, "reply_to": "15365__3_003", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_005", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I take it, but there's no appellate review of sentencing in Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8548.998], "stop_times": [8554.664], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8548.998}, "reply_to": "15365__3_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15365__3_006", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "In Arkansas, no.\nThe Arkansas Supreme Court, that's the one thing about Arkansas law I can assert clearly.\nIf the verdict, if the conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence, then of course, the court will set aside the verdict.\nAnd if that means for example that if the evidence only makes out second degree that a death penalty based on first degree goes, but only because the first degree conviction is upset.\nAs long as the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt for capital offense, the Arkansas Supreme Court has told us very clearly that there is no appellate power to set aside a jury imposed death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8554.664, 8556.699, 8561.277, 8569.551, 8578.952], "stop_times": [8556.699, 8561.277, 8569.551, 8578.952, 8590.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8554.664}, "reply_to": "15365__3_005", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_007", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, the figures of course, the statistics cited in this case, I'm sure you would agree aren't very firm or clear, or hard in any direction, but just on the surface, these figures of the number of people in California now in death row do not argue persuasively that the bifurcated trial has been of any great assistance in avoiding death penalties, would you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8590.947], "stop_times": [8617.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8590.947}, "reply_to": "15365__3_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__3_008", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Not at all, California is the most populous state in the nation.\nThe major reason for the most people there is there are most crimes there.\nSecondly, Governor Brown didn't execute anybody for years.\nThe reason for the pile up on death row has virtually nothing to do with the stay or anything else.\nIt has to do with the fact that there was a Governor in that state for many years who had very few executions go on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8617.834, 8621.124, 8624.2, 8627.254, 8631.841], "stop_times": [8621.124, 8624.2, 8627.254, 8631.841, 8636.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8617.834}, "reply_to": "15365__3_007", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_009", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Well, you've made the point I was trying to make, but none of these figures are really very reliable to demonstrate anything or very reliable in terms of drawing inference from them.\nOn the surface, some people would draw some very firm inferences from the California situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8636.53, 8648.66], "stop_times": [8648.66, 8653.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8636.53}, "reply_to": "15365__3_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__3_010", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "I think they require more analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8653.409], "stop_times": [8654.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8653.409}, "reply_to": "15365__3_009", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_011", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "But they're subject to an explanation.\nAnd then that may be true as to all these figures that we have been given in the brief amicus and elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8654.327, 8657.683], "stop_times": [8657.683, 8663.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8654.327}, "reply_to": "15365__3_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__3_012", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Except the race figure.\nMr. Justice Burger, the race figure is reliable, because it controls, studies has been done.\nNone of the other factors are reliable, but the fact that black people are consistently sentenced to death for rape, that's reliable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8663.149, 8664.624, 8669.713], "stop_times": [8664.624, 8669.713, 8676.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8663.149}, "reply_to": "15365__3_011", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_013", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Have these -- any of these studies been subjected to an adversary type process with cross-examination as to the basis and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8676.841], "stop_times": [8683.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8676.841}, "reply_to": "15365__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15365__3_014", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Yes, the 20 years study done in the State of Arkansas and presented in the record in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8683.008], "stop_times": [8690.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8683.008}, "reply_to": "15365__3_013", "speaker": "anthony_g_amsterdam"}
{"id": "15365__3_015", "conversation_id": "15365", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amsterdam for submission.\nThank you gentlemen for yours.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_13", "start_times": [8690.002, 8692.646, 8693.875], "stop_times": [8692.646, 8693.875, 8696.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8690.002}, "reply_to": "15365__3_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__0_000", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Number 153, McMann against Richardson.\nMs. Soloff, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [0.0, 39.639], "stop_times": [39.639, 42.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__0_001", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe principle issue in these cases is whether or not a guilty plea can be opened up to collateral attack in order to test in evidentiary defense which could have been tested at a trial.\nThese are three habeas corpus petition cases in which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ordered evidentiary hearings on the petitions of state prisoners who are detained by virtue of their pleas of guilty.\nThe District Courts which initially considered these habeas petitions, declined to order such hearing because the primary allegation of each relator that a coerced confession had been obtained from him was not the direct attack on a guilty plea itself.\nBiased decisions in these cases, the Second Circuit has held that confessions which weren't introduced against a relator nevertheless can be attacked collaterally.\nI will address myself primarily to the nature of a plea of guilty as precluding a subsequent attack on the admissibility of potential evidence.\nMr. Juviler of the Office of District Attorney of New York County will also discuss this issue.\nAnd in addition to claiming that a coerced confession was used against him, each of these relators makes other allegations on which the Second Circuit has also ordered evidentiary hearings and Mr. Juviler will discuss those allegations as well.\nThese three men were all convicted in New York State of serious crimes following their pleas of guilty.\nAll three were represented by counsel, all of them pleaded guilty to substantially reduced charges.\nRichardson satisfied two first degree murder charges by his plea to one charge of murder in the second degree after a plea to murder on the first degree had been rejected in his behalf.\nDash satisfied indictment charging with robbery in the first degree by pleading guilty to robbery in the second degree after he personally rejected a guilty plea to the higher charge and Williams satisfied an indictment charging robbery and rape for the first degree with his guilty plea to robbery in the second degree.\nNone of these --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [42.237, 43.619, 47.577, 63.936, 80.451, 99.397, 112.719, 122.78, 129.386, 145.854, 153.46, 160.397, 175.141, 196.769], "stop_times": [43.619, 47.577, 63.936, 80.451, 99.397, 112.719, 122.78, 129.386, 145.854, 153.46, 160.397, 175.141, 196.769, 197.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 42.237}, "reply_to": "14910__0_000", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_002", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Was the best sentence still on the both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [197.118], "stop_times": [200.426], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 197.118}, "reply_to": "14910__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14910__0_003", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, it was at the time of the pleas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [200.426], "stop_times": [202.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.426}, "reply_to": "14910__0_002", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_004", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Are the proceedings at the time that the pleas are taken in the record anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [202.981], "stop_times": [208.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.981}, "reply_to": "14910__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_005", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The proceedings in the Richardson case are in the record.\nThe proceedings in the Dash and Williams cases are not in the record because they were not before the circuit court.\nThere's some question in the record as to whether or not they were before the District Courts.\nIt appears to me from reading each District Court opinion in those two cases that they did have those minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [208.867, 212.893, 221.174, 225.454], "stop_times": [212.893, 221.174, 225.454, 231.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.867}, "reply_to": "14910__0_004", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_006", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Don't you think that on the issue we have to deal with it would be irrelevant to know what happen at the court decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [231.425], "stop_times": [237.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.425}, "reply_to": "14910__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_007", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think that it's more than relevant and I think that this is one of the problems with the Second Circuit decision that they place absolutely no weight on the one colloquy which they did have before them which was a model of inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [237.767], "stop_times": [253.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.767}, "reply_to": "14910__0_006", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_008", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's the Richardson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [253.677], "stop_times": [253.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.677}, "reply_to": "14910__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_009", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's the Richardson.\nIt was most thorough inquiry in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [253.988, 255.333], "stop_times": [255.333, 257.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.988}, "reply_to": "14910__0_008", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_010", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Is that in any of these printed papers or is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [257.704], "stop_times": [259.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.704}, "reply_to": "14910__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_011", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, that's in the appendix at pages 88 through 97.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [259.789], "stop_times": [270.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.789}, "reply_to": "14910__0_010", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_012", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you don't -- don't stop to that, I look at it.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [270.155, 275.15], "stop_times": [275.15, 276.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.155}, "reply_to": "14910__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_013", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, I was not going to.\nI would like to follow at that thought for a moment there because I think that one of the problems in these cases is that no matter how we look at these petitions and at the Second Circuit decision, no colloquy even the one in Richardson could ever satisfy the issue raised in these cases.\nAfter the judgments of conviction became final in these cases, each of these relators sought collateral relief in New York by coram nobis which is a post-conviction procedure in New York for testing claims which are not apparent in the face of the record.\nRelief was denied in each case without a hearing and the denials were affirmed by the state appellate courts.\nThen each relator sought federal habeas corpus, claiming essentially that he after his arrest he gave a coerced confession.\nAfter the District Courts had dismissed these petitions the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered evidentiary hearings in three separate opinions.\nThe Dash case was part of en banc decision, Richardson was decided to the same day and Williams about a month later.\nBasically, the majority opinion held in the Second Circuit that where a claim is made that evidence was illegally obtained and where it is also maintained that the existence and threatened use of that evidence at a trial substantially motivated a plea of guilty, a petitioner is entitled to evidentiary hearing to test his claims -- to test his claims that his confession was coerced that his plea was involuntary, that his plea was substantially motivated by the allegedly coerced confession that hold the whole range of allegations.\nWe think that in rendering these decisions, the Court of Appeals has seriously misinterpreted the significance of a plea of guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [276.052, 277.278, 298.579, 314.234, 321.911, 334.751, 344.517, 355.618, 397.254], "stop_times": [277.278, 298.579, 314.234, 321.911, 334.751, 344.517, 355.618, 397.254, 407.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.052}, "reply_to": "14910__0_012", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_014", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What about -- does this contemplate also an inquiry into the voluntariness of the confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [407.725], "stop_times": [414.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.725}, "reply_to": "14910__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_015", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, it does.\nThe hearing -- (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [414.029, 415.937], "stop_times": [415.937, 416.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.029}, "reply_to": "14910__0_014", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_016", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Without any state hearing in any state court on that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [416.443], "stop_times": [420.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.443}, "reply_to": "14910__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14910__0_017", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The Second Circuit contemplates hearings without there having been states hearings, that's right or without certainly there having been pre-plea state hearings.\nThe question of whether or not the state would open up its doors to these petitions if this case were affirmed is another issue.\nThe convictions here because they are based on pleas of guilty, don't rest on any evidence.\nNo evidence was used against these relators at a trial and this has occurred because each relator after consulting with counsel decided to forgo a trail and all the contest of fact that that decision by definition involves.\nEach instead deliberately choose to have their convictions rest solely on their pleas of guilty in open court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [420.277, 432.444, 443.136, 451.455, 470.735], "stop_times": [432.444, 443.136, 451.455, 470.735, 477.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.277}, "reply_to": "14910__0_016", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_018", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Is it clear that each one of these cases there was in fact a confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [477.699], "stop_times": [481.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.699}, "reply_to": "14910__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_019", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [481.224], "stop_times": [482.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.224}, "reply_to": "14910__0_018", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_020", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's just an allegation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [482.631], "stop_times": [483.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.631}, "reply_to": "14910__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_021", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's just an allegation.\nIt's never -- we haven't seen any confessions, we don't know if they're written.\nI believe each one may state that they're written, I'm not sure, maybe oral.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [483.851, 485.706, 490.794], "stop_times": [485.706, 490.794, 497.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.851}, "reply_to": "14910__0_020", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_022", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's not under the Court of Appeals holding, I guess the -- your counsel on the other side agrees that it's up that at any hearing, it's incumbent upon the petitioner to show that there was a confession and that confession was coerced and what if I suppose always within the power of the states there was or wasn't a confession at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [497.904], "stop_times": [527.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.904}, "reply_to": "14910__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_023", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "If the state can verify this in anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [527.743], "stop_times": [530.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.743}, "reply_to": "14910__0_022", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_024", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, it's not up to the state to verify, it's up to the petitioner to prove it, isn't it, that there was one and that it was coerced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [530.226], "stop_times": [536.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.226}, "reply_to": "14910__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_025", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, as the practical matter I don't know how beyond his own word, a petitioner would establish that he made a confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [536.896], "stop_times": [546.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.896}, "reply_to": "14910__0_024", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_026", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Is there anyway of knowing whether police departments or District Attorney's offices and so on keep the -- keep the files of cases that have lost since been dispose off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [546.495], "stop_times": [557.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.495}, "reply_to": "14910__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_027", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't know with the practice is with respect to each County District Attorney as to how long they keep files and I don't know to what extent for example a policeman's memo book which may contain the only statement which was ever made would be preserved by the policeman or how long he would be able to read his notes or if they were ever turned over to the District Attorney.\nThere's a whole initial problem in these cases as to ever establishing that a confession existed, let alone the circumstances under which it was given and the scope of their confession whether it was in fact a confession or a half admission or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [557.555, 578.825], "stop_times": [578.825, 595.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.555}, "reply_to": "14910__0_026", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_028", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's not your problem, that's not the state's problem, that's the petitioner's problem, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [595.64], "stop_times": [599.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.64}, "reply_to": "14910__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_029", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, it is the state's problem to the extent that we have to go to hold hearings to get all records, to get whatever witnesses are available.\nIt's an extremely difficult --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [599.8, 612.257], "stop_times": [612.257, 613.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.8}, "reply_to": "14910__0_028", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_030", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, it's the nuisance to have hearings, but this particular problem, it's the petitioner's problem because he has the burden of proof, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [613.344], "stop_times": [619.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.344}, "reply_to": "14910__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_031", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Certainly, he would have the burden of proof, but as a practical matter, it would turn back to the state because the state has whatever records there are, if there are any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [619.342], "stop_times": [634.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.342}, "reply_to": "14910__0_030", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_032", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Because that just mere assertion would be a prima facie case that the statement have to meet, isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [634.328], "stop_times": [639.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.328}, "reply_to": "14910__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_033", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "This is one of the questions that the Second Circuit has not answered.\nThey've said that other allegations affidavits should be necessary but they didn't require it in any of these cases and we're already getting petitions which make very bare assertions on which hearings have been ordered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [639.144, 643.518], "stop_times": [643.518, 660.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.144}, "reply_to": "14910__0_032", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_034", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "May I ask you question to test the scope of what the Second Circuit opinion really is because I'm not sure I understand it.\nSuppose an allegation were made in these same circumstances in terms of time on criminal acts and the petitioner alleged that he had been motivated in making his guilty plea by the knowledge that an eyewitness was available, but that this eyewitness was one who's testimony was \u201ctainted\u201d because of improper line ups or exhibition of the photographs etc.\nWould you read its being within the scope of what the Second Circuit has now opened up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [660.136, 667.849, 701.551], "stop_times": [667.849, 701.551, 705.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.136}, "reply_to": "14910__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__0_035", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think it's entirely possible that it's within the scope of what the Second Circuit has opened up along with illegally-seized evidence, the claim that evidence was illegally seized along with almost any evidentiary claim which can be made.\nI have received a brief from the office of counsel for respondent which alleges that the plea was coerced because of unfair pre-trial publicity and it rests directly, I mean that the allegations are based directly on this case in the Second Circuit.\nSo that its ramifications for other kinds of opening up of the plea are enormous, I think they're endless.\nAnd I think that this is one of the reasons why once a decision has been made to rest a conviction on a plea of guilty and to take whatever benefits flow from that plea and after years have passed and the state has relied on this for years in just the way that we've describe that it should not be the relator's option to repudiate the plea because then there is no meaning to the plea of guilty.\nIt only because of a procedural step to the testing of evidentiary claims and its significance as an independent basis of conviction is completely negated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [705.617, 724.15, 739.812, 757.874, 786.096], "stop_times": [724.15, 739.812, 757.874, 786.096, 797.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.617}, "reply_to": "14910__0_034", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_036", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I understand it to be the theory of the Second Circuit that a plea substantially motivated by the existence of the involuntary confession is an involuntary plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [797.064], "stop_times": [811.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.064}, "reply_to": "14910__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_037", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [811.932], "stop_times": [812.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.932}, "reply_to": "14910__0_036", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_038", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Or that whether or not an involuntary plea it's voidable even though voluntary if it was substantially motivated by the involuntary confession.\nThat maybe just a matter of semantics, but it maybe of some importance and I'm not quite sure I understood the rationale of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [812.296, 824.962], "stop_times": [824.962, 831.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.296}, "reply_to": "14910__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_039", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Without meaning to be facetious, I have problems with the rationale of the Second Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [831.974], "stop_times": [837.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.974}, "reply_to": "14910__0_038", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_040", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That prompted my question further on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [837.631], "stop_times": [841.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.631}, "reply_to": "14910__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_041", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think it can be read that if a confession is coerced and if that confession, not the coercion of the confession but the confession itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [841.512], "stop_times": [854.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.512}, "reply_to": "14910__0_040", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_042", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The existence of the confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [854.781], "stop_times": [855.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.781}, "reply_to": "14910__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_043", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The existence of the confession substantially motivated to plea that is taking into account whatever other evidence may have been available, taking into account the nature of the bargain that was struck, taking into account any variety of factors.\nThe District Court now must weigh this and call it substantial motivation and decide how substantial it was and if it was substantial and apparently if the confession was coerced then the pleas to be set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [855.605, 875.778], "stop_times": [875.778, 891.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.605}, "reply_to": "14910__0_042", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_044", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Even though the plea itself was a voluntary plea under the normal conventional standards of what's a voluntary plea, i.e., a knowing, intelligent, informed plea with the advice of counsel and etcetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [891.874], "stop_times": [906.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.874}, "reply_to": "14910__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_045", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [906.902], "stop_times": [907.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.902}, "reply_to": "14910__0_044", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_046", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's the rationale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [907.877], "stop_times": [908.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.877}, "reply_to": "14910__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_047", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I believe that that's their rationale of the Second Circuit.\nI think they ran right around the plea of guilty to the confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [908.448, 910.667], "stop_times": [910.667, 916.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.448}, "reply_to": "14910__0_046", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_048", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yet there has to be a nexus though between the confession and the plea, don't you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [916.101], "stop_times": [921.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.101}, "reply_to": "14910__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_049", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't believe that that's really so with what -- in Second Circuit rationale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [921.055], "stop_times": [926.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.055}, "reply_to": "14910__0_048", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_050", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, may I ask then, what you meant when you said Ms. Soloff, a substantial, a substantial factor in the making of the plea, what do you mean by that?\nThat's mean nexus doesn't it between the confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [926.444, 936.34], "stop_times": [936.34, 938.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.444}, "reply_to": "14910__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_051", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's what the Second Circuit said, that there has to be a substantial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [938.216], "stop_times": [944.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.216}, "reply_to": "14910__0_050", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_052", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, that -- that was my question.\nDoesn't there have to be some kind of nexus between alleged coerced confession and the plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [944.096, 946.061], "stop_times": [946.061, 951.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.096}, "reply_to": "14910__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_053", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No.\nNo, because I don't think substantial motivation means that.\nI think all that substantial motivation means is there was a confession, and for some reason it was coerced, but I didn't test it, instead because of that confession --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [951.276, 952.048, 955.627], "stop_times": [952.048, 955.627, 967.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 951.276}, "reply_to": "14910__0_052", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_054", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, no, no.\nI'm assuming the premise that it's a coerced confession.\nI thought that the attack under the plea depended upon showing that the plea was a consequence of the coerced confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [967.82, 968.567, 971.579], "stop_times": [968.567, 971.579, 978.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.82}, "reply_to": "14910__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_055", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Not at all.\nI don't believe that that is what the Second Circuit held.\nI think that what they said was there was a confession and it caused me to plea guilty.\nIt induced my plea.\nI'm sorry.\nI am getting confused.\nIt substantially motivates -- the existence of the confession substantially motivated my plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [978.672, 979.354, 983.697, 994.332, 996.916, 999.857, 1002.818], "stop_times": [979.354, 983.697, 994.332, 996.916, 999.857, 1002.818, 1007.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.672}, "reply_to": "14910__0_054", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_056", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I would not have made the plea, but for my fear that this confession were successfully used against me I come off worse than I would by pleading guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1007.794], "stop_times": [1018.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.794}, "reply_to": "14910__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_057", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1018.797], "stop_times": [1019.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.797}, "reply_to": "14910__0_056", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_058", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1019.539], "stop_times": [1020.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.539}, "reply_to": "14910__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__0_059", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "There's no \u201cbut-for\u201d Mr. Justice Brennan has no \u201cbut-for\u201d test announcement on the Second Circuit decision, that's the first thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1020.36], "stop_times": [1027.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.36}, "reply_to": "14910__0_058", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_060", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes but wasn't there a gap between \u201cbut-for\u201d test and a motivation test, influence test, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1027.329], "stop_times": [1035.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.329}, "reply_to": "14910__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__0_061", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think that the problem in all these cases, I agree that there is a difference but I think that substantial motivation or \u201cbut-for\u201d may come down to the same thing, but the answer is still this plea was entered in lieu of a trial.\nThere could have been a trial and there wasn't.\nOnce the term induced or substantially motivated and all of these terms predicated on all go or ignore the existence of the trial, they ignore the very nature of a guilty plea.\nThey ignore the fact that no evidence is necessary to support the conviction, that the plea is the independent basis and that once you use words like \u201csubstantially motivated\u201d or \u201cinduced\u201d to reach out the evidentiary test you had negated the plea of guilty.\nYou simply said, first you plead guilty and then we'll have this evidentiary hearing when you demand it at your request.\nMany years later, perhaps, and you've undermined the plea of guilty for which there are certainly very great justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1035.132, 1052.5, 1056.431, 1071.879, 1096.126, 1103.595], "stop_times": [1052.5, 1056.431, 1071.879, 1096.126, 1103.595, 1114.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.132}, "reply_to": "14910__0_060", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_062", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I take it then that you disagree with the Richardson case too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1114.199], "stop_times": [1117.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.199}, "reply_to": "14910__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_063", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes.\nWell, we do Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1117.89, 1118.483], "stop_times": [1118.483, 1120.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.89}, "reply_to": "14910__0_062", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_064", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And you say that it makes no difference if the defendant alleges and makes a specific allegation incompetence of counsel in advising him about how to plead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1120.991], "stop_times": [1137.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.991}, "reply_to": "14910__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_065", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think that the allegation that a counsel is ineffective is certainly a ground on which collateral attack against a plea of guilty can be based.\nI would never not argue to contrary but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1137.077, 1149.788], "stop_times": [1149.788, 1152.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.077}, "reply_to": "14910__0_064", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_066", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, how would you -- how would you attack the plea of guilty using that?\nWhat would you say?\nDo you say I had an incompetent and ineffective counsel and therefore what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1152.381, 1156.738, 1157.64], "stop_times": [1156.738, 1157.64, 1163.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1152.381}, "reply_to": "14910__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_067", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Therefore, I did not knowingly involuntarily enter a guilty plea because he did not advice me of the consequences not because I had a coerced confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1163.314], "stop_times": [1172.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.314}, "reply_to": "14910__0_066", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_068", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Right, right, right, but what if the counsel says or what if the allegation is that I told the counsel that I was beaten and he says it doesn't make difference if you were beaten at all, your confession is admissible and with the confession, you're cooked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1172.274], "stop_times": [1190.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.274}, "reply_to": "14910__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_069", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And he comes into Court and he makes a long list of acknowledgments of guilt of the knowing nature of the fact.\nIf he made a coerced confession, and counsel didn't attack it, and he only attacks counsel on the ground of not having an attack --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1190.761, 1198.832], "stop_times": [1198.832, 1207.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.761}, "reply_to": "14910__0_068", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_070", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, he said -- he attacks his counsel on the ground that the counsel said that confession is usable against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1207.865], "stop_times": [1216.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.865}, "reply_to": "14910__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_071", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, that's a perfectly competent piece of advice on the part of counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1216.052], "stop_times": [1221.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1216.052}, "reply_to": "14910__0_070", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_072", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Why, he said, he was beaten?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1221.718], "stop_times": [1223.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.718}, "reply_to": "14910__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_073", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "He alleges that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1223.779], "stop_times": [1224.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.779}, "reply_to": "14910__0_072", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_074", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Would you advice any client you had that if confession that would be out of you was usable against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1224.924], "stop_times": [1231.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.924}, "reply_to": "14910__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_075", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "We have no acknowledged coerced confessions in these cases.\nWe have allegations support.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1231.138, 1235.893], "stop_times": [1235.893, 1237.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.138}, "reply_to": "14910__0_074", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_076", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1237.856], "stop_times": [1238.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.856}, "reply_to": "14910__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_077", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It may well be a close case as to whether or not the confession is or is not admissible.\nThis is especially true where coming up with the right to counsel and statements as to whether or not warnings were given the full range of possibility of the admissibility of the confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1238.35, 1245.242], "stop_times": [1245.242, 1257.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.35}, "reply_to": "14910__0_076", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_078", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What would you say if the allegation was that that it was represented to my counsel and then to me that a co-conspirator or co-defendant had confessed and implicated me and would testify against me, and that was false, absolutely false.\nThe state made the representation that was a false representation and I wouldn't have pleaded except for this fear of having the testimony used against me and with that testimony I had no case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1257.437, 1276.845], "stop_times": [1276.845, 1290.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.437}, "reply_to": "14910__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_079", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Once you have a false representation by an officer of the state, you have a collateral issue.\nIn fact, we cite a case in our brief in which New York has held that where an officer testified falsely as to the circumstances of the crime --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1290.88, 1299.042], "stop_times": [1299.042, 1312.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.88}, "reply_to": "14910__0_078", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_080", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But what would you say that that the plea was not intelligently made then, wouldn't you?\nI mean, you were operating on a false premise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1312.667, 1316.855], "stop_times": [1316.855, 1319.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.667}, "reply_to": "14910__0_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_081", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1319.316], "stop_times": [1320.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.316}, "reply_to": "14910__0_080", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_082", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And you would set the guilty plea aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1320.588], "stop_times": [1323.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.588}, "reply_to": "14910__0_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__0_083", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right, but where we have a claim of coercion and an available procedure and this is essentially what we're talking about in these cases, then we have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1323.038], "stop_times": [1335.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.038}, "reply_to": "14910__0_082", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_084", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But in a guilty plea, how can you ever get to the whether the confession is coerced or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1335.897], "stop_times": [1343.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.897}, "reply_to": "14910__0_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_085", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Except for where you have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1343.647], "stop_times": [1345.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1343.647}, "reply_to": "14910__0_084", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_086", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "So, if there is a coerced confession and for some reason the lawyer and the defendant both say there's no use in taking a chance, that's it.\nNobody can handle it in terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1345.227, 1358.126], "stop_times": [1358.126, 1361.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.227}, "reply_to": "14910__0_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_087", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right, that's what the plea of guilty --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1361.445], "stop_times": [1362.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.445}, "reply_to": "14910__0_086", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_088", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But if there is a coerced confession and a trial and the conviction and later on you can get objection then or hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1362.991], "stop_times": [1373.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.991}, "reply_to": "14910__0_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_089", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1373.006], "stop_times": [1374.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.006}, "reply_to": "14910__0_088", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_090", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And the difference is being what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1374.067], "stop_times": [1376.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.067}, "reply_to": "14910__0_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_091", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The difference being that once you go to trail and test a confession, the confession becomes a part of the basis of the judgment of conviction.\nIt is evidence which probably led to the judgment of conviction and you're entitled in those circumstances to a determination of whether or not that confession was coerced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1376.323, 1388.023], "stop_times": [1388.023, 1399.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.323}, "reply_to": "14910__0_090", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_092", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "So that if the police officers identify the man and they know they're wrong and if they beat a confession out of it, I'm not even assuming that this case, and yet the lawyer tells, \u201cLook, they're going to believe that police officer and they're not going to believe you and he pleads guilty, that's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1399.332], "stop_times": [1424.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.332}, "reply_to": "14910__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_093", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.\nThat's it because there's no more point to testing a confession after a plea of guilty and there is at a trial the same issues of credibility still exist.\nThere's no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1424.277, 1425.457, 1441.817], "stop_times": [1425.457, 1441.817, 1441.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1424.277}, "reply_to": "14910__0_092", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_094", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, suppose that this hearing that the Second Circuit had ordered, it found there were no confessions, the conviction stands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1441.92], "stop_times": [1452.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.92}, "reply_to": "14910__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_095", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1452.668], "stop_times": [1453.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.668}, "reply_to": "14910__0_094", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_096", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "If the Court finds that there were confessions, they were perfectly legal the conviction stands.\nIf they find that the confession was extorted by force and violence or what have you then they will more than likely set aside the conviction and let's go again.\nOutside of the problems and difficulties of holding hearings which are normal what else is wrong with that as a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1453.661, 1461.082, 1475.465], "stop_times": [1461.082, 1475.465, 1485.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.661}, "reply_to": "14910__0_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__0_097", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It's not longer a plea of guilty.\nWhat you're doing is holding exactly the same trial that you would have held before the man pleaded guilty at a time when witnesses may have died, the evidence of guilt maybe completely dissipated and the bargain which he struck for a lower charge can be repudiated.\nThis is not the plea of guilty, this is a trial and if we're going to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1485.428, 1487.816, 1511.815], "stop_times": [1487.816, 1511.815, 1515.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.428}, "reply_to": "14910__0_096", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_098", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Underlying that you're saying that in effect these and others convicted, or are there some innocent people who don't plea guilty without lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1515.673], "stop_times": [1525.404], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.673}, "reply_to": "14910__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14910__0_099", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1525.404], "stop_times": [1525.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.404}, "reply_to": "14910__0_098", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_100", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Isn't that a part, doesn't that up here on circulate the premise what you got?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1525.958], "stop_times": [1531.733], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.958}, "reply_to": "14910__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14910__0_101", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think that certainly a premise from which we operate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1531.733], "stop_times": [1540.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.733}, "reply_to": "14910__0_100", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_102", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And there is a vehicle I think you suggested this or intimated, there is a vehicle that if they want to test that out at that time while it's fresh, move to suppress any existing confession and test it out there and if they have not so moved, is it your suggestion they permanently waived it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1540.4], "stop_times": [1558.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.4}, "reply_to": "14910__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__0_103", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's true but this is not the case with these three relators who all pleaded guilty before the decision of this Court Jackson against Denno.\nNow, the Second Circuit felt that it was compelled by the decision in Jackson against Denno to hold that New York did not provide these relators with a reasonable opportunity to test their claims of coercion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1558.202, 1568.355], "stop_times": [1568.355, 1581.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.202}, "reply_to": "14910__0_102", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_104", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And Judge Kaufman as I understand it in his concurring opinion thought that these decisions were limited to pre-Jackson-Denno situation, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1581.874], "stop_times": [1589.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.874}, "reply_to": "14910__0_103", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_105", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.\nHe thought they did it.\nIt's another issue on the Second Circuit opinion as to whether that concurrence by Judge Kaufman in which other members of the Court concurred is truly the limiting, it's the limiting point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1589.432, 1590.637, 1592.082], "stop_times": [1590.637, 1592.082, 1603.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.432}, "reply_to": "14910__0_104", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_106", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But his view, at least his view was that these decisions were so limited to pre-Jackson-Denno cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1603.936], "stop_times": [1610.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.936}, "reply_to": "14910__0_105", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__0_107", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "If that's -- that's correct and if that's true then the Second Circuit decision is in a sense more limited than the many other decisions from the other circuits which never take account at all of the possibility of going to trial.\nThey never regard it as a viable alternative and yet it seems, it would seem that the right to go to trial is really what is at issue in these cases.\nNow, as I said briefly before, before the Jackson decision, the problem in Jackson was at the same jury passed on the question of guilt or innocence and on the question of the voluntariness of a confession and that procedure was upheld by this Court in 1953 in Stein against New York.\nSince the Jackson decision applies to cases which had already been tried prior to June 22, 1964, the Second Circuit concluded that it applied also to cases in which there was no trial prior to 1964.\nBut clearly, Jackson does not apply where there never was a jury trial.\nThe problem arising from a case that had already been tried before 1964 is that a confession that the jury had already heard might have been coerced and therefore the conviction, that is the jury's verdict, would've been based on the coerced confession.\nAnd so now, we have to hold evidentiary hearings to determine whether or not that was the case, but as we've said here the convictions aren't based on confessions or any other evidence.\nNow, the Second Circuit also found that these relators couldn't be deemed to had entered voluntary pleas of guilty if their pleas were substantially motivated by coerced confessions, the validity of which for practical purposes they were unable to contest.\nBut for this assertion to have any meaning it would have to be alleged factually that the pre-Jackson procedure in some way actually motivated the plea of guilty and counsel's advice to plead guilty.\nIn other words, the Stein procedure as a matter of law was so bad that it even prompted pleas of guilty, innocent man to plead guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1610.199, 1623.099, 1634.386, 1653.234, 1667.717, 1673.797, 1689.932, 1703.625, 1719.798, 1733.686], "stop_times": [1623.099, 1634.386, 1653.234, 1667.717, 1673.797, 1689.932, 1703.625, 1719.798, 1733.686, 1743.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1610.199}, "reply_to": "14910__0_106", "speaker": "brenda_soloff"}
{"id": "14910__0_108", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "We'll recess now for lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1743.627], "stop_times": [1750.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.627}, "reply_to": "14910__0_107", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__1_000", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "-- from the bench if a defendant plead at guilty prior to the Bruton decision, he may not now come forward and say that he was induced to plead because he expected that his co-defendants' confession would be introduced and the jury would hear it and that would prejudice him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1750.237], "stop_times": [1772.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1750.237}, "reply_to": "14910__0_108", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_001", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I would think in the Second Circuit he could?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1772.058], "stop_times": [1776.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.058}, "reply_to": "14910__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_002", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It's difficult to understand precisely how far the Second Circuit would go, but I think that is a logical outcome of much of the reasoning of the Second Circuit and I think it's intolerable -- it is an intolerable outcome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1776.453], "stop_times": [1795.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1776.453}, "reply_to": "14910__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_003", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Could I ask you whether in New York now there maybe a pre-trial hearing about the admissibility of confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1795.222], "stop_times": [1803.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.222}, "reply_to": "14910__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_004", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, New York State appears to be the only jurisdiction in America in which there can be a pre-trial hearing as to admissibility of confessions and the defendant may preserve his claim of coercion on appeal after a plea of guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1803.665], "stop_times": [1820.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1803.665}, "reply_to": "14910__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_005", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And if the -- and if the upper court reverses the decision that it was admissible, he may re-plead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1820.143], "stop_times": [1828.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.143}, "reply_to": "14910__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_006", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "He has the option of withdrawing his plea and going to trial or negotiating a lesser plea, but at his option, the judgment of conviction is vacated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1828.272], "stop_times": [1839.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1828.272}, "reply_to": "14910__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_007", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Any time limit on that in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1839.806], "stop_times": [1842.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.806}, "reply_to": "14910__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__1_008", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, the time limit is the normal appellate process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1842.24], "stop_times": [1845.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1842.24}, "reply_to": "14910__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_009", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But he can't do this by collateral attack 15 years later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1845.539], "stop_times": [1848.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.539}, "reply_to": "14910__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__1_010", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1848.858], "stop_times": [1849.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1848.858}, "reply_to": "14910__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_011", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "How long is this right been?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1849.424], "stop_times": [1852.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.424}, "reply_to": "14910__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_012", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "This was enacted by the legislature in 1965, about six months after the Jackson case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1852.185], "stop_times": [1858.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1852.185}, "reply_to": "14910__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_013", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You understand -- you don't understand that that so-called omnibus hearing, pre-trial hearing in some jurisdictions includes a confession hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1858.275], "stop_times": [1866.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.275}, "reply_to": "14910__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_014", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, the hearings include the issue of confession, I would assume, in every jurisdiction but only in New York is that issue preserved on appeal after a plea of guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1866.778], "stop_times": [1877.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1866.778}, "reply_to": "14910__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_015", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I see, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1877.988], "stop_times": [1880.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.988}, "reply_to": "14910__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_016", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And the logical outcome perhaps of the Second Circuit opinion read in its broadest sense is to require the New York procedure as a matter of constitutional law to be enacted in every jurisdiction because the logical outcome indeed of the Second Circuit position and apparently of the relators' arguments is that if evidence is obtained by police in an illegal manner, there really is no way that a contested hearing on issues of fact can be avoided even if the defendant pleads guilty.\nHere, we have merely allegations of coercion of the confessions unsupported by anything outside of the petitioner's own motions, but even assuming the truth of these allegations, there is no connection, there is no nexus in a constitutional sense between this alleged coercion and the plea of guilty.\nSo long as the defendant has a reasonable opportunity prior to the entry of judgment to raise these constitutional claims and indeed the expansion of the list of these claims as to the admissibility of evidence requires that we maintain the time honored orderly procedures for presenting these claims whether they involved confessions or tangible evidence or eyewitness identification.\nThere is no suggestion of a nexus in the allegation that a plea of guilty was induced by the threatened use of a coerced confession.\nThat is merely a legal fiction which states the conclusion to be reached but that is not a step in the reasoning.\nThere is no claim factually in these cases that the relators were told by any public official that these confessions known to be coerced by the state were going to be use against them and for that reason they had better plead guilty.\nThese were self-motivated pleas of guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [1880.936, 1920.714, 1947.555, 1981.827, 1994.374, 2002.739, 2019.874], "stop_times": [1920.714, 1947.555, 1981.827, 1994.374, 2002.739, 2019.874, 2024.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1880.936}, "reply_to": "14910__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_017", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Suppose that if they were admittedly or clearly coerced confessions, a counsel would've advised him of that and he wouldn't have taken them in a consideration in considering whether to plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2024.0], "stop_times": [2038.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.0}, "reply_to": "14910__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__1_018", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, and that brings us to the second possible nexus between the coerced confession and the plea of guilty and that is the suggested nexus of incompetency of counsel.\nIf the attorney consulting with his client as is admitted to have occurred in each one of these cases consulting with his client as to the prospects for suppressing this confession knowing as is admitted in each one of these cases by the relators that they had a opportunity -- they had a procedure by which they could keep this confession out of evidence and if after those deliberations, the defendant and his attorney reach the considered judgment that it would be the bet to the best interest of the defendant to accept an offer of a lesser plea and to forgo the trial then that decisions should be binding.\nThat is what a plea of guilty is all about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2038.154, 2051.735, 2096.818], "stop_times": [2051.735, 2096.818, 2099.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2038.154}, "reply_to": "14910__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_019", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What do you mean by nexus, Mr. Juviler, a connection, a connection or what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2099.729], "stop_times": [2103.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.729}, "reply_to": "14910__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_020", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I think the problem here is that the relators are striving to find some kind of a constitutionally acceptable theory on which they can connect this confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2103.825], "stop_times": [2115.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2103.825}, "reply_to": "14910__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_021", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I'm not interested in theory as to the meaning of that particular word to you.\nYou find that scattered through the opinion to this Court particularly those of Justice Frankfurter, but the Latin word you mean connection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2115.899, 2121.92], "stop_times": [2121.92, 2129.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.899}, "reply_to": "14910__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_022", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "As I suggest it has been used in many contexts and I'm just trying to pinpoint that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2129.39], "stop_times": [2133.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2129.39}, "reply_to": "14910__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_023", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, that's reason I'm asking you what do you mean by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2133.685], "stop_times": [2136.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.685}, "reply_to": "14910__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_024", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "To me I would say that a nexus is some constitutionally acceptable reason why the plea of guilty should not be considered binding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2136.195], "stop_times": [2146.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2136.195}, "reply_to": "14910__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_025", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's not a definition you find in the dictionary for nexus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2146.867], "stop_times": [2148.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.867}, "reply_to": "14910__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_026", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No.\nNo, and I think that in such a nexus would include the following. One would be that the advice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2148.69, 2149.428], "stop_times": [2149.428, 2155.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2148.69}, "reply_to": "14910__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_027", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I don't mean such in nexus, what do you mean by the word nexus --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2155.167], "stop_times": [2158.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.167}, "reply_to": "14910__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_028", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, a chance.\nIt's just a statement of the conclusion.\nNexus means under what circumstances will we allow a defendant to have an evidentiary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2158.936, 2161.364, 2163.279], "stop_times": [2161.364, 2163.279, 2169.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2158.936}, "reply_to": "14910__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_029", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It means relationship, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2169.24], "stop_times": [2170.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.24}, "reply_to": "14910__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__1_030", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Some relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2170.591], "stop_times": [2171.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2170.591}, "reply_to": "14910__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_031", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Connection, doesn't it mean connection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2171.105], "stop_times": [2172.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.105}, "reply_to": "14910__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_032", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It could mean a factual connection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2172.333], "stop_times": [2174.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2172.333}, "reply_to": "14910__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_033", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But what does it mean to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2174.059], "stop_times": [2176.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.059}, "reply_to": "14910__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_034", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "To me, it means a factual connection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2176.226], "stop_times": [2178.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2176.226}, "reply_to": "14910__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_035", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2178.673], "stop_times": [2179.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.673}, "reply_to": "14910__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_036", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It means a continuation of the coercion that was addressed in the station house to the defendant, a continuation of that coercion into the courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2179.266], "stop_times": [2190.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2179.266}, "reply_to": "14910__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_037", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Now, that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2190.993], "stop_times": [2192.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.993}, "reply_to": "14910__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_038", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And that is not alleged in these cases.\nThat is not alleged in these cases or per -- and as long as there is nothing other than that to take out of our -- to take out this case the dispositive fact that these defendants had attorneys who with the relators made a reasoned choice to forgo their constitutional challenges as long as there's nothing to remove that then the plea of guilty should mean what it says, I am guilty, though you don't have to prove it.\nNow, it seems apparent from the decisions in the states and in, I would say, all of the circuits that this is assumed to be the case with the search and seizure claims where there is an attack in post-conviction proceedings on the admissibility of tangible evidence after a plea of guilty, and I don't see why there should be any difference when we come to the confession claim other than the perhaps emotionally significant fact that both the plea of guilty and the confession are oral, but if there is a break in the chain of events between the station house interrogation and the plea of guilty as there is in each one of these cases then that fact that these are both oral is completely immaterial.\nThere is an independent act of free will exercised by these defendants when they decided to forgo their trial.\nThe cat was not out of the bag when they allegedly confessed in the station house.\nNow, if a defendant is coerced into confessing by the police and subsequently while in custody he makes another confession, that second confession maybe admissible at a trial even though in a sense the cat is out of the bag if the facts established that there was a break in the chain of events and that the second confession was voluntary and came after the defendant was aware of his rights.\nWell, in our case the confession, the cat is not out of the bag at all because that the defendant aided by counsel is still armed with the power to try to keep that cat in the bag.\nHe just says that it's not worth my trying for various reasons and so long as the state or the Federal Government does not unnecessarily discourage the opportunity of the defendant to challenge these pieces of evidence then his decision not to do so should be binding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2192.006, 2194.296, 2226.904, 2279.716, 2287.302, 2293.109, 2322.951, 2337.399], "stop_times": [2194.296, 2226.904, 2279.716, 2287.302, 2293.109, 2322.951, 2337.399, 2360.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2192.006}, "reply_to": "14910__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_039", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "How does Jackson and Denno are on at point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2360.82], "stop_times": [2366.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.82}, "reply_to": "14910__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__1_040", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It could enter into the picture if the defendant and his attorney are actually, factually motivated to enter a plea of guilty on the feeling that they just can't get a fair trial, they just can't get a fair hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2366.709], "stop_times": [2382.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2366.709}, "reply_to": "14910__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_041", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Wouldn't that come out in the hearing that the Second Circuit proposes, yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2382.504], "stop_times": [2387.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.504}, "reply_to": "14910__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__1_042", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think that the first obligation is to allege it before such a hearing should be ordered.\nWe cannot just presume it.\nI think indeed it would be unreasonable Mr. Justice Marshall to presume that because I think in common sense as Judge Friendly pointed out in his dissent there is no reason to believe.\nIt's purely speculative to say that this difference between the Stein procedure, the pre-Jackson procedure and the post-Jackson procedure compelled this defendant or unnecessarily encouraged him to forgo the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2387.629, 2393.306, 2394.992, 2406.887], "stop_times": [2393.306, 2394.992, 2406.887, 2426.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2387.629}, "reply_to": "14910__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_043", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Didn't Judge Kaufman slow you down a little on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2426.786], "stop_times": [2430.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.786}, "reply_to": "14910__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__1_044", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "He tried and he prevailed in the Second Circuit, but I think that with all respect to the opinion of Judge Kaufman, it is not persuasive and it does not overcome the fact that there was no factual allegation.\nIt just doesn't overcome the dissent of Judge Friendly.\nNow, that the relators here in this Court, the way their brief is written urge on the Court this factual connection, this actual, factual motivation entering into the minds of counsel that they sat down with their defendants and they said, \u201cWell the Stein procedure is not fair.\nWe just can't get a fair shake\u201d but I do not see that in the petitions themselves and even if they were in the petitions, because all we have in the petition is citations to Jackson against Denno accept for Richardson who doesn't even make this claim, so in his case, it's not before the Court, but even if they were, some are resourceful defendant were to listen to my argument and comeback into a federal court with these factual allegations, I would say again these are immaterial because these convictions were based upon pleas of guilty not upon evidence.\nAnd when these defendants pleaded guilty, it was understood by everyone in the courtroom, including every member of this Court that the New York procedure was not fundamentally unfair.\nNow, the problem is raised, well perhaps an innocent man might be coerced into pleading by some improperly obtained evidence and we can't tolerate having people in prison under those circumstances.\nPerhaps the police deliberately perjured themselves in testifying at a preliminary stage of a case and faced with that the defendant had no choice.\nI would say that under those circumstances, where we would have merely allegations those are the reasons we have trials and either we maintain the practice of accepting pleas of guilty or we have trials in every case.\nIf there is a risk of an innocent man --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2430.012, 2444.471, 2448.357, 2469.494, 2507.204, 2520.939, 2536.19, 2549.995, 2570.956], "stop_times": [2444.471, 2448.357, 2469.494, 2507.204, 2520.939, 2536.19, 2549.995, 2570.956, 2572.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2430.012}, "reply_to": "14910__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_045", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Do I understand you to say that there was perjured testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2572.935], "stop_times": [2575.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.935}, "reply_to": "14910__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__1_046", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, I think it was, Your Honor who ask or suggested that perhaps --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2575.858], "stop_times": [2579.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2575.858}, "reply_to": "14910__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_047", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Do you say if there were perjured testimony by a police officer and as a result of that and for no other reason, a man can't take a chance that he is still convicted and there is no way to reach it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2579.549], "stop_times": [2595.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.549}, "reply_to": "14910__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__1_048", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Now, then I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2595.561], "stop_times": [2596.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2595.561}, "reply_to": "14910__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_049", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You don't have to go that far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2596.263], "stop_times": [2597.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.263}, "reply_to": "14910__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__1_050", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Then I think that plea should be vacated and I'm talking about a case where the man admits his guilt and he pleads guilty because after consulting with his counsel, he comes to the conclusion that he is guilty, he will admit it in Court, his conviction will be based on that plea and it just isn't worth a contest, and that brings us to the other allegations in these petitions.\nFirst, that of Mr. Richardson because he attempts in a way to get under this rubric and say that his attorney just completely failed to protect him against the use of a coerced confession.\nWhen Mr. Richardson pleaded guilty, the colloquy situs precluded the dangers suggested in your question, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nAs reflected on pages 90 and 91 of the appendix, the Court inquiry of Mr. Richardson, \u201cDid you discuss this case fully with Mr. McCooe and Mr. Rosner,\u201d those was his assigned counsel, \u201cYes sir, I did.\u201d\n\u201cDid you understand them when you spoke to them about your case?\u201d\n\u201cYes sir.\u201d\nThe Court then established that there were no threats made to induce the plea and no promises from a long list of public officials.\nNow, the Court inquires, \u201cDid you commit this crime?\u201d\n\u201cNow, did you on or about March 24, 1963 in the County of New York willfully and feloniously strike Rosalie Smith with a knife there by causing her death?\u201d\nIf we have a danger of innocent man pleading guilty then the way to attack that is in the colloquy of pleading to protect the pleading procedure as has been suggested in the Bargain case by this Court and in the McCarthy case interpreting Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but in neither of those cases was there one bit of a suggestion that this colloquy, this protection of the defendant must include any inquiry whatsoever from the Court as to the admissibility of evidence.\nWith respect to the other allegation in these petitions which include ineffective assistance of counsel and a judicial threat to induce a plea, our basic position is that the Court of Appeals deprived the District Court of a sound discretion when it overruled the denial of these allegations without a hearing and if there is to be no finality in criminal cases, no end to litigation after a conviction, then there should be no end to the sound discretion of the District Courts who are in the front lines and their colleagues in the state courts reviewing post-conviction claims for relief.\nIt is established that if a claim in post-conviction proceedings is vague, conclusory or palpably incredible then it can be denied without a hearing and that was overlooked by the Court of Appeals in these three cases without dwelling at too great length on the specific facts.\nMr. Richardson who claims ineffective assistance in counsel in objecting to this coerced confession, in his petition in the District Court merely made conclusory allegations at pages A78 and A82 and surely there is nothing stated there which overcomes the colloquy which I read to Your Honors.\nThe Court of Appeals did not say otherwise.\nThey didn't order a hearing on the petition for habeas corpus filed in the District Court.\nThey ordered a hearing on a supplementary affidavit that was attached to the appellate brief in the Second Circuit in complete disregard for the orderly procedures of federal habeas corpus, and this was over the objection of the state which we reassert in this Court that this matter in the supplementary affidavit was not presented to the District Court and it was not presented to the state courts and therefore the relator had not exhausted his available state remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2597.222, 2624.156, 2643.278, 2654.549, 2670.372, 2705.187, 2675.07, 2684.864, 2691.577, 2706.865, 2748.162, 2798.728, 2821.661, 2848.888, 2851.898, 2857.996], "stop_times": [2624.156, 2643.278, 2654.549, 2670.372, 2705.187, 2675.07, 2684.864, 2691.577, 2706.865, 2748.162, 2798.728, 2821.661, 2848.888, 2851.898, 2857.996, 2891.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2597.222}, "reply_to": "14910__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_051", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "This was submitted at the Court of Appeals, Federal Court of Appeals level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2891.171], "stop_times": [2894.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.171}, "reply_to": "14910__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_052", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, it was attached to the appellate brief in 1968.\nThe habeas corpus petition was denied in 1965. Now, in 1966 we gather from the briefs that Mr. Richardson applied to the Second Circuit for a certificate of probable cause and there for the first time he made an allegation that his -- which is repeated in the supplementary affidavit that is attorney told him that by pleading guilty, he would not give up disclaim of the coerced confession.\nI don't have that.\nIt is not reproduced in the appendix, but that is still part of the appellate process that was not before the District Court.\nNow, our position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2894.811, 2899.812, 2928.166, 2929.592, 2937.072], "stop_times": [2899.812, 2928.166, 2929.592, 2937.072, 2938.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2894.811}, "reply_to": "14910__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_053", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That would be corrected vice today in New York, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2938.1], "stop_times": [2942.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.1}, "reply_to": "14910__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_054", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2942.532], "stop_times": [2943.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2942.532}, "reply_to": "14910__1_053", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_055", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That would be corrected vice today in New York as I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2943.709], "stop_times": [2946.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.709}, "reply_to": "14910__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_056", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, that's why as I was about to say even if the allegations in the supplementary affidavit are true and not that they present the picture of an outstanding member of the bar, but if they are true they still do not state a claim for federal relief because they do not show that this man was completely without the effective assistance of counsel and the length of the deliberations and consultations with his counsel which are alleged to be too short are not the test of the effective representation.\nNot only that, but the supplementary affidavit is contradicted by the record.\nIt's contradicted by the pleading minutes and there is no explanation why Mr. Richardson after allegedly having been told by his attorney that he could test his confession by a writ of habeas corpus, waited for a minimum of two-and-a-half years before attempting to do so in the federal court.\nMr. Dash was granted an evidentiary hearing by the Second Circuit on an allegation that when he appeared in Court for pleading, the judge threatened him off the record with the maximum sentence if he went to trial and was convicted.\nNow, if that were true, it would establish a ground in New York State for a hearing -- for relief.\nNew York is very, very careful to preclude judicial threats, but 11 New York State judges before the District Court passed on that petition and said there is not enough substance here for a hearing that included the coram nobis court, five judges of the appellate division and five of the seven judges of the New York Court of Appeals and this was a sound exercise of discretion because the defendant had waited for more than three years before he brought this claim.\nIt was totally unsubstantiated by any affidavit from his attorney and it was contradicted in the state proceedings by the affidavit of the district attorney in charge of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [2946.453, 2982.382, 2986.901, 3014.773, 3032.781, 3040.25, 3073.496], "stop_times": [2982.382, 2986.901, 3014.773, 3032.781, 3040.25, 3073.496, 3087.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2946.453}, "reply_to": "14910__1_055", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_057", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You say there was a split decision on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3087.141], "stop_times": [3089.192], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.141}, "reply_to": "14910__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14910__1_058", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, there were two dissents in the New York Court of Appeals in the Dash case on this issue of the allegation as to threat.\nThe Court of Appeals was unanimous in holding that there was no need for a hearing as to the claim of a coerced confession and in that they were reversed by the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3089.192, 3097.545], "stop_times": [3097.545, 3107.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3089.192}, "reply_to": "14910__1_057", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_059", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Was there an opinion written in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3107.734], "stop_times": [3110.23], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.734}, "reply_to": "14910__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14910__1_060", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "There was a brief opinion written which reaffirmed long standing New York law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3110.23], "stop_times": [3115.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3110.23}, "reply_to": "14910__1_059", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_061", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Who were the dissenters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3115.8], "stop_times": [3116.965], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.8}, "reply_to": "14910__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14910__1_062", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Judges Full and Burke I believe and it was clear why Dash brought this petition as he explains in his motion papers, His co-defendants, Waterman and Devine, who were elected to go to trial received ultimate relief on appeal because the New York Court of Appeals changed the law relating to their right to counsel after indictment during interrogation.\nThere was no finding that these confessions of Waterman and Devine were coerced, but the Court of Appeals anticipated the Messiah decision of this Court.\nNow those men, Waterman and Devine, had an opportunity before Jackson against Denno.\nThey contested their confessions and they want them at the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3116.965, 3145.18, 3155.283, 3160.991], "stop_times": [3145.18, 3155.283, 3160.991, 3165.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3116.965}, "reply_to": "14910__1_061", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_063", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But not on the basis before he had confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3165.525], "stop_times": [3167.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.525}, "reply_to": "14910__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_064", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, but they attempted that but they did at least establish a record and they won.\nAnd Mr. Dash --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3167.496, 3174.245], "stop_times": [3174.245, 3175.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3167.496}, "reply_to": "14910__1_063", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_065", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Is the claim made here that the -- that the confession was made after indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3175.165], "stop_times": [3182.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.165}, "reply_to": "14910__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_066", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3182.562], "stop_times": [3183.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3182.562}, "reply_to": "14910__1_065", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_067", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "So therefore, it would not only be the claim that is not a coerced confession, but also one that's inadmissible because it violates the New York rule that antedated the Messiah decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3183.812], "stop_times": [3196.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.812}, "reply_to": "14910__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_068", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, but the New York rule was not applied, I don't think at this time it was applied retroactively and to my knowledge the Messiah case has not been either, so that I don't think that would give Mr. Dash any relief but in any case it academic, he pleaded guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3196.541], "stop_times": [3210.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3196.541}, "reply_to": "14910__1_067", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_069", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Oh, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3210.118], "stop_times": [3211.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.118}, "reply_to": "14910__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__1_070", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The Williams petition was held sufficient for a hearing on a claim which is quite remarkable at page 50 in the footnote to this habeas corpus petition.\nIt's introduced by the information that six years after the plea of guilty, Mr. Williams' assigned counsel was disbarred for overzealousness in a divorce case.\nNow, when that disbarment notice was published, this petition, this claim was raised in the state court and then in the federal court that Mr. Davidson had just prior to the plea advised the relator that the charge to which the D.A. was allowing to plea was a misdemeanor not a felony and that relator did not discover the fact until sentenced on the felony.\nNow, he was sentence to seven-and-a-half to 15 years for robbery in the second degree.\nIt is palpably incredible that he would knowing at sentencing discovering then that this was not a misdemeanor, wait for six years before informing us as to this advice from counsel, particularly a man who was no stranger to the criminal law.\nThe alibi claim on which the Second Circuit appears independently to have ordered an evidentiary hearing is also vague and palpably incredible.\nThis claim is that Mr. Williams told his attorney that he had an alibi, that he was out of the jurisdiction and the attorney disregarded this.\nThere is no statement as to where Mr. Williams was, there is no corroborating affidavit and Williams waited in this instance eight years before he first informed any one of this alibi.\nNow, if this attorney had suggested a trial on such an alibi then Mr. Williams would be here saying that the attorney was incompetent.\nWhat is the hearing going to be into in the Williams case on this alibi?\nWhat is the purpose of this hearing?\nAnd I think these three petitions with their -- these additional allegations on which hearings have been ordered raise a very serious question in the administration of justice.\nHow much are we going to ponder over past cases when the administration of criminal justice is currently in crisis?\nThe wolf is at the door and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has said that we have to go poking in the chest in the attic to see whether there something amiss there and I think that the ordering of hearings on these allegations weakens and deprecates the great writ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3211.31, 3226.897, 3240.067, 3265.634, 3270.499, 3289.102, 3300.017, 3311.472, 3324.459, 3335.949, 3341.251, 3344.396, 3355.909, 3366.399], "stop_times": [3226.897, 3240.067, 3265.634, 3270.499, 3289.102, 3300.017, 3311.472, 3324.459, 3335.949, 3341.251, 3344.396, 3355.909, 3366.399, 3392.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3211.31}, "reply_to": "14910__1_069", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__1_071", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Juviler.\nMrs. Oberman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3392.707, 3396.195], "stop_times": [3396.195, 3402.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.707}, "reply_to": "14910__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_000", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThere are two primary things that I would like to address myself to because I feel that there has been either misstatement or confusion about first of all, the facts in the case and secondly, just precisely what the court below did do in each of these cases and what it did not do.\nFirst and foremost, I think that it is clear that Second Circuit did not announce a new rule of law in any of these cases.\nIt merely reinterpreted and severely limited one of its own cases, United States against ex rel. Glenn against McMann.\nNow, this was a very long overdue step because the Glenn decision was at odds with decisions in this Court as well as with the decisions in the Courts of Appeal of at least five other circuits.\nSecondly, the court below in limiting this Glenn decision acknowledged that under certain circumstances, the existence of a coerced confession could coerce a guilty plea.\nThe surprising thing about this recognition is that it came so late.\nBut it cannot be stressed enough that the Second Circuit did not hold that the bare allegation that a confession was coerced entitles a habeas petitioner either to a hearing or to relief.\nA certain specified cause an effect relationship has to be alleged and has to be proved and the cause an effect relationship varies in each one of these cases.\nIn the Richardson case and to an extent in the Williams case, the reason that the defendant was prevented from raising his confession claim at trial was because he was represented by counsel who was incompetent or negligent and refused to lift a finger to help him.\nAccording to the allegations, now we're on the pleadings here, and this is not a question of what has been proved, these are un-controverted allegations.\nIn the Dash case, the cause an effect relationship between the coerced confession and the guilty plea was that counsel was unable to do anything meaningful to prevent the coerced confession from being used to convict the defendant at trial and the reason for this was Jackson against Denno or Stein against New York, I should say.\nThe third thing that I would like to point out is that the decisions below do not automatically call into question the validity of all guilty pleas no matter how painstaking and how complete the colloquy at pleading has been or despite the fact that the defendant has been represented by counsel.\nThe Second Circuit merely held I think virtually every other Court in the country that in certain instances where you have off the record or allegations of off the record facts in a petition even a full colloquy at pleading and even representation by counsel do not create an irrebuttable presumption of voluntariness of the plea.\nMoreover, the Second Circuit recognized that both these factors, the completeness of the colloquy and representation by counsel are entitled to great weight in the ultimate assessment of the voluntaries of the plea.\nAnd in this connection, it should be noted that the circuit held that both the belief -- the burden of pleading that is the burden of going forward to make a showing to get a hearing and the burden of proof at the hearing of each and every allegation in the petition was upon the habeas petitioner.\nNow, it must be also stressed that each of these cases came up for review on the pleading and the issue for decision in each case was whether the facts alleged to the each petition's stated claims which have prove at a hearing either in state or federal court would entitle the petitioners to relief under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Second Circuit gave New York the option of holding the hearing that it envisioned because the matter was remitted to the District Court and the District Court was to hold the hearing only if New York did not hold the hearing.\nIn each case, the circuit held that if the allegation were proved at a hearing then pleas in each case were involuntary and for this reason, a hearing had to be held.\nIt should be noted here that the state's position and in all of these cases where they took the position because at least in one case no response was filed in the District Court was that the allegations even if proved at a hearing would not entitle the respondents to relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3402.357, 3405.861, 3427.638, 3437.621, 3447.41, 3462.072, 3476.431, 3483.133, 3498.861, 3514.19, 3533.076, 3545.629, 3572.729, 3593.376, 3619.74, 3635.26, 3658.701, 3703.121, 3716.345], "stop_times": [3405.861, 3427.638, 3437.621, 3447.41, 3462.072, 3476.431, 3483.133, 3498.861, 3514.19, 3533.076, 3545.629, 3572.729, 3593.376, 3619.74, 3635.26, 3658.701, 3703.121, 3716.345, 3733.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3402.357}, "reply_to": "14910__1_071", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_001", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Ms. Oberman could I interrupt you a moment?\nAs I understand the Court of Appeals' opinions, if it were merely alleged by a petitioner that a confession was coerced from him and that that coercion in that confession motivated his plea because he thought it would be usable against him and that therefore his guilty plea was coerced.\nIf those were the allegations as I understand the Court of Appeals' opinions there, he would be that the entitled to a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3733.478, 3738.01, 3767.259], "stop_times": [3738.01, 3767.259, 3774.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3733.478}, "reply_to": "14910__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_002", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3774.675], "stop_times": [3775.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3774.675}, "reply_to": "14910__2_001", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_003", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Let's put aside the -- I know there are other allegations in these cases but as I read their opinions that even if there weren't any allegations of incompetency of counsel, as long as he alleged there was coerced confession and if that coerced confession motivated or caused his plea and without the confession he never would have plead guilty, as long as he alleges that he can get a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3775.378], "stop_times": [3802.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3775.378}, "reply_to": "14910__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_004", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, I would have to amplify that just to a certain extent.\nThe circuit in its burden of pleading put upon the petitioner the obligation to come forward with whatever affidavits record proof to so much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3802.486, 3807.521], "stop_times": [3807.521, 3818.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3802.486}, "reply_to": "14910__2_003", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_005", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Oh!\nSurely, he would have to prove his case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3818.808, 3819.057], "stop_times": [3819.057, 3821.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3818.808}, "reply_to": "14910__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_006", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, no, in order to get the hearing so that the bare allegations as you have outlined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3821.105], "stop_times": [3825.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3821.105}, "reply_to": "14910__2_005", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_007", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Sure, alright.\nWell, assume he makes a detailed allegations as to why he thinks the confession was involuntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3825.713, 3826.971], "stop_times": [3826.971, 3837.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3825.713}, "reply_to": "14910__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_008", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3837.519], "stop_times": [3837.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3837.519}, "reply_to": "14910__2_007", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_009", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And assume he says, there weren't any -- the state had no other evidence that no other substantial evidence but the confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3837.914], "stop_times": [3845.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3837.914}, "reply_to": "14910__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_010", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, if he made a colorable showing and if I think of that's the only way I can express it, the confession was coerced and that the confession for reasons specified was the factor which induced his plea of guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3845.416], "stop_times": [3859.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3845.416}, "reply_to": "14910__2_009", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_011", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's all he has to allege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3859.735], "stop_times": [3862.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3859.735}, "reply_to": "14910__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_012", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3862.083], "stop_times": [3866.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3862.083}, "reply_to": "14910__2_011", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_013", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And then in Richardson you have the additional factor of allegations of incompetency of counsel, don't you, in connection with advising the plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3866.316], "stop_times": [3876.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3866.316}, "reply_to": "14910__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_014", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "In Richardson, you have the factor of incompetency of counsel which I think comes to bear in two places, that it is an independent ground or claim for relief beyond the coerced confession claim and vis-\u00e0-vis the coerced confession claim, counsel's failure to investigate and counsel's wrong advice and it was clearly wrong under New York law and under federal law at that time about the time for raising the confession was the reason the nexus, the causal connection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3876.986], "stop_times": [3916.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3876.986}, "reply_to": "14910__2_013", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_015", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, if you win, if you win, his advice was right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3916.749], "stop_times": [3922.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3916.749}, "reply_to": "14910__2_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_016", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, that's fortuitous circumstance that I don't think should have anything to do with decision here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3922.484], "stop_times": [3929.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3922.484}, "reply_to": "14910__2_015", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_017", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, but I take it then on my previous question if he just alleges the coerced confession that caused his plea, he gets a hearing even though he freely concedes that his counsel was competent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3929.571], "stop_times": [3946.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3929.571}, "reply_to": "14910__2_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_018", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'm afraid I have to divide that question into two parts and then answer each one.\nI think that before the decision in Jackson against Denno, if there is no challenge to the competence of counsel, but there is the allegation that the reason that the confession issue was not raised at trial was because of the Stein procedure and all of the chilling effects that that procedure had upon or the distorting effects that that procedure had upon the fact finding process and the guilt determination.\nThe fact that the defendant was represented by competent counsel under the point of view that circuit took doesn't preclude him from a hearing.\nNow, after Jackson against Denno, you have a different kind of problem because as Mr. Juviler has pointed out, in New York at any rate, you have the full hearing on voluntariness of the confession that's held prior to trial, at that point the defendant has the option of the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [3946.063, 3953.235, 3994.186, 4005.457], "stop_times": [3953.235, 3994.186, 4005.457, 4024.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3946.063}, "reply_to": "14910__2_017", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_019", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "If he takes advantage of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4024.71], "stop_times": [4026.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4024.71}, "reply_to": "14910__2_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_020", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes and after Jackson against Denno the deterrent effect or there is no unconstitutional procedure which could deter a defendant from going to trial on a coerced confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4026.58], "stop_times": [4042.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4026.58}, "reply_to": "14910__2_019", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_021", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But I understand -- as I understand the Court of Appeals' opinion, it did make incompetency of counsel a critical matter in or a necessary item in ordering his hearings.\nIt was the allegation that the coerced confession and the connection between the confession under plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4042.288, 4056.748], "stop_times": [4056.748, 4065.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4042.288}, "reply_to": "14910__2_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_022", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, Your Honor but I believed in the Richardson decision which was not an en banc decision and a separate decision in which one of the dissenters in the en banc wrote the majority.\nThe connecting factor between the coerced confession and the inability to raise the confession issue at trial was -- the allegation of incompetency of counsel and counsel's mis-advise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4065.535, 4080.445], "stop_times": [4080.445, 4095.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4065.535}, "reply_to": "14910__2_021", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_023", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That was the -- that was the factor in the Richardson case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4095.265], "stop_times": [4098.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4095.265}, "reply_to": "14910__2_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_024", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, but in Dash, it was pointed out by the Second Circuit that there was no allegation of incompetent representation by counsel.\nSo then the next question was, well if you have a claim that you consider a valid claim, if you feel that your confession was coerced, you have competent counsel to represent you at trial, you had your chance in it, why didn't you present that claim at trial.\nAnd if you didn't present it at trial can we say that under those circumstances there has been a waiver because you have failed to present the claim in an acceptable state procedure.\nThe answer to that was Stein against New York that even competent counsel before the decision in Jackson against Denno would think long and think hard about taking his defendant to trial with a coerced confession claim under that procedure and I cannot stress enough the detrimental effect, the coercive effect that that procedure had both to counsel and to a defendant confronted with a coerced confession claim and the possibility of trial or plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4098.712, 4109.341, 4128.459, 4142.47], "stop_times": [4109.341, 4128.459, 4142.47, 4186.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4098.712}, "reply_to": "14910__2_023", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_025", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Mrs. Oberman, may I ask?\nIs this to say then that if this hearing goes forward, this is in the Dash case now, not the Richardson case.\nDash is where there's been no allegation of incompetent counsel, and it is established by Dash that indeed the confession was beaten out off him.\nThen are you suggesting that any advice of counsel because he was represented by counsel then becomes irrelevant to his right to relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4186.496, 4188.769, 4198.15, 4212.793], "stop_times": [4188.769, 4198.15, 4212.793, 4222.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4186.496}, "reply_to": "14910__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_026", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4222.676], "stop_times": [4223.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4222.676}, "reply_to": "14910__2_025", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_027", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, what is the relevancy of advice to counsel then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4223.25], "stop_times": [4226.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4223.25}, "reply_to": "14910__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_028", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think the circuit viewed it in terms of the prime motivating factor that other circuits have talked about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4226.295], "stop_times": [4234.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4226.295}, "reply_to": "14910__2_027", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_029", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, excuse Mrs. Oberman, let's take a concrete hypothetical.\nSuppose in fact what counsel did was to say, now you say this was beaten out of you and you have some corroborating proofs that it was beaten out of you.\nHow about there were two police officers involved and there's going to be a question of credibility because those officers are going to deny that they beat it out of you and your witnesses are going to say they did and there's always a chance that being a fact question that the issue of credibility will be resolved in favor officers' story.\nTherefore, I suggest to you that if that should happen, now you may go to electric chair and the better thing for you to do under circumstances then is to plead guilty if we can get a second degree plea.\nNow, suppose that's -- those are the facts as to the advice that his counsel gave him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4234.476, 4239.031, 4251.725, 4271.132, 4284.214], "stop_times": [4239.031, 4251.725, 4271.132, 4284.214, 4287.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4234.476}, "reply_to": "14910__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_030", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Taking your hypothetical strictly on its facts, I think the circuit has answered the question in its opinion by saying even where of confession is coerced, a defense counsel may have -- may properly advise a defendant to plead guilty, say if there's a substantial or the evidence or if the possibility of proving the claim is minimal because of the caliber of witnesses is in so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4287.967], "stop_times": [4315.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4287.967}, "reply_to": "14910__2_029", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_031", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Was that quite the question I put to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4315.167], "stop_times": [4318.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4315.167}, "reply_to": "14910__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_032", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Perhaps I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4318.882], "stop_times": [4319.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4318.882}, "reply_to": "14910__2_031", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_033", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I'm trying to get at now is the reasons you told me, initially a hearing on the -- whether or not the confession is coerced and it is decided factually that the officers testify and I'm speaking now with the habeas hearing and here were the issue was resolved in favor of the petitioner and they said yes it was coerced and yet the counsel had said to him at the time before he pleaded guilty, these are the chances that we take.\nThis is an issue of credibility and if you go to trial and maybe resolved against you.\nDoes that -- does that defeat, what I'm trying to get at is so that's what develops.\nNotwithstanding the finding at this habeas hearing is that the police did beat it out of him, it was coerced, but counsel has just told him what the chances were before he pleaded guilty and he then pleaded guilty, would you think he'd entitled to relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4319.821, 4352.367, 4357.447, 4361.874], "stop_times": [4352.367, 4357.447, 4361.874, 4377.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4319.821}, "reply_to": "14910__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_034", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, the Ninth Circuit has held no in a very recent case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4377.527], "stop_times": [4382.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4377.527}, "reply_to": "14910__2_033", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_035", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And then what would you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4382.818], "stop_times": [4384.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4382.818}, "reply_to": "14910__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_036", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And I would say no also under the decision of the circuit because there are two elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4384.177], "stop_times": [4391.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4384.177}, "reply_to": "14910__2_035", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_037", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, he's not entitled to relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4391.385], "stop_times": [4392.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4391.385}, "reply_to": "14910__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_038", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, there are two elements that have to be proved not only the fact that the confession was coerced, but the fact that the confession was the substantial, the prime, the main motivating force behind entry of the plea of guilty.\nNow, there are of force --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4392.9, 4411.932], "stop_times": [4411.932, 4412.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4392.9}, "reply_to": "14910__2_037", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_039", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, of course the confession is in my hypothetical is not in the sense of what's involved he's getting advice from the lawyer whether or not he should take the chance on the issue of credibility as it bears on his claim of coerced confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4412.551], "stop_times": [4428.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4412.551}, "reply_to": "14910__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_040", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And he was afraid of the confession that's why he pleaded guilty.\nSuppose that was established in habeas corpus hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4428.442, 4431.586], "stop_times": [4431.586, 4435.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4428.442}, "reply_to": "14910__2_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_041", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I thought that your hypothetical was that he was not -- well, perhaps I divided my own mind a little bit to finely not that he was a afraid of the coerced confession but he was afraid that his proof would not be accepted, his proof of coercion would not be accepted voluntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4435.913], "stop_times": [4455.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4435.913}, "reply_to": "14910__2_040", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_042", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, he was -- the lawyer called in frankly as I would expect any good lawyer would. Now, look this is going whether of not a confession is beaten out, it just going to turn on whether the fact finder believes you and your witnesses or believes police and that's the (Voice Overlap) that we go to trial on this and they believe -- the fact finder believes the police you may end up in the electric chair and I think you better not take that chance you just better plead to second degree if we can get such a plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4455.081], "stop_times": [4485.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4455.081}, "reply_to": "14910__2_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_043", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I think that only what I could answer that question Your Honor is the following.\nI believe as I read the Second Circuit decisions that the defendant would lose, given your hypothetical because then this could be a situation possibly were a lawyer could properly advice a defendant to plead guilty despite the confession.\nI think that there are other courts as we pointed out in the brief that do not take this hard and fast line and feel that or have granted relief in cases where the attorney or the defendant or both have to take the confession into account as one factor in determining the strategy of whether to plead or go to trial and to this extent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4485.985, 4490.374, 4511.513], "stop_times": [4490.374, 4511.513, 4537.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4485.985}, "reply_to": "14910__2_042", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_044", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well then, I want to get very clear.\nAt least it's not your position that the Second Circuit has said that a finding at the hearing it has ordered that a confession was coerced in and of itself, entitles the petitioner to have this conviction on the guilty plea set aside.\nThat's not your position, you don't think the Court of Appeals said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4537.967, 4541.107, 4561.914], "stop_times": [4541.107, 4561.914, 4564.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4537.967}, "reply_to": "14910__2_043", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14910__2_045", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I guess that is not my position and yes I don't think the Court of Appeals says that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4564.944], "stop_times": [4569.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4564.944}, "reply_to": "14910__2_044", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_046", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But I gather, you also answer that even if on the habeas hearing it shown that coerced confession was a major factor in inducing the plea that there would not be a relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4569.832], "stop_times": [4581.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4569.832}, "reply_to": "14910__2_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14910__2_047", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, if it -- if it were a major factor in the terms that the Second Circuit has spoken out, if the coerced confession were the prime motivating factor and not other kinds of considerations, then there would be relief but I say that the Second Circuit has taken rather a hard line with this because there are other courts which have granted relief upon a showing that the confession was coerced and that the confession was the factor to be reckoned with.\nIn the pleading decision I think that that I believe that the citations to those cases are at page 32, footnote 29, Zachery against Hale, Cuevas against Rundle and Smiley against Wilson where the Courts in the first two cases in granting relief say that the Court appointed counsel was forced under the circumstances to give some consideration and weight to an illegal confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4581.454, 4620.011], "stop_times": [4620.011, 4666.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4581.454}, "reply_to": "14910__2_046", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_048", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Now, bring this to something that I've been wanting to inquire about by me.\nIn order to decide whether it is the primary motivation, the Court is going to have to hear what other evidence the state to have, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4666.347, 4671.543], "stop_times": [4671.543, 4684.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4666.347}, "reply_to": "14910__2_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_049", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Possibly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4684.782], "stop_times": [4685.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4684.782}, "reply_to": "14910__2_048", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_050", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, now we come to this hearing which maybe three years, nine years, twelve years after the trial and the state then is required to show that it had five eyewitnesses and if they can bring these five eyewitnesses then I suppose reasonably the District Judge might find that the coerced confession, the allegedly coerced confession, was not the primary motivation, is that a reasonably fair conclusion to draw for the moment?\nNow then, suppose the state says yes, we have five eyewitnesses at the time and one of them moved to Hawaii and we can't get the testimony, two of them died and one was in Vietnam, now what kind of a predicament does that put the state in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4685.595, 4723.873], "stop_times": [4723.873, 4743.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4685.595}, "reply_to": "14910__2_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_051", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The point, I think that the dilemma that you pose is really not a prosecution or a state dilemma because it is up to the petitioner to establish that the confession was the prime motivating factor and not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4743.018], "stop_times": [4759.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4743.018}, "reply_to": "14910__2_050", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_052", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The state isn't going to take the risk of just letting him hear all his evidence unless it so utterly spurious on its face that they are willing to take that risk.\nThe state is going to really have to prove its case to show how the total evidence balances with the coerced -- with the confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4759.221, 4769.263], "stop_times": [4769.263, 4778.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4759.221}, "reply_to": "14910__2_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_053", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I think the only answer I can give Your Honor is that the federal courts throughout the country have lived with this problem for long lengths of time that there have been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4778.606], "stop_times": [4789.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4778.606}, "reply_to": "14910__2_052", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_054", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "They suffered would be rather a better word for us, suffered with this problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4789.337], "stop_times": [4793.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4789.337}, "reply_to": "14910__2_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_055", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I like to think that whenever a claimant comes in to Court with a constitutional claim that it is not suffering for a district judge to hear that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4793.657], "stop_times": [4804.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4793.657}, "reply_to": "14910__2_054", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_056", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "12 years later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4804.166], "stop_times": [4806.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4804.166}, "reply_to": "14910__2_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_057", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, in Pennsylvania against or Pennsylvania ex rel Herman against Claudy was eight years later.\nI think in the Machibroda case, it was four or five years later.\nWe're dealing with indigent defendants who are not trained lawyers, who don't wake up right away to violations of their rights because they don't realize that their rights have been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4806.397, 4813.714, 4817.596], "stop_times": [4813.714, 4817.596, 4834.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4806.397}, "reply_to": "14910__2_056", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_058", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "We're dealing now with the cases where they had lawyers, they did have lawyers at the time these pleas were entered.\nNo problem with these people being in any different position because of their indigency than any other defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4834.736, 4842.645], "stop_times": [4842.645, 4849.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4834.736}, "reply_to": "14910__2_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_059", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, two of the defendants alleged that that court-assigned counsel was incompetent, that court-assigned counsel didn't protect their best interests, and those of the hearing goes forward on the allegations or it doesn't.\nNow, I would like just very briefly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4849.597, 4873.766], "stop_times": [4873.766, 4878.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4849.597}, "reply_to": "14910__2_058", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_060", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Just before we leave the business of what would be incompetence then involve in the hearings, in the hearings that have been now ordered under the Court of Appeals directives?\nWouldn't it be enough for the petitioners to carry his burden of proof to say well, yes I confessed and in my opinion and in my view that was coerced confession and that's what motivated my plea of guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4878.217, 4891.186], "stop_times": [4891.186, 4905.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4878.217}, "reply_to": "14910__2_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_061", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4905.394], "stop_times": [4906.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4905.394}, "reply_to": "14910__2_060", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_062", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4906.245], "stop_times": [4907.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4906.245}, "reply_to": "14910__2_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_063", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, first of all the Second Circuit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4907.171], "stop_times": [4908.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4907.171}, "reply_to": "14910__2_062", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_064", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "He knows better than anybody else in the world what motivated his plea of guilty, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4908.592], "stop_times": [4913.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4908.592}, "reply_to": "14910__2_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_065", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, it's not just a question of motivation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4913.189], "stop_times": [4914.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4913.189}, "reply_to": "14910__2_064", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_066", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "(Voice Overlap) motivated it and it is pretty hard to disprove it, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4914.96], "stop_times": [4917.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4914.96}, "reply_to": "14910__2_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_067", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But motivation is only one of the two aspects that have to or one of the two factors that have to be proved.\nThe defendant must prove a real violation of his constitutional rights because the reason that he's given relief is not his subjective state of mind, it's because the state coerced a confession from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4917.564, 4924.297], "stop_times": [4924.297, 4939.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4917.564}, "reply_to": "14910__2_066", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_068", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But how do you get at that without the subjective test, Mrs. Oberman?\nAs justice Stewart suggested, who can say what his motivation was except himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4939.963, 4946.624], "stop_times": [4946.624, 4956.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4939.963}, "reply_to": "14910__2_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_069", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, but the motivation is not the be-all and end-all.\nHe can't say until the cows come home that the reason I confessed or the reason I pleaded was because of this confession.\nIf the confession was not extracted by physical brutality or psychological torture, he has no standing to complain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4956.473, 4959.32, 4967.852], "stop_times": [4959.32, 4967.852, 4978.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4956.473}, "reply_to": "14910__2_068", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_070", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, what if he says, \u201cYes, I confessed orally to a policeman only because he was beating me with his club above my head and this did happen and I did confess orally and that's the reason I pleaded guilty.\u201d\nAnd then the state comes in and says, as far us we can see that there never was a confession of any kind, coerced or un-coerced.\nIt doesn't necessarily disprove this case, does it?\nHe says it happened and that he did confess and that it was a confession that was beaten out of him and that's the reason, the only reason or the substantially motivating reason that induced his plea of guilty, hasn't he proved his case?\nEven though the state says, we can find any confession at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [4978.306, 4991.885, 4999.012, 5002.889, 5017.298], "stop_times": [4991.885, 4999.012, 5002.889, 5017.298, 5020.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4978.306}, "reply_to": "14910__2_069", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_071", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The -- I don't think so.\nI don't think so.\nIn the least you -- this hearing is proceeding before a District Court judge.\nThe District Court judge could believe the defendant or the District Court judge could disbelieve the defendant and it's been my experience as a defense lawyer that the defendant has to come in with the little bit more than you've said in order to convince the District Court judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5020.208, 5022.605, 5023.36, 5028.188], "stop_times": [5022.605, 5023.36, 5028.188, 5041.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5020.208}, "reply_to": "14910__2_070", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_072", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, he's now a petitioner, not a defendant and he comes in and he -- unlike the defendant in a criminal case, the petitioner does have the burden of proof.\nSo we're talking about petitioner on this habeas corpus hearing, and -- all right, just change the situation a little bit and say that it is shown that there was a confession which was arguably a coerced confession.\nAnd then, the state comes back and says, yes but we have this and the petitioner says, and that's the reason I pleaded guilty, this motivating reason and the sole reason.\nThe state responds, the Chief Justice's hypothetical case and said yes but we have this eight eyewitnesses.\nCan the petitioner say, well, I didn't know if there any eyewitnesses that wasn't my reason.\nI did this because of the coerced confession.\nI didn't know about eyewitnesses.\nSo the state showing that if there were in fact eight doesn't defend against his claim, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5041.989, 5051.273, 5067.267, 5078.994, 5086.377, 5091.776, 5093.869, 5096.021], "stop_times": [5051.273, 5067.267, 5078.994, 5086.377, 5091.776, 5093.869, 5096.021, 5102.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5041.989}, "reply_to": "14910__2_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_073", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Your Honor, this may seem like a problem in the abstract, but I don't think it is a problem in the concrete situation because as I have said before --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5102.145], "stop_times": [5110.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5102.145}, "reply_to": "14910__2_072", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_074", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, we're up against the very concrete situation here and I'm just asking what kind of a hearing this is going to be or many hundreds of hearings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5110.861], "stop_times": [5120.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5110.861}, "reply_to": "14910__2_073", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_075", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I would rather -- I would like to answer that by saying that there have been hearings of this sort and perhaps the latest case is French against United States which is Ninth Circuit case were after a full hearing the District Court judge found that the confessions were taken in violation of both Miranda and Escobedo that they were illegal confessions, but also found that the illegal confessions did not induce the plea because there were a number of other facts in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5120.213], "stop_times": [5156.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5120.213}, "reply_to": "14910__2_074", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_076", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Wouldn't you have to show that the petitioner knew of all those facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5156.747], "stop_times": [5162.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5156.747}, "reply_to": "14910__2_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_077", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5162.617], "stop_times": [5163.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5162.617}, "reply_to": "14910__2_076", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_078", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It's not sufficient for the state to show that there were eight eyewitnesses.\nIt has to show that the petitioner knew there were eight eyewitnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5163.769, 5167.183], "stop_times": [5167.183, 5170.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5163.769}, "reply_to": "14910__2_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_079", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't believe that this is how it has been done.\nI think that's the only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5170.087, 5175.749], "stop_times": [5175.749, 5176.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5170.087}, "reply_to": "14910__2_078", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_080", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But if the theory -- that's the theory of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, isn't it?\nThe confession has to be shown to have been motivated by the existence of a -- the plea has to be shown to have been motivated by the existence of a coerced confession and that has to do with subjective motivation, so you have to show what was in the mind of the petitioner and what he had knowledge at the time of the plea, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5176.356, 5181.064], "stop_times": [5181.064, 5204.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5176.356}, "reply_to": "14910__2_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_081", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Not precisely because I think the theory of every other case that we cite in the appendix to our brief is also of substantial motivation theory, but for substantial motivation prime inducing factor and you don't have to psychoanalyze the defendant at the hearing to come to the result.\nIt just -- it hasn't proved that much of a problem in practice.\nI think that that's my only -- the best answer that I can give.\nCourts have been doing this for a long time and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5204.06, 5229.155, 5233.568, 5238.91], "stop_times": [5229.155, 5233.568, 5238.91, 5241.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5204.06}, "reply_to": "14910__2_080", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_082", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Under this standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5241.403], "stop_times": [5242.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5241.403}, "reply_to": "14910__2_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_083", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think it is precisely the same kind of standard announced in every other circuit.\nSubstantial motivation, but for prime factor, language is imprecise and people struggle with a word that shows cause an effect, prime cause an effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5242.954, 5243.625, 5253.016], "stop_times": [5243.625, 5253.016, 5269.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5242.954}, "reply_to": "14910__2_082", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_084", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, the old standard was is this plea voluntary or involuntary the plea of guilty?\nI'm not talking about any confession.\nIs this plea of guilty voluntary or involuntary and generally speaking the test has been was it made intelligently, informingly and with the advice of counsel, by a man competent to make it?\nNow, that's been a general test, conventionally, is that correct or am I all wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5269.109, 5275.726, 5278.282, 5295.331], "stop_times": [5275.726, 5278.282, 5295.331, 5300.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5269.109}, "reply_to": "14910__2_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_085", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I think the test has been yes whether or not the plea was voluntary but what is voluntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5300.748], "stop_times": [5308.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5300.748}, "reply_to": "14910__2_084", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_086", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, exactly that's where the horse is buried, what is voluntary?\nNow, here the new thing about these cases is as I understand it that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has now said even though a plea is made voluntarily according to the conventional test, with all the information of the facts with the advice the counsel, by a man competent, nonetheless it could be set aside if it were substantially motivated by the existence of an involuntary confession.\nHave I misread the Court of Appeals' opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5308.143, 5311.566, 5340.589], "stop_times": [5311.566, 5340.589, 5342.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5308.143}, "reply_to": "14910__2_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_087", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "With the all due difference Your Honor, I don't believe that that was the basis of the decision that all.\nThe genesis of this whole case came from Glenn against McMann.\nGlenn against McMann was a decision which says -- which said that a guilty plea was a waiver of all prior non-jurisdictional defects and refused to recognize the other side of the coin which was that an involuntary guilty plea is a nullity and I think that since Chambers against Florida and Herman against Claudy, Walker and Johnson, Waley and Johnson, this Court has taken into account the pressures brought to bear upon the defendant to get him to plead and specifically that one of those pressures could be the existence of a coerced confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5342.899, 5348.488, 5354.934], "stop_times": [5348.488, 5354.934, 5398.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5342.899}, "reply_to": "14910__2_086", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_088", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'd understood those other cases, at least the ones which I'm familiar, were posted on the proposition that the coercion continued up to and through the time of the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5398.343], "stop_times": [5409.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5398.343}, "reply_to": "14910__2_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_089", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5409.951], "stop_times": [5410.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5409.951}, "reply_to": "14910__2_088", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_090", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Which is presenting quite different thing than a voluntary plea made in the light of the fact that there had been a confession it can be set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5410.359], "stop_times": [5420.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5410.359}, "reply_to": "14910__2_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_091", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But voluntary is the conclusion that we're all after and when you say voluntary plea, I must take exception with you because I think all you have in these cases are pleas of guilty and whether they're voluntary or they're presumptively voluntary, let's say because you have a presumption of regularity and the earmarks of voluntariness were there.\nNow, even in your two confession cases, the second confession can have all the earmarks of respectability, but something might have happened to that defendant before that made it impossible for him to do anything except to utter the second confession of guilt and that's our understanding of the rationale behind the circuit decision.\nPleas don't come out of thin air.\nPleas our caused -- just as jury verdicts don't come out of thin air.\nJury verdicts are predicated upon what goes before the jury, pleas are predicated upon what happens to a defendant between the times he's arrested and between the time he comes to court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5420.535, 5444.415, 5472.822, 5475.301, 5480.031], "stop_times": [5444.415, 5472.822, 5475.301, 5480.031, 5491.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5420.535}, "reply_to": "14910__2_090", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_092", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Doesn't it sometimes have something to do with what happened before he was arrested?\nI can't quite follow your statement that it flows from what happened between the time he was arrested and the time he comes to court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5491.473, 5498.114], "stop_times": [5498.114, 5505.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5491.473}, "reply_to": "14910__2_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_093", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well taking -- yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5505.128], "stop_times": [5506.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5505.128}, "reply_to": "14910__2_092", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_094", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Suppose you have -- suppose you have, this may seem a very elementary question, but it maybe needed to clear it up.\nSuppose that a man robs the supermarket and there are 29 people seen him and all 29 are ready to come in the court, his lawyer interviews all these witnesses whose names are given to him by prosecutor and they all say, yes this is the man and I can identify him.\nSo his advice to the man is you better plead guilty.\nNow, he is coerced, is he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5506.314, 5511.838, 5528.15, 5531.902], "stop_times": [5511.838, 5528.15, 5531.902, 5535.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5506.314}, "reply_to": "14910__2_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_095", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5535.109], "stop_times": [5535.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5535.109}, "reply_to": "14910__2_094", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_096", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "By the facts he is compelled to come to the conclusion that he better take the best plea he can get, is he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5535.909], "stop_times": [5546.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5535.909}, "reply_to": "14910__2_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_097", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, he has a perfectly free choice at that point.\nHe can go to trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5546.134, 5548.555], "stop_times": [5548.555, 5550.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5546.134}, "reply_to": "14910__2_096", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_098", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What's the difference between the free choice in the one case than the other if you will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5550.07], "stop_times": [5554.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5550.07}, "reply_to": "14910__2_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_099", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I can't see a free choice when you have an attorney, say in Richardson, the allegations were this.\nI was picked up.\nI was subject to physical and verbal abuse.\nI confessed my guilt to a crime I didn't commit just to stop the beating.\nI wanted to call a lawyer because I knew a lawyer.\nThey wouldn't let me call a lawyer.\nI was assigned a counsel, a court-assigned counsel to represent me in a capital case.\nHe came in to see me for a ten-minute conference and he said to me, \u201cI'll get the same amount of money no matter what happens to you,\u201d talked to him for ten minutes.\nWhen Richardson and came to Court told the attorney he wanted to go to the trial, he didn't want the plea that was offered because he only confessed since the confession had been beaten out of him.\nThe attorney said, \u201cThis isn't the proper time to raise the confession.\nYou go ahead and take the plea and save your life and bring it up later by habeas corpus.\u201d\nWell, that was completely wrong advice.\nIf this is a voluntary plea --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5554.857, 5565.247, 5567.246, 5570.353, 5576.094, 5578.763, 5580.929, 5586.868, 5597.139, 5609.828, 5613.553, 5618.4, 5620.986], "stop_times": [5565.247, 5567.246, 5570.353, 5576.094, 5578.763, 5580.929, 5586.868, 5597.139, 5609.828, 5613.553, 5618.4, 5620.986, 5623.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5554.857}, "reply_to": "14910__2_098", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_100", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It turned out to be a very good advice, didn't it, so far as the Second Circuit held?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5623.069], "stop_times": [5627.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5623.069}, "reply_to": "14910__2_099", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_101", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Fortuitously only, Your Honor.\nIt could have been a very bad advice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5627.292, 5629.168], "stop_times": [5629.168, 5630.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5627.292}, "reply_to": "14910__2_100", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_102", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It wouldn't have mattered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5630.44], "stop_times": [5635.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5630.44}, "reply_to": "14910__2_101", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_103", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It was -- you can't escape the fact that it was wrong advice at the time.\nThe Nicholson case in New York as we point out in the brief was decided a year before and Nicholson set a guilty plea as a waiver.\nYou can't plead and raise a coerced confession claim.\nThis man says, I wanted to tell a court what those police did to me and my attorney said to me don't do it now.\nLet's go ahead, let's get it over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5635.376, 5640.061, 5647.791, 5651.963, 5661.352], "stop_times": [5640.061, 5647.791, 5651.963, 5661.352, 5664.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5635.376}, "reply_to": "14910__2_102", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_104", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Each one and then there was, Richardson as I understand it turned down the original offer of the guilty plea, opportunity to plead guilty to the greater charge and he negotiated plea was, a bargain was then made that he plead guilty to lesser your charge, lesser, lesser degree of the same offense, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5664.737], "stop_times": [5687.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5664.737}, "reply_to": "14910__2_103", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_105", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The offer of a plea to lesser degree is not an uncommon offer in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5687.356], "stop_times": [5693.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5687.356}, "reply_to": "14910__2_104", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_106", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Or anywhere else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5693.268], "stop_times": [5695.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5693.268}, "reply_to": "14910__2_105", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_107", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Secondly, it could very well be that everything that Richardson says can -- just won't wash at a hearing.\nPerhaps the reason that he pleaded was because of the offer of a lesser plea but the circuit recognized this, the circuit said this is a question that can only be resolved after a hearing.\nWe can't decide this on the pleadings.\nBut my point is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5695.252, 5705.954, 5718.188, 5723.135], "stop_times": [5705.954, 5718.188, 5723.135, 5724.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5695.252}, "reply_to": "14910__2_106", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_108", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Is there anything in the pleadings that says, that New York State was going to use that alleged confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5724.871], "stop_times": [5732.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5724.871}, "reply_to": "14910__2_107", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_109", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor and there's nothing in New York State's answers that say that they weren't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5732.818], "stop_times": [5739.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5732.818}, "reply_to": "14910__2_108", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_110", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You sought the kind of burden, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5739.604], "stop_times": [5747.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5739.604}, "reply_to": "14910__2_109", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_111", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "These cases are little bit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5747.498], "stop_times": [5748.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5747.498}, "reply_to": "14910__2_110", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_112", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Let me put it in another way.\nWhat constitutional right was violated when that policeman beat him up?\nLet's assume that he did.\nWhat constitutional right was violated at that stage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5748.2, 5749.665, 5755.364, 5758.857], "stop_times": [5749.665, 5755.364, 5758.857, 5764.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5748.2}, "reply_to": "14910__2_111", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_113", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, I believe that there is a -- well, at that stage --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5764.931], "stop_times": [5773.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5764.931}, "reply_to": "14910__2_112", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_114", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Isn't it true that it doesn't become a constitutional right unless when it's presented as evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5773.023], "stop_times": [5780.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5773.023}, "reply_to": "14910__2_113", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_115", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5780.071], "stop_times": [5782.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5780.071}, "reply_to": "14910__2_114", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_116", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What right was violated when they beat him up to get a confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5782.575], "stop_times": [5797.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5782.575}, "reply_to": "14910__2_115", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_117", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I will.\nI would -- what comes into the mind is First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, we just can't permit this kind of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5797.514, 5799.627], "stop_times": [5799.627, 5807.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5797.514}, "reply_to": "14910__2_116", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_118", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's due process of law.\nWhat you can't permit is the admission of a coerced confession in the Court of law of criminal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5807.339, 5808.581], "stop_times": [5808.581, 5815.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5807.339}, "reply_to": "14910__2_117", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_119", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You can have the policeman convicted or you can sue him for damages but what constitutional right is violated if the state never uses the alleged confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5815.054], "stop_times": [5825.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5815.054}, "reply_to": "14910__2_118", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_120", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But the point here is that if it was a motivating factor to induce a plea, the state had the benefit of that wrong its police officers committed in that back room of the station house.\nPleas --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5825.434, 5841.808], "stop_times": [5841.808, 5842.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5825.434}, "reply_to": "14910__2_119", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_121", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Do you assume that a state was going to use evidence of violation of the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5842.193], "stop_times": [5848.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5842.193}, "reply_to": "14910__2_120", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_122", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't make the presumption one way or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5848.457], "stop_times": [5850.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5848.457}, "reply_to": "14910__2_121", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_123", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "(Voice Overlap) I should think the presumption would have to be the other way, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5850.576], "stop_times": [5853.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5850.576}, "reply_to": "14910__2_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_124", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'm sorry Your Honor I don't agree.\nThe state made this argument in their brief and our counterargument to that was there has been case after case in which they did introduce it and I think in this respect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5853.122, 5855.68], "stop_times": [5855.68, 5869.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5853.122}, "reply_to": "14910__2_123", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_125", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Now, do you know how many cases there may have been when they didn't because that would never be a matter of record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5869.669], "stop_times": [5874.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5869.669}, "reply_to": "14910__2_124", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_126", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right and this is something that's pointed out that I think very cogently by Professor Oshiler (ph) in his University of Chicago Law Review article where he says that sometimes, compromised police are offered by the prosecution to cover up constitutional weaknesses in their case and I would think that the extent to which it could be shown by a petitioner that he was offered a plea to a lesser degree in his case because the prosecuting attorney was worried about the legality of his confession to that extent bad faith is present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5874.004], "stop_times": [5914.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5874.004}, "reply_to": "14910__2_125", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_127", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But then when a close question, a choice is made, why is not that the end of it?\nYou just posed a hypothetically close case that it may or may not be admissible.\nWhy isn't the choice then final, instead of having to have a district judge review it eight, ten or 12 years later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5914.583, 5923.032, 5930.075], "stop_times": [5923.032, 5930.075, 5941.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5914.583}, "reply_to": "14910__2_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_128", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "In these cases, I think the petitions themselves cry out as to why the choice is not final.\nEach man said, I was coerced into confessing to a crime I did not commit and I pleaded because I had no other alternative and if the law's ears are closed to this kind of plea, just for the name of finality, I think that we haven't gained anything.\nThe other way, okay we have to work a little bit harder but it's worth it in order to uncover the one instance of injustice that may exist or the five or the ten to the 20 and there are -- the plea is the least circumscribed of all procedures upon which a conviction is predicated and what goes on behind the scenes may not be that severed.\nI would just like to turn to the Williams petition for a moment because I think that Mr. Juviler misstated Williams' claims to a certain extent.\nWilliams alleged that he was 20 years old when he was arrested that he was held without booking, he wasn't informed of his rights, he was handcuffed to a chair, he was beaten, he had no food or sleep because of this he confessed and alleged that to confession was false.\nHe said that he was initially offered a plea but he refused to plead and refused to plead guilty but his attorney told him that the plea was merely to a misdemeanor and Williams alleged that the judge at pleading never told him that the crime he was pleading to was a felony.\nWell, the state never produced the Williams hearing minutes, so we don't know whether or not the trial judge informed him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [5941.979, 5950.326, 5975.046, 6021.817, 6038.987, 6059.566, 6080.942], "stop_times": [5950.326, 5975.046, 6021.817, 6038.987, 6059.566, 6080.942, 6090.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5941.979}, "reply_to": "14910__2_127", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_129", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "And what was the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6090.298], "stop_times": [6092.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6090.298}, "reply_to": "14910__2_128", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_130", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6092.568], "stop_times": [6095.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6092.568}, "reply_to": "14910__2_129", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_131", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Larceny or burglary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6095.619], "stop_times": [6097.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6095.619}, "reply_to": "14910__2_130", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_132", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6097.282], "stop_times": [6098.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6097.282}, "reply_to": "14910__2_131", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_133", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Robbery under the statutory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6098.015], "stop_times": [6100.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6098.015}, "reply_to": "14910__2_132", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__2_134", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Now, Williams also alleged that he told his attorney that he had an alibi defense and the attorney refused to raise at a trial were also as Mr. Juviler before pulled out of the thin air.\nThe only fact, one significant fact that I think that we can come forward with was a fact that appears on those so-called DCI sheet which the Attorney General annexed to their answer in District Court which shows that Mr. Williams in fact on a prior date had been identified as being in Dayton, Ohio in Court on a day when he was in jail or in New York City in Court on the day when he was in jail in Dayton, Ohio and that factor in itself gives one a little bit of disquiet.\nSo that again what the circuit did in this Williams case was to look at the allegations to say, do these allegations, state of claim which have proved at a hearing would entitle the petitioner to relief and I think that the answer is if these allegations were proved at a hearing, there is not one court in the country that could say that this was a voluntary plea.\nThis was a plea that was produced not because the defendant freely and voluntarily acknowledged his guilt but because of factors outside of his control which were brought to bear on him and he was left with no alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6100.883, 6116.301, 6160.202, 6188.65], "stop_times": [6116.301, 6160.202, 6188.65, 6212.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6100.883}, "reply_to": "14910__2_133", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_135", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What about the past statement that he did kill the woman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6212.61], "stop_times": [6217.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6212.61}, "reply_to": "14910__2_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_136", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Now, this was Richardson, Your Honor.\nAnd in there --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6217.941, 6219.851], "stop_times": [6219.851, 6219.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6217.941}, "reply_to": "14910__2_135", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_137", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, what about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6219.873], "stop_times": [6223.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6219.873}, "reply_to": "14910__2_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_138", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think and I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6223.798], "stop_times": [6225.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6223.798}, "reply_to": "14910__2_137", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_139", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Before he went, you say the court has went that far, he said on the other day, yes I'm guilty and everything but then he says to a specific crime and he says yes, I did it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6225.435], "stop_times": [6239.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6225.435}, "reply_to": "14910__2_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_140", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "If the confession was involuntary and if the confession was the reason that he made this in-court admission then that in-court admission is tainted and I think that here I must cite Harrison against United States where a similar kind of situation was considered because in that case, the defendant had made a confession which was introduced into two evidence at the first trial and the defendant took the stand in order to counter certain statements that were contained in the confession.\nWhen the confession was ruled involuntary, the state sought to introduce the in-court admission at the second trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6239.867, 6276.66], "stop_times": [6276.66, 6284.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6239.867}, "reply_to": "14910__2_139", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_141", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "We're not dealing with use in that statement except in a colloquy between you and me.\nCouldn't he have said when he said did you kill this woman, could he have said no?\nHe's admitted guilt to the crime and everything else but he had said no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6284.089, 6291.524, 6301.355], "stop_times": [6291.524, 6301.355, 6307.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6284.089}, "reply_to": "14910__2_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_142", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, it would be very difficult to say no after there is a confession and when you have an attorney who is not willing to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6307.682], "stop_times": [6315.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6307.682}, "reply_to": "14910__2_141", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_143", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But he could have said no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6315.63], "stop_times": [6317.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6315.63}, "reply_to": "14910__2_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_144", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "He could have said no and the house could have fallen on his head even harder than it did fall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6317.169], "stop_times": [6322.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6317.169}, "reply_to": "14910__2_143", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_145", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "It did happened.\nThe judge still could have accepted the plea, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6322.124, 6323.031], "stop_times": [6323.031, 6329.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6322.124}, "reply_to": "14910__2_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_146", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "In New York, that's really not so clear because New York has a couple of cases which hold that if inconsistent material comes out at the pleading then the judge does have a duty to make further inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6329.599], "stop_times": [6348.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6329.599}, "reply_to": "14910__2_145", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_147", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, but he could've.\nSo, even he assumed that all of the other was or one side then this is on the other side, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6348.055, 6352.023], "stop_times": [6352.023, 6362.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6348.055}, "reply_to": "14910__2_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_148", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'm afraid that I can't make two compartments and say what happened in Court was respectable even though what happened out of Court immediately before it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6362.32], "stop_times": [6375.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6362.32}, "reply_to": "14910__2_147", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_149", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, would your submission be in trouble so far as I'm concerned if I can put it in two compartments, if I can?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6375.944], "stop_times": [6392.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6375.944}, "reply_to": "14910__2_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_150", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, if the in-court admission is going to be isolated from everything that happened before the statements in court were made, then no collateral attack upon the plea of guilty is possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6392.136], "stop_times": [6411.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6392.136}, "reply_to": "14910__2_149", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_151", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Suppose instead of just asking the question as was put here, did you commit the crime and getting an affirmative answer, suppose the trial judge taking the plea said, now tell me what you did and the defendant then related in great detail all of the circumstances, how to crime was planned and executed, would you say -- would you make the same arguments with reference to the possibility of an alleged coerced confession that you now do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6411.217], "stop_times": [6448.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6411.217}, "reply_to": "14910__2_150", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_152", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, Your Honor because it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6448.906], "stop_times": [6451.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6448.906}, "reply_to": "14910__2_151", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_153", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "In other words, then the issue does not have anything to do with guilt or innocence, but only with what led the man to decide to make the plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6451.779], "stop_times": [6466.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6451.779}, "reply_to": "14910__2_152", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_154", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, guilt or innocence is relevant to a certain extent, but I don't think it's dispositive because in all cases where the voluntariness or the intelligent nature of a plea is considered, the allegation that a man is innocent to is not critical because we are arguing due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6466.436], "stop_times": [6486.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6466.436}, "reply_to": "14910__2_153", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_155", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You're now speaking though in the context of case towards being tried and the question of the use of the confession is involved, isn't that quite different when you come to a plea of guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6486.721], "stop_times": [6495.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6486.721}, "reply_to": "14910__2_154", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_156", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor because a plea can be coerced even from a man who is guilty and in that -- in a such a case the Due Process Clause does not permit that plea to stand.\nIf a plea is coerced because let's say a judge tells a defendant I know that you're the man that did it and you got a trial and waste my time and you're going to get 60 years whereas if you plead I'll give you consideration and then man pleads, that's not a voluntary plea even though the man might be guilty and that plea is in violation of due process of law because we have two values that we're concerned with.\nThe reliability of the fact finding process, the pleading process and also the value of making this process one that comports with due process of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6495.911, 6509.454, 6537.906], "stop_times": [6509.454, 6537.906, 6553.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6495.911}, "reply_to": "14910__2_155", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_157", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "How does that value to come in to play when the man has stood before the judge in open courtroom, and spent 15 minutes describing in detail how he committed the crime when there can be no possibility that a policeman or anyone else is going to beat him with the club in the presence of a judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6553.91], "stop_times": [6574.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6553.91}, "reply_to": "14910__2_156", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__2_158", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But if his freedom of choice has been removed, if he can make no other statement because of what happened to him before the plea was entered, then the in-court admission is as tainted as the out of court admission and I think that this I can only again cite to Harrison because I think this was the consideration which underlie the Harrison case.\nThere was no question about the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the admissions made on trial in that case.\nThe question was whether or not those admissions were the fruit of a poison tree, and this is precisely the way I see.\nThe plea situation itself was the in-court admission at the time the plea was taken a fruit of the poison tree and the poison tree being a coerced confession in all of these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6574.374, 6604.947, 6615.056, 6627.924], "stop_times": [6604.947, 6615.056, 6627.924, 6641.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6574.374}, "reply_to": "14910__2_157", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_159", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What was the evidence, state evidence on which you say it was a coerced plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6641.84], "stop_times": [6650.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6641.84}, "reply_to": "14910__2_158", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_160", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "A coerced plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6650.126], "stop_times": [6651.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6650.126}, "reply_to": "14910__2_159", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_161", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, what was the evidence to support that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6651.527], "stop_times": [6656.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6651.527}, "reply_to": "14910__2_160", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_162", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, in each of the three cases there were independent or separate allegations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6656.379], "stop_times": [6666.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6656.379}, "reply_to": "14910__2_161", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_163", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'm not talking about the allegations.\nWhat was the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6666.322, 6667.796], "stop_times": [6667.796, 6670.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6666.322}, "reply_to": "14910__2_162", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_164", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I don't know, Your Honor because there has never been the hearing.\nWe have only that the petitioners allegations and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6670.221, 6672.742], "stop_times": [6672.742, 6677.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6670.221}, "reply_to": "14910__2_163", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_165", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What was the allegation of coercion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6677.702], "stop_times": [6681.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6677.702}, "reply_to": "14910__2_164", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_166", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The allegation -- (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6681.135], "stop_times": [6681.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6681.135}, "reply_to": "14910__2_165", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_167", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Mere existence of a fear that he might be convicted because of the coerced confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6681.457], "stop_times": [6690.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6681.457}, "reply_to": "14910__2_166", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_168", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, in -- the allegations vary from case to case because each case was brought separately.\nThese were not three cases that were brought together.\nThey just came sort of went their way up together.\nSo that in Richardson, the first case you have a man who's on trial for a capital case.\nHe alleged that he was questioned, beaten and that the reason that he confessed to the police was to get them to stop beating him even though he hadn't committed the crime.\nHe alleged that he was given court-assigned counsel who refused to do anything to prepare for trial and who also affirmatively mislead him about the time for raising the issue of coerced confession and Richardson said in effect because of the coerced confession, because my counsel didn't do anything for me, I had no choice other than to plead guilty.\nTherefore, I pleaded and I made the admissions that I made in Court.\nIn Dash, you have a defendant who was arrested after he was indicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6690.316, 6699.159, 6703.081, 6706.86, 6714.534, 6728.197, 6754.333, 6760.085], "stop_times": [6699.159, 6703.081, 6706.86, 6714.534, 6728.197, 6754.333, 6760.085, 6767.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6690.316}, "reply_to": "14910__2_167", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_169", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "So, he put himself up to prove two separate statements, one was that he was beaten and coerced about beating and to a confession.\nThe second that his lawyer had advised him to plead guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6767.225, 6778.274], "stop_times": [6778.274, 6784.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6767.225}, "reply_to": "14910__2_168", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_170", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No that his -- that his lawyer refused to do anything to prepare the case to take to the case to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6784.503], "stop_times": [6798.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6784.503}, "reply_to": "14910__2_169", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_171", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Did he say that the charge that he'd made anything complain about his lawyer in court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6798.038], "stop_times": [6803.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6798.038}, "reply_to": "14910__2_170", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_172", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, there was no allegation about the complaint but the Mr. Justice Black, this is -- the complaints to court are really the exception rather than the rule.\nWith the kind of client that we have legal aid society in New York City represent, people don't know enough to complain about their rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6803.923, 6815.136], "stop_times": [6815.136, 6825.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6803.923}, "reply_to": "14910__2_171", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_173", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, isn't it true that about what percentage of your people that come to legal aid complain about ineffective counsel, including legal aid, what percentage, about 90, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6825.635], "stop_times": [6840.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6825.635}, "reply_to": "14910__2_172", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_174", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Oh, I wouldn't think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6840.882], "stop_times": [6843.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6840.882}, "reply_to": "14910__2_173", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_175", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, if the petitions filed in the Southern District about how many complains ineffective counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6843.226], "stop_times": [6849.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6843.226}, "reply_to": "14910__2_174", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_176", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I haven't seen at that often and I've been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6849.113], "stop_times": [6854.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6849.113}, "reply_to": "14910__2_175", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_177", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Where is and if in order to sustain your position, do we have to say that charge of ineffective counsel of itself will get this relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6854.061], "stop_times": [6863.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6854.061}, "reply_to": "14910__2_176", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_178", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, not a charge.\nYou can't make a conclusory allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6863.949, 6864.693], "stop_times": [6864.693, 6867.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6863.949}, "reply_to": "14910__2_177", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_179", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What it is that he didn't do anything is rather conclusory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6867.963], "stop_times": [6873.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6867.963}, "reply_to": "14910__2_178", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_180", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, that there was -- here you have a ten-minute conference taking the allegations on their face un-controverted an allegation of a ten-minute conference between an attorney and a client in a capital case and there are at least --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6873.104], "stop_times": [6888.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6873.104}, "reply_to": "14910__2_179", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_181", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Do you have any doubt that was told to any judge in New York State, he would have given a continuance?\nIs there any doubt in your mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6888.367, 6897.04], "stop_times": [6897.04, 6899.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6888.367}, "reply_to": "14910__2_180", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_182", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But yet you have a case in the Ninth Circuit where the same thing happened.\nThe defendant didn't complain and he only got his relief on a writ of habeas corpus years after the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6899.452, 6903.168], "stop_times": [6903.168, 6911.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6899.452}, "reply_to": "14910__2_181", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_183", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I'm talking about New York.\nCertainly, a judge wouldn't call someone into trial who haven't seen his lawyer more than ten minutes.\nYou're not going to say that, aren't you?\nForce him to try?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6911.881, 6915.014, 6919.265, 6921.677], "stop_times": [6915.014, 6919.265, 6921.677, 6925.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6911.881}, "reply_to": "14910__2_182", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_184", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "But still and no complaint was made and possibly at a hearing the fact that no complaint was made might be considered dispositive either of the truth or falsity of the defendant's allegations afterwards or may not but that's something to be considered at a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6925.662], "stop_times": [6944.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6925.662}, "reply_to": "14910__2_183", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_185", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Was that litigated in New York Courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6944.916], "stop_times": [6947.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6944.916}, "reply_to": "14910__2_184", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_186", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6947.225], "stop_times": [6947.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6947.225}, "reply_to": "14910__2_185", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_187", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Was it litigated into post-conviction in New York Courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6947.86], "stop_times": [6951.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6947.86}, "reply_to": "14910__2_186", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_188", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "There was never a hearing in anyone of these three cases in the New York Courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6951.082], "stop_times": [6954.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6951.082}, "reply_to": "14910__2_187", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_189", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Was it alleged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6954.323], "stop_times": [6956.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6954.323}, "reply_to": "14910__2_188", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_190", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes it was, I believe all of these allega -- all of these claims were alleged and Mr. Juviler's bringing in exhaustion of state remedies on oral argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6956.051], "stop_times": [6965.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6956.051}, "reply_to": "14910__2_189", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_191", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You believe it but is it here in the record?\nIs it here in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6965.963, 6969.118], "stop_times": [6969.118, 6970.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6965.963}, "reply_to": "14910__2_190", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_192", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6970.111], "stop_times": [6970.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6970.111}, "reply_to": "14910__2_191", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_193", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What happened in the New York Courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6970.587], "stop_times": [6973.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6970.587}, "reply_to": "14910__2_192", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_194", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That there were post-conviction -- that there were post-conviction remedies sought probably coram nobis in all cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6973.72], "stop_times": [6983.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6973.72}, "reply_to": "14910__2_193", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_195", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, are the papers here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6983.799], "stop_times": [6985.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6983.799}, "reply_to": "14910__2_194", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_196", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe state never made the papers a part of the record below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6985.76, 6987.132], "stop_times": [6987.132, 6991.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6985.76}, "reply_to": "14910__2_195", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_197", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Well, you could have, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6991.776], "stop_times": [6994.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6991.776}, "reply_to": "14910__2_196", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_198", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Your Honor, we were assigned in the Circuit Court of Appeals at which point the record was fixed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [6994.363], "stop_times": [7001.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6994.363}, "reply_to": "14910__2_197", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_199", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "You didn't make any effort to get that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7001.747], "stop_times": [7004.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7001.747}, "reply_to": "14910__2_198", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_200", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7004.024], "stop_times": [7005.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7004.024}, "reply_to": "14910__2_199", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_201", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "So, if we want to see it, we'll have to go find to what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7005.21], "stop_times": [7012.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7005.21}, "reply_to": "14910__2_200", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14910__2_202", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "The papers were not before the District Court and that's the way the cases came up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7012.606], "stop_times": [7019.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7012.606}, "reply_to": "14910__2_201", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_203", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Are all three charged with the same crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7019.805], "stop_times": [7022.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7019.805}, "reply_to": "14910__2_202", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_204", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7022.868], "stop_times": [7023.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7022.868}, "reply_to": "14910__2_203", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_205", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Separate crimes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7023.916], "stop_times": [7025.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7023.916}, "reply_to": "14910__2_204", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_206", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Separate crime, Richardson --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7025.13], "stop_times": [7026.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7025.13}, "reply_to": "14910__2_205", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_207", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Separate places?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7026.324], "stop_times": [7028.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7026.324}, "reply_to": "14910__2_206", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_208", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7028.034], "stop_times": [7028.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7028.034}, "reply_to": "14910__2_207", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_209", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Separate times?\nThese are all three charges and a lawyer had made the same false statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7028.583, 7031.489], "stop_times": [7031.489, 7037.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7028.583}, "reply_to": "14910__2_208", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__2_210", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe allegations are different in each case.\nThe allegations that I gave you before were the allegations in the Richardson case.\nThe allegations on the Dash case are completely different because it wasn't -- Dash never challenged the competence of his attorney.\nDash said that the reason he didn't go to trial and raised the coerced confession claim was because he had an -- the only trial procedure given to him by New York was an unconstitutional one and that the failure to invoke an unconstitutional procedure is not a waiver.\nWilliams alleged that his attorney didn't investigate the alibi defense.\nI see that my time is over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7037.692, 7040.365, 7044.62, 7051.265, 7059.219, 7080.859, 7093.135], "stop_times": [7040.365, 7044.62, 7051.265, 7059.219, 7080.859, 7093.135, 7095.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7037.692}, "reply_to": "14910__2_209", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__2_211", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you, Mrs. Oberman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7095.218], "stop_times": [7097.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7095.218}, "reply_to": "14910__2_210", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__3_000", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "As Mrs. Oberman says, it's very difficult to assess the competency of counsel and it's rarely required that a federal court do so.\nWhat I would venture to say that if Mr. William's attorney had attempted to rest on alibi defense at trial on the defendant's fingerprint record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7097.492, 7107.041], "stop_times": [7107.041, 7118.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7097.492}, "reply_to": "14910__2_211", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_001", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What was it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7118.027], "stop_times": [7119.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7118.027}, "reply_to": "14910__3_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__3_002", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "If Mr. Williams attorney had attempted to base an alibi defense at trial on his client's fingerprint record, then the attorney would have come to the attention of the appellate division long before that divorce case.\nThis fingerprint record merely shows that two persons with the name William McKinley or Williams McKinley or McKinley Williams were in custody, one in Ohio and the other in New York and it expressly states that there are no fingerprint cards to support this statement.\nNor it must we assume that the Richardson petition even with the supplementary affidavit establishes ineffective assistance of counsel.\nThe defendant Richardson was charged with a double killing by stabbing, two first degree murders.\nThe attorney secured for him a plea of guilty to one second degree murder and Your Honors will recall from the pleading colloquy that his client unequivocally admitted his guilt of this crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7119.084, 7135.513, 7158.081, 7172.025, 7180.546], "stop_times": [7135.513, 7158.081, 7172.025, 7180.546, 7194.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7119.084}, "reply_to": "14910__3_001", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_003", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "What was he charged for admitting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7194.902], "stop_times": [7196.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7194.902}, "reply_to": "14910__3_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14910__3_004", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "He was charged with stabbing to death two people at the same time, and he admits in his motion papers before this Court that the police knew that three men had seen him in the company of the deceased pair before they started an altercation which led to their death.\nHe admits that he had blood on his clothing and he admits that these people who died were his relatives and he further acknowledges that he gave the police a false alibi prior to the initiation of the coercive tactics which he now alleges, and he attributes this false alibi to his desire to avoid getting these three men in trouble.\nFurther, Mr. Richardson acknowledges that he did have two conferences although they were brief with his attorney respecting the admissibility of his confession and the attorney came to a reasoned decision that it would be best or that it was not -- he was not going to succeed if he attempted to keep it out of evidence.\nThe only defense tendered to any court at any stage of the litigation against Mr. Richardson, is that in his District Court habeas corpus petitions which is surely a very weak foundation for a defense to a first degree murder charge.\nAt the time of the altercation Mr. Richardson alleges involving these two persons his relatives, I was the only other person present and when they drew knives and started stabbing at each other I tried to stop them and break them apart but I couldn't, I only succeeded in getting my clothes bloody.\nThey took me to the station house and I tried to explain what happened as far as I knew and showed them my bloody clothes, then they booked me on homicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7196.886, 7223.012, 7261.288, 7282.676, 7302.297, 7324.545], "stop_times": [7223.012, 7261.288, 7282.676, 7302.297, 7324.545, 7336.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7196.886}, "reply_to": "14910__3_003", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_005", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That was not in New York City or the state, is that Buffalo or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7336.049], "stop_times": [7339.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7336.049}, "reply_to": "14910__3_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__3_006", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, that was New York County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7339.348], "stop_times": [7341.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7339.348}, "reply_to": "14910__3_005", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_007", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Richardson I thought was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7341.997], "stop_times": [7343.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7341.997}, "reply_to": "14910__3_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__3_008", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Yes, New York County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7343.221], "stop_times": [7343.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7343.221}, "reply_to": "14910__3_007", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_009", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "-- in the northern district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7343.917], "stop_times": [7345.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7343.917}, "reply_to": "14910__3_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__3_010", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "No, Richardson -- the petition was in the Northern District.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7345.055], "stop_times": [7349.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7345.055}, "reply_to": "14910__3_009", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_011", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Because that's where he was incarcerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7349.013], "stop_times": [7350.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7349.013}, "reply_to": "14910__3_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14910__3_012", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7350.541], "stop_times": [7351.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7350.541}, "reply_to": "14910__3_011", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_013", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "I think your time is up, Mr. Juviler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7351.639], "stop_times": [7353.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7351.639}, "reply_to": "14910__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__3_014", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7353.231], "stop_times": [7354.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7353.231}, "reply_to": "14910__3_013", "speaker": "michael_r_juviler"}
{"id": "14910__3_015", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you for you submission.\nMrs. Oberman, you appeared on behalf to Legal Aid Society that while you were not appointed by the Court, your Legal Aid Society fulfilled a function similar to Court-appointed counsel and we thank you for your assistance to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7354.089, 7355.952], "stop_times": [7355.952, 7370.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7354.089}, "reply_to": "14910__3_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14910__4_000", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7370.844], "stop_times": [7371.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7370.844}, "reply_to": "14910__3_015", "speaker": "gretchen_white_oberman"}
{"id": "14910__4_001", "conversation_id": "14910", "text": "Counsel we thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_153", "start_times": [7371.513, 7373.363], "stop_times": [7373.363, 7374.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7371.513}, "reply_to": "14910__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__0_000", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Number 64, Mills and others against the Electric Auto-Lite Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [58.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__0_001", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [58.858], "stop_times": [62.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.858}, "reply_to": "15155__0_000", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_002", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr. Shure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [62.454], "stop_times": [63.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 62.454}, "reply_to": "15155__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__0_003", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "-- and may it please the Court.\nThis case is here on certiorari to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.\nPetitioners are minority shareholders of the Electric Auto-Lite Company and they sued derivatively and as a class action on behalf of all other minority shareholders with respect to a merger proxy statement which was mailed to the shareholders of Electric Auto-Lite in 1963.\nThe action is brought against Electric Auto-Lite for whose benefit is sought against Mergenthaler, the majority shareholder which own 54% of Auto-Lite stock and against American Manufacturing Company, the parent of Mergenthaler and owner of 1/3 of its stock.\nThe story begins about two years earlier when American Manufacturing Company at the top of the pyramid found itself in a legal situation where presumptively, all of the transactions between its affiliates Mergenthaler and Auto-Lite and itself or any of them had to be subject possibly to investment company act scrutiny and regulation.\nThis regulation is substantive termed post some very serious problems and to avoid the risks of this kind of regulation, an application was made to the Corporate Regulation Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an exemption.\nUnder a provision which permits such an exception of it can be shown at the business of the parent is not that of an investing company but it is primarily engaged in a business other than that of owning stocks through controlled subsidiaries.\nTo show that American was primarily engaged in the operation of Auto-Lite and its business on a day-today basis, respondents offered evidence of the fact that Mergenthaler actually dominated the day-to-day business of Auto-Lite and that this was done in cooperation with American and that this domination occurred through the fact that all of the directors -- all of the directors of Auto-Lite had been handpicked.\nSeven of them were handpicked by Mergenthaler and seven of them were direct nominees and four of them had been retained at sufferance and as the testimony went there for the benefit of Mergenthaler.\nNot for the benefit of Auto-Lite as they bought it and thus showing the append exemption order.\nAnd hard on the heels of this exemption order, they issued the proxy statement with regard to the proposed merger between Mergenthaler and Auto-Lite.\nThe proxy statement was completely silent about this domination of the Board of Directors.\nIn fact, it was completely silent as to any relationship between the Board of Directors of Auto-Lite and Mergenthaler and American.\nAnd although conscious with the fact that it was necessary to disclose such relationships, they did disclose that there were four directors of Auto-Lite who were common to Mergenthaler.\nAnd when I'm to make the post of representation that no director has any other interest direct or indirect in the proposed merger.\nIn the complaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that this was an outcome of misrepresentation which is certainly a major nondisclosure.\nThe proxy statement did say that the Board of Directors has carefully considered and approved the terms of the merger and recommends that the shareholders vote to approve the plan of merger.\nRespondents despite the fact that the suit was pending proceeded to consummate the merger and this puts our situation here in exactly the same context as the situation in Borak versus J. I. case which this Court decided in 1964 and which we say is determinative of the issues here because there too when the merger was consummated, the people took the risk, decided they go ahead knowing there was a lawsuit pending but nevertheless went ahead with the knowledge of what the claims of the plaintiffs were.\nThe -- since the facts were undisputed because we have there sworn statements with other case, the District Court took the view that the shareholders were entitled to be informed of these interrelationships between the Board of Directors making the recommendation and the adversary in the merger negotiations and entered judgment -- a summary judgment under rule 56 (c) of the Federal Rules of several procedure which is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of fact that there have been a violation through nondisclosure of a material fact or facts.\nThe Court reserved however brought up the question of cause or relationship and after hearings were held on the cause of relationship and it was demonstrated to the Court that this merger was consummated through the use of proxies procured through the unlawful proxy statement.\nThe Court then made a further finding and entered a supplemental summary judgment holding that the issue of liability had been established and that there was a violation of the Act.\nThe Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court on the fact that there was this material nondisclosure.\nBoth Courts has little difficulty in coming with the conclusion that the failure to disclose this conflict of interest, the relationship with the adversary was so material that a violation had occurred so the Court of Appeals in a very carefully considered opinion rule that there had been this violation of the Section 14 and Rule 14 (a) and Rule 14 of the regulations promulgated by the SEC.\nThe District Court reserved all questions of relief for further hearing.\nThis under the summary of judgment proceedings of permissible to have a judgment on liability first and then after that is disposed out.\nThe appeal by the appellants of course came immediately after the District Court's ruling and finding.\nSince the Court of Appeals found that there had been a violation and that the facts not disclosed were material, the respondents here filed no petition for certiorari and did not seek to save that question for review by this Court.\nWhen petitioners filed a petition, the respondents resisted our petition, filed no cross petition, and we believe that that matter is therefore not pending before this Court.\nNow, this Court requested the Government to file a brief as amicus and the Government in its brief as will be noted aggress with petitioners' view as to what issues are pending on this certiorari hearing and theirs are essentially the same as our.\nThat was the Government.\nThe respondents of course attempt to seek a review and a weighing of the evidence by this Court and a great length in their brief, they argue what evidence it was before the other Courts.\nWe have not answered that because we have felt governed by the rules of this Court and we've adhered to the question only that on which this Court granted certiorari.\nThe -- now in a separate portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeals deals with the question of causation.\nAnd here it rules that the District Court was an error.\nAlthough agreeing that the proxy statement caused the merger in the sense that those essential to the merger were procured through the unlawful proxy statement, the Court of Appeals laid down a different test of causation asking whether the misleading statement and omission caused the submission of sufficient proxies to change the result of the vote as the Court of Appeals said more exact question is whether that particular misrepresentation and are wrongful -- material wrongful omission actually resulted in the votes.\nThe cracks of the Court of Appeals' opinion, lies at this point toward the end.\nIt's within the last two pages of the opinion.\nThe material offered by defendants on the merits of the terms of merger suggest that it may be possible for them to satisfy the Court by preponderance of probabilities that the merger would have received a sufficient even if the proxy statement had not been misleading in the respect found.\nThe petitioners take the position that this kind of speculation or guesswork attempt to unscramble the minds of the 5400 minority shareholders who voted for the merger is essentially going to be a guesswork proposition.\nThe type of undertaking that courts do not undertake.\nThere are many decisions fully won by Justice Cardozo long ago in which at common law, he said that we can't get in to these nice speculations as to which particular bit of information in a series -- complicated series of facts affected the person's mind.\nBut the Court of Appeals was really talked about here.\nThey speak of a footnote when they say the Court's finding question common law is reliance.\nNow, there's nothing in the Borak case, there's nothing in the Exchange Act of 1934 which is before this Court.\nThere's nothing in the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission that says anything about reliance.\nThe -- we get down to the question of what is the purpose of this legislation.\nOur text must be Borak because we think Borak inclusively disposes in this case.\nThe test is what was the purpose?\nAnd the purpose was to have an honest suffrage.\nThis -- the Rule 14 in Section 14 (a) do not say that all under fair mergers are barred.\nThis is a disclosure statute.\nIt says you must make full disclosure so that there may be a fully informed voting on the question that is presented in the proxy statement.\nIf the proponents of a merger want to set out all of the horrible things and assuming a plan is just terribly untrue and they want to set the whole thing out, and they tell everything fully, there's no violation of the statute.\nBut the Court of Appeals in interpreting a federal statute has gone the common law standards and creates this impracticable standard as to how you resolve what went on in people's minds and this assumes of course that the stockholders would have voted for any fair merger.\nThey don't discuss whether it may be just fair, a little bit fair, a whole light fair, overwhelming of what.\nThe assumption is that the shareholders in guessing what went on their minds and guessing and speculating what they would do would vote for a fair merger.\nWell, that is not consistent with known facts.\nPeople have many reasons for voting.\nHere, there were many facts disclosed as to market value, the book value -- the book value here was $88.00 a share and the people were getting less than 75% of book on this merger.\nAnd when one analyze that the figures in the proxy statement would realize they weren't even getting the market value of their Auto-Lite shares because the preferred shares of Mergenthaler that would be giving an exchange if converting into common immediately would bring something like $6.00 to $9.00 less on the market than they would've had for their shares of Auto-Lite.\nBut the reason that the whole plan was unfair was that the -- they were taking less at less than 75% of book of value.\nNow, with all of these, it is true --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [63.72, 68.034, 73.212, 99.837, 120.606, 150.62, 167.895, 184.312, 217.501, 232.023, 238.103, 246.658, 253.353, 262.128, 273.523, 283.657, 293.244, 309.977, 347.393, 390.978, 411.325, 428.129, 438.722, 474.797, 481.847, 492.141, 502.099, 525.873, 537.845, 555.919, 556.8, 568.304, 579.893, 588.939, 593.966, 635.247, 640.715, 643.962, 666.843, 690.362, 693.416, 717.805, 720.152, 725.591, 732.69, 738.922, 743.366, 749.739, 754.208, 759.294, 769.263, 770.962, 780.858, 793.036, 812.891, 818.655, 829.003, 832.926, 835.265, 849.992, 870.634, 879.687], "stop_times": [68.034, 73.212, 99.837, 120.606, 150.62, 167.895, 184.312, 217.501, 232.023, 238.103, 246.658, 253.353, 262.128, 273.523, 283.657, 293.244, 309.977, 347.393, 390.978, 411.325, 428.129, 438.722, 474.797, 481.847, 492.141, 502.099, 525.873, 537.845, 555.919, 556.8, 568.304, 579.893, 588.939, 593.966, 635.247, 640.715, 643.962, 666.843, 690.362, 693.416, 717.805, 720.152, 725.591, 732.69, 738.922, 743.366, 749.739, 754.208, 759.294, 769.263, 770.962, 780.858, 793.036, 812.891, 818.655, 829.003, 832.926, 835.265, 849.992, 870.634, 879.687, 881.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 63.72}, "reply_to": "15155__0_002", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_004", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I perhaps have missed the point in this case.\nI thought there was no attack here on the fairness of the terms of the merger itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [881.439, 885.243], "stop_times": [885.243, 890.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.439}, "reply_to": "15155__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15155__0_005", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "The complaint --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [890.411], "stop_times": [891.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.411}, "reply_to": "15155__0_004", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_006", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Am I mistaken about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [891.007], "stop_times": [892.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.007}, "reply_to": "15155__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15155__0_007", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That is not pending before the Court Your Honor at this time.\nThe question of fairness we say is petitioners that the issue of fairness has nothing to do with the remedy and restitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [892.206, 897.171], "stop_times": [897.171, 904.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.206}, "reply_to": "15155__0_006", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_008", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [904.323], "stop_times": [905.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.323}, "reply_to": "15155__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15155__0_009", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "The attack that the trial here, the manner -- the resolution of the case below that brought the case here did not involve the question of fairness at all.\nIt was a showing that there was a violation of the proxy rules and plaintiffs maintain that to establish our cause of action under Borak, fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [905.863, 919.728], "stop_times": [919.728, 929.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.863}, "reply_to": "15155__0_008", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_010", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That's what I thought and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [929.227], "stop_times": [930.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.227}, "reply_to": "15155__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15155__0_011", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That's right.\nThe Court of Appeals injected this issue of fairness and they setup a standard that is the plan is fair, we will assume that the people would've voted for it and if you, the plaintiffs -- the petitioners or plaintiffs are unable to establish that the plan was unfair or putting the bird in the other way, they said that the respondents by the burden of persuasion should demonstrate that this is fair if they can and they put in their expert witnesses and so on and then we put in ours.\nAnd you get down to the question of whether or not at a very lengthy battle of attrition as to whether or not it's fair.\nWe say that has absolutely nothing to do with the violation and on that, we must stand or fall.\nEither Borak means what it says or it doesn't mean anything.\nAnd to borrow a common law test of constructive fraud which the Borak decision says that the Court is trying to get away from it and Congress was trying to get away from.\nAnd to inject it in to a disclosure statute which involves a public interest and fair -- and fair disclosure to shareholder so they may vote and know what they're voting on without having all the evils that came prior to the Securities Act.\nWe're arguing this case exactly 40 years and two days -- and two weeks to the day after the stock market price of 1929 and all of these investigations, the preambles to the Securities Act all talk about what they're trying to cure.\nThey're trying to cure the secrecy.\nThey're trying to cure the nondisclosures.\nThey're not trying to say let's have fair plan or commander to make this plan fair.\nYou are commanded to make disclosure in a full and honest disclosure and that's all that's involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [930.229, 930.799, 962.303, 969.8, 976.965, 980.231, 991.059, 1006.705, 1023.66, 1026.299, 1028.38, 1032.882], "stop_times": [930.799, 962.303, 969.8, 976.965, 980.231, 991.059, 1006.705, 1023.66, 1026.299, 1028.38, 1032.882, 1037.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.229}, "reply_to": "15155__0_010", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_012", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Do you think it's irrelevant whether or not these misrepresentations or these omissions affected any votes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1037.838], "stop_times": [1050.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.838}, "reply_to": "15155__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_013", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I believe that it is irrelevant because Congress in passing its statute did not inject any element of reliance.\nIf we are going to get into questions of reliance and causation, then we get into the area speculation of what affects people's minds.\nAnd this is something that is almost impossible to unscramble.\nHow can we got back now years later or if the defendants had gone back immediately when they were served with the complaint and they know what the facts where they knew about this other proceeding, they knew about the evidence, they could've gone back and resubmit then we would've have a very easy disposition of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1050.674, 1060.708, 1068.221, 1072.887], "stop_times": [1060.708, 1068.221, 1072.887, 1089.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.674}, "reply_to": "15155__0_012", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_014", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Do you rely on Borak?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1089.375], "stop_times": [1090.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.375}, "reply_to": "15155__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_015", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I certainly do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1090.935], "stop_times": [1092.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.935}, "reply_to": "15155__0_014", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_016", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, didn't Borak say cause or connection will be tried out in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1092.057], "stop_times": [1096.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.057}, "reply_to": "15155__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_017", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Borak does not say that that cause or relationship must be tried.\nIt msut be remembered that Borak was here.\nI was in this case.\nBorak was my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1096.265, 1100.8, 1102.775, 1104.26], "stop_times": [1100.8, 1102.775, 1104.26, 1105.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.265}, "reply_to": "15155__0_016", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_018", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1105.616], "stop_times": [1106.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.616}, "reply_to": "15155__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_019", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "In Borak, the case came to this Court on the pleadings and it was not after a resolution.\nThere was no evidence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1106.27, 1113.855], "stop_times": [1113.855, 1114.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.27}, "reply_to": "15155__0_018", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_020", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "And what did Borak say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1114.883], "stop_times": [1116.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.883}, "reply_to": "15155__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_021", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Borak said that cause or relationship is a matter for the trial court.\nNow, in order to understand what the Court meant by that, you must recognize the Supreme Court ahs laid down rules of Federal procedure.\nAnd in the rules of Federal procedure, you have provisions for summary judgment where all the facts were admitted.\nWe say here the facts are admitted.\nThe cause or relationship is not some vague and indefinite thing that goes into the question of fairness.\nWe can have restitution which will never be over in the case and completely destroyed the remedy for any small shareholder.\nAnd after all these laws are here to help the small shareholder who has not been able to carry on this kind of fight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1116.358, 1122.437, 1130.883, 1137.028, 1140.428, 1146.61, 1154.498], "stop_times": [1122.437, 1130.883, 1137.028, 1140.428, 1146.61, 1154.498, 1160.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.358}, "reply_to": "15155__0_020", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_022", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "You speak of remedy.\nDo you want damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1160.246, 1161.118], "stop_times": [1161.118, 1163.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.246}, "reply_to": "15155__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_023", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "As far as remedy is concerned, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1163.032], "stop_times": [1167.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.032}, "reply_to": "15155__0_022", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_024", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "But do you want damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1167.509], "stop_times": [1169.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.509}, "reply_to": "15155__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_025", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "We have the alternative.\nWhat we want here now, we want restitution.\nRestitution may come in two ways.\nEither in kind or it may come in damages.\nThe Law of Restitution goes back to the 16th Century.\nIt started out with Slaves case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1169.337, 1170.981, 1174.565, 1176.51, 1182.356, 1186.376], "stop_times": [1170.981, 1174.565, 1176.51, 1182.356, 1186.376, 1188.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.337}, "reply_to": "15155__0_024", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_026", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Do you want your old pieces of paper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1188.859], "stop_times": [1192.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.859}, "reply_to": "15155__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_027", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1192.207], "stop_times": [1192.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.207}, "reply_to": "15155__0_026", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_028", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Rather than the money that you can get out of your new -- that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1192.702], "stop_times": [1194.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.702}, "reply_to": "15155__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_029", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No Your Honor, I don't want the old pieces of paper.\nWhat I am saying is this that is the Court after a trial and hearing all the relevant facts decides this merger should be set aside.\nI don't want that avenue foreclosed.\nWe have never said regardless of what the defendants have in their brief and unfortunately we did apparently didn't make our self that clear.\nWhen we talk about restitution and that the statute says that it shall be void as to the right, we're not saying that that means automatic divestiture.\nWhat we are saying is that that -- the Congress set the stage for restitutionary remedies.\nNow, I'll give one example to why this is so important.\nIn Sterling versus May Flower, it was held that when there is a merger, the only damage that the shareholder can get is the merger of value.\nAnd they decide that this state court case is a merger -- the merger of value is the market value so all you can get is the market value of which your shares would've sold on that day.\nNow, we say that when the assets of our company are sold by the majority shareholder to himself, Mergenthaler sold these assets to itself because they control the Board of Directors.\nBut we say we're entitled to a restitutionary measure of damages which says we will look at this.\nThe Court is going to look at this as though the merger hadn't gone through.\nWe're not going to make you take your merger proceeds.\nWe're not going to look at this in the way of an expectancy as though the merger had gone through.\nWe're going to look at this as though the transaction never had taken place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1194.474, 1196.753, 1205.285, 1208.152, 1215.277, 1223.525, 1229.467, 1232.144, 1241.484, 1252.451, 1264.905, 1270.674, 1273.871, 1277.761, 1281.901], "stop_times": [1196.753, 1205.285, 1208.152, 1215.277, 1223.525, 1229.467, 1232.144, 1241.484, 1252.451, 1264.905, 1270.674, 1273.871, 1277.761, 1281.901, 1286.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.474}, "reply_to": "15155__0_028", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_030", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well don't you get right to the fairness of the merger then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1286.233], "stop_times": [1289.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.233}, "reply_to": "15155__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_031", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No.That has nothing to do with fairness Your Honor because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1289.263], "stop_times": [1290.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.263}, "reply_to": "15155__0_030", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_032", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, I would say it would if your stock is worth more than now than it would've been if the merger hadn't taken place, what about your restitutionary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1290.982], "stop_times": [1299.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.982}, "reply_to": "15155__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__0_033", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No one can speculate what the stock would be worth.\nNow, if the merger hadn't taken place, that's pure guesswork.\nThe measure of value -- one measure of value is right there on the books.\nThe Mergenthaler people say \u201cOh, book value doesn't mean anything.\u201d\nThat's what the respondents say in their brief.\nBut they themselves used book value.\nThey went out in the market and bought hundreds of thousands of share and they set up the excess over market as an asset on their books.\nAnd it took $800,000.00 a year of that excess value and treated it as earnings and then in triggering out these fantastic merger ratio, they said, \u201cLook at how much more earnings Mergenthaler has.\u201d\nNow, Auto-Lite can't give nay consideration whatsoever to the value -- to any such values that Mergenthaler's value and earnings are appreciated.\nThey had some $30 million or some huge sum and they put that in.\nThey were writing it off on their books as additional income earned by Mergenthaler and it was nothing more than the difference between what they picked up the share for the market and the excess of book value over.\nAll that we are saying is we are not asking for divestiture other than the fact that we put the prayer in our complaint.\nWe are asking for restitutionary measures of damages as stated in Borak.\nBorak cites that the departures, the independent shares under the 33 Act.\nIt says \u201cthe language here of jurisdiction is virtually identical with that in the 33 Securities Act and there you can get restitution.\nWe want the restitutionary measure.\nWe want it as of the moment before the merger with all the transaction that never occurred, then you'll look at the book value, you look at the liquidating value, you'd look at all these values because if these assets, the position of the minority was sold those majority shareholder for less than it was worth, then we are entitled to get what was really worth it because all it was, was a liquidation of the company.\nAnd they sold out our share and they sold all the assets to themselves and they're giving us what they want to give us.\nWe think we're entitled to get what they were really worth.\nNow, that has nothing to do with the fairness of the plan whatsoever.\nThat plan never existed if we're going to follow the mandate of the Congress.\nThank you.\nI reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1299.908, 1302.739, 1306.494, 1312.548, 1315.584, 1318.159, 1321.671, 1329.068, 1341.392, 1351.431, 1356.927, 1369.158, 1376.245, 1382.511, 1387.509, 1395.894, 1397.923, 1420.675, 1426.947, 1429.672, 1433.561, 1442.365, 1443.557], "stop_times": [1302.739, 1306.494, 1312.548, 1315.584, 1318.159, 1321.671, 1329.068, 1341.392, 1351.431, 1356.927, 1369.158, 1376.245, 1382.511, 1387.509, 1395.894, 1397.923, 1420.675, 1426.947, 1429.672, 1433.561, 1442.365, 1443.557, 1445.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.908}, "reply_to": "15155__0_032", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__0_034", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "You have about seven minutes -- about seven minutes remaining.\nMr. Jenner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1445.752, 1451.842], "stop_times": [1451.842, 1454.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.752}, "reply_to": "15155__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__1_000", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Court.\nI unfortunately caught a cold yesterday and I think it has affected my hearing a little bit but not otherwise.\nIf Your Honors please, it may be unusual and perhaps it's unusual that Securities and Exchange Commission case be as living as a case as this one involving uses of summary judgment procedures so that the respondent in this case has never had a trial.\nThe limitation of various issues arguments now in this Court that under a splendid benefit of statute as this one is that what the Congress intended and what the Securities and Exchange Commission intended at adopting a rule under Section 14 (a) was to cut off -- to cut off a consideration of any Court including this one at some early stage of the game if there is say let us say a technical any kind of alleged violation of the rule which I'm about to read to Your Honors that at that moment further judicial inquiry seizes.\nAnd as Mr. Shure has argue to Your Honors, there comes a situation in which that Trial Court must then say to itself as of the time of the consummation of this merger that have molded to a purchase by the surviving company of the company merged into that surviving company and so you must judge its value on pure asset value as a way of a liquidation.\nFairness is immaterial.\nDid Congress intend by the adoption of this benefition statute and the SEC adopting the rule under it that fairness should be excluded.\nNow, may I turn to Borak Mr. Justice White has imparted Mr. Shure on that subject matter.\nOn this issue, Mr. Justice White and Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen, what this Court said, first, that case as Your Honors will clearly recall of course was a holding that Section 14 (a) created a federal right.\nIt did not have the mercy of the ship.\nIt did not have to sue under a common law or fraud.\nYou had a federal cause of action.\nAnd when there was oppressing in recourse to that case as to the consequences of a violation, great, small and deferred or horrendous as the case might be, what was the consequence?\nMr. Justice Clark before the Court said, \u201cThe causal relationship--\u201d and I'm quoting from that case, \u201cThe causal relationship for the proxy material and the merger are questions of fact to be resolved at the trial not here.\u201d\nNow, may I respectfully suggest that to me means that if a violation is determined upon by the trial court after considering all the circumstances, then the Court goes on to determine what the consequences are cause of relationships have resulted and that one of those factors as far as the Securities and Exchange Commission says in this amicus curiae brief submitted to Your Honors.\nNow, what is the statute or rule as presented here?\nIt is simply this, no solicitation subject to this regulation shall be made by means of any proxy statement, form of proxy, notice of meeting or other communication written or oral containing any statement which at that time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made.\nMay I repeat that if Your Honors please, at that time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made is false or misleading with respect to any material of fact or which shall omit the State any material fact necessary in order to make the statements they're in not faults or misleading.\nNow, what happened in this particular case?\nA proxy statement of 108 pages set forth in Volume 1 of the transcript annex of this case was sent to the shareholder three weeks before a proposed merger meeting of the shareholders, received by Mr. Shure's clients.\nAnd here they turned -- one client turned over the proxy statement to him, the other client I know was that Mr. Mill's assessment to Mr. Norman Nasher of the Chicago bar, most distinguished lawyers.\nThey expressed their views that is, the clients that they understood the proxy statement, they were opposed to the merger and they voted against the merger.\nAnd they appear here as plaintiffs who have voted against the merger.\nOn behalf of all shareholders including those who voted for it, over 5000 who voted for it seeking to set this aside.\nNow, I can never been quite able to comprehend Mr. Shure's argument either at the trial Court or in the Court of Appeals or in this Court as to what he means by restitution.\nMay I suggest Your Honors that although I can resort to Mr. Shure's brief in which he says as follows as to what consequence he wants to flow from what the Court of Appeals held in this case if Your Honors please was a misemphasis.\nNot a horrendous omission, a misemphasis with respect to the relationship of directors in the several corporations.\nMr. Shure says at page 69 of his brief so I don't misinterpret it this is what he says, \u201cHere, the petitioners have repudiated the merger asking for \u201cappropriate orders setting it aside\u201d and for an order directing respondents to accounts of the corporation for the damages sustained by reason of the invalid transfer of corporate essence.\nThey do not ask to enforce the merger agreement but to be put in the position they would've occupied if no unlawful merger had been affected.\nThe right to that relief undistracted by any inquiry into fairness.\u201d\nThis Court is not to go under the fairness and no one is to go in the question of fairness.\nIs Court necessary to make effective the congressional purpose?\nNow, what is this perspective?\nWhat is in the time and in the light of the circumstances under which these supposed omissions or misemphasis in this proxy statement occur?\nIn dollar terms if Your Honors please, the minority of shareholders here have benefited enormously.\nNow, if they have not benefited, I'm sure that Mr. Shure would be here urging that upon the Court.\nBut they have benefited enormously.\nOn the day of merger, the Electric Auto-Lite shares were selling at $59.00.\nThe shares of the surviving corporation as of yesterday's market on the conversion of substance, all of these shares have been converted, very, very few I think in less than 500 shares not converted with $127.00 a share and at one time were up as high as $200.00 a share.\nSo in separate terms, this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [1454.158, 1459.864, 1466.982, 1493.308, 1540.447, 1568.801, 1572.18, 1584.215, 1594.582, 1614.757, 1616.937, 1619.663, 1623.513, 1638.003, 1658.348, 1688.226, 1692.459, 1723.798, 1748.823, 1760.973, 1780.568, 1794.034, 1808.082, 1813.423, 1828.193, 1839.356, 1863.772, 1872.949, 1904.561, 1915.138, 1920.984, 1925.824, 1932.871, 1938.641, 1955.673, 1965.061, 1970.597, 1972.431, 1981.898, 2003.942], "stop_times": [1459.864, 1466.982, 1493.308, 1540.447, 1568.801, 1572.18, 1584.215, 1594.582, 1614.757, 1616.937, 1619.663, 1623.513, 1638.003, 1658.348, 1688.226, 1692.459, 1723.798, 1748.823, 1760.973, 1780.568, 1794.034, 1808.082, 1813.423, 1828.193, 1839.356, 1863.772, 1872.949, 1904.561, 1915.138, 1920.984, 1925.824, 1932.871, 1938.641, 1955.673, 1965.061, 1970.597, 1972.431, 1981.898, 2003.942, 2005.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1454.158}, "reply_to": "15155__0_034", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_001", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That is one to one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2005.216], "stop_times": [2008.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.216}, "reply_to": "15155__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_002", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "1.88 of the shares of the surviving of the surviving corporation for each share of electro Auto-Lite.\nAnd then there was in the meantime if Your Honors please is that introversion, there was a stock split two for one and then there was a percentage given out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2008.695, 2015.151], "stop_times": [2015.151, 2024.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.695}, "reply_to": "15155__1_001", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_003", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "So for every dollar that a man in stocks would worth at Electric Auto-Lite, what's that dollar worth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2024.617], "stop_times": [2030.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.617}, "reply_to": "15155__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_004", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "As I guess with today's market, $2.00.\nSecondly, now although petitioners' lose claims on the contrary on their brief, the fact is there's absolutely if Your Honors please no question or fraud in this case.\nNo question or fraud in this case at all and no intentional wrong doing.\nThere isn't a word in the briefs of the petitioners here and there isn't a word in the Securities and Exchange Commission amicus curiae our brief to Your Honors suggest any intents on wrong doing whatsoever in this case.\nWe're not evil doers.\nA technicality is being urged upon the Court.\nHere is a living case in which the petitioner is asking the Court having found a misemphasis in a proxy statement, you must not close your eyes to the statute and the effect of this action.\nNow, are there any common sense view of this case, any common sense view?\nThis alleged deficiency that is our failure to emphasize as strongly as Mr. Shure's client thought should be emphasized and as the Court of Appeals and the pendum by Mr. Justice Carol felt should've been emphasized a little bit more that is that directors of electro Auto-Lite were nominated by Mergenthaler, that directors of Mergenthaler were nominated by American Manufacturing should've been brought out more firmly to show an alleged conflict.\nBut, if Your Honors please in the very proxy statement itself five lines if I may seek Your Honors permission in five lines in the proxy statement itself page 30 of the first volume of the abstract, \u201cMergenthaler which owns approximately 54% of the outstanding shares of electric Auto-Lite intends to vote in a favor of approval of the agreement of merger.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2030.917, 2035.166, 2048.348, 2053.235, 2071.32, 2073.045, 2075.666, 2091.456, 2096.351, 2129.992], "stop_times": [2035.166, 2048.348, 2053.235, 2071.32, 2073.045, 2075.666, 2091.456, 2096.351, 2129.992, 2160.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.917}, "reply_to": "15155__1_003", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_005", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr. Jenner, haven't both Courts have found the material omission here or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2160.939], "stop_times": [2165.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.939}, "reply_to": "15155__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_006", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Would you forgive Your Honor and repeat that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2165.927], "stop_times": [2167.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.927}, "reply_to": "15155__1_005", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_007", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Haven't both Courts have found the material omission here?\nDo we have to reargue that question of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2167.613, 2172.745], "stop_times": [2172.745, 2174.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.613}, "reply_to": "15155__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_008", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2174.839], "stop_times": [2175.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.839}, "reply_to": "15155__1_007", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_009", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Is that a question of fact or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2175.498], "stop_times": [2177.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.498}, "reply_to": "15155__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_010", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "We think it's a question of fact and we believe because the Trial Court followed so called summary judgment procedure that we have never received a full trial on the issue or whether this difference and emphasis was in fact a material omission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2177.448], "stop_times": [2196.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.448}, "reply_to": "15155__1_009", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_011", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well that question isn't here.\nYou didn't cross petition and appeared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2196.279, 2197.585], "stop_times": [2197.585, 2198.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.279}, "reply_to": "15155__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_012", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No, we didn't cross petition if Your Honor please and we do think it's here.\nYour Honors granted cert.\nYour Honors did not limit the grant of cert and in our opinion that in (Voice Overlap) -- excuse me Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2198.862, 2203.746, 2206.399], "stop_times": [2203.746, 2206.399, 2215.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.862}, "reply_to": "15155__1_011", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_013", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Arguments are usually limited to questions raised in the cert petition aren't they Mr. Jenner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2215.994], "stop_times": [2223.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.994}, "reply_to": "15155__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_014", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well yes they are and they certainly should be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2223.081], "stop_times": [2225.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.081}, "reply_to": "15155__1_013", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_015", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, are you arguing something not in a question decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2225.101], "stop_times": [2227.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.101}, "reply_to": "15155__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_016", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I think not if Your Honor pleases.\nIt is my position that the issue of materiality is in as carefully bound into the question of causation of fairness and the fact of this on the shareholders.\nBut, I must say to all Your Honors in great sincerity and candid that my clients can live and live well with the opinion on judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit because the Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit remanded this case to the trial court to afford us a trial on the issue of whether it's stated in 14 (a) sub 9 of the Securities and Exchange Commission.\nThey rule that at the time and on the light of the circumstances under which it was made, the statement violated the rule to have a consequential effect upon as this Court said should be determined in Borak upon this merger rather than as Mr. Shure suggest yet the entry quickly of an order.\nOn summary judgment or otherwise which says there's a technical violation of this rule and then you don't have to go into fairness.\nFairness is immaterial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2227.325, 2230.132, 2246.977, 2277.65, 2299.157, 2306.233], "stop_times": [2230.132, 2246.977, 2277.65, 2299.157, 2306.233, 2308.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.325}, "reply_to": "15155__1_015", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_017", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr Jenner--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2308.794], "stop_times": [2309.443], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.794}, "reply_to": "15155__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15155__1_018", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2309.443], "stop_times": [2309.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.443}, "reply_to": "15155__1_017", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_019", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "What is the difference between your position and the Government's position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2309.465], "stop_times": [2318.512], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2309.465}, "reply_to": "15155__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15155__1_020", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "The Government's position as I understand its position have very well stated in its brief.\nI may stand and I wish to compliment the SEC Council and the Solicitor General Griswold in a well written brief.\nThe Government is concerned as I view their brief about what is called corporate suffrage.\nSince they have a rule that certain materials -- matters shall be reported in a proxy statement that there should be encouragement of minority show as in others to make compliant promptly in the event that they see oversights or other violations of 14 (a) (9).\nAnd in order to encourage that, there should at the outset as quickly as possible be a -- some kind of a technical finding of liability.\nNow, the liability that which the Government speaks is not a consequential liability but one that will afford enough anchor may I put it that way, enough anchor to allow suit expense and the attorney's fees to the minority shareholders that make their complaint.\nThe Government says that fairness is a factor, disagrees with Mr. Shure on that.\nThe Government says, SEC says this is not void.\nThat is a -- the fact that a crisis statement doesn't happen to fit in all the decree with 14 (a) (9).\nIt doesn't make the transaction void.\nIt doesn't make those votes void.\nThey're voided perhaps in the light of all the circumstances and after a full trial of the case.\nBut they're not void.\nMr. Shure's Your Honors will recall from the record prosecuted a cross appeal from the District Court's opinion and which the District Court had struck out of his judgment a finding that this merger was void.\nHe -- Mr. Shure had not argued very vigorously in this reply brief but he did argue in his opening brief and is petitioned for certain in this case that it was all void.\nNow, whether this Court having before it now in the position of the SEC, Mr. Justice Harlan, to create a federal law of corporations in which the Court withhold that 14 (a) and the rule under in (14) (a) (9) does give a District Court jurisdiction to allow attorneys fees and suit expense even though the traditional duration of a fund or other benefit is not obtained but only that there has been called to the attention of the Court some deviation from (14) (a) (9) and the proxy material should be restated and their should be a re-solicitation.\nIn order to encourage that says the Securities and Exchange Commission, fees and expenses should be allowed.\nMay I suggest too Your Honors in that connection that as I have trouble going through that theory, I likened it to this as a possibility.\nIn your experience and of course all litigators, are will and trust construction cases in which the testator drafts his will or trusts as preferred and there's an ambiguity and it has cause, there was lawyers cause.\nThen the expense of resolving that ambiguity is assessed against the estate and perhaps that maybe inevitable, whereby the Securities and Exchange Commission's suggestions to this Court may possibly be accommodated.\nNow, it seems inconceivable though to us, of course I'm an advocate that it seems inconceivable to me because I'm advocating for a client.\nBut try to be as candid as I possibly can, I can't conceive of a situation in which fairness, the -- it's not a -- I want to say it was a defense.\nIt's a factor to take into consideration in the element resolution of the whole case.\nAs we complain in our brief, we tried -- we tried -- we tried before His Honor Judge Parsons in the District Court to have this case set for trial on all three counts not on these motions for limited findings on summary judgment and then a reference to the whole case to a master with no limitations to the master, no guidelines to the master and what he was going to decide on the causation and result.\nAnd as the Court of Appeals holds -- the Court of Appeals held that the reference to a master here had to follow with the ordered.\nBut not only because of the summary judgment order but also because there were no guidelines in referring this case to a master to tell the judge -- the court what the relief was going to be.\nWhen I may by opening to say that this was a live case pertaining to this Court, many problems I had in mind, the procedures were followed here.\nWe've never had a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2318.512, 2324.861, 2334.105, 2344.971, 2370.33, 2382.413, 2405.82, 2413.482, 2419.782, 2427.267, 2428.928, 2431.851, 2439.33, 2440.79, 2456.766, 2469.201, 2516.023, 2525.093, 2538.755, 2558.815, 2576.518, 2589.423, 2603.543, 2611.6, 2640.499, 2648.341, 2662.085, 2670.927], "stop_times": [2324.861, 2334.105, 2344.971, 2370.33, 2382.413, 2405.82, 2413.482, 2419.782, 2427.267, 2428.928, 2431.851, 2439.33, 2440.79, 2456.766, 2469.201, 2516.023, 2525.093, 2538.755, 2558.815, 2576.518, 2589.423, 2603.543, 2611.6, 2640.499, 2648.341, 2662.085, 2670.927, 2672.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.512}, "reply_to": "15155__1_019", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_021", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Did you object to that in the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2672.899], "stop_times": [2675.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.899}, "reply_to": "15155__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15155__1_022", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Yes we did if Your Honor pleases and we made --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2675.695], "stop_times": [2677.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.695}, "reply_to": "15155__1_021", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_023", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "We're not arguing here that the summary judgment was wrong aren't you because it was a summary judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2677.975], "stop_times": [2684.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.975}, "reply_to": "15155__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15155__1_024", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "No.\nThat isn't our position.\nI don't want to be fictitious if Your Honor pleases.\nIt wasn't wrong because it was a summary judgment.\nIt was wrong because questions of fact were presented that could not be resolved by summary judgment but which were in fact resolved by summary judgment that there were considerations and factors to be taken into consideration by the Court which he did not take any consideration.\nOne factor being if Your Honor pleases is the question of fairness of Mr. Shure's of how you're going to determine what's in the mind of a shareholder who voted for this merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2684.585, 2685.932, 2689.163, 2692.394, 2694.705, 2714.68], "stop_times": [2685.932, 2689.163, 2692.394, 2694.705, 2714.68, 2726.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.585}, "reply_to": "15155__1_023", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_025", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, Mr. Jenner, you are getting a trial.\nI don't -- and as I understood your argument earlier, you don't think there's any restriction on -- merely because the Court of Appeals has limited this to causation.\nI gather you think you can bring in everything you want to bring in don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2726.403, 2728.41, 2739.656], "stop_times": [2728.41, 2739.656, 2743.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.403}, "reply_to": "15155__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_026", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I certainly do if Your Honor pleases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2743.987], "stop_times": [2745.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.987}, "reply_to": "15155__1_025", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_027", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, what's your complaint here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2745.52], "stop_times": [2747.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.52}, "reply_to": "15155__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_028", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2747.411], "stop_times": [2748.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.411}, "reply_to": "15155__1_027", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_029", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "If that's a correct view of what you're going to get your trial aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2748.217], "stop_times": [2751.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.217}, "reply_to": "15155__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_030", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Yes.\nAnd that's did not petition this Court for cross petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2751.967, 2752.397], "stop_times": [2752.397, 2758.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.967}, "reply_to": "15155__1_029", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_031", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "You're attempting to sustain the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2758.969], "stop_times": [2761.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.969}, "reply_to": "15155__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15155__1_032", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "We're attempting to sustain the Court of Appeals in so far as the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment that we should earn title to a trial on all the issues in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2761.312], "stop_times": [2769.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.312}, "reply_to": "15155__1_031", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_033", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, of course but as I read it, what they say is we conclude that there is an issue for trial as the cause of relationship --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2769.623], "stop_times": [2779.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.623}, "reply_to": "15155__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_034", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2779.2], "stop_times": [2779.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2779.2}, "reply_to": "15155__1_033", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_035", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "And they precede that -- they sustained the summary judgment as a guard to the materiality of the misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2779.69], "stop_times": [2789.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.69}, "reply_to": "15155__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_036", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2789.244], "stop_times": [2789.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.244}, "reply_to": "15155__1_035", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_037", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "But you still make under the -- as I understood you earlier in the trial and the cause of relationship, you're going to be entitled to contest the materiality or misrepresentation or did you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2789.26], "stop_times": [2802.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.26}, "reply_to": "15155__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_038", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "May I try to put it this way if Your Honor pleases.\nYou're very precise and I would -- I'd like and if I can answer it precisely.\nIt is our position that causation, effect and materiality are one ball of wax that you really can't separate them.\nAnd when the Court separates them as was done here by way of -- particularly when a resort is lying to summary judgment and you held these major considerations had bear on materiality excise and under consideration by the judge on the issue of so called materiality, you get the case all segmented.\nAnd a badge, a scarlet letter is placed on the bag--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2802.531, 2805.718, 2812.499, 2830.002, 2852.668], "stop_times": [2805.718, 2812.499, 2830.002, 2852.668, 2856.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.531}, "reply_to": "15155__1_037", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_039", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Well, I'll come back to what I said earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2856.824], "stop_times": [2858.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.824}, "reply_to": "15155__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_040", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2858.875], "stop_times": [2858.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2858.875}, "reply_to": "15155__1_039", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_041", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That you're reading the Court of Appeals order for a new trial is not limiting you to something called cause of relationship but permitting you on in litigating the fact or cause of relationship also litigate the issue of materiality aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2858.996], "stop_times": [2875.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.996}, "reply_to": "15155__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_042", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Only to the extent that the nature of that which was not included in the proxy statement or the mis-emphasis in the proxy statement has a bearing on causation.\nI hope I don't sound as though I'm double talking.\nIt's a factor in this whole ball of wax if it be considered when it makes -- the Court makes a settlement judgment should you unscramble or as Mr. Shure where he would like to have this Court hold this is a violation of Section 14 (a) and therefore, this proxies don't mean anything, there has to be what he call as restitution that is a determination that you take this company not as a viable company earning money or trying to earn money but as a sack of assets.\nAnd you determine -- we're now applying that formula.\nAs of that day, this -- if it happened in liquidation and distribution as of that day, this once would've fall money wise.\nAnd you don't pay any tax.\nAnd what did happen in the meantime even though it's here because of the soundness of the plan of merger and placing these two companies together that this share of this day worth twice as much as what they were when the shareholders overwhelmingly 94% voted in favor of this merger.\nMr. Shure wants to cut things off especially he wants to cut off fairness.\nAll we've been seeking to do is what the Court of Appeals gave us.\nWe did not point the way we wanted it but we can live with it at trial on all of these issues not so what we're seeking.\nAnd we thank the Court of Appeals gave it to us and we think Mr. Shure is seeking to urge this Court to diagnose.\nDo any of Your Honors have any further questions?\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [2875.649, 2894.973, 2898.287, 2941.165, 2944.788, 2953.269, 2954.359, 2981.477, 2988.325, 2993.154, 3002.606, 3011.993, 3015.984], "stop_times": [2894.973, 2898.287, 2941.165, 2944.788, 2953.269, 2954.359, 2981.477, 2988.325, 2993.154, 3002.606, 3011.993, 3015.984, 3016.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2875.649}, "reply_to": "15155__1_041", "speaker": "albert_e_jenner_jr"}
{"id": "15155__1_043", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I think not.\nThank you Mr. Jenner.\nYou have seven minutes, Mr. Shure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3016.22, 3016.876, 3019.03], "stop_times": [3016.876, 3019.03, 3024.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.22}, "reply_to": "15155__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__2_000", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and Your Honors, the fairness as a matter of a fair ratio of exchange in the merger is not here.\nWhat we seek is the value of what we gave up.\nWe charge unfairness in the sense that the respondents were unjustly enriched not that the ratio exchange was unfair.\nIt is not Mr. Shure who wrote the Act and said that the trial section shall be deemed as void, Congress said that.\nWe are taking the posture the Congress places and in says \u201cthe wrong doer shall not profit\u201d.\nNow, Mr. John B. Dawson who's the outstanding authority of Harvard, and the subject of unjust enrichment wrote as leading text on that in 1951 and any resort to that shows that remedies at law that the general attempted remedy -- remedy as an equity tracing of assets, equitable liens and so on are all different forms and this is what people who understand the law of restitution are talking about when they say that you shall view a transaction under the Securities Act as void.\nIt means that you get that not with all the consequences of the merger attached to it but with the situation as it existed before that.\nWe are contempt to let the Government's brief speak for itself as to what they're referring is relevant to the -- to causation.\nThe Court asked -- Mr. Justice Harlan Mr. Jenner as to what the differences were.\nThere's a very substantial difference, they don't agree at all.\nThe Government says that the judgment should stand the judgment of the Trial Court that we have proved everything necessary to establish a cause of action and that certain consequences flow from this.\nThey do say as we agree that fairness of the ratio of exchange -- and I'm talking about the Commission may be relevant to one measure of monetary recovery.\nBut the fairness that the exchange ratio is not the only measure of damages and the fairness of the ratio is not relevant to unjust enrichment causes of action which is the basis of the remedies under the 34 Act.\nBorak points that out.\nThis Commission said but where ends here misleading aspect of situation -- solicitation did not relate to the terms of merger.\nThe mislead stockholders should be entitled a monetary or other relief only if the merger resulted in a reduction to them of earnings or earnings potential.\nNow what does that mean?\nThat means that if we were entitled to get 2.5 shares of preferred stock under the merger and we only received 1 8/10, then we ought to get it or get that in dollars.\nWe are the plaintiffs.\nWe are the ones who have been injured.\nWe brought the suit whose here and we are asking that all these people who were short changed on the merger in anyway you look at that proxy statement, it is inescapable.\nWhat did they do here?\nThey took $23.00 a share of the book value off the bars and they gave -- we ended up with $64.00 or $65.00 a share, $64.86 and the shareholders at Mergenthaler end up with $107.00 a share of book value.\nThey just handed it over to the other people.\nAnd we are told here that we just have no remedy here if the ratio of exchange.\nWe would get into a war here of experts.\nAnd that's what the small shareholder is not able to do.\nWe can't match the great corporation with all of its assets in that kind of a war.\nCongress envisioned this sort of thing and gave us a short, quick remedy of restitution and said we can have any avenue relief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3024.064, 3036.326, 3041.171, 3051.58, 3059.423, 3066.386, 3101.774, 3113.048, 3119.698, 3124.827, 3127.624, 3139.443, 3147.078, 3161.629, 3164.511, 3172.465, 3180.062, 3181.563, 3192.853, 3194.266, 3195.622, 3205.704, 3206.562, 3220.574, 3222.633, 3228.257, 3230.78, 3235.679, 3239.938], "stop_times": [3036.326, 3041.171, 3051.58, 3059.423, 3066.386, 3101.774, 3113.048, 3119.698, 3124.827, 3127.624, 3139.443, 3147.078, 3161.629, 3164.511, 3172.465, 3180.062, 3181.563, 3192.853, 3194.266, 3195.622, 3205.704, 3206.562, 3220.574, 3222.633, 3228.257, 3230.78, 3235.679, 3239.938, 3246.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3024.064}, "reply_to": "15155__1_043", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__2_001", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Mr. Shure, where do you differ from the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3246.74], "stop_times": [3250.875], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3246.74}, "reply_to": "15155__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15155__2_002", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "The only byway of emphasis as far as the Government is concerned, I believe that at page 18 of their brief, they did not explain what they meant by earnings potential -- laws of earnings or earnings potential.\nObviously looking at the Government's brief and looking at their other writings that is inescapable if this is unjust enrichment we're talking about, then we can get at that unjust enrichment at any way that the facts can be reached.\nAnd we say that there is no room for any further hearing on cause of relation hold that there is this room for remedy.\nThey can -- if somebody wants to have a trial on the question of fairness of what we received, this is an entirely different situation from proving the fairness.\nAnd the Government says to us \u201cyou're not entitled at getting damages if you didn't lose anything.\u201d\nBut what have the Court of Appeals said?\nThe Court of Appeals said \u201cif you don't get divestiture because it was a fair plan, then you don't get anything,\u201d except of course as they gave us a bill for $9000.00 of cost for losing the appeal.\nThey reversed and assessed the cost against us when we vindicated the law and we won on the issue of materiality and the fact of violation but they say we lose the case and we get absolutely nothing by restitution or any other way.\nThe Court of Appeals seems to envision this.\nIt's either restitution or it's either divestiture unscrambling of merger.\nAnd if you read their opinion, the language is very clear.\nThey give this as a rationale.\nNot every merger should be set aside because of a nondisclosure.\nAnd as far as I am not going to rebut to what Mr. Jenner said about whether there was fraud charge or not, that matter is not before this Court and we didn't do it in our briefs.\nI don't think we should spend our time on it now.\nThe respondents will get a full trial of the question of what the damages should be.\nWe don't want this Court to foreclose us from using any of the means of securing restitution that Borak says that it should be followed.\nAnd Borak relied on Decker versus Independent Shares which also talked of restitution.\nAnd Borak talked of the Section 33 Act which gives a restitutionary remedy.\nNow this is what we're talking about that the wrong doer gets no benefit whatsoever out of his wrong doing.\nBut when I say that, I don't mean you tear the thing asunder, I'm not interested in tearing apart corporate structures, I cite that as one of the things we ask for.\nYou go down the languages and state your prayers in a complaint, you ask for all the different things.\nEvery lawyer does this in drafting a complaint.\nBut as per accounting, ask for damages, we are not trying to be unreasonable.\nWe feel we've been very badly dealt with in this on the basis of the -- what we are going to get under the merger because it is -- it was so far below book value and they gave our book value the other side.\nWe didn't get a fair market value exchange because if we took the preferred and convert in the common, we'd immediately suffer a loss of $6.00 to $9.00 on the basis of market values.\nIf you don't take book and you don't take market, what do you take?\nYou take what your own directors who are the deputies of your adversary in the merger want to give you.\nAnd that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3250.875, 3267.094, 3281.519, 3288.182, 3300.857, 3305.584, 3306.95, 3319.835, 3334.384, 3336.438, 3341.031, 3344.147, 3345.537, 3349.064, 3358.178, 3361.36, 3366.336, 3376.543, 3382.246, 3388.518, 3394.108, 3402.628, 3408.295, 3410.943, 3415.942, 3429.089, 3439.037, 3442.306, 3449.591], "stop_times": [3267.094, 3281.519, 3288.182, 3300.857, 3305.584, 3306.95, 3319.835, 3334.384, 3336.438, 3341.031, 3344.147, 3345.537, 3349.064, 3358.178, 3361.36, 3366.336, 3376.543, 3382.246, 3388.518, 3394.108, 3402.628, 3408.295, 3410.943, 3415.942, 3429.089, 3439.037, 3442.306, 3449.591, 3450.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3250.875}, "reply_to": "15155__2_001", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__2_003", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Your time is up Mr. Shure but your note on the paper is covering the light.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3450.528], "stop_times": [3454.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.528}, "reply_to": "15155__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__2_004", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "Oh, I beg your pardon sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3454.062], "stop_times": [3455.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3454.062}, "reply_to": "15155__2_003", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__2_005", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "That's all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3455.395], "stop_times": [3456.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3455.395}, "reply_to": "15155__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15155__2_006", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "I want to thank you very much for your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3456.235], "stop_times": [3459.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3456.235}, "reply_to": "15155__2_005", "speaker": "arnold_i_shure"}
{"id": "15155__2_007", "conversation_id": "15155", "text": "The case is submitted.\nThank you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_64", "start_times": [3459.412, 3460.431], "stop_times": [3460.431, 3461.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.412}, "reply_to": "15155__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__0_000", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Number 189 Minor against the United States.\nMrs. Bamberger you may proceed whenever you are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [0.0, 22.167], "stop_times": [22.167, 24.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__0_001", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nThis case raises the question as to whether the petitioner\u2019s right against self-incrimination is violated by compliance with Title 26 United States Code, Section 4705, and the regulations enacted by the Department of the Treasury pursuant to it.\nThat Section is the narcotics order form provision of the Harrison Act.\nPetitioner\u2019s position, one that is apparently not disputed by the Government, is that the order form procedure or scheme necessarily includes record keeping aspects and information keeping aspects, and that to a person such as petitioner, this must result in the disclosure of information which is available to law enforcement officers both state and federal and which can provide a link in the chain of criminal prosecution for violation of federal and state narcotics laws.\nThe facts in the case are simple.\nThere were two sales of heroin by the petitioner to a federal undercover narcotics agent.\nThe narcotics agent did not supply an order form to the petitioner for the sales, and the defendant was sentenced to the minimum mandatory term of five years on each count to run concurrently.\nI think before a discussion of the legal question is involved -- comes up that we should discuss the scheme of the statute as it specifically relates to the order form provision.\nA person who is registered to deal in narcotics and has paid an occupation tax can apply to the treasury department for order forms.\nThese order forms, a copy of which is printed as appendix C to the petitioner\u2019s brief, comes in a book of ten which is in a book which looks like this.\nThe order form is what is called executed by the potential buyer of narcotics.\nThat is he puts his name and address on the order form and he lists the narcotics items that he would like to buy.\nHe then submits -- the form is issued in triplicate.\nHe then submits the original and the triplicate to the potential buyer.\nThe buyer must supply the order and on this order form, he must indicate the amount of drugs that he has supplied and the date on which he supplied them.\nPrior to the time that this order form is given to the buyer, or at least at the time of the sale, the seller\u2019s name and address must be entered on the front of the order form.\nNo provision makes clear who has the responsibility of filling in the seller\u2019s name and address, but it is clear from regulation 151.185 that the seller does have the obligation of supplying on the order form the amount of narcotics that he sells and the date on which the sale is made.\nThe original and triplicate of the form are retained by the seller.\nThe duplicate is retained by the buyer of the narcotics.\nOne of the copies retained by the seller is sent to the Treasury Department.\nHe must keep the other copy in his possession for two years, and during that time, the order form is available for inspection by any federal or state law enforcement official.\nThe self-incrimination aspect of the order form obviously is that the seller himself must write on the order form the amount of narcotics that he supplies and the date upon which he supplied it.\nThat would give law enforcement officials information concerning violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 173, 174 which is the illegal importation of drugs.\nThe Section 4704 (a) which is the transfer of drugs outside of the original stamped package, of course there are violations of state statutes as well, and since this transaction took place in New York, it is important to know that the New York narcotic statute makes it a felony to deal in heroin of more than eighth of an ounce.\nSo that the order form provision would reveal to state officials that the petitioner in this case committed a felony as well as a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [24.466, 25.973, 47.281, 53.415, 92.874, 95.486, 104.53, 120.301, 135.635, 147.91, 162.81, 169.505, 180.847, 185.99, 194.379, 208.255, 225.128, 252.189, 259.387, 263.736, 268.899, 284.622, 301.78, 318.254, 344.9], "stop_times": [25.973, 47.281, 53.415, 92.874, 95.486, 104.53, 120.301, 135.635, 147.91, 162.81, 169.505, 180.847, 185.99, 194.379, 208.255, 225.128, 252.189, 259.387, 263.736, 268.899, 284.622, 301.78, 318.254, 344.9, 354.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 24.466}, "reply_to": "15103__0_000", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_002", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Where -- the order form is here in your appendix C to your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [354.962], "stop_times": [358.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.962}, "reply_to": "15103__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_003", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [358.385], "stop_times": [359.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.385}, "reply_to": "15103__0_002", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_004", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And the purchaser fills out presumably his name and all that information says to be filled in by purchaser, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [359.897], "stop_times": [374.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.897}, "reply_to": "15103__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_005", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [374.546], "stop_times": [376.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.546}, "reply_to": "15103__0_004", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_006", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And you say the vendor must fill in what, presumably?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [376.013], "stop_times": [379.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.013}, "reply_to": "15103__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_007", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The last two columns in the middle section of the order form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [379.361], "stop_times": [384.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.361}, "reply_to": "15103__0_006", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_008", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "To be filled in by the consignor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [384.609], "stop_times": [385.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.609}, "reply_to": "15103__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_009", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "By the consignor which is the vendor under the scheme, and he would have to fill in a number of packages furnished and the date on which the packages were supplied.\nAnd of course by reference, it would indicate that he did supply narcotics on the date and in the amount that he supplied them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [385.266, 395.676], "stop_times": [395.676, 404.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.266}, "reply_to": "15103__0_008", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_010", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He fills in a number of packages furnished and the date filled, it says?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [404.545], "stop_times": [408.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.545}, "reply_to": "15103__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_011", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [408.915], "stop_times": [410.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.915}, "reply_to": "15103__0_010", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_012", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And then does that show the amount, because it doesn\u2019t say packages on this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [410.611], "stop_times": [415.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.611}, "reply_to": "15103__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_013", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, the number of packages would indicate the amount of the packages or by weight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [415.373], "stop_times": [421.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.373}, "reply_to": "15103__0_012", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_014", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "By catalogue number over there in the left?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [421.038], "stop_times": [422.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.038}, "reply_to": "15103__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_015", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [422.888], "stop_times": [424.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.888}, "reply_to": "15103__0_014", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_016", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And then who signs it down there?\nName of person or firm?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [424.015, 425.876], "stop_times": [425.876, 427.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.015}, "reply_to": "15103__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_017", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That would be the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [427.586], "stop_times": [428.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.586}, "reply_to": "15103__0_016", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_018", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "If not an individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [428.726], "stop_times": [429.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.726}, "reply_to": "15103__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_019", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "-- the buyer would sign it, but the vendor\u2019s name appears on it.\nIf I may direct Your Honor\u2019s attention to the two lines just above the spaces for the drugs involving the transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [429.681, 435.078], "stop_times": [435.078, 447.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.681}, "reply_to": "15103__0_018", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_020", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [447.431], "stop_times": [447.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.431}, "reply_to": "15103__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_021", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It says to and street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [447.889], "stop_times": [449.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.889}, "reply_to": "15103__0_020", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_022", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s addressed to by the purchaser, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [449.794], "stop_times": [451.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.794}, "reply_to": "15103__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_023", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s addressed to the seller.\nNow, it is unclear who has to fill that information in.\nThere is no regulation or statute which indicates who fills that in or when it has to be filled in, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [451.857, 453.896, 458.206], "stop_times": [453.896, 458.206, 465.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.857}, "reply_to": "15103__0_022", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_024", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But the preposition \u201cto\u201d is that means it\u2019s directed to and this doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s objective not subjective --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [465.335], "stop_times": [474.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.335}, "reply_to": "15103__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_025", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, that\u2019s true Your Honor, but even if it were to be filled in by the buyer of the narcotics, it wouldn\u2019t make any difference because it would be the seller himself who would have to reveal the fact that he sold the narcotics and the date on which he sold it the number of packages that he furnished.\nAnd regulation 151.185 specifically states that it is the vendor of the narcotics that must fill in that information, so that the form even assuming that the buyer of the narcotics would be the person to fill in the seller\u2019s name.\nThe seller\u2019s name would be revealed by the order form and the seller himself would have to supply information concerning the sale.\nAnd that is sufficient in my understanding, the prior cases of this Court to reveal incriminatory information which could be used or could supply a sufficient link in a criminal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [474.432, 492.194, 510.409, 519.188], "stop_times": [492.194, 510.409, 519.188, 533.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 474.432}, "reply_to": "15103__0_024", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_026", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And still Mrs. Bamberger, it\u2019s true that the identity of the seller, he has to fill in the quantity of stuff himself, and supplied by the purchaser not by seller, isn\u2019t it?\nIsn\u2019t that the crucial thing from the standpoint of the case which you are relying on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [533.386, 547.367], "stop_times": [547.367, 553.608], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 533.386}, "reply_to": "15103__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_027", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I don\u2019t think so Your Honor, because once -- if only the seller\u2019s name were to appear on the form without any indication that a sale had actually taken place, there would be no incriminating information.\nThe incriminating information is the information that deals with the sale itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [553.608, 570.856], "stop_times": [570.856, 575.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.608}, "reply_to": "15103__0_026", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_028", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Right.\nBut if the form reached some of the authority\u2019s direction in some way with the information only the order form goes on the seller\u2019s supplied and a lot of information without indicating any identity of the seller, isn\u2019t it?\nThat\u2019d be the only thing liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [575.413, 576.479, 594.239], "stop_times": [576.479, 594.239, 596.769], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 575.413}, "reply_to": "15103__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_029", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, we have to assume Your Honor that the order form has been properly filled out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [596.769], "stop_times": [600.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.769}, "reply_to": "15103__0_028", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_030", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [600.516], "stop_times": [601.791], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 600.516}, "reply_to": "15103__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_031", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "If --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [601.791], "stop_times": [602.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.791}, "reply_to": "15103__0_030", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_032", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Filed by whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [602.083], "stop_times": [603.638], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 602.083}, "reply_to": "15103__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_033", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Filed by the seller of the narcotics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [603.638], "stop_times": [606.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.638}, "reply_to": "15103__0_032", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_034", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s\u2019 another -- that\u2019s an independent requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [606.099], "stop_times": [609.565], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 606.099}, "reply_to": "15103__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_035", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [609.565], "stop_times": [610.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.565}, "reply_to": "15103__0_034", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_036", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That he had filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [610.57], "stop_times": [611.946], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 610.57}, "reply_to": "15103__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_037", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes.\nHe has to keep a copy and he has a second copy with the Treasury Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [611.946, 612.736], "stop_times": [612.736, 615.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.946}, "reply_to": "15103__0_036", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_038", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He hasn\u2019t been prosecuted for that isn\u2019t he, for failing to file?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [615.836], "stop_times": [619.623], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 615.836}, "reply_to": "15103__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_039", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "In this case he is not being prosecuted for failing to file.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [619.623], "stop_times": [621.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.623}, "reply_to": "15103__0_038", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_040", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He\u2019s being prosecuted for selling without receiving an order form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [621.483], "stop_times": [624.39], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 621.483}, "reply_to": "15103__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_041", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s correct Your Honor, but once as the government concede, once the idea is established and that\u2019s the thrust of our brief, a point which is not disputed by the Government that receiving the order form puts the obligation upon the buyer in the sale to give the required information -- the seller, right, in the sale to give the required information that the risk of self-incrimination comes into play.\nNow, one of the Government\u2019s arguments in its brief is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [624.39, 655.321], "stop_times": [655.321, 660.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.39}, "reply_to": "15103__0_040", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_042", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, that might mean he couldn\u2019t be prosecuted for failing to fill it out and file.\nThat doesn\u2019t mean he can\u2019t be prosecuted for and perhaps not getting order form at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [660.017, 667.659], "stop_times": [667.659, 670.847], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 660.017}, "reply_to": "15103__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_043", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He could be -- now, I don\u2019t know if I\u2019m misunderstanding Your Honor, he could -- there are two instances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [670.847], "stop_times": [675.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.847}, "reply_to": "15103__0_042", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_044", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The law requires and not the seller about receiving an order form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [675.616], "stop_times": [678.513], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 675.616}, "reply_to": "15103__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_045", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [678.513], "stop_times": [679.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.513}, "reply_to": "15103__0_044", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_046", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And after he receives it, he is supposed to fill it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [679.539], "stop_times": [681.812], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 679.539}, "reply_to": "15103__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_047", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [681.812], "stop_times": [684.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.812}, "reply_to": "15103__0_046", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_048", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And he is prosecuted for not receiving the order form alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [684.412], "stop_times": [687.728], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 684.412}, "reply_to": "15103__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_049", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nBecause once he receives the order from, he is under the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [687.728, 689.886], "stop_times": [689.886, 692.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 687.728}, "reply_to": "15103__0_048", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_050", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Receiving an order form doesn\u2019t incriminate at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [692.338], "stop_times": [695.107], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 692.338}, "reply_to": "15103__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_051", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, but receiving the order form requires or puts the obligation on him to give the required information.\nOnce he has given that required information, he\u2019s violated his right against self --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [695.107, 702.288], "stop_times": [702.288, 707.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.107}, "reply_to": "15103__0_050", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_052", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "-- incriminated anything except at all that he filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [707.632], "stop_times": [711.505], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 707.632}, "reply_to": "15103__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_053", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, the information concerning the goods that are sold is also in the duplicate held by the buyer of the narcotics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [711.505], "stop_times": [724.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.505}, "reply_to": "15103__0_052", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_054", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [724.079], "stop_times": [725.039], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 724.079}, "reply_to": "15103__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__0_055", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, but the buyer has to hold it for two years and it is subject to the inspection of any state or federal law enforcement agent, so that even if a copy is not filed, the information would be available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [725.039], "stop_times": [737.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.039}, "reply_to": "15103__0_054", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_056", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But he\u2019s charged with selling without filing.\nThe charge is selling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [737.339, 742.23], "stop_times": [742.23, 743.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.339}, "reply_to": "15103__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_057", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He\u2019s charged with selling without an order form, that\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [743.592], "stop_times": [747.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.592}, "reply_to": "15103__0_056", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_058", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And his only defense is that if he filed the order form, he\u2019ll incriminate somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [747.828], "stop_times": [752.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.828}, "reply_to": "15103__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_059", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, his defense is that because the statutory scheme -- because the receiving of the order form and the record keeping requirements associated with the order form must be treated as a unified scheme in order to carry out the purpose of Congress in enacting this statute that by receiving the order form, he is compelled to give the information and therefore he would be incriminating himself.\nAnd under the Leary decision, the defendant does not have to initiate the actions which will ultimately result in self-incrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [752.513, 779.419], "stop_times": [779.419, 789.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.513}, "reply_to": "15103__0_058", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_060", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, he didn\u2019t initiate.\nHe initiated the selling of the drug.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [789.434, 790.498], "stop_times": [790.498, 792.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.434}, "reply_to": "15103__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_061", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, let --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [792.978], "stop_times": [794.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.978}, "reply_to": "15103__0_060", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_062", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That was what he was doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [794.619], "stop_times": [796.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.619}, "reply_to": "15103__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_063", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Let me change the language of that statement.\nUnder the language of Leary, the defendant does not have to begin the legal process i.e. obtaining in this case the order form which would ultimately result if he filed the scheme as intended by Congress in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [796.005, 798.516], "stop_times": [798.516, 812.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.005}, "reply_to": "15103__0_062", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_064", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, do I understand you that to obtain them would incriminate him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [812.514], "stop_times": [817.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.514}, "reply_to": "15103__0_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_065", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, because then he would be obliged to give the information under the statutory scheme.\nNow, if I could, maybe an explanation as to the scheme and the purpose of the scheme might be helpful here and that\u2019s in our point C of our brief.\nThe Harrison Act was originally enacted as a taxing scheme in order to control the flow of narcotics and to assist the states in enforcing their narcotic statutes.\nThe scheme was enacted in 1914.\nThe order form provision was enacted as part of the scheme in order to assist the Government in collecting the taxes which it had imposed on narcotics transactions, and to avoid or to assist in determining of who was involving in narcotics transaction attempting to avoid payment of these taxes.\nSo that the order form provision is an integral part of the total scheme of the taxation and treated merely as a means for physically transferring the narcotics from the seller to the buyer.\nIt does not satisfy the statutory scheme.\nThe record keeping aspects of the order form provision are crucial in carrying out the scheme in order to help the Government collect its taxes, and in order to determine who is evading the tax provisions.\nNow, on that theory which is we feel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [817.267, 822.416, 832.329, 847.677, 851.641, 877.728, 895.296, 898.181, 912.44], "stop_times": [822.416, 832.329, 847.677, 851.641, 877.728, 895.296, 898.181, 912.44, 917.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.267}, "reply_to": "15103__0_064", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_066", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well let\u2019s assume he had applied for the order form, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [917.374], "stop_times": [923.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.374}, "reply_to": "15103__0_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_067", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Assuming he asked the Government agent for the order form, he would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [923.268], "stop_times": [927.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.268}, "reply_to": "15103__0_066", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_068", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Period, that\u2019s all.\nCould he be convicted of anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [927.045, 931.349], "stop_times": [931.349, 935.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.045}, "reply_to": "15103__0_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_069", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Just saying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [935.678], "stop_times": [937.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.678}, "reply_to": "15103__0_068", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_070", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [937.551], "stop_times": [938.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.551}, "reply_to": "15103__0_069", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_071", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Without making any sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [938.343], "stop_times": [939.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.343}, "reply_to": "15103__0_070", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_072", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [939.747, 940.875], "stop_times": [940.875, 941.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.747}, "reply_to": "15103__0_071", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_073", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [941.543], "stop_times": [942.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 941.543}, "reply_to": "15103__0_072", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_074", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But if he applies for the order form and makes the sale, then what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [942.729], "stop_times": [948.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.729}, "reply_to": "15103__0_073", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_075", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "If he applies for the order form and doesn\u2019t get it and makes the sale, then he is prosecuted under Section 4705.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [948.727], "stop_times": [956.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.727}, "reply_to": "15103__0_074", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_076", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And what rights have been violated there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [956.697], "stop_times": [962.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.697}, "reply_to": "15103__0_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_077", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The same right that if he got the order form, he would be compelled to give the information which would incriminate him on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [962.325], "stop_times": [969.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.325}, "reply_to": "15103__0_076", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_078", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Would he be even charged with not filling out the form, or charged with selling without it?\nWhat would he be charged with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [969.251, 975.035], "stop_times": [975.035, 976.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.251}, "reply_to": "15103__0_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_079", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He would most likely be charged with making the sale without the form.\nIt seems to me that failure to fill out the form, the statute would come into play only if he acts for and received the order form and failed in some way to supply the information.\nBut it doesn\u2019t make-- our theory of the case -- under our theory of the case, it doesn\u2019t make any difference because under either section, he would be prosecuted for not giving the information and therefore being forced, if he did give the information, to incriminate himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [976.081, 981.856, 993.668], "stop_times": [981.856, 993.668, 1016.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.081}, "reply_to": "15103__0_078", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_080", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, if he were not in the business and was contemplating going in business and got the form, how could he be incriminated because he might change his mind and not go into business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1016.751], "stop_times": [1032.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.751}, "reply_to": "15103__0_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_081", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, this Court has, I think, already answered that question in the Marchetti series of cases, in which they said that -- well, in the Marchetti case in which the Government\u2019s argument was that a person who gets his registers under the gambling tax statute can always choose not to become a gambler, and therefore he wouldn\u2019t be incriminated himself.\nThis Court rejected that theory that didn\u2019t have to be his choice.\nHis choice was not to incriminate himself or not to violate the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1032.299, 1056.798, 1063.929], "stop_times": [1056.798, 1063.929, 1068.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.299}, "reply_to": "15103__0_080", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_082", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I think maybe I didn\u2019t make myself clear.\nHe is thinking about changing his business from gambling to selling dope so he applies for the blank, and after he applies to the blank, people who have learned their lessons say, \u201cMan that\u2019s not the business to get into.\u201d\nAnd that\u2019s -- he decides not to buy any dope and not to sell any dope.\nHas he been injured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1068.303, 1071.698, 1092.331, 1098.124], "stop_times": [1071.698, 1092.331, 1098.124, 1103.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.303}, "reply_to": "15103__0_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_083", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1103.143], "stop_times": [1103.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.143}, "reply_to": "15103__0_082", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_084", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Has he committed any crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1103.954], "stop_times": [1105.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.954}, "reply_to": "15103__0_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_085", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "As a matter of the scheme, he would not be applying for the order form.\nHis buyer would be -- or the person would buy from him would be applying for the order form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1105.252, 1109.124], "stop_times": [1109.124, 1116.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.252}, "reply_to": "15103__0_084", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_086", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, they both don\u2019t decide not to go into business.\nThe buyer decides to quit and the seller decides not to sell.\nHe\u2019s not incriminated, is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1116.749, 1122.212, 1127.708], "stop_times": [1122.212, 1127.708, 1130.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.749}, "reply_to": "15103__0_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_087", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, I have -- one difficulty with the question and that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1130.424], "stop_times": [1136.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.424}, "reply_to": "15103__0_086", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_088", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, my whole point is just the picking up of this the order blank, that\u2019s the part I have trouble with that that in and of itself is self-incriminating.\nThat\u2019s the only point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1136.409, 1147.431], "stop_times": [1147.431, 1148.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.409}, "reply_to": "15103__0_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_089", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That in and of itself is self-incriminatory because he is then obliged to reveal the information concerning a sale.\nNow, if he commits no sale, I think that was the thrust of Your Honor\u2019s question, he would not under those circumstances, be obliged to give any information because he made no sale.\nAnd I think that in that case he would not incriminate himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1148.796, 1158.023, 1173.08], "stop_times": [1158.023, 1173.08, 1177.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.796}, "reply_to": "15103__0_088", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_090", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, now the difference between that in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1177.635], "stop_times": [1180.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.635}, "reply_to": "15103__0_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_091", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "In this case, he made a sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1180.702], "stop_times": [1183.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.702}, "reply_to": "15103__0_090", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_092", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But he didn\u2019t order the blank either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1183.194], "stop_times": [1185.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.194}, "reply_to": "15103__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_093", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And he -- the blank was not offered to him nor did he request it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1185.375], "stop_times": [1190.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.375}, "reply_to": "15103__0_092", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_094", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1190.359], "stop_times": [1190.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.359}, "reply_to": "15103__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15103__0_095", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But it\u2019s our position that he did not have to request it in the first instance, because had he done so and had he received it, he would have been obliged to fill it out, and he would have incriminated himself. Since that obligation would have been thrust on him had he received it, our argument is that he does not have to take that risk as this Court has stated in Leary by even asking for in the first place.\nIn the Leary case, this Court held that Leary did not even have to go to try to register because the Government\u2019s position in Leary was that if Leary had gone to try to register so that he could buy marihuana, nobody would\u2019ve known that he would\u2019ve -- that he was revealing information because he wouldn\u2019t have been permitted to register and nobody would\u2019ve seen the form.\nBut this Court stated in Leary, that Leary didn\u2019t even have to go through the steps of beginning his registration because that might have subjected him under the statutory scheme as it was intended by Congress to function to the risk of having to supply that information.\nAnd I think that the Leary case directly covers the question that Your Honor has asked here.\nHe does not have to begin the process because to begin it would thrust the obligation on him to supply that information.\nThe -- I might also add that the decisions of this Court treat the order form provision as an inherent part of the taxing scheme in addition to the legislative history treating it that way.\nOne of the -- another problem in this case is whether the statute was directed to those inherently suspect of criminal activities.\nThis was a question which was raised by the Circuit in its opinion.\nOnce again, I believe that the Leary decision, the reasoning in the Leary decision, covers that problem in this case too.\nThe Court held in Leary that those who could register to deal in marihuana would do so, because if they didn\u2019t register they would be acting illegally and the penalties were quite severe.\nTherefore, this Court was willing to assume that everybody who could register would register, and that the only people who would be faced with the self-incrimination problem would be the people who could not register, and therefore you would have a distinct class of people involved in criminal activities that the self-incrimination problem would be directed to.\nThis point is apparently not disputed by the Government because on page 11 in its brief, the Government states that anybody who could register under state law would also -- well, nobody could register under federal law, unless they were permitted to register under state law.\nThus, we have the assumption that everybody who could register would register and falls within the Leary reasoning.\nOf course, this case deals with heroin.\nSince under the statutes of relating to narcotics as they are presently constituted, there is no legal dealing in heroin.\nTherefore, the application of this statute to any heroin transaction automatically results in the application of it to a class of individuals that is suspect of criminal activities.\nThe Government in its brief indicates that to avoid violation, and I think this goes back to Mr. Justice Marshall\u2019s question, to avoid violation you don\u2019t -- the defendant need not act.\nI think that reasoning was put to rest by this Court in Marchetti where the Government argued that he need not gamble once he\u2019s -- the defendant need not gamble once he has registered.\nThe Court said that that is not true where if he complies with the statute, he would reveal information which would subject him to criminal penalties under on other sections.\nAnd I think that the same reasoning applies to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1190.846, 1218.744, 1243.785, 1261.313, 1266.527, 1282.133, 1301.436, 1309.913, 1314.638, 1324.6, 1339.298, 1362.725, 1382.62, 1390.057, 1392.745, 1404.099, 1423.815, 1444.323, 1460.294, 1472.874], "stop_times": [1218.744, 1243.785, 1261.313, 1266.527, 1282.133, 1301.436, 1309.913, 1314.638, 1324.6, 1339.298, 1362.725, 1382.62, 1390.057, 1392.745, 1404.099, 1423.815, 1444.323, 1460.294, 1472.874, 1479.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.846}, "reply_to": "15103__0_094", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_096", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Come to think of that reasoning would apply to this case, only if there were federal statute that required some seller who sold somebody narcotics without receiving an order form to report that fact.\nThat\u2019s the missing link in this case, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1479.437, 1497.049], "stop_times": [1497.049, 1503.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.437}, "reply_to": "15103__0_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_097", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I don\u2019t think so Your Honor, because then conceivably if the Government could find out that he made such a sale which they often do with the use of undercover narcotics agents, they could prosecute him under Section 21 U.S.C. Section 173-174.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1503.045], "stop_times": [1520.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.045}, "reply_to": "15103__0_096", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_098", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Now, what\u2019s that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1520.753], "stop_times": [1522.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.753}, "reply_to": "15103__0_097", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__0_099", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s the illegal importation of -- well, consuming, facilitation and possession of narcotics that have been imported with knowledge that they\u2019ve been imported, and possession gives rise to the presumption of knowledge and importation.\nOf course the defendant could also have been prosecuted under the state statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1522.144, 1542.054], "stop_times": [1542.054, 1546.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.144}, "reply_to": "15103__0_098", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_100", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But we can\u2019t get at that until we have such a case, can we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1546.295], "stop_times": [1550.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.295}, "reply_to": "15103__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__0_101", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, but it\u2019s an answer to the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1550.792], "stop_times": [1553.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.792}, "reply_to": "15103__0_100", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_102", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, you\u2019re speculation on a future possibility which isn\u2019t before us today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1553.598], "stop_times": [1559.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.598}, "reply_to": "15103__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__0_103", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1559.444], "stop_times": [1563.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1559.444}, "reply_to": "15103__0_102", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__0_104", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Thank you Mrs. Bamberger.\nMr. Strauss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1563.333, 1567.685], "stop_times": [1567.685, 1569.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.333}, "reply_to": "15103__0_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__1_000", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI think petitioner\u2019s arguments rest on an assumption which is demonstrably false, and which it seems to me has informed much of the questioning during that time of her argument.\nThat is to say, the assumption that petitioner had an opportunity to provide the Government with incriminating information, and then declined to do so in order to protect his Fifth Amendment right.\nSuch arguments could be entertained only with the order forms for which Section 4705 (a) provides are actually received by the seller of narcotic drugs.\nIt is clear from the Government\u2019s proof in this case, proof entirely independent of anything that petitioner said, or any information that he may have provided to the Government.\nIt\u2019s clear from that proof that petitioner received no order form from the purchaser, a government agent.\nAs a matter of fact, it is clear from the statutory scheme as a matter of law that neither petitioner nor anyone willing to purchase narcotics from him could lawfully have obtained order forms for that purpose.\nIn these circumstances, it is entirely premature to ask what Fifth Amendment question might be raised in a case where an order form is actually presented and an obligation to disclose than arises.\nI think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1569.202, 1573.599, 1586.16, 1597.348, 1608.447, 1619.543, 1625.226, 1639.444, 1652.237], "stop_times": [1573.599, 1586.16, 1597.348, 1608.447, 1619.543, 1625.226, 1639.444, 1652.237, 1652.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1569.202}, "reply_to": "15103__0_104", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_001", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That criminal sanction behind it if there is a sale --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1652.865], "stop_times": [1657.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.865}, "reply_to": "15103__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_002", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1657.749], "stop_times": [1657.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.749}, "reply_to": "15103__1_001", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_003", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "-- on a presentation of an order form, then there\u2019s an obligation upon the seller to keep one copy of the form for a period time, and to send another one in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1657.983], "stop_times": [1668.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.983}, "reply_to": "15103__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_004", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1668.753], "stop_times": [1669.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.753}, "reply_to": "15103__1_003", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_005", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "-- and is that does enforceable through a criminal sanction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1669.201], "stop_times": [1671.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.201}, "reply_to": "15103__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_006", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1671.211], "stop_times": [1671.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1671.211}, "reply_to": "15103__1_005", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_007", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1671.692], "stop_times": [1672.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.692}, "reply_to": "15103__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_008", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Through the criminal sanction among others of 26 U.S. Code, Section 7203 which punishes generally any failure to conform to the reporting requirements of federal tax law.\nIt is not punishable under Section 4705 (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1672.365, 1685.67], "stop_times": [1685.67, 1689.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.365}, "reply_to": "15103__1_007", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_009", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1689.079], "stop_times": [1689.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.079}, "reply_to": "15103__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_010", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And never has been punished under that section.\nAnd of course, penalties as this Court recognizes or widely disparate Section 4705 (a) is the most severe of federal narcotics violations.\nSection 7203 states a misdemeanor.\nWe are dealing with entirely separate types of things and what I hope to do is to persuade the Court that these two different forms, if you like putting of a two-step procedure.\nFirst, receive and order form.\nSecond, provide some information on that form.\nEach step serves an important function in the course of federal narcotics regulation.\nIn these circumstances, as we say, it is entirely premature to ask what Fifth Amendment question might be raised if an order form is actually presented.\nThe requirement that in the first instance in order form be received is independent and neither that requirement nor petitioner\u2019s prosecution for its violation raises any question of self-incrimination.\nThat in brief is the Government\u2019s case.\nThe Fifth Amendment provides and I quote \u201cthat no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\u201d\nUntil petitioner receives an order form, he is under no pressure whatever to give any information of any kind to the Government.\nThe only pressure is the statutory command enforced by a criminal prosecution, in this case that he not sells.\nThus, the Government has not as petitioner had suggested it had abandoned its contention that the obligation to receive an order form is distinct from the obligation to report and retain certain types of information and for that matter to refrain from fraudulent use of order forms.\nObligations which are imposed by other parts of Section 4705 and by federal income tax law generally.\nOf course, the obligations don\u2019t stop with receipt of the form.\nOnce an individual in a narcotics sale has received the form, then the further obligation does arise to report.\nThat\u2019s a different case.\nThat\u2019s the case that isn\u2019t here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1689.381, 1691.389, 1704.182, 1707.99, 1721.778, 1723.763, 1727.399, 1733.616, 1742.624, 1755.5, 1757.923, 1766.23, 1774.645, 1783.013, 1800.575, 1808.156, 1812.837, 1819.371, 1820.426], "stop_times": [1691.389, 1704.182, 1707.99, 1721.778, 1723.763, 1727.399, 1733.616, 1742.624, 1755.5, 1757.923, 1766.23, 1774.645, 1783.013, 1800.575, 1808.156, 1812.837, 1819.371, 1820.426, 1820.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.381}, "reply_to": "15103__1_009", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_011", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "What exactly is the form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1820.916], "stop_times": [1823.796], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.916}, "reply_to": "15103__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_012", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1823.796], "stop_times": [1824.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.796}, "reply_to": "15103__1_011", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_013", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "What exactly is the form are you receiving?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1824.718], "stop_times": [1827.492], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.718}, "reply_to": "15103__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_014", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The form is the form set out in the appendix to petitioner\u2019s brief as appendix C which provides for a statement by the purchaser as to what kind of drugs he wants and how much.\nHas a place for the purchaser\u2019s name and for his signature.\nIt is to be addressed to a particular seller.\nHas a place for the seller to fill in, what drugs he has sold and on what date.\nAnd they say simply to fill in some questions that were raised during petitioner\u2019s statement, two factors concerning the form.\nThe form is not issued in blank.\nBy statute, Section 4705 (f), before the secretary may issue the form, he must cause to be stamped on it the name of the purchaser, and again by statute Section 4705 (g), it is a felony --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1827.492, 1846.546, 1850.38, 1853.117, 1859.151, 1869.879, 1872.192], "stop_times": [1846.546, 1850.38, 1853.117, 1859.151, 1869.879, 1872.192, 1886.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.492}, "reply_to": "15103__1_013", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_015", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "You send that form to someone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1886.917], "stop_times": [1889.107], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.917}, "reply_to": "15103__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_016", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "To the purchaser, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1889.107], "stop_times": [1890.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.107}, "reply_to": "15103__1_015", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_017", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Which requires him to tell whether he has to purchase something, is that what you\u2019re saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1890.605], "stop_times": [1895.926], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.605}, "reply_to": "15103__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_018", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIn someone wishing to purchase narcotics, someone who must be a lawful registrant by statute, applies to the Secretary of Treasury to get a book of these forms.\nThey come in a book of ten.\nWhen the Secretary of the Treasury issues the forms, before issuing them, he stamps the name of the purchaser on the form, so that it\u2019s not a book of blank forms, it\u2019s a book of forms which only, let\u2019s say the dark drug company can use.\nThe dark drug company may have legitimate need to purchase narcotics for medical use.\nIt applies for a book of these forms, and will receive ten forms and they will be stamped dark drug company.\nAnd it is then a felony for any other person to use those forms.\nThey\u2019re available only to a specific purchaser.\nWhen the purchaser wishes to make a purchase of narcotics, he fills out in triplicate this form indicating what he wishes to purchase and he may or may not fill in the name of the seller as I understand it, and that is entirely voluntary with him.\nObviously, he will put the name of the seller some place on an envelope for example, in which he may send the order, or he may write a covering letter but there is no obligation that he fill in the name of the seller.\nIt is sent to the seller and if the seller\u2019s name is not filled in, then the seller must among other things, provide his name as well as the confirming information about what drugs had been sold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1895.926, 1898.222, 1909.247, 1911.597, 1929.02, 1934.209, 1940.87, 1944.911, 1948.082, 1962.988, 1976.54], "stop_times": [1898.222, 1909.247, 1911.597, 1929.02, 1934.209, 1940.87, 1944.911, 1948.082, 1962.988, 1976.54, 1989.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.926}, "reply_to": "15103__1_017", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_019", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And the quantity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1989.411], "stop_times": [1990.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.411}, "reply_to": "15103__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__1_020", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And the quantity, the confirming information, that\u2019s right.\nDrugs have been sold in the quantity, but the point that I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1990.549, 1993.241], "stop_times": [1993.241, 1995.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.549}, "reply_to": "15103__1_019", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_021", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I take that there\u2019re some buyers who could really get order forms and present them for selling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1995.836], "stop_times": [2000.356], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.836}, "reply_to": "15103__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_022", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s right, 400,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2000.356], "stop_times": [2002.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.356}, "reply_to": "15103__1_021", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_023", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And there are some situations in which sellers would put in legally and without incriminating himself, fill out the forms for filing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2002.195], "stop_times": [2009.674], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.195}, "reply_to": "15103__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_024", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Approximately 200,000 executed triplicates are received by the Secretary of Treasury each month in fiscal year 1967, only four persons entitled to use order forms were convicted of narcotics offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2009.674], "stop_times": [2026.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.674}, "reply_to": "15103__1_023", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_025", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "There are people who can get order forms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2026.786], "stop_times": [2030.07], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.786}, "reply_to": "15103__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_026", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The very overwhelming majority of transactions where order forms are used are legal.\nAnd that indeed is our point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2030.07, 2035.575], "stop_times": [2035.575, 2037.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.07}, "reply_to": "15103__1_025", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_027", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I quite misunderstood the situation and factually.\nI thought that there was absolutely no legal traffic in heroin whatsoever in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2037.716, 2041.042], "stop_times": [2041.042, 2045.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.716}, "reply_to": "15103__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_028", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Oh, I\u2019m speaking of narcotics generally, I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2045.237], "stop_times": [2047.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2045.237}, "reply_to": "15103__1_027", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_029", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "We\u2019re talking about heroin in this case, I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2047.331], "stop_times": [2050.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.331}, "reply_to": "15103__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_030", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I\u2019m sorry.\nWe weren\u2019t talking about -- I was treating it as the Harrison Narcotics Act.\nThere is no one who could obtain an order form for heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2050.295, 2050.996, 2055.449], "stop_times": [2050.996, 2055.449, 2057.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.295}, "reply_to": "15103__1_029", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_031", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Take the outlaw, illegal dealings and whatever in the United States of America, that\u2019s what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2057.63], "stop_times": [2063.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.63}, "reply_to": "15103__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_032", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Not quite, the Secretary of Treasury is in a position to authorize --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2063.509], "stop_times": [2066.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.509}, "reply_to": "15103__1_031", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_033", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, for experimental purposes (Voice Overlap) registration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2066.565], "stop_times": [2069.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.565}, "reply_to": "15103__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_034", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "There are no legal purchases.\nAll experimental uses at this time are carried on with the stocks that the Secretary has procedures.\nThat\u2019s right.\nYou\u2019re correct so far as heroin as concerned, but this is part of a larger statutory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2069.273, 2071.908, 2080.518, 2082.081], "stop_times": [2071.908, 2080.518, 2082.081, 2087.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.273}, "reply_to": "15103__1_033", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_035", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2087.022], "stop_times": [2088.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.022}, "reply_to": "15103__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_036", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And this statute does not distinguish as to heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2088.065], "stop_times": [2093.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.065}, "reply_to": "15103__1_035", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_037", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But it requires him to make a report with reference to heroin at that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2093.12], "stop_times": [2097.39], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.12}, "reply_to": "15103__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_038", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, Your Honor it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2097.39], "stop_times": [2098.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.39}, "reply_to": "15103__1_037", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_039", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2098.934], "stop_times": [2099.373], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.934}, "reply_to": "15103__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_040", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Because under the statute, it is impossible to secure an order form with -- for the purchase of heroin.\nIt is a felony to use an order form to purchase heroin for the purchaser.\nOrder forms may only be used to purchase a lawful drug for a lawful purpose.\nHeroin is an unlawful drug for which there is no lawful purchase -- no lawful purpose, excuse me.\nSo it\u2019s a felony to obtain or use an order form for the purpose of purchasing heroin, and now it maybe that in some obscure situation this could somehow happen, 40 of the roughly 2,400,000 order forms that were used in 1967 were stolen approximately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2099.373, 2108.82, 2116.076, 2121.819, 2128.763], "stop_times": [2108.82, 2116.076, 2121.819, 2128.763, 2150.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.373}, "reply_to": "15103__1_039", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_041", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2150.16], "stop_times": [2150.844], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.16}, "reply_to": "15103__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_042", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Stolen.\nThere were 40 forms stolen and it is conceivable that somewhere, someone having stolen an order form which was not issued to his name and which was therefore a felony for him to use filled in something with respect to heroin and handed it to someone who sold him some heroin.\nThe Government\u2019s point in that situation is that whatever violations of federal statutes may have been involved there was no violation of the statute here in issue.\nThe statute here at issue, Section 4705 (a) only punishes the situation where someone makes a sale without receiving an order form, and again if I may say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2150.844, 2151.77, 2173.152, 2183.143], "stop_times": [2151.77, 2173.152, 2183.143, 2196.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.844}, "reply_to": "15103__1_041", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_043", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Just the sale of heroin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2196.019], "stop_times": [2197.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.019}, "reply_to": "15103__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_044", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Or any other narcotic drug.\nThe statute does not limit to heroin.\nIt\u2019s limited to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2197.511, 2199.414, 2201.633], "stop_times": [2199.414, 2201.633, 2202.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.511}, "reply_to": "15103__1_043", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_045", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I know, but it does include heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2202.261], "stop_times": [2203.954], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.261}, "reply_to": "15103__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_046", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It includes heroin, that\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2203.954], "stop_times": [2209.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.954}, "reply_to": "15103__1_045", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_047", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Even though if in fact, this order form was able to use and completed everything else?\nThe subject being heroin, he might have been prosecuted under what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2209.699, 2214.907], "stop_times": [2214.907, 2218.093], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.699}, "reply_to": "15103__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_048", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "He might have been -- the purchaser could have been prosecuted under Section 4705 (g) for fraudulent use of an order form.\nThe seller could certainly be prosecuted under the various statutes that make possession of heroin an offense, Section 174, Title 21 and Section 4704, Title 26 since quite clearly there would be not tax stamps on that package of heroin which had been sold, but there could be no prosecution under Section 4705 (a).\nI do think it\u2019s important to indicate what the separate function of this requirement that you receive in order form in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2218.093, 2225.661, 2251.425], "stop_times": [2225.661, 2251.425, 2259.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.093}, "reply_to": "15103__1_047", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_049", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Is it the Government\u2019s practice to prosecute these heroin sales where no order form is used under 4705 (a)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2259.581], "stop_times": [2270.048], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.581}, "reply_to": "15103__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_050", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Since 1956 when the penalty provisions of the Harrison Narcotics Act were amended to differentiate among the various offenses and the penalty for violation of Section 4705 (a) was made more severe than the others.\nThe practice has been to use Section 4705 (a) for all illegal trafficking, peddling of all narcotic drugs including heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2270.048, 2288.559], "stop_times": [2288.559, 2299.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.048}, "reply_to": "15103__1_049", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_051", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But I take it you already told us even if they had used the order form, nevertheless, both purchaser and seller could\u2019ve been prosecuted for other offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2299.225], "stop_times": [2308.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.225}, "reply_to": "15103__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_052", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "For other offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2308.0], "stop_times": [2308.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.0}, "reply_to": "15103__1_051", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_053", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Now, what do they add, what s the practice of adding in the way of other counts when they prosecute a heroin sale without an order form under 4705 (a), what others to they add?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2308.548], "stop_times": [2320.626], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.548}, "reply_to": "15103__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_054", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I think it varies from case to case.\nThey do add on occasion counts under Section 4704 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2320.626, 2322.747], "stop_times": [2322.747, 2326.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.626}, "reply_to": "15103__1_053", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_055", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "They added something here, as I recall it.\nThere was another one was it? It was another count in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2326.36, 2329.734], "stop_times": [2329.734, 2332.287], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.36}, "reply_to": "15103__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_056", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Which was I think dismissed, I don\u2019t --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2332.287], "stop_times": [2335.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.287}, "reply_to": "15103__1_055", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_057", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Oh, is that right, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2335.118], "stop_times": [2335.221], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.118}, "reply_to": "15103__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_058", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I don\u2019t recall what it was.\nThere is no conviction on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2335.221, 2337.36], "stop_times": [2337.36, 2338.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.221}, "reply_to": "15103__1_057", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_059", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But there is a practice, isn\u2019t not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2338.232], "stop_times": [2339.723], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.232}, "reply_to": "15103__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_060", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "There is very often and I may say that that is another issue.\nIt may be an issue that the Court wishes to examine.\nIt\u2019s not an issue, I think presented by the petition in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2339.723, 2343.889, 2347.066], "stop_times": [2343.889, 2347.066, 2354.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.723}, "reply_to": "15103__1_059", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_061", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "What if seller received an order form and then failed to fill it out but made the sale, could he be prosecuted under 4705?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2354.321], "stop_times": [2367.389], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.321}, "reply_to": "15103__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_062", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Not under 470 -- no, not under 4705.\nThe purchaser could be prosecuted under 4705 (g).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2367.389, 2370.904], "stop_times": [2370.904, 2374.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.389}, "reply_to": "15103__1_061", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_063", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, but not the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2374.589], "stop_times": [2375.183], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.589}, "reply_to": "15103__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_064", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But not the seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2375.183], "stop_times": [2376.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.183}, "reply_to": "15103__1_063", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_065", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But not the Section that is used here against the seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2376.141], "stop_times": [2379.887], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.141}, "reply_to": "15103__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_066", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, no.\nThe seller could only be prosecuted for failure to file the requisite forms under Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code, and that really brings up the two different functions that this statute serves and I do have to talk about the Harrison Act generally in this situation.\nWe have on the one side the channel of legitimate trade in narcotic drugs.\nNarcotic drugs while they are very dangerous to individuals, addictive, still have important medical uses.\nAnd thousands of pounds, hundreds of thousands of pounds of opium are imported into this country legally every year for manufacture into various drugs, not including heroin, and use in medical trade.\nThose legally imported drugs are supervised from the moment of entry into the United States to the moment of their consumption by use of the reports made on triplicates by the hundreds of thousands of legal users of narcotic drugs every month.\nThat is the function, if you like, of the reporting aspect of the order form requirement.\nThe function of the receipt aspect of the order form requirement which we\u2019re talking about here is quite different.\nBy requiring that you receive an order form, the Government is in effect saying there shall be not sales but legal sales.\nYou can only obtain an order form lawfully to use in a narcotics transaction and you can only use the order form lawfully if the sale is a legal one under federal law.\nThat being the case, the absence of an order form, the failure to receive an order form if the Government can prove it in any narcotics case, is immediate proof that the sale was an illegal one.\nAnd it is that separate function which petitioner seeks to affiliate to the question of information gathering, and thus draw a conjurer circle around him self.\nAnd if I may repeat that phrase that Justice Holmes use so long ago.\nI think that it could then be quite clear that this case is not in the line of cases which begun in this Court with Albertson versus Subversive Activities Control Board, those cases held in effect that the Fifth Amendment forbids statutes whose usual impact is to make a separate crime out of an individuals failure to report his criminal acts to the Government.\nHere, the violation of the statute consists not in failure to report, but in the positive act of selling narcotics to a person who has not proved his eligibility as a legal purchaser by presentation of an official order form for the narcotics brought.\nThe question of reporting, as I\u2019ve just said, never arises in that context, because order forms cannot be obtained.\nIt\u2019s only after an order form has been presented in circumstances not present here, and in which the overwhelming majority of transactions are entirely legal that any such question arises.\nAnd I may say Justice Stewart, in response to the remarks that you made before about this being heroin and to that extent the heroin statute, in the processing of these forms, there is no particular distinction made as to what drug is reported on them.\nThere\u2019s no different color for an order form that might be used for one drug, then for another there\u2019s no different filing system.\nThe form is part, and I think the Government is entitled to insist that it be treated as part of the overall federal scheme of regulating traffic in narcotic drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2379.887, 2380.301, 2398.851, 2404.902, 2411.788, 2427.581, 2446.774, 2452.813, 2460.219, 2468.685, 2483.225, 2497.543, 2508.602, 2513.547, 2538.099, 2554.418, 2562.583, 2574.496, 2590.54, 2598.02], "stop_times": [2380.301, 2398.851, 2404.902, 2411.788, 2427.581, 2446.774, 2452.813, 2460.219, 2468.685, 2483.225, 2497.543, 2508.602, 2513.547, 2538.099, 2554.418, 2562.583, 2574.496, 2590.54, 2598.02, 2608.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.887}, "reply_to": "15103__1_065", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_067", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Who fills in, on the form, who fills in the items thereby number, catalogue number, and so on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2608.625], "stop_times": [2615.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.625}, "reply_to": "15103__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_068", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, it varies as I understand it before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2615.135], "stop_times": [2618.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.135}, "reply_to": "15103__1_067", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_069", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The applicant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2618.371], "stop_times": [2619.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.371}, "reply_to": "15103__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_070", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The applicant fills in the left hand 1, 2, 3, 4 columns.\nThe consignor fills in the right two columns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2619.814, 2625.414], "stop_times": [2625.414, 2628.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.814}, "reply_to": "15103__1_069", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_071", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, but I\u2019m talking about the left hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2628.081], "stop_times": [2629.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.081}, "reply_to": "15103__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_072", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, the secretary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2629.993], "stop_times": [2630.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.993}, "reply_to": "15103__1_071", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_073", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Consignor is the vendor, the seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2630.821], "stop_times": [2633.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.821}, "reply_to": "15103__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_074", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2633.062], "stop_times": [2633.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.062}, "reply_to": "15103__1_073", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_075", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2633.676], "stop_times": [2633.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.676}, "reply_to": "15103__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_076", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Did you say earlier that all traffic in heroin is illegal to anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2633.951], "stop_times": [2640.969], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.951}, "reply_to": "15103__1_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_077", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That is essentially true.\nThere are circumstances in which the Secretary of Treasury authorizes the release for experimental purposes, but with that exception --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2640.969, 2642.504], "stop_times": [2642.504, 2652.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.969}, "reply_to": "15103__1_076", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_078", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It\u2019s not included in narcotic drugs as defined in Section 4731?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2652.335], "stop_times": [2659.875], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.335}, "reply_to": "15103__1_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_079", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It is subject to regulation under the Act, Your Honor, but it is not -- while subject to regulation under the Act, through other acts, it is may the drug which cannot be legally obtained.\nI think one of the principal acts for example, is the Narcotics Manufacturing Act of 1960 which established a federal system of licensing narcotics manufacture.\nI\u2019m afraid it\u2019s not set out in the brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2659.875, 2675.633, 2687.025], "stop_times": [2675.633, 2687.025, 2688.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.875}, "reply_to": "15103__1_078", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_080", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, it\u2019s not I wasn\u2019t able to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2688.815], "stop_times": [2690.909], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.815}, "reply_to": "15103__1_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_081", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It would be found at 21 United States Code, Section 500 and following, and licensing provisions are Section 505 and 506.\nIn Section 502, you\u2019ll find a list of legally manufacturable drugs which do not include heroin and it\u2019s sought.\nSo that there can be no federal license for manufacturing heroin in the United States as the law presently stands.\nUnder the Harrison Act, Section 173 of Title 21, it is unlawful to import crude opium for the purpose of manufacturing heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2690.909, 2702.081, 2712.729, 2720.527], "stop_times": [2702.081, 2712.729, 2720.527, 2731.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.909}, "reply_to": "15103__1_080", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_082", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I think you perhaps didn\u2019t have the opportunity to fully answer my question.\nWhen the applicant sends this in, as I understood it, you said that the applicant --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2731.257, 2736.803], "stop_times": [2736.803, 2741.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.257}, "reply_to": "15103__1_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_083", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Sends it to the seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2741.022], "stop_times": [2742.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.022}, "reply_to": "15103__1_082", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_084", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes -- no, no.\nWhen the applicant sends in and applies for an order form to the Treasury Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2742.19, 2742.899], "stop_times": [2742.899, 2748.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.19}, "reply_to": "15103__1_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_085", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Oh!\nExcuse me.\nThis is not this form.\nTo apply for an order form it\u2019s not this form at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2748.019, 2748.261, 2749.266, 2750.957], "stop_times": [2748.261, 2749.266, 2750.957, 2753.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.019}, "reply_to": "15103__1_084", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_086", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I see.\nThis is what he gets back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2753.265, 2754.138], "stop_times": [2754.138, 2755.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.265}, "reply_to": "15103__1_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_087", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It\u2019s an entirely different form.\nCounsel has a copy of it here.\nIt is a regular printed form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2755.59, 2757.947, 2759.998], "stop_times": [2757.947, 2759.998, 2762.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.59}, "reply_to": "15103__1_086", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_088", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Application form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2762.778], "stop_times": [2763.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.778}, "reply_to": "15103__1_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_089", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Application form for number of order forms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2763.655], "stop_times": [2767.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.655}, "reply_to": "15103__1_088", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_090", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And now, does he indicate on that what the drugs he wants to purchase?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2767.612], "stop_times": [2772.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.612}, "reply_to": "15103__1_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_091", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No there is not indication.\nAll that\u2019s necessary to indicate is his name and his registration number.\nThere are limitations under the regulations, unless he is a manufacturer or a wholesaler, he can not obtain more than ten one book at a time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2772.305, 2773.912, 2780.047], "stop_times": [2773.912, 2780.047, 2787.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2772.305}, "reply_to": "15103__1_090", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_092", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "From what you told me, there will be no order form for heroin because all sales would be prohibited unless license by the secretary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2787.112], "stop_times": [2794.871], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.112}, "reply_to": "15103__1_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_093", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No.\nUnder Section 4705 (g) Your Honor, law of order forms can be used only for a lawful purpose.\nIt\u2019s a felony to use the order form for an unlawful purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2794.871, 2795.255, 2802.586], "stop_times": [2795.255, 2802.586, 2805.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.871}, "reply_to": "15103__1_092", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_094", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, it\u2019s a -- I say yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2805.088], "stop_times": [2807.043], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.088}, "reply_to": "15103__1_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_095", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "You can obtain an order.\nYou don\u2019t have to tell the Secretary of Treasury what you want the order form for.\nIf you were the dark drug company, you would have a stock of order forms in your office, or you could obtain order forms.\nYou wouldn\u2019t commit the felony until you wrote down on the order form that you wish to buy five envelopes of heroin and attempted to use the order form for that purpose, which is an unlawful purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2807.043, 2808.283, 2812.465, 2819.107], "stop_times": [2808.283, 2812.465, 2819.107, 2830.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2807.043}, "reply_to": "15103__1_094", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_096", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, the order form is irrelevant then in your analysis to this little problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2830.754], "stop_times": [2835.047], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.754}, "reply_to": "15103__1_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_097", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, the order form is -- except what is relevant is whether or not the order was received or not.\nIn Nigro, this Court talked about the order form as a kind of certificate of the legality of the transaction, and it seems --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2835.047, 2842.123], "stop_times": [2842.123, 2850.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.047}, "reply_to": "15103__1_096", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_098", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, the whole thing is illegal.\nI don\u2019t see how order form has anything to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2850.177, 2850.783], "stop_times": [2850.783, 2853.609], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.177}, "reply_to": "15103__1_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_099", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "It is -- I agree that it is perhaps more cumbersome that Congress need have done, there\u2019s simply a means of identifying the illegal transaction.\nSince there will be no order forms used for heroin, any transaction in heroin necessarily, will have an order form missing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2853.609, 2862.984], "stop_times": [2862.984, 2874.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.609}, "reply_to": "15103__1_098", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_100", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And if there were an order form it would be a violation of the law and the part of the purchaser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2874.61], "stop_times": [2879.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.61}, "reply_to": "15103__1_099", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15103__1_101", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That is correct.\nIf there were an order form that was filled out for heroin that would be a violation of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2884.067, 2879.691], "stop_times": [2879.691, 2885.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.067}, "reply_to": "15103__1_100", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_102", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019d be a violation of what", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2885.051], "stop_times": [2886.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.051}, "reply_to": "15103__1_101", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15103__1_103", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Section 4705 (g) which is not at issue in this case.\nI think some notion of the distance between this statute and the statutes that were involved Albertson, Marchetti, Grosso, Haynes, and Leary can be obtained by a closer view of the classes subject to the provisions involved in those cases.\nIn Albertson, the statute involved made it an offense for administratively identified members of the Communist Party not to register as such.\nMarchetti and Grosso involved the obligation of persons to identify themselves as professional gamblers, outlawed in 49 states.\nAs this Court interpreted the statute at issue in Haynes, that case required registration in circumstances which almost always would establish prior criminal conduct.\nIn Leary and Covington last term, the petitioners were obliged by payment of an extraordinary tax, $100.00 per ounce to identify themselves as members of an entirely criminal class.\nIn each of these cases it was not only the petitioner but all or virtually all persons subject to the requirement in issue who had engaged in criminal conduct and thus ran the risk of incriminating themselves if they did what the Government commanded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2886.656, 2892.83, 2907.467, 2915.572, 2924.155, 2935.118, 2947.892], "stop_times": [2892.83, 2907.467, 2915.572, 2924.155, 2935.118, 2947.892, 2962.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.656}, "reply_to": "15103__1_102", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_104", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "May I ask you a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2962.694], "stop_times": [2963.6], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.694}, "reply_to": "15103__1_103", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_105", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Surely, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2963.6], "stop_times": [2964.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2963.6}, "reply_to": "15103__1_104", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_106", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "In connection about your answer to Justice Douglas.\nI understood you to say that the order from the secretary is irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2964.519, 2966.897], "stop_times": [2966.897, 2974.239], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.519}, "reply_to": "15103__1_105", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_107", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "For the purpose of prosecuting this case, and for the purpose of Section 4705 (a) case is generally, the only thing which is relevant about the order form is whether it is received or not.\nAny information that it may have on it, any information that may later be put on it is irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2974.239, 2987.815], "stop_times": [2987.815, 2993.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.239}, "reply_to": "15103__1_106", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_108", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Now the indictment charges that the defendant unlawfully, willfully, and knowing he did sell, barter, exchange and give away to Gozon approximately 19,500 grams of heroin hydrochloride, a narcotic drug, and that the said sale, barter, exchange and giving away was not in pursuant for the written order of the said Francisco H. Gozon on a form issued in blank for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States or his delegate.\nWhat does that mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2993.803, 3030.9], "stop_times": [3030.9, 3032.509], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.803}, "reply_to": "15103__1_107", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_109", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well, I think that\u2019s entirely consistent with what I\u2019ve just said, Your Honor.\nThese forms are issued in blank for the purpose of engaging in lawful transactions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3032.509, 3037.055], "stop_times": [3037.055, 3041.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.509}, "reply_to": "15103__1_108", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_110", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But not for the purpose of engaging in the purchase of heroin?\nThat\u2019s what you told me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3041.446, 3045.13], "stop_times": [3045.13, 3045.62], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.446}, "reply_to": "15103__1_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_111", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Your Honor, the Secretary of Treasury does not know what purpose they will be used for when --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3045.62], "stop_times": [3049.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.62}, "reply_to": "15103__1_110", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_112", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But I understood you to tell Justice Douglas that that was wholly irrelevant because he couldn\u2019t issue one for the purchase of heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3049.193], "stop_times": [3056.585], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.193}, "reply_to": "15103__1_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_113", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, I think I\u2019d been misunderstood.\nThe form could not legally be used for the purchase of heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3056.585, 3058.748], "stop_times": [3058.748, 3063.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.585}, "reply_to": "15103__1_112", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_114", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Could not legally be used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3063.264], "stop_times": [3064.808], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.264}, "reply_to": "15103__1_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_115", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3064.808], "stop_times": [3065.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.808}, "reply_to": "15103__1_114", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_116", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Well then, and if he used them, he would show that he\u2019s violating the law, wouldn\u2019t he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3065.796], "stop_times": [3069.644], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.796}, "reply_to": "15103__1_115", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_117", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The purchaser would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3069.644], "stop_times": [3073.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.644}, "reply_to": "15103__1_116", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_118", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "What about your prosecuting the other seller, aren\u2019t you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3073.727], "stop_times": [3076.129], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.727}, "reply_to": "15103__1_117", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_119", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I\u2019m prosecuting the seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3076.129], "stop_times": [3078.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.129}, "reply_to": "15103__1_118", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_120", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "And you say however the only the purchaser could be prosecuted, but you\u2019re prosecuting the seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3078.178], "stop_times": [3084.378], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.178}, "reply_to": "15103__1_119", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_121", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3084.378], "stop_times": [3085.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.378}, "reply_to": "15103__1_120", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_122", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Only the man who did it without this order of the Secretary of the Treasury or whatever he is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3085.43], "stop_times": [3093.52], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.43}, "reply_to": "15103__1_121", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_123", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "If someone attempted to use an order form to purchase heroin, situation which to my knowledge has never occurred.\nIf someone attempted to do that, he would be guilty of misuse of an order form which is a felony under Section 4705 (g) of the statute.\nAnd it\u2019s an entirely separate thing to say that if someone sells a narcotic drug including heroin without receiving any order form at all, he is guilty of a felony under another section of the statute, Section 4705 (a) and that case is what we have in issue here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3093.52, 3102.82, 3114.002], "stop_times": [3102.82, 3114.002, 3151.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.52}, "reply_to": "15103__1_122", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_124", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Mr. Strauss, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3151.882], "stop_times": [3153.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.882}, "reply_to": "15103__1_123", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__1_125", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI thought all I would do in the few minutes that remain since there had been some possibly some confusion on the subject, and I think I may have contributed to it, to go through again the procedures by which persons may lawfully obtain narcotic drugs.\nAnd I think the appropriate place to start is with the obligation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3153.931, 3156.792, 3178.777], "stop_times": [3156.792, 3178.777, 3182.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3153.931}, "reply_to": "15103__1_124", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_126", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Would you mind to name it, the distinguishing between narcotic drugs and heroin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3182.966], "stop_times": [3188.481], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.966}, "reply_to": "15103__1_125", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_127", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "The statute does not do so Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3188.481], "stop_times": [3189.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3188.481}, "reply_to": "15103__1_126", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_128", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "I understand it doesn\u2019t, but this case is heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3189.615], "stop_times": [3192.834], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.615}, "reply_to": "15103__1_127", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15103__1_129", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nOne of the narcotic drugs under the statute, and I think the Government is entitled to treat it as such.\nIt shares all relevant characteristics with those other drugs.\nA determination has been made that it has no lawful medical use on the basis of that determination of the federal statute -- under the federal statute for licensing the manufacture of narcotic drugs.\nThere is no license for the manufacture of heroin.\nUnder the federal statute regulating the importation of the raw materials of narcotic drug, you may not import materials for the purpose of making heroin.\nBut aside from those particular restrictions based on that particular Congressional finding, the drug is treated as all other drugs under the scheme.\nSection 4721 and 22 imposed the obligation to register in the particular circumstances we\u2019re talking about, probably the relevant obligation as to register as a wholesaler or as a retailer of narcotic drugs, and those sections made quite clear that the only person who may register are persons lawfully entitled to sell narcotic drugs.\nThat is persons who would violate no law of the state if they sold narcotic drugs generally.\nOnce a person has registered and only in that circumstance, as provided by Section 4705 (f), he may apply to the Secretary of Treasury to obtain blank order forms, ten to a book, with which to purchase narcotic drugs from the licensed manufacturers of those drugs.\nThe order forms are issued to him entirely in blank with one exception.\nHis name and address are stamped on it by the secretary.\nThere is no requirement that he identify what drugs he means to purchase or how many.\nObviously that would be impractical, as I mentioned before, there are 400,000 registrants under this Act.\nThere are well over 2 million transactions annually using order forms.\nObviously, they asked someone to sit down and pass on and record each effort to obtain permission, to make a purchase of such and such a narcotic drug would be an impractical and unnecessary thing which Congress has chosen not to do.\nThe lawful purchaser then receives these order forms in blank when he has occasion to make the purchase of any drug, he fills it out in the manner that you can see in appendix C of petitioner\u2019s brief, and sends it to the seller.\nHe may or may not put the seller\u2019s name in.\nThat\u2019s not important if he doesn\u2019t do so then the lawful seller will do so.\nIt is I think, worthy of note that if he uses that order form for an unlawful purpose which would include the purchase of a drug he\u2019s not lawfully entitled to purchase, heroin, he would be committing a felony under Section 4705 (g) which is not a provision in issue again in this case.\nWhen the seller receives that form, it is I would say in all cases, if you were to put to me a hypothetical in which the seller received the form calling for the purchase of heroin which is physically possible.\nA purchaser could write in heroin on the form, I would have to respond yes.\nThat is conceivable although we don\u2019t know it\u2019s ever happened, so I can say at least in all but the very remotest of situations, when he receives that order form, it is a certificate that the transaction that\u2019s about to take place is a legal transaction and it serves that important function in its absence.\nOne knows that the transaction which has taken place is an illegal transaction and that without need for any information on the part of the seller of any type.\nThat is the Government\u2019s case.\nWe believe the judgment below should be affirmed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3192.834, 3193.456, 3202.551, 3207.56, 3222.167, 3226.084, 3237.528, 3250.387, 3279.11, 3287.607, 3310.911, 3315.644, 3319.577, 3324.942, 3331.445, 3336.329, 3353.329, 3371.386, 3373.522, 3378.971, 3404.885, 3420.465, 3424.647, 3449.806, 3460.169, 3462.037, 3464.628], "stop_times": [3193.456, 3202.551, 3207.56, 3222.167, 3226.084, 3237.528, 3250.387, 3279.11, 3287.607, 3310.911, 3315.644, 3319.577, 3324.942, 3331.445, 3336.329, 3353.329, 3371.386, 3373.522, 3378.971, 3404.885, 3420.465, 3424.647, 3449.806, 3460.169, 3462.037, 3464.628, 3466.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.834}, "reply_to": "15103__1_128", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15103__1_130", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Mrs. Bamberger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3466.714], "stop_times": [3467.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.714}, "reply_to": "15103__1_129", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__2_000", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI will address briefly to three questions which were raised in the argument.\nFirst, Mr. Justice Stewart spoke of a missing link.\nI would suggest that in this case while the statute is not identical to those of the prior cases in this area.\nThe difference is not material and should not be dispositive, because Leary assumes that the statute will function as it was intended to do by Congress.\nTo do that or to interpret that statute in any other way or to apply it in any other way, undermines the rules of -- that were established with respect to the Fifth Amendment in the series of cases prior to this.\nSo we come to determine what -- how that missing link affects these rights.\nIt is our position that the Fifth Amendment right is the same here as it has been in prior cases.\nAlthough the very words of the Section which provide the criminal penalty do not include the provisions requiring the information, the rest of the statute requires the incriminatory information and on the congressional scheme, it must be interpreted as a whole.\nThus, if the defendant receives the order form as has been stated by the Government, he must give the information.\nHis position then is no different if he doesn\u2019t ask for it with the knowledge that if he receives it, he will have to supply the incriminating information.\nHe merely can stop, as this Court has said previously at the initial stages of the proceeding, rather than waiting until other statutes come in to play in a different factual context.\nThe Government has indicated in its argument that the application of the order form procedure to the heroin transaction.\nThe order form procedure has its purpose the disclosure of information as applied to the heroin transaction.\nThis must always result in the disclosure of incriminating information as to the seller.\nWe are not concerned here with the purchaser.\nThe effect of Section 4705 is to give the transaction an appearance of legality.\nSince it says that a sale can be made with an order form, while the provision -- while the sale may be illegal under other sections that is precisely the problem raised by falling into 4705 (a).\nThe transaction appears to be legal and complying with it appears to make it justifiable and legal at the same time complying with it reveals the violations of the other statutes which would be violated by heroin transaction.\nAgain I can only indicate that the missing link is not substantial because compliance in the receipt of the order form cannot be separated because of the congressional intent with the statute from the information giving aspects of the statute.\nEven though another statute may come into play in a different factual context, and that other statute may also violate the Fifth Amendment, this statute does too if we look at the full implications of compliance with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3467.848, 3468.783, 3473.69, 3478.197, 3488.089, 3501.494, 3515.928, 3523.472, 3530.972, 3556.133, 3566.3, 3578.947, 3595.816, 3607.586, 3616.808, 3624.098, 3629.617, 3638.373, 3655.585, 3675.79, 3697.521], "stop_times": [3468.783, 3473.69, 3478.197, 3488.089, 3501.494, 3515.928, 3523.472, 3530.972, 3556.133, 3566.3, 3578.947, 3595.816, 3607.586, 3616.808, 3624.098, 3629.617, 3638.373, 3655.585, 3675.79, 3697.521, 3716.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3467.848}, "reply_to": "15103__1_130", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__2_001", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "et me put a hypothetical question to you, Mrs. Bamberger.\nSuppose a state decided to simplify its procedures, and perhaps this hypothetical is too simplistic but let\u2019s try it.\nSimplify its procedures for admission of lawyers from other states who moved into the state in question and said that admission to the bar could be obtained upon filing a certificate by the applicant that he was admitted a bar in some other state giving the date of his admission of the details.\nThe man wants to practice in this state, but he hasn\u2019t had time to go to law school and he doesn\u2019t want to take the trouble and so he just -- but he\u2019s determined to practice law there.\nNow, he says he\u2019s confronted with the choice of either committing perjury by filing a false certificate that he submitted in Florida or Georgia, or not engaging in practice of law at all.\nWould you think that that kind of a statute poses these problems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3716.858, 3720.375, 3730.102, 3753.048, 3766.511, 3779.727], "stop_times": [3720.375, 3730.102, 3753.048, 3766.511, 3779.727, 3785.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3716.858}, "reply_to": "15103__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__2_002", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "No, I don\u2019t Your Honor, because that statute does not make his -- does not give his act in appearance of legality by indicating that he has violated some other statute.\nIf he were to file such an affidavit, he would be practicing law illegally because it had not been properly admitted.\nBut it wouldn\u2019t, the statute itself would not compel him to reveal information which would violate another statute, which would indicate a violation of another statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3785.521, 3800.071, 3809.047], "stop_times": [3800.071, 3809.047, 3821.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3785.521}, "reply_to": "15103__2_001", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__2_003", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "But it confronts him with the choice that either not being able to practice law in that state or committing perjury in order to get this simplified overnight admission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3821.202], "stop_times": [3830.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3821.202}, "reply_to": "15103__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15103__2_004", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Yes, but that\u2019s not this case where it permits him make the sale, if he reveals information which would indicate a violation of other statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3830.551], "stop_times": [3843.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3830.551}, "reply_to": "15103__2_003", "speaker": "phylis_skloot_bamberger"}
{"id": "15103__2_005", "conversation_id": "15103", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.\nMrs. Bamberger you acted at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3843.774, 3845.394, 3846.187], "stop_times": [3845.394, 3846.187, 3848.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3843.774}, "reply_to": "15103__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__0_000", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Number 271, Buie against the United States.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready Mr. Diamond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [0.0, 30.433], "stop_times": [30.433, 33.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__0_001", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThis case concerns the application of the privilege against self-incrimination as developed in the Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes and most recently, the Leary case, to the situation of a transferor of marihuana pursuant to the transfer, order form requirements of the Marihuana Tax Statutes.\nBriefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioner was introduced by a friend to two federal narcotics agents acting in an under cover capacity.\nHe had no -- they had no knowledge of his existence prior to the introduction.\nThey were introduced to him simply as Mike, the petitioner's first name.\nAs a result of the introduction there were various sales of marihuana and marihuana drugs.\nThe sales were made not in pursuance of an order form issued by the treasurer of the United States as required by 26 U.S.C. Section 4742.\nPetitioner did not request an order form from the agents, the agents had not procured such an order form.\nPetitioner was indicted on three counts, two of which were selling, not in pursuance of an order form and was convicted on one count, not selling pursuant to an order form.\nThe case was affirmed by the Second Circuit relying solely on United States against Minor.\nThe Second Circuit held that the marihuana statute, the marihuana tax statute was for practical purposes, the same as the Narcotic Drug Act involved in Minor that there was no risk of self-incrimination to a transferor and that the transferor of marihuana was not a person inherently suspect of criminal activities and that the profession of transferring marihuana or being involved in marihuana transactions was not an inherently suspect and illegitimate business.\nThis was not a statute designed to close down a criminal activity but rather to regulate a legitimate activity.\nBriefly, the Marihuana Tax Act statutory scheme consists of an occupational tax provision, series of provisions requiring any transferor of marihuana, anyone who deals in marihuana which is defined as to very broadly and includes selling it or giving away, to register as a dealer, to pay an occupational tax and to keep records his transactions.\nThere is also a transfer tax provision which requires a transferee, a purchaser or acquirer of marihuana to obtain an order from the treasurer of the United States.\nHe must in it pay in advance the tax on the material to be acquired, the tax is either at the rate of $1.00 an ounce or $100.00 an ounce depending upon whether the transferee is himself registered.\nHe pays the tax based upon the amount he intends to acquire.\nIn order for him to acquire that order form, he must place on file with the government prior to obtaining the form and prior to consummating the transaction, his own name and address and the name and address of his proposed transferor as well as the amount of the drug he proposes to transfer.\nThere are numerous exemptions from the order form requirement and as the Court noted in Leary, they are essentially all of the legitimate transactions that are involved in marihuana, transverse by Doctors to patients by pharmacist to costumers pursuant to Doctor's orders, by officials of the government, transactions for export, so that there is left subject to the order form requirement a residual class of essentially of illegal transactions.\nThe information obtained by the order form, he is given copies of the order form are made available to any state or local official who is concerned officially with the enforcement of local narcotics laws.\nThe mere possession of marihuana is illegal in every state of the union with certain very limited exceptions corresponding largely to the exemptions of the order form requirements under Section 4742.\nThe Leary case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [33.557, 35.675, 59.268, 71.17, 75.274, 80.457, 86.916, 99.091, 107.278, 119.861, 126.146, 156.277, 162.434, 189.991, 203.351, 217.065, 220.438, 239.414, 271.642, 284.614, 299.83], "stop_times": [35.675, 59.268, 71.17, 75.274, 80.457, 86.916, 99.091, 107.278, 119.861, 126.146, 156.277, 162.434, 189.991, 203.351, 217.065, 220.438, 239.414, 271.642, 284.614, 299.83, 300.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 33.557}, "reply_to": "23668__0_000", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_002", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That you can't get an order form from the secretary unless you show that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [300.338], "stop_times": [304.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.338}, "reply_to": "23668__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_003", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [304.978], "stop_times": [305.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.978}, "reply_to": "23668__0_002", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_004", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That you're legal under state law, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [305.59], "stop_times": [307.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.59}, "reply_to": "23668__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_005", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, any person may obtain an order form.\nThe marihuana statutes differ radically from the narcotic statutes in this regard.\nAny person desiring to acquire an order form may acquire it if he is a so called legitimate purchaser, one who is registered under the occupational tax sections.\nHe pays $1.00 per ounce.\nIf he is an illegitimate purchaser, one who is not registered, he pays $100.00 an ounce, but any person off the street who wants to acquire marihuana for smoking or any other purpose may acquire an order form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [307.493, 309.95, 314.738, 327.066, 329.059], "stop_times": [309.95, 314.738, 327.066, 329.059, 341.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.493}, "reply_to": "23668__0_004", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_006", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Pay $100.00 an ounce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [341.83], "stop_times": [343.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.83}, "reply_to": "23668__0_005", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_007", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And pay $100.00 an ounce, yes sir.\nThe Leary case, Leary case involve such a -- such a purchaser.\nThe Leary case held that the marihuana statute, the transfer of provisions as applied to an unregistered transferee, who was Leary, applied to a person inherently suspect of criminal activities and existed in an area permeated with criminal statutes particularly by virtue of the exposure of the information contained on the order form to the state authorities.\nIt held therefore that the privilege against self-incrimination applied.\nThe Court in Leary also refused to severe the statute so as to make the order form provision applicable but withdraw the information from the perusal of the states.\nIt also applied the privilege against self-incrimination to prospective act since in the Leary case, the purchaser acquired the order form prior to time that any paying transaction was consummated.\nThe petitioner here contends that the Leary reasoning applies fully to his -- to the position of a transferor of marihuana.\nUnder the same order form procedure, the acts required of the transferor in order to comply with the provisions of 4742 yield an even greater danger than they did to the transferee of marihuana.\nI review briefly the acts which we consider to constitute the self-incrimination aspects of this thing in terms of the transferor.\nThere are four acts, some or all of which maybe present with respect to any particular transaction in relation to marihuana on the part of the transferor.\nThe act in effect, the act -- I may note again that the name and address of the transferor must be on file with the government prior to the consummation of the transaction.\nThe mechanism provided by the statute is the use of the transferee.\nThe transferee must procure the order form and give the information directly to the government.\nWe maintain however that the statutory scheme envisions the transferee as a conduit for the transfer of the required information to the government, which information demands acts on the part of the transferor incriminating to himself.\nHe must, knowing that the information is to go to the government and that it is incriminating to him provide information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [343.037, 346.99, 353.018, 376.704, 380.393, 391.5, 404.967, 413.722, 428.038, 437.686, 449.492, 461.912, 467.016, 473.187, 492.043], "stop_times": [346.99, 353.018, 376.704, 380.393, 391.5, 404.967, 413.722, 428.038, 437.686, 449.492, 461.912, 467.016, 473.187, 492.043, 498.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.037}, "reply_to": "23668__0_006", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_008", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The form is appendix b in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [498.798], "stop_times": [501.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.798}, "reply_to": "23668__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_009", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [501.594, 502.833], "stop_times": [502.833, 503.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.594}, "reply_to": "23668__0_008", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_010", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "As you point out, this is a form quite different from the one in the last case.\nIn that, the sellers name is not when it comes from the government, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [503.457, 507.668], "stop_times": [507.668, 515.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.457}, "reply_to": "23668__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_011", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.\nIn addition, the general structure of the form is a directive to the transferor but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [515.761, 516.722], "stop_times": [516.722, 523.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.761}, "reply_to": "23668__0_010", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_012", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "To the seller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [523.077], "stop_times": [524.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.077}, "reply_to": "23668__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_013", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "To the seller from the government authorizing him so far as federal act is concerned to transfer certain quantity of marihuana to specified transferee.\nAgain, the transferee is the government's conduit for sending this form to the transferor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [524.226, 534.392], "stop_times": [534.392, 542.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.226}, "reply_to": "23668__0_012", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_014", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I suppose though, if the buyer demands, goes to a fellow that he thinks is selling marihuana and says give me your name and the seller says sorry, I won't do it, and then the buyer, where this putative buyer finds in that as a sellers name not someone else and puts it on the order form, the seller maybe incriminated, he has incriminated himself, has he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [542.342], "stop_times": [570.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.342}, "reply_to": "23668__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_015", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "He hasn't at that point but we contend --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [570.972], "stop_times": [573.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.972}, "reply_to": "23668__0_014", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_016", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "When does he ever as far his name is concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [573.417], "stop_times": [576.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.417}, "reply_to": "23668__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_017", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The information goes to the government through the hand of the transferee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [576.152], "stop_times": [581.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.152}, "reply_to": "23668__0_016", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_018", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Now, through his hands with, the seller has been incriminated himself.\nThe buyer's information, I don't suppose there is anything that is illegally incriminating as far as the seller is concerned and the buyer furnished some information to the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [581.221, 585.325], "stop_times": [585.325, 598.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.221}, "reply_to": "23668__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_019", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, there's nothing illegal, there's no privilege itself against self-incrimination without the half of the transferee in relation to the transferor's name.\nHowever, there are other acts required, assuming that the transferee finds the name independent of the transferor and delivers it independent to the -- independently to the government, and I may note in passing that the name was not revealed so far as this record is concerned to the transferee by the transferor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [598.995, 607.889], "stop_times": [607.889, 627.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.995}, "reply_to": "23668__0_018", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_020", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's -- that was my next question; there is no evidence in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [627.625], "stop_times": [630.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.625}, "reply_to": "23668__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_021", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [630.685], "stop_times": [631.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.685}, "reply_to": "23668__0_020", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_022", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The seller aggregated name to anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [631.123], "stop_times": [632.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.123}, "reply_to": "23668__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_023", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.\nThe seller and he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [632.921, 633.722], "stop_times": [633.722, 634.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.921}, "reply_to": "23668__0_022", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_024", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "-- any order form at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [634.207], "stop_times": [635.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.207}, "reply_to": "23668__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_025", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.\nThe seller and the buyers were strangers, they were introduced by a third party solely on the basis of first names, that is in the record.\nHowever, once the transferee has obtained an order form, the transferor must accept that order form.\nWe contend that the act of acceptance is an acknowledgement and an adaptation of the information contained on the order form.\nThe informa -- the order form is an inherently incriminating device when it contains the information that the transferor has sold certain drugs illegally to a transferee, when the transferor accepts that piece of paper, even when, if he were to refuse to accept it, if he were to ask about its existence, if he were to learn of the existence of this piece of paper and then transfer drugs pursuant to it, he would be adopting the information on that paper as his own as being true and valid.\nThe statute requires him to participate to a great extent in the incriminatory act involved in the order form process.\nIt is -- in our mind, it is the same thing as signing a confession that someone else has typed.\nThe information may already be in the possession of someone else but when you take it as your own, you are acknowledging it as true, when it is possible although for practical reasons very unlikely that a transferee might obtain an order form without ever speaking to anyone.\nObviously, at that point, nothing has been done by the transferor to incriminate himself.\nWhen he accepts the piece of paper, he has enabled the transferee to say when asked, I gave this piece of paper to the buyer and he accepted it assuming that the buyer would tell the truth, we cannot postulate that the statute will be maintained on the basis of the seller's purgery, assuming that the seller would tell that truth when asked, he would be required to say that he accepted this piece of paper.\nIn addition, he is required by the statute to retain the piece of paper which constitutes an additional piece of evidence of his criminal act for two years and to make it available to all law enforcement officials who might come to ask for it in that two years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [635.562, 636.163, 642.633, 651.239, 660.211, 694.361, 704.294, 710.741, 728.988, 733.707, 759.172], "stop_times": [636.163, 642.633, 651.239, 660.211, 694.361, 704.294, 710.741, 728.988, 733.707, 759.172, 774.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.562}, "reply_to": "23668__0_024", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_026", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Now, which precise statute, very statutory provision on the one with the contained in your appendix, this man --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [774.045], "stop_times": [782.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.045}, "reply_to": "23668__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_027", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "4742.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [782.52], "stop_times": [783.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.52}, "reply_to": "23668__0_026", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_028", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "-- convicted of violating 4742.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [783.704], "stop_times": [785.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.704}, "reply_to": "23668__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_029", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [785.505], "stop_times": [789.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.505}, "reply_to": "23668__0_028", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_030", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [789.215], "stop_times": [790.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.215}, "reply_to": "23668__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_031", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "4742 (a) is the general requirement that you may not transfer marihuana except pursuant to an order form.\nThe provisions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [790.076, 798.997], "stop_times": [798.997, 799.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.076}, "reply_to": "23668__0_030", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_032", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Do you assume that there is anything wrong with that, this is a provision of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [799.765], "stop_times": [805.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.765}, "reply_to": "23668__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_033", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I -- insofar as the order form, the mechanism for the order -- for obtaining the order form is provision (c) and (d) of the -- of 4742 and insofar as the order form requires that information be on file which is incriminating at the time of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [805.116], "stop_times": [823.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.116}, "reply_to": "23668__0_032", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_034", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "You say that the amendment bars the government prohibiting sales except on other client, except that has said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [823.462], "stop_times": [832.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.462}, "reply_to": "23668__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_035", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The use of an order form by itself, no.\nIf this were to be an order form of the sort contained in the narcotic -- narcotic drug statute, then we would feel that the buyer was incriminated, I'm sorry, the seller, the transferor would be incriminated by requiring that such a statute exist, such an order form exist.\nThe theory of it in the narcotic drug case is I believe that the act, the order form requirement is to see to it that unlawful people do not obtain narcotic drugs, that result is perfected by requiring the name and address of the buyer, of the transferee to be in the hands of government prior to the sale or of issuing order forms only to legitimate people.\nBut in this case, the form does require that the name and address of the transferor be in the hands of government prior to sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [832.496, 836.386, 852.343, 878.927], "stop_times": [836.386, 852.343, 878.927, 885.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.496}, "reply_to": "23668__0_034", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_036", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Suppose against the order form and fills it out, has he incriminated himself if he does nothing more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [885.97], "stop_times": [894.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.97}, "reply_to": "23668__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_037", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The transferor does not obtain the order form and does not fill it out.\nThe transferee --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [894.801, 898.488], "stop_times": [898.488, 899.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.801}, "reply_to": "23668__0_036", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_038", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [899.435], "stop_times": [899.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.435}, "reply_to": "23668__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_039", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "-- obtains the order form and fills it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [899.679], "stop_times": [901.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.679}, "reply_to": "23668__0_038", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_040", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And if he takes the order form and fills out and does nothing more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [901.14], "stop_times": [906.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.14}, "reply_to": "23668__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_041", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Has the transferor incriminated himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [906.652], "stop_times": [908.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.652}, "reply_to": "23668__0_040", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_042", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Has either, have either been incriminated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [908.58], "stop_times": [913.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.58}, "reply_to": "23668__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_043", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "If --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [913.889], "stop_times": [914.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.889}, "reply_to": "23668__0_042", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_044", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Incrimination comes when you sell the drug.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [914.464], "stop_times": [917.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.464}, "reply_to": "23668__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_045", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [917.619], "stop_times": [918.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.619}, "reply_to": "23668__0_044", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_046", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [918.471], "stop_times": [918.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.471}, "reply_to": "23668__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_047", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The information in the hands of the government directs the attention of the government to a group of people who are suspect and very strongly suspected of criminal activity.\nEven the focus of their attention --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [918.615, 929.154], "stop_times": [929.154, 931.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.615}, "reply_to": "23668__0_046", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_048", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And if they don't engage in the criminal activities, are they injured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [931.833], "stop_times": [937.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.833}, "reply_to": "23668__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_049", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "They would presumably then be able to refute the implication that arises from the existence of the order form.\nIt some -- seem some question is to whether the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [937.438, 943.846], "stop_times": [943.846, 945.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.438}, "reply_to": "23668__0_048", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_050", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, how is -- how is the filling out of the blank in and off itself without more incriminating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [945.696], "stop_times": [953.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.696}, "reply_to": "23668__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_051", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I think that there's a very heavy presumption that that blank would not be filled out where the transaction not going to be completed.\nAmong other things, the tax must be paid prior to the filling out of the form, that is at the time, you cannot obtain the form without paying the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [953.958, 961.798], "stop_times": [961.798, 970.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.958}, "reply_to": "23668__0_050", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_052", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The use of phrase we sometime use, what triggers all of it is this buying or selling of the marihuana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [970.112], "stop_times": [978.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.112}, "reply_to": "23668__0_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__0_053", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "It is all, yes, if one were not interested in buying or selling marihuana, one would not deal with this forms at all.\nHowever, the danger, the suspicion intended by the existence of the form is such that the -- I think the existence of the form would cause the attention of the authorities to be focused very closely upon this people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [978.355, 986.587], "stop_times": [986.587, 1000.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.355}, "reply_to": "23668__0_052", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_054", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, isn't it the paper, the form, the filling out of the form plus and overt act that makes the criminal offense here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1000.06], "stop_times": [1012.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.06}, "reply_to": "23668__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__0_055", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The offense is the overt act or the overt act in the absence of the piece of paper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1012.286], "stop_times": [1016.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.286}, "reply_to": "23668__0_054", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_056", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But as Justice Marshall just suggested, the piece of paper alone filled out and signed doesn't incriminate the man at all, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1016.411], "stop_times": [1029.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.411}, "reply_to": "23668__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__0_057", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "If the transaction were to have gone no further than that, then I believe it would be incriminating and that the statute provides that the piece of paper maybe used as evidence and existence of the piece of paper may serve to bring into initiation the process of prosecution in relation to a drug, and now presumably the transferor who did not transfer but is simply named as a transferor would be able to testify that he did not in fact ever commit any act of this sort and were he to be believed than --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1029.066], "stop_times": [1061.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1029.066}, "reply_to": "23668__0_056", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_058", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Would there be any occasion for him to testify about his good if all he did was fill out the form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1061.541], "stop_times": [1066.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.541}, "reply_to": "23668__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__0_059", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The transferor does not fill out the form in this case, the transferee only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1066.243], "stop_times": [1069.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.243}, "reply_to": "23668__0_058", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_060", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I'm talking about the transferee now.\nThe transferee just fills out the form and Justice Marshall's hypothetical and puts it in his -- the drawer of his desk, he has committed no offense has he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1069.59, 1071.296], "stop_times": [1071.296, 1081.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.59}, "reply_to": "23668__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__0_061", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "This Court in Leary considered that the correlation between the act of filling out the form and the act of selling or buying the drug was so close that it viewed the existence of the form as being evidence of a recent -- of being a recent transferee of marihuana, even though the existence of the form did not necessarily imply that any transaction had been completed at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1081.277], "stop_times": [1109.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.277}, "reply_to": "23668__0_060", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_062", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "This what we have is in appendix b as the -- is what has issued by the treasury department?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1109.009], "stop_times": [1113.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.009}, "reply_to": "23668__0_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_063", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1113.861], "stop_times": [1114.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.861}, "reply_to": "23668__0_062", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_064", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And in order to get that issued to him, a prospective transferee, a would be transferee as to make an application for it I assume?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1114.687], "stop_times": [1123.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.687}, "reply_to": "23668__0_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_065", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1123.867], "stop_times": [1124.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.867}, "reply_to": "23668__0_064", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_066", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And in the application, does he give the name of the prospective vendor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1124.804], "stop_times": [1130.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.804}, "reply_to": "23668__0_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_067", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes he does.\nThat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1130.316, 1132.268], "stop_times": [1132.268, 1132.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.316}, "reply_to": "23668__0_066", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_068", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "What was to prevent him from just putting George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or Charles 1856 in there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1132.621], "stop_times": [1137.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.621}, "reply_to": "23668__0_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_069", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Nothing, except that I believe that one has to assume that the process is going to be -- if it is to be followed, it's going to be followed as required by the statute.\nAs a matter of fact, nothing is to prevent him from skipping the order form completely but one would assume that he in obeying the law, is going to do what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1137.72, 1147.422], "stop_times": [1147.422, 1155.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.72}, "reply_to": "23668__0_068", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_070", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Who is eligible to make an application for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1155.701], "stop_times": [1157.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1155.701}, "reply_to": "23668__0_069", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_071", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Any person, any person may acquire.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1157.771], "stop_times": [1160.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.771}, "reply_to": "23668__0_070", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_072", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Any person?\nAnd --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1160.122, 1161.059], "stop_times": [1161.059, 1161.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.122}, "reply_to": "23668__0_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_073", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1161.345], "stop_times": [1162.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.345}, "reply_to": "23668__0_072", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_074", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Does he get -- does he give the name or any registration number or anything else --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1162.375], "stop_times": [1166.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.375}, "reply_to": "23668__0_073", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_075", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "If he has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1166.821], "stop_times": [1167.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.821}, "reply_to": "23668__0_074", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_076", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "-- of the perspective vendor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1167.109], "stop_times": [1169.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.109}, "reply_to": "23668__0_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_077", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "He gives the name and address of the vendor, of the proposed vendor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1169.847], "stop_times": [1172.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.847}, "reply_to": "23668__0_076", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_078", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "What in the world it's preventing from putting down their marihuana on Richard M. Nixon or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1172.282], "stop_times": [1178.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.282}, "reply_to": "23668__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_079", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Nothing, nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1178.311], "stop_times": [1179.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.311}, "reply_to": "23668__0_078", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_080", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Edmond Musky.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1179.324], "stop_times": [1180.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.324}, "reply_to": "23668__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_081", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1180.373], "stop_times": [1182.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.373}, "reply_to": "23668__0_080", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_082", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And so, where is the -- and that's not self-incrimination, is it if he's incriminating anybody, its Edmond Musky.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1182.959], "stop_times": [1191.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1182.959}, "reply_to": "23668__0_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_083", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I think that with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1191.699], "stop_times": [1192.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.699}, "reply_to": "23668__0_082", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_084", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "As a potential perspective possible vendor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1192.984], "stop_times": [1197.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.984}, "reply_to": "23668__0_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_085", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct but I think that we have to assume that this is a process that people will follow if they are going to follow it all in the way that it's required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1197.742], "stop_times": [1206.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.742}, "reply_to": "23668__0_084", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_086", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Why is it required?\nI mean why -- the requirement is there that you put down anything except any name and address of somebody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1206.313, 1207.311], "stop_times": [1207.311, 1215.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1206.313}, "reply_to": "23668__0_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_087", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.\nNow, if the propose transferor accept this order form, he is acknowledging the truth of the information contained on the order form, that is that he, the perspective of the proposed transferor has transferred to this transferee the specified quantities of marihuana.\nAt that time, he has committed a self incriminatory act.\nIn addition, he must retain that form for two years to serve as further evidence.\nIn connection with obtaining the order form, the Leary case held that a transferee need no -- an unregistered transferee is protected against obtaining the order form because it is self-incriminatory for him to do so.\nThis makes it very unlikely that an illegal transferee will obtain the order for to give to a transferor unless the transferor insists upon it.\nWe maintain that if this statute is to be taken as written and interpreted by this Court, that a major part of the motivating power for getting the information into the hand of the government who will use it to the detriment of the transferor must come from the transferor himself.\nA transferor -- a transferee under the present state of the law is very, very unlikely to procure an order form unless the transferor simply insists upon it.\nIt cannot under these circumstances say that the transferor is a passive party who need only inquire whether the order form exist.\nIf the order form is to exist, it must be because the transferor brings it about that it exist even though he himself does not ever go the treasury department and sign his name on a piece of paper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1215.552, 1215.939, 1233.885, 1236.851, 1245.03, 1260.78, 1269.371, 1285.423, 1295.746, 1304.378], "stop_times": [1215.939, 1233.885, 1236.851, 1245.03, 1260.78, 1269.371, 1285.423, 1295.746, 1304.378, 1315.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1215.552}, "reply_to": "23668__0_086", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_088", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, that's right, I don't understand and that's what prompted my question of the moment ago.\nWhat's the transferor got to do with this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1315.879, 1321.324], "stop_times": [1321.324, 1324.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.879}, "reply_to": "23668__0_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__0_089", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "He must see to it that the piece of paper exist when the order -- when the transaction is completed.\nIf he does not see to it, it is very unlikely either because the transferee will be incapable of doing it because he does not know the information, that is the transferor has not given him his name and address or because he does not desire to do it.\nIt is very unlikely for either of those reasons that a transferee will obtain the order form.\nIf an order form is to come into existence, it must be because the transferor has provided the primary motivation for its coming into existence.\nHe must affirmatively act to his own detriment.\nThe -- we maintain that the self-incrimination comes about through a conduit that the statute has provided.\nThe transferee is in effect the government itself for purposes of dealing with the transferor and procuring the order form.\nThe transferee would not itself would not itself procure the order form if the transferor did not insist upon it.\nIn that way, the transfer -- the transferor must see to his own incrimination with the government.\nIn --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1324.307, 1331.209, 1345.22, 1349.971, 1358.23, 1370.159, 1379.0, 1387.387, 1392.821, 1401.777], "stop_times": [1331.209, 1345.22, 1349.971, 1358.23, 1370.159, 1379.0, 1387.387, 1392.821, 1401.777, 1402.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.307}, "reply_to": "23668__0_088", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_090", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Can I ask you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1402.139], "stop_times": [1402.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.139}, "reply_to": "23668__0_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_091", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1402.848], "stop_times": [1404.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.848}, "reply_to": "23668__0_090", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_092", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The conviction here is for selling without an order form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1404.58], "stop_times": [1407.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.58}, "reply_to": "23668__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_093", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1407.775], "stop_times": [1407.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.775}, "reply_to": "23668__0_092", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_094", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That proceed an order form?\nThat's all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1407.892, 1408.905], "stop_times": [1408.905, 1409.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.892}, "reply_to": "23668__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_095", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1409.869], "stop_times": [1411.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.869}, "reply_to": "23668__0_094", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_096", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Now, if the -- he could not have been convicted for this offense at all if he had received -- if he had received the order form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1411.188], "stop_times": [1420.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.188}, "reply_to": "23668__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_097", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct, although we maintain that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1420.41], "stop_times": [1422.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.41}, "reply_to": "23668__0_096", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_098", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "So, if that so, there couldn't be any -- any self-incrimination under this statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1422.057], "stop_times": [1427.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.057}, "reply_to": "23668__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_099", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The order --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1427.577], "stop_times": [1427.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.577}, "reply_to": "23668__0_098", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_100", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "-- because he would -- he could never be convicted under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1427.712], "stop_times": [1430.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.712}, "reply_to": "23668__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_101", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The order form would not have been obtained unless he saw it that it was obtained.\nIf he had insisted that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1430.552, 1435.237], "stop_times": [1435.237, 1436.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.552}, "reply_to": "23668__0_100", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_102", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, that isn't really quite so is it?\nA lot of buyers know the names of their sellers independently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1436.521, 1438.929], "stop_times": [1438.929, 1441.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.521}, "reply_to": "23668__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_103", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "In this particular case he did not and it now true that buyers are not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1441.72], "stop_times": [1445.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.72}, "reply_to": "23668__0_102", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_104", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But the seller didn't furnish the name, a third party furnished the name.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1445.853], "stop_times": [1448.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.853}, "reply_to": "23668__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_105", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The name was never furnished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1448.899], "stop_times": [1450.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.899}, "reply_to": "23668__0_104", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_106", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Alright, so that seller never incriminated himself at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1450.751], "stop_times": [1453.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.751}, "reply_to": "23668__0_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_107", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The seller never incriminated the buyer because buyer did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1453.684], "stop_times": [1456.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.684}, "reply_to": "23668__0_106", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_108", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, the seller never incriminated himself --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1456.481], "stop_times": [1458.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.481}, "reply_to": "23668__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_109", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1458.578], "stop_times": [1459.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.578}, "reply_to": "23668__0_108", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_110", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "On the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1459.111], "stop_times": [1460.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.111}, "reply_to": "23668__0_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_111", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But, but that's not only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1460.565], "stop_times": [1461.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.565}, "reply_to": "23668__0_110", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_112", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But if he had received an order form with his name on it, he automatically insolates himself from conviction under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1461.544], "stop_times": [1471.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.544}, "reply_to": "23668__0_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_113", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But he exposes himself to conviction under all the states statute, whatever state statute is relevant and to another provision of the statute which makes it illegal for him to be a transferor of marihuana without being registered.\nOur -- the petitioner here was an unregistered transferor and he is an inherently suspect person.\nIf his name appeared on a piece of paper in the hands of the government as a transferor, he would be immediately a suspect.\nIf he saw to it that the transferee procured such a piece of paper, he would be seeing to his own incrimination in the eyes of the government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1471.579, 1484.045, 1489.261, 1495.352], "stop_times": [1484.045, 1489.261, 1495.352, 1502.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.579}, "reply_to": "23668__0_112", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_114", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But why should he be able to say this one, he never -- when there was never an order form in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1502.675], "stop_times": [1509.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.675}, "reply_to": "23668__0_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__0_115", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "If there had been an order form, the incriminatory act would have been completed.\nAs soon as he received the order form or learned of its existence and then transferred marihuana pursuant to it.\nThere was no order form in the Leary case either and there were no registration forms in the Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes cases.\nThe point is that filling out the order form or acting pursuant to the order form in this case is in itself the Incriminatory Act.\nIn Leary, the incrimination that the dangerous incrimination was at the hands of the state, not at the hand of the federal government and the information came to the state authorities, not from Leary himself but from the federal government.\nLeary provided the information only to the federal government who then provided it to other people who would incriminate, who would indict and convict Leary, this was dealt to be too dangerous.\nI would like to make a distinction between the Narcotic Drug Act and the Marihuana Act.\nUnder the Marihuana Act, there are virtually no legitimate users of marihuana.\nThere were in the last published reports 80 registered people, people who could deal legitimately with marihuana.\nI'm informed by counsel for the government that that number is now approximately 160, but it compares insignificantly to the approximately 200,000 registered people involved in the narcotic drug trade, this is an illegal activity and this is a set of statutes intended to cause people to expose themselves as being dealers in illegal activities.\nI'll save the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1509.117, 1512.041, 1519.581, 1525.805, 1534.969, 1549.636, 1560.484, 1565.666, 1570.831, 1576.368, 1598.934], "stop_times": [1512.041, 1519.581, 1525.805, 1534.969, 1549.636, 1560.484, 1565.666, 1570.831, 1576.368, 1598.934, 1603.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.117}, "reply_to": "23668__0_114", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__0_116", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Thank you Mr. Diamond.\nMr. Connolly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1603.492, 1604.674], "stop_times": [1604.674, 1607.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.492}, "reply_to": "23668__0_115", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__1_000", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn the light of the preceding discussion that the principles applicable here and in Minor, my brief submission will focus on the government's view of the statute in this case and our response to the central features of petitioner's argument.\nThe petitioner contends that Section 4742 (a) which simply requires that he receive from his transferee an order form which to the transferee shall have obtained, in some way compels him to make incriminating disclosures to the government.\nWe believe that his contention seeks to establish much more than the words of the statute where its operation in fact can support.\nThe offense -- the offense defined by Section 4742 (a) does not make criminal, petitioners failure to report any previous misconduct to the government and orders the order form provision require him to make incriminating disclosures to the government in order to legalize his subsequent conduct.\nThe transferor is neither required nor entitled to apply for an order form from the district director.\nThe only duty which this statute imposes on the petitioner is to transfer marihuana only to those persons who have made their acquisition lawful by paying the tax and acquire and receiving an order form.\nThe statute punishes not a failure to disclose information but a transfer, a transfer to someone who does not demonstrate that he has complied with federal law.\nIt is our position that the statute on its face and in practice can be complied with without the transferors disclosing any information at all.\nPetitioner's argument to the contrary is found in what he asserts to be the practical consequences of the statute.\nHe knows that the transferee must provide the name and address of the transferor in his application for an order form.\nHe then assumes that the transferee can obtain that information only from the transferor himself.\nThis assumption is essential to the success of petitioners argument for it provides the aspect of self-incrimination which is lacking on the face of the statute, unless it can be said that the transferee necessarily must obtain that information from the transferor.\nIt cannot be said that compliance with the statute infringes the transferor's right to refrain from making incriminating disclosures.\nThe petitioner offers no support for this assumption in which his argument rests.\nIf he is relying on common experience to justify the assumption, such experience in our view refutes the assumption as evidence by the many cases like this one, in which a purchaser who may previously be unknown to a seller of marihuana is introduced to him by a friendly intermediary who can supply the name of the transferor.\nWe also think it is appropriate to point out that this case seems to be a most unlikely vehicle to establish as a constitutional principle.\nThe doctrine that a transferee of marihuana can learn the name and address of his seller only from the seller himself.\nThe facts in this case show that some 10 days before the transaction on which he was convicted, petitioner sold a quantity of marihuana to narcotics agents in the kitchen of his apartment.\nPetitioner would have the Court conclude that there was no way except from the petitioner himself that the agents could have learned his name prior to the second transaction, who we think it needs no argument, the persons who sell marihuana in the kitchens of their homes are poorly situated to conceal their names and addresses.\nBy basing his argument on assumptions as to the practical effect of the statute, the petitioner emphasizes the critical difference between this case and Leary and it's antecedes.\nIn each of those cases, the statute on its face imposed on the petitioner himself an obligation to supply certain information. It was only one way the petitioner in those cases could comply with the statute by supplying the information himself.\nIn the present case, it is clear that the transferor can comply fully and literally with a statute where he receives and order form for which he gave no information at all.\nIn his oral argument, the petitioner makes the additional contention that even if he did not supply any information to the transferee to enable the transferee to obtain the form.\nThat the mere fact that he receives an order form thus obtained by the transferee is an incriminatory act that is I think the language that he uses, that he adopts the language on the form.\nWe submit in response to that contention that there is no incrimination, there is no disclosure upon receive of the form at all.\nThe petitioners intended --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1607.879, 1612.105, 1626.895, 1644.874, 1654.49, 1675.19, 1684.122, 1698.994, 1709.911, 1723.507, 1730.832, 1739.065, 1746.249, 1764.003, 1773.545, 1778.118, 1802.307, 1811.743, 1819.707, 1833.334, 1854.846, 1866.189, 1886.026, 1899.452, 1910.991, 1925.398, 1934.239], "stop_times": [1612.105, 1626.895, 1644.874, 1654.49, 1675.19, 1684.122, 1698.994, 1709.911, 1723.507, 1730.832, 1739.065, 1746.249, 1764.003, 1773.545, 1778.118, 1802.307, 1811.743, 1819.707, 1833.334, 1854.846, 1866.189, 1886.026, 1899.452, 1910.991, 1925.398, 1934.239, 1934.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.879}, "reply_to": "23668__0_116", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_001", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Whatever, would it be an offense under 4742 (a) for a man named John Smith to sell marihuana to somebody pursuant to order form in which the top name was Robert Jones?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1934.975], "stop_times": [1953.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.975}, "reply_to": "23668__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_002", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I inquired of lawyers more knowledgeable with the operation of the statute considering that question, and the answer is not entirely clear.\nIf you look at Section 4742 (d) in the statute, the third sentence says the original shall in turn be given by the transferee to any person who shall in pursuance thereof transfer marihuana to him.\nThus, the statute on its phase does not prohibit a transferor from making a transfer pursuant to a form in which his own name is not listed as the transferor and we -- as far as I know and I ask there has never been any prosecution brought asserting that -- that that's a violation of the order form requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [1953.717, 1968.534, 1993.128], "stop_times": [1968.534, 1993.128, 2019.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.717}, "reply_to": "23668__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_003", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Highly unlikely, casual situation except that it does go I think to the petitioner's argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2019.041], "stop_times": [2025.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.041}, "reply_to": "23668__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_004", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right, if in the real world, in the lawful world of marihuana ordered forms, it's unlikely that a transferee applying for a lawful order form will change his mind and submit it to some other supplier of marihuana, so we don't often see that but I think that the government can confidently assert the statute on its face would not preclude a transferor from transferring if the order form did not -- was not addressed directly to him.\nThis I take it would exclude the situation in which the transferor was a prior party to a misstatement on the application for an order form, but it think that's far field of what you were asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2025.618, 2057.458], "stop_times": [2057.458, 2073.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.618}, "reply_to": "23668__1_003", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_005", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Who's the -- the duty to put the sellers name on is placed on the secretary, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2073.59], "stop_times": [2080.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.59}, "reply_to": "23668__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_006", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.\nThe district director puts the name on the form and he learns the name because it appears on the transferee's application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2080.833, 2082.085], "stop_times": [2082.085, 2091.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.833}, "reply_to": "23668__1_005", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_007", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And so if a seller sells marihuana pursuant to an order form with someone else's name on it, you say he is -- he can or cannot be prosecuted under this section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2091.511], "stop_times": [2109.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.511}, "reply_to": "23668__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_008", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "It's doubtful whether he can be prosecuted under this section.\nThe statute appears to contemplate that a transferor may make a lawful transfer on the basis of an ordered form not addressed to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2109.727, 2113.184], "stop_times": [2113.184, 2124.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.727}, "reply_to": "23668__1_007", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_009", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Of course the statute itself says that it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer marihuana except in pursuance of a written order.\nNow, if that order is not directed to him but actually is directed to somebody with a name of John Smith, that's not in pursuance really of a written order.\nGiving the words ordinary meaningless --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2124.92, 2135.657, 2145.768], "stop_times": [2135.657, 2145.768, 2148.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.92}, "reply_to": "23668__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_010", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But that's the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2148.582], "stop_times": [2149.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.582}, "reply_to": "23668__1_009", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_011", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "An order to somebody else and therefore is not in pursuance of a written order just as I say implicitly in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2149.149], "stop_times": [2159.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.149}, "reply_to": "23668__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_012", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "It's not clear on either side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2159.26], "stop_times": [2161.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.26}, "reply_to": "23668__1_011", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_013", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "So what do you day about, let's assume he can be prosecuted for that, what do you say to the general proposition that requiring forbidding him to sell unless he acknowledges who he is violates the Fifth Amendment.\nDoes it violate the Fifth Amendment to be required to say what your name is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2161.017, 2179.666], "stop_times": [2179.666, 2184.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.017}, "reply_to": "23668__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_014", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, I don't believe it does, not to a -- not to his transferee in all events.\nHe makes no disclosure to the government incident to accepting form which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2184.746, 2193.076], "stop_times": [2193.076, 2202.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.746}, "reply_to": "23668__1_013", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_015", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, he does that he doesn't acknowledge who he is.\nI mean if he sells and if he and as the law says you can only sell if your name is on the order form and his sell, hasn't he admitted who is?\nI am John Smith, not Brown And somebody else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2202.189, 2207.051, 2216.639], "stop_times": [2207.051, 2216.639, 2220.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.189}, "reply_to": "23668__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_016", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes, he admits it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2220.614], "stop_times": [2223.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.614}, "reply_to": "23668__1_015", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_017", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, what's your response then?\nIs that violates the Fifth Amendment or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2223.039, 2224.215], "stop_times": [2224.215, 2226.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.039}, "reply_to": "23668__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_018", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2226.319], "stop_times": [2227.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.319}, "reply_to": "23668__1_017", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_019", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2227.636], "stop_times": [2228.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.636}, "reply_to": "23668__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_020", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "He's not making a compelled, he's not compelled to disclose information to the government at that point.\nHe gives -- if he want --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2228.82, 2234.843], "stop_times": [2234.843, 2237.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.82}, "reply_to": "23668__1_019", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_021", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, he is if he wants to sell marihuana because its a federal lawsuit if you sell without the form with your name on it, you go to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2237.53], "stop_times": [2250.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.53}, "reply_to": "23668__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_022", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "If that he can comply with 4742 by doing no more than receiving a form on which the transferee has secured, has instructed the secretary to put John Smith's name on it.\nSo to -- would there be a violation to the Fifth Amendment if Mr. Straus came up to me and said, I hear that I can purchase marihuana from Joe Connor, are you Joe Conner and I say yes.\nI haven't -- I can't see whether there's any compelled self-incrimination in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2250.727, 2273.872, 2295.115], "stop_times": [2273.872, 2295.115, 2300.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.727}, "reply_to": "23668__1_021", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_023", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "What if the seller and the buyer didn't say anything to him, he just comes in and hand in a piece of paper which says -- which is an order to -- for a certain amount of marihuana and the man takes it and says okay and gives him marihuana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2300.322], "stop_times": [2318.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.322}, "reply_to": "23668__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_024", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Oh, is there anything in your question which suggests that the transferor upon being presented with that form may feel himself compelled to make a transfer of marihuana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2318.052], "stop_times": [2335.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.052}, "reply_to": "23668__1_023", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_025", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, no.\nI'm just saying that that inherent in his selling, inherent and his living up to the statute as disclosing that his name is John Jones, or admitting that his name is John Jones.\nHe may not have -- the information may not have originated from him.\nHe may never have said that his name is John Jones, but selling the marihuana in pursuant to this order form under the law is an admission by him that he is really Jones, not somebody else, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2335.873, 2336.541, 2348.447, 2352.546], "stop_times": [2336.541, 2348.447, 2352.546, 2368.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.873}, "reply_to": "23668__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_026", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2368.558], "stop_times": [2368.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.558}, "reply_to": "23668__1_025", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_027", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2368.71], "stop_times": [2370.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.71}, "reply_to": "23668__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_028", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I'll be willing to interpret the transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2370.342], "stop_times": [2371.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.342}, "reply_to": "23668__1_027", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_029", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Now, is that -- is that violate the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2371.698], "stop_times": [2373.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.698}, "reply_to": "23668__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_030", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No it does not because there is no compulsion to disclose his name to the government, incident to that transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2373.607], "stop_times": [2387.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.607}, "reply_to": "23668__1_029", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_031", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, that should have been on the Leary then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2387.317], "stop_times": [2391.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.317}, "reply_to": "23668__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_032", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "In our view of the practical consequences of the illicit viewings in marihuana in any case in which an order form maybe tender to an illicit transferor like petitioner, the most reasonable assumption contrary to petitioner's assumption is that none of the information was supplied for that purpose by the transferor.\nIt is to be sure difficult to assess assumptions in either side of the case in this area because it is so very unlikely that an illicit transferor will ever be presented with an order form.\nThe 160 registered handlers of marihuana have no reason as far as we know to acquire marihuana on the illicit market.\nThe far more numerous on registered consumers are hardly likely to secure order forms, the cost of incriminating themselves and paying a $100.00 tax, when their failure to pay the tax and to acquire marihuana pursuant to an order form is not punishable under Leary.\nSo it's quite easy to say that whether -- suppose there is a transferor -- transferee who wants to acquire marihuana from an illicit seller and who is willing to acquire an order form for that purpose, then it's very difficult to translate that supposition into a factual hypothetical which makes sense in the real world.\nEven if we're willing to accept that supposition however and to accept the further doubtful premise that a transferee of marihuana could acquire an order form, that is whether the district director lawfully could issue an order form addressed to an illicit transferor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2391.112, 2418.01, 2430.468, 2441.101, 2462.103, 2485.903], "stop_times": [2418.01, 2430.468, 2441.101, 2462.103, 2485.903, 2505.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.112}, "reply_to": "23668__1_031", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_033", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Is a $100.00 an ounce your idea of a tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2505.36], "stop_times": [2510.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.36}, "reply_to": "23668__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__1_034", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes, it is a tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2510.922], "stop_times": [2512.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.922}, "reply_to": "23668__1_033", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_035", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "For marihuana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2512.36], "stop_times": [2514.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.36}, "reply_to": "23668__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__1_036", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "It's a tax from the transfer of marihuana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2514.168], "stop_times": [2516.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.168}, "reply_to": "23668__1_035", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_037", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Of a one ounce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2516.576], "stop_times": [2517.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.576}, "reply_to": "23668__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__1_038", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "One ounce, it's a prohibitive tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2517.955], "stop_times": [2522.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.955}, "reply_to": "23668__1_037", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_039", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Thanks for the prohibited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2522.57], "stop_times": [2526.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.57}, "reply_to": "23668__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "23668__1_040", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Is anyway illegible to apply for order form?\nI understood the answer to be yes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2526.779, 2530.32], "stop_times": [2530.32, 2531.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.779}, "reply_to": "23668__1_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_041", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes, it is.\nThat is under Leary, a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2531.656, 2532.73], "stop_times": [2532.73, 2535.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.656}, "reply_to": "23668__1_040", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_042", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Forget about Leary, just talking about the statute, just forget about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2535.379], "stop_times": [2540.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.379}, "reply_to": "23668__1_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_043", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, Leary interpreted the statute is contemplating, that anyone could pay the tax and get an order form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2540.961], "stop_times": [2549.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.961}, "reply_to": "23668__1_042", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_044", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Construe the statute as so provide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2549.057], "stop_times": [2550.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.057}, "reply_to": "23668__1_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_045", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2550.691], "stop_times": [2552.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.691}, "reply_to": "23668__1_044", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_046", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And the -- then so person not need be registered in any way to be a purchaser?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2552.044], "stop_times": [2562.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.044}, "reply_to": "23668__1_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_047", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2562.405], "stop_times": [2562.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2562.405}, "reply_to": "23668__1_046", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_048", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That a person needs to be registered to be a lawful seller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2562.826], "stop_times": [2565.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.826}, "reply_to": "23668__1_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_049", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.\nAnd on that basis, we suggest in our brief that there is a serious question whether the district director will or could issue an order form to Peter Straus to acquire marihuana from Joseph Connolly.\nWhen Joseph Connolly's transfer will be unlawful under another provision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2565.879, 2567.678, 2587.202], "stop_times": [2567.678, 2587.202, 2592.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.879}, "reply_to": "23668__1_048", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_050", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Or what in fact happens when an application comes in?\nDoes the treasury check the name of the proposed transferor for the proposed seller to see if that is one of the 160 registered sellers in the country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2592.908, 2596.246], "stop_times": [2596.246, 2605.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.908}, "reply_to": "23668__1_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_051", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I believe -- I believe that that inquiry is made but there are -- there is not a great volume of marihuana order form in the state, it might be a very difficult thing to do with under the narcotic statute would it be 400,000.\nBut under the marihuana law, some checking's may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2605.181, 2621.873], "stop_times": [2621.873, 2624.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.181}, "reply_to": "23668__1_050", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_052", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "If there's only a 160 legal sellers of marihuana in the country with or without them having -- who are qualified eligible to sell marihuana legally under any conditions wouldn't be much of a trick to check the name on the application of the proposed buyer, the name that he gives of the seller against that list of a 160, is that done or isn't it done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2624.588], "stop_times": [2652.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.588}, "reply_to": "23668__1_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_053", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That is done.\nIf it is as far -- the question whether, what's the district director is to do in a situation which he finds that the proposed seller is not registered apparently hasn't come up because there hasn't been an application for an order form to acquire marihuana from --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2652.225, 2653.999], "stop_times": [2653.999, 2672.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.225}, "reply_to": "23668__1_052", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_054", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "For the counts for the fact that there are as many as 160 lawful sellers, registered sellers of marihuana in the United States, does it have medicinal uses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2672.549], "stop_times": [2686.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.549}, "reply_to": "23668__1_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_055", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Present thinking is that it does not have medicinal uses but there's still a great deal of experimentation being conducted in it, about a 140 of the 160 registrants are Doctors in private practice and Doctors in research facilities who are seeking to determine conclusively whether it does have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2686.595], "stop_times": [2716.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.595}, "reply_to": "23668__1_054", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_056", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, I can understand how those people would research positions might be purchasers but I don't see why there could be sellers, why they would want to be sellers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2716.425], "stop_times": [2727.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.425}, "reply_to": "23668__1_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_057", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "They might not be sellers except among research institutions, they might be transferors and it's broad to say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2727.441], "stop_times": [2736.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.441}, "reply_to": "23668__1_056", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_058", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "-- selling, is it as selling, transferring and several other terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2736.936], "stop_times": [2743.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.936}, "reply_to": "23668__1_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__1_059", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "The statute which prohibits unregistered trafficking in marihuana has the list of various activities dealing and selling, administering and giving away.\nSection 4742 which deals and Section 4741 which imposes the tax speaks of a transfer which that statute defines as any exchange of possession except --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2743.976, 2755.749], "stop_times": [2755.749, 2769.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.976}, "reply_to": "23668__1_058", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_060", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "So that would include possession giving it to a patient or a research center, that would be a transfer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2769.121], "stop_times": [2775.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.121}, "reply_to": "23668__1_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_061", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right.\nThat is a transfer under the statute exempted fro the order form and tax and the transfer tax requirements.\nTo continue on with the question whether the transferor is likely to supply any information to the transferee in order to enable the transferee to get an order form, we think that any assumption along those lines contradicts the transfer, the seller's basic instinct to avoid having this transaction come to the attention of the government at all.\nIt's virtually impossible for us to have conceived of the situation in which the transferor would cooperate with the transferee who would express an intention to get an order form.\nWe would not expect Mr. Diamond to deny that for an illicit transferor and petitioner's possession in order for him is just about the last thing that he wants.\nAnd if the transferee does produce an order form which he can might have obtained without the knowledge of the transferor, we believe that the transferor undoubtedly would refuse to complete the transaction pursuant to that form because it would be subject to intense scrutiny.\nIf that is true, then we see no reason to believe that an illicit transferor would as a means of complying with the statute provide any information to his transferee but in short, we conclude that this statute does not impose upon the transferor of marihuana any duty to make an incriminating disclosure which is then transmitted to the government.\nI think that's the significant difference between this case in Leary that whatever characterization you might want to give to the transferor's consummating the transaction pursuant to this document, that act involves no matter of communicated by him or by the transferee to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2775.49, 2776.408, 2787.561, 2820.12, 2831.423, 2842.264, 2860.17, 2889.141], "stop_times": [2776.408, 2787.561, 2820.12, 2831.423, 2842.264, 2860.17, 2889.141, 2916.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.49}, "reply_to": "23668__1_060", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_062", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "What if the law said that no sellers shall sell on an order form unless he writes his name on the order form?\nWould that make any difference?\nI've guess -- I'd guess it wouldn't under your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2916.126, 2928.936, 2929.962], "stop_times": [2928.936, 2929.962, 2932.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.126}, "reply_to": "23668__1_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_063", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No.\nIt would -- no, it wouldn't make any difference if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2932.117, 2934.803], "stop_times": [2934.803, 2934.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.117}, "reply_to": "23668__1_062", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_064", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And still has the choice of not of -- does not sell it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2934.962], "stop_times": [2937.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.962}, "reply_to": "23668__1_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_065", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "No, well, -- that's one choice which we would -- we'd like to preserve whatever is left of that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2937.576], "stop_times": [2944.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.576}, "reply_to": "23668__1_064", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_066", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "There isn't much after Leary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2944.949], "stop_times": [2947.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.949}, "reply_to": "23668__1_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_067", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But the more important matter is that it's not communicated.\nThat he may comply with the statute, he may have full and literal compliance with this statute without any communication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2947.814, 2952.861], "stop_times": [2952.861, 2964.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.814}, "reply_to": "23668__1_066", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_068", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But if the law said you don't sell without an order form unless you write your name on it before you sell it then give a copy to the buyer, you would still say no violation of Fifth Amendment?\nOr would you say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2964.764, 2980.349], "stop_times": [2980.349, 2980.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.764}, "reply_to": "23668__1_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_069", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I don't the -- that's a bit harder case because you give it about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2980.781], "stop_times": [2983.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.781}, "reply_to": "23668__1_068", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_070", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "So you think is this harder?\nYou think there's a difference between that case in just receiving the form and symbolically saying yes I'm so and so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2983.367, 2985.437], "stop_times": [2985.437, 2993.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.367}, "reply_to": "23668__1_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__1_071", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I -- my position stands.\nI don't think that involves the Fifth Amendment violation, regarding the more you get me involve in communication directly to the buyer then I'm worried about the next step but I don't believe that there's any Fifth Amendment violation because in that situation I can't see any communication, I can't see any communication in this case.\nWhat incriminates the transferor in this case is not anything that he says but what he does by selling marihuana, that's what subjects him to possible prosecution under the law and it's not on the basis of any disclosure which is made incident to this transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [2993.386, 2996.158, 3015.75], "stop_times": [2996.158, 3015.75, 3039.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2993.386}, "reply_to": "23668__1_070", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_072", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And in this say you probably already covered this but I want to be sure I get a distinction.\nIn this case, it is not an obligation of the transferor to send in an copy of the order form to the government, it's only its obligation to keep it on -- keep it in his possession subject to an inspection for a period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3039.47, 3045.506], "stop_times": [3045.506, 3057.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.47}, "reply_to": "23668__1_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_073", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That is the only statutory obligation.\nYou point out that there is difference between what the regulations contemplate under the narcotics laws and what the statute contemplates here and for the reasons which we set forth in our brief.\nWe believe that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3057.575, 3061.634, 3072.143], "stop_times": [3061.634, 3072.143, 3073.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.575}, "reply_to": "23668__1_072", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_074", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I don't make any difference anyway because that's a separate regulation statute or so.\nBut there is that difference between this investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3073.86, 3077.732], "stop_times": [3077.732, 3079.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.86}, "reply_to": "23668__1_073", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__1_075", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Yes sir.\nThank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3079.238, 3081.046], "stop_times": [3081.046, 3081.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.238}, "reply_to": "23668__1_074", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "23668__1_076", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Thank you Mr. Connolly.\nMr. Diamond, you have about three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3081.67, 3082.837], "stop_times": [3082.837, 3087.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.67}, "reply_to": "23668__1_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__2_000", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "May it please the Court.\nWith respect to Mr. Justice White's question, I believe that acceptance of the order form does more than acknowledge the man's name, that acknowledges the fact that he has transferred a stated quantity of marihuana and if he is an illegal transferor as was the petitioner here and is -- as would be virtually anyone prosecuted under this act, he would be acknowledging that he has broken the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3087.774, 3088.88], "stop_times": [3088.88, 3113.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3087.774}, "reply_to": "23668__1_076", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_001", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But to whom does he acknowledge it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3113.218], "stop_times": [3115.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.218}, "reply_to": "23668__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__2_002", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "He must acknowledge it to any person who comes to inquire of any official who comes to inquire about this matter.\nI believe that he acknowledges it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3115.189, 3121.436], "stop_times": [3121.436, 3123.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3115.189}, "reply_to": "23668__2_001", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_003", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "When he gives money, when he receives the order form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3123.071], "stop_times": [3126.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.071}, "reply_to": "23668__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__2_004", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3126.209], "stop_times": [3127.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3126.209}, "reply_to": "23668__2_003", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_005", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Under your -- under your submission he acknowledges that he has then sold a quantity of marihuana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3127.129], "stop_times": [3131.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.129}, "reply_to": "23668__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__2_006", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's right, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3131.609], "stop_times": [3132.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3131.609}, "reply_to": "23668__2_005", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_007", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "But he's acknowledge it at best only to the -- only to the buyer not to the transferee that -- who is not the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3132.419], "stop_times": [3138.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.419}, "reply_to": "23668__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__2_008", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "He has put himself in the position of being required to acknowledge it to the various state officials who come around as a result of that order form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3138.469], "stop_times": [3145.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3138.469}, "reply_to": "23668__2_007", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_009", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Well, because that's of a separate obligation to keep the order form in his possession on file?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3145.594], "stop_times": [3150.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.594}, "reply_to": "23668__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "23668__2_010", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I believe that it is the obligation to which this statute looks, that is the purpose of the buyer's name on the order form is to deal with the second purpose stated in the legislative history of this act, that is to expose all details of marihuana transactions to the scrutiny both of the federal and state officers.\nIf this -- if the purpose of this transfer of provision was only to prevent transfers to unlawful people, the buyer's name would be irrelevant.\nThe purpose is to expose the existence of the seller as well as the buyer to all scrutiny which may follow the coming into existence of the order form.\nI believe that there cannot be any segregation of this statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3150.139, 3168.897, 3177.347, 3185.251], "stop_times": [3168.897, 3177.347, 3185.251, 3189.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3150.139}, "reply_to": "23668__2_009", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_011", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Do the statute requires him to disclose this information to anybody who comes around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3189.46], "stop_times": [3194.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.46}, "reply_to": "23668__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__2_012", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "To any official of the state, local, or federal official who comes around, he must produce his copy the order form.\nIt would be a frivolous I think for him to say something like at that point he need not expose it, there would be no purpose in his having to take it in the first place if he didn't have to display it when the officials come around since this serves more than the valid -- possibly valid purpose of seeing to it that these drugs go only to a legitimate purchaser.\nThey see to it that the seller is also exposed to official scrutiny and that -- that is done by seeing to it that he maintains a copy which he reveals to appropriate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3194.377, 3200.658, 3223.033], "stop_times": [3200.658, 3223.033, 3232.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3194.377}, "reply_to": "23668__2_011", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_013", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Do you say the law says to him if you want to sell any narcotic which maybe legal under federal law but illegal under state law, the federal law tells you that you must make a record of this sale illegal under state law, preserve it and then a state official would ask you for the record, you got to disclose it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3232.063], "stop_times": [3251.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.063}, "reply_to": "23668__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "23668__2_014", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "That's correct.\nWe feel that's an integrated, that's fruition of the entire buyer -- the entire seller information of the transfer order provisions of the marihuana act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3251.117, 3251.817], "stop_times": [3251.817, 3261.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3251.117}, "reply_to": "23668__2_013", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_015", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Let's cut that in pieces now.\nSuppose he have the record but when the state officer called on him and ask for its exhibition, he simply stood on his claim of the Fifth Amendment and decline to do it and proceeded to test it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3261.649, 3263.797], "stop_times": [3263.797, 3279.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.649}, "reply_to": "23668__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__2_016", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "I think that that would be rendering the entire transfer provisions pointless.\nThere is no point to him taking the order form at all since the buyer part of it is already taken care of by the buyer's name if the seller's point is to have any purpose, it is to expose and reveal the seller if the seller were to decline to disclose the order form and he were sustained on that, there would be no point in making him take the order form in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3279.029, 3284.583], "stop_times": [3284.583, 3308.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3279.029}, "reply_to": "23668__2_015", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_017", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "And are you suggesting that the federal government has no legitimate interest in knowing the sources independent of the prosecutorial aspect that simply knowing the flow of the material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3308.103], "stop_times": [3321.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.103}, "reply_to": "23668__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "23668__2_018", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "They perhaps do but they may not make the man himself, the man incriminate himself in relation to that legitimate interest.\nThey require him to register and maintain records of the different sort and under different provisions under this law and those provisions are perhaps valid but they cannot then require that he in effect commit another crime by refusing to reveal that he has violated the first position, the first provisions.\nWe feel this case comes directly under the Alberts and Marchetti very line.\nIn addition, the order form are all used as evidence.\nThe statute describes it as such.\nThank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3321.969, 3329.913, 3349.314, 3353.812, 3357.21, 3359.28], "stop_times": [3329.913, 3349.314, 3353.812, 3357.21, 3359.28, 3359.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3321.969}, "reply_to": "23668__2_017", "speaker": "david_a_diamond"}
{"id": "23668__2_019", "conversation_id": "23668", "text": "Thank you Mr. Diamond.\nMr. Diamond and Mr. Connolly, we thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_189", "start_times": [3359.94, 3361.469, 3364.784], "stop_times": [3361.469, 3364.784, 3367.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.94}, "reply_to": "23668__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__0_000", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Next case for argument is Number 726, Mitchell against Donovan.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready, Mr. Castner.\nMr. Castner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [0.0, 50.317, 76.952], "stop_times": [50.317, 76.952, 78.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__0_001", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe appellants in this case are the Communist Party of the United States of America, Communist Party of the State of Minnesota, Mrs. Charlene Mitchell and Mr. Michael Zagerell, 1968 Communist Party Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, Mrs. Betty Smith State Secretary of the Minnesota Communist Party, 10 presidential electors from the State of Minnesota for the Communist Party, two plaintiff appellees representing the 2,394 registered voters who signed a petition to put the Communist Party candidates on the 1968 ballot and one registered voter who did not sign the petition.\nThe Communist Party of the State of Minnesota as well as the National Party are unincorporated associations.\nThe Communist Party of Minnesota held a duly convened statewide convention in Minnesota on or about June 23, 1968.\nThey elected six delegates and an alternate delegate to the National Convention of the Communist Party U.S.A, which was called for and held in New York, July 4 to July 7, 1968.\nAt the Communist Party of Minnesota Convention, a motion was passed that if the Communist Party U.S.A nominated a presidential ticket that the Communist Party of Minnesota would endeavor to place on the ballot in Minnesota those candidates.\nMrs. Betty Smith attended that convention as a delegate in New York.\nMrs. Mitchell and Mr. Zagerell were duly nominated by that convention immediately following the Communist Party of Minnesota mounted a campaign to obtain the requisite number of signatures, under Minnesota Law, 2000 to place the candidates on the ballot.\nOn this nominating petition appeared the name of the ten Communist presidential electors and under Minnesota Law on the ballot only appears the name of the candidates and by Minnesota Law, a vote for the candidates is a vote for those electors.\nOn Sunday, September 8, the party completed its campaign to collect signatures.\nOn the next day, Monday the 9th, representatives of the Communist Party, the National Office as well as the State appeared at the Office of Secretary of State of Minnesota Joseph Donovan to file the nominating petition.\nThe party representatives arrived at the Secretary of State's Office during the noon hour.\nImmediately after noon, they tendered their petition.\nThis petition was anticipated and they were presented a written refusal of the Secretary of State.\nHe did examine the contents of the package and satisfied himself that it was the nominating petition for the Communist Party.\nHis refusal said, \u201cPlease be advised that upon the advice of the Attorney General of Minnesota and at his direction as a matter of law, I hereby officially refuse.\u201d\nThe Attorney General had issued an opinion which was also a copy of which was given to the representatives, in which the Attorney General said, \u201cIn view of the Federal Statutes and quoted in full Sections 841 and 842 of the Communist Control Act, we are of the opinion that you should refuse to accept for filing the nominating petition in question.\nHowever, any doubts relative to this matter can only be finally resolved by the Courts pursuant to appropriate legal proceedings.\u201d\nThe party went to Court.\nJudge Devitt convened the three-fudge District Court and on September 30th, heard arguments of counsel.\nFollowing that and inspite of a request for a permanent injunction, the Court ruled that a hurried decision would not be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [78.013, 81.746, 133.149, 140.604, 151.909, 168.69, 186.128, 191.354, 218.68, 243.704, 250.896, 265.026, 272.437, 276.221, 285.715, 295.962, 307.181, 331.736, 343.374, 345.487, 354.809], "stop_times": [81.746, 133.149, 140.604, 151.909, 168.69, 186.128, 191.354, 218.68, 243.704, 250.896, 265.026, 272.437, 276.221, 285.715, 295.962, 307.181, 331.736, 343.374, 345.487, 354.809, 367.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 78.013}, "reply_to": "15508__0_000", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_002", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What did you ask for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [367.552], "stop_times": [370.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.552}, "reply_to": "15508__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_003", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "In the prayer for relief, we ask both for a temporary and permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [370.518], "stop_times": [375.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.518}, "reply_to": "15508__0_002", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_004", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Against what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [375.031], "stop_times": [376.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.031}, "reply_to": "15508__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_005", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Against the state officials requiring them to place the party candidates on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [376.164], "stop_times": [383.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.164}, "reply_to": "15508__0_004", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_006", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "When?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [383.02], "stop_times": [384.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.02}, "reply_to": "15508__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_007", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "In the June '68 Election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [384.884], "stop_times": [387.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.884}, "reply_to": "15508__0_006", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_008", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Is that the only injunction you asked for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [387.056], "stop_times": [388.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.056}, "reply_to": "15508__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_009", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is the only injunction at that time.\nWe ask for such other and further relief in the prayer for relief and following the issuance of the temporary injunction and the passage of election, we noticed it for trial came back to Court and found ourselves arguing a motion to dismiss as moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [388.99, 391.127], "stop_times": [391.127, 410.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.99}, "reply_to": "15508__0_008", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_010", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And then what?\nDid you amend your -- did you amend your complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [410.362, 412.385], "stop_times": [412.385, 417.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.362}, "reply_to": "15508__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_011", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [417.277], "stop_times": [417.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.277}, "reply_to": "15508__0_010", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_012", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Did you amend your complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [417.746], "stop_times": [419.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.746}, "reply_to": "15508__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_013", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, we amended our complaint and the three-judge court granted the motion to amend the complaint.\nIn the prayer, we said that the Communist Party of Minnesota intended to participate in future local, state and national elections.\nThis amendment was granted and it was supported by an affidavit of Mrs. Smith to this effect on behalf of the party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [419.254, 425.853, 437.945], "stop_times": [425.853, 437.945, 444.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.254}, "reply_to": "15508__0_012", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_014", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well in the prayer, you amended the complaint to allege that the Communist Party of the State intended and hoped to participate in future elections that I assume was not in the prayer", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [444.04], "stop_times": [455.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.04}, "reply_to": "15508__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_015", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [455.895], "stop_times": [458.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 455.895}, "reply_to": "15508__0_014", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_016", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "How if at all was the prayer amended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [458.028], "stop_times": [460.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.028}, "reply_to": "15508__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_017", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The prayer was not amended.\nWe felt that under Rule 54(c) the request for additional relief would incorporate our desire to obtain a permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [460.146, 461.866], "stop_times": [461.866, 472.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.146}, "reply_to": "15508__0_016", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_018", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The only injunction you ask for, as I understand it explicitly, was an injunction to an election that is now passed and an election in which your clients were placed on a ballot in that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [472.619], "stop_times": [485.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.619}, "reply_to": "15508__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_019", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [485.229], "stop_times": [486.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.229}, "reply_to": "15508__0_018", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_020", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And that thereafter the only explicit relief demanded either in the original complaint or in the complaint that's amended was one for declaratory relief, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [486.922], "stop_times": [497.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 486.922}, "reply_to": "15508__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_021", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct, although we feel we were not able to come back to Court because of the disposition of the motion of the state to dismiss as moot to ask for a permanent injunction which we feel we are entitled to by this party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [497.064], "stop_times": [510.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.064}, "reply_to": "15508__0_020", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_022", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, yes, you were entitled to ask for it and then the dismissal would have been a denial of it but you did not in fact ask for it, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [510.225], "stop_times": [519.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.225}, "reply_to": "15508__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_023", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, we did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [519.133], "stop_times": [519.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.133}, "reply_to": "15508__0_022", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_024", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "An injunction is strong medicine and generally the rules of pleading required that if you want an injunction you have to ask for an injunction and then it is not incorporated in the ordinary boilerplate language of such other further relief that maybe appropriate in circumstances etcetera, etcetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [519.589], "stop_times": [537.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.589}, "reply_to": "15508__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_025", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We did see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [537.417], "stop_times": [538.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.417}, "reply_to": "15508__0_024", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_026", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You know that is on my mind I suppose to these questions and that is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction under Title 28 of the Code Section 1253 whether or not in other words there was here a denial of an injunction and there was a denial of an injunction only if you asked for an injunction that was denied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [538.395], "stop_times": [556.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.395}, "reply_to": "15508__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_027", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We feel that the relief asked for, we did ask for a permanent injunction.\nWe feel that this is similar to the Moore v. Ogilvie case the specific injunction to put them on the ballot was not necessary after the election.\nAll that remained was declaratory relief which if granted would have the effect of an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [556.008, 561.324, 570.034], "stop_times": [561.324, 570.034, 576.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.008}, "reply_to": "15508__0_026", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_028", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What necessitated three-judge court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [576.911], "stop_times": [582.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.911}, "reply_to": "15508__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_029", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We sought to enjoin the both by the temporary relief requested the permanent injunction and the declaratory relief to stop to enjoin the execution and enforcement of the Communist Control Act of 1954.\nHad we obtained the declaratory relief we asked for, it would have had the effect of restraining the operation and enforcement of the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [582.324, 598.938], "stop_times": [598.938, 609.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.324}, "reply_to": "15508__0_028", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_030", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I don't see any request for an injunction for restraining and enforcing of the Communist Control Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [609.446], "stop_times": [617.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.446}, "reply_to": "15508__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_031", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The United States is not a party.\nWe could not restrain the United States from enforcing the Act as against State Elections because the United States has no power to interfere with the state elections in this regard.\nThe only state -- the only Government officials who have the power to execute and enforce the Communist Control Act in elections are the state officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [617.388, 620.082, 630.793], "stop_times": [620.082, 630.793, 641.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.388}, "reply_to": "15508__0_030", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_032", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You did not -- even not ask them a Court injunction against --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [641.227], "stop_times": [649.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.227}, "reply_to": "15508__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_033", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, we asked for the relief which the Court held below entitled us to a three-judge court, to restrain the state officials from preventing the Communist Party from being on the \u201868 ballot.\nFollowing that election, we amended our compliant to let the Court know that the Communist Party intended to participate in future elections.\nThe next point is that in support of the lower court's order dismissing the complaint as moot, we believe that it is clear that the Communist Party will continue to participate in elections both on a statewide level and on a national level.\nThe party has participated in the past in 163 elections, 41 states have been the site of those elections and in Minnesota there have been 27 elections all but one of these have been election contests for state or national office.\nNow, the Attorney General has made the argument below that it is and this was adopted by the three-judge court that it is just speculative that the party will run for future elections and he said the earliest time that could come up again is 1972.\nWe would like to point out to the Court that the time is upon us now for the party to participate in other elections.\nWe have statewide elections, we have elections for United States Senator as well as for the House of Representatives and if this case is -- if the order of the court below is upheld as moot, the Communist Party will have participated in litigation for almost two years and be in precisely the situation that we argue such an order would place us that is that we would have to go back into Court again and litigate the question of the right of the party to appear on the ballot.\nThe court below refused to reach the merits saying that a hurried decision would not be wise or would be unwise.\nThey also wish the United States to be a party.\nChief Judge Devitt teletyped the United States Attorney, Mr. Ramsey Clark and ordered him to appear on the Court.\nMr. Clark replied with a letter saying that he had other commitments and did not appear.\nHowever, he sent the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota to appear amicus curiae and he did appear and argued to the Court that the Communist Control Act does not bar the party from the ballot that it can be interpreted citing Catherwood as for the proposition that Communist Party, pardon me, candidates could run as long as they didn't use the label Communist Party.\nHe also suggested to the Attorney General that Minnesota Law might allow the Communist Party to appear on the ballot with the designation Communist Party, an argument which was not accepted by either the Court or by the Attorney General.\nI think that that position of the United States fails because it does not recognize that the party itself under Minnesota Law has a right.\nThere are provisions in the law, which allow a party to present candidates if it receives a percentage of votes and we feel that a vote for party enthronement is equally as important as a vote for party candidates.\nThe United States in its brief relied on Salwen and Rees.\nThe only other case construing the Communist Control Act in terms of elections for the proposition that a Communist Party candidate could run for election.\nIn that case the New Jersey Courts as well including the Supreme Court did not accept even that argument and said that it would be a keen way to avoid the effect of the Act if Communist Party Candidates could run and hide from the public or not mention the fact that they are espousing Communist Party principles.\nSo, both the appellants and the appellees in this case agree that there is no question that the Communist Party -- I'm sorry that the Communist Control Act bars the Communist Party or its candidate from running in elections whether or not they disclose or speak to the effect that they are running under the Communist Party label.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [649.606, 664.324, 677.793, 697.872, 719.26, 739.309, 746.532, 782.036, 790.501, 795.463, 804.791, 810.369, 840.691, 857.047, 870.313, 889.654, 894.298, 904.379, 925.854], "stop_times": [664.324, 677.793, 697.872, 719.26, 739.309, 746.532, 782.036, 790.501, 795.463, 804.791, 810.369, 840.691, 857.047, 870.313, 889.654, 894.298, 904.379, 925.854, 952.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.606}, "reply_to": "15508__0_032", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_034", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Do you want us to declare that Act unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [952.576], "stop_times": [956.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.576}, "reply_to": "15508__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_035", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We also -- yes, we also want a permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [956.501], "stop_times": [960.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.501}, "reply_to": "15508__0_034", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_036", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And we are to declare that statute unconstitutional without the United States Government having anything to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [960.516], "stop_times": [968.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.516}, "reply_to": "15508__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_037", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We believe the United States Government has had a clear position over the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [968.557], "stop_times": [973.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.557}, "reply_to": "15508__0_036", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_038", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What position, who is now speaking for the United States Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [973.997], "stop_times": [979.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.997}, "reply_to": "15508__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_039", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The United States has not appeared on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [979.53], "stop_times": [982.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.53}, "reply_to": "15508__0_038", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_040", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "How can we declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional without the Attorney General of the United States or somebody representing him being here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [982.15], "stop_times": [993.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.15}, "reply_to": "15508__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_041", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It's my understanding that the Court did not request the appearance of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [993.21], "stop_times": [998.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.21}, "reply_to": "15508__0_040", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_042", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You mean it's the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [998.516], "stop_times": [1000.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.516}, "reply_to": "15508__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_043", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes.\nJudge Devitt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1000.183, 1000.762], "stop_times": [1000.762, 1001.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.183}, "reply_to": "15508__0_042", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_044", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "He gave the statutory notice to the Attorney General, didn't I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1001.563], "stop_times": [1004.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.563}, "reply_to": "15508__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_045", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Not only gave statutory notice but teletyped an order requiring him to appear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1004.471], "stop_times": [1009.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.471}, "reply_to": "15508__0_044", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_046", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "True.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1009.762], "stop_times": [1010.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.762}, "reply_to": "15508__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_047", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The response to which was the appearance of the U.S. Attorney as amicus curiae.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1010.438], "stop_times": [1014.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.438}, "reply_to": "15508__0_046", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_048", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, as I understand the judgment of the lower court was that there was no case in controversy because the Attorney General in his amicus brief had suggested that the law did not apply to Minnesota.\nIs that what Judge Devitt said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1014.859, 1033.339], "stop_times": [1033.339, 1036.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.859}, "reply_to": "15508__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_049", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is one of the points relied upon.\nThe judge pointed out three reasons why the cases was or why the motion was granted to dismiss that it was moot, that it was not right for adjudication and that there was not an actual case of controversy as required by the declaratory judge would say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1036.423, 1038.268], "stop_times": [1038.268, 1052.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.423}, "reply_to": "15508__0_048", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_050", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It wasn't moot, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1052.221], "stop_times": [1055.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.221}, "reply_to": "15508__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_051", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We do not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1055.419], "stop_times": [1055.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.419}, "reply_to": "15508__0_050", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_052", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "If it wasn't moot why did you amend?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1055.952], "stop_times": [1059.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.952}, "reply_to": "15508__0_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_053", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, we did not anticipate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1059.69], "stop_times": [1061.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.69}, "reply_to": "15508__0_052", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_054", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You amended because it had been moot up till that time.\nThere is nothing wrong with that, it's done everyday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1061.163, 1064.492], "stop_times": [1064.492, 1067.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.163}, "reply_to": "15508__0_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_055", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We amended because the Court granted the relief of the party to appear on that ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1067.353], "stop_times": [1072.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.353}, "reply_to": "15508__0_054", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_056", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is right.\nNow, you don't know what the next Secretary of State would do about this Act, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1072.078, 1075.316], "stop_times": [1075.316, 1081.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.078}, "reply_to": "15508__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_057", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We believe we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1081.639], "stop_times": [1083.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.639}, "reply_to": "15508__0_056", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_058", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "How do you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1083.158], "stop_times": [1084.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.158}, "reply_to": "15508__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_059", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1084.087], "stop_times": [1085.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.087}, "reply_to": "15508__0_058", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_060", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Who is the next Secretary of State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1085.078], "stop_times": [1088.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.078}, "reply_to": "15508__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_061", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The next Secretary of State will be elected in the coming elections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1088.159], "stop_times": [1091.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.159}, "reply_to": "15508__0_060", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_062", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "How do you know what he's going to do when you don't even know who he is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1091.935], "stop_times": [1094.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.935}, "reply_to": "15508__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_063", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But we feel Mr. Justice that this case is going to be presented again before that man leaves office.\nThe filing date for the national elections are in July of 1970.\nHis office does not expire until November of 1970.\nThe Attorney General will be in office until November of 1970.\nThe party is now seriously considering the state and national elections in Minnesota.\nI believe no candidates have filed although a number are talking of their intent to do so.\nIf this case is dismissed, if the order dismissing the case is moot as upheld, the appellants are precisely in the position they were in the summer of 1968 of having to come back to Court again with exactly the same defendants and waste the resources on their time again covering the same ground.\nMoreover, we take the position that the mere change of the constitutional officers of the state is not enough to moot the case.\nThere is no authority for the proposition save the one amicus curiae brief of the United States Attorney.\nThere is no legal authority for the proposition that the act does not apply.\nI can't imagine that a constitutional officer would take another position.\nThey cite the opinion of a Connecticut Attorney General ruling the same way Salwen and Rees stands for not only that proposition but to the Communist party candidate without his party cannot participate in elections and the United States failure to appear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1094.777, 1102.402, 1107.316, 1110.675, 1114.94, 1120.593, 1126.022, 1147.268, 1156.25, 1162.378, 1168.877, 1173.856], "stop_times": [1102.402, 1107.316, 1110.675, 1114.94, 1120.593, 1126.022, 1147.268, 1156.25, 1162.378, 1168.877, 1173.856, 1190.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.777}, "reply_to": "15508__0_062", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_064", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We are speaking about lack of case and controversy, I mean what Connecticut does in somebody else that's not before us.\nDo you have anything to argue for other than a declaratory judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1190.878, 1201.895], "stop_times": [1201.895, 1207.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.878}, "reply_to": "15508__0_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_065", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, we believe we are entitled to a permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1207.191], "stop_times": [1210.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.191}, "reply_to": "15508__0_064", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_066", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What authority do you have for that?\nYou originally asked to get on the ballot of 1968 and then the Court allowed you to amend and then you came in and said you proposed to it to those candidates the future.\nIs there anything in the record that says that the state intends to prevent you from doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1210.517, 1217.049, 1233.186], "stop_times": [1217.049, 1233.186, 1240.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.517}, "reply_to": "15508__0_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_067", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, and the state can continually present us with the same situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1240.111], "stop_times": [1244.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.111}, "reply_to": "15508__0_066", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_068", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Is there anything in the record that says the State intends to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1244.639], "stop_times": [1248.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.639}, "reply_to": "15508__0_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_069", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "There is.\nIn the transcript of the hearing on September 30th, the Court asked Mr. Kyle who at that time was Solicitor General, it is on page 18 of the appellants brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1248.827, 1250.133], "stop_times": [1250.133, 1262.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.827}, "reply_to": "15508__0_068", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_070", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Appellants brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1262.114], "stop_times": [1263.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.114}, "reply_to": "15508__0_069", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_071", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And in the appendix -- on page 69 of the appendix.\nThe Court inquired of counsel.\nOn another subject I noticed that counsel's affidavit says on information and belief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1263.976, 1282.411, 1284.809], "stop_times": [1282.411, 1284.809, 1290.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.976}, "reply_to": "15508__0_070", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_072", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Just a deferment, Mr. Castner.\nDo we -- we're sure we have your place page 69 of the appendix, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1290.179, 1291.699], "stop_times": [1291.699, 1301.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.179}, "reply_to": "15508__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__0_073", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, that is correct.\nI misspoke.\nIt was at the hearing on November 25th, \u201868 hearing arguments on the motion to dismiss as moot and on the appellant's motion to amend.\nThis exchange took place.\nOn another subject, I noticed that counsel's affidavit says on information and belief, he has learned that you or the Attorney General are going to persist in your viewpoint that if some other communist affiliated people file, you are going to take the same position.\nIs there any basis for this information and belief?\nMr. Kyle replied, \u201cI think there probably is.\nAt least there is no new case law which has come down which would as far as I am concerned dictate a different result ultimately.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1301.375, 1304.599, 1305.854, 1314.39, 1316.275, 1331.937, 1335.477, 1338.805], "stop_times": [1304.599, 1305.854, 1314.39, 1316.275, 1331.937, 1335.477, 1338.805, 1347.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.375}, "reply_to": "15508__0_072", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_074", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And who's Mr. Kyle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1347.024], "stop_times": [1348.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.024}, "reply_to": "15508__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_075", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Mr. Kyle was the Solicitor General in the case and he is appearing for appellees today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1348.455], "stop_times": [1354.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.455}, "reply_to": "15508__0_074", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_076", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The representative of the Attorney General?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1354.865], "stop_times": [1357.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.865}, "reply_to": "15508__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__0_077", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "He was the -- the Chief Officer Solicitor General of the State of Minnesota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1357.486], "stop_times": [1364.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.486}, "reply_to": "15508__0_076", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_078", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Oh, he is a subordinate of the Attorney General, was he not at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1364.19], "stop_times": [1367.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.19}, "reply_to": "15508__0_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__0_079", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1367.08], "stop_times": [1370.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.08}, "reply_to": "15508__0_078", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_080", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And he is no longer assistant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1370.391], "stop_times": [1372.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.391}, "reply_to": "15508__0_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_081", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, he is not.\nYes, he is, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1372.964, 1375.428], "stop_times": [1375.428, 1376.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.964}, "reply_to": "15508__0_080", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_082", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "He's present in the courtroom but in the office, is that what you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1376.6], "stop_times": [1380.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.6}, "reply_to": "15508__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__0_083", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, I misspoke I -- he did leave the office of Solicitor General who I understand that came back to it and is presently serving that institution now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1380.938], "stop_times": [1392.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.938}, "reply_to": "15508__0_082", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_084", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, I don't suppose anybody to repudiate the fact that he was representing the Attorney General, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1392.207], "stop_times": [1398.014], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.207}, "reply_to": "15508__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15508__0_085", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, they were -- in their brief subsequent, they did not like the effect of this admission in Court and argued in opposing the noting of probably jurisdiction that also tying to the argument that this would not be presented again until 1972 that there would be another constitutional officer, pardon me, and no way for the Court to determine that the same --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1398.014], "stop_times": [1424.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.014}, "reply_to": "15508__0_084", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_086", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They denied that Kyle was an officer at the time he made the statement.\nThey repudiated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1424.44, 1430.638], "stop_times": [1430.638, 1431.685], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.44}, "reply_to": "15508__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15508__0_087", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, they did not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1431.685], "stop_times": [1431.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.685}, "reply_to": "15508__0_086", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_088", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They checked him out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1431.891], "stop_times": [1433.389], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.891}, "reply_to": "15508__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15508__0_089", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They did not.\nThe United States, we feel, did not appear to defend the Constitutionality of the Act because they have had a long standing provision that such an Act violates the Constitution of the United States.\nIn 1948, when Congress was considering and the year subsequent a number of bills which would have barred the Communist Party from activity, two congressional subcommittees were holding hearings on legislation aimed at restricting the activities of the Communist Party.\nOne bill would have banned from the ballot and any election in the United States all political parties directly or indirectly affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States.\nAfter the bills' constitutionality was assailed by a number of witnesses, the committee recessed to await an opinion from the Department of Justice on this subject.\nThe opinion was forthcoming in a letter on March 9, 1948 to the Chairman of the House Committee on House Administration that letter said and I quote, \u201cAlthough this department is in complete sympathy of course with the desire that no subversive or disloyal person should be permitted to hold a position of honor, trust, or profit in the Government, it is believed that the bill under consideration will be of doubtful validity and enforceability for many reasons.\nThe most outstanding of which is that it might be regarded as in the nature of Bill of Attainder, a denial of due process of law and an attempt by the Federal Government to legislate insofar as it would apply to the qualifications of a political party in any election in a field for which no federal authority exists.\nThe United States has not in any case that we can find moved from this position.\nWe believe that this position has been consistent regardless of the change of constitutional officers.\nWe believe also that any state official with the state of the law as it is today would be the same as the Attorney General of Minnesota in this case.\nWe urge the Court and feel the Court has authority to issue a permanent injunction restraining state officials from preventing Minnesota candidates, from Minnesota Communist Party candidates, from presenting their nominating petitions and participating in elections.\nWe feel the Court should reach the merits of constitutionality that the argument of the Act does not apply is without merit and is not relied by legislative history.\nThere was little agreement on the extent of the scope of this Act in the legislative debates as few as they were, but there was agreement on one thing that this Act barred the party from the ballot and the authorities that have studied and written about this Act subsequent to its passage have agreed that the Act has this effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1433.389, 1442.979, 1456.462, 1482.601, 1495.06, 1505.012, 1536.508, 1558.586, 1566.189, 1573.681, 1595.743, 1616.581, 1629.476], "stop_times": [1442.979, 1456.462, 1482.601, 1495.06, 1505.012, 1536.508, 1558.586, 1566.189, 1573.681, 1595.743, 1616.581, 1629.476, 1654.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.389}, "reply_to": "15508__0_088", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_090", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Whether this -- whether they denied that the Act applied to you for the Communist Party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1654.307], "stop_times": [1660.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.307}, "reply_to": "15508__0_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_091", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Pardon me Mr. Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1660.023], "stop_times": [1660.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1660.023}, "reply_to": "15508__0_090", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_092", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Where did they deny that the Act applied to the Communist Party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1660.888], "stop_times": [1672.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.888}, "reply_to": "15508__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_093", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They being the Department of Justice or the legislative debates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1672.768], "stop_times": [1677.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1672.768}, "reply_to": "15508__0_092", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_094", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "People you have to hear if you want to get an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1677.44], "stop_times": [1680.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.44}, "reply_to": "15508__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_095", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Oh, the appellees in case have not denied that the Act applies and let me take this opportunity, thank you for reminding me, there is an error in the appellant's brief on page 45.\nOn the first paragraph of page 45, the second sentence says, \u201cboth the attorney general and the U.S. Attorney argued below that the Communist Control Act infringes upon the power of the states in this regard that is to qualify electors.\u201d\nThe inclusion of the Minnesota Attorney General should not be there, this was an error.\nTurning to the merits, we urge the Court to find the Act unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder.\nWe believe the Act is a classical Bill of Attainder and the decisions of this Court and all who sat on this Court considering the cases of attainder would find this Act a classical Bill of Attainder.\nFirst, the Act outlaws the Communist Party by legislative fiat.\nThe party itself was outlawed in this case in the SACB Case.\nI'm sorry, this Court in that case pointed out that if the party by name were outlawed, the Act would be a Bill of Attainder.\nThe Communist Control Act of 1954 made this finding.\nThe second test is whether there is a legislative finding of guilt.\nIn 841 there is the flat conclusion that the Communist Party should be outlawed and in 841 also, in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.\nThere is a legislative finding of guilt taking away from the power of the Court to make determination not granting a hearing to the party on its conclusions and we urge that the position of the appellees that this Court may take into consideration the legislative findings in other and not related acts as to the nature of a Communist Party cannot support this Act.\nWe feel that's a novel assertion that the findings of one Act can be held to support another.\nThis Act was adopted on the eve of adjournment in 1954, there were no committee hearings on the Act saved Congressman Dice, the legislative history has been properly described by this Court in the Catherwood case has given little guidance.\nThe third test, we feel, is met as if the party is punished.\nThere is no comparable example of such a flat legislative finding of guilt in the absence of a judicial trial and the cases of this Court going back to the post Civil War Bill of Attainder cases Cummings and Garland clearly show that punishment need not be imprisonment but in fact point out specific -- in specific example precisely what has happened under this Act that the party is barred from the ballot.\nThe fourth test and one which this Court which many authorities feel this Court has set forth in Dallas is also met.\nThere is no opportunity for the party to reform itself.\nIt cannot escape the provisions of this Act.\nNothing it does can allow it to come to the ballot and in fact, the interpretations of the Act do not allow an individual candidate supporting the principles of the party to appear without party endorsement.\nThe second provision and there are many or the second of unconstitutionality and one which we feel is in equal weight is the infringement upon freedom of speech.\nThis Court in the last term in Williams and Rhodes made it clear with the right vote and First Amendment protects that right both for the right of qualified voters to cast their votes as well as the right of individuals to associate with a party or an association to cast their votes.\nThe state would urge that the paltry showing of the party in the last election, 415 votes, would minimize the importance of participation in the electoral process.\nWe feel that cannot be serious in this regard.\nThe real importance and contribution to participation in the political process is the forum of an electoral contest as freedom of speech.\nThis Court has made it clear that freedom of speech is on the highest of scale of constitutional liberties and we feel the Court has also made it clear that the right to vote is at the top with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1680.61, 1696.258, 1714.543, 1724.483, 1732.09, 1748.33, 1753.609, 1758.225, 1765.855, 1774.783, 1780.954, 1795.005, 1820.579, 1827.5, 1852.601, 1858.255, 1885.755, 1895.05, 1898.195, 1901.258, 1919.181, 1930.974, 1949.647, 1962.747, 1966.172, 1976.781], "stop_times": [1696.258, 1714.543, 1724.483, 1732.09, 1748.33, 1753.609, 1758.225, 1765.855, 1774.783, 1780.954, 1795.005, 1820.579, 1827.5, 1852.601, 1858.255, 1885.755, 1895.05, 1898.195, 1901.258, 1919.181, 1930.974, 1949.647, 1962.747, 1966.172, 1976.781, 1993.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1680.61}, "reply_to": "15508__0_094", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_096", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You mean that it's argued because there's such a small number of alleged voters on that ticket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [1993.37], "stop_times": [2000.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.37}, "reply_to": "15508__0_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__0_097", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well they pointed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2000.573], "stop_times": [2001.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2000.573}, "reply_to": "15508__0_096", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_098", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The State has a right to -- state has a right to sue (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2001.026], "stop_times": [2008.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.026}, "reply_to": "15508__0_097", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__0_099", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They argued this in terms of its being moot, that is with such a paltry showing how can we expect that the party would make another serious attempt and have ignored the fact of 163 elections of this party.\nThey also have pointed to the hiatus of participation in electoral politics by the party from 1950 until the 1968 election and this lack of participation was not due to a lack in interest but to the effect of the McCarran Act.\nThe party itself has come back into electoral politics in 1968.\nThey did participate in local elections in New York, Rashid Storey and Jesus Colon ran for mayor and the comptroller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2008.991, 2025.449, 2042.39, 2049.342], "stop_times": [2025.449, 2042.39, 2049.342, 2062.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2008.991}, "reply_to": "15508__0_098", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_100", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What actual defense did they put up for that law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2062.879], "stop_times": [2068.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.879}, "reply_to": "15508__0_099", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_101", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Pardon what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2068.427], "stop_times": [2068.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2068.427}, "reply_to": "15508__0_100", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_102", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What actual defense have they put up for a law of this kind that bars a party from running in the state if it acts within the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2068.674], "stop_times": [2081.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.674}, "reply_to": "15508__0_101", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_103", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "On the merits they merely say that to balance the interests of taking the risk that a party if elected would destroy our way of Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2081.739], "stop_times": [2096.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2081.739}, "reply_to": "15508__0_102", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_104", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "How many voters did you say they had?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2096.676], "stop_times": [2099.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.676}, "reply_to": "15508__0_103", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_105", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "415 in Minnesota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2099.265], "stop_times": [2101.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2099.265}, "reply_to": "15508__0_104", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_106", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "How many -- what's the population of Minnesota?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2101.756], "stop_times": [2104.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.756}, "reply_to": "15508__0_105", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_107", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I believe it is about 3 Million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2104.486], "stop_times": [2106.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2104.486}, "reply_to": "15508__0_106", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_108", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And they were afraid this 450 would overturn them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2106.637], "stop_times": [2113.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.637}, "reply_to": "15508__0_107", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__0_109", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I am afraid they'll have to answer that for themselves.\nI will save my remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2113.754, 2116.929], "stop_times": [2116.929, 2118.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2113.754}, "reply_to": "15508__0_108", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_110", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But you are going to spend more time on the preliminary question of whether or not the Court has jurisdiction under Section 1253?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2118.929], "stop_times": [2130.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.929}, "reply_to": "15508__0_109", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_111", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I believe the state will spend quite a bit of time on it and I will respond in rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2130.01], "stop_times": [2134.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2130.01}, "reply_to": "15508__0_110", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__0_112", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2134.923], "stop_times": [2146.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.923}, "reply_to": "15508__0_111", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__0_113", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Mr. Kyle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2146.465], "stop_times": [2147.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.465}, "reply_to": "15508__0_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_000", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nMaybe I should clarify my position with Attorney General's Office at the outset in response to some questions which arose.\nThe Solicitor General of the State of Minnesota which is my title is an appointed position by the Attorney General of Minnesota and serves at the pleasure of the Attorney General is the equivalent of an Assistant or Deputy Attorney General.\nWhen this litigation first arose and through the District Court proceedings, I was the Solicitor General of the State of Minnesota and for a period of a approximately six months thereafter, I performed a different function within the Office of the Attorney General with a different title and then returned to position as Solicitor General which I now -- which position I now hold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2147.221, 2151.967, 2160.662, 2175.089], "stop_times": [2151.967, 2160.662, 2175.089, 2197.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.221}, "reply_to": "15508__0_113", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_001", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2197.471], "stop_times": [2199.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.471}, "reply_to": "15508__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_002", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2199.227], "stop_times": [2199.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.227}, "reply_to": "15508__1_001", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_003", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2199.86], "stop_times": [2201.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.86}, "reply_to": "15508__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_004", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, as of now.\nThe statement which is found in the record concerning the position of the Attorney General which was referred to by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2201.635, 2204.479], "stop_times": [2204.479, 2212.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2201.635}, "reply_to": "15508__1_003", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_005", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The statement what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2212.413], "stop_times": [2213.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.413}, "reply_to": "15508__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_006", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The statement Your Honor which was found in the record concerning the position of the Attorney General with respect to a future election and made by me -- was made by and the statement as such stands now to the extent that the Attorney General will see fit to follow what I or someone else on the staff may tell him to do with respect to a given election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2213.975], "stop_times": [2239.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.975}, "reply_to": "15508__1_005", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_007", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The Attorney General of your states have elected officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2239.565], "stop_times": [2241.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.565}, "reply_to": "15508__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_008", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2241.852], "stop_times": [2242.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.852}, "reply_to": "15508__1_007", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_009", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "For a what, a four-year term?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2242.512], "stop_times": [2243.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.512}, "reply_to": "15508__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_010", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Four-year term.\nHis term expires this year.\nHe is not a candidate for reelection as is the Secretary of State who's term also expires this year and he is not a candidate for reelection.\nSo, absent this particular question arising this fall and it could, we are going to have two new and different constitutional officers in office when a similar petition if ever is presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2243.686, 2245.228, 2248.8, 2258.765], "stop_times": [2245.228, 2248.8, 2258.765, 2276.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.686}, "reply_to": "15508__1_009", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_011", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You will have new officers after January of 1971?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2276.689], "stop_times": [2281.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.689}, "reply_to": "15508__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_012", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2281.99], "stop_times": [2282.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.99}, "reply_to": "15508__1_011", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_013", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The Governor and the Attorney General take office in January.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2282.725], "stop_times": [2286.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.725}, "reply_to": "15508__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_014", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Right, in January, Your Honor.\nNow, the position of the state or the position of the Attorney General and the Secretary of State who were named defendants in this action at the very outset was a three-judge district court was not required to hear this action because no request was made that would have the effect of restraining the operation or enforcement of Act of Congress that even if the plaintiffs here secured the declaratory relief which they sought that the party be placed upon the ballot and that their candidates be allowed to run, this would not have the effect of putting and grinding to a halt, so to speak the operations of Communist Control Act 1954 or whatever operation that Act had.\nThat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2286.654, 2289.614, 2349.333], "stop_times": [2289.614, 2349.333, 2351.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.654}, "reply_to": "15508__1_013", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_015", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Did the action of the Secretary of State in refusing for nominating petitions purport to be got under a state statute or wasn't that presumably in the federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2351.926], "stop_times": [2365.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.926}, "reply_to": "15508__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_016", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It was done -- the legal authority -- there was a dispute on this Your Honor.\nHe received the nominated petition as the advice of the Attorney General as to what he should do, the Attorney General wrote him a memorandum or opinion whatever you want to call it, pointed out the provisions of the Communist Control Act and Communist Control Act only and said that this Act appeared to apply and therefore barred the party from participation in the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2365.132, 2369.861], "stop_times": [2369.861, 2392.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.132}, "reply_to": "15508__1_015", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_017", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It purports to preempt absent Congress was elected except \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2392.663], "stop_times": [2398.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.663}, "reply_to": "15508__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_018", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, question about that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2398.205], "stop_times": [2399.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.205}, "reply_to": "15508__1_017", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_019", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "On the face of the -- of your state statutes would prevent it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2399.486], "stop_times": [2403.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.486}, "reply_to": "15508__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_020", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "There would be no disabling state statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2403.958], "stop_times": [2406.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.958}, "reply_to": "15508__1_019", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_021", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "So this is good.\nThere will be a state saying the federal law --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2406.106, 2407.897], "stop_times": [2407.897, 2413.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.106}, "reply_to": "15508__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_022", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Federal Law requires us to do this, this was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2413.221], "stop_times": [2415.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.221}, "reply_to": "15508__1_021", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_023", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "These are our state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2415.354], "stop_times": [2419.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.354}, "reply_to": "15508__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_024", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.\nThat is the position we took and it's the position which we upheld throughout.\nIt was on that basis that we had also objected to the convening of three-judge court because we took the position that we were not acting under the color of state law which was a requirement of Section 1983 The Civil Rights Act.\nWhen a state officer acting under color of state law or the three-judge district court disagreed with us on this proposition and was convened and then made its decision and this appeal followed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2419.733, 2420.218, 2424.987, 2438.956], "stop_times": [2420.218, 2424.987, 2438.956, 2453.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.733}, "reply_to": "15508__1_023", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_025", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Mr. Kyle, I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2453.405], "stop_times": [2455.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.405}, "reply_to": "15508__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_026", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "May I ask you a question, I want to get it.\nThey filed a petition against the state officer, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2455.232, 2457.687], "stop_times": [2457.687, 2461.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.232}, "reply_to": "15508__1_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_027", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They filed -- no, Your Honor they presented to the Secretary of State --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2461.773], "stop_times": [2465.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.773}, "reply_to": "15508__1_026", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_028", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2465.841], "stop_times": [2466.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.841}, "reply_to": "15508__1_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_029", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "-- a nominating petition on behalf of the Communist Party of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2466.318], "stop_times": [2470.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.318}, "reply_to": "15508__1_028", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_030", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And what did he do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2470.056], "stop_times": [2471.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.056}, "reply_to": "15508__1_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_031", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "He refused to accept it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2471.36], "stop_times": [2472.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.36}, "reply_to": "15508__1_030", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_032", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "On what grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2472.653], "stop_times": [2473.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.653}, "reply_to": "15508__1_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_033", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That the Attorney General told him to refuse to accept it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2473.944], "stop_times": [2476.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.944}, "reply_to": "15508__1_032", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_034", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You mean the Attorney General of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2476.336], "stop_times": [2478.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.336}, "reply_to": "15508__1_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_035", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Of the State of Minnesota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2478.477], "stop_times": [2479.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.477}, "reply_to": "15508__1_034", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_036", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And you say he did it on the ground that this federal law barred it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2479.89], "stop_times": [2484.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.89}, "reply_to": "15508__1_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_037", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "On the ground of the Communist Control Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2484.23], "stop_times": [2486.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.23}, "reply_to": "15508__1_036", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_038", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That doesn't get your state out, does it, to say that the federal law bars it.\nWasn't it that you did let them know whether they would accept his name as a candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2486.018, 2491.418], "stop_times": [2491.418, 2495.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.018}, "reply_to": "15508__1_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_039", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We said no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2495.766], "stop_times": [2497.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.766}, "reply_to": "15508__1_038", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_040", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You said, no.\nThen you did deny and you have refused to let him get on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2497.13, 2497.839], "stop_times": [2497.839, 2502.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.13}, "reply_to": "15508__1_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_041", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2502.066], "stop_times": [2503.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.066}, "reply_to": "15508__1_040", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_042", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You did it on the grounds that the Federal Law prohibits it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2503.431], "stop_times": [2506.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.431}, "reply_to": "15508__1_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_043", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2506.217], "stop_times": [2507.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.217}, "reply_to": "15508__1_042", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_044", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What did you tell him about the First Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2507.035], "stop_times": [2509.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.035}, "reply_to": "15508__1_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_045", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We didn't tell him anything about the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2509.691], "stop_times": [2510.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.691}, "reply_to": "15508__1_044", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_046", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You didn't mention that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2510.441], "stop_times": [2511.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.441}, "reply_to": "15508__1_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_047", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, we did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2511.44], "stop_times": [2512.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.44}, "reply_to": "15508__1_046", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_048", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Do you think it had anything to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2512.695], "stop_times": [2514.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.695}, "reply_to": "15508__1_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_049", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "At the time that we were presented with the petition, Your Honor the situation arose in this manner.\nThe petition is there.\nWe look at the Communist Control Act on its face, at least in my opinion and I still have this opinion.\nIt would if Constitution would bar the Communist Party from the electoral process in the State of Minnesota.\nNow, the only decision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2514.643, 2523.5, 2525.081, 2531.265, 2538.617], "stop_times": [2523.5, 2525.081, 2531.265, 2538.617, 2539.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.643}, "reply_to": "15508__1_048", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_050", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That was an issue between you and the people who wanted to get on the ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2539.642], "stop_times": [2542.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.642}, "reply_to": "15508__1_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_051", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2542.983], "stop_times": [2543.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.983}, "reply_to": "15508__1_050", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_052", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Between the State of Minnesota, not between the Federal Government but between the State of Minnesota and the people who wanted to get on the ticket list?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2543.613], "stop_times": [2551.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.613}, "reply_to": "15508__1_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_053", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, I don't -- I don't know where that follows, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2551.458], "stop_times": [2553.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.458}, "reply_to": "15508__1_052", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_054", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well doesn't it, who objected, who denied it except the state.\nIt doesn't make a new forth ground --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2553.665, 2559.081], "stop_times": [2559.081, 2560.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.665}, "reply_to": "15508__1_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_055", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, the state, the state you're right.\nIt did in a sense that the state said no you are not going on the ballot and then it was an issue as between the state and people presenting the petition to whether they were going to be allowed to go on the ballot.\nWe physically said, \u201cNo.\u201d\nAnd our only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2560.192, 2561.729, 2572.244, 2574.108], "stop_times": [2561.729, 2572.244, 2574.108, 2574.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.192}, "reply_to": "15508__1_054", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_056", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You did not let him get on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2574.321], "stop_times": [2576.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.321}, "reply_to": "15508__1_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_057", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2576.981], "stop_times": [2577.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.981}, "reply_to": "15508__1_056", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_058", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And let him get on here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2577.605], "stop_times": [2579.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.605}, "reply_to": "15508__1_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_059", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, they have not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2579.708], "stop_times": [2581.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.708}, "reply_to": "15508__1_058", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_060", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Say what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2581.371], "stop_times": [2581.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.371}, "reply_to": "15508__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_061", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "They've been not.\nThey ran in 1968.\nNot pursuant to anything we did but pursuant to an order of the three-judge district court but there has been no request since that time to come on again and there had been no opportunity or there has been opportunity in 1969 which we had at least local elections in the State of Minnesota as far as our office was concerned.\nWe received no information from anyone that this problem had arisen again. Notwithstanding, I might point out, the affidavit presented by the Secretary, Mrs. Smith of the Communist Party that they intended to participate in future Minnesota local elections.\nAt least one year has gone by and if participation took place it was brought to no ones attention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2581.912, 2583.474, 2585.742, 2605.714, 2621.918], "stop_times": [2583.474, 2585.742, 2605.714, 2621.918, 2629.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.912}, "reply_to": "15508__1_060", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_062", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Mr. Kyle, would it be possible to your mind as Solicitor General to apprise that since the three-judge court has already ruled on the 1968 election that you see no reason why they shouldn't follow that in later elections and let the party on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2629.039], "stop_times": [2652.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.039}, "reply_to": "15508__1_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_063", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, I would have no difficulty with it except that the basis of the three-judge court's ruling Your Honor was to specifically reserve the question of the constitutionality of the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2652.455], "stop_times": [2663.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.455}, "reply_to": "15508__1_062", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_064", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And they haven't passed it on yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2663.182], "stop_times": [2664.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.182}, "reply_to": "15508__1_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_065", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And they haven't passed it on yet.\nThey simply -- we were in a time as all of these election cases are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2664.486, 2666.129], "stop_times": [2666.129, 2669.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.486}, "reply_to": "15508__1_064", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_066", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, my point is that you feel obliged to follow an Act of Congress which has no means of enforcing it you if you don't follow it and you have the opinion of a three-judge constitutionally set up Court that you did not have to follow it.\nIsn't that enough for you to say that well let's forget about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2669.398, 2689.303], "stop_times": [2689.303, 2696.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.398}, "reply_to": "15508__1_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_067", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I'd like to say yes but I can't Your Honor.\nI don't think it is.\nIf the three-judge court had ruled on the merits of the Act, declared the Act to be unconstitutional --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2696.887, 2700.229, 2701.859], "stop_times": [2700.229, 2701.859, 2708.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.887}, "reply_to": "15508__1_066", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_068", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You have a further impediment, have you not, you are not the Attorney General of Minnesota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2708.973], "stop_times": [2713.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.973}, "reply_to": "15508__1_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_069", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2713.075], "stop_times": [2713.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.075}, "reply_to": "15508__1_068", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_070", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But one of his subordinates who can't give opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2713.778], "stop_times": [2717.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.778}, "reply_to": "15508__1_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_071", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Sir, that is pleasure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2717.406], "stop_times": [2718.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.406}, "reply_to": "15508__1_070", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_072", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, can't we get somebody in that can give us opinion for the State of Minnesota if you are not authorized to do it, why were you sent here for if not to make a statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2718.259], "stop_times": [2728.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.259}, "reply_to": "15508__1_071", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_073", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I think I am authorized, no I'm authorize to make statements on behalf the State of Minnesota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2728.129], "stop_times": [2732.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.129}, "reply_to": "15508__1_072", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_074", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, you're authorized to make statements in this argument but you're not authorized to give an opinion that hasn't been asked for yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2732.7], "stop_times": [2739.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.7}, "reply_to": "15508__1_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_075", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2739.189], "stop_times": [2739.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.189}, "reply_to": "15508__1_074", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_076", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We were asking you for one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2739.688], "stop_times": [2741.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.688}, "reply_to": "15508__1_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_077", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, you're asking me to enforce an argument, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2741.574], "stop_times": [2743.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.574}, "reply_to": "15508__1_076", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_078", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We are asking you on the ground that you are here purporting to be the representative of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota.\nNow, are you and do you have a full authority to represent him in this argument before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2743.812, 2752.663], "stop_times": [2752.663, 2757.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.812}, "reply_to": "15508__1_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_079", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2757.611], "stop_times": [2760.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.611}, "reply_to": "15508__1_078", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_080", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But you have no authority to give an opinion about the ballots in next September's election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2760.484], "stop_times": [2765.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.484}, "reply_to": "15508__1_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_081", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, he has not asked me for my opinion concerning the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2765.939], "stop_times": [2769.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.939}, "reply_to": "15508__1_080", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_082", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Do you deny having that authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2769.903], "stop_times": [2775.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.903}, "reply_to": "15508__1_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_083", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I'm not sure, I understand your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2775.284], "stop_times": [2776.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.284}, "reply_to": "15508__1_082", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_084", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Do you deny having the authority which the Chief Justice asked you about?\nIf so how can you claim to be the representative of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota?\nWe usually have representatives for parties who can give us statements about the position of the party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2776.654, 2781.034, 2787.474], "stop_times": [2781.034, 2787.474, 2794.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.654}, "reply_to": "15508__1_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_085", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I have given you statements, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2794.249], "stop_times": [2796.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.249}, "reply_to": "15508__1_084", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_086", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But you don't deny them that you have authority to determine for the State of Minnesota, speak for him now and say whether you are opposing this party getting on the ticket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2796.172], "stop_times": [2809.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.172}, "reply_to": "15508__1_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_087", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, I am opposing this party getting ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2809.817], "stop_times": [2811.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.817}, "reply_to": "15508__1_086", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_088", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2811.727], "stop_times": [2812.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.727}, "reply_to": "15508__1_087", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_089", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I am opposing this party on the ticket this is the position which we took earlier and this position which we have taken this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2812.318], "stop_times": [2820.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2812.318}, "reply_to": "15508__1_088", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_090", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You do it on the ground that you -- that the state does it of its own will or because it does it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2820.08], "stop_times": [2826.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.08}, "reply_to": "15508__1_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_091", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I do it on the ground with an Act of Congress has said as I read that Act of Congress that the party shall not go on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2826.224], "stop_times": [2834.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.224}, "reply_to": "15508__1_090", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_092", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And what did the Court tell you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2834.255], "stop_times": [2836.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.255}, "reply_to": "15508__1_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_093", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The Court put them on ballot because the Court said we do not have enough time to resolve what they consider to be the difficult grave constitutional issues which we presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2836.704], "stop_times": [2846.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.704}, "reply_to": "15508__1_092", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_094", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But why should this case not be met on its face?\nThat litigant should meet cases and say whether or not the State of Minnesota is now opposing this party getting on a ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2846.801, 2850.722], "stop_times": [2850.722, 2859.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.801}, "reply_to": "15508__1_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_095", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, whether it is going to be met on the merits or not Your Honor is a decision which this Court is going to make right now which I have no control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2859.498], "stop_times": [2867.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2859.498}, "reply_to": "15508__1_094", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_096", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You have no control over it but you have control over the safe case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2867.944], "stop_times": [2872.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.944}, "reply_to": "15508__1_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_097", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But I -- as I read the decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2872.484], "stop_times": [2875.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.484}, "reply_to": "15508__1_096", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_098", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Do you say that you have in a less authority than the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota has to state views on this particular case when you are now representing the State of Minnesota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2875.482], "stop_times": [2887.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.482}, "reply_to": "15508__1_097", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_099", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2887.493], "stop_times": [2888.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.493}, "reply_to": "15508__1_098", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_100", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You do not claim any less authority than the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2888.146], "stop_times": [2897.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.146}, "reply_to": "15508__1_099", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15508__1_101", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Now, it is our position on this appeal that jurisdiction is also lacking in addition to the fact that a three-judge court in our view was not required below but that there was no denial of permanent injunction in this litigation and that is a requirement of Section 1253, a section which recently was reviewed in analogous context in a Goldstein decision by this Court about two months ago.\nIt says that this Court has appellate jurisdiction from a final order granting a permanent injunction in this case.\nNow, there was no request for a permanent injunction in this case.\nIt was requested that the Secretary of State except the nominating petition and that he place those candidates upon the ballot.\nNow, to the extent that that request for relief constituted a request for a permanent injunction, it was granted.\nThe temporary mandatory injunction issued by the three-judge court gave to the plaintiffs, every aspect of the injunctive relief which they had originally sought and it was only at that stage that we probably could have appealed to this Court from the granting of that temporary injunction which we chose not to do.\nThe amendment which came two weeks later but before the election has two statement of facts allegations that the Communist Party of Minnesota intends to participate, whatever that means, in future local, national, state elections and further that the Attorney General will continue to give his view that the Communist Control Act bars.\nNo request that any state official present or future be barred from taking any action, none was asked for and therefore none was given.\nSo, it is only I submit, if this Court reads the order of dismissal as moot, as having the effect of denying their request for permanent injunction that this Court would have jurisdiction and I submit that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [2897.65, 2930.121, 2939.578, 2944.174, 2953.681, 2963.282, 2987.59, 3018.642, 3029.178], "stop_times": [2930.121, 2939.578, 2944.174, 2953.681, 2963.282, 2987.59, 3018.642, 3029.178, 3046.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.65}, "reply_to": "15508__1_100", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_102", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What request for a permanent injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3046.024], "stop_times": [3048.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.024}, "reply_to": "15508__1_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_103", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Excuse me, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3048.729], "stop_times": [3049.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.729}, "reply_to": "15508__1_102", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_104", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Only if we read the dismissal as denying you say there a request for a permanent injunction for my request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3049.652], "stop_times": [3054.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.652}, "reply_to": "15508__1_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_105", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Only if you read it as having the effect of denying whatever their prayer for relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3054.831], "stop_times": [3059.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.831}, "reply_to": "15508__1_104", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_106", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, what was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3059.611], "stop_times": [3061.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.611}, "reply_to": "15508__1_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_107", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That the Communist Control Act declared unconsciously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3061.128], "stop_times": [3063.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3061.128}, "reply_to": "15508__1_106", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_108", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "For declaratory judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3063.132], "stop_times": [3064.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.132}, "reply_to": "15508__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_109", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3064.322], "stop_times": [3064.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.322}, "reply_to": "15508__1_108", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_110", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Not for an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3064.859], "stop_times": [3065.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.859}, "reply_to": "15508__1_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_111", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, there was no request for an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3065.756], "stop_times": [3067.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.756}, "reply_to": "15508__1_110", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_112", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3067.541], "stop_times": [3070.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.541}, "reply_to": "15508__1_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_113", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No request at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3070.125], "stop_times": [3071.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3070.125}, "reply_to": "15508__1_112", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_114", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "On the injunctive request, it was respect to what election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3071.053], "stop_times": [3074.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.053}, "reply_to": "15508__1_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_115", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "All with the respect to the 1968 Election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3074.528], "stop_times": [3078.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.528}, "reply_to": "15508__1_114", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_116", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What prayer did they grant then on?\nWhat prayer did they grant the injunction on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3078.006, 3081.48], "stop_times": [3081.48, 3084.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.006}, "reply_to": "15508__1_115", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_117", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "A motion for a temporary, mandatory --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3084.838], "stop_times": [3087.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.838}, "reply_to": "15508__1_116", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_118", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Where is that in the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3087.654], "stop_times": [3090.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.654}, "reply_to": "15508__1_117", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_119", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The motion, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3090.116], "stop_times": [3091.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.116}, "reply_to": "15508__1_118", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_120", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, where is the request for an injunction that they granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3091.615], "stop_times": [3094.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.615}, "reply_to": "15508__1_119", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_121", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It was page 14, on page 14.\nParagraph two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3094.475, 3097.533], "stop_times": [3097.533, 3113.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.475}, "reply_to": "15508__1_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__1_122", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Paragraph two on page 14, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3113.658], "stop_times": [3119.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.658}, "reply_to": "15508__1_121", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_123", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3119.809], "stop_times": [3123.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.809}, "reply_to": "15508__1_122", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_124", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And that was granted you did not take an appeal from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3123.908], "stop_times": [3126.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.908}, "reply_to": "15508__1_123", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_125", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3126.779], "stop_times": [3127.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.779}, "reply_to": "15508__1_124", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_126", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What is that, would you read that line?\nAnd the first line in paragraph two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3127.531, 3132.391], "stop_times": [3132.391, 3134.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.531}, "reply_to": "15508__1_125", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_127", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That the Court issues a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3134.691], "stop_times": [3138.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.691}, "reply_to": "15508__1_126", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_128", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And what does that word permanent injunction mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3138.925], "stop_times": [3143.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.925}, "reply_to": "15508__1_127", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_129", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It means they permanently tell the second.\nI think it means with respect of the in context in which it is brought up that the Secretary of State take and put the candidates on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3143.629, 3145.531], "stop_times": [3145.531, 3154.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3143.629}, "reply_to": "15508__1_128", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_130", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "For what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3154.944], "stop_times": [3155.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3154.944}, "reply_to": "15508__1_129", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_131", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "For the 1968 election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3155.72], "stop_times": [3157.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3155.72}, "reply_to": "15508__1_130", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_132", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What would permanent injunction, request for a permanent injunction mean to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3157.432], "stop_times": [3163.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3157.432}, "reply_to": "15508__1_131", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_133", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It means that he does it for all time with respect to the 1968 election.\nOnce the election occurs no -- there is nothing more to occur.\nThe aforesaid petition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3163.597, 3168.181, 3174.37], "stop_times": [3168.181, 3174.37, 3176.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3163.597}, "reply_to": "15508__1_132", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_134", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Where does it say with reference to that particular election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3176.363], "stop_times": [3178.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.363}, "reply_to": "15508__1_133", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_135", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, because it says to accept and file the aforesaid petition and that aforesaid petition only refers to the 1968 election and require the defendant Donovan include upon the ballot for the general election to be held on November 5, 1968.\nAnd they are on the name --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3178.615, 3197.655], "stop_times": [3197.655, 3198.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.615}, "reply_to": "15508__1_134", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_136", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What Section 5 as to where, on the next page, what is usually required in bills for injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3198.448], "stop_times": [3207.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.448}, "reply_to": "15508__1_135", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_137", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "For such further and all relief that the Court may deem equitable and proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3207.134], "stop_times": [3211.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3207.134}, "reply_to": "15508__1_136", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_138", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What do you think about that now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3211.208], "stop_times": [3213.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.208}, "reply_to": "15508__1_137", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_139", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I think it is a standard boilerplate phrase, which is put in every -- well, I don't think it has any meaning in of it self.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3213.422], "stop_times": [3219.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3213.422}, "reply_to": "15508__1_138", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_140", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, but I have used it many times in complaints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3219.526], "stop_times": [3222.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.526}, "reply_to": "15508__1_139", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_141", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I don't think it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3222.852], "stop_times": [3223.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3222.852}, "reply_to": "15508__1_140", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_142", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I always thought it meant that you are asking not only for that relief but for any other relief that is necessary to protect the rights they complained of.\nProtect the rights, what did you mean anything but that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3223.305, 3233.261], "stop_times": [3233.261, 3235.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.305}, "reply_to": "15508__1_141", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_143", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But if it does means that Your Honor, it means that to protect the rights within the context of the this case.\n(Voice Overlap) Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3235.606, 3242.063], "stop_times": [3242.063, 3244.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.606}, "reply_to": "15508__1_142", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_144", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is rather technical construction, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3244.64], "stop_times": [3247.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.64}, "reply_to": "15508__1_143", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_145", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I don't think so.\nI think yours is a rather liberal construction of the same phrase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3247.708, 3248.16], "stop_times": [3248.16, 3250.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3247.708}, "reply_to": "15508__1_144", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_146", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It might be and Court sometimes are liberal in protecting First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3250.974], "stop_times": [3257.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.974}, "reply_to": "15508__1_145", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_147", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You mean it's not as quicker this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3257.461], "stop_times": [3266.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.461}, "reply_to": "15508__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15508__1_148", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "In any event, Mr. Castner made a statement during his argument to the effect that they could have or couldn't or unable to make an amendment to the complaint which would have amended the prayer for relief.\nThere is no reason that that amendment could not have been made some time during the course of these proceedings but they chose not to and the motion was then made to dismiss and it was granted by the three-judge court and it is from that order that we are now before this Court.\nThe propriety of dismissing this lawsuit is perhaps the first and foremost issue before the Court and I respectfully submit that all of the factors taken together that the three-judge district court properly determined that there was no actual controversy between these parties and that this was not a case like the Moore v. Ogelvie decision of this Court within the last year which was capable of repetition and yet evading a review because I think even that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3266.017, 3281.134, 3305.077], "stop_times": [3281.134, 3305.077, 3336.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.017}, "reply_to": "15508__1_147", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_149", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, we reach that -- we reach even that question.\nWe don't reach if we don't have a jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3336.492, 3338.937], "stop_times": [3338.937, 3341.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.492}, "reply_to": "15508__1_148", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_150", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You do not have jurisdiction, Your Honor, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3341.17], "stop_times": [3343.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3341.17}, "reply_to": "15508__1_149", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_151", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "You don't even reach this first question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3343.611], "stop_times": [3345.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.611}, "reply_to": "15508__1_150", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_152", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3345.95], "stop_times": [3348.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.95}, "reply_to": "15508__1_151", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_153", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "One of the point of our proceedings according from all 14, there was no pleadings subsequent to that, wasn't it?\nThis amended complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3348.309, 3355.932], "stop_times": [3355.932, 3358.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.309}, "reply_to": "15508__1_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_154", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No because the -- that's correct, Your Honor.\nThe amended complaint, the motion to amend was granted on the same day that the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.\nThese were -- they're contained in the same order of the three-judge district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3358.636, 3360.405, 3367.897], "stop_times": [3360.405, 3367.897, 3373.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.636}, "reply_to": "15508__1_153", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_155", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Are you complaining that we don't have jurisdiction or that the court below didn't have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3373.365], "stop_times": [3379.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.365}, "reply_to": "15508__1_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_156", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Complaining that you do not at this stage have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3379.039], "stop_times": [3381.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3379.039}, "reply_to": "15508__1_155", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_157", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3381.293], "stop_times": [3382.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.293}, "reply_to": "15508__1_156", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_158", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Complaining that you do not have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3382.057], "stop_times": [3384.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3382.057}, "reply_to": "15508__1_157", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_159", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That we do not.\nWhy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3384.05, 3385.746], "stop_times": [3385.746, 3387.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.05}, "reply_to": "15508__1_158", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_160", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Because this Court to have jurisdiction it must be an appeal from a decision of a three-judge -- from an order required to be heard by a three-judge district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3387.103], "stop_times": [3399.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3387.103}, "reply_to": "15508__1_159", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_161", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Did it make an order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3399.832], "stop_times": [3401.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.832}, "reply_to": "15508__1_160", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_162", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, there was an order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3401.673], "stop_times": [3402.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3401.673}, "reply_to": "15508__1_161", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_163", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3402.336], "stop_times": [3403.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3402.336}, "reply_to": "15508__1_162", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_164", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That the communist candidates be placed upon the ballot but it is our position that if we did not need a three-judge district court below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3403.795], "stop_times": [3414.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3403.795}, "reply_to": "15508__1_163", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_165", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Or is that your ground that there should have been one judge instead of a three-judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3414.091], "stop_times": [3416.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.091}, "reply_to": "15508__1_164", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_166", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That's right.\nThat's one of the grounds and the other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3416.951, 3418.115], "stop_times": [3418.115, 3420.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3416.951}, "reply_to": "15508__1_165", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_167", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What is the other ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3420.191], "stop_times": [3421.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.191}, "reply_to": "15508__1_166", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_168", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The other ground is that this is not an appeal from an order granting a permanent injunction.\nThose are the two --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3421.173, 3426.823], "stop_times": [3426.823, 3429.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3421.173}, "reply_to": "15508__1_167", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_169", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Does it -- suppose it denies that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3429.603], "stop_times": [3434.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.603}, "reply_to": "15508__1_168", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_170", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Excuse me, that's denying a permanent injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3434.487], "stop_times": [3437.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3434.487}, "reply_to": "15508__1_169", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_171", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And you said, it does not grant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3437.284], "stop_times": [3438.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.284}, "reply_to": "15508__1_170", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_172", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I meant, it denied, I stand corrected.\nIt is though --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3438.752, 3441.304], "stop_times": [3441.304, 3443.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3438.752}, "reply_to": "15508__1_171", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_173", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Whether it amounts -- it amounts for that almost doesn't it into the dismissing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3443.123], "stop_times": [3448.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.123}, "reply_to": "15508__1_172", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_174", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, I don't think it is does because I don't see how it can amount to anything if there is no request for it, to begin with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3448.332], "stop_times": [3453.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3448.332}, "reply_to": "15508__1_173", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_175", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That's going back to another question as well in that request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3453.86], "stop_times": [3457.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3453.86}, "reply_to": "15508__1_174", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_176", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, but it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3457.179], "stop_times": [3457.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3457.179}, "reply_to": "15508__1_175", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_177", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "From my viewpoint, that depends on paragraph five not on paragraph two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3457.581], "stop_times": [3465.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.581}, "reply_to": "15508__1_176", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_178", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, that -- that could be although I don't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3465.094], "stop_times": [3468.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3465.094}, "reply_to": "15508__1_177", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_179", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, Mr. Kyle, assuming that the three-judge court would have turn this on ground that there was no request for an injunction.\nAs I read the opinion, it has turned on the ground it is no case controversy and you know are urging two grounds that they were right saying there is no case of controversy.\nAnd that we don't even have to reach that because there was no denial of injunction, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3468.216, 3474.843, 3485.086], "stop_times": [3474.843, 3485.086, 3490.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.216}, "reply_to": "15508__1_178", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15508__1_180", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3490.407], "stop_times": [3492.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3490.407}, "reply_to": "15508__1_179", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_181", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We don't have the benefit of any view of the three-judge court whether an injunction was requested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3492.93], "stop_times": [3500.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3492.93}, "reply_to": "15508__1_180", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15508__1_182", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, no because they simply viewed the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3500.031], "stop_times": [3502.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3500.031}, "reply_to": "15508__1_181", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_183", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And if we think that it was sufficiently requested that there was a denial here then I take it what we have to decide as whether they were right or wrong in holding that there was no case of controversy within Golden and Zwickler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3502.842], "stop_times": [3515.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3502.842}, "reply_to": "15508__1_182", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15508__1_184", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Assuming you also conclude that this was a type of case required to be heard by a three-judge court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3515.233], "stop_times": [3522.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3515.233}, "reply_to": "15508__1_183", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_185", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And now this amended position of yours, what do you mean -- what do you mean by \u201cthere's no case of controversy\u201d?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3522.831], "stop_times": [3531.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3522.831}, "reply_to": "15508__1_184", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_186", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I mean that as I read the decisions of this Court that it is required and under the declaratory judgment action that there must be a live controversy between --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3531.329], "stop_times": [3543.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3531.329}, "reply_to": "15508__1_185", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_187", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And there's not any here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3543.55], "stop_times": [3544.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3543.55}, "reply_to": "15508__1_186", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_188", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I don't think there is, Your Honor, notwithstanding the fact that we are standing before this Court.\nI think it is hypothetical at best as to whether these parties are ever going to be locked together on this issue again and I don't think that the pleadings or the past history of the party, the Communist Party, for that matter, support the likelihood of this occurring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3544.918, 3551.528], "stop_times": [3551.528, 3573.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3544.918}, "reply_to": "15508__1_187", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_189", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Did they purport to make this a class action in the pleadings, I have not -- (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3573.751], "stop_times": [3578.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3573.751}, "reply_to": "15508__1_188", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_190", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, they did Your Honor, with respect to class action, with respect to those who signed the nominating petition and those who did not sign the nominating petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3578.422], "stop_times": [3589.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3578.422}, "reply_to": "15508__1_189", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_191", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But as to future candidates and future elections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3589.196], "stop_times": [3593.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3589.196}, "reply_to": "15508__1_190", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_192", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, there's no reference, see there is no reference any place to future candidates or future elections.\nAnd with respect to the class actions, of course, this Court in Hall v. Beals which was dismissal of a suit in Colorado concerning its residency requirements.\nThe Colorado legislature, as I recall, amended that requirement during the course of litigation, so that the plaintiffs would qualified and I think -- I believe this Court said that in so doing the class of which the plaintiffs were members when the suite started disappeared because they were no longer eligible and I don't think we really have a class even of the plaintiffs here because these are plaintiffs who signed a nominating petition for the 1968 election or who did not sign the nominating petition for the 1968 election and that election having gone by, their status as class members, I think is very tenuous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3593.18, 3599.166, 3612.079], "stop_times": [3599.166, 3612.079, 3654.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3593.18}, "reply_to": "15508__1_191", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_193", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Are you familiar with the case earlier this term of the Court's I think arising out of Ohio in which we dismissed perhaps without much explanation but I wonder if we could indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3654.077], "stop_times": [3668.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3654.077}, "reply_to": "15508__1_192", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_194", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Brockington v. Rhodes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3668.003], "stop_times": [3669.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3668.003}, "reply_to": "15508__1_193", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_195", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "-- and then give some indication that this was a dismissal because there was no indication that these people were going to be candidates in the next election, is that something you have before you?\nI just wonder, if you're familiar with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3669.249, 3683.94], "stop_times": [3683.94, 3685.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3669.249}, "reply_to": "15508__1_194", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_196", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, if it's the case that I am thinking it is one in which he did not bring it as class action, it's Brockington v. Rhodes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3685.395], "stop_times": [3693.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3685.395}, "reply_to": "15508__1_195", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_197", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3693.186], "stop_times": [3694.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3693.186}, "reply_to": "15508__1_196", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_198", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "In which the Court does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3694.931], "stop_times": [3696.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3694.931}, "reply_to": "15508__1_197", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_199", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What's the name of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3696.458], "stop_times": [3697.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3696.458}, "reply_to": "15508__1_198", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_200", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Brockington.\nB-R-O-C-K--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3697.847, 3698.687], "stop_times": [3698.687, 3700.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3697.847}, "reply_to": "15508__1_199", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_201", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Where is that in your brief? Do you know at the moment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3700.313], "stop_times": [3710.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3700.313}, "reply_to": "15508__1_200", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__1_202", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I'm not sure that it is cited in the brief, Your Honor but it is 90 Supreme Court 206.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3710.177], "stop_times": [3716.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3710.177}, "reply_to": "15508__1_201", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_203", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What was the volume?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3716.08], "stop_times": [3717.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3716.08}, "reply_to": "15508__1_202", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__1_204", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "90 Supreme Court at page 206.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3717.686], "stop_times": [3728.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3717.686}, "reply_to": "15508__1_203", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_205", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, in this case, if there is evidence in formal letter that they do intend to keep doing for the Communist Party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3728.733], "stop_times": [3738.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3728.733}, "reply_to": "15508__1_204", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_206", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "There is evidence in the form of an affidavit by the Secretary of the Minnesota Communist Party that they intend to participate in future Minnesota local election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3738.485], "stop_times": [3753.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3738.485}, "reply_to": "15508__1_205", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_207", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Is there anything in the record that contradicts that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3753.357], "stop_times": [3755.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3753.357}, "reply_to": "15508__1_206", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_208", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3755.67], "stop_times": [3756.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3755.67}, "reply_to": "15508__1_207", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_209", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "So, that's not in the writing, which is different from Rhodes case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3756.375], "stop_times": [3762.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3756.375}, "reply_to": "15508__1_208", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__1_210", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt is for these reasons that we have taken the position Your Honor that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court and is failing to present an actual controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3762.276, 3769.588], "stop_times": [3769.588, 3783.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3762.276}, "reply_to": "15508__1_209", "speaker": "richard_h_kyle"}
{"id": "15508__1_211", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Thank you Mr. Kyle.\nMr. Castner you have few minutes left here.\nYou have about 10 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3783.983, 3785.196, 3790.003], "stop_times": [3785.196, 3790.003, 3797.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3783.983}, "reply_to": "15508__1_210", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__2_000", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I would like to speak first of the question of 1253 jurisdiction.\nAppellants urge that the Goldstein case is not applicable to this case.\nGoldstein said that the only interlocutory orders which the Court has power to review under 1253 are orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions.\nWe do not ask what the order did not deny a preliminary injunction.\nThe order of July of the three-judge court in this case was a final order.\nWe feel this is similar to Moore and a number of other cases where the need for injunctive relief though quite previously asked for has evaporated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3797.621, 3802.597, 3808.359, 3819.433, 3824.732, 3831.076], "stop_times": [3802.597, 3808.359, 3819.433, 3824.732, 3831.076, 3840.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3797.621}, "reply_to": "15508__1_211", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_001", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But what's the statute say 28 United States Code Section 1253.\nIt doesn't tell you, there's no question about that concerning whether it was final or not final, whether it is interlocutory of final where it's concerned of whether or not comes under the terms of that jurisdictional statute.\nIt appears on page two of appellees' brief.\nI think you know what it says.\nIt is kind of a rhetorical question of mine, that I have it before me and nobody answered.\nI did not end it.\nI'm sorry but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3840.878, 3845.654, 3859.517, 3863.2, 3865.064, 3888.36, 3890.103], "stop_times": [3845.654, 3859.517, 3863.2, 3865.064, 3888.36, 3890.103, 3892.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3840.878}, "reply_to": "15508__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_002", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The statute says for granting or denying an injunction, that's what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3892.385], "stop_times": [3898.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3892.385}, "reply_to": "15508__2_001", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_003", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3898.537], "stop_times": [3899.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3898.537}, "reply_to": "15508__2_002", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_004", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Interlocutory or permanent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3899.621], "stop_times": [3901.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3899.621}, "reply_to": "15508__2_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_005", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We asked --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3901.81], "stop_times": [3902.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3901.81}, "reply_to": "15508__2_004", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_006", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What injunction was denied in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3902.542], "stop_times": [3908.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3902.542}, "reply_to": "15508__2_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_007", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The original injunction that we asked for was a permanent injunction prior to the election.\nThis injunction was denied by the Court issuing a final order saying the case was moot and that there was not an --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3908.24, 3914.335], "stop_times": [3914.335, 3922.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3908.24}, "reply_to": "15508__2_006", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_008", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The injunction but rather the injunction you asked for was granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3922.161], "stop_times": [3925.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3922.161}, "reply_to": "15508__2_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_009", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "It was one of three types of injunctions we asked for.\nWe asked for a temporary restraining which was denied, for a temporary injunction which was granted, and for a permanent injunction which was not granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3925.646, 3928.254], "stop_times": [3928.254, 3936.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3925.646}, "reply_to": "15508__2_008", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_010", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What was the permanent injunction that you asked for and please show it in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3936.81], "stop_times": [3942.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3936.81}, "reply_to": "15508__2_009", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_011", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Prior to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3942.731], "stop_times": [3944.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3942.731}, "reply_to": "15508__2_010", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_012", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "On page 14 is your injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3944.926], "stop_times": [3946.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3944.926}, "reply_to": "15508__2_011", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_013", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "-- of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3946.931], "stop_times": [3947.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3946.931}, "reply_to": "15508__2_012", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_014", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "What you asked for in paragraph two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3947.609], "stop_times": [3956.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3947.609}, "reply_to": "15508__2_013", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_015", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "The Court issues a permanent injunction requiring the Defendant Secretary of State Joseph Donovan to accept and file the petition for nomination as required by the statutes and required that Donovan include upon the ballot the names of Mitchell and Zagarell.\nThe permanent injunction we asked for, we urge is the only relief we could have asked for prior to the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3956.098, 3975.316], "stop_times": [3975.316, 3981.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3956.098}, "reply_to": "15508__2_014", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_016", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Aren't you bound on what you ask for here?\nNumber one, you asked for a specific people, the Secretary of State and the 1968 election.\nNow, you wanted to form an injunction you receive, any Secretary of State in any election, any time in the future.\nYou didn't ask for anything more than that the Secretary of State by name Joseph L. Donovan, accept this petition and that he'd be permanently enjoined from not accepting it for 1968, isn't that what you asked for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [3981.254, 3984.671, 3997.326, 4007.408], "stop_times": [3984.671, 3997.326, 4007.408, 4031.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3981.254}, "reply_to": "15508__2_015", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_017", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is what we asked for prior to the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4031.332], "stop_times": [4032.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4031.332}, "reply_to": "15508__2_016", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_018", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And you wouldn't deny it.\nNow, what did you ask for in injunctive relief after that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4032.741, 4035.488], "stop_times": [4035.488, 4041.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4032.741}, "reply_to": "15508__2_017", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_019", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4041.385], "stop_times": [4042.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4041.385}, "reply_to": "15508__2_018", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_020", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well, then how are you here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4042.886], "stop_times": [4044.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4042.886}, "reply_to": "15508__2_019", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_021", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We amended the complaint and we feel that rule 54 is broad enough and clear that for such other and further relief that we are entitled to a permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4044.37], "stop_times": [4056.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4044.37}, "reply_to": "15508__2_020", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_022", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Well then, if you filed a case in which you asked for a two declaratory judgments and for such of them further relief, you think you'd get under this Act?\nThis is a special Act and requires precise proceedings and I don't think you can say under further relief.\nWhere are you going to get your permanent injunction from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4056.865, 4068.645, 4082.797], "stop_times": [4068.645, 4082.797, 4086.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4056.865}, "reply_to": "15508__2_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_023", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "We are at this Court to issue the permanent injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4086.177], "stop_times": [4089.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4086.177}, "reply_to": "15508__2_022", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_024", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Oh that is, I guess was that under the All Writs statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4089.218], "stop_times": [4093.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4089.218}, "reply_to": "15508__2_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_025", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Pardon me, Mr. Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4093.95], "stop_times": [4094.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4093.95}, "reply_to": "15508__2_024", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_026", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Under the All Writs statute, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4094.353], "stop_times": [4096.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4094.353}, "reply_to": "15508__2_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_027", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4096.448], "stop_times": [4097.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4096.448}, "reply_to": "15508__2_026", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_028", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yeah.\nThanks for the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4097.126, 4098.381], "stop_times": [4098.381, 4101.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4097.126}, "reply_to": "15508__2_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15508__2_029", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Now, tell me Mr. Castner, I noticed that the opening sentence the three-judge court decision is that we considers ourselves here with the propriety entertaining that which the plaintiffs seeking declaratory relief based on issues arising, are we doing first that to at least the three-judge court would not regard it but was there any law before them in the application for some mootness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4101.981], "stop_times": [4131.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4101.981}, "reply_to": "15508__2_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__2_030", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "And at that point in time the issues before them were a motion to amend the complaint and a motion to dismiss.\nThe Court characterizes the nature of relief as asking for declaratory relief.\nWe urge that once a three-judge court has properly convened and has jurisdiction and we feel the three judges below properly decided they had jurisdiction under 1983 that once the need for the immediate injunctive relief passes that declaratory relief is sufficient to continue the jurisdiction of the three-judge court.\nWe feel this was the situation in Moore v. Ogelvie.\nIt was the situation in Zwickler and Koota and in that case the fact that it was moot is a separate issue from whether there is jurisdiction to appeal from the three-judge court.\nIn Zwickler, the need for injunctive relief had passed and the Court, this Court accepted jurisdiction on the remaining declaratory relief.\nWe also feel there was no need although we did ask for injunctive relief, there are cases which support the proposition that reached --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4131.292, 4139.514, 4145.627, 4166.589, 4169.569, 4180.823, 4203.308], "stop_times": [4139.514, 4145.627, 4166.589, 4169.569, 4180.823, 4203.308, 4212.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4131.292}, "reply_to": "15508__2_029", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_031", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is to say that even that the three-judge court have not reached the conclusion with no cases actually, he would have concluded that there was a case and that they may have limited relief to the declaratory relief and under the courtroom, that was perfectly proper if it attack the fact that it was the three-judge court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4212.481], "stop_times": [4238.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4212.481}, "reply_to": "15508__2_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__2_032", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct, we feel more and Ogelvie stands for the same proposition.\nAs to the question of case or controversy, we feel that the three cases cited to this Court and discussed Brockington and Rhodes, Hall and Beals, and Golden versus Zwickler are not applicable to our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4238.175, 4248.006], "stop_times": [4248.006, 4261.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4238.175}, "reply_to": "15508__2_031", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_033", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "This Hall and Beals is the Colorado case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4261.593], "stop_times": [4263.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4261.593}, "reply_to": "15508__2_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15508__2_034", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Yes, it is.\nIn that case, this Court mooted the case because the Colorado legislature had amended the statute after review, I'm sorry, amended the statute under review after the Court had noted probable jurisdiction.\nIn Brockington, the case was moot because the petitioner had requested only mandamus, which could not be granted after the election and he did not alleged that he intended to run for office in the future.\nHe did not sue for himself and others similarly situated.\nIt was not class action as this is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4263.596, 4264.716, 4278.213, 4290.14, 4293.055], "stop_times": [4264.716, 4278.213, 4290.14, 4293.055, 4296.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4263.596}, "reply_to": "15508__2_033", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_035", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Beside the feeling up here, do you feel that the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4296.093], "stop_times": [4299.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4296.093}, "reply_to": "15508__2_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_036", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, we did not.\nWe feel that if -- have Judge Devitt and the three-judge court ruled that dissolved and found no jurisdiction.\nWell, we feel then the proper remedy was to go to the Court of Appeals but the three-judge court did not disturb the jurisdiction in the original case and only dismissed the case because of want of an actual controversy.\nIn an election situation, which we feel is unique, we are in round-robin of going to the Court, having the election passed and then coming back down to the lower court and raising the same issues in the (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4299.578, 4301.545, 4311.736, 4323.835], "stop_times": [4301.545, 4311.736, 4323.835, 4336.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4299.578}, "reply_to": "15508__2_035", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_037", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "But that didn't happen to you.\nIn this case, you got exactly the relief you asked for with respect to the election for which you asked it.\nIsn't that correct?\nYou didn't get caught in a round-robin in the court, the three-judge district court gave you exactly the relief you asked for with respect to the 1968 election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4336.157, 4337.12, 4343.459, 4346.043], "stop_times": [4337.12, 4343.459, 4346.043, 4353.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4336.157}, "reply_to": "15508__2_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_038", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, we asked for a declaratory judgment, they refused to reach the merits because of a want of an actual controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4353.505], "stop_times": [4360.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4353.505}, "reply_to": "15508__2_037", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_039", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Relief you wanted to get the names of your people on the ballot.\nThey were put on the ballot.\nUnless, I'm mistaken about what happened in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4360.989, 4363.866, 4368.2], "stop_times": [4363.866, 4368.2, 4369.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4360.989}, "reply_to": "15508__2_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_040", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, but we disagree as to the effect of that type of relief.\nWe feel this Court does have in an election situation of a 1253 jurisdiction to review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4369.869, 4373.971], "stop_times": [4373.971, 4380.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4369.869}, "reply_to": "15508__2_039", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_041", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "No, I'm not, I was merely talking about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4380.77], "stop_times": [4385.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4380.77}, "reply_to": "15508__2_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15508__2_042", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Let me make one or two more points.\nA question was raised as to whether it would be required by us to have a future -- a class action alleging future elections.\nWe feel that this would be an unfair requirement to ask a party to pick candidates in the future to run for elections to show that there is an actual controversy or that they intend to run for elections.\nThe Communist Party itself, the political party, is an appellant in this case and the party has maintained that it will run for future elections.\nWe don't feel that it need be required to pick particular candidates for elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4385.302, 4394.4, 4404.671, 4417.597, 4426.694], "stop_times": [4394.4, 4404.671, 4417.597, 4426.694, 4433.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4385.302}, "reply_to": "15508__2_041", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_043", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Would you mean they don't have to be identified in advance except by class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4433.345], "stop_times": [4438.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4433.345}, "reply_to": "15508__2_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__2_044", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4438.964], "stop_times": [4439.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4438.964}, "reply_to": "15508__2_043", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_045", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "I just wanted to be sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4439.542], "stop_times": [4451.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4439.542}, "reply_to": "15508__2_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15508__2_046", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "One last point, we feel that the question of granting of declaratory relief after the need for an injunction is passed is founded in the number of decisions.\nUnited States v. 149 Gift Packages, the Court considered a case of libel against Gift Packages by the Government alleging them to be misbranded.\nThe answer did not deny misbranding but filed a counterclaim which attacked the statute as unconstitutional.\nIn that case, as well as a number of other cited in the appellant's brief, declaratory relief was granted after the necessity for injunctive relief had passed and the three-judge court jurisdiction was sustained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4451.013, 4465.676, 4476.14, 4481.952], "stop_times": [4465.676, 4476.14, 4481.952, 4494.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4451.013}, "reply_to": "15508__2_045", "speaker": "lynn_s_castner"}
{"id": "15508__2_047", "conversation_id": "15508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Castner.\nThank you, Mr. Kyle.\nCase is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_726", "start_times": [4494.104, 4495.497, 4496.795], "stop_times": [4495.497, 4496.795, 4499.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4494.104}, "reply_to": "15508__2_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_000", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Next case is number 127, Monks against New Jersey.\nMr. Amsterdam, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [0.0, 38.495], "stop_times": [38.495, 44.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_001", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe principal question presented in this case is one that is entirely familiar to the Court.\nIt is the question which this Court has wrestled with frequently, for better than 35 years, whether in a state criminal proceeding or in this instance a juvenile delinquency proceeding resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment, a defendant's confession was inadmissible in evidence because involuntarily obtained by the police.\nThis case arises prior to the cutoff date of Escobedo and of Miranda.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [44.383, 50.277, 59.304, 91.17], "stop_times": [50.277, 59.304, 91.17, 98.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.383}, "reply_to": "15141__0_000", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_002", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "You make no Miranda argument, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [98.588], "stop_times": [101.459], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 98.588}, "reply_to": "15141__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15141__0_003", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "There is no Miranda argument Mr. Justice Harlan at all in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [101.459], "stop_times": [105.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.459}, "reply_to": "15141__0_002", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_004", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [105.481], "stop_times": [108.214], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 105.481}, "reply_to": "15141__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15141__0_005", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The issue of admissibility of the confession is entirely the traditional one of voluntariness and for that reason it turns on all of the factual circumstances of the case.\nIt is for that reason that in our brief I have tried you set forth in all of the detail that the Court might wish, the exact factual circumstances under which the confession was obtained.\nAs I understand the state's position, in its brief, it initially asserts that it agrees with all of petitioner's factual statements.\nHowever, in the argument portion of its brief, it does make certain factual assertions with which we are in disagreement.\nThere are half dozen of those and I mean to advert to them specifically in my presentation because I think the most important aspect of this case is the facts.\nWe begin with what is clearly a major factor in the case and that is the petitioner's age.\nAt the time of his detention, interrogation and confession, he was a 15-year old, to be exact, 15 years and four months old.\nThe state of course does not contest that, but it does make three factual assertions in that regard which I wish to bring to the Court's attention.\nFirst, it characterizes the petitioner as above average, and indicates that he had an intelligence beyond his mere age.\nThe state sights nothing in the record for either these propositions.\nThe Court will find nothing in the record to support either of these propositions and as I take it, it is an inference of the respondent to run from nothing other than the fact that the petitioner managed the hold out for a goodly time under sustained police questioning.\nThe second factual matter raised by the state in connection with the petitioner's individual characteristics is that he was as the state puts it, court wise or already placed in its brief a hardened juvenile criminal.\nAgain, the record shows no such thing.\nThe facts in this regard are set forth in our brief at page 46 in the footnote 59.\nThe trial record here shows only that the petitioner previous to this detention and interrogation had been a probationer of the juvenile Court.\nIt does not show what caused him to be a probationer of juvenile Court and it does not show what context, if any, he had had with the police incident to becoming a probationer for juvenile Court.\nThere are however psychiatric reports in this record, one of which we advert to in that footnote which shows that as of a time three months prior to his detention, the only run ins that he had had with the police were a minor pilfering incidents, stealing flashlight and jacket from a car, a broken window incident and some misconduct at school.\nIn reviewing the record for this argument, I notice that I omitted from that footnote that the same diagnostic report also indicates a charge of waywardness, whatever that may be, some time prior to 1953 when he would have been 11 or 12.\nAgain, no indication is to whether he had dealings with the police in that connection and for the sake of completeness, I simply want to bring to the Court's attention that there's another psychiatric report made later after his present juvenile commitment in which under Sodium Amatol interviews and a Methedrine interview at the state diagnostic center.\nThe petitioner also adverted to two additional contacts with the police, however, this came out under Amatol.\nIt is quite unclear what these contacts were and there is no objective verification of this Amatol material.\nIn any event, he hardly has shown by this record to be a hardened juvenile criminal.\nFinally, the state says that the petitioner was and I quote \u201cfamiliar with the ability to take refuge in silence.\u201d\nThat is a carefully phrased statement to the extent that it seems to assert that there is anything in this record showing that the petitioner knew anything about his privilege against self-incrimination or his right to resist police questioning.\nIt is again totally unfounded in the record.\nThe only material cited by the state to support it is a statement that at one time the petitioner was in fact totally silent during five minutes of particularly sustained police questioning.\nNo indication that he knew of his right to maintain and retain that silence.\nSo, I think what we end up with in terms of the personality in nature of this petitioner is that he was simply a 15-year old boy.\nI cannot honestly claim that there is anything in the record indicating that he is subnormal, but I think there is certainly nothing in the record to indicate that he is super normal in any regard.\nWe turn then to what happened to this 15-year old boy.\nFirst, it is undisputed that prior to the interrogation which lead to his confessions he was detained without access to friends, family, or an attorney for a 10-day period.\nNow, I am quick to admit that this detention has none of the aggravating trappings, that have sometimes attached the cases coming to this Court, no shuttling around from police station to police station in that sort of thing.\nHe was simply detained in the juvenile home and he was questioned by the police on four occasions; one, immediately after his arrest then several days later after an intervening weekend when the police detention on him focused in connection with these cases, then as soon as a lie detector expert could be gotten and finally, several days later on the day in which he confessed.\nThe important thing however, about that detention, there are I think two important things about the detention.\nFirst, it shows a very considerable callousness on the part of the police and the juvenile authorities and indicates that they were far more concern with their investigation than they were with this 15-year old's welfare and that of his family.\nHe had been away from home prior to his arrest.\nHis mother had called the police and had called the juvenile authorities and she had made continuing inquiries of them and had been assured that as soon as he was picked up he would be brought home.\nIn fact, when he was picked up, he was detained for 10 full days and his mother never learned that he was in custody until the newspapers printed that he had confessed.\nNow, the state suggests and here is the fourth matter on which we are in factual disagreement that the reason why Monks never saw his parents during this period was that he didn't want them.\nAgain, the record has absolutely no support for this proposition.\nIt seems to be an inference from the fact that at the time of his arrest he was living away from home.\nHowever, as I have indicated, his mother had made steps to find him both through the police and through the juvenile authorities.\nThey knew that very well and never got into touch with her, but if it were so that Monks was so far from his parents that he felt that not even that, not even his mother and his father could be called to help him in this situation.\nIt seems to me that speaks not strength and not a factor which supported this boy in his ordeal with the police, but rather the converse.\nPassing from that aspect of the continued detention to another --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [108.214, 122.561, 138.29, 152.588, 163.191, 177.295, 188.23, 201.113, 212.545, 224.602, 230.069, 250.236, 269.132, 273.808, 280.431, 290.39, 302.782, 327.769, 346.069, 369.956, 378.609, 386.869, 392.358, 408.608, 421.594, 425.929, 443.89, 449.493, 458.744, 469.684, 476.109, 492.812, 507.396, 532.071, 539.044, 556.155, 559.022, 570.991, 582.97, 595.39, 600.906, 607.25, 615.091, 633.957, 646.963], "stop_times": [122.561, 138.29, 152.588, 163.191, 177.295, 188.23, 201.113, 212.545, 224.602, 230.069, 250.236, 269.132, 273.808, 280.431, 290.39, 302.782, 327.769, 346.069, 369.956, 378.609, 386.869, 392.358, 408.608, 421.594, 425.929, 443.89, 449.493, 458.744, 469.684, 476.109, 492.812, 507.396, 532.071, 539.044, 556.155, 559.022, 570.991, 582.97, 595.39, 600.906, 607.25, 615.091, 633.957, 646.963, 654.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.214}, "reply_to": "15141__0_004", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_006", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "If this is a good breaking point for you Mr. Amsterdam, we'll --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [654.363], "stop_times": [658.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.363}, "reply_to": "15141__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_007", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "It is Mr. Chief Justice I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [658.774], "stop_times": [659.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.774}, "reply_to": "15141__0_006", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_008", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "-- suspend now.\nYou may continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [659.467, 662.866], "stop_times": [662.866, 665.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.467}, "reply_to": "15141__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_009", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIf the Court please, prior to the recess I had noted the petitioner's 10-day detention prior to the interrogation that produced this confession.\nThe most important result of that 10-day detention is that in fact and to petitioner's appearance, he as completely subject to the will of the police throughout that period.\nHe was not being detained for some fixed time after which he would appear in Court.\nIn fact and as far as he knew the police could hold him and question him whenever they pleased until he confessed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [665.304, 667.733, 679.205, 694.65, 699.785], "stop_times": [667.733, 679.205, 694.65, 699.785, 707.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.304}, "reply_to": "15141__0_008", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_010", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Let me get that time sequence clearer in my mind now Mr. Amsterdam.\nHe was in a juvenile detention home at this period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [707.168, 712.6], "stop_times": [712.6, 716.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.168}, "reply_to": "15141__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_011", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He was in a juvenile detention home for this 10-day period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [716.326], "stop_times": [719.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.326}, "reply_to": "15141__0_010", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_012", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Now, the -- our police -- does the record show whether the police are regularly stationed there or whether they came intermittently and left to just talk with him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [719.913], "stop_times": [731.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.913}, "reply_to": "15141__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_013", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "They -- there is no indication that they are regularly stationed there.\nWhen he was arrested and before he was taken to the juvenile home he was questioned for several hours by the police.\nIndeed, he was questioned from 1 am when he was arrested till noon the following day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [731.139, 735.701, 741.15], "stop_times": [735.701, 741.15, 745.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.139}, "reply_to": "15141__0_012", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_014", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I just want to be sure we didn't have a 10-day police station detention and then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [745.038], "stop_times": [749.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.038}, "reply_to": "15141__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_015", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, we do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [749.779], "stop_times": [750.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.779}, "reply_to": "15141__0_014", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_016", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [750.819], "stop_times": [751.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.819}, "reply_to": "15141__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_017", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "We have only two days of police interrogation in the intervening period after the first police interrogation and prior to the day of his confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [751.547], "stop_times": [759.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.547}, "reply_to": "15141__0_016", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_018", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Does it appear why they picked him up Mr. Armsterdam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [759.84], "stop_times": [762.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.84}, "reply_to": "15141__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__0_019", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, he was arrested in connection with two unrelated purse snatchings to which he admitted immediately.\nHowever, he was being held from all appearances for questioning on these offenses because the police officers had their attention called immediately to a similarity of modus between the crimes.\nAnd on the Monday following the Saturday of his arrest, they began to question him on these two particular offenses.\nThey applied to the juvenile Court for leave to do so, they were granted leave to do so and they began to do so.\nNow, here we come to perhaps one additional factual matter in which we're in disagreement with the state because we believe that the implication to him was obvious, that he simply had no right to refuse to answer police questions and that the police would persevere in holding him and questioning him until he broke and confessed.\nThe state asserts in its brief that the police in fact gave petitioner warnings of his right to remain silent at one point.\nThe state citation to support that assertion refers entirely to a warning given after the petitioner had been questioned on three days and during 12 hours on the 3rd day without any warning or caution of any sort from the police at any time.\nIt is undisputed that he was never given any warning throughout the interrogation until he had twice orally confessed to the offenses.\nAt that point and just prior to the formal transcription of statements, he was told we are going to ask you to make a voluntary statement which you may make or you may not make as you please and that is the sum total of the warnings on this record.\nI want to make absolutely clear that he did not know and was not told at any time anything contrary to the clear indication presented by the police continual questioning that he simply was going to have to answer.\nNow, I come then to the final critical date and time is very important.\nAt 7 am he was up, before 7 am he was up because he had breakfast at 7.\nAt, 10 am police questioning began.\nThe confessions were completed and signed at 1 am the following day, 15 full hours after the interrogation began.\nNow, during this time, he was -- no, for one minute out of the presence of two or three police officers except when he was being interrogated by a polygraph operator, never, during these 15 hours did he see or speak to anybody other than his interrogators.\nThe actual amount of direct interrogation of questioning of him is unclear as it always is in these cases, but by the police admissions, the minimum possible time that he could have been under direct questioning was six and a half or seven hours.\nAnd that account of the time leaves several unexplained gaps in the day as is invariable with testimony regarding to these -- regarding matters of this sort.\nWhat is very important is that this record makes clear as no other record I have ever seen in this Court, what was going on throughout the 15 hours because it is misleading to imagine that only six and a half of that or seven of that involved investigation or interrogation?\nThe point is that throughout the entire 15-hour period he was subject to the stresses and pressures of the interrogative process.\nWhile he was not being questioned, he was being confronted with his friends who were brought in to say that he had made admissions to them.\nThey were undergoing polygraph testing while he waited outside the room to see what the result of that testing would be.\nHe was driven around to the scene of the offenses.\nHe was told to sit and wait while the police officers left him, went across the room and in his presence discussed what they were going to do next.\nAll of this time he was undergoing ongoing process of police interrogation.\nSo that the 15 hours I think have to be seen as a block under which this 15 year old boy was subjected to the interrogative process and all of its pressures.\nWhat is equally important is that he persisted from the very beginning in denying these offenses.\nThis is not one of these threshold confessions by anyone.\nThe inquiry here is whether he voluntarily confessed, whether he willfully confessed.\nNow, for two days of questioning he did not.\nFor 12 hours in the third day of questioning he did not.\nHe confessed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [762.792, 769.621, 781.227, 787.472, 792.725, 812.105, 822.572, 846.352, 856.815, 869.588, 883.429, 893.609, 899.143, 902.416, 912.751, 933.189, 950.275, 960.631, 977.678, 985.581, 993.232, 999.501, 1004.077, 1016.141, 1021.843, 1035.089, 1044.503, 1048.559, 1055.715, 1059.03, 1064.205], "stop_times": [769.621, 781.227, 787.472, 792.725, 812.105, 822.572, 846.352, 856.815, 869.588, 883.429, 893.609, 899.143, 902.416, 912.751, 933.189, 950.275, 960.631, 977.678, 985.581, 993.232, 999.501, 1004.077, 1016.141, 1021.843, 1035.089, 1044.503, 1048.559, 1055.715, 1059.03, 1064.205, 1065.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.792}, "reply_to": "15141__0_018", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_020", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Would you eliminate the confession, it's about the date or mere judgment with the record that -- though enough to convict him apart from his confession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1065.227], "stop_times": [1074.012], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.227}, "reply_to": "15141__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15141__0_021", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "There is nothing, not only not enough Mr. Justice Harlan, there is no evidence literally pointing to his guilt other than his confessions, absolutely none.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1074.012, 1084.627], "stop_times": [1084.627, 1085.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.012}, "reply_to": "15141__0_020", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_022", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "We never had a case I guess, have we, in which the person interrogated has had assigned to him by the juvenile Court somebody like this man Jermalowics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1085.181], "stop_times": [1099.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.181}, "reply_to": "15141__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_023", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Never, and that is the one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1099.616], "stop_times": [1100.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.616}, "reply_to": "15141__0_022", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_024", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Probation officer, all the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1100.921], "stop_times": [1102.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.921}, "reply_to": "15141__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_025", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And that is the one legal wrinkle and that makes this case different from any other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1102.918], "stop_times": [1106.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.918}, "reply_to": "15141__0_024", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_026", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "It's now a wrinkle, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1106.344], "stop_times": [1107.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.344}, "reply_to": "15141__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_027", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1107.635], "stop_times": [1109.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.635}, "reply_to": "15141__0_026", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_028", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "There in -- we haven't had a case involving the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1109.361], "stop_times": [1111.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.361}, "reply_to": "15141__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_029", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Stewart, not that I know of.\nI mean to come to that because I think that is nub of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1111.363, 1114.004], "stop_times": [1114.004, 1119.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.363}, "reply_to": "15141__0_028", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_030", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Amsterdam, didn't -- you say no other evidence, what about his admissions to his friends?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1119.588], "stop_times": [1127.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.588}, "reply_to": "15141__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__0_031", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "They relate to the Wise affair which is an affair that's not now an issue because the -- there are two charges here, its so called Wise affair and the Giambra affair.\nThe Wise affair, he's already fully served all the time, he can legally under New Jersey law, the only thing that is in contention here is Giambra.\nNow, with regard to Giambra, there is one other confession, that is a confession or an admission rather made to not a friend but an inmate in the juvenile home following and clearly derivative of all the confessions that are in contention here.\nOne could not find on this record that that confession was not derivative of these.\nIf these confessions fall that admission clearly must fall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1127.543, 1140.697, 1147.148, 1162.487, 1168.031], "stop_times": [1140.697, 1147.148, 1162.487, 1168.031, 1171.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.543}, "reply_to": "15141__0_030", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_032", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Now, why do you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1171.109], "stop_times": [1172.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.109}, "reply_to": "15141__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__0_033", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Because of his testimony; he was explicitly asked on cross examination by the District Attorney, well, why did you tell Covan in the receiving home that had done it.\nHe said, I've been denying it all along, I admitted it to them and the cat was out of the bag.\nI then admitted it to everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1172.897, 1184.682, 1189.928], "stop_times": [1184.682, 1189.928, 1193.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.897}, "reply_to": "15141__0_032", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_034", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But it doesn't necessary follow that any admission following a coerced confession, is always coerced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1193.721], "stop_times": [1202.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1193.721}, "reply_to": "15141__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__0_035", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I think that the clear implication of this Court's holding in Robinson v. Tennessee adopting Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion in Darwin is that the state at least has the burden after a first involuntary confession is given of showing that the subsequent confession is not tainted by it and is not involuntary.\nNo such showing is possible or could be made on this record.\nI do not assert that it could not be made.\nI assert that on this record it is not made.\nNow, what actually went on in the course of the police questioning --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1202.123, 1225.714, 1228.243, 1230.888, 1234.391], "stop_times": [1225.714, 1228.243, 1230.888, 1234.391, 1239.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.123}, "reply_to": "15141__0_034", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_036", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Before you go on Mr. Amsterdam, let me see if I could clear up another matter.\nWas there anything in the description given by this woman before her death, before she died that links him up with the attack?\nShe said it was a man on a brown leather -- dark leather jacket, was -- any follow up on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1239.35, 1243.267, 1255.519], "stop_times": [1243.267, 1255.519, 1262.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.35}, "reply_to": "15141__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__0_037", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "This might follow up.\nAgain, all of these matters here are detailed in the appendix to the petitioner's brief.\nThe follow up is simply this, that petitioner did in fact have a black leather jacket.\nThe victim's description was a man, and this is a 15 year old boy, in a -- now, it's unclear what she said.\nThe officer first said she said dark leather jacket but then remembered that somebody had said she said brown leather jacket, Monk's jacket was black and the jacket was equally tainted by the confession.\nThe jacket was disclosed immediately following the confession under Wong Sun, there would be no question whatever that the jacket would fall so that the only follow up again derives immediately from the confession.\nWhen I speak of there being no independent evidence of quilt, I mean no independent of this, both the telling admission and the jacket fall with this confession, but in any event, the probative value of the defendant having a black jacket and the victim saying that she was hurt by a man with the dark jacket is virtually no.\nNow, what in fact happened throughout the course of this interrogation was that the defendant simply refused, resisted any efforts to get him to talk.\nHe was during this 15 hours subjected to confrontations by friends in connection with the Wise matter, put on a lie detector nine times, was confronted with a prior admission in the Wise matter being knew that it was snowing on the day the Wise offense and was subjected to every kind of blandishment by the police that you can't fool God type of questioning, that you will feel better for it, the sit me corner and search your conscience type of thing and as I say on and off questioning by the police and then the lie detector and back to the police and back to the lie detector.\nNow, I come to Mr. Justice Stewart's question about the probation officer because I think that this case would so clearly be a case of coerced confession, it wouldn't even be up here, if it weren't for the probation officer.\nWhat the Court below, both Court's below seem to have done is to rely exclusively on the presence of the probation officer to distinguish this case from Haley, and as I read the respondent's brief almost exclusive reliance is placed on the probation officer there too.\nSo, the question narrows down to this, whether where the interrogation itself which the probation officer was present at and did not stop, clearly makes a case of coercion under Haley, whether his mere presence doing nothing changes the result and somehow makes the confession voluntary.\nNow in that regard, I have several specific factual points.\nOne; the probation officer was simply not there during the critical times.\nAlthough, he had been instructed by the Court to be present when the petitioner was interrogated by the officers, he seems to have construed this as not including the polygraph operator.\nWith the result that the three and a half hours of interrogation that went on, on the 26th alone, the critical day alone by the polygraph operator during one of which he finally broke and started to make the confession the Giambra confession, these were sessions where the probation officer was not present.\nWhen he finally did break, who was brought in?\nNot the probation officer, but the investigating detective and he then proceeded to make his initial confession to the detective again out of the presence of the probation officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1262.176, 1263.496, 1269.109, 1275.365, 1283.852, 1294.541, 1306.913, 1325.267, 1334.45, 1373.126, 1385.361, 1399.822, 1419.937, 1423.877, 1431.079, 1442.029, 1461.549, 1464.874], "stop_times": [1263.496, 1269.109, 1275.365, 1283.852, 1294.541, 1306.913, 1325.267, 1334.45, 1373.126, 1385.361, 1399.822, 1419.937, 1423.877, 1431.079, 1442.029, 1461.549, 1464.874, 1474.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.176}, "reply_to": "15141__0_036", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_038", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Where was Chester Jermalowics during this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1474.667], "stop_times": [1476.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.667}, "reply_to": "15141__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_039", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1476.98], "stop_times": [1477.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1476.98}, "reply_to": "15141__0_038", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_040", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Where was Chester Jermalowics?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1477.425], "stop_times": [1479.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.425}, "reply_to": "15141__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_041", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1479.555], "stop_times": [1480.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.555}, "reply_to": "15141__0_040", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_042", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Where was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1480.233], "stop_times": [1481.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.233}, "reply_to": "15141__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_043", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Whe -- where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1481.547], "stop_times": [1482.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.547}, "reply_to": "15141__0_042", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_044", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, he'd been directed by the Court as we know to be present, where was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1482.523], "stop_times": [1488.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.523}, "reply_to": "15141__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_045", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I simply assume that he didn't regard the polygraph operator as a detective.\nI can't understand why he wasn't present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1488.258, 1494.392], "stop_times": [1494.392, 1496.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.258}, "reply_to": "15141__0_044", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_046", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And the record doesn't show where he was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1496.913], "stop_times": [1499.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.913}, "reply_to": "15141__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__0_047", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Oh, I'm sorry, he was in the next room, as he says.\nThat is this -- the questioning went on in what appears to be in a small room, in any room to the grand jury.\nHe was in the next room.\nNo indication as to whether one could hear and in fact the door was closed so one would suppose that he couldn't hear in and was not supporting by his presence, the petitioner in any way.\nNow, the respondent states that the state Courts below made what the respondent calls express findings that the probation officer's presence was a restraining influence on the police.\nLet me make that very clear.\nThe state Courts below made no such express findings and could not on this record have done so.\nWhat the state courts did was simply to rely on the fact that he was assigned by the Court and was sometimes there as making his confession voluntary.\nIt made no findings that he had any impact on the police and indeed no findings of that sort could be made because he never said a word, never stopped the police from doing anything, never interjected, there's no testimony by the police that they regarded him as a restraining influence in short, he was simply there.\nMore importantly, the petitioner was never told that he was there to protect him.\nHe knew that he was a probation officer but a juvenile's view of a juvenile probation officer clearly allies him with the police and there was no suggestion communicated to Monks that he was there in protective role.\nIn addition to that, I think this point is exceedingly important.\nThat when it came to trial, the probation officer was not a supportive or a friendly figure.\nHe was hostile to the petitioner, he was heedless of the facts dealing the circumstances of the confession.\nHe admitted he didn't listen to any of the details of the questioning or the answers.\nHe simply regarded his own role, protection of himself as what was important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1499.123, 1503.056, 1508.096, 1510.152, 1519.48, 1532.947, 1534.223, 1538.722, 1547.088, 1563.875, 1569.761, 1581.198, 1588.733, 1598.404, 1604.187, 1608.538], "stop_times": [1503.056, 1508.096, 1510.152, 1519.48, 1532.947, 1534.223, 1538.722, 1547.088, 1563.875, 1569.761, 1581.198, 1588.733, 1598.404, 1604.187, 1608.538, 1614.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1499.123}, "reply_to": "15141__0_046", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_048", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Is there anything in the record as to whether or not he told the petitioner he was there to help him or, did he tell the petitioner anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1614.302], "stop_times": [1623.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.302}, "reply_to": "15141__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__0_049", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The only thing he told the petitioner was that if he did ought to say so.\nHe did not tell the petitioner anything.\nThe petitioner admitted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1623.795, 1628.165, 1629.869], "stop_times": [1628.165, 1629.869, 1630.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.795}, "reply_to": "15141__0_048", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_050", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Did he say that I'm here in place of your parents and to do what I can for you or anything like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1630.836], "stop_times": [1635.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.836}, "reply_to": "15141__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__0_051", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Absolutely not.\nThe only thing in the record is this.\nAt one point there is a leading question by the court as to whether the petitioner does not know that these juvenile probation officers are there to help juveniles and the petitioner says yes I know that.\nBut if it wasn't this probation officer or anything else, now that is simply the juvenile court mistake.\nI think this Court need attach no significance to it.\nIt certainly doesn't communicate helping him in what way and the respondent in this court asserts that he was not there to help and support in refusing to answer questions or assert his privilege if he felt like it.\nThe respondent rightly points out that we have great concerns for the probation officer's role here.\nWe think that he was heedless at the least of his role and possibly mendacious.\nAnd I say that not quite comparing his testimony with that of the petitioner, but by comparing his testimony with that of the police officers who sometimes testified that he was under interrogation three or four times as long as the probation officer admitted.\nAnd by comparing his own testimony internally which shows total heedlessness of any protective role.\nThe question then Mr. Justice Stewart I think is that not whether any protective figure may prevent a confession from being involuntary, but whether the presence of a figure who does nothing make to stop clearly towards a police questioning, who is not known to the petitioner and to be there in a protective role and who serves no function as an impartial observer in any way, prevents and otherwise coerced confession from being found coerced, we submit that it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1635.639, 1637.345, 1639.108, 1650.741, 1656.253, 1659.845, 1671.998, 1680.607, 1684.703, 1697.667, 1704.667], "stop_times": [1637.345, 1639.108, 1650.741, 1656.253, 1659.845, 1671.998, 1680.607, 1684.703, 1697.667, 1704.667, 1733.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1635.639}, "reply_to": "15141__0_050", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_052", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "If you have any time left on rebuttal, I hope you use it to address yourself to your notice point in connection with the hands set.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1733.555], "stop_times": [1743.853], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.555}, "reply_to": "15141__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15141__0_053", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I will do that Mr. Justice Harlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1743.853], "stop_times": [1754.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1743.853}, "reply_to": "15141__0_052", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__0_054", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Kreiger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1754.537], "stop_times": [1756.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.537}, "reply_to": "15141__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__1_000", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIf the prefatory statement made today by counsel was all that there was to this case, I am frank to say here and now that the state would confess error.\nBut he very adroitly and I'm sure very skillfully has kept the most important, distinctive, significant fact of this entire case for the last factor and only when questioning by the court has brought it forth.\nThe most significant fact in this case and which makes this case different from any others was anticipated by Justice Stewart when he said have this Court ever decided a question involving a juvenile where the confession was made in the presence of a court assigned representative and counsel evaded it and said so far as he knows, no.\nI would like to call to the Court's attention the fact that since I have written this brief, I've made further research and I would like to help the Court on this -- in this connection.\nIn my brief at page 7, I referred to the New York statute which provides for the notification of a parent or other representative before a juvenile who has been arrested may be interrogated I have found that there is a similar statute in Arizona.\nIt is ARS, Title 8, Section 221 and construed by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1966 in 420 Pacific 2nd 281, where the Court held that when a juvenile is arrested it is the duty of the arresting officer to notify the probation office at once and a probation officer is assigned to him and stays with him and the Arizona Supreme Court has held that this rule does not prevent the police from questioning a juvenile, it only prevents them from subjecting the juvenile to formal interrogation without permission of the person appointed and that it is consistent with the rehabilitative process of the juvenile court and to see that he is prevented from overzealous pressure.\nWithout such a statute in New Jersey, the juvenile court judge in this case, in 1957, made such an order and I would like to give the Court very briefly the chronological factors in this case which I regret to say counsel did not give the Court and they are these.\nThis juvenile was arrested on February 16th by the Patterson police.\nHe was taken to the police station and I might say a prohibitive practice under New Jersey law but notwithstanding, the juvenile confessed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1756.021, 1761.105, 1775.044, 1798.86, 1827.515, 1841.522, 1863.326, 1931.933, 1961.881, 1969.422], "stop_times": [1761.105, 1775.044, 1798.86, 1827.515, 1841.522, 1863.326, 1931.933, 1961.881, 1969.422, 1980.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.021}, "reply_to": "15141__0_054", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_001", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And he was a 15-years and four months old?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1980.517], "stop_times": [1983.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.517}, "reply_to": "15141__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_002", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1983.948], "stop_times": [1984.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.948}, "reply_to": "15141__1_001", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_003", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "How big was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1984.452], "stop_times": [1986.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.452}, "reply_to": "15141__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_004", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, Justice Stewart, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1986.758], "stop_times": [1987.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.758}, "reply_to": "15141__1_003", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_005", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Does the record ever show them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1987.953], "stop_times": [1988.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.953}, "reply_to": "15141__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_006", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I never saw him, I don't know him.\nI only know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1988.596, 1991.166], "stop_times": [1991.166, 1991.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.596}, "reply_to": "15141__1_005", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_007", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And it's -- one of the witnesses referred to -- her assailant as a man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1991.426], "stop_times": [1994.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.426}, "reply_to": "15141__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_008", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1994.943], "stop_times": [1995.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.943}, "reply_to": "15141__1_007", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_009", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And the petitioner's brief talks about him as a child, what do you know about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [1995.396], "stop_times": [2000.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.396}, "reply_to": "15141__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_010", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, I'm sorry I can -- I cannot help you on that sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2000.378], "stop_times": [2004.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.378}, "reply_to": "15141__1_009", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_011", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "You mean the old record doesn't show his size?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2004.048], "stop_times": [2006.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.048}, "reply_to": "15141__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15141__1_012", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2006.78], "stop_times": [2007.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.78}, "reply_to": "15141__1_011", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_013", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "You mean that no reference to his size in the entire record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2007.804], "stop_times": [2011.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.804}, "reply_to": "15141__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15141__1_014", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, no, there is none sir.\nWhen arrested on February 16th, he immediately admitted several purse snatchings and admitted the method by which he had concealed these purses by burying them in the yard of a certain house where he used to frequent for other purposes.\nThe police immediately went to the scene and dug up and uncovered these purses.\nHe was immediately sent to the children's shelter where juveniles are detained and when these facts came to light, the prosecutors office at the same county noted some similarity between the modus operandi and these cases and the two unsolved crimes in 1956, the Wise affair in February and the Giambra murder in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2011.037, 2017.334, 2037.884, 2044.102], "stop_times": [2017.334, 2037.884, 2044.102, 2078.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.037}, "reply_to": "15141__1_013", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_015", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Kreiger, were his parents there?\nWas his mother in Patterson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2078.206, 2081.965], "stop_times": [2081.965, 2083.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.206}, "reply_to": "15141__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_016", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2083.746], "stop_times": [2084.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.746}, "reply_to": "15141__1_015", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_017", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "When was she notified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2084.659], "stop_times": [2086.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.659}, "reply_to": "15141__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_018", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "She was notified on February the 27th or the 28th after the confession have been obtained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2086.208], "stop_times": [2093.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.208}, "reply_to": "15141__1_017", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_019", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Why not before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2093.985], "stop_times": [2095.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.985}, "reply_to": "15141__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_020", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, she was not notified before for reasons I cannot give you, but I have set out --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2095.924], "stop_times": [2103.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.924}, "reply_to": "15141__1_019", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_021", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Don't you feel any duty to give them reason for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2103.721], "stop_times": [2107.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.721}, "reply_to": "15141__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_022", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, the only explanation sir I can give is this, that there was an estrangement between the juvenile and his parents.\nThe record does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2107.606, 2117.669], "stop_times": [2117.669, 2118.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.606}, "reply_to": "15141__1_021", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_023", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Is that a reason for not telling the parent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2118.319], "stop_times": [2120.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.319}, "reply_to": "15141__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_024", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The juvenile never requested it, never manifested any interest in his parents, in fact he had run away from home, he was sleeping in the cellar of a friend of his and in abandoned cars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2120.559], "stop_times": [2134.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.559}, "reply_to": "15141__1_023", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_025", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Oh, you said he waved the right to notify his parents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2134.289], "stop_times": [2138.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.289}, "reply_to": "15141__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_026", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I wouldn't put it in legal terms Justice Marshall, but I'm saying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2138.137], "stop_times": [2141.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.137}, "reply_to": "15141__1_025", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_027", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But don't you feel that the state had an obligation before they questioned this boy for 10 days to notify his parents what they were doing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2141.534], "stop_times": [2149.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.534}, "reply_to": "15141__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_028", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, I would like to first point out that the state did not question him for 10 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2149.981], "stop_times": [2155.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.981}, "reply_to": "15141__1_027", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_029", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, the state held him for 10 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2155.345], "stop_times": [2157.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.345}, "reply_to": "15141__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_030", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He had been held -- he had been held for the unrelated purse snatching, that was his original detention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2157.336], "stop_times": [2163.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.336}, "reply_to": "15141__1_029", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_031", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He was held for 10 days without notifying his parents or anyone that knew anything about him, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2163.875], "stop_times": [2173.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.875}, "reply_to": "15141__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_032", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2173.827], "stop_times": [2175.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.827}, "reply_to": "15141__1_031", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_033", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2175.017], "stop_times": [2177.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.017}, "reply_to": "15141__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_034", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2177.257], "stop_times": [2177.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.257}, "reply_to": "15141__1_033", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_035", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "You can't give a reason, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2177.544], "stop_times": [2179.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.544}, "reply_to": "15141__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_036", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I can't, no I can't, but the record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2179.232], "stop_times": [2181.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.232}, "reply_to": "15141__1_035", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_037", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But you want us -- you want us to uphold his conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2181.275], "stop_times": [2184.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.275}, "reply_to": "15141__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_038", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The record indicates -- the record indicates that this juvenile never manifested an interest.\nHe never asked the superintendent at the shelter to call his parents or advise them of where he was.\nHe -- he was estranged from his parents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2184.307, 2191.688, 2198.341], "stop_times": [2191.688, 2198.341, 2201.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.307}, "reply_to": "15141__1_037", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_039", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Did you ever tell him he had the right to have his parents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2201.443], "stop_times": [2205.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.443}, "reply_to": "15141__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_040", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2205.206], "stop_times": [2205.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.206}, "reply_to": "15141__1_039", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_041", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Is it in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2205.892], "stop_times": [2208.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.892}, "reply_to": "15141__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_042", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The protection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2208.041], "stop_times": [2208.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.041}, "reply_to": "15141__1_041", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_043", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2208.681], "stop_times": [2209.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.681}, "reply_to": "15141__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_044", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "-- that the judge Shamick of the juvenile Court have afforded this juvenile by providing for interrogation only in the presence of the probation officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2209.201], "stop_times": [2218.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.201}, "reply_to": "15141__1_043", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_045", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Did he know that probation officer was there to protect him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2218.865], "stop_times": [2221.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.865}, "reply_to": "15141__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_046", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes sir, he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2221.812], "stop_times": [2222.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.812}, "reply_to": "15141__1_045", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_047", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "How?\nWhere is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2222.838, 2223.377], "stop_times": [2223.377, 2224.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.838}, "reply_to": "15141__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_048", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He was told -- he was told by the probation officer that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2224.29], "stop_times": [2230.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.29}, "reply_to": "15141__1_047", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_049", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What page is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2230.538], "stop_times": [2232.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.538}, "reply_to": "15141__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_050", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Let me see if I can find it sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2232.211], "stop_times": [2243.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.211}, "reply_to": "15141__1_049", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_051", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Let me get it later, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2243.997], "stop_times": [2245.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.997}, "reply_to": "15141__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_052", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, I will get it and I will -- I'll supply it to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2245.457], "stop_times": [2247.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.457}, "reply_to": "15141__1_051", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_053", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2247.907], "stop_times": [2250.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.907}, "reply_to": "15141__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_054", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "On February 18th, prosecutor's office, after noting similarity between the purse snatchings for which he had been arrested on the 16th decided to interrogate this juvenile and being in the shelter they applied to the judge of the juvenile court for permission to interrogate him.\nThe judge granted permission on condition that such interrogation take place only and at all times in the presence of a probation officer Mr. Chester Jermalowics.\nOn February the 18th in the presence of Chester Jermalowics at the children shelter, this juvenile was interrogated and he made a slip of the tongue in which he said, they mentioned something to him about, did you ever engage in any purse snatchings on 31st street, 32nd street, 28th street and they enumerated this east side section of Patterson.\nAnd when it came to 31st street, which is where the Wise assault took place, he says, \u201cOh\u201d, he says, \u201cI have an alibi for that one.\u201d\nNo one asked him or even mentioned anything about Wise.\nAnd then when they came to Wall Avenue which was in back of Saint Theresa's church where bingo games were held quite often and where the victim Giambra was going the evening when she was assaulted and later died, he said, \u201cOh\u201d, he says, \u201cthat girl, I read about that in the paper, I had nothing to do with that.\u201d\nWell, with that as a starting point, the prosecutor's detectives said to him, Willy, would you submit to a lie detector test?\nAnd this juvenile, age 15 said why certainly he says, they are fake, they don't prove anything even when they -- you submit to them.\nVery well, and that's all the interrogation that took place that day.\nOn the 21st, three days later, arrangements were made for the polygraph operator to interrogate this juvenile and the interrogation took place in an anteroom of the grand jury in the Courthouse in Patterson.\nThe tests were submitted, not lengthy, and immediately after he was taken back by the probation officer to the children's shelter.\nAnd the polygraph operator advised the detectives who were handling this case, don't ask him or pursue any further interrogation and there was no further interrogation.\nIn the mean time, prosecutor's office pursued their own independent investigation and they came up with the names of a few of his friends and associates.\nTwo of them, one was named Aug and the other one was named Stafford.\nThey interrogated them and they found out from them that this Monks had a day or two after the Wise assault which took place at East 31st street --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2250.188, 2272.514, 2285.715, 2316.863, 2327.403, 2331.266, 2353.119, 2365.24, 2377.022, 2382.731, 2406.215, 2418.361, 2432.186, 2445.506, 2451.742], "stop_times": [2272.514, 2285.715, 2316.863, 2327.403, 2331.266, 2353.119, 2365.24, 2377.022, 2382.731, 2406.215, 2418.361, 2432.186, 2445.506, 2451.742, 2467.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.188}, "reply_to": "15141__1_053", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_055", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And that had taken place about a year earlier, hadn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2467.951], "stop_times": [2471.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.951}, "reply_to": "15141__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_056", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2471.229], "stop_times": [2472.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.229}, "reply_to": "15141__1_055", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_057", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "When this fellow was 14 years old, would that be correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2472.726], "stop_times": [2477.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.726}, "reply_to": "15141__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_058", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's right, that's right sir -- boasted to one of his friends that he had committed that assault and he had received something like $30.00 that she had in her purse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2477.226], "stop_times": [2492.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.226}, "reply_to": "15141__1_057", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_059", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Were those the people who frequented the candy store?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2492.134], "stop_times": [2496.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.134}, "reply_to": "15141__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_060", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, yes, yes.\nNow, what made the Wise case interesting and which gave the police the indication that this young man was connected with this assault was that on the evening of the assault, it had been snowing and immediately after this girl had been assaulted and was unconscious, the police came to the scene and there were footprints that led from the place of the assault to a house two-and-a-half blocks away on 15th avenue and the footprints led in the back door of that particular house.\nDuring the period of investigation in 57, when this young man was not being interrogated, the police found out that young Monks frequented this place with his friends, where they would go to smoke a cigarette and do other little things of that sort, in privacy and in fact, the confession indicates that this was the place, the backyard of which he had buried the purses that he had snatched.\nWell, on that next occasion of interrogation, the lie detector operator was present and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2496.463, 2499.881, 2546.09, 2587.209], "stop_times": [2499.881, 2546.09, 2587.209, 2601.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.463}, "reply_to": "15141__1_059", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_061", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Incidentally, was he a police officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2601.398], "stop_times": [2603.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.398}, "reply_to": "15141__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_062", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2603.632], "stop_times": [2604.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.632}, "reply_to": "15141__1_061", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_063", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Was he a police officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2604.05], "stop_times": [2606.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.05}, "reply_to": "15141__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_064", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, he isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2606.77], "stop_times": [2607.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.77}, "reply_to": "15141__1_063", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_065", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Employed by the police department?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2607.323], "stop_times": [2608.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.323}, "reply_to": "15141__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_066", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, he is Mr. Arthur who is associated with the Reid Associates who are lie detector operators.\nI think they have offices in Chicago and New York.\nIncidentally, Mr. Reid is coauthor with professor Inbau on a lie detection and interrogation, one of the books cited by the former Chief Justice Warren in Miranda.\nOn the 26th of February, which was the next occasion, Mr. Jermalowics went to the children's shelter in the morning of that day, I think around 10 o'clock or so.\nHe picked up Mr. Monks and he brought him to the Courthouse and it is true that he was interrogated a little bit, not too much.\nHe was again subjected to lie detector tests not quite a few but a minute, two minutes, five minutes, nothing extensive, nothing to wear out this young man or to use the language that this Court has used quite often in these -- only in these two juvenile cases that I know of.\nHailey and Gallegos.\nThere was nothing in this case and this record doesn't show the slightest, callous disregard of the right of this juvenile and bear in mind that in 1957, the criminal law annunciated by this Court was not what it is today.\nIn fact, we claim --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2608.67, 2617.94, 2621.543, 2640.393, 2656.274, 2671.352, 2697.183, 2699.886, 2726.26], "stop_times": [2617.94, 2621.543, 2640.393, 2656.274, 2671.352, 2697.183, 2699.886, 2726.26, 2728.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.67}, "reply_to": "15141__1_065", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_067", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "When was Hailey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2728.861], "stop_times": [2730.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.861}, "reply_to": "15141__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_068", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2730.082], "stop_times": [2730.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.082}, "reply_to": "15141__1_067", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_069", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "When was Hailey decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2730.8], "stop_times": [2732.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.8}, "reply_to": "15141__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_070", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Hailey was 48, 1948.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2732.224], "stop_times": [2735.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.224}, "reply_to": "15141__1_069", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_071", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I thought so, I thought it was before 457?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2735.416], "stop_times": [2737.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.416}, "reply_to": "15141__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_072", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, but I see and I have stated, there is the only similarity between Hailey and this case is that they were both 15 years of age, because in this case we claim and the record shows unless you disagree with methods that the methods of the police in the interrogation of this juvenile were fair, reasonable, penetrating, and with an attempt to find out whether this young man was involved in this heinous offense of murder.\nNothing wrong about that, a fair instrumentality in criminal investigation.\nWe state that the purpose of this probation officer were several.\nFirst of all, to allow interrogation, and to prevent overzealous pressure, to see to it that the interrogation was fair and that he was not tired, deprived of refreshment, rest or relief.\nThe right to interrogate this juvenile granted by the juvenile court did not require that the probation officer act as his counsel, tell him what questions to answer, and what questions what not to answer.\nThe fact is, that during a particular law when the proceedings, when the detectives went to the other part of the room and were conferring about things and trying to piece together various things that had already been developed, the probation officer sat alone with this juvenile and he said to him Willie, he says, I don't want you to say anything to these police officers unless it's the truth and I don't want you to worry about this because let your conscience be your guide.\nI see nothing wrong about this kind of advise to a juvenile from a probation officer because bear in mind that even up until the first decision of this term -- of this Court -- by this Court in this recent case involving the Nebraska statute on juveniles as to whether there was a right of trial by jury which this Court did not deem necessary to decide, Justice Douglas in his opinion said that the juvenile Court is still setup for the purpose of rehabilitation and has not yet become a Court for the trial of juvenile criminals and in 1957, the viewpoint whether good, bad or indifferent was clearly consistent with that policy.\nNow, what else was this probation officer designed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2737.381, 2778.019, 2786.239, 2793.642, 2813.239, 2830.368, 2868.823, 2929.688], "stop_times": [2778.019, 2786.239, 2793.642, 2813.239, 2830.368, 2868.823, 2929.688, 2934.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.381}, "reply_to": "15141__1_071", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_073", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What were the circumstances under which the court appointed this probation officer to accompany the petitioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2934.224], "stop_times": [2940.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.224}, "reply_to": "15141__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_074", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "An application was made by the prosecutor's detectives to interrogate this juvenile because he was in custody at the juvenile -- at the children's shelter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2940.397], "stop_times": [2952.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.397}, "reply_to": "15141__1_073", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_075", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "So that the prosecutor's detectives had to apply to a judge or to a court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2952.367], "stop_times": [2956.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.367}, "reply_to": "15141__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_076", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2956.519], "stop_times": [2956.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.519}, "reply_to": "15141__1_075", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_077", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "-- for permission --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2956.873], "stop_times": [2957.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.873}, "reply_to": "15141__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_078", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Permission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2957.992], "stop_times": [2958.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.992}, "reply_to": "15141__1_077", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_079", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "-- to interrogate this juvenile who is in the juvenile center?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2958.266], "stop_times": [2962.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.266}, "reply_to": "15141__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__1_080", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And the court granted permission providing that the probation officer was present at all times during interrogation.\nNow, much has been made by petitioner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2962.511, 2971.076], "stop_times": [2971.076, 2972.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.511}, "reply_to": "15141__1_079", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_081", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Is it correct that he was there for the purpose only to see that the boy was not brow beaten or exhausted in any way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2972.539], "stop_times": [2985.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.539}, "reply_to": "15141__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_082", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2985.309], "stop_times": [2987.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.309}, "reply_to": "15141__1_081", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_083", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, that's what the officer said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2987.713], "stop_times": [2989.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.713}, "reply_to": "15141__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_084", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's what the officer said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2989.392], "stop_times": [2991.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.392}, "reply_to": "15141__1_083", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_085", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And he wasn't there to advise him of his rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2991.132], "stop_times": [2993.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.132}, "reply_to": "15141__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_086", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2993.707], "stop_times": [2994.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2993.707}, "reply_to": "15141__1_085", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_087", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And he wasn't there to aid and comfort him?\nHe is just to make sure they didn't beat his brains out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [2994.635, 2997.646], "stop_times": [2997.646, 3000.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.635}, "reply_to": "15141__1_086", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_088", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, they didn't beat his brains out Justice Marshall.\nThere isn't a word in this record expressly or by fair inference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3000.651, 3003.852], "stop_times": [3003.852, 3007.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.651}, "reply_to": "15141__1_087", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_089", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I agree with you fully, but my whole point is, this is his testimony that he was only deceived that he wasn't brow beaten.\nThere was nothing to say to him that he shouldn't be questioned for a long periods of time.\nThis man is not trained in the law at all.\nHe has a degree in pharmacy.\nThis man does advice in this work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3007.96, 3018.223, 3024.863, 3029.102, 3032.312], "stop_times": [3018.223, 3024.863, 3029.102, 3032.312, 3034.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.96}, "reply_to": "15141__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_090", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And he was a probation officer for 15 years, assigned to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3034.287], "stop_times": [3039.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3034.287}, "reply_to": "15141__1_089", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_091", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "A degree in pharmacy to advise this fellow of his legal rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3039.549], "stop_times": [3043.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.549}, "reply_to": "15141__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_092", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But how about his experience as a probation officer and handling the juveniles for 15 years --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3043.278], "stop_times": [3047.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.278}, "reply_to": "15141__1_091", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_093", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Do they have any of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3047.305], "stop_times": [3048.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.305}, "reply_to": "15141__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_094", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "-- which gave him great competence in the understanding of the probation process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3048.552], "stop_times": [3052.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.552}, "reply_to": "15141__1_093", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_095", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But he had no time to tell this boy that you don't have to take that lie detector test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3052.977], "stop_times": [3059.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.977}, "reply_to": "15141__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_096", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He didn't advise this boy, he was not there as his counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3059.555], "stop_times": [3064.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.555}, "reply_to": "15141__1_095", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_097", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "If he take -- but didn't you just say he told him that you be good and get this out of your chest and all, you call that counseling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3064.663], "stop_times": [3070.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.663}, "reply_to": "15141__1_096", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15141__1_098", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Tell him to tell them -- to tell the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3070.857], "stop_times": [3073.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3070.857}, "reply_to": "15141__1_097", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_099", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That is not counseling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3073.595], "stop_times": [3075.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.595}, "reply_to": "15141__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_100", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I don't call that counseling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3075.822], "stop_times": [3077.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.822}, "reply_to": "15141__1_099", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_101", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3077.308], "stop_times": [3078.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.308}, "reply_to": "15141__1_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_102", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I don't call that counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3078.62], "stop_times": [3080.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.62}, "reply_to": "15141__1_101", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_103", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3080.447], "stop_times": [3081.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.447}, "reply_to": "15141__1_102", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_104", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Because gentlemen, if this young man had a lawyer, this juvenile would never have uttered a word and this would have been and remained an unsolved offense because I don't still think that a juvenile should receive the advise or the same kind of advise that a mature person should receive when it comes and bearing in mind his future development.\nFor whatever it's worth, in a case cited in my brief, Chief Justice Weintraub of the New Jersey Supreme Court wrote a concurring opinion in this Carlo, we call it state in the interest of Carlo, cited in my brief, where he stated that when in comes to juveniles and the advise should he receive it would be incongruous for his parent if he is present at the time of police interrogation to advise this young juvenile not to talk, to remain silent because among things in the development of character and personality as Chief Justice Weintraub said is the lesson which a juvenile must learn early to face the music and he didn't think and he stated in his viewpoint in dealing with a juvenile that the same kind of advise should be handed to a juvenile as would be given to a mature person, bearing in mind the fundamental difference between the juvenile and rehabilitation process and the process of the criminal law and they are still distinct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3081.176, 3118.733], "stop_times": [3118.733, 3202.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.176}, "reply_to": "15141__1_103", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_105", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What goes on in New Jersey now when they arrest a juvenile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3202.624], "stop_times": [3205.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.624}, "reply_to": "15141__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_106", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I didn't get that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3205.902], "stop_times": [3206.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3205.902}, "reply_to": "15141__1_105", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_107", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What goes on in New Jersey now when they arrest a juvenile?\nIf he had been arrested today would he had been given the Miranda?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3206.444, 3210.406], "stop_times": [3210.406, 3212.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.444}, "reply_to": "15141__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_108", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The Miranda, he gets the Miranda warning, he does sir, he does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3212.791], "stop_times": [3217.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.791}, "reply_to": "15141__1_107", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_109", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He gets what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3217.666], "stop_times": [3218.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.666}, "reply_to": "15141__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15141__1_110", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He gets the warnings required by Miranda.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3218.733], "stop_times": [3222.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3218.733}, "reply_to": "15141__1_109", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_111", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And he also doesn't testify in the proceeding unless he wants to, does he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3222.685], "stop_times": [3226.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.685}, "reply_to": "15141__1_110", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_112", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3226.634], "stop_times": [3227.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3226.634}, "reply_to": "15141__1_111", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_113", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And that didn't used to be so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3227.993], "stop_times": [3230.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.993}, "reply_to": "15141__1_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_114", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's true sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3230.187], "stop_times": [3231.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3230.187}, "reply_to": "15141__1_113", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_115", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And so, the Gault decided that, didn't it?\nThe Gault made that much difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3231.263, 3236.788], "stop_times": [3236.788, 3238.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.263}, "reply_to": "15141__1_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_116", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's true, that's true.\nI don't think that Gault has so overshadowed the entire juvenile process that it has, as Justice Douglas said, converted the juvenile court into a trial for juvenile criminals.\nI don't think that has yet happened, whether it will or not, the future will determine that factor.\nThe -- the fact is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3238.438, 3241.746, 3256.265, 3265.234], "stop_times": [3241.746, 3256.265, 3265.234, 3267.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3238.438}, "reply_to": "15141__1_115", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_117", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, I thought you said it was a matter of interrogation that if you tell him he is entitled of counsel now and he said I want one you have to appoint one, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3267.927], "stop_times": [3274.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.927}, "reply_to": "15141__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_118", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's right.\nHe gets me, he gets one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3274.641, 3275.591], "stop_times": [3275.591, 3277.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.641}, "reply_to": "15141__1_117", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_119", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3277.843], "stop_times": [3285.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.843}, "reply_to": "15141__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_120", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The fact is in our judgment that most of the argument of the petitioner in this case has been what I would choose to describe an inflation of the significance of what are not such serious matters or as the phrase has once been, there has been an abundant resort to labels in this case.\nLabeling everything that has happened here as being of a terrible nature and trying to put them all together and to come up with the phrase, a callous disregard of the rights of this particular accused in order to justify and finally come up with the description that there was an involuntary or a coerced confession.\nI submit gentlemen that what has been happening here by the petitioner's description of the various acts that are in this record and that are lively -- likely as well to be innocent and free from the terrible connotations placed upon them was the imposition of what one of the former justices of these Court referred to as the tyranny of labels.\nWe think that in this case, the presence of the probation officer, the overall conduct of the police in their interrogation which was fair, reasonable, humane, inhuman and civilized did not add up to such a destruction of the will or such an overbearing of the ability of this juvenile to withstand the interrogation as to constitute an enforced coerced or wrung out confession.\nWe think that on the total record and on the totality of all the circumstances taken together without fragmentation or isolation that in this case, there was no callous disregard of the rights of this juvenile, but that there was a fair, reasonable, and decent regard for his rights and that this confession in this case was voluntary and should be sustained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3285.552, 3323.898, 3362.019, 3396.003, 3435.884], "stop_times": [3323.898, 3362.019, 3396.003, 3435.884, 3466.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3285.552}, "reply_to": "15141__1_119", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_121", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Is this [Inaudible] provided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3466.225], "stop_times": [3471.33], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.225}, "reply_to": "15141__1_120", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15141__1_122", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, he is, and I might say this Justice Harlan, he has come up for parole three or four times and he has been turned down on the basis of poor adjustment and I can also say this, this record has facts in here that are a little cloudy as to why a 1957 adjudication finally came before the appellant division in New Jersey in 1968 and I think you're entitled to know why.\nIn the first place there were two court reporters in this case.\nImmediately after the adjudication of delinquency, one of them was called to the service and immediately sent overseas.\nSo for three years there was an inability to get the part of the transcript prepared which this reporter had taken.\nAnd we have in New Jersey, an appeal -- a notice of appeal have been filed and we have in New Jersey a practice where periodically the clerk issues a show cause for a dismissal of cases which have not been prosecuted as the rules require and I know I was in the office on each of these occasions.\nThis young man would be consulted and would consult his Counsel, would go and see him at the board and town reformatory where he had been committed originally.\nAnd he would say to his counsel I don't want to go through with this appeal yet but see if you can hold it off because I'm coming up for parole and I don't want this to interfere with my parole.\nWell, the court wouldn't dismiss the appeal, would accept this.\nBefore you know it time runs by.\nIn 1967, he was transferred from the board and town reformatory to state's prison which I call the post graduate elevation where he undoubtedly met jail house lawyers and who aided and assisted him in filing pro se in the appellant division in August 1968, an application to revive the appeal which had been suspended and to proceed and it was granted.\nCounsel is assigned, case was argued, appellant division decided it and so it went and here we are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3471.33, 3503.807, 3507.803, 3515.523, 3525.593, 3547.134, 3557.091, 3572.36, 3577.177, 3580.414, 3614.4], "stop_times": [3503.807, 3507.803, 3515.523, 3525.593, 3547.134, 3557.091, 3572.36, 3577.177, 3580.414, 3614.4, 3622.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3471.33}, "reply_to": "15141__1_121", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_123", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Can I ask you, absent on any investigation of the Wise and Giambra affairs and he had just been -- had just admitted those other purse snatching which he had just admitted, what would have been the normal course of dealing with him?\nWould he have been detained until those charges were heard by the juvenile judge or would he have been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3622.296, 3641.704], "stop_times": [3641.704, 3652.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3622.296}, "reply_to": "15141__1_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_124", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, as a matter of fact what happened Justice White is that on March 20th he was committed by the judge of the juvenile court for the purse snatching for which he was arrested on February the 16th, the board and town reformatory, for an indefinite term.\nAnd it was while he was in board and town and after he had -- their complaint had been filed against him for Wise and Giambra, in December he was brought from Board and Town Reformatory to the Courthouse that sheltered --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3652.039, 3672.142], "stop_times": [3672.142, 3684.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3652.039}, "reply_to": "15141__1_123", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_125", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Or would he normally have been detained on those other charges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3684.581], "stop_times": [3690.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3684.581}, "reply_to": "15141__1_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_126", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Under New Jersey law, he would be detained for such period as in the judgment of the board of managers at Board and Town Reformatory thought him to be ready to be rehabilitated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3690.373], "stop_times": [3701.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3690.373}, "reply_to": "15141__1_125", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_127", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, what I mean -- when a juvenile is charged with -- he's arrested and charged with the purse snatching and he admits it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3701.698], "stop_times": [3710.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3701.698}, "reply_to": "15141__1_126", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_128", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3710.334], "stop_times": [3711.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3710.334}, "reply_to": "15141__1_127", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_129", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Between then and the time of the hearing, the delinquency hearing, what happens to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3711.764], "stop_times": [3715.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3711.764}, "reply_to": "15141__1_128", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_130", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He is detained at the Children's Shelter or he may be released in the custody of his parents or he may be released --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3715.847], "stop_times": [3722.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3715.847}, "reply_to": "15141__1_129", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_131", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But why was this young man detained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3722.734], "stop_times": [3726.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3722.734}, "reply_to": "15141__1_130", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_132", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Why he was detained after February 16th is because on March the 8th this -- or March the 2nd or 3rd, the complaints were filed in Wise and Giambra and Counsel was assigned to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3726.298], "stop_times": [3743.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3726.298}, "reply_to": "15141__1_131", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_133", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But why was he detained during these 10 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3743.253], "stop_times": [3747.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3743.253}, "reply_to": "15141__1_132", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_134", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Just as a matter of -- for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3747.607], "stop_times": [3749.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3747.607}, "reply_to": "15141__1_133", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_135", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I mean if there haven't been any investigations of Wise and Giambra, would he have been detained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3749.735], "stop_times": [3756.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3749.735}, "reply_to": "15141__1_134", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_136", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "By that I don't know sir.\nIt all depends upon -- it all depends upon the judge of the juvenile court and the state of their calendar and the circumstances and he might have been detained because of his prior involvement in other juvenile offenses where he had been involved and likewise, it might had been made against him by his parents for having runaway from home so that this young man was not the ideal youngster for release to the streets.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3756.005, 3757.415, 3787.676], "stop_times": [3757.415, 3787.676, 3788.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3756.005}, "reply_to": "15141__1_135", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_137", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Mr. Kreiger before you sit down, what does life mean in New Jersey now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3788.373], "stop_times": [3792.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3788.373}, "reply_to": "15141__1_136", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_138", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, life in New Jersey means you are eligible for parole after 13 and a half years and he has practically served that.\nAlthough in this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3792.529, 3803.401], "stop_times": [3803.401, 3804.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3792.529}, "reply_to": "15141__1_137", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_139", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And ordinarily I gather you are released, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3804.435], "stop_times": [3807.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3804.435}, "reply_to": "15141__1_138", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_140", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "In this instance as a juvenile -- as a juvenile, he was eligible for parole before 13 and a half years.\nIn fact as I say, he has been up for a parole set up as much as I know four times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3807.021, 3814.335], "stop_times": [3814.335, 3819.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3807.021}, "reply_to": "15141__1_139", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_141", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "You're suggesting that the chances are that he can in fact, he'll not serve more than about 13 and a half years, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3819.404], "stop_times": [3825.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3819.404}, "reply_to": "15141__1_140", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15141__1_142", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's my best judgment, that's my best judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3825.945], "stop_times": [3829.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3825.945}, "reply_to": "15141__1_141", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_143", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And Giambra is the only thing in issue here, he has served his Wise's time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3829.298], "stop_times": [3833.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3829.298}, "reply_to": "15141__1_142", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_144", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3833.516], "stop_times": [3833.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3833.516}, "reply_to": "15141__1_143", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_145", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "-- of five years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3833.943], "stop_times": [3834.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3833.943}, "reply_to": "15141__1_144", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__1_146", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Under the 1958 Act which was held retroactive even though he was adjudicated in 1957 because it was beneficial to the juvenile and not harmful, because for the first time it did away for indeterminate sentences in the case of juveniles and provided for fixed terms not to exceed age 21 except in homicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3834.923], "stop_times": [3861.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3834.923}, "reply_to": "15141__1_145", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_147", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But Mr. Kreiger --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3861.631], "stop_times": [3861.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3861.631}, "reply_to": "15141__1_146", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__1_148", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "If the Court cares for argument on the second point dealing with the question as to the validity of the life sentence, otherwise, I would rely upon my brief in the argument contained in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3861.917], "stop_times": [3874.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3861.917}, "reply_to": "15141__1_147", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_149", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "We'll take that on your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3874.461], "stop_times": [3875.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3874.461}, "reply_to": "15141__1_148", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__1_150", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3875.867], "stop_times": [3876.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3875.867}, "reply_to": "15141__1_149", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_151", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "May I ask you if the record show somewhere the number of times this young man had been arrested and what had happened to him or is there anything in there about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3876.065], "stop_times": [3888.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3876.065}, "reply_to": "15141__1_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15141__1_152", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Justice Black I'm sure -- you will find that in the trial transcript that's on file with the clerk of the Court because this appendix was an abridged matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3888.803], "stop_times": [3899.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3888.803}, "reply_to": "15141__1_151", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_153", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Was what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3899.679], "stop_times": [3900.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3899.679}, "reply_to": "15141__1_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15141__1_154", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Was abridged by agreement between me and counsel for the petitioner, but the facts concerning his prior involvement are in the transcript of the entire trial which is on file with the clerk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3900.785], "stop_times": [3915.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3900.785}, "reply_to": "15141__1_153", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_155", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "On file with our clerk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3915.729], "stop_times": [3917.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3915.729}, "reply_to": "15141__1_154", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15141__1_156", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Your clerk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3917.179], "stop_times": [3919.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3917.179}, "reply_to": "15141__1_155", "speaker": "archibald_kreiger"}
{"id": "15141__1_157", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kreiger.\nMr. Amsterdam, you have about three minutes and I believe Justice Harlan had a question pending for you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3919.526, 3920.536], "stop_times": [3920.536, 3928.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3919.526}, "reply_to": "15141__1_156", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15141__2_000", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "If I may just advert briefly into the questions the Court ask in the statements of Mr. Kreiger, I have five very short factual matters and I'll get to Mr. Justice Harlan's question's aspect.\nFirst with regard to Mr. Justice White's question.\nMr. Kreiger stated initially that during the 10 days, the boy was being held on those other purse snatching, he then admitted in effect that that was not so.\nThere was nothing in the record that will support the contention that he was being held in connection with other purse snatchings.\nThe record states nothing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3928.875, 3940.297, 3943.175, 3950.622, 3955.444], "stop_times": [3940.297, 3943.175, 3950.622, 3955.444, 3957.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3928.875}, "reply_to": "15141__1_157", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_001", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "But he was arrested for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3957.132], "stop_times": [3958.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3957.132}, "reply_to": "15141__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__2_002", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He was arrested for those, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3958.871], "stop_times": [3960.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3958.871}, "reply_to": "15141__2_001", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_003", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He was taken and then he was detained at this very period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3960.207], "stop_times": [3961.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3960.207}, "reply_to": "15141__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15141__2_004", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "He was taken into custody, correct, but as Mr. Kreiger has stated, New Jersey law would leave unclear whether he should be released under that situation and the clear implication here is that he was held because he was being investigated for the Wise and Giambra matters.\nSecondly, Mr. Kreiger's statement that the boy was estranged from his family and that that explains to Mr. Justice Marshall why the mother wasn't called.\nThe mother had contacted the police two or three times, the juvenile authorities more asking that this boy be brought home when he was picked up and both the police and the juvenile authorities knew that and the parents were not contacted.\nThird, in response to Mr. Justice Marshall's question about whether he was told about the probation officer's role.\nMr. Kreiger has said that he will file something responsive to that, I think the Court will find at pages 200 and 201 of the appendix all that there is.\nIt supports my statement that he knew that the probation officer was a probation officer, had been assigned to \u201cStay with him\u201d and that's it.\nFinally, -- no, two more points.\nFirst, Mr. Kreiger's statement as to what the probation officer told the boy.\nThis is on page 90 of the appendix and this is supposed to be good probation officer advice.\nI took advantage of one of the respects in questioning, one of these episodes to ask the boy that if he really knew anything about these offenses that he should unburden himself and search his conscience and that he would feel much better if he told it because he would have to live with it the rest of his life, the sort of counseling I would give any boy in the juvenile Court.\nThat's the support and assistance of the probation officer.\nFinally, with respect to Mr. Justice Black's question.\nI think Mr. Justice Black that you will not find in the record, the original record any indication of a number of prior incidents of this boy.\nThe record only shows that he was a probationer of the juvenile court at the time that he was picked up here.\nIt shows nothing about the number, frequency, reasons for his being in probation.\nThere is no such thing in this record.\nNow, if I may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [3961.432, 3975.225, 3984.098, 3998.201, 4005.828, 4014.227, 4023.154, 4025.439, 4030.248, 4036.836, 4054.601, 4057.772, 4060.869, 4069.369, 4075.273, 4081.044, 4083.372], "stop_times": [3975.225, 3984.098, 3998.201, 4005.828, 4014.227, 4023.154, 4025.439, 4030.248, 4036.836, 4054.601, 4057.772, 4060.869, 4069.369, 4075.273, 4081.044, 4083.372, 4083.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3961.432}, "reply_to": "15141__2_003", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_005", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "And in response to question, the record shows he was five feet eight inches tall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4083.428], "stop_times": [4087.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4083.428}, "reply_to": "15141__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_006", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4087.601], "stop_times": [4088.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4087.601}, "reply_to": "15141__2_005", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_007", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "In response to my question the record shows he was five feet eight inches tall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4088.623], "stop_times": [4091.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4088.623}, "reply_to": "15141__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_008", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I believe that that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4091.956], "stop_times": [4093.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4091.956}, "reply_to": "15141__2_007", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_009", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "That's what he said he was about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4093.217], "stop_times": [4094.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4093.217}, "reply_to": "15141__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_010", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I believe that's correct.\nNow, if I may speak very briefly having only a minute left to Mr. Justice Harlan's point.\nWe think that the sentencing question is a fairly straight forward application in respect in Patterson with one wrinkle.\nThere is no doubt that when this boy's maximum sentence was determined subsequent to his original trial that a finding was made which was neither required nor in fact made at the original juvenile trial, which was that he was adjudicated a delinquent on the basis of an offense which would be first degree murder.\nThat involves findings not made at the time of the trial, within the meaning of Speck, a new fact.\nUnder New Jersey law, evidence is admissible going to that fact, such as evidence of diminished capacity, in this case psychiatric evidence which was not put in by his counsel as it should not have been at the original trial since it didn't matter what degree of homicide.\nHe was found guilty of as a juvenile prior to the new statute.\nNow, the only question therefore is whether or not Speck applies if the new finding of fact is required not by antecedent legislation, but by subsequent legislation which state law chooses to make retroactive.\nAs far as I can see that makes no difference whatever.\nIt is the state of New Jersey which has chosen to said that a differentiation between two classes of people should be made, those who have been found guilty of first degree of homicide and those who have lesser degrees.\nThe difference is critical.\nThe difference in this case was the difference between six years in prison, this boy would have been released sever years ago, and a life sentence, that fact is a critical fact it was not an issue.\nThe state has put it in issue by the new legislation and we think that the petitioner had the right to hearing on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4094.987, 4096.448, 4100.578, 4110.894, 4132.055, 4138.964, 4155.96, 4159.725, 4174.926, 4177.72, 4190.255, 4191.72, 4202.914], "stop_times": [4096.448, 4100.578, 4110.894, 4132.055, 4138.964, 4155.96, 4159.725, 4174.926, 4177.72, 4190.255, 4191.72, 4202.914, 4207.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4094.987}, "reply_to": "15141__2_009", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_011", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "What was the juvenile proceeding in which he was found to be a delinquent?\nWhat was his defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4207.379, 4211.889], "stop_times": [4211.889, 4214.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4207.379}, "reply_to": "15141__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_012", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "The juvenile delinquency?\nThe charges were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4214.169, 4217.873], "stop_times": [4217.873, 4219.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4214.169}, "reply_to": "15141__2_011", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_013", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No, I didn't say offense.\nI said how did he defend the charge or the -- what did he have to say about the question of whether or not he was delinquent at that procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4219.141, 4220.282], "stop_times": [4220.282, 4227.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4219.141}, "reply_to": "15141__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_014", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Not guilty, I didn't do it, but that went --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4227.453], "stop_times": [4229.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4227.453}, "reply_to": "15141__2_013", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_015", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Did he have an alibi?\nDid he say he was somewhere else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4229.577, 4230.588], "stop_times": [4230.588, 4232.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4229.577}, "reply_to": "15141__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_016", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Yes, an alibi that's correct.\nHowever I want to make very clear that I disagree with the state entirely that that is inconsistent with diminished capacity because you don't have to admit anything to show the juvenile judge or your jury what the nature of the defendant is.\nIt's not like the defense of consent in a rape case which isn't consistent with alibi.\nTo simply show the Court that they're dealing with a juvenile who may be defective, retarded.\nRemember, the court here ordered psychiatric treatment for this boy when it originally committed him, simply tells the court that if he did do it which he says he didn't do that he hasn't got the capacity to be guilty of first degree murder.\nNo inconsistency there, any good trial there could present those two facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4232.76, 4234.292, 4245.946, 4251.091, 4255.036, 4266.415], "stop_times": [4234.292, 4245.946, 4251.091, 4255.036, 4266.415, 4269.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4232.76}, "reply_to": "15141__2_015", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_017", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Well, that's my question and second -- my second question about that proceeding is what was the burden of proof required to show his delinquency in that proceeding under New Jersey law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4269.176], "stop_times": [4281.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4269.176}, "reply_to": "15141__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_018", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "In the initial proceeding --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4281.123], "stop_times": [4283.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4281.123}, "reply_to": "15141__2_017", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_019", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "In which he was found to be delinquent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4283.083], "stop_times": [4285.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4283.083}, "reply_to": "15141__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_020", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I must admit I do not know the answer to that question.\nPerhaps Mr. Kreiger could enlighten you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4285.729, 4288.433], "stop_times": [4288.433, 4289.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4285.729}, "reply_to": "15141__2_019", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_021", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Whether it was a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4289.944], "stop_times": [4291.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4289.944}, "reply_to": "15141__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_022", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "No issue has been made of this below and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4291.001], "stop_times": [4293.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4291.001}, "reply_to": "15141__2_021", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_023", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Was it the duty of the state to prove his delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4293.143], "stop_times": [4298.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4293.143}, "reply_to": "15141__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15141__2_024", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "I have -- All I can say is to that I'll be glad to find it out and submit unless Mr. Kreiger knows the answer to that question, submit it to the Court and write it.\nNo issue of it having been made below, I do not know the answer to that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4298.173, 4308.124], "stop_times": [4308.124, 4314.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4298.173}, "reply_to": "15141__2_023", "speaker": "anthony_g_armsterdam"}
{"id": "15141__2_025", "conversation_id": "15141", "text": "Thank you Mr. Amsterdam, Mr. Kreiger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_127", "start_times": [4314.236, 4316.419], "stop_times": [4316.419, 4318.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4314.236}, "reply_to": "15141__2_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_000", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Number 267, Moon against Maryland will go over them Monday morning at 10 o'clock.\nThe next case to be heard today will be 269, Price against Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [0.0, 13.2], "stop_times": [13.2, 17.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_001", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "If it please the Court, I believe there's been a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [17.688], "stop_times": [22.411], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 17.688}, "reply_to": "14949__0_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__0_002", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I must have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [22.411], "stop_times": [24.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 22.411}, "reply_to": "14949__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_003", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Georgia case is referred to come back on Monday, that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [24.011], "stop_times": [27.779], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 24.011}, "reply_to": "14949__0_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__0_004", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [27.779], "stop_times": [28.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 27.779}, "reply_to": "14949__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_005", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "[Inaudible] could have -- could be settled on Monday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [28.661], "stop_times": [34.231], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 28.661}, "reply_to": "14949__0_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__0_006", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Then we'll stay right on the original schedule, but we won't hear the Georgia case today.\nI hope that premature postponement didn't disconcert you counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [34.231, 46.575], "stop_times": [46.575, 51.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 34.231}, "reply_to": "14949__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_007", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [51.837], "stop_times": [52.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 51.837}, "reply_to": "14949__0_006", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_008", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Sure it didn't?\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [52.104, 53.929], "stop_times": [53.929, 55.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.104}, "reply_to": "14949__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_009", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI am Robert Anthony Jacques, attorney for petitioner Number 267.\nI believe a brief statement of the chronology of events would be in order before we start the issues presented to me by the Court in this case under the instructions of last June 23.\nThe petitioner in this case, Dennis Mullene Moon was arrested on June 2, 1964 and was tried on December 17, 1964, convicted on January 7, 1965 for the crime of armed robbery in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.\nOn October 23, 1965, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided Schowgurow versus State of Maryland and as a result of that decision, they held it limitedly retroactive to include petitioner in these proceedings and invited or said that he could avail himself of that decision and take a new trial if he so desire since his conviction had not yet been made final.\nHe in effect did take a new trial on June 6, 1966, and on June 7, 1966, was convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to murder and larceny.\nIt is the irony of this case that the second judge chose to increase the sentence for the same charge for which the petitioner had been convicted in both cases, that is armed robbery and then imposed to suspend it, concurrent 10-year sentences on the other charge.\nI say in all frankness that had not judge -- had Judge Pugh run the other sentences consecutively and left the sentence for armed robbery at 12 years, I would not be standing here today, I would really have no case at all.\nBe that as it may, Judge Pugh did see fit to increase the sentence on the identical charge for which the petitioner had received 12-years to 20-years at his second trial.\nThis Court, when it granted certiorari last June, ordered me to argue the question of retroactivity of North Carolina versus Pearce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [55.973, 58.472, 63.629, 76.526, 98.513, 124.948, 139.538, 157.643, 170.399, 181.502], "stop_times": [58.472, 63.629, 76.526, 98.513, 124.948, 139.538, 157.643, 170.399, 181.502, 191.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.973}, "reply_to": "14949__0_008", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_010", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Can I ask just before you leave the facts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [191.945], "stop_times": [193.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.945}, "reply_to": "14949__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_011", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [193.044], "stop_times": [193.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.044}, "reply_to": "14949__0_010", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_012", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- whether a credit was given by defendant to judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [193.725], "stop_times": [195.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.725}, "reply_to": "14949__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_013", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes and it is the -- actually Judge Pugh gave the petitioner more credit than he had received at his first trial.\nJudge Pugh run the sentence back to the date of his arrest whereas the first judge run it back to the date of his first sentence only.\nSo in effect, Judge Pugh gave him another seven months credit for time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [195.614, 204.197, 211.002], "stop_times": [204.197, 211.002, 214.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.614}, "reply_to": "14949__0_012", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_014", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "So there's no issue here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [214.383], "stop_times": [215.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.383}, "reply_to": "14949__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_015", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "There's no question of credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [215.605], "stop_times": [216.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.605}, "reply_to": "14949__0_014", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_016", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- with respect to that aspect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [216.499], "stop_times": [217.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.499}, "reply_to": "14949__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_017", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [217.496], "stop_times": [217.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.496}, "reply_to": "14949__0_016", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_018", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- of Pearce and Simpson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [217.955], "stop_times": [219.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.955}, "reply_to": "14949__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_019", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [219.052], "stop_times": [220.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.052}, "reply_to": "14949__0_018", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_020", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Full credit was given of course, that's good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [220.028], "stop_times": [221.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.028}, "reply_to": "14949__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_021", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Full credit was given, that's correct.\nIf I may proceed Your Honor as to the question of retroactivity.\nI believe as a practical matter that -- may I state at the outset that I am not urging the Court as a practical matter that every decision of this Court should be made retroactive and I'm not here to push that argument.\nMy argument of course is only that under the facts of this case and the criteria which this Court has outlined, particularly in Stovall versus Denno, Desist versus United States that the three criteria of the purpose of the new rule, reliance on the old rule and the burden on the administration of justice fully justify a completely retroactive effect to this case before the Court today, that is Moon.\nI would like to say further Your Honor that I do not believe that there is in effect a new rule so that the question of retroactivity I believe is at least -- that this is not a retroactive case in effect.\nI would say to the Court that North Carolina versus Pearce was a case of first impression to this Court and I intend to argue it later to that effect that it is not in any change in the law of the United States.\nIt certainly in the petitioner's opinion is not a change in the laws expounded by United States versus Ball or Stroud versus United States, but was a new case.\nI would also state that under the facts of this case, the three criteria stated for instance, the purpose of the new rule in this case as I understand it is to allow a free and uninhibited right to appellate review in the state and federal courts of the United States.\nCertainly, this purpose and the Court has so stated in Stovall I believe that this purpose is controlling unless the questions of reliance or burden are such as to overcome it.\nI submit to the Court that those factors are not of such a factor.\nI would say this as to reliance that the Court in Benton for instance talked about collateral estoppel.\nNow the state may have -- I would say first the state had no old rule to rely on and I will approach that in later.\nSince they had no right rule to rely on, even if they did rely on the Maryland law, and of course they would argue that, there was no controlling United States case with them to rely on and assuming that there were under the doctrine of estoppel, they did not change their position to their detriment because of this decision.\nAnd if the Court will note at page 38 of the state's brief, they concede that of the 85 persons retried who that is, were reconvicted under Schowgurow, 11 of them received increased sentences.\nNow, projecting as a practical matter, Maryland's population is 4% of the national population, that would mean approximately 550 prisoners in the state prisons in this country who would be re-sentenced.\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [221.028, 224.474, 229.222, 241.972, 266.962, 280.493, 293.653, 305.512, 324.237, 336.205, 341.932, 349.165, 357.241, 376.313, 392.307, 406.126], "stop_times": [224.474, 229.222, 241.972, 266.962, 280.493, 293.653, 305.512, 324.237, 336.205, 341.932, 349.165, 357.241, 376.313, 392.307, 406.126, 406.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.028}, "reply_to": "14949__0_020", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_022", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Do you think this period of time and this number of people as sufficient to let the law of probability have any meaningful exercise?\nThis is just a very short period of time in a very small place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [406.216, 419.182], "stop_times": [419.182, 422.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.216}, "reply_to": "14949__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_023", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well Mr. Chief Justice, Schowgurow was decided on October of 1965.\nThe State's brief was submitted in approximately September of 1969, that's four years.\nI don't see -- there were I believe, 221 cases.\nThe state has some figures which they put in their brief, but I don't see frankly where that the figures will change with time at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [422.907, 429.373, 437.065, 441.657], "stop_times": [429.373, 437.065, 441.657, 450.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.907}, "reply_to": "14949__0_022", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_024", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, not the figures perhaps in Maryland, I'm talking about you are projecting this to the 49 other states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [450.629], "stop_times": [456.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.629}, "reply_to": "14949__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__0_025", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh, very frankly, I will concede that I borrowed a copy of the brief in North Carolina versus Pearce and petitioner for respondent there stated that perhaps up to 70% of some cases in North Carolina had received increased sentences.\nSo perhaps my figures are at least subject to challenge, but I submit that the number of cases involved in the state courts cannot be that great and in particular, the burden on any one state is to justify the reliance on a rule which might been Your Honor does not exist in the first place.\nAnd if I may talk about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [456.548, 471.721, 489.869], "stop_times": [471.721, 489.869, 492.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.548}, "reply_to": "14949__0_024", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_026", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, the reliance I suppose was that until Pearce and Simpson, any state felt free on a retrial, any trial judge on a retrial of somebody who'd previously been convicted, felt entirely free because that was the rule, was an absence of any other rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [492.212], "stop_times": [510.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.212}, "reply_to": "14949__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_027", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But no Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [510.746], "stop_times": [511.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.746}, "reply_to": "14949__0_026", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_028", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But not entirely free to sentence of the person before him who would be convicted in a court as just though this for a new case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [511.244], "stop_times": [518.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.244}, "reply_to": "14949__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_029", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "If it please the Court, I think it goes further than that.\nI know in Maryland Courts and I believe the Maryland Court in my case relied very heavily on Stroud versus United States as authority for the proposition that this Court has ruled that there is no constitutional prohibition against increase of sentence at retrial.\nI do not so read Stroud nor do I read United States versus Ball.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [518.149, 520.816, 536.247], "stop_times": [520.816, 536.247, 540.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.149}, "reply_to": "14949__0_028", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_030", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, how do you read Pearce and Simpson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [540.367], "stop_times": [542.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.367}, "reply_to": "14949__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_031", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I read Pearce and Simpson to have approached the prohibition against increase of sentence with the exception which the Court outlined as to conduct subsequent to the first trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [542.821], "stop_times": [553.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.821}, "reply_to": "14949__0_030", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_032", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Pearce and Simpson said that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [553.248], "stop_times": [554.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.248}, "reply_to": "14949__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_033", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [554.533], "stop_times": [554.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.533}, "reply_to": "14949__0_032", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_034", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- there was no absolute constitutional prohibition against the law of re-sentence at a new trial, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [554.609], "stop_times": [559.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.609}, "reply_to": "14949__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_035", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It said -- that's correct, they said -- well as I recall, there was no flat absolute prohibition.\nI agree with the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [559.516, 565.228], "stop_times": [565.228, 565.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.516}, "reply_to": "14949__0_034", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_036", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [565.872], "stop_times": [566.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.872}, "reply_to": "14949__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_037", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- to that extent, but the point that I originally urged in my writ of certiorari, that is point three of this argument, that is the that prohibition in fact be made a flat prohibition under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [566.129], "stop_times": [575.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.129}, "reply_to": "14949__0_036", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_038", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, then you are saying that Pearce and Simpson was wrongly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [575.434], "stop_times": [577.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.434}, "reply_to": "14949__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_039", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Pearce --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [577.932], "stop_times": [578.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.932}, "reply_to": "14949__0_038", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_040", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Was wrong and that the dissenters in that case were right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [578.619], "stop_times": [581.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.619}, "reply_to": "14949__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_041", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, I hate to say it Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [581.397], "stop_times": [582.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.397}, "reply_to": "14949__0_040", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_042", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But that is -- that is basically --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [582.695], "stop_times": [583.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.695}, "reply_to": "14949__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_043", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I'm saying that the Court did not go far enough in North Carolina versus Pearce, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [583.436], "stop_times": [587.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.436}, "reply_to": "14949__0_042", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_044", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [587.614], "stop_times": [589.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.614}, "reply_to": "14949__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_045", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "As to the question of and perhaps as to this question of reliance, I know that the Court stated at some length in Pearce that they did not wish to overrule the long line of cases involved in Stroud.\nBut as I read the cases cited by the Court there, I do not believe that they stand for the proposition which the Court feels it does or at least the plurality opinion in Pearce says that it does.\nI have read the briefs in the Stroud case and counsel was arguing there and as it's in my brief, that since Stroud had been put in jeopardy at a former trial, he could not even be retried again for the same offense, that is murder and I believe -- say with respect to the Court that that is exactly what the Stroud case stands for and I believe Murphy versus Massachusetts, Ball versus United States, all stand for roughly that proposition.\nThat is that the fact of an acquittal or the fact of a reversal does not in any way prohibit retrial for the same offense and I'm certainly not saying that to this Court.\nThat's an untenable argument.\nI am saying is that the Court until Pearce had never decided the question of increase of sentence at retrial.\nNow, if I may -- as to the question of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [589.193, 603.136, 615.538, 647.953, 658.024, 660.355, 668.111], "stop_times": [603.136, 615.538, 647.953, 658.024, 660.355, 668.111, 671.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.193}, "reply_to": "14949__0_044", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_046", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I thought it was in the Stroud that the man was sentenced to life imprisonment at first trial and to death sentence at the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [671.744], "stop_times": [677.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.744}, "reply_to": "14949__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_047", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [677.958], "stop_times": [678.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.958}, "reply_to": "14949__0_046", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_048", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Stroud was the birdman of Alcatraz, you remember?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [678.166], "stop_times": [679.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.166}, "reply_to": "14949__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_049", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's right Your Honor and of course this came -- his case came back here ironically in 1916 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [679.394], "stop_times": [684.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.394}, "reply_to": "14949__0_048", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_050", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [684.954], "stop_times": [685.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.954}, "reply_to": "14949__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_051", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- some 4 years later.\nIf I recall in May of 1916, he received the death sentence.\nHe then appealed and got life the second time and then on the theory of pushing his luck I suppose, then got a third trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [685.149, 686.319, 689.987], "stop_times": [686.319, 689.987, 697.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.149}, "reply_to": "14949__0_050", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_052", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And got death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [697.056], "stop_times": [697.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.056}, "reply_to": "14949__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__0_053", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And got death again and it was in that case that his counsel urged that since he'd already put in jeopardy for his life, he couldn't be tried again the third time at all.\nAnd I've read Stroud and I'm convinced that that's what this Court was deciding in Stroud that there was no reason not to retry him a third time.\nIf I may proceed then as to the question of the double jeopardy argument.\nAs to double jeopardy, I know that this Court has in Pearce decided that the double jeopardy argument is not applicable.\nMay I say respectfully that a close reading of the language of the Fifth Amendment and of the study since then and in fact the first draft of James Madison's article for the Fifth Amendment in which Mr. Madison stated that there should be no more than one punishment nor one crime, nor one trial for the same offense.\nUnfortunately, as I understand it from the article, there was so much confusion as to whether punishment mean they couldn't be retried, exactly the Stroud question that Mr. Madison was forced to change his original language.\nI think very frankly Your Honor that the language, the cases which I feel are applicable to this case are not Ball and not Stroud, but ex parte Lang in 18 Wallace and United States versus Benz in which this Court said in ex parte Lang that the reality of trial is not the trial itself, but the punishment.\nAnd I might say to the Court, I've only been in practice of law seven years, but I have never had a case in which I've -- in which the overwhelming desire and concern of the prisoner was not the punishment involved.\nI know that there maybe some cases where because of security clearance or professional reputation, the conviction is the man would do anything to avoid a conviction.\nBut as a practical matter, I submit that in -- at least in my experience, 90% of the appeals that go to the state and federal appellate courts in this country are in some way related to the issue of punishment.\nI think that as the ultimate reality of criminal law and I think very frankly to separate double jeopardy from trial, from double jeopardy as far as it concerns, the sentence is to do -- is to incorrectly judge in my opinion the clear language of the Fifth Amendment because it says in jeopardy of -- nor shall not twice be put in jeopardy not by conviction, but of life and limb that is punishment.\nAnd I submit that -- Your Honor that the state has raised several questions about, well, if you extended it to a flat prohibition, what would happen?\nYou'd have everybody appealing.\nWe -- I have statistics Your Honor that show that in some circuits, the rate of appeal is approaching 90% now.\nUnder the uniform code of military justice for a crime involving of more than one year imprisonment, you have two automatic reviews, automatic, you don't even have to request them.\nI submit further that the state is apparently been saying all along that the second trial judge sits de novo and accordingly, he has the right to substitute his judgment for that of the first judge because the first judgment has ceased to exist.\nIf I recall the language of the Court in Pearce, is that the first judgment, the first sentence insofar does not conserve becomes a nullity.\nI submit with all due respect that this nullity argument simply is not -- cannot be distinguished from the argument in Pearce at all.\nIt cannot be made -- it is not consistent with the rest of the argument in Pearce.\nI cited for instance in my brief and I would very much like the State of Maryland to answer this question.\nReeves versus State, 3 Maryland Appeal 195, where the defendant had served some six years of a sentence, of 20 years if I recall.\nHe then got a new trial and got 20 years in prison.\nNow, the Court said, we agree that this is a de novo proceeding.\nWe agree the slate as wiped clean.\nWe agree that if the former sentence is a nullity, but you still can't sentence a man to 26 years on a 20-year maximum charge.\nAs I said to the Court of Appeals when I argued this, I said I defy, I didn't say I defy, I said I would like the Court to explain the distinction between its rationale in Moon and its rationale in Reeves.\nIf the former sentence is a nullity, then it seizes to exist and if the man gets another maximum sentence, it's perfectly proper.\nNow, this is the logical extension of the Reeves decision.\nThe Court of Appeals of Maryland declined to hear that case.\nThe state asked for certiorari and they simply did not take the case.\nAnd I well say when I was arguing the case, one of the judges on the Court of Appeals said, he saw nothing wrong with that argument.\nThe man got a de novo trial and got another 20 years and wound up serving 26 years on the 20 year charge, that was perfectly alright because the former sentence was a nullity.\nI submit with respect to the Court that you cannot consider a sentence as a nullity.\nIt is there and it is why most appeals are taken.\nNow, the courts in the State of Maryland, and the Maryland Courts have said that and they've cited from other cases that on appeal, the trial judge -- the Court of Appeals will reverse a sentence if it is excessive and they feel that it violates liberty and due process.\nNow, Your Honor, my set of the Maryland reports go back to 1682, I believe, that's the nominatives of Maryland and they have recently stated that there is no case on record in which the Court of Appeals of Maryland has ever reduced a sentence.\nAnd in fact, I submit to the Court to the best of anyone's knowledge in the entire, almost 300 years of the appellate procedure in Maryland, not a single case has ever been reversed because the appellate court felt that the trial judge had been too harsh.\nNow in fact, in the last few years, the Maryland legislature has seen fit to establish a new procedure for appellate review sentence under Rule 762, the Maryland rules of procedure.\nThis involves a three-man bench of which the sentencing judge is one and he may then -- they may then either increase the sentence, leave it alone or decrease it.\nNow, it seems to me that this is the ultimate issue.\nThe State of Maryland has now recognized that there is a division between the appeal of the trial and the appeal of the sentence.\nAnd if we can -- I'm asking this Court to recognize that distinction in Pearce that I am asking this Court to accept what I believe was the logical extension of Green versus United States and the very fine article by professor Ben Olstein about this problem which I've cited in my brief.\nAnd in Green, if we -- if the Court will accept the idea of implicit acquittal insofar as the trial goes, then I see nothing wrong and in fact I think it's perfectly logical to say that there has been an implicit acquittal insofar as any higher sentence goes.\nIn other words, that court has established the maximum sentence and upon retrial, while there maybe another sentence obviously, it cannot exceed that valid sentence.\nI'm asking the Court in other words to face what I consider is the reality of appeals that almost every appeal is a somehow an appeal of the sentence and that because our courts do not recognize that on appeal, somehow error has to be found.\nI would venture to this Court that if you promise every prisoner in a -- in any jail in the United States that he would be released if he dropped his appeal, I would venture that 90% of them would drop the appeal immediately.\nAnd I would venture further that if you release them and said you can ahead with your appeal, it doesn't matter, they still would drop their appeal because we are faced here and I know this Court is facing other cases.\nWe just heard one about -- I think that the sentencing area is the most sensitive area that this Court must now resolve.\nI know that there is a capital punishment case set.\nI know North Carolina versus Alfred is set very soon, or has been already argued.\nThis, it is now -- I think the courts, particularly this Court in Pearce have finally faced this entire area of sentencing and punishment and that is the ultimate reality of the law of this case and the law of every case.\nThere is no good reason not to apply North Carolina versus Pearce retroactively.\nWhat is going to be the burden on the administration of justice?\nAlmost nominal, not one guilty person is going to be turned lose.\nIf every prisoner in the state came under this rule and I say it is only 11, if every prisoner came, what would happen, he would be brought back to the sentencing Court and sentenced in accordance with this case.\nI do not consider that an undue burden.\nNot one person is going to go free because of this case.\nAs to reliance upon the old rule, we've already discussed that.\nI submit very respectfully, there is no old rule.\nSo that is why I contend that the question of retroactivity does not even apply here.\nBecause I know in Desist the Court talked about changes in the law and a clear break with the old law, but there is no old law to break with in this case.\nIf it please the Court, I'm saving some of the time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [697.402, 707.388, 717.06, 723.981, 738.945, 766.208, 780.869, 803.952, 818.9, 828.962, 841.31, 870.683, 880.381, 882.408, 889.836, 900.367, 917.78, 927.515, 938.147, 942.51, 948.959, 959.388, 963.689, 967.726, 970.426, 978.459, 991.042, 998.868, 1002.785, 1005.805, 1009.6, 1015.37, 1025.387, 1031.433, 1036.068, 1054.705, 1068.88, 1082.674, 1095.008, 1106.014, 1109.336, 1118.044, 1137.744, 1154.684, 1165.849, 1184.32, 1199.28, 1210.303, 1218.219, 1220.6, 1225.999, 1240.602, 1247.92, 1251.183, 1255.221, 1267.889, 1270.103, 1274.525, 1277.884, 1281.344, 1286.504, 1295.732], "stop_times": [707.388, 717.06, 723.981, 738.945, 766.208, 780.869, 803.952, 818.9, 828.962, 841.31, 870.683, 880.381, 882.408, 889.836, 900.367, 917.78, 927.515, 938.147, 942.51, 948.959, 959.388, 963.689, 967.726, 970.426, 978.459, 991.042, 998.868, 1002.785, 1005.805, 1009.6, 1015.37, 1025.387, 1031.433, 1036.068, 1054.705, 1068.88, 1082.674, 1095.008, 1106.014, 1109.336, 1118.044, 1137.744, 1154.684, 1165.849, 1184.32, 1199.28, 1210.303, 1218.219, 1220.6, 1225.999, 1240.602, 1247.92, 1251.183, 1255.221, 1267.889, 1270.103, 1274.525, 1277.884, 1281.344, 1286.504, 1295.732, 1299.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.402}, "reply_to": "14949__0_052", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__0_054", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Very well Mr. Jacques.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1299.381], "stop_times": [1303.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.381}, "reply_to": "14949__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_000", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1303.593], "stop_times": [1305.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1303.593}, "reply_to": "14949__0_054", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_001", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Mr. Borgerding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1305.417], "stop_times": [1307.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.417}, "reply_to": "14949__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_002", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- may it please the Court.\nI would like to accommodate my brother and inform him while he made the statement that he does no know of any case in which the Court of Appeals, maybe he was limited to the Court of Appeals in Maryland.\nBut as far as the Court of Special Appeals which is an appellate court, they did reverse the Reeves case simply because they'd felt that the trial judge exceeded his authority and it possibly foreshadowed this Court's decision in as far as credit for time served.\nI think the Pearce case held that while the sentence is a nullity on the first conviction, the time actually served cannot be a nullity, and this is exactly what the Court of the Special Appeals held not in those exact terms, but in that case since Reeves had been given a life sentence, he had spent 6 years in prison.\nThe second time around, when it was reversed in the federal court, he received a 20 year sentence, it was a crime of rape and the judge gave him 20 years but did not take in to consideration the fact that Mr. Reeves had actually spent 6 years in jail.\nAnd so therefore, the Court of Special Appeals held that this was in effect increase in the statutory sentence of 20 years that Reeves was entitled to and they reversed the case and our Court of Appeals for their own reasons did not grant cert.\nThe state, Mr. Jacques is correct, the state took a cert in that case insofar as we were trying to resolve the question of Moon which was pending in the Court of Appeals at that time, Reeves and also another case, Williams versus State dealing with jail time, that is the time a defendant spends in jail pending the trial as differentiated from sentence time.\nNow, as to the statistics that we quote on page 38, had no time to mean to infer that this 11 increased sentence applies to all retrials in the State of Maryland.\nThis is limited as indicated in the brief only to Schowgurow cases, not to cases that have been reversed because of double jeopardy problems, evidentiary problems and a variety of reversals that come through.\nThis is only limited and it was only entered into the statistics of finding out this to contradict this philosophy, this pragmatic philosophy that judges on the second trial will vindictively, systematically is the word that's used in the Law Review article that is Duke Law Journal systematically would increase sentence.\nThis would indicate that in Maryland on the Schowgurow that out of the 85 cases that we were able to come up with retrials, 61 got it a decrease in sentence, that's 72%.\nNow and incidentally, this was not a figure on the sentence itself because that's only one consideration determined whether he may and got a decrease in sentence, you must determine the date of his first sentence to make sure that the second sentence covers that same period of time and this was figured on that basis.\nSomeone could get a lesser sentence but in effect served more time, if he did not get credit for the time served.\nNow, I think that the question here in view of the Pearce decision by this honorable Court, the question before us today is based on the premise that the Pearce Court held that on a retrial, a man can get a heavier sentence.\nThe main fear -- there was two problems there.\nOne was credit for time served.\nThe other was the fear of the vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge.\nSo therefore, I think it's incumbent to question before this Court today.\nOne of the questions is whether the trial record of the second trial would support the fact that Judge Pugh, sentencing judge had ample reasons or was his sentence, not necessarily just a file, or that could be a question of debate but whether it was given in conformity with the evidence of that particular case.\nAnd certainly, it has been the law in Maryland at all times since 1896 in the Mitchell case that if a judge sentenced for an improper motive, death sentence should be set aside.\nWe would say that a vindictive purpose on the part of the judge in penalizing the man for taking an appeal is certainly an unworthy to note and it should be set aside.\nNow, I would -- well, no question has been raised as to the guilt of this particular man.\nI think it's essential that a factual outline of the crime should be brought to the attention of the Court.\nThis was a prosecution for armed robbery and assault with intent to murder and larceny of a female hardware clerk who was on her way to deposit money in the bank.\nThis was in broad daylight in the shopping center just to the northwest of here and as she was walking to that bank, she was attacked by the defendant Moon.\nThe evidence will indicate that he struck her and beat her to the ground with a lead pipe that he had fashioned the night before by putting tar tape around it.\nHe was a former coworker of the victim.\nHe knew the victim, the victim knew him.\nSo it was essential to this operation of this crime that she could not be able to identify him.\nAnd that's exactly he was successful because the beating was so severe that this woman could not identify Moon at the first trial and could not identify him at the second trial two years later because she was suffering from amnesia brought on by this brutal beating about the head.\nNow, so the first trial, the judge at the first trial had before him the following.\nHe had a witness to the peer, this victim who said that she couldn't remember any of the details.\nThis was six months after the crime.\nShe had lost her memory and she couldn't -- all she could tell him was the name of her physicians.\nThe blackout on this young lady was from five-day period, the day before to a mere four days thereafter the crime.\nShe couldn't remember or give any details, so the first trial was limited to a description of her injury by people that found her laying on the sidewalk.\nIn addition, after the evidence, it was a jury trial, it took two days.\nThe defendant when he was called or took the stand in his own behalf, he admitted -- he admitted that he made the weapon.\nHe also admitted that he was there at the shopping center.\nHe admitted striking the lady.\nIn reading the record, you will come to the conclusion, there is a tone of remorse and regret that as he stated this and that he was sorry that he hurt her, that he liked her and he did not want to hurt her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1307.198, 1309.986, 1323.441, 1342.163, 1367.29, 1386.779, 1403.564, 1434.987, 1450.765, 1468.324, 1495.933, 1510.115, 1531.789, 1541.397, 1562.61, 1567.56, 1570.351, 1578.437, 1583.494, 1611.295, 1626.269, 1639.028, 1647.526, 1654.743, 1668.196, 1680.567, 1692.479, 1697.175, 1700.168, 1707.473, 1728.044, 1734.765, 1743.835, 1748.317, 1753.954, 1763.956, 1775.234, 1781.278, 1791.371, 1796.77, 1800.013], "stop_times": [1309.986, 1323.441, 1342.163, 1367.29, 1386.779, 1403.564, 1434.987, 1450.765, 1468.324, 1495.933, 1510.115, 1531.789, 1541.397, 1562.61, 1567.56, 1570.351, 1578.437, 1583.494, 1611.295, 1626.269, 1639.028, 1647.526, 1654.743, 1668.196, 1680.567, 1692.479, 1697.175, 1700.168, 1707.473, 1728.044, 1734.765, 1743.835, 1748.317, 1753.954, 1763.956, 1775.234, 1781.278, 1791.371, 1796.77, 1800.013, 1814.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1307.198}, "reply_to": "14949__1_001", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_003", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Now, all of this is in the first trial, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1814.316], "stop_times": [1816.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.316}, "reply_to": "14949__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_004", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir and the point of bringing this out is to the difference in sentence, all judges vary well not all, but there is a despairing sentencing and it's unfortunate but as long as we have human beings to sentence people rather than computers, we are going to have disparity of sentences.\nNow, so Mr. Moon was convicted and got 12 years and as Mr. Jacques has indicated, he recited the chronological order that it was reversed because of Schowgurow.\nNow, what took place at the second trial?\nThe second trial, two years later, the woman comes in and she testifies again and she is -- has continued to have amnesia as to this five-day period.\nShe testified that she is still under the doctor's care.\nTwo years later, still under medical care, at this trial, the doctor appears and he testifies as to the medical description of the terms that she was suffering among other things, a cerebral concussion.\nAt this time, it was a jury trial that took two days incidentally and at this time, Moon did not take the stand, that's what his privilege.\nAt the conclusion of the trial, the judge or the jury rather found him guilty, guilty of -- it's very true, guilty of armed robbery, guilty of larceny and guilty of assault with intent to murder.\nThe assault with intent to murder was not brought at the first trial.\nNow, when the -- Moon was asked by the Court, \"Would you -- do you have anything you would like to say before I enter sentence?\"\nHe was also asked or the Court asked defense counsel whether they want a pre-sentence report and that was turned down and they wanted sentence there.\nMoon took the stand and testified that as to why the Court should be lenient was because he did not commit the crime.\nHe was not there and he denied hitting the woman.\nThe Court wasn't -- should grin at this, it didn't know.\nThe defense counsel if you read the record, will indicate that the defense counsel said, well didn't you say at the first trial that you were there and so forth and so forth to which he denied and he said that he was high on narcotic drugs at the time of the first trial and I might add that pain relieving narcotics drug because he did have a -- some difficulty with his leg.\nNow, then the Court questioned him about this.\nSir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1816.243, 1836.199, 1848.846, 1852.123, 1864.718, 1869.109, 1885.612, 1896.723, 1912.5, 1916.787, 1926.69, 1936.672, 1949.86, 1957.301, 1960.97, 1991.684, 1994.737], "stop_times": [1836.199, 1848.846, 1852.123, 1864.718, 1869.109, 1885.612, 1896.723, 1912.5, 1916.787, 1926.69, 1936.672, 1949.86, 1957.301, 1960.97, 1991.684, 1994.737, 1995.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.243}, "reply_to": "14949__1_003", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_005", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "How did it get to the summary of the report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1995.142], "stop_times": [1997.614], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.142}, "reply_to": "14949__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__1_006", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "He had some difficulty with his leg Your Honor and he maintained that he was taking the narcotics drug for the pain in his leg.\nHis leg subsequently was amputated so he apparently did have a problem, but we -- there's nothing to indicate that he had any drugs at the time of the trial.\nThe Court then questioned him whether -- about this evasive matter of whether he remembered committing the crime or not and he was very vague about the party the night before and so forth.\nNow, it is on that basis that the sentencing judge had to decide what sentence should Mr. Moon receive.\nIt is on the basis of his record, his record did come in, he had been convicted previously on two or three offenses.\nIn the trial itself, the evidence, it was an atrocious crime and then plus the fact that after two years in prison, Mr. Moon has not indicated any rehabilitative signs at all.\nHe denies his --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [1997.614, 2006.48, 2016.775, 2029.824, 2043.672, 2053.846, 2072.766], "stop_times": [2006.48, 2016.775, 2029.824, 2043.672, 2053.846, 2072.766, 2073.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1997.614}, "reply_to": "14949__1_005", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_007", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2073.695], "stop_times": [2075.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.695}, "reply_to": "14949__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_008", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, I'm characterizing it, but it's indicated by the fact that he denied committing the crime when he is on questioning as to sentencing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2075.748], "stop_times": [2085.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.748}, "reply_to": "14949__1_007", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_009", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Was the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2085.375], "stop_times": [2085.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.375}, "reply_to": "14949__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_010", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- in the second trial but as to the first trial there is a judicial confession.\nAnd incidentally, at the time of the trial and the record indicates this, the state sought to put the judicial confession in and the trial judge refused to allow the state to put the judicial confession in and so it was excluded.\nNow, so the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2085.675, 2090.179, 2110.462], "stop_times": [2090.179, 2110.462, 2111.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.675}, "reply_to": "14949__1_009", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_011", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And there was a plea of not guilty at the first trial, wasn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2111.527], "stop_times": [2114.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.527}, "reply_to": "14949__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_012", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "There was a plea on both crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2114.197], "stop_times": [2116.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.197}, "reply_to": "14949__1_011", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_013", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Both crimes of not guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2116.171], "stop_times": [2117.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.171}, "reply_to": "14949__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_014", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It was both crimes not guilty, jury trials, both of them lasted two days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2117.244], "stop_times": [2122.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.244}, "reply_to": "14949__1_013", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_015", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Convictions on both case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2122.45], "stop_times": [2123.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.45}, "reply_to": "14949__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_016", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2123.451], "stop_times": [2123.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.451}, "reply_to": "14949__1_015", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_017", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Except in the second case, it was for additional --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2123.864], "stop_times": [2126.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.864}, "reply_to": "14949__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_018", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2126.65], "stop_times": [2127.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.65}, "reply_to": "14949__1_017", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_019", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2127.02], "stop_times": [2127.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.02}, "reply_to": "14949__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_020", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And I would like to point out here to make the record clear.\nThe only sentence that Mr. Moon appealed was the armed robbery.\nHe did not appeal the other two sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2127.499, 2130.387, 2135.312], "stop_times": [2130.387, 2135.312, 2137.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.499}, "reply_to": "14949__1_019", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_021", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "This is the thing that puzzles me.\nIn the second case, was there a trial on additional charge of larceny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2137.382, 2139.169], "stop_times": [2139.169, 2144.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.382}, "reply_to": "14949__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_022", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2144.031], "stop_times": [2144.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.031}, "reply_to": "14949__1_021", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_023", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That did not appear in the first case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2144.784], "stop_times": [2147.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.784}, "reply_to": "14949__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_024", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Your Honor, in the first case, there was a charge of larceny.\nThis is the Benton situation, no two ways about that.\nIn the first trial, the sixth count was larceny.\nBut for some reason in reading the record, the Court and the counsel got it mixed up and they called it a receiving stolen goods and the judge said, \u201cWell, what are you going to do, there is no evidence of receiving stolen goods,\u201d so the state said, \u201cWe'll abandon the larceny count.\u201d\nSo there was a larceny count in the first trial and it was abandoned after the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2147.049, 2152.521, 2156.277, 2160.314, 2177.376], "stop_times": [2152.521, 2156.277, 2160.314, 2177.376, 2183.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.049}, "reply_to": "14949__1_023", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_025", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Was there any punishment imposed for that in the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2183.276], "stop_times": [2186.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.276}, "reply_to": "14949__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_026", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No sir, it was abandoned by the state.\nSo in effect, it would be found -- it would be double jeopardy we would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2186.294, 2188.234], "stop_times": [2188.234, 2191.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.294}, "reply_to": "14949__1_025", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_027", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, It's -- the second judge's affidavit which seems to indicate that he rested in part on the fact that there was an additional criminal act in the second trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2191.874], "stop_times": [2205.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.874}, "reply_to": "14949__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_028", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe second trial was assault with intent to murder.\nNow this count or this indictment was not brought at the first trail Your Honor.\nWhat I'm saying is that the first time you had a -- armed robbery count -- charge with three additional or four, at least five additional counts which one included larceny, and the second indictment which was not present at the first trial, but at the second was assault with intent to murder.\nAnd this is what Judge Pugh is referring to that the assault with intent to murder was not present at the first trial, but he was tried on that the second time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2205.719, 2206.657, 2212.287, 2218.534, 2239.974], "stop_times": [2206.657, 2212.287, 2218.534, 2239.974, 2250.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.719}, "reply_to": "14949__1_027", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_029", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But the intervening events between the -- the only intervening advantage described both, as the new sentencing was -- was his prison record add to the fact that when he came up for sentencing the second time, he denied what he had admitted at sentencing the first time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2250.6], "stop_times": [2272.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.6}, "reply_to": "14949__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__1_030", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes, plus the fact that the crime is more vividly described in the second trial rather than the first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2272.622], "stop_times": [2279.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.622}, "reply_to": "14949__1_029", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_031", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Now then, but that relates to the events that happen before the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2279.588], "stop_times": [2283.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.588}, "reply_to": "14949__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__1_032", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.\nOh!\nNow, I would like to make it quite clear that it is not on the record.\nWe -- the trial judge, this case was tried six -- three years prior to Pearce and it is not spread on the record these reasons you understand that and I do not want to mislead anybody that it is not.\nBut this is identifiable conduct if we are looking forward from that point of view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2283.549, 2284.162, 2284.464, 2290.017, 2303.101], "stop_times": [2284.162, 2284.464, 2290.017, 2303.101, 2307.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.549}, "reply_to": "14949__1_031", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_033", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But your argument appears just like the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2307.652], "stop_times": [2311.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.652}, "reply_to": "14949__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__1_034", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2311.005, 2311.69], "stop_times": [2311.69, 2313.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2311.005}, "reply_to": "14949__1_033", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_035", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, aren't you arguing that if it does, the affidavit of the -- of Judge Pugh furnishes substantial reasons for a different sentence because that's the way I read your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2313.25], "stop_times": [2325.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.25}, "reply_to": "14949__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_036", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes, I would argue that Your Honor plus the fact that this distinguishing factor between this case and Pearce is that in Pearce and Simpson, both the Court came to the conclusion that one Judge Johnson in the Simpson versus Wright in the lower court, the District Court felt that Mr. Wright I believe it was with a vindictively sentence and he was penalized for taking an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2325.267], "stop_times": [2354.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.267}, "reply_to": "14949__1_035", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_037", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, isn't the further factor here that the -- that you do have an intervening event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2354.012], "stop_times": [2359.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.012}, "reply_to": "14949__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_038", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2359.446], "stop_times": [2359.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.446}, "reply_to": "14949__1_037", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_039", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "You do have an intervening event in the form of the abandonment by the State of Maryland of one of its charges in the first trial which was not abandoned in the second trial, but became the basis of another count, is that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2359.738], "stop_times": [2376.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.738}, "reply_to": "14949__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_040", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, I -- you could term it at intervening event but that I don't think that could be construed to -- for the -- why the sentence was increased, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2376.568], "stop_times": [2389.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.568}, "reply_to": "14949__1_039", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_041", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's all we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2389.633], "stop_times": [2389.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.633}, "reply_to": "14949__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_042", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "From that face, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2389.908], "stop_times": [2391.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.908}, "reply_to": "14949__1_041", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_043", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It's all we're talking about in this case is why the sentence was increased, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2391.818], "stop_times": [2395.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.818}, "reply_to": "14949__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_044", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, that's how we view it Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2395.621], "stop_times": [2398.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.621}, "reply_to": "14949__1_043", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_045", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, what if I get -- understand this clearly.\nAre we talking about anything more than the increased sentence on the conviction for armed robbery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2398.394, 2402.376], "stop_times": [2402.376, 2408.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.394}, "reply_to": "14949__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_046", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I think Your Honor on the retroactive problem, we have to be talking of Moon --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2408.754], "stop_times": [2414.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.754}, "reply_to": "14949__1_045", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_047", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I know it, are we concerned here -- as I understand it, he was tried the first time and convicted of armed robbery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2414.132], "stop_times": [2421.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.132}, "reply_to": "14949__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_048", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2421.706], "stop_times": [2422.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.706}, "reply_to": "14949__1_047", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_049", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "He was also convicted of larceny, but the state abandoned that conviction for further sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2422.046], "stop_times": [2425.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.046}, "reply_to": "14949__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_050", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No they -- excuse me.\nThe state abandoned the larceny count before it went to the jury.So it was not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2425.866, 2427.715], "stop_times": [2427.715, 2433.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.866}, "reply_to": "14949__1_049", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_051", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "So but he got -- so he was sentenced-- he got the 12-year sentence for armed robbery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2433.067], "stop_times": [2436.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.067}, "reply_to": "14949__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_052", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Armed robbery alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2436.993], "stop_times": [2438.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.993}, "reply_to": "14949__1_051", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_053", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And then when he got to new trial, he got -- he was convicted for assault with intent to murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2438.114], "stop_times": [2443.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.114}, "reply_to": "14949__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_054", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir, that was a new indictment and different --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2443.904], "stop_times": [2445.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.904}, "reply_to": "14949__1_053", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_055", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And convicted for armed robbery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2445.75], "stop_times": [2447.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.75}, "reply_to": "14949__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_056", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2447.412], "stop_times": [2447.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.412}, "reply_to": "14949__1_055", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_057", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And convicted for larceny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2447.914], "stop_times": [2449.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.914}, "reply_to": "14949__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_058", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2449.249], "stop_times": [2449.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.249}, "reply_to": "14949__1_057", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_059", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "All three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2449.697], "stop_times": [2450.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.697}, "reply_to": "14949__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_060", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2450.368], "stop_times": [2450.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.368}, "reply_to": "14949__1_059", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_061", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But are we concerned with anything here except the increased sentence on the armed robbery conviction, that's I'm trying to get here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2450.677], "stop_times": [2457.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.677}, "reply_to": "14949__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_062", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's all you're concerned with because that's the only one that was appealed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2457.449], "stop_times": [2461.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.449}, "reply_to": "14949__1_061", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_063", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And now why is it you are suggesting that Pearce is not applicable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2461.125], "stop_times": [2466.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.125}, "reply_to": "14949__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_064", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I think that Pearce, the due procedure rule in Pearce was predicated on vindictiveness of a second court to sentence someone for taking an appeal.\nIn this case, had no time has the defendant Moon maintained that he was -- or his sentence was increased because the judge vindictively increased his sentence because he thought --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2466.221, 2478.696], "stop_times": [2478.696, 2491.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.221}, "reply_to": "14949__1_063", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_065", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "So this is not an argument that Pearce is inapplicable because it ought to be prospective only?\nThis is an argument that Pearce is inapplicable because there is no element here of vindictiveness on the second -- on the imposition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2491.018, 2496.799], "stop_times": [2496.799, 2504.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.018}, "reply_to": "14949__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_066", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2504.215], "stop_times": [2504.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.215}, "reply_to": "14949__1_065", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_067", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- the second armed robbery sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2504.427], "stop_times": [2506.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.427}, "reply_to": "14949__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_068", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That would be one of our argument.\nOf course we also argue on the retroactivity of Pearce.\nNow, it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2506.11, 2507.432, 2510.982], "stop_times": [2507.432, 2510.982, 2511.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.11}, "reply_to": "14949__1_067", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_069", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "You also say that Pearce should not be retroactive at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2511.366], "stop_times": [2514.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.366}, "reply_to": "14949__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__1_070", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, Your Honor I understand that as far as credit for time served --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2514.895], "stop_times": [2519.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.895}, "reply_to": "14949__1_069", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_071", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2519.151], "stop_times": [2519.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.151}, "reply_to": "14949__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__1_072", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- it is -- that there is a footnote to the effect that it is retroactive, but we do not have this problem.\nThis man not only got 217 extra days because his sentence was sent back and he got good time for that and there is a footnote that he has to get good time.\nHe also -- the correctional system of Maryland gave him 86 days good time for the abortive time he spent -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2519.997, 2525.727, 2537.601], "stop_times": [2525.727, 2537.601, 2544.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.997}, "reply_to": "14949__1_071", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_073", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But I don't quite understand why you're telling us all about the assault with intent to murder conviction at the second trial and with the larceny conviction at the second trial.\nWhat relevance have they to the issue that we've got to decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2544.972, 2554.272], "stop_times": [2554.272, 2557.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.972}, "reply_to": "14949__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_074", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I just was giving you the whole picture Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2557.112], "stop_times": [2560.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.112}, "reply_to": "14949__1_073", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_075", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2560.791], "stop_times": [2563.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.791}, "reply_to": "14949__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14949__1_076", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Now, the distinguishing feature as I've indicated in this -- in the case at bar is that as to Pearce and Simpson is that in Pearce and Simpson, the Court found that the sentence of what the second trial was vindictively given.\nThe man was being penalized for taking an appeal.\nHere, as I have indicated, one, the defendant Moon has never alleged that.\nAll the -- in the 3-year journey to this Court, he has never alleged that.\nIn addition, the Court of Appeals of Maryland went into this and the Court of Appeals of Maryland found this as a fact and this is recorded of course in their decision that there was no indication that the trial judge increased Moon sentence because he had elected to have a new trial or for any other unworthy or improper motive.\nNow, the question as -- moving on to the question of retroactivity, the only thing that possibly the retroactivity appears is to this particular case would be the procedural rule which was enunciated by the court.\nNow whenever a judge impose a more severe sentence upon the defendant after his new trial, the reason must be affirmative -- affirmatively appealed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2563.131, 2586.572, 2589.958, 2598.015, 2601.967, 2627.955, 2644.963], "stop_times": [2586.572, 2589.958, 2598.015, 2601.967, 2627.955, 2644.963, 2655.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.131}, "reply_to": "14949__1_075", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_077", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "You agree as I understand it General Borgerding with the basic holding and with the full retroactivity of the basic holding in Pearce that it would be unconstitutional for a sentencing judge, that is after a second trial, to impose a higher sentence out of motivations of vindictiveness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2655.134], "stop_times": [2676.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.134}, "reply_to": "14949__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_078", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2676.135], "stop_times": [2677.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.135}, "reply_to": "14949__1_077", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_079", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "So that's the basic constitutional holding of Pearce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2677.134], "stop_times": [2680.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.134}, "reply_to": "14949__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_080", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes.\nOh!\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2680.575, 2681.2, 2681.589], "stop_times": [2681.2, 2681.589, 2681.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.575}, "reply_to": "14949__1_079", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_081", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "As I understand it, you concede that is always been the rule of due process that it -- to that extent is fully retroactive.\nDo I misunderstand you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2681.681, 2689.642], "stop_times": [2689.642, 2690.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.681}, "reply_to": "14949__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_082", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, and that is I would say, yes it should have been always the rule because if somebody vindictively did increase the sentence, certainly it can't be due process.\nAnd I have indicated that Maryland has followed the similar rule they used the term long before they voted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2690.955, 2700.812], "stop_times": [2700.812, 2705.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.955}, "reply_to": "14949__1_081", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_083", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Long before this Court enunciated such a rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2705.157], "stop_times": [2706.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.157}, "reply_to": "14949__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_084", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Since 1896.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2706.648], "stop_times": [2708.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2706.648}, "reply_to": "14949__1_083", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_085", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Right.\nSo there is no question about the full retroactivity if that's the proper word for that basic holding under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nYou would -- we -- you're in agreement on that as I understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2708.186, 2708.77, 2719.693], "stop_times": [2708.77, 2719.693, 2722.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.186}, "reply_to": "14949__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_086", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "As far as the vindictiveness is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2722.854], "stop_times": [2725.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.854}, "reply_to": "14949__1_085", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_087", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's -- and that was the holding of Pearce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2725.969], "stop_times": [2728.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.969}, "reply_to": "14949__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_088", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes but now as far as the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2728.04], "stop_times": [2730.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.04}, "reply_to": "14949__1_087", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_089", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And Pearce went on to say that in order to insure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2730.813], "stop_times": [2734.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.813}, "reply_to": "14949__1_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_090", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes, well now I don't think that the rule, well, of course if someone is vindictive in giving the sentence that would violate the constitutional principle but I think that we have a similar situation here as to the McCarthy rule.\nThat the rule is to prevent the violation of a constitutional principle and this is the rule in Pearce as I view it is to prevent a violation to with here of giving an increased sentence for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2734.727, 2749.991], "stop_times": [2749.991, 2763.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.727}, "reply_to": "14949__1_089", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_091", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2763.737], "stop_times": [2764.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.737}, "reply_to": "14949__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_092", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "--vindictiveness.\nNow, I would maintain that since -- that the rule itself should not be retroactive and citing the but -- now my time is running out, but citing the three purposes that this Court has used to measure retroactivity that certainly there is no question as to the purpose.\nThe purpose would not be served by making it a retroactive because it is to ensure that every defendant it was given a harsher sentence on retrial is not given that sentence out of vindictiveness and were to alleviate the fear of vindictiveness and its chilling effect by spreading it on the record so that the appellate judge or a reviewing court can see that.\nNow, you cannot say and I quote with our statistics would indicate that all persons that received additional time did not receive that out of vindictiveness and that the evil sought to be remedied by the new procedural rules herein, does not per se exist in every case.\nPlus the fact that the defendant does have a remedy still under collateral proceedings, post conviction and/or habeas corpus on it, although admitted difficult to prove.\nI agree with Mr. Justice Stewart that the question of reliance upon the fact that a court did not have to set forth the reasons would be based in Stroud versus United States and also in our own state on Hoves versus Maryland and the Mitchell case.\nI -- we do present some problems as to the effect on the administration of justice, exactly how that this rule is applied retroactively, how is the procedure going to be setup, is -- that the new judge give a sentence based on the record or the transcript?\nDoes he just assume the old sentence which this Court has held that has been nullified and it presents a great many, the problems that must be faced and it could best be left unanswered by making it the rule itself prospectively rather than -- and prospectively from June 23, 1969, the date of the Pearce decision, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2764.368, 2765.971, 2790.953, 2813.752, 2835.882, 2850.993, 2876.605, 2899.332], "stop_times": [2765.971, 2790.953, 2813.752, 2835.882, 2850.993, 2876.605, 2899.332, 2924.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.368}, "reply_to": "14949__1_091", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_093", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "May I ask you just one other question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2924.732], "stop_times": [2925.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.732}, "reply_to": "14949__1_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_094", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2925.564], "stop_times": [2926.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2925.564}, "reply_to": "14949__1_093", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_095", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I am sure it could be spelled out this record.\nWas the affidavit of the judge in the second trial, Judge Pugh available in the files when petition for the writ was filed here or when it was granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2926.537, 2930.196], "stop_times": [2930.196, 2942.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.537}, "reply_to": "14949__1_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_096", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It was after it was granted, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2942.135], "stop_times": [2943.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.135}, "reply_to": "14949__1_095", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_097", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It was -- I notice that it's dated in October 1969 and that the writ was granted in some time in 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2943.926], "stop_times": [2952.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.926}, "reply_to": "14949__1_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_098", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2952.235], "stop_times": [2953.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.235}, "reply_to": "14949__1_097", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_099", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2953.053], "stop_times": [2955.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.053}, "reply_to": "14949__1_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_100", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "June -- Oh, I think it was granted the day that you decided Benton, Benton versus Maryland, Pearce versus North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2955.116], "stop_times": [2962.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.116}, "reply_to": "14949__1_099", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_101", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But at that time it was perfectly clear that the explanation of Judge Pugh was not before the Court in granting certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2962.385], "stop_times": [2971.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.385}, "reply_to": "14949__1_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_102", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh no sir and I requested that because of what I consider the directive in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2971.187], "stop_times": [2977.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.187}, "reply_to": "14949__1_101", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_103", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "If you do this to mediate the problem of the June 23, 1969?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2977.091], "stop_times": [2982.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.091}, "reply_to": "14949__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_104", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes.\nAfter I've read the Pearce case, I thought it would be best that the Court have that information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2982.693, 2983.335], "stop_times": [2983.335, 2987.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.693}, "reply_to": "14949__1_103", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_105", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "So your argument basically is that by reason of this affidavit, there was substantial compliance with the rule of the Pearce case and if -- and secondly if you're mistaken about that, then the rule should not be retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [2987.393], "stop_times": [3004.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.393}, "reply_to": "14949__1_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_106", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I don't think that -- I don't mean to imply that.\nI think that that affidavit should serve as a substitute for the rule and the Pearce case then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3004.498, 3006.731], "stop_times": [3006.731, 3012.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.498}, "reply_to": "14949__1_105", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_107", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No, but what I mean to say is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3012.071], "stop_times": [3012.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.071}, "reply_to": "14949__1_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_108", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Only to the facts or reasons why the Court sentenced this man to this particular sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3012.948], "stop_times": [3018.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.948}, "reply_to": "14949__1_107", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_109", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Which in your submission is -- shows that the reason he sentenced him to a higher sentence was not in any part based upon vindictiveness and therefore there was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3018.384], "stop_times": [3028.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.384}, "reply_to": "14949__1_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_110", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3028.33], "stop_times": [3028.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3028.33}, "reply_to": "14949__1_109", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_111", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- substantial compliance with the rule of the Pearce case.\nDid I misunderstand you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3028.472, 3031.418], "stop_times": [3031.418, 3032.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.472}, "reply_to": "14949__1_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__1_112", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3032.631], "stop_times": [3034.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.631}, "reply_to": "14949__1_111", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_113", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Now I take it that suppose it could be arguable at least that Judge Pugh having in mind the 1896 rule in Maryland going back to 1896, had all these things in mind substantially at the time he sentenced him in the second trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3034.252], "stop_times": [3055.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.252}, "reply_to": "14949__1_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_114", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well I -- that could be easy answer, would be say yes but I quite honestly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3055.312], "stop_times": [3060.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.312}, "reply_to": "14949__1_113", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_115", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, I said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3060.854], "stop_times": [3062.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.854}, "reply_to": "14949__1_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_116", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But yes sir arguable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3062.266], "stop_times": [3062.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3062.266}, "reply_to": "14949__1_115", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_117", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Arguable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3062.446], "stop_times": [3062.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.446}, "reply_to": "14949__1_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_118", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir, it could be arguable, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3062.5], "stop_times": [3065.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3062.5}, "reply_to": "14949__1_117", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_119", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That is that if since 1896, this has been the rule in Maryland, I think as someone has told us several times today that it's presumed that judges do what they are supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3065.536], "stop_times": [3076.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.536}, "reply_to": "14949__1_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_120", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes I would argue that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3076.354], "stop_times": [3078.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.354}, "reply_to": "14949__1_119", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_121", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I think your friend argued that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3078.33], "stop_times": [3079.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.33}, "reply_to": "14949__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__1_122", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3079.798, 3081.098], "stop_times": [3081.098, 3087.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.798}, "reply_to": "14949__1_121", "speaker": "edward_f_borgerding"}
{"id": "14949__1_123", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "You have about 10 minutes counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3087.024], "stop_times": [3088.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.024}, "reply_to": "14949__1_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_000", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nWith all due deference to my brother at the bar, I frankly find his argument almost totally irrelevant to the issues before the Court today.\nFirst of all to go immediately to the question of vindictiveness, very frankly I do not understand that the Pearce case is limited to where the second judge is being vindictive.\nI took it to mean that this was a means of taking off any chilling effect on the right of appeal.\nNow, I have never contended that Judge Pugh was vindictive.\nI know Judge Pugh personally.\nI was a law clerk in that courthouse and the state has consistently been setting up with all due respect to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the straw man that the vindictiveness of the second trial judge is the issue before the Court.\nIt has nothing to do with this appeal.\nI am saying to the Court that if Judge Pugh had the highest motives in the world, the ultimate fact of the matter is that Dennis Moon was sentenced to an additional eight-years imprisonment.\nThe motivation, please the Court is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3088.181, 3088.637, 3090.912, 3098.502, 3108.579, 3115.005, 3118.716, 3120.146, 3133.327, 3136.679, 3147.763], "stop_times": [3088.637, 3090.912, 3098.502, 3108.579, 3115.005, 3118.716, 3120.146, 3133.327, 3136.679, 3147.763, 3149.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3088.181}, "reply_to": "14949__1_123", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_001", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well you don't read Pearce the way your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3149.054], "stop_times": [3151.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.054}, "reply_to": "14949__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_002", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Absolutely not Your Honor.\nI do not read it to be restricted to vindictive second sentencing judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3151.722, 3153.234], "stop_times": [3153.234, 3157.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3151.722}, "reply_to": "14949__2_001", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_003", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Probably, it was a bad administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3157.901], "stop_times": [3159.652], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3157.901}, "reply_to": "14949__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__2_004", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3159.652], "stop_times": [3160.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3159.652}, "reply_to": "14949__2_003", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_005", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "You would like to make the majority opinion appears at issue.\nJustice Douglas and I thought that it was in fact a double jeopardy problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3160.12, 3164.916], "stop_times": [3164.916, 3171.102], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.12}, "reply_to": "14949__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__2_006", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nBut more to know, but you're -- (Voice Overlap)\nBut Your Honor, I think of reading the majority, plurality opinion in Pearce which was based on due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3171.102, 3172.647, 3175.36], "stop_times": [3172.647, 3175.36, 3182.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3171.102}, "reply_to": "14949__2_005", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_007", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That was the court opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3182.031], "stop_times": [3183.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.031}, "reply_to": "14949__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__2_008", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "The court opinion which was based as I recall on due process.\nI don't recall that the Court stated that it was restricted to where there was factual evidence that the second trial judge had been vindictive and malicious in his sentence.\nAnd I think that the state is very cleverly trying to restrict this argument to that issue which is I submit totally irrelevant to these proceedings.\nThe only issue here is whether Dennis Moon received additional time in jail.\nHe obviously --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3183.036, 3187.503, 3197.777, 3207.488, 3212.589], "stop_times": [3187.503, 3197.777, 3207.488, 3212.589, 3213.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3183.036}, "reply_to": "14949__2_007", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_009", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well he did, that's not an issue, that's a fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3213.181], "stop_times": [3215.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.181}, "reply_to": "14949__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14949__2_010", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And the issue then Your Honor is that punishment, is that increased punishment within the meaning of Pearce.\nI submit to -- since I submit to you that it is an increased punishment and I submit that vindictiveness, malice are totally irrelevant.\nIt is simply a different judicial philosophy between two nisi prius judges, that is all that this case is based upon.\nAnd I submit to \u201cPresident Truman\u201d that the other charges are red herrings to be brought up here.\nThey have nothing to do with the armed robbery charge.\nThat is the only charge upon which the appeal was based.\nI believe there is a question as to why the other charges were in appeal.\nVery candidly Your Honor, I think, I'm a rather pragmatic lawyer where a man is giving concurrent or suspended sentences, I'm not about to appeal.\nAnd without the authority of North Carolina versus Pearce, I wouldn't dare to have entered appeal in this case and so I chose not to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3215.733, 3220.602, 3229.914, 3237.84, 3244.027, 3247.12, 3250.322, 3253.69, 3262.511], "stop_times": [3220.602, 3229.914, 3237.84, 3244.027, 3247.12, 3250.322, 3253.69, 3262.511, 3268.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3215.733}, "reply_to": "14949__2_009", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_011", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Mr. Jacques.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3268.979], "stop_times": [3269.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.979}, "reply_to": "14949__2_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_012", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3269.82], "stop_times": [3271.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3269.82}, "reply_to": "14949__2_011", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_013", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I would assume that you had experience where a one judge is noted for giving out stiff sentences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3271.652], "stop_times": [3277.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.652}, "reply_to": "14949__2_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_014", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3277.187], "stop_times": [3278.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3277.187}, "reply_to": "14949__2_013", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_015", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And another one is not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3278.6], "stop_times": [3280.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.6}, "reply_to": "14949__2_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_016", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3280.086], "stop_times": [3281.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3280.086}, "reply_to": "14949__2_015", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_017", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "And if you go before the stiff man, aren't you losing some of your rights or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3281.933], "stop_times": [3292.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.933}, "reply_to": "14949__2_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_018", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Is Your Honor talking --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3292.242], "stop_times": [3292.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3292.242}, "reply_to": "14949__2_017", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_019", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It's never been raised, it's obviously is not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3292.802], "stop_times": [3296.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.802}, "reply_to": "14949__2_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_020", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, what is -- it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3296.296], "stop_times": [3298.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3296.296}, "reply_to": "14949__2_019", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_021", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That is a violation -- you don't have a right to go before a lenient judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3298.783], "stop_times": [3302.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.783}, "reply_to": "14949__2_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_022", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh no, I'm not saying that Your Honor.\nI've never raised that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3302.995, 3305.314], "stop_times": [3305.314, 3305.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3302.995}, "reply_to": "14949__2_021", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_023", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well you don't have a right not to go before heavy handed judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3305.529], "stop_times": [3311.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.529}, "reply_to": "14949__2_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_024", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No, I'm not saying that either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3311.495], "stop_times": [3313.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.495}, "reply_to": "14949__2_023", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_025", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, if this man had gone before a judge that had heard the same testimony and had cut his sentence, that would have been fine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3313.159], "stop_times": [3325.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.159}, "reply_to": "14949__2_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_026", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh, obviously, I mean certainly.\nBut if Your Honor is asking me if the first judge had given Moon 20 years, whether that would have been improper, I will tell this Court quite frankly, if we're getting into an area of judgment, there was nothing improper about giving Moon 20 years, In all candor, well, perhaps I shouldn't say but let's just say I've never argued that the sentence itself was harsh.\nThat is I submit with all due respect totally irrelevant.\nThe first judge passed a valid sentence, the second judge passed a valid sentence.\nNow, the fact of this increased knowledge in all of this is again completely outside of the record in this case.\nI think -- no, certainly this Court knows better than I would admit, when it talks about conduct subsequent to the first trial.\nWith all due respect to my brother, there is no conduct subsequent to the first trial in this case except a second trial and certainly I would hope the state is not going to argue that because he plead guilty at the first trial and didn't plead guilty at the second trial that that is conduct for which the second trial judge can take a judicial notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3325.395, 3327.694, 3350.961, 3354.393, 3359.502, 3366.357, 3374.395], "stop_times": [3327.694, 3350.961, 3354.393, 3359.502, 3366.357, 3374.395, 3394.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3325.395}, "reply_to": "14949__2_025", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_027", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Now wait a minute, you've lost me, he didn't plead guilty at the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3394.055], "stop_times": [3397.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.055}, "reply_to": "14949__2_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_028", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No, the question was raised if it please the Court as to the fact that he did not plead that he admitted his guilt at the end of this first trial but denied his guilt at the end of his second trial prior the sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3397.699], "stop_times": [3409.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3397.699}, "reply_to": "14949__2_027", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_029", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "He did more than that, he did more than that.\nHis testimony -- his testimony under oath was very different in the first trial and the second trial.\nIt wasn't in the sentencing process alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3409.62, 3411.963, 3420.237], "stop_times": [3411.963, 3420.237, 3423.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.62}, "reply_to": "14949__2_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_030", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Now, if I recall Your Honor the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3423.234], "stop_times": [3424.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3423.234}, "reply_to": "14949__2_029", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_031", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, I have just read that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3424.519], "stop_times": [3425.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3424.519}, "reply_to": "14949__2_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_032", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3425.765], "stop_times": [3425.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3425.765}, "reply_to": "14949__2_031", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_033", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "-- record out of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3425.991], "stop_times": [3427.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3425.991}, "reply_to": "14949__2_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_034", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "At the first trial, he said he did it.\nAt the second trial, he denied he did it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3427.647, 3430.62], "stop_times": [3430.62, 3433.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3427.647}, "reply_to": "14949__2_033", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_035", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well that's quite a difference, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3433.359], "stop_times": [3434.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.359}, "reply_to": "14949__2_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_036", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That is quite a difference but as the Court -- I -- with all due respect, I don't think the Court can say that that is conduct justifying subsequent to his first conviction which would justify an increased sentence.\nI can't -- if that's part of his trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3434.559, 3446.034], "stop_times": [3446.034, 3448.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3434.559}, "reply_to": "14949__2_035", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_037", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Some judges would think so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3448.341], "stop_times": [3450.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3448.341}, "reply_to": "14949__2_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14949__2_038", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, I -- I interpret it very strictly Your Honor that conduct means the events which the Court has talked about perhaps as being a disorderly prisoner, perhaps creating further crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3450.92], "stop_times": [3462.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3450.92}, "reply_to": "14949__2_037", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_039", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Like lying perhaps?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3462.623], "stop_times": [3464.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3462.623}, "reply_to": "14949__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_040", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Like lying -- you mean not telling the truth or being in prison?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3464.877], "stop_times": [3469.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3464.877}, "reply_to": "14949__2_039", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_041", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Lying about, you know not talking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3469.553], "stop_times": [3472.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.553}, "reply_to": "14949__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_042", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "No Your Honor, I don't think that's conduct.\nCertainly, conduct to me mean further trouble very candidly and if there is going to be further trouble, I think that should be subject to further proceedings.\nBut I think conduct means as this Court as I think meant in the three opinions in Pearce for facts and I know Mr. Justice White that you interpreted conduct to mean any events which the second trial judge knew which the first trial judge did not, but I think that by your opinion --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3472.96, 3475.048, 3485.154], "stop_times": [3475.048, 3485.154, 3504.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3472.96}, "reply_to": "14949__2_041", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_043", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well that didn't went on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3504.115], "stop_times": [3505.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3504.115}, "reply_to": "14949__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_044", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3505.48], "stop_times": [3507.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3505.48}, "reply_to": "14949__2_043", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_045", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I didn't prevail on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3507.347], "stop_times": [3508.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.347}, "reply_to": "14949__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_046", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "That's correct, but I think Your Honor was acknowledging that the majority, the court opinion restricted conduct to facts that occurred after the first conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3508.749], "stop_times": [3518.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3508.749}, "reply_to": "14949__2_045", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_047", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well I -- if that doesn't carry you so far as you attempted to go long ago, and to say that committing perjury at the second trial isn't an event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3518.754], "stop_times": [3530.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3518.754}, "reply_to": "14949__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_048", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3530.536], "stop_times": [3530.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3530.536}, "reply_to": "14949__2_047", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_049", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Since the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3530.696], "stop_times": [3531.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3530.696}, "reply_to": "14949__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_050", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "If it please the Court, I would have very strong doubts about holding that to be perjury in itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3531.215], "stop_times": [3536.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3531.215}, "reply_to": "14949__2_049", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_051", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "I know you do but that's the issue in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3536.964], "stop_times": [3538.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3536.964}, "reply_to": "14949__2_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14949__2_052", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "But well -- but the Court would have to hold that that was perjury which it seems to me would have -- under Maryland law would have to be a separate trial on that question of perjury.\nPerjury is a felony under Maryland law and you can't -- if it please the Court, I don't think the second trial judge could then say look at the record of the first trial and say you're lying Moon.\nYou admitted at the first trial you did it and you're not admitting it today.\nI therefore hold that you're guilty of perjury and under the authority of North Carolina versus Pearce, I sentence you to an additional eight years in jail.\nFrankly Your Honor, that's just a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3538.95, 3548.443, 3559.11, 3562.345, 3570.642], "stop_times": [3548.443, 3559.11, 3562.345, 3570.642, 3571.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3538.95}, "reply_to": "14949__2_051", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_053", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well did it -- was the second testimony under oath?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3571.952], "stop_times": [3576.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3571.952}, "reply_to": "14949__2_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_054", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Oh!\nYour Honor I don't think so very frankly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3576.742, 3578.255], "stop_times": [3578.255, 3579.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3576.742}, "reply_to": "14949__2_053", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_055", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well usually it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3579.606], "stop_times": [3580.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3579.606}, "reply_to": "14949__2_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14949__2_056", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "It's not, he stood up.\nI was not the trial counsel, but he stood up and Judge Pugh said \u201cdo you have anything to say?\u201d\nAnd he said I didn't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3580.687, 3583.038, 3588.093], "stop_times": [3583.038, 3588.093, 3589.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3580.687}, "reply_to": "14949__2_055", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_057", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Well, that's what I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3589.225], "stop_times": [3590.528], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3589.225}, "reply_to": "14949__2_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14949__2_058", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "He didn't do it.\nAnd I very frankly, it would be most reluctant to ever prosecute a case of perjury based on those circumstances.\nNow, as to retroact -- I might say Your Honor also that the courts supplying a affidavit, some three-and-one-half years later conceded that Pearce did not exist is if I may be facetious, bad retroactivity as opposed to the good retroactivity, I'm trying to urge in holding Pearce to be fully retroactive.\nIf it is in effect a nunc pro tunc rationalization of the sentence.\nNow, if Judge Pugh had stated reasons at the closing argument, Judge Pugh felt that this man had committed a bad crime and deserved 20 years.\nThat's the long and the short of it.\nAnd very frankly I am not arguing with Judge Pugh that he didn't deserve every day of those 20 years.\nThat is not the issue before the Court today and I think that the rest of it about other charges, about they're being malice is totally irrelevant to the issue before the Court, I'm sorry, I believe my time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3590.528, 3592.034, 3600.861, 3620.299, 3625.504, 3633.66, 3635.568, 3641.24], "stop_times": [3592.034, 3600.861, 3620.299, 3625.504, 3633.66, 3635.568, 3641.24, 3655.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3590.528}, "reply_to": "14949__2_057", "speaker": "robert_anthony_jacques"}
{"id": "14949__2_059", "conversation_id": "14949", "text": "Thank you Mr. Jacques.\nThank you General for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_267", "start_times": [3655.726, 3657.012, 3659.789], "stop_times": [3657.012, 3659.789, 3662.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3655.726}, "reply_to": "14949__2_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__0_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Number 175, Petsonella Moragne against States Marines Lines.\nMr. Hardee, you may proceed whenever you're -- you and you're colleagues are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [0.0, 12.787], "stop_times": [12.787, 20.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__0_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nEdward Moragne Sr. was a longshoreman employed in the Port of Tampa, by Gulf Florida Terminal Corporation, which is a respondent in this case, and was his employer, the stevedores.\nOn December 31, 1964, he was killed when a hedge beam fell, became lose and fell down in the bottom of the hole, where he was discharging cargo, on the SS Palmetto State, a vessel owned by the respondent States Marine Lines, Inc.\nThe vessel was docked up here in Tampa on navigable waters of United States.\nHis widow, the plaintiff Petsonella Moragne, or herself and her two minor children filed suit in the State Court in four counts.\nTwo counts under the States Wrongful Death Act and to claim damages under the Act.\nOne count in negligence to unseaworthiness.\nAnd two counts under the States Survivor Act for damages of personal representative and for damages to the State.\nThe case was removed at the instance of States Marine Lines, Inc. to the Federal District Court in Tampa.\nAnd then upon motions by both respondents, after a third party complaint was filed for indemnity by the ship owner against the stevedore.\nThe District Judge struck count two which had to with unseaworthiness and based his decision upon two cases of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the ground against A. Lusi Limited and Emerson against Holloway Concrete Products Company, which held that Florida common law applied and was applicable under the Florida Wrongful Death Statute.\nOne of these cases were decided in 1953, the other was decided with a vigorous dissent by Judge Brown in 1960, right after this Court came, issued its opinion in the Congress.\nBut the District Judge was concerned about the correctness of its ruling and pursuant to the appropriate rule, gave language in his opinion, which allowed us to petition for an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals granted our interlocutory appeal and then upon the request of the respondent States Marine Lines certified the question involved to the Florida Supreme Court.\nThe Florida Supreme Court held that the warranty of seaworthiness if that is not applicable under the Florida Wrongful Death Act.\nWe then requested the Court of Appeals to ignore this opinion on a certified question of the Florida Supreme Court and raise the constitutional questions which are here before this Court.\nArgument was held, briefs were fully made to the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals took a considerable time working with the issue, and then finally in its opinion, said they felt nevertheless bound by the Tungus to accord to the Florida Supreme Court or the Florida Courts, the right to decide what substantive law was applicable to maritime deaths occurring on navigable waters of United States within the territorial limits of Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [20.074, 23.948, 39.293, 55.025, 61.133, 71.72, 76.572, 79.269, 86.388, 92.651, 100.281, 121.644, 135.561, 149.289, 160.586, 170.194, 183.416, 187.473], "stop_times": [23.948, 39.293, 55.025, 61.133, 71.72, 76.572, 79.269, 86.388, 92.651, 100.281, 121.644, 135.561, 149.289, 160.586, 170.194, 183.416, 187.473, 209.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 20.074}, "reply_to": "15194__0_000", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_002", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "As I understand it, you brought your original action, the State Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [209.606], "stop_times": [214.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.606}, "reply_to": "15194__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_003", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [214.269], "stop_times": [215.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.269}, "reply_to": "15194__0_002", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_004", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Under the State's Wrongful Death Act and under the State Survivor Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [215.823], "stop_times": [220.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.823}, "reply_to": "15194__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_005", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [220.574], "stop_times": [221.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.574}, "reply_to": "15194__0_004", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_006", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And that it was removed by the defendant to the Federal Court solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [221.909], "stop_times": [226.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.909}, "reply_to": "15194__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_007", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [226.733], "stop_times": [229.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 226.733}, "reply_to": "15194__0_006", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_008", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, in view of that, I have a little trouble seeing what the Tungus or the Harrisburg or anything else, any of the those cases have, what bearing they have on this case, if this is a state action for a wrongful death, in the District Court only by reason of diversity and not by a reason of its admirably jurisdiction, doesn't Erie Railroad against Tompkins require that the District Court follow the state law, whatever it may be.\nI'm aware of course, this Court asked you about the Harrisburg and asked the parties to brief it but -- so, if this is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [229.36, 258.274], "stop_times": [258.274, 264.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.36}, "reply_to": "15194__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_009", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Alright sir, let's assume that the injury had not resulted in death.\nThe case could -- would still had been removable for a personal injury not resulted in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [264.654, 269.963], "stop_times": [269.963, 274.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.654}, "reply_to": "15194__0_008", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_010", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "As it result any death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [274.475], "stop_times": [275.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 274.475}, "reply_to": "15194__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_011", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Under diversity jurisdiction, but Federal Law -- Federal Maritime Law would have applied in the State Court or in the District Court, under diversity jurisdiction or on the admiralty side of the Court had the plaintiff chosen to go there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [275.921], "stop_times": [288.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 275.921}, "reply_to": "15194__0_010", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_012", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And by virtue of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [288.953], "stop_times": [289.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.953}, "reply_to": "15194__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__0_013", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But you didn't choose to go there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [289.667], "stop_times": [291.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.667}, "reply_to": "15194__0_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_014", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir because this was a death.\nThis was not an injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [291.821, 293.655], "stop_times": [293.655, 294.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 291.821}, "reply_to": "15194__0_013", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_015", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, but in order to test the continuing validity of the Harrisburg it would seem to me that a plaintiff -- you should have added, another complaint, an admiralty for wrongful death.\nYou were simply suing under the State Wrongful Death Statute and the State Survivor Statue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [294.61, 307.034], "stop_times": [307.034, 311.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.61}, "reply_to": "15194__0_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_016", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But, Your Honor we thought for negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [311.72], "stop_times": [313.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.72}, "reply_to": "15194__0_015", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_017", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "For negligence and unseaworthiness and the Florida Supreme Court is now held that the state -- these two state statutes don't embody a liability for unseaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [313.725], "stop_times": [323.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.725}, "reply_to": "15194__0_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_018", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, well we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [323.679], "stop_times": [324.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.679}, "reply_to": "15194__0_017", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_019", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And in order to test the continuing validity, Harrisburg it seems to me a plaintiff would have to sue for wrongful death and admiralty.\nYou've never gone to the admiralty side, you never -- the Federal Court in order to plea the cause of action in admiralty in the State Court.\nI'm just telling him my objection (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [324.373, 330.146, 340.563], "stop_times": [330.146, 340.563, 341.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.373}, "reply_to": "15194__0_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_020", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, I understand your feelings first.\nMr. Justice Stewart and we were proceeding under what we felt and apparently the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with us, what we felt was the compulsion of the majority ruling in the Tungus.\nAnd every other state, since Tungus, which is decided this question, some eleven major maritime states have held that the wrongful death statute of those states incorporate admiralty substantive law, it's only in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [341.541, 344.509, 354.591], "stop_times": [344.509, 354.591, 368.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.541}, "reply_to": "15194__0_019", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_021", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But in Tungus and in Harrisburg, the cause of action was in admiralty.\nAnd the holding was that there is no cause of action for wrongful death in admiralty, but that admiralty may -- the event of wrongful death may borrow from the local state statute.\nBut here you sued under the local state statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [368.521, 374.257, 388.632], "stop_times": [374.257, 388.632, 391.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.521}, "reply_to": "15194__0_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_022", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But what's the difference, if you please the Court.\nI mean -- I frankly don't see the difference, that's a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [391.312, 395.749], "stop_times": [395.749, 399.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.312}, "reply_to": "15194__0_021", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_023", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I think the Tungus or the Harrisburg could be attested by a plaintiff who sued in admiralty for wrongful death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [399.311], "stop_times": [408.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.311}, "reply_to": "15194__0_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__0_024", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Alright sir, well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [408.17], "stop_times": [409.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.17}, "reply_to": "15194__0_023", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_025", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, could I ask you, after removal when as the case proceeded, was a claim asserted whether formally or informally under the admiralty law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [409.205], "stop_times": [421.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.205}, "reply_to": "15194__0_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__0_026", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, I had considered the case to be under the admiralty law from the beginning.\nThis is the whole issue involved and the State Court -- not on the admiralty side of Court, but at maritime law applied under the Florida wrongful death statute.\nThis has been the position of the plaintiff from the beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [421.613, 426.998, 436.946], "stop_times": [426.998, 436.946, 441.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.613}, "reply_to": "15194__0_025", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_027", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Is it your claim that the admiralty law would require a state to have its wrongful death statute in corporate maritime law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [441.668], "stop_times": [451.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.668}, "reply_to": "15194__0_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__0_028", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt's my claim that maritime substantive law must apply under the state's wrongful death statute to a maritime death, which occurs on the navigable waters of the United States within the state's territorial jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [451.18, 452.718], "stop_times": [452.718, 465.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.18}, "reply_to": "15194__0_027", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_029", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, that isn't the -- is that a question about the Harrisburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [465.97], "stop_times": [470.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.97}, "reply_to": "15194__0_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__0_030", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, I haven't got in the Harrisburg yet, I would be glad to talk about the Harrisburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [470.386], "stop_times": [474.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.386}, "reply_to": "15194__0_029", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_031", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But can't -- if that's your only claim, you never will get to the Harrisburg, will you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [474.272], "stop_times": [479.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.272}, "reply_to": "15194__0_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__0_032", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, I think I will.\nAlright, so that -- what in effect happened in this case is that the Court of Appeals applied Florida law to a maritime death occurring within the territorial waters of Florida, under the compulsion of the Tungus and applied substantive law, which conflicted with the duties and obligations which are routed in maritime law.\nSpeaking there of the warranty of seaworthiness.\nThere's no question about the warranty of seaworthiness is a duty, and an obligation of a ship owner which is owed to a longshoreman.\nAnd in the case of injury of violat ion of this duty produces the right to sue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [479.368, 483.416, 506.41, 508.962, 517.578], "stop_times": [483.416, 506.41, 508.962, 517.578, 521.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.368}, "reply_to": "15194__0_031", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_033", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "In other words -- and you could have sued, I gather Mr. Hardee in the case of an injury not a death.\nYou had your option to proceed in the Federal Court or in the State Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [521.832, 527.495], "stop_times": [527.495, 531.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.832}, "reply_to": "15194__0_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_034", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [531.073], "stop_times": [531.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.073}, "reply_to": "15194__0_033", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_035", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But in either court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [531.542], "stop_times": [532.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.542}, "reply_to": "15194__0_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_036", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [532.57], "stop_times": [533.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.57}, "reply_to": "15194__0_035", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_037", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Not a death case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [533.363], "stop_times": [534.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.363}, "reply_to": "15194__0_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_038", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [534.715], "stop_times": [535.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.715}, "reply_to": "15194__0_037", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_039", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The controlling law that would have to be applied would be the federal maritime law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [535.117], "stop_times": [538.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.117}, "reply_to": "15194__0_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_040", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [538.992], "stop_times": [539.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.992}, "reply_to": "15194__0_039", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_041", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And that I gather you take the same position in death cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [539.579], "stop_times": [542.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.579}, "reply_to": "15194__0_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_042", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [542.664], "stop_times": [542.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.664}, "reply_to": "15194__0_041", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_043", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And you insist that Harrisburg should be overruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [542.881], "stop_times": [546.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.881}, "reply_to": "15194__0_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_044", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [546.428], "stop_times": [546.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.428}, "reply_to": "15194__0_043", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_045", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And the -- a different federal maritime rule applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [546.679], "stop_times": [551.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.679}, "reply_to": "15194__0_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_046", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [551.266], "stop_times": [551.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.266}, "reply_to": "15194__0_045", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_047", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [551.389], "stop_times": [552.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.389}, "reply_to": "15194__0_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__0_048", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That's correct, yes sir.\nI say first of all that Moragne has been decided that the fears expressed by the minority in Tungus have come to fruition.\nAnd the State of Florida has caused to be applied to maritime deaths in Florida are ruled different from the substantive admiralty rule or a law.\nSo that I think if this Court recedes from the majority reasoning in Tungus and does what the minority suggest, my client is protected in this case.\nThis Court asked the parties to brief the question of whether the Harrisburg should be overruled.\nAnd I have taken the position that it should be for a number of reasons.\nFirst of all, the Harrisburg of course is a very careful, well reasoned and thought out decision.\nThe problem is that I think the Court in the Harrisburg at that time went a stray on a couple of matters.\nFirst of all, the civil law had traditionally been the law applied in admiralty in England and in this country.\nThe Court's generally got to the civil law, now this is not to say that Courts might not look to the common law, but at that time Swift against Tyson was in effect, and it was assumed to be a federal uniform, some uniform federal common law.\nSo that I think Swift against Tyson had some effect on the Court.\nAnd of course, that's been laid to rest in 1936 and 1938.\nBut, in looking to the common law, if a Court in admiralty were going to law or applying maritime law would go and look to the common law.\nIt seem to me the Court would look in and find a doctrine of the common law, which was a progressive, a good and doctrine that everyone said this is wonderful in it's something that should be adopted by the admiralty.\nBut in this case, the Court adopted a rule of the common law, which had been abrogated 40 years before by the English Parliament, which had been criticized by everybody that ever said anything about it, which everybody agreed was a terrible rule, the common law, and which everybody agrees, they think it's a terrible rule.\nSo admiralty went out from the civil law theme to engraft into maritime law a rule of the common law, which nobody defends.\nThat is that there's no right of action for wrongful death absent the statute.\nAnd this is where the point here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [552.146, 553.86, 563.667, 574.632, 585.722, 590.963, 597.256, 606.136, 614.354, 622.49, 636.089, 639.014, 644.16, 652.685, 665.854, 682.652, 691.926, 696.857], "stop_times": [553.86, 563.667, 574.632, 585.722, 590.963, 597.256, 606.136, 614.354, 622.49, 636.089, 639.014, 644.16, 652.685, 665.854, 682.652, 691.926, 696.857, 698.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.146}, "reply_to": "15194__0_047", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_049", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "In Florida, what's the source of the right to sue within a Death and Wrongful Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [698.009], "stop_times": [703.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.009}, "reply_to": "15194__0_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__0_050", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The Wrongful Death Act in Florida was originally thought to be a Lord Campbell's Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [703.389], "stop_times": [708.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.389}, "reply_to": "15194__0_049", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_051", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It's a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [708.196], "stop_times": [709.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.196}, "reply_to": "15194__0_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__0_052", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It's a statute, yes sir.\nIt's a Lord Campbell's type statute.\nHowever, it was amended in 1953 to provide for actions ex contractu, as well as actions ex delicto, which brought in the field of implied warranty of food stuffs and product liability and so on.\nSo, that is not a technically any longer really a Lord Campbell's Act.\nSo that the Harrisburg now has resulted by evolution in the situation that we find ourselves now in Moragne and that is where the State of Florida has effectively abolished the warranty of sea worthiness, which is in deeply engrafted in admiralty and maritime law.\nSo that a longshoreman, who is healed as distinguished could be an injured on navigable waters of the State of Florida, navigable waters of the United States, within the State of Florida is deprived of this doctrine as warranty of seaworthiness.\nAnd is relegated to common law and negligence, which is very different type now, from the negligence that we know in maritime law.\nI think that it's been traditional in admiralty courts, and the Supreme Court in particular has fashioned admiralty remedies and admiralty law where necessary.\nI need only point out a few for instance in this case, the ship owner is seeking indemnity against the stevedore.\nThe indemnity of a ship owner against the stevedore was fashioned by the court in the Ryan case and substantive cases.\nSo, we have indemnity involved in this case, in this very case, which is a court made or court fashioned maritime doctrine, which is unknown in the State of Florida, but it's going to be an issue in this case, and yet the respondents say that the plaintiff, the petitioner here should be relegated the state law, as far as her rights for death are concerned to turn on navigable waters.\nBut they turned around and seeked the benefit of the court fashioned, right of indemnity against the stevedore, of course the duty of -- the warranty of sea worthiness is a thing that has been fashioned by the court.\nAnd the impleader rules had been fashioned by the Court.\nI'd like to point out one other thing.\nBack in the 1917 to 1924, starting with the Jensen case, the Supreme Court held that a state law, workmen's compensation law, could not validly be applied to maritime injuries or death occurring on state waters.\nAfter the Jensen's case the Congress had passed a statute, which can be effective of placing state workmen's compensation laws over these injuries and death.\nAnd the court \u2013 and the Nicker Barker case, said you can't do that, that's unconstitutional.\nSo then, the Congress came back and passed another statute of the same title exempting members, masters and members of vessels.\nAnd the Court again said, you cannot constitutionally apply a state statute, workmen's compensation statute, to injuries or death occurring on maritime waters.\nIt seems to me in the Tungus, that this Court has done in maritime deaths, what the court three times said back in 1917 and 1924 that the Congress could not constitutionally do.\nSo that I urge this Court, and I'd like to reserve my remaining time for rebuttal, if I may, and I urge this Court to receive from the majority reasoning in Tungus and to overrule the Harrisburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [709.586, 711.141, 713.515, 729.721, 736.074, 759.743, 773.815, 786.06, 797.086, 804.344, 811.264, 837.514, 851.887, 855.29, 859.947, 877.197, 887.818, 892.822, 901.227, 911.353, 926.164], "stop_times": [711.141, 713.515, 729.721, 736.074, 759.743, 773.815, 786.06, 797.086, 804.344, 811.264, 837.514, 851.887, 855.29, 859.947, 877.197, 887.818, 892.822, 901.227, 911.353, 926.164, 941.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.586}, "reply_to": "15194__0_051", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__0_053", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Thank you Mr. Hardee.\nMr. Claiborne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [941.724, 943.143], "stop_times": [943.143, 947.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.724}, "reply_to": "15194__0_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe United States is here in this case, pursuant to the Court's invitation to file a brief and to participate in the oral argument of the case.\nWe have devoted our submission primarily to the proposition that the Harrisburg, in answer to the Court's question ought to be overruled.\nIncidentally, we see no difficulty, and that's being done in a diversity case, it has been clear, I think that a state court may apply admiralty law at the federal court to which such and causes removed under the diversity of jurisdiction may likewise do so.\nAlthough, the case could not have been brought on the law side of the federal court originally, the absence of diversity of system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [947.562, 950.614, 961.534, 973.761, 993.719], "stop_times": [950.614, 961.534, 973.761, 993.719, 1001.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 947.562}, "reply_to": "15194__0_053", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But this is removed un-diversity and what happens to Erie Railroad against Tompkins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1001.607], "stop_times": [1006.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.607}, "reply_to": "15194__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_002", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I thought Mr. Justice Stewart this Court had long settled that under the savings pursued as clause, state courts, all federal courts acting as state courts that is under that diversity, jurisdiction applied federal maritime law in all maritime cases.\nAt the election of the plaintiff, otherwise admiralty sought to the Federal Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1006.842, 1028.618], "stop_times": [1028.618, 1033.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1006.842}, "reply_to": "15194__1_001", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_003", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The plaintiff here elected to proceed under two state statutes, a wrongful death statute and a survivor statute.\nHe didn't sue on admiralty, quite unlike the plaintiff in the Tungus case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1033.554, 1042.102], "stop_times": [1042.102, 1046.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.554}, "reply_to": "15194__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_004", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well Mr. Justice Stewart, it may be a problem of pleading.\nThere maybe a problem of pleading.\nThere's no problem of jurisdiction.\nThe Court here, just as Mr. Justice Brennan said a moment ago, that this has been a possible injury case, the claim could have been under the warranty of sea worthiness, a federal claim.\nAnd it could have been vindicated in the State Court or in the Federal Court under diversity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1046.557, 1050.476, 1051.741, 1054.307, 1067.341], "stop_times": [1050.476, 1051.741, 1054.307, 1067.341, 1073.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1046.557}, "reply_to": "15194__1_003", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_005", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Without question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1073.406], "stop_times": [1074.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.406}, "reply_to": "15194__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_006", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And there is no difference --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1074.9], "stop_times": [1077.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1074.9}, "reply_to": "15194__1_005", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_007", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "-- listen to another answer here anyway.\nThis whole thing arises because count 2, which is framed on unseaworthiness was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was sustained in the Court of Appeals.\nAnd that all was founded on unseaworthiness, wouldn't it?\nA federal question case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1077.425, 1080.229, 1092.895, 1096.14], "stop_times": [1080.229, 1092.895, 1096.14, 1099.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.425}, "reply_to": "15194__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__1_008", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Except to the extent Mr. Justice Brennan that the claim was unseaworthiness as recognized by the state wrongful death statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1099.533], "stop_times": [1109.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1099.533}, "reply_to": "15194__1_007", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_009", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1109.473], "stop_times": [1110.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.473}, "reply_to": "15194__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_010", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "However, as I read the complaint, the suit is brought simply alleging a claim for wrongful death and unseaworthiness without particularly or uniquely invoking the state wrongful death statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1110.107], "stop_times": [1122.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1110.107}, "reply_to": "15194__1_009", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_011", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Exactly.\nCount 2 doesn't uniquely invoke the state wrongful death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1122.511, 1123.899], "stop_times": [1123.899, 1127.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.511}, "reply_to": "15194__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__1_012", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Nor does Count 4, which is also an unseaworthiness count, though for the seaman's -- longshoreman own injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1127.015], "stop_times": [1135.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1127.015}, "reply_to": "15194__1_011", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_013", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Claiborne, had the suit been as you suggested for an injury not for death, what have been the source of the basis for the suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1135.111], "stop_times": [1148.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.111}, "reply_to": "15194__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_014", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It would have been the federal maritime law of unseaworthiness as to Count 2 of the complaint, which is the only here at issue, which is enforceable in both the State Court.\nAnd on the law side of the Federal Court under the diversity head of jurisdiction, as well as in admiralty without a jury, without diversity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1148.98, 1160.19], "stop_times": [1160.19, 1170.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1148.98}, "reply_to": "15194__1_013", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_015", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And were there no statutes at all, would there had been a right to sue, the injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1170.893], "stop_times": [1177.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.893}, "reply_to": "15194__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_016", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "With no statute, whatever, there would have been a right to sue for the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1177.222], "stop_times": [1180.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1177.222}, "reply_to": "15194__1_015", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_017", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "So -- is that a distinction?\nI am not suggesting that it's a significant, but that is a distinction between the death act and the action for injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1180.363, 1182.979], "stop_times": [1182.979, 1191.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.363}, "reply_to": "15194__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_018", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, as suggested here Mr. Chief Justice is that once the Harrisburg is overruled, as we think -- as we submit to the Court it should be, there will likewise be a right to sue for wrongful death without a statute, without invoking of the state wrongful death statutes.\nAnd so, in that sense, this is exactly the same case, it would be for personal injury in the right court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1191.728, 1208.856], "stop_times": [1208.856, 1216.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1191.728}, "reply_to": "15194__1_017", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_019", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "If the law is different from what it is today, then your rights would be in the courts what you're really signing of, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1216.745], "stop_times": [1222.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.745}, "reply_to": "15194__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_020", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That -- that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1222.589], "stop_times": [1224.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1222.589}, "reply_to": "15194__1_019", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_021", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "What is it, that would just get us very far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1224.794], "stop_times": [1228.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.794}, "reply_to": "15194__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_022", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The reason of jurisdictional problem, there maybe a question as to the sufficiency of the pleading, though I don't think there's any problem as sufficiency to complaint.\nThere maybe some question as to the plaintiff's agreeing that the matter are to be determined at the period of time by reference to the Florida law, when the certification to the Florida Supreme Court was made.\nHowever, it really is not my place to speak to any defect in the way the plaintiff brought the suit here.\nWe must assume, that the question is before the Court and answer it as the Court requested that we do.\nThe faults of -- and the problems created by the decision in the Harrisburg have been sufficiently exposed.\nThe underlying principles of both the common law rule, denying recovery for wrongful death, and the application of that rule to admiralty have been criticized by so many eminent jurists and scholars that I need hardly add anything to what they've said, mentioning only that they include Mr. Justice Holmes, Judge Learned Hand, Dean Prosser and Dean Pound.\nCongress in one sense, has also repudiated the result, which the Harrisburg required by enacting the federal statutes which to a lot extent supplant the state laws and notably the Death on the High Seas Act.\nThough it stops three-mile line and the Jones Act, which covers all maritime waters built only with respect to true seaman.\nThe Harrisburg is today whatever the correctness of the decision at the time, and there's some reason to question that is today an anachronism.\nIt creates a series of anomalies, which are not mere anomalies, they're arbitrary results often unjust and very much it adds with the desirable uniformity of the admiralty law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1228.167, 1238.883, 1252.594, 1264.637, 1275.906, 1285.074, 1317.209, 1333.578, 1342.906, 1353.824], "stop_times": [1238.883, 1252.594, 1264.637, 1275.906, 1285.074, 1317.209, 1333.578, 1342.906, 1353.824, 1371.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1228.167}, "reply_to": "15194__1_021", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_023", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Did Congress have altered that situation, since Harrisburg was decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1371.391], "stop_times": [1377.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.391}, "reply_to": "15194__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_024", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No, no question whatever, Mr. Chief Justice that Congress could and as the other side will -- I'm sure point out, there is pending appeal which would have some such result, though --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1377.113], "stop_times": [1391.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1377.113}, "reply_to": "15194__1_023", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_025", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "They didalter it, they did alter it for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1391.567], "stop_times": [1393.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.567}, "reply_to": "15194__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_026", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "They did alter to the extent of the high seas, the death on the High Seas Act did alter it, to the extent of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1393.948], "stop_times": [1400.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1393.948}, "reply_to": "15194__1_025", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_027", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And (Voice Overlap) Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1400.226], "stop_times": [1401.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.226}, "reply_to": "15194__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_028", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Jones Act for the entire coverage of maritime law, but only with respect to seaman, so we really have a small area left, which Congress -- the reasons which I will try to explain in the moment, did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1401.621], "stop_times": [1415.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1401.621}, "reply_to": "15194__1_027", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_029", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Non seaman in the states territory less than marine league from the shores.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1415.402], "stop_times": [1419.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.402}, "reply_to": "15194__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_030", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Within the three-mile limit, yes Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1419.682], "stop_times": [1421.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1419.682}, "reply_to": "15194__1_029", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_031", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And the submission of this case would be that those people would have greater right of action for wrongful death, they're representatives, for the wrongful death of those people, and they would if they were sure that they happened on the shore or on the land in Florida, which gives the right to wrongful death only for negligence, I gather?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1421.264], "stop_times": [1443.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.264}, "reply_to": "15194__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_032", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes, so putting it the other way Mr. Justice Stewart, we've said they should not have less rights than because the action had occurred beyond the three-mile limit nor they should have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1443.233], "stop_times": [1452.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1443.233}, "reply_to": "15194__1_031", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_033", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No Congress passed a statute, the people beyond the three-mile limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1452.945], "stop_times": [1456.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.945}, "reply_to": "15194__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_034", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I'll come to that Mr. Justice Stewart.\nLet me say that the anomalies created are really three.\nThe same conduct, which imposes liability on ship owners, produces one result if the man -- if the victim is injured, it produces often a different result, the man is killed, there is no rhyme or reason to that.\nLikewise, the same conduct by the ship owner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1456.917, 1460.206, 1465.612, 1479.025], "stop_times": [1460.206, 1465.612, 1479.025, 1481.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1456.917}, "reply_to": "15194__1_033", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_035", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "This is true of course in the -- that's nothing unusual about that, many states for example, that have limited liability for wrongful death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1481.57], "stop_times": [1487.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.57}, "reply_to": "15194__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_036", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, there is -- Mr. Justice Stewart there is no state law, which provides no remedy when the man is killed while providing remedy for the same conduct, when the man is merely injured.\nIt maybe degrees --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1487.773, 1499.736], "stop_times": [1499.736, 1501.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1487.773}, "reply_to": "15194__1_035", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_037", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "This isn't a case where no remedy is provided.\nThere is a remedy here for negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1501.341, 1504.115], "stop_times": [1504.115, 1505.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.341}, "reply_to": "15194__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_038", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The same conduct, which in this case, this purpose is unseaworthiness of the vessel affords no remedy under Florida law, when the seaman died, when the longshoreman died, whereas it affords a remedy as it must under federal or when the longshoreman is injured, so it's an all or nothing proposition.\nLikewise, the same conduct may give rise to an obligation to pay and the right of recovery, depending on whether it happens within or outside the three-mile limit.\nA line which makes no sense in terms of the maritime jurisdiction, which covers the entire area.\nAnd finally --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1505.985, 1526.185, 1536.268, 1542.457], "stop_times": [1526.185, 1536.268, 1542.457, 1543.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1505.985}, "reply_to": "15194__1_037", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_039", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "You say it makes no sense, you're saying that the line drawn by Congress did not have a logical, sensible basis, is that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1543.663], "stop_times": [1555.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.663}, "reply_to": "15194__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_040", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No, I think it -- as I will suggest it did have some basis.\nI'm suggesting that the result, which I don't think it was intended by Congress, because of the differences in the law that existed has now become acute and arbitrary, though I don't impute any such purpose to the Congress in 1920, when the remedies, were quite different, and the state laws quite adequately state wrongful death statutes, quite adequately covered the three-mile area.\nBeyond that there was a confused situation, some form of vacuum, and at least in appropriate place to an urgent need to provide a law, a law that was thought comparable to the state remedy, provided by the wrongful death actions.\nIndeed, the suggestion is that the state law was more generous than the new federal and some complaint do not displace the state law within the three-mile area, to have now turned round, seems to impute a very strange notion, the congressional purpose.\nNow strange as to all the anomalies produced by the Harrisburg, as construed in the Tungus, is that true seaman are often less able to recover than those who recover for unseaworthiness or other seaman's remedies only because they do the work as barely performed by seaman, so called seriaki seaman.\nSo the question arises why not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1555.726, 1561.528, 1589.791, 1608.49, 1630.566, 1659.627], "stop_times": [1561.528, 1589.791, 1608.49, 1630.566, 1659.627, 1661.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1555.726}, "reply_to": "15194__1_039", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_041", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1661.292], "stop_times": [1662.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.292}, "reply_to": "15194__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_042", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "How can that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1662.963], "stop_times": [1663.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1662.963}, "reply_to": "15194__1_041", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_043", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes, how can that be or how is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1663.708], "stop_times": [1666.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.708}, "reply_to": "15194__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_044", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Because under this Court's decision, in Lindgren and in Gillespie, a seaman who is killed, its survivors cannot resort to State Wrongful Death Act, even where that State Wrongful Death Act would provide a remedy for unseaworthiness, but as defined in the Jones Act remedy for negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1666.213], "stop_times": [1685.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1666.213}, "reply_to": "15194__1_043", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_045", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The negligence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1685.433], "stop_times": [1685.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.433}, "reply_to": "15194__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_046", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Therefore, in the Tungus, that remedy would not have been available to a seaman, because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1685.978], "stop_times": [1692.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1685.978}, "reply_to": "15194__1_045", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_047", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "He wasn't a seaman in Tungus, he was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1692.649], "stop_times": [1693.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.649}, "reply_to": "15194__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_048", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "He wasn't, but the seaman would not have had the benefit of the ruling of the Tungus, given the fact that New Jersey law did provide that remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1693.982], "stop_times": [1702.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1693.982}, "reply_to": "15194__1_047", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_049", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Except Jones Act, insofar as it has been acquitted with FELA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1702.785], "stop_times": [1707.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.785}, "reply_to": "15194__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_050", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But which does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1707.961], "stop_times": [1709.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1707.961}, "reply_to": "15194__1_049", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_051", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Still uses the word negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1709.499], "stop_times": [1711.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.499}, "reply_to": "15194__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_052", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I'm assuming there's a difference, and in this case, the assumption is there's a difference between unseaworthiness and negligence, though I recognize that negligence under the Jones Act is a broader concept than negligence under Florida's law.\nAnd it must be -- there has to be a reason for not setting things right.\nThere could be three reasons, the first is that a long time has passed and it's too late, that this Court has made a lot of decisions premised on the Harrisburg, and that Congress has legislated against that background.\nAnd it uses a practical matter impossible to undue 80 years of legislation in jurisprudence.\nThe remarkable fact is that that is not true.\nA simple overruling of the Harrisburg would recreate the uniformity, basic uniformity in the maritime law.\nAnd it would erase all the harsh anomalies that are dispensable.\nNow, in saying that I assume that overly what Harrisburg carries with it, first day proposition that now, that federal law, federal substantive law is available in death cases.\nThere can be no resort to state laws, even more favorable to state laws.\nTherefore, the anomalies resulted in Hess versus United States, about which Mr. Justice Harlan and others complained would no longer obtain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1711.676, 1726.661, 1731.656, 1745.317, 1752.8, 1756.158, 1764.031, 1769.422, 1784.357, 1789.787], "stop_times": [1726.661, 1731.656, 1745.317, 1752.8, 1756.158, 1764.031, 1769.422, 1784.357, 1789.787, 1801.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1711.676}, "reply_to": "15194__1_051", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_053", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Didn't the Death on the High Seas Act, they retain statement under this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1801.72], "stop_times": [1805.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.72}, "reply_to": "15194__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_054", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, that is the second argument against repealing the Harrisburg by judicial action rather than by legislative action.\nThere were statements in the decision, in the majority decision in the Tungus to the effect that Congress drew a knowing line between the three miles and beyond three miles.\nThat it explicitly or clearly intended to preserve state remedies within the three-mile area.\nHaving looked at the legislative history, we noticed first that the committee report say no such thing They simply notice the result that state laws will remain available within the three-mile area.\nThat is not to say that Congress consciously meant to preserve that situation forever.\nThe stray remarks that were made on the floor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1805.324, 1819.279, 1832.738, 1840.753, 1855.607, 1861.393], "stop_times": [1819.279, 1832.738, 1840.753, 1855.607, 1861.393, 1864.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1805.324}, "reply_to": "15194__1_053", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_055", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I'm not sure I followed you there Mr. Claiborne, what did they do when they carved that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1864.428], "stop_times": [1870.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.428}, "reply_to": "15194__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_056", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I am just speaking to Mr. Chief Justice is the words of the committee reports, which are quoted in the majority opinion.\nThey simply state that the result of not covering this area is that state law remains.\nThat's a far cry from saying, we are doing this because we think it's important to preserve state remedies in the three-mile area.\nNow, as I've suggested a moment ago, it seems to us the obvious reason why Congress stopped at the three-mile line was because there was no problem within that area then.\nThere was a problem beyond, nobody quite knew what if any law would apply.\nObviously, the coastal law, the state couldn't apply beyond three miles, it was beyond the state boundary.\nSo what law could apply?\nOne decision of this Court, it suggested that at least where the defendant and plaintiff were of the same stage, you could apply the state law, if it was meant to apply.\nBut state laws normally didn't mean to govern accident on the high seas.\nAnd there was a vacuum there, which Congress quite reasonably thought it necessary to fill.\nAs I've also suggested, there were those who wanted to preserve state remedies within the three-mile area, because they were familiar with them or because they viewed them as more generous than the pending federal legislation.\nThose are hardly reasons for this Court today to hesitate, to erase that distinction.\nA distinction which then was not as great as it is now, because then un-seaworthiness remedies were unknown for practical purposes and the remedy beyond three miles was no greater than what state Wrongful Death Act supplied within the three-mile area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1870.964, 1877.82, 1884.344, 1892.899, 1904.481, 1909.435, 1915.381, 1917.628, 1927.15, 1932.014, 1938.205, 1955.158, 1962.552], "stop_times": [1877.82, 1884.344, 1892.899, 1904.481, 1909.435, 1915.381, 1917.628, 1927.15, 1932.014, 1938.205, 1955.158, 1962.552, 1981.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1870.964}, "reply_to": "15194__1_055", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_057", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Would be your suggestion that the Government suggestion that we just overrule the Harrisburg and then spell out on a case by case basis, the essential elements of this action for wrongful death?\nWho can sue statute limitations and all the other caught in the trappings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [1981.563, 1999.701], "stop_times": [1999.701, 2008.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.563}, "reply_to": "15194__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_058", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Basically yes Mr. Justice White, though I must point out that by overruling Harrisburg is not fashioning a whole new body of federal law.\nIt's simply removing the bar to access to the existing federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2008.743, 2017.126], "stop_times": [2017.126, 2021.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2008.743}, "reply_to": "15194__1_057", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_059", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I understand (Voice Overlap) case to case basis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2021.894], "stop_times": [2025.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.894}, "reply_to": "15194__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_060", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Now, there are some details that have to be worked out.\nI wouldn't have thought statute limitations is one of them, I would have thought the normal admiralty rule obliges would apply as it does in every other suit (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2025.269, 2029.02], "stop_times": [2029.02, 2036.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2025.269}, "reply_to": "15194__1_059", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_061", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "How about of beneficiaries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2036.49], "stop_times": [2037.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.49}, "reply_to": "15194__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_062", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "As to beneficiaries, there could be a reference to state law, thought I'm not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2037.908], "stop_times": [2044.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2037.908}, "reply_to": "15194__1_061", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_063", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "What does a Death on High Seas Act do as to beneficiaries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2044.321], "stop_times": [2046.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.321}, "reply_to": "15194__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__1_064", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Death on a High Seas Act has a list of beneficiaries, the only ones you can take, the Jones Act has a list of beneficiaries, unfortunately not identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2046.325], "stop_times": [2054.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2046.325}, "reply_to": "15194__1_063", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_065", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "We can always adapt either --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2054.893], "stop_times": [2055.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.893}, "reply_to": "15194__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_066", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mostly the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2055.699], "stop_times": [2056.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2055.699}, "reply_to": "15194__1_065", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_067", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "We can adopt either one of those, couldn't we, for reference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2056.585], "stop_times": [2060.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.585}, "reply_to": "15194__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__1_068", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I think the normal thing for a federal court to do, faced with that problem would be to borrow from the federal statutory law, which governs the same conduct or be it beyond the three-mile area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2060.628], "stop_times": [2075.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2060.628}, "reply_to": "15194__1_067", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_069", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Would they bring something like in -- what was it McAllister or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2075.214], "stop_times": [2079.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.214}, "reply_to": "15194__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__1_070", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, that was respect to the three year statute limitations of the Jones Act, which was borrowed when the two suits were brought together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2079.503], "stop_times": [2085.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2079.503}, "reply_to": "15194__1_069", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_071", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "How about borrowing from the federal law that actually covers this decedent, i.e. the Federal Longshoreman's and Harbor Workers Act?\nSo far the beneficiaries go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2085.929, 2095.882], "stop_times": [2095.882, 2098.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.929}, "reply_to": "15194__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_072", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I would have thought that one would want a uniform rule, which remember that overruling the Harrisburg will -- permit suits not only by longshoreman but also by seaman, and also by passengers, all of which is (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2098.239], "stop_times": [2111.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2098.239}, "reply_to": "15194__1_071", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_073", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Passengers wouldn't be covered by seaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2111.893], "stop_times": [2115.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.893}, "reply_to": "15194__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_074", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No, but they would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2115.404], "stop_times": [2115.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2115.404}, "reply_to": "15194__1_073", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_075", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "-- on unseaworthiness would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2115.767], "stop_times": [2117.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.767}, "reply_to": "15194__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_076", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The Harrisburg now bars a suit for negligence, for wrongful death -- negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2117.91], "stop_times": [2122.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2117.91}, "reply_to": "15194__1_075", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_077", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2122.5], "stop_times": [2123.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.5}, "reply_to": "15194__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_078", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The Harrisburg likewise bars a suit for wrongful death due to negligence.\nExcept --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2123.795, 2130.678], "stop_times": [2130.678, 2131.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2123.795}, "reply_to": "15194__1_077", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_079", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Except by -- that's changed by -- by Congressional action, the Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2131.129], "stop_times": [2136.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.129}, "reply_to": "15194__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_080", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Beyond three miles, all for the seaman under the Jones Act.\nBut as to the longshoreman, who has a suit against the ship owner for negligent injury are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2136.724, 2140.125], "stop_times": [2140.125, 2147.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2136.724}, "reply_to": "15194__1_079", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_081", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But there is a federal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2147.395], "stop_times": [2147.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.395}, "reply_to": "15194__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_082", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "He has no suit for negligent killing, because of the Harrisburg.\nI hesitate to suggest that the Court ought to look to the Longshoreman Act when the plaintiffs longshoreman to the Jones Act and the plaintiff is a seaman and to Death on the High Seas Act when the plaintiff is a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2147.851, 2152.923], "stop_times": [2152.923, 2166.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2147.851}, "reply_to": "15194__1_081", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_083", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "A passenger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2166.48], "stop_times": [2167.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.48}, "reply_to": "15194__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_084", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "A passenger, though --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2167.006], "stop_times": [2168.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2167.006}, "reply_to": "15194__1_083", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_085", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Why, why it is state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2168.115], "stop_times": [2169.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.115}, "reply_to": "15194__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__1_086", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It's just -- I would suppose that it were complicated, unduly complicated, but I don't -- they said inappropriateness to that and I don't reject it as one alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2169.382], "stop_times": [2183.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2169.382}, "reply_to": "15194__1_085", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_087", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I suppose you would have a -- would you have comparative negligence rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2183.024], "stop_times": [2188.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.024}, "reply_to": "15194__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__1_088", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes, as the substantive or admiralty law of (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2188.861], "stop_times": [2193.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2188.861}, "reply_to": "15194__1_087", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_089", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Just what it is in the non death case, would have -- in a seaworthiness case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2193.161], "stop_times": [2196.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.161}, "reply_to": "15194__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__1_090", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "In seaworthiness contributory negligence, no negligence is relevant in a negligence case under the maritime law, comparative negligence is the rule, not contributory negligence.\nAll of those substantive rules would have caused --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2196.531, 2208.68], "stop_times": [2208.68, 2210.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2196.531}, "reply_to": "15194__1_089", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_091", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well those -- you would simply apply under death cases, the substantive rules are now applicable in non death cases, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2210.985], "stop_times": [2217.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.985}, "reply_to": "15194__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__1_092", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The only thing to be fashioned is a question of who may file the suit whether it's the widow and the children or only the dependents, or only the small children are -- and how you divide it up between them, and those questions are largely answered if one borrows from the federal law.\nThere is no occasion to borrow from the law of the coastal state.\nIt has no conceivable interest in those questions.\nThe only state that has any interest in those questions is the state of the domicile of the survivor.\nBut the coastal state has no legitimate claim to controlling accidents otherwise governed by maritime, federal maritime law, although within its own waters.\nFor these reasons, we suggest that the judgment ought to be reversed and that in so doing, the Court should overrule the Harrisburg and the Tungus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2217.034, 2236.466, 2240.386, 2243.4, 2249.161, 2263.076], "stop_times": [2236.466, 2240.386, 2243.4, 2249.161, 2263.076, 2275.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2217.034}, "reply_to": "15194__1_091", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__1_093", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Thank you Mr. Claiborne.\nMr. Villareal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2275.373, 2277.805], "stop_times": [2277.805, 2280.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.373}, "reply_to": "15194__1_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__2_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe ship owner, States Marine Line asks the Court not to capsize the law, which has been in effect for 80 years and more and not to reverse decisions, which have been made in this Court as recently as 1964.\nAnd suggest that what we really are concerned within the case is the balancing of competing interests within a limited geographical area that is within the territorial limits of a state.\nAnd the question has got to be in the end, which of the two interests, federal or state, has the more urgent or the more important right to control this sort of death.\nThe law today we think is clear on principles that have been with us since the Harrisburg and right on up through the Gillespie in 1964 on the federal side, principles that have been known and used in Florida in this specific context, since 1953 and as recently as 1968 in this very case, and in which Congress and the Florida legislature have acquiesced regularly.\nWe think that to overturn a body of law that has been developed in this way and to say that the justices of this Court who have fashioned this body of law and the Congress, and the legislature who have also contributed to it did this unthinkingly or without realizing what they were doing is just to ask too much of you.\nThe result limited to the area, in which this action occurred is that a non seaman, like Moragne, the result of the Florida Supreme Court's construction of the Florida statute is that Moragne, the longshoreman has exactly the same right that a seaman or the seaman would have -- had a seaman been standing right by him and been hit by the same hatch beam.\nThat is uniformity, no matter which way you turn in this case and this area there's going to be assumed non uniformity for somebody.\nAnd the survivors of Mr. Moragne here have already, as it has been mentioned, they have a compensation remedy, and they have a negligence remedy.\nI would submit to the Court that the distinction between the negligence remedy, under Florida law, and under the Jones Act is really more apparent than real.\nThe way it always comes up at the jury charge stage, you get practically the same charge on burden of proof and I'll leave that point with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2280.766, 2285.551, 2310.536, 2322.229, 2335.505, 2366.787, 2389.874, 2416.116, 2427.172, 2440.131, 2451.732], "stop_times": [2285.551, 2310.536, 2322.229, 2335.505, 2366.787, 2389.874, 2416.116, 2427.172, 2440.131, 2451.732, 2462.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2280.766}, "reply_to": "15194__1_093", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__2_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But if this is an admiralty case, you wouldn't have a jury, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2462.459], "stop_times": [2465.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.459}, "reply_to": "15194__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__2_002", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That is of course true, and that's the main reason, I will submit that they didn't sue in admiralty is because they want a jury to weigh this, because they know that juries are better for plaintiffs ordinarily.\nThe man's survivors here will have, besides the comp remedy, they will have the same right of action that a man would -- that the survivors of a man who were killed on the dock, suppose this man had been walking, gone down the gang way to get a swing.\nThird party trip driver comes up to get some cargo, knocks him down, kills him.\nYou got the same rights as the man who works in a mine or lives right next door to him.\nWe submit that this sort of uniformity is just as important and is just as appropriately left to the states, as it has been by Congress, and by this Court up until now.\nAs the uniformity that's contended for by Mr. Hardee.\nUniformity has often been urged in this area, on this Court, but it has never until the day so far as I can understand, been considered to be a thing that's required in the wrongful death area.\nEven with Jensen, they start out in Jensen in the majority opinion and much emphasized in the dissents, saying that wrongful death is an area that does not require the imposition of uniformity and that it's ever been so and is not has been repeated, and repeated to subsequent decisions.\nThe same sort of thing can be said with respect to the federal supremacy, which is argued as something that's -- somehow cut into by the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, that is this Court and Congress have deliberately said, No we will not assert federal supremacy within the territorial waters of the state.\nAnd say, Congress -- I'm thinking of the Death on the High Seas Act, which deliberately leaves to the state the right to regulate recovery for wrongful death within one marine league of the state's boundaries.\nAnd by this court, in 1964, in Gillespie, in which he said that the state act could not extend the remedy available to a seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2465.703, 2489.218, 2505.0, 2509.679, 2516.927, 2528.035, 2534.476, 2547.162, 2570.798, 2592.453, 2606.356], "stop_times": [2489.218, 2505.0, 2509.679, 2516.927, 2528.035, 2534.476, 2547.162, 2570.798, 2592.453, 2606.356, 2619.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2465.703}, "reply_to": "15194__2_001", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__2_003", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Suppose however that Congress, with respect to seaman, has very broadly legislated, depending upon their status, I suppose conceivably the Jones Act would cover a seaman injured on shore, wouldn't it?\nIf he were a seaman, a bonafide member of the crew of the ship and went to shore, that is (Voice Overlap) for the ships galley and were injured by agency of the ship.\nI suppose he'd be under the Jones Act, wouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2619.686, 2636.559, 2653.154], "stop_times": [2636.559, 2653.154, 2655.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.686}, "reply_to": "15194__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__2_004", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes.\nAnd sometimes -- well, yes if he were injured, if the fight cases as one of the example, where the officer is getting a scrap in the bar, something like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2655.477, 2656.71], "stop_times": [2656.71, 2666.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2655.477}, "reply_to": "15194__2_003", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__2_005", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2666.638], "stop_times": [2670.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.638}, "reply_to": "15194__2_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15194__2_006", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Or out of the window or some other things that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2670.486], "stop_times": [2674.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2670.486}, "reply_to": "15194__2_005", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__2_007", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But that would depend entirely on his status, rather than the (Inaudible) of acts of the injuries, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2674.222], "stop_times": [2681.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.222}, "reply_to": "15194__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__2_008", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, as a crew member, employee of the shipment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2681.276], "stop_times": [2683.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2681.276}, "reply_to": "15194__2_007", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__2_009", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Because that would be the language of the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2683.453], "stop_times": [2687.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.453}, "reply_to": "15194__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__2_010", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "We think that the reason that the law has developed in this way results from a consideration of the desirability of having local uniformity for people who are essentially local, like longshoreman.\nAnd the thought by the Court in Congress and the legislature that people like longshoreman, like this man, this plaintiff's decedent who live in Tampa, and work in Tampa everyday should be more or like the remedies accorded to his neighbors and friends that live in that state, then the need for uniformity of a man who own a ship comes in to Tampa today, and he's going to Mobile tomorrow, and Panama the next day or wherever it maybe.\nFor people like that, it would be a confusing thing.\nIf they never knew from one week to the next, which kind of law was going to control their rights for injuries, but this sort of argument can apply in our submission to a man who is a Florida resident, and always has been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2687.898, 2703.967, 2733.273, 2737.148], "stop_times": [2703.967, 2733.273, 2737.148, 2755.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2687.898}, "reply_to": "15194__2_009", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__2_011", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Is the Harrisburg's rule, was it judicially created or congressional hearsay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2755.218], "stop_times": [2763.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.218}, "reply_to": "15194__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__3_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I suppose it was judicially announced or created.\nI suppose you could say, as part of a recognition of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2763.376, 2766.288], "stop_times": [2766.288, 2768.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2763.376}, "reply_to": "15194__2_011", "speaker": "louis_f_claiborne"}
{"id": "15194__3_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "-- comes on from the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2768.567], "stop_times": [2770.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.567}, "reply_to": "15194__3_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__4_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2770.311], "stop_times": [2771.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2770.311}, "reply_to": "15194__3_001", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It comes from the Court and not from the Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2771.001], "stop_times": [2772.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.001}, "reply_to": "15194__4_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__4_002", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2772.642], "stop_times": [2775.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2772.642}, "reply_to": "15194__4_001", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_003", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The other way of putting it is that the only areas where you have actions for wrongful death have had to come from the legislators, not from the Courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2775.304], "stop_times": [2787.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.304}, "reply_to": "15194__4_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__4_004", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2787.084], "stop_times": [2787.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2787.084}, "reply_to": "15194__4_003", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_005", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Whether the common law or an admiralty, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2787.505], "stop_times": [2790.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.505}, "reply_to": "15194__4_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__4_006", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That is true or as I understood the Harrisburg decisions is by the civil law, even the common law and (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2790.555], "stop_times": [2797.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2790.555}, "reply_to": "15194__4_005", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_007", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That's what I say, wherever you have a wrongful death action, in the Anglo-American legal system, it's because of legislations, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2797.127], "stop_times": [2804.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.127}, "reply_to": "15194__4_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__4_008", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That is correct, and I believe in every state in the union, the only way you can have an action for wrongful death is by statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2804.992], "stop_times": [2811.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2804.992}, "reply_to": "15194__4_007", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_009", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But the Harrisburg rule does not come from legislation, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2811.516], "stop_times": [2817.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.516}, "reply_to": "15194__4_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__4_010", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I think it comes from the absence of legislation Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2817.599], "stop_times": [2824.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2817.599}, "reply_to": "15194__4_009", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_011", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But it exists and exists on the judicial creation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2824.848], "stop_times": [2830.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.848}, "reply_to": "15194__4_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__4_012", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I suppose that's correct sir.\nAs the Florida Supreme Court has pointed out, there seems no reason in policy, as far as Florida is concerned to prefer the widow of a longshoreman over the widow of another man, because of the fortuitous of the circumstance that her husband met his death in the hold of a ship, and not on the dock or not in the mill or not on a mine.\nI think the Solicitor General and Mr. Hardee has said, well all you have got to do to straighten this out is simply to create a common law remedy for maritime purposes anyway, that says you can have an action for wrongful death.\nWell, the other way of saying that is all you've got to do to straighten this out is in effect repeal the Death on the High Seas Act which very definitely says to the three-mile limit and no further will this federally created right come.\nAnd in doing that, I might say, speaking of anomalies, you will be giving to the widow of this longshoreman, a right that the widow of a seaman does not have under Gillespie, which I think is the most recent pronouncement in this general area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2830.734, 2835.308, 2859.725, 2875.485, 2890.855], "stop_times": [2835.308, 2859.725, 2875.485, 2890.855, 2910.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2830.734}, "reply_to": "15194__4_011", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_013", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Because he's got -- because the right of action exclusively under the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2910.504], "stop_times": [2915.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.504}, "reply_to": "15194__4_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__4_014", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nWhat really is asked for here, and this is worth thinking of too we think, is the fact that they want a fault free remedy for Mrs. Moragne.\nThis is not conduct on the part of the ship owner or conduct of the ship, this is a situational thing.\nBy definition, a species of liability without fault --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2915.003, 2918.834, 2928.217, 2934.671], "stop_times": [2918.834, 2928.217, 2934.671, 2938.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2915.003}, "reply_to": "15194__4_013", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_015", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Which is something the seaman doesn't have for death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2938.096], "stop_times": [2940.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.096}, "reply_to": "15194__4_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__4_016", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Which is something the seaman doesn't have for death if it occurs within the three miles of land.\nIf it occurs beyond, he does have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2940.831, 2945.98], "stop_times": [2945.98, 2948.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2940.831}, "reply_to": "15194__4_015", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_017", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "On the high seas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2948.232], "stop_times": [2948.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.232}, "reply_to": "15194__4_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__4_018", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "The Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2948.394], "stop_times": [2949.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2948.394}, "reply_to": "15194__4_017", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_019", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "-- Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2949.441], "stop_times": [2950.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.441}, "reply_to": "15194__4_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__4_020", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.\nI think that's pretty well what I wanted to say.\nYour Honors, if Tungus and Harrisburg, and the Lindgren case, Gillespie and all of those are overruled, repealed, reversed or whatever today, it will create -- we submit more problems than it will solve, then it will create an uncertainty on the part of the maritime community that would be very undesirable, because none of us would know then.\nIf Gillespie has overruled in 1970, what's going to happen to Moragne in 1972 or something of that sort.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [2950.714, 2958.846, 2962.238, 2991.142, 2997.887], "stop_times": [2958.846, 2962.238, 2991.142, 2997.887, 3000.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2950.714}, "reply_to": "15194__4_019", "speaker": "dewey_r_villareal_jr"}
{"id": "15194__4_021", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Thank you Mr. Villareal.\nMr. Kerr.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3000.98, 3004.573], "stop_times": [3004.573, 3006.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.98}, "reply_to": "15194__4_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__5_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI'm representing the respondent stevedore, Gulf Florida Terminal Corporation that was impleaded by the ship owner, by virtue of the Ryan doctrine, which has been referred by Mr. Hardee.\nAnd before proceeding with the two or three points that I'd like to cover, I might mention parenthetically that Mr. Hardee indicated the Ryan doctrine was one newly fashioned in admiralty.\nAnd if I remember that decision correctly, and it's not correctly involved in the appeal here.\nIt was merely an extension of implied contractual warranties, which had been recognized as early as Buick versus Pearson and then restated in the restatement contracts.\nAnd those with authorities were lined on by the Court.\nIn any event, at this stage of litigation, at least.\nThe interest of the ship owner and the stevedore are alive.\nAnd we join therefore, in urging that the Court of Appeals below and insofar as they incorporated the opinion, the Florida Supreme Court, that Court also be affirmed by this Court.\nI'd like to make just three points.\nThe first one is one that was I think had demonstrated by the Florida Supreme Court in its opinion, as one of the factors, practical factors that it had in mind in trying to arrive at a decision.\nAnd that was the posture of the case as it presented itself to that point, in the first place.\nThe Court recognized that Mrs. Moragne, the petitioner here, had available one remedy irrespective of fault already.\nThey took note of the fact, that she had available two of the statutory remedies, under the federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act.\nThey also recognized that she would have an addition to that light.\nThe right to pursue a course of action based on negligence on the Florida wrongful death statute.\nSo that the sole issue really, the sole practical issue was whether or not she could also, in addition to those two pursue a cause of action based on the warranty of seaworthiness, which stated somewhat differently, and is already alluded to by Mr. Villareal, simply boils down to the fact as to what burden of proof she will have to maintain in the Trial Court.\nAt this stage then, the off repeated cry, which is found in the briefs of the petitioner and some of the amicus briefs also.\nTo the effect that it is cheaper to kill than to injure is at least premature, indeed should negligence be established under the Florida Wrongful Death Statute, it could very possibly be that she would receive as much in compensation, if not more than some other defendants, similarly situated to a land based or lands locked.\nThe second point, which I think was paramount in the mind of the Fifth Circuit, when they considered this problem, was that in Tungus, the decision, the majority opinions is quite clear and was followed by the parties all the way up to the Fifth Circuit, and was followed by the Fifth Circuit in adapting the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.\nBecause in Tungus, there are at least four points, which become eminently clear and which is stated without any equivocation by Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThe first is that the state wrongful death statutes do not merely give rise to a right to recover, but further establish what type of conduct is actionable.\nThe second proposition, which is stated with equal clarity is that when admiralty courts are called upon to apply or enforce rights, which are \"routed\" in state law, then they the admiralty courts must do so consonant with state substantive law, they may not, as the decision went on to say pick or choose.\nThe third principle, which is eminently clear in that opinion, is that Congress in enacting the Death on the High Seas Act, intended to preserve intact state sovereignty over maritime deaths within territorial waters.\nAnd the fourth proposition, which is stated in the opinion, is that the uniformity argument, is in opposite in rights -- in the case of rights given to recover in death cases.\nAnd as already been suggested this was noted as early as the Jensen case, both in the majority opinion and in Mr. Justice Holmes' opinion where he spoke of the specter of a lack of uniformity in referring to this particular area of the law.\nThis latter proposition in Tungus, we submit is probably or undoubtedly the key question that is, why is it that in this particular area of the law, with respect to the death cases, there should be a departure from so-called uniformity and there has been consistently in this Court and other Courts.\nWe submit that the Harrisburg, and Jensen, and Tungus, and also in particularly actually language of Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent in Hess suggest several reasons why in this particular area of the law, uniformity has not been a compelling factor.\nIn the first place, actions for wrongful death being preaches of statute or inherently non-uniform, in every jurisdiction.\nAnd it's not very helpful here to point out that the archade in inhumane treatment, given this matter on the common law is no longer fashionable.\nThis of course is true but the simple fact is that every jurisdiction has its own statutory scheme.\nIndeed, Congress has two separate statutory schemes, and they are themselves dissimilar.\nSo, perhaps uniformity or lack of uniformity for this reason is a built in situation.\nSecondly, as it has been pointed out, the wrongful death statutes involved matters which are peculiarly of local concern, and in again from the Hess opinion, site such examples as pauperism and dissent and distribution, in other matters which are really almost within the state's police power.\nThe third reason, why this area has perhaps been carved out of the uniformity situation, while the wrongful death statute maybe of grave concern in individual cases to certain individuals, they do not from a maritime concept involve matters of navigation and commerce.\nIn reading the cases, one notices, particularly in Hess and also in Jensen, that the concept of uniformity in admiralty was developed more as a maritime commercial aid, that is to give the ship owner some degree of certainty, as to what his obligations would be commercial and from the standpoint of commercial obligations, and navigational requirements and regulations, from state to state and nation to nation.\nIt was to give him some certainty.\nIndeed, I think this is perhaps an explanation of the Hess case, where the Oregon statute in question, increased or imposed an added burden.\nIt was this type of uniformity from the standpoint of the ship owner's operation that the concept we suggest or we submit was evolved to meet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3006.061, 3009.642, 3023.989, 3040.193, 3045.732, 3054.295, 3057.284, 3061.613, 3066.05, 3078.788, 3082.55, 3097.154, 3104.818, 3113.038, 3121.707, 3126.273, 3132.113, 3154.704, 3164.145, 3187.857, 3214.426, 3227.114, 3238.855, 3262.316, 3278.461, 3289.106, 3306.935, 3331.648, 3351.719, 3360.817, 3371.394, 3377.983, 3383.787, 3391.435, 3410.028, 3431.691, 3462.145, 3465.127, 3474.847], "stop_times": [3009.642, 3023.989, 3040.193, 3045.732, 3054.295, 3057.284, 3061.613, 3066.05, 3078.788, 3082.55, 3097.154, 3104.818, 3113.038, 3121.707, 3126.273, 3132.113, 3154.704, 3164.145, 3187.857, 3214.426, 3227.114, 3238.855, 3262.316, 3278.461, 3289.106, 3306.935, 3331.648, 3351.719, 3360.817, 3371.394, 3377.983, 3383.787, 3391.435, 3410.028, 3431.691, 3462.145, 3465.127, 3474.847, 3483.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3006.061}, "reply_to": "15194__4_021", "speaker": "david_c_g_kerr"}
{"id": "15194__5_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Kerr have you filed a brief?\nI don't find your brief here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3483.04, 3484.737], "stop_times": [3484.737, 3486.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.04}, "reply_to": "15194__5_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__5_002", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3486.388], "stop_times": [3487.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3486.388}, "reply_to": "15194__5_001", "speaker": "david_c_g_kerr"}
{"id": "15194__5_003", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "In your own name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3487.524], "stop_times": [3491.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3487.524}, "reply_to": "15194__5_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__5_004", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I believe it's filed in my partner's name, I was not admitted at the time.\nI was admitted yesterday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3491.713, 3495.932], "stop_times": [3495.932, 3497.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3491.713}, "reply_to": "15194__5_003", "speaker": "david_c_g_kerr"}
{"id": "15194__5_005", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Now, which one is yours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3497.238], "stop_times": [3501.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.238}, "reply_to": "15194__5_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__5_006", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It's the brief on behalf of Gulf Florida Terminal Company respondent.\nAnd there's a name of George W. Ericksen and James B. McDonough Jr. Finally, it has been suggested that the wrongful death statutes are not efforts to delineate or create standards of conduct or care but rather designed merely to give a remedy, where an existing standard is breached and since this is resulting in death of course.\nThe final point that I would like to make in this connection is that the statutory history of the Florida Wrongful Death Statute was of some concern to the Florida Court.\nIt was discussed in some length in the opinion and this is consonant with the attitude, which has been demonstrated by this Court and its concern with the history of the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act.\nWe note for instance that the Death on the High Seas Act was passed 34 years after the Harrisburg had established that there was no action for wrongful death in maritime law or fatality within the territorial waters of the state and demonstrated as it has been noted by this Court, an intent to preserve state sovereignty in this area.\nThere have been no Amendments to the Death on the High Seas Act, until the recently proposed Magnuson (ph) bill, which is Senate Bill 3143 and is mentioned in the briefs.\nDespite the decision in Tungus in 1959, and Hess in 1960.\nSimilarly, with respect to the Jones Act, there has been no amendment to cover death of a seaman in state territorial waters based on unseaworthiness as a cause of action.\nDespite the decision in Lindgren, which was in 1930 and the reaffirmation of that principle in Gillespie in 1964, so this Court has taken note of Congress's inactivity or of acquiescence.\nThe Florida Supreme Court was faced with a very similar situation, because in Graham v. Lusi, which was decided in 1953, it was held that the Florida statute did not contemplate a cause of action based on unseaworthiness, and that was reaffirmed in Emerson v. Holloway in 1960.\nSo there were 15 years without corrective action by the Florida legislature, and yet as noted by the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida legislature has been sensitive to the statute, because it amend the statute to cover cause of action based on a warranty on food stuffs, etcetera.\nAnd they did that very promptly, because a decision which held that was not covered under statute, it was 1952 in the very next session adopted an amendment, the Florida wrongful death statute, but they have not chosen to do so, despite the opinions of the Fifth Circuit, which have been in existence for some time.\nWe attach some significance to the sensitivity which has been demonstrated by this Court, as well as the sensitivities demonstrated by Florida Supreme Court to existing statute and existing statutory schemes.\nWe feel in highlights of the fact that if a change, in this particular area of the laws to come, it must come to the legislature, and not to the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3501.321, 3506.878, 3542.986, 3558.83, 3572.748, 3592.265, 3604.536, 3610.931, 3621.35, 3637.756, 3657.414, 3675.265, 3694.297, 3706.585], "stop_times": [3506.878, 3542.986, 3558.83, 3572.748, 3592.265, 3604.536, 3610.931, 3621.35, 3637.756, 3657.414, 3675.265, 3694.297, 3706.585, 3716.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3501.321}, "reply_to": "15194__5_005", "speaker": "david_c_g_kerr"}
{"id": "15194__5_007", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Of course, what the Florida legislature has done or has not done doesn't really bear at all upon the fundamental issue here does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3716.13], "stop_times": [3724.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3716.13}, "reply_to": "15194__5_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__5_008", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, I don't believe it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3724.837], "stop_times": [3726.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3724.837}, "reply_to": "15194__5_007", "speaker": "david_c_g_kerr"}
{"id": "15194__5_009", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But Congress has done or has not done indeed it does a great -- perhaps a great deal in relevance, certainly has relevance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3726.582], "stop_times": [3733.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3726.582}, "reply_to": "15194__5_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__5_010", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Stewart.\nI was merely emphasizing the Florida Supreme Court was also sensitive to a statutory history which it had and this Court has demonstrated, I believe that same sensitivity in these decisions.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3733.625, 3734.481, 3745.167], "stop_times": [3734.481, 3745.167, 3749.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3733.625}, "reply_to": "15194__5_009", "speaker": "david_c_g_kerr"}
{"id": "15194__5_011", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Hardee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3749.315], "stop_times": [3750.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3749.315}, "reply_to": "15194__5_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_000", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThere's one area in particular that I think we want to be certain that we have cleared up.\nAs we understand the law at present, a seaman has a right or the heirs of a dead seaman have a right to recover for negligence within the territorial waters of the United States.\nAnd for negligence and un-seaworthiness beyond the three-mile limit, by virtue of the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3750.565, 3753.959, 3759.277, 3773.385], "stop_times": [3753.959, 3759.277, 3773.385, 3782.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3750.565}, "reply_to": "15194__5_011", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_001", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "He had only the Jones Act within the three miles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3782.503], "stop_times": [3784.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3782.503}, "reply_to": "15194__6_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_002", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3784.741], "stop_times": [3785.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3784.741}, "reply_to": "15194__6_001", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_003", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And outside he has on option of Death on the High Seas Act or Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3785.454], "stop_times": [3790.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3785.454}, "reply_to": "15194__6_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_004", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, this Court has never made a decision on that, but Gilmore and Black at page 304 in their previous decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3790.349], "stop_times": [3798.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3790.349}, "reply_to": "15194__6_003", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_005", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That the language in the Death on High Seas Act is a usually local --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3798.451], "stop_times": [3803.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3798.451}, "reply_to": "15194__6_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_006", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Just like that, New Jersey statute in Tungus, if it's a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3803.128], "stop_times": [3805.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3803.128}, "reply_to": "15194__6_005", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_007", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, who can neglect or default \u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3805.776], "stop_times": [3807.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3805.776}, "reply_to": "15194__6_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_008", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Act in neglect or default I think is the exact words of it or in simple language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3807.073], "stop_times": [3811.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3807.073}, "reply_to": "15194__6_007", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_009", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That's broad enough to cover both negligence and unseaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3811.308], "stop_times": [3813.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3811.308}, "reply_to": "15194__6_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_010", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Unseaworthiness and the federal courts, the chairman seaman against --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3813.773], "stop_times": [3818.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3813.773}, "reply_to": "15194__6_009", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_011", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It is the straight negligence to that law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3818.159], "stop_times": [3824.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3818.159}, "reply_to": "15194__6_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_012", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir and under the Death on a High Seas Act, the seaman have been allowed to recover for unseaworthiness or the heirs of the seaman have been allowed to recover for unseaworthiness in a Death Act, so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3824.28], "stop_times": [3832.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3824.28}, "reply_to": "15194__6_011", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_013", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It has never been squarely raised whether outside of the three-mile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3832.974], "stop_times": [3836.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3832.974}, "reply_to": "15194__6_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_014", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3836.927], "stop_times": [3837.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3836.927}, "reply_to": "15194__6_013", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_015", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Was the seaman the -- whether it's exclusive under the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3837.422], "stop_times": [3842.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3837.422}, "reply_to": "15194__6_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_016", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "In Chermesino against the Vessel Judith Lee Rose, which was recorded in the federal supplement also went to Second Circuit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3842.588], "stop_times": [3850.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3842.588}, "reply_to": "15194__6_015", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_017", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Rather has this Court ever --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3850.157], "stop_times": [3852.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3850.157}, "reply_to": "15194__6_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_018", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No, Sir cert was denied in that case but this Court has never written an opinion on this question.\nBut Gilmore and Black have said that all of the lower court decisions are to disaffect and he assumes that this Court would withhold that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3852.283, 3856.482], "stop_times": [3856.482, 3866.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3852.283}, "reply_to": "15194__6_017", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_019", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "When was the Jones Act passed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3866.245], "stop_times": [3867.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3866.245}, "reply_to": "15194__6_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_020", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "1920, the same year Mr. Justice White as the Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3867.834], "stop_times": [3871.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3867.834}, "reply_to": "15194__6_019", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_021", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "So, why did they needed both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3871.822], "stop_times": [3874.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3871.822}, "reply_to": "15194__6_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_022", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I think as the Government suggested, the Death on the High Seas Act was intended by Congress to fill a void or a vacuum --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3874.083], "stop_times": [3880.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3874.083}, "reply_to": "15194__6_021", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_023", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "For passengers primarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3880.299], "stop_times": [3881.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3880.299}, "reply_to": "15194__6_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__6_024", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Or non-seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3881.523], "stop_times": [3883.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3881.523}, "reply_to": "15194__6_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_025", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, it includes everybody, seaman and non-seaman --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3883.753], "stop_times": [3885.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3883.753}, "reply_to": "15194__6_024", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_026", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I know, but why did they needed to cover seaman?\nWhy do they need two for seaman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3885.427, 3888.343], "stop_times": [3888.343, 3890.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3885.427}, "reply_to": "15194__6_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_027", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I'm sure it wasn't -- the purpose wasn't to cover seaman because it passed the Jones Act the same year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3890.001], "stop_times": [3896.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3890.001}, "reply_to": "15194__6_026", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_028", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I guess the Death on the High Seas Act, used the word person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3896.079], "stop_times": [3900.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3896.079}, "reply_to": "15194__6_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_029", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3900.045], "stop_times": [3900.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3900.045}, "reply_to": "15194__6_028", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_030", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Any person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3900.93], "stop_times": [3901.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3900.93}, "reply_to": "15194__6_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_031", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Any person, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3901.617], "stop_times": [3902.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3901.617}, "reply_to": "15194__6_030", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_032", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And the Jones Act says its seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3902.48], "stop_times": [3906.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3902.48}, "reply_to": "15194__6_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_033", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "If you apply the -- if you apply the Death on High Seas Act, seaman where they certainly don't have -- they certainly can recover one of \u2013- the standard for recovery will be different than in the negligence case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3906.42], "stop_times": [3919.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3906.42}, "reply_to": "15194__6_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_034", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.\nAnd Gilmore and Black suggested the lower courts have held, they're thinking can recover under either theory or both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3919.38, 3920.138], "stop_times": [3920.138, 3926.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3919.38}, "reply_to": "15194__6_033", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_035", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Or both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3926.486], "stop_times": [3926.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3926.486}, "reply_to": "15194__6_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_036", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Incidentally, aren't the beneficiaries different under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3926.63], "stop_times": [3929.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3926.63}, "reply_to": "15194__6_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_037", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes, they're slightly different, they are.\nNow, what this brings us to is this, that a seaman does not have -- or the heirs of a dead seaman do not have the right to recover for unseaworthiness within the territorial waters of the United States, by a reason of Lindgren and Gellispie.\nOn the other hand --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3929.778, 3933.266, 3947.935], "stop_times": [3933.266, 3947.935, 3948.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3929.778}, "reply_to": "15194__6_036", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_038", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "A passenger doesn't have a right to recover for unseaworthiness wherever he is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3948.61], "stop_times": [3951.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3948.61}, "reply_to": "15194__6_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__6_039", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, that's right because the warranty doesn't apply to -- extended to apply to a vesture, unless the failure was a negligence failure to find as in seaworthiness, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3951.992], "stop_times": [3962.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3951.992}, "reply_to": "15194__6_038", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_040", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "It's negligence, not unseaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3962.22], "stop_times": [3964.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3962.22}, "reply_to": "15194__6_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15194__6_041", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "A longshoreman may recover in all the states, except Florida that it decided the question.\nBoth for negligence and for unseaworthiness in the territorial waters of the United States, so that a seaman for whom the doctrine of unseaworthiness was originally fashioned in the aziola has a left right by reason of the preemption problem that confronted the Court in Lindgren and Gellispie that longshoreman have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3964.116, 3970.932], "stop_times": [3970.932, 3991.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3964.116}, "reply_to": "15194__6_040", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_042", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3991.547], "stop_times": [3993.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3991.547}, "reply_to": "15194__6_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_043", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Because he has no -- he does not have the warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to him in a death case within the territorial waters of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [3993.29], "stop_times": [4001.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3993.29}, "reply_to": "15194__6_042", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_044", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, why does it apply to a longshoreman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4001.326], "stop_times": [4003.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4001.326}, "reply_to": "15194__6_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_045", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, under Tungus, in New Jersey, in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4003.606], "stop_times": [4006.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4003.606}, "reply_to": "15194__6_044", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_046", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well I know, but why can't the seaman take advantage of the same thing that longshoreman does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4006.281], "stop_times": [4011.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4006.281}, "reply_to": "15194__6_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_047", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Because in Gillespie, the longshoreman can take advantage of it by reason of Tungus, because he sues under the State Death Act.\nBut in Gillespie, the Court held that the Jones Act preempted State Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4011.158, 4019.627], "stop_times": [4019.627, 4023.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4011.158}, "reply_to": "15194__6_046", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_048", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I know, but we're not talking about the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4023.363], "stop_times": [4026.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4023.363}, "reply_to": "15194__6_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_049", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "So that's -- well, this is what I'm saying, this is why a seaman cannot recover from and/or the heirs of a seaman who has been killed, cannot recover for unseaworthiness within the territorial waters of the United States --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4026.509], "stop_times": [4039.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4026.509}, "reply_to": "15194__6_048", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_050", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Because it's an exclusive remedy for the seaman per day, it's a Jones Act, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4039.482], "stop_times": [4043.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4039.482}, "reply_to": "15194__6_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_051", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Within territorial waters of the Untied States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4043.99], "stop_times": [4045.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4043.99}, "reply_to": "15194__6_050", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_052", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Within territorial waters -- the Jones Act and that talks about the negligence action at law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4045.015], "stop_times": [4049.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4045.015}, "reply_to": "15194__6_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_053", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4049.634], "stop_times": [4050.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4049.634}, "reply_to": "15194__6_052", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_054", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "And that's exclusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4050.058], "stop_times": [4051.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4050.058}, "reply_to": "15194__6_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_055", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4051.133], "stop_times": [4052.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4051.133}, "reply_to": "15194__6_054", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_056", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "In territorial waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4052.199], "stop_times": [4053.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4052.199}, "reply_to": "15194__6_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_057", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.\nNow, what we're saying is if this Court overrules the Harrisburg, then the Court of necessity has in effect overrule Gellispie.\nAnd the range that seaman have are the same then as the rights of longshoreman have, and we have a complete uniformity, as far as death cases are concerned.\nWe were not sure whether we made this clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4053.743, 4054.391, 4063.296, 4075.248], "stop_times": [4054.391, 4063.296, 4075.248, 4077.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4053.743}, "reply_to": "15194__6_056", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_058", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, I wouldn't think that overruling the Harrisburg would overrule this Court's construction of the Jones Act, which was set to -- intended to made an exclusive remedy for death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4077.12], "stop_times": [4092.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4077.12}, "reply_to": "15194__6_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_059", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, but if this Court overrules the Harrisburg, I assume that the Court then intends to find that there is in maritime law a remedy for wrongful death, aside from any statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4092.833], "stop_times": [4104.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4092.833}, "reply_to": "15194__6_058", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_060", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "For unseaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4104.04], "stop_times": [4105.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4104.04}, "reply_to": "15194__6_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_061", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Besides many statute for whatever the rights would have been and if the man had been injured, he had -- he's heirs have the same rights if he's killed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4105.679], "stop_times": [4113.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4105.679}, "reply_to": "15194__6_060", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_062", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Oh yes, but if the Harrisburg is overruled, would you suggest that the seaman on the high seas has any other remedy other than either a Jones Act or a Death on the High Seas Act remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4113.765], "stop_times": [4128.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4113.765}, "reply_to": "15194__6_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_063", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, but I would suggest that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4128.375], "stop_times": [4129.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4128.375}, "reply_to": "15194__6_062", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_064", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, that it isn't -- whether the legislature is regulated, created and regulated, the death remedy, I suppose that would be it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4129.423], "stop_times": [4137.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4129.423}, "reply_to": "15194__6_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_065", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But I would suggest this that if the Harrisburg were overruled and this Court decided that there is a remedy for wrongful death in maritime law aside from the statute, that the heirs of a seaman who's killed on territorial waters would have a right to the warranty of -- or to the doctrine of unseaworthiness --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4137.509], "stop_times": [4156.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4137.509}, "reply_to": "15194__6_064", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_066", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Not if the Congress intended by the Jones Act to make the remedy of the seaman -- given if the seaman exclusive of all of the remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4156.813], "stop_times": [4163.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4156.813}, "reply_to": "15194__6_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_067", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well in any event, this is the way we see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4163.639], "stop_times": [4166.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4163.639}, "reply_to": "15194__6_066", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_068", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well in any event, that issue is not before us in this event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4166.086], "stop_times": [4168.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4166.086}, "reply_to": "15194__6_067", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15194__6_069", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, that is correct.\nThere are several --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4168.243, 4170.435], "stop_times": [4170.435, 4171.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4168.243}, "reply_to": "15194__6_068", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_070", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "While you're talking about the consequences of overruling Harrisburg, assuming for purposes of the moment that you would prevailed and that that did happen, would then be appropriate to call for additional briefs and perhaps argument on the guidelines that are have to be provided as to who may sue and how the recovery will be divided and all the other problems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4171.549], "stop_times": [4199.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4171.549}, "reply_to": "15194__6_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_071", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, I think it would be appropriate for the Court to that or to say we're going to generally follow the federal statutes that are on existence and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4199.504], "stop_times": [4208.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4199.504}, "reply_to": "15194__6_070", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_072", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well which ones?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4208.443], "stop_times": [4209.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4208.443}, "reply_to": "15194__6_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_073", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, the Jones Act or Death on a High Seas Act, there's not a great difference between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4209.552], "stop_times": [4217.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4209.552}, "reply_to": "15194__6_072", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_074", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Why would we have to do that, set out guidelines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4217.749], "stop_times": [4220.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4217.749}, "reply_to": "15194__6_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__6_075", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I don't -- well, I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4220.478], "stop_times": [4221.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4220.478}, "reply_to": "15194__6_074", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_076", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "-- not here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4221.582], "stop_times": [4223.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4221.582}, "reply_to": "15194__6_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__6_077", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I don't really think that you need to Mr. Justice Black.\nI think we can -- actually, as I mentioned in my brief, I think the Court should revert to the civil law, which says that any person who suffers damages by the act of another, the other person is obliged to repair it.\nI think as you start restricting damages, then it's going to create a lot of problems.\nI just don't see much of a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4223.116, 4225.764, 4241.837, 4247.681], "stop_times": [4225.764, 4241.837, 4247.681, 4249.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4223.116}, "reply_to": "15194__6_076", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_078", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Who's going to define these people who are injured, that's the whole question, isn't it?\nIs it just the wife, the surviving widow, surviving widow and minor children or adult children, brothers and sisters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4249.913, 4254.224], "stop_times": [4254.224, 4262.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4249.913}, "reply_to": "15194__6_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_079", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "How about his creditors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4262.627], "stop_times": [4265.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4262.627}, "reply_to": "15194__6_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_080", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I don't think -- is there any -- I don't think there's any general law on damages.\nIt says that his creditors can come in and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4265.246, 4268.98], "stop_times": [4268.98, 4271.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4265.246}, "reply_to": "15194__6_079", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_081", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "But aren't all statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4271.15], "stop_times": [4272.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4271.15}, "reply_to": "15194__6_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_082", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That is always pretty generally uniform --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4272.304], "stop_times": [4274.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4272.304}, "reply_to": "15194__6_081", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_083", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "We would be -- perhaps we would be fashioning the law on a case by case basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4274.901], "stop_times": [4280.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4274.901}, "reply_to": "15194__6_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_084", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4280.739], "stop_times": [4281.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4280.739}, "reply_to": "15194__6_083", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_085", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Or wouldn't it be better to hold a hearing and sort of like a legislative hearing and get the whole thing thrust out all at once?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4281.572], "stop_times": [4288.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4281.572}, "reply_to": "15194__6_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_086", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I think you do that or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4288.688], "stop_times": [4289.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4288.688}, "reply_to": "15194__6_085", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_087", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Or we start down after all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4289.876], "stop_times": [4293.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4289.876}, "reply_to": "15194__6_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_088", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "We didn't have to that, I think it's McAllister, I forgot the name of it, I guess that's the name.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4293.29], "stop_times": [4297.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4293.29}, "reply_to": "15194__6_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_089", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I just don't see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4297.864], "stop_times": [4298.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4297.864}, "reply_to": "15194__6_088", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_090", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Well, we did precisely this, when we had a void, we had to fill it, and we found an answer by analogy in other federal statutes.\nWe've got federal statutes here which give us an answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4298.901, 4306.677], "stop_times": [4306.677, 4309.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4298.901}, "reply_to": "15194__6_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_091", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "I think it's very simple, I don't see the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4309.926], "stop_times": [4311.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4309.926}, "reply_to": "15194__6_090", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_092", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Two different answer, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4311.875], "stop_times": [4312.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4311.875}, "reply_to": "15194__6_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_093", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "That the respondents see in this case or in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4312.816], "stop_times": [4316.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4312.816}, "reply_to": "15194__6_092", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_094", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Did the Court have a legislative hearing when it decided the Harrisburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4316.447], "stop_times": [4320.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4316.447}, "reply_to": "15194__6_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15194__6_095", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, not that I know of.\nIt certainly didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4320.175, 4322.215], "stop_times": [4322.215, 4323.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4320.175}, "reply_to": "15194__6_094", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_096", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "They didn't have all these acts at that time either, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4323.309], "stop_times": [4327.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4323.309}, "reply_to": "15194__6_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15194__6_097", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "No sir, and i think (Voice Overlap), by reason of the Harrisburg, which -- and I think is an amicus of -- the American Trial Lawyers pointed out that this Court is not just an anchorage, it also has a sale, and if you make that law, you can also repeal it, same bad law.\nThere's one other thing I wanted to mention, and that is a statement made by the respondents, Mrs. Moragne has identical right, under the Florida wrongful death statute as presently decided by the Florida Supreme Court, as a seaman had.\nNow, this just is not so, in fact if Florida common law negligence walked down the street and passed Jones Act negligence, they wouldn't recognize each other.\nThere's absolutely no kinship at all between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4327.758, 4349.979, 4365.285, 4373.982], "stop_times": [4349.979, 4365.285, 4373.982, 4377.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4327.758}, "reply_to": "15194__6_096", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_098", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4377.186], "stop_times": [4379.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4377.186}, "reply_to": "15194__6_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_099", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4379.541], "stop_times": [4380.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4379.541}, "reply_to": "15194__6_098", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_100", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4380.237], "stop_times": [4381.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4380.237}, "reply_to": "15194__6_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15194__6_101", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Yes sir, negligence of fellow seaman, assumption to risk, all of those things go with the Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4381.517], "stop_times": [4385.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4381.517}, "reply_to": "15194__6_100", "speaker": "charles_hardee"}
{"id": "15194__6_102", "conversation_id": "15194", "text": "Thank you Mr. Hardee.\nThank you for submission gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_175", "start_times": [4385.709, 4387.363, 4388.887], "stop_times": [4387.363, 4388.887, 4391.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4385.709}, "reply_to": "15194__6_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_000", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Number 86, Morales against New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [10.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_001", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nRichard T. Farrell for the petitioner, Melvin Morales.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [10.749, 13.49], "stop_times": [13.49, 16.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.749}, "reply_to": "15029__0_000", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_002", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Farrell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [16.583], "stop_times": [19.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 16.583}, "reply_to": "15029__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_003", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Your Honors, this case comes to this Court.\nThe writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State New York which Court held that certain police activity founded upon less than probable cause, do not constitute a violation of the defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and did not in fact the confessions yielded by the defendant after he resist as we contend in violation of the Fourth Amendment.\nThe facts in this case are fairly simply set forth early in the morning of October 4, 1964 in Bronx County, New York.\nMrs. Adi Brown died of multiple stab wounds, 31 to exact, and looked upon her by at that time an unknown assailant in elevator in a 21-storey-apartment house in a public housing project in the South Bronx.\nPolice efforts at the scene at that time on October 4th yielded no leads.\nBut on October 5, 1964, Detective Aubrey Ferguson was walking on the vicinity of the scene of the crime and met Mrs. Rebecca Morales who is the mother of the petitioner here Melvin Morales.\nDetective Ferguson knew the Morales family but knew them at a different address.\nHe asked Mrs. Morales, \u201cWhat are you doing here?\u201d\nShe said, \u201cOh, I live there,\" pointing to the building in which the crime had been committed.\nThe police also, sometime after October 5th, had information from a young man who testified on the trial that he had been outside the premises where the crime was committed had seen someone outside the building at the pertinent time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [19.052, 21.112, 46.629, 55.284, 70.363, 76.865, 90.991, 95.325, 97.702, 103.1], "stop_times": [21.112, 46.629, 55.284, 70.363, 76.865, 90.991, 95.325, 97.702, 103.1, 119.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 19.052}, "reply_to": "15029__0_002", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_004", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Could that be the very young boy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [119.438], "stop_times": [121.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.438}, "reply_to": "15029__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__0_005", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Yes, that's Everett Roberts, Mr. Justice Stewart whose testimony, the District Attorney abandoned in the submission by the time, it's very unusual, we try this case in the Supreme Court.\nThey finished cross-examining this young fellow.\nHere, the crime being committed sometime in October or November or December of 1964.\nAnd I doubt very much if he could've given a description much better than that available by looking at page 1320 of the record of Morales as a skinny Puerto Rican which is a fairly active description of a great number of people in the South Bronx.\nBut on October 11th, the police, to quote again from the testimony of Detective Ferguson about page 742 in the record said, \u201cWe rounded up some of the neighborhood narcotics addicts, and probably did do to about October 11, 1964.\nThe police officers came to the conclusion that Morales who did not live in the building with his mother.\nThey found that he was an inhibitory of the neighborhood not seen around by who we don't know exactly but it appears where these narcotics addicts have all rounded up on the 11th.\nAnd the police then concentrated the records on trying to find Melvin Morales to talk to.\nThe principal thrust to their evidence was to contact his mother, Mrs. Morales, Rebecca Morales, telling her that they were interested in speaking to Melvin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [121.642, 132.951, 135.057, 140.115, 155.321, 171.029, 177.086, 187.38, 192.64], "stop_times": [132.951, 135.057, 140.115, 155.321, 171.029, 177.086, 187.38, 192.64, 201.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.642}, "reply_to": "15029__0_004", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_006", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Now, if instead of this phrase that you said the detective used to describe their process of getting this information.\nIf instead of that, a dozen detectives or 24 detectives had walk up and down the street talking to every narcotic addict and the others of that world and got the same information.\nWould you say, that the case is different or the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [201.445, 209.464, 224.565], "stop_times": [209.464, 224.565, 227.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.445}, "reply_to": "15029__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_007", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I attached those significance, the fact that the officer, we rounded up these other narcotics addicts.\nUnlike the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [227.335, 231.998], "stop_times": [231.998, 232.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.335}, "reply_to": "15029__0_006", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_008", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Oh, I -- I assume that you did when you emphasized that phrase so much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [232.286], "stop_times": [238.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.286}, "reply_to": "15029__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_009", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, you have to excuse the evocate for trying to use what I consider perhaps a loaded term.\nI do not attach any significance the fact that there was a round up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [238.256, 243.276], "stop_times": [243.276, 245.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.256}, "reply_to": "15029__0_008", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_010", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Oh, well you've cleared up the question for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [245.626], "stop_times": [248.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.626}, "reply_to": "15029__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_011", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, on October 13th, approximately nine days after the event that led to the homicide investigation of the murder and about three days after the police started to concentrate to the evidence on finding Melvin Morales.\nThe police officers followed Mrs. Morales from her home to her place of business and stayed at her beauty parlor.\nAbout her four o'clock in the afternoon, Mrs. Morales was visited by one of the officers, I believe it was Detective Carol who asked her, \u201cWell, do you think your son will be around?\u201d\nShe said, \u201cWell, I think he will be up this afternoon.\u201d\nAs a matter of fact, the testimony in the record by Mrs. Morales indicates very clearly that she had informed Melvin Morales that the police were interested in speaking to him and Morales seems to have said, \u201cThat's alright mother, I will come up.\u201d\nAt eight o' clock that evening, on October 13th, Melvin Morales did in fact come up to his mother's beauty parlor.\nHe arrived in a taxi cab, stepped out of the cab.\nDetective Carol took Morales, put him in Detective Downe's car, Detective Downe went to see Mrs. Morales and set him words were in substance, \u201cCome on outside, we have your son.\nPlease, pay the taxi cab.\u201d\nMrs. Morales, \u201cMay I talk to him?\u201d\nThe detective, \u201cNo, that isn't necessary.\u201d\nAs the people was stating the facts in the respondent's brief points out, the officer did interfere with her access to her son.\nThe police officers then took him in the detective's car, down to 42nd precinct, brought him upstairs in the station house, put him in the Lieutenant's office, and commenced the process of interrogation.\nDowne made some reference to the following rights of the petitioner.\nHe said you can have a lawyer.\nYou don't have to talk to us and anything you say to us may be used against you.\nMorales declined to speak to Downe at that point, said, \u201cI'd rather speak to Detective Carol.\u201d\nDetective Carol returned from his brief departure to get coffee and cake.\nThe first words out of Morales' mouth in words were in substance were, \u201cCarol, you know, I can't take a beating.\u201d\nCarol replied to that, \u201cStop building offenses, stop making alibis, stop building threats to him.\u201d\nLean on, there's one thing you can't do?\nYou can't lie to God.\nDo you believe in God?\nMorales, \u201cYes I do.\u201d\n\u201cBetween you and your God, did you do this thing?\u201d\nMorales, \u201cYes, I did.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [248.556, 266.207, 272.98, 282.02, 284.391, 298.476, 305.732, 308.922, 318.686, 320.83, 322.034, 324.715, 331.708, 344.733, 349.207, 350.468, 354.427, 358.591, 362.447, 370.81, 375.445, 377.306, 378.765, 379.795, 381.939, 383.707], "stop_times": [266.207, 272.98, 282.02, 284.391, 298.476, 305.732, 308.922, 318.686, 320.83, 322.034, 324.715, 331.708, 344.733, 349.207, 350.468, 354.427, 358.591, 362.447, 370.81, 375.445, 377.306, 378.765, 379.795, 381.939, 383.707, 387.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.556}, "reply_to": "15029__0_010", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_012", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How long did those was taken?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [387.139], "stop_times": [388.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.139}, "reply_to": "15029__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15029__0_013", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "From the time that Morales was picked up, Mr. Justice Douglas until --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [388.827], "stop_times": [392.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.827}, "reply_to": "15029__0_012", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_014", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The interrogation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [392.166], "stop_times": [393.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.166}, "reply_to": "15029__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15029__0_015", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Until the time interrogation start that was approximately 45 minutes.\nFrom about 8 o'clock in the evening on October 13th until 8:45 when he made the first doubting statement.\nHe responded the question, \u201cDid you do it?\nHe said apparently he said, \u201cYes, I did.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [393.21, 396.904, 402.77, 404.004], "stop_times": [396.904, 402.77, 404.004, 406.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.21}, "reply_to": "15029__0_014", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_016", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "45 minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [406.207], "stop_times": [407.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.207}, "reply_to": "15029__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15029__0_017", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Approximately 45 minutes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [407.544], "stop_times": [409.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.544}, "reply_to": "15029__0_016", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_018", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, I'm not clear to your answer.\n45 minutes after Detective Carol came in the room or 45 minutes after he got --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [409.312, 411.153], "stop_times": [411.153, 414.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.312}, "reply_to": "15029__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_019", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "45 minutes after the initial taking into custody outside his mother's beauty parlor.\nThe trip to the station house --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [414.58, 419.166], "stop_times": [419.166, 420.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.58}, "reply_to": "15029__0_018", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_020", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "No, no, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [420.473], "stop_times": [421.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.473}, "reply_to": "15029__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15029__0_021", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "It was 40 -- well, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [421.218], "stop_times": [422.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.218}, "reply_to": "15029__0_020", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_022", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "No.\nHow long after they -- Carol got into the station house, Morales got into the station house when the statement was made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [422.885, 423.18], "stop_times": [423.18, 430.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.885}, "reply_to": "15029__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15029__0_023", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "It would seems to be about 10 to 15 minutes, Your Honor.\nIt's impossible to fix the time with any precision.\nIt was 45 minutes in the initial taking of the custody and approximately 10 to 15 minutes between the time they arrived to the station house to the time of the first statement, \u201cYes, I did it.\u201d\nCarol then repeated to Morales substantially the same warnings given to him by Detective Duff earlier and Morales made a full-blown verbal confession that he had needed narcotics.\nHe had been in his mother's apartment and got outside for breath of air.\nHe saw a woman entering the building followed the woman into the building, went into the same elevator with her and the elevator went up.\nHe snatched at her purse, she resisted, he stabbed her, the elevator stopped, and he fled.\nAt that point, Detective Downe return to the interrogation site and Downe and Carol made essentially this observation to Morales.\nNow, since you and Morales are going to have to repeat you a story to detective of a homicide squad carrying this case, precinct detective who's in charge with a responsibility in this case and perhaps to the District Attorney in another unspecified list of police officers.\nWhy don't you write your statement down so no one change it on you?\nMorales complied and that led to the second confession in this case or polygraphic statement completed about 9:05 on October 13.\nThereafter, and true enough to the police officer's words, there was a further procession of police officers interrogating Morales.\nThey substantially reiterated his confessions.\nLater on in the evening, an Assistant District Attorney for Bronx County's Office arrive on the scene, conducted a question and answer session with Morales, with the aid of a stenotype recorder and then after that session was completed sometime early on the morning of October 14th.\nNow, about four-and-a-half to five hours after the initial taking into custody, Morales was taken to the scene of the crime where he reenacted the crime.\nAt four o'clock in the morning of October 14th, he was in the emergency ward of Morrisania Hospital being treated for what appeared to be narcotics withdrawal symptoms.\nA week later, around October 20, police officers visited Morales in Bronx House of Detention.\nThey said they wanted to talk to him and according to the police officers' own testimony, at that point, Morales had formed the new resolve.\nHe said, \u201cNo, I will not talk to you, I am going to fight this thing,\u201d meaning, obviously the charge of murder.\nMorales was duly tried and convicted in the Bronx County.\nPreliminary hearing in the question of voluntariness of his confession the famous Huntley hearing in New York mandated by this Court's decision in Jackson versus Denno was held.\nMorales did not testify at the Huntley hearing, the trial judge found his confession voluntary.\nJury was charged on a question of voluntariness, the jury convicted, Morales who received a life sentence.\nThe appellate division of the Police Department in New York affirmed unanimously without an opinion.\nThe Court of Appeals in the State of New York affirmed again unanimously but this time, with an opinion.\nThis Court since we granted certiorari in this case on April 21, 1969.\nYour Honors, at the time the police officers picked up Melvin Morales, they knew the following concrete specific information about it.\nHis mother lived in a building where the crime was committed.\nHe was a narcotic's addict.\nHe, they have been told, had not been seen around since the time the crime was committed.\nAnd that Your Honors is about all they knew about Melvin Morales.\nArmed with this scanty information, the police officers formed a very obvious intention of making Morales into their custody and bringing him down to the station house for interrogation.\nThe Court of Appeals of the State of New York said in its opinion that, it may be conceded that there was not probable cause.\nThey did not make a finding on the question whether there was a probable cause and I submit on the record in this case.\nAnd especially in the light of the testimony the two officers who picked Morales up in the first place, when saying, \u201cWell, I have nothing definitely to tie him to the crime.\u201d\nAnd the others saying, \u201cI was dubious about his connection with the crime\u201d, and it wasn't until the interrogation brought out what it brought out that he was convinced he was guilty.\nIt's quite obviously no probable cause.\nFurther, the Court of Appeals did however seem to make the finding, a finding which I submit is probably binding on this Court.\nThe Court of Appeals said at page 58 of its opinion at 22 New York Second, the record does not support a finding that defendant consented to his detention and question.\nIt says the Court of Appeals in fact there was no consent.\nIn fact there was no probable cause, it does not necessarily make this issue here unreasonable.\nWe must examine to see under all the circumstances whether if this issue here it was reasonable or not.\nThe Court of Appeals of course is writing in May of 1968.\nThey are writing without the benefit of the elimination supplied by this Court in the case of Davis versus Mississippi, decided on April 22nd, the day after this Court granted certiorari in this case.\nDavis versus Mississippi, Your Honors, I think makes it painfully clear that if the police do not possess probable cause, do not have a warrant, they cannot take a citizen off the street and bring him to the station house.\nThe only thing they can do is footnote six in the Davis opinion.\nIt reminds the country, the only thing they can do is request the voluntary cooperation of the citizen.\nMorales was not requested to voluntarily cooperate.\nHe was grabbed by one police officer, thrust into the other officer's car, and take him down to the station house.\nThe Court of Appeals makes the almost chronicle observation.\nThe defendant testified he was so loosely guarded when taken from the car to the station that he could have safely escaped.\nWell, I don't know about that.\nAll he said in his testimony, at page 9 to 15 in the record is that the police officers didn't hold them by each arm.\nBut the Court of Appeals own but this was a reasonable seizure within the Fourth Amendment.\nNo probable cause and therefore caused no arrest, couldn't be an arrest, there was no basis to link this man to the crime.\nNo consent to the Court of Appeals here but the question is, \u201cWas it reasonable to do what the police officers did?\u201d\nAnd then marching through their consideration of what constituted reasonableness, the Court of Appeals is that there's no practical alternative of taking the man off the street and dragging him down to the station house.\nThe police station is a better place to interrogate defendants.\nWe iterate on oral argument and they say in the brief.\nThat's exactly what this Court I think decided Miranda versus Arizona because the police station is such a dandy place to interrogate suspects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [430.797, 434.804, 437.62, 446.284, 457.457, 460.773, 467.024, 472.041, 482.8, 497.696, 503.471, 511.653, 517.316, 520.428, 535.58, 544.87, 555.23, 561.209, 566.952, 574.591, 578.411, 586.426, 592.76, 599.84, 605.51, 612.96, 618.773, 629.489, 632.94, 635.646, 642.525, 647.383, 657.205, 666.535, 671.81, 679.128, 686.493, 688.996, 695.35, 708.677, 711.721, 716.308, 723.795, 727.186, 740.298, 758.002, 762.42, 769.484, 773.83, 780.372, 785.205, 792.056, 794.139, 804.325, 809.525, 816.018, 821.464, 830.788, 835.952, 837.95], "stop_times": [434.804, 437.62, 446.284, 457.457, 460.773, 467.024, 472.041, 482.8, 497.696, 503.471, 511.653, 517.316, 520.428, 535.58, 544.87, 555.23, 561.209, 566.952, 574.591, 578.411, 586.426, 592.76, 599.84, 605.51, 612.96, 618.773, 629.489, 632.94, 635.646, 642.525, 647.383, 657.205, 666.535, 671.81, 679.128, 686.493, 688.996, 695.35, 708.677, 711.721, 716.308, 723.795, 727.186, 740.298, 758.002, 762.42, 769.484, 773.83, 780.372, 785.205, 792.056, 794.139, 804.325, 809.525, 816.018, 821.464, 830.788, 835.952, 837.95, 844.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.797}, "reply_to": "15029__0_022", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_024", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And he raised his Fourth Amendment at the time of the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [844.556], "stop_times": [847.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.556}, "reply_to": "15029__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__0_025", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Your Honor, the first time of the Fourth Amendment claim was raised in this case was by me in the New York State Court of Appeals.\nFirst time in this case, Riley versus Ohio however, that is the -- that's turning just been point out, stands for the proposition that once the contention has to be considered by the highest court of the State, that question is probably preserved for review by this Court.\nAnd Your Honors, the Court of Appeals quite obviously considered this question as a brief reading of its opinion will indicate.\nAlthough it was raised, and I had no problems about it admitting that writ, the question was raised for the first time by me in the Court of Appeals, that is not I think particularly an objection to this Court considering that question since the highest court in New York is considered the questions probably deserve for its review and then therefore deserve --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [847.891, 853.062, 871.062, 881.061], "stop_times": [853.062, 871.062, 881.061, 900.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.891}, "reply_to": "15029__0_024", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_026", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, it maybe true but it also -- it might be true to state might have more proof for the administrative background under which he both police's suspicions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [900.341], "stop_times": [913.831], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 900.341}, "reply_to": "15029__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15029__0_027", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [913.831], "stop_times": [914.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.831}, "reply_to": "15029__0_026", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_028", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, that came into their attention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [914.609], "stop_times": [916.65], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 914.609}, "reply_to": "15029__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15029__0_029", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Harlan, it's one of the principal scapegoats built into the respondent's brief in this case or we may have more evidence.\nBut that question I think is referable to the proper procedure under the New York practice, since the question has been properly preserved for review by this Court.\nI think that the only thing that the people can rely on is what they got in the record right now.\nThey could perhaps go out and beat the bushes now five years after the event, and find some more evidence.\nPerhaps this Court could be convinced to send it back for rehearing, I do not think that it's necessary on the state of the record and especially in light of the testimony of the two arresting officers.\nBecause those two arresting officers had nothing even remotely approaching in their view of probable cause to make the seizure.\nAnd as these two, if you will, petty officials to borrow from Boyd versus the United States, whose determination to take the citizen into custody that are on the review in this Court in this case.\nIf this Court be not convinced that the unconsented to seizure of a citizen for the purposes of bringing them into the police station for interrogation does not violate the Fourth Amendment, then I quite frankly confessed a bit of confusion about what the opinion of Davis versus Mississippi was driving at.\nBut the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [916.65, 926.054, 935.491, 940.573, 945.983, 953.721, 959.518, 971.146, 993.324], "stop_times": [926.054, 935.491, 940.573, 945.983, 953.721, 959.518, 971.146, 993.324, 997.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.65}, "reply_to": "15029__0_028", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_030", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "What bearing do you have to stop in the first case, do you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [997.199], "stop_times": [1000.264], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 997.199}, "reply_to": "15029__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15029__0_031", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I don't think Terry versus Ohio, Sibron and when or to repeat this have any bearing on this case at all, Mr. Justice Harlan except for the very general proposition that the police may make some temporary stoppage of a citizen if there is a reason to inquire his suspicious conduct.\nThe only thing the police officers saw that Morales do was to get out of a taxi cab.\nThat's hardly the kind of conduct, I think, that Terry envisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1000.264, 1020.185, 1024.672], "stop_times": [1020.185, 1024.672, 1031.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.264}, "reply_to": "15029__0_030", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_032", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, whatever some events that led them to be there to see him get out of the taxi cab, were there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1031.106], "stop_times": [1036.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.106}, "reply_to": "15029__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_033", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, there certainly were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1036.962], "stop_times": [1038.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.962}, "reply_to": "15029__0_032", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_034", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And would you think that didn't happen to be there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1038.532], "stop_times": [1041.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.532}, "reply_to": "15029__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__0_035", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Oh, they were there because they were looking for Melvin Morales.\nBut it's the reason why they were looking for Melvin Morales, that makes the seizure here unreasonable within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment.\nThey were not operating on anything that remotely approaching probable cause for his arrest.\nThey had nothing but a bare suspicion that he might have something to tell them about the crime since of course, his family lived in the building.\nHe was an addict and he had not been seen around.\nThis hardly, intellectively points the finger of suspicion at Morales.\nThe Court of Appeals have to checkerboard square of investigation pointed only to Morales but at most, to give the people their due, four out of those 64 squares on any checkerboard were filled in here.\nThat hardly, I think mounts up to a kind of justification for a seizure and detention of a citizen as into this case.\nTo say that, since Morales knew the police was looking for him that he is coming to his mother's beauty parlor, may be read as a surrender flies in the face of both the determination by New York Court of Appeals, that there was nothing in this record to support a consent of argument.\nAnd there's also tantamount in my opinion to saying that a lamb that goes to the pasture and surrenders himself to the wolf.\nMorales wanted to surrender to the police.\nThere are better places to surrender to the police than your mother's beauty parlor.\nThere are police stations, many of them.\nBut Morales, I don't think can be said to have surrendered in this case.\nI think the Court of Appeals has decided that question that there was no surrender, no consent to interrogation at that place under the circumstances.\nAnd since that is a determination, I believe on the question of fact by the highest Court in the State of New York.\nI do not think that that question of fact is reviewable by this Court.\nBut if the Court be convinced that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, it becomes another more pressing problem.\nIf the Fourth Amendment was violated, what affect does should that have on the use of Morales' confessions.\nTaking my lead from the American Law Institutes modal code of pre-arraignment procedures especially Article IX of that document and from Wong Sun versus the United States.\nI believe that the answer to that question is once the confessions are taken so close, at least the point of time, to an unreasonable seizure within the Fourth Amendment.\nThose confessions must be barred from evidence without reference to the fact of the voluntariness or no.\nAs this Court has said time and time again, the purpose behind the exclusion of every rule is to discourage the police from engaging into prohibited conduct.\nProhibited conduct here is an investigatory detention upon less than probably cause.\nThe involuntary submission of the citizen to the custody in the police station, if the Fourth Amendment is to be protected in this conduct, in this context, the confessions obtained at the police station just by John Davis, his fingerprints in Davis case must be barred from evidence, whether they were voluntary or not.\nThe next step, of course, is that the Court not be willing to buy a rule based upon per se exclusion.\nWe then come to the question, was there the kind of attenuation between the initial police illegality, that is the seizure of Morales on the street corner and his confessions that would permit the Court to say that there has been a dissipation of the primary obtained.\nAgain, the leading case is Wong Sun versus the United States.\nTheir Blocky Toy was confession was excluded from evidence, were seized in his own premises made admissions almost immediately.\nWong Sun took off, was at large for several days, then came back, and made his confessions, as to Wong Sun came to the primary illegality of any uncertain and unanticipated with, as to Blocky Toy as to Melvin Morales in this case.\nThe link between the illegal police activity of seizing Morales without probable cause and taking him without his consent into the custody is so closely linked both in time and in circumstances.\nBecause Morales was taken down to the police station and interrogated almost immediately, the mere fact of interposition of, well, I think the properly called that that's point in time Escobedo warnings, should not by and off themselves be a sufficient attenuation of attained.\nThe oppressiveness of the initial seizure was followed by the oppressiveness of the detention at the place selected by the police which was followed by the oppressiveness of the isolation from everyone else in the world but the police, which is followed in short order by the confessions.\nThe link between these confessions and the seizure is so close both in time and in circumstances that I believe Your Honors that it cannot be reasonably said in the realistic appraisal of this record.\nThat there has been a kind of attenuation between the unlawful police conduct in the first place violating the principles unasked by this Court less than seven months ago in Davis versus Mississippi and the confessions to say that the confessions are not the tainted produce of this initial police illegality.\nAnd further Your Honors, we submit that the confessions of the defendant, each and every one of them were not proven to be voluntary beyond the reasonable doubt.\nHe did confess, he was one but he was a narcotics addict.\nA group prone to beguiles to have a rather shallow perception of their rights and responsibilities.\nHe was isolated from his only, only ally in the field, his mother, who testified that she wanted to tell him that he shouldn't speak to police officers.\nHe was alone in the police station.\nHe was isolated.\nHe did after the effect but as Haley versus Ohio, I think indicates is also remained to look after the fact for the -- for whatever light, the subsequent events may throw on his gun before him.\nAfter that he did wind up in the emergency ward of Morrisania Hospital being treated for what's looked like, narcotics withdrawal symptoms and when he have been completely free of that is of police custody.\nWhen he was completely alone for several days to cogitate, ruminate over the possibilities of his right not to speak to a police officer.\nWhen police officers arrived on October 20th, Morales told them and says, \u201cGo away, I don't want to talk to you.\u201d\nRemoved in time and space when he inherently submit inherently coercive atmosphere surrounding with the police station, Morales found the resolve that would've stood him in good state, if he had been in the position to assert that result at the time it was initially taken into custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1041.941, 1045.516, 1054.305, 1059.422, 1065.997, 1068.303, 1073.333, 1084.467, 1095.729, 1113.281, 1119.943, 1121.764, 1125.174, 1127.829, 1131.516, 1140.77, 1146.442, 1151.043, 1159.494, 1168.175, 1181.274, 1192.236, 1199.712, 1211.097, 1218.795, 1240.658, 1248.762, 1263.201, 1268.202, 1277.993, 1291.57, 1303.256, 1320.538, 1336.296, 1346.284, 1366.466, 1379.395, 1382.69, 1389.695, 1398.993, 1401.315, 1403.094, 1414.469, 1426.444, 1433.792, 1441.503], "stop_times": [1045.516, 1054.305, 1059.422, 1065.997, 1068.303, 1073.333, 1084.467, 1095.729, 1113.281, 1119.943, 1121.764, 1125.174, 1127.829, 1131.516, 1140.77, 1146.442, 1151.043, 1159.494, 1168.175, 1181.274, 1192.236, 1199.712, 1211.097, 1218.795, 1240.658, 1248.762, 1263.201, 1268.202, 1277.993, 1291.57, 1303.256, 1320.538, 1336.296, 1346.284, 1366.466, 1379.395, 1382.69, 1389.695, 1398.993, 1401.315, 1403.094, 1414.469, 1426.444, 1433.792, 1441.503, 1456.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.941}, "reply_to": "15029__0_034", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_036", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How old is this at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1456.178], "stop_times": [1458.932], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.178}, "reply_to": "15029__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15029__0_037", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, at the time he was arrested, he was partially 30 years of age.\nHe'd been a narcotics addict since he was 17 years old.\nGraduated from junior high school, had some trade school experience.\nHe had a yellow sheet, the arrest record in New York is called, of course the yellow sheet of some sizeable dimension.\nAnd the Court of Appeals that this is no obey than would this was, may have familiar with the criminal processes and to buttress their conclusion of Court of Appeals in New York City.\nHe was so familiar with the kind of processes that he chose not to rely on the fact that it was unlawfully arrested, but he Morales that I'm speaking of Morales chose to rely on the stronger argument that is Fourth Amendment rights that was violated.\nYour Honors, I thought of that argument not both in Morales the experience to the criminal.\nThe mere fact that he was 30 years of age, Your Honor, I submit, the fact that he had a rather extensive criminal record.\nThis make him an expert on the ins and outs of the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Fourteenth and also, I find that the requirement that issues be raised in the normal cause of events at the trial court.\nHere, however, he had the -- he couldn't afford a better lawyer, so he got someone who made really an error but raised the issue that this Court must now decide.\nCan this confession or these confessions be admitted in light of the violation of the Fourth Amendment rights?\nYour Honors, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1458.932, 1462.446, 1465.016, 1469.016, 1476.38, 1484.491, 1495.587, 1501.146, 1506.484, 1521.242, 1531.43, 1538.861], "stop_times": [1462.446, 1465.016, 1469.016, 1476.38, 1484.491, 1495.587, 1501.146, 1506.484, 1521.242, 1531.43, 1538.861, 1548.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.932}, "reply_to": "15029__0_036", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__0_038", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1548.321], "stop_times": [1549.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.321}, "reply_to": "15029__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_000", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nAssuming there was no surrender here, assuming there was no surrender, in this case, and if there was a surrender, certainly the Fourth Amendment would not come into play. The taking of the custody, the detention, the seizure, the arrest, a Melvin Morales is under the circumstances of this case, was reasonable and appropriate within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.\nThe Fourth Amendment as oppose to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment applies a flexible and variable standard, it is not absolute like the Fifth and the Sixth.\nGuidelines have been provided by Terry against Ohio, and I submit that the people have the right to detain someone where there is a reasonable basis for belief that that individual has information concerning a crime which has been committed.\nJustice Frankfurter stated, it much more adequately denied.\nIn Columbia, in which he said there are things which cannot speak and that it's necessary to detain and to interrogate witnesses who possibly maybe suspects in order to ascertain who has committee a particular crime.\nThis case like all cases appearing before this Court, there has to be a balancing between society and the individual.\nIn this case, the petitioner whose counsel has characterized as a lamb was found by jury of his peers to have delivered 31 stab wounds to a 56-year-old woman in Bronx County, Mrs. Adi Brown.\nThe police arriving upon, the same questioned individuals and before this investigation was over, they literally questioned over a hundred individuals.\nOne information that they received that first night, they knew that the individual or possibly the individual committed this crime lived in that building because one of the tenants after the elevator arrived upon his floor heard footsteps below this particular floor and heard a door.\nThey questioned individuals in the building.\nThey questioned Mrs. Morales.\nThey questioned her son Snooky and the evidence indicates in the record is all we have to go on is that two individuals were interrogated by the police at the station house.\nSnooky, Snooky Morales and a man by the name of Shortie, they had no probable cause to arrest in a technical sense of the term either Snooky or Shortie.\nBut I respectfully submit, conducting this investigation based on the information which they had.\nThey had a reasonable basis to detain and take him to the station house, these two individuals had questioned him and checked out their alibi.\nAscertain whether or not these individuals could clear themselves in order to solve this crime involving Mrs. Adi Brown.\nThey could never revive Mrs. Adi Brown but it was incumbent upon these police officers, characterized as petty public officials to work from day break to back break.\nIn order to solve this crime, so there would not be more Adi Browns, figuratively speaking, in Bronx County in the City of New York.\nThey had to work, and they had to investigate, and they had to interrogate, and I respectfully submit, they went into the street and they knew these police officers.\nThey knew Melvin Morales.\nThey knew Melvin Morales to be a hustler and a petty thief who had numerous convictions as a narcotic addict.\nAs a policy, they knew this individual and they knew his haunts, and they looked in his haunts.\nAnd this individual was not seen in this familiar haunts.\nDuring the course of this investigation prior to the time that Melvin Morales was taken to the station house, they went and interviewed the mother.\nDetective Ferguson spoke to the mother.\nDetective Ferguson was told by the mother that her son was not around, that she had not seen her son for sometime.\nSubsequently, several days later, to Detective Carol and Detective Downe, when she discovered they was searching for her son and looking for her son.\nShe gave an alibi for her son.\nShe said, \u201cHe was here.\nHe was here in the apartment.\nA detective had gone through the premises.\nA detective who knew Melvin Morales, he had not seen Melvin Morales in the apartment.\nThe little boy and his age doesn't appear on the record or in the record, was a little boy who had a Kombi, a van, and this little boy was walking his friend home at approximately 3:20 in the morning.\nAnd Everett Roberts according to the testimony in this record and I'm not going to comment on what the Assistant District Attorney stated concerning his testimony at this time.\nBut that little boy described to the police prior to the time that Melvin Morales was detained or surrendered, described to the police and individual a receding hairline, a Puerto Rican, thin.\nAnd indeed the description matched in the minds of the detectives who are working on this case, Melvin Morales, and intensified their search for Melvin Morales.\nAnd this boy in Court identified Melvin Morales as the individual he saw at the time of a homicide and this little boy stated that he saw this individual on the day, on the Wednesday, following the Saturday night or Sunday morning that he saw the individual at the bench infront of this building.\nNow, the Court's notion, a probable cause is less than the conservative attitude of both prosecutor and police officials with regard to probable cause, as evidence by the Peters case.\nAnd I state to this Court, that if there was probable cause or this Court was able to find a probable cause from the Peters case or in the Peters case.\nCertainly, the Court may very well find from the record we have here, which we were not able to develop because the question of unreasonable detention was never raised in the trial Court.\nIt's not raised in the Appellate Division or at the immediate appellate court but was first raised, raised for the first time in the Court of Appeals.\nCertainly if it was raised, I respectfully submit, we'll have an opportunity to develop evidence and produce evidence which show how all of these information into hold and whether or not indeed, we had additional information which would enable us to have probable cause to make the arrest.\nBut I state that on the record itself, there was a reasonable basis which I contend is all at the Fourth Amendment requires, a reasonable basis to detain this individual in order to interrogate him and not because there was reasonable belief that he had information concerning the commission of this crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [1549.977, 1554.971, 1585.422, 1600.11, 1627.487, 1632.182, 1653.078, 1661.795, 1684.715, 1699.53, 1723.108, 1725.875, 1728.474, 1743.278, 1758.729, 1765.465, 1774.217, 1781.72, 1794.704, 1803.017, 1813.99, 1816.414, 1824.559, 1832.657, 1838.42, 1848.662, 1851.476, 1863.966, 1878.164, 1881.448, 1883.999, 1887.096, 1889.77, 1896.72, 1917.081, 1929.556, 1949.699, 1962.888, 1986.549, 2004.375, 2016.065, 2031.528, 2041.051, 2062.693], "stop_times": [1554.971, 1585.422, 1600.11, 1627.487, 1632.182, 1653.078, 1661.795, 1684.715, 1699.53, 1723.108, 1725.875, 1728.474, 1743.278, 1758.729, 1765.465, 1774.217, 1781.72, 1794.704, 1803.017, 1813.99, 1816.414, 1824.559, 1832.657, 1838.42, 1848.662, 1851.476, 1863.966, 1878.164, 1881.448, 1883.999, 1887.096, 1889.77, 1896.72, 1917.081, 1929.556, 1949.699, 1962.888, 1986.549, 2004.375, 2016.065, 2031.528, 2041.051, 2062.693, 2085.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1549.977}, "reply_to": "15029__0_038", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_001", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Did the two officers -- the officers who picked Morales up at his mother's beauty shop, did they testified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2085.634], "stop_times": [2094.452], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.634}, "reply_to": "15029__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15029__1_002", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, they did and they testified, I might add and if I may just go off the subject that I have now and go back to voluntary surrender for a moment, they testified that they saw the mother and stated to the mother that they were looking.\nThey were looking for Melvin Morales, her son Melvin Morales, and she says, \u201cWell, he's been around.\nHe's not hiding.\nI'll tell my son that you're looking for him Detective Carol.\u201d\nAnd indeed, she called up her son and this is the testimony in the trial, testimony of Mrs. Morales.\nSubstantiated in part by Melvin Morales himself when he testified and she said, \u201cMelvin, Detective Carol wants to see you.\u201d\nAnd he said, \u201cWell, I'll see him.\u201d\nShe says, \u201cWell, come up to the beauty parlor.\u201d\nAnd the same day that he arrived at the beauty parlor, she spoke to that son and told him where she would be and she then told Detective Downe and Detective Carol that her son would be at the beauty parlor, later that evening.\nAnd at eight o'clock, the son arrived.\nNow, he knew that Detective Carol was looking for him.\nThe mother stated, \u201cCome to the beauty parlor.\u201d\nHe did arrive at the beauty parlor.\nDetective Downe and Detective Carol were there.\nHe voluntarily went with Detective Downe and Detective Carol to the station house.\nThis certainly is different from the Davis case and that this 30-year-old man as contrast to a 40-year-old boy.\nThis 30-year-old man voluntarily went with the police officers to the station house, no handcuffs, no chains, no gun, with detectives whom he knew and whom he had seen certainly for the last 13 years of his life, taken to the station house.\nAnd there in the station house, interposing his own free will within 10 to 50 minutes after Detective Carol was advised of his rights prior to Miranda, told that he didn't have to say anything, that anything he said could be used against him and that the detective would testify in Court concerning what he said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2094.452, 2113.123, 2119.114, 2120.871, 2127.092, 2133.058, 2144.716, 2147.687, 2152.384, 2171.392, 2176.66, 2180.925, 2183.67, 2185.941, 2189.903, 2197.451, 2206.781, 2230.204], "stop_times": [2113.123, 2119.114, 2120.871, 2127.092, 2133.058, 2144.716, 2147.687, 2152.384, 2171.392, 2176.66, 2180.925, 2183.67, 2185.941, 2189.903, 2197.451, 2206.781, 2230.204, 2254.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2094.452}, "reply_to": "15029__1_001", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_003", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Roberts, when was he arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2254.828], "stop_times": [2257.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.828}, "reply_to": "15029__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_004", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He was arrested on October 13th, 19 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2257.288], "stop_times": [2260.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2257.288}, "reply_to": "15029__1_003", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_005", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2260.184], "stop_times": [2261.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.184}, "reply_to": "15029__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_006", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "At the beauty shop, outside the beauty shop, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2261.186], "stop_times": [2264.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2261.186}, "reply_to": "15029__1_005", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_007", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "You mean he was arrested outside the beauty shop and went voluntarily with them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2264.638], "stop_times": [2269.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.638}, "reply_to": "15029__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_008", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Sir, I used the term arrest, the constitutional term arrest, when the person's right to freedom and movement is interfered with I considered arrest.\nI consider it arrest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2269.504, 2280.582], "stop_times": [2280.582, 2281.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2269.504}, "reply_to": "15029__1_007", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_009", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "So, from then on, he wasn't voluntarily free, was he, from that moment on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2281.216], "stop_times": [2286.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.216}, "reply_to": "15029__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_010", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "From that moment on, he was not voluntarily free to go, sir.\nAccording to the testimony of Detective Duff and Detective Carol --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2286.72, 2291.78], "stop_times": [2291.78, 2293.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2286.72}, "reply_to": "15029__1_009", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_011", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And what basis did you have to arrest him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2293.442], "stop_times": [2297.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.442}, "reply_to": "15029__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_012", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2297.042], "stop_times": [2297.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2297.042}, "reply_to": "15029__1_011", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_013", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "What basis did you have to arrest him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2297.537], "stop_times": [2300.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.537}, "reply_to": "15029__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_014", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The basis that we had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2300.061], "stop_times": [2301.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2300.061}, "reply_to": "15029__1_013", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_015", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That's in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2301.097], "stop_times": [2303.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.097}, "reply_to": "15029__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_016", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "From the record sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2303.17], "stop_times": [2303.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2303.17}, "reply_to": "15029__1_015", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_017", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2303.894], "stop_times": [2304.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.894}, "reply_to": "15029__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_018", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "From the record, the basis that we have to arrest him is circumstantial evidence indicating that the person who committed this crime was a tenant in that building.\nThat this individual, Melvin Morales, was seen outside the premises of the building contemporaneous with the time just before or just after Mrs. Adi Brown was killed that this individual was a narcotic addict.\nHad been a narcotic addict for many years, that this individual was a petty thief, that this individual was missing from haunts, that his mother --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2304.454, 2313.107, 2328.89], "stop_times": [2313.107, 2328.89, 2337.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2304.454}, "reply_to": "15029__1_017", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_019", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Now, where in the record is that?\nYou are -- I want to know what he had independently of what you got from Morales or his criminal record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2337.803, 2340.46], "stop_times": [2340.46, 2349.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.803}, "reply_to": "15029__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_020", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I just stated so what's in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2349.815], "stop_times": [2351.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2349.815}, "reply_to": "15029__1_019", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_021", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Now, who told the police that he had a long record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2351.178], "stop_times": [2355.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.178}, "reply_to": "15029__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_022", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "They know it sir.\nThey were questioned.\nThey were questioned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2355.34, 2356.738, 2357.921], "stop_times": [2356.738, 2357.921, 2358.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2355.34}, "reply_to": "15029__1_021", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_023", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, I mean how did they know that the person, who committed this crime, had a long criminal record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2358.42], "stop_times": [2366.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.42}, "reply_to": "15029__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_024", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "They did not know that the person --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2366.447], "stop_times": [2367.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2366.447}, "reply_to": "15029__1_023", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_025", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I didn't think they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2367.877], "stop_times": [2367.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.877}, "reply_to": "15029__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_026", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Who had committed the crime had a long criminal record sir.\nBut based on their expertise, the expertise of a police officer in the 42nd squad, a person with narcotic background, a person with a record for petty thefts, a person who needed to make a score in order to support his habit would be more likely to commit a crime such as this in an elevator at three o'clock in the morning --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2367.988, 2370.471], "stop_times": [2370.471, 2393.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2367.988}, "reply_to": "15029__1_025", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_027", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2393.121], "stop_times": [2394.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.121}, "reply_to": "15029__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_028", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Than the President of the Chamber of Commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2394.16], "stop_times": [2395.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2394.16}, "reply_to": "15029__1_027", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_029", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How many people in the Bronx fit that description?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2395.868], "stop_times": [2400.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.868}, "reply_to": "15029__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_030", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "There are many people --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2400.333], "stop_times": [2401.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2400.333}, "reply_to": "15029__1_029", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_031", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How many narcotics addicts do you have in the Bronx?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2401.06], "stop_times": [2404.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.06}, "reply_to": "15029__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_032", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I can't give you, I can -- in my opinion sir, there are about 60,000 narcotic addicts in the city New York but we have our fair share in Bronx County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2404.101], "stop_times": [2411.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2404.101}, "reply_to": "15029__1_031", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_033", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And fair share of those who commit crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2411.412], "stop_times": [2415.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.412}, "reply_to": "15029__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_034", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And a fair share and save more than 50% of them to make crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2415.439], "stop_times": [2416.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2415.439}, "reply_to": "15029__1_033", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_035", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Well, now what probable cause did you have that this was Morales?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2416.406], "stop_times": [2421.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.406}, "reply_to": "15029__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_036", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The evidence at that time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2421.671], "stop_times": [2422.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2421.671}, "reply_to": "15029__1_035", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_037", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "At the time of the arrest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2422.154], "stop_times": [2422.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.154}, "reply_to": "15029__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_038", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That this is Morales is the facts sir, that he was not seen in his usual haunts for the period of nine days. Subsequent to this crime, that the mother stated at first that he was not in the apartment.\nStated subsequently that he was in the apartment, that a boy saw him sitting on a bench at the time that the crime had been committed and I state further, sir, that when I use the term arrest.\nI equate it with seizure, I equate it with detention and I state that the people or the State has the right to seize someone when they have a reasonable basis for believing that that person has information with respect to a crime.\nAnd in equating that with his Fourth Amendment rights, we take into consideration the entire totality of circumstances.\nThe nature of the crime that was committed, the state of the investigation, the individual himself who has been seized whether or not the atmosphere of the station house would be so coercive to such an individual who was ringed wise, that he would not be able to cope or would be so coward, that his statement that he would make after being advised of his rights would not be voluntary.\nThe -- how long he had been detained and certainly, I believe that when one is seized, on the basis that he may reasonably have information with regard to a crime that that detention can only be for a short period of time, rather for a lengthy period of time.\nThe extent of time that this man was seized as far as his statement concerning his complexity in this crime was concerned, was of 10 to 15 minutes sir.\nAnd based on most facts sir, I believe that under the Fourth Amendment, recognizing that the statements applied by the Fourth Amendment are flexible and variable, that the totality of this situation warrants the action taken by the statement.\nPardon me, sir, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2422.86, 2439.005, 2453.133, 2473.0, 2480.662, 2507.475, 2526.277, 2539.057, 2556.601], "stop_times": [2439.005, 2453.133, 2473.0, 2480.662, 2507.475, 2526.277, 2539.057, 2556.601, 2559.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2422.86}, "reply_to": "15029__1_037", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_039", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "When was he booked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2559.133], "stop_times": [2561.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.133}, "reply_to": "15029__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_040", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He was booked, the next morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2561.633], "stop_times": [2566.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2561.633}, "reply_to": "15029__1_039", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_041", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "When did he -- I thought you said he confessed all these 10 minutes after the arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2566.013], "stop_times": [2571.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.013}, "reply_to": "15029__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_042", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He did Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2571.201], "stop_times": [2572.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2571.201}, "reply_to": "15029__1_041", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_043", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Why wasn't he booked then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2572.171], "stop_times": [2573.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.171}, "reply_to": "15029__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_044", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He was not booked at that particular time because at that time, in the City of New York, there was no 24-hour arraignment and he could not be arraigned until the following morning.\nHe was questioned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2573.946, 2585.725], "stop_times": [2585.725, 2586.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2573.946}, "reply_to": "15029__1_043", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_045", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "But when was he booked?\nYou don't -- book in arraignment or they're different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2586.708, 2587.896], "stop_times": [2587.896, 2591.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.708}, "reply_to": "15029__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_046", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "They are different.\nHe was not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2591.806, 2593.688], "stop_times": [2593.688, 2594.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2591.806}, "reply_to": "15029__1_045", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_047", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He couldn't have been booked that day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2594.833], "stop_times": [2596.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.833}, "reply_to": "15029__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15029__1_048", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He could have been booked that night, he was-- I just don't know.\nI just don't know that of it.\nI do know that prior to the time that he would be booked, it is a procedure which we have established that an Assistant DA, who is on felony duty, reports to the scene of the crime in order to interrogate the individual, advise him of his rights even prior to Miranda ascertain whether the police department has also advised this individual of his rights in order to ascertain the voluntariness of the statement which this individual is given.\nAnd that was done on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2596.182, 2600.472, 2602.879, 2630.702], "stop_times": [2600.472, 2602.879, 2630.702, 2632.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2596.182}, "reply_to": "15029__1_047", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_049", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Is that in all kinds or just felonies or homicides?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2632.365], "stop_times": [2635.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.365}, "reply_to": "15029__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_050", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That is felonies.\nAll homicides and also important felonies, that's been instated in Bronx County before I came up there as Chief Assistant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2635.246, 2637.476], "stop_times": [2637.476, 2645.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2635.246}, "reply_to": "15029__1_049", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_051", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Does this record show in any way how many narcotics addicts lived in the particular building or apartment where this man and the victim lived?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2645.697], "stop_times": [2658.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.697}, "reply_to": "15029__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_052", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "There is nothing the record to so indicate.\nThere --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2658.004, 2662.617], "stop_times": [2662.617, 2664.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2658.004}, "reply_to": "15029__1_051", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_053", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Does the record show how large an apartment it is?\nHow many apartments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2664.611, 2667.374], "stop_times": [2667.374, 2668.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.611}, "reply_to": "15029__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_054", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The record does show that there was -- it was a 21-floor-apartment building and if I may just turn to my -- 21 floors, we just don't know how many units.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2668.634], "stop_times": [2681.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2668.634}, "reply_to": "15029__1_053", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_055", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "It's a large, a large apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2681.705], "stop_times": [2682.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.705}, "reply_to": "15029__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_056", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Over a hundred -- over a hundred units.\nIt's a large apartment house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2682.993, 2685.097], "stop_times": [2685.097, 2689.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2682.993}, "reply_to": "15029__1_055", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_057", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "What was the defense of trial, Mr. Roberts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2689.645], "stop_times": [2692.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.645}, "reply_to": "15029__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_058", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The defensive of trial was alibi and the defense to trial was that this confession which was offered an evidence, was not voluntary.\nThere was no defense that he was unreasonably detained.\nIn fact, it was the contention of the defense during the course of this trial that this man was a suspect, that this man was thought by these police officers to have committed this crime.\nIn fact, defense counsel that everything but state that these officers had probable cause or reasonable basis for believing in their own minds subjectively that this individual had committed this crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2692.484, 2707.125, 2713.363, 2727.177], "stop_times": [2707.125, 2713.363, 2727.177, 2740.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2692.484}, "reply_to": "15029__1_057", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_059", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Does the entire trial record in the Court here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2740.618], "stop_times": [2743.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.618}, "reply_to": "15029__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_060", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2743.476], "stop_times": [2744.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2743.476}, "reply_to": "15029__1_059", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_061", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How long?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2744.581], "stop_times": [2746.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.581}, "reply_to": "15029__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_062", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "There are two volumes, 1340 pages.\nI might, may it please the Court.\nIn the event, that you do not find that the guidelines established by Terry be adhered to in this case.\nThough, I certainly think that the situation of office in McFadden, arresting Terry by seizing him and preventing him from movement because he saw Terry looking into various windows and talking to somebody then, looking in these windows again.\nIf that is appropriate police action and indeed I do believe it is appropriate police action.\nThen certainly in this case where police officers have interrogated numerous individuals where they have a reasonable basis for interrogating this individual Melvin Morales and do interrogate.\nAnd when Melvin Morales has an opportunity to interpose his own free will and within ten minutes, rather he admits and confesses to this crime, I respectfully submit that his Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2746.731, 2757.048, 2761.907, 2771.445, 2789.573, 2795.88, 2810.894], "stop_times": [2757.048, 2761.907, 2771.445, 2789.573, 2795.88, 2810.894, 2827.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2746.731}, "reply_to": "15029__1_061", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_063", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How soon after the -- or how long before the arrest to put it that way, did the police discovered that he had not been coming to his home to sleep and was not around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2827.297], "stop_times": [2847.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.297}, "reply_to": "15029__1_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_064", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I believe it was two days there -- it was two days thereafter that they suddenly discovered that he is not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2847.735], "stop_times": [2855.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2847.735}, "reply_to": "15029__1_063", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_065", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Presumably sometime after the person of Morales description was identified as being near the entrance of the building before or after the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2855.443], "stop_times": [2868.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.443}, "reply_to": "15029__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_066", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That is correct sir, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2868.683], "stop_times": [2869.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2868.683}, "reply_to": "15029__1_065", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_067", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And then, does the record indicate that after that, the police made an inquiry of his mother of other people in the house, in the building?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2869.345], "stop_times": [2878.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.345}, "reply_to": "15029__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_068", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "They made inquiry of his mother prior thereto.\nThey made inquiry of his mother due to the fact they found the brother Snooky in the hallway that same morning.\nThey did make inquiry of the mother following the description given to them by Everett Roberts on three different occasions and went to the house at three different occasions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2878.981, 2881.156, 2887.949], "stop_times": [2881.156, 2887.949, 2896.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2878.981}, "reply_to": "15029__1_067", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_069", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "He didn't live with his mother, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2896.735], "stop_times": [2899.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.735}, "reply_to": "15029__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15029__1_070", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The record does not indicate whether he live with the mother.\nThere is an indication on the part or from the record that he did stay several times a week with his mother.\nAnd according to the mother, he was with the mother on the night of the murder or was in that apartment the night of the murder, where the crime was committed.\nAnd this evidence was known to the police, prior to the time that they took Mr. Morales into custody or when he surrendered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2899.475, 2902.524, 2911.759, 2923.085], "stop_times": [2902.524, 2911.759, 2923.085, 2934.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2899.475}, "reply_to": "15029__1_069", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_071", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Did the mother in any testimony pinpoint how she knew that he was in her apartment, in the family apartment at 3:00 AM or whatever the time of this crime was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2934.173], "stop_times": [2943.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.173}, "reply_to": "15029__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_072", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "She stated that he was sleeping on the dining room table at that particular time and that when the police arrived at the apartment, he was there, sleeping on the table and this is refuted by one of the detectives, I believe Detective Teccera, who testified that he walked through the apartment and actually walked through this room and did not observe anyone sleeping on the dining room table.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2943.657], "stop_times": [2970.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2943.657}, "reply_to": "15029__1_071", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_073", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "What did the alibi show about where he was during the time of the murder?\nWhat did the alibi evidence, you say, could've been alibis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2970.556, 2978.978], "stop_times": [2978.978, 2984.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.556}, "reply_to": "15029__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15029__1_074", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The mother --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2984.185], "stop_times": [2984.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2984.185}, "reply_to": "15029__1_073", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_075", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "What was that alibi, or where was he testifying that he was at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2984.291], "stop_times": [2988.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.291}, "reply_to": "15029__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15029__1_076", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, Mrs. Morales testified here that he was sleeping on the dining room table.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2988.969], "stop_times": [2995.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2988.969}, "reply_to": "15029__1_075", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_077", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "During the time of the murder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2995.035], "stop_times": [2997.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2995.035}, "reply_to": "15029__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15029__1_078", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "During the time of the murder and during the time that the -- during the whole evening, he was there and that during the time that the police came to interrogate the Morales family in a particular, Snooky, the brother, he was sleeping on the dining room table.\nThat is on the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [2997.088, 3012.055], "stop_times": [3012.055, 3012.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2997.088}, "reply_to": "15029__1_077", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_079", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And you say that the detective testified that when he went through the apartment, he did not see Morales, anywhere in the apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3012.34], "stop_times": [3020.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.34}, "reply_to": "15029__1_078", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_080", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3020.232], "stop_times": [3021.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3020.232}, "reply_to": "15029__1_079", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_081", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And what time did the police go through the apartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3021.097], "stop_times": [3025.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.097}, "reply_to": "15029__1_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_082", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I would say about 4:00 - 4:30 in the morning, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3025.709], "stop_times": [3030.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3025.709}, "reply_to": "15029__1_081", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_083", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And then he was absent from that apartment for nine or ten days thereafter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3030.243], "stop_times": [3036.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.243}, "reply_to": "15029__1_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_084", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "According to her, he came to the apartment and didn't say any further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3036.277], "stop_times": [3040.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3036.277}, "reply_to": "15029__1_083", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_085", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "According to whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3040.928], "stop_times": [3041.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.928}, "reply_to": "15029__1_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_086", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "According to Mrs. Morales, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAccording to the detectives, they did not see him at the apartment.\nThey did not see him at his usual haunts.\nAnd Mrs. Morales stated that on the night in question, on the night or the early morning of October 4th Mr. Chief Justice, that the detectives did not enter the apartment.\nThis is refuted by the detectives who said they did enter the apartment and went through the apartment, and did not see Mr. Morales asleep on the dining room table.\nThis has to do with the alibi defense, primarily, doesn't it?\nIt does.\nThis conflict.\nI -- with respect to what's really an issue here, as I understand it, that is the Fourth Amendment claim.\nThis -- the mother testified that she telephoned her son when the police told her that they would like to interrogate the son, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3041.786, 3044.259, 3048.858, 3054.353, 3064.81, 3075.501, 3078.337, 3078.773, 3079.831, 3089.028], "stop_times": [3044.259, 3048.858, 3054.353, 3064.81, 3075.501, 3078.337, 3078.773, 3079.831, 3089.028, 3097.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3041.786}, "reply_to": "15029__1_085", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_087", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3097.575], "stop_times": [3099.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3097.575}, "reply_to": "15029__1_086", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_088", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And where was he when she telephoned to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3099.074], "stop_times": [3101.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.074}, "reply_to": "15029__1_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_089", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The record does not indicate where he was at that time, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3101.633], "stop_times": [3107.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3101.633}, "reply_to": "15029__1_088", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_090", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Is -- he did not make his home earlier and all the time permanently with his mother, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3107.117], "stop_times": [3113.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.117}, "reply_to": "15029__1_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_091", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "According to the record, he lived there sporadically.\nHe live there two or three times a week and then lived elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3113.274, 3117.123], "stop_times": [3117.123, 3120.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3113.274}, "reply_to": "15029__1_090", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_092", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "And also visited her in her beauty shop which was I gather in the vicinity, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3120.459], "stop_times": [3124.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.459}, "reply_to": "15029__1_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_093", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Justice Stewart, in the Bronx.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3124.975], "stop_times": [3128.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3124.975}, "reply_to": "15029__1_092", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_094", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "How close, how far away from the apartment house was the beauty shop?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3128.334], "stop_times": [3133.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.334}, "reply_to": "15029__1_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15029__1_095", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "The record does not so indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3133.622], "stop_times": [3137.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3133.622}, "reply_to": "15029__1_094", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_096", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "I should think, Mr. Roberts, that when the police came, the police detectives went through the apartment and compared to that his absence with the mother's statement that he had been there.\nThis might have put them on notice of the suspicious circumstance relating to Morales.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3137.118, 3154.394], "stop_times": [3154.394, 3162.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.118}, "reply_to": "15029__1_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_097", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, they were unnoticed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3162.539], "stop_times": [3166.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3162.539}, "reply_to": "15029__1_096", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_098", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "They were -- you suggest that on this record, they had a basis even that as early as that night to suspect that Morales may have been one of the people involved or might be the person involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3166.571], "stop_times": [3182.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.571}, "reply_to": "15029__1_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_099", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, on that night, they did not know that he had been there.\nIt was only subsequently when the mother stated that her son Melvin was in the apartment, that they were able to piece that together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3182.049, 3187.763], "stop_times": [3187.763, 3197.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3182.049}, "reply_to": "15029__1_098", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_100", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "That's when they began to make inquiry about seeing him, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3197.805], "stop_times": [3203.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.805}, "reply_to": "15029__1_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_101", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "They had made inquiry about seeing him prior thereto but they had made inquiry to the mother -- as soon as they made inquiry to the mother about seeing him, she then alibied and stated that he was in the apartment.\nHe wasn't outside the apartment.\nHe was here sleeping on the dining room table.\nMay it please the Court?\nIn the event that this Court finds that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of this defendant, I respectfully submit it was attenuated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3203.37, 3216.654, 3218.926, 3222.75, 3224.468], "stop_times": [3216.654, 3218.926, 3222.75, 3224.468, 3235.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3203.37}, "reply_to": "15029__1_100", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_102", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "We'll continue after lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3235.746], "stop_times": [3260.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.746}, "reply_to": "15029__1_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__1_103", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nAs to attenuation in the event that this Court finds, there was an unreasonable seizure.\nIn Miranda, it was discussed the taint of the coercive atmosphere of the station house.\nIn the Miranda case decide that this could be removed by a full and fair disclosure of defendant's rights to silence and to counsel.\nBy identical reason, we contend here that the confession was not a product of illegal custody but was the result of this man interposing his own free will and confessing to a detective of his own choice, Detective Carol.\nHe refused to talk to Detective Duff but insisted on talking to Detective Downe and Detective Carol, and when Detective Carol asked him whether he believed in God, and asked him whether or not between God and himself that he commit this crime, he stated that he did.\nAnd I submit that there seems to coincide with the State's theory that this was a voluntary surrender.\nThe fact that shortly after he was brought to the station house, he confessed to this crime within 10 minutes, after he was questioned by Detective Carol.\nIn conclusion, the people submit that the seizure was proper under the Fourth Amendment, that this man was seized not based solely or primarily on the fact that he was a narcotic addict but based on the fact that he was present in the vicinity at the time the crime was committed.\nBut a false alibi had been given for him by his mother that he was not found in the usual haunts, that he had a reputation of being a petty thief, who had numerous convictions, and was known to have numerous convictions by the detectives assigned on this case.\nThree, I respectfully submit that there was a voluntary surrender in this case and therefore the Fourth Amendment.\nThey not even come into play with regard to the fact situation in case known as People of the State of New York against Morales.\nI would this ask this -- Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3260.436, 3265.215, 3272.674, 3280.416, 3290.393, 3311.431, 3332.711, 3340.802, 3353.733, 3375.324, 3394.335, 3403.011, 3414.582], "stop_times": [3265.215, 3272.674, 3280.416, 3290.393, 3311.431, 3332.711, 3340.802, 3353.733, 3375.324, 3394.335, 3403.011, 3414.582, 3418.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3260.436}, "reply_to": "15029__1_102", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15029__1_104", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nMr. Farrell, you have five minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3418.012, 3422.943], "stop_times": [3422.943, 3424.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3418.012}, "reply_to": "15029__1_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__2_000", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nJust very briefly, I like to return the Court's attention to two items of testimony that appear on the record.\nIn spite of the intricate complex of facts upon which the police officers might have operated to seize Morales, we have summarized that our brief on pages 13 and 14 and over the 15th, the facts upon which they actually did operate.\nThey actually operated on a soonest of evidence, so slim that one police officer when asked whether Morales is a suspect or not, was led to this remark.\nHe said, why is -- it was asked, was Morales a suspect?\nAnd after they have been given a lead by the trial judge, the officer said, I concur with the judge everybody is a suspect.\nThe reach of the police officers here is not limited to Melvin Morales, but these petty officials to borrow I was wrong as from James Otis to speak in 1761.\nThe police officers here, these petty officials have it in their power to determine, who is the suspect and we know now from the police officer, who is the suspect?\nIt is thee and me Your Honors.\nAnd the second point to which I would like to address the Court's attention was that the attack on the admissibility of Morales' confessions is not an attempt to find the way around otherwise, overwhelming proof of guilt.\nAbsent Morales' confessions, there is nothing to tie him to the crime committed in this case.\nAs a matter of fact to close that, it is clear that he was worrying on the night in question had been turned on a cleaning establishment on October 5th?\nTo whom that the claiming stab wounds found no traces of blood on that clothes -- on those clothes and the police laboratory in examining those clothes found no traces of blood.\nIf Your Honors look at the pictures in the record from the scene of the crime, there is blood on the floor, there is blood on the wall, there is blood on the door.\nMorales' clothes showed no signs of blood and it is the people's own testimony that points to these clothes as the clothes being worn by Morales on the night this crime was supposed to have been committed.\nThe only item of clothing missing were his shoes but his trousers, if you look at the pictures in the record, Your Honors, how his trousers could've escaped being covered with blood and door house.\n31-stabwound victim or alleged victim could not have bled on him.\nIt trenches upon almost a lack of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, absent these confessions.\nAnd Your Honors, as I think the Court will understand our position is that the confessions on the produce of an unlawful seizure and must therefore be barred from use on this trial.\nThank you Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3424.795, 3429.009, 3434.539, 3452.757, 3463.012, 3467.452, 3477.387, 3487.355, 3497.007, 3499.835, 3515.782, 3521.348, 3530.498, 3539.987, 3549.573, 3563.15, 3576.635, 3581.364, 3589.111, 3600.447], "stop_times": [3429.009, 3434.539, 3452.757, 3463.012, 3467.452, 3477.387, 3487.355, 3497.007, 3499.835, 3515.782, 3521.348, 3530.498, 3539.987, 3549.573, 3563.15, 3576.635, 3581.364, 3589.111, 3600.447, 3602.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3424.795}, "reply_to": "15029__1_104", "speaker": "richard_t_farrell"}
{"id": "15029__2_001", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Thank you Mr. Farrell for your submission.\nThank you, Mr. Roberts with yours, the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3602.219, 3603.927], "stop_times": [3603.927, 3606.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3602.219}, "reply_to": "15029__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15029__3_000", "conversation_id": "15029", "text": "Thank you Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_86", "start_times": [3606.968], "stop_times": [3608.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3606.968}, "reply_to": "15029__2_001", "speaker": "burton_b_roberts"}
{"id": "15442__0_000", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Number 782, Morris against Schoonfield.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [20.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_001", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "May it please the Court.\nMy name is Robert Fisher.\nI represent a class of plaintiff appellants.\nThe class is defined as those people who are incarcerated in the Baltimore City Jail and we have defined it as a continuing class.\nWe brought this action in July 1968 and there are currently about a 150 people in the Baltimore City Jail under the statute that we are attacking.\nThis case is different from the Williams case that the Court has just heard, in that there, only I -- and unusual application of the jail or fine statute was being contested.\nThe situation where the judge gives both the maximum jail sentence and a fine, and the person is required to serve more than the maximum amount allowed.\nOur case covers all types of incarceration for non-payment of fines except the contumacious refusal to pay situation.\nWe're not concerned with that.\nOur case involves a two-dollar rate instead of a five-dollar rate.\nIt is a mandatory rate as the statute says the judge shall commit him and then pursuant to the terms of the statute, then the statute provides a two-dollar rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [20.995, 21.879, 23.092, 28.076, 38.574, 55.009, 70.927, 83.834, 97.087, 99.723, 107.674], "stop_times": [21.879, 23.092, 28.076, 38.574, 55.009, 70.927, 83.834, 97.087, 99.723, 107.674, 119.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 20.995}, "reply_to": "15442__0_000", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_002", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "$2.00 per day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [119.231], "stop_times": [120.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.231}, "reply_to": "15442__0_001", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__0_003", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [120.879], "stop_times": [121.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.879}, "reply_to": "15442__0_002", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_004", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "$2.00 per day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [121.633], "stop_times": [122.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.633}, "reply_to": "15442__0_003", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__0_005", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "$2.00 per day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [122.727], "stop_times": [125.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.727}, "reply_to": "15442__0_004", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_006", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Your statute has been substantially amended and I -- but I expect you're going to tell us about that in due --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [125.537], "stop_times": [129.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.537}, "reply_to": "15442__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_007", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's right Your Honor.\nThe new statute should be enforced, but it is not.\nI called the Chief Judge of the Municipal Court of Baltimore City yesterday, and he said he had never heard of the new statute.\nHe asked me to send him a copy which I did.\nI called the jail and they said they had not heard of the new statute and that nobody was getting out under it.\nThe new statute by the way just gives a judicial remedy.\nIt does not say that everybody who's committed under the old statute should get out, and only gives them a right to apply to the justice that committed them for re-determination under the new statute and it does not guarantee that we -- they will get out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [129.597, 130.776, 133.566, 140.293, 143.769, 149.764, 152.648], "stop_times": [130.776, 133.566, 140.293, 143.769, 149.764, 152.648, 170.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.597}, "reply_to": "15442__0_006", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_008", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It gives a judicial -- excuse me, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [170.563], "stop_times": [173.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.563}, "reply_to": "15442__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_009", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm just going to ask does it have a date and rate, in the new statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [173.178], "stop_times": [176.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.178}, "reply_to": "15442__0_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__0_010", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It has a minimum rate of $10.00 per day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [176.709], "stop_times": [181.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.709}, "reply_to": "15442__0_009", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_011", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "So, it gives a judicial potential, judicial remedy to those now in jail, and it also for the future sets up a -- quite inconsistent doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [181.355], "stop_times": [190.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.355}, "reply_to": "15442__0_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_012", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's right.\nIf Your Honor, it gives a potential remedy, but it doesn't require that they be notified of the existence of the remedy and the Chief Judge of the municipal court doesn't know about it a week after it was passed.\nOur --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [190.167, 190.92, 203.318], "stop_times": [190.92, 203.318, 203.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.167}, "reply_to": "15442__0_011", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_013", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "-- now you told him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [203.595], "stop_times": [204.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.595}, "reply_to": "15442__0_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_014", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Our people that are locked up in jail where they don't have television or newspapers or radios supposed to find out about it.\nSo they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [204.511, 211.904], "stop_times": [211.904, 212.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.511}, "reply_to": "15442__0_013", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_015", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Is that new statute part of your papers that was submitted here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [212.758], "stop_times": [215.072], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 212.758}, "reply_to": "15442__0_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15442__0_016", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm sorry sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [215.072], "stop_times": [215.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.072}, "reply_to": "15442__0_015", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_017", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Is the new statute part of your papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [215.884], "stop_times": [218.575], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 215.884}, "reply_to": "15442__0_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15442__0_018", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No, it is not Your Honor, but it is substantially the same as a copy that was printed in the brief of the state conceding jurisdiction and in addition, solicitor -- city solicitor Russell has sent, do I understand, copies of the new statute to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [218.575], "stop_times": [240.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.575}, "reply_to": "15442__0_017", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_019", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "May I ask, does this case involve offenses for which a fine only is provided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [240.018], "stop_times": [246.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.018}, "reply_to": "15442__0_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15442__0_020", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Yes it does Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [246.09], "stop_times": [248.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.09}, "reply_to": "15442__0_019", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_021", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "This does involve the traffic offense so that we are talking about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [248.032], "stop_times": [251.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.032}, "reply_to": "15442__0_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15442__0_022", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's right.\nI'm aware of the colloquy before me and I notice that the Attorney General of Illinois said that it would be disastrous because there'd be no way to compel people to pay traffic fines, it serves a very good way of compelling people to pay traffic fines, and that is to take away their license if they don't pay the fine, and they're other traffic remedies.\nSo I -- let me explain how we got here.\nI have very little time, and then maybe I can start of with my argument on the equal protection and due process, cruel and unusual punishment, excessive fines and involuntary servitude when we come back after lunch.\nWe commenced this action under 42 United States Code, Section 1983 for an injunction of the warden of the Baltimore City Jail from -- to restrain him from holding people unconstitutionally detained, and for a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional on its face.\nThe District Court held that the statute was constitutional on its face, but that it was unconstitutional as applied in two respects.\nIn the first place, it said it was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [251.607, 252.784, 283.062, 289.754, 304.073, 326.682, 339.646], "stop_times": [252.784, 283.062, 289.754, 304.073, 326.682, 339.646, 341.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.607}, "reply_to": "15442__0_021", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_023", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I think we'll suspend for lunch now Mr. Fisher and pick up after lunch.\n[Luncheon Break]\nMr. Fisher, you may pick up where you left off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [341.395, 346.365, 353.649], "stop_times": [346.365, 353.649, 356.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.395}, "reply_to": "15442__0_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_024", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Where I left off Your Honor was the decision of the three-judge District Court.\nIt upheld the Maryland $2.00 a day statute as constitutional on its face, but it held that in each case, the sentencing judge had to hold a hearing to allow persons to be committed to tell a judge about their indigency and give him an opportunity to decide whether or not do reduce the fine or to put them on probation or to allow them to pay in installments or to commit them.\nAnd it also held that as the statute was being applied with respect to costs at that particular time, the statute was unconstitutional.\nFor costs of people who were not being jailed, for costs in all cases, but they were in some cases and under the Rinaldi versus Yeager case, this was a discrimination and denial of equal protection, and at that particular time, the statute could not constitutionally be applied in the State of Maryland to jail people for non-payment of costs.\nWe have appealed from the statute under -- from this decision under the authority of Article XXVIII, Section 1253, and our basic contention in this Court boils down really to one premise, and that is that one 24-hour day in jail with all of that entails in terms of the stigma in the community and that fact the man may loose his job, the fact that man maybe subjected to the unpleasant experiences of the jail, one 24-hour a day in jail does not equal dollars.\nThe poor man is being punished more severely than the rich man if the rich pays $2.00 and the poor man goes to jail for 24-hour a day.\nWe submit that this goes to the -- initial is so fundamental that it's written in stone on the front of this Court House, equal justice under law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [356.895, 361.968, 396.192, 408.719, 432.643, 475.713, 489.222], "stop_times": [361.968, 396.192, 408.719, 432.643, 475.713, 489.222, 500.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.895}, "reply_to": "15442__0_023", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_025", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "How far would that argument go?\nLet's assume a $10.00 fine on a person and that person -- all that all that person possessed in the world is $10.00 as compared to a $10.00 fine on a person who had a million dollars.\nNow That would be unequal protection, wouldn't it, under your standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [500.378, 501.792, 520.119], "stop_times": [501.792, 520.119, 525.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.378}, "reply_to": "15442__0_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_026", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, the way our society looks at the man who has paid the fine is different from the way our society looks at the man who's going to jail.\nThe man who's going to jail is a criminal.\nThe man who has paid the fine as somebody who might have gotten a traffic ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [525.754, 534.893, 537.988], "stop_times": [534.893, 537.988, 541.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.754}, "reply_to": "15442__0_025", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_027", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "And that's not what the Maryland legislature has said.\nMaryland legislature said they are equivalent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [541.513, 545.841], "stop_times": [545.841, 549.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.513}, "reply_to": "15442__0_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_028", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It's -- they are not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [549.783], "stop_times": [550.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.783}, "reply_to": "15442__0_027", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_029", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's the way society as represented in the Maryland legislature disagrees with you, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [550.369], "stop_times": [556.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.369}, "reply_to": "15442__0_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_030", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, no.\nThe Maryland legislature has another purpose in passing the statute and that is compel people with money to pay.\nThe Maryland legislature has deliberately made the alternative to non-payment a harsher penalty so that people will choose the -- who with money will choose the alternative of paying and that's the dominant -- we submit, that's the only purpose behind the statute.\nThe other side disagrees, but that a certainly the dominant purpose of this statute.\nThe legislative history makes that clear to collect money from those who can't pay by threatening them with jail.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [556.383, 557.288, 566.152, 583.819, 589.447, 598.436], "stop_times": [557.288, 566.152, 583.819, 589.447, 598.436, 598.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.383}, "reply_to": "15442__0_029", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_031", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "And by jailing those who don't pay, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [598.767], "stop_times": [603.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.767}, "reply_to": "15442__0_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_032", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "If you jail those who don't pay, you're punishing a man unfairly in a greater amount than the judge adjudicated in order to make somebody else pay.\nHe's a sacrificial goat so to speak for the man who doesn't want to pay and has being made to pay and we submit this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [603.126, 614.578], "stop_times": [614.578, 622.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.126}, "reply_to": "15442__0_031", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_033", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "What's to happen to the scofflaw who collects dozens and dozens of parking tickets in his friend's automobile and who hasn't got a nickel to his name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [622.776], "stop_times": [636.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.776}, "reply_to": "15442__0_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_034", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "We have an intervener in this case who's in that very position.\nHe had something like $1,200.00 worth of fine.\nHe was a scofflaw.\nHe was a school teacher.\nHe went to jail for -- he would have gone to jail, but for this case for over a year, whereas another scofflaw who had $1,200.00 would not have gone to jail at all.\nThe school teacher lost his right to teach school.\nHe can never teach school in the State of Maryland again because they found out; they found out that he had been sent to jail.\nThe man who pays the $1,200.00 because he's got a -- they never find that out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [636.792, 640.561, 643.506, 645.076, 647.355, 662.474, 666.572, 675.7], "stop_times": [640.561, 643.506, 645.076, 647.355, 662.474, 666.572, 675.7, 680.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.792}, "reply_to": "15442__0_033", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_035", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Do you think the appraisal would have been higher if he had just -- if they found out that he just had scoffed at the law for $1,200.00 worth of traffic tickets?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [680.219], "stop_times": [688.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.219}, "reply_to": "15442__0_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_036", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They never would have found out if he had the money to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [688.929], "stop_times": [690.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.929}, "reply_to": "15442__0_035", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_037", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Oh, now, you're talking just about a practical aspect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [690.929], "stop_times": [696.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.929}, "reply_to": "15442__0_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_038", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.\nI don't think I am.\nI think when you're talking about the way justice treats two people, you're talking about a fundamental aspect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [696.695, 697.078, 698.047], "stop_times": [697.078, 698.047, 705.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.695}, "reply_to": "15442__0_037", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_039", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "How do you think they should have treated him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [705.304], "stop_times": [707.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.304}, "reply_to": "15442__0_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_040", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The scofflaw?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [707.805], "stop_times": [708.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 707.805}, "reply_to": "15442__0_039", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_041", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Do you suggest that he could not have paid that fine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [708.789], "stop_times": [711.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.789}, "reply_to": "15442__0_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_042", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I think that as a matter of wisdom, the State of Maryland should provide a statute that sends scofflaws of all kinds to jail.\nIf scofflaw should be sent to jail, all scofflaws should be sent to jail and the State of Maryland can make that decision, and I think it should have made that decision.\nWhat the State of Maryland cannot do is ruin the career of one's scofflaw in order to make another scofflaw pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [711.65, 721.338, 731.082], "stop_times": [721.338, 731.082, 739.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.65}, "reply_to": "15442__0_041", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_043", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, I realize, we're not arguing the school teacher's case today --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [739.721], "stop_times": [742.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.721}, "reply_to": "15442__0_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_044", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [742.922], "stop_times": [743.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.922}, "reply_to": "15442__0_043", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_045", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "-- but for years that this an analogy and I'm lost.\nIf he was a school teacher presumably, he got paid for teaching school, what would be unjust about sending him to jail when he could've paid and didn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [743.062, 748.842], "stop_times": [748.842, 758.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.062}, "reply_to": "15442__0_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_046", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "He didn't have $1,200.00 on the day that he was supposed to pay.\nHe could've paid if he'd been allowed to pay in installments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [758.45, 763.302], "stop_times": [763.302, 767.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.45}, "reply_to": "15442__0_045", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_047", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Of course, the law afforded him an opportunity to pay it installment in the first instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [767.617], "stop_times": [773.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.617}, "reply_to": "15442__0_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_048", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [773.683], "stop_times": [774.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.683}, "reply_to": "15442__0_047", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_049", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "He didn't get on these traffic tickets on one day or one week, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [774.574], "stop_times": [779.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.574}, "reply_to": "15442__0_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_050", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Oh, no, he did not, that's true.\nHe did -- the law afforded him an opportunity not to commit a crime.\nIt also afforded that opportunity to the scofflaw --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [779.449, 784.054, 787.387], "stop_times": [784.054, 787.387, 790.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.449}, "reply_to": "15442__0_049", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_051", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Wait a minute, wait a minute.\nIt afforded him an opportunity to pay two, four or $6.00 each time he got the tickets, that's what I'm talking about.\nAnd now, you suggest that there's something inherently unfair about the fact that the boom was lowered on him finally at the $1,200.00 mark?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [790.084, 790.664, 797.116], "stop_times": [790.664, 797.116, 809.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.084}, "reply_to": "15442__0_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_052", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I think there's something unfair -- apparently unfair that the boom was lowered on him when it was not lowered on somebody else who led his traffic tickets accumulate.\nTwo people, justice has taken her blindfold off and look at this man and the only thing that she has seen that's different from the other man as the fact that he doesn't have $1,200.00 today.\nShe's suppose to keep that blindfold on that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [809.351, 822.011, 833.545], "stop_times": [822.011, 833.545, 838.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.351}, "reply_to": "15442__0_051", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_053", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But so far as I'm concerned, your school teacher analogy doesn't help you or this -- or your case very much.\nI'm puzzled yet by what it supposed to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [838.134, 844.976], "stop_times": [844.976, 848.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.134}, "reply_to": "15442__0_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_054", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, let's -- I was asked about the scofflaw, this is the actual -- these are the actual facts.\nLet's take another person who's committed disorderly conduct case and he's done it only once and he's fined once --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [848.202, 853.856], "stop_times": [853.856, 866.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.202}, "reply_to": "15442__0_053", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_055", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The single instance case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [866.338], "stop_times": [867.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.338}, "reply_to": "15442__0_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_056", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Single instance's case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [867.496], "stop_times": [868.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.496}, "reply_to": "15442__0_055", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_057", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Do you think that's the same as the school teacher who let $1,200.00 for the traffic tickets accumulate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [868.586], "stop_times": [873.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.586}, "reply_to": "15442__0_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_058", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The statute makes no distinction between any of a great variety of cases.\nThe usual case is obviously not to stop scofflaw case.\nThe usual case is a person who gets a $25.00 fine or $50.00 fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [873.39, 878.466, 881.963], "stop_times": [878.466, 881.963, 887.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.39}, "reply_to": "15442__0_057", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_059", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well Mr. Fisher, you're in further trouble because I've never heard of a school teacher being able to plead that he was a pauper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [887.262], "stop_times": [899.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.262}, "reply_to": "15442__0_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_060", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, this school teacher was not a pauper.\nHe just didn't have $1,200.00 at one time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [899.619, 902.665], "stop_times": [902.665, 905.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.619}, "reply_to": "15442__0_059", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_061", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "He could've gotten it unless the banks were all closed up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [905.432], "stop_times": [911.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.432}, "reply_to": "15442__0_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_062", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.\nActually, he was a part-time school teacher and he probably --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [911.827, 913.458], "stop_times": [913.458, 916.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.827}, "reply_to": "15442__0_061", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_063", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But he wasn't a pauper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [916.697], "stop_times": [919.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.697}, "reply_to": "15442__0_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_064", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "He did not have $1,200.00, but he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [919.406], "stop_times": [921.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.406}, "reply_to": "15442__0_063", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_065", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But is there anything that he couldn't get $1,200.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [921.455], "stop_times": [927.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.455}, "reply_to": "15442__0_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_066", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "He signed an affidavit that he would -- could not get to raise the money, and I assume that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [927.894], "stop_times": [933.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.894}, "reply_to": "15442__0_065", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_067", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I agree with the Chief Justice argument.\nI would hate to see this case turn on that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [933.682, 936.025], "stop_times": [936.025, 939.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.682}, "reply_to": "15442__0_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_068", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, it does --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [939.453], "stop_times": [940.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.453}, "reply_to": "15442__0_067", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_069", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Hypothetical or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [940.017], "stop_times": [942.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.017}, "reply_to": "15442__0_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_070", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It does not turn on that case.\nIt turns on a statute which covers all sorts of cases.\nIt covers the man who doesn't have $10.00, who gets a $10.00 fine and goes to jail for five days.\nIt covers the scofflaw, it covers the man who gets five $50.00 fines in a row for five counts because he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [942.389, 943.884, 949.853, 957.209], "stop_times": [943.884, 949.853, 957.209, 965.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.389}, "reply_to": "15442__0_069", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_071", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, does your case -- your case, not the statute, cover a man who lies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [965.117], "stop_times": [972.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.117}, "reply_to": "15442__0_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_072", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [972.224], "stop_times": [972.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.224}, "reply_to": "15442__0_071", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_073", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Who's not a pauper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [972.409], "stop_times": [973.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.409}, "reply_to": "15442__0_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_074", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [973.744], "stop_times": [973.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.744}, "reply_to": "15442__0_073", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_075", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Who could get the money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [973.865], "stop_times": [975.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.865}, "reply_to": "15442__0_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_076", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No, no, it certainly does not.\nThat's the case of the person who contumaciously refuses to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [975.032, 978.055], "stop_times": [978.055, 982.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.032}, "reply_to": "15442__0_075", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_077", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well unless conditions have changed in Baltimore, if you have that many convictions of any kind, you loose your job as a teacher when you pay the fine or anything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [982.888], "stop_times": [993.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.888}, "reply_to": "15442__0_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_078", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, there are people who go and pay fines and nobody ever hears about it.\nMany people --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [993.404, 999.082], "stop_times": [999.082, 999.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.404}, "reply_to": "15442__0_077", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_079", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I said where they do hear about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [999.831], "stop_times": [1002.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.831}, "reply_to": "15442__0_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_080", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, they may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1002.469], "stop_times": [1004.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.469}, "reply_to": "15442__0_079", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_081", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "And I would assume that the $1,200.00, it was in the newspapers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1004.017], "stop_times": [1009.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.017}, "reply_to": "15442__0_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_082", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, it might be, it might be.\nBut there are certainly are other people who do not make the newspapers because hundreds of people are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1009.71, 1011.725], "stop_times": [1011.725, 1017.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.71}, "reply_to": "15442__0_081", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_083", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "One other man that had $1,200.00 and paid the fine, where did you find that out except the newspapers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1017.653], "stop_times": [1026.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.653}, "reply_to": "15442__0_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_084", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I was hypothetically creating that other man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1026.321], "stop_times": [1029.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.321}, "reply_to": "15442__0_083", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_085", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1029.785], "stop_times": [1031.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.785}, "reply_to": "15442__0_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__0_086", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But I'm sure, there are such people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1031.145], "stop_times": [1035.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.145}, "reply_to": "15442__0_085", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_087", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Mr. Fisher, well, we have you stopped for a moment.\nI can sympathize with your arguments about $2.00 a day for 24-hour a day.\nWhat if the Maryland legislature had said that it should be tied to the minimum wage established by the Department of Labor which I think is a $1.60 an hour now, isn't it?\nIf that so, that'd be $38.48.\nSuppose they fixed it to that and you got $38.48 credit on a fine for every 24 hours he served in jail, would you have problems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1035.988, 1040.069, 1045.554, 1059.534, 1064.202], "stop_times": [1040.069, 1045.554, 1059.534, 1064.202, 1075.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.988}, "reply_to": "15442__0_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__0_088", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I would still have problems, but I would have less problems.\nWhat Your Honor is suggesting is a sort of a separate but equal doctrine whereas a man without money is punished separately and -- in a way that's suppose to be equivalent.\nAnd because of the other problems that attend the jail punishment, I don't think that it's possible to equate jail punishment and the fine punishment.\nBut certainly, that would be a much better situation than we have here where we have a $2.00 statute which is designed to be unequal, because it's really designed to compel the person with the money to pay.\nThis statute cannot simultaneously have the two purposes that had been advanced for it, one to equate jail and time and fine money and two, to compel people who don't have money to pay -- that do have money to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1075.537, 1079.755, 1091.957, 1104.732, 1121.994], "stop_times": [1079.755, 1091.957, 1104.732, 1121.994, 1138.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.537}, "reply_to": "15442__0_087", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_089", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Because the premise of the latter proposition is that it's much easier to -- to go to jail is much more unpleasant than to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1138.474], "stop_times": [1148.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.474}, "reply_to": "15442__0_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_090", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1148.639], "stop_times": [1149.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.639}, "reply_to": "15442__0_089", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_091", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1149.09], "stop_times": [1149.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.09}, "reply_to": "15442__0_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_092", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1149.247], "stop_times": [1150.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.247}, "reply_to": "15442__0_091", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_093", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That they're not equal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1150.344], "stop_times": [1151.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.344}, "reply_to": "15442__0_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_094", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's right.\nNow, what Your Honor is suggesting is that the state might design a new statute.\nActually, they have attempted to do it.\nI think the State of Maryland has recognized the unconstitutionality of this statute in passing the new statute and they have attempted to improve upon it and they have raised the figure to $10.00 a day.\nWhat Your Honor is suggesting that that is certainly more equal and better, but it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1151.417, 1152.412, 1158.76, 1160.833, 1174.296], "stop_times": [1152.412, 1158.76, 1160.833, 1174.296, 1179.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.417}, "reply_to": "15442__0_093", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_095", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.\nIsn't really dusting it Mr. Fisher, I want to know what you have to say about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1179.399, 1179.516], "stop_times": [1179.516, 1184.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.399}, "reply_to": "15442__0_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__0_096", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, what I say is its more equal but it still no equal.\nIt's a type of separate but equal doctrine that that just cannot be equated.\nNow, there are other things that the state can do in order to punish the man or deter the man that are more equal to a fine that he cannot -- that one of the arguments that's been raised says there's no way that the state can punish these people; no way that they can deter them and that just is not true.\nThere are other things that can be done.\nOne that we've suggested is that man can be allowed to pay in installments.\nThis is actually fulfilling the sentence of the judge who sentenced them.\nHe wanted them to pay a fine.\nHe thought that was the deterrent.\nThe state legislature provided that the judge could fine him.\nThey expected him to use his best judgment in deciding what was appropriate.\nHe decided the fine was appropriate and the way that he can carry out the state legislature's intent in the situation is to allow the man to pay on terms that he can pay.\nThis is certainly a more equal alternative.\nNow, suppose the man cannot pay, he can still put him in jail as the model penal code suggests, if the man fails to make a showing that he has made reasonable efforts to make the money, get the money.\nIn that case, they'll be putting him in jail for contempt or for some additional act or omission, he can take away his driver's license.\nAs the Rinaldi versus Yeager case suggested, they can garnish his salary if he has any or collect the judgment by attachment, probably not a feasible way of doing it.\nThey can put him on probation with conditions that he worked in the court house, you don't have to lock him up in maximum security in order to get some work out of him.\nThey can send him to driver's school.\nI anticipate that Mr. Russell is going to talk about mootness and I would like to reserve some time so that I can answer whatever he has to say about the mootness.\nSo, I'm going to sit down at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1184.783, 1187.793, 1198.467, 1217.747, 1221.637, 1230.155, 1233.96, 1235.306, 1237.899, 1242.436, 1247.064, 1259.184, 1263.008, 1281.853, 1293.718, 1308.426, 1318.811, 1326.228, 1336.709], "stop_times": [1187.793, 1198.467, 1217.747, 1221.637, 1230.155, 1233.96, 1235.306, 1237.899, 1242.436, 1247.064, 1259.184, 1263.008, 1281.853, 1293.718, 1308.426, 1318.811, 1326.228, 1336.709, 1338.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1184.783}, "reply_to": "15442__0_095", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__0_097", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Very well.\nMr. Russell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1338.954, 1342.154], "stop_times": [1342.154, 1343.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.954}, "reply_to": "15442__0_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_000", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nMy brother is correct.\nThe first argument are intend to make is that this case is moot in light of the statute recently passed by the Maryland legislature as an emergency Bill in Title Chapter 147 and it was signed by Governor Mandel on the 15th of April.\nThis statute under Section 6 is retroactive in its application and therefore, the plaintiffs or the appellants in this case may take advantage of it.\nIt provides that any person incarcerated for default of payment of a fine may apply for a hearing or by general order of the court may have a hearing on his indigent status.\nThe court after conducting an inquiry if it finds that this individual is unable to pay the fine immediately, the court may provide installment payments.\nIf the court finds that installment payments are not feasible under the circumstances, then may offer to the defendant substitute punishment, and this is the theory under which Maryland has enacted its legislation.\nThe theory that there must be an alternative punishment appropriately imposed upon a defendant upon whom financial criminal sanctions would have no relevancy.\nAnd in this case in the Maryland statute, the court cannot impose a confinement that exceeds $10.00 a day.\nThat is to state that the -- if the fine is $500.00 and the court finds that the defendant is indigent, it may state that I believe that one day in jail is sufficient, but the court cannot impose a sentence which would exceed $10.00 a day; that is the minimum that it can allow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1343.034, 1345.495, 1346.992, 1364.489, 1373.709, 1387.321, 1396.631, 1409.968, 1423.282, 1433.136], "stop_times": [1345.495, 1346.992, 1364.489, 1373.709, 1387.321, 1396.631, 1409.968, 1423.282, 1433.136, 1454.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1343.034}, "reply_to": "15442__0_097", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_001", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "When did that legislation become effective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1454.003], "stop_times": [1455.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.003}, "reply_to": "15442__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__1_002", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "April 15th, immediately upon signing by the governor and that is the reason that my brother anticipated the mootness statute because we propose that this is the law of the case under prior Supreme Court rulings.\nNow as to the philosophy under which their substitute punishment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1455.762, 1468.18], "stop_times": [1468.18, 1472.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1455.762}, "reply_to": "15442__1_001", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_003", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It would hardly be moot technically because they're still in the jail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1472.964], "stop_times": [1478.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.964}, "reply_to": "15442__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15442__1_004", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, that is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1478.05], "stop_times": [1479.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1478.05}, "reply_to": "15442__1_003", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_005", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Is more -- be more accurate to say that there is a new state remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1479.234], "stop_times": [1486.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.234}, "reply_to": "15442__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15442__1_006", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They have this remedy available to him upon application or by general order of the court.\nThat is to say the statute anticipates that perhaps the Chief Judge of the municipal court or the Chief Judge of the supreme bench of Baltimore City can by general order make this available for all of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1486.464, 1492.48], "stop_times": [1492.48, 1503.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1486.464}, "reply_to": "15442__1_005", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_007", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Has there been any such general order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1503.473], "stop_times": [1506.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.473}, "reply_to": "15442__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15442__1_008", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Not to my knowledge, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1506.163], "stop_times": [1509.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1506.163}, "reply_to": "15442__1_007", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_009", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The true mootness perhaps could have done right on -- by action yesterday by an appropriate general order, could it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1509.332], "stop_times": [1520.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.332}, "reply_to": "15442__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_010", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Except to the extent that substitute punishment as a philosophy is not a denial of equal protection of the law.\nI think that my brother is arguing that the whole theory of substitute punishment, alternative punishment is a violation of Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1520.285, 1528.295], "stop_times": [1528.295, 1536.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1520.285}, "reply_to": "15442__1_009", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_011", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Mr. Russel, if you did have the alternative in the State of Maryland, you have a judicial order which would have released this man yesterday, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1536.225], "stop_times": [1548.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.225}, "reply_to": "15442__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_012", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1548.604], "stop_times": [1549.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1548.604}, "reply_to": "15442__1_011", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_013", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, what reason are you here other than seeking to get this Court to approve a law that doesn't apply anymore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1549.531], "stop_times": [1556.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1549.531}, "reply_to": "15442__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_014", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I understood that my brother was raising the issue that the theory of substitute punishment is a denial of equal protection of the laws.\nThat is under any circumstances, if a man is indigent where the statute only provides as a penalty of fine, that it would be unconstitutional to give as an alternative punishment to an indigent man confined in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1556.145, 1566.595], "stop_times": [1566.595, 1581.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1556.145}, "reply_to": "15442__1_013", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_015", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well it makes no difference as to whether we agree with the petitioner or the Chief Judge of the supreme bench issues an order, either way, this petitioner that gets out if it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1581.026], "stop_times": [1593.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.026}, "reply_to": "15442__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_016", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "These petitioners already out except for the one petitioner who is serving 21 years in the Maryland penitentiary, and he alleges that he will have difficulty getting parole because a fine is been imposed upon him.\nWell, this statute provides him for -- with the remedy if he can get a job that and could becoming -- and an earnings capacity or have the capacity to make money, he could be afforded the installment program.\nBut the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1593.294, 1607.036, 1621.244], "stop_times": [1607.036, 1621.244, 1622.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1593.294}, "reply_to": "15442__1_015", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_017", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But the new law your point is, the new law with all its ameliorations nonetheless still does preserve the theory of substitute punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1622.443], "stop_times": [1631.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.443}, "reply_to": "15442__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__1_018", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Yes sir.\nAnd this is the fair --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1631.487, 1632.595], "stop_times": [1632.595, 1633.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.487}, "reply_to": "15442__1_017", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_019", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "And that if you understand your brother on the other side attacks continues to attack in that it is that that you're here to do -- to defend?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1633.1], "stop_times": [1641.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.1}, "reply_to": "15442__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__1_020", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Address myself to, yes sir.\nNow, to get involve with the theory of substitute punishment, I think one must view first of all the function of the State of Maryland; that is to provide sanctions so that people will obey its criminal laws.\nNow, we've created the class of people in Maryland, those who can pay fines and those who are too poor to pay fines.\nAnd so that state has been left with the obligation to the overwhelming class in the state, the law abiding citizens to impose criminal sanctions to protect the law abiding citizens of Maryland from those who violate the laws of Maryland and do not have funds or intend to plead poverty as a defense to punishment.\nMaryland in its judgment has stated that there shall be a substitute punishment or alternative punishment, and this was the theory of Judge Thompson's majority opinion, and the statute of course codified it.\nNow, to the extent that my brother feels that Maryland has not been wise in its judgment, that there are other alternatives that the State of Maryland could've made, that may have been better, that may have been reach the problem better.\nThis Court has said time and time again that the equal protection of the laws does not require this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Maryland legislature or indeed any state legislature as long as it meets the requirement of the constitution.\nAnd as I understand it and I propose that the Equal Protection Clause requires only that the remedy be reasonable and that it be related to a legitimate state interest.\nAnd in this case, deterrence of criminal activity or deterrence of the violation of criminal laws is a legitimate function of the state, and we believe that the alternative punishment is rationally related to it and under the cases that this law should be upheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1641.212, 1643.994, 1656.495, 1664.366, 1685.841, 1696.984, 1711.313, 1726.778, 1737.081], "stop_times": [1643.994, 1656.495, 1664.366, 1685.841, 1696.984, 1711.313, 1726.778, 1737.081, 1753.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.212}, "reply_to": "15442__1_019", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_021", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, how is it that a man who's a millionaire commits the exact same crime as the pauper, and the millionaire pays a fine and the pauper goes to jail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1753.458], "stop_times": [1763.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.458}, "reply_to": "15442__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_022", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The problem is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1763.462], "stop_times": [1764.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.462}, "reply_to": "15442__1_021", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_023", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Is it that simple?\nIs the problem that simple?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1764.252, 1766.763], "stop_times": [1766.763, 1768.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.252}, "reply_to": "15442__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_024", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The problem as I view it sir, is what sanctions does the State of Maryland have to prevent people from violating the laws?\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1768.886, 1777.586], "stop_times": [1777.586, 1777.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.886}, "reply_to": "15442__1_023", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_025", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "By saying that everybody who violates this law goes to jail; that's one way of doing it, and that wouldn't violate the constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1777.627], "stop_times": [1786.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.627}, "reply_to": "15442__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_026", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That may well be the result if the Court finds as that many cases upheld, particularly the New York case and it's been suggested in a Washington case that any conclusion that the alternative punishment theory is not constitutional would cause the kind of irreparable harm what would result from imprisonment for everyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1786.694], "stop_times": [1808.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.694}, "reply_to": "15442__1_025", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_027", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "You mean it would be irreparable harm to imprison a millionaire?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1808.103], "stop_times": [1814.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.103}, "reply_to": "15442__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_028", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Imprisonment results a irreparable harm to anyone in my judgment Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1814.086], "stop_times": [1817.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.086}, "reply_to": "15442__1_027", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_029", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But the only thing I see here in my case in yours is I say that when you put a poor man in jail and let the man who can pay his fine, pay his fine or you can say everybody that commits this crime shall go to jail?\nNow, I don't see how either one while the last one hurts anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1817.963, 1837.396], "stop_times": [1837.396, 1843.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.963}, "reply_to": "15442__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_030", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, that's I think that in theory --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1843.612], "stop_times": [1845.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.612}, "reply_to": "15442__1_029", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_031", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Under the Equal Protection Clause, it doesn't hurt anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1845.65], "stop_times": [1848.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.65}, "reply_to": "15442__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_032", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, the answer I would propose is that the Equal Protection Clause does not require the same punishment for all people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1848.977], "stop_times": [1857.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.977}, "reply_to": "15442__1_031", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_033", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1857.154], "stop_times": [1858.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.154}, "reply_to": "15442__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_034", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It does not require -- it simply requires that when you make a classification of a group of people that this classification be a reasonable one in that the -- it's be related to a legitimate state interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1858.255], "stop_times": [1872.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.255}, "reply_to": "15442__1_033", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_035", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'd be interested in the case you'll cite to me which says that you can make poor people a class that the state can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1872.558], "stop_times": [1882.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.558}, "reply_to": "15442__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_036", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, this is why we're here Your Honor.\nThere has been no Supreme Court case that has stated as such --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1882.336, 1884.345], "stop_times": [1884.345, 1887.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.336}, "reply_to": "15442__1_035", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_037", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "You got anything close?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1887.756], "stop_times": [1887.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.756}, "reply_to": "15442__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_038", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "-- that poor people can be made a class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1887.881], "stop_times": [1889.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.881}, "reply_to": "15442__1_037", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_039", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "You got anything close?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1889.879], "stop_times": [1890.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.879}, "reply_to": "15442__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_040", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Oh, we have the authority that Chief Judge Thompson relied on the Privitera case.\nYou see, the approach as we view it Your Honor is whether the state has a legitimate interest in imposing sanctions on people who are unable to pay fines.\nWe simply cannot have a system of justice which would call for charge account justice where by a man would violate the law and then bleed poverty and simply tell the court to put it on the account, and this is what exactly would result, it would be application under the theory that has been offered by the court here.\nThe Equal Protection Clause says not go so far, that is our position, that it's impossible to equate imprisonment with fines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1890.961, 1896.251, 1907.016, 1926.379], "stop_times": [1896.251, 1907.016, 1926.379, 1935.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.961}, "reply_to": "15442__1_039", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_041", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Do you mean that in the State of Maryland in its criminal process can say that a pauper is in a class by himself, and shall have sentences based on him solely because he's a pauper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1935.287], "stop_times": [1953.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.287}, "reply_to": "15442__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_042", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "A sentence may it please the Court is not being imposed upon him solely because he's poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1953.336], "stop_times": [1957.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.336}, "reply_to": "15442__1_041", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_043", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1957.808], "stop_times": [1957.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.808}, "reply_to": "15442__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_044", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It's being imposed upon him because he's violated the law.\nThe sanctions available to him under the law are useless because he is poor and therefore the State of Maryland had provided an alternative punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1957.825, 1961.333], "stop_times": [1961.333, 1971.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.825}, "reply_to": "15442__1_043", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_045", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The alternate punishment is also given to the rich man.\nHe could either pay his fine or go to jail, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1971.677, 1977.119], "stop_times": [1977.119, 1981.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1971.677}, "reply_to": "15442__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_046", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1981.383], "stop_times": [1982.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.383}, "reply_to": "15442__1_045", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_047", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "So, the poor man doesn't have that alternative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1982.484], "stop_times": [1987.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.484}, "reply_to": "15442__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_048", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, this is true, but I do not view this as being such a disparity as to violate the constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1987.452], "stop_times": [1993.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.452}, "reply_to": "15442__1_047", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_049", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Is it solely because he's poor that he goes to jail?\nThe only reason he goes to jail is because in the same category of everybody convicted of this one crime, everybody convicted of a crime, the only man who must go to jail is the poor man.\nIs that true under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [1993.43, 1996.999, 2010.613], "stop_times": [1996.999, 2010.613, 2012.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.43}, "reply_to": "15442__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_050", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Under the statute, he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2012.704], "stop_times": [2013.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.704}, "reply_to": "15442__1_049", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_051", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, how can you justify it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2013.858], "stop_times": [2015.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.858}, "reply_to": "15442__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_052", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I justify it because the State of Maryland otherwise would be powerless to impose sanctions upon people who are unable to pay fines.\nWhat is the alternative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2015.746, 2024.453], "stop_times": [2024.453, 2025.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.746}, "reply_to": "15442__1_051", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_053", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "So, you take away the right of a man to be considered the equal of every other man.\nI understood that this poor man in the court is exact the same rights as the wealthiest man in the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2025.695, 2031.044], "stop_times": [2031.044, 2037.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.695}, "reply_to": "15442__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_054", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's just true, he has his --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2037.289], "stop_times": [2038.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.289}, "reply_to": "15442__1_053", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_055", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "How could he?\nHe ends up in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2038.433, 2039.558], "stop_times": [2039.558, 2041.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.433}, "reply_to": "15442__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_056", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, he ends up in jail because he violated the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2041.383], "stop_times": [2044.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.383}, "reply_to": "15442__1_055", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_057", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.\nI'm talking about those who have been convicted, the class I'm talking about are those who have committed a crime, been tried and convicted, and you singled out of that class the paupers, and give him special treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2044.401, 2045.439], "stop_times": [2045.439, 2061.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.401}, "reply_to": "15442__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_058", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "We give special treatment to other people also.\nWe give special treatment to recidivists.\nWe give special treatment to many people as this Court has stated, they're many factors that come into play.\nPoverty is one factor that we here on today, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2061.761, 2064.155, 2066.793, 2072.031], "stop_times": [2064.155, 2066.793, 2072.031, 2075.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.761}, "reply_to": "15442__1_057", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_059", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I don't assume that recidivist is a recidivist because he wants to be and did it deliberately.\nI can assume that for a pauper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2075.681, 2082.139], "stop_times": [2082.139, 2084.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.681}, "reply_to": "15442__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15442__1_060", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I would concur that this should not be assumed for pauper.\nMan is poor from no fault but his own, but I must assume that he willfully violated the law and assuming that he willfully violated the law, he then should not be able to escape or be able to elect -- dictate the kind of punishment he uses, or as to incur and under the present Maryland statute, the court is given wide latitude as to the amount of confinement.\nFor instance, in the case where the statute provides only a fine that confinement shall not be more than 15 days.\nHowever, it can be shorter time as the judge feels in his wise discretion that the case before him dictates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2084.398, 2087.112, 2115.96, 2123.218], "stop_times": [2087.112, 2115.96, 2123.218, 2132.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.398}, "reply_to": "15442__1_059", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_061", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Can the judge allow him to pay the fine on installments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2132.155], "stop_times": [2135.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.155}, "reply_to": "15442__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_062", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat is provided in the statute also.\nThe commitment of a man is the last alternative that the court has before it.\nInstallment payments as a condition of probation, payment at once or the judge in his discretion and I'm speaking now where the statute calls only for fine because I do not deal with the problem where the statute provides for imprisonment, and the court and as the alternative makes a fine and commits him.\nOur statute states that in that case, he shall not serve more than one-third of the term provided for imprisonment or 90 days whichever is less.\nBut the problem arises of course in the case where only a fine is provided as a penalty and I submit that it is not a denial of equal protection of the laws to offer to this man or to impose upon him an alternative punishment since he is unable because of his poverty which obtained about through no fault of his own and presumably for the purpose of this case to no fault at anyone.\nNow, to do otherwise would be asking this Court or would as I believe the -- to ask -- the appellants would be asking this Court to correct every inequity that existed in our society because of the poverty that's there.\nAnd while this is a praise worthy objective, I think it's the function -- I do not feel that it is a function of the court to interject and to substitute its judgment for the Maryland legislature how the poor the court may believe it they have been expressed.\nAlthough, I submit that this is perhaps the most enlightening statute in the nation insofar as the punishment is concerned, I believe that the cases have held and this Court has held many times before that the court simply will not substitute its judgment.\nNow, the sole question therefore as I view it is whether the alternative punishment theory is constitutional, not whether -- it is the best alternative that could be offered, but whether it is a meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, and I say that it does because it's a reasonable classification, and secondly because it is related directly to a legitimate state interest.\nThe Court asked in the prior case about some statistics, and I thought that I would offer to the Court.\nIn Maryland, there are 99,000 traffic case is tried in one year.\nNow, that is in Baltimore City and out of the 199,000, 157 were committed in default of payment of fines.\nNow, we view it or offer that it's less than 0.3 % of those cases tried that people are incarcerated because they cannot pay the fines.\nIn some cases in the criminal courts of course, people are committed into fault to payment of fines, and then suddenly, the money arrives.\nAnd they of course are given credit for the time that they've served and the balance is paid and their release is effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2135.453, 2135.902, 2138.545, 2143.44, 2163.708, 2174.099, 2200.048, 2214.27, 2231.169, 2246.749, 2275.662, 2282.826, 2288.758, 2297.346, 2306.761, 2314.998], "stop_times": [2135.902, 2138.545, 2143.44, 2163.708, 2174.099, 2200.048, 2214.27, 2231.169, 2246.749, 2275.662, 2282.826, 2288.758, 2297.346, 2306.761, 2314.998, 2322.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.453}, "reply_to": "15442__1_061", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_063", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, would a traffic -- would the statistics and traffic violators really be your fair showing are the pattern of statistics in all kinds of crimes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2322.745], "stop_times": [2335.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.745}, "reply_to": "15442__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__1_064", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I think that the statistics of traffic violators would be lower.\nI think, more people are committed a default to fines in the criminal court than would be in the traffic court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2335.4, 2339.372], "stop_times": [2339.372, 2344.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.4}, "reply_to": "15442__1_063", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_065", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "And that it is true wouldn't it that you'd assume that if you had a law for instance that made every company, wholesale nation, they won't say a company or the nation be a license of $15.00, you wouldn't have much trouble for that $15.00, and you wouldn't have much trouble collecting the fine that could be imposed as a rule on a traffic violator, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2344.968], "stop_times": [2370.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.968}, "reply_to": "15442__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__1_066", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "This is true.\nI think that is the direct --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2370.456, 2371.359], "stop_times": [2371.359, 2372.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.456}, "reply_to": "15442__1_065", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_067", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Same offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2372.404], "stop_times": [2373.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.404}, "reply_to": "15442__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__1_068", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Yes sir.\nI think that's a fair assumption.\nNormally if a man is able to own an automobile or he's driving one, usually in 99.9% of the cases at least in Maryland, I n Baltimore City, they'll come up with the money with the fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2373.243, 2374.25, 2375.781], "stop_times": [2374.25, 2375.781, 2389.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.243}, "reply_to": "15442__1_067", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_069", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Now, the figures you gave us first, that 3 %, was that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2389.315], "stop_times": [2392.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.315}, "reply_to": "15442__1_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_070", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "0.3 % Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2392.993], "stop_times": [2393.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.993}, "reply_to": "15442__1_069", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_071", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "0.3 %, was that traffic or non-traffic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2393.918], "stop_times": [2397.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.918}, "reply_to": "15442__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_072", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That was traffic.\nNon-traffic, the statistics are bit different.\nNow, figures here are indicate that in the six-month period, 2048 individuals where committed in the criminal court for default of payment of fines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2397.366, 2399.652, 2419.065], "stop_times": [2399.652, 2419.065, 2429.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.366}, "reply_to": "15442__1_071", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_073", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Out of the total of how many?\nJust approximate, we don't need the precisely -- I lost that figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2429.578, 2435.602], "stop_times": [2435.602, 2441.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.578}, "reply_to": "15442__1_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_074", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It's about 4%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2441.952], "stop_times": [2451.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.952}, "reply_to": "15442__1_073", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_075", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, go on with your argument, and if that shows up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2451.936], "stop_times": [2454.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.936}, "reply_to": "15442__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__1_076", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, my brother has indicated in his brief that he felt that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was violated as well as the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and just to -- because I only have one appearance here, I would like to state that vis-a-vis these cases that we feel that the Maryland statute that we believe was the law of the case now, in anyway violates either those amendments to the constitution.\nInvoluntary servitude or slavery or cruel and inhuman punishment or nor do we have the problem of excessive fines here.\nAll of the fines imposed are within the statutory limits and I simply want to acknowledge that we have reacted to this argument in our briefs, and we'd be prepared to answer any questions on those particular issues.\nBut as to the Equal Protection Clause, I feel viewed in its totality and viewing the function and the duty that's states that have to its individual inhabitants to impose sanctions upon individuals and to determine the need to have sanctions and that this statutes meets the constitutional burden to the extent that it provides an alternative punishment for individuals who are unable to pay fines, and that this alternative punishment theory meets all of the requirements in constitution.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2454.904, 2481.327, 2489.664, 2504.219, 2538.179], "stop_times": [2481.327, 2489.664, 2504.219, 2538.179, 2540.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.904}, "reply_to": "15442__1_075", "speaker": "george_l_russell_jr"}
{"id": "15442__1_077", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Thank you Mr. Russell.\nMr. Fisher?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2540.441, 2544.732], "stop_times": [2544.732, 2545.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.441}, "reply_to": "15442__1_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_000", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Your Honor, Mr. Russell and I are talking about different statutes.\nHe is defending the new statute and we're attacking the old statute.\nThere is nobody as far as I know that has been committed to jail in Maryland so far under the new statute.\nThe Chief Judge and the municipal court just found out about that statute, 2:30 yesterday afternoon from me.\nThere are a 150 people in jail today under the old statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2545.914, 2550.846, 2556.349, 2562.685, 2571.004], "stop_times": [2550.846, 2556.349, 2562.685, 2571.004, 2576.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2545.914}, "reply_to": "15442__1_077", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_001", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But it furnishes them with the -- it does furnish in the administrative means of softening that, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2576.256], "stop_times": [2585.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.256}, "reply_to": "15442__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_002", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It does not furnish any interpretation that I can see of the power to release these people by general order because one of the provisions of the new statute is that each case has to be decided on its own merits, and the $10.00 figure is only a minimum figure.\nSo, if the judge were to deal with all of these people by general order, he would be violating that part of the statutory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2585.299, 2605.65], "stop_times": [2605.65, 2613.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2585.299}, "reply_to": "15442__2_001", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_003", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "So let's lay aside the general order mechanism.\nIndividually each incarcerated person or a person now on bail as your client has in some form of the administrative remedy available, does he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2613.667, 2617.538], "stop_times": [2617.538, 2629.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.667}, "reply_to": "15442__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_004", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2629.492], "stop_times": [2629.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2629.492}, "reply_to": "15442__2_003", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_005", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Quasi judicial remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2629.756], "stop_times": [2634.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.756}, "reply_to": "15442__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_006", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They do if they find out about it.\nThe statute doesn't provide that they're supposed to -- that they're to be notified.\nThey are indigents.\nThey don't have lawyers.\nThey're in jail where they don't have access to news media.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2634.192, 2637.313, 2642.046, 2642.983, 2644.241], "stop_times": [2637.313, 2642.046, 2642.983, 2644.241, 2648.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2634.192}, "reply_to": "15442__2_005", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_007", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well obviously, the people that you're talking about, the people you're representing here today now before us do know about through you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2648.254], "stop_times": [2655.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.254}, "reply_to": "15442__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_008", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, we representing the whole class of people who are defined as those people that are in the Baltimore City Jail, and those people that have detainers against them and we also submit that our request for declaratory judgment covers all of those people who have been in jail since the beginning of the lawsuit because they have an interest in this case.\nSo, the burden is always on the state -- on the party asserting mootness to prove it and they're in no position to assert mootness at this point.\nIn addition that the new statute would require these people to be re-sentenced in effect with the possibility that they could get a penalty that is more severe than the penalty they originally got, the fine and I submit that there are double jeopardy problems there and ex post facto law problems there.\nSo, this new statute simply is not a way out when you have people that are actually in jail under the old statute at this time and no evidence of the new statute has actually come into force other than up in the sky somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2655.822, 2684.095, 2694.545, 2715.8], "stop_times": [2684.095, 2694.545, 2715.8, 2730.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2655.822}, "reply_to": "15442__2_007", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_009", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Does that retroactive apply to these people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2730.813], "stop_times": [2733.846], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.813}, "reply_to": "15442__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15442__2_010", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "All -- no.\nYes and no I should say Your Honor.\nThe new statute merely gives them a remedy to ask to have their sentences re determined under the provisions of the new statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2733.846, 2736.681, 2738.394], "stop_times": [2736.681, 2738.394, 2746.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2733.846}, "reply_to": "15442__2_009", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_011", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "New statute.\nDo you question the statute subject to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2746.493, 2747.581], "stop_times": [2747.581, 2751.733], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.493}, "reply_to": "15442__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15442__2_012", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2751.733], "stop_times": [2752.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2751.733}, "reply_to": "15442__2_011", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_013", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I mean, I know you say he is not hefty here, what your view about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2752.062], "stop_times": [2760.404], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.062}, "reply_to": "15442__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15442__2_014", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I submit that in the broad argument that I've made that jail could never be equated with money.\nSo, I would have to question it, but I'm not really questioning it today because I got a $2.00 statute and under no circumstances can $2.00 be equated with 24 hours.\nSo, I don't have to attack $10.00 and I'm in a much better position to attack $2.00.\nThere is no overriding state interest in punishing poor people at a greater rate than rich people in order to make rich people pay.\nThere is no overriding that justifies having justice take her blindfold off and give poor people a harsher penalty than the judge who was charge with the state law -- authorized by state law with determining the appropriate penalty determinant.\nThe state has other things that it can do to solve this problem.\nI'm not asking this Court to tell the state what to do.\nThere are many different alternatives.\nI'm not asking this Court to spell out for the state what they are.\nI'm not -- I suggest an analogy that the constitution is the foundation of our justice system, and that state penal system is the structure that the state builds upon that foundation.\nIn this case, the system the state has built is off of the foundation of equal justice under law, and it is properly the role of this Court to establish that foundation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2760.404, 2770.031, 2782.937, 2790.001, 2803.749, 2826.02, 2829.772, 2836.609, 2838.257, 2843.03, 2858.638], "stop_times": [2770.031, 2782.937, 2790.001, 2803.749, 2826.02, 2829.772, 2836.609, 2838.257, 2843.03, 2858.638, 2878.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2760.404}, "reply_to": "15442__2_013", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_015", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Can you take a fine and reduce it a judgment?\nIs there any provision for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2878.543, 2881.104], "stop_times": [2881.104, 2882.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.543}, "reply_to": "15442__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__2_016", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "In the new statute, there is and I believe that could -- it could be also be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2882.076], "stop_times": [2888.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2882.076}, "reply_to": "15442__2_015", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_017", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Under the old statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2888.109], "stop_times": [2888.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.109}, "reply_to": "15442__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__2_018", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Under the old stat -- the old statute itself may not have provided that, but there are other provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2888.702], "stop_times": [2893.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2888.702}, "reply_to": "15442__2_017", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_019", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Other provision of law that entitle the status creditor or reduce the fine to a judgment, then have all the benefits of the judgment creditor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2893.262], "stop_times": [2901.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.262}, "reply_to": "15442__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__2_020", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I believe so Your Honor.\nNow that of course is that state's interest in collecting the fine.\nIf that is the purpose of the statute, there's no rational way that you can justify putting people who don't have the money in the jail.\nThat costs the state money and they get -- it prevents them from paying the fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2901.497, 2903.301, 2907.993, 2916.002], "stop_times": [2903.301, 2907.993, 2916.002, 2921.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2901.497}, "reply_to": "15442__2_019", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_021", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Is there a work, I forgot that there's -- there's not the same kind of work program here is there was in the previous case, am I mistaken of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2921.304], "stop_times": [2928.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.304}, "reply_to": "15442__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__2_022", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.\nThe state does not have a theory that it collects these -- the fine in work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2928.507, 2928.72], "stop_times": [2928.72, 2934.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2928.507}, "reply_to": "15442__2_021", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_023", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2934.007], "stop_times": [2936.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.007}, "reply_to": "15442__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__2_024", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It is I'm sure equal protection thing here with perhaps or rather exaggerated hypothetical case.\nSuppose -- first, I assume that when you talk about rich people, you mean any person who is able to pay, that is a plumber or an electrician who's making $600.00 to a $1,000.00 a month is what you call a rich person for these purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2936.443, 2942.784], "stop_times": [2942.784, 2957.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.443}, "reply_to": "15442__2_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_025", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2957.494], "stop_times": [2958.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2957.494}, "reply_to": "15442__2_024", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_026", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Now, suppose a group of plumbers and electricians and newspaper reporters would say all band together and say that there is a denial of equal protection because they must pay their fines in cash, whereas 13,412 people under your theory what the law to be didn't have any money to pay at the time and therefore, they were excused from paying the fine that the man is making a salary has been required to do so, is that a denial of equal protection in the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2958.263], "stop_times": [2995.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.263}, "reply_to": "15442__2_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_027", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It certainly would not be equal.\nI think that poor people should be punished in some way.\nI'm saying the state must find an equal way of punishing them.\nIt certainly cannot find a grossly unequal way of punishing them when it is not necessary to do so, and it has no compelling interest in punishing these people more severely than other people that are equally guilty of the same offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [2995.574, 2997.019, 3002.421, 3006.858], "stop_times": [2997.019, 3002.421, 3006.858, 3025.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2995.574}, "reply_to": "15442__2_026", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_028", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But you do seem to concede that this other category I spoke of, electrician, etcetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3025.359], "stop_times": [3031.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.359}, "reply_to": "15442__2_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_029", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3031.781], "stop_times": [3032.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3031.781}, "reply_to": "15442__2_028", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_030", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They would be discriminated against by having to pay a fine in the same circumstances where this indigent person did not pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3032.182], "stop_times": [3041.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.182}, "reply_to": "15442__2_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15442__2_031", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "As a matter of fact, the Court in Stratman v. Stad stated that it would be a denial of equal protection to let the poor man go and I'm not suggesting that he be let go.\nI'm suggesting that the best thing to do is to do what the judge decided should be done, to find a way to make him pay his fine, and that can be done.\nYour Honor asked the question in the previous argument about whether the new statute will be counter productive, where there a judge would start sending people to jail.\nI think we have to assume that judges will act the way judges are suppose to act and keep their -- the blindfold on as far as the person's poverty is concerned, and that they will be sentence people fairly and judicially, even though they may under some new scheme not be able to send them to jail for non-payment of a fine.\nSo, I don't think -- I see my time is up.\nI don't think that it will be counter protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3041.197, 3050.419, 3069.068, 3082.343, 3110.975, 3114.033], "stop_times": [3050.419, 3069.068, 3082.343, 3110.975, 3114.033, 3116.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3041.197}, "reply_to": "15442__2_030", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_032", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "How would you suggest that Maryland can handle this problem?\nAre you saying that all punishment of money are necessary going because the denial of equal protection of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3116.634, 3120.794], "stop_times": [3120.794, 3132.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3116.634}, "reply_to": "15442__2_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_033", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Oh no Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3132.896], "stop_times": [3134.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3132.896}, "reply_to": "15442__2_032", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_034", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "What is your -- the extent, what you say happens to the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3134.591], "stop_times": [3142.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.591}, "reply_to": "15442__2_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_035", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm merely saying that the State of Maryland cannot select a class of people and treat them differently only because of their poverty.\nIf the State of Maryland has a number of different alternative ways, probation, ordering him to pay work, order them to work, ordering them to go to driver's school, taking away the driver's license, ordering them to pay in installments, punishing then if they did not make a showing of themselves that they'd made reasonable efforts to get the money.\nThere are a number of different ways that the State of Maryland can in its wisdom decide what to do about the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3142.345, 3153.136, 3177.467], "stop_times": [3153.136, 3177.467, 3187.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3142.345}, "reply_to": "15442__2_034", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_036", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, it requires a pretty good amount of wisdom, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3187.051], "stop_times": [3190.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.051}, "reply_to": "15442__2_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_037", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3190.537], "stop_times": [3191.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3190.537}, "reply_to": "15442__2_036", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_038", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Depend on what you're doing in these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3191.086], "stop_times": [3193.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.086}, "reply_to": "15442__2_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_039", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "These are tremendous problems and they do require a great deal of wisdom.\nBut the foundation that that wisdom ought to be built on the principle that's even older than the jailer's fine statute that the law looks at a man without regard to his status in the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3193.435, 3198.778], "stop_times": [3198.778, 3215.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3193.435}, "reply_to": "15442__2_038", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_040", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Would the law be invalid only as applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3215.025], "stop_times": [3219.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.025}, "reply_to": "15442__2_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_041", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3219.413], "stop_times": [3219.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3219.413}, "reply_to": "15442__2_040", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_042", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "To the indigent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3219.658], "stop_times": [3220.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.658}, "reply_to": "15442__2_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_043", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "The law -- it would only invalid as applied to indigents, but the discrimination is apparent on the face of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3220.98], "stop_times": [3229.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3220.98}, "reply_to": "15442__2_042", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_044", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Therefore, it can't be done?\nYou can have a law that fixes a punishment by payment of money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3229.439, 3232.021], "stop_times": [3232.021, 3239.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.439}, "reply_to": "15442__2_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_045", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm sorry Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3239.427], "stop_times": [3240.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3239.427}, "reply_to": "15442__2_044", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_046", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, you have a situation where you claim that the law is invalid, either as applied on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3240.773], "stop_times": [3251.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.773}, "reply_to": "15442__2_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_047", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3251.242], "stop_times": [3252.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3251.242}, "reply_to": "15442__2_046", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_048", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Now, if it's invalid on it face, invalid as applied to everybody, what substitute can the State of Maryland or any state provide for punishment but money fines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3252.177], "stop_times": [3269.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.177}, "reply_to": "15442__2_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_049", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They can provide that if a man fails to pay this money fine, I'm assuming they'll continue to find most people provide a law that says the judge can either send up to jail or fine him in the first instances.\nThat in the case where it comes to the attention of the court that he cannot pay, they then must provide some other means for punishing him, deterring him, collecting money from him, than the one they have provided here which is to send him to jail at an unfair rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3269.322, 3284.243], "stop_times": [3284.243, 3307.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3269.322}, "reply_to": "15442__2_048", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_050", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I thought you are basic contention was that it would be unconstitutional to jail a person and lieu of a money fine at any rate, at any rate that there's a difference not only in the degree, but in kind between those two punishments, a constitutional difference in kind between the fine and imprisonment and that violates the equal protection to have any prisoner in lieu of the money fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3307.218], "stop_times": [3332.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.218}, "reply_to": "15442__2_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15442__2_051", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "When the Chief Justice asked question, I said that is -- that is my contention.\nAll I said I did not have to argue that in here because the $2.00 rate is unequal in any event and this is true of the rates in most of the state statutes.\nThey have some that are $1.00 rates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3332.266, 3338.06, 3352.087], "stop_times": [3338.06, 3352.087, 3355.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3332.266}, "reply_to": "15442__2_050", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_052", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "But how would we decide that question fact, you say in any case, $2.00 is not enough.\nHow would we decide what is enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3355.189, 3364.227], "stop_times": [3364.227, 3367.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3355.189}, "reply_to": "15442__2_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_053", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I don't know Your Honor.\nIf you had to decide that question, I think you can decide that is not enough, especially when the purpose of the state statute is to make an unequal punishment in order to collect the money from that can pay.\nYou can decide that easily and I have never heard anybody suggest to me that $2.00 is equal to 24 hours.\nNobody has actually asserted that to me in two years I been litigating this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3367.622, 3369.908, 3382.479, 3391.113], "stop_times": [3369.908, 3382.479, 3391.113, 3396.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.622}, "reply_to": "15442__2_052", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_054", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Who is admitted $10.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3396.386], "stop_times": [3397.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.386}, "reply_to": "15442__2_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_055", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3397.879], "stop_times": [3398.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3397.879}, "reply_to": "15442__2_054", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_056", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Who is admitted $10.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3398.688], "stop_times": [3401.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.688}, "reply_to": "15442__2_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_057", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, my position is that $10.00 is still not equal to one day in jail, but it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3401.52], "stop_times": [3408.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3401.52}, "reply_to": "15442__2_056", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_058", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "And you get to going up until we could find some way of to say that well, not a work, but they requires with as much as in the man have to pay in money?\nThat's a pretty difficult task.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3408.075, 3420.546], "stop_times": [3420.546, 3422.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.075}, "reply_to": "15442__2_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_059", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I would hope that you would never decide it on that basis.\nI would hope that you would decide in accordance with my philosophy that one day in jail can never equal any amount of money because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3422.05, 3426.2], "stop_times": [3426.2, 3434.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.05}, "reply_to": "15442__2_058", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_060", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That would just settle this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3434.629], "stop_times": [3436.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.629}, "reply_to": "15442__2_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_061", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3436.578], "stop_times": [3437.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3436.578}, "reply_to": "15442__2_060", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_062", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That would just settle this case, wouldn't it?\nIt wouldn't settle them all, would it?\nIf we just decided that certain amount of money is too little to compensate for the fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3437.282, 3441.175, 3444.239], "stop_times": [3441.175, 3444.239, 3451.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.282}, "reply_to": "15442__2_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_063", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "If you just decide it that that would only settle this case, it would not settle the $10.00 case, or the $15.00 case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3451.132], "stop_times": [3457.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3451.132}, "reply_to": "15442__2_062", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_064", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Go and settle, the deep problem is raised for you gentlemen here today, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3457.594], "stop_times": [3463.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.594}, "reply_to": "15442__2_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_065", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "No.\nBut it would settle the other case if you went further than I have asked you to go and reach the basic value judgment that jail and money cannot be equated, it would settle all the cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3463.24, 3463.709], "stop_times": [3463.709, 3475.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3463.24}, "reply_to": "15442__2_064", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_066", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It would seems to me that your argument and it maybe right, I am not saying it's right or wrong, it seems to me that your argument and the other arguments made today on that side assume that no law can be passed, which makes it fair and on non-violation of the equal protection law to fix punishment by fines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3475.827], "stop_times": [3504.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.827}, "reply_to": "15442__2_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_067", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I do not -- I do not understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3504.597], "stop_times": [3508.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3504.597}, "reply_to": "15442__2_066", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_068", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, how can you pass a law that will equalize it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3508.097], "stop_times": [3512.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.097}, "reply_to": "15442__2_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_069", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Could equal two people, yes it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3512.524], "stop_times": [3515.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3512.524}, "reply_to": "15442__2_068", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_070", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Here's a man with the $100,000.00, there's another one that makes $30.00 a week.\nHow could you equalize of your fine of money for those two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3515.342, 3525.542], "stop_times": [3525.542, 3529.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3515.342}, "reply_to": "15442__2_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_071", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "It could be done and it has been done in country like Sweden where they have the day fine principle, where the judge attempts to sting the man's pocket book by an amount that will take into account how much he can pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3529.063], "stop_times": [3542.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3529.063}, "reply_to": "15442__2_070", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_072", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, maybe he couldn't afford to pay any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3542.964], "stop_times": [3548.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3542.964}, "reply_to": "15442__2_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_073", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Then it seems to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3548.092], "stop_times": [3549.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3548.092}, "reply_to": "15442__2_072", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_074", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "I assume that's true that some of them couldn't afford to pay any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3549.201], "stop_times": [3554.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3549.201}, "reply_to": "15442__2_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_075", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3554.133], "stop_times": [3554.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3554.133}, "reply_to": "15442__2_074", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_076", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They are too poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3554.566], "stop_times": [3555.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3554.566}, "reply_to": "15442__2_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_077", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "That's probably true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3555.825], "stop_times": [3557.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3555.825}, "reply_to": "15442__2_076", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_078", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "What you do then on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3557.408], "stop_times": [3558.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3557.408}, "reply_to": "15442__2_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_079", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "You'd have to collect the money from the -- at a later time or in a different way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3558.712], "stop_times": [3563.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3558.712}, "reply_to": "15442__2_078", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_080", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "They might not make another, it might be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3563.673], "stop_times": [3567.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3563.673}, "reply_to": "15442__2_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_081", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, then, you have to find some other way to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3567.944], "stop_times": [3571.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3567.944}, "reply_to": "15442__2_080", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_082", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well you have to get down -- don't you finally, bedrock argument that punishment by fine is so inherently unfair and unjust and discriminating between people that it should be allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3571.578], "stop_times": [3591.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3571.578}, "reply_to": "15442__2_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_083", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Well, I don't get down not far Your Honor, but it's -- I understand how a person could see that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3591.754], "stop_times": [3599.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3591.754}, "reply_to": "15442__2_082", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_084", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "We might have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3599.989], "stop_times": [3600.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3599.989}, "reply_to": "15442__2_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_085", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "You like decide to do it, but I'm not urging you to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3600.96], "stop_times": [3607.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3600.96}, "reply_to": "15442__2_084", "speaker": "robert_g_fisher"}
{"id": "15442__2_086", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Our Court would know how to avoid it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3607.512], "stop_times": [3609.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3607.512}, "reply_to": "15442__2_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15442__2_087", "conversation_id": "15442", "text": "Thank you Mr. Fisher.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_782", "start_times": [3609.868, 3611.261], "stop_times": [3611.261, 3614.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3609.868}, "reply_to": "15442__2_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_000", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "The next case for argument is Number 655, Mulloy against the United States.\nMr. Sedler, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [0.0, 13.496], "stop_times": [13.496, 14.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_001", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMay it please the Court?\nThe issues in this case, arise out of the stated refusal of petitioner Mulloys Selective Service Board to reopen his classification and consider his claim for conscientious objector status.\nThat's what we are dealing with here, a failure to reopen.\nWe do not have the case where the board has decided to claim, at least officially, on the merits and where there has been an appeal, or at least, an opportunity for an appeal, so that the question before this Court would be whether there was a basis in fact for the determination.\nThe issue is not whether the petitioner was a conscientious objector or whether there was a basis in fact for a substantive determination that he was not.\nThe issue is purely a procedural one.\nDid the petitioner make enough of a showing of entitlement to classification as a conscientious objector that he was entitled to an appealable determination by the board?\nI guess what this case is all about is that the petitioner claims, he was entitled to a full-scale determination including the right of appeal.\nThe board summarily dismissed.\nThe first issue then revolves around the summary dismissal.\nThe petitioner is contended throughout these proceedings that the board either was required to reopen because based on his SSS Form 150 and the letters and other information submitted in support of a claim, he made out a prima facie case of entitlement or, that what really happened was that the board in fact reopened deciding the claim against him on the merits but denying him the appeal to which he was entitled by the regulations.\nIn this Court, the Government now concedes which is a clear departure from its position here before that based on the SSS Form 150 and the supporting letters, the petitioner made out a prima facie case of entitlement but says the Government, even so, the board does not have to reopen.\nI think issue was joined on that first point.\nThe second issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [14.938, 16.346, 18.561, 34.965, 38.873, 57.259, 67.922, 71.211, 84.778, 94.855, 98.29, 102.899, 133.363, 153.094, 155.864], "stop_times": [16.346, 18.561, 34.965, 38.873, 57.259, 67.922, 71.211, 84.778, 94.855, 98.29, 102.899, 133.363, 153.094, 155.864, 156.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.938}, "reply_to": "15010__0_000", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_002", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Do you think it can be -- this record -- what reading for the board's action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [156.71], "stop_times": [164.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.71}, "reply_to": "15010__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_003", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThis is a point that we have made and that the board did not say why it found that he wasn't a conscientious objector.B\nut the record does clearly say what the board did.\nThe Form 100, the phase form, falling the November 9th meeting, says, \u201cClassification not reopened\u201d.\nNow, following the meeting on January 11th, the SSS Form 100 reads all information in the file considered including claim of conscientious objector.\nThe board felt that information did not warrant reopening of 1-A classification vote four to nothing.\nThis was also brought out at the testimony both in the civil trial and the criminal trial where Chairman Sherman stated, \u201cThat taking everything in the file.\u201d\nAssuming what he said to be true, he did not make out a case and we saw no reason to reopen because it wasn't there.\nI think it is very clear that the board's reason for its action was that the petitioner did not make out a prima facie case for entitlement.\nThis was the Government's argument both in the District Court and before the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals explicitly stated that, petitioner did not make out a prima facie case and therefore the board was not required to reopen.\nNow, we have contended all along, that the only way you could say, he did not make out a prima facie case is to totally distort the meaning of prima facie case, and say that prima facie case means the same thing as a merits determination.\nI think that's the point that stands out most clearly in this case, that there was nothing more that the board could have done.\nNo further information that it could've considered if it had in fact reopened the classification.\nNow, what it did was to say, \u201cWe don't think he is a conscientious objector.\u201d\nNow, the board can say that but under the regulations, this constitutes a reopening in fact, entitling the registrant to an administrative appeal under Section 1625.13.\nThe second issue and this isn't a way related to the first, is simply that he was denied due process because the board did not give them a full and fair hearing.\nThey didn\u2019t read the file.\nThey, at best, walked through it, scanning it before making a determination that he didn\u2019t state a prima facie case.\nThey're simply would not have been timed at the so-called courtesy hearing for the three members who were present to even scan, let alone read the detailed answers to SSS Form 150, let alone all the other information in the form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [164.369, 165.279, 175.45, 179.682, 190.747, 204.542, 212.385, 224.266, 231.898, 241.21, 247.017, 257.119, 271.498, 279.443, 285.92, 291.476, 305.018, 315.756, 318.795, 327.543], "stop_times": [165.279, 175.45, 179.682, 190.747, 204.542, 212.385, 224.266, 231.898, 241.21, 247.017, 257.119, 271.498, 279.443, 285.92, 291.476, 305.018, 315.756, 318.795, 327.543, 343.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.369}, "reply_to": "15010__0_002", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_004", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Does that necessarily or possibly rest on an assumption that they haven't read it a little bit sooner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [343.241], "stop_times": [352.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.241}, "reply_to": "15010__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_005", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "They so stated at the trial, there were three -- there were three members present, Your Honor at the November 9th hearing.\nMr. Sherman, the Chairman testified.\nWell, we looked over his file before he came in as we would anyone else.\nNow, at that time, in the record and the civil trial will bare this out.\nThere were other registrants ahead of Mulloy.\nThen Mulloy came in to the interview.\nMr. Downs said that, \u201cThe file was there and any member who wanted to could look at it.\u201d\nI asked Mr. Downs, \u201cDid you read it?\u201d\nHe said, \u201cNo, I just scanned it because I was the newest member of the board and I wasn't familiar with what was in the file at all.\u201d\nMr. Wolfgang said that, \u201cHe read it but he couldn't recall how much time he spent on it.\u201d\nI think it's very clear from the evidence that these members didn't read the file.\nWe've also contended as part of the same denial of the full and fair hearing that the demonstrable incompetence of the draft board members was a denial of due process.\nThey simply did not understand what a conscientious objector was.\nThe clerk testified that in her 17 years with the board, no one had ever been assigned to civilian work as a conscientious objector.\nMr. Sherman, the chairman of the board thought that a conscientious objector was one who was opposed to the use of violence which of course is not the statutory definition.\nMr. Downs didn't seem to realize that the board had the power to determine whether a man was a conscientious objector.\nMr. Walking seem to think that by applying for conscientious objector status, the member stay -- the registrant stated that he would not do alternative civilian service.\nNow, I think this is the factual situation that we are dealing with.\nThe Government says that the board must have assumed that the petitioner was not sincere.\nOtherwise, it would have been inexplicable that they didn't reopen.\nI would suggest that there may be another reason that they never read the file and if they had read the file, it wouldn't have made any difference because they had no understanding of what a conscientious objector was.\nThe relevant time period is a fairly brief one.\nAll the relevant events relating to conscientious objector status occurred between May 1967 and January 1968.\nThe petitioner after leaving school in 1966 went to work for the Appalachia volunteers, an anti-poverty group working in Eastern Kentucky.\nHe was given an occupational deferment to weigh from March 1966 to May 1967.\nIn May 1967, he was classified as I-A.\nThis was affirmed by the Appeals Board in August of 1967.\nI believe the date was August 16th.\nOn August 11, 1967, petitioners -- petitioner and two other people were arrested in Eastern Kentucky on a charge of teaching sedition.\nAll of these is brought out in McSurely versus Ratliff we've cited in the brief were a three judge federal court found that the prosecution was undertaken to inhibit organizing activities in Eastern Kentucky.\nThey enjoined the prosecution because a statute was patently unconstitutional.\nThe petitioner spent some time in jail before he was released on bond.\nThere was a midnight raiding party, 15 armed men led by the prosecuting attorney came to the petitioners house ransacked through all the books and records and this was the sedition prosecution to which the petitioner was subject.\nThe three judge federal court enjoined the prosecution on September 14th, 1967.\nIt then directed the petitioner and the other plaintiffs to execute a $500.00 recognizance bond to the federal court pending the right of appeal.\nThe states right of appeal expired 60 days later and no appeal was taken.\nNow, the petitioner stated in his letter to the board of October 17th that, his experiences in Eastern Kentucky, including the sedition prosecution were the precipitating catalysts.\nThis caused generalized belief in pacifism and nonviolence and he demonstrated his belief in nonviolence by supporting letters to crystallize into in his view, objection to participation in war, wrestled with his conscience and came to the conclusions saying, \u201cI can now say, I am a conscientious objector.\u201d\nHe wrote this to the board.\nHe filled out the SSS Form 150 in great detail.\nIncluded in the letters were -- including the supporting information were letters from a Catholic priest testifying his sincerity, testifying as to why opposition to war was consistent with Catholic teaching.\nThere were further letters in there testifying as to his activities in Eastern Kentucky.\nThe board members granted this courtesy hearing, as I called it, on November 9th, right after the board, the interview which lasted about 10 or 15 minutes and here, I really like to quote from the Government's brief that they meaning the board members, discussed the case briefly and came to unanimous conclusion that there was no basis or justification for reopening the classification.\nThe effective decision was made on November 9th but an entry to this effect was made on Form 100, classification not reopened.\nNow, the reason the board didn't take a vote that evening, was that petitioner was still under bond to the federal court and was believed under indictment in Kentucky on a charge of flourishing a deadly weapon which was later dropped.\nThey took the formal meeting, the formal vote at a meeting of January 11th and according to Chairman Sherman at that time, it readopted or reaffirmed its action of November 9th, and it's that point where we held the entry in the phase Form 100.\nAll information in the file was considered including claim of conscientious objector.\nAll members present felt this information did not warrant a reopening of I-A classification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [352.494, 361.099, 363.65, 368.739, 372.331, 374.847, 377.124, 383.228, 385.391, 393.75, 399.697, 405.163, 417.794, 422.871, 432.259, 442.202, 451.202, 462.63, 466.989, 473.383, 477.216, 489.292, 493.56, 503.804, 514.863, 522.909, 527.666, 533.65, 537.05, 547.411, 560.742, 565.377, 570.284, 586.444, 593.256, 604.761, 611.406, 627.087, 649.584, 650.848, 655.926, 669.576, 676.443, 702.4, 711.319, 727.739, 745.106, 750.358], "stop_times": [361.099, 363.65, 368.739, 372.331, 374.847, 377.124, 383.228, 385.391, 393.75, 399.697, 405.163, 417.794, 422.871, 432.259, 442.202, 451.202, 462.63, 466.989, 473.383, 477.216, 489.292, 493.56, 503.804, 514.863, 522.909, 527.666, 533.65, 537.05, 547.411, 560.742, 565.377, 570.284, 586.444, 593.256, 604.761, 611.406, 627.087, 649.584, 650.848, 655.926, 669.576, 676.443, 702.4, 711.319, 727.739, 745.106, 750.358, 756.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.494}, "reply_to": "15010__0_004", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_006", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Where he -- he had pitched his claim for non-draft status for considerable period on an occupational deferment, hadn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [756.206], "stop_times": [766.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.206}, "reply_to": "15010__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15010__0_007", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "He had an occupational deferment until May of 1967.\nThis then was not renewed and this was denied in August of 1967.\nHe didn't file for conscientious objector until October 67 following the sedition prosecution.\nBut, he made it very clear that he considered his work in Appalachia to be the clearest demonstration of his religious beliefs, of his sincerity and his opposition to war.\nI think it's also fair to say that he believed that if he were granted conscientious objector status, he might be permitted to continue to do anti-poverty work which would presumably qualify as alternative service in the national interest under Section 1660.1 of the regulations.\nIf the members of the board had read his SSS Form 150, they would have understood the correlation between his work in Appalachia and his claim of conscientious objector status.\nI think it's the height of sophistry to say that a young man, not learned in the law, who by law can't be represented by counsel before these draft boards can suddenly have his claim for conscientious objector status converted into a claim for occupational deferment which had previously been denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [766.575, 772.749, 779.067, 786.822, 801.149, 824.341, 837.131], "stop_times": [772.749, 779.067, 786.822, 801.149, 824.341, 837.131, 857.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.575}, "reply_to": "15010__0_006", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_008", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Now, you have been rather severe on the draft board people and their lack of grasp of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [857.979], "stop_times": [862.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.979}, "reply_to": "15010__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_009", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Yes indeed, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [862.027], "stop_times": [862.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.027}, "reply_to": "15010__0_008", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_010", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Lack of grasp of what they were supposed to be doing but wasn't it rather late for this man to discover himself what a conscientious objector was in circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [862.827], "stop_times": [875.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.827}, "reply_to": "15010__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_011", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, I want to make clear Your Honor that this is a pre-induction case, that there was no outstanding order for induction.\nIn answer --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [875.011, 883.467], "stop_times": [883.467, 883.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.011}, "reply_to": "15010__0_010", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_012", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "There was a classification though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [883.682], "stop_times": [885.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.682}, "reply_to": "15010__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_013", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [885.103], "stop_times": [885.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.103}, "reply_to": "15010__0_012", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_014", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "There was a classification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [885.492], "stop_times": [886.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.492}, "reply_to": "15010__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_015", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Yes, You're Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [886.533], "stop_times": [887.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.533}, "reply_to": "15010__0_014", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_016", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "So, he knew that he was subject to call?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [887.197], "stop_times": [891.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.197}, "reply_to": "15010__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_017", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, this, I think, is true of any registrant in class I-A.\nI think if you say that this is late, then it becomes -- then what you're saying is that if a registrant doesn't claim conscientious objector status at age 18-and-a-half when he registers for the draft, it can always be found that he is late.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [891.652, 896.353], "stop_times": [896.353, 912.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.652}, "reply_to": "15010__0_016", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_018", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, I'm just relating this to your argument that you offered it hadn't occurred to me until you offered it.\nDid he think that his activity in any poverty movement was a sufficient demonstration of his conscientious objector state of mind and attitude?\nNow I say to you that, if that's what he thought it was, wouldn't it have been reasonable for him to communicate that an earlier state -- stage than he did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [912.009, 918.654, 930.831], "stop_times": [918.654, 930.831, 942.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.009}, "reply_to": "15010__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__0_019", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, it wouldn't have -- I think I have two answers to that, Your Honor.\nIn the first place, as long as he had another deferment, the board could not consider his claim for conscientious objector status under the regulations.\nBut I think that all of these things led up.\nI focused on this particular event, namely the sedition prosecution.\nIts when does a man really have to face up to the question, \u201cAm I a conscientious objector?\u201d\nThere is a recent decision that came down from the Fourth Circuit involving an in-service conscientious objector that said that being called to Vietnam maybe the catalytic draft.\nMoreover, there's another point that Id like to make that the board never -- never considered this.\nMr. Sherman, the Chairman of the Board was specifically asked, \u201cDid you ask him, excuse me, any questions as to why you did not file for the claim of conscientious objector earlier?\u201d\nMr. Sherman's action -- answer was \u201cNo, none that I recall.\u201d\nIn other words, presumably a board could find that the man's objection to war meet matured at an earlier time and conceivably, though the Court might suggest to the contrary, but conceivably under 1625.1 (b), it could find that the claim was not timely asserted.\nThat is not the case here.\nThe board members assumed that the claim was timely asserted.\nThey stated that they assumed he was sincere in everything that he said.\nNow, the Government is trying to say, \u201cNo, they didn't really mean that.\u201d\nBut it can't point to one place in the record where any board member affirmatively stated, \u201cNo, we didn't believe him.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [942.41, 946.641, 959.019, 963.52, 969.573, 976.471, 993.611, 1001.258, 1014.403, 1018.023, 1041.444, 1043.121, 1046.824, 1051.368, 1054.755], "stop_times": [946.641, 959.019, 963.52, 969.573, 976.471, 993.611, 1001.258, 1014.403, 1018.023, 1041.444, 1043.121, 1046.824, 1051.368, 1054.755, 1063.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.41}, "reply_to": "15010__0_018", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_020", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Isn't the issue of law in this case very narrow, namely, what does it take to trigger a consideration of a reopening of a classification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1063.018], "stop_times": [1077.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.018}, "reply_to": "15010__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_021", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Exactly, You're Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1077.751], "stop_times": [1078.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.751}, "reply_to": "15010__0_020", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_022", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "You got all there is to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1078.3], "stop_times": [1079.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.3}, "reply_to": "15010__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_023", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That is the -- that is what I called the first issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1079.954], "stop_times": [1082.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1079.954}, "reply_to": "15010__0_022", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_024", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "You got the Second Circuit or some other Circuits, principally the second saying all you got to do is to show a prima facie case on paper and you got other Circuits including this one saying, \u201cNo, there's more discretion in the board didn't ask even though its prima facie showing on paper that they didn't like to do some kind of an evaluation of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1082.365], "stop_times": [1105.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.365}, "reply_to": "15010__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_025", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I would submit Your Honor that with regard to pre-induction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1105.007], "stop_times": [1109.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.007}, "reply_to": "15010__0_024", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_026", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Have I so stated the issue correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1109.813], "stop_times": [1111.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.813}, "reply_to": "15010__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_027", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I think you stated -- I think that's -- I think it's a perfectly correct statement of the first issue.\nI would say that with regard to pre-induction request for reopening, every Circuit but Sixth has held that the board is required to reopen when the registrant presents a prima facie case.\nThat is when the new facts, if true, when entitled the registrant to claim classification, the board must reopen.\nThe Sixth Circuit held this too in Thompson versus Zimmerman.\nBut in Mulloy, they depart from Thompson versus Zimmerman.\nThe Sixth Circuit is the only Circuit that upholds that the board is not required to reopen whenever a prima facie case for classification has been presented and they held this in the case of the most difficult claim one of conscientious objector.\nWhat they have done has been to completely obliterate Mulloy between a refusal to reopen and denial of claim under merits following a reopening that what were they were saying is that the board can decide if it wants to reopen or if it doesn't want to reopen.\nNow, this is totally contrary to the clear import of the regulation.\nThere are two reasons I think why a board has to reopen upon the presentment of a prima facie case.\nThe first goes to procedural due process.\nUpon a reopening, the registrant gets a personal appearance.\nThat's mandatory under Section 625 -- 1625.11 and 13.\nIt's only by a personal appearance that he will get a chance to tell his side of the story, otherwise, the board can't simply decide without having heard him present his story.\nThe second reason relates to an appeal.\nUnder the regulations whenever the draft board decides the merits, that determination is to be reviewed by an appeals board.\nIf the draft board can decide the merits unilaterally then you completely negate the provisions of 1625.13 providing for an appeal after reopening.\nNow, where the board is not supposed to reopen under 1625.4 is where the new facts even if true would not entitle the registrant to the claim classification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1111.201, 1116.991, 1130.985, 1139.068, 1142.974, 1146.884, 1163.279, 1181.672, 1186.819, 1193.436, 1196.722, 1200.932, 1206.617, 1220.12, 1223.294, 1231.708, 1244.63], "stop_times": [1116.991, 1130.985, 1139.068, 1142.974, 1146.884, 1163.279, 1181.672, 1186.819, 1193.436, 1196.722, 1200.932, 1206.617, 1220.12, 1223.294, 1231.708, 1244.63, 1258.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.201}, "reply_to": "15010__0_026", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_028", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But now let's say, according to -- as I understand it then, you already said the board is without discretion if they are presented to at allegations that if true would entitle the registrant to a new or different classification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1258.597], "stop_times": [1274.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.597}, "reply_to": "15010__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_029", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1274.782], "stop_times": [1275.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.782}, "reply_to": "15010__0_028", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_030", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Would that be right?\nSo, in other words and the time process involved in a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1275.118, 1275.829], "stop_times": [1275.829, 1281.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.118}, "reply_to": "15010__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_031", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Assuming its --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1281.391], "stop_times": [1281.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1281.391}, "reply_to": "15010__0_030", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_032", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Personal appearance or reopening of personal appearance set on appeal is a matter of months, I suppose all know it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1281.871], "stop_times": [1286.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.871}, "reply_to": "15010__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_033", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Exactly, and you know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1286.579], "stop_times": [1288.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.579}, "reply_to": "15010__0_032", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_034", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "So, I suppose the registrant could say I am now a member of the United States Senate even though that word demonstrably false and therefore I ask her reclassification as member of the United States Senate.\nAnd according to your submission as I understand it, it would be incumbent upon the board to grant him a personal appearance and that reopen his -- reopen his classification and find that, \u201cNo, he wasn't a member of the United States Senate at all.\u201d\nBut then there would be an appeal and then he could say, \u201cWell, next time -- well, now I am a member of the FBI or I am member of a -- or am I m a divinity student.\u201d\nAnd just go through the various exemptions and deferments until everybody ran out of time and he was over 26 years old, is that -- a registrant couldn't do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1288.023, 1303.89, 1318.492, 1329.138], "stop_times": [1303.89, 1318.492, 1329.138, 1339.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.023}, "reply_to": "15010__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_035", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, it wont do him any good until he reach 26 because under 1631.7 (a) of the regulations, if his number come up, he is liable and he is called notwithstanding that he reaches 26.\nSo, that won't do him any good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1339.738, 1356.733], "stop_times": [1356.733, 1358.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.738}, "reply_to": "15010__0_034", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_036", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, I suppose you went long enough, he could reach 46, if he had not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1358.138], "stop_times": [1361.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.138}, "reply_to": "15010__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_037", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "There are only a limited number of classifications but if I may suggest, I was going to answer Your Honors question, \u201cNo, because I don't want to get into a box of advocating something ridiculous.\u201d\nLet me draw an analogy to a motion for summary judgment.\nI read 1625.1, 2, and 4 as in effect embodying dismissal of a claim on -- sorry, dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.\nThere, we do not look beyond the facts of the claim.\nAssuming that the facts if true, would not entitle the registrant to the claim classification, the board has justified in dismissing.\nBut if the facts, if true, would entitle him to the claim classification, the board must reopen unless there is no genuine issue of material fact.\nIn other words, I would use the same thing as in the summary judgment case.\nSuppose the registrant asks for a reopening on the ground that he is a regularly enrolled student in Cudham College as of January 1.\nOn January 2nd, there is received in his file a letter from the registrar of Cudham College saying that as of January 2nd, he was dismissed.\nAssuming the board verifies this, calls the registrant in, lets him verify this, I would say, \u201cNo.\nThey are not required to reopen and there's no reopening in fact.\u201d\nBut what I am saying is that where the new facts, if true, would entitle the registrant to the claimed classification and it cannot be said that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.\nThis would require a reopening and I think Your Honor that that would answer your question as to the member of the Senate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1361.47, 1372.902, 1376.842, 1393.493, 1398.402, 1409.34, 1421.541, 1425.657, 1434.673, 1444.939, 1452.24, 1456.259, 1471.797], "stop_times": [1372.902, 1376.842, 1393.493, 1398.402, 1409.34, 1421.541, 1425.657, 1434.673, 1444.939, 1452.24, 1456.259, 1471.797, 1479.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.47}, "reply_to": "15010__0_036", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_038", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, I suppose you can, so long as there's an allegation, does this have to be made under oath?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1479.438], "stop_times": [1484.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.438}, "reply_to": "15010__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_039", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I believe that it is provided that all, there are severe penalties for making false statements to the board.\nThat should serve as a sufficient deterrent.\nI really don't think that this is a practical problem.\nThere is nothing to be gained anymore by a registrant delaying this.\nIt won't prevent his induction.\nMoreover, the board --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1484.543, 1490.924, 1493.43, 1496.84, 1501.698, 1503.939], "stop_times": [1490.924, 1493.43, 1496.84, 1501.698, 1503.939, 1505.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.543}, "reply_to": "15010__0_038", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_040", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Does it have to be made under oath?\nDo you have to swear to this, you don't, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1505.01, 1507.72], "stop_times": [1507.72, 1510.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.01}, "reply_to": "15010__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_041", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1510.25], "stop_times": [1510.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1510.25}, "reply_to": "15010__0_040", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_042", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "You just write him a letter, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1510.957], "stop_times": [1512.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.957}, "reply_to": "15010__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_043", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, true, the board held --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1512.351], "stop_times": [1514.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.351}, "reply_to": "15010__0_042", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_044", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Or maybe out of form provided the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1514.198], "stop_times": [1515.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.198}, "reply_to": "15010__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__0_045", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But the board couldn't provide.\nThis provided him the statute that any false statements to the board subject a person to five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00, so that, that should be sufficient deterrent against making false statements.\nI believe I will reserve the time for rebuttal, so if there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1515.643, 1516.883, 1531.291], "stop_times": [1516.883, 1531.291, 1537.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.643}, "reply_to": "15010__0_044", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__0_046", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Thank you counsel.\nMr. Connolly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1537.444, 1538.599], "stop_times": [1538.599, 1541.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.444}, "reply_to": "15010__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__1_000", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and May it please the Court.\nSince Mr. Sedler has taxed the Government for changing its position during this litigation.\nIt seems appropriate for me to restate the Government's position at the outset of my argument.\nI think I can do so in two propositions which I will briefly describe and then return to each in more detail.\nThe first proposition relates to what we believe to be the basic issue of law in this case.\nThat is, what inquiries can a local board make and what issues can it resolved concerning a request for reclassification without the board being deemed to have, in fact, reopen the classification.\nSection 1625.4 of the regulations clearly specifies two issues which are for the primary determination by the board in deciding whether to reopen.\nThe first is whether the facts alleged by the registrant, if true, would justify a change in the registrant's classification.\nThe second issue is whether the facts presented are new facts which were not considered by the board at the time the registrant was classified.\nThe discretionary language of 1625.2 also demonstrates that there are other issues which may be resolved by the board without a reopening.\nThus, we believe that the board may in certain circumstances decide the critical facts are not true and therefore, the reclassification would not be justified.\nThe board also may reach certain conclusions about the facts alleged and deny reopening on that basis, thus, in certainly -- certain narrowly defined classes of cases which I will illustrate presently.\nThe board may conclude that the registrant's civilian work is not in the national interest or that its claim of conscientious objection is not a sincerely held belief.\nInterpreted in this manner, we believe that the regulation affords a necessary flexibility to the Selective Service System to dispose off meritless applications without full administrative procedures.\nThis is necessary as we show in our brief in order to prevent the administrative system from becoming bogged down with such applications and to prevent disingenuous registrants from postponing and perhaps avoiding military service.\nOur second proposition relates to the facts of this case.\nWe submit that what the local board did in this case was to conclude that petitioner had not set forth facts which would justify conscientious objector classification.\nBecause the true premise for his claim was his belief in the importance of his work in Appalachia.\nThis is the determination which the board has clearly authorized to make.\nAnd as I hope to demonstrate later in this argument, the board had a rational basis when the facts of this case for making that determination.\nAnd Mr. Sedler has stated that the Government has conceded that there was a prima facie basis -- prima facie case for reclassification.\nThe Government has made this concession and I should clarify our position.\nWe believe that certain of the facts set forth in petitioners Form 150 and in the accompanying letters, taken together with all doubts resolved in favor of the petitioner and with all inconsistent information disregarded would have constituted a prima facie case.\nBut the question for the local board was whether it should try to piece together the favorable information, resolve doubts in favor of the petitioner, and disregard his own statements that seemed inconsistent with his claim.\nThat was the question which the board resolved after its courtesy interview with the petitioner.\nIt decided that there was no reason to reopen because the facts as explained by the petitioner did not justify reclassification.\nNow as to the point of law involved in this case, I would like to give three illustrations of what I think would be the Government's position as to what inquiries the board can make without reopening and what issues it can resolve without reopening.\nI think the first illustration was elicited in Mr. Sedlers colloquy with Mr. Justice Stewart concerning the question, whether the registrant is a student at X College, whether he is a United States Senator or perhaps whether his wife is pregnant as he alleges.\nWe believe that the discretion granted to the board in Section 1625.2 allows the board to inquire into that critical fact, if true and if the fact is found not true, then to deny a reopening on that basis.\nThe second illustration that I would give is a situation where a registrant claims that he is employed in the national interest and let's suppose that he says that he is employed in an electronics factory making radar scopes for jet fighter planes.\nNow in that case, we do believe that the board, if there's no reason to doubt the truth of the facts, would be required to reopening consider that claim on the merits.\nThe situation might be different if there were another case in which the registrant alleged that he was employed in such and such a factory and the board had very recently decided in the case on the merits that someone doing exactly what this registrant was doing was not in the national interest.\nPerhaps in that case, the board would be justified in claiming to reopen without full consideration.\nThe third example would, in this area would almost be humorous but in the situation which is very clear that the occupation is not deferrable and said that he was a good humorous salesman or something like that.\nWe think that the board could deny a reopening.\nNow, the third example is the situation of the conscientious objector and as the cases illustrate, there are two issues for the board to resolve on the merits in that case, first is, what is the character of the registrants belief?\nThat is what does -- what does he really \u2013 I will put this way, what does he say that he believes concerning his moral objection to participation in war?\nWhat is the nature of that belief?\nThe second issue is the sincerity of this belief that is -- does he really, genuinely believe what he says he believes about participation in war or is this a claim of convenience?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1541.038, 1544.585, 1550.762, 1556.438, 1565.154, 1571.206, 1587.04, 1600.191, 1610.968, 1620.951, 1633.219, 1643.876, 1658.415, 1669.934, 1685.447, 1703.772, 1708.229, 1720.262, 1728.641, 1733.214, 1743.177, 1753.271, 1758.219, 1777.607, 1792.637, 1798.454, 1811.083, 1828.509, 1847.086, 1867.669, 1885.378, 1897.041, 1916.794, 1923.262, 1936.596, 1942.239, 1958.226, 1972.141, 1975.068], "stop_times": [1544.585, 1550.762, 1556.438, 1565.154, 1571.206, 1587.04, 1600.191, 1610.968, 1620.951, 1633.219, 1643.876, 1658.415, 1669.934, 1685.447, 1703.772, 1708.229, 1720.262, 1728.641, 1733.214, 1743.177, 1753.271, 1758.219, 1777.607, 1792.637, 1798.454, 1811.083, 1828.509, 1847.086, 1867.669, 1885.378, 1897.041, 1916.794, 1923.262, 1936.596, 1942.239, 1958.226, 1972.141, 1975.068, 1988.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1541.038}, "reply_to": "15010__0_046", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_001", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Would you agree Mr. Connolly with your adversary that the circuits are at odds on what the standard for reopening is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1988.66], "stop_times": [1997.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.66}, "reply_to": "15010__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__1_002", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "There is some disagreement among the circuits, Mr. Justice, on this.\nI think the six --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [1997.135, 2001.248], "stop_times": [2001.248, 2002.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1997.135}, "reply_to": "15010__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_003", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Second Circuit is partly against these decisions, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2002.783], "stop_times": [2006.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.783}, "reply_to": "15010__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__1_004", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Yes, it is.\nIt's illustrated its position in somewhat of a different context in the Gearey line of cases.\nBut of course, those cases did involve a claim of conscientious objection made after an induction notice has been sent but very similar issues are presented by this case.\nWe would submit that in most instances, that second issue for the board to resolve that I said, whether this man really believes what he says he believes.\n\u201cWhat's in his mind?\u201d\nIs a question that could not be resolved by the board without a reopening which would give the registrant an opportunity -- a formal opportunity for appearance before the board and appeal to the State Appeals Board.\nWe would say however, that there might certain cases in which even that claim, that issue can be resolved by the board without a reopening.\nIf the registrant claims that his conscientious objection to military service is based for example upon study in a monastery or in a divinity school or a strong association with the peace church or a peace group and the board finds by reliable means that those allegations are untrue.\nIt might make the decision without reopening that this registrant is insincere in his claim.\nI think that's a justifiable decision in this case and in all these other lines of cases.\nIf there's any prejudice that would result to the registrant in that case, in any of those cases from the board's erroneous view, the registrant could learn what the reason could a local board's decision was and if it secured erroneous information, he could correct the record and the case would proceed from that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2006.611, 2007.406, 2015.802, 2029.874, 2042.608, 2044.745, 2060.518, 2069.331, 2092.766, 2099.608, 2104.986], "stop_times": [2007.406, 2015.802, 2029.874, 2042.608, 2044.745, 2060.518, 2069.331, 2092.766, 2099.608, 2104.986, 2125.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.611}, "reply_to": "15010__1_003", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_005", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But you said the board finds by reliable means that -- that what he says is not true or they find that they think it's not true, what kind or what sort of reliable means are they going to find out about this?\nAll they have is his statement, his allegation.\nThere's no response as I understand it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2125.262, 2141.629, 2144.763], "stop_times": [2141.629, 2144.763, 2148.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.262}, "reply_to": "15010__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__1_006", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That's right because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2148.083], "stop_times": [2148.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.083}, "reply_to": "15010__1_005", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_007", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "It's not an adversary proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2148.568], "stop_times": [2150.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.568}, "reply_to": "15010__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__1_008", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, they could write a letter.\nDepending upon what the claim was, write a letter to the source from which that claim originates.\nThe referent in a statement of fact and if the referent writes back in a letter that looks like it comes from the referent, that says, \u201cI've never heard of the registrant.\nHe has never been engaged in any peace work with our organization, never been employed in our plant, never attended our school.\u201d\nI would submit that that would be a basis for the board saying, \u201cNo, you haven't made out a case on the -- you haven't alleged facts which if true would justify your reclassification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2150.61, 2153.78, 2160.164, 2171.448, 2179.532], "stop_times": [2153.78, 2160.164, 2171.448, 2179.532, 2194.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.61}, "reply_to": "15010__1_007", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_009", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Do Selective Service Boards actually write letters to these --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2194.653], "stop_times": [2200.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.653}, "reply_to": "15010__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__1_010", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I don't know.\nI do know.\nI do know that they verify academic deferments in some way -- few correspondents with the universities and colleges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2200.861, 2201.336, 2202.019], "stop_times": [2201.336, 2202.019, 2214.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.861}, "reply_to": "15010__1_009", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_011", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "The usual practice, I suppose, is to have the registrant himself, when he asked for a classification is supply the documentary support for it, isn't that the basic --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2214.264], "stop_times": [2224.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.264}, "reply_to": "15010__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15010__1_012", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That's usually done but I believe that there is some practice of verifying with him.\nThere's certainly nothing in the regulations which would preclude the board from doing that and indeed 1625.1 (c) appears to contemplate that the board will do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2224.435, 2231.931], "stop_times": [2231.931, 2245.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.435}, "reply_to": "15010__1_011", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_013", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But nothing like that was done in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2245.241], "stop_times": [2247.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.241}, "reply_to": "15010__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_014", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "No, sir.\nNothing would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2247.794, 2248.922], "stop_times": [2248.922, 2249.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.794}, "reply_to": "15010__1_013", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_015", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But how long would it take you or I to find out whether the man was a conscientious objector?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2249.387], "stop_times": [2256.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.387}, "reply_to": "15010__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_016", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "It depends on the type of claims that he makes to support his claim for being a conscientious objector, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2256.928], "stop_times": [2264.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.928}, "reply_to": "15010__1_015", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_017", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "You think you could do it in 10 minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2264.312], "stop_times": [2269.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.312}, "reply_to": "15010__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_018", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "If --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2269.687], "stop_times": [2269.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.687}, "reply_to": "15010__1_017", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_019", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "In order to satisfy your own conscience --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2269.852], "stop_times": [2272.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.852}, "reply_to": "15010__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_020", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "If I were faced with a fully ripened claim of conscientious objection which appeared to be based upon some long standing belief, some basis in -- at the individuals -- in the registrant's religious doctrines.\nIf the claim was premised to -- it was evidenced by prior statements of objection to participation in war and activities to objection to participation in war.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2272.318, 2291.649], "stop_times": [2291.649, 2303.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.318}, "reply_to": "15010__1_019", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_021", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Could it take you -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2303.437], "stop_times": [2304.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.437}, "reply_to": "15010__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_022", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "No, I don't think I could do that in 10 minutes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2304.043], "stop_times": [2306.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.043}, "reply_to": "15010__1_021", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_023", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Could it take you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2306.704], "stop_times": [2307.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.704}, "reply_to": "15010__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_024", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But that's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2307.243], "stop_times": [2308.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.243}, "reply_to": "15010__1_023", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_025", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Could it take as long as the Second Circuit took to decide Seager?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2308.951], "stop_times": [2314.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.951}, "reply_to": "15010__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_026", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2314.136], "stop_times": [2315.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.136}, "reply_to": "15010__1_025", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_027", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Could it take you as long as it took the Second Circuit to decide Seager?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2315.039], "stop_times": [2320.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.039}, "reply_to": "15010__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_028", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I am not sure -- I don't know the full, the fact to which you refer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2320.71], "stop_times": [2325.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.71}, "reply_to": "15010__1_027", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_029", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "The Seager case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2325.939], "stop_times": [2327.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.939}, "reply_to": "15010__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_030", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Seager case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2327.121], "stop_times": [2327.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.121}, "reply_to": "15010__1_029", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_031", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2327.685], "stop_times": [2328.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.685}, "reply_to": "15010__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_032", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I don't know how long it took them to resolve --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2328.627], "stop_times": [2330.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.627}, "reply_to": "15010__1_031", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_033", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Where it could take that long \u2013 I don't find a little merit in this ten minute hearing or something is serious as this is, admittedly serious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2330.176], "stop_times": [2341.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.176}, "reply_to": "15010__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_034", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Mr. Justice, well, I intend to get to in a few minutes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2341.573], "stop_times": [2345.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.573}, "reply_to": "15010__1_033", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_035", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Oh, I am sorry.\nI am sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2345.338, 2346.047], "stop_times": [2346.047, 2347.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.338}, "reply_to": "15010__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_036", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "-- is the phrasing of what issue was before the Local Selective Service Board in this case and what inquiry it was making.\nThe inquiry that it was making was not the inquiry that I suggested earlier.\nNow, well, do you really believe what you said you believe?\nThe inquiry before the local board and this is evidence in answer to an earlier question by Mr. Justice Harlan by what the board said it did after the interview.\nThe inquiry before the board was \u201cIs this man really claiming a conscientious objection to warn any form or is he rehearsing, the positions that he is taking with respect to the importance of this civilian employment?\"", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2347.062, 2354.66, 2359.487, 2364.223, 2374.497], "stop_times": [2354.66, 2359.487, 2364.223, 2374.497, 2388.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.062}, "reply_to": "15010__1_035", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_037", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, a couple of these gentlemen is kind of peripheral that (Inaudible) that it seemed to be of two of the boards, the two members of the board or one of them said they really didn't question as to the man's sincerity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2388.084], "stop_times": [2407.014], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.084}, "reply_to": "15010__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_038", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That's -- that is correct Mr. Justice Harlan.\nThat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2407.014, 2409.407], "stop_times": [2409.407, 2410.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.014}, "reply_to": "15010__1_037", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_039", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Money is to what in the world they didn't do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2410.291], "stop_times": [2413.106], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.291}, "reply_to": "15010__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_040", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "It's not a very good record to reach in and decide exactly what the local board did in this case.\nMy recollection of the record is correct only two of the board members testified as to the basis for their conclusion in this case that the classification should not be reopened and both of those testified in effect that what this man was really saying to us is what he had said before that he believes that his participation in the Appalachia volunteers is a critical and vital matter -- both to him and to the community and that it would be immoral, if you will, to take him away to fight in Vietnam at this time.\nSo, I am not -- I approach my discussion of what the record shows in this case with a bit of hesitancy because the board members hardly were articulate in their views and it's not a very good case to decide.\nThat's what I have tried to concentrate mostly upon the legal standards of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2413.106, 2421.283, 2458.476, 2480.402], "stop_times": [2421.283, 2458.476, 2480.402, 2487.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.106}, "reply_to": "15010__1_039", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_041", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That's all bound up in it because the consequences sustaining your position here is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2487.172], "stop_times": [2491.313], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.172}, "reply_to": "15010__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_042", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2491.313], "stop_times": [2492.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.313}, "reply_to": "15010__1_041", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_043", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Is that nobody reviewed the underlying merits of this claim because there is never been reopened.\nIt doesn't get his administrative appeal and he gets no judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2492.761, 2501.518], "stop_times": [2501.518, 2505.572], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.761}, "reply_to": "15010__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_044", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice, we believe that the regulations and fundamental fairness contemplate that result.\nThe regulations do contemplate that an individual who doesn't alleged facts which if true would justify a reclassification.\nIt does not get a reopening and it does not get an appearance before the board and an appeal and we believe that that is an appropriate regulation and a fair regulation because what it does is to prevent really the kind of situation that Mr. Justice Stewart was suggesting in his colloquy with Mr. Sedler, that is you first start with the United States Senator then go to Congressman and go on and on and on and run down the line.\nYou do run out of time so, I think that I've tried to state that the fundamental premise of our legal position which is that the board -- it is very necessary for the board to have some means of disposing of meritless cases.\nSome way to decide and if it is a preliminary matter whether a case has merit or doesn't have merit principally or whether it alleges the necessary facts to justify reclassification, but also to suggest some of the issues which the board can reach in making that decision consistent with the regulation, consistent with fundamental fairness.\nNow, the remaining time, I would like to go through it and just to illustrate to the Court the kind of facts and allegations that the local board was confronted with in this case which would suggest the reason for inquiry and some of the -- and justify our argument, I believe that what the board decided was based upon facts that it fairly had before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2505.572, 2514.54, 2523.722, 2556.236, 2575.537, 2597.961], "stop_times": [2514.54, 2523.722, 2556.236, 2575.537, 2597.961, 2624.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.572}, "reply_to": "15010__1_043", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_045", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Mr. Connolly, will you include in that the charge that's made that the board didn't know what they were doing?\nI think the two go together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2624.397, 2631.725], "stop_times": [2631.725, 2634.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.397}, "reply_to": "15010__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_046", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, I think -- I would like to speak to that and perhaps -- this time perhaps to dispose off it, but we have discussed it at some length in our brief and I don't intend to go into it very deeply.\nI disagree with Mr. Sedlers statement that the decision was made to deny reopening on the afternoon of November 9th, although there is some support in the record for Mr. Sedlers statement.\nI believe that the record taken as a whole including the further testimony, including the testimony of a board member who wasn't even there at that interview but who read the file, read the petitioner's file, read the summary of his interview and then decided on January 11 to vote against reopening.\nI think that the record as a whole shows that these \u2013 that even though there might have been a disposition against reopening by those members who were present at the November 9th meeting that that disposition did not ripen into a decision until January 11th, until they had all read the file, until they had given it mature consideration.\nAs to the question, as to whether they knew what they were doing.\nI don't believe that that's really supported by the record at all.\nThere is some very cursory, very short examination of what I would concede to be quite inarticulate board members which related very, very specifically to the labels of classifications to be given and I don't think that it can be concluded on that basis that these board members were, I believe, Mr. Sedler has used the word incompetent to decide this claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2634.588, 2645.569, 2665.525, 2686.183, 2709.384, 2713.498, 2716.553], "stop_times": [2645.569, 2665.525, 2686.183, 2709.384, 2713.498, 2716.553, 2741.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.588}, "reply_to": "15010__1_045", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_047", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "What would it mean if somebody mistakenly had accepted a job deferment during some kind of work that this man was doing, but he was a conscientious objector, he believed in all other things that Seager believed in but he thought that this was a type of work which was in exchange for him being not drafted and then somebody tells him, \u201cLook, if you are a conscientious objector, you have to set forth that you want this because you are a conscientious objector.\u201d\nAnd then, he says, he could be reclassified as a conscientious objector, could he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2741.999, 2778.998], "stop_times": [2778.998, 2784.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.999}, "reply_to": "15010__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_048", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2784.31], "stop_times": [2785.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.31}, "reply_to": "15010__1_047", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_049", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Would be not -- but you say, in this, he has got all the two of them combined together without any means of you separated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2785.544], "stop_times": [2793.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.544}, "reply_to": "15010__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15010__1_050", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "That's right but I think what we have to look to in this case is that there was a proceeding, there was a personal interview with the registrant before the local board in which he did have that chance to separate out the considerations to tell the local board exactly what his religious beliefs were and what his conscientious beliefs were to focus on them.\nAnd then and to alleviate any possible confusion which the board had and we have two board members after that interview in which we must, we must presume that they gave him fair consideration at that time, fairly tried to resolve any doubts.\nThey said that what this man essentially wants, what he considers important is his work at the Appalachia volunteers.\nAnd to illustrate that Mr. Justice Marshall, I'd like to jump ahead of myself and go to the letter which petitioner wrote to his local board after that interview and I think it's a very revealing letter.\nHe starts out, this on page 58, 59 of the appendix.\nHe starts out by saying, \u201cI've been thinking about the short interview I had with you all last week.\nIt doesn't seem to me that all the points were covered that should've been and that I was not able to fully express my position of conscience.\u201d\nThat's a way he starts out.\nHe has some reservations that he didn't get across to the board when he really wanted to get across to them.\nBut what is he going on to say.\nHe starts out by saying, \u201cThese are certainly trouble times in this country.\u201d\nThen he talks about discrimination and poverty, the coming revolution, \u201cAnother revolution is beginning to take place in this country.\nI, of course, hope that this revolution takes a non-violent form but I remind you that I'm an organizer, that I've dedicated my life to change into the constant struggle that is democracy.\nThere is nothing that can stop me from organizing against something that I don't believe.\u201d\nAnd then down the paragraph on page 59, \u201cI told you that I felt I was serving my country's needs here in Pike County.\u201d\nThat was no frivolous statement.\nThe problems are too great to be ignored any longer and no one should be sent to another country as long as we are in the mess we're in.\nSo, that's what he really wanted to get across to the board.\nThis is a letter written some three days after his interview.\nSo, I think Mr. Justice Marshall that even though we have -- we don't know exactly what he said in that interview.\nWe have the fact to the interview.\nWe have the ambiguities in the petitioner's own form which I'm going to bring out just a second and we have a local board that we must presume gave fair consideration concluding what the man really wanted was what he had before.\nAn opportunity to continue his organizing work in Appalachia and I think that that's clearly demonstrated by his subsequent letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2793.781, 2822.135, 2839.245, 2847.631, 2863.063, 2867.156, 2873.925, 2882.849, 2884.015, 2889.023, 2890.968, 2895.163, 2905.71, 2918.304, 2923.431, 2931.888, 2933.728, 2942.932, 2945.501, 2951.675, 2959.71, 2962.033, 2981.171], "stop_times": [2822.135, 2839.245, 2847.631, 2863.063, 2867.156, 2873.925, 2882.849, 2884.015, 2889.023, 2890.968, 2895.163, 2905.71, 2918.304, 2923.431, 2931.888, 2933.728, 2942.932, 2945.501, 2951.675, 2959.71, 2962.033, 2981.171, 2990.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.781}, "reply_to": "15010__1_049", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_051", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "This type of communication from him probably explains why the board felt he was sincere even if perhaps confused young man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2990.145], "stop_times": [2999.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.145}, "reply_to": "15010__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__1_052", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I think that's right Mr. Chief Justice and while you have mentioned that point, I'd like to go back and to clarify any ambiguity which might have arisen from the Government's brief on the question of sincerity.\nWe believe that the question before the board is that the question of the board phrased for itself was.\nThis is a very sincere young man.\nBut is he a very sincere or what?\nAnd the way that the board resolved that was that he's a very sincere Appalachia volunteer who believed that it was essential for him and it's a matter of conscience for him to remain in his present work organizing the poor in Appalachia.\nSo, the board -- the board did not in any way suggested that petitioner was being mendacious or less than candid with them.\nI think that it decided that what the petitioner wanted was a continuation of his classification.\nNow, to go on -- I'm just going to take some highlights from the petitioner's Selective Service conscientious objector form which is Form 150 in this printed page -- beginning at page 15 of the appendix and to go on to page, over to page 16, there is a series of questions which the petitioner answered at length in an appendix.\nHe didn't use the forms.\nBut question number three was, \u201cExplain how, when, and from whom or from what source you received the training and acquired the belief which is the basis of your claim made in series one.\u201d\nThe claim made in series one that he's conscientiously opposed to military service in any form.\nAnd he began his long answer to that question on page 19 of the appendix, it goes on to say that -- it starts by saying, he was born to catholic parents and inspired by missionary orders and had apparently catholic school training up to high school then become deeply troubled and faced a religious crisis and incidentally attempted suicide.\nThen after that, he says, he began to get back on the right track and came under the influence of Thomas Merton who was then residing in a monastery in Kentucky.\nAnd he says that Merton was very influential when he's formulating his views.\nAnd then he reaches in on page 21 for the whole rest of the answer to talk about the inspiration of his work as an Appalachia volunteer and his credo is set forth at the bottom of page 21, I suppose.\n\"As I grew and participated in the world, I was able to determine a priority on the things I learned as a child.\"\nThus, I place love of my fellowmen above regular church attendance and I place 'Thou shall not kill' above 'an eye for an eye'.\nI learned rapidly in my work in the southern highlands that the significance of love and understanding and the futility of violence and force.\nToo many poor people have been used and walked on by the power-hungry courthouse gangs.\nThere was an urgent need for the poor to become organized and the rich to be educated.\nThis must be done in a non-violent way.\n\"Violence only breeds violence.\"\nThis is what appears to be a culmination of what he should have been alleging to be a religious -- religiously founded opposition to participation in war in any form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [2999.288, 3013.24, 3020.065, 3022.806, 3025.519, 3042.183, 3053.78, 3061.09, 3093.353, 3095.809, 3110.741, 3117.247, 3149.622, 3161.168, 3167.545, 3186.971, 3193.837, 3202.156, 3211.044, 3216.53, 3221.977, 3224.687, 3227.522], "stop_times": [3013.24, 3020.065, 3022.806, 3025.519, 3042.183, 3053.78, 3061.09, 3093.353, 3095.809, 3110.741, 3117.247, 3149.622, 3161.168, 3167.545, 3186.971, 3193.837, 3202.156, 3211.044, 3216.53, 3221.977, 3224.687, 3227.522, 3244.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.288}, "reply_to": "15010__1_051", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_053", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Is it your position that that does not make out what someone would call a prima facie case, to be that you are a conscientious objector?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3244.821], "stop_times": [3254.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.821}, "reply_to": "15010__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15010__1_054", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "It's our position that there -- the ambiguities inherent in that statement and other statements which I perhaps will get a chance to read plus statements of the registrant which so plainly indicated to him the primary importance of his work tended to justify the board's conclusion or did justify the board's conclusion that it ought not to try to piece together the various individual statements which might have justified a reclassification in order to decide whether to reopen.\nWe don't doubt Mr. Justice Black that if you did do what I suggested early in the argument to piece all these statements together and what you might regard as a brief for the conscientious objector to resolve any ambiguities in his favor and to disregard its significant emphasis on his belief in the importance of his job but you could conclude --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3254.398, 3297.221], "stop_times": [3297.221, 3323.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3254.398}, "reply_to": "15010__1_053", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_055", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "But what is the ambiguity of it.\nI thought just reading through them, I read all these records, I thought that he indicated that he had been taught from the childhood not to kill people he didn't believe in it and he had conscientious objections during it and that he would consider it murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3323.126, 3324.904], "stop_times": [3324.904, 3342.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3323.126}, "reply_to": "15010__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15010__1_056", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, there are -- there are I believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3342.764], "stop_times": [3345.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3342.764}, "reply_to": "15010__1_055", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_057", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I'm not saying there should have been exceptions of what's not enough to call for some kind of a theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3345.029], "stop_times": [3353.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.029}, "reply_to": "15010__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15010__1_058", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "No, I don't believe so Mr. Justice Black.\nIn light of the fact that the other statements which he made in his form suggested that this wasn't the -- that this wasn't the primary thrust of his belief.\nIt was a statement which stands out.\nI mean, it's a sufficient -- it's a sufficient allegation perhaps of conscientious objection just as assigning the first line of that form is a sufficient allegation of conscientious objection.\nBut we don't believe that the board is required to reopen and give full consideration just merely because the individual signs that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3353.704, 3356.696, 3369.623, 3372.274, 3388.051], "stop_times": [3356.696, 3369.623, 3372.274, 3388.051, 3395.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3353.704}, "reply_to": "15010__1_057", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_059", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, the trouble is that you said earlier, you can't tell what basis the board went on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3395.76], "stop_times": [3402.464], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3395.76}, "reply_to": "15010__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_060", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, we think that we -- you know, I -- all I've got --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3402.464], "stop_times": [3405.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3402.464}, "reply_to": "15010__1_059", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_061", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "You're justifying the set of assumptions which has to be a premised on the fact that you cannot tell the specificity or any sense of assurance what ground the board went on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3405.183], "stop_times": [3416.879], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3405.183}, "reply_to": "15010__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_062", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Well, all I've got is the statement of the board members that their conclusion, the basis of their consideration and after the courtesy interview was that what this man really wanted was that -- now, then the question really becomes well, who bears the risk of non-persuasion if it resolves --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3416.879], "stop_times": [3442.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3416.879}, "reply_to": "15010__1_061", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_063", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "I suggest to you that there is the Court of Appeals -- the Court of Appeals did indicate what he wanted \u2013 that he did not think that what he'd been alleged was sufficient to make other prima facie case of conscientious objections and you gentlemen, the Government in its brief now concedes that in effect, the Court of Appeals is in error -- In other words, you concede that the papers as I read in your brief, the papers did make out a claim of conscientious objection and you have to pin your argument on refusal to reopen on the grounds that the board has more power to that and then when it comes to what that power is, you're up again and yet you're dealing with a record to which on your own statement, you say, you can't tell what the board decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3442.249], "stop_times": [3495.734], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3442.249}, "reply_to": "15010__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_064", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "It's not a strong record.\nIf I have to reach to that point, then all I can -- I can elaborate on the record, I can just say what it says but in answer to your penultimate statement, what I try to do early in the argument is to say that there maybe enough here if you piece it together the right way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3495.734, 3497.525], "stop_times": [3497.525, 3516.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3495.734}, "reply_to": "15010__1_063", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_065", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3516.285], "stop_times": [3517.54], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.285}, "reply_to": "15010__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15010__1_066", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3517.54], "stop_times": [3518.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3517.54}, "reply_to": "15010__1_065", "speaker": "joseph_j_connolly"}
{"id": "15010__1_067", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Connolly.\nMr. Sedler. Mr. Sedler, you have five minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3518.949, 3520.046], "stop_times": [3520.046, 3524.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3518.949}, "reply_to": "15010__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15010__2_000", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "You're Honor.\nTo get back to the first point that I made, the issue before this Court is not whether petitioner Mulloy is a conscientious objector or whether there is a basis in fact for a board's merit decision followed by an appeal that a man was not a conscientious objector.\nThe issue before the Court is was the board required to reopen and give the man an appeal.\nThat's all we were asking in this case, is to have an appeal.\nThe Government has gone through the file pointing out that the board could've found this and the board could've found that.\nFor purposes of argument, let's assume that the board could've done this.\nUnder the regulations, this decision is also to be made by an appeals board.\nIn this case, it is the petitioner who was arguing for adherence to the regulations.\nAnd it's the Government that is arguing for a broad interpretation of the regulations for which it confined no support.\nThe clear scheme of the regulations is that merits determinations are to be reviewed where a man makes out a prima facie case or a new classification -- (Inaudible) a claim that had never been made before.\nWhen a man makes out a prima facie case for a new classification, assuming that there is an issue of material fact, and certainly the Government's argument makes it clear that there was such an issue.\nThen the procedure provided in the regulations is for the board to reopen.\nMake a decision, then give the man a personal appearance, so that he can fully tell his side of the story, present his version, try to correct the board.\nThen, if the board still keeps him in that classification, the case is reviewed de novo by the appeals board.\nSo, that's all we're talking about here.\nShould there have been an appeal.\nThe consequences that the Government talks about are imaginary and all of the other circuits; the boards have been required to reopen whenever a prima facie case has been presented.\nThe draft hasn't stopped functioning.\nAll that it is meant is that people will get a fair chance.\nThe present petitioner is under a sentence of five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00 following a determination that is basically made for 10 minutes and I repeat Your Honors, they never read the record.\nIt seems to me and maybe I have an advantage here over the Government's counsel because I've tried the case from the beginning that we're in never, never land.\nThe Government has attributed these highly sophisticated mental processes to the board but the board never read the file.\nThey never carefully went through the SSS Form 150.\nIt may well have been that on the basis of what they heard at the interview, they thought he was asking for an occupational deferment.\nThey couldn't have reached that conclusion, if they would've read his SSS Form 150 and they would've seen as Your Honors pointed out from the bench, the correlation between his views.\nNow, we're talking about a young man, this time 23 years old who wasn't represented by counsel.\nMaybe if lawyers were allowed to appear before draft boards, we could clear some of these things up.\nIf the board members had these doubts, why didn't the board member asked him?\nNow, Mr. Mulloy, let's be clear, what are you claiming?\nAre you claiming classification as a conscientious objector or do you want an occupational deferment?\nNobody asked him that.\nNobody asked any questions at all.\nHe was entitled to assume that they read the record, which they didn't.\nWe're told that we're supposed to presume that these proceedings are fair and regular.\nI would submit with all due deference, you can't presume that on the record that we have here because the board members simply did not read the file.\nNow, we're talking about the most difficult classification here that of conscientious objector.\nThe board members throughout assumed the sincerity of the petitioner.\nThey assumed that he was sincere in his beliefs.\nThose beliefs are essentially religious beliefs.\nThis is clear from a reading of the Form 150.\nIt's clear from the letter from the Catholic priest.\nIt's clear from the other evidence from the file.\nI would submit that there is no evidence in the file at all, that is inconsistent with the claim of conscientious objector status.\nSo that what the issue comes down to on the procedural questions is when does a draft board have to reopen?\nWe would submit that the board must reopen whenever a pre-induction claim is made for a new classification.\nI believe my time has expired Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3524.267, 3526.666, 3549.472, 3556.565, 3561.472, 3570.465, 3574.673, 3582.511, 3588.568, 3596.592, 3613.326, 3626.86, 3632.991, 3644.217, 3651.588, 3654.118, 3657.526, 3669.393, 3671.772, 3675.935, 3694.303, 3702.774, 3712.533, 3716.085, 3724.589, 3737.114, 3743.181, 3750.155, 3757.659, 3761.402, 3768.342, 3769.997, 3772.687, 3778.223, 3782.728, 3796.137, 3804.598, 3811.071, 3813.846, 3817.786, 3821.515, 3825.039, 3828.013, 3837.992, 3848.835, 3857.751, 3860.276], "stop_times": [3526.666, 3549.472, 3556.565, 3561.472, 3570.465, 3574.673, 3582.511, 3588.568, 3596.592, 3613.326, 3626.86, 3632.991, 3644.217, 3651.588, 3654.118, 3657.526, 3669.393, 3671.772, 3675.935, 3694.303, 3702.774, 3712.533, 3716.085, 3724.589, 3737.114, 3743.181, 3750.155, 3757.659, 3761.402, 3768.342, 3769.997, 3772.687, 3778.223, 3782.728, 3796.137, 3804.598, 3811.071, 3813.846, 3817.786, 3821.515, 3825.039, 3828.013, 3837.992, 3848.835, 3857.751, 3860.276, 3862.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3524.267}, "reply_to": "15010__1_067", "speaker": "robert_allen_sedler"}
{"id": "15010__2_001", "conversation_id": "15010", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sedler.\nThank your for your submission and you, Mr. Connolly.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_655", "start_times": [3862.993, 3865.274, 3868.151], "stop_times": [3865.274, 3868.151, 3869.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3862.993}, "reply_to": "15010__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_000", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Next case on for argument is number 678, Nash against the United States.\nMr. Apolinsky' you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [0.0, 25.805], "stop_times": [25.805, 28.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_001", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis is an income tax case on the writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.\nThe question is whether the balance in a reserve for bad debts maintained by a partnership and stipulated by the parties to be reasonable must be taken into ordinary income or not by the partnership when it incorporates its business under Section 351 of the Internal Review Code.\nSection 351 providing that no gain or loss will be recognized if property is transferred to a controlled corporation and it\u2019s agreed by the parties that the transfers' the incorporations here are within the purview of Section 351.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [28.646, 33.367, 42.848, 71.777], "stop_times": [33.367, 42.848, 71.777, 96.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 28.646}, "reply_to": "15314__0_000", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_002", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What would have happened to this reserve if they have liquidated Mr. Apolinsky?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [96.111], "stop_times": [102.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 96.111}, "reply_to": "15314__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_003", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If the partnership had liquidated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [102.013], "stop_times": [103.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 102.013}, "reply_to": "15314__0_002", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_004", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They just liquidated it would've -- would it have gone into ordinary income then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [103.973], "stop_times": [109.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.973}, "reply_to": "15314__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_005", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, Your Honor, under the partnership concept, liquidating to the various partners, each would have taken his pro rata part of the receivable with the reserve and it would not have come into the income of the partners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [109.302], "stop_times": [126.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.302}, "reply_to": "15314__0_004", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_006", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It wouldn't have entered the transaction at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [126.079], "stop_times": [128.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.079}, "reply_to": "15314__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_007", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No sir.\nBecause you have come straight through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [128.36, 129.376], "stop_times": [129.376, 131.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 128.36}, "reply_to": "15314__0_006", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_008", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "He should have taken his pro rata part of the receivables plus -- and his pro rata part of the reserve, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [131.842], "stop_times": [138.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.842}, "reply_to": "15314__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_009", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Stewart --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [138.787], "stop_times": [139.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.787}, "reply_to": "15314__0_008", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_010", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "The partnership probably has to report as an entity, it isn\u2019t a taxable entity basically?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [139.422], "stop_times": [144.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.422}, "reply_to": "15314__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_011", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [144.326], "stop_times": [144.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.326}, "reply_to": "15314__0_010", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_012", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It\u2019s a group of individuals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [144.889], "stop_times": [146.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.889}, "reply_to": "15314__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_013", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right and in this situation, this partnership operated 10 finance businesses, two in South Carolina and eight in Alabama.\nIt made loans to the public and it used the accrual method of accounting under which it would take into its ordinary income the profit on a loan, the receivable in the year in which the loan was made and the receivable established.\nIt accounted for its bad debts by the use of the reserve method for the bad debts allowed under Section 166 of the Code.\nActually, a taxpayer can use either of two methods.\nIt can use the direct charge-off method which allows you to charge against income in the year that the account goes bad or a taxpayer can anticipate its losses as far as specific accounts are concerned and establish a reserve for bad debts and based on its experience, estimate the amount of the accounts receivable which will go bad and charge that amount against income when it establishes its reserve.\nThe reserve is reviewed annually and any additions to the reserve are likewise charged against income as a deduction and they're limited of course to the reasonableness of the reserve which in our situation is stipulated.\nOn May 31, 1960, the partnership had about approximately $487,000.00 worth of receivables in these eight Alabama offices and approximately a $73,000.00 balance in its reserve for bad debts applicable to those eight offices.\nIt then on June 1 transferred to eight separate corporations for it attained a benefit under the Alabama loan licensing statutes by have eight separate corporate offices that could lend money and it transferred to those eight offices the receivables applicable to the eight corporations.\nThe furniture and fixtures applicable to the eight corporations, cash applicable to the eight corporations and liabilities taking back stock and security solely for the net value transferred to the partnership to the corporations.\nIt continued the same businesses in the eight corporations and what it did, the corporations then set up the reserve, they had an opening balance which they reflected in their reserve for bad debts in total and we\u2019re dealing here in both briefs with the total concept.\nThe total amount of the reserves reflected in the opening balance sheets of these eight corporations was $73,000.00.\nIn 1962, the Commission of Internal Revenue issued his Revenue Ruling 62-128 where he first expressed the position that the reserve for which being maintained by a partnership would be taken back into the ordinary income of the partnership when it transfers its assets even though such transfer being under the tax free rules generally of Section 351 and thereafter, the Commissioner's agent examined the returns of the partnership which made a determination that the $73,000.00 of reserve should be restored to the ordinary income of the partnership in its year which ended in 1961.\nThis increased the distributive share of income to the partners and therefore the partner\u2019s income increased in 1961.\nThey paid their tax, filed a claim for refund and filed suit in District Court, the District Court upholding the taxpayer's position that the reserve would not be restored to income relying on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case of the Estate of Heinz Schmidt.\nThe Government\u2019s appeal to the Fifth Circuit where the Fifth Circuit said they disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and agreed with the Tax Court and sustained the Commissioner's position and hence this writ of certiorari.\nWe maintain that the clear legislative history of Section 351 precludes this end rule, this creation of income to the partnership when it incorporates its business under that Section.\nIt came into the law.\nSection 351 came into the law in 1921 at the same time Congress first enacted the reorganization provisions and also enacted the tax free exchanges of real estate provisions.\nAnd the Senate's Finance Committee in its report in 1921 said that they had been -- they recounted that the prior law, under the prior law before 1921, this would have been a taxable event, a reorganization or the organization of a corporation as we have here would be in a taxable event before 1921 and they said there had been no provision which had more seriously interfered with necessary business readjustments than these prior laws and therefore they put in these tax free exchange provisions.\nThey said they specifically sought to eliminate technical constructions which are economically unsound and interfered with necessary business readjustments.\nIn 1924, Congress considered the carryover basis sections of the code which are the corollary to tax-free exchanges, the corporation taking a carryover basis and they had an opportunity to express their views again, the House Ways and Means Committee as to the purpose of the predecessor of Section 351 of the Code where they said that this Section 351 and the reorganization sections were not intended to be exemptions from taxation.\nThat they were recognitions that these changes were merely changes in form and not in substance and would not be given to recognition of income, that any recognition of income would be postponed until there was an actual sale or a taxable exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [146.725, 160.286, 181.957, 192.332, 197.796, 237.59, 259.363, 282.433, 310.586, 333.883, 355.651, 368.551, 423.149, 434.283, 453.118, 471.15, 489.316, 490.427, 505.955, 545.435, 557.341, 595.666], "stop_times": [160.286, 181.957, 192.332, 197.796, 237.59, 259.363, 282.433, 310.586, 333.883, 355.651, 368.551, 423.149, 434.283, 453.118, 471.15, 489.316, 490.427, 505.955, 545.435, 557.341, 595.666, 620.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.725}, "reply_to": "15314__0_012", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_014", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What would be the, under your theory your client's partners should not have added back into their income the amount there before set up as a reserve for bad debt and what would be the result vis-\u00e0-vis the newly created corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [620.027], "stop_times": [640.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.027}, "reply_to": "15314__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_015", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "We would say the result is what did happen in our situation.\nThe corporation set up a reserve for bad debts.\nIt had a balance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [640.935, 645.002, 650.113], "stop_times": [645.002, 650.113, 651.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.935}, "reply_to": "15314__0_014", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_016", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Which was identical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [651.16], "stop_times": [652.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.16}, "reply_to": "15314__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_017", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [652.321], "stop_times": [653.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.321}, "reply_to": "15314__0_016", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_018", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "In amount, I mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [653.441], "stop_times": [653.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.441}, "reply_to": "15314__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_019", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It's open.\nIn amount.\nIt's had $73,000.00 in it.\nNow, that amount was not charged against corporate income for the first year as a reduction of income which is the Government\u2019s position.\nThe Government says take it into the income of the partnership and give the corporation a new deduction in its first year for $73,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [653.667, 654.834, 655.651, 658.826, 668.042], "stop_times": [654.834, 655.651, 658.826, 668.042, 675.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.667}, "reply_to": "15314__0_018", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_020", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And you say, don\u2019t take it into the income of the partnership and don't give the corporation a deduction on its first year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [675.87], "stop_times": [682.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.87}, "reply_to": "15314__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_021", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [682.384], "stop_times": [682.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.384}, "reply_to": "15314__0_020", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_022", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And I suppose also the basis of the stock received by the partners in return for the transfer of the partnership assets would be reduced, it would be a net, it would be the amount of assets represented by the accounts receivable less the reserve would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [682.857], "stop_times": [702.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.857}, "reply_to": "15314__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_023", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [702.622], "stop_times": [703.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.622}, "reply_to": "15314__0_022", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_024", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It will be a net figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [703.102], "stop_times": [703.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.102}, "reply_to": "15314__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_025", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "The net figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [703.931], "stop_times": [704.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.931}, "reply_to": "15314__0_024", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_026", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And that -- so the basis in the hands -- of the stock in the hands of the partners would be lowered, therefore on any subsequent sale or taxable transfer, their capital gain would be higher, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [704.383], "stop_times": [718.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.383}, "reply_to": "15314__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_027", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [718.528], "stop_times": [718.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.528}, "reply_to": "15314__0_026", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_028", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Is that what would follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [718.908], "stop_times": [719.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.908}, "reply_to": "15314__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_029", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [719.802], "stop_times": [719.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.802}, "reply_to": "15314__0_028", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_030", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "In your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [719.948], "stop_times": [720.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.948}, "reply_to": "15314__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_031", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [720.486], "stop_times": [721.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.486}, "reply_to": "15314__0_030", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_032", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And the corporation would never get a deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [721.658], "stop_times": [724.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.658}, "reply_to": "15314__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_033", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "For that $73,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [724.728], "stop_times": [725.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.728}, "reply_to": "15314__0_032", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_034", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "For that $73,000.00 in the first year or any other time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [725.855], "stop_times": [728.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.855}, "reply_to": "15314__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_035", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Or any other year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [728.09], "stop_times": [729.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.09}, "reply_to": "15314__0_034", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_036", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Because on this year, they haven\u2019t paid anything for that $73,000.00 worth of accounts receivable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [729.314], "stop_times": [734.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.314}, "reply_to": "15314__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__0_037", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right, that it was just a mere change in form.\nThe Government in their brief cast this poll of an expected double deduction that the Code is to be construed to prevent double deductions.\nWe took no double deduction.\nWe set it up on the corporate books without deducting against corporate income.\nOur taxpayer considers his stock to be worth net.\nThe section\u2019s both the reserve for bad debts came into the Section coincidentally in 1921.\nThe same year that the predecessor of our tax-free organization Section 351 came in, we have found no case, nor has the Government cited any case since 1921 where any corporation has so a second deduction or any taxpayer has tried to take a second deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [734.881, 738.197, 747.327, 749.645, 753.988, 757.486, 762.989], "stop_times": [738.197, 747.327, 749.645, 753.988, 757.486, 762.989, 785.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.881}, "reply_to": "15314__0_036", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_038", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I take it the Government would take the same position as the corporation that paid the partner's cash for the accounts receivable in their face amount less the amount of the reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [785.247], "stop_times": [796.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.247}, "reply_to": "15314__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_039", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If they pay the partner's cash in the face amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [796.457], "stop_times": [800.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.457}, "reply_to": "15314__0_038", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_040", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If they just bought -- if they bought the accounts receivable, paid cash in the face amount less the $73,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [800.333], "stop_times": [808.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.333}, "reply_to": "15314__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_041", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They would take -- well, that\u2019s a difficult question to immediately answer for this reason, they would say that if you had a non -- if you had a taxable sale of the receivables at net, face amount less the reserve that under -- that there is no income because they seek to offset a return of the reserve to income by a loss on the receivables.\nNow if you had, they say however in our situation, this is a tax-free exchange which precludes recognition of gain or loss and therefore there is no loss that can be recognized to the transferring partners to offset the return of the reserve to income so that their position in a taxable exchange would be that there would be no income but if we had a transfer of the receivables in exchange for cash in a nontaxable environment, then their answer would probably be the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [808.568, 838.767], "stop_times": [838.767, 879.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.568}, "reply_to": "15314__0_040", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_042", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Do you think it\u2019s different then if it's a corporation and the partners had in valuing the assets to be transferred and specifically allocated a value to the accounts receivable, the face amount less the amount of the reserve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [879.24], "stop_times": [897.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.24}, "reply_to": "15314__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_043", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Their result would not be any different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [897.112], "stop_times": [899.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.112}, "reply_to": "15314__0_042", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_044", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Even though the corporation didn't purport to pay you any more than the net amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [899.842], "stop_times": [904.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.842}, "reply_to": "15314__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_045", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Had the corporation instead of turning up a reserve simply established on its books receivables at the net amount of $414,000.00, the net amount, their answer would have been the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [904.903], "stop_times": [917.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.903}, "reply_to": "15314__0_044", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_046", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They still think you have realized income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [917.366], "stop_times": [919.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.366}, "reply_to": "15314__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_047", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They still think we realized income.\nNow, they cite which I think is a good case and I wish I had cited it, the Skelly Oil opinion where they say that the court will not permit any double deduction and I believe that with that decision, it would be inconceivable that if a corporation tried to come into court later on, or a taxpayer tried to come into court to get a second deduction that that would ever be allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [919.305, 921.127], "stop_times": [921.127, 947.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.305}, "reply_to": "15314__0_046", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_048", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I might test your position from another angle.\nSuppose, this is a large hypothetical because it wouldn't happen, but suppose after the corporate reorganization was completed, the corporation was taken over, someone came along and offered to buy all of the receivables of the new corporation which had just been transferred to it for 100 cents on the dollar, then what would happen to the reserve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [947.917, 950.233], "stop_times": [950.233, 973.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.917}, "reply_to": "15314__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_049", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "This is what would happen, Mr. Justice Burger.\nThe corporation would then have recovered the full amount of its receivables.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [973.614, 977.937], "stop_times": [977.937, 985.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.614}, "reply_to": "15314__0_048", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_050", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Would it be charged all of the bad debt loss, the reserve would go into income then wouldn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [985.421], "stop_times": [990.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.421}, "reply_to": "15314__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_051", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Would go into income by the corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [990.261], "stop_times": [992.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.261}, "reply_to": "15314__0_050", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_052", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And this hasn't happened and never will happen unless some fairy godmother comes along and buys these at 100 cents on the dollar, isn\u2019t that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [992.359], "stop_times": [1001.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.359}, "reply_to": "15314__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__0_053", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right, and if that happened quite soon after the incorporation, I think the Commissioner would come in and say the reserve wasn't reasonable in amount and would probably seek to have the partnership pay some income tax on it because if the reserve is not reasonable, he\u2019s got other rules that they would apply and we would not argue with it but in our situation, it stipulated that the reserve is reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1001.059], "stop_times": [1028.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.059}, "reply_to": "15314__0_052", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_054", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If somebody talked to the -- the accounts receivable would have at their face amount and not for that amount, you would realize income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1028.288], "stop_times": [1040.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.288}, "reply_to": "15314__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_055", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "We would realize income.\nWe would say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1040.497, 1041.833], "stop_times": [1041.833, 1042.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.497}, "reply_to": "15314__0_054", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_056", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Not that you would have to do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1042.122], "stop_times": [1045.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.122}, "reply_to": "15314__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_057", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right, we would say that the tax benefit rule which the Government espouses in their brief correctly but doesn\u2019t apply, would apply.\nThe tax benefit rule which they say is the basis for the Revenue Ruling 62-128 says that if you take a deduction in a prior year, it is of tax benefit in the prior year and you subsequently recovered the deduction, then you have to take into income the amount of the recovery in the year of the recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1045.656, 1055.968], "stop_times": [1055.968, 1077.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.656}, "reply_to": "15314__0_056", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_058", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That reserve really just makes you a tax basis taxpayer with the amount of that reserve.\nIt will pay off if you collect some of those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1077.137, 1083.176], "stop_times": [1083.176, 1085.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.137}, "reply_to": "15314__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_059", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If you collect those accounts in, then you do have -- in other words, you have a recovery of the reserve.\nWe say in this nontaxable situation was a mere change in form that there is -- and this was the philosophy I think of the Ninth Circuit.\nThe Fifth Circuit ignored Section -- well, they mentioned it but they did not give a lot of weight to Section 351.\nThe Ninth Circuit didn't either but they grounded their opinion on the fact that there was no recovery, that the philosophy of the government in using the tax benefit rule to take -- to recover the bad debt in some future point should be based on the fact that there is a recovery at some later year of the amount of the reserve and that when you get back stock certificates representing the net value of the assets transferred, the accounts receivable less the value, that there was no recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1085.648, 1094.005, 1102.935, 1111.542], "stop_times": [1094.005, 1102.935, 1111.542, 1152.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.648}, "reply_to": "15314__0_058", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_060", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But at least that there is some recovery in this reserve account, the result of your position of being a corporation that would pay a corporate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1152.147], "stop_times": [1163.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1152.147}, "reply_to": "15314__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_061", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1163.697], "stop_times": [1164.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.697}, "reply_to": "15314__0_060", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_062", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "-- tax rate rather than you would have called it paying individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1164.416], "stop_times": [1169.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.416}, "reply_to": "15314__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_063", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, you would pay a -- you would not have an immediate recognition at the beginning where you could have a higher rate or you could have a lower rate I imagine.\nAt that time -- either way at that time, the corporation takes it back into its income depending on the two rate structures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1169.576, 1180.823], "stop_times": [1180.823, 1188.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.576}, "reply_to": "15314__0_062", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_064", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What\u2019s the result of the government's position?\nAssume the government prevails and you have to take -- the partners have to take the $73,000.00 into income, then what -- I suppose that $73,000.00 worth of accounts receivable could be recovered by the corporation for nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1188.459, 1190.63], "stop_times": [1190.63, 1209.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.459}, "reply_to": "15314__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_065", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right, you see what would happen, we would take it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1209.952], "stop_times": [1213.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.952}, "reply_to": "15314__0_064", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_066", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Does the Government conceive that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1213.016], "stop_times": [1217.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.016}, "reply_to": "15314__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_067", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I don't -- we really not put it to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1217.038], "stop_times": [1219.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.038}, "reply_to": "15314__0_066", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_068", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "You mean the tax would then have been paid on those accounts receivable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1219.836], "stop_times": [1222.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.836}, "reply_to": "15314__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_069", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If we had to take -- if the partners took the $73,000.00 worth of receivables into income, then they would -- they say in their brief that the corporation would then be entitled to set up a $73,000.00 reserve for bad debts in its first year.\nNow if the corporation chose to do that and take a deduction of $73,000.00 in its first year and later recovered the $73,000.00 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1222.729, 1240.916], "stop_times": [1240.916, 1255.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.729}, "reply_to": "15314__0_068", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_070", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Tax has already been paid on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1255.909], "stop_times": [1258.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.909}, "reply_to": "15314__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__0_071", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right, it\u2019s been paid but you could have -- if you had a second deduction under their theory you could have a second tax to pay on it.\nWe say that would just really distort the income of the new corporation giving it a whopping big deduction in the first year when it has no earnings necessarily, it's not related to any business activity and creates an income item to the partnership.\nI see that I'm going to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1258.049, 1265.537, 1286.104], "stop_times": [1265.537, 1286.104, 1290.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.049}, "reply_to": "15314__0_070", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__0_072", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Very well, Mr. Apolinsky.\nMr. Zinn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1290.527, 1296.97], "stop_times": [1296.97, 1298.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.527}, "reply_to": "15314__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_000", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1298.66], "stop_times": [1301.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1298.66}, "reply_to": "15314__0_072", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_001", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Before you get underway, would you clarify perhaps for all of us but at least for me, what has changed here in your judgment by this transfer except the form and structure of doing business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1301.715], "stop_times": [1315.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.715}, "reply_to": "15314__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_002", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That is precisely all that has changed Mr. Chief Justice, just the form in which the business is carried on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1315.718], "stop_times": [1324.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1315.718}, "reply_to": "15314__1_001", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_003", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "There's no change in substance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1324.033], "stop_times": [1326.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.033}, "reply_to": "15314__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_004", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's correct although as we pointed out in our brief, Section 351 transfers can apply where an entire business becomes a corporation or where a single asset on account receivable or any other single asset is transferred from an individual or partnership to a controlled corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1326.007], "stop_times": [1351.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1326.007}, "reply_to": "15314__1_003", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_005", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What goodness has this partnership engaged in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1351.01], "stop_times": [1354.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.01}, "reply_to": "15314__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_006", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It was engaged in the business of financing, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1354.637], "stop_times": [1359.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1354.637}, "reply_to": "15314__1_005", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_007", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Lending money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1359.266], "stop_times": [1360.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.266}, "reply_to": "15314__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_008", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1360.544], "stop_times": [1363.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1360.544}, "reply_to": "15314__1_007", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_009", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Is it a challenge to the question as to the amount they have tried to set aside for bad debt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1363.102], "stop_times": [1371.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.102}, "reply_to": "15314__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_010", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Black.\nIf I understand your question, the reserve that was on the books of the corporation at that time of the transfer, on the books of the partnership, excuse me, at that time of the transfer, was reasonable if the partnership continued in business.\nBut the fact is that the partnership didn't continue in the business.\nThe partnership was terminated and all of its assets including its accounts receivable which were transferred to the corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1371.766, 1373.011, 1388.643, 1391.688], "stop_times": [1373.011, 1388.643, 1391.688, 1403.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1371.766}, "reply_to": "15314__1_009", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_011", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But why did that change the situation with reference to the reasonableness of the amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1403.861], "stop_times": [1408.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.861}, "reply_to": "15314__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_012", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, we think that when a partnership terminates or when an entity terminates, the tax benefit principle requires that a deduction be restored to income because subsequent events have demonstrated that that entity is not entitled to the deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1408.465], "stop_times": [1427.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1408.465}, "reply_to": "15314__1_011", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_013", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Does the record show that?\nAt subsequently event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1427.147, 1429.715], "stop_times": [1429.715, 1430.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.147}, "reply_to": "15314__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_014", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, if the partnership and corporation are considered to be separate entities, I don\u2019t think there can be much question that the partnership\u2019s need for the reserve ended.\nThe Ninth Circuit in the Schmidt case upon which petitioners rely determined that the need --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1430.705, 1442.654], "stop_times": [1442.654, 1449.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1430.705}, "reply_to": "15314__1_013", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_015", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They had changed their --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1449.963], "stop_times": [1452.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.963}, "reply_to": "15314__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_016", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "The form of the business as the Chief Justice asked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1452.204], "stop_times": [1453.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1452.204}, "reply_to": "15314__1_015", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_017", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "-- in form from a partnership to a corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1453.843], "stop_times": [1457.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.843}, "reply_to": "15314__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_018", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s correct and Mr. Apolinsky this morning and in his brief has relied heavily on the legislative history of Section 351 which provides for the nonrecognition of gain or loss.\nBut he did not read the language of the statute to this Court and I would like to do that.\nIt says that no gain or loss shall be recognized if property is transferred to a corporation by one or more persons solely in exchange for stock or securities.\nAnd immediately after the exchange such person is in control of the corporation.\nNo gain or loss shall be recognized.\nGain or loss is a statutory term of art.\nIt can arise only when property is transferred.\nThe reserve for bad debts is not property.\nIt is merely a bookkeeping entry on the books of the partnership.\nIt cannot be transferred and nothing in Section 351 bars the application of a tax benefit principle in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1457.311, 1471.733, 1477.45, 1490.201, 1496.216, 1499.17, 1503.249, 1508.78, 1511.779, 1516.875], "stop_times": [1471.733, 1477.45, 1490.201, 1496.216, 1499.17, 1503.249, 1508.78, 1511.779, 1516.875, 1527.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1457.311}, "reply_to": "15314__1_017", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_019", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, but it's reported to be transferring reserves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1527.478], "stop_times": [1532.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.478}, "reply_to": "15314__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_020", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They are transferring only the receivables.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1532.498], "stop_times": [1533.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1532.498}, "reply_to": "15314__1_019", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_021", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "All that it's saying is that they're transferring the accounts receivable at face amount less the amount of the reserve.\nThey're transferring only the net amount of the -- because everybody stipulates that these transfers are only worth so much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1533.873, 1545.383], "stop_times": [1545.383, 1555.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.873}, "reply_to": "15314__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_022", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, but Section 351 only prohibits the recognition of gain or loss and restoring the reserve income under the tax benefit principle is not a recognition of gain or loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1555.742], "stop_times": [1570.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1555.742}, "reply_to": "15314__1_021", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_023", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That may be so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1570.211], "stop_times": [1571.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.211}, "reply_to": "15314__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_024", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, there\u2019s no -- I think the point is Mr. Justice White that there is no provision in the statute that precludes the application of the tax benefit principle in this case.\nThat principle is well established.\nThe need for the reserve here we think has terminated because the partnership has terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1571.377, 1583.395, 1585.566], "stop_times": [1583.395, 1585.566, 1591.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1571.377}, "reply_to": "15314__1_023", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_025", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, just because there\u2019s nothing in the statute doesn't -- that suggests the application of the tax benefit principle doesn\u2019t agree.\nThat principle is applicable here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1591.317, 1600.431], "stop_times": [1600.431, 1603.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.317}, "reply_to": "15314__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_026", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I would respectfully disagree, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1603.947], "stop_times": [1608.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1603.947}, "reply_to": "15314__1_025", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_027", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What possible then it has -- has come out of this transfer to the partners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1608.298], "stop_times": [1613.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.298}, "reply_to": "15314__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_028", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They have received -- the partnership has received the benefit of a deduction to which they are no longer entitled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1613.595], "stop_times": [1620.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1613.595}, "reply_to": "15314__1_027", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_029", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They received the benefit of it because the Government agreed that the accounts receivable of the books weren't all collected?\nNow, you are saying that you must pay taxes though all of these accounts receivable were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1620.867, 1630.54], "stop_times": [1630.54, 1637.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.867}, "reply_to": "15314__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_030", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1637.966], "stop_times": [1640.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.966}, "reply_to": "15314__1_029", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_031", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And that we are no longer entitled to view this bundle of accounts receivable worth less than the face?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1640.224], "stop_times": [1647.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.224}, "reply_to": "15314__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_032", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right.\nI think the accounts receivable are separate from the reserve.\nLet me point out Mr. Justice White that when a corporation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1647.579, 1647.983, 1650.826], "stop_times": [1647.983, 1650.826, 1655.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.579}, "reply_to": "15314__1_031", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_033", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What's so attractive about that?\nLet's say somebody must treat his collectible, his accounts receivable and we all agreed worth the collectible, and he must pay taxes on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1655.886, 1657.52], "stop_times": [1657.52, 1664.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.886}, "reply_to": "15314__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_034", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I don't know if there's anything attractive about it.\nAs we tried to point out in our brief, we view the problem here as initially one of avoiding a double deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1664.958, 1667.612], "stop_times": [1667.612, 1677.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.958}, "reply_to": "15314__1_033", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_035", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What possible double deduction can anybody ever get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1677.291], "stop_times": [1680.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.291}, "reply_to": "15314__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_036", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, the concern we have initially, Mr. Justice White is that a deduction will be granted to the partnership as it was here and then that it will pay second deduction will be granted to the transferee corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1680.698], "stop_times": [1695.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.698}, "reply_to": "15314__1_035", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_037", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1695.401], "stop_times": [1701.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.401}, "reply_to": "15314__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_038", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I think they would try not to Mr. Justice White but I don\u2019t think we can rule out that possibility.\nJudge Duniway in his opinion in the Schmidt case specifically left open the question as to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1701.475, 1707.32], "stop_times": [1707.32, 1712.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.475}, "reply_to": "15314__1_037", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_039", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Because the corporation might have taken in, in fact that\u2019s when it must make sure to charge somebody else more than it should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1712.485], "stop_times": [1719.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.485}, "reply_to": "15314__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_040", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, I don\u2019t think that's the case.\nIt seems to me that we want to ensure against the double deduction.\nThe Code doesn\u2019t specifically tell us which way to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1719.994, 1722.269, 1726.201], "stop_times": [1722.269, 1726.201, 1729.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.994}, "reply_to": "15314__1_039", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_041", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It was unsure, I guess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1729.135], "stop_times": [1730.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.135}, "reply_to": "15314__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_042", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1730.276], "stop_times": [1731.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.276}, "reply_to": "15314__1_041", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_043", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "By taxing someone on some income that they haven't received yet and are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1731.167], "stop_times": [1737.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.167}, "reply_to": "15314__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_044", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, we say they have received it Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1737.427], "stop_times": [1740.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.427}, "reply_to": "15314__1_043", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_045", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's only my picture of the full basis accounting anywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1740.73], "stop_times": [1745.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.73}, "reply_to": "15314__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_046", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But the deduction for a reserve for bad debts is a fiction too.\nWe are allowing a deduction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1745.622, 1750.665], "stop_times": [1750.665, 1751.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.622}, "reply_to": "15314__1_045", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_047", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "This isn't fiction at all.\nLet's say, we're going to -- your only full basis, you're going to have to pay as soon as you take in the income and the face amount in receivables for the collected amount, except we won\u2019t make you take an income now in certain percentage of it.\nLet me take out the balance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1751.787, 1752.972, 1767.851], "stop_times": [1752.972, 1767.851, 1770.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.787}, "reply_to": "15314__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_048", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right but nevertheless, there is a recovery.\nIf we view the partnership as a separate entity, there is a recovery of that deduction and we think that the Code --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1770.412, 1773.401], "stop_times": [1773.401, 1782.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.412}, "reply_to": "15314__1_047", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_049", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "In case that the -- if the corporation had never taken place --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1782.675], "stop_times": [1786.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.675}, "reply_to": "15314__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_050", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1786.252], "stop_times": [1786.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.252}, "reply_to": "15314__1_049", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_051", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "-- the partners would never pay the nickel on that $73,000.00 unless they had actually collected some of those accounts receivable.\nNow, you're saying nevertheless they should pay that $73,000.00 although they have not yet received any \u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1786.671, 1794.99], "stop_times": [1794.99, 1803.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.671}, "reply_to": "15314__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_052", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1803.84], "stop_times": [1804.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1803.84}, "reply_to": "15314__1_051", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_053", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And they never will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1804.306], "stop_times": [1805.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.306}, "reply_to": "15314__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_054", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's correct.\nIn the case of a corporation that liquidates tax free under Section 336, and distributes all of its assets to its shareholders in liquidation, it is clear that the corporation must restore the reserve to income even though it didn't collect the amount of the reserve for bad debts.\nAll it's getting back are pieces of paper just like the partners are receiving here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1805.134, 1808.02, 1834.258], "stop_times": [1808.02, 1834.258, 1841.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.134}, "reply_to": "15314__1_053", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_055", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "We've -- we've held that here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1841.15], "stop_times": [1843.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.15}, "reply_to": "15314__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_056", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "You haven't held it but such holdings as they are, are consistent with that and petitioners conceived that in their brief that on a liquidation of a corporation, there is a restoration of the reserve to income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1843.286], "stop_times": [1860.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.286}, "reply_to": "15314__1_055", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_057", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Mr. Zinn, when this transfer occurred, I assume that in the eight offices of the corporation and partnership later the corporation, they had typewriters, desks, chairs and a lot of office equipment.\nLet's assume just hypothetically that that equipment was worth and had an original cost of $50,000.00 and then have been depreciated down to $25,000.00.\nWould you say that now that it\u2019s transferred to the corporation that depreciation which is a hypothetical recognition or a prophesy as is the bad debt deduction should now be charged back as income to the partners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1860.721, 1873.049, 1885.574], "stop_times": [1873.049, 1885.574, 1904.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.721}, "reply_to": "15314__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_058", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, we would not Mr. Chief Justice but that is because Section 1245 and Section 1250 of the Code specifically so provide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1904.352], "stop_times": [1913.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.352}, "reply_to": "15314__1_057", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_059", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, but the function of the bad debt loss is essentially in principle the same as the function of a depreciation for obsolescence isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1913.32], "stop_times": [1925.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.32}, "reply_to": "15314__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_060", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "They are similar although some of the cases that we have cited including the West Seattle Bank case draw a distinction between the two.\nInsofar as I can understand the distinction and it\u2019s rather murky, it is that with respect to accounts receivable and a reserve for bad debts, you cannot be certain that any particular account will become worthless, whereas you have some greater degree of assurance that wear and tear and obsolescence will gradually diminish the value of an asset.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1925.446, 1933.3], "stop_times": [1933.3, 1956.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.446}, "reply_to": "15314__1_059", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_061", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But that isn't necessarily true as a matter of reality, in a period of rising costs, it frequently occurs that assets long since depreciated down to zero become worth a great deal and then the Government on liquidation recovers that, do they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1956.658], "stop_times": [1974.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.658}, "reply_to": "15314__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_062", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I agree that they would and I think that they would recover it here but for the fact that we have specific statutory provisions that apply.\nI think it would be helpful if I point out to the Court that in the investment credit area, the Government wouldn\u2019t be taking a position that it\u2019s taking here because Section 47 (b) of the Code provides that property shall not be treated as ceasing to be investment credit property with respect to the taxpayer by reason of a mere change in the form of conducting the trade or business.\nHad a provision like that been included in the Code in Section 351, we wouldn't be here in Court today.\nBut the fact is, that Section 351 only prohibits the recognition of gain or loss and we are not seeking to tax gain or loss in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [1974.459, 1984.804, 2014.369, 2023.631], "stop_times": [1984.804, 2014.369, 2023.631, 2035.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.459}, "reply_to": "15314__1_061", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_063", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Is your argument based on the fact, somehow somebody didn't put down there what they had intended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2035.371], "stop_times": [2043.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.371}, "reply_to": "15314__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_064", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2043.007], "stop_times": [2043.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.007}, "reply_to": "15314__1_063", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_065", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And that the Government is going to get this payment although it shouldn't have it but nevertheless the letter of the law doesn\u2019t allow it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2043.421], "stop_times": [2052.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.421}, "reply_to": "15314__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_066", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, our position here is that the Internal Revenue Code doesn\u2019t tell us which way to handle this double deduction problem.\nThat the Commissioner has determined that the proper way to handle it is to restore the bad debt reserve to income under the tax benefit rule.\nThat application of a tax benefit rule here is entirely consistent with all statutory provisions and that under decisions of this Court, so long as the Commissioner\u2019s solution to the double deduction problem is reasonable, that that is the end of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2052.063, 2061.617, 2071.731], "stop_times": [2061.617, 2071.731, 2087.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.063}, "reply_to": "15314__1_065", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_067", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, is it your position that in all truth and fact and justice that this is not going to require a taxpayer to pay taxes on income that he did not receive as income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2087.481], "stop_times": [2102.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.481}, "reply_to": "15314__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_068", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, but when he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2102.488], "stop_times": [2103.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.488}, "reply_to": "15314__1_067", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_069", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "You admit that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2103.614], "stop_times": [2104.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.614}, "reply_to": "15314__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_070", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, but when he obtained the deduction for the reserve for bad debts Mr. Justice Black --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2104.551], "stop_times": [2108.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.551}, "reply_to": "15314__1_069", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_071", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But he will have to pay income tax on income that he did not get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2108.421], "stop_times": [2113.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.421}, "reply_to": "15314__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_072", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "We say he received it because he obtained a deduction when he set up the reserve for bad debts for a loss he did not suffer.\nFor a loss that would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2113.227, 2121.617], "stop_times": [2121.617, 2122.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.227}, "reply_to": "15314__1_071", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_073", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Then you are saying that this would be a double benefit to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2122.082], "stop_times": [2125.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.082}, "reply_to": "15314__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_074", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No.\nNo, we're saying that when he set up the reserve for bad debts, he got a deduction for a loss that he had not yet suffered and now since the partnership is terminating and since the partnership never incurred those losses, he must restore the bad debt reserve to income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2125.925, 2126.69], "stop_times": [2126.69, 2145.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.925}, "reply_to": "15314__1_073", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_075", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Then what happens suppose they don't collect it?\nThe sale turned out to be bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2145.112, 2147.282], "stop_times": [2147.282, 2149.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.112}, "reply_to": "15314__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_076", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "We think that the corporation would be entitled to take a deduction because it would have suffered the losses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2149.464], "stop_times": [2156.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.464}, "reply_to": "15314__1_075", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_077", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I take it.\nIt would be entitled to take a deduction later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2156.137, 2156.471], "stop_times": [2156.471, 2159.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.137}, "reply_to": "15314__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_078", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, because it suffered the losses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2159.002], "stop_times": [2161.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.002}, "reply_to": "15314__1_077", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_079", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's your argument as to why it's fair for the Government to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2161.615], "stop_times": [2164.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.615}, "reply_to": "15314__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_080", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right.\nThe corporation is entitled to the deduction because it suffered the losses.\nIt actually suffered them.\nThe partnership here did not suffer the bad debt losses which obtained through creation of the reserve.\nThe reserve is an estimate of future losses and the partnership never suffered those losses and for that reason, we don't think it\u2019s entitled to retain the benefit of the deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2164.65, 2165.298, 2168.848, 2169.923, 2177.981], "stop_times": [2165.298, 2168.848, 2169.923, 2177.981, 2187.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.65}, "reply_to": "15314__1_079", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_081", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Your argument is in fact is it that the Government would get this I mean the taxpayer would be getting this reduction twice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2187.548], "stop_times": [2196.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.548}, "reply_to": "15314__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_082", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, our concern is that if that -- the partnership has already gotten the deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2196.386], "stop_times": [2201.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2196.386}, "reply_to": "15314__1_081", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_083", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right.\nYou say it\u2019s already gotten.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2201.878, 2202.659], "stop_times": [2202.659, 2204.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.878}, "reply_to": "15314__1_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_084", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "There is a possibility that the corporation will get a deduction for the same accounts receivable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2204.017], "stop_times": [2214.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.017}, "reply_to": "15314__1_083", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_085", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "As I had understood your argument, Mr. Zinn, it was this that the statute itself does not explicitly tell you or the taxpayer how this situation should be handled and that your submission is that the way you handle it is a reasonable way of handling it under the statute and that that should be the end of the case and as I further understand it, neither you on the one hand, nor your adversary on the other are claiming that either, there should be double taxation or a double deduction.\nYou both recognize that however this is worked out, that there shouldn't be a double deduction and that these same items should not be taxed twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2214.336, 2245.586], "stop_times": [2245.586, 2255.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.336}, "reply_to": "15314__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_086", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s right, which way to avoid the double deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2255.315], "stop_times": [2258.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.315}, "reply_to": "15314__1_085", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_087", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And as I understand it further, you\u2019re not saying that the way you decided to handle this is the only proper way of doing it.\nYou're just simply saying it\u2019s a reasonable way of doing it and that under the decisions, that should be the end of the case.\nAm I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2258.822, 2266.623, 2272.374], "stop_times": [2266.623, 2272.374, 2272.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.822}, "reply_to": "15314__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_088", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's correct, except that I would add to that that we think our way --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2272.983], "stop_times": [2276.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.983}, "reply_to": "15314__1_087", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_089", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Is the best thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2276.667], "stop_times": [2276.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.667}, "reply_to": "15314__1_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_090", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "-- is more consistent with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, particularly those of subchapter C which this Court recognized last term and Commissioner and Gordon are very, very technical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2276.755], "stop_times": [2291.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.755}, "reply_to": "15314__1_089", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_091", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2291.48], "stop_times": [2291.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.48}, "reply_to": "15314__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_092", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Now, we think that Mr. Apolinsky\u2019s arguments are very persuasive in terms of perhaps revising the Internal Revenue Code and making Section 351 read the same way that Section 47 (b) reads that if it\u2019s so long as the same business is continuing, no income will be recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2291.938], "stop_times": [2310.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.938}, "reply_to": "15314__1_091", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_093", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2310.692], "stop_times": [2311.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.692}, "reply_to": "15314__1_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_094", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But that's not what the Code says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2311.409], "stop_times": [2313.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2311.409}, "reply_to": "15314__1_093", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_095", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2313.988], "stop_times": [2314.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.988}, "reply_to": "15314__1_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_096", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But you don't claim it would be reasonable for the Government -- for taxpayer be denied this deduction twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2314.265], "stop_times": [2325.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.265}, "reply_to": "15314__1_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_097", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, we don't seek to deny it twice, Mr. Justice Black.\nWe would allow it to a corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2325.289, 2328.187], "stop_times": [2328.187, 2329.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.289}, "reply_to": "15314__1_096", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_098", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Now, do you think it would be reasonable for them to get it twice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2329.191], "stop_times": [2332.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.191}, "reply_to": "15314__1_097", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_099", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2332.128], "stop_times": [2333.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.128}, "reply_to": "15314__1_098", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_100", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It's just once is all the deduction they should get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2333.931], "stop_times": [2336.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.931}, "reply_to": "15314__1_099", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_101", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, and tha'\u2019s all they seek.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2336.724], "stop_times": [2337.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.724}, "reply_to": "15314__1_100", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_102", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And no scheme will do that whether you call it reasonable, you wouldn\u2019t call it reasonable if it didn\u2019t accomplish that, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2337.741], "stop_times": [2344.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.741}, "reply_to": "15314__1_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_103", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I'm not sure I follow you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2344.605], "stop_times": [2345.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.605}, "reply_to": "15314__1_102", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_104", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "You wouldn't call it reasonable would you if it was making this taxpayer be denied of privilege over a deduction for a loss he had had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2345.333], "stop_times": [2353.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.333}, "reply_to": "15314__1_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15314__1_105", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Oh!\nNo, but the petitioners here didn\u2019t suffer the loss that they are claiming.\nThe corporation suffered the loss and that's whom we want to allow it to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2353.864, 2354.059, 2359.299], "stop_times": [2354.059, 2359.299, 2364.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.864}, "reply_to": "15314__1_104", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_106", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Neither side in this case is, your adversary is not claiming it is going to be taxed twice and you're not claiming that it's going to be deducted twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2364.76], "stop_times": [2372.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.76}, "reply_to": "15314__1_105", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_107", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "At which way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2372.305], "stop_times": [2372.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2372.305}, "reply_to": "15314__1_106", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_108", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It\u2019s just which accounting matter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2372.955], "stop_times": [2374.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.955}, "reply_to": "15314__1_107", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15314__1_109", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Which way.\nNow, Mr. Apolinsky has pointed out both in his brief and here this morning that the corporation set up a reserve for bad debts on its books and therefore didn\u2019t claim it twice.\nI should point out to the Court that we have confirmed that but is extra record information.\nIt does not appear in the record.\nI don't think it makes any difference except as a matter of tidiness.\nMr. Apolinsky also mentioned this morning that on a liquidation of a partnership, there would be no restoration of the reserve to income.\nThere is no case law on that question.\nThere is as I have mentioned earlier, a case law on the question of liquidation of corporation which indicates that there would be a restoration of the reserve and it seems to us that there would be a restoration of the reserve if this partnership liquidated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2374.266, 2375.129, 2390.052, 2395.551, 2398.204, 2405.1, 2419.39, 2422.468], "stop_times": [2375.129, 2390.052, 2395.551, 2398.204, 2405.1, 2419.39, 2422.468, 2437.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.266}, "reply_to": "15314__1_108", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_110", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What would you -- if someone bought from the partners the accounts receivable for cash at the net value, face less the amount of the reserve, I suppose the partners would be realize income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2437.703], "stop_times": [2454.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.703}, "reply_to": "15314__1_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_111", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, they might realize.\nThey would realize no net income, Mr. Justice White because presumably the restoration of the reserve in the hypothetical that you posited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2454.319, 2455.819], "stop_times": [2455.819, 2465.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.319}, "reply_to": "15314__1_110", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_112", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Restoration?\nYou mean restoration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2465.996, 2467.215], "stop_times": [2467.215, 2467.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.996}, "reply_to": "15314__1_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_113", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, we think there would be restoration of the reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2467.684], "stop_times": [2470.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.684}, "reply_to": "15314__1_112", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_114", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And as to the fact of the income on the $75--$73,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2470.543], "stop_times": [2473.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.543}, "reply_to": "15314__1_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_115", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2473.881], "stop_times": [2475.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.881}, "reply_to": "15314__1_114", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_116", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Even if they -- nobody paid it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2475.496], "stop_times": [2477.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.496}, "reply_to": "15314__1_115", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_117", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nBut then they would be entitled to a loss deduction for $75,000.00 because the basis of the receivables in their hands would be the face amount of the receivables, we think, not the net amount.[Recess]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2477.777, 2478.529], "stop_times": [2478.529, 2500.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.777}, "reply_to": "15314__1_116", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_118", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Mr. Zinn, you may pick up where you left off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2500.622], "stop_times": [2504.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.622}, "reply_to": "15314__1_117", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_119", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn the few minutes I have remaining, I should like to discuss the two proposed solutions of petitioners to the double deduction problem here.\nThat is the carryover solution and the adjustment of basis solution.\nSection 381 of the Internal Revenue Code is the principal provision which allows for carryovers in certain transactions.\nThat provision does not apply to transactions such as the one here which is described in Section 351.\nIt applies only to certain intercorporate transactions.\nIn addition to the fact, the absence in Section 381 of a specific congressional authorization for a carryover, it is well established that a transferee in a Section 351 transaction is a new taxpayer and can adopt its own accounting methods and its own taxable year including in this specific case the specific charge off method of accounting for bad debts.\nWe think therefore that there is a real risk of a double deduction if this Court should hold that the tax benefit principle is not applicable here.\nThird, we point out that Congress has been quite specific when it wanted items to be carried over in a Section 351 transaction.\nThus, Section 362 of the Code provides that the basis of property shall be carried over.\nAs I attempted to outline for the Court this morning a reserve for bad debts is not property similar carryover rules --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2504.687, 2507.802, 2518.432, 2526.119, 2537.228, 2546.866, 2556.614, 2587.579, 2600.361, 2610.524, 2617.637], "stop_times": [2507.802, 2518.432, 2526.119, 2537.228, 2546.866, 2556.614, 2587.579, 2600.361, 2610.524, 2617.637, 2626.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.687}, "reply_to": "15314__1_118", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_120", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, would you distinguish it in that respect from a depreciation reserve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2626.681], "stop_times": [2631.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.681}, "reply_to": "15314__1_119", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_121", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, a depreciation reserve is not property either but under Section 1016 of the Internal Revenue Code, a depreciation reserve is specifically provided to reduce the basis of the depreciable asset.\nThat's under Section 1016 (a) (2), Mr. Chief Justice.\nThere is no specific provision that is comparable to that allowing a basis reduction for a bad debt reserve.\nI should also point out that in attempting to analogize a Section 351 transaction and to bring it within the spirit if not the specific language of Section 381, that Section 381 applies only to transfers of entire businesses.\nWhereas Section 351 as I mentioned before the recess can apply to a transfer of an entire business as in this case or to transfer of a single asset.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2631.227, 2646.337, 2650.188, 2661.495, 2679.901], "stop_times": [2646.337, 2650.188, 2661.495, 2679.901, 2693.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.227}, "reply_to": "15314__1_120", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_122", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Let\u2019s assume that this wasn't a 351 transaction, the corporation was organized and assets were transferred to it for consideration and the corporation bought these receivables for cash.\nI suppose its basis would be on face amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2693.411, 2706.802], "stop_times": [2706.802, 2709.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.411}, "reply_to": "15314__1_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_123", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's correct.\nIn that case, the basis would be what it paid for it but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2709.769, 2710.487], "stop_times": [2710.487, 2713.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.769}, "reply_to": "15314__1_122", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_124", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What do you think the corporation paid for here?\nAssume this wasn\u2019t a taxable transaction, it was a nontaxable transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2713.622, 2716.562], "stop_times": [2716.562, 2721.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.622}, "reply_to": "15314__1_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_125", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2721.365], "stop_times": [2722.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.365}, "reply_to": "15314__1_124", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_126", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But it did issue stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2722.513], "stop_times": [2723.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.513}, "reply_to": "15314__1_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_127", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, its basis would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2723.763], "stop_times": [2724.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.763}, "reply_to": "15314__1_126", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_128", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "And receivable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2724.601], "stop_times": [2726.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.601}, "reply_to": "15314__1_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_129", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But it issued stock and cash?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2726.401], "stop_times": [2728.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2726.401}, "reply_to": "15314__1_128", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_130", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, it issued stock and receivable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2728.66], "stop_times": [2730.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.66}, "reply_to": "15314__1_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_131", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But it was a taxable transaction?\nWell, then its basis would be the net value --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2730.887, 2733.152], "stop_times": [2733.152, 2736.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.887}, "reply_to": "15314__1_130", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_132", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2736.438], "stop_times": [2737.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.438}, "reply_to": "15314__1_131", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_133", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "The face amount of the receivables less the reserve.\nThat would be the corporation's basis but that\u2019s not the corporation's basis in this case according to the specific provisions of Section 1016 (a) of the Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2737.891, 2742.044], "stop_times": [2742.044, 2752.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.891}, "reply_to": "15314__1_132", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_134", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Do you think the Code requires the corporation in this kind of a transaction to take into plus the receivable to be paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2752.009], "stop_times": [2761.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.009}, "reply_to": "15314__1_133", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_135", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I don't know if I can go so far as to say it requires Mr. Justice White.\nIt seems to me that the overriding principle that\u2019s applicable here is no double deduction, the principle that this Court reaffirmed last term in Skelly Oil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2761.289, 2766.406], "stop_times": [2766.406, 2775.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.289}, "reply_to": "15314__1_134", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_136", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "You mean that requirement is only a requirement if you\u2019re right under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2775.057], "stop_times": [2779.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.057}, "reply_to": "15314__1_135", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_137", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, we say that the Code doesn\u2019t specifically answer the question that\u2019s presented here, how to avoid the double deduction.\nNow, we think the better way to answer the question is to answer it by applying the tax benefit principle but if the Court says that isn\u2019t the better way to do it, then we think that the basis adjustment should be made.\nThe Code just doesn't speak specifically to the point and we have to comply with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2779.217, 2786.88, 2805.359], "stop_times": [2786.88, 2805.359, 2809.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2779.217}, "reply_to": "15314__1_136", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_138", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Basis would just be made, what does that do to the partnership?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2809.609], "stop_times": [2813.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.609}, "reply_to": "15314__1_137", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_139", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Well, the partnership, if the Court should hold that the tax benefit principle doesn't apply here, then the basis of the receivables should be reduced to net in the hands of the corporation so as to avoid a double deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2813.594], "stop_times": [2829.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.594}, "reply_to": "15314__1_138", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_140", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "What -- if you're on the buying side rather on the receiving side on the corporate side and basically under the receivables that that value was the face, how would you pay any more than the true value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2829.167], "stop_times": [2846.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.167}, "reply_to": "15314__1_139", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_141", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "No, you wouldn't pay more than the true value for them, you pay the net amount.\nThen your basis would be what you pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2846.643, 2851.357], "stop_times": [2851.357, 2853.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.643}, "reply_to": "15314__1_140", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_142", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "But what you're saying is that we must -- what we should do to save the corporation is to really pay the face -- for the face value for the seizable to debt and hence the transfer in stockholders actual recipient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2853.888], "stop_times": [2868.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.888}, "reply_to": "15314__1_141", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_143", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "I don't think we have to say that the corporation paid the face amount.\nIt seems to me that the Section 351 provides -- Section 362 provides that the basis of property in the hands of the transferee corporation shall be the same as in the hands of the transferor.\nThat basis at least so far as good interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code is concerned would be the face amount of the receivables.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2868.624, 2872.372, 2886.922], "stop_times": [2872.372, 2886.922, 2899.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.624}, "reply_to": "15314__1_142", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_144", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "This partnership could have sold and assigned accounts receivable independently of this tax free transfer couldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2899.873], "stop_times": [2908.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.873}, "reply_to": "15314__1_143", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_145", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Yes, in our position, if it had done that would be precisely what it is here that the reserve for bad debts has to be restored to income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2908.008], "stop_times": [2915.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.008}, "reply_to": "15314__1_144", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_146", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If they sold it for the net amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2915.548], "stop_times": [2917.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.548}, "reply_to": "15314__1_145", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_147", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "If they sold it for the net amount and if they are entitled to a loss measured by the difference between the face amount and the net amount because that is a sale of property and on a sale of property, accounts receivable with a basis of let\u2019s say $100.00, for a net value of 90, they\u2019re entitled to a loss of $10.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2917.059], "stop_times": [2935.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2917.059}, "reply_to": "15314__1_146", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_148", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Would that be a wash transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2935.816], "stop_times": [2937.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.816}, "reply_to": "15314__1_147", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__1_149", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "It would be in most cases Mr. Chief Justice because accounts receivable under Section 12214 of the Code would be an ordinary income asset.\nBut if the accounts receivable happened to be a capital asset in the hands of the selling entity in the hypothetical that you posited, then the gain or the loss would be a capital loss and the restoration to income would be a restoration to ordinary income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2937.697, 2948.235], "stop_times": [2948.235, 2964.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.697}, "reply_to": "15314__1_148", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_150", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "In here they thought of the partners that they have to take this in the income.\nIf they don't get any income out of it, it won\u2019t be a title alone, the loss would be the corporation's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2964.967, 2970.28], "stop_times": [2970.28, 2976.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.967}, "reply_to": "15314__1_149", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15314__1_151", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "That's right because the corporation will suffer the loss.\nI think I should point out that the purpose of the reserve method of accounting for bad debts is to better match costs against revenue just as it has been pointed out in the briefs but that purpose was never intended to provide a loss to an entity that didn't suffer it and that once we know that the partnership entity is terminated, the partnership should not wind up with any more bad debt deductions than it would have wound up would had it been on the specific charge off method of accounting for bad debts.\nAnd had it been on this specific charge off method, it would not have gotten this deduction for future losses which it took and which we submit has to be restored to income when the partnership terminates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [2976.139, 2980.363, 3009.859], "stop_times": [2980.363, 3009.859, 3026.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.139}, "reply_to": "15314__1_150", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15314__1_152", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Thank you Mr. Zinn.\nYou have some time left to -- Mr. Apolinsky?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [3026.021, 3027.317], "stop_times": [3027.317, 3036.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.021}, "reply_to": "15314__1_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15314__2_000", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI think that the statement of Mr. Zinn points up the problem they have in applying the tax benefit rule realistically.\nThey set forth the rule but they don\u2019t apply certainly in the taxable exchange area when there's a cash sale of accounts receivable.\nThe rule as set forth in their brief says you restore to income a deduction when you recover it.\nWell, If you have a sale for the receivables at gross, that\u2019s a recovery and it would come in income.\nIf you have a sale at net, the most logical conclusion seems to me is that you have no recovery under the tax benefit rule and therefore there\u2019s no income to the taxpayer selling in a taxable transaction.\nThe Government in order to bend the rule to fit our tax free situation sets up a hypothesis that they have a loss realized on the receivables which counteracts the return to income of the reserve and the wash result is a net of zero.\nWe say that's an incorrect approach to the problem.\nThe loss occurred when the taxpayer got the deduction for the reserve.\nWhen you set it up, that's when the deduction occurred.\nThe fact that later on, he sold it net was merely a realization that his estimate, his loss was correct, not a subsequent loss down the road to offset some artificial inclusion in income.\nWe further say that we do not agree in our brief and our brief, I think shows that, that there is a different rule to apply in Section 337 liquidations.\nWe don't -- I did not cover that because it\u2019s covered in my brief but Mr. Zinn said that we did agree and we do not.\nIn fact, the revenue ruling in 1957 where the Government covered the liquidation under a one year liquidation rule specifically set up the hypothesis that the corporation sold its receivables at face.\nAnd they said, therefore the reserve comes back into income.\nWell, that seems to be the tax benefit rule in its proper application and I've set out that entire revenue ruling in the last page of my appendix.\nI also take issue with Mr. Zinn when he disputes whether upon the liquidation of a partnership the reserve comes into income of the partners.\nIn my judgment, in a pro rata liquidation of a partnership under Section 736, there is no recognition of income to the partners.\nI would just focus our attention if I will on the question, the Government has assumed as we said that there is a problem of a double deduction.\nWe maintain that there is no problem of a double deduction because there has been no, in our case, no one has tried to take a second deduction and in no case discussed today or in any of the brief has any taxpayer attempted to take a second deduction at any stage.\nSo that the basis hypothesis for the need for the revenue ruling it seems to me unfounded that there is not second deduction to guard against and therefore, without that problem, there\u2019s no need to even travel under 7805 but under that Section, the solution if we were to assume for argument there\u2019s a problem.\nUnder that Section, the solution has to be consistent with the statute.\nWe say that Section 351 which says no gain or loss if property is transferred, if, it doesn\u2019t say from property, it\u2019s not tied to the property.\nIt says if property is transferred, that the legislative history of that Section points out that that\u2019s not a taxable event, it\u2019s just a change of form and in 1924, Congress in reviewing it said, no gain or loss and in the next sentence, it says, this is not a time for the realization of income.\nSo we say there is no magic in saying what we have over here is income and the statute said no gain, loss or income because in 1924, they used the two terms interchangeably.\nCertainly, the cure to the illness should not be worse than the illness itself and that\u2019s what\u2019s going to happen if we restore to the partnership this income.\nIt creates artificial tax planning.\nPartners, proprietors, transfer into corporations can't put receivables into their corporations because if that mature the reserve for bad debts, they would not then have any cash to pay the income tax with.\nSo what's happened since 1962 is that people with reserve for bad debts have been artificially holding out their receivables, or else possibly making cash sales at nets to third parties to create what the Government says is a wash situation.\nThat -- and this is a recurring problem.\nThe Government in their petition for certiorari agrees that we have incorporations of businesses everyday and it just seems to me that we should not visit the need for some artificial planning.\nCongress in 1921 said, to order, to encourage business readjustments and even spoke of artificial transactions that they were going to place this tax free environment.\nThe simplest thing I think is not to look to a specific solution to a double deduction, we say there isn\u2019t or to simply for the court to remind the tax bar is we don\u2019t need reminding of your decision of Skelly Oil.\nThere is just not going to be any second deduction allowed irrespective of which particular route is followed and we urge that the Fifth Circuit be reversed and that the District Court's decision be affirmed so that the partnership in this situation would not take into its income the reserve for bad debts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [3036.31, 3038.85, 3047.497, 3057.673, 3065.407, 3071.491, 3084.076, 3104.06, 3107.574, 3113.812, 3116.124, 3133.764, 3143.98, 3151.451, 3168.356, 3171.259, 3180.212, 3189.103, 3201.292, 3212.37, 3231.993, 3251.839, 3255.848, 3265.752, 3286.619, 3302.22, 3311.102, 3313.767, 3326.939, 3344.448, 3348.161, 3362.599, 3374.544, 3388.386], "stop_times": [3038.85, 3047.497, 3057.673, 3065.407, 3071.491, 3084.076, 3104.06, 3107.574, 3113.812, 3116.124, 3133.764, 3143.98, 3151.451, 3168.356, 3171.259, 3180.212, 3189.103, 3201.292, 3212.37, 3231.993, 3251.839, 3255.848, 3265.752, 3286.619, 3302.22, 3311.102, 3313.767, 3326.939, 3344.448, 3348.161, 3362.599, 3374.544, 3388.386, 3414.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3036.31}, "reply_to": "15314__1_152", "speaker": "harold_i_apolinsky"}
{"id": "15314__2_001", "conversation_id": "15314", "text": "Thank you Mr. Apolinsky.\nThank you Mr. Zinn.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_678", "start_times": [3414.94, 3416.32, 3417.554], "stop_times": [3416.32, 3417.554, 3420.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.94}, "reply_to": "15314__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__0_000", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I think we will just call and have the counsel be ready and in number 32 National Labor Relations Board against Rutter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [20.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__0_001", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "-- comply and indicating, well the record showed that it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [20.167], "stop_times": [24.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 20.167}, "reply_to": "15007__0_000", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_002", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I would suppose that company could have complied by just reinstating strikers no matter what but what about those, this is where it had a, you might have thought a good faith defense to reinstatement now that the place to go --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [24.87], "stop_times": [40.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 24.87}, "reply_to": "15007__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__0_003", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [40.283], "stop_times": [40.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.283}, "reply_to": "15007__0_002", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_004", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "-- that the place to go wasn\u2019t the Court of Appeals.\nThe place to go is to the, what was to litigate the matter with you people wasn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [40.861, 43.662], "stop_times": [43.662, 49.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 40.861}, "reply_to": "15007__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__0_005", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Precisely, and the Board had and the company had this opportunity and initiated no action.\nThe only request, the company might come up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [49.532, 56.457], "stop_times": [56.457, 59.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.532}, "reply_to": "15007__0_004", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_006", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I thought it was a, I thought it was waiting for you, you told them that you\u2019d be in touch with them or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [59.597], "stop_times": [64.917], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 59.597}, "reply_to": "15007__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_007", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, the company predicates much of his defense on a letter it wrote in November 7, 1957 about two months after the enforcing decree.\nIt wrote the Board a letter saying in essence, \u201cwe have complied with some of the provisions of the Board\u2019s order, now, will you please notify us of any instances where we have not complied.\u201d\nAnd the company says on that basis since we didn\u2019t notify them, they weren\u2019t obliged to comply any further.\nWell, the court below said an offending respondent which has the primary obligation to comply can\u2019t rid of itself of its obligation merely by saying you didn\u2019t tell us.\nThe court had told what they are obliged to do.\nIn addition, frankly, we have a situation where as of this day, there is still a number or at least of the date of the hearing and I believe that is still true, there are still the number of strikers who have not been offered reinstatement, whose back pay claims after the litigation have been validated.\nAnd to this day, not one cent of back pay has been paid on this claims which the Board and the court below validated.\nMoreover, we notified the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [64.917, 75.196, 91.423, 96.767, 107.164, 111.044, 130.1, 138.955], "stop_times": [75.196, 91.423, 96.767, 107.164, 111.044, 130.1, 138.955, 142.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.917}, "reply_to": "15007__0_006", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_008", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Why is it?\nYou said they have agreed, that they are valid and they haven\u2019t been paid, why is it?\nWhat ground is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [142.474, 144.479, 147.584], "stop_times": [144.479, 147.584, 148.795], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 142.474}, "reply_to": "15007__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_009", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I presume the, I presume the company must be of the waiting the outcome of this proceeding which only has to do with cutting back the back pay not eliminating it.\nThis Court denied cert on the part, denied certiorari on the portion of the order that was enforced.\nNow also, this company was rather familiar as the Court below says this Company was not a babe in the woods, and I think the language of the Court is significant in this regard.\nAnd said this company, this company is not a babe in the woods and the principle theory of premise upon which the court below limited the back pay was on the ground that the court below, the court below felt that somehow the company had been lulled into a sense by the Board\u2019s delay into a sense that maybe it had nothing left to do and that it had no obligations anymore by the Board\u2019s delay.\nWell, this might come with more grace I think.\nWith an unsophisticated employer, but this is what the court below said, \u201cthe record convinces us that Rutter-Rex is not a babe in the woods about to be victimized for ignorance or inadvertent ineptitude in the field of employer-employee relations as regulated by the National Labor Relations Act.\u201d\nThe order in this case which directed immediate reinstatement of strikers even if they had to hire replacements who were still employed by the company although not all strikers have been replaced, the order the court below said just could not have been misunderstood but as of today, that reinstatement obligation has not yet been full carried out and the back pay has been -- none of the back pay has been paid.\nAnd as the Trial Examiner pointed out, at the time of the back pay hearing, replacements were still working and much of the back pay hearing of this long back pay hearing was devoted to analyzing the back pay do strikers where replacements were still working at the job the strikers should have had.\nNow, the record demonstrates as I said before and this is the court\u2019s language, as it was and the impossible for the company to comply and as to many individuals it did.\nWe think that in this situation, with this kind of sophisticated company in the area of labor relations and also represented as the court below noted by able counsel that they weren\u2019t lulled into any sense that they\u2019d already complied with the decree of the court below.\nOn the contrary, we believe that to just -- to affirm the Board\u2019s -- the court\u2019s order below would be to really reward a malingering and an intransigent refusal to comply with the Board order and a court decree at the expense of the public policy, the Act is designed to bring.\nI might say in regard to that letter also where this, the company tried to shelve its responsibility by a couple of months after the decree said you tell us when we violated the Act.\nAnd now we routinely send a letter and we sent a letter right after this decree to this respondent saying we\u2019re ready to help you comply with this order and incidentally when you have complied, we will send you a letter notifying you that the compliance has been affected and the case close.\nAnd we also incidentally in case the company had any doubts, it had just received such a letter in an earlier unfair labor practice case where we told them, in this case you have complied and the case is closed.\nWe never send a closing compliance letter.\nI only want to touch on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [148.795, 160.214, 168.02, 180.662, 212.707, 217.135, 240.581, 267.561, 290.609, 301.814, 321.751, 346.99, 359.072, 379.709, 393.577, 396.267], "stop_times": [160.214, 168.02, 180.662, 212.707, 217.135, 240.581, 267.561, 290.609, 301.814, 321.751, 346.99, 359.072, 379.709, 393.577, 396.267, 397.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.795}, "reply_to": "15007__0_008", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_010", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Ordman, may I ask?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [397.584], "stop_times": [398.409], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 397.584}, "reply_to": "15007__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_011", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [398.409], "stop_times": [399.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.409}, "reply_to": "15007__0_010", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_012", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The back pay which is after the court order say, may there be determined back pay whether or not a particular employee is entitled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [399.219], "stop_times": [411.463], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 399.219}, "reply_to": "15007__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_013", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Precisely.\nIf it is determined that a back pay of that in a particular employee is not entitled --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [411.463, 412.607], "stop_times": [412.607, 417.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.463}, "reply_to": "15007__0_012", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_014", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Only whether he is entitled back pay of which or another consideration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [417.069], "stop_times": [421.618], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 417.069}, "reply_to": "15007__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_015", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That is correct because for example if he is not entitled to reinstatement, he is not entitled to any back pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [421.618], "stop_times": [427.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.618}, "reply_to": "15007__0_014", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_016", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "But when you get an order, reinstate all strikers with pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [427.692], "stop_times": [431.137], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 427.692}, "reply_to": "15007__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_017", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The order to reinstate all strikers is to reinstate them and strikers incidentally, a Board order never compensates -- gives back pay to people while they are on strike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [431.137], "stop_times": [440.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.137}, "reply_to": "15007__0_016", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_018", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "How about reinstatement if the Court of Appeals were to reinstate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [440.631], "stop_times": [443.141], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 440.631}, "reply_to": "15007__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_019", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The Court of Appeals --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [443.141], "stop_times": [444.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.141}, "reply_to": "15007__0_018", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_020", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "You mean all strikers except those the Board had laid off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [444.646], "stop_times": [448.27], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 444.646}, "reply_to": "15007__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_021", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "All strike -- of course because in a given situation as in this situation, real problems do arise as to whether a particular striker is entitled to reinstatement, for example in this case, there were 10 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [448.27], "stop_times": [460.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.27}, "reply_to": "15007__0_020", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_022", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "According to misconduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [460.618], "stop_times": [461.968], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 460.618}, "reply_to": "15007__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_023", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "There were 10 that were not reinstated because of misconduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [461.968], "stop_times": [465.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.968}, "reply_to": "15007__0_022", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_024", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What about those that take other jobs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [465.812], "stop_times": [468.784], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 465.812}, "reply_to": "15007__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_025", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Where they have an argument that can be made and this is what the back pay proceeding is about, where an employee has taken substantially equivalent employment or has refused substantially equivalent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [468.784], "stop_times": [480.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.784}, "reply_to": "15007__0_024", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_026", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Haven\u2019t they ordered the Court of Appeals in this way said that to reinstate all strikers but then the company says I\u2019m not going to reinstate these 200 because I got thousand defenses and lost my defenses in the Board --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [480.584], "stop_times": [493.996], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 480.584}, "reply_to": "15007__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_027", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "They --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [493.996], "stop_times": [494.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.996}, "reply_to": "15007__0_026", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_028", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "-- whenever I give a chance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [494.219], "stop_times": [497.258], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 494.219}, "reply_to": "15007__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_029", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The Courts of Appeals and this Court have long go, settle on the proposition that we could either in a case of this kind with 600 potential claimants in the initial unfair labor practice proceeding go through the, in order that the amount of detailed work to determine respective rights or the Court stop at that point and ask where our order is challenged and there\u2019s non-compliance, get an enforcing decree because if it\u2019s not enforced, we don\u2019t have to go through all that proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [497.258], "stop_times": [528.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.258}, "reply_to": "15007__0_028", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_030", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What was ordered (Inaudible), is that the original order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [528.62], "stop_times": [533.404], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 528.62}, "reply_to": "15007__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_031", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The obligation of compliance, the obligation of reinstatement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [533.404], "stop_times": [537.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.404}, "reply_to": "15007__0_030", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_032", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Let me get back.\nThe original order of the Court was reinstate all strikers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [537.957, 538.764], "stop_times": [538.764, 542.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 537.957}, "reply_to": "15007__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_033", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [542.095], "stop_times": [542.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.095}, "reply_to": "15007__0_032", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_034", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Is that the one you are speaking of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [542.36], "stop_times": [543.561], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 542.36}, "reply_to": "15007__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_035", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That is the one we are speaking of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [543.561], "stop_times": [544.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.561}, "reply_to": "15007__0_034", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_036", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What have you say that\u2019s open and shut because there\u2019s still to be litigated as individual strikers whether the individual strikers will listen to positive statement not that open and shut?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [544.614], "stop_times": [555.78], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 544.614}, "reply_to": "15007__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_037", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "It is not, that is not open and shut to the extent there are defenses.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [555.78, 559.881], "stop_times": [559.881, 560.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.78}, "reply_to": "15007__0_036", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_038", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Wasn\u2019t that what this case is all about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [560.136], "stop_times": [560.963], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 560.136}, "reply_to": "15007__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_039", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, this case is about the large bulk of the strikers excluding those who are engaged in misconduct as to which the record shows the company have no defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [560.963], "stop_times": [571.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.963}, "reply_to": "15007__0_038", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_040", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "How do you know which ones they are to have litigated?\nThe company says there are hundred and it turns out there were only 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [571.113, 573.827], "stop_times": [573.827, 578.431], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 571.113}, "reply_to": "15007__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_041", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "This is precisely what?\nThe back pay proceeding contemplates and the machinery is devised in this Court throughout and among other cases in the Wallace case that the only alternative would be to labor the initial unfair labor practice proceeding with a long, long involved hearing as to what the individual rights are, and therefore, the original enforcing decree contemplates that these details about the amount of back pay or the occasional case for an employee is not entitled to reinstatement will be resolved afterwards.\nIn other words, as I think the Second Circuit used the language, so did the Fourth that the enforcing decrees and the nature of interlocutory order which contemplates further procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [578.431, 581.595, 617.78], "stop_times": [581.595, 617.78, 626.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.431}, "reply_to": "15007__0_040", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_042", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What you\u2019re saying is that employer then who runs this, if he refuses to reinstate on the grounds that he\u2019s got a valid defense, he has to run the risks on the back, of having to pay back, back pay if he\u2019s wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [626.544], "stop_times": [642.111], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 626.544}, "reply_to": "15007__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_043", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [642.111], "stop_times": [643.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.111}, "reply_to": "15007__0_042", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_044", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And it doesn\u2019t make any difference how long he has to wait for a hearing.\nHe says I\u2019ve got a valid defense, I want an early hearing on this and the Board waits three or four years, that\u2019s just the employer\u2019s hard luck?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [643.523, 647.73], "stop_times": [647.73, 658.528], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 643.523}, "reply_to": "15007__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_045", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Your Honor, I would like to say, in the first place, we don\u2019t think if the burden must lie somewhere.\nWe think it properly lies on the employer, on the party that has violated the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [658.528, 665.686], "stop_times": [665.686, 671.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.528}, "reply_to": "15007__0_044", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_046", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, how does he get a hearing before the Board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [671.036], "stop_times": [674.178], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 671.036}, "reply_to": "15007__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_047", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "He could have brought a proceeding I suspect under, not I suspect, I believe firmly, could have brought a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act which he relies upon to expedite this matter if he felt the Board was guilty of malingering.\nMoreover, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [674.178, 688.689], "stop_times": [688.689, 689.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.178}, "reply_to": "15007__0_046", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_048", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Sue the Board for early hearing, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [689.674], "stop_times": [691.709], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 689.674}, "reply_to": "15007__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_049", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Request an early hearing, precisely.\nThis lay an instrument, and reference was made to this by the Court below but we find here that this employer --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [691.709, 694.257], "stop_times": [694.257, 701.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.709}, "reply_to": "15007__0_048", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_050", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Would you have gotten around to it any sooner if it had sued you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [701.34], "stop_times": [706.154], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 701.34}, "reply_to": "15007__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__0_051", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That may require Your Honor.\nNow, I am not suggesting or not conceding in any sense that the Board here was guilty of culpable delay.\nThe record sets this forth quite accurate -- quite completely.\nThe fact to the matter was that this record and the public record demonstrates that the Court, that the Board at this time was undermanned, overloaded with cases which is this Board knows, the Board initiates no cases, cases brought to it and that we had this case and we had four other compliance cases of a similar nature already pending when this decree came out.\nNow, the court below says, I suspect by hindsight that this was the most important case we had.\nI don\u2019t know what the basis of its determination and said we should have expedited this particular case.\nBut the fact to the matter is that at that time, we are undermanned, overstuffed, frankly, we didn\u2019t want this case here to be frank.\nOn the subject of the delay, we don\u2019t believe in delay and although it\u2019s on this side, I\u2019m very happy to report that as of today, we\u2019ve leaked this very serious problem of delay at least at the administrative level.\nBut this wasn\u2019t the matter of culpability and if not a matter of culpability or even if we are culpable to a minor degree, then we must balance interest affected, our public interest into protecting the policies of the Act, the interest of the employer here who as I say was not a babe in the woods and knew what he was going, had great experience in unfair labor practice proceedings before the Board, and mostly, the interest of the employees here, though hadn\u2019t even be detailed to this Court.\nAn employee without back pay and without reinstatement suffers during this long period.\nIn paralleling these interests, we believe that there is no alternative but not, that is an overstatement.\nWe believe how can\u2019t that the Court ought to correct the error of the court below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [706.154, 707.302, 714.355, 718.927, 745.826, 752.979, 759.536, 768.117, 780.849, 817.19, 823.52, 831.479], "stop_times": [707.302, 714.355, 718.927, 745.826, 752.979, 759.536, 768.117, 780.849, 817.19, 823.52, 831.479, 838.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.154}, "reply_to": "15007__0_050", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_052", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Ordman, you mentioned the procedure under the Administrative Procedures Act that might have led to expediting this, is that a mechanism that\u2019s used frequently or is it used at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [838.687], "stop_times": [852.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.687}, "reply_to": "15007__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__0_053", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "This mechanism was used in one case which is cited I think both in our brief and in the respondent\u2019s brief in a case where the Board had a director, a second hearing, remanded a second hearing before the trial exam, the cases Deering against Milliken.\nThe company at that time asked for relief and asked the hearing be state completely because it was unnecessary dragging out this proceeding and the Court of Appeals in that case I would say simply gave the company in that case half the relief it asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [852.128, 872.798], "stop_times": [872.798, 892.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.128}, "reply_to": "15007__0_052", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_054", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The party who felt it was being subjected to undue delay would have other difficult decision, wouldn\u2019t he tried to decide just when to invoke this extraordinary procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [892.988], "stop_times": [905.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.988}, "reply_to": "15007__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__0_055", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "At minimum I submit, Your Honor.\nIt seems to me they could have come to us and said, \u201cNow what\u2019s the story?\nAm I really through?\nDon\u2019t I have to reinstate anymore?\nDon\u2019t I have the back pay?\u201d\nWe didn\u2019t get this initial gesture.\nOf course, the company says it was our job to come to them.\nWe want to and we do as often as we can.\nWe were subtle by this very difficult burden which is not only characteristic of our agency, I think characteristics of other agencies and I think the court sometimes heavily oppressed by a laborious docket.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [905.496, 909.074, 913.066, 914.658, 916.407, 917.684, 919.856, 923.719, 926.62, 941.764], "stop_times": [909.074, 913.066, 914.658, 916.407, 917.684, 919.856, 923.719, 926.62, 941.764, 944.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.496}, "reply_to": "15007__0_054", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__0_056", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [944.16], "stop_times": [948.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.16}, "reply_to": "15007__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__1_000", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIt\u2019s our position basically in this matter that the further affirmative action was required by the Board.\nThe Fifth Circuit --\u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [948.106, 953.502, 962.927], "stop_times": [953.502, 962.927, 962.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 948.106}, "reply_to": "15007__0_056", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_001", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Would mind speaking a little louder, I can\u2019t quite hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [962.997], "stop_times": [965.873], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 962.997}, "reply_to": "15007__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_002", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The Fifth Circuit in enforcing the Board order specifically said that that the numerous problems which the employer had in deciding who to reinstate and under what circumstances, the full text of the language is quoted in the brief of the numerous problems were not foreclosed by the Board order or by the enforcing opinion but were reserved for further administrative proceedings before the Board.\nPromptly, upon the issuance of the Board of the enforcing opinion of the Fifth Circuit, the employer submitted a report to the Board in which it gave payroll information, the job classifications, operations numbers, strike list, the names of those persons who had applied for reinstatement and the date upon which they had been reinstated.\nThe company said if any incidence of a failure to comply with this order that comes to your attention, we\u2019d like to know about it because we intend to comply and we want to comply.\nNow, the Board didn\u2019t reply to that letter and I submit that on the face of this record, the Board should not say to the Court that we should have done anything further because the Board is on record in this proceeding as we point out in our supplemental brief, as being of the opinion that they had no duty to advise us at all about our obligations under this indefinite order and that it was up to us to comply literally or to use the terms that they used before the Fifth Circuit in haec verba.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [965.873, 1004.355, 1037.175, 1052.367], "stop_times": [1004.355, 1037.175, 1052.367, 1092.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 965.873}, "reply_to": "15007__1_001", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_003", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "You say indefinite order, where is the order?\nWhich part of it?\nYou say it\u2019s indefinite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1092.479, 1095.381, 1097.341], "stop_times": [1095.381, 1097.341, 1099.689], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.479}, "reply_to": "15007__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_004", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The order is indefinite in that it does not name the names of the persons to be reinstated and in my submission to the Court requires further implementation in administrative proceedings before the Board before there can be a final judgment as to what individual is entitled to be reinstated and when.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1099.689], "stop_times": [1124.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1099.689}, "reply_to": "15007__1_003", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_005", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I thought you said they ordered all of them be reinstated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1124.08], "stop_times": [1126.826], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.08}, "reply_to": "15007__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_006", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, there were \u2013 no, because the enforcing language of the court specifically reserved such questions as the availability of jobs, misconduct, the availability of the strikers and any number of specific problems which were referred to by the employer and which were specifically reserved by the court for future determination in administrative proceedings before the Board which proceedings were not held until this opinion was in 1951, in June of 1957.\nThey didn\u2019t file a back pay specification until I think it was November of 1961, four years and four months later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1126.826, 1165.029], "stop_times": [1165.029, 1172.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1126.826}, "reply_to": "15007__1_005", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_007", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Read, did you need any help from the Board as to available jobs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1172.802], "stop_times": [1178.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.802}, "reply_to": "15007__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_008", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That was a very, very serious issue Mr. Justice Marshall for this reason.\nNow, whether we were right or wrong, it was our contention and we presented the evidence of an industrial engineer to support our position.\nWith our contention that we may -- that we maintain a balance line operation in the plant and that the production qualifications of each operator in each step of the production line had to be in balance.\nAll the -- all of the employees would suffer if you have one operator who is capable of only 50 dozen per stated time period, whereas the line is engineered for a hundred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1178.862, 1185.661, 1195.258, 1210.692], "stop_times": [1185.661, 1195.258, 1210.692, 1222.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1178.862}, "reply_to": "15007__1_007", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_009", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "But don\u2019t you have all that information in your plant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1222.67], "stop_times": [1225.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.67}, "reply_to": "15007__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_010", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, but the point that I\u2019m trying to make Mr. Justice Marshall is that we had a legal issue in our minds as to whether or not we were obligated to prejudice the earnings of 14 operators in a 15-operator line by the fact that we had an application from someone whose capabilities did not measure up to the engineering of the line.\nNow, whether we were right on that or not, I say is pre- admitted at this time because the fact is the court said specifically that the availability of work at various times considering the nature of this engineer -- of this manufacturing operations, this raised questions which had to be resolved in further and future administrative proceeding before the Board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1225.662, 1250.648], "stop_times": [1250.648, 1275.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1225.662}, "reply_to": "15007__1_009", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_011", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "So rather -- so rather than to have them resolve, you did nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1275.496], "stop_times": [1280.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.496}, "reply_to": "15007__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_012", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Oh!\nBy no means sir, we were reinstate -- we were not adamant in refusing to comply with this order, I hasten to dispel that suggestion.\nWe complied with this order.\nEven the Board in its post hoc, critical second guessing of what we did concedes that we complied with 70% of the cases that they say that were involved.\nWe did not stand fast and refuse to comply.\nWe did comply and we took people on as we could work them into these operations.\nWe had other problems, for instance, there was this problem and again I\u2019m not arguing today that I am right, I\u2019m simply arguing that this was a problem on this point that the Union submitted letters in which they listed the names of the strikers who wish to return.\nWe responded and said in an orderly rebuilding process, we would ask that you send people in at 20 a day so we can work them in.\nThey wrote back and said we\u2019ll do that.\nNow, they say and I must say that\u2019s too late to argue about the correctness of it, they say that this did not invalidate the original application of which they say was effective even though they agree to send people in but it has left us because we thought that the people who were interested in their jobs would come into the plant as the Union had said they would in its letter.\nAnd in many instances, the problems which the company has today resulted from the fact that persons who did not show their availability were ultimately held by the Board to have been entitled to reinstatement by virtue of the Union letter of application.\nI referred to that not to reargue that point but simply to demonstrate another area in which there was doubt, another area in which this author was indefinite, and another area in which he\u2019d require administrative definition by the Board which was not forthcoming.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1280.621, 1280.869, 1291.059, 1293.172, 1306.073, 1309.206, 1315.789, 1333.39, 1343.695, 1347.402, 1373.975, 1391.779, 1409.993], "stop_times": [1280.869, 1291.059, 1293.172, 1306.073, 1309.206, 1315.789, 1333.39, 1343.695, 1347.402, 1373.975, 1391.779, 1409.993, 1410.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1280.621}, "reply_to": "15007__1_011", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_013", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "May I ask you one or two questions to verify the situation in my mind.\nWhat did the Board order?\nWhat is the basic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1410.516, 1415.864, 1417.283], "stop_times": [1415.864, 1417.283, 1418.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.516}, "reply_to": "15007__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_014", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The Board order --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1418.498], "stop_times": [1419.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1418.498}, "reply_to": "15007__1_013", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_015", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The latest Board\u2019s order that which this opinion of the court is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1419.027], "stop_times": [1424.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.027}, "reply_to": "15007__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_016", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The Board order as my memory serves me, that to reinstate as immediately upon application, reinstate all strikers and to pay them back pay within five days of application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1424.838], "stop_times": [1440.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1424.838}, "reply_to": "15007__1_015", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_017", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Alright, now what happens then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1440.768], "stop_times": [1443.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.768}, "reply_to": "15007__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_018", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Right then, we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1443.429], "stop_times": [1445.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1443.429}, "reply_to": "15007__1_017", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_019", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Is that the order that\u2019s before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1445.729], "stop_times": [1447.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.729}, "reply_to": "15007__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_020", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That\u2019s the order that\u2019s before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1447.131], "stop_times": [1448.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1447.131}, "reply_to": "15007__1_019", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_021", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That\u2019s the order report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1448.601], "stop_times": [1449.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.601}, "reply_to": "15007__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_022", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, but it was enforced Mr. Justice Black in the language to which I earlier referred in which the enforcing court specifically reserved for future determination the defenses of the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1449.858], "stop_times": [1462.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1449.858}, "reply_to": "15007__1_021", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_023", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Now Mr. Read, basically I can\u2019t find anywhere in the record, is it here?\nThe only decree the court which I can find is the 1968 decree?\nCould that be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1462.221, 1467.845, 1474.108], "stop_times": [1467.845, 1474.108, 1478.318], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.221}, "reply_to": "15007__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_024", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "(Inaudible), but we\u2019re looking for a decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1478.318], "stop_times": [1484.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.318}, "reply_to": "15007__1_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15007__1_025", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The 1957 decree; that does not seem --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1484.847], "stop_times": [1488.365], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.847}, "reply_to": "15007__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_026", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "We\u2019re looking for the 1957 decree of the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1488.365], "stop_times": [1490.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1488.365}, "reply_to": "15007__1_025", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_027", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That\u2019s on page 959, the relevant part of this quote in the court below opinion, page 959 of volume 2 -- volume 2 of the record.\nIs it the opinion or the decree?\nThe decree.\nThis is the decree?\nOh!\nThen you cite the decree of August 1957?\nThat\u2019s right.\nIt\u2019s just an excerpt from?\nIt\u2019s an excerpt from.\nBut the decree itself, the complete decree, nowhere it appears?\nNot in print.\nNo it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1490.72, 1499.125, 1503.824, 1504.752, 1505.635, 1505.965, 1509.185, 1509.524, 1510.887, 1511.939, 1515.338, 1515.939], "stop_times": [1499.125, 1503.824, 1504.752, 1505.635, 1505.965, 1509.185, 1509.524, 1510.887, 1511.939, 1515.338, 1515.939, 1516.331], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.72}, "reply_to": "15007__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_028", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "It\u2019s not in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1516.331], "stop_times": [1517.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1516.331}, "reply_to": "15007__1_027", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_029", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Now, would you mind telling me what defense you set up to the Board\u2019s order to reinstate and pay back pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1517.299], "stop_times": [1527.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.299}, "reply_to": "15007__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_030", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "When the Board ultimately in 1961, the fall of 1961, filed a back pay specification we filed an answer in which we asserted numerous defenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1527.036], "stop_times": [1541.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1527.036}, "reply_to": "15007__1_029", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_031", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What\u2019s the main one that\u2019s involved here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1541.742], "stop_times": [1543.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.742}, "reply_to": "15007__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_032", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, we asserted a misconduct defense.\nThat was one.\nWe asserted a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1543.978, 1545.996, 1547.053], "stop_times": [1545.996, 1547.053, 1548.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1543.978}, "reply_to": "15007__1_031", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_033", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "You mean on the part of the employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1548.249], "stop_times": [1549.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.249}, "reply_to": "15007__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_034", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Strikers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1549.595], "stop_times": [1551.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.595}, "reply_to": "15007__1_033", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_035", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What is the main defense that you setup, the one which the court sustained which deprived this people of the right to get their back pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1551.095], "stop_times": [1558.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.095}, "reply_to": "15007__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_036", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Delay.\nWell now, Mr. Justice Black, these employees have not been deprived of that pay.\nWe are under an order which is not under review to pay back pay which is going to amount to well over a hundred thousand dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1558.587, 1559.815, 1565.53], "stop_times": [1559.815, 1565.53, 1574.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1558.587}, "reply_to": "15007__1_035", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_037", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Now, what is your contention with reference to what the order of the court below did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1574.558], "stop_times": [1581.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.558}, "reply_to": "15007__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_038", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "In this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1581.342], "stop_times": [1582.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1581.342}, "reply_to": "15007__1_037", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_039", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1582.095], "stop_times": [1582.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.095}, "reply_to": "15007__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_040", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "We say that the court below properly modified the Board back pay order because of the inordinate delay of the Board.\nThat\u2019s the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1582.94, 1595.182], "stop_times": [1595.182, 1595.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1582.94}, "reply_to": "15007__1_039", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_041", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Modified it in what way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1595.5], "stop_times": [1596.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.5}, "reply_to": "15007__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_042", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "They\u2019d modified it by inserting a cutoff date --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1596.914], "stop_times": [1601.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1596.914}, "reply_to": "15007__1_041", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_043", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Cutoff like statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1601.453], "stop_times": [1603.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.453}, "reply_to": "15007__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_044", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1603.594], "stop_times": [1604.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1603.594}, "reply_to": "15007__1_043", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_045", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "In effect to statute of limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1604.048], "stop_times": [1605.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.048}, "reply_to": "15007__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_046", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well sir, that\u2019s a matter of argument that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1605.592], "stop_times": [1608.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1605.592}, "reply_to": "15007__1_045", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_047", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well I say is it?\nIs that what they\u2019ve \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1608.425, 1609.312], "stop_times": [1609.312, 1610.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.425}, "reply_to": "15007__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_048", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, sir they said this.\nIf I may, if I may please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1610.076, 1611.275], "stop_times": [1611.275, 1612.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1610.076}, "reply_to": "15007__1_047", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_049", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes.\nWhat I understood, maybe I\u2019m wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1612.217, 1612.867], "stop_times": [1612.867, 1614.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.217}, "reply_to": "15007__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_050", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Now, if I may presume --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1614.996], "stop_times": [1615.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1614.996}, "reply_to": "15007__1_049", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_051", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I thought they have held --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1615.402], "stop_times": [1617.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.402}, "reply_to": "15007__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_052", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, sir.\nThis is what they said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1617.701, 1618.013], "stop_times": [1618.013, 1618.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1617.701}, "reply_to": "15007__1_051", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_053", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That they were barred because inordinate delay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1618.655], "stop_times": [1621.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.655}, "reply_to": "15007__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_054", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well sir, we argued to the court and the court, if I may put it this way, seem to see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1621.387], "stop_times": [1631.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1621.387}, "reply_to": "15007__1_053", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_055", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Sustained your argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1631.613], "stop_times": [1633.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.613}, "reply_to": "15007__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_056", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Correctness of the argument that under the opinion of this Court in NLRB versus Brown, which is the decision that they referred to that it is the proper function of the reviewing court to look at the remedial order of the Board and consider its fairness and balance the conflicting interest and it evidently felt and said that this employer having submitted the information that it did about its compliance program and the Board not only having taken no action to file a specification for four years and four months but furthermore, have offered no help, no cooperation and made no attempt to work out an amicable settlement to this case prior to the day they filed a specification, the violation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1633.172], "stop_times": [1683.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1633.172}, "reply_to": "15007__1_055", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_057", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I understand though that but what did they decide with reference to this people getting their money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1683.637], "stop_times": [1689.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.637}, "reply_to": "15007__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_058", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "They said that the back pay order of the Board would be modified.\nThe Fifth Circuit said the back pay order of the court would be modified by inserting a cutoff date in 1959.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1689.44, 1693.305], "stop_times": [1693.305, 1699.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.44}, "reply_to": "15007__1_057", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_059", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Of what date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1699.97], "stop_times": [1701.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.97}, "reply_to": "15007__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_060", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I think its June of 1959.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1701.547], "stop_times": [1703.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.547}, "reply_to": "15007__1_059", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_061", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "June 1959.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1703.362], "stop_times": [1704.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.362}, "reply_to": "15007__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_062", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, about five years of back pay.\nIt was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1704.439, 1706.956], "stop_times": [1706.956, 1707.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.439}, "reply_to": "15007__1_061", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_063", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And from then on they couldn\u2019t get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1707.149], "stop_times": [1709.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.149}, "reply_to": "15007__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_064", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes sir, but that is much --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1709.815], "stop_times": [1712.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.815}, "reply_to": "15007__1_063", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_065", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Is that really the basis of the dispute between you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1712.102], "stop_times": [1714.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.102}, "reply_to": "15007__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_066", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That is correct, yes.\nBut on that point, this is in a side which I feel I must insert here, Mr. Ordman made a reference to the fact that there are employees who have not been paid their back pay as of this date.\nThe reason for that is, the litigation isn\u2019t over and the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the Board to fix back pay and we don\u2019t know how much to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1714.528, 1716.637, 1730.901], "stop_times": [1716.637, 1730.901, 1739.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.528}, "reply_to": "15007__1_065", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_067", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "How many of them have you paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1739.76], "stop_times": [1741.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.76}, "reply_to": "15007__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_068", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "We haven\u2019t paid any because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1741.557], "stop_times": [1743.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.557}, "reply_to": "15007__1_067", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_069", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "You haven\u2019t paid any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1743.59], "stop_times": [1744.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.59}, "reply_to": "15007__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_070", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, because they never have told us how much to pay and secondly, secondly, Mr. Ordman makes statement which I must take issue with when he says that there are people who have not been reinstated, this same mistake was made by counsel for the Union before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and in post argument, correspondents which are trustees in the record, we showed that everyone with the exception of three persons had been offered reinstatement or have been disqualified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1744.454], "stop_times": [1777.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.454}, "reply_to": "15007__1_069", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_071", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Have any of them, you said none of them have been paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1777.325], "stop_times": [1779.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.325}, "reply_to": "15007__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_072", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "They have not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1779.945], "stop_times": [1780.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.945}, "reply_to": "15007__1_071", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_073", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And many of them submitted a claim to you before payment is reached?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1780.083], "stop_times": [1784.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.083}, "reply_to": "15007__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_074", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, sir --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1784.452], "stop_times": [1784.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.452}, "reply_to": "15007__1_073", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_075", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Back pays?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1784.955], "stop_times": [1785.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.955}, "reply_to": "15007__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_076", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Other than in the back pay proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1785.3], "stop_times": [1787.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.3}, "reply_to": "15007__1_075", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_077", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1787.453], "stop_times": [1787.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.453}, "reply_to": "15007__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_078", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Other than in the back pay proceeding.\nThere is an order of the Board which is not final in my judgment because the Fifth Circuit has refused to enforce it and has remanded it to the Board for final fixing of the amounts due under that portion of the order which was enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1787.783, 1791.338], "stop_times": [1791.338, 1808.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.783}, "reply_to": "15007__1_077", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_079", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Have any of these employees filed with you a claim for back payment?\nThat\u2019s all I want to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1808.048, 1815.626], "stop_times": [1815.626, 1816.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.048}, "reply_to": "15007__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_080", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No sir, as far as I know, no sir.\nIf I understand your question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1816.317, 1817.689], "stop_times": [1817.689, 1818.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.317}, "reply_to": "15007__1_079", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_081", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Never had?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1818.572], "stop_times": [1819.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.572}, "reply_to": "15007__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_082", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "If I understand the courts -- your question, the answer is in the negative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1819.478], "stop_times": [1823.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1819.478}, "reply_to": "15007__1_081", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_083", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, sometimes I just believe, when they appear in the backpay proceeding and say, \u201cI (Inaudible)\u201d isn\u2019t that what it means to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1823.772], "stop_times": [1831.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.772}, "reply_to": "15007__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15007__1_084", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, of course, if that is the intent of the question Mr. Justice Brennan, I\u2019ll answer it in the affirmative but I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1831.899], "stop_times": [1838.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.899}, "reply_to": "15007__1_083", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_085", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "[Voice Overlap] with the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1838.731], "stop_times": [1839.981], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.731}, "reply_to": "15007__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_086", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I was having trouble understanding the question as a claim, as intending to refer to a claim submitted to the company personally.\nThere have been no claims asserted other than those asserted by the Board in the back pay proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1839.981, 1850.197], "stop_times": [1850.197, 1856.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.981}, "reply_to": "15007__1_085", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_087", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, that\u2019s the conventional way to do it, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1856.387], "stop_times": [1858.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.387}, "reply_to": "15007__1_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__1_088", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Correct, correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1858.031], "stop_times": [1859.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.031}, "reply_to": "15007__1_087", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_089", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Read, of the 150 other people employed.\nWouldn\u2019t that be one of that 150 that you clearly know you should pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1859.512, 1863.709], "stop_times": [1863.709, 1870.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.512}, "reply_to": "15007__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_090", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "We have no objection to paying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1870.335], "stop_times": [1871.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.335}, "reply_to": "15007__1_089", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_091", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "But why haven\u2019t you paid anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1871.685], "stop_times": [1872.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.685}, "reply_to": "15007__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_092", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "We, Mr. Justice Marshall, we have absolutely no objection, as a matter of fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1872.807], "stop_times": [1877.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.807}, "reply_to": "15007__1_091", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_093", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "But you haven\u2019t?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1877.695], "stop_times": [1878.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.695}, "reply_to": "15007__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_094", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, I considered tendering the amount which I thought was due but I decided against it and my client was perfectly willing to do it and is willing to do it today of course but I decided it was premature until such time as the Board tells us how much that is.\nThere\u2019s absolutely no reluctance on the part of this company to pay the back pay that is not under review --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1878.378, 1896.375], "stop_times": [1896.375, 1901.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.378}, "reply_to": "15007__1_093", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_095", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Have you ever tried to pay any of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1901.874], "stop_times": [1904.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.874}, "reply_to": "15007__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15007__1_096", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1904.216], "stop_times": [1905.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.216}, "reply_to": "15007__1_095", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_097", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And there is no reluctance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1905.366], "stop_times": [1907.856], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.366}, "reply_to": "15007__1_096", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_098", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, there\u2019s absolutely no reluctance on the part of the company and I say that without any qualification at all.\nThere\u2019s no reluctance on the part of this company --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1907.856, 1913.448], "stop_times": [1913.448, 1915.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.856}, "reply_to": "15007__1_097", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_099", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "How much do you owe to the person that has been on dismissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1915.268], "stop_times": [1918.403], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.268}, "reply_to": "15007__1_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_100", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No sir, that\u2019s my point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1918.403], "stop_times": [1919.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.403}, "reply_to": "15007__1_099", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_101", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1919.771], "stop_times": [1922.149], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.771}, "reply_to": "15007__1_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_102", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nThat\u2019s my appreciation of the status of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1922.149, 1924.412], "stop_times": [1924.412, 1929.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.149}, "reply_to": "15007__1_101", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_103", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "But would you -- let\u2019s assume a company, after a general order like this in the Court of Appeals feels that it has some good faith defenses in connection with any number of these strikers and it says I want to litigate this for the Board, it can do that I take it.\nThose matters were reserve under these orders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1929.305, 1947.591], "stop_times": [1947.591, 1949.22], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.305}, "reply_to": "15007__1_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_104", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1949.22], "stop_times": [1950.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.22}, "reply_to": "15007__1_103", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_105", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "But it can litigate it.\nI would suppose you would agree that that if you lose in connection with employee \u201cA\u201d say and your defense is rejected and you are then ordered to reinstate them, I would suppose you would agree you have to give them back pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1950.112, 1951.322], "stop_times": [1951.322, 1965.107], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.112}, "reply_to": "15007__1_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_106", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1965.107], "stop_times": [1966.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.107}, "reply_to": "15007__1_105", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_107", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And if so, this case really boils down to whether or not you can be ordered to give back pay if the proceeding where you litigate the validity of your defenses happens to occur four years instead of two years or one year after the general order of the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1966.426], "stop_times": [1986.754], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.426}, "reply_to": "15007__1_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_108", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1986.754], "stop_times": [1987.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.754}, "reply_to": "15007__1_107", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_109", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "You don\u2019t object right now to, I gather to the part of the Court of Appeals order that says you have to pay them for two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1987.152], "stop_times": [1994.589], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.152}, "reply_to": "15007__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_110", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Oh!\nNo sir, that\u2019s not an issue here at all as far as I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1994.589, 1994.912], "stop_times": [1994.912, 1998.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.589}, "reply_to": "15007__1_109", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_111", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And of course just the other two-year back pay order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [1998.115], "stop_times": [2001.333], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.115}, "reply_to": "15007__1_110", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_112", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Correct, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2001.333], "stop_times": [2002.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.333}, "reply_to": "15007__1_111", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_113", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And so it\u2019s a question of where the incidence of delay must fall on the employees or on the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2002.593], "stop_times": [2008.267], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.593}, "reply_to": "15007__1_112", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_114", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That\u2019s the case, that\u2019s the case and I\u2019m not sure.\nNow, this delay issue first was injected into the case when we tried to enjoin the back pay hearing at the time that it was filed in 1961 and the Board went into the Fifth Circuit at that time and it didn\u2019t deny that the delay occurred, it admitted that the delay occurred and as the court said, it admitted that inordinate or unreasonable delay occurred.\nBut it said to the court, don\u2019t enjoin us from holding a back pay hearing because we can take delay into consideration and we can protect the company\u2019s interest and inferring no matter what we do, our decision with regard to delay will ultimately be reviewed by the Fifth Circuit.\nWell then when the case is remand, when the case proceeds under the back pays classification, the Board doesn\u2019t make any reduction on the grounds of delay.\nIn fact, the Board\u2019s decision doesn\u2019t say a word about delay and the Trial Examiner said that he didn\u2019t consider and give you that exact language because I do believe it\u2019s important.\nReferring to delay, the examiner having ultimately ruled that none of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2008.267, 2013.789, 2039.886, 2060.245, 2073.13, 2086.8], "stop_times": [2013.789, 2039.886, 2060.245, 2073.13, 2086.8, 2090.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.267}, "reply_to": "15007__1_113", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_115", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Where, where are you reading from now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2090.612], "stop_times": [2091.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.612}, "reply_to": "15007__1_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__1_116", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I\u2019m reading from page 55 of the joint appendix.\nThe Examiner having ultimately ruled that none of this issues were properly before him for our disposition in accordance with this ruling having refused absence -- absence to proffer of evidence of wrongful or unlawful conduct on the part of the general counsel which was not forthcoming to permit the parties fully to develop the facts regarding delay I interpret.\nAnd when the Fifth Circuit then, when the company complains about the fact that the Board didn\u2019t take delay into consideration.\nThe Board comes into the Fifth Circuit and takes diametrically opposed positions.\nIt says that time in this proceeding that we are reviewing here now, it says no unreasonable delay occurred.\nIf it did, it\u2019s up to us and our discretion to assess it.\nIt\u2019s up to us to decide what if anything to do about it and the limited judicial appellate procedure available to you doesn\u2019t accord the Fifth Circuit the right to do anything about it.\nAnd it says furthermore, even if the Fifth Circuit had the right to review our decisions in the delayed area, it cannot do it because if it does, its applying the doctrine of laches to defeat a public right.\nNow, I submit to the Court that this position on the part of the Board is wrong and a number of very serious ways.\nIn the first place, I do not accept the fact that the statutory scheme whether we\u2019d be talking about the National Labor Relations Act or whether we\u2019re talking about the Administrative Procedure Act contemplates according by the administrative agency the right to judge itself fully, finally without review.\nIt may have the right, in certain areas of expertise, in which it\u2019s assumed that they have expert knowledge to judge the actions of litigants before it but it has no expertise when it comes to judging its own derelictions.\nI say the Board is wrong about that.\nAnd secondly, on the question of laches, it\u2019s a principle case relied upon by the Board is Electric Vacuum Cleaner decision to this Court and although it doesn\u2019t appear in the decision here and it doesn\u2019t appear in the Circuit Court decision the Electric Vacuum Cleaner, I would like to call the Court\u2019s attention to the proceedings before the Board which I found, they\u2019re not in my brief but I found them in volume 101 of the transcripts of records and copies of brief for the October term 1941, I think its docket number 588.\nI found the Board proceeding in that case and the Board has done in that case precisely what it says, the Fifth Circuit can\u2019t do in this and this is how that case came about.\nIn the Electric Vacuum Cleaner case, the Board issued a complaint and then 13 months later it issued a finding of some sort.\nThe company complained about the fact that there was a 13 months delay and it also complained about the fact that the Board hadn\u2019t issued an intermediate report which procedurally it was suppose to have done.\nThe company filed a petition for review under Section 10 (f) of the Labor Act just as we have done here and the Board seeing what was developing withdrew its order which the company sought to review and then moved to dismiss the petition to review because there was nothing to review.\nSometime later, I think it was, well I don\u2019t remember the exact date but it was sometime later on that the Board then issued a new order and because of what its secretary said in that record was an administrative error on the part of the Board and because of what the company claimed was undue delay, the Board excluded from the back pay period a nine-month period and exactly in the same fashion as the Fifth Circuit has done in this case.\nNow, that position which the Board took in Electric Vacuum Cleaner in the Board proceeding was consistent with the position which the Board took in the injunction case in the Fifth Circuit because at that time, there was no talk whatsoever about the inability of the Board to take its own delays into consideration of fashion a back pay order.\nIn substance, we say that the Board should not be permitted to issue orders which require further definition than waiting inordinate length of time before initiating the administrative procedure which is required to define the company\u2019s obligation and then second guess the company on what it did -- what it did in its reinstatement program in the meantime, that\u2019s our basic complaint in this case.\nI started to make a reference to something I consider important and I would like to say it briefly because it\u2019s not in my brief and that is I want to make a reference to Section 101.16 of the Board\u2019s rules which provide that after a Board order directing payment of back pay has been issued or after enforcement of such order by a court decree, if in formal efforts to dispose of the matter proved unsuccessful the regional director -- regional director is then authorize at his discretion to issue a back pay specification.\nI consider that significant because they didn\u2019t, they made no effort to work this out with us at all, they simply went in and file the specification seeking $342,000 in November 1961, four years and four months after the opinion of the Fifth Circuit enforcing the decree of reinstatement with the reservation which I have referred to and the compliance officer for the Board testified at the hearing that he knew that our letter that was in the record asking to be advised of any deviation from the obligations of compliance, we were on the record as wanting to comply and he did not make any effort to discuss with us and an informal resolution of all of the problems which were -- which have to be resolved before there could be a clear definition of what the Board order require.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2091.603, 2095.723, 2120.128, 2130.907, 2136.68, 2145.653, 2150.53, 2164.259, 2180.19, 2190.625, 2213.546, 2231.299, 2233.816, 2271.407, 2285.71, 2299.269, 2314.475, 2338.078, 2370.95, 2397.581, 2439.133, 2477.762], "stop_times": [2095.723, 2120.128, 2130.907, 2136.68, 2145.653, 2150.53, 2164.259, 2180.19, 2190.625, 2213.546, 2231.299, 2233.816, 2271.407, 2285.71, 2299.269, 2314.475, 2338.078, 2370.95, 2397.581, 2439.133, 2477.762, 2533.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.603}, "reply_to": "15007__1_115", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_117", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Are there any, are there any approximation on what to, what the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2533.972], "stop_times": [2540.622], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.972}, "reply_to": "15007__1_116", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_118", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, sir.\nOriginally, the specification sought $342,000.\nIn the hearing, we eliminated 45 people in the back pay.\nIn the hearing before the examiner and before the Court, so that\u2019s 45 people that we were right about.\nThe Board order reduced the amount to approximately 162,000.\nThe order of the Fifth Circuit reduced it to about 90,000 or 95,000 but there is interest running since 1964 so that I make a rough approximation of the company\u2019s obligation if it wins this case is still somewhere in the neighborhood of a $140,000.\nThat\u2019s if we win this case.\nNow, if we lose this case, what the Board intends to do is go back and file another specification and try to exact back pay from 1961 to date I presume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2540.622, 2541.832, 2547.145, 2552.248, 2562.146, 2567.96, 2591.744, 2593.125], "stop_times": [2541.832, 2547.145, 2552.248, 2562.146, 2567.96, 2591.744, 2593.125, 2611.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.622}, "reply_to": "15007__1_117", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_119", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Now, you contended before the Court I gather from its opinion but you don\u2019t want to admit it then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2611.457], "stop_times": [2619.514], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.457}, "reply_to": "15007__1_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_120", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "We contended that for this reason in which we lost on this point but if I may be permitted to say I still think I\u2019m right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2619.514], "stop_times": [2626.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.514}, "reply_to": "15007__1_119", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_121", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "As a lawyer, you should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2626.649], "stop_times": [2628.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.649}, "reply_to": "15007__1_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15007__1_122", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, this was the point Justice Black, the Board order said to reinstate immediately upon application.\nNow, I took the position that this meant, that this was prospective in nature, but we couldn\u2019t reinstate immediately somebody who had applied a year before the Board order.\nSo we took the position in the Fifth Circuit in an attempt to win the case completely.\nThat if, that we were only responsible to reinstate those people who applied prospectively or after the date of the order, but we lost on that unfortunately, but that is the basis of the contention that I made at that junction that we didn\u2019t know the minute it was on the basis of the interpretation of the order which I think has some relevance here as well because its another indefinite aspect of the order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2628.663, 2637.267, 2649.306, 2654.901], "stop_times": [2637.267, 2649.306, 2654.901, 2681.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.663}, "reply_to": "15007__1_121", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_123", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What is the actual difference between it now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2681.92], "stop_times": [2686.886], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.92}, "reply_to": "15007__1_122", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_124", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "The difference between?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2686.886], "stop_times": [2688.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.886}, "reply_to": "15007__1_123", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_125", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Financial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2688.072], "stop_times": [2689.379], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.072}, "reply_to": "15007__1_124", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_126", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Financial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2689.379], "stop_times": [2690.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.379}, "reply_to": "15007__1_125", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_127", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, in money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2690.168], "stop_times": [2692.911], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.168}, "reply_to": "15007__1_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_128", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Leaving out the interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2692.911], "stop_times": [2693.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.911}, "reply_to": "15007__1_127", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_129", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "[Voice Overlap] interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2693.672], "stop_times": [2694.159], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.672}, "reply_to": "15007__1_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_130", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Leaving out interest, it\u2019s a difference if you don\u2019t hold me to accurately figure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2694.159], "stop_times": [2699.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.159}, "reply_to": "15007__1_129", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_131", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "I know, I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2699.517], "stop_times": [2700.279], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.517}, "reply_to": "15007__1_130", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_132", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "-- of a 162 as compared to about 95.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2700.279], "stop_times": [2704.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.279}, "reply_to": "15007__1_131", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_133", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "About 95?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2704.72], "stop_times": [2705.759], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.72}, "reply_to": "15007__1_132", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_134", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2705.759], "stop_times": [2706.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.759}, "reply_to": "15007__1_133", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_135", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "And that\u2019s all the difference you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2706.5], "stop_times": [2707.573], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.5}, "reply_to": "15007__1_134", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15007__1_136", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "That\u2019s all the difference, that\u2019s all the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2707.573], "stop_times": [2713.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.573}, "reply_to": "15007__1_135", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_137", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "What's that the Board would have done that Congress didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2713.829], "stop_times": [2718.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.829}, "reply_to": "15007__1_136", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15007__1_138", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Well, we won a lot of the cases Justice White on the very issues that were contemplated by the Fifth Circuit in its enforcing language.\nFor instance, we won some misconduct cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2718.145, 2726.738], "stop_times": [2726.738, 2729.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.145}, "reply_to": "15007__1_137", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_139", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Though the Trial Examiner ordered something like 200,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2729.294], "stop_times": [2732.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.294}, "reply_to": "15007__1_138", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15007__1_140", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "No, no, no, the specification claim 342, the Trial Examiner ordered about a 162.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2732.586], "stop_times": [2738.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.586}, "reply_to": "15007__1_139", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_141", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Alright.\nAnd thus, what the Board gives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2738.74, 2740.288], "stop_times": [2740.288, 2743.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.74}, "reply_to": "15007__1_140", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15007__1_142", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Thus, the Board made some minor adjustment which is insignificant, but then when we got to the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit eliminated a few more of the cases and I also put a cutoff date which cuts it down to about 95,000.\nI know my time is about up, I would like to say just one word about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2743.527, 2760.099], "stop_times": [2760.099, 2766.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.527}, "reply_to": "15007__1_141", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__1_143", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Your time is up counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2766.417], "stop_times": [2767.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.417}, "reply_to": "15007__1_142", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15007__1_144", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "My time is up I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2767.092], "stop_times": [2770.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.092}, "reply_to": "15007__1_143", "speaker": "henry_j_read"}
{"id": "15007__2_000", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "If I may have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2770.898], "stop_times": [2771.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2770.898}, "reply_to": "15007__1_144", "speaker": "arnold_ordman"}
{"id": "15007__2_001", "conversation_id": "15007", "text": "Mr. Ordman, I think your time is up too.\nThe case is submitted.\nWe thank you for submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_32", "start_times": [2771.415, 2775.235, 2776.361], "stop_times": [2775.235, 2776.361, 2777.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.415}, "reply_to": "15007__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_000", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Number 448, the National Labor Relations Board against Raytheon Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [27.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_001", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and the Court please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [27.872], "stop_times": [29.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 27.872}, "reply_to": "15085__0_000", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_002", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Mr. Kleindiesnt, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [29.807], "stop_times": [31.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 29.807}, "reply_to": "15085__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_003", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "This case comes of the Court on certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nIt raises a specific but in the opinion of the Government a very important issue as to the administration of the National Labor Relations Act and it presents the precise question of whether on the eve up or at other about the time of a representation of election under the Act.\nThe employer engages in unfair labor practice activity.\nWhether such unfair labor practice activity is rendered moot and therefore now susceptible to an enforcing order from the Court of Appeals by virtue of a subsequent representation election which the union lost that came after the unfair labor practice activity.\nThe facts in the case, I think are likewise rather direct and not controversial.\nThe union in the case began its organizational activities among the employees in the fall of 1964 on the eve of the representation election a few days before representatives of the company engaged in conduct which subsequently as I will outline was determined to be in violation of the Act.\nAnd election was held, the union lost the election.\nThe union petition to have the election set aside and at the same time, filed unfair labor practice, filed a complaint with the Board and the charge with the Board, and the Board subsequently filed this complaint.\nThereafter, the Board heard the evidence with the respect to alleged unfair labor practice activity and issued its order against the employer to the cease-and-desist in the conduct.\nFollowing the order of the Board, a second election was held.\nAgain, which the union lost, and that election was set aside for reasons that are not material here and do not appear in this record.\nAfter the second election, the Board petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order in forcing its order against the respondent company.\nAnd after that petition to the Court of Appeals, a third election was held.\nAnd again, the union lost the election but at this time, there was no objections filed by the union or the employees with respect to the conduct of the election, and the Board certified the election as be invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [31.691, 36.707, 55.959, 61.298, 85.155, 91.377, 113.844, 117.207, 133.323, 146.672, 150.757, 160.039, 170.628, 177.239], "stop_times": [36.707, 55.959, 61.298, 85.155, 91.377, 113.844, 117.207, 133.323, 146.672, 150.757, 160.039, 170.628, 177.239, 192.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 31.691}, "reply_to": "15085__0_002", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_004", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Does the record show Mr. Kleindienst whether the union's votes increased or decreased?\nWhat happened in this successive election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [192.085, 197.759], "stop_times": [197.759, 199.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.085}, "reply_to": "15085__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_005", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I believe my recollection of record is that the union's votes decreased.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [199.871], "stop_times": [204.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.871}, "reply_to": "15085__0_004", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_006", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Decreased?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [204.085], "stop_times": [204.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.085}, "reply_to": "15085__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_007", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Yeah, that the union's position became stronger in the situation that I -- it's in the record here but that's my recollection of it.\nI don't believe that that's material one way or another to the determination of this issue, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [204.621, 213.304], "stop_times": [213.304, 219.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.621}, "reply_to": "15085__0_006", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_008", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, if their votes -- if their total ballot decreased as each election went on it might suggest some relationship between the companies the continuing impact, the continuing effect of the companies at a union activities would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [219.386], "stop_times": [240.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.386}, "reply_to": "15085__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_009", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "That could possibly be it but I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [240.398], "stop_times": [241.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.398}, "reply_to": "15085__0_008", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_010", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "At least it's an arguable connection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [241.448], "stop_times": [243.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.448}, "reply_to": "15085__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_011", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Possibly but there's so many other factors that could occur, turnover employees, other conduct the issues raised in the election.\nI would say that you almost have to have precise evidence so the point like that Mr. Chief Justice before that would be a supportable inference all by itself from just a mere of fact if the votes went up or down, one way or another.\nNow, that would be my opinion in this regard.\nWhen the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [243.208, 251.202, 263.342, 267.518], "stop_times": [251.202, 263.342, 267.518, 268.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.208}, "reply_to": "15085__0_010", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_012", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Does the record show -- since you are already been interrupted.\nBefore you resume, there's a record other reasons of the second elections was set aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [268.0, 272.256], "stop_times": [272.256, 276.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.0}, "reply_to": "15085__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__0_013", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "No, and I don't believe that any inference can be gained from this record as to the fact that it was set aside.\nThere's nothing with the record, and I think it would be improper for the Government to suggest inferentially or otherwise or that that second election was set aside as a result of misconduct on the part of the respondent company, and the record doesn't show it is Mr. Justice Stewart and I don't want to infer that it was a continuation as an improper conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [276.389, 284.076], "stop_times": [284.076, 302.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.389}, "reply_to": "15085__0_012", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_014", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [302.342], "stop_times": [302.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.342}, "reply_to": "15085__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__0_015", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "In the part of the company.\nNow, when the matter got to the Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, the respondent company brought to the attention of the Court to the fact that a valid subsequent election that been held and asked the Court to dismiss all of the proceedings involved in the matter, and asked it to rely from its decision in the General Engineering case of 1962.\nThe Court in a per curiam decision did deny the respondent company's motion to dismiss all the proceedings.\nAnd I think it's significant to point out here that they did not determine on the merits when it had before it, as a matter of fact, based upon the record considered as a whole and the law of whether in fact the respondent company was guilty of committing the unfair labor practices.\nThey just saw the whole -- through the whole thing out on the grounds that the matter had become loop and no longer been an import as a result of the third subsequent valid election.\nThe Board petitioned for a certiorari raising three fundamental questions.\nOne, it present a very clear precise conflict between a decision of the Ninth Circuit on the one hand of the Second, Fourth and Seventh Circuits and almost identical cases.\nThe decision of the Ninth Circuit in the Raytheon, this case and General Engineering conflicts in the opinion of the Government with very clearly enunciated opinions of this Court dealing generally and broadly in this field.\nAnd then finally, it presented a good question of policy with respect to the effectuation of the policies in the administration of the National Labor Relations Act.\nThe respondent's argument in the case seems to be essentially predicated upon the statement that since Section 10 (e) of the Act, confers upon the Court of Appeals to review decision of the National Labor Relations Board that that discretion is a broad one and that the Court below properly exercised this broad discretion in dismissing this case on the grounds of mootness.\nNow, as preface to my argument and if the Court will grant me permission, I would like to direct the Court's attention to a case that was not cited in the Government's brief nor in briefs filed by the respondent company.\nI called Mr. Resnick Monday when they case change of my attention and indicated my desire to do so, and I believe that he would say without objection that I made.\nThe reason why it was not cited, it's a decision of Mr. Justice Marshall which was written on December 15th of this term of the Court and it was handed down after the briefs on behalf of the Government were filed.\nAnd that's your case NRLB versus Rutter-Rex.\nThe reason why we file it is that the Supreme Court, this Court, very clearly and concisely set what it had set before and that is to say that the remedial powers of the National Labor Relations Board are broad.\nIt's a broad discretionary power and they are subject to but limited review.\nAnd I think that this case -- this recent decision of this Court in the opinion of the Government is practically dispositive of the argument of the respondent company here.\nBecause the only way the respondent company can get to this point is to say that Section 10 (e) confers upon the Court of Appeals.\nThey brought very broad discretionary power in their review boarders of the National Labor Relations Board.\nThe best example of that, I think is the decision of this Court in National Labor Relations Board versus Mexia Textile which was handed down by this Court in 1949.\nIn that case, the issue was whether not the Board could go to the Court of Appeals to enforce its order, even if the respondent employer had voluntarily complied with the order of the Board.\nAnd the issue was raised to the Court of Appeals that there's no reason for you to consider this matter any longer.\nThe Board said that we engaged in illegal activity in conduct, we agreed with it, we have complied with it, so why haven't order the Board enforcing conduct that we've already complied with or corrected.\nThe Supreme Court and this Court, I think correctly held that since this kind of conduct can't be continuing in nature, the merely showing of compliance and voluntary or not by the employer with it and anyone given point of time, should not be a bar to the Board's right to get an enforcement order, so that it would have available to it, a contempt citation and order in the event the employer came along subsequent to its voluntary compliance and engaged in similar conduct.\nI think also whether the decision to Court which go to the whole question of mootness bring to bare the essential problem that's involved in this case.\nAs this Court has held and in the United States versus W.T. Grant Company, you should not dismiss a case on the grounds of mootness until only there's reasonable expectation that there will never be a reoccurrence of the wrong again, that there's a strong burden imposed upon the wrong doer to come forward and show that regardless of our intent or the circumstances that it's likely that the conduct would never occur again.\nAnd I think again as this Court has held in Walling versus Reuter, this is true, so that the courts or the administrative boards and agencies can always have in its hit pockets so to speak the arrow to its bow of a contempt citation issued by a Court in the event the wrong doer commits the wrong again.\nAnd then finally of course just from the stand point of public policy in the administration of the Act and I think at this point that Court should be primarily concerned about because if you take the respondents argument that at first blush, he would make the Court believe either way that there is something integral and indigenous about Section 8 of the Act leading with unfair labor practice conduct to the one end and Section 9 of the Act which deals with representation elections.\nSection 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right to engage in the concern of the activities for their mutual aid and protection, and I think that this guarantee of Section 7 of the Act encompasses several portions of the balance of the Act.\nOne of them of course is the representation election.\nEmployees under this act have a right to a free environment, the Board has set, I think many times that ask ideally under the laboratory conditions that the Board would like to see exist, to organize among themselves, to designate a union as their collective bargaining agent, to have representation election whereby such a bargain agent can be certified.\nBut this right that is conferred upon employees in terms to self-organization is a distinct separate right under the Act in terms of its policies then the provisions that are contained in Section 8 of the Act that deal with unfair labor practice activity.\nOne of the reasons why you have Section 8 of the Act is to give the Board and the courts a machinery by which you can create these so-called laboratory conditions, so that employees can make a free choice with respect to the selection of their collective bargain agent, and for the employer to come along as the respondent company has in this case to say the we'll really, they've had two or three shots to this election and they've lost it.\nAnd what we might have done with respect to the first one and it should be rendered moot, I think begs the question because all you have to do then is to permit employers to engaged in this kind of conduct and the union could have three or four, or five, or six elections and the courts would never really have a means by which to stop the yearly go activity in conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [302.93, 304.755, 327.404, 335.272, 353.931, 367.997, 373.713, 384.491, 397.618, 410.432, 443.335, 458.198, 468.292, 481.656, 485.692, 501.735, 510.277, 521.111, 529.107, 537.508, 551.706, 564.067, 570.118, 581.616, 613.173, 624.141, 653.209, 677.017, 712.365, 728.624, 732.051, 761.524, 779.867, 810.249], "stop_times": [304.755, 327.404, 335.272, 353.931, 367.997, 373.713, 384.491, 397.618, 410.432, 443.335, 458.198, 468.292, 481.656, 485.692, 501.735, 510.277, 521.111, 529.107, 537.508, 551.706, 564.067, 570.118, 581.616, 613.173, 624.141, 653.209, 677.017, 712.365, 728.624, 732.051, 761.524, 779.867, 810.249, 832.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 302.93}, "reply_to": "15085__0_014", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_016", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "But you, Mr. Attorney General, you seem to agree that if a Court determined there is no really substantial chance of the conduct ever being repeated that it could be dismissed as a moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [832.181], "stop_times": [849.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.181}, "reply_to": "15085__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_017", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Yes, either Jones & Laughlin Steel case of 1936.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [849.226], "stop_times": [852.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.226}, "reply_to": "15085__0_016", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_018", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "So this is just really amongst to us a sort of the fact bound case then the here -- you just want us to disagree with the judgment of the Court of Appeals that this conduct contrary to their taking really, really might occur again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [852.231], "stop_times": [874.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.231}, "reply_to": "15085__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_019", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I don't think the Court of Appeals really went into that question, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [874.351], "stop_times": [877.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.351}, "reply_to": "15085__0_018", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_020", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "You think they applied the wrong standard or any standard at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [877.361], "stop_times": [881.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.361}, "reply_to": "15085__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_021", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I don't believe they applied in a standard at all, if they been aware of the Mexia case of this Court when it came down with the General Engineering case in 1962, I don't think they would have ever arrived at that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [881.075], "stop_times": [894.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.075}, "reply_to": "15085__0_020", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_022", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "What you're saying is we should vacate the judgment and have them reconsidered under the right standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [894.01], "stop_times": [902.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.01}, "reply_to": "15085__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_023", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "In my opinion, what should be done is to vacate the act of the Court of Appeals, send it back to it, have it determine the unfair labor practice on the merits and the record consider just a whole and as a matter of law, and then get the Court of Appeals which I wouldn't expect it to do but I came forth with an erroneous application of the law or exercise of its discretionary power, you'd have something before this Court of some substance in merit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [902.121], "stop_times": [930.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.121}, "reply_to": "15085__0_022", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_024", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "But I suppose that certain unfair labor practice could be so tied to a particular election like for example within the first election, they had a poll watch or something that they shouldn't have.\nThere was a complaint about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [930.207, 947.335], "stop_times": [947.335, 948.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.207}, "reply_to": "15085__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_025", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well Mr. Justice White, that raise is a good point because not all conduct that the Board looks that as being improper conduct at the time of the election constitutes with unfair labor practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [948.431], "stop_times": [961.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.431}, "reply_to": "15085__0_024", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_026", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I agree, I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [961.649], "stop_times": [962.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.649}, "reply_to": "15085__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_027", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "-- like the 24-hour rule for instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [962.649], "stop_times": [964.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.649}, "reply_to": "15085__0_026", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_028", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "And also I suppose there's some kind of conduct in connection with the election that no reasonable man would take whatever be repeated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [964.816], "stop_times": [970.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.816}, "reply_to": "15085__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__0_029", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Right.\nAs a matter of fact, I think respondent company neglected to point out the fact that of the three forms of every illegal conduct in this case that is to say interrogated in the employee and the illegal speech that this company also initiated a new grievance procedure which the Board held was unfair labor practice conduct.\nThis new grievance procedure is a continuing procedure presumably although the record doesn't show, it exists today, so that as the case as all the courts held in Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits these unions might want to come back at some other time to attempt to organize the employees, they have the right indeed in this case the inference is strong if they would want to because they tried it three times already.\nAnd if you had in the environmental factors that exist at this particular plan, conduct of a continuing nature which the Board is said, is unfair labor practice conduct in violation of Section 881 and Section 7 of the Act, then I think in terms of effectuating the policies of the National Labor Relations Act that these employees are not going to be able to decide the choice of their collective bargaining representative and in free environment and that's the essential policy of the Act that's involved here, is to be sure that the National Labor Relations Board is being given the weapon that the statute contemplated that is to say a contempt citation from the Courts of Appeals, and so that employers will restrained from engaging in a continuing form of conduct in order that at least with respect to this aspect of the Act, employees will be able to choose their collective bargaining agent in the environment free of contort and coercion or inducements, or benefits, threats are promises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [970.369, 971.276, 996.746, 1027.72], "stop_times": [971.276, 996.746, 1027.72, 1094.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.369}, "reply_to": "15085__0_028", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_030", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Of course Section 10 (e) of the Act does give to the Court of Appeals a very great deal of discretion as to what they shall do in response to the enforcement proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1094.212], "stop_times": [1103.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.212}, "reply_to": "15085__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__0_031", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1103.034], "stop_times": [1104.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.034}, "reply_to": "15085__0_030", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_032", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "And do we both know that the Court of Appeals like other courts are overburdened with a great deal of work, and as I gather it's your adversary's position that while and it's almost one of confession and avoid this file perhaps moot is the wrong word here and nonetheless Section 10 (e) does not absolutely require in the Court of Appeals to give full consideration on the merits to every single enforcement petition and here in this particular case that there was perfectly good reason for them to exercise the flexibility conferred on the Court of Appeals by Section 10 (e) to simply watch this case out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1104.211], "stop_times": [1147.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.211}, "reply_to": "15085__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__0_033", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I respectfully disagree with that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1147.199], "stop_times": [1149.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.199}, "reply_to": "15085__0_032", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_034", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I gather you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1149.12], "stop_times": [1150.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.12}, "reply_to": "15085__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__0_035", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Mr. Justice, I'd like to quote from your recent decision.\nI believe that you dissented this decision but the majority of Court said this in the Rutter-Rex case that I mentioned first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1150.407, 1154.993], "stop_times": [1154.993, 1162.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.407}, "reply_to": "15085__0_034", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_036", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "No, I joined in the opinion of this Court. (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1162.727], "stop_times": [1165.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.727}, "reply_to": "15085__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__0_037", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "This Court stated in there that the remedial power of the Board is a broad discretionary one subject to limited judicial review and let me just indicate the facts of that case, that was a backpay case where the Court of Appeals going to cut off part of that backpay award because the Board then there like in this duty the properly process and Mr. Justice Marshall, I think appropriately planned out of this act is for the benefit of employees, and not for the benefit of the Board or an employer with respect to the backpay orders.\nBut that was backpay order.\nWhat this company, this respondent company, wants you to do is to completely eliminate a Section 8 limited the Act because of the intervention of a Section 9 proceeding.\nAnd if you ever got down to the point, it seems to me in the administration of this law where an employer or a union because it now applies in terms of this illegal activity to vote, if they can ever excuse their unfair labor practice activity because they were involved in a representation election, then I think you're in an area where Congress itself should go back and reexamine the whole thing from a standpoint of policy as to what the act was supposed to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1165.594, 1198.827, 1200.433, 1214.917], "stop_times": [1198.827, 1200.433, 1214.917, 1242.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.594}, "reply_to": "15085__0_036", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_038", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "But Mr. Attorney General, if in effects there is to be an open end injunction which is what this amounts to, it gives the Court with continuing contempt powers, there ought to be some pretty clear guidelines as to how to define a continuing impact, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1242.459], "stop_times": [1262.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.459}, "reply_to": "15085__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__0_039", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I think it pretty well pleases itself, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWhat these orders usually provide is that the employer will post a notice for 60 days.\nAfter that they can take them down, and then the conduct that is usually described by a Board order is usually pretty precise relating to specific events, times and circumstances and as time goes by, I think it would be pretty difficult to go back to the Court of Appeals and try to artificially extend other conduct under a contempt citation.\nAs you know the courts are very reluctant to the exercise their power, their discretion, in contempt situations and in the years of practice that I had in this area, I can never recall a contempt case going to the Court of Appeals where it was claimed that they exercised that authority without regard to the specific conduct that was subject to the Board's order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1262.562, 1265.814, 1271.516, 1292.693], "stop_times": [1265.814, 1271.516, 1292.693, 1320.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.562}, "reply_to": "15085__0_038", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__0_040", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Resnick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1320.938, 1321.499], "stop_times": [1321.499, 1327.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.938}, "reply_to": "15085__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__1_000", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "May it please the Court.\nAt the outset, I would like to respond to a question which the Mr. Chief Justice asked at the beginning of my brother's argument.\nIn the three elections, the progression of voting was indeed more favorable to the union in each case.\nI don't know there has any major significant --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1327.647, 1329.703, 1337.962, 1345.562], "stop_times": [1329.703, 1337.962, 1345.562, 1347.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1327.647}, "reply_to": "15085__0_040", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_001", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "More favorable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1347.003], "stop_times": [1347.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.003}, "reply_to": "15085__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__1_002", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "More favorable.\nThe results of the elections are set out in full at page 30 of the appendix and based on the percentage the absolute numbers of course vary with the employment but on the percentage state, it showed a gradual increase.\nWe see the issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1347.678, 1348.475, 1362.696], "stop_times": [1348.475, 1362.696, 1363.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1347.678}, "reply_to": "15085__1_001", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_003", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, perhaps the Attorney General was correct that it's -- that you can't give it much weight to one way or the other but it seems to me as practical matter if you were to give it any weight.\nIn any degree it would that whatever the conduct of the employer is, it isn't depressing the union's vote getting ability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1363.533, 1374.849], "stop_times": [1374.849, 1384.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.533}, "reply_to": "15085__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__1_004", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I fully concur with that, Your Honor.\nWe don't set much though of by the results but to the extent that it has any impact that would be it.\nWe see the issue somewhat differently than the Deputy Attorney General.\nThis Court is asked to decide only to have narrow issue but whether on the peculiar fact and circumstances of this case, the discretion in authority vested in the Court of Appeals by the National Labor Relations Act was properly exercised.\nWe don't seek any broad rule of mootness only that the exercise was appropriate in this case.\nThe question of whether Raytheon's conduct was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution or Section 8 (c) of the Act is not before you.\nNeither is the question of whether Raytheon's pre-election conduct did or did not constitute unfair labor practices.\nHowever, in order to decide the issue which is presented, some background of how the history of the case appeared to the Court of Appeals is essential.\nSo, I'd like to go into fact a little more in detail than the Attorney General.\nAs the record stood before the Court of Appeals, Raytheon was an employer of approximately 40,000 people with plants in a number of locations throughout the country.\nEmployees had a number of plants including two in California who are represented by unions, and there had never been a strike by Raytheon employees.\nApproximately 19 petitions for election had been filed at Raytheon plants during the period between 1960 and 1966.\nAnd prior to the case before you, no objections had been filed to Raytheon pre-election conduct in any of those and of course no elections had been set aside.\nOn January 4, 1965, the IUE filed a petition with the board for a representation election to be held in the unit of production maintenance employees at Raytheon's Mountain View, California plant.\nSubsequently, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers expressed interest in the proceeding and then election was agreed upon for February 4, 1965.\nOn February 2, two days before the election, Robert Hennemuth, Raytheon's vice-president industrial relations delivered on address to eight groups of the employees, the speeches were substantially identical in conduct emphasizing the importance of voting, explaining how the collective bargaining process works, making a comparison of wages and fringe benefits with other Raytheon plants and with other companies, and requesting employee support.\nIn his speeches and in response the question for the audience, Hennemuth repeatedly emphasized that the election was to be a free election and as he put it, \u201cthe good old American tradition\u201d.\nHe stated repeatedly that he could not and would not promise any benefits or make any threats or reprisal.\nHe pointed out that in a quote \u201cWe want to know, how any of you voted anyway, so don't worry about it.\u201d\nThe speeches were followed by question periods and which anyone which Hennemuth attempted to answer employee inquiries from the floor.\nThe questions and answers were characterized by good nature at given state.\nThe transcript shows six and seven interruptions by laughter on a given page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1384.757, 1387.315, 1392.971, 1398.299, 1414.846, 1421.821, 1430.56, 1437.908, 1448.937, 1454.295, 1464.759, 1473.917, 1482.734, 1492.611, 1505.844, 1515.86, 1545.417, 1557.945, 1564.131, 1571.151, 1577.303, 1581.434], "stop_times": [1387.315, 1392.971, 1398.299, 1414.846, 1421.821, 1430.56, 1437.908, 1448.937, 1454.295, 1464.759, 1473.917, 1482.734, 1492.611, 1505.844, 1515.86, 1545.417, 1557.945, 1564.131, 1571.151, 1577.303, 1581.434, 1586.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1384.757}, "reply_to": "15085__1_003", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_005", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Oh, what laughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1586.539], "stop_times": [1587.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.539}, "reply_to": "15085__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__1_006", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Laughter from the audience.\nAbout a week prior to the election, a Raytheon foreman named, Chris allegedly questioned one employee in the course of discussions regarding her transfer as to why she wanted the union.\nNow, the Hennemuth speeches and the so-called Chris Alvarado conversations formed the sole basis for the board's subsequent unfair labor practice charges.\nThe election was duly held on February 4, two days after the Hennemuth speeches and a majority of employees voted neither union.\nThe IUE filed a petition to set aside the election in unfair labor practice charges.\nAfter hearing by the trial examiner, the boards set aside the election and found that Raytheon had committed certain unfair labor practices from which it was ordered to cease-and-desist.\nThe board's findings were based as I said earlier upon alleged improprieties in the Hennemuth speeches and upon the conversation between the first line foreman and one employee.\nA second election was conducted by the board on June 23, 1967 as the Attorney General has said.\nIt was subsequently set aside on grounds not apparent from the record.\nOn February 8, 1968, the board petitioned to the Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit for enforcement of it unfair labor practice order.\nSubsequently, on November 1, 1968, while the board's petition for enforcement was pending, a third election was held, in which employees again rejected representation by the IUE and on November 12, the board's regional director certified the results of the third election.\nAfter the board filed its petition for enforcement, the IUE filed a petition in the same court to review the portion of the boards order dismissing the IUE's motion to amend the complaint.\nBriefs on the merits in the court were filed on the Court of Appeals by all parties.\nAt the oral argument at the Court of Appeals on January 7, the Board argued its petition for enforcement fully on the merits.\nThe IUE argued in support of the Board's petition fully on the merits.\nFollowing these arguments, Raytheon's counsel called the attention of the Court to its prior decision in General Engineering and to the fact that a certified election had been held since the filing towards the petition.\nHe then completed his argument on the merits.\nThe Court of Appeals agreed to consider on the basis of its earlier decision a motion to dismiss which Raytheon filed.\nMemorandum and opposition were filed by the Board and by the IUE and appear in the appendix.\nThe Court of Appeals on the authority of the earlier decision in General Engineering, granted Raytheon's motion and entered a judgment dismissing both the petition to enforce and the IUE's petition for review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1587.613, 1590.122, 1601.289, 1610.589, 1618.914, 1623.934, 1634.274, 1645.331, 1650.453, 1654.991, 1663.438, 1682.586, 1694.099, 1699.611, 1707.772, 1713.37, 1726.982, 1729.996, 1737.508, 1743.017], "stop_times": [1590.122, 1601.289, 1610.589, 1618.914, 1623.934, 1634.274, 1645.331, 1650.453, 1654.991, 1663.438, 1682.586, 1694.099, 1699.611, 1707.772, 1713.37, 1726.982, 1729.996, 1737.508, 1743.017, 1754.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.613}, "reply_to": "15085__1_005", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_007", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "How recent was that earlier decision of General Engineering decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1754.572], "stop_times": [1759.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.572}, "reply_to": "15085__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__1_008", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "General Engineering was decided 1962, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1759.921], "stop_times": [1762.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.921}, "reply_to": "15085__1_007", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_009", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "So, it was well-known long before this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1762.782], "stop_times": [1765.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.782}, "reply_to": "15085__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__1_010", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1765.308], "stop_times": [1765.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.308}, "reply_to": "15085__1_009", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_011", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "-- the case arose.\nI just wondered why -- why this situation didn't develop until the course of the oral argument on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1765.789, 1766.52], "stop_times": [1766.52, 1776.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.789}, "reply_to": "15085__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15085__1_012", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "That's a good question, Your Honor.\nMy brother tells me that in his research immediately prior to the oral argument, he went on to the General Engineering case and felt obligated to call it to the attention of the Court of Appeals.\nOtherwise, it probably would have been handled in a different manner.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in the case at bar necessarily requires a careful examination of the decision in General Engineering on which it is based.\nThat case arose, on of the petition by the board for enforcement of a broad order, encompassing pre-election conduct, reinstatement of two unlawfully discharged employees and reinstatement of the supervisor, found to have been discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).\nThe Court did not dismiss the entire proceeding as moot.\nOn the contrary, it considered in detail whether the discharge of the two employees violated Section 8 (a) (3) and whether the discharged of the supervisor violated Section 8 (a) (1).\nUpon consideration, it granted in prior enforcement of the Board's order.\nAs to the portion of the order dealing with the representation case only, the court held that the cease-and-desist order had been mooted by issuance of the certification of the results on the election held subsequent to the order on the review.\nOn these facts, the rule of law could be derived from the decision of the court below and from its prior decision in General Engineering is that where alleged unfair labor practices relates solely to an election proceeding, the Court of Appeals may, don't have to, may dismiss a petition for enforcement of an order relating only to those practices.\nOrders entered by the Board are not self-enforcing nor is the Board authorized to the levied fines or penalties for failure to comply.\nCongress did not grant this power.\nInstead, Section 10 (e) of the Act provides that the board shall have the power to petition the Courts of Appeal for the enforcement of its order and that the Board shall file a record with the proceedings in the Court.\nThe Court of Appeals not the Board is then given the power to grant temporary relief and the power to make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying and enforcing as so a modified or setting aside in all or in part the order of the Board.\nCongress had considered and rejected the possibility of placing more enforcement authority in the Board and less on the Court of Appeals.\nThe study of the legislative history of Section 10 (e) shows that such statute says the Packers and Stock Yards Act and the Interstate Commerce Act with their mandatory provisions for injunctive orders were considered before the adoption of Section 10 (e).\nInstead of following the provisions of those statutes, the draftsman followed the enforcement provisions of Section 11 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which required the Board to seek enforcement from the Courts of Appeals, and the Courts of Appeals in turn were not required to but were given power to enforce.\nAs noted at page 10 of Raytheon's brief, a specific amendment by the House of Representatives was adopted at a late stage of the legislator proceeding to change the words that since what is now Section 10 (e) from \u201cshall make and enter a decree, so as to read shall have the power to make and enter a decree\u201d.\nIt seems clear that Congress intended the order, the Court of Appeals to act not as rubberstamp for the Board's orders but to issue such orders as the Court of Appeals on evaluation of the case felt appropriate.\nNecessarily included within that power was the power to dismiss Board petitions.\nAs this Court said in Hecht versus Bowles, a grant of jurisdiction to issue compliance orders are hardly suggest an absolute duty to do so under any and all circumstances.\nThe difference in language alone would distinguished this case from Wirtz versus Glass Blowers Association cited in the Attorney General's brief, there, as this Court obtains to point out, the labor management reporting in disclosure act of 1969, left no room for choice but required that the Court shall declare the election void and direct a new election.\nThe Court of Appeals acted within the proper grounds -- bounds of discretion in this case, as its judgment discloses, the case had command to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Board.\nOn the basis of that record and the argument of counsel, it must have been clear to the Court that it was dealing in this least with a deep-rooted, hardcore offense.\nOn the contrary, it was dealing with inferences to be derived from speeches properly characterized by the trial examiner was made in \u201cwithout ranker\u201d, good humor give and take in a question period.\nThe Court of Appeals put and did conclude that the offenses were so superficial and so intertwined with the election proceeding that enforcement was not justified.\nNow, the Attorney General calls your attention properly to your decision in Rutter-Rex.\nThe situation in Rutter-Rex was entirely different.\nThere the Court of Appeals was dealing with an employer whom have had already in an earlier case ordered to comply with the Board's order.\nIt was the second time out when the Court of Appeals decided to modify the Board's order with respect to backpay.\nThe case involved one of the most serious offenses under the Act and unfair labor practice strike in the obligation to reinstate with backpay.\nIn reversing the court below, this Court discuss in detail the nature of backpay orders and the burden of whom -- who should bare the lost pay, the employee or the employer notwithstanding the Board's delinquency.\nI submit that our case is entirely different.\nThere is no backpay order. Only the initial consideration of whether an order for enforcement should issue at all.\nCertainly, this Court did not intend in Rutter-Rex to overrule its prior decisions in Universal Camera or in Braunfeld.\nThere, the question of the limitation of review was thoroughly discussed and it's clear that does not mean the same thing as no review.\nThe power to enforce, modify or set aside Board orders was given by Congress to the Courts of Appeals.\nNo standard was set or prescribed by Congress as to when it must exercise that power and one may decline to exercise such power.\nSuch decisions were left into the discretion of the Courts of Appeals subject of course to review by this Court, but review of what?\nWhether there was an abuse of discretion.\nThe test as was stated in the Pittsburg Steamship is not whether you would make the make the decision as the Court of Appeals made where the case before you in the first instance but whether the judgment of the Court of Appeals constitutes an abuse.\nAbuse has not been shown in this case, and the judgment should therefore be affirmed.\nPolicy arguments directed to the proposition that Raytheon if not ordered to cease-and-desist might engaged in further conduct of violating the act substitute speculation for facts.\nAt the time the case was a heard, almost four years had gone by and no other unfair labor practices had been charge, much less filed.\nWhy should the Court of Appeals be required to deal deeply into the record to decide difficult questions of statutory interpretation, constitutional questions to which they relate, when the evils against which enforcement has sought do not exist?\nThis Court has consistently stated that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to resolve academic questions, particularly those involve in constitutional issues.\nWhile the Board may contend that are to seeking in order prevent unlawful conduct in the future, this case can properly be moot when the conduct sought to be enjoined as is conjectural as it is in this case.\nCases cited by the Board from other circuits are not at variance with the position for which we contend.\nThose courts had and exercise of their discretion to grant enforcement on substantially different facts.\nWhether they or this Court might have decided our case differently is not the question.\nThe question is whether they have the discretion.\nIndeed, the Ninth Circuit, which decided our case has followed Mexia as we cite in our brief at -- can you have the page in -- as we cited in our brief at page 25.\nThe same panel of judges which decided our case which two of them decided subsequently the repeated case, in which way they like you to follow Mexia.\nSo, it has not automatically elected to move every case which has there has been subsequent election of compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [1776.429, 1778.225, 1789.406, 1795.582, 1805.791, 1823.838, 1827.463, 1840.484, 1845.895, 1860.241, 1883.119, 1891.448, 1894.045, 1904.951, 1920.643, 1929.33, 1944.35, 1965.381, 1986.805, 1999.933, 2005.685, 2017.031, 2041.126, 2051.649, 2062.244, 2075.469, 2085.553, 2090.135, 2093.52, 2104.383, 2112.142, 2120.004, 2135.139, 2138.418, 2151.494, 2160.375, 2169.468, 2176.4, 2185.537, 2194.119, 2196.829, 2210.216, 2215.461, 2227.337, 2235.91, 2252.463, 2263.004, 2276.26, 2282.226, 2288.724, 2294.125, 2296.391, 2311.711, 2320.884], "stop_times": [1778.225, 1789.406, 1795.582, 1805.791, 1823.838, 1827.463, 1840.484, 1845.895, 1860.241, 1883.119, 1891.448, 1894.045, 1904.951, 1920.643, 1929.33, 1944.35, 1965.381, 1986.805, 1999.933, 2005.685, 2017.031, 2041.126, 2051.649, 2062.244, 2075.469, 2085.553, 2090.135, 2093.52, 2104.383, 2112.142, 2120.004, 2135.139, 2138.418, 2151.494, 2160.375, 2169.468, 2176.4, 2185.537, 2194.119, 2196.829, 2210.216, 2215.461, 2227.337, 2235.91, 2252.463, 2263.004, 2276.26, 2282.226, 2288.724, 2294.125, 2296.391, 2311.711, 2320.884, 2326.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.429}, "reply_to": "15085__1_011", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_013", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Mr. Resnick, what's the consequence of holding an issue moot in a situation like this, does the Board adjudication stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2326.627], "stop_times": [2337.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.627}, "reply_to": "15085__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__1_014", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere is no enforcement granted in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2337.366, 2337.916], "stop_times": [2337.916, 2339.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.366}, "reply_to": "15085__1_013", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_015", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, no enforcement but the Board has issued a final order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2339.575], "stop_times": [2343.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.575}, "reply_to": "15085__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__1_016", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I supposed the order would nonetheless stand.\nYou're right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2343.183, 2345.258], "stop_times": [2345.258, 2345.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.183}, "reply_to": "15085__1_015", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_017", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "And the finding of an unfair labor practice in connection of the representation proceeding would stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2345.809], "stop_times": [2350.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.809}, "reply_to": "15085__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__1_018", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I believe it would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2350.904], "stop_times": [2353.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.904}, "reply_to": "15085__1_017", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_019", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "But that's not the way we ordinarily when we dispose -- something is moved to ordinarily we like to sweep clean them around back.\nDismiss the original, isn't it different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2353.515, 2361.269], "stop_times": [2361.269, 2364.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.515}, "reply_to": "15085__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15085__1_020", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "We don't view this as the is the classical case of mootness, Your Honor, but only as mootness being in a shorthand term here for the Court deciding that the case was so little remaining significance that that the petition to be dismiss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2364.249], "stop_times": [2376.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.249}, "reply_to": "15085__1_019", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_021", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "And what about enforcement?\nBut anyway, in this case the adjudication stood -- the Board's adjudication stood it was not vacated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2376.532, 2379.459], "stop_times": [2379.459, 2385.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.532}, "reply_to": "15085__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15085__1_022", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "It was not reversed, no, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2385.698], "stop_times": [2387.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.698}, "reply_to": "15085__1_021", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_023", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "You haven't yet made an argument that courts ought to be very careful about having a prior restraint on First Amendment -- exercise of the First Amendment rights, speaking to their employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2387.922], "stop_times": [2406.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.922}, "reply_to": "15085__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__1_024", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Your Honor, I feel very strongly and we argue that positions strenuously to the Court of Appeals below.\nWe didn't feel that that issue was before you hear but only the question of how the Court of Appeals properly exercised its discretion but in this case we think it quite remained that the First Amendment issue certainly would had had to be considered by the Court of Appeals and they could take that into account when determining whether there was enough to this case to justify such a consideration.\nWe seek no broad rule of law mooting every case in which a certified election is held.\nIndeed we are sure that is not the law.\nWe seek only the concurrence of this Court in the proposition that the Court of Appeals on the facts of how our particular case had and did not abuse the discretion to dismiss the Board's enforcement petition.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2406.799, 2412.871, 2437.99, 2442.839, 2445.089, 2460.01], "stop_times": [2412.871, 2437.99, 2442.839, 2445.089, 2460.01, 2460.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.799}, "reply_to": "15085__1_023", "speaker": "charles_h_resnick"}
{"id": "15085__1_025", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Thank you Mr. Resnick.\nMr. Attorney General, you have about to five minutes left if you would to use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2460.894, 2462.723], "stop_times": [2462.723, 2466.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.894}, "reply_to": "15085__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__2_000", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I won't burden the Court with more than just a couple of minutes as the Chief Justice please.\nI'd like to begin at the end and respond to the question raised by the Chief Justice.\nSection 8 (c) of the Act, confers upon employers and employees free speech right, and there is a means by which that you could determine whether or not your First Amendment rights under the Constitution had been adequately protected under that section.\nBut I don't think that the respondent company here can pull itself up by its bootstraps with respect to the position it takes in this case because although I was not present when this case was argued before the Court of Appeals, I've argued several such cases.\nI don't know what they were thinking about and what the judges of the Court of Appeals were thinking about but I do know what the record says. with respect to this whole question of mootness, and it says this on page 48 of the appendix, and it's a per curiam statement by the three judges, during oral argument in this Court, counsel for Raytheon made a suggestion of mootness, and the Court grant them lead to file a motion, and then the Court said accordingly on the authority of General Engineering Inc., Raytheon's motions are granted and that proceedings are dismissed.\nIn General Engineering Inc., it goes off solely on the question of mootness.\nAnd Mr. Justice Stewart raised the question well, how long is this General Engineering case been around.\nIt was decided in 1962, Mr. Justice but in 1963, the Seventh Circuit, and in 1956, the Fourth Circuit being aware of the General Engineering case, refused to follow it and followed a different result and as a matter of fact, relied upon this Second Circuit decision in Clark Brothers in 1947, and I honestly believe that if the Ninth Circuit had had before it the Mexia Textile case and the Clark Brothers case are they would never arrive at the result that they did in general election.\nWith respect to the question raised by Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Brennan on what happened when you declared moot, what you have is a naked ineffectual statement by the National Labor Relations Board that an employer is engaged in unfair labor practice conduct but you can't do anything about it.\nAnd I think that that would further complicate the situation because you would again have the total environment be clouded by a statement by National Labor Relations Board that this company didn't engaged in illegal conduct and yet if in fact it had, there couldn't be an order of the Court to make them cut it out and if that happened, I think the company would be under the burden always and be accused of this type of conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2466.742, 2472.745, 2478.437, 2495.352, 2513.722, 2548.279, 2553.302, 2559.049, 2593.63, 2614.374], "stop_times": [2472.745, 2478.437, 2495.352, 2513.722, 2548.279, 2553.302, 2559.049, 2593.63, 2614.374, 2640.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2466.742}, "reply_to": "15085__1_025", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_001", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "It would have some of the fact, would it not, Mr. Attorney General in the sense, I'm speaking now of the existence of the determination of an unfair labor practice that if a new complaint were issued on at a later time and the conduct was similar conduct the Board certainly would have its eye on the prior determination, it would have a carryover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2640.838], "stop_times": [2663.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.838}, "reply_to": "15085__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__2_002", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Yes, it would.\nI think, what it would do instead Mr. Chief Justice would run right up the Court of Appeals and say, you gave us an order, an order these people not to do this and now that they've done it and we want you now to hold them guilty of contempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2663.489, 2664.669], "stop_times": [2664.669, 2676.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2663.489}, "reply_to": "15085__2_001", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_003", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I'm speaking -- I'm on going on the assumption that there would be no continuing effect if the Ninth Circuit's judgment was left standing and you have no enforcement order.\nThere would still be some impact on the unfair labor practice determination itself, would there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2676.601, 2691.497], "stop_times": [2691.497, 2697.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.601}, "reply_to": "15085__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15085__2_004", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, that might have some impact on the Board's decision and than you get into problems of whether or not improper inferences or illegal influences were drawn as the result of prior conduct.\nI think the best way to clean the case up really and get rid of this principle of law that inadvertently came on Ninth Circuit and doesn't square itself with the policy of this Court whether the decision of other circuits is to send it back there and ask them to find out whether in fact this company engaged in unfair labor practice activity, if the they didn't, then dismiss the whole kit and caboodle, and if they did, they may come susceptible to contempt citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2697.045, 2706.365], "stop_times": [2706.365, 2733.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2697.045}, "reply_to": "15085__2_003", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_005", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "That seems to me to be a little inconsistent with what you said earlier that you seem to concede that if the Court of Appeals had made the determination that there wasn't any substantial chance of any recurrence of this conduct that it could have reach properly refuse (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2733.132], "stop_times": [2752.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.132}, "reply_to": "15085__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_006", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "If you interpreted my remarks of saying that Mr. Justice White, I think you misunderstood me.\nI said that there is conceivably some facts situation where they could. I don't believe they exist in this kind of a case, and if you got that impression from my (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2752.254, 2757.109], "stop_times": [2757.109, 2766.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2752.254}, "reply_to": "15085__2_005", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_007", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I certainly did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2766.3], "stop_times": [2767.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.3}, "reply_to": "15085__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_008", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2767.355], "stop_times": [2768.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2767.355}, "reply_to": "15085__2_007", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_009", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "You mean a Court -- a Court can find that in can be conceded by the union that no there's no -- really no substantial chance, no meaningful chance that this conduct will every reoccur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2768.222], "stop_times": [2784.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.222}, "reply_to": "15085__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_010", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I can take --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2784.925], "stop_times": [2786.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2784.925}, "reply_to": "15085__2_009", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_011", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "And but nevertheless we insist that you adjudicate this -- adjudicate this unfair labor practice which will take you a lot of time and energy and then if you would agree with the Board, you must enter a cease-and-desist order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2786.329], "stop_times": [2802.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.329}, "reply_to": "15085__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_012", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Oh, I agree with you that, Mr. Justice White but I do not believe that this is that kind of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2802.158], "stop_times": [2806.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2802.158}, "reply_to": "15085__2_011", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_013", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I know you and that's -- but that's another point of why should we -- you apparently take there is some standard by which of mootness or non-enforceability should be judged, and you -- at the very least you claim the Court of Appeals didn't apply it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2806.938], "stop_times": [2825.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.938}, "reply_to": "15085__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_014", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2825.39], "stop_times": [2826.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2825.39}, "reply_to": "15085__2_013", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_015", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "If there is that kind of a standard that didn't apply, why shouldn't that have the job of the not us of the first applying of the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2826.343], "stop_times": [2835.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.343}, "reply_to": "15085__2_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_016", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Well, I think this Court has applied the standard generally, and I think the Ninth Circuit has misapplied it.\nI don't believe that this record shows that there's no reasonable expectation under any circumstances that this kind (Voice Overlap) had occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2835.0, 2840.688], "stop_times": [2840.688, 2847.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2835.0}, "reply_to": "15085__2_015", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_017", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "(Voice Overlap) the Court of Appeals that have job to doing in the first instance under the right standard?\nIf they did it under the wrong standard, I'm not saying that (Voice Overlap) wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2847.065, 2852.929], "stop_times": [2852.929, 2855.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.065}, "reply_to": "15085__2_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15085__2_018", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "I fully agree to that.\nI just think it did on the wrong standard, Your Honor.\nI fully agree to that Mr. Justice White.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2855.353, 2856.061, 2859.097, 2862.207], "stop_times": [2856.061, 2859.097, 2862.207, 2862.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2855.353}, "reply_to": "15085__2_017", "speaker": "richard_g_kleindienst"}
{"id": "15085__2_019", "conversation_id": "15085", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.\nThank for your submission.\nThe case is Submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_440", "start_times": [2862.772, 2864.671, 2866.014], "stop_times": [2864.671, 2866.014, 2869.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.772}, "reply_to": "15085__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__0_000", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Argument this morning is number 595 that's Nelson against George.\nMrs. Renne, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [0.0, 36.04], "stop_times": [36.04, 38.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__0_001", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis case arises on a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the warden of the California State Prison from the decision rendered by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nThe court below held the jurisdiction existed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a California prisoner serving a California sentence in California in order to challenge the constitutionality of an unrelated North Carolina conviction held that the California warden was an agent for the State of North Carolina and a proper party respondent to defend the action.\nIt is respectfully submitted that the question raised in this case is essentially one and that is whether habeas corpus relief is presently available to a California prisoner in California who seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a sentence which has been imposed by another state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [38.154, 41.754, 56.863, 96.204], "stop_times": [41.754, 56.863, 96.204, 123.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 38.154}, "reply_to": "15217__0_000", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_002", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mrs. Renne does the State of California have any option when another state places a detainer on a prisoner who is incarcerated in a California Institution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [123.133], "stop_times": [136.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.133}, "reply_to": "15217__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__0_003", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "It does Your Honor, under the Agreement on Detainer -- well, I have to answer this question in two ways, Your Honor.\nIf another state is not a party to the Agreement on Detainers, then in order for that prisoner to stand trial in another state requires an executive agreement followed by extradition proceedings.\nClearly in this case, the state has a reserve clause.\nUnder the Agreement on Detainers, a prisoner -- if a prisoner invokes the agreement on the face of the statute.\nThe State of California is required to send that prisoner back to the other state.\nIf however that it is the other state that initiates proceedings, there is a reserve clause retained by the governor may or the prisoner may disapprove and not be willing to go to the other state.\nWe believe Your Honor that the answer to the first question we have raised is clearly in the negative.\nIf the Court should however decide that habeas corpus really is presently available, then there is another question which is raised by this case and that is, what is the appropriate forum in which to bring an action of this kind?\nThe District of Confinement or the District of Sentencing, the facts of this case are that the petitioner below, John Edward George was in April of 1964 convicted upon his plea of guilty to first-degree robbery in the San Francisco Superior Court.\nHe was sentenced to state prison and under the California Indeterminate Sentence Law that is indeterminate five years to life sentence.\nFollowing his conviction, the petitioner was confined in San Quentin Prison and detainers were placed against him by three states.\nThe State of Kansas, the State of Nevada, and the State of North Carolina, at this time North Carolina and California were parties to the agreement on detainers which as I have indicated.\nIf a prisoner seeks to stand trial in another party state, he may invoke the procedures under the agreement and that is what happened in this case.\nAccordingly in March of 1966, George was temporarily released from custody in California to stand in trial in North Carolina.\nAfter one mistrial, George was convicted of robbery in February of 1967 in the North Carolina state courts.\nA sentence of 12 years to 15 years was imposed and as George alleged below, this sentence will not begin to run until he is in North Carolina.\nGeorge was returned to California in February of 1967 and in September of 1967 the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.\nIn December of 1967 George filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in United States District Court for the Northern District of California.\nHis first petition was captioned John Edward George versus the State of North Carolina and the district judge dismissed the petition or failure to name proper party respondent.\nThereafter, George re-captioned his petition naming the warden of San Quentin Prison as an agent for the State of North Carolina and naming the warden of North Carolina State Prison name unknown.\nUltimately, the District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the petition on the basis of this Court\u2019s decision in McNally v. Hill under which the Court had held that a prisoner must be confined under the sentence he is seeking to challenge in order to obtain habeas corpus relief.\nThereafter a certificate of probable cause to appeal was granted by the District Court but prior to the opening briefs being filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\nThis Court's decision in Peyton v. Rowe was decided.\nAnd in Peyton v. Rowe, this Court held that a Virginia prisoner could challenge the constitutionality of a consecutive sentence imposed by the State of Virginia.\nOn the basis of Peyton v. Rowe, George filed a motion to remand the proceedings to the District Court.\nWe were given notice of the motion and as our first appearance, filed in opposition to the motion to remand and move to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that Peyton v. Rowe should not be extended to the interstate case that the California warden was not a proper party respondent in this habeas corpus action, that a North Carolina official who might be a proper party respondent was not before the court service of process had not been obtained and couldn't be obtained and that accordingly the District Court, the Northern District of California was without jurisdiction to proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [136.107, 144.47, 160.757, 165.617, 175.068, 182.412, 198.988, 205.551, 222.409, 246.555, 257.242, 267.374, 281.907, 293.11, 304.902, 315.325, 327.685, 341.684, 353.324, 366.684, 381.556, 404.786, 417.449, 421.573, 435.509, 445.353], "stop_times": [144.47, 160.757, 165.617, 175.068, 182.412, 198.988, 205.551, 222.409, 246.555, 257.242, 267.374, 281.907, 293.11, 304.902, 315.325, 327.685, 341.684, 353.324, 366.684, 381.556, 404.786, 417.449, 421.573, 435.509, 445.353, 488.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.107}, "reply_to": "15217__0_002", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_004", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Did you try to vouch so to speak or give notice to the North Carolina authorities of this proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [488.264], "stop_times": [496.627], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 488.264}, "reply_to": "15217__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_005", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, Your Honor from -- we have been -- although it is not in the record we have been in contact with the North Carolina Attorney General's office since the interception of this case.\nBut their position is although it is not a matter of record but their position is that habeas corpus relief is not presently available in the case of this kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [496.627, 508.144], "stop_times": [508.144, 522.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.627}, "reply_to": "15217__0_004", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_006", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, I suppose that\u2019s based is it not of a theory on the Court of California can have no jurisdiction of the State of North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [522.073], "stop_times": [530.902], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 522.073}, "reply_to": "15217__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_007", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That is correct Your Honor, they have not been served with process, we're not aware of any way in which they could be.\nNevertheless, the court below disagreed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [530.902, 538.136], "stop_times": [538.136, 541.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.902}, "reply_to": "15217__0_006", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_008", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Do you want anything else though in this case that the California authorities seize giving any effect or recognition to the North Carolina judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [541.831], "stop_times": [554.253], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 541.831}, "reply_to": "15217__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_009", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, it is our position Your Honor that we don't -- while we recognize that there is a conviction we give no effect to it and so that habeas corpus relief is not presently available in any court.\nWe do take the position that it is only after this Court decides which we strongly urge that it not do that there is custody within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute as only then that this court need reach the question of what is the appropriate forum.\nIf it decides that custody is existent in this case, it's only then that it need decide whether it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [554.253, 567.918, 588.385], "stop_times": [567.918, 588.385, 594.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.253}, "reply_to": "15217__0_008", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_010", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, but at the threshold, is the only issue between California and the prisoner?\nIs the only issue whether the California authority should continue to recognize the North Carolina judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [594.2, 601.824], "stop_times": [601.824, 610.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.2}, "reply_to": "15217__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__0_011", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [610.269], "stop_times": [611.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.269}, "reply_to": "15217__0_010", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_012", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [611.682], "stop_times": [612.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.682}, "reply_to": "15217__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__0_013", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "The prisoner is seeking to set aside North Carolina conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [612.218], "stop_times": [615.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.218}, "reply_to": "15217__0_012", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_014", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes but why?\nWhy?\nWhat dispute is there between him and the California authorities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [615.703, 617.446, 618.913], "stop_times": [617.446, 618.913, 621.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.703}, "reply_to": "15217__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__0_015", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "It's our position that there is no dispute, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [621.924], "stop_times": [623.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.924}, "reply_to": "15217__0_014", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_016", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, you said so that it makes a difference in terms of his parole --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [623.842], "stop_times": [628.17], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 623.842}, "reply_to": "15217__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_017", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Your Honor, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [628.17], "stop_times": [628.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.17}, "reply_to": "15217__0_016", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_018", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "-- and things like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [628.426], "stop_times": [631.379], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 628.426}, "reply_to": "15217__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_019", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "There is no showing in this record that his parole is affected by the North Carolina conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [631.379], "stop_times": [639.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.379}, "reply_to": "15217__0_018", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_020", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But that -- those were his allegations, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [639.169], "stop_times": [642.508], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 639.169}, "reply_to": "15217__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_021", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What he said in the court below was that the fact that there was a conviction outstanding assuredly affected his parole.\nAs a matter of fact Your Honor, that is not California policy and we have submitted a policy statement of the Adult Authority in the court below where there is a conviction outstanding in another state.\nParticularly where that state happens to be the place of residence, primary place of residence of the prisoner, we will release -- it is our policy not frequently invoked, we will release the prisoner on parole earlier than might otherwise be the case.\nThis case Your Honor this is our policy.\nIt is not like Peyton v. Rowe where in Peyton v. Rowe you had consecutive sentences imposed by one state and there was a state statute which said that the concept of the sentences should be treated as one for purposes of parole eligibility.\nYou do not have that kind of statute in this case and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [642.508, 650.976, 667.007, 688.164, 692.265, 713.584], "stop_times": [650.976, 667.007, 688.164, 692.265, 713.584, 720.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.508}, "reply_to": "15217__0_020", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_022", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Was there a hearing of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [720.241], "stop_times": [722.082], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 720.241}, "reply_to": "15217__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_023", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, Your Honor, what happened after we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [722.082], "stop_times": [723.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.082}, "reply_to": "15217__0_022", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_024", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, if you have an allegation in that compliant in a petition that the North Carolina judgment does make a difference in terms of prisoner\u2019s treatment by the warden of the California penitentiary and did the state respond to it?\nDid they file a return or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [723.983, 744.006], "stop_times": [744.006, 746.178], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 723.983}, "reply_to": "15217__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_025", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, what happened, Your Honor, we were not given notice of the proceedings until the Ninth Circuit.\nWe filed an opposition to the motion to remand stating that this only sentence that this man was serving was a California sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [746.178, 751.095], "stop_times": [751.095, 763.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.178}, "reply_to": "15217__0_024", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_026", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes but lets assume for the moment that it didn't make a difference.\nThat his allegations were absolutely true, that the detainer did make a difference in his treatment by the California authorities to his harm.\nWouldn't you think that would state some kind of a case or controversy between him and the California authorities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [763.502, 767.162, 780.273], "stop_times": [767.162, 780.273, 785.851], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 763.502}, "reply_to": "15217__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_027", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [785.851], "stop_times": [786.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.851}, "reply_to": "15217__0_026", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_028", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [786.689], "stop_times": [787.385], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 786.689}, "reply_to": "15217__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_029", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Because that what the -- in order for habeas corpus relief to be available, he must be in custody in violation of the sentences seeking the challenge.\nCalifornia sentence was imposed in 1964, service of that sentence makes no difference whether he was acquitted later in North Carolina or not.\nWhether or not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [787.385, 799.854, 811.587], "stop_times": [799.854, 811.587, 813.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.385}, "reply_to": "15217__0_028", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_030", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Do you think -- what if he didn't bring a habeas corpus action, he just sued the warden to restrain him from taking into account the North Carolina judgment.\nSuppose he could do that, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [813.049, 823.867], "stop_times": [823.867, 825.482], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 813.049}, "reply_to": "15217__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_031", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I don't think he could, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [825.482], "stop_times": [826.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.482}, "reply_to": "15217__0_030", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_032", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [826.56], "stop_times": [827.89], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 826.56}, "reply_to": "15217__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_033", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Because the -- I don't know what his theory of action could be if what he is challenging is the reasonableness of prison policy in considering any charge or even a past conviction in determining whether or not he is more likely prisoner to escape.\nThen what he would be challenging is the reasonableness of prison policy but as yet there is no constitutional right to parole.\nThere is no constitutional right to one level of confinement rather than another, and in any event what you are talking about in that case is the reasonableness of prison policy.\nIf we are going to get into questions about whether or not the California imprisoning authorities can consider the fact that a man\u2019s been convicted in other state in determining to whether or not he's eligible for minimum custody.\nThen Your Honor we respectfully submit that you're going to also have to face the question that the past conviction situation because if the prison authorities consider past convictions fully served in determining whether the man's more likely to escape or whether his eligible for minimum custody.\nThen the writ of habeas corpus, the business of the Court is going to be substantially expanded.\nWe think that there is a decided difference between where you have sentences lumped together by one state and where you\u2019re talking about sentences imposed by another state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [827.89, 848.515, 856.332, 867.079, 882.751, 906.704, 914.531], "stop_times": [848.515, 856.332, 867.079, 882.751, 906.704, 914.531, 926.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.89}, "reply_to": "15217__0_032", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_034", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "So you think the only issue in this case really is whether a prisoner detained in one state under a sentence by that state may in any time whether the sentences of other states make any difference or not in his treatment in the prison whether that prisoner who's in Prison State A may raise in that state the validity of some convictions and State B that he hasn\u2019t served yet, that's the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [926.26], "stop_times": [955.871], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 926.26}, "reply_to": "15217__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_035", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWhat we would like to make perfectly clear that this case isn't like a case where California has used the conviction of another state as a prior conviction increased the length of confinement or to render habitual criminal status available.\nThat's not this case at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [955.871, 957.071, 974.149], "stop_times": [957.071, 974.149, 977.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.871}, "reply_to": "15217__0_034", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_036", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What if it were the case?\nLet's assume that the North Carolina conviction had been before the California conviction and that conviction had been used by California as a basis for habitual criminal conviction or to enhance sentencing and he is sent to jail in California and then he brings his writ of habeas corpus to have declared unconstitutional the prior conviction of North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [977.157, 980.833], "stop_times": [980.833, 1006.771], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 977.157}, "reply_to": "15217__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_037", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, California is itself clear Your Honor that where the state is attempting to increase the length of statutory service.\nThen in California, he may challenge the out of state conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1006.771, 1016.851], "stop_times": [1016.851, 1022.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.771}, "reply_to": "15217__0_036", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_038", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "And then how does that actually go forward?\nThis goes forward as to the extent of evidence from North Carolina is essential or witnesses from there are essential and both sides just get the witnesses there don\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1022.626, 1024.268], "stop_times": [1024.268, 1035.3], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.626}, "reply_to": "15217__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_039", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, it's a burden of proof on the state, Your Honor but in that case Your Honor, California is attempting to use the conviction for their own purposes but we\u2019re not attempting to use the sentences of North Carolina for any purpose at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1035.3], "stop_times": [1052.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.3}, "reply_to": "15217__0_038", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_040", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "So you're in effect saying there's really no case of controversy here at all between you and the prisoner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1052.867], "stop_times": [1058.708], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.867}, "reply_to": "15217__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_041", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's part of the problem Your Honor, that's part of the problem but most importantly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1058.708], "stop_times": [1062.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.708}, "reply_to": "15217__0_040", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_042", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What else are you saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1062.874], "stop_times": [1064.343], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.874}, "reply_to": "15217__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_043", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Most importantly Your Honor, we are saying that Section 2241 (c) 3 of the federal habeas corpus statute provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is in custody in violation of a Constitution.\nHe is in custody under the California sentence.\nHe is not challenging that sentence.\nThat is why we say that custody under the habeas corpus statute is lacking.\nWe think that the lack of custody is particularly emphasized by the courts holding below that we are the agents for North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1064.343, 1084.093, 1087.78, 1091.811, 1100.472], "stop_times": [1084.093, 1087.78, 1091.811, 1100.472, 1113.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.343}, "reply_to": "15217__0_042", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_044", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mrs. Renne, that the Constitution and law aside, why didn't California turn him loose and let North Carolina feed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1113.666], "stop_times": [1123.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.666}, "reply_to": "15217__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__0_045", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, Your Honor the record doesn't show it.\nThe facts are that this man was given a parole date an earlier parole date but there were -- there was a subsequent occurrence.\nIt's a matter of dispute, the state says one thing, the prisoner says another but there was another occurrence in which his parole date was cancelled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1123.946, 1126.04, 1138.563], "stop_times": [1126.04, 1138.563, 1147.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.946}, "reply_to": "15217__0_044", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_046", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But I take it's your position is that California District Court has jurisdiction over the body but not the subject matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1147.72], "stop_times": [1156.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1147.72}, "reply_to": "15217__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__0_047", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Our position is Your Honor that the District Court has jurisdiction over the prisoner for anything connected with a California sentence but Mr. George has never challenged the constitutionality of the California sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1156.361], "stop_times": [1172.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1156.361}, "reply_to": "15217__0_046", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_048", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But he can challenge it in North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1172.7], "stop_times": [1175.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.7}, "reply_to": "15217__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__0_049", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, it's our position Your Honor that at this -- excuse me, challenge a California sentence in North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1175.261], "stop_times": [1182.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.261}, "reply_to": "15217__0_048", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_050", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "He cannot challenge a North Carolina sentence in North Carolina as long as he is in jail if he outworn it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1182.147], "stop_times": [1189.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1182.147}, "reply_to": "15217__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__0_051", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, he has not attempted to exhaust his state remedies in North Carolina.\nNow, two of the issues that he has raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California court have already been determined by the North Carolina Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1189.762, 1196.075], "stop_times": [1196.075, 1209.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.762}, "reply_to": "15217__0_050", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_052", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But you don't want to rely on that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1209.353], "stop_times": [1212.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.353}, "reply_to": "15217__0_051", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__0_053", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, no and although we think that certainly since he has never made any attempt to have his third issue determined by the North Carolina Supreme Court.\nIn his petition below, he first alleged that the North Carolina sentence was imposed outside the time limits provided by the Agreement on Detainers so that the North Carolina court was without jurisdiction to proceed and that this was a deprivation of due process.\nHis second ground was that it's all related to right to speedy trial.\nThese were the two issues that the North Carolina Supreme Court determined.\nIt was in his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California court that he made the determination, raised the issue of knowing you supported your testimony.\nWe think that the practical difficulties of the court's decision below do emphasize the lack of custody.\nThe court has held that California is an agent for North Carolina but as respectfully submitted Your Honor, the agency connotes some sort of voluntary acceptance of authority and we have never assented to defending a North Carolina conviction.\nWe are unwilling to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1212.838, 1227.697, 1247.244, 1252.242, 1257.066, 1270.078, 1278.005, 1294.424], "stop_times": [1227.697, 1247.244, 1252.242, 1257.066, 1270.078, 1278.005, 1294.424, 1296.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.838}, "reply_to": "15217__0_052", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_054", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What do you visualize as to what is the holding of Court of Appeals below is that there are jurisdictions on California over this proceeding, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1296.517], "stop_times": [1306.173], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.517}, "reply_to": "15217__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_055", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1306.173], "stop_times": [1307.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.173}, "reply_to": "15217__0_054", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_056", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Now what do you visualize happening when you go back to the District Court?\nI'm going to put a specific question.\nDo you supposing California said to North Carolina, we give you an opportunity to come in and defend and if you don't choose to do so we will erase the detainer.\nIs that foreclosed under the District Court under the Court of Appeals decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1307.175, 1311.738, 1313.179, 1331.458], "stop_times": [1311.738, 1313.179, 1331.458, 1336.395], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.175}, "reply_to": "15217__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_057", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, the Court of Appeals has never said exactly what our obligation was Your Honor, I suppose that\u2019s --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1336.395], "stop_times": [1346.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.395}, "reply_to": "15217__0_056", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_058", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What do you think about California's right to take that position vis-\u00e0-vis North Carolina and say if we do not choose to come in, we got no quarrel with this man ourselves.\nIt's your judgment that\u2019s being attacked here, given our custody be sure but you must defend it.\nIf you don't choose to defend it we will arrange your detainer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1346.421, 1357.185, 1362.502], "stop_times": [1357.185, 1362.502, 1366.339], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.421}, "reply_to": "15217__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_059", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, certainly honoring of the detainer is a question solely of comity Your Honor.\nWe don't have to honor a detainer but even if we didn't give affect to the detainer, there's a very interesting factual situation in this case and that is that the State of Kansas still has a detainer filed against this man and the State of North Carolina knows that.\nWhen and if this man is released, he could be released to stand trial in Kansas.\nAs far as we know, there's nothing to preclude the State of North Carolina than going to Kansas.\nBut we understand to and have their detainer honor there.\nOr if that result would be the result that we didn't honor the detainer, what the court is actually would be asking us to do too is to giving a greater right to a detainer than we can give.\nOr to review a conviction in which we can give in an extradition proceeding.\nWhere an extradition warrant or extradition proceedings are instituted in the California courts.\nWe can't look at the underlying reasons walk through that extradition warrant.\nIt could be we disagree but we can't do that under law, we can't look at the underlying facts and the court below said that we could call upon the North Carolina officials but were not so sure that they would be willing to come out.\nNumber one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1366.339, 1371.9, 1391.815, 1396.9, 1402.774, 1406.719, 1422.294, 1426.344, 1433.593, 1439.421, 1455.929], "stop_times": [1371.9, 1391.815, 1396.9, 1402.774, 1406.719, 1422.294, 1426.344, 1433.593, 1439.421, 1455.929, 1457.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.339}, "reply_to": "15217__0_058", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_060", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But suppose you could just give them that opportunity and say well if you don't care to come in were not going to take any responsibility for this, well just remove your detainer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1457.163], "stop_times": [1465.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.163}, "reply_to": "15217__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_061", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, as I suggest Your Honor but if a man goes into another state in North Carolina possibly to get --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1465.912], "stop_times": [1474.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1465.912}, "reply_to": "15217__0_060", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_062", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "As far as California is concerned by taking that procedure and refusing to become the agent for North Carolina in your own court to defend their conviction of this man as you say all right, if you don't want to come in we\u2019re not going to honor your detainer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1474.27], "stop_times": [1493.708], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.27}, "reply_to": "15217__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_063", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1493.708], "stop_times": [1494.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.708}, "reply_to": "15217__0_062", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_064", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Wouldn't you have the right to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1494.081], "stop_times": [1495.737], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.081}, "reply_to": "15217__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__0_065", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well as I say Your Honor, detainer honoring a detainer solely a matter of comity but it could be that North Carolina wouldn\u2019t have a detainer.\nAlso a detainer is a request to be notified of a man's release.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1495.737, 1503.577], "stop_times": [1503.577, 1507.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.737}, "reply_to": "15217__0_064", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_066", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, Mrs. Renne if you indulged in what seems to be this very cavalier treatment of the sister states, you probably could expect reciprocity the next time the situation were reversed could you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1507.327], "stop_times": [1521.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.327}, "reply_to": "15217__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__0_067", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "We could Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1521.869], "stop_times": [1523.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.869}, "reply_to": "15217__0_066", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_068", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "So what would be left of the doctrine of comity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1523.026], "stop_times": [1526.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.026}, "reply_to": "15217__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__0_069", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well I think it's a very serious problem Your Honor, what the court below has asked the states literally to fight among themselves and the practical problems of transporting records and witnesses across country even assuming you could get the witnesses.\nFor example if the deputy district attorney who tried this case below is no longer in the North Carolina state government, then we don\u2019t know how North Carolina could get that deputy district attorney in a California court if that deputy district attorney was unwilling.\nFrom the prisoner\u2019s point of view, this result is untenable.\nHe is asking a California judge to review a North Carolina conviction the California judge can't be familiar with North Carolina procedure.\nA California council no matter how competent can't know where to look for the records, can't know what witnesses to call, can't get the witnesses as even before the California court.\nWe've not suggested that there's another form available because under this Court's decision in Ahrens v. Clark and under the traditional rules of habeas corpus.\nYou must bring your petition if at all in the district of confinement but we think bringing the suit in the district of sentencing has tremendous practical problems too.\nYou have problems of escape, you have the problems of the confining state, might be unwilling to have that prisoner go to the other state.\nYou have the expense problems and there are no funds that we're aware of to provide for the transportation of the prisoner or its counsel across the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1526.624, 1543.085, 1559.992, 1564.045, 1574.591, 1586.628, 1597.505, 1607.947, 1617.478], "stop_times": [1543.085, 1559.992, 1564.045, 1574.591, 1586.628, 1597.505, 1607.947, 1617.478, 1630.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.624}, "reply_to": "15217__0_068", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__0_070", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Thank you Mrs. Renne, Mr. Cumming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1630.079], "stop_times": [1647.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.079}, "reply_to": "15217__0_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_000", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and might it please the Court.\nI'm George Cumming of San Francisco, counsel for respondent, John Edward George.\nI think having in mind the considerations which led this Court to its unanimous decision in Peyton v. Rowe two terms ago, we're here today to consider whether or not respondent George is entitled to a timely and therefore meaningful hearing on the constitutional claims that he makes with respect to the North Carolina conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1647.427, 1650.181, 1656.889], "stop_times": [1650.181, 1656.889, 1683.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.427}, "reply_to": "15217__0_070", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_001", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "You're not suggesting this case is on all force with the case you're referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1683.431], "stop_times": [1688.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.431}, "reply_to": "15217__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_002", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No I'm not, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThere is a difference obviously Peyton v. Rowe dealt with prisoner facing consecutive sentences imposed by one state.\nThis involves two states.\nI would say at the outset however that this distinction has been presented before Courts of Appeal and in that number I think some 16 judges and none of those 16 who considered the matter here before have considered that to be a meaningful distinction between Peyton and this case.\nParticularly with regard to Peyton's discussion and basis of the desirability and indeed perhaps the necessity of an early hearing on these claims, lest records, witnesses and evidence be washed by the passage of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1688.367, 1692.085, 1699.726, 1702.086, 1724.066], "stop_times": [1692.085, 1699.726, 1702.086, 1724.066, 1741.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1688.367}, "reply_to": "15217__1_001", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_003", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But not only the fact that these are two states convictions which distinguishes this from Peyton against Rowe.\nBut there's at least one other distinction and that is in this case unlike Peyton against Rowe.\nThe Court in which the petition for habeas corpus was filed was not the court where the person was confined which is a distinction is it not at some points?\nPerhaps you think, perhaps it seems type of technical but at least when I went to law school I always thought that in order for a court to have habeas corpus jurisdiction, a prisoner have to be confined somewhere within the jurisdiction of that court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1741.832, 1748.317, 1752.426, 1767.277], "stop_times": [1748.317, 1752.426, 1767.277, 1781.66], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.832}, "reply_to": "15217__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__1_004", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "And he is presently confined within the jurisdiction of the district court in the Northern District of California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1781.66], "stop_times": [1786.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.66}, "reply_to": "15217__1_003", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_005", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But that is not that confinement that he is attacking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1786.002], "stop_times": [1788.377], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.002}, "reply_to": "15217__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__1_006", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's correct, that's I suppose it's a question of whether or not he is presently confined along the lines of Peyton v. Rowe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1788.377], "stop_times": [1799.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.377}, "reply_to": "15217__1_005", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_007", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mr. Cumming, what is the significance of the detainer in this sense if I may try to play this up in my own mind.\nSuppose California just of its own volition not under any pressure of any court or any other source, just simply said, \u201cWe no longer accept detainers from anybody.\u201d\nDoes that prevent the State of North Carolina from plucking this fellow as soon as his released from custody in California?\nWhat's the process by -- what would stop them from doing that independent of a detainer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1799.418, 1808.197, 1820.483, 1832.941], "stop_times": [1808.197, 1820.483, 1832.941, 1839.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.418}, "reply_to": "15217__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_008", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I think independent of a -- we have to go back in time in this case a little bit.\nCalifornia and North Carolina are parties to the detainer grade, pursuant to that agreement, North Carolina obtained temporary custody of respondent in order to try him.\nThe process for trying him absent while he was serving a California sentence, absent this detainer agreement, I'm not sure.\nIt seems to me that some of the problems in this respect were canvassed by the Court\u2019s decision last term in Smith v. Hooey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1839.699, 1845.777, 1859.028, 1867.994], "stop_times": [1845.777, 1859.028, 1867.994, 1874.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.699}, "reply_to": "15217__1_007", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_009", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But part of this arrangement is to have something more flexible than an extradition, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1874.782], "stop_times": [1881.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.782}, "reply_to": "15217__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_010", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's correct, the respondent's application under this detainer agreement to be released in North Carolina for trial is deemed to be a labor of extradition by him.\nBoth to go to North Carolina to be tried and to return to North Carolina to serve any sentence there imposed.\nThe detainer agreement states that specifically, I believe its Article III (e).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1881.486, 1896.642, 1903.977], "stop_times": [1896.642, 1903.977, 1908.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.486}, "reply_to": "15217__1_009", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_011", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well could counsel -- suppose it come to the day when California's sentences are running out.\nIt comes to that last day, could California hold him in custody for even one hour after the sentence had expired in order to accommodate another state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1908.814, 1916.234], "stop_times": [1916.234, 1928.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.814}, "reply_to": "15217__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_012", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I believe that it could, under the detainer agreement.\nThe agreement states that the warden in this case California has a lawful and mandatory duty to give over the person of any prisoner whenever required by the detainer agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1928.297, 1933.234], "stop_times": [1933.234, 1947.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.297}, "reply_to": "15217__1_011", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_013", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But isn't that at the expiration of the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1947.095], "stop_times": [1950.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.095}, "reply_to": "15217__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_014", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1950.704], "stop_times": [1951.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.704}, "reply_to": "15217__1_013", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_015", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Could it -- are you suggesting it could be two weeks, two months, six months later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1951.394], "stop_times": [1956.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.394}, "reply_to": "15217__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_016", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I suppose if North Carolina did not show up having previously been notified, this apparently there is an administrative provision for the notification in advance of the expiration and if they didn\u2019t show up then inquiries failed to discover why.\nI suppose he could with impunity at that point discharge the prisoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1956.004, 1972.388], "stop_times": [1972.388, 1976.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.004}, "reply_to": "15217__1_015", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_017", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, but if he didn't discharge him the prisoner will have a pretty good habeas corpus claim, wouldn\u2019t he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1976.982], "stop_times": [1983.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.982}, "reply_to": "15217__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_018", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Certainly would, there would be at that point nothing, no authority I would think for the warden to hold it.\nI suppose from the detainer agreement you could probably infer some sort of authority for a short time to accommodate the agents of North Carolina to make the trip to California and pick him up.\nPerhaps, it would require that they show up on a release day so as to take him into their own custody immediately as he pass through the gate of San Quentin.\nI'm not sure so that there is come down perhaps to a split second.\nIn any event, this case involves a situation where at least on the record thus far and on the detainer agreement, the warden is bound to give respondent over to North Carolina upon the completion of his valid sentence in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [1983.327, 1990.081, 2004.218, 2014.41, 2021.49], "stop_times": [1990.081, 2004.218, 2014.41, 2021.49, 2041.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.327}, "reply_to": "15217__1_017", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_019", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, what about Kansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2041.91], "stop_times": [2044.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.91}, "reply_to": "15217__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_020", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "If Kansas has a detainer outstanding at this time on an untried charge, that detainer may or may not be in existence at the time that respondent is released from California custody because petitioner has no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2044.649], "stop_times": [2061.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.649}, "reply_to": "15217__1_019", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_021", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But assume it is, what do you do, draw a lot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2061.146], "stop_times": [2065.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.146}, "reply_to": "15217__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_022", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Petitioners suggest that they honor the matters on a basis of that detainer first received and I guess the Kansas detainer was first received.\nHe would honor that one first and release the petitioner to Kansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2065.091, 2075.858], "stop_times": [2075.858, 2079.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.091}, "reply_to": "15217__1_021", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_023", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well if the Kansas one is first, then clearly your case is in trouble.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2079.751], "stop_times": [2086.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.751}, "reply_to": "15217__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_024", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I suppose it is in this sense that if we remain in the situation where the -- whereas the warden\u2019s discretion as to what to do about these detainers that is if we stay out of court as the warden urges that we ought to do.\nThen we are in a difficult situation but this is one of the reasons that we would like to get this matter on for hearing in the District Court to find out the validity of this North Carolina sentence and then approach the District Court for an appropriate or to deal with this complicated problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2086.297, 2105.439], "stop_times": [2105.439, 2122.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.297}, "reply_to": "15217__1_023", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_025", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "How did the North Carolina trial come up?\nWas that at his agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2122.64, 2125.285], "stop_times": [2125.285, 2127.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.64}, "reply_to": "15217__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_026", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That was at his request under the detainer agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2127.272], "stop_times": [2130.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.272}, "reply_to": "15217__1_025", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_027", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Under his request, he left California, went to North Carolina, was tried in North Carolina, came back to California, and now he wants to attack what he brought on himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2130.32], "stop_times": [2146.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.32}, "reply_to": "15217__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_028", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, he does.\nHe wants to attack it, may I say at a time which he feels that his attack can be meaningful.\nThat is of the time when the evidence and the witnesses and so forth may be available to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2146.211, 2148.006, 2155.02], "stop_times": [2148.006, 2155.02, 2160.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.211}, "reply_to": "15217__1_027", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_029", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "In California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2160.466], "stop_times": [2162.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.466}, "reply_to": "15217__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_030", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "This obviously presents a problem to him.\nThis relates to the second question that the petitioner suggests has posed in this case and that is the appropriate form.\nUnder Ahrens against Clark however, if there is any relief available to him.\nIt is only in the District Court he is now confined.\nNow if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2162.857, 2167.029, 2174.936, 2180.615, 2184.41], "stop_times": [2167.029, 2174.936, 2180.615, 2184.41, 2185.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.857}, "reply_to": "15217__1_029", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_031", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Excuse me.\nAlmost ten years ago, I so happen I wrote an opinion for the Court which made me familiar with the North Carolina Post-Conviction Hearing Act which I learned at that time and this has been repealed was an extremely enlightened and progressive piece of legislation.\nBut I don't know whether it applies if a person is not incarcerated in the state.\nAs I remember, however it requires that the petition very much like Section 2255 of the United States Code by Title 28, the petitioners filed with a sentencing court, that would be available to your client would it or wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2185.458, 2190.103, 2207.482, 2216.373], "stop_times": [2190.103, 2207.482, 2216.373, 2235.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.458}, "reply_to": "15217__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__1_032", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I'm not sure that that is so, he is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2235.674], "stop_times": [2238.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.674}, "reply_to": "15217__1_031", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_033", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "It's a North Carolina General Statute Section 15-217 through to 222 I think.\nAre you familiar with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2238.316, 2248.521], "stop_times": [2248.521, 2249.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.316}, "reply_to": "15217__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__1_034", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I am not familiar with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2249.505], "stop_times": [2251.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.505}, "reply_to": "15217__1_033", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_035", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I'd be well for you to become familiar with that.\nI think it would offer you a very easy way of relief in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2251.29, 2253.412], "stop_times": [2253.412, 2256.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.29}, "reply_to": "15217__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__1_036", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I might very well.\nI am familiar however with the decision in Word against North Carolina which happen to involve the same state.\nAnd as I recall that decision, they suggested that post-conviction relief was not available in North Carolina unless the petitioner was physically incarcerated there and if memory serves me correct, Chief Judge Haynesworth, on behalf of the Fourth Circuit invited the State of North Carolina to reconsider this matter in light of Peyton against Rowe and what it held with respect to the challenging of future sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2256.341, 2258.071, 2264.814], "stop_times": [2258.071, 2264.814, 2300.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.341}, "reply_to": "15217__1_035", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_037", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What is your stand on the State of North Carolina with Mr. warden particularly with that petition?\nLet's assume for the moment that he wasn't doing anything that you know your client now and maybe he had no anticipation that he was on account of the North Carolina objection.\nDo you still think you have a dispute with him with respect to validity in the North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2300.029, 2306.898, 2320.367], "stop_times": [2306.898, 2320.367, 2327.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.029}, "reply_to": "15217__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_038", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I don't really think we do have a dispute with him.\nThis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2327.257, 2331.147], "stop_times": [2331.147, 2332.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.257}, "reply_to": "15217__1_037", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_039", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "You mean you alleged you have a dispute with him, didn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2332.066], "stop_times": [2334.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.066}, "reply_to": "15217__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_040", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well -- we're forgetting as I understand that the question of some immediate impact as a result of this detainer such as a heavier hand and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2334.957], "stop_times": [2345.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.957}, "reply_to": "15217__1_039", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_041", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "And that is for the moment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2345.733], "stop_times": [2346.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.733}, "reply_to": "15217__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_042", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, out dispute is this much.\nHe, under the detainer agreement and assuming that North Carolina is detainer as first in line according to their own ways of resolving this and so forth.\nAt the expiration of his current valid sentence, the warden proposes to release him to the custody of North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2346.718, 2350.668, 2362.955], "stop_times": [2350.668, 2362.955, 2370.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.718}, "reply_to": "15217__1_041", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_043", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well it has to be North -- whenever he is releasing them as the Chief Justice suggested in North Carolina to be known and the same result would be obtained, there is nothing the warden can do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2370.978], "stop_times": [2391.83], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.978}, "reply_to": "15217__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__1_044", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I think the answer to that is that one of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2391.83], "stop_times": [2394.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.83}, "reply_to": "15217__1_043", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_045", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "If the warden has not given notice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2394.993], "stop_times": [2397.424], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.993}, "reply_to": "15217__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__1_046", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No. No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2397.424], "stop_times": [2398.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.424}, "reply_to": "15217__1_045", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_047", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "(Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2398.276], "stop_times": [2399.35], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.276}, "reply_to": "15217__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__1_048", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, ideally I would like to have the warden say to North Carolina at that time, I have been ordered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California after a full hearing on the validity of your conviction to refuse, to give this man to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2399.35], "stop_times": [2422.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.35}, "reply_to": "15217__1_047", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_049", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well what if the North Carolina stayed outside the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2422.695], "stop_times": [2428.259], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.695}, "reply_to": "15217__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__1_050", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I suppose it might be so, I think the District Court has the unquestioned power to fashion an order which is directed to other California officials to decide. (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2428.259], "stop_times": [2438.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.259}, "reply_to": "15217__1_049", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_051", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, Mr. Cumming --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2438.328], "stop_times": [2439.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.328}, "reply_to": "15217__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_052", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Let me ask you about this unquestioned power that you speak of.\nWhat would be the source of the power to the California Federal Court to interfere with the State of North Carolina picking up a prisoner at the end of his term in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2439.659, 2444.224], "stop_times": [2444.224, 2460.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.659}, "reply_to": "15217__1_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_053", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "The source of that power would be twofold.\nFirst of all, it would be under the court's obligation to consider constitutional challenges that have been raised to that North Carolina conviction.\nAnd secondly, I think it\u2019s been argued in the briefs that there is no jurisdiction of the District Court in California over the State of North Carolina.\nUnder the facts of this case, the circumstances of this detainer agreement, I find that difficult proposition to understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2460.208, 2463.699, 2477.289, 2491.243], "stop_times": [2463.699, 2477.289, 2491.243, 2503.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.208}, "reply_to": "15217__1_052", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_054", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But have you served any piece of paper on the State of North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2503.482], "stop_times": [2508.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.482}, "reply_to": "15217__1_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_055", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, we have not except to the extent that the Ninth Circuit below held that it's a matter of law, Warden Nelson is the agent of the State of North Carolina and actually, nothing has been served on Warden Nelson because of course habeas corpus is a little bit different than the usual plaintiff defendant case.\nThe process is in order emanating from the District Court calling upon the respondent to respond and show cause with respect to the conviction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2508.169, 2530.571], "stop_times": [2530.571, 2543.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.169}, "reply_to": "15217__1_054", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_056", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, when --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2543.362], "stop_times": [2544.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.362}, "reply_to": "15217__1_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_057", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "-- that have never gotten that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2544.315], "stop_times": [2547.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.315}, "reply_to": "15217__1_056", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_058", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But then no claim has been made by you, I take it from the outset that the California warden is the agent of the State of North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2547.818], "stop_times": [2559.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.818}, "reply_to": "15217__1_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_059", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No we have pointed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2559.13], "stop_times": [2559.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.13}, "reply_to": "15217__1_058", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_060", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "This is a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2559.807], "stop_times": [2560.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.807}, "reply_to": "15217__1_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_061", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "-- under the detainer agreement, he is United States agent for the enforcement of its rights under the detainer agreement, the rights as they now stand.\nIn part, what respondent wishes to challenge is a violation by North Carolina of the very provisions of that detainer agreement under which he was tried.\nTo wit, the fact that he was not tried within the mandatory time limit of that detainer agreement and therefore I suppose our position on the merits if we're allowed to get to that would be that North Carolina simply lost the limited jurisdiction over him that he has acquired under the detainer agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2560.306, 2571.202, 2581.092], "stop_times": [2571.202, 2581.092, 2600.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.306}, "reply_to": "15217__1_060", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_062", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mr. Cumming, is your position that if you're denied relief here and then Kansas gets him before North Carolina, you can litigate in the United States District Court in Kansas the same thing over again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2600.312], "stop_times": [2614.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.312}, "reply_to": "15217__1_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_063", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I suppose Mr. Justice Marshall that we would have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2614.095], "stop_times": [2619.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.095}, "reply_to": "15217__1_062", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_064", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "(Voice Overlap) But that has to be your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2619.729], "stop_times": [2621.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.729}, "reply_to": "15217__1_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__1_065", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "It has to be.\nThe problem of course is that that may be many years in coming and this is why I returned again and again to Peyton v. Rowe.\nIt is quite true that respondent has alleged some present impact of the detainer on him while he is on California now.\nNow perhaps there isn't any or perhaps it can be ameliorated but primarily he is in -- he is desirous of having a hearing on the claims that he makes with respect to the North Carolina judgment at the time when those when that hearing can be meaningful and not.\nHe is presently serving a sentence of an indeterminate sentence of five years to life, and so he faces the same problem with respect to his second sentence that petitioner Rowe faced in Peyton against Rowe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2621.292, 2623.852, 2632.164, 2640.772, 2662.419], "stop_times": [2623.852, 2632.164, 2640.772, 2662.419, 2676.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.292}, "reply_to": "15217__1_064", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_066", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Would it be unreasonable to say that the most meaningful time to test that conviction was while he was still in the State of North Carolina immediately following the trial when everything was fresh in the minds of everyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2676.22], "stop_times": [2689.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.22}, "reply_to": "15217__1_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_067", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's probably true and he -- excuse me, he did test it by way of direct appeal.\nNow we're into the matter of a collateral attack on that conviction but if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2689.933, 2697.132], "stop_times": [2697.132, 2702.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.933}, "reply_to": "15217__1_066", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_068", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What is his exact charges and validity of the North Carolina judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2702.747], "stop_times": [2709.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.747}, "reply_to": "15217__1_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_069", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "He makes three Mr. Justice Black.\nThe first is that the detainer agreement by its terms requires that if a man be taken to North Carolina to stand trial that he must be tried within, I believe a 120-day period and if he is not, the underlying charge shall be dismissed, he was not tried within this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2709.23, 2711.078], "stop_times": [2711.078, 2734.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.23}, "reply_to": "15217__1_068", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_070", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "You mean if he was absent, they couldn't get him?\nYou mean he is insisting that if he was in jail and they couldn't get him out --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2734.662, 2739.162], "stop_times": [2739.162, 2744.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.662}, "reply_to": "15217__1_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_071", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, no, no, no.\nOnce he request to be taken to North Carolina and is physically taken there to stand trial then the State of North Carolina or any other party to this compact has a limited period of time in which to try him and indeed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2744.334, 2749.209], "stop_times": [2749.209, 2766.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.334}, "reply_to": "15217__1_070", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_072", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But he wasn't taken, was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2766.752], "stop_times": [2768.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.752}, "reply_to": "15217__1_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_073", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, he was.\nYes, he was in San Quentin Prison.\nNorth Carolina filed a detainer on an untried charge and Mr. George was notified of this charge and he has some rights under the detainer agreement.\nThe detainer agreement is essentially an attempt to improve the speedy trial guaranteed in these types of situations where a man is incarcerated for many years.\nYou've dealt with some of these problems last term in Smith against Hooey.\nHe is entitled and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2768.112, 2769.263, 2771.247, 2782.583, 2792.474, 2799.266], "stop_times": [2769.263, 2771.247, 2782.583, 2792.474, 2799.266, 2800.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.112}, "reply_to": "15217__1_072", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_074", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Was he taken -- was he taken back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2800.909], "stop_times": [2802.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.909}, "reply_to": "15217__1_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_075", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes he was taken to North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2802.736], "stop_times": [2803.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.736}, "reply_to": "15217__1_074", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_076", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "At that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2803.583], "stop_times": [2804.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.583}, "reply_to": "15217__1_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_077", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "At that time and tried and convicted and immediately returned to California, so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2804.653], "stop_times": [2810.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.653}, "reply_to": "15217__1_076", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_078", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "So, if he charge now, (Inaudible) you're not charging anything unconstitutional in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2810.773], "stop_times": [2818.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.773}, "reply_to": "15217__1_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_079", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "The fact that he was not tried within the time limit that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2818.065], "stop_times": [2820.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.065}, "reply_to": "15217__1_078", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_080", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "How long did it take?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2820.594], "stop_times": [2822.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.594}, "reply_to": "15217__1_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_081", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I'm not sure it took longer than the mandatory time provision of the detainer agreement.\nIt seems to me that the detainer agreement provides for 120 days after he arrives in North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2822.785, 2828.874], "stop_times": [2828.874, 2837.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.785}, "reply_to": "15217__1_080", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_082", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's on the North Carolina law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2837.003], "stop_times": [2838.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.003}, "reply_to": "15217__1_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_083", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, well yes, North Carolina law to the extent that that is represented by this detainer compact which has been signed by a number of states and the provisions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2838.902], "stop_times": [2849.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.902}, "reply_to": "15217__1_082", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_084", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "You share that question in the Supreme Court of North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2849.04], "stop_times": [2852.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.04}, "reply_to": "15217__1_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_085", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, yes he has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2852.291], "stop_times": [2853.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.291}, "reply_to": "15217__1_084", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_086", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Inside and against on their law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2853.556], "stop_times": [2855.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.556}, "reply_to": "15217__1_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_087", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "On their law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2855.537], "stop_times": [2856.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.537}, "reply_to": "15217__1_086", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_088", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "What's your other question on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2856.877], "stop_times": [2858.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.877}, "reply_to": "15217__1_087", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_089", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "The second question would be not withstanding the violation of the -- the precise violation of this time period.\nIt may be that the delay represents if the denial of a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and his third claim is that he was convicted on the basis of testimony known by the prosecution to be perjurious.\nThose are his three contentions.\nThey may all be without merit but we've never had a hearing on that and we'd like to have one.\nI beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2858.876, 2867.172, 2883.107, 2886.341, 2890.987], "stop_times": [2867.172, 2883.107, 2886.341, 2890.987, 2891.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2858.876}, "reply_to": "15217__1_088", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_090", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "You want to try that question in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2891.649], "stop_times": [2896.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.649}, "reply_to": "15217__1_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15217__1_091", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Under Ahrens v. Clark that's -- at this time that's the only place we cant try it and we all have some difficulty trying it there but we'll have a lot more difficulty if we have to go back to North Carolina and try it 10 years from now or 20 years from now or 30 years from now, it would be impossible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2896.131], "stop_times": [2913.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.131}, "reply_to": "15217__1_090", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_092", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mr. Cumming, Mrs. Renne told us I think that if the alleged that this North Carolina conviction were being used some way by the California authorities as bearing on this time for release under the California conviction that there's a remedy in the California state courts or a claim like that, do you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2913.136], "stop_times": [2943.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.136}, "reply_to": "15217__1_091", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_093", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I believe that to be the law Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2943.086], "stop_times": [2944.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.086}, "reply_to": "15217__1_092", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_094", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, now if that is the law, there is an allegation as I understand it here that that is what's happening that the California authorities are using this North Carolina conviction to his prejudice.\nI thought ordinarily that a federal habeas corpus proceeding could not be entertained until there've been an exhaustion of state remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2944.718, 2961.112], "stop_times": [2961.112, 2971.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.718}, "reply_to": "15217__1_093", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_095", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's quite correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2971.75], "stop_times": [2972.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.75}, "reply_to": "15217__1_094", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_096", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, why then -- why would not this proceeding be premature in the federal courts since I gather there's been no effort to begin a proceeding in the California state courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2972.708], "stop_times": [2986.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.708}, "reply_to": "15217__1_095", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_097", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "It may very well be premature, I'm not frankly -- we were associated in this case when it was in the Ninth Circuit and we're perhaps a little bit less -- it might be with the arguments that we would make if we had some basis to get into the District Court in this instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [2986.297], "stop_times": [3002.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.297}, "reply_to": "15217__1_096", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_098", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, if on the record, it comes to us.\nIt would appear that he hasn\u2019t exhausted his reasonable amount of what happened below ought not we just vacate everything that's happened and send it back to be held pending his going to the state --California state courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3002.861, 3009.081], "stop_times": [3009.081, 3022.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.861}, "reply_to": "15217__1_097", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_099", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I don't think so because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3022.302], "stop_times": [3024.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.302}, "reply_to": "15217__1_098", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_100", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But why not if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3024.169], "stop_times": [3025.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.169}, "reply_to": "15217__1_099", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_101", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "We are also concerned not with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3025.389], "stop_times": [3027.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.389}, "reply_to": "15217__1_100", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_102", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But the statute makes it clear doesn't it that the federal courts are not to entertain federal habeas until there\u2019s been an exhaustion of any presently available remedy in the state courts, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3027.044], "stop_times": [3038.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.044}, "reply_to": "15217__1_101", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_103", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's correct.\nI think that the proceeding ought not to be vacated for this reason.\nWe're not only concerned with such present effects as there may be that is holding him with a heavier hand, the things that I believe Mr. Justice White discussed just a few moments ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3038.718, 3040.819, 3044.392], "stop_times": [3040.819, 3044.392, 3058.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.718}, "reply_to": "15217__1_102", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_104", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But doesn't that suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3058.885], "stop_times": [3059.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.885}, "reply_to": "15217__1_103", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_105", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "We're also concerned with challenging the validity of the North Carolina on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3059.581], "stop_times": [3065.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.581}, "reply_to": "15217__1_104", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_106", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, doesn't that then raise another question that Mr. Justice Stewart put to you?\nIf there has to be exhaustion of any available state remedies before any federal court can entertain habeas, may there not be in North Carolina a post conviction remedy which has not yet been exhausted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3065.849, 3070.631], "stop_times": [3070.631, 3084.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.849}, "reply_to": "15217__1_105", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_107", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3084.696], "stop_times": [3085.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.696}, "reply_to": "15217__1_106", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_108", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That the statute will require them to exhaust before the federal district court can entertain this application at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3085.178], "stop_times": [3090.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.178}, "reply_to": "15217__1_107", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_109", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's correct but I believe that there is no such remedy.\nAs it was raised -- as I mentioned in Word against North Carolina, as I recall, the law there in North Carolina was that you have to be physically in custody in North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3090.329, 3094.57], "stop_times": [3094.57, 3108.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.329}, "reply_to": "15217__1_108", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_110", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Oh!\nI see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3108.865, 3108.94], "stop_times": [3108.94, 3109.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.865}, "reply_to": "15217__1_109", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_111", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "The Fourth Circuit enlightened North Carolina to reconsider that matter.\nAlthough, I have trouble with that because the statute speaks in terms of remedies available at the time the petition was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3109.052, 3112.762], "stop_times": [3112.762, 3118.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.052}, "reply_to": "15217__1_110", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_112", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well you're answer to me is there is no North Carolina proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3118.73], "stop_times": [3121.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.73}, "reply_to": "15217__1_111", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_113", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "So far as I know they have not modified their law under the suggestion of the Fourth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3121.856], "stop_times": [3129.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.856}, "reply_to": "15217__1_112", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_114", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Mr. Cumming, suppose the State of California agrees and said we will lift the detainer and then send a telegram and tells we will release him on some certain dates.\nWhat can you do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3129.834, 3143.96], "stop_times": [3143.96, 3150.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.834}, "reply_to": "15217__1_113", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_115", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I suppose that we would have to apply to the -- an appropriate court that no one else in California assist.\nIn other words, as I understand your question, you're asking me, if what would we do if the warden gave us voluntarily the sort of relief that we\u2019re seeking in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3150.615, 3163.672], "stop_times": [3163.672, 3175.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3150.615}, "reply_to": "15217__1_114", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_116", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "My specific question was if the warden released the detainer and sent a collect telegram so it won\u2019t cause California any money.\nDoes the State of North Carolina say, we will release (Inaudible) at 11 o'clock at the East gate, what could you do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3175.235, 3185.934], "stop_times": [3185.934, 3196.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.235}, "reply_to": "15217__1_115", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_117", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I suppose we would have to as I said apply to an appropriate court to prevent anyone from California in assisting North Carolina and retaining custody or North Carolina can't simply come and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3196.134], "stop_times": [3212.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.134}, "reply_to": "15217__1_116", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_118", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Under what law could you prevent somebody from notifying another state that we get can try to release a person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3212.123], "stop_times": [3219.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.123}, "reply_to": "15217__1_117", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_119", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "We couldn't prevent notification --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3219.535], "stop_times": [3221.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3219.535}, "reply_to": "15217__1_118", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_120", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well that's what I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3221.191], "stop_times": [3222.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.191}, "reply_to": "15217__1_119", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_121", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, we couldn't prevent that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3222.316], "stop_times": [3223.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3222.316}, "reply_to": "15217__1_120", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_122", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "You couldn't do a thing about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3223.102], "stop_times": [3224.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.102}, "reply_to": "15217__1_121", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_123", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, that's entirely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3224.318], "stop_times": [3225.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.318}, "reply_to": "15217__1_122", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_124", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "And they pick him up and go through extradition and there he goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3225.719], "stop_times": [3229.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.719}, "reply_to": "15217__1_123", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_125", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's right, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3229.07], "stop_times": [3230.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3229.07}, "reply_to": "15217__1_124", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_126", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, what's this case all about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3230.402], "stop_times": [3231.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.402}, "reply_to": "15217__1_125", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_127", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "This case, in extradition, he at least has some basis to appeal to the executive of the State of California for consideration.\nExtradition habeas corpus may be limited, an extradition proceeding may be a very short one but he has some basis to appeal to someone to give some consideration to his claim that the North Carolina sentence is invalid.\nAt the present he has none because he's waived extradition.\nUnder the detainer agreement, he's waived extradition by requesting to go there and stand trial.\nHe's going there, he stood trial and in the interim he's asking them to respond --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3231.868, 3242.805, 3259.734, 3263.05, 3268.66], "stop_times": [3242.805, 3259.734, 3263.05, 3268.66, 3273.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3231.868}, "reply_to": "15217__1_126", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_128", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "And in the meantime, he is paying his debt in California and not his debt in North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3273.232], "stop_times": [3278.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.232}, "reply_to": "15217__1_127", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15217__1_129", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's right, that\u2019s entirely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3278.466], "stop_times": [3281.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3278.466}, "reply_to": "15217__1_128", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_130", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Let me try a little variation of Justice Marshall's question.\nSuppose not California but North Carolina voluntarily surrenders, waives its detainer agreement in California.\nWhere have you got any jurisdiction in the State of California federal courts, state courts, or any other courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3281.361, 3284.503, 3295.474], "stop_times": [3284.503, 3295.474, 3300.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.361}, "reply_to": "15217__1_129", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_131", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "If it waives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3300.596], "stop_times": [3301.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3300.596}, "reply_to": "15217__1_130", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_132", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, just simply says we withdraw our detainer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3301.743], "stop_times": [3304.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.743}, "reply_to": "15217__1_131", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_133", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well then, I suppose he doesn\u2019t go to North Carolina to serve that sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3304.539], "stop_times": [3308.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3304.539}, "reply_to": "15217__1_132", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_134", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, it waives the detainer but that doesn't prevent them from having three deputy sheriffs in North Carolina sitting outside the east gate as Mr. Justice Marshall suggested to pick him up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3308.163], "stop_times": [3318.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.163}, "reply_to": "15217__1_133", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_135", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That's right, they would have to go through traditional extradition proceedings, but as I say, at least at that point he would have some recourse.\nIt might not be as greater recourse as in habeas corpus at present time but at least some recourse in which he could bring to the attention of the executive or perhaps the court under the extradition habeas corpus his charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3318.789, 3327.037], "stop_times": [3327.037, 3340.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3318.789}, "reply_to": "15217__1_134", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_136", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well then, is it possible we're engaged in something of an exercise in futility here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3340.039], "stop_times": [3348.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.039}, "reply_to": "15217__1_135", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_137", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I don't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3348.513], "stop_times": [3349.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.513}, "reply_to": "15217__1_136", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_138", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Unless, we assume that North Carolina is just going to let this man walk off in the case of their conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3349.253], "stop_times": [3358.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3349.253}, "reply_to": "15217__1_137", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_139", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I don't think that the court is exercising -- is going to be exercising a matter of futility.\nI think that there's an ample basis to hold on to hold on this detainer agreement and the responsibilities which the party states undertake for each other to hold that North Carolina is within the jurisdiction of the District Court in California.\nIt has come to California once to pick him up, take him back there, try him; it will presumably come there again to pick him up.\nTake him back without extradition or any judicial or executive inquiry into the propriety of that.\nAll he's asking is that they come out here in the interim and answer to his charges that the proceedings which were handled in North Carolina violated his constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3358.083, 3363.88, 3381.745, 3390.151, 3396.573], "stop_times": [3363.88, 3381.745, 3390.151, 3396.573, 3408.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.083}, "reply_to": "15217__1_138", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_140", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But you do concede that if North Carolina surrenders its detainer, that no California federal court has any jurisdiction?\nYour entire jurisdictional theme rests upon the agency concept, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3408.61, 3422.085], "stop_times": [3422.085, 3425.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.61}, "reply_to": "15217__1_139", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_141", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I don't think it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3425.59], "stop_times": [3427.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3425.59}, "reply_to": "15217__1_140", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_142", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Why?\nI thought we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3427.201, 3427.389], "stop_times": [3427.389, 3427.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.201}, "reply_to": "15217__1_141", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__1_143", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "We're required to sue the warden because he is the present custodian.\nIf we sued the State of North Carolina, as indeed we did in the first instance, the first petition which incidentally is not printed in the appendix because except for the caption that is identical to the amended petition was caption John Edward George versus the State of North Carolina.\nNow if he filed that petition in the federal court in San Francisco, it might very well be that the court would hold.\nThat it had jurisdiction over the named respondent to witness State of North Carolina.\nIt strikes me that it would be inappropriate at that point to name the warden the traditional respondent in North Carolina because obviously he is not in jail, but I think that there would be relief available.\nOur naming of Lewis Nelson is because of his obligations under the detainer agreement.\nIf he had no obligations under the detainer agreement, I do not believe that we would be without remedy in California.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3427.725, 3433.311, 3450.183, 3460.699, 3466.334, 3478.85, 3485.057, 3493.058], "stop_times": [3433.311, 3450.183, 3460.699, 3466.334, 3478.85, 3485.057, 3493.058, 3494.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3427.725}, "reply_to": "15217__1_142", "speaker": "george_a_cumming_jr"}
{"id": "15217__1_144", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Thank you Mr. Cumming.\nMrs. Renne, you have four minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3494.528, 3496.052], "stop_times": [3496.052, 3500.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3494.528}, "reply_to": "15217__1_143", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__2_000", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Your Honor if I may briefly respond to two primary points.\nMr. Justice Brennan raised the question of my representation to the Court.\nThis is not a case and it is our representation that this is not a case or California has attempted to use North Carolina conviction to increase the length of the California sentence or to classify the defendant as a criminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3500.806, 3504.011, 3508.619], "stop_times": [3504.011, 3508.619, 3522.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3500.806}, "reply_to": "15217__1_144", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_001", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, I know that is the position you took earlier, Mrs. Renne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3522.682], "stop_times": [3526.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3522.682}, "reply_to": "15217__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_002", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3526.012], "stop_times": [3526.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3526.012}, "reply_to": "15217__2_001", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_003", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "But is it true that there is an allegation here that it was so you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3526.424], "stop_times": [3530.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3526.424}, "reply_to": "15217__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_004", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3530.224], "stop_times": [3531.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3530.224}, "reply_to": "15217__2_003", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_005", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, that is not alleged in this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3531.323], "stop_times": [3532.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.323}, "reply_to": "15217__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_006", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "No, that is not alleged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3532.185], "stop_times": [3533.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3532.185}, "reply_to": "15217__2_005", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_007", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3533.561], "stop_times": [3534.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.561}, "reply_to": "15217__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_008", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "As I understand there is some allegation that might affect his parole consideration.\nThat kind of allegation was made below but that's a totally different question.\nThe record doesn't support and in fact we don't think the record will support it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3534.335, 3539.464, 3544.009], "stop_times": [3539.464, 3544.009, 3547.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3534.335}, "reply_to": "15217__2_007", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_009", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, well, yes even though that's not true.\nIs it not ordinary habeas practice in the federal district courts such a way to ask the very first question?\nHave you exhausted your state remedies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3547.357, 3550.439, 3557.888], "stop_times": [3550.439, 3557.888, 3559.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.357}, "reply_to": "15217__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_010", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Oh!\nYes, that's true Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3559.459, 3559.832], "stop_times": [3559.832, 3560.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3559.459}, "reply_to": "15217__2_009", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_011", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, why wasn't that been in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3560.643], "stop_times": [3562.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3560.643}, "reply_to": "15217__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_012", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Because Your Honor, it's -- exhaustion of state remedies presupposes and the applicability of present habeas corpus relief.\nThe issue raised in the court below was, is there presently available habeas corpus relief and it is our position that is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3562.789, 3574.016], "stop_times": [3574.016, 3584.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3562.789}, "reply_to": "15217__2_011", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_013", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Yes, but that doesn't say that.\nI thought ordinarily, the position was that there isn't presently available federal habeas relief until you've established it to exhaust all your state remedies that are presently available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3584.057, 3585.995], "stop_times": [3585.995, 3596.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.057}, "reply_to": "15217__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_014", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, we do think in this instance Your Honor that there hasn't been any showing of an attempt to exhaustion but that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3596.964], "stop_times": [3603.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3596.964}, "reply_to": "15217__2_013", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_015", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, then -- I come back then, why shouldn't this case go back to the District Court for initial determination now whether he has available state remedies whether in California or North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3603.269], "stop_times": [3615.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3603.269}, "reply_to": "15217__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15217__2_016", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Because that presupposes that if there is some sort of habeas corpus jurisdiction in the District Court of California, Your Honor and we're unwilling, we don\u2019t believe that that\u2019s the correct law.\nWe think that it may be that this inmate has a remedy in a North Carolina courts.\nIf what he is after is to challenge his North Carolina conviction he ought to attempt to seek relief in the North Carolina state courts.\nThat's our position and we think that there's been no showing that hes attempted to do that.\nBut we don't think there is presently available federal habeas corpus relief.\nI'd like to make clear too in response to some of the other questions that were asked that on the strike, we will not hold a man one day longer on the strength of a detainer.\nIf a man's conviction has expired, a responding state must come into California to seek and obtain an extradition warrant.\nThe prisoner can waive extradition and that's a different matter.\nBut if hasn't, we will release a man only pursuant to extradition.\nIn the parole situation, there are two separate ways that a man might be paroled.\nIf the Adult Authority which is our Paroling Agency in California believes this man has totally satisfied -- is sought ready for parole, we will release the man subject to hold which means that we will notify the other state and the other state has to come in with an extradition in warrant.\nIf we don't believe the man is ready yet for parole but nevertheless we know he has a conviction or a charge in another state and it's quite clear that the others seem to be clear that the other state wishes to obtain custody which they can do under extradition, we may put it as a special condition of parole that is the protocol.\nNow, that other state doesn't come in with extradition warrant or the prisoner doesn't waive extradition, then we may reconsider whether the man ought to be on parole.\nBut that's reconsideration under the California sentence only.\nWe respectfully submit that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3615.726, 3628.787, 3637.303, 3646.111, 3651.7, 3657.884, 3672.496, 3683.352, 3686.853, 3693.151, 3700.024, 3721.977, 3747.813, 3758.986, 3763.221], "stop_times": [3628.787, 3637.303, 3646.111, 3651.7, 3657.884, 3672.496, 3683.352, 3686.853, 3693.151, 3700.024, 3721.977, 3747.813, 3758.986, 3763.221, 3763.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3615.726}, "reply_to": "15217__2_015", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_017", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Pardon, could I ask you one question?\nAssuming jurisdiction here for the moment, what do you think about the Court of Appeals suggestion that if it came down to the question of the new witnesses that 1404 (1) transfer and the 1408 would be available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3763.958, 3766.48], "stop_times": [3766.48, 3786.64], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3763.958}, "reply_to": "15217__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__2_018", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, Your Honor as I recall Section 1404 (a), that statute -- transfers statute says that the case may be transferred to an action where it might have been brought.\nIt is our position that this case could not have been brought in another forum.\nNow, it is true Word v. North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit opinion decided that the sentencing court wasn\u2019t appropriate for him in a case of this kind.\nBut it's really fortuitous that in both cases North Carolina conviction should be involved.\nIn any other circuit this wouldn't be the case, the other reason case being the Third Circuit case and then Scoten versus Pennsylvania where the Third Circuit held that New Jersey prisoners couldn\u2019t challenge future Pennsylvania sentences in a Pennsylvania court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3786.64, 3800.03, 3806.279, 3816.795, 3822.639], "stop_times": [3800.03, 3806.279, 3816.795, 3822.639, 3840.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3786.64}, "reply_to": "15217__2_017", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_019", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Have you looked into the North Carolina post-conviction remedy statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3840.415], "stop_times": [3845.834], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3840.415}, "reply_to": "15217__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15217__2_020", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well I have read it, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3845.834], "stop_times": [3848.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3845.834}, "reply_to": "15217__2_019", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_021", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "It seems to be applicable only to those imprisoned in North Carolina, would you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3848.899], "stop_times": [3853.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3848.899}, "reply_to": "15217__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15217__2_022", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "In the face of it, Your Honor.\nThat does seem to be the case but it might be that in view that the North Carolina legislature would be wiling to change his mind.\nIt might be that if the proper case ever rose on North Carolina that there would be some sort of reading of the North Carolina statute to encompass a case of this kind.\nThere's never been that kind of attempt we\u2019re aware of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3853.869, 3855.811, 3865.873, 3876.944], "stop_times": [3855.811, 3865.873, 3876.944, 3880.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3853.869}, "reply_to": "15217__2_021", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_023", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That brings us back to the exhaustion point that Mr. Justice Brennan was raising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3880.14], "stop_times": [3884.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3880.14}, "reply_to": "15217__2_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__2_024", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Well, it is a kind -- excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3884.554], "stop_times": [3885.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3884.554}, "reply_to": "15217__2_023", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_025", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That he has an obligation to try to see if the North Carolina procedures will reach him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3885.883], "stop_times": [3893.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3885.883}, "reply_to": "15217__2_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15217__2_026", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "That it is a kind of exhaustion Your Honor as we said -- as I understand exhaustion in the technical sense.\nIt does presuppose some sort of present habeas corpus sought relief.\nWhere unwilling, we don't think the law requires that.\nWe do think as far as the equities of the situation are concerned that the prisoner ought to make an attempt in North Carolina to get some sort of relief there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3893.367, 3899.415, 3904.603, 3907.701], "stop_times": [3899.415, 3904.603, 3907.701, 3917.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3893.367}, "reply_to": "15217__2_025", "speaker": "louise_h_renne"}
{"id": "15217__2_027", "conversation_id": "15217", "text": "Thank you for your submission Mrs. Renne.\nThank you Mr. Cumming, you were appointed by the Court.\nWe want to thank you for your assistance to the Court and of course assistance to the petitioner.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_595", "start_times": [3917.426, 3919.561, 3924.207, 3930.16], "stop_times": [3919.561, 3924.207, 3930.16, 3932.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3917.426}, "reply_to": "15217__2_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__0_000", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- 915, 916, 917, 920, 921, 1038 and 1057, the New Haven Railroad Inclusion Cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [20.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__0_001", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [20.394], "stop_times": [23.143], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 20.394}, "reply_to": "15356__0_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_002", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You may defer a moment if you wish Mr. North Seymour until we see that all counsels are at ease.\nYou may proceed now Mr. Seymour.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [23.143, 43.221], "stop_times": [43.221, 45.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 23.143}, "reply_to": "15356__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__0_003", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Thank you sir.\nI am going to open for the appellants on our side.\nI represent the trustee Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company under the represent the First Mortgage Bonds.\nI will be followed by Mr. Migdal who represents the Bond Holders Committee and he will be followed Mr. Auerbach who represents the Trustee.\nA little later on, I'll explain the division of argument after I've gotten started.\nThe bonds outstanding of this Railroad consist of $76 million of first mortgage bonds with about $24 million of accrued interest, and $53 million of second mortgage bonds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [45.02, 47.123, 55.045, 62.979, 72.154, 78.185], "stop_times": [47.123, 55.045, 62.979, 72.154, 78.185, 94.89], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 45.02}, "reply_to": "15356__0_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_004", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I thought there were three classes of bonds?\nAm I mistaken?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [94.89, 98.028], "stop_times": [98.028, 101.942], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 94.89}, "reply_to": "15356__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_005", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The Harlem River divisional bond will be paid off so that there is only a permanent two classes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [101.942], "stop_times": [108.621], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 101.942}, "reply_to": "15356__0_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_006", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [108.621], "stop_times": [112.272], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 108.621}, "reply_to": "15356__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_007", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The Court already has some familiarity with these matters in the Penn-Central Merger case, the inclusion report of the Commission, which I will have occasionally, refer to was before the Court at the time it decided the Penn-Central Merger case.\nThe New Haven filed a petition for reorganization in the Connecticut District Court in 1961 and that reorganization has continued since.\nJudge Robert Anderson was in charge of the reorganization from the beginning and continued to be after his appointment to the Court of Appeals.\nIt was -- and is a somewhat unusual type of reorganization from the very beginning because the Railroad had been running deficit since at least 1956.\nIt was apparent that the only way to keep the Railroad running was to have some kind of a merger or sale to another railroad in existence.\nAnd during the time of reorganization, that is from 1961 down through the 1968 at which time the Penn Central took over the New Haven and paid over the considerations subject to review of the problem of price.\nThe reorganization had accumulated some $65 million of charges and claims ahead of the bonds as a result of reorganization expenses and borrowings and so on.\nThis process continued, I think there is no dispute because of the determination on the part of a judge and the trustees and the trustees\u2019 counsel and the Commission to keep the Railroad running and a proper feeling on the part of Judge Anderson and the others that New England required the continuation of this Railroad.\nI think Your Honors are familiar enough with its physical circumstances, so that help me to go into those that runs from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York and these both are a railroad which takes commuter traffic and interstate traffic of a more general in character.\nIt's clear I think that from the very beginning, the trustees were seeking to find a railroad with which there might be a merger of the New Haven or an acquisition of the New Haven and that from the very beginning while this search went on, there was no prospect that the road could have been abandoned or liquidated because of the concern of everyone to keep it running.\nIn 1961, the trustees approached the Pennsylvania and the New York Central on behalf of New Haven to see if they were interested in some acquisition and in 1962, they reported that the only salvation for this Railroad was some kind of a merger or acquisition.\nAnd in the same month, March 1962, the Pennsylvania and the Central asked approval of their merger under Section 52 of the Commission.\nIn June 1962, the trustees intervened in the merger case to seek inclusion.\nThere were negotiations in 1964 between Penn Central and the trustees which were unknown to the bondholders and which ultimately resulted in an agreement which was disposed for the first time in a report of a Commission Examiner, an agreement under which the merged corporation would acquire the New Haven assets for certain specified considerations.\nThe Commission approved the merger and required Penn Central to include both passenger and freight operations and said in its order, \u201cAll upon such fair and equitable term as the parties may agree subject to the approval of a Bankruptcy Court and the Commission.\u201d\nIn October 1966, the trustees and Penn Central filed their agreed purchase agreement as a first step in the plan of reorganization.\nHearings before an Examiner followed, report was dispensed with and the matter was submitted directly to the Commission.\nFor some intermediate proceedings and in which arrangements were made for loans to the New Haven and other matters, but I don\u2019t see if they\u2019re relevant to what we are concerned with here and the were cited in the brief and I won\u2019t take time to talk about.\nThere followed the inclusion report of November 1967, which is the report which was before this Court at the time of the Penn-Central Merger, at least this Court knew about it.\nThat report led to the first round of these appellants\u2019 successful applications to the courts below, and both courts below remanded to the Commission.\nThe essence of that inclusion report as far as the New Haven is concerned is that using evaluation as the evaluation date, December 31, 1966, the Commission found net liquidation value of the New Haven assets was a $128.9 million, which had rounded to a $125 million.\nIt found the fair value of the consideration to be paid by the Penn Central under the purchase agreement was a $123.6 million which had rounded to a $125 million so that the consideration and the value of the liquidation value were similar and because of that, equality which it saw in the transaction had held that the transaction met statutory standards and approved it by the appellant.\nThe present appellants petitioned for review and the three-judge court was convened consisting of Judge Friendly and Judge Levet, and Judge Weinfeld from the southern district.\nBy order of May 1968, the court disapproved the inclusion report on the ground that it appeared that the Penn Central should pay an additional sum of $45 to $50 million.\nI don't think there's any use in going into the items there, they are set forth in our brief on page 15 from Judge Winfield's later dissenting opinion.\nWhile the matter was pending before the three-judge court, the Commission submitted the purchase agreement to the reorganization court as step one in the plan of reorganization.\nIn April 1968, the court appointed a former judge of the Court of Appeals in New York Judge John Van Voorhis has a special master that considered the problems that are arising out of the Grand Central Terminal property.\nWe don't say a word about that although Mr. Migdal is going to carry the argument on the point on the matter that it\u2019s still open.\nJust after the turn of the century, the railroads using Grand Central Terminal came down a great open ditch, which is now Park Avenue and that seemed to kind of a waste of a valuable property.\nAnd in the early part of the century it was bridged over to create Park Avenue, and as a result of that and the agreements between the Central and the New Haven, a number of the principal hotels at which we have all to few left were built the Waldorf, the Biltmore, the Commodore, the Roosevelt, the Pan-Am building is older than the Yale Club.\nThe New Haven and Penn Central -- the Central had a sort of a partnership interest in these properties and there was dispute about the nature of that interest and its value.\nThe Commission in its inclusion report stuck a balance between various possibilities and arrive at a figure of $13 million as the figure that should be allowed, but that was evidently too low and Judge Van Voorhis was asked to report his views about the legal relationships.\nAnd he upheld the view that there was a partnership interest in connection with the Grand Central properties and ultimately as I will show Your Honors in the remand report the original loss of $13 million was advanced to $28 million so that under the present position of the Commission, the New Haven is entitled to $28 million for its interest.\nThere is no dispute that the value of the property is $227 million so that the Penn Central has acquired a very valuable property for a very small amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [112.272, 132.617, 146.381, 156.475, 168.788, 181.163, 200.865, 215.368, 240.826, 260.687, 292.629, 314.743, 324.058, 331.35, 362.555, 380.849, 392.02, 400.362, 415.688, 428.602, 443.101, 468.207, 502.191, 515.706, 532.895, 541.604, 556.285, 572.126, 580.978, 595.842, 621.433, 637.501, 657.093, 686.086], "stop_times": [132.617, 146.381, 156.475, 168.788, 181.163, 200.865, 215.368, 240.826, 260.687, 292.629, 314.743, 324.058, 331.35, 362.555, 380.849, 392.02, 400.362, 415.688, 428.602, 443.101, 468.207, 502.191, 515.706, 532.895, 541.604, 556.285, 572.126, 580.978, 595.842, 621.433, 637.501, 657.093, 686.086, 698.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 112.272}, "reply_to": "15356__0_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_008", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Was Judge Van Voorhis appointed the special master for the purpose only of considering this aspect of the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [698.511], "stop_times": [706.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.511}, "reply_to": "15356__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__0_009", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, yes.\nBecause of his background in the Court of Appeals --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [706.304, 708.139], "stop_times": [708.139, 710.425], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 706.304}, "reply_to": "15356__0_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_010", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [710.425], "stop_times": [711.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.425}, "reply_to": "15356__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__0_011", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "He was thought to be a great expert in the New York property problems and so he was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [711.337], "stop_times": [715.905], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 711.337}, "reply_to": "15356__0_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_012", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And his jurisdiction was confined only to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [715.905], "stop_times": [718.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.905}, "reply_to": "15356__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__0_013", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [718.118], "stop_times": [719.042], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 718.118}, "reply_to": "15356__0_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_014", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "He's retired in the New York Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [719.042], "stop_times": [720.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.042}, "reply_to": "15356__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__0_015", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes he is practicing law in New York.\nThe reorganization court like the three-judge court concluded that the allowance by the Commission was inadequate that the undervalued property and he too remanded to the Commission.\nThe three-judge court thought that the amount the Commission should increase its determination value was $45-50 million.\nJudge Van Voorhis spread was a little wider.\nHe thought it should be $33-55 million.\nJudge Anderson, I beg your pardon, Judge Anderson.\nThe Commission proceeded the whole expedited hearings and made its remand report on November 25, 1968 and this is the one which these appellants attacked here, and so I will be talking about some phases of that a little later on.\nThe Commission was sustained on some matters by the courts later on.\nI don't think I need to take any time on that.\nSo what we are going to talk about on our side are those things where the Commission was sustained by division among the judges and those things where the Commission was not sustained -- or was sustained but we think the court was wrong in sustaining it.\nThe effect of the decision on remand was starting with the liquidation value of a $125 million, which the court had found for a $128 million -- 128.9, which the Commission had found on its origin inclusion order and increasing that to a $162.7 million and then immediately retreated by a series of deductions, major deductions from that amount.\nThe most significant and those to which I am going to address myself being to totaling $22 million.\nOne is so called discount for a abandonment delay and the other discount for -- so called discount for bulk sale.\nAnd in both this cases, our position is that Judge Anderson and Judge Winfield who dissented below were correct in their view that this discounts were unjustified and that Judge Friendly and Judge Levet were wrong in concluding that they could be justified.\nAnd so we shall ask Your Honors to follow the reorganization court on these matters.\nOur order to about what they were.\nThe first discount, the abandonment delay discount or as in the substantial figure of $15,386,000.00 and this was based upon the theory that beginning in 1967, the New Haven would have had to start abandonment proceeding that that would have taken a year.\nThat in that year, the New Haven would have had been practically as it stand still and although the losses for that year were already charged against the New Haven that the Commission could properly charge it again for up to an additional sum of $15, 386,000.00 and the bulk sale discount was a discount of about $6 million.\nThe Commission held that it could require that the New Haven's properties be sold in bulk at a discount because it had the power to condition the abandonment certificate on a sale in bulk.\nThis abandonment certificate which have had thought would have to be sought, which was never sought and never could have been obtained could be condition on this bulk sale discount.\nAnd that was the theory on which the Commission went.\nThey made a few adjustments upward in their remand report, including an addition of sum on the Grand Central Terminal, which I have already referred to.\nBut the net result of their whole operation of finding liquidation value of a $132 million and then making this large deductions was to arrive at a figure of $140.6 million to which it added $5 million additional arriving at a total figure of $145.6 million and then it proceeded to find that the consideration for that, which was largely in stock was worth that amount and therefore it would approve the acquisition at that price.\nNow taking the figure of that the Commission arrived at that I've just mentioned just so you have a kind of a guide to what it did.\nTaking the price of Penn Central stock, it brought in the consideration in December 1968 which is the date of the Commission\u2019s remand report, the first mortgage bondholders would have received 24 cents on the capital on a dollar, 18 cents on a dollar if interest is included.\nYou will see at once of course that the expectations of the reviewing courts, the three-judge court that $45-50 million would be added and the reorganization court that $33-55 million would be added as a result of the reconsideration fell far short of achievement.\nJudge Anderson when the prompt of the remand report came before him approved the immediate transfer of the property, two of the New Haven, two of the Penn Central so that the property would be required before the end of the year having previously ruled that unless there was transaction before the end of the year, the New Haven trans would stop running on January 1, 1969 because the erosion would then gone beyond any possible constitutional limit.\nAnd so the transfer took place and from that time on -- remember this was before Your Honors, there was an effort to stop the transfer and the courts below denied a stay and so the transfer proceeded leaving the question of price opened.\nNow the state of the conflict between the courts below is that as to this abandonment delay discount, Judge Anderson and Judge Winfield thought it was entirely unjustified that it was illegal and erroneous and was not sustained by substantial evidence, Judge Friendly and Judge Levet and the three-judge court affirmed, submitted on the phase of there opinion somewhat reluctantly concluding that it was -- I could not say it was sustained by substantial evidence and they could not say it was irrational, but they did sustain it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [720.568, 726.716, 745.054, 754.509, 756.778, 761.2, 765.58, 789.945, 797.937, 799.718, 818.413, 854.008, 862.564, 873.386, 896.972, 902.382, 906.034, 935.547, 966.67, 984.973, 995.9, 1000.776, 1010.54, 1044.354, 1055.131, 1081.379, 1103.812, 1139.201, 1155.526], "stop_times": [726.716, 745.054, 754.509, 756.778, 761.2, 765.58, 789.945, 797.937, 799.718, 818.413, 854.008, 862.564, 873.386, 896.972, 902.382, 906.034, 935.547, 966.67, 984.973, 995.9, 1000.776, 1010.54, 1044.354, 1055.131, 1081.379, 1103.812, 1139.201, 1155.526, 1195.766], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 720.568}, "reply_to": "15356__0_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_016", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Judge Anderson think can precede the three-judge court opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1195.766], "stop_times": [1201.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.766}, "reply_to": "15356__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__0_017", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1201.106], "stop_times": [1201.865], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.106}, "reply_to": "15356__0_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_018", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "By what time (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1201.865], "stop_times": [1204.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.865}, "reply_to": "15356__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__0_019", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "A very short time, about six weeks.\nSo it was before the three-judge court.\nThe division between the courts is the same on bulk sale, the same on the Harlem River and Oak Point yards, which Mr. Migdal is going to talk about and then on the certain adjustments.\nAnd then there were some matters on which the courts both disagreed with the position of the appellants here and we are going to present some of those points on argument and some on brief.\nMr. Migdal will present following my argument the matter of the Harlem River yards and the matter of the questions on the Grand Central Terminal and on the valuation of the stock.\nAnd then we will submit some of the points on briefs because there obviously isn't time to cover all these points.\nWe submit that Judge Anderson and Judge Winfield were clearly right that the abandonment delay was as Judge Anderson said, drag in by the heels for the purpose of reducing the liquidation value that which both courts had formerly held the bondholders were entitled and there isn't any real dispute here that liquidation value is the proper standing.\nThe deduction of $16 million from liquidation value was found by the Commission was more than a departure in the interest of flexibility or as the Commission said a matter of refinement or a matter of pricing out.\nIt really subverted the whole concept of using liquidation value as the standard and there was no justification for it.\nFrom the beginning it was perfectly clear that no application to abandon and liquidate would be granted.\nThe three-judge court thought that was clear, the Commission thought that was clear and it's perfectly evident from the whole course of these proceedings that no such application should have been granted -- would have been granted.\nAnd the requirement that that hypothetical application should be made that these charges in addition to the losses for 1967 should be pilled on it.\nJust to reduce the amount the Penn Central had to pay for this property seems to us most unjust and inequitable as Judge Anderson and Judge Winfield viewed it.\nAnd I submit that that decision should be reversed.\nOther details of that, which are in the briefs, it's clear --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1204.464, 1208.49, 1215.352, 1229.622, 1243.407, 1262.128, 1276.278, 1309.376, 1327.434, 1339.239, 1348.879, 1360.878, 1371.831, 1383.324, 1387.636], "stop_times": [1208.49, 1215.352, 1229.622, 1243.407, 1262.128, 1276.278, 1309.376, 1327.434, 1339.239, 1348.879, 1360.878, 1371.831, 1383.324, 1387.636, 1392.415], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.464}, "reply_to": "15356__0_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_020", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Excuse me Mr. Seymour, I suppose the court on that theory pursued your point might have said since it can never be abandoned will just spread this abandonment delay indefinitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1392.415], "stop_times": [1408.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.415}, "reply_to": "15356__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__0_021", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, if the Commission is permitted to say it would take one year, then I could say it would take two years and they can make an allowance for that.\nAnd I submit that it opens an area for perfectly arbitrary conduct and decision, which the court should not permit.\nIf I understood Your Honors correctly, the Commission could then spread it over a period of time so that no liquidation value would be paid.\nI submit that erosion had reached the outer limits and no further erosion was fairly and properly to be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1408.322, 1418.973, 1427.659, 1436.01], "stop_times": [1418.973, 1427.659, 1436.01, 1445.046], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.322}, "reply_to": "15356__0_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_022", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I am not sure I quite got your point, as long as got you interrupted on the -- on charging New Haven with the losses for the year.\nAnd then, I think as you put it superimposing, the one year abandonment delay on top that hypothetical loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1445.046, 1453.539], "stop_times": [1453.539, 1461.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.046}, "reply_to": "15356__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__0_023", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well the New Haven was running in the year 1967 and the New Haven had to use it -- the losses had to absorb the losses for 1967.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1461.564], "stop_times": [1471.752], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.564}, "reply_to": "15356__0_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_024", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But this was a real loss, not a hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1471.752], "stop_times": [1473.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.752}, "reply_to": "15356__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__0_025", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right, that's right.\nIt had to absorb those losses.\nThose eroded the values available for the bondholders to the extent of those losses because they were paid off, in some fashion it came ahead of the bondholders.\nNow in addition to that loss, what the Commission has done is to put $16 million on top of that to deduct from the value of the assets remaining and therefore has piled it on top of the loss, I submit.\nNow there's some details of that pilling on which there is not time to talk about, but they have made up the $16 million by taking first alleged delays in disposing a property, there was a fair amount of non-railroad property, 1,700 pieces of property in all and it would have been perfectly possible during this year to dispose some of that property.\nThey have added on preservation cause, which are not sustained, we think by the record and they\u2019ve added on taxes which after all would not been added to if some of the property was disposed on a reasonable time.\nSo that if you came to look at whether or not there was substantial evidence to sustain the conclusion as to the amount of this loss, you'd find it wasn\u2019t sustained.\nBut I prefer to grapple with it on the basis that is a matter of law, it was improper for the Commission to apply this hypothetical loss to reduce the minimum value, the liquidation value to which we submit the New Haven was entitled.\nNow to come to the bulk sale discount, which is in a kind of a curious position.\nThe Commission held that they have power and to condition an abandonment certificate on requiring that the property be sold in bulk and thus they arrive at the bulk sale discount.\nIn the three-judge court, Judge Friendly thought it was the gravest constitutional doubt above the ability of the Commission to condition an abandonment to which they were constitutionally entitled of losing Railroad upon a sale in bulk.\nAnd therefore he thought that went beyond their power.\nSo he sustained the decision of the Commission on a wholly different ground than the Commission had taken.\nHe sustained it on the ground that he found evidence in the record by a witness named Simon that if the property was sold, a bulk buyer would have many risks on which he'd want to get a discount.\nBut that wasn't the basis on which the discount was allowed by the Commission.\nAnd when Simon's testimony is examined, it is perfectly apparent that he was talking about acquiring this property or such property for development and breaking up in sale, not for bulk use as the Commissions thought it should be without breaking up the Railroad, but breaking it up for development and other purposes.\nAnd I submit that the second ground on which the Commission was sustained was erroneous that there is no foundation for the Commissioner\u2019s ruling in this regard.\nNow my time is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1473.465, 1474.795, 1476.151, 1486.038, 1500.056, 1524.339, 1537.776, 1547.098, 1564.973, 1571.497, 1589.175, 1609.197, 1612.798, 1619.969, 1633.687, 1637.707, 1657.644, 1668.938], "stop_times": [1474.795, 1476.151, 1486.038, 1500.056, 1524.339, 1537.776, 1547.098, 1564.973, 1571.497, 1589.175, 1609.197, 1612.798, 1619.969, 1633.687, 1637.707, 1657.644, 1668.938, 1670.539], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.465}, "reply_to": "15356__0_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_026", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Even if not erroneous, you would perhaps have channery problem, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1670.539], "stop_times": [1674.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.539}, "reply_to": "15356__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__0_027", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, certainly.\nCertainly and I think that that stares the -- really stares the three-judge court decision right in the phase.\nBut let me just add a word about scope of review because my friends in the Government say that it's a -- this is a very simple case in which the only question is scope of review that the three-judge court applied Ecker, that Judge Anderson departed from Ecker.\nTherefore, you sustained the three-judge court on reversed Judge Anderson.\nMr. Auerbach will present the view that may well be that a court in reorganization with its own independent judicial duty is in a somewhat different position and the ordinary reviewing court.\nBut our position basically that whatever the standard we review, it is perfectly clear that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the Commission on this discounts and that with regard to their conclusion, they reach the decision which is unjust and inequitable under the test both of the Commission's statute and of 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.\nSo I would submit to Your Honors that you should affirm Judge Anderson who has lived with this al these years and knows what the discounts were and not pile upon the losses which have taken place through erosion of $65 million, the additional losses which the Commission has imposed upon the New Haven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1674.843, 1676.047, 1684.404, 1704.082, 1709.763, 1727.425, 1751.749], "stop_times": [1676.047, 1684.404, 1704.082, 1709.763, 1727.425, 1751.749, 1776.458], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.843}, "reply_to": "15356__0_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__0_028", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Thank you Mr. Seymour.\nMr. Migdal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1776.458, 1789.237], "stop_times": [1789.237, 1790.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.458}, "reply_to": "15356__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__1_000", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.\nWhile the Commission has acknowledged that liquidation value was the standard that should be applied with respect to the property of the New Haven.\nIt has failed in several instances to give that liquidation value because it has not understood.\nBut when you go to find liquidation value, what you must find is what the liquidator of that property would receive if he sold it in the method that was best suited to his disposition.\nThat was what was wrong with the bulk sale discount and it is what is wrong with the Harlem River evaluation.\nAnd that was the question that Judge Anderson and Judge Winfield address themselves to.\nWhat you have in those two yards were simply the question of whether there would or would be not rail service available to the industrial uses of those two yards in the event of liquidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1790.687, 1795.266, 1806.639, 1813.8, 1828.825, 1836.304, 1843.622], "stop_times": [1795.266, 1806.639, 1813.8, 1828.825, 1836.304, 1843.622, 1858.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1790.687}, "reply_to": "15356__0_028", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_001", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's Harlem River and Oak Point yards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1858.487], "stop_times": [1860.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.487}, "reply_to": "15356__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_002", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's the Harlem River and Oak Point yards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1860.492], "stop_times": [1862.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1860.492}, "reply_to": "15356__1_001", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_003", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The question is whether or not there would be good rail service available to that market area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1862.347], "stop_times": [1867.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.347}, "reply_to": "15356__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_004", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.\nThat's exactly the point.\nNow there isn't any question of the two values, of the only two values we need to look at here.\nThat is to say it is either the 18 million or the 22 and a half million because the testimony is the testimony of a same man Mr. McKean and one represents a discount he took on certain liquidation assumptions which were furnished to him and those liquidation assumptions were that all of the electric power would be turned off.\nThere would be no power to the property.\nAlthough this was property just adjacent to the Consolidated Edison Power Plant and all the tracks would be torn up.\nNow I submit that that was not New Haven's best method of liquidation.\nOne other thing is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1867.698, 1868.847, 1870.485, 1877.873, 1902.832, 1905.085, 1915.188, 1921.52], "stop_times": [1868.847, 1870.485, 1877.873, 1902.832, 1905.085, 1915.188, 1921.52, 1922.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1867.698}, "reply_to": "15356__1_003", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_005", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Is there any disagreement between you and Mr. Seymour?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1922.97], "stop_times": [1926.775], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.97}, "reply_to": "15356__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__1_006", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere is not.\nThe problem that you face here is what you mean when you say scrap value, what you mean when you say net salvage value.\nNow, I say that what you mean when you say net salvage value is the best use you can make of it.\nAnd in this case, to have torn up the tracks, to have taken out the electric power would first have depreciated its value of the New Haven\u2019s asset and then to have sold the portion of it as junk and the balance of it for whatever you could get for it and no sensible liquidator would have liquidated in that way.\nAnd it was for that reason that Judge Winfield and Judge Anderson both said that it was simply impermissible to permit the assumption, the basis here of liquidation to assume that there would be no service available.\nThey were aware that New York City had built a Hunts Point Market and that it had spent a hundred million dollars on that.\nIt was a Food Lifeline in New York.\nIt was being served then by a small piece of track which ran -- if you think of it as running north, it is 3,000 feet between the Harlem River yards up to a point where it meets the Port Morris Branch of Pennsylvania Central which was not liquidated.\nAnd thence, the two yards, the Oak Point Yard and the Port Morris Yard being cheek by jowl, there is a switch point there that comes on to the New Haven and it continues on up.\nIn another mile, there is a spare track and that spare track goes another mile with Hunts Point Yards and therefore, they have never seemed that Judge Anderson the possibility.\nEither for the liquidator would tear up to the track and in that way make it impossible to realize the value he could on the sale of his 136 acres in the Harlem River Yards and in the Oak Point Yards and at the same time make it impossible for New York City to have the rail service that it required.\nBecause most of this -- for 99% of its distance, this came in on Pennsylvania cost and was then switched at the Port Morris yard and then went to Hunts Point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [1926.775, 1927.382, 1934.339, 1943.198, 1949.022, 1968.056, 1984.363, 1993.235, 1995.628, 2014.494, 2026.594, 2039.044, 2059.811], "stop_times": [1927.382, 1934.339, 1943.198, 1949.022, 1968.056, 1984.363, 1993.235, 1995.628, 2014.494, 2026.594, 2039.044, 2059.811, 2096.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1926.775}, "reply_to": "15356__1_005", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_007", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "May I ask you Mr. Migdal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2096.67], "stop_times": [2098.96], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.67}, "reply_to": "15356__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__1_008", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2098.96], "stop_times": [2099.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2098.96}, "reply_to": "15356__1_007", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_009", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Suppose you prepare (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2099.388], "stop_times": [2106.245], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.388}, "reply_to": "15356__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__1_010", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think Your Honor on this point there is no remand to the Commission because I think that record is to perfectly clear that if you find that these yards and that's right.\nThere is one question however that does raise a problem with respect to the remand.\nIn the valuation when the -- when you consider the possibility that the mile and a half of track would be torn up, you then have to consider that on the liquidation hypothesis that that track would continue even if the New Haven for example had to give that track to New York in order to make sure that the traffic continue, then the value of the right of way, which is about $500,000 might have to be subtracted from the 22 and a half million dollars because then you would have valued it twice.\nHowever, Judge Anderson clearly felt that there was no danger that New York City would pay a fair price for that right of way in order to preserve the service to the Hunts Point Yards and therefore he did not make that deduction.\nAnd we submit that that is so perfectly plain incorrect.\nThat it does not need to be remand again the value of that small piece of right of way which at worst would have been donated to New York City or to the development of the Hunts Point and of the Oak Point and Harlem River yards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2106.245, 2117.114, 2124.033, 2159.887, 2174.827, 2179.055], "stop_times": [2117.114, 2124.033, 2159.887, 2174.827, 2179.055, 2195.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2106.245}, "reply_to": "15356__1_009", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_011", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What is it, about a mile or so or less?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2195.868], "stop_times": [2198.572], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.868}, "reply_to": "15356__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__1_012", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It is 3,000 feet from the Harlem River Yards to the Oak Point Yards switch with Penn Central's Port Morris branch, then it runs on another mile until it meets the spare track to the Hunts Point market.\nIn a certain sense, this unwillingness to permit the New Haven its real liquidation value while always ascertaining that liquidation value is what is being granted, the Commission\u2019s treatment of the Grand Central Terminal is another case in point.\nFor there, the New Haven enjoys the right or enjoyed the right until the closing of bringing its trains into the station and that had this partly by charters that which went back to the 1840\u2019s and it had it partly by virtue of agreements, which had made with the Central.\nNow that right permitted the New Haven to operate its trains into the station and out of all of the terminal properties and here, we are not talking simply about the station income itself.\nWe are talking about all of the Park Avenue properties in all of the area income.\nBy agreement, these were being put into the terminal account and all the expenses were coming out of the terminal account to pay the expenses of both railroads, Central and the New Haven in the station.\nNow obviously, this income grew as the real estate developed and it has become more profitable.\nIn 1907, this was a pretty remote part of New York City but that change in time.\nAnd the result of that was that as the income increased, the difference between the actual expenses and the income from the properties began to disappear and therefore the parties each year have to contribute less and less out of their own pockets in order to meet the expenses of their operations in the terminal and all of the expenses of the property.\nAnd there came a time in 1964 and thereafter when in fact there was more income coming in than the total of the expenses both for the fixed charges and taxes on the real estate and the operating cost.\nNow when that happened, there was excess income.\nSo that a question then arose as to what the division of the excess income should be between the parties so that you've got excess income and terminal income as the way in which I have divided it now for this discussion and I hope that all of that is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2198.572, 2221.95, 2244.712, 2269.552, 2282.015, 2287.06, 2303.198, 2311.121, 2317.581, 2341.264, 2354.273, 2358.672], "stop_times": [2221.95, 2244.712, 2269.552, 2282.015, 2287.06, 2303.198, 2311.121, 2317.581, 2341.264, 2354.273, 2358.672, 2378.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2198.572}, "reply_to": "15356__1_011", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_013", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "May I just -- having said that before you proceed so that I can understand, be sure I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2378.319], "stop_times": [2385.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.319}, "reply_to": "15356__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_014", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2385.445], "stop_times": [2386.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2385.445}, "reply_to": "15356__1_013", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_015", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Am I correct in my understanding that there is no issue remaining as to the excess income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2386.212], "stop_times": [2393.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.212}, "reply_to": "15356__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_016", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is correct Your Honor, though I think that it is very important --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2393.616], "stop_times": [2396.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2393.616}, "reply_to": "15356__1_015", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_017", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The issue goes to the $506 million --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2396.093], "stop_times": [2398.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.093}, "reply_to": "15356__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_018", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The $5.6 million.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2398.929, 2400.577], "stop_times": [2400.577, 2400.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2398.929}, "reply_to": "15356__1_017", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_019", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "$5.6 million, the capitalization of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2400.626], "stop_times": [2403.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.626}, "reply_to": "15356__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_020", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2403.143], "stop_times": [2403.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2403.143}, "reply_to": "15356__1_019", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_021", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The value of -- to the value of that income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2403.943], "stop_times": [2406.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.943}, "reply_to": "15356__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_022", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.\nAnd yet it is extremely important understand how the issue with respect to the excess income settle.\nIn the first instance, Central had denied that the New Haven had any right in the income, those properties produced in the event, but the New Haven stopped the operation.\nNow as a result of that in the negotiations between the trustee and Penn Central, no value was allowed for that and we argue that that was all wrong, it was all wrong because this matter had been the nature of the New Haven's interest studies had been litigated in the New York courts.\nIt had gone all the way to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals had said that the New Haven was in effect an equal partner with the Central in the management of those properties and treated them as joint venture.\nThe Commission however on the first ground gave us this small value of $13 million because it considered that it ought to -- it considered in the first place but there was a great question as to whether it would survive in spite of the rule in the Baltimore case as to whether we have a real interest.\nAnd on the second place it considered that it ought to use as either end of the equation 41% on one side because that was our traditional car use in the station.\nAnd $5 million which was a certain nuisance value attributable to the claim and it split the difference and came out with $13 million and it was important that at this point, Judge Van Voorhis was named to look into the question because the result of his decision was to declare that the New Haven Railroad was in fact an equal partner and that it was an equal partner in an indefeasible way.\nAnd therefore, the New Haven's interest in that excess income, the profits from the operations had to be fully valued and we have to be fully paid.\nAnd they say that its declaration that we were an equal partner and that that interest was in fact indefeasible.\nIt is very important for the purpose of understanding what ought to have happened to the $5.6 million.\nWhat we had is Penn Central's witnesses themselves testified to was the greatest bargaining history.\nWe had a right to come in to that terminal with our trains and because the terminal income was so great, we did not have to pay for it.\nAnd therefore, the question is, why now when that valuable interest is turned over to Penn Central so that Penn Central can perform the service we formally performed and perform it without cost because it\u2019s utilizing the same income.\nWhy should Penn Central not be required to pay for it?\nNow I must say that if you read Judge Friendly's opinion on this point, you will see on the first round of review, you will see that essentially there was only one ground in spite of all the grounds that I finally talked about.\nThere is only one ground that really determined his decision and that was his view whether if we stop running, if the New Haven stopped operating, whether anybody would acquire our right, whether anybody would be interested in doing that or whether it was so speculative that somebody would acquire that right that we ought not to be paid for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2406.6, 2407.809, 2414.981, 2430.115, 2449.753, 2464.303, 2483.389, 2497.924, 2525.975, 2535.642, 2543.525, 2550.986, 2557.788, 2565.624, 2581.165, 2587.341, 2603.222], "stop_times": [2407.809, 2414.981, 2430.115, 2449.753, 2464.303, 2483.389, 2497.924, 2525.975, 2535.642, 2543.525, 2550.986, 2557.788, 2565.624, 2581.165, 2587.341, 2603.222, 2626.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2406.6}, "reply_to": "15356__1_021", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_023", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And that was your answer, at least your first answer is that the Penn Central did acquire your right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2626.337], "stop_times": [2631.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.337}, "reply_to": "15356__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_024", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut it was inevitable that somebody would acquire it because if nobody would acquire it, then precisely what the Chief Justice adverted to with respect when he spoke to Mr. Seymour would have occurred.\nThis would have gone on until we would have been drained of all equity.\nOn the one hand, we will not permit to stop the operations because it was vital to the public interest.\nAnd on the other hand, it was conceived by Judge Friendly that there might not be somebody who would pick up that service and would perform it for its own people.\nNow that I submit was simply unreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2631.16, 2631.962, 2647.539, 2651.91, 2657.337, 2666.989], "stop_times": [2631.962, 2647.539, 2651.91, 2657.337, 2666.989, 2668.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2631.16}, "reply_to": "15356__1_023", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_025", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I am not sure I understand then what you -- you're talking about the right to enter the Grand Central station with your train?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2668.958], "stop_times": [2674.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.958}, "reply_to": "15356__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_026", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2674.713], "stop_times": [2675.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2674.713}, "reply_to": "15356__1_025", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_027", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well I understood that the rational was that even if the States of Connecticut and/or New York or in combination acquired it their bargaining power would be such that they would not pay anything for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2675.776], "stop_times": [2690.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.776}, "reply_to": "15356__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_028", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, that we submit would have worked both an inequitable result and an unconstitutional one.\nTo say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2690.128, 2697.596], "stop_times": [2697.596, 2697.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2690.128}, "reply_to": "15356__1_027", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_029", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Was I mistaken in the rational?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2697.876], "stop_times": [2700.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.876}, "reply_to": "15356__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_030", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think in part are, Your Honor.\nBut I think that if that was one of the statements made at one point in the case and I think that I must fairly admit it, though I do not think that it was the fundamental one.\nI think the fundamental point was that it was too speculative that the states would acquire it and therefore to speculative to value that right.\nAnd I think that if you look at Judge Friendly\u2019s opinion, you will note that he says that it was possible to conceive of the possibility that the service would only be acquired as far as Woodlawn.\nAnd in Woodlawn, those 30,000 daily passengers would be discharged each morning to walk four blocks to the nearest Bronx subway station and then they could find their way to work somehow and then go back in the evening the same way.\nAnd I submit that that simply was an impractical solution that Judge Friendly should have noticed from the very beginning and the Commission should have recognized from the very beginning that there was no possibility that that service would cease.\nNew York and Connecticut had testified repeatedly in the train discontinuance case for example.\nBut that was essential to their citizens and that they were prepared to pay for it and to produce it.\nNow we are here today in a new posture of this case because an authority was formed in fact by the States of New York and Connecticut.\nThey have in fact entered into an agreement with Penn Central to operate bank service.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2700.209, 2702.038, 2711.797, 2721.088, 2731.813, 2744.623, 2758.526, 2764.371, 2771.104, 2780.758, 2790.228], "stop_times": [2702.038, 2711.797, 2721.088, 2731.813, 2744.623, 2758.526, 2764.371, 2771.104, 2780.758, 2790.228, 2791.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2700.209}, "reply_to": "15356__1_029", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_031", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Before you go on.\nCould that have been operated by Penn Central without access to the terminal?\nCould this operation be carried on without access to the terminal, which was the exclusive right of New Haven?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2791.469, 2792.159, 2797.984], "stop_times": [2792.159, 2797.984, 2805.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.469}, "reply_to": "15356__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__1_032", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It could not be operated into the terminal unless there was lease from Penn Central to a new user.\nNow it was for that reason that we felt that -- and I think that if you look at on earlier case decided in this Court by Judge Cardozo.\nJudge Cardozo in describing the New Haven's interest there said that it was the value under the agreement of the right to use terminal.\nBut while we did not have the fee, we did have this valuable right.\nJudge Friendly himself refers to it as a unique right, but he questions what value should be put on it if in the end, we are trying to cease operations and as he says, no one will acquire.\nNow that we think is where the mistake was.\nNew York and Connecticut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2805.433, 2813.685, 2823.463, 2837.602, 2841.907, 2854.594, 2857.295], "stop_times": [2813.685, 2823.463, 2837.602, 2841.907, 2854.594, 2857.295, 2858.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2805.433}, "reply_to": "15356__1_031", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_033", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It is not -- it is a mistake.\nHowever not -- I mean it's the result however not unique to Judge Friendly the reorganization court, Judge Van Voorhis all agreed, all the judges concerned agreed in describing and attributing no value to this income.\nAm I mistaken about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2858.191, 2859.477, 2872.602], "stop_times": [2859.477, 2872.602, 2874.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.191}, "reply_to": "15356__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_034", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, I think that in the end-result, you were correct, but I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2874.426], "stop_times": [2879.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2874.426}, "reply_to": "15356__1_033", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_035", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Without attacking Judge Friendly\u2019s reasoning --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2879.343], "stop_times": [2881.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.343}, "reply_to": "15356__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_036", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I am attacking Judge Friendly's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2881.295], "stop_times": [2881.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2881.295}, "reply_to": "15356__1_035", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_037", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- but the result was reached by all four of the Judge\u2019s concerned the same result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2881.559], "stop_times": [2885.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.559}, "reply_to": "15356__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_038", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think that that is correct Your Honor, but I would say this, Judge Anderson harbored and still harbors great doubts to the correctness of that result.\nJudge Anderson always felt that some value should be placed on that and he therefore remanded to the Commission the first time and asked them to find what value if any inhered in the New Haven's right to enter the terminal and to enter the terminal free of cost.\nNow what the Commission was it referred that Judge Friendly's language and then said on that review, we answer that question by saying that we don\u2019t contemplate either that there is a buyer or that if the states were buy it.\nTheir bargaining power would not be so great, but they could not get this benefit for nothing and we say that where the -- where for a public purpose, a valuable property right such as that is being obtained.\nAny notion of just compensation requires payment they afford and that to have said, we would simply use our sovereign power to take this valuable right and pay you nothing for it, was to say something which the Commission should not have said and the court should not have sustained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2885.885, 2897.022, 2916.095, 2931.583, 2951.061], "stop_times": [2897.022, 2916.095, 2931.583, 2951.061, 2970.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2885.885}, "reply_to": "15356__1_037", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_039", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "As we're talking about liquidating value.\nThere'd be no need to -- if the property was going to be liquidated, there wouldn't be any New Haven trains entering the station.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2970.451, 2975.412], "stop_times": [2975.412, 2985.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.451}, "reply_to": "15356__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_040", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2985.009], "stop_times": [2985.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2985.009}, "reply_to": "15356__1_039", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_041", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It's a little bit -- I find it little bit of the same inconsistency in this, in your argument that I find in the argument made in the brief and I think so far not argued orally that value should be attributed for going concern value in this case when at the same time you are arguing for liquidating value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [2985.919], "stop_times": [3003.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.919}, "reply_to": "15356__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_042", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, in this case, in this case it seems to me that we do make that argument for going concern value.\nBut I would say this, under our best method of liquidation, we would not have as Penn Central says on page 98% of its brief, it mustn't assume that the tracks, or assume to have been dismantled and would attract so long the New Haven\u2019s right away torn free use of the terminal can be of no value than the New Haven because that\u2019s not a proper method to liquidate.\nAnd I also point to the past case decided in New York where you have the same situation, you have something that was of use, you had a tunnel but the Hudson Manhattan Railroad Company was making no money with it and it was prepared to stop, but the commuters needed the service, the state took the property and when the state took the property, it did not attribute a zero value to it because it had no value in the hands of Hudson Manhattan Railroad Company, it attributed a fair value to it because that\u2019s what the state was using it for.\nIt took it for a purpose, it got the value of that purpose and it attributed.\nThe New York Court of Appeals said it was required to attribute a very large value to that tunnel and they say that there is essentially no difference between our Grand Central situation and the past case.\nAnd I can not spend anymore time on the past case, but I do think that a careful reading of that case will show that the circumstances were identical.\nI should say this, if I could add more word on the Grand Central Terminal's question.\nI pointed out that there was a question in Judge Friendly's mind as to what value would be put in any event upon the New Haven's right to handle the terminal.\nHow would you value that if New York State did take it over?\nAnd I submit that if you look at the briefs filled here by New York and Connecticut, which are filled in composition to our being given any credit for that unique valuable right, but you will see that all that has happened now is that the states in Penn Central are quarreling over the division of the spoils here.\nOtherwise, New York State and Connecticut would now have no interest in this proceeding and I would suggest to you also that 2.17 million can be derived a reading of those briefs as the minimum value, as the minimum value that needs to be capitalized if the New Haven\u2019s right in the Grand Central terminal properties as equal partner is to be vindicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3003.375, 3012.763, 3034.81, 3067.561, 3071.627, 3085.082, 3102.234, 3110.975, 3121.151, 3125.898, 3146.608], "stop_times": [3012.763, 3034.81, 3067.561, 3071.627, 3085.082, 3102.234, 3110.975, 3121.151, 3125.898, 3146.608, 3173.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3003.375}, "reply_to": "15356__1_041", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_043", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Somewhere, the figure $70 million that is a capitalized value --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3173.384], "stop_times": [3177.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3173.384}, "reply_to": "15356__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_044", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's the capitalized value as far as 5.6 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3177.867], "stop_times": [3179.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3177.867}, "reply_to": "15356__1_043", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_045", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And that was the point of Judge Anderson?\nI beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3179.446, 3180.865], "stop_times": [3180.865, 3181.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.446}, "reply_to": "15356__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_046", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's the capitalized value of 5.6 million at an 8% rate which was the traditional basis that was used in this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3181.739], "stop_times": [3188.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3181.739}, "reply_to": "15356__1_045", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_047", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That comes to $70 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3188.642], "stop_times": [3190.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.642}, "reply_to": "15356__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_048", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That would come to 70 million.\nNow of course on a minimum value basis, it is 2.17 million capitalized --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3190.468, 3191.83], "stop_times": [3191.83, 3196.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3190.468}, "reply_to": "15356__1_047", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_049", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Capitalized --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3196.805], "stop_times": [3198.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.805}, "reply_to": "15356__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_050", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "We know that because that is what in effect Penn Central is paying to the New Haven in order to give to New York and Connecticut in order to give them free use of the terminal in exchange for something of much greater benefit to them.\nThey are being relieved of the deficits of those operations altogether and New York and Connecticut are also providing a lot of new capital improving the stations and so on.\nSo that what Penn Central has realized out of that free use is something a good deal more than 2.17 million, but that would at least represent a floors to the evaluation of New Haven\u2019s rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3198.857, 3218.515, 3228.865], "stop_times": [3218.515, 3228.865, 3242.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3198.857}, "reply_to": "15356__1_049", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_051", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And what is the capitalized value of that income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3242.03], "stop_times": [3244.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.03}, "reply_to": "15356__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_052", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "27 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3244.186], "stop_times": [3245.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3244.186}, "reply_to": "15356__1_051", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_053", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "$27 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3245.072], "stop_times": [3250.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.072}, "reply_to": "15356__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_054", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, the next point I would like to talk about is the artificial value which the Commission placed on the sales of stock of Penn Central.\nIt must be recalled that with respect to the evaluation of the New Haven property, the property was all calculated on a piece by piece basis.\nIt was estimated how long it would take before you realize those values.\nThey were then discounted back to present value so that you had a current market value as of December 31, 1966 for each of the New Haven\u2019s pieces of property.\nNow with respect to some of the items, with respect to the bonds for example the Penn Central which was given as consideration for the New Haven, the same method was followed there.\nIt was recognized that a 5% bond with a 25-year maturity would not sell at par and therefore a 15% discount was given in order to fund the market value so that what you have on one side of the equation liquidation value, you would have on the other side of the equation liquidation value and those would meet.\nBut the $83.1 million did not represent liquidation value at any point in this case, it doesn't represent it the day and at no time, not since the liquidation value date until the day could that those 950,000 shares have been liquidated for $83 million.\nWe submit that the right there on which the value of those shares is the same day that all the other property was valued, which was December 31, 1966 and the market value on that date 52 million, but was approximately $50 million and therefore there is a gap of some $33 million.\nThere was some argument that it was reasonable to value the shares as of the closing date because after all that\u2019s when we gave our property up and that is when we receive the property back.\nBut then the shares had a value of $60 million and this was not simply --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3250.117, 3262.613, 3274.055, 3280.105, 3290.382, 3305.314, 3328.084, 3349.211, 3370.264, 3380.653], "stop_times": [3262.613, 3274.055, 3280.105, 3290.382, 3305.314, 3328.084, 3349.211, 3370.264, 3380.653, 3384.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3250.117}, "reply_to": "15356__1_053", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_055", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That was in December of 1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3384.258], "stop_times": [3386.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.258}, "reply_to": "15356__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_056", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That was in December of 1968.\nSo what you have left is either a gap of $33.million or a gap of $23 million, but you have a very substantial gap.\nAnd both courts recognize that that would not work and so Judge Anderson suggested and the three-judge court accepted an underwriting.\nJudge Anderson had said, well by 1978 probably it will be worth that.\nAnd if it's not, then in 1978 Penn Central will pay in cash the difference between the market value and the value that you get by looking at averages for 30 days preceding February 1, 1978.\nNow we submit that that is entirely inequitable treatment here.\nWe gave up property that had as the Commission said than conservatively than it had a cash value on the day it was valued and had a cash value on the day it was given up.\nJudge Winfield in the course of argument on this very point, for Judge Winfield agrees with us that the courts have not gone far enough here.\nJudge Winfield asked the question, was it within the Commission\u2019s power to order that this be paid for in cash.\nAnd the answer to that was yes.\nNow it did not order it be paid in cash, but Judge Winfield's statement that it should have been paid in the cash equivalent we submit is exactly right.\nIf it was thought too burdensome to require Penn Central either to add to its fix charges by issuing bonds or by raising the cash to have Penn Central pay for it shares.\nThat was easily arranged simply by the addition of more shares which would have had no effect on fix charges and would have had the most miniscule effect on the earnings per share because there are 24 million shares of Penn Central outstanding.\nIf therefore could not have been burdensome to Penn Central and yet it would have provided a certain funds here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3386.13, 3388.144, 3397.997, 3411.098, 3418.078, 3438.639, 3444.771, 3457.152, 3466.416, 3473.089, 3475.495, 3485.125, 3496.952, 3512.247], "stop_times": [3388.144, 3397.997, 3411.098, 3418.078, 3438.639, 3444.771, 3457.152, 3466.416, 3473.089, 3475.495, 3485.125, 3496.952, 3512.247, 3520.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3386.13}, "reply_to": "15356__1_055", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_057", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They're outstanding in the hands of the investing public.\nAre there a lot of treasury shares or authorized but unissued shares in the Penn Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3520.743, 3525.182], "stop_times": [3525.182, 3530.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3520.743}, "reply_to": "15356__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_058", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I am afraid I can't answer the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3530.579], "stop_times": [3532.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3530.579}, "reply_to": "15356__1_057", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_059", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And where are these shares going to come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3532.772], "stop_times": [3534.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3532.772}, "reply_to": "15356__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_060", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In any event that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3534.568], "stop_times": [3535.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3534.568}, "reply_to": "15356__1_059", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_061", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You're going to have to use cash to buy them unless they are authorized but unissued or treasury share.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3535.519], "stop_times": [3539.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3535.519}, "reply_to": "15356__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_062", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, in the first place, there are shares there which could be issued, but in the second place, there is a procedure by which Penn Central as in this case have a finance docket.\nPenn Central goes to the Commission and says, \u201cWe would like to issue shares in order to meet this obligation.\u201d\nThe Commission in this case did authorized Penn Central to issue the 950,000 shares and could have authorized the issuance of more than 950,000 shares in order to see that what the New Haven received was the equivalent of what it was giving away what seems to us to have been an absolute minimum.\nBut when you are dealing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3539.342, 3551.417, 3556.938, 3575.806], "stop_times": [3551.417, 3556.938, 3575.806, 3575.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3539.342}, "reply_to": "15356__1_061", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_063", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Has the value per share -- I mean the price market, price per share would have ever gone, ever have been as high as 87.50 during this period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3575.862], "stop_times": [3583.105], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3575.862}, "reply_to": "15356__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__1_064", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Never once, Your Honor.\nIt did 86, but it has actually therein -- it's now I believe at something like 25.\nIf you look at the history from 1962 until now, you will see that it's had a history of being at 14 and climbing up and coming down again.\nAnd Penn Central itself acknowledges that it's a very cyclical situation.\nIt talks about the difficulties of starting up a merger and one thing and another but that it seems to us had nothing to do with this case.\nIn this case we were entitled to be paid for in fact it was nothing but a sale the equivalent of what we gave up.\nNow, I have been handed this morning a chart which I'm afraid I am unable to understand with which I understand the comi -- which I understand will be used in connection with the argument on the stock point.\nWe are asked throughout we had said that what the Commission should do is to give us the additional shares so that would make up the $83 million because there was never any mean to guess as to what the market price would be on the date of closing and it was a guess made by Kirk that the date of closing would be in 1970.\nThat at that time the shares would play between 75 and 100 and splitting that difference 87.5 you have a priced which multiplied by 950,000 shares gave you $83.1 million.\nNone of them guessing was necessary and it was all wrong.\nWe didn't close in 1970.\nWe closed at the end of 1968.\nThe price was not then 87.50.\nIt never reached 87.50.\nThe price then was 63.38.\nAll this guesses were unnecessary because history would have shown the fact would have shown just what the price had to be and it was there that the Commission went wrong.\nAnd Judge Winfield has never yet accepted that and has said that it ought to have been remanded to the Commission so that the Commission can provide the cash equivalent.\nNow we have tried not to interfere with the underwriting formula farther than we had too in order to avoid that remand because this proceeding is going on now for some nine years.\nThe underwriting in a certain sense does ensure if there are some small corrections made to it.\nIt doesn't ensure that we will eventually receive $83.1 million.\nWe have had however in effect just a part payment.\nThat part payment is either $60 million or a $50 million of the $83.1 million and the balance is still to come.\nWe are general creditors in effect for the rest but we have none even a purchased money mortgage with respect to that balance and nobody would have transferred all his real estate here for a part payment without taking back at least the purchase money mortgage.\nThe underwriting provides us no security but that payment will ever be made.\nAnd then we say is one of its vices.\nA second vice that we assigned of the underwriting formula is this.\nWe are now not receiving any income with respect either to the 23 or 33 millions of consideration that we didn't receive and so we have said we ought to be paid interest on that.\nAnd that interest when it was required that New York -- when The New Haven was borrowing from Penn Central under the loan loss formula that interest was at the prime rate and we submit that, that's the very least that it ought to be paid on the unpaid portion now.\nThere is one other deficiency in the underwriting and with that correction the bondholders could accept and not insist on the balance of the share.\nJudge Friendly have -- Judge Anderson have provided us a part of that underwriting formula, that if Penn Central shares traded at 87.50 for a five-day period then the underwriting would terminate and of course we only look for interest up to the point where we couldn\u2019t liquidate and get 83 million.\nWe're not looking for interest rate out to the end of 1978.\nIt just depends on when finally the balance of the payment has been made either because the market has reappraised Penn Central shares or because Penn Central has paid them all.\nBut on that five-day termination of the underwriting, we submit that it's unfair to use so limited a period because you could never sell in the market could never absorbed 950,000 shares at that price simply because it could absorb a normal day\u2019s trading and a five-day trading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3583.105, 3584.176, 3592.106, 3601.466, 3606.729, 3615.545, 3622.924, 3643.89, 3661.657, 3674.95, 3678.622, 3681.178, 3684.042, 3686.511, 3688.215, 3690.825, 3702.222, 3712.493, 3731.266, 3737.737, 3742.463, 3747.129, 3756.165, 3770.645, 3775.013, 3778.234, 3783.075, 3797.462, 3817.04, 3827.405, 3853.415, 3858.725, 3870.397], "stop_times": [3584.176, 3592.106, 3601.466, 3606.729, 3615.545, 3622.924, 3643.89, 3661.657, 3674.95, 3678.622, 3681.178, 3684.042, 3686.511, 3688.215, 3690.825, 3702.222, 3712.493, 3731.266, 3737.737, 3742.463, 3747.129, 3756.165, 3770.645, 3775.013, 3778.234, 3783.075, 3797.462, 3817.04, 3827.405, 3853.415, 3858.725, 3870.397, 3892.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3583.105}, "reply_to": "15356__1_063", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_065", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well then and a price could not stay up for five days, if you're right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3892.978], "stop_times": [3897.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3892.978}, "reply_to": "15356__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_066", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.\nIt would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3897.076, 3898.062], "stop_times": [3898.062, 3898.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3897.076}, "reply_to": "15356__1_065", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_067", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So that's a self-correcting if you're correct about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3898.37], "stop_times": [3901.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3898.37}, "reply_to": "15356__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_068", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If we put them on the market and offered them Your Honor then we would immediately collapse the price account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3901.258], "stop_times": [3905.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3901.258}, "reply_to": "15356__1_067", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_069", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Right and so the condition wouldn't be met?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3905.598], "stop_times": [3908.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3905.598}, "reply_to": "15356__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__1_070", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3908.206], "stop_times": [3909.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3908.206}, "reply_to": "15356__1_069", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__1_071", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now if you're right in your position that you ought to have security and all the rest, shouldn't the other side of the coin be that you should be obligated to return any excess so that you finally dispose of these shares at above 87.50 a share or do you want the best of both worlds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3909.479], "stop_times": [3929.328], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3909.479}, "reply_to": "15356__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__1_072", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "We don't want the best of both worlds, Your Honor.\nOur answer to that is, that the underwriting formula contemplated, that Penn Central to avoid that could offer to pick up in 50 share blocks and free itself for the underwriting at anytime it cared too by paying the difference between the then market value in 87.50.\nSo that if there was a real likelihood that that -- that the best of that of the other side of the world would possible Penn Central itself by you exercising the option granted in the underwriting could take that and put forth itself (Voice Overlap) that\u2019s right Your Honor, that\u2019s right.\nThere really is no best to both possible worlds here.\nYour Honor, this brings me to the last point that I would like to discuss and that is the terrible unfairness of the loan loss formula and the way in which it has worked in this case.\nThe loan loss formula, we submit, was simply a formula by which the erosion was permitted to continue.\nAnd by making available to The New Haven cash so that it could continue to operated at a deficient not paying its taxes, not paying its per diem charges, not paying its tort claims.\nThe formula was not a formula for the relief of the New Haven.\nIt was formula which imposed for the losses upon the New Haven and inevitably, for as long as we took the money down we had to run the Railroad and we had to lose money.\nNow when this matter was before the Court the last time, the notion was that we were only going to have a very small loss because the formula would take care of all the New Haven's losses and it was predicted that, that loss would be small.\nYou will recall it was in a descending scale.\nPenn Central was to contribute a 100% of a first year losses and then 50% and 25% that Mr. Justice Douglas wrote about that in his dissent.\nNow what has happened is that we did close in the first year and having close in the first year, the losses that were contributed under the Commission formula was only $5 million but the Commission knew one month before it ordered the closing.\nIn November of 1968 when it handed down the remand report that it's guess that those losses would be small and that the $5 million would therefore cover just about all of the New Haven's losses.\nThey knew then that that was untrue that the losses were much, much greater.\nNevertheless, in spite of our urging they persisted in saying that was as far as they'd go.\nNow I submit that if the Commission was right in saying that it was fair for Penn Central to bear a 100% of the first year losses, it should have not withdrawn from that at the point when it found that the losses were larger than they anticipated because it was certainly unfair in the circumstances of this case, where the bondholders were required to absorb $70 million of losses, and I submit to you that the $70 billion was -- $70 millions, I submit to you that that $70 million was $10 million more than the total value with the 950,000 shares we got.\nWe were being eliminated, we were being obliterated here and then the say to that 100% of the losses should be altered in the last year and limited to that $5 million imposing $6 million on the New Haven that was improper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [3929.328, 3931.547, 3948.985, 3966.059, 3970.002, 3984.392, 3990.901, 4003.232, 4006.417, 4017.264, 4034.724, 4037.041, 4048.361, 4064.951, 4078.474, 4083.668, 4090.057, 4126.046], "stop_times": [3931.547, 3948.985, 3966.059, 3970.002, 3984.392, 3990.901, 4003.232, 4006.417, 4017.264, 4034.724, 4037.041, 4048.361, 4064.951, 4078.474, 4083.668, 4090.057, 4126.046, 4150.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3929.328}, "reply_to": "15356__1_071", "speaker": "lester_c_migdal"}
{"id": "15356__2_000", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe trustee of the New Haven Railroad is here as an appellee respondent, arguing on the side on the appellants because he feels very strongly that in the four areas in which the reorganization court differed with the Commission, the court should be sustained.\nI would address myself to the question which the Government and Penn Central says is probably the most important question and yet a simple question namely scope of review.\nThe Government says the three-judge court was right, Judge Anderson was wrong on these four points because the Judge Anderson did not review the Commission from the standpoint of the substantial evidence rule whereas the three-judge court did.\nWe don't agree with the Government because while we are satisfied that the three-judge court was bound the substantial evidence rule, we do not think that Judge Anderson as the reorganization court was.\nThe issue is simple in one respect.\nBoth sides cite Ecker versus Western Pacific as the basis for their position.\nThere's no question that Ecker address to self squarely to the division of functions under the Section 77 of the Commission and the reorganization court.\nThere is no question that Ecker establishes that valuation of any property and we don't qualify that is the function of the Commission.\nThe question is however, what is the function of the reorganization court in reviewing that valuation?\nIs it truly bound by the substantial evidence rule?\nOur position here is that Ecker doesn't say that.\nEcker says the contrary, we think further more it should be not bound by the substantial evidence rule because of the unique statute, the legislative history and the reasons why the function of the reorganization court spelled out in detailed that is in Section 77 (e).\nNow let me address myself just very briefly at each of these points.\nIn Ecker, the Court said that while the judges not to review valuation as such the judge is to determine with such additional evidence as he deems appropriate this is not a quote but this is my reading of Ecker.\nThe said judicial evidences he deems appropriate whether the Commission in fact did obey the statutory standards.\nNow why would this be so?\nNow, this comes, I think fairly from the fact that the statute Section 77 is wholly unique.\nUnder Section 77, you have an intertwining of administrative law and judicial review such as you can't find a parallel at any other statute to my knowledge.\nIn the first place, the background of Section 77 was to find the way of having some method of reorganizing railroads and I'll come back in the moment to the year it was 1933 which it got rid of equity receiverships a as function which took away from the parties who controlled the railroads, the control of the reorganization.\nAt the same time, you had and this is one of the significant background pieces of reason in the statute, you have railroads going under beginning in 1933.\nYou did not have other modes of transportation that were fairly competitive that they should -- may have today.\nYou have the problem of a national interest so concern with saving this railroads and a statute which forbid straight bankruptcy.\nYou have to reorganize.\nEven today, you can't go into bankruptcy with a railroad.\nSection 77 is your only remedy and at the top of that you have an agency with a whole history of expertise and evaluation since 1914.\nIt's been evaluating Railroad under Section 19 of the Interstate Commerce Act.\nI think every railroad in the county, eventually was valued as required of that statute.\nWith that background, the Congress fashion a statute under which the Commission will determine the value of the property because in the public interests that would determine the capitalization.\nIt would determine, what was the possibility of saving the railroad of making it solvent in the future?\nThe Court would determine and this is the essential point here in this interpretation that with independent hearings whether this plan was fair and equitable, and in determining whether it was fair and equitable, the statute clearly contemplates that it would receive additional evidence.\nI'm not referring to that language in Ecker no, 77 (e) itself contemplates and said so that if the court rejects the plan, it must send it back to the Commission with the evidence which have received.\n77 (e) also points out that persons may come before the reorganization court and this is without regard to whether it was before the Commission and introduce their claims for equitable treatment.\nThis brings us really to Mr. Justice Douglas language in the St. Joe case.\nHe said there, the reorganization court function is distinguished from the Commission function and that the Commission is the chief architect under Section 77 (e) and then I think it\u2019s about this shorthand fair in expression is one could imagine because that\u2019s precisely what happens if nobody puts in the plan, the Commission divide it's own plan.\nWhile the safeguards in 77 (e) and so far as the Court is concerned but certainly we could not have the Commission both devising its plan and being the reviewing court of its own plan.\nNow I think the legislative history and I have a very little more time that I can devote to this subject.\nI think the legislative history which is recited in full in Ecker shows, that at one point Congress in the House, as a matter of fact, Congress decided that the whole power should be vested in the Commission and not in the Court but the Senate wouldn't accept that and we find written into 77 (e) the power of review including independent hearings on the part of the reorganization court.\nIn closing on this point, I would like to bring the attention of the Court that there is no dilemma here between three-judge court and reorganization court under this interpretation of the law, there just isn't any.\nThe three-judge court was clearly bound by the substantial evidence rule and made its findings however right or not with that rule in mind.\nJudge Anderson recognized that he was subject to Ecker.\nHe did not make his findings contrary to Ecker.\nHe made his findings based on the Section called Methods of Valuation which appear in Ecker.\nThe question whether these two principle discounts for example were proper deductions from the liquidation value.\nI think, if the Court please, that it's fair to say here that there is every reason to recognize a different rule of review under 77, and I would point out to the Court to hearken back to 1933 for a moment that this is an extremely important question.\nIt was in the last eight and a-half years, not only has the New Haven petitioned in 7, but we've had two more eastern railroads the center of New Jersey and now with Boston and Maine and the question of the impact and the railroad of impact of Section 5 and 77 is not one which can be put on the shelf as being pass off just in this case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4150.712, 4153.193, 4170.082, 4182.846, 4199.53, 4214.27, 4216.115, 4222.378, 4233.6, 4244.387, 4251.343, 4255.076, 4258.395, 4278.604, 4282.858, 4299.592, 4309.46, 4311.507, 4319.653, 4331.101, 4353.595, 4363.839, 4369.736, 4379.334, 4380.524, 4383.507, 4394.453, 4399.557, 4405.319, 4418.75, 4424.603, 4442.026, 4453.835, 4465.937, 4471.302, 4496.002, 4507.054, 4512.692, 4539.204, 4555.519, 4563.569, 4566.639, 4570.547, 4576.282, 4583.72, 4602.772, 4624.092], "stop_times": [4153.193, 4170.082, 4182.846, 4199.53, 4214.27, 4216.115, 4222.378, 4233.6, 4244.387, 4251.343, 4255.076, 4258.395, 4278.604, 4282.858, 4299.592, 4309.46, 4311.507, 4319.653, 4331.101, 4353.595, 4363.839, 4369.736, 4379.334, 4380.524, 4383.507, 4394.453, 4399.557, 4405.319, 4418.75, 4424.603, 4442.026, 4453.835, 4465.937, 4471.302, 4496.002, 4507.054, 4512.692, 4539.204, 4555.519, 4563.569, 4566.639, 4570.547, 4576.282, 4583.72, 4602.772, 4624.092, 4637.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4150.712}, "reply_to": "15356__1_072", "speaker": "joseph_auerbach"}
{"id": "15356__3_000", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThese cases involved the fairness of a reorganization plan for the New Haven Railroad and at the same time the fairness of the terms where the inclusion of that Railroad into the newly merged Penn Central Railroad.\nThree organization plan was made possible because of the happenchance that during the course of the New Haven bankruptcy, Penn and New York Central applied for permission to merge.\nIn this merger, the New Haven trustees saw both a threat and an opportunity as their counsel stated to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1967.\nInclusion in Penn Central, in the view of the trustees afforded the only practicable means for reorganization of the debtor that would be consistent with the best interest of the public and of all parties interested in the debtor's estate.\nThey quickly filed for inclusion in 1962 within three months after Penn and Central asked permission to merge.\nUnder decision of this Court the Commission had no power to force the inclusion.\nAt all stages, the inclusion depended on the volition of the owners of the New Haven for five years until 1967.\nNo bondholder objected to the course being pursued by the trustees and at that time the reorganization court rejected the sole objection presented by the Committee since that objection failed to receive the support of either manufacturers or chase.\nNow this is been a long and difficult assignment for the Commission.\nIn no reorganization has the process of valuation been more meticulous or more carefully supervised by the courts.\nThe oral hearings in 1967 extended over 37 days in over a period of five months during the period of five months.\nFurther hearings were held before a Special Master of the reorganization court and then more hearings before the Commission on remand of the inclusion report.\nThe entire Commission considered and reconsidered this extensive record in three reports dealing with the valuation.\nThe bondholders\u2019 initial approach before the Commission was to value the New Haven as a freight only railroad.\nThis was not merely in response to evidence presented by Penn Central but rather they apply to the reorganization court for order number 324 in July of 1965 for funds to complete such a study and at the pre-hearing conference in 1966, they announced that \u201cstudies are being made with a view to evaluating the railroad as a freight only operation\u201d and the study was in fact presented in the hearings in 1967.\nIt may -- it might have been possible to reorganize a portion of the railroad to provide freight service.\nIt was not explored in any depth by the Commission since the study presented by the bondholders did not project freight only earnings beyond the year 1965.\nThe valuation of the New Haven presented the Commission was a true dilemma.\nThere was no reliable forecast of earnings for the Railroad.\nAs Judge Friendly stated in his first opinion \u201cA fair price for New Haven on the usual basis of capitalization of earnings were thus be negative or at least zero.\nHowever, much evidence was presented by the trustees in Penn Central on liquidation value of the railroad.\u201d\nThe Commission turned to that evidence as indeed showing the maximum value of this railroad.\nNow, we agree of course with counsel for the bondholders that there\u2019s no dispute before this Court as to the applicability of the liquidation value tests.\nThe essential question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4637.338, 4642.183, 4655.204, 4666.791, 4677.887, 4691.449, 4700.239, 4705.621, 4713.694, 4730.522, 4736.23, 4744.999, 4755.018, 4762.77, 4770.948, 4777.405, 4805.0, 4812.122, 4821.11, 4826.114, 4829.84, 4842.74, 4848.925, 4855.02, 4866.676], "stop_times": [4642.183, 4655.204, 4666.791, 4677.887, 4691.449, 4700.239, 4705.621, 4713.694, 4730.522, 4736.23, 4744.999, 4755.018, 4762.77, 4770.948, 4777.405, 4805.0, 4812.122, 4821.11, 4826.114, 4829.84, 4842.74, 4848.925, 4855.02, 4866.676, 4867.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4637.338}, "reply_to": "15356__2_000", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_001", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is the liquidation value to what as of December 31, 1966 but discounted over for by reason of the fact that would take at least six years to dispose off the assets, is that it?\nPlus discounted in your submission by another year because of that year delaying be for the Commission would permit development.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4867.518, 4882.694], "stop_times": [4882.694, 4890.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4867.518}, "reply_to": "15356__3_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_002", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes those deductions are a part of the {Voice overlap}.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4890.049], "stop_times": [4892.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4890.049}, "reply_to": "15356__3_001", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_003", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Voice Overlap) the date of liquidation value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4892.398], "stop_times": [4894.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4892.398}, "reply_to": "15356__3_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_004", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The evaluation date is December 31, 1966.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4894.835], "stop_times": [4897.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4894.835}, "reply_to": "15356__3_003", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_005", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And then six years estimated to dispose of it and then you had another year for abandonment, permission abandonment, is that about it?\nOr by others all along?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4897.727, 4909.086], "stop_times": [4909.086, 4910.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4897.727}, "reply_to": "15356__3_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_006", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4910.281], "stop_times": [4912.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4910.281}, "reply_to": "15356__3_005", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_007", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Plus the bond sales?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4912.764], "stop_times": [4914.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4912.764}, "reply_to": "15356__3_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_008", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Oh!\nYes that's something else but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4914.8, 4915.065], "stop_times": [4915.065, 4916.737], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4914.8}, "reply_to": "15356__3_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_009", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "These various deductions that you referred to Your Honor do enter into the valuation (Voice overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4916.737], "stop_times": [4923.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4916.737}, "reply_to": "15356__3_008", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_010", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Has a meaning or significance only if you tight it down to a date or dates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4923.756], "stop_times": [4930.212], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4923.756}, "reply_to": "15356__3_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_011", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, this valuation was tied down to December 31, 1966.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4930.212], "stop_times": [4933.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4930.212}, "reply_to": "15356__3_010", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_012", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes but not that it could be all liquidated within that 24 hour period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4933.126], "stop_times": [4936.955], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4933.126}, "reply_to": "15356__3_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_013", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Oh!\nNo, Not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4936.955, 4937.15], "stop_times": [4937.15, 4938.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4936.955}, "reply_to": "15356__3_012", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_014", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What?\nWith six years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4938.23, 4938.598], "stop_times": [4938.598, 4939.757], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4938.23}, "reply_to": "15356__3_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_015", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The assumption was -- the postulation was that it would take six years to know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4939.757], "stop_times": [4943.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4939.757}, "reply_to": "15356__3_014", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_016", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, six years and then you take a deduction because you say we'll take another year to get permission to abandon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4943.429], "stop_times": [4950.192], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4943.429}, "reply_to": "15356__3_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_017", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4950.192], "stop_times": [4950.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4950.192}, "reply_to": "15356__3_016", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_018", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4950.757], "stop_times": [4951.445], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4950.757}, "reply_to": "15356__3_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_019", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4951.445], "stop_times": [4975.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4951.445}, "reply_to": "15356__3_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_020", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I see no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4975.879], "stop_times": [4976.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4975.879}, "reply_to": "15356__3_019", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_021", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4976.648], "stop_times": [4978.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4976.648}, "reply_to": "15356__3_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_022", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I see no inconsistency the -- I will come to what the theory of the bulk sale.\nThe -- very briefly, the bulk sale involves a quantification of risk that the appraisals testified to by witnesses presented by the trustees did not take into account.\nIt's a quantification of the overall risk of a liquidation that it would not occur strictly within a six-year period that the effect of New Havens abandonment on the value of real estate in Southern New England should also be taken into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [4978.234, 4984.668, 4998.801], "stop_times": [4984.668, 4998.801, 5015.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4978.234}, "reply_to": "15356__3_021", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_023", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5015.328], "stop_times": [5038.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5015.328}, "reply_to": "15356__3_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_024", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "We got both of them here because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5038.976], "stop_times": [5041.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5038.976}, "reply_to": "15356__3_023", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_025", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5041.318], "stop_times": [5049.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5041.318}, "reply_to": "15356__3_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_026", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "There is no inconsistency, the phrase bulk sale is a name of the Commission assigned to the quantification of these risks that had an earlier been taken into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5049.711], "stop_times": [5059.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5049.711}, "reply_to": "15356__3_025", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_027", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Are you suggesting that the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5059.271], "stop_times": [5071.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5059.271}, "reply_to": "15356__3_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_028", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Frankly, Your Honor I'm not familiar with the meaning of determine commerce generally.\nI know what the meaning was that the Commission was assigned to the term here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5071.253, 5075.133], "stop_times": [5075.133, 5078.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5071.253}, "reply_to": "15356__3_027", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_029", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Generally speaking, (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5078.904], "stop_times": [5088.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5078.904}, "reply_to": "15356__3_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_030", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Oh!\nWell, that in fact occurred.\nThere was a sale in bulk and the removal of these additional risks from the New Haven when the sale actually in fact occurred but that was not an essential ingredient to quantifying that risks that we\u2019re talking about.\nThe Commission assigned the name, the bulk sale discount to a quantification of risks that had not earlier been taken into account and these risks, the Commission found must realistically be taken into account in order to determine the liquidation value of the railroad.\nBut again we come back to the liquidation value of the Railroad.\nPenn Central's witness Simon listed several different risks.\nHis primary reference was to the inability to forecast that sales would be made strictly with on schedule.\nThere was an additional very large risk on this record.\nThe earlier appraisals had not taken into account, the drastic effect that in abandonment of rail service in New England would have on the real estate market in New England.\nAnd the trustee's appraiser himself testified that if this effect would actually be felt in the economy of Southern New England, his appraisals had been overstated and the Commission did not address itself to quantifying any of these unpriced risks until the remand report.\nThe reason for that I will come to.\nThe initial hearings on the terms for the New Haven's inclusion were held in 1967 while the courts review the legality the Penn-Central merger.\nNow the focus on these 1967 hearings was on an agreement entered into between the trustees and Penn Central under which the New Haven properties and freight operations would be transferred to Penn Central in return for stock, bonds, and cash, and Penn Central's assumption of certain liabilities.\nThe Commission tested this agreed terms first by considering the value of the properties.\nIn the absence of perspective earnings the Commission's valuation proceeded as I've stated on the basis of a liquidation of the New Haven.\nIn the sense, as Judge Friendly noted, the liquidation hypothesis created in never, never land but the need to postulate, a liquidation of a huge railroad serving a large geographic area of heavy population also required the Commission to devote it skills and judgment to a great many complex problems.\nNow just one example, the witnesses for the trustees presented too widely varying overall appraisals of the New Haven properties on a liquidation basis.\nOne appraisal was assumed a six-year period of liquidation.\nAnother appraisal, assumed a 10-year period of liquidation.\nUnder the 10-year hypothesis, it would cost the estate $17 million more in liquidation expenses to realize the same proceeds as under a six-year hypothesis.\nAnd in addition, there will be a longer wait for these proceeds and hence the present worth of the proceeds would be less.\nPenn Central also presented the 10-year liquidation study.\nEach study reached the net liquidation value for New Haven of $59.00 less then the trustees\u2019 10-year study and the 10-year liquidation period consequently would be under either appraisal under this the trustees\u2019 appraisal or Penn Centrals would be many millions of dollars more costly to the estate than a six-year period.\nOne further element here, the trustees\u2019 appraisers tend to support a 10-year period.\nThey uniformly testified that the six-year period was optimistic and on the low-end of a reasonable range of years for such a major undertaking but on the basis of a finding that the bulk of the liquidation could be completed within the period of six years the Commission conservatively adopted the six-year liquidation period.\nAnd consequently the much higher liquidation value than under any of the 10 year studies.\nAnd another factor, all of the appraisals assumed that the estate could market the properties immediately and did not consider the need for an abandonment certificate on the valuation date.\nThe Commission recognized the need for the certificate but did not reach its value in the inclusion report.\nMoreover, none of the appraisals price out the overall risks of making this schedule of sales exactly on time for this simply assumed normal marketing conditions the trustee.\nThat's the Commission's first evaluation in the inclusion report omitted major risk factors but in the context of that report the omission made no difference.\nThe Commission reach the value of the consideration Penn Central had agreed to pay for the New Haven properties and if found that that consideration would be at least equivalent to the liquidation value base on the appraisals without the other risk factors taken into account.\nWhen the inclusion report was remanded however by both courts, a new context was presented.\nFor now the Commission was making a wholly new determination of price and not merely finding a value that Penn Central had agreed to pay.\nOn the remand, the Commission increased the consideration after revaluing the properties.\nBondholder's essential argument before this Court is that the Commission did not increase that valuation and pricing off.\nBut on remand the Commission recognize it would not be a realistic to assume a liquidation could occur without an abandonment certificate issued under Sections 1 (18) and 1 (19) of the Interstate Commerce Act.\nIf New Haven were to go into liquidation, the public would first have to be given the opportunity to be heard.\nShippers that use New Haven would have to be heard from.\nGovernment agencies will certainly present plans for possible continuation of essential services.\nWhat is more than New Haven bondholders themselves had urged this latest 1968 that New Haven could be operated profitably as a freight only railroad, given these positions of all the potential interests in the New Haven abandonment.\nThe Commission could not have assumed in the remand report that in abandonment proceeding would be perfunctory or pro forma.\nThe shipper and governmental interests would have ensured a bitterly thought contest.\nThe Commission's finding that such a proceeding will take at least a year including judicial stays was clearly reasonable and indeed conservative and we submit in the proper exercise this judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5088.956, 5090.763, 5093.051, 5110.553, 5128.771, 5138.735, 5142.423, 5158.191, 5162.06, 5174.913, 5200.675, 5226.746, 5234.403, 5252.053, 5259.165, 5271.791, 5291.958, 5304.8, 5308.839, 5312.91, 5324.828, 5331.86, 5336.815, 5359.755, 5366.427, 5387.647, 5395.247, 5408.84, 5415.723, 5434.613, 5446.145, 5464.455, 5471.125, 5483.654, 5491.169, 5499.431, 5513.555, 5521.021, 5523.992, 5530.401, 5550.03, 5559.15, 5565.167], "stop_times": [5090.763, 5093.051, 5110.553, 5128.771, 5138.735, 5142.423, 5158.191, 5162.06, 5174.913, 5200.675, 5226.746, 5234.403, 5252.053, 5259.165, 5271.791, 5291.958, 5304.8, 5308.839, 5312.91, 5324.828, 5331.86, 5336.815, 5359.755, 5366.427, 5387.647, 5395.247, 5408.84, 5415.723, 5434.613, 5446.145, 5464.455, 5471.125, 5483.654, 5491.169, 5499.431, 5513.555, 5521.021, 5523.992, 5530.401, 5550.03, 5559.15, 5565.167, 5579.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5088.956}, "reply_to": "15356__3_029", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_031", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your long past history it was really -- wouldn't it really be thought more as being very conservative?\nCan you think of any matter of that magnitude that has been completed within one year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5579.457, 5587.709], "stop_times": [5587.709, 5592.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5579.457}, "reply_to": "15356__3_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_032", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "None.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5592.896], "stop_times": [5593.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5592.896}, "reply_to": "15356__3_031", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_033", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Or even two or three?\nI could take you quite a number of years in the consequent incrimination of the device if someone really set up to keep the pot boiling as it were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5593.945, 5600.089], "stop_times": [5600.089, 5615.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5593.945}, "reply_to": "15356__3_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_034", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If there had in fact been liquidation, it is quite possible as the Commission recognize that the abandonment proceeding would have lasted more than year.\nThe Commission said that if the Government parties requested time to prepare studies, the abandonment proceeding might last two years as Your Honor suggested it might go on more than that but that is not essential here.\nRegardless of how long it would in fact occur the Commission's -- the Commission postulated about one year and the Commission charge the state for about one year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5615.695, 5628.038, 5643.973], "stop_times": [5628.038, 5643.973, 5652.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5615.695}, "reply_to": "15356__3_033", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_035", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, do you agree with your friends -- do you agree with the defense made by your friends on the other side of the table that the Commission could never permit the New Haven to stop running?\nTherefore, any hypothetical period of time for litigating the issue was really a good exercise.\nBut the time lapse would merely be a period within which some other solution in transportation problem would be worked out, is that not realistically correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5652.491, 5665.101, 5677.151], "stop_times": [5665.101, 5677.151, 5688.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5652.491}, "reply_to": "15356__3_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_036", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Some other solution however Your Honor could have involved liquidation or at least a portion of the New Haven.\nThe bondholders as I suggested have in the past urged that the New Haven could have been reorganized as a freight only railroad that might have allowed for the abandonment of some unneeded facilities.\nBut this all would it have to be explored in the context of the abandonment proceeding that was never held.\nIf it had been held, it could well have taken more one than one year which we strongly urge supports the conservativeness of the Commission's estimate that it would take only one year.\nIn any event, the state under the liquidation hypothesis could not have abandoned and liquidated without have given the public an opportunity to be heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5688.991, 5696.913, 5710.864, 5717.234, 5733.352], "stop_times": [5696.913, 5710.864, 5717.234, 5733.352, 5744.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5688.991}, "reply_to": "15356__3_035", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_037", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, it may be helpful to you Mr. Goodman and perhaps to Mr. Cox, when he give us his analysis to indicate to you what gives me some problems and maybe you could clear them up that the Commission seems to have work for the serious of hypothetical situations and projections and then if to mingles with the hypothetical reality is just the high protocol with the which is unknown with the reality which it comes to be known from time to time.\nAnd unless I missed something almost invariably, the adjustment of the hypothetical by the real resulted in reduction the purchase price.\nNow, may have missed some factors, is that analysis correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5744.953, 5784.139, 5793.384], "stop_times": [5784.139, 5793.384, 5801.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5744.953}, "reply_to": "15356__3_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_038", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, I believe Your Honor that there is no mixture of the real hypothetical liquidation hypothesis on prophecies is quite hypothetical.\nCommission made no finding as to when the liquidation would actually begin.\nThe valuation is as of December 31, 1966 and the effect of deducting from that a one year delay is as Judge Friendly stated to assume that the liquidation could occur January 1, 1968 but that is only the effect of what the Commission has done.\nThere's no finding here that the liquidation would in fact have occurred January 1, 1968.\nThe Commission is merely saying that we cannot reach a liquidation value of this state without considering the fact that it would have taken the state one year to obtain the certificate, the permission in hand to liquidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5801.369, 5808.731, 5815.082, 5836.124, 5843.707], "stop_times": [5808.731, 5815.082, 5836.124, 5843.707, 5857.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5801.369}, "reply_to": "15356__3_037", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_039", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That would therefore (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5857.08], "stop_times": [5898.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5857.08}, "reply_to": "15356__3_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_040", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I understand the arraignment a bit differently.\nI understand their argument to mean that the Commissioner is bar as a matter of law from considering the need of this state for an abandonment certificate before it can liquidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5898.801, 5902.112], "stop_times": [5902.112, 5916.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5898.801}, "reply_to": "15356__3_039", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_041", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How long would it take anything like a year because the New Haven have been studied and restudied in the campus and that they knew the situation, there is an absolute constitutional right to liquidate your opponent say under the decision of this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5916.901], "stop_times": [5932.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5916.901}, "reply_to": "15356__3_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_042", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5932.714], "stop_times": [5933.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5932.714}, "reply_to": "15356__3_041", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_043", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- and it was very clear with that because of the deficit written situation of the New Haven there was no question about it that right being exercisable in this case, that\u2019s what I've understand here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5933.13], "stop_times": [5943.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5933.13}, "reply_to": "15356__3_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_044", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That\u2019s true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5943.632], "stop_times": [5944.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5943.632}, "reply_to": "15356__3_043", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_045", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, it's argument to (Inaudible) perhaps I understood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5944.127], "stop_times": [5946.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5944.127}, "reply_to": "15356__3_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_046", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, that is also Your Honor, a portion of their argument that is the necessary portion of their argument that New Haven have an absolute right on December 31, 1966 to shut down and liquidate the Railroad.\nWe say that this was not permissible assumption that the Railroad could merely shut down without giving the public an opportunity to be heard and that a necessary part of the liquidation value is this cost of the abandonment certificate.\nIf there's no statement, must have in hand before it can begin the liquidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5946.287, 5961.389, 5977.238], "stop_times": [5961.389, 5977.238, 5980.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5946.287}, "reply_to": "15356__3_045", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_047", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Could you -- Wouldn't you know -- well, I'll -- my question then -- it's lunch now.\nToday counsel, we're altering the schedule a little bit.\nWe're going to allow counsel one hour for lunch.\nSince you will be occupied for an hour we will not return for an hour.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5980.762, 5985.803, 5989.197, 5993.743], "stop_times": [5985.803, 5989.197, 5993.743, 5998.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5980.762}, "reply_to": "15356__3_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_048", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Thank you very much.\n[Lunch Recess]\nMr. Chief Justice, I believe the bondholder attack on the cause of the abandonment proceeding is in effect the demand that Penn Central pay a larger share of the pre-inclusion losses.\nThe Commission treated that claim as a matter separate from the evaluation and did in fact cause Penn Central both to lend $14 million to New Haven in the year 1968 and to pay $48 million of New Haven\u2019s losses.\nAfter December 31, 1968, all the losses for Penn Central from the New Haven operation and in fairness we submit Penn Central was not required to do more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [5998.539, 5999.689, 6005.495, 6021.732, 6041.292], "stop_times": [5999.689, 6005.495, 6021.732, 6041.292, 6055.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5998.539}, "reply_to": "15356__3_047", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_049", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Goodman, on losses prior to when the Penn Central took actually physically took the New Haven over and began to absorb all this losses you\u2019re talking about.\nHow were -- how was the bondholder\u2019s first claim on their -- to their liquidation value lowered or eroded away by operating losses?\nI doubt to be argued that it is said that some $60 million of value was eroded the way as far as the bondholder's concerned by losses which occurred prior to the time of the transfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6055.59, 6069.842, 6092.004], "stop_times": [6069.842, 6092.004, 6117.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6055.59}, "reply_to": "15356__3_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_050", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In part, the erosion occurred by the issuance of trustees\u2019 certificates which took priority in the claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6117.217], "stop_times": [6123.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6117.217}, "reply_to": "15356__3_049", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_051", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In part but I gather there weren't $60 million from the trustees\u2019 certificate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6123.086], "stop_times": [6126.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6123.086}, "reply_to": "15356__3_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_052", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, they weren't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6126.91], "stop_times": [6127.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6126.91}, "reply_to": "15356__3_051", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_053", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, how else then.\nJust by wearing out or something like that or depreciation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6127.619, 6128.807], "stop_times": [6128.807, 6132.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6127.619}, "reply_to": "15356__3_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_054", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, there were some sales of -- no, there was no -- in so far as this record goes in inflated figure, there is no erosion in the liquidation value anywhere near comparable to $60 million or $70 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6132.169], "stop_times": [6157.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6132.169}, "reply_to": "15356__3_053", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_055", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Or to the extent some of these expenses were taken up with some kind of arrangement which involved the prior lien that would be true, wouldn\u2019t it?\nSome lien prior trustees\u2019 certificate, I suppose were they prior or subject to the lien of abandonment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6157.067, 6167.81], "stop_times": [6167.81, 6174.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6157.067}, "reply_to": "15356__3_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_056", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The only reason I raise the issue of trustees\u2019 certificates is that some of these were issued to Penn Central, for example to cover the $14 million and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6174.986], "stop_times": [6189.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6174.986}, "reply_to": "15356__3_055", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_057", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Those surely were subsequent to the bondholders in lien?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6189.0], "stop_times": [6192.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6189.0}, "reply_to": "15356__3_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_058", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6192.684], "stop_times": [6195.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6192.684}, "reply_to": "15356__3_057", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_059", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Then I suppose post payment \u2013 postponement of the real estate taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6195.212], "stop_times": [6199.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6195.212}, "reply_to": "15356__3_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_060", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, this would also be something prior to their lien but the fact of the matter is that the bondholders are attempting again to mix real world concepts with this hypothetical liquidation and what they are being paid is on the basis of the hypothetical liquidation of the New Haven and the accumulation of these losses has not affected that value anywhere near to the extent of the $60 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6199.457], "stop_times": [6232.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6199.457}, "reply_to": "15356__3_059", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_061", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What is the exact -- as near as you can go, the exact amount involved in this particular losses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6232.72], "stop_times": [6243.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6232.72}, "reply_to": "15356__3_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_062", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Black it would be in terms of the accumulation of the administration claims.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor I didn't understand your question then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6243.651, 6256.995], "stop_times": [6256.995, 6259.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6243.651}, "reply_to": "15356__3_061", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_063", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6259.416], "stop_times": [6260.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6259.416}, "reply_to": "15356__3_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_064", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I'm sorry.\nMay -- I may not have understood your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6260.628, 6261.286], "stop_times": [6261.286, 6264.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6260.628}, "reply_to": "15356__3_063", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_065", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well is the litigation over here involved over some money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6264.489], "stop_times": [6268.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6264.489}, "reply_to": "15356__3_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_066", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6268.885], "stop_times": [6269.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6268.885}, "reply_to": "15356__3_065", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_067", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's that amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6269.964], "stop_times": [6272.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6269.964}, "reply_to": "15356__3_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_068", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What is the --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6272.665], "stop_times": [6273.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6272.665}, "reply_to": "15356__3_067", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_069", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's the amount of money actually involved in this lawsuit?\nHow many million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6273.687, 6278.385], "stop_times": [6278.385, 6279.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6273.687}, "reply_to": "15356__3_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_070", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If you add it all up, it could be a $100 million or more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6279.882], "stop_times": [6282.579], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6279.882}, "reply_to": "15356__3_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_071", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It could easily be a $100 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6282.579], "stop_times": [6284.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6282.579}, "reply_to": "15356__3_070", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_072", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If you count $70 million for the Grand Central properties and then another $29 million plus or minus, all over a $100 million?\nIt could, couldn't it?\nAccumulating all the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6284.305, 6294.9, 6296.653], "stop_times": [6294.9, 6296.653, 6299.149], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6284.305}, "reply_to": "15356__3_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_073", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Quite easily and the free use argument itself amounts to $70 million and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6299.149], "stop_times": [6306.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6299.149}, "reply_to": "15356__3_072", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_074", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Who will lose that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6306.712], "stop_times": [6308.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6306.712}, "reply_to": "15356__3_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_075", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Penn Central.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6308.82], "stop_times": [6309.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6308.82}, "reply_to": "15356__3_074", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_076", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "--if you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6309.165], "stop_times": [6313.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6309.165}, "reply_to": "15356__3_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_077", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, of course Penn Central would be required to pay these additional sums.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6313.765], "stop_times": [6319.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6313.765}, "reply_to": "15356__3_076", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_078", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "To whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6319.515], "stop_times": [6321.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6319.515}, "reply_to": "15356__3_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_079", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "To the New Haven estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6321.367], "stop_times": [6324.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6321.367}, "reply_to": "15356__3_078", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_080", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "To the what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6324.482], "stop_times": [6325.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6324.482}, "reply_to": "15356__3_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_081", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "To the New Haven estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6325.47], "stop_times": [6326.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6325.47}, "reply_to": "15356__3_080", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_082", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "New Haven estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6326.597], "stop_times": [6328.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6326.597}, "reply_to": "15356__3_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_083", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6328.557], "stop_times": [6328.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6328.557}, "reply_to": "15356__3_082", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_084", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "A $100 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6328.833], "stop_times": [6330.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6328.833}, "reply_to": "15356__3_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_085", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.\nOf course, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6330.039, 6332.524], "stop_times": [6332.524, 6332.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6330.039}, "reply_to": "15356__3_084", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_086", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How much is involved as a whole in the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6332.972], "stop_times": [6341.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6332.972}, "reply_to": "15356__3_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_087", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What was the purchase price?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6341.35], "stop_times": [6343.456], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6341.35}, "reply_to": "15356__3_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__3_088", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Oh!\nFix by the Commission.\nThe purchase price fixed by Commission was on the order on $150 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6343.456, 6343.711, 6344.979], "stop_times": [6343.711, 6344.979, 6349.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6343.456}, "reply_to": "15356__3_087", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_089", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6349.534], "stop_times": [6350.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6349.534}, "reply_to": "15356__3_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_090", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "About $150 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6350.972], "stop_times": [6354.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6350.972}, "reply_to": "15356__3_089", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_091", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And the lawsuit at one said claims that it's $100 million sure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6354.453], "stop_times": [6359.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6354.453}, "reply_to": "15356__3_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_092", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6359.241], "stop_times": [6361.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6359.241}, "reply_to": "15356__3_091", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_093", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But who is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6361.741], "stop_times": [6365.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6361.741}, "reply_to": "15356__3_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_094", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Those are the bondholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6365.698], "stop_times": [6366.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6365.698}, "reply_to": "15356__3_093", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_095", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Just the bondholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6366.76], "stop_times": [6367.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6366.76}, "reply_to": "15356__3_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_096", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Bondholders of New Haven, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6367.733], "stop_times": [6369.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6367.733}, "reply_to": "15356__3_095", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_097", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And that's the whole litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6369.664], "stop_times": [6371.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6369.664}, "reply_to": "15356__3_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_098", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.\nOf course our position there is that if the Commission is aired it requires a remand to the Commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6371.427, 6375.129], "stop_times": [6375.129, 6382.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6371.427}, "reply_to": "15356__3_097", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_099", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Are you standing by what the Commission did on?\nOr we have said attempt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6382.104, 6385.352], "stop_times": [6385.352, 6386.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6382.104}, "reply_to": "15356__3_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_100", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.\nI would like to say just a word about the bulk sale discount.\nRelying on the testimony presented by Penn Central in the remand hearings.\nThe Commission found in its remand report that the unpriced risk of a liquidation should be valued at $6.7 million and it therefore deducted this amount in the computation of the liquidation value.\nNow the bondholders primarily argue here before this Court that the Commission had no rational whatsoever for the bulk sale discount but merely sought to compel it, not it's true that the report refers to the Commission's power to compel the acceptance of some bulk discount to attract a purchaser for continued operation of the Railroad but this was not essential to its decision.\nThe essential basis of its opinion was that bulk sale discount is a reflection of risks that have not already been accounted for in the earlier appraisals and were for the first time quantified in the remand hearings but the Commission stated this quite plainly.\nThe Commission said and I quote \u201cthe bondholders will receive the full economic equivalent of the liquidation value of the assets.\nThe discount merely reflects a market appraisal of the risks that the state avoids.\u201d\nAnd then two pages later, the Commission added that it wouldn't adopt the Penn Central deduction to \u201ccorrespond to the risks of a six-year liquidation of the New Haven.\u201d\nNow Judge Anderson recognized that the essential basis of the Commission's findings was not compulsion.\nHe addressed himself to whether the deduction reflected risks of marketing.\nBut in so doing, he substitutes his own judgment for that of the Commission as to whether the appraisals had accounted for all the risks.\nMr. Cox will describe the Simon testimony in greater detail.\nI simply want to submit that the reorganization court in our view went beyond bounds in substituting its own economic judgment for those the Commission in this proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6386.74, 6393.296, 6401.849, 6407.811, 6424.917, 6456.038, 6476.968, 6484.898, 6490.846, 6508.9, 6515.871, 6522.765, 6541.291, 6546.439], "stop_times": [6393.296, 6401.849, 6407.811, 6424.917, 6456.038, 6476.968, 6484.898, 6490.846, 6508.9, 6515.871, 6522.765, 6541.291, 6546.439, 6556.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6386.74}, "reply_to": "15356__3_099", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_101", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Is that have based on a difference in the sum and the determination of facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6556.863], "stop_times": [6566.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6556.863}, "reply_to": "15356__3_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_102", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In a part it is, yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6566.719], "stop_times": [6568.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6566.719}, "reply_to": "15356__3_101", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_103", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How much of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6568.705], "stop_times": [6570.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6568.705}, "reply_to": "15356__3_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_104", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, Judge Anderson seemed to believe that an earlier deduction made by one of the trustee's appraisers had accounted for all of the risks taken into account in this bulk sale deduction.\nThat is a matter of interpretation as to what that witness was talking about, that as witness Maysen presented by the trustees.\nWe showed on brief I believe that that witness was not speaking of the risks that witness Simon was talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6570.214, 6585.684, 6594.037], "stop_times": [6585.684, 6594.037, 6601.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6570.214}, "reply_to": "15356__3_103", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_105", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How much is the difference between you and Judge Anderson in the question of loans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6601.365], "stop_times": [6608.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6601.365}, "reply_to": "15356__3_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_106", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well Judge Anderson on this particular item would find --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6608.057], "stop_times": [6611.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6608.057}, "reply_to": "15356__3_105", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_107", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I'm talking about the whole item, the difference and what claim, what the Commission found and what Judge Anderson found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6611.61], "stop_times": [6623.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6611.61}, "reply_to": "15356__3_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_108", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The difference between Judge Anderson and the Commission is approximately $30 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6623.139], "stop_times": [6629.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6623.139}, "reply_to": "15356__3_107", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_109", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, what's the -- is there a legal question to be decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6629.151], "stop_times": [6634.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6629.151}, "reply_to": "15356__3_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_110", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, but there are several legal questions because Judge Anderson would have prohibited the Commission from taking it into account either the cause of abandonment certificate or the cause of these -- of the unpriced risks which the Commission called the bulk sale discount.\nMr. Judge Anderson's ruling as a matter of law, the Commission was precluded from taking into account these factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6634.703, 6658.912], "stop_times": [6658.912, 6666.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6634.703}, "reply_to": "15356__3_109", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_111", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Is that a difference in judgment between him and the Commission as to what's the best confers where to do this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6666.421], "stop_times": [6674.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6666.421}, "reply_to": "15356__3_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__3_112", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think it is a substitution of judgment, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6674.217], "stop_times": [6687.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6674.217}, "reply_to": "15356__3_111", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_113", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Who is going to cover the (Inaudible) the Pennsylvania sought to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6687.093], "stop_times": [6694.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6687.093}, "reply_to": "15356__3_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_114", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I'm coming to that just now.\nOver half the consideration paid by Penn Central with the New Haven properties wasn't in a form of 956,576 shares of Penn Central common stock, and one of the major questions litigated before the Commission was the value of the stock.\nThe trustees\u2019 bargain, to obtain this stock so as to participate in future increases in stock value as the merger savings were realized.\nThis in turn would permit the widest participation in the reorganization by the New Haven creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6694.166, 6697.107, 6714.133, 6723.537], "stop_times": [6697.107, 6714.133, 6723.537, 6729.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6694.166}, "reply_to": "15356__3_113", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_115", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, the creditors are going to get on that basis too or just a cash payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6729.857], "stop_times": [6738.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6729.857}, "reply_to": "15356__3_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_116", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, the agreement initially was negotiated by the trustees without the participation of the creditors but now they apparently agreed, the creditors agreed that stock is acceptable to them and they are before this Court asking you that for more stock or for interest on common stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6738.069], "stop_times": [6758.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6738.069}, "reply_to": "15356__3_115", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_117", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Would you agree that the creditors -- the bondholders were kind of to pull liquidation value of New Haven?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6758.746], "stop_times": [6771.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6758.746}, "reply_to": "15356__3_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_118", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "As of December 31, 1966, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6771.476], "stop_times": [6774.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6771.476}, "reply_to": "15356__3_117", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_119", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "On the entire or the half of $145 million on that net?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6774.39], "stop_times": [6783.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6774.39}, "reply_to": "15356__3_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_120", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6783.12], "stop_times": [6784.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6783.12}, "reply_to": "15356__3_119", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_121", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Or they certainly can't get it out to stocks then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6784.387], "stop_times": [6787.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6784.387}, "reply_to": "15356__3_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_122", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes they can.\nThey will come to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6787.089, 6787.858], "stop_times": [6787.858, 6789.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6787.089}, "reply_to": "15356__3_121", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_123", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well it can't on that day?\nThere isn't any possible way they can get it on the stocks on that day or even with even within a few days after that day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6789.236, 6791.527], "stop_times": [6791.527, 6800.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6789.236}, "reply_to": "15356__3_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_124", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well the under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6800.423], "stop_times": [6801.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6800.423}, "reply_to": "15356__3_123", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_125", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Why (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6801.768], "stop_times": [6806.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6801.768}, "reply_to": "15356__3_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_126", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They're not entitled to the $145 million in cash in hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6806.162], "stop_times": [6810.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6806.162}, "reply_to": "15356__3_125", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_127", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6810.078], "stop_times": [6811.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6810.078}, "reply_to": "15356__3_126", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_128", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Because they're participating in the reorganization which provides for the creation of an investment company that is to stay in business for seven years and the part of the assets of this investment company is the 950,000 shares which the state wants to keep in hand in order to participate in the increase -- expected increase in that stock.\nThis is part in partial of the reorganization plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6811.239, 6842.573], "stop_times": [6842.573, 6844.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6811.239}, "reply_to": "15356__3_127", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_129", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So you'd say that, there's value, it should be paid to liquidate the value of security --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6844.794], "stop_times": [6854.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6844.794}, "reply_to": "15356__3_128", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_130", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The present value what they have in hand will be a $145 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6854.369], "stop_times": [6860.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6854.369}, "reply_to": "15356__3_129", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_131", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So the value on the critical date isn't the 145?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6860.993], "stop_times": [6865.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6860.993}, "reply_to": "15356__3_130", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_132", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The value on the critical date is 140 plus the $5 million of participation in losses and they will realize that $145 million at the conclusion of a 10-year period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6865.843], "stop_times": [6879.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6865.843}, "reply_to": "15356__3_131", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_133", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The value on this is -- will be $145 million within the next 10 years sometime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6879.798], "stop_times": [6887.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6879.798}, "reply_to": "15356__3_132", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_134", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The value of the -- the value of consideration that they have received is the $145 million that is the present value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6887.758], "stop_times": [6895.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6887.758}, "reply_to": "15356__3_133", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_135", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You couldn\u2019t get it out today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6895.312], "stop_times": [6897.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6895.312}, "reply_to": "15356__3_134", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_136", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But they have in hand also an underwriting requirement, an obligation of Penn Central to ensure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6897.513], "stop_times": [6902.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6897.513}, "reply_to": "15356__3_135", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_137", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The obligation does't secure within the -- except up to 1978?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6902.667], "stop_times": [6909.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6902.667}, "reply_to": "15356__3_136", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__3_138", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, this is why I have place before the Court two charts in which I attempt to show that the claim that the bondholders have before this Court for additional sums over and above the stock has been fully offset by Penn Central\u2019s underwriting obligation.\nIf the Court will bare with me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6909.418, 6934.615], "stop_times": [6934.615, 6936.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6909.418}, "reply_to": "15356__3_137", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_139", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "May I ask you one question before that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6936.715], "stop_times": [6938.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6936.715}, "reply_to": "15356__3_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_140", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6938.07], "stop_times": [6939.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6938.07}, "reply_to": "15356__3_139", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_141", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What effect if the -- your adversary win in connection with this increase valuation?\nWill it have on the operation of the new Railroad that has been created by this proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6939.524, 6949.586], "stop_times": [6949.586, 6965.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6939.524}, "reply_to": "15356__3_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_142", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's a difficult question to answer Your Honor because of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6965.925], "stop_times": [6968.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6965.925}, "reply_to": "15356__3_141", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_143", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, have any effect in increasing the value of the stock on which the public must pay rates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6968.243], "stop_times": [6979.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6968.243}, "reply_to": "15356__3_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_144", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It might well increase the costs.\nFor example the Penn Central bonds (Voice overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6979.231, 6984.684], "stop_times": [6984.684, 6986.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6979.231}, "reply_to": "15356__3_143", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_145", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If I'm correct.\nHow could you avoid it?\nMaybe it can but how could it avoid it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6986.163, 6987.614, 6988.69], "stop_times": [6987.614, 6988.69, 6993.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6986.163}, "reply_to": "15356__3_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_146", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It will depend on the form of the consideration as quite likely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6993.604], "stop_times": [6996.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6993.604}, "reply_to": "15356__3_145", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_147", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The consideration is he has Railroad that's going to be running.\nThese people have litigation here with a division of some money suppose to be a part of the value and the stock they had.\nWhat effect does that that going to have if the public has to pay rates on the value of the property?\nWhat effect do that have on the payment of rate, if any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [6996.619, 7000.508, 7008.48, 7014.02], "stop_times": [7000.508, 7008.48, 7014.02, 7019.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6996.619}, "reply_to": "15356__3_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_148", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It would have a very direct effect if the capital costs of the business are increased.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7019.284], "stop_times": [7024.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7019.284}, "reply_to": "15356__3_147", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_149", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7024.491], "stop_times": [7026.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7024.491}, "reply_to": "15356__3_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_150", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's indeterminate, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7026.818], "stop_times": [7027.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7026.818}, "reply_to": "15356__3_149", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_151", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, would it be a hundred -- millions that you said that litigations about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7027.891], "stop_times": [7037.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7027.891}, "reply_to": "15356__3_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_152", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Potentially, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7037.245], "stop_times": [7038.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7037.245}, "reply_to": "15356__3_151", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_153", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7038.731], "stop_times": [7039.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7038.731}, "reply_to": "15356__3_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_154", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Potentially, that is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7039.605], "stop_times": [7040.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7039.605}, "reply_to": "15356__3_153", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_155", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, potentially it is true.\nI'm just asking because I haven't heard yet anyone making a direct positive statement that what's involved in this lawsuit and what it mean to the Railroad and to the public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7040.895, 7043.451], "stop_times": [7043.451, 7057.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7040.895}, "reply_to": "15356__3_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_156", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, it's very difficult of value some of this claims being made by the bondholders, we think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7057.994], "stop_times": [7062.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7057.994}, "reply_to": "15356__3_155", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_157", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, will it going to the Railroad value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7062.002], "stop_times": [7063.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7062.002}, "reply_to": "15356__3_156", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_158", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Voice overlap) of $100 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7063.99], "stop_times": [7064.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7063.99}, "reply_to": "15356__3_157", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_159", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Because the result of this litigation if you went on the other side when it show of in the operating cause of the Railroad because of the investment in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7064.965], "stop_times": [7078.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7064.965}, "reply_to": "15356__3_158", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_160", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, all I can say is that this is possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7078.161], "stop_times": [7082.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7078.161}, "reply_to": "15356__3_159", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_161", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How is it possible?\nIf you say it's possible then how is it possible and not probable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7082.395, 7084.376], "stop_times": [7084.376, 7090.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7082.395}, "reply_to": "15356__3_160", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_162", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In the form of the consideration that Penn Central has required to issue increases its capital costs then it could possibly have some effect on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7090.36], "stop_times": [7099.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7090.36}, "reply_to": "15356__3_161", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_163", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, somebody is going to have to pay something with the issue if it's not out of the Railroad, who would it come from?\nYou don't handle with millions this way without it affecting something is in norm.\nI'm simply asking to about what happen?\nMaybe it's not material, I had an idea.\nI would like to know something about what's going to happen?\nIf we decided in your favor or if we decided in favor of the other side, are merely adjusting an amount of money as between the bondholders and somebody else or are we adjusting it on a basis that will affect the future operation of this Railroad with the regard to its investment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7099.72, 7106.077, 7115.087, 7118.737, 7121.996, 7125.779], "stop_times": [7106.077, 7115.087, 7118.737, 7121.996, 7125.779, 7150.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7099.72}, "reply_to": "15356__3_162", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_164", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, I believe that it could possibly have and in fact on the public and on the rates to be charged if the price that is increased -- increases in turn the capital cost of Penn Central.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7150.033], "stop_times": [7164.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7150.033}, "reply_to": "15356__3_163", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_165", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But it would increase it wouldn't it a $100 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7164.223], "stop_times": [7167.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7164.223}, "reply_to": "15356__3_164", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_166", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Quite likely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7167.109], "stop_times": [7168.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7167.109}, "reply_to": "15356__3_165", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_167", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I can.\nYou say quite likely.\nIt increases somebody as over a $100 million if your adversaries win, I understand.\nWhose target does that going into?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7168.54, 7169.225, 7171.592, 7178.866], "stop_times": [7169.225, 7171.592, 7178.866, 7182.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7168.54}, "reply_to": "15356__3_166", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_168", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Presumably it comes out of Penn Central's pocket and into the pockets of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7182.158], "stop_times": [7185.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7182.158}, "reply_to": "15356__3_167", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_169", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Penn Central Railroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7185.158], "stop_times": [7187.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7185.158}, "reply_to": "15356__3_168", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_170", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7187.182], "stop_times": [7189.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7187.182}, "reply_to": "15356__3_169", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_171", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "From to that extent, it has a tendency to enlarge ratemaking base, doesn't it?\nIt can have that as you suggested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7189.888, 7197.192], "stop_times": [7197.192, 7199.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7189.888}, "reply_to": "15356__3_170", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_172", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It doesn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7199.53], "stop_times": [7201.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7199.53}, "reply_to": "15356__3_171", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_173", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It can, I didn't say it would in the full amount of the differential but it can have an impact on the ratemaking base?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7201.497], "stop_times": [7210.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7201.497}, "reply_to": "15356__3_172", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__3_174", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7210.263], "stop_times": [7211.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7210.263}, "reply_to": "15356__3_173", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_175", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How?\nWhy wouldn't it?\nWhy do you say should?\nHow can you avoid it?\nI haven't understood it fully but at least no one has mentioned that part that plays the case at least in the way that I could understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7211.335, 7211.702, 7212.277, 7214.719, 7217.616], "stop_times": [7211.702, 7212.277, 7214.719, 7217.616, 7224.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7211.335}, "reply_to": "15356__3_174", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_176", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It does not occur to me how it could be avoided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7224.896], "stop_times": [7226.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7224.896}, "reply_to": "15356__3_175", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_177", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7226.818], "stop_times": [7227.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7226.818}, "reply_to": "15356__3_176", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_178", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I said I do not see how it could be avoided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7227.542], "stop_times": [7230.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7227.542}, "reply_to": "15356__3_177", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_179", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In other words then you think it's going to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7230.004], "stop_times": [7233.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7230.004}, "reply_to": "15356__3_178", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_180", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think it's quite possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7233.227], "stop_times": [7235.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7233.227}, "reply_to": "15356__3_179", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_181", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Alright.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7235.489], "stop_times": [7253.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7235.489}, "reply_to": "15356__3_180", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__3_182", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I should like to refer the Court just one moment to the chart that I placed before it concerning the price of the Penn Central stock.\nThe bondholders concede that the underwriting obligation protects them on the upside.\nIn other words, with this first chart labeled Bondholder Assumption A, where they claim that the stock should be assigned a market value on the closing date of December 31, 1968.\nThey can see that the underwriting protects them between 63 and 3/8 and 87-1/2.\nThey then discount that the person's worth and on the per share basis they claim that this protection is only worth $40.\nThey then would say we are entitled to $10 as the difference.\nIn this process however, they ignored the downside protection which is also accorded by the underwriting obligation.\nIn this instance, the downside protection protects them from a drop in the price from 63 down to the current market value of 25 and below and has a value of at least $22.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7253.295, 7263.925, 7273.507, 7286.909, 7293.416, 7303.096, 7308.1, 7314.604], "stop_times": [7263.925, 7273.507, 7286.909, 7293.416, 7303.096, 7308.1, 7314.604, 7331.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7253.295}, "reply_to": "15356__3_181", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_183", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's this downside protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7331.39], "stop_times": [7333.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7331.39}, "reply_to": "15356__3_182", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_184", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It is Your Honor the time of the closing data in December 31, 1968 when these bondholders accepted the 950,000 shares at 63 and 3/8.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7333.466], "stop_times": [7345.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7333.466}, "reply_to": "15356__3_183", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_185", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, they accept this it goes to share.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7345.972], "stop_times": [7348.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7345.972}, "reply_to": "15356__3_184", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_186", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They accept it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7348.132], "stop_times": [7348.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7348.132}, "reply_to": "15356__3_185", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_187", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And the market value as that date happened to be then in the market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7348.471], "stop_times": [7351.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7348.471}, "reply_to": "15356__3_186", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_188", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes and they accepted a status as an equity holder in Penn Central.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7351.648], "stop_times": [7360.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7351.648}, "reply_to": "15356__3_187", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_189", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Holding 950,000 shares at Penn Central.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7360.771], "stop_times": [7363.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7360.771}, "reply_to": "15356__3_188", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_190", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7363.838], "stop_times": [7364.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7363.838}, "reply_to": "15356__3_189", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_191", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7364.444], "stop_times": [7364.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7364.444}, "reply_to": "15356__3_190", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_192", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And Penn Central therefore discharged this obligation to the estate to the extent of the $63.00.\nWhat they were entitled to was something in addition to the $63.00 in order to bring it up to $87.50.\nBut the underwriting obligation doesn\u2019t work entirely that way, it only protects them on the upside.\nIt will also protects them on the downside.\nIf the stock goes below 63, they're still protected by this underwriting obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7364.628, 7371.332, 7376.114, 7381.219, 7383.448], "stop_times": [7371.332, 7376.114, 7381.219, 7383.448, 7388.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7364.628}, "reply_to": "15356__3_191", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_193", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, a protection, yes but up to $87.50 a share?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7388.899], "stop_times": [7393.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7388.899}, "reply_to": "15356__3_192", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_194", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Not only up to $87.50 but down below $63.00.\nIf the stock drops below 63 even though that amount has been discharged under the underwriting obligation at Penn Central must make this up in 1978.\nTherefore, this downside protection below 63 has a substantial present value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7393.318, 7398.053, 7406.978], "stop_times": [7398.053, 7406.978, 7417.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7393.318}, "reply_to": "15356__3_193", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_195", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7417.006], "stop_times": [7421.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7417.006}, "reply_to": "15356__3_194", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__3_196", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Just one further comment about scope of the judicial review that should apply in these proceedings that will complete it.\nThe closing remarks of Mr. Seymour rule out -- suggest to me that he's asking the Court to rely on the long experience of Judge Anderson with the New Haven estate.\nTheir position on the scope of review also seems to bear on their position that no remand will be needed even if the Commission has erred in its valuation of the Harlem River and Oak Point Yards.\nHowever, Section 77 (e) states on its face that the Commission shall determine the value.\nAnd valuation is not listed among the determinations to be made by the Court.\nThe valuation is placed by the statute within the primary jurisdiction of the Commission.\nThe Court of Appeals in the Ecker case adopted the present argument of the trustees and it held that the District Court was required to exercise its own independent judgment on questions of value.\nThis Court reversed.\nThis Court held that the District Court\u2019s degree of participation in the reorganization did not include valuation and that Section 77 (e) left the determination of value to the Commission without the necessity of a reexamination by the Court when that determination is reached between material evidence to support the conclusion in accordance with legal standards.\nBut to be sure the reorganization court may receive new evidence but as Mr. Justice Douglas stated in the Group of Investors case beside the same day as Ecker, the part of the District Court to receive additional evidence may aid it in determining whether changed circumstances require that the plan referred -- to be referred back to the Commission for reconsideration.\nThe third item that I distributed to the Court is an extract from hearings on a Bill that was introduced just after the Ecker and Group of Investors cases.\nThat Bill was introduced in the Congress which would -- and would have overturned the decision of this Court in Ecker.\nThe text of the Bill is set forth in that extract as well as a statement of proof by the entire Commission in opposition to the Bill.\nThe Bill was never reported and it died in committee.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7421.759, 7433.383, 7443.025, 7459.002, 7464.882, 7469.367, 7473.937, 7485.736, 7487.307, 7510.337, 7533.664, 7543.738, 7550.842, 7558.517, 7564.086], "stop_times": [7433.383, 7443.025, 7459.002, 7464.882, 7469.367, 7473.937, 7485.736, 7487.307, 7510.337, 7533.664, 7543.738, 7550.842, 7558.517, 7564.086, 7567.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7421.759}, "reply_to": "15356__3_195", "speaker": "leonard_s_goodman"}
{"id": "15356__3_197", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Goodman.\nMr. Cox.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7567.34, 7595.205], "stop_times": [7595.205, 7595.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7567.34}, "reply_to": "15356__3_196", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__4_000", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nPerhaps it would be useful to the Court if that very beginning I stated my view of exactly the liquidation valuation process of the Commission adopted here because I think it's possible to maybe some confusion as a result of the discussion on specific points.\nThe Court by now understands of course that the New Haven was a hopeless railroad.\nIt has been written with deficits for years and it was a railroad not only with a passenger deficit but with a freight deficit.\nSo, if you value this Railroad on any conventional basis, earnings or goodwill or anything of that kind there would be no value involved.\nBut it was clear to me reviewing courts as I think that my client would have to concede at the estate and the bondholders were entitled to something.\nThey were entitled to a fair value, so that the only standard that the Commission could apply was liquidation value.\nNow there is an obvious problem there because this Railroad is never going to be liquidated.\nThe Penn Central has been required to take it over and continue the rail operations and to absorb indefinitely the deficits of those operations created.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7595.507, 7601.814, 7626.837, 7633.025, 7642.067, 7653.408, 7664.527, 7673.915, 7682.314], "stop_times": [7601.814, 7626.837, 7633.025, 7642.067, 7653.408, 7664.527, 7673.915, 7682.314, 7696.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7595.507}, "reply_to": "15356__3_197", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_001", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You say Mr. Cox that's the only standard that the Commission could apply, do you mean that's the only constitutional standard or statutory standard or practical standard or what do you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7696.418], "stop_times": [7706.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7696.418}, "reply_to": "15356__4_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_002", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, I will say this that it's the only standard I know of that could give the estate and bondholder anything now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7706.937], "stop_times": [7713.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7706.937}, "reply_to": "15356__4_001", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_003", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Do you think it's required as a minimal standard by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7713.489], "stop_times": [7717.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7713.489}, "reply_to": "15356__4_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_004", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If I would suppose that if it\u2019s not certainly they are entitled to something under the statute before you ever get to the Constitution, you know.\nAnd certainly, perhaps by the Constitution if there is a liquidation value that it would say could actually obtain by selling off the Railroad piece by piece I should suppose the statute before you get to the Constitution would say that the Commission should give them something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7717.647, 7726.752], "stop_times": [7726.752, 7745.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7717.647}, "reply_to": "15356__4_003", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_005", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, what do you mean something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7745.62], "stop_times": [7746.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7745.62}, "reply_to": "15356__4_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_006", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, Judge Friendly said in his opinion that this gets into an abstract problem which I'd rather not get involve in but Judge Friendly suggested in his opinion that since in this case there was no picking in a real sense and there wasn\u2019t.\nMy client is in the position it's in because it chose to do something and so is the New Haven.\nJudge Friendly suggested in no circumstances that perhaps the constitutional rule did not apply but to stand this in the fairness standard would require that something like liquidation or approaching liquidation value but the reason I would prefer not to take time to get into this if I may be permitted to say so, Mr. Justice Stewart is because in our view in this case, the Commission gave these people.\nThey believe the value that they would get in this hypothetical liquidation that I'm talking about if the conditions are realistically appraised.\nSo, that whatever the standard is we think the Commission meant and we think that's what the Commission meant to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7746.968, 7765.907, 7771.526, 7800.22, 7809.04], "stop_times": [7765.907, 7771.526, 7800.22, 7809.04, 7817.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7746.968}, "reply_to": "15356__4_005", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_007", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "With the misfortunes that you spoke out that were encountered by the New Haven over a long period of time that were well known, Penn Central have encountered to some degree some of these same misfortunes, have they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7817.27], "stop_times": [7829.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7817.27}, "reply_to": "15356__4_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__4_008", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Oh, yes indeed!\nBut of course, and while they were not in thriving or flourishing condition they were not in any condition as the New Haven.\nThey had net deficits in their railway operating income but particularly the then old Pennsylvania Railroad in some degree that the New York Central had other sources of income which enable them to pay their fixed charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7829.785, 7830.881, 7838.861], "stop_times": [7830.881, 7838.861, 7855.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7829.785}, "reply_to": "15356__4_007", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_009", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Would it be fair to say that this combination of Penn and Central first and now the inclusion of New Haven which was made as one of the conditions is something compelled by the public interest in furtherance of the National Transportation System policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7855.292], "stop_times": [7873.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7855.292}, "reply_to": "15356__4_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__4_010", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Surely Commission has determined, yes.\nThat\u2019s the -- that was the basis in which the merger of the two lines was approved and also the basis in which they required us the conditions that the New Haven be included.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7873.451, 7875.872], "stop_times": [7875.872, 7891.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7873.451}, "reply_to": "15356__4_009", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_011", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So, that we have here something of unwilling buyers and perhaps unwilling sellers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7891.599], "stop_times": [7902.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7891.599}, "reply_to": "15356__4_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__4_012", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, I should not speak -- wish to speak for anyone except my client but my client did not embrace this opportunity to the edge.\nWould it preferred not to take the New Haven, they were required to if they wanted the merger but they made that choice.\nI'm not appealing for sympathy for the Penn Central as such here they did this and they committed themselves to pay whatever the Commission and the courts approved as their term and that\u2019s where we are.\nNow going back to this liquidation, this hypothetical liquidation, because I think it's important to understand what it involved.\nIt meant really now understand that the Commission had decide, try to decide what prices would be paid by people who were never going to buy the properties that were never be sold.\nThey didn't necessarily assume that it will be broken up, some of it might be sold in place but this whole thing -- valuation was based on the hypothetical sanction of the New Haven which stopped.\nIt would abandon service, would necessarily break up everything.\nIt might try to sell some things in place but it would stop service and its property would be sold off piece meal.\nNow what, in our view that Commission did in this case and you really need to understand what it did was to have to go back and looked at the way it valued all the different kinds of properties that were involved here.\nBut what it did in this hypothetical liquidation was to try so far as it could to bring that hypothetical liquidation close to what would in fact, have happened if the New Haven had liquidated, had abandoned service and liquidated.\nNow, that is the basis for the Commission's determination that there should be an allowance for abandonment delaying.\nIt makes that very clear in a passage of pages that occurs in its report about page 146 of that printed volume of the first appendix because the Commission\u2019s view was if you assume there was going to be a liquidation of the New Haven and you have to assume that.\nIf you're going to fix this liquidation value, it's reasonable to say assuming that we will give them a certificate so that they can abandon nevertheless, under the law, and this is true they have to ask us for the certificate.\nWe can't issue it immediately.\nWe're required to give notice to the Governor's state.\nWe're required to give in time to come as they make arguments about how the abandonment should be conditioned or whether the sales should be in placed or as junked, any other problems they present to us, we have to listen to those arguments, hear their evidence and decide it.\nAnd we think that it would be reasonable assuming we'll grant a certificate and assuming that the New Haven stops operating trains which the Commission also assumed.\nWe think it would be reasonable to say that that would take a year and that during that year the New Haven would incur some expenses which would affect the liquidation value of the estate.\nNow, that's what the abandonment allowance delay is about and it's all that it's about.\nThe suggestion that the Commission could prolong it indefinitely I think you can, it seems to me need not obtain this very long.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [7902.119, 7910.9, 7918.272, 7933.471, 7941.194, 7955.746, 7969.341, 7973.699, 7981.888, 7994.002, 8015.67, 8024.482, 8042.568, 8058.547, 8060.24, 8063.397, 8081.593, 8091.91, 8106.447, 8111.821], "stop_times": [7910.9, 7918.272, 7933.471, 7941.194, 7955.746, 7969.341, 7973.699, 7981.888, 7994.002, 8015.67, 8024.482, 8042.568, 8058.547, 8060.24, 8063.397, 8081.593, 8091.91, 8106.447, 8111.821, 8120.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7902.119}, "reply_to": "15356__4_011", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_013", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "As the point of what it's all about is a year from when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8120.619], "stop_times": [8124.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8120.619}, "reply_to": "15356__4_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_014", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8124.547], "stop_times": [8124.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8124.547}, "reply_to": "15356__4_013", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_015", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But the claim is, as I understand part of the claim of your brothers in opposition is that had they not been had done a primrose path, that's perhaps their own metaphor but had they not been induce into this inclusion business.\nThey would have filed from abandonment years ago back in the middle 60's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8124.782, 8139.887], "stop_times": [8139.887, 8144.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8124.782}, "reply_to": "15356__4_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_016", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So, perhaps they would.\nI don't know but they didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8144.149, 8145.723], "stop_times": [8145.723, 8147.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8144.149}, "reply_to": "15356__4_015", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_017", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, they didn't but we're talking about Alice in Wonderland, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8147.912], "stop_times": [8151.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8147.912}, "reply_to": "15356__4_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_018", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You're talking about Alice in Wonderland.\nI think what the Commission really said Mr. Justice Stewart is this.\nThat we have decided that it would take six years, actually to sell a property no matter when you start it.\nWe think they may deserve but my client believes they made a very serious mistake there because that the evidence really required a longer period.\nBut passing that, it said it will take six years to sell the property but before you can start selling it you have to get a certificate.\nSo, that in this, in the real sense in this hypothetical frame, the date doesn't make too much difference.\nThey didn't the first time say six years from so and so would be the liquidation period.\nThey just said six years whenever you started.\nAnd what they said, what the Commission seems to me to be finding in the abandonment delay is that in addition to taking six years to sell it, it's going to need another year to get the position to start selling and if you looked at it completely in a hypothetical frame, there\u2019s no doubt they would had to have a certificate.\nThere's no doubt they didn't have one.\nNow, it's true they say it's unfair to do it this way.\nYou should pretend that we have a certificate because we've been waiting all this time to get in and we've been suffering all these losses.\nNow Mr. Goodman has just dealt that and he said, I think it's simply an argument about how this pre-inclusion lawsuit should be dealt with.\nThe Commission dealt with that as to the 68th losses and all the courts both courts below sustained it.\nI would just say this about it then I should like to pass on.\nThey were in an unfortunate position.\nThey bought the head securities and deficit written Railroad and the trustees without any objection from the debtors decided to try to become and be included in the Penn Central and it took a long time when they incurred some losses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8151.147, 8152.934, 8157.41, 8165.491, 8171.837, 8182.054, 8187.967, 8192.895, 8196.021, 8218.466, 8220.782, 8224.415, 8235.932, 8248.806, 8254.834, 8260.825, 8262.617], "stop_times": [8152.934, 8157.41, 8165.491, 8171.837, 8182.054, 8187.967, 8192.895, 8196.021, 8218.466, 8220.782, 8224.415, 8235.932, 8248.806, 8254.834, 8260.825, 8262.617, 8280.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8151.147}, "reply_to": "15356__4_017", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_019", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But all of the losses in fact are prior to the bondholder's interest, aren't they?\nWould all those operating losses be administrative expenses entitled to prior payment over the bondholders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8280.971, 8287.254], "stop_times": [8287.254, 8297.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8280.971}, "reply_to": "15356__4_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_020", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Justice White I have to answer that question by saying that so far as they issued the trustee\u2019s certificates.\nI think you have to assume that they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8297.048, 8304.487], "stop_times": [8304.487, 8306.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8297.048}, "reply_to": "15356__4_019", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_021", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8306.218], "stop_times": [8306.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8306.218}, "reply_to": "15356__4_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_022", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, there have been some figures cost about here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8306.898], "stop_times": [8309.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8306.898}, "reply_to": "15356__4_021", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_023", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "$60 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8309.218], "stop_times": [8309.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8309.218}, "reply_to": "15356__4_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_024", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- but I can't analyze those figures because I don't know what they are but it's quite true that any amounts represented by the trustee\u2019s certificates would be ahead of the bondholders and of course, they've been incurring deficits since 1956 quite long and since they -- ever since they've been in receivership.\nBut if you are applying a liquidation stand which requires a hypothetical liquidation and that\u2019s what is giving them out of the Commission\u2019s decision $146 or $150 million when any other way they would get nothing.\nMy suggestion is that it ought to be applied consistently, they've embraced it and they really shouldn't complain on it when it hurts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8309.394, 8329.915, 8349.174], "stop_times": [8329.915, 8349.174, 8357.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8309.394}, "reply_to": "15356__4_023", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_025", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "When did the bondholders first voice any objection to inclusion or did they ever?M", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8357.833], "stop_times": [8363.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8357.833}, "reply_to": "15356__4_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_026", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think the first time they did so was in the spring in 1967.\nIt was not so much in the form of objection to inclusion as it was but it was a suggestion that reorganization proceedings should be terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8363.588, 8368.262], "stop_times": [8368.262, 8375.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8363.588}, "reply_to": "15356__4_025", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_027", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Then you should liquidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8375.45], "stop_times": [8376.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8375.45}, "reply_to": "15356__4_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_028", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Liquidate, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8376.611], "stop_times": [8377.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8376.611}, "reply_to": "15356__4_027", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_029", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And did they participate in the inclusion proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8377.781], "stop_times": [8383.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8377.781}, "reply_to": "15356__4_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_030", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Oh!\nYes and I think that it was only one group of them that made the suggestion about not to declare about terminating proceedings but they participated in the inclusion proceedings but largely to in the interest of increasing the price.\nThat's what they're trying to do.\nAnd this -- if you begin to look at this problem in terms of who suffered most, you try to decide how this liquidation hypothesis should be applied by appealing to sympathy as they're looking at the merits of the particular methods the court used, I think you then some other considerations to come into play which I would be obliged to mention in the Court.\nThey are Penn Central of course, whatever loss that this people has suffered Penn Central is required to suffer these losses in indefinite future and what is more that is not something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8383.901, 8384.304, 8402.477, 8405.758, 8439.189], "stop_times": [8384.304, 8402.477, 8405.758, 8439.189, 8454.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8383.901}, "reply_to": "15356__4_029", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_031", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, unless Mr. Cox they get some -- they abandon some --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8454.291], "stop_times": [8458.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8454.291}, "reply_to": "15356__4_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_032", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Unless they can get but there's no indication that the Commission is going to allow them to abandon the freight service and nobody knows what will happen on the passenger service.\nAs a matter of fact, since the inclusion they've lost at least they've not received about $4 and a half million that the state used to give the New Haven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8458.708, 8470.19], "stop_times": [8470.19, 8481.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8458.708}, "reply_to": "15356__4_031", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_033", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I thought the Penn Central agreed to underwrite losses -- certain percentage of losses, 100% the first year, declining scale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8481.209], "stop_times": [8492.434], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8481.209}, "reply_to": "15356__4_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__4_034", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That was the Commission, yes.\nThat was the Commission --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8492.434, 8493.761], "stop_times": [8493.761, 8494.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8492.434}, "reply_to": "15356__4_033", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_035", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well they agreed to it, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8494.641], "stop_times": [8495.685], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8494.641}, "reply_to": "15356__4_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__4_036", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They agreed to that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8495.685], "stop_times": [8496.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8495.685}, "reply_to": "15356__4_035", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_037", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And now the Commission lets them out from under that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8496.642], "stop_times": [8499.483], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8496.642}, "reply_to": "15356__4_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__4_038", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8499.483], "stop_times": [8500.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8499.483}, "reply_to": "15356__4_037", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_039", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Or part of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8500.03], "stop_times": [8501.196], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8500.03}, "reply_to": "15356__4_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__4_040", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They simply apply the same formula but to one year.\nSee, that formula was assumed that it would be three years before they would be included and there was a maximum under the formula that five --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8501.196, 8505.997], "stop_times": [8505.997, 8514.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8501.196}, "reply_to": "15356__4_039", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_041", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, I suppose you can get into big argument about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8514.221], "stop_times": [8516.398], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 8514.221}, "reply_to": "15356__4_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__4_042", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, as matter of objections but I think the suggestion was left this morning at the Commission modified his formula it didn't really -- It was always a maximum of $5 million a year and that's what the Pennsylvania paid for $68.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8516.398], "stop_times": [8533.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8516.398}, "reply_to": "15356__4_041", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_043", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is $5 million and $500,000 that was prorated in 1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8533.459], "stop_times": [8537.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8533.459}, "reply_to": "15356__4_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_044", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, prorated over 11 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8537.115], "stop_times": [8539.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8537.115}, "reply_to": "15356__4_043", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_045", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8539.711], "stop_times": [8543.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8539.711}, "reply_to": "15356__4_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_046", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, I think this -- the thing that the -- the next thing I should like to say something about is the so-called bulk sale discount.\nI think there's been some confusion about it, too.\nThat determination of the Commission does not assume a bulk sale.\nIt doesn't assume a bulk purchaser, it simply a method that the Commission used based on the testimony of an expert witness.\nA method that the Commission used to value the real property of the New Haven as of valuation date on the assumption that that real property was going to be sold piece meal over six years.\nThat's all that determination of the Commission\u2019s amounted to was this witness who was an experienced in real estate investor and administrator testified that if he were going to value it, this $3000 parcels of property that the New Haven had as of the valuation date, he would go about it in a particular way and they way he went about it was making some computations about the amount of capital that would be involved in the venture.\nHe said 75% mortgage capital at 9%, 25% equity capital at 15%, and by applying those rates of retiring to the cash flow proceeds using the same appraisals that the New Haven people have made and assuming a six-year liquidation of the same way the New Haven people did.\nHe arrived at a figure which he thought represented the value of that amounts of real property as of the valuation date at the end of 1966.\nNow, the Commission took his testimony and did a little different way.\nThey took away that average and got 10-1/2% as applied really instead of the 6%.\nSo, what this issue about the bulk sale discount really comes down to is simply a question of whether the Commission should have discounted the real properties of the New Haven for the purpose of determining valuation of the valuation date by 6% as it did the first time or by 10-1/2% as he did the second time on the basis of his testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8543.804, 8559.514, 8563.742, 8569.085, 8579.293, 8593.497, 8630.427, 8661.724, 8673.214, 8678.13, 8686.712], "stop_times": [8559.514, 8563.742, 8569.085, 8579.293, 8593.497, 8630.427, 8661.724, 8673.214, 8678.13, 8686.712, 8710.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8543.804}, "reply_to": "15356__4_045", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_047", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Mr. Cox, is it true that the 6% that was originally set as a discount, was that intended to reflect just the value, the translation of the future value to present value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8710.181], "stop_times": [8724.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8710.181}, "reply_to": "15356__4_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_048", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is what was called I believe, Mr. Justice White a money discount.\nIt was based on the prior rate of interest and represented merely the difference between having the money now and having it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8724.577, 8728.91], "stop_times": [8728.91, 8734.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8724.577}, "reply_to": "15356__4_047", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_049", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So, it didn't reflect any uncertainties in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8734.352], "stop_times": [8737.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8734.352}, "reply_to": "15356__4_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_050", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8737.226], "stop_times": [8738.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8737.226}, "reply_to": "15356__4_049", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_051", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- the economy or in real estate values or in not being able to sell as soon as you thought or anything like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8738.068], "stop_times": [8743.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8738.068}, "reply_to": "15356__4_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_052", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8743.929, 8745.045], "stop_times": [8745.045, 8746.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8743.929}, "reply_to": "15356__4_051", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_053", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8746.233], "stop_times": [8746.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8746.233}, "reply_to": "15356__4_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_054", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Clear on the record and we've developed that in our brief.\nThat was simply 6% represent the difference between having money now and having six years from now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8746.885, 8750.027], "stop_times": [8750.027, 8757.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8746.885}, "reply_to": "15356__4_053", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_055", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That was just a present value of future money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8757.117], "stop_times": [8758.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8757.117}, "reply_to": "15356__4_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_056", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8758.804], "stop_times": [8759.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8758.804}, "reply_to": "15356__4_055", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_057", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But now, we've been introduced two other things i.e. the risk of real estate value is going down particularly which for the betterment and number 2, the power of the Commission to require a sale in bulk is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8759.623], "stop_times": [8775.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8759.623}, "reply_to": "15356__4_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_058", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, not in my view Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThat's the channery point and I better say something about that now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8775.496, 8778.598], "stop_times": [8778.598, 8781.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8775.496}, "reply_to": "15356__4_057", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_059", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If that will help so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8781.385], "stop_times": [8782.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8781.385}, "reply_to": "15356__4_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_060", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "This judgment as I think Mr. Goodman said about how to value properties was essentially a business or economic judgment and what the Commission was saying was we think the best method of determining liquidation value of the real estate or reasonable method is to do it as the way that Mr. Simon\u2019s testimony has demonstrated it could be done.\nNow, the bondholders argue that as a matter of law, constitutional law, they said they were entitled to have liquidation value determined by a particular method.\nIn other words, they said, the only way you can do it under the Constitution is to take these individual appraisals, put them all together and maybe you can apply the 6% discount but if you do anything beside that you have departed from the constitutional standard.\nNow, the Commission responded to that argument and that's what all is this discussion is about how and what they could do in the abandonment proceeding the Commission responded to that argument by saying there\u2019s nothing in this broad constitutional purpose in our argument because in some circumstances we could require you to sell them to both purchaser who was going to continue the Railroad operation.\nWell, I think the worst and Judge Friendly expressed some doubts about the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8782.898, 8807.099, 8822.237, 8839.481, 8864.948], "stop_times": [8807.099, 8822.237, 8839.481, 8864.948, 8872.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8782.898}, "reply_to": "15356__4_059", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_061", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It's the language that he calls somewhat less than collusive actually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8872.087], "stop_times": [8874.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8872.087}, "reply_to": "15356__4_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_062", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Somewhat less than collusive -- it's collusive enough I think when you read the whole thing with a view of determining whether there\u2019s any internal consistency but my position is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8874.678], "stop_times": [8885.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8874.678}, "reply_to": "15356__4_061", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_063", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But he understood that he attributed toward a different meaning, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8885.663], "stop_times": [8889.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8885.663}, "reply_to": "15356__4_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_064", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "He attributed to it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8889.356], "stop_times": [8890.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8889.356}, "reply_to": "15356__4_063", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_065", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is i.e. the risk involved.(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8890.127], "stop_times": [8891.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8890.127}, "reply_to": "15356__4_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_066", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "He attributes to it the same meaning I'm attributing to it.\nIt was an economic -- it was essentially an economic judgment and didn't depend on legal reason.\nI think the Commission may have given dubious or more involved answer to this argument and it needed to be given I should thought it could have answered simply by saying that you, you maybe entitled the liquidation value but we're entitled to determine liquidation value by any reasonable method that it has support any evidence and this method does but instead of that the Commission value to this discussion about what it could or could not do in an abandonment proceeding.\nNow, there's no -- I submit you look at that report and consider that the Commission was dealing with an economic business problem on how to value property and there's no reason to believe that its\u2019 judgment on any economic issue would be a total effective if it we\u2019re told that there may be some doubt or even when it was wrong about the legal answer it gave to the bondholders argument.\nI think that economic determination can stand on its own foot.\nThis is really stronger case than the Massachusetts Investors Company case was because there they chose the wrong authority or two statutes.\nHere I think they simply possibly gave the wrong answer to an argument that could have been disposed of on temporary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8891.724, 8894.729, 8900.747, 8929.77, 8954.441, 8958.691, 8968.584], "stop_times": [8894.729, 8900.747, 8929.77, 8954.441, 8958.691, 8968.584, 8974.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8891.724}, "reply_to": "15356__4_065", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_067", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I take it that it's implicit in your argument that it is quite clear that the appraisals they were relying on the expert testimony was the value of the real estate as of when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8974.848], "stop_times": [8986.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8974.848}, "reply_to": "15356__4_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_068", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The end of the valuation date, the end of January -- of December 1966.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8986.942], "stop_times": [8991.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8986.942}, "reply_to": "15356__4_067", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_069", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "1966.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8991.43], "stop_times": [8992.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8991.43}, "reply_to": "15356__4_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_070", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8992.579], "stop_times": [8992.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 8992.579}, "reply_to": "15356__4_069", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_071", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And none of the appraisals purported to be made in the light of the liquidation plan that is we predict that this value would be worth this so much in six years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [8992.947], "stop_times": [9003.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8992.947}, "reply_to": "15356__4_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_072", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Let me tell you how that was done, Mr. Justice White.\nNew Haven first broke to land up in these 3,000 parcels.\nThey then had 3,000 as I understand at separate appraisals made and those appraisals did not take into account the problem of market absorption or how long it would take the ceremony --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9003.122, 9006.141, 9010.288], "stop_times": [9006.141, 9010.288, 9022.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9003.122}, "reply_to": "15356__4_071", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_073", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So they didn't -- they didn't purport to include the factors that the Commission has now included.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9022.554], "stop_times": [9027.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9022.554}, "reply_to": "15356__4_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_074", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9027.951], "stop_times": [9028.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9027.951}, "reply_to": "15356__4_073", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_075", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They then purported to set at value --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9028.651], "stop_times": [9030.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9028.651}, "reply_to": "15356__4_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_076", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9030.321], "stop_times": [9031.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9030.321}, "reply_to": "15356__4_075", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_077", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If they were sold December 1966?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9031.124], "stop_times": [9033.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9031.124}, "reply_to": "15356__4_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_078", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Or sold one it separately at or about that time.\nI thought they sought some reasonable exposure to market but after the appraisals were made, then a witness of New Haven came along and examined would not make the appraisals but he examined and he said, well, you obviously can't sell all these properties at once.\nI think it would take at least six years.\nI think even that witness admitted that was an optimistic estimate and of course my clients said.\nAnd one of the New Haven's witnesses said that if you couldn't it in six years.\nTen years about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9033.49, 9038.46, 9054.645, 9058.193, 9064.723, 9068.577], "stop_times": [9038.46, 9054.645, 9058.193, 9064.723, 9068.577, 9069.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9033.49}, "reply_to": "15356__4_077", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_079", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I take it if you have had experts who actually testified what the property would be worth if sold pursuant to this liquidation plan over a period of six years, you might have some problems with the ICC determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9069.677], "stop_times": [9083.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9069.677}, "reply_to": "15356__4_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_080", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, but you didn't have it because these appraisals did not take that into account.\nThis is all and I think you can read our brief on and I don't believe it can really be disputed and be contested.\nWhat the head done, the only thing they've done was as to certain specific pieces of property they had applied what was called the cats and dogs discount.\nThey may indulge us as to certain particular parcels.\nNow, the witness Simon took that into account and he said even with that he would use this method of valuing the property which produced the 10-1/2% discount the Commission used but the cats and dogs discount was confined to certain particular pieces of property which had known infirmities at the time the appraisals were made.\nIt really didn't look to the future risks at all.\nThere are -- the risks of perhaps covering -- appearing to be rather disjointed in this presentation I should now like to touch briefly on some of the points that come up in respect to other aspects of the case one of them being the situation these two yards in the Bronx.\nI hope that the Court is clear that the question in there is the -- really come to down to appraisal of the evidence over whether some Railroad in the event of the liquidation of the New Haven which served these two New Haven yards and the Bronx.\nIt's those two yards that are in issue.\nNow, the Commission took an appraisal which was made on the assumption that the New Haven would abandon service.\nThe bondholders say that the Commission was bound to take a higher appraisal which the appraisers said would only apply if you assume that some Railroad other than the New Haven applied or supplied the same service to New Haven supplied so that on a hearing that it became an argument over whether the Penn Central would voluntarily or could be compelled to serve these two yards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9083.236, 9089.283, 9097.007, 9107.355, 9111.155, 9134.476, 9140.638, 9170.905, 9188.564, 9191.829, 9205.142], "stop_times": [9089.283, 9097.007, 9107.355, 9111.155, 9134.476, 9140.638, 9170.905, 9188.564, 9191.829, 9205.142, 9238.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9083.236}, "reply_to": "15356__4_079", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_081", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Is it -- I'm looking at a map on page 511-C of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9238.164], "stop_times": [9242.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9238.164}, "reply_to": "15356__4_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_082", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, I know the map.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9242.395], "stop_times": [9243.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9242.395}, "reply_to": "15356__4_081", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_083", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Is that, if I got the right map --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9243.927], "stop_times": [9245.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9243.927}, "reply_to": "15356__4_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_084", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think that\u2019s a map if it shows the lines running -- it shows two lines over on the left run down, a little down in Harlem River and yellow line going across.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9245.797], "stop_times": [9257.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9245.797}, "reply_to": "15356__4_083", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_085", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, and then it's got blue line going down across the Hell Gate bridge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9257.083], "stop_times": [9261.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9257.083}, "reply_to": "15356__4_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_086", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9261.623], "stop_times": [9262.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9261.623}, "reply_to": "15356__4_085", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_087", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And it's got one going out the Bronx River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9262.952], "stop_times": [9265.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9262.952}, "reply_to": "15356__4_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_088", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9265.3], "stop_times": [9265.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9265.3}, "reply_to": "15356__4_087", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_089", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And goes along a thing kind of a -- well, I would know what color to call that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9265.475], "stop_times": [9271.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9265.475}, "reply_to": "15356__4_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_090", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9271.582], "stop_times": [9272.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9271.582}, "reply_to": "15356__4_089", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_091", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The one going starting out the Bronx River, a short line.\nPerhaps that's a lot of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9272.641, 9278.658], "stop_times": [9278.658, 9280.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9272.641}, "reply_to": "15356__4_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_092", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "These two lines over in the left --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9280.135], "stop_times": [9282.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9280.135}, "reply_to": "15356__4_091", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_093", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9282.383], "stop_times": [9283.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9282.383}, "reply_to": "15356__4_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_094", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- are now are all New York Central lines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9283.329], "stop_times": [9288.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9283.329}, "reply_to": "15356__4_093", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_095", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "One's a Harlem division?\nThe other is a Hudson division?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9288.903, 9289.96], "stop_times": [9289.96, 9291.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9288.903}, "reply_to": "15356__4_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_096", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, that's right.\nAnd the yellow line was at New York Central branch which ran down to the former Port Morris Yard in New York Central and then to an interchange point with the New Haven and any traffic that the New York Central moved to this area was -- of to these yards or to the Hunts Point Market was interchanged at this point.\nNow, the Commission heard this evidence and having heard it found that on all facts that if the New Haven were liquidated which is the hypothesis that we're considering, the Penn Central would not serve these yards and could not be compelled and the reasons that are set forth in our brief at length we think that finding was fully supported by a substantial evidence.\nI just want to say one word about however to make one point clear.\nThe reorganization court took the view that the Penn Central could be compelled as New Haven were liquidated to serve that market operated by the City of New York.\nThe Commission found to the contrary because that traffic is highly unprofitable but even if that it is assumed and this is the point I'd like to make, even if it's assumed that the Penn Central might serve that Hunts Point Vegetable Market or might be compelled to it doesn\u2019t follow that it would serve either of these other two yards.\nThat's -- their only the evidence showed that on average it were only about 13 cars a day went to those yards to serve them.\nPenn Central would either have to buy from the New Haven in liquidation or somebody else tracks facilities which would be extremely expansive in view of the fact that the traffic would not be profitable anyway and furthermore the evidence shows that it would incur very substantial operating cost for the purpose of this small volume of profit.\nNow, as far as the suggestion if they could be compelled to serve them, the Commission disposed to that by examining the facts and saying that there was no evidence of any need for service to these two yards or of that the Hunts Point Market for that matter that would justify requiring service in the public interest and of course the Commission would have to make a contrary finding in order to require our service.\nSo, I think that looking at that whole situation it is quite clear that your mission is determination there which required which is dependent upon evidence as to what the operating conditions were, and also relied to all of the Commission\u2019s own judgment about what the transportation needs were should clearly be sustained.\nI may add that we point out in our brief that those evidence before the Commission of the New Haven itself sold a large chunk, one of these yards at exactly the square foot price that was in the appraisal the Commission adopted which was 50 cents of square foot lower than the price on the appraisal that the bondholders now say the Commission was required as a matter of law to adopt so that I think it is, if they were, we have a remand on this question that the Commission might have to have another look at the whole question of evaluation.\nI find my time is nearing the end.\nI should like to say something about this issue of stock because I think the questions from the bench indicate that there's something that perhaps that should be said about it.\nThe Commission in treating the stock issue picks an inherent value where this stock that is going to be delivered on the closing date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9291.095, 9292.698, 9322.429, 9350.913, 9356.681, 9372.62, 9397.072, 9406.283, 9430.462, 9458.368, 9481.864, 9528.21, 9531.915, 9544.764], "stop_times": [9292.698, 9322.429, 9350.913, 9356.681, 9372.62, 9397.072, 9406.283, 9430.462, 9458.368, 9481.864, 9528.21, 9531.915, 9544.764, 9556.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9291.095}, "reply_to": "15356__4_095", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_097", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's that, Mr. Cox?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9556.961], "stop_times": [9558.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9556.961}, "reply_to": "15356__4_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_098", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That was a determination that the stock would have that value in itself even though it might not command a price on the stock market as of the particular date it was equal to value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9558.645], "stop_times": [9574.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9558.645}, "reply_to": "15356__4_097", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_099", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "None of the moneylender gives that an inherent value about stocks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9574.648], "stop_times": [9578.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9574.648}, "reply_to": "15356__4_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_100", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, he has to keep it until he can get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9578.054], "stop_times": [9582.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9578.054}, "reply_to": "15356__4_099", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_101", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "He had to keep it, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9582.463], "stop_times": [9583.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9582.463}, "reply_to": "15356__4_100", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_102", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But that was part and parcel of this plan.\nNow the reason I think if you think about the situation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9583.867, 9586.321], "stop_times": [9586.321, 9588.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9583.867}, "reply_to": "15356__4_101", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_103", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, we know this part and parcel of the plan that's what they have been to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9588.675], "stop_times": [9592.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9588.675}, "reply_to": "15356__4_102", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_104", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9592.348], "stop_times": [9592.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9592.348}, "reply_to": "15356__4_103", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_105", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Either you just wanted their money then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9592.922], "stop_times": [9594.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9592.922}, "reply_to": "15356__4_104", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_106", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Look, Mr. Justice White, they were not going to use this money.\nThat wasn't it and we\u2019re going to put this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9594.445, 9599.045], "stop_times": [9599.045, 9600.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9594.445}, "reply_to": "15356__4_105", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_107", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Who wasn't going to use it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9600.779], "stop_times": [9601.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9600.779}, "reply_to": "15356__4_106", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_108", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The New Haven.\nThey were going to put the stock in an investment company and keep it for seven years and the reason they were going to do that it was because everyone knew that at the beginning of this merger.\nAt the beginning of this merger the market price of the stock wasn't going to reflect what is was really worth over any period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9601.789, 9603.428, 9615.677], "stop_times": [9603.428, 9615.677, 9622.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9601.789}, "reply_to": "15356__4_107", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_109", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Are you saying there are stocks from making this claim, is that the basis in what this is all about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9622.26], "stop_times": [9627.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9622.26}, "reply_to": "15356__4_108", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_110", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I'm not arguing a stock owned --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9627.473], "stop_times": [9629.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9627.473}, "reply_to": "15356__4_109", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_111", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, or whatever you're holding --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9629.26], "stop_times": [9630.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9629.26}, "reply_to": "15356__4_110", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_112", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I'm simply saying that the Commission, I'm saying two things.\nI think the Commission in a transaction of this kind involving a reorganization of Railroad is entitled so long as it has substantial evidence to support it to determine a value of stock that is in inherent rather than a value that is evidenced by a current market quotation.\nAnd that is so even if it maybe some time depending upon such --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9630.355, 9634.039, 9654.399], "stop_times": [9634.039, 9654.399, 9662.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9630.355}, "reply_to": "15356__4_111", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_113", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So, you're saying that although you agreed at the outset that either under the Constitution of the statute, they are entitled the liquidation value that you can satisfy that standard by giving it to them any time within ten years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9662.69], "stop_times": [9678.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9662.69}, "reply_to": "15356__4_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_114", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I say you can give it to them if they in stock that has an inherent value on that date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9678.227], "stop_times": [9684.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9678.227}, "reply_to": "15356__4_113", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_115", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, so you're saying yes.\nIt answers yes if you can satisfy that standard anytime within ten years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9684.379, 9686.574], "stop_times": [9686.574, 9690.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9684.379}, "reply_to": "15356__4_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_116", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "They can -- I think it's an essential part of the power the Commission has to have in hearing with the reorganization of this kind because frequently they don\u2019t know what the stock would be worth.\nIn terms by -- judge by stock market quotations, they know what they can determine what's inherent valuing.\nNow, of course, in the courts below it took care of those problems as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9690.701, 9702.772, 9710.335], "stop_times": [9702.772, 9710.335, 9714.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9690.701}, "reply_to": "15356__4_115", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_117", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, do you think they could satisfy liquidation -- the liquidating value standard by giving them money today which will be worth a $145 million 10 years from now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9714.067], "stop_times": [9727.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9714.067}, "reply_to": "15356__4_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_118", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, I don't, Mr. Justice White.\nMoney is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9727.964, 9729.908], "stop_times": [9729.908, 9731.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9727.964}, "reply_to": "15356__4_117", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_119", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, that's what you're saying with the stock within that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9731.026], "stop_times": [9733.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9731.026}, "reply_to": "15356__4_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_120", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9733.244], "stop_times": [9733.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9733.244}, "reply_to": "15356__4_119", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_121", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "We're going to give this some pieces of paper that within 10 years it will be worth $83 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9733.434], "stop_times": [9738.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9733.434}, "reply_to": "15356__4_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_122", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In reorganization, and I think you could find this concept -- in reorganization when you give stock you\u2019re giving what amounts to an equity in a growing concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9738.383], "stop_times": [9752.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9738.383}, "reply_to": "15356__4_121", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_123", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But supposing they don't want?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9752.674], "stop_times": [9754.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9752.674}, "reply_to": "15356__4_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_124", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, mind you they're not rejecting stock.\nThey want stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9754.552, 9757.669], "stop_times": [9757.669, 9758.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9754.552}, "reply_to": "15356__4_123", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_125", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, they aren't rejecting payment.\nWould you think they would take if you gave the $83 million in cash, that they would it up rather than she stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9758.483, 9760.105], "stop_times": [9760.105, 9764.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9758.483}, "reply_to": "15356__4_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_126", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I can't answer that question.\nAll I can say is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9764.727, 9766.075], "stop_times": [9766.075, 9767.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9764.727}, "reply_to": "15356__4_125", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_127", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It seems (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9767.638], "stop_times": [9769.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9767.638}, "reply_to": "15356__4_126", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_128", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "All I can say is that they have indicated they want stock and some of the bondholders have said that they want more stock than as opposed to bonds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9769.752], "stop_times": [9778.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9769.752}, "reply_to": "15356__4_127", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_129", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Why is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9778.088], "stop_times": [9779.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9778.088}, "reply_to": "15356__4_128", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_130", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Because they -- as the junior bondholders, they are only hoping this thing as really to have that stock go up in value so that they can have something out of it but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9779.642], "stop_times": [9791.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9779.642}, "reply_to": "15356__4_129", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_131", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You're suggesting that what their claim want to be here is really is it not they want more stock but they really ought to say that they want bonds which bears a rate of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9791.02], "stop_times": [9801.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9791.02}, "reply_to": "15356__4_130", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_132", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If that's what they really want, yes and they never have taken that position.\nThis payment of this large amount of the consideration in stock is something that's been in this plan from the very beginning and so far as I know the bondholders have never insisted it more than it should paid in that bond.\nNow, they have to ask occasional times to make up differences between a market value but the notion of getting a large equity position in this new company has been in this thing from the very beginning and as far as I know it\u2019s not been objected to by anybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9801.007, 9805.725, 9822.106], "stop_times": [9805.725, 9822.106, 9840.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9801.007}, "reply_to": "15356__4_131", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_133", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Of course, I suppose they suggest this is the only way that they can speak.\nNobody could have raised the money to Penn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9840.667, 9843.977], "stop_times": [9843.977, 9845.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9840.667}, "reply_to": "15356__4_132", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_134", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No one could -- the Penn Central wouldn't have that money and they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9845.757], "stop_times": [9851.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9845.757}, "reply_to": "15356__4_133", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_135", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You can't blame that on anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9851.499], "stop_times": [9853.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9851.499}, "reply_to": "15356__4_134", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_136", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "You can\u2019t blame that on anyone except to possibly Penn Central but the notion, the distinction between a market quotation and inherent value is not a noble distinction in the law.\nYou looked at the valuation cases under the appraisal cases they're infrequent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9853.058, 9868.78], "stop_times": [9868.78, 9876.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9853.058}, "reply_to": "15356__4_135", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_137", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Another matter we're talking about is giving somebody liquidation value and give inherent value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9876.439], "stop_times": [9881.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9876.439}, "reply_to": "15356__4_136", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__4_138", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, they get something that is in a -- I submit it's the worst stuff.\nNow, they're going to have to wait a little while to get it.\nThey may have to wait seven years.\nIn the meantime, they got an underwriting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9881.723, 9888.96, 9891.174, 9893.76], "stop_times": [9888.96, 9891.174, 9893.76, 9896.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9881.723}, "reply_to": "15356__4_137", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_139", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Whose idea was the underwriting?\nJudge Anderson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9896.798, 9898.143], "stop_times": [9898.143, 9898.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9896.798}, "reply_to": "15356__4_138", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_140", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Judge Anderson.\nIt was taken by the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9898.504, 9899.487], "stop_times": [9899.487, 9899.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9898.504}, "reply_to": "15356__4_139", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_141", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It originated with him, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9899.969], "stop_times": [9901.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9899.969}, "reply_to": "15356__4_140", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_142", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, and accepted by the Commission.\nSo that is now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9901.417, 9903.925], "stop_times": [9903.925, 9904.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9901.417}, "reply_to": "15356__4_141", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_143", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And accepted by the three-judge court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9904.825], "stop_times": [9906.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9904.825}, "reply_to": "15356__4_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_144", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And accepted by the three-judge court.\nOf course, any modifications in that underwriting which they have to go back to the Commission because it involves this problem under Section 28.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9906.212, 9908.745], "stop_times": [9908.745, 9916.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9906.212}, "reply_to": "15356__4_143", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_145", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "One more question is, you have a little time left.\nI get the feeling that, perhaps this isn't a question.\nI got a feeling throughout here that the Commission faced with trying to implement the National Transportation Policy with two somewhat distressed railroads already merged and another more distressed railroad tucked on to the program really was confronted with the problem of trying to allocate the deficits if you could call them that.\nHere's the transportation system that really calls for large subsidies from the state of Federal Government and they aren't available and so they are allocating this burden on the bondholders.\nIs that a -- Can you point in a minute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9916.94, 9921.668, 9925.823, 9959.045, 9975.509], "stop_times": [9921.668, 9925.823, 9959.045, 9975.509, 9979.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9916.94}, "reply_to": "15356__4_144", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__4_146", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I don't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9979.72], "stop_times": [9980.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9979.72}, "reply_to": "15356__4_145", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_147", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's the policy of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9980.08], "stop_times": [9981.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9980.08}, "reply_to": "15356__4_146", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__4_148", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I don't think they are allocating any burden on the bondholders.\nI think they've given the bondholders my judgment more than the bondholders would get if they really broke up this Railroad and sold it.\nI think the real problem is that the Penn Central has been required to absorb these deficits and pay a price that my client believes is too high for real liquidation value and the end is not going to come -- the effect is not going to stop the equity at Penn Central come.\nThis is going to affect the rate based that caused the ratemaking power of the Commission and the viability and the vitality of Penn Central is that the transportation company and this transportation service that\u2019s available to shippers all over the organized states.\nThat's why the Commission has authority over securities so that the capital structure can't be inflated.\nNow, at the end of our brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [9981.282, 9984.595, 9995.082, 10016.241, 10034.389, 10041.185], "stop_times": [9984.595, 9995.082, 10016.241, 10034.389, 10041.185, 10043.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 9981.282}, "reply_to": "15356__4_147", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_149", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "What's the best thing in the bidding is just give this road to Penn Central for nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10043.299], "stop_times": [10047.671], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10043.299}, "reply_to": "15356__4_148", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__4_150", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, you can't do that of course under the law of the Constitution and you have to give them at least we\u2019re operating on the assumption they have to get the liquidation value.\nWhen we think they got it in a little bit more.\nThey got $8 million for a building that\u2019s never going to be built over at Grand Central Terminal, that we think was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10047.671, 10055.831, 10059.871], "stop_times": [10055.831, 10059.871, 10066.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10047.671}, "reply_to": "15356__4_149", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_151", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That there are rights over the terminal such as, that\u2019s never going to be built?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10066.865], "stop_times": [10070.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10066.865}, "reply_to": "15356__4_150", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_152", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, it's very doubtful.\nI say never is too strong a word, I was carried away by the acts of enthusiasm --[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10070.167, 10071.571], "stop_times": [10071.571, 10078.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10070.167}, "reply_to": "15356__4_151", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_153", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "-- there is great doubt that it's going to be built.\nThey got $6 million because the Commission overlooked.\nThey forgot or disregarded the evidence about how the cost of the terminal in the point to the brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10078.015, 10081.744, 10085.586], "stop_times": [10081.744, 10085.586, 10090.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10078.015}, "reply_to": "15356__4_152", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_154", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "May I you asked one question?\nIt may not be relevant.\nIt may not be material.\nAs I understand it\u2019s different where the bondholders would get but some $100 million or $125 million more than the Commission allotted if that\u2019s right on the bond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10090.977, 10092.919, 10094.288, 10096.529], "stop_times": [10092.919, 10094.288, 10096.529, 10114.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10090.977}, "reply_to": "15356__4_153", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_155", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right, the figures of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10114.204], "stop_times": [10115.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10114.204}, "reply_to": "15356__4_154", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_156", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, whatever it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10115.99], "stop_times": [10117.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10115.99}, "reply_to": "15356__4_155", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_157", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Whatever it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10117.005], "stop_times": [10117.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10117.005}, "reply_to": "15356__4_156", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_158", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, from whose pocket does that come?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10117.847], "stop_times": [10122.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10117.847}, "reply_to": "15356__4_157", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_159", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It comes in the first instance from the Penn Central and ultimately it's going to come from the pockets of the people who pay rates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10122.254], "stop_times": [10131.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10122.254}, "reply_to": "15356__4_158", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_160", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "There isn't any doubt about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10131.176], "stop_times": [10133.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10131.176}, "reply_to": "15356__4_159", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_161", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I just would want to say one thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10133.979], "stop_times": [10136.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10133.979}, "reply_to": "15356__4_160", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_162", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's where the litigation is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10136.788], "stop_times": [10138.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10136.788}, "reply_to": "15356__4_161", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_163", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I'm sorry, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10138.911], "stop_times": [10140.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10138.911}, "reply_to": "15356__4_162", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_164", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The real issue is between the bondholders who claim a certain amount as Penn Central which claims that they are not entitled to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10140.201], "stop_times": [10148.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10140.201}, "reply_to": "15356__4_163", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_165", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10148.02], "stop_times": [10149.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10148.02}, "reply_to": "15356__4_164", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_166", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And that's the litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10149.204], "stop_times": [10150.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10149.204}, "reply_to": "15356__4_165", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__4_167", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's the litigation.\nI just wish to say the Court on this question, free use of the Grand Central terminal that as we read the briefs in states they make it perfectly clear that they haven't paid Penn Central anything for the use of their making that terminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10150.4, 10153.064], "stop_times": [10153.064, 10172.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10150.4}, "reply_to": "15356__4_166", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_168", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Just before you sit down, there have been references throughout the brief to an extent of oral argument that this involves step one of the plan and I think I understand this involves how much is the New Haven and that it got to be paid for its assets.\nDo I understand then that step two is how those assets are going to be distributed among the various owners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10172.16, 10190.711], "stop_times": [10190.711, 10195.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10172.16}, "reply_to": "15356__4_167", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_169", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right.\nThat step provides for the investment company in seven years and how the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10195.327, 10196.785], "stop_times": [10196.785, 10201.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10195.327}, "reply_to": "15356__4_168", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_170", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's not asked before you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10201.597], "stop_times": [10202.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10201.597}, "reply_to": "15356__4_169", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__4_171", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's not before you now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10202.973], "stop_times": [10206.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 10202.973}, "reply_to": "15356__4_170", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15356__4_172", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Thank You, Mr. Cox.\nYou have sixteen minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10206.304, 10210.607], "stop_times": [10210.607, 10214.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10206.304}, "reply_to": "15356__4_171", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__5_000", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn that short period I should try to answer some of the questions that I feel either are more -- my adversaries have perhaps not done in clarity just as to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10214.082, 10216.463, 10220.045], "stop_times": [10216.463, 10220.045, 10233.522], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10214.082}, "reply_to": "15356__4_172", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_001", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The reorganization court modified the underwriting agreement, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10233.522], "stop_times": [10238.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10233.522}, "reply_to": "15356__5_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_002", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The reorganization court created the underwriting agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10238.332], "stop_times": [10241.05], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10238.332}, "reply_to": "15356__5_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_003", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I know but in this -- its opinion is here for review.\nThey entered some supplementary provisions, didn\u2019t they doubt reorganization court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10241.05, 10244.57], "stop_times": [10244.57, 10250.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10241.05}, "reply_to": "15356__5_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_004", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe three-judge court made some slight modifications in the reorganization in the underwriting formula provided by Judge Anderson in the reorganization court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10250.276, 10252.072], "stop_times": [10252.072, 10261.971], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10250.276}, "reply_to": "15356__5_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_005", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In this opinion, that we\u2019re reviewing of the reorganization court it did some embroidery work upon the original underwriting agreement, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10261.971], "stop_times": [10270.981], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10261.971}, "reply_to": "15356__5_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_006", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "There never was an underwriting agreement (Voice overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10270.981], "stop_times": [10272.77], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10270.981}, "reply_to": "15356__5_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_007", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Now, upon the provision it created?\nI beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10272.77, 10274.823], "stop_times": [10274.823, 10275.487], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10272.77}, "reply_to": "15356__5_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_008", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "There never was an underwriting agreement until Judge Anderson created it.\nHe did that because the $83.1 million was so inadequate to discharge the -- because the 950,000 shares was so inadequate to discharge in obligation of $83.1 million and this was sort of reform movement on his part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10275.487, 10279.874], "stop_times": [10279.874, 10296.084], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10275.487}, "reply_to": "15356__5_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_009", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If we should approve his ruling on the reorganization court's ruling on the phase of the case, it would not have to go back to the Commission again, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10296.084], "stop_times": [10305.663], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10296.084}, "reply_to": "15356__5_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_010", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It would have to go back to the Commission Your Honor if you found -- it would not have to go back if you found that the 950,000 shares with the underwriting was the equivalent of $83.1 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10305.663], "stop_times": [10318.969], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10305.663}, "reply_to": "15356__5_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_011", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10318.969], "stop_times": [10319.349], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10318.969}, "reply_to": "15356__5_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_012", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But if you find that it is not then there are several things that are wrong whether those are its fee that provides for interests its fee to provide the security and so on then it must go back.\nI should like --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10319.349, 10332.716], "stop_times": [10332.716, 10333.07], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10319.349}, "reply_to": "15356__5_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_013", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The reorganization court invented the underwriting agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10333.07], "stop_times": [10336.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10333.07}, "reply_to": "15356__5_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_014", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10336.232], "stop_times": [10337.018], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10336.232}, "reply_to": "15356__5_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_015", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That was accepted by the Commission in principle and it was accepted by the three-judge statutory court with a couple of minor fair variations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10337.018], "stop_times": [10346.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10337.018}, "reply_to": "15356__5_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_016", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, only Judge Winfield decided and said that it's still not provided --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10346.231], "stop_times": [10350.611], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10346.231}, "reply_to": "15356__5_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_017", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Voice Overlap) He said that there ought to be remanded to the Commission but he was in dissent for either more shares or some other provision that provide the full $83 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10350.611], "stop_times": [10358.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10350.611}, "reply_to": "15356__5_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_018", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10358.446], "stop_times": [10358.972], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10358.446}, "reply_to": "15356__5_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_019", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10358.972], "stop_times": [10360.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10358.972}, "reply_to": "15356__5_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_020", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, that's exactly the posture.\nThat's exactly the posture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10360.107, 10363.586], "stop_times": [10363.586, 10365.987], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10360.107}, "reply_to": "15356__5_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_021", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's what I knew and I take it it's something that it will cost $283 million now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10365.987], "stop_times": [10370.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10365.987}, "reply_to": "15356__5_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_022", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.\nNothing more or less but as of the closing date that we take in any amount once we could get them, I would like to say a word and I answer the question that Mr. Justice Black asked and that related to the question of who bore the burden here?\nSupposed the fact the Court decided that we were supposed to get how a $100 million, is that going to come out of the public's pocket or is that going to come out of Penn Central\u2019s pocket and the answer to that is quite simple.\nThe Commission has the power to make up that $100 million simply in shares of Penn Central.\nNow, if that happens --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10370.94, 10372.013, 10393.13, 10407.284, 10412.32], "stop_times": [10372.013, 10393.13, 10407.284, 10412.32, 10413.448], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10370.94}, "reply_to": "15356__5_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_023", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Simply in what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10413.448], "stop_times": [10414.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10413.448}, "reply_to": "15356__5_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__5_024", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Simply by providing the Penn Central pay the difference in shares of Penn Central and if that happens --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10414.669], "stop_times": [10422.84], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10414.669}, "reply_to": "15356__5_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_025", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If Penn Central pays this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10422.84], "stop_times": [10424.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10422.84}, "reply_to": "15356__5_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__5_026", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That's right, if Penn Central pay that, now if that happens that will have no effect on the ratemaking function or any other function it will just have an effect on the earnings per share of Penn Central which would be diluted as far as the equity holders of Penn Central were concerned.\nIt would have some modest effect on the equity that they would have because there'd be more shares outstanding than the earnings per share would therefore decline slightly.\nIt would have an immaterial effect therefore on Penn Central stockholders and no effect on the public if the Commission would like it to provide that difference in shares.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10424.819, 10447.495, 10458.235], "stop_times": [10447.495, 10458.235, 10468.063], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10424.819}, "reply_to": "15356__5_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_027", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But the new Railroad which died out for the burden from a $100 million or whatever that difference is, that it\u2019s had to pay out in some way, it would be a part of its assets, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10468.063], "stop_times": [10482.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10468.063}, "reply_to": "15356__5_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__5_028", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It would be a part of its assets because there is after all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10482.862], "stop_times": [10485.284], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10482.862}, "reply_to": "15356__5_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_029", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "(Voice Overlap) If it\u2019s entitled to earn commissions or earn rates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10485.284], "stop_times": [10492.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10485.284}, "reply_to": "15356__5_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__5_030", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, if on the assumption that it was receiving not $162 million worth of assets but $262 million worth of assets which is why its required to pay another $100 million.\nThere is no injury to Penn Central.\nIt's simply paying exactly for what it's getting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10492.324, 10506.899, 10508.8], "stop_times": [10506.899, 10508.8, 10511.568], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10492.324}, "reply_to": "15356__5_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_031", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "With no interest, but making to pay $100 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10511.568], "stop_times": [10515.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10511.568}, "reply_to": "15356__5_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__5_032", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, simply because all you have done is found that it was underpaying by a $100 million and taking advantage of the $100 million of the New Haven assets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10515.535], "stop_times": [10522.589], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10515.535}, "reply_to": "15356__5_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_033", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I understand the other argument.\nI understand the other argument; the bondholders are entitled to it.\nBut when the bondholders are entitled to it, they have to get it from somebody unless it's manufactured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10522.589, 10524.848, 10528.538], "stop_times": [10524.848, 10528.538, 10535.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10522.589}, "reply_to": "15356__5_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15356__5_034", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10535.118], "stop_times": [10536.671], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10535.118}, "reply_to": "15356__5_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_035", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Well, yours can be manufactured on account of the -- they would have to put the burden on the Penn Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10536.671], "stop_times": [10542.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10536.671}, "reply_to": "15356__5_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__5_036", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "In the form, Your Honor of shares it would not be a serious burden.\nIt would only be a serious burden.\nIt would be more of a burden obviously if it were in bonds because then there would be an addition to fixed charges.\nSuppose they have to issue another $100 million worth of bonds.\nThat issue another $100 million worth of bonds then those bonds have a 5% rate Penn Central would have to pay out $5 million a year.\nNow, that $5 million a year would have the effect on Penn Central\u2019s earnings per share, the 21 cents it will reduce their earnings per share by 21 cents if you gave a whole $100 million in bonds.\nIf on the other hand you gave in shares you would not effect the fixed charges at all because it wouldn\u2019t be a requirement that they pay dividends unless they were earned so the only difference would be as to the extent to which there might be some slight dividend in payment to the extent that you provided the additional conservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10542.707, 10546.788, 10549.284, 10556.574, 10560.441, 10569.633, 10583.497], "stop_times": [10546.788, 10549.284, 10556.574, 10560.441, 10569.633, 10583.497, 10603.519], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10542.707}, "reply_to": "15356__5_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_037", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But there wouldn't be any impairment on the -- I mean the same rate base would exists?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10603.519], "stop_times": [10609.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10603.519}, "reply_to": "15356__5_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_038", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "If you wish you would share us the same rate base on share --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10609.802], "stop_times": [10612.367], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10609.802}, "reply_to": "15356__5_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_039", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "The same asset value would go on about balance sheet for which we issue the share in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10612.367], "stop_times": [10616.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10612.367}, "reply_to": "15356__5_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_040", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10616.795], "stop_times": [10617.358], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10616.795}, "reply_to": "15356__5_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_041", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How do you know the same rate base?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10617.358], "stop_times": [10621.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10617.358}, "reply_to": "15356__5_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__5_042", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Because it wouldn't affect the fixed debt, Your Honor, all you were doing is honoring the equities structure here and not the debt structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10621.478], "stop_times": [10630.316], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10621.478}, "reply_to": "15356__5_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_043", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But suppose that the public may be given at least in another way by having the stocks on sales to the workman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10630.316], "stop_times": [10637.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10630.316}, "reply_to": "15356__5_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15356__5_044", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That might be, Your Honor.\nI would like to say to Mr. Justice White about the question as to whether these were in fact claims that came ahead.\nThe $60 million were actually claims that came ahead of those the bondholders that they were, all of them claims that came ahead of the bondholders claims, not just the trustee\u2019s certificates but the way in which all of these erosion occur was because the reorganization court enjoined the collection of a lot of obligations that we were running up in the course of that period so that the states were not being paid their taxes though their claims came ahead of us and indeed, the tort claims.\nPeople injured on the road during the administration they're still outstanding and the per diem claims.\nAll the railroads who put cars on our line, we have to pay it.\nWe weren't paying but their claims are ahead of ours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10637.354, 10639.3, 10647.97, 10681.661, 10688.501, 10691.659], "stop_times": [10639.3, 10647.97, 10681.661, 10688.501, 10691.659, 10694.64], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10637.354}, "reply_to": "15356__5_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_045", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But how about the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10694.64], "stop_times": [10694.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10694.64}, "reply_to": "15356__5_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_046", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Their administration claims that you can find all of that at page 181-A because the Commission itself set it out and put a value on it and made a chart and it appeals on the remand report and it\u2019s at page 181-A of the appendix of decisions of constitutional statutory provisions that were handed up with our briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10694.923], "stop_times": [10720.396], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10694.923}, "reply_to": "15356__5_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_047", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "How are the rolling stocks of your Railroad?\nWhere those probably under Philadelphia equipment trust or the equivalent, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10720.396, 10722.524], "stop_times": [10722.524, 10726.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10720.396}, "reply_to": "15356__5_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_048", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Somewhere --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10726.516], "stop_times": [10726.604], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10726.516}, "reply_to": "15356__5_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_049", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Additional sales?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10726.604], "stop_times": [10726.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10726.604}, "reply_to": "15356__5_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_050", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Some were it would have been repossessed and some have excess value or (Voice overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10726.637], "stop_times": [10730.284], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10726.637}, "reply_to": "15356__5_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_051", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your assets are primarily real estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10730.284], "stop_times": [10732.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10730.284}, "reply_to": "15356__5_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_052", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10732.567], "stop_times": [10732.936], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10732.567}, "reply_to": "15356__5_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_053", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Because those would be prior claims, wouldn't they?\nThey are all that cars and locomotives that were subject to that sort of a conditional sales or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10732.936, 10734.972], "stop_times": [10734.972, 10742.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10732.936}, "reply_to": "15356__5_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_054", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think that what happened there was that.\nWe have maintained those throughout the administration otherwise, they would have been repossessed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10742.357, 10746.673], "stop_times": [10746.673, 10752.518], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10742.357}, "reply_to": "15356__5_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_055", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10752.518], "stop_times": [10753.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10752.518}, "reply_to": "15356__5_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_056", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "And therefore although they were debts with respect to those Railroad costs those were taken over when the cars were taken over by Penn Central at the closing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10753.489], "stop_times": [10764.697], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10753.489}, "reply_to": "15356__5_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_057", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10764.697], "stop_times": [10765.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10764.697}, "reply_to": "15356__5_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_058", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But if you're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10765.643], "stop_times": [10766.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10765.643}, "reply_to": "15356__5_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_059", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Or else the rolling stock is repossessed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10766.387], "stop_times": [10768.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10766.387}, "reply_to": "15356__5_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15356__5_060", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10768.606], "stop_times": [10769.084], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10768.606}, "reply_to": "15356__5_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_061", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I suppose the delay in consummating the merger and the transfer in terms of liquidation value that probably is not at all negative as far as the bondholders is concerned.\nI suppose the real estate would sell more in 1970 than in 1960?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10769.084, 10782.34], "stop_times": [10782.34, 10787.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10769.084}, "reply_to": "15356__5_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "15356__5_062", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "That is exactly right, Your Honor and one of the earlier opinions of Judge Friendly.\nHe had noted that of course if you were going to predicate some kind of delay then you couldn't simply predicate the delay without revaluing the assets and therefore his remand in the first instance was on a very limited ground.\nHe had asked that the remand be on limited ground.\nIt is absolutely unfair however we may entail for the Commission to stand here on the posture and saying that there was a quantifying of risks with respect to that bulk sale.\nIf you read the Commission's report you will see that everything that the Commission has to say about the success under a single title limitations on the right to break up the Railroad.\nIt does, there was no question of quantifying any risks.\nMr. Simon did not know for example, whether the appraisals that he was addressing himself to had been made on a very conservative basis or whether they have been made on the generous basis.\nNow, obviously if you make it on a generous basis then you have got to worry about the possibility of whether it would be completed in six years or what other impacts thereat.\nMr. Simon knew nothing about that.\nWhat Mr. Simon said and it's quoted at page 29 of our reply brief was, \u201cwe are not talking today of about uses but we have been assuming of bulk sale and we have been discussing about the decision which is on Railroad\u2019s hands as to whether or not to go through a retail process themselves.\u201d\nAnd he says also, that -- and he said in other places that he himself did not study the appraisals.\nHe simply assumed that they were carefully made.\nIf he didn't know what the Commission in fact said about and that was that they were conservative.\nThey understood the possibility that there was 10-year liquidation study performed with a 7% discount as against the six-year liquidation with the 6% discount and they elected that but you'd have to imagine the most remarkable coincidence that precisely the profit the bulk buyer would require which was computed on the basis of 25% of his own invested capital giving him a profit of 15% and 75% borrowed at a 9% rate would exactly equal the risks which the Commission had somehow overlooked.\nObviously, he was not quantifying any of those risks because he didn't know what they were and that kind of coincidence would have been an absolute miracle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10787.711, 10793.336, 10808.418, 10811.713, 10821.677, 10832.593, 10835.413, 10846.961, 10857.585, 10865.915, 10883.862, 10890.568, 10893.227, 10899.277, 10935.117], "stop_times": [10793.336, 10808.418, 10811.713, 10821.677, 10832.593, 10835.413, 10846.961, 10857.585, 10865.915, 10883.862, 10890.568, 10893.227, 10899.277, 10935.117, 10944.723], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10787.711}, "reply_to": "15356__5_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_063", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Going back to this real estate evaluation again, to pursue Justice White's point.\nIf the generality of opinion about the real estate value is correct, it does not involve much risk for a buyer to buy real estates in 1970 at 1970 prices for payment on 1978?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10944.723, 10951.303], "stop_times": [10951.303, 10971.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10944.723}, "reply_to": "15356__5_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__5_064", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I would think not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10971.364], "stop_times": [10972.26], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10971.364}, "reply_to": "15356__5_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_065", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "It's the essence of your point on that evaluation of these properties, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10972.26], "stop_times": [10976.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10972.26}, "reply_to": "15356__5_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__5_066", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.\nThe inflationary factor alone is going to deprive him of a good deal of a risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10976.888, 10977.711], "stop_times": [10977.711, 10983.42], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10976.888}, "reply_to": "15356__5_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_067", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "So, what you're saying is that the Commission forced on the seller all or a very large part of the risks if not all of the risks on that score.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10983.42], "stop_times": [10992.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10983.42}, "reply_to": "15356__5_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15356__5_068", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I believe that that is correct, Your Honor.\nI believe that my answer however to a question of Mr. Justice Stewart's in the first part was subject to some misinterpretation.\nMy colleagues inform me that it was possible to interpret my answer's meaning but Penn Central have the right to buy in 50,000 share blocks from us and in that way we lost one of the advantages of the underwriting.\nWhat I meant was this that at any time they could pay us the difference between what the value of the shares than was at $87.50 and be free of the underwriting.\nNow, at that point we stood in precisely the same position as anybody else who bought shares of stock.\nIf we were stockholder, if we kept them, we kept them at our own risk.\nIf we sold them, we sold them on our own risk.\nAnd there was layer for this way out to avoid our having the best of both possible worlds.\nIn any event, that I would say is this, the underwriting saw the laces.\nIt puts us off so far ahead 1978.\nIt gives us that in such an insecure way.\nThat might be an enormous bill for Penn Central to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [10992.068, 10994.384, 11004.339, 11023.074, 11033.238, 11038.694, 11042.057, 11044.956, 11051.919, 11057.889, 11062.237, 11065.685], "stop_times": [10994.384, 11004.339, 11023.074, 11033.238, 11038.694, 11042.057, 11044.956, 11051.919, 11057.889, 11062.237, 11065.685, 11070.433], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 10992.068}, "reply_to": "15356__5_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_069", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But are you willing to accept stock at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11070.433], "stop_times": [11073.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11070.433}, "reply_to": "15356__5_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_070", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your Honor, I believe we went into -- I would say that the Commission has the power in such a force sale as this and I would say that this was never a reorganization --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11073.891], "stop_times": [11092.951], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 11073.891}, "reply_to": "15356__5_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_071", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Why?\nCan it require you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11092.951, 11093.477], "stop_times": [11093.477, 11095.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11092.951}, "reply_to": "15356__5_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_072", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "I think it could require us to take stock in all likelihood as long as it was that -- as long as it represented the cash equivalent of what they gave out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11095.179], "stop_times": [11104.136], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 11095.179}, "reply_to": "15356__5_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_073", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "On that day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11104.136], "stop_times": [11105.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11104.136}, "reply_to": "15356__5_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_074", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "On that day.\nI think that that far, its interest in -- that far it had a right to protect the public interest by seeing that it did not so burden Penn Central in the form of a payment.\nI don't think that it could take anything away from the bondholders so far as constitutional rights were concerned.\nBut so far as protecting Penn Central and the public interest in the form of a payment, as long as it gave us the equivalent of what we were asked, I think to that extent it could decide what the form of the security should be and we never complained about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11105.216, 11108.327, 11120.683, 11126.696], "stop_times": [11108.327, 11120.683, 11126.696, 11142.911], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 11105.216}, "reply_to": "15356__5_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_075", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "But you could never sell that as offered for that much on that day, could you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11142.911], "stop_times": [11148.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11142.911}, "reply_to": "15356__5_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15356__5_076", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "No, Your Honor and in our briefs we have pointed out that that was another error that while with respect to our real estate for example, every selling expense was deducted.\nBrokerage fees, lawyers\u2019 fess, the expensive advertising, and everything else in order to get down to out net salvage value.\nWith respect to the shares at $83.1 million, even then they failed to take it into account our selling expenses as a counter, you know, in order to keep both sides of the equation equitable but they did not do that.\nOn the Harlem River Yards point, I would like to say this.\nMr. Cox, it seems to me is still suggesting that we are entitled the liquidation value on something less than our best method of liquidation.\nBoth -- there were two witnesses for Penn Central on the Harlem River Yards and both right on the river.\nPenn Central witnesses testified that someone would provide service to those yards.\nThis was not something that we have made up.\nThe only question is where it is clear that someone would provide rail service to those yards is there any basis in law for valuing and for finding that liquidation value on something less than fair market value on our best method of liquidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11148.7, 11161.624, 11168.525, 11193.939, 11199.907, 11209.173, 11216.118, 11221.181, 11223.725], "stop_times": [11161.624, 11168.525, 11193.939, 11199.907, 11209.173, 11216.118, 11221.181, 11223.725, 11243.173], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 11148.7}, "reply_to": "15356__5_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15356__5_077", "conversation_id": "15356", "text": "Your time is up counsel.\nWe will not to commence the second case for today that was involved splitting the argument and counsel could not possibly finished today so we will arise at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_915", "start_times": [11243.173, 11246.411], "stop_times": [11246.411, 11265.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11243.173}, "reply_to": "15356__5_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_000", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Number 268, Parker against North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [20.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_001", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "May it please the Court.\nMr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [20.182, 22.083], "stop_times": [22.083, 23.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 20.182}, "reply_to": "15452__0_000", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_002", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Mr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [23.871], "stop_times": [24.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 23.871}, "reply_to": "15452__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_003", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "I'm Norman Smith, I represent the petitioner in this case.\nThis is a companion case to the Albert case and it again has to do with our North Carolina statutory system on the rendering of guilty pleas in capital cases.\nThis proceeding is by habeas -- was by our statutory substitute for habeas corpus in North Carolina, our statutory Post Conviction Hearing Act.\nThere was a petition for certiorari from an adverse determination there to our Court of Appeals in North Carolina which is our intermediate Appellate Court for most matters, but which is a court of final appellate jurisdiction for post conviction matters.\nAgain, there was an adverse determination and again petition for certiorari that was filed in this Court, which of course was granted.\nThis case has its beginnings in 1964, in the summer of 1964 the petitioner who was then a 15-year-old child was arrested by police at gun point about 11:00 one night in the City of Roanoke Rapids in North Carolina and he was taken to an interrogation cell and there he was interrogated for a time.\nHe at first was extremely uncooperative, indeed refused to give his name and address.\nHowever, he apparently from some source knew that it was good idea to ask for counsel under these circumstances and the record indicates without any impeachment or contradiction that he did request that a counsel be provided for him.\nThe police securing no fruits from their labors of interrogation on the initial interview placed him in a dimly lit or unlighted cell for the night in which there was no water available to him nor no food given to him.\nHe was held over night and next morning he was again interrogated, this time he broke down rather quickly and did render a statement to the police, an oral statement to the effect that he had gone into the house in question and that he had committed some form of house breaking or that he had gotten through the door and some manner.\nThe precise detail of this statement or confession is not a part of the record at any point along the way and I might like to point out to the Court here on this point that there was no hearing in Superior Court at the time the guilty plea was rendered in this case.\nThat is there was no evidentiary hearing, no -- none of the state's testimony was given insofar as the record indicates and I'm not personally aware that there was one.\nThere was some --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [24.02, 28.032, 41.583, 53.057, 67.322, 77.277, 107.462, 113.169, 131.974, 148.596, 174.085, 191.129, 200.343], "stop_times": [28.032, 41.583, 53.057, 67.322, 77.277, 107.462, 113.169, 131.974, 148.596, 174.085, 191.129, 200.343, 201.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 24.02}, "reply_to": "15452__0_002", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_004", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Are you familiar or not with the -- with the law of your state which I certain I'm not to know whether it is the practice to do that or not sure or is it varied by county or is it varied by case or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [201.475], "stop_times": [213.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.475}, "reply_to": "15452__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_005", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "It varies by the -- most of operation of individual solicitors and judge, There is as far as I know no statutory compulsion that this be done.\nSome judges in the exercise of care like to have -- always have something on this order.\nI think defendants quite clearly at this time also were permitted to make statements and to present evidence if they wished to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [213.366, 223.683, 229.123], "stop_times": [223.683, 229.123, 235.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 213.366}, "reply_to": "15452__0_004", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_006", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "On this four I gather that is from the record of the other case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [235.455], "stop_times": [239.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.455}, "reply_to": "15452__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_007", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes, there is no attention to the rules of evidence during such hearings.\nThe defendants are permitted to get up and through counsel or give all sorts of unsworn testimonies to what kind of good character they have and so forth and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [239.168, 243.215], "stop_times": [243.215, 251.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 239.168}, "reply_to": "15452__0_006", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_008", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "This is a guilty plea and I suppose the purpose is to (a) ascertain whether the guilty plea is knowingly and voluntarily made not to cut against your case, I don't mean to, but and then but the purpose generally is for that and then also I suppose insofar as the trial judge has discretion in imposing sentence to apprise him of the circumstances of the offense so he can intelligently exercise his discretion, would that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [251.981], "stop_times": [279.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.981}, "reply_to": "15452__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_009", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I think that's true, I think some of our judges except the philosophy of Rule 11 to the effect that there should always be basis in fact for the plea and then also of course it must be knowingly and voluntarily --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [279.294], "stop_times": [291.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 279.294}, "reply_to": "15452__0_008", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_010", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "In this case, there was no discretion as far as the [Voice Overlaps] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [291.937], "stop_times": [296.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.937}, "reply_to": "15452__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_011", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "The record does indicate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [296.289], "stop_times": [297.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 296.289}, "reply_to": "15452__0_010", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_012", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "-- am I correct about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [297.665], "stop_times": [299.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.665}, "reply_to": "15452__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_013", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "There was some colloquially between the court and the defendant and between the court and defendant's mother in which the court did inquire in the certain circumstances of defendant, his age, his educational background.\nWe're shown friends and said he had unsuccessfully been enrolled in the ninth grade, I think the year prior.\nThis was -- I think the record does indicate that this case had extreme racial aspects to it, the [Voice Overlaps]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [299.197, 313.348, 323.563], "stop_times": [313.348, 323.563, 329.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 299.197}, "reply_to": "15452__0_012", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_014", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Just before you proceed, perhaps you didn't understand my last question.\nDid the court have any discretion whatsoever in the sentence to be imposed in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [329.766, 332.915], "stop_times": [332.915, 337.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.766}, "reply_to": "15452__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_015", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "I'm sorry, no this was under our old rule --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [337.05], "stop_times": [339.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 337.05}, "reply_to": "15452__0_014", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_016", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "A mandatory life sentence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [339.614], "stop_times": [340.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.614}, "reply_to": "15452__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_017", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "-- and it was a mandatory life sentence, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [340.987], "stop_times": [342.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 340.987}, "reply_to": "15452__0_016", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_018", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "-- could not be greater, could not be less?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [342.746], "stop_times": [344.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.746}, "reply_to": "15452__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_019", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's right sir.\nThis was charged a first degree burglary.\nThere was no indication that any other charges were being considered at that time.\nAlthough, there is a gratuitous finding by the judge, who heard the post conviction case that he shouldn't been charged with rape as well.\nIncidentally, the state has made the point in its brief and I think if I may say so quite inappropriately that there was an admission of guilt by the defendant in the post conviction hearing that he fully admitted his guilt and so forth and so on.\nI think a careful reading of the record indicates that the defendant did not admit guilt of either rape or burglary.\nHe did admit that entered this house that he had relations with the woman who was there, but he was arrested as the record indicates on the very doorstep of the same house four nights later and it's quite clear that there was strong element of consent or implied consent or some sort of an arrangement which is hidden by background and has not been disclosed on the facts of the case.\nI hope that there will be new trial in this case and I hope that at the new trial, the defendant will have fair and full right to bring all these matters out to the attention of the triers of fact.\nAlso, some further brief background material on the defendant; there is a psychiatric evaluation of the petitioner in the record indicating that he is an inhibitive and impulsive individual and this likely to act in such ways to secure his immediate goals.\nWe suggest that in this case the immediate goal of the defendant and the overwhelming goal that loomed in front of him was the avoidance of capital punishment because of the strong racial connections which this case had in the times and spirit of the times in which the case was heard or brought up and we think that the record demonstrate that there was a very substantial fact of this present.\nThe whole theoretical basis for the Jackson case as I understand it is this compulsion or this tendency to coerce people to render involuntary pleas for them to give up their rights of trial by jury and the right to plead not guilty, the right to have a full trial.\nI realize the course of the actual facts of the Jackson case and precise holding of the Jackson case go off in a different direction as the Court pointed out a moment ago in this raised argument, but it seems to me the whole theoretical basis for the Jackson case is to provide some protection for a person found in the position of the petitioner in this case.\nWe say that the evidence on the record indicates that there was substantial coercion present.\nWe say that there should be some sort of a test formulated by the Court in this case to determine when and when not to extend Jackson protection to an individual.\nWe fully and candidly recognize that the court is not prepared to carve out a per se rule and to say that every guilty plea to every capital offense heretofore in one of those states or the federal jurisdiction where a Jackson type statute obtained must be now set aside.\nWe do say however that some sort of test must be devised by the Court to decide when and when not to set aside these judgments and convictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [344.697, 346.245, 348.571, 352.358, 359.895, 375.355, 381.321, 403.784, 417.12, 433.845, 460.488, 485.005, 508.265, 516.645, 527.957, 547.506], "stop_times": [346.245, 348.571, 352.358, 359.895, 375.355, 381.321, 403.784, 417.12, 433.845, 460.488, 485.005, 508.265, 516.645, 527.957, 547.506, 557.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 344.697}, "reply_to": "15452__0_018", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_020", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, counsel could you tell me whether in any case where the death sentence is a possibility, is it permitted in your view for the defendant to plead guilty to some lesser offense?\nWhat be the conditions that would have to exist to permit that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [557.595, 574.905], "stop_times": [574.905, 580.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.595}, "reply_to": "15452__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_021", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, Your Honor of course the facts of my case do not involve a lesser offense, but I realize that the Court does have that problem in the series of cases.\nMy client here pleaded to the capital offense.\nI would say, I've discussed this point in a footnote in the brief.\nI suggested that where the lesser included offense carries a sentence so large that it is tantamount to life imprisonment that then the matter should be considered on a parity with a guilty plea carrying life imprisonment itself.\nAnd thus I suppose this rule would extend to Mrs. Bray's case.\nI don't know where the stopping point is Your Honor.\nLike this case as in many other cases the stopping point some where must be arbitrary and where this Court will place it or should place it, I cannot say.\nI do say however that my client falls within the boundary and within the limit for which we contend here.\nI would think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [580.325, 591.07, 594.949, 599.665, 618.488, 623.071, 626.322, 635.724, 644.917], "stop_times": [591.07, 594.949, 599.665, 618.488, 623.071, 626.322, 635.724, 644.917, 646.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 580.325}, "reply_to": "15452__0_020", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_022", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "And that's because he plea -- he entered a plea of guilty as charged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [646.227], "stop_times": [651.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.227}, "reply_to": "15452__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_023", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes to the offense which ordinarily would be capital, were it not for the entering of the guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [651.89], "stop_times": [661.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 651.89}, "reply_to": "15452__0_022", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_024", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "I presume that the stopping place would be a constitutional stopping place, wouldn't it, not just a decision of this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [661.551], "stop_times": [669.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.551}, "reply_to": "15452__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__0_025", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, of course this Court is charged with the duty of finding such as stopping place, Your Honor.\nI don't know where it would be.\nI suggest it as I say in the footnote that maybe the stopping point would be where you get a sentence which is tantamount to life imprisonment such as Henry Alfrod's 30-year sentence although that's not in my case and I really unable to say with certainty.\nI would think that the test -- that the Court should invoke in these cases is something like a test devise in Chapman versus California, carrying forward the realization that in not every case would the guilty plea be set aside, but only in those cases where the evidence made some showing that the fear of the death house, the fear of the gas chamber had an effect, substantial effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [669.595, 675.326, 677.636, 692.201], "stop_times": [675.326, 677.636, 692.201, 723.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 669.595}, "reply_to": "15452__0_024", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_026", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That would be every case, wouldn't it, wouldn't the fear of the death house always be factor that could exert influence, if not the coercion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [723.454], "stop_times": [734.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.454}, "reply_to": "15452__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_027", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [734.964], "stop_times": [735.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 734.964}, "reply_to": "15452__0_026", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_028", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "How could it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [735.583], "stop_times": [736.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.583}, "reply_to": "15452__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_029", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "-- I think one would have to say substantial influence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [736.188], "stop_times": [740.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 736.188}, "reply_to": "15452__0_028", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_030", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Could it be otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [740.91], "stop_times": [743.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.91}, "reply_to": "15452__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_031", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "I think it probably could be otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [743.207], "stop_times": [745.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 743.207}, "reply_to": "15452__0_030", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_032", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Do you think -- do you see anything in the constitution which either forbids or tends to discourage or cast any doubt upon the whole idea of having guilty pleas entered in criminal cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [745.721], "stop_times": [761.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.721}, "reply_to": "15452__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__0_033", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "No, Your Honor I certainly am not attacking idea of allowing guilty pleas.\nI think you get into a quagmire when you have a disparity in sentencing, one involving life and the other involving death when you base a guilty plea on that distinction.\nFortunately not every state is gotten into that quagmire.\nThere are only some eight states and the federal jurisdiction indicating from footnotes contained in our brief and also footnotes or portions of the amicus brief filed by the NAACP legal defense fund.\nAlso, on the basis of some rather sketchy statistics which I've gathered in the brief and which are on file with the Court, it's indicated that perhaps the total number of prisoners who would be affected by a favorable decision for my client in this case would not be an overwhelming number in that a great number of prisoners who've served out almost as many years as the average prisoner normally serves of the life sentence before dying or being paroled or in somehow the way terminating the service.\nAnd that also we're not contending for a per se rule but we would only provide new trials for those persons who could show in some way that the guilty -- that the fear of the gas chamber contributed substantially to the guilty plea so that the floodgate argument may not be as persuasive in this case as it would appear on the first blush.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [761.668, 765.341, 778.635, 782.007, 795.704, 829.402], "stop_times": [765.341, 778.635, 782.007, 795.704, 829.402, 860.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 761.668}, "reply_to": "15452__0_032", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_034", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Is your client [Inaudible] bars or --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [860.563], "stop_times": [864.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.563}, "reply_to": "15452__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__0_035", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "No, he's been denied relief all along the way and he is serving his life sentence.\nAlso, in the present case, we feel that when you take the statutory construction together with the coerced confession which was obtained from the petitioner that these together make a rather potent showing of an invalidity of the guilty plea.\nThe confession was clearly in violation of the Escobedo Rule.\nIt was subsequent to the pronouncement of the Escobedo case and also we feel that the confession violated the principles declared by this Court in Gallagos versus Colorado.\nConsidering the youth, the educational limitation as a physiological deficit of the prisoner, the fact that the prisoner's mother was kept from seeing him during the night in which the confession was obtained, his isolation and the denial of drinking water and other matters which are brought out in the record and which are not overcome by any adverse evidence.\nEven giving the state the benefit of always favorable testimony we feel quite clearly that under constitutional standards as shown by this Court, there was a coerced confession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [864.338, 873.275, 892.185, 896.346, 909.487, 932.9], "stop_times": [873.275, 892.185, 896.346, 909.487, 932.9, 945.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 864.338}, "reply_to": "15452__0_034", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_036", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Is your United States against Jackson argument really just a part of a coerced confession argument or do you think it's an additional or different argument, did it deny it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [945.165], "stop_times": [955.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.165}, "reply_to": "15452__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_037", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Oh!\nWe think the two go forward together and both taint the plea.\nWe feel that this coerced confession adds weight to the Jackson type infirmity that was present in this case.\nHow far the Court should go in allowing new trials when there is a Jackson defect in the statutes, I don't know.\nI would suggest though that because of this additional problem relating to the voluntariness of the confession, the Court would be justified certainly in setting this guilty plea aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [955.611, 955.96, 961.272, 970.952, 978.503], "stop_times": [955.96, 961.272, 970.952, 978.503, 991.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 955.611}, "reply_to": "15452__0_036", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_038", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "So, you think in this case the -- your claim is that the guilty plea resulted from a combination of things, all bad --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [991.378], "stop_times": [1001.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.378}, "reply_to": "15452__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_039", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1001.766], "stop_times": [1002.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1001.766}, "reply_to": "15452__0_038", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_040", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "-- (A) a coerced confession and (B) the statutory scheme of North Carolina which was coercive upon a person to plead guilty, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1002.52], "stop_times": [1015.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.52}, "reply_to": "15452__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_041", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's right sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1015.874], "stop_times": [1016.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1015.874}, "reply_to": "15452__0_040", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_042", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "A combination of both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1016.966], "stop_times": [1019.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.966}, "reply_to": "15452__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_043", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "And we have another aspect to this case I want to bring briefly to the Court's attention if I may that is a completely unrelated matter, but certiorari was just generally granted in this case so I assume that the Court is interested in it.\nAnd this was the point concerning the systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand jury which indicted the petitioner, of course he never came to trial, so the trial jury is not in question here.\nQuite clearly the statistics in this case show that the petitioner comes within that long line of cases decided by the Court on the permissible limits of racial exclusion of grand jurors providing he did not waive his right to attack this jurisdictional defect of the court.\nEvidence shows that seven-and-a-half percent of the jurors served on grand juries for the preceding four years that the Negro, five-and-a-half percent of those who served on the particular grand jury which indicted him were Negro.\nOnly 4.4% of the jurors who had served for four years on all jury venires are were Negro, whereas the total population, the total adult population of county was 45% Negro and the tax payers of the county were 39%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1019.317, 1037.483, 1051.763, 1075.01, 1090.504], "stop_times": [1037.483, 1051.763, 1075.01, 1090.504, 1107.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1019.317}, "reply_to": "15452__0_042", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_044", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "What do you say to the answer that Court of Appeals made that that was objected to little -- three years after the conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1107.76], "stop_times": [1115.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.76}, "reply_to": "15452__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15452__0_045", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's the problem Your Honor, I think were faced with here.\nWe have a conflict of authority prevailing in our part of the country and we're depending on this Court to clear it up.\nThe Fourth Circuit, under the case of McNeil versus North Carolina and I might add the Fifth Circuit under the case of Cobb versus Balcombe and others has determined that there can be no waiver of such a constitutional jurisdictional defect to the court unless there is a showing of an intentional, knowing waiver living up to the full requirement of Carnley v. Cochran and Fay v. Noia and the other waiver cases that this Court has determined.\nThe Court of Appeals of North Carolina on the other hand says he's represented by counsel, counsel is presumptively competent.\nEven though this matter was not discussed between petitioners and his counsel nor even brought up by the counsel or was it in any way brought to anyone's attention by the court, but he nevertheless is deemed to waive it.\nWe say there cannot be a valid waiver when it takes place in a vacuum, when it takes place in the midst of ignorance and lack of information, lack of discussion so forth.\nThis Court quite clearly has stated that waiver is a personal decision which must be arrived at by the defendant himself.\nIn consultation with counsel he must have all of the facts at his disposal and that he must himself participate in the decision.\nApplying these principles to a similar case, the Fourth Circuit and McNeil versus North Carolina and the Fifth Circuit in Cobb v. Balcombe have come to me what is the inescapable conclusion that a waiver of constitutional nature must be established.\nHere, there is utterly an absence of evidence on this point that would favor the state and all the evidence clearly is in the petitioner's favor and that there was no discussion and consideration of it and we feel that constitution here compels a retrial on that ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1115.152, 1118.515, 1125.197, 1155.58, 1162.1, 1173.721, 1186.27, 1195.76, 1203.274, 1220.228], "stop_times": [1118.515, 1125.197, 1155.58, 1162.1, 1173.721, 1186.27, 1195.76, 1203.274, 1220.228, 1247.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1115.152}, "reply_to": "15452__0_044", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_046", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "The constitution you say compels that this conviction be set aside -- this judgment be set aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1247.216], "stop_times": [1254.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.216}, "reply_to": "15452__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_047", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1254.766], "stop_times": [1255.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1254.766}, "reply_to": "15452__0_046", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_048", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "And for what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1255.422], "stop_times": [1256.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.422}, "reply_to": "15452__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_049", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, for two reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1256.849], "stop_times": [1258.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1256.849}, "reply_to": "15452__0_048", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_050", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes, I understand why you say it should be set aside, but then set aside and for what further proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1258.254], "stop_times": [1263.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.254}, "reply_to": "15452__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_051", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, I should think the state would have to bring a new indictment against the petitioner and would have try him anew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1263.536], "stop_times": [1268.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1263.536}, "reply_to": "15452__0_050", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_052", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Try him or could he plead guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1268.76], "stop_times": [1272.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.76}, "reply_to": "15452__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_053", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, he probably could plead guilty if he chose to do so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1272.331], "stop_times": [1275.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1272.331}, "reply_to": "15452__0_052", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_054", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Then wouldn't we back here with the same case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1275.322], "stop_times": [1278.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.322}, "reply_to": "15452__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_055", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, if I were his lawyer I wouldn't advise him to plead guilty under the circumstances.\nI think I advise not guilty plea.\nSome of the persons of his own race now a days in North Carolina would be on his jury.\nI think he'd have a fair shake and I'd be quite willing to try this case on a not guilty plea and quite willing to bring it up here again if constitutional defects came in the trial which I hope and pray would not be the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1278.036, 1285.705, 1287.901, 1292.032], "stop_times": [1285.705, 1287.901, 1292.032, 1305.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1278.036}, "reply_to": "15452__0_054", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_056", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "But that would as a practical matter I suppose to be the result or reversal, would it not, that he'd be tried again by a jury which as I understand it if there is a finding of guilt would result in a death sentence unless the jury recommended mercy in which it would be a life sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1305.921], "stop_times": [1329.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.921}, "reply_to": "15452__0_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15452__0_057", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes sir, he fully understands that because I explained this to a very throughly before the post conviction proceeding was commenced whether, a point Ms. Bray discussed is whether one once having received life can be put at risk of death again under these double jeopardy cases as I suppose at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1329.635], "stop_times": [1354.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1329.635}, "reply_to": "15452__0_056", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_058", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "You say he thought he could -- you'd won if he were indictment to the plea guilty under the North Carolina statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1354.037], "stop_times": [1363.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.037}, "reply_to": "15452__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__0_059", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Not -- he could not plea guilty to burglary or rape because you can no longer do so in North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1363.011], "stop_times": [1368.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1363.011}, "reply_to": "15452__0_058", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_060", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1368.587], "stop_times": [1369.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1368.587}, "reply_to": "15452__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__0_061", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's right.\nWell, I believe I have nothing further except to thank the Court for hearing the argument and praying once again that the relief request be granted.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1369.277, 1372.823, 1382.902], "stop_times": [1372.823, 1382.902, 1384.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1369.277}, "reply_to": "15452__0_060", "speaker": "norman_b_smith"}
{"id": "15452__0_062", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Mr. Safron.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1384.735], "stop_times": [1389.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.735}, "reply_to": "15452__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15452__1_000", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nInitially, I believe I have to disagree with the presentation of counsel's facts.\nAdmittedly, approximately four nights before the night his client was arrested, this particular house in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina was broken into and the female occupant raped.\nAs a result, the house was put under surveillance and it occurred to approximately 11 PM on that Sunday night.\nAnd now at approximately 11 PM four nights later, Thursday night the house is under surveillance and the youth is viewed as he comes upon the grounds and comes to the door at that point he is arrested, at gun point of course, naturally.\nHe was then brought to the police station, it's now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1389.345, 1392.335, 1403.95, 1420.405, 1427.93, 1450.888], "stop_times": [1392.335, 1403.95, 1420.405, 1427.93, 1450.888, 1453.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1389.345}, "reply_to": "15452__0_062", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_001", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "You say the house was under surveillance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1453.744], "stop_times": [1455.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.744}, "reply_to": "15452__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_002", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1455.839], "stop_times": [1457.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1455.839}, "reply_to": "15452__1_001", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_003", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "At the time the burglary was committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1457.486], "stop_times": [1460.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.486}, "reply_to": "15452__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_004", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "This is four nights later when he comes back --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1460.057], "stop_times": [1463.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1460.057}, "reply_to": "15452__1_003", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_005", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1463.457], "stop_times": [1463.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.457}, "reply_to": "15452__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_006", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "The house was under surveillance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1463.667], "stop_times": [1465.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1463.667}, "reply_to": "15452__1_005", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_007", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Four nights later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1465.253], "stop_times": [1466.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.253}, "reply_to": "15452__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_008", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's right Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1466.266], "stop_times": [1467.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1466.266}, "reply_to": "15452__1_007", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_009", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "But it was not the night that was broken into.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1467.176], "stop_times": [1470.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.176}, "reply_to": "15452__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_010", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Oh!\nNo Your Honor, of course not.\nHe was brought to the police station for interrogation.\nHe refused to tell his name, refused to tell where he was from.\nHe was interrogated for approximately two hours.\nHe was put in a cell for the remainder of the evening.\nThis is from approximately 1:00 at night on, but they're not -- I would not believe that the cell was dimly lit or not lit at all for the middle of the night.\nHe hadn't told the police officers who he was or where he'd come from.\nThe police officers had to find out who he was independently and having determined independently who he was in the middle of the night in approximately 3:30 or 4:30, they went to the mother's house and told the mother that her son was in custody.\nAnd if they said, don't bother coming now or whatever they might have said, I don't know, but the next morning at sun rise, the mother was on the door steps of a very competent law firm in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina waiting for the doors to open up and as soon as an attorney came in, she employed Mr. Cranford.\nAlmost contemporaneously, the defendant was interrogated again early that morning, this is before counsel was employed and he admitted and confessed to the crime.\nCounsel arrived on the scene having been hired by the mother just a few minutes after --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1470.042, 1470.167, 1473.806, 1479.563, 1485.31, 1489.155, 1493.835, 1507.323, 1511.333, 1535.728, 1564.46, 1581.848], "stop_times": [1470.167, 1473.806, 1479.563, 1485.31, 1489.155, 1493.835, 1507.323, 1511.333, 1535.728, 1564.46, 1581.848, 1589.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1470.042}, "reply_to": "15452__1_009", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_011", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "What did you say counsel's was name was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1589.651], "stop_times": [1591.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.651}, "reply_to": "15452__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_012", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Cranford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1591.615], "stop_times": [1593.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1591.615}, "reply_to": "15452__1_011", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_013", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Not the counsel that's now representing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1593.242], "stop_times": [1595.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.242}, "reply_to": "15452__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_014", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThis was privately retained counsel George O. Cranford of the Roanoke Rapids Bar.\nHe arrived and he asked the petitioner, this is in the record just a few minutes later, was he scared and whether the attorney questioned petitioner is to whether when he made the confession had he threatened in any manner, whether any promises were made to him and whether he was scared at the time he made the statement, this is in the record.\nPetitioner told counsel that no threats or promises had been made then he was not scared.\nFor two days --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1595.374, 1596.159, 1601.862, 1626.876, 1636.814], "stop_times": [1596.159, 1601.862, 1626.876, 1636.814, 1638.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1595.374}, "reply_to": "15452__1_013", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_015", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Is that evidence undisputed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1638.076], "stop_times": [1641.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.076}, "reply_to": "15452__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_016", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Completely undisputed Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1641.2], "stop_times": [1642.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1641.2}, "reply_to": "15452__1_015", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_017", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "What you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1642.722], "stop_times": [1643.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.722}, "reply_to": "15452__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15452__1_018", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's undisputed, that's on page 67 of the appendix.\nAt the time of the trial, or when the case was on the docket for that term for two days preceding the trial, counsel spent these two days with petitioner and his mother and a written authorization was prepared as required by North Carolina law upon the submission of a plea of guilty to a capital case.\nThe law requires that a plea of guilty to a capital case be in writing.\nOut of an abundance of caution, finally retained counsel, Mr. Cranford after these two days that he spent with the defendant and his mother, called in a fellow member of the bar to witness the execution of the authorization.\nThis fellow member of the bar out of an abundance of caution in his own right interrogated the defendant and his mother at the time the defendant signed the written authorization, this is in the record too.\nThat's in the appendix, page 73, Charlie D. Clark Jr. attorney at law in Roanoke Rapids wanted to be absolutely certain that petitioner knew what he was doing and the consequences of his act.\nThe written tender of the plea of guilty was submitted to the court.\nIt was accepted by the solicitor in writing and was accepted by the judge.\nThe court, this is in the record, interrogated the defendant as to the voluntariness of his plea and the court also interrogated the defendant's mother in the courtroom, whereupon, the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment was imposed.\nFrom the facts of this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1643.741, 1652.03, 1677.659, 1684.319, 1704.777, 1725.479, 1742.567, 1746.742, 1754.414, 1778.442], "stop_times": [1652.03, 1677.659, 1684.319, 1704.777, 1725.479, 1742.567, 1746.742, 1754.414, 1778.442, 1780.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1643.741}, "reply_to": "15452__1_017", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_019", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "And how old was he at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1780.628], "stop_times": [1782.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.628}, "reply_to": "15452__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15452__1_020", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "He was 15, Your Honor.\nAnd the facts of this case, I don't believe a discussion is necessary upon whether or not the confession was involuntary, I believe the facts speak for themselves and of course the Jackson defect, we have previously argued.\nI'd like to spend some time on this question of grand jury discrimination.\nMr. Smith was the post conviction attorney.\nHe represented Mr. Parker at the post conviction.\nThe only witness put on the stand was a Register of Deeds of Halifax County and from the testimony of Mr. Smith's witness or Mr. Wilson's testimony, it was apparent that there was no racial discrimination that the -- then statutory scheme in North Carolina was that the names for the grand jury were selected from the tax rolls.\nAdmittedly, at that time, there were tax rolls maintain for both Caucasian and white -- excuse me Caucasian and Negro, this is subsequently been changed by statute and no longer exist.\nThe tax rolls had to prepare that way but the names in the jury box had no indication, no racial discrimination.\nThe testimony presented by Mr. Smith's witness show that the jury commissioners came from different parts of the county, selected individuals who were known to them to be of good moral character that the same criteria were applied uniformly.\nNow, I submit that perhaps what we get to in this instance is something akin to the former blue ribbon grand jury selection used in the Federal District Courts.\nThere is no deliberate showing of racial exclusion, merely a showing that these jury commissioners pick up people known to them to be a good moral character.\nPerhaps of any issue confronting this Court today, this issue could perhaps to be most vital because it is counsel's contention here that unless there is a free, voluntary and knowing waiver of the right to attack the grand jury that that attack can be made at any time.\nSo, it would appear that not only upon a plea of guilty, if counsel's arguments were to be followed, but also upon a plea of not guilty, unless the state could show that the waiver to attack the grand jury was freely, voluntarily and understandingly made.\nIn the State of North Carolina since 1902, for the case of State v. Peoples, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that a defendant who cold show racial exclusion in the composition of the grand jury which indicted him was entitled to relief.\nOur statutes expressly provide that the method of grand jury selection maybe attacked.\nThat attack has to come either one, prior to arraignment or two, prior to swearing in of the petit jury.\nThis rule is quite similar to the rule in effect in the federal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [1782.611, 1784.986, 1803.941, 1813.202, 1818.605, 1826.433, 1858.286, 1872.089, 1882.769, 1904.684, 1919.808, 1935.514, 1963.858, 1985.725, 2004.018, 2010.717, 2020.04], "stop_times": [1784.986, 1803.941, 1813.202, 1818.605, 1826.433, 1858.286, 1872.089, 1882.769, 1904.684, 1919.808, 1935.514, 1963.858, 1985.725, 2004.018, 2010.717, 2020.04, 2025.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1782.611}, "reply_to": "15452__1_019", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_021", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Mr. Safron, what worries me just this moment, is that these two lawyers were so abundantly cautious in getting all this business for the plea of guilty, but they didn't get it written up that he voluntarily waived his grievance against the grand jury, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2025.004], "stop_times": [2052.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.004}, "reply_to": "15452__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15452__1_022", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's true Your Honor, it's not included.\nI'll be quite frank with you, in all the authorizations of guilty pleas that I have ever seen prepared by counsel, I have yet to see counsel include that particular waiver.\nUsually, it's an authorization to plead guilty that the defendant understands his rights, but I have never seen that specified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2052.224, 2053.817, 2067.928], "stop_times": [2053.817, 2067.928, 2075.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2052.224}, "reply_to": "15452__1_021", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_023", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "During all these discussion with his mother over two days, am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2075.264], "stop_times": [2080.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.264}, "reply_to": "15452__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15452__1_024", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2080.429], "stop_times": [2081.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2080.429}, "reply_to": "15452__1_023", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_025", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Was that matter discussed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2081.056], "stop_times": [2082.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.056}, "reply_to": "15452__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15452__1_026", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Apparently not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2082.893], "stop_times": [2084.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2082.893}, "reply_to": "15452__1_025", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_027", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "How could it been waived if it wasn't discussed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2084.645], "stop_times": [2089.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.645}, "reply_to": "15452__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15452__1_028", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, he was represented by privately retained counsel, Your Honor and apparently privately retained counsel was doing -- performing for his client the best services that he thought available under the circumstances.\nBut what concerns me is this.\nOur statutes provide you may attack the grand jury selection.\nThe federal rules provide that you can attack grand jury selection at any time prior, I believe similar here it is Rule 12 (b) (2).\nThe federal rules of criminal procedure provide defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information other than it fails to show jurisdiction to the court would charge an offense maybe raise only by motion before trial.\nMotion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to defendant.\nI submit that in either a trial upon a plea of not guilty or trial upon or submission of a guilty plea that this could have a horrendous effect if this Court were now to require that each and every such instance that the waiver be on the record.\nThe federal system had blue ribbon grand jury selection.\nNot only of what we are talking now about Negro defendants, we're talking about Spanish-American defendants, we're talking about Puerto Rican and an attack could be made in the federal system, if collateral attack could be made on grand jury selection on behalf of every indigent white defendant.\nBecause the former system in effect in the federal courts under the former blue ribbon system of grand jury selection presented a middle class grand jury.\nThe indigents were not on that grand jury and so I submit that the total effect here would permit every defendant convicted on either plea of guilty or not guilty, unless somehow an express waiver could be shown that he would be now be permitted to collaterally attack the grand jury which indicted him.\nThat this defendant is not given the opportunity to choose his own time and his own place to contest his guilt now that the evidence is in most instances no longer available now that the witnesses have moved or they forgotten, now that many instances are dead and the evidence has been destroyed.\nI submit that the picture presented would perhaps completely overburden the courts of all the states and of the federal judiciary.\nThis case of course also presents the Jackson issue and also presents the issue of whether or not Jackson is retroactive, if Jackson is applicable.\nThere are at the present time according to my research either eight or nine states which have possible Jackson defects if this Court should rule that these defects do exist.\nIn the federal system of course there's a Federal Kidnapping Act, the Federal Bank Rubbery Act, there is the sale of narcotics to minors, the Atomic Secrets Act, here in the District of Columbia there is the rape statute.\nThe Court of Appeals of course for the District of Columbia has previously held in Bailey versus United States that retroactivity is not to be applied in the rape statue.\nThe effect once again, if retroactivity were to applied regardless of the argument previously presented that while the state is going to retry them after all some of these defendants have served a great deal of time and they are eligible for parole.\nThis argument I think denies the -- is an argument of expediency in that regard because that argument says, well, there are a great number of men, but however they'll be eligible for parole and good number them on attack.\nI can advise this Court because I handle habeas corpus everyday of the week.\nI represent the state in the federal system and District Courts that the floodgates have opened up that petitions are coming in at a rate is unbelievable.\nAll these defendants and particularly those in instances where the weight of the evidence was overwhelming or coming in, I was coerced to plea guilty because of the fear of death.\nI was coerced to plead guilty because of the statutory scheme.\nThey are denying the fact that they plead guilty because at the time of their trial, the state had overwhelming proof of their guilt, but now they are coming in and now they are trying to choose this time and this place to once again litigate.\nNow, that the states in most instances, most probably cannot successfully be prosecuted.\nIf the Court has no questions, that would conclude my argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2089.799, 2102.263, 2104.178, 2107.483, 2119.891, 2136.208, 2143.573, 2166.112, 2170.977, 2194.272, 2209.067, 2235.284, 2256.984, 2282.831, 2295.699, 2310.109, 2326.92, 2340.658, 2360.819, 2380.331, 2385.75, 2404.308, 2410.972, 2418.706, 2445.746, 2453.751], "stop_times": [2102.263, 2104.178, 2107.483, 2119.891, 2136.208, 2143.573, 2166.112, 2170.977, 2194.272, 2209.067, 2235.284, 2256.984, 2282.831, 2295.699, 2310.109, 2326.92, 2340.658, 2360.819, 2380.331, 2385.75, 2404.308, 2410.972, 2418.706, 2445.746, 2453.751, 2457.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2089.799}, "reply_to": "15452__1_027", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_029", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "What do you do about the segregated taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2457.271], "stop_times": [2463.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.271}, "reply_to": "15452__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_030", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That of course Your Honor -- that has been abolished by statute, at that time it was required by statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2463.13], "stop_times": [2470.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2463.13}, "reply_to": "15452__1_029", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_031", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "How about this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2470.288], "stop_times": [2471.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.288}, "reply_to": "15452__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_032", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Now, at the time this grand jury was selected, there were two tax lists, one for white and one for Negro.\nThe tax lists -- however, the grand jury list had no racial designation at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2471.764, 2482.123], "stop_times": [2482.123, 2490.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2471.764}, "reply_to": "15452__1_031", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_033", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, how about the -- do you mean the names were drawn of the taxes lists after they were drawn?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2490.123], "stop_times": [2494.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.123}, "reply_to": "15452__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_034", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Once they were taken from the list, they had no designation and I believe in this case and most other cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2494.949], "stop_times": [2501.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2494.949}, "reply_to": "15452__1_033", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_035", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Why this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2501.44], "stop_times": [2505.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.44}, "reply_to": "15452__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_036", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Of course Your Honor, in this case at the post conviction hearing conducted by Mr. Smith himself, he completely failed to show except to his statistics that there was any discrimination.\nHis own witness refuted that contention.\nHis own witness said \u201cThis is the procedure that was used and --\u201c", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2505.925, 2519.396, 2523.709], "stop_times": [2519.396, 2523.709, 2527.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2505.925}, "reply_to": "15452__1_035", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_037", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "What university major in the number of Negroes on its grand jury against all the total population or just the names?\nThey weren't any -- were there women serving on grand juries in North Carolina at this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2527.567, 2536.147], "stop_times": [2536.147, 2541.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.567}, "reply_to": "15452__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_038", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Women?\nYes, Your Honor, we've had women -- I have no idea how far back but we've had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2541.97, 2542.42], "stop_times": [2542.42, 2548.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2541.97}, "reply_to": "15452__1_037", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_039", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, it must to be there years if I understood briefs that women weren't serving on those grand juries [Voice Overlaps]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2548.233], "stop_times": [2552.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.233}, "reply_to": "15452__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_040", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Oh!\nPerhaps to this one county because it's when these middle poorer counties and I don't think they had restrooms for women in the courthouse.\nIf that's the situation I believe that perhaps women had been excluded from that jury because they didn't have restroom facilities for the women.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2552.835, 2555.093, 2563.802], "stop_times": [2555.093, 2563.802, 2573.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2552.835}, "reply_to": "15452__1_039", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_041", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "So, we're measuring this against capital problem, not the population?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2573.143], "stop_times": [2578.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.143}, "reply_to": "15452__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_042", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Perhaps so Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2578.811], "stop_times": [2581.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2578.811}, "reply_to": "15452__1_041", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_043", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "But even so the 134 Negroes out of the total number of grand jurors is the -- how do you suppose that happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2581.014], "stop_times": [2592.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.014}, "reply_to": "15452__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_044", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, --Just because that the -- just the commissioners didn't know Negroes or was it because they knew Negroes, but thought they were incompetent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2592.519], "stop_times": [2602.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2592.519}, "reply_to": "15452__1_043", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_045", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "No, the testimony that was brought out was that the same criteria was used in selecting white prospective grand jurors as the Negro grand jurors, that the criteria used was the criteria of the North Carolina statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2602.362], "stop_times": [2619.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2602.362}, "reply_to": "15452__1_044", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_046", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Well, then if you have the -- if they employed the same criteria and they examine the same number of Negroes and whites where you can get the same number of Negroes and whites on the jury list, but that wasn't so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2619.045], "stop_times": [2631.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.045}, "reply_to": "15452__1_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_047", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "I would submit this that the commissioners knew more white people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2631.749], "stop_times": [2638.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2631.749}, "reply_to": "15452__1_046", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_048", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "That's the answer, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2638.49], "stop_times": [2639.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.49}, "reply_to": "15452__1_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_049", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2639.544], "stop_times": [2640.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2639.544}, "reply_to": "15452__1_048", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_050", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "And they didn't know very many Negroes to whom to apply the criteria?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2640.819], "stop_times": [2645.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.819}, "reply_to": "15452__1_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_051", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "But the criteria was equally applied and I submit it's similar to the situation formally in effect in the federal system.\nThe blue ribbon type of jury where there was a recommendation.\nThose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2645.785, 2655.893, 2659.518], "stop_times": [2655.893, 2659.518, 2660.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2645.785}, "reply_to": "15452__1_050", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_052", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Since the taxes lists were segregated then knew how many Negro names they were considering and how many white names they were considering, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2660.317], "stop_times": [2669.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2660.317}, "reply_to": "15452__1_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15452__1_053", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "Of course, the total number of names was before them in the tax list, you would have two volumes at that time, one white, one colored.\nNow, of course our statutes have been amended and we only we have one for individuals and incorporations and additional sources have been added by statute.\nThe voter registration list and other items it's all through into one part now to increase the listing.\nOf course this is the tax list, people who have listed for the purpose of both personal property taxation and ad valorem taxation.\nSo I would submit that this perhaps is another basis for a difference that perhaps you had more white residents of the county with property who listed for the purpose of taxation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2669.857, 2679.423, 2690.735, 2699.342, 2709.405], "stop_times": [2679.423, 2690.735, 2699.342, 2709.405, 2727.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2669.857}, "reply_to": "15452__1_052", "speaker": "jacob_l_safron"}
{"id": "15452__1_054", "conversation_id": "15452", "text": "The case is submitted.\nThank you for your submission gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_268", "start_times": [2727.66, 2728.614], "stop_times": [2728.614, 2732.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.66}, "reply_to": "15452__1_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__0_000", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Number 301, Pike against Church.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready Mr. Lee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [0.0, 34.157], "stop_times": [34.157, 36.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__0_001", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Court.\nPresented for decision in this case is the constitutionality of certain aspects of Arizona's Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act.\nOnce again, we have a very important industry and a very important statute of an important agricultural state.\nI believe that the issues which are present in this case can best be appreciated against the background on a brief discussion of the nature and purpose of Arizona's Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act and the history of Standardization Act in general.\nMr. Justice Brandeis reminds us in Pacific States Box & Basket case which is cited in our brief that Standardization Act, that is acts which prescribe standards for certain types of containers of agricultural produced are among the earliest examples of the exercise of police power by the states.\nThe case that Mr. Justice Brandeis' cites as authority for that proposition is Turner versus Maryland an 1883 unanimous decision by this Court.\nThere is some language in Turner versus Maryland which is not cited in our brief, but which I believe definitely warrants the attention of the Court because it answers specifically one of the propositions or one of the contentions that's raised by the appellee in his brief.\nCitation of Turner versus Maryland is contained in our brief, it's 107 U.S. 38 and this particular quote appears at page 57.\nIn that case, this Court ruled as follows: \u201cthe state may direct that a certain product while it remains in the bosom of the country and before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or commerce between the states, shall be encased, shall be encased in such a package as appears best fit it to secure the safety of the package and to identify its contents as the growth of the state.\u201d\nSo that as early as 1883, this Court in the unanimous decision required that it lay within the police powers of the state, to require that the produce of that state prior to the time that it leaves the state, be encased in a certain type of package, and that that package identify the produce as the product of the state.\nInvolved in that particular case was a standard container known as the hogshead or Maryland tobacco, and that statute required that the hogshead identify the tobacco contained therein is Maryland tobacco.\nThe Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act rests upon consideration similar to those which are approved by this Court in Turner versus Maryland.\nThe record in this case contains a discussion of the conditions which led up to the enactment of the Standardization Act, and they are as follows.\nPrior to 1929 when the Act was adopted, it was up to each individual shipper within the state to set his own standards, both for the quality of the produce that he desired to ship, and the type of container that he desired to ship it in if he shipped it in a container at all.\nConsequently, the standards adopted by some shippers were very high, and the standards adopted by other shippers were not so high.\nIt is abundantly borne out by this record that it is of prime importance to the success of marketing of fruits and vegetables that the shipper maintained a good reputation for shipping quality of fruit.\nBut the record also bears out, there's not always possible to maintain that reputation separate and apart from the reputation of the district or the state within which he produces and from which he ships his product, particularly where it's produced.\nConversely stated if a state can acquire a good reputation for a certain type of produce, that reputation will inure to the benefit not only of the state as a whole, but also each individual grower and shipper within that state.\nAnd it is not difficult to find examples where a states have been successful in creating such reputation, such as Washington apples, Florida oranges, Arizona grapefruit and frankly we believe Arizona cantaloupes.\nThis then was the problem for it which the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act was directed.\nIt set minimum standards for a selected number of fruits and vegetables, now 37 within the State of Arizona and those standards have been met by all shippers where the Act so provided and it also provided that they have to meet minimum standards not only of quality, but also a pack, and that it had to be packed in standard containers.\nThe provisions dealing with cantaloupes as they appear in the statute today are illustrative in this regard.\nAs set forth in the statute and the statute is cited, the relevant provisions are cited at the outset of our brief, the cantaloupes must be mature, but not overripe.\nThey have to be free from mold, decays, sponginess, welding, insect damage and a variety of quality defects, but perhaps the most interesting provisions of the statute from the standpoint of this case are those provisions which deal with the individual pack and the appearance of the cantaloupes within that pack.\nIt's been stipulated by the parties that a prime purpose of the statute was to avoid deceptive packs or a deceptive arrangement, deceptive arrangement and deceptive pack are described similarly by the statute.\nThey pertain to that situation wherein the higher quality fruit is placed toward the outside of the container with the off quality fruit in the center of the container of the lesser quality fruit in the center cover, so as to materially misrepresent the quality of the entire container.\nThat particular provision of course can only be enforced if the container itself after it has been packed, has been inspected, and there are other provisions as to which this is also true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [36.587, 40.062, 47.452, 53.684, 68.935, 92.645, 105.119, 122.069, 133.826, 165.154, 184.757, 199.005, 208.501, 218.821, 236.142, 245.011, 258.117, 274.414, 292.353, 307.76, 312.147, 334.709, 342.631, 353.541, 374.863, 387.311, 405.484], "stop_times": [40.062, 47.452, 53.684, 68.935, 92.645, 105.119, 122.069, 133.826, 165.154, 184.757, 199.005, 208.501, 218.821, 236.142, 245.011, 258.117, 274.414, 292.353, 307.76, 312.147, 334.709, 342.631, 353.541, 374.863, 387.311, 405.484, 417.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 36.587}, "reply_to": "14998__0_000", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_002", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well Mr. Lee, what's -- tell me, you cited some prior case, but what would you suppose the justification is for states saying you may not ship in bulk out of the state?\nYou may not ship in bulk out of the state, are you getting it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [417.111, 427.202], "stop_times": [427.202, 435.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.111}, "reply_to": "14998__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_003", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, in the answer to that question Mr. Justice White lies the entire justification of the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [435.911], "stop_times": [444.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.911}, "reply_to": "14998__0_002", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_004", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I know, but what if the fellow you say that -- he says \u201cWell look, I'm going to ship in bulk out of the state.\nIt's just a few miles across the line and I'm going to pack them over there and say that their packed in California.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [444.119, 450.351], "stop_times": [450.351, 457.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.119}, "reply_to": "14998__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_005", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "There are number of answers to that question.\nThey are the following; in the first place, if they are packed in California, they will not be identified as Arizona produce.\nThis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [457.452, 460.21, 467.098], "stop_times": [460.21, 467.098, 467.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.452}, "reply_to": "14998__0_004", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_006", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "And so, you're not going to hurt if they are bad cantaloupes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [467.425], "stop_times": [470.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.425}, "reply_to": "14998__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_007", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes, we are.\nThere are three principle cantaloupe producing states.\nThey are Arizona, California and Texas.\nThere is some value or at least it certainly lies within the state's prerogative to conclude that there is some value to be known as the number three cantaloupe producing state within the United States.\nIf these cantaloupes are not identified as Arizona produce --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [470.277, 472.09, 474.914, 478.334, 490.394], "stop_times": [472.09, 474.914, 478.334, 490.394, 494.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.277}, "reply_to": "14998__0_006", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_008", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "They won't be counted in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [494.145], "stop_times": [495.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.145}, "reply_to": "14998__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_009", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Then they won't be counted, that is correct.\nMoreover, these particular cantaloupes, and this is in the record as a matter of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [495.253, 497.494], "stop_times": [497.494, 502.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.253}, "reply_to": "14998__0_008", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_010", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "This has to be the sole basis for them for more preventing bulk shipments where they are not going to be identified upon being packed as Arizona cantaloupes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [502.083], "stop_times": [510.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.083}, "reply_to": "14998__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_011", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "No sir, I submit that it is not, there are additional reasons.\nThese particular cantaloupes, these particular cantaloupes are as a matter of stipulation, as a matter of stipulation in the record the highest quality of any cantaloupes that are produced within the State of Arizona and therefore, we feel that the state is entitled to have those cantaloupes identified as Arizona cantaloupes.\nThis is the basic purpose of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [510.905, 515.972, 536.957], "stop_times": [515.972, 536.957, 539.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.905}, "reply_to": "14998__0_010", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_012", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well so, it's again, you want them identified as Arizona cantaloupes, and add it up and Arizona will get credit for these, they are bad, you don't want credit for them, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [539.463], "stop_times": [551.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.463}, "reply_to": "14998__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_013", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "And pursuant to that, let me proceed with the example that you gave of cantaloupes which are shipped in bulk across the state line.\nThey come from the field and they're put in to a trailer, everything goes into the trailer.\nThe good fruit, the bad fruit, it's mixed all up --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [551.093, 557.554, 561.825], "stop_times": [557.554, 561.825, 563.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.093}, "reply_to": "14998__0_012", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_014", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "By the way, do you have a regulation that state says how far you may transport cantaloupes and picked up to the packing point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [563.971], "stop_times": [569.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.971}, "reply_to": "14998__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_015", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [569.708], "stop_times": [571.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.708}, "reply_to": "14998__0_014", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_016", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Do you know that -- how far they are normally transported when they're picked up in the field -- I suppose that you defined, but maybe they are carried 20 or 30 miles within the State of Arizona to a packing point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [571.124], "stop_times": [586.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.124}, "reply_to": "14998__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_017", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That is possible.\nI don't know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [586.206, 586.702], "stop_times": [586.702, 587.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.206}, "reply_to": "14998__0_016", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_018", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "And at least as far as they're carried here across the state line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [587.149], "stop_times": [590.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.149}, "reply_to": "14998__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_019", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I would think that would be possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [590.23], "stop_times": [591.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.23}, "reply_to": "14998__0_018", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_020", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Okay, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [591.492], "stop_times": [591.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.492}, "reply_to": "14998__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_021", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "The point that I'm about to be make is that they can be carried a good deal farther.\nThey go in and there has been no sorting, no sorting of quality fruit from the colors, no sorting of one color from another color, and this as is borne out by the record is also important.\nThere is no sorting according to variety, everything goes into that trailer.\nThey are inspected, but they are inspected only for the purpose of determining the presence of pickle worm, which is a quality defect of cantaloupes.\nThey are given a Pickle Worm Certificate, indicating that they have been determined to be free of pickle worm, and that's certificate is given to the California inspector on the California side of the line.\nAnd from that point, provided that they meet the test, they go right on through the inspection station, presumably on their way to Blight to be packed.\nBut Mr. Justice White, once those cantaloupes leave the State of Arizona, there is no way that we have of assuring ourselves that they will not go right on through Blight, right on to San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco or anywhere else, be sold in bulk lot to a chain store buyer and when asked where that these cantaloupes come from, the answer comes back Parker, Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [591.984, 597.166, 607.326, 611.037, 621.787, 632.782, 642.704], "stop_times": [597.166, 607.326, 611.037, 621.787, 632.782, 642.704, 673.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.984}, "reply_to": "14998__0_020", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_022", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, you got the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [673.238], "stop_times": [673.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.238}, "reply_to": "14998__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_023", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "But what about the standards in California?\nThey sought to protect their people, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [673.958, 677.609], "stop_times": [677.609, 680.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.958}, "reply_to": "14998__0_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14998__0_024", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well frankly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [680.332], "stop_times": [681.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.332}, "reply_to": "14998__0_023", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_025", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Is there any difference between the fruits standards in California in those in Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [681.571], "stop_times": [686.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.571}, "reply_to": "14998__0_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14998__0_026", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Marshall, there are and those are set forth, they're discussed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [686.401], "stop_times": [693.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.401}, "reply_to": "14998__0_025", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_027", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Which way did they operate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [693.462], "stop_times": [695.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.462}, "reply_to": "14998__0_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_028", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [695.04], "stop_times": [697.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.04}, "reply_to": "14998__0_027", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_029", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I mean are they higher or lower than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [697.055], "stop_times": [697.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.055}, "reply_to": "14998__0_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_030", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "We feel -- there are, -- you know, that --- though the differences in language of the statute would indicate that Arizona standards are more demanding than California standards.\nFor example --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [697.784, 710.546], "stop_times": [710.546, 711.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.784}, "reply_to": "14998__0_029", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_031", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, what interest does Arizona have in protecting the people of California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [711.755], "stop_times": [716.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.755}, "reply_to": "14998__0_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14998__0_032", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "None Mr. Justice Marshall.\nOur interest just as in the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [716.304, 719.299], "stop_times": [719.299, 722.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.304}, "reply_to": "14998__0_031", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_033", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Protecting the name of Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [722.316], "stop_times": [724.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.316}, "reply_to": "14998__0_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14998__0_034", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That is correct, that is correct.\nJust as this Court said in Sligh versus Kirkwood, the State of Florida has a great interest in protecting reputation of its citrus fruits.\nThe California statute says that both California and Arizona proscribe serious defects, and both California and Arizona says that it's a serious defect if it affects the edible portion of the cantaloupe.\nThe California statute stops at that point.\nThe Arizona statute goes on to say or if it affects the appearance, the California says nothing about it, or the shipping quality of the fruit and the parties have stipulated that these manners of appearance and shipping quality are factors which affect the reputation of the produce but are separate apart the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [724.213, 725.932, 737.418, 749.853, 752.861], "stop_times": [725.932, 737.418, 749.853, 752.861, 771.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.213}, "reply_to": "14998__0_033", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_035", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Do you -- of the California inspectors if they want to ship these cantaloupes back into Arizona for retail sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [771.444], "stop_times": [780.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.444}, "reply_to": "14998__0_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_036", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Certificate, but what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [780.537], "stop_times": [782.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.537}, "reply_to": "14998__0_035", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_037", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well I suppose you -- I suppose you have regulations against to check on the quality of imported cantaloupe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [782.022], "stop_times": [792.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.022}, "reply_to": "14998__0_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_038", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes.\nBut Arizona is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [792.547, 794.077], "stop_times": [794.077, 795.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.547}, "reply_to": "14998__0_037", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_039", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "You don't re-inspect them do you when they shipped back into Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [795.0], "stop_times": [798.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.0}, "reply_to": "14998__0_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_040", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I'm sure that we wouldn't.\nBut the point is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [798.746, 800.531], "stop_times": [800.531, 801.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.746}, "reply_to": "14998__0_039", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_041", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Make sure you would accept the certificate of the California inspector if the California law meets what you think is a reasonable standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [801.08], "stop_times": [809.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.08}, "reply_to": "14998__0_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_042", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes.\nI know of no such certificate, but that's beside the point if there were one.\nThe point is this, why would suppose that fully 90% of cantaloupes that are grown in the State of Arizona are not marketed in the State of Arizona?\nArizona is cantaloupe producing state.\nIt's consumption doesn't anywhere near match its production.\nWhat we're concerned about is the reputation and preserving the reputation that our produce has in other states where they are in fact consumed.\nNow, Mr. Abramson will tell you that they fully intent to pack it in Blight according to California standards.\nWe feel that California standards are not exactly the same as Arizona's, and therefore bound and in any event, we feel that it follows inexorably from the proposition that Arizona has the right to enact the standardization law that it can enforce them through its own inspection officers and need not rely upon the application of California law through California officers.\nLet's assume that the standards were exactly the same today?\nWe have no guarantee that those standards are going to be carried out.\nWe have no guarantee that California will not change his law tomorrow.\nWe have no guarantee that California inspection officers are going to do their job and indeed, there is some difference; you can read it in the statute.\nIf a 5% difference will make our statute unconstitutional, would a 10% difference -- than validate it.\nAt all points, the conclusion is simply inevitable that starting from the premise which we feel is justified as set forth by this Court in Turner versus Maryland, Sligh versus Kirkwood and the Pacific States case that we do have the right to prescribe the standard containers, and we have the right to enforce it through our own inspection officers.\nNow, the Bruce Church Co. has said we intend to pack these in California.\nThey articulated some of the reasons that there's a problem with this.\nEven assuming that that is correct, if this appellee allowed to ship them across the state line in violation of the statute, we're going to have to let others and we have no control over how those will be sold or whether they will be packed in standard containers at all.\nThe only way that we can assure that is to assure -- is to require that before the produce leaves the state, it is packed neatly in a new clean container, arranged orderly, uniform in size, uniform in color, uniform in variety.\nSo that when the grocer opens that box, he knows that he can take the cantaloupes out of their box, put them on the shelf and they will make a nice, neat, attractive assortment, uniform in color, uniform in size, and up to quality that is guaranteed by the Arizona Standardization Act, and that is what is meant by standardization, and that's what we're trying to preserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [809.067, 810.4, 814.546, 826.078, 828.55, 834.028, 843.941, 851.525, 879.436, 883.105, 887.049, 890.627, 898.905, 908.788, 928.065, 932.923, 939.809, 955.725, 971.063], "stop_times": [810.4, 814.546, 826.078, 828.55, 834.028, 843.941, 851.525, 879.436, 883.105, 887.049, 890.627, 898.905, 908.788, 928.065, 932.923, 939.809, 955.725, 971.063, 996.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.067}, "reply_to": "14998__0_041", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_043", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Does this record show whether when these cantaloupes are marketed in California or any other state, they are identified after the package is broken as Arizona cantaloupe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [996.084], "stop_times": [1008.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.084}, "reply_to": "14998__0_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__0_044", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1008.82], "stop_times": [1009.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.82}, "reply_to": "14998__0_043", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_045", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "-- markets and sold --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1009.788], "stop_times": [1010.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.788}, "reply_to": "14998__0_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__0_046", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "-- this record does not show anything on that, and I would think it would be a matter of individual choice with the grocer.\nHe either might or he might not, but we think -- you see, he is our customer, and so are the merchants -- they're not merchants, the jobbers and the wholesalers, and they know that they can depend on the stamp on the outside of these containers, Arizona produce as meaning something because it has been packed according to the Arizona standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1010.333, 1016.308], "stop_times": [1016.308, 1038.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.333}, "reply_to": "14998__0_045", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_047", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Did the District Court -- how do you read the opinion of District Court?\nDid it say that these regulations weren't authorized by the state statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1038.938, 1042.608], "stop_times": [1042.608, 1047.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.938}, "reply_to": "14998__0_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_048", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I read the opinion of the District Court with the great difficultly Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1047.145], "stop_times": [1051.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.145}, "reply_to": "14998__0_047", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_049", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "It implied that, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1051.171], "stop_times": [1053.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.171}, "reply_to": "14998__0_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_050", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "It certainly did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1053.28], "stop_times": [1054.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.28}, "reply_to": "14998__0_049", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_051", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "And to the extent that it did, we aren't very that position to disagree with that, are we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1054.289], "stop_times": [1060.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.289}, "reply_to": "14998__0_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_052", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I know what you referring to Mr. Justice White.\nThere are these provisions that say that under normal circumstances, you give certain amount of difference to the District Court.\nBut, I would submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1060.048, 1062.634, 1070.485], "stop_times": [1062.634, 1070.485, 1073.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.048}, "reply_to": "14998__0_051", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_053", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "It's a little more than that I think.\nOrdinarily, we don't undertake seriously to review in such as the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1073.238, 1075.384], "stop_times": [1075.384, 1082.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.238}, "reply_to": "14998__0_052", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14998__0_054", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. Justice Brennan, I submit that under circumstances such as this, there simply is no way that you can read the statute any other way.\nThe cantaloupe statute in its present form says that all cantaloupes shall be packed in close standard containers approved by the supervisor.\nI just can't read that to say anything else than all cantaloupes shall be packed in close standard containers approved by the supervisor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1082.28, 1093.801, 1103.2], "stop_times": [1093.801, 1103.2, 1110.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.28}, "reply_to": "14998__0_053", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_055", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That state was the administrator's had been vague and unlawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1110.145], "stop_times": [1115.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.145}, "reply_to": "14998__0_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_056", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1115.113], "stop_times": [1115.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.113}, "reply_to": "14998__0_055", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_057", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "They administer the law for a long period of years, quite the contrary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1115.74], "stop_times": [1120.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.74}, "reply_to": "14998__0_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_058", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "And I learned my lesson --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1120.682], "stop_times": [1121.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.682}, "reply_to": "14998__0_057", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_059", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1121.502], "stop_times": [1122.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.502}, "reply_to": "14998__0_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__0_060", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. -- yes that is correct, there were individual instances in which the administrator for not obeying the law.\nMr. Justice White, the last time I was before the Court, I learned that that particular principle does not invalidate a statute, and we have cited Lassen versus the State of Arizona on that very point.\nThat time, Mr. Justice Marshall and I were co-counsel in that case, and I think that has been adequately covered in our brief.\nMr. Pike knows that he did wrong.\nThat maybe a matter of concern for the officials of the State of Arizona, but it is not something that makes the statute unconstitutional.\nI do want to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.\nI understand that you still give me about five minutes.\nI like to treat just briefly the basic rules of law that had been laid down by this Court which are determinative on this issue.\nOne of them has already been mentioned in the case that was argued before us, and that is that the judicial function in applying the Commerce Clause to statutes which are checked as allegedly violative of the Commerce Clause is a very limited one.\nThe case of South Carolina versus Barnwell Brothers clarified once and for all that the test under the Commerce Clause is the same as it is under a substantive due process.\nAnd that under that test, the judicial inquiry stops with a two-pronged inquiry: Number one, is there a legitimate state objective, and number two, is the state regulation reasonably anticipated to carry out that objective?\nWe submit that under other decisions of this Court, both of those requirements are clearly satisfied.\nYou have Sligh versus Kirkwood which is discussed extensively in our brief.\nThat's the case in which this Court upheld the Florida statute prohibiting the sale of immature or citrus or citrus which is otherwise unfit for human consumption.\nNow, the appellee has taken --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1122.466, 1128.359, 1140.564, 1148.656, 1152.375, 1161.283, 1166.364, 1169.332, 1181.865, 1202.95, 1212.099, 1232.347, 1237.568, 1241.404, 1251.473], "stop_times": [1128.359, 1140.564, 1148.656, 1152.375, 1161.283, 1166.364, 1169.332, 1181.865, 1202.95, 1212.099, 1232.347, 1237.568, 1241.404, 1251.473, 1252.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.466}, "reply_to": "14998__0_059", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_061", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "But before you move on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1252.983], "stop_times": [1254.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.983}, "reply_to": "14998__0_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_062", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1254.044], "stop_times": [1254.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.044}, "reply_to": "14998__0_061", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_063", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Sligh against -- you kept repeatedly relying on three decisions as I -- my ears have heard it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1254.293], "stop_times": [1261.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.293}, "reply_to": "14998__0_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_064", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1261.086], "stop_times": [1262.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.086}, "reply_to": "14998__0_063", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_065", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Sligh against Kirkwood and the Pacific States Box and Basket case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1262.074], "stop_times": [1265.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.074}, "reply_to": "14998__0_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_066", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes, and Turner versus Maryland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1265.449], "stop_times": [1266.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1265.449}, "reply_to": "14998__0_065", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_067", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "In Turner against Maryland, I don't' think it's in your briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1266.553], "stop_times": [1268.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.553}, "reply_to": "14998__0_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_068", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, it is but it slips in there -- look on page 31.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1268.822], "stop_times": [1273.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.822}, "reply_to": "14998__0_067", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_069", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1273.881], "stop_times": [1277.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1273.881}, "reply_to": "14998__0_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_070", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "It is cited in Mr. Justice Brandies' opinion of Pacific States Box & Basket Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1277.232], "stop_times": [1282.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.232}, "reply_to": "14998__0_069", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_071", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "The internal reference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1282.952], "stop_times": [1283.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1282.952}, "reply_to": "14998__0_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_072", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That is correct.\nIt should -- upon -- after seeing the appellee's brief and reconsidering; I concluded we should have given it -- that we gave it too short --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1283.971, 1284.996], "stop_times": [1284.996, 1293.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.971}, "reply_to": "14998__0_071", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_073", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "-- a little that more star --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1293.958], "stop_times": [1295.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.958}, "reply_to": "14998__0_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_074", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1295.734], "stop_times": [1297.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.734}, "reply_to": "14998__0_073", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_075", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1297.079], "stop_times": [1299.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.079}, "reply_to": "14998__0_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__0_076", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "But these three cases, I submit to the Court clearly established the legitimate interest of the state, and that's all we have to show is that the state does have, the legitimate interest in preserving the reputation of its fruits and vegetables by setting these standards of quality and of pack.\nNow, the real issue in the case, the dispositive issue in the case is this, it rises in this fashion.\nThe appellee as I read his brief agrees, demand on certain circumstances be a legitimate interest enforcing standardization, but he says that there is a qualifying consideration in this case because in the context of cantaloupes; they can't be packed except in a packing shed and we agree that under present technology, they can't.\nTherefore, in the appellee's view, this case comes within those decisions of this Court which have said that where it is the sole objective of the statute to require packing to be accomplished in the state that renders the statute unconstitutional, [Inaudible] Polar Ice Cream versus Andrews and so forth.\nAnd the appellee takes one more step as indeed he must, and that is to say that the purpose of the Arizona statute is the same and that is to preserve the packing business for the state.\nSo that really, the ultimate issue, the dispositive issue between these two parties is what is the purpose of the statute?\nIs it the statute, is it the purpose which has been testified to on this record?\nIs it the purpose that is set forth in the preamble of the statute itself?\nIs it the purpose that is been upheld by this Court in Sligh versus Kirkwood, Pacific States and Turner versus Maryland, or is it a purpose which will make it invalid?\nOnce the case is viewed in that fashion, I submit to this Court that the answer is very clear, because this Court has made it clear in a number of cases that it will not re-examine the wisdom of the state legislative determination.\nAnd that so long as there is a proper purpose that this purpose will be assumed to be the purpose on which the state legislature rely.\nI need not recant those cases at this time.\nThey're set forth in our brief, and I believe that they adequately dispose of this contention.\nUnless the Court has any further questions, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1299.179, 1317.043, 1326.636, 1348.504, 1367.401, 1381.098, 1389.801, 1394.519, 1398.886, 1409.776, 1425.96, 1438.305, 1442.809, 1449.098], "stop_times": [1317.043, 1326.636, 1348.504, 1367.401, 1381.098, 1389.801, 1394.519, 1398.886, 1409.776, 1425.96, 1438.305, 1442.809, 1449.098, 1453.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.179}, "reply_to": "14998__0_075", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__0_077", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Thank you Mr. Lee.\nMr. Abramson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1453.213, 1455.775], "stop_times": [1455.775, 1459.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.213}, "reply_to": "14998__0_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_000", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nMy learned counsel has stated that the dispositive issue in this case is the purpose of the Arizona law, what is the purpose?\nIt is already been made clear what the purpose is, and this is to achieve credit and to the State of Arizona for a good fruit.\nThe concern is not about receiving discredit for poor fruit because in this case, the poor fruit is going to be packed in other states.\nIt's to receive credit for a good fruit.\nNow, we submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1459.705, 1465.067, 1477.466, 1488.468, 1500.13, 1503.446], "stop_times": [1465.067, 1477.466, 1488.468, 1500.13, 1503.446, 1504.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1459.705}, "reply_to": "14998__0_077", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_001", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, I didn't understand this argument that way.\nI understood he had two barrels to his gun: One, to get credit for the good and to avoid the disadvantages of being credited with the bad if somebody sold bad fruit as Arizona fruit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1504.281, 1506.114], "stop_times": [1506.114, 1525.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.281}, "reply_to": "14998__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_002", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the argument of appellant is that Parker fruit is good fruit and he wants it to be labeled as good fruit.\nThis is the main concern and his argument.\nHe states this repeatedly that it's to enhance the reputation by identifying the fruit as Arizona fruit.\nThe point I'm getting to is that the determining question here is not what is the purpose of the Arizona law, even if the purpose is to obtain credit.\nAlthough, this Court has never gone so far as to permit what the appellant seeks to do here in furtherance of that purpose, even to achieve credit we say is not an improper purpose.\nIt's fine we say if one wants to do a good job and to get credit for it, but that is not the issue.\nThe issue before this Court is how far may the State of Arizona go in trying to achieve this purpose?\nIn order to achieve this purpose, the State of Arizona through the interpretation of the Arizona law by the appellant is saying three things must occur.\nOne, the packing must be done in Arizona; Two, the packing must be done in packing shed in Arizona and in the context of this case where the Church Company does not have packing facilities at Parker and indeed, cannot have such facility because there are no railroad lines going in there, must construct packing facilities at Parker.\nTo be sure appellant states, now the law doesn't in terms say you must do this and therefore, we can't hear you to complain, but this is the necessary effect of his order and in fact, the appellant in its brief expressly states this that this is the dilemma in which the appellee finds itself that in order to comply with the order, it must do these three things.\nNow, we submit that this goes too far in its encroachment upon the federal concern with maintaining a free-flow of interstate commerce.\nWe submit it's contrary to decisions of this Court which we have cited; the Shrimp cases to which learned counsel has alluded to in his statement.\nWe submit that this is the real issue; how far may the State of Arizona go in obtaining credit for a good fruit or even keeping out poor fruit?\nThere has been no case cited by appellant in which this Court has gone so far as to say that these three requirements maybe imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1525.471, 1543.527, 1546.561, 1560.123, 1572.984, 1589.264, 1595.091, 1605.807, 1616.642, 1643.524, 1673.682, 1685.618, 1697.993, 1712.067], "stop_times": [1543.527, 1546.561, 1560.123, 1572.984, 1589.264, 1595.091, 1605.807, 1616.642, 1643.524, 1673.682, 1685.618, 1697.993, 1712.067, 1726.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1525.471}, "reply_to": "14998__1_001", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_003", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, I thought the Sligh case certainly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1726.259], "stop_times": [1729.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.259}, "reply_to": "14998__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_004", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Your Honor, the Sligh --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1729.0], "stop_times": [1729.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.0}, "reply_to": "14998__1_003", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_005", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "-- was very much to that subject?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1729.429], "stop_times": [1731.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.429}, "reply_to": "14998__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_006", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger, the Sligh case involved a statute which stated simply that citrus fruits unfit for consumption shall not be handled.\nIt had nothing to do with question of intrastate \u2013 interstate.\nIt was purely a criminal statute and imposed a penalty for the handling of such fruit.\nThe Sligh case would have been a case similar to ours.\nIf the state in that case had said this citrus fruit must be packed in this state, but that was not the situation in the Sligh case.\nMention has been made of the Pacific Box case.\nThis involved a law of the state of Oregon which established certain standard containers to be used for packing in that state of raspberries and strawberries.\nAn out of state manufacture of containers challenged this law saying I want to come into Oregon and sell my containers in Oregon, these were different containers from those provided on the Oregon law, and this Court held that Oregon may within its right prescribe containers, but their case did not involve the situation such as here.\nIf Oregon statute said raspberries and strawberries must be packed in Oregon, this would have presented before this Court the same issue which it has before it now.\nThis Court has stated --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1731.745, 1746.538, 1750.914, 1758.344, 1762.959, 1772.031, 1777.105, 1794.317, 1818.781, 1833.05], "stop_times": [1746.538, 1750.914, 1758.344, 1762.959, 1772.031, 1777.105, 1794.317, 1818.781, 1833.05, 1833.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.745}, "reply_to": "14998__1_005", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_007", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Suppose there's a factual difference that you -- you probably can't send raspberries in a bulk in truckloads.\nYou got to have them in small containers so that that issue wouldn't come up there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1833.568, 1840.904], "stop_times": [1840.904, 1848.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.568}, "reply_to": "14998__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_008", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "We submit that the Pacific States decision was correct Your Honor that a state may provide that where commodities are packed within the state certain containers shall be used.\nBut I submit again Mr. Chief Justice Burger that the statute in the Pacific States Box case did not state that the packing, the processing and packing of raspberries and strawberries shall be performed in the State of Oregon.\nHad it done so, it would have presented the same issue which we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1848.238, 1865.882, 1883.408], "stop_times": [1865.882, 1883.408, 1888.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.238}, "reply_to": "14998__1_007", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_009", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "How about Turner against Maryland --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1888.818], "stop_times": [1891.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.818}, "reply_to": "14998__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__1_010", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Turner against Maryland -- I think this case gets -- this case gets closer.\nThis was an 1882 case.\nCounsel for Western Growers has stated with reference to that case that it's cited a long string of statutes.\nThese were statutes in a colonial times, much has happened since 1882, advancements in transportation, processing, packing, handling, and of course this Court since that time has rendered decisions in the Toomer v. Witsell, the Heidell cases, the Dean Milk case, and I think we're moving with the times.\nThis Court has stated on numerous occasions that it will be guarded by practical considerations.\nMr. Justice White has already touched upon one point that I would like to make, namely that the problem which brings us before this Court is one which exists in the border districts which joined the states of California and Arizona; that is to say the districts along the Colorado River.\nHere, the same climatic conditions prevail.\nClimate, weather atmospheric conditions know no state borders, and that given the same growing conditions, it is not uncommon for the same grower to have growing operations on both sides of the border.\nNow, the question was raised; what is the area of production?\nIt's not too great Mr. Justice White because the crops which are involved are of such a highly perishable nature that they must be taken out of the ground, processed, packed and put in cars on their way within the matter of just a few hours.\nSo, the distance does not -- you're not -- you don't have the possibility of dealing in large distances, I would say a radius of 30 miles, 40 miles, something of that nature.\nThe Church Company the appellee here has operations on both sides as you know.\nIt has operations at Parker under a lease with the Colorado River, Indian Tribes.\nThis is a distance of 25 miles from the border and has been doing its packing at Blight on the California side, 5 miles over on the California side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [1891.085, 1895.778, 1899.474, 1909.088, 1932.305, 1938.462, 1963.532, 1967.306, 1984.393, 1989.24, 2008.501, 2022.351, 2029.933, 2036.815], "stop_times": [1895.778, 1899.474, 1909.088, 1932.305, 1938.462, 1963.532, 1967.306, 1984.393, 1989.24, 2008.501, 2022.351, 2029.933, 2036.815, 2047.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.085}, "reply_to": "14998__1_009", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_011", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Did they grow up cantaloupe on the Blight side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2047.569], "stop_times": [2049.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.569}, "reply_to": "14998__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_012", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes, on the Blight side and because these are growers who don't enjoy federal subsidies, whose production cost and transportation and costs are among the highest in the nation.\nTheir success or failure depends on their ability to be efficient, and this means to economize.\nSo, if a grower of this kind requires packing facilities, he will put them on one side of the line or the other wherever they fit in with his operations.\nHe's obviously not going to duplicate his facilities.\nNow, the same situation exists at Yuma on the Arizona side and at Bard on the California.\nThese are just opposite to one another, across the river, the short distance of possibly 5 miles and for years, there has been transport of cantaloupes and other commodities from the California side at Bard over to Yuma on the Arizona side where they been processed and packed just as these cantaloupes had been at Blight.\nCalifornia as you know has a law very similar.\nWe can draw fine lines about particular words or sentences.\nBut basically, they're the same.\nThere's testimony in the record that the California law and inspection, if anything is more stringent than the Arizona law, but we need not to make an issue of this.\nIn any event, it's been going on from Bard to Yuma for a long time.\nCalifornia has never raised the question.\nThey had never attempted to stop this practice.\nThey reconciled it with their law.\nCalifornia, the State of California knows about this pending litigation and it has not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2049.166, 2062.275, 2067.938, 2079.699, 2082.927, 2094.058, 2120.297, 2123.703, 2128.713, 2130.774, 2142.444, 2147.716, 2150.887, 2155.929, 2158.295], "stop_times": [2062.275, 2067.938, 2079.699, 2082.927, 2094.058, 2120.297, 2123.703, 2128.713, 2130.774, 2142.444, 2147.716, 2150.887, 2155.929, 2158.295, 2162.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.166}, "reply_to": "14998__1_011", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_013", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "What -- when you packed at Arizona cantaloupes at Blight, do you put at California -- are you required of California law to say that they are California cantaloupes or just that they are packed at Blight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2162.962], "stop_times": [2176.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.962}, "reply_to": "14998__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_014", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "The California Mr. Justice White does have a law similar to that of Arizona which requires some identification on the container.\nThe record shows that in this particular case where the same containers, very same containers are used both where packing is done in Arizona and in California has imprinted upon it packed in season in Arizona and California, main office Salinas, California.\nThis is where the main office of the Church Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2176.327, 2186.845, 2207.749], "stop_times": [2186.845, 2207.749, 2209.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.327}, "reply_to": "14998__1_013", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_015", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Packed in season?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2209.675], "stop_times": [2211.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.675}, "reply_to": "14998__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_016", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Packed in season in Arizona and California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2211.056], "stop_times": [2215.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.056}, "reply_to": "14998__1_015", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_017", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Well, why would it -- that's the label that you put on to your Blight's pack, Arizona cantaloupes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2215.527], "stop_times": [2220.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.527}, "reply_to": "14998__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_018", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "That's our trade, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2220.323], "stop_times": [2222.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.323}, "reply_to": "14998__1_017", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_019", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Why would you say Arizona because they aren't packed in Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2222.722], "stop_times": [2230.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.722}, "reply_to": "14998__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_020", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "This is what appears on the crate, packed and seasoned in Arizona and California indicates that packing may go one in each state.\nThis brings me to another --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2230.257, 2245.267], "stop_times": [2245.267, 2245.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.257}, "reply_to": "14998__1_019", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_021", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "But isn't that what Arizona's legislature is claiming or by this statute claim was the right to have Arizona products identified as such?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2245.658], "stop_times": [2257.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.658}, "reply_to": "14998__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_022", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "In response to this point Mr. Chief Justice, I believe I should explain how these cantaloupes are marketed.\nSome question has been raised, I think possibly by the Chief Justice as to whether these commodities are identified at the store level, but they are not.\nThese cantaloupes are sold by the growers to a small group of buyers who are present right there on the spot.\nThey're there everyday, they are their representatives.\nThey are at the point of production, whether it's the packing shed or field, they're inspecting the produce.\nThey know exactly where it's been grown.\nThey know who the grower is.\nThey know the quality or they wouldn't be buying it.\nThey're there to inspect the quality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2257.524, 2268.589, 2284.514, 2293.369, 2297.825, 2307.472, 2309.489, 2311.999, 2314.812], "stop_times": [2268.589, 2284.514, 2293.369, 2297.825, 2307.472, 2309.489, 2311.999, 2314.812, 2316.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.524}, "reply_to": "14998__1_021", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_023", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Who are these buyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2316.73], "stop_times": [2319.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.73}, "reply_to": "14998__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_024", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "These are wholesale jobbers.\nThey're distributors, receivers, but who have their representative's right there on the spot and they move from place to place as the harvest progresses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2319.144, 2320.956], "stop_times": [2320.956, 2329.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.144}, "reply_to": "14998__1_023", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_025", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "How about their customers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2329.938], "stop_times": [2332.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.938}, "reply_to": "14998__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14998__1_026", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Their customers are in turn are receivers, the car lot receivers all over the country who receive these in car lots.\nThe sales are in car lots or truckloads.\nYou see, they are not sold as individual packages.\nAnd eventually, when they reach their terminus, terminal points throughout the nation, the distributors will then distribute them among the chain stores possibly, among retail stores, but once they reach the store, they're taken out of the package and put on a shelf.\nThe housewife doesn't know where this cantaloupe has come from.\nIf she likes, if it tastes good, she will come back and buy it.\nSo, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2332.337, 2340.516, 2343.79, 2346.745, 2367.215, 2372.206, 2377.168], "stop_times": [2340.516, 2343.79, 2346.745, 2367.215, 2372.206, 2377.168, 2377.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.337}, "reply_to": "14998__1_025", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_027", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "I don't know how you can generalize that way on the state of this record.\nCertainly, there are housewives who go into stores and having had a good experience of favorable experience with certain types of fruit or other merchandise will say is this California or is it Texas or is it Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2377.763, 2383.054], "stop_times": [2383.054, 2399.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.763}, "reply_to": "14998__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_028", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2399.035], "stop_times": [2399.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.035}, "reply_to": "14998__1_027", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_029", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Now, each of those states has an important interest in protecting that, do they not?\nIsn't that what the Sligh case really was largely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2399.82, 2406.811], "stop_times": [2406.811, 2409.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.82}, "reply_to": "14998__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_030", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "The Sligh case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2409.998], "stop_times": [2410.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.998}, "reply_to": "14998__1_029", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_031", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "-- about and Turner as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2410.602], "stop_times": [2412.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.602}, "reply_to": "14998__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_032", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "The Sligh case Your Honor if I may submit is a case -- is a health and safety measure which seeks to prevent the use of citrus fruits unfit for consumption.\nIt is not directed to the question which has been raised by appellant and namely the protection or the gaining of credit for good fruit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2412.901, 2436.518], "stop_times": [2436.518, 2450.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.901}, "reply_to": "14998__1_031", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_033", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Maybe that was the -- maybe that's what the record supported, but the court seemed to go beyond that because this Court's had the protection of the state's reputation in foreign markets, with the consequent beneficial effect upon the great home industry may have been within the legislative intent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2450.636], "stop_times": [2468.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.636}, "reply_to": "14998__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__1_034", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes, to prevent export of poor fruit, but appellant here does not stress this, but stresses rather the credit for good fruit.\nWe have indicated also that the appellant's order represents the reversal of long time practice.\nHe states before this Court that he was wrong all these years; that his conduct was unlawful.\nWhen he issued the order to appellant, he gave no reasons, no explanations.\nAt no time has he stated whether there's been any -- rather his conclusion that he was wrong was the result of any decision.\nNo mention of any such thing, but he says he was wrong -- had even properly advised, he would have done differently.\nWell, we have the State of California same situation.\nThe State of California has never raised any question and does not raise one at this time.\nIt knows of this litigation and has not sought to intervene in any way.\nIn conclusion Your Honor, we submit that in making this three-fold requirement in consequence of appellant's order, namely that the packing be done in the State of Arizona, that this be done in a packing shed in Arizona and that the appellee construct packing facilities in Arizona, goes far beyond and anything this Court has sanctioned in modern time.\nWe submit that it is not the prerogative of the State of Arizona to say to a grower you must construct your packing plant in this state.\nThis is an economic consideration which the businessman must make works to his best advantage to establish his facilities.\nWe submit that the decision of the court below was fully justified both on the law and the facts and should be affirmed, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2468.558, 2486.986, 2498.61, 2508.519, 2514.964, 2526.699, 2535.542, 2541.285, 2548.378, 2556.088, 2594.432, 2609.178, 2622.02], "stop_times": [2486.986, 2498.61, 2508.519, 2514.964, 2526.699, 2535.542, 2541.285, 2548.378, 2556.088, 2594.432, 2609.178, 2622.02, 2631.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.558}, "reply_to": "14998__1_033", "speaker": "jacob_abramson"}
{"id": "14998__1_035", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Thank you Mr. Abramson.\nMr. Lee, you have seven minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2631.622, 2634.395], "stop_times": [2634.395, 2636.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.622}, "reply_to": "14998__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__2_000", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.\nSignificant contention raised by Mr. Abramson, and this of course is been at the heart of disposition throughout this entire litigation, is that the purpose of this statute is to require the packing be done in the State of Arizona.\nWe simply assert that is not the purpose and under the well established rules of statutory construction in constitutional cases is set forth on page 34 to 39 of our brief.\nCourt simply don't ascribe improper purpose of the statute.\nThe statute nowhere says anything about a packing shed.\nI would point to the Court that this statute deals with 37 different products; 37 different products, only one of which is cantaloupes.\nMost of them don't have to be packed in the packing shed.\nMost of them can be packed in the field, and we can inspect them there, and that's fine.\nThe concern of the statute is not the packing be done in the state, the concern of the statute is that we be able to inspect it in the pack in order to determine that the statutory standards --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2636.389, 2647.034, 2660.027, 2670.744, 2673.943, 2677.497, 2686.077, 2688.722, 2693.671], "stop_times": [2647.034, 2660.027, 2670.744, 2673.943, 2677.497, 2686.077, 2688.722, 2693.671, 2705.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2636.389}, "reply_to": "14998__1_035", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__2_001", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Isn't it -- is it the effect of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2705.423], "stop_times": [2707.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.423}, "reply_to": "14998__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__2_002", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "In this case Mr. Justice Stewart, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2707.191], "stop_times": [2710.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2707.191}, "reply_to": "14998__2_001", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__2_003", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Not cantaloupes, that is to be packed inside the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2710.074], "stop_times": [2711.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.074}, "reply_to": "14998__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14998__2_004", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "There is no question in this case that that is correct.\nSo the question is, where does it fall?\nIs it the Sligh versus Kirkwood, Turner versus Maryland case, or is it a Heidell case?\nAnd I would simply point out that in Heidell, this Court concluded that there was no other possible reasons for the requirement that -- a packing within the state other than the sole requirement that they wanted to keep the packing business for themselves.\nWere that the case in this statute, it would be made applicable to lettuce, it would be made applicable to asparagus, it would be made applicable to colliflower and the whole gamut products, it is not.\nThere is no requirement.\nThe only reason that they have to pack in the state is because they -- that they have to build a packing shed is that they cannot pack except in the packing shed.\nSo far as we are concerned, if they want to pack underneath the shade tree, that's fine, we can then carry out the inspection responsibilities with which Mr. Pike is charged under the statute.\nNow, with regard to Sligh versus Kirkwood, I simply thoroughly disagree that that was a -- a health and safety measure.\nI need not re-read the language that the Chief Justice has read.\nThat language is significant to two reasons.\nFirst of all, it points out that it is a proper purpose to be concern with the state's reputation in interstate commerce, and secondly, it points out that as long as that could have been the legislative purpose, then the statute will be upheld.\nMr. Abramson as I understand his comments, agreed that Turner versus Maryland was against him, but argues that is too old and therefore, the Court ought not to follow it.\nMr. Justice Stewart, so that you don't think that I'm totally incompetent in having missed it the first time around, let me point out that the language that I found which thoroughly resolves this comes at the end of a very long, long opinion in order to save you the same problem.\nMight I point out that is at page 57 of the United States reports.\nFinally and in conclusion and I won't need to use my seven minutes, this is an economic regulation.\nIt's a regulation imposed by a state pursuant to its police powers, and this Court has made it very clear, starting at Nebbia versus New York that there is a heavy burden which rests upon those individuals who seek to upset that police power regulation on the ground that it is unconstitutional.\nThere is no federal statute with which this is inconsistent, certainly under this Court's decision in Paul and so forth.\nOn conclusion, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2711.997, 2714.939, 2717.596, 2721.488, 2738.707, 2749.327, 2751.453, 2760.069, 2771.378, 2779.827, 2784.625, 2787.021, 2806.0, 2819.451, 2833.691, 2844.391, 2853.33, 2873.76, 2881.26], "stop_times": [2714.939, 2717.596, 2721.488, 2738.707, 2749.327, 2751.453, 2760.069, 2771.378, 2779.827, 2784.625, 2787.021, 2806.0, 2819.451, 2833.691, 2844.391, 2853.33, 2873.76, 2881.26, 2882.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2711.997}, "reply_to": "14998__2_003", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__2_005", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Before you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2882.881], "stop_times": [2883.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.881}, "reply_to": "14998__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__2_006", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2883.468], "stop_times": [2883.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2883.468}, "reply_to": "14998__2_005", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__2_007", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "-- before you get to your summary, has this statute involving as you suggest many other products of Arizona been challenged in the state courts at any time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2883.567], "stop_times": [2895.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.567}, "reply_to": "14998__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__2_008", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Never on these grounds Your Honor.\nThe \u2013 there have been probably half a dozen at the outside, pieces of litigation involving these statutes and most of them have involved bonds that the shippers had put up and -- nothing of this magnitude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2895.815, 2897.364], "stop_times": [2897.364, 2910.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2895.815}, "reply_to": "14998__2_007", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__2_009", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "None of the issues involved here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2910.261], "stop_times": [2911.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.261}, "reply_to": "14998__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14998__2_010", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "None of the issues involved here have ever been passed upon -- have even been passed upon by a state court.\nIt is agreed on all sides supported by the record, supported by square holdings of this Court that the State of Arizona has a legitimate interest, so long as these fruits and vegetables remain in the language of this Court within the bosom of the State of Arizona in requiring that they be packed according to the standards that the State of Arizona has prescribed.\nOnce you start from that premise, it is simply inevitable that the state has the right to enforce those standards according to its own inspection officers.\nThe statutory standards necessarily involve manners of judgment.\nMaterial misrepresentation of the entire quantity, uniformity of quality, uniformity of size, uniformity of color, these are judgment matters.\nWe submit that the State of Arizona has the right to have these judgment matters resolved by the judgment of its own inspection officers and not inspection officers of someone else outside the state.\nIn conclusion, when this first came up, Mr. Pike came to me and said well now, what is this law, this federal law that our law violates?\nAnd I said well Mr. Pike, it's the constitution and he said well, it's written in English isn't it?\nCan I read it?\nAnd I said well Mr. Pike, the constitutions, you have to understand, have a wealth of decisions behind him.\nAnd then he said nevertheless, it's written in English, let me see it.\nI showed to him and he said Congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce.\nHe said has Congress passed a law saying that we can't have a Standardization Act in Arizona?\nI of course, replied that Congress had not passed such a law.\nI think that it is important to bear in mind because I'm sure this Court well knows, in the absence of congressional legislation, the judicial function is a narrow one, and we submit that this case clearly falls within the bounds of legitimate exercise of state police power and the judgment of the lower court should be reversed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [2911.729, 2921.175, 2943.669, 2954.845, 2958.772, 2967.547, 2979.881, 2989.253, 2994.112, 2995.694, 3000.881, 3004.282, 3008.422, 3015.211, 3019.969, 3038.297], "stop_times": [2921.175, 2943.669, 2954.845, 2958.772, 2967.547, 2979.881, 2989.253, 2994.112, 2995.694, 3000.881, 3004.282, 3008.422, 3015.211, 3019.969, 3038.297, 3039.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2911.729}, "reply_to": "14998__2_009", "speaker": "rex_e_lee"}
{"id": "14998__2_011", "conversation_id": "14998", "text": "Thank you for your submission Mr. Lee, thank you Mr. Abramson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_301", "start_times": [3039.296, 3042.559], "stop_times": [3042.559, 3045.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.296}, "reply_to": "14998__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__0_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Under for our argument today is number 269, Price against the State of Georgia.\nMr. Wallace, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [0.0, 35.317], "stop_times": [35.317, 37.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__0_001", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and May it please the Court.\nAs I stand here in this place where many great men have stood before this August body of our government, I'm reminded of an incident that occurred in the Supreme Court of Georgia before Judge Douglas in my early years in the practice of law.\nIn addressing that body, I was arguing with all my might the point of law and the late Chief Justice of that Court said to me, Mr. Wallace, we are not interested in hearing your version of the law, remember, we make it here, we'd rather hear something about the facts.\nWith that thought in mind, and this being my first appearance before this great body and with the indulgence of the Court, I would like if permissible to give a thumbnail sketch of just what happened in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [37.909, 43.972, 65.96, 90.71], "stop_times": [43.972, 65.96, 90.71, 108.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 37.909}, "reply_to": "15019__0_000", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_002", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In your own way Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [108.184], "stop_times": [109.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.184}, "reply_to": "15019__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__0_003", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Thank you sir.\nIn 1962 in October, the petitioner in Certiorari Earl Price was indicted in Effingham county, superior -- Georgia Superior Court for the offense of murder.\nThe following day, he was tried in that Court for murder before a jury.\nThe judge, the trial judge is now deceased.\nThe key is that the jury brought in a verdict on the trial of murder of voluntary manslaughter.\nThey said nothing about the murder charge in their verdict.\nThe verdict merely said, we the jury find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and fixed his punishment from 10 to 15 years.\nI took that case to the Court of Appeals for review of Georgia.\nIt was reversed on an erroneous charge of the late judge Walton Usher.\nIn 1967 in October, the same man was called upon in the same Court, under the same indictment for the same offense of murder, to answer and to plea to the charge of murder.\nPrior to the trial of the case, second time in 1967, I filed a plea in the Court of former jeopardy.\nThe plea was argued at length and the Court overruled my plea of Double Jeopardy and the case went to trial, the second time, not for manslaughter but under the same indictment, grand jury indictment for the same offense before a jury and before the same trial judge.\nThat jury brought in a verdict of guilty and said nothing about murder or voluntary manslaughter as did the first jury.\nFixing his sentence at 10 years rather than 10 to 15 years as the first jury did.\nThe usual procedure was followed and the case was again appealed to the Court of Appeals for Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia I believe and they sent it to the Court of Appeals and then it went back by a certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia and we are now in this Court for an opinion.\nThere's two constitutional questions that we raised --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [109.813, 112.853, 131.639, 139.292, 146.035, 155.153, 160.939, 175.23, 182.887, 192.593, 220.109, 231.459, 260.293, 272.672, 286.378, 307.136], "stop_times": [112.853, 131.639, 139.292, 146.035, 155.153, 160.939, 175.23, 182.887, 192.593, 220.109, 231.459, 260.293, 272.672, 286.378, 307.136, 314.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.813}, "reply_to": "15019__0_002", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_004", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Could I ask you question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [314.058], "stop_times": [315.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.058}, "reply_to": "15019__0_003", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__0_005", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [315.837], "stop_times": [316.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.837}, "reply_to": "15019__0_004", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_006", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "(Inaudible) Court again for overruling your motion for being barred which took on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [316.075], "stop_times": [326.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.075}, "reply_to": "15019__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__0_007", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I believe if Your Honor please, the appendix will show that no reason was given except that the motion was denied if my memory serves me correct, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [326.392], "stop_times": [340.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.392}, "reply_to": "15019__0_006", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_008", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "You don't know the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [340.119], "stop_times": [341.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.119}, "reply_to": "15019__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__0_009", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That's correct.\nThe case \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [341.355, 345.291], "stop_times": [345.291, 346.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.355}, "reply_to": "15019__0_008", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_010", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Was your position Mr. Wallace that the second trial he could be charged and tried only under the charge of voluntary manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [346.031], "stop_times": [358.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.031}, "reply_to": "15019__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__0_011", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [358.058], "stop_times": [358.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.058}, "reply_to": "15019__0_010", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_012", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Nothing more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [358.522], "stop_times": [359.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.522}, "reply_to": "15019__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__0_013", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [359.52], "stop_times": [360.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.52}, "reply_to": "15019__0_012", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_014", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Did you cite Green against the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [360.968], "stop_times": [363.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.968}, "reply_to": "15019__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__0_015", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I certainly did, yes, and I think the appendix will show that and not only Mr. Chief Justice did I cite the Green case, but there was a case out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and I believe Justice Marshall wrote that opinion when he was on that bench.\nI may not pronounce that word correctly as no set rule for pronouncing proper names but I believe its Hecknes, is that correct?\nHenny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [363.53, 385.596, 395.081], "stop_times": [385.596, 395.081, 396.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.53}, "reply_to": "15019__0_014", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__0_016", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Kenny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [396.001], "stop_times": [396.795], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 396.001}, "reply_to": "15019__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15019__0_017", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And in that decision that Justice Marshall wrote of that opinion, he used the Green case and I used both of these cases in my argument in the trial Court.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [396.795, 411.812], "stop_times": [411.812, 413.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.795}, "reply_to": "15019__0_016", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__1_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Wallace, can I ask you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [413.029], "stop_times": [414.237], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 413.029}, "reply_to": "15019__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15019__2_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [414.237], "stop_times": [414.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.237}, "reply_to": "15019__1_000", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__3_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "If you had been right, would it have been necessary to have a new indictment limited to charge of voluntary manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [414.903], "stop_times": [422.341], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 414.903}, "reply_to": "15019__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15019__4_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Under Georgia law, I believe that is correct sir and that was what I insisted that a new indictment be brought.\nNow, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [422.341, 430.815], "stop_times": [430.815, 433.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.341}, "reply_to": "15019__3_000", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__5_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "A statute limitation was brought --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [433.328], "stop_times": [443.464], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 433.328}, "reply_to": "15019__4_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15019__6_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I believe he could, yes, that's my humble opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [443.464], "stop_times": [448.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.464}, "reply_to": "15019__5_000", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_001", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Why were you so much concerned about whether he was reindicted or whether was tried on any charge higher than voluntary manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [448.525], "stop_times": [457.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.525}, "reply_to": "15019__6_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_002", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I felt that to try him again would be double jeopardy.\nThey were trying him twice for something that the first jury, the second time, the first jury had acquitted him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [457.385, 463.958], "stop_times": [463.958, 469.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.385}, "reply_to": "15019__6_001", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_003", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, whatever he's thinking of it is if there's a practical matter in the second trial, the district -- the trial judge had ruled that he would submit no charges to the jury higher than voluntary manslaughter, would that have satisfied your situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [469.567], "stop_times": [483.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.567}, "reply_to": "15019__6_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_004", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [483.374], "stop_times": [484.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.374}, "reply_to": "15019__6_003", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_005", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Could he have done that under Georgia law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [484.94], "stop_times": [486.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.94}, "reply_to": "15019__6_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_006", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, under Georgia law, yes sir.\nNow, when this jury and my position is the same as the Green case and the case that Justice Marshall rendered his opinion on.\nWhen that first case, jury came in and said and if I -- my memory serves me correctly, we the jury find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and we fix his punishment at -- from 10 to 15 years.\nIt was the same even though they were solid on the murder charge.\nIt was the same as if the jury had come in and said we the jury find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of voluntary manslaughter.\nNow, my humble opponent here may argue the point that he got a lesser sentence at the second trial even though he was tried for murder and the appendix will show that the second trial, the jury was given the charge of murder, they could have selected either/or they could have found him guilty of either murder or voluntary manslaughter as they so fit.\nBut (Inaudible) to say my friend here on my right will probably argue that this was a lesser sentence, 10 years or with regard to 10 to 15 years.\nI'm sure that my friend will admit that under the rule in Georgia, our pardon and parole board when you have served a third of your minimum sentence, you're eligible for parole.\nNow, I take the position that there was no less sentence in the second trial than in the first trial.\nNow, as I stand here and argue this question which was presented here for review, I feel that that issue has been decided by this Court June of last year in the Benton versus Maryland case.\nI came here on a proper affidavit of certiorari.\nWe have asked the Court to pass on these questions and the state if I may refer to their brief, has admitted that my questions have been resolved, thus the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment apply and if so under the facts in this case was the defendant subjected to Double Jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [486.183, 489.402, 502.341, 517.077, 522.121, 533.653, 563.961, 578.95, 595.745, 604.524, 626.228, 633.668], "stop_times": [489.402, 502.341, 517.077, 522.121, 533.653, 563.961, 578.95, 595.745, 604.524, 626.228, 633.668, 672.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.183}, "reply_to": "15019__6_005", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_007", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What was his -- what is the injury your man has suffered in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [672.006], "stop_times": [680.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.006}, "reply_to": "15019__6_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__6_008", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Black, I feel that the injury was -- you got me a little ahead of my thought, I was going to bring that out but if you give me just a second --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [680.804], "stop_times": [695.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.804}, "reply_to": "15019__6_007", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_009", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Now you wait -- just wait?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [695.628], "stop_times": [700.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.628}, "reply_to": "15019__6_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__6_010", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I feel that the -- the injury is that if the jury had been given the opportunity to decide the question of whether or not he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, they would have given and I believe, I may not be stating that as it was said in the case of Justice Marshall wrote the opinion on and the Green case but I feel that they would have considered his innocence, probably given more thought, a more consideration to his innocence rather than to -- considering his conviction if he had been tried for manslaughter because he was tried the second time for murder.\nDoes that answer your question as to my position sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [700.344, 740.929], "stop_times": [740.929, 743.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.344}, "reply_to": "15019__6_009", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_011", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yeah, you probably answered to my brother's ability can be answered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [743.578], "stop_times": [747.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.578}, "reply_to": "15019__6_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__6_012", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [747.954], "stop_times": [748.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 747.954}, "reply_to": "15019__6_011", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_013", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I not only say is not a good answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [748.766], "stop_times": [751.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.766}, "reply_to": "15019__6_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__6_014", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [751.175], "stop_times": [752.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.175}, "reply_to": "15019__6_013", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_015", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Wallace, if he had been indicted the second time for voluntary manslaughter, under Georgia law, what other offenses are lesser included offenses under that charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [752.332], "stop_times": [766.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.332}, "reply_to": "15019__6_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_016", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I believe the Court under this statute would have -- could have \u2013 they could have found as if a misdemeanor and given him possibly a sentence of one year maximum, a thousand dollar fine plus six months in jail, I believe that's maximum on misdemeanor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [766.063], "stop_times": [784.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.063}, "reply_to": "15019__6_015", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_017", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But the worst, there's -- there was -- are lesser included offenses under Georgia law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [784.884], "stop_times": [788.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.884}, "reply_to": "15019__6_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_018", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [788.503], "stop_times": [788.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.503}, "reply_to": "15019__6_017", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_019", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "There are lesser --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [788.997], "stop_times": [789.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.997}, "reply_to": "15019__6_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_020", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes but, yes, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [789.816], "stop_times": [789.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.816}, "reply_to": "15019__6_019", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_021", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- included offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [789.933], "stop_times": [790.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.933}, "reply_to": "15019__6_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_022", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [790.548], "stop_times": [791.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.548}, "reply_to": "15019__6_021", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_023", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And your position is that faced with that the jury might have found them one of those lesser included offenses if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [791.566], "stop_times": [799.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.566}, "reply_to": "15019__6_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_024", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [799.579], "stop_times": [800.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.579}, "reply_to": "15019__6_023", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_025", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- murder indictment were not hanging over?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [800.226], "stop_times": [802.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.226}, "reply_to": "15019__6_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_026", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That's correct sir.\nNow, when the appendix came up and was printed, this was a pauper case and I was -- I paid for that myself out of my pocket.\nI did not bring the whole record because it was rather expensive.\nI may have got the record from the lower appellate court covering this one issue.\nNow, as I said, I feel like that the Benton case has now resolved this issue and when I read the Benton case then I received instructions from this Court when I argued this case to argue the retroactivity of the Benton case in connection with this case.\nNow, if I may, if there are no further questions of the Court I would like at this time to reserve the remaining few minutes that I have to argue that point after the Attorney General's of -- the gentleman from the Attorney General's Office of Georgia had had an opportunity to present his side of the case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [802.278, 803.607, 811.615, 814.764, 822.201, 844.33, 862.881], "stop_times": [803.607, 811.615, 814.764, 822.201, 844.33, 862.881, 867.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.278}, "reply_to": "15019__6_025", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_027", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [867.227], "stop_times": [870.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.227}, "reply_to": "15019__6_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__6_028", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Thank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [870.005], "stop_times": [870.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.005}, "reply_to": "15019__6_027", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__6_029", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Robins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [870.864], "stop_times": [874.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.864}, "reply_to": "15019__6_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and May it please the Court.\nI rise now to respond to one of the two directors of this Court wherein this Court asked to show why Benton versus Maryland may or may not be applicable to the facts of this case and I respond to that firstly.\nI would say as reluctantly as it is as I can that Benton versus Maryland is applicable to this case but not so much because of what Benton versus Maryland says, but because it made Green applicable to this case and the implied Acquittal Doctrine which was a federal principle prior to Benton versus Maryland.\nI don't believe that I can escape the implied acquittal doctrine for Green.\nI'm particularly persuaded to this decision by the fact that the Chief Justice in his dissent in Ashe versus Swenson emphasized the fact that the phrase, run the gauntlet in Green meant as to that charge.\nNow, I'm afraid that in this case that is perhaps what has happened to Mr. Price.\nHe has run the gauntlet on the murder charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [874.573, 878.131, 894.221, 916.895, 923.595, 940.748, 945.257], "stop_times": [878.131, 894.221, 916.895, 923.595, 940.748, 945.257, 947.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 874.573}, "reply_to": "15019__6_029", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_001", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Do you think its possible to argue that now under the law of the District of Columbia there might be prior -- an acquittal on the first degree of murder under these circumstances of a general jury verdict of manslaughter, still the law of your jurisdiction is different and that of jury verdict of manslaughter after a trial on an indictment of murder is not under the law of your jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [947.846], "stop_times": [975.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.846}, "reply_to": "15019__7_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_002", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I'm going to say -- I am suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [975.21], "stop_times": [975.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 975.21}, "reply_to": "15019__7_001", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_003", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- but it's not little as first degree murder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [975.621], "stop_times": [977.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.621}, "reply_to": "15019__7_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_004", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nI'm suggesting that because in the state of Georgia, of course, they do not come back and say that he is acquitted of murder and he is found guilty of voluntary manslaughter as were the facts in this case, but in the State of Georgia, they can return a verdict for manslaughter and it maybe because and this suggests conjecture but it maybe because the crime does not warrant the punishment which murder would require, that is death or life imprisonment, that is required by statute.\nIt maybe that the facts as presented to the jury or such that they may feel that this doesn't warrant that kind of punishment and yet there is sufficient evidence that would warrant a voluntary manslaughter conviction.\nI might add also that in the State of Georgia, a jury may bring back a conviction for a lesser crime even though they were not charged on that lesser crime where the evidence warrants it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [977.502, 977.708, 1008.592, 1021.063], "stop_times": [977.708, 1008.592, 1021.063, 1032.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 977.502}, "reply_to": "15019__7_003", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_005", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, they were here though, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1032.04], "stop_times": [1033.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.04}, "reply_to": "15019__7_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_006", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, they were in this particular case but I emphasize the point that there is discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1033.428], "stop_times": [1037.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1033.428}, "reply_to": "15019__7_005", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_007", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What lesser crimes were they charged off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1037.108], "stop_times": [1039.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.108}, "reply_to": "15019__7_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_008", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In this case?\nVoluntary manslaughter I believe Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1039.714, 1040.928], "stop_times": [1040.928, 1042.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1039.714}, "reply_to": "15019__7_007", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_009", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1042.569], "stop_times": [1046.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.569}, "reply_to": "15019__7_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_010", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I'm not certain Your Honor.\nTo my knowledge that is all.\nThe only other lesser crime as such would be involuntary manslaughter.\nNow, the judge upon the recommendation of the jury may reduce the punishment to that as for a misdemeanor where the jury recommends it on voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter but not for murder.\nThe jury is compelled on a murder charge to either recommend mercy or in their absence it would be a death sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1046.69, 1047.589, 1049.245, 1053.165, 1065.439], "stop_times": [1047.589, 1049.245, 1053.165, 1065.439, 1070.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1046.69}, "reply_to": "15019__7_009", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_011", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Under Georgia law, does the jury fix the penalty in every case or is it just an option to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1070.672], "stop_times": [1077.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.672}, "reply_to": "15019__7_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_012", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, it's a strange relationship, if Your Honor please.\nIn the death -- in the murder situation, they indirectly fix the sentence.\nIf they do not bring back a recommendation of mercy, the sentence is automatically death.\nIf they bring back a recommendation of mercy, it is automatically life.\nIn the other situations of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, they may fix the punishment.\nThey may recommend a punishment I believe within the prescribed range.\nI am not -- I cannot state with all certainty whether the judge is obligated to follow that recommendation of the jury.\nIn this particular case, the punishment for voluntary manslaughter is 1:20.\nThey fix punishment at 10 to 15 initially and at subsequently at 10.\nThis brings to mind a very important point and I want to emphasize this.\nIt is my contention as my brother said out to the Court that I would urge this Court to find that this man has not been harmed.\nI recognized the harmful error as a proposition that states perhaps overemphasized the fact that there is not harmful error.\nI say here there was no harmful error.\nThis man was initially sentenced to 10 to 15 and under the old law of Georgia that would have meant that he would have been eligible for a conditional release which is tantamount to a parole at the end of 10 years.\nIn 1964, the Georgia General Assembly changed the law and required that sentences be made definite and subsequently the -- and a second trial, Mr. Price was sentenced to 10 years.\nThis meant that he could get out at the end of five years and nine months assuming all good behavior, time off for good behavior.\nSo he has received a material benefit by the act of the general assembly, but more importantly, he has not been harmed in what has happened I would submit.\nIf the Court is going to consider the Hetenyi proposition then it is considering that perhaps the jury could not or would not do its duty.\nThat it would not follow the directions of the Court.\nIn this particular situation, the jury rejected the charge of the Court as to murder and brought back the lesser charge.\nI would submit to this Court that the record clearly shows that they did do their duty and it would only be conjecture that that they might have done something else had they not been -- had there not been evidence on murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1077.768, 1081.277, 1087.353, 1092.854, 1097.224, 1104.06, 1109.108, 1115.793, 1119.413, 1125.757, 1130.223, 1137.325, 1149.195, 1151.526, 1164.547, 1177.57, 1184.61, 1194.031, 1203.378, 1207.057, 1215.562], "stop_times": [1081.277, 1087.353, 1092.854, 1097.224, 1104.06, 1109.108, 1115.793, 1119.413, 1125.757, 1130.223, 1137.325, 1149.195, 1151.526, 1164.547, 1177.57, 1184.61, 1194.031, 1203.378, 1207.057, 1215.562, 1229.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1077.768}, "reply_to": "15019__7_011", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_013", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "As I understand it general Robins, you're conceding in this aspect of your argument?\nYou're conceding at least for the purposes of argument that the -- that the trial judge should have granted the motion and should have allowed the state to try him only for manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1229.133, 1234.955], "stop_times": [1234.955, 1249.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.133}, "reply_to": "15019__7_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_014", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "With that trial today, yes sir.\nOf course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1249.107, 1251.044], "stop_times": [1251.044, 1251.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1249.107}, "reply_to": "15019__7_013", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_015", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "You are disputing that at least for purposes of argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1251.717], "stop_times": [1253.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.717}, "reply_to": "15019__7_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_016", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1253.654], "stop_times": [1253.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1253.654}, "reply_to": "15019__7_015", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_017", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In this aspect of your argument.\nWhat you're saying that since as it turned out, he was convicted of no more than manslaughter and indeed given a lower sentence than he received its the first trial.\nIt was completely harmless error --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1253.848, 1255.205, 1265.754], "stop_times": [1255.205, 1265.754, 1267.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.848}, "reply_to": "15019__7_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_018", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1267.561], "stop_times": [1267.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1267.561}, "reply_to": "15019__7_017", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_019", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- and no constitutional error --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1267.734], "stop_times": [1269.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.734}, "reply_to": "15019__7_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_020", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1269.27], "stop_times": [1269.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1269.27}, "reply_to": "15019__7_019", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_021", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Is that your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1269.419], "stop_times": [1270.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1269.419}, "reply_to": "15019__7_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_022", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, that is my point in so far as applicability of the Benton and the Green rule made that comes under that.\nI'm persuaded to this argument --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1270.217, 1278.698], "stop_times": [1278.698, 1280.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1270.217}, "reply_to": "15019__7_021", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_023", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "This is quite a case quite unlike Green because in Green --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1280.289], "stop_times": [1282.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.289}, "reply_to": "15019__7_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_024", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1282.933], "stop_times": [1283.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1282.933}, "reply_to": "15019__7_023", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_025", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "He was tried again and that time convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1283.186], "stop_times": [1287.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.186}, "reply_to": "15019__7_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_026", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1287.626, 1287.936], "stop_times": [1287.936, 1288.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1287.626}, "reply_to": "15019__7_025", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_027", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And that this therefore is quite different case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1288.202], "stop_times": [1290.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.202}, "reply_to": "15019__7_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_028", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "This is quite a bit different.\nIn fact, this case factually is different than any other case that I can find in the records of this Court with the possible exception of Cichos versus Indiana where factually, there was a similar situation and this Court chose not to pass upon it.\nHowever, getting ahead of myself however, in the Cichos case in what I understood to be just dictum it did say that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy proposition was not applicable to the states.\nBut factually, this case is different and because of the facts it takes it out from Benton, takes it out from Green and makes it a new case.\nI don't believe this is -- we can say Green is completely applicable because there that man came back with a death sentence, the second time, yeah.\nThis case, this man has come back with something even less than he got the first time in so far as time to be served in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1290.347, 1291.431, 1308.019, 1320.339, 1328.997, 1338.64], "stop_times": [1291.431, 1308.019, 1320.339, 1328.997, 1338.64, 1345.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1290.347}, "reply_to": "15019__7_027", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_029", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Has he been given full credit in his -- in serving of his second sentence for the time he served and as result of the first conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1345.148], "stop_times": [1352.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.148}, "reply_to": "15019__7_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_030", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Sir, no Your Honor, he did not serve anytime after --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1352.907], "stop_times": [1355.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1352.907}, "reply_to": "15019__7_029", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_031", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "None at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1355.624], "stop_times": [1356.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.624}, "reply_to": "15019__7_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_032", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "None at all to my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1356.17], "stop_times": [1357.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1356.17}, "reply_to": "15019__7_031", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_033", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Has he yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1357.776], "stop_times": [1359.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.776}, "reply_to": "15019__7_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15019__7_034", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "He is serving now I believe Mr. Justice White but he did not serve anytime after the first sentence.\nHowever, Georgia law does provide that where one remains incarcerated in jail during an appeal they will reserve, will receive benefit for that time.\nSo he would have received benefit had he been incarcerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1359.281, 1366.243, 1376.287], "stop_times": [1366.243, 1376.287, 1380.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1359.281}, "reply_to": "15019__7_033", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_035", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Now, General Robins, the language the constitution prohibition is against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.\nNow, when they tried him the second time, if the rationale of the Green case carries over and that applies here implied acquittal, was he not then placed in jeopardy of a conviction of murder eventhough in fact the jury returned the lesser verdict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1380.493, 1393.515], "stop_times": [1393.515, 1413.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.493}, "reply_to": "15019__7_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_036", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat I believe I would have to admit that to the Court.\nI've studied the cases.\nI've strained for some distinguishing characteristic but I cannot find a distinguishing characteristic and as I stated earlier, I'm also -- persuaded that conclusion by Your Honor's dissent in Ashe versus Swenson which makes reference to running the gauntlet on that charge and if we apply that rationale to this case, Mr. Price ran the gauntlet on the charge of murder though he was convicted of a lesser crime.\nAlso, I must recognize that in US versus Ball that this Court said that the double jeopardy provision is not determined upon the punishment that it receives but by the fact whether he has in fact been tried for that crime.\nSo, it's difficult for me at all to escape this but not withstanding this and even admitting if this whould be an admission that double jeopardy was a factor.\nI'm saying there are other elements which take this out and make this -- makes this harmless error instead of harmful error, and of course the Chapman versus the California case is the best case on harmless error and it applied in that case a test in Faihey versus Connecticut which said that where there is reasonable possibility that evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.\nWell, in this particular case, in the Price case, the jury rejected that evidence of murder.\nIt rejected the charge of the Court and in essence it says we reject any evidence on murder.\nWe find that it is not an applicable situation without finding innocence or quilt.\nWe're saying this is more applicable, voluntary manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1413.597, 1413.977, 1418.028, 1419.401, 1446.497, 1459.826, 1470.294, 1499.772, 1506.244, 1511.911, 1516.906], "stop_times": [1413.977, 1418.028, 1419.401, 1446.497, 1459.826, 1470.294, 1499.772, 1506.244, 1511.911, 1516.906, 1519.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1413.597}, "reply_to": "15019__7_035", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_037", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Robins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1519.802], "stop_times": [1520.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.802}, "reply_to": "15019__7_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_038", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1520.555], "stop_times": [1520.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1520.555}, "reply_to": "15019__7_037", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_039", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Can we take any consideration to sentence when the constitution says he shall not be tried.\nIt didn't say he shall not be sentenced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1520.668, 1528.363], "stop_times": [1528.363, 1532.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.668}, "reply_to": "15019__7_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_040", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I believe Your Honor that this Court could take it under consideration in the -- under the proposition of harmless error whether or not a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1532.171], "stop_times": [1543.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1532.171}, "reply_to": "15019__7_039", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_041", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Is there any provision of the Constitution that you couldn't excuse under harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1543.489], "stop_times": [1549.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.489}, "reply_to": "15019__7_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_042", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well sir, yes sir.\nThe Chapman versus California case specifically said that some basic rights were not harmless error.\nFor instance the coerce confession, the right to counsel, the right to an impartial judge, it said that in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1549.296, 1551.587, 1559.601], "stop_times": [1551.587, 1559.601, 1564.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1549.296}, "reply_to": "15019__7_041", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_043", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "It didn't say double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1564.823], "stop_times": [1568.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.823}, "reply_to": "15019__7_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_044", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I don't believe -- I don't remember that it did sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1568.374], "stop_times": [1571.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1568.374}, "reply_to": "15019__7_043", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_045", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, isn't the whole argument about Double Jeopardy is that you should make the man be exposed to it the second time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1571.381], "stop_times": [1581.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.381}, "reply_to": "15019__7_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_046", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That is the -- yes sir that is the contention of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1581.088], "stop_times": [1585.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1581.088}, "reply_to": "15019__7_045", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_047", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And then the error in this case you admit was at the beginning of the trial and the trial should not admit him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1585.884], "stop_times": [1596.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.884}, "reply_to": "15019__7_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_048", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1596.661], "stop_times": [1596.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1596.661}, "reply_to": "15019__7_047", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_049", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1596.844], "stop_times": [1597.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.844}, "reply_to": "15019__7_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_050", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Under the law today, I would have to admit that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1597.59], "stop_times": [1600.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1597.59}, "reply_to": "15019__7_049", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_051", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And despite that fact, you can try in harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1600.238], "stop_times": [1605.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1600.238}, "reply_to": "15019__7_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_052", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, because I submit to the Court that that error if it were in fact error did not go to a substantial right of this man.\nHe had all the substantive rights at his trial to reject --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1605.525, 1614.271], "stop_times": [1614.271, 1617.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1605.525}, "reply_to": "15019__7_051", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_053", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "His right was not to be twice charged with the same crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1617.52], "stop_times": [1623.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.52}, "reply_to": "15019__7_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_054", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But so were the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1623.244], "stop_times": [1623.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1623.244}, "reply_to": "15019__7_053", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_055", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Once he was put to trial on that, is it not true that the constitution was violated as of that moment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1623.892], "stop_times": [1633.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.892}, "reply_to": "15019__7_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_056", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir it is true, but so were the rights of all the defendants for instance that come -- that came before the Miranda decision, that came before the Gideon decision.\nWell, that was made retroactive but some of the cases that were not made retroactive, their rights also were violated but this Court has decided that that was not such a substantial right that it should be made retroactive and I'm submitting to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1633.455, 1645.523], "stop_times": [1645.523, 1659.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1633.455}, "reply_to": "15019__7_055", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_057", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "We're talking about harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1659.715], "stop_times": [1661.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.715}, "reply_to": "15019__7_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_058", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir and I'm saying that this is not such a substantial right that he has been harmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1661.267], "stop_times": [1666.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1661.267}, "reply_to": "15019__7_057", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_059", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "You don't think the prolonged trial with the possibility he can be electrocuted is not a right that entitled to the full protection of this Court, just the right not to be charged with it, certainly not to be tried with that hanging over your ear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1666.933], "stop_times": [1691.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.933}, "reply_to": "15019__7_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15019__7_060", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That is and I have admitted and I admit now that would seem to be the rule where that case decided today, but I'm saying there are other elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1691.57], "stop_times": [1700.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1691.57}, "reply_to": "15019__7_059", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_061", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Supposing you -- supposing you lose this case, can you reindict this man for manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1700.294], "stop_times": [1713.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.294}, "reply_to": "15019__7_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_062", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I don't see any reason -- I do not know Your Honor.\nI don't believe -- I don't see any reason --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1713.067, 1716.401], "stop_times": [1716.401, 1718.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1713.067}, "reply_to": "15019__7_061", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_063", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "If you reindicted him, there wouldn't be any double jeopardy problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1718.344], "stop_times": [1722.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.344}, "reply_to": "15019__7_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_064", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No sir, this would be the standard that you may retry a man for conviction set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1722.116], "stop_times": [1727.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1722.116}, "reply_to": "15019__7_063", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_065", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, what I'm asking you now, supposing you lose this case, can you reindict him now for manslaughter and try him again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1727.241], "stop_times": [1735.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.241}, "reply_to": "15019__7_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_066", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I would believe so, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1735.206], "stop_times": [1737.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1735.206}, "reply_to": "15019__7_065", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_067", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, is there -- that's what I asked you.\nMr. Wallace, with statute limitations around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1737.052, 1739.582], "stop_times": [1739.582, 1745.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.052}, "reply_to": "15019__7_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_068", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Your Honor, I have not considered that, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1745.742], "stop_times": [1748.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1745.742}, "reply_to": "15019__7_067", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_069", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, it seems to me that's the essence of your -- and that's the essence of your -- of your harmless error point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1748.855], "stop_times": [1757.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.855}, "reply_to": "15019__7_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_070", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1757.721], "stop_times": [1758.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1757.721}, "reply_to": "15019__7_069", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_071", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "If you can try him again now even though he has been put in jeopardy as Justice Marshall says you can try him again for the manslaughter charge and give him a sentence.\nNow, if he's convicted not longer than the original sentence, isn't that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1758.061, 1771.388], "stop_times": [1771.388, 1776.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.061}, "reply_to": "15019__7_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_072", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "It might be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1776.399], "stop_times": [1777.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1776.399}, "reply_to": "15019__7_071", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_073", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- your harmless error claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1777.503], "stop_times": [1778.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.503}, "reply_to": "15019__7_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_074", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "It would be better to differ Mr. Wallace --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1778.931], "stop_times": [1780.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.931}, "reply_to": "15019__7_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_075", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Isn't that your harmless error claim yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1780.78], "stop_times": [1782.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.78}, "reply_to": "15019__7_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_076", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I have not considered that but however, that is a point that I wish I had considered and presented to the Court.\nThat is a point well taken.\nI --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1782.191, 1788.552, 1790.373], "stop_times": [1788.552, 1790.373, 1790.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1782.191}, "reply_to": "15019__7_075", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_077", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "You can tell me whether the -- whether the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1790.426], "stop_times": [1792.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.426}, "reply_to": "15019__7_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_078", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Statute of limitation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1792.69], "stop_times": [1793.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1792.69}, "reply_to": "15019__7_077", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_079", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "--statute is run?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1793.689], "stop_times": [1794.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.689}, "reply_to": "15019__7_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_080", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No sir I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1794.887], "stop_times": [1795.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1794.887}, "reply_to": "15019__7_079", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_081", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Are your witnesses still available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1795.637], "stop_times": [1798.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.637}, "reply_to": "15019__7_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_082", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I do not know that sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1798.59], "stop_times": [1799.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1798.59}, "reply_to": "15019__7_081", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_083", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Oh!", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1799.952], "stop_times": [1800.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.952}, "reply_to": "15019__7_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_084", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Of course we have taken this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1800.033], "stop_times": [1801.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1800.033}, "reply_to": "15019__7_083", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_085", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "As far as I'm concerned, I wish you'd let the Court know whether the statute is run on this manslaughter charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1801.089], "stop_times": [1808.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.089}, "reply_to": "15019__7_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_086", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, he was tried the second time -- I do not know Your Honor.\nI could -- I don't know that.\nI had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1808.621, 1813.152, 1814.504], "stop_times": [1813.152, 1814.504, 1814.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1808.621}, "reply_to": "15019__7_085", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_087", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, won't you let us know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1814.752], "stop_times": [1815.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.752}, "reply_to": "15019__7_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_088", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1815.903], "stop_times": [1817.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1815.903}, "reply_to": "15019__7_087", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_089", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "When you address yourself to that question, will you also indicate whether there are any legal barriers to being tried under the existing indictment provided the Court does not submit any charge higher than voluntary manslaughter to the jury?\nMr. Wallace seemed to concede that that would have satisfied his position at the time of the second trial.\nI do not take that as a concession that he would concede it now necessarily, but if you will address yourself to that point also in your memorandum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1817.308, 1834.861, 1844.317], "stop_times": [1834.861, 1844.317, 1853.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.308}, "reply_to": "15019__7_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_090", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nOn passing then, just in my final argument on this question, I submitted that that because of the fact he did get a lesser sentence.\nThat there was harmless error and I now pass to the question of the retroactivity of Benton.\nExtensively, if this Court should decide that Benton is not applicable to the facts in this case and of course this would not perhaps be a proper case to decide retroactivity of Benton.\nBut nevertheless, this Court has for some time now specially since 1965 in the case of Linkletter versus Walker set out certain criteria which it has tried to follow in determining whether case should be retroactive.\nIt has considered the prior history of the rule.\nIt has considered the purpose and effect of the new rule and it has considered whether or not the application of the new rule would further or retard its operation.\nAnd throughout these cases where the prospective -- prospectivity of a case has been in question, it has applied these rules.\nI would submit that insofar as Benton versus Maryland that the prior history of the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment has shown that this Court has repeatedly held that it was not applicable to the state and upon given the choice, since the Green case in 1957 or 1959, whenever it was, when given a choice, this Court has on one occasion said the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to the states and on another occasion, Cichos versus Indiana in a factual situation identical I submit to ours, this Court did not pass on the question, however, it did say in dictum that it was -- that the double jeopardy provision was not applicable to the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1853.3, 1855.51, 1865.851, 1875.513, 1888.257, 1904.601, 1906.948, 1915.646, 1925.008], "stop_times": [1855.51, 1865.851, 1875.513, 1888.257, 1904.601, 1906.948, 1915.646, 1925.008, 1971.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1853.3}, "reply_to": "15019__7_089", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_091", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "How about the Ashe against Swenson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1971.103], "stop_times": [1974.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1971.103}, "reply_to": "15019__7_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_092", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, I've studied --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1974.132], "stop_times": [1976.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1974.132}, "reply_to": "15019__7_091", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_093", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And Pearce against North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1976.061], "stop_times": [1977.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.061}, "reply_to": "15019__7_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_094", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, in Pearce if Your Honor please.\nThe question that was specifically posed in Pearce and the question which was phrased in the first paragraph of that decision was weather or not when at the behest of the defendant, a criminal conviction has been set aside and a new trial order, to what extent does the constitution limit the imposition of a harsher sentence.\nAnd then further in the opinion this Court said that the double jeopardy provision is to protect three things, protection against repeated prosecutions after an acquittal, protection after a conviction and protection against the imposition of repeated punishments.\nBut in Pearce, the only question posed to the Court was the question of the sentence.\nIt was not really confronted with the question that we have here and I would urge this Court to consider Pearce not as a blanket determination that Benton versus Maryland should be retroactive but that Pearce decided only that insofar as the imposition of harsher sentences are concerned that it should be made retroactive.\nAnd I'm further -- I emphasize this position because that is a correction that can be made with the minimum of effort by the states.\nIt need only do it administrative -- administratively and need not have subsequent trials as would be required by retroactive application of Benton versus Maryland.\nSo, though the footnote --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [1977.811, 1980.512, 1996.946, 2013.305, 2019.751, 2039.07, 2048.096, 2059.176], "stop_times": [1980.512, 1996.946, 2013.305, 2019.751, 2039.07, 2048.096, 2059.176, 2060.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1977.811}, "reply_to": "15019__7_093", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_095", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But in the two cases you said where you had -- why since Green said that the double jeopardy provision does not apply to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2060.436], "stop_times": [2069.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.436}, "reply_to": "15019__7_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_096", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Particularly one -- one Your Honor was Barktus versus Illinois which was in the late 50s, 1959, the earlier one was Hoag versus New Jersey, though that's not a holding of the Court, it is dictum, that's a 1958 decision.\nAlso dictum I suppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2069.985, 2090.58], "stop_times": [2090.58, 2091.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2069.985}, "reply_to": "15019__7_095", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_097", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In the Barktus case, there was a -- Where is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2091.286], "stop_times": [2093.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.286}, "reply_to": "15019__7_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_098", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Barktus versus Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2093.726], "stop_times": [2095.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2093.726}, "reply_to": "15019__7_097", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_099", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What page of the USC --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2095.237], "stop_times": [2096.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.237}, "reply_to": "15019__7_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_100", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Oh I'm sorry Your Honor, I don't have the citation in front of me.\nIt's a 1959 case.\nThe other case was Cichos versus Indiana, the very -- nearly the last paragraph in that case.\nThat case did suggest that the double jeopardy provision was not applicable to the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2096.569, 2101.242, 2103.747, 2110.245], "stop_times": [2101.242, 2103.747, 2110.245, 2114.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2096.569}, "reply_to": "15019__7_099", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_101", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "How do you spell that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2114.641], "stop_times": [2115.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.641}, "reply_to": "15019__7_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_102", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "C I C H O S.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2115.808], "stop_times": [2121.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2115.808}, "reply_to": "15019__7_101", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_103", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "359 US 121.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2121.591], "stop_times": [2125.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.591}, "reply_to": "15019__7_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_104", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "So we have here them --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2125.447], "stop_times": [2128.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2125.447}, "reply_to": "15019__7_103", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_105", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Were you going to say something about the -- would you whether Ashe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2128.636], "stop_times": [2132.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.636}, "reply_to": "15019__7_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_106", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2132.861], "stop_times": [2133.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2132.861}, "reply_to": "15019__7_105", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_107", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- dealt with this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2133.283], "stop_times": [2134.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.283}, "reply_to": "15019__7_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_108", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nAshe, the facts in Ashe would seem to come within the ambit of the first of the three propositions set out in Pearce, that is whether Benton is applicable to the protection to the defendant against subsequent convict -- subsequent trials after an acquittal, that would seem to be the suggestion in Ashe, however, Ashe I respectfully submit, there's no more than to incorporate collateral estoppel into the double jeopardy provision where it had not been incorporated earlier and in fact it had been rejected in Hoag versus New Jersey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2134.294, 2136.024], "stop_times": [2136.024, 2171.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2134.294}, "reply_to": "15019__7_107", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_109", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The opinion by footnote or otherwise, didn't it not say something explicit in the question of retroactivity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2171.464], "stop_times": [2178.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.464}, "reply_to": "15019__7_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_110", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, it is quite explicit, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2178.307], "stop_times": [2181.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2178.307}, "reply_to": "15019__7_109", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_111", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "How did it lead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2181.043], "stop_times": [2182.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.043}, "reply_to": "15019__7_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_112", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "There can be no doubt of the retroactivity of the Court's decision in Benton versus Maryland, and North Carolina versus Pearce decided the same day as Benton, the Court unanimously accorded fully retroactive effect to the Benton doctrine.\nI submit to the Court however there's that -- if this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2182.036, 2195.62], "stop_times": [2195.62, 2198.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2182.036}, "reply_to": "15019__7_111", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_113", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Are you aware of the word there is fully, is it?\nFully retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2198.097, 2201.077], "stop_times": [2201.077, 2202.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.097}, "reply_to": "15019__7_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_114", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt's -- yes sir, it says fully retroactive, but this is -- if we are going to say that it is applicable to the other elements of the three, then it is a departure from what this Court has done in earlier cases.\nLinkletter versus Walker, Stovall versus Denno, Jenkins versus Delaware, these continuing series of cases where this Court has considered the criteria setout in Linkletter versus Walker, prior history, purpose and effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2202.014, 2202.374, 2218.242], "stop_times": [2202.374, 2218.242, 2231.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2202.014}, "reply_to": "15019__7_113", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_115", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Difficulty is I think that General Robins as my brother Brennan has implied in his question, Ashe could not have been decided the way it was.\nIt couldn't -- the judgment couldn't have been reached, it was reached in Ashe without holding that the doctrine of Benton against Maryland was fully retroactive, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2231.894, 2242.896], "stop_times": [2242.896, 2252.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.894}, "reply_to": "15019__7_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_116", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir that is correct but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2252.853], "stop_times": [2254.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2252.853}, "reply_to": "15019__7_115", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_117", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "So how did the -- how did they cross --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2254.217], "stop_times": [2255.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.217}, "reply_to": "15019__7_116", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_118", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- however --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2255.198], "stop_times": [2255.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2255.198}, "reply_to": "15019__7_117", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_119", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- that bridge for better or for worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2255.551], "stop_times": [2257.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.551}, "reply_to": "15019__7_118", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_120", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That's a difficult bridge to cross Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2257.51], "stop_times": [2258.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2257.51}, "reply_to": "15019__7_119", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_121", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "So haven't we done it difficult or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2258.978], "stop_times": [2263.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.978}, "reply_to": "15019__7_120", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_122", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, it's hard for me to see how this Court has done it and I've tried to study the opinion.\nFor instance Benton versus -- the Benton versus Maryland case is only mentioned one time that there's no -- and Pearce, there's no reference in Pearce to the other elements, the three that this Court set out.\nThere's no reference to the other two elements and the effect of Benton.\nThe whole case turns upon imposition of harsher sentences and then all of a sudden we have this decision in Pearce which if it is to be determined that it is retro making Benton retroactive is a complete departure from earlier cases where this Court has considered the effect, reliance, the Desist case is I think is a good opinion where this Court has considered what all of this will do to the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2263.997, 2269.582, 2282.794, 2286.177], "stop_times": [2269.582, 2282.794, 2286.177, 2311.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2263.997}, "reply_to": "15019__7_121", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_123", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, that involves the Fourth Amendment where the test is whether or not there's the searching officers act to after the brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2311.61], "stop_times": [2320.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.61}, "reply_to": "15019__7_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_124", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "It's a -- yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2320.653], "stop_times": [2320.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2320.653}, "reply_to": "15019__7_123", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_125", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And part of reason is relying on the existing on the Court decision of that but haven't we as I say rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse haven't -- hasn't the Court whether to approve or not and hasn't the Court crossed that bridge.\nIf not in Pearce then at least in Ashe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2320.902, 2339.162], "stop_times": [2339.162, 2341.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.902}, "reply_to": "15019__7_124", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_126", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2341.722], "stop_times": [2342.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2341.722}, "reply_to": "15019__7_125", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_127", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "How could Ashe possibly have been decided the way it was without holding the doctrine of Benton against Maryland retroactive?\nAshe came out --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2342.136, 2350.14], "stop_times": [2350.14, 2350.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.136}, "reply_to": "15019__7_126", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_128", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2350.783], "stop_times": [2350.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2350.783}, "reply_to": "15019__7_127", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_129", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- remember on collateral --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2350.854], "stop_times": [2352.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.854}, "reply_to": "15019__7_128", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_130", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2352.964], "stop_times": [2353.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2352.964}, "reply_to": "15019__7_129", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_131", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "On the collateral proceedings and federal habeas corpus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2353.384], "stop_times": [2355.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.384}, "reply_to": "15019__7_130", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_132", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "This Court has crossed that bridge.\nI was seeking to urge this Court that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2355.687, 2357.565], "stop_times": [2357.565, 2359.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2355.687}, "reply_to": "15019__7_131", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_133", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "To cross, to go back to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2359.698], "stop_times": [2361.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.698}, "reply_to": "15019__7_132", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_134", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- to consider it in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2361.143], "stop_times": [2361.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2361.143}, "reply_to": "15019__7_133", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_135", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- cross the line now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2361.552], "stop_times": [2362.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.552}, "reply_to": "15019__7_134", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_136", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "--a different perspective than it had because of the departure from its earlier decisions in determining retroactivity.\nI was urging this Court because of past history in this Court that Pearce is a complete departure and that the -- and because of the elements set out in Linkletter versus walker, the states had no way of knowing that this Court would resolve Benton the way it did.\nIn fact the states were encouraged to believe that it would hold differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2362.109, 2371.029, 2385.765], "stop_times": [2371.029, 2385.765, 2389.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2362.109}, "reply_to": "15019__7_135", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_137", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Every state has -- has guarantee against double jeopardy usually in the state constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2389.986], "stop_times": [2396.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.986}, "reply_to": "15019__7_136", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_138", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2396.655], "stop_times": [2396.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2396.655}, "reply_to": "15019__7_137", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_139", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I think one or two or three by either statute or Court decision and while they're not exactly coincidental with the guarantee as the federal constitution, they're so close that the disruption of state procedures would be minimal, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2396.987], "stop_times": [2409.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.987}, "reply_to": "15019__7_138", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_140", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nAll the states do have them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2409.724, 2410.256], "stop_times": [2410.256, 2411.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2409.724}, "reply_to": "15019__7_139", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_141", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2411.346], "stop_times": [2411.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.346}, "reply_to": "15019__7_140", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_142", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "About 18 or 20 of the states do in fact provide for the retrial under higher charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2411.82], "stop_times": [2417.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2411.82}, "reply_to": "15019__7_141", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_143", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2417.346], "stop_times": [2417.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.346}, "reply_to": "15019__7_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_144", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And Georgia of Course is one of those and that's why we have this problem then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2417.67], "stop_times": [2421.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2417.67}, "reply_to": "15019__7_143", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_145", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But aren't there quite a few states that have either by statute or a Court decision said that where you find a guilty plea of a lesser offense is actually an acquittal of the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2421.126], "stop_times": [2433.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.126}, "reply_to": "15019__7_144", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_146", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2433.093], "stop_times": [2434.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2433.093}, "reply_to": "15019__7_145", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_147", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The majority of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2434.201], "stop_times": [2435.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.201}, "reply_to": "15019__7_146", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_148", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nOnly 18 or 20 of the states have held the view that Georgia has it.\nYou may retry on the higher offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2435.06, 2435.602, 2439.63], "stop_times": [2435.602, 2439.63, 2442.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2435.06}, "reply_to": "15019__7_147", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_149", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "So if Georgia could have done it in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2442.977], "stop_times": [2447.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.977}, "reply_to": "15019__7_148", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_150", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, yes sir but I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2447.212], "stop_times": [2448.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2447.212}, "reply_to": "15019__7_149", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_151", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2448.946], "stop_times": [2450.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.946}, "reply_to": "15019__7_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_152", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir Your Honor but please remember that this Court in an identical factual situation in Brantley versus Georgia, a 1910 case said it didn't violate the constitution of the United States and an identical factual situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2450.117], "stop_times": [2464.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2450.117}, "reply_to": "15019__7_151", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_153", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Am I to understand that Benton was argued to the Court in Georgia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2464.586], "stop_times": [2471.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.586}, "reply_to": "15019__7_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_154", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No -- well, the proposition of double jeopardy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2471.068], "stop_times": [2475.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2471.068}, "reply_to": "15019__7_153", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_155", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Benton itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2475.035], "stop_times": [2476.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.035}, "reply_to": "15019__7_154", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_156", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No Your Honor, the case before the Court now was before the Benton decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2476.579], "stop_times": [2481.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2476.579}, "reply_to": "15019__7_155", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_157", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But where did --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2481.136], "stop_times": [2481.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.136}, "reply_to": "15019__7_156", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_158", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Brantley was argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2481.864], "stop_times": [2483.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2481.864}, "reply_to": "15019__7_157", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_159", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Brantley?\nThat's right, that's right.\nYou're a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2483.199, 2483.912, 2484.965], "stop_times": [2483.912, 2484.965, 2485.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.199}, "reply_to": "15019__7_158", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__7_160", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "So I'm saying that the State of Georgia and the other states too have had a determination by this Court at least since 1910 and certainly since 1930 whatever it was in the Palko decision that the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states, and even more recently since 1959 in Barktus and 1966 in Cichos and all of a sudden now the states have going to have to go back and retry these people and this will be a terrible burden on the states because some of these people have been in jail for quite a long time.\nIt will be necessary to get the witnesses and revive their memories and this will be a burden on the administration of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2485.648, 2518.562], "stop_times": [2518.562, 2525.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2485.648}, "reply_to": "15019__7_159", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_161", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "As I understand it, Georgia under 4208 Georgia that that at the first trial he was not in fact acquitted of murder, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2525.075], "stop_times": [2534.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.075}, "reply_to": "15019__7_160", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_162", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "As a matter of fact he was not, he was silent on the fact that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2534.718], "stop_times": [2537.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2534.718}, "reply_to": "15019__7_161", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_163", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That is the law in Georgia, that he was not acquitted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2537.759], "stop_times": [2540.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.759}, "reply_to": "15019__7_162", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_164", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2540.451], "stop_times": [2541.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2540.451}, "reply_to": "15019__7_163", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_165", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Unlike the law as in the district of Columbia as construed by this Court in Green, is that you point so that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2541.12], "stop_times": [2547.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.12}, "reply_to": "15019__7_164", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_166", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No, Green -- Green wasn't implied.\nWell, this Court in Columbia, the jury was silent in the Green case as it was in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2547.548, 2549.448], "stop_times": [2549.448, 2556.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2547.548}, "reply_to": "15019__7_165", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_167", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2556.656], "stop_times": [2557.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.656}, "reply_to": "15019__7_166", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_168", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But this Court has determined that that wasn't implied acquittal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2557.071], "stop_times": [2560.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2557.071}, "reply_to": "15019__7_167", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_169", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In the District of Columbia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2560.216], "stop_times": [2561.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.216}, "reply_to": "15019__7_168", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__7_170", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In the District of Columbia.\nIn the state of Georgia there was no implied acquittal because the law provided that he could be retried which must reject the implied acquittal doctrine.\nIn closing, if this Court please, I ask this Court to consider the criteria set out in Linkletter in the Linkletter versus Walker case as carried forward in many subsequent cases deciding retroactivity.\nI ask this Court to not apply Benton retroactively and consider the burden upon the administration of justice and the reliance upon the states that it on the decisions of this Court prior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2561.03, 2562.342, 2574.452, 2586.905], "stop_times": [2562.342, 2574.452, 2586.905, 2601.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2561.03}, "reply_to": "15019__7_169", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_171", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "General Robins, the Courts -- the Court is not unmindful of the burdens that these things can impose on the state sometimes but when you consider the language of the constitution, is it that he shall not twice be placed in jeopardy, that must mean he shall not twice be put at the risk of this conviction, is that not what it must mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2601.74], "stop_times": [2626.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.74}, "reply_to": "15019__7_170", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_172", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt must mean that and I say where the facts like as they were in Green where the man received a death sentence, then this case would -- would have to fall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2626.03, 2626.311], "stop_times": [2626.311, 2635.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2626.03}, "reply_to": "15019__7_171", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_173", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, then let's put ourselves back in the posture that he was at the end of the first trial and the verdict and it was relatively a much less sentence than he might have gotten?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2635.007], "stop_times": [2649.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.007}, "reply_to": "15019__7_172", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_174", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2649.795], "stop_times": [2650.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2649.795}, "reply_to": "15019__7_173", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_175", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Now then he's put by the State of Georgia at risk again and the risk is not the risk of being found guilty of an offense that would give him 10 to 15 years but he is again put at risk of the death sentence, isn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2650.48], "stop_times": [2665.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.48}, "reply_to": "15019__7_174", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_176", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2665.58], "stop_times": [2666.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2665.58}, "reply_to": "15019__7_175", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_177", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "At least he thinks so even if his lawyers may tell him about the Green case and about the Benton case and the other cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2666.083], "stop_times": [2674.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.083}, "reply_to": "15019__7_176", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_178", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2674.266], "stop_times": [2674.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2674.266}, "reply_to": "15019__7_177", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_179", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Now, isn't that kind of a -- isn't that kind of an apprehension, the fear, the risk, the kind of thing that's embraced in the term jeopardy under one thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2674.428], "stop_times": [2684.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.428}, "reply_to": "15019__7_178", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_180", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, and at that time the Court should have probably passed upon a proper motion raising double jeopardy.\nThat would have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2684.765, 2692.494], "stop_times": [2692.494, 2693.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2684.765}, "reply_to": "15019__7_179", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_181", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But the Court didn't and that's why we're here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2693.034], "stop_times": [2694.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.034}, "reply_to": "15019__7_180", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_182", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That's right, yes sir, but I say all this was vitiated when the jury rejected that apprehension that he was placed under, and said do not concern yourself with that, you are being convicted of voluntary manslaughter and we are sorry for the apprehension but you have not been convicted of that murder charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2694.743], "stop_times": [2712.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2694.743}, "reply_to": "15019__7_181", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_183", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But in the meantime, he and if he has a family were subject to that apprehension, not fear but jeopardy, were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2712.657], "stop_times": [2719.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.657}, "reply_to": "15019__7_182", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_184", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir.\nI cannot deny that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2719.972, 2720.589], "stop_times": [2720.589, 2722.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2719.972}, "reply_to": "15019__7_183", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_185", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "You can't turn the clock back on then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2722.247], "stop_times": [2723.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.247}, "reply_to": "15019__7_184", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__7_186", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No sir, I cannot do that.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2723.646, 2727.375], "stop_times": [2727.375, 2728.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2723.646}, "reply_to": "15019__7_185", "speaker": "mathew_robins"}
{"id": "15019__7_187", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2728.424, 2728.847], "stop_times": [2728.847, 2729.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.424}, "reply_to": "15019__7_186", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__8_000", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nFirst of all, I take issue was that like to me.\nFirst of all, I take issue with my brother about the pardoning of one in Georgia.\nAt the time Price was tried the second time, that was not the rule.\nThe pardon board as it now stands, parole board if they see fit can grant a pardon the second day or the first day after he had been incarcerated, if I understand the rule correctly.\nNow, I've always felt that the law had two basic purposes.\nOne was to protect society, and the other was to correct the wrong doing.\nNow, Justice Marshall, I believe it was the other Justice that asked me what harm had been done and I want to call the Court's attention to a dissenting opinion in the Cichos case and it was used by Justice Marshall in the case of a Second Circuit of Appeals which was the case out of the State of New York, and this is the language of the Court.\nThe second time gave the prosecution the advantage of offering the jury a choice.\nA situation which is out to induce a doubtful jury to find the defendant guilty of the lesser serious offense rather than to continue debate as to his innocence.\nThis doctrine was also stated and it refers to Chief Justice Marshall's case.\nNow, that's my position in this matter and that's where I say the error or the harm was committed.\nIt's as the Court brought out is not that he was tried the second time, He was subjected to double jeopardy which the constitution says no, and if it says anything at all, that's what it says.\nAnd I think it would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2729.49, 2732.692, 2736.703, 2746.282, 2751.666, 2763.899, 2771.717, 2777.742, 2801.416, 2807.273, 2819.773, 2825.935, 2833.802, 2849.044], "stop_times": [2732.692, 2736.703, 2746.282, 2751.666, 2763.899, 2771.717, 2777.742, 2801.416, 2807.273, 2819.773, 2825.935, 2833.802, 2849.044, 2849.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2729.49}, "reply_to": "15019__7_187", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_001", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "May I ask you this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2849.711], "stop_times": [2851.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.711}, "reply_to": "15019__8_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_002", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2851.005], "stop_times": [2851.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2851.005}, "reply_to": "15019__8_001", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_003", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "When you talk of the term the congress there, let me put in terms of remedies.\nSupposing you win, what our -- what should be the consequence, could the state be (Inaudible) after knowing that charging only manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2851.476, 2855.295], "stop_times": [2855.295, 2869.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.476}, "reply_to": "15019__8_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_004", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "If Your Honor pleases, if I understand the law correctly of Georgia, the remitted duo has never gone down from the Supreme Court of Georgia or the Court of Appeals of Georgia to the Trial Court and is still in the presence of Supreme Court of Georgia opinion the outcome of this case here in this honorable body.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2869.307], "stop_times": [2884.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2869.307}, "reply_to": "15019__8_003", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_005", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What should our --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2884.782], "stop_times": [2885.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.782}, "reply_to": "15019__8_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_006", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Now, they can be -- he can be reindicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2885.399], "stop_times": [2887.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2885.399}, "reply_to": "15019__8_005", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_007", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "He what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2887.809], "stop_times": [2888.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.809}, "reply_to": "15019__8_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_008", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "He can be reindicted for manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2888.379], "stop_times": [2890.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2888.379}, "reply_to": "15019__8_007", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_009", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Should our mandate prevented him from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2890.385], "stop_times": [2892.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.385}, "reply_to": "15019__8_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_010", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No sir, I can't see that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2892.583], "stop_times": [2893.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2892.583}, "reply_to": "15019__8_009", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_011", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Shouldn't do that too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2893.797], "stop_times": [2895.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.797}, "reply_to": "15019__8_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_012", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I don't think so, no.\nI think it should be remanded back to the state Courts with anything to be how -- if this Court should find that he had been subjected to double jeopardy, but not inconsistent with that decision.\nNow, that's my position.\nNow, that's where I say the harm has been done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2895.533, 2897.153, 2913.48, 2915.524], "stop_times": [2897.153, 2913.48, 2915.524, 2918.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2895.533}, "reply_to": "15019__8_011", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_013", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Would it be appropriate in your judgment and I want you to consider this question before you answer because perhaps you wouldn't want to answer it today.\nWould it be appropriate to -- if the Court found for you on the basic issue of double jeopardy to remand the case giving Georgia the alternative of reindicting him if their law permits or trying him under the existing indictment but with a limitation that no charge higher than voluntary manslaughter could be submitted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2918.282, 2929.375], "stop_times": [2929.375, 2951.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.282}, "reply_to": "15019__8_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15019__8_014", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "If I may go outside of the record if Your Honor pleases, that issue came up in the argument in the Court when I argued the plea of double jeopardy.\nThat the solicitor said that he is indicted for murder and that's all I can try him for.\nNow, he said I'd have to go back and give a new indictment for manslaughter in order to do it and that's when the judge picked up his gavel and said motion overruled.\nNow, I still contend that he can be retried for manslaughter on the proper indictment and the statute has not run.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2951.193, 2961.878, 2967.856, 2978.096], "stop_times": [2961.878, 2967.856, 2978.096, 2985.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2951.193}, "reply_to": "15019__8_013", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_015", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2985.793], "stop_times": [2986.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.793}, "reply_to": "15019__8_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_016", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2986.821], "stop_times": [2986.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2986.821}, "reply_to": "15019__8_015", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_017", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Under the laws of Georgia, can you proceed by information?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2986.881], "stop_times": [2990.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.881}, "reply_to": "15019__8_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_018", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2990.27], "stop_times": [2990.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2990.27}, "reply_to": "15019__8_017", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_019", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Rather than indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2990.838], "stop_times": [2992.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.838}, "reply_to": "15019__8_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_020", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No, no, not in a felony, no sir, no sir cannot.\nNow, in misdemeanor cases you can.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2992.769, 2996.141, 2999.28], "stop_times": [2996.141, 2999.28, 2999.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2992.769}, "reply_to": "15019__8_019", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_021", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What's the minimum sentence for manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [2999.778], "stop_times": [3003.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.778}, "reply_to": "15019__8_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_022", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "One to 20 years I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3003.482], "stop_times": [3006.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3003.482}, "reply_to": "15019__8_021", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_023", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And he got how many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3006.124], "stop_times": [3007.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.124}, "reply_to": "15019__8_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_024", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "10 to 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3007.634], "stop_times": [3008.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3007.634}, "reply_to": "15019__8_023", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_025", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The last time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3008.895], "stop_times": [3010.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.895}, "reply_to": "15019__8_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_026", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The last time 10 sir, the first time 10 to 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3010.474], "stop_times": [3014.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3010.474}, "reply_to": "15019__8_025", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_027", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And nowadays the jury has to fix the -- or fix his --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3014.984], "stop_times": [3017.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.984}, "reply_to": "15019__8_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_028", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Trick the jury at that time, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3017.735], "stop_times": [3018.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3017.735}, "reply_to": "15019__8_027", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_029", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- that and number of year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3018.67], "stop_times": [3020.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.67}, "reply_to": "15019__8_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_030", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The jury fixed the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3020.122], "stop_times": [3021.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3020.122}, "reply_to": "15019__8_029", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_031", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No longer can the jury say 10 to 15 as I understand it, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3021.731], "stop_times": [3025.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.731}, "reply_to": "15019__8_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_032", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "They can come in with a recommendation if it's -- if it's up without recommendation then the Court has no other alternative but to inflict the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3025.024], "stop_times": [3034.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3025.024}, "reply_to": "15019__8_031", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_033", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Not for manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3034.815], "stop_times": [3035.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.815}, "reply_to": "15019__8_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_034", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Not for manslaughter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3035.989], "stop_times": [3036.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3035.989}, "reply_to": "15019__8_033", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_035", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3036.755], "stop_times": [3036.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.755}, "reply_to": "15019__8_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_036", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "-- if they fix it, jury fixes it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3036.865], "stop_times": [3038.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3036.865}, "reply_to": "15019__8_035", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_037", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And what if the jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3038.495], "stop_times": [3039.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.495}, "reply_to": "15019__8_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_038", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The jury is charged from black years to black years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3039.866], "stop_times": [3042.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3039.866}, "reply_to": "15019__8_037", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_039", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3042.704], "stop_times": [3043.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.704}, "reply_to": "15019__8_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_040", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What makes a minimum of a year, maximum of 10 years -- 20 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3043.006], "stop_times": [3045.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3043.006}, "reply_to": "15019__8_039", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_041", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But must may the jury come in and say we find him guilty and we recommend a sentence from one to 20 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3045.977], "stop_times": [3053.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.977}, "reply_to": "15019__8_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_042", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes sir, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3053.189], "stop_times": [3055.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3053.189}, "reply_to": "15019__8_041", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_043", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "They did it the first trial from 10 to 15 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3055.496], "stop_times": [3057.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.496}, "reply_to": "15019__8_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_044", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "One to 10 to 15, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3057.189], "stop_times": [3058.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3057.189}, "reply_to": "15019__8_043", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_045", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Second trial they fixed it at 10 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3058.69], "stop_times": [3059.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.69}, "reply_to": "15019__8_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_046", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3059.892], "stop_times": [3061.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3059.892}, "reply_to": "15019__8_045", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_047", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I had understood in the course of oral argument here that the law was changed in the interim and that a jury must now fix it a definite number of years, perhaps I misunderstood, did I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3061.007], "stop_times": [3071.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.007}, "reply_to": "15019__8_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_048", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3071.347], "stop_times": [3072.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3071.347}, "reply_to": "15019__8_047", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_049", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I misunderstood that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3072.173], "stop_times": [3073.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.173}, "reply_to": "15019__8_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_050", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "I think you do, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3073.194], "stop_times": [3074.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3073.194}, "reply_to": "15019__8_049", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_051", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "But in the second case in any event the jury did fix a definite number of year --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3074.943], "stop_times": [3079.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.943}, "reply_to": "15019__8_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_052", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "They did sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3079.763], "stop_times": [3080.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3079.763}, "reply_to": "15019__8_051", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_053", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "In the first conviction they did not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3080.261], "stop_times": [3082.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.261}, "reply_to": "15019__8_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_054", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "That's -- except within a minimum of 10 to 15 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3082.039], "stop_times": [3084.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3082.039}, "reply_to": "15019__8_053", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_055", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "10 to 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3084.669], "stop_times": [3087.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.669}, "reply_to": "15019__8_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15019__8_056", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Now, to the question of retroactivity.\nMy good friend here has called the Court's attention to the Brantley case and I've set this out in my brief and I'm sure this honorable body has read that brief.\nThat was a 1910 decision.\nThe feet have been cut out from under that case.\nNot only that case but other cases have been set aside, the poker doctrine has gone.\nThe twining doctrine case is gone.\nThe 5202 case, all of those decisions of this honorable body have been cut away.\nWe are living in the year of 1970, not 1910.\nThere has been many decisions recently in this Court that have been or have upturn, overturned at least all the established rules and principles that have long since been gone and I cannot go along with my brother on this good -- on this Brantley case which said, if a man voluntarily seeks a new trial and obtains it, then he is barred from pleading double jeopardy, that's not the law now.\nNow, if the Benton case means anything, it means that it would be unfair certainly discriminatory to give new trials for unconstitutional convictions when others are kept in prison without any hope or any reward whatsoever, simply because it would cost the state maybe a little money or a little effort to retry this on individual.\nLater, it is best to show up and sweep, I don't care if it's a man or beast and to incarcerate a man in jail and not give him the privilege of what you've given someone else would certainly be in my opinion unjust and certainly a rape of justice if I may use that phrase.\nNow, as I've said in my brief, I'm not too concerned about it.\nI think the Brantley and the Benton case said to know, you have violated the law, you have gone beyond you bounds in convicting this man or placing him in jeopardy twice now corrected.\nIf the Green and the case from the Second Court of Appeals means anything at all, it means that all of the states, if you have violated the law and you haven't given a man his constitutional rights, or he's been denied that right, then I think then Benton case says retry him regardless of what the consequences are and that's the way I feel about it.\nNow, I would like to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3087.408, 3092.657, 3104.351, 3108.082, 3111.297, 3118.856, 3122.684, 3129.082, 3133.964, 3162.268, 3196.83, 3216.427, 3220.437, 3236.826, 3261.959], "stop_times": [3092.657, 3104.351, 3108.082, 3111.297, 3118.856, 3122.684, 3129.082, 3133.964, 3162.268, 3196.83, 3216.427, 3220.437, 3236.826, 3261.959, 3262.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3087.408}, "reply_to": "15019__8_055", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_057", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Will you commit them on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3262.878], "stop_times": [3263.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3262.878}, "reply_to": "15019__8_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_058", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3263.954], "stop_times": [3265.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3263.954}, "reply_to": "15019__8_057", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_059", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Would you have state again what you considered to be harm that he has suffered being tried on this indictment instead of one simply for manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3265.334], "stop_times": [3280.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.334}, "reply_to": "15019__8_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_060", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, I feel that had he not been tried for murder the second time as was I believe you wrote a dissenting opinion in the Cichos case and this is your language sir.\n\u201cBy trying petitioner the second time for murder, \u201cnow, Mr. Justice Marshall adopted that in his decision, \u201cby trying petitioner the second time for murder, it gave the prosecution, the state an unfair advantage of offering the jury a choice, a situation that was apt to induce a doubtful jury to find the petitioner guilty of a less offense rather than find him not guilty or acquittal or to even to continue their deliberations or debate as to his innocence.\u201d\nNow, my position is if this man had not been tried for murder, I feel that this jury, this is a small county, its population is about 15000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3280.334, 3296.8, 3336.826], "stop_times": [3296.8, 3336.826, 3348.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3280.334}, "reply_to": "15019__8_059", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_061", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "What's the counties here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3348.248], "stop_times": [3349.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.248}, "reply_to": "15019__8_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_062", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Effingham county Springfield Georgia, and I feel that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3349.367], "stop_times": [3353.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3349.367}, "reply_to": "15019__8_061", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_063", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "And where is it, below Savannah?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3353.322], "stop_times": [3355.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.322}, "reply_to": "15019__8_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_064", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Its about 30 miles out of Savannah, on highway 21.\nAnd I feel that had this man been tried for manslaughter, the jury would have been more inclined and probably considered longer his innocence rather than to find him guilty of some lesser offense than murder when he was tried for murder the second time.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3355.249, 3360.612, 3379.301], "stop_times": [3360.612, 3379.301, 3379.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3355.249}, "reply_to": "15019__8_063", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_065", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The substance you were saying and where there was a top match to which present can be affirmed, those on then that a jury might have some inclinations to compromise rather --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3379.455], "stop_times": [3395.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3379.455}, "reply_to": "15019__8_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_066", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Yes, it might even acquitted him and this case is -- well, I can't go outside and recommend.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3395.726, 3405.794], "stop_times": [3405.794, 3406.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3395.726}, "reply_to": "15019__8_065", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_067", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "The record doesn't show us much about what kind of case it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3406.235], "stop_times": [3410.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3406.235}, "reply_to": "15019__8_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15019__8_068", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Well, that's true and as I mentioned a moment ago, I personally paid for that record, I'm without Pearce.\nI put a lot of time and effort in this case.\nI'm thoroughly convinced that this man is entitled to another trial on voluntary manslaughter and as I've said a moment ago, the trial judge in now deceased, that tried both cases.\nThe Solicitor General has retired from office and I have some doubt in my mind that this case even though you referred back as I suggested will never be tried again, and now that's the way I feel about it.\nNow, I'd like to for the last closing moments refer to the Ashe case versus Swenson, the warden and also Waller versus Florida case.\nAnd the Court said and that was on April of this year that these two decisions came down, this is not last year, as five years ago or back on in 1910 and this is very plain.\nThere can be no doubt of the retroactivity of the Court's decision in Benton versus Maryland, that's ahead new.\nIn North Carolina versus Pearce 395 US 711 decided the same day as Benton, the Court unanimously -- unanimously the Court had (fully retroactivity) effect of the Benton doctrine.\nAnd they went on and said that any case as I interpret in the Waller case that any case that might come before this honorable body that might arise or fall in the end it -- of the Ashe case and the Waller case, that is within the bounds or any limits for this one issue are then these two cases would apply.\nHad no worn again the Waller case had and this was justice Brennan if I believe I'm not supposed to refer specifically to a justice but if Justice Brennan will pardon me.\nI adhere to the Courts ruling in Ashe versus Swenson that our decision in Benton versus Maryland holding the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the states in \u201cfully retroactive.\u201d\nAnd they again referred to the North Carolina versus Pearce 395, I think that is a crux of my case.\nI think the Benton case is retroactive in any case it might fall within its bounds and within the ambit of that case and I say that this Price case is one of those cases, and I'm asking this Court in all fairness to give this man the opportunity and as I've said I doubt and I have very serious doubt that this man will ever be tried again.\nI think even -- so wind it up because as I said I can't bring out anything outside the record, it was unfortunate that I couldn't bring a whole record because it was expensive and I've spent enough time and effort, this is my second day in Washington on this case without Pearce, that's how interested I'm in this case and this man getting what I think is justice.\nI never take a case although like Pearce and that's why I'm here and I'm asking this honorable body to please consider my brief and what I have said here today, and grant this man another opportunity because he is entitled to it as I see though and I thank you all so much for listening to me and it had been a privilege to be have been here, this be my first time.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3410.093, 3419.848, 3421.938, 3434.08, 3451.459, 3471.276, 3486.437, 3497.319, 3520.154, 3554.609, 3567.676, 3585.184, 3594.586, 3620.788, 3647.115, 3671.601], "stop_times": [3419.848, 3421.938, 3434.08, 3451.459, 3471.276, 3486.437, 3497.319, 3520.154, 3554.609, 3567.676, 3585.184, 3594.586, 3620.788, 3647.115, 3671.601, 3672.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3410.093}, "reply_to": "15019__8_067", "speaker": "allyn_m_wallace"}
{"id": "15019__8_069", "conversation_id": "15019", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace, thank you for your submission.\nThank you Mr. Robins for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_269", "start_times": [3672.572, 3676.095, 3677.731], "stop_times": [3676.095, 3677.731, 3680.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3672.572}, "reply_to": "15019__8_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__0_000", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Reetz against Bozanich.\nMr. Cranston you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [0.0, 19.426], "stop_times": [19.426, 26.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__0_001", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThis case involves the resolution of issues concerned with the regulation of a basic industry of the state of Alaska, its fishing resource, and in particular it relates to the manner in which applicants maybe awarded net gear licenses to fish for salmon in Alaska.\nThe statute which is here under attack was passed by the 1968 legislature of the State of Alaska and requires that a licensee in order to be awarded a salmon net gear fishing license must either have been licensed as a net gear licensee in the area in which he wishes to fish or that he was actively engaged in commercial fishing for three years in the area in which he desires to be licensed.\nThe appellees sought to have the statute declared unconstitutional in the light of certain provisions of the United States constitution and in the light of certain provisions of the state of Alaska constitution.\nThe State of Alaska constitutional provisions require that there shall be granted no exclusive right or privilege of fishery and that the fishery source is reserved to all of the people for their common use.\nA three-judge district court in Anchorage Alaska held the statute unconstitutional as being in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the two Alaska constitutional provisions to which I have referred.\nIt is the position of the State of Alaska that summary judgment was improperly granted in this case and that the basic issue involved is whether or not the provision allowing new entrants into the salmon fishery by virtue of their right to fish commercially for three years is -- the issue is whether this is illusory, whether it is meaningless or not.\nThe three-judge district court concluded that not withstanding the provision, entry into the fishery was controlled not by the state as intended by the statute but by the fisherman themselves.\nIt is the state's position that this conclusion of the three-judge court is not supported by the record.\nAnd for that reason, summary judgment should not have been granted on the record as it appeared before the Court at that time.\nThe allegations in the pleadings relative to this aspect of the case were denied and the pertinent affidavits and answers to interrogatories did not touch on the issue although the Court itself found that there is no right of new entry other than by the permission of those already in the fishery.\nIt is necessary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [26.383, 29.42, 56.872, 93.168, 107.668, 122.643, 139.815, 169.135, 185.58, 193.263, 202.15, 227.585], "stop_times": [29.42, 56.872, 93.168, 107.668, 122.643, 139.815, 169.135, 185.58, 193.263, 202.15, 227.585, 228.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 26.383}, "reply_to": "15511__0_000", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_002", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Would you state that again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [228.972], "stop_times": [230.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.972}, "reply_to": "15511__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__0_003", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The Court in the three-judge district court concluded that in fact, for a person to be illegible for a salmon net gear license in Alaska, he had to receive employment by those already engaged in the fishery and therefore the right to his license was not within his control but was with in the control of others.\nAnd on this basis the Court concluded the fishery in effect was closed, there was and exclusive right and the right was not open to all who might wish to enter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [230.62, 258.648], "stop_times": [258.648, 272.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 230.62}, "reply_to": "15511__0_002", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_004", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Does the state contest that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [272.278], "stop_times": [274.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.278}, "reply_to": "15511__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__0_005", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The state contest its finding Mr. Justice, on the basis that it is not supported by any facts presently in the record or by any implications which could be drawn from those facts in the record and we feel that the provision of the statute which also was a license to be issued to one who fishes commercially for three years is sufficient in allowing new entry into the fishery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [274.795], "stop_times": [308.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 274.795}, "reply_to": "15511__0_004", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_006", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "What was the basis for the District Court's conclusion in that respect?\nIt wasn't just a construction of statute I think, the statute doesn't say that does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [308.58, 313.851], "stop_times": [313.851, 319.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.58}, "reply_to": "15511__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_007", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No Mr. Justice.\nThe statute says only that a license maybe issued to one who has fished actively as a commercial licensee for three years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [319.852, 320.954], "stop_times": [320.954, 333.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 319.852}, "reply_to": "15511__0_006", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_008", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Or has had a salmon license the last year, in any year in the particular area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [333.988], "stop_times": [336.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.988}, "reply_to": "15511__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_009", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Or has had a salmon license in any year in the particular area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [336.532], "stop_times": [341.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 336.532}, "reply_to": "15511__0_008", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_010", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well then, what was the basis for the District Court's conclusion that just as a matter of the way the statute operated, no one could get a license unless existing fisherman approved him, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [341.065], "stop_times": [355.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.065}, "reply_to": "15511__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_011", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice.\nI would assume that is the basis on which the Court made its finding that, and determine that the application of the law resulted in this and this of course is the very point which I am arguing that if the Court is going to determine that this is how the law operates in application, then more facts are needed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [355.409, 356.474], "stop_times": [356.474, 381.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 355.409}, "reply_to": "15511__0_010", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_012", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Let me ask you, in these salmon fishing areas, how would one be a commercial fisherman except by fishing for salmon, are there other fish, commercial fish on those same areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [381.267], "stop_times": [399.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.267}, "reply_to": "15511__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_013", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [399.187], "stop_times": [399.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 399.187}, "reply_to": "15511__0_012", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_014", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That he can make a living catching?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [399.325], "stop_times": [401.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.325}, "reply_to": "15511__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_015", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice, I would answer that question by stating yes, one can fish commercially in Alaska for fish other than salmon and this is done --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [401.904], "stop_times": [412.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 401.904}, "reply_to": "15511__0_014", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_016", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "As a matter of fact, does anybody do it and make a living without fishing for salmon in those areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [412.993], "stop_times": [420.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.993}, "reply_to": "15511__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_017", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Again, this is off the -- this is not disclosed by the record but I would assume that there are people who make a living fishing for halibut, fishing for cramp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [420.172], "stop_times": [433.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 420.172}, "reply_to": "15511__0_016", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_018", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "In those same salmon areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [433.34], "stop_times": [436.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.34}, "reply_to": "15511__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_019", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes, although this again gets to my basic point that in order to determine to answer your question sir, there would have to be hearings at the District Court level in order to answer this question.\nI believe the state would agree that others may make a living at fishing commercially for fish other than salmon.\nAppellees of course assert that maybe they can't make a living and this is something that should be determined in plenary proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [436.148, 452.271, 459.349], "stop_times": [452.271, 459.349, 465.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 436.148}, "reply_to": "15511__0_018", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_020", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, lets assume that a man works as an employee for a salmon fishery for three years then applies for his own salmon license, has he satisfied the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [465.923], "stop_times": [482.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.923}, "reply_to": "15511__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_021", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes, if he has while working for the salmon, I suppose the boat owner or somebody who has the gear, if he has worked while licensed as a commercial fisherman which I believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [482.423], "stop_times": [494.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 482.423}, "reply_to": "15511__0_020", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_022", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Do you have to be licensed as a commercial fisherman to work as an employee for a salmon fisherman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [494.833], "stop_times": [500.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.833}, "reply_to": "15511__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_023", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Generally I would -- I think you do Your Honor in order to engage in the activity of fishing.\nOne would have to have a commercial fishing license and the issuance of such --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [500.424, 507.117], "stop_times": [507.117, 512.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 500.424}, "reply_to": "15511__0_022", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_024", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Even as an employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [512.111], "stop_times": [514.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.111}, "reply_to": "15511__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_025", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "If that employee is in fact fishing, he would have to have a commercial fishing license and the license -- the issuance of that license is not restricted, he pays depending on whether he's a resident or non resident at $10.00 fee or a $30.00 fee.\nAnd upon payment of the fee can be issued the license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [514.174, 531.165], "stop_times": [531.165, 534.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 514.174}, "reply_to": "15511__0_024", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_026", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, does the law require you to actually the fish three years as a commercial fisherman rather than just to hold the license as a commercial fisherman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [534.351], "stop_times": [542.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.351}, "reply_to": "15511__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_027", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The law does require that you fish.\nIt states that the licensee must have been actively engaged in the activity of commercial fishing and there are other statutory requirements which require that a perspective licensee furnish affidavits to this effect that he has actively engaged in the fishery for each of those years.\nI believe that the very questions which have been asked indicate that in order to determine the application of the statute to the fishery involved that there are questions which have not been resolved and which should have been resolved prior to the lower court's awarding summary judgment.\nThis case is a clear example of the proposition that important constitutional questions are usually not appropriate for summary judgment.\nAppellees themselves have cited the case, England versus Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners which contains the \u201cit is the typical, not the rare case in which constitutional claims turn upon the resolution of contested factual issues.\u201d\nAnd I would assert that this is the typical case involving an important constitutional question for the state of Alaska and that there are contested factual issues remaining and certainly the conclusion of the Court should not rest upon such an inadequate factual basis.\nI would give some examples of the inadequate factual basis.\nThe appellees state that the new entry provisions are illusory and whether they are illusory depends upon facts which they have set forth in their statement of facts much of which did not appear as the record in the lower court.\nFor instance, it is possible for one to engage in salmon fishing as a commercial licensee and troll, trolling is an activity which does not require salmon net gear, it is commercial fishing, it is salmon fishing.\nThe relationship of this activity to the application of the statute has not been investigated by the lower court and is not on record at this time in order for this Court to investigate.\nAlso, appellees assert that the unique effect of 11 salmon registration areas in Alaska prohibits easy movement of commercial salmon fisherman from one area to another area with the statutory prohibition.\nWe will agree that there are 11 salmon fishing registration areas but we will not agree at this stage in the proceedings that the effect of those regulations on the statute prohibits free movement of fisherman from one area to the other to their economic detriment as appellees assert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [542.46, 544.742, 572.901, 596.017, 607.525, 625.879, 643.563, 649.017, 669.58, 687.442, 699.992, 725.042], "stop_times": [544.742, 572.901, 596.017, 607.525, 625.879, 643.563, 649.017, 669.58, 687.442, 699.992, 725.042, 748.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 542.46}, "reply_to": "15511__0_026", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_028", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "What do you mean by 11 areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [748.535], "stop_times": [751.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.535}, "reply_to": "15511__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_029", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice, Alaska, the coastline in which the salmon fishery is engaged covers approximately 3000 or 3500 miles from southeast Alaska near Ketchikan up through near the Artic Ocean.\nThe coastline is segmented into 11 districts based generally upon geography, the coastline, the types of bays involved and perhaps based upon the species of fish which appear in those areas.\nAnd when one acquires a license to fish for salmon in Alaska, he is licensed only for one of those 11 areas and if during one season he acquires a license for let's say the southeast Alaskan area, he may not then fish in the Bristol Bay area, he is limited to a particular area during each season and appellees assert that the statute coupled with the area requirement in effect closes the class of those who may engage in the commercial salmon fishery.\nWe would assert that in order to reach this decision, this conclusion, the application of the statute in the light of the entire aspect of the areas involved bares further investigation.\nThey're simply not enough at this point to reach the appellees conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [751.526, 771.662, 791.672, 836.033, 850.428], "stop_times": [771.662, 791.672, 836.033, 850.428, 857.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 751.526}, "reply_to": "15511__0_028", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_030", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I don't quite understand it yet, what your point is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [857.428], "stop_times": [863.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.428}, "reply_to": "15511__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_031", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "My point is that if a fisherman is licensed in southeast Alaska as a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [863.535], "stop_times": [875.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 863.535}, "reply_to": "15511__0_030", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_032", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "One of the 11 areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [875.222], "stop_times": [876.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.222}, "reply_to": "15511__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_033", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "One of the 11 areas, that the very fact that he has to acquire a license to fish in Bristol Bay in some other year and that fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [876.374], "stop_times": [892.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 876.374}, "reply_to": "15511__0_032", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_034", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Some other year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [892.022], "stop_times": [893.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.022}, "reply_to": "15511__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_035", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Right.\nIf he wishes to fish in Bristol Bay in a year other than the year in which he is licensed in Southeast Alaska, he must comply with the statute and fish commercially three years prior to acquiring a salmon net gear license in a new area or he must have been licensed in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [893.023, 893.347], "stop_times": [893.347, 913.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 893.023}, "reply_to": "15511__0_034", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_036", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "What's your point then?\nThe requirement is a three year preparation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [913.672, 915.317], "stop_times": [915.317, 918.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 913.672}, "reply_to": "15511__0_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_037", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yeah, my point is that the deprivation of his right to fish based upon the application of the area requirement is not necessarily clear from the state of the record as it appeared in the lower court.\nThe effect upon the area requirement, say upon his right to use his vessel upon the right to use his gear to his economic detriment is not necessarily pointed out in the lower court record and that if he in fact is deprived of the use of his fishing vessel or of the right to fish in any particular area because of the area requirement, that conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the record as it appears in this Court.\nI believe that the questions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [918.103, 935.099, 970.486], "stop_times": [935.099, 970.486, 972.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 918.103}, "reply_to": "15511__0_036", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_038", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Does the court rest on this matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [972.21], "stop_times": [975.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.21}, "reply_to": "15511__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_039", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The District Court did not discuss this ground too heavily Mr. Justice.\nThe appellees have argued this ground quite heavily in their brief and I would assert that in order to reach the conclusion that appellees may be deprived of the use of their vessels during any particular salmon fishing season because of the area requirement is not supported by the record at the present time.\nThe main point I am attempting to make is that the fishery regulation in Alaska is extremely complex involving areas of differing types of salmon, differing weather conditions, differing sea conditions and that at the stage in which the District Court reached its conclusion, none of this particular factors had been investigated by the Court.\nThe second point which the state of Alaska is urging is that the District Court should have abstained completely from reaching a conclusion in this case.\nThe basis for our argument that the District Court should have abstained is due to the fact that appellees asserted that the statute violated unique provisions of the Alaska constitution, those provisions are as I have stated that no exclusive right of fishery should be granted and that the fishery source is reserved to the people for their common use.\nThese provisions so far as I have been able to ascertain are unique among the state constitutions and no constitution contains language similar to that of Alaska and therefore, the interpretation of these provisions have not been resolved by any Court of any state including Alaska.\nGenerally, there are three grounds upon which abstention maybe granted and three grounds which support the requirement that a District Court abstain from deciding federal questions.\nFirst, abstention should be granted to avoid a decision involving federal constitutional grounds where the state law may resolve the question.\nThis of course is applicable to this case and that the application of the exclusive right of fishery provision of the Alaska constitution could resolve this case without the necessity of deciding a federal constitutional question under the equal protection clause.\nAlso, abstention has been required to avoid needless conflict with the state's administration of its own resource and its own affairs.\nThis is in recognition of the fact that the state's police power should be the proper means to regulate a resource.\nThe appellees would assert that the constitutional provision is so clear on its face that it needs no further interpretation and certainly needs no interpretation in the light of the state's police power.\nI would assert that this is not true and an example would make this point clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [975.243, 982.237, 1010.737, 1043.652, 1058.775, 1086.174, 1114.416, 1129.847, 1142.695, 1161.951, 1178.012, 1189.757, 1205.66], "stop_times": [982.237, 1010.737, 1043.652, 1058.775, 1086.174, 1114.416, 1129.847, 1142.695, 1161.951, 1178.012, 1189.757, 1205.66, 1213.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 975.243}, "reply_to": "15511__0_038", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_040", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Why it is not quoted in your brief, the provisions of the constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1213.851], "stop_times": [1220.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.851}, "reply_to": "15511__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_041", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice I believe it's quoted at the very beginning under constitutional provisions on page 3.\nI've set out the two provisions of the Alaska constitution which are involved.\nEvery constitution contains the requirement that no state shall impair the obligation of contract.\nHowever, this Court has ruled that a state may in fact impair the obligation of contract pursuant to a valid exercise of its police power.\nI would assert that in this case, the state of Alaska may create if necessary in the valid exercise of its police power and exclusive right of fishery, the extent to which it may do this should be determined by a Court of the State of Alaska and should not have been determined by the Federal District Court of Alaska.\nThese provisions as I have said have not been interpreted by any state court.\nAppellees assert that the case of Hynes versus Grimes Packing Company which interpreted similar federal statutory provision during territorial days is determinative of this case.\nHowever, in the Hynes case, the Secretary of Interior had granted an exclusive right of fishery over a particular area to a particular native village.\nThere is no attempt on the part of the Secretary of Interior to justify his granting of this right pursuant to any conservation purpose or other regulatory police power purpose.\nIn this case of course, the State of Alaska has recognized that the accumulation of excessive net gear has resulted in an over harvest of the fishery and has created severe management and enforcement problems.\nThis is quite different from the case of Hynes where there was no regulation of this type involved.\nLastly, the appellees have asserted that the industry of fishing is a common calling and as such is apparently immune, from state regulation of this sort.\nThe mere fact that industry is called the common calling does not remove it from state regulation if that regulation is necessary in order to preserve a resource to rectify management and enforcement problems with that resource.\nThis has been done in the past at common law at such economic pursuits as the sale of intoxicating beverages or the transportation of people for hire were considered common callings.\nHowever, at the present stage, these activities are heavily regulated by the states and quite often certificates of public convenience a necessity are required.\nThere is no reason why salmon fishing especially with net gear should be removed from state regulation simply because it is connoted as being a common calling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1220.808, 1234.268, 1243.491, 1251.158, 1263.088, 1287.992, 1293.525, 1308.708, 1321.586, 1335.208, 1351.585, 1360.761, 1376.584, 1397.512, 1412.352, 1424.774], "stop_times": [1234.268, 1243.491, 1251.158, 1263.088, 1287.992, 1293.525, 1308.708, 1321.586, 1335.208, 1351.585, 1360.761, 1376.584, 1397.512, 1412.352, 1424.774, 1439.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1220.808}, "reply_to": "15511__0_040", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_042", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The answer to the District Court's invalidation of the statute under the Alaska constitution, is your only answer that it shouldn't have done so, it should have differed to the state courts, or are you asking us to disagree with Court, with the three-judge court on the construction of the Alaska constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1439.948], "stop_times": [1463.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.948}, "reply_to": "15511__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_043", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice, I'm not asking you to disagree with the construction of the Alaska Court.\nI'm asking that the Court should remand the case to the District Court to be held pending the determination of the unique Alaska constitutional provisions in the light of the Alaska law by an Alaska Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1463.266, 1470.14], "stop_times": [1470.14, 1490.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1463.266}, "reply_to": "15511__0_042", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_044", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "So your only answer is to differ to the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1490.841], "stop_times": [1496.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.841}, "reply_to": "15511__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__0_045", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice, one other answer would be that at the present stage of the record, the application of the statute in the light of the Alaska constitutional provision is not necessarily -- does not necessarily reach the result that that provision has violated.\nI don't believe there is enough in the present stage of the record to reach that conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1496.942, 1520.702], "stop_times": [1520.702, 1526.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1496.942}, "reply_to": "15511__0_044", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_046", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I understand that the three-judge court rested on two grounds, one was equal protection, Fourteenth Amendment and one was on the Alaska constitution, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1526.075], "stop_times": [1536.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.075}, "reply_to": "15511__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__0_047", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice Douglas, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1536.476], "stop_times": [1538.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1536.476}, "reply_to": "15511__0_046", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_048", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Then if equal protection is valid, there's no point in us even concerning the state ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1538.634], "stop_times": [1549.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.634}, "reply_to": "15511__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__0_049", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Depending on -- depending upon the position that this Court takes in its application of the abstention doctrine.\nFirst, the doctrine has been characteristically applied in order to avoid the reaching of a federal constitutional decision if the matter could be resolved by the application of a state constitutional provision.\nAlso, I would urge that the District Court was in error in finding the statute unconstitutional under federal constitutional provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1549.257, 1561.422, 1580.216], "stop_times": [1561.422, 1580.216, 1592.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1549.257}, "reply_to": "15511__0_048", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_050", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, that's a different ground, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1592.086], "stop_times": [1595.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.086}, "reply_to": "15511__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__0_051", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "And that there was nothing before the Court sufficient to justify its conclusion at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1595.047], "stop_times": [1604.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1595.047}, "reply_to": "15511__0_050", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_052", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Has there been any litigation at all in the state courts in Alaska about these claims or any similar claims with respect to this legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1604.702], "stop_times": [1615.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.702}, "reply_to": "15511__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__0_053", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice, none.\nThis statute has not been interpreted by an Alaska Court so far as I know it at any level.\nThe only litigation involving the statute has been this case which commenced in the Federal District Court in Anchorage and again, this points up my claim that since we are involved with a highly complex industry, unique constitutional provisions that it is appropriate for state court determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1615.764, 1618.368, 1626.62], "stop_times": [1618.368, 1626.62, 1653.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1615.764}, "reply_to": "15511__0_052", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_054", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "A decision could be made by the Alaska Court on the law -- state law to which you refer that would leave the case in such situation that you did not have to still try the equal protection question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1653.529], "stop_times": [1671.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.529}, "reply_to": "15511__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_055", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, the Alaska Court could decide although the state would naturally fight the issue heavily in the state court but it is possible that it could reach a decision that the statute is in violation of the exclusive right and common privilege provisions of the Alaska constitution.\nIf that were so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1671.927, 1698.766], "stop_times": [1698.766, 1699.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1671.927}, "reply_to": "15511__0_054", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_056", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That was not the law out there --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1699.106], "stop_times": [1700.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.106}, "reply_to": "15511__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_057", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "If that were so, that would knock the entire statute out since the provisions do not apply themselves piece meal across the statute if it is unconstitutional under state law, the entire statute is unconstitutional and there would be nothing left to determine in the light of the federal constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1700.718], "stop_times": [1722.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1700.718}, "reply_to": "15511__0_056", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_058", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Because there would be no advantage of us that this law and passing it back to the state law, they are going to hold that, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1722.515], "stop_times": [1733.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.515}, "reply_to": "15511__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_059", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "There'd certainly be no advantage to the state if that were the conclusion of the state court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1733.305], "stop_times": [1739.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1733.305}, "reply_to": "15511__0_058", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_060", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "And knock it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1739.527], "stop_times": [1741.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.527}, "reply_to": "15511__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_061", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "However --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1741.21], "stop_times": [1741.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1741.21}, "reply_to": "15511__0_060", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_062", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That's what the attack on it is about, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1741.889], "stop_times": [1746.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.889}, "reply_to": "15511__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_063", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "This is one of the attacks.\nHowever, Mr. Justice, the state at this point is asserting that if it were afforded a complete hearing at the state court level in the light of the Alaska provisions that it could prove that the statute is not unconstitutional to the satisfaction of the state court.\nIn other words, we feel that given a fair hearing in plenary proceedings in a state court, we could show that the statute is a valid application of the state's police power under those constitutional provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1746.003, 1748.074, 1773.102], "stop_times": [1748.074, 1773.102, 1787.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1746.003}, "reply_to": "15511__0_062", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_064", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You'd still leave hanging far that this question of denial of the equal protection of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1787.651], "stop_times": [1793.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.651}, "reply_to": "15511__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_065", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "This under that result -- this would be possible Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1793.936], "stop_times": [1797.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1793.936}, "reply_to": "15511__0_064", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_066", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Thought it would be not -- it would be more impossible wouldn't it?\nWouldn't that be the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1797.462, 1802.364], "stop_times": [1802.364, 1802.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.462}, "reply_to": "15511__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_067", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That would be a fact that if the state court resolved that the statute was constitutional, the federal question would remain for decision.\nHowever, there have been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1802.801, 1812.851], "stop_times": [1812.851, 1814.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1802.801}, "reply_to": "15511__0_066", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_068", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Then you have to go back to the Federal court, would you, or the by the state court?\nWhat is your theory about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1814.052, 1819.858], "stop_times": [1819.858, 1821.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.052}, "reply_to": "15511__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__0_069", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "My theory on this Mr. Justice, under the more recent decisions of this Court and particularly the England versus Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, that the federal question should be reserved in the Federal court for its determination that the state court should not determine if there's the abstention doctrine, should not determine the Alaska, should not determine the federal provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1821.437], "stop_times": [1851.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1821.437}, "reply_to": "15511__0_068", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_070", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, that's only the plaintiffs on the federal suit.\nWhat if that I want it that way, isn't it under England?\nThey may submit it in the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1851.166, 1854.604, 1857.485], "stop_times": [1854.604, 1857.485, 1859.405], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.166}, "reply_to": "15511__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15511__0_071", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "They may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1859.405], "stop_times": [1860.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1859.405}, "reply_to": "15511__0_070", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_072", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Have the federal issue come directly to the state courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1860.15], "stop_times": [1862.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.15}, "reply_to": "15511__0_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__0_073", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "They may do this if they, they are not required to do so Mr. Justice as I read England correctly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1862.695], "stop_times": [1867.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1862.695}, "reply_to": "15511__0_072", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_074", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "But they are required to do if they want to stay in the federal court as expressly do alert the state courts that they want to go back to the federal court, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1867.495], "stop_times": [1876.937], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.495}, "reply_to": "15511__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15511__0_075", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That's my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1876.937], "stop_times": [1879.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1876.937}, "reply_to": "15511__0_074", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_076", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "As I understand your argument here though Mr. Cranston in the light of what's been pointed out by Justices, Black and Douglas i.e. that the equal protection question is here, that was decided by the Federal District Court and that is before us now and as I understood your argument, it is simply on the merits of that issue that this does not violate the protection because this is economic regulation and the Court long sense is not an the area of economic regulation has discarded the practices of the Court of the 20's and the 30's to strike down economic legislation of the states under the due process or equal protection clause, and that on the merits therefore, the District Court should be reversed and if it's reversed in that aspect of the case, then and only then, only if you win on equal protection then, with respect to the other horn of the case, i.e. the validity of this legislation under the Alaska constitution, that's the matter in which there should be abstention, isn't that your argument, or on the other hand are you telling us that we should not here decide the equal protection issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1879.547], "stop_times": [1959.641], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.547}, "reply_to": "15511__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15511__0_077", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Justice, I obtain the position that this Court should not decide the equal protection issue since there's not enough before it to decide that issue.\nI believe on that point that, the record should be supplemented by further hearings at the District Court level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1959.641, 1973.259], "stop_times": [1973.259, 1979.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1959.641}, "reply_to": "15511__0_076", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_078", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Before we decide against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1979.624], "stop_times": [1982.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.624}, "reply_to": "15511__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__0_079", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1982.535], "stop_times": [1983.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1982.535}, "reply_to": "15511__0_078", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_080", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1983.288], "stop_times": [1986.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.288}, "reply_to": "15511__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__0_081", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "And there might not be a decision against us if we are afforded a full hearing.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1986.044, 1992.938], "stop_times": [1992.938, 1993.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1986.044}, "reply_to": "15511__0_080", "speaker": "charles_k_cranston"}
{"id": "15511__0_082", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Thank you Mr. Cranston.\nMr. Boochever?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [1993.454, 1999.204], "stop_times": [1999.204, 2000.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.454}, "reply_to": "15511__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_000", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI believe that the issues in this case as in many cases maybe a little clearer if we look at it in their historical context.\nAlaska, when it was a territory had its fisheries regulated by the Federal Government and back in 1926, the White Act was passed pertaining to the Alaska fisheries to a considerable degree.\nNow, Section 1 of that Act provided that there be no exclusive right or a special right in the fisheries of the State of Alaska and that section was passed with --and the history of it shows that it was passed with the expressed purpose of doing away with some administrative orders that had existed prior to that time whereby the licensing for fishing in certain areas was restricted to the prior licensees which is basically what we're confronted with in this subject litigation, a revival of this old outlawed provision that was outlawed by the White Act back in 1926.\nNow, after the White Act was passed, the Secretary of Interior who had a subsequent time had in his powers the regulations of the fisheries of the then territory of Alaska provided for an Indian reservation called the Carlock Indian reservation and he provided in that same regulation that the fishing in the waters abutting the Carlock Indian reservation would be restricted to the Carlock Indians and their licensees, in other words the Indians themselves could license third persons to fish with them in this particular area.\nThe matter was tried and it came to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hynes against Grimes Packing Company in the 337 U.S. was decided in 1949.\nThe Supreme Court held that the provision limiting the right of fishery in these reservation waters even though the promulgating of the regulation as far as the establishment of the Indian was upheld that the secretary could not limit the fishing in those waters to the Carlock Indians and their licensees because it ran above of the White Act provision that I have just been referring to.\nNow, this is the background, that decision was made in 1949.\nIn 1955, prior to statehood, Alaska held a constitutional convention and at that constitutional convention, one of the provisions that was enacted was Article 8 Section 15 and this provides for a regulation or restriction on the regulation of fisheries almost identical to the White.\nThe provision and I quote from the Alaska constitutional provision is that \u201cno exclusive right or special privilege of fishery should be created or authorized in the natural waters of the state.\u201d\nAnd I would like with Your Honors indulgence to read the comment of the Natural Resources Committee of the constitutional convention as to why they enacted that particular constitutional provision into the constitution of the State of Alaska.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2000.384, 2003.58, 2014.691, 2030.767, 2078.087, 2118.774, 2132.357, 2160.002, 2165.892, 2190.268, 2204.666], "stop_times": [2003.58, 2014.691, 2030.767, 2078.087, 2118.774, 2132.357, 2160.002, 2165.892, 2190.268, 2204.666, 2219.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2000.384}, "reply_to": "15511__0_082", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_001", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Is that in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2219.368], "stop_times": [2220.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.368}, "reply_to": "15511__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_002", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor, it is at page 31.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2220.446], "stop_times": [2222.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2220.446}, "reply_to": "15511__1_001", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_003", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Page 31?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2222.753], "stop_times": [2223.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.753}, "reply_to": "15511__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_004", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes sir.\nIn proposing Section 15 of Alaska constitution, the Natural Resources Committee of the Constitutional Convention made the following commentary, no exclusive right of fishery.\nThis section is intended to serve as a substitute for the provision prohibiting the several right of fisheries in the White Act.\nInstead of using the terminology of that Act, the purposes sought by it are a given expression in a prohibition of exclusive right or special privileges of any person to the fisheries of the state, and that's the commentary on the article on state lands and natural resources.\nNow, Your Honor this subsequently was adopted as the constitution of the state of Alaska, this provision as a part of the constitution when the constitution -- when Alaska was admitted to statehood in 1959.\nAnd as I have explained initially, this was based on the White Act provision and the purpose of that White Act provision was to prevent the restriction of fishing rights to those who had had those rights in prior years.\nNow, we have had unfortunately in Alaska quite a history of legislative attempts that created local favoritism, efforts to give the people in Alaska advantages over non residence particularly and even as to residence in certain areas over other areas.\nI refer to the case of Smith against Freemen in 280 2d U.S. where it was attempted to impose a $250.00 license fee for non resident fisherman as opposed to a $1.00 resident fee.\nMullaney against Anderson in 342 U.S. where they attempted a $50.00 resident license fee as opposed to a -- $50.00 non resident as oppose to a $5.00 resident fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2223.768, 2224.89, 2236.885, 2245.267, 2263.841, 2277.056, 2293.397, 2315.117, 2328.355], "stop_times": [2224.89, 2236.885, 2245.267, 2263.841, 2277.056, 2293.397, 2315.117, 2328.355, 2340.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2223.768}, "reply_to": "15511__1_003", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_005", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Does that come into your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2340.892], "stop_times": [2343.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.892}, "reply_to": "15511__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__1_006", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Pardon me Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2343.041], "stop_times": [2343.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2343.041}, "reply_to": "15511__1_005", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_007", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The non-residency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2343.986], "stop_times": [2346.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.986}, "reply_to": "15511__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15511__1_008", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Not as such, no.\nThis case does not depend on none residency because it would work a discrimination as to residence in the state as well as non residence and that it restricts it to specific areas in the state.\nBut it also -- it is the same general plan to give an advantage to the local fishermen.\nThat is an unconstitutional advantage.\nIn Brown against Anderson, the attempt was made to, where under certain hardship conditions, only fisherman of a local area could fish and no non residents could come in to fish.\nIn the last year, the case of Alaska against International Union of Operating Engineers, 393 U.S. involved in attempt to give local laborers of the union favoritism over non-resident laborers.\nAnd it is our position Your Honor that Chapter 186 of SLA 1968, which is the legislation with which we are here concerned comes right in this series of an effort to create a local monopoly in the fishing areas of Alaska to those who had prior licenses in those particular areas.\nNow, to better understand the nature of this discrimination, I think some background of the fishing processes and the nature of the licenses required is needed.\nIn Alaska, any fisherman must have a commercial fishing license, every fisherman must have that.\nIn addition where fishing is done by vessels and far and away, the large amount of fishing is done by vessels, there must be a vessel license.\nNow, there is no restriction on the issuance of the commercial fishing license or the vessel license but there is a third thing that is needed for the almost all the fishing that's done in Alaska and that is a salmon net gear license, and it is by what we consider this attempt to setup a monopoly is by use of that salmon net gear license.\nThe law specifies that only those who are licensed in prior years in a specific area may secure a salmon net gear license unless he fishes commercially for three years in that specific area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2346.287, 2348.236, 2360.471, 2366.918, 2369.392, 2381.35, 2396.428, 2418.091, 2432.687, 2440.2, 2448.626, 2476.395], "stop_times": [2348.236, 2360.471, 2366.918, 2369.392, 2381.35, 2396.428, 2418.091, 2432.687, 2440.2, 2448.626, 2476.395, 2493.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2346.287}, "reply_to": "15511__1_007", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_009", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That doesn't apply to people who are commercial fisherman in the sense of -- that they're trollers, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2493.009], "stop_times": [2501.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.009}, "reply_to": "15511__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_010", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Your Honor, no it does not.\nOne can troll without a salmon net gear license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2501.386, 2503.754], "stop_times": [2503.754, 2506.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2501.386}, "reply_to": "15511__1_009", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_011", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "As a commercial fishing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2506.555], "stop_times": [2507.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.555}, "reply_to": "15511__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_012", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor and I might point out right here that trolling is an entirely different type of fishing, it uses a different type of vessel.\nIn trolling a line is hung out from the vessel, only four lines are permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2507.714, 2516.967], "stop_times": [2516.967, 2521.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2507.714}, "reply_to": "15511__1_011", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_013", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I understand, to what percentage of the salmon caught in Alaska are caught by trollers and what by the net system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2521.996], "stop_times": [2528.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.996}, "reply_to": "15511__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_014", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Less than 5% are caught be trollers, 95% are caught by the net fisherman; this appears in the statistical reports of the State of Alaska.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2528.979], "stop_times": [2537.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2528.979}, "reply_to": "15511__1_013", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_015", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "As I understood, there's a different variety of salmon that was caught mainly by trolley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2537.741], "stop_times": [2541.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.741}, "reply_to": "15511__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_016", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor, that is also true.\nPrimarily, the fish that are caught by troll are the large king salmon and the silver pap salmon and they are not as a rule used in the canneries which can the other salmons, they are sent to the eastern market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2541.353, 2543.516], "stop_times": [2543.516, 2554.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2541.353}, "reply_to": "15511__1_015", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_017", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Which are they, the suck eye in the market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2554.875], "stop_times": [2556.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.875}, "reply_to": "15511__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_018", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor, the principle, there is suck eye and pinks and shanks, the other three varieties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2556.813], "stop_times": [2563.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2556.813}, "reply_to": "15511__1_017", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_019", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "And they are caught by gill nets or what do you call?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2563.166], "stop_times": [2564.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.166}, "reply_to": "15511__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_020", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "They are caught by gill nets and by sane nets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2564.73], "stop_times": [2567.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2564.73}, "reply_to": "15511__1_019", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_021", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Those kinds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2567.37], "stop_times": [2568.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2567.37}, "reply_to": "15511__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_022", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nAnd for instance, in Bristol Bay which is the, one of the most valuable of the areas and one of the, one of the most valuable ot ther which the largest runs of fish are anticipated, in fact they anticipate this coming year that there will be 37,000,000 fish caught in Bristol Bay alone, the largest run they anticipated in record.\nAnd in that area, it is impossible to troll.\nThere is no troll, the statistical report show no troll caught fish and it is well known and the District Judges below had perfect cognizance of this that you could drag a troll line through there day in and day out and you'd never catch a fish because of the salty waters and the fact that the suck eye salmon do not strike in those waters, they will hit a fly up in the stream further up when the water gets fresh but they wont hit the troll lures and there's no trolling so there's no way of getting entry into this valuable fishery unless you're in the favorite class, those who had a license before or unless one can secure the permission of one of those licensees to fish with you.\nIn other words, it is exactly the thing that was prohibited in the Hynes case where the licenses were limited to the Carlock Indians and their licensees.\nIn the Hynes case, the Carlock Indians had authority to let other people get into the field and issue licenses.\nIn the subject case for instance in Bristol Bay, there are two gear net fishermen usually to a vessel and one owns the gear and if you can't his permission to fish with you and you can't a gear license, you're frozen out of the field, you can't fish at all and this of course is the exact provision that was involved in the Alaska constitutional provision of article 8 Section 15 which prohibited the use of, the exclusive right or special privilege in the fisheries and which was interpreted prior to the adoption of Alaska constitution by the Supreme Court in Hynes against Grimes Packing.\nAnd I might add that at the time that that was passed by Hynes against Grimes Packing, we not have only had a decision by the highest Court of the land, the Supreme Court, but at that time, it was the highest Court of the state, that is the territory because their territory had a District Court which was a District Court for the territory of Alaska and it had a joint function as a territorial court and in effect federal court.\nThere was no territorial appellant court, the appeals went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court.\nSo we have a clear decision on a constitutional provision not only by the Supreme Court of the United States but the highest court of what was then the state and we might -- I might add that Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that when a statute is adopted from another jurisdiction, it takes with it the construction placed on that statute by the highest court of that jurisdiction, I refer to the case of (Inaudible) against Lathrop Company in that regard.\nNow, we feel that not only is this violative as I have shown and clearly so with a Supreme Court decision on it already of the federal constitutional issues, of the state constitutional issues but it also is a discrimination based purely on past fishing efforts and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nIn that regard, we feel that the case of Takahashi against Fishing Gain Commission in 340 34 U.S. is very much in point.\nAs Your Honors, will recall in that case, the state of California prohibited fishing by certain aliens and in expressing their reason, they gave very much the same reason as my learned colleague here has given today that this was a conservation method.\nThat there was too much gear in the waters of California and then it was necessary in order to conserve fishing to reduce the amount of gear and therefore to eliminate certain aliens from the fishery.\nAnd this learned Court of course held that that was violative of the Equal Protection clause even though the purpose was a justifiable purpose assuming it was a justifiable purpose that of conservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2568.091, 2569.083, 2590.268, 2595.188, 2640.143, 2650.682, 2657.688, 2699.846, 2728.554, 2737.016, 2770.978, 2793.557, 2804.259, 2818.598, 2833.167], "stop_times": [2569.083, 2590.268, 2595.188, 2640.143, 2650.682, 2657.688, 2699.846, 2728.554, 2737.016, 2770.978, 2793.557, 2804.259, 2818.598, 2833.167, 2845.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2568.091}, "reply_to": "15511__1_021", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_023", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You have an additional element however, don't you in this case the -- that of experience.\nThat of experience and that makes this case a little more akin to the Cache (ph) case doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2845.771, 2852.9], "stop_times": [2852.9, 2857.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.771}, "reply_to": "15511__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_024", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, I think the Cache (ph) case Your Honor as stated in the opinion.\nThere is a unique case and in fact they stated there that one shouldn't hypothesize about any other facts from it.\nIn that case, the river boat pilots where officers of the state itself and there were only a very limited number of those positions available and so under that rather -- that unique situation, it was upheld in a divided decision.\nSo that I don't think the Cache case is applicable at all to the situation which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2857.775, 2861.552, 2869.023, 2887.432], "stop_times": [2861.552, 2869.023, 2887.432, 2892.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2857.775}, "reply_to": "15511__1_023", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_025", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "At least to do, I have asserted here the interest of Alaska in having people, only people fish who were familiar with the waters and with the notices and with the weather and with the bottom, with the safety and experience --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2892.078], "stop_times": [2911.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.078}, "reply_to": "15511__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_026", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2911.524], "stop_times": [2911.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2911.524}, "reply_to": "15511__1_025", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_027", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "That you did desire and remember, having the California case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2911.933], "stop_times": [2914.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.933}, "reply_to": "15511__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_028", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes, that is so Your Honor.\nHowever, in this subject case, what there is, is in the recitation of the statute.\nThere is a statement that experience plays a part in management, in safety and in law enforcement.\nAnd we served interrogatories on the state requesting any examples they could give where this was a factor.\nExperience, I might add in the particular area because the plaintiffs in this case are all experienced fishermen who have fished to great deal.\nBut they have been denied the right to fish in the particular area.\nIn answer to those interrogatories, the state was able to furnish no example of any one of those areas where experience had played a part.\nAnd of course this has come before the court below on a motion for summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2914.901, 2917.46, 2924.131, 2931.427, 2939.664, 2948.108, 2952.0, 2962.734], "stop_times": [2917.46, 2924.131, 2931.427, 2939.664, 2948.108, 2952.0, 2962.734, 2967.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2914.901}, "reply_to": "15511__1_027", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_029", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well in the Cache case, wasn't the experience factor related directly to the safety of the harbors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2967.614], "stop_times": [2974.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.614}, "reply_to": "15511__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_030", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes, Your Honor it was and as I stated, they were -- there was a very -- there were very few people, they could be in any event employed as river boat pilots and they were officers of the state itself and it was a unique situation in that instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2974.909], "stop_times": [2991.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2974.909}, "reply_to": "15511__1_029", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_031", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Is there any safety factor here except as -- or any factor in which the experience relates to safety here as distinguished from relating to conservation methods and practices?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [2991.534], "stop_times": [3005.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.534}, "reply_to": "15511__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_032", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Not as such as related to fishing in a particular area.\nThere is the -- certainly as I would say a certain degree that experience in any field helps and certainly experiences a boat man would give some experience to tort safety and navigating a boat.\nI couldn't deny that.\nBut as far as a fisherman who has fished for instance in southeastern Alaska, where that one area is as large as all the New England states and it has a tremendous shoreline.\nWell, the fisherman there, each fish in their own little favorite harbors and their experience there would give them as far as fishing in the rest of the area is just the same as their experience fishing in Bristol Bay or somewhere else would be.\nSo I do not feel that it is a valid criteria.\nHowever, I'm not arguing that point assuming that it is.\nIn this particular case, they should not exclude based on the past right and then leave it in the hands of those who have that exclusive right to decide who will come in because no one can fish without fishing with the gear licensees.\nIncidentally Your Honors asked as to what the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3005.488, 3010.517, 3027.894, 3029.338, 3043.01, 3059.851, 3063.113, 3067.524, 3085.813], "stop_times": [3010.517, 3027.894, 3029.338, 3043.01, 3059.851, 3063.113, 3067.524, 3085.813, 3088.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3005.488}, "reply_to": "15511__1_031", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_033", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "They won't fish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3088.982], "stop_times": [3090.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.982}, "reply_to": "15511__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_034", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Pardon me Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3090.292], "stop_times": [3091.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3090.292}, "reply_to": "15511__1_033", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_035", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You mean they won't fish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3091.287], "stop_times": [3093.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.287}, "reply_to": "15511__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_036", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No Your Honor.\nWhat I mean is that in order to fish, they have to get the consent of one of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3093.85, 3094.383], "stop_times": [3094.383, 3099.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3093.85}, "reply_to": "15511__1_035", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_037", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I know you keep saying that but you don't have to have their consent to go out and fish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3099.953], "stop_times": [3105.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.953}, "reply_to": "15511__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_038", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "To fish commercially with a net, one does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3105.663], "stop_times": [3108.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3105.663}, "reply_to": "15511__1_037", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_039", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3108.941], "stop_times": [3109.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.941}, "reply_to": "15511__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_040", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, here let me give the example again in Bristol Bay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3109.623], "stop_times": [3112.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3109.623}, "reply_to": "15511__1_039", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_041", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I know but the -- fish with the net should be troll.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3112.727], "stop_times": [3115.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.727}, "reply_to": "15511__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_042", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You can't troll in Bristol Bay.\nThere is no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3115.574, 3117.27], "stop_times": [3117.27, 3117.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3115.574}, "reply_to": "15511__1_041", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_043", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well you can troll, you just won't catch anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3117.349], "stop_times": [3119.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.349}, "reply_to": "15511__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_044", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes I guess one could do that.\nBut of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3119.926, 3121.957], "stop_times": [3121.957, 3122.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3119.926}, "reply_to": "15511__1_043", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_045", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You keep saying you can't fish except with the consent of somebody to fish all you want to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3122.442], "stop_times": [3128.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.442}, "reply_to": "15511__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_046", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, you can fish without catching fish if that's Your Honor but that to me is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3128.245], "stop_times": [3133.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3128.245}, "reply_to": "15511__1_045", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_047", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Is this only true in Bristol Bay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3133.305], "stop_times": [3135.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.305}, "reply_to": "15511__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_048", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No.\nThere are number of other areas --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3135.572, 3135.887], "stop_times": [3135.887, 3137.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3135.572}, "reply_to": "15511__1_047", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_049", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well there are a lot of areas which is isn't true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3137.211], "stop_times": [3139.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.211}, "reply_to": "15511__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_050", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor but this would eliminate one from fishing in the Bristol Bay area which is in itself at times as much as half the fish from the whole state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3139.83], "stop_times": [3149.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3139.83}, "reply_to": "15511__1_049", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_051", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Would you think that's enough to invalidate the entire statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3149.63], "stop_times": [3152.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.63}, "reply_to": "15511__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_052", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I think Your Honor that the -- this applies also to each of the areas independently.\nIn other words, there is no relationship between trolling which is the one example that's been given.\nThere is no relationship between trolling and same fishing or net fishing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3152.49, 3158.651, 3165.507], "stop_times": [3158.651, 3165.507, 3169.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3152.49}, "reply_to": "15511__1_051", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_053", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well that's a different point.\nYou're just challenging the state judgment that there is a relationship and that's certainly a different point from saying that you can't fish at all.\nAnd of course, you can fish and how about catching of the fish besides Salmon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3169.038, 3173.636, 3185.459], "stop_times": [3173.636, 3185.459, 3189.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.038}, "reply_to": "15511__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_054", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Your Honor, in some of the areas, one can fish for other fish besides salmon.\nFor instance in southeast there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3189.916, 3193.916], "stop_times": [3193.916, 3195.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3189.916}, "reply_to": "15511__1_053", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_055", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "What about Bristol Bay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3195.402], "stop_times": [3196.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.402}, "reply_to": "15511__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_056", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "In Bristol Bay to my knowledge, the salmon fishery would be the only fishery but I could not say that categorically.\nThat is my --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3196.717, 3203.028], "stop_times": [3203.028, 3203.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3196.717}, "reply_to": "15511__1_055", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_057", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, if we can't say it categorically, the state is saying, go ahead and fish commercially.\nLearn about the area, learn about the water and the -- other characteristics and how to handle a boat.\nMaybe you won't learn a lot about salmon fishing but at least you will be satisfied that you can maintain yourself on the ocean safely and obey the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3203.312, 3208.348, 3216.057], "stop_times": [3208.348, 3216.057, 3226.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.312}, "reply_to": "15511__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_058", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well Your Honor the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3226.219], "stop_times": [3228.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3226.219}, "reply_to": "15511__1_057", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_059", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Isn't that enough for the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3228.296], "stop_times": [3230.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.296}, "reply_to": "15511__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_060", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No, in my opinion, it is not Your Honor because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3230.167], "stop_times": [3232.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3230.167}, "reply_to": "15511__1_059", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_061", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I know it is in your opinion, but it's only you because you disagree with the substantive judgment of the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3232.25], "stop_times": [3237.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.25}, "reply_to": "15511__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_062", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No, my feeling would be that if you have a man who has fished commercially in one area and he has shown his knowledge and he's fished there.\nThere is no reason why he should be discriminated against in fishing in another area whereby his only means of entering that field is by the grace of the licensee or else he is subjected to leaving his vessel, his gear and try to gain employment there or else to do as in the case of the Salmon fishery in Bristol bay, a feudal act for three years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3237.367, 3250.29], "stop_times": [3250.29, 3278.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3237.367}, "reply_to": "15511__1_061", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_063", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You would say then that -- I suppose you would concede the state has the right to limit the number of people fishing in the area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3278.084], "stop_times": [3285.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.084}, "reply_to": "15511__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_064", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No I do not Your Honor.\nNot under the state constitutional provision.\nThe state constitutional provision is expressed on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3285.772, 3286.944, 3289.698], "stop_times": [3286.944, 3289.698, 3291.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3285.772}, "reply_to": "15511__1_063", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_065", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "You mean that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3291.952], "stop_times": [3292.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.952}, "reply_to": "15511__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_066", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No exclusive right of fishing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3292.543], "stop_times": [3294.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3292.543}, "reply_to": "15511__1_065", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_067", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "It has no power to limit the number of fisherman in the area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3294.653], "stop_times": [3297.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.653}, "reply_to": "15511__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_068", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No I do not believe it does Your Honor.\nNow, this is a more difficult question.\nIn other words, if they were say a lottery as to whether this would be permissible.\nI would say that's a more difficult question under the state constitution that we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3297.263, 3299.144, 3301.136, 3304.882], "stop_times": [3299.144, 3301.136, 3304.882, 3308.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3297.263}, "reply_to": "15511__1_067", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_069", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Isn't this the regulation indirectly doing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3308.501], "stop_times": [3312.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.501}, "reply_to": "15511__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_070", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Of limiting the number of fishermen?\nYes Your Honor.\nIt did limit the number of fishermen but by an unconstitutional way.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3312.43, 3314.306, 3314.872, 3319.553], "stop_times": [3314.306, 3314.872, 3319.553, 3319.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3312.43}, "reply_to": "15511__1_069", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_071", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well that's our question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3319.71], "stop_times": [3321.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.71}, "reply_to": "15511__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_072", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "In answer to Mr. -- excuse me, I'd like to answer Mr. Justice White further if I may.\nWith reference to the regulation under the state constitutional provision, there are number of means that are permissible.\nThey may reduce the number of hours that fishing is permitted.\nThey may reduce the number of areas where it's permitted.\nThey may reduce the size of the gear that's permitted but they can't create an exclusive or special right in certain people to fish in the areas.\nAnd this is what they have attempted to do here.\nThat's in our opinion, a clear violation.\nNow, I would like to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3321.202, 3327.075, 3334.873, 3338.94, 3342.48, 3351.52, 3354.376, 3358.052], "stop_times": [3327.075, 3334.873, 3338.94, 3342.48, 3351.52, 3354.376, 3358.052, 3358.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3321.202}, "reply_to": "15511__1_071", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_073", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well if you -- it's the way you put the issue -- certainly they can't do it -- they can't establish the exclusive right in certain people -- if those certain people are chosen irrationally such as only white people or only negroes or only people with over 6 feet tall or only people between the ages of 25, 26.\nBut if those people are chosen rationally then the question under the equal protection clause at least is one of seeing whether there is a rationale state purpose for this sort of classification.\nIsn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3358.738, 3381.456, 3395.018], "stop_times": [3381.456, 3395.018, 3395.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.738}, "reply_to": "15511__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_074", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "I would agree with that under the equal protection clause although not under the state exclusive right of fishery clause.\nI would agree that that is the test under the equal protection clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3395.581, 3401.664], "stop_times": [3401.664, 3405.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3395.581}, "reply_to": "15511__1_073", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_075", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Can you get me now to the state constitution, if the state wants to limit lake conservation, a step to preserve its fish, the only way it can do this is by limiting the hours of fishing or the number of fish that can be caught or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3405.776], "stop_times": [3421.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3405.776}, "reply_to": "15511__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_076", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3421.665], "stop_times": [3424.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3421.665}, "reply_to": "15511__1_075", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_077", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Which means that if enough the people came in, there just wouldn't be any commercial fishing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3424.563], "stop_times": [3428.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3424.563}, "reply_to": "15511__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_078", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3428.931], "stop_times": [3429.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3428.931}, "reply_to": "15511__1_077", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_079", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "But they could never make a living.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3429.024], "stop_times": [3430.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.024}, "reply_to": "15511__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_080", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Excuse me Your Honor.\nThe laws of supply and demand would effect it.\nIn other words, if you had more fisherman and they reduced the hours to such a few hours that it was uneconomical to fish, then they're going to have to drop out of the field.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3430.507, 3432.41, 3435.466], "stop_times": [3432.41, 3435.466, 3445.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3430.507}, "reply_to": "15511__1_079", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_081", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Only the strong could survive, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3445.449], "stop_times": [3449.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.449}, "reply_to": "15511__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15511__1_082", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "It would be more or less on that basis.\nI would say Your Honor but this is what was passed as part of the Alaska constitution and knowingly passed with the idea of preventing, giving any exclusive right to any group in the fishery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3449.121, 3450.89], "stop_times": [3450.89, 3464.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3449.121}, "reply_to": "15511__1_081", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_083", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3464.985], "stop_times": [3466.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.985}, "reply_to": "15511__1_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_084", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Are salmon a dwindling resource in Alaska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3466.436], "stop_times": [3470.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.436}, "reply_to": "15511__1_083", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15511__1_085", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No, I don't believe they are at this time Your Honor.\nThe forecast as I mentioned for this coming year is for the largest run in the history since the 19th century.\nThey anticipate over 14 million fish in Bristol Bay alone.\nI'm referring to the Bristol Bay fishery, it varies a great deal.\nAnd one year, you'll have a good run in southeastern Alaska.\nAnother year, it will be a good run in Bristol Bay and the forecast this year is for the greatest in history, so that I don't think we can say it's a dwindling resource and it appears that it is on the upgrade under the state management at the present time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3470.003, 3472.274, 3480.229, 3484.41, 3488.074, 3491.438], "stop_times": [3472.274, 3480.229, 3484.41, 3488.074, 3491.438, 3507.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3470.003}, "reply_to": "15511__1_084", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_086", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Now don't these questions which are -- that they've been bringing out a lot of factual matter suggest this is subject which are to be explored in a full scale evidentiary process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3507.607], "stop_times": [3519.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.607}, "reply_to": "15511__1_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_087", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "No Your Honor because the -- most of the facts, which I have stated are matters that are so well known in Alaska that they are a matter of judicial knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3519.514], "stop_times": [3531.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3519.514}, "reply_to": "15511__1_086", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_088", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "The first well known to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3531.567], "stop_times": [3533.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.567}, "reply_to": "15511__1_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15511__1_089", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Well, it is difficult.\nI must admit to talk to someone who is not been in the particular area.\nBut our district judges, two of the district judges are long time Alaska residents who are thoroughly familiar with the Alaska fishery and were able to take notice of what the actual facts are in the fishery.\nSecondly, there was no statement of issues made by my learned colleague raising any issues of fact.\nWe brought up our position initially in this case in our briefs and in our complaint and they never as required by the District Court rules for the United States District Court of the District of Alaska set forth a factual issue challenging our position until our oral argument in the Court -- in the court below and in their briefs before this Court.\nNow, I would like in the few remaining minutes to address myself to the abstention problem.\nIn this case, as I have stated, we have a Supreme Court decision on the Alaska constitutional issue.\nWe have a clear history of that Alaska constitutional issue.\nThere is therefore no reason why the lower court should abstain, should have abstained because of that issue.\nWe had every right to be in the Federal court under diversity of citizenship and because of the admittedly substantial federal question that's involved.\nAnd so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3533.668, 3535.897, 3541.227, 3553.902, 3561.074, 3586.541, 3593.628, 3600.604, 3605.76, 3613.326, 3623.971], "stop_times": [3535.897, 3541.227, 3553.902, 3561.074, 3586.541, 3593.628, 3600.604, 3605.76, 3613.326, 3623.971, 3624.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3533.668}, "reply_to": "15511__1_088", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_090", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Did your complaint rest jurisdiction on both of those grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3624.598], "stop_times": [3628.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3624.598}, "reply_to": "15511__1_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_091", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3628.324], "stop_times": [3629.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3628.324}, "reply_to": "15511__1_090", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_092", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Diversity as well as federal questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3629.017], "stop_times": [3630.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3629.017}, "reply_to": "15511__1_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_093", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3630.896], "stop_times": [3631.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3630.896}, "reply_to": "15511__1_092", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_094", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3631.711], "stop_times": [3632.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3631.711}, "reply_to": "15511__1_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15511__1_095", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "So, we are there on both reasons, the statute is perfectly clear, there is no question of interpretation of the statute, no question but that these plaintiffs were denied the fishing right under the statute.\nThere is no question but that the Alaska constitution has been construed by the higher state court and the Supreme Court of the land and therefore there is no reason for application of the unusual doctrine of abstention.\nThank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3632.197, 3643.497, 3658.951], "stop_times": [3643.497, 3658.951, 3661.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3632.197}, "reply_to": "15511__1_094", "speaker": "robert_boochever"}
{"id": "15511__1_096", "conversation_id": "15511", "text": "Thank you Mr. Boochever, your time is expired.\nThank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_185", "start_times": [3661.764, 3667.416, 3668.548], "stop_times": [3667.416, 3668.548, 3672.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3661.764}, "reply_to": "15511__1_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__0_000", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Number 540, Rosado against Wyman and others.\nMr. Albert you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [0.0, 12.644], "stop_times": [12.644, 27.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__0_001", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nNew York has in continuous to participate in the federal aid families with dependent children program.\nUnder which Congress makes available to it, approximately $400 million federal dollars a year and imposes on the receipt and use of those dollars federal terms and conditions.\nThis case of argues are one of those recently and active of those conditions, Section 4028-23 or condition 23 of the Social Security Act.\nWho is meaning in this case is critically an issue and in two other cases now on being appealed to this Court and other cases pending in the lower federal courts.\nCases in this -- the issues in this case to be sure are numerous in complex.\nIn light of the limited time available we should like to take them up in the following order.\nWe should like to begin with the meaning of the federal statute.\nWe believe that meaning is clear on its phase and from its legislative evolution and then discuss the arguments made against that meaning and third change whether a United District Court may so construed statute and apply it in New York and other states.\nWe begin with the obvious but important observation that it is a statute we are construing passed in our national legislative process in which the states are not into the minorities or unheard voices.\nThis statute like all other acts of Congress; seeks to obviate some evil has some name seeks to work some change in policy.\nIt has, in other words, some intelligible meaning and some intelligible purpose.\nWe believe that the meaning urged by us in this case and adopted by the district judge below is the only meaning consistent with the language, its history and consistent with any intelligible purpose.\nThe numerous other meanings proffered to the statute by New York, by other states, by the Department Health Education and Welfare reduce Congressional will to a meaningless exercise and futility.\nThe terms used in the statute are not unheard of or unfamiliar in public assistance administration.\nThe amounts used to determine the needs of individuals is a comprehensive description of a states need standard, long established and public assistance to determine how much aid an individual is entitled to.\nThe second phrase we force to any maximums, those are devices used by states to reduce the amount of a below that of state recognized need.\nAn adjustment to the first device in any state to pays need in full that doesn't impose any maximum automatically results in a cost of living increase to recipients.\nAn adjustment to the need standard and any maximum similarly results in a cost of living increase to states with maximums.\nThat the latter increase is proportionate to the extent of the state might need in a given base period.\nThe statute by looking to the amounts used and the time they were last established refers through the state standard that made during some base period.\nThat base period is the time of an act into the statute in January 1968.\nThe off shot of the exercise is that states are commanded to maintain their grant levels with one adjustment to keep pace with living costs by July 1, 1969.\nThe effect in all states is equal in so far as the conditions the states need standard in each date is accepted the maximum that it was paying during a given base period is accepted.\nWe think that the legislative background of this statute but confirms this meaning.\nIt was treated -- it was developed in the Senate.\nIt stemmed from the administration's proposal that was quite a bit more far reaching.\nThat proposal required not only annual updating of the state's standard of need but it also required that all states pay need in full and there were at that time 33 states that did not pay in full, many of which did not pay more than 50% of needs somewhat less.\nOur position to that statute in the House and the Senate committee for the House and Senate committees centered primarily on the effect of the full need requirements in those states that have long not met the standard that need that affect being very large change not on modest updating but something much larger than that.\nThe administration's estimate for the total cost of that Bill though, it's important to realize, was $90 million for paying full need of federal sharing that is I'm sorry.\nAnd $95 million for annual updating of standards that were being paid in full not the case after the statute was enacted.\nThe Senate Finance Committee modified that statute dropping the full need requirement adding in its stead that any maximums be proportionately adjusted.\nIt was passed by the senate committee on a party line vote, it was passed by the Senate, went to the conference committee where they amended it to drop just one part of it the annual reprising requirement.\nThe wording of the language of the provision remains the same however from the time that remerged from the Senate Finance Committee to the time it was signed by the president on January the 2nd, 1968.\nBoth committees reported the Bill out, I'm sorry, the conference committee and the Senate Finance Committee reported Bill out under a heading increasing income of recipients.\nThe Bill was considered along side a companion proposal to require the states to increase payments in the adult programs by $7.00 and average increase of $7.50.\nAnd the method chosen for that increase was the adjustment of need standards and maximums. It is in short we think this history make several things clear.\nOne, the 402 (a) (23) is a self-evident departure from tradition in so far as it requires a modest adjustment to state need standards and levels of payments in AFDC, self-evident and quite obvious to the specialist committees dealing with Social Security legislation and certainly obvious to any Congressman who took the time to look at it.\nTwo, the evolution of the Bill makes clear that it was a compromise, it was not to establish the floor of income in every state that would be approached adequacy as the administration had originally urged.\nNothing of the kind, it rather was to see that each state paid at least of what it was then paying which was renowned for all states to be inadequate and to make one adjustment to keep phase with living costs.\nIt should be added in the administration, reported to the committees that most states had updated in 1966 or 1967.\nThere was no great impact expected from the required updating by July 1, 1969, particularly one state maximum were accepted.\nWe think this legislative history also makes clear, the companion proposal makes clear that Congress appreciate the effect of adjusting this mechanisms.\nThe language chosen, the comprehensive term used to describe the state needs standard plus the fact that goes on to require adjustment to maximums leaves little room for nullification or evasion.\nAnd finally, we think the fact that Congress made this a planned condition for continued participation in AFDC and gave the states a one year and a half to make the required adjustments I think makes clear that Congress intended to compel the states to do what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [27.424, 30.587, 35.395, 44.836, 55.465, 64.623, 69.111, 73.915, 77.743, 94.735, 106.043, 114.477, 120.253, 138.189, 151.84, 157.94, 171.186, 180.105, 193.806, 202.871, 209.273, 220.008, 230.827, 245.937, 268.659, 272.687, 275.121, 279.867, 296.968, 321.028, 330.978, 341.139, 354.695, 368.543, 382.316, 393.983, 404.666, 415.118, 436.634, 455.891, 472.411, 479.115, 494.201, 501.765, 514.118], "stop_times": [30.587, 35.395, 44.836, 55.465, 64.623, 69.111, 73.915, 77.743, 94.735, 106.043, 114.477, 120.253, 138.189, 151.84, 157.94, 171.186, 180.105, 193.806, 202.871, 209.273, 220.008, 230.827, 245.937, 268.659, 272.687, 275.121, 279.867, 296.968, 321.028, 330.978, 341.139, 354.695, 368.543, 382.316, 393.983, 404.666, 415.118, 436.634, 455.891, 472.411, 479.115, 494.201, 501.765, 514.118, 529.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 27.424}, "reply_to": "15278__0_000", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_002", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "He compelled or the state would not be pleading simply to ignore the federal provision and except for nothing except for the laws of the federal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [529.361], "stop_times": [540.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.361}, "reply_to": "15278__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_003", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Oh, I think a state in applying conditions in the AFDC title Mr. Justice Brennan certainly contemplate that the state may or may not participate in the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [540.851], "stop_times": [549.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.851}, "reply_to": "15278__0_002", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_004", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That's what probably about this case Mr. Albert and I don't quite understand that the only sanction is simply discontinuance in federal system.\nHow do plaintiffs in here have any constitutional claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [549.961, 558.947], "stop_times": [558.947, 563.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.961}, "reply_to": "15278__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_005", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Mr. Justice Brennan, well this is a constitutional claim under the Supremacy Clause, I'm sorry Mr. Justice Brennan, it is a constitutional claim under the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [563.769], "stop_times": [570.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.769}, "reply_to": "15278__0_004", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_006", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That means the federal statute, I gather would have to be controlling in front of the states, disregarding than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [570.903], "stop_times": [576.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.903}, "reply_to": "15278__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_007", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Controlling only to the extent if the state participates in the federal program receives and uses --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [576.289], "stop_times": [582.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.289}, "reply_to": "15278__0_006", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_008", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But if a state decides and says, \u201cNo, well we want no part of the federal system any longer.\u201d and votes this constant argument and the other type charge will close it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [582.46], "stop_times": [593.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.46}, "reply_to": "15278__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_009", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "On this aspect of the case most certainly so it is we aren't seeking to enforce one of the plan conditions that Congress has imposed in the received of federal moneys.\nJust as the alternative ground in King against Smith was the enforcement of the another planned condition, condition number 10-A shall be furnished to all eligible individuals was enforced by the petitioners, was invoked by the petitioners in that case to support their claim that Alabama's substitute for the rule was invalid.\nThis Court said that Alabama had breached its federally imposed obligation and that any state law or regulation in conflict with the Social Security Act in a state that's participating of course, Is to that extent invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [593.495, 603.565, 623.509], "stop_times": [603.565, 623.509, 637.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.495}, "reply_to": "15278__0_008", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_010", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, is it the ultimate source in the problem here is for provision that permits this kind of conflict of either one to be resolved in the first instance?\nI've forgotten this conference the hearing of something before HEW?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [637.892, 649.751], "stop_times": [649.751, 655.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.892}, "reply_to": "15278__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_011", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "No, I think it's fair to characterize that Congress has given the Department of Health Education and Welfare the power to terminate federal funds upon finding a conflict between a state plan requirement and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [655.151], "stop_times": [667.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.151}, "reply_to": "15278__0_010", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_012", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Was it their procedure or an administered procedure for resolving this in the first place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [667.84], "stop_times": [672.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.84}, "reply_to": "15278__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_013", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "There's no administrative procedure or proceeding Mr. Justice Brennan, there is this power in HEW which it may exercise.\nIt has in fact not exercised it not only here but in any other case that we know of except for two since the Act was passed the power being --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [672.278, 680.728], "stop_times": [680.728, 687.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.278}, "reply_to": "15278__0_012", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_014", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "There was a point we heard something of a contemplated conference or hearing or something on this very question that to have been scheduled on this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [687.763], "stop_times": [697.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.763}, "reply_to": "15278__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_015", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, no different than any other the act contemplates or when a state makes a change in its AMTC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [697.09], "stop_times": [701.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.09}, "reply_to": "15278__0_014", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_016", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, was there anything scheduled between HEW and the state officials in this issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [701.865], "stop_times": [706.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.865}, "reply_to": "15278__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_017", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, it's not scheduled detour no Mr. Justice Brennan, I'll explain what did happened.\nThe state made a change, they have to submit that to HEW.\nFor some reasons, state has permitted to implement it prior to HEW's approval and federal funds continued to flow and in this particular case and then a series of discussions when negotiations take place between the state and HEW over the change if it raises questions.\nThis provision was deemed to raise question in HEW and somewhat uncharacteristically swift fashion replied to New York that Section 131 (a), the statute which reduces grants raised the question of conformity under the Social Security Act would you provide us with information.\nThat was in April, New York provided the regulations and a brief description of what the statute does in June and nothing further has been heard between HEW and State of New York except for an event we just learned recently that took place on November 10 in which HEW wrote New York a letter questioning some other aspect of 131 (a) on the grounds of state wide uniformity under Social Security Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [706.958, 711.326, 715.513, 733.681, 749.807], "stop_times": [711.326, 715.513, 733.681, 749.807, 777.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.958}, "reply_to": "15278__0_016", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_018", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, is this issue right for judicial decision until that procedure is been completed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [777.75], "stop_times": [784.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.75}, "reply_to": "15278__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__0_019", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Your Honor, Mr. Justice Brennan it's our view that the delegation to HEW with the power to cut off federal funds does not preclude the remedy that this Court upheld in King against Smith.\nThat remedy being a recipient most affected by state plan changes in AFDC and the other programs.\nMay i ask -- it may invoke the federal laws so long as the state is participating and a court has power to adjudicate that controversy.\nThe only difference in this case between this case and King v. Smith, in King v. Smith HEW had the neither approved nor disapproved.\nIt had a long history of negotiation.\nWe have a somewhat shorter history of negotiation here but given the nature of the interest involved and also the fact that HEW's participation or expertise be at being relevant is available to this court or the court below.\nIndeed HEW has very explicitly expressed its views in this case and those were before the District Court and its brief from another case and deregulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [784.084, 798.078, 806.075, 814.779, 821.464, 824.452, 839.154], "stop_times": [798.078, 806.075, 814.779, 821.464, 824.452, 839.154, 847.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.084}, "reply_to": "15278__0_018", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_020", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Except that the HEW hasn't addressed itself to one or two of the critical issues, doesn't report to be answering them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [847.417], "stop_times": [856.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.417}, "reply_to": "15278__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_021", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "All right, it doesn't and the HEW was invited to participate in this case amicus at the beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [856.819], "stop_times": [863.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.819}, "reply_to": "15278__0_020", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_022", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But it says in its brief in this Court that it doesn't purport to be telling us whether it's just the streamlining of the state standard or on the other hand it's forbidden as an impressible reduction in the confidence standards.\nThat's the critical issue, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [863.713, 877.63], "stop_times": [877.63, 880.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.713}, "reply_to": "15278__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_023", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That's one of the critical issues Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [880.884], "stop_times": [882.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.884}, "reply_to": "15278__0_022", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_024", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, it says on that and apparently it hasn't devised anyone on that yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [882.165], "stop_times": [885.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.165}, "reply_to": "15278__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_025", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That's quite often the case Mr. Justice White, it didn't really advice the Court, for example it did not advice the Court or anyone else in King against Smith exactly what its position on substitute for the rules were.\nIt has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [885.947, 896.654], "stop_times": [896.654, 896.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.947}, "reply_to": "15278__0_024", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_026", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Maybe -- maybe, they didn't ready to do so yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [896.762], "stop_times": [899.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.762}, "reply_to": "15278__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__0_027", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "It had -- Mr. Chief Justice, it's certainly the meandering or long protracted serious in negotiations or very indefinite negotiations certainly is a characteristic of that process.\nIt's not really an adversary process.\nRecipients are not the parties to it, the states are not really adversaries except in the rare instance where HEW invokes its power of cut off and as we said it's very rare and he invokes that power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [899.092, 910.178, 913.307], "stop_times": [910.178, 913.307, 924.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.092}, "reply_to": "15278__0_026", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_028", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Are you suggesting that there's a burden on the courts to package the administrative function is delayed or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [924.404], "stop_times": [932.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.404}, "reply_to": "15278__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__0_029", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Not at all Mr. Chief Justice, I merely --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [932.596], "stop_times": [933.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.596}, "reply_to": "15278__0_028", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_030", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "-- not as feeble as it might be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [933.422], "stop_times": [934.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.422}, "reply_to": "15278__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__0_031", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "No, I'm sorry.\nI'm saying that that power of HEW to order to cutoff the federal funds does not affect the rights of recipients to come in to federal court in a due to case validity under the federal act of the state law of regulation or statute adversity affects them in this one most adversity affect the petitioners in this case.\nWe're just saying similarly to Allen v. Board of Elections -- this Court's decision in Allen v. Board of Elections.\nThe existence of administrative remedy, the power to cut off does not preclude adjudication.\nThe United States itself has said so in regard to the Social Security Act.\nIt has come in to Court and argued that HEW's power to terminate is not exclusive.\nThe courts have power to adjudicate validity.\nWe think that power is critical and very important.\nWe mention the nature of these negotiations only to show how critical and important that power is if the client conditions that Congress imposes are to be enforced.\nIf in fact the protections, the few protections that Congress provides to disadvantage individuals alleged or under these programs are to be effectuated.\nWe stressed the delay in HEW seems only to show that a fact of this Court has recognize that is that the Congress usually intends its laws to be applicable to be enforced.\nIt usually intends its policies to be carried out if those policies are to be effectuated in this case and other cases surely the answer given in King against Smith was correct.\nThey can come into court and seek to adjudicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [934.774, 935.485, 953.392, 960.774, 965.864, 970.287, 975.039, 977.819, 980.388, 990.09, 1001.025, 1011.845, 1022.824], "stop_times": [935.485, 953.392, 960.774, 965.864, 970.287, 975.039, 977.819, 980.388, 990.09, 1001.025, 1011.845, 1022.824, 1029.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.774}, "reply_to": "15278__0_030", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_032", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But we Mr. Albert, we'll have to--that issue that I have referred to a moment ago certainly has to be decided in this case if we get to the merits.\nAll we have to be deciding it without any views of those who might know more about the updating some standard in need or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1029.194, 1039.786], "stop_times": [1039.786, 1051.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.194}, "reply_to": "15278__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_033", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I fought them in this case.\nThe ultimate issue in this case we believe in our view is the construction of a federal statute which is a questionable obviously ultimately for this Court.\nWe think in the line of the policy of this statute it's a question that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1051.824, 1054.152, 1062.22], "stop_times": [1054.152, 1062.22, 1065.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.824}, "reply_to": "15278__0_032", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_034", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well that may be so, but then you have to make it to state statute against, and the argument is that the state statute is consistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1065.132], "stop_times": [1071.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.132}, "reply_to": "15278__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_035", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I'm going to address myself to that certainly I just wanted to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1071.415], "stop_times": [1074.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1071.415}, "reply_to": "15278__0_034", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_036", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "We'll have to decide that issue wouldn't we, without any --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1074.732], "stop_times": [1076.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.732}, "reply_to": "15278__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_037", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I believed that's correct Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1076.536], "stop_times": [1078.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.536}, "reply_to": "15278__0_036", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_038", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Without -- without the HEW or the government having stated what if thought at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1078.478], "stop_times": [1083.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.478}, "reply_to": "15278__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__0_039", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "For one reason or another, the government did volunteer brief in this Court very recently and mentions a few hints of something right or wrong, it doesn't want to take the position on the merits for one reason or another.\nHEW also was issued to state letter, by the way, which is not a regulation of October 10th which rather studiedly begs this question.\nIt says at a minimum you must maintain your standards and accordance with basic needs without providing us with the definition of basic needs at all.\nNor thus, I don't think fairly construed as the Government's brief in this case.\nI should like first to return to the arguments against this statute which are said to make our meaning inappropriate.\nThe basic argument is that the statute is we construe it, renders it to be a measure working enormous change in the federal state relationship on president grant made programs at considerable compelled expenditures and without stormy opposition in Congress that such a measure should have resulted in.\nWe think the argument falls with each of those premises.\nThe cost of this provision were before the Congress, it knew that the administration's original provision requiring a great deal of more change would cost overall $90 million in federal funds for full payment updated standards for updating it full and then paying those standards in full.\nOnce that provision was draw up to full need, the cost had to drop considerably because it was accepting maximums in 33 states; many of which states don't claim one in 50% of need.\nThe administration had also informed Congress that most states are updated recently.\nThe cost, in other words, were modest to stay the least in a program of $4 billion federal expenditures a year.\nThose cost range if one takes the national average of HEW of $44 a recipient a year and a 10% cost of living factor, the total cost would be about $30 million gross state and federal expenditures.\nThis case appears to be a very big case in terms of cost and the source supports the argument not because New York has made a cost of living adjustment, it estimated the cost of living adjustment and sound budget for this year it would $5 million the state share all together.\nIt's because what New York has done is cut grants and cut grants very severely.\nThat is not to thrust of what Congress was thinking about when it passed this statute.\nAny given violation of a federal condition can be costly if one takes the condition in King against Smith and against a state, for example New York decides to withdraw aid to all children whose parents have abandoned them and those petitioners invoke 402 (a) (10).\nThe cost involve in that case will be about $200 million.\nBut that was not the cost that Congress estimated for 402 (a) (10) or had in mind.\nAlthough, it did passed that provision to deal with physical crisis in the states nor is this provision.\nBut my point is the cost are indeed modest, two this is not on president and federal granted programs.\nOur contention it should be clear as not the 402 (a) (23) compels the state to appropriate certain amount of money of AFDC.\nIt rather, it poses a limit on one mechanism to be use to reduce expenditures that mechanism being the reduction of grants.\nThe medicate program passed for two years before also a federal grant made program with similar matching 50% the New York and of fair percentage for other states, imposes very similar requirements but rather more and those were passed without controversy.\nThat Act requires not only that states may not divert funds from the public assistance titles to operate medicate, it requires that the states must at a minimum provide a to persons who would be eligible for public assistance under the most liberal money-payment standard in the states during the last three years and it also provides that the state must at a minimum that the state must provide to all eligible individuals at least five categories of services in-patient, out-patient hospital physicians and the like.\nThe sum total of those requirements is most and it also requires the states expand demonstrate their expanding reference under medicate.\nMy point is the sum total of those requirements is indeed to impose a limit on the ability of the state to participate and choose to spend what it wishes, not a rigid limit but this is not a rigid limit either.\nThis provision leaves safe with a great deal of flexibility not to reduce grants which should be said, but in other areas to affect their AFDC budget of public welfare expenditures.\nStates are free within very broad limits to determine eligibility, financial responsibility of relatives, implementation of the win program, the work consented program, certainly the amount of local financial participation and the like.\nWe think that this Court did refer in King against Smith to the state power to determine its resources through setting of standards of need.\nBut that's an example of flexibility.\nThere were many other examples that can be adduced.\nBurrow with the departure in this provision is done so by reflecting most to the very established pattern in AFDC, it accepts as it has the government has since 1935, the enormous variations among the several states in resources and the like and a lot of this states and accepts the states own standard of need.\nIt also continues greater federal responsibility for states with lesser wealth and lower grant that's a pattern or a tradition in AFDC.\nEven assuming for a moment that the provision should have been controversial, this is really torrential out of its legislative setting in 1967.\nAfter all, it was part of Omnibus Legislative Amendment, also part of a compromise between the Senate and the House which disputed over many provisions.\nThis was one their compromises and this setting, the absence of and it was also passed in under passed on the floor.\nUnder rules are very restricted debate and no amendments in the House certainly and at the end of the Senate, no amendments also.\nIn this setting silence even by those who should have opposed that assuming there should've been such persons, it would seem to me as part of the legislative art of reaching a compromise and accord on no less than 300 different provisions that were embodied in its 1967 amendments.\nWe'll refer to now to the New York Statute and whether what it does is somehow consistent with the 402 (a) (23).\nIn our view the heart of 402 (a) (23) is to guarantee an increase in income of recipients as the committee said based on cost of living changes.\nNew York has done is decrease the income of recipients by approximately 8 to 12% depending on which recipient, I'll talk about the changes in a moment and its clearly done did this to reduce overall AFDC expenditures in New York by $100 million out of a total of approximately $900 million.\nThat's a one out of every $9.00 was taken out of the AFDC.\nHow that can be said to comply with the statute, how the adjustment of needs standards, New York does not have maximums, how the adjustment of need standards can be said which saved which reduces everybody's grant by $1.00 out of $9.00 can be said to comply with the statute that requires an adjustment for cost for a reprising for cost of living changes obviously going up is itself startling proposition.\nOur view on Mr. Justice Brennan, your question of streamlining is 402 (a) (23) has nothing to do with streamlining, that is not the concern of the statute, its proponents or anyone else who discussed that never talk about streamlining.\nOne should have is no federal statute or federal regulation that defines what streamlining is either.\nStates have like New York; they have used several methods of providing grants.\nOne of those methods is to provide the grant as a supplement as it does for example for rent today as it did for articles of home furnishing and clothing.\nWe don't think that 402 (a) (23) allows the state to eliminate whatever items it now deems unnecessary and unnecessary for reasons have nothing to do with basic -- I should like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1083.423, 1099.128, 1106.838, 1115.549, 1120.787, 1131.378, 1150.406, 1153.67, 1171.084, 1181.159, 1184.66, 1191.851, 1205.156, 1219.341, 1224.349, 1229.79, 1246.205, 1249.702, 1254.427, 1261.411, 1268.417, 1276.847, 1285.961, 1300.567, 1330.136, 1337.914, 1349.724, 1361.229, 1380.179, 1389.166, 1391.098, 1398.145, 1416.129, 1423.741, 1434.534, 1443.814, 1452.355, 1460.186, 1484.278, 1493.359, 1503.163, 1524.819, 1528.313, 1552.319, 1566.565, 1572.34, 1582.643, 1596.961], "stop_times": [1099.128, 1106.838, 1115.549, 1120.787, 1131.378, 1150.406, 1153.67, 1171.084, 1181.159, 1184.66, 1191.851, 1205.156, 1219.341, 1224.349, 1229.79, 1246.205, 1249.702, 1254.427, 1261.411, 1268.417, 1276.847, 1285.961, 1300.567, 1330.136, 1337.914, 1349.724, 1361.229, 1380.179, 1389.166, 1391.098, 1398.145, 1416.129, 1423.741, 1434.534, 1443.814, 1452.355, 1460.186, 1484.278, 1493.359, 1503.163, 1524.819, 1528.313, 1552.319, 1566.565, 1572.34, 1582.643, 1596.961, 1608.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.423}, "reply_to": "15278__0_038", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__0_040", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Very well Mr. Albert.\nMr. Weinberg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1608.769, 1611.702], "stop_times": [1611.702, 1614.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.769}, "reply_to": "15278__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__1_000", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice may it please the Court.\nNot only is this case plainly unripe for determination by the judiciary at this stage, because we're still awaiting the views of HEW, which the agency which if it doesn't have primary jurisdiction here certainly is the one with the expertise and the experience which should passed upon it.\nBut it's an extraordinarily ironic case in any event because in a fact the petitioners are asking courts to solve the problem of the adequacy of the welfare allowances in the various states where Congress has so conspicuously fail to act.\nAnd they rely not on the Constitution but on a very narrow subsection test by the 1967 Congress which was simply never built to support the weight of the construction that this petitioners seek to place upon it, which is in affect what the Court of Appeals held aside from ruling that there was no jurisdiction in the first place and over and above that, that the case was clearly unripe for the termination because HEW hasn't given us its views yet.\nAnd I'd like to advert to that briefly and first if I may.\nThis is a very different situation from the King against Smith where the Alabama substitute for the regulation was set aside and there was a long history of acquiescence by HEW in the regulations of that type which the various states had.\nOn the contrary, here New York only passed the statute in its 1969 legislative session. It only went into effect on July 1st.\nHEW's only had it before them for a couple of months and as my colleague has said it hasn't yet commented on whether or not that these statute complies or doesn't comply with 602 (a) (23) which is what the case is all about.\nAnd consequently, there's nothing in King against Smith or any other case that the petitioners cite here which would provide the slightest foothold for jurisdiction here prior to a decision on this thing by HEW.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1614.494, 1617.25, 1633.766, 1647.425, 1673.123, 1677.164, 1693.014, 1701.594, 1716.328], "stop_times": [1617.25, 1633.766, 1647.425, 1673.123, 1677.164, 1693.014, 1701.594, 1716.328, 1728.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1614.494}, "reply_to": "15278__0_040", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_001", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, there wasn't a decision of King against Smith, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1728.766], "stop_times": [1731.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.766}, "reply_to": "15278__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_002", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "No, but there was a long history of acquiescence which this Court said was tantamount a decision and that it got HEW out of the way in effect.\nIn other words, if Alabama had that substitute for the rule for 20 years --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1731.657, 1740.447], "stop_times": [1740.447, 1743.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.657}, "reply_to": "15278__1_001", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_003", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, the Court in King against Smith specifically said that there was a correspondence going on and then said it on page 326, \u201cAdditional correspondent ensued with HEW never approved deregulation.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1743.856], "stop_times": [1756.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.856}, "reply_to": "15278__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_004", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That's right Justice White but by letting it sit on the desk so to speak for 20 years and many other states might just Alabama had that provision, I believe more than half of the states had it.\nThe Court felt that enough time had passed certainly so that it was unreasonable to expect HEW to suddenly wake up and do something about the alleged conflict which this Court held existed between the statute and the Alabama regulation.\nOf course here, you've got an entirely different situation where New York situation appears to be unique and in addition to that HEW simply hasn't passed and its not matter of the decades as it was in the Alabama situation but just a matter of a couple of months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1756.607, 1768.814, 1783.406], "stop_times": [1768.814, 1783.406, 1797.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.607}, "reply_to": "15278__1_003", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_005", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I take it there has been correspondence going on between New York departments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1797.563], "stop_times": [1802.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.563}, "reply_to": "15278__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_006", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1802.053], "stop_times": [1802.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.053}, "reply_to": "15278__1_005", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_007", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "And this was -- did Mr. Albert practically describe what's happened so far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1802.5], "stop_times": [1808.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.5}, "reply_to": "15278__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_008", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt's been correspondence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1808.284, 1809.096], "stop_times": [1809.096, 1810.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.284}, "reply_to": "15278__1_007", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_009", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Now, let's assume HEW decided that what the New York has done is quite consistent with that Section 43 or whatever it is. Would they say so or would they just not or they just be quiet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1810.163], "stop_times": [1824.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.163}, "reply_to": "15278__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_010", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well. I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1824.738], "stop_times": [1824.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.738}, "reply_to": "15278__1_009", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_011", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "They'll write you a letter to say we approve it or we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1824.879], "stop_times": [1826.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.879}, "reply_to": "15278__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_012", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I'm -- I'm sure they would because they've already questioned other aspect which are unrelated to this case of the New York Statutes and in the past they've given specific approval to the actions of New York and I have to assume the other states as well so that I'm confident if they no objections at 131 (a), the New York Statute, they would say so.\nOn the other hand, should they not say so after a reasonable period of time, we'd have a situation analogous to the one which existed in King against Smith, but we don't have either of those situations now, what we have is that we know HEW has the question before it and they haven't yet spoken.\nSo, we certainly have to, it appears to me give them a chance to either say yes, say no or not act after a reasonable period within which I supposed the case would then be right, aside from the other jurisdictional defects which we did cite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1826.722, 1846.35, 1860.9], "stop_times": [1846.35, 1860.9, 1873.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.722}, "reply_to": "15278__1_011", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_013", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But if they have and if they did say, do they usually just say yes if they say, yes, and yes because and say why they think its good?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1873.217], "stop_times": [1880.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.217}, "reply_to": "15278__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_014", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Oh -- oh, the letter Justice White?\nDefinitely the correspondence has been linked.\nThe sum of it is in the appendix, the November 10th letter which was too late for also our adversaries to put in the appendix is nevertheless the next I believed to the HEW brief, the amicus brief which HEW supplied here, so that's before the Court and I'm sure that it won't be just to simple yes.\nIt will be a \"Yes\" because and they'll go into reasons because they have the expertise to do that and then that's what they've done in every aspect of the New York legislation through the years.\nNow, below a great deal of reliance is placed on King against Smith not only on the question of the unrightness of this case, but in general not withstanding the superficial similarity and subject matter.\nThis is a very, very different case from King against Smith.\nThe complete absence of the justifiable constitutional claim such as existed in King against Smith not only under the cuts the Courts basis for jurisdiction here but it also demonstrates the petition -- on the merits the petitioners claim is simply untenable.\nMoreover, King against Smith and Thompson against Shapiro as well not only involve constitutional issues but also involve the eligibility of persons for welfare and this claim here is merely a claim regarding the amount which its old position is a very, very substantial difference.\nFurthermore, in King against Smith and in the Thompson against Shapiro, the residency case, there was no requirement that if the Court were to overrule New York Statute would automatically in effect appropriate money from the legislature.\nThose issues didn't exist in King against Smith or in Thompson against Shapiro and consequently if the Eleventh Amendment doesn't act as a bar to such a situation which we submitted thus and which the three-judge court in Williams against Dandridge, which is on appeal to this Court held that the federal court had to stop short of simply categorically ordering a state legislature to appropriate money for welfare, that's what's clearly involved in the relief that these petitioners seek, which as I've said is entirely different from the two cases they rely on the most heavily.\nNow, let's examine the statute on which the petitioners solely relied and what it says is that state shall adjust the amounts that are used to determine the needs of individuals or in the opulence of the welfare official standard of need and any maximum imposed on the aid of the aid paid to families which my colleague concede New York doesn't have.\nA maximum is at flat dollar amount such as $200.00 per family in which you just don't have anymore no matter how large the family is which the Court in Williams against Dandridge and in the main case Westbury against Fisher, the three-judge court declared to be unconstitutional.\nThat's definitely not involved in this case New York never had a maximum of that sort and doesn't now.\nIn any events, 602 (a) (23) says that the standard of need and any maximums which New York doesn't have, has to be adjusted to reflect increases in the cost of living and New York as the Court of Appeals held fully complied with the mandates of that statute.\nThe level of actual allowances to welfare recipients in New York State is highest in the country as appears from the appendix to our brief.\nIt's the highest of the 50 states and New York has always out phased whatever federal requirements existed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [1880.748, 1882.073, 1884.73, 1904.683, 1917.759, 1928.708, 1932.653, 1947.066, 1963.03, 1978.025, 2013.954, 2036.173, 2052.426, 2058.262, 2075.446, 2084.277], "stop_times": [1882.073, 1884.73, 1904.683, 1917.759, 1928.708, 1932.653, 1947.066, 1963.03, 1978.025, 2013.954, 2036.173, 2052.426, 2058.262, 2075.446, 2084.277, 2089.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.748}, "reply_to": "15278__1_013", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_015", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But as it has in New York in one of those states that all in said that one point to sets of standards in need and that's the actual payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2089.467], "stop_times": [2097.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.467}, "reply_to": "15278__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_016", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2097.332], "stop_times": [2098.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.332}, "reply_to": "15278__1_015", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_017", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "And it's still is, isn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2098.282], "stop_times": [2099.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.282}, "reply_to": "15278__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_018", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, there's no family maximum, there's no percentage of payment that needs such as many states have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2099.351], "stop_times": [2103.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.351}, "reply_to": "15278__1_017", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_019", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "So, when you set a standard of need, you purport to fulfill it in full?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2103.831], "stop_times": [2106.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.831}, "reply_to": "15278__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_020", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, indeed.\nNo question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2106.981, 2107.681], "stop_times": [2107.681, 2108.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.981}, "reply_to": "15278__1_019", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_021", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "So the 131 was then a change in the standard of need as well as the actual payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2108.313], "stop_times": [2117.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.313}, "reply_to": "15278__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_022", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "In 131 (a) Your Honor?\nNo, it wasn't a change in the standard of need.\nNo, it was -- I'll get to that in the moment if I may that it was a streamlining of the standard of need and the elimination of certain things such as special grants which I'll come to in a moment if I may, but it was definitely not a reduction in the standard of need --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2117.617, 2119.329, 2121.615], "stop_times": [2119.329, 2121.615, 2134.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.617}, "reply_to": "15278__1_021", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_023", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "If they change any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2134.319], "stop_times": [2135.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.319}, "reply_to": "15278__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_024", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "New York pays 100% of the standard of need.\nIt always has in contrast to many states which don't and shockingly I think some states have a higher standard of need that New York.\nFor example, although New York pays an average of $278.00 per month to a family of four on welfare and we pay the same whether it's AFDC or aid to the aged or blind or disabled or whatever.\nIn Missouri, the standard of need is set to be a substantially higher figure 305 but the actual amount paid is only 124.\nNow, New York simply doesn't do that, we've never indulged in that we pay 100% of the standard of need.\nIndeed Section 131 of our Social Services Law which is the statute which dated 131 (a), the one this case deals with and which is still on the books says, \u201cIn so far as funds are available for that purpose, New York is to provide adequately for those unable to maintain themselves.\u201d\nAnd that's precisely what New York has always lived up to.\nWe've reprised every year.\nThat the social service is proponent, the respondents here takes its own cost of living surveys throughout the state.\nIt also employs the Bureau of Labor Statistics federal figures and it reprised in May of 1968 and then adjusted the standard of need and the levels of payment because in New York their tied together.\nIn August of 1968, prior to 131 (a) when the levels was said administratively and that's illustrated by the fact that for a family four exclusive of rent, because rent is paid additionally its tacked on for the monthly allowance in New York.\nThe average went up from 173 a month to 191 a month for a family of four.\nAnd thereafter, 131 (a) was passed which used as its matrix, the reprising which took place in 1968 and the way that it worked was this.\nThe legislature took an average of the age of the oldest child in order to eliminate the vast administrative paperwork in the time of Social Services officials which went to figuring out what the age of the oldest child was in any given family when you're dealing with hundreds or thousands of families.\nThe court can appreciate the time consuming nature of that job in addition to the readjustments, everytime the oldest child in the family reached another year, that placed the family in another bracket and if the family didn't get around to notifying the local official or if the officials were lax, then there was a deferment to that family, they didn't get the increase that they were entitled to.\nSo what the legislature did was it averaged these disparities based on the age of the oldest child and it took a figure which was based on that average and now a family of whatever size depending only on whether it's adults or children gets a certain specific amounts.\nThere was no cutback into characterize it as a cutback as the petitioners repeatedly do simply sheds heat and not light.\nNow, another change which was made with the elimination of special grants and this was done on the basis of the enlightened judgment of everybody in the field, every enlightened commentator including HEW itself which as early as 1964 call on the states to eliminate special grants.\nWhat special grants mean as we described them in our brief and I don't think there's any dispute about this is at the recipient of welfare has to go half in hands to the local official asking for special grant to cover a specific purpose, it's degrading, it's time consuming and again requires a great deal of administrative paperwork.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2135.661, 2138.471, 2145.663, 2157.571, 2166.589, 2174.09, 2189.283, 2192.336, 2193.962, 2200.702, 2213.524, 2228.453, 2233.979, 2248.04, 2264.719, 2284.21, 2301.386, 2307.85, 2325.521], "stop_times": [2138.471, 2145.663, 2157.571, 2166.589, 2174.09, 2189.283, 2192.336, 2193.962, 2200.702, 2213.524, 2228.453, 2233.979, 2248.04, 2264.719, 2284.21, 2301.386, 2307.85, 2325.521, 2345.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.661}, "reply_to": "15278__1_023", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_025", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, what was special with all the special grants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2345.733], "stop_times": [2347.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.733}, "reply_to": "15278__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_026", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Special grants go through as specific items such as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2347.797], "stop_times": [2349.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.797}, "reply_to": "15278__1_025", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_027", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "For example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2349.87], "stop_times": [2350.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.87}, "reply_to": "15278__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_028", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "-- moving expenses Justice Brennan, a diet through somebody who's diabetic let's say or something needs special diet, MIETS for infants, things of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2350.797], "stop_times": [2360.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.797}, "reply_to": "15278__1_027", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_029", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "And now, these things were eliminated is that in the computation of the gross payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2360.566], "stop_times": [2364.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.566}, "reply_to": "15278__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_030", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "They were eliminated but they're still available to the welfare recipient personally because the figure of $25.00 per month was tacked on to the average in 1969 in order to compensate for the elimination of special grants and also because many of these items such as moving in a security deposit for an apartment rental and that's necessary are now available through a purchase of services which is over and above the allowance.\nIn other words, where the local or state Social Services Department simply furnishes the service itself by purchasing it from a contractor or from the landlord where that's applicable, so that while these special grants were always over and above the standard of need and their elimination even though it's been compensated for anyway doesn't in anyway detract or reduce the standard of need.\nNonetheless, many of these items are still in fact available to the welfare recipient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2364.425, 2388.319, 2411.336], "stop_times": [2388.319, 2411.336, 2414.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.425}, "reply_to": "15278__1_029", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_031", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But, I gather basically on the question of a conflict through the federal regulation you'd say that it's been no change in the standard of need period because these special grants were an addition to the chance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2414.693], "stop_times": [2426.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.693}, "reply_to": "15278__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_032", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2426.485], "stop_times": [2426.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.485}, "reply_to": "15278__1_031", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_033", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Standard need.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2426.829], "stop_times": [2427.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.829}, "reply_to": "15278__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_034", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, sir.\nDespite the special grants in addition required investigation and it requires the councilors to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2427.556, 2428.525], "stop_times": [2428.525, 2433.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.556}, "reply_to": "15278__1_033", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_035", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Why -- why is it you suppose HEW tells us their not going to advise us whether they think you're right or wrong about that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2433.591], "stop_times": [2440.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.591}, "reply_to": "15278__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_036", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, I guess they haven't looked into the question fully enough and exhaustedly enough to make up their minds yet.\nI presume that they're going to do so promptly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2440.515, 2446.144], "stop_times": [2446.144, 2448.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.515}, "reply_to": "15278__1_035", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_037", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I just wonder how much looking into it takes to discover that in fact the special services are still available in the different form, how much times does that take?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2448.089], "stop_times": [2458.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.089}, "reply_to": "15278__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_038", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Pardon me Justice Brennan, I don't know how long it takes but I would say this, the statute was only enacted in April, it was then amended in May.\nThey've only had it before them in final for really a couple of months in effect that only went into effect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2458.311, 2467.096], "stop_times": [2467.096, 2472.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.311}, "reply_to": "15278__1_037", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_039", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Now, some of these correspondents between you and HEW touch the subject a notice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2472.267], "stop_times": [2477.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.267}, "reply_to": "15278__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_040", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, indeed.\nThis is the very note --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2477.117, 2477.635], "stop_times": [2477.635, 2477.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.117}, "reply_to": "15278__1_039", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_041", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "This noted November 10 is nothing whatever to do with those things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2477.794], "stop_times": [2481.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.794}, "reply_to": "15278__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_042", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "No, that particular letter doesn't but the very note of the correspondents back and forth which appears in the appendix is just exactly that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2481.094], "stop_times": [2488.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.094}, "reply_to": "15278__1_041", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_043", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "In which appendix is your or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2488.455], "stop_times": [2490.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.455}, "reply_to": "15278__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_044", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, that's a joint appendix it's the petitioner's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2490.117], "stop_times": [2491.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.117}, "reply_to": "15278__1_043", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_045", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2491.97], "stop_times": [2492.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.97}, "reply_to": "15278__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15278__1_046", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "It's a letter by a Mr. Collison who's the regional director I believe, his title as an HEW, anyway he's the man whose got jurisdiction over this and has been constant correspondents back and forth dealing with these very questions.\nNow, the payment says, \u201cWe've seen our exclusive of rent and also fuel for heating\u201d which is the small item of course, but rents have increased 13% in the less three years in New York City alone and it's the practice to pay whatever rent the recipient actually has subject to maximum rentals and even they can be waived in the various counties when necessary so that there's been a over and above the course of living adjust which New York did in 1968 and did again in 1969.\nNow, withstanding the passage of 131 (a), there's been the increases in rent which alone it seems to me constitute compliance with the statute or partial compliance but the main point here is that there was full compliance by the May 1968 reprising.\nNow, the 131 (a) specifically requires reprising even there weren't 602 (a) (23), we'd be doing it anyway.\nAnd in fact we have done it and the respondents have submitted to the legislature the results of that reprising, it's too recent to be in the appendix but they've ask the legislature to provide sizable increases for 1970 which will increase the average for a family of four monthly payment not including rent from the present 185 to 208 depending on the locality to a state wide $225.00 a month and then as of May 1970, a state wide $230.00 a month.\nSo that there's no question but that New York fully comply in full with any interpretation of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2492.524, 2505.835, 2534.039, 2548.856, 2556.216, 2586.991], "stop_times": [2505.835, 2534.039, 2548.856, 2556.216, 2586.991, 2592.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.524}, "reply_to": "15278__1_045", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_047", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, what was the major purpose on 131 (a)?\nWas it to switch the basis for determining welfare payments from the individual case to general categories?\nWas that one of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2592.882, 2595.496, 2604.733], "stop_times": [2595.496, 2604.733, 2606.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.882}, "reply_to": "15278__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_048", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well it was, Justice White it was streamlining in the elimination of the average --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2606.143], "stop_times": [2609.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.143}, "reply_to": "15278__1_047", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_049", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I know it's streamlining, but what does streamlining mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2609.67], "stop_times": [2612.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2609.67}, "reply_to": "15278__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_050", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Getting to that, it was the basically two things.\nIt was the elimination of special grants for the reasons I've said, the administrative simplicity in taking the burden off the back of the welfare recipient to go and apply for a special grant which benefits the more aggressive recipient at the expense of the meek and also freeze the counselors, who don't have to fool around now with the investigation that each individual request for a special grant and make another vote that time to counseling and finding jobs and everything else that counselors trained to do, and the other thing was the averaging which eliminates the paperwork and the delay and the time consuming aspects of paying a different amount for each child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2612.359, 2614.565], "stop_times": [2614.565, 2652.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.359}, "reply_to": "15278__1_049", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_051", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "In short, you don't determine individual need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2652.362], "stop_times": [2655.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.362}, "reply_to": "15278__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_052", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, we still determine individual needs but we do it under a formula which was simplified in no way reduced but simplified so that how much family afford gets now doesn't depend on whether the oldest child in that family is 9 or 11 or 13, it now depends on --it is now a set amount for a family of four with a difference between New York City and the rest of the state which isn't involved in this case, that's the proportion of this case that mooted out and which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2655.92], "stop_times": [2681.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2655.92}, "reply_to": "15278__1_051", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_053", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That simplifies the administration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2681.365], "stop_times": [2683.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.365}, "reply_to": "15278__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_054", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, yes, sir.\nNow, when we look at 602 (a) (23) as we have to in order to try to gleam what Congress meant when it passed it, we see that first of all it's a very minor thought of Section 602 of the Social Security Act and the supremacy clause although my colleague here adverts to it clearly isn't relevant to this case because Congress has simply never exercised any real authority over the levels of welfare allowance is paid by the states.\nIndeed, 601 of the Social Security Act which is the basic statute which provides the federal grants and aid in the field that AFDC says the states ought to furnish assistance as far as practicable under the conditions in each state.\nAnd what that means in effect is we've seen is that New York pays $278.00 a month, Missouri pays $124.00, Mississippi pays $55.00 a month and even the District of Columbia where Congress is 4537 pays $184.00 a month on the average which is about 2/3's of what New York pays.\nNow, while imposing various other requirements as a condition of receiving federal grants, Congress has deliberately refrain from mandating levels and indeed it even perpetuates to some extent the inequity between the states by scaling the ratio of the federal contribution so as to give more money for the state's that pay less paradoxically enough.\nAnd indeed in King against Smith which was decided after 602 (a) (23) was enacted by the 67th Congress, this Court said \u201cEach state is free to determine the level of benefits by the amount of funds that devotes for the program.\u201d\nThe statute requires an increase in the standard of need, there's no question about that and New York complied with that by its reprising in 1968 and it's again reprised in 1969.\nThe Bill when it was originally introduced by the administration made significant changes which never took effect because Congress didn't see it the way HEW saw it.\nThe Bill has introduced required each state to pay the full standard of need which as we've seen would be a gigantic step forward in the whole administration of welfare and many states, 26 according the count we took, don't even pay their own acknowledged standard of need.\nIn effect they say to a family, \u201cWe know you need $300.00 a month or whatever it is but we're not going to give you $300.00 a month.\u201d\nThe Bill also required an annual adjustment of the standard of need and since it required each state to pay the standard of need, it required an annual adjustment of the amount actually paid to every AFDC recipient.\nThis would've been a Bill of enormous impact but the House turned it down and the Senate, while passing a portion of it only passed the annual updating part so where in effect when it finally got through, it was emasculated and then the House-Senate Conference Committee further emasculated it by eliminating the annual updating and leaving it as it is with a simple one-shot updating of the standard of need requirement and no requirements at all that a state increased the amount actually paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2683.199, 2685.157, 2712.392, 2725.707, 2744.07, 2764.599, 2777.982, 2789.323, 2799.868, 2816.366, 2823.921, 2835.241], "stop_times": [2685.157, 2712.392, 2725.707, 2744.07, 2764.599, 2777.982, 2789.323, 2799.868, 2816.366, 2823.921, 2835.241, 2863.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.199}, "reply_to": "15278__1_053", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_055", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "In effect, Congress was indicating that it would review from time to time a need for updating, is that a fair analysis of that provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2863.464], "stop_times": [2874.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2863.464}, "reply_to": "15278__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__1_056", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Presumably they would, but whatever they might be planning to do in the future and of course since then as the Court knows, there's been many proposals which will change the whole field of welfare around.\nWhatever Congress might have been thinking about doing in the future, they didn't do very much in 1967.\nIt's significant that in the field of old ages systems not involved in this case.\nThey raised the actual amounts paid $4.00 a month.\nThey appropriated money specifically for that purpose, they eluded to it in their committee reports and so on and the fact that that is no reference in the committee reports to any similar provision here and no propose appropriation made it all.\nIt's evident that they had no such intent in passing 602 (a) (23) to do anything analogous to that in the field of AFDC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2874.968, 2885.629, 2891.621, 2897.2, 2900.149, 2913.056], "stop_times": [2885.629, 2891.621, 2897.2, 2900.149, 2913.056, 2920.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.968}, "reply_to": "15278__1_055", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_057", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Do you say Mr. Weinberg, New York's position is that it did the one-shot updating or did not have to was already updated, which?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2920.058], "stop_times": [2927.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.058}, "reply_to": "15278__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_058", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "No, we did it.\nWe did it in 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2927.289, 2927.871], "stop_times": [2927.871, 2929.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.289}, "reply_to": "15278__1_057", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_059", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "In -- in response to the 67 legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2929.596], "stop_times": [2933.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.596}, "reply_to": "15278__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_060", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, we would have done it anyway because all statute requires that in any of that we certainly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2933.359], "stop_times": [2936.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.359}, "reply_to": "15278__1_059", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_061", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, what I'm trying to get at it, under 131 (a), did you have to do the updating anyway under your own state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2936.368], "stop_times": [2942.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.368}, "reply_to": "15278__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_062", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2942.854], "stop_times": [2943.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.854}, "reply_to": "15278__1_061", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_063", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "You did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2943.351], "stop_times": [2943.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.351}, "reply_to": "15278__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_064", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2943.827], "stop_times": [2944.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.827}, "reply_to": "15278__1_063", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_065", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "And so what you did, in compliance with your own state law and not necessarily in compliance with the new federal statute, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2944.055], "stop_times": [2952.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.055}, "reply_to": "15278__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_066", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "No, sir.\nAlthough, unquestionably it did comply with what Congress said.\nAnd as we've seen the conference committee then eliminated annual updating and the language of their report which is cited in our brief is significant.\nIt said it requires one adjustment of the standard of need before July 1, 1969 and the HEW in characterizing this provision in the amicus brief they put it in Lampton against Bonin that Louisiana case, which is referred to continuously through this whole case, used the phrase that Congress could've hardly paid less attention to it when they passed 602 (a) (23).\nAnd yet the petitioners would have us believed that this Bill was some sort of a Trojan horse ironically brought in by the opponents of welfare reform as it reflected by the way the Senate vote worked out, and opposed by the people who seek higher levels of welfare.\nIt's -- it's evidence from the legislative history here aside from the plain meaning of this little statute that Congress rejected a provision for actually requiring every state to meet its standard of need and it simply require that the standard be updated which as we've seen and New York would've done anyway.\nIn the recent proposals of the President in the field of welfare, is significant that the President remarked it for the first time under the proposals now being annunciated.\nAll dependent families with children would be assured of minimum standard payments.\nNow, we've seen that New York has no maximums such as it was involved in Williams against Dandridge.\nThat's conceded and so I don't think it merits any further discussion.\nNow, this brings us to a further and extremely difficult point.\nThe fact is that this statute requires no more than a one-shot adjustment of the standard of need and that inescapably raises a question of fundamental jurisdiction over and above the question of ripeness.\nSupposed the petitioners construction of the statute were correct, then it would place the judiciary in a position of having to categorically order the New York legislature, assuming that this court found we didn't comply, to disperse money from each treasury in the absence of any claim of any constitutional infirmity such as it was involved in King against Smith.\nThe Court of Appeals properly that the Eleventh Amendment would forbids such an interpretation and in Williams against Dandridge, the three-judge of court reach the same conclusion.\nWhat this is, is in reality a thinly veiled suit to compel the New York legislature to appropriate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [2952.726, 2953.218, 2960.691, 2967.988, 2990.313, 3007.886, 3024.171, 3034.56, 3040.49, 3045.977, 3051.939, 3055.859, 3066.152, 3088.901, 3097.629], "stop_times": [2953.218, 2960.691, 2967.988, 2990.313, 3007.886, 3024.171, 3034.56, 3040.49, 3045.977, 3051.939, 3055.859, 3066.152, 3088.901, 3097.629, 3102.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.726}, "reply_to": "15278__1_065", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_067", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Is that necessary Mr. Weinberg?\nWhy would to be more than the declaratory judgement and then it will be up for HEW to catch up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3102.665, 3104.761], "stop_times": [3104.761, 3112.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.665}, "reply_to": "15278__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_068", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, that's all -- They asked me --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3112.361], "stop_times": [3115.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3112.361}, "reply_to": "15278__1_067", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_069", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "-- declaratory -- if we were to say there was a conflict, would we declare more than that?\nWe wouldn't order the New York legislature to make good money.\nI would suppose this would mean HEW then ether would have to catch up or because instead of cutting you off that would bring your legislature around increasing, providing the money, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3115.069, 3120.87, 3123.657], "stop_times": [3120.87, 3123.657, 3135.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.069}, "reply_to": "15278__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_070", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, sir the petitioner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3135.107], "stop_times": [3135.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.107}, "reply_to": "15278__1_069", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_071", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Why would we ask to order it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3135.369], "stop_times": [3136.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.369}, "reply_to": "15278__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_072", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "The petitioners are asking for a great deal more than they're asking for injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3136.958], "stop_times": [3139.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3136.958}, "reply_to": "15278__1_071", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_073", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "They maybe asking for it but does it follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3139.308], "stop_times": [3143.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.308}, "reply_to": "15278__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_074", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I don't believe it does. I think the injunction which is what this Court of Appeals said would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3143.854], "stop_times": [3147.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3143.854}, "reply_to": "15278__1_073", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_075", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But you can't say \u201cI should think you can argue that if they're right that they're entitled on a relief whatever?\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3147.17], "stop_times": [3154.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.17}, "reply_to": "15278__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_076", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3154.491], "stop_times": [3154.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3154.491}, "reply_to": "15278__1_075", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_077", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "We could still give them declaratory judgement I suppose within the framework of what they're asking for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3154.656], "stop_times": [3160.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3154.656}, "reply_to": "15278__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_078", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But declaratory judgement would still be in effect in order or it wouldn't be an injunction but it would be virtually in order compelling the state legislature appropriate for money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3160.403], "stop_times": [3167.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.403}, "reply_to": "15278__1_077", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_079", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I suggest control the ball in the HEW alley, that's where it belongs anyway I guess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3167.524], "stop_times": [3170.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.524}, "reply_to": "15278__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_080", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That's what we've been insisted throughout the whole litigation, no question about it.\nIt would -- there's just no way to avoid that problem.\nAssuming the state were ineligible -- were violated of 602 (a) (23) at the most that would mean that we were ineligible to receive federal funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3170.871, 3176.27, 3181.394], "stop_times": [3176.27, 3181.394, 3189.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3170.871}, "reply_to": "15278__1_079", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_081", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, what if the HEW had approved, actually approved your present plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3189.48], "stop_times": [3194.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.48}, "reply_to": "15278__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_082", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Then that would eliminate the unripeness aspect of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3194.103], "stop_times": [3195.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3194.103}, "reply_to": "15278__1_081", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_083", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "All right, then you were standing here, let's assume right now HEW had approved this.\nWe would have to decide this case, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3195.998, 3201.743], "stop_times": [3201.743, 3204.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.998}, "reply_to": "15278__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_084", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, that's still be the basic question that whether the Court had jurisdiction which I'd like to get to admit it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3204.089], "stop_times": [3207.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.089}, "reply_to": "15278__1_083", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_085", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "That's what I would like to said that, but assumed jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3207.542], "stop_times": [3210.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.542}, "reply_to": "15278__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_086", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Assumed -- not just on the unripeness, Justice White, but also on other questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3210.265], "stop_times": [3214.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3210.265}, "reply_to": "15278__1_085", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_087", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3214.539], "stop_times": [3215.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.539}, "reply_to": "15278__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_088", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "But assuming that the Court had jurisdiction, assuming it were right by HEW passing on it, that would bring and assuming that you would prepare to rule that New York didn't comply, that would bring us up to the question, I was just starting to address myself to, could the Court order in effect whether by declaratory judgement or injunction, could the Court order the New York legislature disperse additional money for welfare without violating the Eleventh Amendment and a whole volume of case law which we've cited in our brief.\nThis wasn't involved in King against Smith.\nBecause in King against Smith and then the residency cases as well, there was a way for the state to comply by simply shuffling amounts -- shuffling around the amount of money that it was going to spend for welfare.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3215.384, 3245.802, 3248.14], "stop_times": [3245.802, 3248.14, 3258.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.384}, "reply_to": "15278__1_087", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_089", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Well, you got some other type of questions on some other points on that one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3258.774], "stop_times": [3263.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.774}, "reply_to": "15278__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15278__1_090", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, and you have just four minutes away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3263.461], "stop_times": [3264.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3263.461}, "reply_to": "15278__1_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__1_091", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI'll be finishing up in a moment.\nWhen we turn to the question of jurisdiction, the reason the Court of Appeals found in the District Court lacked jurisdiction here is that once the equal protection claim of the geographical differential between the City of New York and the rest of the state was mooted as it was, there remained only the statutory claim.\nAnd there was simply no authority for the judiciary entertaining that claim.\nThe petitioners have tried to avoid that problem by saying that dependent jurisdiction doctrine gets them over that hurdle, but it simple doesn't because this Court held in United Mine Workers against Gibbs and as the lower federal courts have held on many occasions when the only constitutional issue in the case, the only issue where there's federal jurisdiction is knocked out early in the case then for the District Court to retain jurisdiction would amount to the non-justiciable tail wagging the justiciable dog, as the Court very colorfully put it in one of the cases and that that's simply what we have here so pending jurisdictions have no assistance to the petitioners.\nThey rely on 1331 but it's clear that they don't have $10,000.00 here to talk about and as this Court held in Schneider against Harris individual plaintiffs and a class suit can't aggregate their claims in order to try to reach the $10,000.00 requirement.\nThey also rely on 1343 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 the classic civil right statutes, but the fallacy there, as the Court of Appeals held, was that 402 (a) (23) simply can't be construed as a statute designed to bring about civil rights.\nWhat it does, is a statute which really perpetuates in inequity to the extent that there's any effect at all.\nIt -- it locks the states into the extraordinarily inequitable amounts of welfare assistance that they pay.\nThis statute as enacted requires the states to adjust their standard of need and New York did so.\nIt's a narrow statute and this is a narrow case.\nThere are many defects in the welfare system as we look at it throughout the whole country and there've been many proposals for solution but the Congress has itself maintained as we've seen vast and equalities by its refusal to act and equalize the payments in the various states.\nTo adopt the petitioner's view of the statute would not end these severe inequities.\nAnd to argue that New York contravened it, when it so plainly didn't and that any non-conformity between this New York State Statute and 602 (a) (23) would void the entire state program in the absence of any claim of unconstitutionality or discrimination.\nIt's simply at odds with the plain meaning of their statute and its an invitation to just that sort of judicial consideration of questions of legislative policy of the states, which this Court since the cases in the 1930's has correctly resisted.\nThe order of appeal from should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3264.58, 3265.715, 3269.094, 3287.736, 3292.677, 3330.351, 3346.994, 3364.131, 3369.868, 3375.937, 3381.314, 3384.241, 3398.92, 3403.159, 3418.425, 3432.654], "stop_times": [3265.715, 3269.094, 3287.736, 3292.677, 3330.351, 3346.994, 3364.131, 3369.868, 3375.937, 3381.314, 3384.241, 3398.92, 3403.159, 3418.425, 3432.654, 3440.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3264.58}, "reply_to": "15278__1_090", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15278__1_092", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Mr. Albert, you have three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3440.227], "stop_times": [3442.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3440.227}, "reply_to": "15278__1_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15278__2_000", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMay it please the Court.\nWe know of no case requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies or primary jurisdiction in which the litigant being harmed by a statute has no access to that agency and may not initiate any proceeding and may not participate in any proceeding before it.\nWe think that that was obvious to this Court in King against Smith, in Damico against California and in Salmon against Shapiro.\nWe don't think that that requires a reexamination; we don't think it should be -- we don't think the rule should be any different in this case.\nThe result of a decree in this case is not necessarily greater or lesser than any other violation of the Social Security Act.\nAfter all, in King against Smith, Alabama reduced its roles by 25% through its substitute for the rule, that's lot of people.\nTrue, it could turned to its benefit levels that's a lot of money involved in King v. Smith, the Louisiana sued the Home Ruins, similarly involved a great deal of many people.\nThere's no intrinsic or (Inaudible) in age distinction between benefit levels and scope with eligibility very much depends on the case.\nThis Court is not called upon to decide whether New York has eliminated basic items or non-basic items.\nSection 402 (a) (23) does talk after all of the items used to determine need.\nIn the context of this case however find questions about an item a need no longer existing, it does not arise or find questions that the state substituting oil for coal as a way of fulfilling your need for fuel.\nThose kinds of questions are not before this Court.\nAs the findings below amply support it may clear, this is an overall streamlining so to speak to reduce welfare AFDC expenditures for one year in New York by $100 million as the HEW makes clear for July 1969.\nIts average went from $71.00 per person to $62.00 per person.\nI -- there's something more going on there than so called streamlining.\nMoreover, if one looks to the two primary ways New York accomplished this, it took to age differentiated schedules giving a great deal more for older children and did a way with the differentials for older children not because they don't have greater requirements for food or social or educational necessities, but because it wanted to save money.\nIt justifies that at some sort of convenience in administration by saying \u201cWe'd have to change it every two years otherwise.\u201d\nNew recertifies individuals every three months and makes countless adjustments to the grant every month for every dollar of resource or income received on any individual.\nHow New York is saying \u201cLet's look at two figures in a chart and to have to make an adjustment and ADC families granting to every two years.\u201d\nSomehow, its administrative inefficiency boggles the imagination.\nThe large other item eliminated are supplementary grants for clothing and home furnishings.\nThose were administered in New York as a flat grant not a special grant.\nNo one applied for it.\nThey got a check in the mail every quarter of $25.00 per person.\nThere's no administrative efficiency in eliminating that whatsoever, there's cost saving and nothing more.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3442.713, 3443.829, 3444.433, 3459.383, 3465.539, 3474.454, 3481.192, 3488.338, 3497.929, 3508.225, 3514.108, 3519.625, 3533.612, 3536.718, 3550.636, 3555.256, 3560.018, 3583.356, 3590.024, 3599.405, 3606.517, 3610.197, 3615.912, 3619.808, 3620.77, 3625.733, 3631.225], "stop_times": [3443.829, 3444.433, 3459.383, 3465.539, 3474.454, 3481.192, 3488.338, 3497.929, 3508.225, 3514.108, 3519.625, 3533.612, 3536.718, 3550.636, 3555.256, 3560.018, 3583.356, 3590.024, 3599.405, 3606.517, 3610.197, 3615.912, 3619.808, 3620.77, 3625.733, 3631.225, 3632.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3442.713}, "reply_to": "15278__1_092", "speaker": "lee_a_albert"}
{"id": "15278__2_001", "conversation_id": "15278", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Albert.\nThank you for your submission.\nThank you, Mr. Weinberg.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_540", "start_times": [3632.101, 3633.272, 3634.685, 3635.609], "stop_times": [3633.272, 3634.685, 3635.609, 3638.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3632.101}, "reply_to": "15278__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_000", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Number 399, Rowan doing Business as American Book Service against the United States.\nMr. Taback, you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [0.0, 10.147], "stop_times": [10.147, 19.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_001", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe appeal here before this Court, is from a judgment of the three-judge court of the United States District Court with the Central District of California.\nThe jurisdiction of the Court is grounded upon Section 1253 of the Title 28 of United States Codes.\nThe appellants are in the mail order business.\nThey are distributors and disseminators of books, pamphlets, various matters and materials that traffic and conduct its way through the mail.\nThe law which is brought here on focus by this appeal is Section 301 of the Public Law 90206 or is codified 39 US Code 4009.\nThe action below was that for declaratory relief and seeking an injunction against the enforcement, implementation, and administration of the statute.\nThe result in the court below was a verdict of three to nothing, upholding the constitutionality of the statute and denying the relief sought.\nUpon this appeal, it does seem that the issues are made much clear then they were even in the court below.\nThis is come to be because a statute which reportedly was not an ambiguous has now received the same interpretation by the Government as well as the appellants herein.\nWell, interpretation is contrary to the construction inter -- and the interpretation given by the US District Court.\nThis is a new twist, if you will, a matter which is occurred at the time of this appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [19.913, 23.489, 33.476, 40.211, 43.927, 57.126, 68.653, 79.623, 92.062, 99.367, 113.655, 121.621], "stop_times": [23.489, 33.476, 40.211, 43.927, 57.126, 68.653, 79.623, 92.062, 99.367, 113.655, 121.621, 128.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 19.913}, "reply_to": "15382__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_002", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What was the matter of dispute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [128.586], "stop_times": [130.292], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 128.586}, "reply_to": "15382__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_003", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I say this is a matter which is now occurred at the time of appeal.\nPart of that Mr. Justice Harlan, the Government and more particularly at the time of their motion to affirm, attempted to adopt the view and interpretation of the US District Court which incidentally was by way of two votes for one interpretation and other vote for another construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [130.292, 134.186], "stop_times": [134.186, 152.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 130.292}, "reply_to": "15382__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_004", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "In the District Court, did the Government take the position as to the meaning and construction of the statute that it takes here or did invite the District Court to take the position of that Court took?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [152.252], "stop_times": [165.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.252}, "reply_to": "15382__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__0_005", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart, in answer to your question, the Government did take the view that they take here today, in the District Court.\nHowever, upon examination by one of the three judges, the Government did become somewhat, took a dual role if you will, but I would have to answer that they did adopt the view which they adopt today in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [165.606, 175.13], "stop_times": [175.13, 191.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 165.606}, "reply_to": "15382__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_006", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But during the presentation of the case the counsel perhaps saw which way the wind was blowing, can (Inaudible), did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [191.068], "stop_times": [198.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.068}, "reply_to": "15382__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__0_007", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I would believe that to be your first statement, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [198.177], "stop_times": [202.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 198.177}, "reply_to": "15382__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_008", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "In fact do will you mean alternative positions or is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [202.758], "stop_times": [208.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.758}, "reply_to": "15382__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_009", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "In answer to your question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [208.835], "stop_times": [209.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 208.835}, "reply_to": "15382__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_010", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Correct adaptation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [209.243], "stop_times": [210.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.243}, "reply_to": "15382__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_011", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "-- in answer to your question, Mr. Chief Justice, I feel that the Government took a very strongly position in their argument and therefore, I could not feel that it was an alternative position per se.\nI think that would be my distinction.\nThey were quite positive in what this legislation meant.\nThey were quite conscious to the legislative history and the plain meaning of the statute.\nThe statute itself, involves the mailing of materials or advertising which maybe turned off by a recipient, if that recipient in his sole discretion determines that it is a erotically arousing or sexually provocative.\nUpon making such a discretionary determination, the recipient may obtain a prohibitory order from the Post Office Department issued against the mailer, his assigns or his agents.\nThat order or the contents of the order are set forth in the statute.\nThree things must be placed in the order, and we say must in the mandatory sense because the statute calls for shall, the Postmaster General shall and he shall order the mailer, \u201cDo not mail anything further to such a complaining recipient.\u201d\nHe shall direct the mailer to remove from any list in his possession or under his control or the under the control of his agents or assigns the name of such a complaining addressee.\nAnd thirdly, this order shall direct the mailer, \u201cDo not sell, transfer, exchange or rent any list containing the name of the complaining addressee.\u201d\nThis order then is served upon the mailer.\nThe difficulty \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [210.568, 221.546, 223.695, 226.748, 233.07, 254.978, 270.493, 274.325, 292.99, 306.241, 321.953, 326.164], "stop_times": [221.546, 223.695, 226.748, 233.07, 254.978, 270.493, 274.325, 292.99, 306.241, 321.953, 326.164, 326.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 210.568}, "reply_to": "15382__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_012", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Before this is an accurate form in the back of the -- of your opening brief, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [326.716], "stop_times": [333.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.716}, "reply_to": "15382__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__0_013", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart that is Exhibit A to the appellant's opening brief is an exact order and it is the order arising out of the case reference in the appendix of Lee Jay Winkler which appears at page 22 of the appendix and is in connection with the matters set forth there.\nThe first principal problem as same relates to the First Amendment, appellants contend that to repose within an addressee the discretionary power to say, \u201cI do not want anything that you send to me, any mail,\u201d appellants submit is a direct violation and in complete derogation of the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [333.061, 354.752], "stop_times": [354.752, 385.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 333.061}, "reply_to": "15382__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_014", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's the case, isn't it right there, the while case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [385.026], "stop_times": [387.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.026}, "reply_to": "15382__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_015", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That is -- Mr. Chief Justice that is certainly one of the principal issues.\nI think in conjunction therewith, we have a secondary aspect of the First Amendment and that is namely, the further mailing of any materials which in that aspect becomes a prior restraint, it not only as prohibition but it is an inhibition depending on which interpretation this Court might involve itself with or look at for the statutory construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [387.745, 392.477], "stop_times": [392.477, 416.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 387.745}, "reply_to": "15382__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_016", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, is it your view that the statute is broad enough so that if it could reach Sears Roebuck catlog or Montgomery word \u201ccatalog\u201d.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [416.907], "stop_times": [425.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.907}, "reply_to": "15382__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_017", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, it has reached the Sears Roebuck catlog, it has reached the Family Heritage bible, it has reached various organizations and I think that what is the subject of one of the -- on the amicus briefs here before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [425.448], "stop_times": [437.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 425.448}, "reply_to": "15382__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_018", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And you think a citizen has no right to say the Sears Roebuck or Montgomery Word, I don't want your catalog and don't send it to me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [437.414], "stop_times": [447.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.414}, "reply_to": "15382__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_019", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That certainly is one of the principal issues in this case and an answer to that Mr. Chief Justice, I believe there are several of facets.\nI believe that the under First Amendment, the free expression through the mails is of more paramount right, the more fundamental right within the society.\nSo hence, if we must create polarity between what has been termed as the right of privacy which I believe you elude to, the answer of appellants is that the free speech is far more paramount and must override that aspect of the recipient saying, \u201cI do not want or I have a right not to receive.\u201d\nIn addition, we submit however and I think this is more fundamental, that assuming arguendo that a recipient does has have such a right, this statute goes too far, too fast and hence we are never met by the issue.\nI submit that this is an issue created by the Government in saying that right of privacy has now being polarized with free speech, but I believe that there are too many pitfalls before we arrive at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [447.33, 455.323, 469.464, 491.977, 509.268], "stop_times": [455.323, 469.464, 491.977, 509.268, 523.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 447.33}, "reply_to": "15382__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_020", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Do you place this on a higher claims or more preferred position than the right to address oral communications?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [523.871], "stop_times": [533.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.871}, "reply_to": "15382__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_021", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't believe Mr. Chief Justice that there are any claims.\nI don't believe that there is a latter within the First Amendment.\nI believe that each mode of communication as this Court has said, in a sense spins upon its own peculiarly or on its own way and must be looked at.\nI believe in this complex, urban society in which we reside, the mails are a very important vehicle.\nSo, I do not in anyway determine which is the higher form of communication.\nI think communication is protected by the First Amendment per se.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [533.801, 538.782, 543.147, 553.115, 560.408, 565.064], "stop_times": [538.782, 543.147, 553.115, 560.408, 565.064, 568.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 533.801}, "reply_to": "15382__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_022", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Then it would follow that your clients could stand outside of the mailbox or on the premises and make a speech, and require the occupant to listen to it, there are no difference in the claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [568.204], "stop_times": [584.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.204}, "reply_to": "15382__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_023", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "This particular aspect again goes back to the annunciations that have been made previously that each mode of expression, each form of expression rather pivots upon its own.\nThe situation of standing outside of one's home and making the speech has the element of a helpless inescapable recipient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [584.03, 597.851], "stop_times": [597.851, 607.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 584.03}, "reply_to": "15382__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_024", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But there's a little bit of trespass in there, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [607.965], "stop_times": [611.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.965}, "reply_to": "15382__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_025", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There could well be.\nThere could well be, but then again, there is always trespass whenever we have speech in a sense there is always someone who does not want to hear what the other person says and I suppose that there is trespass when they sound of one's voice or the wave lengths bounce off his ears but in the society which has preferred free speech that trespass must give way to the greater right embodied within the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [611.104, 612.517], "stop_times": [612.517, 635.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 611.104}, "reply_to": "15382__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_026", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, assuming that as a citizen who does not like certain kinds of literature and doesn't want it in his house and is appalled by just a presence of it in his house.\nHow can you stop him finding that literature through his mail slot in his house.\nHow can he stop that?\nHow can he protect his \u201cprivacy\u201d?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [635.294, 649.507, 656.734, 660.618], "stop_times": [649.507, 656.734, 660.618, 664.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.294}, "reply_to": "15382__0_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_027", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Marshall, I believe that inherit in that question would be -- would have to be the concession that there is right of privacy involved at that juncture.\nIt is appellant's position that under this statute and under that question, there is no right of privacy.\nThe right --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [664.108, 675.267, 683.4], "stop_times": [675.267, 683.4, 683.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 664.108}, "reply_to": "15382__0_026", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_028", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You mean, I have no right to keep that type of literature out of my house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [683.897], "stop_times": [691.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.897}, "reply_to": "15382__0_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_029", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I would say, under this statute, there is no right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [691.659], "stop_times": [695.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 691.659}, "reply_to": "15382__0_028", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_030", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Under this statute there is no right to keep it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [695.382], "stop_times": [699.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.382}, "reply_to": "15382__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_031", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I am attempting to limit my answer to the statute.\nI believe the statute goes too far in its encroachment to give that right in answer to the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [699.565, 703.615], "stop_times": [703.615, 708.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 699.565}, "reply_to": "15382__0_030", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_032", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, my question was how can that citizen prevent that literature from coming through his mail slot into his house, how?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [708.427], "stop_times": [718.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.427}, "reply_to": "15382__0_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_033", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There is only one -- there is only one way that I know of Mr. Justice Marshall that a citizen may prevent the transmission of third class mail to his home and that is under the post office regulation which I believe this 39 CFR 44.1, I believe I am quoting it correctly.\nAs far as picking and choosing mail per se that he does not want or as the statute does in its second aspect, \u201cany mail regardless of its content, the second mailing whether it'd be political, religious or that type of speech which has been time honored by this Court, that a citizen should not the right to exclude without determining what the content of the material is because the right of free speech is greater.\nThere is no right --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [718.193, 735.304, 761.73], "stop_times": [735.304, 761.73, 762.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 718.193}, "reply_to": "15382__0_032", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_034", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, his mail is out of privacy is already gone, is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [762.722], "stop_times": [766.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.722}, "reply_to": "15382__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_035", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, my position is that under these circumstances, there never has been a right of privacy or in the alternative if I must, that right of privacy under those circumstances in the face of a statute is drawn and the First Amendment must give way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [766.849], "stop_times": [779.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 766.849}, "reply_to": "15382__0_034", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_036", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "In this place, who has a real conscientious feeling about it with just -- there's no way out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [779.389], "stop_times": [788.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.389}, "reply_to": "15382__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_037", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think the answer of Judge Frankel in the District Court probably states it more eloquently.\nThe distance from the mailbox to the ash can is a short distance in the light of the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [788.466, 794.457], "stop_times": [794.457, 799.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 788.466}, "reply_to": "15382__0_036", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_038", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Why you should have to walk it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [799.272], "stop_times": [801.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.272}, "reply_to": "15382__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_039", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [801.557], "stop_times": [802.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 801.557}, "reply_to": "15382__0_038", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_040", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "If he doesn't want to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [802.032], "stop_times": [803.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.032}, "reply_to": "15382__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_041", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Because in a complex society as we reside in, certain things give way.\nSpeech is paramount, speech is the matrix --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [803.797, 809.883], "stop_times": [809.883, 812.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 803.797}, "reply_to": "15382__0_040", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_042", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Paramount over what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [812.786], "stop_times": [814.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.786}, "reply_to": "15382__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_043", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Paramount virtually to every right, every thing we do within our society and it is within that framework that we balance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [814.57], "stop_times": [821.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 814.57}, "reply_to": "15382__0_042", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_044", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Would you go so far as to say that the First Amendment would require the -- would give your client for example, the right to compel the recipient with his obligations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [821.39], "stop_times": [840.718], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 821.39}, "reply_to": "15382__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_045", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Justice Harlan, no we do not.\nWe certainly make throw that away.\nNo one can compel any person to read anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [840.718, 842.922, 844.658], "stop_times": [842.922, 844.658, 848.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 840.718}, "reply_to": "15382__0_044", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_046", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But you did claim constitutional right place the -\u2013 you should have the material be just in place and he made about or he has a spot with more that withheld -- you claim a constitutional right and place of the mailing of the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [848.237], "stop_times": [864.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.237}, "reply_to": "15382__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__0_047", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, we do Mr. Justice White, whether it be in the slot and the door or a mailbox standing out on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [864.952], "stop_times": [872.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 864.952}, "reply_to": "15382__0_046", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_048", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And why do you be one to deal with the (Inaudible)?\nI mean set it out, you mean that if you don't you want it?\nSuppose you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [872.759, 878.648, 881.761], "stop_times": [878.648, 881.761, 883.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.759}, "reply_to": "15382__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__0_049", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think there are several aspects to that answer.\nPragmatically, I think one of the problems to be candid is that there is a tremendous burden.\nThere is an onerous burden within this commercial realm of distribution of removing these names from the lists.\nThe burden was spelled out in appellant's opening brief as well as in the amicus brief.\nIt is a real --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [883.404, 886.937, 892.856, 900.666, 905.314], "stop_times": [886.937, 892.856, 900.666, 905.314, 905.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 883.404}, "reply_to": "15382__0_048", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_050", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You say what tasked have \u2013 one of the facets is financial burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [905.73], "stop_times": [910.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.73}, "reply_to": "15382__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__0_051", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "It is a financial and business burden that is only one facet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [910.964], "stop_times": [914.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 910.964}, "reply_to": "15382__0_050", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_052", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And if hasn't to much to do with speech, on commercial communication --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [914.583], "stop_times": [919.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.583}, "reply_to": "15382__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__0_053", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, that is certainly the position of the Government Mr. Justice White.\nI do not believe that commercial communications deserve a lower rung if there be a latter on the First Amendment than any other form of speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [919.443, 924.52], "stop_times": [924.52, 934.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 919.443}, "reply_to": "15382__0_052", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_054", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, that is the point.\nThis is the point right -- certain act to this step but that give you protecting is impossible to determine that had any -- not have to take name off rather than being able to communicate because you go to communicate any way with these people because they do not accept the communication?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [934.083, 937.038], "stop_times": [937.038, 960.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.083}, "reply_to": "15382__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__0_055", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That may well be but as I pre-phrase my answer, there are several aspects to that.\nI think the second aspect, probably the most troublesome aspect of the statute I might add, is a fact that no further mailing of any kind whatsoever, maybe made by a mailer.\nRegardless of content, therein lies --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [960.044, 966.306, 978.577], "stop_times": [966.306, 978.577, 981.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 960.044}, "reply_to": "15382__0_054", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_056", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Let's assume that the -- let assume that is included to be leaving -- if only similar of the very kind that simple out of us that the adversely the appellee, he is going to be asking, would he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [981.26], "stop_times": [1004.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.26}, "reply_to": "15382__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__0_057", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The -- if the statute were so construed in spite of a fact that the legislative history is contrary to that construction and that was the construction of the court below, the problem would become certainly clearer.\nIt would become more in the realm of constitutional regulation, but I would then submit to the Court, that any type of regulation of speech must be carefully scrutinized and I believe this particular avenue is one that should left open.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1004.882, 1020.171], "stop_times": [1020.171, 1036.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1004.882}, "reply_to": "15382__0_056", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_058", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Taback, I gather you see no relevance of Valentine and Chrestensen to this problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1036.853], "stop_times": [1044.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.853}, "reply_to": "15382__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__0_059", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Valentine versus Chrestensen gave me a great deal of trouble Mr. Justice Brennan. However, I just define and I review the matter in this fashion.\nOne, I think the subsequent pronouncements of this Court, Time versus Hill, Times versus Sullivan have swept the Valentine case aside on reflection.\nThe Valentine case I say is too broad.\nSecondarily, the Valentine case dealt with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1044.79, 1053.931, 1068.133, 1072.211], "stop_times": [1053.931, 1068.133, 1072.211, 1075.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1044.79}, "reply_to": "15382__0_058", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_060", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I thought -- I thought that in Times and Sullivan opinion, am I wrong, we made some references to indicate that Valentine and Chrestensen was not, at least as of that time disapproved, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1075.669], "stop_times": [1089.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.669}, "reply_to": "15382__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__0_061", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I believe it did but it went on to note that the fact of commercialism itself will not take speech out of the First Amendment.\nSecondarily, I believe that the Valentine case like so many of the other speech regulation cases dealt with a situation of the public streets within a confines of local government.\nI think under these circumstances weight was given to that local regulation keeping the streets open which is there as important in many senses as that particular speech involved.\nSo, I do not -- I am not at this point burdened by Valentine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1089.722, 1097.083, 1109.301, 1120.762], "stop_times": [1097.083, 1109.301, 1120.762, 1125.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1089.722}, "reply_to": "15382__0_060", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_062", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Do you see a connection between what the Court had to say in Ginzburg about the pandering aspect and the limitations here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1125.345], "stop_times": [1134.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.345}, "reply_to": "15382__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_063", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I do not and I do not because of this reason.\nI believe this Court in the Ginzburg case, addressed itself to a completely different problem and that was problem of whether the advertisement connected with the actual material could be used as evidence in determining whether the material itself was obscene.\nThe connection if I do find one, under the words of several of the justices on this Court said, \u201cThat possibly pandering statutes could be created if they were ambiguous, the illusions of the fact that it would be a very difficult item by which to regulate and a very troublesome one.\u201d\nBut again, the defining of pandering within that context as it was done, I feel related only to this ultimate issue of whether that material for the first time, could be used in discerning and determining whether the material itself was obscene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1134.361, 1138.303, 1156.932, 1174.061], "stop_times": [1138.303, 1156.932, 1174.061, 1189.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1134.361}, "reply_to": "15382__0_062", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_064", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Do you think Congress would have -- would be inhibited in anyway from passing the statute that upon request of a householder no mailman set foot on or put any mail in the box or on the premises of a householder?\nHe said, I don't want the mailman here, just cut me off, do you see a constitutional objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1189.659, 1205.746], "stop_times": [1205.746, 1212.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.659}, "reply_to": "15382__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_065", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1212.749], "stop_times": [1214.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1212.749}, "reply_to": "15382__0_064", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_066", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1214.137], "stop_times": [1215.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.137}, "reply_to": "15382__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_067", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I believe again that by being a citizen within the society, he subjects himself to communication and certain ordinary living aspects.\nThe mail is so basic and so critical that that mail must be delivered.\nHe chooses not to read it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1215.027, 1226.778, 1231.745], "stop_times": [1226.778, 1231.745, 1233.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1215.027}, "reply_to": "15382__0_066", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_068", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Even if he doesn't want it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1233.023], "stop_times": [1235.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.023}, "reply_to": "15382__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_069", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Receiving it per se in his hands is not the crux, reading it is the problem and he always has that free choice, unfettered to throw it in the ash can.\nTo keep the mailman away is to enclose this individual off to create a situation where communication will be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1235.218, 1245.242], "stop_times": [1245.242, 1254.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1235.218}, "reply_to": "15382__0_068", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_070", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, then that it would follow if you put a high wall and a bunch of very disagreeable dogs out to keep people away, somehow or other the householder would be violating the First Amendment rights of all the potential mailers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1254.44], "stop_times": [1271.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.44}, "reply_to": "15382__0_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_071", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, I -- Mr. Chief Justice, I do not submit that.\nWhat we have here if the householder chooses to take his individual action he may but here we have a Government intervening, a Government issuing a prohibitory order in mandatory language that no further mail regardless of content shall be forwarded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1271.694, 1275.759], "stop_times": [1275.759, 1291.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1271.694}, "reply_to": "15382__0_070", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_072", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Then you mean, I can violate to your client's First Amendment rights but the Government is holding and I as an individual citizen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1291.618], "stop_times": [1299.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.618}, "reply_to": "15382__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_073", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "An individual citizen, I think would have a great difficulty under the law in violating First Amendment rights.\nHowever, interaction between individual citizens may involve the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1299.368, 1303.944], "stop_times": [1303.944, 1308.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1299.368}, "reply_to": "15382__0_072", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_074", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What you say is that the other governmental action cannot assist individual from exposing himself (Inaudible) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1308.857], "stop_times": [1324.165], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.857}, "reply_to": "15382__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_075", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI -- what I am saying is that when governmental action involves itself and certainly do the degree or point unnecessary, we have a different matter.\nI do not say that the Government cannot assist.\nI am certain that the Government can certainly constitutionally, but when it does, this escape hatch that it is individual action or a personal action is closed.\nWe now have the governmental intrusion and it must be viewed far differently than citizen against citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1324.165, 1325.301, 1335.077, 1337.738, 1347.48], "stop_times": [1325.301, 1335.077, 1337.738, 1347.48, 1354.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1324.165}, "reply_to": "15382__0_074", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_076", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Up to that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1354.191], "stop_times": [1357.728], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.191}, "reply_to": "15382__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_077", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I beg your pardon, Sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1357.728], "stop_times": [1367.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1357.728}, "reply_to": "15382__0_076", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_078", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The Government can assist as far this kind of thing is concerned a man who wants to protect himself against the mail he didn't want to see?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1367.051], "stop_times": [1374.846], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.051}, "reply_to": "15382__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_079", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I believe the Government can assist if it can constitutionally do it, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1374.846], "stop_times": [1379.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1374.846}, "reply_to": "15382__0_078", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_080", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Do you think it can?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1379.533], "stop_times": [1380.519], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.533}, "reply_to": "15382__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_081", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think the Government can do it.\nI don't think they have done it constitutionally in this situation before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1380.519, 1382.017], "stop_times": [1382.017, 1386.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1380.519}, "reply_to": "15382__0_080", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_082", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Probably, no governmental act in here or in fact that they honor in the private defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1386.365], "stop_times": [1392.083], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.365}, "reply_to": "15382__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_083", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "To this point and Mr. Justice Harlan, I disagree for the following reasons.\nIt is the Government that issues the prohibitory order.\nIt is the Government who lays down what cannot be done.\nIt is the Government that picks up the schedule for a second hearing in the event of the second mailing regardless of content.\nIt is the Government that conducts that hearing.\nIt is the Government who had set down the rules and regulations for conduct about the hearing and it is the Government who will enforce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1392.083, 1396.224, 1400.071, 1403.597, 1410.535, 1413.044], "stop_times": [1396.224, 1400.071, 1403.597, 1410.535, 1413.044, 1420.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1392.083}, "reply_to": "15382__0_082", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_084", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Are all this is triggered by the request of the individual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1420.333], "stop_times": [1423.611], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.333}, "reply_to": "15382__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_085", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Indeed, and I think when we begin to swift according to word of this Court, we find that there is much governmental action and therefore it does become a governmental intrusion.\nIt is the Government who empowered and directed if they so find to sentence or cite the individual for contempt.\nWe start off with what an individual triggering but the involvement, the participation is governmental participation as with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1423.611, 1435.924, 1443.345], "stop_times": [1435.924, 1443.345, 1452.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1423.611}, "reply_to": "15382__0_084", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_086", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "It's a governmental action, no question about that.\nThe question is whether it's permissible or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1452.172, 1455.465], "stop_times": [1455.465, 1457.739], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.172}, "reply_to": "15382__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__0_087", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Under this statute and within this context, I submit it is not.\nOne of the more telling points with regard to this again is the plain meaning of the statute, legislative history of the statute, the reports of the committee before the Senate and House as to what the statute meant.\nI emphasize again, that the Congressmen involved, Senators in hearing the matter clearly demonstrated that they wanted no administrative participation or as little as possible.\nNo judicial review and in fact within the statute, they eliminate judicial review and they remove the matter from the Administrative Procedure Act.\nPeople testifying before the Senate, former Attorney General questioned its constitutionality.\nGeneral counsel for post office asked that the statute not be passed.\nThe American Mailers' Association, the American Publicists' Association, the list goes on all asking of the matter not be passed, including the American Bar Association pleading that we are retrograding, we are going back towards by removing a procedure so critical from the Administrative Procedure Act, the statute was passed.\nIt was clear that the sole discretion of the individual was to be the target.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1457.739, 1465.221, 1478.297, 1491.65, 1501.848, 1507.473, 1512.238, 1531.954], "stop_times": [1465.221, 1478.297, 1491.65, 1501.848, 1507.473, 1512.238, 1531.954, 1540.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1457.739}, "reply_to": "15382__0_086", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_088", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Are you suggesting the American Bar Association took a position on a substantive merit through the statute itself or just the procedural aspect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1540.85], "stop_times": [1550.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.85}, "reply_to": "15382__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_089", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The American Bar Association took a primary and I believe, singular position with only with regard to the procedural aspects, and that was the fact what had been removed from the Administrative Procedures Act.\nThe legislative history again clearly calls for what the Government interprets the statute to be.\nThe individual is to reign free, it is his discretion and we are somewhat surprised to find that the Government retreats to a position if in fact they cannot save of the constitutionality by its interpretation to appoint -- let us, then examine and review the addressee, let us determine whether he has acted in good faith.\nThis flies in a face of the governmental or the legislative history and intent.\nTime is splitting and at this juncture I merely wish to comment and point to the Court that the procedures embodied in the hearing that is involved in the statute falls of a far distance from the Fifth Amendment.\nThere is no right to confront your complainant.\nThere is no adversary procedure and constitutional issues cannot be raised.\nI have attempted on numerous occasions, it is a subject of an affidavit within the appendix starting at page 22 and all affidavits, the record below were un-controverted, nothing was forwarded, nothing came in contravention to those affidavits.\nOne comment, the amicus brief of the Direct Mail Advertising Association clearly says that, unless you can interpret this matter our way which is namely a finding or administrative procedure ex parte, if you will, that the material is pandering, the law is too broad, it is too sweeping.\nThe court below \u201cJudge Hufstedler said, we can only salvage the statute by meticulously construing it and shrinking it down to constitutional size and the interpretation given by that court below in salvaging is contrary to the position taken by the Government, contrary to the legislative history and hence it must fall.\nIt is contrary to the appellants view.\u201d\nIt was clearly the view of Congress that this matter be a subjective determination unfettered and uncontrolled and in the face of the First Amendment this cannot go in that fashion.\nThe right of privacy, one the last note on that, has always or more traditionally involved the Government attempting to discover something about some one else.\nWe do not have it here.\nWe have merely an envelop going to someone.\nI call to the Court's attention Exhibit D attached to the affidavit filed at page 22 of the appendix which entered into the evidence and was un-controverted, a notice to a recipient that if you do want this just hand it back to your Postmaster.\nThis is what has been done and yet the statute went far a field and found it necessary to build in a contempt proceeding ultimate jail sentence if necessary and we say taking the entire matter together, like it's -- if will assist your statutes 4008, 4006 is as unconstitutional as those prior statutes.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1550.05, 1562.379, 1573.356, 1592.955, 1600.672, 1618.662, 1621.856, 1626.952, 1641.477, 1661.216, 1684.88, 1687.132, 1701.072, 1717.226, 1719.393, 1722.129, 1737.193, 1762.031], "stop_times": [1562.379, 1573.356, 1592.955, 1600.672, 1618.662, 1621.856, 1626.952, 1641.477, 1661.216, 1684.88, 1687.132, 1701.072, 1717.226, 1719.393, 1722.129, 1737.193, 1762.031, 1762.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1550.05}, "reply_to": "15382__0_088", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_090", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "If you want to have is that spending the Court will be very expensive to take names of the list?\nAnd you now say that you invite the people to send it back so that you would take your name off the list?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1762.421, 1769.921], "stop_times": [1769.921, 1775.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.421}, "reply_to": "15382__0_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_091", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There is a method by which it can be taken off the list at a more reduced cost and this is what we mean, Mr. Justice Marshall.\nIf the envelope with the label is returned, there is a better chance of doing it because the label usually in commercial distribution has a code.\nThe lists themselves are not alphabetized, there is no way to go through to the A's or B's.\nIf you have the coded label at least you are given a reference point to a commercial mailing list.\nWithout that envelope, without that label, there is undue and owner is a burden in shifting through a 100,000 or 200,000 names that may pass from mail --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1775.947, 1784.62, 1794.499, 1799.883, 1805.659], "stop_times": [1784.62, 1794.499, 1799.883, 1805.659, 1814.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1775.947}, "reply_to": "15382__0_090", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_092", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, most of essential label, you would loose that complain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1814.204], "stop_times": [1819.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.204}, "reply_to": "15382__0_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_093", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "We would certainly assist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1819.353], "stop_times": [1821.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1819.353}, "reply_to": "15382__0_092", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_094", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You'd lose that party of complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1821.061], "stop_times": [1823.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.061}, "reply_to": "15382__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__0_095", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "It would assist, I'm not saying that it would not create a burden.\nIt would help and reduce the cost and burden.\nIt would not eliminate it completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1823.741, 1827.459, 1830.231], "stop_times": [1827.459, 1830.231, 1833.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1823.741}, "reply_to": "15382__0_094", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_096", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But you want to put the burden on the taxpayer, the recipient to ought to the garbage pail or whatever to dispose it.\nCollectively, that burden is a large burden and if you have 200,000 people on you mailing list, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1833.207, 1842.267], "stop_times": [1842.267, 1850.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.207}, "reply_to": "15382__0_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__0_097", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't believe that it is a burden that is unwarranted.\nI think, we think we are dealing with the First Amendment right and if that to be burden the shift of the burden should be in that direction as opposed to a failure or inability mail in any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1850.214, 1853.092], "stop_times": [1853.092, 1864.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1850.214}, "reply_to": "15382__0_096", "speaker": "joseph_taback"}
{"id": "15382__0_098", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Taback.\nMr. Ruckelshaus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1864.466, 1865.862], "stop_times": [1865.862, 1871.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.466}, "reply_to": "15382__0_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_000", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nSince that the -- now that there seems to be some concern about just precisely what the Government's position is, either below or in our motion to affirm in our brief, let me make it perfectly clear, precisely what the Government's position is.\nIt's our position that Congress has said, when an individual in our society receives through the mail material which in his sole discretion, he believes to be a pandering advertising and he again finds in his sole discretion this material to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative, he can tell the sender, \u201cDon't send me anymore material!\u201d\nAnd he lists, the addressee a list -- enlist to support of the Post Office in informing the sender of his desires and if the sender persist, after one prohibiting from the post office, he maybe enjoined from continuing to send the material to an unwilling recipient.\nIf he still persists, he maybe held in contempt by that Court which has issued the injunction for violating the Court's order.\nWe believe that Congress has sought to protect a man in his own home.\nCongress knew, I think it is clear from the legislative history --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1871.256, 1875.514, 1893.641, 1922.21, 1942.576, 1951.134, 1957.34], "stop_times": [1875.514, 1893.641, 1922.21, 1942.576, 1951.134, 1957.34, 1960.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1871.256}, "reply_to": "15382__0_098", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_001", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Excuse me, Mr. Ruckelshaus.\nDoes this statute reach any addressee or only one's home?\nThat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1960.57, 1962.265, 1969.096], "stop_times": [1962.265, 1969.096, 1969.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.57}, "reply_to": "15382__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_002", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "It reaches --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1969.175], "stop_times": [1970.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1969.175}, "reply_to": "15382__1_001", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_003", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That is -- would it reach for example mail addressed to a business establishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1970.49], "stop_times": [1974.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.49}, "reply_to": "15382__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_004", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, I think that it would, Mr. Justice Brennan.\nAlthough --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1974.467, 1977.147], "stop_times": [1977.147, 1977.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1974.467}, "reply_to": "15382__1_003", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_005", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Any addressee at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1977.397], "stop_times": [1978.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.397}, "reply_to": "15382__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_006", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1978.264], "stop_times": [1980.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1978.264}, "reply_to": "15382__1_005", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_007", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You don't see any difficulty, I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1980.069], "stop_times": [1981.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.069}, "reply_to": "15382__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_008", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I would take it that the alternative to attempting to limit this to a man's home, would be extremely difficult if not being easily discernible where a man would live, for instance or where he could object to this kind of thing or anything coming into his home.\nWe think that the purpose of the statute obviously was to protect a man his own home and if there was language in the statute which extended that purpose, it was necessary under the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [1981.892, 2000.256], "stop_times": [2000.256, 2012.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1981.892}, "reply_to": "15382__1_007", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_009", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I take of then if it was something just addressed to General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, and General Motors didn't want to receive it, it's not just to an individual, just the General Motors Corporation, the statute would fall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2012.029], "stop_times": [2026.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.029}, "reply_to": "15382__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_010", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I -- under the broadest possible interpretation, I assume that it could but it was obviously aimed at an individual, although if you send it, the statute that it says if you send it an address, listed only to occupant that that is a violation of prohibitory order against that address.\nSo, I imagine the same thing would apply.\nWe think that Congress said that a man in his own home has the right to be unreasonable and they also sought to protect the unreasonable man in his own home.\nAnd I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2026.602, 2043.755, 2047.379, 2060.077], "stop_times": [2043.755, 2047.379, 2060.077, 2061.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2026.602}, "reply_to": "15382__1_009", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_011", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's wrong because with this statute to cover, I would see unless the statute seem immaterial to this apparent would it be -- so how they just sent dirty pictures, may I ask you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2061.029], "stop_times": [2074.875], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.029}, "reply_to": "15382__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__1_012", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, it has to be a pandering advertisement, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nThe statute is clear on that.\nI think it is the advertising nature of the material that is sought to be controlled here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2074.875, 2078.676, 2080.288], "stop_times": [2078.676, 2080.288, 2086.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2074.875}, "reply_to": "15382__1_011", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_013", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's was it carries the publisher's name without warning here the picture lie that it might be able to observed by the advertise it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2086.308], "stop_times": [2094.335], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.308}, "reply_to": "15382__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15382__1_014", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, you might.\nI take it there would some gray area as to precisely what an advertisement was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2094.335, 2095.86], "stop_times": [2095.86, 2102.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2094.335}, "reply_to": "15382__1_013", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_015", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But it does cover only advertisements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2102.107], "stop_times": [2105.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.107}, "reply_to": "15382__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_016", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, that's right, Mr. Justice Stewart?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2105.205], "stop_times": [2106.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2105.205}, "reply_to": "15382__1_015", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_017", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And in it terms only pandering advertisements which the addressee believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative, but as I understand your point is that and your construction of the statute that is if the addressee, John Smith thinks that an advertisement from a furniture store is a erotic or sexually arousing, he can prevent any further mailings to him from that furniture store.\nIt is absolute none further discretion, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2106.961, 2135.564], "stop_times": [2135.564, 2138.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.961}, "reply_to": "15382__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_018", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Stewart.\nHe can notify the Post Office although, this he would be in himself violating the obvious intent of the statute and nevertheless --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2138.741, 2140.59], "stop_times": [2140.59, 2148.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2138.741}, "reply_to": "15382__1_017", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_019", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The moment I thought the obvious intent of the statute was to make him to sole judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2148.585], "stop_times": [2153.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.585}, "reply_to": "15382__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_020", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, but assuming again that it has some relation to a pandering advertisement as far as the individual was concerned, I think that given the purpose of the statute which was due rule number one to leave it in his discretion as to what he should refuse to receive and secondly, to get the administrative branch and the courts out business to determine whether he was rational in that exercise.\nIt's necessary for him took also be able to say, this is in my own home as far I'm concerned, I don't want to receive this.\nIt's erotically arousing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2153.465, 2178.078, 2186.586], "stop_times": [2178.078, 2186.586, 2188.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2153.465}, "reply_to": "15382__1_019", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_021", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't want to receive any further mailings from this sender?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2188.079], "stop_times": [2191.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.079}, "reply_to": "15382__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_022", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2191.113], "stop_times": [2192.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2191.113}, "reply_to": "15382__1_021", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_023", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Of whatever nature and that's the statute saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2192.165], "stop_times": [2194.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.165}, "reply_to": "15382__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_024", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Ruckelshaus, that means I take it if the Safeway Stores sends to my home an advertisement that we're selling Maine potatoes this week at $0.50 a pack, that the language pandering in the statute is quite meaningless because in my subjective judgment that's erotically arousing.\nThe Post Office has to issue an order at my request to Safeway not to deliver anymore advertisements for the Maine potatoes to my house, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2194.227, 2214.375], "stop_times": [2214.375, 2223.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.227}, "reply_to": "15382__1_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_025", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That is the interpretation which I think must be given to the statute given the congressional history and intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2223.598], "stop_times": [2229.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2223.598}, "reply_to": "15382__1_024", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_026", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, then what's the significance of the pandering language in the statute, if that's the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2229.568], "stop_times": [2234.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.568}, "reply_to": "15382__1_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_027", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think the significance is that this language is as evidenced by the pamphlet that the Post Office itself has put out the language was to tell the individual this what we're trying to get -- give you a chance to refuse to receive in your home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2234.001], "stop_times": [2251.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2234.001}, "reply_to": "15382__1_026", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_028", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But if the Post Office can't say to me, well, an advertisement for -- by Safeway to sell Maine potatoes is not something that under the statute, you can refuse to receive or at least require us to tell Safeway not to send to your home anymore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2251.657], "stop_times": [2268.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.657}, "reply_to": "15382__1_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_029", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "If the Post Office could make such a determination, I -- we submit that if would frustrate the second purpose of Congress which was to get the Post Office out of the business of censorship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2268.801], "stop_times": [2279.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2268.801}, "reply_to": "15382__1_028", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_030", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I ask again, what possible significance is the attempted limitation of pandering advertisements have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2279.997], "stop_times": [2292.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.997}, "reply_to": "15382__1_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_031", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think Mr. Justice Brennan it was to tell the individual in his home that this is what Congress intended was to allow you to get pandering material out of your home.\nAnd in spite of the brief of the Direct Mail Advertisers in amicus brief, there is nothing before this Court that the purpose of the statute is being widely abused by individuals in their home.\nAnd we have as we've noted in our brief some 368,000 complaints in the Post Office and the Justice Department.\nAt the end of last month, we had filed some 21,000 complaints.\nWe do not -- we have not filed any complaints and off in an effort to enforce the prohibitory order that have -- not having to do with the some sexual orientation.\nNow, that I think what Congress was recognizing that if they're going to get the courts and administrative branch out they have to give this discretion to the individual that even to be unreasonable in his own home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2292.156, 2302.682, 2315.252, 2322.992, 2327.996, 2338.752], "stop_times": [2302.682, 2315.252, 2322.992, 2327.996, 2338.752, 2351.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2292.156}, "reply_to": "15382__1_030", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_032", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Attorney General, I take it your -- you would be making the same argument if Congress had passed a statute which said that anybody who wants to stop any mail being sent from anyone in do so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2351.625], "stop_times": [2366.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.625}, "reply_to": "15382__1_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_033", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There is a regulation that the Post Office now has which under -- in a footnote to the Lamont case and in the regulation itself has been so interpreted an individual could notify the Post Office and say, \u201cI don't want to receive anymore mail.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2366.943], "stop_times": [2383.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2366.943}, "reply_to": "15382__1_032", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_034", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I know but let's assume this statute instead of having a limitation on it it was concerning pandering advertisements, just simply said that these procedure was available whenever an addressee of mail didn't want to receive anymore mail from that sender?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2383.314], "stop_times": [2404.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.314}, "reply_to": "15382__1_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_035", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't think that there'd be any constitutional difficulty with that, this is our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2404.756], "stop_times": [2407.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2404.756}, "reply_to": "15382__1_034", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_036", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You'd make the same argument that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2407.731], "stop_times": [2409.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.731}, "reply_to": "15382__1_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15382__1_037", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Precisely the same argument.\nI think the reason that the pandering advertisement is in the statute even in this context is to notify the individual, this is what we meant and not to have that individual use his power to prohibit somebody from coming into his home and communicating with him indiscriminately and unreasonably.\nAnd that really what we have here is very analogous to the right of an individual has to turn off the television set, to turn the radio if he's listening to a speech in a park to simply walk from the speech.\nNow, he is here using the Post Office to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2409.99, 2411.42, 2431.055, 2443.047], "stop_times": [2411.42, 2431.055, 2443.047, 2445.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2409.99}, "reply_to": "15382__1_036", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_038", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What right do you think that you are -- is being asserted on behalf of the home owner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2445.802], "stop_times": [2454.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.802}, "reply_to": "15382__1_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_039", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think that it's a broad right to, Mr. Justice White of privacy and that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2454.963], "stop_times": [2461.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2454.963}, "reply_to": "15382__1_038", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_040", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What amendment do you -- is there some place to a Constitution you'd find that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2461.483], "stop_times": [2466.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.483}, "reply_to": "15382__1_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_041", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't know that we have to find such a right existing in the Constitution.\nI think if you take Judge Cooley's statement in his law of torts, simply the right to be let alone as a common law right, not necessarily a constitutional right or as Mr. Justice Goldberg suggested in Griswold against Connecticut, that if the right itself emanates hope from the totality of constitutional scheme under which we live, I think nevertheless it has become more and more important in our society that we recognize a right simply to let alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2466.423, 2473.021], "stop_times": [2473.021, 2505.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2466.423}, "reply_to": "15382__1_040", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_042", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You think a person has a right to read or listen to only what he wants to read or listen to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2505.714], "stop_times": [2517.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.714}, "reply_to": "15382__1_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_043", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Absolutely.\nI think he has the right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2517.977, 2518.864], "stop_times": [2518.864, 2519.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2517.977}, "reply_to": "15382__1_042", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_044", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Because it's a First Amendment right, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2519.463], "stop_times": [2521.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.463}, "reply_to": "15382__1_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_045", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, it's the right -- the right certainly -- the right to receive is just as important as the right to communicate and has been protected under the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2521.834], "stop_times": [2531.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2521.834}, "reply_to": "15382__1_044", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_046", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "How about the right not to receive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2531.8], "stop_times": [2534.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.8}, "reply_to": "15382__1_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_047", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think that's a corollary certainly of the right to receive.\nAt least in the in the mail cases the right to receive has been recognized the by Supreme Court and I think there is a corollary of it the right not to receive and I think in this society that we live in, it's as strength and as communication becomes more and more widespread and the variety of ideas and thought in our culture becomes less and there's the population grows and as we come together and live closer in cities and as we talked about not only air and water pollution, but also noise pollution that this right to be let alone, his right that needs to be recognized in our law and needs to be recognized by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2534.046, 2537.713], "stop_times": [2537.713, 2578.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2534.046}, "reply_to": "15382__1_046", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_048", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, they may not be I don't think you need to suggest it, you don't perhaps need to go so far as to apply that there's any federal right, any constitutional general right to be let alone.\nThat generally is considered to be a right to recognize by the law of torts and protected by state law, I gather property rights but all you need to -- the only federal right involved here, I should think in this aspect to be your case is the First Amendment right, the right of choice, and the right of choosing what a person wants to see or what he wants to hear, also involves his right to close his eyes or to stop up his ears, isn't that about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2578.138, 2588.964], "stop_times": [2588.964, 2619.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.138}, "reply_to": "15382__1_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_049", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's I think that certainly is corollary to the right to receive whatever he wants to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2619.892], "stop_times": [2624.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2619.892}, "reply_to": "15382__1_048", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_050", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, the right to choose what you want to read or what you want you want to see involves the right to say, I don't want to see this.\nI don't want of -- even -- of course that's what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2624.797, 2630.931], "stop_times": [2630.931, 2634.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.797}, "reply_to": "15382__1_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_051", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There is counter to a big chapter in the American history involving compulsory public school attendance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2634.028], "stop_times": [2645.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.028}, "reply_to": "15382__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_052", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think that the compulsory public school attendance, Mr. Justice Douglas is not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2645.713], "stop_times": [2653.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2645.713}, "reply_to": "15382__1_051", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_053", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I'm just thinking in terms of closing the door or shutting our eyes, shutting your ears off and just becoming isolated from the whole world.\nMaybe that's a good constitutional doctrine, but we never yet decided it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2653.642, 2663.653], "stop_times": [2663.653, 2668.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.642}, "reply_to": "15382__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_054", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, I think that's right.\nWe have not and this Court has not under the Constitution decided that a man has a right to close his eyes or refuse to hear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2668.323, 2670.66], "stop_times": [2670.66, 2679.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2668.323}, "reply_to": "15382__1_053", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_055", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Reed against Alexandria if I have the name of that case correctly?\nPeople --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2679.58, 2683.176], "stop_times": [2683.176, 2683.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.58}, "reply_to": "15382__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_056", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2683.438], "stop_times": [2683.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2683.438}, "reply_to": "15382__1_055", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_057", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "-- the captive audiences on the buses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2683.604], "stop_times": [2686.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.604}, "reply_to": "15382__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_058", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The brief case involves door-to-door solicitation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2686.493], "stop_times": [2688.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2686.493}, "reply_to": "15382__1_057", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_059", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I am thinking of a different one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2688.767], "stop_times": [2690.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.767}, "reply_to": "15382__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_060", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Hollick, Hollick --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2690.508], "stop_times": [2691.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.508}, "reply_to": "15382__1_059", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_061", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The Hollick case involved the -- again, this was not in this case the Hollick case that at the bus company and did have the right pursuant to District of Columbia ordinance to play music on the bus and the right of privacy did not refer to the people --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2691.441], "stop_times": [2708.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2691.441}, "reply_to": "15382__1_060", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_062", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And I suppose the adults could not be compelled to go school everyday and that listen to things teacher, they don't want to listen to either, could they constitutionally, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2708.223], "stop_times": [2716.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.223}, "reply_to": "15382__1_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_063", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think that were -- we're dealing with these kinds of rights, we have to be careful to delineate each one for discussing and in this instance, I think clearly the right to receive has a corollary of a right to turn off unwanted material and that's what we're talking about in this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2716.015], "stop_times": [2733.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2716.015}, "reply_to": "15382__1_062", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_064", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Attorney General, is there any, going back to Mr. Justice Douglas point, question is there any federal authority that can make anybody go to school, any where, any time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2733.838], "stop_times": [2746.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.838}, "reply_to": "15382__1_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_065", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2746.05], "stop_times": [2747.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2746.05}, "reply_to": "15382__1_064", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_066", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "This is a matter of state that you're trying to make --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2747.454], "stop_times": [2748.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.454}, "reply_to": "15382__1_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_067", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, that's right it's the states which have laws which provide that of age of 16 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2748.758], "stop_times": [2754.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2748.758}, "reply_to": "15382__1_066", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_068", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I suppose some states might say you have to go school and until you're 12, and others might say, 14, and other might say some other age.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2754.952], "stop_times": [2762.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.952}, "reply_to": "15382__1_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_069", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, that is -- there is no constitutional right that -- or constitutional mandate that people have to go to school up until a certain age.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2762.893], "stop_times": [2774.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2762.893}, "reply_to": "15382__1_068", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_070", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But -- and we've never found this -- so far as I know have we -- any federal constitutional barrier to a state requiring students to go and listen as Justice Douglas suggested to teachers and attend school or has the question never been brought here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2774.849], "stop_times": [2793.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.849}, "reply_to": "15382__1_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_071", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Oh, we had it in the Pierce case, in Sister's case from Oregon and a phase of that was hear parent's right from education control the education to child --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2793.851], "stop_times": [2806.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.851}, "reply_to": "15382__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_072", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think this what we're talking about here is the parent the right to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2806.297], "stop_times": [2808.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2806.297}, "reply_to": "15382__1_071", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_073", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I'm just -- I wasn't making the point, I was just sounding a caveat on this big general principle you were trying to get us to embrace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2808.752], "stop_times": [2819.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.752}, "reply_to": "15382__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_074", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think that the principle itself is it has to be delineated on case-by-case basis, but I think the principle itself as suggested in the amicus brief that the right of privacy is only the right control knowledge about oneself is and will become a considerably broader concept and the way they would attempt to limit it in that case.\nNow, as far as the First Amendment provision itself is concerned, I think that we have a basic distinction in what the Congress sought to do in this statute and the exercise of First Amendment rights that have been upheld in previous mail cases and the previous cases in this Court.\nAnd that is that here, where individual decides he wants no further communication from a mailer, his decision affects only himself and I think this is the prism through which the First Amendment claim here has to be viewed.\nIn all other cases, where an individual, or an agency, or a governmental unit decided that they did not like what was being communicated, their attempt to stop the communication did not affect even a single individual or the majority, it affected everyone and that there is a great distinction between this case and those kind of cases.\nWe're not talking about a case where the Post Master General would say, you can't send anymore mail through the -- or anymore of this kind of material or magazines, or books through the mail to anyone.\nNow, he simply saying this individual in the society has told me, I don't want to be communicated from the sender anymore and he is notifying the sender of that individual's desire.\nIt has nothing to do with the sender's right to communicate to everyone else within the society.\u201d\nIf you're talking about a chill on the First Amendment rights, there's no evidence in this case that anyone else has been inhibited from receiving of that material if that's their desire and nor is there any evidence that there's any change in the material that is being send out, it is precisely the same kind of thing that is being distributed.\nAnd I think about the same token in the Bynum Books case where we have a Censorship Board, where what the Censorship Board did to an individual book distributors in Rhode Island is now the same situation as we have here, because it's then affected everyone and here it only affects an individual.\nAnd I think the reason for the difficulties in the other cases is that decision of a majority or a single could affect what every man wanted to receive and that situation does not happen it here.\nWe have a situation where we simply turning off speech and as has been suggested, I think that the right to receive has the corollary right of not to receive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [2819.892, 2844.454, 2867.578, 2885.488, 2907.913, 2919.479, 2930.48, 2936.554, 2957.473, 2975.718, 2988.652], "stop_times": [2844.454, 2867.578, 2885.488, 2907.913, 2919.479, 2930.48, 2936.554, 2957.473, 2975.718, 2988.652, 3000.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2819.892}, "reply_to": "15382__1_073", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_075", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And you regard it as no different basically, constitutionally from turning off the radio or the television by the twist of the dial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3000.02], "stop_times": [3009.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.02}, "reply_to": "15382__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_076", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't see any distinction because I believe that the individual obviously has this right and he can't turn off the mail without some assistance from the Post Master.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3009.922], "stop_times": [3020.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3009.922}, "reply_to": "15382__1_075", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_077", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And the only difference would be that if the appellant claims that this is expensive for him to be turned off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3020.672], "stop_times": [3028.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.672}, "reply_to": "15382__1_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_078", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think if that claim of expense is there because in the past there was no concern as far as the senders were concern about the sensibilities of the addressees.\nAnd what Congress said, is this going to have to have to be a cost of your business.\nWhen an addressee is offended by material that you send him he has the right to tell you not to send him anymore?\nAnd then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3028.8, 3039.959, 3044.114, 3052.136], "stop_times": [3039.959, 3044.114, 3052.136, 3052.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3028.8}, "reply_to": "15382__1_077", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_079", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, General there is a very great, big difference though between turning off the radio or television and writing to some sender of mail and saying please, never send me anything again ever through the mail, and this statute because in the first examples, the Government is not implicated whatsoever.\nThis is purely an individual personal action, we have exercise of free choice.\nHere, the Government of the United States is implicated, that's only reason this case is here?\nIf the people can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3052.401, 3074.801, 3080.077, 3085.449], "stop_times": [3074.801, 3080.077, 3085.449, 3085.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.401}, "reply_to": "15382__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15382__1_080", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think it's right but the only reason the Government is not implicated as a sensor or has an inhibitor or prohibiter of First Amendment rights, they're implicated simply because this is the only way it can be turned off and that what Congress has done in any implicating government and I agree that's why I agree with you that is why it is here -- is simply used him as the hand that turns off the radio and television.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3085.597], "stop_times": [3110.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3085.597}, "reply_to": "15382__1_079", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_081", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The other difference is that you turned the radio on but in this case, you didn't turn that mail on, he turned the mail on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3110.528], "stop_times": [3120.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.528}, "reply_to": "15382__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__1_082", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think that he could maybe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3120.933], "stop_times": [3121.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3120.933}, "reply_to": "15382__1_081", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_083", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's why he turned it on -- no, I mean, if he turned it on, he shouldn't cry about having to pay to turned it off.\nHe, the guy who mailed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3121.244, 3128.988], "stop_times": [3128.988, 3130.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.244}, "reply_to": "15382__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15382__1_084", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I see your point, Mr. Justice Marshall, and I think that's what was Congress' point that the cost involved is simply a recognition that he has to give to the sensibilities of the recipient and I don't believe that that should render this statute with any constitutional difficulty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3130.682], "stop_times": [3148.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3130.682}, "reply_to": "15382__1_083", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_085", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Is there anything in this record about the sender's having a pattern of sending some of this material to 11, 12-year-old, 7th and 8th's Grade people so as to be able to get it altered in the schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3148.099], "stop_times": [3169.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.099}, "reply_to": "15382__1_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15382__1_086", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There is a great deal of testimony to that effect in the congressional record and then in legislative history of the statute.\nThis is obviously what the Congress was attempting to get at.\nThere is no evidence in this record that this is what these plaintiffs or appellants here were doing or the direct mail orders.\nAs Congressman Waldie, I think said on the floor of the House, the man who gave the shape to this present statute, he said, I am the Supreme Court in the particular household in which my children reside, and from my decision there is no appeal.\nAnd I would take it that this is what the Congress was attempting to do.\nTo say that a man in his own home can refuse to receive material because it might have a deleterious effect on his children as far as he was concerned and this was his decision in his own home and there is -- and that legislative history is replete with this kind of testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3169.255, 3177.313, 3181.002, 3188.823, 3203.852, 3206.935], "stop_times": [3177.313, 3181.002, 3188.823, 3203.852, 3206.935, 3224.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3169.255}, "reply_to": "15382__1_085", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_087", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What kind of an order does an Attorney General has to make or the Post Master General have to make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3224.185], "stop_times": [3231.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.185}, "reply_to": "15382__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_088", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What kind of an order, Mr. Justice Black?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3231.678], "stop_times": [3233.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3231.678}, "reply_to": "15382__1_087", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_089", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3233.091], "stop_times": [3234.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.091}, "reply_to": "15382__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_090", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "There is a reprint --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3234.536], "stop_times": [3236.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3234.536}, "reply_to": "15382__1_089", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_091", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The pandering material.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3236.579], "stop_times": [3239.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.579}, "reply_to": "15382__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_092", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "He --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3239.274], "stop_times": [3239.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3239.274}, "reply_to": "15382__1_091", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_093", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The pandering advertiser?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3239.377], "stop_times": [3240.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.377}, "reply_to": "15382__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_094", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Under the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3240.684], "stop_times": [3241.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3240.684}, "reply_to": "15382__1_093", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_095", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Who decide while it's pandering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3241.402], "stop_times": [3244.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.402}, "reply_to": "15382__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_096", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "The individual himself in his sole discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3244.14], "stop_times": [3245.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3244.14}, "reply_to": "15382__1_095", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_097", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't read the statute that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3245.811], "stop_times": [3248.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.811}, "reply_to": "15382__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_098", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, the statute as we have discussed, I think at some length in our brief, can be said to be ambiguous.\nThe court below seem to read --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3248.97, 3256.745], "stop_times": [3256.745, 3257.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3248.97}, "reply_to": "15382__1_097", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_099", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "It's probably ambiguous as far as that's concerned it seems to me and what he suppose to do is the order no such pandering material.\nNow, who decides whether such pandering material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3257.88, 3268.968], "stop_times": [3268.968, 3272.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.88}, "reply_to": "15382__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_100", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I think that's what Section (a) of the statute says, Mr. Justice Black.\nIt also says in Section (c) of the statute, the order of Post Master General shall expressly prohibit the sender and his agents or assigns from making any further mailings to the designated addressee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3272.861, 3276.95], "stop_times": [3276.95, 3289.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3272.861}, "reply_to": "15382__1_099", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_101", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What kind of mailing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3289.062], "stop_times": [3291.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.062}, "reply_to": "15382__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_102", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Any mailings, whatsoever, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3291.674], "stop_times": [3293.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3291.674}, "reply_to": "15382__1_101", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_103", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Forbidding sending anything to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3293.291], "stop_times": [3296.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.291}, "reply_to": "15382__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_104", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's right, any further mailings, whatsoever, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3296.625], "stop_times": [3300.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3296.625}, "reply_to": "15382__1_103", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_105", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I can understand that; (a) bothers me a little because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3300.397], "stop_times": [3304.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.397}, "reply_to": "15382__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_106", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think (a) can only be understood if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3304.97], "stop_times": [3306.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3304.97}, "reply_to": "15382__1_105", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_107", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Attorney General, I mean the Post Master General, what the duty to define some thing is pandering and I would have a little difficulty myself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3306.217], "stop_times": [3316.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.217}, "reply_to": "15382__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_108", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, and I think the Post Master General is equally concerned about having that onus upon his shoulders and he in the administrative pamphlet which has been put out in the order that sense out, he sees this statute as meaning precisely what Congress itself saw its meaning and that is that he had no discretion to determine what was, and what was not a pandering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3316.327], "stop_times": [3336.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3316.327}, "reply_to": "15382__1_107", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_109", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I wonder why if they wonder just and able to household to keep him company send him something.\nIt just didn't say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3336.671, 3343.405], "stop_times": [3343.405, 3345.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.671}, "reply_to": "15382__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_110", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Because I don't think that's what they mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3345.033], "stop_times": [3347.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3345.033}, "reply_to": "15382__1_109", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_111", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Why did it get mixed up with pandering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3347.063], "stop_times": [3349.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.063}, "reply_to": "15382__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_112", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Because, Mr. Justice Black, the legislative history shows that isn't what they trying to do.\nThey tried to do two things.\nThey tried to give the individual the right to decide in his own discretion, what was and what was not pandering or what was sexually --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3349.128, 3353.858, 3355.614], "stop_times": [3353.858, 3355.614, 3362.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3349.128}, "reply_to": "15382__1_111", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_113", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Now, I can't find whether statutes says that, let him to part to determine what was and what was not pandering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3362.799], "stop_times": [3372.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.799}, "reply_to": "15382__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_114", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think if you read Section (a) as having pandering advertisement being modified also by in his sole discretion and which -- in a way in which it can be read, it is clear that this is what Congress intended.\nSo, legislative history shows that it's clear, this is what the Congress --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3372.275, 3385.346], "stop_times": [3385.346, 3388.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3372.275}, "reply_to": "15382__1_113", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_115", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But then attempted to find it pandering but it left it that he could decide what company should send him mail, I could understand him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3388.395], "stop_times": [3397.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.395}, "reply_to": "15382__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_116", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think the reason they did not want to do that was because there is a lot of controversy within Congress over the merits or demerits of so-called junk mail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3397.76], "stop_times": [3410.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3397.76}, "reply_to": "15382__1_115", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_117", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But if it's junk mail for the sender, as I understand it that theory as it that somebody was recipient, has the right to determine whether he wants it or not and so why not let him determine and just say that, he can't get anymore mail to those people.\nWhy did mixed it up with a definition of pandering, that I do not understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3410.507, 3429.492], "stop_times": [3429.492, 3435.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.507}, "reply_to": "15382__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_118", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Because they did -- the evil, at which Congress was attempting to direct itself, was the mailing into the individual's home of material that was pornographic, or was obscene, or whatever you want to call it.\nAnd Congress had a second purpose which was to get the administrative branch and the Courts out of the business of making this determination.\nAnd therefore, they put pandering advertisement in the statute and left it to the sole discretion of the individual to decide it.\nHoping that not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3435.394, 3449.433, 3458.556, 3465.534], "stop_times": [3449.433, 3458.556, 3465.534, 3466.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3435.394}, "reply_to": "15382__1_117", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_119", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Not -- whether is pandering.\nNot whether -- I didn't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3466.384, 3467.697], "stop_times": [3467.697, 3470.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.384}, "reply_to": "15382__1_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_120", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think that Section (a) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3470.685], "stop_times": [3471.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3470.685}, "reply_to": "15382__1_119", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_121", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I thought the Post Master General had to determine that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3471.42], "stop_times": [3475.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3471.42}, "reply_to": "15382__1_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_122", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "This is not the Post Master General's interpretation.\nIt is not our interpretation.\nWe don't believe it's what the Congress intended from the legislative history, and I think the statute can be rationally read as meaning that all further mail was to be prohibited and that only discretion that the Post Master General had was to decide, whether there had been a mailing that was objected to by an addressee, that was an advertisement.\nAnd then what he sends this information back to the sender and says, \u201cNo further mailings are to be sent\u201d which is precisely what his order says as reprinted at the back of appellant;s opening brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3475.189, 3477.595, 3478.959, 3500.645], "stop_times": [3477.595, 3478.959, 3500.645, 3513.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3475.189}, "reply_to": "15382__1_121", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_123", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Are they affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3513.254], "stop_times": [3514.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.254}, "reply_to": "15382__1_122", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_124", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And it says, no further mailings, whatsoever, not any similar mailings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3514.892], "stop_times": [3518.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3514.892}, "reply_to": "15382__1_123", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_125", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But it said such mail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3518.8], "stop_times": [3521.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3518.8}, "reply_to": "15382__1_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15382__1_126", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "What you mean to say that if the addressee includes that one thing that he received was pandering, he can have that stopped and it was therefore stopped everything coming from the same sender, even though it might not to be pandering on the second, or third, or tenth, or hundredth mailing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3521.61], "stop_times": [3544.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.61}, "reply_to": "15382__1_125", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_127", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "That's right, Mr. Justice Douglas because the alternative was to make the sender decide what was pandering, have that decision reviewed by the administrative branch and then again, reviewed by courts and the Congress saw that is getting his right back into the problem that existed before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3544.981], "stop_times": [3560.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3544.981}, "reply_to": "15382__1_126", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_128", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Mr. Ruckelshaus, you do concede don't you or do you that the Post Master has to decide before he issues an order that the material is an advertisement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3560.0], "stop_times": [3571.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3560.0}, "reply_to": "15382__1_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_129", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Yes, I think he can decide that very easily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3571.849], "stop_times": [3574.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3571.849}, "reply_to": "15382__1_128", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_130", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I know but you concede that he does have to decide that?\nHe has no authority to the order anybody not to mail based on a non-advertising material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3574.656, 3578.25], "stop_times": [3578.25, 3586.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3574.656}, "reply_to": "15382__1_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_131", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, I think the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3586.141], "stop_times": [3590.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3586.141}, "reply_to": "15382__1_130", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_132", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I know but you said -- but here you have two words, pandering advertisement and you say that Post Master General cannot issue an order unless it's an advertisement and so he has to decide in his own mind whether it's an advertisement.\nNow, where do you get the -- on what do you base your decision that or argument that while he can decide what's an advertisement, he has no authority to decide what's the pandering advertisement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3590.033, 3605.266], "stop_times": [3605.266, 3616.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3590.033}, "reply_to": "15382__1_131", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_133", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think because of the obvious difficulties in deciding what is pandering and what isn't and the more objective standards that can be used in deciding, what is an advertisement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3616.794], "stop_times": [3626.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3616.794}, "reply_to": "15382__1_132", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_134", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "You must base it then just on the legislative history rather than the words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3626.95], "stop_times": [3629.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3626.95}, "reply_to": "15382__1_133", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_135", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I've -- we have, I think discussed in our brief that there are some apparent difficulties with the language of the statute, but I think when you read Section (a) in conjunction with (b) and (c), it's clear that what the Congress intended and what the statute says is any further mailings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3629.685], "stop_times": [3646.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3629.685}, "reply_to": "15382__1_134", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_136", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, now let's assume that the Post Master General issues the order there are further mailings of the same kind or just any further mailing and he goes into Court for an order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3646.762], "stop_times": [3659.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3646.762}, "reply_to": "15382__1_135", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_137", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, he is authorized to request the Attorney General who is authorized --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3659.127], "stop_times": [3662.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3659.127}, "reply_to": "15382__1_136", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_138", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Alright, alright the Attorney General goes into court for an order and on that hearing, before an order to stop mailing, it's clearly proved (a) that it was an advertisement alright, but no man in his right mind would call this a pandering advertisement, let's assume it was Mr. Justice Brennan said a potato advertisement from Safeway.\nNow, do you think the court is going to issue the order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3662.505, 3684.483], "stop_times": [3684.483, 3687.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3662.505}, "reply_to": "15382__1_137", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_139", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't think the Court will ever have such case before it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3687.294], "stop_times": [3690.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3687.294}, "reply_to": "15382__1_138", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_140", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I know it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3690.02], "stop_times": [3690.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3690.02}, "reply_to": "15382__1_139", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_141", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "-- Mr. Justice White and if it does, I think that given this structures of the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3690.496], "stop_times": [3694.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3690.496}, "reply_to": "15382__1_140", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_142", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "No, but you're going to have -- you would have a lot of cases where the sender would say, this is a pandering advertisement and does the court have to decide whether it's a pandering advertisement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3694.164], "stop_times": [3703.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3694.164}, "reply_to": "15382__1_141", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_143", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "It does not.\nI don't think that this is exactly what Congress wanted to keep the courts from having to do was to make this determination again in this instance --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3703.437, 3704.292], "stop_times": [3704.292, 3713.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3703.437}, "reply_to": "15382__1_142", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_144", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, take the potato advertisement, would the court issue the order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3713.591], "stop_times": [3717.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3713.591}, "reply_to": "15382__1_143", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_145", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Assuming that the Attorney General brought such a case.\nI think that the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3717.265, 3720.512], "stop_times": [3720.512, 3721.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3717.265}, "reply_to": "15382__1_144", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_146", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, if the Attorney General doesn't bring it, he's deciding in his mind then, that this is not a pandering advertisement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3721.731], "stop_times": [3728.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3721.731}, "reply_to": "15382__1_145", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_147", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, it's says he's authorized to bring the case, it doesn't shall --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3728.322], "stop_times": [3732.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3728.322}, "reply_to": "15382__1_146", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_148", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "So there is some administrative discretion with that various --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3732.121], "stop_times": [3734.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3732.121}, "reply_to": "15382__1_147", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_149", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But its way off on one end Mr. Justice White, in terms of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3734.531], "stop_times": [3738.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3734.531}, "reply_to": "15382__1_148", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_150", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "And that so, I don't know the Department of Justice is in the way off on one end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3738.693], "stop_times": [3743.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3738.693}, "reply_to": "15382__1_149", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_151", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I mean [Attempt to Laughter] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3743.073], "stop_times": [3743.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3743.073}, "reply_to": "15382__1_150", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_152", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But in terms of literature, it might not be way off on one end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3743.869], "stop_times": [3747.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3743.869}, "reply_to": "15382__1_151", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15382__1_153", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Well, I think if there was an abuse -- of an obvious abuse of a lower court's decision in issuing which is basically an equitable proceeding and injunction that -- there might be some grounds for an appeal from that decision.\nBut the -- we have used the standard in our brief as a suggested standard of a good faith standard.\nAny standard that you use, you have difficulty with it because how can you determine good faith to the addressees not a present in court and he may will not be present in court if he is at the other end of the country.\nSo, that I think that to the extent that a court would received one of these things that obviously what wasn't advertisement, they had no relation whatsoever the pandering our sexually oriented material that a court couldn't in its equity power refused to exercise its discretion in entering an order.\nJust as the Attorney General where it says he's authorized to bring such a case and where it says, in the second stage the Post Master General is authorized to request the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3747.435, 3768.019, 3774.826, 3785.749, 3805.034], "stop_times": [3768.019, 3774.826, 3785.749, 3805.034, 3815.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3747.435}, "reply_to": "15382__1_152", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_154", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "But I take it that you would say that the District Court when it asked to enter that order, it would look at that potato advertisement.\nIt could issue the injunction in its discretion and you're saying that the statute apparently would authorize the District Court to issue that injunction and that it would be no violation of the statute to order a person to quit sending potato advertisement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3815.4, 3821.852], "stop_times": [3821.852, 3838.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3815.4}, "reply_to": "15382__1_153", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15382__1_155", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "I don't think that we need to go that far.\nI think it may well be if it's potatoes that the court on the appeal could it be said to have abused its discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3838.81, 3841.295], "stop_times": [3841.295, 3853.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3838.81}, "reply_to": "15382__1_154", "speaker": "william_d_ruckelshaus"}
{"id": "15382__1_156", "conversation_id": "15382", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.\nThank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_399", "start_times": [3853.551, 3856.224, 3857.704], "stop_times": [3856.224, 3857.704, 3860.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3853.551}, "reply_to": "15382__1_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_000", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "We'll hear 628, Schacht against the United States.\nMr. Berg, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [0.0, 47.213], "stop_times": [47.213, 49.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_001", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and May it please the Court.\nThe petitioner's case arises out of his conviction under Title 18, United States code 702, which prohibits impertinent part being authorized to wearing of distinctive parts of arm forces uniform are parts similar to distinctive parts of the armed forces uniform.\nThe appendix to our brief sets out the statutes in total.\nThe conduct that the defendant at the trial below engaged in was his taking part in a Vietnamese protest.\nThe protest took place in front of the Army Induction Center in Houston Texas on December 4, 1967.\nThe petitioner was wearing as part of the protest, parts of a military uniform.\nHis part in the protest was to discord a water gun filled with red ink at someone dressed as a Viet Cong.\nThe Viet Cong would fall.\nHe would run, shouting \u201cBe an able American\u201d to the fallen Viet Cong and say \u201cMy God, this is a pregnant woman.\u201d\nAfter his performance a few hours later, he was arrested tried, convicted on the charge that I've set out before.\nHis sentence was six months to be served and a $250.00 fine.\nThe case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals which affirmed the conviction and the Supreme Court granted cert on December 15, 1969.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [49.852, 52.991, 70.784, 75.48, 83.566, 90.357, 94.941, 100.5, 102.17, 109.481, 117.428, 123.123], "stop_times": [52.991, 70.784, 75.48, 83.566, 90.357, 94.941, 100.5, 102.17, 109.481, 117.428, 123.123, 131.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.852}, "reply_to": "15390__0_000", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_002", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Has he served his present sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [131.966], "stop_times": [133.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.966}, "reply_to": "15390__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_003", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir, he has not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [133.892], "stop_times": [139.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.892}, "reply_to": "15390__0_002", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_004", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "He hasn't served any part of it, this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [139.652], "stop_times": [141.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.652}, "reply_to": "15390__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_005", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, in avertedly, he did.\nThe petition was filed out of time.\nHe was committed for three weeks.\nWe lodged a motion for leave to submit out of time which was granted.\nHe was released from prison.\nIt is our contention that Daniel Schacht engaged in symbolic speech by wearing parts of a military uniform during the skit.\nWe feel that the Court's first inquiry must be made on the basis of the holding of the O'Brien decision that Draft Card Burning case.\nThat case held if we understand it correctly that there are certain areas of freedom of speech which the government may impinge upon if there's a clear and compelling interest of the government to be protected by the regulation that it seeks to enforce.\nIt is our contention in this case that there is no compelling governmental interest in regulating the wearing of distinctive parts or parts similar to distinctive parts of an Armed Forces uniform.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [141.87, 143.177, 145.445, 147.961, 151.3, 155.924, 165.958, 174.535, 188.379], "stop_times": [143.177, 145.445, 147.961, 151.3, 155.924, 165.958, 174.535, 188.379, 202.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.87}, "reply_to": "15390__0_004", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_006", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I notice counsel that you describe this in your factual statement as a demonstration in front of the recruiting headquarters or some such thing.\nYou do not make a claim that this is a theatrical production?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [202.264, 213.538], "stop_times": [213.538, 218.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.264}, "reply_to": "15390__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_007", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Your Honor, we do make that claim.\nWe make the claim that he's entitled to a submission on the question.\nI didn't characterize it entirely.\nIt was a skit rehearsed a day before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [218.775, 220.067, 222.973, 224.948], "stop_times": [220.067, 222.973, 224.948, 228.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.775}, "reply_to": "15390__0_006", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_008", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well then -- then you're describing this is a demonstration, was not intended to preclude your claim in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [228.369], "stop_times": [236.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.369}, "reply_to": "15390__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_009", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [236.136], "stop_times": [236.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.136}, "reply_to": "15390__0_008", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_010", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- your brief that I wondered if you were changing your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [236.218], "stop_times": [239.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.218}, "reply_to": "15390__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_011", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "As it where a play within a play, within a demonstration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [239.211], "stop_times": [242.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.211}, "reply_to": "15390__0_010", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_012", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I think if you're right about that, you don't need to be (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [242.146], "stop_times": [247.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.146}, "reply_to": "15390__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_013", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Your Honor, we still reach a constitutional question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [247.242], "stop_times": [250.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.242}, "reply_to": "15390__0_012", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_014", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The trial judge instructed on the matter, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [250.035], "stop_times": [251.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.035}, "reply_to": "15390__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_015", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.\n--that he told the jury that if they file it, it was \u2014within the statutory exception, they should acquit him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [251.996, 252.202], "stop_times": [252.202, 257.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.996}, "reply_to": "15390__0_014", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_016", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And that -- and incidentally that charge were submitted by the government's attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [257.261], "stop_times": [262.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.261}, "reply_to": "15390__0_015", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_017", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, so you did get the benefit of that instruction, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [262.572], "stop_times": [265.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.572}, "reply_to": "15390__0_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_018", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, we did, at the trial\u2014", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [265.322], "stop_times": [266.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.322}, "reply_to": "15390__0_017", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_019", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Rightly or wrongly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [266.66], "stop_times": [268.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.66}, "reply_to": "15390__0_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_020", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [268.091], "stop_times": [268.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.091}, "reply_to": "15390__0_019", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_021", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "You say rightly, the government says wrongly although you're not telling us that it was at the government requests?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [268.881], "stop_times": [273.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.881}, "reply_to": "15390__0_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_022", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [273.113], "stop_times": [273.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 273.113}, "reply_to": "15390__0_021", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_023", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I still, I'm sorry.\nI still don't follow you.\nIf you're right on the -- that you're not with -- that you're within the exception under the statute then I don't understand you, why would it be a constitutional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [273.736, 275.092, 276.594], "stop_times": [275.092, 276.594, 286.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.736}, "reply_to": "15390__0_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_024", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Because the statutory scheme graded by the exception itself is unconstitutional.\nWe feel that the government -- by that I mean that the constitutional scheme is one which punishes one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [286.693, 295.229], "stop_times": [295.229, 301.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.693}, "reply_to": "15390__0_023", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_025", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, but if this is a prosecution that is for violating a statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [301.114], "stop_times": [305.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.114}, "reply_to": "15390__0_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_026", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [305.123], "stop_times": [305.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.123}, "reply_to": "15390__0_025", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_027", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And it's a statute which says it can't be any prosecution if you fall within an exception, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [305.621], "stop_times": [311.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.621}, "reply_to": "15390__0_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_028", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [311.835], "stop_times": [312.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.835}, "reply_to": "15390__0_027", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_029", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And if you fall within the exception, why isn't that the end of the case, you couldn't be prosecuted, you couldn't be convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [312.121], "stop_times": [317.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.121}, "reply_to": "15390__0_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_030", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, in this instance, he was granted the -- he was given a submission on that issue.\nThe jury nonetheless found him guilty and we say that the entire statute is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [317.037, 321.953], "stop_times": [321.953, 326.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.037}, "reply_to": "15390__0_029", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_031", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, so you're up against a jury finding that that you're not within the exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [326.476], "stop_times": [332.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.476}, "reply_to": "15390__0_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_032", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir that we can't tell from the case either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [332.651], "stop_times": [337.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.651}, "reply_to": "15390__0_031", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_033", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "After this, you had a general verdict and you can't of identify the jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [337.204], "stop_times": [339.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.204}, "reply_to": "15390__0_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_034", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's correct, under the holding of a straight case.\nWe don't know why this man was convicted.\nWe don't know whether he was in a play or he was in a play that discredited it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [339.619, 341.442, 345.424], "stop_times": [341.442, 345.424, 348.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.619}, "reply_to": "15390__0_033", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_035", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yeah, well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [348.388], "stop_times": [348.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.388}, "reply_to": "15390__0_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_036", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Someone wearing distinctive parts and if that be the case then that part -- we feel that part of the exception is clearly is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [348.841], "stop_times": [355.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.841}, "reply_to": "15390__0_035", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_037", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I gather the facts are not in dispute, are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [355.787], "stop_times": [358.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.787}, "reply_to": "15390__0_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_038", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir, for the most part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [358.033], "stop_times": [359.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.033}, "reply_to": "15390__0_037", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_039", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I suppose -- suppose we were to feel that on the basis of the facts there was no issue for the jury?\nOf the investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [359.076, 365.375], "stop_times": [365.375, 365.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.076}, "reply_to": "15390__0_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_040", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "If there is no issue for the jury on the basis of the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [365.871], "stop_times": [368.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.871}, "reply_to": "15390__0_039", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_041", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That should fall within the exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [368.725], "stop_times": [368.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.725}, "reply_to": "15390__0_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_042", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- as with the exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [368.994], "stop_times": [370.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.994}, "reply_to": "15390__0_041", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_043", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [370.135], "stop_times": [370.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.135}, "reply_to": "15390__0_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_044", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Then we still have to deal with whether or not there's a compelling interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [370.376], "stop_times": [373.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.376}, "reply_to": "15390__0_043", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_045", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "You're awfully anxious to get a constitutionalist, you're not at this, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [373.695], "stop_times": [377.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.695}, "reply_to": "15390__0_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_046", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [377.004], "stop_times": [377.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.004}, "reply_to": "15390__0_045", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_047", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "You're not as concerned to get your fellow off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [377.539], "stop_times": [380.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.539}, "reply_to": "15390__0_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_048", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.\nWe feel that a constitutional decision would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [380.617, 381.027], "stop_times": [381.027, 383.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 380.617}, "reply_to": "15390__0_047", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_049", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I get it nice, but if we can decide that it has come within the exception, that's the end of the case, isn't it if your man is off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [383.892], "stop_times": [392.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.892}, "reply_to": "15390__0_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_050", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Your Honor, if the facts of the case clearly indicate that he fell within the exception, we have no way of knowing still whether or not that exception --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [392.519], "stop_times": [400.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.519}, "reply_to": "15390__0_049", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_051", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I know but if that says it should've gone to the jury and that the conviction therefore --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [400.59], "stop_times": [404.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.59}, "reply_to": "15390__0_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_052", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It did go to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [404.502], "stop_times": [404.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.502}, "reply_to": "15390__0_051", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_053", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- should be set aside, that's the end of the case, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [404.647], "stop_times": [406.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.647}, "reply_to": "15390__0_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_054", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Unless I misunderstand sir, it did go to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [406.522], "stop_times": [409.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.522}, "reply_to": "15390__0_053", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_055", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [409.319], "stop_times": [417.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.319}, "reply_to": "15390__0_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_056", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Under the holding of the O'Brien decision, it's our contention whether or not he's entitled to an instruction on the statutory -- the exception to the main statute.\nThe government has exhibited no compelling interest in controlling whether or not one may wear distinctive parts of Armed Forces uniform or part similar to distinctive parts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [417.882, 430.558], "stop_times": [430.558, 439.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.882}, "reply_to": "15390__0_055", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_057", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "When -- sorry to interrupt you again Mr. Berg but when you told that my brother Brennan that there was no substantial dispute as to the facts in this case, does that mean that you do concede that your client was wearing the uniform or a distinctive part thereof of any of the Armed Forces of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [439.829], "stop_times": [463.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.829}, "reply_to": "15390__0_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_058", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart I would concede only that he had on parts of a military uniform but not characterize it, it was distinctive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [463.566], "stop_times": [471.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.566}, "reply_to": "15390__0_057", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_059", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, it has to be, that either as I read it, it has to be the uniform which I suppose would mean the complete uniform or a distinctive part thereof, isn't that what the statute said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [471.471], "stop_times": [482.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.471}, "reply_to": "15390__0_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_060", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [482.613], "stop_times": [484.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.613}, "reply_to": "15390__0_059", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_061", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And as -- do you or don't you concede that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [484.646], "stop_times": [489.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.646}, "reply_to": "15390__0_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_062", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, one of the questions we raised sir is that we don't know what word distinctive part means and we don't know whether --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [489.216], "stop_times": [495.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.216}, "reply_to": "15390__0_061", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_063", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I suppose khaki colored socks for instance would not be a distinctive part of the army uniform, although soldiers do wear khaki colored socks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [495.251], "stop_times": [503.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.251}, "reply_to": "15390__0_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_064", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [503.618], "stop_times": [505.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.618}, "reply_to": "15390__0_063", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_065", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Or a handkerchief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [505.154], "stop_times": [507.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.154}, "reply_to": "15390__0_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_066", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [507.543], "stop_times": [508.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.543}, "reply_to": "15390__0_065", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_067", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- or maybe under -- an under short or underwear, I would know but tan shoes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [508.082], "stop_times": [514.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.082}, "reply_to": "15390__0_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_068", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It doesn't to -- excuse me sir, it doesn't really matter to us if we want to characterize it as having worn a distinctive part, our point we feel is still the same.\nThat the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [514.203, 522.784], "stop_times": [522.784, 522.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.203}, "reply_to": "15390__0_067", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_069", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that I understand you because -- and I'm not sure whether -- that I understand whether you do or whether you don't concede that the dress, the garment in which the petitioner was dressed at this time was within the statutory definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [522.854], "stop_times": [542.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.854}, "reply_to": "15390__0_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_070", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, if I understand the question correctly, the question is whether or not the fact is in dispute that he was wearing a distinctive part of the uniform.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [542.953], "stop_times": [549.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.953}, "reply_to": "15390__0_069", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_071", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The uniform or a distinctive part of there.\nThat's what the statute says and if he wasn't of course he wasn't covered by the statute at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [549.507, 551.517], "stop_times": [551.517, 555.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.507}, "reply_to": "15390__0_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_072", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Alright, and it's our contention that that's one of the problems of the statute.\nWe have no way of telling sir whether or not he was wearing a distinctive part.\nIf he wasn't then he's not guilty to begin with.\nIf he was, then we still have problems with the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [555.875, 559.469, 563.017, 566.268], "stop_times": [559.469, 563.017, 566.268, 568.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.875}, "reply_to": "15390__0_071", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_073", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, the jury must have found that he was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [568.756], "stop_times": [571.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.756}, "reply_to": "15390__0_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_074", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [571.287], "stop_times": [572.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.287}, "reply_to": "15390__0_073", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_075", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "They certainly didn't find he was wearing a complete uniform, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [572.701], "stop_times": [577.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.701}, "reply_to": "15390__0_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_076", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Your Honor, from the verdict that was returned, we can only assume that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [577.033], "stop_times": [579.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.033}, "reply_to": "15390__0_075", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_077", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But there wasn't any evidence at all or whatsoever that he was wearing an entire uniform?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [579.887], "stop_times": [583.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.887}, "reply_to": "15390__0_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_078", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No.\nBut we don't know that they didn't convict him on these grounds that he was wearing a similar part, a part similar to a distinctive part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [583.835, 584.436], "stop_times": [584.436, 589.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.835}, "reply_to": "15390__0_077", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_079", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Or a distinctive -- well they at least found that he was wearing a distinctive part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [589.468], "stop_times": [593.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.468}, "reply_to": "15390__0_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_080", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.\nThat at least that the jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [593.931, 595.62], "stop_times": [595.62, 596.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.931}, "reply_to": "15390__0_079", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_081", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "In order to convict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [596.414], "stop_times": [599.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.414}, "reply_to": "15390__0_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_082", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Pardon me sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [599.039], "stop_times": [599.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.039}, "reply_to": "15390__0_081", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_083", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "In order to convict, does that defines that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [599.967], "stop_times": [603.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.967}, "reply_to": "15390__0_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_084", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.\nThat would be prerequisite finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [603.803, 605.252], "stop_times": [605.252, 607.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.803}, "reply_to": "15390__0_083", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_085", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What did the evidence show he was wearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [607.437], "stop_times": [609.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.437}, "reply_to": "15390__0_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__0_086", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "An eagle insignia turned upside down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [609.841], "stop_times": [612.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.841}, "reply_to": "15390__0_085", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_087", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "He what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [612.205], "stop_times": [612.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.205}, "reply_to": "15390__0_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__0_088", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "An eagle insignia turned upside down on an obsolete World War II hat.\nA blouse and some bottoms and a green --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [612.747, 617.651], "stop_times": [617.651, 621.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.747}, "reply_to": "15390__0_087", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_089", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What kind of blouse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [621.439], "stop_times": [623.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.439}, "reply_to": "15390__0_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__0_090", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "An army blouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [623.3], "stop_times": [624.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.3}, "reply_to": "15390__0_089", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_091", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [624.51], "stop_times": [625.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.51}, "reply_to": "15390__0_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__0_092", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Buttons on the blouse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [625.355], "stop_times": [626.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.355}, "reply_to": "15390__0_091", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_093", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What kind of buttons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [626.593], "stop_times": [628.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.593}, "reply_to": "15390__0_092", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__0_094", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Military buttons on the blouse and the cap he uses I remember were not military issue and some civilian boots.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [628.462], "stop_times": [636.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.462}, "reply_to": "15390__0_093", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_095", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And the eagle -- you said an eagle turned upside down.\nThat's the insignia --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [636.486, 641.174], "stop_times": [641.174, 641.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.486}, "reply_to": "15390__0_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_096", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Spread eagle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [641.703], "stop_times": [642.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.703}, "reply_to": "15390__0_095", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_097", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- that's not only out of commissioned officer's cap in the United State army?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [642.133], "stop_times": [645.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.133}, "reply_to": "15390__0_096", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_098", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The spread eagle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [645.015], "stop_times": [646.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.015}, "reply_to": "15390__0_097", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_099", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Is that -- is that company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [646.381], "stop_times": [648.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.381}, "reply_to": "15390__0_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_100", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe government would seek to tell us to justify the imposition or the impingement of Daniel Schachts.\nFirst Amendment rights, the right to where this parts of the uniform on the basis that government has some sort of overwhelming interest in regulating this wearing.\nIt's our contention from the facts of the trial that the government in fact sells the jobbers all over the nation, the parts of the uniform which later end up in the hands of the people who wear it.\nThis Court might take note of the fact that the army jacket is worn by many people, the army raincoat.\nParts that look similar, two parts of an army uniform are widespread worn by young people especially by young people.\nAnd if the interest in regulating this wearing was so overwhelming, then it would appear to us that the government would not sell on a wholesale basis to jobbers across the nation.\nIf there is a government interest in the distinctive wearing, they simply have it sought to it to assert that interest.\nWe have been unable to find very many cases under the statutes where convictions at least have occurred under 18702.\nIn fact, four since 1940 and I believe the statute in one form or another has been in the book since 1960.\nOf course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [648.337, 654.234, 662.399, 670.705, 681.716, 689.292, 697.827, 709.379, 716.931, 724.342, 731.815], "stop_times": [654.234, 662.399, 670.705, 681.716, 689.292, 697.827, 709.379, 716.931, 724.342, 731.815, 732.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.337}, "reply_to": "15390__0_099", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_101", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What should we draw from that, that the government has been negligent in enforcing this statute or just what's your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [732.579], "stop_times": [739.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.579}, "reply_to": "15390__0_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_102", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Our point, my point that there's some evidence the government is not interested enforcing the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [739.993], "stop_times": [745.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.993}, "reply_to": "15390__0_101", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_103", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, what should the Court do about that when it gets a case where they are interested in enforcing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [745.299], "stop_times": [752.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.299}, "reply_to": "15390__0_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_104", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "In this particular case, we feel it's evidence of the government's lack of a compelling interest in impinging his First Amendment, in regulating the wear and therefore impinging his rights, constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [752.078], "stop_times": [765.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.078}, "reply_to": "15390__0_103", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_105", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Is there -- I suppose there is and would you know if there is other federal legislation on making it a criminal offense to impersonate an officer or an enlisted man in the army?\nI'm not very --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [765.558, 775.795], "stop_times": [775.795, 776.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.558}, "reply_to": "15390__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_106", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir, I believe that there is a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [776.21], "stop_times": [778.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.21}, "reply_to": "15390__0_105", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_107", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "There is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [778.143], "stop_times": [778.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.143}, "reply_to": "15390__0_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_108", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "About the impersonation, is there, and that would be our point that this type -- this kind of protection could be garnered for the government and more narrow stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [778.4], "stop_times": [786.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.4}, "reply_to": "15390__0_107", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_109", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And you say there is such a narrow -- more narrowly drawn stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [786.012], "stop_times": [788.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.012}, "reply_to": "15390__0_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_110", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I believe that there is a penalty for personating an officer that applies to civilian just for making a meal ticket of the uniform one way or another.\nI raise briefly the question of the vagueness of the statute.\nWe feel that if the Court should find that there is some compelling interest in regulating the wearing of the distinctive parts of the uniform, that there is still a question under the statute, 18702 as to what authority -- authorized means under the statute to whom does one turn for authority and concomitant questions of what exactly -- what authority -- under what conditions authority will be granted.\nWe don't know what similar two distinctive parts mean.\nIt's hard to tell that would apply to a woman wearing a khaki dress with epaulets on it and is this current fashionable.\nAt the trial, Danny sought to rely on 10 U.S.C 772 at the exception to statute in the Maine.\nThe government says that he was not entitled to a submission on this issue and we say that he was.\nWe say that even if we accept the government -- the government's definition of what a theatrical production is, he may still be entitled to the submission of the issue that the trial judge, the United States District Attorney and the Fifth Circuit, Court of Appeal saw no problem with the submission of this issue.\nAt the very minimum, we feel the issue was raised by the facts of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [788.554, 799.152, 802.518, 826.347, 829.308, 837.2, 845.279, 850.783, 869.31], "stop_times": [799.152, 802.518, 826.347, 829.308, 837.2, 845.279, 850.783, 869.31, 876.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.554}, "reply_to": "15390__0_109", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_111", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Is there any indication in the record as to where he acquired this clothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [876.504], "stop_times": [879.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 876.504}, "reply_to": "15390__0_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_112", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir, there is none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [879.875], "stop_times": [882.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.875}, "reply_to": "15390__0_111", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_113", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Going back to your point for a moment to -- about the compelling interest, I don't recall many events on but I don't recall in the last 14 years any frequency of prosecutions for impersonating a federal agent.\nWould you draw from that that the federal government has lost its interest in prosecuting people from -- for impersonating federal agents or perhaps would another reasonable inference be that not very many people have been doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [882.456, 902.847], "stop_times": [902.847, 915.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.456}, "reply_to": "15390__0_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_114", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes of course that inference could be drawn, but we say that that doesn't preclude us from the other inference that the government simply has -- because of the widespread wearing of the parts of the uniform, the government has lost its interest in enforcing the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [915.601], "stop_times": [928.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.601}, "reply_to": "15390__0_113", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_115", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What evidence you have in this record of widespread use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [928.511], "stop_times": [932.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.511}, "reply_to": "15390__0_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_116", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Your Honor, we have the evidence that it's sold on a wholesale basis throughout the nation to whomever walks in the store and we ask the Court to take judicial notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [932.185], "stop_times": [939.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.185}, "reply_to": "15390__0_115", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_117", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "With the military insignia and buttons on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [939.614], "stop_times": [943.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.614}, "reply_to": "15390__0_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_118", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Your Honor, there's nothing to controvert --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [943.106], "stop_times": [943.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.106}, "reply_to": "15390__0_117", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_119", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Or removed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [943.726], "stop_times": [945.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.726}, "reply_to": "15390__0_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_120", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Pardon me sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [945.135], "stop_times": [946.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.135}, "reply_to": "15390__0_119", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_121", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Or are they removed before the sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [946.24], "stop_times": [949.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.24}, "reply_to": "15390__0_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_122", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "There's nothing in the evidence to indicate which way, but we feel that's not -- that that wouldn't be a question in the case because one could still fall within the proscription of the statute by wearing parts -- that are distinctive parts of the uniform.\nThis is of course, the first time -- the point I was -- I had raised before as to the constitutionality of -- or I was -- I would like to raise the question, the constitutionality of the statute under which the defendant was forced to defend.\nIf it can be agreed that he was entitled at least to a submission to the jury on the issue, then we must deal with the exception which says that one may wear distinctive parts in a play so long as that portrayal does not tend to discredit the armed force portray.\nWe feel that the words tend to discredit are unconstitutional at least on two and possibly three grounds.\nOne, there is a grant of power, a privilege to act in a play under the statute.\nAnd then it's unconstitutionally conditioned on the substance of what's in the play.\nWe feel secondly that the play itself -- that one engaged in criticism of the government, is constitutionally protected and thus the effect, the net effect of this portion of the statute, of the exception of the statute is to Schacht's First Amendment freedom.\nOne really doesn't know exactly what he can say or what he can do under the prescription of the exception.\nFinally, of course we don't understand exactly what the words tend to discredit mean anyway.\nTend to discredit is possibly as vague as words could be -- when words are being prohibited.\nWe are left then if we can accept the unconstitutional, the exception to the exception of being unconstitutional.\nWe are left simply with 18 U.S.C 702 and as an exception which says one may wear these parts in a play, and what does this leave us with.\nWe are left with the question of what theatrical, a motion picture production actually means.\nAnd the only way to purchase certainty in this area is to go ahead and appear in what you think is a motion picture, a theatrical production and see if you're brought the trial if you're wearing a symbolic -- if you're wearing as in Danny's case parts of an Armed Forces uniform.\nThe vagueness contained therein is offensive to the Fifth and First Amendment, the Schacht's First Amendment rights and what it actually does is grant a license to whomever is in charge of bringing -- of bringing charges, it give a license to them, an official of the government to bring charges in cases where he doesn't agree with what is being said in a play or if \u2013 and he can use the vagueness of the word production to justify the imposition of this charge.\nWe judged briefly before on considerations of the verdict itself, the general verdict.\nAnd the first consideration is whether or not we can tell under the exception itself, if we can agree that the exception should have been submitted why petitioner was convicted.\nHe was either convicted because first, he was wearing parts of the uniform.\nAnd secondly, because he was either in a play that discredited in which case we feel he should have been acquitted or he was not in a play at all in which case we feel the holding of the street case would at least compel a reversal on this man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [949.185, 967.152, 982.764, 999.537, 1005.77, 1011.18, 1016.01, 1031.339, 1038.823, 1042.82, 1049.554, 1056.893, 1067.077, 1072.09, 1086.511, 1114.718, 1121.39, 1132.041, 1136.556], "stop_times": [967.152, 982.764, 999.537, 1005.77, 1011.18, 1016.01, 1031.339, 1038.823, 1042.82, 1049.554, 1056.893, 1067.077, 1072.09, 1086.511, 1114.718, 1121.39, 1132.041, 1136.556, 1151.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.185}, "reply_to": "15390__0_121", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_123", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Berg, do you know anything of the legislative history of the statute of this legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1151.471], "stop_times": [1156.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.471}, "reply_to": "15390__0_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_124", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Your Honor, it was enacted in 1916 with -- and we were unable to obtain any of the history at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1156.432], "stop_times": [1164.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1156.432}, "reply_to": "15390__0_123", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_125", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "During World War I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1164.165], "stop_times": [1166.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.165}, "reply_to": "15390__0_124", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_126", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt was revised in 1940 and then in 1956, 1940 of course again during --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1166.05, 1166.758], "stop_times": [1166.758, 1172.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.05}, "reply_to": "15390__0_125", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_127", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Any history relevant that you could find --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1172.408], "stop_times": [1175.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.408}, "reply_to": "15390__0_126", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_128", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The only history that I've seen was in testimony that was introduced by the government in its brief which said that there was no intention to subsequently change the law.\nIf this Court were to find that the statute is constitutional on its face that petitioner Schacht was in fact -- and that petitioner Schacht was in fact not entitled to a submission on the issue that it was applied on the basis of the constitutional law by the virtue of the acts that he performed.\nWe still say that the application of this law to Schacht denied him certain fundamental freedom of speech.\nThere is evidence, a widespread wearing of the uniform.\nThere is evidence and we asked the Court to again to take judicial notice that after he's constantly, not only discredit but ridiculed the armed force that they seek to portray.\nDr. Strangelove is a good example of that.\nWe again point to the fact of lack of prosecution of under the statute that the fact that Danny Schacht was strangely taking part in a protest against the war in Vietnam when the law was suddenly applied to him.\nWe ask the Court to read the record and check the vindictiveness of the United States District attorney's closing argument.\n-- Or the defendant was entitled to that offense then we would take it and run, be very happy with it.\nThe point that I wanted to make was that our defendant at the trial admitted that he intended to discredit the uniform he was wearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1175.723, 1190.349, 1214.78, 1224.05, 1228.484, 1240.826, 1244.6, 1256.931, 1268.964, 1275.966], "stop_times": [1190.349, 1214.78, 1224.05, 1228.484, 1240.826, 1244.6, 1256.931, 1268.964, 1275.966, 1283.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.723}, "reply_to": "15390__0_127", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_129", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Did you know what he was wearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1283.427], "stop_times": [1286.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.427}, "reply_to": "15390__0_128", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__0_130", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well he -- that of course -- with that of course is the point is to whether he was entitled to a submission, but at least he admitted that point and I was -- in my point that we -- I would ask this Court to find that that part was unconstitutional.\nIf in fact the Court does find that the words tend to discredit are unconstitutional, again, we are left with Title 18 which grants an exception in instances of plays in which one is wearing distinctive parts of the uniform.\nThere are pages and pages in the transcript which exemplify the prosecuting attorney, the defense lawyer and the judges' confusion over exactly what production means.\nNobody knows exactly what it means within the framework of the statute and they finally decide on the Webster dictionary definition.\nOf course, if there -- if this kind of confusion exists for lawyers and for the judge at the trial, think of the kind of burden that imposes on anyone trying to make a good faith effort to ascertain under the statute whether or not he's going to be in a motion picture or theatrical production.\nWe say the statute fails for this reason.\nThis presents a chilling affect on First Amendment rights.\nOne must step back and just fail to exercise the right to free speech, to act in a play because you don't know whether or not you're accepted under the statute.\nBut more importantly to us, it presents an opportunity to any government official who has the opportunity to bring charges under the statute based on what he feels is a violation of the act and in cases where he doesn't feel that the production can be proved by the defendant.\nWhat this means to us is that defendant Schacht was tried under statute that's seldom used.\nAlthough there is widespread disuse of -- although there is widespread wearing of distinctive parts of the uniform, of parts similar to distinctive parts of the uniform.\nHe wore it in a part of the country in which dissent is not very popular.\nWe feel that the law was unconstitutionally applied to him for the sole purpose of punishing his participation in the act, any Vietnam War skit.\nThere are record references which support this contention, very short.\nThe defense attorney 209 -- the prosecuting attorney at 209 says, if the Court please, in our original charge we found with the Court, we did provide a separate charge.\nWe feel that the defendants were entitled to a charge with respect to the defense and if I may present this to the Court now.\nThe -- Mr. 2406, the defense attorney says, \u201cExcuse me, you have the word betrayal.\nWe are getting kind of bad aren't we instead of portrayal.\u201d\nMr. K, the prosecuting attorney says, \u201cExcuse me, we have betrayal.\u201d\nThe Court -- some people might view it as a betrayal.\nWhat about the definition of those terms?\nIn the closing argument at 382, Mr. Hartman for the US government in indicating the view point, indicating the view point of this office about this sort of thing that Danny engaged in.\nIf it pleases the Court ladies and gentlemen, the only thing I gather with the argument of these defendants, they are displeased with the government and the war, but I have a single answer to that.\nThere's a plane and a boat leaving, two or three times a day for other parts of the world.\nI could probably name you gentlemen the place to go.\nYou can leave anytime if you don't like and then you stop.\nAt 384 he says, if he referring to the defendants, comes to my house and expresses himself like this, he will not be able to walk into this Court room and be tried again.\nAnd I say to you, there are many others likely.\nI don't to rub shoulders with these two, do you?\nWe say that this is clear evidence that what we have here is not a case involving simply the wearing of distinctive parts of the uniform.\nThis case involves suppression of my client's right of free speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1286.765, 1300.54, 1315.613, 1327.217, 1336.103, 1353.431, 1356.19, 1359.423, 1367.778, 1387.735, 1396.576, 1407.35, 1413.628, 1422.699, 1429.933, 1439.65, 1446.225, 1450.873, 1453.677, 1458.244, 1460.897, 1463.058, 1475.455, 1484.071, 1488.214, 1490.805, 1493.896, 1503.955, 1505.957, 1508.794, 1516.226], "stop_times": [1300.54, 1315.613, 1327.217, 1336.103, 1353.431, 1356.19, 1359.423, 1367.778, 1387.735, 1396.576, 1407.35, 1413.628, 1422.699, 1429.933, 1439.65, 1446.225, 1450.873, 1453.677, 1458.244, 1460.897, 1463.058, 1475.455, 1484.071, 1488.214, 1490.805, 1493.896, 1503.955, 1505.957, 1508.794, 1516.226, 1520.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.765}, "reply_to": "15390__0_129", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_131", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Now you -- the words you're according where spoken by whom and when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1520.601], "stop_times": [1524.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.601}, "reply_to": "15390__0_130", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_132", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The prosecuting attorney in the closing argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1524.373], "stop_times": [1526.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1524.373}, "reply_to": "15390__0_131", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_133", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "At the closing argument that you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1526.369], "stop_times": [1527.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.369}, "reply_to": "15390__0_132", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_134", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And prior to that the -- one of the prosecuting attorney since submitting the charge.\nIt indicates to us the attitude toward what Danny did, to what he said in that at least in the Southern District of Texas.\nIn conclusion, we would say, having addressed ourselves we believe to the legal questions involved in this case that there is a question of social concern here.\nWe feel that the imposition of this sentence on Danny Schacht represents a certain breech of faith with young people attempting to protest certain things they feel that are wrong, certain things they feel must be rectified.\nThis Court has a perfect opportunity to rectify that situation and to correct a breach of faith that was promulgated not on the fact that Danny Schacht was wearing parts of the uniform, but on the fact that Danny Schacht dare to engage in a dissent gainst the war in Vietnam.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1527.102, 1531.844, 1541.133, 1551.035, 1564.357], "stop_times": [1531.844, 1541.133, 1551.035, 1564.357, 1581.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1527.102}, "reply_to": "15390__0_133", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_135", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Was there any violence in connection with this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1581.516], "stop_times": [1584.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.516}, "reply_to": "15390__0_134", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__0_136", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "None whatsoever sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1584.001], "stop_times": [1584.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.001}, "reply_to": "15390__0_135", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_137", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- episode?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1584.373], "stop_times": [1587.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.373}, "reply_to": "15390__0_136", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__0_138", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1587.404], "stop_times": [1587.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1587.404}, "reply_to": "15390__0_137", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_139", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Threats, shouting anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1587.669], "stop_times": [1588.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.669}, "reply_to": "15390__0_138", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__0_140", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir.\nThere is no contention anywhere in the record that there was anything but a peaceful and orderly demonstration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1588.828, 1589.159], "stop_times": [1589.159, 1595.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.828}, "reply_to": "15390__0_139", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_141", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Berg with the respect to the jurisdictional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1595.238], "stop_times": [1599.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.238}, "reply_to": "15390__0_140", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_142", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1599.585], "stop_times": [1600.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.585}, "reply_to": "15390__0_141", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_143", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Are you going to rest on your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1600.301], "stop_times": [1603.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1600.301}, "reply_to": "15390__0_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_144", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I would address myself to that point just briefly Your Honor.\nWe feel that the jurisdictional question as we understand it raised by the government is answered and the delegation of power to this Court was unrestricted.\nNo restriction placed on it, was placed on it by itself.\nThe Court in effect has said, we'll place a restriction of 30 days, and the power to make that rule being unrestricted, we feel that the Court has a right to abrogate that rule.\nFurther, there's another contention -- I hope, I'm understanding it correctly, there's another contention in the petition -- in the government's brief that in the cases where this Court has waived the rule and I think specifically the Hulson case, the government didn't submit a brief and therefore it's not bound by its holding.\nAs we understand this contention, we feel that you've failed, it's unsound and that it's the business of the Court to raise the question of jurisdiction itself and having considered that point made its ruling, we don't see any difference whether the full submission was made by the government or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1603.887, 1607.923, 1618.151, 1621.881, 1632.237, 1650.677], "stop_times": [1607.923, 1618.151, 1621.881, 1632.237, 1650.677, 1667.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1603.887}, "reply_to": "15390__0_143", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_145", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And you don't see any difference between delay of under 90 days and one over 90 days with respect to jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1667.74], "stop_times": [1675.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.74}, "reply_to": "15390__0_144", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_146", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "We will rest our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1675.988], "stop_times": [1677.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.988}, "reply_to": "15390__0_145", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_147", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That is a distinction made by the government as you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1677.495], "stop_times": [1680.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.495}, "reply_to": "15390__0_146", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_148", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "As I understood the distinction by the government, it was that there were statutes which prohibit a granting of the cert after 90 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1680.913], "stop_times": [1691.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1680.913}, "reply_to": "15390__0_147", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_149", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But that's the outside limit of any statutory length of times --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1691.046], "stop_times": [1694.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.046}, "reply_to": "15390__0_148", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_150", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, it will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1694.911], "stop_times": [1695.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1694.911}, "reply_to": "15390__0_149", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_151", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "--the government submits and as the power of the Court is only to shorten that time within that 90 days?\nThat's their submission roughly as I understood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1695.088, 1700.637], "stop_times": [1700.637, 1703.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.088}, "reply_to": "15390__0_150", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__0_152", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Does the record show why this delay occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1703.199], "stop_times": [1706.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.199}, "reply_to": "15390__0_151", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__0_153", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes it does Your Honor.\nThere was a submission -- we submitted of course the motion for leave to file out of time and along with it a transcript of a short hearing to ascertain exactly why the brief wasn't followed on time.\nAnd I can tell you some of the testimony that was induced at that time was that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1706.15, 1707.568, 1722.146], "stop_times": [1707.568, 1722.146, 1727.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1706.15}, "reply_to": "15390__0_152", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_154", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's all right, it's in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1727.646], "stop_times": [1729.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.646}, "reply_to": "15390__0_153", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__0_155", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe point of that hearing, that small hearing was that the defendant and his attorney at the time, an ACOU lawyer just had apparently write down a communication -- the ACOU lawyer simply left the time go by without obtaining the money for filing of the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1729.811, 1737.531], "stop_times": [1737.531, 1761.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1729.811}, "reply_to": "15390__0_154", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_156", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "In other words the essence of it is that was negligence of counsel is that what you're suggesting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1761.383], "stop_times": [1766.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.383}, "reply_to": "15390__0_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_157", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1766.203], "stop_times": [1771.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1766.203}, "reply_to": "15390__0_156", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_158", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1771.259], "stop_times": [1771.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.259}, "reply_to": "15390__0_157", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__0_159", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1771.711], "stop_times": [1776.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1771.711}, "reply_to": "15390__0_158", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__0_160", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1776.719], "stop_times": [1782.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.719}, "reply_to": "15390__0_159", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_000", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "May it please that Court.\nI will direct myself first to the jurisdictional question which has been raised in the government's brief.\nWhen I first came to my present office some time ago, I was rather surprised to find occasional briefs coming across my desk in which it said the petition was filed out of time.\nNevertheless, there is no reason for granting certiorari and then going on to argue the question of certiorari.\nI raised the question with my associates and they said, \u201cOh, it's not jurisdictional.\u201d\nAnd I was puzzled by that, but there are lots of things that I find puzzling and don't always find answers to.\nAnd I went along and noticed those cases continuing until this case came when the Court granted certiorari 131 days after the judgment of the Court below and I couldn't see any reason why if they could grant it a 131 days, it couldn't be granted at 1131 days or at anytime and I asked my associate Mr. Connelly to look into it and we dug into it rather thoroughly and I will endeavor to summarize here what we found in looking into it.\nOf course there was originally the basic statute of 1925 which provided a period of three months for certiorari with respect to all types of judgments with a power in the Court to or a justice at the Court to extend that for 60 days on an application made within the three months period.\nAnd then in 1933, Congress authorized the Court by a statute which says that the Court shall have the power to prescribe and I think prescribe has some significance.\nFrom time to time, rules of practice and I think rules has some significance and by an amendment made in 1934, it was provided that the rules made as here in authorized may prescribe the times for and manner of taking appeals and applying for writs of certiorari.\nAnd the committee reports at that time read in a way which sounds contemporary.\nExisting rules of the United States, District Courts and Circuit Court of Appeals tend themselves to delay.\nMany cases and all pending in the Federal Courts for months and even years have elapsed since the verdict of guilty.\nAnd the cases have not been finally disposed of in the United States, Circuit Courts of Appeals and the accused have been at large on bail.\nNothing tends more to discredit the administration of criminal justice than such delays.\nThere was an article by Professor Orfield who had been a member of the advisory committee on the criminal rules which referred to the time limits in rule 11, which was adopted in Roman XI in 1934 and which fixed a single period of 30 days referred to that as jurisdictional.\nAnd then the next thing that happened was that rather to my surprise and due to the very careful work of Mr. Connelly, we find that the very question was decided by the Court in United States ex rel. Coy against the United States 316 U. S 342 where a petition for certiorari was filed more than 30 days after the judgment, and the Court said on page 344, the petition for certiorari was filed too late and we are without jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [1782.032, 1784.583, 1794.198, 1809.978, 1819.486, 1825.3, 1836.124, 1885.254, 1911.281, 1930.027, 1953.967, 1963.141, 1970.085, 1976.781, 1984.545, 1993.07, 2021.643], "stop_times": [1784.583, 1794.198, 1809.978, 1819.486, 1825.3, 1836.124, 1885.254, 1911.281, 1930.027, 1953.967, 1963.141, 1970.085, 1976.781, 1984.545, 1993.07, 2021.643, 2069.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1782.032}, "reply_to": "15390__0_160", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_001", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Is that case in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2069.625], "stop_times": [2071.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.625}, "reply_to": "15390__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_002", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh yes, this case is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2071.356], "stop_times": [2073.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2071.356}, "reply_to": "15390__1_001", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_003", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Main one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2073.253], "stop_times": [2073.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.253}, "reply_to": "15390__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_004", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Is the essence of our brief Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2073.507], "stop_times": [2076.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2073.507}, "reply_to": "15390__1_003", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_005", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I'm just looking at the index of your brief and I have read some --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2076.219], "stop_times": [2081.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.219}, "reply_to": "15390__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_006", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well it's under United States ex rel. Coy I believe in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2081.096], "stop_times": [2084.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2081.096}, "reply_to": "15390__1_005", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_007", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, what's in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2084.157], "stop_times": [2085.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.157}, "reply_to": "15390__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_008", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "In the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2085.684], "stop_times": [2086.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2085.684}, "reply_to": "15390__1_007", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_009", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Cite about the 3447", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2086.699], "stop_times": [2091.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.699}, "reply_to": "15390__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_010", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I'm sorry Mr. Justice, it's under Coy, it's cited on pages 14 and 17 of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2091.967], "stop_times": [2098.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2091.967}, "reply_to": "15390__1_009", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_011", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2098.739], "stop_times": [2099.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.739}, "reply_to": "15390__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_012", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2099.645], "stop_times": [2100.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2099.645}, "reply_to": "15390__1_011", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_013", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2100.835], "stop_times": [2101.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.835}, "reply_to": "15390__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_014", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And the Court also referred in the Coy opinion saying \u201cSince the purpose in adopting the rules was to expedite criminal appeals and it seems rather odd that the nod effect in this case has been a very substantial delay over the time that would have been involved where the rules not in force.\nNow, since 1934 when rule 11 was first adopted, the rules have gone through various changes.\nIn 1946, the language was changed from shall to may and someone might think that \u201cWell, that's just permissive and that means it isn't really binding\u201d it says beginning in 1946, it said \u201cMaybe made within 30 days\u201d.\nAnother change was made in 1946 which was to grant authority to a Justice of the Court to extend the time not exceeding 30 days.\nIf the application was made \u201cWithin the 30 day period following judgment\u201d and the advisory committee at that time in its notes said \u201cThis rule continues existing law, except that it grants to the Supreme Court or a Justice thereof the authority to extend the time.\"\nAnd of course, the existing law included not only the text to the rule but also this Court's decision in the Coy case.\nAnd at other places in the notes to the preliminary draft of the rules of 1946, of the Coy case is cited so that it was not overlooked and this Court several times in per curiam decisions, denying petition cited the Coy case.\nThe next case we have is United States against Smith.\nSmith being a District Judge, there haven't been an application for Mandamus against him which the Court of Appeals had refused and this was certiorari to this Court to review the Court of Appeals refusal.\nJudge Smith had granted a new trial long after the five days, put in the rule, he tempted to justify it on the grounds that he had done it sue sponte, that the rule simply said that application must be made within 5 days but it said nothing about what the judge did himself.\nBut this Court reversed the Court of Appeals.\nI may point out too that this rule with respect to appeal also contain the may language which was introduced in 1946 both with respect to appeals and with respect to certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2101.353, 2129.108, 2138.96, 2161.146, 2173.724, 2197.462, 2208.106, 2234.391, 2239.324, 2258.191, 2283.975, 2287.435], "stop_times": [2129.108, 2138.96, 2161.146, 2173.724, 2197.462, 2208.106, 2234.391, 2239.324, 2258.191, 2283.975, 2287.435, 2302.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2101.353}, "reply_to": "15390__1_013", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_015", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "For some reason Mr. Solicitor General, I'm having difficulty again in the index to your brief I can't find United States against Smith under either United States or Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2302.733], "stop_times": [2314.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.733}, "reply_to": "15390__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_016", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, then the index is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2314.829], "stop_times": [2318.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2314.829}, "reply_to": "15390__1_015", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_017", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But for the time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2318.391], "stop_times": [2318.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.391}, "reply_to": "15390__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_018", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- is sadly deficient and indeed Mr. Justice, it may not be in the brief.\nIt maybe results to some of my subject with continued research.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2318.752, 2332.552], "stop_times": [2332.552, 2336.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2318.752}, "reply_to": "15390__1_017", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_019", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Could you let me have citation of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2336.969], "stop_times": [2338.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.969}, "reply_to": "15390__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_020", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It is 331 U. S 469 and it is a very relevant opinion by Mr. Justice Jackson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2338.842], "stop_times": [2352.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2338.842}, "reply_to": "15390__1_019", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_021", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "331-469?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2352.026], "stop_times": [2353.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.026}, "reply_to": "15390__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_022", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "331-469.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2353.426], "stop_times": [2356.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2353.426}, "reply_to": "15390__1_021", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_023", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2356.469], "stop_times": [2357.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.469}, "reply_to": "15390__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_024", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The Court held that mandamus should have been granted to require the district judge to revoke its order granting a new trial.\nAnd there's very interesting language in the opinion and relevant language and I quote \u201cThe rules in abolishing the term rule did not substitute indefiniteness, the policy of the rules was not to extend power indefinitely but to confine it within constant time limits\u201d and otherwise said Mr. Justice Jackson in a phrase what seems to me to be very relevant here.\nOtherwise, the power lingers on indefinitely and that is what we are currently confronted with, with the situation as it now stands.\nNow, in 1954, the relevant rules were transferred to the rules of this Court.\nOn rule 22, paragraph 2 and that's where they are now.\nBut I suggest that the power to prescribe them is not derived from some inherent judicial power of this Court to manage its own business.\nBut is still derived from the Acts of 1933 and 1934 or since things have since been codified, it is not actually 18 United States code Section 3772 which carries forward in virtually identical language, the provisions of the Acts of 1933 and '34.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2357.409, 2365.359, 2393.667, 2408.003, 2414.45, 2421.838, 2433.5], "stop_times": [2365.359, 2393.667, 2408.003, 2414.45, 2421.838, 2433.5, 2460.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2357.409}, "reply_to": "15390__1_023", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_025", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General may I ask you a question.\nYou are saying in this case which is 129 days overtime that is jurisdictional -- I supposed it had been one day over the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2460.986, 2464.432], "stop_times": [2464.432, 2474.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.986}, "reply_to": "15390__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_026", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Justice I would say under my argument that it would be exactly the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2474.741], "stop_times": [2479.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2474.741}, "reply_to": "15390__1_025", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_027", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2479.525], "stop_times": [2480.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.525}, "reply_to": "15390__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_028", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But under the rule the Court has no jurisdiction after the time or the time as extended by an application made within time not to exceed 30 days has expired, thus the course would be entirely without prejudice to the Court by an exercise of the rule making power to provide as it has and in rule 4A of the appellate rules the Court, the rules of appellate procedure, the Court has provided that upon showing of excusable neglect the District Court may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal by any party for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by the subdivision.\nAnd I would say, I don't want to pass upon it now because there maybe arguments in various way but would seem to me to be entirely appropriate for the Court to provide by rule with a fixed time limit for an extension of time even though it is not sought within the time.\nIt is the unlimited open --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2480.141, 2552.638, 2574.478], "stop_times": [2552.638, 2574.478, 2575.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2480.141}, "reply_to": "15390__1_027", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_029", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Did the government with you Mr. Solicitor General, look at the cases to see how many times this Court had accepted jurisdiction when it was over the time limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2575.733], "stop_times": [2589.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.733}, "reply_to": "15390__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_030", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, Stern and Gresham have some reference to this and I gather that there 10 to 12 or 15 and I will come to those after a while.\nSome state criminal appeals, some federal ones, indeed I'm putting this case called Robison against United States in 390 U. S, I confessed error in the case in which the petition was filed one or two days late.\nI may say at that time I was aware of it but one or two days didn't upset me but a 131 days, I found a rather large order and I did find the Coy case which seems to me to have decided the question and my suggestion is that in these other cases the Court has slipped or fallen or drifted or lapsed into it an error without ever having focused on the relevant materials which I am trying to present to the Court now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2589.259, 2602.428, 2625.875], "stop_times": [2602.428, 2625.875, 2668.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2589.259}, "reply_to": "15390__1_029", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_031", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Maybe we could have -- maybe we did it with design?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2668.888], "stop_times": [2674.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.888}, "reply_to": "15390__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__1_032", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Justice, I have suspected that, nevertheless, in one of the places where you Mr. Justice have referred to this which is in a dissent you wrote in the case called Hicks against the District of Columbia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2674.051], "stop_times": [2690.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2674.051}, "reply_to": "15390__1_031", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_033", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's probably a case which we shouldn't have taken at all any way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2690.14], "stop_times": [2693.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.14}, "reply_to": "15390__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__1_034", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Also not cited in my brief which in 383 U. S.\nYou --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2693.112, 2701.451], "stop_times": [2701.451, 2704.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2693.112}, "reply_to": "15390__1_033", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_035", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It's easier to invoke those things in cases you don't like I guess in the cases which you're interested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2704.704], "stop_times": [2710.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.704}, "reply_to": "15390__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__1_036", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, in one of these cases where you have written an opinion, you referred to the fact that the Court has discretions for grant.\nAnd I suggest that putting it on discretion is in effect a denial of the fact that the statutory power is to grant rules and is a recognition of the fact that this is not done pursuant to rule and is something which I think perhaps the Court might not have done if there had been an opportunity for full briefing and argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2710.064, 2722.29], "stop_times": [2722.29, 2748.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2710.064}, "reply_to": "15390__1_035", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_037", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What's that exactly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2748.844], "stop_times": [2751.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.844}, "reply_to": "15390__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__1_038", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh Mr. Justice, it's in my notes here and I -- it's not a fix case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2751.221], "stop_times": [2759.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2751.221}, "reply_to": "15390__1_037", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_039", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What's the line and you choose double that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2759.005], "stop_times": [2761.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.005}, "reply_to": "15390__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15390__1_040", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Coy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2761.925], "stop_times": [2763.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2761.925}, "reply_to": "15390__1_039", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_041", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, Robinson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2763.449], "stop_times": [2765.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.449}, "reply_to": "15390__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_042", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Robinson was 390 U. S.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2765.907], "stop_times": [2777.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2765.907}, "reply_to": "15390__1_041", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_043", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General may I ask.\nAm I correct that certiorari in civil cases is governed by an expressed statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2777.48, 2779.819], "stop_times": [2779.819, 2787.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.48}, "reply_to": "15390__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_044", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2787.485], "stop_times": [2788.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2787.485}, "reply_to": "15390__1_043", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_045", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Which says that the petition in civil cases must be filed within 90 days of the judgment, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2788.418], "stop_times": [2795.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.418}, "reply_to": "15390__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_046", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "With an extension of 60 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2795.134], "stop_times": [2796.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2795.134}, "reply_to": "15390__1_045", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_047", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, where as here we're dealing with the criminal case where we have no comparable explicit statutes, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2796.578], "stop_times": [2805.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.578}, "reply_to": "15390__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_048", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, Mr. Justice, what you have is a statute authorizing the Court to prescribe by rule, the time and I am suggesting that the practice which has grown up of doing this on an open ended basis does not comply with the statutorily authorization to prescribe by rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2805.147], "stop_times": [2824.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2805.147}, "reply_to": "15390__1_047", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_049", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I suppose then in the criminal case under that authority we might prescribe six months even though its only 90 days on the basis of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2824.644], "stop_times": [2835.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.644}, "reply_to": "15390__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_050", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh yes Mr. Justice, I suspect that you could prescribe two years if you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2835.234], "stop_times": [2839.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2835.234}, "reply_to": "15390__1_049", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_051", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2839.551], "stop_times": [2839.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.551}, "reply_to": "15390__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_052", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- thought that was appropriate I don't advocate it but I would think that would come within the terms of the statutory authorization.\nI would not think you could properly say maybe filed at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2839.615, 2847.759], "stop_times": [2847.759, 2851.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2839.615}, "reply_to": "15390__1_051", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_053", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Now, did you suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2851.676], "stop_times": [2851.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.676}, "reply_to": "15390__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_054", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I don't think that is prescribing by rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2851.823], "stop_times": [2854.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2851.823}, "reply_to": "15390__1_053", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_055", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Did you suggest over here that there are maybe 12 or 15 cases within -- in which we have indeed extended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2854.151], "stop_times": [2861.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.151}, "reply_to": "15390__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_056", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, Stern and Greshem missed them, a great many --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2861.748], "stop_times": [2866.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2861.748}, "reply_to": "15390__1_055", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_057", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But not as going to suggest I can -- think I can count 12 or 15 cases in the less couple of weeks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2866.117], "stop_times": [2873.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.117}, "reply_to": "15390__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_058", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Not in which you granted review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2873.432], "stop_times": [2875.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2873.432}, "reply_to": "15390__1_057", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_059", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh, in which we granted review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2875.881], "stop_times": [2877.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.881}, "reply_to": "15390__1_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_060", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh no, there'd been many more cases on that in which the applications have been filed late.\nI'm more referring to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2877.268, 2882.359], "stop_times": [2882.359, 2883.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2877.268}, "reply_to": "15390__1_059", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_061", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Which we have ignored it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2883.125], "stop_times": [2884.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.125}, "reply_to": "15390__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_062", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Somewhere between 12 and 20 would be my estimate of what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2884.786], "stop_times": [2887.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2884.786}, "reply_to": "15390__1_061", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_063", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Where we granted it, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2887.691], "stop_times": [2888.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.691}, "reply_to": "15390__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_064", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Where you have granted it and proceeded to hear the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2888.897], "stop_times": [2894.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2888.897}, "reply_to": "15390__1_063", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_065", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Going back to this rule Mr. Solicitor General, once adopted, is it your position that has the same course as the statute in the civil cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2894.689], "stop_times": [2902.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.689}, "reply_to": "15390__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_066", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice, my position is thought the Court has the power to change the rule which it doesn't have power to change the statute that is the rule making power is a continuing power.\nThat once the Court has adopted a rule that is a piece of delegated legislation, that is made pursuant to the authority granted by Congress and what is now found in 18 U. S C. 3772.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2902.703, 2916.699], "stop_times": [2916.699, 2931.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2902.703}, "reply_to": "15390__1_065", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_067", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well now, are you speaking of a rule making power where it's unilateral or where it's concurrence with commerce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2931.386], "stop_times": [2937.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.386}, "reply_to": "15390__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_068", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "In this case it is unilateral.\nIn the case of proceeding after verdict, congress has given to the Court power to prescribe by rule the times for filing petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2937.808, 2940.074], "stop_times": [2940.074, 2953.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2937.808}, "reply_to": "15390__1_067", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_069", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And the essence I gather them Mr. Solicitor General is then if we prescribe at the time period that has precisely the same effect as if it had been written into enabling law itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2953.291], "stop_times": [2963.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.291}, "reply_to": "15390__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_070", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice that would be -- that would be my position.\nI think that that was what was contemplated by Congress.\nI think that's what the words prescribe by rule mean.\nThat was clearly the understanding of the informed commentators at the time.\nProfessor Orfield, for example, referred to the fact that the rule is jurisdictional and that was the almost contemporaneous decision of this Court in the Coy case.\nNow, I referred to the fact that the language has changed to may, it also changed to may with respect to appeals and this Court in the Robinson case in 361 U. S., it is cited in our brief and involved a late filing of a notice of appeal.\nAnd the Court held that the may language there was compulsory that the appeal with the appellant Court got not jurisdiction when the appeal was filed more than five days late and it quoted with approval the language from United States against Smith, the phrase of -- lingers on indefinitely.\nAnd in concluding its opinion, it said something further which seems to me to be relevant here.\nThat powerful policy argument maybe made both for and against greater flexibility with respect to the time for taking of an appeal is indeed evident.\nBut that policy question involving as it does many witty and conflicting consideration must be resolved through the rule making process and not by judicial decision.\nIf by that process the Courts are ever given power to extend the time for the filing on a notice of appeal upon a finding of excusable neglect, it seems reasonable to think that some definite limitation upon the time within which they may do so would be prescribed.\nSo, it seems to me that the case is tolerably clear.\nThe purpose of the rules was to cut down delays to restrict the time.\nCongress was not clear just how much would be workable and delegated the authority to cut down the time to the Court.\nAnd then there's the language of the statutory authorization or to prescribe by rule.\nAnd then there's the language of the rules themselves.\nThe rules provide that the petition should be filed within 30 days, they provide further that a justice may extend the time within 30 days.\nAnd then there is a very interesting further provision in the rules of the Court.\nRule 34 says that whenever any justice of this Court is empowered by law to extend the time, an application seeking such extension must be presented to the Court within the period sought to be extended.\nAnd there its must not may, it is specific.\nAnd finally, there was the decision of this Court.\nIn the Coy case in 316 U. S. and in the Smith and Robinson cases.\nWell now, what happened to upset this clear picture?\nNothing deliberate, I may point out that in the Coy case in the order granting certiorari, the Court expressly directed the attention of council to the question of the time limit involved and asked that that question be briefed and it was.\nBut at no time has the Court ever had briefing an argument in these cases in which certiorari has been granted after the time that this is filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [2963.513, 2967.895, 2971.392, 2976.368, 2981.544, 2992.979, 3012.153, 3035.815, 3041.998, 3053.216, 3065.714, 3086.111, 3091.97, 3097.918, 3107.933, 3116.445, 3122.584, 3138.973, 3144.503, 3161.874, 3168.666, 3172.211, 3180.113, 3187.011, 3205.097], "stop_times": [2967.895, 2971.392, 2976.368, 2981.544, 2992.979, 3012.153, 3035.815, 3041.998, 3053.216, 3065.714, 3086.111, 3091.97, 3097.918, 3107.933, 3116.445, 3122.584, 3138.973, 3144.503, 3161.874, 3168.666, 3172.211, 3180.113, 3187.011, 3205.097, 3213.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2963.513}, "reply_to": "15390__1_069", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_071", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, may I ask if the time Coy was decided, did the predecessor of rule 22, read as rule 22 now reads?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3213.373], "stop_times": [3223.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.373}, "reply_to": "15390__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_072", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3223.35], "stop_times": [3224.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3223.35}, "reply_to": "15390__1_071", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_073", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Exactly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3224.343], "stop_times": [3224.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.343}, "reply_to": "15390__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_074", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- it's the rule 11 of the 1934 rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3224.401], "stop_times": [3228.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3224.401}, "reply_to": "15390__1_073", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_075", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But the phrasing was the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3228.325], "stop_times": [3230.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.325}, "reply_to": "15390__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_076", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It read exactly the same except for the change of shall to may to which I have already referred and to the fact that at the time Coy was decided, there was no part to extend the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3230.431], "stop_times": [3244.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3230.431}, "reply_to": "15390__1_075", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_077", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The reason I asked is that's rather unusual wording, isn't it?\nIt's phrased not that a petition is out of time unless filed within 90 days but that a petition shall be deemed in time when filed within 90 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3244.278, 3248.267], "stop_times": [3248.267, 3259.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.278}, "reply_to": "15390__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_078", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I think that's essentially the language of the 1925 Act with respect to civil cases which they were simply carrying forward.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3259.603, 3274.706], "stop_times": [3274.706, 3275.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3259.603}, "reply_to": "15390__1_077", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_079", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Just before you go on.\nI think I misunderstood the least part of the argument in your brief because here in oral argument in response to a question for Mr. Justice Black you said that your argument, jurisdictional argument would be precisely the same.\nNow you -- if this case were one day late rather than over 100 days late and I gathered from page 18 of your brief.\nWell, I understand you make that as your basic argument.\nI'd gather it from page 18 in your brief that you say even if you are mistaken about the one day, certainly, if the delay is more than 90 days which is the longest time allowed by the statute then clearly its jurisdictional, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3275.766, 3276.93, 3291.179, 3302.883, 3305.191], "stop_times": [3276.93, 3291.179, 3302.883, 3305.191, 3320.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.766}, "reply_to": "15390__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_080", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh yes Mr. Justice, I recognized the one day argument is a hard one and if it's too hard for the Court to accept I will fall back and say \u201cWell, at least you got to have sometime limit on it\u201d and the only feasible one is the old 90 day statutory one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3320.456], "stop_times": [3337.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3320.456}, "reply_to": "15390__1_079", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_081", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Or three months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3337.118], "stop_times": [3337.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.118}, "reply_to": "15390__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_082", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "--not the rules which were designed to expedite criminal appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3337.315], "stop_times": [3337.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3337.315}, "reply_to": "15390__1_081", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_083", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Which is it?\n90 days--\nWhy is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3337.922, 3338.285, 3341.594], "stop_times": [3338.285, 3341.594, 3341.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.922}, "reply_to": "15390__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_084", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I think that -- I think that logically I stand by my answer to Mr. Justice Black but the rules are jurisdictional.\nThey now provide for 30 days, plus as an extension of 30 days if by the expressed terms of the rules, the application is made within the 30 days.\nAnd if that is the ground upon which I stand, if the Court won't accept that ground.\nI do say that certainly they should not be construed to leave a completely open ended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3341.869, 3352.027, 3362.803, 3371.411], "stop_times": [3352.027, 3362.803, 3371.411, 3377.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3341.869}, "reply_to": "15390__1_083", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_085", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Beyond 90 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3377.529], "stop_times": [3378.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3377.529}, "reply_to": "15390__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_086", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Beyond and if it isn't completely open ended, where should it stop.\nWell, it seems to me at the place where it was before the rules came in to the picture in which to be technical was three months rather than 90 days at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3378.405, 3383.23], "stop_times": [3383.23, 3390.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3378.405}, "reply_to": "15390__1_085", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_087", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Or perhaps I misunderstood you then.\nWell, I understood you to say to Mr. Justice Brennan that you thought it would be a defiance of the rule making body if the Courts had ruled fix two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3390.07, 3392.263], "stop_times": [3392.263, 3407.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.07}, "reply_to": "15390__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_088", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It at least is within the -- it is within the language of -- to prescribe by rule and you would have to read into that while congress couldn't have intended that the Court would enlarge the time or that congress was meaning was that the Court should shorten the time and that's another case which we don't have here and my guess is the Court isn't going to prescribe a rule which fixes it in two years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3407.026], "stop_times": [3434.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3407.026}, "reply_to": "15390__1_087", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_089", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But what you said to Mr. Justice Stewart I would suppose you now say that it has been 90 days was the outside limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3434.397], "stop_times": [3443.226], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.397}, "reply_to": "15390__1_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_090", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I would argue in an advisory committee working to assist this Court in the rule making process that the Court could not appropriately make a rule of more than 90 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3443.226], "stop_times": [3453.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3443.226}, "reply_to": "15390__1_089", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_091", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And you say the legislative history of the statute conferring role making power indicates that it was to enable the Court to expedite?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3453.307], "stop_times": [3463.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3453.307}, "reply_to": "15390__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_092", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It enables the Court to expedite the decisions in criminal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3463.048], "stop_times": [3467.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3463.048}, "reply_to": "15390__1_091", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_093", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That hasted it beyond 90 days and shorter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3467.152], "stop_times": [3469.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3467.152}, "reply_to": "15390__1_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_094", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And this Court has so recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3469.165], "stop_times": [3471.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3469.165}, "reply_to": "15390__1_093", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_095", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Is there any indication that in the role of Congress, ever know of the errors from your standpoint which the Court had been quarrelling--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3471.585], "stop_times": [3480.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3471.585}, "reply_to": "15390__1_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_096", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No Mr. Justice, when it was only a day or two here and there I was just puzzled but I didn't think it's was appropriate to report to Congress that the Court was violating its rules.\nWhen this case came along we as I say dug into it and found quite a lot.\nThe Court fell into this error if my may put it that way in Heflin against the United States in 358 U. S.\nFurther question came up only in the most back handed way.\nIt was not dealt within the briefs of any of the parties and it is dealt within a footnote in the Courts opinion of the complete text of which is, the complete text of which is \u201cWell because no jurisdictional statute is involved\u201d that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3480.972, 3496.647, 3505.935, 3516.511, 3520.658], "stop_times": [3496.647, 3505.935, 3516.511, 3520.658, 3537.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3480.972}, "reply_to": "15390__1_095", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_097", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Maybe that was thought to be enough.\nMaybe it was thought that it didn't deserve anymore length of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3537.555, 3541.497], "stop_times": [3541.497, 3545.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3537.555}, "reply_to": "15390__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_098", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, if so I apologize for the time of the Court I had taken that seems to me that if that was the over ruling of the Coy case, that the Coy case, the Coy case was entitled to be present at its own funeral.\nAnd I don't think that the Court -- had nothing to indicate that the Court was aware of the Coy case at that time or that it would have dealt with it in such a completely summary fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3545.202, 3564.481], "stop_times": [3564.481, 3578.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3545.202}, "reply_to": "15390__1_097", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_099", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Were there dissents in the Coy case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3578.283], "stop_times": [3581.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3578.283}, "reply_to": "15390__1_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_100", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, yes there were.\nIt's terribly hard to tell just what had happened in the Coy case.\nIt's a very intricate decision arising in criminal procedure in the District Court and the Court decided that the -- what the District Court had done was wrong but the consequence of that was to make it a criminal appeal and since it was a criminal appeal, it was too late because it was filed more than -- the petitioner filed more than 30 days and then the Court said in the footnote \u201cBut a majority of the Court feels that in order to avoid security because it was pointed out that they could go back in the District Court and start over again and raise the same question and since the point is not jurisdictional that they would hear the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3581.024, 3583.295, 3586.317], "stop_times": [3583.295, 3586.317, 3631.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3581.024}, "reply_to": "15390__1_099", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_101", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But then your premise, we've been violating our rules in other aspect namely, we have numerous applications where the application with extension is not filed within the time and those orders and outside many of them.\nI thought there might be something to do with merits, application for extension granted subject to the approval of the full authority, we do it constantly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3631.857, 3651.016], "stop_times": [3651.016, 3664.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3631.857}, "reply_to": "15390__1_100", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_102", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, my argument would extend to that.\nIt would seem to me that at least in civil cases that is completely unjustifiable and I can find no reason why it isn't equally unjustifiable in terms of this Court's own rules.\nAnd now, with respect to all of these things, if the rules so construed are too inflexible, then I submit that the change should come through the rule making process and not in essence by an acquiescence.\nAnd if there is a change made through the rule making process, it will almost certainly have an eventual time limit and also some statement of the grounds or considerations on which such an extension will be granted.\nIn some instances, which leaves this important matter wholly at large, not even good cause shown or excuse them on neglect as things now stand, cannot with true propriety be called a rule and it is only the power to prescribe rules which Congress has given to the Court in this area.\nIncidentally Mr. Justice Douglas, I now come, it was the Taglianetti case in 394 U.S, this not one of your dissents, where again in a footnote and wholly conclusary, the Court said the time limit is not jurisdictional citing Heflin and does not bar our exercise of discretion to consider the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3664.89, 3668.549, 3680.49, 3694.848, 3712.162, 3735.327], "stop_times": [3668.549, 3680.49, 3694.848, 3712.162, 3735.327, 3764.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3664.89}, "reply_to": "15390__1_101", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_103", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What's the name of that case you saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3764.162], "stop_times": [3765.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3764.162}, "reply_to": "15390__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_104", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Taglianetti, its 394 U.S. 316 and that is cited in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3765.56], "stop_times": [3776.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3765.56}, "reply_to": "15390__1_103", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_105", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General can I ask you, did I understand that Rule 11 under which Coy was decided, that wasn't just the rules of practice of this Court but the Rule 11?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3776.467], "stop_times": [3787.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3776.467}, "reply_to": "15390__1_104", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_106", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, Mr. Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3787.271], "stop_times": [3788.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3787.271}, "reply_to": "15390__1_105", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_107", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That was part of the federal -- the first edition of the federal rule was uneasy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3788.171], "stop_times": [3790.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3788.171}, "reply_to": "15390__1_106", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_108", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That was the rules of practice in criminal cases before verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3790.734], "stop_times": [3800.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3790.734}, "reply_to": "15390__1_107", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_109", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3800.076], "stop_times": [3801.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3800.076}, "reply_to": "15390__1_108", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_110", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Which included because of a special provision in the statute, the authority of the Court to prescribe rules fixing the time for taking appeals and for filing petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3801.131], "stop_times": [3812.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3801.131}, "reply_to": "15390__1_109", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_111", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well that -- then that Rule 11 was adapted like the present federal rules of criminal procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3812.269], "stop_times": [3819.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3812.269}, "reply_to": "15390__1_110", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_112", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3819.433], "stop_times": [3820.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3819.433}, "reply_to": "15390__1_111", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_113", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And that was -- was the Rule 11 part of the set of rules that was placed before the Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3820.822], "stop_times": [3829.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3820.822}, "reply_to": "15390__1_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_114", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, Rule 11 was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3829.208], "stop_times": [3831.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3829.208}, "reply_to": "15390__1_113", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_115", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That set of rule --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3831.875], "stop_times": [3832.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3831.875}, "reply_to": "15390__1_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_116", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That whole set of rules is made under authority of the -- granted by the Congress to the Court to make rules its own and that was not placed before a congress and that has been true all the way along.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3832.659], "stop_times": [3847.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3832.659}, "reply_to": "15390__1_115", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_117", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But then that Rule 11 was taken out of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and placed in the rules of this Court in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3847.089], "stop_times": [3854.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3847.089}, "reply_to": "15390__1_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_118", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "For a while it was in both places.\nIt was in the Rules of Criminal Procedure by way of a cross reference.\nIt was in Rule 37 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure until 1967 or 1968 when the Court abrogated Rule 37, and since that time it has been exclusively in the rules of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3854.978, 3857.326, 3861.919], "stop_times": [3857.326, 3861.919, 3876.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3854.978}, "reply_to": "15390__1_117", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_119", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But it's up until \u201867 it was also in the rules of Criminal Procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3876.789], "stop_times": [3881.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3876.789}, "reply_to": "15390__1_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_120", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "By way of a cross reference Mr. Justice, Rule 37 (2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3881.45], "stop_times": [3885.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3881.45}, "reply_to": "15390__1_119", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_121", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And that rule had been placed certainly out by that time had placed before the Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3885.548], "stop_times": [3890.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3885.548}, "reply_to": "15390__1_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_122", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No Mr. Justice, those three captors of those rules --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3890.543], "stop_times": [3893.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3890.543}, "reply_to": "15390__1_121", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_123", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I see, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3893.521], "stop_times": [3894.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3893.521}, "reply_to": "15390__1_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_124", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- were not laid before the Congress.\nThere was a complicated submission by which all of the rules except these three chapters were laid before Congress but these three chapters relating to appeals were prescribed by the Court effective on the same day as the rules laid before Congress became effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3894.555, 3897.099], "stop_times": [3897.099, 3913.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3894.555}, "reply_to": "15390__1_123", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_125", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3913.259], "stop_times": [3913.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3913.259}, "reply_to": "15390__1_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_126", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3913.578], "stop_times": [3916.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3913.578}, "reply_to": "15390__1_125", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_127", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I see this footnote in Taglianetti is not my footnote alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3916.571], "stop_times": [3921.603], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3916.571}, "reply_to": "15390__1_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_128", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, Mr. Justice I apologize for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3921.603], "stop_times": [3923.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3921.603}, "reply_to": "15390__1_127", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_129", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I'm not sure I even wrote this per curiam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3923.364], "stop_times": [3927.176], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3923.364}, "reply_to": "15390__1_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_130", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I was quite wrong.\nIt was the Hicks case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3927.176, 3928.051], "stop_times": [3928.051, 3929.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3927.176}, "reply_to": "15390__1_129", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_131", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3929.216], "stop_times": [3929.387], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3929.216}, "reply_to": "15390__1_130", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_132", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- was the one in which you referred to Heflin --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3929.387], "stop_times": [3933.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3929.387}, "reply_to": "15390__1_131", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_133", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3933.971], "stop_times": [3934.223], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3933.971}, "reply_to": "15390__1_132", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_134", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- and said that it was not jurisdictional.\nTaglianetti was a per curiam and I wouldn't know who wrote it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3934.223, 3936.748], "stop_times": [3936.748, 3944.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3934.223}, "reply_to": "15390__1_133", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_135", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor, I have great trouble with the usual statement which is usually taken for granted that a Court can usually ask discretion to waive its rules but never to raise -- to waive a statute.\nAnd in this case you say that we cannot waive the statute, civil.\nAnd so now we can't waive a rule.\nWell, that does not apply to all of the rules, just this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3944.856, 3960.009, 3967.592, 3970.125], "stop_times": [3960.009, 3967.592, 3970.125, 3972.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3944.856}, "reply_to": "15390__1_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_136", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No Mr. Justice, that only applies to rules which are made by the Court acting pursuant to a grant of authority given by a Congress to act in essentially a legislative manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3972.507], "stop_times": [3984.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3972.507}, "reply_to": "15390__1_135", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_137", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And that is restricted to this one rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3984.827], "stop_times": [3987.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3984.827}, "reply_to": "15390__1_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_138", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That would be restricted to any rules made pursuant to the power originally granted in 1933-34 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [3987.91], "stop_times": [4001.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3987.91}, "reply_to": "15390__1_137", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_139", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, you see the problem --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4001.991], "stop_times": [4003.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4001.991}, "reply_to": "15390__1_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_140", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- and now granted by Title 18 U.S. code Section 3772.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4003.466], "stop_times": [4008.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4003.466}, "reply_to": "15390__1_139", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_141", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And you don't know whether it apply to any other rule?\nYou see my problem, you say we've been violating the law, I'm wondering we might be violating the law or some of the rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4008.822, 4012.338], "stop_times": [4012.338, 4018.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4008.822}, "reply_to": "15390__1_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_142", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well Mr. Justice I don't think so.\nAlthough insofar as it does deal with rules which have been laid before a Congress which includes the whole business of rules of civil procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4018.118, 4020.398], "stop_times": [4020.398, 4028.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4018.118}, "reply_to": "15390__1_141", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_143", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Now, I'm talking about the rules of this Court where you just read from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4028.946], "stop_times": [4033.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4028.946}, "reply_to": "15390__1_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_144", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It would only be with respect to those rules of this Court which I made pursuant to a grant of power by Congress.\nAnd I would not suggest that it would be claimed that this Court had power to fix the time for filing petition for certiorari or to take appeals simply out of its inherent power.\nBut that that part has never been thought to come to the Court except pursuant to the grant which Congress has made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4033.737, 4040.88, 4053.164], "stop_times": [4040.88, 4053.164, 4062.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4033.737}, "reply_to": "15390__1_143", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_145", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Under the grant of legislative power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4062.677], "stop_times": [4067.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4062.677}, "reply_to": "15390__1_144", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_146", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice, a grant of delegated legislation.\nIt's a nice problem in separation of powers but is one that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4067.228, 4070.688], "stop_times": [4070.688, 4075.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4067.228}, "reply_to": "15390__1_145", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_147", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The practice of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4075.536], "stop_times": [4076.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4075.536}, "reply_to": "15390__1_146", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_148", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I've got over being puzzled by that one.\nI used to be puzzled somewhat but I can accept that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4076.007, 4078.995], "stop_times": [4078.995, 4084.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4076.007}, "reply_to": "15390__1_147", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_149", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It might be the power created by article 3 itself called the congressional power that is going to the jurisdiction of this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4084.308], "stop_times": [4094.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4084.308}, "reply_to": "15390__1_148", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_150", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh, yes Mr. Justice.\nI would assume that it was.\nThis is a part of the power of Congress to make law as long since established that Congress can do that in certain cases and under proper conditions by delegating it to other governmental bodies and is most appropriate that this particular item should be delegated to this Court.\nBut what this Court does pursuant to that power is essentially legislative and our submission is that it should be so treated and perhaps most important of all that this Court so decided in the Coy case and has never since decided to the contrary with any indication of treatment of the issues in the problem or of the continuing validity of the Coy case itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4094.133, 4095.828, 4098.332, 4115.024], "stop_times": [4095.828, 4098.332, 4115.024, 4149.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4094.133}, "reply_to": "15390__1_149", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_151", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, let me ask you this to pursue Justice Stewart's questions.\nYou said you were somewhat puzzled by this possible conflict between the branches but if it arises out of Article Three which gives Congress the power to define the jurisdiction I believe and would not the power to define jurisdiction include all the incidental power to define how it's to be executed?\nHow jurisdiction is to be implemented including fixing the number of days within which filing must be happening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4149.256, 4154.365, 4178.679], "stop_times": [4154.365, 4178.679, 4185.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4149.256}, "reply_to": "15390__1_150", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_152", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Article Three itself and I'm reading from it, says the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4185.527], "stop_times": [4198.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4185.527}, "reply_to": "15390__1_151", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_153", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And in this case, the regulation of the Congress has made has been to delegate this to the Court but I suggest that the Congress never contemplated that that was a simply open ended delegation whenever the Court thinks in its a good discretion that it would be a good idea to take the case than it shall which is near as I can see --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4198.568], "stop_times": [4218.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4198.568}, "reply_to": "15390__1_152", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_154", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, as scripted in the vocabulary, recent with the idea of a restrictive interpretation of the constitution.\nDo you think that is a restrictive interpretation of a constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4218.406, 4227.271], "stop_times": [4227.271, 4232.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4218.406}, "reply_to": "15390__1_153", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_155", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh, I don't know Mr. Justice.\nIt depends on how you define restrictive.\nI can define it in such a way that it is not.\nI think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4232.401, 4233.625, 4237.078, 4241.266], "stop_times": [4233.625, 4237.078, 4241.266, 4242.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4232.401}, "reply_to": "15390__1_154", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_156", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Strict, I think is the word strict constructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4242.451], "stop_times": [4244.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4242.451}, "reply_to": "15390__1_155", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_157", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Even strict construction is I think believe in a certain measure of flexibility and that flexibility is one which we not only have been able to live with but which we have come to accept.\nWe find it more frequently of course in delegations to administrative bodies, but in this area it's most appropriate that there be a delegation to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4244.266, 4260.161], "stop_times": [4260.161, 4268.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4244.266}, "reply_to": "15390__1_156", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_158", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Going back to your earlier statements.\nIf we have power to waive --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4268.86, 4270.431], "stop_times": [4270.431, 4271.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4268.86}, "reply_to": "15390__1_157", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_159", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I didn't start the merits Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4271.72], "stop_times": [4273.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4271.72}, "reply_to": "15390__1_158", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_160", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, I'm not getting on the merits yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4273.317], "stop_times": [4275.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4273.317}, "reply_to": "15390__1_159", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_161", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I know but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4275.27], "stop_times": [4275.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4275.27}, "reply_to": "15390__1_160", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_162", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I'm still on jurisdiction.\nYour earlier statement on the question of time, if we can casually waive the late filing of a week, we can do it, you said for two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4275.404, 4277.36], "stop_times": [4277.36, 4290.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4275.404}, "reply_to": "15390__1_161", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_163", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "It seems to me that and what has been done in this case, the Court can if in its discretion whatever that means, it think it appropriate, it can grant a writ of certiorari to review any decision of the Court of Appeals made at anytime in the past which isn't moot for some reasons or other.\nAnd that I don't think was contemplated by Congress and yet I think that's what's involved in this case.\nI don't think that that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4290.957, 4312.033, 4319.697], "stop_times": [4312.033, 4319.697, 4320.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4290.957}, "reply_to": "15390__1_162", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_164", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Because we have common law writs of certiorari under the -- perhaps under the All Writs Statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4320.517], "stop_times": [4326.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4320.517}, "reply_to": "15390__1_163", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_165", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice.\nAnd I don't really know much about that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4326.436, 4327.666], "stop_times": [4327.666, 4329.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4326.436}, "reply_to": "15390__1_164", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_166", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And I don't even --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4329.413], "stop_times": [4329.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4329.413}, "reply_to": "15390__1_165", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_167", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I don't remember what the time limit would be.\nThere are bills of review which people found when there had been corruption in the Courts and they upset judgments long after the event, and in equity, you can do a lot of remarkable things.\nProfessor Chafe, he taught me that long ago but I don't -- this particular writ of certiorari is a pretty -- pretty technical term of art which I don't think comes within those others.\nWell now, with respect to the merits of the case.\nThe first is the constitutional validity of Title 18 Section 702 and it's hard for me to see how there can be any doubt about this.\nThis is the provision which makes it a crime to for an unauthorized person to wear the uniform or any distinctive part there of it.\nIncidentally, let me clear up one possible misconception which came from the petitioner's argument.\nHe suggested that there might be a simulation of the uniform here but actually the indictment is simply that he did wear a distinctive part of the official uniform and the trial was conducted throughout on the basis that he wore a distinctive part of the uniform.\nThere is no basis for saying that it was something which simulated the uniform.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4329.703, 4333.039, 4346.262, 4361.527, 4365.781, 4376.128, 4386.334, 4396.366, 4417.932], "stop_times": [4333.039, 4346.262, 4361.527, 4365.781, 4376.128, 4386.334, 4396.366, 4417.932, 4423.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4329.703}, "reply_to": "15390__1_166", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_168", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, we have sought a great deal of your time with jurisdictional problem.\nWe will extend your argument 10 minutes over the four remaining and accordingly accommodate your friend if he needs the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4423.676, 4429.221], "stop_times": [4429.221, 4437.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4423.676}, "reply_to": "15390__1_167", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_169", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nNow in that connection, I would call attention to page 45 and 46 of the Appendix where an Exhibit 12 was introduced in the trial, read to the jury, official army regulation and on page 46 about two inches down in quotation marks, the following uniforms and articles thereof for a male members of the United States Army are distinct.\nDistinctive components of the uniforms are limited to caps, coats, jackets and trousers except as indicated.\nSo that the socks and the handkerchiefs are out, even shoes are out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4437.959, 4440.04, 4476.756, 4484.774], "stop_times": [4440.04, 4476.756, 4484.774, 4489.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4437.959}, "reply_to": "15390__1_168", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_170", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "You're on, page 45 of the Appendix refers to Exhibit 12 but doesn't contain Exhibit 12, but I suppose that's in the original record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4489.591], "stop_times": [4495.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4489.591}, "reply_to": "15390__1_169", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_171", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, this is the quotation from Exhibit 12.\nExhibit 12 is the regulation and this is a quotation from Exhibit 12.\nI don't have Exhibit 12 in my hand --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4495.958, 4501.602, 4506.845], "stop_times": [4501.602, 4506.845, 4508.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4495.958}, "reply_to": "15390__1_170", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_172", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But it will be on the original --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4508.857], "stop_times": [4509.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4508.857}, "reply_to": "15390__1_171", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_173", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Indeed I haven't examined it.\nI believe this to be a quotation from Exhibit 12 which it purports to be.\nI would also point out that further down on the page that buttons are referred to and I would also call attention to the fact that on page 13 an FBI agent testified --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4509.515, 4511.073, 4515.732], "stop_times": [4511.073, 4515.732, 4537.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4509.515}, "reply_to": "15390__1_172", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_174", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Page what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4537.753], "stop_times": [4538.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4537.753}, "reply_to": "15390__1_173", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_175", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Page 13 of the Appendix.\nIn response to the question, would you just describe the jacket he had on when you saw him?\nA green jacket with a brass buttons of the type issued associated with military uniforms and you note that jackets are one of the things that are a distinctive part.\nAnd then on page 20, a US Army colonel at page, down at the bottom of the page, on his head he had the fur filled army officer's cap with the loose strap -- with the strap loose and hanging down and with an army officer's insignia upside down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4538.796, 4542.32, 4548.318, 4559.757], "stop_times": [4542.32, 4548.318, 4559.757, 4583.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4538.796}, "reply_to": "15390__1_174", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_176", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Reminds me of some skits, I've seen at the Veteran Club dinner, uniforms and so on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4583.323], "stop_times": [4589.317], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4583.323}, "reply_to": "15390__1_175", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_177", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That I believe by some stretch of the imagination Mr. Justice is a theatrical production.\nWe will argue here later that it is not -- that this was not that -- of course is given under circumstances and in a situation where everyone present knows that it is simulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4589.317, 4597.818], "stop_times": [4597.818, 4610.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4589.317}, "reply_to": "15390__1_176", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_178", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "And wasn't given in Houston?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4610.974], "stop_times": [4613.89], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4610.974}, "reply_to": "15390__1_177", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_179", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But given in Washington, which is close to the Pentagon and where other things have happened.\nBut there is no doubt that that is a simulation and here there was a considerable reason to doubt whether the person involved was or was not a member of the Armed Forces.\nNow, the petitioner here, perhaps his oral argument belies this but as I read his brief, it seemed to me that he made no claim that he didn't come within the terms of the statute that is that he was wearing a distinctive part of the uniform.\nIt seems to me to leave no question which was not in substance coved by this Court's decision in United States against O'Brien, the case involving the burning of the draft card.\nSurely, there is power in Congress to protect the integrity of the uniform of the Armed Forces of the United States.\nThis is a matter, which is of importance not only to the army but also to citizens.\nWe have to be able to rely on the fact when we see a policeman that he is a policeman.\nAnd these times, we have to be able to rely on the fact when we see a man in military uniform that he is a member of the military.\nThe constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to raise and maintain armies and to do all things necessary and proper to carry that power into effect.\nAnd surely \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4613.89, 4621.13, 4634.403, 4654.794, 4669.377, 4676.853, 4682.772, 4687.926, 4697.218, 4707.431], "stop_times": [4621.13, 4634.403, 4654.794, 4669.377, 4676.853, 4682.772, 4687.926, 4697.218, 4707.431, 4707.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4613.89}, "reply_to": "15390__1_178", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_180", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, on disgrace to the army, does that apply to the dozens of (Inaudible) bungs we used to see everyday with army jackets on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4707.835], "stop_times": [4721.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4707.835}, "reply_to": "15390__1_179", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_181", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I think Mr. Justice, you will almost always find that the buttons have been removed.\nThat seems to be the convention in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4721.907, 4726.921], "stop_times": [4726.921, 4729.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4721.907}, "reply_to": "15390__1_180", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_182", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, I have seen plenty with buttons on.\nI've seen them with jackets and overcoats and the fur hat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4729.391, 4733.101], "stop_times": [4733.101, 4736.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4729.391}, "reply_to": "15390__1_181", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15390__1_183", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Justice, if I can get to that case soon enough, maybe I could exercise some prosecutorial discretion with respect to that case.\nThis -- that seems to me to be a situation where discretion might be appropriate.\nIn this case, where the prosecutor exercises the discretion otherwise and where two Courts below have sustained that, I found no effective way that I could proceed except by defending the actions which they have taken.\nThis Court in United States against Bernal, which involved a prosecution for impersonating an officer, a cognate question said that one of the purposes of such statute is to maintain the general good repute and dignity of the service itself.\nAnd this is essentially an argument, which I made somewhat against the advise of some of my associates in the O'Brien case, where I contended that it was within the power of Congress under the necessary and proper clause in connection with the power given to raise and defend armies, to protect the dignity of the selective service process by making it a crime to burn draft cards.\nI did that because I found it somewhat difficult myself to find that draft cards themselves were of very great importance in the process.\nThe Court took the latter ground in its opinion and thus the O'Brien case is not a decision on that point but I think that the decision reads is very close to the one which is involved here.\nSo our position would be that the criminal code provision is constitutional and that the defendant clearly came within it and was properly found by the jury to have come within it.\nAnd so we come to the exemption in 10 U. S. Code 772 (f) and our contention is that the petitioner was not by any reasonable stretch of the interpretation of the words in that statute an actor in a theatrical or motion picture production.\nNow obviously, it wasn't motion picture so you can throw that out.\nSo you have to make him an actor in a theatrical production.\nNow originally, this statute we spelled out the history of such as it is in our brief.\nThe statute prohibited any person from wearing the uniform in any playhouse or theater or in moving picture films.\nAnd it was codified I think in 1954 and the sponsors emphasized that no substantive change was intended.\nThe objective was to make it plain that television performances would be covered, which might not come within playhouse or theatre.\nBut the intention of Congress is manifested in the original language and in the revision and that is that it is confined to situations where the make believe role of the person wearing the uniform is clear from the setting.\nThus, it seems to me that Dr. Strangelove or the (Inaudible) mutiny come within it because everybody knows that's a simulation.\nIt doesn't mean that a performance must be given in the building, could be an outdoor theatre, could be an area set aside for it.\nIt means only that the performance wherever given must preserve some of the traditional characteristics of dramatic presentation such as the defined area set apart for the actors and an audience surprised that the events which they observed are portrayed and not real.\nThe skit here was not a theatrical production in any reasonable meaning of that term.\nIt was an intermittent event in a demonstration in the street, in front of an induction station that also included picketing and distributing leaflets.\nPedestrians and motorists who either stopped or passed by the demonstrating could reasonably believe that the petitioner was in fact a soldier as his wearing of distinctive parts of the uniform was intended to convey.\nThe petitioner's conduct here has all the elements of picketing and no real similarity to the theatrical production which Congress contemplated, and no one would suggest I believe that a person would be entitled without authority to wear the uniform of the army merely because he was picketing.\nTo seek to bring the petitioner's action here within the statutory language is pressing that language to it's dryly logical extreme or to use of another passage from homes of being led by technical definition to apply a certain name and then to deduce consequences which have no relation to the grounds on which the name was applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [4736.85, 4748.798, 4754.717, 4777.099, 4800.23, 4832.904, 4844.864, 4860.572, 4875.456, 4900.008, 4903.739, 4910.02, 4915.804, 4928.52, 4936.833, 4950.01, 4964.099, 4974.88, 4983.668, 5002.672, 5008.894, 5019.514, 5033.9, 5052.519], "stop_times": [4748.798, 4754.717, 4777.099, 4800.23, 4832.904, 4844.864, 4860.572, 4875.456, 4900.008, 4903.739, 4910.02, 4915.804, 4928.52, 4936.833, 4950.01, 4964.099, 4974.88, 4983.668, 5002.672, 5008.894, 5019.514, 5033.9, 5052.519, 5079.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4736.85}, "reply_to": "15390__1_182", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_184", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What you're saying really on this interpretation that I gather is that the impression (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5079.285], "stop_times": [5089.166], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5079.285}, "reply_to": "15390__1_183", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_185", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice and because of that, we -- since we think that as a matter of law, that what he did does not come within the exemption in the statute.\nBut the qualification on that exemption about tending to discredit the Armed Forces is irrelevant.\nThis is a little like for example, the Lopez case which involved the defense of entrapment and the contention was made that the charge about entrapment was not quite right and the Court held where it wasn't necessary to decide that because as a matter of law, there wasn't any entrapment and he wasn't entitled to any charge with respect to entrapment.\nAnd we would contend here that the defendant was not entitled to any charge with respect to the defense of actor in a theatrical production and therefore the question of discredit becomes irrelevant.\nI would be prepared myself to defend a discredit exception to the exception to the statute if it was necessary although I agree that it's getting very close to the line but on grounds similar to those which were involved in the O'Brien case with respect to the draft cards.\nAn analogy is the copyright law.\nAfter all the uniform is the uniform of the United States and the United States is entitled to have some control over the way in which it is used.\nBut as I have contended, the petitioner doesn't come within the exception in any of the exemption in any event.\nAll that's happened --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5089.166, 5103.405, 5110.519, 5132.491, 5147.117, 5167.675, 5170.729, 5180.628, 5187.899], "stop_times": [5103.405, 5110.519, 5132.491, 5147.117, 5167.675, 5170.729, 5180.628, 5187.899, 5188.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5089.166}, "reply_to": "15390__1_184", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_186", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Was there any other evidence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5188.103], "stop_times": [5188.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5188.103}, "reply_to": "15390__1_185", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_187", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "-- here was that the petitioner received the benefit of the defense to which he was not entitled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5188.802], "stop_times": [5193.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5188.802}, "reply_to": "15390__1_186", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_188", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Was there any evidence in the record as to why he wore the uniform?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5193.377], "stop_times": [5203.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5193.377}, "reply_to": "15390__1_187", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_189", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Does not his own statement suggest part of the answer to that?\nThat the petitioner's own statement was that he was doing it to express his views on the war in Vietnam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5203.134, 5207.184], "stop_times": [5207.184, 5217.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5203.134}, "reply_to": "15390__1_188", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__1_190", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh, yes Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt was part of the demonstration.\nThere is no doubt about that and had he simply stood outside and made a speech against the war in Vietnam wearing the uniform, I cannot see any basis upon which the fact that he was making a speech would entitle him to exemption from the statute, which makes it a defense to wear the uniform of the United States without authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5217.03, 5219.102, 5220.946], "stop_times": [5219.102, 5220.946, 5247.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5217.03}, "reply_to": "15390__1_189", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_191", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What did he say as to why he was doing it, in the record?\nDo you remember?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5247.06, 5250.462], "stop_times": [5250.462, 5262.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5247.06}, "reply_to": "15390__1_190", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_192", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The Court said, this is page 337 of the transcript, was the portrayal without reference to the fact you had on full uniform calculated to discredit the army or the Armed Forces.\nThe witness, I think the uniform showed disapproval and my intentions were to show my disapproval of the actions of the army.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5262.7, 5280.044], "stop_times": [5280.044, 5289.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5262.7}, "reply_to": "15390__1_191", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_193", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "There is evidence in the record I think, isn't it that they rehearsed the skit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5289.249], "stop_times": [5293.924], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5289.249}, "reply_to": "15390__1_192", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__1_194", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice.\nThere's some evidence that they rehearsed this skit, if you can call it a skit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5293.924, 5295.104], "stop_times": [5295.104, 5299.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5293.924}, "reply_to": "15390__1_193", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_195", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "The demonstration or whatever it was, there would have been a meaning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5299.167], "stop_times": [5300.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5299.167}, "reply_to": "15390__1_194", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_196", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, I think it's reaching quite a bit to call it even a skit which isn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5300.673], "stop_times": [5306.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5300.673}, "reply_to": "15390__1_195", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_197", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But it would have been completely meaningless and unintelligible if everybody had been in civilian clothes, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5306.461], "stop_times": [5314.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5306.461}, "reply_to": "15390__1_196", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_198", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, I don't think so and they could have worn --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5314.49], "stop_times": [5314.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5314.49}, "reply_to": "15390__1_197", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_199", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "If the petitioner had been in civilian clothes and if the -- no problem --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5314.662], "stop_times": [5317.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5314.662}, "reply_to": "15390__1_198", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15390__1_200", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "They could have worn other types of uniforms.\nYou can get uniforms other than the uniform of the United States Army from theatrical supply houses if there had been some theatrics here they might have done something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5317.481, 5321.1], "stop_times": [5321.1, 5333.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5317.481}, "reply_to": "15390__1_199", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_201", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, the act is a kind of a theatrical performance even though they called it a protest, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5333.531], "stop_times": [5339.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5333.531}, "reply_to": "15390__1_200", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_202", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Justice I think not.\nI think to be a theatrical performance you have to have something like a stage.\nI don't mean indoors, I don't mean formal but you have to have some place where there are players and some place where there is an audience.\nAnd this was in essence a demonstration not a theatrical performance.\nOur position would be that as a matter of law this was not a theatrical performance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5339.819, 5341.82, 5347.573, 5355.814, 5363.844], "stop_times": [5341.82, 5347.573, 5355.814, 5363.844, 5372.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5339.819}, "reply_to": "15390__1_201", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_203", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "But it is a strong.\nWasn't it?\nThat would be a pretty stronghold against the law, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5372.078, 5372.329, 5374.411], "stop_times": [5372.329, 5374.411, 5377.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5372.078}, "reply_to": "15390__1_202", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_204", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, I don't think so Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5377.349], "stop_times": [5382.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5377.349}, "reply_to": "15390__1_203", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_205", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "What do you think?\nIs the play a negative theatrical performance?\nThe Jitney players I suppose would come here, have you ever seen the Jitney players?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5382.323, 5383.486, 5389.836], "stop_times": [5383.486, 5389.836, 5394.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5382.323}, "reply_to": "15390__1_204", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_206", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Oh, yes, yes.\nWhere you -- what we have put in to our brief essentially is a separate place for the players and circumstances under which it is evident that it is a simulation and not actual effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5394.568, 5396.241], "stop_times": [5396.241, 5414.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5394.568}, "reply_to": "15390__1_205", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_207", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, I suppose that it was clear that the episode was a simulation, nobody was deceived and the thing that someone was getting shot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5414.693], "stop_times": [5421.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5414.693}, "reply_to": "15390__1_206", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_208", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No, but whether the person was or was not a member of the Armed Forces.\nWas --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5421.552, 5424.838], "stop_times": [5424.838, 5425.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5421.552}, "reply_to": "15390__1_207", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_209", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's the importance that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5425.779], "stop_times": [5426.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5425.779}, "reply_to": "15390__1_208", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_210", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Was the important part of it and there was nothing here to indicate that he was not a member of the Armed Forces.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5426.678], "stop_times": [5432.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5426.678}, "reply_to": "15390__1_209", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_211", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That's right and there -- whereas, there would be if there was in some play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5432.335], "stop_times": [5436.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5432.335}, "reply_to": "15390__1_210", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15390__1_212", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "If there was some kind of an indication that it was a play.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5436.254], "stop_times": [5442.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5436.254}, "reply_to": "15390__1_211", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_213", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Well, he wouldn't have to make statement that I am not a member of the Armed Forces, would he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5442.098], "stop_times": [5447.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5442.098}, "reply_to": "15390__1_212", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_214", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "That would have helped in this case but indeed, if he had had a sign of in his back not a member of the army, that might have made it enough so that the jacket was not a distinctive part of the uniform, I don't know, we're very close to the line in each case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5447.795], "stop_times": [5467.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5447.795}, "reply_to": "15390__1_213", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_215", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Even though they call it a protest, we're really getting to pretty close lines, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5467.555], "stop_times": [5472.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5467.555}, "reply_to": "15390__1_214", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__1_216", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes, of course that's part of the problem.\nThe government tries to protect itself in various ways and then whatever you do is either speech or a symbolic speech and the First Amendment completely engulfs it and the government's powers are sharply restricted.\nNow obviously, there is a line, a very important line and a difficult line but it's perfectly plain.\nIt seems to me that this protest could be made and could be made without interference at that place, at that time, the problem was the making it in the way in which it was made regardless of the place and the time, including the wearing of the uniform which congress for more than 50 years has made it an offense when not authorized.\nWell, our first submission is that the Court should dismiss this petition as having been granted without jurisdiction.\nIf we are not successful on that and I hope that we will be because I'm greatly troubled by the un-open ended situation in which we now are that the decision below on the merit should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5472.309, 5476.33, 5497.514, 5504.736, 5530.837, 5540.865], "stop_times": [5476.33, 5497.514, 5504.736, 5530.837, 5540.865, 5559.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5472.309}, "reply_to": "15390__1_215", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__1_217", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Thank you Mr. Solicitor General.\nMr. Berg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5559.057, 5560.624], "stop_times": [5560.624, 5563.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5559.057}, "reply_to": "15390__1_216", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__2_000", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI would make just one last point to the Court and that we have failed at least in our opinion defined any compelling interest suggested by the government for the enforcement of the statute.\nThe government acknowledges by the testimony that it read that the uniform itself was symbolic of speech, and we submit again that absent any compelling interest to regulate that action, the impingement on the freedom of expression, the symbolic act that the petitioner took part in was -- that sort of impingement is not allowable under the holding of the O'Brien case, absent of compelling interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5563.467, 5565.887, 5579.126], "stop_times": [5565.887, 5579.126, 5604.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5563.467}, "reply_to": "15390__1_217", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__2_001", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I did not understand the Solicitor General to concede that the wearing of this apparel was symbolic speech.\nHe said that each time these problems are raised in the Courts, he has met with the argument that this is symbolic speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5604.034, 5611.157], "stop_times": [5611.157, 5618.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5604.034}, "reply_to": "15390__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__2_002", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "If -- excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5618.293], "stop_times": [5618.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5618.293}, "reply_to": "15390__2_001", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__2_003", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "I wouldn't treat that as a concession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5618.434], "stop_times": [5620.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5618.434}, "reply_to": "15390__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__2_004", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "If I misunderstood this argument, we believe the facts still remains that Schacht testified that he meant the uniform as showing discredit or criticism of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5620.892], "stop_times": [5633.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5620.892}, "reply_to": "15390__2_003", "speaker": "david_h_berg"}
{"id": "15390__2_005", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "So his intention is not in dispute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5633.02], "stop_times": [5634.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5633.02}, "reply_to": "15390__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15390__3_000", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Yes.\nNo sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5634.591, 5635.87], "stop_times": [5635.87, 5637.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5634.591}, "reply_to": "15390__2_005", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15390__3_001", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "You're not resting wholly on that constitutional claim, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5637.153], "stop_times": [5640.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5637.153}, "reply_to": "15390__3_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15390__3_002", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "No sir.\nNo sir, we still would say that the statute was applied, but there are problems of construction of the statute is applied unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5640.756, 5642.774], "stop_times": [5642.774, 5651.509], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5640.756}, "reply_to": "15390__3_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15390__3_003", "conversation_id": "15390", "text": "Thank you for your submission Mr. Berg and Mr. Solicitor General.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_628", "start_times": [5651.509, 5654.353], "stop_times": [5654.353, 5657.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5651.509}, "reply_to": "15390__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__0_000", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "We'll hear arguments in number 476, Sears, Roebuck and Company against Carpet, Linoleum, Tile, Local Union 419.\nSmetana, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [0.0, 19.919], "stop_times": [19.919, 22.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__0_001", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nWhat is involved here is a determination of the status of charging parties under Section 10 (l) of the Act, specifically, whether they have standing to appeal denial of temporary injunctive relief.\nSection 10 (l) of the Act is an extraordinary remedy.\nIt provides whenever it is charge that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) (B) and (C), and specifically here that charging party is a neutral employer in a charge involving violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (B), the secondary boycott provisions of the Act.\nSo the charging party is one of the person's contemplated for protection under Section 10 (l).\nStatute then goes on to say the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and be given priority over all cases.\nIn this particular case Sears Roebuck, the petitioner filed a charge with the NLRB, and the NLRB proceeded to make such investigation.\nStatute then goes on to say if after such investigation, the officer or Regional Attorney to whom the matter may be refer has reasonable cause to believe such charge is true, and that a complaint should issue, he shall on behalf of the Board, petition a District Court for injunctive relief.\nIn this particular case, the Regional Director for the NLRB in Denver made such a finding of reasonable cause, and he follow the statutory mandate and sought injunctive relief in the District Court of the District of Colorado.\nIt is our position that the charging party or neutral -- a neutral party such as Sears is in this case is the very person whom Congress when it enacted, not only the 8 (b) (4) provisions, the secondary boycott provision at the time of Taft-Hartley, but also Section 10 (l), the mandatory requirement that the Government seek injunctive relief is the party for whose benefit, in addition of course to the public a benefit, for whose benefit the relief is being sought.\nSpecifically, the issue in this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [22.219, 25.387, 44.027, 50.599, 74.381, 80.991, 90.626, 101.485, 123.408, 140.564, 169.219], "stop_times": [25.387, 44.027, 50.599, 74.381, 80.991, 90.626, 101.485, 123.408, 140.564, 169.219, 171.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.219}, "reply_to": "15243__0_000", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_002", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is there anyone with the permission of the charging party to be (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [171.857], "stop_times": [176.081], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 171.857}, "reply_to": "15243__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_003", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Justice Harlan, the statute says only this with respect to the role of the charging party.\nUpon filing of any such petition, the courts shall cause notice thereof to be served upon any person involved in the charge.\nAnd such person, including the charging party shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony.\nThat is the extent to which the statute specifically --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [176.081, 181.466, 191.951, 203.076], "stop_times": [181.466, 191.951, 203.076, 205.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.081}, "reply_to": "15243__0_002", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_004", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It doesn't make him a party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [205.89], "stop_times": [208.358], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 205.89}, "reply_to": "15243__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_005", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [208.358], "stop_times": [209.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.358}, "reply_to": "15243__0_004", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_006", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It doesn't make him a party apparent as he believes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [209.212], "stop_times": [212.544], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 209.212}, "reply_to": "15243__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_007", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It is our position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [212.544], "stop_times": [214.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 212.544}, "reply_to": "15243__0_006", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_008", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I know your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [214.059], "stop_times": [214.795], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 214.059}, "reply_to": "15243__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_009", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nIt is -- the terms do not explicitly refer to the charging party is a party acceptance so far as the word party is used together with charging.\nBut it is our contention and we will demonstrate to this Court as we believe we have in our briefs that in reading -- in looking to the entire scheme of the Act, in other words, the role, the charging party's play in the Board proceeding because the same charge which Sears Roebuck here filed gave rise to two proceedings, and gave rise to two concurrent actions.\nIn fact it happens in this case, they were on the same day, although, they need them to bid.\nIn this particular case, the Regional Director issued an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that the Carpet Layers respondent union here was violating or he had reasonable cause to believe that the respondent union was violating the secondary boycott provisions of the Act, and similarly, filed a petition for injunctive relief.\nThose two cases are still very much alive.\nAnd the Regional Director at all times, critical to our contention here has continued to maintain that reasonable belief or reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the law or was in the process of violating the law.\nFor had, the Regional Director --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [214.795, 215.216, 224.771, 246.925, 250.735, 270.031, 275.741, 288.604], "stop_times": [215.216, 224.771, 246.925, 250.735, 270.031, 275.741, 288.604, 289.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.795}, "reply_to": "15243__0_008", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_010", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Whether both cases are still very much alive is one of the questions at issue between you and your brothers, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [289.783], "stop_times": [295.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.783}, "reply_to": "15243__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__0_011", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [295.877], "stop_times": [297.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.877}, "reply_to": "15243__0_010", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_012", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "There is a controverted question of mootness in this case that you are arguing, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [297.642], "stop_times": [303.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.642}, "reply_to": "15243__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__0_013", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "There is a question if this Court would -- will wish to hear argument on that question.\nI certainly would toward the end of my argument.\nI'll be happy to present our contentions on mootness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [303.658, 308.062, 310.047], "stop_times": [308.062, 310.047, 312.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.658}, "reply_to": "15243__0_012", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_014", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I think your friend is going to mention it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [312.703], "stop_times": [314.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.703}, "reply_to": "15243__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__0_015", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, I'm sure he is.\nWell, essentially on the mootness question, very briefly, the major position that we would take with respect to mootness is that as a matter of policy, the issues involved -- that the orders involved here are short-term orders.\nSpecifically, injunctive relief under Section 10 (l) of the Act is the kind of relief that normally expires because the dispute is resolved.\nAnd so that if there are some problem with respect to the correctness of the standing of parties in that proceeding, this Court would never have an opportunity to resolve that question if it were to wait -- if it could not do so at that time.\nAnd so under the doctrine of the Southern Pacific Terminal case and more recently as this Court said last year in the Moore versus Ogilvie, these are important public questions that will come up again, and that should -- that are not rendered moot because of the continuing effect not only upon Sears in this case and another cases, but other parties similarly situated and would escape review but for the mootness doctrine.\nTherefore, the mootness doctrine would be set aside.\nWe also contend that the case is not factually moot.\nWe say it is not factually moot because for a number of reasons.\nSpecifically that as in the -- as in Bakery Drivers versus Wagshal, the union here to the extent that it has stop picketing what whatever we can infer from that, we can only infer that it did stop picketing pursuant to an order of the Board.\nAnd more specifically, the union maintains the correctness of its position and has so argued that correctness of its position, January 22nd this year in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit maintaining that it believes and continues to believe that the picketing of Sears Roebuck was not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) so that so long as this controversy and the underlying dispute remains, there is still the possibility that the picketing will resume, and that possibility would come about, should the District of Columbia Circuit where the -- and what happened here in the underlying cases that the Trial Examiner and the Board found the union to have violated Section 8 (b) (4).\nThe union moved the District of Columbia Circuit to review that decision and the Sears Roebuck intervened and the Board cross petition for enforcement of that decision.\nAnd in the event, the District of Columbia Circuit remands to the Board there are number of possibilities as to what can arise in that case.\nShould there be a remand, it is our contention that there is also then the possibility of a renewal of picketing because there may be some question as to something further the Board might have to do.\nIn any event, so far as the factual mootness, it is our further contention that the language of the statute, so far as the time during which the injunctive provision runs.\nIn other words, in Section 10 (l), Section 10 (l) states that the injunction -- that the court shall grant such injunctive relief pending final adjudication of the Board.\nSo, there is another question although it is perhaps not necessary for the Court to resolve that question.\nIf it resolves the question of mootness on the Southern Pacific Terminal and Moore versus Ogilvie line of cases, it is perhaps not necessary to reach the question of interpretation of those words pending final adjudication of the Board.\nBut it is our position that pending final adjudication of the Board means when the matter has finally been resolved by the Board and that a settlement will be a final resolution.\nIn this case, we contend that it has not been finally been resolved by the Board because of the possibility of the remand, because in that situation, the Board would have to do the something further, and we recognized the fact that there is a final Board order here from which the union appeals the statutory language is not clear, but we would contend that that is the meaning of the words final adjudication.\nWe have no authority other than logic and reason to support that position.\nOur argument -- before I pass on to the argument, I should briefly summarize any facts that I have in my opening remarks not alluded to.\nIn this particular case, the picketing and the picketing of Sears Roebuck continued for a period of 10 months.\nThere was -- the argument Your Honor essentially falls into two or three categories.\nOur major contention is that the scheme of the Act as this Court has consider the scheme of the Act in its Scofield decision renders that charging parties should have the right to appeal.\nThe reason for -- specifically, what we would urge under the scheme of the Act is that charging parties possess the very rights that are set forth in Section 10 (l).\nThey possess those identical rights and are treated as parties in the Board proceeding.\nAnd therefore, they should be similarly be treated as parties in the Section 10 (l) proceeding.\nWe would then also allude to the guidance that the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act can give with respect to the question of charging party rights.\nWhen we say that we are party, we use the word party with three specific exceptions.\nSo, there is no mistake.\nWe do not say we are the kind of juridical party that one is outside is the framework of the National Labor Relations Act.\nWe say first, that we do not seek injunctive relief in Section 10 (l), but rather we simply support that which director has done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [314.569, 315.991, 334.274, 343.774, 360.915, 387.322, 390.097, 393.394, 399.066, 414.065, 455.502, 467.674, 476.19, 487.283, 504.137, 514.88, 520.719, 532.907, 546.594, 568.387, 586.58, 600.205, 611.503, 621.275, 637.206, 649.85, 654.929, 659.999, 671.476, 678.562, 679.718, 686.467], "stop_times": [315.991, 334.274, 343.774, 360.915, 387.322, 390.097, 393.394, 399.066, 414.065, 455.502, 467.674, 476.19, 487.283, 504.137, 514.88, 520.719, 532.907, 546.594, 568.387, 586.58, 600.205, 611.503, 621.275, 637.206, 649.85, 654.929, 659.999, 671.476, 678.562, 679.718, 686.467, 696.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.569}, "reply_to": "15243__0_014", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_016", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "We'll suspend now for lunch Mr. Smetana.\n[Lunch Recess]\nYou may continue Mr. Smetana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [696.619, 699.72, 709.361], "stop_times": [699.72, 709.361, 710.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.619}, "reply_to": "15243__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__0_017", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nJust to recap for one moment with respect to the -- how this case arises and how the appeal comes to this Court.\nWhen the District Court for the District of Colorado denied the injunctive relief which the Regional Director had sought, and it was in that proceeding.\nThe charging party Sears, the respondent union, and the Board all appeared by counsel and all participated as provided in the Act.\nThe District Court justice -- judge held that there was little probability that the Board would find a violation of law, and therefore denied the injunctive relief.\nAfter this decision, the Regional Director continued in his belief that there was in fact reasonable cause to believe that a violation existed.\nWe had -- we attempted to convince the Regional Director to seek and to appeal from the decision of the District Court.\nThat request and those request were without avail, and as a time for filing appeal drew near faced with the continued picketing of Sears at its Denver locations faced with the Director's continued belief there was a violation and with the Director's refusal to file an appeal, we on behalf of the charging party filed an appeal.\nThere were then motions to dismiss that appeal for lack of standing filed both by the Board and by the union.\nI should add there was one further intervening factor which perhaps has some significance to some of the arguments that have been raised by the counsel for the Regional Director.\nAfter the appeal had been filed, the Trial Examiner who heard the facts of the underlying case in the first instance came down with a favorable decision for Sears.\nHe found that there was reasonable cause to believe the secondary boycott section of the Act had been violated.\nIt was within a few days of that decision that we again wrote to the general counsel and requested two things.\nWe requested first, that perhaps the general counsel, since the picketing was still continuing, would seek injunctive relief under the discretionary section, Section 10 (j) of the Act, and admittedly, we were aware of no case which permitted were the Board had gone for injunctive relief under Section 10 (j), even though this was an area that was covered by 10 (l), but the language of the Act would lead one to believe that it was possible.\nWe ask secondly of the Board once more that they join us in the appeal.\nThe Board responded within the few days indicating that they did not choose to file for 10 (j) relief, even if that was available and furthermore, they did not seek to join us in the appeal.\nThe only reason they gave was at the time for them to join us in the appeal had disappeared.\nI think that exchange of letters only has become significant and we have mentioned in our reply brief in view of the Board's -- one of the Board's contentions here, that -- and that same contention made below that if the charging party were to be given the right of appeal and were to be given party rights subject to the limitations which I've started to outline before the luncheon break, that would amount to the Board's losing control.\nAnd the particular -- and the Board speaks of control in a number of instances.\nThere was one kind of control which the Board's speaks of in the case before the District Court, and there's another kind of control the Board addresses itself to with respect to the decision whether or not it should appeal.\nNow, with respect to the first kind of control, I had started to say that there are -- what we contended are, we have rights of a party subject to three limitations.\nThe first is that we do not seek the injunctive relief.\nWe simply support that which the Board has done, and we take to position that once the Regional Director has filed his petition for injunctive relief by virtue of the language in the statute, giving us the right to be heard, we have the right to support that decision.\nAnd we have -- we relied in the Tenth Circuit upon the Retail Clerk's case, the Ninth Circuit Retail Clerk's case, and we would contend that the reasoning of that court with respect to this question is indeed sound.\nThe second limitation that we would say would afford to a charging party is the fact that the charging party at no time may enlarge or urge an enlargement of the positions taken by the Director in the petitioner that he filed with the District Court.\nAnd it is for that reason that we would distinguished the decision that Justice Marshall then -- Judge Marshall rendered in the Second Circuit in the McLeod case because it was -- in that case, and the Board and the union have cited the McLeod case as proposition for the fact that charging party should not be granted this right because it's violative of Norris-LaGuardia.\nAnd in the McLeod case as in -- that whole line of cases, it is clear that where the charging party enlarges upon something which the Director seeking in the McLeod case, the charging party was urging that there was some handbilling in that case and the charging of party was urging that there was some misrepresentation with respect to the handbilling.\nAnd the court concluded that the question of misrepresentation was not one of the basis upon which the Board had sought its petition.\nAnd therefore to the extent that the charging party was urging a different result, to that extent, there could be a violation of Norris-LaGuardia.\nFinally, with respect -- and the District Court -- the Tenth Circuit in this case dismissed or granted the Board and union's motion to dismiss for lack of standing on essentially three grounds.\nFirst that the relief here would constitute a violation of Norris-LaGuardia and they contend the reason for that is in effect, they would be granting injunctive relief to a charging party.\nSecondly, the case that we cite and cited to them and cited in our brief, the Ninth Circuit Retail Clerks case, the Tenth Circuit took the position that that case really only refer to the rights of charging parties in the District Court, and therefore was not apposite or helpful to them in determining whether or not we would have standing to appeal and have any rights in the Courts of Appeal.\nAnd finally, the Tenth Circuit took the position that the statutory language that charging parties shall be represented by counsel and present relevant testimony means that and no more.\nNow, with respect to the last, perhaps first, whether the language means that and no more, we would then turn to the first, what part of our argument, and we would say that the scheme of the Act, the fact that charging parties, the same party who is before the District Court in the 10 (l) proceeding also proceeds in the case before the Board.\nAnd in that Board case, it is true that the charging party is referred to as a party, but the scheme of the Act as this Court had held in Scofield, the court looks to the overall concern and the overall concern in this Act is the protection of charging party rights.\nAnd particularly here, there is even a stronger protection with respect to the neutral in an 8 (b) (4) situation where there is a mandatory requirement to seek relief.\nBut in the Board proceeding, the charging party participates at all levels in the investigation, in the issuance of complaint, in settlement, in hearings, appeals and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [710.897, 715.502, 724.299, 734.097, 743.954, 757.375, 765.68, 777.899, 803.039, 811.444, 824.545, 835.307, 843.385, 852.119, 876.729, 881.26, 894.322, 900.572, 934.291, 939.371, 955.918, 969.623, 973.811, 992.139, 1006.944, 1026.839, 1049.679, 1072.256, 1080.443, 1091.03, 1103.935, 1116.935, 1137.309, 1149.387, 1175.778, 1194.138, 1203.187], "stop_times": [715.502, 724.299, 734.097, 743.954, 757.375, 765.68, 777.899, 803.039, 811.444, 824.545, 835.307, 843.385, 852.119, 876.729, 881.26, 894.322, 900.572, 934.291, 939.371, 955.918, 969.623, 973.811, 992.139, 1006.944, 1026.839, 1049.679, 1072.256, 1080.443, 1091.03, 1103.935, 1116.935, 1137.309, 1149.387, 1175.778, 1194.138, 1203.187, 1211.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.897}, "reply_to": "15243__0_016", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_018", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Supposing the Regional Director for some reason refuses to bring and now proceeding to the enforcement there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1211.959], "stop_times": [1223.224], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.959}, "reply_to": "15243__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_019", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No.\nWe would contend --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1223.224, 1223.427], "stop_times": [1223.427, 1224.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.224}, "reply_to": "15243__0_018", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_020", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "You couldn't bring your own proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1224.308], "stop_times": [1226.058], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.308}, "reply_to": "15243__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_021", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No.\nThat -- we would definitely -- our position is that our rights only vest after the Regional Director has made his determination.\nAnd should he change his mind and there is a possibility that in a particular kind of situation, he might change his mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1226.058, 1226.37, 1234.402], "stop_times": [1226.37, 1234.402, 1240.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.058}, "reply_to": "15243__0_020", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_022", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I suppose the clarity of the statute on that point helps persuade you there, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1240.277], "stop_times": [1244.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.277}, "reply_to": "15243__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__0_023", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nI think it does Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1244.515, 1245.077], "stop_times": [1245.077, 1247.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.515}, "reply_to": "15243__0_022", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_024", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But it is not clear you will contend on the appellate -- on the right of the standing to take an appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1247.264], "stop_times": [1254.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.264}, "reply_to": "15243__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__0_025", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No.\nI would say the statute is not clear and one of the Board's principle arguments is that very fact that the statute is silent.\nWe would answer that in three ways.\nFirst, that that scheme of the Act, in other words, since the charging parties have these rights in the Board case, they also have these rights in the District Court case.\nAnd then, we have cited this Court to the only case that we have unable to find on the -- trying to define on appeal the -- Justice Marshall's decision in the Marbury versus Madison, and we would contend that an appeal by its very nature is not the institution of a new cause and is simply to correct of that which was done below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1254.472, 1255.056, 1266.303, 1268.922, 1279.22], "stop_times": [1255.056, 1266.303, 1268.922, 1279.22, 1299.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.472}, "reply_to": "15243__0_024", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_026", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, suppose in the District Court at the end of the hearing, the Regional Director says, we want to withdraw the whole business.\nWhat could you do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1299.706, 1307.882], "stop_times": [1307.882, 1308.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.706}, "reply_to": "15243__0_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15243__0_027", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "If the -- Your Honor, if the Regional Director took that position, we would take -- we would follow the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit decision in the Retail Clerks case.\nWe would take the position that the -- it is still for the charging party to urge to the Court of Appeals the correctness of the Director's petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1308.931, 1321.794], "stop_times": [1321.794, 1333.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.931}, "reply_to": "15243__0_026", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_028", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But this is not the Court of Appeals.\nWe're in the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1333.458, 1335.926], "stop_times": [1335.926, 1338.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.458}, "reply_to": "15243__0_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15243__0_029", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1338.848], "stop_times": [1339.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1338.848}, "reply_to": "15243__0_028", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_030", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And there, the end of the proceeding, the Regional Director says we've had it, this is it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1339.261], "stop_times": [1344.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.261}, "reply_to": "15243__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15243__0_031", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well this -- Your Honor, this is exactly again was the situation in the Ninth Circuit case, and in that situation, the charging party, the Regional Director which would happen fairly frequently in this Board cases is that many times, the union and the Director will seek to -- the union will say we'll stop picketing while we resolve the underlying dispute, and the union will offer a stipulation.\nAnd there are times such as in the amicus case here in the Terminal Freight case where the charging party will object to that stipulation.\nThat is one situation where it arises.\nWe would contend that the charging party has the right as it did -- as the court found in the Ninth Circuit case to urge to the court that there is fact reasonable cause.\nSince the Director found reasonable cause, it is for now for the court to determine and the court is not simply a rubberstamp with respect to what the Director has done.\nThe court is vested with jurisdiction and it must make up its mind and the statute 10 (l) gives the party the right to be heard.\nCertainly, it gives the party the right to present relevant testimony.\nWe would say that that right to present testimony does not mean just that and no more, because that would not be a logical result.\nIt -- apart from that, it has work otherwise.\nExample again in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1344.135, 1370.229, 1377.713, 1379.447, 1389.223, 1397.916, 1407.019, 1410.065, 1419.874, 1423.477], "stop_times": [1370.229, 1377.713, 1379.447, 1389.223, 1397.916, 1407.019, 1410.065, 1419.874, 1423.477, 1424.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1344.135}, "reply_to": "15243__0_030", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_032", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, of course Congress could give you the right to bring the action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1424.101], "stop_times": [1429.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.101}, "reply_to": "15243__0_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15243__0_033", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1429.288], "stop_times": [1429.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.288}, "reply_to": "15243__0_032", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_034", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But it didn't -- Congress did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1429.953], "stop_times": [1432.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.953}, "reply_to": "15243__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15243__0_035", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "There was -- if I could -- I will turn to the legislative history and I would contend two things with respect to the legislative history of Taft-Hartley.\nI would contend first that when the Taft-Hartley Act was discussed, the legislative history is silent.\nWith respect to specific reference to these words in the statute, the charging party shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present relevant testimony.\nNow, we submit that first so far as that silence is concerned just the silence alone.\nThat silence does not necessary militate against us.\nAnd Your Honors in the two decision rendered this morning and I was familiar with one because I had kept off with the briefs, particular in the Barlow case that the court said it is however only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent that the court should restrict access to judicial review.\nThe framers of Taft-Hartley, I think we have to look -- in view of the silence with respect to the specific language, I think we have to look to the context in which the debates occurred.\nAnd that context was that the debates on Taft-Hartley occurred in 1948, the spring 1948.\nPardon me, in the spring of --- yes, in the spring of 1948.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1432.937, 1441.905, 1449.639, 1460.604, 1466.449, 1469.543, 1491.224, 1502.239, 1509.23], "stop_times": [1441.905, 1449.639, 1460.604, 1466.449, 1469.543, 1491.224, 1502.239, 1509.23, 1515.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.937}, "reply_to": "15243__0_034", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_036", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It was an Act of 1947.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1515.165], "stop_times": [1516.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.165}, "reply_to": "15243__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__0_037", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I'm sorry, the spring of 1947.\nAnd at that time, the debates occurred in the context of the Senate being concern with President Truman again, vetoing in measure, and it was in the 80th Congress this debates occurred.\nIn our reply brief, we cited the court, call the court's attention to some of the deliberations that occurred in the 79th Congress, because it is only by looking to that background that we see the light in which the court was -- the Congress was concerned with private party rights.\nAt that time, two things were clear.\nIt was clear that the Congress was concerned with protecting neutrals, and the secondary boycott provisions were enacted.\nIt was also clear that what it transpired between the enactment of Norris-LaGuardia and the Wagner Act and up till that time was unsatisfactory in terms of getting injunctive protection where there was a neutral or where there was a wrong party.\nPrior to the enactment of Taft-Hartley, the Board would first have to make a determination on the merits where there was a violation.\nAnd one of the purposes was that there would be a prior determination but that prior determination has the statute finally evolved was to be only upon decision by the Regional Director where there was a violation.\nBut in the 79th Congress, the Case Bill passed both Houses and that Bill provided that private parties as well as the Board could seek injunctive relief.\nAnd it passed both Houses of Congress.\nPresident Truman vetoed that Bill.\nBut then -- and there weren't sufficient votes to override the veto.\nImmediately at the convening of the 80th Congress, a Bill almost identical to the Case Bill was introduced in the Senate, which is Bill S.55, and it was on that Bill that hearings were held in the Senate Labor Committee.\nAt the same time in the House, there was a Bill which passed identical to the Case Bill again giving rights to private parties.\nIt became clear however to -- certainly to Senator Taft that if there was going to either be no veto, and if there was going to getting legislation, there had to be some compromise, and time was of the essence the -- that Government was operating the minds as the Smith-Connolly Act was going to expire in a few months, and Senator Taft was the one who is to compromiser, and the evidence of his compromise specifically with respect to the question of private party rights and private party rights with respect to the issuance of temporary injunctions comes from the procedures.\nS.55 as I say was in the Senate Labor Committee.\nOut of that Committee was -- came a Committee Report and a new Bill.\nThe new Bill was called in the 88th Congress S.1126.\nAnd so far as Section 10 (l) was concerned and so far as the rights of charging parties are concerned, the words I referred to they appeared for the first time in S.1126, and subsequently have remained unchanged in the statute.\nHowever, when it was reported out of Committee, Senator Taft, Senator Ball, Senator O'Daniel and one other Senator, all indicated that they would reserve the right on the Floor of the Senate to again introduce once more an amendment to permit private parties to institute these rights.\nNow, why was this concerned?\nBecause they were concerned that the private party was the aggrieved party.\nThe private party was the one who should be protected and they were concerned that perhaps the Board wouldn't afford sufficient protection.\nWhen and although Senator Taft, at the time that it was reported out of Committee, still favored private party rights shortly when the debates began on the Floor of the Senate and we've cited that in the briefs, he changed his position, and the schism came when Senator Ball was the one who introduced the amendment for a private party rights again on the Floor of the Senate.\nSenator Taft at that point said that he could not go forward.\nHe would offer another compromise, and that the -- if the Act was to be passed, it would have to be passed without the rights of private party seeking that relief.\nAnd therefore, I say that since there was such concern with the rights of private parties, the words of Section 10 (l) should not be read narrowly as the Board suggests.\nBut rather they should be given broader interpretation.\nAnd I would suggest that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1516.411, 1519.112, 1532.568, 1548.901, 1551.417, 1557.91, 1571.598, 1577.972, 1591.269, 1605.348, 1607.816, 1610.393, 1615.372, 1626.981, 1634.544, 1666.733, 1669.608, 1673.436, 1678.201, 1692.503, 1709.393, 1710.877, 1714.076, 1722.029, 1745.622, 1749.98, 1758.854, 1768.588, 1771.386], "stop_times": [1519.112, 1532.568, 1548.901, 1551.417, 1557.91, 1571.598, 1577.972, 1591.269, 1605.348, 1607.816, 1610.393, 1615.372, 1626.981, 1634.544, 1666.733, 1669.608, 1673.436, 1678.201, 1692.503, 1709.393, 1710.877, 1714.076, 1722.029, 1745.622, 1749.98, 1758.854, 1768.588, 1771.386, 1772.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1516.411}, "reply_to": "15243__0_036", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_038", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is there conflict in the agents of Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1772.4], "stop_times": [1774.748], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.4}, "reply_to": "15243__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_039", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I beg your pardon Mr. Justice Harlan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1774.748], "stop_times": [1775.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1774.748}, "reply_to": "15243__0_038", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_040", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is there a conflict between the Circuits and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1775.65], "stop_times": [1780.05], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.65}, "reply_to": "15243__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_041", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Oh --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1780.05], "stop_times": [1780.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1780.05}, "reply_to": "15243__0_040", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_042", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I mean the -- your series of question you're arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1780.581], "stop_times": [1782.693], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.581}, "reply_to": "15243__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_043", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nI would say the conflict -- I would say the conflict arises specifically between the Tenth Circuit decision here holding these words to be in exactly what they say, and the Ninth Circuit decision in the Retail Clerks case.\nThe Ninth Circuit -- well, I would call --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1782.693, 1783.396, 1798.349], "stop_times": [1783.396, 1798.349, 1802.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1782.693}, "reply_to": "15243__0_042", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_044", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I have some big recollection that there is a case in the Second Circuit which was (Inaudible) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1802.098], "stop_times": [1808.751], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.098}, "reply_to": "15243__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_045", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1808.751], "stop_times": [1809.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1808.751}, "reply_to": "15243__0_044", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_046", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- is it true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1809.182], "stop_times": [1809.931], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.182}, "reply_to": "15243__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__0_047", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere is this and I didn't cite it specifically.\nThe case in the Second Circuit that I think has most bearing on this subject is the McLeod versus the Business and Mechanics Conference case, I believe it was a 1961 case, and that was the case where the decision was written by Judge Marshall -- Justice Marshall.\nAnd in that situation, I recited the case briefly for another proposition with respect to the charging party taking a position not urge by the Board.\nBut the interesting thing about that case is that the charging party was there at all.\nI mean the charging party in that proceeding and we did not intervene.\nThe charging party in that proceeding was there as a party, and the charging party argued as a party and there was no -- that although the court was silent with respect to that status, perhaps the question wasn't' raised, but certainly inferentially, that case would seem to go along with the position of the Ninth Circuit, although Ninth Circuit came much later.\nI would call the Court's attention to another interesting factor in the Ninth Circuit decision, and that is the -- the Ninth Circuit in its decision -- the Ninth Circuit in its decision set forth certain headings, and while the Tenth Circuit tries to distinguished the case with respect to saying the case only stands for the proposition that -- it is question of the court's jurisdiction whether or not injunctive relief would be granted.\nIn reality, the headings that I've reference to it, it is rather unusual to see specific headings said to an opinion.\nAll of the discussion with respect to charging party rights is in heading Roman numeral II, and it is an uppercase, and it says to whom was the temporary injunction granted?\nAnd that's at 351 F.2d 528.\nWe have cited the case, but not made specific reference to that.\nAnd the court drew a distinction between on the one hand discussing the charging party rights, and on the other hand discussing the question of its own authority for when it was talking about its own authority.\nThe heading is \u201callege abuse of discretion\u201d and talking about the fact that the Board they're appealed and claim that the court had abused its discretion when it granted the injunction because the Board orders that the injunction had been granted to the charge of parties.\nI would call the Court's attention to the Scofield case, insofar as it sheds light on this question.\nI think the general concept -- I think the position of the Board and the union and the court has been Scofield is to be read narrowly, and we of course take the position that Scofield stands more than just for the proposition, the question of multiplicity of suits that occurred in that context.\nScofield stands for the proposition that it recognizes private rights.\nIn fact for the concept of recognition of private rights, this Court cited the Ninth Circuit Retail Clerks case which had earlier reached a same conclusion and the court spoke in terms general fairness.\nThe court recognized also that the status of the amicus was not status enough.\nI will reserve my balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [1809.931, 1810.694, 1813.413, 1828.0, 1839.111, 1843.939, 1848.604, 1868.31, 1903.439, 1911.049, 1922.07, 1925.051, 1928.442, 1940.416, 1960.263, 1965.723, 1982.192, 1986.276, 1997.695, 2004.085], "stop_times": [1810.694, 1813.413, 1828.0, 1839.111, 1843.939, 1848.604, 1868.31, 1903.439, 1911.049, 1922.07, 1925.051, 1928.442, 1940.416, 1960.263, 1965.723, 1982.192, 1986.276, 1997.695, 2004.085, 2006.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1809.931}, "reply_to": "15243__0_046", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__0_048", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Manoli.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2006.57, 2014.557], "stop_times": [2014.557, 2016.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.57}, "reply_to": "15243__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_000", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI should like to discuss first on the standing question.\nAnd after I've dealt with that standing question, I should like to address myself to the mootness question.\nAnd before I go into a discussion of our particular problems, I'll answer very quickly Mr. Justice Harlan's question.\nThere is no conflict among the circuits on the question of the right of the charging party that turned out proceedings to appeal of an adverse decision.\nIf my memory serves me right, they're going again three instances in which a charging party sought to appeal independently from the Regional Director, from an adverse decision of District Court.\nThis is one of them.\nThe other case was in the Fifth Circuit which was found to be mooted by the fact that the Board had issue its decision, and the third case is another serious case in the Third Circuit which the Court has also found to be mooted and I'm told, I was told yesterday that's presently pending on petition for reconsideration or rehearing.\nThe other case that Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2016.394, 2020.862, 2025.202, 2031.015, 2039.562, 2050.731, 2061.293, 2062.621, 2083.714], "stop_times": [2020.862, 2025.202, 2031.015, 2039.562, 2050.731, 2061.293, 2062.621, 2083.714, 2085.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2016.394}, "reply_to": "15243__0_048", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_001", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And it's pending in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the petition for rehearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2085.089], "stop_times": [2088.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.089}, "reply_to": "15243__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_002", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2088.971], "stop_times": [2089.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2088.971}, "reply_to": "15243__1_001", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_003", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2089.36], "stop_times": [2090.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.36}, "reply_to": "15243__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_004", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nThe other case that Mr. Justice Harlan may have had in mind was the General Electric case that involved the 10 (j), the discretionary provision and it did not involved the question of standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2090.033, 2090.799], "stop_times": [2090.799, 2100.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2090.033}, "reply_to": "15243__1_003", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_005", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Third Circuit is the one that I was thinking of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2100.483], "stop_times": [2102.263], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.483}, "reply_to": "15243__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__1_006", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2102.263], "stop_times": [2102.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2102.263}, "reply_to": "15243__1_005", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_007", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "To refresh my recollection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2102.779], "stop_times": [2103.66], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.779}, "reply_to": "15243__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__1_008", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And then the General Electric case, what did the court hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2103.66], "stop_times": [2106.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.66}, "reply_to": "15243__1_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_009", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2106.988], "stop_times": [2107.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2106.988}, "reply_to": "15243__1_008", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_010", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "In the 10 (j) case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2107.379], "stop_times": [2109.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.379}, "reply_to": "15243__1_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_011", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "There was no question of standing in that case Your Honor.\nWe had gotten -- Board had gotten an injunction in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2109.286, 2112.099], "stop_times": [2112.099, 2114.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2109.286}, "reply_to": "15243__1_010", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_012", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2114.945], "stop_times": [2115.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.945}, "reply_to": "15243__1_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_013", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The Board got an injunction in that case and the company took an appeal to the Second Circuit.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2115.267, 2124.661], "stop_times": [2124.661, 2125.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2115.267}, "reply_to": "15243__1_012", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_014", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "In the unfair labor practice situation, a charging party who loses before the Board may appeal, may it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2125.424], "stop_times": [2132.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.424}, "reply_to": "15243__1_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_015", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, under Section 10 (f) of the Act, it is -- if it is agreed by the Board's final order --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2132.216], "stop_times": [2138.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2132.216}, "reply_to": "15243__1_014", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_016", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2138.185], "stop_times": [2138.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.185}, "reply_to": "15243__1_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_017", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It may of course seek review in the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2138.482], "stop_times": [2141.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2138.482}, "reply_to": "15243__1_016", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_018", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And if the Board enters an order of -- in the -- on -- at the request of a charging party, and then seeks enforcement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2141.17], "stop_times": [2161.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.17}, "reply_to": "15243__1_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_019", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2161.927], "stop_times": [2162.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2161.927}, "reply_to": "15243__1_018", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_020", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "In the Court of Appeals and loses, can be the charging party who intervened bring sort of here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2162.412], "stop_times": [2171.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.412}, "reply_to": "15243__1_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_021", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, I think you decided that question in Scofield, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2171.705], "stop_times": [2174.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2171.705}, "reply_to": "15243__1_020", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_022", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2174.71], "stop_times": [2174.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.71}, "reply_to": "15243__1_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_023", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "In Scofield, this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2174.96], "stop_times": [2176.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2174.96}, "reply_to": "15243__1_022", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_024", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Even though the Board doesn't want to press it any further?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2176.643], "stop_times": [2178.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.643}, "reply_to": "15243__1_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_025", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That's right.\nWe -- in Scofield, this Court held that both the successful charging party, as well as the successful charged party had the right to intervene in the Court of Appeals and to take the case up in the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2178.942, 2180.489], "stop_times": [2180.489, 2192.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2178.942}, "reply_to": "15243__1_024", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_026", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But the laws -- if the Board enters an order as requested by the charging party, but the Board doesn't want to seek enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2192.574], "stop_times": [2204.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.574}, "reply_to": "15243__1_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_027", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I think that's exclusively up to the Board.\nUnder the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2204.006, 2206.404], "stop_times": [2206.404, 2206.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2204.006}, "reply_to": "15243__1_026", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_028", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Charging party may not seek enforcement to the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2206.856], "stop_times": [2209.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.856}, "reply_to": "15243__1_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_029", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No sir.\nOnly the Board may bring an action to enforce its order.\nNow, a party which has lost before the Board may bring a petition to review --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2209.233, 2210.015, 2212.952], "stop_times": [2210.015, 2212.952, 2220.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2209.233}, "reply_to": "15243__1_028", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_030", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2220.207], "stop_times": [2220.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.207}, "reply_to": "15243__1_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_031", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- the Board's adverse decision has an aggrieved party.\nThat may be either the charging party who didn't succeed before the Board, or it may be of course the charged party who lost before the Board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2220.53, 2223.405], "stop_times": [2223.405, 2231.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2220.53}, "reply_to": "15243__1_030", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_032", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2231.388], "stop_times": [2232.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.388}, "reply_to": "15243__1_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__1_033", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But now in this Ninth Circuit case, Retail Clerks --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2232.641], "stop_times": [2236.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.641}, "reply_to": "15243__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_034", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2236.11], "stop_times": [2236.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2236.11}, "reply_to": "15243__1_033", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_035", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- it appears that the Regional Office initiated proceedings for an injunction under 10 (j)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2236.563], "stop_times": [2245.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.563}, "reply_to": "15243__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_036", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "10 (l).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2245.626], "stop_times": [2246.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2245.626}, "reply_to": "15243__1_035", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_037", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "10 (l), I beg your pardon.\nThen reached some sort of a compromised agreement with the union.\nThe court -- District Court nevertheless went on at the behest of the charging party and granted the injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2246.219, 2247.797, 2252.937], "stop_times": [2247.797, 2252.937, 2258.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.219}, "reply_to": "15243__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_038", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2258.453], "stop_times": [2259.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2258.453}, "reply_to": "15243__1_037", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_039", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The Regional Director then appealed, although he'd been the regional plaintiff, he appealed from a decision which had gone in his favor as a regional plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2259.414], "stop_times": [2268.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.414}, "reply_to": "15243__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_040", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2268.276], "stop_times": [2268.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2268.276}, "reply_to": "15243__1_039", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_041", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The relief he'd originally asked for and the appellee in that case was the charging party, is that right?\nHow the appellee get in the case as a party in the Court of Appeals.\nThe appellee is the Food Employers Council, Incorporated and I assume that's the charging party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2268.76, 2276.259, 2282.465], "stop_times": [2276.259, 2282.465, 2287.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.76}, "reply_to": "15243__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_042", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That was corrected Your Honor.\nAnd in the Henderson case, which is recently come down -- which is recently come down and out of the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2287.62, 2290.182], "stop_times": [2290.182, 2299.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2287.62}, "reply_to": "15243__1_041", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_043", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No, no.\nI'm asking about this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2299.869, 2300.198], "stop_times": [2300.198, 2301.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.869}, "reply_to": "15243__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_044", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes sir, I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2301.469], "stop_times": [2303.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2301.469}, "reply_to": "15243__1_043", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_045", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The specific question, how the appellee, the appellee was a charging party here and therefore, was a party in the Court of Appeals I gather, but as an appellee and not an appellant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2303.71], "stop_times": [2314.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.71}, "reply_to": "15243__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_046", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2314.443], "stop_times": [2316.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2314.443}, "reply_to": "15243__1_045", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_047", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That Board itself apparently made him an appellee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2316.012], "stop_times": [2322.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.012}, "reply_to": "15243__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_048", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "In the -- I forgot it at the moment.\nThe Food Employers Council there was named as an appellee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2322.704, 2331.701], "stop_times": [2331.701, 2335.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2322.704}, "reply_to": "15243__1_047", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_049", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And assume -- I assume the Council was the charging party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2335.771], "stop_times": [2339.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.771}, "reply_to": "15243__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_050", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "This Council was the charging party in the particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2339.336], "stop_times": [2340.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2339.336}, "reply_to": "15243__1_049", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_051", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "So the Board, the Regional Director of the Board by then when it took its appeal may charging party, a party to the litigation in the Court of Appeals, does not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2340.247], "stop_times": [2354.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.247}, "reply_to": "15243__1_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_052", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The name threw me off Your Honor in that particular case.\nIt was not the Regional Director who took up the appeal.\nIt was the Retail Clerks who took an appeal.\nThe Retail Clerks where the -- where the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2354.145, 2357.202, 2360.624, 2364.701], "stop_times": [2357.202, 2360.624, 2364.701, 2368.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2354.145}, "reply_to": "15243__1_051", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_053", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No, that's not the way Judge Barnes opinion begins, the very first sentence.\nThis is an appeal by the Regional Director of the NLRB and various locals of the Retail Clerks from a District Court order granted a temporary injunction pursuant to a petition by the Regional Director, and so on.\nSo I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2368.202, 2372.468, 2385.912], "stop_times": [2372.468, 2385.912, 2386.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.202}, "reply_to": "15243__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_054", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- where is that case here?\nWell, my recollection was that it was just that that was the union who appeal in that case and then we went in there to defend our own position.\nAnd whatever, whatever may be said of that case Your Honor, I do want to call attention to the latest decision of the Court of Appeals of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which they said, in which it said that although the question of the charging party standing to appeal was broached in the Retail Clerks case.\nThey nevertheless had now concluded that the charging party does not have the status of a party, of a full party where the right of appeal and they've lined up for the Tenth Circuit in this particular case.\nNow, if I may get back now for a moment to develop my argument with respect to the contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner's case that a charging party in a 10 (l) proceedings is entitled to seek to appeal from an adverse decision of the District Court independently of the Regional Director, it seems to me rest essentially upon the predicate -- upon the predicate that a charging party with certain qualifications that the petitioner here has indicated as a status of a full party in those proceeding -- in those proceedings.\nNow, it seems to us that that predicate, that predicate misconceives the statutory scheme and also fails to accord proper way to the legislative history that gave birth to Section 10 (l).\nIn our view, under the statute, a charging party plays a subordinate role in a 10 (l) proceedings in the District Court.\nIt's -- Congress vested upon the charging party.\nThe limited role of assisting and aiding in the course of the prosecution of the case by the Regional Director, but that it is the Regional Director who contains or retains control not only over the initiation, not only over the initiation of the proceedings in the District Court, but also retains control of the litigation at all stages both the appellate -- both the trial stages, as well as the appellate stage.\nNow, Section 10 (l) represents one of the many compromises that is to be found in this statute.\nAnd as in the case of other labor act compromises which have engage the attention of this Court, the meaning of Section 10 (l) and the role which a charging party was to play in the proceedings can only be fully determined by going back to the legislative history.\nI think it's not wholly amiss to say that in the case like this, a page of legislative history does outweigh a book of logic.\nSection 10 (l) became a part of the Act as Mr. Smetana has indicated in 1947 when Congress adopted the Taft-Hartley amendments, including the restrictions against secondary boycotts and strikes over jurisdictional disputes.\nIn the course of that delay, Congress took note of the fact that the administrative unfair labor practice proceedings before the Board where unduly and unavoidably time-consuming.\nAnd for that reason, it was felt that in the speedier remedy was required in the public interest rather than a Board order or a court decree enforcing that Board order.\nThe debate over the need and the means for achieving this kind of speedy relief was particularly acute in the area of secondary boycotts as jurisdictional disputes.\nThe Senate Labor Committee had reported a Bill which contained a provision virtually identical with Section 10 (l) of the statute.\nNow Senator's Ball, joined particularly by Senator Taft, Senator O'Daniel and also by Senator Wherry of Nebraska, I should have added also Senator -- I did said Senator O'Daniel.\nThey were critical.\nThey were critical of the Section 10 (l) provision which was contained in the Senate Bill, the Bill that have been reported by the Senate Committee because he felt that it was inadequate, wholly inadequate to give an employer who is involved in the secondary dispute, or was involved in the jurisdictional disputes that kind of speedy relief, that kind of relief that they thought he was entire -- entitled to.\nThey were critical of the Senate Committee Bill because as Senators Ball, Taft, and O'Daniel said in their supplemental views -- their supplemental views to the Senate Labor Committee's Report.\nAs they said there, \u201cIt depends upon the decision of the Board as to whether any action shall be taken and the conduct of the proceedings would be entirely in the hands of the Board attorneys instead of attorneys of the injured party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2386.737, 2389.172, 2397.61, 2418.235, 2430.657, 2472.767, 2488.97, 2500.785, 2504.783, 2533.539, 2541.211, 2561.191, 2571.3, 2594.113, 2606.801, 2619.713, 2632.66, 2642.025, 2663.541, 2664.964, 2690.118, 2703.009], "stop_times": [2389.172, 2397.61, 2418.235, 2430.657, 2472.767, 2488.97, 2500.785, 2504.783, 2533.539, 2541.211, 2561.191, 2571.3, 2594.113, 2606.801, 2619.713, 2632.66, 2642.025, 2663.541, 2664.964, 2690.118, 2703.009, 2718.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2386.737}, "reply_to": "15243__1_053", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_055", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well are you -- were they addressing themselves to the initiation at this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2718.109], "stop_times": [2723.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.109}, "reply_to": "15243__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_056", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI think that when you look at the entire legislative history that the fight was much deeper than that, it was not merely a question about who is going to initiate this thing but who was going to reach -- have control not only over the initiation of the case but at the prosecution of the particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2723.953, 2724.801], "stop_times": [2724.801, 2741.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2723.953}, "reply_to": "15243__1_055", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_057", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, but do you suggest that the grantor standing to the employer at the appellate stage for review only would take control of the case away from the Board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2741.284], "stop_times": [2754.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.284}, "reply_to": "15243__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_058", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I think it would because at that point, at that point, the Regional Director who initiated the case may conclude for various reasons, now I come to those later, may conclude that there is really, it's no longer appropriate.\nIt's no longer appropriate to continue to press at the appellate stage for an injunction on basis of the kind of record that was made in the court below, on the basis of what kind of issues were involved there.\nIf the Regional Director decides not to go on but the charging party may go on, the charging party has really taken control of the litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2754.721, 2767.753, 2780.768], "stop_times": [2767.753, 2780.768, 2789.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2754.721}, "reply_to": "15243__1_057", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_059", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2789.913], "stop_times": [2791.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.913}, "reply_to": "15243__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_060", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And the litigation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2791.066], "stop_times": [2791.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2791.066}, "reply_to": "15243__1_059", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_061", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- that had been true if the Board drops out, the Board refuses to go ahead and I could understand your argument that the private party has taken over but would that not be something of the signal to the courts if standing were granted to the private party to go ahead and the Board did not appear to take part.\nIt certainly wouldn't strengthen the private party's case at the appellate level, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2791.83, 2816.779], "stop_times": [2816.779, 2822.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.83}, "reply_to": "15243__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_062", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, I perhaps not but if they say, the Regional Director decides that on the basis of whatever record has been made before the court -- the District Court on the basis of the kind of issues that are involved in, he may still continue to press the complaint.\nHe may so continue to press the complaint before the Board, before the Board either with the expectation that a better record may be made before the Board or that the Board may see the facts differently -- may see the facts differently that the District Court did because the District Court decision is not binding upon the Board under merits.\nBut at that point however, the Regional Director has made a decision that it is no longer appropriate to press for an injunction at the appellate stage.\nThe statute requires -- the statute requires a Regional Director whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the charges have merit.\nHe is required to go into the District Court to seek an injunction but the statute does not require.\nThe statute does not require a Regional Director to go on to appeal from an adverse decision of the District Court.\nNow, if you permit the charging party, if you permit the charging party to say, well, independently taken appeal despite the failure of the Regional Director to take an appeal, in effect what you've done, you transformed -- you transformed what is a Government piece, Government litigation into a private, into a private lawsuit.\nAnd indeed, indeed the petitioner in its brief, I think almost virtually concedes at that point almost becomes a private lawsuit.\nNow, to be sure -- to be sure that petitioner is arguing -- the petitioner is arguing that it is confined to the theory of the case originally advanced by the Regional Director and that is confined also to the kind of relief that the Regional Director is asking but I suggest Your Honor that once the Regional Director is out of the picture, and the charging party is permitted to go ahead and take an appeal that then it truly has become a private piece of litigation rather than a Government litigation and Congress, and Congress did not intend to permit that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2822.263, 2840.309, 2857.154, 2867.305, 2874.773, 2880.295, 2887.388, 2908.498, 2915.914], "stop_times": [2840.309, 2857.154, 2867.305, 2874.773, 2880.295, 2887.388, 2908.498, 2915.914, 2948.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2822.263}, "reply_to": "15243__1_061", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_063", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "How far does your argument go Mr. Manoli?\nNow, Congress -- what Congress did provide in 10 (l) was that if the Regional Council thought there was reasonable cause to believe that the unfair labor charge was correct, it had an absolute duty to file, to go to a -- first of all had a duty to give priority to this kind of a charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2948.696, 2951.054], "stop_times": [2951.054, 2970.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.696}, "reply_to": "15243__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_064", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2970.414], "stop_times": [2971.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2970.414}, "reply_to": "15243__1_063", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_065", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And having given priority and then making a -- having finding reasonable cause to believe that he choose to charge and had an absolute duty to go to a federal district court and file a petition for an injunction, and you say I suppose in your argument that 10 minutes later it could say, \u201cWell, we want now to dismiss the injunction.\u201d\nThat would hardly concord with the obvious will of Congress, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2971.578, 2991.25], "stop_times": [2991.25, 2994.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.578}, "reply_to": "15243__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_066", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, Your Honor, let me take one case.\nLet us assume that when the charges are filed, the investigations been made, the Regional Director concludes that there's reasonable cause to believe that the charges have merit and that a complaint were issued, yes, he is mandated by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [2994.876, 3000.153], "stop_times": [3000.153, 3013.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2994.876}, "reply_to": "15243__1_065", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_067", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Mandated by statute, the Congress stands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3013.683], "stop_times": [3014.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.683}, "reply_to": "15243__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_068", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "He is mandated by the statute here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3014.915], "stop_times": [3016.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3014.915}, "reply_to": "15243__1_067", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_069", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Seek an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3016.796], "stop_times": [3016.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.796}, "reply_to": "15243__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_070", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- to go under the District Court to seek an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3016.934], "stop_times": [3019.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3016.934}, "reply_to": "15243__1_069", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_071", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3019.098], "stop_times": [3019.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.098}, "reply_to": "15243__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_072", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Now, on the basis of the developments in the District Court, he may conclude, he may conclude that there's no longer any merit to the unfair labor practice charges and that there's no longer any basis for injunctive relief.\nIn other words, with that kind of a record, having been made in the District Court, he may because they conclude that he's got no case at all anymore and Congress did not require them to sticky with the case willy-nilly nor did Congress require him to take an appeal from an adverse decision of a District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3019.649, 3036.94], "stop_times": [3036.94, 3054.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3019.649}, "reply_to": "15243__1_071", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_073", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Isn't it all the Congress required was that he file the petition and that 10 minutes later, he could say, I now want to dismiss it?\nHe was prejudiced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3054.073, 3061.329], "stop_times": [3061.329, 3063.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.073}, "reply_to": "15243__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_074", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nThat's what -- if he concludes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3063.463, 3063.713], "stop_times": [3063.713, 3066.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3063.463}, "reply_to": "15243__1_073", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_075", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Do you think that comports with what the Congress said in 10 (l)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3066.03], "stop_times": [3070.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.03}, "reply_to": "15243__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_076", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Your Honor, I think it does.\nLet's say that he files a petition now, and 10 minutes after he's filed the petition a piece of evidence which was critical to his case, it suddenly is exposed.\nIt isn't there anymore.\nIt isn't there anymore and the piece of evidence is critical to his case.\nHe is free to withdraw.\nHe is free to withdraw that because he's got no case anymore under the merits.\nHe won't issue a complaint.\nThere's no reasonable cause to issue a complaint to go to the Board and having no reasonable cause to issue a complaint or at least he would withdraw the complaint if that were to happen, then there's no basis anymore for an injunctive relief by the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3070.592, 3073.497, 3084.887, 3086.496, 3090.012, 3091.793, 3095.996, 3097.386], "stop_times": [3073.497, 3084.887, 3086.496, 3090.012, 3091.793, 3095.996, 3097.386, 3115.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3070.592}, "reply_to": "15243__1_075", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_077", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Couldn't have been much for a preliminary investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3115.169], "stop_times": [3118.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.169}, "reply_to": "15243__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_078", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It's a rare case, Your Honor when that will happen.[Laughter]\nIt's a rare case indeed when that will happen but I'm addressing myself to the question of whether could he withdraw 10 minutes later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3118.73, 3122.461], "stop_times": [3122.461, 3129.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3118.73}, "reply_to": "15243__1_077", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_079", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "A 10-minute rule might sound more realistically than months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3129.389], "stop_times": [3133.546], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.389}, "reply_to": "15243__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__1_080", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nYes, it doesn't happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3133.546, 3134.202], "stop_times": [3134.202, 3135.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3133.546}, "reply_to": "15243__1_079", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_081", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Even it kept your legislative history --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3135.253], "stop_times": [3139.024], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.253}, "reply_to": "15243__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__1_082", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I think I can safely say, I know of no case where ten minutes after we filed a petition for an injunction, we withdrew.[Laughter]\nWell, if I may go on a little bit more here with this legislative history because I think it's important.\nThis legislative history and I can only touch the highlights of it to indicate what the scope of the debate and the intensiveness of the debate as to who was going to be in charge of this particular litigation?\nAnd Senator O'Daniel on the Floor of the Senate, I've already read from the supplemental views of Senators Taft and Ball and Senator O'Daniel on the Floor of the Senate, he said, he saw no reason under heaven why the decision to seek injunctive relief and control of the litigation should be exclusively vested in a Board representative rather than an injured party and the Senator Wherry added, the injured party and I want to quote this, \u201cshould not have to depend upon the judgment of some bureaucrat in whom it lies the power to determine why such a course should be followed.\u201d\nAnd again they strongly urged to Senator O'Daniel that the injured parties should have and I want to quote this once more, \u201cshould have the right to control its own litigation, to hire its own lawyer, to take such steps as it deems proper and to go into such Court as it deems proper to proceed in.\u201d\nNow, to achieve this purpose, Senator Ball introduced his amendment and under his amendment, he introduced the amendment on the Floor of the Senate under his amendment, the charge -- a party who was suffering from a secondary boycott or a jurisdictional dispute strike would have the right independently to go into a District Court and obtain injunctive relief.\nThat proposal encountered strong opposition.\nSome members of the opposition were unwilling to permit injunctions whether at the request of private parties or at the request of the other Government.\nBut the opposition was subtlety and I might say, they vehemently opposed to any provision that would permit a private party to go and seek an injunctive relief in these kind -- in these type of cases because -- because they feared a revival, a resurrection of some of the evils that had led to Norris-la-Guardia.\nThey were willing -- they were willing to relax the restriction of Norris-la-Guardia only if, only if the exclusive authority to initiate and to control the litigation at 10 (l) proceeding was vested in the Board.\nNow, the difference between the two groups was taken care of.\nIt was taken -- it was resolved through a compromise that Senator Taft proposed as a substitute, as a substitute for the Ball amendment which would have given a private party the right to independently go into a District Court and get an injunction as the substitute for that, Senator Taft proposed what is now Section 303 of the Act.\nAnd Section 303 of the Act permits an injured party to go into a Court in order to get damages.\nThe Ball amendment was overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of something like 62 to 28 and Section 10 (l) of course was retained in its present form.\nAnd Senator Taft after the Conference Committee had approved Section 10 (l) and Section 303 provision of the statute explained that compromise Senator Taft said that under that compro -- under his proposal, the compromise which had been accepted, the injured party was given \u201csimply a right of suit for damages\u201d caused by secondary boycotts or jurisdiction disputes but that in such cases, again I want to quote, \u201cthe injunction can be obtained only through the National Labor Relations Board.\nI think what emerges from this legislative history is that Congress agreed to a narrow exceptions of Norris-la-Guardia which vested the exclusive jurisdiction in the Board or the Regional Director, I used the terms interchangeably, which vested exclusively control in the Board over the -- not only the initiation but the control of the litigation at all stages.\nThe private party, the injured party was given simply the right to sue for damages and in Section 10 (l), in Section 10 (l), Congress assigned a subordinate role to the charging party of merely aiding and assisting in the conduct of the 10 (l) proceedings by the Regional Director, but it was the Regional Director who remained in control and as I said earlier, the fight between the proponents of the Ball amendment and the -- and those who opposed it was not simply a fight where who is going to have control over the initiation of the proceedings, the fight went much deeper.\nThe fight was who would be in control of that kind of litigation, the injured party or the Board?\nAnd Congress answered that question firmly in favor of the Board and I believe that its action indicates that Congress withheld from the charging party the status of a -- of a party, the status of a party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3139.024, 3150.948, 3156.728, 3168.946, 3202.696, 3222.306, 3245.899, 3249.977, 3259.039, 3281.023, 3298.624, 3307.609, 3330.161, 3338.748, 3358.309, 3395.107, 3419.419, 3460.726, 3467.742], "stop_times": [3150.948, 3156.728, 3168.946, 3202.696, 3222.306, 3245.899, 3249.977, 3259.039, 3281.023, 3298.624, 3307.609, 3330.161, 3338.748, 3358.309, 3395.107, 3419.419, 3460.726, 3467.742, 3481.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3139.024}, "reply_to": "15243__1_081", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_083", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, let me know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3481.297], "stop_times": [3481.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3481.297}, "reply_to": "15243__1_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_084", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The status of a party --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3481.977], "stop_times": [3483.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3481.977}, "reply_to": "15243__1_083", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_085", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "You keep emphasizing control of the litigation as though litigation were just one indivisible component.\nThe many instances where this Court and other courts have grantor standing to seek review or a standing in the first instance or intervention was denied, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3483.293, 3493.715], "stop_times": [3493.715, 3506.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.293}, "reply_to": "15243__1_084", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_086", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, that -- that may well be, Your Honor.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3506.122, 3509.233], "stop_times": [3509.233, 3510.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3506.122}, "reply_to": "15243__1_085", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_087", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "So that the control of the litigation concept doesn't answer all the questions quite, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3510.286], "stop_times": [3515.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3510.286}, "reply_to": "15243__1_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_088", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, it answers it when you take into account what it was.\nWhat it was that the -- what I'll call the proponents of Section (l), sought to accomplish when they adopted Section 10 (l) and opposed, and opposed the Ball amendment.\nThey were fearful, they were fearful to give the charging party any kind of an independent right, independent right to press for and to seek an injunction or to press for injunction and as I said earlier, if the Regional Director concludes after he has carried out the mandated duty of going into a District Court, that in the face of that adverse decision and because of other considerations I'll spell out in a moment, he concludes that it's no longer appropriate to seek injunctive or to press for injunctive relief then the charging party has taken charge of that litigation and it seems to me that the kind of control that Congress was talking about would have -- would exclude, would exclude the charging party from going on upstairs and seeking to press for an injunctive relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3515.943, 3519.396, 3531.63], "stop_times": [3519.396, 3531.63, 3581.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3515.943}, "reply_to": "15243__1_087", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_089", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, this language in 10 (l) that you say is the charging party a support position, is that part of the so-called 10 compromise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3581.072], "stop_times": [3591.088], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3581.072}, "reply_to": "15243__1_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15243__1_090", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That was already Your Honor.\nIn the Senate Bill, that is in the Bill reported by the Senate Committee, yes that was already in there.\nThat was already in there.\nAs matter of fact, I might add that the -- that the House had passed the bill which permitted both the Government or the private party to seek injunctive relief but that felt by the way sad because eventually the conference committee agreed, agreed with the Senate that Section 10 (l) would be adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3591.088, 3593.945, 3599.883, 3601.905], "stop_times": [3593.945, 3599.883, 3601.905, 3622.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3591.088}, "reply_to": "15243__1_089", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_091", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, the thrust of your argument now is quite in conflict with was decided in the Retail Clerks case in the Ninth Circuit, the broad thrust of your present argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3622.64], "stop_times": [3633.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3622.64}, "reply_to": "15243__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_092", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Your Honor, I must confess, I'm a little bit taken by surprise by your question that we were, that we appealed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3633.588], "stop_times": [3643.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3633.588}, "reply_to": "15243__1_091", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_093", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well now, I say that I'm not now talking about the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3643.871], "stop_times": [3651.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3643.871}, "reply_to": "15243__1_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_094", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Let me read from the Retail Clerks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3651.064], "stop_times": [3655.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3651.064}, "reply_to": "15243__1_093", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_095", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "From which case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3655.243], "stop_times": [3656.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3655.243}, "reply_to": "15243__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15243__1_096", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The Retail Clerks case in the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3656.571], "stop_times": [3658.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3656.571}, "reply_to": "15243__1_095", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_097", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Read the very first sentence of Judge Barnes' opinion, I don't have it in front of me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3658.9], "stop_times": [3662.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3658.9}, "reply_to": "15243__1_096", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_098", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3662.003], "stop_times": [3670.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3662.003}, "reply_to": "15243__1_097", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_099", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The very first sentence of Judge Barnes.\nI don't have it in front of me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3670.774, 3672.296], "stop_times": [3672.296, 3672.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3670.774}, "reply_to": "15243__1_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_100", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "This is an appeal by the director and various locals of the Retail Clerks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3672.853], "stop_times": [3677.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3672.853}, "reply_to": "15243__1_099", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_101", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Would you raise your voice a little, counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3677.67], "stop_times": [3679.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3677.67}, "reply_to": "15243__1_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_102", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Oh!\nI'm sorry.[Laughter]\nThis is an appeal -- I didn't need to hide it.[Laughter]\nThis is an appeal by the Regional Director of the Board and various local of the Retail Clerks from District Court order granting a temporary injunction pursuant to petition by the Regional Director.\nNow, on page 528, 528 says, \u201cthe appellants petition to this Court for a stay of the injunction\u201d and I take it the appellants must admit both us and the Retail Clerks.\nThis petition was denied but he granted an expedited hearing.\nBy the same order, this Court denied the charging parties in the Board proceedings permission to intervene as appellees but granted them permission to appear as amicus curiae.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3679.232, 3679.576, 3680.788, 3684.21, 3695.39, 3709.826, 3713.669], "stop_times": [3679.576, 3680.788, 3684.21, 3695.39, 3709.826, 3713.669, 3725.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3679.232}, "reply_to": "15243__1_101", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_103", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But look at the caption of the case, who's the respon -- who's the appellee?\nAs I say, I don't have in front of me but I think my memory is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3725.055, 3729.915], "stop_times": [3729.915, 3733.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3725.055}, "reply_to": "15243__1_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_104", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The caption is appellants, Retail Clerks the appellants, and Ralph E. Kennedy, Regional Director -- the appellant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3733.227], "stop_times": [3741.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3733.227}, "reply_to": "15243__1_103", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_105", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Appellee.\nNo, I say, who's the appellee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3741.605, 3743.448], "stop_times": [3743.448, 3744.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3741.605}, "reply_to": "15243__1_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_106", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It says appellant here on the -- at the top of the, top of the case.\nIt says, Retail Clerks, Locals -- various sort of Locals, appellants and Ralph Kennedy, Regional Director for and on behalf of the Labor Board, appellant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3744.764, 3750.451], "stop_times": [3750.451, 3761.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3744.764}, "reply_to": "15243__1_105", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_107", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Don't you have any appellee in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3761.287], "stop_times": [3764.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3761.287}, "reply_to": "15243__1_106", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_108", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Versus -- excuse me, versus Food Employers Council, appellee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3764.062], "stop_times": [3767.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3764.062}, "reply_to": "15243__1_107", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_109", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Appellee, that's the party in the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3767.336], "stop_times": [3770.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3767.336}, "reply_to": "15243__1_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_110", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The Food Employers Council, yes, that was charging party, that was appellee.\nAnd the Court says with respect to the answers by the same order this Court denied the charging parties in the Board proceedings permission to intervene as appellees but granted them permission to appear as amicus curiae.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3770.811, 3774.873], "stop_times": [3774.873, 3786.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3770.811}, "reply_to": "15243__1_109", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_111", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, I wasn't -- we can close look at those books but I -- my question wasn't directed to that at all.\nIt was directed to -- if I understand the basic thrust of your present argument, i.e. that the Regional Director of the Board is given absolute control of the litigation from first to last --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3786.7, 3792.485], "stop_times": [3792.485, 3807.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3786.7}, "reply_to": "15243__1_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_112", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3807.227], "stop_times": [3807.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3807.227}, "reply_to": "15243__1_111", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_113", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That is quite contrary to the decision of the Ninth Circuit in the Retail Clerks case, am I mistaken in my understanding of your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3807.969], "stop_times": [3815.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3807.969}, "reply_to": "15243__1_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_114", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The -- that is our argument and to the extent that it may be in account of Retail Clerks, I will call attention once more to the Henderson case which a Court just decided within the last few months and which is cited in our brief where they line up -- where they line up with the decision of the Court of Appeals in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3815.704], "stop_times": [3835.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3815.704}, "reply_to": "15243__1_113", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_115", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, on the appealability, on the right to appeal.\nI'm talking about the right to control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3835.79, 3839.446], "stop_times": [3839.446, 3841.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3835.79}, "reply_to": "15243__1_114", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_116", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "On the right to appeal, but I think those are the underlying considerations really as to why they don't have the right to appeal.\nWell, I did promise at the beginning though I haven't covered all the considerations but I think I made the clear, the heart of our argument with respect to this power to appeal.\nI did indicate earlier that I would say something about the mootness question and before I sit down, I shall address myself to that question.\nI see my light is flashing and I don't want to deprive my brother of any time unless the Court is willing to give me a few more minutes, I will sit down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3841.443, 3853.116, 3868.289, 3877.518], "stop_times": [3853.116, 3868.289, 3877.518, 3886.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3841.443}, "reply_to": "15243__1_115", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_117", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is that your red light, I was reading the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3886.83], "stop_times": [3888.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3886.83}, "reply_to": "15243__1_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_118", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "That was my red light, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3888.362], "stop_times": [3889.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3888.362}, "reply_to": "15243__1_117", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_119", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I've ask to -- I've taken up a lot of your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3889.825], "stop_times": [3891.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3889.825}, "reply_to": "15243__1_118", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__1_120", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "May I have a few more minutes, so I can talk about the mootness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3891.694], "stop_times": [3895.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3891.694}, "reply_to": "15243__1_119", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_121", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "You may go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3895.006], "stop_times": [3895.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3895.006}, "reply_to": "15243__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_122", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Alright, sir.\nThank you.\nThe statute provides that a District Court may grant such injunctive relief as it deems just in proper pending the Board's final adjudication with respect to the matter whether or not this case is moot depends upon what do we mean by pending final adjudication by the Board, by or the matter by the Board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3895.765, 3896.677, 3897.947], "stop_times": [3896.677, 3897.947, 3923.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3895.765}, "reply_to": "15243__1_121", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_123", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Based on, what did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3923.062], "stop_times": [3925.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3923.062}, "reply_to": "15243__1_122", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15243__1_124", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "What do -- what does that phrase mean?\nThat the District Court has the authority to grant interlocutory injunctive relief pending at the final adjudication of the matter by the Board.\nThe Board has issued its decision and final order in this case and we say that that final -- that decision and final order of the Board is the final adjudication of this case within the meaning of Section 10 (l) and with the issuance of the -- and with the issuance of the Board's decision which as I say, constitutes this final adjudication the power of the District Court, the power of the District Court to grant any kind of injunctive relief in this case is that an end.\nNow, the union has in fact, the union has in fact stopped the picketing.\nAs I said, the Board's decision and order is presently pending on review in the Court of Appeals.\nIf the union should resume, if the union should resume its picketing in defiance of the Board's order, the Board is empowered under Section 10 (e) and (f) to go to the Court of Appeals, to go to the Court of Appeals and ask for such temporary relief as maybe appropriate in the circumstances.\nIt's not mandated, but it's empowered to do so and presumably if there's a violation of the Board's order in this case, it assured that the Board should proceed very long in seeking to get some kind of temporary injunctive relief from the Court of Appeals.\nNow, the argument that's being made in this case here that final adjudication by the Board and I'll be through in just a few minutes Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe argument that's being made in this case here that final adjudication by the Board does not mean -- the decision of the Board in this particular case but that the case is not finally adjudicated until it's run its entire course before the Board as well as the courts and I may briefly ask by saying that the statute does not say final adjudication by the reviewing court, it says final adjudication by the Board.\nWe think the case is moot and I may say that I have mixed feelings about our mootness question and having come to this -- coming this far because well, I think that our argument on the mootness is very strong, at the same time I would like to have an answer from the Court as to the standing of the charging party in these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [3925.358, 3928.079, 3940.749, 3971.281, 3977.97, 3983.36, 4001.672, 4017.212, 4026.116, 4055.631], "stop_times": [3928.079, 3940.749, 3971.281, 3977.97, 3983.36, 4001.672, 4017.212, 4026.116, 4055.631, 4075.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3925.358}, "reply_to": "15243__1_123", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_125", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "You'd like to have it resolve if we'll resolve at the right way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4075.044], "stop_times": [4078.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4075.044}, "reply_to": "15243__1_124", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__1_126", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Either way, Your Honor, either way,[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4078.578], "stop_times": [4082.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4078.578}, "reply_to": "15243__1_125", "speaker": "dominick_l_manoli"}
{"id": "15243__1_127", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Manoli.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4082.297], "stop_times": [4089.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4082.297}, "reply_to": "15243__1_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_000", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nMr. Justice Stewart, the Food Employers Council case in so far as its decision is concerned is not in conflict with the position we take in this case.\nThe decision was that despite the fact that the Regional Director might have preferred a settlement and thereby a dismissal of the petition, he could not tie the hands of the District Court in so far as the discretion of that Court is concerned in fashioning the remedy.\nThat is not in conflict with the position we take.\nThe dictum in Food Employers Council is in conflict with the position we take and the dictum was eliminated for all intents and purposes in the Henderson case which Mr. Manoli referred to where they denied the right to intervene.\nThe statute if it please the Court is not silent on the question of the role of the charging party and in fact, the language includes more than just the rights of the charging party but the role of all other persons involved in the charge.\nIt says, upon the filing of any such petition, the Court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon any person involved in the charge, and such person including the charging party shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony.\nThat means that what we're talking about in this case is not only the appeal rights, the independent appeal rights of the charging party.\nBut we're also talking about the independent appeal rights of all the primary and secondary employers in every secondary boycott case.\nFor example, in this case, Joe and Eddie's Carpet Service, if Sears is allowed to appeal, it would also be allowed to independently appeal.\nAnd so would under this language every other primary and secondary employer involved under Section 10 (l) because of its language.\nSo, it's important to realize that we're talking here about more than just a charging party's role; we're talking about these other persons' roles as well.\nThe language to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony is language of limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4089.655, 4093.775, 4103.046, 4118.438, 4122.532, 4137.979, 4155.513, 4174.372, 4182.216, 4190.356, 4199.278, 4208.403, 4217.886], "stop_times": [4093.775, 4103.046, 4118.438, 4122.532, 4137.979, 4155.513, 4174.372, 4182.216, 4190.356, 4199.278, 4208.403, 4217.886, 4225.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4089.655}, "reply_to": "15243__1_127", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_001", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Mr. Barr, all of that argument is addressed to the litigation in the first stage and we're more or less beyond that, aren't we?\nWe're talking about standing on appeal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4225.577, 4236.526], "stop_times": [4236.526, 4238.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4225.577}, "reply_to": "15243__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_002", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4238.216], "stop_times": [4238.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4238.216}, "reply_to": "15243__2_001", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_003", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "-- not standing for review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4238.224], "stop_times": [4239.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4238.224}, "reply_to": "15243__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_004", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I'm talking precisely Mr. Chief Justice, about standing to appeal, standing to appeal when the Regional Director refuses to do so.\nIf the language -- if the language shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony gives the right of appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4239.723, 4248.66], "stop_times": [4248.66, 4258.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4239.723}, "reply_to": "15243__2_003", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_005", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is that the language that you used when you're talking about an appellate review?\nIsn't that the language you used when you're talking about the first stages of the litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4258.238, 4263.457], "stop_times": [4263.457, 4271.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4258.238}, "reply_to": "15243__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_006", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4271.466], "stop_times": [4271.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4271.466}, "reply_to": "15243__2_005", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_007", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "There's no evidence to present it in your appellate level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4271.762], "stop_times": [4273.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4271.762}, "reply_to": "15243__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_008", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No, the statute, I admit, does not say precisely there shall be no right of appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4273.956], "stop_times": [4279.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4273.956}, "reply_to": "15243__2_007", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_009", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And I want to have you interrupted for a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4279.464], "stop_times": [4281.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4279.464}, "reply_to": "15243__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_010", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But it is less than -- it is less than language which would have given them party status.\nCongress did not say that charging parties shall be a party in the 10 (l) litigation even though in that very same Section, Mr. Chief Justice Burger, in the third proviso, the labor organization in the 10 (l) is expressly referred to as a party litigant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4281.213, 4286.87], "stop_times": [4286.87, 4303.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4281.213}, "reply_to": "15243__2_009", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_011", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4303.323], "stop_times": [4304.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4303.323}, "reply_to": "15243__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_012", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Now, that same language --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4304.398], "stop_times": [4304.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4304.398}, "reply_to": "15243__2_011", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_013", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Of course, you haven't -- you haven't had a chance really to digest the opinions that Mr. Justice Douglas read this morning in connection with the Data Processing case with Barlow case but I suspect you glanced over them.\nIn both of those cases, there was nothing in the statute that gave any more aid and comfort to the idea of the appellate review, really, and there is here, would you agree to that or do you think that might be a little bit more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4304.892, 4320.232], "stop_times": [4320.232, 4333.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4304.892}, "reply_to": "15243__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_014", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Unfortunately, the decision that was read this morning has not been read by me and so I cannot compare, I cannot compare the facts in that case to this one but I would like to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4333.133], "stop_times": [4343.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4333.133}, "reply_to": "15243__2_013", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_015", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "We won't take advantage of you then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4343.977], "stop_times": [4345.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4343.977}, "reply_to": "15243__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_016", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I'm very sorry about that.\nI would like to say that -- that quite apart from what may be said in those decisions, I don't know if you had in those decisions the limiting language that you have here with regard to simply the right to present a relevant testimony to appear by counsel and present a relevant testimony when viewed in light of the fact that Congress used the word party and knew how to use it not only in this same Section but in Sections 10 (c) and (e) and particularly in light of the statutory scheme whereby the Board only empowered to seek injunctions under Section 10 (l), to institute injunctive proceedings under 10 (j), to seek interim relief in the Courts of Appeals under 10 (e) and (f) and even under 10 (f), Mr. Chief Justice where the aggrieved party is the party that appeals, the interim relief can be afforded to the Board and not to the party that appeals.\nSo that, not only the language but the statutory scheme is evidence, is evidence that Congress intended those words to limit the role of a charging party as well as the other persons involved in the charge and of course the legislative history as far as we are concerned is absolutely compelling because both Senator Ellender, strong supporter of S.1126 and Senator Taft, its chief sponsor had to rise and make statements to the effect that they strongly feared what would happen if private litigants were given access to the injunctive process.\nWhat would happen to the remainder of the legislation?\nThey thought, they'd lose it and so they have to give up the notion that control of the litigation could be vested in the private litigants and there was no question in the debates of the Ball amendment that what they were talking about was not just the right to initiate a suit but as Mr. Manoli correctly pointed out, the right to control litigation and what evolved -- what evolved from the legislative process after a lengthy and very emotional debates on this very point not on the point of appeal, but on the point of the role of charging parties was essentially a compromise just as in much of the other labor legislation that we have on the books.\nBut it's important to understand the nature of that compromise.\nThe compromise was not ambiguous language leaving it up to the courts for interpretation.\nThe compromise was that there would be a Section 303 rights on the part of employers to sue unions for damages in the event of secondary boycotts, that the proponents of the Bill would also have the benefit of a mandatory injunction under Section 10 (l).\nIt wasn't discretionary.\nAnd incidentally, unions don't have a similar right to the right given employers under Section 303, unions don't have the benefit of any mandatory injunction as employers do under Section 10 (l) and in return for that, in return for those protections, the proponents of the strong bill had to give up the notion that private litigants could control Section 10 (l) litigation and that limiting language was fashioned as a part of that compromise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4345.712, 4346.931, 4407.025, 4446.692, 4450.161, 4492.767, 4496.983, 4502.995, 4519.154, 4521.561], "stop_times": [4346.931, 4407.025, 4446.692, 4450.161, 4492.767, 4496.983, 4502.995, 4519.154, 4521.561, 4555.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4345.712}, "reply_to": "15243__2_015", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_017", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I suppose, your argument, is somewhat similar to an argument you had make where a man charges another with a crime by an affidavit that's authorize but he does not have control of the litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4555.405], "stop_times": [4574.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4555.405}, "reply_to": "15243__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15243__2_018", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The prosecutor state, that's correct Mr. Justice Black.\nWe're talking about the prosecutorial functions of the Regional Director of the Board.\nWe submit that it strains credulity to believe that the fight in the Congress was simply over who initiates these proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4574.976, 4582.247, 4588.06], "stop_times": [4582.247, 4588.06, 4597.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4574.976}, "reply_to": "15243__2_017", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_019", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But wasn't that what all the emotion was about that you spoke of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4597.272], "stop_times": [4601.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4597.272}, "reply_to": "15243__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_020", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4601.444], "stop_times": [4601.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4601.444}, "reply_to": "15243__2_019", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_021", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Emotional debate.\nDo you find something in the legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4601.788, 4603.225], "stop_times": [4603.225, 4605.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4601.788}, "reply_to": "15243__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_022", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes.\nI would like to quote if I may, Mr. Chief Justice, from page 27 of our brief, this is the debate involving the Ball amendment and it was a colloquy between Mr. Ball and Senator O'Daniel who supported his amendment.\nSenator O'Daniel posed the hypothetical.\nHe said, under S.1126, if the representative of the National Labors Relations Board shall decide that the proceeding shall be filed.\nControl of the litigation is exclusively vested in the representative of the National Labor Relations Board rather than in the person who claims to have been injured is not that correct.\nMr. Ball said that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4605.906, 4606.282, 4624.234, 4626.505, 4635.887, 4647.664], "stop_times": [4606.282, 4624.234, 4626.505, 4635.887, 4647.664, 4647.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4605.906}, "reply_to": "15243__2_021", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_023", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "What does that have to do -- what does that have to say about the reviewability aspect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4647.683], "stop_times": [4653.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4647.683}, "reply_to": "15243__2_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_024", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I conceded Mr. Chief Justice and I do again, there is no legislative history that specifically says charging parties shall not have the right to appeal where the Regional Director refuses to do so.\nTherefore, the question has to be answered by looking at the language of the Section, by looking at the scheme of the statute and by looking at expressions like these which indicate what Congress probably intended with regard to the issue before this Court and this is the exercise we are going through right now.\nSenator Wherry --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4653.418, 4666.183, 4685.073], "stop_times": [4666.183, 4685.073, 4686.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4653.418}, "reply_to": "15243__2_023", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_025", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Why should you not if the statute says that the parties who are aggrieved by decision?\nWhy does it need (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4686.152, 4692.453], "stop_times": [4692.453, 4695.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4686.152}, "reply_to": "15243__2_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_026", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, because all of these other statutes do not have the Norris-La Guardia flavor and background that Section -- that the enactment of Section 10 had each statute has to be looked at in light of its own particular purposes as this Court has stated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4695.875], "stop_times": [4713.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4695.875}, "reply_to": "15243__2_025", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_027", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Do you deny that the -- that Sears is a party.\nThe party of some kind, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4713.347, 4718.082], "stop_times": [4718.082, 4719.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4713.347}, "reply_to": "15243__2_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_028", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It was not a party in the 10 (l) litigation.\nI deny that it was a party in the 10 (l) litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4719.622, 4722.677], "stop_times": [4722.677, 4725.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4719.622}, "reply_to": "15243__2_027", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_029", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "But it was permitted to appear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4725.444], "stop_times": [4726.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4725.444}, "reply_to": "15243__2_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_030", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It was permitted to appear.\nYes, it was permitted to appear and present relevant testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4726.724, 4728.318], "stop_times": [4728.318, 4731.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4726.724}, "reply_to": "15243__2_029", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_031", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "And then cross-examined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4731.513], "stop_times": [4734.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4731.513}, "reply_to": "15243__2_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_032", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "We would suppose that they'd have right to cross-examine.\nI think that's implied in the grant stated by the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4734.029, 4736.404], "stop_times": [4736.404, 4740.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4734.029}, "reply_to": "15243__2_031", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_033", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, they do habitually, as a matter of practice, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4740.122], "stop_times": [4743.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4740.122}, "reply_to": "15243__2_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_034", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4743.502], "stop_times": [4744.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4743.502}, "reply_to": "15243__2_033", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_035", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "They are allowed to do it as a matter of practice consistently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4744.664], "stop_times": [4747.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4744.664}, "reply_to": "15243__2_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_036", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "They are allowed.\nThey are -- well, I don't know if the word consistently is correct.\nI think that usually, their role in 10 (l) litigation is very limited as it was in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4747.254, 4748.52, 4753.271], "stop_times": [4748.52, 4753.271, 4759.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4747.254}, "reply_to": "15243__2_035", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_037", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Say the Board is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4759.571], "stop_times": [4760.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4759.571}, "reply_to": "15243__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_038", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "In this case, they didn't engage in cross-examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4760.087], "stop_times": [4762.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4760.087}, "reply_to": "15243__2_037", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_039", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Say the Regional Director appealed in this case, would the charging party be permitted to intervene?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4762.697], "stop_times": [4769.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4762.697}, "reply_to": "15243__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_040", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4769.048], "stop_times": [4770.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4769.048}, "reply_to": "15243__2_039", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_041", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Would the -- would that already be the party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4770.334], "stop_times": [4772.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4770.334}, "reply_to": "15243__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_042", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4772.788], "stop_times": [4774.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4772.788}, "reply_to": "15243__2_041", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_043", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is there a (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4774.117], "stop_times": [4776.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4774.117}, "reply_to": "15243__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_044", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes all the cases that rule on that issue have said it cannot intervene, every single case that has ruled in itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4776.35], "stop_times": [4783.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4776.35}, "reply_to": "15243__2_043", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_045", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Just as the 53 cases here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4783.443], "stop_times": [4786.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4783.443}, "reply_to": "15243__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_046", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I think it's perfectly consistent with the cases here.\nAbsolutely, and in fact, some of those very cases which have denied the right to intervene under Section 10 (l) have recognized the force of Schofield but have distinguished it.\nAnd they've distinguished it on very valid grounds as we pointed out in our brief and as they pointed out in their decisions as Professor Moore distinguishes Schofield when it comes to Section 10 (l) litigation.\nAs the Ninth Circuit in Henderson distinguished Schofield when it comes to 10 (l) litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4786.912, 4790.022, 4800.434, 4811.798], "stop_times": [4790.022, 4800.434, 4811.798, 4817.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4786.912}, "reply_to": "15243__2_045", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_047", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "With respect which is the discretionary of the Section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4817.139], "stop_times": [4824.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4817.139}, "reply_to": "15243__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_048", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The holding that I'm familiar with has denied the right of a charging party and that Reynolds versus Marlene Industries, the union charging party in the 10 (j) was denied the right to intervene in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4824.052], "stop_times": [4836.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4824.052}, "reply_to": "15243__2_047", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_049", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "He had a right to support the position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4836.123], "stop_times": [4840.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4836.123}, "reply_to": "15243__2_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__2_050", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I believe he does and I believe he should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4840.373], "stop_times": [4842.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4840.373}, "reply_to": "15243__2_049", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_051", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Under the -- I'm just looking at it in the appendix, in 10 (l) as you well know it's spelled out at least, part of it is spelled out that the charging party shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony as in the text of 10 (l).\nIt does not seem to be an equivalent provision or sentence in 10 (j).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4842.711, 4860.461], "stop_times": [4860.461, 4865.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4842.711}, "reply_to": "15243__2_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__2_052", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Yes, and I really have no explanation for that.\nIt might have been an oversight.\nIt might have been an oversight in the process of legislating, I believe frankly that Section 10 (j) sort of came along after everything else and I don't think they were as careful with the language of Section 10 (j) as they were with the language of Section 10 (l).\nAs I say, the law is not been completely developed under Section 10 (j).\nThe only case I know of is this Reynolds versus Marlene Industry where they denied the right to intervene in a 10 (j) proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4865.242, 4867.489, 4869.803, 4888.208, 4892.145], "stop_times": [4867.489, 4869.803, 4888.208, 4892.145, 4899.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4865.242}, "reply_to": "15243__2_051", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_053", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "10 (j) is not very often utilized, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4899.684], "stop_times": [4902.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4899.684}, "reply_to": "15243__2_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__2_054", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It's utilized very rarely.\nWe'd like to see it utilized more often but unfortunately it's not.\nI want to, before sitting down, make one comment about mootness.\nThe counsel for Sears argued that this case ought not to be dismissed as moot because under the Southern Pacific Terminal line of decisions, this Court has held that a case ought not to be dismissed as moot where it otherwise -- where otherwise the issue could never reach this Court.\nThere are two answers that we'd like to present to this.\nFirst of all, it is very possible for this same issue to appear before this Court in the proper case because many Board cases are very lengthy.\nMany Board cases go over two years whether they -- whether it's because the issue is complicated or because in a 10 (k) case, for example, you might have two or three weeks of hearings.\nThe fact remains that there are many very lengthy Board decisions, Board cases and therefore, it is very possible for this issue to come here in a proper case at a later time.\nSecond --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4902.756, 4904.755, 4912.239, 4917.127, 4939.268, 4942.706, 4953.393, 4964.257, 4977.539], "stop_times": [4904.755, 4912.239, 4917.127, 4939.268, 4942.706, 4953.393, 4964.257, 4977.539, 4978.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4902.756}, "reply_to": "15243__2_053", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_055", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The Board order isn't final yet, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4978.191], "stop_times": [4980.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4978.191}, "reply_to": "15243__2_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_056", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The Board is final, Mr. Justice White.\nIt was issue on January -- on June 20th.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4980.562, 4983.373], "stop_times": [4983.373, 4985.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4980.562}, "reply_to": "15243__2_055", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_057", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Was that appealed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4985.53], "stop_times": [4986.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4985.53}, "reply_to": "15243__2_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_058", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It was appealed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4986.906], "stop_times": [4987.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4986.906}, "reply_to": "15243__2_057", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_059", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Does that appeal mean to oppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4987.888], "stop_times": [4989.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4987.888}, "reply_to": "15243__2_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_060", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It was appealed only because it was final by the way.\nUnder Section 10 (f), it could not have been appealed if it were not final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4989.774, 4992.237], "stop_times": [4992.237, 4995.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4989.774}, "reply_to": "15243__2_059", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_061", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Was it in effect?\nAnd what you have referred to reverse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4995.049, 4997.713], "stop_times": [4997.713, 4999.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4995.049}, "reply_to": "15243__2_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_062", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "The decision is in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [4999.635], "stop_times": [5001.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4999.635}, "reply_to": "15243__2_061", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_063", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "What if the Court of Appeals reverses the Board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5001.832], "stop_times": [5004.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5001.832}, "reply_to": "15243__2_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_064", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "If the Court of Appeals reverses the Board, well that ends --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5004.262], "stop_times": [5007.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5004.262}, "reply_to": "15243__2_063", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_065", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Very final in that sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5007.628], "stop_times": [5011.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5007.628}, "reply_to": "15243__2_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15243__2_066", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Well, it's final -- it's a final adjudication of the Board.\nIt's a final -- it's not a final adjudication of the case.\nBut the language of Section 10 (l) is final adjudication of the Board not final adjudication of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5011.752, 5014.658, 5018.509], "stop_times": [5014.658, 5018.509, 5024.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5011.752}, "reply_to": "15243__2_065", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_067", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Is it an appeal or is it a petition for enforcement of the Board's adjudication?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5024.619], "stop_times": [5027.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5024.619}, "reply_to": "15243__2_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__2_068", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "It's an appeal that we filed Mr. Justice Stewart for review, for review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5027.909], "stop_times": [5032.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5027.909}, "reply_to": "15243__2_067", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_069", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "For review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5032.196], "stop_times": [5032.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5032.196}, "reply_to": "15243__2_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15243__2_070", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "For review.\nYes, Your Honor.\nAnd the Board cross-applied for enforcement, so that both the petition for review and the cross application are before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals but I want to say that the second answer to the mootness argument is that that was not the issue in Southern Pacific Terminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5032.742, 5033.32, 5034.463], "stop_times": [5033.32, 5034.463, 5050.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5032.742}, "reply_to": "15243__2_069", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_071", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Mr. Barr, your time including your additional three minutes is up unless you want to just finish that sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5050.553], "stop_times": [5056.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5050.553}, "reply_to": "15243__2_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__2_072", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "I'll just finish that sentence.\nThe issue in those cases was not whether the issue could come before this Court at some future time or not.\nThe issue was whether this Court ought to dismiss a case as moot when the effect of an order that was issued by agency or a Court still continued despite its technical expiration.\nIn other words, there were still an order that was even though technically expired was influencing and coercing the comment of the parties.\nThat's not this case and this case is moot.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5056.352, 5057.611, 5065.893, 5077.878, 5085.659, 5088.127], "stop_times": [5057.611, 5065.893, 5077.878, 5085.659, 5088.127, 5088.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5056.352}, "reply_to": "15243__2_071", "speaker": "david_s_barr"}
{"id": "15243__2_073", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Barr.\nMr. Smetana, you have the 11 minutes.\nWe'll enlarge that a little if you need it.\nBut there's no compulsion on your part to use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5088.548, 5094.059, 5097.762, 5099.418], "stop_times": [5094.059, 5097.762, 5099.418, 5102.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5088.548}, "reply_to": "15243__2_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15243__3_000", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI should first like to point out in response to union counsel's argument that unions also are beneficiaries under Section 10 (l).\nThey in a number of cases, in an 8 (e) situation where there's a Hot Cargo case which the Ninth Circuit Retail Clerks case, it was the union who was the charging party and it was the union who was seeking to appeal and so that the unions in those situations as well an 8 (b) (4) (a) situation where the attempt to enforce of coercively enforce illegal 8 (d) contract and also in 8 (b) (4) (d), the construction industry jurisdictional cases, the union is the charging party.\nSecondly, so far as the cases have decided the appellate review, the union counsel suggests that they have all given charging party only amicus status.\nI would suggest, Your Honors that this is the first case where the issue has a reason where the -- it involves a charging party which is an appellant.\nAnd there is considerable difference because in the Retail Clerks case, although the charging party was relegated to amicus status, I'm glad that I have to refer the Court back to the appendix, to our reply brief on the -- an opposition to the petition for cert.\nThat's supplemental appendix A-43.\nIn that appendix, that appendix reflects the fact that the charging party which was only granted amicus status however presented oral argument and presented briefs and in fact, in the context of the case where the only ones to present that position.\nConversely, in our situation if we are not granted party status, we will be precluded from appealing from the denial of injunctive relief.\nAnd if the Board's argument on control is to hold, I would submit the Board's argument control, on control is wholly without reason primarily because the Board is suggesting that it could be in the position of on the one hand having found reasonable cause what was mandatorily required to proceed with the Act.\nOn the other hand, still maintaining their reasonable cause, still going forth with the underlying case but suddenly deciding that for some reason, there might be something that in appealing the 10 (l) situation might interfere with its ultimate victory in the underlying case.\nI would submit that if that is the -- if that is their fear, fine!\nLet the chips fall where they will and then the Board perhaps will have to pull out of the underlying case.\nBut so long as they maintain reasonable cause, so long as they don't their mind about the underlying case, I don't know whether they have a mandatory obligation to go forward but certainly, they have -- they cannot take the position that they must have control.\nThey have the control.\nThey can change their mind on reasonable cause that is the only kind of control.\nAnd I would submit in analyzing the question of control, we must look to the kind of control the Board has urged even in the court below.\nThe Board -- the Board would say as the Tenth Circuit has said, the language of 10 (l) means that and no more but conversely, again looking at the scheme of the Act, the Board in charging, in charge cases, the charging party has many rights that interfere with the Board's control.\nThe Board for example cannot withdraw its complaint in the Board case once having gone to hearing without giving the charging party rights.\nThe Board cannot settle the Board case once having gone to complaint without the charging party being heard.\nI think these are the kind and I'm saying that that scheme of the Act is also transposed to the language of being heard being the fact that it's the same charging party.\nI would further argue the answer to the Norris-La Guardia argument.\nMr. Manoli gave us a number of quotes both on argument and from his brief with respect to the fears.\nWell, the persons who are enunciating the fears at that time, they were enunciating the fears that the passage of Taft-Hartley would return us to Norris-La Guardia and the very fear that they were concerned about was the fear that anyone be at the Board or private parties would seek injunctive relief before the merits were decided and I would submit that the Congress acted very wisely in giving the -- in entrusting the Board with their responsibility of seeking that relief.\nBecause as we have pointed out in our reply brief on page 9, footnote 6 -- footnote 3, pardon me, the Board's record is excellent taking 1967 as a typical year and the only reason we took 1967 was because we wanted to see what happened to all those 10 (l) cases where the Board went to final order.\nThere was 69 cases in that year.\nThere were many other 10 (l) they had issued on 165 and they were almost 1500, 1800 charges under these sections.\nBut the significant fact is that in those cases where they went to final order where injunctive relief was either granted or denied, and the ultimate Board litigation only one case was their cause to find that the Regional Director's original cause, original basis for reasonable cause was an error.\nSo, I would submit that the Board is wise that the persons, the charged party has not generally been disadvantaged in terms of the Regional Director not being sustained in his finding of reasonable cause.\nAnd I would -- I submit, the finding of reasonable cause is the central issue and so long as the Regional Director maintains that reasonable cause, he cannot say that he does not have control because that is the element of control.\nSimply so far as the Henderson case which counsels of both side, and I would say is not very convincing.\nThe Ninth Circuit in the Retail Clerks case went to a great length to try to analyze the question.\nThe Henderson case was simply a summary discussion and really only addressed itself to the question of amicus or intervention status at the appellate level and that is inconsistent, first of all with the Retail Clerks case with respect to that question.\nAnd I would submit that there is however a more fundamental question when we are appellants.\nBecause in order to appeal, we must be considered a party and as I have said, a party minus the right to seek, a party minus the right to urge other positions not consistent with the original position and perhaps as Moore suggest, perhaps there is some third animal in the law which could come out in this case.\nSomething less -- something less than a full party because we can't do all those other things but yet someone having the rights of a party and someone who has -- where the rights of the amicus are not sufficient as the Court has said in Schofield.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5102.013, 5104.075, 5114.438, 5143.019, 5153.519, 5163.88, 5179.758, 5182.664, 5196.991, 5204.538, 5222.962, 5237.368, 5241.137, 5247.23, 5260.589, 5261.947, 5265.885, 5273.594, 5289.766, 5296.423, 5302.329, 5311.845, 5315.315, 5322.19, 5347.816, 5367.496, 5370.028, 5379.071, 5396.305, 5409.15, 5422.336, 5429.792, 5434.851, 5449.475, 5454.987, 5472.425, 5484.494], "stop_times": [5104.075, 5114.438, 5143.019, 5153.519, 5163.88, 5179.758, 5182.664, 5196.991, 5204.538, 5222.962, 5237.368, 5241.137, 5247.23, 5260.589, 5261.947, 5265.885, 5273.594, 5289.766, 5296.423, 5302.329, 5311.845, 5315.315, 5322.19, 5347.816, 5367.496, 5370.028, 5379.071, 5396.305, 5409.15, 5422.336, 5429.792, 5434.851, 5449.475, 5454.987, 5472.425, 5484.494, 5485.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5102.013}, "reply_to": "15243__2_073", "speaker": "gerard_c_smetana"}
{"id": "15243__3_001", "conversation_id": "15243", "text": "Thank you.\nYou have not used your three minutes.\nBut thank you.\nCase is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_476", "start_times": [5485.371, 5485.775, 5487.936, 5490.061], "stop_times": [5485.775, 5487.936, 5490.061, 5493.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5485.371}, "reply_to": "15243__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_000", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Today is number 81, Simmons against West Haven Housing Authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [21.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_001", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [21.219], "stop_times": [21.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 21.219}, "reply_to": "14876__0_000", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_002", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Dineen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [21.596], "stop_times": [23.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 21.596}, "reply_to": "14876__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_003", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nMy name is Francis X. Dineen.\nI represent the appellants in this matter.\nJurisdiction of this Court has invoked under 28 United States Code, Section 1257, Subsection 2 because of the fact that the constitutionality of a state statute as an issue.\nAnd by the decision of the appellate division of the State of Connecticut, the constitutionality of that state statute has been upheld.\nThe Supreme Court of Connecticut denied our petition for certification and so the appeal to this Court is from the appellant's division of the Circuit Court.\nThe facts of this case involve a relatively ordinary eviction action which was commenced in July of 1967.\nThereafter, pleadings were filed and defenses were raised and in fact seven special defenses were raised to the eviction action that was brought.\nIn January of 1968, a trial took place.\nOn January 16, judgment was entered for the landlord, the Housing Authority of West Haven.\nThereafter on January 18, our appeal from that judgment was filed with the Appellate Division.\nAt that time, pursuant to Section 52-542 of the Connecticut General Statutes, it was required that we file with the court a bond with a surety to cover the rents that might accrue during the pendency of the appeal.\nAnd in order to file that bond, on behalf of our clients, we went to several surety companies asking them what they would require to go on the bond as a surety.\nThe bond in this case because the rent was $72.00 per month would have been approximately something in the nature of $400.00 to $500.00 or even more dollars for this bond.\nIn fact, that case that we have cited in our brief, in which the rent was approximately the same as our rent, the trial court had ordered that a bond in the amount of $700.00 be filed in that particular case.\nSo that in any event, our bond would've been something in the nature of $500.00 to $700.00.\nAnd this again, is to covered the rents that would accrue during the pendency of the appeal.\nThe surety companies that we approached asking that they own this bond with us, demanded full cash collateral before they would sign a bond as well as demanding their fee.\nThis was impossible for our clients to pay.\nThey were poor and they didn't have that kind of money.\nSo, we went to the trial court and by motion on our client's behalf to waive the surety bond.\nWe stated these facts to the trial court and asked that as an alternative in order to protect the landlord during the pendency of the appeal that we be allowed to pay the rent into the Court every month to be held by the Court in escrow.\nAnd we also agreed that in the event that we should loss the appeal and ultimately if the Supreme Court of Connecticut heard it and lose there, but this body then will be turn over to the landlord.\nWe also agreed that if any one month we fail to pay that rent into the Court that the appeal could automatically be dismissed.\nNow, we thought this was a fair alternative because the increase of the state has in protecting the landlord would be met entirely by this provision by this alternative that we offered if we pay the rent to the Court every month as it came due.\nAnd if we fail any one month and our appeal would then be dismissed, the landlord would have all the protection that he would be entitled to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [23.203, 26.407, 28.82, 33.191, 45.511, 54.714, 66.376, 77.832, 88.897, 92.854, 100.055, 108.894, 128.259, 140.517, 152.52, 164.485, 170.343, 176.947, 187.867, 191.508, 194.996, 202.529, 218.813, 229.57, 239.24, 253.869], "stop_times": [26.407, 28.82, 33.191, 45.511, 54.714, 66.376, 77.832, 88.897, 92.854, 100.055, 108.894, 128.259, 140.517, 152.52, 164.485, 170.343, 176.947, 187.867, 191.508, 194.996, 202.529, 218.813, 229.57, 239.24, 253.869, 260.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 23.203}, "reply_to": "14876__0_002", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_004", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Is it clear Mr. Dineen that the Court have the power by way of equity, discretion or some other source to waive the bond requirement and accept your alternative proposal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [260.785], "stop_times": [275.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.785}, "reply_to": "14876__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_005", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Your Honor, it appears to us that it's clear that they did not have that discretion.\nThe reason I say that, we cited in our appendix the appellate court decision and on page 57 in the appendix where we recited the decision, the court says, the right to an appeal is a not a constitutional one.\nThough one based upon privileges of natural justice.\nIt is but statutory privilege which an aggrieved party has the right to avail himself of only when he is strictly complied with the provisions of the statutes.\nAnd later, on page 60 of the appendix, the Appellate Division says, \"Want a bond with surety, where a bond with surety is by statute a prerequisite of review furnishes a sufficient ground for dismissal of the appeal.\"\nWe made the motion in the trial court because there had not been a decision such as this with regard to waiving a surety bond prior to this time.\nWe made it because we felt when we're offering a fair alternative.\nIt turned out from our understanding now of the Appellate Division's decision that the Appellate Division decides that it does not have the power to waive this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [275.946, 281.932, 298.257, 300.9, 310.377, 327.854, 337.568, 342.743], "stop_times": [281.932, 298.257, 300.9, 310.377, 327.854, 337.568, 342.743, 351.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 275.946}, "reply_to": "14876__0_004", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_006", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "What did you say the suit was filed for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [351.964], "stop_times": [355.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.964}, "reply_to": "14876__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_007", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "This is an eviction action Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [355.108], "stop_times": [357.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.108}, "reply_to": "14876__0_006", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_008", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It -- nonpayment of rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [357.513], "stop_times": [359.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.513}, "reply_to": "14876__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_009", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, there were two actions.\nThe action that we're concerned with was based on nonpayment of rent.\nPrior to that, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [359.466, 363.199, 367.409], "stop_times": [363.199, 367.409, 368.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.466}, "reply_to": "14876__0_008", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_010", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And you offered to pay the money in the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [368.784], "stop_times": [371.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.784}, "reply_to": "14876__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_011", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We offered to pay the money in the Court at the time of the appeal.\nDuring the pendency of the action from July 1967 until the time of judgment in January of 68', rent was not being paid.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [371.279, 375.608, 387.494], "stop_times": [375.608, 387.494, 388.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.279}, "reply_to": "14876__0_010", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_012", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Was there any defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [388.28], "stop_times": [389.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.28}, "reply_to": "14876__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_013", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, there was Your Honor.\nThere were defenses on the merits that no rent was due.\nOur defense all along was for two reasons no rent was due.\nOne was that the -- we claim that the landlord, the Housing Authority, had not complied with Connecticut statutes and this is set forth as well on page 29 of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [389.787, 391.025, 394.563, 397.56], "stop_times": [391.025, 394.563, 397.56, 408.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.787}, "reply_to": "14876__0_012", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_014", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "What Connecticut statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [408.065], "stop_times": [409.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.065}, "reply_to": "14876__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_015", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "There're Connecticut statutes Your Honor that require that any building that is considered a tenement house or a garden type apartment.\nAnd these are -- they find in Connecticut statutes, must have what is called a tenement house certificate stating that that building complies precisely with these tenement house laws.\nAnd if it does not have a tenement house certificate, then no rent is due.\nAnd under a case cited I believe in our jurisdictional statement, Creamy Hollow Apartments against Louis, no special proceeding or some reprocess action can be brought when such a house does not have this tenement house certificate.\nThat was one of our defenses as to the claim for rent.\nThere was a second defense and that relates to the first action that was brought.\nThere was an action brought some two months or three months before the second action which is an issue here.\nThat was brought in early May and it was effort file the landlord to put these people out for another reason.\nThat was our contention that under Connecticut law that once a first action is brought, there is no more obligation on the part of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord.\nIt's an obligation to pay what we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [409.333, 417.956, 428.095, 432.151, 445.018, 448.54, 452.593, 459.504, 467.207, 477.85], "stop_times": [417.956, 428.095, 432.151, 445.018, 448.54, 452.593, 459.504, 467.207, 477.85, 479.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.333}, "reply_to": "14876__0_014", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_016", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But you offered to pay the rent first, plus the cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [479.048], "stop_times": [482.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.048}, "reply_to": "14876__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_017", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I beg your pardon Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [482.339], "stop_times": [483.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.339}, "reply_to": "14876__0_016", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_018", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Did I understand that you say awhile ago, you had offered to pay rent plus the cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [483.597], "stop_times": [488.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.597}, "reply_to": "14876__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_019", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We had offered to pay rent every month from the time of the appeal.\nThe point I'm trying to make is this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [488.276, 493.749], "stop_times": [493.749, 495.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.276}, "reply_to": "14876__0_018", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_020", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That would pay at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [495.11], "stop_times": [496.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.11}, "reply_to": "14876__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_021", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I beg your pardon Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [496.916], "stop_times": [497.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.916}, "reply_to": "14876__0_020", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_022", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That would pay all the man was claiming, that company --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [497.772], "stop_times": [500.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.772}, "reply_to": "14876__0_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_023", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThat would pay from the time the appeal started -- from the time the appeal started during the entire pendency of the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [500.118, 500.595], "stop_times": [500.595, 508.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.118}, "reply_to": "14876__0_022", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_024", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But would it pay the back rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [508.879], "stop_times": [510.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.879}, "reply_to": "14876__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_025", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It would not pay the back rent, Your Honor.\nNow as to that question, there's no required in Connecticut law that in order to defend or to litigate in a summary process action, if you have to pay any rent.\nIn fact generally, when a summary process action is commenced, the landlord will refuse to take any rent because this would be a waiver probably of his action.\nLitigating and defending an eviction action is not conditioned in Connecticut upon paying current rent.\nConnecticut law does not require that.\nAnd this particular factor, we don't feel as relevant to this case.\nIn other words the fact that for several months, from July until January rent was not paid is not relevant to the issue that we presented to this Court.\nIf we had paid the rent in full, every month as we went along during the litigation.\nWe still would have come to the same problem that we came to here.\nWe would've come to the time of a appeal where we would have had put up this bond with a surety.\nIn other words, to get the surety, we would have to put up lump amount covering perhaps some six or seven or eight months rent.\nAnd so the precise same issue that's raised by this case would have been raised even if every month we had been paying the rent to the landlord or into the court during the litigation.\nBut we had defenses up until the time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [510.157, 512.654, 525.119, 535.935, 542.35, 544.768, 549.437, 559.283, 565.712, 568.996, 574.962, 582.11, 594.441], "stop_times": [512.654, 525.119, 535.935, 542.35, 544.768, 549.437, 559.283, 565.712, 568.996, 574.962, 582.11, 594.441, 597.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.157}, "reply_to": "14876__0_024", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_026", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "What did you say your second defense was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [597.707], "stop_times": [599.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.707}, "reply_to": "14876__0_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_027", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The first was that there wasn't any tenement house certificate.\nThe second was, that there had been a prior action brought which terminates any obligation on the part of a tenant to pay rent to the landlord.\nOnce the landlord commences an eviction action, he waives his right to collect rent and his effort to terminate the lease --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [599.921, 602.524, 611.044], "stop_times": [602.524, 611.044, 618.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.921}, "reply_to": "14876__0_026", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_028", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "He waives his right to collect rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [618.823], "stop_times": [620.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.823}, "reply_to": "14876__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_029", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Collect rent as such Your Honor.\nHe's still is entitled to collect whatever the reasonable value of the premises are, but this would be a separate matter.\nThese were our two defenses during the cause of the trial that rent was not due to the landlord.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [620.52, 622.983, 631.681], "stop_times": [622.983, 631.681, 639.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.52}, "reply_to": "14876__0_028", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_030", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "What was the basis of the prior action?\nWas that also an eviction action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [639.146, 641.861], "stop_times": [641.861, 643.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.146}, "reply_to": "14876__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_031", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That was an eviction Your Honor.\nThe basis of that was they claimed the nuisance with regard toward tenants.\nWe defended that.\nThat never came to trial, that action in fact is still pending, theoretically.\nIt's never been withdrawn, it still exist.\nOur defense is relating to that action are set forth from the special defenses that we had which are part of the record in the second action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [643.468, 645.652, 651.139, 652.68, 657.931, 661.189], "stop_times": [645.652, 651.139, 652.68, 657.931, 661.189, 671.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.468}, "reply_to": "14876__0_030", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_032", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "So, that was the first action in the eviction action because your clients have allegedly were committing a nuisance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [671.583], "stop_times": [678.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.583}, "reply_to": "14876__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_033", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That was the allegation Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [678.427], "stop_times": [679.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.427}, "reply_to": "14876__0_032", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_034", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And then -- and that's never been resolved.\nAnd then there was a second eviction action based upon to nonpayment of rent.\nAnd you had two defenses.\nFirst, that since they didn't have a certificate, they couldn't ask you for rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [679.324, 681.657, 685.699, 687.206], "stop_times": [681.657, 685.699, 687.206, 692.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.324}, "reply_to": "14876__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_035", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [692.142], "stop_times": [692.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.142}, "reply_to": "14876__0_034", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_036", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And secondly, since they brought this earlier action, they didn't have any right to ask you for rent as such (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [692.669], "stop_times": [698.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.669}, "reply_to": "14876__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_037", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nThey have waived it or they were stopped to claim --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [698.675, 699.511], "stop_times": [699.511, 701.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.675}, "reply_to": "14876__0_036", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_038", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But I don't understand, how you can say that if you had kept paying rent this question would still have arisen because if you had I suppose in this action which is only based on a nonpayment of rent, it couldn't have arisen.\nThere would've not been an appeal, there wouldn't have not been a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [701.378, 716.108], "stop_times": [716.108, 719.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.378}, "reply_to": "14876__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_039", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nIf we had been paying -- let us assume we have been paying during the course of the litigation each month.\nNow, if we paid as rent, there is some technical use of words in Connecticut as to rent or use in occupancy.\nIf we paid as to rent and it was accepted as rent, this would operate as a waiver of the action.\nIn other words, once the landlord had renewed the tenancy, then they couldn't continue on with the action.\nWell, let us assume we didn't pay it as a rent, we paid it as use in occupancy with the reasonable value with the premises as we went along.\nNow, that would have not affected to the court's judgment because the judgment was based upon facts that took place prior to this time, prior to the continuation of litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [719.07, 719.887, 725.485, 734.746, 740.72, 746.189, 753.543], "stop_times": [719.887, 725.485, 734.746, 740.72, 746.189, 753.543, 764.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.07}, "reply_to": "14876__0_038", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_040", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Nonpayment of rent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [764.683], "stop_times": [765.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.683}, "reply_to": "14876__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_041", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Nonpayment of rent for a specific month which was back in the month of May which was what they were claiming.\nAt the time of judgment, I -- if we are paying the during the course of litigation is, what I'm saying is that would not affected the court's judgment.\nAt the time of judgment, eventhough we were paid up and were current, we still would've face this appeal bond which says, if you want to appeal, you have to put up a bond with surety to cover the rents that will accrue.\nEven if we had no arrears at that time, we would have to get a surety and pay him say, five months in advance or whatever it would be that we would put down in the bond, say $500.00 in advance.\nAnd even if we're current and had no arrears, we would still in order to meet this appeal bond have to have more tenants put up $500.00 in there which they couldn't afford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [765.41, 773.202, 781.165, 793.435, 805.724], "stop_times": [773.202, 781.165, 793.435, 805.724, 816.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.41}, "reply_to": "14876__0_040", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_042", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But how would you lose if you paid the rent?\nSo I understand you said this would pay you to pay rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [816.119, 821.337], "stop_times": [821.337, 825.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.119}, "reply_to": "14876__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__0_043", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The eviction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [825.846], "stop_times": [826.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.846}, "reply_to": "14876__0_042", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_044", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And you did pay rent, you'd win.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [826.533], "stop_times": [831.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.533}, "reply_to": "14876__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__0_045", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, not necessarily because this is a very -- it's a very technical action.\nThe action that was brought related to a failure to pay in May.\nThe first action was brought on May 5th.\nWe claimed we had a leeway to pay.\nIn other words, they have been there for months before sometimes they paid on the 10th, sometimes on the 15th.\nIt's a working family.\nWhen they didn't have it, they got a few days extra to pay.\nThe landlord wanted them out and brought the action on the 5th on the technicality that they hadn't pay on the first.\nNow, what I understood Mr. Justice Stewart's comment today was if we're paying in good faith a long as we went rather not necessarily on the first which is the technical basis of the action.\nBut say on the 15th and whatever we had it each month, wouldn't that affect the outcome.\nI'm saying no, that would not affect the outcome at all, because he would still get to the point of judgment where the trial judge say, why didn't you pay on the first.\nTherefore, judgment for the landlord, I don't care whether you've been paying your arrears or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [831.192, 836.37, 841.807, 844.864, 846.84, 851.72, 852.706, 856.531, 863.526, 874.371, 878.66, 886.738], "stop_times": [836.37, 841.807, 844.864, 846.84, 851.72, 852.706, 856.531, 863.526, 874.371, 878.66, 886.738, 890.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.192}, "reply_to": "14876__0_044", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_046", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "You mean the Connecticut Court would say that for the past six months you paid $72.00 everyday, every month on the second, therefore, you are out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [890.483], "stop_times": [901.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.483}, "reply_to": "14876__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__0_047", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nIf you didn't meet the terms --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [901.748, 902.141], "stop_times": [902.141, 902.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.748}, "reply_to": "14876__0_046", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_048", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's what the Court would say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [902.66], "stop_times": [903.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.66}, "reply_to": "14876__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__0_049", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If you didn't meet the terms of the lease and the eviction action were brought on the basis of -- then termination of the lease for failure to comply with it.\nEven though during the course of litigation, we were paying use in occupancy.\nThat court would still say, that they were the judgment of the landlord.\nSo that there could've been a time, and what I'm saying is that makes this nonpayment or this failure to pay during the litigation irrelevant.\nThere could've been a time when we came to judgment for the landlord and we had no arrears.\nWe've been paying this use of occupancy all along and we're still faced with the precise question that were faced with here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [903.728, 912.121, 916.189, 921.249, 929.661, 935.694], "stop_times": [912.121, 916.189, 921.249, 929.661, 935.694, 943.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.728}, "reply_to": "14876__0_048", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_050", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Dineen, let me see if I can get one opinion clear there were some findings here and then there are some colloquy in the record which would seem to explain the findings.\nAnd I'm not sure to -- in which action this took place.\nThe finding I'm referring to, the finding of the trial judge, if the court at the first instance that this appeal was taken for purposes of delay and not in good faith.\nNow, do you challenge those findings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [943.697, 954.217, 956.909, 969.87], "stop_times": [954.217, 956.909, 969.87, 974.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.697}, "reply_to": "14876__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_051", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, we did challenge those Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [974.239], "stop_times": [976.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.239}, "reply_to": "14876__0_050", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_052", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But now if those findings, let's assume first that you are right from -- and that the findings are in error, do we review a finding of the Court at the first instance of the state on a factual issue in which undoubtedly credibility and other similar factors are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [976.103], "stop_times": [994.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.103}, "reply_to": "14876__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_053", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, no Your Honor.\nMy contention as to that as well is that that finding is irrelevant to this appeal.\nThat finding that the appeal was taken for the purpose of delay relates only to stay of execution.\nOther words, we're still --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [994.412, 996.216, 1001.665, 1007.553], "stop_times": [996.216, 1001.665, 1007.553, 1008.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.412}, "reply_to": "14876__0_052", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_054", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Was it not also relate to whether a bond would be accepted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1008.679], "stop_times": [1014.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.679}, "reply_to": "14876__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_055", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1014.527], "stop_times": [1014.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.527}, "reply_to": "14876__0_054", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_056", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "-- Under any circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1014.981], "stop_times": [1015.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.981}, "reply_to": "14876__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_057", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "-- because as I understand the Appellate Division decision there is no discretion in the court to waive the bond.\nIn other words, even if they thought we were appealing in for delay.\nThey or not for delay or in appealing in good faith whatever the trial court may have found.\nHe still doesn't have the discretion to waive that bond.\nHe requires the bond and failure to put up the bond makes a subject then to a motion to dismiss the appeal.\nOur feeling is that the finding that the appeal was taken for the purpose of delay is not relevant to the questions before this Court because that only relates to the stay of execution.\nThe Appellate Division's decision in this matter, when they dismissed the appeal and denied our motion to review says nothing about any delay.\nIt simply says, that we failed to put up a bond and that the bond is required.\nThe appeal was dismissed because we didn't put up the bond and the bond was not waived because there was no authority in the court to waive a bond.\nAny question of delay which we did dispute all along even assuming that there were delay involved and that the finding of the trial court were correct is not relevant to this appeal.\nThe only thing that's relevant as we see it, is the surety bond which requires in a fact that in advance be made on the rent in lump sum for some five or six months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1015.77, 1021.877, 1025.448, 1030.326, 1033.973, 1040.082, 1051.915, 1064.428, 1068.957, 1077.79, 1090.998], "stop_times": [1021.877, 1025.448, 1030.326, 1033.973, 1040.082, 1051.915, 1064.428, 1068.957, 1077.79, 1090.998, 1103.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.77}, "reply_to": "14876__0_056", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_058", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, that would defend if you -- while you approach this issues about the statute on this face and the statute in the trial.\nIf you're arguing as a matter of federal constitutional law, state could not insist about security and in appeal in a situation where it made the determination, that the appeal was frivolous unless you can take it for the purpose in July, are arguing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1103.404, 1117.274], "stop_times": [1117.274, 1136.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.404}, "reply_to": "14876__0_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_059", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I'm not arguing that Your Honor.\nUnder Connecticut law, the question of delay or formality doesn't relate to your being entitle to appeal.\nWhat we are questioning is when there is the right to appeal, that's available to everyone but it's condition on the posting of this bond and which requires that you in a fact put up several months rent in advance.\nNow, that that is unconstitutional because it deprives some constitutional, we claim for several reasons both it denies Equal Protection of the law and it denies Due Process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1136.844, 1138.897, 1149.09, 1164.399], "stop_times": [1138.897, 1149.09, 1164.399, 1177.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.844}, "reply_to": "14876__0_058", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_060", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Where is that finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1177.185], "stop_times": [1179.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.185}, "reply_to": "14876__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_061", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I beg your pardon Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1179.221], "stop_times": [1179.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.221}, "reply_to": "14876__0_060", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_062", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Where is that finding you made was indicated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1179.997], "stop_times": [1182.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.997}, "reply_to": "14876__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_063", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Which finding, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1182.472], "stop_times": [1183.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.472}, "reply_to": "14876__0_062", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_064", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Finding of facts about whether they were of indulgence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1183.041], "stop_times": [1189.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.041}, "reply_to": "14876__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_065", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "There was a motion made to the trial court that we be entitle to waive the bond and at that time we filed an affidavit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1189.899], "stop_times": [1199.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.899}, "reply_to": "14876__0_064", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_066", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Where is that?\nIn the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1199.55, 1201.287], "stop_times": [1201.287, 1201.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.55}, "reply_to": "14876__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_067", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I believe that's in the appendix, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1201.934], "stop_times": [1204.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.934}, "reply_to": "14876__0_066", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_068", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I believe that's finding one and two, I'm sure what page it's on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1204.038], "stop_times": [1211.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.038}, "reply_to": "14876__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_069", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And in the appendix on page 10, we have the motion to where the surety bond.\nThen, we have a financial affidavit of the tenants on page 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1211.501, 1217.224], "stop_times": [1217.224, 1224.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.501}, "reply_to": "14876__0_068", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_070", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Now, where's the finding of the Court whether there was indulgence shown?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1224.487], "stop_times": [1229.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.487}, "reply_to": "14876__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_071", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I don't believe the Court ever made a finding Your Honor.\nThe Court then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1229.327, 1232.618], "stop_times": [1232.618, 1235.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.327}, "reply_to": "14876__0_070", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_072", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Now what did he show what the man does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1235.103], "stop_times": [1237.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.103}, "reply_to": "14876__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_073", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes Your Honor that's is in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1237.716], "stop_times": [1238.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.716}, "reply_to": "14876__0_072", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_074", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "What's his occupation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1238.902], "stop_times": [1242.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.902}, "reply_to": "14876__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_075", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "He was working at Series Rolebook at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1242.303], "stop_times": [1244.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.303}, "reply_to": "14876__0_074", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_076", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Regularly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1244.848], "stop_times": [1246.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.848}, "reply_to": "14876__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_077", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Not regularly Your Honor.\nThe problem was this.\nDuring the cause of the trial, this man had a nervous breakdown and was unemployed for a substantial period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1246.764, 1248.464, 1249.248], "stop_times": [1248.464, 1249.248, 1254.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.764}, "reply_to": "14876__0_076", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_078", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "During the course of the trial of before it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1254.757], "stop_times": [1257.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.757}, "reply_to": "14876__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_079", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "During the course of the trial.\nAt the time of the appeal, when we file this financial affidavit, he then was working with Series Rolebook.\nBut during the course of the trial, he had a nervous breakdown and was unemployed.\nWe tried to obtain welfare assistance for the family.\nBut because of the fact that an eviction proceeding was pending, we are unable to get assistance from the welfare upon.\nThis one of the background fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1257.021, 1258.498, 1265.356, 1268.877, 1272.827, 1278.684], "stop_times": [1258.498, 1265.356, 1268.877, 1272.827, 1278.684, 1280.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.021}, "reply_to": "14876__0_078", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_080", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "So you agreed to get some kind of fund in the Court?\nShall be reward indigent or you bring the case all of at the end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1280.82, 1283.664], "stop_times": [1283.664, 1288.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.82}, "reply_to": "14876__0_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_081", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well didn't the corporation think it was a relevant whether he was indigent or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1288.107], "stop_times": [1293.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.107}, "reply_to": "14876__0_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__0_082", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, that's -- this our understanding of the court's opinion that whether he is indigent or not there isn't the power to waive the surety bond.\nAnd I think that's implicit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1293.075, 1301.757], "stop_times": [1301.757, 1304.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.075}, "reply_to": "14876__0_081", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_083", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Suppose there's not if it's in theoretical thing, why should we have it up beyond the constitutional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1304.689], "stop_times": [1312.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.689}, "reply_to": "14876__0_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_084", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, the Appellate Division as I understand it makes a clear that there is any power to waive the surety bond that the surety bond must be complied with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1312.158], "stop_times": [1319.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.158}, "reply_to": "14876__0_083", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_085", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Suppose does not and suppose he doesn't need this waive.\nWould you still claim you could get a decision on the constitutional question decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1319.716, 1323.319], "stop_times": [1323.319, 1326.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.716}, "reply_to": "14876__0_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_086", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I don't understand Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1326.801], "stop_times": [1328.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.801}, "reply_to": "14876__0_085", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_087", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Suppose it is not an essential, would you still claim that eventhough you're not indigent you could get it it's not constitutional question decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1328.337], "stop_times": [1341.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.337}, "reply_to": "14876__0_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_088", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If you're not indigent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1341.954], "stop_times": [1343.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.954}, "reply_to": "14876__0_087", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_089", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, there's no finding of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1343.152], "stop_times": [1347.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.152}, "reply_to": "14876__0_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_090", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1347.122], "stop_times": [1347.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1347.122}, "reply_to": "14876__0_089", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_091", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Or you say you can get to that issue without having something or some kind of find or of something to show that really you use any of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1347.95], "stop_times": [1356.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.95}, "reply_to": "14876__0_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_092", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, we have an affidavit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1356.989], "stop_times": [1358.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.989}, "reply_to": "14876__0_091", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_093", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's right but is there any finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1358.534], "stop_times": [1361.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.534}, "reply_to": "14876__0_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_094", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, could you make the court make a finding on -- even to that you, if they thought would be relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1361.536], "stop_times": [1370.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.536}, "reply_to": "14876__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__0_095", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Since, we were denied and as I understand on the basis because indigency is irrelevant because the surety bond is required.\nI think that raises the constitutional question.\nWe're claiming that person was indigent.\nThe Court has denied us, our request to waive the surety bond regardless of whether he is indigent.\nI think that's enough to raise the constitutional question to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1370.686, 1379.935, 1383.728, 1387.478, 1395.332], "stop_times": [1379.935, 1383.728, 1387.478, 1395.332, 1397.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.686}, "reply_to": "14876__0_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_096", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Suppose he has waived $50,000.00.\nWould still say that the Court had to consider that he was indigent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1397.326, 1400.378], "stop_times": [1400.378, 1407.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.326}, "reply_to": "14876__0_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_097", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But we have an affidavit Your Honor, that that indicates that he is indigent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1407.372], "stop_times": [1411.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.372}, "reply_to": "14876__0_096", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_098", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But I understand you just say that's irrelevant whether he was or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1411.128], "stop_times": [1415.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.128}, "reply_to": "14876__0_097", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_099", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's what the lower court said and that's what the appellate court had said that they would not waive the surety bond because they didn't feel that the statute given the power to waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1415.567], "stop_times": [1427.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.567}, "reply_to": "14876__0_098", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_100", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, if Equal Protection on your argument to -- is an absolute requirement that there must be a right to appeal and still having some difficulties seeing whether it makes any difference.\nBut there is another way to protect the appellee in this case the Housing Authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1427.7, 1440.551], "stop_times": [1440.551, 1450.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.7}, "reply_to": "14876__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_101", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, we make two arguments on the basis of Equal Protection.\nOne is that this classification that as I say those -- we can put up the surety bond as suppose to those who cannot is without a reasonable basis the standard Equal Protection test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1450.346, 1455.903], "stop_times": [1455.903, 1471.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.346}, "reply_to": "14876__0_100", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_102", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But does it make a difference to your case whether you could or could not put up the rent during the pendency of the appeal?\nSuppose he could not pay the rent at all during the pendency of the appeal would your position be different here today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1471.327, 1476.58], "stop_times": [1476.58, 1483.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.327}, "reply_to": "14876__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_103", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, I'm not going that far Your Honor.\nOur position is that we offered to pay that and we would pay that and also, we offered that if we fail to pay, the appeal could be dismissed forth with at any one month that we did that.\nWe're not saying -- we're not asking that he need not pay anything at all.\nWe say that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the landlord during the pendency appeal.\nWe might even had said that if were a matter of state law that the state might have a legitimate interest during the previous time.\nBut that wasn't -- that's not part of any state laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1483.149, 1485.161, 1496.912, 1503.325, 1509.365, 1515.812], "stop_times": [1485.161, 1496.912, 1503.325, 1509.365, 1515.812, 1518.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.149}, "reply_to": "14876__0_102", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_104", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But if you're right and if your position is some on the Equal Protection ground, would you posture not be the same, if you didn't have a dime to pay into the treasury of the court or refuse to pay it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1518.584], "stop_times": [1532.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.584}, "reply_to": "14876__0_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__0_105", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Not precisely, I don't think because we do recognize that there is a reasonable and legitimate interest that the State may have in protecting land owners.\nAfter a judgment has rendered in their favor during the pendency of an appeal.\nWhat we're saying is that it's arbitrary that they manifest this kind of interest or this protection by in effect requiring that five or six months be pay all at once at one time which is impossible for somebody who can't afford it.\nWe're saying that the reasonable way and the almost obvious way, that they could've protect the interest of the landlord was to require that if be paid month by month.\nThat way, access to the courts will be available to everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1532.9, 1544.882, 1549.67, 1564.797, 1576.377], "stop_times": [1544.882, 1549.67, 1564.797, 1576.377, 1579.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.9}, "reply_to": "14876__0_104", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_106", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "How many months did you offer to pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1579.605], "stop_times": [1582.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.605}, "reply_to": "14876__0_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_107", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The requirement was that we put up a surety bond --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1582.956], "stop_times": [1585.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.956}, "reply_to": "14876__0_106", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_108", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I know about this, but how much money, you should you attempt to offer to payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1585.761], "stop_times": [1588.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.761}, "reply_to": "14876__0_107", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_109", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We offered to pay month by month from the time of the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1588.963], "stop_times": [1591.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.963}, "reply_to": "14876__0_108", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_110", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "How many months did you offer to pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1591.376], "stop_times": [1594.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.376}, "reply_to": "14876__0_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_111", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We did in fact pay Your Honor five months during the course of the entire appeal.\nThere's three hundred and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1594.211, 1598.989], "stop_times": [1598.989, 1599.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1594.211}, "reply_to": "14876__0_110", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_112", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And yet handed an affidavit of indigency not be in able to make the bond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1599.089], "stop_times": [1604.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.089}, "reply_to": "14876__0_111", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_113", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The affidavit was that we couldn't make the bond, yes Your Honor.\nBut the rent was $72.00 a month and each month from the time of the appeal for five months, thereafter.\nEach month we deposited $72.00 with one or another clerk either the District Court or up our own Circuit Court.\nSo that there is now an effect.\nIn fact, $360.00, which is on deposit which has been deposited $72.00 per month since the time of the appeal.\nWe have been doing actually what we offered to do when we offered to deposit money and ask it for the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1604.749, 1607.564, 1614.508, 1621.952, 1624.367, 1633.015], "stop_times": [1607.564, 1614.508, 1621.952, 1624.367, 1633.015, 1639.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1604.749}, "reply_to": "14876__0_112", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_114", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I thought your claim on indigency was not that couldn't raise the money to pay the rent.\nIt came due month by month that you had no liquid collateral which was a condition preceding to you're being able to get a surety bond, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1639.34, 1646.333], "stop_times": [1646.333, 1656.598], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.34}, "reply_to": "14876__0_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14876__0_115", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1656.598], "stop_times": [1656.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1656.598}, "reply_to": "14876__0_114", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_116", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Wasn't that the indigency issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1656.938], "stop_times": [1658.692], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.938}, "reply_to": "14876__0_115", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14876__0_117", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nWe're so indigent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1658.692, 1659.541], "stop_times": [1659.541, 1660.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1658.692}, "reply_to": "14876__0_116", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_118", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well if that's the issue why didn't you have the money which was liquid to put it to court?\nHow could you claim if one debt that you don't have it and pay it into Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1660.178, 1665.13], "stop_times": [1665.13, 1671.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.178}, "reply_to": "14876__0_117", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_119", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We paid only $72.00 a month, we didn't pay the full $360.00 at one time.\nWe were in possession for five months after the time of the appeal.\nWe had offered in our motion to pay $72.00 a month to the clerk.\nThis what was denied at us.\nWe were indigent to the extent that we not that we couldn't pay the rent.\nWe offered to pay the rent.\nWe are indigent to the extent that we couldn't pay the $500.00 for the surety which would have been required in order to put up the surety bond.\nWe could pay our rent monthly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1671.059, 1675.409, 1680.079, 1684.788, 1686.842, 1690.872, 1691.968, 1698.772], "stop_times": [1675.409, 1680.079, 1684.788, 1686.842, 1690.872, 1691.968, 1698.772, 1700.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1671.059}, "reply_to": "14876__0_118", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_120", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And needn't to pay $500.00 indigent to put up the money for the rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1700.025], "stop_times": [1704.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.025}, "reply_to": "14876__0_119", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_121", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, no, Your Honor.\nThat would cover that, if we put up the surety bond that would cover the landlord for that period of time during the pendency of the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1704.774, 1705.421], "stop_times": [1705.421, 1713.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1704.774}, "reply_to": "14876__0_120", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_122", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And you had the money to pay that bond just the same as you had the money to put in the Court, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1713.393], "stop_times": [1717.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.393}, "reply_to": "14876__0_121", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_123", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, we didn't Your Honor.\nWe didn't have the full amount of the rent.\nWe had the monthly rent.\nWe didn't have the five months rent to put down all at one time.\nSee the surety bond required that we put down in lump.\nFive times or six times each month's rent.\nIt would be something like $400.00 to $500.00 in lump sum at that time.\nWe didn't have that money.\nWe did have enough money to pay the rent each month on the first of the month or whenever as it came due in the amount of $72.00.\nWhich is what we did and there is now $360.00 available to the landlord.\nBut, that was only -- we are only able to pay $72.00 a month.\nWe weren't unable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1717.624, 1718.43, 1720.686, 1721.772, 1725.522, 1729.513, 1732.837, 1737.096, 1738.823, 1746.227, 1752.22, 1755.194], "stop_times": [1718.43, 1720.686, 1721.772, 1725.522, 1729.513, 1732.837, 1737.096, 1738.823, 1746.227, 1752.22, 1755.194, 1755.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1717.624}, "reply_to": "14876__0_122", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_124", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "-- able to pay that before he sued you, you wouldn't have to be sued, would you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1755.324], "stop_times": [1760.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.324}, "reply_to": "14876__0_123", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_125", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We have defenses Your Honor, regardless whether we pay.\nWe had defenses on the rent.\nThe technicality of Connecticut Law is that you pay on the first according to the lease.\nWe had defenses that there had been and established practice that rent was accepted late.\nThis was a Housing Authority --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1760.092, 1763.773, 1764.951, 1769.4, 1773.759], "stop_times": [1763.773, 1764.951, 1769.4, 1773.759, 1774.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1760.092}, "reply_to": "14876__0_124", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_126", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "How many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1774.648], "stop_times": [1776.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.648}, "reply_to": "14876__0_125", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_127", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I beg your pardon Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1776.033], "stop_times": [1776.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1776.033}, "reply_to": "14876__0_126", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_128", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "How many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1776.492], "stop_times": [1778.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.492}, "reply_to": "14876__0_127", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_129", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Many times the jury depending on the tenant it might be the 10th or the 15th or something like that.\nDepending on when the tenant had it.\nThis is a Housing Authority.\nThese are low income tax --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1778.009, 1784.476, 1787.278, 1788.516], "stop_times": [1784.476, 1787.278, 1788.516, 1788.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1778.009}, "reply_to": "14876__0_128", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_130", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Is this the test case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1788.953], "stop_times": [1790.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.953}, "reply_to": "14876__0_129", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_131", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1790.61], "stop_times": [1791.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1790.61}, "reply_to": "14876__0_130", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_132", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Is this no more than a test case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1791.386], "stop_times": [1794.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.386}, "reply_to": "14876__0_131", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_133", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1794.53], "stop_times": [1794.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1794.53}, "reply_to": "14876__0_132", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_134", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Are you really -- do you really have a genuine litigation here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1794.83], "stop_times": [1799.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.83}, "reply_to": "14876__0_133", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_135", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, Your Honor because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1799.698], "stop_times": [1800.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1799.698}, "reply_to": "14876__0_134", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_136", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Why couldn't they pay the rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1800.806], "stop_times": [1803.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.806}, "reply_to": "14876__0_135", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_137", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "He could've pay the rent.\nThe fact was that the action was brought at an early time, as I said on the 5th of May without giving him opportunity to pay the rent for May.\nIn fact, prior to May in April --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1803.986, 1806.21, 1815.964], "stop_times": [1806.21, 1815.964, 1817.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1803.986}, "reply_to": "14876__0_136", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_138", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Four days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1817.838], "stop_times": [1818.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.838}, "reply_to": "14876__0_137", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_139", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1818.926], "stop_times": [1819.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1818.926}, "reply_to": "14876__0_138", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_140", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Three or four days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1819.116], "stop_times": [1820.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.116}, "reply_to": "14876__0_139", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_141", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Three or four days, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1820.531], "stop_times": [1821.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1820.531}, "reply_to": "14876__0_140", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_142", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "You said they decline to take in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1821.529], "stop_times": [1823.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.529}, "reply_to": "14876__0_141", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__0_143", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, Your Honor, they started the action.\nThey would not take it at that time once they started the action and as I said, to Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThey started the action on the basis of a nuisance because this really was not essentially a nonpayment case.\nThey wanted to evict this tenant originally on the basis of nuisance.\nBut, as we pointed out in our jurisdictional statement, there is a right to a writ of restitution in Connecticut, so that this tenant can get back into the Housing Authority should we win on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1823.865, 1825.081, 1829.56, 1837.573, 1843.13], "stop_times": [1825.081, 1829.56, 1837.573, 1843.13, 1853.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1823.865}, "reply_to": "14876__0_142", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_144", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Where are the family now?\nAre they in the housing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1853.704, 1854.66], "stop_times": [1854.66, 1855.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.704}, "reply_to": "14876__0_143", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__0_145", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, they are not Your Honor.\nBut as we pointed out in our jurisdictional statement Connecticut does allow of writ the restitution, so that we can get back into the Housing Authority, should we win on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1855.788, 1856.834], "stop_times": [1856.834, 1866.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1855.788}, "reply_to": "14876__0_144", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_146", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I'd like to ask you a question did the proceeding subsequent proceeding, you call it provision or what?\nIf you get any review that any kind of merits of your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1866.196, 1873.551], "stop_times": [1873.551, 1877.474], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.196}, "reply_to": "14876__0_145", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14876__0_147", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNot at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1877.474, 1878.131], "stop_times": [1878.131, 1878.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1877.474}, "reply_to": "14876__0_146", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_148", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Not at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1878.917], "stop_times": [1879.606], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.917}, "reply_to": "14876__0_147", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14876__0_149", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1879.606], "stop_times": [1882.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1879.606}, "reply_to": "14876__0_148", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_150", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But that was concurring with what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1882.72], "stop_times": [1885.812], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.72}, "reply_to": "14876__0_149", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14876__0_151", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The Appellate Division was concerned with the motion to dismiss the appeal and our motion to review the decision of the trial court in denying our motion to waive the surety bond and they dismissed the appeal first day in put up the surety bond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1885.812], "stop_times": [1901.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1885.812}, "reply_to": "14876__0_150", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__0_152", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Thank you Mr. Dineen.\nMr. Ahern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1901.676, 1914.063], "stop_times": [1914.063, 1915.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.676}, "reply_to": "14876__0_151", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__1_000", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe State of Connecticut is not a party, a named party to this appeal.\nHowever, because of the decision of the West Haven Housing Authority which is the appellee in this case not to further relief or orally argued the issue raised by the appellants in this case.\nThe State of Connecticut filed the motion with this Court for permission to orally argue the issue and the Court graciously granted it.\nThat's why I'm here this morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1915.668, 1918.131, 1922.961, 1934.439, 1942.396], "stop_times": [1918.131, 1922.961, 1934.439, 1942.396, 1944.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1915.668}, "reply_to": "14876__0_152", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_001", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Now, what's the states connection of the Housing Authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1944.752], "stop_times": [1948.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.752}, "reply_to": "14876__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__1_002", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The State --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1948.612], "stop_times": [1948.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1948.612}, "reply_to": "14876__1_001", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_003", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "This is a federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1948.982], "stop_times": [1950.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.982}, "reply_to": "14876__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__1_004", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The Public Housing Authority is established by both state and federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1950.407], "stop_times": [1954.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1950.407}, "reply_to": "14876__1_003", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_005", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "This is a joint -- the state's interest is through that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1954.469], "stop_times": [1957.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.469}, "reply_to": "14876__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__1_006", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And also the state's interest in protecting property owners who have been, shall I say denigrated by the tenants by nonpayment of rent, so that they have their rights to their own property and to the retention of their property.\nBecause of the adverse and disruptive effect on civil process if this appeal is sustained.\nThe State of Connecticut and 14 of her sister States have together entered into a amici curiae brief in this case in support of the appellee's position.\nThis is pursuant to Rule 42, Subsection 4 of the rules to this Court.\nIf I may, in reviewing the file in this case one cannot help but the amaze that the zealous and ambiguous advocacy of the appellant's rights by counsel in the lower courts.\nIn the period between the initial notice to quick possession on July 12, 1967 until the trial on the merits was held on January 9, 1968.\nSix judges of the Connecticut Circuit Court were called upon to rule on the same number of motions, six motions.\nThe legal maneuvering of counsel for appellants has followed a torturous and very exhausted path through both the state and federal judicial systems.\nAppellants have their day in Court and the Connecticut Circuit Court and the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court and then the State Supreme Court.\nSimultaneously, a inaugurated hearings in the United States District Court for the district of Connecticut, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and finally to this honorable Court this morning.\nI count 36 separate entries in the file concerning legal action on the part of the appellants.\nAnd if I may, I would like to analyze them for you and highlight certain operations and approaches by the appellants.\nThey became tenants of the Housing Authority on November 1, 1966 under a written a lease.\nA monthly written lease which was renewable each month at the rate of $72.00 per month.\nThe monthly rent was determined by an objective schedule according to their ability to pay.\nHaving withheld payment of the rent for the months of May, June, and July of 1967.\nThe appellants were given a statutory notice to quit the premises on July 12, 1967.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [1957.808, 1979.869, 1985.547, 1997.743, 2003.542, 2018.746, 2030.919, 2039.908, 2050.464, 2058.788, 2072.878, 2081.679, 2092.155, 2098.333, 2104.728, 2112.332, 2119.896], "stop_times": [1979.869, 1985.547, 1997.743, 2003.542, 2018.746, 2030.919, 2039.908, 2050.464, 2058.788, 2072.878, 2081.679, 2092.155, 2098.333, 2104.728, 2112.332, 2119.896, 2125.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1957.808}, "reply_to": "14876__1_005", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_007", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, is -- was the other case pending then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2125.064], "stop_times": [2128.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.064}, "reply_to": "14876__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_008", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The other case has never been dismissed or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2128.854], "stop_times": [2131.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2128.854}, "reply_to": "14876__1_007", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_009", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But was it pending during that three-month period that you say they didn't pay their rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2131.21], "stop_times": [2136.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.21}, "reply_to": "14876__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_010", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I believe it was Your Honor.\nIn view of the fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2136.288, 2137.753], "stop_times": [2137.753, 2138.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2136.288}, "reply_to": "14876__1_009", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_011", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, is he correct that when a case dispossess the case that pending you don't use the pay rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2138.362], "stop_times": [2145.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.362}, "reply_to": "14876__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_012", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Your Honor, I don't understand that to be the situation of the initial summary process or the previous summary process action was brought for reasons other than the statutory reasons for summary process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2145.097], "stop_times": [2156.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2145.097}, "reply_to": "14876__1_011", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_013", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, why wasn't it carried through?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2156.439], "stop_times": [2159.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.439}, "reply_to": "14876__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_014", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I believe it wasn't carry through because the attorneys for the Housing Authority recognized the fact that it wasn't a proper motion and they then had other reasons for bring the summary process action which is the nonpayment of rent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2159.8], "stop_times": [2173.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2159.8}, "reply_to": "14876__1_013", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_015", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Which was brought about by the first action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2173.641], "stop_times": [2176.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.641}, "reply_to": "14876__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_016", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No it would -- they claim it was brought about by the first action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2176.236], "stop_times": [2178.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2176.236}, "reply_to": "14876__1_015", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_017", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, that first action.\nSo, then you filed the second one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2178.152, 2180.468], "stop_times": [2180.468, 2183.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.152}, "reply_to": "14876__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_018", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "May it please --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2183.46], "stop_times": [2183.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2183.46}, "reply_to": "14876__1_017", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_019", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Because now you got a clearly not paying their rent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2183.749], "stop_times": [2187.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.749}, "reply_to": "14876__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_020", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If you please Justice Marshall, this is the claim of the appellant that the second summary process action was brought because of the first one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2187.532], "stop_times": [2194.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2187.532}, "reply_to": "14876__1_019", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_021", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, if it's not their claim that you've never withdrawn the first case, still then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2194.617], "stop_times": [2199.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.617}, "reply_to": "14876__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_022", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "They have claimed that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2199.385], "stop_times": [2201.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2199.385}, "reply_to": "14876__1_021", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_023", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Was that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2201.99], "stop_times": [2202.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.99}, "reply_to": "14876__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_024", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2202.819], "stop_times": [2203.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2202.819}, "reply_to": "14876__1_023", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_025", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2203.855], "stop_times": [2205.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.855}, "reply_to": "14876__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_026", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Since, I am not the Attorney for the West Haven Housing Authority, I can't answer that question, Mr. Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2205.712], "stop_times": [2209.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2205.712}, "reply_to": "14876__1_025", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_027", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Are you defending the real issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2209.73], "stop_times": [2211.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.73}, "reply_to": "14876__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_028", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I'm defending them as an amicus of filing a brief from behalf of the state of Connecticut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2211.564], "stop_times": [2216.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2211.564}, "reply_to": "14876__1_027", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_029", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, you're not responsible for what they did of course, I agree with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2216.513], "stop_times": [2221.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.513}, "reply_to": "14876__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_030", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But you are right that the action was never withdrawn, the first action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2221.104], "stop_times": [2224.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2221.104}, "reply_to": "14876__1_029", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_031", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And you just don't know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2224.834], "stop_times": [2233.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2224.834}, "reply_to": "14876__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__1_032", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The appellant is not having complied with the notice to quit.\nWe're given a statutory -- were asked again to quit and when they refuse a summary process action was instituted in the Circuit Court for the State of Connecticut.\nThat was on July 19, 1967, which was actually five -- three months after the first withholding of the rent.\nAfter the preliminary motions were disposed of trial on the merits was had on January 9, 1968, which resulted in judgment for possession for the Housing Authority.\nPursuant to Section 52-542 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the appellants instituted an appeal which was promptly filed with the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of Connecticut.\nIn lieu of the surety bond required by the statute, they attached to their appeal a motion to waive surety bond on the grounds of alleged indigency.\nAfter a full hearing in the Court, the same trial judge who had heard the case on the merits earlier denied the motion because he found that the appeal was not taken in good faith but for purposes of delay and obstruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2233.426, 2237.326, 2247.382, 2255.904, 2267.41, 2280.885, 2292.078], "stop_times": [2237.326, 2247.382, 2255.904, 2267.41, 2280.885, 2292.078, 2306.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2233.426}, "reply_to": "14876__1_031", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_033", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Now, that's the Judge Dehenzel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2306.871], "stop_times": [2309.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.871}, "reply_to": "14876__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_034", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Dehenzel, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2309.933], "stop_times": [2310.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2309.933}, "reply_to": "14876__1_033", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_035", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Dehenzel and that's justice who is denial on page 23 of this appendix together and the full hearing to which you referred that appears on page 13 to 22 of the appendix.\nIs that we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2310.939, 2322.79], "stop_times": [2322.79, 2326.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.939}, "reply_to": "14876__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_036", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, it is Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2326.91], "stop_times": [2331.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2326.91}, "reply_to": "14876__1_035", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_037", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And the same Judge Dehenzel had decided in favor of the plaintiff landlord?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2331.788], "stop_times": [2339.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.788}, "reply_to": "14876__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_038", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "A hearing on the merits on January 9, 1968, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2339.871], "stop_times": [2343.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2339.871}, "reply_to": "14876__1_037", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_039", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And that I guess it's not in the -- that hearing is not in this appendix, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2343.624], "stop_times": [2350.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.624}, "reply_to": "14876__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_040", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The hearing is not made a part of the transcript to his decision I believe is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2350.568], "stop_times": [2354.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2350.568}, "reply_to": "14876__1_039", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_041", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The judgment is I get on page seven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2354.03], "stop_times": [2356.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.03}, "reply_to": "14876__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_042", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct, Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2356.226], "stop_times": [2357.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2356.226}, "reply_to": "14876__1_041", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_043", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Seven or eight, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2357.412], "stop_times": [2360.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.412}, "reply_to": "14876__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_044", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I can't find that the Court of Appeals of the Appellate Division whatever you call in Connecticut adopted that at on us relied upon that, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2360.464], "stop_times": [2371.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.464}, "reply_to": "14876__1_043", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_045", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "They did -- it is mentioned in the decision of the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court that the lower court found that the action is taken for reasons of delay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2371.01], "stop_times": [2382.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2371.01}, "reply_to": "14876__1_044", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_046", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Is that one of the reasons that they affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2382.393], "stop_times": [2385.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.393}, "reply_to": "14876__1_045", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_047", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's our position Your Honor that that's the reason they did affirm.\nThe appellants filed a motion for review with the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court from the judge dissenters denial of the motion.\nAnd that motion was denied by the Appellate Division and the appeal was dismissed.\nThereafter, the appellants filed the petition for certification in the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut and petition was dismissed or denied.\nThe Housing Authority then moved the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court to terminate the stay of execution which motion was granted.\nNow concurrently with the state legal activities, the appellants in order to delay their eviction filed an injunction action in the United States District Court for the district of Connecticut.\nThat court in a very lengthy decision dismissed the federal complaint and the decision was promptly appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\nThe Court of Appeals dismissed the federal complaint as moot on January 10, 1968 and an appeal was taken to this Court, which noted probable jurisdiction on September 7 -- on April 7, 1969.\nI think it would -- it should emphasize to this point that the Housing Authority finally obtain possession of the premises on July 26, 1968, which was full year after the filing of the summary process action in the Circuit Court in Connecticut and more than 15 months after the tenants decided to withhold the payment of rent to the authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2385.517, 2395.3, 2404.439, 2409.128, 2419.107, 2427.82, 2440.562, 2450.11, 2465.307], "stop_times": [2395.3, 2404.439, 2409.128, 2419.107, 2427.82, 2440.562, 2450.11, 2465.307, 2488.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2385.517}, "reply_to": "14876__1_046", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_048", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "What's happened to the $360.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2488.906], "stop_times": [2491.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.906}, "reply_to": "14876__1_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__1_049", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I believe it's still in the custody of the clerk of the Court.\nThe Housing Authority has never filed a motion to reach it and the clerk is holding it pending the ultimate determination of this case.\nIn addition to the Zoas Legal Representation provided the appellants by counsel in the lower courts.\nThey have the benefit of extensive briefs by their attorneys and also by several organizations who have filed amici curiae briefs in this Court.\nThe question presented by the appellant's appeal is whether the surety bond requirement of 52-542 of the Connecticut general statutes on an appeal on summary process action is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause.\nThe Connecticut summary process statute was initially adopted in 1806, prior to that time if a land owner desire to oust the tenant of possession.\nHe was required to file an action in ejectment in the courts which was a slow and expensive procedure.\nThe purpose of the summary process statute was to give the property owner and all to that means of recovering possession of his property from a tenant who was either unable or unwilling to pay his rent.\nI want to emphasize the Connecticut summary process statute is not a statute of general application.\nIts applicability is limited to those cases where there is a lease which has terminated either by time or nonpayment of rent or where there is occupation without greater privilege.\nI also want to emphasize that the property owner utilizing the summary process procedure does not recover rent.\nHe only recovers possession of his property.\nIn order the reach the unpaid rent, he must bring a separate subsequent legal action for money his own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2491.381, 2495.243, 2505.699, 2512.346, 2523.271, 2543.209, 2554.775, 2562.928, 2578.025, 2584.72, 2597.641, 2604.966, 2608.138], "stop_times": [2495.243, 2505.699, 2512.346, 2523.271, 2543.209, 2554.775, 2562.928, 2578.025, 2584.72, 2597.641, 2604.966, 2608.138, 2614.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2491.381}, "reply_to": "14876__1_048", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_050", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I've read this opinion three times now and I -- maybe I'm just stupid but I don't see any indication that the Court rule that if this appeal have been taken without any suggestion of dilatory tactics, it would been decided differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2614.613], "stop_times": [2634.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.613}, "reply_to": "14876__1_049", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_051", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "All I can suggest Justice Douglas is that we read it differently.\nI think we agree with Justice Harlan in his decision on their motion to suspend execution that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2634.391, 2637.173], "stop_times": [2637.173, 2644.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2634.391}, "reply_to": "14876__1_050", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_052", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I'm just talking about the opinion of the Appellate Division --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2644.633], "stop_times": [2646.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.633}, "reply_to": "14876__1_051", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_053", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I realize you are and I -- we read it differently that's all I can --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2646.497], "stop_times": [2649.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2646.497}, "reply_to": "14876__1_052", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_054", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "So, sometime could you supply a supplemental memorandum and I don't want to take your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2649.97], "stop_times": [2654.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.97}, "reply_to": "14876__1_053", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_055", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I will be glad to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2654.812], "stop_times": [2656.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2654.812}, "reply_to": "14876__1_054", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_056", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Just underline of the -- marking the lines in the paragraphs in this opinion that possibly indicate that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2656.377], "stop_times": [2664.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.377}, "reply_to": "14876__1_055", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_057", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I will do that Justice Douglas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2664.98], "stop_times": [2666.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2664.98}, "reply_to": "14876__1_056", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_058", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "May I ask you a question about the statement of page 20?\nIn fact it end 25.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2666.295, 2670.457], "stop_times": [2670.457, 2672.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.295}, "reply_to": "14876__1_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_059", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Page 20?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2672.553], "stop_times": [2673.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2672.553}, "reply_to": "14876__1_058", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_060", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2673.589], "stop_times": [2673.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.589}, "reply_to": "14876__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_061", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Justice Black?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2673.846], "stop_times": [2674.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2673.846}, "reply_to": "14876__1_060", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_062", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The court said you told me that to the counsel.\nI am satisfied that you're, I'm satisfied in all these monkey business as it go in have been successful so far as keeping them in here and not paying any rent.\nThe legislature must have that something in mind when it brought here unless it appears to the judge to find the case that the appeal was taken for the previous of delay.\nWhat was he quoting from?\nCan't find it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2674.086, 2677.926, 2689.71, 2701.593, 2715.523], "stop_times": [2677.926, 2689.71, 2701.593, 2715.523, 2716.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.086}, "reply_to": "14876__1_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_063", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I can find it Justice Black but I can't find where the quote is taken from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2716.531], "stop_times": [2724.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2716.531}, "reply_to": "14876__1_062", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_064", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Here on page 20.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2724.651], "stop_times": [2727.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.651}, "reply_to": "14876__1_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_065", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I find that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2727.184], "stop_times": [2727.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2727.184}, "reply_to": "14876__1_064", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_066", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The last paragraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2727.95], "stop_times": [2729.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.95}, "reply_to": "14876__1_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_067", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But this appears -- this is the colloquy between attorneys for the plaintiff and the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2729.258], "stop_times": [2740.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2729.258}, "reply_to": "14876__1_066", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_068", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It doesn't appear to any of the statutes have decided but there maybe other statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2740.464], "stop_times": [2745.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.464}, "reply_to": "14876__1_067", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_069", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2745.153], "stop_times": [2746.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2745.153}, "reply_to": "14876__1_068", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_070", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But he purported to the reading from the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2746.548], "stop_times": [2748.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.548}, "reply_to": "14876__1_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_071", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, maybe you could add that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2748.953], "stop_times": [2750.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.953}, "reply_to": "14876__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_072", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Actually, this quotation is taken from the Section 52-542 of the Connecticut Statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2750.58], "stop_times": [2758.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2750.58}, "reply_to": "14876__1_071", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_073", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That is what you said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2758.068], "stop_times": [2759.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.068}, "reply_to": "14876__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_074", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2759.406], "stop_times": [2760.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2759.406}, "reply_to": "14876__1_073", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_075", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, unless what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2760.302], "stop_times": [2763.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.302}, "reply_to": "14876__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_076", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Unless, it appears to the judge who tried the case that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2763.117], "stop_times": [2765.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2763.117}, "reply_to": "14876__1_075", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_077", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, but what's the premise on which that unless is based?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2765.6], "stop_times": [2772.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.6}, "reply_to": "14876__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_078", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That no appeal shall be taken, if I may read the whole sentence, maybe in the context here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2772.306], "stop_times": [2777.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2772.306}, "reply_to": "14876__1_077", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_079", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2777.005], "stop_times": [2778.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.005}, "reply_to": "14876__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_080", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No appeal and this is from the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2778.26], "stop_times": [2780.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2778.26}, "reply_to": "14876__1_079", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_081", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2780.187], "stop_times": [2780.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.187}, "reply_to": "14876__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_082", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And I quote it.\n\u201cNo appeal shall be taken except within said period and if an appeal is taken within set period, execution shall be stayed until the final determination of the cause.\nUnless, it appears to the judge who tried the case that the appeal was taken for the purpose of delay.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2780.265, 2781.359, 2792.111], "stop_times": [2781.359, 2792.111, 2797.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2780.265}, "reply_to": "14876__1_081", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_083", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Alright.\nNow, we have findings here that this was taken for the purpose of delay?\nAre you arguing that settles the case under that statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2797.139, 2797.586, 2803.095], "stop_times": [2797.586, 2803.095, 2807.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.139}, "reply_to": "14876__1_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_084", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2807.229], "stop_times": [2808.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2807.229}, "reply_to": "14876__1_083", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_085", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But why doesn't if that's the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2808.866], "stop_times": [2811.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.866}, "reply_to": "14876__1_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_086", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Why doesn't or why doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2811.149], "stop_times": [2811.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2811.149}, "reply_to": "14876__1_085", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_087", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Why does it not?\nAnd you have argue that they made any argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2811.958, 2812.914], "stop_times": [2812.914, 2814.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.958}, "reply_to": "14876__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__1_088", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But I thought this was an Equal Protection Court not whether the things you can state or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2814.88], "stop_times": [2819.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.88}, "reply_to": "14876__1_087", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__1_089", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, this is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2819.927], "stop_times": [2820.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2819.927}, "reply_to": "14876__1_088", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__1_090", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But does the bond should have to be furnished?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2820.444], "stop_times": [2822.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.444}, "reply_to": "14876__1_089", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__2_000", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If I may Justice Douglas, this is the position of the appellants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2822.926], "stop_times": [2826.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2822.926}, "reply_to": "14876__1_090", "speaker": "francis_x_dineen"}
{"id": "14876__2_001", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, but I mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2826.129], "stop_times": [2827.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.129}, "reply_to": "14876__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__3_000", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We do not feel that there's a substantial federal question involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2827.209], "stop_times": [2830.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2827.209}, "reply_to": "14876__2_001", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_001", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I understand that and their some members of the court appeal the same way perhaps.\nBut I'm just trying in the setting the statute, it doesn't say anything about the bond will be required if it's dilatory or not be required if it's not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2830.009, 2836.257], "stop_times": [2836.257, 2849.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.009}, "reply_to": "14876__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__3_002", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, it just makes provision for a surety bond in all cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2849.071], "stop_times": [2852.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2849.071}, "reply_to": "14876__3_001", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_003", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, no, it just says it shall be stayed unless it appears?\nWhich is a hardly relevant to the Constitution of process have presented here, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2852.195, 2861.096], "stop_times": [2861.096, 2869.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.195}, "reply_to": "14876__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__3_004", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That statute Mr. Ahern as Mr. Justice Douglas suggest that if it's the one appearing on page 4 of the appellate brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2869.109], "stop_times": [2874.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.109}, "reply_to": "14876__3_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_005", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It is Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2874.883], "stop_times": [2875.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2874.883}, "reply_to": "14876__3_004", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_006", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It has nothing at all to do with the requirement of a surety bond, does it?\nIt's nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2875.871, 2880.868], "stop_times": [2880.868, 2882.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.871}, "reply_to": "14876__3_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_007", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It just states that a surety bond shall be required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2882.313], "stop_times": [2888.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2882.313}, "reply_to": "14876__3_006", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_008", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Unless?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2888.541], "stop_times": [2889.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.541}, "reply_to": "14876__3_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14876__3_009", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Unless it appears who tried the case that the appeal was taken for purpose of delay.\nIn other words, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2889.697, 2895.374], "stop_times": [2895.374, 2896.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2889.697}, "reply_to": "14876__3_008", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_010", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, the unless is modifies the state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2896.949], "stop_times": [2900.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.949}, "reply_to": "14876__3_009", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__3_011", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2900.56], "stop_times": [2902.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.56}, "reply_to": "14876__3_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_012", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Not the surety bond?\nUnless I have a different set of the statutes than you have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2902.205, 2904.957], "stop_times": [2904.957, 2909.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.205}, "reply_to": "14876__3_011", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14876__3_013", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If you've raised the point that haven't occured to me that's the trouble Mr. Justice Douglas and I'm trying to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2909.129], "stop_times": [2912.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2909.129}, "reply_to": "14876__3_012", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_014", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If the stay was entered Mr. Dineen.\nWould a bond if the court decided this was not for delay, but it was on good faith, could you then stay the execution of the judgment without a bond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2912.652, 2916.155], "stop_times": [2916.155, 2932.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.652}, "reply_to": "14876__3_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_015", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, he could in our opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2932.055], "stop_times": [2936.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2932.055}, "reply_to": "14876__3_014", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_016", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, that would seem to me to be the crux of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2936.04], "stop_times": [2940.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.04}, "reply_to": "14876__3_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_017", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I think this is where the appellants in the Housing Authority disagreed whether or not the surety bond in all cases must accompany in appeal.\nCertainly, since this for sole protection of the landlord, the landlord could waive the surety bond requirement we feel and similar --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2940.369, 2951.673], "stop_times": [2951.673, 2959.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2940.369}, "reply_to": "14876__3_016", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_018", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The landlord could the Court waive -- did the Court say no bond because the person is indigent and the appeal is in good faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2959.796], "stop_times": [2972.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.796}, "reply_to": "14876__3_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_019", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We haven't been able to find the Connecticut case that provides that Justice White.\nHowever, we have cited cases and we feel once the matter is before the Court.\nThat the Court could waive the surety bond as long as it provide adequate protection for the landlord.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2972.904, 2977.467, 2982.495], "stop_times": [2977.467, 2982.495, 2989.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2972.904}, "reply_to": "14876__3_018", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_020", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The appellant -- do you think the Appellant Division assumed that the waiver of surety bond was permissible that the appeal was in good faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [2989.79], "stop_times": [3004.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.79}, "reply_to": "14876__3_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_021", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "There seems to be language in that decision as I recall it, that would lead me to believe so, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3004.373], "stop_times": [3011.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3004.373}, "reply_to": "14876__3_020", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_022", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Ahern, do you know in Connecticut that the Court waive a close bond should be bond, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3011.751], "stop_times": [3017.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.751}, "reply_to": "14876__3_021", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_023", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3017.929], "stop_times": [3019.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3017.929}, "reply_to": "14876__3_022", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_024", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And when those come over here too that seem to say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3019.765], "stop_times": [3024.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.765}, "reply_to": "14876__3_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_025", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Justice Marshall, I couldn't say whether they would be appeal to this Court.\nThe way things are going today, I think everything is appealed up here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3024.979, 3030.106], "stop_times": [3030.106, 3035.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3024.979}, "reply_to": "14876__3_024", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_026", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But the problem I really have is why the argument is made by the Appellate Court could not legally waive the surety bond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3035.853], "stop_times": [3048.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.853}, "reply_to": "14876__3_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_027", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I think that's probably because of the word \u201cshown in the statute\u201d and they're referring to the same that this is the statute under which they have appeal to this Court in which they claim is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe bond on appeal and stay of execution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3048.357, 3061.081], "stop_times": [3061.081, 3064.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3048.357}, "reply_to": "14876__3_026", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_028", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, do you agree that show means that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3064.532], "stop_times": [3067.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.532}, "reply_to": "14876__3_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_029", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I think it means to show unless the Court appeals that there are equitable considerations that should be taken into consideration by the Court.\nEither the Court could use its good offices to have the landlord waive the surety bond requirement which I think can be done -- could be done because the sole purpose of the surety bond is to protect the landlord's interest.\nThen I think also, that if the Court felt that the circumstances in the particular case warranted.\nIt could probably, it could waive the surety bond requirement as long as some means were provided for the protection of the land owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3067.746, 3079.254, 3095.988, 3104.146], "stop_times": [3079.254, 3095.988, 3104.146, 3112.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3067.746}, "reply_to": "14876__3_028", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_030", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, if you do see of Equal Protection problem it shall mean what it says, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3112.55], "stop_times": [3118.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.55}, "reply_to": "14876__3_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_031", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's the crux of this case this morning, I believe Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3118.047], "stop_times": [3122.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3118.047}, "reply_to": "14876__3_030", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_032", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "You don't have and I understand it, you don't have any records on, is that correct?\nIs that federal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3122.948, 3129.024], "stop_times": [3129.024, 3129.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.948}, "reply_to": "14876__3_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_033", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We have cases in other jurisdiction which was cited which give the seem to give courts that authority and we feel they apply to this situation also but we do not of any Connecticut authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3129.351], "stop_times": [3139.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3129.351}, "reply_to": "14876__3_032", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_034", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The only kind of authority, I guess, is that Appellate Division's opinion in this case, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3139.892], "stop_times": [3145.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.892}, "reply_to": "14876__3_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_035", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It's breaking new ground Justice Stewart, I believe.\nThe West Haven Housing Authority as I stated earlier is a federal and state instrumentality.\nIt set up by state and federal statutes, it's finance by public bond issues and by grants from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development which controls its operations.\nThe income derived from the tenant rentals is used to meet its obligations to bond holders and to pay the normal continuing operating expenses of the authority.\nIn the defending the summary process action in the trial court, the appellants advanced seven special defenses all of which were procedural and all of which were considered by the trial court and evidently considered meritless.\nIt is obvious from a reading of the first special defense and the trial brief that the reason, the appellants, the tenants determined to withhold payment of rent from the authority was that they were lift because of the previous summary process action instituted by the authority which was not prosecuted to effect.\nThe trial court in entering judgment for possession of the premises expressly found that the appellants had not paid rent for a period of eight months from April 1967 to December of 1967, which was immediately prior to the trial on the merits.\nAnd the trial court made the following significant statement in its memorandum of decision, dated January 16, 1968, and I would like to quote it.\n\u201dThe record in this quick case clearly shows what can happen to a summary proceeding where the process is abused by dilatory tactics, defense is interposed to delay or obstruct the proceeding and every effort made to delay a trial of the case on the merits.\"\nThat can be found in the record appendix at page 5.\nJust three days after the above decision was rendered by the trial court, that is on January 19, 1968, the same trial judge heard arguments addressed to the appellant's motion to waive surety bond.\nAfter argument, the trial judge found \u201cthis appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay and the motion was denied.\u201d\nBut, posting requirements upon the privilege of obtaining judicial relief are found in both the State and federal statutes.\nAnd this Courts has consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution does not prevent a State from proscribing reasonable and appropriate conditions precedent to the seeking of judicial relief in its courts so long as the basis of the distinction is real and the conditions imposed have a reasonable relationship to a legitimate object.\nApplying this standard to the surety bond provision of Section 52-542 we submit.\nIt is clear that the statute proscribes the reasonable and appropriate conditions with a legitimate object in view.\nThat is the protection of the landowner.\nWe therefore submit that the statute is constitutional on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3145.461, 3149.472, 3155.734, 3168.076, 3179.712, 3193.401, 3216.565, 3233.49, 3242.711, 3256.801, 3260.657, 3274.704, 3285.062, 3292.367, 3317.316, 3323.356, 3330.749, 3333.704], "stop_times": [3149.472, 3155.734, 3168.076, 3179.712, 3193.401, 3216.565, 3233.49, 3242.711, 3256.801, 3260.657, 3274.704, 3285.062, 3292.367, 3317.316, 3323.356, 3330.749, 3333.704, 3339.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3145.461}, "reply_to": "14876__3_034", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_036", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Do you think that its on question under the federal -- under the Connecticut statutes that you take any appeal whether frivolous or non frivolous the bond is required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3339.569], "stop_times": [3354.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.569}, "reply_to": "14876__3_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_037", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "In this case, yes.\nIn this context of this case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3354.564, 3355.738], "stop_times": [3355.738, 3357.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3354.564}, "reply_to": "14876__3_036", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_038", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "In this case.\nIt is the justice in the question of getting a stay of execution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3357.113, 3358.351], "stop_times": [3358.351, 3365.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.113}, "reply_to": "14876__3_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_039", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, we take the position on appeal bond is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3365.026], "stop_times": [3369.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3365.026}, "reply_to": "14876__3_038", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_040", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And that if the appeal bond is not filed, there is no appeal to this not just to be but that the order of eviction is executed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3369.776], "stop_times": [3384.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3369.776}, "reply_to": "14876__3_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_041", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The surety bond is essential to the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3384.234], "stop_times": [3388.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3384.234}, "reply_to": "14876__3_040", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_042", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "In any event?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3388.97], "stop_times": [3389.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.97}, "reply_to": "14876__3_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_043", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3389.956], "stop_times": [3391.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3389.956}, "reply_to": "14876__3_042", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_044", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But do you think that you -- but you said awhile ago that you thought the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3391.962], "stop_times": [3399.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3391.962}, "reply_to": "14876__3_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_045", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, I'm talking about the language of the statute at this point.\nThen the question comes in whether since both law and equity refuse in our court system whether the Court can utilizing equitable considerations itself waive --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3399.868, 3402.672], "stop_times": [3402.672, 3412.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3399.868}, "reply_to": "14876__3_044", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_046", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Are you sure that's correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3412.372], "stop_times": [3413.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.372}, "reply_to": "14876__3_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_047", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We feel that it could.\nYes, Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3413.939, 3414.815], "stop_times": [3414.815, 3419.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3413.939}, "reply_to": "14876__3_046", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_048", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And that it would I think it is unless they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3419.723], "stop_times": [3422.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.723}, "reply_to": "14876__3_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_049", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "In the context of the proper case where the situation is such that the tenant for valid reason has not paid the rent and cannot pay the rent, we think that it would.\nThis case we submit is not a case where --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3422.427, 3431.313], "stop_times": [3431.313, 3433.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3422.427}, "reply_to": "14876__3_048", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_050", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "He may not pay the rent or put up the bond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3433.469], "stop_times": [3436.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.469}, "reply_to": "14876__3_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_051", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3436.551], "stop_times": [3438.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3436.551}, "reply_to": "14876__3_050", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_052", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I would suppose the Court will decide if there are some valid reason not or not paying rent for putting up the bond?\nThere are some -- he couldn't afford to put up the bond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3438.655, 3446.128], "stop_times": [3446.128, 3449.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.655}, "reply_to": "14876__3_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_053", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But he could continue to pay the rent as they claim in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3449.899], "stop_times": [3453.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3449.899}, "reply_to": "14876__3_052", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_054", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes.\nDo you think that in such a circumstance the Court could waive the requirement for bond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3453.43, 3454.606], "stop_times": [3454.606, 3459.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3453.43}, "reply_to": "14876__3_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_055", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, we do Your Honor.\nAlthough, we haven't found any Connecticut citations.\nWe have cited case in other jurisdiction which were seem to hold --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3459.694, 3461.413, 3463.637], "stop_times": [3461.413, 3463.637, 3465.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3459.694}, "reply_to": "14876__3_054", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_056", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "But certainly cited in the people's statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3465.801], "stop_times": [3468.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3465.801}, "reply_to": "14876__3_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14876__3_057", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "It's in the tip of the statute as far as its language is concerned, yes Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3468.434], "stop_times": [3472.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3468.434}, "reply_to": "14876__3_056", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_058", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The trial judge seems to have at least given some consideration to the idea that he first found that the appeal was taken in good faith and not the purposes of delay, then he would considerably questioned because page question of the paying the alternative of rent into the Court that the top page 22 in your appendix.\nHe says, if they can referring to the execution on the state.\nThen I won't give any further thought to the alternative plan of substituting the clerk for the legal assistance association to hold the rent in the interim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3472.793, 3500.615, 3505.503], "stop_times": [3500.615, 3505.503, 3516.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3472.793}, "reply_to": "14876__3_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_059", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.\nThat evidently is the position of judge Dehenzel of the trial court and we agree with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3516.413, 3517.429], "stop_times": [3517.429, 3521.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3516.413}, "reply_to": "14876__3_058", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_060", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Now, the Appellate Court didn't approach that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3521.918], "stop_times": [3524.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.918}, "reply_to": "14876__3_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_061", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I don't think it had to Chief Justice because of the fact that it went along with the finding of the trial court that the action was instituted for purposes of delay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3524.75], "stop_times": [3534.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3524.75}, "reply_to": "14876__3_060", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_062", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, at least six times by my count here.\nThe trial judge referred affirmatively and not ambiguously at times to the reasons why he thought this appeal was taken for purposes of delay.\nBut as Justice Douglas pointed out that the Appellate Division never mentioned that.\nI would like -- I would hope when you file the supplemental memorandum that Mr. Justice Douglas suggested that you give us your view of why something which the trial court emphasize somewhat and so often was not referred to by the Appellate Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3534.141, 3537.223, 3549.597, 3555.602], "stop_times": [3537.223, 3549.597, 3555.602, 3573.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3534.141}, "reply_to": "14876__3_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_063", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "We will attempt to analyze it to that effect Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3573.517], "stop_times": [3575.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3573.517}, "reply_to": "14876__3_062", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_064", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "As I understand Mr. Ahern, you're going to try to demonstrate Justice Jacob's opinion or Judge Jacobs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3575.483], "stop_times": [3581.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3575.483}, "reply_to": "14876__3_063", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14876__3_065", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Judge Jacobs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3581.844], "stop_times": [3582.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3581.844}, "reply_to": "14876__3_064", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_066", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And rest itself or address to itself for the state, did you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3582.96], "stop_times": [3589.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3582.96}, "reply_to": "14876__3_065", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14876__3_067", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, if I may say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3589.096], "stop_times": [3590.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3589.096}, "reply_to": "14876__3_066", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_068", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, is that what's going to do of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3590.591], "stop_times": [3591.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3590.591}, "reply_to": "14876__3_067", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14876__3_069", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, Justice Brennan.\nCertainly, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3591.749, 3592.885], "stop_times": [3592.885, 3593.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3591.749}, "reply_to": "14876__3_068", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_070", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "In other words, you're telling us that we are to read this opinion is not addressed only to whether the appeal have to be dismissed for one rebuttal of law.\nBut also, that the opinion addressed to itself to whether or not a stay were probably denied because the appeal was taken in bad faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3593.232, 3603.161], "stop_times": [3603.161, 3611.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3593.232}, "reply_to": "14876__3_069", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14876__3_071", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct Justice Brennan.\nCertainly, the plight of the indigent tenants who are unable to pay their bills, elicit the sympathy and compassion of all peoples.\nHowever, we submit that some sympathy and compassion should be reserved for the real property owner who must meet his mortgage obligations and other financial obligations or risk, the loss of his property.\nAll landlords are not wealthy and all tenants are not indigent.\nAnd most property owners cannot afford the luxury of tenant who was either unwilling or unable to pay his rent.M", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3611.514, 3618.541, 3626.154, 3639.332, 3643.482], "stop_times": [3618.541, 3626.154, 3639.332, 3643.482, 3649.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3611.514}, "reply_to": "14876__3_070", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_072", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I suppose this Housing Authority like most public housing authorities has a waiving list of other poor people who are or claim to be eligible for occupancy here.\nIs the record show in any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3649.328, 3660.928], "stop_times": [3660.928, 3661.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3649.328}, "reply_to": "14876__3_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_073", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I don't know if the record shows it but certainly, I think the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there aren't sufficient housing accommodations for the poor and that there would be a list of people waiting.\nAnd further, take notice of the fact that the Housing Authority depends on a tenant's payment of monthly rents in order to meet its obligation to bond holders and its obligations to and its financial obligations in the continuing operation of the authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3661.974, 3673.024], "stop_times": [3673.024, 3691.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3661.974}, "reply_to": "14876__3_072", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_074", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I still have big difficulty on the landlord in all when they paid this $72.00 a month into Court.\nIt's all the landlord was entitled to? It was in Court\nAnd any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3691.308, 3699.781, 3705.218], "stop_times": [3699.781, 3705.218, 3705.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3691.308}, "reply_to": "14876__3_073", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_075", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "If I may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3705.358], "stop_times": [3706.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3705.358}, "reply_to": "14876__3_074", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_076", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "-- they fail to pay it, they loss everything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3706.005], "stop_times": [3708.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3706.005}, "reply_to": "14876__3_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_077", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, I think the record will show that the offer to make payment into Court was made at the time the hearing was held on the motion to waive surety bond which was nine months after they stopped paying rent.\nThe offer was to pay current rents into the Court not be back nine months which they had not paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3708.738, 3722.599], "stop_times": [3722.599, 3728.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3708.738}, "reply_to": "14876__3_076", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_078", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, then am I wrong that if that stage, if they put up a surety bond they didn't have to pay their nine months behind, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3728.206], "stop_times": [3737.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3728.206}, "reply_to": "14876__3_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_079", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Not in summary process action.\nA separate action would have been brought by the landlord.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3737.239, 3738.756], "stop_times": [3738.756, 3740.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3737.239}, "reply_to": "14876__3_078", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_080", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, that's what I'm saying as of this.\nThe alternative the surety bond or $72.00 a month into Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3740.154, 3743.086], "stop_times": [3743.086, 3748.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3740.154}, "reply_to": "14876__3_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_081", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3748.723], "stop_times": [3749.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3748.723}, "reply_to": "14876__3_080", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_082", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And the -- was solely for the protection of the landlord.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3749.861], "stop_times": [3753.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3749.861}, "reply_to": "14876__3_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_083", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3753.202], "stop_times": [3754.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3753.202}, "reply_to": "14876__3_082", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_084", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And why did he had ever surety bond when he was sure of his rent -- $72.00 a month?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3754.15], "stop_times": [3762.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3754.15}, "reply_to": "14876__3_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_085", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Why would he have to?\nI believe the reason the Court would not accept the recommendation of the Attorneys for the appellants was the fact and I think the court asked the direct question of one of the Attorneys whether they would make payment of the nine months in arrears and they said they would not.\nThey would only take care of the future in rental payments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3762.304, 3764.431, 3778.669], "stop_times": [3764.431, 3778.669, 3780.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3762.304}, "reply_to": "14876__3_084", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_086", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, they didn't -- with the surety bond wouldn't call that nine months in arrears either?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3780.805], "stop_times": [3785.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3780.805}, "reply_to": "14876__3_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_087", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "No, it would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3785.863], "stop_times": [3786.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3785.863}, "reply_to": "14876__3_086", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_088", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, so far is that particular point to nine months are arrears is out of the picture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3786.649], "stop_times": [3791.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3786.649}, "reply_to": "14876__3_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_089", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, I think these all comes in to the fact that the trial judge found that there dilatory tactics used because normally for summary process action takes considerably less than seven months to have a hearing on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3791.4], "stop_times": [3803.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3791.4}, "reply_to": "14876__3_088", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_090", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Oh, I see them less then two hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3803.421], "stop_times": [3806.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3803.421}, "reply_to": "14876__3_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_091", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, not in Connecticut that they have a hearing in Connecticut, the full hearing on the merits, Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3806.099], "stop_times": [3811.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3806.099}, "reply_to": "14876__3_090", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_092", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3811.105], "stop_times": [3811.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3811.105}, "reply_to": "14876__3_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14876__3_093", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I have nothing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3811.852], "stop_times": [3812.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3811.852}, "reply_to": "14876__3_092", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_094", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Mr. Ahern, do you think the action of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of April 11, 1968 appearing on page 66 of the appendix, throws any lie upon the question in which Mr. Justice Douglas and the Chief Justice expressed an interest?\nThat is whether or not the Appellate Division decided the case on the quite absolute and inflexible basis or whether if adopted the part at least the reasoning of the trial court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3812.07, 3836.397], "stop_times": [3836.397, 3851.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3812.07}, "reply_to": "14876__3_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_095", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Well, certainly on page 67, the paragraph which starts on that page.\nThey mentioned that they briefly review the proceedings in the court below.\nAnd I would assume that the review of those proceedings, eventhough they don't might not mentioned it here, would take into consideration of the activities in the court below and the finding of the trial judge.\nCertainly, the Appellate Division had the trial judgment or memorandum of decision before at the time that reviewed the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3851.399, 3855.888, 3859.016, 3875.042], "stop_times": [3855.888, 3859.016, 3875.042, 3884.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3851.399}, "reply_to": "14876__3_094", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_096", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "This owner here has to do with finally the vacation of the stay of execution, is it not?\nThe one appearing on page 67?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3884.655, 3891.628], "stop_times": [3891.628, 3892.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3884.655}, "reply_to": "14876__3_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_097", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Yes, it does Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3892.596], "stop_times": [3894.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3892.596}, "reply_to": "14876__3_096", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_098", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "And they do review in some length the Appellate Court what they refer to as dilatory instructions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3894.732], "stop_times": [3901.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3894.732}, "reply_to": "14876__3_097", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14876__3_099", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "That is correct.\nOn page 67 and thereafter actually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3901.976, 3903.451], "stop_times": [3903.451, 3907.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3901.976}, "reply_to": "14876__3_098", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_100", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "At 69 in the opinion, the Appellate Court also notes apparently with some emphasize as I read it to upon the review of the whole matter.\nSuppose, depending on what author meant by the whole matter -- the finding of the trial judge on the lack of good faith to becomes more or less important, might as positive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3907.104, 3919.212], "stop_times": [3919.212, 3933.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3907.104}, "reply_to": "14876__3_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_101", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "I would trust that the statement of the trial judge would be given as widest application in that connection, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3933.273], "stop_times": [3939.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3933.273}, "reply_to": "14876__3_100", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_102", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Thank you Mr. Ahern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3939.13], "stop_times": [3939.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3939.13}, "reply_to": "14876__3_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14876__3_103", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3939.589], "stop_times": [3941.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3939.589}, "reply_to": "14876__3_102", "speaker": "f_michael_ahern"}
{"id": "14876__3_104", "conversation_id": "14876", "text": "The case is submitted.\nThank you gentlemen for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_81", "start_times": [3941.226, 3942.204], "stop_times": [3942.204, 3944.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3941.226}, "reply_to": "14876__3_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__0_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The first case on for argument in Number 445, Standard Industries Incorporated against Tigrett Industries.\nMr. Bader you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [0.0, 16.587], "stop_times": [16.587, 19.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__0_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank Your Honor, may it please the Court.\nThis case involves a patent license agreement which are centered into between the petitioner Standard Industries and the respondent Tigrett Industries.\nThe agreement provided that Standard Industries was to pay in effect a royalty of 5% of the covered product sales price which is the way the contract read.\nAnd the contract provided also the usual warranty of title.\nThe patent was in fact in the name of Tigrett Industries, but the assignment was a conditional one.\nThe agreement of assignment between Tigrett Industries and the inventor, provided that the assignment would become absolutely void if Tigrett Industries made an assignment for the benefit of creditors.\nNow on December 29, 1964 after this contract had been entered into, the Tigrett Industries assigned a patent involved to a subsidiary of the petition and known as Jackson Furniture Company which company is not a party to this litigation.\nAnd that assignment provide that the Jackson Furniture Company, the purchaser agrees to abide by all the obligations terms and conditions of a semi herein Tigrett Industries Inc. as more specifically set forth in an agreement dated July 19, 1961 which was the original assignment that I've previously mentioned.\nThereafter, on December 22 -- I'm sorry thereafter on April 26, 1965, Tigrett Industries did make an assignment for the benefit of creditors and it was the position of Standard Industries at that point that the agreement became absolutely void by recent of that fact.\nStandard Industries then failed to pay royalties in connection with the patent involved and a suite was brought.\nAnd there were various claims that were made by Tigrett Industries before the trial court.\nWe don't have to go into those details.\nThey sort reformation of a contract, sought royalties on every item that Jackson Furniture Corporation had made.\nBut when the trial court got through, the trial court held that there were two items that was subject to royalties.\nOne known is the play around, the other known is the golden converter.\nInsofar as the play around is concerned, Standard Industries does not contest the validity of that patent or the coverage with respect to the patent applicable to the play around.\nHowever, Standard Industry does contest any coverage with respect to the patent involving the golden convertible.\nAnd that is the issue which I am going to address myself to for a few months.\nIt was conceded by the trial court and by the appellant court that the patent involved which is patent number 3,162,865 did not have any claim that specifically covered the structure.\nBecause the claim of a patent, the broadest claim in the case required that they were had to be a pair of space openings in the base plate of the plate patent and that draw springs have to pass through this space openings.\nThe trial court however held that regardless of the fact that the terms of the claim did not cover the structure.\nNevertheless, by reason of an application and I believe a misapplication of the doctrine of a equivalence as the law presently stands at the present time that this patent still read on the golden convertible structure.\nNow I am not going to discuss in my argument whether -- in detail, whether or not the Court should announce a new doctrine with respect to the doctrine of equivalence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [19.615, 24.092, 40.0, 56.627, 63.335, 72.126, 88.347, 109.699, 133.016, 157.901, 167.093, 172.022, 173.854, 181.899, 190.206, 195.321, 208.613, 217.813, 225.319, 247.564, 267.281, 276.342, 295.692], "stop_times": [24.092, 40.0, 56.627, 63.335, 72.126, 88.347, 109.699, 133.016, 157.901, 167.093, 172.022, 173.854, 181.899, 190.206, 195.321, 208.613, 217.813, 225.319, 247.564, 267.281, 276.342, 295.692, 307.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 19.615}, "reply_to": "15377__0_000", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_002", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "So what is the position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [307.246], "stop_times": [309.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.246}, "reply_to": "15377__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_003", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I support the position of the Attorney General Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [309.192], "stop_times": [312.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.192}, "reply_to": "15377__0_002", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_004", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well the Attorney General is not a party to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [312.942], "stop_times": [315.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.942}, "reply_to": "15377__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_005", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No but he failed an amicus brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [315.738], "stop_times": [317.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.738}, "reply_to": "15377__0_004", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_006", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well how about you?\nYou just adopt the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [317.572, 319.601], "stop_times": [319.601, 322.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.572}, "reply_to": "15377__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_007", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I adopt the position taken by the Attorney General in the amicus brief Mr. Justice Stewart and I also wish to address some other remarks in connection with this.\nPointing out to the Court that the doctrine should be implicated because this doctrine is actually causing a break upon technology in the United States.\nThe reason is this, normally when a competitor wishes to go into a field where a company has a dominating patent position.\nHe will come to this patent accounts when he will say, \u201cThese are the dominating patents in the field.\nHow can I avoid these patents?\u201d\nAnd what the patent attorney normally does, he studies the claims of the patents involved and attempts -- and through the engineers of the company involved and technical personnel attempts to create structures which will avoid the patented claims and these is what produces technical progress because the man produces a structure which in many cases is superior to the patent structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [322.015, 332.807, 344.822, 355.54, 362.344, 366.229], "stop_times": [332.807, 344.822, 355.54, 362.344, 366.229, 391.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.015}, "reply_to": "15377__0_006", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_008", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But do you think the courts are really free to reject the doctrine and the equivalence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [391.511], "stop_times": [399.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.511}, "reply_to": "15377__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_009", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I think so Mr. Justice Stewart for this reason.\nIn the patent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [399.706, 403.019], "stop_times": [403.019, 403.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.706}, "reply_to": "15377__0_008", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_010", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well you might ask Mr. Justice White down there, but -- I'm Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [403.881], "stop_times": [409.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.881}, "reply_to": "15377__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_011", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I'm sorry, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [409.634], "stop_times": [411.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.634}, "reply_to": "15377__0_010", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_012", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That's all right.\nBut, didn't Congress enact the new patent law in 1952?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [411.207, 411.904], "stop_times": [411.904, 419.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.207}, "reply_to": "15377__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_013", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [419.055], "stop_times": [419.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.055}, "reply_to": "15377__0_012", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_014", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Just a couple years after the decision in this Court on equivalence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [419.882], "stop_times": [424.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.882}, "reply_to": "15377__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_015", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice White.\nI submit to the Court that what the Court did was to abrogate the doctrine of equivalence for this reason.\nThere are two ways that we can -- you can claim a structure.\nThere is a what we call abstract claimology and there is concrete claimology and these things are different.\nFor example, if I wish to claim two gears which are meshing to get.\nIf I claim this concretely, I will say a pair of interconnected gears.\nNow that is the method that is used by the Germans in claiming patents and in setting forth claims, and the Germans give a very worrying doctrine of equipments to such a structure.\nThat is a pair of gears would also cover a belt and a pulley.\nBut in our patent law, in view of the provision of the Patent Act of 1952 which permitted claiming of means plus a function.\nI submit that Congress intended to permit abstract claims but with no doctrine of equivalence.\nThat is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [424.005, 425.868, 434.69, 438.488, 451.588, 457.737, 464.079, 477.484, 485.26, 496.552, 503.55], "stop_times": [425.868, 434.69, 438.488, 451.588, 457.737, 464.079, 477.484, 485.26, 496.552, 503.55, 505.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.005}, "reply_to": "15377__0_014", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_016", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well it certainly never mentioned at all.\nThey certainly didn't make specially reject the doctrine of equivalence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [505.309, 509.876], "stop_times": [509.876, 514.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.309}, "reply_to": "15377__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_017", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No Mr. Justice White they didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [514.544], "stop_times": [515.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.544}, "reply_to": "15377__0_016", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_018", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "They didn't even mention -- they didn't even mention the Graver case and any of the commentary or anything out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [515.686], "stop_times": [522.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.686}, "reply_to": "15377__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_019", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No they did not.\nI admit to the Court that they did not.\nThis is basically the position that the petitioner is taking whether or not this petition -- this position will be sustained by the Court is of course something that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [522.071, 524.222, 526.304], "stop_times": [524.222, 526.304, 538.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.071}, "reply_to": "15377__0_018", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_020", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well isn't it -- wouldn't be extraordinary if Congress intended to change something as recent as that, that something in the legislative history would not indicate that where addressing themselves to that end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [538.043], "stop_times": [553.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.043}, "reply_to": "15377__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__0_021", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well in -- Mr. Justice Burger in Halliburton versus Walker, the Supreme Court specifically rejected claims drawn to means plus a function.\nAnd therefore with that decision on the books, it would be impossible to draw an abstract claim that would be held valid by the Court in view of the Halliburton case.\nAnd the Patent Act of 1952 when they put in the illustration that claims could be made by means plus a function.\nThey did that in order to permit this type of abstract claim and I submit to the Court that since that now was no longer necessary to have a doctrine of equivalence in order to properly claim a subject matter that Congress by implication did say that the doctrine of equivalence no longer had any application.\nAnd that is the petition disposition on that matter.\nWe don't have -- the case here does not have to bottom itself on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [553.391, 564.881, 577.006, 590.417, 608.95, 613.144], "stop_times": [564.881, 577.006, 590.417, 608.95, 613.144, 620.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.391}, "reply_to": "15377__0_020", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_022", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But that issue has never been raised or litigated or even mentioned until an amicus brief in this Court, am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [620.455], "stop_times": [628.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.455}, "reply_to": "15377__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__0_023", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is correct Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [628.589], "stop_times": [630.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.589}, "reply_to": "15377__0_022", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_024", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [630.409], "stop_times": [633.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.409}, "reply_to": "15377__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__0_025", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The petitioner does submit that the doctrine of equivalence in this case was misapplied.\nThis Court in the case of Graham against Deere which is the latest pronounced that I believe that this Court has made on the doctrine of equivalence has stated that where of a subject matter of a patent is narrowed that the doctrine of a equivalence likewise must be very narrowly applied.\nFurthermore, the doctrine of equivalence cannot be applied if there is what is called file wrapper estoppel in the case.\nThat is if a patentee in order to obtain a patent, puts a limitation in his claims, he may not thereafter say that is a structure is infringing which does not utilize this limitation.\nAnd I submit that the file history of this case and the narrowness of the patent involved clearly indicates that the doctrine of a equivalence in this case has no application.\nI submit that for this reason.\nThe invention -- and I will discuss the validity of the patent in a moment.\nIf the patent is valid at all, it involves a very narrow structure of being able to pull two draw strings through a whole in a base plate from the top rather than being able to do the same thing from the bottom.\nThat's the whole point of novelty in the case because there is a patent, a prior patent which is Adamson which shows the identical structure except that the draw strings are tightened from the bottom of the base plate instead of being tightened from the top of the base plate.\nNow with that simple little improvement which frankly is -- has less of a point of novelty that the improvement in the supermarket equipment case because draw strings are draw strings and draw strings are always pulled and netting tight and putting wholes in a base plate to pull draw strings through something that's always been done before.\nTwo plus two when added together and they produce four.\nSecondly, in the original case, the patently attempted to get one claim which was extremely broad and a second claim which involved two space openings in the base plate.\nNow, we're only using one but this original claim called for two, I believe it was original claim for.\nThat claim was rejected by the patent office on references.\nAnd the patentee then amendment the claim, to say two space openings in the base plate with draw strings passing through these openings and being connected at the top of the base plate for manipulation.\nTherefore, the patentee specifically obtained his claim by means of two space openings.\nHe always requested from the patent office, two space openings and under those circumstances, the doctrine of equivalence has no application in view of the clear file wrapper estoppel in the case.\nWe now come to the question of Lear against Adkins.\nLear against Adkins were decided by this Court approximately 60 days after decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming this case.\nNow at the time that this case was tried while the validity of the patent was in effect involved in view of the fact that there was a general denial of the -- of royalty liability on the part of the petitioner.\nThe petitioner could not at that time contest the validity of the patent because the law in the Sixth Circuit at that time as set forth in the petitioner's brief was to the affect that a patentee, that a licensee could not contest the validity of the patent under which he was licensed but could only introduce prior add in order to attempt to limit the scope of the claims.\nUnder these circumstances obviously since that was the law in the Sixth Circuit, there was nothing that the petitioner could do to contest the validity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [633.595, 643.017, 665.167, 674.269, 693.118, 705.908, 708.809, 714.953, 731.182, 750.198, 772.474, 777.222, 792.956, 801.199, 806.183, 819.429, 827.124, 839.347, 843.273, 853.186, 869.137, 897.096], "stop_times": [643.017, 665.167, 674.269, 693.118, 705.908, 708.809, 714.953, 731.182, 750.198, 772.474, 777.222, 792.956, 801.199, 806.183, 819.429, 827.124, 839.347, 843.273, 853.186, 869.137, 897.096, 905.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.595}, "reply_to": "15377__0_024", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_026", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Did this come out in the pretrial proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [905.917], "stop_times": [909.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.917}, "reply_to": "15377__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_027", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No Mr. Justice White because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [909.563], "stop_times": [911.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.563}, "reply_to": "15377__0_026", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_028", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Did the District Court ever say anything about the estoppel doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [911.063], "stop_times": [915.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.063}, "reply_to": "15377__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_029", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes, yes it's set forth specifically in the appendix Mr. Justice White, perhaps I can find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [915.684], "stop_times": [925.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.684}, "reply_to": "15377__0_028", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_030", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "We reaffirmed -- he reaffirmed, did he not that it would have done you know good to raise the validity point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [925.381], "stop_times": [930.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.381}, "reply_to": "15377__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15377__0_031", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes, yes.\nHe said -- since both parties concede that the patentee -- that the petition, the licensee could not contest the validity of the patent under which he was licensed.\nTherefore, why am I attempting to introduce evidence with respect to certain prior add?\nAnd I said that I was attempting to do that in order to show -- in order to indicate the scope of the claims which we were permitted to do at that time.\nBut what I couldn't do is put in anticipating prior add because that would have done me no good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [930.571, 932.901, 947.099, 952.692, 961.273], "stop_times": [932.901, 947.099, 952.692, 961.273, 970.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.571}, "reply_to": "15377__0_030", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_032", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Why do you find that ruling or holding or colloquy by the district judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [970.699], "stop_times": [976.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.699}, "reply_to": "15377__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__0_033", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Let me see if I can find it in the appendix.\nIf the Court can indulge me for a moment, it appears on page 129 A-3 of the appendix, and it reads as follows.\nSo the Court will know where we are going, we understand that the defendant concedes, they cannot attack the validity of the patents.\nThat being true, what would be the relevance of a prior patent that perhaps anticipated the patent in suite here?\nAnd my reaction to that was scope of claims Your Honor.\nAnd Mr. Kalish, my learned brother said, we have no notice at all of anyway they want to narrow the scope of these claims and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [976.215, 982.822, 1027.31, 1033.911, 1040.553, 1044.328], "stop_times": [982.822, 1027.31, 1033.911, 1040.553, 1044.328, 1054.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.215}, "reply_to": "15377__0_032", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_034", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Did you say 129 of your appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1054.984], "stop_times": [1057.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.984}, "reply_to": "15377__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__0_035", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "129.3 Mr. Justice Douglas.\nIt appears about -- it's right above the little notes saying 124.\nThere's a 124 marginal note and it appears right above that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1057.452, 1064.479, 1070.933], "stop_times": [1064.479, 1070.933, 1080.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.452}, "reply_to": "15377__0_034", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_036", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I'm not sure that Justice Black heard your designation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1080.172], "stop_times": [1085.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.172}, "reply_to": "15377__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15377__0_037", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Pardon me Mr. Justice Douglas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1085.672], "stop_times": [1087.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.672}, "reply_to": "15377__0_036", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_038", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I'm sure that Justice Black heard your -- the new name you've given me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1087.186], "stop_times": [1097.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.186}, "reply_to": "15377__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15377__0_039", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I'm sorry, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1097.809], "stop_times": [1100.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.809}, "reply_to": "15377__0_038", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_040", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Let me take your time.\nWe'll understand what you're point is about the names.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1100.987, 1102.348], "stop_times": [1102.348, 1105.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.987}, "reply_to": "15377__0_039", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__0_041", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1105.924], "stop_times": [1120.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.924}, "reply_to": "15377__0_040", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_042", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Now, it's this center paragraph on 129 A-3 that you were relying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1120.45], "stop_times": [1123.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.45}, "reply_to": "15377__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__0_043", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Burger.\nAnd before the decision of this Court in Lear against Adkins, that was the law and that was the solid law in the Sixth Circuit at the time too.\nThere had been a recent decision of the Sixth Circuit approximately two months before this case was tried which said exactly that.\nThat a licensee could not attack the validity of the patent under which he was licensed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1123.648, 1129.926, 1137.828, 1146.902], "stop_times": [1129.926, 1137.828, 1146.902, 1153.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.648}, "reply_to": "15377__0_042", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_044", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "1914.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1153.218], "stop_times": [1162.418], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.218}, "reply_to": "15377__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__0_045", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Except, well the law -- the rule was clear with this exception.\nThere was a provision that if there was an antitrust violation in the case, at that point, a licensee could attack the validity of the patent.\nNow, in this case strangely enough there were something that might be considered an antitrust violation in view of the fact that there was a provision which might have been construed to constitute a violation of law in that unpatented subject matter was charged because there was a provision with respect to the payment of royalties provided -- based upon the profits provided that they paid royalties that were less than the profits.\nHowever, that provision never came into effect, the provision may have been severable and under those circumstances, we didn't rely on it, and therefore we could not attack the validity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1162.418, 1168.388, 1180.757, 1212.588], "stop_times": [1168.388, 1180.757, 1212.588, 1224.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.418}, "reply_to": "15377__0_044", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_046", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But the point was the estoppel question specifically plus in this litigation isn't it?\nThe reasons best known to yourself despite the uncertain scope of that doctrine before the leader despite what you've just said, 2044.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1224.441, 1232.008], "stop_times": [1232.008, 1245.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.441}, "reply_to": "15377__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15377__0_047", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No Mr. Justice, no.\nThe point actually, we could not oppress it because the scope of the doctrine was than unless there was a clear antitrust violation, we could not press the scope of patent validity because of licensee estoppel.\nAnd the Sixth Circuit case that is cited in my brief actually sets this thing forth very, very clearly.\nThe Sixth Circuit case was almost on all force without, and the Court specifically said there, you cannot contest the validity of the patent, that is the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1245.186, 1248.182, 1268.783, 1278.034], "stop_times": [1248.182, 1268.783, 1278.034, 1288.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.186}, "reply_to": "15377__0_046", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_048", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is the law 2131 in that case, avail and got up here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1288.146], "stop_times": [1295.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.146}, "reply_to": "15377__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15377__0_049", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No.\nThe petitioner did not, the situation is as set forth in the record and of course the petitioner is bound by his record.\nBasically that concludes my argument, now I would like to save my remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1295.499, 1297.471, 1313.578], "stop_times": [1297.471, 1313.578, 1319.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.499}, "reply_to": "15377__0_048", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__0_050", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you Mr. Bader.\nMr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1319.919, 1323.762], "stop_times": [1323.762, 1341.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.919}, "reply_to": "15377__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__1_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The United States believes that this case does present the Court within an appropriate opportunity to correct a harmful basic incongruity in decisions under the patent law.\nThe doctrine of equivalence which was applied by the courts below is not a statutory doctrine.\nIt has never been provided for by Congress in the 1952 act or in any of the previous patent litigation or patent legislation.\nAnd indeed Congress did not in any of its revisions specifically address it self to the question of the continuing validity of this judicially created doctrine.\nOur submission is that although the doctrine may have one time had been appropriate.\nIt is long since long before the 1952 revision been inconsistent with basic policies of the federal patent system as developed by Congress and by judicial decision.\nAnd that the doctrine should now be fundamentally revised in favor of the standard of infringement which is compatible with the statutory scheme.\nAnd it is appropriate for the Court to do this since Congress has never yet considered the doctrine.\nThere's no reason to wait and see whether the Congress might to do so as the amicus brief of patent law association suggests --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1341.127, 1356.129, 1363.87, 1375.723, 1391.595, 1397.84, 1411.996, 1423.243, 1430.671], "stop_times": [1356.129, 1363.87, 1375.723, 1391.595, 1397.84, 1411.996, 1423.243, 1430.671, 1439.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1341.127}, "reply_to": "15377__0_050", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Might not -- principles of due process of law perhaps indicate that the case in which to consider your argument is a case in which it's at least been brought up somewhere along the line in the course of a litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1439.105], "stop_times": [1453.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.105}, "reply_to": "15377__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__1_002", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well at every stage of this litigation, the petitioner contended that because of the limitation in the claims, his play it could not be considered an infringement.\nAnd that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied so as to hold that he was infringing a claim so limited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1453.99, 1467.728], "stop_times": [1467.728, 1475.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1453.99}, "reply_to": "15377__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_003", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That's not your point overall wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1475.445], "stop_times": [1478.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.445}, "reply_to": "15377__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__1_004", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But that it really is a different articulation of the question whether or the doctrine of equivalence can appropriately be applied by the Courts to expand patent of appellees beyond the terms of their claims.\nI don't see that that is a different question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1478.386, 1492.684], "stop_times": [1492.684, 1499.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1478.386}, "reply_to": "15377__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_005", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Have you -- the Government can mean or come in 2502 United States in this proceeding --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1499.059], "stop_times": [1505.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.059}, "reply_to": "15377__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15377__1_006", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "We did not sir nor did we support the petition.\nIt was only after the petition was granted the case came to our attention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1505.717, 1509.111], "stop_times": [1509.111, 1519.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1505.717}, "reply_to": "15377__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_007", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "(Inaudible) is unpatentable in view of the past art and this patent.\nAnything that's unpatentable is covered by the doctrine of equivalence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1519.449, 1527.869], "stop_times": [1527.869, 1532.072], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.449}, "reply_to": "15377__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_008", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well that seems to be the tendency of the formulation in Graver Tank.\nIt's difficult to know and predict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1532.072, 1537.042], "stop_times": [1537.042, 1538.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1532.072}, "reply_to": "15377__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_009", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "So there's no free area.\nSee there, it can either be covered by a future patent or it's covered by the 2546.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1538.927, 1541.672], "stop_times": [1541.672, 1546.317], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.927}, "reply_to": "15377__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_010", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well in application, the Courts don't seem to go to that far with the doctrine.\nBut it's difficult to put your finger on any principle which indicates how far along the path to that the Courts will go and applying the doctrine so long as a litigant is able to convince them that the allegedly infringing device accomplishes substantial in the same thing and substantially the same way as the patent and device even though the terms of the claim do not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1546.317, 1551.282], "stop_times": [1551.282, 1576.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1546.317}, "reply_to": "15377__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_011", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well is there some language about claims in the 52 act that is different than the language under which Graver was decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1576.873], "stop_times": [1586.451], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.873}, "reply_to": "15377__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_012", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I don't believe that the claiming in requirement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1586.451], "stop_times": [1590.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1586.451}, "reply_to": "15377__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_013", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Isn't that the language that you think is inconsistent with the doctrine of equivalence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1590.721], "stop_times": [1595.562], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.721}, "reply_to": "15377__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_014", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That's part of the language in addition to the reissue provisions and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1595.562], "stop_times": [1600.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1595.562}, "reply_to": "15377__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_015", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well is the claim language in the 52 act similar to what it was before identical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1600.316], "stop_times": [1605.667], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1600.316}, "reply_to": "15377__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_016", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It's identical.\nOur submission is the Graver Tank was wrongly decided not that Congress rejected it in the 1952 act.\nCongress --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1605.667, 1606.542, 1613.69], "stop_times": [1606.542, 1613.69, 1613.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1605.667}, "reply_to": "15377__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_017", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Do you think that Graver then just has to be overruled is in your position, according to your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1613.863], "stop_times": [1621.465], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.863}, "reply_to": "15377__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_018", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is bad as our submission.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1621.465, 1623.191], "stop_times": [1623.191, 1623.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1621.465}, "reply_to": "15377__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_019", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Because there's nothing in the 52 act which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1623.391], "stop_times": [1627.209], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.391}, "reply_to": "15377__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_020", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well there is the provision in the 52 act for the means claim.\nThat was in innovation but we don't read that as meaning that Congress intended to overrule Graver Tank.\nThat's quoted in footnote 12 of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1627.209, 1632.218, 1640.246], "stop_times": [1632.218, 1640.246, 1643.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1627.209}, "reply_to": "15377__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_021", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well how about then -- how about Congress then intending to adapt Graver Tank?\nI didn't think that the -- do you think that the -- expressly stated otherwise, wasn't the act intended to cut it by existing law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1643.245, 1650.21], "stop_times": [1650.21, 1661.883], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.245}, "reply_to": "15377__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_022", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is correct.\nBut Congress did not devote specific attention to Graver Tank one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1661.883, 1663.615], "stop_times": [1663.615, 1670.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1661.883}, "reply_to": "15377__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_023", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well I know, but it intended cut it by existing law, didn't it?\nI mean what about on the infringement section?\nI never use to be in infringement section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1670.224, 1674.946, 1677.077], "stop_times": [1674.946, 1677.077, 1679.786], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.224}, "reply_to": "15377__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_024", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "There is known infringement section, but it didn't refer to the equivalence doctrine or whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1679.786], "stop_times": [1684.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1679.786}, "reply_to": "15377__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_025", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I know but it certainly -- do you think was intended to do to adapt the existing law about infringement of which equivalence was a major part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1684.226], "stop_times": [1693.438], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.226}, "reply_to": "15377__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_026", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "We think it fair to say that Congress left this matter where it always was as a judicial matter.\nCongress did not give attention to this question and I don't think the judiciaries incapacitated from directing its own decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1693.438, 1699.451], "stop_times": [1699.451, 1710.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1693.438}, "reply_to": "15377__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_027", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Are we going very often at the rules, that's very destructive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1710.078], "stop_times": [1714.216], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.078}, "reply_to": "15377__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_028", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But there was no statutory provision construed in Graver Tank.\nThis is a judge made doctrine and always has been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1714.216, 1717.108], "stop_times": [1717.108, 1720.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1714.216}, "reply_to": "15377__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_029", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But you have the rest under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1720.135], "stop_times": [1723.985], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.135}, "reply_to": "15377__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_030", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well there is a patent code that can be said as most areas of the law, but this standard of infringement has never been provided for by statute.\nI don't see how it can be attributed to Congress.\nAs our view is if the doctrine of equivalence was devised by judges to deal with the problem of determining in infringement in historical setting which simply no longer obtain.\nIt's an appropriate occasion for this Court to recognize that it has become outmoded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1723.985, 1734.855, 1738.438, 1755.612], "stop_times": [1734.855, 1738.438, 1755.612, 1761.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1723.985}, "reply_to": "15377__1_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_031", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Do you take no position on the -- currently on the leader matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1761.464], "stop_times": [1768.211], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.464}, "reply_to": "15377__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__1_032", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No we don't Your Honor.\nI'm authorized to speak only to this matter of the equivalence doctrine.\nIt seemed to us to be the matter of general public importance in the case.\nWith the Court's permission, I would like to summarize briefly the historical setting which gave rise to that doctrine since the description of it in our brief is somewhat over simplified and I commanded the Court's attention of comprehensive study of this history not cited in the briefs entitled evolution of the claims if you ask patents by Carol B. Lutz, published in three parts in volume 20 of the journal of the patent office society in 1938.\nWhile the doctrine of equivalence was first articulated by this Court in 1854 in 3025 it amounted to an elaboration of a general approach, the judges had been taken to the question at patent infringement from the earliest period.\nThere was as the brief for the patent law association notes, no statutory requirement of claims in patent applications prior to the Patent Act of 1836, although the earlier statutes did require the patentee in a general way to distinguish his invention from all other things before now.\nAnd as a result of judicial interpretations of this general requirement claims began to be included in many patent applications.\nAnd the 1836 Act under which 3114 was decided codified this practice in its provision quoted in the amicus brief of the association requiring the applicant to particularly specify and point out the part improvement or combination which he claims as his invention or discovery.\nWhile claims where thereafter used in patent applications, they tended it first to be far mass definitive than the claims in modern patent practice.\nOften what was claimed was the concept or idea or principle in body in the invention even though that of course is not what is patentable and the claims tended to be drafted with references back to the specifications at critical points where specific definitive statements of what is claimed would be required today.\nExample can be found in the claims in this court decision in 3213 cited in our brief, volume 1 of Wallace.\nAnd other examples are sided Mr. Lutz.\nAs the patent office and the Court's gradually began to apply more exacting requirements of claiming, the trend was reflected in the greater emphasis on distinctness and particularity in claiming included in the 1870 revision of the patent law and carried for with ever since that the important thing as we see it is that during this early period when patent application seldom included definitive claims to the extent that the Courts enforce the statutory requirement of the applicant distinguish the new from the old or the claiming requirement of the 1836 Act.\nThat enforcement was confined to rulings on patent validity.\nThe question of infringement was almost universally regarded as a question of fact to be decided by comparing the machines of the plaintiff and the defendant.\nThe equivalence doctrine then was merely an elaboration of this general approach.\nThe claiming requirement during this period was in effect treated as a technicality going only to the question of patent validity.\nThe claims really couldn't serve to notify would be competitors of the scope of the monopoly that merely indicated to them whether valid patent existed.\nOf course the different view was sometimes expressed as it was by the dissenting justices in 3400 but it was not until 1877.\nMr. Justice Bradley's opinion for the unanimous Court in Keystone Bridge 95 US that it was held that the claiming requirement is not under technicality and in deed the patentees are bound by their claims as the definition of their judicially enforceable monopolies.\nThe Court's opinion there relied under reissue provisions of the patent law as well as on the claiming requirement and pointed out that it is in the patent office that the patentees \u201cclaim is\\or is suppose to be examined, scrutinized, limited and made to conform to what he is entitled to.\u201d\nThey followed the many decisions discussed in our brief in which this Court has held the claim as the measure of the grant to be relied on as such by the patentee's competitors.\nAnd yet the equivalence doctrine which denies this and was build on a contrary premise has also been carried forward by a kind of a nurture which can preserve inconsistencies and the law as a matter of 3525.\nCristor has been in a accommodation to the extent that the equivalence doctrine has been limited by the doctrine of file wrapper estoppel which prevents the patentee from asserting dominion over the area he renounced before the patent office by amending his claims to induce issuance of the patent.\nOur view is that this doctrine should be regarded not merely as a narrow principle of estoppel, but as one manifestation of the basic tenant of the Keystone Bridge opinion and of the patent system.\nThat the only patent monopolies that are judicially enforceable are those defined by claims that have been approved by the patent office.\nOur proposal therefore is that the equivalence doctrine with its wide range of inquiry and unpredictability of result should now be rejected in favor of a standard of infringement which focuses on the claims in the light of their statutory function.\nOne possibility of course would be a standard that would limit infringement to articles that come literally within the terms of the claim.\nThe Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit once took that position by holding that under the logic of the patent system, the doctrine of equivalence can mean no more than that the language of the claim shall be generously construed.\nBut it abandoned the position because of this Court's decision upholding the equivalence doctrine.\nThis was explained by Judge Learned Hand in the Claude Neon Lights opinion discussed in our brief.\nWe believe that the policies in logic of the patent system do not require a test originally verbalistic which would insolate the copying of inventions with only the most trivial or colorable deviation from the literal terms of the claims.\nWe think the Court was correct in saying in the Graver Tank opinion that section approach would unduly exult form over substance even though we regard the holding rational of that decision as an unfortunate over reaction to this problem.\nWhat we urge is a test based on the substance of the claims, a test based on the substance of what the patent office passed on and approved as the definition of the legally warranted scope of the monopoly.\nThis is not an entirely Novel proposal.\nWe discovered in preparing for this argument that it basically similar approach was proposed in an article published in 1948, two years before the Graver Tank decision by one of this country's most thoughtful patent lawyers, Mr. William R. Woodward.\nThe article is not cited in the briefs but its entitled the definiteness and particularity in patent claims and appears in 48 Michigan law review 755, after noting that the entire logic of the development of the patent system has been to limit the patent owner more and more to the terms that the claims.\nMr. Woodward wrote the principal of 3908 can be reconciled with this development only \u201cIf one treats the so called doctrine of equivalence merely as a form of relief against the almost inevitable inadvertences involved in the formulation of patent claims.\nThe relief must be applied only when the case is clear enough to establish strong equities in favor of the plaintiff and little or not in favor of the defendant or when the point is a mere technicality or so obvious for realistic appraisal that reissue proceedings would not be necessary for a full protection of the public and would be an unnecessary burden to impose on the patentee.\u201d\nThis expresses the general trust of the test we have proposed in terms of whether a revised claim which would literally cover the allegedly infringing article would have presented essentially the same case to the patent office would have presented no difference in the issues of novelty, utility and non-obviousness.\nSo that a Court and would be competitors can conclude with assurance that the patent office did in substance approve a monopoly and the scope sought to be enforced.\nAnd vast the requiring reissue proceedings would be superfluous.\nBy this we mean superfluous is not merely in the sense that the Court can predict what the resulted of reissue proceedings would have been, but superfluous because the Court has satisfied that they would have been nothing more for the patent office to decide.\nUnder this standard, it seems to us that the expansion of the patent monopoly granted by the court's below in this case is the kind of expansion that should require her reissue proceeding and not be made by the Courts.\nThe claim here was expressly limited to a play patent in which the base plate has \u201ca pair of space openings\u201d through which the draw strings are threaded.\nPetitioner threads the draw strings through a single opening in the base plate of his play patent.\nThe claim could have been drafted so as to cover both situations either in the form of the means claim such as \u201csaid base plate having an aperture means through which the draw strings are threaded.\u201d\nThis is drafted in the consultation with the patent office I might add or by claiming that the base plate has \u201cat least one opening\u201d through which the draw strings are threaded.\nIn deed, there's a means claim at the end of this very claim.\nThe difference relates to a functional aspect of the invention about which it seems to us the Courts cannot confidently conclude that the more embracive claim would have presented no differences in the issues of novelty, utility and non-obviousness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [1768.211, 1769.36, 1774.193, 1781.702, 1820.389, 1837.948, 1860.746, 1870.539, 1895.815, 1906.75, 1930.312, 1939.126, 1942.934, 1986.045, 1991.72, 2005.405, 2011.339, 2022.622, 2034.896, 2046.487, 2069.342, 2097.076, 2109.456, 2127.019, 2147.362, 2163.663, 2175.53, 2198.989, 2207.803, 2223.799, 2230.37, 2238.605, 2259.195, 2278.348, 2295.383, 2299.499, 2319.94, 2346.044, 2367.87, 2394.632, 2420.148, 2433.861, 2439.642, 2457.172, 2474.685, 2486.049, 2492.217, 2511.989, 2524.436, 2528.526], "stop_times": [1769.36, 1774.193, 1781.702, 1820.389, 1837.948, 1860.746, 1870.539, 1895.815, 1906.75, 1930.312, 1939.126, 1942.934, 1986.045, 1991.72, 2005.405, 2011.339, 2022.622, 2034.896, 2046.487, 2069.342, 2097.076, 2109.456, 2127.019, 2147.362, 2163.663, 2175.53, 2198.989, 2207.803, 2223.799, 2230.37, 2238.605, 2259.195, 2278.348, 2295.383, 2299.499, 2319.94, 2346.044, 2367.87, 2394.632, 2420.148, 2433.861, 2439.642, 2457.172, 2474.685, 2486.049, 2492.217, 2511.989, 2524.436, 2528.526, 2546.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1768.211}, "reply_to": "15377__1_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_033", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Are you familiar enough with the appendix to be able to express the view as to which of these various diagrams or pictures gives the best picture of this playpen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2546.24], "stop_times": [2562.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.24}, "reply_to": "15377__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__1_034", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Mr. Bader can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2562.686], "stop_times": [2565.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2562.686}, "reply_to": "15377__1_033", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__1_035", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "To find these cases.\nIt's always more helpful for me if I can see a picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2565.329, 2566.197], "stop_times": [2566.197, 2569.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.329}, "reply_to": "15377__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__2_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Page 118 A of the appendix, may it please the Court, has got two pictures right against that page number and I think that the first picture shows a view looking at the play pen from the front then there are two details of allege mechanisms are figures two and three which are not particularly significant.\nAnd then figure four which shows the bottom of the play pen with the draw strings pulling the netting tight and then figure 5 which shows the playpen in up position with the netting drawn tightly.\nI think that's probably best representation of a patent invention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2569.503, 2595.505, 2608.208], "stop_times": [2595.505, 2608.208, 2612.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2569.503}, "reply_to": "15377__1_035", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__2_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you, I can see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2612.152], "stop_times": [2614.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.152}, "reply_to": "15377__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__3_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And as to a nonfunctional aspect such as if the claim specified the color of the base plate for example and a context which this is obviously nonfunctional.\nIt would be unreasonable for anyone to assume that the grant from the patent office is so arbitrary limited in the scope of the monopoly approved.\nHere however, we believe this kind of functional in difference does invoke the principle of the Keystone Bridge case that patentees are bound by the terms of their claim.\nSo our submission is that amorphous nature of the equivalence doctrine along with what Judge Learned Hand referred to in Claude Neon Lights as the vacillation in this Court's decision attributable to an inconsistency and theory have resulted in regrettable uncertainty as to the permissible scope of competitive enterprise.\nThis Court has recognized in cases discussed in our brief that an unwarranted zone of uncertainty as to the scope of patent monopolies can harmfully deprive the public of the benefits of legitimate competition.\nPeople will still clear in the zone of uncertainty, a familiar principle and decisions of this Court in many areas.\nWe asked the Court to address itself to the inconsistency in precedent which is at the root of the present uncertainty in this area and to bring coherence to this aspect of the competitive economy by implementing congressional patent policy in the manner we have proposed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2614.235, 2627.695, 2640.284, 2656.477, 2683.643, 2701.429, 2709.375, 2733.151], "stop_times": [2627.695, 2640.284, 2656.477, 2683.643, 2701.429, 2709.375, 2733.151, 2733.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2614.235}, "reply_to": "15377__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15377__3_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace, Mr. Kalish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2733.604], "stop_times": [2744.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.604}, "reply_to": "15377__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThere is wild over lane patent law in this case such as file wrapper estoppel, licensee estoppel, doctrine of equivalence.\nWhen you take away the top, you have left simply the bare issue of one party attempting to get for nothing something they've bought and agreed to pay for and enjoyed.\nThat's at the bottom of this case.\nThe facts are not quite as simple and my brother Brader outlined.\nThis is not a simple straightforward license agreement.\nThis is a purchase of entire business, respondent Tigrett Industries sold its playpen business, children's furniture business to Standard Industries, the entire business, inventory, parts, anything else.\nA lump sum was paid down but in order to facilitate the operations of the purchaser, will allow to pay us it went and the agreement was the Tigrett would give petitioner a license on the golden convertible patent.\nAnd Standard would pay 2% to the seller, Tigrett Industries, the company for a period of five years on the toys or that this patent.\nThat was a means and expedient whereby they could get some of the purchase price back and make it easier on the buyer.\nThe other 3% was paid to John Burton Tigrett who was the original patent holder who had sold his patent to Tigrett Industries of 3% payment basis.\nSo it was 2% for five years to the seller as consideration for the business.\nAnd 3% go to the original owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2744.417, 2747.377, 2756.332, 2768.355, 2771.871, 2776.239, 2779.678, 2794.385, 2812.212, 2821.854, 2829.277, 2842.873, 2848.491], "stop_times": [2747.377, 2756.332, 2768.355, 2771.871, 2776.239, 2779.678, 2794.385, 2812.212, 2821.854, 2829.277, 2842.873, 2848.491, 2851.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2744.417}, "reply_to": "15377__3_001", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "This was a furniture manufacturing business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2851.561], "stop_times": [2854.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.561}, "reply_to": "15377__4_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_002", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Children's furniture Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2854.175], "stop_times": [2855.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2854.175}, "reply_to": "15377__4_001", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_003", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Children's furniture manufacturing business.\nThe seller was in New York Company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2855.666, 2858.2], "stop_times": [2858.2, 2860.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.666}, "reply_to": "15377__4_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_004", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Seller was a Jackson Tennessee Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2860.021], "stop_times": [2862.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2860.021}, "reply_to": "15377__4_003", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_005", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But I thought the buyer was subject to the Tennessee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2862.107], "stop_times": [2863.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.107}, "reply_to": "15377__4_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_006", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "What the buyer did with the buyers New York firm is established a subsidy and Jackson Tennessee to take over the operations at this file.\nSo Jackson Fringer Corporation was the subsidy and alter ego of the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2863.902, 2872.247], "stop_times": [2872.247, 2876.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2863.902}, "reply_to": "15377__4_005", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_007", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Of the buyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2876.705], "stop_times": [2877.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.705}, "reply_to": "15377__4_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_008", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2877.529], "stop_times": [2878.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2877.529}, "reply_to": "15377__4_007", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_009", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And the seller was also a Jackson Tennessee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2878.485], "stop_times": [2880.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.485}, "reply_to": "15377__4_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_010", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2880.313], "stop_times": [2880.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2880.313}, "reply_to": "15377__4_009", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_011", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2880.8], "stop_times": [2883.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.8}, "reply_to": "15377__4_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_012", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "So wrapping an environment of a business --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2883.827], "stop_times": [2885.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2883.827}, "reply_to": "15377__4_011", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_013", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And then how much inventory for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2885.624], "stop_times": [2888.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.624}, "reply_to": "15377__4_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_014", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I believe Your Honor the contract reports of assets 42 (a) of the appendix call for $105,000.00 down payment in the balance fee and the royalties.\nSo they estimated somewhere around the quarter of million before they got through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2888.872, 2897.842], "stop_times": [2897.842, 2901.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2888.872}, "reply_to": "15377__4_013", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_015", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And of that quarter million, how much was attributable to the patent or patent applications?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2901.73], "stop_times": [2912.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.73}, "reply_to": "15377__4_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_016", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "This I do not know.\nI wasn't in negotiation that on how they figured this out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2912.36, 2912.992], "stop_times": [2912.992, 2915.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2912.36}, "reply_to": "15377__4_015", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_017", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Wasn't atomized?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2915.127], "stop_times": [2916.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.127}, "reply_to": "15377__4_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_018", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Wasn't atomized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2916.108], "stop_times": [2916.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2916.108}, "reply_to": "15377__4_017", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_019", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "What was that page in the appendix by the way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2916.949], "stop_times": [2918.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.949}, "reply_to": "15377__4_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_020", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "54 (a) is the page for the purchaser of assets in your basic agreement between the buyer and the seller and clause 16 (c) relates to the particular patent before this Court's day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2918.925], "stop_times": [2936.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2918.925}, "reply_to": "15377__4_019", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_021", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Is there any evidence in this record that segregates the -- or allocates the purchase price to the various phases that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2936.766], "stop_times": [2944.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.766}, "reply_to": "15377__4_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_022", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No sir there was no -- I think what happened simply was that the negotiating party for the seller had estimated what their income indemnities various items in which they're granting a license and figure they get the same thing for the next five years.\nSo 4924 in that particular environment, secondly and most crucial in this case is the fact that even though paragraph 16 (c) says that seller will grant a license to Standard, the seller did not in fact grant a license, but in fact assign the entire right title interest in the patent to the buyer.\nAt page 76 (a) of the appendix is the document of assignment with respect to the golden convertible patent and the Court will see that Jackson Furniture Corporation was a purchaser.\nThey were not a licensee.\nThey took the entire right title and interest, entire bond of rights.\nSo if the seller Tigrett Industries had nothing left except the whole or -- benefit obtaining a payment as the purchaser succeeded.\nSo we're not dealing with a license.\nWe're dealing with the sale.\nWe have the situation here of the buyer coming before the Court and arguing that the very patent which it owns is invalid trying to appreciate and destroy its own property which you have four right too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [2944.093, 2964.603, 2988.398, 3001.463, 3003.393, 3008.798, 3021.296, 3022.822, 3026.939], "stop_times": [2964.603, 2988.398, 3001.463, 3003.393, 3008.798, 3021.296, 3022.822, 3026.939, 3041.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2944.093}, "reply_to": "15377__4_021", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_023", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well of course that is what Lear says that the prior licensee is entitled to do, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3041.93], "stop_times": [3048.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.93}, "reply_to": "15377__4_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__4_024", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir, this -- if Lear relates to a license agreement Your Honor, not an assignment.\nIn Lear, the plaintiff still owned the building and the -- Lear was simply a tenant.\nIn this case, the building was sold completely outright.\nThere wasn't where the purchaser was fully removed, so have a sale as suppose to a running situation.\nAnd I think that's a very important distinction for one reason that I know of no law which binds a purchaser from attacking the merchandise that whom we advice.\nIn other words, that I not see where the assignee is barred, complaining that they got that merchandize.\nSo we could have raised any issue we wanted to as to the validity for the court below as long as they owned the property so the estoppel document seemed pertaining in this case.\nJust passing lightly over this question of contract cancellation, I think it's a very minor part of this case if that much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3048.148, 3052.999, 3061.998, 3065.449, 3075.704, 3086.914, 3093.434, 3109.4], "stop_times": [3052.999, 3061.998, 3065.449, 3075.704, 3086.914, 3093.434, 3109.4, 3117.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3048.148}, "reply_to": "15377__4_023", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_025", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Before you go on with to if I may interrupt to Mr. Kalish at least for me who have distinguished the Lear case rather so swiftly that I'm not sure I followed you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3117.935], "stop_times": [3130.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.935}, "reply_to": "15377__4_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_026", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Sorry Your Honor certainly.\nAs I understand the Lear case as I've read many times, I hope I understand it.\nThe plaintiff was the owner of the patent, but granted a license or right to use to the defendant.\nTitle remained in the plaintiff.\nThe doctrine is always broad black rid of principle, staple as to a licensee's right to attack the patent which is license but under license 5243 only.\nNow in this case, we have an assignment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3130.654, 3132.436, 3137.317, 3149.105, 3154.329, 3165.197], "stop_times": [3132.436, 3137.317, 3149.105, 3154.329, 3165.197, 3167.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3130.654}, "reply_to": "15377__4_025", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_027", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well is that doctrine related to the old common law doctrine tenant to come out challenge to Landlords' title?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3167.435], "stop_times": [3177.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.435}, "reply_to": "15377__4_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_028", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It may 5258 beginnings Your Honor.\nThat that the question of litigant go way beyond title in this case here, entitled could be one page if you attack title to a fact where it leave it all to many areas to such as prior art and other means attacking it.\nBut in this case, there is no tenancy.\nThey owned the patent.\nThey bought it and this doctrine gave them all the rights, full title.\nThey've owned this patent.\nIt was in that assignment and not a license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3177.638, 3180.539, 3194.84, 3200.475, 3202.071, 3206.923, 3207.977], "stop_times": [3180.539, 3194.84, 3200.475, 3202.071, 3206.923, 3207.977, 3210.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3177.638}, "reply_to": "15377__4_027", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_029", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "5324 Department of Trial does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3210.14], "stop_times": [3215.731], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.14}, "reply_to": "15377__4_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_030", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well Your Honor I could -- a misunderstanding but my brother Bader frankly made it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3215.731], "stop_times": [3223.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3215.731}, "reply_to": "15377__4_029", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_031", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "5344 understand that there could be no issue of litigate in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3223.261], "stop_times": [3229.376], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.261}, "reply_to": "15377__4_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_032", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Not to Miller.\nWe're knowledge Your Honor because by brother Brader simply conceded before the trial even started.\nThey couldn't attack the patent and that was it.\nI have no objection of that concession.\nI didn't say anything.\nI was just quietly conceding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3229.376, 3230.307, 3234.175, 3242.866, 3247.512, 3248.08], "stop_times": [3230.307, 3234.175, 3242.866, 3247.512, 3248.08, 3249.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3229.376}, "reply_to": "15377__4_031", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_033", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "5410.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3249.482], "stop_times": [3250.557], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.482}, "reply_to": "15377__4_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_034", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir, there's nothing binding as far I can see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3250.557], "stop_times": [3253.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3250.557}, "reply_to": "15377__4_033", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_035", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That no premier law would require the attack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3253.42], "stop_times": [3256.939], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.42}, "reply_to": "15377__4_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_036", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I do not know of any law that binds a purchaser for attacking that merchandize that buys.\nIf they have right to do it either could be failure consideration or something at that start here, but this is an assignment and not a license and Lear was a straight license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3256.939, 3265.27], "stop_times": [3265.27, 3274.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3256.939}, "reply_to": "15377__4_035", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_037", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well do suggest that this is much the same though -- at least in the litigation posture, it's much the same as though the inventory which passed under this assignment was subject to large lean for a bank loan and had not been disclosed and you would have had the right to challenge on that score?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3274.112], "stop_times": [3296.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.112}, "reply_to": "15377__4_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_038", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.\nIf there have been some warranty or something of that sort here, we couldn't give any better warranty 5502 patent office gave less as far as the patentee.\nBut he had -- it was assigned to him and he had to pay for as he went.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3296.786, 3298.582, 3305.929], "stop_times": [3298.582, 3305.929, 3311.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3296.786}, "reply_to": "15377__4_037", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_039", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It was part of our problem up here now the failure to litigated this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3311.035], "stop_times": [3315.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.035}, "reply_to": "15377__4_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__4_040", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well this has been raised in this case because the Lear case was decided in June of last year, on May 21 of last year the Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case.\nSo therefore I have assumed after this court accepted the petition on view of the holding in Lear and it wasn't until last fall that I realized that doctrine of equivalence could have been interjected and the Government form in their position.\nSo the problem was that the defendant wants go back down and try validity again.\nAnd as using the Lear case, it's sort of a club.\nI feel it's improper for the reason I've announced the Court as being assignment, but on the -- from arguing those standpoint only or argument sake alone, let us assume the Court does not concede distinction in that point.\nI feel that the record below establishes that the defendant have the right to make many attacks upon the patent which it owns.\nThe record and petitioner for certiorari makes certain reference as to colloquy between counsel, defendant's counsel and the Court relating to the other patent, that so called play around patent which there is now a concession of no issue of validity or infringement.\nHowever, when that patent before the District Court as the record shows the defendants were not reluctant to attempt to attack that patent upon the ground that it's set forth structure imbibing expired patent.\nThe reference made to page 129 A-3 is also colloquy relating to the play around patent and not to go to convertible patent which shows that the defendant also knew that they had the right to come in and bring other patent before that Court to narrow the claims.\nIt's a two well known experience which this Court remark upon the Lear case.\nConsequently, the defendants knew about this possibility to attacking the patent, which is before this Court today.\nYet for some reason, the District Court, they raised non of these efforts, made no attack and that narrow the scope of the claims that happened before this Court are to bring an expired patents much says even other a squeak that there might have been some patent lurking somewhere which would invalidate this patent.\nWe had no knowledge and you have no knowledge as of this today of any patents which invalidate the patent suit.\nYou have never been informed of one yet.\nThe Court was never even given a suggestion.\nThere was no author of introduction of any evidence.\nAnd therefore, since the defendants knew they had many experience open to them and did not avail themselves out.\nAs simply raised by the brief before this Court that there's a invalid patent waiting around or somewhere.\nThey should not be allowed to drag us all the way back down again.\nLet them do what they fail to do the first time.\nThey had their chance.\nAnd secondly, we iterate our view down on assignment there was no barred at all.\nTheir own self-imposed concession was at the wrong pair.\nGoing on to the other -- so therefore Your Honor we feel that the Lear versus Adkins decision is not applicable on the present instance and should not be anyways subverted or perverted to allow it to stretch in this situation or there has been an opportunity for the full day at Court and yet not availed out to raise the issue of validity.\nGoing on to next point, which briefly relates this problem of contract cancellation we have never felt that this was earnestly urged by defendants.\nThe sale was effective in December \u201864.\nThe assignment to which I have alluded was dated December 22, 1964 and it was not until four months later, four months after Tigrett Industries had divested itself of its title didn't decide well but as assigned to the banks here in Jackson the right to collect our 2% override which we hope we're going to get and for the benefit of our creditors.\nIn December 1966, 20 months after the assignment for the benefit of creditors, respondents are advised in a very informal oral manner outside the courtroom that their defenses they had no title no longer.\nTheir title was completely expunged by virtue of this assignment.\nAnd therefore we had no right at all to collect the money because they had nothing to do.\nNothing they could do about but they lost the patent.\nWe were dumbfounded and yet you'll find nothing in the pleadings, which even suggest desperate offense.\nIt was raised at the trial below but not brought to the attention of the party's until one year after institutional suit and consequently we think it understatement to call an after thought, to call a mere rationalization for not paying what they agreed to pay.\nTheir argument is that as of the time of the assignment for benefit of creditors, the title to the patent ceased and they had lost the patent.\nTheir view is if the underlying agreement were by John Burton Tigrett had assigned the patent to Tigrett Industries originally call for the fact that in the event in that agreement, the purchaser, not Tigrett Industries by name but the purchaser, if they made an assignment to the benefit of creditors, the license in one hand of that assignment and the other would be automatically cancelled.\nHis position of the defendants that sends Tigrett Industries made this assignment for the benefit of creditors four months after they got -- after petitioner got title.\nThe petitioner lost its rights, lost the title.\nThe assignment at page 76 A of the appendix and my brother Bader add to the Court states that Jackson Furniture Company agrees to abide by all the obligations, terms and conditions of the seller as more specifically set forth in the agreement dated July 19, 1961 between John Burton Tigrett of Jackson custody of Tigrett Industries.\nWe contend that this so called assignment for the benefit of creditors in an agreement was a condition which petitioner accepted and petitioner then stood in the shoes of its assignor and that clause then related only to petitioner and not to the assigning party who is no longer interested.\nJust as in corporate and contracts, an assignment of this type extinguishes the right of the assignor against the third party and substitutes a precisely similar one in the assignee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3315.367, 3327.365, 3340.666, 3349.604, 3353.061, 3369.238, 3382.512, 3400.085, 3417.845, 3438.397, 3442.729, 3450.649, 3469.57, 3476.011, 3477.995, 3480.623, 3484.415, 3491.43, 3497.855, 3501.563, 3503.923, 3505.17, 3510.449, 3518.523, 3548.155, 3559.902, 3563.052, 3590.252, 3611.844, 3616.732, 3621.573, 3625.55, 3631.844, 3651.565, 3664.702, 3690.056, 3702.071, 3706.869, 3734.871, 3762.818], "stop_times": [3327.365, 3340.666, 3349.604, 3353.061, 3369.238, 3382.512, 3400.085, 3417.845, 3438.397, 3442.729, 3450.649, 3469.57, 3476.011, 3477.995, 3480.623, 3484.415, 3491.43, 3497.855, 3501.563, 3503.923, 3505.17, 3510.449, 3518.523, 3548.155, 3559.902, 3563.052, 3590.252, 3611.844, 3616.732, 3621.573, 3625.55, 3631.844, 3651.565, 3664.702, 3690.056, 3702.071, 3706.869, 3734.871, 3762.818, 3775.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3315.367}, "reply_to": "15377__4_039", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_041", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3775.053], "stop_times": [3777.932], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3775.053}, "reply_to": "15377__4_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_042", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Your honor I would -- be please to pass it.\nI just thought to better bring it up because it was -- they've have been arguing this thing right along.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3777.932, 3781.314], "stop_times": [3781.314, 3787.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3777.932}, "reply_to": "15377__4_041", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_043", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Is this in the brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3787.178], "stop_times": [3788.506], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3787.178}, "reply_to": "15377__4_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_044", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir, that's in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3788.506], "stop_times": [3789.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3788.506}, "reply_to": "15377__4_043", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_045", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3789.271], "stop_times": [3789.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3789.271}, "reply_to": "15377__4_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_046", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt's in the briefs and raised.\nBut I prefer to longer take time at this point, I don't think it's important -- the Courts merit and further rest on arguments in our brief length.\nI would like to direct your attention to the matter of doctrine equivalence.\nThe District Court and the Court of Appeals both held the cue structure was the equivalent of that claim.\nAt page 123 - 125 A, of the appendix there is a photograph of the accused structure which might be compared with the drawings on page 118 or 112 A of the appendix.\nThere's only one difference.\nOne opening against to the experts for both sides found they work the same way to do the same thing by the same means.\nThe Circuit Court of Appeals said there was not a substantial difference.\nMy brother Bader argues for a very strict construction and taking to its logical end would only be to subscribe to the view, which this Court denounced in the Graver case and that isn't only outright and forthright, duplication is a very rare and dull thing.\nWe have simply the evasion of this patent by putting a single hole instead of two.\nEverything else is the same structurally and functionally.\nThere was no evidence to the contrary with respect to the fundamentals of the equivalency.\nTherefore, we must address ourselves to the Government's view with which has overruled this doctrine and replace it by a new test.\nFirstly, it is our view that the Government is raising its own windmill or its own scarecrow.\nAnd it talks about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3789.855, 3790.924, 3794.633, 3809.912, 3818.933, 3832.432, 3848.555, 3851.029, 3860.177, 3866.858, 3887.21, 3892.608, 3896.92, 3907.759, 3919.057, 3926.276], "stop_times": [3790.924, 3794.633, 3809.912, 3818.933, 3832.432, 3848.555, 3851.029, 3860.177, 3866.858, 3887.21, 3892.608, 3896.92, 3907.759, 3919.057, 3926.276, 3927.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3789.855}, "reply_to": "15377__4_045", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_047", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Get to that Mr. Kalish, may I just hereby correctly understand your position on the other point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3927.322], "stop_times": [3932.427], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3927.322}, "reply_to": "15377__4_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_048", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3932.427], "stop_times": [3932.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3932.427}, "reply_to": "15377__4_047", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_049", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It's this that the -- as I understand it, the patent was sold to Standard and part of the major or the purchase price included this 2% override?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3932.899], "stop_times": [3945.09], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3932.899}, "reply_to": "15377__4_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_050", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3945.09], "stop_times": [3946.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3945.09}, "reply_to": "15377__4_049", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_051", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "What about the 3%?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3946.065], "stop_times": [3947.25], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3946.065}, "reply_to": "15377__4_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_052", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "3% would be continued to be paid for the life of the patent, to John Burton Tigrett who was the original owner who assigned the Tigrett Industries and they're repaying him 3%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3947.25], "stop_times": [3959.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3947.25}, "reply_to": "15377__4_051", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_053", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But your point is this was just a measure of the purchase price of the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3959.157], "stop_times": [3963.773], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3959.157}, "reply_to": "15377__4_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_054", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "As far as the respondent Tigrett Industries is concerned, 2% to them was part of the purchase price.\nThe 3% to go to John Burton Tigrett was simply that the petitioner was going to adapt and accept the obligation, which the seller had to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3963.773, 3971.3], "stop_times": [3971.3, 3981.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3963.773}, "reply_to": "15377__4_053", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_055", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "In another words they assumed the obligation that was on the inventor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3981.149], "stop_times": [3985.763], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3981.149}, "reply_to": "15377__4_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_056", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "On the 3% to the inventor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3985.763], "stop_times": [3986.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3985.763}, "reply_to": "15377__4_055", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_057", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That's what I said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3986.992], "stop_times": [3987.407], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3986.992}, "reply_to": "15377__4_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_058", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The 2% was override to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3987.407], "stop_times": [3989.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3987.407}, "reply_to": "15377__4_057", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_059", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But the whole business is all part of the purchase price of the patent that they bought, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3989.096], "stop_times": [3993.737], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3989.096}, "reply_to": "15377__4_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_060", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3993.737], "stop_times": [3994.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3993.737}, "reply_to": "15377__4_059", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_061", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And therefore, you say there is no room here for the doctrine of licensee estoppel because this is not a licensee situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [3994.193], "stop_times": [4001.924], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3994.193}, "reply_to": "15377__4_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_062", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "In our position, yes sir, yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4001.924], "stop_times": [4003.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4001.924}, "reply_to": "15377__4_061", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_063", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Therefore, I take it with a follow that these are five-year agreement as I recall about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4003.386], "stop_times": [4009.795], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4003.386}, "reply_to": "15377__4_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_064", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes sir but as far as the industry is concerned selling company --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4009.795], "stop_times": [4013.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4009.795}, "reply_to": "15377__4_063", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_065", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well no matter what, I would suppose your position then will have to, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4013.237], "stop_times": [4016.911], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4013.237}, "reply_to": "15377__4_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_066", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4016.911], "stop_times": [4017.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4016.911}, "reply_to": "15377__4_065", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_067", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Maybe I should ask you a question.\nDoes this mean that no matter what happened to the patent, standard still for five years was obliged to pay on all of its sales of the cover items, 2% override and 3% to the original inventor?\nDo you say that whether or not the patent was invalid?\nThat they bought something -- for which this is what they pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4017.309, 4018.903, 4033.475, 4039.118], "stop_times": [4018.903, 4033.475, 4039.118, 4041.721], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4017.309}, "reply_to": "15377__4_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_068", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "You're right.\nThe question then would seem to be Your Honor if I understand it is that whether or not the patent might have been held invalid by some manner or means in that period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4041.721, 4042.17], "stop_times": [4042.17, 4051.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4041.721}, "reply_to": "15377__4_067", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_069", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well I understood you, wouldn't your argument logically mean no matter what happened to the patent, valid or invalid that since they pay that extra hours for it, measured by 2%, 3% quarterly, they'd still have to continue for the five years --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4051.332], "stop_times": [4065.148], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4051.332}, "reply_to": "15377__4_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_070", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I don't see -- I can't take that position.\nNo sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4065.148, 4066.314], "stop_times": [4066.314, 4067.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4065.148}, "reply_to": "15377__4_069", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_071", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4067.06], "stop_times": [4067.403], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4067.06}, "reply_to": "15377__4_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_072", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Who would know that for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4067.403], "stop_times": [4068.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4067.403}, "reply_to": "15377__4_071", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_073", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Why, why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4068.54], "stop_times": [4071.404], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4068.54}, "reply_to": "15377__4_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_074", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Because it's wrong in terms of a place to a patent Your Honor.\nAnd therefore, I think that if that patent had been held invalid by a third party infringement action --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4071.404, 4075.137], "stop_times": [4075.137, 4082.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4071.404}, "reply_to": "15377__4_073", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_075", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Do you think that could be a failure consideration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4082.011], "stop_times": [4083.839], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4082.011}, "reply_to": "15377__4_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_076", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "We'll be hard put to -- on antitrust laws to ask them to pay on an invalid fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4083.839], "stop_times": [4090.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4083.839}, "reply_to": "15377__4_075", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_077", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Or why would then you -- and that's true even though this is an assignment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4090.069], "stop_times": [4098.591], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4090.069}, "reply_to": "15377__4_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_078", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "If the third party Your Honor had infringe his patent and suite had to be brought and say to the purchaser brought a suite for infringement and by virtue of that litigation that patent was held invalid prior to the termination of five-year period, then I would say in that case we could not expect them to pay us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4098.591], "stop_times": [4117.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4098.591}, "reply_to": "15377__4_077", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_079", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4117.169], "stop_times": [4119.755], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4117.169}, "reply_to": "15377__4_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_080", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Regrettably the contract is drawn in terms of -- accorded by the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4119.755], "stop_times": [4124.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4119.755}, "reply_to": "15377__4_079", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_081", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well then I don't understand you estoppel argument at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4124.55], "stop_times": [4128.158], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4124.55}, "reply_to": "15377__4_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_082", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "To estoppel argument is based upon and base back to the defendant.\nIn Lear versus Adkins the question was, was the licensee stopped?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4128.158, 4132.649], "stop_times": [4132.649, 4136.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4128.158}, "reply_to": "15377__4_081", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_083", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Oh, I know but if he had some third party suite -- in some of the third party suit that that was invalidated, you would say that the petitioner here would be excused from paying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4136.09], "stop_times": [4148.238], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4136.09}, "reply_to": "15377__4_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_084", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "By virtue of the way that contract is written, I'll have to say yes sir, otherwise you are going to file that antitrust laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4148.238], "stop_times": [4153.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4148.238}, "reply_to": "15377__4_083", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_085", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "But you say nevertheless that he is stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4153.154], "stop_times": [4156.584], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4153.154}, "reply_to": "15377__4_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_086", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "He wasn't stopped at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4156.584], "stop_times": [4157.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4156.584}, "reply_to": "15377__4_085", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_087", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I know but you say he hasn't stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4157.66], "stop_times": [4159.356], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4157.66}, "reply_to": "15377__4_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_088", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "He has not stopped at all.\nI had no bar.\nI'm saying he had no bar, he could have raised decision below if he wanted to.\nIn Lear versus Adkins you were concerned with the problem of the bar against the licensee.\nI say this part didn't affect him.\nHe could have raised it and lay down below if he wanted too.\nThere was no estoppel against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4159.356, 4160.328, 4161.474, 4165.566, 4170.367, 4173.001, 4175.179], "stop_times": [4160.328, 4161.474, 4165.566, 4170.367, 4173.001, 4175.179, 4177.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4159.356}, "reply_to": "15377__4_087", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_089", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well you make a good argument -- you have had a good argument arguing for the result mixed in Lear, right across the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4177.014], "stop_times": [4191.06], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4177.014}, "reply_to": "15377__4_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_090", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Oh, I think that we had a -- that must have held him valid Your Honor because it have been appearance of some of the charge the way contract is granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4191.06], "stop_times": [4198.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4191.06}, "reply_to": "15377__4_089", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_091", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well quite apart from the antitrust laws, I supposed this was a sale of a business of the assets of the business including as you say inventory and maybe I don't know what else, office equipment and a couple of patents and if the or any or all are in part of that -- those assets had turned out to be effective -- defective or not as represented quite apart from the antitrust laws.\nI'm supposed the installment purchaser would have had a claim against you to pay full purchase price quite apart from antitrust law.\nHe could attack the validity -- the patent just as he could have attacked the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4198.401, 4224.363, 4238.145], "stop_times": [4224.363, 4238.145, 4241.959], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4198.401}, "reply_to": "15377__4_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_092", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4241.959], "stop_times": [4242.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4241.959}, "reply_to": "15377__4_091", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_093", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "-- the integrity of the inventory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4242.858], "stop_times": [4244.947], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4242.858}, "reply_to": "15377__4_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_094", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Right.\nThere was no bar against him at all the time.\nIn all difference, may I cite that lawyers not take part in this negotiation unfortunately.\nThis contract have been written differently we're stock with.\nGetting back from the Government's position on doctrine of equivalence, they raise a scarecrow and he talked about the context of the general electric versus 7106 case in the universal oil products case starting up with some sort of a boggy if we had to be afraid off.\nNow in General electric, this Court held the claims to be absolutely invalid in that case because they were much too broad.\nThe claim called led to a filament and limitation related to being made up of such large streams of such size and contour as to prevent sagging in 7137.\nThat that must struck down because the public could not no where -- the line was drawn, so comprehensive was indefinite and similarly in the universal law of products case, this Court did recognize the doctrine of equivalence but held that the process provide upon was that which have been denied to the patentee.\nThose cases are not pertinent and they set up a very bad contacts within which the exist a doctrine of equivalence.\nThe Government expresses extreme anxiety and fear that the Courts will expand this claims of patents, in such an extent that they'll trespass into areas which should be denied the patentee.\nWhat is this document actually get called as such a concern here today.\nIt's a 116 years old.\nIt's been an aid to the Courts for construing claims for the purpose of preventing a fraud, preventing a dissimulation.\nThis doctrine is sort of a first class and the doctrine plain hands.\nThis doctrine is designed to prevent a patentee from being a victim of verbalism as expressed in the Graver case.\nAnd it is applied not to capture something new in different but to avoid the accused structure of being nothing more than a mere colorable difference from mere inconsequential departure.\nTo minimize as I believe Justice Black used in the dissent in the Graver case.\nThese are not -- why is doctrine is not used to encompass large areas but colorable differences, colorable departures, inconsequential changes.\nThey're designed to prevent as the Court stated in the unscrupulous copyist.\nNow there are many safeguards in this test, which perhaps may clarify the question that Justice White raised before.\nOne test of course, the test of equivalency.\nIt must do the same thing in the same way with the same results.\nSo we have to have that as one guard, safeguard.\nSecondly, the file wrapper estoppel doctrine is used also as a safeguard.\nSo if the doctrine applies in those areas only were file wrapper estoppel does not attach.\nFile wrapper estoppels at the exact point of criticality, the exact point invention and therefore there can be no equivalency at that particular point.\nThirdly, the claims must be definite.\nThe claims cannot be so broad as to not guide the public as the General Electric case.\nOther cases cited in the Government's brief.\nBut fourthly and most important is the fact that the equivalent structure must have been something known at the time of the patent are subject.\nIt cannot be an inventive act.\nThe Reece case in 1871 decided by this Court brought that out.\nIn 1890, we have Professor Robinson and on patents brought the same point out that it must be known in the arts at the date of the patent.\nIn the Graver case, this court made the same statement that the important factor is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of the ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was.\nIt have to be something known.\nIf it became invention then it was of course beyond the doctrine of equivalence.\nThis is also the notes since 1890 in textbooks.\n(Inaudible) brings that out.\nNow the Government in his brief at countless places states that the doctrine of equivalence prevents inventing around, prevents invention around.\nNow the use of the word invention can't be accidental.\nIt's used too often.\nAnd what is invention?\nWe presumed that invention is what this court held to be in the Graham case.\nIt must be unobvious and therefore if it is unobvious, it cannot be in equivalent because in the equivalent has got to be obvious.\nConsequently this doctrine have nothing to do with defending others from being creative, from using ingenuity, and showing skills beyond the mechanical skills.\nIn fact, it encourages all of these to do that.\nThe Government's position would seem to be to more or less under the guys of competition in public policy to really be encouraging the free loaders, the commercial parasites, the uncreative, the parts.\nThis case is an interesting case in itself because we have the purchaser depreciating the novelty of the very playpen which is selling to such an extent we're here today and yet it's saying it's not noble and appreciating it.\nAs simple as that might be, consequently this doctrine is not designed to forestall technological advancement.\nHow can anyone with the right mind say that putting one hole instead of two is a technological advance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4244.947, 4245.7, 4249.395, 4254.751, 4259.253, 4276.632, 4285.738, 4299.099, 4321.162, 4331.852, 4348.005, 4352.658, 4354.066, 4363.094, 4368.18, 4375.446, 4390.858, 4397.161, 4408.737, 4415.429, 4426.236, 4428.596, 4432.108, 4435.001, 4439.371, 4445.777, 4456.56, 4460.047, 4465.075, 4468.364, 4529.149, 4482.088, 4486.388, 4497.535, 4517.331, 4518.826, 4524.35, 4527.823, 4532.202, 4546.317, 4550.27, 4551.976, 4553.934, 4558.306, 4568.209, 4577.79, 4580.985, 4598.622, 4613.877, 4623.922], "stop_times": [4245.7, 4249.395, 4254.751, 4259.253, 4276.632, 4285.738, 4299.099, 4321.162, 4331.852, 4348.005, 4352.658, 4354.066, 4363.094, 4368.18, 4375.446, 4390.858, 4397.161, 4408.737, 4415.429, 4426.236, 4428.596, 4432.108, 4435.001, 4439.371, 4445.777, 4456.56, 4460.047, 4465.075, 4468.364, 4529.149, 4482.088, 4486.388, 4497.535, 4517.331, 4518.826, 4524.35, 4527.823, 4532.202, 4546.317, 4550.27, 4551.976, 4553.934, 4558.306, 4568.209, 4577.79, 4580.985, 4598.622, 4613.877, 4623.922, 4629.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4244.947}, "reply_to": "15377__4_093", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_095", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Can I ask you a question?\nWhat you have said in the previous part of your argument, you argued that the real problem does not here at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4629.728, 4631.203], "stop_times": [4631.203, 4639.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4629.728}, "reply_to": "15377__4_094", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15377__4_096", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "For further -- I take that position Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4639.473], "stop_times": [4641.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4639.473}, "reply_to": "15377__4_095", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_097", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "7722", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4641.059], "stop_times": [4654.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4641.059}, "reply_to": "15377__4_096", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15377__4_098", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I didn't think so, before the distant here.\nI just can't imagine the court or ruin this particular doctrine.\nI think the doctrine is vital.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4654.989, 4658.379, 4664.183], "stop_times": [4658.379, 4664.183, 4664.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4654.989}, "reply_to": "15377__4_097", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_099", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, I'll ask a different question.\n(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4664.306, 4666.903], "stop_times": [4666.903, 4669.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4664.306}, "reply_to": "15377__4_098", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15377__4_100", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, in a standpoint Your Honor the District Court relied upon the Graver case in holding his principles and the Court of Appeals affirmed and used and noting the difference, the one hole or two holes said it was not a consequential difference which is typical language used in doctrine of Government cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4669.783], "stop_times": [4694.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4669.783}, "reply_to": "15377__4_099", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_101", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4694.887], "stop_times": [4700.257], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4694.887}, "reply_to": "15377__4_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_102", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, this is -- been hard for us to understand the Government raising these points, we felt that the Government has gone to full circle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4700.257], "stop_times": [4709.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4700.257}, "reply_to": "15377__4_101", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_103", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, let's assume the patent is issued and someone thereafter trials for patent in the same area and it's denied on the ground that it was obvious from the previous patent and the prior, would that all -- would you therefore say that what the fellow was trying -- what the second man was trying to patent was the equivalent of the first patent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4709.017], "stop_times": [4744.151], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4709.017}, "reply_to": "15377__4_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_104", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I think with the facts you've outlined that should be yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4744.151], "stop_times": [4748.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4744.151}, "reply_to": "15377__4_103", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_105", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "So you're saying that's -- anything that's obvious from the prior art is covered by those prior art patents in the doctrine of equivalents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4748.42], "stop_times": [4761.718], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4748.42}, "reply_to": "15377__4_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_106", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "As I understand the doctrine --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4761.718], "stop_times": [4762.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4761.718}, "reply_to": "15377__4_105", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__4_107", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And this just have any free area.\nIt's either -- if something's unpatentable it must be because it's covered by a prior patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4762.624, 4764.052], "stop_times": [4764.052, 4770.923], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4762.624}, "reply_to": "15377__4_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__4_108", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well I think this is maybe one area of confusion Your Honor.\nThe mere fact that the picture expedient, let's say the one hole against the two holes in this case here, you adopt the one hole.\nThis is no.\nThere is nothing very noble about that.\nSo one hole, if it had an independent existence but one of the public, the once should put that in this context in the total overall patent structure than it is a new device.\nIn other words just as in the Graver case, the mere fact that there was one silicate which is well known did not prevent the public from using that particular silicate.\nBut when you substitute that silicate into the particular welding composition, the totality then brought about a new inventive option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4770.923, 4774.365, 4781.846, 4783.384, 4786.054, 4800.713, 4809.714], "stop_times": [4774.365, 4781.846, 4783.384, 4786.054, 4800.713, 4809.714, 4820.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4770.923}, "reply_to": "15377__4_107", "speaker": "ralph_w_kalish"}
{"id": "15377__5_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "-- Of the American Patent Law Association or the opportunity, which has been given to us to brief the questions, which are raised by this assault, which the Government has made upon the equivalence of the rule, which is now at least a 120 years old.\nI joined Mr. Kalish in saying that much of the position in fact a break deal of the position of the Government is a scarecrow type argument.\nThe Government has generalized and the Government over simplifies in making these assertions as to what the equivalency rule means and what the Courts are doing as a result of a graver.\nThere are three or four points which I would like to make at the outset which my way of thinking demonstrate the -- some of the basic fallacies in the Government's position.\nIn the brief filed by the Government, there seems to be suggestion that the patent clause of the constitution has something to do with this matter of equivalency that the constitution requires specificity in claims.\nThere is nothing in the constitutional clause, which relates to specificity in claims.\nSecondly, the Government has not in a very good historian as far as the genesis of the doctrine is concerned.\nThe Government asserts that the Wynon's case was decided under a different statutory scheme, which did not require specificity in claiming.\nThis is not so.\nThe original Patent Act was the 1790 act.\nThere were no claims required in the patents granted in the two or three period that that act was in effect.\nThen we had the Patent Act of 1793, which was -- came to an end in 1836 when the present statutory scheme came in to be.\nNow, between 1793 and 1836 we did not have in the statute any requirement for claims.\nIn fact, we had it during that period what we call a registration system, not an examination system.\nThe examination system came in to being in 1836.\nAnd the Act of 1836 contain language very much like the language which we now find in Section 112 about specificity in claims.\nAnd this is the reason that the problem or the debate came in the Wynon's case it was because of the fact that the 1836 statute required that the patentee particularly specify and point out what it was that he was claiming as his invention that you had the division in the Court at that time.\nYou had the minority who felt just as Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas felt in the Graver case.\nThat there should be a strict construction of the words of the statute and a strict construction of the terms employed in the claim.\nAnd then you had the majority of the Court in the Wynon's case which felt that there should be some room for construction, some liberality of construction and that the claim should receive a reasonable interpretation and this was what the debate was about in the Wynon's case.\nDo we have strict construction of patent claims or do we have a little broader construction, a little breadth as far as the terms of the claims are concerned.\nThe other point which I would like to mention is the assertion that the Courts at the present time do not focus on the claims.\nNow we that are in the patent litigation practice know that we do focus on the claims and that the Courts do focus on the claims.\nAnother fallacy in the Government's position is the assumption, which is made here that after the Court has found that a patent is valid or a claim in the patent is valid, it does not return to the claim in connection with the determination of the infringement issue.\nThe Courts do not ignore the claims after they have found them invalid and instead when they do take up an equivalency determination they go back and they reconsider whether or not that claim is valid.\nIn the light of the prior art in view of the scope and the construction which the Court is placing upon the claim.\nYour Honors are familiar I'm sure with the classical statement that was made in this Court many, many years ago, which is to this effect, that which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.\nNow, this means --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [4820.785, 4843.527, 4853.352, 4883.082, 4897.493, 4915.741, 4923.907, 4936.775, 5132.533, 4951.953, 4955.933, 4963.017, 4975.977, 4984.516, 4992.731, 4997.633, 5009.315, 5032.738, 5043.243, 5052.443, 5072.649, 5088.85, 5099.453, 5110.186, 5134.118, 5152.149, 5162.068, 5178.107], "stop_times": [4843.527, 4853.352, 4883.082, 4897.493, 4915.741, 4923.907, 4936.775, 5132.533, 4951.953, 4955.933, 4963.017, 4975.977, 4984.516, 4992.731, 4997.633, 5009.315, 5032.738, 5043.243, 5052.443, 5072.649, 5088.85, 5099.453, 5110.186, 5134.118, 5152.149, 5162.068, 5178.107, 5179.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4820.785}, "reply_to": "15377__4_108", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I think we'll suspend at this time and go for lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5179.666], "stop_times": [5182.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5179.666}, "reply_to": "15377__5_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__5_002", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5182.819], "stop_times": [5188.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5182.819}, "reply_to": "15377__5_001", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_003", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Continue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5188.719], "stop_times": [5189.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5188.719}, "reply_to": "15377__5_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__5_004", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "May it please the Court.\nWhen we recess, I was making the point about the rule of law which the Courts I believe never loose sight of namely that which infringes if later anticipates if earlier, I would like to come back to it.\nBut I've decided that I would try and answer Mr. Justice White's question that he put to Mr. Kalish about the disallowance of a subsequently filed application upon the existing patent where the patent office refuses to grant the second patent on the ground that it is obvious in view of an earlier patent.\nWhat we have to keep in mind is that sometimes an element maybe both an equivalent and obvious.\nSometimes it may be obvious but not an equivalent.\nSometimes it may be an equivalent but not obvious.\nThe point Mr. Justice White is this that in the examination of an application, the patent office is looking at the disclosures of the earlier patents.\nAnd the question of obviousness is determined on the basis of whether or not the new alleged claim subject matter is obvious or not obvious in the light of the disclosures of the prior act.\nThe examiner does not get into the question of the claims of the references that he is relying upon.\nAnd equivalency comes in to play only when we are deciding the question of infringement of the literal language of a claim.\nObviousness is a mater of path nobility in the light of the disclosures of the prior patents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5189.483, 5191.686, 5211.407, 5239.969, 5249.02, 5252.821, 5257.752, 5270.609, 5285.934, 5293.819, 5304.826], "stop_times": [5191.686, 5211.407, 5239.969, 5249.02, 5252.821, 5257.752, 5270.609, 5285.934, 5293.819, 5304.826, 5314.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5189.483}, "reply_to": "15377__5_003", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_005", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "So you are saying that there can be some nonpatentable obvious elements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5314.824], "stop_times": [5325.263], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5314.824}, "reply_to": "15377__5_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_006", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Which are not and it's entirely possible sir that something which has been held to be obvious in view of an earlier patent could well be held to be in equivalent in a properly litigated situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5325.263], "stop_times": [5339.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5325.263}, "reply_to": "15377__5_005", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_007", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Are you not the right one to ask? Could you tell me briefly what was the discovery here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5339.655], "stop_times": [5347.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5339.655}, "reply_to": "15377__5_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__5_008", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Sir I have not made any effort to get into the merits of this action which is before Your Honors.\nI have only prepared on this subject of equivalency, I was not in the case with Mr. Bader and Mr. Kalish and I am afraid I can't answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5347.084, 5355.669], "stop_times": [5355.669, 5369.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5347.084}, "reply_to": "15377__5_007", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_009", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I don't think either one of them mentioned what it was to get the idea of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5369.559], "stop_times": [5372.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5369.559}, "reply_to": "15377__5_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__5_010", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That has something to do with the playpen and there is a claim, which relates to the structure of the playpen.\nAnd this is the question of infringement which was before the lower courts whether the accused playpen was an infringement of the claim of the respondent.\nThe lower courts held that under the doctrine of equivalency that one of -- well first that I understand this that there was one structure which literally responded to the claim and then there was a second structure which did not literally respond but which the courts below held was an infringement under the doctrine of equivalency.\nNow on this matter of whether or not the courts presently are focusing on the claims, they are doing exactly that.\nThey start out with the claims and they finish with the claims.\nAs I said, they first determine whether the claim is valid.\nAnd then if there is an equivalency situation after they have decided that the accused structure is an equivalent and is reached by the claim under the doctrine, then the Court goes back and takes another look at the prior art to see whether or not the claim thus construed is valid in the light of the prior art.\nNow this is exactly what happened in the Sanitary Refrigerator Case.\nThere you had exactly the same patent, the same accused structure.\nThe records in the two cases were substantially the same, the record in the Seventh Circuit and the record in the Third Circuit.\nThe Seventh Circuit found that the accused structure was an infringement under the doctrine of equivalency.\nThe Third Circuit found that it was not.\nAnd one of the interesting thing about the opinion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is that that Court expressly pointed out that if they were to give the claim the breadth that the plaintiff was asking for that would be invalid in view of the prior art.\nThis is why in the third circuit, no equivalency was found.\nThen the two cases came up here.\nThis Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit and found that the two structure was an equivalent.\nAgain, as showing the great concern which the courts always have for the validity of a patent.\nI would call attention to Smith versus Snow where this Court found the patent valid, found entirely different incubator to be an infringement of the Smith patent gave it a construction which made other prior art pertinent which had not been in that case and in the subsequent case.\nSmith versus Hall 301 US, this Court found the Smith patent invalid in view of this public use, which had not been in the first case.\nThe point I'm making is that once you've given a construction to a claim then other prior art, other references become material to the broader scope which is being given to a claim.\nNow the Government also says that the doctrine has not been properly limited.\nWe submit that it has within the time that has been available for research since I learned that I would take part in this argument.\nI've had two of my office associates checked the citations of the Graver case over a period of about 20 years.\nThey had examined about 200 -- and I believe this is something that the Court be interested in.\nThey examined about 220 citations of the Graver case.\nWe found this and these are very rough figured that roughly a 128 cases of infringement were found where the doctrine was invoked and 91 cases were found where the doctrine was refused.\nNow this is approximately 56% to 44%.\nI submit that this shows that the Court had not gone over board in applying the doctrine of equivalency and this is particularly true in view of the fact that a recent report by Senator McQuillan headed the subcommittee on patents in the senate indicates that only about 28% of the patents being litigated are being upheld.\nSo you've got 56% of 28% and it's a very small number of patents indeed that are getting the benefit of the doctrine of equivalency.\nThree major points that we make sir are these.\nThere is no factual basis for the Government's extraordinary request. Second, we submit that there are no cogent reasons for rejecting as a matter of law.\nThis rule of patent construction which has been so long applied by the court and third, that the Governments proposed alternative test is an impractical one and is incomprehensible unless it means what we think it means and in that event the Government's proposed test is the very same rule of equivalency which is now being applied by the Court.\nAs to that first point, we submit that the assertions, which have been made about the effects of the equivalency ruler highly exaggerated a more fancy and imaginary that real, there is no evidence in this case Your Honors which submit the -- which support these assertions.\nFirst, that create an enterprise and technological progress are being hindered.\nThere is no evidence to show that in event of efforts and commercial enterprises are being discouraged, that competitors are being prevented from seeking to invent their own that the doctrine has undermined the public interest in competitive technological advancement.\nThere is absolutely nothing before this Court to support those factual assertions.\nWe submit that this matter should be taken up by Congress.\nIf anything is going to be done about the equivalency rule, the Congress is the fore important and not this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5372.775, 5380.556, 5395.737, 5420.764, 5429.368, 5432.652, 5436.68, 5460.58, 5466.549, 5472.141, 5479.833, 5486.802, 5489.299, 5504.736, 5508.593, 5511.038, 5519.097, 5526.593, 5549.111, 5562.305, 5579.239, 5588.42, 5598.61, 5609.591, 5616.175, 5622.701, 5642.894, 5648.866, 5673.285, 5686.267, 5692.038, 5704.046, 5733.124, 5759.209, 5764.893, 5784.302, 5793.982, 5798.463], "stop_times": [5380.556, 5395.737, 5420.764, 5429.368, 5432.652, 5436.68, 5460.58, 5466.549, 5472.141, 5479.833, 5486.802, 5489.299, 5504.736, 5508.593, 5511.038, 5519.097, 5526.593, 5549.111, 5562.305, 5579.239, 5588.42, 5598.61, 5609.591, 5616.175, 5622.701, 5642.894, 5648.866, 5673.285, 5686.267, 5692.038, 5704.046, 5733.124, 5759.209, 5764.893, 5784.302, 5793.982, 5798.463, 5806.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5372.775}, "reply_to": "15377__5_009", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_011", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Is it.\nThey found an active comment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5806.859, 5808.747], "stop_times": [5808.747, 5811.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5806.859}, "reply_to": "15377__5_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__5_012", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5811.111], "stop_times": [5812.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5811.111}, "reply_to": "15377__5_011", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_013", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Is the equivalent, doctrine of equivalent created by the Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5812.008], "stop_times": [5815.624], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5812.008}, "reply_to": "15377__5_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_014", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No.\nBut Your Honor we say that it has been adopted by Congress.\nThere had been any number of patent statutes adopted since 1853 or 1854 and Congress, we feel has adopted and has embraced the doctrine of equivalency.\nIt has been a part of the decisional law for a 120 years.\nThe 1952 Code for the first time specified what the act of infringement consist of.\nThe 1952 Code says that infringement shall consist of an invasion of the patented invention and the decision showed that the patented invention over the years has been the literal language of the claims with a reasonable interpretation.\nAnd this is what the patented invention means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5815.624, 5816.062, 5820.982, 5837.232, 5843.558, 5853.194, 5872.171], "stop_times": [5816.062, 5820.982, 5837.232, 5843.558, 5853.194, 5872.171, 5875.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5815.624}, "reply_to": "15377__5_013", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_015", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Do you think that the \u201852 code has so much significance that it adopted every piece of statutory interpretation and every piece of decisional law prior to that time in places of any prior -- any decisions prior to that time beyond reach of this Court or any other court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5875.833], "stop_times": [5899.165], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5875.833}, "reply_to": "15377__5_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_016", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I think that it was a general codification except insofar as Congress did something about the Mercoid rule and Congress did -- they wrote in this additional provision in section --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5899.165], "stop_times": [5912.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5899.165}, "reply_to": "15377__5_015", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_017", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "9833 of things that specifically did away with some prior decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5912.242], "stop_times": [5916.451], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5912.242}, "reply_to": "15377__5_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_018", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well I think the Mercoid situation is one.\nAnd the other one is they tried to save broad means clauses in view of the Halliburton decision by providing that it was permissible to have a means clause on the understanding that it would be interpreted in the light of the specification.\nAnd would reach the specific embodiment of the specification and they went on to say and it's equivalents --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5916.451, 5919.352, 5935.822], "stop_times": [5919.352, 5935.822, 5942.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5916.451}, "reply_to": "15377__5_017", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_019", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, do you think then that Lear was out of bounce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5942.565], "stop_times": [5947.691], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5942.565}, "reply_to": "15377__5_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_020", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I don't think so.\nAnd I'm not expressing any opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5947.691, 5948.853], "stop_times": [5948.853, 5949.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5947.691}, "reply_to": "15377__5_019", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_021", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, I know but entirely aside from whether what you think of it on the merits.\nDo you think we over reached the power of the Courts in deciding Lear because in 1952 the Congress didn't express any disagreement with the licensee and stuff like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5949.754, 5954.86], "stop_times": [5954.86, 5976.829], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5949.754}, "reply_to": "15377__5_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_022", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Your Honor I think that you have the right to do what you did in Lear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5976.829], "stop_times": [5983.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5976.829}, "reply_to": "15377__5_021", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_023", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, what's the difference between --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5983.17], "stop_times": [5984.239], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5983.17}, "reply_to": "15377__5_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_024", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well the difference here is it is claimed sir that there are certain ill effects to this doctrine, which we challenge.\nThere is -- and it is a matter for the investigative process of the Senate or a congressional committee namely whether or not people are being prevented from inventing their own.\nWhat I would like to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [5984.239, 5996.451, 6011.929], "stop_times": [5996.451, 6011.929, 6013.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5984.239}, "reply_to": "15377__5_023", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_025", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Why wouldn't those arguments be as applicable to the Lear decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6013.219], "stop_times": [6016.992], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6013.219}, "reply_to": "15377__5_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__5_026", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I don't think you had the same question there in Lear.\nLear was simply a matter of whether or not the licensee was stopped to challenge the validity of the license source patent.\nAnd here we have a rule of construction, which the Courts have been applying to patents for a period of a 120 years and this Court time and time again has recognized that a patentees claims are to receive a liberal and a reasonable interpretation.\nI think there is a substantial difference between the matter that came before you in the Lear case and the attack, which is not being made by the Government upon the equivalency rule.\nWhat I wanted to say was that I had the privilege of being on President Johnson's patent commission.\nWe solicited and received from all segments of this country criticisms and proposals for our consideration.\nAnd no one ask us to do anything at all about the equivalency rule which had been in effect for 100 and some odd years at that time and the matter now, the legislation is still before Senator McQuillan and we say that the legislation, which has come since our report.\nAnd we say that the Government should go back to Senator McQuillan and ask him to investigate this alleged impact -- the alleged impact of the equivalency rule upon the economy in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6016.992, 6020.182, 6028.844, 6049.436, 6062.244, 6073.111, 6083.084, 6099.439], "stop_times": [6020.182, 6028.844, 6049.436, 6062.244, 6073.111, 6083.084, 6099.439, 6120.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6016.992}, "reply_to": "15377__5_025", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_027", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And take it what you're saying in part is that there isn't really a factual basis for some of the decisions, the Government has taken into exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6120.533], "stop_times": [6129.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6120.533}, "reply_to": "15377__5_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__5_028", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "We say they're highly exaggerated.\nThe assertions as to the ill effects of this doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6129.433, 6132.531], "stop_times": [6132.531, 6137.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6129.433}, "reply_to": "15377__5_027", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_029", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you Mr. Neuman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6137.226], "stop_times": [6138.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6137.226}, "reply_to": "15377__5_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__5_030", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6138.712], "stop_times": [6145.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6138.712}, "reply_to": "15377__5_029", "speaker": "sidney_neuman"}
{"id": "15377__5_031", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Mr. Bader you have about eight minutes left for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6145.336], "stop_times": [6151.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6145.336}, "reply_to": "15377__5_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__6_000", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIt has been called to my attention that there apparently is a feeling or maybe a feeling that the non-applicability of the doctrine of equivalence in this case was not raised below.\nIt was raised below and raised very vigorous strictly below.\nIt was the contention of the petitioner that first, the structure involved did not fall within the terms of the claims.\nSecondly, that the doctrine of equivalence had no applicability to this case because of file wrapper estoppel and number of other defenses.\nIn the appendix page 44 A the Trial Court in deciding against the petitioner's contention had this to say.\nWe are satisfied from the proof.\nHowever, as plaintiffs contend that the doctrine of equivalence is applicable here because the two structures worked in substantially the same way and with the same result.\nAnd then they slide the Graver case and the Great Lakes case.\nIn the Court of Appeals decision where the question was raised again and where the petitioner urged that the doctrine of equivalence again had no application, the Court of Appeals said the fact that the playpen floor was adjusted up or down by strings running through the floor through one hole rather than two holes did not appear to him.\nReferring to the trial judge to represent a substantial difference, neither does it to us and again citing the Graver case.\nSo there was no question that the non-applicability of the doctrine of equivalence was raised in this case and raised vigorously throughout the proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6151.676, 6154.882, 6169.189, 6173.642, 6181.736, 6191.4, 6202.076, 6203.657, 6213.701, 6217.053, 6240.65, 6248.337], "stop_times": [6154.882, 6169.189, 6173.642, 6181.736, 6191.4, 6202.076, 6203.657, 6213.701, 6217.053, 6240.65, 6248.337, 6257.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6151.676}, "reply_to": "15377__5_031", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_001", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "What was the last page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6257.249], "stop_times": [6261.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6257.249}, "reply_to": "15377__6_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__6_002", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is the appendix, page 53 A-11.\nIt is the second paragraph from the bottom.\nIt is the second large paragraph where the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit refers to the Graver case as well.\nInsofar as the question of the validity of the patent is concerned, the Court in its question to me this morning pointed out that we did not feel that we could raise the validity of the patent in view of the prior law of the Sixth Circuit.\nHowever, we denied in our answer that any royalties would do.\nAnd I think that whenever a patent comes before the Court where the validity does become an issue because the validity of this patent is an issue if the patent here is invalid there are no royalties payable based upon Lear against Adkins.\nThen I submit to the Court that the invalidity of the patent was raised even though it was not -- we did not have a full dressed trial on invalidity as we normally would do because of the prior law involved.\nNow, my learned brother Mr. Kalish made one rather inadvertent era in that he said that the paragraph of the agreement was paragraph 16 E -- yes, Mr. Kalish said paragraph 16 C but the paragraph actually is 16 E if it please the Court.\n16 E refers to this particular patent involved at that time it is specified as an application number.\nThe patent issued very shortly after that contract -- after the contract was signed.\nIt does -- it is not a really immaterial distinction involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6261.468, 6268.908, 6271.648, 6279.273, 6294.575, 6300.43, 6313.7, 6326.777, 6346.764, 6356.11, 6361.676], "stop_times": [6268.908, 6271.648, 6279.273, 6294.575, 6300.43, 6313.7, 6326.777, 6346.764, 6356.11, 6361.676, 6364.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6261.468}, "reply_to": "15377__6_001", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_003", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "What page is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6364.873], "stop_times": [6365.648], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6364.873}, "reply_to": "15377__6_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_004", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It is on the appendix, page 62 A and paragraph E says on patent application number 124668 dated July 16, 1961 which is actually the patent involved herein.\nParagraph C covers 2790978 and that's the one that we are not contesting the validity up in this case.\nSo that it is actually the E paragraph that we are concerned about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6365.648, 6388.577, 6397.29], "stop_times": [6388.577, 6397.29, 6400.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6365.648}, "reply_to": "15377__6_003", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_005", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is identical language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6400.737], "stop_times": [6402.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6400.737}, "reply_to": "15377__6_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__6_006", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes, it is identical language.\nI said the error is not immaterial rather but I though I just call it out on the Court's attention.\nI'm sure it was in advert --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6402.697, 6403.821, 6407.778], "stop_times": [6403.821, 6407.778, 6408.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6402.697}, "reply_to": "15377__6_005", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_007", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "You say 63 A?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6408.111], "stop_times": [6412.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6408.111}, "reply_to": "15377__6_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__6_008", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It is paragraph number 16 E Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6412.571], "stop_times": [6417.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6412.571}, "reply_to": "15377__6_007", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_009", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I mean what page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6417.093], "stop_times": [6418.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6417.093}, "reply_to": "15377__6_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15377__6_010", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "At page 62 A of the appendix.\nNow, the other situation I'd like to point out is that my learned adversary states that this was actually an assignment and not a contract.\nBut if we look at the complaint, we see that the complaint doesn't sue us on the assignment.\nIt sues us on the contract, paragraph three saying Tigrett Industries entered into a contract with Standard Industries, the aforesaid contract etcetera, etcetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6418.324, 6424.123, 6435.045, 6440.059], "stop_times": [6424.123, 6435.045, 6440.059, 6449.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6418.324}, "reply_to": "15377__6_009", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_011", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "What difference does that makes to us now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6449.397], "stop_times": [6451.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6449.397}, "reply_to": "15377__6_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__6_012", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It really doesn't, except --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6451.726], "stop_times": [6453.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6451.726}, "reply_to": "15377__6_011", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_013", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It isn't the license sought, his fine --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6453.601], "stop_times": [6456.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6453.601}, "reply_to": "15377__6_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__6_014", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It is a license and not an assignment Mr. Justice Burger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6456.489], "stop_times": [6460.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6456.489}, "reply_to": "15377__6_013", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_015", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The contract for sale, for sale of -- let's say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6460.066], "stop_times": [6462.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6460.066}, "reply_to": "15377__6_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15377__6_016", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes.\nAnd in that contract the license provision is part of the contract and it really makes very little difference.\nWe have a license provision that was put in.\nThe provision involved says the following will be -- the following arrangement shall apply with respect to the infant division patent licenses.\nAnd therefore the mere fact that this license agreement is incorporated on the contract for the sale of asset, assets makes no difference.\nIt still a patent license agreement that we're dealing with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6462.912, 6463.274, 6470.238, 6473.116, 6481.745, 6488.175], "stop_times": [6463.274, 6470.238, 6473.116, 6481.745, 6488.175, 6490.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6462.912}, "reply_to": "15377__6_015", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_017", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Did the patent holder retain some residual interest in the patent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6490.872], "stop_times": [6494.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6490.872}, "reply_to": "15377__6_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__6_018", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The patent owner had own the patent until subsequently he conditionally assigned it to our subsidiary Jackson Furniture Corporation who interestingly enough Mr. Justice Burger, is not a party to this litigation.\nNow, if in fact he wanted to sue on the assignment document involved, it would have been necessary for the respondent here to have sued a subsidiary Jackson Furniture Corporation.\nHe chose not too.\nHe chose to sue us on the contract.\nAnd under those circumstances, the fact that an assignment was made subsequently to our subsidiary would make no difference.\nFurthermore of course if in fact the assignment involved was made to a subsidiary, it was still made subject to the condition and therefore the condition involved having not been fulfilled by reason of the assignment made for the benefit of creditors, the entire assignment becomes void anyway and there is a failure of title involved.\nOne other point I would like to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6494.517, 6508.96, 6523.031, 6524.367, 6526.965, 6534.046, 6558.297], "stop_times": [6508.96, 6523.031, 6524.367, 6526.965, 6534.046, 6558.297, 6559.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6494.517}, "reply_to": "15377__6_017", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_019", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "May I ask you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6559.74], "stop_times": [6560.478], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6559.74}, "reply_to": "15377__6_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_020", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6560.478], "stop_times": [6560.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6560.478}, "reply_to": "15377__6_019", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_021", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Was the original arrangement between the inventor and the respondent here, was that a license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6560.691], "stop_times": [6566.982], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6560.691}, "reply_to": "15377__6_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_022", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nThere's no question about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6566.982, 6567.632], "stop_times": [6567.632, 6569.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6566.982}, "reply_to": "15377__6_021", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_023", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6569.943], "stop_times": [6570.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6569.943}, "reply_to": "15377__6_022", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_024", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "And all that the licensee then assigned, are you saying to Standard of the petitioner was its license interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6570.522], "stop_times": [6578.632], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6570.522}, "reply_to": "15377__6_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_025", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No, it never assigned anything to Standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6578.632], "stop_times": [6580.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6578.632}, "reply_to": "15377__6_024", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_026", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well are to -- whatever the subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6580.957], "stop_times": [6582.158], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6580.957}, "reply_to": "15377__6_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_027", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "It assigned the patent involved that was licensed to Jackson Furniture Corporations subject to an obligation on Jackson Furniture Corporation to pay royalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6582.158], "stop_times": [6592.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6582.158}, "reply_to": "15377__6_026", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_028", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Well, who owned the patent after the assignment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6592.145], "stop_times": [6596.885], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6592.145}, "reply_to": "15377__6_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_029", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "After the assignment the patent originally was owned by Jackson Furniture Corporation which is not a party to this litigation and as soon as Tigrett industry has made an assignment for the benefit of creditors we submit that the ownership of the patent then went back to Johnson Tigrett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6596.885], "stop_times": [6611.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6596.885}, "reply_to": "15377__6_028", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_030", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "I'm not concerned about that.\nWhat you told me is there was a license from the inventor to Tigrett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6611.925, 6612.939], "stop_times": [6612.939, 6617.539], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6611.925}, "reply_to": "15377__6_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_031", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No, there was an assignment from the inventor to Tigrett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6617.539], "stop_times": [6621.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6617.539}, "reply_to": "15377__6_030", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_032", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "An assignment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6621.684], "stop_times": [6622.309], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6621.684}, "reply_to": "15377__6_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_033", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "An assignment from the inventor to Tigrett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6622.309], "stop_times": [6624.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6622.309}, "reply_to": "15377__6_032", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_034", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "So there's never actually been a formal license involved in this case at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6624.169], "stop_times": [6628.918], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6624.169}, "reply_to": "15377__6_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_035", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "No.\nThere was -- the license was from Tigrett to Standard, the plaintiff in this case.\nMy time is up, can I continue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6628.918, 6630.431, 6638.232], "stop_times": [6630.431, 6638.232, 6639.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6628.918}, "reply_to": "15377__6_034", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_036", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "You can answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6639.437], "stop_times": [6640.99], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6639.437}, "reply_to": "15377__6_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_037", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "The license agreement was made between Tigrett Industries and Standard Industries with respect to a patent.\nThe patent involved was owned by a man by the name of John Burton Tigrett.\nMr. John Burton Tigrett assigned the patent to Tigrett Industries, our licensor but with a condition in the assignment that the assignment would become void if Tigrett Industries made an assignment for the benefit of creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6640.99, 6651.032, 6656.93], "stop_times": [6651.032, 6656.93, 6671.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6640.99}, "reply_to": "15377__6_036", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_038", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "After that, did your subsidiary Jackson Furniture had get an assignment from Tigrett Industries --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6671.477], "stop_times": [6677.994], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6671.477}, "reply_to": "15377__6_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_039", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Yes, after that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6677.994], "stop_times": [6679.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6677.994}, "reply_to": "15377__6_038", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_040", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "After Tigrett Industries had made a license to Standard, you're telling is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6679.291], "stop_times": [6683.997], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6679.291}, "reply_to": "15377__6_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_041", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6683.997], "stop_times": [6684.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6683.997}, "reply_to": "15377__6_040", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_042", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Then Tigrett Industries assigned the patent itself to your subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6684.866], "stop_times": [6689.292], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6684.866}, "reply_to": "15377__6_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15377__6_043", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "That is correct and there after Tigrett Industries made an assignment for the benefit of the creditors, those are the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6689.292], "stop_times": [6697.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6689.292}, "reply_to": "15377__6_042", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_044", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Thank you Mr. Bader.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6697.001], "stop_times": [6697.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6697.001}, "reply_to": "15377__6_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15377__6_045", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "May I thank the court for their indulgence, this is the first time I've argued before this Court.\nI'm sorry that I've been a little nervous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6697.42, 6702.224], "stop_times": [6702.224, 6704.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6697.42}, "reply_to": "15377__6_044", "speaker": "walton_bader"}
{"id": "15377__6_046", "conversation_id": "15377", "text": "Not at all, you should not be, we don't want you to be.\nThe case is submitted.\nThank you gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_445", "start_times": [6704.062, 6706.734, 6708.43], "stop_times": [6706.734, 6708.43, 6709.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6704.062}, "reply_to": "15377__6_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__0_000", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Sullivan against Little Hunting Park Incorporated.\nMr. Brown, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [0.0, 7.405], "stop_times": [7.405, 14.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__0_001", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is before the Court for the second time having been here previously on order of this Court granting a petition for writ of certiorari at the same.\nAt same time is which the Court vacated the judgment of Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and remanded the proceeding to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the case of Jones against Alfred H. Mayer Company.\nThat was in the 1967 term of the Court.\nLast year, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals after we seek of this Court's mandate refused to accept the remand to reconsider the case in light of the Mayer case and issued an opinion indicating that it would not take the case back for the same reason that it refuse to entertain the appeals on the first occasion.\nThe reason stated being petitioners alleged failure to comply with certain procedural rule of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.\nThe Court indicated that it did not had jurisdiction over the proceeding in the first instance and that therefore did not have jurisdiction to accept the remand.\nWe petition for certiorari and the Court -- the case is now here again on the Court's granting of this second petition.\nBy granting the first petition for certiorari, the Court impliedly held that the nonfederal ground of decision for the State Court with the nonfederal ground upon which the State Court decided the case was inadequate to support the judgment and that the federal question should therefore be examined.\nThe State Court by failing to accept the remand, by failing to comply with this Court's mandate, we submit has fail to observe its responsibilities under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.\nWe are now before the Court with the case on the merits.\nThe case -- the principal issues in the case concern the matter of whether a community recreation association may engage in racially discriminatory policies and practices within the -- under the proscriptions contained of the 1866 -- Civil Rights Act of 1866 which this Court construed in Jones against Alfred Mayer Company.\nAnd whether also those racially discriminatory practices are banned or prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe second question -- major question that is, is whether a party was a member of this local recreation association and dissents from its policies may consonant with the protections afforded by the 1866 law in the Constitution be expelled for his dissent.\nBriefly, the facts are that Little Hunting Park Incorporated is a nonstop corporation organized under the Virginia law for the purpose of providing a community recreation facility.\nIt has a swimming pool, tennis courts and a park and picnic area.\nThe bylaws has provide that its facilities are available and membership is available to anyone living within prescribed neighborhood, a prescribed geographic area consisting of four real estate subdivisions plus such adjacent areas or additional areas as the Board of Directors might decide.\nThe membership in the association is obtained by the purchase or assignment of shares.\nShares maybe purchase for a sum of money and they may also be obtained upon assignment from landlord to tenant, these are provisions of the bylaws.\nThere is a limit of 600 shares in the association and the record shows that in the history of this association's existence namely from 1955 to 1965 -- excuse me, 1965 to 1966 when the trial was held.\nShares had been uniformly permitted that is assignment and transfer of shares have been uniformly permitted by the Board of Directors of the association all such purchases and assignments of shares being subject to approval.\nThe only occasion for an the assignment or refusal to permit an assignment having occurred at the time of the incidents which are alleged to herein to be the basis for this action namely the refusal to permit the assignment from the one pool of Sullivan, to Dr. Theodore Freeman because of the latter's race -- the -- Dr. Freeman being a Negro.\nThe situation involving these two parties came about as follows: Mr. Sullivan, a white man had owned property in the neighborhood covered by the bylaws of the association and in 1955 or 1954 when the association have been formed had purchased a share which he used so long as he live in a house on Condor Road in Fairfax County, Virginia.\nHe, after 11 years, moved to another house as part of the purchase price of the second house purchased a second share in the association.\nIn the meantime, he continued to rent the first property and as part of the lease made a practice of assigning the share in the association that he'd purchased as to accompany the first piece of property of the first house.\nSo, Mr. Sullivan owned two shares, he owned two houses, the first house he rented out.\nIn 1965, rented the first house to Dr. Freeman and as part of the lease provided for the assignment of the share in the association it went along with that property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [14.829, 18.809, 28.938, 45.953, 50.424, 72.644, 84.111, 97.076, 106.27, 128.894, 141.525, 146.483, 172.517, 181.558, 206.326, 220.974, 226.571, 248.952, 256.815, 272.078, 293.492, 311.295, 342.306, 373.539, 383.978, 402.804, 408.92], "stop_times": [18.809, 28.938, 45.953, 50.424, 72.644, 84.111, 97.076, 106.27, 128.894, 141.525, 146.483, 172.517, 181.558, 206.326, 220.974, 226.571, 248.952, 256.815, 272.078, 293.492, 311.295, 342.306, 373.539, 383.978, 402.804, 408.92, 421.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.829}, "reply_to": "15074__0_000", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_002", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Was this the first time he had rented that house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [421.058], "stop_times": [423.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.058}, "reply_to": "15074__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_003", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, this was not, he would have three prior tenants and on one and he had made a practice of assigning the swimming -- or the association membership share and at least the record shows that share has always been -- the assignments had always been approved by the Board of Directors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [423.82], "stop_times": [441.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.82}, "reply_to": "15074__0_002", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_004", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "With respect to three previous times?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [441.909], "stop_times": [443.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.909}, "reply_to": "15074__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_005", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes.\nThe -- what happened here was that the -- when Mr. Sullivan submitted the application for assignment of this share to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors of the association disapproved it for the reason that Dr. Freeman and his family were negroes.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [443.725, 447.668, 468.917], "stop_times": [447.668, 468.917, 470.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.725}, "reply_to": "15074__0_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_006", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is there any remaining issue as to the question of the motivation for disapproval?\nIs there any claim now that there was nothing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [470.671, 482.676], "stop_times": [482.676, 483.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.671}, "reply_to": "15074__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_007", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, there is no question -- I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [483.205], "stop_times": [485.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.205}, "reply_to": "15074__0_006", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_008", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is there any claim now there was any reason other than the fact that the applicant was a Negro that the membership --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [485.299], "stop_times": [492.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.299}, "reply_to": "15074__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_009", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "So far as I know, there is no such claim sir.\nThere was a suggestion of this raised in the opposition to the first petition for certiorari or maybe it was a second petition and we filed a responds to that pointing out the point -- the place is in the record showing conclusively that race was the reason for the disapproval of the membership assignment and the issue has not been raised now in respondent's brief.\nAs a result of Mr. Sullivan's disappointment with the failure of the association Board of Directors to approve this assignment to Dr. Freeman, Mr. Sullivan sought to find out why the assignment had not been approved and he sought to within the association work out means within the neighborhood where this had occurred, he sought to bring about a reversal of the -- what he thought to be a discriminatory refusal to approve this assignment.\nAs a result of his activities with among, both within the association and among persons in the neighborhood such as leaders in the church, other community leaders, the association Board of Directors expelled Mr. Sullivan.\nThe two actions here seek: one, relief Mr. Sullivan, we seek his reinstatement into the association and damages for the injury that he has suffered by as a result of the expulsion; and secondly, we seek a -- damages for Dr. Freeman.\nDr. Freeman is no longer in the county, is no longer in the neighborhood, no longer lives in the neighborhood served by the association and although an injunctive remedy maybe a future value to him that it is of no immediate value because he doesn't live there and we seek damages on his behalf for the discrimination that he suffered.\nWe think there is little doubt but what the 1866 Civil Rights Act which this Court construed in Jones against Mayer applies to this, to the facts of this case that the provisions of law involved are contained presently in 42 U.S.C Sections 1981 and 1982.\nThe Section 1981 grants Negroes the same rights as white persons to make an enforce contracts.\nSection 1982, provide Negroes -- grants Negroes the same right as white persons to inherit purchase and lease, real and personal property.\nThe -- we have shown, the record shows that the -- both of these provisions of the law are relevant here.\nThere was a contract between Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Freeman which provided for the assignment of the share involved and the Board of Directors of the association refused to permit the consummation of that -- or the performance of that contract because of the race of Dr. Freeman.\nThe -- so that would make Section 1981 applicable on its face, Section 1982 of 42 U.S.C. we believe is applicable under the -- by virtue of the fact that the shares of the membership share here is a personal property and the membership share also constitutes and membership in the association constitutes an incident of the real property and it indeed it was a part of the lease hold interest that Dr. Freeman obtained from Mr. Sullivan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [492.656, 495.808, 520.777, 555.347, 574.003, 596.827, 621.711, 644.947, 653.401, 664.338, 675.622, 696.301], "stop_times": [495.808, 520.777, 555.347, 574.003, 596.827, 621.711, 644.947, 653.401, 664.338, 675.622, 696.301, 736.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.656}, "reply_to": "15074__0_008", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_010", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Mr. Brown, would this situation fall under the Civil Rights Act of 1968?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [736.144], "stop_times": [746.058], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 736.144}, "reply_to": "15074__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__0_011", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, I don't believe so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [746.058], "stop_times": [749.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.058}, "reply_to": "15074__0_010", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_012", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "A part of the effective date --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [749.631], "stop_times": [751.475], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 749.631}, "reply_to": "15074__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__0_013", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, I'm not certain to that if -- I just don't know the answer sir.\nWhen we started this action because this Court had not yet construed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, we press in addition a constitutional basis for our case.\nUnder this Court's decision in Evans versus Newton, we felt that this association perform the same function as Bakers Field Park which was at issue in the Evans against Newton case namely that it was a public facility which provided public recreation and that it had all of the attributes of a public facility of the sort that were at issue in Evans against Newton.\nWe still would continue to press this as an alternative ground for a decision.\nAs far as Dr. Freeman is concerned, we think that both the 1866 law and constitutional provisions warrant his obtaining relief.\nAs far as Mr. Sullivan is concerned, the record shows that he was expelled from this association essentially for dissenting from its racially discriminatory policy.\nHe, under the law, was required to deal with Dr. Freeman on a nondiscriminatory basis.\nWhen he sought to do so, his action was frustrated, it was thwarted and when he sought to reverse the action of the Board of Directors and engaged in legitimate means of dissent or legitimate means to try and reverse the Board of Directors' action, he was expelled, he was punished, the action was retaliatory, it was by way of reprisal and we indeed feel that this action may not be permitted to stand under relevant authorities.\nThe case that's most analogous is that of Barrows versus Jackson, which is discussed in our brief and in the amicus brief of the United States.\nThere, you will recall that a party who had failed to comply with a discriminatory racial covenant was sued for damages and this Court held that he could rely on -- that he could defend by relying on the constitutional right of the Negro who was involved that the law protected him in those circumstances.\nWe think that the circumstances here are certainly analogous.\nThe -- we have reviewed in our brief the various charges that were brought against Mr. Sullivan as the alleged basis for his discharge -- excuse me, the alleged basis for his expulsion.\nWe have demonstrated, I believe, that his expulsion was that there were whole series of charges that were brought against him that were in the nature of exaggerations and some instances alleged outright falsehood.\nAll of which served the purpose of which serves the pretext for the -- to mask the hostility that the, and resentment that the directors of this association felt against him first for creating this controversy by attempting to assign his membership to a Negro and then by not accepting the decision which they had made to deny the negro of the assignment.\nThe -- an important aspect of the case which I've not cared to over look and I'd like to deal with for moment if I may, concerns the matter of damages.\nIn a supplemental brief that we filed, we attempted to response to the point which the Government had made in its amicus curiae brief namely that the plaintiffs here may not be entitled to punitive damages because the Acts involved occurred before this Court had construed the 1866 law in Jones against Mayer.\nWe, I think, have responded to that in a sense of showing that punitive damages are not foreclosed merely because the action took what the acts took place before the resurrection of the 1866 law.\nThe point I would like to make is this and I did not cover this in our brief because, frankly, the -- what I am about to say had not quite jelled in my mind at the time I wrote the supplemental brief.\nAnd that is that we feel that there is a right established on this record by both parties to compensatory damages for the injuries that they have suffered.\nWe think also that they are both entitled to punitive damages and we think that this is an important part of the case primarily in the case of Dr. Freeman because he is not in this country any longer.He is how with the United States Embassy in Tokyo.\nThe question of punitive damages, I think, as far as Mr. Sullivan is concerned is quite well shown or exploited in our brief and we showed it on the record.\nHis expulsion from the association was motivated by attitudes of hostility, resentment, a desire to act if by way of reprisal against him because of what he had done.\nThese are the elements of malice or these are the elements that constitute malice and which are basis for assessing punitive damages as far as Mr. Sullivan is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [751.475, 765.676, 779.72, 808.894, 816.236, 832.202, 845.518, 852.466, 888.712, 897.727, 920.373, 928.355, 946.747, 964.55, 994.576, 1013.213, 1041.309, 1058.465, 1071.372, 1084.232, 1103.08, 1115.031, 1135.597], "stop_times": [765.676, 779.72, 808.894, 816.236, 832.202, 845.518, 852.466, 888.712, 897.727, 920.373, 928.355, 946.747, 964.55, 994.576, 1013.213, 1041.309, 1058.465, 1071.372, 1084.232, 1103.08, 1115.031, 1135.597, 1146.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.475}, "reply_to": "15074__0_012", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_014", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In Jones against Mayer, as I remember it, we didn't even decide that compensatory damages were available, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1146.322], "stop_times": [1156.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.322}, "reply_to": "15074__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_015", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1156.289], "stop_times": [1157.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1156.289}, "reply_to": "15074__0_014", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_016", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Didn't we leave that question undecided of explicitly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1157.624], "stop_times": [1159.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.624}, "reply_to": "15074__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_017", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "We left the question undecided, sir and there's -- I must say there's a somewhat, with all due respect, there is somewhat a footnote in that case, it's little hard to understand.\nBut, in which it suggested that the parties may not have on those pleadings made that a case warranting punitive damages.\nNow, we when we ask for punitive, we've have asked for compensatory and punitive damages all the way along here.\nAnd the thing that I want to indicate is that in the case of Dr. Freeman, there are no facts it might appear from the record which would warrant punitive damages.\nBut I would submit that he was the victim of racial discrimination and that racial discrimination as a matter of law warrants the imposition of punitive damages.\nRace discrimination is unjustified, race discriminations cannot be rationalize to the law.\nRace discrimination is based on hatred, prejudice, bias, it has no justification as it comes a matter of the employing malice.\nThere's malice in law, there is implied malice.\nThese are recognized in other fields of the law and we submit that when a person is the victim of racial discrimination, there is implied malice and that punitive damages are warranted.\nWe feel that it's particularly important here to -- in this respect and that is to achieve the full effectiveness of this 1866 Act that the Court would be well warranted in giving meaning to this concept of punitive damages.\nThere is indiligence to it the Court said that where suddenly protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that the Courts will be alert to adjust their remedies so as to grant necessary relief.\nNow, this case is probably one of the last perhaps sometime that will come before the Court involving this 1866 Act.\nIn order to give full effect to this law, we submit that punitive damages should be awarded and should be recognized as a valid remedy.\nThe 1964 Civil Rights Act, the public accommodation provisions of it have no damages remedy attached.\nThere is only injunctive relief that is allowed.\nSince, if damages are allotted at all here, it seems to me, that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out both the right of a party to obtain both the compensatory and punitive damages and as I say where punitive -- where discrimination against the Negro occurs for no other reason than his race or color punitive damage, it's an inherently malicious act, inherently malicious and punitive damages should be awarded.\nHere, it's particularly appropriate, you know, because the Court -- the Board of Directors of this association refused repeatedly to ever meet Dr. Freeman.\nDr. Freeman was an eminently qualified individual.\nHe has a PhD degree from the University of Wisconsin.\nHe's an agricultural economist.\nHe's a captain in the District Columbia National Guard.\nHe had eminent qualifications, they never met him, they didn't want to meet him.\nThey knew he was black and that was enough.\nThat is malice in law and warrants punitive damages.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1159.209, 1167.909, 1177.451, 1185.473, 1197.926, 1211.486, 1219.737, 1235.641, 1239.921, 1252.558, 1272.608, 1290.024, 1300.047, 1308.09, 1315.882, 1319.912, 1347.255, 1357.663, 1361.014, 1365.156, 1366.571, 1369.585, 1373.952, 1376.565, 1379.886], "stop_times": [1167.909, 1177.451, 1185.473, 1197.926, 1211.486, 1219.737, 1235.641, 1239.921, 1252.558, 1272.608, 1290.024, 1300.047, 1308.09, 1315.882, 1319.912, 1347.255, 1357.663, 1361.014, 1365.156, 1366.571, 1369.585, 1373.952, 1376.565, 1379.886, 1380.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1159.209}, "reply_to": "15074__0_016", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_018", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Do you know whether the 1968 Act provides for damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1380.515], "stop_times": [1387.721], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.515}, "reply_to": "15074__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__0_019", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "The Fair Housing Act in 1968 does provide for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1387.721], "stop_times": [1391.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1387.721}, "reply_to": "15074__0_018", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_020", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1391.621], "stop_times": [1392.098], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.621}, "reply_to": "15074__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__0_021", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1392.098], "stop_times": [1392.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.098}, "reply_to": "15074__0_020", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_022", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Can you express it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1392.906], "stop_times": [1395.282], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.906}, "reply_to": "15074__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__0_023", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, there are two provisions by which judicial relief can be obtained and one or the other, as I recall, provides for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1395.282], "stop_times": [1405.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.282}, "reply_to": "15074__0_022", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_024", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But only compensatory damages or does it include punitive damage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1405.04], "stop_times": [1409.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.04}, "reply_to": "15074__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_025", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I am sorry, I can't I'm not certain sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1409.02], "stop_times": [1410.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.02}, "reply_to": "15074__0_024", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__0_026", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I don't know the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1410.637], "stop_times": [1416.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.637}, "reply_to": "15074__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__0_027", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Mr. Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1416.553], "stop_times": [1418.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.553}, "reply_to": "15074__0_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_000", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThe rules of procedure in the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals required that counsel must serve the transcript on the serve and notice on the opposing counsel as to the tendering of transcript and give him a reasonable opportunity to examine it.\nAnd on the basis of the failure in this particular case for counsel to serve need with an adequate notice, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia refuse to hear this appeal.\nNow, they based it on the case of Snead versus Commonwealth which was a criminal case in 1959.\nSnead's counsel presented the transcript 30 minutes before -- to the counsel, before he submitted to the judge for certification and on the basis of this, the Virginia Court said that 30 minutes was not reasonable and therefore since it was not reasonable and the requirement was jurisdictional.\nTherefore, they would not hear Mr. Snead's appeal.\nMr. Snead served his five years in penitentiary.\nNow, in the particular case that we have here, the opposing counsel and myself received notice three days after it was tendered.\nOne week later, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1418.23, 1420.194, 1438.757, 1452.391, 1460.01, 1481.767, 1486.731, 1489.938, 1500.782], "stop_times": [1420.194, 1438.757, 1452.391, 1460.01, 1481.767, 1486.731, 1489.938, 1500.782, 1500.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1418.23}, "reply_to": "15074__0_027", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_001", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "(Inaudible) you had actual conversation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1500.952], "stop_times": [1505.278], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.952}, "reply_to": "15074__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_002", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I don't deny that, I received a telephone call.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1505.278], "stop_times": [1507.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1505.278}, "reply_to": "15074__1_001", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_003", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "-- can't go over the record.\nThe petitioner says that you had the record for five days of the up to that time and the judge postponed, the trial, and the postponed that for eight days he had an order give you the chance to look at the record, did you deny those acts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1507.625, 1511.95], "stop_times": [1511.95, 1527.266], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.625}, "reply_to": "15074__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_004", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I received a telephone call saying that the transcript would be tendered on a Friday --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1527.266], "stop_times": [1533.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1527.266}, "reply_to": "15074__1_003", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_005", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "When did you received it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1533.389], "stop_times": [1534.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.389}, "reply_to": "15074__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_006", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "On a Friday, a telephone call --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1534.327], "stop_times": [1536.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1534.327}, "reply_to": "15074__1_005", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_007", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "June the 9th, June the 9th.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1536.295], "stop_times": [1538.463], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.295}, "reply_to": "15074__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_008", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "June the 9th, on the 12th, that's about Friday afternoon sometime during at Friday afternoon.\nAnd I understand it was dropped at the judge's secretary's desk.\nThe judge saw it on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1538.463, 1544.066, 1549.389], "stop_times": [1544.066, 1549.389, 1549.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1538.463}, "reply_to": "15074__1_007", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_009", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "You are also told that the adversary would submit a motion for the correction if the record we're hearing on June 16, weren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1549.959], "stop_times": [1558.475], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1549.959}, "reply_to": "15074__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_010", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's right on the 16th is when I received that the transcript.\nNow, of course the Virginia Court construes this procedure is jurisdictional that it isn't up to me as in cases --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1558.475, 1566.104], "stop_times": [1566.104, 1573.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1558.475}, "reply_to": "15074__1_009", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_011", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Now, the question was, whether you in fact had notice, where you in fact examined this transcript before the judge signed the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1573.771], "stop_times": [1585.091], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.771}, "reply_to": "15074__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_012", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Before the judge signed the -- yes, that was on the judge sign and I believe some after the 16th.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1585.091], "stop_times": [1589.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1585.091}, "reply_to": "15074__1_011", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_013", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But it all found whether the instruction on the rule that you haven't had this opportunity before if it was given to the judge's secretary but before the following month? (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1589.556], "stop_times": [1604.38], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.556}, "reply_to": "15074__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_014", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Right, the Virginia Court has construed this is not my responsibility as a response while the other counsel to get meeting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1604.38], "stop_times": [1610.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1604.38}, "reply_to": "15074__1_013", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_015", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "For us it would (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1610.092], "stop_times": [1614.936], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.092}, "reply_to": "15074__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_016", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I take it that the Virginia requirement is construed by the Virginia Court is double barrel, adequate notice of the time and place of tendering and inadequate opportunity to examine.\nI don't suppose you would deny you have an adequate opportunity to examine this record.\nIt was there in the judge's office for a week, you could've examined it and you had the weekend to examine it.\nYou say, --\nWe did examine it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1614.936, 1626.784, 1632.542, 1638.875, 1639.583], "stop_times": [1626.784, 1632.542, 1638.875, 1639.583, 1641.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.936}, "reply_to": "15074__1_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_017", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Subsequently, I had it one weekend.\nIn fact, I think I had it for nine working hours to examine it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1641.573, 1645.128], "stop_times": [1645.128, 1648.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.573}, "reply_to": "15074__1_016", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_018", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, you didn't complain that you have -- you couldn't make an adequate examination at that time, would you?\nYes, it was a very --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1648.803, 1654.536], "stop_times": [1654.536, 1657.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.803}, "reply_to": "15074__1_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_019", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, you did?\nWhere does that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1657.596, 1658.253], "stop_times": [1658.253, 1660.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.596}, "reply_to": "15074__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_020", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, but I -- it's not in the record nor isn't in the record that I had it for nine hours.\nBut nine hours is a very extensive transcript and I just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1660.217, 1668.62], "stop_times": [1668.62, 1671.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.217}, "reply_to": "15074__1_019", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_021", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Did you object to the trial judge about all this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1671.714], "stop_times": [1677.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.714}, "reply_to": "15074__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_022", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes I did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1677.302], "stop_times": [1678.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.302}, "reply_to": "15074__1_021", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_023", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Where is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1678.34], "stop_times": [1683.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.34}, "reply_to": "15074__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_024", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I didn't -- again looking at Virginia law, I think it was necessary for me to put each one of these items in the record.\nIn fact the trial judge said, you don't have to worry, I'm going to note everything on the record and that's all you have to do and this is what he did and said I'm going to note on the record exactly when I receive it and in the record, there is a notification of the trial judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1683.947, 1689.354], "stop_times": [1689.354, 1701.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1683.947}, "reply_to": "15074__1_023", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_025", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But did he also note that you objected to all of these?\nIf so, where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1701.526, 1706.754], "stop_times": [1706.754, 1709.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.526}, "reply_to": "15074__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_026", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, there is no record that I have objected.\nI did object but there is no record that I object.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1709.467, 1711.231], "stop_times": [1711.231, 1712.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.467}, "reply_to": "15074__1_025", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_027", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, do you now say you were prejudice to all about these?\nDid this interfere with your preparation of the defense to this appeal, how?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1712.898, 1718.973], "stop_times": [1718.973, 1723.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.898}, "reply_to": "15074__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_028", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Because I was waiting for service to be made on the -- I was waiting for transcript (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1723.203], "stop_times": [1726.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.203}, "reply_to": "15074__1_027", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_029", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "And how did that hurt you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1726.654], "stop_times": [1729.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.654}, "reply_to": "15074__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_030", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, it hurt me because I couldn't -- we didn't have the record.\nThe record was --(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1729.179, 1732.474], "stop_times": [1732.474, 1733.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.179}, "reply_to": "15074__1_029", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_031", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "-- the record does show that you did have the record.\nThe judge says you had the record, you could see it in his office that's what he said, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1733.59, 1737.899], "stop_times": [1737.899, 1744.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.59}, "reply_to": "15074__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_032", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In the judge's chambers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1744.716], "stop_times": [1746.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.716}, "reply_to": "15074__1_031", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_033", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1746.343], "stop_times": [1746.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.343}, "reply_to": "15074__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_034", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Until on 16th, I believe it was 16th I got on the Friday afternoon to return it on Monday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1746.86], "stop_times": [1753.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.86}, "reply_to": "15074__1_033", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_035", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is that on Friday afternoon or Monday?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1753.794], "stop_times": [1754.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.794}, "reply_to": "15074__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_036", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Friday afternoon and return, to return on Monday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1754.85], "stop_times": [1757.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1754.85}, "reply_to": "15074__1_035", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_037", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is this the whole record here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1757.702], "stop_times": [1759.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.702}, "reply_to": "15074__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_038", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, not this is just a portion of it, very extensive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1759.189], "stop_times": [1764.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.189}, "reply_to": "15074__1_037", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_039", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Did you ask for more time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1764.886], "stop_times": [1769.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.886}, "reply_to": "15074__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_040", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I'm certain I did, I raised the same question there that I didn't have sufficient time to read this extensive record and at that particular time, Mr. Brown said that he wanted it back by Monday and I used his copy and had his copy back on Monday to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1769.355], "stop_times": [1783.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.355}, "reply_to": "15074__1_039", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_041", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, why he should keep it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1783.455], "stop_times": [1786.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.455}, "reply_to": "15074__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_042", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Because it was already given back to him on Monday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1786.237], "stop_times": [1788.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.237}, "reply_to": "15074__1_041", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_043", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Or you just did because he told you to do it?\nOr is it the truth with the matter is that you show up to have this real good technicality you didn't have to anymore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1788.303, 1791.938], "stop_times": [1791.938, 1798.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.303}, "reply_to": "15074__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_044", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Now, very frankly I didn't.\nI was incognizant of this requirement at that time, I wasn't so after which.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1798.655, 1800.938], "stop_times": [1800.938, 1805.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.655}, "reply_to": "15074__1_043", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_045", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "So, then you weren't hurt then, were you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1805.19], "stop_times": [1808.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.19}, "reply_to": "15074__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_046", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I was hurt insofar as I didn't have the time to prepare my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1808.831], "stop_times": [1812.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.831}, "reply_to": "15074__1_045", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_047", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, you have plenty time.\nI mean, how were you hurt by not seeing the record except over a weekend?\nIs there anything in this record that's wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1812.871, 1813.727, 1820.591], "stop_times": [1813.727, 1820.591, 1824.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.871}, "reply_to": "15074__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_048", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "The purpose of us getting together to correct the record was to correct the mistakes and I think in the record there is a statement there that it was very poorly taken and it needed substantial corrections.\nAnd this, I didn't have the opportunity to correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1824.856, 1838.9], "stop_times": [1838.9, 1840.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.856}, "reply_to": "15074__1_047", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_049", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, what in that hurt of case that must be corrected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1840.425], "stop_times": [1845.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.425}, "reply_to": "15074__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_050", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's so extensive, I don't know what would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1845.174], "stop_times": [1847.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.174}, "reply_to": "15074__1_049", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_051", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's so extensive.\nYou can't point to one instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1847.378, 1848.813], "stop_times": [1848.813, 1854.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.378}, "reply_to": "15074__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_052", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Again, that my argument here is not whether I've been hurt or not but whether the Court of Appeals of Virginia is right in saying that this notice must be given and its jurisdictional that notice must be given beforehand.\nWhether I've been hurt or not, I think this is not -- the Virginia Court is not concern whether I am hurt or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1854.023, 1868.255], "stop_times": [1868.255, 1875.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.023}, "reply_to": "15074__1_051", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_053", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But you were given those?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1875.659], "stop_times": [1879.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.659}, "reply_to": "15074__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_054", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, granted to that, if I were giving sufficient time, it's of course is to whether Virginia has the right to say that notice must be given in advance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1879.2], "stop_times": [1889.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.2}, "reply_to": "15074__1_053", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_055", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, you had noticed didn't you but one in writing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1889.951], "stop_times": [1894.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.951}, "reply_to": "15074__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_056", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I gather the phone calls sometime when the last day, I don't remember what is all about that (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1894.31], "stop_times": [1899.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.31}, "reply_to": "15074__1_055", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_057", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "-- in writing, isn't that right?\nI think at noticed (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1899.019, 1901.861], "stop_times": [1901.861, 1903.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.019}, "reply_to": "15074__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_058", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is that the only thing is that it was not and you claim was not in writing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1903.097], "stop_times": [1907.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.097}, "reply_to": "15074__1_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_059", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "As I remember, I got telephone calls saying I'm going to get that over to the judge's chamber.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1907.935], "stop_times": [1911.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.935}, "reply_to": "15074__1_058", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_060", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Do you have any objection to that notice except that it was not in writing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1911.347], "stop_times": [1919.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.347}, "reply_to": "15074__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_061", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In short that it didn't comply with the notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1919.762], "stop_times": [1920.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.762}, "reply_to": "15074__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_062", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I expected the notice, I expect a notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1920.69], "stop_times": [1923.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.69}, "reply_to": "15074__1_061", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_063", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Do what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1923.694], "stop_times": [1924.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.694}, "reply_to": "15074__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_064", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I didn't do anything because I expected a notice.\nI expected the law will be fulfilled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1924.133, 1926.589], "stop_times": [1926.589, 1927.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.133}, "reply_to": "15074__1_063", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_065", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "And I suppose we will reverse the Court down in Virginia, could you still try your case on these merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1927.575], "stop_times": [1934.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.575}, "reply_to": "15074__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_066", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In Virginia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1934.751], "stop_times": [1935.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.751}, "reply_to": "15074__1_065", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_067", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1935.517], "stop_times": [1938.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.517}, "reply_to": "15074__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_068", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I had to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1938.731], "stop_times": [1940.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.731}, "reply_to": "15074__1_067", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_069", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, you could or couldn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1940.148], "stop_times": [1941.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.148}, "reply_to": "15074__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_070", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1941.176], "stop_times": [1942.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.176}, "reply_to": "15074__1_069", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_071", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "And the only objection you have is that they didn't give you a written notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1942.633], "stop_times": [1947.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.633}, "reply_to": "15074__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_072", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Which is already furnished, which the Virginia Court considers jurisdictional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1947.469], "stop_times": [1952.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.469}, "reply_to": "15074__1_071", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_073", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's a little fair, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1952.786], "stop_times": [1954.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.786}, "reply_to": "15074__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_074", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, the jury was fair.\nIn the case of Mr. Snead, the Court considered the jurisdictional with him and other cases, the Court considered it jurisdictional.\nNow, this is (Voice Overlap) on the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1954.373, 1956.177, 1964.961], "stop_times": [1956.177, 1964.961, 1966.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.373}, "reply_to": "15074__1_073", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_075", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Always considers jurisdictional, what about the Bolin case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1966.648], "stop_times": [1972.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.648}, "reply_to": "15074__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_076", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "The Bolin case --(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1972.464], "stop_times": [1974.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1972.464}, "reply_to": "15074__1_075", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_077", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Bolin v. Laderberg, didn't seem to consider it jurisdictional there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1974.678], "stop_times": [1983.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.678}, "reply_to": "15074__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_078", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It goes back to the Code Section prior to the rule of the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1983.247], "stop_times": [1986.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.247}, "reply_to": "15074__1_077", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_079", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I appreciate that but the requirement that must be in writing would you have said was the case here and that was jurisdictional.\nIt doesn't seem to have been jurisdictional in every case in which they considered the rule, have they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [1986.119, 1995.751], "stop_times": [1995.751, 2000.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.119}, "reply_to": "15074__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_080", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Every case that I have seen where this question has been raised, the Court has ruled it jurisdictional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2000.775], "stop_times": [2003.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.775}, "reply_to": "15074__1_079", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_081", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But what's the role of the court in Virginia also.\nSo, have seven Virginia and another 67 case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2003.47, 2006.512], "stop_times": [2006.512, 2011.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.47}, "reply_to": "15074__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_082", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Now, on this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2011.959], "stop_times": [2012.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.959}, "reply_to": "15074__1_081", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_083", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Those -- they don't seem to consider it jurisdictional under all circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2012.149], "stop_times": [2017.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.149}, "reply_to": "15074__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_084", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "These particular cases' notice was given but the question was sufficiency of the notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2017.207], "stop_times": [2023.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.207}, "reply_to": "15074__1_083", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_085", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, it wasn't written, neither of those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2023.622], "stop_times": [2026.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.622}, "reply_to": "15074__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_086", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I don't know, I presume it was written.\nIt doesn't say in here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2026.283, 2029.038], "stop_times": [2029.038, 2029.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.283}, "reply_to": "15074__1_085", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_087", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Mind if I read this in it correctly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2029.715], "stop_times": [2033.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.715}, "reply_to": "15074__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__1_088", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Alright, going on to the 1866, Title 1982, I consider these all part of Title 42 and I think that if we are going to look at Section 1982 of Title 42, we must look at in under the doctrine of pari materia or construing all statutes on the same subject together.\nWe must look at the rest of Title 42 including that Section which is known as a Public Accommodations Law.\nAnd this provides that all persons shall be entitled to the use of facilities.\nProvided those facilities are Interstate Commerce, the segregation in those facilities are enforced by the State, State action.\nAnd also it excludes from the operation of Public Accommodations Law any establishment which is not in fact open to the public, also it excludes clubs.\nNow, in the transcript is a rather extensive coverage of the security that was available at this particular establishment to keep people out.\nAnd the thing was not in fact open to the public, it was not -- there was no support of segregation by the State.\nIn fact, the defendants, the respondents in this case are very reluctantly before this Court, they were brought into Court.\nThey didn't ask State to enforce segregation.\nIn addition, we contend that Little Hunting Park is a club.\nNow, if we're contending it as a club, we have to know what a club means.\nWebster defines a club as an association of persons for some common object, specially one jointly supported meaning periodically.\nNow, I refer to Black maybe for legal definition and Black says a word, club has no very definite meaning.\nClubs are formed for also its purposes and there was no uniformity in their constitution and rules.\nIt is well known that clubs exist which limit the number of their members and select them with great care which own considerable property in common and in which the furnishing of food and drink to the members for money is not but one of the many conveniences with the members -- which the members enjoy.\nNow, Little Hunting Park started out as a group of people buying land and putting up tennis courts, a building, swimming pool for their own purpose and those that they elected to join them.\nThey provided in their bylaws, they setup a secured charter from the State of Virginia.\nAnd in this charter, they use the word community and this is a basis of the petitioner's case as a fact for the use of word \u201ccommunity.\u201d\nAnd looking at Webster's definition of community, community as we think of now the community meaning a public that was a second definition, the community is a community of interest.\nAt the same time they drafted bylaws and the bylaws say that they are operating only for their members.\nAnd if they're operating only for the members that cannot be open to the public or it cannot be a community organization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2033.396, 2056.795, 2064.978, 2073.031, 2082.42, 2100.352, 2112.956, 2121.791, 2129.693, 2136.535, 2142.641, 2149.825, 2159.073, 2166.007, 2172.332, 2189.013, 2207.073, 2212.273, 2221.982, 2235.274, 2243.136], "stop_times": [2056.795, 2064.978, 2073.031, 2082.42, 2100.352, 2112.956, 2121.791, 2129.693, 2136.535, 2142.641, 2149.825, 2159.073, 2166.007, 2172.332, 2189.013, 2207.073, 2212.273, 2221.982, 2235.274, 2243.136, 2248.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.396}, "reply_to": "15074__1_087", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_089", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Did not this club at some subsequent time permit the shares to the treated at least as an incident of a lease hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2248.672], "stop_times": [2262.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.672}, "reply_to": "15074__1_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_090", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, the provision in the bylaws is this, that an owner and I presume this is because of the many military in the area who were transferred.The owner may assign temporarily subject to the approval of the Board of Directors his privileges not his membership, but his privileges.\nHe may allow the facilities to be use by his tenant subject to the approval of Board of Directors and this is what happened in particular case here.\nWe have that Mr. Sullivan who owned a membership in the particular club moot and when moved to other house, he bought another membership and assigned them at the privileges of his membership to his tenant or attempted to assign that the privileges of membership to his tenants in the first house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2262.377, 2282.297, 2291.669], "stop_times": [2282.297, 2291.669, 2311.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.377}, "reply_to": "15074__1_089", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_091", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, (Voice Overlap) he had done that three times before, hadn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2311.727], "stop_times": [2315.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.727}, "reply_to": "15074__1_090", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_092", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, but the record will show that not only one of three -- two times before I understand, only one time that he transferred the privileges.\nAnd again he went to the procedure applying to the Board of Directors and asking the Board of Directors, will you prove my tenant for the use of the facilities of this membership and they did.\nThey allowed him to assign his membership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2315.707, 2323.6, 2334.64], "stop_times": [2323.6, 2334.64, 2337.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2315.707}, "reply_to": "15074__1_091", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_093", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Mr. Harris, why did they deny him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2337.113], "stop_times": [2340.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.113}, "reply_to": "15074__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_094", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's in the record, it's something that we say it is in race but when we say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2340.546], "stop_times": [2347.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.546}, "reply_to": "15074__1_093", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_095", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's just -- can I say it's just color?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2347.645], "stop_times": [2350.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.645}, "reply_to": "15074__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_096", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, no.\nBut we can't very well say this because if we did not have prejudice among us today, we won't have any need for the Civil Right Acts.\nIn this particular case, these people who find and again this is in the record, they find that their membership is dropping.\nAs their membership drops, they must increase to do, as they increase the do, the membership drops further.\nNow, we are in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2350.048, 2354.13, 2362.961, 2368.552, 2375.346], "stop_times": [2354.13, 2362.961, 2368.552, 2375.346, 2376.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.048}, "reply_to": "15074__1_095", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_097", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "So, you need more members?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2376.707], "stop_times": [2379.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.707}, "reply_to": "15074__1_096", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_098", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But this is their and whether right or wrong, they figured with a Negro in the club, they would lose members.\nNow, right or wrong it was their conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2379.811, 2386.58], "stop_times": [2386.58, 2388.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.811}, "reply_to": "15074__1_097", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_099", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, that's traced that he's a Negro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2388.307], "stop_times": [2390.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.307}, "reply_to": "15074__1_098", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_100", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "If they brought him in, they would feel that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2390.65], "stop_times": [2392.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.65}, "reply_to": "15074__1_099", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_101", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's because he is a Negro?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2392.926], "stop_times": [2394.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.926}, "reply_to": "15074__1_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_102", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's right, that's what I say, it's their --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2394.611], "stop_times": [2398.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.611}, "reply_to": "15074__1_101", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_103", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's all I want to hear and then I want to say what right should they have to do?\nWhat right could they have to deny the man privileges as a result of connection with real property on the basis of race alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2398.072, 2403.008], "stop_times": [2403.008, 2417.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.072}, "reply_to": "15074__1_102", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_104", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Now, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2417.621], "stop_times": [2418.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.621}, "reply_to": "15074__1_103", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_105", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I read that it don't need alone what we have got.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2418.021], "stop_times": [2420.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.021}, "reply_to": "15074__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_106", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I would say this and I think that as far if we are talking about a club, if it is club, and we can tie this beside the other -- (Voice Overlap) country clubs which are here in communities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2420.654], "stop_times": [2431.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.654}, "reply_to": "15074__1_105", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_107", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Webster somebody you gave a minute ago said club means a whole lot of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2431.1], "stop_times": [2435.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.1}, "reply_to": "15074__1_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_108", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2435.841], "stop_times": [2436.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.841}, "reply_to": "15074__1_107", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_109", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There is no magic can the word \u201cclub\u201d isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2436.408], "stop_times": [2440.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.408}, "reply_to": "15074__1_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_110", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, there is no definition other than what Webster says as far as I am concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2440.138], "stop_times": [2447.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.138}, "reply_to": "15074__1_109", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_111", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "This is a place where everybody else who does exact same thing that Dr. Freeman does gets into this recreations center, is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2447.421], "stop_times": [2465.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.421}, "reply_to": "15074__1_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_112", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In a club and he applied from membership in the club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2465.698], "stop_times": [2468.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.698}, "reply_to": "15074__1_111", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_113", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, everybody else gets in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2468.283], "stop_times": [2470.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.283}, "reply_to": "15074__1_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_114", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2470.379], "stop_times": [2471.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.379}, "reply_to": "15074__1_113", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_115", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Who else got up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2471.505], "stop_times": [2473.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.505}, "reply_to": "15074__1_114", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_116", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I understand that they didn't keep records of anyone who is declined and I had no record of anyone being declined.\nBut the secretary does testify in here that shipping members of the declination.\nNow, whether he's white or any other -- I don't know.\nAgain, I am not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2473.659, 2481.022, 2487.467, 2491.477], "stop_times": [2481.022, 2487.467, 2491.477, 2492.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.659}, "reply_to": "15074__1_115", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_117", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is that one?\nHas the (Voice Overlap) record shows possibly once before it happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2492.253, 2494.409], "stop_times": [2494.409, 2500.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.253}, "reply_to": "15074__1_116", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_118", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Possibly once before it happens and whether he was a Negro or not I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2500.302], "stop_times": [2504.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.302}, "reply_to": "15074__1_117", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_119", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "And you say this right which -- do you admit this right is connected with property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2504.043], "stop_times": [2510.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.043}, "reply_to": "15074__1_118", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_120", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In this particular case if it's connected with property, it would've been connected under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nIf it's connected on the Fourteenth Amendment, Shelley versus Kraemer says that the Fourteenth Amendment any restraint on property is between the party but the Court cannot enforce it.\nSo, if it is connected with property, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2510.388, 2516.615, 2528.807], "stop_times": [2516.615, 2528.807, 2530.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.388}, "reply_to": "15074__1_119", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_121", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, not as it answer is it or is it not to make it deprive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2530.691], "stop_times": [2533.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.691}, "reply_to": "15074__1_120", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_122", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I would say no in my opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2533.843], "stop_times": [2536.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2533.843}, "reply_to": "15074__1_121", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_123", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, how would it get other than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2536.146], "stop_times": [2540.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.146}, "reply_to": "15074__1_122", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_124", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "How would he get for right to go into the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2540.358], "stop_times": [2543.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.358}, "reply_to": "15074__1_123", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_125", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2543.001], "stop_times": [2544.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.001}, "reply_to": "15074__1_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_126", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Into the club -- again my argument is not moralist because I am not a moralist.\nMy argument is law and I think that I may feel that it's perfectly wrong to exclude this man.\nBut, if they have a little right to do so, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2544.067, 2549.843, 2557.019], "stop_times": [2549.843, 2557.019, 2559.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.067}, "reply_to": "15074__1_125", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_127", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, where did they get the legal right from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2559.442], "stop_times": [2561.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.442}, "reply_to": "15074__1_126", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_128", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Because there's no law prohibiting it.\nA club is always had the right to select their members, those who they feel compatible with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2561.488, 2563.833], "stop_times": [2563.833, 2569.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2561.488}, "reply_to": "15074__1_127", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_129", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, let's take it this way.\nSuppose the whole community out there was labeled a club, would you say a Negro couldn't buy in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2569.501, 2572.485], "stop_times": [2572.485, 2578.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.501}, "reply_to": "15074__1_128", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_130", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, I would say that particular case, it would be a definite restraint on the purchase of property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2578.879], "stop_times": [2583.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.879}, "reply_to": "15074__1_129", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_131", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, I mean they called it club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2583.867], "stop_times": [2587.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.867}, "reply_to": "15074__1_130", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_132", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Now, as far as this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2587.62], "stop_times": [2589.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.62}, "reply_to": "15074__1_131", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_133", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Your position is that anything that's labeled a club can discriminate against people because of race, solely because they call it a club?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2589.916], "stop_times": [2598.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.916}, "reply_to": "15074__1_132", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_134", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Very definitely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2598.342], "stop_times": [2599.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.342}, "reply_to": "15074__1_133", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_135", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, how do you limit it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2599.889], "stop_times": [2602.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.889}, "reply_to": "15074__1_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_136", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I think that a club is what we know as a club if in this particular community here, 85% of the people did not belong to this particular club only 15% of this particular community did belong to the club.\nThere were anyone I could go down and actually apply for membership, but whether we would be accepted, I don't know and I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2602.564, 2620.487], "stop_times": [2620.487, 2628.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.564}, "reply_to": "15074__1_135", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_137", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, who was ever rejected one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2628.241], "stop_times": [2632.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.241}, "reply_to": "15074__1_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_138", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I don't know.\nI can only go by the record.(Voice Overlap)\nWell, one was -- if I may, Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2632.333, 2633.759, 2637.999], "stop_times": [2633.759, 2637.999, 2643.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.333}, "reply_to": "15074__1_137", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_139", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2643.726], "stop_times": [2645.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.726}, "reply_to": "15074__1_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_140", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In June, I think I believe it was May or June if I may quote you, you say Negro-Americans have just as many beautiful people in mind and body as well as in skin as any other group.\nAnd we have just as many stinkers as any other group and I could agree with that perfectly but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2645.461, 2657.877], "stop_times": [2657.877, 2662.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2645.461}, "reply_to": "15074__1_139", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_141", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well do you think that is the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2662.632], "stop_times": [2664.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.632}, "reply_to": "15074__1_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_142", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, what suppose that he is suppose the only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2664.586], "stop_times": [2668.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.586}, "reply_to": "15074__1_141", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_143", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well how do you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2668.915], "stop_times": [2671.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.915}, "reply_to": "15074__1_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_144", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Suppose that we do have a stinker who happens to be a Negro, do we have accept him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2671.35], "stop_times": [2676.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.35}, "reply_to": "15074__1_143", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_145", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I think he'd have to show he's a stinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2676.503], "stop_times": [2679.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.503}, "reply_to": "15074__1_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_146", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Then if we go --\nWould it be sufficient for us to determine that Dr. Freeman is a stinker on our evidence and turn him out of the club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2679.375, 2681.441], "stop_times": [2681.441, 2687.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2679.375}, "reply_to": "15074__1_145", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_147", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "To all of these, and I am sorry,  in his experience he was refused and he admitted having been refused solely because he was a Negro, you said that, am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2687.628], "stop_times": [2701.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.628}, "reply_to": "15074__1_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_148", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "He was refused because when economic concern by the Board of Directors for the good of their corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2701.362], "stop_times": [2708.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.362}, "reply_to": "15074__1_147", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_149", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "And if he'd been white, they could accept him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2708.988], "stop_times": [2711.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.988}, "reply_to": "15074__1_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_150", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Probably, I don't know.\nI really -- I am not, wasn't a member of the board and I have never been, so I don't know what they would determine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2711.241, 2713.267], "stop_times": [2713.267, 2720.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.241}, "reply_to": "15074__1_149", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_151", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "All I am asking is (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2720.305], "stop_times": [2723.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.305}, "reply_to": "15074__1_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_152", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Where is this club?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2723.976], "stop_times": [2725.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.976}, "reply_to": "15074__1_151", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_153", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's in Fairfax County Your Honor, in an area known as the Bucknell which is just south of Alexandria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2725.79], "stop_times": [2735.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.79}, "reply_to": "15074__1_152", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_154", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But how do you say -- why do you say it's a club I have questioned that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2735.251], "stop_times": [2740.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.251}, "reply_to": "15074__1_153", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_155", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's a club insofar as these people didn't get together and built a club house, a swimming pool, tennis courts, they have members, they delegated to the Board of Directors the right to select members after they got initial members in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2740.545], "stop_times": [2754.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.545}, "reply_to": "15074__1_154", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_156", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But ordinarily a membership is not bought by a house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2754.549], "stop_times": [2758.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.549}, "reply_to": "15074__1_155", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_157", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "This is something where it is very unique and it isn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2758.324], "stop_times": [2761.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.324}, "reply_to": "15074__1_156", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_158", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "You usally pay dues to go to a club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2761.226], "stop_times": [2763.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.226}, "reply_to": "15074__1_157", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_159", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There is no buying of membership with a house.\nI think that again the record will show that this was not a standard procedure where a man will sell his membership to his tenant.\nBut, what they did is in starting off again I think the founders --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2763.719, 2767.432, 2774.616], "stop_times": [2767.432, 2774.616, 2778.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.719}, "reply_to": "15074__1_158", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_160", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, did they organize the corporation with the understanding that they would not sell any houses to call the people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2778.217], "stop_times": [2784.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.217}, "reply_to": "15074__1_159", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_161", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, they had nothing to do with houses.\nThe only thing is different between on this and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2784.273, 2787.025], "stop_times": [2787.025, 2787.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.273}, "reply_to": "15074__1_160", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_162", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, will they own the houses, didn't the corporation own the houses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2787.804], "stop_times": [2791.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.804}, "reply_to": "15074__1_161", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_163", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, they don't know any houses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2791.874], "stop_times": [2792.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.874}, "reply_to": "15074__1_162", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_164", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Who own the houses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2792.87], "stop_times": [2794.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.87}, "reply_to": "15074__1_163", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_165", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Nobody owns any houses as far down there as far as -- and the except for the individual owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2794.477], "stop_times": [2799.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.477}, "reply_to": "15074__1_164", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_166", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Do they live in them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2799.415], "stop_times": [2801.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.415}, "reply_to": "15074__1_165", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_167", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Members of the corporation live in, members of the club live in the houses in the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2801.451], "stop_times": [2805.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2801.451}, "reply_to": "15074__1_166", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_168", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, they are living in the houses because they are members of the club, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2805.795], "stop_times": [2813.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.795}, "reply_to": "15074__1_167", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_169", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, in this particular community, only 15% of the people belong to the club.\nThe rest do not belong to the club, they may belong to the other club which is about Valley High Country Club or they may belong to Woodlawn country club.\nBut in this particular case, is 15% of the people living in this community.\nNow, the only thing it makes this different from the average club is when you join a club, a country club for swimming, golf whatever, you pay an initiation fee.\nNow, in this particular case and this is unusual but it's not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2813.678, 2819.476, 2827.527, 2831.353, 2842.153], "stop_times": [2819.476, 2827.527, 2831.353, 2842.153, 2844.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.678}, "reply_to": "15074__1_168", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_170", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "You have to buy house for initiation fee, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2844.379], "stop_times": [2847.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.379}, "reply_to": "15074__1_169", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_171", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No houses involved, you don't -- you know you can be in apartment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2847.032], "stop_times": [2851.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.032}, "reply_to": "15074__1_170", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_172", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I don't quite get it and I thought what you said that he got each one of that house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2851.142], "stop_times": [2855.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.142}, "reply_to": "15074__1_171", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_173", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, I imagine that maybe some people living in apartments who belong to this club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2855.541], "stop_times": [2859.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.541}, "reply_to": "15074__1_172", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_174", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "In that community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2859.845], "stop_times": [2862.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2859.845}, "reply_to": "15074__1_173", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_175", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There's no apartments in the community that I know of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2862.268], "stop_times": [2864.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.268}, "reply_to": "15074__1_174", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_176", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, who build the houses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2864.773], "stop_times": [2867.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.773}, "reply_to": "15074__1_175", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_177", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I don't know, I believe the builder it was guys --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2867.727], "stop_times": [2870.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.727}, "reply_to": "15074__1_176", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_178", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I am not talking about who actually put them up.\nWho own them when they were built?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2870.683, 2873.805], "stop_times": [2873.805, 2875.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.683}, "reply_to": "15074__1_177", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_179", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, is a rather large area (Voice Overlap) 20 and 30 builders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2875.859], "stop_times": [2878.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2875.859}, "reply_to": "15074__1_178", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_180", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But who own the house?\nI am not asking that.\nWho own the house when they were built?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2878.911, 2880.975, 2881.881], "stop_times": [2880.975, 2881.881, 2888.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.911}, "reply_to": "15074__1_179", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_181", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I really don't know, there is say that it's the land was originally known by Bucknell, owned by Bucknell University who sold off land to builders and builders came in to build houses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2888.189], "stop_times": [2898.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.189}, "reply_to": "15074__1_180", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_182", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "So, why they came and built houses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2898.43], "stop_times": [2900.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.43}, "reply_to": "15074__1_181", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_183", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, it's a great land (Voice Overlap) regular community.\nPardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2900.224, 2904.406], "stop_times": [2904.406, 2904.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.224}, "reply_to": "15074__1_182", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_184", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Who did they build them for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2904.873], "stop_times": [2906.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.873}, "reply_to": "15074__1_183", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_185", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "For anybody would buy them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2906.739], "stop_times": [2908.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.739}, "reply_to": "15074__1_184", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_186", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Anybody who would buy the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2908.454], "stop_times": [2909.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.454}, "reply_to": "15074__1_185", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_187", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2909.719], "stop_times": [2910.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.719}, "reply_to": "15074__1_186", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_188", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "So, that they do own the house individually as you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2910.628], "stop_times": [2914.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.628}, "reply_to": "15074__1_187", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_189", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "The -- yes, and the individual members who don't have houses, they maybe on apartment but houses have nothing to do with the club.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2914.798], "stop_times": [2925.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2914.798}, "reply_to": "15074__1_188", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_190", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Are you telling us that on this record there's no connection between the ownership of the house and the membership of the club?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2925.627], "stop_times": [2932.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.627}, "reply_to": "15074__1_189", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_191", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Positively not other than the fact that the membership privileges membership, they would allow an owner and the purpose of this was if an owner was transferred overseas he could transfer his privileges to his tenant while he was gone.\nAnd this is the only thing and this is what -- this is the procedure that they are bringing up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2932.23, 2946.803], "stop_times": [2946.803, 2950.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.23}, "reply_to": "15074__1_190", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_192", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Has that crucial issue have been tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2950.943], "stop_times": [2953.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.943}, "reply_to": "15074__1_191", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_193", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, this is been tried in the county court and a county court ruled --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2953.905], "stop_times": [2958.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.905}, "reply_to": "15074__1_192", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_194", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "What about the appellate court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2958.185], "stop_times": [2960.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.185}, "reply_to": "15074__1_193", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_195", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "The appellate court hasn't heard it because of the procedure involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2960.089], "stop_times": [2964.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2960.089}, "reply_to": "15074__1_194", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_196", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Now, suppose we would decide that the appellate court was wrong, would you still get that issue tried out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2964.011], "stop_times": [2970.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.011}, "reply_to": "15074__1_195", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_197", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Certainly, I mean if you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2970.481], "stop_times": [2971.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.481}, "reply_to": "15074__1_196", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_198", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "You could still try the issue of dispute there, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2971.866], "stop_times": [2979.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.866}, "reply_to": "15074__1_197", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_199", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, I think that if we would manage it to Virginia Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2979.399], "stop_times": [2980.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.399}, "reply_to": "15074__1_198", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_200", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Are you asking for that privilege?\nAre you asking for that privilege if we reverse it on the procedure ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2980.856, 2984.157], "stop_times": [2984.157, 2991.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.856}, "reply_to": "15074__1_199", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_201", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I would prefer because I think it is the correct thing to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2991.211], "stop_times": [2993.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.211}, "reply_to": "15074__1_200", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_202", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I didn't see it in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2993.874], "stop_times": [2996.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.874}, "reply_to": "15074__1_201", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__1_203", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, it's not on the brief, but I think it would be the correcting to do in my opinion.\nAlright, now Mr. --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [2996.826, 3004.868], "stop_times": [3004.868, 3005.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.826}, "reply_to": "15074__1_202", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_204", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, if we reverse on the procedural grounds suggested by my Brother Black, there would be no alternative; you'd be back in the Supreme Court of Virginia, would you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3005.587], "stop_times": [3013.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.587}, "reply_to": "15074__1_203", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_205", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's right we would.\nI guess Virginia with the mandate and the reason why they were -- it was remanded to them, the other time they just said that the other case was a case involving a sale of a house and they do their case out or throughout before in the basis of procedure.\nBut, there's one thing as far as the mootness of this question.\nMr. Freeman is not looking for any admission to this club, he is looking for damages and if he is not entitle to damages, then the question is moot and this Court should not consider moot question, so I understand.\nBut if the only way he can get in my opinion, the only he can get damages is under 1982.\nAnd if 1982 as Jones versus Mayer does not allow damages then the question is moot as far as criminal is concern.\nHe is on Pakistan now, he is not asking for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3013.957, 3017.62, 3034.48, 3039.5, 3052.369, 3062.669, 3069.757], "stop_times": [3017.62, 3034.48, 3039.5, 3052.369, 3062.669, 3069.757, 3071.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.957}, "reply_to": "15074__1_204", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_206", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "About Mayer has to say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3071.651], "stop_times": [3076.292], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.651}, "reply_to": "15074__1_205", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_207", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It does -- it says it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3076.292], "stop_times": [3079.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.292}, "reply_to": "15074__1_206", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_208", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Just for reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3079.803], "stop_times": [3080.859], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.803}, "reply_to": "15074__1_207", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_209", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Okay, it makes no that -- contains no provision allowed can be enforce by injunction that contains no provision expressly authorize in the Federal Court order the payment of damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3080.859], "stop_times": [3093.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3080.859}, "reply_to": "15074__1_208", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_210", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But doesn't the Federal statute say an Act should be that law or in equity?\nYou can see it in statute, doesn't it say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3093.057, 3100.343], "stop_times": [3100.343, 3106.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.057}, "reply_to": "15074__1_209", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_211", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I am really -- I am not familiar with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3106.396], "stop_times": [3110.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3106.396}, "reply_to": "15074__1_210", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_212", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There have been cases from other Civil Rights that damages had been awarded by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3110.747], "stop_times": [3117.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.747}, "reply_to": "15074__1_211", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_213", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But if I'm going to back to the public --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3117.944], "stop_times": [3119.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3117.944}, "reply_to": "15074__1_212", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_214", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Submit them all right with one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3119.252], "stop_times": [3122.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.252}, "reply_to": "15074__1_213", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15074__1_215", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Under the public accommodation section and which is Title 42 which is included -- includes 1982.\nIn there and of course Mr. Brown is just admitted that there is no damages under the public accommodations law.\nIt's strictly consolatory and there is a provision for referral to a mediation service, but there is no damages under the public accommodations law except for the granting of counsel fees.\nNow, there's also an error, it says but this shown, I preclude the assertion of any other federal State law or federal or State law not inconsistent.\nAnd if we look at the Charlotte v. (Inaudible), we'll see that the natural application was an assault with a rule that there was no provisions -- no damages under the public accommodations law.\nBut in a case of an assault in connection with the discrimination, you could sue for damages on assault.\nSo in my opinion, there is no provision for damages under 1982 or under the Public Accommodation Section to the Civil Rights Act and this is what you're talking about.\nThey are not really talking about land because if they're talking about the Fourteenth Amendment and then unlawful restriction on land, then we did not enlist the aid of the State Court to enforce of restrictive covenant.\nThey are suing us.\nThis does mean that all you have to do to bring the Fourteenth Amendment down to individuals is the file suit against that individual.\nAnd the Barrows versus Jackson case, it was a question of the Court coming in, calling on the Court to a system to take damages against someone who violate and restricted of covenant.\nShelley --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3122.503, 3129.108, 3135.314, 3150.431, 3158.662, 3172.14, 3179.759, 3193.519, 3206.245, 3207.491, 3214.924, 3225.925], "stop_times": [3129.108, 3135.314, 3150.431, 3158.662, 3172.14, 3179.759, 3193.519, 3206.245, 3207.491, 3214.924, 3225.925, 3226.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3122.503}, "reply_to": "15074__1_214", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_216", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Can I ask you a question about the eligibility, you were to explain, could I, as a resident District of Columbia, who has never owned property in (Inaudible) County, lived in (Inaudible( County, would I be eligible to go ahead in this claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3226.774], "stop_times": [3242.084], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.774}, "reply_to": "15074__1_215", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_217", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3242.084], "stop_times": [3243.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3242.084}, "reply_to": "15074__1_216", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_218", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3243.01], "stop_times": [3243.609], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.01}, "reply_to": "15074__1_217", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15074__1_219", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There are people living in Alexandria and I believe there is, I am not sure about if there is one living now living in Washington DC.\nAgain it would be rather impractical because a club must be in an area close to those members as far as going to Spokane, to White Bridge -- this would a little silly.\nYou'd have to have your Bridge Club in here and a reason for -- the reason why we don't have more people in the District of Columbia or even in Arlington is because of the fact that it's further away, it's to far to travel.\nSo, but probably if you look at District of Columbia and you would like to apply why I think you'd have a good chance of becoming a member.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3243.609, 3249.904, 3263.787, 3276.451], "stop_times": [3249.904, 3263.787, 3276.451, 3285.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.609}, "reply_to": "15074__1_218", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_220", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I think the time is up, how about the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3285.676], "stop_times": [3289.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3285.676}, "reply_to": "15074__1_219", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__1_221", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I think same thing was replied to Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3289.064], "stop_times": [3297.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3289.064}, "reply_to": "15074__1_220", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_222", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Excuse me the petitioner's brief if I may just follow up Justice Harlan's question.\nThe petitioner's brief seems to say and I'm looking at page six.\nThe corporations bylaws provide that shares maybe purchased by adult persons who \u201creside in or who own or who have own housing units and one of those specified subdivision\u201d it doesn't to be sure explicitly say that the shares are limited only to those people.\nBut the implication I got from that brief was that they were limited only to residence of the neighborhood or people who had been tenants or residence of the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3297.269, 3303.634, 3308.458, 3328.0], "stop_times": [3303.634, 3308.458, 3328.0, 3336.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.269}, "reply_to": "15074__1_221", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15074__1_223", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "This is in the geographical -- it's a rather wide area with geographical limit that was originally put in there, but never in the record will show that it hasn't or actually ever adhere to.\nAnd again there's one thing that's left off there, there must also be approve by the Board of Directors which is a third requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3336.991, 3349.209], "stop_times": [3349.209, 3356.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3336.991}, "reply_to": "15074__1_222", "speaker": "john_charles_harris"}
{"id": "15074__1_224", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Mr. Brown, you have seven minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3356.832], "stop_times": [3362.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.832}, "reply_to": "15074__1_223", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__2_000", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "I would simply like to say that with respect to the question of the attributes here that suggest that this membership in this association maybe an incident of land or real property.\nI would point out that there are several factors, for example the bylaws provide that shares may only be purchased by a residence in specified areas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3362.798, 3381.496], "stop_times": [3381.496, 3390.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3362.798}, "reply_to": "15074__1_224", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_001", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But the bylaws don't say that being a resident in the area is the only qualification for membership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3390.635], "stop_times": [3395.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.635}, "reply_to": "15074__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_002", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, they do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3395.264], "stop_times": [3397.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3395.264}, "reply_to": "15074__2_001", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_003", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "And the Board of Directors still has to pass on applications for membership although applications according to bylaws are limited to residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3397.288], "stop_times": [3406.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.288}, "reply_to": "15074__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_004", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's correct, yes sir.\nI'm just pointing out that it has some of the incidents of running with the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3406.981, 3408.676], "stop_times": [3408.676, 3413.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3406.981}, "reply_to": "15074__2_003", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_005", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Because there is something in the record that indicates that residents of these areas, specified areas automatically qualified for membership?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3413.604], "stop_times": [3425.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3413.604}, "reply_to": "15074__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_006", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, they do not automatically, they were always subject tp condition of approval by the board, is that what you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3425.095], "stop_times": [3430.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3425.095}, "reply_to": "15074__2_005", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_007", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, but at also -- but is there something in the record indicates that the board automatically gave approval to residents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3430.359], "stop_times": [3441.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.359}, "reply_to": "15074__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_008", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, record shows that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3441.135], "stop_times": [3444.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3441.135}, "reply_to": "15074__2_007", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_009", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "May perhaps the board had the right to approve them but does the record shows that this is an automatic matter residence of these specified areas qualified in membership without more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3444.319], "stop_times": [3454.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.319}, "reply_to": "15074__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_010", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, going to the -- to be accept that we pointed it out on page seven of our brief that there had been 1183 shares, membership shares issued in this corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3454.062], "stop_times": [3465.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3454.062}, "reply_to": "15074__2_009", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_011", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3465.875], "stop_times": [3467.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3465.875}, "reply_to": "15074__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_012", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes sir, pages 125 to 126, I believe.\nIt's on page seven of the brief, on the record citations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3467.3, 3472.15], "stop_times": [3472.15, 3474.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3467.3}, "reply_to": "15074__2_011", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_013", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Has there ever been any rejections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3474.713], "stop_times": [3476.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3474.713}, "reply_to": "15074__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_014", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Only the -- the record only suggest as Mr. Harris indicated that there was one possible rejection at one time because there is no indication of the record is why that rejection occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3476.368], "stop_times": [3486.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3476.368}, "reply_to": "15074__2_013", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_015", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Do you agree with him that people who are not residents of these specified areas may apply for membership?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3486.998], "stop_times": [3492.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3486.998}, "reply_to": "15074__2_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_016", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There is some evidence in the record, yes that people who do not belong why residence in those areas may apply.\nBecause there is this clause which provides that the area maybe it's sort of elastic.\nIt can be extended by the Board of Directors, but I would point out that these considerations are not really controlling, that is the elasticity of the boundaries.\nI mean under Section 1981 and 1982 of 42 U.S.C, the question is, do we have the incidents of a contract present in this case?\nDo we have the incidents or either personal land or real property?\nAnd the fact that it may or may not be an incident of real property alone is not the controlling question.\nI would like to mention one other thing or two or three other things rather.\nOne thing Mr. Harris suggested that if damages are not allowed, Dr. Freeman, the case becomes moot because he is not entitled with injunctive relief.\nWe do not believe that is so, Dr. Freeman is for example here in the foreign service of the United States.\nHe can return to this area at any time and he should be entitled to injunctive relief to prevent future recurrence of the discrimination if he should move back into one of the house for example that he lived in for or some other house within the subdivision neighborhood served by this association.\nNow, one very important --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3492.635, 3502.228, 3507.196, 3520.706, 3531.248, 3535.41, 3542.128, 3553.856, 3565.865, 3574.668, 3594.47], "stop_times": [3502.228, 3507.196, 3520.706, 3531.248, 3535.41, 3542.128, 3553.856, 3565.865, 3574.668, 3594.47, 3596.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3492.635}, "reply_to": "15074__2_015", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_017", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "May I ask you a question, I don't hink on the merits, but how far is this club of Hunting town?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3596.975], "stop_times": [3604.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3596.975}, "reply_to": "15074__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__2_018", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "It's about four miles south of there -- sir about three or four mile south near Fort Hunt Road and it's about half way between Hunting Towers and Mt. Vernon off of Fort Hunt Road.\nAnd it's in the area that is surrounded by residential areas except on one side, it's contiguous to a school yard.\nThe Bucknell elementary school, a public school is contiguous on one side of this property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3604.126, 3621.372, 3630.475], "stop_times": [3621.372, 3630.475, 3636.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3604.126}, "reply_to": "15074__2_017", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_019", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Is that the name of the locality of Buck Hill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3636.513], "stop_times": [3638.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3636.513}, "reply_to": "15074__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__2_020", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "No, Bucknell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3638.784], "stop_times": [3640.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3638.784}, "reply_to": "15074__2_019", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_021", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Bucknell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3640.069], "stop_times": [3640.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3640.069}, "reply_to": "15074__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__2_022", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Yes, it -- that's correct Bucknell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3640.798], "stop_times": [3644.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3640.798}, "reply_to": "15074__2_021", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_023", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Before we get away from that procedural point, could you tell me this.\nWhat is the scope of our review of the action of a State Court in interpreting its own jurisdiction, do we for example may we reverse if we simply disagree with it, would have arrive to the different decision or is there higher standard that must be met?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3644.389, 3648.07], "stop_times": [3648.07, 3669.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3644.389}, "reply_to": "15074__2_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__2_024", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, the question I think as I would read the decisions is whether the State Court denied the appeals in this case on arbitrary grounds.\nIf it was acted arbitrarily and unreasonably not just did it misinterpreted its own rule.\nI think, I maybe wrong on this, but as I understand that the Court will inquire into the reasonableness of the interpretation that the State Court has given to state procedure.\nAnd we believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3669.168, 3682.523, 3688.689, 3702.072], "stop_times": [3682.523, 3688.689, 3702.072, 3705.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3669.168}, "reply_to": "15074__2_023", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_025", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But the consequences if we don't agree for the State Court what we would say is, this not an adequate state ground and we didn't get to the merits here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3705.164], "stop_times": [3713.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3705.164}, "reply_to": "15074__2_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_026", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3713.066], "stop_times": [3713.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3713.066}, "reply_to": "15074__2_025", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_027", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "They would be remand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3713.76], "stop_times": [3715.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3713.76}, "reply_to": "15074__2_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_028", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "That's right, that's correct.\nAbsolutely, that you would decide the case on the merits here that a very -- there are number of cases that we have cited in our brief on this issue.\nNow, the one thing that we feel it is particularly important and that is that the case is not be remanded at the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals because they have already ruled that they don't have jurisdiction in the case.\nAnd we have pointed out for example the case in our brief, the case of Naim v. Naim which should involve a test that the Virginia anti-miscegenation laws where the Virginia Supreme Court under the circumstances quite comparable to this refuse to accept the remand, completely frustrated that this Court's mandate by failing to provide the kind of relief to the Court had directed it to provide.\nSo, we submit that this case should be treated as one being on a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County and that it should returned to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County for entry of a decree as ordered by this Court and for the assessment of damages of that being, that is the only issue and that it should go directly back to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3715.317, 3717.052, 3726.675, 3739.611, 3769.093, 3790.969], "stop_times": [3717.052, 3726.675, 3739.611, 3769.093, 3790.969, 3791.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3715.317}, "reply_to": "15074__2_027", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_029", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "For you to have a decree I understood from your adversary that the Court haven't pass on the merits of the case, is that right or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3791.758], "stop_times": [3802.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3791.758}, "reply_to": "15074__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15074__2_030", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refuse to accept the appeals and therefore it's no different in a situation where a highest Court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction decides that it won't review the case and that's what the Court did here in effect.\nSo the matter -- there are no further matters for the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to decide once this Court has answered the federal issue is involve, resolved the federal is involved and if that so and then it should remanded to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3802.812, 3819.89], "stop_times": [3819.89, 3836.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3802.812}, "reply_to": "15074__2_029", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_031", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "But the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia has never touched the merits.\nLet's assume hypothetically that it was remanded there and they heard the case and decided with you on the merits, you should have all you wanted, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3836.184, 3842.463], "stop_times": [3842.463, 3850.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3836.184}, "reply_to": "15074__2_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__2_032", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "So, the Court -- you already tried to do that once with all due regard due respect.\nYou (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3850.658, 3855.097], "stop_times": [3855.097, 3855.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3850.658}, "reply_to": "15074__2_031", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_033", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Well, sometimes that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3855.751], "stop_times": [3855.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3855.751}, "reply_to": "15074__2_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15074__2_034", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "You try that once you told the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to take the case back reconsider it on the merits in the light on Jones versus Alfred H. Mayer Company and that Court refused to comply with this Court's mandate.\nNow, that there are cases in this Court reported case that would suggest that the appropriate remedy and such an instance would have been for us to apply for a writ of mandamus against the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, we do not do that.\nWe chose this method of seeking review on a writ of certiorari in this Court and have urged in our brief that this Court decide the case on the merits and we think that's way about the appropriate thing to do now.\nThat the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has already violated its responsibilities under the supremacy clause in Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3855.906, 3868.978, 3881.236, 3891.407], "stop_times": [3868.978, 3881.236, 3891.407, 3899.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3855.906}, "reply_to": "15074__2_033", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_035", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Could I ask you how may other swimming pools there are in the subdivision listed in the bylaws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3899.489], "stop_times": [3906.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3899.489}, "reply_to": "15074__2_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_036", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "There are none and to my knowledge in the subdivisions listed in these bylaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3906.339], "stop_times": [3911.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3906.339}, "reply_to": "15074__2_035", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_037", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Private or public either one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3911.577], "stop_times": [3913.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3911.577}, "reply_to": "15074__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15074__2_038", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Private or public neither.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3913.673], "stop_times": [3919.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3913.673}, "reply_to": "15074__2_037", "speaker": "allison_w_brown_jr"}
{"id": "15074__2_039", "conversation_id": "15074", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_33", "start_times": [3919.338, 3920.069], "stop_times": [3920.069, 3922.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3919.338}, "reply_to": "15074__2_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_000", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Number 74, Taggart against Weinacker's Incorporated.\nMr. Dunau, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [0.0, 32.103], "stop_times": [32.103, 34.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_001", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis case can be put in a nutshell.\nPicketing takes place in front of a store to support a strike by that store's employees to obtain a satisfactory collective bargaining agreement.\nThe picketing is prohibited by a state injunction as a trespass because it takes place on a sidewalk which is publicly used, is privately owned.\nWe have three questions.\nFirst, does the prohibition violate the First Amendment?\nSecond, is the controversy outside the jurisdiction of a state court because the subject matter is preempted by the National Labor Relations Board?\nThird, if the state court has subject matter jurisdiction, does the prohibition conflict with the federally protected right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act to engage -- of a National Labor Relations Act, to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [34.323, 37.814, 41.694, 56.619, 71.445, 73.721, 79.166, 91.376], "stop_times": [37.814, 41.694, 56.619, 71.445, 73.721, 79.166, 91.376, 111.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 34.323}, "reply_to": "15099__0_000", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_002", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's a pretty large nutshell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [111.797], "stop_times": [115.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 111.797}, "reply_to": "15099__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15099__0_003", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The situation is in a nutshell, the questions proliferate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [115.421], "stop_times": [119.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.421}, "reply_to": "15099__0_002", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_004", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I suppose what you may have in mind is that it's a nutshell we've looked at before too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [119.037], "stop_times": [123.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.037}, "reply_to": "15099__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_005", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I think sir our primary position is that this controversy is controlled by this Court's decision in Logan Valley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [123.483], "stop_times": [130.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.483}, "reply_to": "15099__0_004", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_006", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "In which one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [130.223], "stop_times": [131.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.223}, "reply_to": "15099__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_007", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Logan Valley Your Honor, Amalgamated Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza.\nThe store which was picketed is located in Mobile, Alabama.\nIt sold dry goods, groceries, drugs, other merchandise.\nThe store building is surrounded by a private sidewalk publicly used.\nThe sidewalk is surrounded by a parking lot privately owned, but publicly used.\nThe parking lot is surrounded by public streets.\nThere are seven automobile entrances into this parking lot.\nThe distance from the nearest automobile entrance to the picketed area is a 115 feet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [131.27, 136.433, 141.625, 148.863, 155.105, 162.543, 167.101, 171.654], "stop_times": [136.433, 141.625, 148.863, 155.105, 162.543, 167.101, 171.654, 177.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.27}, "reply_to": "15099__0_006", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_008", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You say this parking lot is privately owned but publicly used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [177.552], "stop_times": [181.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.552}, "reply_to": "15099__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_009", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [181.51], "stop_times": [181.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.51}, "reply_to": "15099__0_008", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_010", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That this is open to all members of the public to park there free?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [181.552], "stop_times": [184.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.552}, "reply_to": "15099__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_011", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [184.745], "stop_times": [185.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.745}, "reply_to": "15099__0_010", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_012", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Park there free?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [185.546], "stop_times": [186.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.546}, "reply_to": "15099__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_013", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I can't say.\nThe record does not -- those who enter park free, there is no showing that there's any charge for parking on that lot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [186.704, 187.555], "stop_times": [187.555, 193.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.704}, "reply_to": "15099__0_012", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_014", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And there's no showing that it's restricted in any way the customers of this or any other enterprise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [193.34], "stop_times": [198.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.34}, "reply_to": "15099__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_015", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's correct.\nThere is no showing of restriction to any element of the public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [198.293, 198.862], "stop_times": [198.862, 203.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.293}, "reply_to": "15099__0_014", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_016", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Suppose a group of people wanted to have a demonstration let us say in favor of the Vietnam war --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [203.569], "stop_times": [209.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.569}, "reply_to": "15099__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_017", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "We do not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [209.915], "stop_times": [210.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.915}, "reply_to": "15099__0_016", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_018", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Could they hold it there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [210.176], "stop_times": [211.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.176}, "reply_to": "15099__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_019", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "We do not have in this case the question whether when you have a public situs, you may have picketing or other demonstrations or other exercise of free speech with respect to a matter not connected with that situs.\nIn our case, we have a situation in which the protesters related to the operation of a shopping center and therefore we do not have to and we should not reach in this case the question whether when the situs is public, but the protest relates to a matter other than the situs, whether the locus is appropriate for the expression of pre-amendment rights.\nThe Second Circuit has decided that it was.\nI believe the California Supreme Court has also decided that it makes no difference, but we do not have that question in this case.\nThe story here begins on December 19, 1963.\nThe Union filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to be certified as the representative of the store's employees.\nOn April 16, 1964 the Union was certified as the representative.\nIn August and September of 1964, an unfair labor practice complaint issued alleging massive unfair labor practices including nine discriminatory discharges of a group of 40 or 50 employees and the refusal to bargain in good faith.\nOn June 25, 1965, the NLRB issued a decision affirming, sustaining the complaint in full.\nOn January 28, 1966, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit summarily enforced the NLRB's order.\nMeanwhile, on December 12, 1964, a strike of a store employees was begun.\nNegotiations for a new agreement had broken down.\nOn January 22, 1965, an ex parte injunction was sought and obtained, restraining the picketing, enjoining the picketing in front of the store as a trespass.\nThat ex parte injunction was continued on March 26, 1965 after a non-evidentiary hearing.\nOn April 9, an appeal was taken, in 1965 on November 10, the appeal was argued and submitted.\nOn September 19, 1968, three-and-a-half years after the appeal was taken and three years after it was argued, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that the injunction should be affirmed.\nIt said that the controversy was not preempted to the Labor Board.\nThe injunction did not prohibit Section 7 rights and it did not violate the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [211.63, 225.757, 246.553, 249.255, 259.406, 265.205, 273.389, 278.554, 296.724, 305.024, 313.634, 321.24, 325.145, 340.756, 348.644, 356.195, 370.573, 374.652], "stop_times": [225.757, 246.553, 249.255, 259.406, 265.205, 273.389, 278.554, 296.724, 305.024, 313.634, 321.24, 325.145, 340.756, 348.644, 356.195, 370.573, 374.652, 381.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.63}, "reply_to": "15099__0_018", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_020", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Does the record show it might have situs case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [381.104], "stop_times": [385.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.104}, "reply_to": "15099__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_021", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No sir.\nThe record is silent with respect to the reason for the delay.\nMeanwhile, on May 20, 1968, four months before the Alabama Supreme Court decided this case, this Court decided Amalgamated Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza.\nThis Court held in that case that peaceful picketing and handbilling could not be prohibited within a shopping center on the ground that the shopping center grounds were owned privately.\nWe think there is no distinction between Logan Valley and this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [385.705, 386.102, 391.159, 402.434, 417.75], "stop_times": [386.102, 391.159, 402.434, 417.75, 423.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.705}, "reply_to": "15099__0_020", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_022", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Is there anything but a temporary injunction issued in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [423.544], "stop_times": [429.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.544}, "reply_to": "15099__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_023", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The only two orders was the ex parte injunction and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [429.358], "stop_times": [432.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.358}, "reply_to": "15099__0_022", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_024", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What kind of injunction was that, temporary or permanent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [432.916], "stop_times": [437.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.916}, "reply_to": "15099__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_025", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "At that time, it was a temporary injunction.\nThen on -- two months later, it was continued until further modification in accordance with due process of law.\nIn other words, from the non-evidentiary hearing, two months later, the injunction was to continue indefinitely unless terminated or modified by the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [437.856, 440.215, 447.788], "stop_times": [440.215, 447.788, 455.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.856}, "reply_to": "15099__0_024", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_026", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And that was still by its terms a temporary injunction, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [455.354], "stop_times": [458.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.354}, "reply_to": "15099__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_027", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I don't know how one would characterize an injunction which is to continue indefinitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [458.48], "stop_times": [461.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.48}, "reply_to": "15099__0_026", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_028", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How did the Court characterize it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [461.458], "stop_times": [462.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.458}, "reply_to": "15099__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_029", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [462.975], "stop_times": [463.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.975}, "reply_to": "15099__0_028", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_030", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How did the Court characterize it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [463.474], "stop_times": [464.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.474}, "reply_to": "15099__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_031", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It did not.\nIt's the identical injunction that was before this Court in Logan Valley.\nIt terminated all federal questions.\nThere is nothing that meet and can go back to the Alabama Supreme Court with respect to any federal question, in addition since there is a substantial question of preemption presented in this case whether or not the injunction would be termed final within this Court's meaning of that term, would not make any difference because with respect to a preempted question, we can get here on a temporary as well as a permanent injunction, but for the purposes of this Court's jurisdiction, this injunction is final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [464.574, 466.207, 470.417, 472.881], "stop_times": [466.207, 470.417, 472.881, 499.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.574}, "reply_to": "15099__0_030", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_032", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You say that when the question is one of preemption that the rule, there must be a final judgment in the state court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [499.929], "stop_times": [506.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.929}, "reply_to": "15099__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_033", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No sir.\nI don't say that the rule that there must be a final judgment as eliminated, but the final judgment rule is satisfied in a case of preemption by an order which is in the form of temporary.\nThat meets the final judgment rule in the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [506.403, 506.845, 517.059], "stop_times": [506.845, 517.059, 519.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.403}, "reply_to": "15099__0_032", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_034", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What's your authority for that?\nWell, never mind, it's in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [519.058, 523.652], "stop_times": [523.652, 527.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.058}, "reply_to": "15099__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_035", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, it's in the brief Your Honor.\nIt's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [527.93, 529.247], "stop_times": [529.247, 529.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.93}, "reply_to": "15099__0_034", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_036", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I can find it then.\nDon't take time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [529.677, 530.939], "stop_times": [530.939, 532.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.677}, "reply_to": "15099__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_037", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What's deprived to the situation now for all this delay?\nDid the labor underlying on every dispute and dispose that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [532.35, 535.914], "stop_times": [535.914, 539.967], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 532.35}, "reply_to": "15099__0_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15099__0_038", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The underlying labor dispute has long been there Your Honor.\nWhat remains now is that the injunction still is operative to preclude any picketing on those grounds whether in furtherance of a primary strike of the stores which are presently operating or in furtherance of organizational picketing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [539.967, 542.858], "stop_times": [542.858, 557.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.967}, "reply_to": "15099__0_037", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_039", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "So the fact of this case is a temporary case and another labor dispute arises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [557.262], "stop_times": [562.653], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 557.262}, "reply_to": "15099__0_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15099__0_040", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nThe particular labor dispute which gave rise to this controversy is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [562.653, 563.652], "stop_times": [563.652, 567.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.653}, "reply_to": "15099__0_039", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_041", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Argument here in this position (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [567.037], "stop_times": [571.143], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 567.037}, "reply_to": "15099__0_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15099__0_042", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No sir.\nThe particular controversy is that the injunction is very much alive and is available at any time that the union or another labor organization or employees would seek to resume picketing within the grounds of this store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [571.143, 572.809], "stop_times": [572.809, 587.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.143}, "reply_to": "15099__0_041", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_043", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Is the same labor union still represent these employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [587.129], "stop_times": [590.31], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 587.129}, "reply_to": "15099__0_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15099__0_044", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The same -- well, there has been since the certification a change in ownership so that the store which was originally involved has now instead of operating the store has leased its premises to two others.\nWhether that lease of the premises and the change of ownership has affected the NLRB certification is itself a substantial question, but the labor organization has stuck -- it still exists and it still represents employees in this general locale and is still certainly available to resume organization or other picketing with respect to the stores which are now within that shopping center.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [590.31, 604.324], "stop_times": [604.324, 625.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.31}, "reply_to": "15099__0_043", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_045", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well now, you say in the general locale.\nHow about right within the particular store that was the subject to this controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [625.681, 627.568], "stop_times": [627.568, 632.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.681}, "reply_to": "15099__0_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_046", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They are available at any time to start organizing the employees within the two stores that are now occupying these premises and the injunction as it presently operates would preclude entry upon those premises in order to picket in furtherance of any dispute with those two stores.\nSo that the injunction continues at the present time to be fully operative to bar the union or representatives of the union or employees from picketing at the entrance of either of the stores which are presently occupying the premises.\nThe injunction reads flatly, prohibits trespassing upon Weinacker's property.\nIt remains Weinacker's property.\nThere are stores functioning on Weinacker's property at any time when it becomes appropriate to picket those stores or to handbill those stores, this injunction precludes entry into the property for that purpose, so we have a -- continue to have a live controversy.\nI said that in our view, Logan Valley Controls this case.\nThe essence of Logan Valley as we see it is that when an employer opens his property to the public, to customers in order to come to this store to buy, to others in the community in order to operate his store that employer cannot close that property to employees and seek to publicize the store's disfavored labor policy.\nThe only difference between Logan Valley and this case is that the real estate here is smaller than it was in Logan Valley.\nIn Logan Valley, the distances from the public entrances to the picketed area were from 350 feet to 400 and 500 feet.\nIn this case, the distances are 115 feet to 385 feet.\nIn a case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which following Logan Valley, the Court said -- the California Supreme Court said with respect to a single shop owner that Logan Valley requires that picketing -- that handbilling be permitted on the private sidewalk serving that individual store owner because the sidewalk was publicly used.\nThe distances were 150 feet to 280 feet.\nWe do not think that the appropriateness of the property as a place for the expression of First Amendment rights with respect to a dispute which relates to the operation on that property can be sized by whether it's 350 feet, 400, 500 feet, 150 feet, 280 feet or whatever the distances may be.\nTo us, it seems that the only viable standard can be the openness of a property to a public entry.\nOnce it's open, it does not matter whether the distances which are open are 115 feet or 400 to 500 feet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [632.111, 649.554, 664.678, 670.865, 673.045, 690.172, 695.492, 719.336, 727.936, 738.831, 745.049, 767.071, 771.816, 791.648, 797.746], "stop_times": [649.554, 664.678, 670.865, 673.045, 690.172, 695.492, 719.336, 727.936, 738.831, 745.049, 767.071, 771.816, 791.648, 797.746, 805.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.111}, "reply_to": "15099__0_045", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_047", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The Supreme Court of Alabama seem to think that Logan Valley involved a \u201cshopping center\u201d and that this case does not involve a shopping center?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [805.182], "stop_times": [816.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.182}, "reply_to": "15099__0_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_048", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, it seem to say not that this case does not involve a shopping center, but that it involves a smaller shopping center.\nAt the time, it affirmed the injunction, it had only one store operating.\nSo that there is of course a clear distinction between a one store operation and a shopping center which has more than one store, but that doesn't seem to us to have any relevance at any time whether one owner opens a property or several owners opened the property could hardly make a difference.\nAt the present time, there are in fact two stores operating on that property so we have a shopping center in almost the most colloquial notion of that term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [816.591, 824.433, 828.091, 843.769], "stop_times": [824.433, 828.091, 843.769, 853.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.591}, "reply_to": "15099__0_047", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_049", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "-- present time as you say, the petitioner doesn't itself operate a store, it rents space?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [853.214], "stop_times": [858.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.214}, "reply_to": "15099__0_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_050", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes sir.\nBut we need to remember that insofar as that aspect of the case is concerned, in Logan Valley, the action was brought both by the lessor and by the store operator and no one ever suggested that the lessor did not have an adequate interest to preclude entry upon that property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [858.946, 859.436], "stop_times": [859.436, 874.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.946}, "reply_to": "15099__0_049", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_051", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Where is this located, in downtown Mobile or in suburban?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [874.64], "stop_times": [878.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.64}, "reply_to": "15099__0_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_052", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's not suburban, it's downtown Mobile Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [878.274], "stop_times": [880.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.274}, "reply_to": "15099__0_051", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_053", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Downtown.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [880.442], "stop_times": [880.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.442}, "reply_to": "15099__0_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_054", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [880.955], "stop_times": [882.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.955}, "reply_to": "15099__0_053", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_055", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Would you -- I suppose you would not contend that the right of picketing extended to the inside of the store?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [882.802], "stop_times": [888.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.802}, "reply_to": "15099__0_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_056", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No sir.\nWe make no such claim.\nThe right of picketing extends as it would where the store to front on a public street, to the immediate entrance to that store leaving ample room for ingress and egress to the store.\nWe make no claim that we are entitled to be inside the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [888.38, 889.189, 890.537, 899.878], "stop_times": [889.189, 890.537, 899.878, 902.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.38}, "reply_to": "15099__0_055", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_057", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What if instead of using the open area as a parking lot, the store undertook as they do in some parts of the world to setup booths and shops and tables out through the parking area and had an open air shop?\nWould you then think the parking area had become like you -- as you now concede the inside of the store is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [902.916, 919.142], "stop_times": [919.142, 931.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.916}, "reply_to": "15099__0_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_058", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, assuming you have stands which are open rather than stores which have cover on them, I see no difference.\nThere have to be public ways to get to those places within the shopping area.\nSo long as they're all public ways and there is a public way in front of a particular stand that you have a dispute with, it would be our position that you would be entitled to go in front of that open stand so long as it is open property.\nAnd it would necessarily have to be because there is no other way for a customer to reach that stand to buy it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [931.304, 938.12, 943.262, 956.86], "stop_times": [938.12, 943.262, 956.86, 963.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 931.304}, "reply_to": "15099__0_057", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_059", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Do you see any difference in the standing invitation to the public to use the parking lot and the sidewalks or the standing invitation of the public to come in and look around and shop?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [963.226], "stop_times": [977.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.226}, "reply_to": "15099__0_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__0_060", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, I think they're all part of the same package with respect to a shopping center Your Honor.\nThe window shopper is a potential customer and you would just soon have them in there taking to look at what you have in your windows and ultimately, he's going to get into that store.\nIt's the openness of the property.\nThe very fact as the federation in its amicus brief put it with respect to the character of all stores which have private property on which they front but that private property is intended for use to enable the customer to come.\nIt put it this way in its amicus brief.\nSmaller, such retail establishments have in common with large shopping centers, a desire to maximize the accessibility of the public to their premises.\nIt is an integral component of every retail business that it be freely open to the public.\nAnd therefore, our position that whether the open property happens to be smaller or larger cannot by the criterion so long as it's open, then it has to be open to employees to publicize that this labor policy of a particular employer operating within that real estate.\nNow, in this case, I think this is particularly plain because here, we have employees of that very store who want to picket or handbill and are barred from those very premises.\nNow, when they're working for that store, they are parking their car on that parking lot.\nThey're using those walkways and they're entering the same entrance in order to get to work.\nNow, it doesn't seem to us that those employees when they are dissatisfied with the employment terms become trespassers instead of invitees when they park their car on that same parking lot, walk those same walkways, but this time picket in front of the store.\nYou don't become an -- or trespasser rather than an invitee when you change from a working employee to a striking employee.\nNow, we're told by the Alabama Supreme Court that picketing is more than speech.\nSure, it's more than speech, but it was more than speech in Logan Valley as well.\nAnd more than speech means only that the patrol in front of the store may be regulated with respect to the number of pickets.\nIf there are too many there or if they are too close to the doorway and interfere with ingress and egress, then you tell them to get away from the doorway and picket on the far side of the sidewalk, that's what we mean by regulation of the plus aspect of picketing.\nWe do not mean that you can ban it all together from an otherwise appropriate open place.\nIt's suggested in this case that there was actually obstructed picketing.\nWe'll pass the question whether on this record, it is possible for anyone to say there was obstructed picketing.\nThere was six identically worded affidavits which said there was obstructed picketing.\nThere was an answer filed by the union which said there was no obstructed picketing sworn to by two officers of the union.\nI do not know how as between six paper swearers on the one side and two paper swearers on the other one can ever find a fact one way or the other.\nYou need an evidentiary hearing.\nBut suppose, suppose there was obstructive picketing in this case, all that that would authorize would be the elimination of the obstruction and not the elimination of picketing and that's the point of this case here.\nThe Court says the Alabama Supreme Court, it doesn't look to us as if the picketing at the entrance to the parking lot would a materially less effective than the picketing in front of the store.\nOur fundamental answer is that's the wrong question.\nIf a place is otherwise appropriate for the exercise of free speech rights, that place does not become inappropriate because there are other places as well that one can exercise free speech rights.\nBut if one is to look to comparative effectiveness, it's perfectly clear that the picketing and handbilling cannot possibly be nearly as effective at the entrance to the parking lot as it is in front of a store.\nFirst of all, with respect to handbilling; I don't care how slowly a car moves from a public street through an entrance into a parking lot, it's still moving and you cannot very well distribute handbills to a moving vehicle and you sure can't distribute handbills to a moving vehicle on a cold day when those windows are uptight and no one is lowering windows to receive handbills on a cold day and once those people are in the parking lot, you can't get to them to distribute handbills.\nSo handbill distribution is very much enfeebled by this kind of an injunction.\nTake picketing itself; again, when you're driving a car through an entrance into a parking lot, you're not paying much attention to pickets or what's said on the sign.\nWhen you park that car and you're moving to the store, those pickets are on back of you.\nWhen you get to the entrance, there is no message.\nWe want the message at the place that means something -- at the entrance to the store.\nNow, it's perfectly clear, the union strenuously wants to get into these premises.\nThe employer strenuously wants to keep us out.\nNeither the union nor the employer are engaging in abstractions with respect to the philosophical reach of free speech.\nWe want in because that's where the picketing and handbilling is effective and the employer wants us out for the same reason and that seems to me to be perfectly obvious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [977.18, 981.648, 991.209, 992.778, 1013.56, 1015.939, 1025.56, 1031.589, 1048.689, 1062.12, 1066.888, 1074.316, 1091.177, 1101.952, 1107.173, 1111.753, 1119.47, 1133.974, 1139.867, 1143.983, 1150.829, 1155.916, 1163.691, 1172.348, 1174.667, 1188.398, 1200.078, 1203.364, 1217.686, 1231.88, 1262.966, 1268.342, 1279.688, 1284.967, 1288.044, 1293.239, 1299.302, 1302.839, 1310.036], "stop_times": [981.648, 991.209, 992.778, 1013.56, 1015.939, 1025.56, 1031.589, 1048.689, 1062.12, 1066.888, 1074.316, 1091.177, 1101.952, 1107.173, 1111.753, 1119.47, 1133.974, 1139.867, 1143.983, 1150.829, 1155.916, 1163.691, 1172.348, 1174.667, 1188.398, 1200.078, 1203.364, 1217.686, 1231.88, 1262.966, 1268.342, 1279.688, 1284.967, 1288.044, 1293.239, 1299.302, 1302.839, 1310.036, 1320.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.18}, "reply_to": "15099__0_059", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_061", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Mr. Dunau, is a map of the premises any way in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1320.419], "stop_times": [1324.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.419}, "reply_to": "15099__0_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_062", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes -- well, not in the record sir but as an appendix to our brief, we have appended a diagram of the property and there are like diagrams in the appendices to the respondent's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1324.701], "stop_times": [1339.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.701}, "reply_to": "15099__0_061", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_063", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And they agreed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1339.868], "stop_times": [1340.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.868}, "reply_to": "15099__0_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_064", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1340.959], "stop_times": [1341.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.959}, "reply_to": "15099__0_063", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_065", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They're in agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1341.809], "stop_times": [1343.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.809}, "reply_to": "15099__0_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_066", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes sir, there is no difference with respect to the diagrams.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1343.012], "stop_times": [1345.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1343.012}, "reply_to": "15099__0_065", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_067", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I thought the respondent's brief must be the task for your diagrams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1345.391], "stop_times": [1349.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.391}, "reply_to": "15099__0_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__0_068", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, they say ours is indecipherable.\nI think theirs is, but I don't think either of us claim that the others are inaccurate and there is a slight difference with respect to how many feet from the picketing area to the entrance.\nBut that depends on where you are measuring prominent, what terminal point.\nThere is no difference in the accuracy of either diagram.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1349.89, 1351.595, 1362.226, 1365.789], "stop_times": [1351.595, 1362.226, 1365.789, 1369.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.89}, "reply_to": "15099__0_067", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_069", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, do you mind telling me just where on the premises the picketing was taking place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1369.678], "stop_times": [1375.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.678}, "reply_to": "15099__0_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_070", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe picketing was in front of the main entrance to the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1375.159, 1375.961], "stop_times": [1375.961, 1380.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.159}, "reply_to": "15099__0_069", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_071", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Did that have a shelter in front of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1380.726], "stop_times": [1382.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.726}, "reply_to": "15099__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_072", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "There may or I'm not sure now whether the record shows whether there was an overhanging porch.\nThere may or may not have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1382.678, 1386.545], "stop_times": [1386.545, 1388.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.678}, "reply_to": "15099__0_071", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_073", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Was that right immediately where the customers drive up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1388.139], "stop_times": [1391.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.139}, "reply_to": "15099__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_074", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1391.138], "stop_times": [1391.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.138}, "reply_to": "15099__0_073", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_075", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "To get their packages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1391.572], "stop_times": [1393.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.572}, "reply_to": "15099__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_076", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They are -- in this shopping center, there is no showing on this record that there is a particular pickup zone.\nSo far as it appears, the customer still simply walks out of the store and goes to wherever he has parked his car.\nThere is no showing of a pick up zone in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1393.131, 1399.582, 1405.218], "stop_times": [1399.582, 1405.218, 1407.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.131}, "reply_to": "15099__0_075", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_077", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "But the picketing was right there where they walk down or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1407.284], "stop_times": [1410.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.284}, "reply_to": "15099__0_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_078", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The picketing was in front of the entrance to the store.\nAccording to one set of affidavits, it was so close to the store entrance that it obstructed ingress and egress.\nAccording to our version of it, it was sufficiently removed so it did not obstruct ingress and egress.\nWe would take the position with respect to that matter that the side -- there was an available sidewalk in front of the store and we were surely entitled to picket on the far edge of that sidewalk leaving ample access for -- ample room for ingress and egress to the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1410.531, 1415.71, 1421.818, 1427.329], "stop_times": [1415.71, 1421.818, 1427.329, 1442.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.531}, "reply_to": "15099__0_077", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_079", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "But there are no findings on that or no map?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1442.574], "stop_times": [1445.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.574}, "reply_to": "15099__0_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__0_080", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Not in the record sir, no sir.\nWe think that this case and Logan Valley come down to the same thing.\nOn the one side, we have property which is open to the public.\nWe have employees who seek to make a labor appeal.\nThey want to make it on that open property and they want to make it at the natural and effective place.\nAnd on the other side, you have nothing again, but naked title.\nOn that equation, this Court in Logan Valley said the First Amendment Right prevails and I think it prevails in this case too.\nNow with respect to this preemption question in this case, this Court said in its Horn Buffalo at the present time when an activity is arguably subject to Section 7 or Section 8 of the Act, the state says as well as the Federal Courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.\nNot clearly we have in this case conduct which is surely arguably protective by the National Labor Relations Act.\nPrimary picketing in support of a primary strike is arguably protected.\nIndeed, it cannot be arguably said to be anything but protected.\nNow, does it make a difference with respect to the preempted character of a controversy that it can -- it takes place on private but open property, the Board day in and day out must decide and does decide just these very questions when does private property yield to the realization of a Section 7 right.\nIt seems to us that the conflict -- the very conflict that Garmon seeks to avoid can no better be illustrated by reading to you what the order of the Board was in a case called Fashion Fair Inc. which is on page 253 of our reply brief.\nEmployees were discharged by an employer.\nThey picketed in front of his premises.\nHis premises were located in a shopping center with two or three other stores.\nThe employer evicted those employees from the premises and the NLRB said that was an (8) (a) (1) violation and this is the order it entered.\nCease and desist from ordering employees to leave public or quasi public areas where they are lawfully engaged in peaceful picketing of the employer's premises or in other lawful concerted activity.\nThe power --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1445.415, 1453.041, 1458.66, 1463.152, 1466.808, 1473.099, 1477.034, 1487.069, 1514.649, 1522.598, 1527.131, 1532.149, 1552.494, 1571.943, 1576.393, 1579.755, 1585.175, 1594.972, 1610.897], "stop_times": [1453.041, 1458.66, 1463.152, 1466.808, 1473.099, 1477.034, 1487.069, 1514.649, 1522.598, 1527.131, 1532.149, 1552.494, 1571.943, 1576.393, 1579.755, 1585.175, 1594.972, 1610.897, 1611.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1445.415}, "reply_to": "15099__0_079", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_081", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How was that the employer ever gets a question before the Board except by eviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1611.898], "stop_times": [1617.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.898}, "reply_to": "15099__0_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_082", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "We have no complaint with respect to his getting the question before the Board.\nHe could get it before the Board for example simply by asking those pickets to leave.\nThat is enough for us to file an unfair labor practice charge with the Board and to get the controversy there.\nWe have no objection to raising the question in that fashion --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1617.246, 1620.758, 1624.797, 1630.179], "stop_times": [1620.758, 1624.797, 1630.179, 1633.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1617.246}, "reply_to": "15099__0_081", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_083", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Would you raise it if he just asked you to leave and -- would you then file the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1633.564], "stop_times": [1643.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.564}, "reply_to": "15099__0_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_084", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, if he asked us to leave and nothing else was done and we still were that, presumably --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1643.137], "stop_times": [1647.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1643.137}, "reply_to": "15099__0_083", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_085", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Would you leave?\nI gather you wouldn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1647.799, 1648.396], "stop_times": [1648.396, 1651.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.799}, "reply_to": "15099__0_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_086", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That depends on individual situations.\nIf you got -- if you want to avoid a physical encounter, you leave obviously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1651.179, 1653.52], "stop_times": [1653.52, 1660.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1651.179}, "reply_to": "15099__0_085", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_087", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "But if he really wanted to find out if the Board -- if this was protected, if this arguably protected, I'd like to find out what it is about.\nThe only way to really cure that I suppose would be to evict you from the premises --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1660.926, 1671.71], "stop_times": [1671.71, 1676.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.926}, "reply_to": "15099__0_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_088", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Must take action adverse to our exercise of handbilling --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1676.989], "stop_times": [1679.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1676.989}, "reply_to": "15099__0_087", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_089", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "So indeed must use self help better than the courts in order to insure duty --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1679.911], "stop_times": [1684.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.911}, "reply_to": "15099__0_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_090", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Sir --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1684.333], "stop_times": [1684.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1684.333}, "reply_to": "15099__0_089", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_091", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "-- before the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1684.766], "stop_times": [1685.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.766}, "reply_to": "15099__0_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_092", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "In no case does anyone ever go to a court until he first asks the people to get off his premises.\nIn fact that the requirement that you get off with the condition precedent to any state trespass suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1685.936, 1692.798], "stop_times": [1692.798, 1697.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1685.936}, "reply_to": "15099__0_091", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_093", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That isn't my point though would have -- then you don't leave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1697.767], "stop_times": [1701.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.767}, "reply_to": "15099__0_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_094", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1701.226], "stop_times": [1701.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1701.226}, "reply_to": "15099__0_093", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_095", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Then you don't leave, what does he do then?\nHe must evict you in order to be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1701.972, 1704.895], "stop_times": [1704.895, 1706.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.972}, "reply_to": "15099__0_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_096", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Alright, and he does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1706.03], "stop_times": [1707.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1706.03}, "reply_to": "15099__0_095", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_097", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "-- that the question gets before the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1707.863], "stop_times": [1709.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.863}, "reply_to": "15099__0_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_098", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes.\nBut that's the way these questions get before all the time.\nThis is no isolated case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1709.629, 1710.975, 1713.986], "stop_times": [1710.975, 1713.986, 1716.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1709.629}, "reply_to": "15099__0_097", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_099", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Alright, I was just wondering as to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1716.099], "stop_times": [1718.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.099}, "reply_to": "15099__0_098", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__0_100", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Sir, that's the way the question gets before the board -- activity by the employer adverse to a Section 7 right which makes it possible complain there's an interference, yes sir and therefore, there's got to be some overt activity.\nFor us, it's sufficient over an activity to be asked to leave the public place.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1718.257, 1730.557, 1735.055], "stop_times": [1730.557, 1735.055, 1737.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1718.257}, "reply_to": "15099__0_099", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__0_101", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Thank you Mr. Dunau.\nMr. Fox.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1737.999, 1744.568], "stop_times": [1744.568, 1745.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.999}, "reply_to": "15099__0_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__1_000", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn answer to petitioner's argument, I would like to briefly go into few of the salient facts which have not been emphasized to discuss further from these facts.\nThey indicate that the character and nature of this property is private and not public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1745.47, 1749.512, 1763.074], "stop_times": [1749.512, 1763.074, 1769.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.47}, "reply_to": "15099__0_101", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_001", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What does the store sell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1769.192], "stop_times": [1770.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.192}, "reply_to": "15099__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_002", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The store sells groceries and drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1770.807], "stop_times": [1773.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.807}, "reply_to": "15099__1_001", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_003", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Only?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1773.898], "stop_times": [1774.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.898}, "reply_to": "15099__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_004", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think at the time of the hearing there were small hardware department as well, but it was in a traditional style of today's supermarket, including groceries and drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1774.758, 1775.419], "stop_times": [1775.419, 1789.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.758}, "reply_to": "15099__1_003", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_005", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How long is the --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1789.345], "stop_times": [1791.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.345}, "reply_to": "15099__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_006", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I don't know the square feet involved.\nThere is a picture of the store building as an appendix to respondent's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1791.149, 1793.184], "stop_times": [1793.184, 1798.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.149}, "reply_to": "15099__1_005", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_007", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "-- good sized grocery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1798.801], "stop_times": [1800.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.801}, "reply_to": "15099__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_008", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, it was a good sized grocery store, very large sized supermarket grocery store.\nGoing on from the argument that this property was private rather than public under any concept of this Court, it is our contention that even if the property were to be held quasi public under the previous decisions of this Court that the State of Alabama did no more than reasonably regulate the First Amendment rights of the petitioners.\nAnd finally that in doing so, the Alabama Court exercised its proper jurisdiction in accordance with its traditional rights to remedy a wrong against property and persons within its jurisdiction and subject to its protection.\nNow the facts in this case that we discussed a moment ago, the building is set back from the street.\nThis is a supermarket with a parking lot, it is large.\nThe parking lot is large as well.\nHowever, the major portion of the parking lot is not between this public street and the store.\nThe parking lot surrounds the store.\nAt the front of the store, there is room for two rows of parking.\nOne facing the store, one facing the street and an isle between them for cars to maneuver within the parking lot, directly adjacent to this parking lot is a broad public sidewalk running the full length of the street, the public street upon which the store faces.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1800.385, 1810.311, 1834.903, 1854.495, 1862.115, 1866.295, 1869.257, 1877.007, 1878.817, 1884.941], "stop_times": [1810.311, 1834.903, 1854.495, 1862.115, 1866.295, 1869.257, 1877.007, 1878.817, 1884.941, 1903.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.385}, "reply_to": "15099__1_007", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_009", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Mr. Fox, among the various exhibits attached in the appendix to your brief or your fellow counsel's brief, which in your opinion gives us the best picture of what you're trying to describe now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1903.264], "stop_times": [1916.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.264}, "reply_to": "15099__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__1_010", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I think the plat on 40, if you would like a diagram of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1916.755], "stop_times": [1921.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.755}, "reply_to": "15099__1_009", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_011", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "A40?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1921.516], "stop_times": [1922.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.516}, "reply_to": "15099__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__1_012", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "A40.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1922.408], "stop_times": [1923.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.408}, "reply_to": "15099__1_011", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_013", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, of your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1923.106], "stop_times": [1924.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.106}, "reply_to": "15099__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__1_014", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nA40 shows the store and diagrams the distances between the store and the public street.\nI think the best picture of the premises is probably A7 which is a photograph indicating exactly what I'm discussing now, the two rows of parking and the public street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1924.87, 1927.08, 1934.752], "stop_times": [1927.08, 1934.752, 1946.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.87}, "reply_to": "15099__1_013", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_015", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Where did the picketing take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1946.002], "stop_times": [1948.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.002}, "reply_to": "15099__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_016", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1948.59], "stop_times": [1949.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.59}, "reply_to": "15099__1_015", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_017", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Where did the picketing take place that the Alabama Court enjoined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1949.377], "stop_times": [1953.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.377}, "reply_to": "15099__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_018", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "As far as I'm able to ascertain from the opinions of the Court and the record, it took place on the sidewalk -- the public sidewalk first then at various places in the parking lot as well as the sidewalk directly in front of the main entrance to the store building.\nAccording to the Supreme Court of Alabama in affirming the lower court, they found that the pickets were in the way of people coming in and out of the store, so presumably they must --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1953.2, 1973.812], "stop_times": [1973.812, 1983.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.2}, "reply_to": "15099__1_017", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_019", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "On the sidewalk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1983.056], "stop_times": [1984.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.056}, "reply_to": "15099__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_020", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Right on the sidewalk in front of the front door.\nThey did not come in to the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1984.172, 1987.973], "stop_times": [1987.973, 1990.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.172}, "reply_to": "15099__1_019", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_021", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They did not come in to the store?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1990.829], "stop_times": [1992.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.829}, "reply_to": "15099__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_022", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, they did not come in to the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1992.523], "stop_times": [1996.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.523}, "reply_to": "15099__1_021", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_023", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "If I understand the petition, they say there's no basis for that finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [1996.381], "stop_times": [2001.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.381}, "reply_to": "15099__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_024", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I think that I'd have difficulty either quarreling with it or accepting it in this Court.\nIt was based upon affidavits and support of a petition for a temporary injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2001.176, 2006.314], "stop_times": [2006.314, 2011.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.176}, "reply_to": "15099__1_023", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_025", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Which said they want to be -- they were obstructing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2011.803], "stop_times": [2014.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.803}, "reply_to": "15099__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_026", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That said obstructing (Voice Overlap) that was the word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2014.555], "stop_times": [2017.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.555}, "reply_to": "15099__1_025", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_027", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What that does mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2017.235], "stop_times": [2019.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.235}, "reply_to": "15099__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_028", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It could mean that their presence was in the way of those -- their physical presence was in the way of those coming in and out of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2019.989], "stop_times": [2026.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.989}, "reply_to": "15099__1_027", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_029", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Couldn't you say that if they walked in the street, they were obstructive?\nCouldn't you say if they were half a block down the street, they were obstructing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2026.279, 2032.145], "stop_times": [2032.145, 2035.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.279}, "reply_to": "15099__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_030", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I suppose they could have.\nIt would be a fair construction that anywhere on the lot they may have been obstructing the conduct of respondent's business.\nHowever, I don't think the burden is on me to substantiate that finding in this Court when two occasions in the lower courts, petitioners failed to avail themselves in statutory provisions for supplying counter affidavits.\nThey could've had their hearing if they wanted it then, they just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2035.688, 2037.412, 2044.334, 2059.333], "stop_times": [2037.412, 2044.334, 2059.333, 2061.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2035.688}, "reply_to": "15099__1_029", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_031", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Was there any provision for live testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2061.476], "stop_times": [2064.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.476}, "reply_to": "15099__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_032", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I do not think there is, unless the court wants it.\nI think that is a discretionary matter, but I do know that under two sections of the Alabama Code, they could have filed counter affidavits and did not do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2064.855, 2068.415], "stop_times": [2068.415, 2078.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.855}, "reply_to": "15099__1_031", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_033", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "But they could've had the hearing too, couldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2078.033], "stop_times": [2080.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.033}, "reply_to": "15099__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_034", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They had a hearing.\nThey had a hearing based upon the record in front of the Court at that time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2080.007, 2080.838], "stop_times": [2080.838, 2083.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.007}, "reply_to": "15099__1_033", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_035", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Which consisted of five affidavits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2083.657], "stop_times": [2086.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.657}, "reply_to": "15099__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_036", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The affidavits of the respondent only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2086.46], "stop_times": [2088.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.46}, "reply_to": "15099__1_035", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_037", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2088.524], "stop_times": [2090.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.524}, "reply_to": "15099__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_038", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2090.591], "stop_times": [2091.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.591}, "reply_to": "15099__1_037", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_039", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Sufficient for permanent injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2091.44], "stop_times": [2094.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.44}, "reply_to": "15099__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_040", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's sufficient for permanent injunction under Alabama Law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2094.197], "stop_times": [2097.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.197}, "reply_to": "15099__1_039", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_041", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Under Alabama Law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2097.117], "stop_times": [2098.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.117}, "reply_to": "15099__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_042", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, it hasn't been challenged in this Court as a failure to grant petitioners due process of law under the United States Constitution.\nThat has not been challenged in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2098.2, 2109.331], "stop_times": [2109.331, 2112.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.2}, "reply_to": "15099__1_041", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_043", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Were they offered an opportunity to file counter affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2112.115], "stop_times": [2116.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.115}, "reply_to": "15099__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_044", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Two separate provisions of the Alabama Code give them that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2116.393], "stop_times": [2120.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.393}, "reply_to": "15099__1_043", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_045", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What did the judge do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2120.68], "stop_times": [2122.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.68}, "reply_to": "15099__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_046", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The judge accepted the evidence before him, which were the affidavits of respondent alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2122.74], "stop_times": [2126.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.74}, "reply_to": "15099__1_045", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_047", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Did he suggest or ask about any affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2126.843], "stop_times": [2129.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.843}, "reply_to": "15099__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_048", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The record does not indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2129.827], "stop_times": [2131.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.827}, "reply_to": "15099__1_047", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_049", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Did the lawyers ask for the right to offer any counter affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2131.162], "stop_times": [2134.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.162}, "reply_to": "15099__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_050", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It is not so indicated in the record.\nIt appears from the record that the only argument raised by petitioners in the lower court was not a factual argument.\nThey quarreled with the jurisdiction of the Court and that was their sole contention before the court below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2134.611, 2137.798, 2144.161], "stop_times": [2137.798, 2144.161, 2150.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.611}, "reply_to": "15099__1_049", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_051", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What are you claiming here that the court had a right to enjoin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2150.72], "stop_times": [2155.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.72}, "reply_to": "15099__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_052", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, I claim it on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2155.372], "stop_times": [2156.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.372}, "reply_to": "15099__1_051", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_053", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "At what claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2156.447], "stop_times": [2157.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.447}, "reply_to": "15099__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_054", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I claim it that the court in precluding the pickets from coming on to this limited property were within their jurisdiction and acted properly and that they had the right to move the pickets, in effect, 100 feet away by moving them on to a public sidewalk, a safe and proximate place to stand only 100 feet from the front door of the respondent's premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2157.634], "stop_times": [2182.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.634}, "reply_to": "15099__1_053", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_055", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I understood you to say that the court enjoined picketing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2182.535], "stop_times": [2185.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.535}, "reply_to": "15099__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_056", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2185.579], "stop_times": [2185.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.579}, "reply_to": "15099__1_055", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_057", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "-- on the public sidewalk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2185.712], "stop_times": [2187.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.712}, "reply_to": "15099__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_058", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, I did not make myself clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2187.124], "stop_times": [2189.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.124}, "reply_to": "15099__1_057", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_059", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I thought that's what you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2189.771], "stop_times": [2190.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.771}, "reply_to": "15099__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_060", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The Court did not enjoin picketing per se.\nThe Court said \u201cThere will be no picketing allowed on the premises of the respondent only\u201d.\nWhat the effect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2190.939, 2194.439, 2200.549], "stop_times": [2194.439, 2200.549, 2201.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.939}, "reply_to": "15099__1_059", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_061", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Is that the only injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2201.345], "stop_times": [2202.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.345}, "reply_to": "15099__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_062", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's the only injunction.\nThe pickets --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2202.741, 2204.207], "stop_times": [2204.207, 2204.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2202.741}, "reply_to": "15099__1_061", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_063", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It did not enjoin picketing on the sidewalk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2204.368], "stop_times": [2206.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.368}, "reply_to": "15099__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_064", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Not at all.\nThe pickets have every right today to go out to the public sidewalk 100 feet from the front door of the respondent's property and picket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2206.873, 2208.092], "stop_times": [2208.092, 2215.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.873}, "reply_to": "15099__1_063", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_065", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You construe that as a meaning enjoined in being anywhere -- picketing anywhere in the parking lot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2215.823], "stop_times": [2223.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.823}, "reply_to": "15099__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_066", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Anywhere in the parking lot at all.\nAnywhere within the lot lines of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2223.684, 2225.557], "stop_times": [2225.557, 2226.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.684}, "reply_to": "15099__1_065", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_067", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And where did it actually take place according to the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2226.837], "stop_times": [2230.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.837}, "reply_to": "15099__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_068", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Within that parking lot and on the petitioner's walk directly in front of the front door of its premises.\nThe picketing took place right at the store.\nThe public sidewalk open to the pickets now is 100 feet away from the front door.\nThey are moved 100 feet by this injunction that is presently pending.\nNow, our contention is that this is private property by virtue of the fact that unlike petitioner's claim, we do not believe that openness to the public is the only viable standard.\nThat principle brings us smack into a dichotomy with their position on no claim to coming into the store itself.\nThe same standard being applied in the two circumstances, the store and the parking lot would allow the pickets into the store.\nThis was not a reasonable standard and this is not in our opinion, what the Court meant in its decision in Logan Valley, calling private property quasi public or available for public use or open to the public.\nIn that case, as well as in the case of Marge versus Alabama, it wasn't the openness to the public which was the sole standard.\nIt was the use by the public in a particular way.\nThe public used the property in these previous cases as a sidewalk, as a part, as a thorough fair to go from one place to another, or as the Court said in Logan Valley, \u201cFreely open to the public in the area and those passing through.\u201d\nThe parking lot in this store is not freely open to the public and those passing through.\nNobody passes through this parking that is not going into the Weinacker's store building.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2230.492, 2239.547, 2242.312, 2247.881, 2254.827, 2266.491, 2277.52, 2284.987, 2299.009, 2308.704, 2312.808, 2331.492, 2336.625], "stop_times": [2239.547, 2242.312, 2247.881, 2254.827, 2266.491, 2277.52, 2284.987, 2299.009, 2308.704, 2312.808, 2331.492, 2336.625, 2342.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.492}, "reply_to": "15099__1_067", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_069", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The difficulty is it's not in the record, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2342.006], "stop_times": [2345.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.006}, "reply_to": "15099__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_070", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Oh, yes.\nOh!\nThere is no statement in the record that the general public does not use this property.\nThe only statement in the record is that it is private property, and as private property, without an indication that it is used as a public thorough fair, the fact that there is a public thorough fair directly adjacent to it, a public sidewalk directly adjacent to it would indicate that there's no need for this private property to be used as public property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2345.107, 2346.03, 2346.799, 2352.125], "stop_times": [2346.03, 2346.799, 2352.125, 2374.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.107}, "reply_to": "15099__1_069", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_071", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Would these employees have been excluded if they had not had the picket sign?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2374.004], "stop_times": [2380.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.004}, "reply_to": "15099__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_072", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They would not.\nThey would be allowed to walk into the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2380.217, 2381.572], "stop_times": [2381.572, 2383.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.217}, "reply_to": "15099__1_071", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_073", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's make it public, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2383.754], "stop_times": [2385.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.754}, "reply_to": "15099__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_074", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, because any store then is public.\nAny store --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2385.628, 2388.535], "stop_times": [2388.535, 2388.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.628}, "reply_to": "15099__1_073", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_075", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I am talking about the parking lot --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2388.751], "stop_times": [2390.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.751}, "reply_to": "15099__1_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_076", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What is the difference?\nI see no difference between --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2390.55, 2391.465], "stop_times": [2391.465, 2392.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.55}, "reply_to": "15099__1_075", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_077", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "So the only way that they become trespassers is when they pick up a sign?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2392.55], "stop_times": [2397.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.55}, "reply_to": "15099__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_078", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Is when they conduct their selves in of manner that is inimical to the conduct to the business on the premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2397.128], "stop_times": [2403.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.128}, "reply_to": "15099__1_077", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_079", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Which is carrying a picket sign?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2403.297], "stop_times": [2404.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.297}, "reply_to": "15099__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_080", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Carrying a picket sign, throwing a bomb.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2404.701], "stop_times": [2407.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.701}, "reply_to": "15099__1_079", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_081", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, it did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2407.141], "stop_times": [2407.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.141}, "reply_to": "15099__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_082", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Anything they do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2407.959], "stop_times": [2408.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.959}, "reply_to": "15099__1_081", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_083", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Any bomb thrown in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2408.489], "stop_times": [2409.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.489}, "reply_to": "15099__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_084", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, no but anything they do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2409.972], "stop_times": [2411.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.972}, "reply_to": "15099__1_083", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_085", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "In this case, the only thing that made their action illegal was a picket sign?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2411.055], "stop_times": [2416.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.055}, "reply_to": "15099__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_086", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's correct.\nThe picket sign because of its effect of being inimical to the conduct to the business.\nAnd we submit that petitioner is entitled to as much protection of his conduct of a business as the picket sign to come on and utilize their most effective economic weapon against the respondent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2416.619, 2418.539, 2424.909], "stop_times": [2418.539, 2424.909, 2439.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.619}, "reply_to": "15099__1_085", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_087", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Suppose there had been a fence around the place, or the guard fence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2439.807], "stop_times": [2446.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.807}, "reply_to": "15099__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_088", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That would've tended to indicate that the property was less open to the public.\nIt wouldn't be a usual manner of conducting a retail business.\nWe do concede this is a retail business open generally to the public to come on to the property and shop.\nWe wanted the public in our premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2446.018, 2449.956, 2453.2, 2460.126], "stop_times": [2449.956, 2453.2, 2460.126, 2461.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.018}, "reply_to": "15099__1_087", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_089", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You mean general public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2461.551], "stop_times": [2464.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.551}, "reply_to": "15099__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_090", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "General public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2464.108], "stop_times": [2464.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2464.108}, "reply_to": "15099__1_089", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_091", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Including picket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2464.433], "stop_times": [2465.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.433}, "reply_to": "15099__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_092", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, because there the general public is conducting themselves detrimental to our conduct of our business.\nThey are interfering with our right to conduct the business.\nThey are not there to buy.\nAssuming that we do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2465.575, 2472.415, 2475.567, 2478.231], "stop_times": [2472.415, 2475.567, 2478.231, 2479.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.575}, "reply_to": "15099__1_091", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_093", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "But your contention here is that any part of that property was to be decreed by the law from people who did not come to buy goods from the store?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2479.117], "stop_times": [2495.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.117}, "reply_to": "15099__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_094", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "There was no part of it being used by the general public other than the instance of the pickets or the people who came to buy in the store.\nThis was not -- there is no evidence in the record that people walked across this property to go from one place to another.\nThere is no evidence that people came on to this property to park their car while they went to visit friends in the neighborhood.\nThis was just a grocery store and the only instance in the record of people using it other than the shop is the use by the pickets here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2495.301, 2505.091, 2512.304, 2518.773], "stop_times": [2505.091, 2512.304, 2518.773, 2528.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.301}, "reply_to": "15099__1_093", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_095", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How many pickets were there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2528.207], "stop_times": [2530.009], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.207}, "reply_to": "15099__1_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15099__1_096", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I think they varied from time to time.\nI don't really know what the maximum number was.\nI don't submit to this Court that that is the contention here or that is an issue.\nWe believe that we have the right to exclude every single one of them for two reasons.\nOne, that this is private property and the private property owner has the right to seek remedy from the presence of a person who is disrupting its business in any way.\nAnd two that even if under the standards of this Court, this property because it is a retail business, parking lot, is held to be quasi public.\nIt's still reserved to the lower court the right to reasonably regulate the exercise of First Amendment rights.\nAnd it is our contention that moving the pickets 100 feet where they are still within sight and sound of the front door is a reasonable regulation.\nNow, how do we differ this from -- or distinguish this from Logan Valley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2530.009, 2531.901, 2534.735, 2539.619, 2545.208, 2557.173, 2567.042, 2574.334, 2584.724], "stop_times": [2531.901, 2534.735, 2539.619, 2545.208, 2557.173, 2567.042, 2574.334, 2584.724, 2587.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.009}, "reply_to": "15099__1_095", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_097", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Does no one have to agree with that argument of yours, to agree with you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2587.506], "stop_times": [2591.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.506}, "reply_to": "15099__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_098", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, you could find this as private property.\nIf this is private property, they could be excluded, that's traditional.\nA man who owns property can exclude anybody whose interests are opposed to himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2591.468, 2594.203, 2598.356], "stop_times": [2594.203, 2598.356, 2601.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.468}, "reply_to": "15099__1_097", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_099", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well I understood that you are arguing that the reason, so long as you hamper the rights to freedom of speech in a reasonable way you can hamper it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2601.635], "stop_times": [2612.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.635}, "reply_to": "15099__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_100", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I agree.\nThat is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2612.33, 2613.125], "stop_times": [2613.125, 2613.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.33}, "reply_to": "15099__1_099", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_101", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's what you're arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2613.442], "stop_times": [2614.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.442}, "reply_to": "15099__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_102", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's the secondary contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2614.134], "stop_times": [2615.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.134}, "reply_to": "15099__1_101", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_103", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "One have to decide, but you decide on your -- to be on your side to agree with you on that handicap to the excise of free speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2615.579], "stop_times": [2626.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.579}, "reply_to": "15099__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_104", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I think you can agree with me on my prior contention and come to the same result whether or not the regulation is reasonable, because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2626.643], "stop_times": [2633.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.643}, "reply_to": "15099__1_103", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_105", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You mean the private property asserts that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2633.666], "stop_times": [2635.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.666}, "reply_to": "15099__1_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__1_106", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's right because the general public does not have free speech rights on private property.\nThere's no free speech right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2635.121, 2641.387], "stop_times": [2641.387, 2642.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.121}, "reply_to": "15099__1_105", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_107", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, I'll just say to you that there have to be something like that before I would agree with you, but I do not agree that the judges or the Congress can reasonably, according to their judgment on what's reasonable, handicap the right of free speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2642.088], "stop_times": [2657.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.088}, "reply_to": "15099__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_108", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Handicap is right, I agree with that, but they could regulate the place at which free speech is to be conducted.\nThe place, the location of the free -- as one as it may have been -- one of the justices --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2657.23, 2664.711], "stop_times": [2664.711, 2670.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.23}, "reply_to": "15099__1_107", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_109", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What you're saying is that they don't have the right to take side of free speech at any place and at any time in any way they choose, I can understand that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2670.24], "stop_times": [2681.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.24}, "reply_to": "15099__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_110", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's exactly what I'm saying and I am saying that an injunction which merely moves people 100 feet with nothing intervening along that 100-foot distance to block the reading of a picket sign, or to listen to the sound of the voice coming from a hundred feet away, does not unreasonably interfere with the communication of ideas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2681.059], "stop_times": [2703.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.059}, "reply_to": "15099__1_109", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_111", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's alright for other members of the Court I presume, but I can get along better with my understanding, if I don't have to bring in your word reasonably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2703.347], "stop_times": [2712.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.347}, "reply_to": "15099__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_112", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2712.606], "stop_times": [2715.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2712.606}, "reply_to": "15099__1_111", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_113", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "If that's -- if it is a right to handicap free speech whether court thinks it reasonable then I don't understand the First Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2715.199], "stop_times": [2724.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.199}, "reply_to": "15099__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_114", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, I don't say handicap, but I see no handicap for the exact channel of communication that's being requested by the pickets is still open to them and all they are being told is to move a hundred feet.\nThat is not a handicap to communication.\nPetitioners are alleging that makes their communication less effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2724.699, 2738.359, 2741.317], "stop_times": [2738.359, 2741.317, 2744.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.699}, "reply_to": "15099__1_113", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_115", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, it might be a handicap, but that doesn't serve the purpose, doesn't it?\nIt would be a handicap to keep people from coming into your home in day or night in order to argue with you on public question.\nThat would be a handicap, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2744.448, 2750.374, 2758.948], "stop_times": [2750.374, 2758.948, 2760.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.448}, "reply_to": "15099__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_116", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, it would be a handicap that this Court I'm sure would find so serious that they would be willing to then handicap free speech and preserve the rights in the home.\nThe idea when we have a conflicting constitutional right being claimed by two parties is that this Court and other courts have looked to the detriment to one by upholding the other.\nIn the case of a home, somebody coming into a home, I think it would be clear that the damage to the privacy of the home, a right guaranteed to the home owner would be so severe that the handicap to free speech would be ordered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2760.806, 2772.068, 2787.639], "stop_times": [2772.068, 2787.639, 2801.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.806}, "reply_to": "15099__1_115", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_117", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What's you are saying in effect is, they wouldn't have right to go into the home in order to exercise the right of free speech against their owner's consent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2801.354], "stop_times": [2810.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.354}, "reply_to": "15099__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_118", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They would be required to stand out public sidewalk in front of the home or the nearest area traditionally available for the exercise of First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2810.056], "stop_times": [2819.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.056}, "reply_to": "15099__1_117", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_119", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And if they were using a soundtrack as advertisers sometimes do, or candidates for political office sometimes do, they might not be free to do that at 3 o'clock in the morning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2819.671], "stop_times": [2830.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.671}, "reply_to": "15099__1_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__1_120", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "They may not be free to do it at all.\nThis Court has upheld regulation of the use of soundtracks, even city streets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2830.618, 2832.135], "stop_times": [2832.135, 2836.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.618}, "reply_to": "15099__1_119", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_121", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I'm assuming a case where it's permitted, it might not be permitted to 3 o'clock in the morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2836.266], "stop_times": [2840.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.266}, "reply_to": "15099__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__1_122", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, and it maybe only permitted on certain streets and not others, and it always seems to occur in public streets.\nHere, we're taking them off the public street, even though a public street is right there for the use and seeking to put them on private property, or even quasi public property.\nThe idea in the previous cases of putting them on public property was for the -- private property was the purpose of avoiding the substantial detriment to the exercise of free speech rights because of the unavailability of public property in the area.\nThat is the rationale, the underlying theme in Logan Valley.\nWe'll let them on the shopping center premises because they can't stand on the middle of the highway, and even if they were there, their message could not be brought to the people entering the store.\nWe don't have this situation here.\nThe message could be brought.\nIt is not the duty of the property owner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2840.434, 2847.761, 2858.931, 2877.38, 2881.054, 2891.187, 2892.922, 2895.289], "stop_times": [2847.761, 2858.931, 2877.38, 2881.054, 2891.187, 2892.922, 2895.289, 2896.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.434}, "reply_to": "15099__1_121", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_123", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What about those parking entrances that appear to be behind the building?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2896.576], "stop_times": [2902.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.576}, "reply_to": "15099__1_122", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_124", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "There appear to be some there.\nI don't -- there' s a public sidewalk for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2902.182, 2904.169], "stop_times": [2904.169, 2906.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2902.182}, "reply_to": "15099__1_123", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_125", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You'd have to cover seven entrances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2906.898], "stop_times": [2910.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.898}, "reply_to": "15099__1_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_126", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I think the pictures indicate that this premises and we have a picture of the back of the store too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2910.087], "stop_times": [2914.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.087}, "reply_to": "15099__1_125", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_127", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I'm talking about the automobile entrance.\nThere's seven, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2914.486, 2917.487], "stop_times": [2917.487, 2919.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.486}, "reply_to": "15099__1_126", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_128", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, and there are some in front and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2919.235], "stop_times": [2920.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2919.235}, "reply_to": "15099__1_127", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_129", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "So, you have to have pickets at seven entrances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2920.595], "stop_times": [2922.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.595}, "reply_to": "15099__1_128", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_130", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Seven pickets to cover all them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2922.969], "stop_times": [2924.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.969}, "reply_to": "15099__1_129", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_131", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And people driving the cars looked at the picket signs, what would happen while they were they driving?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2924.067], "stop_times": [2929.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.067}, "reply_to": "15099__1_130", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_132", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, they have to be looking in that direction in any how, they're crossing a public sidewalk to get into the lot.\nSo they're looking for pedestrians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2929.408, 2934.288], "stop_times": [2934.288, 2936.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2929.408}, "reply_to": "15099__1_131", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_133", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, I'm talking about these are the driving in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2936.043], "stop_times": [2938.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.043}, "reply_to": "15099__1_132", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_134", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes.\nThey have to cross the public sidewalk to drive in, which they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2938.775, 2939.638], "stop_times": [2939.638, 2942.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.775}, "reply_to": "15099__1_133", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_135", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And as they drive by the picket signs and they read the picket signs while driving what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2942.312], "stop_times": [2951.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.312}, "reply_to": "15099__1_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_136", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Those who are sympathetic with the message being imparted to them will turn around and drive out and those who are not sympathetic --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2951.565], "stop_times": [2957.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.565}, "reply_to": "15099__1_135", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_137", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And hit down the one just looking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2957.575], "stop_times": [2959.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.575}, "reply_to": "15099__1_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_138", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2959.442], "stop_times": [2959.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.442}, "reply_to": "15099__1_137", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_139", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And hit down the one that's just reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2959.951], "stop_times": [2964.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.951}, "reply_to": "15099__1_138", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_140", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, I -- this is what I called attention to in my brief as well.\nIn Logan Valley, they drove in across an earthen berm to a large shopping center.\nThere was no reason to assume they were slowing down substantially after leaving the highway.\nIn this physical situation, the car has to cross a public sidewalk, it goes up on to a driveway, crosses a public sidewalk and goes in to a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2964.706, 2969.036, 2975.169, 2979.96], "stop_times": [2969.036, 2975.169, 2979.96, 2989.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.706}, "reply_to": "15099__1_139", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_141", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It stops and reads the signs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2989.93], "stop_times": [2992.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.93}, "reply_to": "15099__1_140", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_142", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "While slowing it's certainly going slow enough to read the sign from there, but that is not the major contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2992.406], "stop_times": [2998.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.406}, "reply_to": "15099__1_141", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_143", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "This is the down town area of Mobile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [2998.02], "stop_times": [3000.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.02}, "reply_to": "15099__1_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_144", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's -- I believe a residential area near the center of town.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3000.876], "stop_times": [3005.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.876}, "reply_to": "15099__1_143", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_145", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's considerable traffic I will assume if you have seven entrances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3005.145], "stop_times": [3009.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.145}, "reply_to": "15099__1_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_146", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, according to the pictures in the record, it appears that most people use the front entrances, although --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3009.351], "stop_times": [3014.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3009.351}, "reply_to": "15099__1_145", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_147", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How does that appear from the picture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3014.74], "stop_times": [3017.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.74}, "reply_to": "15099__1_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_148", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The pictures I have here, I'm not submitting this as a fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3017.825], "stop_times": [3021.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3017.825}, "reply_to": "15099__1_147", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_149", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Oh, I see, I see, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3021.737], "stop_times": [3023.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.737}, "reply_to": "15099__1_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15099__1_150", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "At the back of the store in exhibit A5 indicates that there's no store windows, there's no entrances to the major selling areas and it's really the back end of the building.\nWhereas the next in the several photographs indicate the front door which is the one probably used by most of the people, although it's not clear in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3023.688, 3037.51], "stop_times": [3037.51, 3046.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3023.688}, "reply_to": "15099__1_149", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_151", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Do you know enough about Mobile than know just about (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3046.95], "stop_times": [3050.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.95}, "reply_to": "15099__1_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_152", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3050.504], "stop_times": [3050.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.504}, "reply_to": "15099__1_151", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_153", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That was to the center of the town?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3050.804], "stop_times": [3052.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.804}, "reply_to": "15099__1_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_154", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, but I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3052.426], "stop_times": [3053.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.426}, "reply_to": "15099__1_153", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_155", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "(Inaudible) hotel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3053.415], "stop_times": [3055.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.415}, "reply_to": "15099__1_154", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__1_156", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, Your Honor I really don't but what I have done is included diagrams of the City of Mobile, so that the store could be picked out off the map itself.\nThey're not easy to read, I must confess and I'm not familiar with the city myself.\nWell, the question has been raised and I must address myself to it as to whether or not the entire area of the conduct here has been preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, and therefore the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to try this matter.\nI do not have any excuse for not raising it as it was found in previous cases.\nI think the issue is clearly before this Court.\nThe major contention in support of a finding that there was jurisdiction in the Alabama Supreme Court is that once they have concluded that there was no impairment of First Amendment rights and once the Court has concluded that the property rights of the respondent to conduct its lawful business are being jeopardized by the conduct of the petitioners, the court below has come to the conclusion that petitioners are engaging in an unlawful act.\nOnce that conclusion is reached and properly so if that a conclusion is properly so, it is the traditional right of the state courts to provide a remedy for that wrong.\nThe cause of action for remedying an unlawful trespassers are amongst the oldest in our law.\nThe state of Alabama below followed the test annunciated by this Court for the determination as to whether petitioners were validly exercising First Amendment rights.\nThey found that it would not interfere with the First Amendment rights of the petitioners to move them away 100 feet, and that it would seriously impair the operation of respondent to allow them on the property.\nThis is the balancing test earlier described.\nThey followed the law in that respect, and then they found that there was a trespasser, an unlawful interfering trespasser on the property.\nNow to say that after such a finding, the Court would be powerless to act, would mean that there is no law if there is no enforcement of it here.\nPetitioner's argument, counsel and his argument says he doesn't know whether they asked them to leave or how would get up before the board or not.\nI think at least in this respect, the record is clear.\nIt's stated in the Alabama Supreme Court decision.\nPetitioners were asked to leave and refused.\nTheir failure to leave the premises left the employer -- the property on here with nothing to do but to go to the Supreme Court of Alabama, short of self-help.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3055.687, 3067.282, 3077.497, 3096.617, 3107.432, 3112.27, 3146.349, 3163.387, 3172.977, 3185.833, 3199.795, 3202.958, 3213.274, 3224.62, 3232.741, 3235.911, 3238.767, 3243.467], "stop_times": [3067.282, 3077.497, 3096.617, 3107.432, 3112.27, 3146.349, 3163.387, 3172.977, 3185.833, 3199.795, 3202.958, 3213.274, 3224.62, 3232.741, 3235.911, 3238.767, 3243.467, 3254.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.687}, "reply_to": "15099__1_155", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_157", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You could have removed them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3254.367], "stop_times": [3255.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.367}, "reply_to": "15099__1_156", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__1_158", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I could've removed them and if they would've resisted them, I suppose I would've had a hire people to help me, or to get a gun and shoot them.\nThat would've been left, had they failed to leave -- had the state court no jurisdiction under the circumstances.\nAll I could do was exert greater physical force than they were capable of resisting in order to get them off the property.\nThere is no procedure by which a property owner can apply to the National Labor Relations Board to have pickets removed.\nAnd this would be true if they were in the middle of the store or sitting on the checkout counters with their signs and saying \u201cDon't shop here\u201d or \u201cDon't pay for what you buy\u201d or \u201cwe don't like this.\u201d\nThere was no way to go the board to do this.\nNow the board has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3255.397, 3264.037, 3271.474, 3279.029, 3286.863, 3296.885, 3299.136], "stop_times": [3264.037, 3271.474, 3279.029, 3286.863, 3296.885, 3299.136, 3300.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3255.397}, "reply_to": "15099__1_157", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_159", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And the picketing is not an unfair labor practice about the union, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3300.3], "stop_times": [3305.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.3}, "reply_to": "15099__1_158", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__1_160", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3305.392], "stop_times": [3306.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3305.392}, "reply_to": "15099__1_159", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_161", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Whether it's violent or otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3306.222], "stop_times": [3308.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.222}, "reply_to": "15099__1_160", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__1_162", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, now we get into an area where there is jurisdiction between the state courts and the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3308.187], "stop_times": [3313.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3308.187}, "reply_to": "15099__1_161", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_163", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well I know would do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3313.039], "stop_times": [3314.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.039}, "reply_to": "15099__1_162", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__1_164", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It could be, yes.\nIn cases of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3314.047, 3315.328], "stop_times": [3315.328, 3316.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.047}, "reply_to": "15099__1_163", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_165", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What if there was mass picketing or obstructive picketing?\nDoes the employer have a remedy before the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3316.105, 3320.19], "stop_times": [3320.19, 3322.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.105}, "reply_to": "15099__1_164", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__1_166", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "If it has an affect on other employees, you would be able to bring a charge under 8 (b) (1).\nIf it was for some unlawful purpose specified in the act such as a secondary boycott, you could bring it.\nBut the mere fact that the mass picketing interfered with his business would not give the board jurisdiction of the matter, it'd have to be additional facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3322.348, 3329.486, 3336.752], "stop_times": [3329.486, 3336.752, 3346.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3322.348}, "reply_to": "15099__1_165", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_167", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3346.039], "stop_times": [3347.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.039}, "reply_to": "15099__1_166", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15099__1_168", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Now, these facts are not in this record here, and we submit that once the Court finds an unlawful trespasser, it's no different in unlawful interfering trespass, it's no different than this Court has found before with regard to libel which would tend to provoke violence, mass picketing which would tend to provoke violence.\nThreats -- mere threats of imminent violence when it was reasonable to anticipate that violence would follow.\nThe Supreme Courts of several states have held that failure to remedy a trespass leads to imminent violence.\nThis is the traditional area for the exercise of state jurisdiction, absence such state jurisdiction, the property owner would find them remediless.\nIn conclusion, we submit that the Alabama Supreme Court followed the concepts annunciated by this Court in prior decisions in determining whether its removal of the pickets from this parking lot impaired the free speech rights of the petitioners, finding it did not, and finding that their presence on the premises of respondent was inimical to the conduct of respondent's business they precluded them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3347.447, 3372.532, 3378.793, 3386.157, 3398.39], "stop_times": [3372.532, 3378.793, 3386.157, 3398.39, 3436.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3347.447}, "reply_to": "15099__1_167", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_169", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "How do you distinguish this case from Logan Valley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3436.428], "stop_times": [3439.108], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.428}, "reply_to": "15099__1_168", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15099__1_170", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "The availability of proximate public area from which the message could be imparted to those walking in and out of the store for one thing.\nAnd second, the fact that this property was not open to the general public to the extent of the Logan Valley Plaza because it did not replace a business district.\nIt was merely a store in a district set back from a public street.\nLogan Valley, if you didn't find the way you did, there would be no streets or sidewalks in the area from which people could exercise their First Amendment rights.\nThis is the traditional place to exercise First Amendment rights and the shopping center there, the size of it eliminated the traditional place for the exercise of the rights.\nOn the other hand here, the traditional place is available, it's a hundred feet away.\nYou can see from there, you can hear from there.\nThere's been no impairment whatsoever of communication, which is we submit the test of First Amendment rights, absent some protection being offered by jurisdiction of the state courts.\nThere would be absolutely no remedy, as Mr. Justice White points out, there would be a necessary resort to self-help and the concomitant threat to the public order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3439.108, 3448.824, 3459.683, 3464.374, 3473.082, 3482.976, 3487.433, 3489.9, 3502.894], "stop_times": [3448.824, 3459.683, 3464.374, 3473.082, 3482.976, 3487.433, 3489.9, 3502.894, 3516.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3439.108}, "reply_to": "15099__1_169", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_171", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "You would concede, I take it, that the message gets through better in the private sidewalk right in front of the door?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3516.62], "stop_times": [3523.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.62}, "reply_to": "15099__1_170", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__1_172", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I certainly do, but I don't think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3523.171], "stop_times": [3524.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3523.171}, "reply_to": "15099__1_171", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_173", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And still better if it's inside the store perhaps?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3524.287], "stop_times": [3526.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3524.287}, "reply_to": "15099__1_172", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__1_174", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Clearly, because there would be a greater interference with the business relationship which is what is intended, but that is not the obligation of preservation of First Amendment rights to do it in the most effective place merely to maintain a channel of communication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3526.995], "stop_times": [3545.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3526.995}, "reply_to": "15099__1_173", "speaker": "shayle_p_fox"}
{"id": "15099__1_175", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Thank you Mr. Fox.\nMr. Dunau, you have two minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3545.376, 3547.565], "stop_times": [3547.565, 3550.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3545.376}, "reply_to": "15099__1_174", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15099__2_000", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Unless there are any questions, I have nothing further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3550.062], "stop_times": [3551.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3550.062}, "reply_to": "15099__1_175", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_001", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, I have one.\nIf in fact we concluded on the issue of obstruction on this record, if we are, I take it you'd not be entitled to a reversal -- a complete reversal of this injunction, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3551.885, 3554.006], "stop_times": [3554.006, 3571.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3551.885}, "reply_to": "15099__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15099__2_002", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Sir, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3571.68], "stop_times": [3577.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3571.68}, "reply_to": "15099__2_001", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_003", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Now accept my premise, don't argue with me to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3577.848], "stop_times": [3580.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3577.848}, "reply_to": "15099__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15099__2_004", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, I just want to address it to the specific injunction.\nWe would be entitled even on assumption of obstructive picketing to the elimination of that part of the injunction which prohibits trespassing upon the property of Weinacker's, because the obstructive picketing would authorize only in an injunction reaching the obstruction, not the elimination of picketing.\nNow there is a further provision in the injunction which says that \u201cInterfering with Weinacher's property and right of ingress and egress to the property and place of business.\u201d\nIf that means physical obstruction, that part of the injunction would stand if the finding stands.\nI am not sure how to read that part of the injunction.\nIt's imprecise and I think fatally imprecise with respect to the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3580.004, 3586.064, 3603.822, 3614.538, 3619.818, 3623.648], "stop_times": [3586.064, 3603.822, 3614.538, 3619.818, 3623.648, 3627.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3580.004}, "reply_to": "15099__2_003", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_005", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Well, at least then I gather you'd agree that it would have to be a leman or a tailoring of that provision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3627.057], "stop_times": [3633.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3627.057}, "reply_to": "15099__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15099__2_006", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "For that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3633.446], "stop_times": [3633.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3633.446}, "reply_to": "15099__2_005", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_007", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "-- to deal with the issue of obstruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3633.787], "stop_times": [3635.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3633.787}, "reply_to": "15099__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15099__2_008", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's correct sir.\nSo that we are taking the findings as they now are, that is that there was obstructive picketing.\nIf we are correct on our general proposition, trespassing upon property goes out and the injunction must be tailored to fit the obstructive picketing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3635.421, 3636.16, 3642.428], "stop_times": [3636.16, 3642.428, 3650.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3635.421}, "reply_to": "15099__2_007", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_009", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Mr. Dunau, you don't live in Mobile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3650.352], "stop_times": [3652.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3650.352}, "reply_to": "15099__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__2_010", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "No, sir I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3652.743], "stop_times": [3653.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3652.743}, "reply_to": "15099__2_009", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_011", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Maybe you couldn't answer this question, but I know a little about Mobile and I was wondering as one on your side on Mobile that could place this, as far as I'm concerned, in relation to the center of the town where they have the hotel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3653.001], "stop_times": [3670.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3653.001}, "reply_to": "15099__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__2_012", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "I have tried, Your Honor, with respect to the maps used which are in the petitioner's or respondent's brief to pinpoint where the property is.\nNow, if you look on A38.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3670.497, 3683.846], "stop_times": [3683.846, 3687.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3670.497}, "reply_to": "15099__2_011", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_013", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "38?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3687.192], "stop_times": [3688.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3687.192}, "reply_to": "15099__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__2_014", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "A38 of respondent's brief and at the top of that page, you will see Governmen Street running somewhat diagonally across that top of the page and there is a Number 246.\nIt's within that area of 246 that the store appears, as you will note the Government Street, Catherine Street and 246.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3688.007, 3709.182], "stop_times": [3709.182, 3719.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3688.007}, "reply_to": "15099__2_013", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_015", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "What street?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3719.739], "stop_times": [3720.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3719.739}, "reply_to": "15099__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__2_016", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Catherine Street and Government Street.\nIt's 248 at the right margin of the page, if one works inward from 248 you'll find the location of the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3720.94, 3725.999], "stop_times": [3725.999, 3732.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3720.94}, "reply_to": "15099__2_015", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_017", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's along Government Street?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3732.651], "stop_times": [3734.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3732.651}, "reply_to": "15099__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__2_018", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3734.164], "stop_times": [3735.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3734.164}, "reply_to": "15099__2_017", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_019", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Is it adjacent to Government Street?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3735.046], "stop_times": [3737.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3735.046}, "reply_to": "15099__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15099__2_020", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "That's correct sir, it faces on Government Street and it -- faces on Government and Catherine Streets, and it's at the top of that page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3737.433], "stop_times": [3744.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3737.433}, "reply_to": "15099__2_019", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_021", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "And I think I understood you answer question in mind by saying that it is downtown, it's not up on the suburb?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3744.585], "stop_times": [3750.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3744.585}, "reply_to": "15099__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__2_022", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's not suburban, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3750.531], "stop_times": [3752.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3750.531}, "reply_to": "15099__2_021", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_023", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "It's downtown, somewhat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3752.034], "stop_times": [3754.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3752.034}, "reply_to": "15099__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15099__2_024", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Yes, sir that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3754.257], "stop_times": [3757.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3754.257}, "reply_to": "15099__2_023", "speaker": "bernard_dunau"}
{"id": "15099__2_025", "conversation_id": "15099", "text": "Thank you Mr. Dunau.\nThank you for you submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_74", "start_times": [3757.619, 3759.459, 3760.536], "stop_times": [3759.459, 3760.536, 3764.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3757.619}, "reply_to": "15099__2_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_000", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "-- Tooahnippah, Atewooftakewa Tate and others against Hickel.\nMr. Luellen, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [0.0, 9.617], "stop_times": [9.617, 14.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_001", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nChief Justice Burger and Associate Justices of this Honorable Court, this case 300 was a petition for writ of certiorari on the Tenth Circuit it pertains to the approval or none approval of the will of an Indian who owned first a restricted properties pursuant to our federal statutes governing the disposition of Indian lands upon the death of an Indian.\nI feel certain that this Court is familiar with the fact that the governing statutes under which we are discussing this case are found in two sections commonly called 1910 Act, Section 1 of the 1910 Act which now has been codified as 25 U.S.C. 372 and Section 2 of the 1910 Act which has now been codified as 25 U.S.C. 373.\n372 pertains to the determination of the heirs of a deceased Indian that has an allotment or who will in the future have an allotment upon his death dying without a will.\nAnd Sections 1 or 372 proceeds to state that upon the death of the said Indian his heirs shall be determined by the Secretary of the Interior and his decision shall be final and conclusive.\nThen we have Section 2 of the 1910 Act which is codified as 25 U.S.C. 373 which states that if an Indian dies owning an interest in trust and thus it really say an Indian assess any person die owning an interest in trust or restricted lands or funds that are restricted unless he shall have the right -- this person shall have the right to make a will provided the will shall not have any force or effect until and unless -- unless and until it is approved by the Secretary of the Interior.\nNow, that is the general situation here, this Indian, George Chahsenah later will in -- his last will of March 1963.\nHe was a member of the Comanche Tribe of Indians.\nHe lived at a little town of Apache, Oklahoma located about 20 miles north of Fort Sill or Lawton, Okalahoma.\nAny of you gentlemen or any members of this Court have ever been to Fort Sill in World War I or World War II.\nActually, it's about 25 miles north of Fort Sill.\nGeorge Chahsenah was a member of the Comanche tribe of Indians.\nHe made his will -- his last will.\nHe made several wills.\nI'm certain that will be brought out here later.\nHis last will is made in March 1963.\nHe died approximately five or six months later and the procedure for making wills where the Indians have restrictive trust lands, they go to the field officers of the Bureau of Indians Affairs which in this case of course was an (Inaudible) about 30 miles on north of Apache, Oklahoma.\nHe went there in March 1963 and made his last will in the office of the Field Solicitor and his will was properly drawn according to the procedures.\nThen he died some six months later and his will of course was presented for probate and several hearings were held before the Examiner of Inheritance.\nCan our blame who had the position of Examiner of Inheritance, it's a position created by the Secretary of the Interior giving the Inheritance Examiners a general authority to make determinations concerning with the deceased heirs of Indians who died without wills and also in regard to the approval or non-approval of their wills.\nThey had four, I think around four hearings in this case and finally the Examiner of Inheritance made a -- rendered an opinion or ruling or opinion in which he upheld the validity of this will of the George Chahsenah and he approved the will.\nIn his finding, which of course is contained on the appendix, he goes into certain findings about the fact of this Indian apparently was addicted to alcohol and perhaps I should've said prior to this time that in the hearings on his will there were -- the devisees and legatees were represented by legal counsel.\nThe certain disinherited nieces and nephews were represented by Mr. Hill and also Dorita High Horse who it was found later by the court to be -- who was found later by the court to be his natural daughter.\nAnd the Court -- the Examiner of Inheritance felt that -- made a finding that although this Indian apparently was addicted to alcohol and it was an excessive drinker and he make some different wills at different times that the time he made his will, he was perfectly competent to make his will.\nHe was intoxicated.\nIn fact, some of the will was proper in respect and the Examiner of Inheritance has approved the will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [14.212, 30.613, 77.635, 115.62, 132.524, 150.78, 201.262, 216.853, 220.297, 226.849, 233.489, 236.602, 238.975, 241.338, 242.362, 244.96, 249.117, 269.773, 281.978, 292.75, 313.053, 341.13, 369.166, 385.44, 405.297, 407.062], "stop_times": [30.613, 77.635, 115.62, 132.524, 150.78, 201.262, 216.853, 220.297, 226.849, 233.489, 236.602, 238.975, 241.338, 242.362, 244.96, 249.117, 269.773, 281.978, 292.75, 313.053, 341.13, 369.166, 385.44, 405.297, 407.062, 414.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.212}, "reply_to": "14991__0_000", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_002", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's not challenged by anyone, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [414.025], "stop_times": [415.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.025}, "reply_to": "14991__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_003", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No.\nThen an appeal by the contestants of the will, the appeal was taken to Secretary of the Interior as directed by the regulations and at that time the authority to approve or disapprove wills of Indians had been delegated to the Regional Solicitors.\nOriginally I'm up until short time prior to that the -- what those appeals or appeal to the portion on office and usually the Solicitor or the Associate Solicitor of the Department of Interior made these determination but at this time it have been set down by delegation of authority to the Regional Solicitors.\nAnd the Regional Solicitor for this region was, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Mr. Stanford Regional Solicitor is still a Regional Solicitor upon the hearing before the Regional Solicitor -- upon review before the Regional Solicitor, the Regional Solicitor found that the factum of the will was proper as the Examiner of Inheritance had found.\nHe found that this Dorita High Horse was a natural daughter of deceased George Chahsenah and he found although the factum of the will was proper and have a respect, the fact George Chahsenah have apparently have not supported the Dorita High Horse during her minority that there had not been an equitable treatment of the heirs of law of George Chahsenah by his will.\nAnd under his exam -- the Regional Solicitor set up from his discretionary authority, he held that equity had not been achieved and he disapproved the will of George Chahsenah and directed that the estate be distributed to his natural daughter.\nNow, he also in his order disapproved or disallowed, he said he would also make the same finding as to any other wills of George Chahsenah and now he had made several other wills prior to this time.\nSo, he made that same finding in regard to any other wills.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [415.807, 417.21, 437.065, 456.684, 484.338, 513.655, 536.394, 547.887], "stop_times": [417.21, 437.065, 456.684, 484.338, 513.655, 536.394, 547.887, 552.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.807}, "reply_to": "14991__0_002", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_004", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There were what some five, at least five previous wills?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [552.703], "stop_times": [556.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.703}, "reply_to": "14991__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__0_005", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [556.528], "stop_times": [557.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.528}, "reply_to": "14991__0_004", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_006", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And normally, when a will is set aside for some reason or another you go back to the next previews will but that (Voice Overlap) he just set aside all of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [557.99], "stop_times": [568.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.99}, "reply_to": "14991__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__0_007", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He set all of them.\nThat's in the last paragraph of his -- of the Regional Solicitor's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [568.9, 570.54], "stop_times": [570.54, 575.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.9}, "reply_to": "14991__0_006", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_008", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who were the objects of his bounty on the will as written?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [575.236], "stop_times": [580.274], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 575.236}, "reply_to": "14991__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_009", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "In the will has written?(Voice Overlap)\nIt was his niece, Viola Atewooftakewa Tate and her three children.\nHe had lived with this niece of considerable portions of his lifetime and he was living where at the time of his death.\nHe had no children except this Dorita High Horse, he had no wife, he had no father and mother.\nHe had nieces and nephews of which Viola was one of them and then he gave his estate to Viola and her three children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [580.274, 582.569, 590.047, 596.102, 602.17], "stop_times": [582.569, 590.047, 596.102, 602.17, 611.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.274}, "reply_to": "14991__0_008", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_010", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And she agreed under this decision as High Horse (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [611.105], "stop_times": [617.539], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 611.105}, "reply_to": "14991__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_011", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes the -- under the decision of the Regional Solicitor acting and delegate authority of Secretary of Interior he held that equity was not achieved by this will.\nThe Indian did not achieve or make an equitable distribution of his estate.\nTherefore, his will was disapproved which would be that the entire estate would go to Dorita High Horse because the Examiner of Inheritance had made a finding that she was his daughter and heir at law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [617.539, 628.272, 635.484], "stop_times": [628.272, 635.484, 649.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.539}, "reply_to": "14991__0_010", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_012", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The findings of the Examiner's compliments to the written statement by Mr. George?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [649.38], "stop_times": [654.394], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 649.38}, "reply_to": "14991__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_013", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No.\nOn appeal, the Regional Solicitor specifically found the factum the way it was proper.\nAll the technicalities have been complied with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [654.394, 658.69, 664.293], "stop_times": [658.69, 664.293, 667.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.394}, "reply_to": "14991__0_012", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_014", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Has the doctrine dependent relative revocation of wills been applied in this area of Indian wills?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [667.058], "stop_times": [674.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.058}, "reply_to": "14991__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_015", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The regulations provide there shall be no implied revocation in the wills.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [674.577], "stop_times": [680.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.577}, "reply_to": "14991__0_014", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_016", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, that wouldn't necessarily take care of that doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [680.935], "stop_times": [683.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.935}, "reply_to": "14991__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_017", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, what was the doctrine, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [683.493], "stop_times": [684.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.493}, "reply_to": "14991__0_016", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_018", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Doctrine of dependent relative revocation, Mr. Justice Stewart was referring to indirect or directly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [684.715], "stop_times": [692.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.715}, "reply_to": "14991__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_019", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "You mean change in conditions of the family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [692.387], "stop_times": [694.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.387}, "reply_to": "14991__0_018", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_020", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Is the will fails -- a given will fails for some reason it falls back on the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [694.93], "stop_times": [702.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.93}, "reply_to": "14991__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_021", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Oh yes.\nI understand what you mean.\nWell, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [702.13, 702.67, 706.486], "stop_times": [702.67, 706.486, 707.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.13}, "reply_to": "14991__0_020", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_022", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If the regulation is preclude the application of that (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [707.491], "stop_times": [709.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.491}, "reply_to": "14991__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_023", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, there's no -- there's no regulations precluded falling from that on a prior will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [709.6], "stop_times": [715.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.6}, "reply_to": "14991__0_022", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_024", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Did the particular official that made this decision have before him the prior wills?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [715.017], "stop_times": [722.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.017}, "reply_to": "14991__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_025", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He had the record and I believe they're in the record, Your Honor.\nAt least the substance of the will -- prior wills are in the record what they've provided it's in his first will that he made to give his entire estate to this Viola Atewooftakewa Tate, the one that later on came in, in his last will practically his entire estate, then he gave some miscellaneous friends some properties at different times in his wills in between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [722.984, 727.601], "stop_times": [727.601, 750.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.984}, "reply_to": "14991__0_024", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_026", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Would you mind if you declare prior for me if you were to disclaim simple words so that they're easy to understand.\nSay \u201cto whom\u201d he divides his properties and the will it was held there.\nDescribe them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [750.044, 759.174, 768.156], "stop_times": [759.174, 768.156, 770.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.044}, "reply_to": "14991__0_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_027", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He divides his will on \u2013 it's found at appendix page 64 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [770.288], "stop_times": [779.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.288}, "reply_to": "14991__0_026", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_028", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "To whom was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [779.164], "stop_times": [780.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.164}, "reply_to": "14991__0_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_029", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He gave it to his niece Viola Atewooftakewa Tate and her son Frankie Lee Tooahnippah in equal shares and interest in allotment of Rooker Roth (ph).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [780.126], "stop_times": [789.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.126}, "reply_to": "14991__0_028", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_030", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, who was there, his niece, and his children?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [789.791], "stop_times": [792.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.791}, "reply_to": "14991__0_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_031", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Niece and her son.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [792.408], "stop_times": [794.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.408}, "reply_to": "14991__0_030", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_032", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "His niece and her son.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [794.218], "stop_times": [795.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.218}, "reply_to": "14991__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_033", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's his interest in one allotment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [795.745], "stop_times": [797.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.745}, "reply_to": "14991__0_032", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_034", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who's fighting that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [797.289], "stop_times": [799.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.289}, "reply_to": "14991__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_035", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The natural daughter, the one that he does not mentioned in his will but who has been determined --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [799.215], "stop_times": [803.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.215}, "reply_to": "14991__0_034", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_036", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Do you mean natural daughter?\nDo you mean by that an illegitimate or legitimate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [803.192, 804.553], "stop_times": [804.553, 806.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.192}, "reply_to": "14991__0_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_037", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I call it an illegitimate Mr. Hill's adversely he's contesting me on my statement of illegitimacy.\nShe is his daughter born out of wedlock, at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [806.685, 813.98], "stop_times": [813.98, 816.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.685}, "reply_to": "14991__0_036", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_038", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [816.758], "stop_times": [817.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.758}, "reply_to": "14991__0_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_039", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He never lived with his mother except maybe for a short interlude --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [817.381], "stop_times": [820.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.381}, "reply_to": "14991__0_038", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_040", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Is that to all the fights between?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [820.591], "stop_times": [822.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.591}, "reply_to": "14991__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_041", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Absolutely the fights between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [822.644], "stop_times": [824.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.644}, "reply_to": "14991__0_040", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_042", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And if this is upheld, what would happen to the property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [824.204], "stop_times": [832.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.204}, "reply_to": "14991__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_043", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Do you mean if the will is upheld?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [832.024], "stop_times": [833.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.024}, "reply_to": "14991__0_042", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_044", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If the verdict is upheld -- the judgment of the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [833.983], "stop_times": [838.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.983}, "reply_to": "14991__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_045", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If the judgment of the Court of Appeals is upheld, well, it will go to the natural daughter who was not mentioned in his will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [838.044], "stop_times": [845.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.044}, "reply_to": "14991__0_044", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_046", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Do you mean all of it or partly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [845.3], "stop_times": [846.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.3}, "reply_to": "14991__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_047", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "All of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [846.945], "stop_times": [847.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.945}, "reply_to": "14991__0_046", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_048", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "All of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [847.7], "stop_times": [848.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.7}, "reply_to": "14991__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_049", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [848.272], "stop_times": [849.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.272}, "reply_to": "14991__0_048", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_050", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And what was the next prior will, to whom was it compelled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [849.536], "stop_times": [854.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.536}, "reply_to": "14991__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_051", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I'm not certain who the next prior will.\nI think it went to a nephew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [854.618, 858.054], "stop_times": [858.054, 860.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.618}, "reply_to": "14991__0_050", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_052", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Now, it went to a cousin, Rose May Roth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [860.095], "stop_times": [862.346], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 860.095}, "reply_to": "14991__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_053", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes.\nOkay, you have that there in the record, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [862.346, 863.303], "stop_times": [863.303, 865.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.346}, "reply_to": "14991__0_052", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_054", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But Mr. Luellen challenging the constitutionality of the law under which the Secretary acted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [865.422], "stop_times": [872.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.422}, "reply_to": "14991__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_055", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, I'm not trying to challenge the constitutionality of the law in which the Secretary acts.\nThe Circuit Court held that the -- the Tenth Circuit held that the action of the Secretary of Interior order recess about an Indian will either approves or disapproves an Indian will and that is final and conclusive and cannot be taken judicial review, it cannot be taken of the said will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [872.642, 877.277], "stop_times": [877.277, 893.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.642}, "reply_to": "14991__0_054", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_056", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Are you attacking at holding on the ground that that's not what the statute says?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [893.813], "stop_times": [898.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.813}, "reply_to": "14991__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_057", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Not so far --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [898.538], "stop_times": [899.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.538}, "reply_to": "14991__0_056", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_058", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Or that such statute would be unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [899.286], "stop_times": [902.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.286}, "reply_to": "14991__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_059", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I can say the statute it doesn't apply as to Indian will as to that term.\nSection 1 applies to intestate succession says, it shall be final in (Inaudible) in this Court in two or three cases have held to several cases upheld that determination of heirs under the Section 1 is final and conclusive and I'm not settling to judicial review.\nBut Section 2 does not have the final and conclusive clause that the determination or the approval or non-t approval of an Indian's will or the Secretary of the Interior is final and conclusive.\nThat's all admitted from Section 2.\nBut the Tenth Circuit in two or three case of Heffelman case then the Attocknie case and these case have held that Sections 1 and 2 complement each other and not final and conclusive as it applies to Section 1 of the intestate succession.\nIt means that it also applies or complements Section 2.\nTherefore, it's final and conclusive and not subject to judicial review by the Court even though the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [902.237, 905.935, 922.84, 933.416, 935.85, 952.994, 956.633], "stop_times": [905.935, 922.84, 933.416, 935.85, 952.994, 956.633, 962.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.237}, "reply_to": "14991__0_058", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_060", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Then it's your argument based solely on the question of statutory construction or is it based on attack constitutionality of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [962.717], "stop_times": [972.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.717}, "reply_to": "14991__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_061", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "On attacking constitutionality of the law, this -- my position is that Section 2 does not have a final and conclusive clause and therefore --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [972.813], "stop_times": [980.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.813}, "reply_to": "14991__0_060", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_062", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, Mr. Luellen really your whole argument and the only issue for us to decide as I understand it of the briefs is whether or not the action of the Secretary of the Interior whether judicial review of that action is precluded by the statutes, that's all, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [980.292], "stop_times": [996.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.292}, "reply_to": "14991__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_063", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That -- that sir, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [996.883], "stop_times": [997.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.883}, "reply_to": "14991__0_062", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_064", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I must say you haven't really got to that issue which as I understood is the only issue we have in the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [997.542], "stop_times": [1002.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 997.542}, "reply_to": "14991__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_065", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1002.304], "stop_times": [1002.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.304}, "reply_to": "14991__0_064", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_066", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It's really nothing to do with -- we have nothing to do with the background of the wills or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1002.723], "stop_times": [1006.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.723}, "reply_to": "14991__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_067", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It's not in the statute Your Honor.\nI mean that Section 2 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1006.613, 1008.302], "stop_times": [1008.302, 1009.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.613}, "reply_to": "14991__0_066", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_068", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I know it's not but that's the only issue for us to decide, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1009.038], "stop_times": [1012.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.038}, "reply_to": "14991__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_069", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I think that's the primary issue, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1012.319], "stop_times": [1013.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.319}, "reply_to": "14991__0_068", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_070", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1013.92], "stop_times": [1014.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.92}, "reply_to": "14991__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_071", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Although, there must be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1014.949], "stop_times": [1015.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.949}, "reply_to": "14991__0_070", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_072", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But it's not a statutory construction according to your judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1015.836], "stop_times": [1019.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.836}, "reply_to": "14991__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_073", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1019.834], "stop_times": [1020.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.834}, "reply_to": "14991__0_072", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_074", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That is a matter of statutory construction of course in your judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1020.56], "stop_times": [1024.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.56}, "reply_to": "14991__0_073", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_075", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, yes it will be a matter for this Court's construction under Section 2.\nIt means it's final and conclusive or rather it doesn't mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1024.411, 1029.429], "stop_times": [1029.429, 1031.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.411}, "reply_to": "14991__0_074", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_076", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Do you raise a constitutional question?\nAnd if so, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1031.878, 1034.871], "stop_times": [1034.871, 1035.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.878}, "reply_to": "14991__0_075", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_077", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I don't think they are raised on constitutional question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1035.661], "stop_times": [1037.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.661}, "reply_to": "14991__0_076", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_078", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1037.896], "stop_times": [1038.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.896}, "reply_to": "14991__0_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__0_079", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It's my opinion I hold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1038.267], "stop_times": [1039.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.267}, "reply_to": "14991__0_078", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_080", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And everything, we got a subsidiary issue.\nLet's assume that you prevail in the ground of this review is not protruded?\nThen don't you have the question as to whether the Secretary in doing what he did is acting within the scope?\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1039.603, 1043.189, 1049.823, 1057.667], "stop_times": [1043.189, 1049.823, 1057.667, 1058.045], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.603}, "reply_to": "14991__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_081", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And that's (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1058.045], "stop_times": [1059.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.045}, "reply_to": "14991__0_080", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_082", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, we have that issue too.\nWe have to meet one issue then if you say it's, you still have the right to review -- we do have the right to review and he still have the alteration whether the Court -- whether the District Court was proper in this case or whether the Secretary of Interior is proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1059.825, 1060.967], "stop_times": [1060.967, 1075.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.825}, "reply_to": "14991__0_081", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_083", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But Mr. Luellen, that's not a question that you submitted to us if you prevail that it's conditionally reviewable.\nAll you're entitled to do is to remand that the Court of Appeals to have the Court of Appeals decide the merits, isn't it?\nYou've already raise with us as I understand that the question presented is whether the decision of the Secretary of the Interior approving or disapproving the will of an Indian is subject to judicial review, that's the only question you presented here.\nYou have an --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1075.32, 1081.741, 1088.517, 1103.058], "stop_times": [1081.741, 1088.517, 1103.058, 1103.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.32}, "reply_to": "14991__0_082", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14991__0_084", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's the primary question because the Secretary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1103.647], "stop_times": [1105.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.647}, "reply_to": "14991__0_083", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_085", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But you haven't asked us to decide the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1105.75], "stop_times": [1108.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.75}, "reply_to": "14991__0_084", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14991__0_086", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1108.337], "stop_times": [1108.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.337}, "reply_to": "14991__0_085", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_087", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The Court of Appeals refused to decide the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1108.736], "stop_times": [1110.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.736}, "reply_to": "14991__0_086", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14991__0_088", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's right, it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1110.917], "stop_times": [1112.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.917}, "reply_to": "14991__0_087", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_089", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But the government seeks to sustain the judgment below on the ground that the discretion was properly exercised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1112.505], "stop_times": [1123.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.505}, "reply_to": "14991__0_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__0_090", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "They say that the decision of Secretary of the Interior was proper.\nOf course we count instead on the District Court held it was improper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1123.369, 1127.521], "stop_times": [1127.521, 1132.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.369}, "reply_to": "14991__0_089", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_091", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Would your claim must of necessity can be as has been suggested that first and subject to judicial review and second that there must be some standards by which the Secretary of Interior exercises this authority, are you suggesting that the judicial review be based upon general standards of review of administrative action, it must not be arbitrary and capricious, that it must be based upon some rational?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1132.178], "stop_times": [1160.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.178}, "reply_to": "14991__0_090", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_092", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I think that's to be our position, yes.\nBut we feel there's no statutory preclusion of review that Section 1 does not complement Section 2.\nTherefore, it's on the general review abilities of the Courts to review that sometimes, some place there must be a question to have an action of administrative personal review unless statutes preclude review and we feel like Section 1 does not preclude review under Section 2.\nNow, of course this was in -- has been up in several cases, went up Homovich versus Chapman.\nThe circuit here of the District of Columbia Circuit raised that point in that case so it was not subject to the decision of Secretary of Interior was final and conclusive found and not subject to review.\nAnd in Homovich versus Chapman, the decision of District of Columbia, they held it was subject to review.\nThen later on you have a Hayes versus Seaton case which was discussed and here you have your dissenting opinion in Hayes versus Seaton which goes into that much in detail.\nThen they come along with the Heffelman case in the Tenth Circuit, they say Section 1 and Section complement each other.\nTherefore, you cannot review the Secretary of the Interior's decision approving or not approving the will of an Indian.\nGoing back in saying Section 1 complements Section 2, of course then this the factum of this will while the District Court held that there was -- that the Secretary acted in arbitrary and capricious manner direct to the approval of the will as it goes back to the facts of course.\nBut going on up on appeal, the Tenth Circuit rendered into the facts whatsoever.\nThey just had no jurisdiction direct effect \u2013 direct to the action be dismissed and that the state be distributed in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Interior.\nNow, of course in the District Court the facts were going into and the District Court held that the -- that in this case the Secretary of the Interior was acting in arbitrary and capricious manner without rational for his decision and directed that the state be distributed pursuant to the terms of the will.\nBut the question is going back to the facts in that particular face out which I think it's in to this case and the way you heard it, it's a question whether the Secretary of the Interior can setup there and determine whether this Indian did equity to his heirs and has he have not, this is discretionary authority go that far and be just to arbitrarily say to an Indian, well I won't approve this will, this was unjust will, unnatural will or something like that and I think I don't believe the prior cases and memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior of 1941 which is in my briefs two or three different several different places, at that time it was thought by Mr. Flanary who was the Chief of the Indian Section of the Interior that the will of an Indian -- he had arrived to make his own will and but Secretary of the Interior didn't have the right to come in and substitute his will for that of the Indian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1160.529, 1162.161, 1170.222, 1189.745, 1199.648, 1210.582, 1215.869, 1226.685, 1234.981, 1246.142, 1265.59, 1271.353, 1284.13, 1307.957], "stop_times": [1162.161, 1170.222, 1189.745, 1199.648, 1210.582, 1215.869, 1226.685, 1234.981, 1246.142, 1265.59, 1271.353, 1284.13, 1307.957, 1362.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.529}, "reply_to": "14991__0_091", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_093", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There is suggestion made that the Secretary should fix up a legacy sort of comparative rule of beneficiaries fixing up the legacy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1362.757], "stop_times": [1381.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.757}, "reply_to": "14991__0_092", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_094", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There's no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1381.968], "stop_times": [1383.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.968}, "reply_to": "14991__0_093", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_095", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Suggestion for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1383.328], "stop_times": [1384.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.328}, "reply_to": "14991__0_094", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_096", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No suggestion of that kind that I know of Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1384.203], "stop_times": [1386.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.203}, "reply_to": "14991__0_095", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_097", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I'm so sorry about that (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1386.719], "stop_times": [1387.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.719}, "reply_to": "14991__0_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__0_098", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No problem because I don't know how to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1387.948], "stop_times": [1391.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1387.948}, "reply_to": "14991__0_097", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_099", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Was it because of the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1391.069], "stop_times": [1394.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.069}, "reply_to": "14991__0_098", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_100", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Your relied on that act, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1394.573], "stop_times": [1396.795], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.573}, "reply_to": "14991__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_101", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No I didn't rely on that but they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1396.795], "stop_times": [1398.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.795}, "reply_to": "14991__0_100", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_102", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Or in the Secretary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1398.612], "stop_times": [1399.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.612}, "reply_to": "14991__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__0_103", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The Secretary did.\nI say that that's not a valid disposition unless in his property does he say, we're going to do equity or was worth the criteria, or could you ever say, in one sec.\nWe'll be done.\nSuppose the Secretary ought to say as I put it one of my briefs.\n\u201cWell, this Indian here is a member of Comanche Tribe of Indians.\nComanche have been notorious warriors, I read about the Comanche I just would never approve of a will of an Indian -- of a Comanche.\u201d\nAnd then that would be arbitrary and capricious to be subject judicial review but it also be subject to mandamus I think on the 1361, I don't know where the court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1399.558, 1401.036, 1411.818, 1412.302, 1415.88, 1419.287, 1424.31], "stop_times": [1401.036, 1411.818, 1412.302, 1415.88, 1419.287, 1424.31, 1435.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.558}, "reply_to": "14991__0_102", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_104", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Can I ask you whether this provision covers all the property which is covered by the will and I suppose the Section 2 is triggered only when the Indian owns restricted property that is the property which United States is holding entrust for him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1435.363], "stop_times": [1452.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.363}, "reply_to": "14991__0_103", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__0_105", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1452.892], "stop_times": [1455.393], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.892}, "reply_to": "14991__0_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__0_106", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If he doesn't own any of that property but owns a lot of other property then the Secretary has no power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1455.393], "stop_times": [1460.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.393}, "reply_to": "14991__0_105", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__0_107", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He has no power over the said property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1460.259], "stop_times": [1461.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.259}, "reply_to": "14991__0_106", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_108", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, now assuming he owns both kinds of property restricted and non-restricted, and he make a will covering both, does the Secretary's invalidation of the will have validated as respects the other property too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1461.441], "stop_times": [1474.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.441}, "reply_to": "14991__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__0_109", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It's my opinion it will not affect the other property, the non-trust property and non-restricted property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1474.183], "stop_times": [1479.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.183}, "reply_to": "14991__0_108", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_110", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "So, an Indian's will as to non-trust property is not effective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1479.874], "stop_times": [1484.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.874}, "reply_to": "14991__0_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__0_111", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes.\nNow, first the whole setting have a different situation where you have to have the Secretary of the Interior has approved and also the courts, but you can probate an Indian's will where he had two witnesses and the will was complied with Oklahoma statute.\nIn fact, the Secretary of the Interior did not approve his will.\nI don't think it would affect his non-trust property, that's my opinion at least.\nNow, this will gave all of his property to his race, I didn't finish yet of course the next (Inaudible) gave to his -- he gave to Viola Tooahnippah and Julia Tooahnippah, daughters of Viola in equal shares as the allotment of shares.\nThen he made a residue clause and gave all of his residue to Viola and her three children -- his entire state which was trust and restricted property was distributed and taking care on his will.\nHe never did mention Dorita High Horse in any of his will.\nHis first will, he gave it to Viola \u2013 that the niece that he lived with almost to this lifetime.\nThen, in a period of some three or four years, he just -- Justice Stewart I believe was noting that (Inaudible) the different ones, he gave his properties too and his will but then when he got -- he knew he was in bad health when he got ready to really go on out into this other world.\nHe came in and made this will and he had spelled out.\nHe told certain allotments to certain persons and then he set the residue to these four.\nThe factum of this will is never been disputed but the only this is the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Regional Solicitor said that he said he did not achieve an equitable purpose because he could've been held liable for the support of this Indian girl while she was a mother.\nTherefore, using his -- what the Secretary said, his discretionary part he withheld the approval of this will.\nNow, District Court said that was arbitrary and capricious, there is no rational for this action that he direct the Secretary of the Interior to approve the will.\nAnd then on an appeal to the Circuit Court that Circuit Court said, Section 2 is under Section 1 so far as final and conclusive it's not subject to judicial review and they refuse to review it, directed the case to be dismissed and the state distributed pursuant to the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior.\nOf course, I filed my petition for certiorari here which this Court seems fit to allow and a lot certain what the action he would take if it either -- suppose direct the Circuit Court to go ahead and hear that case on the facts if they had jurisdiction, if you hold they had jurisdiction or you could direct to be distributed as directed by the District Trial Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1484.25, 1485.146, 1500.747, 1502.931, 1509.354, 1525.824, 1540.289, 1544.545, 1550.663, 1568.118, 1571.449, 1577.394, 1594.845, 1604.908, 1614.326, 1636.907], "stop_times": [1485.146, 1500.747, 1502.931, 1509.354, 1525.824, 1540.289, 1544.545, 1550.663, 1568.118, 1571.449, 1577.394, 1594.845, 1604.908, 1614.326, 1636.907, 1664.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.25}, "reply_to": "14991__0_110", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_112", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If we send it back, assuming that you prevailed and we send it back to the Court of Appeals, what standard should the Court of Appeals apply?\nI put that question even before but I'm not clear on your answer.\nShould they apply general rules of review of administrative action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1664.054, 1671.747, 1676.138], "stop_times": [1671.747, 1676.138, 1681.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.054}, "reply_to": "14991__0_111", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_113", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1681.554], "stop_times": [1682.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1681.554}, "reply_to": "14991__0_112", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_114", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "To support the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1682.671], "stop_times": [1685.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.671}, "reply_to": "14991__0_113", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__0_115", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I think they were to imply the general rules of reviews, it be my opinion.\nI don't want other the rules they would and I think it be the general rule, yes.\nI believe I've taken most of my time.\nI'll (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1685.061, 1689.081, 1700.776, 1702.75], "stop_times": [1689.081, 1700.776, 1702.75, 1704.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1685.061}, "reply_to": "14991__0_114", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__0_116", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you Mr. Luellen.\nMr. Stone.\nMay I ask you at the outset Mr. Stone whether the power to review a will and grant or withhold approval is one which the Secretary, of course, the Secretary must have reasons or whether do you think it's an absolute unreviewable power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1704.957, 1706.585, 1714.299], "stop_times": [1706.585, 1714.299, 1736.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.957}, "reply_to": "14991__0_115", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__1_000", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Now, the Government's position Mr. Chief Justice is that this is an unreviewable power under Section 2 of the 1910 Act.\nOf course, we are basically putting forth two contentions in this case.\nOne is that the Secretary's determinations are in fact non-reviewable.\nThe other is that even if there is a limited standard of review which is to review whether the Secretary has exceeded the scope of his authority in rendering his discretionary decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1736.049, 1745.153, 1748.819, 1753.222], "stop_times": [1745.153, 1748.819, 1753.222, 1765.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1736.049}, "reply_to": "14991__0_116", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_001", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Is that a question on merits, Mr. Stone?\nThat's the merits of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1765.843, 1768.483], "stop_times": [1768.483, 1770.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.843}, "reply_to": "14991__1_000", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_002", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, I believe it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1770.056], "stop_times": [1771.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1770.056}, "reply_to": "14991__1_001", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_003", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And that's just not reached by the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1771.28], "stop_times": [1773.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.28}, "reply_to": "14991__1_002", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_004", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That question was not reached by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1773.631], "stop_times": [1774.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1773.631}, "reply_to": "14991__1_003", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_005", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Why does the Government has to reach?\nIf we should decide that has it's a judicial review why should we send it back to the Court of Appeals to decide on that?\nWhy should be reach it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1774.822, 1777.601, 1784.989], "stop_times": [1777.601, 1784.989, 1786.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.822}, "reply_to": "14991__1_004", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_006", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I think that is a possible disposition of the case and it would understandable if the Court chose to decide this way.\nI think the question is sufficiently clear that the Court could -- that it is sufficiently clear that the Secretary has the right to apply equitable considerations to the case that this Court could reach that decision quite easily and remand if necessary with instructions to apply that rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1786.169, 1792.323], "stop_times": [1792.323, 1809.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1786.169}, "reply_to": "14991__1_005", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_007", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Would you think if the Court of Appeals having thought it had no jurisdiction at all?\nWould you think that we're to go back to them that they might need some guidance as to what standards to apply to the review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1809.976, 1816.991], "stop_times": [1816.991, 1823.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.976}, "reply_to": "14991__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__1_008", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I think it would be helpful Mr. Chief Justice if the Court of Appeals were given some standard of review and I think that the standard that they should be given is a very broad one that the Secretary has extremely wide powers in this area, and that a reversal would only be in order if the Secretary had grossly abused his scope of discretion.\nI would like, with the Court's permission, to discuss very briefly the historical context in which the General Allotment Act and the Act of 1910 appears because I think it bears -- this historical context bears very heavily on both of them contentions that the Government is making in this case.\nThe contention that the Secretary is given absolute discretion, non-reviewable and the contention that the Congress intended for him to exercise a very wide range of considerations in deciding whether to approve or disapprove a will.\nThe General Allotment Act is -- was one of the major aspects of Congress' effort to make Reservation Indians economically integrated and self-sufficient members of the society.\nUnder the allotment system prior to 1934, the Government divided and allotted reservation properties that convey them to individual Indians and their families.\nThe properties were conveyed under an arrangement which this Court has characterized not as a technical trust arrangement but as a kind of special guardianship by which the Department of the Interior is entrusted with the duty of restricting alienation of the Indian's interest in these lands and furtherance of a congressional policy which this Court has described as \u201cthe promotion of prudence to afford protection to dependent and natural heirs\u201d and also \u201cpreserving restricted land for the Indians.\u201d\nThis Court has recognized that the legal relationship is a very special one between the Government and reservation Indian tribes in communities and that special relationship has survived the break-up of certain reservations and the allotment to individual Indians of tribal lands at least that has survived with respect to the allotted land themselves and at least to the extent that the Government continues to guard against the improvident alienation of these properties by the Indian allottees.\nIt was Congress' hope at the time when the Regional Allotment Act was passed that the Government's guardianship and the time at which -- from the time of which it would be deemed advisable to remove restrictions would be only about 25 years.\nIt was hoped that at the end of that time his lands could be conveyed to the Indians in fee simple.\nIn the majority of instances however, removal of the restrictions on alienation soon resulted in the acquisition of these properties by parties unrelated to the Indian allottees usually in fact by non-Indians.\nIn furtherance of the statutory purpose of the Allotment Act which was to preserve the value of the allotted properties for the benefit of the allotted Indians and their families in most cases the period of guardianship has been extended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [1823.753, 1846.33, 1866.649, 1883.429, 1894.887, 1904.594, 1934.976, 1963.25, 1978.041, 1983.362, 1995.747], "stop_times": [1846.33, 1866.649, 1883.429, 1894.887, 1904.594, 1934.976, 1963.25, 1978.041, 1983.362, 1995.747, 2007.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1823.753}, "reply_to": "14991__1_007", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_009", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Stone, looking at the brief filed by the Solicitor General, he's posed two narrow questions whether the Section 372, that was apparently with 373 is final and conclusive posture or status to his decision and whether he may take equitable considerations into account now.\nI think most of the members of the Court are familiar with this historical background.\nIt will be very helpful I think if you'll address yourself to those specific questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2007.929, 2032.569, 2035.934], "stop_times": [2032.569, 2035.934, 2041.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.929}, "reply_to": "14991__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__1_010", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I'm about to that Mr. Chief Justice.\nI thought that a reminder of the historical background and particularly the historical purpose of the General Allotment Act which was to ensure that these conveyed Indian lands remain for the benefit of Indians and the Indian allottees and their families is rather helpful to an understanding of the statutory context.\nIt's rather helpful to an understanding of range of the Secretary's powers in approving or disapproving alienation of Indian wills.\nThe Secretary statutory duty to preserve these lands in the hands of the allottee during his lifetime is supplemented by a duty to supervise the disposition of allotted properties upon the death of the allottee pursuant to the Act of June 25, 1910 which is the Act under consideration of this case.\nAnd Sections 1 and 2 of this Act taken together provide a complete enumeration of the Secretary's powers over the disposition of allotted properties at the death of the allottee.\nSection 1 as you know authorizes the Secretary to determine the legal heirs of the deceased and this determination or statute is to be made under state law in this case, the law of the State of Oklahoma.\nSection 1, as this Court has dealt is aware provides that the Secretary's determination of heirship is to be final and conclusive and requires only that the Secretary hold a hearing with notice.\nThis Court has explicitly held that the Secretary's determinations of heirs are not reviewable by any court.\nIn other words, this Court has specifically held that Section 1 determinations are not reviewable even if errors of law are alleged.\nThis is the First Moon v. White Tail case cited in our brief at 270 U.S. 243.\nThe Court recognized in the First Moon case, the Secretary's unique and pervasive role with respect to these restricted properties and found that \u201cabundant reason for the provision precluding review become apparent upon considerations of the infinite difficulties which otherwise would arise in connection with the sundry duties of the Secretary of the Interior relative to Indian allotments.\u201d\nNow Section 2 of the Act of 1910 which is of course the key provision under consideration in this case requires the Secretary in a case in which the deceased Indian hast left a will to approve or disapprove that will.\nIf the will is disapproved, as it was in this case, the property passes and its entirety by the laws of intestacy, that is the restricted property (Inaudible) in the will.\nA determination --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2041.271, 2043.679, 2061.847, 2070.855, 2089.687, 2099.923, 2110.698, 2122.746, 2128.06, 2135.533, 2142.063, 2165.075, 2178.047, 2189.785], "stop_times": [2043.679, 2061.847, 2070.855, 2089.687, 2099.923, 2110.698, 2122.746, 2128.06, 2135.533, 2142.063, 2165.075, 2178.047, 2189.785, 2190.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2041.271}, "reply_to": "14991__1_009", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_011", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "How about the answer to -- how about Mr. Justice White's question?\nWhat if they -- if an Indians owns an addition to allotted lands what if he owns realty or personally of his own, does the Secretary have any right to disapprove any will with respect to that property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2190.339, 2197.596], "stop_times": [2197.596, 2209.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.339}, "reply_to": "14991__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__1_012", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, the Secretary as far as I'm awareness no right to disapprove any disposition of that other property at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2209.405], "stop_times": [2215.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2209.405}, "reply_to": "14991__1_011", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_013", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "So, if he owns both kinds of property --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2215.448], "stop_times": [2217.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.448}, "reply_to": "14991__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__1_014", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The restrictions run only to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2217.598], "stop_times": [2219.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2217.598}, "reply_to": "14991__1_013", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_015", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Allotted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2219.536], "stop_times": [2220.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.536}, "reply_to": "14991__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__1_016", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Both inter vivos and testamentary restrictions run only to the restricted property and of course tied in to the conveyance of the restricted property at the time the allotment is made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2220.513], "stop_times": [2230.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2220.513}, "reply_to": "14991__1_015", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_017", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Is that regardless of whether he's on the reservation on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2230.823], "stop_times": [2235.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.823}, "reply_to": "14991__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_018", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I believe that it is regardless of whether he's on the reservation or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2235.1], "stop_times": [2240.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2235.1}, "reply_to": "14991__1_017", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_019", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, would I'd be correct in saying that Chief Judge -- former Chief Judge the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Judge Barefoot couldn't make a will, because he was full-blooded Choctaw Indian?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2240.815], "stop_times": [2254.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.815}, "reply_to": "14991__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_020", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I'm not aware of any reason why he couldn't make a will Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2254.637], "stop_times": [2256.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2254.637}, "reply_to": "14991__1_019", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_021", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, would it have to be approved by the Secretary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2256.839], "stop_times": [2259.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.839}, "reply_to": "14991__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_022", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Only with respect to restricted property that he held an allotted restricted property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2259.058], "stop_times": [2263.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2259.058}, "reply_to": "14991__1_021", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_023", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He still would have to be approved by the Secretary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2263.381], "stop_times": [2266.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.381}, "reply_to": "14991__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_024", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, I assume the Secretary in the case of such a testator would give great weight to the testator's will and would assume that the disposition that he made of the property was improvident.\nAnd I assume actually that by this time such a person would have been granted his restricted land fee simple which the Secretary also has the power to do.\nBut if by some chance, he still held land under a subject to restrictions then the Secretary would continue to have the power to approve the power to approve the will in so far as it disposed of those restricted territories.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2266.818, 2278.15, 2287.621], "stop_times": [2278.15, 2287.621, 2299.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2266.818}, "reply_to": "14991__1_023", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_025", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Judgment is (Inaudible) attack?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2299.207], "stop_times": [2303.288], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.207}, "reply_to": "14991__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__1_026", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, that would propose a very naughty question.\nIf the will --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2303.288, 2309.834], "stop_times": [2309.834, 2311.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2303.288}, "reply_to": "14991__1_025", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_027", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Are there any rules or regulations or statements of administrative policy with respect to classes of beneficiaries who will be disapproved or who must be included or anything like that?\nIn other words, can an Indian will this property to a white man or a whiskey dealer or somebody to whom he owes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2311.905, 2327.949], "stop_times": [2327.949, 2335.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.905}, "reply_to": "14991__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__1_028", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There is no regulation or statutory provision prohibiting him from willing this land to a white man, but the purpose of the -- and the mandate given to the Secretary by the Allotment Act by the Act of 1910 would subject the Secretary to very close scrutiny if he were to or would cause the Secretary to very closely scrutinized any will which gave restricted property to a white person.\nI've known in this connection that there was in one time that at the moment the regulations are of the Secretary of the Interior are quite general and don't refer to what specifically what types of considerations ought to be taken into account approving or disapproving the will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2335.536, 2362.368], "stop_times": [2362.368, 2376.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2335.536}, "reply_to": "14991__1_027", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_029", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There are no such administrative standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2376.73], "stop_times": [2378.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.73}, "reply_to": "14991__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__1_030", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But there was at one time, a set of regulations which the Secretary which have laid out in the numerate case which is cited in our brief.\nThat's 24 F. 2d, I don't have the cite for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2378.958, 2389.714], "stop_times": [2389.714, 2393.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2378.958}, "reply_to": "14991__1_029", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_031", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Stone, as far as the regulation is concerned, is it fair to say or what is the fact, did they go the factum or factum of the will or whatever will that was executed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2393.989], "stop_times": [2405.966], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.989}, "reply_to": "14991__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__1_032", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well there, Mr. Justice Harlan, the regulations are very silent with respect both to the factum and to the equitable considerations to be taken into account.\nThere are practically no technical requirements laid down at the regulation at all.\nSimply that that testator should be of -- have testimony capacity and that there should be two competent witnesses.\nUnlike the Section 1 determination which is proscribed according to state law, that is the determination of heirship.\nApproval of the will is subject to Secretary's own standards all together.\nThere are no technical requirements and the Secretary has produced very few technical requirements.\nThe regulations in short like the statute leave the Secretary and his delegates with maximum flexibility in discretion and that is quite in harmony with the entire statutory scheme under which the Secretary supervises these restricted lands both during the lifetime of the allottees and after the death of allottees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2405.966, 2415.246, 2418.931, 2425.333, 2433.65, 2438.566, 2444.009], "stop_times": [2415.246, 2418.931, 2425.333, 2433.65, 2438.566, 2444.009, 2464.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2405.966}, "reply_to": "14991__1_031", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_033", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Are there any other instances that the administrative President or the Secretary (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2464.486], "stop_times": [2476.064], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.486}, "reply_to": "14991__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__1_034", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There are other instances in which the Secretary has applied equitable considerations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2476.064], "stop_times": [2482.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2476.064}, "reply_to": "14991__1_033", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_035", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Rewritten the wills or (Voice Overlap) the will be set aside regardless of the disposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2482.117], "stop_times": [2487.938], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.117}, "reply_to": "14991__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__1_036", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, there are -- I've only been able to find cases in which the will has been approved though it's clear that equitable considerations were taken into account.\nNow, that I have been able to locate a decision that is cited in the decision of the Regional Solicitor, it appears to be unreported.\nI've searched for it in the Interior Department cases and haven't been able to find it.\nThe Regional Solicitor cited one case and which a will have been disapproved on equitable grounds.\nNow, that case was not reviewed later by any court.\nIt wasn't brought to any court and I have been able to find the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2487.938, 2497.348, 2504.273, 2508.962, 2516.237, 2520.177], "stop_times": [2497.348, 2504.273, 2508.962, 2516.237, 2520.177, 2525.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2487.938}, "reply_to": "14991__1_035", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_037", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Stone, we have observed that we don't have the merits before us but the merits are not totally relevant, would you agree that a contest between a daughter who'd had a natural but illegitimate daughter who had relatively little contact with testator and a niece with whom he had lived and who had a relationship somewhat like that of a natural child, is it close question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2525.325], "stop_times": [2561.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.325}, "reply_to": "14991__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__1_038", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Justice Burger, I believe in view of the policy of the general -- of the Allotment Act to preserve Indian lands -- restricted lands in the hands of the allottees and their families and dependents.\nIt is not a close question in a case at which an Indian has totally an Indian allottee has totally neglected his only born child all through her childhood and thereafter.\nHowever, I don't think it's important to know whether this a close question or not because it is a question that is been left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2561.186, 2574.409, 2587.299], "stop_times": [2574.409, 2587.299, 2597.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2561.186}, "reply_to": "14991__1_037", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_039", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, then the question here isn't it?\nThat's the question that we have in the case but it's been left entirely to his discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2597.113, 2598.839], "stop_times": [2598.839, 2603.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.113}, "reply_to": "14991__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__1_040", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes and that is -- it is the Government's view that the Secretary's discretion at least applies to determining whether a property has been allocated under the purposes and consistently with the purposes of the Act.\nI note in this regard if the Chief Justice is interested in the closeness of the question from an equitable point of view that the Regional Solicitor didn't find to close at all the beside of the fact that the testator had made five or six wills and he changed his place of residence around in number of times, so that he seem to feel that there wasn't that much weight to be given to the equitable considerations on the side of approving the testator's will.\nAnd he felt quite compelled by the fact that this man had never in his entire lifetime done anything to support his daughter which was -- and never used any of his substantial income from his restricted properties in furtherance of her support.\nAnd the Regional Solicitor government felt that this was quite contrary to the purpose of the Allotment Act under these conveyances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2603.957, 2621.471, 2649.787, 2664.272], "stop_times": [2621.471, 2649.787, 2664.272, 2671.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2603.957}, "reply_to": "14991__1_039", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_041", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Am I correct that all of the parties in this case are Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2671.132], "stop_times": [2674.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.132}, "reply_to": "14991__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_042", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, I believe that all of the parties in this case are Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2674.895], "stop_times": [2676.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2674.895}, "reply_to": "14991__1_041", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_043", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "So when you keep emphasizing the fact that Congress meant for this to stay with the Indians that's irrelevant, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2676.658], "stop_times": [2683.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.658}, "reply_to": "14991__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_044", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, no, I divide Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI divide that point up into two.\nI think that it is a part of Congress' purposes was to make sure that these lands passed on to Indians as oppose to non-Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2683.198, 2685.638, 2688.85], "stop_times": [2685.638, 2688.85, 2696.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2683.198}, "reply_to": "14991__1_043", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_045", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, what was the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2696.948], "stop_times": [2698.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2696.948}, "reply_to": "14991__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_046", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But the other point which I think was really more central and it was born out by the statutory scheme is that the Congress intended for the specific Congress was looking not only to the interest of Indians in general but to specific allottees and their immediate families are dependents.\nThe Regional Allotment Act allotted land on the basis of the size of a family.\nThe head of the household got a certain amount in each dependent or board of a household will receive a smaller amount of allotted land which was held by the Secretary in trust for that individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2698.122, 2716.665, 2721.014], "stop_times": [2716.665, 2721.014, 2732.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2698.122}, "reply_to": "14991__1_045", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_047", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Is there anything that legislative history that said that the Secretary of the Interior should have the right to decide as to whether or not the testator distributed it fairly among his heirs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2732.978], "stop_times": [2746.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.978}, "reply_to": "14991__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_048", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2746.129], "stop_times": [2746.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2746.129}, "reply_to": "14991__1_047", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_049", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Providing they all are Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2746.468], "stop_times": [2748.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.468}, "reply_to": "14991__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_050", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "They're most certainly is Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI would like to quote now from the congressional record which is laid down at pages 11 and 12 of our brief a conversation occurring in the debate on the floor the House of Representatives between Mr. -- Representative Cox of Indiana and Mr. Burke who is the -- who was the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives in discussing the reasons why the law of 1910 was passed Congressman Cox asked Congressman Burke what the purpose of Section 2 was from two points of views.\nHe was interested first of all in knowing why Indians were given the power to write wills with respect to restricted properties which they never had before.\nAnd furthermore, what the Secretary of the Interior's role was with respect to approving or disapproving those wills.\nAnd the Mr. Burke cited the primary case to which he thought that Section 2 was directed, which is the case and which an Indian allottee has after-born children who are not covered in the original allotment.\nAnd in the case to that kind, the Indian would frequently wish to have these after-born children provided for and one way to provide for them would be to give them a disproportionate share of his own allotment upon his death.\nNow, as Chairman Burke says and I'm now on page 12 of my brief.\nIn a case of that kind, undoubtedly the Interior Department would okay it.\nWhereas if it was a will-giving his estate to some person who ought not to have it then they would disapprove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2748.448, 2751.191, 2790.983, 2798.555, 2804.974, 2822.367, 2836.994, 2841.518, 2845.442], "stop_times": [2751.191, 2790.983, 2798.555, 2804.974, 2822.367, 2836.994, 2841.518, 2845.442, 2850.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2748.448}, "reply_to": "14991__1_049", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_051", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, what is there in this case to say these people ought not to have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2850.672], "stop_times": [2856.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.672}, "reply_to": "14991__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_052", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, there -- is it necessarily --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2856.429], "stop_times": [2857.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2856.429}, "reply_to": "14991__1_051", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_053", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Was it not best equitable argument (Voice Overlap) that Ms. High Horse you have a part of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2857.711], "stop_times": [2865.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.711}, "reply_to": "14991__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_054", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There's no provision Mr. Justice Marshall for giving her part of it.\nThe only power that the Secretary has is to approve the will or disapprove the will and he must take into account which of those produces a disposition of the property that is more in harmony with the purpose of the Regional Allotment Act to preserve his land in the fellow's hands and in harmony with the purpose to give some considerations at least to the testator's will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2865.207, 2868.562], "stop_times": [2868.562, 2890.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2865.207}, "reply_to": "14991__1_053", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_055", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Just from a technical standpoint, could he have let the fifth will stand or the fourth or the third?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2890.504], "stop_times": [2897.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.504}, "reply_to": "14991__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__1_056", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "From a technical point of view, I believe he could have let the fifth will stand if it will still an existence and were found to be properly executed, he could.\nI'm not familiar with that and counsel for correspond Dorita High Horse, Mr. Hill I believe is better acquainted with that.\nHowever, the Secretary is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2897.2, 2904.516, 2913.152], "stop_times": [2904.516, 2913.152, 2914.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2897.2}, "reply_to": "14991__1_055", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_057", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Stone, it seems to me -- am I right about this what you've been saying about equitable consideration, it's not that broad isn't it?\nI gather what you were saying is that.\nBut the Secretary decides if someone who should have been the object of his bounty was excluded by the will and the Secretary thinks that was unfair to exclude that person.\nThen the Secretary may disapprove the will, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2914.158, 2922.742, 2925.283, 2938.025], "stop_times": [2922.742, 2925.283, 2938.025, 2941.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.158}, "reply_to": "14991__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_058", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I'm not sure Mr. Justice Brennan.\nI see the distinction between --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2941.091, 2942.646], "stop_times": [2942.646, 2944.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2941.091}, "reply_to": "14991__1_057", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_059", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I just put this for these words equitable considerations.\nI don't know what that means.\nI gather what you've been saying is that really it comes down to whether he unfairly excluded someone who should've had some provision (Voice Overlap) will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2944.282, 2948.078, 2949.484], "stop_times": [2948.078, 2949.484, 2958.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.282}, "reply_to": "14991__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_060", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I don't think it has to be posed that narrowly Mr. Justice Brennan and I think it's better posed in terms of whether the disposition which he made of these lands is in harmony with the purpose of the Allotment Act which was to keep those lands in the hands of the testator and his family or more generally within the Indian community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2958.18], "stop_times": [2975.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2958.18}, "reply_to": "14991__1_059", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_061", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I know but here what you have here is everyone involved is within the family, either nieces or his natural daughter, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2975.623], "stop_times": [2982.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.623}, "reply_to": "14991__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_062", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But there is certainly a distinction but necessarily a distinction however with respect to that and I think the laws of intestacy bear this distinction not altogether since they give all of the property to a daughter and none to the nieces and nephews.\nThere is a distinction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2982.958, 2993.675], "stop_times": [2993.675, 2994.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2982.958}, "reply_to": "14991__1_061", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_063", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, but the place in consideration here was that he should not have excluded from his will -- his natural daughter and the distribution or the divides rather these allotted lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [2994.912], "stop_times": [3007.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.912}, "reply_to": "14991__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_064", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3007.892], "stop_times": [3009.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3007.892}, "reply_to": "14991__1_063", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_065", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And that's what the whole thing turned out.\nThe Secretary just thought it wasn't fair not to have made provision for a share at least in both lands in the daughter, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3009.013, 3012.001], "stop_times": [3012.001, 3018.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.013}, "reply_to": "14991__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_066", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The Secretary made the decision that it was not in keeping with the purpose behind the allotment for this girl to be left out of her father's will.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3018.977, 3030.469], "stop_times": [3030.469, 3031.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3018.977}, "reply_to": "14991__1_065", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_067", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But does it appear in the record Mr. Stone whether the nieces were also allottees or potential allottees from their parents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3031.228], "stop_times": [3044.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.228}, "reply_to": "14991__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__1_068", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "To my knowledge it doesn't Mr. Justice White.\nIt's possible that Mr. Hill may be better acquainted with that.\nI didn't pick that up (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3044.13, 3048.14, 3051.268], "stop_times": [3048.14, 3051.268, 3051.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3044.13}, "reply_to": "14991__1_067", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_069", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, it isn't in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3051.932], "stop_times": [3053.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.932}, "reply_to": "14991__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__1_070", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3053.997], "stop_times": [3054.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3053.997}, "reply_to": "14991__1_069", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_071", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It isn't in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3054.378], "stop_times": [3055.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.378}, "reply_to": "14991__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__1_072", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It certainly not in the printed record.\nIt may be in the transcript of the administrative hearing which was stipulated out of the printed record.\nI don't think this was a focus of the Hearing Examiner's inquiries.\nThe selection from the congressional record which I've just read to this Court is illuminating.\nI think not only because it shows that Congress intended to give the Secretary broad discretion with respect to whether restricted lands ought to be alienated by will from the immediate heirs of the allotment holders.\nBut also because it shows that the purpose Congress had in mind when it gave allottees the right to make wills was not to abrogate the prior policy of assuring that restricted lands remain in the family of the allottee, but rather to allow the allottee in certain situations greater flexibility in providing a more even distribution of assets to his own heirs.\nIt would certainly be rather startling development in the statutory context under which the Secretary maintains complete power both inter vivos and testamentary to determine whether these lands ought to be alienated to read the right of an Indian to make a will all of a sudden to mean that in this particular context.\nIn other words, the context of a death by will that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3055.007, 3056.22, 3062.621, 3075.849, 3080.425, 3090.986, 3116.318, 3132.313], "stop_times": [3056.22, 3062.621, 3075.849, 3080.425, 3090.986, 3116.318, 3132.313, 3136.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3055.007}, "reply_to": "14991__1_071", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_073", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Tell me Mr. Stone, is there any question of this petitioners being nieces and nephews?\n(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3136.515, 3145.45], "stop_times": [3145.45, 3146.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.515}, "reply_to": "14991__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_074", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That one was a niece and three other would be the grand nieces or nephews.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3146.771], "stop_times": [3150.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3146.771}, "reply_to": "14991__1_073", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_075", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, now would they be executed the class of allottee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3150.359], "stop_times": [3154.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.359}, "reply_to": "14991__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_076", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I'm sorry Mr. Justice Brennan, I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3154.383], "stop_times": [3156.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3154.383}, "reply_to": "14991__1_075", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_077", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "The allottee here would be the deceased right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3156.649], "stop_times": [3159.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.649}, "reply_to": "14991__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_078", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3159.462], "stop_times": [3159.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3159.462}, "reply_to": "14991__1_077", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_079", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Ant that this, well, the purposes of the Allotment Act would be his nieces and nephews whatever they are be included that the class?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3159.967], "stop_times": [3171.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.967}, "reply_to": "14991__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_080", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, they might have other if they were not his dependents living in their home.\nThey may be included in another allotment from another household but they wouldn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3171.509, 3176.218], "stop_times": [3176.218, 3179.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3171.509}, "reply_to": "14991__1_079", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_081", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I know, but in his allotment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3179.822], "stop_times": [3180.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.822}, "reply_to": "14991__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_082", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, they would not be included in his allotment only his --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3180.496], "stop_times": [3182.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3180.496}, "reply_to": "14991__1_081", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_083", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, in your, is the Government's point that they have to lose because Congress never intended that any except his immediate family should be the beneficiary of these allotments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3182.505], "stop_times": [3195.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.505}, "reply_to": "14991__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_084", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I wouldn't say it that flatly Mr. Justice Brennan.\nI think Congress has left the Secretary greater discretion than that.\nI think it depends to policy that they ought to generally be a disposition made to those within the immediate allotment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3195.162, 3198.168, 3201.164], "stop_times": [3198.168, 3201.164, 3208.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3195.162}, "reply_to": "14991__1_083", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_085", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, is that an answer to me that I think might have approved his will even though all of the allotted land went to nieces and nephews rather than the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3208.347], "stop_times": [3215.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.347}, "reply_to": "14991__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14991__1_086", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, the Secretary might have conceivably found it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3215.391], "stop_times": [3219.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3215.391}, "reply_to": "14991__1_085", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_087", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Where was this that there hadn't been any daughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3219.503], "stop_times": [3225.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.503}, "reply_to": "14991__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__1_088", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Oh!\nYes, I think that's true.\nHe certainly would have.\nI believe at least I have not been able to ascertain any reason for the record -- from the record why he would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3225.434, 3225.573, 3228.339, 3229.432], "stop_times": [3225.573, 3228.339, 3229.432, 3239.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3225.434}, "reply_to": "14991__1_087", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_089", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If the court there to have jurisdiction, would it have to decide what if felt was fair?\nWould that be the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3239.783, 3248.149], "stop_times": [3248.149, 3249.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.783}, "reply_to": "14991__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_090", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I don't believe Mr. Justice Black that the Court would decide whether what it thought was fair.\nI think that the Regional Solicitor would decide what is for him is fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3249.808, 3255.598], "stop_times": [3255.598, 3258.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3249.808}, "reply_to": "14991__1_089", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_091", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But I understand that the argument is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3258.088], "stop_times": [3262.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.088}, "reply_to": "14991__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_092", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, I understand.\nNo, I think the Court would only have to take a look at the record and decide whether there was any substantial evidence to support the reason of Regional Solicitor's reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3262.905, 3264.212], "stop_times": [3264.212, 3273.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3262.905}, "reply_to": "14991__1_091", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_093", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "So that in the final analysis he'd be overruled and he thought it was fair if you would go contrary, wouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3273.126], "stop_times": [3282.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.126}, "reply_to": "14991__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_094", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If the Court would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3282.202], "stop_times": [3283.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3282.202}, "reply_to": "14991__1_093", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_095", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, wouldn't the Court be final passing on all the question of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3283.417], "stop_times": [3289.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.417}, "reply_to": "14991__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_096", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Under the very limited standard of review of a discretionary finding of Administrative Agency which is simply to determine whether there was a substantial reasons --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3289.725], "stop_times": [3300.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3289.725}, "reply_to": "14991__1_095", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_097", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I'm not talking about the degree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3300.342], "stop_times": [3302.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.342}, "reply_to": "14991__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_098", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Uh-Huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3302.15], "stop_times": [3302.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3302.15}, "reply_to": "14991__1_097", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_099", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But in the final analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3302.632], "stop_times": [3304.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.632}, "reply_to": "14991__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_100", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's right.\nIn the final analysis if the Secretary's determination will reversed his discretion would be (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3304.409, 3304.932], "stop_times": [3304.932, 3311.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3304.409}, "reply_to": "14991__1_099", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_101", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And your claim is that the Government was led by the Congress with complete and exclusive power; it's up to decide this question without any judicial review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3311.786], "stop_times": [3322.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.786}, "reply_to": "14991__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__1_102", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, that is the Government's contention and I think that is -- though it is not always the most appealing position for the Government to take to say that there is absolutely no review.\nI think that all of these special provisions under which allotted properties are subject to the guardianship of the Secretary of the Interior must be viewed as this Court has viewed them in the historical context of the Government's relationship to Indian tribes in tribal lands and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3322.394, 3333.445], "stop_times": [3333.445, 3349.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3322.394}, "reply_to": "14991__1_101", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_103", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Do you know if there's any significance in the presence of non-reviewability clause?\nNot that you will in the absence of this clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3349.628, 3359.793], "stop_times": [3359.793, 3364.032], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3349.628}, "reply_to": "14991__1_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__1_104", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I think Mr. Justice Harlan that there is -- it would certainly be better from the Government's point of view if the words final and conclusive where cited again in Section 2.\nBut I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3364.032, 3373.187], "stop_times": [3373.187, 3373.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3364.032}, "reply_to": "14991__1_103", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_105", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "How do you explain the difference of interests to provisions on that regard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3373.874], "stop_times": [3379.033], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.874}, "reply_to": "14991__1_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14991__1_106", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, it is our position that the final and conclusive language was not repeated in Section 2 because it wasn't necessary.\nIt was so clear that Sections 1 and 2 were complementary provisions in which together encompass all of the Secretary's powers with respect to reviewing disposition test -- disposition in death of restricted lands.\nAnd we have cited, I think considerable positive evidence to the effect that Congress intended for both Section 1 and 2 provisions to be non-reviewable.\nI just read very, very briefly from page 11 of my brief from the same date which this Court on the basis of which this Court decided in Section 1 determinations were in fact non-reviewable.\nAnd with Mr. Cox asked Mr. Burke under the provisos that now exist in Section 2, \u201cDoes it not place complete power in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs over the will of an Indian with absolute power to revoke the Indians will\u201d and the answer is \u201cyes, I think it does.\u201d\nAt this point, I have must ask the Court's permission to give the rostrum to correspondent Dorita High Horse's attorney with whom I agreed to spit the time in this case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3379.033, 3388.688, 3404.243, 3414.964, 3426.277, 3444.245, 3456.968], "stop_times": [3388.688, 3404.243, 3414.964, 3426.277, 3444.245, 3456.968, 3457.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3379.033}, "reply_to": "14991__1_105", "speaker": "richard_b_stone"}
{"id": "14991__1_107", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you Mr. Stone.\nMr. Hill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3457.344, 3462.363], "stop_times": [3462.363, 3463.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.344}, "reply_to": "14991__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_000", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and Honorable Justices of this Court.\nIn order to enlighten Mr. Justice White and Justice Thurgood Marshall on one point, the inquiry was, as to what effect this will, would have if the Secretary of the Interior has disapproved that then there was unrestricted property which would be handled by the state courts in our state.\nAnd the only thing about the unrestricted property in open the state of who we have a statute which make the surviving spouse a force heir to the one-third of the property.\nSo as to the -- if it will set situation by then the surviving spouse of the entirely one-third regardless of the will.\nSo, and the only thing that the county judge or probate judge might take into consideration the fact, that either the Secretary acting by and through his agents had either approved or disapproved their will.\nThey can take that in consideration, it might be persuasive to him.\nBut he wouldn't have to be bound by that in determining whether or not the will should be probated in the county court of that county on the unrestricted property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3463.004, 3467.372, 3491.57, 3504.938, 3513.184, 3525.718, 3528.94], "stop_times": [3467.372, 3491.57, 3504.938, 3513.184, 3525.718, 3528.94, 3537.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3463.004}, "reply_to": "14991__1_107", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_001", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But the same statutory provisions in most states which give what is sometimes called the dower right to the surviving widow also give virtually unrestricted power of the testator to omit his children if he wants to, is that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3537.251], "stop_times": [3552.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3537.251}, "reply_to": "14991__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_002", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.\nNormally though they it's required that they make some indication in the will that they intended to deprive that child.\nNow if the Court please, I handle this case throughout the trial before the Examiner of Inheritance and I'm fairly familiar with the facts in the case and I want to say this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3552.067, 3553.699, 3561.166], "stop_times": [3553.699, 3561.166, 3570.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3552.067}, "reply_to": "14991__2_001", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_003", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who did you represent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3570.825], "stop_times": [3571.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3570.825}, "reply_to": "14991__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_004", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "I represented Dorita High Horse and some of the other nieces and nephews.\nNow, bear this in mind that here it is -- this full-blood Comanche Indian was not allottee.\nHe inherited this land itself from his mother and some of the others on the General Allotment Act of February 7, 1887.\nThat was a General Allotment Act which only affect the wide tribes and it did not include the Five Civilized Tribes which a Justice have mentioned awhile ago by Justice Barefoot.\nI remember the Choctaw tribe itself, but it didn't have any effect upon the Five Civilized Tribes or the Osage tribes themselves.\nBut all of these wide tribe particularly the Kiowa, the Comanche, the Apache, the Otos, and Wichita and tribes like that.\nNow, the first -- after the legislation was enacted in 1910 giving the power and authority to the Secretary of the Interior to determine under Section 372 whether or not the certain heirs were entitled to be heirs of the decedents and holding that I am on that statute that is final and conclusive for then in Section 373 of that Act, they gave the power authority to the Indian to make a will if he is 21 years of age pursuant to the regulations proscribed by the Secretary of the Interior.\nAnd then it was not valid unless and until it was approved by the Secretary of the Interior and then it could be approved or disapproved by and after the death of the Indian.\nAnd normally that's the way we handle those matters down there -- they wait after the Indian dies and then his will is submitted to the Examiner of Inheritance and hears a hearing on this, and determine whether or not the Indian was competent to make the will.\nAnd whether or not the will itself complied with all the statutory or the requirements made under the rules promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior.\nNow, once having done that, then he determines whether or not there are any other causes by which reason by which he might say, well, I don't this will is fair and equitable because it didn't take care of the decedents or testator's heirs themselves.\nNow, Ms. Dorita High Horse, it is true that she didn't live with her father who was George Chahsenah but the trial court or that is the Examiner of Inheritance found that she was the illegitimate child of George Chahsenah and that she didn't get any benefits from his estate and he didn't provide for all her during that period of time and even that she became of age then.\nNow he made six wills down there.\nAnd I want to say to the Court here that I'm fairly familiar.\nThe first will he made, he made and left the beneficiary this Viola Atewooftakewa which is her name and she was married to man by the name of James Tate who was also Comanche Indian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3571.846, 3575.908, 3584.087, 3592.542, 3601.482, 3607.5, 3617.586, 3655.271, 3663.737, 3676.969, 3686.334, 3703.133, 3729.43, 3732.026, 3736.091], "stop_times": [3575.908, 3584.087, 3592.542, 3601.482, 3607.5, 3617.586, 3655.271, 3663.737, 3676.969, 3686.334, 3703.133, 3729.43, 3732.026, 3736.091, 3747.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3571.846}, "reply_to": "14991__2_003", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_005", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, what relation if any -- and was there between that beneficiary and the decedent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3747.637], "stop_times": [3754.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3747.637}, "reply_to": "14991__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_006", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "She was a niece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3754.64], "stop_times": [3755.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3754.64}, "reply_to": "14991__2_005", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_007", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "A niece.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3755.743], "stop_times": [3756.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3755.743}, "reply_to": "14991__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_008", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And then he made a will to a white man and then next he made a will to Sammy Schweitzer who runs a grocery store there.\nSammy was a white man and Sam, he was the one that bail him out every time he got put in jail for being drunk and he did pay his fine, he did give loaning money and he testified that he didn't think that this will had any consequences and after he found out about it.\nHe thought that the union didn't even know what he was doing and that was part of the testimony of course that I tried to submit to the Examiner of Inheritance that the man wasn't even competent to make a will in the first place because all of the evidence subs -- all the evidence was to the effect that he didn't know what he is doing.\nHe never transacts independence for himself.\nHe's been a habitual drunk in all of his life --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3756.429, 3769.572, 3785.112, 3801.439, 3803.252], "stop_times": [3769.572, 3785.112, 3801.439, 3803.252, 3805.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3756.429}, "reply_to": "14991__2_007", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_009", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Of what period time he made the six wills?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3805.119], "stop_times": [3807.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3805.119}, "reply_to": "14991__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_010", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "From 1956 to 1963.\nHe died -- he made his last will in the early part of 1963 and he died on October of 1963.\nNow, bear this in mind that up until 1954, he lived with his mother.\nHis father having died when he was young man but they were living there in Apache.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3807.712, 3811.13, 3818.119, 3821.959], "stop_times": [3811.13, 3818.119, 3821.959, 3825.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3807.712}, "reply_to": "14991__2_009", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_011", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, isn't that what the lawyer draws the last will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3825.835], "stop_times": [3828.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3825.835}, "reply_to": "14991__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_012", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes that's true and the Government lawyer draws all these wills Your Honor and he testified --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3828.632], "stop_times": [3832.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3828.632}, "reply_to": "14991__2_011", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_013", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Draws six of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3832.575], "stop_times": [3834.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3832.575}, "reply_to": "14991__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_014", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, somebody in there drew all at six of them.\nYes sir and they -- under the rules and regulations they are required to ascertain whether or not he has a child, perhaps, any surviving brothers and sisters or mother and father.\nNow they didn't ascertain that and yet it was on the record there and yet the Department of Interior Bureau and Affairs they all stand in the dark hole.\nThey did have this child Dorita High Horse.\nShe was on Chowan, Comanche, and Apache roles when they made the for cap the payment in 1958 as being his child.\nAnd his nieces and nephews knew about that.\nThey knew that she was on the role as his daughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3834.554, 3836.823, 3847.929, 3855.033, 3856.975, 3865.026, 3867.395], "stop_times": [3836.823, 3847.929, 3855.033, 3856.975, 3865.026, 3867.395, 3869.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3834.554}, "reply_to": "14991__2_013", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_015", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who was Fred Benjie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3869.979], "stop_times": [3871.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3869.979}, "reply_to": "14991__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_016", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3871.165], "stop_times": [3871.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3871.165}, "reply_to": "14991__2_015", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_017", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who was Fred Benjie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3871.593], "stop_times": [3873.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3871.593}, "reply_to": "14991__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_018", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Now that was a white man, I don't know too much about him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3873.482], "stop_times": [3874.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3873.482}, "reply_to": "14991__2_017", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_019", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's another white man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3874.585], "stop_times": [3875.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3874.585}, "reply_to": "14991__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_020", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3875.945], "stop_times": [3876.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3875.945}, "reply_to": "14991__2_019", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_021", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And so was a forger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3876.567], "stop_times": [3877.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3876.567}, "reply_to": "14991__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_022", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Alright, but all the evidence was if the Court please that this Indian was an alcoholic and he would do anything to get a drink --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3877.192], "stop_times": [3887.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3877.192}, "reply_to": "14991__2_021", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_023", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, if the Government lawyer who drew this will wasn't he required to find out whether the man was capable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3887.749], "stop_times": [3896.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3887.749}, "reply_to": "14991__2_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_024", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, but normally --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3896.272], "stop_times": [3898.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3896.272}, "reply_to": "14991__2_023", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_025", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Did he raise the question at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3898.816], "stop_times": [3901.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3898.816}, "reply_to": "14991__2_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_026", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He didn't raise the question at all, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3901.097], "stop_times": [3904.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3901.097}, "reply_to": "14991__2_025", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_027", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He drew six wills?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3904.467], "stop_times": [3906.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3904.467}, "reply_to": "14991__2_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_028", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3906.225], "stop_times": [3907.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3906.225}, "reply_to": "14991__2_027", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_029", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He talked to them at least six times --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3907.085], "stop_times": [3908.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3907.085}, "reply_to": "14991__2_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_030", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, no.\nI beg your pardon Your Honor.\nHe wouldn't be the one that were be in there all that time --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3908.854, 3909.613, 3911.177], "stop_times": [3909.613, 3911.177, 3914.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3908.854}, "reply_to": "14991__2_029", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_031", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But he would be a government lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3914.212], "stop_times": [3915.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3914.212}, "reply_to": "14991__2_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_032", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "At least the officials change from time to time in the office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3915.391], "stop_times": [3917.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3915.391}, "reply_to": "14991__2_031", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_033", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, they're all government lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3917.78], "stop_times": [3919.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3917.78}, "reply_to": "14991__2_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_034", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes sir, well it could be or it could have been somebody else down there.\nThey might have someone else in there.\nIt wasn't a lawyer, but he knew how they drew this will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3919.519, 3923.029, 3924.925], "stop_times": [3923.029, 3924.925, 3927.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3919.519}, "reply_to": "14991__2_033", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_035", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, did he represent the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3927.318], "stop_times": [3930.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3927.318}, "reply_to": "14991__2_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_036", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3930.386], "stop_times": [3930.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3930.386}, "reply_to": "14991__2_035", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_037", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And the Government had the responsibility of finding out whether this man was apparently --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3930.622], "stop_times": [3935.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3930.622}, "reply_to": "14991__2_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_038", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3935.62], "stop_times": [3936.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3935.62}, "reply_to": "14991__2_037", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_039", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "-- capable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3936.112], "stop_times": [3937.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3936.112}, "reply_to": "14991__2_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_040", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes sir, may I test --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3937.032], "stop_times": [3938.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3937.032}, "reply_to": "14991__2_039", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_041", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Obviously he was apparently capable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3938.799], "stop_times": [3942.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3938.799}, "reply_to": "14991__2_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14991__2_042", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Obviously and as they testified that they had no independent recollection when he came in the office to execute this last will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3942.108], "stop_times": [3949.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3942.108}, "reply_to": "14991__2_041", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_043", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, that issue is not before us now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3949.979], "stop_times": [3951.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3949.979}, "reply_to": "14991__2_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_044", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No sir, it really isn't Your Honor.\nActually, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3951.776, 3953.535], "stop_times": [3953.535, 3953.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3951.776}, "reply_to": "14991__2_043", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_045", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Law forbids you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3953.914], "stop_times": [3955.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3953.914}, "reply_to": "14991__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_046", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3955.244], "stop_times": [3955.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3955.244}, "reply_to": "14991__2_045", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_047", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Can this law fobid you by the solicitor or by the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3955.864], "stop_times": [3960.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3955.864}, "reply_to": "14991__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_048", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well the Trial Examiner did hold Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3960.946], "stop_times": [3964.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3960.946}, "reply_to": "14991__2_047", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_049", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "They found his property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3964.27], "stop_times": [3965.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3964.27}, "reply_to": "14991__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_050", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes sir, they have found his property --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3965.634], "stop_times": [3967.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3965.634}, "reply_to": "14991__2_049", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_051", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "(Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3967.26], "stop_times": [3967.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3967.26}, "reply_to": "14991__2_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_052", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That is right sir, yes sir.\nAnd naturally, we don't have to go into that but I thought it might be helpful for the Court to know that here was a man who was basically a drunkard and who would make a will on the slightest provocation.\nHe had exchanged goods and property and meat and grocery and everything else to get some money to buy his liquor and he's either drinking or drunk all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3967.835, 3969.766, 3980.685], "stop_times": [3969.766, 3980.685, 3988.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3967.835}, "reply_to": "14991__2_051", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_053", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But it's not before us now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3988.585], "stop_times": [3990.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3988.585}, "reply_to": "14991__2_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_054", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, sir and as a matter of fact when he was with this last beneficiary on the will, this Viola Atewooftakewa and children and the family.\nHe was only there just a short time.\nHe'd been living with all these other nieces and nephews from time to time.\nSo, he wasn't the one that was -- was just living with them and they were taking care for anything like that.\nThey didn't take care of him.\nHe was dependent his own way all the time.\nAs a matter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [3990.031, 4000.199, 4001.939, 4005.291, 4012.068, 4013.051, 4014.854], "stop_times": [4000.199, 4001.939, 4005.291, 4012.068, 4013.051, 4014.854, 4015.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3990.031}, "reply_to": "14991__2_053", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_055", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But there's no evidence he ever live with his daughter, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4015.123], "stop_times": [4017.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4015.123}, "reply_to": "14991__2_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_056", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No sir, there is not sir.\nNo sir.\nNow, in the first --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4017.941, 4019.689, 4020.517], "stop_times": [4019.689, 4020.517, 4021.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4017.941}, "reply_to": "14991__2_055", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_057", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Is there certain evidence that she is his daughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4021.222], "stop_times": [4025.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4021.222}, "reply_to": "14991__2_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_058", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There is substantial evidence, Your Honor that she was his legitimate daughter and under Section 371, I think it is, that where the cohabit that the Indian's cohabit and there are 0offsprings that for all intents and purposes that offspring is a legitimate child and the Examiner of Inheritance -- I mean the Secretary of the Interior acting by and through the Solicitor General so held that Dorita High Horse was the natural daughter of George Chahsenah who was a testator of his will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4025.394], "stop_times": [4058.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4025.394}, "reply_to": "14991__2_057", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_059", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Suppose that there can be no doubt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4058.35], "stop_times": [4060.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4058.35}, "reply_to": "14991__2_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_060", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's right and other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4060.046], "stop_times": [4061.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4060.046}, "reply_to": "14991__2_059", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_061", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "There's no doubt that she is his daughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4061.22], "stop_times": [4063.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4061.22}, "reply_to": "14991__2_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_062", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes sir and under Section 372 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4063.521], "stop_times": [4064.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4063.521}, "reply_to": "14991__2_061", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_063", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And part of the property (Voice Overlap) or all of it went to her --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4064.731], "stop_times": [4068.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4064.731}, "reply_to": "14991__2_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_064", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4068.017], "stop_times": [4068.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4068.017}, "reply_to": "14991__2_063", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_065", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Part of the property or all of it went to her --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4068.105], "stop_times": [4070.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4068.105}, "reply_to": "14991__2_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_066", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's right, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4070.373], "stop_times": [4071.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4070.373}, "reply_to": "14991__2_065", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_067", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "An Indian?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4071.255], "stop_times": [4072.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4071.255}, "reply_to": "14991__2_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_068", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, when this will was vacated and set aside.\nAll the property went to Dorita High Horse, the daughter.\nNow, the Secretary of the Interior said, we don't need to go in into these other wills because we're familiar with them, we know what they held.\nThey didn't even mentioned anything about Dorita High Horse or been take care of her in way and she was the beneficiary under any of.\nSo, we're setting those aside too.\nSo, it isn't like Justice that you were speaking of where you'd go back to the next will and if you're going back to the next will, you're going back to discuss them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4072.475, 4076.959, 4080.248, 4087.361, 4094.032, 4096.41], "stop_times": [4076.959, 4080.248, 4087.361, 4094.032, 4096.41, 4105.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4072.475}, "reply_to": "14991__2_067", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_069", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But one thing at all these wills had in common was that they showed a very clear intention not to make Dorita High Horse the object to his bounty.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4105.049, 4113.546], "stop_times": [4113.546, 4113.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4105.049}, "reply_to": "14991__2_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__2_070", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, at least she wasn't mentioned.\nI don't think he didn't attempt to care of him but he certainly did mention in any of those wills, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4113.995, 4115.979], "stop_times": [4115.979, 4122.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4113.995}, "reply_to": "14991__2_069", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_071", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And if he died and tested, I suppose she would've been sole heir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4122.83], "stop_times": [4126.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4122.83}, "reply_to": "14991__2_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__2_072", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "She would've been the sole heir, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4126.608], "stop_times": [4128.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4126.608}, "reply_to": "14991__2_071", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_073", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And the so, probably no one conceive the sole purpose of making a will was to see to it that she did not inherit his property, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4128.3], "stop_times": [4136.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4128.3}, "reply_to": "14991__2_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__2_074", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Not necessarily though I think this all purpose of making a will was to going to get some money and buy some liquor, (Voice Overlap) Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4136.613], "stop_times": [4144.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4136.613}, "reply_to": "14991__2_073", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_075", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If he hadn't made any will she would've have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4144.969], "stop_times": [4147.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4144.969}, "reply_to": "14991__2_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__2_076", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If he hadn't made the will, she would've been the one to inherit all these property, yes sir.\nNow, I handle this case that went before this Court, Homovich versus Chapman that went to the Circuit Court of Appeals to District of Columbia.\nAnd that's the case where he and I have taken the position and the Government to take the position that under Section 2 or 373 that -- of course could refute the decision of the Secretary of the Interior or he had passed of owner, he'd approve or disapprove the will and that case he approved the will of Homovich.\nHomovich was a full-blood Comanche and he had married a white woman who was a school teacher (Inaudible).\nAnd she came in and wanted to set aside this will so that she can participate.\nAnd then it was almost like the case of Blanset versus Cardin which came up from this side of the State of Oklahoma where the qualified Indian had married a white man and he was wanting to participate in her estate.\nAnd that was the leading case in construing this particular statutes and they held there that the Congress under its plenary powers had given a great supervision over these Indians and their property and they placed that supervision in the hands of the Secretary of Interior although the discretionary power and authority necessary to take care of that without any interference from the outside by the Court or anybody else.\nIn order, we did we respect to that why that was it and it is more or less found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4147.62, 4152.363, 4161.943, 4180.205, 4185.586, 4189.639, 4201.365, 4230.991], "stop_times": [4152.363, 4161.943, 4180.205, 4185.586, 4189.639, 4201.365, 4230.991, 4235.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4147.62}, "reply_to": "14991__2_075", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_077", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If your argument is accepted, does that settle who will get his property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4235.768], "stop_times": [4242.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4235.768}, "reply_to": "14991__2_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_078", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes it would Your Honor but I think here and I think the Court here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4242.205], "stop_times": [4245.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4242.205}, "reply_to": "14991__2_077", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_079", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who will get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4245.257], "stop_times": [4247.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4245.257}, "reply_to": "14991__2_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_080", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Justice Black has a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4247.6], "stop_times": [4249.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4247.6}, "reply_to": "14991__2_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_081", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who would get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4249.772], "stop_times": [4251.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4249.772}, "reply_to": "14991__2_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_082", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Who would get this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4251.555], "stop_times": [4252.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4251.555}, "reply_to": "14991__2_081", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_083", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, the property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4252.47], "stop_times": [4253.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4252.47}, "reply_to": "14991__2_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_084", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "In the event --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4253.733], "stop_times": [4254.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4253.733}, "reply_to": "14991__2_083", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_085", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If you say this is finally settled and in case your argument is accepted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4254.077], "stop_times": [4259.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4254.077}, "reply_to": "14991__2_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_086", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Dorita High Horse, the daughter would get the property if my argument is accepted, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4259.226], "stop_times": [4262.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4259.226}, "reply_to": "14991__2_085", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_087", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's the legitimate child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4262.349], "stop_times": [4263.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4262.349}, "reply_to": "14991__2_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_088", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And I want to bring this out and since this case has been in litigation, this Viola Atewooftakewa who was the niece is deceased now and the one of the other beneficiary, one of the other nephews, your grant nephew is also deceased so that only two children left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4263.803], "stop_times": [4284.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4263.803}, "reply_to": "14991__2_087", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_089", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Does the record show how much of his property it would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4284.923], "stop_times": [4287.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4284.923}, "reply_to": "14991__2_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_090", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4287.502], "stop_times": [4288.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4287.502}, "reply_to": "14991__2_089", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_091", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Does the record show how much this Indian have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4288.24], "stop_times": [4290.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4288.24}, "reply_to": "14991__2_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_092", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes it does and it probably would in this -- and the Court here but before it went to the Circuit Court of Appeals it did show.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4290.114], "stop_times": [4296.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4290.114}, "reply_to": "14991__2_091", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_093", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If you could just tell us as an aside, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4296.145], "stop_times": [4298.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4296.145}, "reply_to": "14991__2_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_094", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I would say this property is worth in the neighborhood of $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 because he's got some production on it if the Court please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4298.604], "stop_times": [4307.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4298.604}, "reply_to": "14991__2_093", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_095", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "$34,000.00 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4307.204], "stop_times": [4309.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4307.204}, "reply_to": "14991__2_094", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__2_096", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4309.155], "stop_times": [4310.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4309.155}, "reply_to": "14991__2_095", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_097", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's the one, that's the official value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4310.173], "stop_times": [4311.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4310.173}, "reply_to": "14991__2_096", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__2_098", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's the official, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4311.554], "stop_times": [4313.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4311.554}, "reply_to": "14991__2_097", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_099", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That's all he has?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4313.392], "stop_times": [4313.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4313.392}, "reply_to": "14991__2_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_100", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "He has worth $50,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4313.796], "stop_times": [4314.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4313.796}, "reply_to": "14991__2_099", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__2_101", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I would say that worth a little more than that because I think this production is probably made a worth little more now and of course they had production on the time that they made this appraisal, Your Honor.\nAnd I'm sure they were trying to get a minimum --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4314.571, 4324.272], "stop_times": [4324.272, 4325.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4314.571}, "reply_to": "14991__2_100", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_102", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "But that wasn't the official appraisal, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4325.898], "stop_times": [4327.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4325.898}, "reply_to": "14991__2_101", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "14991__2_103", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes sir it was.\nThey have the official appraisal after any of these Indians die and it's under the supervision of the area officer for and on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior.\nThey have to make an appraisal of these properties --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4327.472, 4329.189, 4337.617], "stop_times": [4329.189, 4337.617, 4339.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4327.472}, "reply_to": "14991__2_102", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_104", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "If your argument is accepted as I understand it, this property would go to the daughter even though she is illegitimate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4339.895], "stop_times": [4347.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4339.895}, "reply_to": "14991__2_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_105", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4347.786], "stop_times": [4348.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4347.786}, "reply_to": "14991__2_104", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_106", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And if it's rejected, it would not.\nIt would go to his niece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4348.026, 4350.056], "stop_times": [4350.056, 4352.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4348.026}, "reply_to": "14991__2_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_107", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "No, it wouldn't even go to his niece, Your Honor because she is deceased.\nIt would go to two of his grand nieces.\nThe two grand nieces, there are only one surviving now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4352.186, 4355.235, 4357.915], "stop_times": [4355.235, 4357.915, 4360.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4352.186}, "reply_to": "14991__2_106", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_108", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Just one grand niece?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4360.84], "stop_times": [4361.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4360.84}, "reply_to": "14991__2_107", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_109", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, and that's what the Congress had in mind, it has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4361.997], "stop_times": [4365.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4361.997}, "reply_to": "14991__2_108", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_110", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Great niece, two people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4365.792], "stop_times": [4367.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4365.792}, "reply_to": "14991__2_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14991__2_111", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, sir and that's what the Secretary of the Interior had in mind when he asked Congress to pass this 1910 Act was to give him all this power and authority so he could determine these things himself rather than leave it to that United States Court.\nAnd certainly that was the first time that they have any authority to make into will as under 1910 Act.\nAnd now that it says there that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4367.251, 4383.366, 4388.265], "stop_times": [4383.366, 4388.265, 4390.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4367.251}, "reply_to": "14991__2_110", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_112", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Do you mean Indians didn't have authority make the will of their ordinary --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4390.028], "stop_times": [4394.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4390.028}, "reply_to": "14991__2_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_113", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Not this type of thing, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4394.613], "stop_times": [4395.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4394.613}, "reply_to": "14991__2_112", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_114", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Ordinary property, real or personal property, if they own a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4395.983], "stop_times": [4399.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4395.983}, "reply_to": "14991__2_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14991__2_115", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, if they owned personal property independent of their -- of this is restricted property which is being held entrust to the United States General Allotment Act.\nThey should've dispose to that property since if it's unrestricted property, but restricted property could not be dispose off by the Indian until the 1910 Act.\nAnd then in 1913, the minute Section 373 saw that the Secretary of the Interior then could either prove or disapprove this will after the death of the Indian.\nI think they cited that sometimes that they might approve this will before the Indian died.\nAnd then they would be caught with having permitted the estate of this Indian to go to somebody who is not entitled to receive it or they shouldn't receive it and that's the whole premise behind these things is to protect these Indians and protect the Indian areas of these testators and the Indians who took advantage with this Section to make a will.\nSo I think in this Court would determine that it didn't have jurisdiction to hear this under this -- they claim under the 28 U.S.C. Section 3061.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4399.112, 4406.28, 4415.91, 4429.12, 4435.558, 4456.41], "stop_times": [4406.28, 4415.91, 4429.12, 4435.558, 4456.41, 4471.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4399.112}, "reply_to": "14991__2_114", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_116", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Your time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4471.007], "stop_times": [4471.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4471.007}, "reply_to": "14991__2_115", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__2_117", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4471.945], "stop_times": [4475.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4471.945}, "reply_to": "14991__2_116", "speaker": "houston_bus_hill"}
{"id": "14991__2_118", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Mr. Luellen, you have a few minutes left.\nDo you have anything else?\nI think we have the picture pretty clearly and you can be brief I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4475.661, 4478.918, 4482.857], "stop_times": [4478.918, 4482.857, 4486.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4475.661}, "reply_to": "14991__2_117", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14991__3_000", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Well, I just take few minutes Your Honor.\nJustice Harlan made some inquiry about the regulations.\nThey are found in the brief from petitioner's appendix A to judge most regulations.\nThere is nothing in the regulation whatsoever about an Indian must disperse equity when he makes his will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4486.53, 4490.659, 4494.871, 4501.729], "stop_times": [4490.659, 4494.871, 4501.729, 4506.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4486.53}, "reply_to": "14991__2_118", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_001", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Apparently, where did you say they appear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4506.985], "stop_times": [4508.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4506.985}, "reply_to": "14991__3_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__3_002", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "It appeared in appendix A in the brief for petitioners, appendix A, brief for petitioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4508.205], "stop_times": [4515.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4508.205}, "reply_to": "14991__3_001", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_003", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4515.605], "stop_times": [4518.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4515.605}, "reply_to": "14991__3_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__3_004", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "And here is what really says about what an Indian is making an approval as to inform an Indian of the age of 21 years and of testamentary capacity who has any right, title or interest in trust of restricted property may dispose of such property by a will executed in writing and attested by but two disinterested adult witnesses.\nThat's the main of the regulations throughout there as to the fact of the will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4518.43, 4542.705], "stop_times": [4542.705, 4547.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4518.43}, "reply_to": "14991__3_003", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_005", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Where are you reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4547.197], "stop_times": [4548.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4547.197}, "reply_to": "14991__3_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__3_006", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "That was Section -- that was on page -- the appendix A2, A3.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4548.162], "stop_times": [4553.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4548.162}, "reply_to": "14991__3_005", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_007", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "A3.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4553.808], "stop_times": [4554.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4553.808}, "reply_to": "14991__3_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__3_008", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "A3, the subsection -- let's see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4554.202], "stop_times": [4558.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4554.202}, "reply_to": "14991__3_007", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_009", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "15.28?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4558.968], "stop_times": [4560.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4558.968}, "reply_to": "14991__3_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__3_010", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Yes, 1528.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4560.597], "stop_times": [4561.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4560.597}, "reply_to": "14991__3_009", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_011", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4561.68], "stop_times": [4563.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4561.68}, "reply_to": "14991__3_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14991__3_012", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Now, in those will forms that the Department of Interior prepares who sends down to the various field officers for the government employees, the government attorneys to use.\nIt has instructions.\nIt's in my reply brief.\nIt has instruction that says, to be sure and find out what the Indian wants to do when you make this will.\nIt's right on -- it's printed right on the back of those forms.\nIf you look at the original record you'll find in that original will that the instructions to the field officers telling them to find out what the Indian's desire or nothing whatsoever about finding out who the -- about dispersing equity between the heirs.\nNow, the counsel, Mr. Stone he said there was no case.\nHe could find no case where they had disallowed a will of an Indian for equity and I agree with him.\nThere's no case where they never drawn out any will and said, well we didn't disperse equity, we didn't do equity therefore we're going to disallow this will.\nThis will be I think a new field in that respect to this -- that comes of the law in this case.\nI -- Mr. Hill mentioned that about one more point and I'll let the Court decide this case and which you're going to anyway.\nBut Mr. Hill stated that this niece have died since his probated and since his hearing have been held before the Examiner of Inheritance and one of her children have died.\nThat's immaterial to this in these matters.\nIt's very well Dorita High Horse could've died the next day and that's the descendants cast as of day of the death with the testator.\nWhat happens after that is immaterial to the Secretary of the Interior who's going to die, who's going to live.\nHe could not make any determination about that.\nThe fact that one or two of these devisees or legatees has died since this matter came into the course.\nThat's immaterial in this matter and the Secretary can't sit back in and say, well, so and so is going to die so we don't give it to them, we give it to someone else.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4563.176, 4574.106, 4575.088, 4577.643, 4583.913, 4586.069, 4600.806, 4606.47, 4612.057, 4619.556, 4627.259, 4640.849, 4648.979, 4651.644, 4657.279, 4662.045, 4664.885, 4671.404, 4679.617], "stop_times": [4574.106, 4575.088, 4577.643, 4583.913, 4586.069, 4600.806, 4606.47, 4612.057, 4619.556, 4627.259, 4640.849, 4648.979, 4651.644, 4657.279, 4662.045, 4664.885, 4671.404, 4679.617, 4681.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4563.176}, "reply_to": "14991__3_011", "speaker": "omer_luellen"}
{"id": "14991__3_013", "conversation_id": "14991", "text": "Thank you Mr. Luellen.\nThank you gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_300", "start_times": [4681.145, 4682.628, 4683.263], "stop_times": [4682.628, 4683.263, 4684.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4681.145}, "reply_to": "14991__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_000", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Number 441, Toussie against the United States.\nMr. Gurfein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [0.0, 7.897], "stop_times": [7.897, 19.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_001", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe petitioner in this case was born in 1941 in June.\nHe became 18 on June 23, 1959.\nHe failed to register for the draft, the reasons of conscience and was indicted after an arrest in February of 1967, almost eight years after his initial failure to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [19.847, 24.256, 31.107, 36.766], "stop_times": [24.256, 31.107, 36.766, 55.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 19.847}, "reply_to": "15340__0_000", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_002", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Now Mr. Gurfein, when you say he failed to register for reasons of conscience, he did not make any record or take any step or did he at that time to record that fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [55.766], "stop_times": [67.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 55.766}, "reply_to": "15340__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_003", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "He took no steps but if I may, Your Honor in connection with my argument on the First Amendment, I shall try to expand that a little further.\nI'm trying to make a summary statement of facts now so that I can indicate to the Court the three points we should like to argue within the short space of time allotted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [67.635, 75.307], "stop_times": [75.307, 83.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 67.635}, "reply_to": "15340__0_002", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_004", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [83.697], "stop_times": [84.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.697}, "reply_to": "15340__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_005", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The first statement I want to make on that is that I will not get involve at this time in the reasons why the record indicates that there was a sincerity of belief on the part of the petitioner that he could not take part in the registration process itself because his was a pristine religious view that the registration process itself was merely an extension of the war making in which he was against.\nIt should be recalled that in 1959 when the petitioner willfully failed to register, there was no war going on.\nThe Korean War had been finished.\nThere was no Vietnam War at that time.\nAs I say, he was arrested eight years after the event.\nThe general statute of limitations as we know is a five-year statute and in the words of that statute except as otherwise provided by law.\nAdequate and proper motion was made to dismiss prior to the trial on the basis of the statute of limitations having run which was denied.\nThe trial was held and at the trial counsel for petitioner requested a jury charge to the effect that if the jury believe in the sincerity of the religious beliefs of the petitioner and that his failure to register was due to his religious conscience that they should acquit.\nThis request to charge was denied by the trial Court and a conviction by the jury and suit.\nIn this Court as we did below, we make three points.\nFirst, that the statute of limitations is a five-year statute and that any extension beyond it is beyond the legislative intention, the congressional intention and indeed the prerogative of the executive.\nSecondly, we say that if the statute of limitations point to save.\nIt is only save thus the court below indicated by holding that a regulation and not a statute created a continuing duty to register and that by just the possession of the words, the continuing duty even though Congress said nothing about a continuing offense, ipso facto made a continuous offense as if Congress had specifically mandated it.\nAnd if that be the construction of the statute, then it is violative of the Fifth Amendment privilege of the petitioner.\nThe last point which I hope we shall have some time to discuss is that we believe that under the First Amendment, the minimum that we are asking here is covered by that Amendment and that is, that when a religious principle objector, objects the registration as part of the process.\nWhile it is true, he must subject himself to the criminal process at the same time he has a right when he is tried to a jury to have an instruction that if the jury believes he is religiously sincere that they should recognize in the context of this whole problem, his religious conscience under the First Amendment.\nNow, if I may turn first to the statute of limitations, if Your Honors please.\nAs a result of the decision below by the distinguished Second Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Court of Appeals as well as other Circuits, we are now in the state of law that a narcotics peddler is subject to a statute of limitations of five years.\nA man who sells defense secrets to a foreign government is subject to a statute of limitations of ten years.\nThe boy of 18 who fails to register for Selective Service is subject to a statute of limitations of 13 years and the questions is, how did this come about and is this harsh result sound.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [84.751, 119.102, 128.389, 130.739, 136.494, 140.511, 154.597, 164.656, 187.591, 196.422, 201.666, 217.752, 225.066, 253.491, 265.039, 289.674, 313.445, 319.589, 336.586, 344.564], "stop_times": [119.102, 128.389, 130.739, 136.494, 140.511, 154.597, 164.656, 187.591, 196.422, 201.666, 217.752, 225.066, 253.491, 265.039, 289.674, 313.445, 319.589, 336.586, 344.564, 358.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 84.751}, "reply_to": "15340__0_004", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_006", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Are you raising a constitutional question on that fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [358.854], "stop_times": [362.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.854}, "reply_to": "15340__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15340__0_007", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "In this face, I'm not raising a constitutional question, Your Honor, except --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [362.407], "stop_times": [365.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 362.407}, "reply_to": "15340__0_006", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_008", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [365.481], "stop_times": [366.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.481}, "reply_to": "15340__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15340__0_009", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I beg your pardon, Justice Black?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [366.445], "stop_times": [367.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 366.445}, "reply_to": "15340__0_008", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_010", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Are you raising any question about the government\u2019s policy to have different statute of limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [367.038], "stop_times": [372.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.038}, "reply_to": "15340__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15340__0_011", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No.\nI'm raising the question (a) as to the intention of Congress which is not expressed and (b) that without the intention of Congress, if Your Honor please, if the regulation is construed as I have indicated it was below, it is a non-constitutional delegation of legislative power by the Congress to the President and that hence, under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is unconstitutional, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [372.511, 372.966], "stop_times": [372.966, 399.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 372.511}, "reply_to": "15340__0_010", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_012", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And your 13 years is, you get by adding five years after his 26th birthday?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [399.443], "stop_times": [404.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.443}, "reply_to": "15340__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__0_013", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That is correct.\nI need to spell it out because I thought it was obvious but what the court did below in order to get around this problem was to say although the regulation which I shall read in a minute, perhaps I\u2019ll read it now.\nAlthough the regulation says that the duty the register shall be continuous at all times, two circuits have construed at all times to mean for life apparently because there are two circuits that seem to upheld that even if the man is over 26, rather is the statute goes beyond age 26, he can still be prosecuted which would make a man of 70 subject to prosecution and this Court had a collateral problem like that Gara which was affirmed by a divided court four to four in 1950.\nBut it was a collateral case so we really don\u2019t know what the court held.\nNow in the Second Circuit, they held that the regulation merely limited to 26 and therefore it\u2019s obvious that a boy of 18 must wait till 26 which is eight years and then five years thereafter.\nIt\u2019s five and that\u2019s where I get my 13 years which is exactly what was done below in this case.\nNow, the regulation, I don\u2019t think means, I say this with most respect designation, what it has been construed to me and I don\u2019t think it needs much of a gloss as to what was intended.\nAt page 813 of our brief in the appendix, the regulation says, the duty of every person subject to registration to present himself for and submit to registration shall continue at all times and if for any reason, any such person is not registered on the day or one of the days fixed his registration.\nHe should immediately present himself for and submit to registration before the local board in the area where you have to submit.\nAnd the word immediately, the very peculiar word, if you\u2019re talking about a continuing duty.\nIt seems to me that the fair entrance of this is that in issuing the regulations under the statute which permitted the President to fix the time with times and place of place of registration which naturally Congress had to do, they could not watch everyday the registration.\nBut all these means is that if a man was sick or absent from the country or out of town or something else happened which was not willful that he should not believe that he was thereafter forever discharged from his duty because at age 18 he could not register.\nOtherwise, the word immediately makes very little sense.\nAnd I say, if we can take it in this context, Your Honors, you have a very simple administrative regulation here that there\u2019s not in its face before to create a real continuing duty and certainly on its face, there\u2019s nothing about a continuing effects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [404.422, 405.57, 416.637, 449.391, 452.76, 467.142, 472.793, 488.101, 507.228, 515.222, 521.544, 536.688, 550.959, 553.542], "stop_times": [405.57, 416.637, 449.391, 452.76, 467.142, 472.793, 488.101, 507.228, 515.222, 521.544, 536.688, 550.959, 553.542, 568.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 404.422}, "reply_to": "15340__0_012", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_014", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What would be the impact of that regulation if you omitted the word immediately in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [568.728], "stop_times": [574.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.728}, "reply_to": "15340__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_015", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, I think immediately if just to gloss and I can\u2019t read the mind of Congress not of the drafters of the regulation, Mr. the Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [574.899], "stop_times": [581.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 574.899}, "reply_to": "15340__0_014", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_016", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But suppose we took it out now.\nWould it mean anything different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [581.746, 584.564], "stop_times": [584.564, 587.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.746}, "reply_to": "15340__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_017", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, I think the purpose of it is not to catch willful offender to violate the law that beyond the pale.\nI think this is for the purpose of notifying people for a perfectly ready, willing, and able to register under the draft law to a simple point that if they are not available on the day when they are suppose to register, that they\u2019re suppose to register thereafter.\nNow when it says immediately Mr. Chief Justice, I think the same result should follow but I think the word immediately does tend to help us in construing it merely as an administrative regulation and not as the courts below did as an effect and substitution for a statute extending the general statute of limitations beyond five years.\nNow, the process by which the court below arrived at extending statute was by acknowledging very frankly and the opinion of the Second Circuit certainly is a distinguished opinion in terms of facing the problems that arose and let me decided against this, we said we cannot complain about the fairness of the judicial reasoning that led to the result and they recognize all the problems there.\nThat Court did not as the Government now contends say that you can read anything into that statute.\nThey honestly said, we cannot read it into the statute.\nThere isn\u2019t any such thing because the statute of limitation.\nThe general statute just accept according as otherwise provided according to law.\nAssume the Congress can make a 13 years statute of limitations and none of the your question Mr. Justice Black if it chose to but the question is, did it choose to?\nWhat is there in this statute which simply says that the President may say when a boy shall come in and register?\nWhat is there in that statute?\nIt gives the Executive power to promulgate what the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognize as in practical effect and extension of the statute of limitation.\nNow, we think that this Court over the years and misquote way back as always lean over backwards if I may use the colloquial phrase with respect to statutes of limitations.\nIt runs against the grain of lawyers and judges, generally, the whole system of criminal justice to permit by extensions by back way or back doors methods by ambiguities the creation of extensions of statutes of limitation and this Court has so held many time.\nNow, the reason for it is perfectly obvious and I go beyond that.\nIt seems to us that in the historical material that we put into the brief.\nYour Honors, we\u2019ll see that going back to England and going back to the colonies and certainly to the beginning of the Republic, there has not have been any question but that a statute of limitations must be created by the legislature and not by the Executive.\nAnd it\u2019s one of those fundamental things in the separation of powers that it sees to me has gone through all the vicissitudes of various attempts to try to change by indirection generally at the instance of the Government the normal rules applicable to the meaning of English words and so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [587.399, 593.359, 609.029, 631.251, 659.26, 665.373, 668.359, 671.738, 677.581, 687.279, 694.843, 696.641, 706.915, 718.539, 738.339, 744.764, 750.343, 764.885], "stop_times": [593.359, 609.029, 631.251, 659.26, 665.373, 668.359, 671.738, 677.581, 687.279, 694.843, 696.641, 706.915, 718.539, 738.339, 744.764, 750.343, 764.885, 781.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 587.399}, "reply_to": "15340__0_016", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_018", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What do you say Mr. Gurfein, if the Court of Appeals view that these whole things are to be determined on the basis of the statute itself applies only between age of 18 and 26.\nThe regulation can\u2019t do anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [781.863, 796.549], "stop_times": [796.549, 798.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.863}, "reply_to": "15340__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_019", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Cannot do more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [798.479], "stop_times": [799.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 798.479}, "reply_to": "15340__0_018", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_020", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, it can\u2019t do anymore but at least it goes five years.\nI gather the Court of Appeals rejected the interpretation when you suggested that someone might be prosecuted at age 70 for failing to register 52 two years notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [799.723, 802.645], "stop_times": [802.645, 811.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.723}, "reply_to": "15340__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_021", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Late year and yet on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [811.999], "stop_times": [812.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 811.999}, "reply_to": "15340__0_020", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_022", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But in fact as to this fellow\u2019s brother --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [812.705], "stop_times": [815.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.705}, "reply_to": "15340__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_023", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [815.219], "stop_times": [815.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 815.219}, "reply_to": "15340__0_022", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_024", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "-- dismissed an indictment that rather be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [815.84], "stop_times": [817.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.84}, "reply_to": "15340__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_025", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Judge (Inaudible) did.\nYes Your Honor.\nMr. Justice Brennan, the point I\u2019m making is a very simple one that there is an ambiguity that you can have the rulings of the two circuits which have said it goes for all time as against the ruling of the Second Circuit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [817.765, 819.483, 820.265], "stop_times": [819.483, 820.265, 832.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 817.765}, "reply_to": "15340__0_024", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_026", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I appreciate that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [832.073], "stop_times": [832.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.073}, "reply_to": "15340__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_027", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And we say they\u2019re both wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [832.401], "stop_times": [833.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 832.401}, "reply_to": "15340__0_026", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_028", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, but I was interested in your answer to the what the Court of Appeals said and saying, now you have to read this really as -- since the statute applies only between ages 18 and 26.\nWell then, the terminal date for the beginning of the running of the statute on occasions which we concede is five years --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [833.833, 848.109], "stop_times": [848.109, 854.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.833}, "reply_to": "15340__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_029", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [854.208], "stop_times": [855.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.208}, "reply_to": "15340__0_028", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_030", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "-- is age 26.\nAnd then where it goes to age 31.\nNow that was the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [855.166, 856.526, 858.878], "stop_times": [856.526, 858.878, 860.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 855.166}, "reply_to": "15340__0_029", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_031", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Rational.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [860.387], "stop_times": [860.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.387}, "reply_to": "15340__0_030", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_032", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "-- as I understand the gist of the view of the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [860.473], "stop_times": [862.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 860.473}, "reply_to": "15340__0_031", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_033", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [862.799], "stop_times": [863.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.799}, "reply_to": "15340__0_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_034", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And that is what I am addressing myself to now, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [863.083], "stop_times": [865.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 863.083}, "reply_to": "15340__0_033", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_035", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Oh!\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [865.519, 865.634], "stop_times": [865.634, 866.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.519}, "reply_to": "15340__0_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_036", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, it\u2019s right on line with my thinking if I may suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [866.786], "stop_times": [869.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 866.786}, "reply_to": "15340__0_035", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_037", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [869.779], "stop_times": [871.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.779}, "reply_to": "15340__0_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_038", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "When you have a continuing duty statute, that does not mean that you have a continuing offense by legislative enactment.\nI go back to an old case in this Court, United States against Derwine (ph) which goes back to 1870 or something of that kind.\nIn that case, the question came up where is somebody embezzled funds when did the statute begin to run.\nIt had been held below that since he had a duty to return the funds, the statute had not run.\nThis Court held that once an act is done which makes it a completed crime then the statute begins to run.\nNow, Congress itself knows how to create continuous offenses as is evidenced for example by the bankruptcy statute.\nThe bankruptcy statute says very clearly the concealment of assets of a bankrupt or other debtor shall be deemed to be not a continuing duty.\nA continuing offense until the debtor shall have been finally discharged or discharged denied and the period of limitation shall not begin to run until such final discharge or denial of discharge.\nHe will find nothing, Your Honors.\nIn the Selective Service Act, which remotely relates to the statute of limitations or even to the creation of a continuous offense and so we say analytically as well as historically what makes it necessary to say if we are to adopt the liberal construction of statutes of limitations that just because we have a duty that that necessarily means that we have a continuous offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [871.171, 880.394, 888.755, 897.776, 904.086, 913.382, 923.479, 933.476, 946.405, 948.538], "stop_times": [880.394, 888.755, 897.776, 904.086, 913.382, 923.479, 933.476, 946.405, 948.538, 980.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 871.171}, "reply_to": "15340__0_037", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_039", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, you don\u2019t think Mr. Gurfein that the statute being applicable from ages 18 to 26?\nThe statute itself requires one to register at some time between 18 and 26?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [980.478, 987.605], "stop_times": [987.605, 992.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.478}, "reply_to": "15340__0_038", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_040", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Oh!\nThere maybe a duty to register but we should not take it of the normal concept of statutes of limitations if I steal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [992.848, 993.543], "stop_times": [993.543, 999.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 992.848}, "reply_to": "15340__0_039", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_041", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well I know.\nNo but if the statute is to be read that way, then why up to age 26 isn\u2019t very duty to register and not having registered?\nWhy wouldn\u2019t this five-year period begin to run at age 26?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [999.763, 1000.272, 1008.242], "stop_times": [1000.272, 1008.242, 1012.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.763}, "reply_to": "15340__0_040", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_042", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Because under normal rules of statute of limitations and of continuous offenses, I believe the rule is and should be that once the crime is completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1012.585], "stop_times": [1023.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1012.585}, "reply_to": "15340__0_041", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_043", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well when is that completed?\nWhen it applies from 18 to 20?\nIs it completed on the 18th birthday?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1023.354, 1024.479, 1026.732], "stop_times": [1024.479, 1026.732, 1028.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.354}, "reply_to": "15340__0_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_044", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I\u2019ll put it to you this way.\nIt is completed in this sense that if the defendant were apprehended, let us say in his 19th birthday, he couldn\u2019t say to the prosecutor, now wait a minute, I still have time till I\u2019m 26.\nHe is in the toils.\nHe has committed a completed crime and I say, Your Honors, that if he has committed a completed crime, what is there to say by virtue of legislative mandate that that is to be treated differently from any other (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1028.56, 1029.55, 1041.428, 1042.818], "stop_times": [1029.55, 1041.428, 1042.818, 1056.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1028.56}, "reply_to": "15340__0_043", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_045", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, this then is an argument Mr. Gurfein that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1056.725], "stop_times": [1059.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.725}, "reply_to": "15340__0_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_046", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1059.356], "stop_times": [1060.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1059.356}, "reply_to": "15340__0_045", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_047", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "This is -- your argument then is that the crime for purposes of the statute of limitation, it was completed on his 18th birthday when he failed that day to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1060.003], "stop_times": [1068.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.003}, "reply_to": "15340__0_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_048", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1068.428], "stop_times": [1068.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1068.428}, "reply_to": "15340__0_047", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_049", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Five days.\nYou\u2019re given five days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1068.656, 1069.119], "stop_times": [1069.119, 1070.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.656}, "reply_to": "15340__0_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__0_050", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "In five days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1070.166], "stop_times": [1070.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1070.166}, "reply_to": "15340__0_049", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_051", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Right, whatever that is.\nAnd that\u2019s what your -- that\u2019s your statutory obligation.\n(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1070.835, 1071.912, 1073.818], "stop_times": [1071.912, 1073.818, 1074.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.835}, "reply_to": "15340__0_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__0_052", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s the statutory obligation.\nThat\u2019s what I think it means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1074.343, 1075.56], "stop_times": [1075.56, 1076.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1074.343}, "reply_to": "15340__0_051", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_053", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Or you\u2019re guilty of an offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1076.815], "stop_times": [1078.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.815}, "reply_to": "15340__0_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__0_054", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1078.248], "stop_times": [1078.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1078.248}, "reply_to": "15340__0_053", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_055", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "On the sixth day, you\u2019re guilty of an offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1078.434], "stop_times": [1079.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.434}, "reply_to": "15340__0_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__0_056", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And I can\u2019t defend myself by saying no, I have seven more years or five years, I\u2019m through.\nI\u2019m a criminal and I think it\u2019s right to the second point because of the time and let\u2019s take it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1079.939, 1085.35], "stop_times": [1085.35, 1092.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1079.939}, "reply_to": "15340__0_055", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_057", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "So you would say I gather that when he came -- he'd be 23, he could not be prosecuted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1092.914], "stop_times": [1102.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.914}, "reply_to": "15340__0_056", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_058", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I would say that when he became to be 23 he could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1102.793], "stop_times": [1104.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1102.793}, "reply_to": "15340__0_057", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_059", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And further more he had no duty to register between 23 and 25.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1104.86], "stop_times": [1107.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.86}, "reply_to": "15340__0_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15340__0_060", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, I say he may have a duty to register but that doesn\u2019t have to be a criminal sanction.\nThere are many duties in life and in statutes but we don\u2019t have criminal in sanctions that happens everyday.\nNow if I steal you prize, I certainly have a duty to return it to you, I have a duty for life.\nBut as far as statute limitations is concerned, you cannot apprehend me more than five years after I still stole the prize, but I still owe you the prize and that\u2019s the role I say is that there's been a gloss upon a gloss here.\nIn the first place, Congress never said so and Congress is the only one to say so.\nSecond place, the regulation itself is an ambiguous and in the third place by every rule of liberal construction and criminal cases, the rule ought to be and we think is that the statute begin to run when the crime was complete and the test of when the crime is complete this could the man have been apprehended at that time or would still have an offense and that\u2019s our position on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1107.878, 1111.747, 1117.445, 1122.921, 1134.734, 1139.114], "stop_times": [1111.747, 1117.445, 1122.921, 1134.734, 1139.114, 1159.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1107.878}, "reply_to": "15340__0_059", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_061", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Gurfein, are there any analogies with respect to registration of securities that shed any light on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1159.132], "stop_times": [1165.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.132}, "reply_to": "15340__0_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_062", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "None that I know of, Your Honor.\nThe only analogy is in the Alien Registration Acts which raise the same problem in the sense and where there has been some different view.\nI believe that they\u2019ve also held there that there\u2019s a continuous offense but I think the policy with respect to aliens is a separate policy.\nIt will take too long that it went to here but I think there is reserve part of the brilliant and which make it different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1165.748, 1167.315, 1176.49, 1183.614], "stop_times": [1167.315, 1176.49, 1183.614, 1188.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1165.748}, "reply_to": "15340__0_061", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_063", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Is it not exactly parallel in terms of a government\u2019s resources to go out and find the people who are directed by statute to register?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1188.732], "stop_times": [1200.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.732}, "reply_to": "15340__0_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_064", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "You mean that it in fact everything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1200.81], "stop_times": [1202.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1200.81}, "reply_to": "15340__0_063", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_065", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The difficulty of a system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1202.265], "stop_times": [1203.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.265}, "reply_to": "15340__0_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_066", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Oh!\nThere is a difficulty but so is there a difficulty in apprehending a thief or any common criminal.\nAnd I don\u2019t think that these lads are in any different position in any other criminals and that\u2019s why I use that analogy, may have seen startling or perhaps traumatic but the fact that it does appeal to me as anomaly that a narcotics peddler should have -- should be subject to five-year term of limitations and I believe 18 should be subject to 13 years.\nBut that I leave because my time is running on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1203.556, 1203.689, 1209.461, 1229.305], "stop_times": [1203.689, 1209.461, 1229.305, 1232.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1203.556}, "reply_to": "15340__0_065", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_067", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But there you have in as in most statutes of limitation, you have a problem of the handicaps of defense after a long lapse of time.\nYou don\u2019t have that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1232.006, 1240.168], "stop_times": [1240.168, 1241.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.006}, "reply_to": "15340__0_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_068", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1241.928], "stop_times": [1242.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1241.928}, "reply_to": "15340__0_067", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_069", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "This is a mathematical equation you\u2019re dealing with here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1242.828], "stop_times": [1245.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.828}, "reply_to": "15340__0_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_070", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That is true.\nBut I don\u2019t believe that the limitation is only for that reason but also for reasons of repose as the courts have often said.\nNow, coming to the second point and I\u2019m sure I won't have time for the third, I merely downgrade it, Your Honor, I'm saving five minutes for the rebuttal.\nThe -- once you say that the only reason to see the petitioner here is in trouble is because you extended that statute of limitations because he had a compulsory duty to register.\nThen it is if you are creating two statutes.\nYou have first the statute which makes him a criminal because of I think we all concede, he certainly could have been arrested shortly after his 18th birthday if he willfully fail to register.\nAnd then you say to him, now you are compelled to register and by registering, identify yourself with your name and age and birthday and by that very identification, you are submitting yourself to prosecution in a sense of whether this is an all force with even Albertson and Marchetti in spirit and theory.\nIt is an even more pristine violation of the statute of limitations because here you do have an act which can't be equivocal really, the act itself of registering and giving your name and birthday is enough to convict you so we don\u2019t have talk here about change and links and evidence and substantial danger of incrimination.\nNow, and we suggest that in that context and I must say the Third Circuit by the way if it 1955 before this whole series of cases indicated that there was a Fifth Amendment problem in alien registration cases and we\u2019ve cited it in our brief there might be of some interest, they didn\u2019t have to decide it for other reasons.\nAnd so we say that in this context, the draft resister and the other class, there\u2019s no use denying the fact that there have been number of willful resisters that these people are in a select class of the kind that this Court has spoken of who are asked to come forward, give the names on the compulsion and hence be subject to prosecution under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1245.298, 1246.125, 1252.89, 1263.126, 1278.573, 1282.66, 1294.259, 1320.007, 1338.939, 1360.247], "stop_times": [1246.125, 1252.89, 1263.126, 1278.573, 1282.66, 1294.259, 1320.007, 1338.939, 1360.247, 1387.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1245.298}, "reply_to": "15340__0_069", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_071", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Gurfein, now that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1387.772], "stop_times": [1388.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.772}, "reply_to": "15340__0_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_072", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Marshall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1388.775], "stop_times": [1388.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1388.775}, "reply_to": "15340__0_071", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_073", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Now, that it\u2019s particularly involved in this case but suppose they just ask, let me see your draft card, what will happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1388.878], "stop_times": [1398.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.878}, "reply_to": "15340__0_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_074", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Who asked them?\nIf the police asked them?\nIf the question is that the police asked them of the draft code, if he was under a compulsory duty to register and he came in pursuant to that compulsion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1398.561, 1398.913, 1401.082], "stop_times": [1398.913, 1401.082, 1409.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1398.561}, "reply_to": "15340__0_073", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_075", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, no.\nI mean they stopped him on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1409.352, 1409.714], "stop_times": [1409.714, 1411.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.352}, "reply_to": "15340__0_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_076", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1411.78], "stop_times": [1412.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1411.78}, "reply_to": "15340__0_075", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_077", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And for some reason asking for identification and say, I want to see your draft card, and he says I don\u2019t have one.\nHe could be prosecuted, could he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1412.571, 1421.902], "stop_times": [1421.902, 1422.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.571}, "reply_to": "15340__0_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_078", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s a violation of law and if its 25 years, he\u2019d be arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1422.959], "stop_times": [1426.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1422.959}, "reply_to": "15340__0_077", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_079", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "They\u2019d be prosecuted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1426.847], "stop_times": [1428.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.847}, "reply_to": "15340__0_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_080", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Jointly be prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1428.278], "stop_times": [1429.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1428.278}, "reply_to": "15340__0_079", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_081", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Within five years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1429.671], "stop_times": [1432.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.671}, "reply_to": "15340__0_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_082", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Oh!\nAt anytime after he registers --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1432.428, 1432.516], "stop_times": [1432.516, 1433.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1432.428}, "reply_to": "15340__0_081", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_083", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s what the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1433.953], "stop_times": [1435.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.953}, "reply_to": "15340__0_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_084", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Ay anytime they asked him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1435.101], "stop_times": [1435.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1435.101}, "reply_to": "15340__0_083", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_085", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But it would be yours if that would still be a five-year limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1435.802], "stop_times": [1438.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.802}, "reply_to": "15340__0_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__0_086", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nIf Your Honor please, I think there\u2019s a difference between the registration and the registrant.\nThe non-registrant has already committed the crime.\nNow, coming to the third point and I wish I had more time to explain this self-incrimination argument but I think its obvious and it\u2019s either accepted or not based on this conception as I say if Congress had passed the statute which said, let us call in all those who fail to register in the draft the last couple of years, now please register.\nThat clearly wouldn\u2019t be against the Fifth Amendment, under the amendment itself and under the case and so we say this is analogous.\nNow, on the First Amendment, the court itself below, the Second Circuit said that in theory, it is true that a conscientious objected to the process of registration or to have a right, to have the jury pay us on the sincerity of this belief.\nBut unfortunately they said, I don\u2019t say unfortunate I hated that.\nUnder present doctrine, we can't allow that stand and we query what and present doctrine should support that result.\nWe think that there is no doubt that Toussie stands convicted here because of his religious beliefs.\nI don\u2019t think the Government says that he doesn\u2019t stand convicted because of religious beliefs, if so he is convicted for the exercise of a First Amendment right directly.\nNow, if he exercise that First Amendment right directly, should he not have the opportunity to have a jury pass on the sincerity of his beliefs.\nIn other words, under Sherbert against Verner and they way the Court has been determining this First Amendment questions lately, it\u2019s no longer a question as I see it if whether there is a vague constitutional exemption for conscientious objectors generally, that is not the issue.\nThe issue is if a man in the exercise of his First Amendment rights, honestly and conscientiously believes that registration is part of the process of killing and will not register.\nIs he then to be sent to jail without any defense or whatever?\nAnd the question of course is one of balancing when the Sherbert against Verner and Shapiro and other cases.\nThis Court has now said that in the balancing of this interest, we do not look to see whether it\u2019s a reasonable regulation but whether there is a compelling reason as to why the Government must have this and we vent you to say with the utmost respect that in this context, the Government doesn\u2019t need to send people to jail.\nNot one more boy is going to be brought into the army no matter which way this goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1438.828, 1440.218, 1444.09, 1447.729, 1468.068, 1473.993, 1490.689, 1494.533, 1505.624, 1511.788, 1522.076, 1532.59, 1550.823, 1561.792, 1566.252, 1572.116, 1594.232], "stop_times": [1440.218, 1444.09, 1447.729, 1468.068, 1473.993, 1490.689, 1494.533, 1505.624, 1511.788, 1522.076, 1532.59, 1550.823, 1561.792, 1566.252, 1572.116, 1594.232, 1599.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1438.828}, "reply_to": "15340__0_085", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_087", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Is that really the issue, Mr. Gurfein?\nThe compelling reason is the country like ours depending upon this kind of a system of military organization does have, does it not a compelling reason to have everyone registered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1599.057, 1600.629], "stop_times": [1600.629, 1616.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.057}, "reply_to": "15340__0_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_088", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "There\u2019s no doubt that makes it easy, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1616.745], "stop_times": [1618.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1616.745}, "reply_to": "15340__0_087", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_089", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And has it not also provided, has not Congress also provided with the conscientious objector may have another evident?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1618.134], "stop_times": [1626.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.134}, "reply_to": "15340__0_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__0_090", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But what does that do to the truly conscientious objector who believes at the process of registration itself?\nIf violated of his religious principles.\nThat is not answered.\nWe\u2019re not saying that this Court should overthrow the constitutionality to selective services in which you held valid in Nugent.\nWe\u2019re not asking that this man be let out.\nWe are not saying that he should be given a medal for not registering for religious reasons.\nWe are saying that there\u2019s so few of this they\u2019re not going to the raising of an army in the first place and on the second place if the issue is an extremely narrow one here.\nShould a jury be allowed to pay us on the sincerity of disbelief?\nHe is going to be subjected to the crucible of the criminal process in any event.\nAnd therefore, when people say, well this will open the floodgates, nobody will register.\nI say respectfully, that can\u2019t be true.\nNobody is going to take a chance on going to jail who isn\u2019t a dedicated and firm believer that in his own conscience, the registration is part of his process of constriction which is part of the process of law.\nIf Your Honors please, I could expand on that but I do want to save five minutes rebuttal and I simply want to say at the end that the principal dissenter as it\u2019s often been said should be the subject and he is indeed the subject of the greatest concern on this Court.\nAnd there is no doubt that a principal dissenter in this field certainly subjects himself to the direst of punishments as a felon and therefore, it is giving away not very much to permit a First Amendment right either directly or because otherwise you were discriminating between two types of conscientious objectives, those who register on a process and those who by reason of religious belief cannot even register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1626.272, 1632.807, 1635.16, 1635.972, 1643.552, 1646.565, 1650.976, 1659.795, 1664.115, 1668.524, 1673.018, 1676.065, 1695.058, 1713.473], "stop_times": [1632.807, 1635.16, 1635.972, 1643.552, 1646.565, 1650.976, 1659.795, 1664.115, 1668.524, 1673.018, 1676.065, 1695.058, 1713.473, 1742.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1626.272}, "reply_to": "15340__0_089", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_091", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think there\u2019s (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1742.635], "stop_times": [1751.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.635}, "reply_to": "15340__0_090", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15340__0_092", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that under the free exercise clause on the First Amendment, Mr. Justice Harlan that there is very little history to support the idea that there is no conscientious objection.\nI think Mr. Chief Justice used in his dissent in McIntosh spoke of the principles of the Constitution.\nHe didn\u2019t mention any Amendment but it\u2019s obvious, he meant the First Amendment.\nWe know too that there never was conscription until the Civil War in 1863.\nWe know that at that time, the first 10 amendments were considered to be limiting the power only of the federal government.\nThe federal government had no army, so that I think all the resort to history on both side is then conclusive and I do believe that when we read the content of what is free exercise of religion, we must do it in a negative way in order to avoid a constitutional right under the First Amendment by saying no.\nThis is like bigamy or polygamy.\nThis is something inimical to society which of course the Court can do.\nBut we submit that on the balancing of the interest where the few involved that there is a constitutional right and even if it\u2019s within the purview of the right as distinguished from it, merely a privilege if you will.\nThere is still is a sort of due process within the First Amendment that we think discriminates them between two honest and principled religious people.\nOne who registered and the other does not.\nWe don\u2019t ask you to let the second one off but we do say that if he is willing to test it in the crucible of a criminal court, the jury should be permitted to pass on the sincerity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1751.037, 1760.721, 1766.497, 1770.71, 1775.651, 1782.199, 1800.749, 1802.985, 1806.918, 1819.312, 1828.25, 1830.071], "stop_times": [1760.721, 1766.497, 1770.71, 1775.651, 1782.199, 1800.749, 1802.985, 1806.918, 1819.312, 1828.25, 1830.071, 1842.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1751.037}, "reply_to": "15340__0_091", "speaker": "murray_i_gurfein"}
{"id": "15340__0_093", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Beytagh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1842.327], "stop_times": [1850.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.327}, "reply_to": "15340__0_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_000", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nAs counsel has indicated, petitioner makes what is basically a three-problem attack on our views conviction for non registration with Selected Service System.\nHe says first that the statute of limitation is barred in the instant the prosecution.\nHe says second that if it did not have the privilege against self-incrimination provides a complete defense to his conviction.\nAnd he says third, that in all events, his religious beliefs provide him defense since can tell the conviction that he should not even submit to registration or that the list, the court should have submitted that issue to the jury.\nI think the central fallacy of the statute of limitations argument was alluded to by Mr. Justice White.\nThe result as we see it if the petitioner is correct is that at age 23, when he says the five-year statute of limitations would have run, he will no longer be subject to registration and I don\u2019t see anything that makes him subject to registration.\nPart of criminal prosecution for failure to register at the time he should have.\nOn our view of the statute and the regulation that we think properly implements the statute is simply this.\nWhen the District Court, I think set it up perhaps as well as it could be.\nBasically, the offense that petitioner is charged with is one of failing the register with the Selective Service System not simply upon reaching age 18 when he is required to but failing to register it all during a period of time between age 18 and age 26 during which the regulation and we think by fair application to statutes that the regulation sought to implement and effectuate require that he performs his duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [1850.237, 1854.415, 1869.029, 1876.19, 1887.903, 1909.501, 1918.721, 1942.337, 1948.587, 1957.867, 1964.182], "stop_times": [1854.415, 1869.029, 1876.19, 1887.903, 1909.501, 1918.721, 1942.337, 1948.587, 1957.867, 1964.182, 2000.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1850.237}, "reply_to": "15340__0_093", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_001", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I don\u2019t get that.\nIt seems to me if he hasn\u2019t committed an offense from five days after his 18th birthday or he has committed an offense, many people do that then you say it\u2019s a continuing offense but only for age 26 I should think we could just continue till the day he dies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2000.613, 2002.758], "stop_times": [2002.758, 2026.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.613}, "reply_to": "15340__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_002", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Your Honor, the --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2026.941], "stop_times": [2027.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2026.941}, "reply_to": "15340__1_001", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_003", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I don\u2019t understand that 26, there\u2019s nothing in there saying that you have between the ages of 18 and 26 to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2027.624], "stop_times": [2034.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.624}, "reply_to": "15340__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_004", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No.\nI think there is, Your Honor.\nThe registration --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2034.154, 2034.629, 2036.108], "stop_times": [2034.629, 2036.108, 2037.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2034.154}, "reply_to": "15340__1_003", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_005", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "You have to register within five days after your 18th birthday period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2037.512], "stop_times": [2041.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.512}, "reply_to": "15340__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_006", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But it says that all people between 18 and 26 are to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2041.756], "stop_times": [2044.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.756}, "reply_to": "15340__1_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15340__1_007", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Registration statute itself Section 453 says that every male person now here at the United States --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2044.454], "stop_times": [2052.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2044.454}, "reply_to": "15340__1_006", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_008", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Where are you reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2052.527], "stop_times": [2055.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.527}, "reply_to": "15340__1_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15340__1_009", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "From page 2 of our brief with subsection 3 of the statute.\nWho on the day or days fix for the first or any subsequent registration is between the ages of 18 and 26 and it goes on to say shall register set up by proclamation in the rules and regulations.\nNow in Section 4 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2055.123, 2061.511, 2076.491], "stop_times": [2061.511, 2076.491, 2077.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2055.123}, "reply_to": "15340__1_008", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_010", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "(Voice Overlap) over 18 at the time of enactment of the law, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2077.07], "stop_times": [2082.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.07}, "reply_to": "15340__1_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_011", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That is one of the purposes of that, Your Honor but the way we read it is that reading it in pari materia with Section 4 which makes people between 18-1/2 and 26 liable for training service.\nThe purpose of Congress was to set out a group of people in this age group who are responsible for registration.\nThere are certain people who are not required to register initially at age 18.\nThey become responsible for registration upon the happening of certain events that no longer put them in this exempt category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2082.103, 2096.715, 2105.758, 2109.849], "stop_times": [2096.715, 2105.758, 2109.849, 2118.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2082.103}, "reply_to": "15340__1_010", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_012", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "This was maybe up to non residences of people, Americans who have never been in United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2118.624], "stop_times": [2124.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.624}, "reply_to": "15340__1_011", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15340__1_013", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, there\u2019s a whole list that\u2019s provided by Section 454 and it\u2019s set out in the regulations that people are essentially are in the Armed Forces at that time of people will reserve components, people serving a certain government capacity things like that and aliens and certain kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2124.792], "stop_times": [2149.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2124.792}, "reply_to": "15340__1_012", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_014", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "If it all becomes naturalize at age 25, I suppose you have to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2149.856], "stop_times": [2153.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.856}, "reply_to": "15340__1_013", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15340__1_015", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nYes, Your Honor.\nIf he had no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2153.716, 2154.813, 2156.255], "stop_times": [2154.813, 2156.255, 2157.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2153.716}, "reply_to": "15340__1_014", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_016", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Registration applies to people other than citizens, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2157.37], "stop_times": [2160.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.37}, "reply_to": "15340__1_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_017", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2160.515, 2161.212], "stop_times": [2161.212, 2161.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2160.515}, "reply_to": "15340__1_016", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_018", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "So why could he wait till he was 25, if he was here when he was 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2161.648], "stop_times": [2165.737], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.648}, "reply_to": "15340__1_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_019", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Or does that refer to male citizen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2165.737], "stop_times": [2170.519], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.737}, "reply_to": "15340__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_020", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No I don\u2019t think it says male citizens, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2170.519], "stop_times": [2171.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2170.519}, "reply_to": "15340__1_019", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_021", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, no, it does.\nIt says male citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2171.826, 2174.222], "stop_times": [2174.222, 2177.241], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.826}, "reply_to": "15340__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_022", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "It says male person, now, here at the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2177.241], "stop_times": [2180.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2177.241}, "reply_to": "15340__1_021", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_023", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Only under the male person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2180.133], "stop_times": [2182.188], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.133}, "reply_to": "15340__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_024", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes, and there\u2019s a rather intricate provision relating to aliens basically on my understanding is the most aliens are required to register if they are determined not to register and subject themselves to service.\nThey still be it may be admitted in certain categories but they forfeit the right to become naturalized citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2182.188, 2195.971], "stop_times": [2195.971, 2203.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2182.188}, "reply_to": "15340__1_023", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_025", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Beytagh, I could understand that this is a continuing duty.\nI have a great difficulty with being the continuing effects and I\u2019m not playing semantic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2203.069, 2208.038], "stop_times": [2208.038, 2214.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.069}, "reply_to": "15340__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_026", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, we think it\u2019s both a continuing duty that the regulation prescribes that quite clearly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2214.301], "stop_times": [2220.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2214.301}, "reply_to": "15340__1_025", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_027", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well if it\u2019s a continuing offense, does he commit it 365 times a year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2220.594], "stop_times": [2225.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.594}, "reply_to": "15340__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_028", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No.\nThat\u2019s one offense, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2225.742, 2226.285], "stop_times": [2226.285, 2227.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2225.742}, "reply_to": "15340__1_027", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_029", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "When was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2227.525], "stop_times": [2229.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.525}, "reply_to": "15340__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_030", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The offense continued --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2229.11], "stop_times": [2230.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2229.11}, "reply_to": "15340__1_029", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_031", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The day he was 18?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2230.187], "stop_times": [2232.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.187}, "reply_to": "15340__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_032", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, from five days thereafter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2232.061], "stop_times": [2233.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2232.061}, "reply_to": "15340__1_031", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_033", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What?\nThat\u2019s when the offense was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2233.467, 2233.961], "stop_times": [2233.961, 2236.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.467}, "reply_to": "15340__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_034", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But the offense continues because the statute and regulation that implement that statute requires --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2236.384], "stop_times": [2244.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2236.384}, "reply_to": "15340__1_033", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_035", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "We have statutes that say, you shall not buy heroin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2244.977], "stop_times": [2248.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.977}, "reply_to": "15340__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_036", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2248.409], "stop_times": [2250.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2248.409}, "reply_to": "15340__1_035", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_037", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But you have to buy some in order to be guilty and you\u2019re only guilty each time you buy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2250.264], "stop_times": [2258.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.264}, "reply_to": "15340__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_038", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2258.328], "stop_times": [2259.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2258.328}, "reply_to": "15340__1_037", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_039", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What\u2019s the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2259.476], "stop_times": [2260.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.476}, "reply_to": "15340__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_040", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, the difference here is this individual had a responsibility at age 18 or five days thereafter to register.\nHe did not do that and he has continued thereafter not to do that.\nThe notion of the continuing offense is this court decisions is spelled out and because our brief develops fits with this.\nBasically, the notion is that there is an ultimate objective that the individuals criminal activity seeks to achieve the ultimate objective here is evasion of military service.\nThere\u2019s no question about that.\nThat cannot be achieved unless until he reaches the point in time at age 26 when he is no longer liable for training and service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2260.554, 2270.019, 2275.57, 2283.173, 2294.442, 2296.574], "stop_times": [2270.019, 2275.57, 2283.173, 2294.442, 2296.574, 2306.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2260.554}, "reply_to": "15340__1_039", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_041", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I would assume that at age 25 if he enlisted, he is still could get convicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2306.003], "stop_times": [2312.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.003}, "reply_to": "15340__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_042", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "You mean if he came in and registered --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2312.335], "stop_times": [2314.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2312.335}, "reply_to": "15340__1_041", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_043", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, if he enlisted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2314.523], "stop_times": [2319.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.523}, "reply_to": "15340__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_044", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "If he enlisted in the army, just decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2319.748], "stop_times": [2321.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2319.748}, "reply_to": "15340__1_043", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_045", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "He would still be convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2321.972], "stop_times": [2323.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.972}, "reply_to": "15340__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_046", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that\u2019s correct.\nI think that the chances of the Government --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2323.957, 2325.139], "stop_times": [2325.139, 2329.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2323.957}, "reply_to": "15340__1_045", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_047", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No but actually, I suppose if he came in and registered 10 days after his 18th birthday, he still be guilty of the offense of not coming in to register five days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2329.412], "stop_times": [2337.461], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.412}, "reply_to": "15340__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_048", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s technically correct, Your Honor but as we point out in the brief.\nOne element of this offense is willfulness and coming in at any time, it seems to me the more remote obviously that the less significant this is but coming in certainly 10 days after, would seem to me that to raise serious doubt about the willfulness of his earlier violation and I doubt that he would be prosecuted.\nThe only difficulty as we point out in our brief, we would have as was somebody who had apparently pursued a deliberate course of non-registration until he had reached that of situation, marriage-wise or otherwise where he was eligible for deferment on an exemption and then he came in and said, well, here I am and I just want to tell you, I want to register and I didn\u2019t mean anything bad by what I did previously.\nOtherwise, the government\u2019s policy is basically to get man to serve in the military and not what people in prison.\nNow petitioner first to Hawaii case on which he says it demonstrates conclusively that\u2019s not the government\u2019s policy.\nI like simply to say that as to the Hawaii case, the individual very carefully came in only after it reach age 26 and it seems to me that\u2019s a sufficient answer to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2337.461, 2340.293, 2362.957, 2386.417, 2396.494, 2403.455], "stop_times": [2340.293, 2362.957, 2386.417, 2396.494, 2403.455, 2413.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2337.461}, "reply_to": "15340__1_047", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_049", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "There\u2019s another decision (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2413.518], "stop_times": [2416.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.518}, "reply_to": "15340__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15340__1_050", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes that\u2019s correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2416.401], "stop_times": [2418.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2416.401}, "reply_to": "15340__1_049", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_051", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Are they split?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2418.024], "stop_times": [2419.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.024}, "reply_to": "15340__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan"}
{"id": "15340__1_052", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any split.\nThe Courts of Appeals have considered this regarding the requirement as a continuing duty and of regard of the offense as a continuous offense.\nNow it is true that several of these cases have intimated that the duty is an open-ended one and does not terminate at age 26.\nThis question was raise as Mr. Justice Brennan brought up in this very case.\nJust his brother was charged along with him.\nHis brother at the time he was charged was age 33 or two years, close to two years beyond the age of 31 when we say there\u2019s the statue of limitations and the courts below say the statute of limitations ground as failure to register.\nThe Judge Dooling determined that a reasonable construction of the statute and the regulations putting all together, Section 3, Section 4 and the regulations that seek to implement them, indicate that the intended Congress was to make persons eligible for service in the Armed Forces responsible to register until they reach that age, age 26 when they were no longer liable for training and service.\nNow we think that\u2019s a reasonable reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2419.988, 2421.224, 2431.593, 2443.075, 2448.067, 2451.066, 2466.129, 2496.349], "stop_times": [2421.224, 2431.593, 2443.075, 2448.067, 2451.066, 2466.129, 2496.349, 2499.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2419.988}, "reply_to": "15340__1_051", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_053", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The Solicitor General", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2499.438], "stop_times": [2499.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2499.438}, "reply_to": "15340__1_052", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_054", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Now we think that\u2019s reasonable.\nSolicitor General question, he said there was no split.\nI understood that there was that this is the view of this district court and court of Appeals and other Courts of Appeals.\nI thought that instead of their being in effect of 13 years statute of limitations. There was a non-limited period of time during which person could be prosecuted.\nAm I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2499.906, 2500.756, 2502.556, 2509.264, 2517.897], "stop_times": [2500.756, 2502.556, 2509.264, 2517.897, 2519.053], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.906}, "reply_to": "15340__1_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_055", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nYou are correct and I thought that I included that in my answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2519.053, 2519.572], "stop_times": [2519.572, 2521.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2519.053}, "reply_to": "15340__1_054", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_056", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well I would consider that a difference of opinion or as Mr. Justice Harlan\u2019s word of split of authority or split of opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2521.973], "stop_times": [2529.408], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.973}, "reply_to": "15340__1_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_057", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But is there any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2529.408], "stop_times": [2530.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.408}, "reply_to": "15340__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_058", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I thought his question went to whether there was a split on the continuing duty question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2530.063], "stop_times": [2535.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2530.063}, "reply_to": "15340__1_057", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_059", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "(Voice Overlap) [Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2535.19], "stop_times": [2540.648], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.19}, "reply_to": "15340__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_060", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That was to be my question and I thought the questions were directed at the continuing duty concept not whether there was a difference or a split on perpetual duty or limited your duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2540.648], "stop_times": [2556.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.648}, "reply_to": "15340__1_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_061", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "We don\u2019t, we don\u2019t Mr. Justice Stewart.\nWe don\u2019t and I thought I put that my answer.\nWe understand this case is to leave this as I said open-ended.\nWe think that that\u2019s wrong in this particular case as Solicitor General determine in the case of his brother not to pursue on appeal simply because we thought that was not an appropriate or proper correct reading of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2556.057, 2557.76, 2561.05, 2565.042], "stop_times": [2557.76, 2561.05, 2565.042, 2576.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2556.057}, "reply_to": "15340__1_060", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_062", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And this Court if I am correct in understanding is alone.\nThat is this District Court and Court of Appeals.\nThis decision is alone and sort of creating a 13-year statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2576.585, 2579.182, 2582.28], "stop_times": [2579.182, 2582.28, 2588.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.585}, "reply_to": "15340__1_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_063", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that\u2019s correct except that I don\u2019t agree and I don\u2019t accept the notion of the 13-year statute of limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2588.542], "stop_times": [2593.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2588.542}, "reply_to": "15340__1_062", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_064", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2593.267], "stop_times": [2593.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.267}, "reply_to": "15340__1_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_065", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Our notion is that a five-year statute is being applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2593.504], "stop_times": [2596.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2593.504}, "reply_to": "15340__1_064", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_066", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But there can be no prosecution after a person reaches five days after his 31st birthday?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2596.811], "stop_times": [2602.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.811}, "reply_to": "15340__1_065", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15340__1_067", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.\nI think that\u2019s correct.\nI think that there are some reasons for this.\nIt seems to me that these decisions, these earlier decisions that we are referring to were in the main decided ten or more years ago since that time there\u2019s been a substantial development evolution in the Fifth Amendment area.\nThe Fifth Amendment issues in this case, it seems to me that all things considered, this was a reasonable construction and application of the statute of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2602.113, 2602.562, 2603.577, 2604.453, 2606.502, 2620.329], "stop_times": [2602.562, 2603.577, 2604.453, 2606.502, 2620.329, 2630.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2602.113}, "reply_to": "15340__1_066", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_068", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "This is then quite -- it seems to me that on this, what is it 26th birthday?\nHe has a choice of going in and asked him to register and expose himself to Fifth Amendment problem or the statute were right, the real statute of limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2630.005, 2638.693], "stop_times": [2638.693, 2652.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.005}, "reply_to": "15340__1_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_069", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nIt --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2652.371, 2653.481], "stop_times": [2653.481, 2653.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2652.371}, "reply_to": "15340__1_068", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_070", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, doesn\u2019t that give you some Fifth Amendment problem as of that date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2653.783], "stop_times": [2659.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.783}, "reply_to": "15340__1_069", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_071", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, I think the Fifth Amendment problems before you reach that day, I think the Fifth Amendment problems throughout.\nYou think that they\u2019re answers to them but yes, I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2659.314, 2664.735], "stop_times": [2664.735, 2669.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2659.314}, "reply_to": "15340__1_070", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_072", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Now, do you see any basis for distinguishing between the obligation of an alien to register and the obligation to what\u2019s involved here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2669.395], "stop_times": [2679.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.395}, "reply_to": "15340__1_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_073", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "You mean the annual obligation in January?\nI don\u2019t see any essential difference, Your Honor.\nIt is more likely annual income tax return or the renewal of a driver\u2019s license, various analogies and we suggested.\nIt seems to us that and this is anticipating a bit of privilege argument.\nIt seems to us that no matter how petitioner seeks to characterize it.\nHis argument ultimately leads to the conclusion that once a person violates either continuing or recurring obligation or duty imposed by the government whether it be a regulatory scheme, a tax scheme, or whatever, a scheme that requires registration reporting.\nThe thrust of his argument is that once he violates that, statute limitations on that offense starts to run and that thereafter he\u2019s insolated from any further compliance because he can say at any further compliance would incriminate beyond the Fifth Amendment and I can't be required to do that.\nNow, we think that none of this case is Marchetti, Grosso, or any of the others go to this extreme.\nNow petitioner seek to draw some distinctions and says he doesn\u2019t he really mean to go that far but it seems to me that it\u2019s very difficult to say that he\u2019s not going that far.\nThe central objective it seems to us of the point that he seeks to make is on the privilege question is that he could not be compelled, require or whatever to register after the initial registration period.\nIt seems to us that if that is so, neither could people be required to make reports, returns or whatever after they had initially fail to comply with the requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2679.411, 2684.368, 2688.935, 2696.774, 2701.512, 2707.577, 2727.762, 2748.867, 2756.049, 2765.839, 2785.619], "stop_times": [2684.368, 2688.935, 2696.774, 2701.512, 2707.577, 2727.762, 2748.867, 2756.049, 2765.839, 2785.619, 2797.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2679.411}, "reply_to": "15340__1_072", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_074", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What\u2019s the immediate of governance?\nThese things -- if he does come in age 19, 21, or 22, he does incriminate himself, didn\u2019t he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2797.343, 2800.162], "stop_times": [2800.162, 2810.076], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.343}, "reply_to": "15340__1_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_075", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think in some sense he incriminates himself but it seems to me that there\u2019s a substantial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2810.076], "stop_times": [2814.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2810.076}, "reply_to": "15340__1_074", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_076", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, I mean the Government never heard of him until then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2814.356], "stop_times": [2819.05], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.356}, "reply_to": "15340__1_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_077", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2819.05], "stop_times": [2819.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2819.05}, "reply_to": "15340__1_076", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_078", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And they now discover that here he is and he didn\u2019t come in five days after his 18th birthday.\nDoesn\u2019t it -- the Government then have a basis of prosecuting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2819.561, 2826.389], "stop_times": [2826.389, 2829.271], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.561}, "reply_to": "15340__1_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_079", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The Government certainly does have a basis prosecuting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2829.271], "stop_times": [2831.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2829.271}, "reply_to": "15340__1_078", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_080", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, how do we get over that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2831.322], "stop_times": [2833.04], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.322}, "reply_to": "15340__1_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_081", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, it seems to me that there are several ways to getting over.\nThe first place as I indicated his coming in voluntary cast the question initially on the willfulness of the original offense on whether the prosecution would be successful.\nAnd also it seems to us and this is I think the central point on which the Court of Appeals rely is that there isn\u2019t any real compulsion that\u2019s working on him to force him to come in after he first fail to register.\nThis is a continuing offense we accept that and we have to accept that proposition in order to get to the privilege question.\nTherefore unlike the situations in Marchetti and Grosso, he risks no greater thread of punishment by continuing not to register during the period required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2833.04, 2835.919, 2848.47, 2861.992, 2869.102], "stop_times": [2835.919, 2848.47, 2861.992, 2869.102, 2881.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2833.04}, "reply_to": "15340__1_080", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_082", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, then the answer is then there\u2019s no violation of the proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2881.521], "stop_times": [2884.621], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.521}, "reply_to": "15340__1_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_083", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And I think there\u2019s no compulsion working on him and therefore no violation to privilege.\nThis is developed at considerable length in the Court of Appeals opinion.\nIt seems to us that there is a substantial difference between this kind of situation.\nThe situation in Grosso and Marchetti situation there would have required people to continue to do things and would have continued to -", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2884.621, 2888.938, 2893.133, 2898.061], "stop_times": [2888.938, 2893.133, 2898.061, 2904.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2884.621}, "reply_to": "15340__1_082", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_084", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Now why is it had voluntary?\nWhy is he voluntary on your with theory of offense?\nWhy would if he comes in at 19, 21, it\u2019s not compelled to follow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2904.462, 2907.696, 2911.554], "stop_times": [2907.696, 2911.554, 2915.428], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.462}, "reply_to": "15340__1_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_085", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I didn\u2019t suggest that in the first place, this individual didn\u2019t come in and they didn\u2019t clear as intent that it wasn\u2019t ever going to come.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2915.428], "stop_times": [2922.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2915.428}, "reply_to": "15340__1_084", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_086", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, but testing whether or not which is on the American, this is a privilege on you.\nSo I understand you the Court of Appeals may gather the Government adopts the Court of Appeals position.\nThe Court of Appeals position is that there\u2019s nothing compulsory about this.\nHe doesn\u2019t register at 19 to 21 under any compulsion and neither with privilege is not violated, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2922.589, 2928.503, 2934.013, 2939.965], "stop_times": [2928.503, 2934.013, 2939.965, 2945.918], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.589}, "reply_to": "15340__1_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_087", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Because he has already committed whatever offense he is going to commit since it\u2019s a continuing offense, it\u2019s a continuing crime and that he doesn\u2019t incriminate himself to any greater extent and has already incriminate him so there\u2019s one continuous offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2945.918], "stop_times": [2962.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2945.918}, "reply_to": "15340__1_086", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_088", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That doesn\u2019t rest on any attribution of voluntary as to his coming in and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2962.506], "stop_times": [2967.152], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.506}, "reply_to": "15340__1_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_089", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, it\u2019s a question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2967.152], "stop_times": [2967.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2967.152}, "reply_to": "15340__1_088", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_090", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But it rests on that because it\u2019s a continuing offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2967.892], "stop_times": [2971.9], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.892}, "reply_to": "15340__1_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_091", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That there\u2019s no real compulsion working on him in the Fifth Amendment sense because he doesn\u2019t risk anything greater by not coming in to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2971.9], "stop_times": [2982.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2971.9}, "reply_to": "15340__1_090", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_092", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "You\u2019re saying though that -- you do say that if he ask someone at age 21 and he not having to register before, if he ask somebody, am I under illegal duty to register now.\nThey should tell him yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2982.404, 2995.574], "stop_times": [2995.574, 2996.764], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.404}, "reply_to": "15340__1_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_093", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes, that\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2996.764], "stop_times": [2997.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2996.764}, "reply_to": "15340__1_092", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_094", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And he has them well that I can't be punished any more than I already could be by not registering now.\nThey say yes but it\u2019s like do you have illegal duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [2997.422, 3003.576], "stop_times": [3003.576, 3006.368], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.422}, "reply_to": "15340__1_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_095", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3006.368], "stop_times": [3006.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3006.368}, "reply_to": "15340__1_094", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_096", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And you say that responding to that illegal duty.\nHe is not compulsion for Fifth Amendment purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3006.913, 3010.567], "stop_times": [3010.567, 3014.32], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.913}, "reply_to": "15340__1_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_097", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Under the circumstances presented here on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3014.32], "stop_times": [3017.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3014.32}, "reply_to": "15340__1_096", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_098", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Perhaps Mr. Beytagh, this is a matter of detection and identification or that incrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3017.182], "stop_times": [3024.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.182}, "reply_to": "15340__1_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_099", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3024.064], "stop_times": [3024.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3024.064}, "reply_to": "15340__1_098", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_100", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "He is already incriminated in the broaden sense by his violation of the statute.\nHis coming in maybe identifies him exposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3024.853, 3031.015], "stop_times": [3031.015, 3036.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.853}, "reply_to": "15340__1_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_101", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Brennan\u2019s suggestion was that this was incrimination and I was accepting that for purposes of the discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3036.958], "stop_times": [3045.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3036.958}, "reply_to": "15340__1_100", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_102", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But in truth, he\u2019s already incriminated, is he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3045.699], "stop_times": [3050.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.699}, "reply_to": "15340__1_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_103", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, is he on t I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3050.034], "stop_times": [3051.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3050.034}, "reply_to": "15340__1_102", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_104", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "If in fact he has failed to register on the day when or requires it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3051.458], "stop_times": [3057.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.458}, "reply_to": "15340__1_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_105", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think he has already committed the criminal offense and he continuous to commit one by not coming in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3057.794], "stop_times": [3062.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3057.794}, "reply_to": "15340__1_104", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_106", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Oh!\nIt\u2019s not self-incriminated by committing the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3062.455, 3062.544], "stop_times": [3062.544, 3064.888], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.455}, "reply_to": "15340__1_105", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_107", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, I -- I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3064.888], "stop_times": [3067.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3064.888}, "reply_to": "15340__1_106", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_108", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, when we\u2019re talking about the privilege it\u2019s whether there\u2019s compulsory self-incrimination, that\u2019s we\u2019re talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3067.156], "stop_times": [3073.085], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.156}, "reply_to": "15340__1_107", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_109", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct and my submission was that the compulsion that was operating on him as the Court of Appeals suggested was not the sort of compulsion that should be given sanction by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3073.085], "stop_times": [3083.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3073.085}, "reply_to": "15340__1_108", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_110", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "So when he comes in and registers at 21, he certainly is, let the Government know that he\u2019s failed in his duty up to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3083.903], "stop_times": [3091.753], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.903}, "reply_to": "15340__1_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_111", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that is so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3091.753], "stop_times": [3092.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3091.753}, "reply_to": "15340__1_110", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_112", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "But he hasn\u2019t been upheld to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3092.993], "stop_times": [3096.731], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.993}, "reply_to": "15340__1_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_113", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3096.731], "stop_times": [3097.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3096.731}, "reply_to": "15340__1_112", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_114", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Isn\u2019t that not your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3097.413], "stop_times": [3098.913], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.413}, "reply_to": "15340__1_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_115", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that\u2019s essentially the point we\u2019re making.\nI don\u2019t think that the situation is, we don\u2019t rest simply on that point and I don\u2019t think that we need to rest on that point.\nWe\u2019ve developed in our brief, variety of other suggestions that go to that one of the question of willfulness.\nAlso the question of whether the Government in fact is going to prosecute.\nThis kind of position that we\u2019re going to take as I indicated earlier and will take is that if this people, when they come in, they have not sought to take advantage of the fact that they are not registering at some earlier point although they may have committed the technical violation, the purpose is to get people eligible for military service and not into jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3098.913, 3100.918, 3109.147, 3116.931, 3120.327], "stop_times": [3100.918, 3109.147, 3116.931, 3120.327, 3140.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3098.913}, "reply_to": "15340__1_114", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_116", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Are you suggesting in fact you should be construed to bar criminal prosecution if the fellow voluntary registers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3140.535], "stop_times": [3147.483], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.535}, "reply_to": "15340__1_115", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_117", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, Your Honor and I don\u2019t suggest that.\nI don\u2019t think that an immunity statute this petitioner suggest is a solution to this problem would really solve but it seems to me that that would simply invite people to fail to register until they reach the point in time when they were in a better situation vis-\u00e0-vis the Selective Service System and then coming in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3147.483, 3151.855], "stop_times": [3151.855, 3172.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3147.483}, "reply_to": "15340__1_116", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_118", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Suppose the statute of limitation does begin to run five days after the time when he fail to register?\nWhat about this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3172.594, 3183.815], "stop_times": [3183.815, 3186.918], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.594}, "reply_to": "15340__1_117", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_119", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "If the statute of limitations begun to run at that point in time, then the statute has expired then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3186.918], "stop_times": [3195.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3186.918}, "reply_to": "15340__1_118", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_120", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Then what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3195.311], "stop_times": [3197.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.311}, "reply_to": "15340__1_119", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_121", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Then the statute has run on this particular offense and he can't be prosecuted and the courts below were in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3197.095], "stop_times": [3202.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3197.095}, "reply_to": "15340__1_120", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_122", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "In fact it was a continuing offense; it wouldn\u2019t have anything to do with it then, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3202.404], "stop_times": [3208.382], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.404}, "reply_to": "15340__1_121", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_123", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No but in order to get him within, the period of the statute as a matter of fact, the statute here under our view never started to run because he was indicted just prior to reaching age 26.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3208.382], "stop_times": [3223.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3208.382}, "reply_to": "15340__1_122", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_124", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3223.254], "stop_times": [3226.507], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.254}, "reply_to": "15340__1_123", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_125", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The indictment was found before his 26th birthday so that under our view of the statute and regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3226.507], "stop_times": [3233.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3226.507}, "reply_to": "15340__1_124", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_126", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Your view here is although he was guilty of the offense five days after he came 18, he could be indicted at any time thereafter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3233.722], "stop_times": [3245.753], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.722}, "reply_to": "15340__1_125", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_127", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "He could be indicted as in any continuing offense.\nI don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything anomalous about that counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3245.753, 3248.472], "stop_times": [3248.472, 3251.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3245.753}, "reply_to": "15340__1_126", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_128", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I didn\u2019t mean them all.\nI just want to be cleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3251.805, 3253.23], "stop_times": [3253.23, 3254.204], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.805}, "reply_to": "15340__1_127", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_129", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes, counsel suggested that there was something strange about the notion that at age 19 as so the Government discovered this and prosecute him, this is so with respect to conspiracy and any other continuing offense, if it continuous the Government can certainly interrupt its continuants when it discovers the offense and bring the prosecution against the individual at that time.\nIt doesn\u2019t have to wait until the statute of limitations starts to run.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3254.204, 3274.928], "stop_times": [3274.928, 3278.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3254.204}, "reply_to": "15340__1_128", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_130", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Do you agree that they couldn\u2019t prosecute him twice for failing to register.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3278.894], "stop_times": [3282.7], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.894}, "reply_to": "15340__1_129", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_131", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that\u2019s correct and I think any suggestion that there are any double jeopardy problems here is answered by our reference to the regulation.\nThese people if they\u2019re prosecuted are involuntarily registered with the Selective Service System so there\u2019s no question of their being subjected twice to jeopardy for non-registration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3282.7, 3289.799], "stop_times": [3289.799, 3301.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3282.7}, "reply_to": "15340__1_130", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_132", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Does that amount to any great handicap in the Department of Justice and prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3301.597], "stop_times": [3309.513], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.597}, "reply_to": "15340__1_131", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_133", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I\u2019m not sure I understand your question at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3309.513], "stop_times": [3310.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3309.513}, "reply_to": "15340__1_132", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_134", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What I mean, the man has committed an offense and you say that he continuous to commit that offense, would it amount to any great handicap to the Department of Justice to require them to prosecute them within five years from the time it was committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3310.595], "stop_times": [3331.875], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.595}, "reply_to": "15340__1_133", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_135", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I think that the question is not simply whether it interferes with the operations to the Department of Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3331.875], "stop_times": [3337.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3331.875}, "reply_to": "15340__1_134", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_136", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, of course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3337.728], "stop_times": [3339.076], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.728}, "reply_to": "15340__1_135", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_137", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "The question is also whether it interferes with the operations with the Selective Service System --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3339.076], "stop_times": [3342.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3339.076}, "reply_to": "15340__1_136", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_138", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3342.96], "stop_times": [3343.854], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.96}, "reply_to": "15340__1_137", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_139", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "-- and Congress has made a judgment that people between ages 18-1/2 and 26 are liable for training and service.\nNow, if -- as Mr. Justice White suggested, the counsel\u2019s submission is correct, petitioner upon reaching age 23 and five days would no longer be subjected to criminal prosecution and I can't understand why that point it would be simply be scot-free although it would still be with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3343.854, 3352.243], "stop_times": [3352.243, 3375.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3343.854}, "reply_to": "15340__1_138", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_140", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, even if he hadn\u2019t been prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3375.857], "stop_times": [3379.728], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.857}, "reply_to": "15340__1_139", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_141", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3379.728], "stop_times": [3381.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3379.728}, "reply_to": "15340__1_140", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_142", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "If you admit then of course it\u2019s proper that the offense has been committed five days after he (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3381.287], "stop_times": [3388.425], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.287}, "reply_to": "15340__1_141", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_143", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3388.425], "stop_times": [3388.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3388.425}, "reply_to": "15340__1_142", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_144", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "(Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3388.67], "stop_times": [3389.683], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.67}, "reply_to": "15340__1_143", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_145", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Yes, then it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3389.683], "stop_times": [3390.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3389.683}, "reply_to": "15340__1_144", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_146", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And it has run five years.\nThe Government hadn't prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3390.415, 3392.756], "stop_times": [3392.756, 3394.851], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.415}, "reply_to": "15340__1_145", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_147", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "That\u2019s correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3394.851], "stop_times": [3396.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3394.851}, "reply_to": "15340__1_146", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_148", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Mr. Beytagh, could he register on after his 26th?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3396.58], "stop_times": [3405.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.58}, "reply_to": "15340__1_147", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_149", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "I don\u2019t know whether it could or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3405.918], "stop_times": [3407.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3405.918}, "reply_to": "15340__1_148", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_150", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "We\u2019ll how do you submit in defense after age 26 if he could register if it\u2019s a continuing offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3407.978], "stop_times": [3414.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3407.978}, "reply_to": "15340__1_149", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15340__1_151", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Well, under our submission that the responsibility to register of terminates at age 26.\nI have to agree and therefore he could not commit an offense after that and the statute.\nThe question would be whether the statute would grant it at the time.\nThe several other comments on the privilege of defense that the petitioner search as I sought to allude to, there\u2019s some question whether he even asked standing interest to assert that defense, he has made it clear indeed and his point three years made it demonstrably plain that he never intended to register at all.\nIndeed he says that his religious beliefs prevented him to doing so.\nSo it seems to us there\u2019s some real question about whether he is in a position to say that he was deterred from registering at some later point in time because of potential self- incrimination.\nThe Marchetti and Grosso line up decisions, we sought in our brief to distinguish those, it seems to us that the distinctions are rather clear.\nFirst, they relate to initial registration and an area permeated with criminal statutes relating people inherently suspect of criminal activities.\nPetitioner as counsel suggests that he\u2019s in that same category once he has failed initially to register.\nWe don\u2019t think that as long as it is indicated to Mr. Justice Stewart, there are a number of people who have responsibility to register later point in time and there are also people who for one reason or another have excusably failed to register and may come in at later point in time.\nThey indicated that the Chief Justice, we view the position here suggested whatever distinctions might sought to be made and basically a far reaching one as the court accepts it on the privilege question that will take it beyond anything that it\u2019s done thus far in the Fifth Amendment area and that we think will seriously impair the ability of the Government to obtain necessary information.\nThis is a big country and as the court has pointed out several opinions Grosso and Marchetti, indeed also pointed this out the government\u2019s need for people to come forward with information as in essential pre requisite to effective and orderly operation of a variety of schemes.\nWe can suggest the number of analogies.\nI suggest that some of them to the Chief Justice.\nOn the last point, it seems to us that it doesn\u2019t really require despite the rather elaborate development by petitioner very much come in.\nThis Court has continually recognized that Congress has preceded and a reasonable and sensible fashion in establishing procedures for determining conscientious objection and the exemption from military service on the basis of that objection.\nIt seems to us that all of these cases Nugent, Seeger, the case is at presently before the Court all indicate that the procedure that has been established, there\u2019s a reasonable, sensible sound one.\nWe don\u2019t know of any case that stands for the proposition, Mr. Justice Harlan raised that the First Amendment of itself requires that conscientious objectors be taken into account.\nUnfortunately, the Congress has not seen fit to force this Court to that issue because Congress has taken into account conscientious objection.\nIt goes back as petitioner indicated historically even to colonial time.\nBut the question comes down simply to a very narrow one here.\nIs the burden assuming that some First Amendment rights exist is the burden to come in and register and do nothing more.\nCome in and register and submit to a readily available, sensible reasonable process for the determining conscientious objection.\nIs that burden such a great one that it should be given constitutional protection?\nWe submit that it\u2019s not that as a sensible scheme to have all people come in and identify themselves initially with the Government so that the Selective Service System can have available to read records including the entirety of the manpower pool available and then there\u2019s a procedure going on from there to determine conscientious objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3414.151, 3421.011, 3425.874, 3430.033, 3454.755, 3458.643, 3473.197, 3481.154, 3490.962, 3496.541, 3512.092, 3536.171, 3554.896, 3557.42, 3560.552, 3573.322, 3589.8, 3603.868, 3616.717, 3626.304, 3630.964, 3634.697, 3644.758, 3653.192, 3658.67], "stop_times": [3421.011, 3425.874, 3430.033, 3454.755, 3458.643, 3473.197, 3481.154, 3490.962, 3496.541, 3512.092, 3536.171, 3554.896, 3557.42, 3560.552, 3573.322, 3589.8, 3603.868, 3616.717, 3626.304, 3630.964, 3634.697, 3644.758, 3653.192, 3658.67, 3679.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3414.151}, "reply_to": "15340__1_150", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_152", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "How did the Government get to learn that this man has not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3679.856], "stop_times": [3684.066], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3679.856}, "reply_to": "15340__1_151", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_153", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "My understanding, Your Honor, is that there was an anonymous tip.\nThat\u2019s all that the record shows, a tip that this individual and his brother had not registered.\nNow whether somebody got mad at them and called the, I don\u2019t know.\nThat\u2019s all that the record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3684.066, 3689.048, 3695.684, 3700.545], "stop_times": [3689.048, 3695.684, 3700.545, 3701.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3684.066}, "reply_to": "15340__1_152", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_154", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And then it was presented to the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3701.297], "stop_times": [3703.425], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3701.297}, "reply_to": "15340__1_153", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_155", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "And that was presented and indictments were found and the prosecution proceeded.\nThe prosecution as just his brother was dismissed because of judge doing; the reading of the statute but the prosecution has the petitioner continued.\nFor these reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3703.425, 3707.481, 3715.361], "stop_times": [3707.481, 3715.361, 3716.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3703.425}, "reply_to": "15340__1_154", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_156", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "What sentence did he get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3716.752], "stop_times": [3719.254], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3716.752}, "reply_to": "15340__1_155", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_157", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "He has not been sentenced yet under 4208, the procedure for referral and determination by the Department of Justice as to inappropriate sentencer.\nThere are questions that were raised during the course of trial relating to his mental capacity and I think that\u2019s part of the problem here that not that an insanity defense was presented as such but the question of the appropriateness of the punishment is one that is suitable for determination under the procedure of making investigation first and according to the district judge.\nSo there has been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3719.254, 3730.404, 3756.35], "stop_times": [3730.404, 3756.35, 3757.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3719.254}, "reply_to": "15340__1_156", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_158", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "District Court judge (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3757.38], "stop_times": [3759.436], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3757.38}, "reply_to": "15340__1_157", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15340__1_159", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "No, he was not, Your Honor, Judge Dooling considered the initial motion to dismiss but Judge Mishler who was the judge that try.\nFor all these reasons, we submit the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding petitioner\u2019s conviction should be upheld, we submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3759.436, 3767.159], "stop_times": [3767.159, 3775.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3759.436}, "reply_to": "15340__1_158", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_160", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Beytagh.\nMr. Gurfein, the marshal says you\u2019re out of time but my record show you have about a minute and half.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3775.524, 3776.37], "stop_times": [3776.37, 3782.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3775.524}, "reply_to": "15340__1_159", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15340__1_161", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "A minute and half, I just like to make two points.\nOn the statute of limitations, if you take the first stage group that registered in 1951, 18 to 26 try to apply the Court of Appeal Second Circuit reasoning to them.\nThe man who then was 19 years old had a statute of limitations of 11 years.\nThe man who is 25 years though at that time had a statute of limitations of six years and it makes no sense it seems to us to say that there is anything within the statute that makes 26 years the cut-off date.\nNow, with respect to the compulsion, all I want to say is this that the petitioner in this case would not be here today, he\u2019d be out.\nIf it would not for the fact that the Government held, there was a continuing duty for him to register and it is idle to say, I respectfully submit that that makes no difference.\nThe statute would definitely have run against them but the Government cannot have its cake and eat it as we indicate it in the brief.\nIf he\u2019s under a duty to register then the Fifth Amendment problem become extremely acute.\nIf he was under a duty to register the statute and limitations has run.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3782.046, 3783.993, 3795.192, 3800.125, 3812.833, 3822.067, 3832.239, 3839.126, 3844.196, 3848.771], "stop_times": [3783.993, 3795.192, 3800.125, 3812.833, 3822.067, 3832.239, 3839.126, 3844.196, 3848.771, 3849.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3782.046}, "reply_to": "15340__1_160", "speaker": "francis_x_beytagh_jr"}
{"id": "15340__1_162", "conversation_id": "15340", "text": "Thank you Mr. Gurfein.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_441", "start_times": [3849.124, 3849.933], "stop_times": [3849.933, 3853.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3849.124}, "reply_to": "15340__1_161", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_000", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Number 23 Turner against Fouche and number 30 will follow that immediately.\nMr. Meltsner you may proceed whenever you\u2019re --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [0.0, 23.733], "stop_times": [23.733, 27.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_001", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is here on appeal from a final judgment of a statutory three-judge court convened in the Southern District of Georgia.\nIt was drawn in 1967 by Negro appellants as a class action challenged violations of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by Georgia statutes and state constitutional provisions which set out an interlocking system of jury and school board selection and also to enjoin racial discrimination in the enforcement of these statutes by appellee officials in Taliaferro County, Georgia.\nAppellants make three claims in this Court.\nThat the Georgia statute which authorizes jury commissioners to exclude persons from service they deem not intelligent and upright is void for one of the standards.\nSecondly that the District Court failed to grant adequate relief to reform racial selection of jurors and school board members, and third that a restriction that school board members be freeholders or real property owners violates the equal protection clause.\nThe Georgia system for jury and school board selection which is at the center of this case begins when a superior court judge is elected by the voters of multi-county circuits.\nIn this case, Taliaferro County is one of six counties which vote to elect the superior court judge for the Tombs Circuit.\nThe judge then selects six citizens of each county who serve as jury commissioners.\nThese commissioners in turn select jurors from the official registered voter list by disqualifying persons from the list, who they do not believe are intelligent and upright and also by disqualifying persons who are not the right age and haven\u2019t resided in the county for the right period of time and for other similar reasons.\nThey then reduced the number remaining randomly in order to get a workable number and place that number on a traverse jury list.\nFrom the traverse list, they select not more than two-fifths to constitute the grand jury list.\nAnd from this list, the superior court judge selects names which ultimately constitute the county grand jury.\nThis grand jury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [27.776, 30.998, 40.673, 73.237, 77.11, 90.042, 112.114, 127.33, 138.358, 145.613, 170.801, 180.449, 186.697, 195.725], "stop_times": [30.998, 40.673, 73.237, 77.11, 90.042, 112.114, 127.33, 138.358, 145.613, 170.801, 180.449, 186.697, 195.725, 196.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 27.776}, "reply_to": "15467__0_000", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_002", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The judge himself reforms that last function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [196.785], "stop_times": [199.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.785}, "reply_to": "15467__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_003", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That\u2019s correct.\nHe chooses 32 names from the grand jury list, calls the persons into court, hears excuses and then takes the first 23 names remaining on the list.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [199.637, 200.234], "stop_times": [200.234, 211.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.637}, "reply_to": "15467__0_002", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_004", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And the judge himself selects 32 from how many?\nTwo-fifths of the whole --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [211.17, 214.981], "stop_times": [214.981, 215.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.17}, "reply_to": "15467__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_005", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "From not more than two-fifths, a number of about a 130 in this county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [215.571], "stop_times": [221.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.571}, "reply_to": "15467__0_004", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_006", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And he selects those subjectively or does he pick them in some random objectively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [221.206], "stop_times": [226.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.206}, "reply_to": "15467__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_007", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No, he picks them from a box randomly.\nGets 32 names, the sheriff goes out, calls those 32 into court.\nThe judge then hears excuses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [226.461, 230.103, 235.076], "stop_times": [230.103, 235.076, 237.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 226.461}, "reply_to": "15467__0_006", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_008", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, I understand that part of the right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [237.358], "stop_times": [239.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.358}, "reply_to": "15467__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_009", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And then takes the first 23 names to constitute the grand jury.\nNow, the grand jury among its functions elects the five-man county school board when vacancy has occurred from the freeholders of the county and the school board is responsible for the management and operation of the schools in the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [239.201, 244.531], "stop_times": [244.531, 262.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.201}, "reply_to": "15467__0_008", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_010", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What is the term of this grand jury, how long does it stay and exists?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [262.87], "stop_times": [266.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.87}, "reply_to": "15467__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_011", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "It\u2019s about six months I believe, the term of court each grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [266.37], "stop_times": [270.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.37}, "reply_to": "15467__0_010", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_012", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And what is the term of the school board, members of the school board selected by grand jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [270.633], "stop_times": [275.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.633}, "reply_to": "15467__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_013", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Five years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [275.708], "stop_times": [277.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 275.708}, "reply_to": "15467__0_012", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_014", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "So the grand jury performs the function, whatever that happens to be a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [277.771], "stop_times": [281.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.771}, "reply_to": "15467__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_015", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Whenever there has to be a vacancy, now if there is a death or resignation, the school board will pick and interim candidate but the next grand jury will then act and is free to select whoever it wants for the position.\nIf there is a vacancy due to be end of the term, the grand jury preceding that vacancy will make the decision.\nNow prior to the institution of this litigation in 1967, no Negro had ever been selected to serve as a jury commissioner by the circuit -- by the superior court judge.\nAnd while black people are 60% of the population in this county and 50% of the voters, only a small number of their number were on the jury lists.\nNo county grand jury had ever selected a black school board member, although since 1965 the schools were totally black.\nWhites having fled rather than attend desegregated schools to a horribly setup private school in the county or to adjoining counties.\nIndeed, until the District Court acted in an earlier case involving several of the parties in 1965 by setting up a receivership over the public schools of the county, public funds were used to transport the whites out of county to other schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [281.392, 296.689, 305.227, 318.164, 329.912, 340.5, 351.654], "stop_times": [296.689, 305.227, 318.164, 329.912, 340.5, 351.654, 372.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.392}, "reply_to": "15467__0_014", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_016", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Has there any -- ever been a non-white superior court judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [372.78], "stop_times": [377.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.78}, "reply_to": "15467__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_017", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The record only shows the race of the judge now in office as white.\nI think it was assumed by all the parties and the District Court that there never had been one at least in the preceding 80 years.\nAfter taking evidence, the District Court informed the jury commissioners and school board members that there was racial discrimination in the selection of the jury and that the exclusion of blacks from the school board could not continue.\nThe court ordered the defendants to make an attempt to remedy the situation and suggested that two blacks to be put on the school board prior to a reconvening of the court a month later.\nThe jury commissioners during this period recompiled the jury list placing additional Negroes on it and a new grand jury was selected.\nHowever, the commissioners excluded a 171 Negroes and only seven whites because they failed to meet the statutory requirement that jurors be intelligent and upright.\nThe new grand jury made two appointments to the school board.\nOne was a white man and one was a black man.\nThe black man chosen had a third grade education, no children in the school and he was selected without the public notice which is required by Georgia law.\nOn the basis of the recomposition of the jury list, the addition of one Negro to the school board and its view as to the constitutional questions presented, the District Court merely enjoined future racial exclusion in selection of the grand jury and denied further relief.\nAppellants first contention in this Court is that Section 59-106 of the Georgia Code violates the Fourteenth Amendment by authorizing jury commissioners to exclude men who they believe are not upright and intelligent.\nNow certainly these terms with the synonyms used by Georgia officials to characterize there meaning, the word like understanding or honesty are words which have no commonly accepted meaning.\nThey are matters of personal judgment unless they are tied to some objective standard as they are not in Georgia.\nThere are several consequences to their use which supports the appellant\u2019s contention.\nThey violate the Fourteenth Amendment when placed in the hands of the man who select eligible jury.\nThe first is that they make the right to participate in the institution of Government depend on the will, whim, or caprice of a public official.\nThe court has condemned placing such discretion in the hands of voting registrars as jury commissioners exercise a similar function.\nThere is no reason why a different rule should apply.\nSecondly, because men cannot agree as to the meaning of these terms to their application to particular individuals, they always command arbitrary, erratic and inconsistent judgments between individuals.\nThus at the outset, the use of these terms seems to me are basically inconsistent with the notion of due process of law that more rather than men will govern whether or not one can exercise a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [377.423, 383.879, 395.704, 413.672, 428.892, 439.938, 455.187, 458.49, 462.118, 474.868, 498.331, 516.967, 532.452, 540.986, 547.452, 556.233, 568.387, 578.579, 584.071, 602.108], "stop_times": [383.879, 395.704, 413.672, 428.892, 439.938, 455.187, 458.49, 462.118, 474.868, 498.331, 516.967, 532.452, 540.986, 547.452, 556.233, 568.387, 578.579, 584.071, 602.108, 619.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.423}, "reply_to": "15467__0_016", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_018", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Have other states got these broad provisions of this character?\nI saw it somewhere in the paper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [619.92, 625.185], "stop_times": [625.185, 626.655], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 619.92}, "reply_to": "15467__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_019", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "In the jurisdictional statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [626.655], "stop_times": [627.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.655}, "reply_to": "15467__0_018", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_020", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Jurisdictional statement.\nThere are 21 other states who got these sweeping statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [627.822, 628.932], "stop_times": [628.932, 632.509], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 627.822}, "reply_to": "15467__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_021", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I think 21 plus Georgia makes 22.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [632.509], "stop_times": [634.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.509}, "reply_to": "15467__0_020", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_022", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Not only in the south but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [634.962], "stop_times": [637.243], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 634.962}, "reply_to": "15467__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_023", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Of the 22 states listed in the jurisdictional statements, seven are in the south.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [637.243], "stop_times": [644.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.243}, "reply_to": "15467__0_022", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_024", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Counsel, you suggest that these words -- I think you put it command confusion.\nDo you think they are any less broad than the term unreasonable for example in the Fourth Amendment providing to searches?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [644.907, 654.086], "stop_times": [654.086, 667.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.907}, "reply_to": "15467__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_025", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well I think a language is often vague and undefined and certainly the word unreasonable in the Fourth Amendment is a vague word.\nBut its function is totally different from the function that these words -- its function is to guide the Court in its decision of cases and it is construed by the Court in accordance with history and its own decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [667.249, 682.959], "stop_times": [682.959, 698.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.249}, "reply_to": "15467__0_024", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_026", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well then how about the situation when a trial judge instructs the jury on a reasonable man standard.\nNow that\u2019s an explicit -- the explicit purpose to that instruction is to afford guidelines to the jury, is that guideline any less difficult than the one you are confronted with here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [698.736, 707.881], "stop_times": [707.881, 723.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.736}, "reply_to": "15467__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_027", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well I think that this, this always is -- always going to be a certain amount of discretion to the administration drew law but in appraising the constitutionality of it, one has to look at the function involved and the necessity of the particular bid of discretion.\nNow here, there is absolutely no necessity.\nCongress has passed a perfectly satisfactory jury selection statute which does away with the capacity for arbitrariness and discrimination which this form of statute has.\nSecondly, a jury deciding a negligence case for example is not selecting among individuals in the community.\nIt is perhaps exercising an ad hoc judgment which in certain circumstances the law allows.\nThe question is whether the results that this record show and the capacity which this Court has already condemned in many, many other areas are necessary and I submit that they\u2019re not here and that there is no state interest involved in allowing the jury commissioners this much discretion to select among individuals at their will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [723.082, 740.262, 742.464, 754.55, 763.053, 770.885], "stop_times": [740.262, 742.464, 754.55, 763.053, 770.885, 799.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.082}, "reply_to": "15467__0_026", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_028", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Suppose, if in the last three or four years for example the record in this case now showed that to a change in attitude and change of heart the selection of these people was made on the result of about 45-55 in one term and 55-45 the next time and was roughly over a long period of time balanced in the way that reflected approximately or very nearly approximately the population balance of a community.\nWould you quarrel then be with the -- still be with the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [799.257, 837.68], "stop_times": [837.68, 842.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.257}, "reply_to": "15467__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_029", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Oh!\nYes.\nI think the error in the statute here is -- the infirmity in the statute is the arbitrary power which it confers.\nNow the evidence of racial discrimination which this record has in abundance, the -- for example exclusion of a 171 of a 178 persons of the Negro race under this standard is evidence of this capacity for abuse, quite strong evidence.\nBut our quarrel would still exist with the statute because the statute -- the problem with the statute is that it makes almost impossible selection between individuals which is not erratic and which does not depend on the will of the selecting official.\nNow I think another thing that one might consider here is that it\u2019s totally impossible to review and appraise and evaluate the decision made by these jury commissioners.\nWe can disagree with what they say when it\u2019s a all 171 of these are 178 persons black that can\u2019t be.\nBut one can\u2019t get in there and prove it.\nOne can evaluate it, one can\u2019t review it and that is a function as this Court has always apparently employed vagueness analysis to permit.\nUnless there is some specificity, there\u2019s absolutely no way for the federal courts to determine whether or not the statute is being used in fact to discriminate because it obviously has its opportunity for discrimination.\nThe jury commissioner need only pretend that the Negro is of poor character and little intelligence to mask his discrimination.\nAnd therefore it\u2019s not surprising that a 171 of these persons are black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [842.643, 842.819, 843.061, 851.755, 870.49, 888.561, 900.95, 910.007, 912.572, 926.541, 942.144, 954.483], "stop_times": [842.819, 843.061, 851.755, 870.49, 888.561, 900.95, 910.007, 912.572, 926.541, 942.144, 954.483, 959.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.643}, "reply_to": "15467__0_028", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_030", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "In my hypothetical if the figures where as I suggested in these hypothetical situation which is the lack of basis for complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [959.417], "stop_times": [969.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.417}, "reply_to": "15467__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_031", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, I don\u2019t say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [969.893], "stop_times": [971.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.893}, "reply_to": "15467__0_030", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_032", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Don\u2019t you say that\u2019s a long way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [971.005], "stop_times": [971.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.005}, "reply_to": "15467__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_033", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I don\u2019t think that\u2019s this case I would say this.\nI would say this that clearly the other jurisdiction which have these statutes might by administrative action or by judicial construction apply to the jury selection procedure, the sort of standards and confining of discretion which would make them non-arbitrary.\nBut our quarrel is with the statute on its face.\nI do -- this one more point I think would be stressed here and that is that even the well intention and sincere jury commissioner is offered precious indictments for these terms other than a vague sense that he should select the best people around.\nAnd it\u2019s all too lightly then that he will select the persons were most like himself when the persons who would like those he encounters in social gatherings and quite unconsciously it simplifises exclude blacks who he does not come in contact with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [971.147, 975.03, 996.524, 1003.333, 1022.697], "stop_times": [975.03, 996.524, 1003.333, 1022.697, 1042.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.147}, "reply_to": "15467__0_032", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_034", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, would it help you think simply to take these adjectives out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1042.06], "stop_times": [1049.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.06}, "reply_to": "15467__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_035", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Certainly it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1049.819], "stop_times": [1050.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1049.819}, "reply_to": "15467__0_034", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_036", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That wouldn\u2019t give him any more or further or stricter standards, would it and wouldn\u2019t give them any standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1050.482], "stop_times": [1059.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.482}, "reply_to": "15467__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_037", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "It would certainly remove from him the capacity to disqualify persons on the basis of his subjective will, his subjective understanding of these illusive concepts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1059.281], "stop_times": [1074.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.281}, "reply_to": "15467__0_036", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_038", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Would you think with those standards at all there would be certainly as much capacity for anybody to exercise his power in a discriminatory fashion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1074.623], "stop_times": [1087.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.623}, "reply_to": "15467__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_039", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, I think that as this statute is written, this is clearly a disqualification of the voters who are at the beginning deemed eligible and that is in fact the way that\u2019s been applied in this particular county, the -- what the jury commissioners do is they take the voter list, they sit around and they go over every name in the voter list and they say, is he upright and intelligent, and they cut out certain number of persons in that way.\nIf their authority was removed, then eligible voters, they would be the basic source still.\nThey would then be able to move persons who were in insane asylums who were not of the proper age, who were not residing the county so what they would then have the source.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1087.303, 1119.45, 1128.651], "stop_times": [1119.45, 1128.651, 1140.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.303}, "reply_to": "15467__0_038", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_040", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Meltsner, I have a little difficulty saying why if the statute which now reads shall comply -- shall compile and maintain or revise a jury list of intelligent and upright citizens of the county to serve as jurors.\nWhy if it were revised jury maintain a revised jury list of citizens of the county to serve as jurors, there would not be at least equal capacity for a jury commissioner to discriminate unfairly on the basis of race?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1140.883, 1160.131], "stop_times": [1160.131, 1175.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.883}, "reply_to": "15467__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_041", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, I think there are two -- if I understand your question Mr. Justice Stewart, your question is that if this language was declared void, there would still be some general free raging discretion on the part of the jury commissioners --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1175.515], "stop_times": [1191.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.515}, "reply_to": "15467__0_040", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_042", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Is that even more so if anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1191.189], "stop_times": [1194.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.189}, "reply_to": "15467__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__0_043", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, I would agree that they would still have the capacity to discriminate as any one administrating a system does.\nBut the basis on which they have justified this particular discrimination on which jury officials constantly do so would be removed.\nAs I read the statute in light of there practice that they would have to take any persons who did not meet -- who were voters and were not excluded for specific reasons and in effect, that is what we ask this Court to so hold that this is too subjective arbitrary and erratic a way of selecting jurors.\nThe State may come back and pick another system which is more specific.\nIt may not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1194.249, 1203.07, 1211.709, 1235.04, 1240.633], "stop_times": [1203.07, 1211.709, 1235.04, 1240.633, 1241.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.249}, "reply_to": "15467__0_042", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_044", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What you\u2019re arguing is that constitutionally as to the separate objective standards that you know what the discretions are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1241.361], "stop_times": [1251.19], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.361}, "reply_to": "15467__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_045", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "More objective than this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1251.19], "stop_times": [1252.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.19}, "reply_to": "15467__0_044", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_046", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Right and your argument in this as I get in your brief in the context with what the practices have been in the Section (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1252.478], "stop_times": [1259.441], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.478}, "reply_to": "15467__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_047", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That is correct.\nNow there is one more --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1259.441, 1260.897], "stop_times": [1260.897, 1262.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.441}, "reply_to": "15467__0_046", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_048", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That brings me back -- that brings me back in my hypothetical, let me alter a little bit.\nSuppose the record show that the recent years since they\u2019re going to change of heart and attitude that 70% of the persons selected by the jury commissioner had been Negro and only 30% white.\nOn what basis would you attack the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1262.261, 1265.819, 1279.798], "stop_times": [1265.819, 1279.798, 1283.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.261}, "reply_to": "15467__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_049", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, I think that the 401 would find consistent results of that sort with the statute of this kind.\nThey would have to have been brought into it.\nSome form of objective line drawing standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1283.33, 1294.082, 1297.863], "stop_times": [1294.082, 1297.863, 1301.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.33}, "reply_to": "15467__0_048", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_050", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "But what would be your complaint in that factual setting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1301.462], "stop_times": [1304.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.462}, "reply_to": "15467__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_051", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Then perhaps the -- as a litigant, I would have no complaint but in this case and in other cases of this sort, the complaint is there -- there is an inherent capacity for arbitrariness --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1304.908], "stop_times": [1315.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.908}, "reply_to": "15467__0_050", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_052", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Doesn\u2019t that bring us back to just what you had discussed with Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Harlan that it\u2019s the practice not the statute that is the vice here?\nIt\u2019s what being done, not what could be done which is important?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1315.126, 1326.168], "stop_times": [1326.168, 1331.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.126}, "reply_to": "15467__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__0_053", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "My position is that in this case, both are important, both are here and that the Court should decide this case.\nBut I must take the position that the vice of the statute has nothing to do with result.\nThe result merely confirms the vice which we see in it.\nNow, the infirmity in the statute is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1331.078, 1338.878, 1347.898, 1352.581], "stop_times": [1338.878, 1347.898, 1352.581, 1357.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.078}, "reply_to": "15467__0_052", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_054", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Does that have to do with the result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1357.398], "stop_times": [1360.022], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.398}, "reply_to": "15467__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_055", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The infirmity in this statute is in its grant of arbitrary power.\nJust as in the licensing field --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1360.022, 1366.137], "stop_times": [1366.137, 1367.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.022}, "reply_to": "15467__0_054", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_056", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Or you, I think among that list would substitute the jurisdiction you say is learning was constant.\nI think that might or Arizona I know it, do you think you can make this argument in the context of litigation there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1367.391, 1377.892], "stop_times": [1377.892, 1386.936], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.391}, "reply_to": "15467__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__0_057", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I think that a litigant in a class excluded would be able to make that argument.\nYes, I certainly do.\nAnd for that, I wish to come back to the State of Georgia because there\u2019s another aspect to this jury system which I think the Court ought to consider.\nAnd that\u2019s not only as jury selection involved here, but the grand jury has been given a political function and so the operation of the statute is to exclude blacks from selecting public officials.\nIt\u2019s not just the jury system that\u2019s involved here.\nIt\u2019s excluding black people in this county from choosing school board.\nAnd so as important as in participating in the administration of justices, we have even more important rights at stake here.\nMy second claim that -- the second claim that we wish to present to the Court is that the District Court did not adequately reform the system of jury and school board selection.\nCertainly, if the Court strikes down the broad discretion which Georgia law grants the jury commissioners that will no doubt make far more likely non-racial jury and school board selection.\nBut there is still need for equitable relief to eliminate the effects of past discrimination and to make it unlikely to recur in the future.\nInitially, the present school boards still has on it, person selected by grand juries which for themselves unconstitutionally selective.\nAnd one step, we think that the District Court should be required to take on remand is to vacate the membership board in order to -- and the effects of past discrimination and make a great with the past.\nMore fundamentally to make sure that discrimination does not recur, at a minimum, the District Court should appoint black jury commissioners as was sort in the complaint.\nThe commissioners play critical role in this process in a small amount of discrimination in the future with tip control with the grand jury to whites.\nThey have discriminated in the past.\nThey have -- there has never been a black jury commissioner and the whole process works over an issue which blacks in this county have enormous interest.\nWhites on the other hand have no interest comparable in educational quality.\nI think it\u2019s a little like the Voter Registration Act if I can use that -- the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if I can use that analogy where the statute provided that under certain circumstances, the courts might appoint voting registrars to administer even a non-discretionary system of voting registration.\nThe record in this case in the activities of the appellee officials here makes similar relief at a minimum necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1386.936, 1394.017, 1395.856, 1402.931, 1417.765, 1420.925, 1426.573, 1437.224, 1449.426, 1462.892, 1473.428, 1485.39, 1502.17, 1515.261, 1527.851, 1532.514, 1545.657, 1551.643, 1575.743], "stop_times": [1394.017, 1395.856, 1402.931, 1417.765, 1420.925, 1426.573, 1437.224, 1449.426, 1462.892, 1473.428, 1485.39, 1502.17, 1515.261, 1527.851, 1532.514, 1545.657, 1551.643, 1575.743, 1584.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1386.936}, "reply_to": "15467__0_056", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_058", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Is the only standard for selection on Georgia these words you used in your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1584.544], "stop_times": [1589.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.544}, "reply_to": "15467__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__0_059", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The upright and intelligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1589.875], "stop_times": [1591.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.875}, "reply_to": "15467__0_058", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_060", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1591.692], "stop_times": [1593.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.692}, "reply_to": "15467__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__0_061", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The only other standard aside from age and residence is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1593.524], "stop_times": [1598.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.524}, "reply_to": "15467__0_060", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_062", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1598.17], "stop_times": [1598.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.17}, "reply_to": "15467__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__0_063", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Residence.\nIs that idiots and lunatics are excluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1598.585, 1601.292], "stop_times": [1601.292, 1604.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.585}, "reply_to": "15467__0_062", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_064", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Any what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1604.461], "stop_times": [1605.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.461}, "reply_to": "15467__0_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__0_065", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "idiots and lunatics are excluded.\nThat\u2019s the only other standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1605.638, 1608.829], "stop_times": [1608.829, 1611.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1605.638}, "reply_to": "15467__0_064", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_066", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Outside of that the only standard is that they must be upright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1611.184], "stop_times": [1615.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.184}, "reply_to": "15467__0_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__0_067", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Upright and intelligent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1615.28], "stop_times": [1616.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.28}, "reply_to": "15467__0_066", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_068", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And intelligent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1616.846], "stop_times": [1617.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.846}, "reply_to": "15467__0_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__0_069", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Right.\nI would like to reserve my --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1617.719, 1619.488], "stop_times": [1619.488, 1624.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1617.719}, "reply_to": "15467__0_068", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__0_070", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Evans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1624.263], "stop_times": [1626.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.263}, "reply_to": "15467__0_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__1_000", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger and may it please the Court.\nThere\u2019s no question but the Georgia\u2019s juror selection statute is capable of being improperly administered.\nThere is no question but that in Taliaferro County, Georgia, it has been improperly administered.\nWhat is in question is whether Georgia of for that matter any other state may prescribe juror qualifications which call for an exercise of judgment on the part of the public board or public officials responsible for composing the jury list.\nThis is the true question before the Court for two simple reasons.\nFirst of all is self-evident that whenever law requires judgment to be exercised, there is the possibility, they will be exercised improperly or wrongfully.\nSecond, because of the capacity and people being as they are, we can anticipate that from time to time statutes providing for the exercise of judgment will be administered improperly.\nNow of course the question of juror qualifications goes to the very heart of the concept of trial by jury, the concept which this Court just a little more than one year ago in Duncan versus Louisiana declared to be \u201cFundamental to the American scheme of justice.\u201d\nState legislatures including Georgia\u2019s general assembly have quite generally supposed that the right to trial by jury means trial by jurors who are first of all possessed of intelligence sufficient to understand the matters they may be called upon to judge.\nAnd secondly that they shall have such moral character as will enhance the possibility of a fair verdict.\nSome example of the character and intelligence qualifications of the various states are included at pages 12 and 13 of appellant\u2019s jurisdictional statement.\nWe think both the statutes are essentially indistinguishable from Georgia.\nMaine for example provides qualifications as follows, \u201cof good moral character, of approved integrity, of sound judgment, and well informed.\u201d\nIn New York, it\u2019s of good character, of approved integrity and sound judgment.\nIn Michigan, it\u2019s of good character, of approved integrity, of sound judgment, and well informed.\nNebraska also uses intelligent, of fair character, of approved integrity, and well informed.\nNow this Court in the past has always adhered to the view that such character and intelligence qualifications are at the very least consistent with if not required by the Constitution.\nOver a hundred years ago, in Strauder versus West Virginia, this Court planned out that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to prevent a state from prescribing such qualifications of age and educational qualifications as well.\nMore recently in Brown versus Allen, this Court after observing that State should decide for themselves the matter of the quality of their juries stated that the Court ought not to impose on States, its conception of the proper source of jury list so long as a source reasonably reflects a cross-section of the population suitable in character and intelligence for this civic duty.\nIn rejecting, the same sort of attack which appellants make here, the Supreme Court of Georgia only this year relied upon Brown versus Allen in the case of Sullivan versus State.\nWhen it said that in using the words suitable and intelligence, that is the words of this Court.\nThe Supreme Court must necessarily have had reference to good character, honorable or just persons.\nThe Supreme Court of Georgia continued that in using the words suitable and intelligence for that civic duty, this Court must have meant persons sufficiently intelligent to serve as jurors.\nNow, we recognize of course that the law also requires the jury to reflect the community.\nI read from Georgia statute which is currently in effect and was in effect at the time of this trial.\nIn composing such jury list, the commissioners select a fairly representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county from the official registered voters list and that the statute goes on.\nIf at any time it appears to the jury commissioners that the jury list so composed is not fairly representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county, they shall supplement such list by going out into the county and personally acquainting themselves with other citizens of the county including intelligent and upright citizens of any significantly identifiable group in the county which may not be fairly represented thereon.\nWe think it\u2019s quite clear from the statute that its entire thrust is to avoid discrimination based on race or economic status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1626.921, 1631.695, 1640.828, 1647.801, 1667.26, 1671.72, 1684.301, 1699.402, 1719.189, 1738.272, 1746.812, 1758.296, 1764.62, 1775.332, 1781.447, 1788.557, 1796.003, 1809.916, 1827.246, 1854.266, 1865.828, 1871.871, 1878.742, 1892.56, 1901.33, 1907.937, 1922.633, 1952.846], "stop_times": [1631.695, 1640.828, 1647.801, 1667.26, 1671.72, 1684.301, 1699.402, 1719.189, 1738.272, 1746.812, 1758.296, 1764.62, 1775.332, 1781.447, 1788.557, 1796.003, 1809.916, 1827.246, 1854.266, 1865.828, 1871.871, 1878.742, 1892.56, 1901.33, 1907.937, 1922.633, 1952.846, 1962.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1626.921}, "reply_to": "15467__0_070", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_001", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "This is a rather recent statute as presently worded, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1962.03], "stop_times": [1966.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.03}, "reply_to": "15467__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_002", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No sir.\nIt is in part.\nThere was a change from the list from which the -- the list from which the jury list was derived have been detached list.\nNow, it is the voters list and this was changed in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1966.541, 1967.394, 1968.669, 1979.727], "stop_times": [1967.394, 1968.669, 1979.727, 1982.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.541}, "reply_to": "15467__1_001", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_003", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "After our decision in Whitus against Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1982.299], "stop_times": [1983.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.299}, "reply_to": "15467__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_004", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "In Whitus and also Avery versus Georgia to meet the criticism of this Court in those decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1983.725], "stop_times": [1989.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.725}, "reply_to": "15467__1_003", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_005", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "How about the sentence, the long sentence you just read to us, I won\u2019t repeat it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1989.881], "stop_times": [1994.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.881}, "reply_to": "15467__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_006", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1994.911], "stop_times": [1995.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.911}, "reply_to": "15467__1_005", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_007", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "At any time it appears for the jury commissioner that the jury list of both is not fairly represented and so on.\nIs that new or --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [1995.281, 2000.467], "stop_times": [2000.467, 2002.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.281}, "reply_to": "15467__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_008", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "It is what I believe that particular -- that isn\u2019t an issue yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2002.056], "stop_times": [2006.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.056}, "reply_to": "15467__1_007", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_009", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I understood so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2006.184], "stop_times": [2009.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.184}, "reply_to": "15467__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_010", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "In any event, we think that qualifications as to character and intelligence are essential to the proper functioning of the jury system.\nWe think that such qualifications are at least consistent with if not required by the Constitution.\nI\u2019m referring specifically to the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.\nWe think it would be a mistake to fill these qualifications out merely because they have a capacity to be wrongfully employed.\nWe think that the courts of the Fifth Circuit have been handling matters of maladministration quite correctly and we think this is the proper approach.\nTwo questions of wrongful administration of statutes which we think are quite clear and equitable on their face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2009.596, 2019.894, 2026.819, 2031.131, 2040.405, 2050.409], "stop_times": [2019.894, 2026.819, 2031.131, 2040.405, 2050.409, 2058.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.596}, "reply_to": "15467__1_009", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_011", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "How have they been handling, do you say it\u2019s been satisfactory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2058.63], "stop_times": [2061.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.63}, "reply_to": "15467__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__1_012", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, in the case at hand, the court directed a revision of the jury list.\nThe court directed that the jury list be reconstituted and it was reconstituted but the Fifth Circuit as I\u2019m sure Mr. Justice Black is aware in LaBach and Rabinowitz has consistently stricken the administration of the statute without becoming really involved in the facial validity of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2061.744, 2068.436], "stop_times": [2068.436, 2090.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.744}, "reply_to": "15467__1_011", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_013", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "How are your jury commissioners selected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2090.36], "stop_times": [2093.15], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.36}, "reply_to": "15467__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_014", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The jury commissioners in Georgia as appointed by the judge.\nThe jury commissioners then used the voters list as the principle source for names which end up on the jury list.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2093.15, 2098.118], "stop_times": [2098.118, 2110.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.15}, "reply_to": "15467__1_013", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_015", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Can you suggest any manner or any description that of what\u2019s the duty of the jury commissioners that would be anymore definite than this that could be handled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2110.495], "stop_times": [2125.437], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.495}, "reply_to": "15467__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_016", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I think it is very hard, Your Honor.\nI have not seen a statute not to include the federal statute which is not capable of being abused.\nNow, I think it -- the federal statute for example uses such word as incapable of rendering satisfactory jury service.\nIf a person was bent to discrimination, he obviously could seize upon the word satisfactory.\nWe have an inherit vagueness in the English language.\nWords cannot reach the exact intuitive mathematical equations.\nWe think that actually word such as intelligent and character are reasonably clear.\nCertainly clear enough for a civil statute after all.\nIn criminal cases, we permit a person to be hanged or set free upon evidence of his reputation in the community.\nThis is a vague thing. Reputation in the community but is it admissible evidence in many instances in a capital felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2125.437, 2127.601, 2134.429, 2149.235, 2156.102, 2159.469, 2163.85, 2170.447, 2174.395, 2184.529], "stop_times": [2127.601, 2134.429, 2149.235, 2156.102, 2159.469, 2163.85, 2170.447, 2174.395, 2184.529, 2192.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.437}, "reply_to": "15467__1_015", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_017", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Evans, doesn\u2019t the federal statute also require that there be a cross-section of the community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2192.609], "stop_times": [2199.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.609}, "reply_to": "15467__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__1_018", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s in the statute itself, I think this would follow by the random approached used.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2199.656, 2205.701], "stop_times": [2205.701, 2206.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.656}, "reply_to": "15467__1_017", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_019", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "So it is that there is an effort to be sure that everybody in the community is collective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2206.063], "stop_times": [2214.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.063}, "reply_to": "15467__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__1_020", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Marshall as is included in the Georgia statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2214.025], "stop_times": [2217.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.025}, "reply_to": "15467__1_019", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_021", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "But the Georgia statute didn\u2019t put that in, that\u2019s the legislative matter for the Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2217.443], "stop_times": [2222.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.443}, "reply_to": "15467__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__1_022", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall, I beg to disagree, the Georgia statute does have one, a provision in their providing for inclusion of broad cross section of the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2222.634], "stop_times": [2231.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.634}, "reply_to": "15467__1_021", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_023", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Right, but I mean, you said it didn\u2019t come from the federal statute.\nThat\u2019s what I wanted to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2231.794, 2235.126], "stop_times": [2235.126, 2237.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.794}, "reply_to": "15467__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__1_024", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "It is -- it might be in other statutes.\nIt is not in the statute spelling out the qualifications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2237.713, 2239.708], "stop_times": [2239.708, 2242.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.713}, "reply_to": "15467__1_023", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_025", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, I see.\nI just wanted to know from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2242.055, 2243.682], "stop_times": [2243.682, 2247.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.055}, "reply_to": "15467__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15467__1_026", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "How do you suggest that as possible to draw a statute that would enable people who are mistreated in this way as of they are in that county to protect that interest or can it be done by a statute?\nMust it be done by providing the proof that a remedy is declared is the result such as affected in this record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2247.861, 2267.353], "stop_times": [2267.353, 2278.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.861}, "reply_to": "15467__1_025", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_027", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, I believe it in fact has been done by the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Sullivan decision where it gave a bit more interpretation to the words intelligent.\nIt stated that intelligence in the context of the selecting jurors meant capacity to understand the matters which they may be called upon to judge.\nThat is of course more definite in the statute.\nThe Court has filled in a gap there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2278.679, 2289.807, 2300.418, 2302.559], "stop_times": [2289.807, 2300.418, 2302.559, 2304.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.679}, "reply_to": "15467__1_026", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_028", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I presume the word upright but in no judgment the tantamount to statement citizens of integrity and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2304.625], "stop_times": [2313.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.625}, "reply_to": "15467__1_027", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_029", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt would be character reputation.\nAs I said, we use, we allow evidence into Court to determine whether a man shall be hanged to set free based upon reputation in the community, if we can hang a person, I think we can also decide whether or not he should be eligible to deserve on a jury on the same criteria.\nReputation in the community, in the case at hand there was testimony that they consulted with the sheriff to see whether or not the individuals under consideration had a criminal record.\nThey do not limit themselves to this.\nIt was based upon general reputation in the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2313.832, 2314.216, 2316.197, 2334.216, 2345.078, 2346.561], "stop_times": [2314.216, 2316.197, 2334.216, 2345.078, 2346.561, 2349.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.832}, "reply_to": "15467__1_028", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_030", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Is it your contention that assuming all to be true which you said here about the disproportionate number, colored people that are on the jury, there is no judicial remedy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2349.585], "stop_times": [2364.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.585}, "reply_to": "15467__1_029", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_031", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2364.688], "stop_times": [2365.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.688}, "reply_to": "15467__1_030", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_032", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And that this case should be dismissed?\nOr that the case should be tried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2365.101, 2367.412], "stop_times": [2367.412, 2369.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.101}, "reply_to": "15467__1_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_033", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, sir I think the Court fashioned appropriate remedy.\nThe jury list was reconstituted, the -- it was primarily drawn by lot after the initial elimination due to various qualifications, now much was made of the 179 persons disqualified because they lack the requisite intelligence or character.\nThese 179 persons amounted to only 8% of the total number of names considered.\nSo it wasn\u2019t the case where they just wholesale eliminated great numbers of people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2369.859, 2373.203, 2394.077, 2400.836], "stop_times": [2373.203, 2394.077, 2400.836, 2406.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.859}, "reply_to": "15467__1_032", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_034", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What was their remedy the judge ordered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2406.526], "stop_times": [2409.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.526}, "reply_to": "15467__1_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_035", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The recomposition of the jury list.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2409.544], "stop_times": [2411.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.544}, "reply_to": "15467__1_034", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_036", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Has that been done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2411.995], "stop_times": [2412.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.995}, "reply_to": "15467__1_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_037", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt has been done and the first act I might add of the newly constituted grand jury was to appoint a black man to school board.\nThat was the first act done by the newly constituted grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2412.896, 2414.546, 2423.29], "stop_times": [2414.546, 2423.29, 2428.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.896}, "reply_to": "15467__1_036", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_038", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That\u2019s one black man on the school board but what does that do with reference to the juries hereafter?\nWhat does the order of the court do his reference to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2428.367, 2434.391], "stop_times": [2434.391, 2437.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.367}, "reply_to": "15467__1_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_039", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "It enjoins the jury commissioners from racially discriminating in their application of Georgia statute.\nIt enjoins further racial discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2437.544, 2446.025], "stop_times": [2446.025, 2448.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.544}, "reply_to": "15467__1_038", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_040", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And did it make findings that the disproportion had adhered for existed did constitute racial discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2448.615], "stop_times": [2456.166], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.615}, "reply_to": "15467__1_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_041", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI would say that I might mention, this came up in a rather unusual way.\nThe court held a hearing in the nature of a pretrial hearing.\nFrom the bench, it observed that the plaintiffs here, the appellants had made out prima facie case of racial discrimination.\nIt recessed the hearing and advised the counsel for the county defendants to consult with his clients and advice them as to the fact that the court believed that the jury list was malconstituted.\nAt that time, the judge -- the state judge of the Superior Court on his own motion dismissed both the traverse and the grand jury and ordered the jury commissioners to reconstitute, in other words make up a brand new jury list.\nThis was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2456.166, 2458.176, 2462.386, 2466.221, 2476.629, 2493.233, 2510.109], "stop_times": [2458.176, 2462.386, 2466.221, 2476.629, 2493.233, 2510.109, 2510.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.166}, "reply_to": "15467__1_040", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_042", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Complete new jury list?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2510.888], "stop_times": [2512.058], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.888}, "reply_to": "15467__1_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_043", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes sir, traverse and grand jury.\nThis was the remedy granted by the trial Court, a three-judge court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2512.058, 2514.959], "stop_times": [2514.959, 2520.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.058}, "reply_to": "15467__1_042", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_044", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And did he order?\nI believe you said he ordered that the grand jury be selected by lot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2520.089, 2521.04], "stop_times": [2521.04, 2526.081], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.089}, "reply_to": "15467__1_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_045", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No, sir.\nHe did not order about that.\nThis is the way the jury commissioners went about it.\nThe first thing they did was they took every name on the registered voters list which was something over 2,000.\nThey then disqualified certain numbers because of age, the fact that they were out of the county most of the time.\nFor various reasons, they disqualified certain numbers of citizens.\nOf the number which remained after the disqualifications, they still have far too many names.\nThey put them in alphabetical order and selected every other name.\nAt this point, they look to see what the racial composition was and at this point as judge they\u2019ll observe from the bench, there was only a difference of 40 names between the list as it came out and a 50/50 breakdown.\nIn other words, it was fairly closed.\nThen they drew line.\nThey put all the names into the jury box and by lot drew out the requisite number of names for the jury list and also the grand jury list.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2526.081, 2526.457, 2527.91, 2530.907, 2538.046, 2545.289, 2549.182, 2556.442, 2560.502, 2577.77, 2579.743, 2581.805], "stop_times": [2526.457, 2527.91, 2530.907, 2538.046, 2545.289, 2549.182, 2556.442, 2560.502, 2577.77, 2579.743, 2581.805, 2591.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.081}, "reply_to": "15467__1_044", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_046", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well, it\u2019s apparent that some at least partial relief has been granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2591.879], "stop_times": [2596.834], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.879}, "reply_to": "15467__1_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_047", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, sir.\nI think there is a little question there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2596.834, 2597.097], "stop_times": [2597.097, 2598.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.834}, "reply_to": "15467__1_046", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_048", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What is the attack being now made on the judgment of the court charging it with being inadequate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2598.424], "stop_times": [2609.742], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.424}, "reply_to": "15467__1_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_049", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I have certain difficulty in understanding exactly what the appellants are driving at.\nApparently they think that the entire membership of the board should be dismissed or somehow pass out of office and have all new members appointed.\nThat is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2609.742, 2616.66, 2628.489], "stop_times": [2616.66, 2628.489, 2629.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.742}, "reply_to": "15467__1_048", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_050", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "You mean of the jury board?\nJury Commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2629.004, 2630.526], "stop_times": [2630.526, 2630.869], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.004}, "reply_to": "15467__1_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_051", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No sir, I was speaking of the board of education.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2630.869], "stop_times": [2632.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.869}, "reply_to": "15467__1_050", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_052", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Board of education.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2632.762], "stop_times": [2634.125], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.762}, "reply_to": "15467__1_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_053", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That is the argument as I understand it.\nI don\u2019t think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2634.125, 2636.441], "stop_times": [2636.441, 2637.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.125}, "reply_to": "15467__1_052", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_054", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Why is the Board of Education?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2637.122], "stop_times": [2640.06], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.122}, "reply_to": "15467__1_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_055", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "This case actually rose over the composition of the board of education, the fact that you have an all black school system administered by an all white board of education.\nThis actually was the problem which gave rise to the entire litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2640.06, 2653.75], "stop_times": [2653.75, 2659.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.06}, "reply_to": "15467__1_054", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_056", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Is that before us now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2659.826], "stop_times": [2662.661], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.826}, "reply_to": "15467__1_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_057", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No sir I don\u2019t really believe it is other than possibly as to the request for additional -- or other remedy, another remedy.\nThe appellants do say that they are dissatisfied with the remedy granted by the District Court.\nWe think the remedy was adequate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2662.661, 2672.517, 2679.53], "stop_times": [2672.517, 2679.53, 2682.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2662.661}, "reply_to": "15467__1_056", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_058", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well do you think freeholder standard is unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2682.612], "stop_times": [2687.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.612}, "reply_to": "15467__1_057", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15467__1_059", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Justice Douglas, I was just now coming to the freeholder point.\nThere are two points I would like to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2687.841, 2692.851], "stop_times": [2692.851, 2694.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.841}, "reply_to": "15467__1_058", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_060", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "But am I not correct Mr. Evans what the appellants are asking us to do is to strike down this group of statutes plus only in that way as I understand it, can you get what they regard as a constitutionally established a board of education?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2694.557], "stop_times": [2714.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.557}, "reply_to": "15467__1_059", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15467__1_061", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No sir, as I read their brief, they are more or less asking for a suspension of Georgia\u2019s statutes in Taliaferro County.\nAs I read their brief, they have abandoned their attack on the various statutes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2714.253, 2722.199], "stop_times": [2722.199, 2726.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.253}, "reply_to": "15467__1_060", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_062", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes, but don\u2019t they want the jury statutes declared unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2726.543], "stop_times": [2730.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.543}, "reply_to": "15467__1_061", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15467__1_063", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The jury statute yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2730.346], "stop_times": [2731.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.346}, "reply_to": "15467__1_062", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_064", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "But this to a fact a recomposition of the boards of education.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2731.964, 2739.214], "stop_times": [2739.214, 2742.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.964}, "reply_to": "15467__1_063", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15467__1_065", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No, sir.\nI don\u2019t think that\u2019s correct.\nThe members of the court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2742.287, 2742.7, 2743.929], "stop_times": [2742.7, 2743.929, 2744.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.287}, "reply_to": "15467__1_064", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_066", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Perhaps you got to wait to till they get up on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2744.457], "stop_times": [2745.901], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.457}, "reply_to": "15467__1_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_067", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "The board of education of course has selected for a five-year term and just removing the present grand jury would not affect these officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2745.901], "stop_times": [2753.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.901}, "reply_to": "15467__1_066", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_068", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well perhaps I should wait to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2753.826], "stop_times": [2755.663], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.826}, "reply_to": "15467__1_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_069", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "But suppose it did strike down, as unconstitutional, the requirement for a school board member to be freeholder, what would that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2755.663], "stop_times": [2768.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.663}, "reply_to": "15467__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_070", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I think not a thing Mr. Justice Black, not a thing.\nI have not yet come to the freeholder point but I shall address myself to that point.\nFirst of all, and I will just touch on this, we do not think this question is properly before the Court.\nThe principle plaintiff, Calvin Turner in fact was a freeholder, is a freeholder.\nThe evident shows that great numbers of the black citizens of Taliaferro County are in fact freeholders.\nThey did subsequently permit an intervention of a person who --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2768.984, 2772.829, 2777.829, 2782.766, 2788.93, 2795.673], "stop_times": [2772.829, 2777.829, 2782.766, 2788.93, 2795.673, 2798.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.984}, "reply_to": "15467__1_069", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_071", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What percentage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2798.742], "stop_times": [2800.269], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.742}, "reply_to": "15467__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_072", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2800.269], "stop_times": [2800.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.269}, "reply_to": "15467__1_071", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_073", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What percentage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2800.799], "stop_times": [2802.363], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.799}, "reply_to": "15467__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_074", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2802.363], "stop_times": [2803.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.363}, "reply_to": "15467__1_073", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_075", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Of freeholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2803.218], "stop_times": [2804.288], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.218}, "reply_to": "15467__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_076", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I don\u2019t know but the word in court -- the word in court was great.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2804.288], "stop_times": [2808.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.288}, "reply_to": "15467__1_075", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_077", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2808.499], "stop_times": [2808.92], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.499}, "reply_to": "15467__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_078", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Great numbers is what the word in court was, great numbers.\nThe court observed from the bench that there was no question here where the -- as to the requirement discriminating against black citizens.\nBut I have two points on the freeholder.\nFirst we think that is not before the court, there is not a shred of evidence in the record to show that anyone much less these plaintiffs has been denied a position on the board of education because of the freeholder requirement.\nSecondly of course, we think that if we get to the merits of the problem, we think the law is that there is nothing improper about a freeholder requirement for a public office.\nThis Court has so held twice, they are rather old decisions.\nThe first was Strauder versus Virginia and the second was Vought versus Wisconsin and each case the Court held that there was nothing improper about a freeholder requirement for a public official.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2808.92, 2813.532, 2823.12, 2824.73, 2838.138, 2851.05, 2856.703], "stop_times": [2813.532, 2823.12, 2824.73, 2838.138, 2851.05, 2856.703, 2873.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.92}, "reply_to": "15467__1_077", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_079", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Does your state law define that term within a precision freeholder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2873.886], "stop_times": [2878.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.886}, "reply_to": "15467__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_080", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Justice Black as I point out in my brief, I believe the requirement could be met by the purchase of one square inch of realty.\nI don\u2019t believe there is any standard as far as the amount of realty one must own to be a freeholder.\nI think it\u2019s rather --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2878.841, 2886.694, 2894.871], "stop_times": [2886.694, 2894.871, 2895.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2878.841}, "reply_to": "15467__1_079", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_081", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "But it does require the ownership of real estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2895.047], "stop_times": [2898.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.047}, "reply_to": "15467__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_082", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes sir, it does require. Freeholder is one who owns real estate.\nThe statute does require a board member to be a freeholder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2898.102, 2901.603], "stop_times": [2901.603, 2905.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.102}, "reply_to": "15467__1_081", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_083", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "And I suppose that\u2019s done, suppose that\u2019s stricken down.\nThey are not required to be freeholders, what\u2019s left here that we can do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2905.896, 2910.855], "stop_times": [2910.855, 2920.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.896}, "reply_to": "15467__1_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_084", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, I really don\u2019t think of course striking the freeholder would have any bearing on this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2920.889], "stop_times": [2926.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2920.889}, "reply_to": "15467__1_083", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_085", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I don\u2019t see that it has so much from what you said about it but if that was stricken, what would be the situation then with reference to the other complaints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2926.871], "stop_times": [2939.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.871}, "reply_to": "15467__1_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_086", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I presume, I cannot speak for appellants.\nI presume that their other complaints would continue.\nTheir essential complaint as I see it is the attack on the upright and intelligent qualification for grand -- for jurors.\nAs I see it, that is the principle question before the Court today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2939.49, 2941.88, 2945.179, 2954.144], "stop_times": [2941.88, 2945.179, 2954.144, 2957.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.49}, "reply_to": "15467__1_085", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_087", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well of course they do not claim, do they?\nThat they should not be upright and intelligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2957.487, 2959.524], "stop_times": [2959.524, 2963.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.487}, "reply_to": "15467__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_088", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No sir they obviously do not maintain.\nThey should not be.\nThey say that the standard is too vague.\nWe can only submit -- we think it\u2019s a rather clear standard.\nIn fact, sometimes I think when you consider constitutional attacks of vagueness on a word like intelligent or upright in the context of a juror I think that one would perhaps have to be a lawyer not to understand it.\nIt\u2019s a word that\u2019s been commonly used for at least a hundred years in Georgia and is never even been attacked until recently.\nYes, but anyway it\u2019s a word that is easily understood.\nOnly year ago in Cameron, this Court upheld in a criminal statute where the standard is higher.\nIt upheld unreasonable interference.\nWell, that can be a vague phrase too.\nThis would involve the picketing case and demonstrations on the street and this Court said it was perfectly clear the phrase unreasonably interfere.\nIt seems to me that in the contract -- in the context of juror selection, I think that words like reason on upright are not difficult words.\nIt\u2019s a simple reputation of community as far as the character qualification, as far as intelligence.\nIt is as a Georgia Supreme Court declared as the chairman of the jury commissioners declared.\nIt is capacity to understand what it going on in court.\nWe think that this is essential to the operation of a jury system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [2963.015, 2965.177, 2965.955, 2970.452, 2973.534, 2987.42, 2994.7, 2998.91, 3005.711, 3008.474, 3011.365, 3021.398, 3030.698, 3037.766, 3046.454, 3050.43], "stop_times": [2965.177, 2965.955, 2970.452, 2973.534, 2987.42, 2994.7, 2998.91, 3005.711, 3008.474, 3011.365, 3021.398, 3030.698, 3037.766, 3046.454, 3050.43, 3053.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2963.015}, "reply_to": "15467__1_087", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_089", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Is the State of Georgia defending the use of the words freeholders and the statute defending the right of Georgia to require that they\u2019ll be freeholder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3053.716], "stop_times": [3063.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.716}, "reply_to": "15467__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15467__1_090", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes sir.\nWe defend.\nWe think that that is a constitutional standard.\nI say I emphasize that word because I do think it would be perfectly candid.\nI think it\u2019s open to question as to its wisdom.\nI might add that very recently I recommended to the Georgia constitutional revision committee that be deleted.\nI personally don\u2019t like it but I do think it is not unreasonable.\nIf the Court would like a reason to -- I could point out that members of the board of education have a great deal to do with fixing the tax rate.\nIt is not beyond the realm of reason to say that it might be desirable to have persons who are directly affected by property taxes.\nIt is not beyond the realm of reason to feel that they might be perhaps a bit more prudent in the expenditure of public funds.\nWe think that the voting rights cases such as Harper, Cipriano and Kramer are not after a poll.\nThe reason they are not after poll is clearly a state as the federal government can prescribe different and higher standards for the holding of public office than for voting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3063.319, 3063.699, 3064.298, 3066.815, 3070.433, 3073.79, 3080.774, 3084.249, 3094.743, 3105.239, 3112.388, 3119.963], "stop_times": [3063.699, 3064.298, 3066.815, 3070.433, 3073.79, 3080.774, 3084.249, 3094.743, 3105.239, 3112.388, 3119.963, 3131.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.319}, "reply_to": "15467__1_089", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_091", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Is the voter required to be a freeholder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3131.99], "stop_times": [3134.239], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.99}, "reply_to": "15467__1_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__1_092", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3134.239], "stop_times": [3137.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.239}, "reply_to": "15467__1_091", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_093", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "When you link the prudence factor that you mentioned to the fact these men on the board fixing the taxes or fixing taxes for the support of almost all black schools, then that assumes another dimension.\nWould you not agree potential for carrying prudence too far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3137.1, 3152.724], "stop_times": [3152.724, 3160.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.1}, "reply_to": "15467__1_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__1_094", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Mr. Justice Burger, this probably would be a danger.\nI would point out that the record in this particular case shows that between the time the white pupil has left the school system and the time of the litigation that per pupil expenditure went up not down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3160.764, 3163.064], "stop_times": [3163.064, 3177.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.764}, "reply_to": "15467__1_093", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_095", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "That was perhaps because there were not many fewer pupils.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3177.068], "stop_times": [3180.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.068}, "reply_to": "15467__1_094", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_096", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I\u2019m talking of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3180.411], "stop_times": [3181.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3180.411}, "reply_to": "15467__1_095", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_097", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "For pupil expenditure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3181.401], "stop_times": [3181.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.401}, "reply_to": "15467__1_096", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_098", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "For pupil expenditure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3181.916], "stop_times": [3183.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.916}, "reply_to": "15467__1_097", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_099", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Say might have been a less amount of total value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3183.323], "stop_times": [3186.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.323}, "reply_to": "15467__1_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__1_100", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "It\u2019s possible that as a matter of fact the per pupil expenditure did go up not down.\nThey did not reduce the taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3186.139, 3191.685], "stop_times": [3191.685, 3196.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3186.139}, "reply_to": "15467__1_099", "speaker": "alfred_l_evans_jr"}
{"id": "15467__1_101", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Very well Mr. Evans.\nMr. Meltsner you have about three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3196.406, 3198.002], "stop_times": [3198.002, 3202.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.406}, "reply_to": "15467__1_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__2_000", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "In the very short time left, I\u2019m going to try and deal with two or three of these issues.\nFirst, Mr. Justice Brennan, assuming that the court eliminates the capacity for discrimination in the upright and intelligence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3202.54, 3206.942], "stop_times": [3206.942, 3216.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3202.54}, "reply_to": "15467__1_101", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_001", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "You mean strikes down those --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3216.306], "stop_times": [3217.394], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.306}, "reply_to": "15467__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__2_002", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Strikes that down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3217.394], "stop_times": [3218.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3217.394}, "reply_to": "15467__2_001", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_003", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3218.546], "stop_times": [3219.081], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.546}, "reply_to": "15467__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__2_004", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "We have concluded that the most appropriate remedy is for the District Court to try and make this system of selection which is ingrained in state law work and we think the way --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3219.081], "stop_times": [3230.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3219.081}, "reply_to": "15467__2_003", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_005", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I can\u2019t hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3230.024], "stop_times": [3230.917], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.024}, "reply_to": "15467__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__2_006", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Counsel, would you raise your voice a little?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3230.917], "stop_times": [3232.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.917}, "reply_to": "15467__2_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15467__2_007", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I\u2019m sorry.\nWe have concluded that if this statute is knocked down by the court, our challenge is successful that the most appropriate way for the District Court to assure that the system of school board selection and jury selection works is to appoint black jury commissioners to put them in this process.\nBecause a very small amounted discrimination on the part of the commissioners would tip the balance in the grand jury which selects the school --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3232.379, 3234.367, 3257.259], "stop_times": [3234.367, 3257.259, 3267.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3232.379}, "reply_to": "15467__2_006", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_008", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well tell me Mr. Meltsner, I know that such a complaint asked that on the premise statutes struck down that you wanted membership on the board of education and jury commission to be declared vacant, a receiver be appointed to operate the public schools and in selection of constitutionally acceptable board that a special master select members of the grand and petit juries and that ancillary damages be worth.\nDo you still press for all that relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3267.551, 3293.098], "stop_times": [3293.098, 3294.803], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.551}, "reply_to": "15467__2_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__2_009", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Well not, we do not press in this Court for ancillary damages but all that relief may be appropriate to the District Court to advice a system which will assure their selection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3294.803], "stop_times": [3305.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3294.803}, "reply_to": "15467__2_008", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_010", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "You don\u2019t think a mere declaratory judgment would be enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3305.778], "stop_times": [3308.93], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.778}, "reply_to": "15467__2_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__2_011", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Absolutely not, after there was a declaratory judgment, 96% of the persons excluded under the statutory test were black.\nDeclaratory judgment is not going to work.\nNow with respect to Mr. Justice Douglas\u2019 question as to the freeholder requirement, this is just something I wish to bring to the Court\u2019s attention in this point because I just discovered it really and that is that Georgia has two other ways of selecting school boards.\nOne is a -- local law may be passed and the referendum take place and other is that area school boards may be created.\nNow the constitutional provisions which provide for these systems of selection say nothing about freeholders.\nIndeed, they delegate to the voters of the particular communities, the power to set qualifications.\nThus, there can\u2019t be very much of a state interest involved here.\nFinally, I just -- one more point here.\nMr. Justice Stewart, these statutes with the exception of the cross-section to the community language are all reconstruction statutes.\nThey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3308.93, 3316.945, 3319.317, 3336.883, 3346.137, 3352.805, 3360.559, 3364.201, 3367.168, 3373.787], "stop_times": [3316.945, 3319.317, 3336.883, 3346.137, 3352.805, 3360.559, 3364.201, 3367.168, 3373.787, 3374.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3308.93}, "reply_to": "15467__2_010", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_012", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "They are talking about that language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3374.036], "stop_times": [3375.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3374.036}, "reply_to": "15467__2_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15467__2_013", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I see.\nFinally, I just wish to make it perfectly clear.\nWe do not disagree that a state has an interest in the intelligent and upright jurors.\nWe merely assert that the test involved in the statute is not the way to achieve that end.\nIt grants too much discretion and invites racial discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3375.391, 3376.393, 3380.012, 3387.196, 3393.53], "stop_times": [3376.393, 3380.012, 3387.196, 3393.53, 3397.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3375.391}, "reply_to": "15467__2_012", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_014", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Would you consider that if you prevail on your facial attack here that the statutes the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3397.3], "stop_times": [3406.804], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.3}, "reply_to": "15467__2_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15467__2_015", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "I think some of them definitely will but I think in most of them, my own experience is that in most of them, there are administrative procedures grafted onto them which make the selection much fairer but certainly many of these statutes will have to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3406.804], "stop_times": [3425.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3406.804}, "reply_to": "15467__2_014", "speaker": "michael_meltsner"}
{"id": "15467__2_016", "conversation_id": "15467", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Meltsner thank you for your submission and Mr. Evans thank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_23", "start_times": [3425.234, 3431.593], "stop_times": [3431.593, 3435.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3425.234}, "reply_to": "15467__2_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__0_000", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Number 190, Turner against the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [13.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__0_001", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [13.056], "stop_times": [19.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.056}, "reply_to": "15251__0_000", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_002", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Mr. Dubois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [19.395], "stop_times": [21.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 19.395}, "reply_to": "15251__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__0_003", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I have agreed with Mr. Rivkin who has filed an amicus brief that with the concern of the Court, he may use anytime of the remaining after my principal argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [21.537], "stop_times": [33.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 21.537}, "reply_to": "15251__0_002", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_004", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "In the -- in rebuttal?\nOr as part of your argument's brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [33.556, 36.589], "stop_times": [36.589, 37.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 33.556}, "reply_to": "15251__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__0_005", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "As part of -- yes.\nHe's filed an amicus brief on my side of that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [37.798, 38.831], "stop_times": [38.831, 43.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 37.798}, "reply_to": "15251__0_004", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_006", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Have you arranged to see that he doesn't absorb all your rebuttal time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [43.013], "stop_times": [46.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 43.013}, "reply_to": "15251__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__0_007", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, if he does, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [46.245], "stop_times": [48.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 46.245}, "reply_to": "15251__0_006", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_008", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Very well, we'll leave it up to your gentlemen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [48.116], "stop_times": [49.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.116}, "reply_to": "15251__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__0_009", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "It's more or less.\nNow, this case involves convictions under Section 174 of Title 21 of the United States Code and Section 4704 (a), of Title 26 of the United State Code relating to two narcotic drugs specifically heroin and cocaine.\nNow, it's the contention of the petitioner that the presumptions contained in both of these sections of the code are unconstitutional, because they discourage the right of the defendant to remain silent, and specifically we rely heavily upon the two relatively recent decisions of this Court which are cited in the brief of petitioner, namely Griffin versus California and United States versus Jackson.\nNow without repeating in detail, all of the arguments contained in the brief, I would like to emphasize certain points for consideration of the Court.\nFirst, Section 174 of Title 21 of the United States code requires that the defendant know that narcotic drugs in question \u201cto have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law.\u201d\nNow in the Government's brief, it is a claimed that it is rational to permit the jury in this case to infer that a person in possession of a relatively large amount of heroin, knows that it was illegally imported.\nAnd in making this argument, the Government's brief approach from, were then apparently ignores the charge of the District Court Judge in which the Judge said specifically and I quote.\nNow obviously, there is no evidence in this case that this particular defendant knew that this cocaine and this heroin -- heroin excuse me, have been imported into the United States contrary to law.\nDistrict Court Judge and went on to say, the statute recognizing the impossibility approving knowledge in this cases and having in mind the welfare of the people which is a purpose of the food and drug act, says that all you have to do, all the Government has to do is show that there was possession of this drug by the defendant on trial and that evidence shall suffice to authorize a violation of the statute unless by the witnesses presented possession of the drugs by this defendant under those circumstances will satisfactory explain to the jury.\nIt is abundantly clear therefore that under the instructions from the District Court Judge, the jury did not indulge in any rationalization such as that contained in the Government's brief, namely, the jury under the judge's instructions certainly did not indulge in the presumption that because there was a large amount of heroin that therefore the defendant knew it was illegally imported because the judge told the jury, all you have to find gentleman is possession.\nSo, I feel that the whole argument in the Government's brief concerning the so called rational interest, the mere to be drawn by jury, by the possession of this large amount of heroin is completely immaterial.\nSecondly, the Government's brief and supplemental memorandum spend a great deal of time in pointing out that heroin is neither produced in the United States nor legally imported into the United State.\nNow, even assuming we stipulate this fact, it is our position that this statement leads to nowhere.\nCertainly, if this is true, I never knew it before reading the Government's brief and there is certainly is no evidence in this case that the defendant knew this to be true.\nIn fact as I've already indicated, the District Court Judge specifically charged.\nNow obviously, there is no evidence in this case that this particular defendant knew that this cocaine and heroin had been imported into the United State contrary to law.\nNow, my next point is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [49.653, 51.523, 75.383, 114.371, 125.712, 148.765, 169.241, 183.14, 201.028, 245.305, 287.27, 304.366, 322.063, 331.128, 343.843, 350.8, 363.336], "stop_times": [51.523, 75.383, 114.371, 125.712, 148.765, 169.241, 183.14, 201.028, 245.305, 287.27, 304.366, 322.063, 331.128, 343.843, 350.8, 363.336, 364.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.653}, "reply_to": "15251__0_008", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_010", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "If I'm not mistaken, hasn't the Government conceded come to relates to cocaine so far as the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [364.764], "stop_times": [373.316], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 364.764}, "reply_to": "15251__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15251__0_011", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Oh, I beg your pardon.\nYes, so far as under the Section 174 of Title 21, the Government did concede the cocaine, of course I'm sorry.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [373.316, 374.271, 383.054], "stop_times": [374.271, 383.054, 383.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.316}, "reply_to": "15251__0_010", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_012", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Was this part of your argument that now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [383.33], "stop_times": [385.424], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 383.33}, "reply_to": "15251__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15251__0_013", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Yes, right.\nNow, it is our contention that the presumption than mere possession of narcotics drugs is sufficient evidence of the violation of Section 174 of Title 21 requiring that the defendant know the drugs have been imported contrary to law is unconstitutional to use the words of the Griffin case, it cuts down on the privilege by making the assertion of the right to remain silent coarsely and to use the words of the Jackson case, it shows the assertion of that right.\nNow, it is to be noted that in the Jackson case, the defendant pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial.\nBut this Court do said that the provision in the Federal Kidnapping Act that permits him to get descent if he ask for a jury trial was unconstitutional because it shows his right not -- to plead not guilty and to ask for a jury trial, and we say that the right to remain silent is just as precious as the right to demand a jury trial and the right to plead not guilty.\nNow, with respect to the convictions under Section 4704 (a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, here again is a contention of the petitioner that the presumption contained in this section of the code or vying that mere possession of the drugs is prima facie evidence of a violation of the section is unconstitutional, again because it discourages the right of the defendant to remain silent.\nIt is to be noted and this is not brought out at least in the Government's brief that whereas the indictment under this section of the code charged the defendant with unlawful purchase, possession, dispensing and distributing of narcotic drugs, and whereas, the judgment of conviction resides possession as well as purchase in dispensing and distributing.\nIn fact, this section of the code does not make the possession of narcotic drugs a crime.\nSpecifically said statute says that, it shall be unlawful to purchase, sell, dispense or distribute narcotic drugs except in the original stamp packing.\nThen, the statute provides as I've indicated, the possession shall be prima facia evidence of violation.\nThere is absolutely no evidence in this case that the defendant purchased, sold, dispense or distributed narcotic drug.\nAnd here again, the charge of the District Court judge to me is almost conclusive.\nHe said to the jury so that in effect your problem, your principle problem here will be to determine whether or not certain qualities of heroin and cocaine which have been more in evidence in this case were in the possession of -- or under the control of the defendant in this case.\nHere again, the jury was instructed in effect that so wrong as the defendant was found to be in possession of the drugs that was all that was needed, and here again, the jury obviously must determine guilt solely on the basis of possession.\nSo, in closing, we say that the presumptions in both of these sections of the statute are unconstitutional and we believe that the decisions of this Court in the Griffin case and the Jackson case dictate that this presumption be declared unconstitutional.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [385.424, 387.444, 425.895, 435.488, 467.251, 496.792, 523.177, 529.892, 540.721, 547.517, 556.817, 563.542, 586.464, 603.534, 620.681], "stop_times": [387.444, 425.895, 435.488, 467.251, 496.792, 523.177, 529.892, 540.721, 547.517, 556.817, 563.542, 586.464, 603.534, 620.681, 625.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.424}, "reply_to": "15251__0_012", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__0_014", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Mr. Rivkin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [625.309], "stop_times": [635.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.309}, "reply_to": "15251__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_000", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThere are other issues in this case beyond the issue of self incrimination arising from the statutory presumptions on which the petitioner for -- the petitioner has rested.\nBecause of the presence of these issues, I have filed in behalf of the amicus two briefs in this case and I would now like to make this brief supplementary argument.\nI want a dwell on the issue that was preserved in the Leary case last term, the resolution here, the constitutionality under the due process clause of the statutory presumption in 21 USC Section 174 with respect to hard narcotics.\nThen time permitting, I would like to point briefly to the other arguments post in the briefs of the amicus.\nThe Leary case invalidated the virtually identical statutory presumption in 21 USC 176 (a) similarly involving a statutory influence arising from mere possession of foreign importation and knowledge thereof with respect to marijuana and it has specifically left for a future case separate consideration of the similar question with respect to hard drugs.\nSubsequent to the Leary case and in response to the briefs filed in this case, the Government has conceded error with respect to the drug cocaine and has prayed for reversal on count three.\nBy so doing, it is our position that the Government has now dissolved any line remaining after Leary between marijuana and hard drugs.\nApplying the task of that and prior cases to the drug heroin, the remaining drug in the petitioner's possession.\n21 USC Section 174 is embraced fully within the prohibition of the due process clause.\nThis Court has always given deference to the ability of Congress to fashion evidentiary rules but that deference has always been based and set forth in the Top case on the congress's ability to see the facts of a particular case in broader relationship than that might -- that might be presented to the jury.\nIt should be noted at the outset here, that what the Congress was doing in 1909 when it passed the import and export act with respect to narcotic drugs was working a total prohibition on the import and under domestic possession and use of heroin.\nIt was not making a judgment of a common relationship of facts such as the Congress was doing in the statute which was involved in Gainey case and the Romano case 26 USC 5601 in which it was determining that because of the tendency of steels to be located in hidden places, that they are maybe assumed to be in relationship with regard to anyone who is found present thereat.\nTherefore, realizing that we must look behind the normal deference which is to be accorded to the Congress in these matters, we must apply to these presumptions the tests which have been most recently stated in Leary and which have been also stated in Tot, those tests are that there be a rational connection between the fact and evidence and the fact presumed there from.\nBased on a connection and common experience and capable of giving rise to substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from fact and evidence.\nIf we apply this tests to the possession here in question both logically and empirically with respect to 21 USC 174, we must come to a conclusion that we cannot reach substantial assurance that there is a rational connection between the fact in evidence and the facts unlawful importation and knowledge thereof which the Congress would have the Courts presume.\nWith respect to unlawful importation, there are at least four alternatives for the source of heroin in the possession of the petitioner.\nThis morning, Mr. Straus made reference to the statute 21 USC Section 513 by which heroin and any other drug may in fact be lawfully imported to the United States.\nLawfully imported for scientific purposes and for subsequent license, but I would want that if petitioner Turner and any other possessor of heroin had come in possession of such a drug without such a license, he could not be prosecuted under the statute.\nThe second source would be lawful importation of source material and subsequent deviation and manufacture of that source material into heroin.\nThe source material commonly acknowledged for heroin derived as it is ultimately from the opium poppy is raw opium and morphine.\nAs I pointed out in my brief, there is also evidence which the Government does not contradict, indeed it confirms that codeine may also be a source for heroin.\nUsing the Government's statistics which the Government has applied as the basis for concluding in this case that cocaine may in fact not be unlawfully imported to the United States, we come to a conclusion that there is a rather high potential of domestic manufacture of the heroin drug.\nThe Government concedes both the possibility and the technical ease with which heroin maybe manufactured.\nThe Government's reports mentioned efforts to manufacture heroin and moreover, the Government, both federal and state have attempted to prosecute people for the effort of manufacturing heroin from source materials otherwise present in the United States.\nMoreover, the recent concerns of the bureau of narcotics and drug abuse for cough syrups which have raw traces of codeine within them and for Paragor which contain opium suggest that the source material for the substance in the possessor of heroin's hands maybe as handy as the local supermarket or drugstore.\nThe third element which I would suggest is present to vitiate the assurance of unlawful importation is that the opium poppy may have been grown in the United States.\nIndeed, that prospect was itself the basis on which Congress passed the Narcotics Control Acts in the early part of the century.\nThe Government has acknowledged that it is agriculturally possible to grow opium in the United States.\nMoreover, there is a regime of federal control and licensing over the opium poppy in the United States and there have been prosecutions reported which are cited in my brief for individuals who have attempted to grow that product.\nThe Government moreover in its brief has also confirmed that there are instances where opium is grown today in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [635.087, 638.023, 648.807, 659.054, 674.598, 681.746, 706.465, 718.378, 727.52, 735.172, 743.101, 762.078, 777.222, 803.534, 828.276, 839.728, 867.151, 876.24, 888.58, 905.43, 914.967, 923.633, 936.425, 955.048, 961.702, 977.053, 998.231, 1009.419, 1017.522, 1024.807, 1039.799], "stop_times": [638.023, 648.807, 659.054, 674.598, 681.746, 706.465, 718.378, 727.52, 735.172, 743.101, 762.078, 777.222, 803.534, 828.276, 839.728, 867.151, 876.24, 888.58, 905.43, 914.967, 923.633, 936.425, 955.048, 961.702, 977.053, 998.231, 1009.419, 1017.522, 1024.807, 1039.799, 1048.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 635.087}, "reply_to": "15251__0_014", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_001", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Do you suggest that the Government or the Congress in order to establish this presumption must negate every possible source or is the presumption supportable if on balance it's more probable than not that it's an imported substance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1048.134], "stop_times": [1071.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.134}, "reply_to": "15251__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_002", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I would not apply Mr. Chief Justice either a 100% standard or a 51% standard to what the Government might -- must substantiate.\nI would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1071.546, 1084.181], "stop_times": [1084.181, 1084.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1071.546}, "reply_to": "15251__1_001", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_003", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Your definition earlier was more probable than that, I wouldn't -- how far do you go than on the percentages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1084.308], "stop_times": [1093.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.308}, "reply_to": "15251__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_004", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, the particular language with which one may deal in nice points is substantial assurance that more, that it has more probably than not come about it, so I would say even if there were a 51% requirement, one must feel quite sure in fact to a point that one might speak of as beyond to a moral certainty that the particular substance was unlawfully imported to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1093.166], "stop_times": [1119.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1093.166}, "reply_to": "15251__1_003", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_005", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, has any case ever held that it had to be to a moral certainty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1119.034], "stop_times": [1123.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.034}, "reply_to": "15251__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_006", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "No, and I don't ask, this one does.\nI merely say that when we think in terms of the burden that the Government must substantiate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1123.094, 1125.177], "stop_times": [1125.177, 1130.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1123.094}, "reply_to": "15251__1_005", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_007", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Which is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1130.205], "stop_times": [1130.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.205}, "reply_to": "15251__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_008", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "We're not thinking such quantitative terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1130.349], "stop_times": [1132.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1130.349}, "reply_to": "15251__1_007", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_009", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Would you think that this presumption, statutory presumption here is more or less offensive than the common law presumption which is enacted in the statute in some states arising from the possession of recently stolen property, unexplained possession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1132.168], "stop_times": [1150.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.168}, "reply_to": "15251__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_010", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I would say Your Honor that it does in terms that Tot uses strain one's tolerance to apply that test to the substance.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1150.006, 1162.444], "stop_times": [1162.444, 1163.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1150.006}, "reply_to": "15251__1_009", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_011", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "In other words, you could live with the other, the common law presumption but you think that's not as offensive as the statutory presumption here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1163.594], "stop_times": [1170.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.594}, "reply_to": "15251__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_012", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "In the light of the showings which I'm making here Your Honor, I think that that's the circumstance.\nFinally, I would add that there also is the prospect, that the drug might be wholly synthesized in the United States from sources which are unregulated and which are commonly available.\nThis possibility has been acknowledged by the Government in its briefs.\nOn balance, the Government has attempted to come to grips with these alternatives and they have concluded in their own terms that if heroin is available in the United States domestically manufactured and produced, that the likelihood is less than 1%.\nI would point out that first of all, one must be aware when one judges the validity of this projection of the sources from which the Government's data are drawn.\nThose sources can only be in this circumstances, the list and the numbers and quantities of drugs that have been confiscated at ports and borders and those that may have been confiscated overseas.\nAnd these by this very basis I would submit have absolutely no basis as a rational source of inference for any substance that maybe domestically produced.\nThe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1170.735, 1175.315, 1187.106, 1192.788, 1210.464, 1222.548, 1234.575, 1245.274], "stop_times": [1175.315, 1187.106, 1192.788, 1210.464, 1222.548, 1234.575, 1245.274, 1245.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1170.735}, "reply_to": "15251__1_011", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_013", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Is it illegal to produce heroin, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1245.409], "stop_times": [1248.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.409}, "reply_to": "15251__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__1_014", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1248.337], "stop_times": [1249.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1248.337}, "reply_to": "15251__1_013", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_015", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Would it be assumed that would cut down on the local manufacture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1249.768], "stop_times": [1255.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.768}, "reply_to": "15251__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__1_016", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "It -- it might, on the other hand it might also raise the incentive for local manufacture Your Honor by driving up the price but that wouldn't be in violation of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1255.027], "stop_times": [1266.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1255.027}, "reply_to": "15251__1_015", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_017", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, have -- I'm still on with the Chief Justice, I'm worried about how far the Government has to prove that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1266.297], "stop_times": [1272.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.297}, "reply_to": "15251__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__1_018", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "We're concerned with the criminal case, as a criminal case, it's a further question of the degree to which the Government may chop down on a defendant's rights and that is I would say that we're up around the realm of reasonable doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI wouldn't want to put a quantitative test involved here but I certainly wouldn't say that the statistics that have been introduced here substantiate that.\nIf the statistics do substantiate that to a -- with substantial assurance, then it is a proposition which our cases would embrace, but the fact is that the most authoritative judgment that has ever been made about the validity of these statistics was made recently by the white house conference on narcotics and drug abuse.\nWhen it was specifically stated as follows, adequate data are not available for a precise estimation of the incidence and prevalence of the abuse of drugs with the cycle of toxic side effects because addicts for the most part obtain their drugs illegally, the existing data about unreliable and incomplete and are generally limited to individuals apprehended by enforcement agencies.\nThe White House panel necessarily concluded the discrepancies between the federal state and local enforcement agencies are so great in some instances, more than 100% that the panel prefers not to make any numeral estimates at this time.\nThe time was 1962, the white house conference on narcotics and drug abuse and the citation is to page 290 and 291.\nIndeed, even if one makes the assumption that this Court made without determining the issue in the Leary case that most heroin is imported to the United States.\nOne must also look beyond that to the question of whether, the second part of the presumption here at concern has been found to have a rational, have met a rational test.\nThat is whether most users of heroin in the United States know that their drugs have a foreign importation.\nIn fact, the language used in the Leary case was that a majority of possessors of the narcotic drug must know of the high rate of importation or of the actual origin of the drug.\nNow, the Government has attempted warmly I submit to substantiate that necessary showing of knowledge and it is done at solely by pointing to widespread television and newspaper notoriety.\nI would submit that that offering goes nowhere near as far as the weary teachers the Government must go.\nIn fact, authoritative sources which are cited in my brief show that the heroin user by enlarge is poor, disadvantage, psychologically an escapist and far from the sophisticated person from whom one might expect, the knowledge of the source of importation of the drug.\nOn balance I submit that both presumptions of foreign importation and knowledge thereof failed to meet the rational connection test which this Court has applied.\nIf the Court has questions, I would like to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1272.953, 1290.434, 1299.484, 1322.263, 1345.276, 1359.522, 1367.827, 1378.398, 1390.087, 1396.807, 1409.694, 1423.854, 1431.213, 1450.885, 1463.611], "stop_times": [1290.434, 1299.484, 1322.263, 1345.276, 1359.522, 1367.827, 1378.398, 1390.087, 1396.807, 1409.694, 1423.854, 1431.213, 1450.885, 1463.611, 1465.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1272.953}, "reply_to": "15251__1_017", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_019", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I would like to ask you one question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1465.847], "stop_times": [1467.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.847}, "reply_to": "15251__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_020", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1467.201], "stop_times": [1468.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1467.201}, "reply_to": "15251__1_019", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_021", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Are you challenging the right of Congress to fix the amount of evidence that will authorize or compel a jury to convict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1468.16], "stop_times": [1483.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.16}, "reply_to": "15251__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_022", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I am not directly challenging that Your Honor, I have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1483.467], "stop_times": [1486.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1483.467}, "reply_to": "15251__1_021", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_023", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "It seems to me you're doing it indirectly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1486.826], "stop_times": [1489.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.826}, "reply_to": "15251__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_024", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1489.104], "stop_times": [1489.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1489.104}, "reply_to": "15251__1_023", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_025", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I don't see why you hesitate to do it directly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1489.427], "stop_times": [1492.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1489.427}, "reply_to": "15251__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_026", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "You haven't hesitated to do it directly Mr. Justice Black and I would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1492.641], "stop_times": [1495.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1492.641}, "reply_to": "15251__1_025", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_027", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Are you saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1495.92], "stop_times": [1497.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.92}, "reply_to": "15251__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_028", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I submit that you Mr. Justice Black have not challenged, have not hesitated to take that challenge up and that is why you have pointed in the past to considerations other than those arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1497.092], "stop_times": [1507.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1497.092}, "reply_to": "15251__1_027", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_029", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "In Congress -- in the Congress interfere to the constitutional rule, functions of the Court to try cases any more than the Court can interfere for the right of Congress to pass legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1507.863], "stop_times": [1523.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.863}, "reply_to": "15251__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_030", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Put in that manner Mr. Justice Black, I would respond affirmatively and indeed, it's my further contention as you have pointed out in your descent in Gainey, in your concurring opinion in Romano and in Leary that these presumptions work a depravation of due process of law by converting the reasonable doubt test which must be met, they interfere with the right of the defendant to a trial by jury, in addition to the self incriminatory aspects which the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out.\nAs a matter of separation of powers, I would prefer to respond in those terms that there are substantive rights which statutory presumptions must meet and which these statutory presumptions fail to meet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1523.74, 1558.004], "stop_times": [1558.004, 1573.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1523.74}, "reply_to": "15251__1_029", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_031", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Let's assume that Congress has no such right to establish standards of proof, does that in any way inhibit judges from applying a standard which Congress may have incidentally defined if judges think its insensible standard as they have with reference to the inference as to be drawn from possession of recently stolen property?\nJudges can adopt it on their own not be concerned that the Congress has prescribed, can't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1573.591, 1596.223], "stop_times": [1596.223, 1603.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.591}, "reply_to": "15251__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_032", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "My own feeling is that there are certainly are matters that judges may -- of which they may take judicial notice but that there are restrictions on the extent to which that process may also operate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1603.385], "stop_times": [1614.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1603.385}, "reply_to": "15251__1_031", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_033", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, is this presumption here fundamentally very much different from the inferences which the Courts permit juries to draw from possession of recently stolen property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1614.868], "stop_times": [1627.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.868}, "reply_to": "15251__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__1_034", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "In its operation I would say it is not but I think that this Court has applied tests on a case by case basis on a presumption by presumption basis and I'm not attacking all presumptions here, I'm not attacking the presumption of recently stolen property.\nI am attacking on the basis of the facts of the specific case, the same kind of test which here we ask for itself and for any subsequent cases that may follow.\nI am attacking these presumption --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1627.354, 1638.928, 1650.768], "stop_times": [1638.928, 1650.768, 1651.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1627.354}, "reply_to": "15251__1_033", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_035", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "What were the charges you have directed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1651.902], "stop_times": [1654.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.902}, "reply_to": "15251__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_036", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1654.143], "stop_times": [1654.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1654.143}, "reply_to": "15251__1_035", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_037", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "For the Clerk would have charged you do you have directed, but there is a presumption that this defendant is guilty from these facts, did you return them loose?\nWhat would happen to his case thereafter and why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1654.739, 1665.58], "stop_times": [1665.58, 1671.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.739}, "reply_to": "15251__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_038", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "He would have so vitiated our constitutional system that at any point thereafter, the case should be totally reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1671.331], "stop_times": [1679.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1671.331}, "reply_to": "15251__1_037", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_039", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "He would be acquitted and there's a provision in the constitution that a man should not be put in jeopardy twice for the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1679.034], "stop_times": [1687.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.034}, "reply_to": "15251__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__1_040", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct, and he could not be retried.\nI believed that in response to Mr. Justice Black's earlier question, I touched basically on most of the additional points that I would have raised.\nI would only point out that there is one additional issue that has been raised by the amicus here, that is that the operation of Section 4704 (a) aside from the statutory presumption, the prohibition on any dealings in narcotic drugs without tax stamps is it self violation of the self incrimination provision.\nI have referred to that, I will refer to my brief to page 17 through 20 for a fuller development of that argument.\nIf the Court now pleases, I would prefer to reserve the rest of our argument for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1687.874, 1690.735, 1701.249, 1723.406, 1732.794], "stop_times": [1690.735, 1701.249, 1723.406, 1732.794, 1738.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1687.874}, "reply_to": "15251__1_039", "speaker": "steven_r_rivkin"}
{"id": "15251__1_041", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Very well Mr. Rivkin.\nMr. Wallace?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1738.578, 1742.066], "stop_times": [1742.066, 1746.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.578}, "reply_to": "15251__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__2_000", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nPetitioner stands convicted after a jury trial on four counts of narcotics violation and he petitioned this Court to review the constitutional validity as applied to him of the so called statutory presumptions of the two federal narcotics laws under which he was convicted.\nThe question of the constitutionality of the presumptions was the only question he put before the Court of Appeals and was the only question in the petition for certiorari and in our view of the case under this Court's rules therefore, no other issues are raised apart from the validity of the presumptions and that is what we have directed our brief to and what I anticipate directing the argument to.\nBecause no other issues are raised, the facts of record pertinent in this Court are few but I think they are worth reviewing for purposes of addressing ourselves to the trial judges charge to the jury as well as to the validity of applying the presumptions in this case.\nFederal narcotics agents arrested the petitioner and two traveling companions at a Lincoln tunnel tow booth in New Jersey shortly after their automobile emerged in the course of the trip from New York City and the automobile was registered in petitioner's name.\nWhile the agents were conducting a search of the arrested individual and prior to their actual search of petitioner's person, he threw a metal foil package containing cocaine to the top of the nearby wall and in search of the automobile then revealed another metal foil package containing heroin under the front seat.\nThe first package weighed 14 and 2/3 grams and contained a mixture of cocaine and sugar, 5% of which was cocaine.\nThe package containing heroin weighed 48 and a quarter grams and consisted of a mixture of several substances, 15.2% of which was heroin.\nThe heroin mixture was divided into 275 small glisten double bags all wrapped within the metal foil package and none of the containers had any tax stamps affixed.\nOn the basis of this evidence, the petitioner was convicted of a heroin violation and of a cocaine violation under each of the two statutes set forth at pages 2 and 3 of our brief.\nUnder Section 174 of Title 21, he was convicted of having knowingly received, concealed and facilitated the transportation of each drug after its illegal importation with knowledge that it had been illegally imported.\nUnder Section 4704 (a) of Title 26, he was convicted of having knowingly purchased, possess and distributed each drug not in or from the original stamp package.\nHe was given concurrent sentences of imprisonment under two heroin counts to run consecutively with concurrence sentences under two cocaine counts.\nUnder each of these statutes, the Trial Court instructed the jury in the statutory language that under Section 174, excuse me, it was authorized to convict if the defendant was shown to have been in possession of the drug and has not explained his possession to the jury's satisfaction and under Section 4704, it was authorized to convict if the drug were shown to be in the defendant's possession without appropriate tax stamps affixed.\nThese so-called statutory presumptions authorized but did not require the jury the infer the additional elements of each crime from the Government's proof in this case and the issue before this Court is whether it was constitutionally permissible to apply these presumptions to each of the four counts.\nThe issue is not a novel one in this Court because the constitutionality of each of these statutory presumptions has previously been upheld in this Court's decisions, that of Section 174 in Yee Hem against the United States in volume 268 US and that of Section 4704 (a) in Casey against the United State in volume 276 US.\nIn a series of more recent decisions beginning with Tot against the United States and continuing through Gainey and Romano and most recently last terms decisions in Leary, the Court has more searchingly analyzed and refined the standard for determining the constitutional validity of criminal statutory presumptions.\nA consistent theme of all of these decisions is that a distinction may legitimately be made between the evidence relating to a particular defendant and the question of what inferences in general may properly be drawn from the proof of certain facts and that as to the latter issue.\nCongress may properly bring to bear its resources and its wisdom may bring to bear what this Court in Gainey referred to as the capacity of Congress to amass the stop of actual experience and call conclusions from it.\nSo as to provide statutory guides that will contribute to consistency in the administration of justice and that will in most cases enable the trial to be focused on the evidence relating to the particular defendant without the destruction and the burden of introducing proof in every case concerning complex matters of general application such as the details amass in the briefs in this case about the narcotics trade in general and its possible relation to the scientific properties of various drugs.\nNow of course, Congress has not foreclosed either party from introducing expert testimony or other evidence tending in general to vitiate or to substantiate statutory presumptions but this is rarely done.\nNow, in the series of cases I mentioned, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [1746.774, 1750.244, 1772.061, 1798.897, 1822.449, 1841.102, 1867.522, 1880.127, 1893.279, 1909.117, 1924.907, 1942.623, 1955.136, 1969.424, 2005.691, 2029.008, 2058.148, 2082.606, 2108.223, 2127.404, 2170.862, 2190.116], "stop_times": [1750.244, 1772.061, 1798.897, 1822.449, 1841.102, 1867.522, 1880.127, 1893.279, 1909.117, 1924.907, 1942.623, 1955.136, 1969.424, 2005.691, 2029.008, 2058.148, 2082.606, 2108.223, 2127.404, 2170.862, 2190.116, 2192.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1746.774}, "reply_to": "15251__1_041", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_001", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well of course, I supposed the Government will admit that Congress couldn't foreclose that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2192.739], "stop_times": [2200.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.739}, "reply_to": "15251__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__2_002", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, we need not admit it because Congress has not attempted to foreclose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2200.174], "stop_times": [2205.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2200.174}, "reply_to": "15251__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_003", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I wouldn't think it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2205.183], "stop_times": [2208.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.183}, "reply_to": "15251__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__2_004", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "In the series of cases I mentioned, this Court has developed the standard for testing the constitutionality of criminal statutory presumptions in terms whether there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed or as it was re-stated last term in Leary, a criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as irrational or arbitrary and hence unconstitutional unless it can be at least said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend.\nUnder this standard, we contend as to three of the counts here that the application of the presumptions was rational and as to the remaining count under which petitioner was convicted, we can see that this requirement was not match and that petitioner's conviction under that count should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2208.585, 2249.398], "stop_times": [2249.398, 2273.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2208.585}, "reply_to": "15251__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_005", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Quoting you had to, in the presumption of unreasonable doubt standard would you reserve, (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2273.84], "stop_times": [2285.224], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.84}, "reply_to": "15251__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15251__2_006", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, that would have to be submitted to the jury as the instructions of the Trial Judge did put the case to the jury but they had to be convinced by the Government's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the elements of the crime had been made out.\nAnd the statutory presumptions are just another form of recognizing that circumstantial evidence can be put to the jury under proper reasonable doubt instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2285.224, 2302.789], "stop_times": [2302.789, 2317.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2285.224}, "reply_to": "15251__2_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_007", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Could I ask you a question?\nI get it from this indictment that the conviction was for purchase, sale and distribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2317.005, 2318.119], "stop_times": [2318.119, 2329.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.005}, "reply_to": "15251__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_008", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That was the way the indictment was phrased, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2329.704], "stop_times": [2331.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2329.704}, "reply_to": "15251__2_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_009", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "And the statute is or, the statute says or.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2331.72], "stop_times": [2338.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.72}, "reply_to": "15251__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_010", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2338.108], "stop_times": [2338.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2338.108}, "reply_to": "15251__2_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_011", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I think that if this inference is invalid under the indictment and the conviction that this inference is invalid on the tax stamps as to either purchase, sale or distribution then the conviction must be reversed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2338.259], "stop_times": [2355.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.259}, "reply_to": "15251__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_012", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I don't believe that's the law under this Court's decisions, indictments always have to be phrased in the conjunctive rather than in the alternative and that if any of the crimes are made out, that is sufficient to uphold the conviction.\nIt is possible to phrase \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2355.884, 2372.401], "stop_times": [2372.401, 2373.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2355.884}, "reply_to": "15251__2_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_013", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "The indictment says and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2373.407], "stop_times": [2376.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.407}, "reply_to": "15251__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_014", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "The indictment always say and because if indictment say or, it is been held that that doesn't give the defendant adequate warning of what the Government will try to prove against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2376.008], "stop_times": [2387.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2376.008}, "reply_to": "15251__2_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_015", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "They can charge him with \u00bd I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2387.21], "stop_times": [2390.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.21}, "reply_to": "15251__2_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_016", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Of course, some of this could have been omitted from the indictment but that again is an issue that is not raised here at --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2390.668], "stop_times": [2398.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2390.668}, "reply_to": "15251__2_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_017", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Is the queue in sustaining the -- you suggest that count four not be reversed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2398.784], "stop_times": [2408.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.784}, "reply_to": "15251__2_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_018", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2408.378], "stop_times": [2409.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2408.378}, "reply_to": "15251__2_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_019", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "And that, it deals with cocaine, the cocaine inference with respect to the tax stamp, whether possession in the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2409.6], "stop_times": [2415.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.6}, "reply_to": "15251__2_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_020", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2415.058], "stop_times": [2416.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2415.058}, "reply_to": "15251__2_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_021", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "-- sale or distribution or acquisition without tax stamps, you say that shouldn't be reversed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2416.282], "stop_times": [2424.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.282}, "reply_to": "15251__2_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_022", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2424.211], "stop_times": [2424.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2424.211}, "reply_to": "15251__2_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_023", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "-- because in this case, possession is ample inference, is ample basis for concluding those stamps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2424.349], "stop_times": [2430.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.349}, "reply_to": "15251__2_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_024", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That he purchased the cocaine not in or from a stamp package and that is included within the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2430.583], "stop_times": [2436.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2430.583}, "reply_to": "15251__2_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_025", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "And you say then that that if that inference on these facts is good as to either acquisition, sale or distribution, the conviction stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2436.103], "stop_times": [2445.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.103}, "reply_to": "15251__2_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15251__2_026", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe further urge that except as it may serve to raise a belated challenge to the Trial Court's instructions, petitioners rely on some the privilege against self incrimination in challenging the presumptions should be regarded in this case as not really adding anything to the established rational connection task of their validity and since we also contend that the jury instructions were adequate, we conclude that the verdict of guilty should be sustained as to the three counts in which the statutory presumptions were rationally applied.\nReturning first to the two heroin counts, we contend that both statutory presumptions were validly applied to the evidence of possession of that drug, under Section 174, it was rational for the jury to conclude from petitioners possession of the 275 bags of heroin, both that the heroin was illegally imported and the petitioner knew of its illegal importation.\nWe have documented in our brief and in our supplemental memorandum the reasons why in contrast to the facts concerning marijuana which were before this Court last term in Leary, on the basis of the best information available, available within the Government, available in scientific publications, available on the reports of the United Nation's Commission on narcotic drugs and available in the recent report of the task force on narcotics and drug abuse of the president's commission on law enforcement and administration of justice.\nThe first part of this presumption that the heroin was illegally imported should be regarded as simply reflecting the actuality that heroin is neither produced in, or illegally imported into the United States.\nWe have in that written presentation carefully considered and responded every speculative possibility commendably suggested by counsel for the amicus in this case as an alternative source to illegal importation and we have demonstrated that none of these alternatives could realistically account for more than a negligible fraction of the total supply of heroin in this country.\nTo the best of our knowledge virtually all and at least 99% of the heroin in the United States was illegally imported.\nIt then follows in the words of the Leary opinion as a matter of common sense that since all heroin is illegally imported or virtually all, a jury may rationally infer and thus maybe authorized by congress to infer that a person in possession of 275 bags of heroin knows that it was illegally imported.\nThe drawing of such inference by the jury from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the case is after all the ordinary way in accusatorial system of justice in which it is determined whether the accused have the requisite knowledge or other mental attributes such as specific intent when such a mental attribute is an element of a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2445.581, 2450.17, 2489.615, 2519.671, 2562.925, 2581.808, 2610.545, 2620.389, 2647.187], "stop_times": [2450.17, 2489.615, 2519.671, 2562.925, 2581.808, 2610.545, 2620.389, 2647.187, 2675.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2445.581}, "reply_to": "15251__2_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_027", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nYou combine two things in one sentence, you said that a jury might have rationally found, that was all standing alone, and the second was I might have been authorized by Congress, what provision of the constitution do you rely on to say that Congress can say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2675.274, 2677.37], "stop_times": [2677.37, 2698.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.274}, "reply_to": "15251__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__2_028", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Under this Court's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2698.344], "stop_times": [2698.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2698.344}, "reply_to": "15251__2_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_029", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "What part of jury may rationally consider to be the truth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2698.776], "stop_times": [2702.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.776}, "reply_to": "15251__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__2_030", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Under this Court's decisions Mr. Justice Black, the tasks of whether Congress can authorize the jury so to find is whether it would be rational of for the jury to do so.\nNow, I recognize that once one accepts your premises to separation of powers in this area, the internal logic of your position is indisputable but the majority of the Court has not accepted that premise and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2702.606, 2712.366], "stop_times": [2712.366, 2727.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2702.606}, "reply_to": "15251__2_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_031", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2727.822], "stop_times": [2728.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.822}, "reply_to": "15251__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__2_032", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I -- I'm addressing my argument in terms of this Court's decisions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2728.813], "stop_times": [2733.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2728.813}, "reply_to": "15251__2_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_033", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "But I admitted on that you have a good ground argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2733.318], "stop_times": [2737.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.318}, "reply_to": "15251__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15251__2_034", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2737.539], "stop_times": [2742.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2737.539}, "reply_to": "15251__2_033", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_035", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I don't although I -- as I remember it I joined the very opinion as said it was simply a matter of common sense that if you show as a matter of fact as you have shown but let us assume in your submission that that the fact is that the lion share of all heroin in the United States is illegally imported.\nI -- I don't see at the moment how it does follow as matter of common sense that anybody knows that.\nThe fact is I didn't know it until these cases came along.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2742.143, 2769.618, 2777.332], "stop_times": [2769.618, 2777.332, 2780.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.143}, "reply_to": "15251__2_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_036", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2780.214], "stop_times": [2780.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2780.214}, "reply_to": "15251__2_035", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_037", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Now, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2780.602], "stop_times": [2781.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.602}, "reply_to": "15251__2_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_038", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "The petitioner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2781.029], "stop_times": [2781.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2781.029}, "reply_to": "15251__2_037", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_039", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I assume I now accept that part of the introduction but how does it follow that everybody knows that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2781.733], "stop_times": [2787.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.733}, "reply_to": "15251__2_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_040", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart, the petitioner is not any body, the petitioner was someone found with 275 bags of heroin in his possession and he is comparable perhaps to a dealer in Rolls Royce automobiles.\nI --I -- as a matter of common sense, the jury might infer that someone dealing in a product or found in circumstances which suggest that he is dealing in a product knows more about that product than someone who doesn't deal in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2787.899, 2803.377], "stop_times": [2803.377, 2817.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2787.899}, "reply_to": "15251__2_039", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_041", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "But it's not suggested that he necessarily or people similarly situated go down to the pier and get it illegally off the ship or go out to the airport and get it illegally off the airplane, if there is an internal commerce in this product I assume.\nAnd why does it follow as a matter of common sense that he, the person, he may know he's violating, he does know he's violating the law but nothing, how does it follow that he knows or should be presumed or sure that there should be an inference that he knows that this is in all probability has been illegally imported?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2817.477, 2836.045], "stop_times": [2836.045, 2859.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.477}, "reply_to": "15251__2_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_042", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, if one is knowledgeable about heroin, this is, he would know that all heroin in this country has an illegal foreign origin and it's a matter of common sense the jury might infer that the dealer is knowledgeable about the product in which he is dealing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2859.649], "stop_times": [2875.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2859.649}, "reply_to": "15251__2_041", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_043", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Was there evidence that he was dealer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2875.684], "stop_times": [2878.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.684}, "reply_to": "15251__2_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_044", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "The evidence, no, no.\nThe evidence is that he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2878.21, 2879.857], "stop_times": [2879.857, 2881.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2878.21}, "reply_to": "15251__2_043", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_045", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Could he have been a messenger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2881.522], "stop_times": [2883.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.522}, "reply_to": "15251__2_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_046", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "It's possible but he is connected --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2883.935], "stop_times": [2885.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2883.935}, "reply_to": "15251__2_045", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_047", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "If he was an average --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2885.518], "stop_times": [2886.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.518}, "reply_to": "15251__2_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_048", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "-- with the operation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2886.369], "stop_times": [2887.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2886.369}, "reply_to": "15251__2_047", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_049", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I'm just saying you put so much weight on what he knows, I mean, he might just be a facilitator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2887.624], "stop_times": [2897.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.624}, "reply_to": "15251__2_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_050", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Congress has seen --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2897.085], "stop_times": [2897.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2897.085}, "reply_to": "15251__2_049", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_051", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I just don't think you'd need that part of your argument, the time it was so much quote it how he knows, who would believe that.\nI believe it makes so much in my own manner to make it through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2897.901, 2906.128], "stop_times": [2906.128, 2910.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.901}, "reply_to": "15251__2_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_052", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Well, in any event, Congress has seen fit to make knowledge of illegal importation and element of the crime and to give an opportunity to someone to prove his innocence by proving that he did not know of the illegal importation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2910.202], "stop_times": [2925.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2910.202}, "reply_to": "15251__2_051", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_053", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "How would he prove --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2925.468], "stop_times": [2925.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.468}, "reply_to": "15251__2_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_054", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "The statute was an act --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2925.625], "stop_times": [2926.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2925.625}, "reply_to": "15251__2_053", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_055", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "How would he prove it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2926.698], "stop_times": [2930.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.698}, "reply_to": "15251__2_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_056", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Now, just by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2930.377], "stop_times": [2931.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2930.377}, "reply_to": "15251__2_055", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_057", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "By just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2931.371], "stop_times": [2931.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.371}, "reply_to": "15251__2_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_058", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "-- submitting his testimony to the jury and seeing if they would believe him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2931.581], "stop_times": [2934.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2931.581}, "reply_to": "15251__2_057", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_059", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I guess that takes tax stamp stupid, they don't have to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2934.002], "stop_times": [2939.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.002}, "reply_to": "15251__2_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_060", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "He could disclaim knowledge of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2939.374], "stop_times": [2940.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2939.374}, "reply_to": "15251__2_059", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_061", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "He would have to take a stand of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2940.914], "stop_times": [2942.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.914}, "reply_to": "15251__2_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_062", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "the originative of narcotics?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2942.219], "stop_times": [2944.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2942.219}, "reply_to": "15251__2_061", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_063", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "But he would have to take a stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2944.184], "stop_times": [2947.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.184}, "reply_to": "15251__2_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15251__2_064", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Unless he had some witness who is willing to swear to some evidence other than hearsay, it can be conceived that would indicate that he was knowledgeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2947.452], "stop_times": [2960.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2947.452}, "reply_to": "15251__2_063", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_065", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "There have, there had been cases where professors of chemistry and other experts in drug have been tendered by the defense, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2960.576], "stop_times": [2968.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.576}, "reply_to": "15251__2_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__2_066", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I don't know of any such case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2968.4], "stop_times": [2969.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2968.4}, "reply_to": "15251__2_065", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_067", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "The final Court level, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2969.215], "stop_times": [2970.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.215}, "reply_to": "15251__2_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__2_068", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "-- but there is nothing to foreclose such evidence from being introduced.\nBut in any event, as the Chief Justice indicated in his reference to the principle that possession of the fruits of crime recently after his commission justifies an influence that the possession is guilty possession.\nBut knowledge is frequently of it inferred from the circumstances of the case in situations comparable to that contemplated by this statute and this is widely done in both state and federal law, for example in the enforcement of the national motor vehicle fastback, the so called direct.\nAnd in the words this Court used in Gainey for Congress to authorized the jury to do this is to authorize it to do no more than accord to the evidence if unexplained, its natural prohibitive force.\nWe also contend that the presumption in the tax stamp statute was validly applied to petitioner's possession of the heroin since as we have documented in our brief, heroin is not available in tax stamp packages, there is no way petitioner could have procured it in or from the original stamp package and it follows that Congress constitutionally could authorize the jury to infer from his possession of the heroin that he had purchased it in violation of the tax stamps statute which in contrast to Section 174 does not include specific knowledge as an element of the offense.\nAs to the cocaine counts, we first concede that the application of the Section 174 presumption to petitioner's possession of the relatively small amount of cocaine involved in this case was not warranted under the constitutional standard, explained and applied last term in Leary.\nThis is because in contrast to heroin, there are as indicated in our brief and its appendix, substantial quantities of cocaine stolen from legitimate sources in this country every year while comparison of these figures with the admittedly rough estimates set forth in the footnote on page 31 of our brief of the quantities of cocaine annually smuggled into this country might justify an inference that the cocaine found in the elicit trade was in fact was illegally imported.\nWe do not believe that the further inference of knowledge of its illegal importation meets the Leary standard in such a case as the present one involving less than \u00be of a gram of cocaine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [2970.446, 2978.913, 2995.236, 3022.095, 3040.109, 3083.869, 3104.329, 3140.568], "stop_times": [2978.913, 2995.236, 3022.095, 3040.109, 3083.869, 3104.329, 3140.568, 3155.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2970.446}, "reply_to": "15251__2_067", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_069", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "A practical result of your, of that concession would be I hear submission plot that we, just that automatically five years come off of this total sentence or that the Court if in case we agree on the rest of your argument or that the Court remand to the sentencing judge to re-sentence entirely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3155.477], "stop_times": [3173.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.477}, "reply_to": "15251__2_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_070", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I would say the latter Mr. Justice.\nIt -- otherwise the reversal just eliminates the part of the concurring sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3173.7, 3176.737], "stop_times": [3176.737, 3185.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3173.7}, "reply_to": "15251__2_069", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_071", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Now, it would eliminate a 10 year sentence which is running concurrently with the five year sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3185.938], "stop_times": [3192.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.938}, "reply_to": "15251__2_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_072", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3192.352], "stop_times": [3193.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3192.352}, "reply_to": "15251__2_071", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_073", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Be it, practically it would reduce a total 20 year sentence to a total of 15 years sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3193.06], "stop_times": [3199.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.06}, "reply_to": "15251__2_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15251__2_074", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "That is correct.\nEither alternative would accomplish the same thing presumably and I think either would be an acceptable procedure.\nSo, we do not contend that this conviction met the Leary standard but in conceding this, we do contend that this Court need not and should not now decide whether the Section 174 presumption could validly be applied to possession of cocaine in an amount so large as not reasonably likely to have been aggregated from individual thefts or in other circumstances pointing to a foreign source, there is no necessity in this case to decide whether the presumption can ever bail or it be implied.\nWe urge on the other hand that the tax stamp presumption was validly applied to position -- to petitioner's possession of the cocaine and the circumstances of this case as we've elaborated in our brief.\nTurning now to petitioner's claims based on the privilege against self incrimination, we recognize that when a statutory presumption is applied without adequate rational foundation as we concede was the case as to one count here, one way of articulating the constitutional infirmity is to say that so applied, the presumption impermissibly impaired the defendant's right to remain silent and thus violated his Fifth Amendment privilege.\nWhen however such a presumption is applied in compliance with the standard of rationality established by this Court, then the alleged coercion to testify stands not from any unconstitutional compulsion but from the legitimate force of the Government's case.\nIt is not uncommon in a criminal trial for the defendant to be faced with evidence justifying a rational inference of guilt and to have to decide whether despite attended risks of doing so, he will testify an effort to overcome the force of that evidence.\nThere is no reason relevant to the policies of the privilege against self incrimination for holding that the status of such a defendant differs depending on whether the jury's inference of guilt is authorized by judge made rule of evidence or by a rationally warranted statutory provision.\nIn either instance as the Gainey opinion recognized, the Courts have the same responsibility to decide whether the Government has made a submissible case.\nAnd if the Government's evidence meet that standard and we contend it did hear with respect to three counts, submission of the case to the jury does not violate the constitutional privilege as this Court definitively held in Yee Hem against the United States, and the passage quoted on page 36 of our brief.\nTurning finally to the instructions to the jury, although petitioner did not accept to them at the trial and did not request that the jury be charged not to draw any adverse inference from his failure to testify, he now contends that the reading of the statutory inferences to the jury in the course of the instructions constituted adverse comment on his silence.\nNow, substantially the same contention was properly rejected by this Court in Gainey in which very similar instructions to the jury were upheld in a situation involving a similar statutory presumption.\nNow, its true that there are passages in the instructions which were read by counsel for the petitioner which have to be understood in the context of the trial in which the matter put in issue by the defense was the question of possession, that was what they were contesting at trial and naturally, the Trial Judge emphasized to the jury that that was a crucial issue for them to decide.\nBut here as in Gainey, at reading the instruction as a whole, the jury was merely permitted to draw rational inferences from the unexplained circumstantial evidence presented by the Government and the jury was specifically admonished that they were to be the sole and exclusive judges of the facts and that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was on the Government not withstanding the statutory presumptions.\nWhile it might have been better practice as the Gainey opinion suggest to omit from the charge any explicit reference to the statutory provisions authorizing the inferences, the instructions as given were adequate specially in the absence of an exception and do not differ significantly from those upheld in Gainey.\nIt is therefore our position that accept as to count three, this Court should affirm the judgment upholding the jury verdict.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3199.135, 3199.929, 3214.722, 3256.235, 3272.92, 3305.922, 3325.85, 3344.253, 3366.481, 3377.169, 3401.827, 3429.69, 3444.896, 3473.062, 3501.507, 3525.914, 3534.128], "stop_times": [3199.929, 3214.722, 3256.235, 3272.92, 3305.922, 3325.85, 3344.253, 3366.481, 3377.169, 3401.827, 3429.69, 3444.896, 3473.062, 3501.507, 3525.914, 3534.128, 3536.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3199.135}, "reply_to": "15251__2_073", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15251__2_075", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace.\nYou have two minutes left to Mr. DuBois and we'd like to let you get back to New York tonight so, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3536.227, 3537.076], "stop_times": [3537.076, 3543.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3536.227}, "reply_to": "15251__2_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15251__3_000", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "I just want to say Yee Hem and Casey decisions were decided before judge and reading the Yee Hem decision particularly that part called Government's brief and the judge's decision is different like day and night.\nSecondly, I would like to say that the argument here still seem to ignore the fact that the lower court judge said, obviously there is no evidence, that this defendant knew that this cocaine, heroin had been unlawfully imported and then he added that the statute recognizes the possibility of proving that, that's why he is charged.\nAnd thirdly, may I here to point out that as I did before that the section relating to stamps does not make possession a crime or the indictment contain the word possession and the conviction containing the word possession.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3543.259, 3557.158, 3579.846, 3597.082], "stop_times": [3557.158, 3579.846, 3597.082, 3597.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3543.259}, "reply_to": "15251__2_075", "speaker": "josiah_e_dubois_jr"}
{"id": "15251__3_001", "conversation_id": "15251", "text": "Thank you Mr. DuBois, Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Wallace.\nThank you for your submission.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_190", "start_times": [3597.862, 3601.391, 3602.414], "stop_times": [3601.391, 3602.414, 3605.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3597.862}, "reply_to": "15251__3_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_000", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Number 103, United States against Armour & Company.\nMr. Springer, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [0.0, 34.141], "stop_times": [34.141, 40.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_001", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice may it please the Court.\nThis case brings to this Court for the fifth time, questions under the Great Meatpackers antitrust decree of 1920.\nThat decree was entered on consent without a trial on the basis of a bill in equity that the Government had brought against the nation\u2019s five largest meatpackers, Swift, Wilson, Cudahy, Armour which is involved in this case and Morris which Armour subsequently acquired.\nThe complaint in general charged that the packers had violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by obtaining control of a very great proportion of the food supply of the nation, both meat and other foods, and by abusing that control so as to restrict competition among themselves and to eliminate their other competitors.\nThe consent decree that the parties agreed upon in 1920 and that the Court adopted imposed sweeping and perpetual restraints both upon the future activities of the packers and upon the business relationships that the packers would be allowed to have with enterprises engaged in the production and sale of foods other than meat.\nAnd despite the efforts of the defendants over the years to relax these restrictions, they remain in effect and this Court most recently in 1961 rejected an attempt by the packers to relax the restrictions upon them.\nThe decree is complex and I will take the time here only to discuss the particular paragraphs that are in issue in this case, that\u2019s principally paragraph fourth of the decree which begins on page 30 of the appendix.\nThat paragraph provides that the meatpacker corporations, including of course Armour, are perpetually enjoined and restrained from either directly or indirectly by themselves or through their officers, directors, agents, or servants engaging in or carrying on the manufacturing, jobbing, selling, transporting except this common carriers, distributing or otherwise dealing in some 114 listed food products, including bakery products, most of it groceries, vegetables and fruits.\nParagraph four goes on to provide that the corporation defendants are hereby further perpetually enjoined and restrained from owning either directly or indirectly severally or jointly by themselves or through their officers, directors, agents, or servants from owning any capital stock or other interest whatsoever in any corporation, firm or association except common carriers which is in the same business as what I mentioned, of manufacturing, jobbing, selling, transporting, distributing or otherwise dealing in any of the above described products or commodities.\nParagraph six of the decree further perpetually enjoins the defendants from operating retail meat markets and paragraph eight enjoins the packers from dealing directly or indirectly in fresh milk and cream.\nIn short, the meatpacker's decree perpetually excludes Armour from having any direct or indirect interest whatsoever in any firm in the baking or general grocery business and it prohibits Armour from otherwise dealing directly or indirectly in the enumerated products.\nThe decree as what is commonly referred to as the structural decree that is rather than simply enjoining the defendants from particular anti competitive acts.\nIt establishes a prophylactic separation between the defendants' business, excluding them from other businesses where it's felt that they're involvement and might create a danger competition.\nGeneral Host, which is the appellee in this case is the company that's widely involved in the baking business and the general grocery and restaurant businesses.\nIt was known until a couple of years ago as General Baking Company and under the brand name Bun Baking Company and others that manufactures and sells throughout the country a complete line of bread and other bakery products.\nIt also has a division called Little General Stores which has some 380 convenience retail food markets in various parts of the south and it also has subsidiaries that operate restaurants and other tourist facilities throughout the country.\nIt's plain and undisputed in this case that General Host's business is such that under the 1920 decree Armour could not have acquired any direct or indirect ownership interest whatsoever in General Host.\nThis litigation began about a year ago when General Host decided to do the reverse of that.\nIt would take over Armour by acquisition techniques that have become familiar in recent years.\nOver the opposition of Armour's management, General Host made a tender offer to Armour's stockholders in which had sought to acquire a majority of Armour stock in return for package of the debentures and the stock warrants in General Host.\nThe tender offer was expressly conditioned upon the tender by shareholders of enough stock to give General Host an absolute majority of Armour stock and it provided that it will called off if that amount of stock were not tendered.\nWhen the tender offer was made, the Government immediately sought to block this takeover on the theory that a corporate alliance between Armour's meatpacking business and General Host's bakery and retail grocery businesses would be just as inconsistent with the meatpacker's decree if initiated by General Host as it would have been if initiated by Armour.\nIt was plain of course that General Host's acquisition of Armour would not be directly punishable under the decree since the active party, General Host, was not a party to that decree.\nAccordingly, the Government went to the District Court in Chicago which has had continuing jurisdiction at least in the recent years over the meatpacker's decree and there the Government requested a supplemental order to prohibit the takeover by General Host.\nIt did this consistent with paragraph 18 of the decree which like most decrees expressly retains jurisdiction for the purpose of taking such other action or adding to the foot of this decree such other relief if any as it may become necessary or appropriate for the carrying out in enforcement of this decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [40.481, 43.955, 51.893, 70.35, 91.673, 113.227, 129.225, 145.485, 175.243, 211.185, 226.155, 244.034, 256.853, 271.227, 280.693, 295.521, 312.694, 329.512, 335.298, 342.133, 361.158, 375.448, 395.763, 406.748, 425.11], "stop_times": [43.955, 51.893, 70.35, 91.673, 113.227, 129.225, 145.485, 175.243, 211.185, 226.155, 244.034, 256.853, 271.227, 280.693, 295.521, 312.694, 329.512, 335.298, 342.133, 361.158, 375.448, 395.763, 406.748, 425.11, 443.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.481}, "reply_to": "15553__0_000", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_002", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Did the Government's request to the District Court subsume a request to amend the decree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [443.963], "stop_times": [454.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.963}, "reply_to": "15553__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__0_003", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Not in terms and of course this is the -- I think the semantic problem that is at the heart of this case.\nOf course, we'll going back and back --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [454.449, 460.282], "stop_times": [460.282, 461.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.449}, "reply_to": "15553__0_002", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_004", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Let's assume the Government had taken the approach that we think the decree should be amended expressly to prohibit matters like these, would any different kind of a hearing or any different kind of procedure then required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [461.713], "stop_times": [476.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.713}, "reply_to": "15553__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__0_005", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I think we would contend that there would not be any requirement for different kind of procedure on the theory that I of course will elaborate that we think that in a very real sense the four corners of this decree do provide a rather clear condemnation of this kind of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [476.898], "stop_times": [497.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.898}, "reply_to": "15553__0_004", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_006", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well,let's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [497.139], "stop_times": [497.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.139}, "reply_to": "15553__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__0_007", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "In other words, we're not -- the Government's theory of the case to approach it in another way has not been based upon any sort of change in facts other than of course the undisputed facts it takes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [497.683], "stop_times": [508.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.683}, "reply_to": "15553__0_006", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_008", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "What if you -- if you accepted the fact that the purpose of the decree was to prohibit an alliance of any kind between the Armour entity and any of the other described entities then it wouldn't make much difference whether you amended it or just interpreted it, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [508.774], "stop_times": [529.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.774}, "reply_to": "15553__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__0_009", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No I think not, and of course I could make further observation that it seems a little strange and inconsistent with traditional equitable theories for a decree to say nobody in the world shall takeover this company.\nThat's an unusual form and that the least for decree and of course it doesn't have any operative effect in the normal sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [529.579, 542.684], "stop_times": [542.684, 549.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.579}, "reply_to": "15553__0_008", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_010", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "For now, as a matter of interpretation.\nYou say, there have been an unusual provision, that's exactly your argument now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [549.322, 554.756], "stop_times": [554.756, 559.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.322}, "reply_to": "15553__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15553__0_011", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Yes, but what we say -- I was just addressing myself to the question of whether the presence or absence of such language in a decree would make any difference.\nWe say and I will elaborate that substantively this decree established a separation between these two businesses and the establishment of that separation as a substantive matter is frustrated by this kind of takeover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [559.673, 568.564], "stop_times": [568.564, 582.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.673}, "reply_to": "15553__0_010", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_012", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Are you suggesting here that the tendered by Host stimulated or initiated or originated and collaborated in by Armour?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [582.419], "stop_times": [596.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.419}, "reply_to": "15553__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15553__0_013", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No, it's undisputed that the opposite is the situation.\nIt was opposed, but I do find it hard to see why under the theory followed below and the theory that the appellees followed why that should make any difference.\nWhoever does it or whatever the motives are, whatever the intentions are, precisely the same kind of situation will arise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [596.707, 599.698, 613.494], "stop_times": [599.698, 613.494, 620.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.707}, "reply_to": "15553__0_012", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_014", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Doesn't that overlook the fact that traditionally and ordinarily you have to have a party in order to reach them with relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [620.118], "stop_times": [630.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.118}, "reply_to": "15553__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_015", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, of course the Section 5 of the Sherman Act specifically does provide and this was relied upon by the Government below that whenever the interests of justice shall so require, the Court may bring in additional parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [630.201], "stop_times": [648.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.201}, "reply_to": "15553__0_014", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_016", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Did you follow that procedure that Mr. Justice White suggested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [648.612], "stop_times": [655.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.612}, "reply_to": "15553__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_017", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Oh!\nThe amending with decree well I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [655.019, 655.201], "stop_times": [655.201, 657.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.019}, "reply_to": "15553__0_016", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_018", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [657.019], "stop_times": [659.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.019}, "reply_to": "15553__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__0_019", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Yes, General Host and of course Section 5 permits that to be done as a procedural matter and establishes the Court's jurisdiction over --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [659.586], "stop_times": [667.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.586}, "reply_to": "15553__0_018", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_020", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Was General Host in existence in 1920?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [667.793], "stop_times": [671.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.793}, "reply_to": "15553__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_021", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I believe that its predecessor General Baking Company I think it was incorporated in 1911.\nOf course it had no connection whatever with these packers and there was no reason for the Government even to think about bringing it in or foreseeing what might happen in a very different kind of business climate some 50 years later on.\nJudge Hoffman in the District Court of Chicago of course denied the Government's petition to add General Host as a party and to add an order to the decree prohibiting the takeover.\nHe relied quite simply on the proposition as I read what he said that the literal terms of the decree do not prohibit non-defendant owners of stock in meat packing companies from engaging in businesses prohibited to meatpackers themselves and by the decree.\nIn other words, as he explained orally, that the decisive fact in the case was that Armour will not be the controlling force whether the instrumentality of General Host is ever since villain of the peace and that's the term he used, it was not Armour but General Host, the decree was powerless, the decree could not be used to prevent the takeover.\nIf Judge Hoffman's rather scanty conclusions of law rests on the proposition that he did not have jurisdictional power to supplement the decree in this kind of way, we think he was plainly wrong, for the reasons that we set out in our brief which I believe are not basically disputed by the appellees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [671.081, 677.607, 700.539, 716.532, 731.621, 755.19], "stop_times": [677.607, 700.539, 716.532, 731.621, 755.19, 775.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.081}, "reply_to": "15553__0_020", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_022", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I didn't read the District Court as saying it was without the jurisdiction of power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [775.582], "stop_times": [782.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.582}, "reply_to": "15553__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_023", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "It's not clear that it did, if it did I think it was wrong.\nI think power is not really an issue -- the major issue that is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [782.079, 785.843], "stop_times": [785.843, 790.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.079}, "reply_to": "15553__0_022", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_024", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "That is between you and your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [790.225], "stop_times": [792.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.225}, "reply_to": "15553__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_025", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I believe that so, yes.\nThere's a certain amount of back and forth I think within General Host's [Voice Overlap] briefs.\nSo, I will direct my point only to the proposition that the structural prohibitions of this decree are frustrated, in some sense violated by this takeover.\nAnd I think General Host does, in the last analysis, agree that if that's the case then the Court could and indeed should have granted the relief requested.\nI think this perhaps the problem as I suggested in this case is a semantic one basically.\nThe basis for our whole case is the proposition that the decree is violated or frustrated because the takeover creates the situation that the decree was designed specifically to prevent.\nGeneral Host and the court below as I understand them say that can't be so because nobody has disobeyed the command that the decree directed to them because, the decree does not in terms prescribed Armour's acquisition by a grocery company.\nWe think that's much too narrow reading.\nOf course the decree is not -- a civil decree is not punitive document and it obviously does affect people other than the particular individuals who happened to be accused of wrong doing at the time the decree was entered.\nSo, I think it's not shocking or unusual the decree should affect parties in the business sense, people other than the initial parties to the case.\nWe think in fact the literal language of the decree condemns precisely the situation that has been created by the takeover.\nParagraph four not only prohibits Armour from indirectly engaging in General Host's business, but even more specifically, it prohibits Armour from having directly or indirectly any capital stock or other interest whatsoever in General Host or in General Host subsidiaries that are engaged in the businesses.\nIt seems to me extremely literalistic to say that when Armour is the subsidiary of General Host, it has no interest whatsoever either in General Host's business or in the business of General -- its sister subsidiaries of General Host.\nCertainly, as I suggested, this conclusion seems not difficult to reach if this kind of situation arose by actions in which Armour or its management joined or perhaps even instigated and equally I think it would not seem troublesome to say that the decree which prohibit a situation where Armour or its stockholders or management or dissident stockholders through proxy provider or something like that created a holding company which then had two subsidiaries, one of them being the old Armour and the other being General Host.\nTo put it in other way, the situation we now have is if one corporation that directly or indirectly is in both businesses, the meatpacking business and the grocery business and that corporation is General Host, directly in the grocery business and it's indirectly in the meatpacking business through its controlled subsidiary Armour.\nAnd we think that that is just precisely what the structural provisions of the decree prohibited and in fact the only reason why there would have been structural provisions in the decree is to prevent that kind of situation from arising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [792.155, 794.777, 802.824, 816.122, 827.236, 833.956, 847.316, 866.133, 870.037, 887.25, 897.728, 907.634, 927.755, 945.019, 990.932, 1014.658], "stop_times": [794.777, 802.824, 816.122, 827.236, 833.956, 847.316, 866.133, 870.037, 887.25, 897.728, 907.634, 927.755, 945.019, 990.932, 1014.658, 1030.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.155}, "reply_to": "15553__0_024", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_026", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "There were originally five corporate defendants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1030.415], "stop_times": [1034.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.415}, "reply_to": "15553__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_027", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Five, it soon became four through the merger of Morris into Armour.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1034.025], "stop_times": [1039.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1034.025}, "reply_to": "15553__0_026", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_028", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "And I suppose there are other large meatpackers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1039.042], "stop_times": [1044.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.042}, "reply_to": "15553__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_029", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Armour is number two I believe.\nSwift is somewhat larger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1044.637, 1046.478], "stop_times": [1046.478, 1047.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1044.637}, "reply_to": "15553__0_028", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_030", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Cudahy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1047.882], "stop_times": [1048.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.882}, "reply_to": "15553__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_031", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Cudahy is quite a bit smaller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1048.819], "stop_times": [1050.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.819}, "reply_to": "15553__0_030", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_032", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I don't know what the other is.\nWhat if General Host had taken over the -- well what if in the mean time since 1920 another meatpacking company become the biggest in the country --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1050.084, 1052.35], "stop_times": [1052.35, 1062.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.084}, "reply_to": "15553__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_033", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I think that might have been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1062.514], "stop_times": [1063.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.514}, "reply_to": "15553__0_032", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_034", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "-- and if General Host had taken it over, would you be here saying that this decree should cover that situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1063.223], "stop_times": [1069.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.223}, "reply_to": "15553__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_035", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No, no, I think not and whether we could have a theory that the decree ought to be modified, I think it will be very hard for them to hold, but of course, that's the situation that arises in the case of any decree.\nIt's well established that on the basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1069.359, 1081.408], "stop_times": [1081.408, 1083.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.359}, "reply_to": "15553__0_034", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_036", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "It might have been --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1083.015], "stop_times": [1083.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.015}, "reply_to": "15553__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_037", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "[Voice Overlap]] historic violation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1083.77], "stop_times": [1083.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.77}, "reply_to": "15553__0_036", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_038", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "It might be an original lawsuit against that situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1083.876], "stop_times": [1086.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.876}, "reply_to": "15553__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_039", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Yes certainly, but historic violations --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1086.491], "stop_times": [1089.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.491}, "reply_to": "15553__0_038", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_040", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "And that certainly might be true here too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1089.271], "stop_times": [1092.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.271}, "reply_to": "15553__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__0_041", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Yes, but old violations do give raise to perpetual decrees and of course there is a ground for modification, if the defendant subject to the initial decree can prove that there are at some serious competitive disadvantages because of drastic changes in the market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1092.068], "stop_times": [1114.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.068}, "reply_to": "15553__0_040", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_042", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Is this that same old consent decree that's been with us about 40 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1114.657], "stop_times": [1120.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.657}, "reply_to": "15553__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15553__0_043", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "50 years, Mr. Justice Black.\nIt has been twice, well three times there are some current efforts.\nIn the early 30s meatpackers tried to modify it to relieve them of just these restrictions on their involvement in the grocery business and they had another effort beginning in the late 50s which ended in 1961 when this Court summarily affirmed the District Court's determination that the packers had not made the kind of showing that would be required to justify a modification of the decree.\nSo, the decree, though it's old, has been in the sense revivified within relatively recent years.\nWe think it's highly pertinent to the problem here what the Courts said in considering these earlier requests for modification because we think that the language the Courts used and analysis this Court and the District Court followed in those cases gives rather explicit content to the substantive prohibitions and shows what their specific purpose was.\nIn 1932, Justice Cardozo speaking for the Court in the second Swift case in this Court rejected, as I said, contentions that the market had changed that the wrong doers were not in the picture anymore and therefore it was not necessary to maintain this separation between the grocery business and the meatpackers business and the Court used the following language which I think is revealing here.\nWhether the defendants would resume their predatory practices if they were to deal in groceries again, we do not know.\nThey would certainly have the temptation to reason with.\nTheir low overhead and their gigantic size even when they are viewed as separate units would still put them in a position to starve out weaker rivals.\nTheir size according to the holding in this Court is not an offense against the Sherman Act unless maybe to the point at which it amounts to monopoly, but size carries with it an opportunity for abuse.\nIt is not to be ignored when the opportunity is proved to be utilized in the past.\nThe original decree at all events was framed upon that theory and Justice Cardozo went on to say that if the grocery business is added to the meat business, there may be many instances of unfair pressure upon retailers and others with the design of forcing them to buy from the defendants and not from the rival groceries, such at any rate was the rationale of the decree of 1920.\nIts restraints whether just or excessive were born of that fear.\nThe difficulty of fretting out these evils and repressing them when discovered supplies an additional reason why the structural restriction should be maintained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1120.11, 1122.969, 1131.109, 1160.727, 1169.347, 1200.77, 1232.217, 1238.28, 1240.893, 1249.156, 1259.103, 1263.389, 1286.048, 1290.385], "stop_times": [1122.969, 1131.109, 1160.727, 1169.347, 1200.77, 1232.217, 1238.28, 1240.893, 1249.156, 1259.103, 1263.389, 1286.048, 1290.385, 1299.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.11}, "reply_to": "15553__0_042", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_044", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, all those things are good arguments for proceeding against General Host perhaps in an independent proceeding, independent action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1299.651], "stop_times": [1310.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.651}, "reply_to": "15553__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_045", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1310.538], "stop_times": [1311.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.538}, "reply_to": "15553__0_044", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_046", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "If it's fundamentally, fundamentally unwise, unsound to have these two branches of the food industry combined, that can be reached in other ways in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1311.186], "stop_times": [1326.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.186}, "reply_to": "15553__0_045", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_047", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Yes, of course there are problems and I'm told enormous problems in the traditional Section 7 action in a case like this.\nThe point I was driving at was not that as a general proposition the combination of a large packer and a meat company is a bad thing, but that this Court has read this very decree which has a party to it Armour as embodying a specific purpose to prevent that kind of addition of the grocery business to Armour's meatpacking business.\nAnd for that reason, we think that the Government should have not to start from scratch and having been specifically decreed that Armour's business should not be combined with the grocery business.\nAnd none of the past history, language the Court have used is there any suggestion that the importance of this separation depends upon who threatens to break it down.\nThe reason for the separation is plainly the danger of any corporate link however created between Armour's large size and power which of course when General Host owns and controls Armour in a very real sense becomes the power that General Host has.\nCertainly, there are separate corporate entities, but I find it very hard in my mind to say that when General Host wholly or in the sense of absolute control owns Armour that General Host is not Armour in some very meaningful sense.\nThe ultimate owners are the same.\nArmour's destiny is controlled by General Host.\nSo, I think that apart from the conceptual fact that there are separate corporate shells, if you will, Armour is in a very real sense or has become General Host.\nGeneral Host is -- Armour has the power that the decree was specifically designed to keep Armour from using in a business which is General Host's business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1326.783, 1335.276, 1369.552, 1384.324, 1395.407, 1417.074, 1437.853, 1439.976, 1443.549, 1457.261], "stop_times": [1335.276, 1369.552, 1384.324, 1395.407, 1417.074, 1437.853, 1439.976, 1443.549, 1457.261, 1467.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.783}, "reply_to": "15553__0_046", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_048", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "There are some suggestions I saw I guess in the brief or that this is a transitory or impermanent situation, that Greyhound is in the picture somewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1467.49], "stop_times": [1477.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.49}, "reply_to": "15553__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__0_049", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Greyhound is in the picture, yes.\nThere has been a contract signed as I understand it, but Mr. Bergson will have the up-to-date information I think better than I do.\nA contract was signed last fall whereby General Host would sell its interests to Greyhound, that contract has not been consummated.\nIt's subject to several contingencies, one of which we don't know what the meaning of the parties attached to this is the absence of any Government action against the consummation of the contract.\nThe Government has notified Greyhound that we feel that Greyhound's ownership of Armour's stock would present substantially the same problem as General Host because Greyhound owns a great many restaurants and also has a food distributing business.\nNow, whether that fact is enough to wash out this contract to something that I don't know that perhaps General Host comes [Voice Overlap] --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1477.341, 1480.708, 1488.385, 1498.108, 1514.728, 1533.804], "stop_times": [1480.708, 1488.385, 1498.108, 1514.728, 1533.804, 1542.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.341}, "reply_to": "15553__0_048", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_050", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "If General Host were to enjoined as a party, if the motions have been granted, would the scope of that litigation have been as broad as if General Host had been proceeded against independently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1542.127], "stop_times": [1561.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.127}, "reply_to": "15553__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_051", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "If I have said would this the same amount, with that same kind of proceeding trial have been held?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1561.177], "stop_times": [1564.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.177}, "reply_to": "15553__0_050", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_052", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "[Voice Overlap]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1564.798], "stop_times": [1567.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.798}, "reply_to": "15553__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__0_053", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "We say that under these circumstances there are no undisputed facts that are pertinent to the proposition that the Government is seeking to establish that the four corners of the decree prohibit this situation.\nOf course, in various situations there might well be pertinent facts that would have to be explored at an evidentiary hearing, but we say, that's not the case here.\nI'd like if I can to reserve rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1567.608, 1582.88, 1593.81], "stop_times": [1582.88, 1593.81, 1595.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1567.608}, "reply_to": "15553__0_052", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__0_054", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Very well, Mr. Springer.\nMr. Bergson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1595.812, 1598.159], "stop_times": [1598.159, 1603.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.812}, "reply_to": "15553__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_000", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nPerhaps I should answer Mr. Justice Stewart's question first by describing the present status of the negotiations between General Host and Greyhound.\nThe agreement was signed some time ago, subject to three things, approval of General Host stockholders, approval of Armour's stock -- no, Greyhound stockholders, and approval of the ICC because Greyhound is a motor carrier and under the Interstate Commerce Act any acquisition of this type must be approved by the ICC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1603.597, 1607.184, 1623.626], "stop_times": [1607.184, 1623.626, 1653.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1603.597}, "reply_to": "15553__0_054", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_001", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "And the agreement provided for the sale by General Host to Greyhound of General Host's interest in Armour, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1653.257], "stop_times": [1660.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.257}, "reply_to": "15553__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15553__1_002", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd the Greyhound stockholders have approved the agreement.\nThe General Host stockholders have approved the agreement, the ICC has not yet acted on the application.\nAnd I am not prepared to prognosticate this too when the ICC might act on that application.\nNow, as Mr. Springer indicated, there is also a problem as to what the department might do in attacking the General Host's -- the Greyhound acquisition in the same manner that it has attacked General Host acquisition but I don't believe that that is a condition to the consummation of the transaction.\nThere is a provision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1660.999, 1662.698, 1669.521, 1678.342, 1687.42, 1711.48], "stop_times": [1662.698, 1669.521, 1678.342, 1687.42, 1711.48, 1712.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.999}, "reply_to": "15553__1_001", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_003", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "That should permit -- the present statute permits the Department of Justice to intervene in the Interstate Commerce Commission proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1712.003], "stop_times": [1722.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.003}, "reply_to": "15553__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_004", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I suspect that the Department of Justice can intervene or move to be heard as amicus or make their presence felt at the ICC in a way that their views would made known at the ICC.\nI don't know, Your Honor, whether the department could intervene, I believe it could.\nThey intervened in railroad mergers and I don't know why they couldn't intervene in the case, in a situation like this, but even if they couldn't intervene, they certainly could make their view known as amicus.\nNow, I was delighted to hear Mr. Springer say that there's no issue as to the power of the Court here to whether the Court has the power to protect its decrees from interference or obstruction.\nAs I read the Government's brief in this case, I thought that this was their major point.\nAnd that the case has now become what I think it was all along, a question as to whether or not this decree as it now stands can be interpreted to prevent this transaction and if it can be so interpreted what type of hearing is General Host entitled to before that interpretation is imposed on General Host.\nWhat the department did in this case was merely to go to the District Court, file an affidavit and say General Host is in the baking business.\nThe baking business is proscribed to Armour, therefore, you must proscribe this transaction and we don't think the only hearing that they thought was necessary was to show that General Host was in the baking business.\nNow, I think it's somewhat shocking for the Department of Justice to take the position that a person who is not a party to an equity decree was never been heard on that decree, who was not joined at the time of the decree although it was in existence at the time the action was maintained.\nIt's bound by the decree without proof of anything else.\nIt seems to me that under any circumstances even assuming that the department's interpretation of the decree is right, the General Host is entitled to a hearing on whether or not it should be bound by the decree because I don't believe that two parties to a lawsuit with the imprimatur of the Court can deprive anybody obvious legal rights and one of the basic legal rights that a person seems to have is the right to due process, the right to be heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1722.982, 1741.65, 1747.177, 1765.367, 1787.818, 1794.472, 1828.482, 1843.306, 1865.925, 1902.197, 1906.028], "stop_times": [1741.65, 1747.177, 1765.367, 1787.818, 1794.472, 1828.482, 1843.306, 1865.925, 1902.197, 1906.028, 1944.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.982}, "reply_to": "15553__1_003", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_005", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Mr. Bergson what would the -- what would you say if the original decree had said that Armour can acquire any stock in a baking company and no baking company can acquire any stock in Armour and then this transaction took place and the United States applied to the Court for an order preventing General Host from -- which had never been a party to the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1944.401], "stop_times": [1971.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.401}, "reply_to": "15553__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_006", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1971.408], "stop_times": [1973.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.408}, "reply_to": "15553__1_005", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_007", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "-- to prevent General Host from acquiring stock in Armour?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1973.888], "stop_times": [1977.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.888}, "reply_to": "15553__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_008", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I think that under those circumstances General Host would be entitled to a hearing as to whether or not that type of order should have been entered in the first place.\nLet me give you an illustration Your Honor and I think it's terribly important especially in these days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1977.062, 1987.214], "stop_times": [1987.214, 1994.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.062}, "reply_to": "15553__1_007", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_009", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "So you say no parties do -- no parties to injunction suits can be held in contempt or even have the order amended to apply to them without re-litigating the basic factors of the injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [1994.662], "stop_times": [2011.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.662}, "reply_to": "15553__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_010", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Oh!\nNo, General Host was not a party to the injunction suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2011.338, 2011.998], "stop_times": [2011.998, 2015.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.338}, "reply_to": "15553__1_009", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_011", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I agree, I know, that's what I say.\nYour assertion is that unless you're a party to an injunction suit, you can never be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2015.76, 2017.928], "stop_times": [2017.928, 2026.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.76}, "reply_to": "15553__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_012", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You can't be held in contempt to that injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2026.255], "stop_times": [2029.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.255}, "reply_to": "15553__1_011", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_013", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "And nobody has attempted to hold --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2029.464], "stop_times": [2030.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.464}, "reply_to": "15553__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_014", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "And the department concedes that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2030.47], "stop_times": [2032.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.47}, "reply_to": "15553__1_013", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_015", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Yes, and nobody has attempted to hold General Host in contempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2032.467], "stop_times": [2034.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2032.467}, "reply_to": "15553__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_016", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "But, I don't think that they can be made subject to the injunctive provisions without having a hearing as to whether or not they should have been made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2034.724], "stop_times": [2047.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.724}, "reply_to": "15553__1_015", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_017", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You mean, without having a hearing as to whether or not on the whole basic substance of the injunction case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2047.245], "stop_times": [2056.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.245}, "reply_to": "15553__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_018", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, whether or not this case was based primarily on a proclivity by these meatpackers to violate the antitrust laws, that they had a long standing conspiracy that and it encompassed not only horizontal agreements among them, but vertical agreements.\nThey own food businesses, they own stockyards they own warehouses, they own transportation facilities and as a result of all, these tremendous mess they were able to affect the commerce in the substitute food business.\nNow, I think that they consented to this decree.\nBut I don't think it makes any difference whether it's a consent decree or a litigated decree, but nevertheless, would seem -- it seems to me and it is my position that under the circumstances that you postulate, they would have to be shown that this decree should be imposed on General Host and not merely because it was into baking business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2056.534, 2078.344, 2098.135, 2103.517], "stop_times": [2078.344, 2098.135, 2103.517, 2129.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.534}, "reply_to": "15553__1_017", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_019", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Let's suppose that General Host and Armour made a contract to sell a large amount of treasury stock of General Host to Armour and the Government applied for an order against both Armour and General Host.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2129.182], "stop_times": [2146.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.182}, "reply_to": "15553__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_020", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I don't have any problem with that Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2146.7], "stop_times": [2148.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.7}, "reply_to": "15553__1_019", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_021", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "But why wouldn't you, because the the order against General Host?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2148.554], "stop_times": [2151.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.554}, "reply_to": "15553__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_022", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Because they -- I think an injunction is applicable to not only to the parties, but anybody in proclivity or acting in consent with the parties and under the circumstances that you postulated they would be acting in consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2151.578], "stop_times": [2164.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.578}, "reply_to": "15553__1_021", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_023", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "So there's a non-party being subjective to the injunction without being able to re-litigate anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2164.409], "stop_times": [2171.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.409}, "reply_to": "15553__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_024", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "But he is doing in privity with the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2171.045], "stop_times": [2174.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.045}, "reply_to": "15553__1_023", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_025", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Alright, that's the way you characterize it but nevertheless that's a non-party being subjected to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2174.765], "stop_times": [2181.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.765}, "reply_to": "15553__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_026", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I think I can state my position this way.\nThat to the extent that any non-party is found to have been acting in concert of privity with a party whether it says so in the decree or it doesn't say so in the decree, the rules make such a privy subject to the injunction.\nBut the government concedes here that there was no such concert and that there was no such privity and you're talking, they're trying to make the decree applicable to a company that had absolutely nothing to do and no friendly relations with any defendant and I think that this is carrying an equity decree far beyond this scope that it has ever been carried by this Court and probably ever would be carried by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2181.597, 2184.769, 2207.793], "stop_times": [2184.769, 2207.793, 2243.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.597}, "reply_to": "15553__1_025", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_027", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You're suggesting about joining all the food companies in the country, at least I took it that way, joining all the food producers in the country, grocery producers isn't really very realistic, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2243.357], "stop_times": [2257.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.357}, "reply_to": "15553__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_028", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "I don't believe that's the -- I don't believe you correctly characterized my suggestion.\nYou're talking about something that I said or something in our brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2257.854, 2264.023], "stop_times": [2264.023, 2266.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.854}, "reply_to": "15553__1_027", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_029", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Something that you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2266.842], "stop_times": [2268.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.842}, "reply_to": "15553__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_030", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2268.004], "stop_times": [2268.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.004}, "reply_to": "15553__1_029", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_031", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "The intimation I got at least and perhaps you better clear that up that if they wanted to take this position, they should have joined General Host and a whole lot of other people similarly situated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2268.627], "stop_times": [2280.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.627}, "reply_to": "15553__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_032", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, that's right.\nIt may not be realistic, but I think that's the only thing that they could do what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2280.556, 2282.747], "stop_times": [2282.747, 2287.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.556}, "reply_to": "15553__1_031", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_033", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, it's a rhetorical position on your part then to make your point I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2287.337], "stop_times": [2290.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.337}, "reply_to": "15553__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_034", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "That's right.\nBut our position here Your Honor is this.\nNumber one, that the decree can't be interpreted the way the Government seeks to interpret it and you just can't turn words upside down.\nIf you look at the decree as in this writ, the decree was very, very carefully framed.\nAnd it is not a structural decree per se as Mr. Springer would have you believe.\nThere are many behavioral, behavioral provisions in the decree.\nThere were three types of defendants in this case.\nThere were the meatpacker defendants, there were individual defendants who are the major stockholders in the meat companies and there were some 50 subsidiaries of the meat companies who were defendants.\nThis was a -- there were quite a few defendants in this case.\nNow, when the consent decree was negotiated, these various defendants were given different types of treatment, the provision that Mr. Springer referred to, two of them, four and eight specifically referred to corporate defendants.\nParagraph six which is another one that he referred to applies to all defendants and paragraph five of the decree applies to individual defendants.\nNow, in paragraph five of the decree, the individual defendants, the people who were then in control of the meatpackers were permitted to own stock in the forbidden businesses, the businesses forbidden to the meatpackers and they were permitted to own up to 50% of the stock, no question to control this as this Court well knows that you can control a company with much less than 50% of the stock.\nThese companies were permitted to engage in these forbidden businesses and there was an injunctive provision which says, but you can't use them in a way that would help either Armour in its business or yourself or use Armour in a way to help you in your business.\nSo, that this decree did not declare a complete separation as the Government says of the business of meatpacking from substitute foods.\nIt said only this, that the defendant meatpackers, the defendant meatpackers and that is the way that the language of the decree is, the packer defendants, corporate defendants, are enjoined from doing this.\nSo that it seems to me that you can't characterize this decree as a prophylactic structural decree, but this is a decree that was arrived at by negotiation and it was some structure and some behavioral and the parties knew exactly what they were doing and they did not intend to reach the situation.\nMaybe they weren't aware of it, maybe it didn't occur to them, but obviously they didn't intend either sub silentio or actually to reach the situation that is covered here.\nSo that, in effect what the department is seeking here is a modification of the decree as Mr. Justice White indicated and I might add here that the department has construed this decree in the past the same way that we're construing it now because they have -- one of the provisions of the decree prohibits the packers from engaging in the stockyard business, but the people who controlled Armour before General Host acquired the control of Armour also controlled the Chicago stockyards, this is all set out in our briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2290.646, 2292.422, 2297.096, 2308.119, 2315.748, 2323.554, 2329.496, 2336.978, 2354.092, 2358.024, 2382.63, 2399.763, 2440.808, 2467.542, 2478.877, 2500.428, 2529.548, 2544.67], "stop_times": [2292.422, 2297.096, 2308.119, 2315.748, 2323.554, 2329.496, 2336.978, 2354.092, 2358.024, 2382.63, 2399.763, 2440.808, 2467.542, 2478.877, 2500.428, 2529.548, 2544.67, 2597.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.646}, "reply_to": "15553__1_033", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_035", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Is that the Prince Family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2597.238], "stop_times": [2598.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.238}, "reply_to": "15553__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_036", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "That's the Prince Family, yes Your Honor and our brief points out what the stock holdings were.\nThey had 10% to 15% of the stock and there was a cross privilization of management and there was no -- and the Government hasn't contested this.\nAnd the Government has said in connection with that argument, well maybe we construed the decree erroneously before, but we're doing it right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2598.659, 2604.456, 2613.448], "stop_times": [2604.456, 2613.448, 2626.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.659}, "reply_to": "15553__1_035", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_037", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You don't think it would make any difference if General Host acquires 100% of the stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2626.622], "stop_times": [2631.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.622}, "reply_to": "15553__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_038", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Oh no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2631.695], "stop_times": [2632.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.695}, "reply_to": "15553__1_037", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_039", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You think the district judge thought that would have made a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2632.883], "stop_times": [2635.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.883}, "reply_to": "15553__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_040", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No, I do not believe that he thought that that would make a difference.\nI think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2635.111, 2638.609], "stop_times": [2638.609, 2639.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.111}, "reply_to": "15553__1_039", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_041", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You seem to emphasize the lack of the possibility immediately of General Host getting control of the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2639.339], "stop_times": [2647.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.339}, "reply_to": "15553__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_042", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No, but I think what he went on to say however that he did not find that control itself would be bad and that if General Host abused its control and caused Armour to violate the decree come on back, and I'll enjoin it quick as a flash, but mere ownership doesn't cause Armour to violate the decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2647.718], "stop_times": [2675.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.718}, "reply_to": "15553__1_041", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_043", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "What -- what kind of a hearing would you say that you required for the Government to [Inaudible] amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2675.436], "stop_times": [2685.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.436}, "reply_to": "15553__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_044", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, what happened -- there are a couple of precedents in this area.\nOne is this Court's decision in the Hughes case where the Government sought a construction of the decree and the Court sent it back and said that this was an attempt to modify the decree and that an appropriate hearing should be had to determine whether this type of relief is necessary.\nNow, I think we're entitled to a hearing as to whether, at least a hearing, as to whether or not this type of relief is necessary to effectuate -- let us go this far, I'm just conceding this for argue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2685.92, 2695.787, 2719.531], "stop_times": [2695.787, 2719.531, 2734.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.92}, "reply_to": "15553__1_043", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_045", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "To effectuate what Mr. Bergson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2734.202], "stop_times": [2738.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.202}, "reply_to": "15553__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_046", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "To effectuate what the Government claims with the purposes of this decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2738.582], "stop_times": [2744.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.582}, "reply_to": "15553__1_045", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_047", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Well, what do you think the purpose of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2744.832], "stop_times": [2746.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.832}, "reply_to": "15553__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_048", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "The purpose of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2746.762], "stop_times": [2747.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.762}, "reply_to": "15553__1_047", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_049", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You apparently deny that one of the purposes that you effect to separate the meatpackers and other food processors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2747.307], "stop_times": [2758.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.307}, "reply_to": "15553__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15553__1_050", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "No, I say that it was -- it was -- the purpose of it was to prevent proven or admitted violators who had used their power in the past from using it in the future which is done in many, many antitrust cases, but we are non-proven violator and we are a non-proven violator or non-admitted violator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2758.809], "stop_times": [2786.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.809}, "reply_to": "15553__1_049", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_051", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "You don't treat it as a blanket prohibition in the terms that Mr. Justice White has postulated that food processors, bakers, non-meat food processors should never be in combination with meatpackers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2786.863], "stop_times": [2803.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.863}, "reply_to": "15553__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__1_052", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Oh no, I don't think anything in this decree, anything in this decree prohibits the largest beef packer in the country today, this isn't in the record but I hope you'll pardon, but Mr. Justice Stewart, I think asked this question.\nThe largest beef packer in the United States today, which the Iowa Beef Company is not subject to this decree and it can go out and acquire General Host any day it wants.\nNow, all the Government can do about that is bring a Section 7 case and I think that's what the Government should do here.\nIf they think, if they think that General Host control of Armour constitutes a reasonable probability of a substantial lessening of competition in any line of commerce, they have a Section 7 case.\nThey're not without remedy here, even apart from the decree.\nBut what the Government is trying to do here, we submit Your Honor is that just short circuit this whole business probably out of fear that they can't successfully maintain a Section 7 case or couldn't successfully maintain the burden of modifying the decree which is a heavy burden and the rule of which had been laid it down in one of the prior decisions in this case and to avoid that burden both for modification and for proving a Section 7 violation they have adopted this arbitrary, summary procedure or seek to have you sanction this arbitrary summary procedure which deprives General Host of its day in Court and we submit Your Honor that this is not an appropriate form of action in this area, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2803.131, 2818.043, 2826.972, 2835.281, 2852.091, 2856.399], "stop_times": [2818.043, 2826.972, 2835.281, 2852.091, 2856.399, 2918.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2803.131}, "reply_to": "15553__1_051", "speaker": "herbert_a_bergson"}
{"id": "15553__1_053", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Bergson.\nMr. Springer, you have five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2918.573, 2920.348], "stop_times": [2920.348, 2925.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.573}, "reply_to": "15553__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15553__2_000", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nPerhaps I should correct something.\nI may have slightly misstated in answer to a question.\nOf course, we think what we're asking for here is very different from any hypothetical general amendment of this decree to try to make it run against the world.\nWe of course agree that the decree can't run against the world and that is precisely why we haven't contended and wouldn't contend that General Host has done anything that would subject it to punishment for contempt of this decree.\nThe Government filed a petition, gave General Host the opportunity to have a hearing and to bring in anything they wanted to bring in on the issue whether or not it's proper that this decree should give rise to a new order directed directly to General Host which then of course would subject it to contempt punishment.\nSo, we don't see that there's any issue of due process in this case at all.\nGeneral Host has had a hearing and the only issue was what ought to be said at that hearing.\nIf Mr. Bergson is asserting the proposition that it is only parties who are in direct active concert with the parties to a decree who in any way can be effected by the decree, I think for one thing he is suggesting a doctrine which is inconsistent with what appears to be accepted doctrine and specifically in the civil rights area where this has come up.\nThe simple fact that a man who comes in and tries to frustrate the performance of a school desegregation decree is not working together with the school board against whom that decree in terms was directed has never been a barrier for a supplemental order very much like kind of supplemental order we're asking for here against a particular individual.\nAlthough Mr. Bergson acknowledges that decree, and we don't disagree with him, contains both behavioral provisions and structural restrictions.\nHe then turns around as I understand his argument and treats the decree as if it contained nothing but behavioral prohibitions. For that reason we think it's -- we think that's wrong and we think that that's really beside the point to argue again and again that this decree could not possibly affect General Host because no Court has ever determined that General Host had done anything bad.\nI think that argument in substance was rejected in the earlier modification proceedings in this case where a similar argument was made that that the bad people who made Armour do bad things in the past and made the other packers do bad things aren't here anymore.\nNow, we just have a new set of stockholders and the management who are totally innocent and of course they shouldn't be bound by past wrong doings of other people.\nI think that's really beside of the point.\nOne other matter, I think, any suggestion that the fact that this decree contains a paragraph which relates to what might be done by particular individuals none of whom by himself was a controlling stockholder, at least in the case of Armour I believe, to say that that is the means that -- nor the part of the decree has any bearing on interlocking corporate interest, I think simply doesn't follow.\nI think the problem of the individual defendants in 1920 was a relatively small, separate problem and that to say that that precludes the Government to take any action against what might be a 100% owned, 100% owning corporate stockholder, I think doesn't follow.\nAgain, for that same reason, we think that any attempt to say that the Government is bound because it did not take any action against the Prince Family problem is erroneous for a number of reasons.\nThat was in the matter of an individual stock ownership at the most I believe by an amalgamation of people who are various members of the Prince Family, various people who are said perhaps to have some kind of relationship with them.\nGeneral Host has managed to reach a total of perhaps 13% from stock ownership in Armour.\nHere where the dealing with absolute corporate control by another corporation and of course, also this is not a matter of past course of action between these two parties about this subject matter, but the collateral matter in those returns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [2925.35, 2928.901, 2930.175, 2934.845, 2946.858, 2962.74, 2987.179, 2991.959, 3000.732, 3030.404, 3061.148, 3073.989, 3100.707, 3117.207, 3125.71, 3132.717, 3165.885, 3190.494, 3211.838, 3232.377, 3239.686], "stop_times": [2928.901, 2930.175, 2934.845, 2946.858, 2962.74, 2987.179, 2991.959, 3000.732, 3030.404, 3061.148, 3073.989, 3100.707, 3117.207, 3125.71, 3132.717, 3165.885, 3190.494, 3211.838, 3232.377, 3239.686, 3259.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2925.35}, "reply_to": "15553__1_053", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15553__2_001", "conversation_id": "15553", "text": "Thank you Mr. Springer.\nThank you for your submission and to you Mr. Bergson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_103", "start_times": [3259.03, 3260.06, 3263.347], "stop_times": [3260.06, 3263.347, 3265.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.03}, "reply_to": "15553__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15154__0_000", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Number 282, United States against Davis.\nYou may proceed whenever you're ready Mr. Solicitor General?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [0.0, 32.578], "stop_times": [32.578, 40.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15154__0_001", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "May it please the Court, this is a tax case what we might call a regular tax case, not a criminal case nor a land case as the last two were which comes here on a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.\nThe basic factual situation is simple, the statutory provisions are somewhat complex but I think reduced to a relatively simple problem.\nThe case arises with respect to a family corporation which was set up in 1945 by Mr. Davis, the taxpayer here and his partner, Mr. Bradley.\nAt that time, Bradley had 50% of the stock and Davis had 25% and Davis' wife had 25%.\nThey sought to barrow $95,000.00 from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or a subsidiary of it but found that they could do so only if the company had more capital.\nBradley was unwilling to increase his investment and so it was worked out by Davis acquiring $25,000.00 in preferred stock from the company for which he paid cash.\nSome years later, Davis purchased Bradley's stock and transferred it in equal shares to his son and to his daughter.\nAs a result of this transaction, the stock was held four ways and Davis owned 25%, his wife 25%, his son 25%, and his daughter 25%.\nAnd Davis himself owned all of the preferred stock.\nIn June 1963, the RFC loan was finally paid off and thereafter on October 1, 1963 pursuant to a corporate resolution, Mr. Davis turned in his preferred stock and received $25,000 from the corporation, and this is the transaction which is at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [40.613, 64.818, 80.278, 96.025, 108.292, 122.715, 139.999, 153.333, 171.731, 179.715], "stop_times": [64.818, 80.278, 96.025, 108.292, 122.715, 139.999, 153.333, 171.731, 179.715, 209.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 40.613}, "reply_to": "15154__0_000", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_002", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Is there any question as to whether or not the time of the redemption of the preferred stock, there were earnings and profits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [209.396], "stop_times": [217.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.396}, "reply_to": "15154__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_003", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "No, there's no question about that Mr. Justice, there were adequate earnings and profits to cover this.\nThe question is whether under the applicable provisions of the statute, the $25,000.00 is taxable as a dividend or whether it was received in exchange for the preferred stock resulting in no tax, since the amount received, $25,000.00 was the same as Mr. Davis' basis for the preferred stock.\nBefore going further, I would like to make it plain that this is simply a matter of construing a rather specific and somewhat intricate statute.\nThere is no suggestion of tax avoidance or that Mr. Davis set up any sort of scheme for artificially reducing his taxes.\nThe fact is that he received $25,000.00 from the corporation and that he turned in his preferred stock.\nThe question is what the tax consequences of this were and the circumstances of this case and under the applicable statutory provisions.\nIt's clear I think that this is a situation where Congress had power under the Sixteenth Amendment to impose a tax.\nFor that purpose, the basic fact is that $25,000.00 was separated from the corporation and was received by Mr. Davis to which I may add as indicated in my response to Mr. Justice Stewart that the corporation had earnings and profits and at least that amount.\nThis is not a case like Eisner and Macomber, the stock dividend case where the taxpayer received only pieces of paper and ended with more pieces of paper representing exactly the same interest that he had before.\nHere, the shareholder received cash and had fewer pieces of paper than he had before that receipt, and the question is how the receipt of the cash is to be treated for tax purposes.\nBasic to the consideration of that question is the provision of Section 318 of the Internal Revenue Code which is set out at pages 43 and 44 of the Government's recovered brief insofar as it is relevant to this question.\nThis is one of the two key provisions in the statute and I think that I should read it.\nSection 318 at the bottom of page 43 of the Government's brief.\nFor purposes of those provisions of this subchapter to which the rules contained in this section are expressly made applicable 1 (a), an individual shall be considered as owning the stock owned directly or indirectly by or for his spouse other than a spouse who is divorced or under a decree of separate maintenance which is not applicable here, and two, his children, grandchildren and parents.\nNow, under this statute, Mr. Davis \u201cshall be considered\u201d not maybe or improper circumstances but \u201cshall be considered\u201d as owning all the stock of the corporation, every share, all the common and all the preferred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [217.267, 223.628, 249.56, 259.935, 269.162, 277.557, 289.428, 299.502, 320.295, 336.005, 350.719, 376.732, 382.927, 387.743, 424.356], "stop_times": [223.628, 249.56, 259.935, 269.162, 277.557, 289.428, 299.502, 320.295, 336.005, 350.719, 376.732, 382.927, 387.743, 424.356, 446.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 217.267}, "reply_to": "15154__0_002", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_004", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "What is it, that statute really, this attribution provision really means what it says if by \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [446.814], "stop_times": [453.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.814}, "reply_to": "15154__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_005", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [453.953], "stop_times": [454.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 453.953}, "reply_to": "15154__0_004", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_006", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "--assume the father is 75-years old and the son 50-years old and they hadn't seen each other for 30-years, and one lived in Europe and the other lived in California, is it supposed there's still be attribute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [454.723], "stop_times": [467.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.723}, "reply_to": "15154__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_007", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice because I think the very purpose of the statute is to remove the questions of degree which could be raised by that kind of questions.\nIt is true that some lower courts have said that Section 318 should not be applied where there is evidence of active hostility between the parties, that is not an issue here, there is no trace of evidence of hostility here but I would take the ground that Congress felt that this was an area which should not be determined by the facts in each particular case, are they really friendly and so on as to which there can be infinite variation but that its language as written should be taken as written.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [467.974, 479.199], "stop_times": [479.199, 516.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 467.974}, "reply_to": "15154__0_006", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_008", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "And you don't think children -- I mean minor children or anything like that", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [516.804], "stop_times": [520.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.804}, "reply_to": "15154__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_009", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "No, I'm sure that that does not apply.\nIt covers parents too so it's obviously not limited to minors.\nOne can say if he want to but he didn't owned all the stock, some was owned by his wife, his son and his daughter, but the fact is that Congress had said specifically that the tax consequences of what was done here shall be determined by treating him as the owner of all of the stock.\nAnd for this purpose, I think that those last three words at the very bottom on page 43 shall be considered without qualification, are significant.\nNo suggestion is made either by the counsel for the respondent or in the courts below that the provision is not valid and I know of no basis on which such a contention could be successfully made.\nThis is the way the congress said that tax consequences of this sort of a payment out of a corporation should be determined.\nSo, we start with the proposition that Mr. Davis is to be treated as owning all of the stock of the company from which he received $25,000.00.\nLet me point out next that Section 318 (b) which is about four inches below the top of page 44 and set out on page 44 of our brief specifically refers to Section 302 as being one of the provisions to which Section 318 applies.\nThat is a cross reference of provision but it says for provisions to which the rules contained in subsection (a) applies (c) (1), Section 302 relating to redemption of stock.\nLet us then turn to Section 302.\nThis is a long provision beginning on page 39 of our brief, we have set it out in full there but most of it, the appellee is not applicable here.\nThe relevant portions are relatively simple of Section 302 (a), if a corporation redeems its stock within the meaning of Section 317 (b) and if paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (b) applies, such redemption shall be treated as a distribution in part or full payment in exchange for the stock.\nNow, what that means is that if you can bring yourself under paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), then it will be treated as a capital transaction and not as a dividend, and the first one of those four paragraphs, 302 (b) (1), subsection (a) shall apply if the redemption is not essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nNow, actually can refer to subsection (b) (2), (3) and (4), only to say that everyone agrees that they are not applicable.\n302 (b) (4) relates to stock issued by railroad corporations and reorganizations.\n302 (b) (2) relates to a substantially disproportionate redemption of stock and 302 (b) (3) relates to a redemptions which terminates the shareholder's interest and it is entirely agreed that (2), (3), and (4) are not applicable and this case turns on the construction of Section 302 (b) (1).\nWe may complete the statutory picture though there is no controversy about it in this case by referring to Section 301, which provides that if Section 302 does not apply, and we contend that it does not, the distribution shall be treated as a dividend to the extent that it is a dividend under Section 316, which means essentially whether there are earnings and profits and Section 316 says that it is a dividend if there are earnings and profits, the statutory path is, shall I say disorderly and complicated but I think it is relevant, relatively clear.\nIt's relevant I think that there is nothing in these statutory provisions about business purpose or about tax avoidance.\nThese are simply a straight forward series of provisions designed to say that in certain circumstances, a payment made by a corporation to a shareholder is to be treated and taxed as a dividend.\nAs I've indicated when we go through all these statutory provisions, we find that the key passage, the clause on which everything turns is Section 302 (b) (1).\nIt's awkwardly stated I agree.\nIts meaning becomes clearer I think if we reverse the negatives, then it would say subsection (a) which would treat it as a capital transaction shall not apply if the redemption is essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nNow, what it says is that subsection (a) shall apply if the distribution -- if the redemption is not essentially equivalent to a dividend that puts it backwards I think and to me it's clear and I don't think it alters the meaning of particle.\nIf it says that subsection (a) shall not apply, if the redemption is essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nEither way, the question which we must consider is whether this redemption in this case under the circumstances and the statutory provisions was essentially equivalent to a dividend, and it's our contention that the transaction here was in the light of the attribution rules of Section 318, essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nIt was the payment of money out of a corporation to the person who under Section 318 is to be treated as owning all of the stock of the corporation without any change whatever in his proportionate interest in the corporation since he is taxed on the basis that he owned all of the stock of the corporation, before the payment, and owned all of the stock of the corporation after the payment.\nSuch a payment by a corporation to a shareholder without any change in proportion and interest is, we submit, under many decisions of the Courts essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nSection 302 (b) (1) is the linear descendant of a provision which goes back to 1921, when it was first enacted at that time, it was applicable only to stock which had been issued as a stock dividend and it was a part of the aftermath of Eisner and Macomber, the great scheme at that time was that you declared a preferred dividend on your common stock and then you immediately redeem the preferred dividend and the theory was that that wasn't taxable and the statute passed in 1921 was designed to reach that type of the situation.\nIt was soon found however that it wasn't limited to that kind of a situation, you could organize a corporation with serial preferred stock and then redeem the preferred stock year by year and seek to get around it and I make it, I repeat again, there is no suggestion that there was any tax avoidance scheme whatever involved in this case.\nIn 1926, the statutory provision was expanded to recover redemptions without regard to the origin of the stock, however, that provision which became Section 115 (g) (1) of the internal revenue code was worded somewhat differently than the present provision.\nIt made a redemption taxable as a dividend if it was made \u201cat such time and in such manner\u201d as to make the distribution and cancellation or redemption in whole or in part essentially equivalent to the distribution of a taxable dividend.\nIt was probably because of those words \u201cat such time and in such manner\u201d that some of the lower courts used concepts of business purpose and tax avoidance in construing that statute.\nThey said, well if there was a legitimate business purpose or if there was no scheme of tax avoidance, then it was not at such time and in such manner but there are no such words in Section 302 (b) (1) of the 54 code which is the provision now before the Court.\nWe have here the simple question whether the payment was essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nThe taxpayer wants to treat this payment as if it were payment of a debt.\nHe says he always understood that it would be paid off, his position is made clear at page 3 of his brief in opposition in this case from which I read two sentences.\nHere moreover, there was a clearly identifiable date as of which the preferred stock was to be redeemed, the date of payment in full of the RFC debt.\nIn this respect, the preferred stock was like a subordinated debt, but there was no debt, there was preferred stock.\nThis was a payment with respect to stock which under the attribution rules did not in any way affect the proportionate ownership in the corporation which for tax purposes in pursuant to the expressed provision of the statute which represented Congress's statement as to how transactions of this kind should be treated for tax purposes.\nFor tax purposes, his ownership was 100%, both before and after the transaction.\nNor could this be treated as a partial liquidation of the corporation, for that requires some contraction of the business of the company.\nHere, there was no contraction of the business.\nThere was simply the payment of $25,000.00 to the person who by the clear and expressed provisions of the taxing statute is to be treated as the sole shareholder in the company.\nThus, business purpose is we submit irrelevant.\nMoreover, though there clearly was a business purpose for issuing the preferred stock, there was no such purpose for its redemption as the taxpayer himself testified in his deposition on page 17 of the record, this was surplus money.\nThe transaction was carried out for the benefit of the Mr. Davis and not of the company.\nThe distribution of surplus money to the sole shareholder of a corporation is precisely the kind of distribution to which the dividend rules of Section 301 and 316 are designed to apply.\nSurely, that would be the result if no stock had been surrendered but Eisner and Macomber teaches that the presence or absence of pieces of paper representing the same proportion that enters in the corporation is irrelevant for tax purposes.\nHere, the important fact is that under the provisions of the taxing statute, Mr. Davis owned all of the stock of the corporation before the transaction and he owned all of the stock of the corporation after the transaction.\nThe only substantial difference was that he had received $25,000.00 from the corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [520.528, 524.656, 530.276, 548.817, 560.649, 574.756, 583.768, 595.197, 614.968, 629.672, 633.404, 649.362, 682.072, 712.963, 727.292, 734.72, 764.992, 813.448, 825.155, 843.799, 860.236, 864.174, 887.137, 905.687, 913.07, 940.157, 974.131, 993.372, 1034.998, 1058.096, 1079.015, 1099.636, 1114.932, 1134.323, 1142.993, 1149.26, 1167.139, 1180.165, 1193.081, 1220.494, 1230.268, 1240.358, 1243.948, 1261.231, 1267.954, 1287.885, 1295.029, 1312.163, 1329.82, 1345.87], "stop_times": [524.656, 530.276, 548.817, 560.649, 574.756, 583.768, 595.197, 614.968, 629.672, 633.404, 649.362, 682.072, 712.963, 727.292, 734.72, 764.992, 813.448, 825.155, 843.799, 860.236, 864.174, 887.137, 905.687, 913.07, 940.157, 974.131, 993.372, 1034.998, 1058.096, 1079.015, 1099.636, 1114.932, 1134.323, 1142.993, 1149.26, 1167.139, 1180.165, 1193.081, 1220.494, 1230.268, 1240.358, 1243.948, 1261.231, 1267.954, 1287.885, 1295.029, 1312.163, 1329.82, 1345.87, 1352.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 520.528}, "reply_to": "15154__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_010", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, would it make a difference if the $25,000.00 transaction would be taken in the form of a note?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1352.736], "stop_times": [1360.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.736}, "reply_to": "15154__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_011", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice, I think that if he had lent the money to the company and if the circumstances were such that the note would not be held to be essentially an equity in this month and a subordinated capital, it would have made a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1360.084], "stop_times": [1376.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1360.084}, "reply_to": "15154__0_010", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_012", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "On this factual situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1376.44], "stop_times": [1378.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.44}, "reply_to": "15154__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_013", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "On this factual situation, it seems to me it would have been somewhat difficult for the Government to contend that a note for $25,000.00 was not legitimate debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1378.273], "stop_times": [1390.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1378.273}, "reply_to": "15154__0_012", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_014", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But the -- he wouldn't gotten involved either because I think if the condition was that he put his money for the rest of the business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1390.232], "stop_times": [1397.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.232}, "reply_to": "15154__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_015", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "It would have had to have been a subordinated note, a note subordinated to the RFC's claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1397.623], "stop_times": [1403.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1397.623}, "reply_to": "15154__0_014", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_016", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I thought, at least at the risk of the business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1403.736], "stop_times": [1406.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.736}, "reply_to": "15154__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__0_017", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "As I understand it, he would have got the, could have got the loan by making a loan to the company.\nIt would not have had as good a balance sheet and would not have been as attractive for other creditors, was only needed to deal after the RFC and if he made it subordinate to all indebtedness, then I think the Government would surely have come in and said that this is not a debt but is a stock.\nWhen I said that it would have been legitimate, I was thinking of subordination only to the RFC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1406.979, 1413.7, 1432.983], "stop_times": [1413.7, 1432.983, 1438.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1406.979}, "reply_to": "15154__0_016", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_018", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "In the light of the facts of this particular case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1438.458], "stop_times": [1442.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.458}, "reply_to": "15154__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__0_019", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "On the facts of this particular case, if it was subordinate only to the RFC, it seems to me the Government might have had some difficulty in contending that this was equity rather than a dead investment.\nIt would have had some other consequences.\nThere is -- the fact of course here is that it is not a debt and was not claimed to be a debt and we do not think that it can be given the consequences of a debt in that transaction, whatever in that situation, whatever might be the consequences if there had in fact been a note rather than a stock.\nIn the decision below, and in other cases and in the briefs here, there's talk about the Net Effects Test and the strict Net Effects Test and the Flexible Net Effects Test and I find these phrases confusing and perhaps question begging.\nMy own view is that they are irrelevant.\nThere is no such provision in the statute and the application of the statute becomes unnecessarily complex and confusing if resort -- if resort is made to such terms in the analysis of the problem.\nThe basic and underlying situation here is that Congress has provided that a person in Mr. Davis' situation is to be treated as the owner of all of the stock for the purpose of determining how he is to be taxed on the $25,000.00 which he undoubtedly received from the corporation which had earnings and profits and at least that amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1442.007, 1455.609, 1460.733, 1490.319, 1516.079, 1519.375, 1534.731], "stop_times": [1455.609, 1460.733, 1490.319, 1516.079, 1519.375, 1534.731, 1559.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1442.007}, "reply_to": "15154__0_018", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_020", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "What is your judgment as to the standard necessary to determine the case under?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1559.139], "stop_times": [1565.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.139}, "reply_to": "15154__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__0_021", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Standard as necessary to determine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1565.863], "stop_times": [1567.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1565.863}, "reply_to": "15154__0_020", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_022", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1567.688], "stop_times": [1569.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1567.688}, "reply_to": "15154__0_021", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__0_023", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Determine what Mr. \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1569.099], "stop_times": [1569.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1569.099}, "reply_to": "15154__0_022", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_024", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Whether it is the equivalent of a guilt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1569.905], "stop_times": [1574.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.905}, "reply_to": "15154__0_023", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__0_025", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I think in this case, I would say that the standard is what would have been the case if he had surrendered nothing?\nIf he had simply owned stock at the beginning and had received $25,000.00, no one would question that the $25,000.00 was a dividend.\nNow, the mere fact that he gave up a piece of paper not affecting his proportionate interest in the corporation, does not keep that from being essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nAs the owner of all of the stock is proportionate interest and the corporation did not change a particle as a result of the transaction, he owned it all before, he owned it all after, but when it was completed he had $25,000.00 in his own hands which he didn't have before.\nWe say that that was a dividend.\nAs I have suggested in replying to Mr. Justice Black, if he in fact owned all of the stock himself, there could be no doubt.\nI suggest that the $25,000.00 was taxable to him as a dividend since his proportionate interest was in no way changed and the presence or absence of pieces of paper in no way affected the substance of the transaction and the statute says that in his situation, he is to be taxed on the basis that all of the shares are attributed to him.\nI've said that I think that Section 302 (b) (1) is the key here, of course, it's equally plain that Section 318 is important.\nIf the Court says as I think it should that Section 318 means what it says and that Congress intended it to mean what it says and intended not to have individual factual inquiries on a general equitable basis in the construction of 318, then I think that the consequence for which we are contending follows.\nIt may be somewhat literalistic but this is an area it seems to me where the tax statute can well be construed the way it is written in order to both to minimize repeated detailed factual inquiries into the circumstances of particular cases with no standard set up by Congress and in order to clarify the application of the tax law.\nIt may or may not have been a wise provision for Congress to make, I think experience shows that it was necessary and useful, but it is the provision that Congress did make and it should be applied here.\nAnd accordingly I submit that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1574.26, 1585.181, 1594.43, 1606.442, 1625.301, 1627.993, 1637.59, 1664.365, 1674.989, 1696.22, 1727.147, 1741.203], "stop_times": [1585.181, 1594.43, 1606.442, 1625.301, 1627.993, 1637.59, 1664.365, 1674.989, 1696.22, 1727.147, 1741.203, 1753.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1574.26}, "reply_to": "15154__0_024", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15154__0_026", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Thank you Mr. Solicitor General.\nMr. Waller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1753.854, 1756.624], "stop_times": [1756.624, 1759.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.854}, "reply_to": "15154__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15154__1_000", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThere is a old English saying about not being able to see the wood for the trees and it seems to me that that is applicable here.\nThe Solicitor General's argument here would be exactly the same if on yesterday Mr. Davis had bought $25,000.00 of preferred stock from this corporation and today had sold it back and got his money back.\nNow, true, he has given up only a piece of paper but he's got back exactly the amount of money that he put out.\nHe put out $25,000.00 and got the piece of paper, now he gives back the piece of paper and gets the $25,000.00.\nAnd I respectfully disagree with the Solicitor General that Congress has power under the Sixteenth Amendment even if it wanted to, to say that that is taxable income.\nI don't think Congress intended any such result but if Congress had intended such a result, I think that Eisner versus Macomber teaches that that would not be treated as an income or deem no more than if a race horse were involved if you, for the race horse \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1759.473, 1764.114, 1777.829, 1797.175, 1808.204, 1816.739, 1838.426], "stop_times": [1764.114, 1777.829, 1797.175, 1808.204, 1816.739, 1838.426, 1857.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1759.473}, "reply_to": "15154__0_026", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_001", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "What would it be treated as?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1857.792], "stop_times": [1859.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.792}, "reply_to": "15154__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_002", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Treated as a return of capital.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1859.937], "stop_times": [1862.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1859.937}, "reply_to": "15154__1_001", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_003", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "You mean as a sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1862.75], "stop_times": [1864.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.75}, "reply_to": "15154__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_004", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "A sale, that's what this was, a sale of stock to the corporation but the minutes provided, the director's minutes that Mr. Davis offer the sale of stock back to the corporation, $25,000.00, the offer was accepted, the stock was bought, the stock was redeemed, so everybody was in exactly the same position after the transaction, great taking the transaction as a whole, the two poll of the transaction.\nMr. Davis was in the same position.\nThe corporation who had this temporary capital which he had needed in order to get the RFC loan, when the RFC loan was paid off as had been intended all the time, the stock was redeemed, the corporation did not need the $25,000.00 as the Solicitor General states, it was surplus money, the preferred stock was 6% preferred stock, this was 1963 when preferred, when 6% was a good even money in any normal Board of Directors.\nHaving $25,000.00 that was not needed in the business, having 6% preferred stock outstanding would have redeemed the preferred stock.\nIt was for the benefit of the corporation.\nIt may have been that Mr. Davis, he probably did wanted this $25,000.00 back since the purpose for which he had returned it into the corporation had been served but he is at the end of this two prong transaction exactly where he started, with his money back, that is a classic example of a return of capital and not of a dividend.\nAs I have stated, if the two transactions had occurred one day after the other one.\nAccording to the Solicitor General's argument, this would be a dividend merely because of the existence of earnings and profits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1864.274, 1890.41, 1893.285, 1926.558, 1936.788, 1939.6, 1968.184, 1974.69], "stop_times": [1890.41, 1893.285, 1926.558, 1936.788, 1939.6, 1968.184, 1974.69, 1982.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1864.274}, "reply_to": "15154__1_003", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_005", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "What would you say if one partner decided to put up all the money they needed for the new plant itself?\nThey needed a new plant, the other partner said no, I can't put up any more money but I'd like to keep half ownership, the other one said, well, I'll put it up the preferred stock, so he puts up a $100,000.00 preferred stock, they build a new plant, they accumulate some money and they redeem as preferred stock later, what would you do?\nWould you say you get the same result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [1982.988, 1992.399, 2012.594], "stop_times": [1992.399, 2012.594, 2013.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.988}, "reply_to": "15154__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_006", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I say that's a return of capital also, that's a return of capital.\nI don't think it's a bit difference and if had been a subordinated?\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2013.892, 2019.278, 2022.003], "stop_times": [2019.278, 2022.003, 2024.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2013.892}, "reply_to": "15154__1_005", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_007", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Of course he deliberately chose to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2024.575], "stop_times": [2026.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.575}, "reply_to": "15154__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_008", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2026.602], "stop_times": [2027.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2026.602}, "reply_to": "15154__1_007", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_009", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "--put it up in his preferred stock and to, and to put it in the risk of the business rather than making any subordinated note.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2027.179], "stop_times": [2035.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.179}, "reply_to": "15154__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_010", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, a subordinated note would also have been at the risk of the business if it was subordinated as the usual subordinated note is, that is to -- to the RFC loan, to bank --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2035.62], "stop_times": [2043.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2035.62}, "reply_to": "15154__1_009", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_011", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The preferred --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2043.874], "stop_times": [2044.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.874}, "reply_to": "15154__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_012", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "-- bank debts and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2044.734], "stop_times": [2045.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2044.734}, "reply_to": "15154__1_011", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_013", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Nevertheless, would it be shown as a liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2045.599], "stop_times": [2047.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.599}, "reply_to": "15154__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_014", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Oh yes, yes it would, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2047.76], "stop_times": [2050.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2047.76}, "reply_to": "15154__1_013", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_015", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "And he preferred not to have that stock --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2050.449], "stop_times": [2052.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.449}, "reply_to": "15154__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_016", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He preferred not to do it because that made the balance sheet better for all the business purposes in general.\nIn other words, you didn't have that debt.\nOn the balance sheet, it was all, appeared to be equity capital for it was.\nNow, there have been a number of cases where this very same thing happened in the lower courts and uniformly held for the taxpayer that where there was a temporary advance of equity capital to a corporation for a limited purpose and for a limited time with the understanding that it would be -- that the stock would be redeemed, when that purpose had been served, that that is a return of capital they have used therefore is business purpose.\nNow, I think one Court did say and the Solicitor General has used the argument that while there's a business purpose in issuing the stock in the first place that the redemption of the stock is not a business purpose but I don't think you can view the entire transaction of this kind as in isolation, view the redemption in isolation probably original issuance of the stock.\nThe transaction should be viewed as one transaction or two prongs, as I have stated of a transaction.\nNow, I will have to agree that this net effect test is irrelevant.\nI believe the Solicitor General advanced that thought.\nThe reason, the net effect test or the strict net effect test I think has come into play was largely because of the case that Mr. Griswold tried when he was in private practice, they bet for the state case in which this Court reversed the Second Circuit.\nWhereupon, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the bet for the state case had nothing to do with the stock redemption, it involved booth in a reorganization case and the Second Circuit had held that this booth was a return of capital and not a dividend.\nThis Court held that it was a dividend under the provision of the statute which used the words effect.\nWhereupon, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals -- the Supreme Court has now reversed all of our earlier decisions in redemption cases.\nSo from now on, the Second Circuit has followed what they call as Strict Net Effect Test saying that the Bedford decision had overruled our prior decision when it didn't do any such thing.\nAnd even as late as the Levin case last year, year before last, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals repeated this statement, that the Bedford case had overruled their prior decisions where they had followed the same or a different rule regarding redemptions.\nThe Seventh Circuit in the (Inaudible) case which is cited in our brief pointed out very clearly that the two situations are entirely different.\nNow, the legislative history of this Section 302 (b) (1) states specifically as it could be stated that what Congress was intending to do in 302 (b) (1) was to revert in part to existing law under the Section 115 (g) of the old 1939 Government.\nSo, Congress said, the Senate Committee said that they were restoring that to the house bill which it left out the essentially equivalent test and they were restoring this essentially equivalent to a dividend test for the purpose of going back to existing law so that a taxpayer who could not come within one of these so called safe harbor provisions of the new code, the ones that we agree are not applicable here.\nThey could not come within one of them.\nHe could still rely on the fact that his redemption was not essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nNothing can be planned out it seems to me than the statement in the statement several times in the senate committee report that that was what was being done.\nThe original house bill had left out this essentially equivalent test and it only provided these mechanical tests based on ownership of stock.\nThe questions -- the provisions being that if the shareholder's interest was terminated or if there were disproportionate redemptions, he could by following these technical rules escape dividend treatment.\nNow, those safe harbor provisions all referred to ownership of stock and the house bill had in it.\nThese attribution rules which that said should be followed in the determining the ownership of stock.\nWell, the Senate Committee kept that provision about determining the ownership of stock, the attribution rules for determining the ownership of stock but then puts back into the new 1954 code, the old 1939 provision about essentially equivalent to the dividend.\nWe say that these attribution rules were not intended by Congress to apply to the essentially equivalent to a dividend test.\nThey were intended to apply for the purposes of determining ownership in those provisions where ownership of stock was mentioned and there was no mention of ownership of stock in Section 302 (b) (1).\nSo, while the lower courts said no this Section is pretty wrong, they said for the purposes of this section, we'll say that the attribution rules apply but even though they do apply, this particular redemption is okay because of the business purpose rule and in one place, in one respect, I think I must agree whole heartedly with the Solicitor General and that is that these attribution rules either apply or they don't apply.\nYou can't say that they apply where a father and son love each other but they don't apply where they are estranged or where a man and his wife are estranged or where a partner and his partners, a partnership and partners are estranged, that would create interminable difficulty in finding out when the attribution rules do apply and when they don't apply.\nBut I say they don't apply at all with respect to Section 302 (b) (1) because that was the old test from the 1939 code where there were no attribution rules.\nAnd in every statement in the Senate Committee report saying what they were trying to do, it was specifically stated that they were reverting to existing law with no qualification based on these attribution rules.\nSo, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2052.016, 2057.467, 2059.833, 2066.703, 2097.637, 2127.222, 2135.184, 2143.37, 2145.9, 2168.61, 2191.709, 2198.716, 2206.841, 2218.889, 2236.863, 2248.36, 2277.052, 2310.973, 2312.765, 2322.416, 2334.695, 2345.792, 2362.645, 2371.879, 2379.944, 2402.494, 2412.73, 2428.614, 2462.733, 2488.79, 2502.489, 2518.796], "stop_times": [2057.467, 2059.833, 2066.703, 2097.637, 2127.222, 2135.184, 2143.37, 2145.9, 2168.61, 2191.709, 2198.716, 2206.841, 2218.889, 2236.863, 2248.36, 2277.052, 2310.973, 2312.765, 2322.416, 2334.695, 2345.792, 2362.645, 2371.879, 2379.944, 2402.494, 2412.73, 2428.614, 2462.733, 2488.79, 2502.489, 2518.796, 2520.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2052.016}, "reply_to": "15154__1_015", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_017", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I haven't followed this part of your argument Mr. Wallace that you say that the attribution that Section 318, attribution provision do not apply to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2520.37], "stop_times": [2532.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.37}, "reply_to": "15154__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_018", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Do not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2532.099], "stop_times": [2532.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2532.099}, "reply_to": "15154__1_017", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_019", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "And why is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2532.822], "stop_times": [2533.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.822}, "reply_to": "15154__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_020", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Alright, I'll say it for this reason Your Honor.\nThe Section 318 I think is ambiguous in this respect because it says that Section 318 (a) shall apply in determining the ownership of stock for purposes of this section.\nNow, I would have to agree that if we didn't have any legislative history and we didn't have any question of constitutional doubts raised that probably one would say it applied for the purposes of the old section including 302 (b) (1).\nBut if you look at the sequence of events by which this particular section got in to the 1954 code, I think it's perfectly plain that what Congress was saying was that these attribution rules should apply in determining the ownership of stock for the purposes of these provisions of the section where ownership of stock is mentioned, namely, Section 2 and Section 3 but not Section 1, I mean subsection 1 of Section 302.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2533.805, 2536.876, 2556.141, 2573.14], "stop_times": [2536.876, 2556.141, 2573.14, 2604.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2533.805}, "reply_to": "15154__1_019", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_021", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Now, I'm looking at pages 43 and 44 of the Government's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2604.184], "stop_times": [2607.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.184}, "reply_to": "15154__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_022", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2607.656], "stop_times": [2611.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2607.656}, "reply_to": "15154__1_021", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_023", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "In which \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2611.332], "stop_times": [2611.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.332}, "reply_to": "15154__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_024", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Look at page 41 in the middle of the page, constructive only surplus stock, except as provided in paragraph two of this subsection, Section 318 (a) shall apply in determining the ownership of stock for purposes of this Section.\nNow, I say that you should emphasize the words the ownership of stock because in the other provisions of Section 302, the ownership of stock is mentioned, whereas in the essentially equivalent provision, there is no mention of ownership of stock and ownership of stock is considered only by virtue of judge made rules and not because of any statutory provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2611.779, 2632.411], "stop_times": [2632.411, 2658.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2611.779}, "reply_to": "15154__1_023", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_025", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But the, going back to 43 and 44 in pages and then look at 318 (b) on 44, the provision to which the rules contained in subsection (a) applies to Section 302 relating to redemption of stock, and that it would apply that you'd suppose to see the whole section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2658.952], "stop_times": [2680.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.952}, "reply_to": "15154__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_026", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well yeah, and that's why I, that's why I have just raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2680.881], "stop_times": [2682.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2680.881}, "reply_to": "15154__1_025", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_027", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "That is not inconsistent I suppose with your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2682.628], "stop_times": [2684.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.628}, "reply_to": "15154__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_028", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "That's what I've been reading, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2684.428], "stop_times": [2685.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2684.428}, "reply_to": "15154__1_027", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_029", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "It should be read as applying only to those parts of the section that referred exquisitely to ownership of stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2685.805], "stop_times": [2692.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.805}, "reply_to": "15154__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_030", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes, that's my point.\nAnd I say the sufficient ambiguity in the language that we can go to the senate committee reports to find out what they meant and when we do go to the senate committee report, I think it's best to explain that Congress did not intend the attribution rules to apply when determining whether a redemption is essentially equivalent to a dividend.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2692.551, 2693.796], "stop_times": [2693.796, 2713.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2692.551}, "reply_to": "15154__1_029", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_031", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Has any Court ever accepted this argument which you're making?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2713.706], "stop_times": [2715.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.706}, "reply_to": "15154__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_032", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, no Court has accepted it whole heartedly, they have only said we think there ought to be exceptions where this family and strange one and other things like \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2715.836], "stop_times": [2724.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2715.836}, "reply_to": "15154__1_031", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_033", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, that's not your argument to hear at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2724.655], "stop_times": [2726.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.655}, "reply_to": "15154__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15154__1_034", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I agree with the Solicitor General that the veto applies, it didn't apply but I say it doesn't apply and he says it does apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2726.841], "stop_times": [2732.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2726.841}, "reply_to": "15154__1_033", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_035", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Where is the history, legislative history in your brief to which you refer \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2732.157], "stop_times": [2735.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.157}, "reply_to": "15154__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_036", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2735.988], "stop_times": [2736.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2735.988}, "reply_to": "15154__1_035", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_037", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "--by that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2736.316], "stop_times": [2739.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.316}, "reply_to": "15154__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_038", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "My brief \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2739.633], "stop_times": [2740.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2739.633}, "reply_to": "15154__1_037", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_039", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Page what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2740.831], "stop_times": [2742.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.831}, "reply_to": "15154__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_040", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Starting on page 10, well, there's a part of it, the main part of it is yes, pages 10 and 11.\nThen if there, it's referred to all through the brief, it's a very short brief if Your Honor please, and it's referred to again on page 14.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2742.504, 2754.792], "stop_times": [2754.792, 2770.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2742.504}, "reply_to": "15154__1_039", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_041", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Are you having this as though the man had just loaned the money for the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2770.144], "stop_times": [2775.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.144}, "reply_to": "15154__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_042", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I'm not arguing that he just loaned it, no Your Honor.\nI'm saying that it was a purchase of preferred stock by Davis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2775.428, 2778.228], "stop_times": [2778.228, 2782.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2775.428}, "reply_to": "15154__1_041", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_043", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "They purchased a preferred --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2782.842], "stop_times": [2784.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.842}, "reply_to": "15154__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_044", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Purchased or preferred stock from the corporation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2784.056], "stop_times": [2785.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2784.056}, "reply_to": "15154__1_043", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_045", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "With an agreement that they would buy back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2785.747], "stop_times": [2787.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.747}, "reply_to": "15154__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_046", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Agreement they would buy it back when the RFC loan was paid off.\nIt would redeem it, when the RFC loan is paid off.\nThat was the general understanding, it wasn't in the form of a written agreement but it was understood between all parties involved that this was a -- this was done solely for the purpose of getting the RFC loan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2787.928, 2792.474, 2795.824], "stop_times": [2792.474, 2795.824, 2806.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2787.928}, "reply_to": "15154__1_045", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_047", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Did the Court found out about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2806.404], "stop_times": [2807.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.404}, "reply_to": "15154__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_048", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes.\nThe Court found that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2807.672, 2807.906], "stop_times": [2807.906, 2809.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2807.672}, "reply_to": "15154__1_047", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_049", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "That's what it found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2809.33], "stop_times": [2810.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.33}, "reply_to": "15154__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_050", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2810.283], "stop_times": [2811.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2810.283}, "reply_to": "15154__1_049", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_051", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "On what page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2811.525], "stop_times": [2812.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.525}, "reply_to": "15154__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_052", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Both lower courts.\nAlright sir, in the appendix, the Court of Appeals opinion would be I think he quotes from the District Court, pages 40 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2812.569, 2814.602], "stop_times": [2814.602, 2844.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2812.569}, "reply_to": "15154__1_051", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_053", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Against 39 doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2844.418], "stop_times": [2845.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.418}, "reply_to": "15154__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15154__1_054", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, yes, but I'm thinking about the place, well, he quotes the, the Court of Appeals Court's on pages 45 and 46 of the appendix.\nThe subsequent acquisition of Bradley stockholdings by taxpayer making the redemption distribution essentially pro rata because of the Section 318 (a) attribution rules, neither in pairs the legitimacy of the purpose underlying the issuance of the preferred stock (to provide additional security required by RFC) now alters the fact that the redemption was simply the final (contemplated step taken in completion of this purpose).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2845.601, 2857.957], "stop_times": [2857.957, 2895.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2845.601}, "reply_to": "15154__1_053", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_055", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Then what did the Court of Appeal hold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2895.125], "stop_times": [2898.218], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.125}, "reply_to": "15154__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15154__1_056", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "They held with us that this was return of capital and not a dividend.\nThe District Court held it was a return of capital and not a dividend.\nThe Court of Appeals held that it was a return of capital and not a dividend and we are here seeking to sustain the decisions below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2898.218, 2902.969, 2906.49], "stop_times": [2902.969, 2906.49, 2917.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2898.218}, "reply_to": "15154__1_055", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_057", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Mr. Wallace, any difference between the -- this being a note which we talked about earlier subordinate only to the RFC and being preferred stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2917.406], "stop_times": [2929.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.406}, "reply_to": "15154__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_058", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, I wouldn't say there was no difference because of course the note is different from preferred stock, there's a lot of consequences that attached to a note that do not attached.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2929.76], "stop_times": [2938.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2929.76}, "reply_to": "15154__1_057", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_059", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But you do \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2938.438], "stop_times": [2939.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.438}, "reply_to": "15154__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_060", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But so far as this particular situation is concerned as to whether it's a return of capital or not, I say that's a return of capital", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2939.516], "stop_times": [2947.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2939.516}, "reply_to": "15154__1_059", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_061", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, I mean as to this particular case, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2947.099], "stop_times": [2949.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.099}, "reply_to": "15154__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_062", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2949.973], "stop_times": [2950.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2949.973}, "reply_to": "15154__1_061", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_063", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "If it had been a subordinated note, it would be under the dividend clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2950.187], "stop_times": [2955.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.187}, "reply_to": "15154__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_064", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "If it had been a subordinated note, it would not have been that the return would not have been a dividend and the Solicitor General would not even have made such a contention as he stated a while ago.\nHe didn't quite go that far but he said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2955.482, 2966.906], "stop_times": [2966.906, 2968.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2955.482}, "reply_to": "15154__1_063", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_065", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I don't think he went that far?\nI don't think he went that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2968.542, 2970.839], "stop_times": [2970.839, 2972.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.542}, "reply_to": "15154__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_066", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He didn't go quite that far but write almost that far, he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2972.639], "stop_times": [2976.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2972.639}, "reply_to": "15154__1_065", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_067", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I didn't hear him that way that's why we're trying to get your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2976.525], "stop_times": [2979.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.525}, "reply_to": "15154__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_068", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He said I don't think the government would have much case, that's what he said I think in the vernacular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2979.79], "stop_times": [2985.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2979.79}, "reply_to": "15154__1_067", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_069", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, it's your position and there's no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2985.94], "stop_times": [2989.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.94}, "reply_to": "15154__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_070", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I don't think for the purpose of this case that there's any significant difference Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2989.525], "stop_times": [2994.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2989.525}, "reply_to": "15154__1_069", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_071", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "You mean if the owner of this corporation and given $25,000.00 to the corporation and then taking it back later will be no different from the fact that he issued it in stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [2994.71], "stop_times": [3009.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.71}, "reply_to": "15154__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_072", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "That's correct Your Honor.\nIn other words, as to return of capital in either event, what the man has done, he hasn't made any money.\nIncome is making some money.\nIncome under the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3009.247, 3010.419, 3020.43, 3022.398], "stop_times": [3010.419, 3020.43, 3022.398, 3023.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3009.247}, "reply_to": "15154__1_071", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_073", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But he's got the same corporation with all of his assets and is also taking $25,000.00, he still got the whole total.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3023.375], "stop_times": [3031.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.375}, "reply_to": "15154__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15154__1_074", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He just got his own $25,000.00 back, he got back what he put in, in other words, he's just exactly where he was to start with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3031.342], "stop_times": [3039.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3031.342}, "reply_to": "15154__1_073", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_075", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "No, how did he end up with common stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3039.274], "stop_times": [3041.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.274}, "reply_to": "15154__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_076", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "If he'd put that, if he put that in common stock and if you leave this attribution rules out of it by, it would've been the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3041.894], "stop_times": [3049.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3041.894}, "reply_to": "15154__1_075", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_077", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, I know but you say there are times not even with the attribution rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3049.441], "stop_times": [3053.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.441}, "reply_to": "15154__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_078", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "I say and finally when even with the attribution rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3053.426], "stop_times": [3056.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3053.426}, "reply_to": "15154__1_077", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_079", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Right and now could you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3056.256], "stop_times": [3056.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.256}, "reply_to": "15154__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_080", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "And I would say I would have a more difficult case if it were for a common stock than with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3056.748], "stop_times": [3061.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3056.748}, "reply_to": "15154__1_079", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_081", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Why, the RFC says you need $24,000.00, $25,000.00 more in equity, he says do you care if it's preferred or common?\nThey'll say no, we'll put up, he say well I'll put it up as common and when the moment is paid off, he says I didn't want my $25,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3061.94, 3069.553], "stop_times": [3069.553, 3077.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.94}, "reply_to": "15154__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_082", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, I think -- I think if there had been a clear cut agreement that it would be redeemed as soon as the RFC loan was paid off that I could substantiate the common the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3077.243], "stop_times": [3088.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3077.243}, "reply_to": "15154__1_081", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_083", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "You really would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3088.847], "stop_times": [3089.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.847}, "reply_to": "15154__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_084", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But I'd rather do it with the preferred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3089.942], "stop_times": [3091.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3089.942}, "reply_to": "15154__1_083", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_085", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But why, I don't see that there's any real difference in terms of your argument between common and preferred.\nYou have to argue for one as well as the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3091.314, 3097.48], "stop_times": [3097.48, 3099.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.314}, "reply_to": "15154__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15154__1_086", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, I'll have to go back -- I'll have to go back to the 1920 -- legislative history of the 1926 Act to explain that, because the -- in 1926, when the statute was amended, the -- it was apparent from the reports of the legislative committee's lab that what they had in mind was taxing a pro rata redemption of common stock, in other words, his, two people have got equal amount of common stock and he redeemed 10% of each one, well, that's essentially equivalent to a dividend.\nBut now of course that could apply here only by virtue of the attribution rules because without the attribution rules, Mr. Davis owned only 25% of the common stock.\nHis wife owned 25% and his two children who were ertainly not his dummy as in any way even though they may have been family solidarity as distinguished from estrangement.\nThey were the stock holders and they could have redeemed through the board of directors get to redeem this stock if Mr. Davis hadn't wanted it redeemed.\nAs far as that's concern, they could have outvoted him and redeemed the stock if he had not wanted it redeemed.\nSo, the -- it's not correct say that this redemption was strictly for the benefit of Mr. Davis, it was for the benefit of the corporation to get rid of a 60% preferred stock in 1963, it wouldn't be the day if anybody had some 6% stock outstanding to David want to keep it of course, but in 1963, the situation was entirely different, 6% --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3099.34, 3136.393, 3146.444, 3161.147, 3168.97, 3175.201], "stop_times": [3136.393, 3146.444, 3161.147, 3168.97, 3175.201, 3198.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3099.34}, "reply_to": "15154__1_085", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_087", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Where did you get -- when was the money put in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3198.899], "stop_times": [3201.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.899}, "reply_to": "15154__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_088", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The money was put in back in 1946 I believe it was, 45.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3201.658], "stop_times": [3207.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3201.658}, "reply_to": "15154__1_087", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_089", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "When was it taken out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3207.034], "stop_times": [3208.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.034}, "reply_to": "15154__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_090", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "63.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3208.334], "stop_times": [3209.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3208.334}, "reply_to": "15154__1_089", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_091", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "46 to 63?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3209.955], "stop_times": [3211.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.955}, "reply_to": "15154__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_092", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes, that's when the RFC loan wouldn't pay it off, it took a long time to pay it off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3211.802], "stop_times": [3215.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3211.802}, "reply_to": "15154__1_091", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_093", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Who was here or him by that transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3215.424], "stop_times": [3220.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.424}, "reply_to": "15154__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_094", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The whole corporation was help back because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3220.761], "stop_times": [3223.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3220.761}, "reply_to": "15154__1_093", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_095", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The cost of money in that, it could be used as though they owned it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3223.742], "stop_times": [3228.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.742}, "reply_to": "15154__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_096", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "It was, yes, that's correct.\nThe corporation used this money all that time.\nIt had that for working capital all that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3228.208, 3229.921, 3232.853], "stop_times": [3229.921, 3232.853, 3235.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3228.208}, "reply_to": "15154__1_095", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_097", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Then the man got it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3235.353], "stop_times": [3236.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.353}, "reply_to": "15154__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_098", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He got it back for his preferred stock, he got it back for his stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3236.803], "stop_times": [3240.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3236.803}, "reply_to": "15154__1_097", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_099", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But the man himself didn't get anything did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3240.033], "stop_times": [3244.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.033}, "reply_to": "15154__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_100", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3244.313], "stop_times": [3244.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3244.313}, "reply_to": "15154__1_099", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_101", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Did he put a stock, let them have it use it and make it appear that they hadn't stock -- they had this much value when they didn't have it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3244.504], "stop_times": [3253.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.504}, "reply_to": "15154__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_102", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes, they had it all that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3253.548], "stop_times": [3255.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3253.548}, "reply_to": "15154__1_101", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_103", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, they headed in their profession but if it was with the understanding he'd get it back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3255.163], "stop_times": [3260.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.163}, "reply_to": "15154__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_104", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Not until --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3260.687], "stop_times": [3261.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3260.687}, "reply_to": "15154__1_103", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_105", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "With the exact amount, what good did it do to the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3261.214], "stop_times": [3264.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.214}, "reply_to": "15154__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_106", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, because they had it all that time as working capital.\nAll the time that the RFC loan was outstanding, the corporation had it as working capital and it was redeemed only when the purpose had been served, when the RFC loan was paid off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3264.505, 3268.409], "stop_times": [3268.409, 3279.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3264.505}, "reply_to": "15154__1_105", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_107", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "When was it paid off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3279.578], "stop_times": [3280.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3279.578}, "reply_to": "15154__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_108", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "1963.\nThe loan was paid off in 63 and at that time shortly thereafter, the preferred stock was redeemed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3280.583, 3284.502], "stop_times": [3284.502, 3290.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3280.583}, "reply_to": "15154__1_107", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_109", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The company owe anybody else, anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3290.544], "stop_times": [3293.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.544}, "reply_to": "15154__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_110", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The company did not owe any body else anything and the testimony was that the corporation had never borrowed any money since then from any body.\nIn other words, it was surplus money as the Solicitor General has said.\nThey didn't need the money.\nThere it was, they didn't need it so they redeemed the 60 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3293.183, 3303.161, 3307.039, 3309.097], "stop_times": [3303.161, 3307.039, 3309.097, 3311.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3293.183}, "reply_to": "15154__1_109", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_111", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Your argument sounds to me like you're saying he actually made a conditional loan of a stock to the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3311.19], "stop_times": [3318.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.19}, "reply_to": "15154__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_112", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "No, money, money Your Honor not stock, money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3318.102], "stop_times": [3321.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3318.102}, "reply_to": "15154__1_111", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_113", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Well, he actually -- he put money in there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3321.154], "stop_times": [3326.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3321.154}, "reply_to": "15154__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_114", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3326.96], "stop_times": [3328.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3326.96}, "reply_to": "15154__1_113", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_115", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "The same amount of money?\nThen got exactly the same amount of money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3328.075, 3330.685], "stop_times": [3330.685, 3332.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.075}, "reply_to": "15154__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_116", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "That's right, so I say he didn't have any income, because that's not income, he didn't make anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3332.857], "stop_times": [3339.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3332.857}, "reply_to": "15154__1_115", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_117", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But evidently he did, the company couldn't -- didn't the company make money during that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3339.086], "stop_times": [3343.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.086}, "reply_to": "15154__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_118", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Oh yes, oh yes, and his common stock became more valuable as a result of it and his wife's common stock and his children's common stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3343.883], "stop_times": [3350.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3343.883}, "reply_to": "15154__1_117", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_119", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "But by reason of his being fortunate or farsighted enough to get the --all kind of stock, he didn't loose it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3350.519], "stop_times": [3358.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3350.519}, "reply_to": "15154__1_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15154__1_120", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "He didn't loose anything else.\nThank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3358.254, 3362.978], "stop_times": [3362.978, 3363.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3358.254}, "reply_to": "15154__1_119", "speaker": "william_waller"}
{"id": "15154__1_121", "conversation_id": "15154", "text": "Thank you counsel, Mr. Solicitor General, do you have anything more?\nThe case is submitted gentlemen.\nThank you very much for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_282", "start_times": [3363.865, 3367.998, 3369.586], "stop_times": [3367.998, 3369.586, 3371.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.865}, "reply_to": "15154__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__0_000", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I think we are on 104, United States against Donnelly.\nMr. Zinn, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [0.0, 6.659], "stop_times": [6.659, 8.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__0_001", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis is a federal tax lien case here on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.\nIt involves the question whether a federal tax lien with respect to a parcel of improved real property, located in Livingston County, Michigan is prior to the interest in that property of subsequent purchases of the property.\nThe United States acquired its lien in 1950, when it secured a tax court judgment against Thomas Donnelly for some $26,000.00.\nWhen that judgment went unpaid, United States acquired a lien under Section 3670 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which appears at page 17 of our brief in the appendix and the lien arose in favor of the United States ?upon all property and rights to property whether real or personal belonging to such person.\nIn 1945 in this Court's decision in the Glass City Bank case, it was held that the lien of the United States under Section 3670 applies not only to a taxpayer's present property, but also to any after acquired property.\nTo ensure that its lien would be prior to the interest of subsequent purchases and others however, the United States must give due notice of the lien by filing a notice of the lien in accordance with the provisions of Section 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code, which also appear beginning on page 17 of our brief.\nSection 3672 provides that ?such lien shall not be valid as against any mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser or judgment creditor until notice thereof has been filed by the collector; one, in the office in which the filing of such notice is authorized by the law of the State or Territory in which the property subject to the lien is situated, whenever the State or Territory has by law authorized the filing of such notice in an office within the State or Territory; Or Two, in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the judicial district in which the property is subject to the lien is situated whenever the State or Territory has not by law authorized the filing of such notice in an office within the State or Territory.\n? In short, the question whether the United States is to file locally under Subdivision 1 of Section 3672 A or Subdivision 2 thereof, turns on whether the local law authorizes local filing.\nThe Michigan statute which purported to authorize local filing here appears on page 18 of our brief, and with respect to real property, it provides in the pre penultimate line on page 18 that a description of the land upon which a lien is claimed is to be included in the notice of the lien.\nThe consistent practice of the United States, however, is not to describe any property in a notice of lien but simply to file what is commonly referred to as a blanket notice of lien which merely re-echoes the provisions of Section 3670, names the taxpayer and specifies the amount of his indebtedness to the United States.\nIn United States against Union Central Life Insurance Company, decided by this Court in 1961, it was held that the Michigan law because of its description requirement did not authorize local filing and that the United States in that case had properly filed its notice of lien in the Federal District Court.\nQuoting from the opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 368 U.S. at 296, the Michigan law authorizing filing only if a description of the property was placed, was given, placed obstacles to the enforcement of federal tax liens that Congress had not permitted and consequently no state officer was quote ?authorized? for filing within the meaning of the federal statute.\nIt was therefore error for the Michigan courts to fail to give priority to the Government's lien here, notice of which had been filed in the District Court in accordance with federal law.\nAs in the Union Central case, the United States here filed its tax lien in the Eastern District Court for Michigan rather than would be local office of the recorder of deeds for Livingston County and the question is whether its filing was proper under Section 3672 of the 1939 Code.\nThe taxpayer, Thomas Donnelly, acquired the property in question here in 1949 by purchase with his wife as tenants by the entireties and it was held by the entireties until 1960 when Mrs. Donnelly died and by operation of law, Mr. Donnelly became a sole owner.\nShortly after Mrs. Donnelly's death, Mr. Donnelly sold the property to Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, who are the real parties in interest here.\nThe Carlsons where bona fide purchasers of the property, admittedly.\nThey had an abstract prepared by the Livingston County Abstract Office which covered only the local filings in Livingston County, Michigan, and with specifically accepted covering any filings that were made in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan.\nThe Attorneys, who passed upon the marketability of the title for the Carlsons, relied upon the abstract that had been prepared by the Livingston County Abstract Office and accordingly, they did not find notice of the federal tax lien that had been filed in the District Court.\nAfter the Carlsons purchased the property in 1960, the United States move to foreclose its tax lien, and the Carlsons objected.\nThey move for summary judgment in the District Court and summary judgment in their favor was granted.\nThe Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal without opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [8.706, 11.625, 19.771, 35.968, 48.05, 78.23, 96.338, 120.092, 171.736, 190.418, 217.819, 248.286, 273.268, 301.354, 313.676, 338.597, 359.733, 371.116, 376.642, 399.027, 418.888, 429.319, 435.267], "stop_times": [11.625, 19.771, 35.968, 48.05, 78.23, 96.338, 120.092, 171.736, 190.418, 217.819, 248.286, 273.268, 301.354, 313.676, 338.597, 359.733, 371.116, 376.642, 399.027, 418.888, 429.319, 435.267, 439.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.706}, "reply_to": "15184__0_000", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_002", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Is this a -- rather the unique situation is involved the States or just the -- elsewhere in the country to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [439.544], "stop_times": [452.371], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 439.544}, "reply_to": "15184__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15184__0_003", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "So far as description requirement, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [452.371], "stop_times": [454.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.371}, "reply_to": "15184__0_002", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_004", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No, so far as the position the Governments in this case [Inaudible] spoiled to that matter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [454.599], "stop_times": [461.963], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 454.599}, "reply_to": "15184__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15184__0_005", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "We don't think it is.\nThere are several hundreds of cases in Michigan alone which we think that the decision here would control and in addition as we pointed out in our brief, there are some 40,000 tax liens that might be cast in jeopardy in four other states, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts if the Court were to affirmed the judgment below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [461.963, 463.409], "stop_times": [463.409, 490.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.963}, "reply_to": "15184__0_004", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_006", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That is -- what is the tendency of Wisconsin [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [490.305], "stop_times": [496.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.305}, "reply_to": "15184__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__0_007", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I frankly don't know Your Honor.\nIt seems to us that they had every reason to do so as I hope to explain later on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [496.826, 499.021], "stop_times": [499.021, 504.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.826}, "reply_to": "15184__0_006", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_008", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But either pushing off some other if [Inaudible] to the lawyers the extent knowledge of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [504.743], "stop_times": [512.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.743}, "reply_to": "15184__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__0_009", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That's right.\nWe concede that they're bona fide purchasers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [512.488, 513.124], "stop_times": [513.124, 515.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.488}, "reply_to": "15184__0_008", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_010", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "It's been charged --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [515.352], "stop_times": [517.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.352}, "reply_to": "15184__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__0_011", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes sir, we do.\nWe say so because we think Union Central said so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [517.323, 519.019], "stop_times": [519.019, 521.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.323}, "reply_to": "15184__0_010", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_012", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [521.014], "stop_times": [523.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.014}, "reply_to": "15184__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__0_013", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [523.106], "stop_times": [523.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.106}, "reply_to": "15184__0_012", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_014", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, except that the -- there wasn't every reason to do so for the title searchers to do so at the time the search of this title was made, unless I misunderstand something here because of the existing decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [523.945], "stop_times": [542.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.945}, "reply_to": "15184__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_015", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "We think there was every reason for them to do so, even though they had the Youngblood decision as that the one that you're referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [542.913], "stop_times": [548.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.913}, "reply_to": "15184__0_014", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_016", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "As a matter of fact, yes in which -- and that was the law, so far as Michigan liens went at the time that this search was made, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [548.549], "stop_times": [559.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.549}, "reply_to": "15184__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_017", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I don't think it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [559.739], "stop_times": [561.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.739}, "reply_to": "15184__0_016", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_018", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What's the date of Union Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [561.904], "stop_times": [563.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.904}, "reply_to": "15184__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__0_019", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "1944, and Union Central held that a local register of deeds was not permitted to accept for filing a non-descriptive federal notice.\nMoreover, in 1945 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [563.25, 575.725], "stop_times": [575.725, 578.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.25}, "reply_to": "15184__0_018", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_020", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Did you say, the date of Union Central was 1944 municipal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [578.722], "stop_times": [582.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.722}, "reply_to": "15184__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__0_021", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The day of Youngblood --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [582.894], "stop_times": [584.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.894}, "reply_to": "15184__0_020", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_022", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Youngblood --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [584.07], "stop_times": [584.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.07}, "reply_to": "15184__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_023", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Was 1944.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [584.373], "stop_times": [585.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.373}, "reply_to": "15184__0_022", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_024", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [585.429], "stop_times": [586.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.429}, "reply_to": "15184__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_025", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "And Youngblood held that a local register of deeds was not entitled to accept for filing a non-descriptive federal notice.\nNow, went on -- that was the only issue in that case Your Honor.\nThe United States moved to mandamus to register of deeds at Wayne County there and the court did go on, we concede and quite clearly to say that the Michigan law wasn't authorized law within the meaning of Section 3672, but we would suggest that that was all dictum.\nThe only issue in that case was whether the United States was entitled to file a non-descriptive notice in the local Michigan courts.\nBut there are a number of other reasons why a title searcher in 1960 should have searched the federal files as well as the local files.\nOne year after the Youngblood was decided, this Court held in the Glass City Bank case that the United States tax lien under Section 3670 applied to after acquired property.\nNow obviously, after acquired property cannot be described in a notice which previously filed, so we think a reasonable lawyer or reasonable title searcher would well have been on notice as to the possibility of liens that federally filed.\nMoreover, in 1952 as we pointed out in our brief, an article appeared in the Michigan law review which said that lawyers should perhaps even need to check federal filings.\nIn 1958 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [586.576, 597.376, 602.317, 620.666, 629.792, 640.011, 653.008, 669.04, 681.379], "stop_times": [597.376, 602.317, 620.666, 629.792, 640.011, 653.008, 669.04, 681.379, 682.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.576}, "reply_to": "15184__0_024", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_026", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "On what grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [682.903], "stop_times": [684.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.903}, "reply_to": "15184__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_027", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "On the ground that Glass City Bank and the ground that the statute and legislative history as construed by the Sixth Circuit was just construed wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [684.282], "stop_times": [693.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.282}, "reply_to": "15184__0_026", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_028", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "On the ground that that decision might be wrong unless --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [693.86], "stop_times": [696.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.86}, "reply_to": "15184__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_029", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [696.109], "stop_times": [696.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.109}, "reply_to": "15184__0_028", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_030", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- some day be overruled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [696.509], "stop_times": [698.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.509}, "reply_to": "15184__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_031", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, I don't know overruled.\nAs I say, we view the remainder of the opinion in Youngblood beyond the point where the Court held that a federal non-descriptive notice was not on top to filing as dictum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [698.177, 700.378], "stop_times": [700.378, 711.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.177}, "reply_to": "15184__0_030", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_032", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [711.92], "stop_times": [712.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.92}, "reply_to": "15184__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_033", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Now, I can see that the Court made it quite clear that it was reaffirming its decision in the Maniaci case, but nevertheless was dictum.\nGlass City and Youngblood, it seems to us cannot stand together and Glass City was decided only a year after Youngblood.\nThe Wright article in 1952, we think suggested that a problem existed, and in 1958 in the Rasmussen case, the Eighth Circuit reached exactly the contrary conclusion from the conclusion which the Sixth Circuit had reached in its dictum in Youngblood.\nAnd so, by the time the Carlsons purchase this property in 1960, it seems to us it was clear enough that there was a problem and we don't say that the law was clear.\nWe do say that there was confusion and we think this confusion was recognized by title searchers in Michigan and that is the reason why they accepted from the abstract to get themselves off the hook from federal filings.\nAll of these reasons we think undercut the argument that the Carlsons made that they justifiably relied on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [712.105, 720.097, 727.503, 746.833, 758.008, 772.848], "stop_times": [720.097, 727.503, 746.833, 758.008, 772.848, 782.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.105}, "reply_to": "15184__0_032", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_034", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "It would not in terms of the hardship or the good faith, would not the exception in the title opinion for the reasonable person on notice that there might be an inquiry to be made at the District Court clerk's office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [782.24], "stop_times": [800.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.24}, "reply_to": "15184__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__0_035", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "We think it would, but respondents tell us that everybody did it the other way and nobody paid attention to the federal filings.\nOur position here is where they are asking that Union Central be applied prospectively only is it they have to show some real justifiable reliance to warrant an exception to the general rule applied by this Court that its decisions apply retrospectively as well as prospectively and we don't think they have.\nIndeed, the mortgagee in the Union Central case was in precisely the same position as the Carlsons where here.\nThey couldn't have known that Youngblood was going to be discredited by this Court, but there is no hint in Mr. Justice Black's opinion that that decision was to be prospective only.\nRegarding this question of prospectiveness versus retroactivity, we have reviewed the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [800.007, 806.933, 826.884, 834.243, 849.337], "stop_times": [806.933, 826.884, 834.243, 849.337, 856.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 800.007}, "reply_to": "15184__0_034", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_036", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "May I ask you Mr. Zinn, notice requirement is still at the filing in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [856.862], "stop_times": [862.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.862}, "reply_to": "15184__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15184__0_037", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Either the District Court Your Honor or locally --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [862.453], "stop_times": [864.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.453}, "reply_to": "15184__0_036", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_038", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "In other words, it flows the same today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [864.829], "stop_times": [866.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.829}, "reply_to": "15184__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15184__0_039", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, for all practical purposes, although at some of more complicated as almost provisions of the Internal Revenue Code now.\nThere have been several amendments --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [866.439, 873.034], "stop_times": [873.034, 874.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.439}, "reply_to": "15184__0_038", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_040", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I would not make to vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [874.143], "stop_times": [875.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.143}, "reply_to": "15184__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15184__0_041", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Eh --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [875.054], "stop_times": [875.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.054}, "reply_to": "15184__0_040", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_042", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I would not ready to vote", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [875.546], "stop_times": [878.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.546}, "reply_to": "15184__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__0_043", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Ah --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [878.751], "stop_times": [881.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.751}, "reply_to": "15184__0_042", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_044", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But the Michigan laws now have been changed, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [881.648], "stop_times": [883.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.648}, "reply_to": "15184__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_045", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, it was changed in August of 1956 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [883.399], "stop_times": [886.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.399}, "reply_to": "15184__0_044", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_046", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [886.418], "stop_times": [886.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.418}, "reply_to": "15184__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_047", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- at which time, Michigan adopted the Uniform Tax Lien Registration Act.\nIn addition to the justifiable reliance point, the Court in its decision in the Linkletter case and the progeny of that case largely in the criminal area in deciding whether decision should be applied prospectively only or retroactively.\nAnd more recently in Cipriano against City of Houma, voting rights case, have looked to three factors to determine whether the decision should be retroactive or not.\nThe first as we have mentioned is justifiable reliance and for the reasons I've outlined, we don't think that the Carlsons could have justifiably relied.\nThe second factor is whether the purpose of the new rule would be frustrated, if the decision were applied prospectively only.\nAnd here, we think it would because as a result of the change in the Michigan law to which Mr. Justice Stewart referred, there will be no other cases probably that govern by Union Central and Union Central will stand by itself as one and only decision having no application outside of its four corners.\nFinally, the Court has looked to whether the affect of holding a decision prospective in the criminal area whether the affect of that would impair the administration of criminal justice and it seems to us that the analogy here is what it would do to other federal tax liens and again as I've noted it, it would cast cloud on some 40,000 of them.\nSo for all of these reasons, we don't think Union Central can be considered a prospective only decision that it is clearly governing here.\nThe same law was construed by this Court, only eight years ago, and it was held not to authorize a federal filing.\nI might add that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [886.967, 892.188, 910.188, 920.882, 929.896, 938.127, 958.465, 981.905, 990.301, 997.609], "stop_times": [892.188, 910.188, 920.882, 929.896, 938.127, 958.465, 981.905, 990.301, 997.609, 998.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.967}, "reply_to": "15184__0_046", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_048", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "When did the Court first told that you can file on prospectively only?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [998.376], "stop_times": [1006.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.376}, "reply_to": "15184__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__0_049", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "When did the first -- yes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1006.123], "stop_times": [1007.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.123}, "reply_to": "15184__0_048", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_050", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What was that case?\nWhat date, do you remember?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1007.767, 1010.674], "stop_times": [1010.674, 1014.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.767}, "reply_to": "15184__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__0_051", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, the early -- one of the earliest cases would be the Georgia -- Chicot County case, but as I say, I think that since Linkletter in 1965, the courts been faced with the series of problems, largely in the criminal area but more recently in Cipriano against City of Houma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1014.17], "stop_times": [1031.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.17}, "reply_to": "15184__0_050", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_052", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, Linkletter was after the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1031.895], "stop_times": [1033.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.895}, "reply_to": "15184__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__0_053", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1033.909], "stop_times": [1034.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1033.909}, "reply_to": "15184__0_052", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_054", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- Union Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1034.902], "stop_times": [1036.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.902}, "reply_to": "15184__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__0_055", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1036.083], "stop_times": [1036.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.083}, "reply_to": "15184__0_054", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_056", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But in civil cases and particularly in cases involving property rights in reliance, the several cases that Chicot County Gray district case, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1036.905], "stop_times": [1047.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.905}, "reply_to": "15184__0_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_057", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1047.676], "stop_times": [1048.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.676}, "reply_to": "15184__0_056", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_058", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- was long before the Union Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1048.125], "stop_times": [1050.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.125}, "reply_to": "15184__0_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_059", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That's true Your Honor.\nBut that case, it seems to us was a largely based on considerations of res judicata, the parties and interest there having themselves litigated the case, whereas here the Carlsons admitted they where not parties to the Union Central decision.\nAnd we don't think that the considerations are all the same, and in any event, we don't think the reliance was justifiable for the reasons I've outlined.\nI might say that the Carlsons did have a terrible problem here, but so does the Internal Revenue Service in filing in his liens.\nIn the Maniaci case which was decided by the Sixth Circuit in 1940, the United States filed its lien both federally and locally, and its interest was still held subordinate to the interest of a subsequent bona fide purchaser.\nIn Union Central, in Youngblood rather, it tried to file its notice federally and it was held that it was not entitled to file its notice federally and here again, it has done so.\nThe Sixth Circuit, it seems to us has held that no matter what the United States does to file a federal tax lien, whether it would be local or federal, it cannot prevail.\nThe court below -- the District Court in addition to relying on its prospectivity argument also found that Union Central was distinguishable.\nIt said that there was an unsuccessful filing attempt in the Union Central case with the local register of deeds.\nThat is not the case so far as the opinion of this Court and the record show, although it was stipulated in that case, that the Oakland County register of deeds had a policy of not accepting non-descriptive federal filings.\nThe point the District Court seems to make is that had the United States' attempted to file federally or locally, it would have been accepted by the register of deeds here, and therefore this would have given notice to the Carlsons.\nWe don't know if that's the case or not because the United States did file a non-descriptive notice in Maniaci and it was held that the subsequent purchases nevertheless prevail.\nMoreover, the law as expounded by the Michigan Attorney General in 1953 in his decision that federal non-descriptive notices were not entitled to be filed locally was nothing new.\nIf I may quote from the decision in Youngblood in 1944, ?No ambiguity in here is in the Michigan statute.\nIts mandate that the notice of lien shall contain a description of the land is unmistakable and the authority of the register of deeds, a ministerial officer, is clearly limited to the recordation of only such notices of United States tax liens as comply with the requirements of the statute.\n? This is what the Sixth Circuit held in 1944, and this is what the Attorney General held in his opinion in 1953.\nIt was nothing new.\nThe question is not whether a local register of deeds would or would not have accepted a non-descriptive federal filing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1050.007, 1051.058, 1066.503, 1074.645, 1083.139, 1097.785, 1109.091, 1124.468, 1135.462, 1144.264, 1160.961, 1176.141, 1185.84, 1204.247, 1212.28, 1232.015, 1239.518, 1240.956], "stop_times": [1051.058, 1066.503, 1074.645, 1083.139, 1097.785, 1109.091, 1124.468, 1135.462, 1144.264, 1160.961, 1176.141, 1185.84, 1204.247, 1212.28, 1232.015, 1239.518, 1240.956, 1249.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.007}, "reply_to": "15184__0_058", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_060", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What are the -- you did file a -- you did make a non-descriptive federal filing in Wayne County, Michigan --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1249.765], "stop_times": [1254.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.765}, "reply_to": "15184__0_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_061", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "In Wayne County, Michigan, yes.\nYes, we did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1254.139, 1256.206], "stop_times": [1256.206, 1256.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.139}, "reply_to": "15184__0_060", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_062", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- and accepted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1256.392], "stop_times": [1257.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.392}, "reply_to": "15184__0_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_063", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1257.424], "stop_times": [1258.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.424}, "reply_to": "15184__0_062", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__0_064", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- by the register?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1258.212], "stop_times": [1259.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.212}, "reply_to": "15184__0_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__0_065", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Apparently contrary to what the clear law of Michigan was as construed by this Court by the Sixth Circuit in the Youngblood case.\nBut the point is that whether a filing would or would not have been accepted is not the issue.\nThe question is whether the local law authorized a filing on the basis and on the conditions that the Michigan statute plainly imposed and that question was answered by this Court in the Union Central case, in the negative.\nWe think that Union Central is controlling here and that the judgment below must therefore be reversed on the authority of Union Central.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1259.575, 1266.661, 1272.719, 1287.48], "stop_times": [1266.661, 1272.719, 1287.48, 1302.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.575}, "reply_to": "15184__0_064", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__1_000", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Chief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1302.62], "stop_times": [1302.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1302.62}, "reply_to": "15184__0_065", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_001", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Pevos?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1302.673], "stop_times": [1303.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.673}, "reply_to": "15184__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_002", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nAs my learned colleague indicated, this is really the case, the United States versus Oscar and Genevieve Carlson and not the estate of Donnelly who has been dead now for some six years, and who would care less as to what the outcome of this matter is.\nBut as indicated, the home of the respondent Carlson stands in jeopardy of some $36,000.00 in tax liability of the late Mr. Donnelly whose relationship with Carlson was merely that of seller to buyer and Carlson is the admitted --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1303.59, 1307.133, 1322.958], "stop_times": [1307.133, 1322.958, 1345.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1303.59}, "reply_to": "15184__1_001", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_003", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Would you mind talking the other.\nWhy is it the Michigan [Inaudible] to the lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1345.045, 1346.851], "stop_times": [1346.851, 1352.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.045}, "reply_to": "15184__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_004", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Justice Brennan, in 1923 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1352.178], "stop_times": [1357.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1352.178}, "reply_to": "15184__1_003", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_005", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "In fact, this was his contemplation that is I guess, it is just ordinarily.\nYou just avoid that when you a private search you want with satisfied at the District Court for -- with the rest of local county court with secretary of state or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1357.739, 1363.066], "stop_times": [1363.066, 1375.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.739}, "reply_to": "15184__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_006", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, perhaps my learned colleague didn't quite make it clear is to what the Internal Revenue Code Section 3670 or as presently Section 6323 (A) provided that notice of the lien, in order to be effective against subsequent purchasers, mortgagees, etcetera would be filed would be filed with the local office if the local office had designated -- if the state had designated such a local office and then provided that in the event the state had not designated such a local office then the federal filing would be applicable.\nAs a matter of fact, in the State of Michigan since August of 1956, there has not been a federal filing because at that time, Michigan adopted the Uniform Federal Tax Lien Registration Act and brought itself into line with the probably all the other 50 States with the exception of the states now that the Government contends has adopted a bad form, I think, four states where named by my learned colleague.\nBut once the State has designated such a local office for the filing of a federal tax lien notice, then there is no requirement of filing these with the Federal Government and the Federal Government --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1375.084, 1412.074, 1441.155], "stop_times": [1412.074, 1441.155, 1454.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1375.084}, "reply_to": "15184__1_005", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_007", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "We didn't have that, is it not?\nIt is the Whiteman-Olsen case or the Whiteman against United States court order after that they would -- every part", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1454.31, 1456.83], "stop_times": [1456.83, 1468.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.31}, "reply_to": "15184__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_008", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1468.611], "stop_times": [1468.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1468.611}, "reply_to": "15184__1_007", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_009", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I wonder that part merely did not obtain this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1468.758], "stop_times": [1472.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.758}, "reply_to": "15184__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_010", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I don't believe that obtains in most states Mr. Justice because most states have adopted the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1472.054], "stop_times": [1478.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1472.054}, "reply_to": "15184__1_009", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_011", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "In New Jersey almost a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1478.069], "stop_times": [1480.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.069}, "reply_to": "15184__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_012", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "This maybe so, but in those States that have a state law designating the place to file a federal tax lien notice, the notices are filed in that state office, and not with the clerk of the federal court which was the problem of Michigan -- yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1480.684], "stop_times": [1496.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1480.684}, "reply_to": "15184__1_011", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_013", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Excuse me, go ahead finish your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1496.873], "stop_times": [1499.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.873}, "reply_to": "15184__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_014", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, they are not filed with the federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1499.363], "stop_times": [1502.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.363}, "reply_to": "15184__1_013", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_015", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What's your hypothesis as to why the title attorney would put an exception indicating that he had not searched for the federal tax land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1502.29], "stop_times": [1509.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.29}, "reply_to": "15184__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_016", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well Mr. Chief Justice, I don't think that the fact was correctly stated by my learned colleague.\nIn 1944 as had been indicated, the Youngblood case was announced by the Circuit Court of -- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and as a matter of fact, there was never any attempt on the part of the Government to even ask for certiorari of that case.\nSo from 1944 on, as far as practitioners were concern in the State of Michigan, the Youngblood case represented the highest interpretation of the validity of the Michigan Recording Act and the Michigan Recording Act designated a local office for the filing of federal tax liens.\nNow, this Court in its wisdom in the Union Central case in 1961, decided that this particular Michigan Act was invalid as to the facts involved in that case because of that one Clause in the Michigan Act which required the Government to put a description of land in the notice that they where filing.\nBut until this Court made that pronouncement in the end of 1961, as far as practitioner's were concerned in the State of Michigan, notwithstanding a Leonard Law Review article and the few other people that may have had some doubts about the Youngblood case, the Youngblood case was the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1509.465, 1516.533, 1532.984, 1552.922, 1574.411], "stop_times": [1516.533, 1532.984, 1552.922, 1574.411, 1591.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1509.465}, "reply_to": "15184__1_015", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_017", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What was the date of the opinion, the title opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1591.684], "stop_times": [1594.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.684}, "reply_to": "15184__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_018", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The title opinion in this case Mr. Chief Justice was in either July or August of 1960.\nThe purchase was shortly thereafter and the purchase was consummated approximately 16 months before the decision of this Court in the Union Central case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1594.254, 1601.412], "stop_times": [1601.412, 1611.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1594.254}, "reply_to": "15184__1_017", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_019", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But something led the title examiner, the title searcher to draw attention to the federal tax lien problem, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1611.208], "stop_times": [1619.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.208}, "reply_to": "15184__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_020", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice.\nLet me explain.\nIn a state that has a version of the Uniform Federal Tax Lien Registration Act, all these notices must be filed, federal notices must be filed in the local office.\nSo, if a state has the Uniform Act, the title company is not going to go to the federal office to check for tax liens because the liens aren't going to be there.\nAs I indicate since August 1956 in Michigan, there has not been federal tax lien notices filed with the federal court.\nThey have all been filed with the registers of deeds in the counties because Michigan at that time went into line with the rest of the states and adopted the Uniform Recording Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1619.561, 1621.05, 1622.802, 1634.144, 1645.115, 1654.047], "stop_times": [1621.05, 1622.802, 1634.144, 1645.115, 1654.047, 1662.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.561}, "reply_to": "15184__1_019", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_021", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But why that would -- why then as Mr. Chief Justice asked would you put in this exception of the title here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1662.619], "stop_times": [1668.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.619}, "reply_to": "15184__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_022", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Because the title company would be justified in relying on the records of the registered deeds office Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1668.971], "stop_times": [1676.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.971}, "reply_to": "15184__1_021", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_023", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What did the exception say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1676.923], "stop_times": [1678.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.923}, "reply_to": "15184__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_024", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The exception said that this abstract of title does not -- excuse me, this abstract of title covers, matters on file in the office of the register of deeds for Livingston County, Michigan.\nIt does not contain matters of record in the circuit federal or probate courts.\nIf an examination of these matters is required an extra charge will be made or words to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1678.557, 1690.689, 1696.772], "stop_times": [1690.689, 1696.772, 1702.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.557}, "reply_to": "15184__1_023", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_025", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Didn't mention taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1702.432], "stop_times": [1704.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.432}, "reply_to": "15184__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_026", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No.\nIt just said federal courts -- the State Circuit Courts and probate courts.\nIn other words, it didn't single out the federal tax liens as a something to disregard I'll say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1704.549, 1704.684, 1708.893], "stop_times": [1704.684, 1708.893, 1717.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.549}, "reply_to": "15184__1_025", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_027", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Would it that something in this regard the judgments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1717.218], "stop_times": [1719.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.218}, "reply_to": "15184__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_028", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That is correct.\nIn other words, if a judgment was entered in the Circuit Court which may have affected land unless the parties to that suit saw that their judgment was filed with the register of deeds, then the abstract company wasn't going to pick it up.\nIn an affect under Michigan law, there'd be a question whether BFP would be affected by such judgment without that recording.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1719.584, 1720.312, 1731.703], "stop_times": [1720.312, 1731.703, 1738.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.584}, "reply_to": "15184__1_027", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_029", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Or is the title opinion in the appendix somewhere or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1738.732], "stop_times": [1742.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.732}, "reply_to": "15184__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_030", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Ah, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1742.203], "stop_times": [1743.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.203}, "reply_to": "15184__1_029", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_031", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Where is this disclaimer or caveat appear in the record we have before us here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1743.335], "stop_times": [1749.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.335}, "reply_to": "15184__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_032", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I believe, it is in the appendix, I believe Mr. Justice Stewart.\nBut I believe, it's in the argument portion, the abstract itself was not appended to the record in the lower court and it's not part of -- it's not an exhibit in this particular matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1749.884, 1757.634], "stop_times": [1757.634, 1770.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.884}, "reply_to": "15184__1_031", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_033", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I just want to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1770.563], "stop_times": [1770.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.563}, "reply_to": "15184__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_034", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But I believe that it was read to the trial court during argument and it would appear in the appendix under the record of the decision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1770.926], "stop_times": [1777.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.926}, "reply_to": "15184__1_033", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_035", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "During the colloquy here somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1777.918], "stop_times": [1779.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.918}, "reply_to": "15184__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_036", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1779.127], "stop_times": [1779.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.127}, "reply_to": "15184__1_035", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_037", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I just wondered how --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1779.827], "stop_times": [1780.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.827}, "reply_to": "15184__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_038", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1780.609], "stop_times": [1781.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.609}, "reply_to": "15184__1_037", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_039", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "How we know how my brothers know this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1781.615], "stop_times": [1783.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.615}, "reply_to": "15184__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_040", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, that appears that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1783.779], "stop_times": [1785.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.779}, "reply_to": "15184__1_039", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_041", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "This one will appear in the opinion, in the title opinion.\nIt's somewhere here in the appendix in the colloquy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1785.121, 1788.578], "stop_times": [1788.578, 1790.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.121}, "reply_to": "15184__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_042", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, in the colloquy between counsel and the Court, yes sir.\nMy learned colleague also has ignored the fact that in the spring of 1961, which was approximately eight months after the Carlsons bought the property in Livingston County.\nThe Government filed notices of tax lien with the register of deeds in Livingston County and the register of deeds in Genesee County, Michigan.\nNow, the late Mr. Donnelly was a resident of Wayne County and it's admitted that in 1950 when the day before the federal tax lien notice was filed with the federal court, a filing was made and accepted by the Wayne County, Michigan, register of deeds, the county in which Donnelly resided.\nThe filings in 1961, eight months after the Carlsons' purchase were eight months before the Union Central case.\nNow, the Government says that these filings don't mean anything, that they're superfluous, but the question here involves the whether this Court should consider the Union Central case to be prospective or retroactive and if the Government was confused as to its responsibility of filing notices with the register of deeds then Mr. Carlson certainly have no more knowledge than the Government of what this Court would do months later in the Union Central case.\nThe Government filed locally if there was no requirement or if it didn't feel that it had a requirement of filing locally, it could have relied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1790.611, 1796.384, 1812.185, 1821.752, 1842.319, 1854.035, 1885.035], "stop_times": [1796.384, 1812.185, 1821.752, 1842.319, 1854.035, 1885.035, 1894.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.611}, "reply_to": "15184__1_041", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_043", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "When did you say that Government filed with the relation of decision in the Union Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1894.376], "stop_times": [1898.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.376}, "reply_to": "15184__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_044", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The Union Central was in December of 1961.\nThis property was purchased in August of 1960.\nAbout half way between the time of purchase and the time of the Union Central decision, the Government took a notice of lien and filed it in Livingston County, the very same county where this property is located, but it was months after Carlson bought the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1898.417, 1902.276, 1905.856], "stop_times": [1902.276, 1905.856, 1922.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.417}, "reply_to": "15184__1_043", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_045", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That was for some other lien arising from some other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1922.002], "stop_times": [1925.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.002}, "reply_to": "15184__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_046", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No.\nIt was the same lien Mr. Justice, the same lien against Donnelly from 1950.\nThey just took the notice out to that county.\nNow in practice, if a man lives in a county, the state has a valid reporting law and they will normally file that lien in the county of residence.\nBut if the Internal Revenue Service becomes aware of the fact that the man has property in another county, they will take a similar notice to that other county and file at the register of deeds.\nWell they became aware in 1961 that Mr. Donnelly may have had property in Livingston County, they filed a notice of that time, but that filing didn't help the Carlsons because they have purchase the property and paid the money and that was it.\nBut --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1925.291, 1925.482, 1930.334, 1932.634, 1941.806, 1950.465, 1965.049], "stop_times": [1925.482, 1930.334, 1932.634, 1941.806, 1950.465, 1965.049, 1965.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.291}, "reply_to": "15184__1_045", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_047", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Your point, your point is it didn't help the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1965.608], "stop_times": [1968.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.608}, "reply_to": "15184__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_048", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, it didn't help the Government, but it showed that the Government was no -- had no greater idea of what the end result of this confusion of Michigan law, because of perhaps the Youngblood case, then the Carlsons had.\nThe Carlsons and their Attorneys relied on an abstract, this was a pre exception.\nIt was not something that the abstract company single out for the Carlsons.\nThis exception appeared in each and every page of every abstract issued by this Livingston County office.\nNow, the Michigan statute that this Court construed in the Union Central case was on the books in the State of Michigan for approximately 36 years before it was repealed in 1956.\nAt the time of the Union Central case, the Michigan statute had been in the books almost 40 years.\nThe Youngblood case was the highest pronouncement of law at that time, the time that Carlsons' purchase.\nAnd as the trial court and as affirmed by the Court of Appeals believed the statute, the Michigan statute, had every appearance of being upheld.\nThis Court had a situation before it in the Union Central case where the -- in 1953, the Michigan Attorney General rendered an opinion saying that from that time on, the register of deeds couldn't take federal notices without a legal description.\nAnd in the Union Central case, it says from the time of that opinion until 1956, which was the repeal date of that Michigan statute, it was construed by this Court, the register of deeds would not accept federal tax lien noticed.\nAnd the trial court, and we concur, found that this Court made its interpretation of the 1923 Michigan statute in light of the facts which existed between 1953 and 1956.\nAnd that this Court did not intend in the Union Central case to go back 30 years and strike out the entire series of transactions and filings in Michigan for a 30-year period.\nAt the very most, this Court talked about a three-year period.\nThe Carlsons' purchase -- the lien in this matter was filed in 1950 at the time before the facts which were referred to in Union Central occurred and the trial court distinguished this case from the Union Central case.\nBut the trial court went on further with the decision in the Chicot County case and the other decisions of this case indicating that where vested rights are involved that this Court may, in those circumstances, determine that the -- it's decisions will be prospective rather than retrospective as to the effects of transactions which occurred before the decision of this Court.\nNow, I grant you the Government argues in this case that the Chicot case and the Rockaway New Supply Company case and the Linkletter case, all dealt with other areas.\nBut the premise is there and that if rights become vested that this Court has a right to make such a determination that these rights shall not be affected by a decision, and these decisions should not be retroactive where the affect would be such as it is in this Carlson case.\nThe Government is well able to protect itself in tax lien matters and has shown the ability to protect itself.\nThis Court should keep in mind in deciding whether to make the Union Central case retrospective as far as the Carlsons are concerned, the fact that the tax liens where filed in 1950, the foreclosure was not filed until December 30, 1966, almost four years after Donnelly died during which time the assets of Donnelly, if he had any could of have dissipated.\nAnd 16 years, almost 17 years, after the tax lien notices where filed during which time, they were two extensions of Donnelly's liability, one extension which we don't admit that validity of was signed after Donnelly sold this property to the Carlsons.\nSo in other words, Donnelly in 1961 signed an extension agreement with the Government continuing that liability for another fiver years and he didn't own the property anymore.\nNow, this issue was not litigated in lower court, but it shows the equities of the situation in this matter and the equities are basically what the trial court in the Court of Appeals felt should be considered in whether or not this Court should be retrospective or prospective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [1968.541, 1981.787, 1986.119, 1990.212, 1998.923, 2016.425, 2022.263, 2029.749, 2042.976, 2060.992, 2077.077, 2092.579, 2105.783, 2111.015, 2125.046, 2155.259, 2168.784, 2190.559, 2200.767, 2231.018, 2248.895, 2261.277], "stop_times": [1981.787, 1986.119, 1990.212, 1998.923, 2016.425, 2022.263, 2029.749, 2042.976, 2060.992, 2077.077, 2092.579, 2105.783, 2111.015, 2125.046, 2155.259, 2168.784, 2190.559, 2200.767, 2231.018, 2248.895, 2261.277, 2279.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.541}, "reply_to": "15184__1_047", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_049", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What are the equities any different really for a man who got in this predicament after the holding in Union Central, if he did not exercise the cautious approach and check with the federal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2279.013], "stop_times": [2299.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.013}, "reply_to": "15184__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_050", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well Mr. Chief Justice, I would not defend the same position of the man who after Union Central, it becomes a law of the land, would go ahead and buy piece of property without inquiring it to the question of whether the notice was property recorded.\nAs far the Union Central is the law of the land, as far as that is concerned, we're not taking the position that there can be any argument at that point.\nThis is exactly the point that I would like to make in regard to this scare tactic that I feel the Government has used here.\nI'm talking about the affect on 40,000 titles in four other states other than the State of Michigan.\nEach of the statutes involved in that situation was adopted after the Union Central case.\nSo if property purchasers, lawyers, title examiners, etcetera, in the four states concern, went to determine the relative effects of their statutes, they have Union Central to look at.\nThey don't have a case on the books for 15 years that says just the opposite of the Union Central, which was the case in Michigan with the Youngblood, that on appeal from the decision of the second highest court, deciding that the Michigan had a valid statute.\nIllinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, these are post Union Central statutes and I say that the people in those states should let the chips fall where they may, but the Government shouldn't use this decision as a way of litigating the validity of the statutes in these four states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2299.801, 2318.066, 2327.549, 2335.168, 2341.44, 2348.589, 2363.118, 2379.59], "stop_times": [2318.066, 2327.549, 2335.168, 2341.44, 2348.589, 2363.118, 2379.59, 2399.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.801}, "reply_to": "15184__1_049", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_051", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Have you read the briefs in the Union Central case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2399.726], "stop_times": [2403.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.726}, "reply_to": "15184__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__1_052", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Not all of them Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2403.148], "stop_times": [2404.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.148}, "reply_to": "15184__1_051", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_053", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "You know whether anyone suggests any possibility of prospective application or retrospective application as distinguished from one another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2404.684], "stop_times": [2414.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.684}, "reply_to": "15184__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__1_054", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I cannot answer that truthfully.\nI do not know that this issue was raised in that case Mr. Justice.\nI -- the Union Central seemed to be rather unique case at the time.\nMichigan is the only state that had that particular section at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2414.43, 2416.593, 2421.826, 2429.025], "stop_times": [2416.593, 2421.826, 2429.025, 2431.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.43}, "reply_to": "15184__1_053", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_055", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I haven't read the briefs recently, but I do not recall any such question came up in any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2431.953], "stop_times": [2438.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.953}, "reply_to": "15184__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__1_056", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2438.017], "stop_times": [2438.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.017}, "reply_to": "15184__1_055", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_057", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- point in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2438.206], "stop_times": [2439.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.206}, "reply_to": "15184__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__1_058", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I don't believe that the issue was raised.\nI believe that the trial court and the Court of Appeals here has the question before of the situation that occurred before this Court's decision and whether this Court's decision should be made retroactive or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2439.44, 2441.367], "stop_times": [2441.367, 2453.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.44}, "reply_to": "15184__1_057", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_059", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Tell me Mr. Pevos?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2453.765], "stop_times": [2454.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.765}, "reply_to": "15184__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_060", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2454.664], "stop_times": [2455.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.664}, "reply_to": "15184__1_059", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_061", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "If Union Central is held to be retroactive, would the Carlson include?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2455.78], "stop_times": [2463.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.78}, "reply_to": "15184__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_062", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The Carlsons will be faced with a $36,000.00 foreclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2463.272], "stop_times": [2468.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.272}, "reply_to": "15184__1_061", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_063", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "To include?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2468.341], "stop_times": [2470.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.341}, "reply_to": "15184__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__1_064", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That is right.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2470.501, 2472.096], "stop_times": [2472.096, 2472.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.501}, "reply_to": "15184__1_063", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_065", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, I thought that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2472.416], "stop_times": [2474.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.416}, "reply_to": "15184__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_066", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2474.84], "stop_times": [2475.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.84}, "reply_to": "15184__1_065", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_067", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- you have other claims before the District Court, but that Court did not reach because it decided the case on this issue, but even if the Union Central is retroactive, it would be, in my understanding that you had other claims, peculiar perhaps to your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2475.135], "stop_times": [2494.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.135}, "reply_to": "15184__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_068", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2494.506], "stop_times": [2496.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.506}, "reply_to": "15184__1_067", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_069", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "And even if we should hold that Union Central decision is fully retroactive, then our actions should be in your submission, we should remand the case for the courts to turn their attention with the other -- to your other claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2496.531], "stop_times": [2514.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.531}, "reply_to": "15184__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15184__1_070", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "This would be correct Mr. Justice.\nI misspoke myself.\nBut, we have among other things that we -- Mr. Justice, we contest some of the factual allegations such as the signing of extensions.\nWe don't know whether the amount shown is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2514.638, 2516.545, 2517.931, 2529.298], "stop_times": [2516.545, 2517.931, 2529.298, 2531.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.638}, "reply_to": "15184__1_069", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_071", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Is it a fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2531.559], "stop_times": [2532.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.559}, "reply_to": "15184__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__1_072", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "There are factual issues.\nThis was up on summary judgment before the District Court, Mr. Justice.\nWe do have the issue that I mentioned as to the validity of the signing of an extension after the property is sold by the taxpayer.0\nThere's been no precedent on this in the -- by this Court or for that matter by any other court that I can find and the issue was not litigated before and would have to be litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2532.734, 2533.669, 2538.319, 2546.957], "stop_times": [2533.669, 2538.319, 2546.957, 2562.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.734}, "reply_to": "15184__1_071", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_073", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Wasn't it noted in the Union Central case here that the Court in Union Central was viewing a decision of the State Supreme Court of Michigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2562.308], "stop_times": [2574.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.308}, "reply_to": "15184__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_074", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That is right Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2574.506], "stop_times": [2575.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.506}, "reply_to": "15184__1_073", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_075", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "And it was recited here that the Michigan decision was in conflict with the Court of Appeals' decision in the Eighth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2575.672], "stop_times": [2583.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.672}, "reply_to": "15184__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_076", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That is correct, but the time sequence would indicate that the Michigan decision was after the Carlsons' purchase and it came to this Court after the Carlsons' purchase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2583.223], "stop_times": [2593.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.223}, "reply_to": "15184__1_075", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_077", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But the -- I would take that the Union Central case had been in litigation for some time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2593.36], "stop_times": [2599.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.36}, "reply_to": "15184__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_078", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No.\nThe -- in the state of Michigan, only at that time, only the Supreme Court decisions were printed.\nI cannot say when the Circuit Court litigation which was involved initially in the Union Central case was actually filed.\nBut my recollection is that it was brought before the Michigan Supreme Court for a decision which became known to the public in 1961 and when the Michigan Court ruled against the Government, certiorari was granted by this Court and case heard also that year, all of these events were after the Carlsons' purchase.\nThere was no knowledge in their part or for that matter by the bar in general that this issue was going to be litigated by this Court in 1961.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2599.638, 2600.499, 2607.729, 2615.871, 2636.053], "stop_times": [2600.499, 2607.729, 2615.871, 2636.053, 2645.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.638}, "reply_to": "15184__1_077", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_079", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Was there anyway for it to acquire Donnelly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2645.173], "stop_times": [2651.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.173}, "reply_to": "15184__1_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_080", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Only by word of mouth Mr. Justice.\nAs I say at that time, the only Michigan decisions that were printed were the Supreme Court.\nNow, there is a intermediate appeals court in Michigan where they have printed decisions, they did not have that court at that time.\nSo the Michigan Supreme Court decision was printed in 1961 which was again as I say, after the Carlsons' purchase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2651.969, 2655.244, 2660.566, 2666.006], "stop_times": [2655.244, 2660.566, 2666.006, 2673.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.969}, "reply_to": "15184__1_079", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_081", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But it was decided in 1960?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2673.762], "stop_times": [2676.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.762}, "reply_to": "15184__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_082", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I believe it was decided in 1961 Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2676.188], "stop_times": [2678.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.188}, "reply_to": "15184__1_081", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_083", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But the Union Central by --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2678.017], "stop_times": [2680.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.017}, "reply_to": "15184__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_084", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "That was decided in December of 1961, and I believe that the Michigan --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2680.572], "stop_times": [2684.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.572}, "reply_to": "15184__1_083", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_085", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No, but in the Michigan Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2684.141], "stop_times": [2685.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.141}, "reply_to": "15184__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_086", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The Michigan Court if I recall, was in the early part of 1961.\nIt was after the Carlsons' purchase, that I'm sure of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2685.772, 2689.774], "stop_times": [2689.774, 2692.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.772}, "reply_to": "15184__1_085", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_087", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well, but the date on the opinion is September 16, 1960?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2692.526], "stop_times": [2697.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.526}, "reply_to": "15184__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_088", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Right.\nOh, 60?\nThan I stand corrected, except that it was again, about six weeks after the Carlsons' purchase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2697.366, 2698.313, 2700.215], "stop_times": [2698.313, 2700.215, 2706.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.366}, "reply_to": "15184__1_087", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_089", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "So it went to the lower courts of -- it had been decided in the circuit court obviously before the purchase?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2706.301], "stop_times": [2713.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.301}, "reply_to": "15184__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_090", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "This is true.\nAs a circuit court in another county --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2713.058, 2713.813], "stop_times": [2713.813, 2715.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.058}, "reply_to": "15184__1_089", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_091", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "And then the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2715.424], "stop_times": [2717.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.424}, "reply_to": "15184__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_092", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Not in -- no.\nThe District Court was not involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2717.305, 2718.36], "stop_times": [2718.36, 2719.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.305}, "reply_to": "15184__1_091", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_093", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "There was after -- just two levels.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2719.376], "stop_times": [2721.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2719.376}, "reply_to": "15184__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15184__1_094", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "At that time, there was the Circuit Court and an appeal directly to the State Supreme Court, and the decision of the circuit court was not generally made public, unless somebody happen to be familiar with it or come across it in the newspaper.\nWe have not discussed today, the issue that we have raised here in regard to the necessity of recording a tax lien notice, when after acquired property is involved.\nNow, this matter is covered in our brief.\nWe feel that is an issue that is never been passed upon by this Court and this is that the entireties property which was acquired by Donnelly and his wife in 1949, was not Donnelly's, or for that matter was not Donnelly's for the tax lien notice to attach to until 1960 when Mrs. Donnelly died and the property at that time became that of Donnelly.\nAnd we cited in our brief, the Hutchinson case as well as the Nathanson case, and the American National Bank case dealing with law similar to Michigan or the Nathanson case, the Michigan law, all of which says that in an estate by the entireties, neither the husband or the wife individually own an interest in a piece of -- in the entireties property which is capable of standing alone of being levied upon for the tax liability of one spouse.\nThe Hutchinson case by the Court of Appeals, as well as the American National Bank case, both indicate that the federal tax lien does not attach to entireties property until the death of one of the spouses.\nIt is our position that a clear reading of the Internal Revenue Code Recording Provisions would require the filing of a notice as against after acquired property in a state where such a notice had not been previously filed at the time such property is acquired by the taxpayer.\nNow, the Glass City Bank case is my learned colleague indicated, says that a tax lien attaches to after acquired property.\nBut there is a void as far as the law is concerned, as to what the Government must do to perfect that tax lien against such after acquired property.\nThe lien is a legal status.\nThe notice of that lien is a notice to the world which perfects that lien as against intervening third parties.\nAnd in this situation, the Government has said in affect that if Union Central applies to the federal filing of the notice in this case, the 1950, that that notice in 1950 is good in perpetuity to all notices filed in the federal court on forever until those liens are no longer enforceable.\nWe feel that this is not the law and it is not the intent of the law.\nThe Internal Revenue Code says, that notice shall be filed whenever the state has designated a state office and the word whenever means at such time as and I don't think that the Internal Revenue Code has to be construed to mean that a notice filed in the federal court is good forever.\nI'm not saying that it affects liens that were existence against property, in the existence when the lien was filed.\nBut if the state adopts a valid state recording law, it is our contention that the Government must at that time go an comply with that state law as to property which comes into existence after that state law is adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2721.329, 2738.419, 2750.28, 2753.46, 2779.61, 2816.361, 2836.354, 2861.283, 2872.079, 2885.84, 2890.099, 2898.859, 2922.643, 2927.994, 2947.184, 2954.24], "stop_times": [2738.419, 2750.28, 2753.46, 2779.61, 2816.361, 2836.354, 2861.283, 2872.079, 2885.84, 2890.099, 2898.859, 2922.643, 2927.994, 2947.184, 2954.24, 2969.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.329}, "reply_to": "15184__1_093", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_095", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Pevos.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2969.104], "stop_times": [2969.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.104}, "reply_to": "15184__1_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_096", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2969.779], "stop_times": [2970.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.779}, "reply_to": "15184__1_095", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_097", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The record as I read it, indicates that the Court, I think it was the Court, United States District Judge made some inquiry about whether the purchasers had any right of action back against the abstract company, the title company that had prepared the abstract in either your response to that of someone else speaking for this litigating party as I think it was, your statement.\nBut there was no action against the abstract company because they protected themselves by making an exception with respect to liens which were on the file in the federal district court among other places.\nNow, wasn't that enough when we're talking about the equities?\nWasn't that situation enough to put the purchaser and his attorney on notice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [2970.038, 3000.397, 3012.989, 3017.99], "stop_times": [3000.397, 3012.989, 3017.99, 3024.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.038}, "reply_to": "15184__1_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_098", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice as I said before.\nThis exception was not something that they typed in just for Mr. Carlson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3024.218, 3026.797], "stop_times": [3026.797, 3033.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.218}, "reply_to": "15184__1_097", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_099", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "No, they typed in for everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3033.545], "stop_times": [3034.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.545}, "reply_to": "15184__1_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_100", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "For everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3034.78], "stop_times": [3035.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3034.78}, "reply_to": "15184__1_099", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_101", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "For what reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3035.446], "stop_times": [3036.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.446}, "reply_to": "15184__1_100", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_102", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "On hindsight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3036.67], "stop_times": [3037.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.67}, "reply_to": "15184__1_101", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_103", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "To protect themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3037.738], "stop_times": [3039.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.738}, "reply_to": "15184__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_104", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "On hindsight Mr. Chief Justice.\nIn other words, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3039.036, 3041.365], "stop_times": [3041.365, 3042.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.036}, "reply_to": "15184__1_103", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_105", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I would regard that as foresight on the part of the abstract company.\nNow, hindsight --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3042.692, 3045.969], "stop_times": [3045.969, 3046.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.692}, "reply_to": "15184__1_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_106", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3046.954], "stop_times": [3047.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.954}, "reply_to": "15184__1_105", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_107", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "-- they protected themselves as you indicated to the trial judge by having that exception saying they were calling attention to possible liens that they had not searched for them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3047.406], "stop_times": [3060.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.406}, "reply_to": "15184__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_108", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Well Mr. Chief Justice and again, this is from my own knowledge and whether I can say this to be considered by this Court, I will say that as of 1970, the abstract companies in Michigan used that same exception.\nThe difference being that now, they aren't tax liens filed in the federal court anyway and the exception doesn't mean anything.\nBut if for some reason, this Court in some other situation, a year from now, determined that the present Michigan law was invalid then we have the same problem all over again.\nIn other words, they have that in there because they don't look at the federal court and they didn't look at the federal court recordings of 1960 at this transaction because it was assumed for almost 40 years that they didn't file tax liens in Michigan in the federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3060.47, 3074.277, 3080.747, 3091.607], "stop_times": [3074.277, 3080.747, 3091.607, 3105.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.47}, "reply_to": "15184__1_107", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_109", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "But absent that statement by the abstract company, they might well be liable to the purchaser, would they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3105.978], "stop_times": [3116.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.978}, "reply_to": "15184__1_108", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_110", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "If they did not indicate that a separate request would have to be made for federal court lien, it very well could be, yes Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3116.927], "stop_times": [3124.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3116.927}, "reply_to": "15184__1_109", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_111", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "So that their foresight as distinguished from hindsight, their foresight as protected them and in the same manner, the purchaser could have protected himself by saying in effect if his lawyer was not experienced enough, what do you mean by this and how much does it cost and upon finding that it will cost $3.00 or $4.00 perhaps to make that search routinely or even less, depending on the number of entries, even he would have then been protected, wouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3124.284], "stop_times": [3157.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.284}, "reply_to": "15184__1_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_112", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "I would say that may have been, but at the time, they would have been a question whether or not the even the entry of a federal recording would have been anything except actual notice as opposed to constructive notice until the Union Central case was handed down.\nThe federal filing may not have been a valid filing, even if it was there.\nAnd I believe that there is a void Mr. Chief Justice in the law as to whether actual notice stands in the place of constructive notice in regard to the federal tax lien notice filings.\nThat, I don't think is been clearly raised.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3157.128, 3173.721, 3178.734, 3191.685, 3194.265], "stop_times": [3173.721, 3178.734, 3191.685, 3194.265, 3195.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.128}, "reply_to": "15184__1_111", "speaker": "daniel_n_pevos"}
{"id": "15184__1_113", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Thank you Mr. Pevos.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3195.179], "stop_times": [3198.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.179}, "reply_to": "15184__1_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__1_114", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Zinn, may I ask at the outset?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3198.127], "stop_times": [3200.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.127}, "reply_to": "15184__1_113", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__2_000", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3200.725], "stop_times": [3201.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3200.725}, "reply_to": "15184__1_114", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__2_001", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "The question I asked to Pevos.\nIf we hold that Union Central, is effective only as Government lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3201.073, 3203.06], "stop_times": [3203.06, 3211.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.073}, "reply_to": "15184__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15184__2_002", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Yes it does.\nMr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3211.027, 3215.664], "stop_times": [3215.664, 3216.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3211.027}, "reply_to": "15184__2_001", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__2_003", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Mr. Zinn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3216.573], "stop_times": [3217.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.573}, "reply_to": "15184__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15184__2_004", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "May it please the Court, just two or three brief points.\nFirst, here that the respondents are asking that a decision of this Court be applied prospectively only.\nThey point to the fact that the United States filed locally in Wayne County in 1950 and locally in Genesee in Livingston County in 1960.\nThis is the case.\nThe law was confused, but the respondents are the ones that are asking that it'd applied prospectively only, and contrary to what the District Court said on page 56 of the record, the next to last line, it says, prior to that decision referring to this Court's decision in Union Central, there was no indication that such statute would be declared per se illegal.\nOn the contrary, every indication was that the statute would be upheld.\nWe have outlined previously that it was not just a law review article in 1952 pointing out the problem, Glass City Bank and Youngblood cannot stand together.\nThat was the decision of this Court, and that should have put on notice, reasonable purchasers of property and others in Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3217.025, 3221.23, 3228.465, 3239.618, 3241.428, 3267.112, 3272.114, 3282.003], "stop_times": [3221.23, 3228.465, 3239.618, 3241.428, 3267.112, 3272.114, 3282.003, 3291.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3217.025}, "reply_to": "15184__2_003", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__2_005", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "What two cases could not stand together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3291.185], "stop_times": [3293.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.185}, "reply_to": "15184__2_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15184__2_006", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Youngblood, decided by the Sixth Circuit in 1944, and holding that a description -- no, and Glass City Bank.\nBecause Glass City Bank said that the United States lien applies to after acquired property, and there is no way who describe that for acquired property in a notice because we don't know what that property is going to be.\nRespondents seek to support the judgment below on the ground that the United States should have refiled in 1960 after Michigan had passed the Uniform Tax Lien Registration Act in 1956.\nWith regard to that, I think that the differences between this Court's views and that of the Sixth Circuit are made quite clear.\nWith reference to the Sixth Circuit's opinion in the Faulk case which has pending on the Government's petition for certiorari in number 844, and the statement of Mr. Justice Black's in the Union Central case.\nIn order for the United States to re-file, every time a delinquent taxpayer acquires property afterwards it has to follow that taxpayer around and keep tabs on him.\nNow in the Faulk case which is quoted on page 13 of respondent's brief, the Sixth Circuit said ?some Government scrutiny of the affairs of delinquent taxpayers sufficient to enable it, to know where to properly file notice of lien? seem to have been contemplated by this entire statutory scheme.\nRequiring the Government to investigate the affairs of the delinquent taxpayer to determine to what property the statutory lien attaches and therefore, where to properly file the required notice of lien in no way cuts down on the broad scope of the lien.\nThat is not the case and that is to be compared with the statement of Mr. Justice Black, 368 U.S. 294 and ?it seems obvious that this expansive protection for the Government, that is the protection that its lien runs to after acquired property would be greatly reduced if to enforce it, Government agents were compelled to keep aware at all times of all property coming into the hands of its tax delinquents.?\nThe Sixth Circuit has been out of steps since the Maniaci case in 1940. United States filed both locally and federally in that case and it lost.\nIt attempted to file locally in Youngblood and it lost.\nUnion Central is controlling here and there's no basis for a prospective only holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3293.71, 3302.931, 3318.454, 3336.521, 3345.157, 3357.957, 3369.76, 3390.915, 3405.806, 3433.774, 3442.658, 3447.212], "stop_times": [3302.931, 3318.454, 3336.521, 3345.157, 3357.957, 3369.76, 3390.915, 3405.806, 3433.774, 3442.658, 3447.212, 3452.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3293.71}, "reply_to": "15184__2_005", "speaker": "matthew_j_zinn"}
{"id": "15184__2_007", "conversation_id": "15184", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Zinn.\nThank you, Mr. Pevos.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_104", "start_times": [3452.793, 3454.317, 3456.022], "stop_times": [3454.317, 3456.022, 3457.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3452.793}, "reply_to": "15184__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__0_000", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Number 528, United States against Hiltons Hotels Corporation.\nMr. Walters, you may proceed whenever you are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [0.0, 35.694], "stop_times": [35.694, 44.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__0_001", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe relevant facts in this case were stipulated and may be summarized in pertinent part.\nIn August 1953, Hilton Hotels Corporation owned some 325,370 shares of the 366,040 shares outstanding of the Hotel Waldorf-Astoria leaving some 40,670 shares of Waldorf outstanding in the hands of others.\nContemplating a merger, Hilton retained consultants to do a study to determine a fair basis for exchange of Hilton shares for Waldorf shares.\nHilton and Waldorf agreed upon a proposed merger with Hilton to be the surviving corporation.\nUnder the proposed plan, Hilton offered to exchange 1.25 shares of its stock for each share of the Waldorf stock it did not already owned.\nPrior to the agreement of merger, however, shareholders owning some 20,000 shares of Waldorf filed with Waldorf an objection to the merger and demanded payment for their Waldorf stock.\nThereafter, on December 28 and 29, 1953 more than 2/3 of the stock holders of each of the two corporations voted approval of the merger and on December 31, 1953, the merger agreement and certificate of consolidation were filed with the Secretary of State of New York.\nThe applicable New York law provided that in such a case the stockholder demanding payment for his Waldorf shares have no right to receive dividends payable on those shares after the close of business on the day preceding to the date that the Waldorf stockholders voted approval of the merger and that upon that vote the dissenting stockholder ceased to have any of the rights of a stockholder of Waldorf except the right to receive payment of the value of the stock.\nUnder the New York law, the dissenting stockholder or the corporation have the right to have the stock appraised in a Court proceeding.\nComplying with New York law on January 7, 1954, Hilton offered to the Waldorf stockholders $24.54 for each share of Waldorf stock it did not already own.\nThose stockholders who had dissented from the merger rejected the offer and began Court proceedings under state law for a determination of the buyer of their shares.\nHilton again retained the same consulting firm to determine the value of those Waldorf shares on the date prior to the vote of approval of the merger.\nIn addition to paying those consultants, Hilton also paid almost $40,000.00 to lawyers and others in connection with the Court proceedings to develop that value.\nHilton claimed a deduction as an ordinary and necessary business expense under Section 162 of the code for all of the fees paid to the consulting firm, attorneys and others including the fees that have been paid to the consultants prior to the vote of the merger.\nThe Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction.\nHilton paid the asserted deficiency and commenced a suit for refund.\nThe District Court held that the appraisal costs were deductible but that the consultant's fees that were incurred prior to the merger were nondeductible capital expenditures.\nHilton conceded as to those pre-merger fees and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court allowing deduction of the appraisal fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [44.768, 51.242, 59.515, 90.027, 107.081, 115.707, 132.538, 153.133, 181.906, 226.074, 237.904, 258.619, 274.35, 290.593, 308.94, 334.569, 339.627, 348.33, 367.536], "stop_times": [51.242, 59.515, 90.027, 107.081, 115.707, 132.538, 153.133, 181.906, 226.074, 237.904, 258.619, 274.35, 290.593, 308.94, 334.569, 339.627, 348.33, 367.536, 382.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.768}, "reply_to": "15437__0_000", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_002", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "This was a taxable year 1955.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [382.478], "stop_times": [387.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.478}, "reply_to": "15437__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15437__0_003", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "This began in 1953 sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [387.586], "stop_times": [389.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.586}, "reply_to": "15437__0_002", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_004", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Well, the transaction began in '53, I would guess probably the taxable year involved of 1954?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [389.898], "stop_times": [395.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.898}, "reply_to": "15437__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15437__0_005", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [395.864], "stop_times": [397.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.864}, "reply_to": "15437__0_004", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_006", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "How on earth did it take 16 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [397.045], "stop_times": [403.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.045}, "reply_to": "15437__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15437__0_007", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Mr. Justice Stewart, I cannot answer that it seems an awful long time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [403.086], "stop_times": [408.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.086}, "reply_to": "15437__0_006", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_008", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "It is an awfully long time.\nThis is supra refund on the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [408.175, 412.477], "stop_times": [412.477, 416.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.175}, "reply_to": "15437__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15437__0_009", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [416.143], "stop_times": [418.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.143}, "reply_to": "15437__0_008", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_010", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Is this expanded just in terms of the delays and in the Northern District of Illinois and in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [418.007], "stop_times": [426.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.007}, "reply_to": "15437__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15437__0_011", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "No doubt that's part of it and I would assume that in a situation such as this where you have large corporations involved, the administration on audits probably did not come until late in the statutory period and then all of the proceedings that followed that each eating up a little time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [426.472], "stop_times": [447.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.472}, "reply_to": "15437__0_010", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_012", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Of course it's only money I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [447.658], "stop_times": [453.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.658}, "reply_to": "15437__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15437__0_013", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "The sole issue here then is whether the fees paid to the consultants, lawyers and others, in connections with the appraisal proceedings that followed the merger are deductible ordinary and necessary business expenses are non-deductible capital expenditures.\nWhat we're concerned in this case with Section 162 which deals with business expenses and also with Section 263 again as in the last case, we nevertheless are concerned with the same basic principles that were involved in the Woodward case.\nSection 162 provides a deduction for the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year and the carrying on of the trade of business.\nIt does not provide a deduction for a capital expenditure.\nSection 263 on the other hand prohibits deductions of a capital expenditure.\nThe origin and character of the claim with respect to which an expenditure is incurred determines or contributes to the determination of whether an expenditure is or is not deductible.\nThe cost of acquiring an asset and capital stock are not deductible.\nThey are nondeductible capital expenditures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [453.833, 478.027, 501.405, 513.658, 519.714, 528.015, 544.779, 552.422], "stop_times": [478.027, 501.405, 513.658, 519.714, 528.015, 544.779, 552.422, 556.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.833}, "reply_to": "15437__0_012", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_014", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "What about the legal expenditures next to the mergers itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [556.875], "stop_times": [562.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.875}, "reply_to": "15437__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__0_015", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "They are capital items, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [562.375], "stop_times": [564.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.375}, "reply_to": "15437__0_014", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_016", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "They are not deductible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [564.4], "stop_times": [565.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.4}, "reply_to": "15437__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__0_017", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "No sir.\nAll of the expenses --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [565.39, 566.627], "stop_times": [566.627, 568.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.39}, "reply_to": "15437__0_016", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_018", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "The lawyers fees were ignored at merger client and in fact they're non-deductible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [568.562], "stop_times": [573.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.562}, "reply_to": "15437__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__0_019", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "That's right sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [573.671], "stop_times": [574.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.671}, "reply_to": "15437__0_018", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_020", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "After Woodward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [574.938], "stop_times": [575.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.938}, "reply_to": "15437__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__0_021", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Yes sir.\nJust as the Seventh Circuit noted below, the expenditures incurred in connection with a corporate reorganization such as the ones that Mr. Justice White just asked about are nondeductible capital expenditures.\nIn considering these keys along side the Woodward case, there is only one additional item that we think we should mention.\nIn Woodward, the majority shareholders did not acquire title to the (Inaudible) stock prior to the appraisal proceedings whereas in this case, under the applicable New York law, the merger and the acquisition were both accomplished prior to the appraisal proceeding.\nThis difference in timing is only one that we think we need to address attention.\nThe timing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [575.9, 580.248, 599.972, 610.085, 637.994, 647.653], "stop_times": [580.248, 599.972, 610.085, 637.994, 647.653, 648.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.9}, "reply_to": "15437__0_020", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_022", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Well, the Eighth Circuit has decided this case very recently, am I right?\nThe Eighth Circuit decision, Woodward was before this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [648.248, 654.612], "stop_times": [654.612, 658.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.248}, "reply_to": "15437__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__0_023", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I don't recall Mr. Justice, which came first calendar-wise.\nNo sir, it did not.\nThe timing of the appraisal proceeding with respect to the title passage is immaterial.\nThe appraisal proceeding in this case too was directly and functionally related to and an integral part of the overall proceeding which was a corporate reorganization.\nThis was not a causal relationship.\nIt was part and partial of the overall transaction the corporate reorganization and the acquisition of the Waldorf shares.\nThus, again, we note that the tax law does not permit fragmenting of transactions.\nIt requires events that are functionally related to be looked at together even though they maybe temporally separated time-wise.\nWe submit that such differences as exist between this case and the Woodward case are immaterial.\nIn the context of these cases, the differences in timing of the stock appraisals is not material and likewise the differences between the New York and Iowa statutes are not material.\nThe federal tax rules in the two cases should be the same.\nIn neither case should the cost of these appraisal proceedings be deductible and Woodward, the Eighth Circuit held at the appraisal cost were not deductible capital expenditures incurred in connection with the acquisition of capital stock.\nIn this case, the cost of the appraisal likewise should be considered a part of the cost of acquisition of the Waldorf stock.\nIn either case, the appraisal cost were capital expenditures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [658.4, 663.898, 670.514, 678.481, 696.554, 699.546, 713.424, 720.554, 734.938, 744.22, 763.388, 768.914, 792.847, 805.467], "stop_times": [663.898, 670.514, 678.481, 696.554, 699.546, 713.424, 720.554, 734.938, 744.22, 763.388, 768.914, 792.847, 805.467, 814.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.4}, "reply_to": "15437__0_022", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__0_024", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Walters.\nMr. Levenfeld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [814.656, 819.8], "stop_times": [819.8, 822.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.656}, "reply_to": "15437__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__1_000", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe Government concedes that total expenses in the appraisal proceedings are deductible under Section 162 if they are not capital cost.\nMy argument will be first directed to demonstrate that the Government's contention is erroneous because the legal contractual and economic position of the dissenting shareholders changed from that of stockholders to creditors when they objected to the merger and demanded payment for their stock.\nI will then show that the merger and the appraisal proceedings were not functionally related, so that rules with respect to mergers are not applicable to the appraisal proceeding.\nUnderlying both arguments will be an analysis of state law because without section analysis, one does not know whether an acquisition has occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [822.015, 825.496, 836.91, 859.299, 873.851], "stop_times": [825.496, 836.91, 859.299, 873.851, 884.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 822.015}, "reply_to": "15437__0_024", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_001", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Well, would they have engage in this process of valuing their shares if they have not been going the acquire them?\nWould there have been any occasion for all this expense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [884.976, 893.122], "stop_times": [893.122, 895.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.976}, "reply_to": "15437__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__1_002", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "The occasion for this expense was not the merger itself, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe occasion for the expense was the objection and demand for payment by the dissenters and the failure to agree on price.\nThe merger would have been effective in any event assuming two-thirds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [895.657, 899.476, 910.354], "stop_times": [899.476, 910.354, 916.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 895.657}, "reply_to": "15437__1_001", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_003", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I was putting on the emphasis on the acquisition as distinguished from the merger to the extent that you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [916.261], "stop_times": [923.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.261}, "reply_to": "15437__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__1_004", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "The acquisition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [923.766], "stop_times": [924.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 923.766}, "reply_to": "15437__1_003", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_005", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "--separate them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [924.597], "stop_times": [925.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.597}, "reply_to": "15437__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__1_006", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "-- was not by Hilton, Your Honor.\nThe acquisition was by Waldorf.\nThe stock ceased to be outstanding stock of Waldorf at the date of the objection and demand for payment.\nHilton was not acquiring the stock.\nAt the time of the objection and demand for payment, the New York statute specifically provides that the dissenters ceased to be shareholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [925.213, 926.922, 929.19, 935.499, 938.275], "stop_times": [926.922, 929.19, 935.499, 938.275, 948.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 925.213}, "reply_to": "15437__1_005", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_007", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "But which was the surviving corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [948.936], "stop_times": [950.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.936}, "reply_to": "15437__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__1_008", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Hilton was the surviving corporation.\nBut prior to the merger upon the dissent, the dissenting shareholders headed dissent prior to devote for the merger.\nPrior to the merger, they became creditors of Waldorf.\nHilton assumed the liability of Waldorf as a debtor to the dissenters by operation of lot upon the merger.\nHilton did not pay in its stock for the dissenting shareholders' stock.\nThere was a change of status for the dissenting shareholders from that of stockholder to that of creditor.\nThe only evidence pertinent in the appraisal proceeding was evidence as to values of shares of the shares of dissenting shareholders.\nThere was no evidence introduced or which could be introduced as to the value of the Hilton shares or to the effectiveness of the merger.\nA debtor-creditor relationship was established between the dissenters and Waldorf and the debt of Waldorf was assumed by Hilton by operation of law on the merger.\nThe relationship of debtor and creditor is established amply by the state law and case law citations in our brief.\nAfter the demand for payment in the objection to merger, the dissenters have none of the attributes of stock ownership.\nUnder state law, they could not vote on any matter relating to Waldorf or Hilton.\nThey could receive no dividends by Waldorf or Hilton.\nThey could receive no liquidation proceeds.\nIn addition, it has been decided that by the federal court that once a dissenter elects to receive payment for the stock, he cannot bring a derivative suit in a capacity as shareholder even while the appraisal proceedings is in progress.\nIn addition, the dissenters had all the attributes of sellers of stock, entitled to receive payment for stock.\nThey became creditors of Waldorf and then Hilton.\nHad Hilton become a bankrupt, they would have been entitled to receive distributions from the Hilton as general creditors paired to pursue with other general creditors prior to any distribution to the stockholders of Hilton.\nIn addition, this was held in Southern Production Company versus Samoth cited in our brief.\nIn addition, the dissenters would have been entitled to the federal protection of SEC Rule 10(b) relating to full disclosure with respect to the merger because they would have been considered sellers of stock.\nIn this protection, what have been afforded to them even while the appraisal proceeding was in progress.\nThis was cited -- this was decided in the Bouge case cited in our brief.\nAs prior counsels brought out, this Court in Apsey versus Kimball, 221 U.S. would have decided had Waldorf been a banking corporation and had its shareholders been subject to additional liability, this Court decided that such additional liability could not yet been imposed upon dissenters who had elected appraisal rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [950.929, 954.337, 964.814, 969.8, 981.77, 991.877, 1007.283, 1018.023, 1028.732, 1047.468, 1056.836, 1065.022, 1070.591, 1074.353, 1078.391, 1100.547, 1110.696, 1116.237, 1134.364, 1142.706, 1158.373, 1164.372, 1171.644], "stop_times": [954.337, 964.814, 969.8, 981.77, 991.877, 1007.283, 1018.023, 1028.732, 1047.468, 1056.836, 1065.022, 1070.591, 1074.353, 1078.391, 1100.547, 1110.696, 1116.237, 1134.364, 1142.706, 1158.373, 1164.372, 1171.644, 1197.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 950.929}, "reply_to": "15437__1_007", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_009", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "What happened to the stock once it's held, treasury stock or (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1197.713], "stop_times": [1203.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.713}, "reply_to": "15437__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_010", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "The -- as I read the statute, Mr. Justice White the stock became treasury stock and Waldorf was obligated to pay for it at its fair value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1203.477], "stop_times": [1218.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1203.477}, "reply_to": "15437__1_009", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_011", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "How does the purchase price of the stock and I mean, the tax loans, is that concededly a capital expenditure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1218.042], "stop_times": [1225.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.042}, "reply_to": "15437__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_012", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "That is conceding capital expenditures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1225.866], "stop_times": [1227.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1225.866}, "reply_to": "15437__1_011", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_013", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Why did you concede that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1227.362], "stop_times": [1229.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.362}, "reply_to": "15437__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_014", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I concede that Your Honor because of the fact that it was unnecessary for Hilton to exchange the one in a quarter shares for this shares that has ceased to become outstanding shares of Waldorf.\nIt was the purchase price --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1229.034, 1245.45], "stop_times": [1245.45, 1247.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1229.034}, "reply_to": "15437__1_013", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_015", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Why wasn't -- why wasn't the expenditure for the actual price of the stock, why wasn't that as deductible as the miscellaneous expenses connected with the acquisition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1247.323], "stop_times": [1263.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.323}, "reply_to": "15437__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_016", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "My point, Your Honor, is that miscellaneous expenses are not connected with the acquisition.\nThere is no functional relationship between the acquisitions and these expenditures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1263.24, 1269.153], "stop_times": [1269.153, 1275.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1263.24}, "reply_to": "15437__1_015", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_017", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "No what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1275.684], "stop_times": [1276.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.684}, "reply_to": "15437__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_018", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Functional relationship.\nMy point is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1276.324, 1279.348], "stop_times": [1279.348, 1280.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1276.324}, "reply_to": "15437__1_017", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_019", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "You mean, you wouldn't have incurred these expenditures any way that you haven't required the stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1280.344], "stop_times": [1288.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.344}, "reply_to": "15437__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_020", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "It wasn't that, it was because we could not agree on price that we incurred these expenditures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1288.291], "stop_times": [1294.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1288.291}, "reply_to": "15437__1_019", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_021", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Right but you still want to divide the stocks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1294.376], "stop_times": [1297.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.376}, "reply_to": "15437__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_022", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "We have already inquired the stock, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1297.003], "stop_times": [1299.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1297.003}, "reply_to": "15437__1_021", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_023", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I suppose you could've backed out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1299.299], "stop_times": [1301.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.299}, "reply_to": "15437__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_024", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "We could not back out if nor could have the dissenting shareholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1301.688], "stop_times": [1306.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1301.688}, "reply_to": "15437__1_023", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_025", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "But you knew in advance of the merger, if anybody consented you would have to buy the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1306.083], "stop_times": [1313.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.083}, "reply_to": "15437__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_026", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "We know that if they did exercise their rights we would have had to buy the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1313.33], "stop_times": [1319.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1313.33}, "reply_to": "15437__1_025", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_027", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "But if certainly absent some dissent and absent the acquisition of stock, you wouldn't think (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1319.087], "stop_times": [1327.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.087}, "reply_to": "15437__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_028", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nAbsent the creation of an obligation on the part of Waldorf assumed by Hilton to pay for the stock, the appraisal procedure expenses would not have been made.\nThe dissenters, when they dissented and demanded payment, elected to share their shares under terms set forth by the State of New York in its statutes.\nThe State of New York determined who the parties to the sale were, the number of shares to be sold and the date of the sale.\nIn the State of New York by statute also determined the purchase price of the shares.\nThe State of New York determined that the purchase price of the shares was the value of the shares on the day before the meeting of Waldorf approving the merger.\nNeither party, neither the dissenters nor Hilton could vary the price to be paid by the sharers, for the sharers.\nThis is somewhat similar to the situation Keiselbach versus Commission 317 U.S. where this Court said that the purchase price in a condemnation proceeding is settled as of the date the property was taken.\nThe appraisal proceeding was not part of an acquisition process because the parties were not negotiating as to mutually acceptable terms as a condition to sale.\nThis is not analogous to try to finding a buyer by paying broker a commission nor is it analogous to the parties bargaining as a condition to sale as to purchase price.\nWithout an agreement as to purchase price there would have been no sale in the ordinary circumstance.\nIn this circumstance the purchase price had been imposed upon by the state and the sale that have been imposed upon the party by the state once the election was made.\nThis is not in any way analogous to an attorney preparing documents to consummate a sale, without the signing of which there would be no sale.\nThis was a complete sale not subject to renegotiation by either party to the sale.\nThe dissenters could not unilaterally cancel their consent and resume their status as shareholders of Hilton.\nThey were in the same precision as a private seller who had sold his stock and in a deferred payment and the payment could either been a fixed purchased price or a formula purchase price or a price to be determined by an objective standard such as a State of New York in this case said it would be the objective standard being fair value.\nAfter the demand for payment, the shareholders, the dissenters had no interest in Waldorf as shareholders.\nThey were not interested in whether the price of Waldorf stock when up or down and they were not interested whether the price of Hilton stock went up or down.\nThey had ceased to have any interest as equity owner and merely were creditors.\nThis reflects --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1327.791, 1329.692, 1341.469, 1352.475, 1361.828, 1370.47, 1381.938, 1391.462, 1410.791, 1426.164, 1441.451, 1446.248, 1459.342, 1470.762, 1477.876, 1488.433, 1513.05, 1525.552, 1535.18, 1543.382], "stop_times": [1329.692, 1341.469, 1352.475, 1361.828, 1370.47, 1381.938, 1391.462, 1410.791, 1426.164, 1441.451, 1446.248, 1459.342, 1470.762, 1477.876, 1488.433, 1513.05, 1525.552, 1535.18, 1543.382, 1544.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1327.791}, "reply_to": "15437__1_027", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_029", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "What if the buyer and seller signed a contact for the purchase of the assets of a company and they signed the contract both sides are obligated to and they set that the two bought through with the transaction and they set the price of every item except one piece of real property over which they can't agree but they both agree that the name the appraiser will set the value and that's the price that will be paid and then the appraisers sets at the chargers of them of a good fee and they split it what about the buyer there on that appraisal be, doesn't he have to capitalize that expense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1544.236], "stop_times": [1601.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.236}, "reply_to": "15437__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_030", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I will think Your Honor that that is part of the agreement as to purchase price prior to the consummation of the sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1601.533], "stop_times": [1610.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.533}, "reply_to": "15437__1_029", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_031", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Well, he doesn't know what it is going to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1610.485], "stop_times": [1612.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.485}, "reply_to": "15437__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_032", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "But they have agreed that it will be what is to be determined by the third party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1612.763], "stop_times": [1616.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1612.763}, "reply_to": "15437__1_031", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_033", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Well, your answer is yes it would be a capital expenditure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1616.473], "stop_times": [1619.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.473}, "reply_to": "15437__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_034", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I think the answer is it probably would be a capital expense.\nThe public policy of the State of New York and this appears to be very correct because if the Waldorf dissenters could resume their status of shareholders and Hilton stock were to go higher, they could have taken advantage of the increase in price of Hilton stock while in any event having a downward protection because of Hilton stock went lower, they could always have their demand for the fair value of their stock.\nThe fact of the -- dissenters did not have this choice, demonstrates once again that they were in the position not as shareholders when the appraisal proceeding was commenced but as creditors and the purpose of the appraisal proceedings was to determine the amount owed to them as creditor.\nIn summary, on this point the dissenters had sold their stock on the date they objected to the merger and demanded payment for their stock.\nThey have no claim against Waldorf or Hilton as share holders and they had only the right to receive payment and all of these events had occurred prior to the appraisal proceeding.\nThe appraisal proceeding could in no way affect the acquisition.\nThe appraisal proceeding was not an equitable proceeding to revise or modify the terms of a sale and it was not necessary to achieve an enforceable bargain because an enforceable bargain had been imposed by the State of New York.\nIt was also not necessary to achieve the essential formalities of sale because those formalities were taken cared of by law and it was not necessary to establish acceptable terms of acquisition because the terms of acquisition had been imposed by law.\nThe appraisal proceeding was not part of the cost of acquisition because shares were acquired prior there to and the appraisal proceeding had no effect on the acquisition.\nTitle involvement has always been a necessary element to determine whether an item is to be capitalized as being part of the cost of acquisition, perfection or defense of title because one cannot acquire a title or acquire anything without title being involved.\nTitle involvement its necessary touchstone is absent from the appraisal proceeding because title to shares of stock of the dissenters had from them long before the appraisal proceeding was started.\nMost of the Government cases sighting the application of the windmill rationale involved title, so the cases cited by the Governments are clearly not applicable and if the cases didn't involve title, they involved the recasting of sales price by a Court with respect to a sale induced by fraud.\nAgain, a bargaining process or the cases involved the reaching of agreement by as to price prior to title being passed or the cases involved taking the necessary steps to consummate the sale.\nThe more appropriate cases as authority for this case is a case of Petrick decided by the Second Circuit involving a confiscation proceeding.\nIn that case, the taxpayers' property was confiscated by a foreign government and the proceeding determining the award was based upon the value of the property confiscated.\nThere the Second Circuit held at the legal cost in the proceeding were deductible.\nAnother relevant cases the Naylor case decided by the Fifth Circuit.\nIn that case an option was exercised to purchase stocks and the parties agreed that title had passed but the option price was set at the book value of the shares of stock at a certain date and the taxpayer hired an attorney because a dispute arose as to book value.\nThe attorney's fees were held to be deductible because title had passed before the attorney was hired and he was hired merely to collect the correct amount of the purchase price which was a standard set by agreement among the parties' book value.\nThe Government's reliance upon titled cases is misplaced and rather the Petrick case and the Naylor case are more appropriate.\nThe Government contends that the origin and character of the appraisal proceeding was in the merger.\nEssentially, the argument is had there been no merger, there be appraisal proceeding.\nBut the cause of the appraisal proceeding was not the merger.\nThe cause of the appraisal proceeding was in the objection and demand for payment by the dissenters, had there been no such objection or demand for payment there would be no appraisal proceeding.\nThe merger had been completed and the dissenters could not affect the merger.\nThe acquisition of the dissenters' stock had been completed and the dissenters could not affect such acquisition.\nIt was not from the merger or as a part of the acquisition that the appraisal proceeding arose but it wasn't a debtor-creditor relationship established between the dissenters in Waldorf and the fact that they could not agree on the fair value of the dissenters' shares.\nThere was no functional relationship between the appraisal proceeding and the merger and the rules with respect to mergers should not apply.\nThe Government states that distinctions in state law should not govern federal tax consequences and the Government in its brief cites cases where there was no substantive difference in state law or where state law put different labels on the same property rights as authority for the statement.\nHowever, we all know that in private contracts trying to accomplish similar ends, different tax consequences can depend upon title.\nThere is one case in the lower courts other than Woodward in which the appraisal proceedings were held and to be deductible.\nThis is a District Court case Boulder Building Corporation and it was decided under the appraisals statute at 18 Oklahoma statutes annotated 1.161(a) 1953.\nI will quote this statute to you.\n\u201cHolders of dissenting shares of a domestic corporation shall continue to have all the rights and privileges incident to their shares except just expressly limited by this section until such time is a fair value of such shares be agreed upon or determined by judgment.\u201d\nThere were no appraisable limitations under this section.\nI submit that under the Oklahoma statutes, the dissenters remain shareholders and they could have resumed their status shareholders which is entirely different in the state law in New York when they had forever lost their status as shareholders.\nThe Government says, ignore title when you decide this case but one must always be concerned with title if one is going to impose capitalization because the title acquisition is involved.\nHilton does not urge the use of the primary purpose test in this case because the sole purpose of the appraisal proceeding was to determine the value of the shares, the amount of the debt owed by Hilton and there was no element of title involved in the appraisal proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [1619.437, 1625.221, 1658.291, 1681.792, 1694.266, 1707.594, 1712.646, 1731.332, 1751.945, 1767.972, 1789.335, 1806.113, 1833.56, 1851.664, 1864.744, 1878.95, 1887.329, 1894.097, 1921.024, 1941.235, 1953.114, 1962.75, 1970.1, 1974.421, 1987.927, 1992.758, 2001.565, 2019.613, 2034.286, 2057.385, 2071.585, 2086.226, 2100.742, 2103.684, 2125.357, 2129.336, 2148.373, 2164.724], "stop_times": [1625.221, 1658.291, 1681.792, 1694.266, 1707.594, 1712.646, 1731.332, 1751.945, 1767.972, 1789.335, 1806.113, 1833.56, 1851.664, 1864.744, 1878.95, 1887.329, 1894.097, 1921.024, 1941.235, 1953.114, 1962.75, 1970.1, 1974.421, 1987.927, 1992.758, 2001.565, 2019.613, 2034.286, 2057.385, 2071.585, 2086.226, 2100.742, 2103.684, 2125.357, 2129.336, 2148.373, 2164.724, 2187.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.437}, "reply_to": "15437__1_033", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_035", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "I gather, that sounds to me on that argument that you could if you're right you should be able to deduct the price to the dissenter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2187.345], "stop_times": [2197.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.345}, "reply_to": "15437__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__1_036", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Your Honor, I think there is a distinction between setting a price and paying a price.\nWe have agreed, Hilton had agreed to pay a price.\nIt was a price that was imposed upon it by state law and the state law had evolved a procedure to determine the price.\nWe are questioning -- the problem we have is to categorize the expenses in determining the price.\nThere is no question that the price itself was for an acquisition yet title was not involved in the price determination proceeding.\nThe title was involved in the acquisition which had incurred for the price determining proceeding.\nIn summary, the expenses of Hilton in the appraisal proceeding should not be capitalized because title was not involved in the appraisal proceeding and Hilton acquired nothing as a result of the appraisal proceeding.\nIn addition, the appraisal proceeding having resulted from the demand for payment and the inability for the debtor and creditor to agree in price was not functionally related to the merger, so the merger rules should not apply.\nIt is respectfully submitted that those expenses in the appraisal proceeding are ordinary and necessary expenses deductible under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2197.565, 2203.549, 2207.552, 2220.01, 2227.023, 2240.457, 2254.518, 2275.71, 2296.481, 2308.523], "stop_times": [2203.549, 2207.552, 2220.01, 2227.023, 2240.457, 2254.518, 2275.71, 2296.481, 2308.523, 2312.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.565}, "reply_to": "15437__1_035", "speaker": "milton_a_levenfeld"}
{"id": "15437__1_037", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Thank you Mr. Levenfeld.\nMr. Walters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2312.12, 2314.09], "stop_times": [2314.09, 2320.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.12}, "reply_to": "15437__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__2_000", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI'll just mention on or two items briefly.\nAgain, we submit these two cases bring to this Court two instances where a taxpayers would deduct the cost of determining the value of capital stock which capital stock had to be acquired at one instance by individual taxpayers and the other by corporation in connection with corporate action.\nThe fact that the timing of this cost came either before or after, we submit, is immaterial.\nThese costs were incurred as a part and parcel of the overall transaction in each instance.\nAccordingly, we submit that the Court should decide these two cases alike and the Eighth Circuit held that they were capital expenditures and the Woodward case and the Hilton case the Seventh Circuit held they were deductible.\nWe think that they Eighth Circuit is right and that the Seventh Circuit is wrong but we submit most urgently that whatever the answer is we need one rule.\nThese are not isolated instances.\nThere are many, many corporate reorganizations, mergers and other items actions taking place today where this is going to be a recurring event so we need a rule for taxpayers and the Government alike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2320.017, 2323.894, 2330.001, 2360.307, 2371.109, 2380.193, 2400.092, 2414.958, 2418.693], "stop_times": [2323.894, 2330.001, 2360.307, 2371.109, 2380.193, 2400.092, 2414.958, 2418.693, 2437.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2320.017}, "reply_to": "15437__1_037", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__2_001", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Are there other decisions in the lower courts that the courts have gone opposite direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2437.183], "stop_times": [2443.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.183}, "reply_to": "15437__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__2_002", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Mr. Justice, there are several decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2443.0], "stop_times": [2445.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2443.0}, "reply_to": "15437__2_001", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__2_003", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Some of the District Courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2445.717], "stop_times": [2447.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.717}, "reply_to": "15437__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15437__2_004", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Yes sir, where they've gone both ways really.\nWe submit that the better view is that applied in the Woodward case because we do not see how you can separate out this appraisal proceeding which is required to determine the value or the price of the stock from the overall transactions.\nNow, as to the possible distinctions between the two statutes involved in this case, again, we say they're immaterial because if you cut away the brush and look at the main transactions that we have here, it seems clear to us that these expenditures were incurred in the purchase of capital stock.\nYou do not see how can find otherwise when you look at the whole picture.\nWe have mentioned very briefly the point Mr. Justice White has brought out in questioning if Hilton felt that the timing was as important as it is then we submit that they could very well have justified, at least arguably deducting the cost, the price that they paid for the stock too because that came before the acquisition also.\nIn fact, we submit that the concession by Hilton that the pre-merger expenses incurred, expenditures for the consultants, constitute nondeductible capital expenditures indicates that they too feel that the decision in the Woodward case is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2447.093, 2451.764, 2477.268, 2504.986, 2512.339, 2548.757], "stop_times": [2451.764, 2477.268, 2504.986, 2512.339, 2548.757, 2576.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2447.093}, "reply_to": "15437__2_003", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__2_005", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2576.93], "stop_times": [2578.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.93}, "reply_to": "15437__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15437__2_006", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I would like a few minutes of rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2578.815], "stop_times": [2586.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2578.815}, "reply_to": "15437__2_005", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15437__2_007", "conversation_id": "15437", "text": "Yes, you have -- excuse me.\nWe got two cases here, I just thought make it unsorted.\nMr. Walters had had rebuttal.\nYou have no rebuttal left.\nMr. Walters was in rebuttal on this case.\nYou've exhausted all your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_528", "start_times": [2586.535, 2591.741, 2597.467, 2598.66, 2601.052, 2603.479], "stop_times": [2591.741, 2597.467, 2598.66, 2601.052, 2603.479, 2607.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.535}, "reply_to": "15437__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__0_000", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThis morning I shall discuss the exchange ratio.\nThe negotiations over that ratio extended for more than three-and-a-half years and as it was observed yesterday, each of the two companies here was advised by an independent firm of investment bankers: Northern Pacific by Morgan Stanley and the Great Northern by First Boston.\nNow, as Mr. Dailey indicated, one of the perhaps the greatest problem in these negotiations was the natural resource properties in Northern Pacific.\nIt was agreed by everyone on both sides of the bargaining table that if you looked at merely railroad properties and railroad earnings, the Great Northern was entitled to a very substantial premium in this change ratio.\nBut the Northern Pacific\u2019s decision was that its natural resource properties entitled it to apparent share-for-share.\nThe Great Northern took the position that that was not the case.\nIt said, even with the natural resource earnings based on historical record of earnings, it was entitled to a substantial preference in this exchange ratio and it took different positions about the amount of that preference, but toward the end of the negotiations it said that it thought that giving due allowance to the natural resources, it was entitled to about a 20% premium.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [0.0, 5.158, 12.331, 35.682, 48.427, 64.967, 75.914, 80.313], "stop_times": [5.158, 12.331, 35.682, 48.427, 64.967, 75.914, 80.313, 106.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15016__0_001", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Does the Great Northern own any substantial non-railroad income-producing property or --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [106.13], "stop_times": [112.309], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 106.13}, "reply_to": "15016__0_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__0_002", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "No, it is from industrial properties, but I think that you can fairly say as a general matter that its earnings represent earnings from railroad activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [112.309], "stop_times": [122.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 112.309}, "reply_to": "15016__0_001", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15016__0_003", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Suppose it does own a real estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [122.483], "stop_times": [125.553], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 122.483}, "reply_to": "15016__0_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__0_004", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Yes, it has some industrial real estate and some properties of that kind but nothing like to properties of the Northern Pacific.\nI think that has to be said.\nThis went on until 1960, that kind and I think this is rather significant, the banking advisers of Northern Pacific, Morgan Stanley suggested the compromise was finally adopted which the exchange ratio that the parties agreed to.\nNow, that was described yesterday.\nI merely would like to say this about the ratio.\nThe reasoning that underlies it is that it gives the shareholders of Northern Pacific in the long term and equal share in the equity of this new company.\nBut at the same time it gives an immediate but not a lasting recognition through this preferred stock to the historical fact that the earnings and dividends of the Great Northern had been greater than the exchange ratio was established.\nNow this compromise proposed by Morgan Stanley was approved by both investment banking houses by the board of directors of each company and it was twice approved by the stockholders of Northern Pacific.\nOnce in 1961 and once last year in 1968, and each occasion it was approved by 73% of stockholders, the first time are about 6% of the stockholders who voted against it, the second time about 2% of the stockholders who voted against it.\nI think it must be said about the 2% to decline in that vote.\nBut the Committee conducted a proxy fight and that they did ask that those who favored their point of view not vote as well as vote against.\nSo that no doubt that the part accounted for they declined in the vote.\nBut the Committee in the proxy fight presented all the arguments that they have presented here.\nNow the Commission and the Trial Examiner both bound that this ratio was just and reasonable.\nThe Commission found that it fairly represented the contribution that each group or shareholders has made to the new enterprise.\nI emphasize that fact because I think the impression might have been left for the Court yesterday that Commission based its approval of the ratio solely on the finding that there was arm\u2019s length bargaining.\nWell, it did find that there have been arm\u2019s length bargaining but it also made this finding on the fair contribution to the -- to the new company by each group of shareholders.\nThe findings that were made by the Commission on fairness to ratio, we submit are supported by substantial evidence.\nThere was a great deal of evidence to the -- that supported the Commission\u2019s finding that this ratio fairly represented the contribution made by each group of shareholders.\nThe ratio was based by -- and it got finally on an appraisal of earnings both on appraisal of the past earnings to which there was evidence before the parties and which was before the Commission, and a judgment about the earnings in the future including the earnings of the natural resources properties.\nThe parties didn\u2019t use any arithmetical formula but they reached a judgment about that and established the exchange ratio accordingly.\nNow, the Committee seems to make really two points about the evidences complaining the fact that the ratio wasn\u2019t based on asset appraisal of the market value of these properties.\nThey suggested there was really no evidence about that before the Commission, but I think that is not quite a complete count of what did happen.\nThere was each of the railroads here got independent as said appraisals from independent firms are the more important to these properties.\nAnd then their direct testimony before the Commission, the executive of the railroad applicants testified about these appraisals and explained why they didn\u2019t use them in establishing the exchange ratio.\nThe Committee asked the appraisals and they were produced and the Committee put them an evidence before the Commission.\nSo the Commission had some evidence, had the evidence about the asset appraisals and also testimony about why they weren\u2019t used.\nThey weren\u2019t used because they were in parties\u2019 judgment they were not as reliable earnings, there were enormous differences between them, and even the independent firms who made them in some instances said they weren\u2019t sure that they reflected market value.\nThe Committee also complains that not enough weight was given to the earnings of the natural resource properties of the Northern Pacific.\nIt says they should\u2019ve been valued at 50 times earnings or perhaps to 22-1/2 times earnings.\nBut I submit there is nothing in the record that required the Commission to accept those particular arithmetical formulas as a standard for judging the legality of this exchange ratio.\nThe 50 times earnings at the time is testified to would have produced a value for the natural resources property of the Northern Pacific alone, which was $90 million than the -- higher than the total stock market value of the entire enterprise including the railroad properties.\nIt would have produced evaluation that was $280 million more than the amount to the Committee proposed that these properties be sold for in connection with the divestiture proposal of the Committee put before the Commission, so that the formula really didn\u2019t come within any measurable distance of reality.\nThe 22-1/2 times formula if it applied to the five years before 1960 when the exchange ratio was determined produces an exchange ratio that a little less favorable to the Northern Pacific stockholders than they want -- than the ratio they actually received.\nThat\u2019s true if you applied in some more recent years.\nNow, the Committee can apply up to certain years and get the results that they say show that the ratio was unfair and these computations are in our brief -- in their brief.\nI'm inclined to think that what they show is that with one of these arithmetical formulas, you can get different results to apply them to different years.\nBut the fact is that there was substantial evidence before the Commission about all the matters, to parties considered in relation to earnings, the various things that affected earnings past and what would might affect them in the future to indicate that this exchange ratio had a substantial basis and that evidence was all before the Commission and they discussed in detail were about 28 pages and Examiner\u2019s report about 11 pages and the Commission\u2019s report that sets out this evidence.\nNow, what I have said about the finding as to the fairness, the contribution that each group of shareholders made to the company.\nI think could also be said about the finding that there was arm\u2019s length bargaining.\nBoth the examiner and the Commission made that finding and the examiner made it after hearing testimony from the executives who participated in these negotiations and from the representatives of the banking house which participated and advised the two companies.\nI think that I understand what the -- that is the point of view is, I think they believe, no doubt sincerely that the Commission they have given too much weight to some evidence and not enough weight to another -- other or that perhaps for variant inferences to the inferences that the examiner and the Commission drew from the evidence.\nBut, I think it cannot be said really that these findings lack support and substantial evidence in the record.\nNow, the Committee makes another contention which was referred to briefly yesterday and that is that the Commission abused its discretion in 1968 when it didn\u2019t reopen this record and that retry the issue of the fairness to the exchange ratio.\nWe have discussed that point in our brief and replied to the showings that they have made was to change conditions with the analysis to those conditions which we submit that shows that the matters on which they rely do not really support the argument that the Commission abused its discretion.\nThank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [125.553, 132.432, 136.216, 155.382, 158.011, 161.259, 177.213, 197.12, 211.561, 233.784, 238.902, 250.84, 255.997, 261.545, 270.085, 279.115, 291.137, 302.803, 315.152, 326.939, 348.511, 357.009, 374.194, 383.633, 393.004, 408.415, 413.557, 422.531, 438.443, 448.672, 455.413, 469.073, 490.612, 509.486, 529.414, 532.41, 544.08, 552.728, 586.796, 596.343, 602.061, 626.731, 652.264, 663.504, 679.08, 703.615], "stop_times": [132.432, 136.216, 155.382, 158.011, 161.259, 177.213, 197.12, 211.561, 233.784, 238.902, 250.84, 255.997, 261.545, 270.085, 279.115, 291.137, 302.803, 315.152, 326.939, 348.511, 357.009, 374.194, 383.633, 393.004, 408.415, 413.557, 422.531, 438.443, 448.672, 455.413, 469.073, 490.612, 509.486, 529.414, 532.41, 544.08, 552.728, 586.796, 596.343, 602.061, 626.731, 652.264, 663.504, 679.08, 703.615, 704.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 125.553}, "reply_to": "15016__0_003", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15016__0_005", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Thank you Mr. Cox.\nMr. Tolan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [704.592, 707.588], "stop_times": [707.588, 714.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.592}, "reply_to": "15016__0_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__1_000", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI speak only for the shippers and receivers of freight here today.\nShippers want and need this merger as it\u2019s now conditioned.\nI appear for 230 intervenor-shipper receivers who will cover over 1,000 actual shippers and receivers of freight from the very smallest industries of the west to some of the largest out there.\nWe want this merger because it will help us tremendously.\nThe scope of people that are covered by the appearance here today run from poll of car shippers, fish, clothing, furniture, peat moss, almost every aspect of business.\nThe complete list of whom I speak here today are covered on page 2 of my brief and page 1312 of the appendix list all the 230 interventions for whom I speak.\nThis merger is a good merger.\nIt\u2019s a merger in the public interest.\nIt will reduce transportation cost, it will speed service, and it will improve and I emphasize the word \u201cimprove competition beyond anything that we have today.\u201d\nThe shipping public virtually to amend and I emphasize that word \u201cvirtually to amend\u201d is solidly behind this merger as directed by the Interstate Commerce Commission and before this Court today.\nWe cannot support the Department of Justice\u2019s position for what they would provide by their solution as a mere aspirin when what the shipping public needs is the surgery of this type of action.\nThe position of the Department is not realistic.\nIt will not give the shippers the benefits and the competitive safeguards at the Interstate Commerce Commission order give us.\nFor that reason, we support the order before the Court today.\nNow, I want to be specific, I want to be very specific because basically my part of the presentation is to give the facts of the benefit of the public in this merger.\nHere are the basic points I would like to touch on in the time that I have here.\nFirst, the direct shipper benefits from the Great Northern Pacific Burlington merger.\nThe second thing goes many added benefits that we get from a new and revitalized Milwaukee Railroad.\nThe third thing is the vast amount of competitive traffic that will be available to us to protect us after the merger is accomplished.\nFourth, the tremendous number of safeguards that the Interstate Commerce Commission has built-in to the order that\u2019s before this Court today to protect us from great discrimination and service discriminations.\nSome really wonderful safeguards and lastly, the $40 million saving, the benefits that will directly accrued to the shipping public from the manifesting of those savings to the shipping and to the railroads involved.\nNow coming specifically, are the shippers that I represent here today are they the pawns of the railroad, are we the ones swayed by the brochure?\nThe answer is no.\nWe intervened in the case, disagreed, I emphasize the word \u201cdisagreed\u201d with Northern Lines and took an independent position with independent witnesses, independent counsel, and it was only after the petition for reconsideration came in that we are altogether.\nRight from the start, we felt there had to be conditions for the Milwaukee Railroad.\nThere had to be a merger, but there had to be conditions and we fought valuably for something over 10 years even before the official filing to accomplish this end result that\u2019s before the Court today.\nNow, the shippers are uniquely situated to judge the effectiveness.\nOur people in over 50,000 car loads of freight are aggregated in the shippers for whom I speak here today.\nWe have studied this, we have lived with it for 10 years, we participated in every phase of the action from an independent status position and we believe we do have the facts that will justify to this Court why we think the merger should be approved by the Court.\nFirst, if I could touch on the direct benefits from the GN and NP Burlington merger without touching on the Milwaukee.\nFirst is faster service.\nThat cannot be -- the value of that cannot be over estimated.\nIt includes \u2013 it increases a shelf life of our perishables, or apples or potatoes or lettuce that reduces the inventory requirements for stocks out in the west where we have such tremendous distances and reduces icing and refrigeration cost.\nIt produces less inventory requirements.\nAll of this is tremendous to us.\nIt will make one the two days difference into the Kansas City mid-west markets and at least the day\u2019s net final difference to as to and from the Chicago markets not on hotshot when train west-bound the day.\nBut on basic all freight that is so critical to the marketing of the Pacific Northwest.\nWe will have faster north-south as well as east-west service.\nA second part of this is the dependability of the service.\nAfter this merger, the merged railroads will have two not one line which will give us dependability when there is whether washout, derailments and other things that repeatedly occur on railroads of the type of operation here.\nBut more importantly on the dependability is the fact that they will be using vastly shorter routes to and from the key market.\nFor example, the record shows right now that 15 million car miles a day will be -- or car miles a year will be saved by the new short routes that will utilized by this merge line in the operation after merger is accomplished.\nThey\u2019ll do that by running more traffic through the Laurel-Billings area that now goes through Missouri River Gateways.\nThey\u2019ll do it by using the best and the shortest parts of the combined systems such as was touched on earlier by other speakers.\nThey\u2019ll do that by making improvements in north-south as well as east-west routings.\nNow, the third great thing is the improved transit privileges.\nUnfortunately, in the west we raise strawberries in one area, beans in another area, and we must put those together to get the advantages of low rates.\nThat means stop and transit to complete loading to make the necessary mix the customers\u2019 want.\nThey don\u2019t want a straight car load of strawberries or beans, they want a mix.\nWe can start at one point and complete on another.\nAt the present time, we have to do essentially all on the GN or essentially all on the NP after merger the scope of the mix vastly improved.\nThe ability to fabricate lumber and other products that are fabricated or equally done, grain and flower, and feed will be able to draw cross lines where they now are restricted just to the GN or just to the NP for the transit privileges.\nAll of those are tremendous advantages.\nNow a better car supply actually 61,555 car days will be eliminated by having one pool instead of three pools of equipment.\nFinancially, able railroads will be able to buy more equipment and they are able to not buy now which are essentially based on earnings.\nWe get new cars when railroads are profitable.\nWe don\u2019t get these cars when railroads aren\u2019t unprofitable.\nUnfortunately, car supply now is diminished.\nFaster routes, the faster routes as I touched on earlier will save 639,000 car days a year by using the faster routes rather than the longer circuitous routes now.\nThen again, this case is badly oriented east and west.\nWe think there has been a myopic view of this case and that it is a tremendous north-south impact railroad.\nWe will get an end of the stranglehold of the SP on the north-south traffic by making a new gateway at Kalama Falls that will enable this line to interchange traffic at Kalama Falls giving them a roughly half of the whole traffic between north and south that we do not have today.\nWe\u2019ll have a new Northern Pacific gateway with the western pacific which we don\u2019t have today.\nNow, another great benefit is job security.\nWe fought valuably for conditions for labor on this one and now all labor has virtually lifetime jobs in the City of Auburn that is before you hear today are not before you hear today but in pleadings to the Court.\nWe now have the assurance that the yards are staying in Auburn, they are growing there.\nIt\u2019s a boom area of our part of the country that is you put grass in the street kind of concept.\nThere is not to be no job impairment and the security that gives business to know that that\u2019s going to be there.\nNow, the last important benefit directly from the GN and NP merger is this, this was saved about $40 million a year.\nNow, will that go to the shippers?\nWe know it will go to the shippers for justice reason.\nThe railroads in the last 18 months that had thee separate rate increases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, 3%, 5% then 10 days ago just 10 days ago they asked another 6% all based on added cost of operation.\nAs shipper\u2019s we know the only way that we can get rates down or not hold them down, not let them get down but just hold them from going out of the moon is to get lower cost of operation.\nThis merger will save $40 million a year and coincidentally that would be just about the equivalent of 6% that\u2019s before the Commission today for rate increase.\nIt\u2019s that important to the shipping public.\nNow, beyond those tremendous benefits before the GN and NP merger, what do we get as added benefits it\u2019s because we get new Milwaukee railroad and we do get a new Milwaukee.\nWe get a revitalized east-west railroad with the ability to take long hauls instead of being cut-off at the pocket at St. Paul.\nNow, they have to give all traffic to the GN and NP at St. Paul.\nNow, they\u2019ll be able to haul it, clear out as far west to Seattle and Spokane.\nWe\u2019ll get a new north-south railroad because we have no Milwaukee connection south of Longview to Dayville go into Portland and we\u2019ll have a brand new competitive line there.\nWe\u2019ll have a new Canadian railroad with high speed service to in and from the Sumas area.\nWe\u2019ll have another railroad in Billings, the Milwaukee.\nIn the Bellingham area, we will have a vastly improved service there.\nFast industrial lands and properties on the Milwaukee that no sensible industry could locate on because of their absence of proper rates and routes because of their limited coverage and other deficiencies will be opened for industrial development and beyond all of that, this should make such a substantial improvement in the revenue position of the Milwaukee railroad that they will be a vital competitor even better than they are today.\nNow, after the merger, those are the benefits of the Milwaukee.\nAre we going to be left then with the withdrawal of the GN competition with something of a vacuum of competition?\nTo me, it\u2019s unbelievable that such insertion could be made to the Court here and to the courts below and to the Commission.\nFor example, the Union Pacific, the Union Pacific will handle over 100,000 cars of loaded freight through the Huntington, Oregon gateway to and from the Pacific Northwest.\nIf that\u2019s with competition it\u2019s certainly not the adjective that shippers would use.\nAfter the merger, the Great Northern Pacific Merger of the UP holding just the business they have today would handle still about 25% of the business of the north-west.\nWe\u2019ll have the strengthened Milwaukee.\nThe SP will handle 42% of the business out of the State of Oregon.\nNow, those tremendous it says from the competitive railroads that will exist plus the CPR-Soo are a vital importance to -- or a vital importance to us in giving us competition for the future.\nBeyond that, we will have transcontinental truck lines, eight new ones since this case was filed.\nWe have exempt trucks.\nWe have a vast amount of trucking covering everything from lowest rated to high rated traffic.\nNow, the last important -- the last major point I would like to make is, what safeguards has the Interstate Commerce Commission built-in to their order that will protect us from great discriminations and service discriminations if this Court approves that order?\nThe most important thing is this.\nThe long and short of provisions of Section 4 of the Act will prevent any competitive or totally non-competitive point from being charged more than the next beyond the point.\nThat makes with 236 competitive points on this railroad that would give a fantastic amount of long and short to a rate protection that is iron clad and is not waived anywhere in this order.\nWe\u2019ll have rate protection because the competitive rates will serve at the maximum at any intermediate point.\nBeyond that, we have the ability to short hold the GN and NP by giving the traffic to the Milwaukee.\nFor example, in the Columbia basin if they would not give proper car supply we could take the GN and NP and turn the traffic over to the Milwaukee at Spoken to take on to Chicago.\nWe will have at least eight other routes such as the Western Pacific the sewer line route, the rates by the CPR-Soo, the rates via the Union Pacific and those via the Western Pacific.\nBeyond that, the Commission has even gone this far.\nThey have given us at five years safety valve, any of us, the shipper or injured railroad or other injured party can come back to this Commission any time within five years and say we have been treated unfairly, we need help and the Commission is holding this record open to take care of that.\nThen the last thing is our own State Commissions who do not oppose this merger now will be able to bring their best influences to bear.\nNow, in inclusion I would like to say this, there is no labor opposition before this Court today.\nThere is no state opposition here.\nThe Department of Agriculture supports the merger and the Department of Defense does not oppose it.\nNo shipper opposition, no chamber port or other group is here opposing this merger.\nThe ICC obviously supports it not one railroad is here contesting this for all of those reasons, we respectfully urge the Court to affirm the decision of the lower court and allow the merger to proceed forthwith.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [714.474, 718.775, 723.824, 728.758, 743.429, 747.386, 759.423, 772.404, 774.554, 777.213, 788.321, 802.582, 816.093, 818.861, 826.115, 830.836, 841.531, 846.268, 852.299, 858.936, 871.888, 885.305, 902.669, 913.048, 914.951, 932.587, 938.293, 951.449, 957.918, 965.91, 983.05, 989.987, 992.234, 996.526, 1013.461, 1016.733, 1018.878, 1033.371, 1040.194, 1044.459, 1048.101, 1063.417, 1072.42, 1090.318, 1098.058, 1105.53, 1111.321, 1115.364, 1125.756, 1131.544, 1136.112, 1139.586, 1150.977, 1168.219, 1171.193, 1184.639, 1193.702, 1196.758, 1200.031, 1203.834, 1218.405, 1222.419, 1232.249, 1251.711, 1257.786, 1261.301, 1277.109, 1282.711, 1289.399, 1296.712, 1306.54, 1308.834, 1312.55, 1329.944, 1343.279, 1354.646, 1358.434, 1371.529, 1379.975, 1384.765, 1389.576, 1400.38, 1406.362, 1410.454, 1416.212, 1445.914, 1450.013, 1458.14, 1467.078, 1480.915, 1488.097, 1499.903, 1502.211, 1509.477, 1525.117, 1531.385, 1533.166, 1539.328, 1557.652, 1559.773, 1571.6, 1586.11, 1593.251, 1600.558, 1612.591, 1626.285, 1629.65, 1647.521, 1659.032, 1665.246, 1667.556, 1673.6, 1678.933, 1694.639], "stop_times": [718.775, 723.824, 728.758, 743.429, 747.386, 759.423, 772.404, 774.554, 777.213, 788.321, 802.582, 816.093, 818.861, 826.115, 830.836, 841.531, 846.268, 852.299, 858.936, 871.888, 885.305, 902.669, 913.048, 914.951, 932.587, 938.293, 951.449, 957.918, 965.91, 983.05, 989.987, 992.234, 996.526, 1013.461, 1016.733, 1018.878, 1033.371, 1040.194, 1044.459, 1048.101, 1063.417, 1072.42, 1090.318, 1098.058, 1105.53, 1111.321, 1115.364, 1125.756, 1131.544, 1136.112, 1139.586, 1150.977, 1168.219, 1171.193, 1184.639, 1193.702, 1196.758, 1200.031, 1203.834, 1218.405, 1222.419, 1232.249, 1251.711, 1257.786, 1261.301, 1277.109, 1282.711, 1289.399, 1296.712, 1306.54, 1308.834, 1312.55, 1329.944, 1343.279, 1354.646, 1358.434, 1371.529, 1379.975, 1384.765, 1389.576, 1400.38, 1406.362, 1410.454, 1416.212, 1445.914, 1450.013, 1458.14, 1467.078, 1480.915, 1488.097, 1499.903, 1502.211, 1509.477, 1525.117, 1531.385, 1533.166, 1539.328, 1557.652, 1559.773, 1571.6, 1586.11, 1593.251, 1600.558, 1612.591, 1626.285, 1629.65, 1647.521, 1659.032, 1665.246, 1667.556, 1673.6, 1678.933, 1694.639, 1696.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 714.474}, "reply_to": "15016__0_005", "speaker": "fred_h_tolan"}
{"id": "15016__1_001", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Thank you Mr. Tolan.\nMr. Merrill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1696.586, 1698.873], "stop_times": [1698.873, 1716.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.586}, "reply_to": "15016__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__2_000", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe Milwaukee feels a little bit hurt by the brush off that we received from the Department of Justice as a weak third competitor of the applicant lines.\nIt is true as the evidence which we ourselves put into the case demonstrates we are not as favorably situated financially as any of the applicants as reflected in that income working capital and various other measures.\nBut the Commission has not said we are not a good competitor.\nThe Commission in its first report which the Department of Justice says as correctly analyze the competitive posture of this case points out that we compete with the applicant lines in the 11 states that we provide in efficient and essential service in the areas where we are the principle competitors of the applicants that the shippers look to the Milwaukee for active and vigorous competition both in rate negotiations and in quality of service.\nAnd as a matter of fact, the only reference in this whole argument to any improved service is to resolve a competition.\nThe only specific example has been that a faster train service to the west coast which was a result of the Milwaukee\u2019s competition.\nFor the Department of Justice to say that we are a weak competitor represents a complete turn about from the representations made by the Department to the Commission.\nIn its brief to the Interstate Commerce Commission, it referred to the acquisition case of the Spokane International Railroad by the Union Pacific and referred to the Court decision as well as the Commission\u2019s decision in that case and said, this recognition by the Commission and the court of intense competition among the Northern Lines and the Milwaukee is supported by ample and substantial evidence in the record in this case.\nMeaning the case before us today and there is no substantial evidence to support a contrary finding.\nThe Department went on and pointed out that the Milwaukee generally follows the route of the Northern Pacific.\nIt is a 10,596-mile system.\nMilwaukee is in competition with the Burlington and the Northern Lines of 187 stations, 135 of which are located in Washington, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.\nAnd finally, the Department says, applicants admit that at present the Milwaukee is a very aggressive and effective competitor and there is \u201cintensive competition\u201d between them for the traffic.\nJustice Department went further and in their brief to the Commission pointed out nine specific representative instances of how the Milwaukee\u2019s active and vigorous real competition and independent action has brought great advantages to the public.\nI will not read all of those reasons, they appear on pages 140-142 of Justices\u2019 brief to the Commission.\nThe question may well be raised that we are such a good competitor, why aren\u2019t we rich? Or perhaps more specifically, why is our share of the traffic so small?\nThe Milwaukee-Houston find to the area which in serves along the Northern Interior States and on the west coast principally to the State of Washington.\nWe are unable to serve the city of Billings which is the principle distribution point between the twin cites and the west coast.\nWe do not reach Portland or Beaver as to the Northern Lines where they have friendly connections to work with for traffic moving Oregon and California.\nWe do not have a fast route north of Seattle where we can be effectively competitive for the traffic moving to in and from Canada.\nAnd finally, with the western injunctions, west to the twin cites is closed to the Milwaukee we find that we may originate traffic in the mid-west or receive traffic from our connections in the mid-west and when we get as far as the Twin Cities we\u2019re compelled to turn it over to our competitors if the traffic moves to a station local to our competitors, or if the shipper wants our competitors to have a line haul.\nNotwithstanding that for example, a car going to Vancouver-Washington could physically be handled by the Milwaukee all the way to Tacoma, and then turn it over for the haul beyond.\nBut by reason of the rate structure and the right which the Northern Lines held under the law to protect their line haul, we are not able to compete for that traffic for the long haul.\nNow, there is no dissent among the Commissioners in their first report that the Milwaukee should have adequate protection.\nThis was one thing they all agreed on, the six majority members said that this -- that it would be inconceivable for this merger to be approved without adequate protection for the Milwaukee and five dissenters regretted the fact that the Commission was passing up an opportunity finally to make the Milwaukee complete competitive in the Northern jury states and the Pacific Northwest.\nWith these conditions, first of all we\u2019ll be able to handle traffic which is destined to or from Billings, or which is to be stopped off at Billings were part loading or part unloading.\nWith these conditions, we\u2019ll be able to go to Portland where the Southern Pacific is waiting to work with the Milwaukee as an effective route for traffic to in and from the California and Oregon on the one hand to mid-west and the rest of the country on the other hand.\nWe\u2019ll be able to participate with our track is right North of Seattle or in North and South traffic between Canada and California, Canada and Oregon on an equal basis with the Northern Pacific and Great Northern after they emerged.\nAnd with the west bound traffic that we now handle and have to give up with the Twin Cities will be able to hold that traffic and take it to our part of this junction.\nOur solicitations now first aren\u2019t all that important if a shipper first is dissatisfied with the service of the Northern Lines give, or secondly, if the traffic is already in our position as much of it is going west bound.\nAnd finally, the Justice Department again has conceded that the Milwaukee will be strengthened by these conditions.\nThe effect upon the shippers is been discussed here by Mr. Tolan, I believe that the purpose of the antitrust laws is not so much to start out competition for the sake of competition but to make it sure that there will be a free flow of interstate commerce and that shippers will be able to reach their markets and to reach their source of supply without discrimination, without interference.\nAnd these conditions that we have received will enable Milwaukee shippers to do exactly that, and be able to originate a car on our railroad and stop it off at the station served by one of the Northern Lines today and then move on to a destination, either on our railroad on their railroad.\nThese benefits are important where the free flow of commerce and there were many, many shippers of great size and importance who came in to seek this opening up for the area for competition.\nAs a matter of fact, it will open up competition to points that never have competition before.\nEvery local point on the Great Northern where the Northern Pacific or the Milwaukee which is been a secret domain so far as competition is concern because no one else could reach it.\nWell, now we open for competition whereby each of the competing railroads may so visit the long whole of the traffic.\nTo the closest junction to those points and there interchange it with their competitor and the shipper thereby can wheel the club over the railroads and their service by using the railroad which gives them the best service for the long haul of the traffic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1716.941, 1721.732, 1735.018, 1752.635, 1758.656, 1788.919, 1795.873, 1807.276, 1819.567, 1851.122, 1860.905, 1866.245, 1870.077, 1884.132, 1900.163, 1917.039, 1930.39, 1943.604, 1956.325, 1966.079, 1979.454, 1989.69, 2019.293, 2031.337, 2047.337, 2053.791, 2081.623, 2093.389, 2111.801, 2128.44, 2137.576, 2154.583, 2162.73, 2189.631, 2210.196, 2225.845, 2231.323, 2242.574, 2250.931], "stop_times": [1721.732, 1735.018, 1752.635, 1758.656, 1788.919, 1795.873, 1807.276, 1819.567, 1851.122, 1860.905, 1866.245, 1870.077, 1884.132, 1900.163, 1917.039, 1930.39, 1943.604, 1956.325, 1966.079, 1979.454, 1989.69, 2019.293, 2031.337, 2047.337, 2053.791, 2081.623, 2093.389, 2111.801, 2128.44, 2137.576, 2154.583, 2162.73, 2189.631, 2210.196, 2225.845, 2231.323, 2242.574, 2250.931, 2268.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.941}, "reply_to": "15016__1_001", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_001", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Is there any possibility of great competition and they doing railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2268.627], "stop_times": [2274.28], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.627}, "reply_to": "15016__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_002", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "A possibility of rate competition, yes sir there is.\nAnd in the area and which we compete we have given them quite a bit of rate competition and we find that in many instances that the Northern Lines and we do not at all see eye to eye and before the Commission and before the Courts we are on opposite sides as we try to adjust our rates on commodities to or from certain territories.\nAnd the Northern Lines have appeared to protest and try to prevent our rate changes from taking effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2274.28, 2278.107, 2301.851], "stop_times": [2278.107, 2301.851, 2311.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.28}, "reply_to": "15016__2_001", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_003", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Is it -- would you say service competition is more usual than rate competition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2311.671], "stop_times": [2320.213], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.671}, "reply_to": "15016__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_004", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "I would say by enlarge that rate competition is the more troublesome factor and the more likely to be an issue between the railroads.\nWe have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2320.213, 2333.357], "stop_times": [2333.357, 2334.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.213}, "reply_to": "15016__2_003", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_005", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "You mean that\u2019s a great competition is really the -- really of what service competition and the shadows in effective competitive device?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2334.027], "stop_times": [2344.953], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.027}, "reply_to": "15016__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_006", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "I do not wish to indicate that service is not important I believe it is very important service.\nBut I think that we find our disagreements among ourselves and our attempts to better our position manifest itself in rate adjustments more often and then as the Milwaukee did not too long ago improvement of a service in a very drastic or substantial manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2344.953, 2352.598], "stop_times": [2352.598, 2372.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.953}, "reply_to": "15016__2_005", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_007", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "I think so.\nThe Milwaukee as it compares and I suppose it feels that it isn\u2019t any -- isn\u2019t any worst position competing against the real giant and gets two giants.\nIs it going to really go into interfere with the -- is it really going to make your competitive position less obtainable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2372.274, 2375.286, 2389.284], "stop_times": [2375.286, 2389.284, 2398.971], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.274}, "reply_to": "15016__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_008", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "We feel that it will tend -- it will definitely improve our competitive position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2398.971], "stop_times": [2403.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.971}, "reply_to": "15016__2_007", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_009", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "The condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2403.912], "stop_times": [2404.815], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.912}, "reply_to": "15016__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_010", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Yes sir and their merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2404.815], "stop_times": [2407.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.815}, "reply_to": "15016__2_009", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_011", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "What absence of the conditions, what about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2407.075], "stop_times": [2410.612], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.075}, "reply_to": "15016__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_012", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Absence of the conditions of Milwaukee took a very strong position in opposition to the merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2410.612], "stop_times": [2415.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.612}, "reply_to": "15016__2_011", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_013", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2415.656], "stop_times": [2416.36], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.656}, "reply_to": "15016__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_014", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Because the merger would permit the improvement of service by the Northern Lines permit them to offer their shippers more than they can offer today, permit them to give many of these benefits that the Milwaukee\u2019s conditions will enable the Milwaukee to give it shippers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2416.36], "stop_times": [2432.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.36}, "reply_to": "15016__2_013", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_015", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Rate-wise though, it wouldn\u2019t put you in any disadvantage, or I guess it would if there was improved, if they\u2019re lower cost in the other line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2432.242], "stop_times": [2439.323], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.242}, "reply_to": "15016__2_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__2_016", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "If they were able to lower their rates and justify it by the cost of their handling and their cost were lower than ours, we would find it rather difficult to match their rates.\nThe suggestion is made by Justice Department that this relief is available in less drastic forms and a merger for the Milwaukee but they have not said that the Milwaukee can obtain trackage rights to Portland, obtain trackage rights to north of Seattle, and be kept the right to serve Billings because there is no law and no power in the Interstate Commerce Commission to require the Northern Lines to let us have any of those rights.\nThe only condition that is possibly obtainable under any part of the law today would be the opening of the western injunctions and we try that ones, we came clear up to the Supreme Court and although the Justice Department in its brief to this Court points its finger at the Commission and says they have done nothing to help the Milwaukee break the stranglehold.\nIt was a Justice Department\u2019s standing with the Commission who opposed us all the way in the lower and in the Supreme Court from obtaining that relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2439.323, 2453.3, 2482.519, 2509.702], "stop_times": [2453.3, 2482.519, 2509.702, 2519.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.323}, "reply_to": "15016__2_015", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_017", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "How long ago was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2519.688], "stop_times": [2521.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.688}, "reply_to": "15016__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__2_018", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "I would say at 1955 or 1956 as my memory stands me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2521.032], "stop_times": [2527.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.032}, "reply_to": "15016__2_017", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_019", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Was there any effort made in, in terms of discussion in the Commission\u2019s report to have a comparative analysis of the increased competition of the Milwaukee vis-a-vis the decreased competition between the two Northern or is that not feasible to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2527.037], "stop_times": [2556.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.037}, "reply_to": "15016__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__2_020", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Do you mean sir in the case we are just talking about where we attempted to open the gateway?\nOf course, at that time there was no proposal to merge the two railroads and the problem in the law as it exists today to open gateway says, it must be shown that the shipper must have the service.\nAnd the law prohibits the Commission from opening these gateways where the purpose of improving the financial position or strength of the carrier who seeks these gateways.\nI would like to submit to the Court in the few minutes remaining that this is a situation where the objectives of the National Transportation Policy and of antitrust laws in both be carried out.\nThere is no conflict here.\nThe Milwaukee will be able to render efficient economic transportation for its shippers.\nIt will foster sound economic conditions for the Milwaukee and it will be able to provide a transportation service adequate to the needs of the commerce of the United States and of the Postal Service and of the National Defense in accordance with the National Transportation policy.\nAt the same time the purposes of the antitrust laws are frustrated by a prevention of competition as much as by anything else.\nAnd when a competitor such as the Milwaukee road is prevented from competing although it is equipped to do so, the antitrust laws objectives are especially frustrated and here with the conditions to the Milwaukee.\nThe objectives are both of the National Transportation Policy and the antitrust laws can be carried out.\nAnd I would like in closing to renew a promise that we made in the lower court and that is that if this merger is approved subject to the Milwaukee\u2019s conditions.\nWe promise that with our hands is finally untied so that we can physically compete for traffic over our line to and from Washington as well as to participate in traffic to and from Canada, Oregon and California.\nWe will give the merge company and other competitors such as the Union Pacific and the Canadian Pacific who have profited by our competitive handcuffs more strong vigorous and effective competition and they even have bargained for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2556.216, 2563.375, 2579.489, 2592.067, 2608.284, 2610.195, 2616.962, 2633.2, 2642.652, 2658.46, 2664.304, 2676.073, 2692.715], "stop_times": [2563.375, 2579.489, 2592.067, 2608.284, 2610.195, 2616.962, 2633.2, 2642.652, 2658.46, 2664.304, 2676.073, 2692.715, 2711.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.216}, "reply_to": "15016__2_019", "speaker": "raymond_k_merrill"}
{"id": "15016__2_021", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Thank you Mr. Merrill.\nMr. McLaren you have between nine and ten minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2711.388, 2720.281], "stop_times": [2720.281, 2724.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.388}, "reply_to": "15016__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__3_000", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI believe that we have approximately that time and the Livingston Committee as I understand would like to have two minutes.\nI would like to, if I may answer one point that came up yesterday and then to finish a point which I started yesterday and did not conclude.\nNow, it\u2019s been argued by the other side that our position in this case is in an amorphous one.\nWe think it is not, it\u2019s very clear and it\u2019s simply this, as a matter of law Section 52 of the Commerce Act when (Inaudible) of the National Transportation Policy does not authorize the merger which destroys very substantial of competition among healthy railroads who dominate their territory in the absence of a serious transportation need which cannot otherwise be met.\nNow, Mr. Justice White asked, what kind of mergers will this permit?\nWell first, it will permit a vast number simply because most roads are not in competition with one another or if they are in competition with another, it may very well be in relatively small area and that they cover the over line maybe rather negligible.\nSecond, this would not prevent mergers of strong with weak roads even if they are competing.\nNow, these two types of merger we think are the principle once which Congress contemplated but to passed the 1920 and the 1940 Acts.\nMergers which would strengthen the small and weaker roads and contribute to the development of competing systems and that\u2019s discussed the legislative history in our brief at page 30.\nFinally, you do have the healthy dominant roads who are head to head competitors and what kind of needs would justify their merger.\nWell, in our view examples of serious transportation needs would include first a need to remedy inadequate service which cannot otherwise be made adequate.\nPerhaps this might involve the opening up an expensive a new area to serve if for some reason and comes to mind the Alaska Frontier where new discoveries come as very difficult to reach.\nSecond, a demonstrated inability of the merging roads to separately serve expanding or projected a new ship or markets.\nThird, a need to shore up a weak or failing line whose service is while essential cannot be maintained without the drastic remedy of merger.\nAnd here, it comes to mind the Penn-Central Merger.\nFourth, a need for a restructuring in order to restore effective, competitive balance in a major area.\nAs a hypothetically example, it might be perfectly reasonable to authorize the merger of the Milwaukee with one of the Northern Lines.\nIf Milwaukee cannot otherwise be made by such a merger, would have two effects.\nFirst, it would leave the two strong direct competitors in the Northern Tier instead of the situation that\u2019s created by this merger where a one enormously dominant company and one relatively weak competitor would be left.\nSecondly, such a merger, it would involve only a relatively small of the competition being eliminated.\nNow, Mr. Cox appears to concede that ICC proceeded in this case on an ad hoc basis.\nI think that\u2019s what he --that the term he used but it was not guided by some general principle of law.\nThe only principle of which we seem to find that was followed in the second report is that the statement of the Commission that the policy -- the Act is clearly to facilitate and thereby a foster and encourage consolidations which can be shown to be consistent with the public interest.\nAnd then it went on to rely upon conclusory language that the benefits of the merger outweigh the laws of competition.\nWell now, as I start to argue yesterday, we think that ICC did give up too easily on these very less drastic alternatives.\nAt 321 of the record, it said in the second report, denial of the applications for the purpose of preserving competition between the Northern Lines would merely perpetually the existing dominants of the GN and the NP in the Northern Tier and then it went on to say it would relocate the Milwaukee to an increasing the marginal and deteriorating role.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2724.555, 2727.8, 2736.934, 2748.018, 2755.735, 2784.633, 2789.696, 2807.833, 2815.045, 2824.725, 2837.616, 2847.23, 2861.505, 2877.191, 2886.446, 2896.464, 2900.487, 2909.279, 2919.084, 2925.047, 2941.246, 2950.514, 2958.148, 2964.211, 2984.972, 2993.935, 3003.273], "stop_times": [2727.8, 2736.934, 2748.018, 2755.735, 2784.633, 2789.696, 2807.833, 2815.045, 2824.725, 2837.616, 2847.23, 2861.505, 2877.191, 2886.446, 2896.464, 2900.487, 2909.279, 2919.084, 2925.047, 2941.246, 2950.514, 2958.148, 2964.211, 2984.972, 2993.935, 3003.273, 3037.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2724.555}, "reply_to": "15016__2_021", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15016__3_001", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3037.045], "stop_times": [3040.398], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.045}, "reply_to": "15016__3_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15016__3_002", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Five minutes, thank you.\nWe do not think what the best power of the ICC to supervise as McLean Trucking indicates that it has that this statement fairly reflects the alternatives that the Commission does here.\nFor example, under Section 154 of the Act, ICC has power to order through roads and to open gateways when this is \u201cneeded in order to provide adequate and more efficient or more economic transportation.\u201d\nAnd we think that if there is a transportation need for this merger well then we say that here is a less drastic remedy which should first be exhausted.\nIn conclusion, I just like to point out and we think this case involves an issue of the outmost urgency and importance going to the end -- enormous changes in the nation\u2019s railroad structure which are now taking place in particular.\nThe propose merger represents the crucial in a far reaching step and the restructuring of the western rail system.\nIf the Commission\u2019s approach in this case is valid, other roads in other areas can present similar cost saving and service improvement evidence and it is difficult to see how ICC could turn down any major proposal for a merger of parallel competitors even where they are dominant.\nAt stake, I seriously say to the Court that stake is the whole question or rail competition and we say that it should not be discarded.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3040.398, 3043.853, 3059.916, 3076.675, 3086.728, 3103.66, 3111.452, 3132.618, 3143.383], "stop_times": [3043.853, 3059.916, 3076.675, 3086.728, 3103.66, 3111.452, 3132.618, 3143.383, 3143.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3040.398}, "reply_to": "15016__3_001", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15016__3_003", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Thank you Mr. McLaren.\nMr. Dailey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3143.83, 3153.821], "stop_times": [3153.821, 3156.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.83}, "reply_to": "15016__3_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15016__4_000", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn oral argument before this Court, the proponents of the merger have chosen not to meet the Committee\u2019s argument.\nThe Livingston Anti-Merger Committee\u2019s argument on the merits and have chosen to rely on their brief.\nIt is suggested here that the tide of difficult arguments of economic imponderables largely attached to the antitrust issue not be allowed to sweep away the arguments of the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee.\nIn closing therefore, it would seem appropriate to note once more that the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee raises the threshold that issues in these consolidated cases.\nIf the Court finds in favor of the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee on either of the two threshold issues which it had raised, the arguments of economic imponderables become moot.\nIn summary, the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee claims that ownership of the federally chartered right of away is a jurisdictional element.\nIf it is not owned, the right of way is not owned by a merger applicant or party petitioning for inclusion in the merger and the Committee claims that isn\u2019t, the Commission has no jurisdiction.\nAnd secondly, even assuming the Commission has jurisdiction over the proposed merger had accept in railways claim of title to the federal chartered right of away.\nThe merger is still barred by statutory law in contract.\nIt is barred by the provisions of the federal charter which were imposed upon the road when Congress granted the road in the first place.\nAnd those two provisions, there are two provisions.\nOne prohibits some merger and the other prohibits mortgage without congressional consent.\nIf railways succeeded to the title the main line right of away federally chartered to railroad then a railway also succeeded to the liabilities and obligations and burdens which that title carry.\nAnd two of those burdens, is no merger and no mortgage without congressional consent.\nICC has no position to override these impositions.\nThese are impositions that have been placed by Congress in the federal charter which Congress preempted.\nI see my time is up Mr. Chief Justice.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3156.173, 3161.038, 3174.206, 3184.676, 3209.588, 3226.164, 3244.293, 3253.808, 3267.303, 3279.086, 3284.283, 3295.081, 3297.579, 3304.626, 3317.338, 3325.227, 3331.781, 3338.358, 3340.395], "stop_times": [3161.038, 3174.206, 3184.676, 3209.588, 3226.164, 3244.293, 3253.808, 3267.303, 3279.086, 3284.283, 3295.081, 3297.579, 3304.626, 3317.338, 3325.227, 3331.781, 3338.358, 3340.395, 3341.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3156.173}, "reply_to": "15016__3_003", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15016__4_001", "conversation_id": "15016", "text": "Thank you.\nThank gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.\nI thank you for your submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3341.227, 3342.152, 3343.473, 3344.464], "stop_times": [3342.152, 3343.473, 3344.464, 3346.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3341.227}, "reply_to": "15016__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_000", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Number 28, 38, 43, 44, The Northern Mines merger cases, we will call them collectively.\nMr. McLaren, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [0.0, 71.718], "stop_times": [71.718, 75.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_001", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.\nMay it please the Court, I will direct my argument to case number 28, the United States, the Interstate Commerce Commission.\nThis is a civil case which comes to the Court on direct appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court.\nThe District Court denied the Government's request for an injunction and upheld the ICC's approval of the merger of the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Railroads which have been referred to in our briefs as the Northern Lines and their various railroads subsidiaries.\nThe merger has been stayed by this Court's order.\nThe issue in this case is whether the ICC correctly applied the public interest test of Section 5 (2) (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act when it approved this merger, holding that the savings and service benefits of the merger outweigh the elimination of substantial rail competition between the Northern Lines in the Northern Tier of western states.\nCase number 43, the City of Auburn case is related to our case and that it also raises competitive issues.\nThe other two cases, the case number 38, the Brundage case involving the fairness of the merger terms to Northern Pacific Stockholders and number 44, the Livingston case, questioning the Northern Pacific's title to its properties raised on related issues.\nNow, although the record in this case is a very long one, the basic facts are relatively simple.\nFirst, I would like to identify the roads which proposed to merge in terms of the areas they serve.\nThe trunk lines of the merger parties are shown in various colors on the fold out map at the end of the Great Northern's brief.\nI've taken the liberty of requesting the clerk to distribute to each member of the Court an extra copy of this map and also of a copy of the map which is prepared from exhibit 85 and used by the Government in the District Court proceeding.\nThe latter shows the applicant roads as they will appear of -- when it -- if merged.\nLooking first at the Great Northern's map, the bigger one, you will see that the Great Northern trunk line toward the top in red.\nWith its affiliates, Great Northern carries on operations over some 80 - 200 miles of road in the Northern Tier States from Minneapolis and Duluth, Duluth from the east to Spokane, Seattle, Portland and other terminals in the Pacific Northwest.\nNorthern Pacific, in green on the map and its affiliates operate over some 6800 miles of road somewhat south of the Great Northern and they serve the same main terminals as the Great Northern in Minnesota and in the Pacific Northwest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [75.818, 79.881, 90.738, 99.743, 120.527, 125.363, 151.329, 159.769, 181.208, 188.728, 196.559, 205.496, 222.195, 230.667, 240.137, 258.786], "stop_times": [79.881, 90.738, 99.743, 120.527, 125.363, 151.329, 159.769, 181.208, 188.728, 196.559, 205.496, 222.195, 230.667, 240.137, 258.786, 277.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.818}, "reply_to": "15242__0_000", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_002", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I don't see the green one, neither the green nor the red one is to come in to Duluth on my map.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [277.95], "stop_times": [286.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.95}, "reply_to": "15242__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_003", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The Great Northern map Your Honor shows that the trunk lines and in colors --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [286.358], "stop_times": [292.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.358}, "reply_to": "15242__0_002", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_004", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Not this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [292.238], "stop_times": [293.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.238}, "reply_to": "15242__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_005", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, Your Honor and the lighter black lines show more or less branch lines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [293.137], "stop_times": [302.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.137}, "reply_to": "15242__0_004", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_006", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Those -- just a simple black lines are part of the same system, branch lines of the Great Northern and of the (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [302.342], "stop_times": [308.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.342}, "reply_to": "15242__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_007", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "They are on that particular case, yes Mr. Justice Stewart.\nSome of the other black lines shown as I understand belong to a various other roads.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [308.318, 314.133], "stop_times": [314.133, 319.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.318}, "reply_to": "15242__0_006", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_008", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [319.619], "stop_times": [321.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.619}, "reply_to": "15242__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_009", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Shown on the Government's map, the smaller one in red are all of the routes as they will appear of the merged roads both the trunk lines and branches.\nThe Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, a road that's jointly owned by the Northern Lines is shown -- its main road is shown in brown on the big fold out map.\nBurlington conducts operations over some 8600 miles of road running Northwest from Chicago and Minneapolis and also west from Chicago to serve such points to St. Luis and Kansas City, Omaha, Denver, Billings, Montana and with the connection with Northern Pacific in Montana.\nSubsidiaries of the Burlington goes out as far as the Texas Gulf Coast as is shown on the Government map and as the Great Northern map shows, I think the Burlington service tends to be complimentary to rather than competitive with the service of the Northern Lines.\nAlso involved in the merger is the Spokane, Portland and Seattle railroad about 600 miles of road shown in blue and its main route on the Great Northern map.\nIt is also jointly owned by the Northern Lines and its mean line and provides their shortest route from Spokane down to Portland.\nThe third line, third rail line providing service across the Northern Tier States is the Milwaukee railroad as shown in black on the Government's map and also on the Great Northern's.\nNow, there's no dispute that the Northern Lines are financially strong firms.\nThey owned vast acreage of valuable land and mineral rights as well as rail and motor carrier assets.\nThere are also regularly profitable although it's fair to say that their profits have fluctuated over the years and do not reflect a large percentage return on their invested capital.\nAs merged, the Northern Lines and the Burlington would constitute one of the largest rail systems in the country.\nThe merged company would have some 27,000 miles of track in 16 states, total assets around $3 billion, annual rail revenues, $823 million and net income in the neighborhood of $131 million a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [321.319, 341.167, 354.01, 376.09, 397.889, 409.919, 421.099, 436.557, 444.937, 453.951, 467.153, 475.692], "stop_times": [341.167, 354.01, 376.09, 397.889, 409.919, 421.099, 436.557, 444.937, 453.951, 467.153, 475.692, 495.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.319}, "reply_to": "15242__0_008", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_010", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "[Inaudible] the contract of merging exercised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [495.665], "stop_times": [500.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.665}, "reply_to": "15242__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__0_011", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I believe Mr. Justice Harlan that in trackage it is bigger, in terms of revenue, it is not as big.\nI'm not positive of those figures.\nAs the maps tend to indicate, the Northern Lines are head to head competitors for traffic across the Northern Tier States.\nEach is the main competitor of the other and the Milwaukee is a very weak third.\nThe nature and the extent of this competition, rail competition, and the intermodal competition in this area is covered by the findings in the ICC reports as I'll describe in just a moment.\nTo summarize the proceedings in the Interstate Commerce Commission, there are two main reports.\nThe first, disapproved the merger on grounds that it would have a drastically adverse effect on competition as well as the adverse effects on employees.\nThe second report on reconsideration reversed and it approved the merger.\nI should say that the findings of fact in the first report are of significance since they are largely found again in the second report which is based on substantially the same record.\nThere are few exceptions, as I will point out.\nI also think that the rational of the first report is important since it's our contention that it applied the correct legal standard whereas the second report did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [500.655, 511.777, 518.416, 528.853, 534.974, 550.187, 557.816, 569.684, 576.039, 589.606, 593.353], "stop_times": [511.777, 518.416, 528.853, 534.974, 550.187, 557.816, 569.684, 576.039, 589.606, 593.353, 606.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.655}, "reply_to": "15242__0_010", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_012", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. McLaren --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [606.8], "stop_times": [607.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.8}, "reply_to": "15242__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_013", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [607.179], "stop_times": [607.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.179}, "reply_to": "15242__0_012", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_014", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- in order to keep this set of figures in perspective, it will help me if you will pinpoint the figure if you have it in mind of the competition which will be eliminated in terms of traffic in the Northern Tier which these two roads operate if it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [607.375], "stop_times": [634.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.375}, "reply_to": "15242__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_015", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Burger --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [634.735], "stop_times": [634.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.735}, "reply_to": "15242__0_014", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_016", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "As I recall, there was a figure somewhere around a 6% of -- in one aspect and another figure, could you pinpoint those for me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [634.858], "stop_times": [645.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.858}, "reply_to": "15242__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_017", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I believe that the figures that Your Honor is recalling has to do with approximately 6% that points where the Northern Lines are the only rail service.\nI believe that there is another figure of some on 37% or 38% where they compete for revenues and there all -- is also some other competition.\nAnd the broad figure that we use and that I will get into in some further detail a little bit later is that the Northern Lines directly compete for around 43% of their revenue.\nThey -- and there's an additional overhead portion of their revenue, a 12%.\nSo, we're contending that they are competitors for about 55% of their revenue.\nThere are some other figures as to the percentage of the market they have which I will get to.\nIt runs to 60%, 70% and 80% in different areas.\nTo review just briefly, the proceedings in the Interstate Commerce Commission; they began in 1961 when the applicant's petition for authority to merge.\nPublic hearings were held in 1961 and 1962 in which the Justice Department participated and in 1964, the Examiner issued a report recommending the merger with certain conditions be approved.\nThe matter was then briefed and argued before the ICC and in 1966, ICC issued its first report disapproving the merger even if conditioned as demanded by various interveners, including various other affected railroads.\nNow, in the course to this first report, the Commission analyzed the evidence of the estimated savings to the applicants in merger which it estimated around twenty two and a half million dollars a year after 10 years.\nThe report detailed and analyzed the various efficiencies, principally the combining of yards and other facilities and the reduction of work forces and the report listed also the advantage to shippers, principally more direct routing and faster schedules all of which the merger promised.\nOn the other hand, the report noted that applicants could coordinate certain facilities and realize very substantial savings without merger.\nIt pointed out that the applicants are \u201clarge, strong and prosperous railroads and growing strong.\u201d\nIt also found that their long-term train was favorable as against motor carriers.\nIt found that ton miles of freight had increase substantially during the 1960 through 1964 period and it found that the railroads had what it called a decided competitive advantage in many long haul of movements.\nNow, in approaching the public interest test laid down by Section 5 (2) of the Commerce Act, the Commission saw its task as one of determining whether the adverse effects of the merger upon competition and on carry employees were outweighed by cost savings to applicants and the improved service to shippers.\nIt saw the public interest scale as being imbalanced, tipped neither for nor against the merger under the law.\nAnalyzing the competitive effects of the merger, the Commission focused on the Northern Tier States as being the area in which a low cost rail transportation was as it said of primary importance to long-haul, raw material shippers in the area where rail competition would be most adversely affected by the merger.\nThe report also found that whereas animal, mineral, agricultural and forest products account for around 60% of Northern Lines' revenues, this kind of traffic was generally not attractive to motor carriers and was not highly susceptible to diversion to motor carriers.\nIn fact, it found that intermodal competition is not as strong in the Northern states here as in other parts of the country.\nThe report also found that the Northern Lines were in direct and substantial competition with one another and then when this was eliminated, the merged road would have a dominant position in the Northern Tier States.\nFor example, it found that together the Northern Lines would handle 61% of the carload traffic moving westbound in the Northern Tier and 83% eastbound.\nAs to West Coast traffic from Washington to California, it would have 73.5% moving north and south through the Seista and Beaver Gateways and that it would move 67% of ton 10 miles of rail freight in the Northern Tier States; 45% Minnesota, 81% North Dakota, 82% in Montana and 77% in Washington.\nAfter the merger, the first report found that Northern Lines would as the report said, reign supreme.\nThey would overshadow all their rail competitors within this region and from this region to points beyond.\nMeasuring the competition that would be eliminated, ICC found that the Northern Lines were in direct competition as I mentioned at points accounting for 43% of their revenues and further that they competed for overhead traffic accounting for another 12%, thus the merger would eliminate the competition between them for 55% of their total revenues.\nAs to the Milwaukee road, the ICC found that for various reasons, it was a handicap and weak competitor.\nIt accounted for only 12% of east-west traffic in the Northern Tier.\nThe first report recognized that the Milwaukee could be strengthen by conditions attached to the merger and it considered these conditions principally, the granting of trackage rights into Portland, Oregon and into Billings, Montana and the opening of 11 gateways where it could exchange traffic with Northern Lines.\nBut the report found even with these conditions, the benefits would be as it said minimum and Milwaukee's relative competitive position after the merger would be weaker than ever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [645.075, 660.591, 675.918, 690.182, 695.642, 701.654, 707.598, 713.818, 727.426, 741.948, 759.042, 774.406, 795.148, 805.262, 815.196, 821.022, 839.339, 860.489, 868.974, 891.902, 912.535, 923.216, 937.789, 950.128, 977.917, 985.671, 994.301, 1018.123, 1026.662, 1032.914, 1055.976], "stop_times": [660.591, 675.918, 690.182, 695.642, 701.654, 707.598, 713.818, 727.426, 741.948, 759.042, 774.406, 795.148, 805.262, 815.196, 821.022, 839.339, 860.489, 868.974, 891.902, 912.535, 923.216, 937.789, 950.128, 977.917, 985.671, 994.301, 1018.123, 1026.662, 1032.914, 1055.976, 1069.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.075}, "reply_to": "15242__0_016", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_018", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Am I correct in remembering that at the time of the first report only three of the six conditions had been accorded to the Milwaukee road?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1069.241], "stop_times": [1080.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.241}, "reply_to": "15242__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_019", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I believe that the Examiner's report denied most of them, Mr. Justice Stewart, but then the -- in the first report, the Commission took it assuming as I understand --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1080.332], "stop_times": [1091.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.332}, "reply_to": "15242__0_018", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_020", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And assuming all of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1091.696], "stop_times": [1092.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.696}, "reply_to": "15242__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_021", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Assuming all of them, yes and saying that even though they had all these gateways and the new terminal on the coast at Portland, they still would be relatively weaker.\nAs a matter of fact the report went on to point out that the new company would have what it referred to as tremendous solicitation advantages.\nThe merged company would and it noted that the Milwaukee's solicitation efforts would be puny by comparison.\nAnd this is important because when you open gateways, this is a two-way street, the other fellow can get traffic as well and the Milwaukee could lose as well as to gain traffic.\nNow, the first report concluded by holding that applicants had failed to establish that the -- that the merger would result in transportation service superior to that which could be provided without merger and indeed \u201cthe disadvantages of an appropriately conditioned merger, and drastic lessening of competition and adverse effects on carrier employees outweigh the benefits that might be derived by applicants in the shipping public.\u201d\nNow, there is a dissent to this first report.\nFive commissioners dissented and they did so not on the theory that the Northern Pacific and Great Northern are less dominant then the majority found, but on the theory that they are indolent giants who do not now bother to compete.\nThey said that the Northern Lines in their language are fat and happy.\nThey split the lion's share of the Northern Transcontinental traffic and revenues between them and so preserve a facade of competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1092.919, 1105.381, 1117.452, 1126.492, 1139.499, 1171.371, 1174.671, 1191.305, 1197.478], "stop_times": [1105.381, 1117.452, 1126.492, 1139.499, 1171.371, 1174.671, 1191.305, 1197.478, 1208.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.919}, "reply_to": "15242__0_020", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_022", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What was the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1208.003], "stop_times": [1208.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.003}, "reply_to": "15242__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__0_023", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The dissent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1208.105], "stop_times": [1209.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.105}, "reply_to": "15242__0_022", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_024", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What was the total commission at that time, you said there were five on the dissenting side (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1209.068], "stop_times": [1214.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.068}, "reply_to": "15242__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__0_025", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice Harlan, and six on majority, it's a 6 to 5 vote.\nThe dissent also found that the Northern Lines have what they called a common law marriage and they said that they hold shippers captive over great distances with a virtual lock on traffic routed through Spokane and the Twin cities.\nThat they have hamstrung and short-hauled the Milwaukee and that they've condemned it to a marginal and steadily deteriorating existence.\nThe dissent concluded that what was really needed here was to write off the present family competition as it called it by using the conditioning power of Section 5 to try to establish the Milwaukee as a genuine and authentic competitor.\nNow, I emphasize this dissent because upon reconsideration as I'll describe in a moment, the Commission reversed itself and it approved the merger and the minority became the majority in the second report and it used some of the same language in reasoning as in the dissent some of which I have just read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1214.02, 1219.055, 1236.457, 1246.112, 1262.533], "stop_times": [1219.055, 1236.457, 1246.112, 1262.533, 1283.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.02}, "reply_to": "15242__0_024", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_026", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "How many shifted over to the majority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1283.926], "stop_times": [1286.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.926}, "reply_to": "15242__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__0_027", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Harlan there was a change in some people on the Commission.\nThe new lineup was eight to two and one abstaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1286.06, 1289.921], "stop_times": [1289.921, 1297.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.06}, "reply_to": "15242__0_026", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_028", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Did any shift?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1297.331], "stop_times": [1298.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.331}, "reply_to": "15242__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_029", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I think two must have shifted Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1298.955], "stop_times": [1300.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.955}, "reply_to": "15242__0_028", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_030", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "You mean it wasn't all a question of new personnel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1300.964], "stop_times": [1305.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1300.964}, "reply_to": "15242__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_031", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "No, it's not a question entirely, the question is very sound.\nThere were two or three, two that shifted.\nWell, after the first report was issued in December 1966, the applicants petitioned the ICC for reconsideration.\nThey formally stated that they were willing to accept various conditions including all those asked for by the Milwaukee and the Chicago Northwestern railroads.\nAt the same time, applicants said it into an agreement with those two roads, the Milwaukee and the Chicago Northwestern not to oppose their proposed merger in return for which the Milwaukee and Chicago Northwestern agreed to withdraw their opposition and support the Northern Lines' merger.\nThe applicants also filed their agreement to enter into attrition agreements for the benefit of employees and they urged that ICC had erred in estimating merger savings in the first report and that these would be substantially greater and that it had found and that it asked for further evidence to be heard on this subject.\nIn January 1967, the Commission granted the petition.\nThey issued an order, reopening the proceedings and as the latter report stated, this was a limited reopening.\nThe further hearing was limited solely to determining and the basis of the most current information readily available, the amount of estimated savings resulting from the proposed merger in the light of one, agreements entered into between the applicants on the one hand and on the other, the Milwaukee and the Northwestern and second, the effect of relevant financial, operational and another changes related to savings which have occurred subsequently to the close of hearing recon --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1305.096, 1308.686, 1315.956, 1325.509, 1336.479, 1358.744, 1382.044, 1387.168, 1396.137], "stop_times": [1308.686, 1315.956, 1325.509, 1336.479, 1358.744, 1382.044, 1387.168, 1396.137, 1426.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1305.096}, "reply_to": "15242__0_030", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_032", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "May I ask you did the personnel of the Commission changed from the time this case began until it ended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1426.701], "stop_times": [1435.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.701}, "reply_to": "15242__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_033", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The personnel did change Mr. Justice Black.\nI believe that in the second report, there were eight in the majority and this included five that had been in the majority before plus two that had changed and plus one new commissioner.\nThere were two that still were dissenting and then there was one new commissioner who did not participate.\nI believe that was the lineup.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1435.313, 1438.47, 1454.553, 1459.594], "stop_times": [1438.47, 1454.553, 1459.594, 1460.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.313}, "reply_to": "15242__0_032", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_034", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "One new commissioner, but he did not participate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1460.334], "stop_times": [1463.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.334}, "reply_to": "15242__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_035", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, there was one new commissioner who did not, there were two who did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1463.224], "stop_times": [1468.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.224}, "reply_to": "15242__0_034", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_036", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The only change was that one during from the beginning to the end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1468.383], "stop_times": [1474.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.383}, "reply_to": "15242__0_035", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_037", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "No, there were five in the original dissent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1474.735], "stop_times": [1478.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.735}, "reply_to": "15242__0_036", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_038", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I'm not talking about the way they divided up among themselves. You had a number of men on the commission, members of the commission.\nWhat was the difference in the personnel of that commission from the time this case began until it ended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1478.195, 1488.055], "stop_times": [1488.055, 1494.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.195}, "reply_to": "15242__0_037", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_039", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I believe I'm right in thinking that there were three different commissioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1494.71], "stop_times": [1500.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.71}, "reply_to": "15242__0_038", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_040", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Three different commissioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1500.204], "stop_times": [1501.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.204}, "reply_to": "15242__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_041", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1501.541], "stop_times": [1501.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.541}, "reply_to": "15242__0_040", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_042", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "When were they appointed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1501.986], "stop_times": [1503.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.986}, "reply_to": "15242__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_043", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I'm sorry sir, I don't have that information, I could get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1503.805], "stop_times": [1508.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.805}, "reply_to": "15242__0_042", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_044", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1508.102], "stop_times": [1510.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.102}, "reply_to": "15242__0_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_045", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "But one of those three went each way and one abstained, is that what you told us.\nNow, if you don't have it, those figures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1510.191, 1517.746], "stop_times": [1517.746, 1519.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.191}, "reply_to": "15242__0_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_046", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I think that that's right Mr. Chief Justice that that were two from the former majority that switched and then one new commissioner that added to the original five maybe eight and there was one new commissioner who didn't participate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1519.397], "stop_times": [1538.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.397}, "reply_to": "15242__0_045", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_047", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "So, it was not the new commissioner who altered the result?\nBasically, it was the change in the position of some of the former commissioners sequent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1538.653, 1544.671], "stop_times": [1544.671, 1551.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.653}, "reply_to": "15242__0_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_048", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That would do it, yes, because they had five and they did get the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1551.028], "stop_times": [1554.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1551.028}, "reply_to": "15242__0_047", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_049", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Two more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1554.427], "stop_times": [1555.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.427}, "reply_to": "15242__0_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_050", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "They did get the majority from -- by one of the commissioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1555.836], "stop_times": [1559.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.836}, "reply_to": "15242__0_049", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_051", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "How did -- they get them from -- do you know whether the change in the personnel had anything to do with the judgment that was finally rendered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1559.15], "stop_times": [1572.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.15}, "reply_to": "15242__0_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_052", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I really can't speak on that Mr. Justice Black. I think the basic fact here is that there was a change in the standard that they applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1572.285], "stop_times": [1582.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1572.285}, "reply_to": "15242__0_051", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_053", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, that might be a change in the standard, but were there change in the number -- by the men who applied for the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1582.858], "stop_times": [1591.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.858}, "reply_to": "15242__0_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_054", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, seven members of this majority were on the commission at the time of the first decision, I gather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1591.278], "stop_times": [1607.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.278}, "reply_to": "15242__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_055", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "See, they're seven or eight Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1607.325], "stop_times": [1609.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1607.325}, "reply_to": "15242__0_054", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_056", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, it's only an eight man majority, isn't it?\nThat's an eight to two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1609.055, 1612.219], "stop_times": [1612.219, 1612.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.055}, "reply_to": "15242__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_057", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1612.771], "stop_times": [1613.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1612.771}, "reply_to": "15242__0_056", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_058", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Eight to two, the vote was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1613.311], "stop_times": [1614.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.311}, "reply_to": "15242__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_059", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Eight to two and one abstained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1614.955], "stop_times": [1616.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1614.955}, "reply_to": "15242__0_058", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_060", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "One abstaining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1616.825], "stop_times": [1618.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.825}, "reply_to": "15242__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_061", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1618.033], "stop_times": [1618.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.033}, "reply_to": "15242__0_060", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_062", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And seven of those -- if one only new commissioner was in the majority on the last report that that seven that were on the commission at the of the first two report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1618.122], "stop_times": [1630.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.122}, "reply_to": "15242__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_063", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Out if the majority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1630.905], "stop_times": [1631.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1630.905}, "reply_to": "15242__0_062", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_064", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1631.951], "stop_times": [1635.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.951}, "reply_to": "15242__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_065", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I'd understood in your brief, you will provide on somewhat [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1635.157], "stop_times": [1644.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.157}, "reply_to": "15242__0_064", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__0_066", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Our basic contention Mr. Justice Harlan is that the commission failed on the second report to apply a public need standard which is the basic issue that was presented to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1644.214], "stop_times": [1666.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1644.214}, "reply_to": "15242__0_065", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_067", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's not being close to a legal question, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1666.169], "stop_times": [1671.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.169}, "reply_to": "15242__0_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_068", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, it's a very difficult question Mr. Justice Black because the Court has laid out the requirement for an accommodation of the Transportation Act, the organization of roads into systems in and to serving the needs and requirements of efficient transportation.\nOn the other hand, the Court has held that we do have a national policy favoring competition and that the cases say that the commission in approaching this merger cases must accommodate the views and the policies of these two statutes in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1671.003, 1695.472], "stop_times": [1695.472, 1717.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1671.003}, "reply_to": "15242__0_067", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_069", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "It is possible to preserve competition and to permit merger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1717.355], "stop_times": [1723.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.355}, "reply_to": "15242__0_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_070", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1723.541], "stop_times": [1724.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1723.541}, "reply_to": "15242__0_069", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_071", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Preserve it to the extent it existed in the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1724.776], "stop_times": [1727.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.776}, "reply_to": "15242__0_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_072", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "By -- not among the same identical parties, but I think Mr. Justice Black and you have for example in your Penn Central merger, a situation where the roads merged and the commission had in mind the remaining competition from the Norfolk and Western Road and from the Chesapeake in Ohio system that was coming along.\nIt looked at the fact that you have a network of good roads and strong intermodal competition and then it found a public interest factor here in that the roads had the burden of providing public service through commutation in cities and if they had the very puzzling and difficult problem of what to do with the bankrupt New Haven railroad.\nAnd the in-balance, all parties felt in the Penn Central litigation that that merger was a good thing and when it came --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1727.614, 1755.368, 1779.509], "stop_times": [1755.368, 1779.509, 1788.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1727.614}, "reply_to": "15242__0_071", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_073", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "It might be a good thing and might not wholly preserve competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1788.158], "stop_times": [1792.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.158}, "reply_to": "15242__0_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_074", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's very true.\nAnd the matter did not come to the Court although it came to the Court on other issues, it did not come up on the competitive question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1792.522, 1795.498], "stop_times": [1795.498, 1805.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1792.522}, "reply_to": "15242__0_073", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_075", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Because you are not as you are representing Department of Justice, finding it on the basis that's its bad thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1805.221], "stop_times": [1812.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.221}, "reply_to": "15242__0_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_076", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I didn't understand Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1812.867], "stop_times": [1814.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1812.867}, "reply_to": "15242__0_075", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_077", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I don't suppose you as representative of the Department of Justice opposing this on the basis that the whole merger, all those railroads and all that part of the United States was a bad thing or a good thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1814.826], "stop_times": [1827.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.826}, "reply_to": "15242__0_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_078", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, we're opposing it on the theory Mr. Justice Black that if you have healthy directly competing railroads, they do not need this merger in order to continue to give good service.\nThey are dominant in this area of the Northern Tier States.\nAnd we think that under those conditions, the requirement of accommodation of the policy of the Transportation Act and of the anti-trust laws required the thing -- that such an act a competitive merger not be permitted unless they're -- it serves a real public need and that that kind of elimination of competition should not be permitted merely to serve the private interest of the parties.\nAnd if there are public interests that are being saved -- served by the merger, but if they could be served by a less anti competitive alternative then the merger should not be permitted.\nThe lesser competitive alternatives should be put into effect by the Interstate Commerce Commission which after all under the law is given vast powers, and great discretion to regulate and to supervise the affairs of the railroad.\nAnd in this case, it's our contention that the Commerce Commission should have considered to what extent it could have opened up the gateways in order to strengthen the Milwaukee if that was the matter of public interest (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1827.448, 1843.547, 1848.458, 1873.307, 1888.931, 1907.035], "stop_times": [1843.547, 1848.458, 1873.307, 1888.931, 1907.035, 1923.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1827.448}, "reply_to": "15242__0_077", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_079", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I take it then you do concede that better service might well justify an anti competitive merger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1923.168], "stop_times": [1933.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.168}, "reply_to": "15242__0_078", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_080", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Certainly, if an area has inadequate service and the way to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1933.817], "stop_times": [1940.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1933.817}, "reply_to": "15242__0_079", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_081", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1940.109], "stop_times": [1940.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.109}, "reply_to": "15242__0_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_082", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- get out of it is to have a merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1940.195], "stop_times": [1941.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1940.195}, "reply_to": "15242__0_081", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_083", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That isn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1941.342], "stop_times": [1941.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.342}, "reply_to": "15242__0_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_084", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- that would be one, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1941.696], "stop_times": [1942.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1941.696}, "reply_to": "15242__0_083", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_085", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That isn't -- so you would say not always even -- you have to first find that there's an adequate service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1942.86], "stop_times": [1951.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.86}, "reply_to": "15242__0_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_086", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1951.416], "stop_times": [1951.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1951.416}, "reply_to": "15242__0_085", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_087", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Before you could ever justify a merger --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1951.536], "stop_times": [1952.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.536}, "reply_to": "15242__0_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_088", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "No, I don't think that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1952.941], "stop_times": [1953.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1952.941}, "reply_to": "15242__0_087", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_089", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- on service grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1953.277], "stop_times": [1954.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.277}, "reply_to": "15242__0_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_090", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I don't think that's true.\nWe don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1954.516, 1956.301], "stop_times": [1956.301, 1956.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1954.516}, "reply_to": "15242__0_089", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_091", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "But better service is enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1956.583], "stop_times": [1959.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.583}, "reply_to": "15242__0_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_092", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Better service might be enough but if it's terribly anticompetitive merger, if the better service can be achieved by a less anti competitive alternative then the merger should not be permitted unless there is some real public need for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1959.257], "stop_times": [1974.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1959.257}, "reply_to": "15242__0_091", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_093", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, then -- there -- what's wrong here then is that the -- that in your views that the Commission although it found there would be better service, didn't make an express finding they could not achieve these results by another route?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1974.336], "stop_times": [1990.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.336}, "reply_to": "15242__0_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_094", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's one of the things, yes, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1990.316], "stop_times": [1992.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1990.316}, "reply_to": "15242__0_093", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_095", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What if it had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1992.311], "stop_times": [1992.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.311}, "reply_to": "15242__0_094", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_096", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "They did that in the first report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1992.365], "stop_times": [1994.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1992.365}, "reply_to": "15242__0_095", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_097", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, what if they had found that?\nThat they couldn't do this or to get this better service and if by another route in this case, let's assume the Commission on the second report had made that finding, would you be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [1994.121, 1996.013], "stop_times": [1996.013, 2004.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.121}, "reply_to": "15242__0_096", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_098", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, I think if they found -- made that finding and that the -- there was a need of public service resulting from this, I think that they would have that power.\nI'm not sure that we wouldn't be here because I think that then the Court has a right to look at the situation and see if the -- if that determination is supported by substantial evidence.\nAnd I seriously question in this particular case that the Commission has done more than really give lip service to the question of the value of competition.\nThey have followed the dissent, the point I made a little earlier that after all these giants have not competed for years, they have thrown up their hands, given up hope and they have said, \u201cWell, let's let them merge and we'll try and make something out of the Milwaukee and maybe it will provide the competition that we can't get from the Northern Lines.\u201d\nWell, on the second report, the Commission came out and they said that this is a matter where we -- where an error of the savings that will come from the merger, there will be some $39 million of savings after few years instead of the $22 million or $25 million earlier estimated and they dwelt at some length on the improved service which was estimated would result from the merger.\nBut, they did say no prospective service benefits that had not been considered in the first report.\nAnd I think what's fair to say that what they did do on the second report was to discard or reverse two principles of analysis which had been followed by a majority in the first report.\nThey took a new perspective as they say.\nFirst, they determined to focus not so much on competitive effects in the Northern Tier States where competition would be eliminated, but rather they broadened out the focus.\nAnd they took the broad view of the total area that was served by all of the merger parties, including that down in the central corridor which is served by the Burlington.\nAnd of course the effect on competition looked somewhat less drastic taking that view.\nSecond, in considering the anticompetitive effects of the merger, the Commission determined the primary weigh not be given to the competition eliminated, that is the competition for 55% of their revenue because it held that the -- there was substantial intermodal as well as intramodal competition that that would survive the merger.\nOn this basis, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2004.853, 2017.911, 2029.536, 2038.611, 2070.937, 2104.737, 2113.897, 2125.597, 2128.215, 2139.676, 2150.555, 2160.231, 2182.654], "stop_times": [2017.911, 2029.536, 2038.611, 2070.937, 2104.737, 2113.897, 2125.597, 2128.215, 2139.676, 2150.555, 2160.231, 2182.654, 2183.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2004.853}, "reply_to": "15242__0_097", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_099", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Is it also -- would it be correct to say that they took a different view of the meaning of Section 5 in their second report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2183.449], "stop_times": [2195.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.449}, "reply_to": "15242__0_098", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_100", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That was argued in the lower court Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2195.296], "stop_times": [2197.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2195.296}, "reply_to": "15242__0_099", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_101", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2197.99], "stop_times": [2198.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.99}, "reply_to": "15242__0_100", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_102", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I think that they are kind of on both sides of that question.\nThere was from --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2198.962, 2201.913], "stop_times": [2201.913, 2202.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2198.962}, "reply_to": "15242__0_101", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_103", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Both sides in both reports?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2202.514], "stop_times": [2204.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.514}, "reply_to": "15242__0_102", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_104", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes sir.\nThere was an indication that in the first report that there is a presumption in favor of mergers.\nOn the other hand, there was a statement that the matter is in balance and then the same thing in effect was said in the second report.\nIt does appear to us that they in effect did accept the idea that there's a presumption in favor of mergers that are brought up by the private parties in the second report whereas they gave competition, a certain value and weight in the first report that they didn't in the second report.\nBut there, the difficulty as they pointed out in the first report, Mr. Justice Stewart is that you have the difficult task of weighing an intangible value of competition.\nOn the one hand against the savings from merger the tangible values that you can say, well, it's $25 million a year and how do you say whether competition is worth $25 million a year?\nI think that there is some indication in the recent holdings of the Court that starting with McLean where this test was laid out that there must be the accommodation.\nThe commission must consider on the one hand the anticompetitive consequences on the other, the savings, the improvements in service and so on.\nThat was spelled out first in McLean, it was followed in the Denver, it was followed in the St. Louis -- Minneapolis St. Louis case and it has been referred to at various times since then.\nI think that two or three of the Court's more recent cases have cast some additional light on this in the sense that the Court has treated competition as the basic policy and it has treated the power of the administrative agency to grant immunity from that as carrying a rather important determination that is to be made by the administrative agency and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2204.099, 2204.913, 2211.661, 2222.893, 2244.624, 2256.686, 2268.251, 2284.038, 2296.732, 2314.835], "stop_times": [2204.913, 2211.661, 2222.893, 2244.624, 2256.686, 2268.251, 2284.038, 2296.732, 2314.835, 2345.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2204.099}, "reply_to": "15242__0_103", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_105", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "You're referring to cases like that, Maritime Commission Case, Svenska or whatever it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2345.992], "stop_times": [2349.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.992}, "reply_to": "15242__0_104", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_106", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Svenska is one them, the Denver Rio Grand case I think is one of them.\nThat's the railroad express agency stock purchase and in the Denver Rio Grand opinion, there's a passage that has to do and it points out that this five to power is the power to grant immunity from the policy which favors the competition.\nAnd it implies that this is a matter of considerable importance for the Commission to determine.\nAnd I think that when you then get to the Svenska case, and two, that was a Maritime case and two, it was not a merger case, but it did specifically mentioned two of the rail merger cases and it said that those cases follow the same pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2349.968, 2354.401, 2376.966, 2384.062], "stop_times": [2354.401, 2376.966, 2384.062, 2405.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2349.968}, "reply_to": "15242__0_105", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_107", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. McLaren, as I read this record, there is some very, very substantial reductions in the time runs.\nNow, on agricultural products which was one of the figures that I have been -- carried in my mind from the apple growing country in Oregon and Washington, particularly Washington I guess, that's a very important factor, isn't it in this day of speed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2405.785, 2414.786], "stop_times": [2414.786, 2432.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.785}, "reply_to": "15242__0_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_108", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, yes it certainly is Mr. Chief Justice, but our point on that is that the original figures came out and I don't remember them precisely, but I think the rail time from the Northwest down into the Chicago area was something like 94 hours and they said, when we merge we can put together better, more direct runs and we can cut 12 hours off of that.\nBut before the record was closed because the Milwaukee had put through some faster trains, they'd cut more than 12 hours off already.\nThey took some lighter weight equipment and they were more careful in their scheduling and there is nothing to prevent them, if Your Honor please, to work out these better routings without merger.\nThey don't have to merge these railroads in order to get direct routings and that's what the minority, what the dissent in the first report was pointing to.\nThey have sat here fat and happy they've been entirely unwilling to take advantage of the possibilities that they were for more direct routings to try and meet the truck competition that the other side talks about.\nThey could've done that, they don't have to merge to do it, and they could cut very, very substantial time of the run from the west down into the markets where they need to market these products from the raw materials country.\nReferring once again to the Svenska case, I wanted to point out that the -- the -- this came up on the Maritime Commissions Power which is comparable to the Commission's power to grant immunity to an anticompetitive arrangement and there I think it was an exclusive dealing arrangement and referring to the question of the National Economic Policy, the Court pointed out that another lies illegal arrangement and as the Court said, \u201calone, will normally constitute substantial evidence that the agreement is contrary to the public interest unless other evidence fairly detracts from the weight of this factor.\u201d\nNow, we contend that the Maritime Commission Rule that was discussed and upheld in Svenska precisely describes the standard which governs here.\nFMC's rule put the burden on the proponent of the anticompetitive agreement just as we would put the burden on the applicants to merge, to demonstrate that it was required by a serious transportation need, necessary to secure important public benefits for -- in furtherance of a valid regulatory purpose.\nAnd the Court not only upheld the Svenska -- FMC rule, but it stated that the standard was \u201cin full accord with the kind of accommodation between anti-trust and regulatory objectives approved by this Court in the Seaboard Airline in Minneapolis St. Paul rail merger decisions.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2432.595, 2456.955, 2464.716, 2478.048, 2486.9, 2502.613, 2527.855, 2575.315, 2586.219, 2612.579], "stop_times": [2456.955, 2464.716, 2478.048, 2486.9, 2502.613, 2527.855, 2575.315, 2586.219, 2612.579, 2633.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2432.595}, "reply_to": "15242__0_107", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_109", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. McLaren, you state -- stated that the outset that your submission was that there had been a change in standard between the two reports?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2633.206], "stop_times": [2643.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.206}, "reply_to": "15242__0_108", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_110", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That the -- yes Mr. Justice Brennan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2643.254], "stop_times": [2644.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2643.254}, "reply_to": "15242__0_109", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_111", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Would you mind stating what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2644.846], "stop_times": [2646.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.846}, "reply_to": "15242__0_110", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_112", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2646.04], "stop_times": [2646.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2646.04}, "reply_to": "15242__0_111", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_113", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- what the change was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2646.134], "stop_times": [2647.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.134}, "reply_to": "15242__0_112", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_114", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "In the first report, I think that the Commission majority followed the standard that I have just described.\nThey gave some real weight not just lip service to the value of competition.\nThey considered the possibility that the advantages of the merger could be achieved by less competitive means.\nAnd then they looked at what was left over that would just be accomplished by merger and they said, \u201cThat isn't enough because on the other hand you'd eliminate all this competition and virtually create a rail monopoly in this Northern Tier States.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2647.771, 2655.236, 2659.939, 2667.226], "stop_times": [2655.236, 2659.939, 2667.226, 2680.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2647.771}, "reply_to": "15242__0_113", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_115", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And your view of the premise of the second report is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2680.252], "stop_times": [2683.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.252}, "reply_to": "15242__0_114", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_116", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And our view is that it being -- the second report being in effect took the savings claimed by the carriers and they looked at the better service that would be given and they threw up their hands as far as their actual powers to regulate and to force competition and to give the Milwaukee a viable position in this market.\nAnd they said, \u201cOkay, let them merge, we'll try and work out conditions that will make the Milwaukee for the first time give shippers in the area, for the first time a realistic choice of carriers.\u201d\nI believe it was somewhat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2683.871, 2708.536, 2723.631], "stop_times": [2708.536, 2723.631, 2724.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2683.871}, "reply_to": "15242__0_115", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_117", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, as you have stated, that doesn't seem to me to be much different when they struck the balance one way the first time and using the same consideration struck the balance the other way in the second report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2724.376], "stop_times": [2736.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.376}, "reply_to": "15242__0_116", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_118", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Brennan, I don't think that in the second report, they really gave value to the question of competition nor did they bear on the question of the public need for the thing.\nIn other words, there is -- there must first be a public benefit from it.\nSecondly, there must be a need for it and there isn't a need for it if it can be done by a less drastic means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2736.07, 2753.955, 2758.796], "stop_times": [2753.955, 2758.796, 2765.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2736.07}, "reply_to": "15242__0_117", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_119", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2765.189], "stop_times": [2765.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.189}, "reply_to": "15242__0_118", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_120", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2765.318], "stop_times": [2766.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2765.318}, "reply_to": "15242__0_119", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_121", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Can you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2766.075], "stop_times": [2766.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.075}, "reply_to": "15242__0_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_122", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And that's the test for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2766.219], "stop_times": [2766.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2766.219}, "reply_to": "15242__0_121", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_123", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Can you give us some record side on what's the -- where in the first or second report the Commission ever said what standard it was applying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2766.814], "stop_times": [2777.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.814}, "reply_to": "15242__0_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_124", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I don't think I can Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2777.227], "stop_times": [2778.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2777.227}, "reply_to": "15242__0_123", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_125", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "You just have to read it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2778.699], "stop_times": [2780.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.699}, "reply_to": "15242__0_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_126", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2780.462], "stop_times": [2780.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2780.462}, "reply_to": "15242__0_125", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_127", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- read it out of what they did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2780.583], "stop_times": [2782.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.583}, "reply_to": "15242__0_126", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_128", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I think that you can tell in the first report in the final paragraph where they had said that the proponents of the merger have failed to carry their burden of establishing this and they point to the fact that there are less drastic alternatives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2782.93], "stop_times": [2803.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2782.93}, "reply_to": "15242__0_127", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_129", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What page does that appear, do you have it -- convenient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2803.635], "stop_times": [2807.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.635}, "reply_to": "15242__0_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__0_130", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "165 and 166, I believe Your Honor.\nOn page 166, they point out that the -- to find competition is not worth between 12 and 25 million a year less expenditures to achieve those savings would be tantamount to a conclusion that the value of intramodal rail competition is negligible.\nAnd they mentioned this tangible savings factor but they have said that they were convinced that they are not as great as the value of competition and they conclude that the disadvantages of the appropriately conditioned merger, the drastic lessening of competition and adverse effect on carrier employees outweigh the benefits that might be derive by applicants and the shipping public.\nAnd I think the standard follows there in the top of 167, applicants have failed to show that their proposed merger would result in transportation service to the public that is superior to that which can be provided without merger or that the benefits reasonably attributable to the proposed merger outweigh the adverse effects of the merger on carrier employees and the benefits that shippers derived from --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2807.433, 2821.048, 2840.636, 2872.603], "stop_times": [2821.048, 2840.636, 2872.603, 2899.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2807.433}, "reply_to": "15242__0_129", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_131", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "(Inaudible) page 343, is there a counterpart to which you have been (Inaudible) that require a report and the product (Inaudible), unless the proposition (Inaudible), adverse effect on (Inaudible), the benefits of the (Inaudible), that's a reconsideration on this files based on the entire record, and now we can -- isn't that suggest that the same standing was applied (Inaudible) when the balance was struck on the face the first time and the other (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2899.799], "stop_times": [2946.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.799}, "reply_to": "15242__0_130", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_132", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, I just don't read it that way Mr. Justice Brennan.\nIt seems to me that they abandoned the possibility that the Commission has this broad power to bring about the better service that is anticipated here and then what you left, have left in this merger is really private benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2946.891, 2950.872], "stop_times": [2950.872, 2965.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2946.891}, "reply_to": "15242__0_131", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_133", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Are you saying then a specific rule, they enumerate it in three types that the second time they abandoned the (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2965.532], "stop_times": [2975.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.532}, "reply_to": "15242__0_132", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_134", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The second time, I think they really followed what the dissent had talked about that they were going to strengthen the Milwaukee and they said in the second report on reconsideration which comes a good bit later in another volume, they said that the Milwaukee conditions are a necessary predicate of their decision.\nIn other words, if -- as I read that that really the Milwaukee conditions were the main purpose, the main public benefit, the main reason they found that it was consistent with the public interest and had it not been for that they would have found it was inconsistent with the public interest and I think that appears two or three times in the second report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [2975.776, 3001.187], "stop_times": [3001.187, 3020.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2975.776}, "reply_to": "15242__0_133", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_135", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, at page 344, I take it, to receive this kind of action that they need for refusal, were appropriate condition, I gather that the reference to the Milwaukee overwrite (Inaudible) public to improve transportation?\nWhat's the difference (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3020.929, 3028.401], "stop_times": [3028.401, 3040.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.929}, "reply_to": "15242__0_134", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15242__0_136", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, they had given up as they said on the Northern Lines ever doing proper job here and they were going to substantially -- sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3040.512], "stop_times": [3051.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3040.512}, "reply_to": "15242__0_135", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_137", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3051.562], "stop_times": [3053.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.562}, "reply_to": "15242__0_136", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_138", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, the five who became the majority in the second report --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3053.211], "stop_times": [3058.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3053.211}, "reply_to": "15242__0_137", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_139", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, what is (Inaudible) -- is this the final report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3058.574], "stop_times": [3059.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.574}, "reply_to": "15242__0_138", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_140", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I don't think they did say it in the final report Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3059.804], "stop_times": [3061.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3059.804}, "reply_to": "15242__0_139", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_141", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Oh, (Inaudible) didn't they say we give up on the part of (Inaudible) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3061.819], "stop_times": [3066.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.819}, "reply_to": "15242__0_140", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_142", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Not in the second report, no.\nBut I think it's a fair underlying fact that you can't ignore on the second report.\nI think -- I don't see how otherwise they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3066.001, 3067.694, 3076.207], "stop_times": [3067.694, 3076.207, 3079.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3066.001}, "reply_to": "15242__0_141", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_143", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "You only represent to this Court -- you couldn't find it anywhere else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3079.067], "stop_times": [3084.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.067}, "reply_to": "15242__0_142", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__0_144", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, except in the finding that they say the conditions for the benefit of the Milwaukee and the improvements for the Milwaukee bringing it through to the Portland area are necessary predicate and I have the impression from the over all report that that's really the main benefit that is -- that the ICC found here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3084.102], "stop_times": [3109.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3084.102}, "reply_to": "15242__0_143", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_145", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well there were changes in the facts between the first and second report, aren't there -- weren't there?\nIn other words although you disagree that with the suggestion in the question of Mr. Justice Brennan that the Commission in fact applied the same basic standard in each case but came out differently.\nAt least I would suppose if there were changes in the facts as I understand there were that it would been -- would've been quite possible for the same Commission to apply the same standards and come out differently and the changes to which I refer are first of all the petition by these applicants which led to the second report accepting every single one of the conditions affecting the Milwaukee, every single one of the conditions affecting the Chicago and Northwestern agreeing fully to enter into a collective bargaining agreements with the representatives of their employee to take care attrition.\nAnd finally, pointing out that the profits that would ensue upon this merger, the -- I beg your pardon, the savings that would ensue upon this merger were substantially greater than at first been assumed.\nNow, if I'm correct that these or any of these changes in facts were evident or present at the time of the second report, it would be quite conceivable that you could apply the same standards and come out with a different result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3109.603, 3114.393, 3128.9, 3169.374, 3181.151], "stop_times": [3114.393, 3128.9, 3169.374, 3181.151, 3199.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.603}, "reply_to": "15242__0_144", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_146", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I would like to answer that if I may.\nAs far as the conditions are concerned, Mr. Justice Stewart, I think in the first report, they assumed the conditions as to the Milwaukee at least which are I think preeminent.\nNow, I'm not sure that they assumed the attrition agreements in favor of employees and it's true that in the first report they pointed out that it was both the anti-competitive effect and the adverse effect on employees, it was bad.\nBut, the main conditions for the Milwaukee, I think had been considered.\nAs far as the savings are concerned, the new evidence that came in, there were just four days of the hearing on reconsideration, three of them with proponents and one for rebuttal and the savings there, the additional evidence had largely to do with simply an adjustment factor applying a percentage to previously estimated savings.\nSo, I don't think that was a matter of new evidence particularly.\nAs a matter of fact, the anti-trust division petitioned that the matter be reopened both to find out who many more changes there had been already put into a fact like this faster train business and so on.\nAnd also what savings had been achieved and could be achieved without merger and this was denied by the Examiner and upheld by the Commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3199.992, 3202.064, 3214.627, 3229.728, 3234.696, 3259.785, 3264.842, 3280.579], "stop_times": [3202.064, 3214.627, 3229.728, 3234.696, 3259.785, 3264.842, 3280.579, 3293.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3199.992}, "reply_to": "15242__0_145", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_147", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Certainly then as I understood your answer, there was at least one fundamental change in the facts between the first hearing, at the time of the first hearing and the time of the second hearing and that is the elimination of any problem with respect to attrition of the employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3293.047], "stop_times": [3309.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.047}, "reply_to": "15242__0_146", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__0_148", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's true, that's true and then there is also the fact that the Milwaukee and the Northwestern withdrew their opposition because they -- each had agreed to the others mergering effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3309.757], "stop_times": [3324.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3309.757}, "reply_to": "15242__0_147", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_149", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "You're in your rebuttal time now, if you were saving some.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3324.718], "stop_times": [3328.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.718}, "reply_to": "15242__0_148", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__0_150", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Oh!\nAlright, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3328.128, 3328.698], "stop_times": [3328.698, 3328.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.128}, "reply_to": "15242__0_149", "speaker": "richard_w_mclaren"}
{"id": "15242__0_151", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "(Voice Overlap) some time ago.\nMr. Dailey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3328.894, 3349.485], "stop_times": [3349.485, 3351.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.894}, "reply_to": "15242__0_150", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__1_000", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nOur appeal is from the three-judge District Court in the District of Columbia unanimously affirming -- unanimously dismissing our complaint in an action seeking to annul, set aside and restrain the enforcement of two Interstate Commerce Commission orders which had approved the merger terms and it also affirmed the Commission orders.\nMy remarks will be directed as to the justice and propriety of the Stock Exchange ratios and only that.\nNow there are certain basic practices that I think the Court must keep in mind in connection with our appeal.\nOne is that isn't just another railroad case coming down or up the legal tracks.\nNorthern Pacific has been mentioned here, has a great many, very vast and valuable land interests containing oil and gas, timber, coal, iron, ore and many other minerals yet un-found in an area that is about as large as Massachusetts and Connecticut combined.\nNow the basic character of Northern Pacific changed after 1951 when substantial oil was found in the Williston Basin.\nThe state recognized this when they eliminated Northern Pacific stock from the Dow Jones rail average.\nThe 1960, to give you an idea of what it did to the earnings.\nIn 1960, a few take their earnings of Northern Pacific and eliminate the Burlington dividend which was substantial of the remaining earnings, 50% of that came from natural resources and 50% from transportation properties.\nSo, that what we are talking about here is a very, very vital matter in determining stock exchange ratios.\nNow, another thing that you must keep in mind on this appeal, raised a new problem for the Interstate Commerce Commission as to the valuation of such properties quite disparate from railroad properties.\nThe District Court is faced with this new problem and we suggest that the Schwabacher case, no other railroad case has this Court been faced with this particular problem.\nNow, when I speak in this case of the parties, I will refer Northern Pacific as NP and the Great Northern as GN.\nThe one -- I think first thing we should do is simply state what are the proposed merger terms to have it as background?\nUnder the terms in Northern Pacific stockholders will get one share of the new company's common stock for each share that they have, same for Great Northern, but in addition, the Great Northern's going to get a half of share of a $10 preferred stock which must be redeemed commencing five years after the consummation of the merger, over the next 25 years, 4% a year.\nBut it has a call provision in it that anytime after five years of consummation of the merger that it maybe redeemed.\nBut the thing to note is that surely Northern Pacific's stockholders could not even achieve equality with this Great Northern until 30 years after consummation when right today the earnings of Northern Pacific are greater that Great Northern's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3351.414, 3356.114, 3385.273, 3392.955, 3399.453, 3407.604, 3431.826, 3440.79, 3448.489, 3453.315, 3470.401, 3478.285, 3493.632, 3507.759, 3520.598, 3528.263, 3555.107, 3563.203], "stop_times": [3356.114, 3385.273, 3392.955, 3399.453, 3407.604, 3431.826, 3440.79, 3448.489, 3453.315, 3470.401, 3478.285, 3493.632, 3507.759, 3520.598, 3528.263, 3555.107, 3563.203, 3580.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3351.414}, "reply_to": "15242__0_151", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_001", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Is the redemption to be at par, $10 a share?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3580.637], "stop_times": [3584.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3580.637}, "reply_to": "15242__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_002", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, it might be $110, I'm not sure of that Your Honor.\nNow, I come to the first point and that is this, that the Commission in the District Court have committed error in misinterpreting what the standards are as to the application Section 2, subdivision 2 of Section 5, Interstate Commerce Act that perhaps the best thing to do is quote, first, what the Commission said and then what the District Court said.\nLet me quote from the Commission, this is in 297 of your appendix.\n\u201cThe issue here is whether the exchange ratios are just and reasonable and limited thereto, we find the record both adequate and affirmative in that they either necessary, no in that they meet the necessary and required tests, one, that there are the result of arms length bargaining and two, that they fairly reflect the contributions of each group of stockholders of the combined system.\u201d\nThat was the basis of the commission decision.\nNow, what the District Courts say, \u201cOn the basis of the record upon which the Commission relied, we have no reason to rule other than that the ratio which was established with the approval of the companies and of a large majority of their stockholders is just and reasonable.\"\nNow, let's take a look at Section 5.\nThere are really three steps involved in the achieving a railroad mergers.\nThe first is the parties have to agree on something.\nSecond is, that the Commission then takes action supposedly independent in which they either approve these terms or they modify them under Section 5 (2) to achieve what the test is of justice and reasonableness.\nAnd the third thing that happens, after the Commission is all through of the case then you must have assent of the stockholders by an appropriate vote.\nNow, the Court's duty is one, that's quite independent of any agreement of the parties or stockholder approval.\nParties got to agree before otherwise there is no case.\nAnd the stockholder approval is only in there having to do with relevant as to the enforcement of whatever the Commission has found.\nSo that the error here is in relying for the decision on irrelevant things as to par -- as to agreement of the parties in the first place and the subsequent approval by the stockholders.\nThis we claim is legal error.Now there's no mention of Section 5 of arms length bargaining and et al.\nThe only reference in Section 5 et al is in subdivision 11 where it says that is a precondition consummation, you've got to get the assent of the stockholders.\nIn Re, North American Power and Light, the Circuit Court in the third district held in a public utility holding case that the presence of arm's length bargaining is not a decisive criterion.\nNow, although we claim that Section 5 doesn't make arm's length bargaining and stockholders' vote and necessary required test under 5.\nI think it might be helpful to the Court for whatever weight or relevant you think these two factors have and to just examine what the record says about this.\nFirst, let's take the arm's length bargaining business.\nAnd why I say we impute no fraud or chicanery to the negotiator of these terms.\nThese are responsible people, we recognize that.\nBut, the common interest switch they have had in joint ownership of the Burlington running back to 91, a wholly owned ownership of the SP&S which the precedence alternated as precedence of the SP&S and the joint operations of the Montour Railway.\nYou just couldn't have these kind of arm's length bargaining which I think any court would consider to be arm's length bargaining.\nBut more disturbing importance is the conflict of interests that shows up on the part of two members of the five members on the Northern Pacific consolidation committee which was the negotiating committee.\nOne of them, this is in exhibit 26 on page 21, one of them owned only 400 shares in Northern Pacific, but he was a vice-president, director of a Hill Foundation, what did that hold?\nNot a single share of Northern Pacific and 18 -- more than 18,000 shares of Great Northern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3584.094, 3591.617, 3619.197, 3624.643, 3654.139, 3655.857, 3676.184, 3679.57, 3684.044, 3687.424, 3703.38, 3712.733, 3724.381, 3728.367, 3738.092, 3754.312, 3761.194, 3771.024, 3786.574, 3796.724, 3807.207, 3811.696, 3818.072, 3821.955, 3839.688, 3849.181, 3863.576, 3879.712], "stop_times": [3591.617, 3619.197, 3624.643, 3654.139, 3655.857, 3676.184, 3679.57, 3684.044, 3687.424, 3703.38, 3712.733, 3724.381, 3728.367, 3738.092, 3754.312, 3761.194, 3771.024, 3786.574, 3796.724, 3807.207, 3811.696, 3818.072, 3821.955, 3839.688, 3849.181, 3863.576, 3879.712, 3885.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3584.094}, "reply_to": "15242__1_001", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_003", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, wasn't that a beneficial interest of any kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3885.515], "stop_times": [3888.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3885.515}, "reply_to": "15242__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__1_004", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "No, this was a representation by the man on the board.\nHe personally demand -- personally owned 400 shares of the Northern Pacific stock and none in Great Northern, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3888.328, 3893.232], "stop_times": [3893.232, 3900.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3888.328}, "reply_to": "15242__1_003", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_005", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I was wondering how much you would weigh this Great Northern --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3900.822], "stop_times": [3904.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3900.822}, "reply_to": "15242__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__1_006", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I think the Court will be able to judge that better than I, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnother member of the Committee had -- was the president of two mutual funds.\nOne of them had to be large amount of Northern Pacific stock only, but the second one had only 13,000 Northern Pacific stock and over 46000 of Great Northern stock.\nNow, this -- the general legal definition of what constitutes market value and this Court in Schwabacher posited the fact that the true criterion was the present intrinsic or market value of the contributions being made by the various groups.\nHaving that in mind, the general legal definition is what would knowledgeable of willing traders who wanted to make a deal in a trade acting under no compulsion at all, what would -- what figure would they arrive?\nNow, let's take a look at that, what's in this record?\nThe Great Northern had testified on its direct, this wasn't crossed, that the achievement of railroad mergers, of the railroad properties was as he said, \u201cDone under extreme compulsion.\u201d\nThe President of the Northern Pacific confirmed this on his direct.\nHe characterized and used a very accurate adjective.\nHe said that this matter of achieving railroad consolidations was \u201cthe overriding consideration\u201d in a mortgage act -- in this merger application.\nNow, how soft the bargaining was in this matter is shown by when they got to discussing the industrial properties both -- which both railroads had.\nNorthern Pacific's had been evaluated at $32,700,000, so they weren't talking about peanuts.\nThe financial adviser for Northern Pacific was willing to take merely the assurance without any appraisals of the GN had that they had properties of very substantial character.\nBut the earnings from -- their relative earnings from this particular category of assets in 1960 when this merger terms were agreed on, Northern Pacific's were twice that of Great Northern's.\nSo, I say this.\nIf I -- this is arm's length bargaining.\nThe record shows that the arms were exceedingly short.\nNow, about the stockholders' vote; a lot has been said on the record about that.\nI think the stockholders' vote in this particular case should be a red flag to this Court to take a good look at the merit side.\nIt was passed by a vote of 73.2% of those entitled to vote.\nIt was the lowest vote, next to the lowest vote, the (Inaudible) was the lowest of any group of stockholders in all of the railroad mergers that have recently been engaged in.\nIt came only after they had to adjourn the meeting for four days to determine the outcome.\nNewspapers called it a cliffhanger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [3904.882, 3910.83, 3917.932, 3934.337, 3951.416, 3970.294, 3974.567, 3994.894, 3999.426, 4004.384, 4020.686, 4031.363, 4038.275, 4052.941, 4067.71, 4070.35, 4073.192, 4079.213, 4084.926, 4093.238, 4099.029, 4110.603, 4118.301], "stop_times": [3910.83, 3917.932, 3934.337, 3951.416, 3970.294, 3974.567, 3994.894, 3999.426, 4004.384, 4020.686, 4031.363, 4038.275, 4052.941, 4067.71, 4070.35, 4073.192, 4079.213, 4084.926, 4093.238, 4099.029, 4110.603, 4118.301, 4122.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3904.882}, "reply_to": "15242__1_005", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_007", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Wasn't this exchange ratio part of the product of experts?\nThe (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4122.127, 4130.323], "stop_times": [4130.323, 4131.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4122.127}, "reply_to": "15242__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__1_008", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I -- the report --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4131.095], "stop_times": [4132.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4131.095}, "reply_to": "15242__1_007", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_009", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "(Voice Overlap) on one side, first (Inaudible) on the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4132.858], "stop_times": [4135.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4132.858}, "reply_to": "15242__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__1_010", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "They sought advice of those two, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4135.319], "stop_times": [4137.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4135.319}, "reply_to": "15242__1_009", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_011", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "They agreed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4137.794], "stop_times": [4138.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4137.794}, "reply_to": "15242__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__1_012", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I'm coming to that, did they agree?\nThey both approved the terms, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nI see my time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4138.633, 4140.258, 4143.104], "stop_times": [4140.258, 4143.104, 4145.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4138.633}, "reply_to": "15242__1_011", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_013", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "We will take that up after lunch.\n[Luncheon Break]\nMr. Dailey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4145.188, 4147.676, 4162.728], "stop_times": [4147.676, 4162.728, 4165.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4145.188}, "reply_to": "15242__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__1_014", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and the Court.\nBefore I proceed with the argument, I would like to answer Mr. Justice Potter's question about the provisions of the -- someone asked about the call provisions of the preferred stock and I'm a little uncertain about -- is that you Mr. Justice White?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4165.596, 4167.02], "stop_times": [4167.02, 4185.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4165.596}, "reply_to": "15242__1_013", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_015", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4185.027], "stop_times": [4186.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4185.027}, "reply_to": "15242__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_016", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "They are redeemable for the seeking fund purposes at par.\nAs to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4186.376, 4191.328], "stop_times": [4191.328, 4192.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4186.376}, "reply_to": "15242__1_015", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_017", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And that's -- so far as $10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4192.118], "stop_times": [4193.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4192.118}, "reply_to": "15242__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_018", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "$10 fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4193.618], "stop_times": [4193.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4193.618}, "reply_to": "15242__1_017", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_019", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "So that would mean a -- for each share of common stock would be $5 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4193.701], "stop_times": [4197.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4193.701}, "reply_to": "15242__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_020", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Half of shares, see, Great Northern gets a half a share.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4197.217], "stop_times": [4199.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4197.217}, "reply_to": "15242__1_019", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_021", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Five dollars eventually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4199.291], "stop_times": [4200.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4199.291}, "reply_to": "15242__1_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_022", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Five dollars.\nAs to the call of provisions, provides that five years after the consummation, the redemption price would be 105 for the first two years.\nThe next two years, it would be on 104%, and then after that in the descending scale until that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4200.288, 4201.739, 4212.58], "stop_times": [4201.739, 4212.58, 4219.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4200.288}, "reply_to": "15242__1_021", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_023", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "$105?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4219.143], "stop_times": [4220.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4219.143}, "reply_to": "15242__1_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_024", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4220.748], "stop_times": [4221.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4220.748}, "reply_to": "15242__1_023", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_025", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "105 percent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4221.419], "stop_times": [4221.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4221.419}, "reply_to": "15242__1_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_026", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "105% --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4221.905], "stop_times": [4222.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4221.905}, "reply_to": "15242__1_025", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_027", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- of $10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4222.773], "stop_times": [4222.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4222.773}, "reply_to": "15242__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_028", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "105% of the part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4222.854], "stop_times": [4224.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4222.854}, "reply_to": "15242__1_027", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_029", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Of $10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4224.945], "stop_times": [4225.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4224.945}, "reply_to": "15242__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_030", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4225.62], "stop_times": [4226.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4225.62}, "reply_to": "15242__1_029", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_031", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "So, in other words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4226.074], "stop_times": [4226.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4226.074}, "reply_to": "15242__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_032", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4226.567], "stop_times": [4226.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4226.567}, "reply_to": "15242__1_031", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_033", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "$10.50.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4226.827], "stop_times": [4227.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4226.827}, "reply_to": "15242__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__1_034", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, and it keeps going down until it's redeemable at par at the end of 15 years.\nNow, I had about concluded the first point, as to the misinterpretation of Section 5 and laying stress on the arm's length bargaining and the stockholder's votes.\nI now wish to come to point two and that is that there's just no reliable probative substantial evidence in the whole record to support the finding of the Commission in the District Court that these terms are just and reasonable under Section 5.\nNow the unique problem on this case is determining merger terms.\nHow do you value, weigh and relate the contributions of the two parties?\nOne has only railroad properties and the other has railroad properties plus these vast natural resources, some of which are not currently producing income, but are expected to in the future.\nNow, there's no issue in this question about the valuation of railroad properties.\nCommittee agrees that it's proper to take a capitalization of earnings because they are not readily marketable and they are worth only what they can earn.\nCommittee was satisfied with the 60-40 GNNP relationship on the railroad properties.\nMr. Williams, the committee's expert came up with the price earnings ratio of 15 times earnings in 1960 when the terms were agreed upon as an appropriate one and that hasn't been questioned anywhere in the record.\nThe real issue is how are you going to value these natural resources?\nThe applicant's position on that on the record was that it's difficult, if not impossible, to value respective stocks except on the basis of capitalization of earnings.\nThat they made an attempt to value stocks by a separate valuation and they found it impractical.\nWhy?\nBecause they couldn't agree on the stock ratio because of difficulty of valuing these properties on account of market conditions and the uncertainty of their future potential.\nSo they made what they called no definitive valuation of properties.\nThey say it in the last analysis, it just has to be a question of judgment.\nNow, the committee's position was and is that you arrive at a proper, the intrinsic stock market value of these two stocks which is what Schwabacher mandated that it's more appropriate to take a market value of them rather than measure them on the basis of capitalization of earnings.\nBut if you do take current earnings and capitalize it, that in the market place, knowledgeable traders wind up with a very high price earnings ratio.\nNorthern Pacific's financial adviser agrees with the committee.\nLet me read to you from Exhibit 32, page 3 which is Morgan Stanley's report on the non-railroad properties.\nHere's what they say.\n\u201cIn essence, however, a sale of interest in the properties would take place to create Northern stockholders and on this basis, Northern Pacific stockholders should realize sale value rather than value based on capitalization of earnings.\u201d\nAnd the committee chairman frankly testified on his direct testimony that you can't make any exact appraisal in dollars of these properties.\nWe claim however though, although it's not easy to value, some approximate valuation is not only possible, but is necessary if you're going to sustain merger terms.\nNow, what was the applicant's evidence in the record to support this finding?\nIt's based largely on past performances to earnings, dividends, stock market quotations and pro forma, dividend comparisons and on an erroneous and gloomy prediction that there was nothing reasonably foreseeable to indicate that Northern Pacific's future earnings prospects were better than Great Northern's.\nAnd I'm sure the Court is aware, my former statement, in the last two years, our earnings have exceeded Great Northern's.\nNow, the GN's financial adviser, first Boston's witness testified, \u201cthe study of past performance is only important insofar as it measures or predicts future prospects.\u201d\nThis was his direct testimony.\nWith that, the committee agreed.\nNow, the applicant's case as to the future prospects and value of these resources is based on evidence that we regard as of little prohibitive value and that's the test of the Administrative Procedure Act.\nThey offered no market appraisals for these properties.\nThey put on the stand, no timber, oil or other geologist or expert on these matters that we could cross-examine, there's none of that.\nBoth financial advisers on cross-examination were extremely vague as to past prices of timber and oil.\nIn other words, a direct case of the applicants was largely a long dreary account of their negotiation, how they couldn't agree and all the arguments that they had and it was argument that largely not hard, positive reliable evidence.\nNow, contrast the committee's case.\nWe were very serious in this proceeding.\nWe were observing the injunction in the Erie case.\nIt said dissenting stockholders should put in positive evidence and should state precise inequities.\nWe had this constantly in mind.\nSo that when we put in our direct case, we had three experts on stock evaluation analysis and an oil geologist that were subjected to searching cross-examinations.\nThey testified as to various factors that must be considered when you get to valuing what the traders will -- how they will trade these natural resources and properties in the public market?\nMr. Brundage, chairman of the committee testified as to the strong earning power of the natural resources, improved geological and geophysical discovery techniques, the freedom of these properties from obsolescence contrary to railroad properties, the low financial risk, the very high return on capital investment.\nOur natural resources are yielding each year more than 100% of the return.\nWhereas the testimony of the applicants on their direct case was that Northern Pacific in 1960 gets -- getting a return of 1.4% on its transportation properties.\nHe spoke of the tax savings running into millions of dollars occasioned by the depletion allowances.\nHe spoke of the control elements that you didn't have to develop properties in a hurry.\nYou could take your time and you're in control of it and most importantly, he spoke of the intrinsic and the survival values of these properties in an inflationary period.\nNow Mr. Williams reported on his studies of comparative companies that had similar properties, then he wound up with a price earnings ratio in his judgment was 50 times earnings and this was never been questioned by any testimony on the part of the applicants.\nHe pointed to the TXL, Texaco deal which happen to be consummated about that time.\nIt was a merger like ours, in which the price earnings ratio were 75 times earnings.\nNow, in the Morgan Stanley report which you can see in Exhibit 32, Morgan Stanley, in making their recommendations were terms favorable to Northern Pacific against GN came up with price earnings ratio of 12 on oil and gas, 15 on timber and 15 on other minerals.\nOur oil geologist that was particularly familiar with the Williston Banking, based and he'd cut his eye teeth up in that area, testified as to the favorable prospects of the Williston Basin.\nHe predicted a billion tons of oil out of the basin in the next decade.\nHe spoke of a use of the exploration there.\nThe lack of the exploration of the deeper layers of the ground that pointed out that in the Williston Basin, they'd get a higher rate of discovery than the national rate.\nAnd he also said that additional income from the oil would come from secondary recoveries.\nNow, Mr. Story testified as to the economic matters and particularly as to trends of prices of natural resources and their value as a hedge against probable future monetary inflation.\nNow, the important thing for this Court to realize is that this body of specific testimony on the part of the committee was never rebutted.\nThey had -- the applicants had Morgan Stanley, they had all the oil experts and timber experts on the payroll.\nThousands of our stockholders' money was paid to hire them, but they didn't go on the stand and say that Mr. William's price earnings ratio was wrong or that Mr. Brundage's testimony as to the various factors that must be considered in the marketplace relating to our natural resources were improper or to how to weigh any factors that pertain to these natural resources, you just draw a blank from the applicants on that aspect.\nSo, we say that their testimony is not proven.\nIt isn't reliable.\nNo experts, nobody to get at the truth.\nNow, the committee doesn't claim that exchange ratios can be based on exact dollar evaluations, but it does claim that there must be some rational basis in the record for any alleged just ratio.\nIf the Commission is to discharge its duty and this Court is to have any meaningful review of the record, and that just that you will search this record and you will not find how they arrived at these decisions except through these bargaining process.\nNow, the committee also developed calculations to show they were precise in their criticisms of these terms.\nThey're all set forth on three different theories and four different points of time, there were 12 different computations and as far as we're concerned, they all with one exception, show that Great Northern should be preferred.\nIt's all in the appendix to our brief and I'm sure and I hope you will study it.\nNow, this record contains no discussion by either the Commission or the District Court of this expensive testimony of the committee.\nOr was any rational explanation given, set forth anywhere as to how the particular ratios were developed or could be justified.\nWe urge that the wholly conclusionary finding of the Commission that these mergers fairly reflect the contributions of the group of stockholders involved is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence as the administrator procedure requires.\nNow, I received a five-minute warning here.\nOur third claim which is that the Commission grossly erred in views of the discretion, denied us due process and outlying a lot of evidence of new evidence that's available now that wasn't then.\nThe Pierce case has been cited here as it -- by the District Court as support, but the Pierce case was one in which they were dealing with the impact of war inflation.\nAnd they said that as to that matter, the Commission was -- that's right within the scope of their particularized expertise and that therefore, there was no need to interrupt them.\nWe've -- we concede that the general view is that you shouldn't interfere with this, but the adjacent case was right on all fours with us.\nThere they were dealing with the depression, now we're dealing with inflation.\nEven the President in his radio speech last Friday drew this comparison.\nSo, we say in conclusion that on no basis and on no theory does the record sustain the finding below and that they made a serious error when they took the wrong test and applied the bargaining process and the stockholder's vote as determined.\nThe Commission simply didn't do its homework on this case.\nYou're going to find difficulty, I think, in finding in this record any rational basis to sustain what has been found.\nSo, in conclusion, I would like, respectfully ask this Court that the judgment of the District Court be reversed and that the course be remanded to it with instructions that the matter be remanded that the Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.\nNow, as was set by this Court in the Penn-Central case, the short delay occasioned by a remand is not too high a price to pay to assure a disposition of this matter that is just to all parties.\nI thank you for earnest consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [4227.942, 4235.557, 4249.784, 4268.179, 4273.973, 4280.298, 4292.223, 4296.519, 4307.145, 4314.379, 4327.027, 4331.991, 4344.334, 4350.492, 4351.46, 4361.341, 4369.106, 4374.592, 4401.465, 4413.652, 4417.965, 4426.159, 4428.612, 4448.003, 4458.732, 4470.755, 4477.756, 4500.177, 4507.362, 4521.53, 4524.064, 4527.672, 4542.726, 4547.191, 4559.205, 4567.666, 4586.926, 4589.209, 4591.034, 4593.901, 4600.376, 4602.955, 4613.613, 4625.978, 4648.334, 4654.264, 4666.712, 4672.927, 4677.176, 4690.351, 4709.146, 4713.821, 4720.181, 4740.155, 4751.627, 4756.798, 4760.45, 4771.778, 4777.843, 4794.295, 4805.659, 4812.62, 4838.458, 4841.756, 4843.209, 4846.292, 4860.095, 4877.229, 4885.036, 4900.276, 4905.42, 4915.233, 4925.342, 4943.799, 4946.681, 4962.925, 4974.898, 4986.936, 4996.368, 4999.915, 5005.462, 5027.403, 5031.143, 5040.348, 5057.339, 5074.695], "stop_times": [4235.557, 4249.784, 4268.179, 4273.973, 4280.298, 4292.223, 4296.519, 4307.145, 4314.379, 4327.027, 4331.991, 4344.334, 4350.492, 4351.46, 4361.341, 4369.106, 4374.592, 4401.465, 4413.652, 4417.965, 4426.159, 4428.612, 4448.003, 4458.732, 4470.755, 4477.756, 4500.177, 4507.362, 4521.53, 4524.064, 4527.672, 4542.726, 4547.191, 4559.205, 4567.666, 4586.926, 4589.209, 4591.034, 4593.901, 4600.376, 4602.955, 4613.613, 4625.978, 4648.334, 4654.264, 4666.712, 4672.927, 4677.176, 4690.351, 4709.146, 4713.821, 4720.181, 4740.155, 4751.627, 4756.798, 4760.45, 4771.778, 4777.843, 4794.295, 4805.659, 4812.62, 4838.458, 4841.756, 4843.209, 4846.292, 4860.095, 4877.229, 4885.036, 4900.276, 4905.42, 4915.233, 4925.342, 4943.799, 4946.681, 4962.925, 4974.898, 4986.936, 4996.368, 4999.915, 5005.462, 5027.403, 5031.143, 5040.348, 5057.339, 5074.695, 5077.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4227.942}, "reply_to": "15242__1_033", "speaker": "louis_b_dailey"}
{"id": "15242__1_035", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dailey.\nMr. Deale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5077.165, 5087.561], "stop_times": [5087.561, 5090.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5077.165}, "reply_to": "15242__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__2_000", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe Livingston Anti-Merger Committee raised these two thresholds issues in these consolidated cases.\nThe first issue is the issue of a jurisdiction of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction over the proposed merger.\nThe second issue is the issue of whether or not the proposed merger is barred by a statutory law in contract.\nThe Commission's position also embraces the contention that neither the Court below nor the Commission gave adequate consideration to these two primary issues.\nThe issue of jurisdiction is a twin issue.\nIt is an issue of jurisdiction and ownership.\nIn terms of the committee's position, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the proposed merger since one of the central properties in the merger namely the main line right-of-way used and operated by Northern Pacific Railway Company is neither owned by a merger applicant nor owned by a petitioner for inclusion in the merger.\nPutting it another way, it's the committee's position that the ownership of the main line right-of-way continues to vest in the federally, in the federal chartered company, namely Northern Pacific Railroad, an existing federal company controlled to be sure by railway.\nThe merger authorization authority of the Commission has boundaries and it's our position that these boundaries have not been heeded by the Commission.\nNot just any merger maybe approved by the Commission.\nThe kind of a merger that maybe approved by the Commission is a merger where the properties to be merged are owned by the merger applicant.\nAnd in the case of the rail merger, the properties may also be owned by a petitioner for inclusion in the merger.\nThe law makes no provision for the merger of properties owned by someone else.\nThus, involuntary mergers are outside the scope of the present law.\nNow, complementing these boundaries upon the Commission's authority is Section 5 (2) (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act which specifies that before the Commission may exercise its authority, it must find that the proposed transaction is within the scope of the Act.\nIn other words, in this case, that the rail merger is a merger, the properties of which are owned either by an applicant or by a petitioner for including, for inclusion in the merger.\nNow, on the merits of the issue of who owns of the main line right-of-way used and operated by Northern Pacific Railway Company since 1896, the Commission's -- the committee's position is this.\nFirst, we want to draw the distinction between the main line right-of-way with its franchise in federal tax exemption between that properties or those properties and other properties of railways such as land grant lands.\nThe properties of a federally chartered main line right-of-way with its franchise and tax exemption privilege, that property has a quality of inalienability.\nThe company which receives such property from Congress, from the United States Government may not, may not transfer it voluntarily except on the authority of Congress.\nIt is our position that Congress never enacted the necessary concept legislation to transfer title of the main line right-of-way with the franchise and tax exemption privilege from railroad to railway.\nNow, contrary to the position of railway which has been uncritically accepted by the Commission, the resolution of May 31, 1870 was no consent to the purported transfer from railroad, the federally chartered company, to railway.\nThe joint resolution of 1870 authorized railroad to issue bonds in aid of construction and it also authorized railroad to place a mortgage to secure these bonds on railroad's properties.\nShortly thereafter, within two months thereafter in fact, a mortgage -- bonds were indeed issued and mortgages were placed -- a mortgage was placed on railroads property.\nSubsequently, there was default and the committee of bondholders had a foreclosure sale bought in the property.\nLater on, the property was re-conveyed to the railroad company.\nSubsequently, other mortgages, other bonds were issued and other mortgages were placed on the properties.\nThree of these mortgages were involved in the so-called foreclosure sale of 1896.\nAnd it is from this sale that railway claims good title to the property of the main line right-of-way.\nNow, this foreclosure sale was analyzed in the Boyd case by this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court.\nIn that case, an asinine of a remote creditor of railroad sought to enforce his rights against railway as a successor to railroad.\nRailway defended on the basis that his rights, the creditor's rights, had been wiped out by the foreclosure and the foreclosure sale.\nAll three courts agreed that railroad's creditor should prevail and their basic reason was that the foreclosure proceeding, the foreclosure, the foreclosure sale was one of form and not of substance.\nThe facts of the transaction as provided in the cases and noted in the committee's brief bear out this conclusion.\nIn effect, the stockholders and bondholders engaged in a private agreement to effectuate a transfer of title of railways -- railroads property, a federal chartered company to railway which at that time was nothing, but a paper corporation.\nBy no standard of law could this be done in view of the inalienability of the kind of the property we're talking about.\nAnd certainly, the capacity for these private individuals to work out this sort of an arrangement was not enlarged by the mere fact of their use of a judicial forum which in this case was a consent foreclosure decree of the shadowy character for this foreclosure.\nIn this foreclosure sale is further indicated by the fact that the very court which issued the foreclosure -- and which issued the foreclosure decree made a reservation in its foreclosure decree of the question of the validity of the mortgages being foreclosed and this question was raised by one of the intervening parties in the foreclosure, in the foreclosure proceeding.\nAnd this reservation of the question of the validity of the mortgage being foreclosed was carried out not only in the decree, in the master sale and the Court order confirming the master sale and subsequently in the deeds of conveyance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5090.118, 5094.717, 5103.84, 5115.539, 5128.853, 5148.502, 5153.277, 5159.608, 5195.237, 5227.576, 5245.27, 5251.858, 5264.082, 5274.56, 5282.248, 5289.145, 5313.761, 5330.28, 5352.151, 5370.556, 5389.778, 5410.83, 5433.717, 5459.511, 5479.88, 5492.61, 5500.673, 5506.518, 5515.132, 5521.656, 5531.662, 5542.33, 5554.788, 5566.46, 5582.586, 5591.485, 5615.738, 5626.243, 5648.627, 5677.346], "stop_times": [5094.717, 5103.84, 5115.539, 5128.853, 5148.502, 5153.277, 5159.608, 5195.237, 5227.576, 5245.27, 5251.858, 5264.082, 5274.56, 5282.248, 5289.145, 5313.761, 5330.28, 5352.151, 5370.556, 5389.778, 5410.83, 5433.717, 5459.511, 5479.88, 5492.61, 5500.673, 5506.518, 5515.132, 5521.656, 5531.662, 5542.33, 5554.788, 5566.46, 5582.586, 5591.485, 5615.738, 5626.243, 5648.627, 5677.346, 5692.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5090.118}, "reply_to": "15242__1_035", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_001", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "When was that decree rendered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5692.269], "stop_times": [5694.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5692.269}, "reply_to": "15242__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_002", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "In 1896.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5694.304], "stop_times": [5698.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5694.304}, "reply_to": "15242__2_001", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_003", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Are you challenging it or standing on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5698.402], "stop_times": [5702.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5698.402}, "reply_to": "15242__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_004", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I'm sorry, Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5702.312], "stop_times": [5703.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5702.312}, "reply_to": "15242__2_003", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_005", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Are you challenging or standing on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5703.094], "stop_times": [5706.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5703.094}, "reply_to": "15242__2_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_006", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Our standing -- we're challenging the decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5706.082], "stop_times": [5710.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5706.082}, "reply_to": "15242__2_005", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_007", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Of the 1896 decree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5710.729], "stop_times": [5712.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5710.729}, "reply_to": "15242__2_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_008", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "This is correct, Mr. Justice Black.\nIt is suggested here that if the courts in the Boyd case for the benefit of an asinine of a remote creditor can cut through the judicial tracking of a consent foreclosure decree for the benefit of such a creditor.\nSurely, the same can be done when we talked about the rights of the public interest and welfare which the charters -- which the charter provisions were designed to secure.\nNow, railway itself at the time of the foreclosure proceeding recognized that support of legislation was necessary in order to affect the transfer of the railroad's properties to railway and this is without regard mind you, without regard to any question as to the validity of the foreclosure decree.\nCongress, nevertheless, did not accede to railways' wishes and did not give the necessary authorization.\nIndeed, Congress has actually left open this question of who has title to the right-of-way used and operated by railway.\nIn the Act of June 25, 1929, this was an Act which authorized the United States to prosecute suits against the railway and railroad to quiet titles owned by the -- to quiet titles to land owned by the United States against claims by a railroad and railway.\nAnd in that Act, Congress provided as follows.\nThe provisions of this Act shall be -- shall not be construed as affecting the present title of Northern Pacific Railroad Company or its successor the Northern Pacific Railway Company or any subsidiary of either or both in the right-of-way of said road or lands actually used in good faith by the Northern Pacific Railway Company in the operation of said road.\nThis language is certainly not language which recognizes any kind of title in railway.\nFurther, the issue that we're raising here has never been adjudicated by any Court.\nTo be sure there has been some title language that has been used in cases, in the Boyd case particularly, in the land grant case and in the Landell case, but in none of those cases was the issue in controversy.\nIn the Boyd case, as we pointed out, was simply a case of creditor's rights.\nIn the land grant case, the enabling statute specifically excluded the question of title to railways' right-of-way.\nAnd in the Landell case, minority stockholders attempted to raise this issue, but they were foreclosed from doing so by a summary judgment of the Court on the basis of latches.\nNow, the circuit threshold issue which the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee is raising is independent of this jurisdictional ownership issue.\nThe committee's position is that when railway -- taking railway's position that it succeeded to railroad and to the right-of-way of railroad, it succeeded to railroad with all the burden and the liabilities and obligations that were attached to the federal charter.\nWhen Congress granted railroad a 400-foot wide, 21,000-mile long right-of-way, it did so together with 40 million acres of land.\nIt understandably included, in the federal charter, protective provisions to assure that in perpetuity, this National Highway would be maintained as a continuous line for the benefit of the public interest and welfare and also to serve certain Governmental services.\nNow, two of these protective provisions are these.\nOne, there is a prohibition against merger of this road; secondly, there is a prohibition against placing on the road, any lien or mortgage.\nThese protective provisions, we submit run with the road.\nThey are more than merely personal limitations upon the original federal grantee.\nNow, in opposing this view, railway has noted that it has placed, indeed has placed several mortgages on the properties without congressional consent.\nThe implication is that another mortgage which is called for by this merger would be alright.\nNow, there is ample authority in case law from this Court to support the proposition that the continuance of an unauthorized act does not make it right or that the lack of an enforcement of a statutory provision does not affect any appeal.\nRailway further suggests and the Commission seems to go along with the contention that the plenary authority of the Commission to approve mergers is enough to sweep away the protective provisions of the federal charter.\nThere are three reasons why this view was unsound.\nFirst, it is too much to suppose that the general language describing the Commission's plenary authority with respect to mergers overrides a particular right which Congress reserved onto itself in a railroad federal charter.\nThis is especially so, since both before and after Congress has granted the Commission of Authority to approve mergers, Congress reaffirmed its reservation of rights to alter, amend or repeal the federal charter.\nCongress in effect, has preempted the provisions of the federal charter.\nNow, there's precedent for this conclusion.\nThis conclusion indeed had been confer -- had been concordant by the Department of Justice, by the Interstate Commerce Commission and by the Congress.\nAnd I refer to the Texas and Pacific case which is outlined in the committee's brief on pages 46 to 49.\nIn this case, a federally chartered company, Texas and Pacific Railway Company had burdens in its charter which it wanted to get rid off.\nOne of the burdens was a limitation upon consolidation.\nAnother burden was a limitation upon the financial structure of the company.\nSo, how did it go about getting rid of these burdens?\nIt went to the Congress and asked the Congress to amend its federal charter and in the course of the legislative process, again, the Department of Justice, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Congress all agreed that the legislative route was the correct one.\nNow, there is a further point.\nHowever, the authority of the Commission to approve mergers may be interpreted.\nIt is not sufficient to abrogate a statutory contract made between the United States and the organizers, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and their successors and assigns.\nThis contract which was consummated upon delivery of its acceptance to President Lincoln on December 29, 1864, provided for a method of amendment by the congressional action.\nAccordingly, if the terms of the contract are not satisfactory to the parties, the approach is to amend the contract and amendment of the contract is provided for by the terms of the contract and the terms of the contracts spell out that Congress has reserved its rights to alter, amend, or repeal the contract.\nAnd it is submitted therefore that under these terms, the Interstate Commerce Commission has no right to abrogate the terms of the contract and has no position to repudiate its terms by approving a proposed merger which contradicts the terms of the contract.\nNow, in summary, railroad officials, or railway officials themselves have recognized that what we're saying here that railway, if it did indeed take railroad's main line right-of-way, it took it (Inaudible).\nIn the hearings before the joint congressional committee on the investigation of the Northern Pacific Railroad land grants, railway officials recognized that it was properly subject to all the limitations and liabilities and obligations imposed upon the original company by the Granting Act, and two of those congressional impositions, is one, a prohibition against merger; and two, a prohibition against placing a mortgage or a lien on the main line right-of-way without congressional consent.\nThere are some procedural inadequacies and this is the third position of the committee namely, that the court below nor the Commission gave adequate attention to the foregoing threshold issues.\nThe hearing examiner indeed recited the contentions of the committee and he dismissed them under -- without merit.\nBut his evaluations of the contentions were mere surface evaluations.\nThe Commission had no independent thoughts of its own subject.\nIn other words, it accepted completely what the hearing examiners had to say about the subject.\nThe court below while recognizing that the issues that we're raising are ones of great magnitude decided that the Commission really didn't have to look into the issue.\nNevertheless, it acknowledged that should the court at some other day in the indefinite future have occasion to look into the issues which we're raising now and comes to another conclusion than that court can measure the impact of its decision on the then status of the merger.\nFurthermore, the court below was completely silent on the issue of the currency of the congressional impositions in the federal charter prohibiting merger and mortgage without congressional consent.\nIn summary, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the proposed merger because ownership in the federally chartered right-of-way continues to vest in railroad which is neither a merger applicant nor a third party petitioning for inclusion in the merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [5712.313, 5715.652, 5737.437, 5753.039, 5777.964, 5788.039, 5799.666, 5822.624, 5827.479, 5856.746, 5865.349, 5875.866, 5894.625, 5899.718, 5911.885, 5927.6, 5944.615, 5969.559, 5987.554, 6010.924, 6015.403, 6029.193, 6033.92, 6043.35, 6057.125, 6065.644, 6086.248, 6106.381, 6112.911, 6134.285, 6150.879, 6157.859, 6162.092, 6172.756, 6183.974, 6195.628, 6199.95, 6207.765, 6212.399, 6233.117, 6235.001, 6243.486, 6260.11, 6276.564, 6299.626, 6321.097, 6341.556, 6383.581, 6398.401, 6409.999, 6416.98, 6423.815, 6431.974, 6447.914, 6473.229, 6493.434], "stop_times": [5715.652, 5737.437, 5753.039, 5777.964, 5788.039, 5799.666, 5822.624, 5827.479, 5856.746, 5865.349, 5875.866, 5894.625, 5899.718, 5911.885, 5927.6, 5944.615, 5969.559, 5987.554, 6010.924, 6015.403, 6029.193, 6033.92, 6043.35, 6057.125, 6065.644, 6086.248, 6106.381, 6112.911, 6134.285, 6150.879, 6157.859, 6162.092, 6172.756, 6183.974, 6195.628, 6199.95, 6207.765, 6212.399, 6233.117, 6235.001, 6243.486, 6260.11, 6276.564, 6299.626, 6321.097, 6341.556, 6383.581, 6398.401, 6409.999, 6416.98, 6423.815, 6431.974, 6447.914, 6473.229, 6493.434, 6510.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5712.313}, "reply_to": "15242__2_007", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_009", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "May I ask you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6510.311], "stop_times": [6511.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6510.311}, "reply_to": "15242__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_010", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6511.489], "stop_times": [6511.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6511.489}, "reply_to": "15242__2_009", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_011", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I can't quite understand this question.\nWhat you are raising is, isn't it a question of ownership as between the old railway and the railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6511.904, 6516.492], "stop_times": [6516.492, 6524.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6511.904}, "reply_to": "15242__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_012", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's correct, in the right-of-way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6524.882], "stop_times": [6527.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6524.882}, "reply_to": "15242__2_011", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_013", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Would you say that -- what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6527.524], "stop_times": [6528.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6527.524}, "reply_to": "15242__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_014", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "In the right-of-way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6528.979], "stop_times": [6530.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6528.979}, "reply_to": "15242__2_013", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_015", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes, in the right-of-way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6530.082], "stop_times": [6531.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6530.082}, "reply_to": "15242__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_016", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6531.405], "stop_times": [6532.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6531.405}, "reply_to": "15242__2_015", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_017", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "But suppose you are right, and they merged, would you apply to loose if he did own it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6532.176], "stop_times": [6544.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6532.176}, "reply_to": "15242__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_018", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The position is this.\nIf railroad does own the main line right-of-way then clearly the provisions of the federal charter, prohibiting merger and the provisions of the federal charter prohibiting a mortgage and a lien on the line without congressional consent, are applicable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6544.641, 6549.231], "stop_times": [6549.231, 6574.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6544.641}, "reply_to": "15242__2_017", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_019", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "So what that would do is just really knock up the whole thing, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6574.106], "stop_times": [6576.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6574.106}, "reply_to": "15242__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_020", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That certainly would and that of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6576.999], "stop_times": [6580.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6576.999}, "reply_to": "15242__2_019", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_021", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Nothing to merge, suppose you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6580.091], "stop_times": [6581.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6580.091}, "reply_to": "15242__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_022", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "There could be -- in the courts, Mr. Justice Black, you must realized that the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee is against the merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6581.522], "stop_times": [6589.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6581.522}, "reply_to": "15242__2_021", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_023", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.\nI judged it was.[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6589.661, 6592.467], "stop_times": [6592.467, 6600.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6589.661}, "reply_to": "15242__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_024", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "In brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6600.077], "stop_times": [6601.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6600.077}, "reply_to": "15242__2_023", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_025", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "But that's a lawsuit outside of this one, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6601.926], "stop_times": [6606.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6601.926}, "reply_to": "15242__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_026", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Black, the Commission indeed has made this point and in judicial appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6606.521], "stop_times": [6617.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6606.521}, "reply_to": "15242__2_025", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_027", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The Commission has made the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6617.192], "stop_times": [6617.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6617.192}, "reply_to": "15242__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_028", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And the Commission has made the point, it has suggested the point that you're making and I would first like to suggest that we directed our attention to this issue in the first ten pages of our reply brief, but for the present in reply to your question, I would suggest this.\nThat the Commission and that the committee, the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee does have standing in the proceedings.\nAnd having standing in the proceedings, it does have the right to raise a jurisdictional question and we're suggesting that title is intimately involved with the question of the Commission's jurisdiction.\nFurthermore, by virtue of decisions of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6617.819, 6641.095, 6647.698, 6666.334], "stop_times": [6641.095, 6647.698, 6666.334, 6669.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6617.819}, "reply_to": "15242__2_027", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_029", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6669.142], "stop_times": [6669.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6669.142}, "reply_to": "15242__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_030", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- by virtue of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6669.24], "stop_times": [6670.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6669.24}, "reply_to": "15242__2_029", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_031", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What difference would it make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6670.741], "stop_times": [6670.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6670.741}, "reply_to": "15242__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_032", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- decisions of -- I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6670.796], "stop_times": [6670.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6670.796}, "reply_to": "15242__2_031", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_033", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What difference would it make, who owns it, if it's only a question of merging?\nYou are here as an intervener.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6670.861, 6676.941], "stop_times": [6676.941, 6678.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6670.861}, "reply_to": "15242__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_034", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6678.977], "stop_times": [6679.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6678.977}, "reply_to": "15242__2_033", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_035", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What difference would it make?\nWhy couldn't they merge if it was owned by one group same as it was owned by another group?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6679.516, 6680.961], "stop_times": [6680.961, 6687.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6679.516}, "reply_to": "15242__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_036", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, were -- we fall back Mr. Justice Black to the provisions of the federal charter and the applicability of the provisions of the federal charter.\nNow, the federal charter would prohibit a merger.\nThe federal charter provides the railroad may -- that another road may be merged into railroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6687.843, 6699.596, 6703.155], "stop_times": [6699.596, 6703.155, 6712.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6687.843}, "reply_to": "15242__2_035", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_037", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I see, you claim that's an insuperable --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6712.117], "stop_times": [6715.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6712.117}, "reply_to": "15242__2_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_038", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "It doesn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6715.25], "stop_times": [6715.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6715.25}, "reply_to": "15242__2_037", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_039", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- that any merger now or hereafter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6715.373], "stop_times": [6718.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6715.373}, "reply_to": "15242__2_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_040", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "This -- and so long as the federal charter remains effective, I must -- there's one other and there's a corollary point here and that is that the federal charter also prohibits the placement of a mortgage or lien on the road without congressional consent and there has been no congressional consent to the proposed mortgage on these (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6718.273], "stop_times": [6739.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6718.273}, "reply_to": "15242__2_039", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_041", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I thought they have been mortgage all through the last century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6739.521], "stop_times": [6744.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6739.521}, "reply_to": "15242__2_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__2_042", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "There had been many mortgages on the road and again as we suggest, some of them have been authorized and we're also suggesting that some of them have not been authorized.\nIt see my time up, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6744.014, 6757.598, 6759.836], "stop_times": [6757.598, 6759.836, 6769.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6744.014}, "reply_to": "15242__2_041", "speaker": "valentine_b_deale"}
{"id": "15242__2_043", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Kahn, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6769.87], "stop_times": [6771.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6769.87}, "reply_to": "15242__2_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__3_000", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nCounsels for the appellees on these consolidated cases have agreed upon a division of their argument.\nI shall deal principally in -- with the illegal standards observed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in approving the merger of the Northern Lines responding to the several contestants of the Department of Justice.\nMr. Cox, a counsel for the railroads, will deal with the several factual factors and that went into the decision to merge these roads, including the many benefits to the shipping public and that it enrolled offered.\nHe additionally will respond to the contentions of the Northern Pacific Committee.\nHe will be followed by Mr. Fred Tolan on behalf of 230 Pacific Northwest Shippers who will deal with the merger principally from the standpoint of the patrons of these roads.\nAnd finally, Mr. Merrill and counsel for the Milwaukee will treat specifically with the conditions attached by the Commissions for the protection of that road.\nThe Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon who had initially opposed the merger before the Commission now supports it.\nHe, however, relies on his brief and will not separately argue.\nTen years ago, a committee of the Congress criticized the nation's railroads.\nIn a report it said, the railroad industry has not been sufficiently interested in self-help in such matters as consolidations and mergers.\nAnd last year, and this Court noted in the Penn-Central cases that the intervening years have marked a tremendous change and that the railroads now embarked upon a vast reorganization of rail transportation implementing the congressional policy of encouraging consolidation of the nation's railroads into a limited number of systems.\nDepartment of Justice has opposed that realignment.\nAt one stage or another, the department has opposed every major railroad consolidation of the past decade.\nIts present attack -- the challenges of the very premise upon which the Commission cater for has authorized and approved railroad mergers and the rationale upon which the Courts on review have sustained them.\nEssentially, the question is this.\nMay a consolidation of railroads be held to be in the public interest upon the Commission's finding of improved transportation, efficiencies and economies that the transport action itself will yield when weighed against the facts of evidence at the competitive consequences.\nThe Commission and the courts have said yes.\nThe department has unsuccessfully maintained in the past, says no.\nIts position is that acknowledged savings, operational improvements and service benefits flowing from the affiliation of railroads without more cannot serve and to offset the loss of competition.\nThe Commission found and a unanimous lower court agreed, from that, the merger would produce savings of $40 million annually.\nThe Commission found and the lower court agreed that would result in better service.\nDepartment does not now seriously challenge the findings of savings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6771.322, 6775.574, 6782.383, 6795.137, 6811.054, 6816.981, 6828.335, 6839.408, 6847.969, 6853.98, 6861.966, 6871.508, 6896.573, 6900.216, 6910.493, 6925.81, 6928.844, 6947.44, 6950.125, 6958.6, 6971.318, 6980.829, 6987.334], "stop_times": [6775.574, 6782.383, 6795.137, 6811.054, 6816.981, 6828.335, 6839.408, 6847.969, 6853.98, 6861.966, 6871.508, 6896.573, 6900.216, 6910.493, 6925.81, 6928.844, 6947.44, 6950.125, 6958.6, 6971.318, 6980.829, 6987.334, 6992.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6771.322}, "reply_to": "15242__2_043", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_001", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "When was that finding made?\nBefore the first decision or --?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6992.623, 6995.516], "stop_times": [6995.516, 6999.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6992.623}, "reply_to": "15242__3_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__3_002", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "In the second report and Your Honor, the Commission found annual savings of $40 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [6999.26], "stop_times": [7004.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 6999.26}, "reply_to": "15242__3_001", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_003", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What did it find on that subject in the first place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7004.994], "stop_times": [7007.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7004.994}, "reply_to": "15242__3_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__3_004", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "In the first report, they estimated the savings to be between 12.7 and 25.5 million.\nAt the further hearing, evidence was introduced showing that the savings would be substantially greater.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7007.237, 7015.915], "stop_times": [7015.915, 7019.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7007.237}, "reply_to": "15242__3_003", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_005", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "So great a difference in the amount of savings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7019.612], "stop_times": [7022.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7019.612}, "reply_to": "15242__3_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15242__3_006", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes sir.\nDepartment maintains that this merger cannot proceed.\nIt likens the railroad and to the players in the game as reply brief says, four is better than three, three better than two and two better than one, but such have not been the rules of the game for nearly half a century.\nThe Transportation Act of 1920 established altogether different standards, marking a fundamental change in the scheme of railroad regulation.\nBy that legislation, the Commission for the first time was empowered to authorize the improve -- and to authorize and approve now the merger of railroads not withstanding their anti-competitive effects.\nIndeed, and that legislation specifically conferred anti-trust immunity upon transactions approved by the Commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7022.064, 7024.915, 7028.766, 7046.057, 7056.612, 7069.784], "stop_times": [7024.915, 7028.766, 7046.057, 7056.612, 7069.784, 7078.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7022.064}, "reply_to": "15242__3_005", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_007", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Before that 1920 statute, the Commission, do I understand it, had no role to play in railroad mergers --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7078.234], "stop_times": [7085.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7078.234}, "reply_to": "15242__3_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__3_008", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Now, that is correct sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7085.61], "stop_times": [7085.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7085.61}, "reply_to": "15242__3_007", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_009", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- throughout their history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7085.776], "stop_times": [7087.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7085.776}, "reply_to": "15242__3_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__3_010", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And that is correct sir and before that time, the mergers were governed solely by the Sherman and the Clayton Acts and it was during this period that this Court decided in Northern Security's case and the Southern Pacific case consolidation.\nNow, following the 1920 enactment, two acquisitions of control have reached this Court.\nAnd I specifically invite this Court's attention to its decisions in the New York Central Securities case and the Texas case.\nNow, the most dramatic example under the Transportation Act of 1920 that the Commission could authorize from one railroad's acquisition of control of another, even in the face of the most serious anti-competitive consequences was afforded by the Southern Pacific case.\nIn 1922, this Court had found that the control of the Central Pacific by the Southern Pacific violated the Sherman Act and it ordered the divestiture.\nSouthern Pacific, however, in an effort to maintain control applied to the Commission for authorization under the provisions of the Transportation Act of 1920 enacted subsequently to the beginning of the anti-trust prosecution.\nThe Commission in its report found that separation of the lines would result in more expensive and less efficient and satisfactory service that can be rendered under unified control.\nIt approved the control of relationship and thereby validated the very relationship that this Court had found to be unlawful the proceeding year.\nThen none of the cases, and decided by the Commission --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7087.091, 7101.117, 7108.234, 7116.995, 7136.49, 7149.657, 7166.709, 7181.329, 7192.014], "stop_times": [7101.117, 7108.234, 7116.995, 7136.49, 7149.657, 7166.709, 7181.329, 7192.014, 7195.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7087.091}, "reply_to": "15242__3_009", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_011", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Did that case go beyond the Commission?\nWas there a judicial review of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7195.537, 7197.391], "stop_times": [7197.391, 7200.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7195.537}, "reply_to": "15242__3_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__3_012", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "The District Court of the District of Utah have found and that the mandate of this Court in essence was satisfied in that no divestiture was required, the Commission having found the control relationship to be consistent with the public interest.\nIt was not reviewed on the merits, Your Honor.\nNow, none of these cases decided by the Commission, some of which were sustained by the Courts and it was the Commission's operate -- authorization premised upon findings such as the department now would insist upon.\nIn the face of their evident anti-competitive effects and the proposals were approved by the Commission upon Commission's findings of improved transportation, the economy's inefficiencies that the trans-action itself would yield.\nThe department discusses none of these cases.\nIt ignores altogether and to the important cases of the 1920 to 1940 formative period.\nBy 1940, it had become apparent that the ambitious nationwide plan of consolidation which was a part of the 1920 Act was not bearing fruit.\nThe Transportation Act of 1940 relieved the Commission of having to formulate the plan as that it permits the Commission to approve carry their initiated voluntary plans if consistent with the public interest.\nAnd so the 40 Act permitted the Commission to approve acquisitions -- approve merges of railroads as it previously had acquisitions of control subject only to the standard of consistency with the public interest.\nAnd this Court has repeatedly said that the congressional purpose in this 1940 Act was to facilitate merger and consolidation in the national transportation system.\nThe result of the Act and it was a change in the means while the end remained the same.\nWe do not view Svenska Amerika as changing that and we do not think Svenska Amerika -- and America can be silent or in overruling decades of administrative and judicial construction.\nSecondly, and most significant, in that proceeding and there were no benefits from the transaction from the agreements offered for Federal Maritime Commission approval and the Federal Maritime Commission specifically so found.\nBut finally, there is no suggestion in Svenska Amerika that the kinds of improvements, service benefits found to flow from the transaction here approved by the Commission would not satisfy the requirement of Svenska Amerika.\nBeginning with the decision in the McLean case which incidentally involved a merger of seven motor carriers into the largest single motor carrier in the United States.\nThis Court has consistently held that under the 1940 Act as under the 1920 Act, the achieving of an adequate, efficient and economical system of transportation was a matter of paramount national concern.\nAnd the preservation of competition among carriers, although still of value is significant chiefly as it aids in the attainment of the objective of the national transportation system.\nIndeed, we show in our brief, that some of the very arguments in which the department now makes were considered and rejected by the Court in the McLean case.\nThis Court's affirmance in 1967 of the Seaboard summary affirmance -- in 1967 of the Seaboard Coastline Merger under the standards of the 1940 Act was one of several occurrences in following the Commission's first report in the Northern Lines case and contributing to its change of mind in the approval of the Northern Lines' merger in the second report.\nIn many of the characteristics in the Seaboard Coastline Merger were similar to that of the Northern Lines.\nThough from the standpoint of the anti-competitive consequences flowing from the transaction and we submit and that the present merger poses even more, even fewer problems, less onerous and then the early one the early one, the Seaboard Coastline.\nTherein here, the merger involved two relatively healthy, parallel rail competitors, dominant in expensing an economically significant section of the country.\nAlthough the net earnings of Seaboard Coastline and were found by the Commission to be better than they are in the Northern Lines.\nThere is here, the merging railroads were each other's principal competitors, though again, the volume of traffic for which they competed, was greater for the Seaboard and Coastline than it is for the Northern Lines.\nThey in here and the merger of the railroads and denied some communities of competitive rail service.\nAlthough cities of the size of Tampa, and areas as extensive as Central and Western Florida served only by the merged Seaboard Coastline, are totally without counterpart in the Northern Lines merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7200.488, 7219.536, 7224.035, 7238.469, 7253.822, 7256.321, 7265.716, 7276.907, 7290.764, 7305.05, 7316.832, 7323.051, 7338.663, 7354.771, 7372.4, 7386.648, 7403.284, 7418.251, 7431.4, 7461.232, 7469.18, 7485.933, 7497.374, 7506.221, 7520.489, 7527.029], "stop_times": [7219.536, 7224.035, 7238.469, 7253.822, 7256.321, 7265.716, 7276.907, 7290.764, 7305.05, 7316.832, 7323.051, 7338.663, 7354.771, 7372.4, 7386.648, 7403.284, 7418.251, 7431.4, 7461.232, 7469.18, 7485.933, 7497.374, 7506.221, 7520.489, 7527.029, 7541.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7200.488}, "reply_to": "15242__3_011", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_013", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nIf I understood you correctly, you said that the Seaboard decision here, is that the second commission before it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7541.825, 7543.525], "stop_times": [7543.525, 7553.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7541.825}, "reply_to": "15242__3_012", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__3_014", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Only partially and Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7553.274], "stop_times": [7554.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7553.274}, "reply_to": "15242__3_013", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_015", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Oh, that's why I was interested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7554.873], "stop_times": [7556.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7554.873}, "reply_to": "15242__3_014", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__3_016", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7556.217], "stop_times": [7556.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7556.217}, "reply_to": "15242__3_015", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_017", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What -- could you elaborate that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7556.445], "stop_times": [7559.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7556.445}, "reply_to": "15242__3_016", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__3_018", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I shall.\nThe -- Commissioner Webb had dissented in the Seaboard Coastline case and of course, he was the author of the Commission's first report.\nAnd some of his thinking as to the -- of the \u2013 and the necessity for preserving railroad competition and certainly his view in the Transportation Act of 1920 of facilitating railroad mergers, but this doctrine was not carried forward into the 1940 Act and was evident in the one as in the other.\nAnd there is certain amount of confusion as to what the 1940 Act did and was a factor in which contributed to the second report.\nThere's only one of several.\nI should like to point out that in the Seaboard Coastline case and the department as it does here opposed the transaction and as it does here, it said, and without overriding public benefits, the transaction could not be approved.\nIndeed, in the lower court in its opinion, paraphrased the position of the department and said and the Government's position really was that where two healthy competitors are involved, economies or dollar savings and other alleged benefits should never be enough and to overcome severe elimination of competition such as here involved.\nOf course, the lower court rejected the department's argument and this Court summarily affirmed.\nTurning to other considerations which occurred between the first and the second report, the first of these is the accommodation of the employees of the railroads.\nIn the first report, the Commission had found some 5200 jobs on the applicant railroads that would be eliminated and that the adverse effect due to bumping would be even more severe.\nThere's no question that the Commission cast this into the balance in favor the Northern.\nNow following the first report, of course, the railroads reached agreements and with the couple of the unions providing for protection of their members against job losses except and by attrition.\nIn approving the merger in the second report the Commission imposed such protective conditions for all employees, including those not covered by the negotiated agreements.\nAnother change of course, was the protection afforded the competing railroads.\nExcuse me.\nMilwaukee and Northwestern had opposed in the merger unless certain conditions were attached.\nIn turn, Northern Lines opposed attachment of such conditions and this led to the Commission to conclude in its first report that attaching these conditions indeed might include, might preclude consummation.\nNow, following the first report, agreements were reached with the railroads and all of the sought after conditions were attached.\nI shall not discuss these conditions in detail and Mr. Merrill for Milwaukee shall.\nI simply wish to point out that as a result of these conditions, the Milwaukee for the first time, and we'll be able to reach Portland, for the first time, will be able to render service at Billing and incidentally, this was a new condition in the second report, it was not considered for attachment in the first report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7559.0, 7562.062, 7575.031, 7596.48, 7606.255, 7608.992, 7628.071, 7650.885, 7659.181, 7673.492, 7686.486, 7693.416, 7708.297, 7720.838, 7726.983, 7728.179, 7736.063, 7754.682, 7763.806, 7771.943], "stop_times": [7562.062, 7575.031, 7596.48, 7606.255, 7608.992, 7628.071, 7650.885, 7659.181, 7673.492, 7686.486, 7693.416, 7708.297, 7720.838, 7726.983, 7728.179, 7736.063, 7754.682, 7763.806, 7771.943, 7793.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7559.0}, "reply_to": "15242__3_017", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_019", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That is what, the access to Billings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7793.269], "stop_times": [7794.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7793.269}, "reply_to": "15242__3_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__3_020", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes sir.\nThirdly, the Milwaukee, for the first time will be able to participate in West Coast traffic to and from Bridge Columbia and for the first time, the Milwaukee will be able to solicit Northern Tier transcontinental traffic originating at or destined to points not on its line by being able to interchange such traffic at competitive rates at 11 points certain in timing with the Northern Lines.\nAnd as the Commission found, this afforded to the shipper a slower club to short haul in the merge system in the event that he is not satisfied with the treatment he's getting.\nIn its third supplemental report, the Commission specifically opened these 11 gateways into the transportation of grain destined for the primary markets I Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sioux City.\nAt these conditions, will make up the Milwaukee a new railroad can scarcely be questioned.\nAs I pointed out at the outset, they were considered of sufficient consequence that the Public Utility Commission of Oregon would oppose the merger before the Commission following the imposition of the conditions supported the merger.\nAnd more importantly, the Secretary of Agriculture, charged under the statute with representing the agricultural community considered them to be a benefit to the public in general and to the agricultural community in particular.\nAnd accordingly before the Commission, he too changed his position and following imposition of the condition withdrew his opposition to the merger.\nLastly, among the conditions to obtain between the first and second report, was the receipt of additional evidence as to the savings.\nIn the first report, as I indicated before in response and to the question to Mr. Justice Harlan the Commission had found, I believe it was, the Commission had found that the savings might be $25.5 million.\nHowever, without explanation and bringing this figure down to its conclusion, the Commission found that the savings might only reach $12.7 million.\nAnd it was this figure, the range of $12.7 million to $25.5 million annually a guess at which the Commission measured the anti-competitive consequences.\nFollowing the receipt of additional evidence, the analysis of additional studies and the Commission concluded that the annual savings would approach $40 million and the lower court agreed.\nIn reaching this conclusion, I might point out that the Commission did indeed consider the possibility and that certain savings, certain improvements might be achieved short of merger by the coordination of facilities.\nAt best, these would have yielded as the Commission found at 300 of the record, as the Commission mentioned that 300 of the record a $5.2 million, but the Commission went on to state specifically many of the coordinations though physically feasible will produce grossly unequal benefits to Great Northern, Northern Pacific a separate carriers.\nFurther, in a competition between the Northern Lines, it renders it difficult if not impossible as a practical matter to incur the expense involved in effecting such coordination.\nIt is against these benefits then that the lessening of competition the Commission said must be weighed.\nAnd that there will be a very substantial lessening of competition has never been questioned.\nThe Commission referred to this as an undisputed fact.\nAnd as -- indeed as I believe Mr. Justice Black pointed out this morning, it's scarcely possible to conceive of a significant merger of railroads in an area that would not be anti-competitive.\nBut that is not to say that these anti-competitive consequences can be ignored by the Commission.\nAnd the Commission very carefully referring to this Court's decision in McClain, in Minneapolis, in Seaboard Coastline said that it has a duty to estimate the scope and appraise the effects of the curtailment of competition which will result from the proposed consolidation and consider them along with the advantages of improved service, safer operations, lower cost, etcetera to determine whether the consolidation will assist in effectuating overall transportation policy.\nThis we submit, the Commission has done.\nThe Commission noted that Great Northern and Northern Pacific are competitive and that their lines extend generally through the same Northern Tier States and from Seattle and Portland on the west, to Duluth Superior, Minneapolis, Saint Paul on the east, but they are also complementary and that the Great Northern's principle mileage is in the east and Northern Pacific's in the west.\nAnd while their lines are parallel and Great Northern primarily serves northern communities in the Northern Tier States, and while the Northern Pacific serves those towards the south.\nAnd at many points as the Commission pointed out as between Helena and Shelby, Montana the main lines of these railroads are several -- are better than a hundred miles apart.\nAnd the Commission pointed out that obviously a shipper located on or near in the line on one road, and but 50 or 100 miles from the line of another is not influenced by the competition in the selection of the carriers.\nIn our brief, we offer many examples.\nWe quote for example a Montana grain dealer who has elevators near the Northern Pacific tracks, and he said, \u201cFor the most part, the grain has to move on the railroad pretty close to where it's grown.\nFor instance I can't ship on the Milwaukee if it even if their rate is zero.\n\u201dThe Commission in the second report indeed recognized and that the Northern Tier States are rich in animal, mineral, agricultural and forest resources.\nIt recognized full well that this cost, this traffic constitutes as Mr. McLaren pointed out, approximately 60% of the traffic originated by these roads in this area.\nAs -- it is for this very traffic that rail transportation offers the most and distinct competitive advantage to use as phrase, were the greatest inherent advantages.\nBut we point out in our brief that with respect to this very traffic, 80% comes from points that are none competitive between the merging railroads.\nThe Department at no time has challenged these figures, neither has the Department ever challenged the fact and the truck competition has become very pervasive at least as to one category of products, manufacture and miscellaneous products.\nIt was with respect to this category of traffic and that the Commission specifically found in the second report that these railroads are most vulnerable to motor carrier competition.\nIt found moreover that it is this traffic that the rail carriers must retain to balance their operations in handling the products of the agricultural and extracted industries.\nThe record establishes and the Commission so found that this category of traffic manufactured in miscellaneous products constitutes more than 30% of the Great Northern's carload revenue and nearly 40% of the Northern Pacific, and for both road its the single most important category of traffic.\nNow with respect to the much quoted in exhibit 16 referred to in the Commission's report, second report in the vicinity of page 316 of the record.\nThe Commission acknowledged full well and its second report as it had in its first that rail competition will be eliminated entirely at 47 communities in the northern tier.\nHowever, the Commission went on and to point that the number of stations is small, being less than 5% of the stations in those very states, and it went on to point out that these stations produced an insubstantial volume of applicant's business, approximately 6% whether measured by cars or revenue.\nAdditionally, the Commission found with these so called class -- with respect to these so called class one points that some of them are located on the main line of one applicant and on the branch line of another and with the result that the loss of competition is more theoretical than real.\nHelena, Montana is a perfectly good example, it being on the main line of the Northern Pacific, but on the branch line of the Great Northern.\nWith respect to the class two stations, those served by two or more of the applicant railroads and at least one other railroad, the Commission acknowledged in its second report as it had in the first that rail competition will be diminished, but not eliminate it at these 160 stations.\nIt recognized in the second report as it had in the first that these stations contribute about 33% of the cars and 38% of the revenue of the northern lines in this area.\nMr. McLaren would add all these figures including overhead traffic and tell you that the railroad's merger would result in a loss of competition of 55%.\nMr. McLaren forgets however, that the addition of the bridge traffic it increases its universe and as the Examiner found at page 770 of the record, 771, if bridge traffic were included that percentage of the total traffic handled in 1960 at the stations where there will be a reduction in the number of rail carriers would be smaller than the figures subsequently shown.\nWe point out that at nearly two thirds of these class two stations served by two of the applicants and one other road, with respect to these, we point out that 97 and out of the 160 stations, nearly two thirds all occur at four places; Seattle, Spokane, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Duluth, Superior.\nAnd it is with respect to these points that the Commission in its second report specifically found that following the merger, none would be served by fewer than three railroads nor fewer than 15 truck lines.\nThe Commission in its second report pointed out that even though some of the points show up as class two stations reflecting service by two or more of the applicant railroads and at least one other, they do not have competition between the applicants today.\nFor example, the largest community in the northern tier which would be left without competitive rail service as a result of the merger is Pasco, Washington.\nAt Pasco, Washington the Northern Pacific comes in from one direction, and the SP&S goes out in another direction and the competition between them is really nonexistent.\nAs to all of the points, all of the class two points, the Commission found first apportionment of traffic between Great Northern and Northern Pacific and the other road serving these points is not wholly the result of interplay of competitive forces, but often results from other factors entirely.\nSecond, the shippers at these class two locations in addition to the northern lines and one other rail carrier, are generally served by other modes of transportation vigorously competing for traffic.\nAnd third, by virtue of the conditions imposed in this case, the Milwaukee which is the other railroad serving many of the class two points will be substantially strengthened as a meaningful transcontinental competitor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [7794.764, 7796.934, 7826.406, 7838.199, 7852.134, 7859.442, 7875.126, 7891.488, 7901.571, 7912.89, 7931.293, 7942.997, 7955.789, 7969.6, 7991.676, 8017.291, 8034.052, 8041.266, 8046.132, 8049.783, 8062.666, 8068.736, 8098.431, 8103.524, 8127.876, 8141.58, 8154.314, 8172.014, 8175.066, 8189.701, 8196.384, 8208.089, 8223.005, 8236.477, 8251.263, 8269.021, 8281.302, 8295.594, 8318.272, 8334.338, 8349.769, 8375.102, 8395.672, 8405.462, 8427.005, 8439.432, 8456.01, 8488.401, 8520.329, 8537.409, 8556.287, 8570.695, 8582.961, 8603.686, 8617.4], "stop_times": [7796.934, 7826.406, 7838.199, 7852.134, 7859.442, 7875.126, 7891.488, 7901.571, 7912.89, 7931.293, 7942.997, 7955.789, 7969.6, 7991.676, 8017.291, 8034.052, 8041.266, 8046.132, 8049.783, 8062.666, 8068.736, 8098.431, 8103.524, 8127.876, 8141.58, 8154.314, 8172.014, 8175.066, 8189.701, 8196.384, 8208.089, 8223.005, 8236.477, 8251.263, 8269.021, 8281.302, 8295.594, 8318.272, 8334.338, 8349.769, 8375.102, 8395.672, 8405.462, 8427.005, 8439.432, 8456.01, 8488.401, 8520.329, 8537.409, 8556.287, 8570.695, 8582.961, 8603.686, 8617.4, 8632.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 7794.764}, "reply_to": "15242__3_019", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_021", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What's the current status of the proposed merger between the Milwaukee and the Chicago Northwestern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8632.002], "stop_times": [8640.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8632.002}, "reply_to": "15242__3_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15242__3_022", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I believe the argument has been held before the Commission and the report of the Commission is being awaited.\nBeginning at page 48 of our brief, we offer examples drawn from the record which fully support he Commission's findings.\nWe show how some shippers and this is particularly true of the large national accounts, simply allocate traffic as between available rail carriers.\nWe show the number, the growth and the activity of truck lines at the class two points.\nAt Fargo for example, 20 motor carriers compete for traffic with the railroad and the record establishes in that 50% of the less than car load merchandise traffic received there arrives by truck.\nAnd we point out that the Commission found that the Milwaukee has shorter routes and superior rate and will offer competitive service right through the heart of the northern tier serving most of the class two stations.\nMoreover, the Commission in its second report accorded much weight to the many shippers, trade associations and other groups which supported the merger.\nEven in the face of express recognition that competition might be eliminated or reduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8640.72, 8651.918, 8660.625, 8669.757, 8675.715, 8693.031, 8708.961, 8720.941], "stop_times": [8651.918, 8660.625, 8669.757, 8675.715, 8693.031, 8708.961, 8720.941, 8727.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 8640.72}, "reply_to": "15242__3_021", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_023", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Kahn, I don't understand the anti-trust division of the Government, take issue with you on the question that a fewer there as better service resulting from this merger.\nI understand this position to be that's not the right standard in a case of two large railroads who're in competition in something more than mere betterment is necessary.\nPerhaps that something has [Inaudible].\nIt seems to me there's no real issue between you so far and what the Government -- what the anti-trust division wants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8727.57, 8737.368, 8749.911, 8753.197], "stop_times": [8737.368, 8749.911, 8753.197, 8759.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8727.57}, "reply_to": "15242__3_022", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__3_024", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "As I can see it sir, the difference between us is this.\nThe Commission believes that the improvements in transportation and the economies and efficiencies that the transaction will yield alone can justify on balance the offsetting consideration of the loss of competition.\nAs we concede, because I understand the department's position, it is in that something else must be cast into the balance. Some overwriting public end, and we submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8759.108, 8765.439, 8785.711], "stop_times": [8765.439, 8785.711, 8801.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 8759.108}, "reply_to": "15242__3_023", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_025", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "How unique are the language of other kinds of cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8801.331], "stop_times": [8804.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8801.331}, "reply_to": "15242__3_024", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15242__3_026", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Right.\nWe submit that -- and there's as the rewriting of the standard as consistently applied by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8804.409, 8804.998], "stop_times": [8804.998, 8815.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 8804.409}, "reply_to": "15242__3_025", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_027", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I think Mr. McLaren emphasized also, certainly he did in his plea that the condition of the carrier, one or both of the merging carriers was a very large factor.\nYou haven't touched on that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8815.677, 8829.488], "stop_times": [8829.488, 8831.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8815.677}, "reply_to": "15242__3_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__3_028", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "And that is correct.\nAnd they -- the department transfers the sick company doctrine to -- in the railroad merger situations where we submit it doesn't obtain.\nIf -- and benefits will flow from a merger and of sound railroads and we believe the Commission is empowered under the statute to approve such a merger.\nIn short we say that and the department has relied essentially in this case upon a recitation of figures drawn from one or two exhibits.\nThe figures which the first report of the Commission itself recognized contained certain deficiencies and as the lower court agreed, tend to exaggerate the competition which exists between the Northern Lines.\nThe Commission viewed these figures in the context of the entire record.\nAnd we submit that the Commission indeed made the requisite judgment as to the anti-competitive consequences that the merger would bring about.\nWe do believe that consistently with this Court's holding last year in the Penn-Central merger cases, the Commission has furthered the policy of the Congress.\nIt is that policy which produces a variation from the traditional anti-trust laws of insisting upon the privacy of competition as the touchstone of economic regulation.\nCompetition is merely one consideration here and we think the Commission has adequately considered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8831.478, 8835.078, 8849.388, 8863.161, 8874.181, 8891.077, 8896.699, 8908.312, 8921.391, 8933.439], "stop_times": [8835.078, 8849.388, 8863.161, 8874.181, 8891.077, 8896.699, 8908.312, 8921.391, 8933.439, 8954.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 8831.478}, "reply_to": "15242__3_027", "speaker": "fritz_r_kahn"}
{"id": "15242__3_029", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Cox.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8954.523], "stop_times": [8957.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 8954.523}, "reply_to": "15242__3_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__4_000", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "May it please the Court, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI appear in this case for the applicant railroads.\nI propose to discuss in the first instance the arguments of the Department of Justice and reserve I hope a brief period of time in my argument to talk about the arguments of the stockholder's committee representing stockholders of the Northern Pacific.\nI think I shall unless there are questions from the Court, submit the appeal of the Livingston Anti-Merger Committee on our brief where it is discussed in considerable detail.\nTurning --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [8957.333, 8961.598, 8967.631, 8991.022, 9005.287], "stop_times": [8961.598, 8967.631, 8991.022, 9005.287, 9006.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 8957.333}, "reply_to": "15242__3_029", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_001", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Mr. Cox would it be a fair or a safe generalization of the stock in this problem that almost all mergers have an anti-competitive effect in some degree and probably in some degree not necessarily the same, some savings and benefits, isn't that -- doesn't that underlie the whole problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [9006.029], "stop_times": [9027.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 9006.029}, "reply_to": "15242__4_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__4_002", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That underlies the problem and I suppose that you could find an economist who would say the more competition you suppress, the more savings and benefits you get.\nBut it's a question of fact in each case, I suppose and it is our view of the statute that what Congress has done here is to direct and authorize the committee to consider the elimination of competition on the one hand, and the benefits to transportation services and facilities on the other.\nAnd having made that consideration to decide on the facts of a particular case, and not by the application of some rule of law, general application, but decide on the facts of that particular case whether the merger or preservation of the competition will do more to provide -- improve adequate and economical transportation service, which is the standard that we find in the statute.\nNow that as we see it was the issue here.\nIt's our view of the Commission in the second report did exactly, went to exactly that process which is the process that the Court described in the McLean case in language which is frequently reiterated.\nThat it weighed the adverse effects on competition against the benefits, improvements in transportation services and facilities on the other, and it decided on balance that the merger would do more to provide adequate, economical and efficient transportation service in this area of the country with the conditions attached than would preservation of the competition between the Northern Lines.\nThey made findings on this and in our view those findings are supported by substantial evidence and they provide a reason, a basis for what the Commission did.\nNow if the Court adheres, I submit to what it is said in the past, that should be the end of this case, but the Government's argument is a little protean.\nI have trouble sometimes getting my hands on it.\nI'm never quite sure whether the Department of Justice is arguing for a new rule of law which in effect says that service improvements are not enough, improvements in transportation services are not enough, there must be something over and beyond those services before you can authorize a merger that suppresses competition, substantial competition.\nNow whether that is really their argument or whether they are in effect inviting this Court to review the record de novo and make an independent determination on whether the court believes this merger is in the public interest.\nBut the argument seems to me to be suspended rather uneasily between those two extremes.\nNow, in view of that it was my intention this afternoon to talk a little bit about the facts because I think any way you look at this case, the facts deserve some consideration and perhaps more consideration than they get from \u2013 in the argument of the Department of Justice.\nWhile it is quite true they deal with these facts in the sense, but they deal with them in a rather curious technique by admitting them they discount them.\nSo that when they say, \"Well, of course we admit there'd be some system, service improvements here,\" I don't think the Court gets from that the full force and flavor of what this record shows about what this merger means.\nAnd with the Court's permission I would like to talk a little bit about that, even though I suppose some sort of respects the Assistant Attorney General will not dispute these facts.\nNow, these is a mass of evidence in this record.\nThere are 14,000 pages of transcript, 240 exhibits on Examiner's report, it takes up most of two volumes of the appendix here.\nAnd a great deal of it is related to the benefits of this merger, the service benefits, the improvement in the service and facilities and it's not general abstract evidence.\nIt's particularized evidence about particular commodities, particular markets, particular routes and particular shipment.\nAnd I can't possibly do justice to it but there are three sort of categories to this evidence I'd like to say something about.\nFirst, evidence that has to do with the faster and more reliable service, now that's been mentioned here this morning, the expedited schedules.\nThere are a number of examples of those I could give to the Court, makes a difference in points in the Yakima Valley of 12 hours to Chicago and 24 hours to Kansas City.\nSome points west of Spokane, it means 24 hours difference to Chicago in immediate point, the same thing.\nSome points in North Dakota and Montana, it means 24 hours to -- faster than Minneapolis.\nNow the real point, the way the Department of Justice apparently tries to deal with that is to say, \u201cWell, the carriers could do this anyway without merger.\u201d\nThis anticipates the point that I intended to deal with a little later, but I will say this about that.\nThere is evidence in this record, not in the record, but there's evidence which everybody has taken and no question about it that while this proceeding was pending the Milwaukee put on a fast train between Chicago and Seattle and I might pause here and add that arguably enough, there was also evidence that the reason they did that was because of fear of truck competition.\nThe Northern Lines responded by putting on fast trains and the -- we are told that that shows that all these improved schedules could be achieved without merger.\nWell now, the fact is and the Commissions referred to this in its second report, not the -- it's really the third report, it's the second report on reconsideration.\nThese trains that the Milwaukee and that two Northern Lines put on between Chicago and Seattle are lightweight, light tonnage trains which they put extra power, which means of course they're carrying -- they're paying more for every ton of freight they carry on those trains.\nThere's one of those trains each way, each day, except by one of the Northern Lines which I believe skips Monday.\nNow, in contrast, what this merger will do will be is provide faster schedules for the fast trains, but it's going to provide faster schedules for all the trains, the regular freight trains and not only the transcontinental trains, but these intermediate trains.\nSo that the suggestion that these lightweight, light tonnage trains which the Commission took into account, prove that the carriers can do these improved schedules without merger, I submit is not really supported by the rational consideration of the evidence.\nNow, the other kind of improvement, the two other things I should like to mention, one is the improvement in car supply, which this merger will bring which is a very serious matter in this part of the country.\nThat improvement will come in two ways.\nIn the first place, the improvement in schedules, the elimination of interchanges and the elimination of switching time, turnaround time in the yards is going to make more cars available and there's a reasoned conservative estimate in the record for the Commission that this will mean about 1700 additional cars daily, which will be available for loading.\nNow that's one way the car supply will be improved.\nAnother way it will be improved which is of great significance is that under -- when the lines are merged, of course cars will be centralized.\nThere'll be a centralized control for the dispatch and distribution of the cars.\nToday there is evidence to this kind in the record.\nThose lines will sometimes stand idle on one of the lines, while the point not too far away, the shipper is waiting for a car.\nWell, when you have one agency distributing those cars over the system that kind of things certainly be reduced and maybe eliminated.\nNow the third thing that I should like to mention about these service benefits because -- so that the Court will get some sense of what's in this record is a mass of evidence that has to do with the effect of improved through routes and single line service which is often in many cases, some commodities are cheaper than even through rates by two railroad and the transit and loading and unloading privileges which this merger will make available to shippers.\nNow, this evidence proves and it rather surprised me that that these shippers attached great importance to these transit and loading and unloading privileges.\nWhat they mean briefly is this.\nThat if a shipper ships over the line of the single railroad and he wants to stop the car and have the product processed in some way and then move on, or if he wants to send -- start out a car half loaded and then load it completely, or if he wants to unload it, if that takes place on the line of a single railroad, it -- shipper can do it with the transfer privilege on the single line or through rate which is an advantageous rate.\nBut if, when he stops it from processing or loading or unloading, he wants to have it move on over another railroad, he pays what is in effect a higher rate, something like a combination rate.\nNow, what this merger does is to make those privileges available to system wide.\nThey are not now because the Northern Lines don't extend this kind of privilege to one another, but available over the entire system as well as over in many parts of the Milwaukee as a result of the conditions.\nAnd anyone who flavors the testimony, even in the Examiner's report might ask, you don't have to go on the record to see what importance the shippers attached, economic importance, to these particular privileges.\nThey open up markets for example.\nThey will enable a man in Nebraska who hasn't been able to -- a shipper, a lumber shipper in the first instance to the northwest who wants to have lumber processed in Nebraska and sold in Missouri to do it for the first time at a rate which will enable him to compete with lumber moving from another part of the country.\nNow, I should like now to turn although I have to some extent anticipated myself to this question of whether these things can be done without merger.\nI have talked about the freight, the expedited schedule.\nI think Mr. Kahn has made the point which was not I think left entirely clear in the argument this morning that the Commission did make some findings on this.\nThe -- they made the findings that Mr. Kahn referred to and the Examiner made a finding that there was no reasonable expectation that these railroads could achieve these improvements in service, or these coordinations if they remained independent competitors.\nI think that the findings that the Commission made on that represent one area of agreement between the first and the second reports, because in the first report the majority of the Commission there said, \u201cWe agree that these carriers as competitors will not and cannot as a practical matter make the coordinations from which they derive grossly unequal benefits.\u201d\nAnd the Commission in the second report found that most of these instances, these coordinations would or facilities would produce grossly unequal benefits, and therefore that as a practical matter, it was not reasonable to expect the railroads to make them.\nNow this can be illustrated and again to give you some flavor of the record, I should like to descend into details, it maybe a little bit variorum, and I think they may be necessary.\nOne of the things that's going to be done on this merger is to coordinate routes so that the trains of the combined system move over the best and most expeditious route.\nFor example, on the main line west, the main route will be composed of a segment of the line, the present line of the Northern Pacific from the Twin Cities to a point in North Dakota.\nAt that point, the traffic will move on to what is now the main line of the Great Northern, which is a much better line, in many respects and will move on the line of the Great Northern all the way across the top of the country to Sandpoint in Idaho.\nAt that point, the traffic will be moved over to a line of the Northern Pacific to go to Spokane, and then from Spokane it will move on to the coast over a line of the Great Northern.\nNow, if you stop to think about it that is the kind of thing, they're running, they're going to be running common trains that cannot be done by two, as a practical matter, by two independent competing companies.\nDespite some suggestions this morning to the contrary, the Commission has no authority to compel one railroad to give another railroad trackage rights over its line.\nSo that if any railroads try to do this, there would have to be arrangements for compensation worked out.\nAnd since this is going to be done system wide on all the routes, what you would have to think about would be the two railroads sitting down to decide.\nThey were going to run trains over one another's routes, perhaps mixed trains, how they were going to pay one another for the -- on a fair basis for the advantages that each got out of it.\nNow, I submit if you stop to think about that quite apart from the practical difficulties which would I think would make the exchange ratio look easy, apart from those, you couldn't do that without ending what would practically a de facto pooling of revenues and sharing of profits.\nAnd that relationship could hardly be consistent with really effective and vigorous competition between the two lines.\nSo this coordination of routes -- as a Commission and I should add here that the Commission in the first report, in the report which disapproved the merger, the Commission there found that coordination of routes between competing railroads was ordinarily not practical.\nSo here again, there's really no dispute about this.\nNow, the coordination of the routes is an essential part of all these improvements of service.\nIt's obvious that it has a direct relationship with the schedules of the car supply, but it's also essential to the coordination of these terminal facilities.\nAnd the reason for that is that in order to construct these new terminal facilities, you have to rearrange the traffic.\nYou have difficulty getting ground and cities usually of the appropriate kind and in most of these cities the two railroads come into the city from different directions as they do for example in St. Paul.\nSo that what as an essential part of building a common yard, a common switching and assembly yard, the trunk line traffic has to be moved.\nAs I explained a moment ago, all of that trunk line traffic in St. Paul is going to come in to St. Paul, the main traffic, east and west over a line of the Northern Pacific.\nNow, that is also true in these other terminals in Spokane and in Portland.\nWhere they -- to do the terminal arrangements, they have to coordinate the routes, really they have to run mixed trains.\nNow, that again is not the kind of saying that can be done, these yards effectively and efficiently between two competing companies.\nOf course to have a yard in which there are two companies operating, they're both -- each other is going to be want to be sure it gets its trains out just as quick as the other fellow does.\nYou'll have duplicate yards, duplicate shipping crews, it's a switching crews.\nYou can't do these things.\nIndeed, there is here I think a strange internal inconsistency in the argument of the anti-trust division which I think is worse comment.\nIf you did, could do all these things, these by voluntary coordinations between the carriers, what you would have would be the two carriers running mixed or combined trains with common crews, over each other's routes using common terminals and common repair facilities, in some degree, presumably using a managerial staff in common.\nThey'd still have to have a common agency distributing the freight cars.\nYou would have a relationship, a cooperative relationship that would be inconsistent with the existence of the kind of competition that the anti-trust division says it should be preserved.\nAnd indeed, it somewhat surprises me to hear them taking this line in this case because in other context, they have frequently pointed out the dangers and indeed the illegality that will arise from these cooperative and joint undertakings, which is exactly what they seem to be arguing for here.\nI think that I should now like to speak briefly to the -- to one matter and leave it without much comment and that's the matter of the savings to the railroad.\nI should merely like to point out to the Court that there is a direct relationship between the improvements in service and of the savings because the savings come in large part, not entirely, but in large part from the coordination of facilities and from the quicker routes and the other steps that will produce the better service to the shippers.\nSo that it is a mistake to think of these savings as being of only in direct benefit to the shippers, because they do have a direct relationship to the service improvements.\nBut apart from that the Commission made findings which all relate to matters that's entitled to give weight to under Section 5 (2), which pointed out that the savings would increase the pressure -- decrease the pressure for rate increases which comes from increasing costs that they would -- by improving the rate of return of the carriers put them in a better position to buy a modern and improved equipment, and that they would increase their capacity and power to compete with the trucks, which is -- and other modes of transportation.\nNow the Department of Justice as I said in the beginning seems to admit these are --- these benefits exist in a way, but it says that they really are not important as against the loss of competition will be caused by the merger of the two Northern lines.\nAnd as I said earlier, their view seems to be that almost as a matter of law you need something beside improvements in transportation services and facilities, you need something over and above and beyond that of a more extraordinary character.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [9027.367, 9038.015, 9063.384, 9092.082, 9097.749, 9112.751, 9141.698, 9152.499, 9163.893, 9167.195, 9192.533, 9206.536, 9212.647, 9229.355, 9240.834, 9254.817, 9268.049, 9270.469, 9280.692, 9291.207, 9299.119, 9306.209, 9318.113, 9329.59, 9338.24, 9343.94, 9355.55, 9361.917, 9386.067, 9397.33, 9407.478, 9426.567, 9434.49, 9451.534, 9470.377, 9483.047, 9485.316, 9512.255, 9516.213, 9527.686, 9534.835, 9537.168, 9545.201, 9555.94, 9591.915, 9601.168, 9604.048, 9636.485, 9650.134, 9657.256, 9670.982, 9686.988, 9689.116, 9708.998, 9719.757, 9727.641, 9738.654, 9759.78, 9786.838, 9806.895, 9818.726, 9829.12, 9844.517, 9862.982, 9877.643, 9890.864, 9904.114, 9910.432, 9921.829, 9936.953, 9955.672, 9964.504, 9983.124, 9986.674, 9992.865, 10002.302, 10009.237, 10024.696, 10035.74, 10046.841, 10053.808, 10060.645, 10072.987, 10082.493, 10087.67, 10089.289, 10101.183, 10131.271, 10135.941, 10150.133, 10175.318, 10190.582, 10216.722, 10229.879, 10268.229, 10292.859], "stop_times": [9038.015, 9063.384, 9092.082, 9097.749, 9112.751, 9141.698, 9152.499, 9163.893, 9167.195, 9192.533, 9206.536, 9212.647, 9229.355, 9240.834, 9254.817, 9268.049, 9270.469, 9280.692, 9291.207, 9299.119, 9306.209, 9318.113, 9329.59, 9338.24, 9343.94, 9355.55, 9361.917, 9386.067, 9397.33, 9407.478, 9426.567, 9434.49, 9451.534, 9470.377, 9483.047, 9485.316, 9512.255, 9516.213, 9527.686, 9534.835, 9537.168, 9545.201, 9555.94, 9591.915, 9601.168, 9604.048, 9636.485, 9650.134, 9657.256, 9670.982, 9686.988, 9689.116, 9708.998, 9719.757, 9727.641, 9738.654, 9759.78, 9786.838, 9806.895, 9818.726, 9829.12, 9844.517, 9862.982, 9877.643, 9890.864, 9904.114, 9910.432, 9921.829, 9936.953, 9955.672, 9964.504, 9983.124, 9986.674, 9992.865, 10002.302, 10009.237, 10024.696, 10035.74, 10046.841, 10053.808, 10060.645, 10072.987, 10082.493, 10087.67, 10089.289, 10101.183, 10131.271, 10135.941, 10150.133, 10175.318, 10190.582, 10216.722, 10229.879, 10268.229, 10292.859, 10309.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 9027.367}, "reply_to": "15242__4_001", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_003", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "What could that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10309.982], "stop_times": [10311.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10309.982}, "reply_to": "15242__4_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_004", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice White, I am not exactly the man to develop that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10311.395], "stop_times": [10315.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10311.395}, "reply_to": "15242__4_003", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_005", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I know, but I just try to imagine -- I'm just trying to imagine with you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10315.48], "stop_times": [10319.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10315.48}, "reply_to": "15242__4_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_006", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, they give two examples although --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10319.209], "stop_times": [10321.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10319.209}, "reply_to": "15242__4_005", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_007", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Suppose one of them might be a failing carrier?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10321.721], "stop_times": [10323.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10321.721}, "reply_to": "15242__4_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_008", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "A failing carrier, the other one is where you have two prosperous carriers, but there you need to put them together so they can service -- save a third failing carrier like the New Haven now in the Penn-Central case.\nDo you follow me on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10323.826, 10336.677], "stop_times": [10336.677, 10337.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10323.826}, "reply_to": "15242__4_007", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_009", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10337.766], "stop_times": [10338.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10337.766}, "reply_to": "15242__4_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_010", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Those are the only two examples that they have given us and there's a footnote in their reply brief which to some degree casts doubt on what -- whether they -- what they really mean about the failing carrier, but that's as far as I can go, I regret to say it in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10338.601], "stop_times": [10355.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10338.601}, "reply_to": "15242__4_009", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_011", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I take it that they would say that transportation -- if it's improved transportation services you want, the law prefers the competitive way --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10355.411], "stop_times": [10367.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10355.411}, "reply_to": "15242__4_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_012", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10367.928], "stop_times": [10368.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10367.928}, "reply_to": "15242__4_011", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_013", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "-- of securing those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10368.463], "stop_times": [10369.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10368.463}, "reply_to": "15242__4_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_014", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That is their position.\nNow we've developed this legal argument in our brief and I don't want to retread what Mr. Kahn has said, but we point out in our brief a number of things about that argument.\nOne is that the act itself almost by term shows that Congress was not prepared to rely upon competition producing its benefits.\nAnd we all -- we point out specifically that in the adequacy of transportation service is one of the four things in Section 5 (2) (c) that the Commission is required to give weight to when it is asked to consider a merger, and we also point out that the national transportation policy, which of course pervades in the degree the interpretation of the provisions of the acts, speaks in terms of efficient, economical, adequate and safe transportation service.\nNow, it is our view that you look at the statute and you look at the provisions of the statute, the very kinds of benefits that this case produces to shippers are the kinds of benefits that the Congress authorized the Commission to consider, and if it had a reasoned judgment on the matter and evidence to support it, could decide, justify the merger that suppressed substantial competition.\nAnd of course we argue too from the McLean case and the Sea Board case particularly that they were precisely cases of that kind.\nThat's what the Commission did and this Court sustained it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10369.625, 10371.132, 10381.668, 10391.862, 10428.991, 10456.933, 10464.995], "stop_times": [10371.132, 10381.668, 10391.862, 10428.991, 10456.933, 10464.995, 10468.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10369.625}, "reply_to": "15242__4_013", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_015", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I suppose the Government's view might be that you just don't -- the section just shouldn't ever be held to apply or to permit a merger between competing carriers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10468.668], "stop_times": [10483.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10468.668}, "reply_to": "15242__4_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_016", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I don't think they would go that far, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10483.734], "stop_times": [10486.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10483.734}, "reply_to": "15242__4_015", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_017", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "At least when they're strong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10486.354], "stop_times": [10487.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10486.354}, "reply_to": "15242__4_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15242__4_018", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "When they're -- well, I couldn't honestly say that I could read their briefs that way.\nI -- as I have said before, I have some difficulty in getting it and analyzing it precisely, but I would say they do say that you can't ever have a merger in that situation unless you have some very extraordinary and special benefit that goes far beyond improvements of service.\nAnd the only two I know anything about are the New Haven situation or the bankrupt carrier that's a -- now, Mr. Kahn has discussed the competitive effect of this merger was particularly with the view to suggesting that the department has exaggerated the quantitative extent to which competition is affected, and I don't want to cover any of that ground again.\nThere are some things about the competitive situation that I think it might be useful for me to speak very briefly.\nOne of them asked the -- they really relate not so much to the quantity of competition that is eliminated, but to the economic significance of that elimination and particularly economic significance in relation to the adequacy, efficiency and economy of transportation services because I think it's important to remember here that we, at least in our view, are not operating under a statute which gives the competition as such or in the abstract some overriding and controlling importance.\nIt is an important consideration and the Commission treated it as being important, but it's important as it relates to the contribution it makes to good and improved transportation services.\nNow, so that economic consequences in that sense to which I wish to speak very briefly, the Committee -- the argument for the Department of Justice I think rolls together a number of things, specifically two of them particularly which are quite different.\nI think this has been clear, but I should like to be sure it's clear.\nThey take the traffic at points where there are only the two Northern lines and they combine that with the points at which there are the two Northern lines and one or more, sometimes three or four other railroads.\nNow of course the effect of this merger at those points is quite different, there's a significant difference.\nAt the points where you have only the Northern lines, the two Northern lines, you remove all way of competition by this merger, but those points are not significant enough, either in terms of value of -- on the volume of traffic produced, or in the markets they serve to support the argument on the other side, so they have to combine the 6% of the revenues that come from points of that kind, that is where there are only the two Northern lines, with the revenues from the points where there are other railroads in addition to the Northern lines.\nAnd it's that way they derive their percentage of 43 or 44% which is said to be the effect of the extent to which it eliminates competition at least on a station basis.\nNow, I have said that there is a difference between the two situations and it's obvious, it is the question I suppose really is, if you eliminate one of three or four railroads, how economically significant is that in this industry in relation to the service and the rate the shipper will get?\nIt -- true, it is an elimination or a reduction of competition, but there's nothing in this record that suggests in any way that the elimination of one of several competing railroads in this industry has effects that are quite as devastating on railroad service and railroad rates, as the argument on the other side suggests.\nAnd there's some pretty hard empirical evidence that points in the contrary direction, that is the evidence of the shippers.\nNow, there are large number of shippers who testified here, and a great many of these shippers came from these points where there will be a reduction by one in a number of railroads serving the points.\nYet all of these shippers, practically unanimous, all of these shippers while saying, \u201cCompetition is a good thing, and we like competition,\u201d all of them supported this merger particularly as it was conditioned to protect the Milwaukee and the Northwestern.\nNow that evidence seems to me to indicate pretty clearly that the shippers at least, so long as they have two or more railroads, believe that the benefits of this merger to them in their pragmatic judgment, the benefits of this merger to them are economically more consequence than the elimination of one railroad out of several at these points.\nNow I -- that is not of course is not a question to be decided essentially by a pool of shippers, but certainly the unanimity of the support from the shippers is pretty persuasive evidence that looking at economic consequences, there was nothing unreasonable in the judgment that the Commission made here.\nI think, since I have mentioned the shipper testimony, I should say one thing more about it because it -- this shipper testimony on several aspects of the case is rather embarrassing to the anti-trust division and in their reply brief they suggest that the court really shouldn't pay any attention to it because -- well they say that perhaps the shippers were brainwashed by the railroads and they also suggest that they are frightened of the railroad.\nWell, as to the first question, the first suggestion, I merely observe that there were 200 and -- more than 200 of these shippers and about 39 associations representing shippers who testified, they were cross-examined.\nThe Examiner accepted their evidence as credible and persuasive and there's plenty of evidence in this record that they don't hesitate to litigate and to oppose the railroads when they want to.\nIn fact they bitterly opposed the railroads in the first hearing in this case on the question of Milwaukee conditions.\nBut there really isn't any basis for the suggestion that the railroads brainwashed them.\nThe suggestion we frightened them rests on, apparently on a footnote citation of an article by a professor in the trade journal.\nRather a remarkable attempt to discredit at a large number of witnesses by a rather feeble weapon, I think, but I suggest that the -- that these witnesses deserve consideration and weight as was given to them both by the Examiner and by the Commission.\nNow there are two other things about the economic consequences of the elimination of competition that will be eliminated here that I think are significant.\nOne has been referred to which is the conditions for the Milwaukee.\nAnd I merely say about that, that while the department attempts to dismiss the Milwaukee as a weak and ineffective competitor, again there is ample testimony in this record from the shippers that the Milwaukee has been, even without the conditions, an effective competitor.\nAnd there's also evidence that they expect with the conditions as -- that it will be an even more effective competitor, and there's no doubt about the effective -- what those conditions will do to its competitive power.\nIt's true it doesn't have as much money as the Northern Lines.\nIt doesn't have as big a volume of traffic, isn't as large, but those facts do not mean that the company is an ineffective competitor.\nIndeed if I may take somewhat the same line I took a moment ago, I have often heard the anti-trust division attached great importance to the activities of small competitors on the ground that they make up in hunger, ambition and enterprise for their lack of resources.\nWell, the Milwaukee here is certainly has been and will be, I think on the basis of the facts, an effective competitor.\nThe other thing that I should like to mention before the Court rises is the question of intermodal competition which again as I think has been dismissed by the Department of Justice without a recognition of what the record shows.\nHere again, the evidence is there's a great deal of particularized evidence on what trucks are dong in this part of the United States.\nThere may not be as much truck competition in the northwest as there is in the northern tier as there is elsewhere, but there's enough of it to exert a very direct and heavy pressure on these railroads competitively.\nWe have cited in our brief testimony from some of these shippers, and along this the citations in one place of shippers who said, \u201cThe real competition today is not the rate competition is not between the railroads and the other railroads, it's between the trucks and the railroads.\u201d\nAnd as far as these agricultural commodities are concerned, the bulk commodities, there's particularized evidence that trucks are moving in increasing quantities grain, agricultural commodities, lumber, paper products, lime, salt, a whole range of bulk products which one time were thought to be immune to truck competition, and of course no one disputes that they are moving -- have been moving large quantities of the merchandise traffic, which is the traffic that the move to the large part into this territory instead of out of it.\nThe trucks have improved their time schedules as I made the reference to the Milwaukee situation a moment ago, and they're building highways so that their time between the Twin Cities and the West Coast in some instances will be less than that of the railroads today.\nSo that this -- the trucks which also serve these points, not only they serve the points, not only where there are railroads left, but they serve the points where there will be one railroad left and they provide effective and direct competition today which in its strength and vigor is sufficiently compensates for the loss of one railroad at the points where there are several railroads.\nNow, I've taken these things together.\nI should like to suggest to this point in the argument, I believe it was that, that the -- when the Commission made this balancing -- went through the balancing process in its second report, which is what it did.\nIt did not depreciate the value of competition, but as compared with what it did in the first report it engaged in a more thoughtful and detailed analysis of what kind of competition would be left, very important, and what the economic significance to the competition that was eliminated really was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [10487.773, 10493.573, 10512.939, 10546.838, 10567.091, 10604.829, 10618.23, 10638.428, 10642.892, 10659.357, 10666.166, 10707.039, 10721.223, 10745.102, 10768.258, 10775.963, 10788.807, 10808.278, 10837.892, 10860.388, 10890.925, 10906.764, 10919.675, 10926.204, 10930.982, 10941.108, 10960.446, 10972.019, 10976.115, 10996.596, 11009.265, 11012.856, 11026.335, 11046.846, 11056.688, 11078.578, 11086.518, 11101.424, 11119.672, 11163.982, 11180.89, 11206.463, 11210.224, 11223.949], "stop_times": [10493.573, 10512.939, 10546.838, 10567.091, 10604.829, 10618.23, 10638.428, 10642.892, 10659.357, 10666.166, 10707.039, 10721.223, 10745.102, 10768.258, 10775.963, 10788.807, 10808.278, 10837.892, 10860.388, 10890.925, 10906.764, 10919.675, 10926.204, 10930.982, 10941.108, 10960.446, 10972.019, 10976.115, 10996.596, 11009.265, 11012.856, 11026.335, 11046.846, 11056.688, 11078.578, 11086.518, 11101.424, 11119.672, 11163.982, 11180.89, 11206.463, 11210.224, 11223.949, 11244.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10487.773}, "reply_to": "15242__4_017", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_019", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, were there not also some substantial changes in that interim too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11244.366], "stop_times": [11248.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11244.366}, "reply_to": "15242__4_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__4_020", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11248.854], "stop_times": [11249.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 11248.854}, "reply_to": "15242__4_019", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_021", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Were there not changes made to accommodate objectors (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11249.52], "stop_times": [11254.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11249.52}, "reply_to": "15242__4_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__4_022", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Oh, certainly, the Milwaukee conditions of course were in a direct bearing on the competitive situation as did the Northwestern conditions, and those were -- that was an important factor as was the labor conditions were also important, but I was speaking largely of the consideration of the competitive balance between competition and the loss of competition and the benefits, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11254.114], "stop_times": [11278.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 11254.114}, "reply_to": "15242__4_021", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_023", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Well, on a 6 to 5 split in the first go around, it would appear to be a case in which it would take very slight adding to one scale to tip that balance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11278.549], "stop_times": [11289.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11278.549}, "reply_to": "15242__4_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15242__4_024", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "That is quite so, and of course there were three members of the Commission who did change their minds, three who didn't, who had voted for the merger in the first case and two new appointees who came to it fresh and voted for the merger and that was how the majority of eight was composed on the second court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11289.503], "stop_times": [11314.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 11289.503}, "reply_to": "15242__4_023", "speaker": "hugh_b_cox"}
{"id": "15242__4_025", "conversation_id": "15242", "text": "Thank you Mr. Cox.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_28", "start_times": [11314.101], "stop_times": [11316.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11314.101}, "reply_to": "15242__4_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__0_000", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Number 402, United States against Key.\nMr. Wallace, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [0.0, 45.924], "stop_times": [45.924, 65.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__0_001", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is concerned with the single aspect of the proceedings under a voluntary petition for corporate reorganization originally filed in 1954 pursuant to Chapter X of the Bankruptcy law by the debtor, Hancock Trucking Incorporated.\nIn the petition, Hancock alleged that it was unable to meet its debts as they became due and requested the appointment of a trustee to operate its business and manage its property.\nThe respondent here is that trustee.\nThe claims of the United States against the debtor are for unpaid income withholding, employment and excise taxes in the total amount of more than $375,000.00.\nBecause of the narrow focus of the questions presented by the Government's petition for a certiorari, little of the lengthy history of these reorganization proceedings need be recounted here.\nThe issues in this Court concerned an amended plan of reorganization filed by the trustee in June 1967 and approved by the courts below over the Government's objection.\nThe amended plan reflected in agreement approved by the District Court and by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the sale of the debtors principle asset, its Interstate Commerce Commission operating rights for truck freight services to Hennis Freight Lines Incorporated.\nThe purchase price of $935,000.00 was to be paid in accordance with the schedule requiring $300,000.00 to be paid within 90 days of the Commission\u2019s approval of the sale and the balance in 78 monthly installments.\nThe amended reorganization plan reflecting this sale agreement did not contemplate that the debtor Hancock Trucking would continue to exist.\nThe amended plan is in effect a liquidation plan.\nThe Government made no objection to the terms of the sale agreement, its objections relates solely to the provisions for payment to creditors in the amended reorganization plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [65.908, 70.359, 93.408, 106.244, 110.727, 127.852, 141.6, 158.023, 179.29, 199.724, 212.776, 217.979], "stop_times": [70.359, 93.408, 106.244, 110.727, 127.852, 141.6, 158.023, 179.29, 199.724, 212.776, 217.979, 230.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.908}, "reply_to": "14979__0_000", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_002", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "You say this was basically a liquidation plan and not a continuing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [230.865], "stop_times": [235.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.865}, "reply_to": "14979__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_003", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [235.439], "stop_times": [236.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.439}, "reply_to": "14979__0_002", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_004", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Where were the installment payments going to be generated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [236.211], "stop_times": [241.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.211}, "reply_to": "14979__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_005", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The payments being made by Hennis Trucking Company which has purchased the Interstate Commerce Commission rights to operate the freight line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [241.926], "stop_times": [252.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.926}, "reply_to": "14979__0_004", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_006", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Based on the capital equipment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [252.875], "stop_times": [256.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.875}, "reply_to": "14979__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_007", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Now, the capital equipment had previously been disposed off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [256.125], "stop_times": [260.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.125}, "reply_to": "14979__0_006", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_008", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [260.625], "stop_times": [262.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.625}, "reply_to": "14979__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_009", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The major remaining asset was simply the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [262.713], "stop_times": [265.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.713}, "reply_to": "14979__0_008", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_010", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Was the license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [265.238], "stop_times": [265.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.238}, "reply_to": "14979__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_011", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The license.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [265.896, 267.069], "stop_times": [267.069, 268.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.896}, "reply_to": "14979__0_010", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_012", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "While youre pausing for a moment could you answer this for me.\nIf the plan had provided for equal participation across the board, would you still be objecting to it on a priority basis for the tax claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [268.148, 275.108], "stop_times": [275.108, 287.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.148}, "reply_to": "14979__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__0_013", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "We would be entitled to object to it but the secretary also would have had discretion to accept for the plan if he wishes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [287.845], "stop_times": [294.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.845}, "reply_to": "14979__0_012", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_014", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "He can and sometimes does accept, does he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [294.709], "stop_times": [298.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.709}, "reply_to": "14979__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__0_015", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes, he does sir specially when it will contribute to rehabilitation of the debtor and enable the debtor to continue in business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [298.751], "stop_times": [308.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.751}, "reply_to": "14979__0_014", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_016", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But you regard this is simply a voluntary waiver by the Government of the priority claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [308.42], "stop_times": [314.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.42}, "reply_to": "14979__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__0_017", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is our view, yes Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe Government contends that the provisions for payment of creditors in the amended plan do not satisfy its statutory priority of payment rights and the respondent trustee admits in its brief that the Government is entitled to priority but contends that its rights are fully satisfied under the plan and that is the issue is this Court.\nThe contested plan provides for an initial payment of 100% of certain wage claims and certain state and local tax claims.\n20% of the claims of the general unsecured creditors which is all they will receive and 10% of the Government\u2019s tax claims and of the remaining state and local tax claims.\nThe remainder of the amount due to the Government and to state and local tax authorities was to be paid in 78 monthly installments secured by an assignment of the note and chattel mortgage Hennis had executed on its purchase of the debtor\u2019s operating rights.\nThis amounts to an initial payment on the Government\u2019s total claim of some $375,400.00 of approximately $37,500.00 and 78 equal monthly installments thereafter of approximately $4,330.00 each.\nNo interest was to be paid on the monthly installments which together with the initial payment would simply total the $375,400.00 owing to the Government.\nAs we point out in our brief, at the time of the initial payment when lower ranking creditors were to be paid in cash the discounted present value of the right to these future payments to the Government plus the initial payment to the Government would amount to approximately $317,000.00, some $58,400.00 less than the $375,400.00 owing to the Government.\nThe Government's position is that this does not satisfy its priority rights not because the Government has a right to immediate payment of all cash that is on hand up to the limit of its claim in a Chapter X proceeding which we do not urged and not because the Government has a right to the payment of interest for any part of the post petition period preceding cash payment to lower ranking creditors.\nWe recognize that there isn't a right to such interest on the Government\u2019s claims.\nOur contention is simply that the Government as a priority creditor cannot be required at the time when non-priority creditors are being paid in cash to accept IOU's payable only in the future the part of its claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [314.575, 319.193, 350.38, 363.027, 380.96, 402.294, 426.429, 441.292, 477.678, 510.404, 516.21], "stop_times": [319.193, 350.38, 363.027, 380.96, 402.294, 426.429, 441.292, 477.678, 510.404, 516.21, 535.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.575}, "reply_to": "14979__0_016", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_018", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I thought, I guess I misunderstood.\nI thought your claim simply was that you're entitled the full payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [535.036, 537.052], "stop_times": [537.052, 543.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.036}, "reply_to": "14979__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_019", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "(Voice Overlap) It's admitted that we're entitled to full payment.\nThe issue is when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [543.948, 547.276], "stop_times": [547.276, 549.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.948}, "reply_to": "14979__0_018", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_020", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Oh!\nNo, you're not getting it.\nOut of $374,000.00 tax claim to get $317,000.00 is not a full payment.\nYou don't admit that you're getting full payment at all, you're not getting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [549.02, 549.19, 550.304, 558.307], "stop_times": [549.19, 550.304, 558.307, 564.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.02}, "reply_to": "14979__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_021", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I meant to say it's admitted by the respondent that they were entitled to full payment.\nThat is the issue between us.\nOf course we contend is that what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [564.287, 568.556, 572.088], "stop_times": [568.556, 572.088, 573.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.287}, "reply_to": "14979__0_020", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_022", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don't understand that.\nI thought that you would be satisfied if you would get an installment payments which added up would equal your full tax claim as discounted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [573.1, 574.64], "stop_times": [574.64, 588.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.1}, "reply_to": "14979__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_023", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is an alternative contention that we have a right to take the discounting into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [588.384], "stop_times": [594.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.384}, "reply_to": "14979__0_022", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_024", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The only right is to full payment, isn't it on circumstances in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [594.297], "stop_times": [599.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.297}, "reply_to": "14979__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_025", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, we also contend that we have a right to be first satisfied under Section 3466 of the Revised --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [599.063], "stop_times": [608.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.063}, "reply_to": "14979__0_024", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_026", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But you just said you don't claim a right to be paid now in cash simply because cash is available, haven\u2019t you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [608.174], "stop_times": [619.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.174}, "reply_to": "14979__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_027", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "What I just said was in Chapter X proceedings.\nWe do not claim a right to the immediate disbursement of cash that is not being paid to creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [619.084, 622.493], "stop_times": [622.493, 630.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.084}, "reply_to": "14979__0_026", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_028", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "So what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [630.053], "stop_times": [630.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.053}, "reply_to": "14979__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_029", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "We don't claim that because cash is on hand and we are creditor we have a right to the immediate payment of our claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [630.754], "stop_times": [636.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.754}, "reply_to": "14979__0_028", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_030", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That's what I understood you to say so, what are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [636.922], "stop_times": [638.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.922}, "reply_to": "14979__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_031", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But when cash is being paid to creditors, we claim the right to be satisfied first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [638.895], "stop_times": [644.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.895}, "reply_to": "14979__0_030", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_032", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Now on fully in cash?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [644.968], "stop_times": [647.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.968}, "reply_to": "14979__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__0_033", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "To the limit of what's being paid to creditors, yes Mr. Justice.\nWe claim a right to be paid to ahead of nonpriority creditors when payments are being made to creditors.\nWe do not claim a right to insist that the payments be made when other uses are being made of the money that the trustee holds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [647.506, 653.189, 660.634], "stop_times": [653.189, 660.634, 669.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.506}, "reply_to": "14979__0_032", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_034", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Now, you should contend or 3466 gives you a priority, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [669.635], "stop_times": [676.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.635}, "reply_to": "14979__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_035", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And that is what we understand to be the meaning of the priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [676.782], "stop_times": [679.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.782}, "reply_to": "14979__0_034", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_036", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, you contend that's applicable in this case but so does the Bankruptcy Act give priorities.\nUnder Chapter X, there's certain creditors who have priority just by virtue of the provisions of the Act, aren\u2019t there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [679.544, 687.207], "stop_times": [687.207, 693.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.544}, "reply_to": "14979__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_037", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is no general priority provision in Chapter X Mr. Justice, the only comprehensive --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [693.646], "stop_times": [700.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.646}, "reply_to": "14979__0_036", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_038", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "What about administrative expenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [700.679], "stop_times": [702.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.679}, "reply_to": "14979__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_039", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is a provision for administrative expenses.\nIt\u2019s the only other provision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [702.346, 705.854], "stop_times": [705.854, 707.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.346}, "reply_to": "14979__0_038", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_040", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "What about wages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [707.405], "stop_times": [709.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.405}, "reply_to": "14979__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_041", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is no wage priority in Chapter X.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [709.04], "stop_times": [713.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.04}, "reply_to": "14979__0_040", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_042", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Either --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [713.226], "stop_times": [714.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.226}, "reply_to": "14979__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_043", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is a wage priority in Section 64 of the Act which by Section 102 of the Act is expressly inapplicable to Chapter X.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [714.71], "stop_times": [722.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.71}, "reply_to": "14979__0_042", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_044", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "What about your creditors in Chapter X?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [722.676], "stop_times": [726.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.676}, "reply_to": "14979__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_045", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is nothing granting them priority in Chapter X, but there has been lengthy litigation about whether they have a priority ahead of the 3466 priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [726.974], "stop_times": [739.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.974}, "reply_to": "14979__0_044", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_046", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I thought you relied on the cases on strict priority -- strict priority doctrine that you have to pay -- that you really have satisfy priority creditors like the Case against Los Angeles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [739.972], "stop_times": [752.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.972}, "reply_to": "14979__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_047", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, we do contend that you have to abide by the classes of priority creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [752.75], "stop_times": [756.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.75}, "reply_to": "14979__0_046", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_048", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "You really wouldn\u2019t suggest to that -- you really wouldn\u2019t suggest to the secured creditor does not have some priority to Chapter X, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [756.805], "stop_times": [763.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.805}, "reply_to": "14979__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_049", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No.\nIt\u2019s been held in equity reorganization equity receivership proceedings that secured creditors at least the mortgagees have priority ahead of the Government\u2019s priority under 3466.\nThere has been disagreement about other secured creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [763.973, 764.998, 780.516], "stop_times": [764.998, 780.516, 783.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.973}, "reply_to": "14979__0_048", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_050", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Alright.\nLet's take mortgagees then.\nYou say they have priority in the Chapter X?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [783.097, 783.905, 786.53], "stop_times": [783.905, 786.53, 789.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.097}, "reply_to": "14979__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_051", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "We believe that the standards of priority that prevail in equity receiverships have been carried over into Chapter X, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [789.262], "stop_times": [797.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.262}, "reply_to": "14979__0_050", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_052", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Alright, let's take a mortgagee priority over unsecured creditors, would you suggest that the mortgagee may not be postponed in payment to unsecured creditors who say have been scaled down to 25% of their claim?\nLet's assume the plan calls for satisfying the secured debt over a period of 10-year.\nBut unsecured creditors are paid off after when you value the property and you find out what interest the unsecured creditors have, you find out the only assets that are left for them are 25%.\n25% of their claims are going to be paid and they have to cash to pay you and they decide just to get rid of it and they pay him off in cash in the plan but secured creditors who are going to be paid in full are postponed for 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [797.911, 818.075, 825.468, 838.704], "stop_times": [818.075, 825.468, 838.704, 854.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.911}, "reply_to": "14979__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_053", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Our understanding of the fair and equitable rule is that if the secured creditors object to that, they have a right to insist on their payments being made first, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [854.028], "stop_times": [865.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.028}, "reply_to": "14979__0_052", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_054", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And that is essential for your case, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [865.333], "stop_times": [866.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.333}, "reply_to": "14979__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_055", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "It\u2019s not essential for your case Mr. Justice because we have a statutory right and revised statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [866.979], "stop_times": [872.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.979}, "reply_to": "14979__0_054", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_056", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I know but although you say that give this priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [872.314], "stop_times": [876.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.314}, "reply_to": "14979__0_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_057", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Moreover, we have an explicit right in Section 199 in Chapter X to object to the plan if it doesn\u2019t satisfy our rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [876.11], "stop_times": [886.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.11}, "reply_to": "14979__0_056", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_058", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes.\nYou can object to the plan but then the question is what provisional will be made for none dissenting creditors and whether it\u2019s fair and equitable to do that but you don\u2019t claim it.\nDo you think 3466 gives you some kind of a priority that\u2019s different from other priority creditors?\nAssuming it\u2019s applicable to this case it does give you a priority.\nBut is there any different priority than a secured creditor has?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [886.376, 886.775, 899.321, 909.789, 913.125], "stop_times": [886.775, 899.321, 909.789, 913.125, 917.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.376}, "reply_to": "14979__0_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_059", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, I think it\u2019s more explicit that it\u2019s a right to have our claim first satisfied that\u2019s the language used in Section 3466 where there\u2019s no explicit statutory language giving the secured creditors such a right.\nThey will have to draw their rights from the judicial interpretations of the fair and equitable rule and equity receivership proceedings and their arguably would be more leeway for the courts to consider making exceptions to some of the rules that have been established in those proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [917.84, 931.991], "stop_times": [931.991, 952.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.84}, "reply_to": "14979__0_058", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_060", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I take it that if you really do then find it essential to rely on 3466 in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [952.389], "stop_times": [959.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.389}, "reply_to": "14979__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_061", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Not essential because we don\u2019t think we received the full payment right granted in Section 199 since the discounting of our claims was never taken into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [959.69], "stop_times": [971.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.69}, "reply_to": "14979__0_060", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_062", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Except for that point so you aren\u2019t just relying on being a priority creditor under Chapter X or relying of being a priority creditor under the other Section 3466.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [971.969], "stop_times": [983.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.969}, "reply_to": "14979__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_063", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, we also rely on the idea that Chapter X grants two priorities only.\nThere are only two explicit priorities in Chapter X and I'll turn into that right now.\nOne of them is reproduced on Section 43 of our brief and that is Section 216, number three -- subsection 3 a plan oft reorganization under this Chapter shall provide for the payment of all cost and expenses of administration and other allowances which may be approved or made by the judge.\nThat is the only statutory basis for the priority for administrative expenses in Chapter X.\nIf the terminology used is the same terminology used for the Government\u2019s tax claim priority that the plan of the right is to have the plan provide for the payment.\nAnd we believe that Section 199 which is the provision in Section -- in Chapter X which gives us our priority rights in so far as they can be followed in that chapter also in body a notion of priority.\nEveryone has assumed and tried along in the administration of Chapter X that administrative of expenses are entitled to be first pay.\nThey do have that priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [983.652, 991.574, 999.01, 1027.121, 1035.069, 1046.355, 1063.063, 1072.592], "stop_times": [991.574, 999.01, 1027.121, 1035.069, 1046.355, 1063.063, 1072.592, 1074.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.652}, "reply_to": "14979__0_062", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_064", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The cases have certainly adjudicated a whole system of priorities in Chapter X, aren\u2019t they?\nThey may not be set out in the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1074.144, 1081.528], "stop_times": [1081.528, 1082.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.144}, "reply_to": "14979__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_065", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1082.456], "stop_times": [1083.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.456}, "reply_to": "14979__0_064", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_066", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But the cases have certainly adjudicated including administrative expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1083.565], "stop_times": [1090.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.565}, "reply_to": "14979__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_067", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No one to my knowledge has contested that the administrative expenses have the priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1090.258], "stop_times": [1096.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.258}, "reply_to": "14979__0_066", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_068", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Or that nobody is contesting that you have a priority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1096.31], "stop_times": [1100.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.31}, "reply_to": "14979__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_069", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "It\u2019s just what is meant by priority that's being contested here, that is correct.\nWell, our claim is that as a priority creditor admittedly a priority creditor the Government cannot be required when the lower ranking creditors are being paid in cash to accept a deferral without interest of a portion of its payments or they put the matter in other way we contend that no lower ranking creditor can over the Government\u2019s objection be paid until the Government\u2019s claims have first been satisfied which is what we understand to be the normal meaning of priority in bankruptcy.\nIn the alternative, we do contend that the Government has at least entitled to interest from the time of the payment to the lower ranking creditors until the time of the deferred payment to it to compensate it for the deferral.\nBut out principle contention is that the Government as the priority creditor should not be the one to bear the risk that the deferred payments will not materialized but should instead be paid first.\nIn making our contention, we rely on several different guide posts because as I have already said Chapter X does not include a specific comprehensive provisions setting for the hierarchy of priorities as Section 64 does for ordinarily liquidating bankruptcy proceedings.\nThe most venerable source of the Government's priority rights in this case is Section 3466 of the revised statutes which is on page 41 of our brief and in Title 31 of the United States Code.\nThis provision originated in acts of Congress of the late 18th century which they had their roots in the sovereign priority of the crown.\nThe statute expressly provides that the debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied whenever as is the undisputed case here that debtor is insolvent and has committed an act of bankruptcy.\nDecisions of this Court as cited in our brief have established that tax debts owing to the United States or among those covered by the broad language of this provision.\nThe plan upheld by the courts below plainly does not comply with this statutory requirement of the Government's claims shall be first satisfied.\nAnd there is on the face of things no reason why this provision is not controlling.\nIt manifests the continuous congressional policy that the claims of the federal treasury and the important public needs to be served by the funds in that treasury are to be placed ahead of the also just claims of unsecured creditors who did business with the debtor for profit.\nIn light of this important public purpose of the priority statute, this Court has repeatedly said that only the plainest inconsistency would warrant the finding of an implied exception to the clear command of Section 3466.\nIt was said most recently in United States Department of Agriculture against Redmond in Volume 330, United States.\nThese considerations and others led the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to conclude five and a half years ago in a thoughtful opinion by Judge Reeves that Section 3466 is fully applicable to Chapter X proceedings that's United States against Andersen which is discussed in our brief and the same conclusion had earlier been reached by the Court of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits in cases cited on page 13 of our brief.\nThis Court has not previously had occasion to decide whether this provision is applicable to Chapter X.\nThe court below came to the contrary conclusion that Section 3466 is superseded by the provisions of Chapter X.\nAnd our contention is that the other Court of Appeals were correct in deciding that this statute is entirely compatible with Chapter X and we go beyond that and contend that the provisions of Chapter X themselves in the light of their legislative history and as interpreted by this Court independently provide a priority right for the Government\u2019s tax claims which the plan here did not satisfied.\nThe principle provision in Chapter X that is pertinent is Section 199 on page 42 of our brief and the second sentence is the pertinent language beginning at the end of line 7 of Section 199.\nIf in any proceeding under this Chapter, the United States as a secured or unsecured creditor on claims for taxes or customs duties and the parenthetical may be omitted.\nNo plan which does not provide for the payment thereof shall be confirmed by the judge except upon the acceptance of the lesser amount by the Secretary of the Treasury certified by the Court followed by a proviso which is irrelevant here.\nNothing in this language which gives the Secretary the right to demand or to forgo full payment is inconsistent with the command of Section 3466 as to the relative priority of that right to payment as against other claims.\nThe command of the Government's claim shall be first satisfied.\nThe history of the evolution of Section 199 recounted in detail in our brief shows that Congress knew that Section 3466 had been applied in equity receivership proceedings involving insolvent corporations.\nAnd that in enacting the statutory successors to equity receivership which culminated in Chapter X.\nCongress manifested no intention to diminish the Government's priority rights and rejected a specific recommendation that is do so, but instead was concerned to provide for protection for the Government in Section 199 not only as insolvent debtors to whom Section 3466 applies, but more generally, as to all debtors involved in Chapter X reorganizations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1100.087, 1111.036, 1153.444, 1170.238, 1192.206, 1216.857, 1234.279, 1245.061, 1263.782, 1277.501, 1289.245, 1295.346, 1319.259, 1337.758, 1346.618, 1381.011, 1389.795, 1403.901, 1436.738, 1457.855, 1472.305, 1492.698, 1511.564, 1516.735, 1534.139, 1542.956], "stop_times": [1111.036, 1153.444, 1170.238, 1192.206, 1216.857, 1234.279, 1245.061, 1263.782, 1277.501, 1289.245, 1295.346, 1319.259, 1337.758, 1346.618, 1381.011, 1389.795, 1403.901, 1436.738, 1457.855, 1472.305, 1492.698, 1511.564, 1516.735, 1534.139, 1542.956, 1573.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.087}, "reply_to": "14979__0_068", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_070", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Compensating (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1573.671], "stop_times": [1575.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.671}, "reply_to": "14979__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__0_071", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Of course Congress also provided specifically in Section 199 in its predecessor that the Secretary of the Treasury may compromise the Government's rights and in appropriate cases this enables the Secretary to contribute to Chapter X\u2019s objective of fostering rehabilitation of the debtor when feasible.\nBut the granting of this power to compromise does not imply that the rights themselves are diminished and as I already mentioned on the face of the statute -- this language providing for payment is the only language used when Congress wish to provide for a priority right in Chapter X.\nAnd in any event the contrast within Section 199 between payment and acceptance of a lesser amount shows to us under face of the statute that the Government\u2019s rights were not satisfied in this case.\nThere is another basis for the decision of the court below namely the provisions in Chapter X requiring that the reorganization plan be fair and equitable.\nBut these provisions do not lead each District Court free to get a fact to its own notions of what is fair and equitable.\nIn this field, the words \u201cfair and equitable\u201d are terms of art which acquired their meaning through judicial interpretations in equity reorganization proceedings that is what this Court held with respect to Chapter X unanimously in opinion by Mr. Justice Douglas some years ago.\nAnd one aspect of the meaning of fair and equitable is broadly stated that creditors of a junior class may not be given something of value at the expense of non-consenting creditors of a senior class so called rule of absolute priority which we believe as equally applicable to the difference between the Government\u2019s statutory right to full payment and the claims of creditors who do not have such a right as it is to the classes of creditors to which it has been applied by this Court.\nBut whether or not, the decision below actually violates the fair and equitable provisions of Chapter X.\nThose provisions surely do not justify the refusal of the courts below to afford the Governments the rights specifically granted by Sections 3466 and 199.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1575.031, 1600.146, 1622.527, 1639.167, 1653.679, 1662.714, 1683.281, 1722.751, 1729.726, 1742.422], "stop_times": [1600.146, 1622.527, 1639.167, 1653.679, 1662.714, 1683.281, 1722.751, 1729.726, 1742.422, 1757.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.031}, "reply_to": "14979__0_070", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__0_072", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Mr. Beck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1757.529], "stop_times": [1759.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.529}, "reply_to": "14979__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_000", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nIt's always been my view that all cases ought to be viewed in the light of their facts and certainly it's true in this instance in an equitable proceedings.\nThe facts are more fully elaborated in our brief but there are some highlights and I think should be brought out.\nIt's true that this case in May of 1954, the original plan was confirmed in 1957 under the terms of that plan without going into details.\nThe reorganized debtor took over the assets and property from the trustee in June of 1958.\nIt began operating without a control of the court.\nIn December of 1961, the trustee filed a petition for final decree.\nHearing was to be held on that in March of 1962.\nIn February of 1962, there became a change in the directors, the corporation had had financial difficulties and they then entered into a contract of sale with Hennis Freight Lines for $1 million principal and interest included over a period of time of 78 months.\nPrior to the hearing on final decree, three creditors who had come into being subsequent to the reorganized debtor taking over the assets asked the court to have the trustee retake the property and assets alleging insolvency.\nThis took place hearing was held and the court vested the trustee with the assets and property of the debtor corporation.\nInvestigations are placed to trustee then moved to affirm the contract of sale with Hennis.\nThe court affirmed that contract in August of 1962.\nIt took three years for the Interstate Commerce Commission to finally approve the sale.\nWhen it did approve the sale, it entered a restriction upon the rights.\nNow, the restriction have entered was a sort of limited restriction.\nIt did not include a reduction of mileage.\nThe original contract provided that should the ICC reduced the mileage then Hennis would be entitled to a reduction.\nThere was dispute between the trustee and Hennis as to what the price should be.\nWe finally reached an agreement whereby the maximum amount of the sale was to be viewed as $935,000.000 instead of a million and again is inclusive of the interest payable over the same period of time.\nThen in addition, the trustee would offer in the plan a 20% compromise to unsecured creditors and any reduction of price would rip down then to Hennis.\nNow, that of course are the facts right bearing up to this.\nThe plan then of course was approved subsequently hearing on approval subsequent hearing on conformation, the plan was confirmed.\nThe United States --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1759.018, 1762.501, 1775.677, 1783.213, 1800.601, 1809.189, 1817.258, 1824.484, 1830.954, 1857.695, 1878.358, 1889.991, 1897.529, 1903.338, 1909.316, 1915.851, 1920.456, 1924.359, 1936.344, 1942.491, 1961.335, 1979.852, 1985.491, 1997.098], "stop_times": [1762.501, 1775.677, 1783.213, 1800.601, 1809.189, 1817.258, 1824.484, 1830.954, 1857.695, 1878.358, 1889.991, 1897.529, 1903.338, 1909.316, 1915.851, 1920.456, 1924.359, 1936.344, 1942.491, 1961.335, 1979.852, 1985.491, 1997.098, 1997.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.018}, "reply_to": "14979__0_072", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_001", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The unsecured creditors were to get only 20% --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [1997.829], "stop_times": [2001.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.829}, "reply_to": "14979__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_002", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2001.647], "stop_times": [2001.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.647}, "reply_to": "14979__1_001", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_003", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "-- on their claims or 20% reduction of their claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2001.797], "stop_times": [2004.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.797}, "reply_to": "14979__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_004", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "20% of their claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2004.444], "stop_times": [2006.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.444}, "reply_to": "14979__1_003", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_005", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Total?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2006.673], "stop_times": [2007.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.673}, "reply_to": "14979__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_006", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Total.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2007.286], "stop_times": [2008.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.286}, "reply_to": "14979__1_005", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_007", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2008.635], "stop_times": [2008.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.635}, "reply_to": "14979__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_008", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Now, the Government is correct, this is a plan for liquidation.\nNow bearing in mind that it's a plan of liquidation something else comes into play here and that is what would happen in the event of liquidation.\nI would like to point out two matters before I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2008.637, 2014.777, 2024.531], "stop_times": [2014.777, 2024.531, 2028.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.637}, "reply_to": "14979__1_007", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_009", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "It's still a -- it\u2019s still of reorganization plan even though it provides for complete liquidation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2028.441], "stop_times": [2032.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.441}, "reply_to": "14979__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_010", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "It is still a reorganization -- that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2032.748], "stop_times": [2036.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.748}, "reply_to": "14979__1_009", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_011", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "So, it's judged by the rules of Chapter X of bankruptcy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2036.881], "stop_times": [2041.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.881}, "reply_to": "14979__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_012", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No question about.\nIt is our view however Mr. Justice White that in valuing the assets in this case, we obviously cannot value the assets on the basis of a growing concern but only on the basis of liquidation the value of the assets which is being transferred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2041.575, 2043.646], "stop_times": [2043.646, 2062.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.575}, "reply_to": "14979__1_011", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_013", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Or should (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2062.498], "stop_times": [2064.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.498}, "reply_to": "14979__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_014", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No.\nThe Government takes its view point but they are entitled to absolute priority of the 3466.\nWe don't understand what they mean by absolute priority, frankly.\nAbsolute priority is set forth in the Case case -- Case against Los Angeles Lumber has to do with the relative priorities of the senior creditors.\nWe contend that the priority granted by -- to the United States is incorporated in Chapter X, in Section 199 and that is the priority that they get.\nNow, we never contend that they are not entitled to priority.\nThey are.\nWe contend that they're getting it.\nNow, we contend that the major question here is whether or not Section 216 (7) is applicable to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2064.333, 2066.492, 2074.94, 2078.949, 2088.806, 2101.228, 2105.837, 2106.855, 2108.782], "stop_times": [2066.492, 2074.94, 2078.949, 2088.806, 2101.228, 2105.837, 2106.855, 2108.782, 2119.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.333}, "reply_to": "14979__1_013", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_015", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, do you -- let me ask you.\nDo you think the United -- that a plan reorganization could take this particular claim of the United States and provide that it be paid in full 10 years from the date of conformation of the plan.\nNo payments prior to that time and all other unsecured creditors are paid in full at the time of conformation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2119.952, 2121.105, 2134.104], "stop_times": [2121.105, 2134.104, 2142.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.952}, "reply_to": "14979__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_016", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No, I do not think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2142.467], "stop_times": [2143.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.467}, "reply_to": "14979__1_015", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_017", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2143.955], "stop_times": [2144.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.955}, "reply_to": "14979__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_018", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Because I don't think in that particular point that would be fair and equitable because at that particular point you would be using money which rightfully belongs to a senior creditor for the benefit of a junior creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2144.847], "stop_times": [2159.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.847}, "reply_to": "14979__1_017", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_019", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Would you think then that fair -- that fairness and equitable -- fair and equity applied to be fair and equitable and not really recognized in full or priority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2159.097], "stop_times": [2170.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.097}, "reply_to": "14979__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_020", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don't think that's quite true.\nWell, I think it must recognize in full a priority and I think this plan does recognize in full a priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2170.635, 2172.022], "stop_times": [2172.022, 2179.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.635}, "reply_to": "14979__1_019", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_021", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, there's available cash it\u2019s paid to junior creditors and not paid to a senior creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2179.931], "stop_times": [2186.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.931}, "reply_to": "14979__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_022", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is not quite true.\nThe available cash that's available comes in on installments.\nThere will be available cash.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2186.61, 2188.22, 2192.226], "stop_times": [2188.22, 2192.226, 2193.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.61}, "reply_to": "14979__1_021", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_023", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, at the first distribution there is $18,000.00 paid to -- for miscellaneous taxes and $14,000.00 paid for another tax claim and certain damages for cargo loss.\nThey have larger amounts of money are paid out that are available and not paid to the senior creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2193.791, 2219.108], "stop_times": [2219.108, 2225.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.791}, "reply_to": "14979__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_024", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, let me put it this way then.\nI don't believe that the senior creditor is any more senior in this particular program than the other tax claimants though the wage claimant and remember that in this particular case it is not just the United States that is being deferred there are three other tax creditors that are also being deferred and they are being protected by the asset, by the fund which has been set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2225.6, 2227.824], "stop_times": [2227.824, 2257.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.6}, "reply_to": "14979__1_023", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_025", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Where is the priority in the statute for Ohio use taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2257.318], "stop_times": [2264.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.318}, "reply_to": "14979__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_026", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is no priority in the statute.\nIn this particular point, I would say that in my view we have to go on what the Congress has enacted and it would appear --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2264.854, 2267.093], "stop_times": [2267.093, 2277.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.854}, "reply_to": "14979__1_025", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_027", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "So the United States tax claims is senior to this Ohio use tax claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2277.571], "stop_times": [2282.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.571}, "reply_to": "14979__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_028", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "In a straight Chapter X, I would say yes.\nI would not disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2282.418, 2286.982], "stop_times": [2286.982, 2288.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.418}, "reply_to": "14979__1_027", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_029", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Wasn't this in Chapter X?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2288.635], "stop_times": [2289.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.635}, "reply_to": "14979__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_030", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes, but I think we must view in the light of liquidation and what the bankruptcy priorities would be because what the alternative to this is, is the bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2289.989], "stop_times": [2299.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.989}, "reply_to": "14979__1_029", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_031", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, so you're -- you're really saying that the priority rules and the rules of reorganization shouldn\u2019t apply to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2299.172], "stop_times": [2307.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.172}, "reply_to": "14979__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_032", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I am saying that the rules of reorganization are equitable rules and they are flexible and that this Court has decided time and again that the rules in equity proceedings must be flexible depending upon the type of situation and I think we have such a situation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2307.995], "stop_times": [2332.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.995}, "reply_to": "14979__1_031", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_033", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "What do you think about the holdings in the Case opinion and in Consolidated Rock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2332.57], "stop_times": [2340.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.57}, "reply_to": "14979__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_034", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I think that we follow them.\nI think there is no question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2340.499, 2342.708], "stop_times": [2342.708, 2343.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.499}, "reply_to": "14979__1_033", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_035", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I noticed that -- unless I missed it in the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion they didn't refer to them or cite them.\nDid I miss them?\nDid I overlook them?\nBut don't stop now.\nDid you have a recollection of that or did you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2343.826, 2350.262, 2351.697, 2352.955, 2355.114], "stop_times": [2350.262, 2351.697, 2352.955, 2355.114, 2356.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.826}, "reply_to": "14979__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_036", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "My recollection is I don't recall whether they cited the case in them or not.\nI didn't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2356.828, 2361.16], "stop_times": [2361.16, 2361.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.828}, "reply_to": "14979__1_035", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_037", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "They cited four or five case but they didn't mention either of those if I read it correctly.\nI was a little puzzled by that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2361.912, 2368.146], "stop_times": [2368.146, 2370.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.912}, "reply_to": "14979__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_038", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, I can't answer that.\nWe've cited it.\nWe think we followed and we believe that this actually fits the Case against Los Angeles.\nDictum or even not dictum really is the policy and that is equity proceedings in Chapter X reorganizations must be governed by flexible rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2370.436, 2372.062, 2372.948, 2382.475], "stop_times": [2372.062, 2372.948, 2382.475, 2393.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.436}, "reply_to": "14979__1_037", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_039", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But even if the Court of Appeals thought they were following these cases which would certainly be [Sneezes] that\u2019s curious they don't think to cite them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2393.166], "stop_times": [2402.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.166}, "reply_to": "14979__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_040", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I can't answer of course for the judges of Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2402.67], "stop_times": [2406.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.67}, "reply_to": "14979__1_039", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_041", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "You might -- even though your lunch hour is short you might check that out to see if I missed something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2406.326], "stop_times": [2413.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.326}, "reply_to": "14979__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_042", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I'll be happy to do that.\nWith your honest permission, I see we have got about 30 seconds left and I will defer my chance until the opening of the recess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2413.515, 2416.875], "stop_times": [2416.875, 2427.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.515}, "reply_to": "14979__1_041", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_043", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Very well.\n[Recess]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2427.367, 2429.583], "stop_times": [2429.583, 2444.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.367}, "reply_to": "14979__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_044", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Mr. Beck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2444.768], "stop_times": [2446.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.768}, "reply_to": "14979__1_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_045", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, you asked before the recess as to the Circuit Court's opinion with respect to this case.\nIn looking at it, the only reason that I can believe that they did not cite the case or consolidated proceedings was that they based their decision one, on the grounds of 3466 did not apply at Section 199, 216 (7), and 221 are the provisions of Chapter X which apply.\nAnd in talking in terms of even the absolute priority rule, their view was written on page 79 of the appendix in which they stated that in the case at bar, the approved plan contemplates that the United States will be paid in full.\nGoing on further they cite we hold that the trial court did not urge in permitting lesser ranking creditors to receive payment simultaneously.\nUnder the plan, the Government does not surrender its right to full payment.\nNow, nowhere in the Act in fact nowhere can we find that the Government or anyone else is entitled to cash payment in a Chapter X proceeding.\nI think perhaps, it best can be shown as to why we think that the absolute priority rule --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2446.353, 2456.529, 2484.781, 2506.393, 2517.995, 2523.849, 2540.373], "stop_times": [2456.529, 2484.781, 2506.393, 2517.995, 2523.849, 2540.373, 2546.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.353}, "reply_to": "14979__1_044", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_046", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But that isn't whether they're entitled to cash payment may not be the question is whether they're entitled to payment before a junior creditor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2546.631], "stop_times": [2557.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.631}, "reply_to": "14979__1_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_047", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don't believe there is any place in the Act which says they must be paid before a junior creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2557.371], "stop_times": [2563.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.371}, "reply_to": "14979__1_046", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_048", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, is the United States a senior creditor or isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2563.316], "stop_times": [2566.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.316}, "reply_to": "14979__1_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_049", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I would state in my view whether the United States is a senior creditor or a junior creditor.\nThey are not entitled to get paid before any other creditors receive anything.\nThey are entitled to be assured of satisfaction and ensured of their payment and this is done in this instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2566.812, 2574.062, 2581.531], "stop_times": [2574.062, 2581.531, 2589.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.812}, "reply_to": "14979__1_048", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_050", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And you must take that position I -- by thinking the way (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2589.769], "stop_times": [2591.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.769}, "reply_to": "14979__1_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_051", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Oh!\nYes, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2591.896, 2592.219], "stop_times": [2592.219, 2593.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.896}, "reply_to": "14979__1_050", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_052", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2593.097], "stop_times": [2593.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.097}, "reply_to": "14979__1_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_053", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don't have any qualms about taking that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2593.558], "stop_times": [2595.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.558}, "reply_to": "14979__1_052", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_054", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That a senior creditor may be postponed in payment for 10 years as long as he's assured -- he\u2019s being paid but junior creditors can be paid immediately?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2595.476], "stop_times": [2606.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.476}, "reply_to": "14979__1_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_055", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No, junior creditors may not take something from the senior creditor.\nBut in this case, they're not taking anything from the senior creditor.\nIn fact, they are giving something up and that's what I think we have to show.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2606.476, 2610.987, 2614.461], "stop_times": [2610.987, 2614.461, 2619.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.476}, "reply_to": "14979__1_054", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_056", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, let's just take the case where a senior creditor is provided for in the plan by a promise and security that he'll be paid for full 10 years in the date of conformation of the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2619.855], "stop_times": [2632.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.855}, "reply_to": "14979__1_055", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_057", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2632.08], "stop_times": [2633.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.08}, "reply_to": "14979__1_056", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_058", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And junior creditors are paid in full in cash upon the date of conformation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2633.252], "stop_times": [2640.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.252}, "reply_to": "14979__1_057", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_059", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I'm assuming now we have valued correctly and that they are entitled to that payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2640.19], "stop_times": [2644.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.19}, "reply_to": "14979__1_058", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_060", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Apparently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2644.018], "stop_times": [2644.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.018}, "reply_to": "14979__1_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_061", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I would say I find nothing wrong in terms of that.\nThere were other factors have to be considered as to other reasons for equitableness.\nIt's just not the question of whether they're going to be paid.\nIt's a question of how it's going to be.\nHow the security is fashion?\nHow it's going to be paid out?\nAnd that fact that the creditors are paid out in full --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2644.697, 2649.004, 2654.374, 2656.582, 2658.711, 2660.738, 2662.597], "stop_times": [2649.004, 2654.374, 2656.582, 2658.711, 2660.738, 2662.597, 2665.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.697}, "reply_to": "14979__1_060", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_062", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, the senior creditor doesn\u2019t question in my example the fact that he will be paid in 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2665.946], "stop_times": [2670.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.946}, "reply_to": "14979__1_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_063", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Then I say it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2670.634], "stop_times": [2671.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.634}, "reply_to": "14979__1_062", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_064", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "As I agree, all will be paid, there's plenty of security there but he says, I want my money now before these junior creditors get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2671.815], "stop_times": [2678.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.815}, "reply_to": "14979__1_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_065", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don\u2019t think he's entitled to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2678.07], "stop_times": [2679.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.07}, "reply_to": "14979__1_064", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_066", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Uh-huh.\nYou have to take that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2679.698, 2680.391], "stop_times": [2680.391, 2681.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.698}, "reply_to": "14979__1_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__1_067", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I think I'm correct in view of all the other cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2681.965], "stop_times": [2684.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.965}, "reply_to": "14979__1_066", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_068", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, if that isn't your position, you are in difficulty aren't you?\nThere is not alternative position for you to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2684.821, 2690.337], "stop_times": [2690.337, 2692.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.821}, "reply_to": "14979__1_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_069", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No, I wouldn't say that necessarily but I will stick by that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2692.692], "stop_times": [2697.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.692}, "reply_to": "14979__1_068", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_070", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, another thing isn't it possible that taking Justice White's hypothetical case that the payment out to all the unsecured general creditors in full at the outset has at least the potential for so undermining the position of the debtor that they might never get to paying the United States or the deferred creditors at the end of the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2697.212], "stop_times": [2721.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.212}, "reply_to": "14979__1_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_071", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I agree.\nI agree, that's why you cannot take it out of context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2721.243, 2722.44], "stop_times": [2722.44, 2725.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.243}, "reply_to": "14979__1_070", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_072", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, isn\u2019t that why the priority was granted to the United States for tax purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2725.535], "stop_times": [2729.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.535}, "reply_to": "14979__1_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_073", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No, I think that's not the historical reason to bear in mind.\nThe historical reason for the priority at least 3466 was the right of the sovereign to see to it that its taxes were obtained in order for the benefit of everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2729.318, 2732.786], "stop_times": [2732.786, 2741.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.318}, "reply_to": "14979__1_072", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_074", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, isn't that just what I have said?\nI thought I said it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2741.754, 2744.242], "stop_times": [2744.242, 2746.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.754}, "reply_to": "14979__1_073", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_075", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, I must have misunderstood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2746.462], "stop_times": [2748.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.462}, "reply_to": "14979__1_074", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_076", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "(Voice Overlap) priority to see that the United States is paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2748.22], "stop_times": [2750.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.22}, "reply_to": "14979__1_075", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_077", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes and there's nothing in this case that says they won't be nor other cases where I can see where solvency is at issue.\nNow, any true reorganization involving that situation that Mr. Justice White contemplates would necessarily have to have a solvent corporation coming out or the senior creditor would be jeopardized.\nLet me indicate to you the practicalities of this and why I say this is true in this instance and I can think of many others where it might not be.\nThis is the plan.\nThe plan provides for a total payout of $925,600.00 under the plan, that's the total cost.\nNo one disagrees that the administration claims are entitled to be paid first.\nThere is some disagreement as to the why do the wages should be paid first in a true Chapter X.\nThere is no such quarrel in a straight paragraphs.\nThis is the United States claim for $375,000.00.\nThese are the other form or taxing authority, these three class three, four and five received are in the same position as the United States.\nThe first distribution indicates what happens.\nThe United States receives $37,500.00 or 10%.\nIndiana then the Broward County and Ohio also received their 10%.\nThe miscellaneous taxes incidentally some 30 other taxing authorities received this $14,000.00 or 100%.\nThus, these two which would ordinarily in bankruptcy at least have the same established priority or out in the way in order to solve the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2750.567, 2758.297, 2773.72, 2781.909, 2784.2, 2795.411, 2800.517, 2807.02, 2811.603, 2816.448, 2828.943, 2832.647, 2837.013, 2841.778, 2850.283], "stop_times": [2758.297, 2773.72, 2781.909, 2784.2, 2795.411, 2800.517, 2807.02, 2811.603, 2816.448, 2828.943, 2832.647, 2837.013, 2841.778, 2850.283, 2862.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.567}, "reply_to": "14979__1_076", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_078", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But that last item 100% tax claim is to just to get rid of the cats and dogs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2862.806], "stop_times": [2870.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.806}, "reply_to": "14979__1_077", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_079", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That's correct, but in bankruptcy that they entitle to pro rate with the United States.\nNow, these are all the general claims and they're receiving 20%.\nIt will take under the plan.\nThis is how it will go, at the end of 54 equal monthly payments the United States together with the other three will have receive 72.3% of their debt.\nAnd at the end of the six and a half years, I suppose they have received the whole 100%.\nThe question is whether or not the value was there.\nI will come to it in a minute.\nWhat I would like at this particular point to show the other chart and what would happen in the alternative in the bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2870.338, 2877.662, 2883.516, 2887.375, 2902.307, 2908.104, 2911.666, 2913.298], "stop_times": [2877.662, 2883.516, 2887.375, 2902.307, 2908.104, 2911.666, 2913.298, 2921.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.338}, "reply_to": "14979__1_078", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_080", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Before you leave that chart, may I ask you one question.\nIs it the general creditors they're getting 20% and the other is getting 10%?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2921.315, 2924.64], "stop_times": [2924.64, 2930.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.315}, "reply_to": "14979__1_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__1_081", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "At the initial distribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2930.082], "stop_times": [2931.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.082}, "reply_to": "14979__1_080", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_082", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Why is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2931.704], "stop_times": [2932.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.704}, "reply_to": "14979__1_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__1_083", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Because Your Honor the 20% is a compromise of their claims as I will show in liquidation.\nThey would be entitled to anywhere from 26% to 36% depending upon the cost of administration in the straight bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2932.833, 2939.69], "stop_times": [2939.69, 2949.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.833}, "reply_to": "14979__1_082", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_084", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "For settlement in full of their claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2949.145], "stop_times": [2950.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.145}, "reply_to": "14979__1_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__1_085", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2950.67], "stop_times": [2952.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.67}, "reply_to": "14979__1_084", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_086", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And that's all they ever get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2952.422], "stop_times": [2953.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.422}, "reply_to": "14979__1_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__1_087", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That's all they ever get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2953.533], "stop_times": [2954.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.533}, "reply_to": "14979__1_086", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_088", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That's the end of the line for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2954.475], "stop_times": [2955.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.475}, "reply_to": "14979__1_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__1_089", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That's the end of the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2955.368], "stop_times": [2956.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.368}, "reply_to": "14979__1_088", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_090", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Whereas all the others ultimately you say get a 100%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2956.342], "stop_times": [2958.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.342}, "reply_to": "14979__1_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__1_091", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Get 100%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2958.769], "stop_times": [2961.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.769}, "reply_to": "14979__1_090", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_092", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Get 100%?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2961.112], "stop_times": [2962.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.112}, "reply_to": "14979__1_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__1_093", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes sir, everybody else receives 100% except the creditors.\nThe stockholders of course are wipeout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2962.222, 2966.287], "stop_times": [2966.287, 2968.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.222}, "reply_to": "14979__1_092", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_094", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is if the company is still in business at the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2968.929], "stop_times": [2971.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.929}, "reply_to": "14979__1_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_095", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, let me put it at this way.\nThere is no question in so far as the record is concerned as to the capability of Hennis to continue to pay it.\nThe testimony in the court indicates not only that the asset itself has increased in value.\nRemember, that the asset which is being sold to Hennis is still belonging to those four creditors under a general mortgage, a security agreement.\nAnd their addition to which Hennis is shown by the record is continually making a profit and it continues to grow.\nNow, here is the alternative to the plan because there is no question that in so far as the sale of this asset is concerned I cannot foresee how the District Court is going to go back on the sale that took so long to be approved.\nHere's what happens in bankruptcy.\nThis is the order of priority.\nThe administration cost $60,000.00 again 100%, $15,000.00 for the wages a 100%.\nRemember now that the United States on the bankruptcy shares equally with the remainder of the taxing authorities.\nThey therefore, will receive at the initial distribution 42.5% nothing gets paid to the general creditors.\nAt the end of January 1975, in other words about four and a half years, the United States then gets paid in full.\nSo it takes four and a half years under bankruptcy for the United States and the other taxing authorities to be paid in full.\nAt that point, the general creditors then have 30.04% which will be distributed to them in the remaining two years.\nAt that point, that's what they're giving up.\nIf the administration expenses go up to a maximum in our brief of $90,000.00 and we don\u2019t anticipate it.\nThat would indicate they still get 26%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [2971.396, 2972.833, 2982.188, 2991.174, 3000.542, 3009.355, 3026.5, 3029.178, 3031.388, 3039.532, 3046.873, 3056.72, 3067.249, 3074.611, 3085.673, 3089.013, 3097.026], "stop_times": [2972.833, 2982.188, 2991.174, 3000.542, 3009.355, 3026.5, 3029.178, 3031.388, 3039.532, 3046.873, 3056.72, 3067.249, 3074.611, 3085.673, 3089.013, 3097.026, 3099.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.396}, "reply_to": "14979__1_094", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_096", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But counsel, if the United States is right on their argument about the priorities, then these matters become irrelevant because the wisdom of their challenging the plan is not for us if indeed there is a priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3099.757], "stop_times": [3119.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.757}, "reply_to": "14979__1_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_097", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But I contend that even with the priority they are still bound by Section 216 (7) of the Act which indicates that a dissenting creditor can be satisfied by various means and in this case they are satisfied by two means.\nOne, the sale of the property has been sold with their rights attaching to it and in this case the United States does not have a specific lien against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3119.222, 3137.417], "stop_times": [3137.417, 3147.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.222}, "reply_to": "14979__1_096", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_098", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "But there you're arguing the wisdom of it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3147.018], "stop_times": [3149.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.018}, "reply_to": "14979__1_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__1_099", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "No, I'm talking of terms of 216 (7) and I'm talking in terms of 216 (7) which is pointed in the appendix to our brief.\nWe're talking in terms any plan of reorganization under this Chapter shall include in respect to creditors generally or some class of them means or provisions for overruling or modifying their rights.\nThis 216 was placed in there under Chapter X for the very reason that we're here, a dissenting class of creditors could not insist upon being paid out in cash as the all in equity receiverships require.\nNow, under the all equity receivership there was no way for this to happen because the senior creditors had to be paid out in cash if they insisted.\nWe contend that that's what 216 (7) was for and we also believe that there is nothing that excludes the United States as a claimant from the application of 216.\nNow, this is where we disagree with the Government and we contend that this is true with in other cases and other security cases where they are been secured creditors on a particular piece of property.\nThere hasn't been any question that other claimants could get paid and if the security or secured creditor\u2019s rights would be altered in one of the many ways of 216 (7).\nNow, I think the big question here is the interest question because there, we're talking in terms of a question that Mr. Justice Stewart asked.\nAre they getting a discounted value?\nI contend they are not and the reason I'm contending they are not is because post petition interest is not available to tax claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3149.127, 3160.002, 3173.457, 3188.79, 3199.121, 3214.618, 3229.102, 3240.464, 3248.106, 3250.456], "stop_times": [3160.002, 3173.457, 3188.79, 3199.121, 3214.618, 3229.102, 3240.464, 3248.106, 3250.456, 3261.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.127}, "reply_to": "14979__1_098", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_100", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That really isn't the point, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3261.154], "stop_times": [3263.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.154}, "reply_to": "14979__1_099", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__1_101", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, I think it is.\nWell, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3263.79, 3265.247], "stop_times": [3265.247, 3266.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.79}, "reply_to": "14979__1_100", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_102", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Do you concede that they're entitled to full payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3266.423], "stop_times": [3268.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.423}, "reply_to": "14979__1_101", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__1_103", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3268.733], "stop_times": [3270.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3268.733}, "reply_to": "14979__1_102", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_104", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And full payment of $375,000.00 now is not made by paying installments that add up -- that arithmetically add up to that sum over a period of many years, that\u2019s not full payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3270.384], "stop_times": [3286.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3270.384}, "reply_to": "14979__1_103", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__1_105", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, if Justice will allow me I would say this; I think the question is one of substance not a form.\nIf we were to continue these proceedings and begin to payout as the money has come in then the United States will not receive interest and it will receive its full principle as we go along.\nThere is nothing as a matter of fact even in these first seven chapters of the Bankruptcy Act which provide that the United States must be paid before anyone else.\nIt provides that there must provisions made for the payment of the United States.\nNow, that to me is the real crux of it when we\u2019re talking in terms of substance or form.\nI would go further of course and that is this; the Government insists that 3466 applies.\nThe Circuit Court held it did not.\nI am convinced that 3466 does not apply in Chapter X proceedings.\nI believe that Section 199 provides the priority that the legislature granted the United States.\nThey indicated that this was to make certain of the United States was going to be paid its taxes and custom duties and I just don\u2019t think that that's the question.\nNow, I don't even believe that there's a conflict between U.S. against Andersen and this case.\nI think that the Court stated the difference and that was in the United States against Andersen case.\nThey were talking about non-tax debts.\nWe're not talking about non-tax debts here.\nWe're talking about the priority granted by 199 because all of these taxes.\nI think the question of the interest is important only from one reason if I am correct that just thought of these proceedings and continuing on, there's only one step in the way than the Saper case applies and the Edens case applies and the Government is not going to be entitled to the interest on its money.\nAnd for that reason, I contend that it isn't discount and true one more thing.\nThere isn't any question that if interest has to be paid the United States then it has to come out of the pockets of the general creditors.\nNow, that to me is the real crux of it here.\nIf there are no further questions from the Court, I will rest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3286.118, 3296.32, 3313.22, 3329.176, 3334.805, 3352.1, 3361.974, 3364.295, 3369.62, 3378.863, 3388.445, 3394.464, 3401.462, 3403.678, 3405.8, 3416.409, 3436.105, 3441.458, 3450.375, 3457.149], "stop_times": [3296.32, 3313.22, 3329.176, 3334.805, 3352.1, 3361.974, 3364.295, 3369.62, 3378.863, 3388.445, 3394.464, 3401.462, 3403.678, 3405.8, 3416.409, 3436.105, 3441.458, 3450.375, 3457.149, 3461.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3286.118}, "reply_to": "14979__1_104", "speaker": "sigmund_j_beck"}
{"id": "14979__1_106", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Thank you Mr. Beck.\nDo you have any thing further counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3461.759, 3464.121], "stop_times": [3464.121, 3468.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3461.759}, "reply_to": "14979__1_105", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__2_000", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I would just like to make two brief points, Your Honor.\nIn the first place, it seems apparent to us from counsel's own chart that somebody is taking something away from the United States in this case compared to what we would have had in a liquidated distribution where the initial payment would have been $160,000.00.\nNow, it\u2019s $37,500.00.\nIt's not fair and equitable under established principles for the priority claimant to have to suffer the expense of giving something of value to claimants with less priority against its will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3468.523, 3472.504, 3492.2, 3497.547], "stop_times": [3472.504, 3492.2, 3497.547, 3512.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3468.523}, "reply_to": "14979__1_106", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_001", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "It rather begs the question, doesn\u2019t it?\nI mean, that you assume as the result must be exactly the same in Chapter X is it isn\u2019t straight bankruptcy and that is the question to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3512.273, 3513.973], "stop_times": [3513.973, 3523.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3512.273}, "reply_to": "14979__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14979__2_002", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Well, this is not my assumption.\nThe contention is being put by the respondent that this is the appropriate comparison.\nI wish to point out also that depending on the cost of administration perhaps the unsecured creditors would in fact eventually get more but then that some really should be discounted by the period of waiting for it in addition to taking into account the risk that it will not materialize which would be born by unsecured creditors in that situation.\nNow, this Court has recognized in a recent opinion, Mr. Justice White\u2019s Protective Committee against Andersen that in Chapter X there is authority in the Secretary of the Treasure to bargain to compromise and that bargain and compromise among claimants place a very important role in accomplishing the objects of Section 10.\nAnd while it may seem that in this case we are arguing for a rigid rule of priority.\nThe fact is that it is the priority that gives the Secretary to bargaining power to induce others to enter into these compromises and accomplish the objectives.\nWe did bargain previously and accept the plan in 1957 in this very case which shared our rights with others.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3523.443, 3527.293, 3532.981, 3559.543, 3585.917, 3593.111, 3604.417, 3612.312], "stop_times": [3527.293, 3532.981, 3559.543, 3585.917, 3593.111, 3604.417, 3612.312, 3613.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3523.443}, "reply_to": "14979__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_003", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don't know whether this record contains it but is there any indication of what the discounted value of $375,000.00 paid over that basis.\nI suppose it's somewhere 7 years somewhere on $225,000.00 at 6%.\nSo, in effect, the Government is saying to us I take it that as a matter of judgment being aside of priority judging the equitable aspect of the plan.\nThe Government's preference is to get $60,000.00 now then $225,000.00 over period of seven years with the attendant risks that they might not get all of it", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3613.255, 3622.914, 3629.813, 3643.04], "stop_times": [3622.914, 3629.813, 3643.04, 3657.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3613.255}, "reply_to": "14979__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__2_004", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That is correct sir.\nOur own contention would have been that we should be paid now what was being paid under the plan that we have the right to be paid what was being under the plan to the junior creditors rather than this particular comparison.\nWe would look at the distribution as being made under the plan and certain of those we had a right too if we insisted on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3657.232, 3659.769, 3672.529], "stop_times": [3659.769, 3672.529, 3680.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3657.232}, "reply_to": "14979__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_005", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Suppose it's not relevant here but from what you said before I take it that some plan less than the distribution under bankruptcy but more than the one offered might have been acquiesced by the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3680.912], "stop_times": [3700.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3680.912}, "reply_to": "14979__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__2_006", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "There is the authority to do that.\nWe did previously acquiescence such a plan 1957 in this case.\nAt that time, that plan had rehabilitative purposes and that is a factor in our acquiescence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3700.543, 3702.316, 3707.753], "stop_times": [3702.316, 3707.753, 3716.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3700.543}, "reply_to": "14979__2_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_007", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3716.878], "stop_times": [3717.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3716.878}, "reply_to": "14979__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__2_008", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Counsel, the other counsel stated to me that payment to thereto other creditors at the first line was the payment in full but it looks like over the last line it was a not a payment in full, what is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3717.895], "stop_times": [3736.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3717.895}, "reply_to": "14979__2_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__2_009", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That was the other chart, Mr. Counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3736.262], "stop_times": [3738.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3736.262}, "reply_to": "14979__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__2_010", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "In the other chart, I think his contention was that eventually there would be payment in full even though the initial payment was only 10%.\nHis contention is that our right is satisfied so long as the Government will eventually be paid 100% by the end of the 78 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3738.027, 3749.675], "stop_times": [3749.675, 3762.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3738.027}, "reply_to": "14979__2_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_011", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "100% without interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3762.246], "stop_times": [3763.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3762.246}, "reply_to": "14979__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14979__2_012", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Without interest, I think that was the point he was making when he said we would get 100%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3763.822], "stop_times": [3770.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3763.822}, "reply_to": "14979__2_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_013", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "And that the other creditors get 20% now and that's all they ever got under the plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3770.2], "stop_times": [3775.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3770.2}, "reply_to": "14979__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14979__2_014", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "That was the contrast he was trying so that even though initially under the plan, we get only 10% compared to their 20%.\nWe would get the additional payments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3775.824, 3784.339], "stop_times": [3784.339, 3786.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3775.824}, "reply_to": "14979__2_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_015", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "I don't understand still then.\nYou say that that's all the creditors will ever get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3786.954, 3790.137], "stop_times": [3790.137, 3792.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3786.954}, "reply_to": "14979__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__2_016", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "The general unsecured creditors well, this is not the plan.\nThis is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3792.891, 3797.212], "stop_times": [3797.212, 3797.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3792.891}, "reply_to": "14979__2_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_017", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes, I understand it but what is that figure over here for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3797.664], "stop_times": [3803.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3797.664}, "reply_to": "14979__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__2_018", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "This is the hypothetical figure that counsel suggest as what the -- are general unsecured creditors would eventually get if these were not at Chapter X proceeding but an ordinarily liquidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3803.238], "stop_times": [3819.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3803.238}, "reply_to": "14979__2_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "14979__2_019", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3819.506], "stop_times": [3821.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3819.506}, "reply_to": "14979__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14979__2_020", "conversation_id": "14979", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace.\nThank you Mr. Beck.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_402", "start_times": [3821.442, 3822.379, 3823.41], "stop_times": [3822.379, 3823.41, 3826.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3821.442}, "reply_to": "14979__2_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__0_000", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Hamburg, in number 17, United States against Knox.\nAre you ready?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [0.0, 6.874], "stop_times": [6.874, 10.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__0_001", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe issue involved in this case is related to the proceeding when -- in that involves a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making false statements in purported compliance with other statutes, in this case, certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code relating to wagering taxes.\nThe precise issue here is whether an individual may properly assert the privilege against self-incrimination as a complete defense to a charge of making false statements on wagering tax returns.\nThe District Court in the Western District of Texas held that the privilege was such a defense and dismissed false statement charges against the appellee, James Knox.\nThe case is here on the Government's appeal of that dismissal.\nThe indictment was filed before this Court decided the Marchetti and Grosso cases.\nThis indictment charged the appellee with four counts of failing to file wagering tax returns, that is Form 11-C, a copy of which we've included in our appendix, and with failure to pay the special occupational tax, covering various prior to October 14, 1965.\nThe indictment also contains two counts, Counts Five and Six, which charge that the appellee made false statements on returns which he did file on October 14 and on October 15, 1965.\nThe statements being that he declared under penalties of perjury that the returns were to the best of his knowledge, true, correct and complete whereas in truth, they were not in that the number of employees he had claimed had been understated and misrepresented.\nNow prior to trial, this Court decided Marchetti versus United States and Grosso versus United States and in those cases, this Court recognized that an individual charge with failing to file wagering tax forms which invariably contained information incriminating him under other laws, could properly assert that privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination as a complete defense.\nThereafter, the appellee moved to dismiss all of the charges against him including Counts Five and Six, the false statement Counts alleging that such a disposition was required as a result of the holding of the Marchetti and Grosso.\nThe Government responded that it intended to pursue only Counts Five and Six and as to those counts it argued in effect that their validity had not been affected by Marchetti and Grosso.\nThe District Court disagreed with the Government's position and in a brief memorandum, dated July 24, 1968, the Court -- that Court held that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination prevents prosecution for failure to answer the form in any respect.\nJudge Roberts relied upon Grosso in particular where charge of conspiracy to evade payment of the excise tax on wagering was dismissed along with the substitute charges of failing to pay the excise tax and failing to pay this special computational tax.\nIn the Government's view, Judge Roberts misinterpreted and misapplied the Court's decisions, particularly Grosso.\nThus I believe, it's appropriate to begin with the discussion of the difference between Grosso and this situation.\nIn Grosso, the Court held that a conspiracy charge had to fall with other counts since it was bottomed solely on allegations of invasion of the excise and occupational taxes.\nThe courts words, the conspiracy raise \u201cQuestions identical with those presented by the substitutes counts.\u201d\nIn contrast to Grosso, the false statement counts are not identical.\nThey are not even similar to the charges of failure to file a wagering tax return or pay the tax.\nWhile we no longer contest that privilege against self-incrimination as an appropriate defense to one charged with failure to file, we don't believe that that privilege protects an independent act of making a false statement on a form which the appellee did in fact filed.\nIn order words, the problem of incrimination arises at the threshold when one decides whether or not to file and face -- if he files perhaps, he might face prosecution under some state gambling laws or if he fails to file prosecution under a federal statute.\nThe appellee here resolved this question of whether to stand on his privilege or not.\nHe didn't avail himself of the what we believe to be the customary means by which statutes are challenged by non compliance.\nInstead, he purported to comply and in this purported compliance, he lied.\nHe is now charged with a substantive offense of making false statements in violation of a statute having no connection with the wagering tax laws except insofar as the tax laws form that framework within which the appellee committed violations of this wholly distinct criminal statute.\nThus in our view, the Fifth Amended privilege should not control the outcome of the case in the District Court.\nOur stand is not novel by any means.\nA number of cases decided in the previous case argued here beginning with Kapp and Kay also cited in our brief have been controlled by a rational similar to the one we urge here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [10.361, 14.311, 34.008, 48.144, 58.65, 63.57, 69.848, 89.761, 106.706, 125.069, 152.43, 169.331, 181.381, 199.572, 218.327, 226.443, 235.02, 246.967, 255.812, 261.546, 268.187, 286.088, 306.262, 314.574, 323.651, 330.053, 349.958, 357.077, 360.169], "stop_times": [14.311, 34.008, 48.144, 58.65, 63.57, 69.848, 89.761, 106.706, 125.069, 152.43, 169.331, 181.381, 199.572, 218.327, 226.443, 235.02, 246.967, 255.812, 261.546, 268.187, 286.088, 306.262, 314.574, 323.651, 330.053, 349.958, 357.077, 360.169, 373.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.361}, "reply_to": "14886__0_000", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_002", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Did the District Court consider Dennis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [373.111], "stop_times": [378.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.111}, "reply_to": "14886__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_003", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "If it did Your Honor, it's certainly didn't mention in its brief in any way the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [378.098], "stop_times": [382.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.098}, "reply_to": "14886__0_002", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_004", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Or was it say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [382.015], "stop_times": [382.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.015}, "reply_to": "14886__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_005", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And then, I'm sorry, and its appeal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [382.556], "stop_times": [383.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.556}, "reply_to": "14886__0_004", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_006", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "You know whether it was cited to the Court or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [383.437], "stop_times": [387.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.437}, "reply_to": "14886__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_007", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "As a matter of fact, it was not cited to the lower court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [387.547], "stop_times": [392.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.547}, "reply_to": "14886__0_006", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_008", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "It had been decided though at the end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [392.567], "stop_times": [394.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.567}, "reply_to": "14886__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_009", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I believe so, yes.\nBut I don't believe the Government in its reply in the District Court cited any of the cases here, Kapp or Kay or Dennis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [394.51, 396.036], "stop_times": [396.036, 405.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.51}, "reply_to": "14886__0_008", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_010", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "So, it's never been considered by the District Court in the light Dennis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [405.187], "stop_times": [410.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.187}, "reply_to": "14886__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_011", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Except insofar as Dennis had been decided and I assume that the Court was aware of the holding in Dennis.\nMoreover, certainly the same principles of Dennis had been used and applied in Kapp and Kay insofar as this situation is concerned.\nThese cases holding that the uncons -- the claim of unconstitutionality of the underlying statute doesn't excuse a calculated, deliberate course of perjury or fraud or deceit.\nIn this case by the way of course, we are not dealing with the claim that the underlying statute is unconstitutional.\nWe're only dealing with a privilege against self-incrimination.\nYou could properly assert this privilege if the lawful process, time tested process of raising it when he fails to comply and that defense is all that Marchetti and Grosso established.\nBut if an underlying statute can't be attacked on constitutional grounds, certainly, an individual shouldn't be heard to raise a constitutional privilege in a situation where he purported to comply with the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [410.205, 417.993, 433.895, 446.846, 453.971, 459.423, 476.062], "stop_times": [417.993, 433.895, 446.846, 453.971, 459.423, 476.062, 490.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.205}, "reply_to": "14886__0_010", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_012", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Am I right in thinking that speaking from recollection, am I right in thinking that the perjury statements that you complain of here charged him with concern not merely a failure to fill out a blank, a space in the blank which called for number of employees, but an affirmative filling out of that blank with the wrong number?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [490.13], "stop_times": [516.376], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 490.13}, "reply_to": "14886__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14886__0_013", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [516.376], "stop_times": [517.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.376}, "reply_to": "14886__0_012", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_014", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No doubt about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [517.453], "stop_times": [518.515], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 517.453}, "reply_to": "14886__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14886__0_015", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No doubt about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [518.515], "stop_times": [519.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.515}, "reply_to": "14886__0_014", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_016", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He said none in one case and gave a wrong number to another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [519.669], "stop_times": [523.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.669}, "reply_to": "14886__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_017", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes.\nWe have in fact photo copy the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [523.746, 525.022], "stop_times": [525.022, 527.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.746}, "reply_to": "14886__0_016", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_018", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The address?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [527.873], "stop_times": [528.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.873}, "reply_to": "14886__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_019", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The statements --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [528.218], "stop_times": [528.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.218}, "reply_to": "14886__0_018", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_020", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That's -- recollection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [528.914], "stop_times": [529.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.914}, "reply_to": "14886__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_021", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And I have included in the country in our appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [529.354], "stop_times": [531.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.354}, "reply_to": "14886__0_020", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_022", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "So, the indictment itself is more than a little ambiguous in that regard, it is not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [531.553], "stop_times": [536.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.553}, "reply_to": "14886__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_023", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "It might need to be quite awkward Your Honor, but it certainly is sufficient to indicate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [536.948], "stop_times": [542.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.948}, "reply_to": "14886__0_022", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_024", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That's the indictment that I remember when time this case we granted certiorari.\nIt said it indicates -- the indictment indicates, so what he did was leave the certain things blank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [542.442, 548.243], "stop_times": [548.243, 553.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.442}, "reply_to": "14886__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_025", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The indictment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [553.383], "stop_times": [553.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.383}, "reply_to": "14886__0_024", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_026", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Now, you're trying to cure that ambiguity with this photo stat of what he apparently actually did i.e the right to none the first time and on the amendment one to write the names and addresses of two or three people and you said they were more people than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [553.882], "stop_times": [567.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.882}, "reply_to": "14886__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_027", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [567.89], "stop_times": [568.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.89}, "reply_to": "14886__0_026", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_028", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But the -- with -- was that exhibit appended to the original indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [568.942], "stop_times": [574.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.942}, "reply_to": "14886__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_029", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [574.808], "stop_times": [575.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.808}, "reply_to": "14886__0_028", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_030", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "How do they get here in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [575.533], "stop_times": [577.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.533}, "reply_to": "14886__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_031", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "It was part of the prosecution's file.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [577.61], "stop_times": [581.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.61}, "reply_to": "14886__0_030", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_032", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But it's in the record of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [581.601], "stop_times": [584.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.601}, "reply_to": "14886__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_033", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [584.271], "stop_times": [584.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.271}, "reply_to": "14886__0_032", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_034", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Or where was it consider --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [584.464], "stop_times": [585.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.464}, "reply_to": "14886__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_035", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I -- I really couldn't say whether it was in fact in the record.\nI don't know that the court below considered it, but I suppose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [585.136, 588.829], "stop_times": [588.829, 593.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.136}, "reply_to": "14886__0_034", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_036", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The court below did not at all address itself to this question or not considering the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [593.207], "stop_times": [596.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.207}, "reply_to": "14886__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_037", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The Court did not address itself to this.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [596.403, 599.024], "stop_times": [599.024, 599.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.403}, "reply_to": "14886__0_036", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_038", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "-- that is the question that speaking for myself alone that interested me because the indictment seem to indicate that you were charged with somebody with the false statement who hadn't made any statement at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [599.79], "stop_times": [608.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.79}, "reply_to": "14886__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_039", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, if -- its seems -- the indictment is rather awkward, we'll be glad to furnish particulars at the appropriate occasion to explain any situation of in artful drawing, but we certainly believe that the indictment states in the sense that it apprises the dependent of what he is charged against and will protect him from double jeopardy problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [608.593], "stop_times": [634.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.593}, "reply_to": "14886__0_038", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_040", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "So far as you concerned, it could be that this is just been put in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [634.366], "stop_times": [642.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.366}, "reply_to": "14886__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_041", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [642.157], "stop_times": [645.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.157}, "reply_to": "14886__0_040", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_042", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Does that helped you at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [645.51], "stop_times": [647.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.51}, "reply_to": "14886__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_043", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, it is just there for explanation.\nWe're concerned only at the indictment stage as to what the man has been charged with.\nHe point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [647.476, 650.122, 656.621], "stop_times": [650.122, 656.621, 656.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.476}, "reply_to": "14886__0_042", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_044", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But this isn't a part of what he has been charged with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [656.734], "stop_times": [659.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.734}, "reply_to": "14886__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_045", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes.\nHis -- his charged with making a false statement and at a trial, we are going to show what the false statement was all about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [659.034, 659.922], "stop_times": [659.922, 672.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.034}, "reply_to": "14886__0_044", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_046", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The big difficulty of that -- of both in the indictment with an exhibit -- nobody knew about it until just now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [672.96], "stop_times": [683.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.96}, "reply_to": "14886__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_047", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Oh, I am not sure of it, no one knew about it.\nAll I can tell you is that isn't discussed by the district judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [683.419, 686.593], "stop_times": [686.593, 691.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.419}, "reply_to": "14886__0_046", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_048", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Because it wasn't before it, he never saw it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [691.044], "stop_times": [694.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.044}, "reply_to": "14886__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_049", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, he saw the indictment, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [694.071], "stop_times": [695.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.071}, "reply_to": "14886__0_048", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_050", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But you never saw those exhibits that you have in the back here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [695.892], "stop_times": [699.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.892}, "reply_to": "14886__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_051", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, the chances are that you didn't -- I really don't know whether he do it -- did or did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [699.105], "stop_times": [705.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.105}, "reply_to": "14886__0_050", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_052", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The District Court didn't dismiss this case because on the grounds that failure to fill out a blank wouldn't covered by Title I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [705.085], "stop_times": [716.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.085}, "reply_to": "14886__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_053", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No.\nHe reached the constitutional issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [716.163, 716.564], "stop_times": [716.564, 718.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.163}, "reply_to": "14886__0_052", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_054", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He dismissed the case because the underlying statute is unconstitutional, that's what he put it here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [718.492], "stop_times": [724.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.492}, "reply_to": "14886__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__0_055", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That's correct Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [724.399], "stop_times": [726.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.399}, "reply_to": "14886__0_054", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_056", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And so, we don't need this photo stat copy of the tax return at all to decide this case.\nIt's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [726.464, 732.435], "stop_times": [732.435, 732.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.464}, "reply_to": "14886__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__0_057", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No, I don't think you do.\nWe just put it there and just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [732.695, 734.156], "stop_times": [734.156, 734.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.695}, "reply_to": "14886__0_056", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_058", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Totally irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [734.849], "stop_times": [736.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.849}, "reply_to": "14886__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__0_059", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Irrelevant and there only for exemplar your purposes.\nIn view of the fact that we believe that the principles here are similar to the principles just discussed for the reason stated in our brief and reply brief on any other matters, we submit that the District Court's judgment should be reversed and Counts Five and Six ordered reinstated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [736.967, 746.104], "stop_times": [746.104, 765.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.967}, "reply_to": "14886__0_058", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_060", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "It would your position that this matter that's listed in the circuit, colloquially here would be a matter -- defensive matter on the merits in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [765.574], "stop_times": [775.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.574}, "reply_to": "14886__0_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14886__0_061", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That's correct Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [775.827], "stop_times": [777.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.827}, "reply_to": "14886__0_060", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_062", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And if the defendant asked for it, you could get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [777.173], "stop_times": [779.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.173}, "reply_to": "14886__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__0_063", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [779.586], "stop_times": [788.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.586}, "reply_to": "14886__0_062", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__0_064", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [788.027], "stop_times": [788.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.027}, "reply_to": "14886__0_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_000", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI'll touch briefly in the beginning on the point that was discussed as to the contents of the indictment in this to make this specific that we submit that an offense is not charged when you charged only that feel to make to answer something in one of the Government's forms that that is not a false statement just by omitting this particular portion of the question and the reading of the indictment will disclose that that's all that the Government charged.\nThey didn't charge, that he put none, that he put three when he should have put five, and just said that he didn't answer this, instead, he didn't give their names, addresses, staff numbers and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [788.851, 792.938, 826.918], "stop_times": [792.938, 826.918, 836.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 788.851}, "reply_to": "14886__0_064", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_001", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The District Court didn't decide the case on that ground, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [836.487], "stop_times": [840.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.487}, "reply_to": "14886__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_002", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Not only as affirmative ruling in his opinion, no sir.\nThat point was raised in the end and the motion to challenge the indictment that the indictment did not state in effect.\nAnd we urge in our brief here that two state authorities not in the federal but the one with fine that such a charge is not a false statement.\nAnd I -- that point we submit indictment itself just look at it they are not charged an offense when it's an omission to make a statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [840.211, 843.624, 850.311, 860.026], "stop_times": [843.624, 850.311, 860.026, 869.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 840.211}, "reply_to": "14886__1_001", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_003", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No, this argue is been here on the next appeal limited to the deciding that the issue that the district judge decided?\nIt's untrue that if he had decided that this -- that the indictment should have been dismissed because of construction of the statute, maybe that issue could've come here too, but that isn't what he decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [869.145, 878.683], "stop_times": [878.683, 888.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.145}, "reply_to": "14886__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_004", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I would believe that at any time, a criminal defendant can challenge this sufficiency of the indictment.\nI maybe wrong on my particular phase of the rules, but I think that could be raised almost anytime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [888.572, 894.307], "stop_times": [894.307, 900.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 888.572}, "reply_to": "14886__1_003", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_005", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No, but this was dismissed the question of our jurisdiction under the [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [900.368], "stop_times": [906.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.368}, "reply_to": "14886__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_006", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That maybe -- I'll be frank with you, I couldn't answer the question as to your jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [906.476], "stop_times": [911.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 906.476}, "reply_to": "14886__1_005", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_007", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Oh, I rather think you should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [911.673], "stop_times": [916.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.673}, "reply_to": "14886__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_008", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Then if I may then turn to the question of the constitutionality problem involved here, and I think that the Government in its position here has wholly failed to recognize that if a statement made, assuming he made a false statement was made, it was made under the compulsion of criminal sanctions if he didn't make a statement.\nAnd this Court has held that in Marchetti and Grosso that these tax stamps -- statutes are unconstitutional that to require, they file these stamped tax returns, information returns is a violation of the Fifth Amendment immunity against self-incrimination.\nNow, this poses a very fundamental point as to whether the United States Government can by use of a unconstitutional statute which deprived a man of his Fifth Amendment immunity, when here -- in compelling to do that under the threat of criminal prosecution then turn around and persecute him on a 1001 if he makes a false statement in that coerced information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [916.701, 949.006, 975.455], "stop_times": [949.006, 975.455, 1015.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 916.701}, "reply_to": "14886__1_007", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_009", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Then that's not striking to you familiar to the last argument you just heard here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1015.22], "stop_times": [1020.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.22}, "reply_to": "14886__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14886__1_010", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I agree with Your Honors on that point, Mr. Justice Black and I think I've urged it explicitly in my brief from the very beginning that I think the Government in this situation come before this Court or in this prosecution with unclean hands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1020.689], "stop_times": [1036.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1020.689}, "reply_to": "14886__1_009", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_011", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But Mr. Smith as to matter of coercion, he had now the problem?\nHe could've gotten that in the gambling business, could he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1036.509, 1042.565], "stop_times": [1042.565, 1046.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.509}, "reply_to": "14886__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_012", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He could've done that, yes sir, but the constitution says, either you committed a crime, the most vile crime, you can't be compelled to give information incriminating yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1046.44], "stop_times": [1057.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1046.44}, "reply_to": "14886__1_011", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_013", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, if he had stopped gambling, the Government wouldn't have prosecuted him, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1057.65], "stop_times": [1063.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.65}, "reply_to": "14886__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_014", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Do you mean had he stopped to gambling since he filed that return?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1063.993], "stop_times": [1068.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1063.993}, "reply_to": "14886__1_013", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_015", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Around about same time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1068.889], "stop_times": [1072.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.889}, "reply_to": "14886__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_016", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I doubt it.\nI don't know whether he is still gambling or not.\nI don't know about that Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1072.443, 1072.869, 1074.317], "stop_times": [1072.869, 1074.317, 1077.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1072.443}, "reply_to": "14886__1_015", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_017", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "What about this point about the Government's position that the photo stats here would clear up the indictment and that if he goes back to trial, there will be available to you for whatever use and does that help the point about the indictment being not quite crystal clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1077.538], "stop_times": [1098.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.538}, "reply_to": "14886__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_018", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I don't think that exhibit helps the indictment because I think you got to look at the indictment of what it says and this is something that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1098.063], "stop_times": [1106.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1098.063}, "reply_to": "14886__1_017", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_019", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I'm talking about what indictment says in the light of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1106.293], "stop_times": [1110.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.293}, "reply_to": "14886__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_020", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I would say this that the indictment when it says that he is guilty of 1001 because he failed to answer a question; doesn't charge a false statement.\nI don't think you can be guilty before statement by not making man answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1110.955, 1125.725], "stop_times": [1125.725, 1129.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1110.955}, "reply_to": "14886__1_019", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_021", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, has anybody brought that question here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1129.696], "stop_times": [1133.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.696}, "reply_to": "14886__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_022", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I raised it in my brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1133.447], "stop_times": [1135.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1133.447}, "reply_to": "14886__1_021", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_023", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, but you can't raise it first in the brief.\nYou must -- it must be raised in accordance with the established rules.\nYou have a case here decided on the constitutional point, not on the insufficiency of the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1135.382, 1137.68, 1143.543], "stop_times": [1137.68, 1143.543, 1147.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.382}, "reply_to": "14886__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_024", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, that was I believe Mr. Justice White makes another that a ball and I wouldn't be making the point about the jurisdiction of the Court, I was trying to answer this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1147.639], "stop_times": [1156.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1147.639}, "reply_to": "14886__1_023", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_025", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But it shouldn't be focusing on the constitutional issue only here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1156.114], "stop_times": [1160.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.114}, "reply_to": "14886__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_026", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "This point, they did not state in defense was raised in the challenges to the indictment at trial, but only constitutional question.\nI emphasize here that there was a court -- statute here of the Government of this man being required to file this return or if he didn't file it, being faced with prosecution, $10,000 fine and imprisonment.\nAnd here is the Government saying, you do this, you file this thing, you give us this incriminating information or we'll prosecute you for not giving it under 7203 and punish you with a $10,000 fine and imprisonment.\nIf you come along and give us some incriminating evidence however and it's not quite true, we'll then prosecute you under the 1001.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1160.339, 1170.005, 1201.685, 1223.762], "stop_times": [1170.005, 1201.685, 1223.762, 1235.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1160.339}, "reply_to": "14886__1_025", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_027", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But -- when did he file , when did he file?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1235.09], "stop_times": [1241.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.09}, "reply_to": "14886__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_028", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Back in 1964.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1241.107], "stop_times": [1244.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1241.107}, "reply_to": "14886__1_027", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_029", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "When the Government was putting that kind of question on him why the obligation to file had been upheld in this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1244.362], "stop_times": [1253.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.362}, "reply_to": "14886__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_030", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That is correct and that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1253.1], "stop_times": [1254.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1253.1}, "reply_to": "14886__1_029", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_031", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "So, while the Government -- do they have such dirty hands at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1254.92], "stop_times": [1263.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.92}, "reply_to": "14886__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_032", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Justice White, I think that the situation there was that the issue of compelling to give the incriminating information was being upheld in the situation of Kahriger-Lewis that this was one of the compulsive points that he is having to file that it was the rule that bore on his having to file or be prosecuted under 7203 for not filing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1263.522], "stop_times": [1301.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1263.522}, "reply_to": "14886__1_031", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_033", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But Marchetti and Grosso, do you think they are retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1301.091], "stop_times": [1308.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.091}, "reply_to": "14886__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_034", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I don't think this question of retroactivity because in this particular case, Knox has raised the issue at the very moment of the trial level of challenge the indictment, and this Court has held in Grosso and in Covington, I believe in Leary, Marchetti, all of those that this challenge raised by motion challenging the indictment is unquestionably timely.\nI believe that's expressed time at time by the authors of those opinions.\nAnd as to coercive, I think that this appeal here should be looked at if I may so suggest in the light of Garrity and Spivak decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1308.947, 1334.923, 1339.784], "stop_times": [1334.923, 1339.784, 1353.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1308.947}, "reply_to": "14886__1_033", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_035", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Just how was he coerced here, would you clarify that for me?\nWhat forced him to file this statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1353.713, 1357.919], "stop_times": [1357.919, 1363.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.713}, "reply_to": "14886__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_036", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I would suggest this if please Mr. Chief Justice Burger that here's a man that has a situation if he doesn't file this return, he is threaten to with criminal prosecution under Article 26, Section 7203 and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1363.229], "stop_times": [1386.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1363.229}, "reply_to": "14886__1_035", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_037", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, isn't that coupled with something else if he doesn't file it and does something else affirmatively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1386.111], "stop_times": [1393.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.111}, "reply_to": "14886__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_038", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, I think his willful figure to file is the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1393.663], "stop_times": [1399.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1393.663}, "reply_to": "14886__1_037", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_039", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, the filling station operators of grocers have to file this kind of a return, this kind of statement -- gas station operators?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1399.358], "stop_times": [1407.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.358}, "reply_to": "14886__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_040", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "This is applicable to a specific special class of people here like was mentioned to same-same group or the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1407.251], "stop_times": [1414.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1407.251}, "reply_to": "14886__1_039", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_041", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "What kind of people are included in the class?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1414.852], "stop_times": [1418.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.852}, "reply_to": "14886__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_042", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1418.808], "stop_times": [1419.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1418.808}, "reply_to": "14886__1_041", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_043", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "What people are included in that class?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1419.282], "stop_times": [1422.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.282}, "reply_to": "14886__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_044", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Using this language, accused gamblers under these particular statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1422.144], "stop_times": [1428.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1422.144}, "reply_to": "14886__1_043", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_045", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "So, he isn't forced.\nHe is only forced to file the affidavit if he wants to continue an unlawful activity, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1428.498, 1429.687], "stop_times": [1429.687, 1437.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.498}, "reply_to": "14886__1_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_046", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I believe this Court rejected that concept in overruling Kahriger and Lewis when they came with Marchetti and Grosso.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1437.51], "stop_times": [1445.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1437.51}, "reply_to": "14886__1_045", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_047", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I don't quite read those cases that way counsel, but you go ahead with your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1445.225], "stop_times": [1451.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.225}, "reply_to": "14886__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_048", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But the point I'm trying to make is this that under the rulings of Garrity and Spivak, he had the choice here either to file or to be prosecuted.\nIn the Garrity case, I believe that this Court held that where the situation was such that you had the choice between losing your job or giving the incriminating information that that was coercion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1451.145, 1470.863], "stop_times": [1470.863, 1485.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1451.145}, "reply_to": "14886__1_047", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_049", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, he really had the third alternative that you say it was rejected by this Court but which I don't read, he had the third alternative of going out of the illegal gambling business, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1485.92], "stop_times": [1497.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.92}, "reply_to": "14886__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_050", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes, he --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1497.507], "stop_times": [1498.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1497.507}, "reply_to": "14886__1_049", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_051", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He could've gone in to an honest profession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1498.008], "stop_times": [1499.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.008}, "reply_to": "14886__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_052", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He had the third alternative of course of not to gamble; I can -- understand that in filling this return.\nBut at the same time in Garrity, they had the alternative of not continue to be a policeman.\nIn Spivak, he had the opportunity of not continue to be a lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1499.454, 1507.498, 1514.771], "stop_times": [1507.498, 1514.771, 1518.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.454}, "reply_to": "14886__1_051", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_053", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But those are honest activities, isn't that something --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1518.762], "stop_times": [1522.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.762}, "reply_to": "14886__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_054", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "In some states, gambling is an honest and illegal activity also, but it declared in the state of Texas, he was not.\nThis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1522.096, 1531.901], "stop_times": [1531.901, 1532.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1522.096}, "reply_to": "14886__1_053", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_055", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "My memory maybe wrong, as I recall it was a vigorous to say [Attempt to Laughter] this -- category the other case and I think he can raise that question, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1532.802], "stop_times": [1541.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.802}, "reply_to": "14886__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_056", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I think Mr. Justice Black in Kahriger; you yourself said that the bill of Rights applied, but that the gambler has a right himself also to rely on the Bill of Rights, that's almost what you said verbatim and you just said incorrect.\nI believe or may that in just effect that one of you all said that inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1541.989, 1558.458], "stop_times": [1558.458, 1561.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1541.989}, "reply_to": "14886__1_055", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_057", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That was in dissent did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1561.199], "stop_times": [1563.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.199}, "reply_to": "14886__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_058", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1563.186], "stop_times": [1563.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.186}, "reply_to": "14886__1_057", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_059", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That was in dissent \u2013 in dissent, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1563.564], "stop_times": [1566.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.564}, "reply_to": "14886__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__1_060", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "In dissent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1566.423], "stop_times": [1568.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1566.423}, "reply_to": "14886__1_059", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_061", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I didn't dissent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1568.48], "stop_times": [1573.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.48}, "reply_to": "14886__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14886__1_062", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And as to the coercion phase of these particular statutes, I recall Mr. Justice Brennan in your concurring opinion in Grosso and Marchetti.\nI believe you comment that that the very purpose of these statutes was to coerce evidence \u2013 incriminating evidence from these people who filed these statements.\nAnd --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1573.316, 1586.865, 1600.714], "stop_times": [1586.865, 1600.714, 1601.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1573.316}, "reply_to": "14886__1_061", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_063", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "We haven't got Grosso and Marchetti, we are not having a reargument on Grosso and Marchetti here, are we, having a review of something else \u2013 1001?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1601.909], "stop_times": [1615.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.909}, "reply_to": "14886__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_064", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "1001 and the point we are trying to make here is that the fact that the Grosso and Marchetti hold that the information that he gave here was required by an unconstitutional statute that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1615.31], "stop_times": [1629.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.31}, "reply_to": "14886__1_063", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_065", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, let's assume it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1629.688], "stop_times": [1635.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.688}, "reply_to": "14886__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_066", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Assuming that the statute was unconstitutional to file this information all that returns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1635.147], "stop_times": [1644.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1635.147}, "reply_to": "14886__1_065", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_067", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And you say that therefore, you should not be convicted under 1001?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1644.64], "stop_times": [1649.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.64}, "reply_to": "14886__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_068", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "That's our argument, yes sir, that if the Government compels him to do something by this unconstitutional requirement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1649.421], "stop_times": [1658.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.421}, "reply_to": "14886__1_067", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_069", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Can you seriously suggest that we could hold with you and not overrule Dennis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1658.621], "stop_times": [1663.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.621}, "reply_to": "14886__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_070", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1663.28], "stop_times": [1664.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1663.28}, "reply_to": "14886__1_069", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_071", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "How is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1664.285], "stop_times": [1665.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.285}, "reply_to": "14886__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_072", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "In the sense that in Dennis, Kay and Kapp; all of those were where the individual voluntarily went there and filed those applications for the specific purposes of obtaining benefits like in one of them to get a home loan, I believe it was in another one to -- has made a false statement of about value of his house --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1665.405], "stop_times": [1687.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1665.405}, "reply_to": "14886__1_071", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_073", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But it isn't a very -- you don't think it's very coerced if to say that unless you file, you got to lose your job?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1687.697], "stop_times": [1696.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.697}, "reply_to": "14886__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_074", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "The coercion here was unless you file, you'll be prosecuted under 26-7203, criminally prosecute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1696.123], "stop_times": [1704.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.123}, "reply_to": "14886__1_073", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_075", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Yes, but the court's already also held that if threats to a -- threats to lose your job creates coercion too, when the labor union official is either filed or he lost his job as the officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1704.328], "stop_times": [1719.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.328}, "reply_to": "14886__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_076", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Mr. Smith, how was the coerced into amended --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1719.556], "stop_times": [1726.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.556}, "reply_to": "14886__1_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_077", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "This Mr. Justice Marshall, I do not know because I must submit that I did not have knowledge of these particular forms that Government exhibits here in the appendix until the appellate level because amendment and not my client didn't filed that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1726.149], "stop_times": [1744.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.149}, "reply_to": "14886__1_076", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_078", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Certainly not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1744.335], "stop_times": [1746.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.335}, "reply_to": "14886__1_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_079", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1746.319], "stop_times": [1748.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.319}, "reply_to": "14886__1_078", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_080", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Either if coerce is to give them filing the amendment -- I mean filling the return answering the question or stop gambling, I originally asked you that, do you still say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1748.087], "stop_times": [1765.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.087}, "reply_to": "14886__1_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_081", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And I think was coerce in doing one of the other you had to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1765.809], "stop_times": [1769.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.809}, "reply_to": "14886__1_080", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_082", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, let me make it a little more particular.\nDo you say that he was coerced and to commit a perjury, is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1769.17, 1772.5], "stop_times": [1772.5, 1779.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.17}, "reply_to": "14886__1_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_083", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I was saying he was coerced into filing the return, now, the element of coercion in requiring him to file the informational return.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1779.266], "stop_times": [1788.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.266}, "reply_to": "14886__1_082", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_084", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But where was he coerced to commit the crime of perjury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1788.975], "stop_times": [1794.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.975}, "reply_to": "14886__1_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_085", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He wasn't coerced to make the false statement assuming it was a false statement which I am not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1794.279], "stop_times": [1799.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.279}, "reply_to": "14886__1_084", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_086", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But don't we have to here assume that it is a false statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1799.92], "stop_times": [1802.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.92}, "reply_to": "14886__1_085", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_087", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well assuming it was a false statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1802.799], "stop_times": [1804.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.799}, "reply_to": "14886__1_086", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_088", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Right.\nWell, how is he coerced to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1804.86, 1805.938], "stop_times": [1805.938, 1808.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.86}, "reply_to": "14886__1_087", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_089", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I would not say that he was coerced to false about it.\nI do not make that statement, I make the statement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1808.587, 1812.794], "stop_times": [1812.794, 1815.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.587}, "reply_to": "14886__1_088", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_090", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, don't you have to in order to prevail here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1815.786], "stop_times": [1820.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.786}, "reply_to": "14886__1_089", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_091", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I submit nor sir, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1820.533], "stop_times": [1822.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.533}, "reply_to": "14886__1_090", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_092", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1822.903], "stop_times": [1823.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.903}, "reply_to": "14886__1_091", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_093", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I submit to this that when the Government requires an act in violation of its own fundamental law requires you to file a return that violates the Government's own constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1823.955], "stop_times": [1841.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.955}, "reply_to": "14886__1_092", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_094", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Then you're free in any crime you want to, including perjury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1841.476], "stop_times": [1849.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.476}, "reply_to": "14886__1_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14886__1_095", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "May I illustrate by an extreme --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1849.513], "stop_times": [1850.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.513}, "reply_to": "14886__1_094", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_096", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "-- answer that by saying on your assumption that you are free to commit any crime you want to if you call it a crime to take advantage of the Bill of Rights and not incriminate they say, and he either had to file the statement and admit that he was guilty or committed perjury.\nThat's what the Government said, you are doing this you got to report it, and that so far as I am concerned be pretty good coercion to file it and maybe the Government has the right to coerce him into done it, but I don't see it can be argued that it did coerced of him to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1850.3, 1874.129], "stop_times": [1874.129, 1890.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.3}, "reply_to": "14886__1_095", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14886__1_097", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "And then you see that the coercion or the informational return must be aligned along with a 1001 to give true information as to his incriminating activities.\nAnd I might make these points in sort of emphasizing it and maybe too much, but I think it's mentioned in my brief.\nAssuming that you were coercing the man to make statement and as you -- as this Court did in the Garrity relates this to physical torture of illustration that you stretch him on the rack or you put him down with a thumb screw or something of that kind until he makes a statement.\nYou coerce it by physical torture.\nBut in trying to get relief from the physical torture, he makes some false statements in the answer that he give to the police.\nUnder the analogy, I would ask the Government would they prosecute him under those circumstances for the false statement.\nAnd I think this Court has pointed out to number of opinions and Garrity I believe is the latest that there's not just physical torture, but the refinement at times of things.\nAnd when the individual citizen is faced with the issue of whether or not he filed one of his informational returns or as to drum the gamble of being prosecuted by United States District Attorney for not filing it and they -- prior to Grosso and Marchetti, they were filed everyday, every week by the hundreds over the country.\nI think that gets into a question of coercion and it's just as much coercion as there was in Garrity, it's just as much coercion as there was in Spivak in the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [1890.366, 1905.546, 1914.281, 1937.041, 1941.497, 1951.713, 1961.056, 1974.155, 1999.903], "stop_times": [1905.546, 1914.281, 1937.041, 1941.497, 1951.713, 1961.056, 1974.155, 1999.903, 2015.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.366}, "reply_to": "14886__1_096", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_098", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Of course, the Government's entitled or at least the court hasn't said yet the Government is not entitled to collect the tax, has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2015.228], "stop_times": [2024.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.228}, "reply_to": "14886__1_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_099", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "No, I'm not arguing that here Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2024.332], "stop_times": [2028.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.332}, "reply_to": "14886__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14886__1_100", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Well, but he filed and said he had three employees instead of five?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2028.004], "stop_times": [2033.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.004}, "reply_to": "14886__1_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_101", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But this Court has --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2033.611], "stop_times": [2033.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.611}, "reply_to": "14886__1_100", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_102", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "To make --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2033.948], "stop_times": [2035.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.948}, "reply_to": "14886__1_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_103", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2035.822], "stop_times": [2036.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2035.822}, "reply_to": "14886__1_102", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_104", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I mean it maybe that the Government at least claims that he had five employees instead of three.\nNow, I suppose the Government that one the collect the tax from him might say, well, I guess he only owes for three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2036.548, 2044.025], "stop_times": [2044.025, 2051.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.548}, "reply_to": "14886__1_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_105", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "But --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2051.744], "stop_times": [2053.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.744}, "reply_to": "14886__1_104", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_106", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "He had to file it all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2053.638], "stop_times": [2055.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.638}, "reply_to": "14886__1_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_107", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Let me make this point or maybe or maybe it'll help answer the issue you're raising.\nWhen assuming this case came on for trial on the merits and these informational returns that they brought up here and exhibited it the first time on appeal or offered in evidence, and he raises the objection there that they are not admissible because they were extracted from the file in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and the Court I -- under the ruling that this Court has handed down in Garrity, I submit would be legitimately authorized in excluding them from evidence.\nAnd under those circumstances even those circumstances, we submit that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2055.068, 2061.277, 2101.759], "stop_times": [2061.277, 2101.759, 2107.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2055.068}, "reply_to": "14886__1_106", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_108", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "We have to cross the evidence should be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2107.254], "stop_times": [2109.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.254}, "reply_to": "14886__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_109", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2109.238], "stop_times": [2109.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.238}, "reply_to": "14886__1_108", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_110", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Even if we reversed the [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2109.78], "stop_times": [2114.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.78}, "reply_to": "14886__1_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14886__1_111", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I was going to present the practicality of the situation where I believe was pointed out in Grosso and I believe in Covington that when maybe in Garrity also that when the evidence would not be available that you could take it and deal with it on appeal here at this Court to conclude it under the substantial justice of the case.\nAnd under that of course, this is not a situation that all acts involved in Bryson or the case that was argued here just before, this is not a matter of retroactivity.\nWe have raised this issue from the inception and that we submit that it's a ripe for decision and that the -- this also gets back in a way to this Court's order opinion in Boyd versus United States which is reemphasized in Garrity and the Spivak of situation where the -- when the Government by unconstitutional means causes a man to do something or forces him to do something, they required him to do this under criminal sanctions.\nAnd I think that distinguishes this from Dennis and Kay and Kapp and that line of cases that those cases did not have the criminal sanction of saying that in the very inception, you got to come and do this.\nAnd I think this Court could well I affirm the court below that in no way overruled Covington rules because this man has standing here in the sense that he has brought this issue from the inception of the trial.\nAnd in all of your decisions this Court has held that the issue is timely when raised to challenge to indictment of issues.\nI might advert in concluding make one sort of answer of the report that this Court has repeatedly held that the false statements statutes were enacted for the purpose of protecting the Government's -- authorize, the authorized function of Government, I believe the way it expressed in [Inaudible], I submit that that the extraction of incriminating evidence from citizens is not an authorized function of Government.\nAnd there are numbers of cases by this Court where you have held that when the Governmental official took an oath or required an oath or the tribunal requiring the oath was not authorized to require the oath, that there could be no charge of perjury, the cases such is that Christopher, the Baird case, United States versus George, United States versus Williams and Robinson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2114.088, 2142.491, 2157.16, 2208.351, 2226.048, 2242.73, 2259.807, 2314.175], "stop_times": [2142.491, 2157.16, 2208.351, 2226.048, 2242.73, 2259.807, 2314.175, 2352.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.088}, "reply_to": "14886__1_110", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_112", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "You have those cases cited in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2352.015], "stop_times": [2354.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.015}, "reply_to": "14886__1_111", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14886__1_113", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "On page 10 under Section 3, page 10.\nThe Internal Revenue [Inaudible] was forbidden by the constitution to require this information.\nNow, the Fifth Amendment was forbidden as you have held in Grosso and Marchetti.\nConsequently, those cases are Christopher versus United States, Baird versus United States, George versus United States are applicable because if they had no constitutional authority to require the information that's stronger, then, if they had no statutory authority to require it.\nAt one time had a purported statutory authority to do require it, but this Court has said, the constitutional overrode that and took away that jurisdiction from them and it's settled law by this Court under those circumstances that where like in the Christopher case where there was not a forum at the time a man gave false testimony before constitutional -- I mean before a congressional committee when there was not a forum co-existing at that time.\nThey said, false statements made there cannot be the basis of perjury and we submit to that where that the situation here where the constitution forbade the Internal Revenue Service to get this information that they had no authority to get it.\nJust like in Christopher, the congressional committee at that particular time when there was no forum present had no authority to get the information, that there can be no basis on those circumstances of a charge of perjury of false statement.\nUnless this Court has another question I submit that's -- I believe my time is about up in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2354.545, 2360.606, 2372.206, 2377.691, 2398.688, 2428.705, 2445.293, 2464.03], "stop_times": [2360.606, 2372.206, 2377.691, 2398.688, 2428.705, 2445.293, 2464.03, 2472.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.545}, "reply_to": "14886__1_112", "speaker": "j_edwin_smith"}
{"id": "14886__1_114", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Thank you Mr. Smith.\nMr. Hamburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2472.816, 2476.208], "stop_times": [2476.208, 2480.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.816}, "reply_to": "14886__1_113", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14886__2_000", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "I'll be very brief Your Honor because most of the matters which been raised here are replied to in our reply brief, particularly, the question of the constitutional nature of the wagering tax laws as the Marchetti and Grosso decisions themselves expressly state the wagering tax laws have not been held to be unconstitutional.\nAnd therefore, there is still authority in the Government to require individuals to submit wagering tax returns admittedly if they will incriminate the individual, they may respond to this requirement by not complying and by -- thereby if prosecuted raising the privilege against self-incrimination, but he has no constitutional license to lie if he purportedly complies with the wagering tax scheme.\nThe counsel has mentioned something about differentiation here between this case in Dennis on a matter of this defendant not receiving any benefits from wagering tax scheme.\nWe submit that first of all benefits \u2013 receipt of benefits is not an element of the False Statements Act.\nIt has been since 1934 when the present wording was adopted and secondly that we perceive some benefit to be derived by under stating the number of employees one has in any event.\nAnd finally, we submit too that requiring returns is a definite function of the Internal Revenue Service -- a number of returns are required.\nThis one is required by particular statute which gives the Internal Revenue Service jurisdiction to require this particular return and once again, or whether or not this it so, the statute now before this Court is the false statement statute, and whether this individual should be prosecuted under the false statement statute.\nIf there are no questions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2480.235, 2506.901, 2543.563, 2556.409, 2564.832, 2581.206, 2595.89, 2626.385], "stop_times": [2506.901, 2543.563, 2556.409, 2564.832, 2581.206, 2595.89, 2626.385, 2629.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2480.235}, "reply_to": "14886__1_114", "speaker": "mervyn_hamburg"}
{"id": "14886__2_001", "conversation_id": "14886", "text": "Thank you Mr. Hamburg.\nWe -- the case is submitted.\nWe thank you for your submission Mr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_17", "start_times": [2629.118, 2631.013, 2632.887], "stop_times": [2631.013, 2632.887, 2634.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.118}, "reply_to": "14886__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__0_000", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Number 87, the United States against Kordel and others.\nMr. Wallace, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [0.0, 9.211], "stop_times": [9.211, 17.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__0_001", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis is a criminal prosecution under the federal food and drug laws.\nRespondents and Detroit Vital Foods Incorporated, the corporation of which they were officers were convicted after a jury trial on five counts of an indictment charging them with misbranding of drugs.\nThe corporation is not before this Court on present petition.\nThe sentences imposed by the District Court are summarized in our brief on pages 2 and 3.\nThe evidence showed that respondent Kordel was President of the corporation and the author of books and leaflets promoting its products and that he traveled across the country delivering lectures which were advertised and open to the public.\nThe writings and lectures claimed that specified ailments could alleviated by the consumption of certain foods and food elements and that the best sources of these were the products offered for sale by the corporation.\nThese products were sold in booths and/or near the lecture halls and were also available in health food stores generally.\nRespondent Feldten acted as Kordel's assistant selling products at the lectures and taking orders for shipments from Detroit.\nThe criminal charges were that as to some of the products certain of the books and leaflets constituted part of the labeling and contained false and misleading statements.\nAnd as to all of the counts on which respondents were convicted, the products which they claim to be merely food supplements were in fact drugs because they were intended by the defendants to be used for the prevention and treatment of various diseases and health conditions, and that the labeling of these products failed to set forth adequate directions for the uses for which they were intended as required by the act.\nSince the oral representations made in respondent Kordel's public lectures were relevant in showing the uses for which the products were intended, tape recordings of his public lectures were introduced into evidence by the Government at the trial.\nAt this point, I believe a summary of the relevant procedural chronology will be helpful to the Court.\nThe indictment in this case was returned in the summer of 1963.\nPreviously, in June of 1960, the Government had filed a libel proceeding under Section 334 of the Act to condemn quantities of the corporation's products as misbranded.\nThe corporation appeared as claimant in this in rem proceeding and filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.\nThe parties then served interrogatories upon each other, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.\nThe Government's interrogatories were served in January and April of 1961 and sought among other things detailed information about the labeling, testing, manufacture, and composition of certain of the products and about Kordel's oral representations concerning the efficacy of these products made during public lectures that he gave in Detroit.\nIn late January 1961, shortly after service of the Government's initial interrogatories, the corporation received a notice from the Government pursuant to Section 335 of the Act, indicating that criminal prosecution of the corporation and of respondents was contemplated in part for the same conduct that was the subject of the libel.\nThe corporation then in April 1961 moved that the District Court extend its time to respond to the interrogatories until final disposition of any criminal prosecution that might be brought.\nThe District Court denied this motion in June 1961, holding that their was no certainty, when or whether a criminal prosecution would be brought and that there is no prejudice in requiring the corporation to answer the interrogatories since the same information would otherwise become available to the Government in any event from the trial of the libel proceeding.\nPursuant to the Court's order, the corporation then filed answers to some of the interrogatories in September 1961 and filed specific objections to others.\nIn subsequent proceedings, some of the objections were sustained and some are overruled and the Government withdrew some of the interrogatories.\nThe corporation then answered the remaining interrogatories in September 1962.\nRespondent Feldten subscribed to all of the corporation's answers as Vice President and stated that they were true to the best of his knowledge and belief, but that not all of the answers were known to him personally.\nThe libel proceeding thereafter terminated in a consent decree, entered in November 1962.\nIn June 1962, after service of the interrogatories and after the corporation's initial answers, but prior to its supplemental answers, the Food and Drug Administration referred the matter to the Department of Justice with the recommendation for criminal prosecution.\nThe indictment was returned in August 1963.\nIn March 1965, defendants in the criminal case moved to suppress any evidence obtained by the Government as a result of the corporation's answers to the interrogatories in the libel proceeding or in the alternative for a hearing to determine the Government's motive in bringing the civil action and serving the interrogatories.\nThe District Court granted the alternative request for a hearing which lasted three days.\nThe transcript of the hearing, set forth in the appendix at pages 58 to 290, showed that at the time the civil case was filed, the Food and Drug Administration already had evidence sufficient in its judgment to establish all the elements of the criminal violations, but had not yet decided whether to recommend criminal prosecution that the agency determined that the in rem seizure proceeding should be commenced promptly in order to prevent harm to the public from continued distribution of the misbranded drugs.\nAnd that the interrogatories were designed solely for the purposes of the civil suit and were submitted as they are routinely in such suits in an effort to narrow the issues for trial and in the hope of laying the foundation for a motion for summary judgment or possibly inducing the corporation to agree to a consent decree by demonstrating the insubstantiality of its case which is what eventually happened.\nThe District Court held on the basis of this hearing that the governmental decisions to commence the civil suit and to serve the interrogatories were made in good faith and not for the purpose of procuring evidence for a criminal prosecution, and the conviction followed.\nAnd while not disagreeing with these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed respondent's convictions on the ground that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination of the individual criminal defendants have been violated by requiring the corporation to answer the interrogatories in the civil proceeding.\nThe Court held that it was constitutionally insufficient that the Government had acted in good faith in the civil proceeding and that none of the answers to the interrogatories had been introduced into evidence in the criminal case.\nIt held that the Government must also prove that it had not in anyway utilized for purposes of the criminal case, information or leads obtained from the answers to the interrogatories.\nIn its initial opinion, the Court of Appeals also reversed the corporation's conviction, but on the Government's petition for rehearing, it modified its opinion in judgment so as to affirm that conviction on the ground that the privilege against self-incrimination is available under this Court's decisions only to natural persons and not to a corporation.\nA petition for certiorari by the corporation was denied by this Court and a petition for rehearing is presently pending.\nWe contend, first, that the Court of Appeals aired in holding that respondents privilege against self-incrimination had been violated.\nNeither of the respondents had interposed any claim to the seized drugs, nor did either of them have a personal property interest in the drugs.\nNeither of them was party to the civil action.\nNeither of them was obligated or required to answer any of the interrogatories served on the corporation in that proceeding, and indeed, respondent Kordel supplied no answers.\nAnd respondent Feldten who did submit answers on behalf of the corporation stated therein that the truth of the answers was not known to him personally, so the answers did not constitute an admission on his part.\nAnd finally, neither respondent in anyway claimed that his privilege was being violated when respondent Feldten submitted the answers on behalf of the corporation.\nThe explicit language of Rule 33 dealing with interrogatories and the decisions implementing the rule make clear that when a corporation is the party served with interrogatories, the corporation is obligated to appoint an agent who without fear of self-incrimination can furnish such requested information as is available to the corporation.\nNo claim was made in the libel proceeding that answers to any of the questions were not available to the corporation within the meaning of the rule because the only repositories of the information were individuals who might incriminate themselves by disclosing it.\nNo individual is required under the rule to submit any answer on the corporation's behalf that might tend to incriminate him personally.\nBut the corporation which under this Court's decisions has no privilege against self-incrimination and cannot invoke the privilege of any individual on its behalf remains obligated under the rule to provide such requested information as is available to it.\nTo the extent that this obligation with the attendant risk that failure of the corporation to comply might result in a judgment forfeiting the corporation's property constitutes compulsion.\nIt is compulsion of the corporation which has no privilege and not of the respondents as officers or shareholders of the corporation.\nTo hold otherwise would be to overrule Campbell Painting Corporation against Reid in volume 392 U.S. and its predecessor decisions because compulsion of a corporation to provide possibly incriminating information can always be said to amount to compulsion of its individual officers or shareholders.\nThey cannot utilized the corporate form of doing business and yet claim a personal interest in the corporation's property only for purposes of the Fifth Amendment privilege.\nThat is the meaning of these Court's decisions and it was error in our view for the Court of Appeals to hold to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [17.35, 20.943, 26.621, 43.894, 48.54, 55.868, 73.069, 88.911, 98.07, 107.841, 121.905, 157.699, 179.648, 187.852, 194.792, 212.009, 221.908, 231.332, 262.723, 290.123, 306.264, 331.726, 342.674, 350.943, 356.932, 372.706, 381.821, 402.012, 407.297, 432.376, 439.794, 482.81, 515.711, 538.076, 561.651, 577.302, 594.251, 618.566, 628.889, 639.915, 651.414, 654.965, 667.27, 684.292, 698.732, 730.282, 750.04, 761.83, 782.012, 798.149, 810.685, 837.107, 850.691], "stop_times": [20.943, 26.621, 43.894, 48.54, 55.868, 73.069, 88.911, 98.07, 107.841, 121.905, 157.699, 179.648, 187.852, 194.792, 212.009, 221.908, 231.332, 262.723, 290.123, 306.264, 331.726, 342.674, 350.943, 356.932, 372.706, 381.821, 402.012, 407.297, 432.376, 439.794, 482.81, 515.711, 538.076, 561.651, 577.302, 594.251, 618.566, 628.889, 639.915, 651.414, 654.965, 667.27, 684.292, 698.732, 730.282, 750.04, 761.83, 782.012, 798.149, 810.685, 837.107, 850.691, 860.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.35}, "reply_to": "15183__0_000", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_002", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Was there any room to pierce a corporate veil in the Fifth Amendment cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [860.354], "stop_times": [866.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.354}, "reply_to": "15183__0_001", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_003", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I think that that was the issue in Campbell Painting Corporation against Reid.\nCertainly, the dissenting opinion is base on the view that that would have been an appropriate occasion for piercing the corporate veil, that was the closely held corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [866.614, 872.804], "stop_times": [872.804, 881.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.614}, "reply_to": "15183__0_002", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_004", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, it may or may not have been there, but would it ever be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [881.078], "stop_times": [889.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.078}, "reply_to": "15183__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_005", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It would be a departure from the holding that we've had consistently that non-personal entities do not enjoy a privilege against self-incrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [889.356], "stop_times": [902.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.356}, "reply_to": "15183__0_004", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_006", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Would there be in your view a violation of Fifth Amendment if these people had not been doing business in the corporate form but as a partnership and the same thing happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [902.782], "stop_times": [916.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.782}, "reply_to": "15183__0_005", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_007", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, they certainly could have claimed the privilege against self-incrimination as individuals, even though they were doing business as a partnership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [916.439], "stop_times": [924.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.439}, "reply_to": "15183__0_006", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_008", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [924.196], "stop_times": [925.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.196}, "reply_to": "15183__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_009", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "And --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [925.203], "stop_times": [925.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.203}, "reply_to": "15183__0_008", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_010", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "So assume a civil action started, interrogatories to the parties and the strap was that if they can't answer them, their property would be forfeited, compulsion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [925.36], "stop_times": [939.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.36}, "reply_to": "15183__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_011", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Now, that that's always a possible sanction under the civil rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [939.918], "stop_times": [944.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.918}, "reply_to": "15183__0_010", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_012", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [944.654], "stop_times": [945.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.654}, "reply_to": "15183__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_013", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "They could have claimed the privilege against self-incrimination providing it was adequately founded as to particular questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [945.268], "stop_times": [951.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.268}, "reply_to": "15183__0_012", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_014", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But wouldn't the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [951.825], "stop_times": [952.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.825}, "reply_to": "15183__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_015", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Just as respondent Feldten could have claimed in this case.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [952.37, 954.862], "stop_times": [954.862, 954.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.37}, "reply_to": "15183__0_014", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_016", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Wouldn't -- in order to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [954.986], "stop_times": [956.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.986}, "reply_to": "15183__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_017", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "As to resolve the answering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [956.11], "stop_times": [957.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.11}, "reply_to": "15183__0_016", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_018", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Even then that the compulsion, wouldn't that have to be that the forfeiture would occur as a result of a failure answers interrogatories rather than the strengths of the Government's case in the civil suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [957.909], "stop_times": [968.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.909}, "reply_to": "15183__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_019", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, that is true.\nThere might be some question as to whether the mere failure to answer the interrogatories and the possible sanctions that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [968.515, 970.2], "stop_times": [970.2, 977.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.515}, "reply_to": "15183__0_018", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_020", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Because I think not automatic at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [977.826], "stop_times": [979.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.826}, "reply_to": "15183__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_021", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Compulsion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [979.771], "stop_times": [980.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.771}, "reply_to": "15183__0_020", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_022", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That is not automatic at all, but you lose your suit because you refuse to answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [980.759], "stop_times": [984.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.759}, "reply_to": "15183__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_023", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It's certainly is not especially if you have a well founded claim of privilege as the basis for your refusal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [984.886], "stop_times": [993.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 984.886}, "reply_to": "15183__0_022", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_024", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I suppose many civil cases have been lost because of the disinclination of the defendant in the civil case answer some question which might incriminate him, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [993.138], "stop_times": [1007.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.138}, "reply_to": "15183__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__0_025", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "To the best of my belief it is so.\nBut as I said, to the extent that there was compulsion under the civil rules in this case.\nIt was compulsion on the corporation which has no constitutional privilege not to be compelled to submitting incriminating information, that's what the Court has held.\nThe rumor starts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1007.199, 1011.448, 1017.666, 1028.729], "stop_times": [1011.448, 1017.666, 1028.729, 1029.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.199}, "reply_to": "15183__0_024", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_026", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It could easily happen in a tax, civil tax case, that a defendant might assert the Fifth Amendment that he would take the risk of jeopardizing his case possibly by doing so and he might suffer the consequence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1029.416], "stop_times": [1046.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.416}, "reply_to": "15183__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__0_027", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.\nWe have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1046.45, 1049.059], "stop_times": [1049.059, 1049.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.45}, "reply_to": "15183__0_026", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_028", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It is actually corporation was the -- well, it's a libel -- the things were in effect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1049.195], "stop_times": [1053.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.195}, "reply_to": "15183__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__0_029", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It was an in rem proceeding, the corporation being the claimant was the other party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1053.421], "stop_times": [1058.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.421}, "reply_to": "15183__0_028", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_030", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Corporation was a claimant and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1058.069], "stop_times": [1061.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.069}, "reply_to": "15183__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__0_031", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "We have also addressed our brief to the broader concern which seems to underlie the decision of the Court of Appeals the question of fairness in the administration by Government agencies in this and other fields of their responsibilities under statutes which provide for the possibility of both civil and criminal remedies against defending corporations or individuals.\nOur brief discusses the practices and experiences of several agencies and articulates some general criteria which seem to us to be suggested by the leading cases in this field.\nAnd we also discuss the matter to which I would now like to turn our contention that there was no unfairness in the administration of the food and drug laws in this case.\nThere was in the first place an important need to protect the public from harm here as is frequently true in food and drug or in securities fraud cases for that matter, by commencing the civil proceedings promptly.\nIt was at the very least reasonable for the responsible officials to decide that this protection of the public should not await determination of whether a criminal prosecution would also be appropriate, let alone final disposition of any criminal proceeding that might be instituted.\nMoreover, it was important to proceed to judgment in the condemnation case because Congress has for good reasons referred to in our brief, provided in Section 334 of the Act set forth at pages 26 and 27 of our brief that the Government must obtain a favorable judgment in a forfeiture case before it can proceed by multiple seizures against traditional quantities of the drugs being marketed elsewhere.\nThe interrogatories served on the corporation were found after a hearing to have been designed in good faith for the legitimate purpose of expediting the civil suit to judgment.\nThe questions asked were relevant to the issues in the civil proceeding even though, the Court of Appeals seem to believed that some of them were not apparently because it did not appreciate the bearing of respondent Kordel's oral representations of the public lectures on the theory of the Government civil case, which dependent on proof of the uses for which the products being marketed by the corporation were intended.\nIn their brief, the respondents suggest a lack of fairness because the Government could have utilized an alternative procedure of seeking interim injunctive relief instead of the libel in rem.\nBut the same interrogatories would have been equally irrelevant to establishing the Government's case in an injunctive proceeding.\nMoreover, a judgment in an in rem proceeding provides more effective protection of the public because it enables the Government expeditiously to prevent further dissemination of the misbranded drugs by anyone holding them for sale.\nA final indication of the Government's fairness in this case is to be found in the fact that shortly after service of the initial interrogatories and prior to the corporation's answering of them, the Government notified the corporation pursuant to Section 335 of the Act, that criminal prosecution of respondents and the corporation was being considered.\nRespondents could thus judge whether providing answers to the interrogatories on behalf of the corporation might tend to incriminate them and indeed the not very revealing answers actually furnished and set forth in the appendix suggests that this consideration did not escape their attention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1061.431, 1089.575, 1102.078, 1115.461, 1133.896, 1156.364, 1193.745, 1206.464, 1242.252, 1257.864, 1268.113, 1287.697, 1315.196], "stop_times": [1089.575, 1102.078, 1115.461, 1133.896, 1156.364, 1193.745, 1206.464, 1242.252, 1257.864, 1268.113, 1287.697, 1315.196, 1336.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.431}, "reply_to": "15183__0_030", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_032", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Was that notice of the criminal proceedings required by the statute or was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1336.54], "stop_times": [1340.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.54}, "reply_to": "15183__0_031", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__0_033", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It is required by the statute in Section 335, Title 21 Your Honor.\nWe do not rest, however, on a contention that the Government learned nothing from these answers, a matter as to which it is generally difficult to sustain a burden of proof such as the Court of Appeals here imposed.\nOur position is that because the interrogatories were used properly and fairly in a good faith civil suit for the legitimate purposes of that suit, there is no more reason for preventing the Government from basing a criminal investigation on information learned thereby, than there would be for preventing it from basing an investigation on information legitimately revealed in the course of any other good faith civil proceeding whether between private parties or similarly involving the Government as a party.\nExclusionary rules in their various permutations have after all been held by this Court to be required only where otherwise relevant and competent evidence has been illegally or improperly obtained.\nAnd in our view, it would ill serve the cause of justice for the Court now to depart from that principle and we therefore ask that the judgment below be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1340.671, 1348.752, 1366.219, 1406.034, 1426.63], "stop_times": [1348.752, 1366.219, 1406.034, 1426.63, 1438.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.671}, "reply_to": "15183__0_032", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_034", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "What you considered there, I think in new cases of corporate privilege that causes involvement or absence to the Court's privilege is about when the rationality of the Court of Appeals' decision here could be brought on neglect or certification in this with that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1438.657], "stop_times": [1458.378], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.657}, "reply_to": "15183__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15183__0_035", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, the case has been relied upon in litigation.\nIn securities fraud cases for example.\nI'd been informed by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, I think that the food and drug and the securities areas are the ones in which the problem is most likely to arise because they are the areas in which the Government agencies most frequently find it necessary to proceed quickly with civil proceedings before a determination can be made as to whether criminal prosecution is warranted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1458.378, 1464.156, 1469.182], "stop_times": [1464.156, 1469.182, 1495.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.378}, "reply_to": "15183__0_034", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_036", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, by that I didn't make myself clear.\nWhat elements that are not present in this case would justify the lower courts -- it would have been necessary to justify the lower Court's decision in your favor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1495.355, 1499.109], "stop_times": [1499.109, 1512.384], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.355}, "reply_to": "15183__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15183__0_037", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well surely, the result would have been justified if the in rem proceeding had been brought in bad faith merely as a device for securing evidence to be used in the criminal proceeding or as an improper instrument of criminal investigation.\nI think if the hearing had showed that and there had been a finding to that effect, then the result would have been justified, although, we can't accept the rational that the violation was of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1512.384, 1534.74], "stop_times": [1534.74, 1552.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.384}, "reply_to": "15183__0_036", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_038", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "What case to this Court indicates that there would be, aside from Fifth Amendment problems put those aside, and what case in this Court do you suggest would for preclude the Government from bringing a civil suit deliberately for the purpose of using compulsory processes of the civil suit to gather evidence for a criminal case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1552.891], "stop_times": [1578.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.891}, "reply_to": "15183__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_039", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I don't think there is a precise holding to that effect, but there certainly is in the Procter and Gamble case concern expressed in the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1578.131], "stop_times": [1588.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1578.131}, "reply_to": "15183__0_038", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_040", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Would that be a constitutional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1588.228], "stop_times": [1592.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.228}, "reply_to": "15183__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_041", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It need not rise to that level in order for a relief to be granted in a federal prosecution of course, but we believe that it would present a question under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1592.018], "stop_times": [1605.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1592.018}, "reply_to": "15183__0_040", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_042", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Surely, Procter and Gamble I thought turned on the policy of the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1605.008], "stop_times": [1609.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.008}, "reply_to": "15183__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__0_043", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1609.216], "stop_times": [1611.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1609.216}, "reply_to": "15183__0_042", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_044", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Depositions in these cases be open in the public and therefore in Camera grand jury, but that seemed to turn rather on the policy of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1611.058], "stop_times": [1619.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.058}, "reply_to": "15183__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__0_045", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, that is correct and I should think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1619.882], "stop_times": [1622.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.882}, "reply_to": "15183__0_044", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_046", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I, I, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1622.051], "stop_times": [1623.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.051}, "reply_to": "15183__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__0_047", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "There -- there --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1623.059], "stop_times": [1624.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.059}, "reply_to": "15183__0_046", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_048", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "-- where do you get the notions of due process problem, constitutional due process?\nThis is no case that this Court has ever said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1624.043, 1629.241], "stop_times": [1629.241, 1631.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.043}, "reply_to": "15183__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__0_049", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, it amounts to a forum of the due process violation if the specified criminal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1631.935], "stop_times": [1639.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.935}, "reply_to": "15183__0_048", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_050", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Constitutional due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1639.036], "stop_times": [1642.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.036}, "reply_to": "15183__0_049", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_051", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "If the specified procedures in a criminal case are not followed as they were intended to be followed with the safeguards provided for the securing of criminal evidence elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1642.029], "stop_times": [1656.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1642.029}, "reply_to": "15183__0_050", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_052", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes, but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1656.145], "stop_times": [1657.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.145}, "reply_to": "15183__0_051", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_053", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I'm not -- I don't think civil interrogatories of the sort provided for in the civil rules would necessarily pass muster in the ordinary processes of criminal procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1657.798], "stop_times": [1670.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.798}, "reply_to": "15183__0_052", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_054", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "We're postulating the Fifth Amendment problem.\nIs the postulating no Fifth Amendment's issue, so what other Bill of Rights and provision is violated by using a civil processes for this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1670.026, 1673.441], "stop_times": [1673.441, 1683.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.026}, "reply_to": "15183__0_053", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__0_055", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, there may will be no constitutional violation in that situation.\nAll we say in our brief is that, it seemed to us that the Due Process Clause provided the more appropriate framework for considering this issues than the self incrimination provision of the Fifth Amendment in this case.\nI don't -- we didn't mean to concede that the Due Process Clause would be violated in such a situation.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1683.472, 1688.432, 1701.739, 1710.15], "stop_times": [1688.432, 1701.739, 1710.15, 1719.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1683.472}, "reply_to": "15183__0_054", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__0_056", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Friend.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1719.092], "stop_times": [1726.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.092}, "reply_to": "15183__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_000", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nBefore addressing myself to the two basic arguments of the Solicitor, I'd like to take just a moment to highlight certain critical salient facts which I think were minimized by the Solicitor's presentation, which support our contention that there here is involved an extraordinary example of unfair inquisitorial authority exercised by the Food and Drug Administration in a manner which we contend is adherence to civilized procedures in the administration of criminal justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1726.017, 1730.617], "stop_times": [1730.617, 1772.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.017}, "reply_to": "15183__0_056", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_001", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Do you rely on any statutory prohibition against, what you call unfair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1772.021], "stop_times": [1779.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.021}, "reply_to": "15183__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_002", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Your Honor, yes I do.\nI would rely upon the McNab Doctrine that this Court and the federal Courts have supervision over the fair administration of criminal justice which as I understand the Government's argument rises to the level of a constitutional right of due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1779.283, 1781.198], "stop_times": [1781.198, 1799.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.283}, "reply_to": "15183__1_001", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_003", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I thought you -- didn't the Court below decide this on the question of Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1799.982], "stop_times": [1805.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.982}, "reply_to": "15183__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_004", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "They decided -- it would appear that they decided that the question on two grounds.\nOne of which they articulated out, I believe more specifically than the second ground and the Solicitor apparently agrees with that.\nFirstly, on the Fifth Amendment and secondly, because of some of the cases which they cited in their statement of the -- of what actually had occurred in the complete and total co-mingling of the civil function and criminal investigation by the same individual at the same time.\nThat that somehow moved the Court to rely upon certain cases which they did rely upon to support the element decision that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1805.236, 1809.409, 1815.872, 1833.853], "stop_times": [1809.409, 1815.872, 1833.853, 1841.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.236}, "reply_to": "15183__1_003", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_005", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Are you relying on the constitutional point or the other or both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1841.658], "stop_times": [1845.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.658}, "reply_to": "15183__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_006", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Both -- both Your Honor.\nBoth, Mr. Justice Black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1845.156, 1847.038], "stop_times": [1847.038, 1847.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.156}, "reply_to": "15183__1_005", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_007", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "And your idea is that that something in Court thinks is unfair is prohibited by law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1847.709], "stop_times": [1855.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.709}, "reply_to": "15183__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_008", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I would say it's a violative of constitutional due process and also comes within the authority of this Court to supervise with fair administration of criminal justice other than McNab Rule.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1855.513, 1868.951], "stop_times": [1868.951, 1869.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.513}, "reply_to": "15183__1_007", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_009", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Now, let me while we have you stopped for the moment Mr. Friend, suppose you've tried the civil case, in the civil case instead of eliciting these answers by discovery, the same answers were -- the same questions were put to the individual officers here involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1869.375], "stop_times": [1889.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.375}, "reply_to": "15183__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_010", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1889.629], "stop_times": [1890.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.629}, "reply_to": "15183__1_009", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_011", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Would they not at that time have had the choice to decline to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds or answer as they did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1890.43], "stop_times": [1902.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.43}, "reply_to": "15183__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_012", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I think Your Honor the answer to that question is that at that point, they would have been a choice which they could make.\nIf they had testified, they would have been deemed to have waived their privilege.\nIn the instant case, they sought relief in the form of a protective order and then were ordered, that is to say as they would argue the corporation which happens to be the same two individuals, the corporation was ordered to answer the questions", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1902.974, 1911.864, 1916.355], "stop_times": [1911.864, 1916.355, 1931.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.974}, "reply_to": "15183__1_011", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_013", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, how is that different from having a question, refusal made in the Court room sitting on the witness chair, other than on Fifth Amendment grounds and then having a order from the Court directing him to answer the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1931.062], "stop_times": [1949.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.062}, "reply_to": "15183__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_014", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, in all of the cases that I've found on this, what has happened in the usual case and in almost every case is that the civil Court will stay the trial of that case pending the outcome of the criminal case if in fact the criminal case is either pending or eminent.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1949.092, 1971.538], "stop_times": [1971.538, 1972.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.092}, "reply_to": "15183__1_013", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_015", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But what if it's neither?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1972.066], "stop_times": [1974.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.066}, "reply_to": "15183__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_016", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "There are cases would say that if it's neither, if the Government does not have under contemplation of bringing of a criminal case, then there are cases which say that while the defendant must answer the question the civil case in the interests of fairness and to avoid abuse, the Government may not use those answers in the criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1974.834], "stop_times": [1995.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.834}, "reply_to": "15183__1_015", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_017", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Let's assuming if it gets to background of the Fifth Amendment problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1995.469], "stop_times": [1999.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.469}, "reply_to": "15183__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__1_018", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "No.\nNo, Mr. Justice White.\nThe cases go on the broader theory that it is inherently unfair for either the defendant in a civil case to try and get the Government's evidence by use of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where there is a threatened criminal case or a pending criminal case.\nAnd for the Government to interpose, propose interrogatories to the defendant to try to get the defendant's defense or evidence which will support the prosecution.\nAnd as a matter of fact, in the cases cited on our brief, in our brief, under the anti trust laws and as well as under the Internal Revenue Service laws, the case United States against Linen Supply Institute of greater New York, the Government had moved to extend its time and sought a protective order, just as we did, from being required to answer interrogatories which had been propounded to it by the defendant in the civil case and argued the very the same argument which we make, at least one of the arguments which we make here, namely that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be used by either side, where there is a criminal case pending, so as to draw from the use of the federal rules information which they would not be entitled to under the criminal rules.\nNow, we don't say and nor did the Court find, in fact the Court of Appeals specifically held that the Government may bring a civil and a criminal case simultaneously if the statute so provides.\nBut as we read the Court of Appeals' holding, they are saying that the strike a fair bounce between the need of the Government to obtain answers to interrogatories to pursue its remedies civilly, while that would be sufficient.\nThey could use the answers in a civil case.\nThey should not be allowed to use those answers in the criminal case.\nThey may bring their criminal case but they should not be allowed to use those answers because then we have a virtually uncontrolled situation where both sides, where there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [1999.498, 1999.804, 2001.598, 2016.734, 2027.452, 2080.888, 2093.429, 2108.789, 2111.012, 2114.966], "stop_times": [1999.804, 2001.598, 2016.734, 2027.452, 2080.888, 2093.429, 2108.789, 2111.012, 2114.966, 2127.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.498}, "reply_to": "15183__1_017", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_019", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Whether this is a really an argument that to the extent that there maybe discovery in a criminal prosecution.\nIt maybe, only that discovery which the criminal rules permit, you can't use the civil rules and they don't -- discovery in the criminal case or vice versa, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2127.82, 2137.113], "stop_times": [2137.113, 2145.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.82}, "reply_to": "15183__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__1_020", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That would be opposition Mr. Justice Brennan.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2145.869, 2148.164], "stop_times": [2148.164, 2148.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.869}, "reply_to": "15183__1_019", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_021", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "What would you say though, if the interrogatories here had not been signed by either one of these two men but had been signed by some other officer of the corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2148.989], "stop_times": [2158.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.989}, "reply_to": "15183__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__1_022", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Our position would be that if the Government had at that time a pending criminal proceeding, they should not seek to elicit through the use of interrogatories in a case which is identical to the criminal case.\nMr. Justice White, the case, the civil case was identical with the counts in the criminal case and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2158.336, 2171.24], "stop_times": [2171.24, 2179.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.336}, "reply_to": "15183__1_021", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_023", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Oh I know that.\nBut in the criminal case, let's assume that they had a criminal case going and they subpoenaed the files of the corporation not the files of the individual defendants, the files of the corporation.\nI suppose they could get it, couldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2179.334, 2179.877, 2193.469], "stop_times": [2179.877, 2193.469, 2195.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.334}, "reply_to": "15183__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__1_024", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I would agree with Your Honor that they could under the White case and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2195.308], "stop_times": [2198.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.308}, "reply_to": "15183__1_023", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_025", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, alright that they were getting no more, putting the Fifth Amendment aside, they were giving no more by getting corporate evidence then they could get in the criminal case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2198.896], "stop_times": [2208.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.896}, "reply_to": "15183__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__1_026", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I most respectfully disagree with that suggestion Mr. Justice White because even the District Court felt and the Court of Appeals made express findings with respect to this point that what they sought was not corporate documents, but what they sought was admissions concerning activities of Kordel.\nNow as Your Honor we'll recall the Solicitor made the point that the acts which misbranded these drugs were books which have been writing by Kordel, lectures which he had given.\nThere wasn't anything intrinsically wrong with the label itself.\nThe drug was not adulterated.\nThere was not a non-safe or poisonous substance being sold and what they did is that they choose the pierce the corporate veil themselves by the interrogatories which they answered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2208.639, 2232.325, 2244.332, 2247.441, 2249.058], "stop_times": [2232.325, 2244.332, 2247.441, 2249.058, 2261.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.639}, "reply_to": "15183__1_025", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_027", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Who answered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2261.284], "stop_times": [2263.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.284}, "reply_to": "15183__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_028", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The other defendant in this case, Mr. Feldten.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2263.449], "stop_times": [2266.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.449}, "reply_to": "15183__1_027", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_029", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Kordel answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2266.362], "stop_times": [2267.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.362}, "reply_to": "15183__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_030", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Kordel -- Kordel did not sign the interrogatories but the Court of Appeals says, that he undoubtedly and definitely participated in the decision to answer the questions which they were required to do after the Court have order them to answer the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2267.291], "stop_times": [2282.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.291}, "reply_to": "15183__1_029", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_031", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Did he claim any immunity on the ground of the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2282.079], "stop_times": [2286.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.079}, "reply_to": "15183__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_032", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, when the motion for protective order was made before the District Court in a civil case, while they did not plea the Fifth Amendment, the motion for the protective order clearly spelled out the dilemma which confronted the two officers of the corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2286.487], "stop_times": [2304.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.487}, "reply_to": "15183__1_031", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_033", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Did they claim immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2304.827], "stop_times": [2307.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.827}, "reply_to": "15183__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_034", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2307.282], "stop_times": [2307.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.282}, "reply_to": "15183__1_033", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_035", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Under the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2307.43], "stop_times": [2308.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.43}, "reply_to": "15183__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_036", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "They did not claim the Fifth Amendment.\nThey claimed that evidence to be given in the case.\nHe did not spell out the Fifth Amendment in those terms.\nThey said however, that incriminating information would be revealed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2308.732, 2311.846, 2314.686, 2317.429], "stop_times": [2311.846, 2314.686, 2317.429, 2319.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.732}, "reply_to": "15183__1_035", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_037", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Then didn't claim it, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2319.948], "stop_times": [2321.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.948}, "reply_to": "15183__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_038", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I would say they did not claim it in the technical sense, but I would not suggest that constituted a waive of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2321.692], "stop_times": [2330.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.692}, "reply_to": "15183__1_037", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_039", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2330.288], "stop_times": [2331.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.288}, "reply_to": "15183__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_040", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2331.191], "stop_times": [2331.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.191}, "reply_to": "15183__1_039", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_041", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2331.27], "stop_times": [2332.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.27}, "reply_to": "15183__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_042", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2332.399], "stop_times": [2332.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.399}, "reply_to": "15183__1_041", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_043", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That's why I was asking to follow, did they claim it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2332.664], "stop_times": [2335.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.664}, "reply_to": "15183__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_044", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "They didn't claim specifically, but their failure to have claimed that in my judgment would not be deemed the waiver because of the form in which they did ask to be excused from answering the questions.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2335.337, 2346.661], "stop_times": [2346.661, 2347.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.337}, "reply_to": "15183__1_043", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_045", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Let me ask you a question.\nSuppose you had a civil case started, no criminal case in completion or investigation and the testimony in the trial of the civil case satisfied the prosecutor that there was a criminal case which could be made out and then he got an indictment after the disposition of the civil case.\nWould you make these same claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2347.516, 2348.995, 2371.15], "stop_times": [2348.995, 2371.15, 2373.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.516}, "reply_to": "15183__1_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_046", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I would not make that argument under those facts Your Honor and I do not believe that that would -- those facts would have moved the Court of Appeals to reverse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2373.672], "stop_times": [2382.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.672}, "reply_to": "15183__1_045", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_047", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But then does the constitutional question you're arguing depend upon the motivation of the prosecutor in pressing the civil case first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2382.121], "stop_times": [2392.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.121}, "reply_to": "15183__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_048", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I do not believe a pursuit of the motive or the good faith or the lack of good faith is a fruitful inquiry for this reason.\nIn every case, where there was a criminal case pending or threatened that's parallel to a civil case.\nIt can always be argued by the Government that at least one of the motives in serving the interrogatories is to lay the ground work for summary judgment or narrow the issues and indeed, the filing of a civil case under the food and drug law is a relatively simple and common place function.\nAs a matter of fact, what happened in this case is after they filed the civil case, they did nothing to protect the public interest either by an injunction and of course if they had all the evidence anyway which they say had to bring a criminal case, they most certainly could have moved in with the temporary restraining order to restrain shipments which would have dried up the source of materials they wouldn't have to make multiple seizures.\nSecondly, they never made multiple seizures.\nThe case was settled by a consent decree containing Exculpatory Clause in which they admit it that nothing within the -- within that civil case would be deemed as an admission against defendants that they violated the law, and then by using the interrogatory, the answers to the interrogatories, I'd like to talk about that for a moment, by using the interrogatories, they accomplished exactly that which they said would not be implied by the end of the year of the consent decree namely the admission of guilt or evidence or leads to/from evidence concerning guilt.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2392.542, 2402.729, 2410.542, 2427.485, 2457.202, 2460.712, 2495.037], "stop_times": [2402.729, 2410.542, 2427.485, 2457.202, 2460.712, 2495.037, 2495.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.542}, "reply_to": "15183__1_047", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_049", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Friend, may I just add?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2495.599], "stop_times": [2497.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.599}, "reply_to": "15183__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__1_050", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2497.246], "stop_times": [2497.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.246}, "reply_to": "15183__1_049", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_051", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Suppose there's been no proceeding against the individuals either the civil case or in the criminal case, but the defendant in each, the civil case or in the criminal case, but the defendant in each, the civil and the criminal case had been the corporation only, would you be making the same argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2497.347], "stop_times": [2510.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.347}, "reply_to": "15183__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__1_052", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Your Honor, the corporation was a defendant in both --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2510.918], "stop_times": [2513.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.918}, "reply_to": "15183__1_051", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_053", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I know it was, but then -- along with the individuals, but suppose it was a sole defendant in the civil case and the sole defendant in the criminal case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2513.768], "stop_times": [2522.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.768}, "reply_to": "15183__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__1_054", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Sir, I would not make the argument on Fifth Amendment grounds but I would make the argument on the McNab or under reasonable and fair administrative procedures indeed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2522.218], "stop_times": [2533.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2522.218}, "reply_to": "15183__1_053", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_055", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "And under the rules, I guess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2533.254], "stop_times": [2534.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.254}, "reply_to": "15183__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__1_056", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "And under rules.\nI think its Rule 41 (b) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2534.407, 2535.186], "stop_times": [2535.186, 2536.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.407}, "reply_to": "15183__1_055", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_057", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "You think in that the Court of Appeals was wrong in affirming the judgment against the corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2536.391], "stop_times": [2541.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.391}, "reply_to": "15183__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__1_058", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The Court of Appeals -- I do as a matter of fact, I have a petition for rehearing of that denial the petition for certiorari as to the corporation which was filed in June and which is still pending before the Court.\nAnd one of the arguments we made in the petition rehearing is, that if we're right on this other point of unfairness, that is to say if the Court of Appeals is sustained on grounds broader perhaps than what they specifically articulated, then that would justify a reversal of the Court of Appeals' affirmance with respect to the corporation and I suspect that perhaps, that's one of the reasons why our motion petition for rehearing is still pending because there is a relationship between the two cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2541.178, 2554.71], "stop_times": [2554.71, 2585.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.178}, "reply_to": "15183__1_057", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_059", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "We have to decide this on basis perhaps.\nWould you mind of telling me upon what model principle you rely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2585.4, 2588.854], "stop_times": [2588.854, 2592.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.4}, "reply_to": "15183__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_060", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2592.933], "stop_times": [2593.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.933}, "reply_to": "15183__1_059", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_061", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "All of it.\nBiblical principles or religious principles you rely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2593.291, 2594.495], "stop_times": [2594.495, 2599.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.291}, "reply_to": "15183__1_060", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_062", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I don't know Mr. Justice Black, if I could slaughter into anyone of those categories, but I think I would rely upon the principle that was stated in US against Boyd, that no Court should decree a discovery which will tend to convict a person or corporation of a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2599.587], "stop_times": [2626.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.587}, "reply_to": "15183__1_061", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_063", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But that was a Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2626.286], "stop_times": [2627.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.286}, "reply_to": "15183__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15183__1_064", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But Mr. Justice Brennan, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2627.743], "stop_times": [2628.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.743}, "reply_to": "15183__1_063", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_065", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "And by motivation of fairness as my brother says, that's Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2628.735], "stop_times": [2632.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.735}, "reply_to": "15183__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_066", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "As I read Boyd, Mr. Justice Brennan, the holding of Boyd or the language in Boyd is somewhat broader than the Fourth or Fifth Amendment.\nIndeed, it goes to the point that there's even a possible Fourth Amendment violation.\nIt's an unreasonable search and seizure and the District Court and I know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2632.906, 2644.39, 2649.202], "stop_times": [2644.39, 2649.202, 2652.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.906}, "reply_to": "15183__1_065", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_067", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But did not -- but did not this Court in the Boyd case emphasized with great particularity that it was private papers, private papers that were being seized and cited a British Judge from a couple of 100 years before that man's private papers are among his most -- that his dearest possession, some language of that kind.\nNow, you don't have private papers here, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2652.269, 2675.964], "stop_times": [2675.964, 2678.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.269}, "reply_to": "15183__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_068", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the case did deal with private papers.\nBut there is language in the Boyd case which the District Judge in our case, who ruled against the us on this motion to suppress by the way, felt, suggests that the Boyd holding is broader than a Fifth Amendment or private papers in that, it's basically unfair.\nIt's violative of the public policy which is rooted, this is their language, rooted in historical and several concepts of Anglo-Saxon criminal jurisprudence that a defendant or a prospective defendant should not be required to disclose evidence to sustain the prosecution against them in a criminal case or his evidence of defense and in the fair case and in any number of cases, they make the point that this is not a manner of Fifth Amendment.\nIt's broader than the possible violation of a privilege of self-incrimination and that the issue is also whether the methods employed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2678.371, 2682.423, 2702.064, 2734.484], "stop_times": [2682.423, 2702.064, 2734.484, 2742.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.371}, "reply_to": "15183__1_067", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_069", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2742.84], "stop_times": [2743.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.84}, "reply_to": "15183__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_070", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "-- whether the methods employed in obtaining such an information show such unfairness that the evidence should be inadmissible apart from Fifth Amendment consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2743.465], "stop_times": [2755.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.465}, "reply_to": "15183__1_069", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_071", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Then determining it on fact is what I'm interested is what's my standards, what guides me if no constitutional provision and no law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2755.224], "stop_times": [2765.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.224}, "reply_to": "15183__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_072", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Black, I think the standard here would be when one views the facts.\nNo different from what the standard was in the McNab case or in the Reid case.\nWhat happen here, I think this should be stressed, is that the interrogatories were prepared by Mr. Josh Randolph of the Food and Drug Administration at the same time that he prepared a notice, notifying the defendants, all of the defendants including the corporation that their investigation revealed defendants' responsibility for criminal violations of the Act.\nNow this notice said, just that it, it didn't say we have it under considerations.\nIt says, our investigation, this is on page 105 in our appendix in the brief, investigation by this administration indicates your responsibility for violation of the act, and then they spell out the violation.\nNow, the same individual who was investigating and this was Mr. Randolph's testimony, he was in charge of the investigation the criminal case and he was in charge of preparing the interrogatories in a civil case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2765.831, 2772.462, 2778.297, 2807.198, 2814.46, 2827.001], "stop_times": [2772.462, 2778.297, 2807.198, 2814.46, 2827.001, 2838.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.831}, "reply_to": "15183__1_071", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_073", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Did that notice get delivered before the interrogatories were answered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2838.468], "stop_times": [2842.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.468}, "reply_to": "15183__1_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_074", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The notice was sent out on December 29.\nThere were received on January the 15h, the interrogatories were received on January the 9th.\nThey were virtually simultaneous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2842.746, 2845.481, 2851.47], "stop_times": [2845.481, 2851.47, 2853.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.746}, "reply_to": "15183__1_073", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_075", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, had the interrogatories been answered by the 15?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2853.06], "stop_times": [2857.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.06}, "reply_to": "15183__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_076", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "No, sir.\nNo, mister -- the interrogatories were answered in September, but because the motion had been made in the meantime to stay the answering of these interrogatories.\nBut what happened was, when he got the answers, he then made a recommendation, his second recommendation to indict that the defendants be indicted and to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, this within a matter of a week or two and as the record shows in discussing the matter with the Food and Drug Administration official in Detroit, Mr. Randolph being in Washington, he made it a point of telling the FDA official in Detroit who was handling the civil case on the local scene to be sure to send him the answers to the interrogatories.\nAnd when he said he would, and did, he then called Mr. Fowler in Detroit and told Mr. Fowler the he'd liked the send out another notice of criminal violation which is the fourth notice which they sent out, which now broadened the first three, they actually sent three out almost at the same time but the fourth one was sent out after they've had the answers and a second recommendation was made to indict these defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2857.914, 2858.556, 2868.527, 2904.313], "stop_times": [2858.556, 2868.527, 2904.313, 2932.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2857.914}, "reply_to": "15183__1_075", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_077", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I think, I may have diverted you from responding to Justice Black's question about the standards that he, so I tell you that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2932.362], "stop_times": [2939.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2932.362}, "reply_to": "15183__1_076", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_078", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I would answer Mr. Justice Black this way that the standard is a standard which depends upon the facts in any given case.\nI'm not asking this Court nor the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2939.714, 2952.967], "stop_times": [2952.967, 2954.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.714}, "reply_to": "15183__1_077", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_079", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But the standard, when you get to the facts, is it a natural law standard, something that's above the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2954.949], "stop_times": [2962.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.949}, "reply_to": "15183__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_080", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I would say, it's a standard of fairness in the administration of criminal justice and I was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2962.046], "stop_times": [2966.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.046}, "reply_to": "15183__1_079", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_081", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Who's to define the fairness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2966.811], "stop_times": [2968.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.811}, "reply_to": "15183__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_082", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I would say the Court should decide on the basis of the facts whether under our form of free Government, whether drawing upon the concepts of criminal jurisprudence which have come to us through the ages, whether it is inherently unfair --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2968.644], "stop_times": [2984.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.644}, "reply_to": "15183__1_081", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_083", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Through the ages you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2984.997], "stop_times": [2986.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.997}, "reply_to": "15183__1_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_084", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Through the ages, yes sir.\nMr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2986.551, 2988.466], "stop_times": [2988.466, 2988.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.551}, "reply_to": "15183__1_083", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_085", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That's -- [Attempt to Laughter] [Inaudible] standard, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2988.845], "stop_times": [2991.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.845}, "reply_to": "15183__1_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_086", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, the Boyd case which is still as vital as it was in the 19 Century seems to require that the courts to decide these -- some of these cases on the McNab case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [2991.784], "stop_times": [3008.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.784}, "reply_to": "15183__1_085", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_087", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "As noted, but decided on the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3008.989], "stop_times": [3012.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.989}, "reply_to": "15183__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_088", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3012.073], "stop_times": [3013.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.073}, "reply_to": "15183__1_087", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_089", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "[Inaudible] or both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3013.398], "stop_times": [3016.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.398}, "reply_to": "15183__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_090", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I think the narrow -- the technical holding of Boyd was the Fifth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment as I read the case Mr. Justice Black and the District Court here apparently felt that it's even broader than that.\nIn that there is something unfair in requiring a defendant in a civil case to and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3016.923, 3031.238], "stop_times": [3031.238, 3039.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.923}, "reply_to": "15183__1_089", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_091", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "What's unfair if somebody has violated the law and you have no legal standard which says its not unfair, what's unfair about the Government trying to get facts even by asking a defendant, you said supposed to be to violate the law, outside of the provision to the Constitution, what's unfair about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3039.843], "stop_times": [3060.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.843}, "reply_to": "15183__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_092", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "What is unfair about it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3060.322], "stop_times": [3061.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.322}, "reply_to": "15183__1_091", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_093", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3061.54], "stop_times": [3062.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.54}, "reply_to": "15183__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_094", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "-- Mr. Justice Black is that where there is a civil case, he is faced with what I would call a cruel trilemma, either a cruel trilemma, he must either --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3062.195], "stop_times": [3073.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3062.195}, "reply_to": "15183__1_093", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_095", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Trilemma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3073.044], "stop_times": [3074.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.044}, "reply_to": "15183__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_096", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Trilemma and the Court of Appeals made this point, he is then confronted with three alternatives.\nHe can answer the questions and lie in which event he can be guilty of perjury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3074.0, 3079.891], "stop_times": [3079.891, 3084.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.0}, "reply_to": "15183__1_095", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_097", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, of course this -- the law doesn't assume that a man would lie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3084.359], "stop_times": [3090.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.359}, "reply_to": "15183__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_098", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That is true, but that's one of the alternatives which he shouldn't be required to select.\nThe second one is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3090.133, 3095.467], "stop_times": [3095.467, 3096.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.133}, "reply_to": "15183__1_097", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_099", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, he would -- he is always required to do it if he asked the question that something when he's guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3096.574], "stop_times": [3103.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.574}, "reply_to": "15183__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_100", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3103.872], "stop_times": [3104.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3103.872}, "reply_to": "15183__1_099", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_101", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "When the only way he can get out would be to lie, I guess, that will always be the way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3104.25], "stop_times": [3109.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.25}, "reply_to": "15183__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_102", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, he could claim --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3109.56], "stop_times": [3110.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.56}, "reply_to": "15183__1_101", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_103", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "When absent some special privilege granted him under the Constitution, how can we get to what's fair, so as to make it a law, natural law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3110.072], "stop_times": [3127.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.072}, "reply_to": "15183__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_104", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I think the problem Mr. Justice Black here is that the Government is arguing a very technical and very mechanical interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3127.247], "stop_times": [3137.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.247}, "reply_to": "15183__1_103", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_105", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, that's different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3137.498], "stop_times": [3140.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.498}, "reply_to": "15183__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_106", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That is a different question, but it's related to the question which Your Honor asks for this reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3140.739], "stop_times": [3146.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.739}, "reply_to": "15183__1_105", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_107", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I don't see that it is because that is a Fifth Amendment which we are sworn to obey and enforce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3146.003], "stop_times": [3154.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.003}, "reply_to": "15183__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_108", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, McNab was not decided on any constitutional provision as I recall the McNab case.\nIt was decided on the basis that it was inherently unfair for --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3154.494, 3163.19], "stop_times": [3163.19, 3170.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3154.494}, "reply_to": "15183__1_107", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_109", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But it was decided, was it not, under the criminal, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and I should think in answer to Mr. Justice Black, we are of course, sworn to uphold and force the Constitution but there are also are statutes and in with particular reference to this case, there are Federal Rules of Civil Procedure created, promulgated, and laid down by this Court.\nAnd I suppose that there are somewhere irrelevance too and they're laid down for civil cases and the very specific standard to which it seems to me you can repair in this case is those Federal Rules of Civil Procedure having to do with interrogatories and pretrial discovery that are made for civil cases explicitly, the rules laid down by this Court and are not to be abused or taken advantage of for abuse that wrong use in criminal cases.\nYou don't need to refer to the bible of morality or anything else.\nYou simply --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3170.866, 3194.75, 3223.925, 3226.868], "stop_times": [3194.75, 3223.925, 3226.868, 3227.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.866}, "reply_to": "15183__1_108", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_110", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I agree with my brother about the rules, but which rule?\nI've heard nothing viewed by any rules.\nWhich rules sets up the standard of fairness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3227.263, 3230.134, 3232.689], "stop_times": [3230.134, 3232.689, 3235.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.263}, "reply_to": "15183__1_109", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_111", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Rule 33 and others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3235.676], "stop_times": [3237.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.676}, "reply_to": "15183__1_110", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_112", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, [Attempt to Laughter] thank you Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThere are rules as I now I understand the point there are rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which allows certain forms of discovery.\nOn the other hand, there are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3237.557, 3241.975, 3251.741], "stop_times": [3241.975, 3251.741, 3253.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.557}, "reply_to": "15183__1_111", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_113", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "But is there one which forbids what was done here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3253.24], "stop_times": [3257.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.24}, "reply_to": "15183__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_114", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I would say that the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which incorporates the McNab Rule, I believe, its 41 (b) into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3257.531], "stop_times": [3265.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3257.531}, "reply_to": "15183__1_113", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_115", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Does it?\nI never knew that before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3265.996, 3267.558], "stop_times": [3267.558, 3272.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.996}, "reply_to": "15183__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_116", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The rule I'm referring to has the effect Mr. Justice Black as I read the rule of granting the Court authority to supervise the fair administration of criminal justice and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3272.137], "stop_times": [3286.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.137}, "reply_to": "15183__1_115", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_117", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Which one is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3286.55], "stop_times": [3287.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.55}, "reply_to": "15183__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_118", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I believe it's 41 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3287.581], "stop_times": [3290.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3287.581}, "reply_to": "15183__1_117", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_119", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That's a search and seizure, no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3290.232], "stop_times": [3305.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.232}, "reply_to": "15183__1_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15183__1_120", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Your Honors, may I point out in that connection of fairness that in the instant case, an official of the Food and Drug Administration testified, that it was the routine practice over the past 38 years for the Food and Drug Administration to file interrogatories and then take the answers to those interrogatories and use them in the criminal case at the very time that the Court, the FDA was considering a criminal case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3305.371], "stop_times": [3331.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3305.371}, "reply_to": "15183__1_119", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_121", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well didn't the Constitution put a barrier up so that was the protection for all the citizens by saying that if a question might, it need not be one which is bound to incriminate you, but if it has tendency to incriminate you, you do not need to answer.\nYou cannot be forced to answer, isn't that the protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3331.972, 3350.755], "stop_times": [3350.755, 3354.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.972}, "reply_to": "15183__1_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_122", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That's -- that's a protection.\nNow, they seek to deny us this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3354.607, 3356.164], "stop_times": [3356.164, 3358.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3354.607}, "reply_to": "15183__1_121", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_123", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "How can you have a better protection in the matter an absolute right to refuse to answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3358.443], "stop_times": [3362.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.443}, "reply_to": "15183__1_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__1_124", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Except Mr. Chief Justice that in this case, they would deny us that protection because they say, technically the interrogatories were directed to the corporation which doesn't enjoy the privilege, and we say, and the Court held below that Kordel was the dominant personality, the corporation was merely a device, an instrumentality through which he sold his products, that the interrogatories would directed in his activities and that since they choose to get this information about him by asking a corporation the questions in effect since they have breeched the corporate veil and the questions that they asked, they shouldn't be permitted to repair that breech to deny Kordel his Fifth Amendment privilege and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3362.221], "stop_times": [3412.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3362.221}, "reply_to": "15183__1_123", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_125", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, had he asserted it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3412.039], "stop_times": [3416.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.039}, "reply_to": "15183__1_124", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_126", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That was I believe Your Honor asked me that question before and he did not assert --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3416.004], "stop_times": [3419.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3416.004}, "reply_to": "15183__1_125", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_127", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "You said denied his privilege --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3419.747], "stop_times": [3421.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.747}, "reply_to": "15183__1_126", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_128", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "He did not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3421.609], "stop_times": [3421.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3421.609}, "reply_to": "15183__1_127", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_129", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "As you said they denied and I base that on the question, did he assert it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3421.773], "stop_times": [3427.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3421.773}, "reply_to": "15183__1_128", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_130", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "He did not assert it but I think a more complete answer Your Honor would be that he did not waive it either because of the motion that was made at the time to excuse him from being or excuse the corporation from being required to answered the question.\nNow, what they say Kordel should have done?\nThey admit Kordel and Feldten had the Fifth Amendment privilege.\nThey didn't have to answer, but they say and this is the crux of their case, they say that the corporation should have appointed a third party, some agent, to answer the questions and in effect what they're saying is, of course the corporation could only act through a human being, they're saying that Kordel, who would himself had a privilege not to answer, should have appointed that an agent and then supplied him with the information to answer the questions which he himself would have been privileged to withhold.\nAnd they go so far as to say that there is an agent available, why is the corporations' Attorney, who happens to be me, that what I should do is sign the answers to the -- sign the answers to the interrogatories in behalf of the corporation.\nBut the only way that I could get the information available to the corporation is by asking my client, Mr. Kordel, the President of the corporation as to whom they sought admissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3427.594, 3443.203, 3445.393, 3449.396, 3482.16, 3496.458], "stop_times": [3443.203, 3445.393, 3449.396, 3482.16, 3496.458, 3507.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3427.594}, "reply_to": "15183__1_129", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_131", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, were you his lawyer at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3507.406], "stop_times": [3509.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.406}, "reply_to": "15183__1_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_132", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes, I was Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3509.054], "stop_times": [3511.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3509.054}, "reply_to": "15183__1_131", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_133", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Did you advise him not to answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3511.082], "stop_times": [3513.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3511.082}, "reply_to": "15183__1_132", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_134", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I advised him at that time Your Honor and we did file a motion to be excused from answering the questions temporarily, pending the outcome of the criminal case and when the judge, it was Judge Levin of the District Court, heard the argument, the Government represented to the Court and this is in the record, that there was no certainty when or if or whether or if there would ever be a criminal case so the Court said.\nWell at this point, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3513.337, 3540.59], "stop_times": [3540.59, 3541.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3513.337}, "reply_to": "15183__1_133", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_135", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "You didn't take a prosecutor's word for that order, representing the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3541.138], "stop_times": [3544.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3541.138}, "reply_to": "15183__1_134", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_136", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Well, I admired that in this case Mr. Justice Black.\nBut what happened is, of course, there might never be a case if the answers to the interrogatories didn't reveal evidence to support their position, but if they had a case, they should have brought it.\nThey didn't need the admissions either to lay the basis for summary judgment or to press forth on the case before it because is -- if they have all these evidence, they can go back and retry the case without too much difficulty.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3544.051, 3547.099, 3558.491, 3574.479], "stop_times": [3547.099, 3558.491, 3574.479, 3574.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3544.051}, "reply_to": "15183__1_135", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_137", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Mr. Friend, I have one question for this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3574.758], "stop_times": [3576.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3574.758}, "reply_to": "15183__1_136", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_138", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3576.571], "stop_times": [3576.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3576.571}, "reply_to": "15183__1_137", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_139", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It's not, if you don't mind, it is not -- it clear to me, what use was in fact made of the material that was acquired by means of this pretrial discovery in the civil litigation.\nWhat use was made of that material in the subsequent criminal trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3576.894, 3591.272], "stop_times": [3591.272, 3595.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3576.894}, "reply_to": "15183__1_138", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_140", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The Court of Appeals answered that question and I'd like to refer to the Court to not only with the Court of Appeals said but the actual transcript.\nOn page 142 and 143, I asked the question of the witness as to whether they anticipated difficulty in proving interstate commerce with respect to the principle product known as \u201cKorleen\u201d and the answer was that they had difficulty proving interstate commerce with respect to Korleen manufactured by a different manufacturer.\nBut with respect to the manufacturer that was involved in this case, they wouldn't have such difficulty because they have the answers to the interrogatories.\nSecondly, the fact of the matter is that these answers to the interrogatories, which they say was not necessary to get the indictment, was brought into the grand jury room as part of one file which they had -- to which they had put both the civil and the criminal aspects and the results of their investigation, that appears on page 192 and 193 where I asked the witness, and isn't true that you used to assists you in your testimony with the grand jury almost all the papers that were in that one file which had combined the civil and the criminal case?\nAnswer: I reviewed the entire file before I went before the grand jury, yes, sir.\nI had it with me and I used it in preparing for the grand jury, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3595.172, 3605.504, 3629.622, 3637.539, 3678.601, 3683.954], "stop_times": [3605.504, 3629.622, 3637.539, 3678.601, 3683.954, 3689.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3595.172}, "reply_to": "15183__1_139", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_141", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That was for the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3689.227], "stop_times": [3690.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3689.227}, "reply_to": "15183__1_140", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_142", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That was for the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3690.587], "stop_times": [3691.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3690.587}, "reply_to": "15183__1_141", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_143", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Good.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3691.762, 3692.34], "stop_times": [3692.34, 3692.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3691.762}, "reply_to": "15183__1_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_144", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That the interstate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3692.421], "stop_times": [3692.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3692.421}, "reply_to": "15183__1_143", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_145", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That part was directed to the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3692.559], "stop_times": [3694.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3692.559}, "reply_to": "15183__1_144", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15183__1_146", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "That was prior to the trial but with respect to the interstate commerce.\nWhen we identified the manufacturer of the Korleen, that evidence was introduced into the trial not on the form of answer to the interrogatory, that's true, but the information which they believe and the final answer is, in the Court of Appeals make straights laid great stress on this, it had been the practice of the FDA for 38 years, a practice by the way which is received a great deal of criticism in the administrative law review journal and other members of a food and drug bar, a practice whereby they bring a relatively simple procedure to follow a civil case, do nothing to protect the public either by summary judgment, multiple seizures or what have you.\nAnd then, put everything in a one case into one file and indict it first and that's what happened here and as the rights would inure to the benefit of the corporation under these circumstances as well as the individual because it's inherently unfair and uphold to the form of criminal procedure which we would like to see in our land to allow the Government to use --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3694.191, 3698.252, 3743.993], "stop_times": [3698.252, 3743.993, 3768.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3694.191}, "reply_to": "15183__1_145", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_147", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Where do you get that stand because its unhoard to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3768.385], "stop_times": [3773.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3768.385}, "reply_to": "15183__1_146", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_148", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I believe I got that from Mr. Justice Black, from a dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in the Abel case, US against Abel, and the -- I feel very --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3773.33], "stop_times": [3786.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3773.33}, "reply_to": "15183__1_147", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_149", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Was that referred to this problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3786.123], "stop_times": [3787.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3786.123}, "reply_to": "15183__1_148", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_150", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "It's a related problem in that -- the Court there was dealing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3787.977], "stop_times": [3792.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3787.977}, "reply_to": "15183__1_149", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_151", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "If you settings view of something to happen in that case, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3792.962], "stop_times": [3798.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3792.962}, "reply_to": "15183__1_150", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_152", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "As I recall that case sir.\nThat case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3798.084, 3800.511], "stop_times": [3800.511, 3800.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3798.084}, "reply_to": "15183__1_151", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_153", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I think I'd agreed with it, I'm not mistaken it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3800.67], "stop_times": [3804.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3800.67}, "reply_to": "15183__1_152", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15183__1_154", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "I believe you did.\nI thank you very much Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3804.478, 3806.499], "stop_times": [3806.499, 3811.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3804.478}, "reply_to": "15183__1_153", "speaker": "solomon_h_friend"}
{"id": "15183__1_155", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "You have two minutes Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3811.56], "stop_times": [3816.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3811.56}, "reply_to": "15183__1_154", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15183__2_000", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "The Government did not make multiple seizures eventually in this case and in administering food and drug laws the Government tries to avoid making multiple seizures of products that are not harmful in themselves.\nBut the availability of multiple seizures as a sanction after in a misbranding case, a favorable judgment is procured and a forfeiture proceeding can served as an inducement to get a consent decree that will eliminate the misbranding which is what we were seeking to do in this case and not to forfeit someone's property that in the absence of the misbranding should be allowed to be disseminated.\nThe record does not show to what extent Kordel and the corporation should be considered to be altered egos in the situation that was involved here, but it does show that the corporation never made any claim that the information requested was not available to it within the meaning of Rule 33 because only Kordel knew the information and he didn't want to disclose it.\nThe corporation never made that claim.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3816.77, 3832.946, 3862.661, 3889.15, 3891.774], "stop_times": [3832.946, 3862.661, 3889.15, 3891.774, 3893.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3816.77}, "reply_to": "15183__1_155", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "15183__2_001", "conversation_id": "15183", "text": "Thank you Mr. Wallace.\nThe case is submitted gentlemen.\nThank you for your submissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_87", "start_times": [3893.528, 3894.432, 3895.971], "stop_times": [3894.432, 3895.971, 3897.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3893.528}, "reply_to": "15183__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_000", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We'll hear arguments in Number 1093, United States against the Phillipsburg National Bank and Trust Company.\nMr. Friedman, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [0.0, 23.284], "stop_times": [23.284, 30.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_001", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis is a direct appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey from a judgment of the District Court there which after trial dismissed a government civil antitrust suit challenging the merger of two banks in the town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey as violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act.\nThe appeal presents a number of important questions as to the standards to be applied by the courts in passing upon the application of Section 7 to small bank mergers and also as to the correctness of certain rulings made by the District Court in this case in upholding the community convenience and needs defense that Congress wrote into the Bank Merger Act of 1966 as a permissible basis of justifying anticompetitive mergers.\nBefore discussing the facts in these legal issues however, I just briefly like to explain to the Court why the Government considers this an important case and why the Government has brought to this case a factual situation and on its face does not seem to be of the greatest economic significance.\nTen and 15 years ago, we had in this country a great wave of tremendous bank mergers.\nMultibillion dollar institutions combine, institutions involving hundreds of million dollars combined in the large metropolitan areas, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston and so on.\nAs a result of this Court's decision in 1963 in the Philadelphia Bank Merger case and a series of other decisions under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the focus of the whole trend of bank mergers has shifted.\nToday, we no longer have this pattern of large bank mergers in the big city.\nThose seemed to be a thing of the past because under this Court's decisions, these combinations and these very large highly concentrated markets are illegal.\nWhat we have instead is a developing trend of mergers along the smaller banks in the smaller areas and in the past four or five years, virtually all of the justice departments, bank merger suits have been brought against this type of merger.\nThe reason we have brought these cases is we think that since in the smaller marketing areas, the very nature of banking tends to make it a concentrated market, a relatively small number of banks and since in the smaller communities, as I shall develop in the course of my argument, the people particularly affected the small borrowers.\nMost of the small banks tend to be primarily concerned with small customer.\nWe think it's particularly important in these smaller markets to preserve for banking customers the available alternatives of choice that is to make sure that in these markets, they already tend to be concentrated.\nThey do not take place a large number of bank mergers which further reduce the available alternatives and that's why we think this particular type of situation.\nThis is the first case that has come before this Court involving so-called small bank mergers and that's why we have brought the case and we think it's an important case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [30.899, 34.431, 57.156, 92.016, 112.609, 119.843, 132.68, 148.326, 154.572, 165.488, 185.299, 207.675, 212.647, 227.378, 237.73], "stop_times": [34.431, 57.156, 92.016, 112.609, 119.843, 132.68, 148.326, 154.572, 165.488, 185.299, 207.675, 212.647, 227.378, 237.73, 246.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 30.899}, "reply_to": "14944__0_000", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_002", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There have been a quite a number of them in the Courts of Appeals, however, have there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [246.82], "stop_times": [250.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.82}, "reply_to": "14944__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_003", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In -- in the District Courts, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [250.894], "stop_times": [253.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.894}, "reply_to": "14944__0_002", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_004", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well then, they have gone to the Courts of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [253.577], "stop_times": [256.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.577}, "reply_to": "14944__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_005", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThese cases, we have lost I have to admit it, unfortunately, several of these cases in the District Courts, if we happen to appealed because these cases under the Expediting Act, all of these bank merger cases come directly from the District Court to this Court.\nThere have been other case, bank merger cases, involving other issues in the Courts of Appeals but there have been no -- none of the Government suits challenging bank mergers in the Courts of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [256.321, 257.661, 271.79], "stop_times": [257.661, 271.79, 282.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.321}, "reply_to": "14944__0_004", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_006", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [282.622], "stop_times": [287.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.622}, "reply_to": "14944__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_007", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Not to appeal.\nThere have been I think three or four of them but those involved somewhat different situations.\nThose in contrast to this case which involves the combination of two banks in the same market, direct competitors.\nMost of the cases that we have brought and decided not to appeal have been cases in which a large bank from outside the immediate area has come in and acquired a bank in the market.\nThe theory there being there was an elimination of a potential competition of the bank that came in acquired to merger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [287.167, 288.06, 293.85, 301.531, 312.161], "stop_times": [288.06, 293.85, 301.531, 312.161, 319.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.167}, "reply_to": "14944__0_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_008", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The situation is comparable with this Mr. Friedman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [319.265], "stop_times": [322.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.265}, "reply_to": "14944__0_007", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_009", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I don't believe there have been any in which have actually gone into trial.\nI think there are some that have been appending and I think there have been a couple in which we brought a suit in the merger terminated at that point.\nNow, let me with this background come to the facts of this case.\nPhillipsburg, New Jersey is an industrial community with a population of about 18,000 including the surrounding suburban area of the town that has 28,000.\nIt is directly across the Delaware River from the City of Easton, Pennsylvania, a larger city with a population of 32,000 and in the environs approximately 60,000.\nThe two cities are very close together.\nThey are connected by two bridges, one of which is free and other of which has a charge for commuters of $2.50 crossing.\nThere is a very close business and commercial relationship between the two towns.\nPeople go back and forth from the two towns to shop.\nPeople go back and forth to work and as a businessman in Phillipsburg described it, he said that the Phillipsburg-Easton area is in effect really is one town.\nLike so many of the cities these days, the central areas of both of these communities have not had much growth.\nIt has become rather stagnant in recent years.\nIts population has remained quite stable.\nOn the other hand, the surrounding areas have grown both in terms of population and industry.\nThe town of Phillipsburg has three banks.\nThe town of Easton has four banks, one of which is a branch of a bank in the Easton suburbs.\nIt is where the main office is located, a few miles away in the city, town of Nazareth, Pennsylvania.\nThe acquiring bank in this case, the Phillipsburg National Bank is the largest in Phillipsburg and the third largest in the Phillipsburg-Easton area in 1967 and these are the -- this is the latest date for which data are in the record, the assets were approximately $24 million.\nIt has its main office in the downtown part of town.\nIt has two branches in the suburban areas that had opened in 1964.\nThe acquired bank, the Second National Bank of Phillipsburg is the second largest in that town and the fifth largest in the Phillipsburg-Easton area.\nIt has assets of $17 million, a little less than that of Phillipsburg National.\nIts main office in Phillipsburg is directly across the street from that of the Phillipsburg National Bank and it has one branch in the suburbs again across the highway from one of the branches of Phillipsburg National and it says apparent from the facts that these two banks are direct competitors.\nBoth of these banks in recent years have undergone substantial growth and both of them profitable.\nIn the 10-year period from 1957 to 1967, Phillipsburg National doubled its assets and deposits and tripled its loans.\nIn the same period, 1957 and 1967, Second National increased its assets 82%, its deposits 86%, and again tripled its loans.\nFor the years 1962 to 1967, except for one year in which Phillipsburg National showed a deficit because of various accounting changes that are employed, each year it had substantial profits.\nAs to taxes, they ranged from $46,000.00 to $123,000.00 and over that same five-year period Phillipsburg National paid total dividends of $192,000.00.\nSimilarly, the Second National Bank in this five-year period every year has substantial earnings ranging from $35,000.00 to $73,000.00 and it paid total dividends in that period of $198,000.00.\nNow, both of these banks provide a full range of the traditional and usual banking services.\nThey accept demand deposits, savings and time deposits; they provided checking service; they make various types of the usual loans, commercial and industrial loans, mortgage loans, installment loans, consumer loans; they have safe deposit boxes, etcetera.\nUnlike the large city bank, however, these banks is apparently as typical of most banks in the smaller communities, have a much heavier percentage of their deposits in time and savings deposits and a much lower percentage of their deposits than the demand deposits because of the fact that this community just doesn't have the same kind of heavy industry that we have in the large cities and similarly, in terms of their loans, a much greater percentage of their loans were in real estate loans in the big city banks and a much smaller percentage in commercial and industrial loans.\nThe banking market in the Phillipsburg-Easton areas are concentrated one.\nThe two top banks, both in Easton have approximately 50% of the assets, almost 50% of the loans and 55% of deposits and when we take the three leading banks which include the Phillipsburg National Bank, it comes to roughly 60% of assets, 65% of deposits and 65% of loans.\nNow, as I have indicated, there is a substantial extent of social and commercial intercourse between the two towns and in addition to that, there is a good bid of movement back and forth between the Phillipsburg-Easton area and the surrounding areas of the country.\nThis was originally a rural farming country and as there's been increasing population growth and industry, a large number of smaller towns have developed and in fact the evidence shows that people who live in Phillipsburg-Easton frequently go outside of the area to work, that people who live in the outside area come to Phillipsburg, and that people from Phillipsburg-Easton go as far as Allentown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 20 or 30 miles to shopping, but, and we think this is critical and I will develop it in more detail in a little later.\nThe record shows that the two merging banks do the vast bulk of their business of all types in the Phillipsburg-Easton area.\nNow, with this as the background, I'd like to come to the decision of the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [322.771, 326.833, 334.896, 338.862, 350.892, 363.2, 365.251, 373.68, 378.784, 382.416, 392.891, 400.537, 402.665, 405.223, 413.105, 416.615, 423.746, 429.621, 450.331, 453.293, 458.337, 468.108, 473.631, 492.872, 500.051, 510.781, 523.605, 539.324, 551.971, 567.137, 573.198, 590.677, 629.707, 634.871, 656.955, 674.455, 708.999, 718.298], "stop_times": [326.833, 334.896, 338.862, 350.892, 363.2, 365.251, 373.68, 378.784, 382.416, 392.891, 400.537, 402.665, 405.223, 413.105, 416.615, 423.746, 429.621, 450.331, 453.293, 458.337, 468.108, 473.631, 492.872, 500.051, 510.781, 523.605, 539.324, 551.971, 567.137, 573.198, 590.677, 629.707, 634.871, 656.955, 674.455, 708.999, 718.298, 722.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.771}, "reply_to": "14944__0_008", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_010", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Does the record show how much business did the banks outside of the Phillipsburg-Easton area get from the Phillipsburg-Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [722.206], "stop_times": [729.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.206}, "reply_to": "14944__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_011", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It showed -- there are various statistics in the record as to particular banks, the testimony generally as in most instances, they get a very small part of their business.\nThey get some but in terms of percentages for example, the record showing that some banks get only a handful, though some one bank had testified they just had a three or four loans in Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [729.91, 739.934], "stop_times": [739.934, 751.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.91}, "reply_to": "14944__0_010", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_012", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, are we as far away as Allentown and Bethlehem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [751.773], "stop_times": [754.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.773}, "reply_to": "14944__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_013", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "A few of those, not many.\nI think for example in the trust business, they get more of those, but basically, I think the bankers themselves testified that -- the Phillipsburg bankers testified that the vast bulk of the business of the merging bank comes from this area and we also had testimony of a number of bankers from the outside area who generally indicated that the bulk of their business came from their area.\nThey all said, \u201cYes, we have a few --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [754.695, 756.591, 780.197], "stop_times": [756.591, 780.197, 781.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.695}, "reply_to": "14944__0_012", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_014", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Their area or from their immediate local --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [781.45], "stop_times": [784.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.45}, "reply_to": "14944__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_015", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "From their immediate location.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [784.121], "stop_times": [786.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.121}, "reply_to": "14944__0_014", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_016", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The area is the Lehigh Valley, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [786.387], "stop_times": [788.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.387}, "reply_to": "14944__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_017", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They tend to -- the banks in this area tend to pretty much stick to their own little preserve four, five-mile radius or something like that.\nThat's what the evidence seems to show in this case.\nThey don't seem actively to go out into the areas 10 to 15 miles away.\nThey do some soliciting.\nThey have some newspaper as to by enlarged, they stick to their own areas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [788.381, 796.86, 800.147, 805.341, 806.757], "stop_times": [796.86, 800.147, 805.341, 806.757, 811.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.381}, "reply_to": "14944__0_016", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_018", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Trust departments, how about their trust departments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [811.737], "stop_times": [814.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.737}, "reply_to": "14944__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_019", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The trust departments, the two merging banks have with all kind or rather inadequate trust departments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [814.396], "stop_times": [823.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.396}, "reply_to": "14944__0_018", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_020", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They already have trust departments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [823.018], "stop_times": [824.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.018}, "reply_to": "14944__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_021", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That is correct.\nOn the other hand, the bank in Easton, there's a bank in Easton that has one of a very fine trust department, and in addition, of course bank -- and there's another bank that does business in Easton that has a large trust department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [824.246, 824.963], "stop_times": [824.963, 836.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.246}, "reply_to": "14944__0_020", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_022", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "From Allentown or Bethlehem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [836.745], "stop_times": [838.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.745}, "reply_to": "14944__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_023", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There in Allen -- well, there's another bank, I think one of the banks that is outside of Easton, not in Allentown and Bethlehem that does trust business and has a branch in Easton and then of course the banks in Allentown and Bethlehem which are much larger than any of these banks have extensive trust business.\nAnd they do get, there is evidence that these outside banks do get trust business, of course, and this tend to be by enlarge the larger accounts, of course the trust business.\nNow, the District Court in this case basically I think we can fairly say made about three or four rulings that are significant here.\nThe Court in this case said that because a large number of other financial types of institutions are competing in the area with the banks that the relevant market for testing competitive effect in this case was not commercial banking as such.\nHe pointed -- the district judge pointed to the fact the two had saving and loans association, the two had finance companies, the two had mutual funds that were seeking to obtain the savings deposits of the customers, the two had finance organization seeking loans and the Court, therefore, has concluded that the appropriate line of commerce for the testing the effect of this merger was those particular services rendered by the bank as to which really there was no significant competition.\nAnd the services the Court included in its line of commerce with checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposits, personal loans, consumer and installment loans and commercial and industrial loans.\nBut then rather inconsistent with this theory when the Court came to evaluate the effect of the merger on competition by examining the concentration ratios and the increases in concentration, the court looked to the figures dealing with commercial banking, not with the subcategories of commercial banking which Court believed was the relevant market.\nSo what it amounts to, it seems to us, it's really kind of a dictum, the Court said it didn't think that commercial banking was the relevant market then it turned around and in fact tested this by commercial banking.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [838.46, 856.042, 866.007, 875.726, 896.943, 931.773, 946.714, 971.032, 983.343], "stop_times": [856.042, 866.007, 875.726, 896.943, 931.773, 946.714, 971.032, 983.343, 984.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.46}, "reply_to": "14944__0_022", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_024", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But you didn't say that explicitly that that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [984.15], "stop_times": [986.573], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 984.15}, "reply_to": "14944__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__0_025", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It didn't say it explicitly but the Court in its opinion discussed all the figures relating to commercial banking as a line of commerce.\nNow, on the geographic market, we have distributed to the Court this little, three-colored map.\nMr. Meyner in behalf of the banks has objected to the distribution of this map on the ground that this map was offered in evidence at the trial court and was objected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [986.573, 997.583, 1004.916], "stop_times": [997.583, 1004.916, 1015.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 986.573}, "reply_to": "14944__0_024", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_026", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, that's not the only ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1015.619], "stop_times": [1017.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.619}, "reply_to": "14944__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_027", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But that's -- well, he only claims that it was rejected because he claims it distorts --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1017.193], "stop_times": [1020.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1017.193}, "reply_to": "14944__0_026", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_028", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "This entirely, it distorts the picture.\nI must say when you indicate that there are no roads in between these city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1020.833, 1023.999], "stop_times": [1023.999, 1027.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.833}, "reply_to": "14944__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_029", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, we did not -- we did not intend to indicate that Mr. Justice.\nThis was just attempting to show the geographical area.\nThere's a patchwork of roads or extensive highways.\nThere's whole lot of little towns.\nWhat we -- the reason we submitted this is because as the District Court defined the market, the District Court listed about 30 or 40 communities and said I find that this is the market and when you just list communities, unless one is familiar with this particular section of the country, it's difficult to see precisely what is involved and we do not claim that this is exactly accurate.\nIt's just a rough approximation, but I think with the colors, it will indicate basically what is the area of dispute here.\nThe Government have proposed in the District Court that the relevant market could be one of two areas.\nEither the Phillipsburg area itself which is in that part we have colored pink, or the combination of Phillipsburg and Easton which is colored blue.\nThe defendants and the Comptroller of the Currency suggested a much broader market.\nThe District Court selected a market somewhere in between which is the part colored green which appears to be roughly four times the size of armored market and is also is shown by this map.\nThe District Court included in its relevant market the City of Bethlehem over to the extreme left and drew the line right between Bethlehem and Allentown even though Allentown is contiguous to Bethlehem and in effect is almost a continuation of it.\nNow, within this market, the Court concluded --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1027.058, 1032.166, 1034.792, 1037.88, 1039.551, 1064.343, 1072.974, 1079.246, 1090.045, 1095.914, 1109.611, 1127.502], "stop_times": [1032.166, 1034.792, 1037.88, 1039.551, 1064.343, 1072.974, 1079.246, 1090.045, 1095.914, 1109.611, 1127.502, 1130.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.058}, "reply_to": "14944__0_028", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_030", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What was the market urged by the Comptroller and the appellees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1130.69], "stop_times": [1136.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.69}, "reply_to": "14944__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_031", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The Comptroller was a market which was basically most of the Lehigh Valley, and most of this large section here, where it kind goes takes part -- it's again I would say another oblong thing around this market and it was included part of Bucks County, part of Huntingdon County, larger than we had proposed.\nAnd they also suggested the -- perhaps the entire Lehigh, -- Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, standard metropolitan statistical area which is an even larger --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1136.275, 1157.039], "stop_times": [1157.039, 1167.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.275}, "reply_to": "14944__0_030", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_032", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Reading is where, north up here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1167.498], "stop_times": [1169.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.498}, "reply_to": "14944__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_033", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Reading, I believe, is north of there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1169.42], "stop_times": [1173.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.42}, "reply_to": "14944__0_032", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_034", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Any of that is not in this picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1173.243], "stop_times": [1176.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.243}, "reply_to": "14944__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_035", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It's west on --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1176.385], "stop_times": [1177.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.385}, "reply_to": "14944__0_034", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_036", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "West.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1177.054], "stop_times": [1177.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.054}, "reply_to": "14944__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_037", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Justice.\nNow, within this broader area that the Court selected, it found that there was no substantial lesson of competition.\nThere was no trend toward present or future concentration.\nThe merging banks had only six and three quarter percent of all banking assets and after reaching that conclusion, the Court then said that that far as it was concerned really was the end of the case, but since the convenience and needs pointed have been so fully canvassed, it would also rule on that, and it then held that the banks had sustained the burden of proving this merger was justified by community convenience and need relying primarily on two factors that the merger would result in the lend -- the new bank having a much larger lending limit than the old bank and that it would permit the bank for the first time to employ a full time trust officer which would enable it to build up a trust department for which it found there was need in the area.\nAnd in deciding the convenience and need point, rather interestingly and we think erroneously, although the Court had used the broad geographical market for determining competitive impact, it evaluated the needs of the community solely in terms of the needs of Phillipsburg, not Phillipsburg-Easton but just Phillipsburg.\nNow, I'd like to turn out to the legal issues in the case.\nThe first one is the so-called product market by the commercial bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1177.589, 1179.453, 1186.189, 1189.903, 1239.573, 1260.446, 1264.639], "stop_times": [1179.453, 1186.189, 1189.903, 1239.573, 1260.446, 1264.639, 1268.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.589}, "reply_to": "14944__0_036", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_038", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But the administrative -- relevant administrative agency spread on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1268.611], "stop_times": [1272.904], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.611}, "reply_to": "14944__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__0_039", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, the -- as it's required under the Bank Holding Company Act, the matter was submitted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Company, the Federal Reserve Board and the Justice Department, all of whom advised the Comptroller in their view the merger would have adverse effects on competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1272.904], "stop_times": [1289.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.904}, "reply_to": "14944__0_038", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_040", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Advised them what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1289.843], "stop_times": [1291.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.843}, "reply_to": "14944__0_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__0_041", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That the merger would have an adverse effect upon competition and indeed the two banking agencies in their recommendation viewed Phillipsburg primarily as the relevant market.\nThe Comptroller held a hearing and after the hearing ruled that the merger did not have the anticompetitive effects primarily again because the Comptroller viewed the market much more broadly than the banking agencies have.\nNow, there's a -- the appellees argue at considerable length as to why commercial banking in this market is not the appropriate product and that the District Court therefore correctly rejected that line of commerce.\nAt page 61 of their brief, however, the bank's record that the Government in any event hasn't been prejudiced by any possible error in this thing and they admitted the issue is no longer really in the case because of the fact that in deciding the effect on competition, the District Court did look to commercial banking.\nWe have briefly discussed in our brief the reasons why we think that in this case as in all the banking cases before this Court, commercial banking is an appropriate product market within which to test the thing.\nBut in view of the fact, as I said that issue no longer really seems to be a real life or in the case, I think I will leave the discussion to our brief on this point.\nNow, coming to the first of the critical issues so far as the Government is concerned because we have to win on this case to seek, I would get a reversal here, and I might just add in passing that all we're asking this Court to do in this case is to reverse and remand to the District Court to reconsider the community convenience and needs defense under what we think is the proper determination that the merger had an anticompetitive effect in the relevant market.\nThe -- this Court in the Pabst case recognized that just as with products so in the case of geographic areas there may be more than one geographic area that is relevant.\nIn Pabst, the Court recognized that there were three different markets, three large markets.\nThe District Court said here however that said that it concluded that the relevant market, that was the word used, \u201cthe relevant market\u201d was this area that it had selected.\nNow, there may be situations in which this larger market is an appropriate one for determining the effect of a bank merger.\nIf for example, we have a merger of a bank in Allentown with a merger of the bank in Phillipsburg, that would be the appropriate market but we think that for the purposes of determining the effect of this merger, these two banks in Phillipsburg, that Phillipsburg-Easton together is a relevant market within which to evaluate the effect.\nIn its Philadelphia bank decision, this Court stated that in determining the appropriate geographical market, the proper question is not whether parties to the merger do business or even where they compete, but where within the area of competitive overlap the effect of the merger on competition will be direct and immediate and I will now proceed to show that this merger will have a direct and immediate effect upon competition in the Phillipsburg-Easton area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1291.134, 1302.986, 1316.723, 1333.386, 1358.124, 1372.859, 1385.5, 1417.135, 1430.653, 1436.005, 1446.333, 1453.584, 1477.2], "stop_times": [1302.986, 1316.723, 1333.386, 1358.124, 1372.859, 1385.5, 1417.135, 1430.653, 1436.005, 1446.333, 1453.584, 1477.2, 1510.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1291.134}, "reply_to": "14944__0_040", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_042", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Do you rule out the possibility that the merged institutions could expand their business to the outer perimeter of the larger area --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1510.974], "stop_times": [1523.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.974}, "reply_to": "14944__0_041", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_043", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, we don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1523.384], "stop_times": [1524.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1523.384}, "reply_to": "14944__0_042", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_044", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- by virtue of the merger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1524.25], "stop_times": [1525.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.25}, "reply_to": "14944__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_045", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We don't rule that out Mr. Justice but I think that again in the Philadelphia Bank case, this Court indicated that the critical inquiry is where the immediate effect will be felt and of course we're dealing here with potential entry to competition.\nIt doesn't have to be an actual injury.\nAll the statute requires where the effect may be and we think that if in fact, this has that effect in a relevant market, the merger cannot be saved because of the fact that the banks may be able to expand into the peripheral areas.\nThe figures we have, page 37 and footnote 29 of our brief, we have submitted a table which breaks down as between the different types of business, the sources of the merging banks business.\nThe deposit and loan statistics there contained showed that the banks do roughly 85% of their business in Phillipsburg and Easton as I have previously indicated in answer to a question of Justice Stewart that there's very little in the way of solicitation outside the area and very comparatively little done outside and similarly banks outside the area generally do only solicit in the area on rare occasions.\nIndeed the business is even more localized than that.\nIt seems to be pretty much localized within Phillipsburg and within Easton.\nFor example, each of the merging banks did only 10% of its business -- I'm sorry, got only 10% of its savings and time deposits from Easton.\nStatistics indicate that almost every one of the 85,000 families in Phillipsburg deals with one of the three banks in that area and numerous businessmen in Phillipsburg testified that they preferred to deal with a local bank in Phillipsburg than to go across the river to Easton.\nIt's not surprising that this business is thus localized because the vast bulk of the customers of these two banks are small people.\nIn terms of the number of deposits of these banks just under three quarters of a total number of deposits are less than a $1,000.00 and 96% of them are less than $10,000.00.\nAgain, in terms of loans, the percentages are somewhat smaller but nevertheless quite strong.\nPhillipsburg National had roughly three quarters of its loans for less than $2,500.00.\nSecond National had 58% and when you get to loans of up to $10,000.00, 86 and 94% are less than $10,000.00.\nNow, as this Court recognized in the Philadelphia Bank case, these figures actually reflected the realities of banking.\nBanking is essentially local.\nIt's locally oriented and particularly so for the small customers and convenience, the convenience of access to have your bank near you is the important thing.\nThe merging banks indeed themselves recognized this because as the suburban communities developed four or five miles outside the center of Phillipsburg, they open branches as there as the vice president of Phillipsburg National explained, they said that's where the customers are.\nAnd furthermore, the vice president of Phillipsburg National pointed out in response to a question that a great many of the loans that they make in this small town are based primarily on the character of the borrower and he said that a man where you have a loan made on a character basis, the people in Phillipsburg would find it very difficult to obtain a loan in any area outside where they weren't known.\nNow the -- the banks themselves in their business have recognized the integrated, localized character of the Phillipsburg-Easton market.\nPhillipsburg and Easton are in different federal reserve districts which means that normally, their checks would clear from different federal reserve clearing house banks and this would obviously cause a considerable problem so what they have done is they have established something they call the Easton-Phillipsburg clearing house.\nEach every three months or so, one of the banks in this area takes it turn to act as a clearing house for all checks drawn on banks in the Phillipsburg-Easton area and the president of the largest bank in Easton in discussing this arrangement said and this is in page 140 appendix, he said, this arrangement, I quote, \u201cseems to be another fact which indicates a closely-knit community even though separated by the Delaware River.\u201d\nAnother indication of the integrated nature of this banking community is the fact that for many years, banks in the surrounding area outside the Phillipsburg-Easton area were paying 4% on savings.\nAt the same time, the Easton banks were paying 3%, the Phillipsburg banks 3.5% but in 1968, when one of the banks in Easton increased its savings rate to 4%, very quickly, all the rest of them followed suit.\nNow, the significance of all of these facts of localization comes down to this that this indicates to us that this is the area where the effect of the merger will be primarily felt.\nThese are the people, the people who deal with these banks, who give their business there from whom the banks derived a vast part of their business.\nThese are the people to whom the elimination of an alternative source of banking will be hurt.\nThese are the people who are going to feel it and this is in effect in the language of the Philadelphia Bank case is where the merge would have a direct and immediate impact.\nThe basic error of the District Court, we think, was its refusal to recognize the significance of this considerations and instead its reliance on the fact that there is a great deal of business and worked mobility within the broader area, that is people will drive 15 or 20 miles to go to work, people will drive as far as Allentown and Bethlehem to shop but this case, of course, is dealing with the effect of this merger on banking not on other businesses and the fact that a man is willing to drive 20 or 25 miles to work, to buy a new suit of clothes, to buy a new sofa doesn't mean he's willing to drive 20 or 25 miles to bank.\nIndeed, all the indication in this record is to the contrast.\nNow, I'll just briefly like to refer to one contention that the appellees make here in their brief which is that in any event, whatever else you may think about our market, Phillipsburg-Easton is not an economically significant area of the country.\nI take it the argument is too small and therefore cannot be a relevant section of the country within the meaning of the statute.\nThey rely primarily on the fact that prior to 1950, the Clayton Act spoke of an effect, an adverse effect on competition in any community or section and that in the 1950 amendments of the statute, the word \u201ccommunity\u201d was deleted and they rely on a colloquy before the Senate hearing at which Congressman Celler, one of the sponsors of the Act, engaged in a long discussion with Senator Donald and they picked certain language which they suggest indicates that really Congress never intended to permit this small an area of the country to be relevant section of the country.\nNow, for whatever this kind of legislative history is worth, the testimony given before a Senate Committee by a member of the House who was one of the principal sponsors of the Bill.\nWe don't think it proves what the defendants believe it proves because at the end of this long colloquy, what comes out of it is that Mr. Celler said he believed that the phrase, \u201csection of the country\u201d means any trade area.\nThat's what they were talking about that one of the statute to be able to reach a trade area and we think that this area, Phillipsburg-Easton certainly is a significant trade area in terms of commercial banking.\nWithin the Phillipsburg-Easton area, we think that under this Court's standards that it has applied for determining competitive effect in horizontal mergers, the effect of this merger may be substantially to lessen competition.\nAs I have previously indicated the market in this, the banking in this area is concentrated, we have filed with the Court, this Xeroxed document which is a substitute for a chart we have at page 13 of our brief.\nUnfortunately, in preparing the chart on page 13, we derived some of the figures from the wrong exhibit.\nThe figures given in the narrative on the following page 15 are correct but we have just reproduced this to give the correct figures.\nThe market -- the three largest banks in the area, as I've indicated, have approximately 60% of the total assets, 70% of the deposits, 65% of the loans.\nThe result of this merger would be to make the new bank, the Phillips -- combination of Phillipsburg National and the Second National, the second largest bank in the area, it would have approximately -- it will have 19.3% of all the banking assets in the area $41 million, 23.2% of the deposits $38 million and 27% of the loans which is almost $25 million.\nThe share -- total share of assets held by the three largest banks would increase as a result of this merger almost 12% to 68%, that is from 60% to 68%.\nThe deposits would increase to almost 80%.\nAnd after this merger, the three largest banks would control three quarters of all the banking offices in the area, 12 out of 16.\nNow, of course, that's the impact of this merger Phillipsburg-Easton.\nThe impact of the merger in Phillipsburg itself would be much, much greater.\nThere, what we would have, is you'd have one bank with 75% of all the business, three times larger than the other banks, and this would eliminate for the people in Phillipsburg one of three banking alternatives and I think the anticompetitive effect of this merger in the Phillipsburg community is rather dramatically illustrated by the fact and I have to preface this by saying we did not make this argument in the District Court by the fact that under this Court's decision in the Grinnell case, it would seem that a combination which gives the combined firm 75% of the market violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act because you've got in one hands three quarters of the markets.\nCertainly, that is enough to control prices and exclude competitors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [1525.849, 1540.884, 1542.584, 1560.339, 1579.226, 1607.981, 1611.379, 1616.12, 1628.943, 1648.472, 1658.25, 1671.895, 1677.344, 1684.287, 1695.444, 1706.998, 1709.054, 1719.874, 1738.172, 1768.273, 1779.209, 1799.705, 1830.254, 1847.056, 1868.699, 1882.632, 1890.412, 1897.801, 1907.874, 1954.476, 1959.555, 1975.87, 1984.907, 2027.18, 2038.099, 2053.359, 2067.259, 2082.357, 2100.771, 2107.287, 2118.414, 2132.609, 2159.817, 2175.164, 2178.238, 2188.436, 2194.035, 2198.796, 2246.129], "stop_times": [1540.884, 1542.584, 1560.339, 1579.226, 1607.981, 1611.379, 1616.12, 1628.943, 1648.472, 1658.25, 1671.895, 1677.344, 1684.287, 1695.444, 1706.998, 1709.054, 1719.874, 1738.172, 1768.273, 1779.209, 1799.705, 1830.254, 1847.056, 1868.699, 1882.632, 1890.412, 1897.801, 1907.874, 1954.476, 1959.555, 1975.87, 1984.907, 2027.18, 2038.099, 2053.359, 2067.259, 2082.357, 2100.771, 2107.287, 2118.414, 2132.609, 2159.817, 2175.164, 2178.238, 2188.436, 2194.035, 2198.796, 2246.129, 2250.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.849}, "reply_to": "14944__0_044", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_046", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You're -- throughout, you're talking about the commercial banking business as the product, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2250.843], "stop_times": [2257.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.843}, "reply_to": "14944__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_047", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That -- we are because we think, that is as the district -- and we think correctly, the District Court treated that way and we think commercial banking is the appropriate one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2257.516], "stop_times": [2266.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2257.516}, "reply_to": "14944__0_046", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_048", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You haven't -- I don't know that you even mentioned the existence of the Bank Merger Act of 1966, have you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2266.747], "stop_times": [2273.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.747}, "reply_to": "14944__0_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_049", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I will come to that in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2273.252], "stop_times": [2273.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2273.252}, "reply_to": "14944__0_048", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_050", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You told us all about the Philadelphia case and whatnot which antedated the legislation and which indeed was the occasion for that legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2273.599], "stop_times": [2280.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.599}, "reply_to": "14944__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_051", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Justice, I will come to that in a moment in my discussion of the convenience and needs but this Court has held that the 1966 Bank Merger Act did not change the standards for the determining competitive impact.\nIt introduced the convenience and needs defense but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2280.937, 2294.317], "stop_times": [2294.317, 2296.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2280.937}, "reply_to": "14944__0_050", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_052", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And it also by removing what the reference in line of commerce, it implicitly recognized that there might be other competition for banks beyond other banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2296.898], "stop_times": [2309.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.898}, "reply_to": "14944__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_053", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, with all due respect to Mr. Justice we'd have to disagree.\nThis -- same argument, this same argument was made in the Nashville case and in the Nashville case, the Court stated that it did not believe that in the Bank Merger Act the Congress intended any change in the traditional standards for determining competitive effect.\nThese are considerations that may perhaps be appropriately taken into account in the convenience and needs defense but in making the initial determination --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2309.131, 2313.272, 2331.723], "stop_times": [2313.272, 2331.723, 2339.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2309.131}, "reply_to": "14944__0_052", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_054", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Of competitive effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2339.635], "stop_times": [2341.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.635}, "reply_to": "14944__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_055", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- on the competitive effect, we think the standard is the same.\nNow, I have one other fact which unfortunately we have not referred to in our brief but I think is significant.\nWhile we do not have in this market anything like the history of mergers that we had in the Philadelphia Bank case and some of the other cases, we do know and the record does show that the largest bank in Easton is the result of a merger in 1959 which point two banks with assets of $25 million each who joined to form this bank which in that time since then has grown 50% to its present size of 74 million.\nNow, I'd like -- I may then identify but I think it will be appropriate to just read, the Court is thoroughly familiar but the -- we think the facts I've demonstrated bring this case within the rule announced in Philadelphia Bank where the Court said that a merger which produces a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market is so inherently likely to lessen competition substantially that it must be enjoined in the absence of evidence clearly showing that the merger is not likely to have such anticompetitive effects.\nNow, if we're correct in our conclusion that this merger is bad in terms of its anticompetitive effects under these standards, then it seems to me, the decision of the District Court must be vacated and the case remanded to that Court, because the Court's balancing test that any anticompetitive effects were clearly outweighed by the community convenience and need.\nIt seems to us is vitiated when the Court has incorrectly calculated one side of the scales, as again in National Bank, the Court recognized, it said, to weigh adequately one of these factors against the other requires a proper conclusion as to each and we don't think the Court's conclusion if the very end of its opinion where the Court said at page 699 of the appellant that even if there were de minimis anticompetitive effect in the narrowly drawn market proposed by the Government, such effect is clearly outweighed by the convenience and needs of the community deserved by the merged bank constitutes an adequate evaluation of this factor.\nIt is not the kind of careful balancing that Congress intended before an anticompetitive merger could be approved.\nAnd therefore, we think the case has to go back to the District Court as in National Bank properly to perform the balancing function but since the District Court undertook to determine convenience in need and since on a remand, the issue would again arise, we have fully discussed this issue and we think it is appropriate for this Court to consider it but we think the District Court committed two basic errors in applying the convenience and needs standard.\nFirst, we think it used the wrong market area, and secondly, it misapplied the convenience and need standard in several particulars.\nThe particular provision, the convenience and need provision, is set forth at the bottom of the page 61 and the top of 62 of our brief and what it says in effect is that where a merger has the effect of -- may effect -- may substantially lessen competition, it cannot be improved unless the Court finds that the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed, clearly outweighed and the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2341.003, 2346.622, 2352.901, 2385.278, 2423.289, 2450.83, 2496.031, 2504.306, 2532.573, 2541.734], "stop_times": [2346.622, 2352.901, 2385.278, 2423.289, 2450.83, 2496.031, 2504.306, 2532.573, 2541.734, 2578.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2341.003}, "reply_to": "14944__0_054", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_056", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But what's happened during the integral convenience and the Government files its suit, is the merger effectuated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2578.831], "stop_times": [2586.391], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.831}, "reply_to": "14944__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__0_057", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In this case?\nNo in this case because under the Bank Merger Act, Mr. Justice, the filing of a suit by the Government within 30 days operates as a stay and then the District Court further extended the stay pending the determination of this appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2586.391, 2587.609], "stop_times": [2587.609, 2602.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2586.391}, "reply_to": "14944__0_056", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_058", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How long was this suit been pending?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2602.266], "stop_times": [2606.719], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.266}, "reply_to": "14944__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__0_059", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The suit was filed in January 1968, a little over two years.\nThe -- the basic purpose of course of this convenience and needs defense is to permit bank mergers to go ahead, go forward, which even though they are anticompetitive, produce such significant benefits to the community that on balance it appears that the public interest will be best served by sanctioning such an anticompetitive merger.\nBut it seems for us for this comparison to be a meaningful one, the community benefits resulting from the merger have to be assessed in the same area as the community detriments also resulting from the merger because in both instances which we're considering are the banking needs of the community.\nIn the one hand, you look to the banking needs to determine what the area is where the merge will have its effect and then you look and turn around on the other side and say what effect, favorable effect on the same banking needs will the merger have.\nNow, to be sure, they may be situations in which a merger will have an effect, a beneficial effect upon a segment of the community and that beneficial effect on the segment of the community, we're down to that benefit of the entire community.\nBut it does seem to us that while that is permissible, you cannot properly evaluate and sustain a community needs defense on the basis of benefits to a narrow segment of the community that do not benefit the entire community which is the relevant area for testing the impact of the merger upon competition and that we think is just precisely the situation we have in this case in terms what we think is the relevant market, the Phillipsburg-Easton market.\nThe Court as I have indicated relied upon two factors primarily as in a ground for sanctioning this merger.\nFirst, the higher lending limits that the larger bank would have.\nThe bank's lending limits turned upon its capital surplus, sometimes retained profits, and so on and of course, every time you combine two banks, you get a larger lending limit.\nEach of these banks had a lending limit of approximately $100,000.00 when you combine them with various accounting adjustments.\nThe new bank would have a lending limit of $250,000.00 and there was testimony that people in -- some of the businessmen in -- a number of businessmen in the Phillipsburg area would like a bank in Phillipsburg with a larger lending limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2606.719, 2617.589, 2642.762, 2665.126, 2681.141, 2702.798, 2741.794, 2750.833, 2754.765, 2766.224, 2774.248], "stop_times": [2617.589, 2642.762, 2665.126, 2681.141, 2702.798, 2741.794, 2750.833, 2754.765, 2766.224, 2774.248, 2789.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2606.719}, "reply_to": "14944__0_058", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_060", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Were there some evidence in the record as to how long the Phillipsburg or Easton businessmen have to go outside an area for a loan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2789.57], "stop_times": [2799.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.57}, "reply_to": "14944__0_059", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_061", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Relatively, there's no statistical evidence on that.\nThere are indications that some of them have had to go outside.\nIn some instances, the loans were satisfied through participations.\nThere some of them who testified, they didn't particularly care to go outside that they prefer to deal with the Phillipsburg Bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2799.71, 2802.971, 2807.675, 2811.485], "stop_times": [2802.971, 2807.675, 2811.485, 2819.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2799.71}, "reply_to": "14944__0_060", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_062", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Though there's a substantial need in the Phillipsburg-Easton area for loans in excess of the $100,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2819.279], "stop_times": [2827.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.279}, "reply_to": "14944__0_061", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_063", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Not in the Phillipsburg-Easton area, Mr. Justice.\nThis is the point I was coming through in Easton, there are four banks whose lending limit is either equal to or substantially in excess of the $250,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2827.082, 2830.268], "stop_times": [2830.268, 2840.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2827.082}, "reply_to": "14944__0_062", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_064", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I didn't ask you that.\nIs there a substantial market who may deserve substantial need in the Phillipsburg-Easton area for loans in excess of $100,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2840.852, 2841.863], "stop_times": [2841.863, 2852.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.852}, "reply_to": "14944__0_063", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_065", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I think there is a substantial need but there's no indication that it's not that the need for the big loans as not being adequately met in this area.\nThat is what I'm suggesting Mr. Justice is first of all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2852.328, 2861.511], "stop_times": [2861.511, 2865.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2852.328}, "reply_to": "14944__0_064", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_066", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, let's assume -- let's assume that there's a recurring need for loans in excess of $100,000.00 in the Phillipsburg-Easton areas, and one bank has a large lending limit and it could satisfy all that need and you would say that would be automatically an adequate answer to the community need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2865.58], "stop_times": [2890.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.58}, "reply_to": "14944__0_065", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_067", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I would -- I would -- I wouldn't say it would automatically be an answer, Mr. Justice, but I would say the need, the community need for an additional bank for these loans, if that's under that hypothesis, I think would be a relatively minor factor in assessing community convenience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2890.233], "stop_times": [2907.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2890.233}, "reply_to": "14944__0_066", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_068", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You wouldn't say -- you wouldn't say there would be anything in the argument that it would help the community that provides the company for a large loan limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2907.011], "stop_times": [2915.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.011}, "reply_to": "14944__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_069", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I think that would be a factor but I think it would be a relatively minor factor and I suggest Mr. Justice that on the other side of the balance, these loans that we're talking about are small -- involved a small number of people.\nThat the record shows that during the average year, the Phillipsburg National Bank had a request for 25 loans in excess of its lending limit as against some 5000 loans it had.\nThe Second National Bank, I think, average something like 17 loans -- had 17 requests a year out of some 2200 loans that it had, so in terms of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2915.388, 2932.06, 2945.685], "stop_times": [2932.06, 2945.685, 2955.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2915.388}, "reply_to": "14944__0_068", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_070", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "People will go and ask them if they merge, people will need (Inaudible).\nHow many loans do the larger banks in Easton makes an excess of $100,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2955.11, 2960.84], "stop_times": [2960.84, 2968.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.11}, "reply_to": "14944__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_071", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I don't believe the record shows that Mr. Justice.\nI don't think it shows that.\nBut the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2968.682, 2972.224, 2974.247], "stop_times": [2972.224, 2974.247, 2974.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2968.682}, "reply_to": "14944__0_070", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_072", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You have no way of knowing?\nThe record doesn't show what the need for larger loan is Phillipsburg-Easton areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2974.636, 2976.718], "stop_times": [2976.718, 2985.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.636}, "reply_to": "14944__0_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_073", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, there are exhibits showing as to each bank series of exhibits beginning at pages 725 which shows the percentage of loans coming from all of the different types of customers and the number of loans that's broken down into size.\nFor example, we have a group of loans of more than $50,000.00 etcetera, etcetera, etcetera and the percentages could be calculated.\nThe number of these loans for example --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [2985.179, 3008.019, 3016.12], "stop_times": [3008.019, 3016.12, 3021.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2985.179}, "reply_to": "14944__0_072", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_074", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, how can you assess this business of institution of lending limit without some information like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3021.994], "stop_times": [3029.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.994}, "reply_to": "14944__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_075", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I think you can assess it, Mr. Justice in two ways.\nFirst of all, the record shows that the number of people seeking these large loans is comparatively small and I think you have to compare that, you have to compare that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3029.94, 3034.439], "stop_times": [3034.439, 3048.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3029.94}, "reply_to": "14944__0_074", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_076", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The number of people seeking that you say is comparatively small, that's all you've said.\nThere may be 10 times that many seeking in getting them as in other banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3048.065, 3054.86], "stop_times": [3054.86, 3061.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.065}, "reply_to": "14944__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_077", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, but their needs are being satisfied.\nIf they're seeking in getting them in another bank from --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3061.016, 3063.586], "stop_times": [3063.586, 3065.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3061.016}, "reply_to": "14944__0_076", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_078", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But then you come up with whether or not it's a worthwhile at all the community to invite some competition in the large loan areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3065.746], "stop_times": [3073.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.746}, "reply_to": "14944__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_079", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I think that to the extent Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3073.059], "stop_times": [3075.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3073.059}, "reply_to": "14944__0_078", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_080", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, if you got those, they could be irrelevant you can promulgate this consideration to the sort of frivolous count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3075.094], "stop_times": [3086.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.094}, "reply_to": "14944__0_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_081", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No I'm not suggesting -- I'm not suggesting it's frivolous Mr. Justice but I do think that we do know that there are four large banks in Easton, so in the broader Phillipsburg-Easton area, there is no lack of competition.\nThese are four large banks, each one of whom could provide a loan limit either equal to that of the merged banks or substantially greater.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3086.313, 3098.306], "stop_times": [3098.306, 3107.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3086.313}, "reply_to": "14944__0_080", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_082", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Four banks in Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3107.462], "stop_times": [3108.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.462}, "reply_to": "14944__0_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_083", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, four banks in Easton whose lending limits ranged from $224,000.00 to $587,000.00 I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3108.907], "stop_times": [3122.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3108.907}, "reply_to": "14944__0_082", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_084", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The largest banks and the limit is about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3122.898], "stop_times": [3126.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.898}, "reply_to": "14944__0_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_085", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "$587,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3126.494], "stop_times": [3129.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3126.494}, "reply_to": "14944__0_084", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_086", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3129.04], "stop_times": [3129.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.04}, "reply_to": "14944__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_087", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In Easton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3129.72], "stop_times": [3133.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3129.72}, "reply_to": "14944__0_086", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_088", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How many banks can lend more than a quarter of a million in Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3133.414], "stop_times": [3138.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.414}, "reply_to": "14944__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_089", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Three and one can lend $224,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3138.66], "stop_times": [3143.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3138.66}, "reply_to": "14944__0_088", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_090", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And how many in Phillipsburg over a quarter of a million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3143.538], "stop_times": [3148.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.538}, "reply_to": "14944__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__0_091", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "None.\nThe three banks, their maximum limit is approximately, roughly, a $100,000.00 in Phillipsburg.\nAnd Mr. Justice, let me come to say one other thing in this connection which is that there may be other ways of course of increasing lending limits beside combining the two banks into a bank.\nWe've discussed this at some length in our brief, banks that sell stocks.\nSome of the banks in this area have to sell stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3148.29, 3149.028, 3157.652, 3171.645, 3176.373], "stop_times": [3149.028, 3157.652, 3171.645, 3176.373, 3179.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3148.29}, "reply_to": "14944__0_090", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_092", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But you're not suggesting the community needs back there must exclude (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3179.244], "stop_times": [3188.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.244}, "reply_to": "14944__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_093", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, I'm not suggesting that but I'm suggesting that in considering --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3188.623], "stop_times": [3193.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3188.623}, "reply_to": "14944__0_092", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_094", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Let's assume that there weren't anything that had lending limits over $100,000.00 and a lot of businessmen went outside for large loans, what would you say about the lending limit argument then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3193.049], "stop_times": [3211.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.049}, "reply_to": "14944__0_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_095", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I think the lending limit is arguably a stronger one but even then, I'm not sure that basically, that convenience and need goes so far as to permit the elimination of competition.\nI think it depends upon, you have to balance on the one hand what the effect is on competition, on the other hand balance what the benefits to community are and in concerning benefits to the community, I think it's appropriate and it's necessary to consider other ways by which the banks could help solve these problems and notice that there was no other way in which they could increase their lending limits except through a merger and if it further appear that there are businessman in Phillipsburg-Easton area that were suffering because they couldn't get the money, it seems to me that would be a very significant factor.\nOn the other hand, if it turns out and I might mention that some of the businessmen here in this record, for example, we had a witness who was an official of a gas company who was saying that he wanted -- he like the larger lending limit in the Phillipsburg area, then he admitted however that since his lending demand for about $2 million, there's no bank in the area that could satisfy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3211.177, 3223.584, 3259.051], "stop_times": [3223.584, 3259.051, 3281.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3211.177}, "reply_to": "14944__0_094", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_096", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, then I take it you clearly very well would, don't you have to concede that the very small market area here in Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3281.048], "stop_times": [3293.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.048}, "reply_to": "14944__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_097", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't say that Mr. Justice.\nLet me explain why because in the Phillipsburg --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3293.818, 3296.545], "stop_times": [3296.545, 3299.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3293.818}, "reply_to": "14944__0_096", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_098", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Even if it is arguable by saying that the need for larger loan is satisfied outside the relevant market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3299.675], "stop_times": [3306.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3299.675}, "reply_to": "14944__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_099", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, this is in Iowa, we think in Phillipsburg-Easton, if on the other hand, you're doing in Phillipsburg --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3306.621], "stop_times": [3312.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3306.621}, "reply_to": "14944__0_098", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_100", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3312.924], "stop_times": [3314.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.924}, "reply_to": "14944__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_101", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No the other side of the equation in Phillipsburg the anticompetitive effects of the merger are very drastic.\nThere you have a very drastic effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3314.249, 3321.18], "stop_times": [3321.18, 3324.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3314.249}, "reply_to": "14944__0_100", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_102", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What is the population of Phillipsburg and what of Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3324.765], "stop_times": [3329.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.765}, "reply_to": "14944__0_101", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__0_103", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Phillipsburg itself is 18,000, the broader area, the surrounding area is 28,000.\nEaston has a population of 32,000 and the surrounding area 60,000.\nSo Phillipsburg and Easton together is just under 100,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3329.552, 3336.862, 3342.05], "stop_times": [3336.862, 3342.05, 3346.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3329.552}, "reply_to": "14944__0_102", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_104", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How far is Easton from Phillipsburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3346.47], "stop_times": [3348.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.47}, "reply_to": "14944__0_103", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__0_105", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Roughly half a mile.\nThey're on opposite sides of the Delaware River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3348.995, 3350.25], "stop_times": [3350.25, 3353.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3348.995}, "reply_to": "14944__0_104", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_106", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They have bridge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3353.009], "stop_times": [3355.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.009}, "reply_to": "14944__0_105", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__0_107", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Two bridges.\nOne free bridge and one bridge where you buy tickets at a cost of $2.50 per ride and there's extensive traffic back and forth.\nNow, I'd also like to point out that the Court's evaluation of the community convenience and needs defense was defective in another respect that it doesn't appear that either the banks or the Court adequately explored the possibility of ultimate methods of achieving this same benefits.\nFor example, at the time of this merger, New Jersey law permitted banks to merge within their own county.\nAnd in Warren County where Phillipsburg is located, there were at that time six other banks which would have been available to these banks as merger.\nIn the City of Washington, about 12 miles away, there were two banks of roughly comparable size.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3355.904, 3356.529, 3369.939, 3394.873, 3405.319, 3414.892], "stop_times": [3356.529, 3369.939, 3394.873, 3405.319, 3414.892, 3421.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3355.904}, "reply_to": "14944__0_106", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_108", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Washington is way over in western Pennsylvania.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3421.821], "stop_times": [3424.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3421.821}, "reply_to": "14944__0_107", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_109", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But it's Washington, New Jersey Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3424.552], "stop_times": [3425.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3424.552}, "reply_to": "14944__0_108", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_110", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Oh!", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3425.99], "stop_times": [3427.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3425.99}, "reply_to": "14944__0_109", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__0_111", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Small town in New Jersey.\nTwo banks approximately 12, 13 miles away, both of the same size, roughly as this merging banks yet the indication is, the record shows that directors never considered the possibility of merging with those other banks.\nIn addition to that, we have one bank in Flemington, New Jersey where the president testified that over the years, this bank had followed a policy of not paying out cash dividends.\nHe said we plowed back our dividends in order to meet the growing requirements of our community and despite this lack of payment of cash dividends, they recently made a substantial stock offering that was 50% over what was described and in addition, the third bank in Phillipsburg, the Phillipsburg Trust Company for many years had filed a practice of paying only stock dividends and not cash dividends in order to build up its capital structure.\nI think this should be contrasted with the statement of Mr. Vargo, the vice president of Phillipsburg National when he said that the bank at the present time couldn't hire three specialists that they would like to have.\nHe said, it will be expensive and it would be a burden in our profits and the dividends for our shareholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3427.314, 3429.703, 3447.203, 3460.625, 3487.515, 3499.997], "stop_times": [3429.703, 3447.203, 3460.625, 3487.515, 3499.997, 3507.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3427.314}, "reply_to": "14944__0_110", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_112", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How far is Phillipsburg from the New Jersey line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3507.79], "stop_times": [3510.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.79}, "reply_to": "14944__0_111", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__0_113", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Phillipsburg is right after New Jersey line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3510.904], "stop_times": [3513.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3510.904}, "reply_to": "14944__0_112", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_114", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Right at the river?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3513.236], "stop_times": [3514.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.236}, "reply_to": "14944__0_113", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__0_115", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "At the river.\nThe river separates the two states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3514.102, 3514.791], "stop_times": [3514.791, 3519.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3514.102}, "reply_to": "14944__0_114", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_116", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I know you said at the beginning, I wanted you to say but what is the public interest in its original language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3519.001], "stop_times": [3528.397], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3519.001}, "reply_to": "14944__0_115", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__0_117", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In this type of case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3528.397], "stop_times": [3530.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3528.397}, "reply_to": "14944__0_116", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_118", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3530.008], "stop_times": [3530.502], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3530.008}, "reply_to": "14944__0_117", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__0_119", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The type of the public interest in this type of a case Mr. Justice, I think is preserving for the large number of small bank customers in the small areas the opportunity to preserve the availability of competing sources of bank business.\nThat is to make sure that these people have the maximum choice.\nAnd of course banking by its very nature in these small towns does tend to be somewhat concentrated and you have the problem in the bank situation.\nIt's very difficult to get in and you can't just open a bank the way you open a store.\nYou have to get the approval of the various regulatory authorities and once a bank is merged out, once it disappears, that's likely to be the end of it and the result is that if this merger goes ahead, the competitive opportunities for the small people in this market, we think, will be significantly diminished and that's why we brought this case here and that's why we're urging this Court to reverse it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3530.502, 3549.79, 3553.099, 3562.741, 3566.797], "stop_times": [3549.79, 3553.099, 3562.741, 3566.797, 3589.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3530.502}, "reply_to": "14944__0_118", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_120", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Do you suggest we don't -- technically, we don't need to get to the community need thing at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3589.654], "stop_times": [3595.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3589.654}, "reply_to": "14944__0_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_121", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Technically, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3595.118], "stop_times": [3596.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3595.118}, "reply_to": "14944__0_120", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_122", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But you think that if we agreed with you on this competitive standard on the competitive effect and while we might and if the District Court made an error in applying the community needs that you suggest we should tell them now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3596.954], "stop_times": [3613.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3596.954}, "reply_to": "14944__0_121", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_123", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I would think so since the case would have to go back and that is the practice in this Court one has followed where it said since the cases had to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3613.511], "stop_times": [3622.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3613.511}, "reply_to": "14944__0_122", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_124", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But before we can tell -- but before we can agree with you on the competitive effect, we would in the long run have to get to the relevant market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3622.075], "stop_times": [3634.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3622.075}, "reply_to": "14944__0_123", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_125", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Oh yes, you'd have to -- the Court would have to agree with us --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3634.502], "stop_times": [3637.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3634.502}, "reply_to": "14944__0_124", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_126", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Both geographic and product.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3637.159], "stop_times": [3639.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3637.159}, "reply_to": "14944__0_125", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_127", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3639.168], "stop_times": [3639.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3639.168}, "reply_to": "14944__0_126", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_128", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Both geographic and product that we'd have to get to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3639.969], "stop_times": [3643.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3639.969}, "reply_to": "14944__0_127", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_129", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, except that the District Court apparently was going to decide the case on the basis of product market, that is that if the Court did decide the case on the basis that we think commercial banking was a relevant market and we think that was correct the reasons we have given in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3643.177], "stop_times": [3661.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3643.177}, "reply_to": "14944__0_128", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_130", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I know but what we thought commercial banking wasn't that relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3661.682], "stop_times": [3669.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3661.682}, "reply_to": "14944__0_129", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_131", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, if you thought of course the other side hasn't appeal from that ruling and if you thought commercial banking was not the relevant market, I suppose, it would be then appropriate to remand the case to the District Court to develop some more evidence as to what was the appropriate market because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3669.671], "stop_times": [3686.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3669.671}, "reply_to": "14944__0_130", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_132", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I suppose this result would follow a fortiori, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3686.176], "stop_times": [3690.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3686.176}, "reply_to": "14944__0_131", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__0_133", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I would -- I would -- well, again it would follow in his market but not necessarily in the Phillipsburg-Easton market because even in the Phillipsburg-Easton market, while this might result in diminishing some of the percentages, they still might be enough to prove a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3690.407], "stop_times": [3708.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3690.407}, "reply_to": "14944__0_132", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__0_134", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Thank you Mr. Friedman.\nMr. Roache.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3708.52, 3709.802], "stop_times": [3709.802, 3712.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3708.52}, "reply_to": "14944__0_133", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__1_000", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI would like to first primarily address myself to the needs and the facts of the merger and the relevant geographic area particularly as it applies to the new banking, new laws in New Jersey.\nTo the appellant's contention that the District Court applied erroneous standards in assessing the convenience and needs and to the appellant's contention that the merging banks and the District Court failed to adequately consider the less anticompetitive alternatives to the merger.\nBut before I do that, if I may, I would like to make a comment or two on some of the answers to questions that Mr. Friedman made.\nFirst, we disagree and I disagree, that the District Court ruled that commercial banks was a line of commerce.\nI believe that the District Court recognized the fact that there were at least banks performed various functions that demand deposits alone perhaps was the only line of commerce but in New Jersey, savings banks also have the demand deposit function.\nBut the District Court as I analyze this his opinion, stated they haven't proved their case and didn't really attempt to say this is the -- first, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove this case, to prove that their commercial banking is the line of commerce and the District Court felt that because of all these other alternatives that were available and the testimony adequately showed that they were in competition with all these other areas specifically in the savings alone and savings bank where there was so -- that these banks that were so predominant in savings and in lending for residents that these people did compete.\nHowever, he didn't have to come out and make a determination that this is in competition, this is in competition, this is in competition.\nAs I interpret he said, they haven't proved the case that this is -- that commercial banking is a line of commerce and instead it -- and didn't state all these other functions were in competition with commercial banking.\nOne other comment Mr. Friedman made was that the recent antitrust cases, recent in the banking field, did not involve smaller banks, that this is the first smaller bank.\nLarge banks are no longer -- have no longer been merging.\nThis is isn't quite true.\nCrocker-Anglo case which was subsequent to the Nashville case and subsequent to the Philadelphia National Bank case involved the merger of the bank, the result of bank at $4 billion in assets.\nSo that's a pretty substantial size bank.\nThe First National Bank of Jackson involved approximately $350 million bank acquiring a bank with assets of about $26 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3712.386, 3715.846, 3730.72, 3753.096, 3763.497, 3770.192, 3786.781, 3828.402, 3836.246, 3850.33, 3867.767, 3872.637, 3875.137, 3888.765, 3891.984], "stop_times": [3715.846, 3730.72, 3753.096, 3763.497, 3770.192, 3786.781, 3828.402, 3836.246, 3850.33, 3867.767, 3872.637, 3875.137, 3888.765, 3891.984, 3903.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3712.386}, "reply_to": "14944__0_134", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_001", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Jackson of what state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3903.393], "stop_times": [3905.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3903.393}, "reply_to": "14944__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_002", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Of Mississippi, so one of the banks was quite large.\nFirst National Bank of Maryland also involved a large bank in Maryland with assets of approximately $400 million acquiring a bank in Harford County with assets of approximately $30 million.\nIdaho First National Bank in Idaho which was just decided last week involved a bank with over $300 million of assets acquiring a bank with approximately $26 million of assets.\nSo it isn't quite true that the mergers of the large banks have ended.\nAll of these cases were decided all of these cases were dismissed by the District Court and decided in favor of the defendant banks.\nMost of these cases involved potential competition as opposed to what we are dealing with here as a horizontal type of merger.\nThere was some horizontal aspects to a couple of these cases.\nA comment Mr. Friedman made with respect to the reports of the various banking regulatory agencies, I would like to comment that the Bank Merger Act provides that these agencies must report, if it's the Comptroller of the Currency involved in the merger, must report to the Comptroller of the Currency only on the competitive effects not on the convenience and needs.\nThey do not and are not to consider the convenience and needs, so all they get is a half a picture when these regulatory agencies report to us or we report to them, the losses report on the competitive effects as you see them.\nSo the whole picture is not in their competitive report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [3905.515, 3912.805, 3928.615, 3942.596, 3949.645, 3955.366, 3965.496, 3980.148, 4004.26, 4021.767], "stop_times": [3912.805, 3928.615, 3942.596, 3949.645, 3955.366, 3965.496, 3980.148, 4004.26, 4021.767, 4025.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3905.515}, "reply_to": "14944__1_001", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_003", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What did the Comptroller decide?\nThere would be no anticompetitive effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4025.14, 4026.567], "stop_times": [4026.567, 4028.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4025.14}, "reply_to": "14944__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_004", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's our belief.\nThese banks, as Mr. Friedman had said, are Phillipsburg National with deposits of $2.4 million and Second National with deposits of $16 million as of 1967 are small banks.\nThey are truly small banks.\nThey are located in the city with a population of 18,500.\nThe population has remained static since 1960.\nYears ago, many years ago, this was a booming community when the coal lines were operating in Pennsylvania and around the surrounding areas.\nThis was a terminal for the trains to bring the coal in and to hook up and it was a very booming and very prosperous city at that time but that is not the situation now.\nIf you were to go there now, you will see rusty railroad tracks and cars on the siding rusting also.\nThis gives you an indication of a type of a community we're talking about that the so called downtown area has no stores in it.\nThere aren't any stores.\nYou can't buy a suit or clothes in Phillipsburg.\nThis is the economically significant area that the Government is talking, that justice is talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4028.521, 4030.108, 4039.493, 4054.9, 4057.964, 4061.646, 4065.902, 4073.337, 4083.439, 4091.096, 4098.18, 4098.948, 4102.375], "stop_times": [4030.108, 4039.493, 4054.9, 4057.964, 4061.646, 4065.902, 4073.337, 4083.439, 4091.096, 4098.18, 4098.948, 4102.375, 4108.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4028.521}, "reply_to": "14944__1_003", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_005", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What do you say about the stores closing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4108.344], "stop_times": [4110.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4108.344}, "reply_to": "14944__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_006", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There are no -- there is no downtown area as we understand a downtown area.\nThere are no stores, maybe one or two restaurants or something of that nature.\nThe only really institutions downtown are Phillipsburg National and Second National.\nPhillipsburg Trust, the only other bank in the area with assets of about $12 million moved out of it several years ago recognizing that the area was so -- needed so much renewal, that it wasn't a good area for banks to be located.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4110.743, 4115.783, 4119.747, 4126.475], "stop_times": [4115.783, 4119.747, 4126.475, 4144.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4110.743}, "reply_to": "14944__1_005", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_007", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "By area, you mean downtown Phillipsburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4144.265], "stop_times": [4145.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4144.265}, "reply_to": "14944__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_008", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Downtown area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4145.886], "stop_times": [4146.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4145.886}, "reply_to": "14944__1_007", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_009", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What about --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4146.776], "stop_times": [4147.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4146.776}, "reply_to": "14944__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_010", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Downtown Phillipsburg, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4147.113], "stop_times": [4149.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4147.113}, "reply_to": "14944__1_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_011", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4149.412], "stop_times": [4150.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4149.412}, "reply_to": "14944__1_010", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_012", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How about Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4150.398], "stop_times": [4153.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4150.398}, "reply_to": "14944__1_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_013", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Easton, the population of Easton has decreased in the last few years.\nNow, Easton has a population of approximately 30,000 people.\nEaston has a downtown area of approximately three city blocks on either side with a square in the center, or a circle.\nIt has a department store but not a department store as we know a department store is, as we in this city know a department store or in other large cities.\nThat's a very small department store.\nIt does, -- you can't buy suits or clothes in Easton.\nThere are about two or three small suit, men's clothing stores but they don't have the selection that the average person today would like to have.\nMost people today and the record tell -- and there's ample evidence in the record go to Allentown or Philadelphia to buy their clothes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4153.631, 4158.194, 4161.89, 4169.875, 4177.781, 4180.288, 4183.336, 4193.902], "stop_times": [4158.194, 4161.89, 4169.875, 4177.781, 4180.288, 4183.336, 4193.902, 4201.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4153.631}, "reply_to": "14944__1_012", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_014", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Do you have shopping centers in the suburbs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4201.053], "stop_times": [4203.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4201.053}, "reply_to": "14944__1_013", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_015", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They have a shopping center in Phillipsburg.\nThere's a recent shopping center was developed about two or three years ago but and it has an Orr's Department Store which is Allentown and Orr's is also in Easton, in the outskirts of Easton but that shopping center doesn't have a place to buy suit or clothes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4203.421, 4205.072], "stop_times": [4205.072, 4226.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4203.421}, "reply_to": "14944__1_014", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_016", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You said a bank moved out of Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4226.343], "stop_times": [4228.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4226.343}, "reply_to": "14944__1_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_017", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It didn't move out.\nIt moved out of the downtown area to more into the suburban area where the -- where industry is and where the people are moving.\nThey are moving -- they are gradually moving out of the city into the suburban area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4228.597, 4229.161, 4238.033], "stop_times": [4229.161, 4238.033, 4243.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4228.597}, "reply_to": "14944__1_016", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_018", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's happening in a great, many places, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4243.241], "stop_times": [4245.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4243.241}, "reply_to": "14944__1_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_019", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4245.294, 4246.28], "stop_times": [4246.28, 4247.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4245.294}, "reply_to": "14944__1_018", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_020", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Are you suggesting then that the downtown area of Easton is in effect the downtown area for both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4247.694], "stop_times": [4254.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4247.694}, "reply_to": "14944__1_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__1_021", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4254.323], "stop_times": [4254.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4254.323}, "reply_to": "14944__1_020", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_022", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "To the extent that you have one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4254.914], "stop_times": [4255.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4254.914}, "reply_to": "14944__1_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__1_023", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There's no doubt about it.\nThe bridge that separates the two is about a city block long.\nNo one has to drive across, because you walk across it.\nYou wouldn't know you were going from one to another unless you can see the sign on either side of the bridge.\nThe -- as of these two banks are truly small banks at absolute terms.\nNone of these banks of course have had any prior merger activity.\nThey are located in the community that was formally rural and now turning to commercial and industry.\nThey have been -- they have in the past been serving the area by accepting deposits and lending money primarily to finance residences and in the past, farms were included, and as the area has been changing, the farms have disappeared.\nThe commercial and industrial business done by these banks is insignificant, especially when you compare this with that done by large commercial banks.\nThe demand deposits are comparatively small and savings represent the bulk of their deposits.\nWhen you compare these banks with the contested Section 7 cases that we've had in the past such as the Manufacturers Hanover and the Hawaii case and the Nashville case, they're just no comparison.\nYou're comparing this area with areas that were urban in nature and abounding with business, commercial businesses.\nThose banks' primary business was commercial and industrial lending.\nThey had great amounts of demand deposits.\nIn fact, their demand deposits range anywhere from two-and-a-half to five times the amount of savings deposits.\nThe reverse is true here.\nPhillipsburg National's savings are two-and-a-half times its demand deposits, quite a different type of business, a different locality, a different community.\nCertainly, Phillipsburg National and Second National cannot be judged in the same manner as those large urban banks and I've made a comparison of those banks on exhibit, intervenor exhibit number one and are listed the various assets of these banks and Phillipsburg's trust assets would be $41 million as compared to the smallest bank there with $336 million some years ago.\nConcentration and the restraints of trade in large urban areas with such billion dollar and multibillion dollar banks or at the minimum banks with approximately half a million must certainly be viewed differently than the situation these two banks are in.\nEven though the county is growing commercially and industrially, due to the fact that the local banks are small, business is compelled to go out of the community -- out of the county and out of this area for adequate financing, for trust facilities, business advice and other needed services.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4255.717, 4257.737, 4260.833, 4263.797, 4272.868, 4281.318, 4286.749, 4294.035, 4310.289, 4323.059, 4333.284, 4348.761, 4357.089, 4361.159, 4363.198, 4370.456, 4372.177, 4391.495, 4421.453, 4439.821], "stop_times": [4257.737, 4260.833, 4263.797, 4272.868, 4281.318, 4286.749, 4294.035, 4310.289, 4323.059, 4333.284, 4348.761, 4357.089, 4361.159, 4363.198, 4370.456, 4372.177, 4391.495, 4421.453, 4439.821, 4460.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4255.717}, "reply_to": "14944__1_022", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_024", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Where did you and the other agency bank whereas the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, they took a different view as you did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4460.765], "stop_times": [4473.3], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4460.765}, "reply_to": "14944__1_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__1_025", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The Federal Reserve took a different view and the Department of Justice also gave us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4473.3], "stop_times": [4477.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4473.3}, "reply_to": "14944__1_024", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_026", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Of course, yes, it's obviously but what about the FDIC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4477.973], "stop_times": [4483.887], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4477.973}, "reply_to": "14944__1_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__1_027", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I think the FDIC reported on this particular one.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4483.887, 4490.92], "stop_times": [4490.92, 4490.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4483.887}, "reply_to": "14944__1_026", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_028", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We'll suspend until after lunch.\nMr. Roache, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4490.935, 4500.855], "stop_times": [4500.855, 4503.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4490.935}, "reply_to": "14944__1_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__1_029", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I'd like to apologize first to the Court.\nI did make a mistake in the answer to one question.\nThe Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation did send us a competitive report but I have forgotten that they had.\nOftentimes, they don't and it just slipped my mind, so all three agencies, the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve and FDIC did send us report, all were adverse.\nThis case, I believe, is quite different from the prior litigated bank merger cases and from the statements in the United States versus Philadelphia National Bank case, we can see the glaring differences in this case and the Philadelphia National Bank case.\nIn Philadelphia National Bank case, when the Court turned to -- this Court turned to the justifications advanced by the defendant banks, is said that the banks do not contend, that is -- that is Philadelphia National and Gerard do not contend they are unable to compete without the merger, however, in this case, Phillipsburg National and Second do so contend.\nThe testimony in this case was to the effect that the only possible way for these two banks to grow was by merger.\nIt could not be possible by internal expansion.\nThese banks must hire needed specialists to compete and they cannot do so as separate institutions as the plethora of evidence, that they need a mortgage man, they need a trust man and they need a commercial and industrial loan specialists.\nThese men come high, these banks by themselves just could not possibly afford it and without these people, without proper management they can go nowhere and there's testimony on the record to that effect also.\nOfficials of Second National stated the growth that their bank had leveled off.\nThere was other testimony to the effect that any growth by these two banks would be limited to the possible growth of the economy.\nThe banks are separate and that they have no future, it would not be able to survive.\nIn the Philadelphia National Bank, this Court said that that was not a case where two small firms in the market proposed to merge in order to be able to compete successfully with larger corporations.\nHowever, Phillipsburg National and Second National do so contend in this particular case.\nThey are two small banks desiring to merge to better compete in the marketplace.\nThere was testimony at the trial of three experienced officials of larger banks to the effect that the merger would intensify competition between Phillipsburg and Easton banks and it would eliminate the existing apathy in banking competition in the area and that the merger would be pro-competitive and benefit the community with better personnel and extended services.\nThere was an abundance of evidence to the effect that the merger would enable the resulted bank to hire the needed personnel and to give the services that are needed to make them an aggressive competitor in the area.\nIt should be noted at this point that recent legislation in New Jersey has amended the New Jersey banking laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4503.569, 4505.296, 4507.759, 4514.472, 4528.446, 4546.2, 4574.231, 4581.243, 4585.764, 4600.9, 4615.426, 4621.0, 4630.122, 4637.157, 4650.531, 4657.008, 4664.161, 4698.761, 4715.02], "stop_times": [4505.296, 4507.759, 4514.472, 4528.446, 4546.2, 4574.231, 4581.243, 4585.764, 4600.9, 4615.426, 4621.0, 4630.122, 4637.157, 4650.531, 4657.008, 4664.161, 4698.761, 4715.02, 4722.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4503.569}, "reply_to": "14944__1_028", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_030", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, would you make this argument if the relevant market area was just Phillipsburg and Easton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4722.962], "stop_times": [4728.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4722.962}, "reply_to": "14944__1_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_031", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4728.908], "stop_times": [4731.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4728.908}, "reply_to": "14944__1_030", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_032", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, you mean the less business areas, the more need there is for a bigger bank?\nWhen you've told us that there is a little business in the -- this area that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4731.285, 4738.267], "stop_times": [4738.267, 4745.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4731.285}, "reply_to": "14944__1_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_033", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I didn't say there was -- I said there's plenty of businesses, needed services in the area but there's no competition in the area.\nThere's apathy in the area that these banks are unable and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4745.684, 4751.996], "stop_times": [4751.996, 4755.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4745.684}, "reply_to": "14944__1_032", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_034", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "So there's plenty of -- there's plenty of business, plenty of need for banking services --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4755.322], "stop_times": [4759.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4755.322}, "reply_to": "14944__1_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_035", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4759.516], "stop_times": [4759.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4759.516}, "reply_to": "14944__1_034", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_036", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- in the Phillipsburg-Easton area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4759.966], "stop_times": [4761.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4759.966}, "reply_to": "14944__1_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_037", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4761.653], "stop_times": [4763.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4761.653}, "reply_to": "14944__1_036", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_038", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I understood you to say it isn't leveled off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4763.5], "stop_times": [4766.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4763.5}, "reply_to": "14944__1_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__1_039", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Their growth -- Second National's growth had leveled off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4766.199], "stop_times": [4771.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4766.199}, "reply_to": "14944__1_038", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_040", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You mean, it was losing money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4771.446], "stop_times": [4773.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4771.446}, "reply_to": "14944__1_039", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_041", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It wasn't losing money but that its growth had leveled off.\nIt had not increased its deposits and at the same pace that it had in the past, that's what the president had meant by his growth had leveled off.\nHowever, I might point out when we talked about the banks in Easton being so large, North Hampton National Bank with over $300,000.00 as a lending limit.\nPractically, does nothing in some of these lending areas.\nIt does not hold anything in the commercial and industrial lending.\nIt has no installment lending loans whatsoever and if -- it's with 18 -- $18,961,000.00 in deposits, it has only 34.5% of its deposits loaned out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4773.124, 4775.587, 4784.773, 4797.661, 4801.944, 4805.072], "stop_times": [4775.587, 4784.773, 4797.661, 4801.944, 4805.072, 4826.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4773.124}, "reply_to": "14944__1_040", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_042", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Does the record show how many $200,000.00 loans that were available around Phillipsburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4826.779], "stop_times": [4833.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4826.779}, "reply_to": "14944__1_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_043", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It doesn't -- it doesn't show that, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4833.159], "stop_times": [4835.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4833.159}, "reply_to": "14944__1_042", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_044", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It does not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4835.857], "stop_times": [4836.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4835.857}, "reply_to": "14944__1_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__1_045", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It does not show how many were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4836.861], "stop_times": [4839.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4836.861}, "reply_to": "14944__1_044", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_046", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I would assume from what you say about it, that there were not be so many loans of $200,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4839.061], "stop_times": [4845.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4839.061}, "reply_to": "14944__1_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_047", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, the record does show, a number of witnesses did testify that they could use this kind of money but it doesn't show how much was actually loaned out in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4845.265], "stop_times": [4854.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4845.265}, "reply_to": "14944__1_046", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_048", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Who were the witnesses who testified they could use it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4854.634], "stop_times": [4857.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4854.634}, "reply_to": "14944__1_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_049", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4857.699], "stop_times": [4858.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4857.699}, "reply_to": "14944__1_048", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_050", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Who were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4858.683], "stop_times": [4859.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4858.683}, "reply_to": "14944__1_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_051", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, there was a man who wanted to open a motel in Phillipsburg, said he couldn't get the $250,000.00.\nHe needed $250,000.00 and couldn't get it there.\nThat's the first one that comes to my mind.\nThere's a testimony that Phillipsburg had a request of over 25 loans in excess of his lending limit.\nSecond National had 17 requests and I might add in this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4859.671, 4870.29, 4873.195, 4874.676, 4884.212], "stop_times": [4870.29, 4873.195, 4874.676, 4884.212, 4887.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4859.671}, "reply_to": "14944__1_050", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_052", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Seventeen for how much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4887.416], "stop_times": [4889.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4887.416}, "reply_to": "14944__1_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_053", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "For over its lending limit.\nAnd I might point out that the reason you don't get too many requests because business people generally know what your lending limit is.\nThis is sort of useless to go to some place and ask them to lend you $200,000.00 and they can only lend $100,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4889.069, 4892.166, 4900.192], "stop_times": [4892.166, 4900.192, 4907.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4889.069}, "reply_to": "14944__1_052", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_054", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I would think -- I would think there would be very few places in the United States as you all have described this.\nIt would be engaged very liberally in the $200,000.00 loans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4907.465, 4914.352], "stop_times": [4914.352, 4920.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4907.465}, "reply_to": "14944__1_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_055", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4920.404], "stop_times": [4921.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4920.404}, "reply_to": "14944__1_054", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_056", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's a big business loan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4921.117], "stop_times": [4922.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4921.117}, "reply_to": "14944__1_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_057", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "$200,000.00 today is not much of a loan.\nYou can't open very many business with less than that kind of money unless you're talking about a corner store or something like --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4922.656, 4924.97], "stop_times": [4924.97, 4931.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4922.656}, "reply_to": "14944__1_056", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_058", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I wouldn't suppose they want to supply all of it from the whole of the business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4931.821], "stop_times": [4936.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4931.821}, "reply_to": "14944__1_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_059", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, sure why not supply all of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4936.319], "stop_times": [4939.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4936.319}, "reply_to": "14944__1_058", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_060", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I mean somebody had no money at all and you're just going to lend them $200,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4939.995], "stop_times": [4945.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4939.995}, "reply_to": "14944__1_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_061", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, they have to have -- they have to have the credit and capital and so forth but 200 -- much of this goes to expansion and to increase business and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4945.432], "stop_times": [4953.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4945.432}, "reply_to": "14944__1_060", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_062", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I'm not saying about extension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4953.914], "stop_times": [4956.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4953.914}, "reply_to": "14944__1_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_063", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And people starting in business sometimes will have the necessary capital and collateral to put up, to start a new business.\nThey don't start from zero and ask a bank for a loan without anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4956.383, 4964.98], "stop_times": [4964.98, 4969.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4956.383}, "reply_to": "14944__1_062", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_064", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Does the record show how much -- how many $200,000.00 loans Easton had made in the last year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4969.815], "stop_times": [4975.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4969.815}, "reply_to": "14944__1_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_065", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, it doesn't.\nI was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4975.906, 4976.659], "stop_times": [4976.659, 4976.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4975.906}, "reply_to": "14944__1_064", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_066", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Does it show if it had made any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4976.939], "stop_times": [4980.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4976.939}, "reply_to": "14944__1_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_067", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It doesn't to my knowledge.\nI tried to get that information but they wouldn't give it to me.\nThis is pretty private and confidential information to these banks and they hate to divulge it because they know that the competitors are going to see everything that you tell them.\nSo it's very difficult to get some of this type of information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [4980.729, 4982.38, 4985.874, 4994.881], "stop_times": [4982.38, 4985.874, 4994.881, 5001.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4980.729}, "reply_to": "14944__1_066", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_068", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There's a third bank and only one other bank as I understand it in the -- in Phillipsburg, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5001.336], "stop_times": [5006.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5001.336}, "reply_to": "14944__1_067", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_069", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Phillipsburg Trust Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5006.764], "stop_times": [5007.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5006.764}, "reply_to": "14944__1_068", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_070", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Phillipsburg Trust and what's the situation of that bank?\nDid it had -- were witnesses from that bank -- did they appear in this thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5007.951, 5011.133], "stop_times": [5011.133, 5015.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5007.951}, "reply_to": "14944__1_069", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_071", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Lupo testified for that bank.\nMr. Lupo testified and I think they have assets of approximately $12 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5015.142, 5017.873], "stop_times": [5017.873, 5024.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5015.142}, "reply_to": "14944__1_070", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_072", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It is the smallest of the three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5024.528], "stop_times": [5026.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5024.528}, "reply_to": "14944__1_071", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_073", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's the smallest of them.\nIt has -- it is the bank that moved from the downtown area of Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5026.061, 5027.809], "stop_times": [5027.809, 5031.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5026.061}, "reply_to": "14944__1_072", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_074", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Of the suburban area, that's still in Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5031.082], "stop_times": [5033.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5031.082}, "reply_to": "14944__1_073", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_075", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It has one branch and the Phillipsburg National has two and Second National has one branch in the areas surrounding Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5033.369], "stop_times": [5042.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5033.369}, "reply_to": "14944__1_074", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_076", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And I would suppose that the witness, the representative of that bank was opposed to this merger, was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5042.021], "stop_times": [5050.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5042.021}, "reply_to": "14944__1_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__1_077", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "He said it would be competitive.\nHe was opposed but not strongly so.\nHowever, the Court in analyzing his testimony interpreted to be the testimony of a man who was satisfied with what he has and had no real desires to go beyond a certain particular area.\nIn fact, the man said he wasn't even looking for trust business and the name of the bank is the Phillipsburg Trust Company.\nAnd this is a general condition throughout the area.\nThis is why this merger is so good.\nThis is a merger of two small banks who can't survive unless they can merge and get the adequate capital and the adequate personnel to compete.\nThis merger with an aggressive management can put some competition into that area and get rid of this apathy in banking competition.\nThe president of Easton National Bank which is the largest in this Easton-Phillipsburg area testified that they can find themselves pretty much to the Easton area with a little bit of business in Phillipsburg and they were asked why didn't you go into Bethlehem and Allentown.\nHe said, \u201cWell --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5050.177, 5051.716, 5054.629, 5067.188, 5073.437, 5075.793, 5078.089, 5087.514, 5099.19, 5115.715], "stop_times": [5051.716, 5054.629, 5067.188, 5073.437, 5075.793, 5078.089, 5087.514, 5099.19, 5115.715, 5115.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5050.177}, "reply_to": "14944__1_076", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_078", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Did I understand you to say that they couldn't survive without merging?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5115.726], "stop_times": [5118.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5115.726}, "reply_to": "14944__1_077", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_079", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's -- that's the Comptroller's Office opinion in looking at the future by survive, that don't mean they're going to go to bankruptcy.\nI mean they're going to be absorbed by the large New York banks, that's what's going to happen in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5118.874, 5126.04], "stop_times": [5126.04, 5130.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5118.874}, "reply_to": "14944__1_078", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_080", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Not a failure in company defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5130.566], "stop_times": [5132.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5130.566}, "reply_to": "14944__1_079", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_081", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's -- no sir, I'm not alleging it.\nI'm saying that in their present condition, they've got to do something.\nThe only thing left to them is to merge so that they can compete or else merge with some of the larger banks.\nThe new --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5132.136, 5134.64, 5137.943, 5143.672], "stop_times": [5134.64, 5137.943, 5143.672, 5143.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5132.136}, "reply_to": "14944__1_080", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_082", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But they were still making money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5143.798], "stop_times": [5146.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5143.798}, "reply_to": "14944__1_081", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_083", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They are still making money but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5146.056], "stop_times": [5149.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5146.056}, "reply_to": "14944__1_082", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_084", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Wasn't that a little quick on the trigger about their failing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5149.144], "stop_times": [5152.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5149.144}, "reply_to": "14944__1_083", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_085", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I didn't say they were failing.\nI said they can't be effective competitors in the area.\nThey can't be effective competitors in the area.\nThey're two small banks in this area just sitting there.\nOnce the large --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5152.029, 5153.524, 5156.817, 5159.174, 5162.678], "stop_times": [5153.524, 5156.817, 5159.174, 5162.678, 5163.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5152.029}, "reply_to": "14944__1_084", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_086", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's why they can't lend $200,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5163.09], "stop_times": [5165.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5163.09}, "reply_to": "14944__1_085", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_087", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.\nOnce these large New York banks start moving in the area, you will see a real change in the competition and it has already started as a result of the change in the New Jersey banking laws.\nA large New York bank, New York in assets has already acquired a bank in Washington.\nThere's another merger pending between the People's National Bank and other large bank.\nThere's a branch been granted to Morris Trust Company over in Morris County I believe it is who's coming into Warren County but this is through the whole area.\nEver since the passage of the New Jersey banking law, there has been a tremendous change and applications have increased for bank mergers from 57 to over 300 since this banking law has changed for branches throughout the first banking district and these banks are in the first banking districts which contains the largest banks in the state.\nThe answer to this, if this merger doesn't go through, the larger banks are going to get larger.\nThat's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5165.747, 5167.732, 5179.549, 5187.584, 5192.696, 5202.636, 5224.4, 5229.22], "stop_times": [5167.732, 5179.549, 5187.584, 5192.696, 5202.636, 5224.4, 5229.22, 5229.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5165.747}, "reply_to": "14944__1_086", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_088", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Does that law change in New Jersey law after the decision in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5229.831], "stop_times": [5237.583], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5229.831}, "reply_to": "14944__1_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__1_089", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The change in the law was prior to decision but subsequent to the trial and at the day -- the day the opinion was rendered, a motion was made by the plaintiff to continue to stay until they couldn't determine whether they wanted to appeal it and also a motion was made to reopen a record to accept additional supplemental evidence.\nThe Comptroller's Office introduced evidence showing what had happened since the change in the New Jersey banking laws.\nThe Court accepted this evidence and its intervenor's exhibit number 30.\nIt shows what has happened since this law changed and the Court considered, it took time out to consider it.\nIt said it supported his opinion that this merger would not be anticompetitive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5237.583, 5264.807, 5273.071, 5277.864, 5285.027], "stop_times": [5264.807, 5273.071, 5277.864, 5285.027, 5289.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5237.583}, "reply_to": "14944__1_088", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_090", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, what did it say to the Government's footnote on this subject?\nDid they say that the law doesn't really have much impact, doesn't it in the situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5289.927, 5293.5], "stop_times": [5293.5, 5301.182], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 5289.927}, "reply_to": "14944__1_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__1_091", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They addressed themselves primarily.\nThey addressed themselves primarily to branching because there is some limitations.\nHowever, the new census estimate that has come out has opened up several areas which is not in the record.\nIt has opened up several areas.\nHowever, they can merge throughout and merging has been going on throughout the area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5301.182, 5302.605, 5307.312, 5313.992, 5315.32], "stop_times": [5302.605, 5307.312, 5313.992, 5315.32, 5319.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5301.182}, "reply_to": "14944__1_090", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_092", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It's still a geographical branching?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5319.791], "stop_times": [5323.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5319.791}, "reply_to": "14944__1_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_093", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In the -- in the three districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5323.398], "stop_times": [5325.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5323.398}, "reply_to": "14944__1_092", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_094", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And that they're now three banking districts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5325.354], "stop_times": [5326.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5325.354}, "reply_to": "14944__1_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_095", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The three banking districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5326.737], "stop_times": [5327.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5326.737}, "reply_to": "14944__1_094", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_096", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "All over the countywide and the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5327.771], "stop_times": [5329.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5327.771}, "reply_to": "14944__1_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_097", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct, all over countywide.\nThat's why I say these banks now not faced just for the compete --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5329.554, 5331.046], "stop_times": [5331.046, 5334.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5329.554}, "reply_to": "14944__1_096", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_098", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Now expand outside the district, what do you have to do?\nMerge that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5334.252, 5337.751], "stop_times": [5337.751, 5338.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5334.252}, "reply_to": "14944__1_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_099", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You have to be a bank holding -- become a bank holding company and you can go through it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5338.281], "stop_times": [5342.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5338.281}, "reply_to": "14944__1_098", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_100", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Statewide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5342.275], "stop_times": [5342.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5342.275}, "reply_to": "14944__1_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_101", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5342.425], "stop_times": [5344.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5342.425}, "reply_to": "14944__1_100", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_102", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You said it's already national in scope what happened to Washington?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5344.398], "stop_times": [5347.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5344.398}, "reply_to": "14944__1_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_103", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.\nYes, Washington Trust Company has already been acquired by National and Newark and Essex Company.\nThese banks are just waiting to acquire.\nThese large banks are just waiting to move in and acquire --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5347.682, 5348.266, 5352.697, 5354.894], "stop_times": [5348.266, 5352.697, 5354.894, 5356.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5347.682}, "reply_to": "14944__1_102", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_104", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The point is if this merger can't go through, each of you could be gambled up (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5356.819], "stop_times": [5361.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5356.819}, "reply_to": "14944__1_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_105", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's -- that's our opinion Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5361.204], "stop_times": [5364.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5361.204}, "reply_to": "14944__1_104", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_106", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Would that be so fair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5364.477], "stop_times": [5366.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5364.477}, "reply_to": "14944__1_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_107", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, it would be.\nThe antitrust laws are aimed at fostering competition not making -- not permitting the larger banks to get larger and creating the concentration in which Mr. Friedman spoke so much about.\nWe are talking about -- here's two banks that wanted to go out and compete.\nThey want to do something about the situation and they say, \u201cNo stay where you are and be what you are.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5366.359, 5367.617, 5380.259, 5383.68], "stop_times": [5367.617, 5380.259, 5383.68, 5389.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5366.359}, "reply_to": "14944__1_106", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_108", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Will the Comptroller be able to do anything about National were picking up one of these two Phillipsburg banks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5389.355], "stop_times": [5394.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5389.355}, "reply_to": "14944__1_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_109", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The Comptroller proved that because they thought there has been additional to the -- yes, we could.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5394.393, 5398.126], "stop_times": [5398.126, 5398.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5394.393}, "reply_to": "14944__1_108", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_110", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But you haven't been, have you?\nThe Comptroller hasn't been.\nThese other cases have been dismissed too in sort of expansion into other markets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5398.948, 5400.984, 5402.372], "stop_times": [5400.984, 5402.372, 5407.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5398.948}, "reply_to": "14944__1_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_111", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Most of them were potential competition cases and the last one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5407.573], "stop_times": [5410.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5407.573}, "reply_to": "14944__1_110", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_112", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There were large banks picks up the small bank --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5410.741], "stop_times": [5412.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5410.741}, "reply_to": "14944__1_111", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_113", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5412.763], "stop_times": [5413.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5412.763}, "reply_to": "14944__1_112", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_114", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- in another market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5413.46], "stop_times": [5414.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5413.46}, "reply_to": "14944__1_113", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_115", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5414.556], "stop_times": [5415.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5414.556}, "reply_to": "14944__1_114", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_116", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And the Comptroller has been approving them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5415.422], "stop_times": [5418.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5415.422}, "reply_to": "14944__1_115", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_117", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Because of the needs of the community.\nWe haven't approved every single one but because of the needs of the community, we have approved them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5418.795, 5420.43], "stop_times": [5420.43, 5424.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5418.795}, "reply_to": "14944__1_116", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_118", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Why would you want to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5424.739], "stop_times": [5427.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5424.739}, "reply_to": "14944__1_117", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_119", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I would not -- I would not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5427.951], "stop_times": [5429.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5427.951}, "reply_to": "14944__1_118", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_120", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- want to speak with Comptroller but what would the Comptroller do here in this case if one of these, if this merger is not approved, what would the Comptroller do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5429.27], "stop_times": [5438.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5429.27}, "reply_to": "14944__1_119", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__1_121", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I -- I don't know what.\nWe always consider the facts.\nWe send an investigator right and we spend a week or two examining these things before we do it but let me say this that if we felt the area needed it, if we are now so sure the area need it, we probably would let them come in but I don't say that that's the best thing to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5438.699, 5440.183, 5441.642], "stop_times": [5440.183, 5441.642, 5453.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5438.699}, "reply_to": "14944__1_120", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_122", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Did the Comptroller approve -- did the Comptroller approve the acquisition of the Washington Trust by National?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5453.826], "stop_times": [5458.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5453.826}, "reply_to": "14944__1_121", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_123", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, it did.\nBecause it felt it needed that.\nIt needed this increased lending limit.\nThey needed the service.\nThey needed the trust service and everything that wasn't there but I think the antitrust laws are aimed at keeping competition in the area and if we can keep these two banks who are willing to try to fight.\nI think it's pro-competitors not anticompetitive in any respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5458.999, 5462.006, 5463.473, 5465.738, 5466.638, 5477.522], "stop_times": [5462.006, 5463.473, 5465.738, 5466.638, 5477.522, 5483.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5458.999}, "reply_to": "14944__1_122", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_124", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I don't understand why you say, they're willing to keep on trying to fight.\nI understand you to say they are not in any danger financially.\nHow much did they make last year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5483.121, 5487.689, 5491.557], "stop_times": [5487.689, 5491.557, 5492.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5483.121}, "reply_to": "14944__1_123", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_125", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I didn't say they weren't in danger financial.\nI said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5492.895, 5494.661], "stop_times": [5494.661, 5494.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5492.895}, "reply_to": "14944__1_124", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_126", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How much did they make last year on their dividends?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5494.669], "stop_times": [5504.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5494.669}, "reply_to": "14944__1_125", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_127", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I have the figures here.\nMr. Friedman said they have profits that are ranging from I believe for a five-year period 1962 was $46,000.00 to $123,000.00.\nAnd that over a period of five years, Phillipsburg National made a $192,000.00 over a period of five years and Second National $198,000.00 over a period of five years.\nThat is combining, I'm not giving them year by year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5504.097, 5508.755, 5519.807, 5530.685], "stop_times": [5508.755, 5519.807, 5530.685, 5532.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5504.097}, "reply_to": "14944__1_126", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_128", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Wasn't that pretty good for a bank in that kind of (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5532.752], "stop_times": [5535.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5532.752}, "reply_to": "14944__1_127", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_129", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That -- that I don't know whether it's so great.\nBank profits today are about 1% on their investment as opposed to other industries.\nThis is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5535.188, 5539.979, 5545.177], "stop_times": [5539.979, 5545.177, 5545.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5535.188}, "reply_to": "14944__1_128", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_130", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I imagine that's temporary if your goal is high interest rates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5545.262], "stop_times": [5550.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5545.262}, "reply_to": "14944__1_129", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_131", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But the point I'm making about, I'm not saying that they are not -- I'm not saying they're failing, I'm saying that if we don't let them merged, they are all going to be absorbed by larger banks in the first district --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5550.348], "stop_times": [5563.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5550.348}, "reply_to": "14944__1_130", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_132", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, can they be absorbed without merging?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5563.624], "stop_times": [5564.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5563.624}, "reply_to": "14944__1_131", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_133", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- and I don't think that's what the antitrust clause is for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5564.084], "stop_times": [5566.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5564.084}, "reply_to": "14944__1_132", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_134", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Can they be absorbed without merging or something?\nWell, they have to go through the same process, wouldn't it with the Department of Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5566.866, 5570.403], "stop_times": [5570.403, 5575.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5566.866}, "reply_to": "14944__1_133", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_135", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes they would but this is whatever definitely they're suggesting they do.\nThere's other alternatives to merge with someone else and not in the city.\nWhat difference does it make if those two small banks are in the same city?\nI don't think that makes any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5575.417, 5580.031, 5583.893, 5587.217], "stop_times": [5580.031, 5583.893, 5587.217, 5589.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5575.417}, "reply_to": "14944__1_134", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_136", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What difference does it make if what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5589.031], "stop_times": [5590.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5589.031}, "reply_to": "14944__1_135", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_137", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They're in the same city.\nThese two small banks are in the same city.\nThat isn't what we're concerned about.\nWe're concerned about competition not the competitors.\nI don't care what the geographic market is, what the relevant geographic --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5590.419, 5591.519, 5594.421, 5596.255, 5600.455], "stop_times": [5591.519, 5594.421, 5596.255, 5600.455, 5602.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5590.419}, "reply_to": "14944__1_136", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_138", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "This law -- this law I thought had the theory that they use to have own dominoes.\nIf you put them up on the head and stand up right next to one another, you let one of them knock the other down, and it just keep on knocking them down until there's just one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5602.933, 5608.76], "stop_times": [5608.76, 5621.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5602.933}, "reply_to": "14944__1_137", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_139", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, continuing that theory what about the large New York banks coming in and picking up all these other banks.\nYou're progressing -- you're jumping beyond any --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5621.55, 5628.97], "stop_times": [5628.97, 5630.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5621.55}, "reply_to": "14944__1_138", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_140", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You are arguing that in order to prevent double up, the thing to do is to let them merge themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5630.981], "stop_times": [5636.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5630.981}, "reply_to": "14944__1_139", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_141", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "So that they can effectively compete in the area.\nThat's correct.\nAnd I think that's what the antitrust laws are for.\nThat's what it makes it pro competitive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5636.364, 5638.631, 5640.924, 5643.032], "stop_times": [5638.631, 5640.924, 5643.032, 5645.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5636.364}, "reply_to": "14944__1_140", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_142", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It makes it more competitive for them to merge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5645.811], "stop_times": [5648.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5645.811}, "reply_to": "14944__1_141", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_143", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.\nMore competitive in the area.\nThat's our position and we think it's an important issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5648.196, 5649.595, 5652.064], "stop_times": [5649.595, 5652.064, 5654.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5648.196}, "reply_to": "14944__1_142", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_144", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Is that the theory, the law has written on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5654.855], "stop_times": [5657.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5654.855}, "reply_to": "14944__1_143", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_145", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The law says that you are to foster competition and this fosters competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5657.917], "stop_times": [5666.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5657.917}, "reply_to": "14944__1_144", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_146", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You have a bigger competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5666.26], "stop_times": [5669.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5666.26}, "reply_to": "14944__1_145", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_147", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "If they merge, there will be more competition in the area.\nThese are two local banks who want to expand and grow and give competition to an area which there is testimony already on record that there's apathy in the area among the banks for them not to merge would mean that the larger banks would come in and grow larger whereas, if you let these two merge at least they will try to do something about it that competitive situation and try to correct the apathy in the area and attempt to fight the larger banks instead of having them eliminated, we'd at least have another bank in there fighting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5669.203, 5671.798], "stop_times": [5671.798, 5702.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5669.203}, "reply_to": "14944__1_146", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_148", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That depends on the area, doesn't it?\nIf you take the area, the U.S. Government suggests, your argument falls flat, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5702.228, 5704.041], "stop_times": [5704.041, 5709.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5702.228}, "reply_to": "14944__1_147", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_149", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I don't care what area you'd take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5709.816], "stop_times": [5712.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5709.816}, "reply_to": "14944__1_148", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_150", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, if you take the area --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5712.131], "stop_times": [5713.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5712.131}, "reply_to": "14944__1_149", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_151", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In Phillipsburg or Phillipsburg-Easton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5713.086], "stop_times": [5715.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5713.086}, "reply_to": "14944__1_150", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_152", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "If you take Easton and Phillipsburg, and as of now you got four banks and you'll end up with how many banks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5715.371], "stop_times": [5727.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5715.371}, "reply_to": "14944__1_151", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_153", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In Easton-Phil, there's a -- they have at least seven banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5727.188], "stop_times": [5729.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5727.188}, "reply_to": "14944__1_152", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_154", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, we haven't asked if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5729.752], "stop_times": [5730.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5729.752}, "reply_to": "14944__1_153", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_155", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They would be left to six banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5730.838], "stop_times": [5732.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5730.838}, "reply_to": "14944__1_154", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_156", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You'll have less banks but more competition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5732.954], "stop_times": [5735.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5732.954}, "reply_to": "14944__1_155", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_157", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Less banks with more competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5735.128], "stop_times": [5736.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5735.128}, "reply_to": "14944__1_156", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_158", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "In that area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5736.515], "stop_times": [5737.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5736.515}, "reply_to": "14944__1_157", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_159", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5737.474], "stop_times": [5738.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5737.474}, "reply_to": "14944__1_158", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_160", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Now, do I understand you correctly that the community that if you keep going little further or it is about to just end up like appellation that big banks want to come in there.\nWe say that this area is just going to flop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5738.772, 5753.534], "stop_times": [5753.534, 5757.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5738.772}, "reply_to": "14944__1_159", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_161", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "If the big banks will come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5757.138], "stop_times": [5758.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5757.138}, "reply_to": "14944__1_160", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_162", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5758.483], "stop_times": [5758.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5758.483}, "reply_to": "14944__1_161", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_163", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes they will come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5758.968], "stop_times": [5760.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5758.968}, "reply_to": "14944__1_162", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_164", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "For what reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5760.148], "stop_times": [5761.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5760.148}, "reply_to": "14944__1_163", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_165", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "To which -- I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5761.729], "stop_times": [5762.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5761.729}, "reply_to": "14944__1_164", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_166", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "For what reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5762.608], "stop_times": [5765.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5762.608}, "reply_to": "14944__1_165", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_167", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "To grow larger and to get larger and to get more assets.\nThe more they -- the bigger they get, the more profit they make and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5765.401, 5768.134], "stop_times": [5768.134, 5772.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5765.401}, "reply_to": "14944__1_166", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_168", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And yet you can't point to a single instance of any action by any outside bank in Easton and Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5772.992], "stop_times": [5783.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5772.992}, "reply_to": "14944__1_167", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_169", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Outside of Easton and Phillipsburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5783.89], "stop_times": [5785.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5783.89}, "reply_to": "14944__1_168", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_170", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Where any bank is made or moved to take over any other bank in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5785.707], "stop_times": [5791.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5785.707}, "reply_to": "14944__1_169", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_171", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, I can't.\nThere's nothing on the record to show that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5791.464, 5792.111], "stop_times": [5792.111, 5793.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5791.464}, "reply_to": "14944__1_170", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_172", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "So all we have is the possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5793.556], "stop_times": [5796.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5793.556}, "reply_to": "14944__1_171", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_173", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We have more than a possibility --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5796.171], "stop_times": [5797.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5796.171}, "reply_to": "14944__1_172", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_174", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Or probability.\nYou can't get better than probability, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5797.715, 5799.293], "stop_times": [5799.293, 5802.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5797.715}, "reply_to": "14944__1_173", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_175", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Sir?\nI think it's more than a probability but if you look at intervenor's exhibit 30, you will see what has already happened in the area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5802.719, 5803.188], "stop_times": [5803.188, 5810.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5802.719}, "reply_to": "14944__1_174", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_176", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, I'm talking about in Easton and Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5810.65], "stop_times": [5813.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5810.65}, "reply_to": "14944__1_175", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_177", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "It hasn't happen in Easton and Phillipsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5813.676], "stop_times": [5815.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5813.676}, "reply_to": "14944__1_176", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_178", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And you also agree that if this is made it will have to be \u2013- you'll have to run to carp it and you and the antitrust division and everybody else, correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5815.259], "stop_times": [5827.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5815.259}, "reply_to": "14944__1_177", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_179", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5827.397], "stop_times": [5829.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5827.397}, "reply_to": "14944__1_178", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_180", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And so for that reason, you say these two banks should be permitted to merge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5829.038], "stop_times": [5834.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5829.038}, "reply_to": "14944__1_179", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_181", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I might point out that when you include Easton then New York banks cannot come over to Easton because that's Pennsylvania they're confined to the seven county first banking district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5834.824], "stop_times": [5844.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5834.824}, "reply_to": "14944__1_180", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_182", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5844.818], "stop_times": [5845.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5844.818}, "reply_to": "14944__1_181", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__1_183", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "So you're only talking about the three banks and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5845.954], "stop_times": [5849.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5845.954}, "reply_to": "14944__1_182", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_184", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Has the Comptroller ever disapproved of a merger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5849.176], "stop_times": [5852.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5849.176}, "reply_to": "14944__1_183", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14944__1_185", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, yes Your Honor, we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5852.491], "stop_times": [5855.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5852.491}, "reply_to": "14944__1_184", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_186", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Do you remember the name of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5855.557], "stop_times": [5862.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5855.557}, "reply_to": "14944__1_185", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14944__1_187", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, First National City going into Long Island but the Comptroller doesn't -- this is the thing that the Department of Justice doesn't perhaps like about the method.\nWe dis -- we discourage the man before he files the application rather than go through of the expensive trouble of filing an application.\nThey come and talk to us first and after they talk to us, if we feel it looks quite obvious that this merger is not a good merger, we tell them don't bother filing and they don't bother filing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5862.26, 5872.566, 5880.111], "stop_times": [5872.566, 5880.111, 5891.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5862.26}, "reply_to": "14944__1_186", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_188", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "How many of them?\nI might misunderstood the question of Justice Douglas.\nHow many times does the present Comptroller refused to agree to a merger and in what cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5891.24, 5891.886, 5894.938], "stop_times": [5891.886, 5894.938, 5903.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5891.24}, "reply_to": "14944__1_187", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_189", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I'm trying to think.\nI have the statistics in another case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5903.523, 5904.171], "stop_times": [5904.171, 5904.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5903.523}, "reply_to": "14944__1_188", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_190", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I'm sure that it might be (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5904.988], "stop_times": [5906.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5904.988}, "reply_to": "14944__1_189", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_191", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I have those statistics in another case and I just can't quite remember what I -- if I had to answer to guess I'd say around 30 or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5906.339], "stop_times": [5913.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5906.339}, "reply_to": "14944__1_190", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_192", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Around what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5913.743], "stop_times": [5914.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5913.743}, "reply_to": "14944__1_191", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_193", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Around 30 or 40 if I had to answer to guess on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5914.464], "stop_times": [5917.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5914.464}, "reply_to": "14944__1_192", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_194", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That he has rejected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5917.356], "stop_times": [5918.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5917.356}, "reply_to": "14944__1_193", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_195", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5918.449], "stop_times": [5919.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5918.449}, "reply_to": "14944__1_194", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_196", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Out of how many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5919.859], "stop_times": [5924.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5919.859}, "reply_to": "14944__1_195", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_197", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Quite a number.\nI don't know all of the number of application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5924.49, 5924.937], "stop_times": [5924.937, 5926.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5924.49}, "reply_to": "14944__1_196", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_198", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Can you give them to us later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5926.624], "stop_times": [5929.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5926.624}, "reply_to": "14944__1_197", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_199", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5929.955], "stop_times": [5930.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5929.955}, "reply_to": "14944__1_198", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_200", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Can you supply us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5930.421], "stop_times": [5931.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5930.421}, "reply_to": "14944__1_199", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_201", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I can give you that information later.I will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5931.634], "stop_times": [5933.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5931.634}, "reply_to": "14944__1_200", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_202", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes and what banks and how much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5933.878], "stop_times": [5935.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5933.878}, "reply_to": "14944__1_201", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__1_203", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Alright, I will supply that information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5935.946], "stop_times": [5938.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5935.946}, "reply_to": "14944__1_202", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_204", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You see the reason I ask you a question, I was reading or I guess it must -- was -- it must have been a couple of months ago, some article, somewhere written not by a lawyer but by a banker, a businessman who is making your argument.\nThe $200,000.00, he couldn't get $200,000.00 loan but his wasn't the $200,000.00.\nHe couldn't make a loan of $100 million to United Airlines, therefore, his bank wasn't big enough and so he wanted to join with others and have a merger, so that's where he end up, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5938.912, 5955.455, 5962.861], "stop_times": [5955.455, 5962.861, 5982.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5938.912}, "reply_to": "14944__1_203", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14944__1_205", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, it could end but you have to draw a line at some point.\nI mean I would feel that people that borrow that kind of money can't go to New York and they can't go to larger banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5982.639, 5985.742], "stop_times": [5985.742, 5991.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5982.639}, "reply_to": "14944__1_204", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_206", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That was he was complaining about.\nYou all have to go to New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5991.171, 5993.995], "stop_times": [5993.995, 5996.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5991.171}, "reply_to": "14944__1_205", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14944__1_207", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I wish they'd do something about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [5996.536], "stop_times": [6000.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5996.536}, "reply_to": "14944__1_206", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__1_208", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "He thought that all the banks of Easton in Mississippi should be merged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6000.021], "stop_times": [6006.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6000.021}, "reply_to": "14944__1_207", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14944__1_209", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We will -- thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6006.589], "stop_times": [6015.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6006.589}, "reply_to": "14944__1_208", "speaker": "philip_l_roache_jr"}
{"id": "14944__2_000", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6015.859], "stop_times": [6017.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6015.859}, "reply_to": "14944__1_209", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_001", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Governor Meyner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6017.025], "stop_times": [6017.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6017.025}, "reply_to": "14944__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__2_002", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- may it please the Court.\nI should like to point out that this is a culmination of a long series of episodes by which two banks endeavored to be pro-competitive in an extensive area.\nDiscussion to meet the problems that existed as between older management and younger management as to how we could serve the customers in the neighborhood, the people who were in need of loans to finance various enterprises, all of those problems were taken into consideration and it was felt that this was the only way that we could meet the problem so we discuss merger and then in 1967 signed an agreement and then filed an application with the Comptroller.\nThe three agencies, not through their somber boards but rather through a bureaucratic employees took the narrow blind view that only Easton was a market or Easton and Phillipsburg was a market, that they submitted that various reports but then there was a full and adequate hearing before the Comptroller, justice shows not to appear on the scene.\nThen we produce witnesses and then a decision was arrived at that this was an area somewhat similar to the standard, metropolitan statistical area which is set forth in white in this exhibit, exhibit 13.\nThen we found that after we are ready to go with the merger, justice starts a suit.\nThen we go to the District Court in New Jersey where we have 1600 pages of testimony, where we have over 100 exhibits, where we're put to untold difficulty in getting out records as to duplicate depositors in each bank, furnishing infinite information then the judge became ill after the conclusion of the case and we waited a year for a decision and now this suit is here before you.\nI'd like to address myself to three things.\nNumber one, I believe that the record shows that this is procompetitive.\nThere isn't one witness, least of all Mr. Lupo who says that this is anticompetitive.\nAt most he said in -- and I refer you to the appendix in page 35, in the record it's probably page 134, he was asked about the competition between his bank, that is the third largest bank and two existing banks in Phillipsburg and he said, \u201cI would say it was healthy competition, healthy competition to the extent that we have grown, that we have recognized and we have progressed.\nI would say it was healthy competition.\u201d\nAnd the Court, \u201cWhen you defined it as healthy competition, do I understand correctly that you consider this competition as a factor in your own growth.\u201d\nThen I say to you, if you read the record 1600 pages, you can not find one of the people who as bankers appeared on the scene to say that this was anticompetitive, not one.\nThe -- the -- we'll take Mr. Greenly of the second largest bank in New Jersey.\nHe looked over the entire situation.\nHe pointed out that there was no premium on any of the exchange of shares like there was in the national case.\nHe pointed out that there was a fair exchange and that it was -- there was nothing about it that would cause customers to have to pay the toll or pay anything additional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6017.596, 6023.245, 6041.079, 6079.12, 6107.009, 6125.074, 6134.219, 6166.109, 6169.332, 6175.972, 6183.99, 6216.098, 6218.557, 6227.403, 6244.909, 6255.624, 6257.714, 6265.271], "stop_times": [6023.245, 6041.079, 6079.12, 6107.009, 6125.074, 6134.219, 6166.109, 6169.332, 6175.972, 6183.99, 6216.098, 6218.557, 6227.403, 6244.909, 6255.624, 6257.714, 6265.271, 6280.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6017.596}, "reply_to": "14944__2_001", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_003", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But Governor, you have to start with a proposition as competition between the two banks will be eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6280.928], "stop_times": [6288.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6280.928}, "reply_to": "14944__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__2_004", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Most of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6288.156], "stop_times": [6288.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6288.156}, "reply_to": "14944__2_003", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_005", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well I know but you do start with that.\nThat seems rather obvious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6288.67, 6290.993], "stop_times": [6290.993, 6291.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6288.67}, "reply_to": "14944__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14944__2_006", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I think the customer that we're talking about -- the customer that Mr. Friedman has also listed is about, he will have five choices instead of two and one --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6291.913], "stop_times": [6302.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6291.913}, "reply_to": "14944__2_005", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_007", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I understand -- I understand but you do start with the proposition that the competition between the two banks is going to be eliminated but your point is that competition will be served in other ways and in ways that will overbalance any loss of competition.\nI gather that's your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6302.403, 6322.337], "stop_times": [6322.337, 6323.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6302.403}, "reply_to": "14944__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_008", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And the -- and the customer will not be heard because the charges are essentially the same for checking accounts and more and more since there is a better return on time deposits, most of the money is going under the time deposit area and you take William Jones, William F. Jones of the Easton Bank.\nHe specifically pointed out that this would be procompetitive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6323.413, 6350.492], "stop_times": [6350.492, 6354.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6323.413}, "reply_to": "14944__2_007", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_009", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, yes but how is it procompetitive?\nI don't understand how some competition will be eliminated between two banks but not specifically how this competition is going to be served by the merger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6354.212, 6356.231], "stop_times": [6356.231, 6364.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6354.212}, "reply_to": "14944__2_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_010", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We had at least ten witnesses who appear, appliance dealers, automobile dealers, manufacturers, industry people who pointed out that their needs were well in excess of $200,000.00.\nAs a matter of fact, two borrowers from our bank are directors of the Phillipsburg Trust Company and they testified for us saying that they felt that they would be better served if these banks were merged and they could have a larger borrowing limit.\nMr. Riccardi and Mr. Falk, Mr. Falk who operates outside of Phillipsburg a tremendous market outside of Easton one, outside and two outside of Allentown.\nThese are the people who -- the testimonies replete.\nThere isn't one as there is in these previous cases, there isn't one person or one banker who came in and said this will affect the community, this will hurt the community.\nEveryone was willing to -- most people were willing to testify and no one testified against it except Mr. Edwards who was a young PhD with a J.D. degree at the age of 31 and who on the basis of casual empiricism arrived at the conclusion by his doctoral thesis on the basis of standard statistical standard, metropolitan statistical area that he has examined some 49 of them and he examined them in terms of what happened in 1955 and 1957 and he concluded that when you had a merger of this sort, interest rates on savings deposits were reduced and interests on loans were increased.\nThis was contradicted by all of our experts, contradicted by bankers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6364.267, 6381.739, 6402.219, 6414.161, 6417.432, 6431.799, 6485.713], "stop_times": [6381.739, 6402.219, 6414.161, 6417.432, 6431.799, 6485.713, 6490.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6364.267}, "reply_to": "14944__2_009", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_011", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But now how is competition going to be served?\nThis competition is going to be served you say by enabling another unit to service larger loans, that's one way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6490.898, 6494.59], "stop_times": [6494.59, 6503.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6490.898}, "reply_to": "14944__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_012", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes as was -- as was pointed out in Nashville and Philadelphia, two banks will be better able to compete with other banks in any of these areas.\nNow, let's just take the standard metropolitan statistical area that you have the large banks in Allentown, you have the large banks in Bethlehem, you have a large bank south of us and no one in Phillipsburg can get a loan in excess of $100,000.00.\nHe's got to go to the other neighborhoods.\nNow, he can get a larger loan and I think it was recognized in the Nashville case that the Bank Merger Act of 1966 did remedy that situation, that situation of larger loan limit and the Philadelphia National Bank case was sort of held out because it was felt that the Bank Merger Act prevented them, the Bank Merger Act of 1960 but the Bank Merger Act of 1966, I think, by the Nashville case indicated that it could -- that would be one of the factors and another factor would be the management, a better opportunity to hire employees.\nNow, the record here demonstrates that the president of the Second National is well over 80 and the next man is 71 or 72 and the man after that is 39 or probably 40, 41.\nThe head of the Phillipsburg National Bank is now about 73 and the next man is about 61, 62 who wants to retire early and you come down to the next level, it's about 40 and 39.\nNow, Chinamann (ph) who represented the largest bank, south of Oxley, the Huntington County National Bank said it's too late to go out and try to do it alone.\nYou have to have a merger.\nA Greer of the Lafayette Trust Company, a former bank examiner who was pulled in as a young man and he has done a good job for Lafayette Trust says he wants to go to the $50 million in Easton and he says he can't do it without a merger.\nNow, let's look at geographic area.\nI think this Court recognized in the Philadelphia National case that they would take the four county area where the banks were permitted to operate.\nNow the judge in this case, Judge Sheldon, at the time of the hearing of this case, Lafayette Trust recognized that there was pending in the state legislature an amendment of the state banking law which would allow and which subsequently was enacted, it allows in seven counties of New Jersey branching, branching by merger or de novo with certain home office protection.\nSeven, counties, the complete northern, the majority of the state with over three million people an area very much like that which was adopted in the Philadelphia National Bank case.\nNow, this is the kind of competition we're likely to get.\nNow this applies just to a branch banking or merging.\nBut there's statewide bank holding so that you can have any bank picked up by a bank holding process.\nIn addition to that, it includes savings banks as well.\nIn addition to that, it includes savings and loans which can move into the area.\nSo you see how extensive the competition is and already Warren County has this situation.\nThere were two independent banks in Hackettstown.\nThere were two independent banks in Washington, one 12 miles away, the other about 22 miles away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6503.299, 6516.035, 6535.062, 6537.835, 6577.185, 6595.089, 6615.793, 6628.983, 6630.696, 6647.068, 6650.982, 6664.899, 6696.378, 6708.401, 6711.819, 6720.721, 6730.177, 6735.696, 6742.447, 6752.097, 6755.366], "stop_times": [6516.035, 6535.062, 6537.835, 6577.185, 6595.089, 6615.793, 6628.983, 6630.696, 6647.068, 6650.982, 6664.899, 6696.378, 6708.401, 6711.819, 6720.721, 6730.177, 6735.696, 6742.447, 6752.097, 6755.366, 6761.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6503.299}, "reply_to": "14944__2_011", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_013", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What about the finance company which Judge Shaw places much emphasis on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6761.463], "stop_times": [6766.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6761.463}, "reply_to": "14944__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "14944__2_014", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Walmer Trupke (ph), one of the most outstanding experts who teaches at N.Y.U. Law School has been associated with the finance company points out the tremendous competition that they have.\nI think in Philadelphia National, it was pointed out that the finance companies get most of their money from banks.\nHe says this is untrue to (Inaudible).\nHe says that they borrow it by notes on less than 270 days from the leading insurance and manufacturing companies for instance U.S. Steel maybe 80 days from now, we'll have to make a tax payment, so they'll buy some notes from one of the leading finance companies.\nThat is the way they got a good deal of their money and Walmer Trupke (ph) who is an expert here has testified said that only about 10% of the finance companies get their money from the banks.\nNow, I'm talking about the finance there -- three, two types of finance companies.\nThere's the finance company that takes care of inventory machinery and appliances something like GMAC, GAC, CIT and that type of outfit or the subsidiaries of General Electric and their appliances.\nThat's the one face of it.\nThe other is the small loan companies which are at a very large outfit.\nSo you see, what I'm just going to say now about the Warren County situation we're part of this seven county area.\nThey're closing in on us and they're closing in on us this one.\nShortly, after this suit was started, there was a merger between the Washington Bank in -- the Hackettstown Bank, pardon me.\nThat was the Warren County National Bank.\nThat's now being taken over by the largest bank in the state First National Bank, state bank, that's all in the exhibit -- intervenor's exhibit 30.\nSo those two banks went into a merger.\nThey are going to be taken over by a bank holding company, the biggest bank in the State of New Jersey.\nThen there's the Washington Trust Company which is 12 miles away from Phillipsburg and which had a branch in Oxford and one in White Township and that's being taken over by the National Newark and Essex Bank.\nThis is a bank with just about 14 to 15 million.\nNational Newark and Essex is about the third largest bank in the State of New Jersey operating over Newark.\nThe only other independent bank we now have in Hackettstown, that's being taken over by the Peoples Trust Company at the Hackensack Bank which is about number five bank in the state of New Jersey.\nNow, if you look at the intervenor's exhibits, you will see very clearly that they allow this sort of thing just as say its vital right for the National and Newark Essex to come in and take the Washington Bank.\nUnder their method of approach, they probably say it's alright, come and take one of the three banks in Phillipsburg.\nNow, we in order to compete with Easton, Bethlehem and Allentown in order to compete with Huntington County National Bank, in order to compete in this first district, we must have a better management than we have.\nNow, the record is replete with instances of what we need.\nIt's been shown that we tried to do it.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6766.799, 6780.864, 6787.632, 6790.178, 6810.695, 6821.768, 6825.236, 6841.977, 6843.206, 6849.493, 6861.094, 6865.383, 6874.628, 6878.431, 6889.131, 6891.653, 6897.262, 6914.205, 6921.28, 6927.027, 6944.96, 6962.537, 6971.17, 6986.917, 6990.782, 6993.794], "stop_times": [6780.864, 6787.632, 6790.178, 6810.695, 6821.768, 6825.236, 6841.977, 6843.206, 6849.493, 6861.094, 6865.383, 6874.628, 6878.431, 6889.131, 6891.653, 6897.262, 6914.205, 6921.28, 6927.027, 6944.96, 6962.537, 6971.17, 6986.917, 6990.782, 6993.794, 6994.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6766.799}, "reply_to": "14944__2_013", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_015", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Has your bank ever lost any money during any year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6994.732], "stop_times": [6998.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6994.732}, "reply_to": "14944__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_016", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, I might say that that these two banks or three banks in Philipsburg survived the depression without closing more than the normal time.\nBut we have served the community.\nThat's our chief -- that's our chief asset.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [6998.267, 7007.91, 7011.238], "stop_times": [7007.91, 7011.238, 7013.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6998.267}, "reply_to": "14944__2_015", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_017", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I understand that but I was wondering if they have ever lost any money to you or are they still making money every year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7013.837], "stop_times": [7021.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7013.837}, "reply_to": "14944__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_018", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I'm sure we lost some during the depression years, 1933, -- 1932, 1933, 1934 and we had to right off things but we didn't pay dividends for a long while, that's true but in recent years, it's hardly -- there's hardly a bank in the country that's really lost any money and the moment you lose too much, it looks -- you have FDIC looking over your shoulder, a receivership takes place and the depositors are paid off and we have strict supervision but we do have two banks that are designed primarily to take care of local people.\nNow, we've had a testimony of William Greenly and we've had it of (Inaudible).\nThey're high executives in the leading banks in Newark, some of the banks that are moving into this area and they were asked by a justice about participation and they said, \u201cWell, you know things get tight here and we withdraw or we don't want to be available.\nAnd we are not interested unless you have a skillful -- a skillful mortgage officer or a skillful, a C&I loan officer available to process the loan.\u201d\nSo consequently there is this need, made by two directors of Phillipsburg Trust, need by an automobile dealer, 25 requests a year according (Inaudible), the vice president, about 17 according to Dolbert (ph), the second national officer.\nThis is the need that we want to meet and we want to meet and we want to be a commercial bank.\nThis is the area that we want to serve and the record will show rather completely that the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7021.304, 7059.129, 7064.956, 7086.257, 7103.696, 7122.037, 7128.719], "stop_times": [7059.129, 7064.956, 7086.257, 7103.696, 7122.037, 7128.719, 7134.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7021.304}, "reply_to": "14944__2_017", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_019", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Have you ever thought about selling any stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7134.528], "stop_times": [7137.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7134.528}, "reply_to": "14944__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_020", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Oh!\nYes, as a matter of fact, we're undercapitalized right now and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7137.439, 7137.551], "stop_times": [7137.551, 7141.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7137.439}, "reply_to": "14944__2_019", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_021", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "What was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7141.738], "stop_times": [7142.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7141.738}, "reply_to": "14944__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_022", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We're undercapitalized.\nOur relationship of capital assets toward total assets is only about 5%, it should be near 10%.\nSecond National is about 7.5% to 8%.\nIt should be near 10% and one of the purposes of the merger was to bring these two banks together and float an issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7142.584, 7144.854, 7152.302, 7155.723], "stop_times": [7144.854, 7152.302, 7155.723, 7164.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7142.584}, "reply_to": "14944__2_021", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_023", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "At mergers.\nI'm talking about did you ever think about doing it in a way that wouldn't close up any banks, just get yourselves talk to people in addition to what you've sold?\nIt seemed to be done pretty well through the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7164.117, 7164.829, 7175.338], "stop_times": [7164.829, 7175.338, 7177.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7164.117}, "reply_to": "14944__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_024", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No we're not.\nJustice Black, we are not doing well in today's line of commerce.\nIf you will read the Nattler and Walich, the modern day bankers and you read this testimony, there's that great amount of change going on constantly and we realize that this change is going on.\nI just want to give you a few illustrations that we have changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7177.738, 7179.205, 7183.733, 7199.63], "stop_times": [7179.205, 7183.733, 7199.63, 7202.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7177.738}, "reply_to": "14944__2_023", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_025", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You propose to help it by merging and reduce the number of banks instead of increasing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7202.319], "stop_times": [7208.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7202.319}, "reply_to": "14944__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_026", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "We are not closing any office.\nThere will be the same number of offices.\nThere will be better service to the customer in the sense that we can loan him more.\nAs a matter of fact, we have a real need for someone who understands mortgage loans.\nA real definite need because you got multiple housing coming along.\nYou can no longer take care of it by single family dwellings.\nThe U.S. Savings Institutions came up to our town just about the time of the trial and just gave us $695,000.00 loan for a multiple dwelling.\nNow this is the sort of thing that we should be taking care of.\nThe testimony of (Inaudible) shows that that was done and he testified.\nSo that we really are in a position --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7208.522, 7210.703, 7212.729, 7218.954, 7227.266, 7232.975, 7237.018, 7251.74, 7255.377, 7259.808], "stop_times": [7210.703, 7212.729, 7218.954, 7227.266, 7232.975, 7237.018, 7251.74, 7255.377, 7259.808, 7262.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7208.522}, "reply_to": "14944__2_025", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_027", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Who made that loan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7262.219], "stop_times": [7263.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7262.219}, "reply_to": "14944__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_028", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That was by the U.S. Savings Bank out of Newark and this is the stuff we should be taking care off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7263.651], "stop_times": [7269.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7263.651}, "reply_to": "14944__2_027", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_029", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They would have lost that business if you have done this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7269.756], "stop_times": [7272.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7269.756}, "reply_to": "14944__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_030", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7272.24], "stop_times": [7273.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7272.24}, "reply_to": "14944__2_029", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_031", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They would have lost that business if you have done this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7273.286], "stop_times": [7276.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7273.286}, "reply_to": "14944__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "14944__2_032", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That's right and we would have been able to service the loan, a good deal better then they would from Newark.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7276.221], "stop_times": [7283.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7276.221}, "reply_to": "14944__2_031", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_033", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Governor, when someone asks you for a loan that's beyond your lending limit, do you normally attempt to get the participants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7283.868], "stop_times": [7294.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7283.868}, "reply_to": "14944__2_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_034", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Oh yes, indeed.\nAs a matter of fact, our policy is to gather the other two banks or go across the river or go to the credential insurance company or go to other banks but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7294.847, 7295.702], "stop_times": [7295.702, 7305.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7294.847}, "reply_to": "14944__2_033", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_035", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, how often that do you have to turn customers away because you can't get a participation certificate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7305.957], "stop_times": [7315.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7305.957}, "reply_to": "14944__2_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_036", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, Justice White, we have and we have testimony in here that some people who started business and automobile dealer, Mr. Whitman and another person who is in the chemical business couldn't stay with us because they couldn't wait for the time it took for us to process the papers and to get a participating loan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7315.159], "stop_times": [7336.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7315.159}, "reply_to": "14944__2_035", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_037", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, what could -- these two banks who want to merge, what could they do by merger in the way of a loan they couldn't do by participating each other's loans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7336.025], "stop_times": [7346.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7336.025}, "reply_to": "14944__2_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_038", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, they could keep the loan because we have loads of evidence.\nThe testimonies were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7346.295, 7352.67], "stop_times": [7352.67, 7353.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7346.295}, "reply_to": "14944__2_037", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_039", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Let's say somebody wants $250,000.00 loan today and asked one of these two banks to make the loan, could that bank go to the other one and if the other bank agreed, couldn't you make the loan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7353.615], "stop_times": [7367.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7353.615}, "reply_to": "14944__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_040", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, we could but the testimony is such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7367.086], "stop_times": [7371.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7367.086}, "reply_to": "14944__2_039", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_041", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You just don't operate that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7371.18], "stop_times": [7372.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7371.18}, "reply_to": "14944__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_042", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, there's loads of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7372.777], "stop_times": [7374.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7372.777}, "reply_to": "14944__2_041", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_043", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Because you're competing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7374.641], "stop_times": [7376.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7374.641}, "reply_to": "14944__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_044", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, not because we are competing.\nAs a matter of fact Lopatcong, Pohactong, Alphaburg, and Phillipsburg have borrowed from Phillipsburg National because Phillipsburg National has gotten together with Second National and Phillipsburg Trust to service the community and they get a better loan and a better credit rating by that method if they had to rely on Newark or Hackensack or a Passaic or a Patterson bank.\nThis is the sort of thing we want to do.\nThis isn't any manipulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7376.016, 7378.174, 7404.017, 7406.38], "stop_times": [7378.174, 7404.017, 7406.38, 7407.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7376.016}, "reply_to": "14944__2_043", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_045", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No I understand -- I understand that.\nI understand what you want to do.\nDo you have a larger correspondent bank you normally call on to participate with you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7407.741, 7409.605, 7411.734], "stop_times": [7409.605, 7411.734, 7415.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7407.741}, "reply_to": "14944__2_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_046", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes, we correspond with two New York banks, Marine Midland and I think it has Manufacturer Hanover and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7415.798], "stop_times": [7423.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7415.798}, "reply_to": "14944__2_045", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_047", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And whenever you have involved (Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7423.233], "stop_times": [7426.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7423.233}, "reply_to": "14944__2_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_048", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "-- and National Newark and Essex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7426.251], "stop_times": [7427.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7426.251}, "reply_to": "14944__2_047", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_049", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "If you want to originate the big loan, the only thing is you end up on the tail end and they really manage it, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7427.65], "stop_times": [7433.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7427.65}, "reply_to": "14944__2_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__2_050", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, and the follow Banking Code Justice White.\nWhen things are tightened up so that they can take care of their large accounts, they tighten up on us and they don't stay with us and they don't stay with that customer and the customer doesn't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7433.815, 7437.421], "stop_times": [7437.421, 7449.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7433.815}, "reply_to": "14944__2_049", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_051", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Their primary concern with the customers in their community not in your community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7449.363], "stop_times": [7454.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7449.363}, "reply_to": "14944__2_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__2_052", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And -- and with the larger customers, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7454.082], "stop_times": [7456.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7454.082}, "reply_to": "14944__2_051", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_053", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Governor, if you merge these two banks, you can give $100,000.00 but once they merge you can a make a loan of $200,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7456.89], "stop_times": [7467.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7456.89}, "reply_to": "14944__2_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__2_054", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Not only $200,000.00 Justice Marshall but maybe $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 because we must recapitalize and we've been delaying it as a result of this merger litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7467.387], "stop_times": [7478.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7467.387}, "reply_to": "14944__2_053", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_055", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "So you can make a loan of $400,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7478.916], "stop_times": [7483.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7478.916}, "reply_to": "14944__2_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__2_056", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That is correct Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7483.128], "stop_times": [7485.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7483.128}, "reply_to": "14944__2_055", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_057", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Then you'll come in five years later and say since you can make a loan of $600,000.00 you should be merged with one of the big banks you're now talking about, wouldn't that be logical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7485.014], "stop_times": [7498.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7485.014}, "reply_to": "14944__2_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__2_058", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "This is -- Justice Marshall, this is what we are hoping to avoid.\nI don't know --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7498.299, 7503.457], "stop_times": [7503.457, 7504.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7498.299}, "reply_to": "14944__2_057", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_059", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But isn't the argument just as logical?\nThat's my trouble.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7504.059, 7507.045], "stop_times": [7507.045, 7507.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7504.059}, "reply_to": "14944__2_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14944__2_060", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But what you're already -- we have justice at this moment saying if someone wants a loan of $250,000.00 go on over to Easton or go on to Newark.\nThey're -- they're anticompetitive in a sense.\nThey don't let us compete with the area across the river.\nThey don't let us compete in this standard metropolitan statistical area which was set up by the Bureau -- it was set up by the Budget Bureau and it is the standard metropolitan statistical area and our statistics demonstrate, statistics in exhibit six, seven and eight show that this area has not had anywhere near the concentration that existed in the Nashville case.\nIt -- it has the least concentration except one in some 49 cases.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7507.727, 7522.24, 7526.695, 7531.752, 7561.853, 7568.257], "stop_times": [7522.24, 7526.695, 7531.752, 7561.853, 7568.257, 7568.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 7507.727}, "reply_to": "14944__2_059", "speaker": "robert_b_meyner"}
{"id": "14944__2_061", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Thank you Governor Meyner.\nYou have one minute left Mr. Friedman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7568.623, 7570.038], "stop_times": [7570.038, 7572.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7568.623}, "reply_to": "14944__2_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__3_000", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIn this minute, there are two points I would like to make.\nOne is a legal argument and the other is to give some statistics that the department has worked out as to the Comptroller's record in approving the merger.\nThe legal point I'd like to make is just this.\nThe problems faced by these two banks are basically the same problems faced by most banks in the smaller communities.\nThe difficulty is they don't have a large enough lending limit.\nThey have difficulty hiring people, now they'd like to expand and we don't think the statute contemplates that the way to solve these problems is by combining two successful banks that are directly competing with each other.\nThere are other ways available to these banks.\nThe one thing they can increase their capitalization.\nThe record shows that in nine --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7572.083, 7574.121, 7576.379, 7584.483, 7587.392, 7595.634, 7598.641, 7610.899, 7613.033, 7615.892], "stop_times": [7574.121, 7576.379, 7584.483, 7587.392, 7595.634, 7598.641, 7610.899, 7613.033, 7615.892, 7617.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7572.083}, "reply_to": "14944__2_061", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_001", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Or they can get bought by bigger bank outside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7617.003], "stop_times": [7619.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7617.003}, "reply_to": "14944__3_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__3_002", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, if they get bought by a bigger bank, Mr. Justice, you're not eliminating competition between them even --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7619.752], "stop_times": [7625.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7619.752}, "reply_to": "14944__3_001", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_003", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And the department would prefer that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7625.462], "stop_times": [7627.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7625.462}, "reply_to": "14944__3_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__3_004", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "I think the department would Mr. Justice if it's just a small bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7627.989], "stop_times": [7631.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7627.989}, "reply_to": "14944__3_003", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_005", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "They rather have a Philadelphia and the big Philadelphia Bank owning one of these banks or both of these banks with that manner, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7631.634], "stop_times": [7639.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7631.634}, "reply_to": "14944__3_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__3_006", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Well, I don't know Mr. Justice but it seems to me, they are very different situation because even if a New York -- it have to be a New York banks that sits in New Jersey but if the two -- but if the New York bank purchased one of these banks, you still have three competing banks in the area.\nUnder this merger, you have only two competing banks in the Phillipsburg area.\nThe purchase of one of these banks, by a bank, a big bank from outside the area does not eliminate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7639.799, 7657.203, 7662.069], "stop_times": [7657.203, 7662.069, 7668.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7639.799}, "reply_to": "14944__3_005", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_007", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But you'll have five -- you'll have five in this community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7668.975], "stop_times": [7673.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7668.975}, "reply_to": "14944__3_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__3_008", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "You reduce the number in this community by this merger from seven to six.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7673.157], "stop_times": [7678.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7673.157}, "reply_to": "14944__3_007", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_009", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Seven to six.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7678.376], "stop_times": [7680.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7678.376}, "reply_to": "14944__3_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__3_010", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "And in the Phillipsburg area you reduce it from three to two and that is it seems to us is a very different situation in continuing the number of banks at seven but allowing one of the banks to be operated, owned by a bank --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7680.071], "stop_times": [7692.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7680.071}, "reply_to": "14944__3_009", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_011", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "That two to one would carry a lot more weight with me if you were saying that this law was in Tulsa, Oklahoma and the other was in Oklahoma City but here you have one -- it doesn't rate metropolitan -- you have one community separated by a river.\nSo you got seven banks and you will be cut down to six.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7692.003, 7708.027], "stop_times": [7708.027, 7710.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7692.003}, "reply_to": "14944__3_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__3_012", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Cut down to six but we think with an already concentrated market and with the fact that while you have one community of seven, the indication is that the major focus of banking is in each community, we think that the elimination of this number and it significantly increasing concentration, isn't it.\nNow if I might Mr. Chief Justice because of the questions raised, could I permissibly just indicate some of the statistics --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7710.904, 7729.027], "stop_times": [7729.027, 7736.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7710.904}, "reply_to": "14944__3_011", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_013", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Couldn't you submit those because your friends are going to submit some other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7736.376], "stop_times": [7740.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7736.376}, "reply_to": "14944__3_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__3_014", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "If I may Mr. Chief Justice, I just like the -- just the summary, if we may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7740.005], "stop_times": [7743.576], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7740.005}, "reply_to": "14944__3_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14944__3_015", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "The summary of the statistics we have is when we will submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7743.576], "stop_times": [7746.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7743.576}, "reply_to": "14944__3_014", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_016", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Would you submit them also?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7746.189], "stop_times": [7747.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7746.189}, "reply_to": "14944__3_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14944__3_017", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Yes we will submit a letter and we'll have to check the statistics but the preliminary information we have is that in the years 1967 and 1968, in each of those years, the Comptroller approved approximately 88 mergers.\nThese are all statistics and we think that the figures roughly approximate.\nIn 1967, he disapproved one and approved 88.\nIn 1968 he disapproved any and in 1969, we have figures roughly more than 100 as far as we can show they are no denials.\nThis is our rough figures which we had --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7747.484, 7762.387, 7765.844, 7769.992, 7777.839], "stop_times": [7762.387, 7765.844, 7769.992, 7777.839, 7779.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7747.484}, "reply_to": "14944__3_016", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_018", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "But this is after -- was this -- this was after -- this doesn't reach the point of the mergers which might have been discouraged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7779.205], "stop_times": [7788.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7779.205}, "reply_to": "14944__3_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__3_019", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "No, no, these are ones that were presented to the Comptroller when we have it.\nI don't know if there was a hearing in all cases.\nI was trying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7788.375, 7793.484, 7795.325], "stop_times": [7793.484, 7795.325, 7795.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7788.375}, "reply_to": "14944__3_018", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_020", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Or at least there was a formal application and a filing of rejection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7795.486], "stop_times": [7797.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7795.486}, "reply_to": "14944__3_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14944__3_021", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "There was a formal application and these do not cover mergers where the application was withdrawn after.\nWell, these are just application in which he acted and we will supplement this and try to obtain as accurate figures as we can.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7797.231, 7802.843, 7810.282], "stop_times": [7802.843, 7810.282, 7810.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7797.231}, "reply_to": "14944__3_020", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "14944__3_022", "conversation_id": "14944", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Friedman.\nThank you gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1093", "start_times": [7810.564, 7811.531, 7812.162], "stop_times": [7811.531, 7812.162, 7815.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7810.564}, "reply_to": "14944__3_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__0_000", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Number 88 United States against Reynolds.\nMr. Kashiwa, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [0.0, 18.518], "stop_times": [18.518, 25.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__0_001", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThis is a review of a session of the Sixth Circuit relating to the scope of project rule expressed by this Court in the Miller case in 1943, 317 U.S. 369.\nBriefly, the factual situation was first of all, this had to do with the Nolin Reservoir Project in Kentucky.\nThe Reynolds owned a total of 390 acres.\nThe present case is a case of partial taking of 250 acres out of the 390, in other words after the taking in this case they were a 140 acres remaining.\nOut of the 250 acres, 172 acres were for inundation and 78 acres were for recreational purposes and it's the 78 acres which causes the question in this case.\nNow, with relation to the project, the project was congressionally authorized way back in 1958 as a flood control plan for the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.\nIncidentally, after 1938, in 1944, congress has passed the special statute authorizing acquisition of recreational areas in conjunction with reservoir projects.\nIn 1956, planning funds were appropriated for the Nolin project and in July 1958, a general design memoranda was approved.\nThis design memoranda, contained contemplated recreational areas definitely.\nIn September 1958, funds were provided by congress for the project and in January 1959, the project was started.\nIn October 1959, this 78 acres for recreational purpose was specifically set aside in a memo by the United States Engineers.\nIn April 18th 1962, a suit was filed and declaration of taking filed in the case.\nIncidentally going back, the Reynolds's purchased this property in October of 1959, a portion of it in October 59 and the balance of it in 1960, of course before the case was filed.\nWe have to go into the proceedings in the trial court to fully understand the issues.\nIn the trial court, the Court held with relation to any enhancement testimony as to the 78 acres, this is a recreation area.\nThe Court held that it is a question for the trial court to decide and it held that it held that it will not allow any enhancement testimony, this is in the original, the first portion of the trial.\nBut just before the case went to the jury, the Court changed its mind and said no as to whether the 78 acres was within the scope of the project or not, it will allow the jury to consider and so the owners put on testimony with relation to the 78 acres with and without enhancement.\nThe case went to the jury and the jury in this case filed that the land was probably within the scope of the project under the instructions of the Court, if that was so then enhancement was not to be allowed.\nTherefore, the jury returned a verdict of only $20,000.00.\nIn the Court of Appeals, the Court also following the trial court held that whether it was in the scope of the project this question was before the jury, but the Appellant Court reversed the case as $20,000.00 verdict because the jury was allowed to consider facts which were not an evidence, it happened in this way.\nThe Court at first took the scope of the project question and testimony was adduced only before the Court.\nBut later when it changed its mind, the witnesses testified but government attorney did not cover the testimony as fully as he did just before the Court but he remembered -- but the Court in considering the evidence --- commenting on the evidence went back to the evidence he heard while he was sitting at the Court and in this mix up, the grounds for reversal came up, I will go back to this later.\nSo the issue -- the first issue in this case is whether the scope of the project question is a determination for the Court or for the jury.\nThis Court in Miller in the Miller case, a case with substantially similar factual background as in this case held that it was for the trial court to rule upon and not a jury question.\nIn that case, the respondents, when he tried it to put on evidence with relation to the valuation of the particular parcel and the government attorney objected because whatever he offered included enhancement and the Court took part in the questioning and specifically directed the witness not to include that enhancement in that testimony and this was a direct ruling by the Court on that question.\nBut in the latter part of the opinion there is a reference to jury instructions given by the Court and with relation to these instructions, the Court commented that these instructions were not wrong.\nIt's this portion of the -- this Court's decision that has caused much difficulty in the Courts below.\nI maintain that the opinion means and it meant that it was a question for the Court.\nThe later comment in the instruction, it was really not an instruction given the jury any leeway as to deciding one way or the other, it was a comment by the Court that you shall not with relation to this lot consider enhancement.\nBut that was taken by the Sixth Circuit as well as the trial court to mean, well, there are two portions of this decision and therefore will let the jury we have them.\nWe contend that that's a wrongful interpretation of what this Court held because the evidence of enhancement was not allowed at all.\nHow could the jury consider enhancement when it didn't have any evidence of enhancement before it?\nSo that was a purely warning type of instruction and it's our position that as stated in the Wardy case, at Fifth Circuit Court decision which followed the Miller case as we interpreted.\nThe Circuit Court in the Fifth Circuit well put it, \u201cthe judge decides illegal question which limits the factors to the determination of just compensation.\u201d\nWe further point to rule 71 (a) (h) adopted in 1951, this is the rule that has to do with eminent domain.\nIn essence, taken all the portion with relation to jury commissioners and all of that out, as material in this case, it reads, any party may have a trial by jury of the issue of compensation, then it further states, trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the Court.\nAs I said this rule was adopted after the Miller decision but we contend that the rule is perfectly consistent with our position that legal questions which limit the factors to the determination of just compensation for the trial.\nIn fact, when we redo, it reads very much in our favor.\nWe do it admit that it does say, any party may have trial by jury of the issue of compensation.\nWhat our opponents are saying anything that has remotely to do with this compensation should be tried by the jury, we disagree.\nFor various reasons, we contend that in most of these recreational area cases, there are quite a few of these, the government relies and also the respondent relies on the records of the Engineers and in this case, if looking at both briefs as far as the records of the Engineers there's no dispute as to the fact.\nThe personnel of the engineer, engineers come and testifies and that's so, that all of this events happen on so and so a day.\nNow, some of these facts could become very, very complicated, it's not a simple as in this case.\nWe have a case called the Crans case from the Eighth Circuit, which not only -- there was a general indication of recreational areas and then the recreational area was determined but they also have public hearings and at the time of this public hearings the public attends and sometimes this areas are changed.\nIn other words they become very, very complicated and usually as I have said before in the Crans case, the facts, there were no disputes as to the records of the engineer's office.\nAnd so both counsels stipulated, well, that's a question for the Court, there's nothing to argue about this that the Court decided and by a preliminary hearing, a very orderly way to decide a case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [25.46, 27.878, 47.87, 60.492, 67.534, 83.688, 108.0, 124.254, 141.915, 161.532, 172.318, 185.598, 204.132, 213.285, 236.93, 242.359, 258.726, 279.468, 312.242, 333.066, 340.19, 369.962, 378.434, 414.243, 426.335, 446.246, 487.279, 507.595, 514.821, 521.366, 540.151, 555.336, 568.19, 576.086, 599.144, 621.835, 632.97, 664.542, 683.69, 689.619, 701.161, 714.098, 747.996, 758.103, 767.944, 795.577, 811.579], "stop_times": [27.878, 47.87, 60.492, 67.534, 83.688, 108.0, 124.254, 141.915, 161.532, 172.318, 185.598, 204.132, 213.285, 236.93, 242.359, 258.726, 279.468, 312.242, 333.066, 340.19, 369.962, 378.434, 414.243, 426.335, 446.246, 487.279, 507.595, 514.821, 521.366, 540.151, 555.336, 568.19, 576.086, 599.144, 621.835, 632.97, 664.542, 683.69, 689.619, 701.161, 714.098, 747.996, 758.103, 767.944, 795.577, 811.579, 827.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 25.46}, "reply_to": "15027__0_000", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_002", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, isn't the Court decides on these records?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [827.229], "stop_times": [831.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.229}, "reply_to": "15027__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_003", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Whether the area in dispute is within the scope of the project in the Reynolds' case.\nIf it's within the scope of the project then enhancement is not allowed, enhancement by the very general project that matters through.\nNow, in the Crans case as I said these engineering -- engineers facts were rather complicated but it was disposed off in that manner and I think very sensibly so and where there isn't much -- there isn't any dispute as to material facts, it should be for the Court and within this -- this preliminary question in the Crans case -- there appeared to subsidiary questions, one question of governmental estoppel because of certain facts, and secondly, authorized or unauthorized act of government officials, these issues aroused.\nSo, looking at the Crans case you readily realize that these issues could be very, very complicated and it's not the type of thing of question for the jury and especially so where the facts are not disputed.\nAnother policy reason I'd like to advance is much as possible in this kind of a case, evaluation testimony which is not material should not be allowed to the jury, there maybe abuses.\nNow, in the Court below, let's take the trial below to be consistent with relation to the 172 acres which is the inundated area, there's no question about it.\nThe enhancement is not allowed and of course it wasn't raised but that's the way the testimony is put in and partly, if anybody raises the question the Court will rule, the enhancement will not be allowed.\nNow, what about with the 140 acres, which remained under the eminent domain rules that is an after value so the enhancement is added off to the remainder of the problem.\nThe Judge in this case rule that enhancement will be added on, that was the question for the Judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [831.024, 840.695, 852.397, 900.073, 922.206, 937.596, 952.545, 968.565, 995.347], "stop_times": [840.695, 852.397, 900.073, 922.206, 937.596, 952.545, 968.565, 995.347, 1005.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.024}, "reply_to": "15027__0_002", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_004", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I didn't know, you're talking now about what acreage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1005.186], "stop_times": [1007.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.186}, "reply_to": "15027__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_005", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The 140 which is the remainder after the 78 and 172 were taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1007.63], "stop_times": [1017.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.63}, "reply_to": "15027__0_004", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_006", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I see, it's the part not taken at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1017.008], "stop_times": [1020.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.008}, "reply_to": "15027__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_007", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That's right.\nThe enhancement --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1020.887, 1022.157], "stop_times": [1022.157, 1022.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.887}, "reply_to": "15027__0_006", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_008", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Of this -- of this party's land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1022.76], "stop_times": [1024.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.76}, "reply_to": "15027__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_009", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yeah, the enhancement is added on.\nIn other words, the party does not benefit by the enhanced value.\nNow, those were decided as preliminary questions by the Court, so why not with relation to the 78 acres?\nNow, if the Court with respect to this question rules that it is a question before the Court because of the peculiar way the verdicts were returned, our position is that the Sixth Circuit must be reversed, its not a question for the jury, the Circuit Court held it was for the jury so it must be reversed with relation to that but our position is that the verdict for $20,000.00 must be sustained because the jury so found that this is the value without the enhancement.\nNow, with relation if this Court decides the other way that it is a question for the jury then we had meant that the case must be remanded and a retrial had because facts outside the record were considered by the jury, at least it was allowed to be considered.\nNow, the second issue which we present --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1024.857, 1030.388, 1037.242, 1047.242, 1087.359, 1112.388], "stop_times": [1030.388, 1037.242, 1047.242, 1087.359, 1112.388, 1116.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.857}, "reply_to": "15027__0_008", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_010", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Is this an argument that more evidence wanting the jury on the -- should have gotten to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1116.421], "stop_times": [1122.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.421}, "reply_to": "15027__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_011", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1122.759], "stop_times": [1122.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.759}, "reply_to": "15027__0_010", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_012", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The jury found against enhancement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1122.896], "stop_times": [1124.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.896}, "reply_to": "15027__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_013", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, the court in its comment made certain statements what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1124.978], "stop_times": [1129.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.978}, "reply_to": "15027__0_012", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_014", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes, but let's assume that same thing is telling the jury that there is the record something that is not at all, is that right?\nWhat was the comment of the judge?\nHe said something that the jury about evidence which was not heard by the jury, wasn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1129.99, 1139.537, 1142.157], "stop_times": [1139.537, 1142.157, 1147.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.99}, "reply_to": "15027__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_015", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes, the witness testified as to the probability of taking for recreational area and this is the area which the judge should not have state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1147.712], "stop_times": [1158.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.712}, "reply_to": "15027__0_014", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_016", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But even though the judge told the jury that, the jury found there was no enhancement, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1158.979], "stop_times": [1165.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.979}, "reply_to": "15027__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_017", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That is said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1165.248], "stop_times": [1165.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.248}, "reply_to": "15027__0_016", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_018", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "$20,000.00 verdict was a verdict based on the finding of no enhancement, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1165.397], "stop_times": [1170.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.397}, "reply_to": "15027__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_019", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "We maintain that this is -- it should not have gone to the jury at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1170.533], "stop_times": [1175.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.533}, "reply_to": "15027__0_018", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_020", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I appreciate that but how will you have heard by going to the jury if the jury came in with a $20,000.00 verdict on the basis of no enhancement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1175.618], "stop_times": [1183.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.618}, "reply_to": "15027__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_021", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well that's \u2013 we are saying that if it's a question for the Court, then the $20,000.00 verdict should be sustained.\nBut the reasoning of the Court that it should have been a question for the jury -- that portion we want to reverse, that's all we want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1183.711, 1195.398], "stop_times": [1195.398, 1207.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.711}, "reply_to": "15027__0_020", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_022", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That's the first branch of your case that you've been arguing right now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1207.986], "stop_times": [1210.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.986}, "reply_to": "15027__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_023", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Right now, because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1210.12], "stop_times": [1213.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.12}, "reply_to": "15027__0_022", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_024", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Do you see in advancing that argument any constitutional difficulties of any kind I'm referring to the Seventh Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1213.661], "stop_times": [1221.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.661}, "reply_to": "15027__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_025", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, I don't -- the constitutional question was if any well, gone into the Miller case, footnotes about the various cases at this stage of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1221.437], "stop_times": [1236.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1221.437}, "reply_to": "15027__0_024", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_026", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But I'm talking to the -- about the constitutional right of jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1236.057], "stop_times": [1240.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.057}, "reply_to": "15027__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_027", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, Your Honor, in eminent domain cases they haven't had jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1240.013], "stop_times": [1246.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.013}, "reply_to": "15027__0_026", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__0_028", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Just as the matter of the statute between the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1246.958], "stop_times": [1248.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1246.958}, "reply_to": "15027__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__0_029", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes, with the rule, I would say.\nNow, we request because of the various rules that have develop under this Miller rule, we would like to have the Court clarified.\nThe rule and this we asked in our petition that this be done and it was granted by this Court and the Miller rule has been interpreted in the Third Circuit.\nThe Third Circuit has said that there must be an indication at the outset of the project that a particular track or area will be acquired.\nNow, this we contend is a very narrow rule, that's a Third Circuit rule.\nIn the Eight Circuit, it is sufficient, if it is clear that some land will be taken even though the particular land is not identified, that is the rule in the circuit and the Eight Circuit and that was the rule in the Miller case.\nWe contend and I call this the Department of Justice rule that the rule should be parted.\nThe only requirement is that the land was within the general area influenced by the project.\nAnd we maintain that that should be the rule because the basic reason in the as stated in the Miller case was that owners are not to gain by speculating on probable increase in value due to governmental activities.\nIn other words, the government should not pay for the value it creates.\nAnother reason why the Third Circuit and the Eight Circuit rules are unduly harsh on the government, if those rules expect -- adopted be very difficult to change projects.\nNot the whole project but the scope in lines of the project.\nAs I stated at the Crans case for example, the public were here -- instead of the recreation area being here, they wanted it over here.\nAnd these changes are made the engineers, but that should not affect the individual owners because it is within the conduct, the recreational areas were contemplated and the fact that we take it shouldn't change the rule.\nIf the Third Circuit and the Eight Circuit rules are approved, we contend that perhaps government will mark out a very large project as large as it should and then take with it.\nThis is what the government did in the (Inaudible) case.\nThen we also contend that these rules should be consistent with relation to the 140 acres which was not taken; this is at the most -- we talk about enhancement.\nWe don't have much many strict rules as to that, it will -- if the remaining parcel while the value was enhanced, we added on to that value that's all that's to it.\nIn other words, it's in the general vicinity and it has been influenced by the state.\nNow, what the word scope of the project, we finally contend as used in the Miller case meant under the influence of the project, this is what it really means, and if we adopt this view which is a view broader than the Third Circuit and the Eight Circuit, I think that justice be done in all of these cases and government will not be paying for the value it creates.\nThis is very, very important for we taxpayers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1248.235, 1254.56, 1269.595, 1289.216, 1302.673, 1309.929, 1329.143, 1336.195, 1344.821, 1364.454, 1372.636, 1388.247, 1396.219, 1404.684, 1429.08, 1447.125, 1457.951, 1475.133, 1490.71, 1499.223, 1539.198], "stop_times": [1254.56, 1269.595, 1289.216, 1302.673, 1309.929, 1329.143, 1336.195, 1344.821, 1364.454, 1372.636, 1388.247, 1396.219, 1404.684, 1429.08, 1447.125, 1457.951, 1475.133, 1490.71, 1499.223, 1539.198, 1553.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.235}, "reply_to": "15027__0_028", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__1_000", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "If the Court pleases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1553.127], "stop_times": [1555.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1553.127}, "reply_to": "15027__0_029", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_001", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Mr. Solomon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1555.333], "stop_times": [1558.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.333}, "reply_to": "15027__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_002", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "First, I would like to correct that certain statement said, I know were inadvertently inherent.\nOne, there's a crucial date, I reviewed the dates again because our position is this.\nThe Miller -- the Miller case and I will go into the factual situation in a minute.\nBut the Miller case, we say stand for the proposition that if in the original design over project, the land is delineated to be taken or as in the Miller case if it were marked out or designated that it would probably be taken, then there is no enhanced value.\nIf it's in the original scope and the original plans, no one has value or as the in the Miller case, where there was a railroad right of way over areas to be flooded and they had marked out amusement, the terminology of the Court in its opinion.\nMarked out or designated where this right of way should be that's why they used the words probably would have taken or when the government was committed to it.\nAnd those two instances, we state that there would be no enhancement, however, as in our case where the government in its original desire and then in a later desire did not take in the property, the 78 acres but later did so in a third memo, as we say an after thought then we believe we are entitled to the enhance value of that land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1558.349, 1567.044, 1575.956, 1582.85, 1616.621, 1637.03, 1649.079], "stop_times": [1567.044, 1575.956, 1582.85, 1616.621, 1637.03, 1649.079, 1685.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1558.349}, "reply_to": "15027__1_001", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_003", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "How about the second stage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1685.714], "stop_times": [1687.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.714}, "reply_to": "15027__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_004", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The second stage was eliminated, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1687.457], "stop_times": [1691.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.457}, "reply_to": "15027__1_003", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_005", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1691.418], "stop_times": [1692.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.418}, "reply_to": "15027__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_006", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And erroneously, I want to give the date of that in this particular case.\nFor instance, it was stated that construction funds were appropriate in September, October of 58, construction was started in January 59 and in June 17th of 59, there was a designed memo outlining the recreational areas which did not contain the -- what we call the site of the 78 acres.\nIt did not contain it.\nIt did -- in other words, in July 14th, 58, when the government approve the general design memo which contained all phases of the construction and land acquisition, it was in that, the 78 acres was not in there and it was in the memo for recreational areas of June 17, 1959, the government admits this in it's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1692.088, 1696.467, 1730.516, 1731.703], "stop_times": [1696.467, 1730.516, 1731.703, 1756.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.088}, "reply_to": "15027__1_005", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_007", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Did I understand you Mr. Solomon to use the term original design and scope of the project as being synonymous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1756.785], "stop_times": [1766.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.785}, "reply_to": "15027__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_008", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, Sir.\nI'm saying that in the Miller case they used it synonymously and I think that's what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1766.407, 1767.316], "stop_times": [1767.316, 1771.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.407}, "reply_to": "15027__1_007", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_009", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1771.895], "stop_times": [1772.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.895}, "reply_to": "15027__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_010", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "If you know the -- if the Court would realize the factual situation in Miller case and then I think the ambiguities of the terminology in the vagueness of the verbiage and phrases in the Miller would be dissipated, knowing the factual situation where in the Miller case, in the original design, they had marked out or designated where they were going to take it right of way.\nThey didn't take it originally but they had marked it out and designated to be taken, and then they did take it and the Court said if it probably would have been in the scope originally which it was because it was marked out on that map, then it's probably in the scope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1772.382, 1799.095], "stop_times": [1799.095, 1816.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.382}, "reply_to": "15027__1_009", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_011", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Mr. Solomon, where are all these maps filed, where'd you find all of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1816.843], "stop_times": [1823.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.843}, "reply_to": "15027__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__1_012", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "There were no maps filed in this case Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1823.773], "stop_times": [1827.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.773}, "reply_to": "15027__1_011", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_013", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, I mean where is the original design?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1827.279], "stop_times": [1830.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.279}, "reply_to": "15027__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__1_014", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The design memo was not filed in this case.\nThe government did not file it but the testimony of Max Bohr who was a governor -- the government witness refers to these design memos and the dates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1830.054, 1832.78], "stop_times": [1832.78, 1843.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.054}, "reply_to": "15027__1_013", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_015", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "You'll have to get the internal records of some government, departments that's condemning the land, is that it?\nDiscover?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1843.64, 1849.206], "stop_times": [1849.206, 1849.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.64}, "reply_to": "15027__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__1_016", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir and that's why --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1849.415], "stop_times": [1850.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.415}, "reply_to": "15027__1_015", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_017", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And how you discovered what originally was contemplated and what was mapped out and drawn out, is that the way it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1850.967], "stop_times": [1856.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.967}, "reply_to": "15027__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__1_018", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes, Sir.\nAs stated by the government, the justice department, the judge in the -- the trial judge had upheld a hearing out of the presence of the jury, to begin with to see whether as a matter of law, he could determine whether this land was entitled to enhance value or not being whether or not it was in the scope of the project or not and the government called its witness from the core of engineers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1856.821, 1857.675], "stop_times": [1857.675, 1887.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.821}, "reply_to": "15027__1_017", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_019", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Then they introduced the designs and the technology of things, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1887.856], "stop_times": [1891.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.856}, "reply_to": "15027__1_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__1_020", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir, yes sir.\nThen the other inverting error of the Justice Department was that while that opening statement was being made, not when the Jury was being charged but when the opening statement was being made, the judge called counsel to the bench and said that he was in error in his first finding saying as a matter of law, that no one has or would be allowed.\nHe said, on further perusing the Miller case while we're making an open statement, he said he found it was a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, it would be submitted to the jury.\nIt wasn't, it wasn't during opening statement that were made and out of the presence of the jury and then, as I remember the counsel for respondent asked whether he could amend his opening statement and the Court will have him do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1891.104, 1894.35, 1918.719, 1934.091], "stop_times": [1894.35, 1918.719, 1934.091, 1950.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.104}, "reply_to": "15027__1_019", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_021", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And if I understand the Miller language, being aside of this specific factual situation in Miller and taking the language, it is that -- if it is land which might or which might not be taken but is ultimately taken, the enhancement of the value by the first stage taking may not be allowed and the jury is to be so instructed, isn't that the Miller held?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1950.89], "stop_times": [1978.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.89}, "reply_to": "15027__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_022", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Miller has that verbiage Your Honor but then it goes on and says other things that if you're adjacent land owner and this is where you get in trouble for, we're reading the Miller case and I think that's where the trial court reverse itself.\nIn reading the Miller case, it goes on to say that if it's merely adjacent lands and not originally contemplated in the scope then it shall take the enhanced value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [1978.412, 1993.239], "stop_times": [1993.239, 2004.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.412}, "reply_to": "15027__1_021", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_023", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, but certainly at one category in there, there might or might not be taken there.\nThere is a gray zone between the original plan and the perhaps nearby adjacent property and the government's claim is that this property in question here falls in that gray zone which is the might or might be taken language of Miller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2004.998, 2009.882], "stop_times": [2009.882, 2028.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.998}, "reply_to": "15027__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_024", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well if you -- that's where our argument is, Your Honor that you have to go back in Miller's factual situation, where it was actually laid out in the original design and marked out and that's what they're talking about that the adjacent land and there shall not be a windfall when it was marked out in the original design it was well known, this was not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2028.568], "stop_times": [2052.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.568}, "reply_to": "15027__1_023", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_025", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, the Miller doctrine, the Court goes on to explain that the theory behind that is that the man -- that all of the people should not pay for the value which the taxes of all of the people -- the value which the taxes of all the people have created.\nNow, it's essentially it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2052.83, 2070.013], "stop_times": [2070.013, 2071.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.83}, "reply_to": "15027__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_026", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, that's one view the Third Circuit held differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2071.685], "stop_times": [2077.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.685}, "reply_to": "15027__1_025", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_027", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, but this is -- I think this is case of this Court, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2077.331], "stop_times": [2081.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.331}, "reply_to": "15027__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_028", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The Miller case is yes Sir but I think this is what -- there is a variance between the different circuits at this point based on calculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2081.065], "stop_times": [2092.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2081.065}, "reply_to": "15027__1_027", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_029", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "In its understanding of the Miller --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2092.067], "stop_times": [2093.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.067}, "reply_to": "15027__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_030", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Misunderstanding of the Miller case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2093.303], "stop_times": [2093.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.303}, "reply_to": "15027__1_029", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_031", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And their understanding of the Miller case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2093.793], "stop_times": [2095.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.793}, "reply_to": "15027__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15027__1_032", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir, that's because the vagueness of the language in the Miller case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2095.706], "stop_times": [2098.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.706}, "reply_to": "15027__1_031", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_033", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But the Attorney Generals arguments is directed to, he wants us to clear that up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2098.19], "stop_times": [2103.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.19}, "reply_to": "15027__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_034", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes, Sir and we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2103.476], "stop_times": [2103.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.476}, "reply_to": "15027__1_033", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_035", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And we would like to clear that one way and he wants to clear it up the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2103.835], "stop_times": [2110.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.835}, "reply_to": "15027__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_036", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But we -- we would like to clear it up this way that we're taking the position that where the original design and that's why we have no quarrel with the acreage that was taken below the 566 foot level of the reservoir which is about 172 acres.\nWe had no quarrel because that was in the original design.\nWe say we are not entitled to enhancement but the 78 acres, which was not an original design or in the design of June 17th 59, we say there that we are entitled to the enhancement, we would -- we're requesting respectfully for this Court that the government should not play around with other peoples land and they are here for instance, we take this view, assume one improves his house and land around it, and it raises the value of his neighbor's land, next to it, and his neighbors land comes up for sale, isn't he going to have to pay the enhanced value?\nAnd we say this true whether it's a government or a neighbor or anyone else, that taking of land up, we take the position to begin with as (Inaudible) unless the safeguards are put around the taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2110.542, 2126.34, 2129.956, 2180.641], "stop_times": [2126.34, 2129.956, 2180.641, 2195.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.542}, "reply_to": "15027__1_035", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_037", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I supposed theirs a difference in the condemnation under eminent domain and that the money of all the people that's involve, public moneys involved and the one private properties involved in the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2195.652], "stop_times": [2208.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.652}, "reply_to": "15027__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_038", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "What is the instruction that was given to the jury on the condemnation cases, a fair market value, a willing buyer who is not forced to buy and a willing seller who is not willing to sale and that determines the fair market value.\nThe government should not have the edge so to speak, it should be a fair market value based on other values.\nAround this lake Your Honor, there is a at least 500 acres.\nThey have taken eight sites leaving I assumed -- I believe I have -- right about 250 to 300 more acres.\nNow, what is the value of the acreage not taken, it is enhanced by the lake value.\nWhy should the government take land at a lower evaluation if it's not in the original designed memo?\nWhy shouldn't that man be put on the part of the condemned with another land owner by his side?\nWe have on this piece of land, there's a man by the name of Slarv, has a land, he has an enhanced value, we don't, why not?\nIt is because the government is a taker, is that the measure.\nWe say it should not be.\nI'd like to get on the red damage to the residue to show inequity of the government in this case.\nThere is a residue of a 140 acres.\nNow, according to the trial court, the government could show the enhanced value of the damages to the residue.\nIn other word, they could show how the lake enhanced the value of the 140 acres that was left over and subtract that from any award made by that jury.\nNow, where is the equity in that where the government says, we can have be enhance value where the residue is concerned but you can have it, were taking the land and this is in the equities that we run into in this type of cases and I agree that the miller case, in some way as the trial court in page 48-49, of the appendix stated several times that it was a very taxing face to try to govern before the jury.\nNow, as far as the rules 71 (a) (h) is concerned and submitting to the jury, the Court, trial court and we think probable -- properly held if these cases are mixed question of law.\nIn fact, we don't say it is, we think it's a matter of law only, and law our way and that the land was not in the scope or was not in the original design or in a second design memo.\nBut if it is a question of law in fact, that it should be submitted to the jury because as the Sixth Circuit held in its opinion, compensation and whether there's an enhancement or not, where is a mix question of law, in fact are interrelated and to arrive at a proper evaluation, you must determine whether its enhanced and not to begin with, and that what's the instruction of the Court gave to the jury.\nWe came out on the short if but if it's a proper question of law in fact, it should be submitted to the jury so that the proper compensation can be given to the land owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2208.942, 2224.664, 2231.128, 2236.53, 2248.557, 2253.851, 2260.867, 2267.447, 2277.153, 2281.012, 2283.145, 2289.949, 2294.493, 2304.493, 2319.468, 2352.806, 2367.978, 2383.338, 2411.618], "stop_times": [2224.664, 2231.128, 2236.53, 2248.557, 2253.851, 2260.867, 2267.447, 2277.153, 2281.012, 2283.145, 2289.949, 2294.493, 2304.493, 2319.468, 2352.806, 2367.978, 2383.338, 2411.618, 2424.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.942}, "reply_to": "15027__1_037", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_039", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I gather in this case, even if we disagree with you and agree with --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2424.085], "stop_times": [2427.779], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.085}, "reply_to": "15027__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_040", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2427.779], "stop_times": [2428.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.779}, "reply_to": "15027__1_039", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_041", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "-- the government that enhancements initiating for the judge to decide, there is still has to be a new trial on this case though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2428.023], "stop_times": [2438.253], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.023}, "reply_to": "15027__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_042", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir because the jury and advertently the trial Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2438.253], "stop_times": [2441.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.253}, "reply_to": "15027__1_041", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_043", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "It just means that when you go to trial the second time if you must, you may get something less than $20,000.00, in any event nothing more, is that it?\nWell, you don't know what a second jury will give you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2441.78, 2452.284], "stop_times": [2452.284, 2453.852], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.78}, "reply_to": "15027__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_044", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "You don't know what a second jury would give?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2453.852], "stop_times": [2455.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.852}, "reply_to": "15027__1_043", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_045", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, but you -- it will -- whatever they -- it gives you, it will have to be without enhancement if this case goes against you here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2455.076], "stop_times": [2462.597], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.076}, "reply_to": "15027__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_046", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "It depends --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2462.597], "stop_times": [2462.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2462.597}, "reply_to": "15027__1_045", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_047", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Not necessarily, you might be able to convince the judge and you might never convince the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2462.849], "stop_times": [2467.26], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.849}, "reply_to": "15027__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_048", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Exact words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2467.26], "stop_times": [2468.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.26}, "reply_to": "15027__1_047", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_049", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I mean the judge may decide against the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2468.305], "stop_times": [2471.768], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.305}, "reply_to": "15027__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_050", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2471.768], "stop_times": [2472.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.768}, "reply_to": "15027__1_049", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_051", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "On whether these lands are within the scope of the project?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2472.227], "stop_times": [2475.534], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.227}, "reply_to": "15027__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_052", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir, exactly and it depends upon which fact if you're going to take.\nDoes the government have to give -- have lands in the original design member?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2475.534, 2481.616], "stop_times": [2481.616, 2487.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.534}, "reply_to": "15027__1_051", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_053", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And now, what -- to all -- the government not going to -- if the government prevails here is not going to escape a new trial.\nThere's still going to have to be new trials, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2487.993, 2495.204], "stop_times": [2495.204, 2497.09], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.993}, "reply_to": "15027__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_054", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2497.09], "stop_times": [2497.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.09}, "reply_to": "15027__1_053", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_055", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And then they may have in the second trial twice as much damages or word against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2497.561], "stop_times": [2502.819], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.561}, "reply_to": "15027__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_056", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2502.819], "stop_times": [2503.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.819}, "reply_to": "15027__1_055", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_057", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And they may lose on the scope the project question to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2503.786], "stop_times": [2506.531], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.786}, "reply_to": "15027__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_058", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2506.531], "stop_times": [2507.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.531}, "reply_to": "15027__1_057", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_059", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Before the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2507.36], "stop_times": [2508.348], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.36}, "reply_to": "15027__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_060", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes sir.\nIt depends on what this Court enunciates as its rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2508.348, 2509.473], "stop_times": [2509.473, 2513.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.348}, "reply_to": "15027__1_059", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_061", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "As I read Judge Swinford's comments in the record Mr. Solomon, there seems to be a little bit more than a feeling of ambiguity about the Miller opinion, he said the Miller opinion is controlling and that he questioned the soundness of the Miller opinion and it seems to have been influence to go off on his own because of that, he said \u201cI question the solemnest of the rule with all due respect to the Supreme Court\u201d.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2513.55], "stop_times": [2550.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.55}, "reply_to": "15027__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_062", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "However, he made through it if you -- through out the record, it's before the Court and all justice -- justice, to justice Swinford, he said that Miller case would be controlling and he tried to control it under that case even though he did not.\nHe said that it led to ambiguities.\nIn page 49, it says now that -- that is why I'm going to have to instruct the jury under this Miller case very frankly.\nAs I said, I think the rule might be somewhat modified.\nI think it should be but I'm bound by it, I can't modify it.\nAnd he goes on to another place to say it's not up to his Court to modify it and he was going to be bound by it but he makes remarks throughout that it's a -- in this particular factual situation that we had, it was hard to apply and he -- the reason that he inadvertently in summing up to the jury exposed what went on when the jury was exploited was because he tried to explain the Miller case to the jury in layman's language and got involved, but he did try to abide by the Miller case but the factual situation as I said before in that Miller case, it rarely explains the Miller case, its when the Miller case is taken out of context without realizing what the factual situation was, I think that's where the Courts are getting in trouble and are misconstruing.\nThe Miller case uses fake language.\nIt uses language like probability of the scope of the project.\nThe -- what is a contemplated taking of the government?\nWell, who knows what the contemplated taking at that time of the original design would be?\nThese all lead to uncertainties, something that a good practitioner tries to avoid in the will or deed and yet here in this case in trying to fix compensation, the uncertainties and I agreed with the Justice Department, it should be cleared up but we feel that it should be cleared up our way.\nThe government's position is they want to enlarge the Miller case and said that if the land is in the general area influenced by the project, there shall be no enhancement.\nNow, I say if they would prevail, you get into another ambiguity.\nYou're leaving it to the lower court again to determine what might be in the general area.\nAnd we say it's the original design memo, let the core of engineers take in what they will.\nIn my section of country they have.\nWe're building a gap right now and they have taken all the land around it.\nIf they want to take it all in, let them do original.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2550.127, 2570.334, 2575.963, 2583.298, 2587.02, 2590.931, 2649.951, 2651.965, 2658.546, 2661.897, 2668.579, 2691.845, 2704.327, 2711.387, 2717.379, 2723.79, 2725.417, 2731.72], "stop_times": [2570.334, 2575.963, 2583.298, 2587.02, 2590.931, 2649.951, 2651.965, 2658.546, 2661.897, 2668.579, 2691.845, 2704.327, 2711.387, 2717.379, 2723.79, 2725.417, 2731.72, 2733.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.127}, "reply_to": "15027__1_061", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_063", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well then, as a practical matter, I'm not sure about this but as a practical matter, if your review of the rule were to be adopted as the standard, wouldn't that leave the engineers to pick the largest possible area for the project and then not worry about whether they took it all or not?\nAnd we -- one way of treating them -- meeting the problem --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2733.915, 2755.462], "stop_times": [2755.462, 2759.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.915}, "reply_to": "15027__1_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_064", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That might be one way.\nI'm assuming the Court of engineers are pretty well qualified and they could do better than take a shotgun approach to taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2759.561, 2761.26], "stop_times": [2761.26, 2770.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.561}, "reply_to": "15027__1_063", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_065", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Wouldn't it be normal and reasonable to resolve all the doubts in favor of having the largest possible areas as to avoid this enhancement you call?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2770.883], "stop_times": [2780.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.883}, "reply_to": "15027__1_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_066", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That's one way they could get around it but if Your Honor pleases, at what point is adjacent land owner allowed to develop his land under the present rule?\nHow do you know that the government won't come in two years later and say this was within the scope of the original plan, there's the uncertainty right there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2780.05, 2793.362], "stop_times": [2793.362, 2805.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.05}, "reply_to": "15027__1_065", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_067", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I supposed the answer to that issue don't and your camp know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2805.3], "stop_times": [2808.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.3}, "reply_to": "15027__1_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_068", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2808.68], "stop_times": [2809.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.68}, "reply_to": "15027__1_067", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_069", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And many times for these improvements, the government, all governments, local, states and federal make it a point to keep this a very great secret so that they don't encourage speculators, isn't that a practical fact of life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2809.227], "stop_times": [2822.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.227}, "reply_to": "15027__1_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_070", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I agree but I see nothing wrong with speculating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2822.545], "stop_times": [2829.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.545}, "reply_to": "15027__1_069", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_071", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I suppose the public policy is not to let speculators speculate at the expense of the taxpayers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2829.095], "stop_times": [2835.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.095}, "reply_to": "15027__1_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_072", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Right sir, but there's different type of speculation.\nI'm saying that after the government takes and assumed that that lake is there for five years and then the government comes and said that was in the scope of our original plan or is it just a part would have the Court that this is in the general areas.\nAnd supposed roads have been put in at that time, things of that sort, it would go back to the un-enhanced value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2835.357, 2838.615, 2856.515], "stop_times": [2838.615, 2856.515, 2864.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.357}, "reply_to": "15027__1_071", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_073", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, we don't have that case before us today though, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2864.198], "stop_times": [2866.274], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.198}, "reply_to": "15027__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__1_074", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But this no sir.\nBut this is on a 140 acres, if they come to take it, roads were put in there.\nYes sir that would happen in this case if they went and condemned the residue that is a fact of life in the residue of this property right now.\nSo it does this theoretically or even practically it could happen on this piece of land belonging to the Reynolds.\nThey have roads and have in the enjoining acres or the residue.\nThank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2866.274, 2867.65, 2872.698, 2883.454, 2890.258, 2898.421], "stop_times": [2867.65, 2872.698, 2883.454, 2890.258, 2898.421, 2899.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2866.274}, "reply_to": "15027__1_073", "speaker": "erwin_s_solomon"}
{"id": "15027__1_075", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Thank you Mr. Solomon.\nYou would have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2899.322, 2900.39], "stop_times": [2900.39, 2903.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.322}, "reply_to": "15027__1_074", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__1_076", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I am right in this issue that this case has to go back for re-determination of compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2903.699], "stop_times": [2909.132], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.699}, "reply_to": "15027__1_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_000", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2909.132], "stop_times": [2909.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2909.132}, "reply_to": "15027__1_076", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_001", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2909.773], "stop_times": [2911.087], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2909.773}, "reply_to": "15027__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_002", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "We maintained that it should go back to the Circuit Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2911.087], "stop_times": [2914.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2911.087}, "reply_to": "15027__2_001", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_003", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2914.788], "stop_times": [2915.499], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.788}, "reply_to": "15027__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_004", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "-- and the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2915.499], "stop_times": [2917.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2915.499}, "reply_to": "15027__2_003", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_005", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Now, you didn't take the case to the Circuit Court, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2917.666], "stop_times": [2920.521], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.666}, "reply_to": "15027__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_006", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "They took the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2920.521], "stop_times": [2921.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2920.521}, "reply_to": "15027__2_005", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_007", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That's right.\nThey didn't like -- they thought they got enough for $20,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2921.146, 2921.54], "stop_times": [2921.54, 2924.117], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.146}, "reply_to": "15027__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_008", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That's right, alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2924.117], "stop_times": [2925.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2924.117}, "reply_to": "15027__2_007", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_009", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2925.145], "stop_times": [2925.457], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.145}, "reply_to": "15027__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_010", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But I -- if it's sent back because it was a question for the Court, that's the alternative I'm speaking of, right.\nI supposed --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2925.457, 2936.882], "stop_times": [2936.882, 2936.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2925.457}, "reply_to": "15027__2_009", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_011", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes.\nWell, that's possible.\nI supposed we agree with you that's for the Court, then what happens in this then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2936.982, 2937.067, 2937.501], "stop_times": [2937.067, 2937.501, 2940.438], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.982}, "reply_to": "15027__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_012", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Then the jury found without an enhancement is $20,000.00 and we maintain that under the facts they don't argue any about the facts as produced by the engineer and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2940.438], "stop_times": [2959.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2940.438}, "reply_to": "15027__2_011", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_013", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, it's in the government's position that if you prevail here, you're entitled to reinstatement of the $20,000.00 verdict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2959.743], "stop_times": [2965.689], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.743}, "reply_to": "15027__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_014", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, not unless the trial judge himself decides that this land was good in the scope of the project.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2965.689], "stop_times": [2973.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2965.689}, "reply_to": "15027__2_013", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_015", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No you're wrong because we maintain as a matter of that with all of the facts as agreed upon even in their brief I say these are the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2973.311], "stop_times": [2982.995], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.311}, "reply_to": "15027__2_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_016", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, that isn't what you asked for in the brief.\nAll you've asked for in the brief, your conclusion is that that we direct the District Court on remand to determine itself whether the condemned lands were within the scope of the project.\nYou didn't say anything about reinstating the $20,000.00 verdict.\nUnder any circumstances that's what your brief says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [2982.995, 2985.193, 2993.821, 2999.327], "stop_times": [2985.193, 2993.821, 2999.327, 3003.646], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.995}, "reply_to": "15027__2_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_017", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And you never asked this and you never ask the Court of Appeals as ordered a new trial based on some comments, improper comments with the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3003.646], "stop_times": [3015.469], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.646}, "reply_to": "15027__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_018", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "We didn't appeal the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3015.469], "stop_times": [3016.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3015.469}, "reply_to": "15027__2_017", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_019", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I know, I know you didn't but the Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial based on -- and you didn't -- you up here have not said the Court of Appeal was wrong in ordering a new trial on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3016.815], "stop_times": [3028.304], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.815}, "reply_to": "15027__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_020", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That is on the other -- other alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3028.304], "stop_times": [3032.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3028.304}, "reply_to": "15027__2_019", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_021", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Now, the thing comes down to this, if the issue you brought to us is whether enhancement should have been determined by the Court or by they jury.\nAnd if you prevail as I see it from what you've asked, the relief you've asked.\nYou're not calling with the order that you have to have a new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3032.523, 3039.931, 3045.541], "stop_times": [3039.931, 3045.541, 3049.102], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.523}, "reply_to": "15027__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_022", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes Your Honor but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3049.102], "stop_times": [3049.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3049.102}, "reply_to": "15027__2_021", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_023", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And there have to be a brand new determination of compensation after the judge if you prevail here, determines whether this was within the scope of the project?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3049.363], "stop_times": [3061.024], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.363}, "reply_to": "15027__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_024", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "We --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3061.024], "stop_times": [3061.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3061.024}, "reply_to": "15027__2_023", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_025", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And you may really get a sucking this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3061.151], "stop_times": [3063.515], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.151}, "reply_to": "15027__2_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_026", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "We maintained that, it's for the Court to determine and the appellant Court on directive could say that on these facts under the case, the Miller case has nothing to decide and so there no enhancement to be given so the verdict is $20,000.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3063.515], "stop_times": [3087.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3063.515}, "reply_to": "15027__2_025", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_027", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "And what if the judge, what if we follow that request in your brief that the very least that I would suppose the case to go back with the District Courts like you say into it and the judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3087.986], "stop_times": [3098.407], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.986}, "reply_to": "15027__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_028", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, I'm saying that it should terminate in the Circuit Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3098.407], "stop_times": [3102.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3098.407}, "reply_to": "15027__2_027", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_029", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That isn't what you say.\nYou say that the decision of the Court of Appeals should be modified with instruction to direct the District Court on remand to determine itself whether the condemned land were within the scope of the project under a clarified standards set fort by the Court, that's what you've asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3102.436, 3103.27], "stop_times": [3103.27, 3119.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.436}, "reply_to": "15027__2_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_030", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "An order -- the trial judge then determines that these lands were not within the scope of the project, then there would have to be a re-determination of compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3119.537], "stop_times": [3130.646], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.537}, "reply_to": "15027__2_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_031", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3130.646], "stop_times": [3133.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3130.646}, "reply_to": "15027__2_030", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_032", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "But are you suggesting the Court of Appeals should as a matter of law, determines whether this land was within the scope of the project?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3133.212], "stop_times": [3140.341], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.212}, "reply_to": "15027__2_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_033", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Of course, there's no issue as in facts.\nThe facts are just about stipulating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3140.341, 3144.579], "stop_times": [3144.579, 3148.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3140.341}, "reply_to": "15027__2_032", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_034", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "You want us to decide it here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3148.238], "stop_times": [3148.76], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.238}, "reply_to": "15027__2_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_035", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Why don't you ask us to decide thing?\nWhy don't you asked us to decide as to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3148.76, 3150.326], "stop_times": [3150.326, 3151.761], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.76}, "reply_to": "15027__2_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_036", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "You want to give us all those records and drawings and designs and all the rest of us and help us to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3151.761], "stop_times": [3157.972], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.761}, "reply_to": "15027__2_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_037", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3157.972], "stop_times": [3158.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3157.972}, "reply_to": "15027__2_036", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_038", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well then, why would you have the Court of Appeals do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3158.688], "stop_times": [3160.811], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.688}, "reply_to": "15027__2_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_039", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "You don't have to add, I maintain that the -- as far as the Court of Appeals, they don't have to have all of these maps, this could be testified to and this is what happened in the trial Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3160.811], "stop_times": [3174.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3160.811}, "reply_to": "15027__2_038", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_040", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Isn't because this land is close by or what?\nThe 142 acres, it's because it's close by, it was a part of the original land owned, what is the reason that we don't need any other information?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3174.59, 3180.738], "stop_times": [3180.738, 3193.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.59}, "reply_to": "15027__2_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_041", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "With relation to the 100 and?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3193.602], "stop_times": [3195.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3193.602}, "reply_to": "15027__2_040", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_042", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "42.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3195.455], "stop_times": [3196.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.455}, "reply_to": "15027__2_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_043", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "40?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3196.57], "stop_times": [3197.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3196.57}, "reply_to": "15027__2_042", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_044", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Whatever it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3197.718], "stop_times": [3198.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.718}, "reply_to": "15027__2_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_045", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, we have a 140 acre track.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3198.423], "stop_times": [3203.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3198.423}, "reply_to": "15027__2_044", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_046", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Well, I'm talking about the track that we're not talking about, I don't know how many acres it were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3203.458], "stop_times": [3208.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.458}, "reply_to": "15027__2_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_047", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "78 acres.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3208.521], "stop_times": [3209.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3208.521}, "reply_to": "15027__2_046", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_048", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes, 78.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3209.257], "stop_times": [3209.845], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.257}, "reply_to": "15027__2_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15027__2_049", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The one we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3209.845], "stop_times": [3211.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.845}, "reply_to": "15027__2_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_050", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3211.261], "stop_times": [3211.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3211.261}, "reply_to": "15027__2_049", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_051", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Why is it that you say that we don't need any more facts, this Court or the Court of Appeals or the District Court to say that no enhancement is possible as a matter of all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3211.628], "stop_times": [3223.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.628}, "reply_to": "15027__2_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_052", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Because all of the material facts, there's no dispute and they can see that, a material facts to decide this question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3223.777], "stop_times": [3232.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3223.777}, "reply_to": "15027__2_051", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_053", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Which is it's near the lake, its close by the lake, it was in the original map or what?\nIt wasn't in the original map, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3232.584, 3242.127], "stop_times": [3242.127, 3244.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.584}, "reply_to": "15027__2_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_054", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "No, but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3244.267], "stop_times": [3245.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3244.267}, "reply_to": "15027__2_053", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_055", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Wasn't in the original plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3245.479], "stop_times": [3247.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.479}, "reply_to": "15027__2_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_056", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "The -- Your Honor, the 172 acres were no question in the original files, that's the inundated area.\nThe 78 acres was in this twilight area where it maybe taken or it may not be taken because recreational areas were authorized to be taken in reservoir projects and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3247.423, 3256.505], "stop_times": [3256.505, 3274.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3247.423}, "reply_to": "15027__2_055", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_057", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "If it's in the gray area automatically, that's enough, is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3274.614], "stop_times": [3281.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.614}, "reply_to": "15027__2_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15027__2_058", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "That is our position and that is the holding in the Miller case, that's the exact holding in the Miller case and this case came exactly within the Miller case.\nNow, counsel mentioned about the nothing being marked out but in this Miller case, it says, they're talking about the railroad right away.\nUltimate routes were surveyed and state that end of all of 100 feet.\nIn other words, there are various alternatives according to the engineering plan.\nIt's not marked out in the sense that this is it.\nWhen this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3281.111, 3296.642, 3308.165, 3315.697, 3320.637, 3326.178], "stop_times": [3296.642, 3308.165, 3315.697, 3320.637, 3326.178, 3326.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3281.111}, "reply_to": "15027__2_057", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_059", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "I think your time is up now when you finished -- when you present your answer to Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3326.306], "stop_times": [3330.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3326.306}, "reply_to": "15027__2_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15027__2_060", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "We submit sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3330.131], "stop_times": [3332.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3330.131}, "reply_to": "15027__2_059", "speaker": "shiro_kashiwa"}
{"id": "15027__2_061", "conversation_id": "15027", "text": "Thank you.\nYou have -- yes.\nWe are submitted, thank you gentleman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_88", "start_times": [3332.121, 3333.762, 3337.138], "stop_times": [3333.762, 3337.138, 3339.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.121}, "reply_to": "15027__2_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_000", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Number 395 United States against Seckinger.\nMr. Springer, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [0.0, 49.494], "stop_times": [49.494, 52.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_001", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nThe question in this case is the meaning of a standard clause in Federal Government construction contracts which provides in pertinent part as follows.\nThe contractor, the construction contractor, shall be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of his fault or negligence in connection with the prosecution of the work.\nThe Court of Appeals for the Firth Circuit has upheld the dismissal of the Government's complaint for indemnity under this clause.\nHolding what this responsibility clause makes -- leaves the United States solely liable for any injuries that arise from concurrent negligence on both part of both the United States and the contractor.\nIn other words, the Fifth Circuit has read this clause is relieving the contractor of any obligation to indemnify the United States unless the contractor's negligence in the sole and exclusive cause of injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [52.722, 57.09, 67.959, 82.691, 90.253, 104.081], "stop_times": [57.09, 67.959, 82.691, 90.253, 104.081, 116.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 52.722}, "reply_to": "15125__0_000", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_002", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It might even stand, that the clause doesn't say anything about in indemnifying anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [116.471], "stop_times": [123.76], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 116.471}, "reply_to": "15125__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_003", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Though if its -- it is the Fifth Circuit did treat it in general as an indemnity clause same would operate as an indemnity clause, if an only if the contractor with the sole cause of the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [123.76], "stop_times": [138.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.76}, "reply_to": "15125__0_002", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_004", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, it could be argued --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [138.009], "stop_times": [138.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.009}, "reply_to": "15125__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__0_005", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It's true that the clause does say responsible not -- it doesn't use the word indemnifying.\nNow, I will pursue that point a bit further on.\nAs I say, we submit that this was wrong and that the responsibility clause must be read as shifting to the contractor as its words say and specifically under the facts in this case, full responsibility to pay all of the damages caused by its negligence regardless of the fact that the United States may also have been negligent.\nCertainly, we believe it was improper for the courts below to dispose of this case on the pleadings without a trial in which the various pertinent facts relating to the contractor relationship between the parties and the facts of the accident itself could be explored.\nThe basic facts are as follows.\nThe Seckinger Company had a fixed price construction contract with the Navy Department in an amount of roughly $650,000.00 for the construction of outside steam pipes of the Paris Island Marine Depot in South Carolina.\nErnest Branham was an employee of Seckinger who has a welder and steamfitter.\nOn the day of the accident, Branham was working on a steam transmission plate that is being installed above ground across one of the streets at the base at a height of about 16 feet above the street.\nA day or two before, the stretch of pipe crossing the street had been put in place on its supports by a crane.\nBut on the day of the accident, Branham and another worker were making certain adjustments in the positioning of the pipe in preparation for welding into the pieces of pipe on either side of the street to which at least to be connected.\nBranham was working shortly before the accident on one side of the street and other man was working on the other side.\nThe construction foreman in charge of job, who was of course an employee of Seckinger, noticed that the man on the other side was having some difficulty and he directed Branham, the employee, to go over and help him.\nIn order to get there, Branham did not climb down to the street and walk across the street, but instead walked across the pipe itself which was about 20 inches in diameters.\nAnd as he came near to the place where the other man was working, where he was to help him, he bumped into an uninsulated power line which was running -- which was strung along poles the normal way running parallel with the street at the edge of the -- at the sides.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [138.439, 145.032, 150.162, 170.375, 188.323, 192.787, 210.784, 215.817, 231.818, 240.669, 256.841, 264.957, 278.544, 292.437], "stop_times": [145.032, 150.162, 170.375, 188.323, 192.787, 210.784, 215.817, 231.818, 240.669, 256.841, 264.957, 278.544, 292.437, 309.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.439}, "reply_to": "15125__0_004", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_006", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "By whom --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [309.902], "stop_times": [310.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.902}, "reply_to": "15125__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_007", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [310.486], "stop_times": [311.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.486}, "reply_to": "15125__0_006", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_008", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "By whom has that power line been strung?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [311.443], "stop_times": [314.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.443}, "reply_to": "15125__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_009", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That was a Government-owned power line which one of the regular lines which provided power into the base.\nI believe it was undisputed in that trial that this power system covered about a third of the whole base.\nThe pipe -- the wire was about four or five feet above the top of the pipe and as I say when Branham got to the other side where he was going, he bumped into the pipe and the shock knocked him off the pipe and he fell to the street which was 16 or 17 feet below and he was of course seriously injured.\nBranham collected workmen's compensation from Seckinger under state law and also being unable to collect anything more from his employer, he sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina.\nAfter a trial, that Court found that the accident had been caused by negligence on the part of the Government and awarded Branham damages in the amount of $45,000.00.\nSpecifically, the Court in that case found that the United States had been negligent in two respects. One or the other of which had found it caused the accident.\nFirst, it found that Government's construction inspector who was in general supervision of the job was negligent in failing to have the law -- the power line de-energized before Branham was sent to by the foreman to work near.\nAnd secondly, the Court found that the same inspector had negligently failed to warn Branham of the danger of the wire.\nThe United States in that action in South Carolina filed the third party complaint against Seckinger in which it sought indemnity under the responsibility clause that are referred to saying that any injury to Branham was caused by Seckinger.\nThe contractor's own negligence and therefore the United States should not bear the damages.\nThe South Carolina District Court dismissed that third party complaint without prejudice on the theory that trying it in that case would unduly complicate the proceedings there.\nSo accordingly, the United States had to bring and did bring a separate action, this case against Seckinger.\nIt was unable to sue Seckinger in connection with this case in South Carolina, so the case comes here from Southern District of Georgia to the Fifth Circuit.\nThe Government's complaint in the indemnity suit like the third party complaint that had been dismissed alleged that Branham's injuries were caused the negligence of Seckinger's employees.\nIn particular, tracking the findings of the South Carolina District Court which had held the Government liable the complaint alleged as follows as to the failure to de-energize the power line, the complaint alleged that Seckinger, the contractor, was responsible for requesting that the power be turned off before it sent Branham to work near the wires or else that Seckinger should have either put some insulation on the wire itself or requested the Government to do so.\nAnd as to the second element of negligence to the South Carolina District Court had found, the complaint alleged that Seckinger should not have directed Branham to work near the wires and should have prevented him from proceeding in a dangerous manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [314.371, 322.113, 335.027, 358.34, 375.832, 388.723, 397.805, 416.71, 426.738, 442.593, 450.645, 462.03, 471.837, 481.333, 493.462, 524.241], "stop_times": [322.113, 335.027, 358.34, 375.832, 388.723, 397.805, 416.71, 426.738, 442.593, 450.645, 462.03, 471.837, 481.333, 493.462, 524.241, 542.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.371}, "reply_to": "15125__0_008", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_010", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "How much was awarded -- Branham get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [542.541], "stop_times": [544.671], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 542.541}, "reply_to": "15125__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_011", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "$45,000.00, Mr. Justice Harlan.\nTherefore, this complaint alleged Seckinger's negligence was the cause of the injuries to Branham and the contractor responsibility clause made Seckinger solely liable for them and therefore Seckinger should indemnify the United States for the damages that were paid.\nThe Government was prepared to prove these allegations of course of the trial, although it never had the chance to.\nIt was prepared to prove not only that Seckinger was negligent and that that negligence caused the accident, but also that the circumstances were such that Seckinger was primarily negligent and the Government only secondarily so.\nIf -- as the South Carolina Court had held, the Government should have turned the power off.\nThe relationship between the parties was such that the Government could rely on Seckinger, the contractor, to inform you when it was necessary to turn the power off.\nIn this regard, the Government would show that Seckinger had a full-time foreman on the job at the time of the accident as the contract required, whereas the Government's inspector who was charged only with inspection of the performance under the contract was concerned with not only with this job but with another number of other jobs going on at the same time and in fact it was not present at the site of this job when the accident occurred, but was somewhere else supervising another job.\nAs to the Government's breach of its duty to warn Branham that the South Carolina District Court have found, the Government would further have relied, have been able to have a trial on its indemnity claim on the specific instructions that were given Sekinger in the contract to assure safety and the specific --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [544.671, 547.434, 564.527, 571.027, 587.763, 593.283, 602.231, 634.31], "stop_times": [547.434, 564.527, 571.027, 587.763, 593.283, 602.231, 634.31, 657.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.671}, "reply_to": "15125__0_010", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_012", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "May I ask you Mr. Springer, the only question before us, one of them, the scope of the clause from which Sekinger bound themselves to be responsible for total damages that occurs was about his total negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [657.525], "stop_times": [671.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.525}, "reply_to": "15125__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_013", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, yes Mr. Justice Brennan, yes.\nI thought it might be helpful to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [671.549, 674.285], "stop_times": [674.285, 675.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.549}, "reply_to": "15125__0_012", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_014", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [675.909], "stop_times": [676.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.909}, "reply_to": "15125__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_015", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "To give some flavor of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [676.969], "stop_times": [677.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.969}, "reply_to": "15125__0_014", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_016", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That's the only -- that's the only, so it's nothing but a contract \u2013 construction with contract clause that's before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [677.672], "stop_times": [683.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.672}, "reply_to": "15125__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_017", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [683.706], "stop_times": [687.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.706}, "reply_to": "15125__0_016", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_018", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, the Court of Appeals said that it would never cover a case by the Government's negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [687.273], "stop_times": [696.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.273}, "reply_to": "15125__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15125__0_019", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, that's correct, Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [696.528], "stop_times": [697.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.528}, "reply_to": "15125__0_018", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_020", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Which renders at the meeting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [697.983], "stop_times": [700.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.983}, "reply_to": "15125__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15125__0_021", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [700.058], "stop_times": [700.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.058}, "reply_to": "15125__0_020", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_022", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Which renders at the meeting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [700.864], "stop_times": [704.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.864}, "reply_to": "15125__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15125__0_023", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That is our position, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [704.455], "stop_times": [705.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.455}, "reply_to": "15125__0_022", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_024", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [705.732], "stop_times": [708.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.732}, "reply_to": "15125__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15125__0_025", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, because the Government cannot be liable under the Tort Claims Act unless either one of its agents is negligent and in fact there's no authority under that act for the Government even to settle the case, unless the person who authorizes the settlement believes that the Government was negligent.\nAnd I suppose if a non-negligent Government settled the case and then sued for indemnity under the interpretation of the Fifth Circuit has given to this clause, the person's suit can then say the settlement was improper because the Government official had no authority to settle the case and therefore there's no --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [708.492, 726.228], "stop_times": [726.228, 743.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.492}, "reply_to": "15125__0_024", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_026", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "To bring as this as a standard clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [743.115], "stop_times": [745.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.115}, "reply_to": "15125__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_027", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, this is in fact has been standard at least since the late 1930s.\nThis clause is now prescribed actually in two places in the Armed Services Procurement Regulations which are issued by the defense department and also in the General Service Agency Administrations Regulations which govern, generally speaking, all Government contracts.\nThe -- there's an section, they both use the same clause though under separate change of authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [745.414, 752.2, 772.773], "stop_times": [752.2, 772.773, 778.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.414}, "reply_to": "15125__0_026", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_028", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "If the Court of Appeals is sustained by us and this clause be rewritten so as to inspect the Government under future contracts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [778.392], "stop_times": [788.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.392}, "reply_to": "15125__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_029", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That is certainly true, Mr. Justice Brennan though --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [788.571], "stop_times": [790.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.571}, "reply_to": "15125__0_028", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_030", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [790.404], "stop_times": [791.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.404}, "reply_to": "15125__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_031", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes.\nIn fact these clauses are written, I'm told by an interagency committee with a good deal of consultation with the industry.\nSo that -- although they're prescribed, there is some of the flavor of contract negotiation that goes into formulating these provisions since the industry is consulting and has an opportunity to participate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [791.139, 793.034, 804.267], "stop_times": [793.034, 804.267, 814.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 791.139}, "reply_to": "15125__0_030", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_032", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "(Voice Overlap) what would -- (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [814.544], "stop_times": [819.575], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 814.544}, "reply_to": "15125__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_033", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I would say that's all you'd have to do.\nI think I could certainly draft a more ironclad, inexorable indemnity clause for one thing you could not use the word indemnity.\nYou could say, but it provides all at the end that this clause means what it says even if the Government itself is negligent but we will submit that that is not necessary.\nAnd as to your initial question Mr. Justice Brennan, if the clause could be changed but of course it's not that simple of a matter of some person decreeing that it would be better to have it though, it's obviously as these are the complicated bureaucratic process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [819.575, 821.853, 835.011, 846.321], "stop_times": [821.853, 835.011, 846.321, 859.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.575}, "reply_to": "15125__0_032", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_034", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Isn't there some suggestion as to the number of contracts that are now extents with this clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [859.847], "stop_times": [866.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.847}, "reply_to": "15125__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_035", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I don't have figures on the number of actual contracts Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [866.304], "stop_times": [870.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.304}, "reply_to": "15125__0_034", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_036", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, I thought that some figures --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [870.188], "stop_times": [871.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.188}, "reply_to": "15125__0_035", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_037", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I've been told and we say in our petition that there are some 200 cases pending --\nThat many --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [871.002, 875.577], "stop_times": [875.577, 876.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.002}, "reply_to": "15125__0_036", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_038", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "But it also said many thousands of contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [876.68], "stop_times": [879.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 876.68}, "reply_to": "15125__0_037", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_039", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Oh, I'm sure, it certainly would be many thousands since this covers all fixed price construction contracts that the Government are virtually all that the Government whether with the Defense Department or the rest of the Government is into.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [879.298], "stop_times": [893.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.298}, "reply_to": "15125__0_038", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_040", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "You say there's some 200 cases pending awaiting decision of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [893.803], "stop_times": [898.744], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 893.803}, "reply_to": "15125__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_041", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, they are in the District Courts and in fact this is the only, so far as I'm aware and I'm told, the only case that's gotten to the Court of Appeals on this specific issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [898.744], "stop_times": [911.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.744}, "reply_to": "15125__0_040", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_042", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "And now the 200 in the District Courts now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [911.237], "stop_times": [914.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.237}, "reply_to": "15125__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__0_043", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "There have been a fair number of decisions one way or the other most of them unreported --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [914.105], "stop_times": [918.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.105}, "reply_to": "15125__0_042", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_044", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [918.519], "stop_times": [919.284], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 918.519}, "reply_to": "15125__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_045", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "-- in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [919.284], "stop_times": [920.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.284}, "reply_to": "15125__0_044", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_046", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "And prior to the decision in this case, what had been the -- what have been the faith of this clause in cases such as this arising in the District Court?\nDo you say this clause has been in Government contracts since the 30's, I should think it would be a great deal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [920.761, 933.311], "stop_times": [933.311, 940.29], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 920.761}, "reply_to": "15125__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_047", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It has happened --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [940.29], "stop_times": [940.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.29}, "reply_to": "15125__0_046", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_048", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "--law one way or the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [940.992], "stop_times": [942.292], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 940.992}, "reply_to": "15125__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_049", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I have to say that this clause is not until -- at least until the 60's, been used by the Government generally speaking as an indemnity clause.\nI think one is probably that that may seem strange, but I think probably, the simplest explanation for that is that it was not until relatively recent years that employees who were barred from suing their employers on Government contracts thought up the notion of suing the Government on the theory that the Government was negligent and was a handy third party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [942.292, 950.9], "stop_times": [950.9, 972.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.292}, "reply_to": "15125__0_048", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_050", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The Federal Tort Claims Act goes back to the --- about 1947.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [972.782], "stop_times": [976.03], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 972.782}, "reply_to": "15125__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_051", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "1946.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [976.03], "stop_times": [977.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.03}, "reply_to": "15125__0_050", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_052", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "1946, 1947 between those years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [977.287], "stop_times": [979.467], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 977.287}, "reply_to": "15125__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__0_053", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [979.467], "stop_times": [980.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.467}, "reply_to": "15125__0_052", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_054", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Did I understand you to guess, this problem might be eliminated by simply putting it after the clause referring to your statement that this clause mean what it says?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [980.81], "stop_times": [994.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.81}, "reply_to": "15125__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_055", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That certainly could be done Mr. Justice Black.\nOf course that could be done in any contract case as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [994.257, 996.342], "stop_times": [996.342, 997.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.257}, "reply_to": "15125__0_054", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_056", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "You think that would set, what did you say?\nIt still had to construe what it meant, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [997.175, 1000.536], "stop_times": [1000.536, 1004.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 997.175}, "reply_to": "15125__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_057", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It -- well, I think you'd say in other language you would say -- as I would say an argument, you would but the various different means --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1004.13], "stop_times": [1013.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.13}, "reply_to": "15125__0_056", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_058", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "You underestimate --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1013.629], "stop_times": [1014.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.629}, "reply_to": "15125__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_059", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "-- formulas of words saying what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1014.016], "stop_times": [1015.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.016}, "reply_to": "15125__0_058", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_060", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "You underestimate the abilities of our profession, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1015.707], "stop_times": [1021.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.707}, "reply_to": "15125__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_061", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Increasingly less, Mr. Justice Black.\nThe Fifth Circuit, of course, treated this clause and we think erroneously as an insurance clause.\nIt thought that the Government was basing its case on the proposition that this clause entitled the Government to indemnification from a contractor even if the contractor was utterly innocent of any negligence.\nOf course, that's not the theory of our case.\nThe theory of our case and the allegations of our complaint are that the Seckinger Company was negligent, that its negligence cause the accident and that therefore and only therefore, the Seckinger Company is obligated to bear as the clause says the responsibility for its own negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1021.419, 1028.969, 1036.483, 1051.824, 1053.783], "stop_times": [1028.969, 1036.483, 1051.824, 1053.783, 1073.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.419}, "reply_to": "15125__0_060", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_062", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Are you asking a construction that would hold that, perhaps both parties are negligent or the Government which should not be alarmed or are you asking for more limited holding?\nAnd that both parties are negligent though we have -- the question is whether both parties are negligent but the Government shown not to be and the contract has shown that had been defined though, that he alone should be liable, which are you arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1073.883, 1089.257], "stop_times": [1089.257, 1103.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.883}, "reply_to": "15125__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_063", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, I hope if I can sir, as I said in answer to Mr. Justice White's question, if the Government is not negligent, this case couldn't arise because the Government is subject to liability if itself is not negligent.\nSo that we are necessarily in the situation where both the Government and the contractor are negligent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1103.246, 1118.233], "stop_times": [1118.233, 1125.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.246}, "reply_to": "15125__0_062", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_064", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "And then what do you ask?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1125.495], "stop_times": [1127.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.495}, "reply_to": "15125__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_065", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "We say that in any such case that the meaning of this clause is that the contractor shall bear the full damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1127.283], "stop_times": [1135.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.283}, "reply_to": "15125__0_064", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_066", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Full damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1135.015], "stop_times": [1136.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.015}, "reply_to": "15125__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_067", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Those and we don't think that if proposition is rejected that we are out of court in this case, we think it's perhaps a less sweeping rule, you could say that at least there shall be some allocation of liability between the contractor and the Government.\nAnd of course that's common place at least where this disparate responsibility in the common law itself are negligent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1136.524, 1158.041], "stop_times": [1158.041, 1167.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.524}, "reply_to": "15125__0_066", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_068", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I guess if that were adopted the easiest way to work it in Court would be to be say that each of the equal alarm without having to go through weeks of evidence to find out which was the most liable, which was the most negligent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1167.555], "stop_times": [1179.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.555}, "reply_to": "15125__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_069", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, that -- that would be a possible role, of course, there is a growing body of authority on comparative negligence where the finder of fact does in fact allocate the responsibility.\nAnd of course there is the more traditional rule that where one party is primarily negligent and the other is only secondarily, so which is really on the facts of this case as the theory of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1179.893, 1193.132], "stop_times": [1193.132, 1206.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.893}, "reply_to": "15125__0_068", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_070", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I assume one of the easy -- one the easiest ways might be for the Government to get a better contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1206.198], "stop_times": [1212.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1206.198}, "reply_to": "15125__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_071", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That's certainly true, Mr. Justice Black, though as, of course that could be said and as I suggested in any contract case that if you had drafted it better you would have a lawsuit though you answer that proposition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1212.379], "stop_times": [1224.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.379}, "reply_to": "15125__0_070", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_072", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The Government continued to make the contract and then they change it in any sense --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1224.255], "stop_times": [1232.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.255}, "reply_to": "15125__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__0_073", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "No, it has not been changed so there are factors there.\nI gather constantly, there are revisions of these clauses under consideration and the Department of Justice at least has made a suggestion that we could avoid these cases by more explicit language.\nThat may or may not be so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1232.105, 1235.093, 1250.091], "stop_times": [1235.093, 1250.091, 1251.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.105}, "reply_to": "15125__0_072", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_074", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Because this employer, the law allocates the responsibility, the law of South Carolina, North Carolina?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1251.668], "stop_times": [1258.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.668}, "reply_to": "15125__0_073", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__0_075", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "South Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1258.532], "stop_times": [1259.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.532}, "reply_to": "15125__0_074", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_076", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The South Carolina as I suppose like every other state, though I don't know anything about this, makes these employer liable whether or not he was negligent to the employee under some form --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1259.079], "stop_times": [1269.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.079}, "reply_to": "15125__0_075", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__0_077", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Under workman's safety, of course, that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1269.315], "stop_times": [1270.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.315}, "reply_to": "15125__0_076", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_078", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I know that has been paid and that liability has been discharged by the employer in this case, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1270.627], "stop_times": [1276.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.627}, "reply_to": "15125__0_077", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__0_079", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes.\nThough I think -- I think it would be clear that if the United States were otherwise entitled to some kind of indemnity from that he could not set up the South Carolina workman's compensation statute as any kind of defense to his liability to the United States particularly under contract with the Government and perhaps even as a matter of common law indemnity which of course this case does not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1276.188, 1277.992], "stop_times": [1277.992, 1302.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.188}, "reply_to": "15125__0_078", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_080", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That would be a matter of the state law, the common law indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1302.745], "stop_times": [1305.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.745}, "reply_to": "15125__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__0_081", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1305.395], "stop_times": [1306.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1305.395}, "reply_to": "15125__0_080", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_082", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "But you don't put this lawsuit as you would here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1306.025], "stop_times": [1309.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.025}, "reply_to": "15125__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_083", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "No, certainly Mr. Justice Brennan.\nWe have to prove negligence and we have to prove causation and perhaps though we think we should not have to prove, we might have to prove the relative response.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1309.475, 1311.106], "stop_times": [1311.106, 1320.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.475}, "reply_to": "15125__0_082", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_084", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Do I understand you to suggest that perhaps we exceeded clear and also -- and fully negligence does necessarily mean you'd get a judgment for $45,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1320.07], "stop_times": [1332.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.07}, "reply_to": "15125__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_085", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, we would say that the literal language of the contract clause that the contractor shall be responsible for all damages that occur as a result of his negligence.\nWe would say as our first position that that automatically assure us full recovery if we would think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1332.665, 1343.944], "stop_times": [1343.944, 1349.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.665}, "reply_to": "15125__0_084", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_086", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I wasn't sure whether you're talking about joint contribution or comparative negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1349.439], "stop_times": [1352.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.439}, "reply_to": "15125__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_087", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I'm just -- I was suggesting that that would be another view that could be taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1352.737], "stop_times": [1358.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.737}, "reply_to": "15125__0_086", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_088", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "But if you prevail here, you're going after the whole $45,000.00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1358.976], "stop_times": [1362.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.976}, "reply_to": "15125__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_089", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, on first on the theory that the contract gives it to us automatically.\nSecond, on theory, on the traditional common law indemnity theory that insofar as the United States had a duty to this man it was justified in relying on the contractor to start the particular duties that gave rise in the United States' liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1362.499, 1365.698], "stop_times": [1365.698, 1385.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.499}, "reply_to": "15125__0_088", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_090", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, I suppose your basic claim of negligence against the contractor is that they put the man where people normally are not supposed to be and take all the burden of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1385.83], "stop_times": [1396.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.83}, "reply_to": "15125__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_091", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, they did that and first the contractor and the contract itself says in one of the clauses that we've set forth in our appendix, that the contractor shall give his personal superintendents to the work or have a confident foreman or superintendent on the work at all times during progress.\nIt is not -- it was not in fact the situation that any Government agent was on the scene at the time in this accident or was expected to be there.\nIt's the responsibility of the contractor under the contract to give minute by minute supervision to the work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1396.39, 1417.617, 1428.106], "stop_times": [1417.617, 1428.106, 1435.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.39}, "reply_to": "15125__0_090", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_092", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Like to turn the power off, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1435.56], "stop_times": [1438.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.56}, "reply_to": "15125__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_093", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The United States could have but I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1438.049], "stop_times": [1439.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.049}, "reply_to": "15125__0_092", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_094", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "So did the contractor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1439.766], "stop_times": [1440.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.766}, "reply_to": "15125__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__0_095", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The contractor -- well, the contractor would have had to ask the Government employee who was in charged of the power situation to turn it off, but that in fact I believe was what have been done a day or two before when the crane was operating, putting this pipe in when it was clear that the crane boom would be within range of the wire as then there was a real danger so that was done.\nBut basically, our proposition is that common place that the contractor was supervising the work and anything that had to be done either by way of warning or by having the power turned off to protect each man was the contractor's obligation at least as regards to the relationship between the United States and the contractor.\nIn any event, we think it's clear that some of the responsibility must be borne by the contractor in this clause.\nThe consequence of the Fifth Circuit's view of it is the United States has to pay the price for the negligence of its contractor.\nThey've gone so far to protect the contractor from liability to the United States that they have thrown the liability on the United States but denying it any opportunity, whatever the relevance falls maybe to have indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1440.789, 1465.43, 1490.842, 1501.261, 1513.172], "stop_times": [1465.43, 1490.842, 1501.261, 1513.172, 1531.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.789}, "reply_to": "15125__0_094", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_096", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "You're just about out of time Mr. Springer.\nIf you want to save any for rebuttal", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1531.326, 1533.084], "stop_times": [1533.084, 1535.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.326}, "reply_to": "15125__0_095", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_097", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes I would.\nI would like to go on for just a minute more.\nI noticed I don't have the light.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1535.743, 1536.127, 1538.107], "stop_times": [1536.127, 1538.107, 1541.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.743}, "reply_to": "15125__0_096", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_098", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "11:48, you recorded as being completed out of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1541.088], "stop_times": [1549.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.088}, "reply_to": "15125__0_097", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__0_099", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Thank you.\nI might just review again.\nI think there are substantial policy considerations that support what we say to be the meaning of this clause.\nAs I've suggested, the contractor is the person who was in the best position to prevent injuries of this kind.\nSince he's on the job and has direct supervision over his workmen and I would suggest that imposing this kind of responsibility on him for his own negligence gives him a desirable incentive to assure safety as the person is best able to assure it.\nAnd whatever policies there might be in favor of not shifting negligence to an innocent contractor, we suggested that they do not apply here at all where the whole theory of the Government's indemnity claim is that the contractor was negligent and in fact was primarily negligent.\nI would like to save the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1549.446, 1551.992, 1554.188, 1565.381, 1572.968, 1598.562, 1619.968], "stop_times": [1551.992, 1554.188, 1565.381, 1572.968, 1598.562, 1619.968, 1623.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1549.446}, "reply_to": "15125__0_098", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__0_100", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Mr. Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1623.262], "stop_times": [1623.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.262}, "reply_to": "15125__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_000", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "May it please the Court.\nI suppose all of these did start about in 1956 when our employee got hurt at the Government installation at Paris Island, a Marine base.\nHe came in contact with a Government wire which served a great deal of the base other than this construction job.\nIt helped train marines and was not in the province of the contractor that turn on or off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1623.941, 1627.272, 1642.245, 1653.533], "stop_times": [1627.272, 1642.245, 1653.533, 1662.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.941}, "reply_to": "15125__0_100", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_001", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Would it have been turned off, short time before if the contractor suppressed, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1662.051], "stop_times": [1666.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.051}, "reply_to": "15125__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_002", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "This is not in the record Mr. Justice and where it comes from is unknown to us.\nNow, the Government got hit in the District Court of South Carolina for $45,000.00 and properly looked for someone else to help pay.\nThey went through the contract, very think, very involved forwards and backwards and finally they found a clause which they thought might be closed.\nThis clause even had a sneaky title.\nIt said, permits and responsibilities for work, etcetera.\nIt never used the word indemnification.\nIt never used the word whole harmless, it said permanent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1666.928, 1675.714, 1691.825, 1709.217, 1713.803, 1720.927, 1724.196], "stop_times": [1675.714, 1691.825, 1709.217, 1713.803, 1720.927, 1724.196, 1727.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.928}, "reply_to": "15125__1_001", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_003", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, does -- does it have to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1727.341], "stop_times": [1730.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.341}, "reply_to": "15125__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__1_004", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1730.095], "stop_times": [1730.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.095}, "reply_to": "15125__1_003", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_005", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1730.993], "stop_times": [1732.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.993}, "reply_to": "15125__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__1_006", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "We respectfully maintain that to doll up this clause and make it one of indemnity, we don't add the words --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1732.158], "stop_times": [1740.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.158}, "reply_to": "15125__1_005", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_007", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "What's the magic --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1740.896], "stop_times": [1741.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.896}, "reply_to": "15125__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__1_008", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "We really --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1741.144], "stop_times": [1742.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.144}, "reply_to": "15125__1_007", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_009", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "What's the magic in indemnity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1742.534], "stop_times": [1744.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.534}, "reply_to": "15125__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15125__1_010", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It's the English language for indemnify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1744.447], "stop_times": [1748.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.447}, "reply_to": "15125__1_009", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_011", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, what did the words say here?\nThey say that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1748.829, 1751.184], "stop_times": [1751.184, 1751.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.829}, "reply_to": "15125__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_012", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Be responsible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1751.307], "stop_times": [1751.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1751.307}, "reply_to": "15125__1_011", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_013", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "-- he shall be responsible for all damages that occur as a result of his fault or negligence, that's pretty plain, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1751.797], "stop_times": [1759.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.797}, "reply_to": "15125__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_014", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Is the way -- it's the way the AIA has done it which might give us some guide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1759.011], "stop_times": [1765.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.011}, "reply_to": "15125__1_013", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_015", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, I don't understand responsible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1765.014], "stop_times": [1767.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.014}, "reply_to": "15125__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15125__1_016", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The responsible is limited, Mr. Justice.\nIndemnify means that if I, the Government, gets hit for negligence.\nI can then recover from somebody else.\nNow, the AIA has recognized this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1767.481, 1771.912, 1779.547, 1784.102], "stop_times": [1771.912, 1779.547, 1784.102, 1786.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1767.481}, "reply_to": "15125__1_015", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_017", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "What is the AIA, the American Institute of Architects?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1786.173], "stop_times": [1788.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.173}, "reply_to": "15125__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_018", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAnd this contract is very widely used and they say in their contract that the contract that shall indemnify and hold harmless, the owner, the Government was in the comparable position and the architect and their agents and employees from and against old claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of resulting from the performance of the work.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1788.334, 1789.378, 1830.035], "stop_times": [1789.378, 1830.035, 1830.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.334}, "reply_to": "15125__1_017", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_019", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That is a long, long instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1830.632], "stop_times": [1832.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.632}, "reply_to": "15125__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15125__1_020", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAnd it also uses the word indemnify.\nSome of your courts have defined responsible as the ability to respond.\nNot \u201cwill respond\u201d but \u201cI am able to respond.\u201d\nSo, the definition of responsible is much more limited, we find that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1832.102, 1833.748, 1838.222, 1846.423, 1853.091], "stop_times": [1833.748, 1838.222, 1846.423, 1853.091, 1859.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.102}, "reply_to": "15125__1_019", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_021", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Would you think that the word reliable instead of responsible would be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1859.173], "stop_times": [1866.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.173}, "reply_to": "15125__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_022", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think Your Honor, if a small amount at that time that was consumed in this case from the Government's standpoint were devoted to writing a clause originally, this case would have never happened.\nI personally would use the word indemnify as the AIA has used and countless other contracts used.\nThey hit the word indemnify.\nThey think there is magic in the meaning of indemnification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1866.998, 1885.87, 1897.822, 1899.796], "stop_times": [1885.87, 1897.822, 1899.796, 1905.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.998}, "reply_to": "15125__1_021", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_023", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Suppose that it -- suppose that they didn't used either one of the words, they just chose to state what they wanted.\nThey said that if any person is in view to the negligence of this contract, he shall make the Government hold or an indemnity hold on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1905.189, 1914.197], "stop_times": [1914.197, 1928.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.189}, "reply_to": "15125__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_024", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think we have -- I think we'd have much less argument Mr. Justice with this particular problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1928.726], "stop_times": [1935.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.726}, "reply_to": "15125__1_023", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_025", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It hinges around the words, those two words, they're equal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1935.53], "stop_times": [1939.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.53}, "reply_to": "15125__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_026", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, sir.\nYes, sir and the title of the clause where it was found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1939.536, 1940.73], "stop_times": [1940.73, 1945.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.536}, "reply_to": "15125__1_025", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_027", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Mr. Kennedy, I'm -- I understand that this clause has been in hundreds if not thousands if not many, many thousands of Government contracts since the 30s, the Federal Tort Claims Act has been existing since 1946, isn't there, aren't there -- I'm amazed if there are not many, many Court decisions construing this clause in this basic context and are there or are there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1945.024], "stop_times": [1973.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.024}, "reply_to": "15125__1_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_028", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think we share your surprise and I think only lately have they started pushing it.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1973.191, 1980.5], "stop_times": [1980.5, 1980.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.191}, "reply_to": "15125__1_027", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_029", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, are there any court decisions, District Courts, Courts of Appeal or state courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1980.586], "stop_times": [1986.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.586}, "reply_to": "15125__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_030", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "In the briefs in the Circuit Courts, you'll find a District Court decision out of Texas which construed this favorably.\nThe Government says --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1986.124, 1995.857], "stop_times": [1995.857, 1996.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.124}, "reply_to": "15125__1_029", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_031", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Favorably to which side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1996.49], "stop_times": [1997.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.49}, "reply_to": "15125__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_032", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "To our side.\nThe Government cites Porello, when they try to get into the Ryan doctrine and leave the narrow question of the interpretation of words and go to implied warranty which also is an issue in this case and Porello had a similar clause although it was much longer.\nNow, beyond these two cases neither side had been able to come up with much.\nNow, in that context remember this clause was born in its present form in 1938 at a time when indemnity by the United States would have been impossible because there was no Federal Torts Claim Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [1997.759, 1999.522, 2022.018, 2027.34], "stop_times": [1999.522, 2022.018, 2027.34, 2048.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1997.759}, "reply_to": "15125__1_031", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_033", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "You mean, indemnity to the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2048.679], "stop_times": [2050.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.679}, "reply_to": "15125__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_034", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Right, because the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2050.443], "stop_times": [2052.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.443}, "reply_to": "15125__1_033", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_035", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "But the United States could not have been held liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2052.327], "stop_times": [2054.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.327}, "reply_to": "15125__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_036", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Exactly, so how in 1950's fall when this contract was drawn.\nCan it get added meaning to cover a situation which was not in effect when the present wording of the contract was born?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2054.967, 2064.8], "stop_times": [2064.8, 2077.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.967}, "reply_to": "15125__1_035", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_037", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, don't we take it from the time it was born and to use your term by the signatures of the two contracting parties?\nContract speaks as of that date, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2077.696, 2085.958], "stop_times": [2085.958, 2088.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.696}, "reply_to": "15125__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_038", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes sir, they are true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2088.304], "stop_times": [2090.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.304}, "reply_to": "15125__1_037", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_039", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "And at that time there was a Federal Tort Claims Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2090.024], "stop_times": [2093.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.024}, "reply_to": "15125__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_040", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Very true.\nBut the language was born at the time when indemnity was impossible.\nSo, my point is, although your point is correct, how could the Government expect it to be an indemnity clause when there was no indemnity at the time they developed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2093.44, 2094.341, 2100.717], "stop_times": [2094.341, 2100.717, 2116.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.44}, "reply_to": "15125__1_039", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_041", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well it -- it could easily have gone into the contract in the abundance of caution by a Government lawyer who wanted to seal the Government off from any possible responsibility for the negligence of its contractor who might be thought by someone to be its agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2116.089], "stop_times": [2136.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.089}, "reply_to": "15125__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_042", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "But it was put in with that abundance in 1938 when indemnity was possible.\nAnd if you would like an abundance of precaution, you certainly use the word indemnify.\nNow, the title -- the title to this clause is misleading.\nThe first sentence has nothing to do with responsibility.\nIt has nothing to do with indemnity.\nIt has nothing to do with the subject.\nOnly in the second sentence of this paragraph that they find, do they get to the responsibility clause and then they devote 19 words and expect this to serve as a real indemnity clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2136.25, 2143.363, 2154.034, 2161.29, 2167.158, 2173.722, 2176.842], "stop_times": [2143.363, 2154.034, 2161.29, 2167.158, 2173.722, 2176.842, 2196.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.25}, "reply_to": "15125__1_041", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_043", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I -- somewhere on these printed briefs or record, is there -- is the context of this clause apparent, all I have is on page 2 here in the Government's brief where they have simply the clause itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2196.556], "stop_times": [2210.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.556}, "reply_to": "15125__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_044", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, I think that on page 36 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2210.75], "stop_times": [2218.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.75}, "reply_to": "15125__1_043", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_045", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2218.847], "stop_times": [2219.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.847}, "reply_to": "15125__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_046", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Of the government's brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2219.296], "stop_times": [2220.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.296}, "reply_to": "15125__1_045", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_047", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2220.738], "stop_times": [2221.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.738}, "reply_to": "15125__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_048", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "-- you'll find the whole clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2221.262], "stop_times": [2223.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.262}, "reply_to": "15125__1_047", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_049", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2223.019], "stop_times": [2223.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.019}, "reply_to": "15125__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__1_050", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It's number 11, Mr. Justice and it says, its titled Permits and Responsibility for Work.\nNow, this to us is a little bit sneaky for an indemnity clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2223.8, 2232.31], "stop_times": [2232.31, 2238.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.8}, "reply_to": "15125__1_049", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_051", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "A little bit of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2238.363], "stop_times": [2239.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.363}, "reply_to": "15125__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_052", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Sneaky.\nNothing about indemnity, nothing in the first sentence about indemnity then they talk about responsibility in the second sentence and then they have a perfect opportunity to say indemnity.\nBut they leave the subject entirely.\nI see I have a red light, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2239.066, 2244.592, 2260.094, 2265.088], "stop_times": [2244.592, 2260.094, 2265.088, 2267.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.066}, "reply_to": "15125__1_051", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_053", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "We'll stop for lunch sir.\nYou may proceed, Mr. Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2267.39, 2282.812], "stop_times": [2282.812, 2286.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.39}, "reply_to": "15125__1_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_054", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Thank you sir.\nWe left off when we were taking a close look at the clause, the clause that is the focus and we're making the point that it had a title which does not say anything about indemnification and it has a first sentence which lacks any words of indemnification and we submit fall short of being a real indemnity clause.\nThe scope of the paragraph is not indemnity.\nThe intention of the paragraph is not indemnity and we feel that this clause is not sufficient to require the contractor to pay back what the Government has lost as a result of its negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2286.701, 2288.262, 2321.257, 2326.337], "stop_times": [2288.262, 2321.257, 2326.337, 2346.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.701}, "reply_to": "15125__1_053", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_055", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Would you maintain this or -- let me withdraw that.\nDo you make an argument against the proposition that you are or are not liable for any part of the fault here that you're not -- that you did not contribute to the injury --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2346.853, 2352.017], "stop_times": [2352.017, 2367.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.853}, "reply_to": "15125__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_056", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, and in general --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2367.158], "stop_times": [2367.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.158}, "reply_to": "15125__1_055", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_057", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "-- or that you did, which way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2367.584], "stop_times": [2369.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.584}, "reply_to": "15125__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_058", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "In a general sense, we pay workmen's compensation whether we are liable or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2369.384], "stop_times": [2376.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.384}, "reply_to": "15125__1_057", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_059", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "No, no.\nI didn't make myself very clear, let me try again.\nDo you make that argument against the background of the claim that there was no negligence on the part of your client or do you make it against the background or it's making no difference whether your client was guilty or not guilty of any negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2376.641, 2377.659, 2381.138], "stop_times": [2377.659, 2381.138, 2398.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.641}, "reply_to": "15125__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_060", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think the latter would be closer.\nAs a taxpayer, I would certainly prefer for the Government to have included an indemnity clause, so that the exchequer would not bill out the entire $45,000.00 but we've got to accept the clause as it is.\nAnd the clause as it is we maintain does not provide for a situation where the Government is negligent.\nIt's $45,000.00 negligent and wants to get it back from Seckinger, the contractor.\nNow, nothing in this paragraph says a word about hold the Government on this.\nThat is found in a lot of indemnity clause.\nIt's found in a lot of leases where the owner is held harmless and if there is negligence, one party fix it up and pays the other party back.\nThis, we think, is a basis for the distinction between indemnity and responsibility.\nThere's nothing in there that says we'll indemnify the Government.\nThere's nothing in the heading that says permits responsibilities and indemnity.\nHow can it be said that this contractor when he went and signed at the place he was supposed to sign and the Government contract intended to pay back the Government for a $45,000.00 of their own negligence.\nIt doesn't say anything about we will pay the Government each share of damages in the event the Government is held responsible.\nThis would be one more sentence which would knock out argument in the head but it's not fair.\nIt's a mere responsibility clause.\nThe Government in its brief prefers to call it an indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2398.653, 2401.891, 2421.925, 2432.308, 2445.298, 2457.729, 2462.381, 2477.757, 2486.211, 2491.565, 2499.325, 2525.362, 2534.711, 2543.215, 2547.807], "stop_times": [2401.891, 2421.925, 2432.308, 2445.298, 2457.729, 2462.381, 2477.757, 2486.211, 2491.565, 2499.325, 2525.362, 2534.711, 2543.215, 2547.807, 2551.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.653}, "reply_to": "15125__1_059", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_061", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "That was responsibility clause has been neglected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2551.736], "stop_times": [2555.277], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.736}, "reply_to": "15125__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__1_062", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think that's a -- that's a good approach.\nWhat does this clause mean?\nThis clause means probably three or four things.\nIf our truck is going to the job and runs over somebody, we're responsible for our negligence.\nIf our piping is defective which we had to go in and fix, we're responsible for the negligence.\nThis clause becomes meaningless and ineffective only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2555.277, 2557.477, 2560.925, 2566.39, 2574.621, 2584.372], "stop_times": [2557.477, 2560.925, 2566.39, 2574.621, 2584.372, 2588.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.277}, "reply_to": "15125__1_061", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_063", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, why would you need it -- why would do the Government have to get back from its contractor?\nWhat does the government gain by getting a commitment limited to that, Mr. Kennedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2588.809, 2594.799], "stop_times": [2594.799, 2600.194], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.809}, "reply_to": "15125__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__1_064", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It would be hard for me to answer that but certainly the Government had reason to put it in there in 1938 when indemnity was not in existence.\nNow, where the Government gets its forms or why they put them in there I don't know but certainly those two fields or situations that this clause becomes meaningful in.\nAnd it only becomes meaningless and has no value when you try to touch it into a full-blown indemnity clause.\nIf you leave it alone, let it protect our plumbing, let it protect our negligence.\nWhen we run over a truck, we run over a car, there's no problem.\nNow, certainly the surrounding circumstances of this contract would be important.\nThe question has been raised, why didn't we turn off the power?\nWe are a plumber on a Marine base and we weren't about in as good a position to turn off the power as I am today to turn off the lights in this court room.\nWe went on there to fix the plumbing.\nWe weren't in-charge of the base.\nNobody gave us command of that base.\nWe were doing a plumbing job.\nWhat control did we have over the operation of the base and also in this context we are really looking for the intention of the parties.\nWhat could we have intended regarding indemnity when we merely went on that base to do one small operation.\nNow, the Government brings in the Ryan doctrine and they try to reinforce --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2600.194, 2614.325, 2629.671, 2642.361, 2652.514, 2660.362, 2676.538, 2683.015, 2697.571, 2701.191, 2702.963, 2706.134, 2711.059, 2725.597, 2736.123], "stop_times": [2614.325, 2629.671, 2642.361, 2652.514, 2660.362, 2676.538, 2683.015, 2697.571, 2701.191, 2702.963, 2706.134, 2711.059, 2725.597, 2736.123, 2745.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.194}, "reply_to": "15125__1_063", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_065", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Now, that issue is not before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2745.406], "stop_times": [2747.382], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.406}, "reply_to": "15125__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__1_066", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, it's in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2747.382], "stop_times": [2749.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.382}, "reply_to": "15125__1_065", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_067", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I thought that -- I didn't understand the Government's allowing the (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2749.62], "stop_times": [2757.566], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.62}, "reply_to": "15125__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__1_068", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, it would please us if they were not.\nWe don't think it's applicable and perhaps they have adopted that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2757.566, 2760.926], "stop_times": [2760.926, 2769.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.566}, "reply_to": "15125__1_067", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_069", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I gather you litigated this in the Court of Appeals, the Ryan Doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2769.81], "stop_times": [2773.204], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.81}, "reply_to": "15125__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__1_070", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes sir.\nBut it was brushed aside in the Court of Appeals.\nBut just briefly on the Ryan Doctrine, Ryan was the employee of a stevedore who had the operation of the whole ship.\nHe was loading it.\nHe could have turned off the electricity.\nHe's charged with loading that ship right but the Ryan doctrine has nothing to do with this case.\nNow, we can't comment specifically on the number of cases that are pending on this particular clause.\nWe are in no position to document the number.\nWe are in no position to document the amount that as is at stake.\nBut certainly, if contractors are required to go on to a Government installation and to indemnify the Government for it's negligence that's going to be a much higher bill for Government contracts.\nThe Government is urging the position that although that negligence was $45,000.00 worth and was sufficient to sustain the verdict for $45,000.00, we the contractors have to pay him back.\nThis is a long and hard burden for a contractor to assume.\nAnd I don't know how many or how the dollars would work out but certainly it's arguable that it would cost the Government more money to require indemnification from this plumbing contractors and alike that go along the Government installations to do their work than it would to redraft the clause and to say in effect we expect such and such.\nFrom all of those standpoints the matter should be considered.\nThis contract also puts the Government in a very involved position as far as inspecting the work.\nThe Government is as close to the job as the contractor and perhaps closer.\nThe contractor has to have a set of plans for the Government to look at.\nThe Government has an inspector that goes there almost daily, almost several times a day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2773.204, 2775.328, 2778.724, 2789.153, 2791.294, 2794.146, 2817.346, 2825.588, 2828.811, 2835.554, 2861.071, 2882.096, 2889.235, 2922.721, 2929.993, 2943.635, 2950.234, 2954.992], "stop_times": [2775.328, 2778.724, 2789.153, 2791.294, 2794.146, 2817.346, 2825.588, 2828.811, 2835.554, 2861.071, 2882.096, 2889.235, 2922.721, 2929.993, 2943.635, 2950.234, 2954.992, 2963.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.204}, "reply_to": "15125__1_069", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_071", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Just precisely what was being done in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2963.282], "stop_times": [2966.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.282}, "reply_to": "15125__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_072", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "We went on the base to fix the plumbing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2966.852], "stop_times": [2969.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2966.852}, "reply_to": "15125__1_071", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_073", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2969.298], "stop_times": [2969.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.298}, "reply_to": "15125__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_074", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "The plumbing.\nWe would do an outside distribution system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2969.974, 2971.371], "stop_times": [2971.371, 2976.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.974}, "reply_to": "15125__1_073", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_075", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Whole system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2976.716], "stop_times": [2978.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.716}, "reply_to": "15125__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_076", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Just a part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2978.328], "stop_times": [2980.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.328}, "reply_to": "15125__1_075", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_077", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2980.058], "stop_times": [2980.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.058}, "reply_to": "15125__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_078", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2980.67], "stop_times": [2981.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.67}, "reply_to": "15125__1_077", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_079", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "On the outside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2981.18], "stop_times": [2982.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.18}, "reply_to": "15125__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15125__1_080", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2982.761], "stop_times": [2984.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.761}, "reply_to": "15125__1_079", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_081", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Was the pipe on which he was walking -- the employee was walking, one of the pipes that was being installed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2984.174], "stop_times": [2992.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.174}, "reply_to": "15125__1_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__1_082", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I cannot answer that correctly.\nI don't know.\nThere's nothing in this record, as I mentioned earlier, to show one way or the other.\nIn this record is the suit and the motion to dismiss and the details of it we do not know and I cannot answer it off the record because I was not in the case at that time it got started.\nAfter all of these reasons, we feel that the District Court of the Southern District should be affirmed, they dismissed the Government's petition.\nAnd the Circuit Court, Judge Brown, Judge Ainsworth, Judge Goldberg should be affirmed in their dismissal of the Government's petition.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [2992.412, 2995.68, 2998.018, 3004.472, 3023.396, 3037.748, 3052.093], "stop_times": [2995.68, 2998.018, 3004.472, 3023.396, 3037.748, 3052.093, 3053.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.412}, "reply_to": "15125__1_081", "speaker": "john_g_kennedy"}
{"id": "15125__1_083", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Thank you Mr. Kennedy.\nDo you have anything further, Mr. Springer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3053.122, 3055.041], "stop_times": [3055.041, 3058.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.122}, "reply_to": "15125__1_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__2_000", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice, just a several small matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3058.394], "stop_times": [3060.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3058.394}, "reply_to": "15125__1_083", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_001", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Excuse me, am not right that the so-called (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3060.553], "stop_times": [3068.985], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.553}, "reply_to": "15125__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__2_002", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3068.985], "stop_times": [3069.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3068.985}, "reply_to": "15125__2_001", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_003", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I mean in the sense of these separate phases, extra phases of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3069.514], "stop_times": [3075.705], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.514}, "reply_to": "15125__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__2_004", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think we would be willing to argue the Ryan doctrine if we thought it were necessary but I think under the situation of this case the application of Ryan principles would have nothing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3075.705], "stop_times": [3086.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3075.705}, "reply_to": "15125__2_003", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_005", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well my question, Mr. Springer, you haven't submitted as I understand.\nThe only issue we've got is the -- as I have heard is what is the meaning of the clause in the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3086.214, 3089.748], "stop_times": [3089.748, 3099.23], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.214}, "reply_to": "15125__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15125__2_006", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think to answer strictly, technically, accurately we have -- I would think preserved the Ryan theory but we do not primarily rely on it because I think anything that Ryan would give us, we say we have explicitly in this clause.\nGranted and the Ryan line of cases doesn't in some sense set a background for our statement that what we say in this clause means is not extraordinary because at least in the Ryan or whatever area Ryan covers, the Government contractors have been given by implication what we say here we are entitled to by a natural reading of the clause.\nMr. Kennedy has referred to the absence of a record in this case.\nObviously, the reason there is in the record is because we haven't had the chance to make one yet.\nThe statements that I have made about the facts of the accident are taken from the findings made by Judge Timmerman in the earlier case in the Eastern District of South Carolina and we have lodged in connection with this case the record of that case.\nAnd I believe that everything I've said even what I've said about what we would prove with due process really just me talking at this point since we haven't had a chance to make a record on that.\nEverything that on that is at least consistent and I believe supported by testimony in the transcript of the earlier trial.\nAs I understand Mr. Kennedy's argument, it's primarily that this clause should not be considered as speaking for the matter of indemnity at all.\nOf course then, in that respect, he departs from the view that the Fifth Circuit itself does.\nI think it's plain that the Fifth Circuit regarded this as some kind of indemnity clause, it simply held that it wasn't an indemnity clause which would extend to this kind of case where the Government was negligent or also negligent but I think that Fifth Circuit agrees with us at least to the extent of saying that this is where we look in this contract if we want to know what kind of indemnity there is.\nAs to the historical origins of this clause, I think it is, as I understand the situation that prevailed prior to the Tort Claims Act, it is not strictly accurate to say that the Government was never subjected to tort liability.\nI believe what normally happen was that Congress would pass a private bill or this has happened to a number of cases which in effect amounted to an ad hoc Tort Claims Act, giving the Court of Claims jurisdictions to adjudicate whether or not the Government should be liable, so I would think that that kind of situation could well have given rights to a situation where the Government had been held liable and would want to look somewhere for indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3099.23, 3117.095, 3143.596, 3149.399, 3154.067, 3176.097, 3187.624, 3198.575, 3210.891, 3216.673, 3244.89, 3259.396], "stop_times": [3117.095, 3143.596, 3149.399, 3154.067, 3176.097, 3187.624, 3198.575, 3210.891, 3216.673, 3244.89, 3259.396, 3287.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3099.23}, "reply_to": "15125__2_005", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_007", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well, I would get other extreme claim under this language, wouldn't it?\nYou'd -- likely you don't have (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3287.386, 3291.244], "stop_times": [3291.244, 3292.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.386}, "reply_to": "15125__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__2_008", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "(Voice Overlap) luckily, I don't have to argue that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3292.256], "stop_times": [3294.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3292.256}, "reply_to": "15125__2_007", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_009", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "This appropriates money to make -- to compensate an injured party.\nThat's a voluntary act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3294.21, 3300.999], "stop_times": [3300.999, 3301.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.21}, "reply_to": "15125__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15125__2_010", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "What you said -- as I understand, the Congress ordinarily did it through a judicial proceeding.\nIt said, if the Court of Claims determines that the United States should be liable then the money will be paid.\nAlso it's true that these clauses are being as I've said earlier reconsidered and to some extent reworded from time to time.\nThis clause is in fact now slightly different went out materially from the way it was in 1956 when this contract was signed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3301.789, 3308.839, 3315.991, 3323.954], "stop_times": [3308.839, 3315.991, 3323.954, 3332.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3301.789}, "reply_to": "15125__2_009", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_011", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "But if the Government paid out money by way of a private bill after the voluntary payment in which they would have considerable difficulty asserting by way of indemnity under this clause I suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3332.268], "stop_times": [3347.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.268}, "reply_to": "15125__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__2_012", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think that may well be so, Mr. Chief Justice but a careful draftsman I think in a Government contract would at least make some effort to take that possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3347.006], "stop_times": [3357.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3347.006}, "reply_to": "15125__2_011", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_013", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "Well I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3357.516], "stop_times": [3358.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.516}, "reply_to": "15125__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__2_014", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "It count --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3358.014], "stop_times": [3358.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3358.014}, "reply_to": "15125__2_013", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_015", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "-- suggested previously that this clause might be simply all of the unknown possibilities, its all, including the one you suggested is one possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3358.079], "stop_times": [3368.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.079}, "reply_to": "15125__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15125__2_016", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "If I was just trying to give a little more concrete content perhaps to the unknown possibilities with a careful draftsman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3368.806], "stop_times": [3375.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3368.806}, "reply_to": "15125__2_015", "speaker": "james_van_r_springer"}
{"id": "15125__2_017", "conversation_id": "15125", "text": "I think your time is up, Mr. Springer.\nThank you, very much.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_395", "start_times": [3375.909, 3377.418, 3378.336], "stop_times": [3377.418, 3378.336, 3380.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.909}, "reply_to": "15125__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_000", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "We will take Number 305, United States against Sisson.\nMr. Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [0.0, 22.269], "stop_times": [22.269, 25.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_001", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis too is a draft case raising two new unrelated and difficult problems.\nIn a third aspect it's like the Welsh case which has just been argued.\nAnd for my argument on the question relating to religious training and belief, I rely on the argument in the case just concluded.\nThe defendant here was indicted for failing to report for induction.\nThere was a trial before jury at which the defendant testified.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty.\nThe defendant then made a motion in arrest of judgment.\nIn his motion, the defendant said that he could not participate in the Vietnam War without doing violence to the dictates of his conscience.\nAnd he further stated that, he cannot qualify as a conscientious objector within the meaning of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 because he is not a pacifist.\nAnd in any event, his convictions that the Vietnam War is illegal, immoral, and unjust are not based on religious training and belief.\nThe District Court granted the motion in arrest of judgment and so doing it referred to facts which had appeared at the trial and noted that particularly the defendants own testimony.\nAnd noted that \u201cin substance the case arises upon an agreed statement of facts,\u201d that appears on page 250 of the appendix.\nI can state that none of the facts is controvert.\nWe do not dispute that the appellee was sincerely and conscientiously opposed to the Vietnam conflict based on his moral convictions, educational training, extensive reading both about Vietnam, and about such things as the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Trial.\nAs I have indicated, his claim is selective not against war in any form as the phrase is in the statute.\nAnd he expressly asserts that it is not based on religious training and belief.\nIn this situation, the District Court held that the appellee had a valid claim to be constitutionally exempted from combat in the Vietnam type of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [25.178, 31.271, 42.433, 48.758, 62.838, 68.823, 75.919, 80.146, 85.236, 97.894, 113.119, 127.031, 144.228, 155.898, 161.36, 185.274, 195.415, 203.049], "stop_times": [31.271, 42.433, 48.758, 62.838, 68.823, 75.919, 80.146, 85.236, 97.894, 113.119, 127.031, 144.228, 155.898, 161.36, 185.274, 195.415, 203.049, 216.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 25.178}, "reply_to": "14952__0_000", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_002", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Do you think this is a motion in arrest of judgment or motion for an acquittal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [216.155], "stop_times": [223.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.155}, "reply_to": "14952__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14952__0_003", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "This is a subject to which I am about to address my argument.\nIt is the -- I was trying to give the setting.\nThe first half of my argument is devoted to jurisdiction and the second half to selective conscientious objection.\nThe Court concluded that the Military Service Act violated the free exercise in Due Process Clauses.\nIt held in the alternative of Section 6 (j) the exemption provision violated the Establishment Clause and that it unreasonably discriminated between religious and non-religious conscientious objection.\nFrom this decision, the United States took this appeal purporting to act under the Second Clause of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907.\nNow, found in Title 18 of the United States Code Section 3731, the relevant passages from which are set out on page 13 of the Government's brief.\nAnd now, I will turn to the jurisdictional question which in my mind is a very close question.\nWe contend that there is jurisdiction but arguments can be made both ways.\nThere's no doubt that there was a trial here and if there had been a verdict of not guilty even a directive verdict of not guilty.\nThere could be no appeal no matter what error of law was made by the trial court.\nAn illustration of that is found in the case decided just last month of United States against Bond which is set out in appendix to one of the briefs filed by amici curiae, the one by the Los Angeles selective service law panel.\nIn the Bond case, Judge Weigel directed the verdict for the defendant, who was a selective conscientious objector based on religious training and belief.\nWe think that Judge Weigel was wrong as the matter of law but there's nothing we can do about it and we have of course taken no appeal.\nThe difference is that here there was a verdict of guilty followed by a motion and arrest of judgment which was granted.\nNow, if Judge Wyzanski had entered an order saying, having examined the record I find that there was no sufficient evidence to submit to the jury, and the case should not have been allowed to go to the jury and accordingly, I direct to the judgment of acquittal be entered.\nI think we would be so close to the situation in the Bond case that we couldn't talked about it.\nAnd it is easy I think to say that, what Judge Wyzanski did is not different in substance from that and that summarizes the difficulty of our position on the jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [223.988, 227.843, 231.505, 239.923, 247.36, 262.053, 273.253, 285.206, 293.091, 300.898, 311.328, 318.147, 339.561, 350.743, 361.195, 370.579, 388.191, 394.301], "stop_times": [227.843, 231.505, 239.923, 247.36, 262.053, 273.253, 285.206, 293.091, 300.898, 311.328, 318.147, 339.561, 350.743, 361.195, 370.579, 388.191, 394.301, 408.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 223.988}, "reply_to": "14952__0_002", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_004", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, there's one important difference though in that the verdict and judgments stands now, does it not?\nIn your first illustration a judgment notwithstanding the verdict that there would be no verdict any longer but the verdict still stands here, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [408.625, 416.87], "stop_times": [416.87, 428.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.625}, "reply_to": "14952__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_005", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I'm not sure Mr. Justice.\nThe judge --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [428.08, 430.268], "stop_times": [430.268, 430.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 428.08}, "reply_to": "14952__0_004", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_006", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [430.601], "stop_times": [431.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.601}, "reply_to": "14952__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_007", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The judge has decided that there was no basis in law for the verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [431.33], "stop_times": [435.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 431.33}, "reply_to": "14952__0_006", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_008", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, what was -- what was the language of his order was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [435.674], "stop_times": [440.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.674}, "reply_to": "14952__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_009", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It is not in the appendix.\nI can't tell you the language.\nThe opinion is here but the actual judgment is not here.\nI discovered to my surprise last night, page 264, enter forthwith this decision in this Court's order granting defendant systems, motion and arrest of judgment.\nAnd there --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [440.765, 443.759, 445.948, 449.658, 462.277], "stop_times": [443.759, 445.948, 449.658, 462.277, 462.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 440.765}, "reply_to": "14952__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_010", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, when you -- this is the language I had in mind.\nIt's in arrest of judgment.\nHe is acknowledging the existence of the judgment which presupposes that it rests and turn upon a verdict and he hasn't done -- he hasn't expressed or articulated any idea of setting aside that verdict nor does he vacate the judgment he said, he arrests --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [462.908, 466.614, 467.958], "stop_times": [466.614, 467.958, 487.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.908}, "reply_to": "14952__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_011", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "There has been no judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [487.645], "stop_times": [489.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 487.645}, "reply_to": "14952__0_010", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_012", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "What is the language you read again?\nExcuse me, I'm looking for it in the appendix but I don't find it precise --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [489.785, 492.661], "stop_times": [492.661, 499.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.785}, "reply_to": "14952__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_013", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "250 -- 250 is the only place that I can find it, enter forthwith this decision and this Court's order, granting defendant Sisson's motion in arrest of judgment.\nNow that is in arrest of judgment, there had not previously been any judgment and a motion in arrest of judgment, not in arrest of the execution of judgment but in arrest of entering judgment as I interpret it.\nI -- if you're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [499.561, 511.199, 525.506], "stop_times": [511.199, 525.506, 526.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 499.561}, "reply_to": "14952__0_012", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_014", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, that puzzles me a little bit.\nI did not know whether he -- from this language was arresting a judgment, the execution of a judgment entered, or arresting the entry of the judgment based on the verdict.\nBut in either case the verdict stands, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [526.798, 529.01, 539.319], "stop_times": [529.01, 539.319, 542.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.798}, "reply_to": "14952__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_015", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The verdict is in a historical fact, no doubt about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [542.455], "stop_times": [544.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 542.455}, "reply_to": "14952__0_014", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_016", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It's -- its --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [544.415], "stop_times": [547.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.415}, "reply_to": "14952__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_017", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Its legal effect has been undermined by the District Judge's decision.\nHe had decided that it is not a proper basis to found a judgment of the Court of conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [547.444, 552.641], "stop_times": [552.641, 559.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 547.444}, "reply_to": "14952__0_016", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_018", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But when a sophisticated, highly experienced District Judge makes the choice between a judgments entering judgment notwithstanding a verdict in this posture, and the action which he did take.\nDoes that suggest anything to -- should that suggest anything to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [559.639, 575.063], "stop_times": [575.063, 578.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.639}, "reply_to": "14952__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_019", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It may have suggests -- may suggest that he was trying to preserve a situation which would make it possible for us to appeal to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [578.709], "stop_times": [587.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 578.709}, "reply_to": "14952__0_018", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_020", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Not a -- that's among other things, one of the incidental factors which occurred to me but in so doing, he has left a verdict extent without on its face --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [587.833], "stop_times": [604.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.833}, "reply_to": "14952__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_021", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "That -- that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [604.575], "stop_times": [605.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 604.575}, "reply_to": "14952__0_020", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_022", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "-- on its face entered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [605.852], "stop_times": [606.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.852}, "reply_to": "14952__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_023", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I hate to be arguing against myself here Mr. Chief Justice, but he has left the verdict stand but he's pulled all the foundation out from under so, its floats in space I guess.\nIt is no longer a basis for entering a judgment of conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [606.687, 617.297], "stop_times": [617.297, 622.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 606.687}, "reply_to": "14952__0_022", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_024", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "May I ask the Mr. Solicitor General.\nThis is an appeal isn't it, a direct appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [622.71, 625.827], "stop_times": [625.827, 629.214], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 622.71}, "reply_to": "14952__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_025", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [629.214], "stop_times": [630.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 629.214}, "reply_to": "14952__0_024", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_026", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It must be from the judgment, must have not?\nWe -- I thought you said --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [630.952, 634.617], "stop_times": [634.617, 635.51], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 630.952}, "reply_to": "14952__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_027", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It is from -- it is from a judgment or order in arrest of judgment which is the express --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [635.51], "stop_times": [641.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 635.51}, "reply_to": "14952__0_026", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_028", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well my point is, I gather we've often said that we don't review opinions here we review judgments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [641.397], "stop_times": [649.769], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 641.397}, "reply_to": "14952__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_029", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nYou don't review opinions but the criminal --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [649.769, 650.812], "stop_times": [650.812, 652.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 649.769}, "reply_to": "14952__0_028", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_030", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The statute says, from a decision, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [652.432], "stop_times": [654.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.432}, "reply_to": "14952__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_031", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The Criminal Appeals Act provides that there is an appeal to this Court from a decision arresting a judgment of conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [654.707], "stop_times": [665.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 654.707}, "reply_to": "14952__0_030", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_032", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I know a decision.\nWhat's a decision -- what forms of decision take to purposes of appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [665.163, 666.083], "stop_times": [666.083, 671.444], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 665.163}, "reply_to": "14952__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_033", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "From a decision arresting a judgment of conviction for insufficient --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [671.444], "stop_times": [674.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 671.444}, "reply_to": "14952__0_032", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_034", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, I ask again.\nI ask again, what form does a decision take?\nDo we have another jurisdictional question here?\nWill we have any appeal here at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [674.85, 675.857, 678.824, 680.785], "stop_times": [675.857, 678.824, 680.785, 682.117], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 674.85}, "reply_to": "14952__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_035", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I don't think so, Mr. Justice.\nI think the decision is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [682.117, 683.917], "stop_times": [683.917, 685.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 682.117}, "reply_to": "14952__0_034", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_036", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [685.993], "stop_times": [686.804], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 685.993}, "reply_to": "14952__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_037", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Is the opinion and the final order at the end, beginning on page 248 and concluding on page 264 of the appendix.\nAny rate that's the, not only the only order there is but that's the order which protects system and from which the Government is.\nAnd there can be no doubt that while that stands Sisson completely protected and that is the order from which the Government is seeking to give.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [686.804, 698.177, 707.526], "stop_times": [698.177, 707.526, 717.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 686.804}, "reply_to": "14952__0_036", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_038", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But General, how do we -- aren't we further confused by the fact that it was a motion towards the indictment at the beginning of it, which he denied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [717.184], "stop_times": [727.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.184}, "reply_to": "14952__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_039", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "There was a motion too Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [727.226], "stop_times": [728.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 727.226}, "reply_to": "14952__0_038", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_040", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "To quash the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [728.788], "stop_times": [730.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.788}, "reply_to": "14952__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_041", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [730.492], "stop_times": [730.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 730.492}, "reply_to": "14952__0_040", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_042", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Dismissing the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [730.763], "stop_times": [731.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.763}, "reply_to": "14952__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_043", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Which was -- which was denied --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [731.499], "stop_times": [732.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 731.499}, "reply_to": "14952__0_042", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_044", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Was denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [732.988], "stop_times": [734.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.988}, "reply_to": "14952__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_045", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "There were several motions before a trial, all of which were --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [734.794], "stop_times": [737.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 734.794}, "reply_to": "14952__0_044", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_046", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Then one of them was that and yet, after the trial then he dismisses it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [737.856], "stop_times": [741.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.856}, "reply_to": "14952__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_047", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "In this motion, the arrest of judgment to some extent the grounds are the same as those which were presented in motions made before the trial.\nNow in this case, if the motion had been granted on the fact that the statute was unconstitutional on its face, there would I think would be no doubt that this Court would have jurisdiction of the appeal.\nBut in fact, the motion was granted on the ground that in the later the facts appearing at the trial, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to this particular defendant.\nIf those facts had appeared in and agreed statement of fact, this Court's decision in United States against Halseth in 342 U.S. would support the jurisdiction.\nHere the facts appeared in testimony but are accepted by the Government so, that there is a basis for the District Court's statement that the case in substance arises upon an aggrieved statement of facts.\nWe never formally agreed to them but we don't dispute them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [741.342, 752.132, 765.838, 778.644, 794.127, 810.305], "stop_times": [752.132, 765.838, 778.644, 794.127, 810.305, 815.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 741.342}, "reply_to": "14952__0_046", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_048", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "How can you dispute them he's going to lose this case?\nYou need to agree to him in order to give him the right to arrest of the judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [815.673, 821.868], "stop_times": [821.868, 828.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.673}, "reply_to": "14952__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_049", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "No, we would lose our right to appeal if we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [828.108], "stop_times": [831.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 828.108}, "reply_to": "14952__0_048", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_050", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [831.662], "stop_times": [832.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.662}, "reply_to": "14952__0_049", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_051", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "-- dispute them, I agree and we don't.\nWe don't.\nIn this situation, we have concluded not without difficulty that to construe the Criminal Appeals Act as precluding appeal of the decision below would unwarrantedly exalt form over substance.\nThere is no genuine difference between this case and one in which the nature of the appellees conscientious objection would be set forth in the indictment itself or formerly stipulated to on a motion to dismiss.\nWe think too that the decision below is one on the construction of Section 12 (a) of the Selective Service Act.\nLess clearly, we think that the Court's decision with respect to Section 6 (j) comes within the Criminal Appeals Act.\nYou have to go through 6 (j) to get to 12 (a) to -- in order to make it a construction of the statute.\nNow, there are two other Clauses of the Criminal Appeals Act, one, relating to a judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment or information; and the other relating to a -- the sustaining of a motion in bar and its order postponing the question of jurisdiction in this case.\nThe Court requested the parties to direct their attention to this other provisions and we\u2018ve done so at some length in our brief.\nI may say that there are few problems which reoccur so frequently or present such extreme technical difficulty in the Solicitor General's office than the proper construction of the Criminal Appeals Act, you had the Jorn case last week which was a problem.\nThere are also other provisions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [832.055, 835.114, 837.018, 853.555, 872.221, 881.217, 890.214, 899.773, 920.58, 928.592, 948.98], "stop_times": [835.114, 837.018, 853.555, 872.221, 881.217, 890.214, 899.773, 920.58, 928.592, 948.98, 950.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 832.055}, "reply_to": "14952__0_050", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_052", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Still is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [950.327], "stop_times": [950.709], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 950.327}, "reply_to": "14952__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_053", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "-- in the Act relating the one you can appeal the Courts of Appeals.\nWe find that if we appeal to a Court of Appeals, they transfer to the Supreme Court.\nSo far, we haven't had much problem with the Supreme Court transferring them back to the Court of Appeals but the clauses are --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [950.709, 954.359, 960.04], "stop_times": [954.359, 960.04, 968.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 950.709}, "reply_to": "14952__0_052", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_054", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But may I ask Mr. Solicitor General, do you see any similarity in the problem here to that in Jorn?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [968.369], "stop_times": [976.229], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 968.369}, "reply_to": "14952__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_055", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nI don't believe I do.\nIn Jorn, as far as the second trial is concerned, the defendant had not been put in jeopardy and the only issue is whether the jeopardy of the first trial is wiped out or not so as to make the appeal available.\nHere --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [976.229, 977.236, 980.348, 999.417], "stop_times": [977.236, 980.348, 999.417, 999.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 976.229}, "reply_to": "14952__0_054", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_056", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Of course, strictly speaking and that was only a second stage not a second trial but a second stage on the same proceeding in Jorn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [999.464], "stop_times": [1006.864], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 999.464}, "reply_to": "14952__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_057", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, it was a second trial under the same indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1006.864], "stop_times": [1010.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1006.864}, "reply_to": "14952__0_056", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_058", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Under an amended information?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1010.831], "stop_times": [1013.146], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.831}, "reply_to": "14952__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_059", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "An information, yes Your Honor.\nI don't recall whether the amendment was made following the first trial or during trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1013.146, 1014.746], "stop_times": [1014.746, 1019.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1013.146}, "reply_to": "14952__0_058", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_060", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "After the first stage of the proceeding in that was met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1019.262], "stop_times": [1021.126], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.262}, "reply_to": "14952__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_061", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes.\nNow the clause relating the motions in bar, it seems to us rather obviously inapplicable since by its terms, it's available only when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.\nHere, the appellee has clearly been put in jeopardy.\nNot only was the jury empanelled but a verdict was rendered against him.\nMoreover, the legislative history which is set out at some length in our brief shows great concern on the part of responsible Senators that this new and for its time rather bold statute, should not transgress any constitutional limits, particularly with respect to double jeopardy.\nI just do not see how we can get any helped from the motion in the bar clause.\nAnd finally, there is the clause relating to setting aside or dismissing any indictment or information.\nThere is no verbal limitation there with respect to jeopardy and a literal reading of the provision might lead to the conclusion that it provides a basis for jurisdiction here.\nIn its original form, this clause related to decisions on demur and such decisions would be rendered before or nearly this before jeopardy.\nSeven months following the enactment of the statute, this Court indicated that the provision applied and I quote \u201cTo judgments rendered before the moment of jeopardy is reach,\u201d and that's United States against Macdonald in 207 U.S.\nAnd this has been the consistent construction of the provision by the Department of Justice over a period of more than 60 years.\nA little more than 20 years ago, a case called Zisblatt came to this Court and Solicitor General Perlman, actually had came through the Court of Appeals and was certified to this Court.\nSolicitor General Perlman moved that the appeal to be dismissed because there jeopardy had attached.\nWe have searched through the files to try to find some greater statement of the reasons but have not found that.\nThere is no doubt I believe that it was the expectation of the legislators while the bill was going through Congress.\nThat the rulings to which the bill related would occur before a jury was sworn except for decision rendered on a motion and arrest of judgment.\nWe're not prepared to dispute this contemporaneous understanding and the interpretation of the Act at which has obtained since 1907.\nIt's true that the statute has been amended particularly when it was codified in 1908 -- in 1948 but the reviser's note at that time makes it plain that the changes then made were editorial only and were not intended to order the scope of review.\nOver the years, the Department of Justice has repeatedly sought to get the statute change, I might say modernized, and such an effort is pending now.\nBut there have been no changes and the law today would be seemed to be essentially the same as it enacted in 1907.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1021.126, 1023.319, 1038.077, 1041.89, 1046.7, 1067.267, 1074.154, 1083.424, 1095.397, 1108.423, 1126.948, 1136.33, 1149.734, 1156.671, 1169.699, 1178.476, 1190.536, 1202.25, 1222.975, 1234.718], "stop_times": [1023.319, 1038.077, 1041.89, 1046.7, 1067.267, 1074.154, 1083.424, 1095.397, 1108.423, 1126.948, 1136.33, 1149.734, 1156.671, 1169.699, 1178.476, 1190.536, 1202.25, 1222.975, 1234.718, 1242.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1021.126}, "reply_to": "14952__0_060", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_062", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "(Inaudible), did you say that your -- is there objection to it in Congress or just admission of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1242.278], "stop_times": [1251.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.278}, "reply_to": "14952__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_063", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nIt's just hard to get things through Congress even when there is no objection.\nCongressman McCulloch, the raking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, is interested in this now and we hopes that he will make some progress not only on this, but on the statute dealing with the direct appeals and Interstate Commerce Commission cases and from three judge courts.\nAnd I can only say that where the statute passed it would greatly simplify the worked of the Solicitor General's office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1251.052, 1252.399, 1258.146, 1279.543], "stop_times": [1252.399, 1258.146, 1279.543, 1286.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1251.052}, "reply_to": "14952__0_062", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_064", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "How about us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1286.645], "stop_times": [1288.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.645}, "reply_to": "14952__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14952__0_065", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "How about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1288.086], "stop_times": [1289.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1288.086}, "reply_to": "14952__0_064", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_066", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Would it simplify our tasks too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1289.113], "stop_times": [1294.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.113}, "reply_to": "14952__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "14952__0_067", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "You might have more petitions to certiorari to examine or to review at Courts of Appeals.\nI don't know whether it would or not because the existing effect is that a great many cases are not appealed at all that ought to be appealed.\nSimply because we feel that we cannot appropriately bring such a case to this Court and we would take it to a Court of Appeals.\nAnd would very likely abide by the decision of the Court of Appeals and such I think Jorn is a clear example.\nI -- we were sorry to bring that case here there is no place else we could go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1294.645, 1299.976, 1309.763, 1317.476, 1325.635], "stop_times": [1299.976, 1309.763, 1317.476, 1325.635, 1329.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1294.645}, "reply_to": "14952__0_066", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_068", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "May I ask Mr. Solicitor is Justice Sparksman --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1329.476], "stop_times": [1332.507], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.476}, "reply_to": "14952__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_069", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.\nYes.\nIt says a full support of the department but so it did over the past five or six years there has been an active effort to get it done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1332.507, 1333.561, 1334.097], "stop_times": [1333.561, 1334.097, 1346.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1332.507}, "reply_to": "14952__0_068", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_070", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Is there any documentation (Inaudible), what I mean are they significant to the committee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1346.601], "stop_times": [1355.097], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.601}, "reply_to": "14952__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_071", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I don't believe it's gotten to a committee.\nWe did refer to the fact in our brief in this case that we had efforts pending but I don't know whether anything is cited now or not.\nNo, I don't have any.\nI -- I'm quite sure that there is no committee report.\nI suspect that the only thing that is available is the usual letter from the Deputy Attorney General which ordinarily is not a public document.\nOn this basis, our position is that the only basis for jurisdiction here is the arresting a judgment clause even that's a little shaky as I tried to indicate.\nBut for the reasons I've given earlier, our submission is that that provision can appropriately be construed to support this Court's jurisdiction of the appeal.\nAnd now, I turn to the merits in the Sisson case assuming that I'm validly here.\nAs I have already indicated, it involves nonreligious, selective objector.\nJudge Wyzanski held the indictment invalid on both grounds religious and selective.\nWe think he was wrong on both grounds.\nIf he was wrong on the selective objection ground, he need not have considered the nonreligious character of the objection.\nAs I've already indicated, we rely on the argument in the Welsh case so, far as the question of the reference to religious training and belief in the statute is concerned.\nAnd that leaves for consideration here, the question of selective conscientious objection.\nThat is the question of the validity of the provision which Congress has included in the statute that exemption will be allowed when the registrant and I quote from Section 6 (j), \u201cHis conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.\u201d\nThere's no suggestion that the appellee comes within the terms of that statute.\nWe have no possible question of statutory construction here with respect to that.\nHis objection is to the Vietnam War.\nHe asserts that he is not a pacifist, thus, unless the statute is in some way invalid.\nHe is not entitled to an exemption quite without regard to whether his objection is based on religious training and belief.\nAnd it was for that reason that I allocated the religious argument to the Welsh case and the selective argument back to this case.\nIt may well be noted in the first place that the appellee has not been indicted for failure to obey and order to go to Vietnam.\nHe is being prosecuted for failure to submit to induction in the Armed Forces.\nThus, the Court undertook to excuse a deliberate violation of the law on the basis of events which may or may not occur in the future.\nAssuming that the question is reached, we think that the District Court look far beyond the limits of the proper exercise of judicial power in undertaking decide on the basis of its balancing of the considerations, whether an individual's conscientious objection to a particular war, gave him a constitutional right to disobey an Act of Congress.\nIn our view, the constitutional grant of power to Congress, to raise and maintain armies is not properly subject to the balancing approach applied in the instant case.\nIt is not a power to raise and maintain armies when in the view of a Court it seems that on a whole the arguments in favor of it outweigh the particular objections which could be raised by an individual oppose to it.\nThe weighing of considerations, the determination of necessity, of necessity and details is for Congress and not the courts.\nCongress must of course act constitutionally, but it is not the problems of the courts to decide whether a particular law or a particular foreign policy is good or bad or whether there is or is not any need for specified numbers of man in a particular place at a certain time.\nJudges are not the person's charge with the responsibility for determining the national need for military manpower.\nSo far as the selective conscientious objector is concerned, Congress has made no discrimination between religious and nonreligious motivations.\nThus, the Establishment Clause has no bearing on the issues here involved.\nEven in its broadest conceivable construction nor can this case properly be brought within the Free Exercise Clause.\nReligious freedom does not require that religious scruples be recognized as justifying disobedience to a valid law.\nThis Court had so said quite clearly in Hamilton against the Regents in 293 U.S. where they quoted from the opinion in United States against Macintosh, this is on pages 44 and 45 of our brief, and then there is at the bottom of page 45, a quotation from an opinion of Judge Augustus Hand who I think, I may appropriately say is perhaps my favorite federal judge.\nThere is a distinction between a course of reasoning resulting in a conviction under particular war is inexpedient or disastrous and conscientious objection to participation in any war under any circumstances.\nThe latter not the former may be the basis of exemption under the Act and it surely never occurred to Judge Hand that there was any legal question lying behind that statement.\nThe former is usually a political objection.\nWhile the latter we think may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward matter.\nCall it, conscience are gone, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse.\nOnly if the Free Exercise Clause is broadened to encompass a general right of conscience would that provision be useful to the appellee.\nAnd there are extensive arguments in the briefs of amici curiae to the effect that the First Amendment does command a general right of conscience.\nThat goes beyond but the amendment says, beyond anything that this Court has ever decided and it seems to me would be a wholly unwarranted and unjustified.\nIf that provision was given such sweeping scope, it would have necessity extend beyond the Selective Service Act to other areas.\nSuch as the payments of taxes or to people have conscientious scruples against the racial equality.\nAnd I have no doubt that there are such people whose conscience seems perfectly clear on that matter unless the Fourteenth Amendment was held to have pro tanto repeal the First Amendment which seems a curious reversal of the operation of those provisions.\nSuch a construction of the First Amendment is without precedent.\nIt would be wholly destructive of the orderly functioning of Government.\nAnd it would undermine the essential integrity of the democratic process.\nIt is true of course, that we are a constitutional government.\nBut we are also a government one of whose great principals is majority rule.\nThe acts -- asked by the elective representatives of the people are the law.\nThey are subject to the Constitution but the elective representatives of the people make the political decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1355.097, 1358.381, 1379.748, 1381.239, 1383.685, 1396.107, 1415.21, 1427.905, 1438.298, 1449.337, 1456.74, 1461.082, 1470.539, 1483.665, 1492.999, 1515.257, 1519.999, 1526.357, 1529.912, 1537.629, 1546.364, 1556.862, 1567.941, 1574.493, 1587.628, 1618.717, 1633.402, 1650.746, 1662.876, 1685.721, 1695.216, 1707.699, 1714.766, 1724.45, 1734.765, 1774.439, 1790.011, 1802.907, 1806.471, 1813.646, 1826.095, 1839.833, 1855.93, 1870.798, 1882.594, 1891.201, 1913.553, 1918.369, 1923.821, 1929.269, 1933.725, 1939.762, 1946.031], "stop_times": [1358.381, 1379.748, 1381.239, 1383.685, 1396.107, 1415.21, 1427.905, 1438.298, 1449.337, 1456.74, 1461.082, 1470.539, 1483.665, 1492.999, 1515.257, 1519.999, 1526.357, 1529.912, 1537.629, 1546.364, 1556.862, 1567.941, 1574.493, 1587.628, 1618.717, 1633.402, 1650.746, 1662.876, 1685.721, 1695.216, 1707.699, 1714.766, 1724.45, 1734.765, 1774.439, 1790.011, 1802.907, 1806.471, 1813.646, 1826.095, 1839.833, 1855.93, 1870.798, 1882.594, 1891.201, 1913.553, 1918.369, 1923.821, 1929.269, 1933.725, 1939.762, 1946.031, 1953.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1355.097}, "reply_to": "14952__0_070", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_072", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, may I ask you this?\nWould you see any difference in the posture of the basic claims of this appellant?\nAnd that of a taxpayer who refuse to pay any taxes so long as the -- some of the taxes were being used to maintain a war that he objected to on the same grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1953.552, 1957.093, 1964.534], "stop_times": [1957.093, 1964.534, 1976.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.552}, "reply_to": "14952__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_073", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, no Mr. Justice.\nThat is essentially the argument I would just trying to make that pressing -- pressing the First Amendment to establish a constitutional right of free conscience could not be limited to the Selective Service Act.\nIt could apply to all across the board anything which a person sincerely, conscientiously objects to.\nHe would be protected in his objection by the Constitution including as far as I can see that of course would be another issue which would have to argue before this Court decided and the Court might find some way to make a distinction, but I can't make the distinction now.\nIt seems to me, that it would follow that particularly since Flast and Gordon that -- not only since Flast and Gordon, Flast and Cohen but if the premise is the Constitution protects people in conscientious nonreligious objections.\nThen it seems to me, that it would follow that a citizen could refuse to pay either any taxes or conceivably some kind of a pro rata allocation of his taxes, insofar as they or perhaps, we would have to set up separate funds and this taxes could go into a fund which couldn't be used for defense purposes and other people's taxes would go into the defense fund.\nIt seems to me that pressing the general language of the First Amendment that far would be pushing it to a dryly logical extreme.\nAnd finally, we contend that the provision made by Congress does not violate the Fifth Amendment.\nCongress could rationally distinguish between persons oppose to war in any form and those whose objections extend only to a particular war or situation.\nThis is not a question of sincerity or depth of conviction but opposition to a particular war necessarily involved a practical and essentially political judgment.\nIt represents the individual's personal conclusion that the policy adopted by the duly elected representatives of the Government is wrong at a certain time in relation to a particular area of operations.\nThose who oppose participation in combat in any form do not make the same type of immediate political judgment.\nCongress may validly conclude that there is a qualitative difference between persons who is beliefs caused them to opposed participation in all wars.\nAnd those who wish to reserved the right to choose the wars in which they will fight.\nExcept for the court below and Judge Weigel and the District Court in California to which I've made reference.\nAll of the courts which have considered the matter have held that Congress may validly draw a distinction between those who oppose all wars and those whose objection is only to a particular war.\nThe District Court took the position that the magnitude of an individual's conscientious objection is not presumably lessened because his beliefs relate to a particular war.\nBut it's not the magnitude or the sincerity of the objection which gives rise to the distinction, it is its nature.\nCongress could reasonably conclude in the exercise of its constitutionally granted power to raise and maintain arms.\nThat a viable Government cannot allow political dissent to excuse a person from the duties, which it feels it must impose on all persons of the same class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1976.09, 1977.143, 1992.331, 2001.104, 2016.263, 2038.846, 2064.328, 2078.105, 2086.428, 2100.626, 2116.587, 2134.205, 2145.534, 2158.829, 2167.143, 2177.007, 2192.044, 2205.909, 2215.776, 2226.395], "stop_times": [1977.143, 1992.331, 2001.104, 2016.263, 2038.846, 2064.328, 2078.105, 2086.428, 2100.626, 2116.587, 2134.205, 2145.534, 2158.829, 2167.143, 2177.007, 2192.044, 2205.909, 2215.776, 2226.395, 2240.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1976.09}, "reply_to": "14952__0_072", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_074", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Mr. Solicitor, are you arguing that even if assistance claims were religious, the Government could nevertheless deny him an exemption because it doesn't oppose all wars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2240.538], "stop_times": [2251.605], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.538}, "reply_to": "14952__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_075", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2251.605], "stop_times": [2253.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2251.605}, "reply_to": "14952__0_074", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_076", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But you don't have to reach that point here in this case because I gather you claim his position isn't religious anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2253.059], "stop_times": [2260.251], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.059}, "reply_to": "14952__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_077", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nThe statute as I see it has two conditions in it by reason of religious training and belief which Sisson doesn't meet by his own assertion is constitutionally opposed to participation in war in any form.\nAnd Sisson by his own assertion does not meet the second ground.\nI don't think it makes any difference whether his reason for not meeting the second ground is religious or intellectual and philosophical.\nNow, I would point out that Bond case decided by Judge Weigel --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2260.251, 2261.095, 2277.457, 2283.42, 2294.796], "stop_times": [2261.095, 2277.457, 2283.42, 2294.796, 2299.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2260.251}, "reply_to": "14952__0_076", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_078", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But if we, if we said that his position was in religious in any event that's the end of it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2299.144], "stop_times": [2306.206], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.144}, "reply_to": "14952__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__0_079", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "That would be -- then you would not need to decide the war in any form at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2306.206], "stop_times": [2311.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2306.206}, "reply_to": "14952__0_078", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_080", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Mr. Solicitor, supposed that not this case but there is an establish religion that we will both agree is offensive and they say the war in Vietnam is bad for some reason and were against it.\nWe urge all participants not to participate that would be sufficient, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2311.763, 2325.187], "stop_times": [2325.187, 2333.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.763}, "reply_to": "14952__0_079", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_081", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Mr. Justice, I would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2333.258], "stop_times": [2334.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2333.258}, "reply_to": "14952__0_080", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_082", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "That case there.\nI'm only trying to take here the statute report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2334.518, 2335.277], "stop_times": [2335.277, 2336.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.518}, "reply_to": "14952__0_081", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_083", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "This is a -- this is a hard case, which fortunately isn't here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2336.443], "stop_times": [2340.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2336.443}, "reply_to": "14952__0_082", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_084", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2340.273], "stop_times": [2341.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.273}, "reply_to": "14952__0_083", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__0_085", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But I would take the position that Congress can draw the line and say that it recognizes religious objection only when it is based on opposition to war in any form.\nThat is what it has said in the statute.\nI don't know any reason why it shouldn't be taken at face value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2341.0, 2353.573, 2355.982], "stop_times": [2353.573, 2355.982, 2361.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2341.0}, "reply_to": "14952__0_084", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_086", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "What's the excuse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2361.724], "stop_times": [2363.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.724}, "reply_to": "14952__0_085", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_087", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I recognized that if that case came and in some ways it's almost presented in the Bond case.\nThe Bond case involved a sincere catholic who following certain teachings of the church with respect to just and unjust wars, concluded that this was unjust war and that he could not participate in it and I need not make it plain that I have no question whatever about the sincerity of his beliefs or about the sincerity of Sisson's beliefs.\nIt is our position that this is a judgment, which not only has been made by Congress, but which it was proper for Congress to make.\nWe have not only the First Amendment, we have the raise and maintain armies clause and Congress has said that two qualified for a conscientious objection, exemption you must be opposed to war in any form.\nAnd I would suppose that that would be true, even though Congress repealed the religious training and belief exception which it seems to me they might well do Australian-Great Britain get along without it but that's a matter for the judgment of Congress.\nSupposed that Congress did eliminate religious training and belief but simply said as the Australians and the English do is opposed to war in any form.\nIt seems to me, it would not help the claimant to say, \u201cI'm not opposed to war at any form.\nI am only opposed to this war but I am opposed on religious grounds,\u201d and brought in all kinds of documentation to show that he had sound religious grounds for doing it.\nHe not only still would not come within the statute but it would be my submission and I know this is a difficult illusive area.\nBut it would be my submission that there's nothing in the Constitution which can't properly be regarded as restricting Congress in making that judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2363.236, 2369.972, 2394.88, 2404.345, 2423.408, 2442.617, 2453.415, 2458.842, 2470.412, 2481.169], "stop_times": [2369.972, 2394.88, 2404.345, 2423.408, 2442.617, 2453.415, 2458.842, 2470.412, 2481.169, 2490.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2363.236}, "reply_to": "14952__0_086", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_088", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "What is the exclusionary language in the statute that you referred to in the Bond case, I think that followed the amended language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2490.672], "stop_times": [2500.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.672}, "reply_to": "14952__0_087", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_089", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2500.666], "stop_times": [2500.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2500.666}, "reply_to": "14952__0_088", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_090", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "What shall not to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2500.954], "stop_times": [2501.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.954}, "reply_to": "14952__0_089", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_091", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The statute now says, it's in the Welsh --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2501.748], "stop_times": [2512.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2501.748}, "reply_to": "14952__0_090", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_092", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The Welsh case, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2512.586], "stop_times": [2514.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.586}, "reply_to": "14952__0_091", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__0_093", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Now, it's on page 3 of the Sisson brief and this is the way it is now.\nNothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training, who by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form as used in this subsection the term religious training and belief does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.\nNow that in line is not only a thin one at best but in particular cases it can become extraordinarily thin.\nBut it seems to me, that there is room for a line there that Congress has drawn the line.\nIn this case, there's no problem about its being close to the line or not.\nIt is asserted that he does not base his claim on religious training and relief.\nAnd in the Sisson case, we think because on the agreed statement of facts to use Judge Wyzanski's phrase, \u201cThe appellee does not qualify under the statute either by reason of religious training or relief -- and belief or by reason to opposition to war in any form.\nWe submit that the judgment of the District Court should be reversed and that the case should be remanded to that Court and here Mr. Chief Justice, I come to what I think the was your procedural point with directions to enter judgment on the verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2514.897, 2524.509, 2553.653, 2563.275, 2570.785, 2575.2, 2584.2, 2610.222], "stop_times": [2524.509, 2553.653, 2563.275, 2570.785, 2575.2, 2584.2, 2610.222, 2627.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2514.897}, "reply_to": "14952__0_092", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14952__0_094", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Solicitor.\nMr. Flym.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2627.02, 2633.195], "stop_times": [2633.195, 2634.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.02}, "reply_to": "14952__0_093", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_000", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "May it please the Court.\nI'd like first to address myself to the question whether the decision arresting judgment of conviction was in fact entered by the court below.\nI note parenthetically that the Government's brief at pages 7 and 8 states, \u201cAppellees motion which the trial judge granted purported to be in and was treated by the District Court as a motion in arrest of judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2634.768, 2641.364, 2651.793], "stop_times": [2641.364, 2651.793, 2665.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2634.768}, "reply_to": "14952__0_094", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_001", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Would you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2665.212], "stop_times": [2665.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.212}, "reply_to": "14952__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_002", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "This --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2665.322], "stop_times": [2665.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2665.322}, "reply_to": "14952__1_001", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_003", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "-- raise your voice a little bit counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2665.461], "stop_times": [2666.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.461}, "reply_to": "14952__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_004", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt was submitted in accordance with the times spelled out in Rule 34 or the making of such motions after the jury's verdict of guilty.\nA ground on which the motion rested but the indictment did not charge an offense similarly fell within the traditional scope of such motions is expressly recognized in Rule 34.\nI have assumed for proposes of my brief an argument before this Court today, that the Government agreed with our position that what the judge in fact granted was a motion in arrest of judgment.\nI think that assumption is supported by the record.\nOn the date when the verdict of guilty was rendered by the jury, the judge said, this appears at page 197 of the record.\nHe said March 31st as the date for sentencing that is, \u201cHad no motion in arrest of judgment then filed and there was no guarantee at any such motion would be filed by Sisson in this case.\nSentencing would have occurred on March 31st.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2666.779, 2669.139, 2677.804, 2689.42, 2703.096, 2706.357, 2719.282, 2734.246], "stop_times": [2669.139, 2677.804, 2689.42, 2703.096, 2706.357, 2719.282, 2734.246, 2737.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2666.779}, "reply_to": "14952__1_003", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_005", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Could that motion had been made one of the rules after the entry of the judgments.\nIn other words, it's about enough to allow a motion an arrest of the execution of the judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2737.615, 2744.508], "stop_times": [2744.508, 2750.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.615}, "reply_to": "14952__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_006", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I think Rule 34 expressly limits the time within which a motion in arrest of judgment can be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2750.91], "stop_times": [2758.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2750.91}, "reply_to": "14952__1_005", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_007", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Between the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2758.449], "stop_times": [2758.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.449}, "reply_to": "14952__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_008", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It will carry the 10 days following the verdict guilty or within such further time as the Court allow us.\nBut as of the date of the jury's verdict, there were 10 days within which the motion could be filed.\nIf no such motion was filed on March 31st, the expiration of the 10-day period sentencing was to occur.\nMoreover, the docket in the case is reproduced at the beginning of the record on appeal at pages 3, and 4, and 5 as a matter of fact as an indication spelling out the judgment the decision of the District Court as follows.\nThe defendant with his counsel and Government counsel present, the Court reads its opinion granting defendants motion in arrest of judgment pursuing to Rule 34 by the federal rules of criminal procedure.\nExcerpts quoted below, \u201cIn the words of Rule 34 the indictment of Sisson does not charge an offense.\u201d\nThis Court's decision arresting a judgment of conviction for inefficiency of the indictment is based upon the invalidity of the statute upon which the indictment is founded within the meaning of those phrases as used in 18 U.S.C. Section 3731.\nThen, the century in the docket continues and concludes Court orders this decision and this Court's order granting defendants Sisson's motion in arrest of judgment enter forthwith.\nOn the question of the scope of the statute in conferring jurisdiction upon this Court on appeal, on direct appeal from judgments of the District Court, granting a motion in arrest of judgment.\nWe concur with the position of the Government that indeed this Court does have jurisdiction under the motion in arrest of judgment provision of Section 3731 of the Criminal Appeals Act.\nIn addition, it is our position that the Government saw an argument with respect to the other two clauses the plea in bar, as well as leave motion dismissing an indictment.\nReally, really is quite persuasive that the intent of the draftsmen of the Criminal Appeals Act was precisely to confer upon this Court jurisdiction in all cases which were not precluded by the Constitution by reason of the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nNow, I have in mind for instance and I'm simply selecting randomly on page 22 of the Government's brief.\nThere is a quotation from Senator Bacon, which he indicates that, \u201cThe Jeopardy Clause was inserted in the motion in bar subdivision out of an abundance of caution.\u201d\nThe caution, I suggest to the Court in context were simply that they wanted to be quite clear that they were not purporting to grand jurisdiction in cases which are constitutionally proscribe.\nNow, as a reference to the purpose which the statute was intended to serve on that same page, page 22 of the brief.\nThe purpose was simply to meet the problem of having District Court Judge's dismissing criminal prosecutions.\nIn particular there was a case against -- Cherry Meat Packers.\nThe Court dismissed the proceedings and the Government was powerless to do anything about it.\nAnd Congress wanted to ensure that that sort of a result simply could not have it.\nIt wanted to provide review in this Court to ensure that those sorts of decisions would be reviewed by the Court and I don't think there's a shred of evidence which indicates that the Congress intended by providing various loopholes to make it possible by supposedly, well, a district judge bent on circumventing the appeals provision of the Criminal Appeals Act.\nTo simply avoid this result namely of providing review in this Court by for instance permitting, well the procedure which was followed in this case.\nThat it seems to me that the present cases the prototype of the situation, which the draftsmen of the Criminal Appeals Act could not possibly have intended to result in precluding review by this Court.\nThat is simply would be much too easy to circumvent the purpose of the draftsmen of the Act.\nNow on page 23, Senator Nelson expressly says again I'm quoting the quotation, elsewhere said that, \u201cThe plain bar section, it was made clear out of the extreme caution that where the defendant has been put in jeopardy, he cannot be reindicted.\u201d\nThe emphasis again was on the question whether the defendant having filed whatever motions been filed.\nHaving that motion granted by the Court whether he could be reindicted and I don't think, there's any question or is there any suggestion by the Government that in circumstances where a defendant files a motion in bar or a motion in arrest of judgment that he could in fact be reindicted if the motion were granted in subsequently that decision were vacated.\nNow, the Government at page 25 quotes Justice Holmes in the case of United States against Macdonald and indeed, Justice Holmes refers to judgments rendered before the moment of jeopardy is reach.\nWhat is omitted immediately succeeding the quotation that is the text includes a citation to the decision in Kepner against United States at 195 U.S. and in that decision Justice Holmes we quote from him in our brief, they declare that he consider the double jeopardy question to be a very limited one.\nThat is he pointed out there are numerous circumstances in which a man can be retried after having once been tried and found guilty by a jury without contravening the double jeopardy safeguard in the Constitution.\nIt won't leave where the point anymore, I would like again to refer to the testimony of Senator Knox which is quoted at pages 26 and 27 of the Government's brief in which Senator Knox refers to all of the motions that is the merit to the indictment, the motion to quash or set aside the indictment, motion and arrest of judgment and in judgment sustaining defendant's plea in bar.\nAnd he refers to all of these motions, as motions the effect of which is to defeat jeopardy.\nI believe that's accurate in glossing of what is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2758.56, 2767.64, 2775.041, 2784.031, 2803.1, 2814.823, 2821.133, 2835.116, 2851.322, 2867.57, 2882.326, 2900.983, 2920.663, 2933.453, 2948.302, 2962.651, 2969.882, 2980.343, 2984.944, 2989.688, 2995.93, 3018.666, 3028.359, 3039.92, 3045.04, 3061.559, 3068.887, 3091.107, 3112.464, 3135.472, 3150.03, 3179.22, 3185.946], "stop_times": [2767.64, 2775.041, 2784.031, 2803.1, 2814.823, 2821.133, 2835.116, 2851.322, 2867.57, 2882.326, 2900.983, 2920.663, 2933.453, 2948.302, 2962.651, 2969.882, 2980.343, 2984.944, 2989.688, 2995.93, 3018.666, 3028.359, 3039.92, 3045.04, 3061.559, 3068.887, 3091.107, 3112.464, 3135.472, 3150.03, 3179.22, 3185.946, 3188.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2758.56}, "reply_to": "14952__1_007", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_009", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "You want us to affirm this judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3188.522], "stop_times": [3191.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.522}, "reply_to": "14952__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_010", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3191.319], "stop_times": [3191.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3191.319}, "reply_to": "14952__1_009", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_011", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Where's that leave your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3191.976], "stop_times": [3194.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.976}, "reply_to": "14952__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_012", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "If the judgment is affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3194.418], "stop_times": [3195.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3194.418}, "reply_to": "14952__1_011", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_013", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3195.849], "stop_times": [3196.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.849}, "reply_to": "14952__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_014", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, I believe that the conviction is set aside.\nThat is the judgment of the Court is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3196.994, 3202.486], "stop_times": [3202.486, 3205.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3196.994}, "reply_to": "14952__1_013", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_015", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Arrested.\nThat's all the judgment said.\nThat's all the opinion said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3205.143, 3206.092, 3208.195], "stop_times": [3206.092, 3208.195, 3210.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.143}, "reply_to": "14952__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_016", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3210.411], "stop_times": [3211.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3210.411}, "reply_to": "14952__1_015", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_017", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "That he stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3211.187], "stop_times": [3212.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.187}, "reply_to": "14952__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_018", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, the judgment is arrested, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3212.255], "stop_times": [3214.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3212.255}, "reply_to": "14952__1_017", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_019", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But he's still there but is arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3214.897], "stop_times": [3217.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.897}, "reply_to": "14952__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_020", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Right and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3217.043], "stop_times": [3219.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3217.043}, "reply_to": "14952__1_019", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_021", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I am just wondering, how would you report that if somebody says if you have been convicted how you would report that, while arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3219.055], "stop_times": [3226.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.055}, "reply_to": "14952__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_022", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3226.512], "stop_times": [3230.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3226.512}, "reply_to": "14952__1_021", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_023", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I mean you're so busy giving this Court jurisdiction but I'm just wondering what you are doing with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3230.241], "stop_times": [3237.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.241}, "reply_to": "14952__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14952__1_024", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, so far as we're concerned, Your Honor, quite frankly, I'm not prepared to respond to that.\nI haven't thought of the problem but I will represent that will be satisfied with -- when were judgment in this Court saying affirmed, I think, we can deal with the problem once -- once that action is taken.\nI would -- by way of context, there just isn't enough time remaining today to deal with all of the issues particularly the First Amendment issues, selective objective question.\nI would like to refer, if I may, to some of the statement made by Solicitor General Griswold because I consider that some of the difficulties in hearing in this case arise from assumptions made by the Solicitor General, which are not dealt with it at all in either of the briefs.\nThat is -- the assumptions for instance is that when Congress acts that somehow there is a presumption which arises from the action of Congress, which is sufficient to simply overcome whatever claims an individual might make.\nWe're certainly not challenging our system of Government in this case.\nWe're not challenging democracy or majority rule.\nWe're not requesting that this Court imposed its judgments and substitute it for the judgment of the legislature of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3237.766, 3244.26, 3259.906, 3271.748, 3295.579, 3315.559, 3320.156, 3325.023], "stop_times": [3244.26, 3259.906, 3271.748, 3295.579, 3315.559, 3320.156, 3325.023, 3333.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3237.766}, "reply_to": "14952__1_023", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_025", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Then you do not accept his extension and application of the -- of your position to, for example, the social security payments or unemployment compensation or taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3333.983], "stop_times": [3350.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.983}, "reply_to": "14952__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_026", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3350.692], "stop_times": [3351.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3350.692}, "reply_to": "14952__1_025", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_027", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Do you think this is just limited to the war problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3351.249], "stop_times": [3354.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3351.249}, "reply_to": "14952__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_028", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "The issue presented before this Court is limited solely to the question or the man can be deprived of his liberty and compelled to kill conceivably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3354.679], "stop_times": [3364.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3354.679}, "reply_to": "14952__1_027", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_029", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, how do we know that he is going to be compelled to kill?\nThat's an issue that didn't get discussed very much but he might wind up working in the embassy in Paris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3364.859, 3367.248], "stop_times": [3367.248, 3373.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3364.859}, "reply_to": "14952__1_028", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_030", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "That's true.\nThat's true he might.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3373.791, 3374.558], "stop_times": [3374.558, 3375.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3373.791}, "reply_to": "14952__1_029", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_031", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Then he does not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3375.663], "stop_times": [3375.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.663}, "reply_to": "14952__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_032", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "But initially --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3375.843], "stop_times": [3376.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3375.843}, "reply_to": "14952__1_031", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_033", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "-- not kill anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3376.184], "stop_times": [3377.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.184}, "reply_to": "14952__1_032", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_034", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Right.\nInitially at the very least, we're only certain that he was to be deprived of his liberty.\nI would submit that that's efficient for purposes of distinguishing this case from a tax case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3377.598, 3377.983, 3382.724], "stop_times": [3377.983, 3382.724, 3389.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3377.598}, "reply_to": "14952__1_033", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_035", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3389.668], "stop_times": [3389.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.668}, "reply_to": "14952__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_036", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3389.817], "stop_times": [3390.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3389.817}, "reply_to": "14952__1_035", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_037", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well, wait a minute let me see.\nYou haven't been concerned as I understood you the thrust of your case with his being deprived of his liberty but being made to fight a war.\nNow, assume he was sent to Paris to work in the embassy, do you have a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3390.332, 3392.602, 3400.223], "stop_times": [3392.602, 3400.223, 3409.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.332}, "reply_to": "14952__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_038", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3409.905], "stop_times": [3410.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3409.905}, "reply_to": "14952__1_037", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_039", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Do you have a complaint?\nDo you have a compliant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3410.551, 3411.36], "stop_times": [3411.36, 3413.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.551}, "reply_to": "14952__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_040", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "I think at this point, we do.\nThat is, with -- it is somewhat difficult to speculate about where he might have been sent, that is we have statistics showing that he had two out of three chances of being sent to Vietnam at least.\nBut what happened was that he refused to submit to induction and he refused to submit to obey an order which was issued to him.\nAnd the Government asserts in various places that whether this conduct is criminal or not depends on the validity of the order.\nNow, we assert that the order as such, which precedes any assignment of the conscript to any field of duty whether to Paris or Vietnam, or any other locations.\nWe assert that that order was in it of itself invalid for variety of reasons.\nI would in the time remaining this afternoon, simply like to address myself to two points.\nOne will be in passing.\nI'll refer to recent book written by a man named Raoul Berger entitled \u201cCongress against the Supreme Court\u201d in which the point is made I think quite convincingly.\nThe judicial review in this Court is not a matter of user patient by this Court but was something intended very definitely by the framers of the Constitution, precisely to provide a safeguard against the encroachment of individual liberty by Congress.\nI would only like to refer to two quotations; one is from page 31 of this book its a 1969 book by Jefferson.\nJefferson in 1781 stated, \u201cThat 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one and elective despotism was not the Government we fought for.\u201d\nSimilarly, Madison in dealing with the purpose of the Bill of Rights stated, \u201cThese Amendments are incorporated into the Constitution, independent, tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights.\nIt will be and impenetrable ball work against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.\nNow, the notion that the Federal Congress might arrogate to itself, powers and infringing individual liberty was something of which the framers was -- were very, very conscious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3413.322, 3415.089, 3427.249, 3436.311, 3447.131, 3460.234, 3466.444, 3473.071, 3475.829, 3491.003, 3513.228, 3526.054, 3542.615, 3561.796, 3569.516], "stop_times": [3415.089, 3427.249, 3436.311, 3447.131, 3460.234, 3466.444, 3473.071, 3475.829, 3491.003, 3513.228, 3526.054, 3542.615, 3561.796, 3569.516, 3584.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3413.322}, "reply_to": "14952__1_039", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_041", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3584.813], "stop_times": [3585.33], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.813}, "reply_to": "14952__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14952__1_042", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "They were concerned principally about Congress, the Federal Congress.\nThey were not particularly concern about state legislatures.\nThey have faith in their state legislators.\nThey knew but they knew nothing whatsoever about this new organ.\nThis Federal Legislature that was to sit at times 1,000 miles away from some parts of this vast land.\nAnd the people were afraid that precisely the Federal Government would reach out and deprive them of fundamental liberties.\nFor this purpose, this Court was vested with judicial review with the power of deciding where the Congress has exceeded the limits of its power, of the limited delegated powers conferred by the Constitution.\nThis doctrine was asserted repeatedly throughout the time of the ratification of framing of the Constitution that is set on the verdict book.\nIt was reiterated by this Court in Luther against Borden in the middle of 19th century.\nThe only other point, I wish to make is the repeated insistence by the Solicitor General to history that on the basis of the history surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.\nThere is no basis for this Court concluding that religion is coextensive with the rights of conscience.\nI submit and I do it diffidently I was one of the students and this is a great man, vast knowledge of taxation certainly but I respectfully suggest that his knowledge -- the scope of the religion protection is not accurate, it's simply is not accurate.\nI refer for instance to the part of our brief at pages 97 through 102.\nIn particular, I have reference to ratification statements, free ratification statements, that is before the Bill of Rights was in existence, that is I posit it to this Court the situation where there is no Bill of Rights where there is not First Amendment to be construed.\nAnd I ask this Court whether in that circumstance this Court could reach the conclusion that religion does not extend to the right of conscience or that the Constitution was intended to deprive individuals of the protection of religion, the free exercise of religion.\nI refer in particular to declarations of rights made by the conventions of New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Virginia.\nThese declarations assert the existence of certain inalienable rights and make it very clear that the Constitution was being ratified only with the expressed understanding that these rights were not infringed by the Constitution.\nThat was prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.\nOne of these rights was, \u201cThat the people have an equal and natural and an alienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion according to the dictates of their conscience and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference of others.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3585.33, 3589.423, 3593.278, 3595.05, 3600.1, 3608.396, 3615.166, 3628.748, 3637.495, 3645.406, 3660.488, 3666.271, 3688.804, 3699.894, 3719.07, 3738.029, 3751.376, 3766.723, 3770.143], "stop_times": [3589.423, 3593.278, 3595.05, 3600.1, 3608.396, 3615.166, 3628.748, 3637.495, 3645.406, 3660.488, 3666.271, 3688.804, 3699.894, 3719.07, 3738.029, 3751.376, 3766.723, 3770.143, 3787.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3585.33}, "reply_to": "14952__1_041", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_043", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "How does that get into this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3787.366], "stop_times": [3789.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3787.366}, "reply_to": "14952__1_042", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_044", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "It gets into this case in this way Your Honor.\nThe argument of the Government relies on the proposition that somehow the word religion has grown beyond its intended scope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3789.919, 3793.013], "stop_times": [3793.013, 3801.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3789.919}, "reply_to": "14952__1_043", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_045", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "Would you claim religious exemption here?\nAre you now arguing for religious exemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3801.927, 3804.632], "stop_times": [3804.632, 3807.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3801.927}, "reply_to": "14952__1_044", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14952__1_046", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "On a constitutional basis, we always have.\nThat is it isn't -- isn't an inaccurate statement to describe Sisson as a selective nonreligious objector.\nHe is a selective nonreligious conscientious objector and the very necessity for making that distinction between the religious objector or rather nonreligious objecting -- nonreligious conscientious objector is the fact that the Act, as the Solicitor General so eagerly defended it, makes that distinction.\nIt does not extend the scope of the exemption in the Act to the full measure of protection and afforded to religion under the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3807.545, 3810.303, 3819.02, 3837.462], "stop_times": [3810.303, 3819.02, 3837.462, 3848.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3807.545}, "reply_to": "14952__1_045", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "14952__1_047", "conversation_id": "14952", "text": "We'll postpone till morning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3848.458], "stop_times": [3852.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3848.458}, "reply_to": "14952__1_046", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_000", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Flym, you may pick up where you left off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [3.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_001", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI think we left off suggesting that if there were no Bill of Rights at all, this Court would nonetheless be required by the constitution as adopted by the framers, by the state ratifying conventions as they understood the constitution would require this Court nonetheless to protect the individual rights of citizens \u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3.394, 11.39], "stop_times": [11.39, 36.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3.394}, "reply_to": "15003__0_000", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_002", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "You say as they understood it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [36.302], "stop_times": [39.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 36.302}, "reply_to": "15003__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_003", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [39.423], "stop_times": [41.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 39.423}, "reply_to": "15003__0_002", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_004", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Do you have a particular focus to put that on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [41.078], "stop_times": [43.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 41.078}, "reply_to": "15003__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_005", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I do.\nOn page 98 through 99 of our brief -\u2013 I'm sorry, it's page 100 through 101.\nWe quote from a statement made by the Rhode Island Ratifying Convention, which is virtually identical, I think there are very minor changes in language that is almost identical to the statements made by the North Carolina and Virginia Ratifying Conventions, I'm sorry.\nAnd the statement states, that is that's just a very small portion of the statement made by the Ratifying Convention.\nThe Ratifying Convention said \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [43.943, 45.477, 57.229, 81.177, 90.264], "stop_times": [45.477, 57.229, 81.177, 90.264, 92.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 43.943}, "reply_to": "15003__0_004", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_006", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Made by who?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [92.453], "stop_times": [93.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.453}, "reply_to": "15003__0_005", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_007", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "By the Ratifying Convention of the State of Rhode Island, Your Honor, almost identical to the statement made by the Ratifying Convention of the State of North Carolina, as well as the State of Virginia.\nThese statements expressly asserted that ratification of the constitution was based on an expressed understanding that it did not infringe unalienable rights of individual citizens.\nThe fourth paragraph, the fourth proposition stated in that ratifying statement is that religion or the duty which we owe to our creator in the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction and not by force or violence.\nAnd therefore, all men have an equal, natural and inalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [93.614, 104.974, 121.673, 141.393], "stop_times": [104.974, 121.673, 141.393, 157.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 93.614}, "reply_to": "15003__0_006", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_008", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "What page is it on your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [157.862], "stop_times": [159.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.862}, "reply_to": "15003__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_009", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "100 through 101, Your Honor, the bottom of 100 through the top of 101.\nThat statement is virtually identical to the statement made from the Ratifying Convention of the State of New York.\nI accorded that at the end of the argument yesterday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [159.72, 165.781, 172.064], "stop_times": [165.781, 172.064, 175.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 159.72}, "reply_to": "15003__0_008", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_010", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "When did Rhode Island get around to ratifying the constitution?\nPretty late in the game, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [175.338, 178.059], "stop_times": [178.059, 179.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.338}, "reply_to": "15003__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_011", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Very late, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [179.307], "stop_times": [180.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 179.307}, "reply_to": "15003__0_010", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_012", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [180.499], "stop_times": [182.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.499}, "reply_to": "15003__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_013", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I'm not sure, but I think among the four states represented in these statements, it's perfectly clear that there would have been no ratification of the constitution but for the expressed understanding that these rights were safeguarded.\nThat is, there was no need for the Bill of Rights to protect religion as understood by the persons who drafted and who ratified the constitution.\nIt's true that a Bill of Rights were subsequently enacted but Madison explained, and that's quoted at the bottom of 98 through top of 99, \u201cAlthough I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, of liberty of conscience come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates.\nYet, their magna carta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights respecting which the people of America are most alarmed.\u201d\nThe freedom \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [182.779, 198.209, 207.853, 228.975, 238.171], "stop_times": [198.209, 207.853, 228.975, 238.171, 238.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 182.779}, "reply_to": "15003__0_012", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_014", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Is that the only reference you have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [238.73], "stop_times": [241.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.73}, "reply_to": "15003__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_015", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I have \u2013- these are just random \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [241.25], "stop_times": [243.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 241.25}, "reply_to": "15003__0_014", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_016", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I mean to this?\nI don't see anything in here that necessarily leads to the conclusion that they thought a man could get out of going to the army constitutionally because of his religious belief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [243.042, 243.732], "stop_times": [243.732, 255.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.042}, "reply_to": "15003__0_015", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_017", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, that's a separate question, Your Honor.\nIt certainly is related and that's why I mentioned it at this point, but I'm simply addressing myself now to the assertion made by the government that religion does not mean conscience.\nAnd I think that's clearly wrong from the standpoint of history.\nI can understand the government's inclination so to construe the protection of religion in the Bill of Rights.\nI understand why they would like to limit it, but it's just flatly inaccurate as a matter of history.\nThat's just not what they understood 180 years ago.\nWhat we're calling for is not something which would destroy orderly government at all.\nObviously, what would be most destructive of orderly government would be if the constitution were ignored, and we want the constitution enforced.\nThat is, the constitution says certain things about what powers Congress have, and I will come very quickly to that central question.\nThat is, what power did Congress receive through the constitution to draft individuals, whether in peace or in order.\nThat's the central issue.\nObviously, if the constitution did not delegate this power to Congress, Congress doesn't have it.\nEven if Congress would like to have it, even if Congress thinks that it is absolutely indispensable in its judgment to have that power, if that power was not conferred by the constitution, it's perfectly plain they don't have the power.\nThe constitution sets the limits of the power that were in fact conferred to Congress.\nNow, I'm simply \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [255.412, 257.771, 270.317, 273.999, 281.574, 286.838, 290.807, 295.769, 305.527, 314.746, 325.151, 326.045, 331.315, 343.93, 349.3], "stop_times": [257.771, 270.317, 273.999, 281.574, 286.838, 290.807, 295.769, 305.527, 314.746, 325.151, 326.045, 331.315, 343.93, 349.3, 349.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 255.412}, "reply_to": "15003__0_016", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_018", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "So it's your idea that anything \u2013- anytime a man believes its wrong to go to war, it couldn't be conscripted that was almost necessary to do away with conscription, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [349.478], "stop_times": [363.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.478}, "reply_to": "15003__0_017", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_019", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That is not our proposition, Your Honor.\nThat is \u2013- I think there's a very important distinction between a man who acts on the basis of conscience that is who simply can't obey the order.\nThat's on that system.\nAnd a man who thinks, well, it'd be a bad policy to follow, to go fight a war in Vietnam --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [363.637, 366.719, 381.064, 383.625], "stop_times": [366.719, 381.064, 383.625, 389.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 363.637}, "reply_to": "15003__0_018", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_020", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But they were allowed to distinguish between the two, wouldn't it, when you begin to probe the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [389.837], "stop_times": [394.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.837}, "reply_to": "15003__0_019", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_021", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but that's a very customary function in law, that is we're constantly \u2013- the Courts, that is \u2013- are constantly about the business of establishing where the man intended to do something around it, but just don't know how to avoid that.\nBut \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [394.169, 409.938], "stop_times": [409.938, 410.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 394.169}, "reply_to": "15003__0_020", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_022", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well counsel, this familiar history is very interesting but let's bring it down to the particular case, and if I may put to you again the question I suggested yesterday, would his rights of conscience be violated if in fact he were taken in and assigned as a security guard at the American Embassy in Paris for the entire tour of his duty?\nWould his rights of conscience be invaded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [410.022, 432.912], "stop_times": [432.912, 436.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.022}, "reply_to": "15003__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_023", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I think so, Your Honor.\nBut is \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [436.076, 437.351], "stop_times": [437.351, 437.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 436.076}, "reply_to": "15003__0_022", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_024", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I thought his objection was to the particular war being conducted in Vietnam?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [437.436], "stop_times": [443.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.436}, "reply_to": "15003__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_025", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, in a sense, that's true, but \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [443.437], "stop_times": [447.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 443.437}, "reply_to": "15003__0_024", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_026", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, is it all military service or just the war in Vietnam, I wanted it that clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [447.736], "stop_times": [451.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.736}, "reply_to": "15003__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_027", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, that's the military service.\nThat is, he disobeyed an order.\nHe disobeyed that order on the basis of his conviction that the order was invalid.\nNow at this point, I really don't think that the question is whether his subjective belief was well founded.\nAt least the threshold question is whether from an objective point of view, he was right, whether the order was valid.\nDid Congress in fact have the power to issue the order to this man that he report for induction because if Congress had no such power, simply to induct him into the army, then refusal to obey the order simply is not a criminal act.\nAnd that's independent of what he may have believed to doubt the Vietnam war or may not have believed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [451.345, 452.954, 455.955, 462.658, 469.49, 476.119, 493.643], "stop_times": [452.954, 455.955, 462.658, 469.49, 476.119, 493.643, 499.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 451.345}, "reply_to": "15003__0_026", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_028", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I have difficulty reconciling the points as you state them now and his own declaration which if I understood this record were all aimed at military activity in Vietnam.\nDid I misread the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [499.389, 516.857], "stop_times": [516.857, 518.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.389}, "reply_to": "15003__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_029", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I think so, Your Honor.\nI respectfully suggest that from the outset, the motion is filed, the pre-trial motion is filed in this case squarely raised and the government has so recognized \u2013- squarely raised that the initial question raised by the appellee was simply the power of Congress to issue that order to him, and he said no, Congress does not have that power.\nThat is, if he had said nothing about his beliefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [518.727, 520.544, 544.328], "stop_times": [520.544, 544.328, 546.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 518.727}, "reply_to": "15003__0_028", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_030", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "So I'm making a distinction between what he said and what you were saying, and I here at least see a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [546.825], "stop_times": [554.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.825}, "reply_to": "15003__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_031", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I think, Your Honor.\nIf I understand Your Honor's question that there's on the issues which were properly raised one issue, very definitely is the issue which the District Judge in fact based his decision upon.\nThat is, the right of Johny Sisson to exercise freely his religion under the First Amendment.\nOr alternatively, the question, the issue whether the Selective Service Act of 1967 constitutes an establishment of religion.\nBut that -- those were just two of the issues raised.\nWe repeatedly reasserted and reasserted again in the motion in the rest of judgment.\nThe threshold question obviously has to be whether the order issued to Johny Sisson was invalid.\nIt might have been invalid for a number of technical reasons.\nNow, those technical reasons \u2013- technical deficiencies in the order did not appear at the trial.\nIf such deficiencies had appeared in fact, the case would not be here, certainly not on direct appeal.\nThat is, the only questions presently being raised are questions bearing on the validity, constitutionality of that order.\nAnd the point we repeatedly stressed is that Congress just does not have power to conscript Sisson now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [554.187, 556.664, 572.123, 579.267, 589.325, 593.774, 599.693, 605.704, 609.349, 616.502, 623.592, 632.103], "stop_times": [556.664, 572.123, 579.267, 589.325, 593.774, 599.693, 605.704, 609.349, 616.502, 623.592, 632.103, 640.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 554.187}, "reply_to": "15003__0_030", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_032", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That is because \u2013- well, for a variety of reasons, to what reason in your submission though \u2013- what particular reason are you submitting to us, I'm not very clear of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [640.965], "stop_times": [651.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.965}, "reply_to": "15003__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_033", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "The particular reason, Your Honor, is that Congress is powered to raise and support arguments, which is the clause on which the government relies squarely, does not extend \u2013- it is not an unlimited power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [651.909], "stop_times": [665.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 651.909}, "reply_to": "15003__0_032", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_034", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, alright, but then what -\u2013 and is limited in what respect where there's a vis-\u00e0-vis this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [665.57], "stop_times": [673.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.57}, "reply_to": "15003__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_035", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "It is limited first of all to circumstances where an emergency exists.\nI know that that's somewhat vague, but I think by looking at the historical interpretation of Congress' power, we can derive very definite meaning as to what the framers of the constitution understood, what members of the first Congress understood by the power to raise and support arguments.\nNow \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [673.875, 681.643, 700.169], "stop_times": [681.643, 700.169, 700.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 673.875}, "reply_to": "15003__0_034", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_036", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, are you saying \u2013- I know that perhaps \u2013- I know in your brief, you say a variety of things but now, are you directing yourself to the argument that Congress has no constitutional power to enact a Selective Service Act when there is no declared war?\nOr are you saying it has no power to conscript people into the military when there is a situation going on, that is going on at Southeast Asia that violates international law?\nWhat are you -\u2013 to what point are you arguing now is what I don't quite get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [700.744, 718.798, 733.988], "stop_times": [718.798, 733.988, 737.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.744}, "reply_to": "15003__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_037", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I think the most solid point we have is the point that Congress has no power to draft in an emergency, which usually will mean the same thing as no power to draft absent to declaration of war.\nBut the reason I think I don't \u2013- we do not assert that in that form, that is that Congress can't conscript unless there's been a declaration of war, is that we concede that in a number of the emergencies, even if there were no declaration of war, Congress would have the power to conscript because I just don't believe that Congress is powerless to defend this country.\nThis country must have the power to survive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [737.368, 754.649, 779.574], "stop_times": [754.649, 779.574, 781.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 737.368}, "reply_to": "15003__0_036", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_038", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, then you're saying that there's no power to -- a constitutional power to conscript when there is no imminent danger of invasion of this country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [781.445], "stop_times": [790.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.445}, "reply_to": "15003__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_039", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I'm not saying that either, Your Honor, but I am \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [790.559], "stop_times": [794.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 790.559}, "reply_to": "15003__0_038", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_040", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I really don't understand your argument.\nI gather though, the arguments you're making now has nothing to do with Sisson as such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [794.024, 795.36], "stop_times": [795.36, 799.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.024}, "reply_to": "15003__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_041", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [799.824], "stop_times": [800.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 799.824}, "reply_to": "15003__0_040", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_042", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "This could be John Smith, who's a religious or irreligious person who has no particular ideas about Vietnam.\nYou're talking about General Congressional Power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [800.226, 805.978], "stop_times": [805.978, 807.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.226}, "reply_to": "15003__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_043", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes.\nOne example of an emergency, Your Honor, would be the Civil War.\nThat is Civil War was not a declared war.\nIt was an insurrection and indeed, Congress did adopt the Conscription Act.\nWe're not challenging the power of Congress to \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [807.998, 809.783, 813.7, 816.455, 822.222], "stop_times": [809.783, 813.7, 816.455, 822.222, 824.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 807.998}, "reply_to": "15003__0_042", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_044", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "What are you challenging?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [824.767], "stop_times": [826.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.767}, "reply_to": "15003__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_045", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "We're saying that this war in the present circumstances just doesn't amount to the kind of emergency that must have been contemplated by the draftsmen of the constitution.\nThat is \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [826.864, 837.629], "stop_times": [837.629, 839.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 826.864}, "reply_to": "15003__0_044", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_046", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "They do not have a right to conscript in time of peace?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [839.153], "stop_times": [843.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.153}, "reply_to": "15003__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_047", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nCertainly, the \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [843.667, 844.551], "stop_times": [844.551, 844.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 843.667}, "reply_to": "15003__0_046", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_048", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Is that the argument you're making?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [844.749], "stop_times": [846.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.749}, "reply_to": "15003__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_049", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nTime of peace again is somewhat misleading because that may be thought to mean the absence of a declaration of war.\nBut I think what is at issue is the existence of an emergency that it makes it very, very clear that Congress has no choice, that it must conscript because if it doesn't conscript for a National Security is in a very mediate sense at stake.\nI don't think there's much ambiguity about what the power of Congress is meant for the first 150 years of the existence of this country.\nThat is, peace time conscription as we know it is very, very recent in time, just \u2013- it didn't take years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [846.463, 847.76, 855.983, 873.305, 882.204], "stop_times": [847.76, 855.983, 873.305, 882.204, 888.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 846.463}, "reply_to": "15003__0_048", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_050", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "You deny the power \u2013- you say power \u2013- the Congress has no constitutional power to conscript from like universal military training?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [888.548], "stop_times": [897.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.548}, "reply_to": "15003__0_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_051", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Oh definitely, Your Honor.\nBut \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [897.694, 899.729], "stop_times": [899.729, 900.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 897.694}, "reply_to": "15003__0_050", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_052", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Definitely yes or definitely no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [900.115], "stop_times": [901.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.115}, "reply_to": "15003__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_053", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Definitely not, no.\nI just don't think they have that power.\nThat is, if that had been even remotely suggested at the time that the constitution was ratified, absolutely no question but that that the constitution would not have been ratified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [901.009, 902.255, 904.162], "stop_times": [902.255, 904.162, 915.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 901.009}, "reply_to": "15003__0_052", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_054", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Flym, can you help me with my problem of getting conscience and legality together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [915.816], "stop_times": [924.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.816}, "reply_to": "15003__0_053", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_055", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I'll try, Your Honor.\nThere are several steps to our argument.\nWe begin with a broader story argument and with a relatively narrow argument based on Johnny Sisson.\nFirst argument is whether Congress has the power to draft anybody at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [924.369, 926.248, 930.395, 939.698], "stop_times": [926.248, 930.395, 939.698, 945.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 924.369}, "reply_to": "15003__0_054", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_056", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "So use of equip\u2013- put in the same bowl the fact that I disagree with the legality of an act of Congress with my conscience \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [945.508], "stop_times": [959.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.508}, "reply_to": "15003__0_055", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_057", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "No, or \u2013- no.\nThat has been suggested two or three times.\nI hope I can make it very clear that that's not what we mean at all.\nThat is, if Congress has the power to draft people in general, then the argument which we are now making is not relevant at all.\nIt would remain a subsequent, a different question.\nThat is, assuming that Congress has the power to draft the generality of men at this time, are they nonetheless restricted by the individual right of conscience, the right to free exercise of religion, so that they can't conscript certain classes of men.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [959.325, 962.107, 964.352, 968.894, 979.398, 983.351], "stop_times": [962.107, 964.352, 968.894, 979.398, 983.351, 1000.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 959.325}, "reply_to": "15003__0_056", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_058", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But because I disagree, my conscience tells me I can abide by that law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1000.683], "stop_times": [1008.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.683}, "reply_to": "15003__0_057", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_059", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Oh no, I don't think that that follows at all.\nYou might disagree on political grounds, on economic grounds, sociological grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1008.776, 1011.041], "stop_times": [1011.041, 1015.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1008.776}, "reply_to": "15003__0_058", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_060", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Why so -- I have a great problem with conscience and politics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1015.073], "stop_times": [1018.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.073}, "reply_to": "15003__0_059", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_061", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, all I can say, Your Honor, is again, I'd like to quote Madison and \u2013- well, it was about the time of the \u2013- he was at that time \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1018.788], "stop_times": [1028.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1018.788}, "reply_to": "15003__0_060", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_062", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But you have already agreed that that argument can be made by anybody of the insisting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1028.69], "stop_times": [1033.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.69}, "reply_to": "15003__0_061", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_063", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Your Honor -\u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1033.529], "stop_times": [1033.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1033.529}, "reply_to": "15003__0_062", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_064", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I have to insist?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1033.773], "stop_times": [1035.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.773}, "reply_to": "15003__0_063", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_065", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Your Honor, it is a difficult problem.\nThe judicial system is full of very, very difficult problems.\nProbably no more important questions arise and when the individual's rights are pitted against the government's power and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1035.15, 1038.507, 1044.295], "stop_times": [1038.507, 1044.295, 1052.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1035.15}, "reply_to": "15003__0_064", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_066", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1052.575], "stop_times": [1053.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.575}, "reply_to": "15003__0_065", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_067", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "-- it is this Court, which is \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1053.655], "stop_times": [1055.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1053.655}, "reply_to": "15003__0_066", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_068", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "It's a difficult problem that tells me how being on duty in the embassy in Paris is aide in the Vietnam war, I have great difficulty with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1055.107], "stop_times": [1065.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.107}, "reply_to": "15003__0_067", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_069", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That is not the question at this point, Your Honor.\nIf you would please \u2013- the question is not where he would be assigned right now.\nThe question of the power of the Congress to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1065.374, 1068.449, 1073.236], "stop_times": [1068.449, 1073.236, 1075.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1065.374}, "reply_to": "15003__0_068", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_070", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Of course that he doesn't want to serve at any place in the military?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1075.165], "stop_times": [1078.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.165}, "reply_to": "15003__0_069", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_071", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Whether he wants to or not -\u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1078.681], "stop_times": [1079.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1078.681}, "reply_to": "15003__0_070", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_072", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1079.418], "stop_times": [1080.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.418}, "reply_to": "15003__0_071", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_073", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "-- whether he wants to or not is not the issue, not the issue.\nHe might want to, and nonetheless his refusal might be justified if there was no power to issue that order.\nThe threshold question is whether \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1080.533, 1085.904, 1092.157], "stop_times": [1085.904, 1092.157, 1093.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1080.533}, "reply_to": "15003__0_072", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_074", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "They couldn't \u2013- do you say that the Congress does not have the right to say that this man shall be put in the army and assigned to his hometown?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1093.197], "stop_times": [1104.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.197}, "reply_to": "15003__0_073", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_075", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's exactly what we say, not just \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1104.749], "stop_times": [1106.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1104.749}, "reply_to": "15003__0_074", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_076", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Then he objects military service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1106.8], "stop_times": [1109.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.8}, "reply_to": "15003__0_075", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_077", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "No, no, I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1109.808], "stop_times": [1112.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1109.808}, "reply_to": "15003__0_076", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_078", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I don't understand how the point got involved in this case.\nIt's elicit there and everybody I thought understood that this was a case of selective choosing of not fighting in the Vietnam war?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1112.379, 1116.202], "stop_times": [1116.202, 1124.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.379}, "reply_to": "15003__0_077", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_079", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Your Honor, It got into this case because we raised it and we stressed it at every point.\nThis is not a new point on appeal at all.\nAnd this elicit \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1124.696, 1130.662, 1133.373], "stop_times": [1130.662, 1133.373, 1133.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1124.696}, "reply_to": "15003__0_078", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_080", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Insofar, you haven't come to the issues discussed by the Solicitor General.\nYou're so far making a much broader argument as I understand it.\nYou haven't come to Mr. Sisson yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1133.521, 1138.14, 1141.353], "stop_times": [1138.14, 1141.353, 1143.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.521}, "reply_to": "15003__0_079", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_081", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, that is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1143.317], "stop_times": [1143.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1143.317}, "reply_to": "15003__0_080", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_082", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "You are telling us that Congress has no constitutional power to compel military service, at least in the absence of a declared war or a \u201cnational emergency\u201d whatever that might be, and you say there is not now a national emergency, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1143.984], "stop_times": [1158.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.984}, "reply_to": "15003__0_081", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_083", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's correct, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1158.015], "stop_times": [1158.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1158.015}, "reply_to": "15003__0_082", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_084", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "You haven't come to Mr. Sisson, that his conscience or lack of it, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1158.952], "stop_times": [1162.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.952}, "reply_to": "15003__0_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_085", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1162.393], "stop_times": [1163.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1162.393}, "reply_to": "15003__0_084", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_086", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "And you're seeking to sustain that justice below on another ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1163.478], "stop_times": [1167.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.478}, "reply_to": "15003__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__0_087", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I think this Court is charged \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1167.612], "stop_times": [1169.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1167.612}, "reply_to": "15003__0_086", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_088", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1169.964], "stop_times": [1170.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.964}, "reply_to": "15003__0_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__0_089", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "-- yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1170.576], "stop_times": [1170.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1170.576}, "reply_to": "15003__0_088", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_090", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I'm not -\u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1170.783], "stop_times": [1171.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.783}, "reply_to": "15003__0_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__0_091", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1171.572], "stop_times": [1171.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1171.572}, "reply_to": "15003__0_090", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_092", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "-- that's accurately what you're doing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1171.963], "stop_times": [1173.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.963}, "reply_to": "15003__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__0_093", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it is.\nThat is, there are a number of grounds which we assert.\nBut I would, simply as the last comment to Mr. Justice Marshall's remark with respect to the difficulty of ascertaining, the meaning of conscience indicate that the draftsmen of the constitution had no problem with that.\nThat is, I quote from Madison, \u201cThe freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choices, privileges of the people are unguarded in the British Constitution\u201d.\nHe had no question, but that if there were no Bill of Rights, a man's right of conscience would nonetheless be protected.\nHe didn't need a Bill of Rights.\nAs a matter of fact, precisely the argument which the government now makes was the argument feared back then.\nThat if you provided a Bill of Rights then, somebody would say, \u201cWell, that's all you have.\u201d\nNothing else is protected, but the Ninth \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1173.39, 1175.385, 1179.57, 1197.963, 1210.989, 1216.86, 1218.158, 1225.209, 1229.301], "stop_times": [1175.385, 1179.57, 1197.963, 1210.989, 1216.86, 1218.158, 1225.209, 1229.301, 1229.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1173.39}, "reply_to": "15003__0_092", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_094", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "In your grievance, did you allege the violation of the Bill of Rights?\nSure you did, didn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1229.441, 1235.819], "stop_times": [1235.819, 1239.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.441}, "reply_to": "15003__0_093", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_095", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I missed that, I'm sorry Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1239.305], "stop_times": [1241.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1239.305}, "reply_to": "15003__0_094", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_096", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Wasn't the basis of your complaint that to adopt this man would violate his rights protected by the Bill of Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1241.179], "stop_times": [1248.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.179}, "reply_to": "15003__0_095", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_097", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1248.667], "stop_times": [1249.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1248.667}, "reply_to": "15003__0_096", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_098", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "And now you're abandoning the Bill of Rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1249.441], "stop_times": [1251.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.441}, "reply_to": "15003__0_097", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_099", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "No, we are not.\nWe made several arguments and we maintain them all.\nThat is, generally speaking, there are two arguments and the first argument is what power does Congress have under the clause which empowers it to raise and support armies, independently of the First Amendment.\nThe second argument is whether that power is in some specifically \u2013- a specific way limited by the first amendment.\nI am not addressing myself solely to the first question, forgetting about the Bill of Rights altogether, what power did the constitution confer upon Congress to raise and support armies?\nI do suggest respectfully that the history of the ratification of the constitution, of the dates at the constitutional convention simply do not blame themselves to any interpretation which would suggest that back then, it was thought that the federal government -\u2013 Congress could simply reach out and pluck people out for universal military service.\nThat --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1251.621, 1254.188, 1258.262, 1273.446, 1281.022, 1292.967, 1314.174], "stop_times": [1254.188, 1258.262, 1273.446, 1281.022, 1292.967, 1314.174, 1314.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1251.621}, "reply_to": "15003__0_098", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_100", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Do you say we must read the Article 1 as meaning that the Congress has the power to raise and support armies in time of war but it's limited to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1314.717], "stop_times": [1332.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.717}, "reply_to": "15003__0_099", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_101", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "In time of national emergency, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1332.773], "stop_times": [1334.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1332.773}, "reply_to": "15003__0_100", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_102", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "In time of national emergency.\nWho's going to define the national emergency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1334.645, 1336.103], "stop_times": [1336.103, 1338.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.645}, "reply_to": "15003__0_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_103", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well certainly, the Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1338.292], "stop_times": [1339.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1338.292}, "reply_to": "15003__0_102", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_104", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1339.662], "stop_times": [1340.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.662}, "reply_to": "15003__0_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_105", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But Congress defines it for legislative purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1340.582], "stop_times": [1345.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1340.582}, "reply_to": "15003__0_104", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_106", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, what if the individual person being inducted did not agree that it was a national emergency?\nCould be escape service on the grounds of conscience?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1345.585, 1352.635], "stop_times": [1352.635, 1355.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.585}, "reply_to": "15003__0_105", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_107", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Oh no, no.\nIf all he asserted, that's a perfect example to distinguish the two arguments.\nThat is if \u2013- as a matter of fact, that precise -\u2013 that sort of -\u2013 that sort of argument has a parallel with what happened during the war of 1812.\nThat is, the president issued quotas the governors of various states, and the war was thought to be an unconstitutional war by many governors, particularly in New England.\nThey simply refused to obey that order.\nAnd so we're not going to supply you militia.\nNow, furthermore, some of the militia \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1355.792, 1357.146, 1361.227, 1371.487, 1382.449, 1384.634, 1388.445], "stop_times": [1357.146, 1361.227, 1371.487, 1382.449, 1384.634, 1388.445, 1391.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1355.792}, "reply_to": "15003__0_106", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_108", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Who was president then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1391.118], "stop_times": [1393.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.118}, "reply_to": "15003__0_107", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_109", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "The president at that time, Your Honor, was Madison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1393.364], "stop_times": [1395.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1393.364}, "reply_to": "15003__0_108", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_110", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "It was Madison?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1395.822], "stop_times": [1396.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.822}, "reply_to": "15003__0_109", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_111", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1396.81], "stop_times": [1397.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1396.81}, "reply_to": "15003__0_110", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_112", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "The man whom you quoted a while ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1397.266], "stop_times": [1399.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.266}, "reply_to": "15003__0_111", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_113", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe man who acted not under the power to raise and support armies, but rather under the militia clauses of Article 12 \u2013- of Article 1, that is, the constitution provides a very, very plain scheme, provides for standing armies.\nThose were very, very, very much feared.\nIn addition to standing armies for instance, the garrison, the frontier posts against the possibility of hostilities with the invasions.\nThe constitution says well, if you have an insurrection or if you have an invasion, or if you have a problem with executing the laws, you can call out the state militias.\nThe calling of the state militias meant something very specific.\nIt meant you could only call them for three months, in any one year.\nYou could only call them in rotation so that if you called them in once, you couldn't call them again until every other able bodied man, and his battalion had been called.\nFurthermore, you didn't call them for a specific length of time.\nYou just called them out for that particular purpose.\nIf you had a problem with the unions in one location, you call out the militia and they dealt with the unions there and then they went back home to their jobs, farmers, various other jobs which they are in.\nThat was the scheme which the constitution provided.\nThat is that's the way in which Congress was to deal with problems of national defense.\nWe are conceding that in addition to what is clearly provided, in a clear case of national emergency where the national survival is at stake, it's perfectly clear that Congress must have the power to mobilize every resource.\nAnd certainly, that was contemplated, it is not denied.\nIn the constitution therefore, we don't deny that it must exist by inference.\nBut when we read the historical record without which that was simply cannot be read, that is you just can't raise and support armies literally unless you understand what they meant by a raise and support armies.\nNow, we deal with the historical argument at length in our brief.\nI think we demonstrate very clearly that the power to conscript was feared.\nIt was not even used in the revolutionary war except in very limited circumstances.\nAt the height \u2013- at the height of the idealism which motivated the men who were fighting for their freedom of this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1399.102, 1400.995, 1419.011, 1421.436, 1429.889, 1441.173, 1443.826, 1447.565, 1457.535, 1460.062, 1462.785, 1474.8, 1479.999, 1486.503, 1503.85, 1507.815, 1512.689, 1526.83, 1531.131, 1536.548, 1543.746], "stop_times": [1400.995, 1419.011, 1421.436, 1429.889, 1441.173, 1443.826, 1447.565, 1457.535, 1460.062, 1462.785, 1474.8, 1479.999, 1486.503, 1503.85, 1507.815, 1512.689, 1526.83, 1531.131, 1536.548, 1543.746, 1551.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1399.102}, "reply_to": "15003__0_112", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_114", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "If Congress enacted a resolution declaring the situation in Vietnam, a national emergency, would you -\u2013 would you then dismiss your appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1551.354], "stop_times": [1563.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.354}, "reply_to": "15003__0_113", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_115", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "We would have a very, very different case, Your Honor, but that is precisely what we have in mind.\nThat is, the declaration of war is \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1563.784, 1568.585], "stop_times": [1568.585, 1571.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1563.784}, "reply_to": "15003__0_114", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_116", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I did not say a declaration of war.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1571.449], "stop_times": [1572.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.449}, "reply_to": "15003__0_115", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_117", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I understand that, Your Honor, but that would be one very clear example of a declaration of a national emergency.\nIt's one thing to say we really need to do this.\nIt's quite another matter to enact the statute which is designed not simply to meet with national emergencies but to deal with peace time conditions and to apply it in peace time rather than limiting its application to war time conditions, or national emergency conditions.\nBut it just \u2013- it just was beyond anything that any of advancement or any of the people at the time that the constitution was adopted that this federal government, this body of people could simply reach out and conscript people.\nIf they can do it now, why couldn't they have done it back then?\nWhy couldn't they simply conscript one million men?\nWe're going to have a standing army of one million men.\nFurthermore, we're going to induct them, we're going to conscript them for ten years because we think we ought to have a very strong army.\nYet it just is inconceivable that that power was granted.\nIt just was not granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1572.72, 1579.339, 1582.403, 1601.61, 1618.844, 1621.867, 1624.782, 1626.788, 1633.744, 1637.921], "stop_times": [1579.339, 1582.403, 1601.61, 1618.844, 1621.867, 1624.782, 1626.788, 1633.744, 1637.921, 1639.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1572.72}, "reply_to": "15003__0_116", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_118", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Is your central argument against the standing army on the constitutional ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1639.24], "stop_times": [1644.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.24}, "reply_to": "15003__0_117", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_119", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Not against the standing army, Your Honor.\nThe standing army composed of volunteers is precisely \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1644.563, 1646.397], "stop_times": [1646.397, 1649.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1644.563}, "reply_to": "15003__0_118", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_120", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I know, but again the conscripting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1649.388], "stop_times": [1651.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.388}, "reply_to": "15003__0_119", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_121", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1651.551], "stop_times": [1653.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1651.551}, "reply_to": "15003__0_120", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_122", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "A standing army?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1653.403], "stop_times": [1655.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.403}, "reply_to": "15003__0_121", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_123", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Of conscripts, yes, Your Honor.\nDuring the first 150 years of the history of this country, that's precisely what Congress did continuously.\nIt resorted to volunteers, not for various reasons of social policy.\nCongress has decided.\nWell, we don't like that scheme.\nThat is, if what \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1655.341, 1657.61, 1664.313, 1669.322, 1670.115, 1672.163], "stop_times": [1657.61, 1664.313, 1669.322, 1670.115, 1672.163, 1673.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1655.341}, "reply_to": "15003__0_122", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_124", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "What you are challenging as I understand is in the Court's hand, you first told me that there could be a conscript and I may -- could be used into time of peace was rather than war?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1673.038], "stop_times": [1686.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.038}, "reply_to": "15003__0_123", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_125", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, that's correct.\nWe concede there is power to conscript when you have a genuine national emergency.\nThere just was no power to which was conferred.\nTo raise a standing army \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1686.422, 1688.708, 1693.162, 1695.692], "stop_times": [1688.708, 1693.162, 1695.692, 1697.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1686.422}, "reply_to": "15003__0_124", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_126", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "To determine whether there was a national emergency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1697.028], "stop_times": [1700.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.028}, "reply_to": "15003__0_125", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_127", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYou can determine it in many, many ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1700.476, 1701.334], "stop_times": [1701.334, 1703.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1700.476}, "reply_to": "15003__0_126", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_128", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But who would decide it finally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1703.438], "stop_times": [1706.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.438}, "reply_to": "15003__0_127", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_129", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "The final arbitrar with respect to the limits of power which Congress has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1706.608], "stop_times": [1714.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1706.608}, "reply_to": "15003__0_128", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_130", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Who would decide it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1714.02], "stop_times": [1715.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.02}, "reply_to": "15003__0_129", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_131", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Always this Court, that is.\nI don't think it's \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1715.212, 1716.658], "stop_times": [1716.658, 1717.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1715.212}, "reply_to": "15003__0_130", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_132", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "This Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1717.153], "stop_times": [1718.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.153}, "reply_to": "15003__0_131", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_133", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I think ultimately, this Court must decide any argument that Congress has exceeded the limits of its power.\nBut certainly, action taken by congress, unequivocal action declaring the existence of an emergency would be very persuasive, not necessarily conclusive but I think we \u2013- we would have very, very little hope of prevailing if Congress had said well, we've got a national emergency and we absolutely need to conscript men.\nBut we don't have that situation at all.\nFor the last six years, there've been studies upon studies as to whether volunteer army was feasible, clearly testified time and time again both by government persons who opposed a no-volunteer army as well as by men who preferred the volunteer army that it is feasible.\nI mean, manpower is available.\nIt just costs money.\nBut that's the way in which a standing army has been raised for 150 years.\nAnd it was never suggested that Congress could simply say, \u201cWell, we don't think we ought to be spending money this way.\nWe're not going to do it.\nWe'll save the little money.\nFurthermore, we think it's democratic.\nWe don't a mercenary army.\u201d\nMaybe Congress does think that there are valid reasons for conscripting men instead of simply having volunteers to mend this standing army in peace time.\nBut that doesn't change the power that Congress -\u2013 that was delegated to Congress at the time the constitution was adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1718.489, 1727.183, 1747.302, 1749.483, 1766.866, 1769.612, 1771.402, 1778.164, 1784.044, 1785.415, 1786.595, 1789.058, 1791.524, 1803.983], "stop_times": [1727.183, 1747.302, 1749.483, 1766.866, 1769.612, 1771.402, 1778.164, 1784.044, 1785.415, 1786.595, 1789.058, 1791.524, 1803.983, 1810.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1718.489}, "reply_to": "15003__0_132", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_134", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Did England have a standing army at the time this country was colonized?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1810.585], "stop_times": [1815.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.585}, "reply_to": "15003__0_133", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_135", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Standing armies were recognized, Your Honor, but never of conscripts.\nConscription for a standing army as a historical fact did not even occur until after the constitution \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1815.588, 1820.548], "stop_times": [1820.548, 1828.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1815.588}, "reply_to": "15003__0_134", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_136", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Did they have a standing army or did they have an army which was called in the service year to year or two years \u2013- two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1828.164], "stop_times": [1837.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.164}, "reply_to": "15003__0_135", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_137", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, I think it was of limited duration.\nThat is, my recollection is that the standing army in England was \u2013- well, for a limited period of time.\nI don't remember exactly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1837.605, 1840.125, 1853.826], "stop_times": [1840.125, 1853.826, 1855.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1837.605}, "reply_to": "15003__0_136", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_138", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "With what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1855.533], "stop_times": [1856.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.533}, "reply_to": "15003__0_137", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_139", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I don't remember exactly, but it was for a limited period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1856.052], "stop_times": [1859.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1856.052}, "reply_to": "15003__0_138", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_140", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1859.342], "stop_times": [1860.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.342}, "reply_to": "15003__0_139", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15003__0_141", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But it was -\u2013 it was not composed of conscripts.\nIt was volunteers entirely, except -\u2013 except for beggars.\nThat is, beggars could be impressed but that was as a form of punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1860.438, 1863.805, 1868.779], "stop_times": [1863.805, 1868.779, 1878.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1860.438}, "reply_to": "15003__0_140", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_142", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, might that have been the reason they put in to the constitution or Congress to raise armies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1878.426], "stop_times": [1885.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.426}, "reply_to": "15003__0_141", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_143", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "No, I think Your Honor, the historical record is clear that the power to raise and support armies is included because a standing army as feared as it was, and it was very, very much feared because the fear was that Congress would use the standing army to eliminate the power of the states and to oppress the individual citizens in the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1885.408], "stop_times": [1907.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1885.408}, "reply_to": "15003__0_142", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_144", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "In favor to a militia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1907.113], "stop_times": [1909.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.113}, "reply_to": "15003__0_143", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_145", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Oh absolutely!\nThere are at least five separate preferences to militia.\nThat is, you have at least three clauses in Article 1 which deal expressly with militia.\nAnd again, militia were to be called and specified circumstance only while the emergency lasted.\nIn the Second Amendment for instance, the Second Amendment provides that individual citizens had the right to keep and bear arms because you need a strong militia so that the state can defend itself.\nThe argument that a standing army was all right was based repeatedly on the argument that Congress could never amass a standing army of such power that it could overcome the power of the states because they had the militia and the militia were very, very numerous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1909.495, 1911.265, 1914.966, 1922.099, 1930.188, 1941.019], "stop_times": [1911.265, 1914.966, 1922.099, 1930.188, 1941.019, 1957.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1909.495}, "reply_to": "15003__0_144", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_146", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "As I recall it or my memory maybe entirely wrong.\nThose who insisted on having nothing but a militia, state militia, were defeated in the constitutional convention and it was provided that the Congress agrees on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1957.882, 1962.037], "stop_times": [1962.037, 1978.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.882}, "reply_to": "15003__0_145", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15003__0_147", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That's absolutely correct, Your Honor, but it's important to bear in mind that the concept of a standing army was agreed to in a very, very limited way that is precisely the opposition which you are noted, that people will say, \u201cWell, you don't need a standing army, we've got our state militia.\u201d\nThe argument was well, are you going to take farmers and post them on garrison posts on the frontiers to combat the unions?\nWe need an army, a standing army.\nNow, what did that mean?\nThe very first Congress enacted a bill.\nI had as a matter of fact, starting by 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, there are separate bills, numerous, dealing with the army, the standing army, as well as with militia but in quite separate ways.\nAnd the standing army that was provided consisted of I think 1,200 men, meant to deal very expressly with the problem of the frontiers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [1978.125, 1999.122, 2006.759, 2008.592, 2010.304, 2012.438, 2026.969], "stop_times": [1999.122, 2006.759, 2008.592, 2010.304, 2012.438, 2026.969, 2035.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1978.125}, "reply_to": "15003__0_146", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_148", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "May I remind you, Mr. Flym, you are now using your rebuttal time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2035.976], "stop_times": [2039.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.976}, "reply_to": "15003__0_147", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_149", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor, I have no rebuttal.\nI think \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2039.855, 2041.78], "stop_times": [2041.78, 2043.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2039.855}, "reply_to": "15003__0_148", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_150", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Excuse me, as I've forgotten on our start-\u2013 you started to do -\u2013 you were on yesterday, yes, yes, excuse me.\nAlready have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2043.069, 2049.478], "stop_times": [2049.478, 2049.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.069}, "reply_to": "15003__0_149", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_151", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Forgive me, Your Honor.\nIn any event, I really don't think I should spend more time on this argument.\nI would like to mention another separate argument.\nThat is, I simply mentioned that in passing.\nThat is that if a non-volunteer army is feasible, Congress just can't pick and choose ways of raising men and say, \u201cWell, we're not going to spend the money so that we'll have this money available for the project.\u201d\nThat is, if they can raise volunteers, they're required to raise volunteers for the standing army.\nThat was the original concept.\nAs a matter of fact, the concept -\u2013 the word \u201craise armies\u201d is used repeatedly by the first congress, by the early Congresses, and they specified that they mean volunteers and the deal with militia entirely separately.\nAs a matter of fact in one case, they increased the size of the authorized army I think to 5,000 men, and they said, \u201cBut we want to make it clear that as soon as the emergency is over, that army is to be disbanded.\nWe don't want it around.\nWe want that number reduced to 1,500.\u201d\nAnd so now, I won't even touch on the argument that the power of Congress is further limited so that it can't raise an army for an illegal war.\nNow, that's dealt within our brief.\nI think it's much too complex to even begin at this point.\nI would, if I may, like to turn for the remaining time to the solicitor's argument with respect to the establishment issue, as well as the free exercise issue.\nIncidentally, Mr. Justice Marshall, I checked in to various authorities on the question bearing on whether we have an rest of judgment decision more in a -\u2013 well, another authority, I'm very bad on issues, right, it simply don't communicate if there's anything to be done after you grant the motion of rest of judgment, you grant it and that's it.\nAnd I checked the records in this Court in the cases of Bramblett as well as the case of Green, they are cited at page 15 of our brief, and I looked at the order entered by the lower courts in those cases and that's all they say, motion to rest of judgment granted.\nI found no indication that there's anything else which anyone else thought needed to be done.\nOn the establishment question simply indicate that on the basis of the Solicitor General's argument, it's perfectly clear that the act tends to establish pacifist religions.\nThat's what the Act has intended -\u2013 well, it isn't intended to establish them but it is intended to protect members of pacifist religions.\nNow, the Solicitor General says, \u201cThat's alright, that's alright because religion doesn't mean what we say it means within the First Amendment,\u201d and that's because the First Amendment somehow can't be used in this way to limit the power of Congress to raise and support armies.\nI think that -\u2013 that logically it falls from everything I've said up to now, that that just isn't true.\nHistorically, that is completely inaccurate.\nNow, on the free exercise of religion argument, there's an important misconception that must be dealt with.\nWe're not dealing here with a non-religious objector, I mentioned that yesterday.\nThis man is a non-religious in the statutory sense, conscientious objector.\nNow, the question is whether he's \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2049.538, 2051.34, 2058.219, 2061.498, 2064.443, 2080.922, 2086.426, 2088.344, 2102.048, 2114.725, 2115.7, 2118.889, 2132.652, 2135.519, 2138.568, 2152.459, 2179.824, 2199.577, 2204.798, 2219.092, 2228.768, 2246.313, 2252.812, 2256.776, 2270.551, 2277.875, 2283.694], "stop_times": [2051.34, 2058.219, 2061.498, 2064.443, 2080.922, 2086.426, 2088.344, 2102.048, 2114.725, 2115.7, 2118.889, 2132.652, 2135.519, 2138.568, 2152.459, 2179.824, 2199.577, 2204.798, 2219.092, 2228.768, 2246.313, 2252.812, 2256.776, 2270.551, 2277.875, 2283.694, 2286.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2049.538}, "reply_to": "15003__0_150", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_152", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But he's a non -\u2013 non-religious, conscientious, selective objector?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2286.028], "stop_times": [2291.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.028}, "reply_to": "15003__0_151", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_153", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2291.147], "stop_times": [2291.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2291.147}, "reply_to": "15003__0_152", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_154", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2291.646], "stop_times": [2291.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.646}, "reply_to": "15003__0_153", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__0_155", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Selective objector.\nNow, that's correct Your Honor.\nNow, the question is not whether he can pick and choose his war but whether religions, including established religions, recognize the concept of just war.\nI don't think there's any question about the fact that today at least, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish organizations, the Vatican Council, all have made it perfectly plain that they think that there are differences between wars.\nSome wars are okay and some aren't.\nThat is, as religious organizations, it just doesn't seem to me that the argument can be made that if a man objects to a particular war, he necessarily has a \u201cpolitical\u201d objection as opposed to a religious objection.\nThat just doesn't square with the facts.\nAgain, I think that whether you reach this conclusion or not depends on your concept of the power of Congress to raise and support armies.\nIf you conceive of it as being completely uncontrollable, then it might make sense to apply much more restrictive notion of what is meant by religion in the First Amendment insofar as it relates to the power of Congress to raise and support armies.\nBut I just don't think there's any support, any historical support with the view that Congress in 1789 could simply reach out and say, \u201cI'm going to take you.\nI know its peace time.\nI know we don't have any wars, but we've got -\u2013 we've got to have a strong army.\u201d Just absolutely no support for that view.\nIf there are no questions, I'll submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2291.688, 2293.329, 2295.935, 2313.382, 2331.266, 2334.648, 2349.024, 2352.287, 2363.774, 2381.245, 2393.443, 2394.459, 2402.677], "stop_times": [2293.329, 2295.935, 2313.382, 2331.266, 2334.648, 2349.024, 2352.287, 2363.774, 2381.245, 2393.443, 2394.459, 2402.677, 2405.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2291.688}, "reply_to": "15003__0_154", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_156", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Flym.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2405.843], "stop_times": [2407.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.843}, "reply_to": "15003__0_155", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__0_157", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2407.445], "stop_times": [2414.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2407.445}, "reply_to": "15003__0_156", "speaker": "john_g_s_flym"}
{"id": "15003__0_158", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2414.731], "stop_times": [2415.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.731}, "reply_to": "15003__0_157", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_000", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "May it please the Court.\nFirst, with respect to the jurisdictional question, Mr. Justice Harlan asked me yesterday about a statute which has been opposed in Congress.\nIt is referred to in a footnote on pages 15 and particularly on page 16 of our brief where there is a reference to the congressional record.\nI have obtained a Xerox copy of that page with the congressional record and also a copy of the bill, and I will lodge it with the clerk if that is helpful to the Court.\nThe proposed statute is simple and I think clear.\nIt provides \u2013- it would supersede the first seven paragraphs of the present Section 3731 and would substitute \u201cIn a criminal case, an appeal by the United States shall lie to a Court of Appeals from a judgment or order of a District Court dismissing an indictment or information, or terminating a prosecution in favor of a defendant as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie from a judgment of acquittal, provided however that when the judgment or order is based solely on a determination of the invalidity of an Act of congress, the appeal shall lie directly to the Supreme Court.\u201d\nThe direct appeal would only be in the case of the invalidity and not the construction \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2415.07, 2417.935, 2431.04, 2444.312, 2458.084, 2462.731, 2510.007], "stop_times": [2417.935, 2431.04, 2444.312, 2458.084, 2462.731, 2510.007, 2515.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2415.07}, "reply_to": "15003__0_158", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_001", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Would you have any questions, Mr. Solicitor General, about this -\u2013 the ability of this Court, the power of this Court to transfer to a Court of Appeals in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2515.931], "stop_times": [2526.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.931}, "reply_to": "15003__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15003__1_002", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "There would be no such provision under this \u2013- yes, I suspect there would be.\nThe provision for transfer would still \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2526.188, 2531.503], "stop_times": [2531.503, 2534.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2526.188}, "reply_to": "15003__1_001", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_003", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Do you think be applicable to this type?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2534.035], "stop_times": [2535.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.035}, "reply_to": "15003__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15003__1_004", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Would still stay in because this simply is a substitute for the first seven paragraphs and the transfer provisions are in the subsequent paragraphs \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2535.345], "stop_times": [2546.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2535.345}, "reply_to": "15003__1_003", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_005", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Under existing law, we could view that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2546.184], "stop_times": [2548.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.184}, "reply_to": "15003__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15003__1_006", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "So that if this Court concluded that no question of the constitutionality of a statute was involved, it could transfer it to a Court of Appeals.\nNow in addition --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2548.2, 2560.409], "stop_times": [2560.409, 2561.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2548.2}, "reply_to": "15003__1_005", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_007", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "With the present bill, Mr. Solicitor General, or the present statute of the \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2561.218], "stop_times": [2565.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.218}, "reply_to": "15003__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15003__1_008", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "The present statute provides for transfer both ways, from the Court of Appeals to the -\u2013 and we have recently filed a motion for a transfer of a case from this stage to a Court of Appeals, which I regretted having to file, but we find it very baffling to tell in some cases where the appeal should lie.\nI may say that I have in addition prepared Xerox copies of all of the pages of the congressional record back in 1909 where the Criminal Appeals Act was discussed, and I will lodge that, too, with the Court because it might be convenient in examining that.\nI will lodge that with the clerk because it might be convenient in examining the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2565.201, 2586.986, 2609.901], "stop_times": [2586.986, 2609.901, 2614.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2565.201}, "reply_to": "15003__1_007", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_009", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Solicitor, go back to that statute for a moment.\nAs you read it, as you see it, the direct appeal to this Court did not foreclose the application of the transfer statute and therefore, the direct appeal is I take it simply to provide expedition in a proper case where important interests were involved.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2614.319, 2620.309, 2648.158], "stop_times": [2620.309, 2648.158, 2648.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.319}, "reply_to": "15003__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_010", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, where the constitutionality of the Act of Congress is involved, that's the only question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2648.781], "stop_times": [2654.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2648.781}, "reply_to": "15003__1_009", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_011", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But to \u2013- I am speaking -\u2013 addressing myself just to the reasons, the congressional reasons that you see for the direct appeal was because I am would be \u2013- it might well be of the essence in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2654.735], "stop_times": [2666.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.735}, "reply_to": "15003__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_012", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Because the department felt and it has been the practice of Congress elsewhere that when an Act of Congress is held unconstitutional, that is an important question which ought to come to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2666.821], "stop_times": [2682.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2666.821}, "reply_to": "15003__1_011", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_013", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But it might not always involve a great issue of time necessarily, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2682.149], "stop_times": [2687.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.149}, "reply_to": "15003__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_014", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "It might not be essentially a great issue, but holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional is a great issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2687.812], "stop_times": [2695.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2687.812}, "reply_to": "15003__1_013", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_015", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Without regard to the time factors involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2695.662], "stop_times": [2698.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.662}, "reply_to": "15003__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_016", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Without regard to the time factors involved, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2698.852], "stop_times": [2703.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2698.852}, "reply_to": "15003__1_015", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_017", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Can I ask you, Mr. Solicitor General, suppose a trial judge makes some findings of fact as a basis for his arrest or his order arresting judgment, facts which were stipulated to or anything else.\nAnd suppose that the \u2013- these weren't evident on the face of the indictment and so on and that this couldn't properly be called an arrest of judgment, what happens then in terms of appeal?\nI suppose it wouldn't and I assume it isn't the plea in bar or it isn't \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2703.185, 2724.479, 2739.383], "stop_times": [2724.479, 2739.383, 2743.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.185}, "reply_to": "15003__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__1_018", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "If it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2743.459], "stop_times": [2744.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2743.459}, "reply_to": "15003__1_017", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_019", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "It certainly wouldn't be just a motion \u2013- just a dismissal of the indictment since he's made factual findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2744.957], "stop_times": [2750.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.957}, "reply_to": "15003__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__1_020", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "If it can't be called a motion in arrest of judgment, then the only basis for appeal would be to call it a motion in bar where the statutes expressly says when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy, whether it would or would not be a motion of bar is a point upon which members of the Court have been in disagreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2750.438], "stop_times": [2775.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2750.438}, "reply_to": "15003__1_019", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_021", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Your position is that he has been placed in jeopardy in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2775.434], "stop_times": [2778.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.434}, "reply_to": "15003__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__1_022", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Our position is that he has been placed in jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2778.848], "stop_times": [2781.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2778.848}, "reply_to": "15003__1_021", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_023", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "So you wouldn't think an appeal would lie into that sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2781.029], "stop_times": [2783.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.029}, "reply_to": "15003__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__1_024", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "No, so you would then have to come under from a decision or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment or information, or any count thereof, where it is based on the invalidity or construction of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2783.215], "stop_times": [2797.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2783.215}, "reply_to": "15003__1_023", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_025", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Under that -\u2013 does the same sort of fact finding vitiate an appeal under that provision like it does in the arrest of judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2797.332], "stop_times": [2806.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.332}, "reply_to": "15003__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__1_026", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Justice, rightly or wrongly, we don't get to that because we construe that in the light of the legislative history as also involving the question whether the defendant has been put in jeopardy.\nAnd if the defendant has been put in jeopardy, we not only so construe it but there's a long practice within the Department of Justice at least accepted by this Court to the same effect.\nNow, if your findings of fact were held, were made before the empanelling of the jury, for example, if the Court said, \u201cI am greatly troubled by the validity of the statute in this case, but I'm not sure about the facts and can we have a factual hearing which will have evidence,\u201d and he then finds facts from which he concludes that the statute is unconstitutional, no jury ever having been in panel, then I would suppose that the first clause would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2806.413, 2820.842, 2837.574], "stop_times": [2820.842, 2837.574, 2868.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2806.413}, "reply_to": "15003__1_025", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_027", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "But if it \u2013- but if we disagreed with the government here and said that there were fact finding and there was a species of fact finding here in this case which removed it from the arrest of judgment category, then there just wouldn't be an appeal anywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2868.84], "stop_times": [2886.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.84}, "reply_to": "15003__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15003__1_028", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Then we are unable to find a basis for jurisdiction of this Court on appeal.\nIf this Court can find it, we would of course accept \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2886.205, 2893.738], "stop_times": [2893.738, 2896.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2886.205}, "reply_to": "15003__1_027", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_029", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, if we could not, could it be transferred to the Court of Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2896.551], "stop_times": [2901.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.551}, "reply_to": "15003__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_030", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I think not, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2901.627], "stop_times": [2903.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2901.627}, "reply_to": "15003__1_029", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_031", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "In other words, there's no appeal anywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2903.57], "stop_times": [2905.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.57}, "reply_to": "15003__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_032", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "There would be no appeal anywhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2905.137], "stop_times": [2906.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2905.137}, "reply_to": "15003__1_031", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_033", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, what do you think the case should -- should happen to the case and that's the presumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2906.744], "stop_times": [2915.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.744}, "reply_to": "15003__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_034", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "If the Court concludes that it has no jurisdiction, the sole basis of the appeal being with respect to the Court's construction and determination of the constitutionality of the Act of Congress, then I think the Court should dismiss the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2915.333], "stop_times": [2931.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2915.333}, "reply_to": "15003__1_033", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_035", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "What posture does that leaves the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2931.947], "stop_times": [2933.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.947}, "reply_to": "15003__1_034", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_036", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "That leaves the decision in arrest of judgment outstanding, and that means that while that is outstanding and no one can, neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals can upset it, that it would not be possible to proceed further on the verdict of the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2933.859], "stop_times": [2952.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2933.859}, "reply_to": "15003__1_035", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_037", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Would it be possible to vacate the proceeding below, send them back to the District Court and they can do what they think should be done by way of appellate jurisdiction --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2952.93], "stop_times": [2965.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.93}, "reply_to": "15003__1_036", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_038", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Justice, with respect, I think not.\nIf this Court has no jurisdiction, it has no jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2965.173, 2969.201], "stop_times": [2969.201, 2972.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2965.173}, "reply_to": "15003__1_037", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_039", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Then you would be carving out, Mr. Solicitor General.\nYou would not be, but the consequence of your position would be that there would be carved out a final decision of a District Judge holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional which is un-reviewable by anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2972.93, 2976.576], "stop_times": [2976.576, 2993.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.93}, "reply_to": "15003__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_040", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Mr. Justice -- Mr. Chief Justice, that was what the law undoubtedly was in all respects until 1909 and all that we can say is that Congress in its great care with respect to the double jeopardy simply has not yet made available an appeal in that case.\nWe are trying to persuade the Congress to take care of the problem and I hope we can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [2993.418, 3013.966], "stop_times": [3013.966, 3020.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2993.418}, "reply_to": "15003__1_039", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_041", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "I suppose, Mr. Solicitor General however if this Court and some other case, unrelated case or some other case should express its views, and if those views were inconsistent with the views reached by Judge Wyzanski in this case, there would be nothing to prevent the government from going to the District Court and asking -\u2013 making a motion for the modification for the arrest of judgment, would there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3020.023], "stop_times": [3048.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.023}, "reply_to": "15003__1_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15003__1_042", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, that's -\u2013 we'll keep in mind, Mr. Justice.\nI don't \u2013- I don't -\u2013 whether that would be good policy or not, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3048.951, 3051.732], "stop_times": [3051.732, 3058.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3048.951}, "reply_to": "15003__1_041", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_043", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, would you Mr. Solicitor, would you be up against at least the problem whether even that would constitute a violation of double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3058.441], "stop_times": [3066.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.441}, "reply_to": "15003__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_044", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "There of course would be a problem but offhand, it seems to me it is answerable.\nFor example, suppose there had been a petition for rehearing filed in -\u2013 before Judge Wyzanski the next day, one reason I'm hesitant is I'm not familiar with what the rule provisions are as to the time and there might come a time when it would be said that that was final and amounted to an acquittal.\nIt was not informed an acquittal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3066.691, 3072.844, 3090.813], "stop_times": [3072.844, 3090.813, 3093.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3066.691}, "reply_to": "15003__1_043", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_045", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Would you -- we certainly have enough jurisdictions to say what whether we have to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3093.005], "stop_times": [3097.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.005}, "reply_to": "15003__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15003__1_046", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.\nThe Court has decided that it has jurisdiction to decide whether it has \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3097.468, 3098.626], "stop_times": [3098.626, 3102.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3097.468}, "reply_to": "15003__1_045", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_047", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Not according to it, assuming that much jurisdiction at least and assuming on the underlying question, the conclusion is there is no direct review of the case, is that limited jurisdiction it would have.\nIt was from our -- number 2106, as in sending this back to the District Court?\nLet's just assume that our --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3102.62, 3115.88, 3119.952], "stop_times": [3115.88, 3119.952, 3125.014], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.62}, "reply_to": "15003__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15003__1_048", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice, I would think that if you concluded that you had no jurisdiction, the case had never left the District Court, and you would not have power to send it back with any directions or instructions of any kind.\nThere is a suggestion here in the argument today that Sisson's objection was not a selective one.\nOn that, I would simply refer to page 151 of the appendix, Sisson's testimony which the government accepts as part of the agreed statement of facts here, \u201cI refused induction because I believe the war in Vietnam, that is the United States war making in Vietnam, to be wrong.\u201d\nHe then went on to say, \u201cThat therefore, I felt that by accepting induction that even though I might not be sent to Vietnam, I would be consenting to the government's waging a war in Vietnam and I believe that my duty not to consent with that action because I did not consent in my own mind.\u201d\nWith respect to the power of Congress to impose a peace time military service, I was fortunate enough to go off in a country which did not have conscription, and I suppose I regarded that as something which would last for all time.\nIt would be fine if we could get to that situation.\nI would point out though that Congress enacted the modern conscription laws in 1940, which was technically a time of peace, actually a time of peace in this country.\nThat the problem of reenacting that statute in 1941 also came up in a time of peace in this country, and it would be rather surprising if it should now be held that Congress had no power to pass those statutes.\nLet me conclude by simply saying that our professional historian friends are rather skeptical of lawyer's history.\nThey refer to it as law office history and regarded as \u2013- to use an appropriate word, as highly selective. C.V. Wedgwood, the noted historian, wrote one time, \u201cWe know the end before we consider the beginning and we can never wholly recapture what it was to know the beginning only.\u201d\nAnd our submission here is that the Court should not find in history something that surely was not there.\nOur predecessors were sensitive to the First Amendment, but the founders accepted the exemption from military service for members of the peace churches without any question, and this was accepted explicitly in the Acts of Congress for 130 years right through the First World War.\nIt would be odd indeed if the invalidity of this unbroken practice was now discovered for the first time a 180 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3125.014, 3138.936, 3148.433, 3170.246, 3190.782, 3209.858, 3214.716, 3227.745, 3248.826, 3264.827, 3294.576, 3303.654, 3328.763], "stop_times": [3138.936, 3148.433, 3170.246, 3190.782, 3209.858, 3214.716, 3227.745, 3248.826, 3264.827, 3294.576, 3303.654, 3328.763, 3342.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3125.014}, "reply_to": "15003__1_047", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15003__1_049", "conversation_id": "15003", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Solicitor General for your submission.\nThank you, Mr. Flym.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_305", "start_times": [3342.069, 3345.168, 3346.472], "stop_times": [3345.168, 3346.472, 3349.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.069}, "reply_to": "15003__1_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_000", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Number 403, United States against Van Leeuwen.\nMr. Solicitor General, you may proceed whenever you\u2019re ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [0.0, 42.976], "stop_times": [42.976, 53.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_001", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThis is a criminal case here on certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nIt involves an interesting and novel question under the Fourth Amendment with respect to search and seizure.\nThe facts, the underlying facts in this case occurred on March 28 and 29, 1968.\nOn that day, not quite two years ago, at 1:30 pm at the United States Post Office at Mt. Vernon in the State of Washington, the respondent appeared, deposited for mailing two heavy packages, 12 pounds each.\nIt is relevant that the post office at Mt. Vernon, Washington is in the western part of the State of Washington and about 60 miles south of the Canadian border.\nOne of these packages was addressed to a post office box in Van Nuys, California and the other two to a post office box in Nashville, Tennessee.\nBoth bore a return address in a neighboring town adjacent to Mt. Vernon.\nPostage was paid at the airmail rate.\nThe packages were registered and insured, each one for $10,000.00, a total of $20,000.00 for the two, and in response to a request from the post office clerk, it was declared that they contained coins or a coin collection.\nThe post office clerk was suspicious and he immediately advised an officer of the Mt. Vernon police who happened to be in the lobby of his suspicions, and Captain Belgard of the police observed the car departing and noticed that it had British Columbia license plates.\nThe package was then examined and the police captain and the post office clerk were both aware of the fact that the address given on the package was of a nearby -- a junior college of quarters which had been unoccupied for several weeks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [53.186, 56.477, 68.203, 85.434, 97.431, 125.067, 138.194, 152.869, 163.503, 168.38, 193.267, 218.839], "stop_times": [56.477, 68.203, 85.434, 97.431, 125.067, 138.194, 152.869, 163.503, 168.38, 193.267, 218.839, 240.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.186}, "reply_to": "15267__0_000", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_002", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That was the address here, the return address?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [240.642], "stop_times": [242.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.642}, "reply_to": "15267__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_003", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "The return address, the return address.\nCaptain Belgard then perhaps somewhat surprisingly telephoned the Canadian Royal Mounted Police and not the U.S. customs or the FBI, but he telephoned the Canadian Police in Vancouver and it was the Canadian Police who put in a call to Mr. O\u2019Hearn, the Customs Officer-in-charge at Seattle, Washington, and the details so far as they were known were thus transmitted to Mr. O\u2019Hearn in Seattle.\nBy this time, it was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and Mr. O'Hearn then put in a telephone call to the Customs Office in Van Nuys in California, and he was advised that the addressee of the package being sent there was under investigation for dealing in illegal coins.\nBy the time he had completed that call, it was beyond the closing time in Nashville, which I believe is three hours in advance of Seattle; it may be two, and Mr. O'Hearn then delayed until the following morning in calling to Nashville, the morning of the 29.\nHe got similar information from the Customs Officer in Nashville.\nI believe he had to do that through Mobile as a matter of fact since the headquarters was in Mobile.\nMr. O'Hearn then prepared the affidavit for a search warrant, which appears on page 5 of this record and of course, the preparation of that took time both for composition and for typing.\nIt was then presented to the United States Commissioner in Seattle, and that of course took time to find the Commissioner free from other responsibilities and to give him time for consideration.\nAt 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the following day, March 29, the Commissioner issued a search warrant in Seattle.\nNow, Seattle is some 60 miles south of Mt. Vernon and Mr. O'Hearn took the search warrant to Mt. Vernon and there served it at 6:30 pm on March 29, which is about 29 hours after the events first began when the package was deposited in the post office in Mt. Vernon.\nAnd the problem arises because the package was held in Mt. Vernon and was not forwarded at once through the usual United States Post Office channels.\nWhen the warrant was served, the packages were found to contain several hundred gold coins.\nThe packages were resealed, sent on to the addressees, they were refused by the addressees and were returned to the post office in Mt. Vernon.\nNow, other evidence at the trial showed that the respondent had in fact imported these coins.\nThere was a motion to suppress the evidence of the gold coins, which was denied by the District Court.\nThe respondent was convicted of a violation of the Customs Laws in having imported the coins without a proper declaration, and an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nThat Court held that the evidence should have been suppressed on the ground that the delay in holding the coins in Mt. Vernon for 29 hours was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that is the sole issue which is now before the Court on the government's petition for certiorari.\nBefore going further, let me simply recall the simple words of the Fourth Amendment, \u201cThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.\nAnd here of course, a warrant was issued, on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.\nThis is not a case of search without a warrant.\nHere, there was a search with a warrant.\nThe problem arises because the police officers were careful.\nThey took the time to be sure that they had the proper facts and because the post office employee cooperated in that process by holding the package at Mt. Vernon, Washington.\nNow, it could of course be said that once the package was in the custody of the post office, it should have been sent on and somehow or other, the officers could have followed it and kept track of it and before it was actually delivered at their respective destinations, these various inquiries could have been made.\nThe logistic and manpower problems involved and that the number of people required in at least three or four different locations as such as it seems to me to make that approach not a reasonable requirement under all circumstances.\nNow, there is an aspect of this case which seems to me to be of very considerable importance.\nLast June, this Court decided the Shamel case, and curiously enough also involving coins.\nI don't know whether coins have become a special target in this area and in the Shamel case, some of the prior decisions of the Court with respect to the extent to which a search without a warrant may be made incident to an arrest were sharply cut down.\nAnd there is a consequence of the Shamel case, which I assume is going to have to be presented in later cases.\nThat is the extent to which granting that the police cannot conduct an extensive search and seizure in the premises incident to an arrest, to what extent can the police officers impose a stillstand on the situation?\nLock the door, keep people from entering and leaving, prevent people inside the premises from destroying evidences while they go through the necessary process obviously requiring under current conditions of several hours of preparing a warrant -- an affidavit for a search warrant under -- in many cases, this will require not merely the police officer but participation by a lawyer and assistant United States attorney or appropriate state officer, typing, finding a magistrate, submitting it to him, and giving him an opportunity to consider it, and then upon it's issuance, the opportunity to serve.\nAnd unless there is some opportunity to impose a stillstand, not to seize but simply to hold things in the status -- status quo, the evidence in many of these cases will be destroyed and the opportunity to make an effective search will evaporate.\nNow, that is not this case.\nThis has nothing to do with a search incident to an arrest.\nThis is a situation, however, where post office employees in association with other governmental officers, did preserve the situation in status quo by not sending on the package in the normal processes of the U.S. mails.\nI would point out too in the consideration of this matter as bearing on the reasonableness of their action that there is no communication involved here.\nThere is no letter.\nThere is no transmission of intelligence.\nThis was simply goods, simply gold coins.\nThe delay of 29 hours in the delivery of a package is not unprecedented and there is nothing to indicate that it was a matter of any seriousness to anyone involved.\nNow, it's curious, though I suppose explainable because of the development of -- the recent development of cases like Shamel, but it's curious that it's almost impossible to find any indication in the decisions in this Court or elsewhere of the extent to which the police may take steps to preserve the status quo while warrants are being obtained.\nBack, a generation ago in Taylor against the United States, this Court pointed out that \u201ca short period of watching during the time required to secure a search warrant could have prevented the possibility of any change in the premises from which government agents had smelled the order of whiskey.\n\u201d And in the Trupiano case in 334 U.S., the Court striking down a search without a warrant noted that a warrant could have been obtained without any risk of removal since one of the agents, and I quote, \u201cwas on hand at all times to report and guard against such a move.\n\u201d Now, there were no issue in those cases as to the validity of a restraint which might have been imposed while a warrant was being obtained, but the Court in those cases seemed to feel that such a restraint would have been not only natural and understandable, but justifiable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [242.833, 248.436, 285.935, 310.186, 334.551, 339.999, 350.433, 367.511, 387.288, 397.46, 427.997, 442.329, 451.949, 469.54, 478.53, 487.716, 505.177, 538.886, 575.075, 591.866, 596.183, 600.051, 605.088, 623.167, 648.878, 672.845, 683.196, 691.428, 719.564, 729.119, 749.812, 799.592, 826.04, 829.181, 835.705, 857.469, 867.832, 870.191, 874.041, 879.903, 897.625, 931.65, 958.614, 985.425], "stop_times": [248.436, 285.935, 310.186, 334.551, 339.999, 350.433, 367.511, 387.288, 397.46, 427.997, 442.329, 451.949, 469.54, 478.53, 487.716, 505.177, 538.886, 575.075, 591.866, 596.183, 600.051, 605.088, 623.167, 648.878, 672.845, 683.196, 691.428, 719.564, 729.119, 749.812, 799.592, 826.04, 829.181, 835.705, 857.469, 867.832, 870.191, 874.041, 879.903, 897.625, 931.65, 958.614, 985.425, 1009.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.833}, "reply_to": "15267__0_002", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_004", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "You could have -- you could have gotten a warrant and seized the package on the other end of the shipment, I suppose, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1009.445], "stop_times": [1018.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.445}, "reply_to": "15267__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__0_005", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.\nI mentioned that in stating the facts, but the problems of tracing and keeping track of, and a number of people involved and frankly, I don't know whether a warrant issued by United States Commissioner in Seattle is valid in Van Nuys, California or in Nashville, Tennessee, whether it might not have had to be presented to a commissioner in those places.\nOne of the charges against this warrant now pressed, I believe is that it was based on hearsay and on facts not within the knowledge of the affiant.\nIt would of course be of far more extreme as you got two officers in California and in Nashville, Tennessee.\nIt would have involved a great many -- more people, and our position is that the limited delay in this case, not six months, not a week, 29 hours, or not much more than overnight was not unreasonable under the circumstances, particularly when it was the consequence of the fact that the officers were trying to do their duty carefully and thoughtfully, were seeking to obtain a search warrant, were trying to discover the facts so that if there was no basis for a warrant, that would not be obtained.\nAnd our view is that to impose a requirement that you must send the things on and then try to catch them before they're delivered would be too technical, required too much expenditure of manpower, too much risk of loss.\nWhen the suspected material is in the custody of the United States and rightly so, this reasonable -- this period seems to us to have been a reasonable one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1018.284, 1019.927, 1051.037, 1063.325, 1073.346, 1123.259, 1149.003], "stop_times": [1019.927, 1051.037, 1063.325, 1073.346, 1123.259, 1149.003, 1163.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.284}, "reply_to": "15267__0_004", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_006", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I suppose it doesn't weaken your position in any that the articles were in and of themselves contraband?\nThat is, they were articles which were unlawfully in the possession of the mailer having them smuggled across the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1163.833, 1173.244], "stop_times": [1173.244, 1182.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.833}, "reply_to": "15267__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_007", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, I thought about that argument and I'm not sure that I can say that gold coins as such are contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1182.099], "stop_times": [1192.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.099}, "reply_to": "15267__0_006", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_008", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Is it smuggle --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1192.143], "stop_times": [1192.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.143}, "reply_to": "15267__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_009", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I suppose any United States citizen who has a collection of gold coins, can legally transmit them by mail to somebody else, to a dealer \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1192.418], "stop_times": [1201.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.418}, "reply_to": "15267__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_010", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Across -- across the line from Canada?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1201.06], "stop_times": [1207.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.06}, "reply_to": "15267__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_011", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Here, we have only the suspicion that these have come across from Canada.\nWe have grounds for believing that they have come across from Canada but they were in fact deposited in a United States Post Office 60 miles within the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1207.007, 1215.394], "stop_times": [1215.394, 1229.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.007}, "reply_to": "15267__0_010", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_012", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "But if you were sustained here, your position is sustained, what happens to the coins?\nAre they forfeited?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1229.402, 1235.018], "stop_times": [1235.018, 1236.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.402}, "reply_to": "15267__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__0_013", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I believe they would be forfeited under the Customs Law, Mr. Justice, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1236.951], "stop_times": [1243.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.951}, "reply_to": "15267__0_012", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_014", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Isn't it illegal to possess gold coins, quite a part from the Customs Law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1243.133], "stop_times": [1250.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.133}, "reply_to": "15267__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__0_015", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nI understand that there are exceptions to the gold statutes and regulations under which coins bona fide held for collecting purposes are perfectly legal.\nIndeed, I see them advertised in the papers and I think that for $95.00, you can now buy a $20.00 gold piece which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1250.601, 1252.054, 1265.708], "stop_times": [1252.054, 1265.708, 1276.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.601}, "reply_to": "15267__0_014", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_016", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I thought there was a time, almost a generation ago when everybody was required to turn in all these gold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1276.338], "stop_times": [1282.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.338}, "reply_to": "15267__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__0_017", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Yes, yes, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1282.313], "stop_times": [1283.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.313}, "reply_to": "15267__0_016", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_018", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And thereafter, it was illegal to possess them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1283.342], "stop_times": [1285.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.342}, "reply_to": "15267__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__0_019", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "But there was an exception of bona fide collectors' items, whether that was due to the fact \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1285.702], "stop_times": [1290.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.702}, "reply_to": "15267__0_018", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_020", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I am very -- very happy to hear that because I was disturbed the other day when I found a $5.00 gold piece in my safe deposit box.\n[Laughter] It was given to me when I was ten years old.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1290.627, 1297.269], "stop_times": [1297.269, 1301.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.627}, "reply_to": "15267__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__0_021", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, that raises all kinds of questions about self incrimination that I -\u2013 that I don't think we need to go into here.\nIn some ways, the case which seems to me to be the closest is the Terry case, it's Terry against Ohio decided two years ago.\nI think I would like, before referring to Terry case however, to make reference to Mr. Justice White's dissenting opinion in the Shamel Case because he did, there deal more extensively than I've been able to find any place else with what I regard as the underlying problem here.\nNow, it is true that he was using it as an argument that the search without a warrant should be valid and he was in the minority on that, and we are not contending here that a search without a warrant is valid.\nBut on page 774 of Justice White's dissent, he said, \u201cWhen there must almost always be a strong possibility that confederates of the arrested man will in the meanwhile remove the items for which the police have probable cause to search.\nAnd on page 775, he says, \u201cMoreover, had the police simply arrested the petitioner, taken him off to the station house and later returned with a warrant, it seems very likely that the petitioner's wife, who in view of petitioner's generally garrulous nature must have known of the robbery, would have removed the coins.\nNow, our position is that, our contention, our suggestion is that that argument not having prevailed, there nevertheless remains open this question which I call of the opportunity to impose the stillstand.\nNow, just how that can be done, what manpower's involved, what force can properly be used remains to be seen?\nBut we contend here that in a different situation where the goods are already in the custody of the United States, having been confined to the -- confided to the United States Mail that it is appropriate for the officers of the government to preserve the status quo while the warrant is being carefully and thoughtfully obtained.\nNow, I would like to refer to the Terry case itself because that is a case which goes into these questions of unreasonable search and seizure, the meaning of unreasonable where you do not have an arrest or a seizure involved.\nIn the Terry case, you remember the problem was of the power of the police to take action short of an arrest by way of what is popularly known as stop and frisk, by way of patting a man's clothes to see whether he was armed and on finding a hard object, reaching in and removing it.\nAnd in that opinion, Chief Justice Warren discussed at some length the difference between the cause required to obtain a search warrant, which would be probable cause to -- or an arrest warrant, it would be in that case -\u2013 a probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and the cause which was required for a police officer to take this interlocutory step.\nAnd it really comes down to this, whether there was probable cause for suspicion with respect to the commission of a crime and the safety of the police officer.\nI won't take the time to quote from that opinion, particularly on pages 21 to 24.\nOnly by way of analogy, but by considerable analogy, there is discussion of this shorter step of this step short of an arrest or of a procedure and we feel that there is a substantial support in the Terry case for the proposition that the step taken here, and the only step against which complaint is made is the holding of the package for 29 hours and it would've had to be held for a substantial portion of that at the very best, but that was not unreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1301.711, 1312.833, 1327.519, 1352.051, 1368.002, 1386.062, 1408.948, 1428.117, 1438.037, 1470.922, 1502.904, 1539.432, 1583.147, 1600.373, 1607.784], "stop_times": [1312.833, 1327.519, 1352.051, 1368.002, 1386.062, 1408.948, 1428.117, 1438.037, 1470.922, 1502.904, 1539.432, 1583.147, 1600.373, 1607.784, 1650.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.711}, "reply_to": "15267__0_020", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_022", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "But Mr. Solicitor General, I gather the justification in Terry that was emphasized was the safety of the officer, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1650.395], "stop_times": [1659.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.395}, "reply_to": "15267__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__0_023", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1659.977], "stop_times": [1660.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.977}, "reply_to": "15267__0_022", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_024", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Do we have anything comparable to that in this situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1660.693], "stop_times": [1663.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.693}, "reply_to": "15267__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__0_025", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "No, there's no question of safety here, but it is suggested that the only duty of a post office clerk is to send the package on forth with and I suggested if on the exam -- on handling the package in the process of putting it into the mail bag and he hears it ticking that he may find it quite reasonably that he has some duty other than to send it on \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1663.24], "stop_times": [1689.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1663.24}, "reply_to": "15267__0_024", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_026", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "What I'm getting at is I wonder if the result reached in Terry would have been reached if that factor of the safety of the officer was not involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1689.266], "stop_times": [1698.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.266}, "reply_to": "15267__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__0_027", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I think perhaps not.\nI'm not suggesting that Terry is a precise analogy.\nI am suggesting that it is an application of \u2013- or a determination of what is reasonable conduct under the circumstances, and our suggestion is that in this case, not involving a communication, nothing about the First Amendment, simply goods in transit but to delay them for a day in the process of being careful in seeking a search warrant and then seeking a search warrant through the judgment of an independent magistrate is not such unreasonable conduct as to violate the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1698.488, 1699.955, 1704.098], "stop_times": [1699.955, 1704.098, 1737.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1698.488}, "reply_to": "15267__0_026", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_028", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "But isn't the analogy the Terry more with the stop rather than the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1737.114], "stop_times": [1743.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.114}, "reply_to": "15267__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__0_029", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well yes, Mr. Justice, I suppose it is with the stop and the search, although the \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1743.43], "stop_times": [1747.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1743.43}, "reply_to": "15267__0_028", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_030", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Because safety or not, they could still stop him, could still stop the \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1747.363], "stop_times": [1754.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.363}, "reply_to": "15267__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__0_031", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Yes.\nOf course, the stop is only for seconds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1754.481, 1754.755], "stop_times": [1754.755, 1759.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1754.481}, "reply_to": "15267__0_030", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_032", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, it's for long enough perhaps to ask him a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1759.347], "stop_times": [1762.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.347}, "reply_to": "15267__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__0_033", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Long enough to ask him with questions and we have a somewhat longer time here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1762.79], "stop_times": [1777.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1762.79}, "reply_to": "15267__0_032", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__0_034", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Mr. Davis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1777.483], "stop_times": [1779.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.483}, "reply_to": "15267__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_000", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "May it please the Court, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI find this argument most interesting as presented.\nI wish I could concur wholeheartedly.\nWere I to concur this case would be moot and in the Court I would seek to have it dismissed, but I submit that is not the case.\nI will try and hit the points as we go along very carefully.\nFirst of all, let me point out with tongue and cheek as did Judge Chambers of the Court of Appeals that I, too, am not too much dismayed by delay of my mail because oftentimes, it is delayed for longer than 29 hours.\nBut he held in concurring opinion that this was done without judicial authority here and that the delay was intentional.\nNow, I submit there is a distinction between the intentional delay of one's mail protected by the Fourth Amendment and the delay of one's mail which is unintentional.\nLet us review the facts in this very carefully.\nTime is of the essence in this case.\nFirst, let me point out that Vancouver, British Columbia is but 60 miles from Mt. Vernon.\nI know I've traveled this distance to be here with you today.\nI know that it takes but one hour with maybe a few minutes at Customs to come across.\nI do know that one must declare items at the border.\nWe do know that these packages were 9 and 11 lbs. respectively, and we see that the petitioner's name or rather the respondent's name is Gerritt Johannes Van Leeuwen.\nI ask you to look at that name, G.J. Van Leeuwen, and he used as a non de plume, as a return address G.J. Williams.\nI have found no law, no case authority, and though I'm lawfully ignorant, but I find nothing to tell me that I cannot use a non de plume in sending out a package.\nHe has used an address that is proper, but I submit that I can use your return address if I so wish and have my mail returned there.\nI know of no law saying I cannot use your own home address \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1779.274, 1783.465, 1787.026, 1789.94, 1799.113, 1803.24, 1822.694, 1834.155, 1846.809, 1849.879, 1854.78, 1862.77, 1866.756, 1871.487, 1875.454, 1885.858, 1899.46, 1911.977, 1921.925], "stop_times": [1783.465, 1787.026, 1789.94, 1799.113, 1803.24, 1822.694, 1834.155, 1846.809, 1849.879, 1854.78, 1862.77, 1866.756, 1871.487, 1875.454, 1885.858, 1899.46, 1911.977, 1921.925, 1925.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.274}, "reply_to": "15267__0_034", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_001", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "But will it disturb you very much if law enforcement officers take a -\u2013 have certain reactions to that when they see it?\nYou suggested this does not give some justification for their wondering why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1925.425, 1937.541], "stop_times": [1937.541, 1944.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.425}, "reply_to": "15267__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_002", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Sir, if it were brought to the law enforcement officer's attention by yourself and my using your return address, I would say yes, it should be in their hands, but otherwise, I would say it is not their business.\nThey have no reason to be inquiring.\nFurthermore, if we have a situation where, as we have here, that a man declares them to be coins, and I would suggest that Mr. Justice Stewart do not mail that coin through the mail as it may be smuggled, he hasn't checked it out yet because if it were, he may be in the same position that Van Leeuwen is, but coins are legal here in the United States as numismatic items.\nThis man declared this package to contain coins; he did not lie.\nHe did not go so far as to declare them to be gold coins.\nHe did not declare them to be brought across the border and testimony at the trial interestingly enough showed that the packages are sitting on the counsel car right between the two passengers.\nNow, mind you, he's mailing this at 1:30.\nHere we are in a small post office, a first class post office, a focal gathering point for all of Skagit County, and he's mailing two packages registered mail.\nNow, what's so unusual about registered mail?\nIf you had an item so valuable, certainly you would register it because the maximum insured value is $200.00, unless you declare otherwise.\nWouldn't you insure your coin collection?\nCertainly, any one of us would.\nBut the postal clerk is suspicious, the return address is not one that is occupied.\nHow he happens to know this, probably because it's a small community.\nProbably because this is a student housing center for the junior college there.\nThis may be how he knows it, and there are \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [1944.33, 1959.157, 1962.924, 1991.335, 1996.34, 1999.938, 2012.228, 2015.152, 2026.487, 2028.896, 2037.375, 2040.375, 2043.299, 2051.147, 2055.946, 2062.355], "stop_times": [1959.157, 1962.924, 1991.335, 1996.34, 1999.938, 2012.228, 2015.152, 2026.487, 2028.896, 2037.375, 2040.375, 2043.299, 2051.147, 2055.946, 2062.355, 2064.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.33}, "reply_to": "15267__1_001", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_003", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "But are you \u2013- are you now addressing your arguments to the lack of probable cause to be concerned about any of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2064.462], "stop_times": [2070.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.462}, "reply_to": "15267__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_004", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I'm addressing my own remarks, sir, not only to the lack of probable cause because I'm attacking this on two basis.\nOne, the affidavit being insufficient and two, the detention of the packages for 29 hours, either one of which I submit would be more than sufficient to confirm the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2070.239, 2077.297], "stop_times": [2077.297, 2088.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2070.239}, "reply_to": "15267__1_003", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_005", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, this Court on a number of occasions and many other Courts similarly have said that in probable cause, you add up a total of the great many often insignificant things to reach your conclusion.\nNow, when he added the coins to the false return address, to the fact that the car had a Canadian license, do you think that began to mount up the charge with what the courts talked about in terms of the total of probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2088.291, 2106.71], "stop_times": [2106.71, 2127.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.291}, "reply_to": "15267__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_006", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Oh, very definitely, sir, very definitely.\nI would look as concerned as any law officer who had these facts before him, who would not seek to entertain further doubts and would not seek to resolve this.\nI would question his integrity.\nNo, these are all very pertinent.\nThey are cumulative snowball effect, but I submit that the snowball is around the government, and here's why.\nThese facts were known, 1:30 he mails it.\nThese facts were known to Captain Belgard who in turn calls the RCMP in Vancouver because there had been a recent burglary of a coin shop up there; he just checked.\nRCMP in turn does a quick cursory investigation, calls Customs Officer O'Hearn in Seattle, Chief Agent-in-charge.\nThis by 2:30.\nHe relates the following facts to Customs Officer O'Hearn, (1) two packages, (2) gold coins, (3) fictitious address, (4) fictitious addressee, (5) registered mail, (6) return addressees.\nO'Hearn, being the superlative agent that he is, immediately gets on the phone and calls Van Nuys, California and ascertains that one of these addressees is a suspected trafficker on illegally obtained gold coins.\nHow can a man work faster?\nI take my hat off to him and I submit at this time, he had probable cause to get a search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2127.574, 2130.303, 2139.276, 2141.752, 2144.391, 2151.388, 2154.839, 2163.895, 2171.571, 2173.083, 2187.118, 2199.972, 2202.201], "stop_times": [2130.303, 2139.276, 2141.752, 2144.391, 2151.388, 2154.839, 2163.895, 2171.571, 2173.083, 2187.118, 2199.972, 2202.201, 2208.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.574}, "reply_to": "15267__1_005", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_007", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "What time?\nHow many hours?\nFive hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2208.513, 2208.974, 2210.698], "stop_times": [2208.974, 2210.698, 2212.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.513}, "reply_to": "15267__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_008", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Five hours?\nNo sir, he worked \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2212.031, 2212.839], "stop_times": [2212.839, 2213.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.031}, "reply_to": "15267__1_007", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_009", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Two hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2213.419], "stop_times": [2213.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.419}, "reply_to": "15267__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_010", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "\u2026faster than that.\nOne hour and five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2213.597, 2214.669], "stop_times": [2214.669, 2216.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.597}, "reply_to": "15267__1_009", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_011", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "One hour and five minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2216.378], "stop_times": [2217.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.378}, "reply_to": "15267__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_012", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "One hour and five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2217.671], "stop_times": [2219.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.671}, "reply_to": "15267__1_011", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_013", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "You find nothing wrong as of that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2219.556], "stop_times": [2222.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.556}, "reply_to": "15267__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_014", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I find nothing wrong.\nIn fact, I find it to be very commendable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2222.465, 2223.705], "stop_times": [2223.705, 2226.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.465}, "reply_to": "15267__1_013", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_015", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And it took a little time to type an affidavit up, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2226.427], "stop_times": [2230.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.427}, "reply_to": "15267__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_016", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "24 hours later, it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2230.859], "stop_times": [2234.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.859}, "reply_to": "15267__1_015", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_017", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It does take time to type an affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2234.168], "stop_times": [2237.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.168}, "reply_to": "15267__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_018", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It does, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2237.067], "stop_times": [2238.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.067}, "reply_to": "15267__1_017", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_019", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And to recheck, it's \u2013- so how many hours would you think would be maximum in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2238.156], "stop_times": [2244.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.156}, "reply_to": "15267__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_020", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Considering the fact that the affidavit was applied for at approximately 2:30 pm the following day, I think the affidavit could have been applied on the day that the packages were mailed, considering that Mt. Vernon is 60 miles from Seattle, a drive of one hour on a super freeway.\nI think it could have been done then, and it should have been submitted \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2244.822, 2262.252], "stop_times": [2262.252, 2265.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.822}, "reply_to": "15267__1_019", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_021", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "How many hours is that, five hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2265.02], "stop_times": [2267.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.02}, "reply_to": "15267__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_022", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "No sir, about 2:30, we have the facts.\n2:35, O'Hearn has verified that one of the addressees is a suspected trafficker of gold coins.\nHis office, he would have to call, and he did call, the Attorney General's office and one of the assistants AGs made out this affidavit.\nI know, he's my classmate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2267.73, 2271.461, 2277.265, 2286.721], "stop_times": [2271.461, 2277.265, 2286.721, 2287.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.73}, "reply_to": "15267__1_021", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_023", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "So you're complaining about approximately 24 hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2287.257], "stop_times": [2290.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.257}, "reply_to": "15267__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_024", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I am complaining about the additional 24 hours, very definitely sir, because there, that is sloppy police work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2290.52], "stop_times": [2294.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.52}, "reply_to": "15267__1_023", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_025", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And how did that injure your \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2294.713], "stop_times": [2298.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.713}, "reply_to": "15267__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_026", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "How did it injure my client?\nHe spent one year in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2298.289, 2300.23], "stop_times": [2300.23, 2302.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.289}, "reply_to": "15267__1_025", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_027", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Other than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2302.705], "stop_times": [2304.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.705}, "reply_to": "15267__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_028", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Other than that, the Fourth Amendment protects our \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2304.241], "stop_times": [2307.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.241}, "reply_to": "15267__1_027", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_029", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "How did it affect his Constitutional Rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2307.4], "stop_times": [2310.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.4}, "reply_to": "15267__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_030", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It affected his Constitutional Rights, and that this Court way long ago in Ex parte Jackson, held that the first class mails are protected by the Fourth Amendment and have the same rights as those possessions within our own private homes and that those rights have been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2310.05], "stop_times": [2327.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.05}, "reply_to": "15267__1_029", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_031", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Now suppose at the end of the 29 hours, they decided not to do anything and had shifted.\nWould your man have been injured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2327.53, 2336.703], "stop_times": [2336.703, 2339.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.53}, "reply_to": "15267__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_032", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Then I shouldn't be here, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2339.775], "stop_times": [2341.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.775}, "reply_to": "15267__1_031", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_033", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "He wouldn't be injured at all, would he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2341.768], "stop_times": [2343.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.768}, "reply_to": "15267__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_034", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2343.624], "stop_times": [2344.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.624}, "reply_to": "15267__1_033", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_035", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "So what are you complaining about, the seizure or the stop?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2344.751], "stop_times": [2349.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.751}, "reply_to": "15267__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_036", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2349.226], "stop_times": [2350.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2349.226}, "reply_to": "15267__1_035", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_037", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "What are you complaining about, the seizure and the opening of it, or the timing of the 29 hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2350.324], "stop_times": [2357.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.324}, "reply_to": "15267__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_038", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I am complaining about the timing.\nI'm complaining very vehemently about the timing.\nA mail watch could have been put on those packages.\nThey knew the addressees.\nTelephone communications being what they are, they could've quickly gotten the same information, which I submit incidentally as a sideline.\nIt is hearsay on ear say, but they could've gotten that same information down and the same type of affidavit could have been written up in California and again, in Nashville, Tennessee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2357.601, 2361.525, 2364.066, 2366.79, 2370.091, 2376.657], "stop_times": [2361.525, 2364.066, 2366.79, 2370.091, 2376.657, 2384.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.601}, "reply_to": "15267__1_037", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_039", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That's the record, wouldn't you agree that at times, even registered mail is lost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2384.499], "stop_times": [2391.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.499}, "reply_to": "15267__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_040", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Lost, yes, and this is what Chief -- or what Judge Chambers referred to that oftentimes, my mail goes astray, but I submit that this was not lost.\nThe government has admitted that they contained it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2391.28, 2400.572], "stop_times": [2400.572, 2402.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.28}, "reply_to": "15267__1_039", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_041", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I didn't say that.\nI said if they had shifted and relied on catching at the other end, they might not have been able to catch it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2402.04, 2403.059], "stop_times": [2403.059, 2410.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.04}, "reply_to": "15267__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_042", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "They had two packages, sir.\nThey surely would have caught one, but even our post office is that inefficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2410.554, 2412.95], "stop_times": [2412.95, 2419.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.554}, "reply_to": "15267__1_041", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_043", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Mr. Davis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2419.026], "stop_times": [2419.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.026}, "reply_to": "15267__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__1_044", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2419.833], "stop_times": [2420.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.833}, "reply_to": "15267__1_043", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_045", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Certainly, the officer who got this good job of getting this information altogether in an hour and five minutes.\nAre you conceding that at that point, there was probable cause to get the warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2420.539, 2428.781], "stop_times": [2428.781, 2432.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.539}, "reply_to": "15267__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__1_046", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I'm saying at that point, there was probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2432.656], "stop_times": [2435.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.656}, "reply_to": "15267__1_045", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_047", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "There was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2435.127], "stop_times": [2435.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2435.127}, "reply_to": "15267__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__1_048", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "There was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2435.929], "stop_times": [2436.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.929}, "reply_to": "15267__1_047", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_049", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well then, what about your argument that this affidavit or this warrant is not supported by probable cause?\nI don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2436.664, 2443.137], "stop_times": [2443.137, 2444.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.664}, "reply_to": "15267__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__1_050", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I am not saying as I understand it, sir, that it is not supported by a probably cause.\nI am saying that according to the guidelines laid down in Ventresca that that affidavit is hearsay, based on hearsay.\nIt does not meet the requirements in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2444.333, 2448.96, 2455.727], "stop_times": [2448.96, 2455.727, 2457.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.333}, "reply_to": "15267__1_049", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_051", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "So the attack is on the form of the affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2457.092], "stop_times": [2459.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.092}, "reply_to": "15267__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__1_052", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That is correct, sir.\nI'm not saying they do not have probable cause, if they had the proper source information related, which they did not do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2459.208, 2460.045], "stop_times": [2460.045, 2466.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.208}, "reply_to": "15267__1_051", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_053", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2466.316], "stop_times": [2471.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2466.316}, "reply_to": "15267__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15267__1_054", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Now, here we have these packages supposedly on their way.\nFirst class mail according to the United States Postal Code must be, when it is mailed half an hour before the next outgoing shipment, included in that shipment.\nHere, we have two packages which are fortuitously, and I submit now as a forethought, set aside to await a search warrant.\nHere are two packages that should have been going on their way, and the only other thing that officer O'Hearn has learned the following morning is that Van Leeuwen admitted to a Canadian money that he'd mailed those packages and secondly, that the second addressee was a suspected trafficker in gold coins, cumulative evidence, that is all, cumulative.\nIt adds but a snowflake to the snowball.\nNow, what happens next?\nThe search warrant is issued and if you look very carefully at the search warrant, at the affidavit on page 5, you'll note that the affiant has information through United States Customs channels.\nIt doesn't tell us where.\nEach and every one of these facts is set forth.\nFrankly, I was amazed that I was not upheld at the trial, I will, but I was not, and the Court of Appeals didn't even reach this issue.\nSo I must submit it again for this Court's consideration.\nBut let's assume for the sake of argument that this affidavit is a good one.\nLet's assume that it is not subject to attack.\nLet us assume that it meets the requirements of Ventresca.\nThen, I submit to you that you were saying to me that postal regulations and postal statutes don't mean a thing.\nA statute of United States government, when it applies to the government, has no meaning.\nWhen applied to a private citizen, they certainly clamp down on us and yet, statutory law itself says that the mail shall not be detained by any individual whatsoever, and yet these mails were detained.\nIt tells who may give information from them, and yet \u2013- and that would be the postal clerk to a post office inspector, look in the interim here.\nWe have these packages going to Captain Belgard, to a fireman yet, and I haven't figured that one out yet and last but not least, to Customs Officer O'Hearn.\nWhere is the postal inspector who's given the information?\nIf he had done so, then I wouldn't be here, but he didn't.\nThere is no postal inspector involved yet.\nWhere do we draw --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2471.585, 2476.409, 2486.196, 2499.569, 2530.024, 2534.509, 2538.454, 2552.979, 2555.347, 2559.003, 2564.309, 2568.765, 2574.026, 2576.756, 2580.029, 2594.292, 2598.797, 2612.513, 2623.637, 2637.393, 2640.663, 2644.319, 2648.095], "stop_times": [2476.409, 2486.196, 2499.569, 2530.024, 2534.509, 2538.454, 2552.979, 2555.347, 2559.003, 2564.309, 2568.765, 2574.026, 2576.756, 2580.029, 2594.292, 2598.797, 2612.513, 2623.637, 2637.393, 2640.663, 2644.319, 2648.095, 2648.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.585}, "reply_to": "15267__1_053", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_055", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Do they keep a postal inspector at this station?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2648.748], "stop_times": [2651.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.748}, "reply_to": "15267__1_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_056", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "They do, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2651.576], "stop_times": [2652.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.576}, "reply_to": "15267__1_055", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_057", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Permanently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2652.235], "stop_times": [2653.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.235}, "reply_to": "15267__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_058", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I don't know about permanently, but I know there was one involved because he did sign and witness the return on the search warrant.\nWhy it is that the government waited so long, I honestly do not know.\nPerhaps it was seeking more evidence than it had, but I submit to you that this is the beginning.\nThis case could be the wedge, and let us not have a wedge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2653.787, 2665.553, 2672.182, 2680.989], "stop_times": [2665.553, 2672.182, 2680.989, 2685.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.787}, "reply_to": "15267__1_057", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_059", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I think we'll stop at the wedge and take lunch, counsel.\nMr. Davis, you may continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2685.195, 2696.393], "stop_times": [2696.393, 2699.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.195}, "reply_to": "15267__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_060", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "If the Court please, the wedge I had for lunch was not the one I was instructing the Court on I hope.\nThe wedge I am thinking of is the specter preventive detention.\nThat specter arises in this case.\nIf the government is allowed to detain property, safeguard it under our Constitution for 29 hours, then it's but a short step to the preventive detention of the individual.\nAnd I can only \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2699.476, 2705.979, 2710.284, 2713.91, 2728.585], "stop_times": [2705.979, 2710.284, 2713.91, 2728.585, 2728.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2699.476}, "reply_to": "15267__1_059", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_061", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And we can always take care of that, can't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2728.838], "stop_times": [2731.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.838}, "reply_to": "15267__1_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__1_062", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I leave it in your able hands, sir.\nI'm sure it will be taken care in this case, too.\nBut the thing that does trouble me more than anything else is that we have a situation where a man does mail something, first class mail.\nBy definition, first class mail, and the issue is raised that there is no delay of printed or written matter.\nThis is true, but I ask of what relevance is it.\nAfter all, yesterday, I had the pleasure of viewing the whole diamond which was sent by registered mail and surely, there would've been some question asked if it hadn't made it to its destination, but then, we have a few other items that intrigued me.\nThe Shamel Case was brought up, and this dealt as I recall it with the stop and frisk of an individual.\nGranted this whole thing's put at standstill for a moment, but for a moment.\nThen it was dealing with something inherently dangerous, and that is that the man has something that could prove dangerous to the officer investigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2731.467, 2734.005, 2738.695, 2749.426, 2756.379, 2761.394, 2779.29, 2789.153, 2795.161], "stop_times": [2734.005, 2738.695, 2749.426, 2756.379, 2761.394, 2779.29, 2789.153, 2795.161, 2801.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2731.467}, "reply_to": "15267__1_061", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_063", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That's a \u2013- Terry against Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2801.979], "stop_times": [2804.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.979}, "reply_to": "15267__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__1_064", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Terry, I beg your pardon, sir, thank you.\nBut this is a case where the post office employees with others maintain the status quo, and I would submit to you that the postal authorities have no such authority.\nI have cited several statutes in the appendix to my brief.\nI'd ask the Court to review them carefully because they deal with this particular issue.\nWhat can the post office do? I have no qualms whatsoever with the government's argument as to the detention of personal property for a short period of time needed to get a search warrant.\nBut I submit that the short period of time of 29 hours, 24 hours after the facts necessary to get a search warrant issued, this is short.\nI cannot buy that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2804.167, 2807.218, 2818.148, 2822.317, 2827.972, 2841.804, 2855.991], "stop_times": [2807.218, 2818.148, 2822.317, 2827.972, 2841.804, 2855.991, 2861.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.167}, "reply_to": "15267__1_063", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_065", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Suppose there is no magistrate that's available for 29 hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2861.004], "stop_times": [2867.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2861.004}, "reply_to": "15267__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_066", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "If no magistrate were available for 29 hours and this could be shown, then I think there we have mitigating circumstances but I still would not like to say categorically that this is reasonable because always, there is a judge available, if not, a commissioner and in this case, there is a commissioner available not only in Seattle but in Bellingham.\nThere are three judges there in Seattle.\nAny one of them could have issued this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2867.162, 2891.028, 2893.744], "stop_times": [2891.028, 2893.744, 2895.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.162}, "reply_to": "15267__1_065", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_067", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Or you could have come to this Court, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2895.941], "stop_times": [2898.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.941}, "reply_to": "15267__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_068", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And this Court, I'm surely \u2013- for sure would have issued a warrant on the facts that they knew at 2:35.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2898.904], "stop_times": [2906.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.904}, "reply_to": "15267__1_067", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_069", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That's assuming you give us the jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2906.24], "stop_times": [2911.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.24}, "reply_to": "15267__1_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_070", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That I cannot do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2911.32], "stop_times": [2911.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.32}, "reply_to": "15267__1_069", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_071", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, get \u2013- I had great problems with the number of hours as being your only complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2911.873], "stop_times": [2920.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.873}, "reply_to": "15267__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_072", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "This is not my only complaint, sir.\nIt is the primary complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2920.695, 2922.834], "stop_times": [2922.834, 2923.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2920.695}, "reply_to": "15267__1_071", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_073", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Didn't you say that they could've gotten a warrant in two or three hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2923.154], "stop_times": [2927.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.154}, "reply_to": "15267__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_074", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2927.495], "stop_times": [2929.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.495}, "reply_to": "15267__1_073", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_075", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well then, what is your complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2929.436], "stop_times": [2932.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.436}, "reply_to": "15267__1_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_076", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "My complaint is that they didn't do it in two or three hours but did it in 25 to 27 hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2932.051], "stop_times": [2936.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.051}, "reply_to": "15267__1_075", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_077", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It is all \u2013- it's the point of 26 hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2936.398], "stop_times": [2939.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.398}, "reply_to": "15267__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_078", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That is correct, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2939.6], "stop_times": [2940.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.6}, "reply_to": "15267__1_077", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_079", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And that didn't affect the property.\nThe gold is still the same thing.\nNothing happened to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2940.416, 2942.521, 2945.341], "stop_times": [2942.521, 2945.341, 2947.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.416}, "reply_to": "15267__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_080", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "If I may analogize \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2947.518], "stop_times": [2948.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.518}, "reply_to": "15267__1_079", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_081", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Nothing happened to the place where was the gold because it was sent back, wasn't delivered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2948.394], "stop_times": [2955.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.394}, "reply_to": "15267__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_082", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "First, no one knew that this was gold.\nSecondly, we hit a problem here in that \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2955.57, 2959.016], "stop_times": [2959.016, 2963.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.57}, "reply_to": "15267__1_081", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_083", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "No, I'm saying that \u2013- what damage was done to him or his property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2963.013], "stop_times": [2969.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.013}, "reply_to": "15267__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_084", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "The damage that was done to him was that guarantee of our Constitution under the Fourth Amendment which applies to any man legally in this country, being a foreign national as this man was, a petty subject or not.\nAnd when the Constitution tells me, and I am to advise my client that his rights are protected and his papers and his personal effects are protected against an illegal seizure, and that this also applies to the mails but \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [2969.26, 2984.126], "stop_times": [2984.126, 3001.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.26}, "reply_to": "15267__1_083", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_085", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Does the Fourth Amendment require that to be obtained in less than 29 hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3001.753], "stop_times": [3007.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.753}, "reply_to": "15267__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_086", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I don't know that the Fourth Amendment speaks on this particular issue.\nI would submit that it is a matter of reasonableness, sir and the question arises where do reasonable men differ?\nOn the matter of a few hours, we can differ, but when we all have before us the facts necessary to issue a search warrant on the same day that the packages are mailed and we dilly-dally for an additional 24 hours, then I submit that this is unreasonable and it's merely a matter of where do we get reasonableness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3007.003, 3011.27, 3020.475], "stop_times": [3011.27, 3020.475, 3041.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.003}, "reply_to": "15267__1_085", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_087", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "You concede as I understand it, that there was reasonable cause for the issuance of -\u2013 probable cause for the issuance of a warrant on the day \u2013- on the previous day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3041.102], "stop_times": [3053.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.102}, "reply_to": "15267__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__1_088", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I do, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3053.896], "stop_times": [3055.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.896}, "reply_to": "15267__1_087", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_089", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And implicitly, as I gather, would have no complaint if a warrant had been issued and the \u2013- and the packages had been seized under that warrant on that day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3055.291], "stop_times": [3066.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.291}, "reply_to": "15267__1_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__1_090", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3066.321], "stop_times": [3069.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3066.321}, "reply_to": "15267__1_089", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_091", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well then, I particularly have this same difficulty as my brother Marshall has.\nI think you'd -\u2013 if there weren't \u2013- in other words, on the previous day, it was clear that there was reasonable cause to detain those packages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3069.149, 3074.516], "stop_times": [3074.516, 3087.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.149}, "reply_to": "15267__1_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__1_092", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Sir, that problem arises \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3087.467], "stop_times": [3088.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.467}, "reply_to": "15267__1_091", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_093", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Or the -- or what you concede, as I understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3088.506], "stop_times": [3090.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.506}, "reply_to": "15267__1_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15267__1_094", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "True, but the problem arises this way.\nThis is an analogy under the Fourth Amendment.\nWe're talking about mail, but if the Court should find that an additional 24 hours before the issuance of a search warrant is perfectly proper, then can't we analogize this to all other situations covered by the Fourth Amendment.\nTherefore, when the police have reason to believe that I have heroine stashed in my home and I am not there, it having been just delivered in, but still under my control being in my house, and they surround my house and they have the facts necessary within four hours, they can keep me out of my home for an additional 24 hours while they are gathering one additional fact that isn't even pertinent?\nThat's what would happen if that logic and reasoning were followed through to the end and I submit this is not proper under the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3090.953, 3093.847, 3096.338, 3112.136, 3141.7], "stop_times": [3093.847, 3096.338, 3112.136, 3141.7, 3152.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.953}, "reply_to": "15267__1_093", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_095", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And now, I could see between that case and this case if the heroine was in package at the post office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3152.718], "stop_times": [3159.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.718}, "reply_to": "15267__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_096", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "If the heroine were in the package at the post office, they have no right whatsoever to open it, and that happened in one case, once where a package did open.\nIn fact, two cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3159.004, 3170.795], "stop_times": [3170.795, 3171.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.004}, "reply_to": "15267__1_095", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_097", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "You mean that you can't open a package of heroine until you get a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3171.54], "stop_times": [3175.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.54}, "reply_to": "15267__1_096", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_098", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Oh no, sir.\nYou certainly can open it if you have a search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3175.912, 3176.698], "stop_times": [3176.698, 3178.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.912}, "reply_to": "15267__1_097", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_099", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, that's what -\u2013 that's this case.\nThey did get a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3178.594, 3180.037], "stop_times": [3180.037, 3181.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.594}, "reply_to": "15267__1_098", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_100", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "They got a search warrant but when did they get that search warrant?\nTo do so, sir, they had to violate three different statutes and several regulations.\nThe statutes are as follows.\nOne, the mail must go out the next outgoing shipment, and \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3181.893, 3184.531, 3191.836, 3193.75], "stop_times": [3184.531, 3191.836, 3193.75, 3197.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.893}, "reply_to": "15267__1_099", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_101", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Do I have the right of action every time my mail is held up for now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3197.532], "stop_times": [3202.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.532}, "reply_to": "15267__1_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_102", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I wish you did, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3202.313], "stop_times": [3204.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.313}, "reply_to": "15267__1_101", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_103", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I hope it's the damages, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3204.413], "stop_times": [3206.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.413}, "reply_to": "15267__1_102", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_104", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It would be nice if it were, but on this particular \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3206.887], "stop_times": [3209.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.887}, "reply_to": "15267__1_103", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_105", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Is that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3209.06], "stop_times": [3209.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.06}, "reply_to": "15267__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_106", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "There is nothing for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3209.702], "stop_times": [3211.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3209.702}, "reply_to": "15267__1_105", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_107", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It says that's not true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3211.069], "stop_times": [3212.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.069}, "reply_to": "15267__1_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_108", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That's true, but there I submit to you, sir, that this is an unintentional holding up.\nIf you knew that your mail were intentionally being delayed and such would be the outcome of this case whereas the Court of Appeals overturned, then your mail, my mail and every man's mail may be detained for a total of 29 hours at least until they investigate to see shall we send it on or shall we not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3212.283, 3218.876], "stop_times": [3218.876, 3241.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.283}, "reply_to": "15267__1_107", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_109", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Oh, Mr. Davis, I think that as possibility of a decision being written against you and not reach any of those things you are now talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3241.525], "stop_times": [3255.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.525}, "reply_to": "15267__1_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15267__1_110", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I'll take your word for it, sir.\nI see an inspector there that bothers me though.\nIt troubles me deeply to know that in this day of communications where we're constantly supplying the police with more inaccurate means of obtaining information that we turn around and give them the same leeway that they perhaps had a century ago when it isn't necessary, but no longer is necessary nor is it accountable.\nNow, they could've gotten a warrant and searched the packages at the other end.\nCertainly, they could.\nNow after all, if the mail is delayed en route without a purposeful detention, it would in our knowledge take them two or three days to get back east, or to California for that matter.\nThey know the addressee.\nCertainly, they had time to pick up these packages at that time.\nWhy didn't they do so?\nDoesn't this open up the possibility of forum shopping for a magistrate who will issue a search warrant?\nAre we going to allow this?\nI would submit that it is not allowable.\nNow, one issue that was brought up by the Solicitor General, he said that it's not being pressed as hearsay.\nI am pressing hearsay to the fullest extent possible.\nThis affidavit, a careful analysis shows it is based hearsay on hearsay.\nIt violates every rule laid down in this Court in Ventresca and in Jones as analyzed by Justice Douglas.\nIt doesn't meet these requirements, but I must assume arguendo that it does meet them, and then we get to the detention.\nNow, another thing was the suspicion that these coins came across from Canada.\nWell, if they came from within the United States, we wouldn't be here because there is no law that says you cannot have coins, gold coins as collector's item in the United States.\nIn fact, since this case first came about, our laws have grown greatly less strict as to the handling and having of gold coins.\nNow, we do not contend that the search was without a warrant -- without a warrant is valid.\nThis is true that the government does not contend this, but yet, what do we have?\nWe have essentially a seizure without a warrant.\nA seizure not for the few hours which the government says is necessary to obtain a search warrant, but a seizure for many hours after we have these facts.\nNow, is this plausible?\nIs it reasonable?\nCan reasonable men even differ on this point?\nBut now, we have one further argument, and that is where the goods are already in the custody of the United States, is it okay to preserve the status quo while the warrant is being obtained, and I would ask you why?\nWhy is such an argument?\nWhy is it reasonable?\nThese packages are placed with the United States Post Office in a form of trust.\nOur mail system, our whole system of communications in the United States would break down without that trust, and I submit that there's been a violation of statutory law laid down by the Congress and of Cong \u2013- or of regulations put down by the Postmaster General.\nAnd I know that I, as a taxpayer, if I violate a title of the taxes or any of the regulations, I stand a chance to be here on the regulations, but on the title, it's questionable.\nI will normally be knocked down and yet here we are saying in effect, you, the government, can do this and your hands will not be slapped.\nBut when a private individual do so, that he will have a $5,000.00 fine or five years in jail and I ask you, aren't we all men equal under the Constitution of the United States, foreigner or citizen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3255.342, 3258.711, 3262.549, 3284.926, 3289.502, 3290.495, 3304.698, 3306.387, 3311.04, 3313.001, 3319.615, 3322.49, 3326.369, 3332.872, 3337.607, 3345.679, 3356.332, 3367.248, 3371.316, 3381.282, 3397.059, 3401.6, 3405.405, 3409.842, 3422.058, 3423.812, 3425.726, 3430.75, 3440.881, 3442.114, 3444.964, 3451.0, 3467.723, 3480.199, 3491.399], "stop_times": [3258.711, 3262.549, 3284.926, 3289.502, 3290.495, 3304.698, 3306.387, 3311.04, 3313.001, 3319.615, 3322.49, 3326.369, 3332.872, 3337.607, 3345.679, 3356.332, 3367.248, 3371.316, 3381.282, 3397.059, 3401.6, 3405.405, 3409.842, 3422.058, 3423.812, 3425.726, 3430.75, 3440.881, 3442.114, 3444.964, 3451.0, 3467.723, 3480.199, 3491.399, 3508.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3255.342}, "reply_to": "15267__1_109", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_111", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, I suppose you'd be making the same argument if the \u2013- if the coins were seized after -\u2013 without delay \u2013- or without any delay at all, the coins were seized with a good search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3508.901], "stop_times": [3521.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.901}, "reply_to": "15267__1_110", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_112", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I would not be making this argument, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3521.555], "stop_times": [3524.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3521.555}, "reply_to": "15267__1_111", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_113", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, what's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3524.059], "stop_times": [3525.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3524.059}, "reply_to": "15267__1_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_114", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "The difference is the amount of time in which it is done, where reasonable cause \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3525.93], "stop_times": [3530.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3525.93}, "reply_to": "15267__1_113", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_115", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I know, but the postal regulations and the laws remain the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3530.036], "stop_times": [3533.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3530.036}, "reply_to": "15267__1_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_116", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "The postal re \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3533.522], "stop_times": [3533.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3533.522}, "reply_to": "15267__1_115", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_117", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And here is the government seizing the mail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3533.849], "stop_times": [3537.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.849}, "reply_to": "15267__1_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_118", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "This is correct but we have here the issue raised, we must detain while we obtain a search warrant, and I submit that it's already in the government's hands.\nThey have it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3537.583, 3548.061], "stop_times": [3548.061, 3548.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3537.583}, "reply_to": "15267__1_117", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_119", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "When would these packages have reached their destination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3548.237], "stop_times": [3550.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3548.237}, "reply_to": "15267__1_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_120", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Excuse me, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3550.874], "stop_times": [3551.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3550.874}, "reply_to": "15267__1_119", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_121", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "When would these packages have reached their destination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3551.546], "stop_times": [3556.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3551.546}, "reply_to": "15267__1_120", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_122", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "It takes airmail, for my brief, to reach this city \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3556.249], "stop_times": [3561.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3556.249}, "reply_to": "15267__1_121", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_123", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Well, how long --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3561.528], "stop_times": [3561.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3561.528}, "reply_to": "15267__1_122", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_124", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "\u2026approximately three days, and these were sent airmail.\nSo I would imagine three days to reach Mobile, Alabama.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3561.891, 3564.652], "stop_times": [3564.652, 3568.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3561.891}, "reply_to": "15267__1_123", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_125", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "And if the government just hadn't seized them at the point of origin, but had seized them at the destination, they would've had their warrant by then and they would've ended up with the same result as here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3568.008], "stop_times": [3582.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3568.008}, "reply_to": "15267__1_124", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15267__1_126", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "That's correct, but the question is do we begin at the beginning or at the end, and I submit that the government began in the wrong fashion in this case.\nThat's the whole problem.\nI don't fault the government for the work done.\nI fault them for the way in which they did it.\nThis man is guilty.\nJustice was done; he did a year in prison.\nHe's on parole now.\nI have no qualms about his having been in.\nI know he was guilty.\nHe's admitted it, but I submit that the law now must be kept straightened out as the Court of Appeals has so found.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3582.032, 3591.95, 3594.111, 3596.478, 3598.991, 3600.872, 3603.185, 3605.306, 3607.331, 3607.736, 3615.999], "stop_times": [3591.95, 3594.111, 3596.478, 3598.991, 3600.872, 3603.185, 3605.306, 3607.331, 3607.736, 3615.999, 3617.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3582.032}, "reply_to": "15267__1_125", "speaker": "craig_g_davis"}
{"id": "15267__1_127", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Davis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3617.525], "stop_times": [3622.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3617.525}, "reply_to": "15267__1_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15267__2_000", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "I have just two points that I would like to make.\nMr. Davis has referred to statutes which required the mail, as he has said to be forwarded promptly.\nActually, the statute is printed at the bottom of page 2 of the appendix to his brief, Section 710 of Title 39 of the United States Code and it reads, \u201cLetters brought for mailing to a post office and so forth shall be sent on.\nThis of course was not a letter.\nI don't regard this as of any great importance, but I do not think there was any violation of that statute in this case.\nAnd the other point I would make is \u2013-", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3622.927, 3627.668, 3637.484, 3656.486, 3659.158, 3667.301], "stop_times": [3627.668, 3637.484, 3656.486, 3659.158, 3667.301, 3668.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3622.927}, "reply_to": "15267__1_127", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__2_001", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "He then have penalty of failure to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3668.816], "stop_times": [3672.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3668.816}, "reply_to": "15267__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15267__2_002", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Sorry, Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3672.083], "stop_times": [3673.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3672.083}, "reply_to": "15267__2_001", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__2_003", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Is there a penalty of a failure to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3673.719], "stop_times": [3675.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3673.719}, "reply_to": "15267__2_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15267__2_004", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "No, this is an internal housekeeping part of the post office statute, a direction to postal employees.\nThere are other statutory provisions which make it a crime with penalties attached to interfere with the mails, but I understand them to be directed to outsiders, to persons who obstruct the mails in one way or another and not to postal employees.\nNow, the other point that I would like to make is simply this.\nIt would seem that Mr. Davis' real complaint is that the warrant was not obtained on March 28, rather on March 29.\nI think it could be that warrant could have been obtained on March 28 and that I don't think I would have too much difficulty in seeking to defend it here, if it had been.\nI would point out that the information then available related to only one of the packages, which might have been enough to establish a crime, but not enough to seize the other package.\nWhat I would hope would be that the Court would leave a little leeway here, not to setup a rule which would mean that the instant you really now have enough, you must then and there go in and get it because the lines are not easy to draw here.\nThey are hard to draw long after the event and the calm deliberation of this Court.\nThey are much harder to draw for the individual officer on the scene who has to decide whether \u201cwell, if I go in now, will it be found that I did not have enough?\nHere, the officer was careful.\nHe did no harm in the process of being careful.\nIt seems to me he ought to be commended for having done a fine work and that the delay which was involved was reasonable and should not be held to invalidate the seizure in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3675.681, 3685.089, 3704.598, 3708.472, 3720.043, 3731.992, 3744.426, 3760.833, 3766.402, 3778.32, 3780.666, 3783.856], "stop_times": [3685.089, 3704.598, 3708.472, 3720.043, 3731.992, 3744.426, 3760.833, 3766.402, 3778.32, 3780.666, 3783.856, 3802.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3675.681}, "reply_to": "15267__2_003", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "15267__2_005", "conversation_id": "15267", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Solicitor General.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_403", "start_times": [3802.175, 3804.283], "stop_times": [3804.283, 3807.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3802.175}, "reply_to": "15267__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__0_000", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "United States against Webb and others.\nMr. Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [0.0, 12.147], "stop_times": [12.147, 13.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__0_001", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis is a federal tax case involving the application of the Social Security Old Age Tax and the Federal Unemployment Tax to the owners of ships with respect to captains and crew members who fish off the South Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico for Manhattan.\nManhattan are a frequently encountered fish which is not regarded as edible by humans, but which is caught in large quantities and processed into fish meal and fish oil which are used primarily for fertilizer or for feeding poultry and other livestock.\nThe case comes here on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.\nThe statutory provisions involved are set forth in the appendix to the Government's brief at pages 39 to 41.\nBefore stating the facts, it will be helpful I think to put the precise terms of the statute before the Court.\nThe Old Age Tax is imposed by Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code and is in terms at equal to the following percentage of the wages paid by him with respect to employment.\nAnd then in Section 3121, the term wages is defined.\nNow, wages means all remuneration for employment and then in 3121 (d), there is a definition of the term employee to include any individual who under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship has the status of an employee.\nIn this setting out in our brief of the statutory provisions, we omitted one at this point which may have some conceivable application.\nIt is in Section 3121 (b) (4) and it provides that employment shall not include services performed by an individual on or in connection with a vessel, not an American vessel or in connect or in connection with an aircraft, not an American aircraft, if (a) the individual is employed on and in connection with such vessel or aircraft went outside the United States and (b) such individual is not a citizen of the United States or the employer is not an American employer.\nNow, that's entirely an exclusionary provision.\nIt leaves only the inference that it was intended to apply to American citizens employed on American vessels by -- owned by American owners --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [13.905, 19.898, 48.607, 78.724, 93.289, 104.208, 115.424, 134.379, 140.808, 172.039, 186.153, 228.78, 232.001], "stop_times": [19.898, 48.607, 78.724, 93.289, 104.208, 115.424, 134.379, 140.808, 172.039, 186.153, 228.78, 232.001, 244.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.905}, "reply_to": "14880__0_000", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_002", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, you said that was (b) (4) or (d) (4)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [244.966], "stop_times": [248.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.966}, "reply_to": "14880__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14880__0_003", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That is (b) (4).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [248.46], "stop_times": [249.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.46}, "reply_to": "14880__0_002", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_004", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [249.68], "stop_times": [250.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.68}, "reply_to": "14880__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "14880__0_005", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "3121 (b) (4) contains a negative pregnant that Americans employed on American owned vessels are covered.\nI would say as Mr. Lyman will remind you that that is still subject to the definition of employment or employee in Section 3121 (d).\nNow, that's the Old Age Tax, there is also an Unemployment Insurance Tax.\nThe Old Age Tax you will recall is imposed on both the employer and the employee with the employer under obligation to withhold the employee's share and pay over the total to the treasury.\nThe Unemployment Tax is imposed only on the employer and there again, it is imposed at a percentage of the total wages paid by him during the calendar year with respect to employment.\nThis appears on page 40 in the appendix to our brief.\nThe term wages is defined to mean all remuneration for employment.\nAnd again, we have the term employment defined here saying there's somewhat more complicated manner.\nEmployment is defined as any service performed -- any service of whatever nature performed after 1954 by an employee for the person employing him; (b) on or in connection with an American vessel and then you come to the end of that at the top of page 41, except and this gets very involved because this exception I'm about to state is then subject to an exception itself, except service performed by an individual in or as an officer or a member of the crew of a vessel while it is engaged in the catching, harvesting, cultivating or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish and so on and here's the next exception, except (b) service performed on or in connection with a vessel of more than ten tons.\nSo they take out all fishing, but then they except from that take out service on vessels of more than ten tons.\nAnd all of the vessels involved in this case were of more than ten tons so that it comes within the exception to the exception and thus is included in the definition of employment.\nBut again, it's subject to the provision in Section 3306 (i) that for purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer of a corporation, but does not include any individual who under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship has the status of an independent contractor or (2) any individual who is not an employee under such common law rules.\nNow, that is the statutory setup.\nIt is part of a large whole but one can focus rather closely on those provisions; one in the Old Age Tax and one in the Unemployment Tax which -- by which Congress has emphasized that the test of employment is the common law -- the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [250.537, 265.852, 281.004, 285.842, 301.914, 317.732, 323.258, 329.39, 338.082, 402.474, 411.053, 423.386, 460.808, 468.586], "stop_times": [265.852, 281.004, 285.842, 301.914, 317.732, 323.258, 329.39, 338.082, 402.474, 411.053, 423.386, 460.808, 468.586, 500.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.537}, "reply_to": "14880__0_004", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_006", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, as I read this now under your guidance, I gather that we come right down with respect to both taxes to the definition of employee in each case, don't we?\nIn other words, this definition of unemployment under the second tax, we really end up that the door by which we're heading, it doesn't add or subtract much of anything, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [500.686, 517.167], "stop_times": [517.167, 528.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.686}, "reply_to": "14880__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_007", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I think -- I think that's exactly it except that I would say that this definition comes as a piece of a mosaic which also includes some references to fishing and ships and boats of more than ten tons and thus, it is perfectly plain that Congress did not intend to exclude employment on the ship such as are involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [528.714], "stop_times": [558.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.714}, "reply_to": "14880__0_006", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_008", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [558.997], "stop_times": [559.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.997}, "reply_to": "14880__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_009", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "But I fully agree that a large part of the problem before the Court is the application of this common law test specified in the statute to the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [559.228], "stop_times": [571.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.228}, "reply_to": "14880__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_010", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "And the test of the definition of the word employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [571.942], "stop_times": [576.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.942}, "reply_to": "14880__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_011", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The determining whether these people are employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [576.781], "stop_times": [580.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.781}, "reply_to": "14880__0_010", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_012", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Under 3121 (d) and under --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [580.542], "stop_times": [585.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.542}, "reply_to": "14880__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_013", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "3306 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [585.658], "stop_times": [586.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.658}, "reply_to": "14880__0_012", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_014", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "3301 (i), (b) (i).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [586.154], "stop_times": [592.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.154}, "reply_to": "14880__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_015", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [592.796], "stop_times": [593.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.796}, "reply_to": "14880__0_014", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_016", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [593.691], "stop_times": [595.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.691}, "reply_to": "14880__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_017", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Now, this case was tried before the District Court without a jury.\nThere was an extensive stipulation of facts.\nThere were also depositions and evidence on all of which, the District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law.\nThe underlying facts are essentially not in dispute and they maybe summarized as follows.\nThe fishing involved in this case was partly in the South Atlantic Coast and partly in the Gulf of Mexico.\nThere are 14 respondents in five cases which were consolidated in the court below.\nEach owns one or more boats which Fish for Manhattan, their cost varying between $24,000.00 and $157,000.00.\nIn other words, the respondents all have substantial capital invested in the enterprise.\nThe respondents sell the fish to processing plants.\nThe respondents who not only own the boats, keep them fully equipped, paid for all their repairs and paid for insurance on the boats.\nThey paid for fuel for the boats, all of the fuel for the boats.\nThe method of operation was one which has an ancient history in the fishing business.\nIt seems to go back three or four centuries at least.\nIt's called the \u201clay system.\u201d\nThere are some variations, but the owner of the boat from people whom he knows secures the services of an experienced fishermen as a captain of the vessel.\nHe is selected because of his honesty and experience and his ability to enlist and organize and supervise a crew.\nWhen the captain has been chosen, he arranges a crew and here I would like to turn to some of the findings of the District Court so that there can be no suggestion that I am not representing the facts adequately.\nFinding 13 on page 320 of the record, the arrangement between the plaintiffs and each captain was entirely oral.\nThe term of the arrangement was not specified, but it was understood to persist for a fishing season.\nIt could be terminated by either party voluntarily or involuntarily at the conclusion of any trip during the season.\nThat seems to me to show a great potentiality for a control by the boat owners, but this could occur only when a boat was in port and before another fishing trip was commenced.\nWhile the arrangement could be so terminated, custom and practice was for it to be continued for the season.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [595.012, 600.629, 604.929, 615.074, 627.546, 637.322, 644.928, 657.589, 665.602, 673.75, 686.143, 691.525, 697.844, 700.956, 703.708, 719.308, 735.407, 757.457, 768.576, 775.231, 784.399, 797.968], "stop_times": [600.629, 604.929, 615.074, 627.546, 637.322, 644.928, 657.589, 665.602, 673.75, 686.143, 691.525, 697.844, 700.956, 703.708, 719.308, 735.407, 757.457, 768.576, 775.231, 784.399, 797.968, 805.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.012}, "reply_to": "14880__0_016", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_018", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I suppose Mr. Solicitor General that it could also be argued that that flexibility also gave the master of the vessel quite a bit of control in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [805.222], "stop_times": [815.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.222}, "reply_to": "14880__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__0_019", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Inevitably Mr. Chief Justice and that of course I suppose is inherent in the post of being the master of a vessel while it is at sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [815.694], "stop_times": [825.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.694}, "reply_to": "14880__0_018", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_020", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, I was thinking in terms of his power to terminate the contract at the end of any voyage --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [825.723], "stop_times": [833.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.723}, "reply_to": "14880__0_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__0_021", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes, I suppose any employee ordinarily can quit at any reasonable time.\nThat doesn't negate the fact that he is an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [833.734, 840.557], "stop_times": [840.557, 845.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.734}, "reply_to": "14880__0_020", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_022", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "What is tenure of the trips typically?\nIs it just one day trips?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [845.394, 847.79], "stop_times": [847.79, 849.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.394}, "reply_to": "14880__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_023", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The trips were ordinarily one day in the Gulf.\nThey occasionally were longer in the South Atlantic, particularly in the winter.\nAt this time, there were not refrigerated ships although there are now and the controlling factor, the Manhattan being quickly perishable, the controlling factor was the temperature.\nIn the Gulf, the temperature is always high and the trips were one day.\nThe evidence shows that in the South Atlantic, they occasionally lasted three or four days.\nThey were ordinarily short trips.\nNow I call attention to finding 22 on page 323.\nIn negotiating for the service of a captain, it was understood that the captain would select the crew members.\nPrior to commencement of a new season, the tax payers who are the boat owners and the respondents here would furnish the captain with the pay scale of crew members and the crew size to be employed for the season.\nIf a bonus was to be paid for fishing the entire season, this information also was furnished to captains.\nSo I point out that the owners here fixed the -- I can't quite say the rate of pay because under the lay system, the men are paid so much for a thousand pounds of the catch but they fix the rate per thousand pounds that the men were to be paid.\nAnd then I call attention to finding 24 on page 324, defendant contended and the plaintiff denied that the captain was required to pay a crew member not less than the scale established by the plaintiff.\nThe testimony of the various captains leave no doubt that the plaintiff not only fixed the pay scale of the crew, but also the number of the crewmen to be hired and finally of the findings, I would refer to finding 46 on page 333.\nThe plaintiffs did have the right to control the results of a captain's work and interfered in the process to some degree to assure a proper result from the undertaking.\nNext, I would like to point out that the evidence is clear that the captains were required to obtain from each crewman, the evidence says a W-2 form, but the W-2 form is the one by which you report to the individual at the end of the year what has been withheld.\nIt is actually this familiar W-4 form which is the employee's withholding exemption certificate and then it was also a part of the procedure duly established and carried out that the captains at the end of each trip turned in the data with respect to the crewmen showing which crewmen had served and what the amount of the catch had been and what the rate per thousand pounds was for each crewman.\nAnd in our reply brief, we have reproduced exhibits one and two which were introduced into evidence in the court below and about which there is no controversy or dispute.\nThese show that for each individual, what is headed at the top a payroll and they show the amount of fish caught, the rate for each man, the total payment, the Social Security Tax withheld, the income tax withheld, the amount deducted for each individual for his share of the cost of food because the crewmen paid for the food, the amount deducted for advances which had previously been made, the other deductions which were because as I understand it, the crewmen paid $5.00 each to provide the pay of the cook -- the cook being thought of as providing their meals which were their responsibility.\nFinally, the balance and then also at the bottom of the second sheet of exhibit one are shown the other checks which were issued which included payment for the food and these under -- according to the record were all the ship owner's checks, the respondent's checks here.\nThey got all the money and they paid all the bills.\nAnd finally, exhibit two which is at the back shows the individual record which was kept for each member of the crew, again showing these deductions which are aggregated at the bottom of the page for the whole year so that they could be duly reported to the individual on the form W-2 the amount of deductions for Social Security Tax, for income tax and for other matters.\nNow, let me point out that this -- the fact that this case is here, it seems to me to be an instance of the difficulty we sometimes get into in this country in administering relatively simple matters.\nIt is nearly 30 years ago that the treasury issued a ruling with respect to this situation saying that captains and crewmen operating under the lay system are employees and are subject to the Social Security Tax.\nThis is SST Social Security Tax 387 which was published in the Accumulative Bulletin for 1940 Volume 1 and this is cited in our brief.\nIn addition, this Court had decided cases like the Silt Case in 331 US which involved another group of relatively simple workmen.\nThey were coal unloaders there.\nThey furnished their own picks and shovels.\nIn this case, the men furnished nothing except their foul weather gear which would be boots and raincoats.\nIn the Silt Case, this Court reversed both of the lower courts and held that the coal unloaders were employees.\nIn addition to the Silt Case, there are of course many cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the National Labor Relations Act.\nNow, it will be said by Mr. Lyman that neither the Silt Case nor SST 387 are relevant because they were both issued before the Congress amended the statute in 1948.\nAnd it was in 1948 that Congress put in this language about the common law test to which Mr. Justice Stewart referred awhile ago.\nBut as is pointed in our brief at the time that Congress put this into the statute, the legislative history plainly showed that Congress was endorsing the Silt Case.\nIt referred to the -- on page 15 of our brief is a quotation from the Senate Report.\nIn the view of your committee, these decisions affirm that the usual common law rules realistically applied must be used to determine whether a person is an employee for purposes of applying the Social Security Tax.\nAnd in 1950, two years later referring to the situation, the House -- the Conference Report said a restricted view of the employer-employee relationship should not be taken in the administration of the federal old age and survivors' insurance system in making coverage determinations.\nSo I find nothing to indicate that the language of the statute put in 1948 was intended to repeal or overrule the Silt Case, nothing to indicate that the early administrative interpretation should not be followed.\nI would point out that we are here dealing with a maritime employment.\nWe're necessarily concerned with the customs of the sea and the law of the sea.\nUnder the law of the sea it's perfectly plain that this captains and crewmen would be entitled to maintenance and cure, would be entitled to a protection under the Jones Act.\nThe proposition that captains and crews under the lay system are employees for purposes of the Social Security Taxes has been accepted by the Court of Claims in two cases, cited at page 37 of our brief.\nOne involving fishing for scallops from New Bedford and the other involving fishing for shrimp and oysters in the Gulf of Mexico and also by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming per curiam in opinion by Judge Genio in the District of Maine involving a fishing trawler operating out of Portland, Maine.\nThe only problem has been in the Fifth Circuit and there are things got off to a bad start in Enochs against the Williams Packing and Navigation Company, cited on page 37 of our brief.\nThat was a suit to enjoin the collection of these taxes in circumstances essentially the same as those here and both the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the Enochs case allowed the injunction.\nThat involved, as far as both courts were concerned, a determination that these people were not employees.\nWhen the case came here, this Court reversed, holding that it was not appropriate to disregard the statute and ignore the restriction on injunctions against the collection of taxes, but there is that left standing the rest of the Fifth Circuit decision.\nAnd in the Crawford Packing case, cited on page 37 and in this case, the Court of Appeals has understandably continued to follow its decision in the Enochs' case, otherwise repudiated by this Court that these people were not employees.\nNow, even under the common law test, even if it's given a narrow construction, we contend that these captains and crewmen came within.\nHere, all of the capital came from the ship owners.\nThey owned the ships.\nThey paid for their repairs and for their fuel.\nThey paid for the nets which cost some $10,000.00.\nAll the men provided was their foul weather gear, boots and slickers and the like.\nThey did not even provide picks and shovels as in the Silt case.\nThe rate of compensation of the captains and crews was fixed by the owners.\nThe size of the crews were determined by the owners.\nThe captains could change this, but only at the expense of themselves or of all the crew.\nThe owners were the entrepreneurs, they were in charge, they fixed the pay scale.\nThe owners paid the bills.\nThey were the only ones that had money in hand for the purpose.\nThey took out insurance and took the gain of the price when fish went up and took the risk of loss.\nThey were clearly in-charge and that should be enough when the statute is realistically applied.\nEven under a strict view of the common law test and when this question arises in the maritime setting as it does here, that conclusion becomes even more clear.\nThere are three ways it seems to me that this case can be decided; one is practical and workable.\nThe others lead only to uncertainty and confusion.\nNow first, the Court can hold that the captains and the crews were the employee's of the owners thus reversing the decision below.\nThat's what the parties actually did here.\nThat makes the Social Security System realistic and workable as applied to these workers who have no capital investment, no management of the enterprise.\nThat puts the paperwork of withholding and tax paying work and practically be handled as it was handled in this case.\nOr second, the Court can hold that the captains and crews are not employees of the ship owners.\nThat would eliminate withholding of income tax under of worker's share Old Age Tax and it would eliminate payment of Old Age Tax and Unemployment Tax by the owners.\nThis can be set forth.\nPeople would know where they stood, but it would mean that the captains and the crews would have to pay their income tax without withholding and would have to pay self employment tax at an increased rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [849.708, 853.709, 858.732, 870.881, 876.957, 882.065, 884.986, 890.765, 897.243, 912.386, 920.346, 945.813, 963.18, 984.71, 999.442, 1024.698, 1060.744, 1077.648, 1127.608, 1151.976, 1156.469, 1191.944, 1212.886, 1234.836, 1252.312, 1268.677, 1271.917, 1274.514, 1284.275, 1294.135, 1304.288, 1317.71, 1329.547, 1347.636, 1361.691, 1377.696, 1405.347, 1425.047, 1429.597, 1437.627, 1451.797, 1470.153, 1494.793, 1509.676, 1525.939, 1533.247, 1555.253, 1574.738, 1584.51, 1587.235, 1588.521, 1591.867, 1595.826, 1601.576, 1606.458, 1610.477, 1613.835, 1619.846, 1626.821, 1628.957, 1632.723, 1639.735, 1646.263, 1658.76, 1666.564, 1670.315, 1679.565, 1682.535, 1692.553, 1700.671, 1706.965, 1717.957, 1720.041], "stop_times": [853.709, 858.732, 870.881, 876.957, 882.065, 884.986, 890.765, 897.243, 912.386, 920.346, 945.813, 963.18, 984.71, 999.442, 1024.698, 1060.744, 1077.648, 1127.608, 1151.976, 1156.469, 1191.944, 1212.886, 1234.836, 1252.312, 1268.677, 1271.917, 1274.514, 1284.275, 1294.135, 1304.288, 1317.71, 1329.547, 1347.636, 1361.691, 1377.696, 1405.347, 1425.047, 1429.597, 1437.627, 1451.797, 1470.153, 1494.793, 1509.676, 1525.939, 1533.247, 1555.253, 1574.738, 1584.51, 1587.235, 1588.521, 1591.867, 1595.826, 1601.576, 1606.458, 1610.477, 1613.835, 1619.846, 1626.821, 1628.957, 1632.723, 1639.735, 1646.263, 1658.76, 1666.564, 1670.315, 1679.565, 1682.535, 1692.553, 1700.671, 1706.965, 1717.957, 1720.041, 1732.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.708}, "reply_to": "14880__0_022", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_024", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Is there any chance that the crew would be -- the members of the crew would be employees of the captain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1732.068], "stop_times": [1736.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.068}, "reply_to": "14880__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_025", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I suppose so, I don't know.\nThere is some suggestion that Mr. Lyman suggests in his brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1736.641, 1738.898], "stop_times": [1738.898, 1743.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1736.641}, "reply_to": "14880__0_024", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_026", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That they'd be probable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1743.69], "stop_times": [1743.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.69}, "reply_to": "14880__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_027", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "-- that they would be self employed and pay their own tax which seems to me to be quite unrealistic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1743.806], "stop_times": [1750.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1743.806}, "reply_to": "14880__0_026", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_028", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I think if they're not employees of these respondents, they would be employees of the captain, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1750.096], "stop_times": [1757.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.096}, "reply_to": "14880__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_029", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That could be but that isn't the way the captain thinks of it.\nHe doesn't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1757.356, 1760.838], "stop_times": [1760.838, 1761.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1757.356}, "reply_to": "14880__0_028", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_030", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "He wouldn't like it, I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1761.338], "stop_times": [1761.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.338}, "reply_to": "14880__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__0_031", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "-- maintain employment records and carry on relations with the union and things of that kind.\nAnd finally, the question could be left for the decision of the trier of the facts in each case.\nThat is what has happened so far in the Fifth Circuit.\nIt happened for example in the Enochs' case when it went back to the District Court after this Court's decision that the collection of the tax could not be enjoined, but that way it's chaos.\nA jury verdict establishes no rule.\nIt would not bind others now would it bind the same parties on slightly different facts.\nThere have been numerous jury verdicts on this question in the fifth Circuit and they give no guidance to anyone.\nThat approach makes it impossible for the treasury to administer the statute in a fair and consistent manner and makes it equally impossible for boat owners or captains or crew members to know what their responsibilities are.\nThere's no dispute as to the facts in this case.\nMost of the facts were stipulated.\nThere was evidence but there's no contradiction in the evidence.\nThough we would have put some of the matters somewhat differently, the Government accepts the findings of fact made by the District Court.\nOur position is that those findings lead as a matter of law to the conclusion that the captains and crews here were employees of the owners of the ships who provided the means and made the rules and took the money and paid the bills.\nAccordingly, we urge that the judgment below should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1761.488, 1769.158, 1776.493, 1780.057, 1792.5, 1795.616, 1801.189, 1807.832, 1820.942, 1823.523, 1826.058, 1829.682, 1836.522, 1852.817], "stop_times": [1769.158, 1776.493, 1780.057, 1792.5, 1795.616, 1801.189, 1807.832, 1820.942, 1823.523, 1826.058, 1829.682, 1836.522, 1852.817, 1856.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1761.488}, "reply_to": "14880__0_030", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14880__0_032", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Solicitor General.\nMr. Lyman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1856.97, 1861.494], "stop_times": [1861.494, 1873.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.97}, "reply_to": "14880__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__1_000", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe respondents say that the only question of substance here is whether the concurrent findings of fact of the District Court and the Court of Appeals below are amply supported by the record.\nAnd whether those courts applied the proper legal standards in reaching the conclusion of law or whether the findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.\nNow, these cases are suits for refund of Federal Employment Taxes erroneously paid on the earnings of certain fishermen who used and operated the respondent's Manhattan vessels.\nNow, the sole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1873.778, 1878.428, 1892.121, 1903.715, 1915.472], "stop_times": [1878.428, 1892.121, 1903.715, 1915.472, 1916.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.778}, "reply_to": "14880__0_032", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_001", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Do you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1916.26], "stop_times": [1916.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.26}, "reply_to": "14880__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_002", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1916.505], "stop_times": [1917.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.505}, "reply_to": "14880__1_001", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_003", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Excuse me.\nDo you contend the conclusion of the finding of no employment relationship is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous rule or is it a legal question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1917.065, 1917.569], "stop_times": [1917.569, 1935.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.065}, "reply_to": "14880__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_004", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "A mixed question of law in fact I believe Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1935.67], "stop_times": [1938.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.67}, "reply_to": "14880__1_003", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_005", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, what if it is?\nWhat about on review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1938.812, 1942.145], "stop_times": [1942.145, 1944.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.812}, "reply_to": "14880__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_006", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would say that on review that where a statute would preclude the decision of the District Court, I would say that would be a question of law and reviewable on appeal where the statute would preclude the decision.\nHowever, where fact elements are concerned in this mixed question, the reviewing courts are bound by the clearly erroneous rule and a reviewing court will set aside a trial court's decision only when the facts found fall short at meeting the statutory requirements.\nI believe that was this Court's ruling in Trust of Bingham --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1944.227, 1967.064, 1985.674], "stop_times": [1967.064, 1985.674, 1989.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.227}, "reply_to": "14880__1_005", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_007", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "What that means is that the court accepts the historical facts found unless they're clearly erroneous, but then it's a question of law as to whether they meet the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1989.29], "stop_times": [1999.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.29}, "reply_to": "14880__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_008", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [1999.905], "stop_times": [2001.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.905}, "reply_to": "14880__1_007", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_009", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "So there is no clearly erroneous rule in reviewing that conclusion of the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2001.161], "stop_times": [2009.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.161}, "reply_to": "14880__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_010", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I don't see how it could be there, no Your Honor, that's correct.\nWell, the sole issue before the District Court was whether the boat owners, also the respondents here reliable for the excise tax portion of the employment taxes imposed on their earnings of the fishermen and that's the captains and the crewmen.\nNow, the respondent's liability or non-liability for these taxes depended upon the definition of the term employee and that term is defined in two sections of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which adopt the common law control test.\nNow, the trial court held that the tax per owners had proved their claims for refund and as a consequence, the fishermen were not their employees under those statutes, for other purposes it may have been, but under those statutes, they weren't.\nNow, the trial court resolved all issues under these statutes.\nAll issues of facts in favor to the boat owners and particularly, those issues as to the absence of control over the manner and method in which the work was done.\nNow, the Circuit Court refused to set aside the trial court's findings and conclusions since they were the result of a choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence and held they were not clearly erroneous.\nNow, the District Court made 51 separately numbered detailed findings and covering about 19 pages of this record.\nBriefly, I would say the needle points as far as our presentation is concerned would be this.\nThe respondents were owners of Manhattan boats.\nThey equipped and maintained them, repaired them for commercial fishing purposes.\nThey contracted with the captains to gather the fish.\nNow, an owner would relinquish complete control of that boat to a captain.\nThe captain would then staff it with his own crew, his own organization which consisted of mast to bow mates engineers, pilots, experienced net man, and a cook or maybe two.\nThe captain will then provision the boat at his own expense and anyway that he saw fit and all of these was without any interference by the owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2009.079, 2013.45, 2031.106, 2048.619, 2065.165, 2069.154, 2080.938, 2098.085, 2106.528, 2113.401, 2116.817, 2122.629, 2127.579, 2133.559, 2148.24], "stop_times": [2013.45, 2031.106, 2048.619, 2065.165, 2069.154, 2080.938, 2098.085, 2106.528, 2113.401, 2116.817, 2122.629, 2127.579, 2133.559, 2148.24, 2156.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.079}, "reply_to": "14880__1_009", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_011", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "You mean the provision, you mean groceries and foods?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2156.942], "stop_times": [2159.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.942}, "reply_to": "14880__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_012", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Groceries, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2159.918], "stop_times": [2162.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.918}, "reply_to": "14880__1_011", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_013", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "And those were deducted from his share of the take?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2162.226], "stop_times": [2168.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.226}, "reply_to": "14880__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_014", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "No, he paid those out of his own pocket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2168.466], "stop_times": [2170.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.466}, "reply_to": "14880__1_013", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_015", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, that's what I mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2170.302], "stop_times": [2170.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.302}, "reply_to": "14880__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_016", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2170.979], "stop_times": [2173.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.979}, "reply_to": "14880__1_015", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_017", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "But the old -- if no fish were caught, the captain was out at the groceries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2173.148], "stop_times": [2179.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.148}, "reply_to": "14880__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_018", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That's right.\nMany times that's happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2179.7, 2180.834], "stop_times": [2180.834, 2182.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.7}, "reply_to": "14880__1_017", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_019", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "So he took the risk of loss and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2182.716], "stop_times": [2184.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.716}, "reply_to": "14880__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_020", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2184.856], "stop_times": [2185.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.856}, "reply_to": "14880__1_019", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_021", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "--in this enterprise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2185.779], "stop_times": [2186.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.779}, "reply_to": "14880__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_022", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes Your Honor", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2186.599], "stop_times": [2188.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.599}, "reply_to": "14880__1_021", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_023", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Only for the groceries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2188.054], "stop_times": [2189.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.054}, "reply_to": "14880__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_024", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Groceries or that would be all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2189.702], "stop_times": [2193.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.702}, "reply_to": "14880__1_023", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_025", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Because fuel and other things --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2193.728], "stop_times": [2195.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.728}, "reply_to": "14880__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_026", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "No, those were all paid by the owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2195.548], "stop_times": [2198.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.548}, "reply_to": "14880__1_025", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_027", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "But the captain -- and also, I suppose that the -- that the -- well, the crew members were paid also when the fish were caught weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2198.485], "stop_times": [2208.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.485}, "reply_to": "14880__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_028", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2208.544], "stop_times": [2209.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.544}, "reply_to": "14880__1_027", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_029", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2209.092], "stop_times": [2209.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.092}, "reply_to": "14880__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_030", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Your Honor, just to bring that up, the crew members are paid out of the pocket of the captain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2209.612], "stop_times": [2214.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.612}, "reply_to": "14880__1_029", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_031", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Oh yes but only if fish -- he didn't owe them anything unless they caught some fish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2214.109], "stop_times": [2217.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.109}, "reply_to": "14880__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_032", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That's correct.\nI want to correct one -- correct -- just want to give my view of Mr. Griswold's statement that this was a lay system.\nThis wasn't a lay system at all.\nThis was a pure sale.\nIn other words, when a fish boat came in and the captain came in with a large catch, he sold that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2217.362, 2218.445, 2227.532, 2229.018, 2230.808], "stop_times": [2218.445, 2227.532, 2229.018, 2230.808, 2237.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.362}, "reply_to": "14880__1_031", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_033", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "To the owner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2237.775], "stop_times": [2238.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.775}, "reply_to": "14880__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_034", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "To the owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2238.305], "stop_times": [2239.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.305}, "reply_to": "14880__1_033", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_035", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "And then the owner sold to the plant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2239.109], "stop_times": [2241.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.109}, "reply_to": "14880__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14880__1_036", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The owner and the plant had another arrangement or some kind.\nThe plant was not a party to this suit and it's important that the plant was not a party to this suit because in one of these findings which Mr. Griswold mentioned, he said that the respondents made a payroll record, that wasn't so.\nThe plant made up his payroll records.\nThe plant was in the middle acting as agent you might say for the captain and also for the owners because it was to the plant's interest to get as many of these people to bring fish in as possible.\nWell anyway, the captain agreed without a guarantee of any kind to make fishing trips for a season and return the catches to the plants that were owned by the parties who were not parties to this suit.\nNow, the price that the owner paid to the captain was agreed upon between the owner and the captain and this was if the Court please, a bilateral decision after negotiations.\nThis wasn't something I said I'm going to give you this much and that's all you get, this was a give and take proposition.\nThe prices differed with the seasons and even differed among owners and captains.\nBut once a price was fixed for a season, it remained that price during that season.\nNow, there was nothing in the arrangements which indicated that a captain would be offered a boat beyond a single season or that he would promise a fisher boat for anybody else beyond the single season.\nThere is no connotative relationship here in any meaningful sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2241.055, 2243.297, 2257.682, 2259.665, 2272.527, 2285.464, 2294.899, 2301.202, 2309.605, 2314.963, 2326.569], "stop_times": [2243.297, 2257.682, 2259.665, 2272.527, 2285.464, 2294.899, 2301.202, 2309.605, 2314.963, 2326.569, 2330.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.055}, "reply_to": "14880__1_035", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_037", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, did he promise to fish it beyond a single voyage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2330.081], "stop_times": [2335.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.081}, "reply_to": "14880__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__1_038", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes, I would say that it was contemplated here that they would take it for the season which was about four to five months or six months depending where they were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2335.652], "stop_times": [2343.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.652}, "reply_to": "14880__1_037", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_039", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "But terminable at will by either parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2343.969], "stop_times": [2346.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.969}, "reply_to": "14880__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14880__1_040", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes, but as a practical matter if the Court please, if the boat is equipped and ready to go and there are plenty of fish out there and the captain has his organization, I cannot imagine that an owner would just willy nilly fire a captain and leave a profitable venture sitting at the dock.\nIf any one is going to quit, it would be the captain.\nOf course if the fish disappeared or captain fell ill, of course that might end the voyage.\nBut the owner, he hoped and prayed the captain would stay and he had a good crew and that he wouldn't lose the crew.\nNow, these captains were free to perform these services for any boat owner anywhere at anytime.\nThere was no suggestion if the owners had a preferred call and the time or efforts of these captains.\nNow, the crew was hired and paid by the captains.\nNow, the compensation paid to the crew came solely out of the pocket of the captain and if there was a catch, Mr. Justice White, the proceeds of that sale became the captain's money.\nThere's no lay system here.\nIt was then divided among the crew in accordance with the prior arrangements with the captain and the crew.\nIf there was no catch as you say then no one is paid.\nNow there was no evidence in this record of a union contract involved at all or bargaining agents between any of the parties.\nEach captain dealt with each owner on an individual basis and each crewman dealt with each captain on an individual basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2346.69, 2368.496, 2371.342, 2378.394, 2386.369, 2391.715, 2397.451, 2400.425, 2411.228, 2414.517, 2420.2, 2423.884, 2432.976], "stop_times": [2368.496, 2371.342, 2378.394, 2386.369, 2391.715, 2397.451, 2400.425, 2411.228, 2414.517, 2420.2, 2423.884, 2432.976, 2442.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.69}, "reply_to": "14880__1_039", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_041", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Who fixed the terms of this amount of money for the crew?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2442.996], "stop_times": [2447.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.996}, "reply_to": "14880__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_042", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Your Honor, the amount of money was issued in a pay scale by the owners.\nNow, the District Court said nothing more than that, but I attribute that Your Honor to the owner's control over the result of this enterprise because if somebody didn't do something to stabilize what these men would get in a plant area, there'd be chaos.\nThey would be raiding each others' crews' right in the -- right down at the dock.\nSo -- and that has happened many times.\nSo to avoid that, the captains actually and the owners would get together and it may violate anti trust laws but they would fix that price that these crews would get.\nAnd then once the crews were fixed, I think there's a finding which states that the captain had discretion to vary that once he was out, but that was the purpose of that Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2447.749, 2456.482, 2475.026, 2480.143, 2481.779, 2493.232], "stop_times": [2456.482, 2475.026, 2480.143, 2481.779, 2493.232, 2505.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.749}, "reply_to": "14880__1_041", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_043", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Who hires and who fires?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2505.886], "stop_times": [2508.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.886}, "reply_to": "14880__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_044", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The owners--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2508.18], "stop_times": [2508.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.18}, "reply_to": "14880__1_043", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_045", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The captain hires?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2508.625], "stop_times": [2509.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.625}, "reply_to": "14880__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_046", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2509.746], "stop_times": [2510.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.746}, "reply_to": "14880__1_045", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_047", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The captain hires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2510.21], "stop_times": [2510.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.21}, "reply_to": "14880__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_048", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The captain hires the crew entirely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2510.95], "stop_times": [2512.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.95}, "reply_to": "14880__1_047", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_049", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Can the owner fire?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2512.841], "stop_times": [2514.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.841}, "reply_to": "14880__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_050", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "No Your Honor, absolutely not.\nThat was specifically found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2514.198, 2515.456], "stop_times": [2515.456, 2517.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.198}, "reply_to": "14880__1_049", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_051", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "He can't fire any member of the crew?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2517.004], "stop_times": [2519.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.004}, "reply_to": "14880__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_052", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, the Court so found and it has never happened.\nI mean, the owner now cannot fire any member of the crew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2519.238, 2523.032], "stop_times": [2523.032, 2526.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.238}, "reply_to": "14880__1_051", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_053", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "But he could fire the captain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2526.411], "stop_times": [2528.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.411}, "reply_to": "14880__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_054", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, Your Honor, let's put it this way.\nIf you say fire, he could take his boat and say that to tie it up or he could refuse to give him a boat the following season.\nWell I would construe that to mean rather than firing him that he just didn't want to renew the contract at the beginning of another year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2528.857, 2530.512, 2539.361], "stop_times": [2530.512, 2539.361, 2545.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.857}, "reply_to": "14880__1_053", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_055", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well let's suppose he caught him stealing money during the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2545.789], "stop_times": [2549.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.789}, "reply_to": "14880__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_056", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2549.71], "stop_times": [2549.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.71}, "reply_to": "14880__1_055", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_057", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Can he get rid of him?.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2549.796], "stop_times": [2550.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.796}, "reply_to": "14880__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_058", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Your Honor, I would hope he would and I couldn't -- I don't see how that would turn him into an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2550.726], "stop_times": [2557.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.726}, "reply_to": "14880__1_057", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_059", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well I mean why would he be interested in whether they steal and not if he is an independent contractor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2557.608], "stop_times": [2563.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.608}, "reply_to": "14880__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_060", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well I'm afraid I don't follow that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2563.612], "stop_times": [2566.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.612}, "reply_to": "14880__1_059", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_061", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, you say it's completely independent that the owner pays and he hires and he fires --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2566.993], "stop_times": [2571.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.993}, "reply_to": "14880__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_062", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2571.862], "stop_times": [2571.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.862}, "reply_to": "14880__1_061", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_063", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "--and pays him out of his own pocket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2571.935], "stop_times": [2573.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.935}, "reply_to": "14880__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_064", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2573.805], "stop_times": [2575.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2573.805}, "reply_to": "14880__1_063", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_065", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, how could he steal from himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2575.288], "stop_times": [2578.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.288}, "reply_to": "14880__1_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_066", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I don't think he could, but if he was just a thief at heart and stole something else, I'd imagine he'd get rid of him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2578.326], "stop_times": [2583.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.326}, "reply_to": "14880__1_065", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_067", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Oh, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2583.865], "stop_times": [2588.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.865}, "reply_to": "14880__1_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14880__1_068", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "It was open for the District Court here to hold that for the purposes of this two Acts, that fisherman could very well have been employees of the owners.\nBut it's obvious from the findings that the District Court had the common law test clearly in mind.\nFor example, the Court found specifically that the tax payer had no right to nor attempted to instruct the captain or crew as to their fishing activity or how to accomplish it.\nAnother specific finding; there was no expressed agreements specifying the extent of the tax payer's control over the captain's activities.\nAnother; it was clear that no actual control was exercised over the details or the manner and method employed by the captains and crews.\nOne more, the tax payers had a right to control the results and interfered to a degree only to assure a proper result from the undertaking.\nAnd then the tax payers had no control over the crewmen nor did they attempt to exercise it through the captains.\nNow, the petitioner has ignored these findings both in his brief and in his oral argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2588.124, 2598.034, 2603.695, 2615.853, 2624.38, 2633.659, 2644.783, 2652.843], "stop_times": [2598.034, 2603.695, 2615.853, 2624.38, 2633.659, 2644.783, 2652.843, 2657.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.124}, "reply_to": "14880__1_067", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_069", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Mr. Lyman--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2657.022], "stop_times": [2657.771], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.022}, "reply_to": "14880__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14880__1_070", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2657.771], "stop_times": [2660.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.771}, "reply_to": "14880__1_069", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_071", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "It turns out that the standard should be the maritime standard and not the technical common law standard.\nDo you disagree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals on that premise, the case would go against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2660.315, 2668.693], "stop_times": [2668.693, 2676.113], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2660.315}, "reply_to": "14880__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14880__1_072", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, the Court of Appeals did say that if the Maritime entered --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2676.113], "stop_times": [2678.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.113}, "reply_to": "14880__1_071", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_073", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Said that flatly, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2678.601], "stop_times": [2680.169], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.601}, "reply_to": "14880__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14880__1_074", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes and if the maritime standard were to be applied, then it said we would have to reverse this decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2680.169], "stop_times": [2686.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.169}, "reply_to": "14880__1_073", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_075", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "So that really what this case all boils down to in the last analysis is in what sense common law was used in the statute, whether in a technical common law sense as distinguished common law from equity or admiralty law, or whether common law in the sense that general principles as opposed to some free willing operation by the administrative agency?\nIsn't that what the case boils --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2686.211, 2709.293], "stop_times": [2709.293, 2709.904], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2686.211}, "reply_to": "14880__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14880__1_076", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes, I guess -- I would say that would be a fair statement Your Honor.\nSo in summary, the captains participated in bilateral decisions and negotiations in fixing the price and they exercised a high degree of independence in conducting their operations and exercised initiative and decision making authority.\nWell, Mr. Justice Harlan, I -- you're absolutely correct in that respect because one of the points I believe that petitioner raises and petitioner raised numerous points and we did our best to brief each one thoroughly, but we think two points raised in the main brief and one in the reply brief suggest a discussion.\nThe first is in evaluation of the relationship here between the boat owner and the fishermen for these tax purposes, what legal standard should be applied?\nThe principles of general Maritime Law as they contend, or the principles of the common law in the statute as we contend?\nThe second point was assuming the petitioner's contention that this case involves a mixed question of law and fact, would that circumstance call for a different result and not reached by the concurrent decisions below?\nNow in the reply brief if the Court please, there was a new point raised and it poses this question.\nIs proof of filing an employment tax return and the payment of the tax a defense against a suit for its refund?\nNow, we didn't get a chance to brief that for the Court because the reply brief was served on us I think only Thursday or Friday.\nI want to discuss that briefly here if I may.\nAt pages four through six which is point three of the reply brief, the petitioner says that because the respondents filed employment tax returns and paid the taxes and kept good records, the respondents thought or believed that the captains and crewmen were their employees and for that reason, our suit for refund should be dismissed.\nNow, if belief is to be a criteria of employment status, it's material only when one party believes that he has the right to control and direct the activities of another and the other believes that he must submit to that control, but I find it puzzling how filing a tax return can come to that same arrangement.\nNow, people pay taxes and file returns for many reasons and I don't think that they ponder legal concepts when they're about to do it.\nNow suppose the respondents here had made their own determinations and decided that the fishermen were independent contractors and decided not to pay the taxes, what would've happened?\nWell of course a number of things would happen, but experience in the fishing industry showed this.\nThat the tax collector would file liens on the boats, attach whatever property at hand, including bank accounts and literally tie up your business.\nNow this happened in Enochs versus Williams Packing Company which came to this Court.\nIt will be remembered that William's was a shrimp boat fleet operator.\nHe had made a decision that these men were independent contractors and had for a long time.\nHe didn't pay any tax and he didn't file a return.\nAn assessment of about $50,000.00 was made.\nA -- his boats were tied up.\nThe -- William's went to the District Court and obtained an injunction against the collection.\nThe Circuit Court affirmed with one dissent.\nIt came here on jurisdictional issue of enjoining the collection of taxes.\nThe injunction was dissolved.\nIt was remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.\nThereafter, Williams paid a small amount of that tax and not because he believed that these people were employees and he filed another suit in the District Court and the Government counterclaimed for $50,000.00 for whatever the assessment was.\nWilliam has prevailed and the Government's counterclaim was dismissed and that's in William's Packing versus U.S, the number is 2631 in the Southern District of Mississippi, the judgment was filed February 18, 1964.\nNow, the Government made the same contention without success in another employment tax case.\nThis involved the employment status of certain mechanics and their helpers, they call them applicators.\nThe Court's treatment I think is worthy of consideration here since we didn't get an opportunity to brief it.\nPlease permit me to read just a short paragraph from the case of Rayhill versus United States, 364 F.2nd 356 and this will complete my analysis at this point.\nIn that case it said, \u201cNor in the circumstances of this case can an intent to create an employer-employee relationship be inferred from the fact without more that plaintiff withheld from, and paid the appropriate federal taxes on the earnings of the applicators.\nFailure to have made such withholdings and payments might have subjected it to assessments and penalties and possible criminal sanctions.\nThen, too, the plaintiff could not have challenged a deficiency in the tax court or had a reasonable prospect of obtaining an injunction to restrain enforcement of the tax,\u201d citing Enochs versus Williams Packing.\n\u201cOne need not resort to martyrdom to obtain judicial determination of the issue here.\nTo suggest that plaintiff should not have paid the tax if it believed that the applicators were not common-law employees would be to approve snares and traps for the unwary.\nIn addition, the payment of the tax was a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of this suit.\nIt would be an unusual law which first required the payment of a tax as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of a suit for its refund and then permit its payment to be a ground for a defense against the claim.\nBefore going into that maritime oriented employee point, I'd like to mention this that the petition for the writ here indicated that the decision below will disrupt even handed administration of the Social Security Act and would cause certain fishermen to lose Social Security benefits and we take exception to that in full.\nThe petitioner did not pursue this point when he had its brief on the merits.\nWe think the contention raised important issues respecting the social and remedial aspects of the Social Security Act and should be -- and should not be ignored simply because it was raised.\nNow, the decision below does not deprive the fishermen of their Social Security benefits.\nIn holding that these fishermen were not employees, it follows as a consequence that they were self employed or independent contractors which Congress put into one group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [2709.904, 2716.912, 2732.606, 2754.339, 2763.322, 2770.255, 2782.843, 2791.434, 2802.711, 2811.236, 2814.91, 2842.317, 2867.303, 2875.848, 2887.03, 2892.359, 2902.21, 2907.093, 2910.712, 2914.641, 2918.705, 2924.114, 2926.424, 2931.398, 2934.563, 2939.805, 2941.074, 2945.032, 2959.625, 2973.52, 2978.671, 2984.699, 2990.098, 3002.964, 3019.761, 3027.665, 3040.11, 3045.635, 3057.022, 3062.619, 3077.754, 3100.391, 3106.157, 3118.204, 3125.637], "stop_times": [2716.912, 2732.606, 2754.339, 2763.322, 2770.255, 2782.843, 2791.434, 2802.711, 2811.236, 2814.91, 2842.317, 2867.303, 2875.848, 2887.03, 2892.359, 2902.21, 2907.093, 2910.712, 2914.641, 2918.705, 2924.114, 2926.424, 2931.398, 2934.563, 2939.805, 2941.074, 2945.032, 2959.625, 2973.52, 2978.671, 2984.699, 2990.098, 3002.964, 3019.761, 3027.665, 3040.11, 3045.635, 3057.022, 3062.619, 3077.754, 3100.391, 3106.157, 3118.204, 3125.637, 3136.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.904}, "reply_to": "14880__1_075", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_077", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Or why not employees of the captain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3136.702], "stop_times": [3141.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.702}, "reply_to": "14880__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__1_078", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Your Honor, that issue is not before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3141.283], "stop_times": [3143.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.283}, "reply_to": "14880__1_077", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_079", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "I know, I understand that but why does it follow inevitably if they're self employed if they're not employees of these respondents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3143.41], "stop_times": [3149.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.41}, "reply_to": "14880__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__1_080", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Well, in the posture of this case Your Honor, we only have the tax refund of the employer -- of the respondents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3149.423], "stop_times": [3158.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.423}, "reply_to": "14880__1_079", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_081", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3158.846], "stop_times": [3160.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.846}, "reply_to": "14880__1_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__1_082", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "We don't have the situation of a captain having paid the tax on their earnings.\nHowever, going into that point, in the case of U.S. v. Joe Graso and Sons which is in our brief, this question came up sometime ago when the Government tried to file a third party complaint to make the captains liable for the taxes if the owners were not liable.\nIt was held that it was being an independent action the third party complaint was dismissed.\nIt didn't get to that point.\nAlso the court in Graso did say that it is quite possible that the relationship between the captains and the fishermen would not be that of employer-employee.\nYou'd have to test it against the statute first.\nAs a matter of fact, the Department of Justice in an anti-trust case was quite successful in prosecuting members of the fish industry.\nIn Local 36, International Fishermen and Allied Workers versus U.S. 177 F.2nd 320 which is cited Graso and there it was found that the captains and the crewmen were joint venturers.\nIn that case, the Government needed proof of joint venture rather an employer-employee for the success of their prosecution and even though Social Security taxes were paid in that case and the defendants tried everything to prove an employment relationship, the Court held it as a joint venture between the captain and the fishermen.\nI'd like to say that these fishermen are not loosing Social Insurance benefits because by virtue of the 1950 amendments of the Social Security Act, benefits were extended to the self employed for the first time.\nPrior to these amendments, it's true they may have been deprived of such benefits.\nSo the distinction today between the common law employee and the self employed person or the entrepreneur with respect to Social Insurance at least is no longer meaningful.\nIt's now only a tax matter.\nThe question is who pays the tax and what is the difference?\nAs far as the even --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3160.924, 3166.307, 3190.126, 3195.667, 3196.689, 3209.223, 3211.735, 3221.055, 3239.697, 3264.308, 3278.945, 3284.191, 3295.612, 3297.402, 3305.166], "stop_times": [3166.307, 3190.126, 3195.667, 3196.689, 3209.223, 3211.735, 3221.055, 3239.697, 3264.308, 3278.945, 3284.191, 3295.612, 3297.402, 3305.166, 3306.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.924}, "reply_to": "14880__1_081", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_083", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Are there the same maximums with respect to employees as exist with respect to self employed people?\nIt's only up to a certain amount of income in both cases, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3306.107, 3315.763], "stop_times": [3315.763, 3318.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.107}, "reply_to": "14880__1_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__1_084", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "In both cases, the same in both cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3318.765], "stop_times": [3320.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3318.765}, "reply_to": "14880__1_083", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_085", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3320.157], "stop_times": [3321.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.157}, "reply_to": "14880__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__1_086", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Except the rate is a little different.\nI think that the self employed would pay something less than three-fourths of the total that would be paid between an employer and employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3321.409, 3322.948], "stop_times": [3322.948, 3333.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3321.409}, "reply_to": "14880__1_085", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_087", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "But basically the same benefit -- ultimate benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3333.436], "stop_times": [3336.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.436}, "reply_to": "14880__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14880__1_088", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "The ultimate benefits.\nAs a matter of fact Your Honor, there is one benefit I think the self employed man gets that the common law employee does not and he can participate in the I think it's the 1964 Self Employment Pension Act where lawyers are doing it and I'm sure that there are some fish captains that do it.\nNow, this equality between the two categories is demonstrated because the earnings credits of these people which determine their benefits, they're entitled to the same weight and dignity.\nThe Social Security Administration is the same administration that dispenses benefits to both.\nThe same tax collector collects taxes for both.\nNow, the petitioner's main thrust here is that the common law test should not be applied, but the rule governing employment relationships under maritime law should be decisive in fixing the respondent's tax liabilities.\nNow, if liability for these taxes is to be so determined, it is a matter for Congress' consideration rather than this Court because it involves federal fiscal policy and prerogatives of legislative definition.\nI might say that during the pendency of this case, the treasury department attempted to seek an amendment of this Act to call these fishermen statutory employees but Congress took no action on it.\nThe Congress' failure to act if the Court please doesn't tell us anything, but it does -- but the incident does tell us this that the Treasury Department felt that it was vulnerable to adverse decisions by the finder of fact who would apply the common law rule, otherwise, the Treasury Department wouldn't be concerned about it.\nNow, the petitioner raised and said if a seaman is entitled the maintenance and the cure from the owner, he must be the owner's employee under maritime standards, now I'll accept that.\nBut petitioner concludes without more that the seaman mechanically becomes an employee for federal employment tax purposes and hence a common law employee.\nNow the same individual can be an employee and an independent contractor at the same time.\nThis Court said in the Labor Board versus Harris, a brief quote, \u201cAn individual maybe an independent contractor under the common law control test for purposes of imposing vicarious liability in tort, and maybe an employee for the purpose of other litigations such as unemployment insurance.\n\u201d I see my time is about to expire if the Court please but I want to say this that the fishermen in this case whom the Court found did not meet the common law test of master and servant are nevertheless entitled to maintenance and cure by virtue of their marine employment.\nThe Court said in Aguilar versus Standard Oil Company when this particular question came up.\nIt says \u201cWhether by a traditional standards that boat owner is or is not responsible for the injury, yet under maritime law is nevertheless liable as an incident of the marine employer-employee relationship.\n\u201d We suggest that the main thrust of petitioner's point there is without a merit.\nI'd like you say in concluding that this decision is not contrary to public policy as Mr. Griswold has suggested.\nIt will not frustrate the remedial aims of maintenance and cure or other maritime rights.\nThere are many independent contractor relationships which are workable under the Social Security Act and the rulings of the Commission of Internal Revenue will demonstrate that.\nOne outstanding that comes to mind is that he considers a self employed person, one who is able to carry on his own business.\nA poll taker for one who is advertising agencies simply because this poll taker works on a job-to-job basis and yet he is paid by the company, directed by the company nevertheless is a ruling.\nThe Internal Revenue Service contained an internal revenue bulletin number 1965-30 of July 26, 1965.\nIt says that those who conduct surveys on certain types of advertising are self employed persons.\nThey're in a business of their own simply because they knock on a door and fill out a form for some company.\nCertainly, fishermen who are more skilled and who have a way of life are certainly more in keeping with a trade or business and some poll taker or a real estate salesman for instance, they consider him a self employed person.\nA taxicab driver, the Internal Revenues put out many bulletins to taxicab drivers are considered independent contractors.\nAlthough they drive the cab of the company, the company has great expenditures and the real man, this company has great expenditures in promoting and keeping an office open, yet the Government finds for tax purposes, he too is a self employed person.\nSo in conclusion, we ask that the Court consider that the common law test be applied and then if there's any other test to be applied that the Department of Justice address itself to the Congress.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3336.015, 3336.672, 3358.503, 3370.084, 3374.825, 3378.669, 3393.473, 3412.682, 3426.329, 3446.621, 3457.321, 3468.011, 3473.281, 3492.187, 3507.924, 3513.489, 3531.306, 3538.02, 3548.418, 3556.415, 3570.137, 3580.602, 3593.359, 3604.646, 3612.327, 3618.416, 3635.726, 3644.486, 3667.339, 3684.38], "stop_times": [3336.672, 3358.503, 3370.084, 3374.825, 3378.669, 3393.473, 3412.682, 3426.329, 3446.621, 3457.321, 3468.011, 3473.281, 3492.187, 3507.924, 3513.489, 3531.306, 3538.02, 3548.418, 3556.415, 3570.137, 3580.602, 3593.359, 3604.646, 3612.327, 3618.416, 3635.726, 3644.486, 3667.339, 3684.38, 3686.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3336.015}, "reply_to": "14880__1_087", "speaker": "joseph_j_lyman"}
{"id": "14880__1_089", "conversation_id": "14880", "text": "Thank you Mr. Lyman.\nThe case is submitted.\nThank you for your submissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_63", "start_times": [3686.379, 3687.493, 3688.373], "stop_times": [3687.493, 3688.373, 3689.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3686.379}, "reply_to": "14880__1_088", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_000", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Number 727, Vale against Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [21.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_001", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [21.24], "stop_times": [21.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 21.24}, "reply_to": "15330__0_000", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_002", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Mr. Deutsch, you may proceed whenever you're ready.\nI'm sure you could have proceeded in either case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [21.883, 24.864], "stop_times": [24.864, 27.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 21.883}, "reply_to": "15330__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_003", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Would you like to comment on that prior case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [27.353], "stop_times": [29.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 27.353}, "reply_to": "15330__0_002", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15330__0_004", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Pardon?[Laughter]\nIt's a good fortune one rarely has.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe appellant in this case have been charged in a proceeding prior to the one here at issue where the violation of the state narcotics law.\nIn the course of that proceeding, his bond was raised on the prior charge and three policemen with capiases for his arrest in connection with the raised bond proceeded to what was believed to be his home and they did what they called stick themselves out and hid themselves near the home to watch it for some reason.\nThey said they want to be sure he was home before they arrested him, I didn't quite understand.\nIn any event, while they were waiting in hiding an automobile drove up in front of the appellant's home and it was driven by a man known to be a narcotics addict.\nThe driver sounded his horn, appellant came out of the house, talked to the driver from the other side, the passenger side of the automobile, returned to his home, came out again, again talked to the driver and then the police made their presence known, surrounded the automobile, arrested the driver, he hastily put something into his mouth and presumably swallowed it.\nThe police assumed that what they called a transaction was taking place and the appellant himself turned and started to walk back into his home, they stopped him and arrested him.\nThere are some variations in the testimony about how far he was from the door of his home.\nAnd I suppose, at one point I think it said he was at the front steps.\nAt another, he was at the side of the car anywhere from 15 to 30 feet away.\nIn any event, he was not inside the house when arrested and I think the best way to put it was that he was on the sidewalk in front of his home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [29.773, 35.445, 39.915, 42.81, 56.653, 80.616, 85.677, 102.096, 132.477, 149.543, 156.07, 163.291, 167.259], "stop_times": [35.445, 39.915, 42.81, 56.653, 80.616, 85.677, 102.096, 132.477, 149.543, 156.07, 163.291, 167.259, 175.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 29.773}, "reply_to": "15330__0_003", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_005", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think there were some indications the door was opened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [175.651], "stop_times": [180.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.651}, "reply_to": "15330__0_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_006", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "The door was presumably opened, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [180.089], "stop_times": [181.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.089}, "reply_to": "15330__0_005", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_007", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "And that he was -- had come close enough so that he had opened the door, if that was right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [181.997], "stop_times": [185.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.997}, "reply_to": "15330__0_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_008", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No, I don't think that's him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [185.525], "stop_times": [186.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.525}, "reply_to": "15330__0_007", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_009", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think that's a misunderstanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [186.272], "stop_times": [187.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 186.272}, "reply_to": "15330__0_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_010", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Yes, I think he had left it open when he came out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [187.788], "stop_times": [189.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.788}, "reply_to": "15330__0_009", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_011", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [189.578], "stop_times": [190.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.578}, "reply_to": "15330__0_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_012", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I'm not positive of that.\nIn any event, they were all arrested.\nNow, the police have no search warrant, they entered the home over the protest to the appellant.\nAdvised him they were going to search the home for narcotics and advised him of his rights presumably in the usual fashion.\nA few minutes later, his mother and brother came home and they were also told that the house was to be searched and protested, at least the mother protested and they proceeded with the search.\nThey also arrested the brother and in the course of the search in a closed locker in a bedroom hidden in clothing which the appellant admitted was his, they found narcotics and then the course of further search and perhaps his -- even helping them with the search is not entirely clear they found some narcotics paraphernalia in the bathroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [190.105, 193.413, 197.687, 205.646, 217.89, 231.817], "stop_times": [193.413, 197.687, 205.646, 217.89, 231.817, 257.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.105}, "reply_to": "15330__0_011", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_013", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "The record show how many rooms this house had?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [257.5], "stop_times": [260.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.5}, "reply_to": "15330__0_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_014", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I believe it had three rooms perhaps --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [260.822], "stop_times": [266.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.822}, "reply_to": "15330__0_013", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_015", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Three downstairs room?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [266.339], "stop_times": [266.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.339}, "reply_to": "15330__0_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_016", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "-- and there's no kitchen and a bathroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [266.396], "stop_times": [267.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.396}, "reply_to": "15330__0_015", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_017", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Three downstairs room?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [267.895], "stop_times": [269.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.895}, "reply_to": "15330__0_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_018", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "All one -- one floor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [269.456], "stop_times": [270.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.456}, "reply_to": "15330__0_017", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_019", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "All one floor.\nAnd since I've already interrupted you, they of course did not have a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [270.188, 272.068], "stop_times": [272.068, 277.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.188}, "reply_to": "15330__0_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_020", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Had none whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [277.591], "stop_times": [278.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.591}, "reply_to": "15330__0_019", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_021", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "They had an arrest warrant, did they or capias?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [278.759], "stop_times": [280.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.759}, "reply_to": "15330__0_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_022", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "They had the arrest warrants but not for this offense.\nThey had arrest warrants under a prior charge on which they stick themselves up presumably to find him.\nThey had no arrest warrant for this particular offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [280.564, 284.594, 292.232], "stop_times": [284.594, 292.232, 295.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.564}, "reply_to": "15330__0_021", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_023", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "But you were -- we have consumed I guess in this case that this was a lawful arrest, can we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [295.362], "stop_times": [301.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.362}, "reply_to": "15330__0_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_024", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think it would have to assume that although it's very difficult to say what they came up there to make a lawful arrest with arrest warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [301.724], "stop_times": [310.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.724}, "reply_to": "15330__0_023", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_025", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [310.952], "stop_times": [311.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.952}, "reply_to": "15330__0_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_026", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Instead of doing that, they hid themselves out and watched what they presumed what they called a transaction taking place.\nThen, they went into the house and on the search found the narcotics following which they charged him with possession of narcotics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [311.518, 319.682], "stop_times": [319.682, 330.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.518}, "reply_to": "15330__0_025", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_027", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Do you begin the complain before they began the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [330.543], "stop_times": [335.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.543}, "reply_to": "15330__0_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_028", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No sir, well (Voice Overlap) as a matter of fact this Court has confined me to the matter of search and seizure.\nSo that they charged --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [335.155, 344.344], "stop_times": [344.344, 346.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.155}, "reply_to": "15330__0_027", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_029", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "But in considering -- in considering the matters search and seizure it's important to know whether you -- whether we can assume that proceed on a hypothesis that this was a lawful arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [346.183], "stop_times": [358.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.183}, "reply_to": "15330__0_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_030", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I would have to assume that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [358.409], "stop_times": [359.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.409}, "reply_to": "15330__0_029", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_031", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Because I suppose that a search incident to an unlawful arrest can never be a reasonable search based on theoretical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [359.346], "stop_times": [368.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.346}, "reply_to": "15330__0_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_032", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, I so understand the law exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [368.691], "stop_times": [372.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.691}, "reply_to": "15330__0_031", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_033", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Whatever, yet the scope of the search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [372.352], "stop_times": [374.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.352}, "reply_to": "15330__0_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_034", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I would say this was a lawful arrest on the basis of the offense which they believed to have seen taking place and that thereafter they found the evidence on the basis of which they made the charge on which they had arrested him.\nNow, that brought us -- I suppose as I come to it on the record which is all that I have under all service.\nNow, he had counsel appointed for him.\nHe moved to suppress this evidence in a separate sort of proceeding which I understand is typical in this type of case.\nHe also objected according to the record to the introduction of the evidence on the ground that it was obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure.\nHe pleaded the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the state and they cited the statute, the arrest statute which permits the officers to take from the person arrested all weapons and incriminating articles which he may have about his person.\nThey cited that statute in justification of the search and held that there was no violation of the cited constitutional provisions.\nI think that is a fair statement of the fact for the purposes of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [374.203, 390.107, 398.065, 402.738, 413.346, 423.024, 425.91, 446.063, 458.185], "stop_times": [390.107, 398.065, 402.738, 413.346, 423.024, 425.91, 446.063, 458.185, 462.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.203}, "reply_to": "15330__0_033", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_035", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Do you see a difference in language of that statute as between saying about his person and on his person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [462.374], "stop_times": [471.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.374}, "reply_to": "15330__0_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_036", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I don't know, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [471.303], "stop_times": [472.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.303}, "reply_to": "15330__0_035", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_037", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "If it means the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [472.088], "stop_times": [473.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.088}, "reply_to": "15330__0_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_038", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Oh!\nI think from practical purposes.\nIt's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [473.335, 473.536, 475.632], "stop_times": [473.536, 475.632, 476.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.335}, "reply_to": "15330__0_037", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_039", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "It doesn't mean about in the sense of lying about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [476.507], "stop_times": [479.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.507}, "reply_to": "15330__0_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_040", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Perhaps, but I don't think that's involved in this situation.\nIn any event, this says in so many words from the person arrested all weapons at which he may have about his person.\nNow, as far as I'm concerned that means on his person, I may be stretching it.\nI think making a difference on a word of that sort.\nIn any event, is going too far in statutory transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [479.283, 483.129, 494.132, 500.94, 503.543], "stop_times": [483.129, 494.132, 500.94, 503.543, 508.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.283}, "reply_to": "15330__0_039", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_041", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "And I wondered if you were emphasizing that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [508.783], "stop_times": [510.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.783}, "reply_to": "15330__0_040", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_042", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I do not take that position.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [510.52, 514.335], "stop_times": [514.335, 516.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.52}, "reply_to": "15330__0_041", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_043", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Mr. Deutsch, did he cover the point as to whose house this was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [516.357], "stop_times": [520.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.357}, "reply_to": "15330__0_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15330__0_044", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I don't think that's really important.\nHe admitted the clothing was his.\nHis mother denied it was his home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [520.551, 522.342, 524.497], "stop_times": [522.342, 524.497, 527.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.551}, "reply_to": "15330__0_043", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_045", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "See, that's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [527.36], "stop_times": [529.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.36}, "reply_to": "15330__0_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15330__0_046", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "And they had arrested him at other premises on Pereira case but I can't quite see the relevance of that issue which did arise in the trial court.\nAnd the trial judge only said that he knew the cases of this Court where the other way but he didn't propose to follow (Voice Overlap) the law.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [529.143, 542.597], "stop_times": [542.597, 548.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.143}, "reply_to": "15330__0_045", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_047", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I was thinking about the relevance.\nI just want to know that it's just unclear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [548.51, 550.024], "stop_times": [550.024, 553.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.51}, "reply_to": "15330__0_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15330__0_048", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I don't think it's really relevant.\nHe admitted the clothing was his.\nHe admitted the narcotics were taken from his clothing.\nHe never disputed that and while his mother said he doesn't live here, it's his brother who lives here and they were both arrested, both tried.\nI don't think that that's really at issue at this point.\nNow, some 200 years ago or more, William Pitt, the Elder in the House of Commons or the Earl of Chatham said, \u201cThe poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.\nIt may be frail roof, may leak, the wind may blow through it, storm and the rain may enter, but the King of England may not enter all of his forces they are not cross the threshold.\u201d\nThat's the -- I think the fundamental, the beginning of the principle which we not have embodied in the Fourth Amendment.\nAnd about that same era, the Lord Halifax was what was called in England one of the secretaries of state issued a general warrant for the arrest of the publishers of the -- seditious libel stated to have appeared in the North Briton.\nOn moving about the so-called messengers, I suppose equivalent to constables learned that it was John Wilkes who was the publisher of the libel and under that same general warrant namely him or any one else Wilkes was arrested, his house was ransacked, his papers were seized.\nThey called the blacksmiths that broke the locks and so on and that he sued the messengers and others and Lord Halifax for libel or a rather for the unlawful issuance of unlawful writ and the seizure, I should say.\nHe recovered 1000 pounds against Lord Halifax, a lesser amounts against the others in a famous opinion written at that time by Lord Chief Justice Pratt and followed very shortly within the same few years, same decade by the famous case of John Entick who had been arrested and his papers all seized under a somewhat similar warrant except that it main him.\nIt was seditious libel in the British Freeholder and other publication.\nAnd in that case, Lord Camden held that if this practice which had originated in the Star Chamber should be sanctioned, \u201cthe secret cabinets and bureaus of every subject in this kingdom will be thrown open to the search and inspection whenever the secretary of state shall see fit to charge or even suspect a person.\nAnd this power so assumed there's an execution on all of party's papers, his house, his rifle; his most valuable papers are taken out and so on.\nAnd then may in his constitutional history of England that antique cases are uncovering perhaps 100 pages of fine print.\nIt's a long-winded thing but may in this constitutional history of England sums it up that with the unanimous concurrence of Lord Mansfield and the other judges of the court, this eminent magistrate now finally condemned this dangerous and unconstitutional practice.\nNow very interestingly, just before those two famous English cases arose, a situation arose in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.\nThe British ministry set orders to issue general warrants which they were called writs of assistance to search for merchandise on which the duties imposed by parliament and not been paid.\nThere were no names, there were no places, they were simply suppose to go out and it gave them the right presumably to go into any warehouse shop or other place to search for these payments.\nJames Otis was the Attorney General of the Colony of Massachusetts under crown appointment at that time.\nHe refused to support the writs, resigned his office, took employment on the other side without fee and fought the issuance of these writs from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, and the case was reported actually by John Adams whose notes of the case are published.\nHe said in the first instance that the court expressed great doubts of the legality of such a writ and of the authority of the court to grant it.\nAnd Otis said in his argument, \u201cthe writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal.\nIt is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.\n\u201dNot more than one instance he went on and he talked about the case in the Star Chamber.\nNow, these writs were never issued but at the conclusion of his notes, John Adams said, American independence was then and there born.\u201d\nAt the end of his argument, I think this is very significant language, Otis said that special writs only may be granted on oath and probable suspicion.\nThe acts of William at end are confined to this sense that an officer should show probable ground, should take his oath of it, should do this before a magistrate and that such magistrate if he think proper should issue a special warrant to search the place.\nThat language is almost copied for about 25 years later into the Fourth Amendment, it's perfectly astounding.\nNow closely, that language that he used in the argument as reported by John Adams tracks or vice versa the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.Now, if this Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [553.048, 554.363, 556.656, 559.791, 569.371, 573.541, 589.165, 601.09, 609.2, 628.017, 646.746, 669.597, 699.413, 705.761, 727.583, 738.922, 747.237, 765.712, 777.042, 793.53, 807.524, 815.869, 834.353, 843.265, 851.118, 855.966, 862.559, 873.738, 889.042, 905.894, 912.754], "stop_times": [554.363, 556.656, 559.791, 569.371, 573.541, 589.165, 601.09, 609.2, 628.017, 646.746, 669.597, 699.413, 705.761, 727.583, 738.922, 747.237, 765.712, 777.042, 793.53, 807.524, 815.869, 834.353, 843.265, 851.118, 855.966, 862.559, 873.738, 889.042, 905.894, 912.754, 925.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.048}, "reply_to": "15330__0_047", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_049", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "May I ask you Mr. Mr. Deutsch that relates that to the present situation.\nI take it from what you have said that probably would agree that the information which the police end up at the time they went in who made the search and have presented that to the magistrate on oath they could've got a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [925.042, 932.739], "stop_times": [932.739, 950.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.042}, "reply_to": "15330__0_048", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_050", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThe state makes the contention that this was one of those hot pursuit cases that it would have to be done immediately and if they have tried to go for a warrant while the evidence would've disappeared as its usual and that sort of thing they say, they flashed it down the toilet and all that sort of thing.\nAnd the suspect --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [950.254, 952.219, 968.889], "stop_times": [952.219, 968.889, 969.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.254}, "reply_to": "15330__0_049", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_051", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I suppose you agree with those practicalities too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [969.272], "stop_times": [971.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.272}, "reply_to": "15330__0_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_052", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [971.57], "stop_times": [971.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.57}, "reply_to": "15330__0_051", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_053", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I suppose you'd agree with those practicalities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [971.857], "stop_times": [974.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.857}, "reply_to": "15330__0_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_054", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, not in this case but I do it in principle of courts of that type of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [974.257], "stop_times": [979.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.257}, "reply_to": "15330__0_053", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_055", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "But you do agree that they could have got a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [979.45], "stop_times": [982.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.45}, "reply_to": "15330__0_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_056", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Oh!\nI don't think there's any question about that.\nI think that there were three officers; two of them could have stayed there while the other one get a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [982.277, 982.529, 984.344], "stop_times": [982.529, 984.344, 989.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.277}, "reply_to": "15330__0_055", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_057", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Now, if they stayed there, could -- they don't replace this man under arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [989.004], "stop_times": [993.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.004}, "reply_to": "15330__0_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_058", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [993.955], "stop_times": [995.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.955}, "reply_to": "15330__0_057", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_059", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "It placed his brother under arrest a few moments later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [995.358], "stop_times": [997.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.358}, "reply_to": "15330__0_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_060", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "And the driver of the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [997.157], "stop_times": [999.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.157}, "reply_to": "15330__0_059", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_061", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Could they then have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [999.231], "stop_times": [1000.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.231}, "reply_to": "15330__0_060", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_062", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "The only one there was the mother.\nThey'd have no trouble watching the place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1000.578, 1001.96], "stop_times": [1001.96, 1004.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.578}, "reply_to": "15330__0_061", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_063", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "They could make them sit on a chair under arrest and wait until the warrant got back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1004.411], "stop_times": [1009.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.411}, "reply_to": "15330__0_062", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_064", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think they could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1009.322], "stop_times": [1010.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.322}, "reply_to": "15330__0_063", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_065", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Without invading their privacy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1010.565], "stop_times": [1012.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.565}, "reply_to": "15330__0_064", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_066", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think so, either without unlawfully invading their privacy under all the circumstances.\nI don't think that would've been unlawful invasion to wait there and watch the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1012.4, 1017.375], "stop_times": [1017.375, 1022.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.4}, "reply_to": "15330__0_065", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_067", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, do you think they were lawfully in the house then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1022.153], "stop_times": [1025.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.153}, "reply_to": "15330__0_066", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_068", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I can't say that, no sir.\nNo sir, they would -- they might have to wait outside but if he had done it on the basis of a warrant to be obtained, he might have gone in to prevent that, yes sir.\nI think lawfully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1025.507, 1028.568, 1039.412], "stop_times": [1028.568, 1039.412, 1043.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.507}, "reply_to": "15330__0_067", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_069", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, then he could not on my -- the hypothesis I gave you, you would not agree with, he could've made the two brothers sit down in chairs and wait the return of the warrant, they'd have to take him out on the porch or outside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1043.728], "stop_times": [1055.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.728}, "reply_to": "15330__0_068", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_070", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think what he could've done before they entered with the three officers.\nCould have sent -- one of them could have gone back for a warrant and the other two could then said, now while we wait for the warrant, we'll come in here we will not conduct to search, we'll simply sit here and make sure that no evidence that might be here in this regard would disappear.\nNow, there is another principle involved, there adds a question as to whether you can search just generally in the hope of finding evidence even under a search warrant.\nI don't have that situation, I'm not prepared to discuss it but I know there is the question that even with the search warrant they couldn't necessarily have gone into the place and search and said, we hope we are going to find some evidence on which we can convict you on this arrest that we made on a suspicion that you have something hidden in this house which are not allowed to have.\nBut that's another question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1055.675, 1060.176, 1074.67, 1084.15, 1104.769], "stop_times": [1060.176, 1074.67, 1084.15, 1104.769, 1105.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.675}, "reply_to": "15330__0_069", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_071", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "What -- I thought you conceded they could get a warrant, what could they get a warrant for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1105.956], "stop_times": [1111.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.956}, "reply_to": "15330__0_070", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_072", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, that's -- I mean it's another question, it's a hypothetical question.\nThey go down and say, we saw what we believe to be a transaction.\nThey would say that the judge presumably under oath in narcotics transaction.\nWe believe there are narcotics hidden in this house.\nWe asked for a warrant on basis of which to search for these narcotics under the circumstances.\nNow, that would bring up a set of facts that does not exist in here that I can't possibly -- I can't go into all the tangential aspects which may arise under that type of hypothesis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1111.051, 1115.138, 1118.888, 1123.905, 1127.273, 1132.117], "stop_times": [1115.138, 1118.888, 1123.905, 1127.273, 1132.117, 1143.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.051}, "reply_to": "15330__0_071", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_073", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Part of your case is that they had an alternative namely to get a warrant and I'm exploring your alternative to which (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1143.055], "stop_times": [1149.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.055}, "reply_to": "15330__0_072", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_074", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, I understand that of course is in the picture but the truth of the matter is that it didn't happen and whether they could have done it or not, it is my position that they have no right to do what they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1149.211], "stop_times": [1162.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.211}, "reply_to": "15330__0_073", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_075", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "What if there is someone else in the house then the police -- assume the police might have gotten the warrant.\nAssume they had probable cause to get a warrant you could leave the police in the house and do what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1162.19, 1170.798], "stop_times": [1170.798, 1178.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.19}, "reply_to": "15330__0_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_076", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Simply sit down and wait for the warrant to come by, to make sure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1178.621], "stop_times": [1181.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.621}, "reply_to": "15330__0_075", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_077", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, what if there's another person in the house and the other person is wandering, can you follow that person around all over the house to make sure he doesn't destroy evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1181.118], "stop_times": [1187.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1181.118}, "reply_to": "15330__0_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_078", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Of course, I can't quite conceive of that.\nI think the police said (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1187.58, 1192.434], "stop_times": [1192.434, 1193.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.58}, "reply_to": "15330__0_077", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_079", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, I would suppose that would be the most normal thing in the world if a confederate or member of the family or something was in the house and the police is waiting there to keep evidence from being destroyed.\nI suppose if they are going to achieve that, they would have to follow the person around all over the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1193.403, 1207.35], "stop_times": [1207.35, 1212.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1193.403}, "reply_to": "15330__0_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_080", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Either that or ask the person to stay there or person said you go to the devil, I won't do it.\nI don't know what would happen on that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1212.5, 1217.507], "stop_times": [1217.507, 1220.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.5}, "reply_to": "15330__0_079", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_081", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, where is your privacy going then if you leave the policeman there and he follows you around all over?(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1220.025], "stop_times": [1229.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1220.025}, "reply_to": "15330__0_080", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_082", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "How long does it take to get a warrant in your state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1229.748], "stop_times": [1232.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.748}, "reply_to": "15330__0_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_083", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I have no idea but I should (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1232.603], "stop_times": [1234.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.603}, "reply_to": "15330__0_082", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_084", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Five or six hours or two hours or two days or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1234.131], "stop_times": [1237.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.131}, "reply_to": "15330__0_083", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_085", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I would imagine maybe the driving from this area would take 15 to 20 minutes to go to a court house and 15-20 minutes, let's say within an hour you can have it, but not certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1237.372], "stop_times": [1247.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.372}, "reply_to": "15330__0_084", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_086", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Do you mean if you get it typed -- the warrant typed up and affidavit drafted and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1247.83], "stop_times": [1252.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.83}, "reply_to": "15330__0_085", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_087", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "You'll have a tremendous advantage over me, sir.\nI've never tried a criminal case in my life and I don't know.\nI just imagine that it is a practical matter that it take an hour or so.\nNow, I could be very well be wrong (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1252.497, 1254.636, 1258.066, 1262.422], "stop_times": [1254.636, 1258.066, 1262.422, 1264.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1252.497}, "reply_to": "15330__0_086", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_088", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "What time of the day or night?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1264.785], "stop_times": [1266.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.785}, "reply_to": "15330__0_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_089", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I've never seen a search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1266.089], "stop_times": [1267.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.089}, "reply_to": "15330__0_088", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_090", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1267.799], "stop_times": [1268.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.799}, "reply_to": "15330__0_089", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_091", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1268.646], "stop_times": [1268.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.646}, "reply_to": "15330__0_090", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_092", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I didn't mean to interrupt you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1268.978], "stop_times": [1269.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.978}, "reply_to": "15330__0_091", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_093", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No. No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1269.607], "stop_times": [1270.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.607}, "reply_to": "15330__0_092", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_094", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "What time of the day or night would this occur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1270.42], "stop_times": [1274.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.42}, "reply_to": "15330__0_093", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_095", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "It was in broad day light around noon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1274.138], "stop_times": [1276.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.138}, "reply_to": "15330__0_094", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_096", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "On a week day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1276.38], "stop_times": [1278.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.38}, "reply_to": "15330__0_095", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__0_097", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Oh!\nYes.\nAs this case has said on the course of its opinion especially the recent ones that the law on this subject has moved from side to side any number of times, Mr. Justice White, I think in the last opinion said five times and there isn't any question about it at in my reading of all of this law.\nI think there is a threat of an effort to live up to the constitutional history to which I have referred.\nI think it is well summed up in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Murphy in the Harris case which has since been overruled and also in his majority opinion in the Trubiano (ph) case involving the steals.\nOf course I am not here to argue the question of retroactivity of the Chimel case decided some later 10 months ago.\nI don't think it's necessary to do so.\nI know that Mr. Justice Harlan's statement and one of the other cases that it should be applied the case is still subject to direct review by this Court but I have not approached the matter from that point of view.\nI might refer for a moment to the case of James versus Louisiana in which a man was arrested two blocks from his house, and this Court held in a unanimous decision per curiam that his home could not be searched under those circumstances without a warrant.\nI might mention --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1278.449, 1278.597, 1281.093, 1305.094, 1315.636, 1334.411, 1345.502, 1348.971, 1364.568, 1382.926], "stop_times": [1278.597, 1281.093, 1305.094, 1315.636, 1334.411, 1345.502, 1348.971, 1364.568, 1382.926, 1384.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1278.449}, "reply_to": "15330__0_096", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_098", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Do you think this case just turns out to James, its good?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1384.273], "stop_times": [1389.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.273}, "reply_to": "15330__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_099", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No, I'd go further Shipley which is the one you decided on the same day as the Chimel case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1389.006], "stop_times": [1395.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.006}, "reply_to": "15330__0_098", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_100", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Do you think they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1395.081], "stop_times": [1397.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.081}, "reply_to": "15330__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_101", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I just can't see any difference and the only reason I've gone \u2013 I'm putting my case on the basis on which I have especially on this oral argument is that I can't understand why you would ask for a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1397.025], "stop_times": [1408.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.025}, "reply_to": "15330__0_100", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_102", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "And why we didn't do this one summarily too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1408.69], "stop_times": [1412.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.69}, "reply_to": "15330__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_103", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, I go further than that, exactly the same as the Chimel case.\nIts open it involves a similar situation except it goes back one step because he wasn't in the home on arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1412.55, 1416.863], "stop_times": [1416.863, 1423.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.55}, "reply_to": "15330__0_102", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_104", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, that -- I mean then you'll have to assume that Chimel was in retroactive but the other case decided with Chimel was one Shipley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1423.911], "stop_times": [1433.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.911}, "reply_to": "15330__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_105", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Shipley and Van Cleef.\nBut Shipley is very closely on point because he was arrested that he was getting out of his automobile near his home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1433.73, 1435.271], "stop_times": [1435.271, 1442.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.73}, "reply_to": "15330__0_104", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_106", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "In Shipley arrest, he simply went outside and that makes it in the Chimel action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1442.717], "stop_times": [1447.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.717}, "reply_to": "15330__0_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_107", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No, it was decided on law prior to the Chimel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1447.28], "stop_times": [1450.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.28}, "reply_to": "15330__0_106", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_108", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "The Chimel law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1450.899], "stop_times": [1451.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.899}, "reply_to": "15330__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_109", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Chimel or Chimel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1451.604], "stop_times": [1453.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.604}, "reply_to": "15330__0_108", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_110", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "So, it's in the line of James?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1453.292], "stop_times": [1456.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.292}, "reply_to": "15330__0_109", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_111", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Exactly and I just want to mention if I may as a little interesting sidelight that the James case I have talked about James Otis who was the father of the Fourth Amendment.\nThis man's name was Otis, James.\nNow, in Shipley, very frankly when this Court said not referring to the Chimel case at all, the Constitution has never been construed and that statement I confine -- I cannot find it any exception.\nI can't find that that's wrong.\nBy this Court to claim to allow the police in the absence of an emergency to arrest the person outside his home and then take him inside for the purpose of conducting a warrantless search on the contrary it has always been assumed that once house cannot lawfully be search without a search warrant except as an incident to a lawful arrest therein.\nNow, that's a per curiam decision.\nThe statement as I said, the position of the state in this Court at any rate is that this was an effect a hot pursuit, and that this wasn't really a general search that it last to only two or three minutes.\nNow, I dispute that as a matter of fact on the record and I'll take only a moment to mention that.\nThe brief of the state says that approximately a minute or two no more than three minutes -- oh, I'm sorry that's the transcript.\nWithin minutes says the brief after entering the house, the officers found the heroin and Dilaudid and so on.\nNow, what and the reference there is to page 12 of the transcript, the appendix which says, \u201cthat approximately a minute or two no more than three minutes Officer Laumann had walked into the back bedroom and while I was standing in the front room, James Vale and his mother came into the front room of the house.\nAt this time, I identified myself to them and told them Donald Vale was under arrest and we were going to conduct a search of the house.\u201d\nThat's where the two or three minutes came in.\nHe told them they were going to search.\nWe simply submit and may it please the Court, that appellant was convicted on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.\nThat conviction was affirmed actually here be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1456.032, 1470.411, 1475.749, 1489.74, 1492.102, 1518.725, 1523.045, 1536.439, 1543.948, 1552.993, 1560.622, 1579.78, 1589.33, 1591.144, 1593.364, 1602.823], "stop_times": [1470.411, 1475.749, 1489.74, 1492.102, 1518.725, 1523.045, 1536.439, 1543.948, 1552.993, 1560.622, 1579.78, 1589.33, 1591.144, 1593.364, 1602.823, 1606.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1456.032}, "reply_to": "15330__0_110", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_112", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Thank you Mr. Deutsch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1606.417], "stop_times": [1606.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.417}, "reply_to": "15330__0_111", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__0_113", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Mr. Deutsch, may I ask you a moment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1606.966], "stop_times": [1608.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.966}, "reply_to": "15330__0_112", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_114", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1608.255], "stop_times": [1609.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.255}, "reply_to": "15330__0_113", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_115", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I know that the Court suppose upon the jurisdiction in this case rather than noting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1609.363], "stop_times": [1613.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.363}, "reply_to": "15330__0_114", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_116", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1613.87], "stop_times": [1617.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1613.87}, "reply_to": "15330__0_115", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_117", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "If your fictional question here is there is only a question of whether to make an appeal or search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1617.822], "stop_times": [1622.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.822}, "reply_to": "15330__0_116", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_118", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, that could be the only question actually.\nThe state filed a motion to dismiss for one of jurisdiction and the Court postponed that to the merit.\nThe state has not raised the question of jurisdiction in its brief to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1622.906, 1625.936, 1634.017], "stop_times": [1625.936, 1634.017, 1637.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1622.906}, "reply_to": "15330__0_117", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_119", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, what was the question raised in motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1637.877], "stop_times": [1642.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.877}, "reply_to": "15330__0_118", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__0_120", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "You see the State Supreme Court cited the statute permitting the search on making arrest and then held not very specifically or clearly that there was nothing violated of the Constitution in the arrest made under that -- and the search made under that statute which I construe to mean that they held that the statute as so applied does not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.\nIf so, this is a good appeal if not it belongs here on cert in any event.\nThat would be my construction.\nThey held the statute not to be violated.\nThe statute is so applied not to be violated with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1642.367, 1672.743, 1677.997, 1679.914, 1682.272], "stop_times": [1672.743, 1677.997, 1679.914, 1682.272, 1689.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1642.367}, "reply_to": "15330__0_119", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15330__0_121", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Thank you.\nMrs. Korns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1689.297, 1691.989], "stop_times": [1691.989, 1693.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.297}, "reply_to": "15330__0_120", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__1_000", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThe State of Louisiana certainly agrees with everything that Mr. Deutsch has said about the inviolability of homes and the constitutional prohibition against the search of a house without a warrant.\nHowever, as the State of Louisiana sees this case, its issue is much narrow and sort of confined the facts of this case.\nThis Court has held continually and even as later Chimel that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1693.247, 1698.025, 1712.278, 1723.115], "stop_times": [1698.025, 1712.278, 1723.115, 1733.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.247}, "reply_to": "15330__0_121", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_001", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Do you have trouble to that?\nIt might interest you that counsel for that effect is here a while ago and he told us that this can have Chimel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1733.263, 1735.088], "stop_times": [1735.088, 1742.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.263}, "reply_to": "15330__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15330__1_002", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Chimel? [Laughter Attempt]\nI think even as later as laid as young as decision in Chimel, it was taken to be settled jurisprudence of this Court that following a valid arrest, an incidental search can be made.\nNow, do I understand, has the State of Louisiana certainly argues that a valid arrest without warrant was made in this case or at the right at the front door of the house -- front steps of the house.\nWe concede that it was not in the house, it was -- Vale was returning to his house.\nNow, if a valid arrest was made, an incidental search contemporaneous with this arrest under the jurisprudence of this Court on incidental search was permissible.\nAnd as the State of Louisiana sees that the only issue before this Court is whether the scope of that incidental search was also permissible.\nIn other words, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1742.44, 1747.063, 1762.072, 1777.079, 1781.532, 1795.888, 1807.316], "stop_times": [1747.063, 1762.072, 1777.079, 1781.532, 1795.888, 1807.316, 1808.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.44}, "reply_to": "15330__1_001", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_003", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "What were you searching for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1808.408], "stop_times": [1811.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.408}, "reply_to": "15330__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15330__1_004", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "The police officers testified Mr. Justice Marshall that they were sure that there were narcotics in that house because as they watched the house to be sure Donald Vale was there before going forward with these prior arrest warrants they had that what they saw convinced them that Donald Vale had gone back into that house to get the narcotics which he brought out and sold to Saucier --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1811.404], "stop_times": [1837.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.404}, "reply_to": "15330__1_003", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_005", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, they weren't looking for weapons, were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1837.472], "stop_times": [1839.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.472}, "reply_to": "15330__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15330__1_006", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No sir, they were looking for narcotics there's no doubt about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1839.848], "stop_times": [1841.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.848}, "reply_to": "15330__1_005", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_007", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "They weren't looking for anything that might injure them, were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1841.557], "stop_times": [1844.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.557}, "reply_to": "15330__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15330__1_008", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No, sir.\nThey were looking, the State of Louisiana concedes because it's from the record, the State of Louisiana has to concede.\nThe police officers testified that they were sure there were narcotics in that house from which James Vale was -- Donald Vale had going in.\nThey were sure that was where his supply was that he would come out of that house and sell to the people who would come up to the house like Saucier in instance case.\nSo they -- when they saw him go back in the house, come back in out without within minutes, looked up and down the street as he went down the steps and put his head in the car, and what they were convinced was a narcotic sale.\nAnd then when they approached the house, an Saucier swallowed the narcotics and they frisked down Saucier and Donald Vale and found nothing on them, they testified that they were convinced that the source of those narcotics were in that house.\nSo, there is no doubt about the issue in this case as the State of Louisiana sees it is a very narrow one was the scope of their search incident to Donald Vale's legal arrest constitutionally permissible in scope.\nThat is there's no doubt about it that under the jurisprudence of this Court, they had the right following this valid arrest without warrant and from the house to frisked down Saucier and Vale.\nNo doubt about that under the settled decisions of this Court.\nNow, the State of Louisiana and under the Chimel decision, the incidental arrest has been confined to the area within which the accused could reach.\nWell, there's no doubt about it that the search in the instant case went beyond the area into which Donald Vale could've reach because it was inside the house.\nNow, though it's Louisiana's position that this was an emergency situation and that it was impossible to get a search warrant -- impossible to get a search warrant in advance because they didn't know that they were going to be confronted with this emergency sale which took place before their eyes.\nThey thought they were just going there to arrest this man on prior narcotics charges.\nSo, they couldn't have brought along a search warrant, there's no doubt about that.\nIs it time for the Court to recess, Your Honors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1844.965, 1845.393, 1851.415, 1860.445, 1868.805, 1884.498, 1899.127, 1916.05, 1928.101, 1932.846, 1952.89, 1964.767, 1982.712, 1988.165, 1994.132], "stop_times": [1845.393, 1851.415, 1860.445, 1868.805, 1884.498, 1899.127, 1916.05, 1928.101, 1932.846, 1952.89, 1964.767, 1982.712, 1988.165, 1994.132, 1997.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.965}, "reply_to": "15330__1_007", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_009", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Not quite.\nNot quite, you got two more minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1997.518, 1998.737], "stop_times": [1998.737, 2002.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.518}, "reply_to": "15330__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__1_010", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, they couldn't have gotten a search warrant in advance on going into this house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2002.268], "stop_times": [2006.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.268}, "reply_to": "15330__1_009", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_011", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "How long that they have been stick out there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2006.873], "stop_times": [2009.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.873}, "reply_to": "15330__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__1_012", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Apparently, about 15 minutes Mr. Justice Stewart.\nThe reason they were watching this house was that Donald Vale operated from three or four addresses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2009.312, 2013.708], "stop_times": [2013.708, 2019.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.312}, "reply_to": "15330__1_011", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_013", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2019.064], "stop_times": [2019.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.064}, "reply_to": "15330__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__1_014", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "They had arrested him at other addresses previously and they just testified that they -- before approaching the house and letting James Vale, his brother and Mrs. Vale his mother know that they were looking for Donald with an arrest warrant.\nThey didn't want him to be elated to this fact.\nAnd therefore, they wanted to be -- they have gotten a tip that he was selling from this address at that day or that he was at this address that day, let's say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2019.518, 2033.545, 2036.167], "stop_times": [2033.545, 2036.167, 2043.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.518}, "reply_to": "15330__1_013", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_015", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Well, now which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2043.996], "stop_times": [2045.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.996}, "reply_to": "15330__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__1_016", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "That they could pick him up at this address that day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2045.782], "stop_times": [2048.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2045.782}, "reply_to": "15330__1_015", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_017", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Does the record show that they have information that come to him indicated that he was selling on that address on that day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2048.203], "stop_times": [2052.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.203}, "reply_to": "15330__1_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15330__1_018", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "No.\nNo, that's a mistake.\nThey just said they have been told what he was at this address and they testified that they took up their position to watch because they want to be sure he was there before they -- they wanted to see him when they approached in to serve the arrest warrants because they didn't want him to doth again and because this was an alias capias that issued for him when he had failed to appeal.\nSo, they watched actually I was completely wrong when I said, they thought he was selling and they did.\nThey watched to be able to serve the arrest warrant.\nI see that my --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2052.867, 2053.304, 2054.656, 2079.437, 2085.79, 2089.774], "stop_times": [2053.304, 2054.656, 2079.437, 2085.79, 2089.774, 2090.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.867}, "reply_to": "15330__1_017", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15330__1_019", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "I think we'll suspend until morning.\nSorry to hold you over until tomorrow Mr. Deutsch and Mrs. Korns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2090.208, 2092.358], "stop_times": [2092.358, 2096.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.208}, "reply_to": "15330__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15330__1_020", "conversation_id": "15330", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [2096.263], "stop_times": [2103.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.263}, "reply_to": "15330__1_019", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_000", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Arguments in Number 727, Vale against Louisiana.\nMrs. Korns, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [0.0, 6.314], "stop_times": [6.314, 10.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__0_001", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nJust to briefly recap the factual situation here, three New Orleans police officers went to 1826 O. St. in New Orleans bearing two arrest warrants for Donald Vale involving prior narcotic crimes.\nThey wanted to be sure that the accused is at this address before serving these warrants.\nThey knew that Mrs. Vale, his mother and his brother Donald live there and they want to elate Donald have him take off again.\nSo, they parked their car about half a block from the house and watched it and they saw about 15 minutes later they saw a transaction take place between a man, Saucier who approached the house in a car and Donald Vale who came out of the house and apparently sold narcotics to this man in the car.\nSo, they approached the car, arrested Donald Vale and Saucier.\nDonald Vale, as he got close to go back in his house arrest them for possession of narcotics.\nFirst, meanwhile they had seen as they approached, they had seen the man in the car put something in his mouth and swallow it which to experienced narcotics officers like this just meant one thing that he was swallowing narcotics.\nSo, after they arrested the man in the car and Donald Vale, they frisked and briefly found nothing on them, no weapons, no narcotics.\nAnd then the police officers the record shows told Donald Vale that they want to go in and search his house.\nThe door to which he had left open in coming out to make this sale to find the narcotics that they were sure were the source of this supply that he had passed on to Saucier.\nThereupon, they entered the house.\nShortly thereafter within minutes thereafter Mrs. Vale and Donald's brother James entered the house and the police officers informed them also they were going to make the search.\nAnd the within five or ten minutes in the back bedroom which appear to be a man's bedroom, the police officers testified they found the heroin and Dilaudid they were seeking in the coat, several coats hanging in a closed locker.\nThe State of Louisiana believes that following the legal arrest which clearly took place here in front of the house, the police officers were entitled to make an incidental search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [10.393, 17.012, 35.76, 40.973, 49.234, 72.046, 76.281, 84.958, 97.914, 106.265, 111.56, 122.942, 126.421, 137.253, 153.653], "stop_times": [17.012, 35.76, 40.973, 49.234, 72.046, 76.281, 84.958, 97.914, 106.265, 111.56, 122.942, 126.421, 137.253, 153.653, 166.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 10.393}, "reply_to": "15531__0_000", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_002", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Was the arrest legal because of the capias that the officers had or was it legal because of what they have seen that apparently Donald Vale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [166.013], "stop_times": [173.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.013}, "reply_to": "15531__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_003", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "What they had seen Mr. Justice Stewart.\nWe don\u2019t rely at all on those capiases there's no -- the State of Louisiana feels that if they fade out the picture as far as this search went.\nThey only served is adding probable cause for the warrantless arrest because they were for prying narcotics offenses which had occurred a couple of weeks before and more over.\nAt least one of these three offices had been involved, the record shows in those prior arrest and the record also shows that, at least one or more of these officers had not only arrested Donald Vale either been a connect with these prior narcotics arrest that were familiar with him in his narcotics transactions, knew Saucier the man to whom he was apparently selling, knew that this house was lived in by Mrs. Vale, Donald\u2019s mother and his brother James.\nThe record shows that they knew that.\nSo the State of Louisiana is not relying at all on these capiases for this arrest, but only on this warrantless arrest which took place before the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [173.253, 175.047, 183.477, 191.65, 219.085, 223.945], "stop_times": [175.047, 183.477, 191.65, 219.085, 223.945, 231.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 173.253}, "reply_to": "15531__0_002", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_004", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "I see.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [231.811, 233.053], "stop_times": [233.053, 234.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.811}, "reply_to": "15531__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_005", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Now, the evidence shows that the police officers didn\u2019t know who was in that house when they arrested Donald and Saucier in front.\nIt shows that officers were very concerned with the idea that at this very moment either Mrs. Vale or brother James or Donald\u2019s girlfriend who traveled around with him to various addresses was right at that very time getting either hiding the narcotics, taking him out the backdoor, disposing of them in some way.\nSo, as Louisiana sees it.\nThere was the dilemma faced by these officers and they either had to seize this evidence right now or not at all because I know yesterday the Court was opposing the problem of whether there were any alternatives to an immediate warrantless search and as a practical matter it\u2019s Louisiana\u2019s position that there were no practical alternatives because of the time involved in getting a warrant and the fact that -- One thing is clear, not knowing whether anyone was in the house or not, the officers had to enter the house and search it fairly thoroughly to find out even if whether someone else was in the house because confederates often hide in closets and under beds as this Court knows and it was only about fairly thorough search of the house that the officers could even determine that there was no one in the house to dispose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [234.692, 242.568, 263.608, 266.655], "stop_times": [242.568, 263.608, 266.655, 321.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 234.692}, "reply_to": "15531__0_004", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_006", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Confederates generally don\u2019t hide in somebody\u2019s coat pocket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [321.229], "stop_times": [324.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.229}, "reply_to": "15531__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_007", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No that\u2019s perfectly true, that\u2019s right.\nBut they had to make a search of the house in fair detail to be sure that no one was hiding in the house, in closets, in rooms, and so forth and under beds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [324.256, 326.687], "stop_times": [326.687, 338.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 324.256}, "reply_to": "15531__0_006", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_008", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, do you think they were entitled of that point to search for firearms to see whether they were exposed to any danger from occupants of the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [338.266], "stop_times": [347.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.266}, "reply_to": "15531__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__0_009", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, actually I think the question of firearms I guess is always lurking in the background but with what narcotics addicts generally, I don\u2019t think weapons are generally involved in these crimes.\nI think mostly it\u2019s the police officers they're concerned and the record here shows with getting to the evidence before the people involved with the narcotics can get rid of it just like in this case, Saucier got rid of the narcotics which Vale had just sold in by swallowing.\nAnd the officers, the record here show that they rushed first to the bathroom to listen for the sound of running water when they approached, they testified that and looked around in the toilet bowl and so forth because looked in the basin and in any drain like that where narcotics could be disposed off.\nSo, really I think -- I don\u2019t think I will be frank and say no I don\u2019t think the officers were afraid that they\u2019d be shot at from the house or anything.\nI think their primary and only purpose was to try to get hold of this narcotics which they were convinced Donald Vale, they just seen him sell but because of Saucier swallowing that evidence they -- because that would have been there right there if Saucier didn\u2019t swallow the evidence and arrested Vale for this present narcotics sale and the Saucier had the evidence that would\u2019ve been it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [347.072, 362.036, 379.46, 403.544, 411.915], "stop_times": [362.036, 379.46, 403.544, 411.915, 436.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 347.072}, "reply_to": "15531__0_008", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_010", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Have the officers testified they were not looking for weapon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [436.391], "stop_times": [440.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.391}, "reply_to": "15531__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15531__0_011", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Your Honor, it didn\u2019t even come up there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [440.132], "stop_times": [443.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 440.132}, "reply_to": "15531__0_010", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_012", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "They haven\u2019t been testified at all of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [443.037], "stop_times": [444.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.037}, "reply_to": "15531__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15531__0_013", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "And that's right, there is no testimony at all on that subject and really I don\u2019t think it -- you know was a matter in which anyone on either the defense or the accuse were interested at the trial of this case for instance only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [444.911], "stop_times": [459.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 444.911}, "reply_to": "15531__0_012", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_014", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Do you think officers going into a place like that push the others to see and whether or not there might be a gun?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [459.134], "stop_times": [464.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.134}, "reply_to": "15531__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15531__0_015", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, sure I mean I think they -- I don\u2019t think there is concerned no with guns for narcotics addicts as they also for say burglary suspects are people who commit crimes of violence.\nThere's no doubt about it when they -- when they frisked down Vale and Saucier.\nWhen they first arrested them, they -- I think the record will show maybe that they were frisking for possibility of weapons or narcotics, but they did testify that they wanted to go in that house because they were sure that that's where the hoard of narcotics were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [464.918, 477.218, 482.387], "stop_times": [477.218, 482.387, 498.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 464.918}, "reply_to": "15531__0_014", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_016", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "As -- well, when they were in the house as I understand it except for this appellate here when they just arrested there was nobody in the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [498.923], "stop_times": [509.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.923}, "reply_to": "15531__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_017", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "That\u2019s right, the thing is that they didn\u2019t know that though Mr. Justice Stewart until they had gone all through the house to be sure because they knew that Mrs. Vale and James live there and then of course when Mrs. Vale and James showed up within about five minutes after the officers got in the house has but before they\u2019d found the narcotics.\nThen, the only other place they could\u2019ve been hiding in there was Donald\u2019s girlfriend, but I think by that time they\u2019d run through the house enough to be sure that nobody was in the house.\nBut they didn\u2019t know this until they got in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [509.303, 526.151, 536.813], "stop_times": [526.151, 536.813, 538.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 509.303}, "reply_to": "15531__0_016", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_018", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "And the fact is there was nobody in the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [538.66], "stop_times": [540.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.66}, "reply_to": "15531__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_019", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "The fact is there was nobody, but they have no way of knowing this.\nAnd as a matter of fact as I say the record shows that they positively knew that somebody could be there.\nNow, the State of Louisiana just wants to oppose to this Court the practical difficulties involved if the police were going to get a warrant to search for this narcotic evidence.\nAs I say, they first had to get into the house to be sure no one was hiding in there or would\u2019ve done no good to put a cord in around the house without first finding out there was nobody in it.\nHaving found out that the only two people on it were James and Mrs. Vale then they would\u2019ve had to call in other police officers to keep these people under surveillance.\nTheir movements under complete surveillance are to keep -- take them out of the house during the time in which they took them to get a search warrant.\nAnd in owing to perish at least, search warrant issued by criminal district court judges and at least one of these arresting officers because only they three knew the facts would\u2019ve had to go back to the police bureau and typed up the affidavit.\nAnd you have to type up an affidavit for a search warrant in about six duplicates.\nPolice officers don\u2019t reduce probable cause to writing with the greatest to speed.\nIt\u2019s been my experience these men often have all kind of reasons why they do things.\nThey're not the most articulate people in the world particularly when they have to write down and often in the past they used to put down too little but now because Court decisions throw out worst they put down much too much.\nThey put down everything they\u2019ve seen and gone and so forth and so it runs on for pages.\nThen, they\u2019ve got to find the judge to study this warrant and find out whether it\u2019s stays probable cause and if he\u2019s in his court or in his chambers and busy they have to wait, and then present it to him and if he\u2019s going home then they have to track him down and find him and I think at the best with everything going in your favor takes at least three hours to process a search warrant.\nAnd often it takes a whole day before you can get the whole thing typed up and the judge satisfied and signed and back and served the copies.\nYou have to give one to another clerk\u2019s office so they\u2019ll know what property they\u2019re going to seize and then make returns and so forth.\nSo really you know these the officers, the record here shows that the officers approached Donald Vale\u2019s house around noon with luck they could very well have been back with the search warrant later to that afternoon.\nBut if any little interference had come up for some reason or another they might not have been back until the next day and unless they had kept these people under close surveillance, they would\u2019ve been any narcotics evidence left in that house when they got back.\nAnd also --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [540.502, 546.844, 552.512, 566.573, 576.442, 591.344, 599.054, 617.658, 624.156, 631.253, 636.342, 647.871, 652.458, 675.879, 684.597, 693.851, 707.704, 726.976], "stop_times": [546.844, 552.512, 566.573, 576.442, 591.344, 599.054, 617.658, 624.156, 631.253, 636.342, 647.871, 652.458, 675.879, 684.597, 693.851, 707.704, 726.976, 727.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 540.502}, "reply_to": "15531__0_018", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_020", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "How do you -- how can you say that if after they had seen this transaction they just simply going down and get a search warrant, they hadn't been seen by Vale or anybody else at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [727.913], "stop_times": [740.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.913}, "reply_to": "15531__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_021", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, in the first place they didn\u2019t know that they hadn't been seen by the Vales and actually probably knew there were people in the house watching everything they did or they might very well have been neighbors watching what they did.\nWe don\u2019t know about that but these things get around very quickly among people of this type.\nNot only that Mrs. Vale and James came back to the house within minutes after the police officers got in to house.\nSo therefore, but they might\u2019ve very well have gotten back to the house seeing the police officers put Saucier and Donald into the cars.\nI mean, this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [740.094, 752.305, 758.322, 766.275, 774.284], "stop_times": [752.305, 758.322, 766.275, 774.284, 776.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 740.094}, "reply_to": "15531__0_020", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_022", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "What sort of a neighborhood was this in the New Orleans?\nResidential or business or commercial, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [776.838, 778.928], "stop_times": [778.928, 779.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.838}, "reply_to": "15531__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15531__0_023", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nA residential small sort of shotgun house is close to each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [779.847, 781.106], "stop_times": [781.106, 786.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 779.847}, "reply_to": "15531__0_022", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_024", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "What -- there were three officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [786.784], "stop_times": [788.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.784}, "reply_to": "15531__0_023", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_025", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [788.843], "stop_times": [789.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 788.843}, "reply_to": "15531__0_024", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_026", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "And there were two entrances to the house; one front door and one back door?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [789.995], "stop_times": [794.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.995}, "reply_to": "15531__0_025", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_027", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "There wasn\u2019t backdoor entrance leading into the yard.\nThis is clear because the record shows that the officer -- one of the officers run out the backdoor and looked in the yard and see if there was any disposable evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [794.384, 797.63], "stop_times": [797.63, 805.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 794.384}, "reply_to": "15531__0_026", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_028", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "So, once they have found that there was nobody in the house, no person it would only take a two policemen to make sure that nobody disturbed the evidence, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [805.152], "stop_times": [815.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.152}, "reply_to": "15531__0_027", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_029", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "That\u2019s right but Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [815.516], "stop_times": [816.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 815.516}, "reply_to": "15531__0_028", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_030", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "So we take one policeman with the two prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [816.86], "stop_times": [821.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.86}, "reply_to": "15531__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_031", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Couldn\u2019t have done that Mr. Justice Marshall.\nOne policeman couldn\u2019t drive two prisoners and that would be bad security.\nYou have to at least to have two police officers in the car with two prisoners.\nOne police officer is so to drive and one to watch the prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [821.016, 823.089, 828.462, 832.707], "stop_times": [823.089, 828.462, 832.707, 836.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 821.016}, "reply_to": "15531__0_030", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_032", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, they could\u2019ve left the prisoners there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [836.756], "stop_times": [839.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.756}, "reply_to": "15531__0_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_033", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "There's no doubt about it they could --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [839.696], "stop_times": [841.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 839.696}, "reply_to": "15531__0_032", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_034", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Doesn\u2019t the record show that two police officers went inside and one stayed out with the prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [841.391], "stop_times": [847.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.391}, "reply_to": "15531__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_035", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No, I don\u2019t believe sir.\nI think the record shows that all of them went in.\nAll the police officers and Donald Vale and Saucier and that then Mrs. Vale and James arrived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [847.548, 848.329, 850.659], "stop_times": [848.329, 850.659, 856.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 847.548}, "reply_to": "15531__0_034", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_036", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, could they have gotten one more policeman in New Orleans to watch the backdoor while one guards the front door?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [856.359], "stop_times": [860.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.359}, "reply_to": "15531__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_037", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "There's no doubt about it.\nThere\u2019s no doubt about they couldn\u2019t.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [860.939, 862.598], "stop_times": [862.598, 863.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 860.939}, "reply_to": "15531__0_036", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_038", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "And the evidence could not have been destroyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [863.35], "stop_times": [866.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.35}, "reply_to": "15531__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_039", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No doubt about it.\nThe Louisiana did say they could\u2019ve -- position as this would have taken a long time and it would have interfered with the liberty of Mrs. Vale and James Vale inordinately?\nAnd supposing in the end they haven\u2019t found any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [866.136, 867.612, 878.909], "stop_times": [867.612, 878.909, 881.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 866.136}, "reply_to": "15531__0_038", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_040", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Did the arrest take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [881.051], "stop_times": [883.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.051}, "reply_to": "15531__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_041", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "They only arrested him after they found the narcotic evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [883.3], "stop_times": [885.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 883.3}, "reply_to": "15531__0_040", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_042", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, that\u2019s interfering with it they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [885.381], "stop_times": [888.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.381}, "reply_to": "15531__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15531__0_043", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [888.528], "stop_times": [889.888], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 888.528}, "reply_to": "15531__0_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15531__0_044", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No, well they arrested him for possession of narcotics Mr. Justice Marshall after they had searched the house and found the narcotics in his bedroom as his mother said.\nBut we\u2019re talking about the preliminary situation when the officers had just arrested Donald and Saucier right outside the house engaged in a narcotic transaction and then the whole issue they had to decide on the spur of the moment was whether to go in that house and look for those narcotics.\nThey didn\u2019t know whether anyone was in the house or not.\nThat\u2019s the situation we have right there.\nThey have to go in the house to see if anyone was there.\nNow, there's no doubt it we can see that they could\u2019ve gone in and look around and seen no one was there then they could\u2019ve called other police, placed guards on the house and gone out and got a warrant.\nThis would\u2019ve take in anywhere from three hours to the next day.\nWe concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [889.888, 898.499, 918.941, 921.3, 924.685, 928.581, 938.866, 943.032], "stop_times": [898.499, 918.941, 921.3, 924.685, 928.581, 938.866, 943.032, 944.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 889.888}, "reply_to": "15531__0_043", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_045", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, you would be making the same argument wouldn\u2019t you if they had arrested him six or eight blocks away on his way to his house?\nSay, he was going from work to home or they just intercepted him on the street and they thought there was probable cause that he had narcotics in his house.\nLet's assume they did have probable cause, do you think he had narcotics in his house, you would be making the same argument that you should not have to wait for a warrant in order to search that goes likely places where narcotics might be located?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [944.284, 953.499, 967.172], "stop_times": [953.499, 967.172, 981.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.284}, "reply_to": "15531__0_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15531__0_046", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No, Mr. Justice White here of course we\u2019re relying on the settled decisions of this Court that following a valid arrest the police can make a search incident to that arrest at the place of the arrest.\nAnd the only issue here is whether the place was extended a little too far as we said because Donald Vale was arrested at the front door of his house.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [981.247, 997.159], "stop_times": [997.159, 1007.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 981.247}, "reply_to": "15531__0_045", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_047", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, how do you distinguish Shipley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1007.03], "stop_times": [1009.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.03}, "reply_to": "15531__0_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15531__0_048", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Shipley, we distinguish very clearly.\nIn that -- in Shipley for instance the only similarity between this case and Shipley is that both arrests took place outside the house but unlike this case in Shipley, the police officers weren\u2019t watching and didn\u2019t see Shipley going in and out of his house committing a crime.\nShipley had committed that crime several days before and they were just at his house to arrest him for this crime they\u2019ve heard about.\nSecondly, Shipley didn\u2019t involve narcotics --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1009.179, 1011.124, 1029.684, 1037.16], "stop_times": [1011.124, 1029.684, 1037.16, 1041.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1009.179}, "reply_to": "15531__0_047", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_049", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Are you saying that in Shipley apparently they didn\u2019t have -- even have probable cause to search that house, is that your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1041.505], "stop_times": [1046.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.505}, "reply_to": "15531__0_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15531__0_050", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Well, right.\nThe thing is that I see it Shipley then hour of that they could\u2019ve got a search warrant and Shipley as this Court pointed out they stake -- they first went into the house and Shipley and they already eluded Shipley\u2019s associates to the fact that they went search because his wife was in there.\nThey already knew then they went back out and stake to that.\nNow during the stakeout they could\u2019ve which went on for several hours, they certainly could\u2019ve gotten a warrant.\nIt wasn\u2019t the emergency situation which here this emergency situation just developed in front of the officers as they went to serve these two old alias capiases.\nThey were presented with this emergency situation completely unforeseen, the sale took place in front of there eyes.\nThen what they were going to do about trying to get that evidence which they knew was in that house.\nIt all happened just like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1046.423, 1048.134, 1064.76, 1067.227, 1072.551, 1082.164, 1088.271, 1092.374], "stop_times": [1048.134, 1064.76, 1067.227, 1072.551, 1082.164, 1088.271, 1092.374, 1094.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1046.423}, "reply_to": "15531__0_049", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_051", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Mr. Korns, let me go back to the hypothetical that Mr. Justice White put to you.\nThat is if he encountered Vale six blocks away from the house.\nIn that circumstance, would he have any basis for thinking the house was the source of supply having been seen him come from the house to make the sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1094.04, 1099.374, 1106.321], "stop_times": [1099.374, 1106.321, 1114.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.04}, "reply_to": "15531__0_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__0_052", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Not at all, not only that but the house wouldn\u2019t be the place of the arrest here it\u2019s true that the arrest took place at the front steps of the house but remember this, Donald Vale had gone into the house when Saucier had first given him let him know he want a narcotics had come out of the house, leaving the door open, looking up and down.\nWhen Vale saw the police officers approached his house and arrest him right there at the car, he turned around and started toward the front door and as a matter of fact if the police officer had been aware of all the decisions which police officers aren\u2019t.\nIf I've been there I would just wait that the minute let Donald walk back into his house and then when a few steps he would\u2019ve been inside the house and you say, alright -- alright, although under Chimel I guess you would\u2019ve had to lame walk all the way back to the closest.\nBut anyway, nevertheless, it was so clearly a question of the arrest taking place at the scene you know of the search talking place at the scene of the crime immediately contemporaneous with the crime.\nThat we think these are the facts at which governed this case and would clearly distinguish an arrest which took place on the street for instance.\nThere, the place of the arrest would be the street and there the officers would only look around the feet of the accused for instance.\nNow, the State of Louisiana feels that this emergency situation is so similar to the one that existed to Schmerber for instance or in Warden versus Hayden and we can't see the difference.\nOf course in Schmerber it involved a blood sample and in Warden versus Hayden it involved burglary -- fruits of the burglary.\nBut nevertheless, the basic situation is the same.\nThe police officers are faced with a situation in which they\u2019ve got to act quickly or the evidence they are going to seize is not going to be there anymore.\nThey're faced with this situation and narcotic evidence disappears just as rapidly as does alcohol in the blood.\nNot only that, I\u2019d like to point out to this Court that if police officers can't make searches for narcotics such as existed in the present case, they can't really ever seize this evidence because how would they able to get a search warrant for instance although -- no, let's say the police officer is like in the present case knew that Donald Vale was operating from four or five different addresses.\nNow, supposing they had gone to -- had made out a search warrant about six of them, four or five addresses, one for his car, one for his person.\nAll simultaneous and taking him to a criminal district court judge all residing probable cause to believe that this particular warrant were discovered would turn out narcotics.\nThe judges signed them all then he had gone around and executed all these warrants and one of them that had found narcotics.\nIt seems to me that the accused, all he had to do is go and say, how could you have probable cause for this one warrant when you sign -- when you got that five others and you really didn\u2019t know where it was did you and no you didn\u2019t.\nAnd how do you know where the narcotic evidence is in the case like this where this guy -- these people are very smart and they jump around and they change where they keep the narcotic hoard on the person and the car in different place.\nSo, how would the police ever get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1114.805, 1134.964, 1148.881, 1165.772, 1179.671, 1187.017, 1195.203, 1207.668, 1217.692, 1221.552, 1233.348, 1244.088, 1266.638, 1275.584, 1285.66, 1292.475, 1305.764, 1317.761], "stop_times": [1134.964, 1148.881, 1165.772, 1179.671, 1187.017, 1195.203, 1207.668, 1217.692, 1221.552, 1233.348, 1244.088, 1266.638, 1275.584, 1285.66, 1292.475, 1305.764, 1317.761, 1319.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1114.805}, "reply_to": "15531__0_051", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_053", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Is this the case in which the record shows that they have habitually used three or four connecting houses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1319.254], "stop_times": [1328.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.254}, "reply_to": "15531__0_052", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__0_054", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No, not connecting houses Your Honor.\nDonald Vale, this was his mother and brother\u2019s house.\nHe had an apartment of his own, he sometimes stays in his girlfriend\u2019s apartment or friend\u2019s apartment operated of an automobile but he\u2019s an intelligent man enough to know that if he doesn\u2019t keep moving and keep his narcotic stock quickly shifting around then it\u2019s going to get seized.\nNow, are there any questions of Court would like to ask?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1328.059, 1330.541, 1334.259, 1365.63], "stop_times": [1330.541, 1334.259, 1365.63, 1369.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1328.059}, "reply_to": "15531__0_053", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_055", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "I think none Mrs. Korns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1369.86], "stop_times": [1373.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.86}, "reply_to": "15531__0_054", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__0_056", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Thank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1373.159], "stop_times": [1375.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1373.159}, "reply_to": "15531__0_055", "speaker": "louise_korns"}
{"id": "15531__0_057", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Deutsch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1375.059, 1376.399], "stop_times": [1376.399, 1376.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.059}, "reply_to": "15531__0_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_000", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice three or four observations in connection perhaps primarily with the discussion yesterday.\nI did make inquiry Mr. Justice White is to how long it would take to get a search warrant because I have no idea of my own.\nI was told that the ordinary practice of a situation of that sort is for one of the officers to telephone that they're coming down, give the appropriate information, and get the necessary papers ready while they were on their way back within the day time while courts are opened.\nThey -- it does take only about 30 minutes to prepare the necessary papers and add to that the time going in and coming back out should not be more than one hour for whatever that\u2019s worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1376.92, 1388.493, 1396.295, 1414.798], "stop_times": [1388.493, 1396.295, 1414.798, 1430.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.92}, "reply_to": "15531__0_057", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_001", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "I think you're posing the optimum circumstances --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1430.898], "stop_times": [1434.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.898}, "reply_to": "15531__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_002", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "In the day time, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1434.033], "stop_times": [1435.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.033}, "reply_to": "15531__1_001", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_003", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Mr. Deutsch, the optimum on a very favorable basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1435.712], "stop_times": [1441.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.712}, "reply_to": "15531__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_004", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "There's no question about that that is the optimum situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1441.95], "stop_times": [1444.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.95}, "reply_to": "15531__1_003", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_005", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "That would be perfect operations if you had an assistant district attorney there to assist with the preparation of that application to be sure that it met the standards laid down by this Court which are preferred to (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1444.364], "stop_times": [1455.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.364}, "reply_to": "15531__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_006", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "I'm not at all certain Mr. Chief Justice that a search warrant would be issued in such a case on the type of evidence they had.\nNow, the statement is made -- has been made that there was a narcotics transaction which have taken place.\nActually no one saw that, they saw what they thought was a narcotics transaction.\nThere was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1455.327, 1463.367, 1469.211, 1474.125], "stop_times": [1463.367, 1469.211, 1474.125, 1474.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.327}, "reply_to": "15531__1_005", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_007", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Isn\u2019t that the essence of probable cause, it\u2019s more probable than not that people in these circumstances swallowing something in the presence of the officer were swallowing something incriminating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1474.357], "stop_times": [1485.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.357}, "reply_to": "15531__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_008", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "I'm sure that on that alone, they would never get a conviction at least I assume that from reading the newspapers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1485.777], "stop_times": [1492.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.777}, "reply_to": "15531__1_007", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_009", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "No, we\u2019re just talking now about probable warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1492.122], "stop_times": [1493.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.122}, "reply_to": "15531__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_010", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "About probable cause and I plead I don\u2019t dispute that.\nI don\u2019t dispute the probable cause.\nI made the statement that he has that I didn\u2019t know never seen a search warrant so I couldn\u2019t very well speak about it.\nIn the course of checking on that I find that with one exception in the history of this Court at least to modern history no writ of certiorari has ever been issued out to this Court and no one has ever seen one where used to using this terms without really realizing what they are.\nI assume the judge to this Court had.\nI was asked yesterday too about the question as to why a hearing should be granted in this case and it should not have been handled summarily.\nI assume that was because Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice White while concurring in the grant of certiorari in the two prior case has decided in June of last year said that they dissented from a summary dismissed -- summary reversal of those cases without a hearing.\nAnd that under those circumstances it was thought best to grant a hearing in one case for the trial.\nNow, we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1493.607, 1497.514, 1499.962, 1507.504, 1524.745, 1527.097, 1537.652, 1558.474, 1564.46], "stop_times": [1497.514, 1499.962, 1507.504, 1524.745, 1527.097, 1537.652, 1558.474, 1564.46, 1565.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.607}, "reply_to": "15531__1_009", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_011", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "The two cases you were referring whether New Jersey case and the California case, I assume?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1565.171], "stop_times": [1569.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.171}, "reply_to": "15531__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15531__1_012", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Yes sir, Von Cleef and Shipley, that\u2019s right.\nNow, we rely of course on Agnello, James and Shipley in which and the statement finally made in Shipley that no warrant has ever been -- had no search has ever been held to be valid when the arrest was made outside the premises in which the search took place.\nWe submit the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1569.043, 1571.767, 1591.872], "stop_times": [1571.767, 1591.872, 1594.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1569.043}, "reply_to": "15531__1_011", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_013", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Thank you Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Deutsch, you acted at the request of the Court by appointment of the Court, we thank you for your assistance to us and of course assistance to your client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1594.195], "stop_times": [1606.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.195}, "reply_to": "15531__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15531__1_014", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "I'm very grateful for the privilege Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1606.735], "stop_times": [1608.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.735}, "reply_to": "15531__1_013", "speaker": "eberhard_p_deutsch"}
{"id": "15531__1_015", "conversation_id": "15531", "text": "Thank you Mrs. Korns.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_727", "start_times": [1608.708, 1609.255], "stop_times": [1609.255, 1611.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.708}, "reply_to": "15531__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_000", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Number 55, Wade against Wilson and others.\nMr. Small, you may proceed whenever you are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [0.0, 19.235], "stop_times": [19.235, 23.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_001", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Court.\nIn this case, petitioner Wade was tried with codefendant, Pollard, convicted of murder in the first degree.\nEach of the defendants filed a notice for appeal.\nHad they been tried separately, under the California Rules of Court, each of the codefendants would have been furnished a separate trial transcript.\nHowever, they were tried together and, therefore, under the rules only one transcript was made available to both defendants.\nAnd that transcript was sent to the codefendant, Pollard, Wade here did not see that transcript.\nHe didn't have the opportunity therefore to inspect the transcript before it was certified as correct for purposes of the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [23.037, 27.316, 35.219, 38.648, 47.098, 54.061, 61.693], "stop_times": [27.316, 35.219, 38.648, 47.098, 54.061, 61.693, 69.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 23.037}, "reply_to": "15158__0_000", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_002", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Now, I may have missed it in the record and parts of the appendix which are here, but is there an explanation for why this could not have been obtained for the use of this petitioner by the ordinary courtesies and amenities as between and among lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [69.337], "stop_times": [91.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.337}, "reply_to": "15158__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_003", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I don't know that there was any separate lawyer appointed at that time, Your Honor.\nThere was a new appellate counsel appointed for petitioner Wade here in connection with the appeal.\nThe record doesn't make clear at what point in time he was appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [91.369, 95.659, 102.4], "stop_times": [95.659, 102.4, 105.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 91.369}, "reply_to": "15158__0_002", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_004", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But we don't -- so we have nothing in this record to show whether he made any efforts or if so what efforts he made to get the transcript that had already been certified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [105.826], "stop_times": [115.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.826}, "reply_to": "15158__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_005", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's correct.\nWe do -- we do not have that in his record.\nThe case went up on appeal, oral argument was waived.\nThe decision was affirmed and thereafter, subsequently, the petitioner instituted proceedings in the California courts to try and obtain a copy of its transcript for the purpose of instituting collateral attack on his convictions.\nHe first applied to the District Court of Appeals and it affirmed the conviction and that court told him they'd had had no facilities for duplicating the transcript.\nHe applied to the California Supreme Court.\nThey told him to go back to the District Court of Appeals.\nThe transcript hereof record then indicates that following correspondence with California courts became clear that in order to obtain a copy of this transcript he would have to pay for it.\nIt was available for duplication if he paid for it, but that's the only way that he could get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [115.233, 115.83, 119.781, 128.05, 144.661, 154.238, 156.96, 160.155, 172.693], "stop_times": [115.83, 119.781, 128.05, 144.661, 154.238, 156.96, 160.155, 172.693, 176.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.233}, "reply_to": "15158__0_004", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_006", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "With -- the California courts have had the -- do they have the power to order the codefendant to surrender his copy of the transcript for use by your petitioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [176.948], "stop_times": [189.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.948}, "reply_to": "15158__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_007", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I would assume they do under rule ten by direction of the court they could've made it available, but they have taken no action to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [189.261], "stop_times": [199.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.261}, "reply_to": "15158__0_006", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_008", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And you -- do you know whether any effort was made to get them to exercise the rules and power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [199.187], "stop_times": [205.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.187}, "reply_to": "15158__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_009", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I do not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [205.553], "stop_times": [207.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.553}, "reply_to": "15158__0_008", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_010", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Is it -- while I have you interrupted, is it a substantial record if you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [207.503], "stop_times": [213.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.503}, "reply_to": "15158__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_011", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I have looked at the record myself, just briefly perused at -- had it sent up from Los Angeles to San Francisco.\nIt is approximately 800 pages long.\nI used in my brief my calculations for the cost of reproduction were based on that 800 pages and on commercial reproduction rates in the Bay Area and what -- we figured out that would be about $80 and the -- on reproduction rates at the court's own reproduction facilities were utilized (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [213.35, 219.177, 222.163], "stop_times": [219.177, 222.163, 240.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.35}, "reply_to": "15158__0_010", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_012", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Or about $25 for the Xerox equipment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [240.849], "stop_times": [243.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.849}, "reply_to": "15158__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_013", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Right it would be substantially less than commercial rates.\nWhat we have here then in summary is a case that really presents, I think a fairly narrow issue.\nThe case where a defendant was denied his right to a transcript by the application to the California Rules of Court in connection with his direct appeal.\nAnd, therefore, it comes around now for purpose of collateral attack as an indigent and is unable to get a copy of this transcript unless he can first demonstrate errors in his original conviction.\nI might add the -- that he filed for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court after he had been turned down by the California courts.\nThe District Court found that, yes, he was entitled to a transcript and order he be supplied one or else discharged.\nThe case was taken to the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed and said that he was required to first show meritorious grounds for off setting his conviction.\nTurning to the argument now, on the first stage of the argument, the question is to whether he was unconstitutionally denied his right to the transcript in connection with his direct appeal is a predicate for moving on to second stage.\nWe feel that the operation, the California Rules of Court are discriminatory in at least two respects.\nNumber one, in the way they discriminate between defendants tried separately and defendants tried jointly.\nIf the defendants tried separately, he is entitled to a transcript whether he is a millionaire or a pauper and regardless of the seriousness of the crime involved or the severity of the sentence imposed.\nIf he is tried jointly, he isn't entitled to a separate transcript even if he is an indigent.\nWe also feel that as a second basis for claiming discrimination as far as indigents are concerned the operation of the California Rules of Court preclude an indigent codefendant from receiving a right to a trial transcript in connection with an appeal and this case is an example of how that sort of rule can work.\nSo that, therefore, we feel that the rules as they operate tend to unconstitutionally deny particularly an indigent defendant his right to a trial transcript.\nNow, the State has argued that all that's necessary is access and that the attorney on appeal had access to the trial transcript for purpose of briefing the case.\nFirst of all, this sort of case demonstrates access may not be sufficient in connection with reviewing the correctness of the record.\nIt's -- that's possible and that -- and it worked out that way.\nSecondly, and perhaps more fundamental, is the burden that it places on appointed counsel in trying to brief and prepare cases if they have only access to a record where they have to borrow it from the Attorney General of the State.\nI have cited in the brief references to some of the problems encountered, discussed and recognized by this Court in the Hardy case, appointed counsel in indigent cases may face when they are trying to prepare cases.\nSo, therefore, the appeal that -- the type of access that the state says was made available here really should not be viewed as constitutionally sufficient for the protection of indigents to give them the same sorts of access to legal channels to effectuate justice as are available to persons who are not indigents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [243.981, 249.778, 258.708, 270.442, 284.481, 293.638, 300.866, 311.593, 325.04, 331.131, 337.869, 349.316, 356.042, 379.56, 392.024, 406.765, 416.765, 420.356, 437.733, 452.452], "stop_times": [249.778, 258.708, 270.442, 284.481, 293.638, 300.866, 311.593, 325.04, 331.131, 337.869, 349.316, 356.042, 379.56, 392.024, 406.765, 416.765, 420.356, 437.733, 452.452, 473.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.981}, "reply_to": "15158__0_012", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_014", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Small, is it the problem here, I'm looking at that footnote, the Court of Appeals submitted.\nDid that -- do you think that turn at all on -- tried and exhaust state remedies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [473.425, 479.519], "stop_times": [479.519, 485.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.425}, "reply_to": "15158__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_015", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I really do not think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [485.734], "stop_times": [487.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.734}, "reply_to": "15158__0_014", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_016", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "There is a suggestion that you might have a good interest point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [487.358], "stop_times": [490.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.358}, "reply_to": "15158__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_017", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes.\nThey were raised in the Court of Appeals' footnote.\nThey raised question and it might be a good Ander's point but they had an -- he hadn't exhaust the state remedies on that.\nI think the reference to state remedies refer to the Ander's point, Mr. Justice Brennan and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [490.586, 491.512, 493.648, 498.648], "stop_times": [491.512, 493.648, 498.648, 502.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.586}, "reply_to": "15158__0_016", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_018", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "You don't think -- in other words, is there anything in that which precludes or which he emerged, the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [502.292], "stop_times": [506.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.292}, "reply_to": "15158__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_019", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No sir.\nI don't, I think that remark was directed to the Ander's point which I am of course not trying to raise and consider here in this proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [506.296, 506.721], "stop_times": [506.721, 515.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.296}, "reply_to": "15158__0_018", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_020", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "You don't think any particular showing is necessary to prejudice in a particular case?\nHere there was access to the record by appellate counsel and there's a -- is there any suggestion that he could've done any better with a transcript of his own or anything specific?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [515.609, 522.99], "stop_times": [522.99, 540.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.609}, "reply_to": "15158__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_021", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I'm really not prepared to make that contention.\nI think we can only speculate as to what prejudice resulted to this man by not having separate transcript available either to examine before it was certified as correct on appeal or at subsequent stages in the procedure.\nWe can only speculate on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [540.116, 543.959, 560.464], "stop_times": [543.959, 560.464, 561.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.116}, "reply_to": "15158__0_020", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_022", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, do you rely at all on the unavailability of the transcript, to prepare a petition for rehearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [561.623], "stop_times": [568.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.623}, "reply_to": "15158__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_023", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, I do.\nI'm afraid that the record in this case is not as satisfactory as it should be.\nAlthough I believe that the state's willing to concede the factual predicate that's set out in the exhibits to my reply brief that there is basis for certainly contending that the record was not available for preparation of our petition for rehearing --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [568.741, 571.017, 575.765], "stop_times": [571.017, 575.765, 591.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.741}, "reply_to": "15158__0_022", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_024", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, assume you win -- why -- what do you want to win for, so you can get another appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [591.521], "stop_times": [597.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.521}, "reply_to": "15158__0_023", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_025", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That would be -- I think the ultimate result of your primary -- first off, I think that the man is entitled to a copy of this transcript so that he can at least -- at the very least, at the minimum, he should at least have a copy of his transcript so that he can examine it and prepare its basis for collateral attack.\nStep two and we'd ask for that in our original brief that we filed, he should have a right to appellate review again of his conviction.\nBut primarily, our first argument is that he should at least at the very minimum have a right to a transcript to prepare for a collateral attack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [597.213, 616.812, 627.532], "stop_times": [616.812, 627.532, 637.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.213}, "reply_to": "15158__0_024", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_026", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Have -- has this Court ever held that a state must furnish a transcript in order to prepare a petition for collateral relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [637.05], "stop_times": [646.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.05}, "reply_to": "15158__0_025", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_027", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Not specifically.\nI think that that result can be drawn by putting together cases such as Smith and Bennett and Gardner v. California.\nIn the Smith case, the Court indicated that you couldn't impose a burden on access to habeas corpus by a minimal -- afford a filing fee, I think it was.\nIn Gardner, in effect the Court was saying just this last term that for purpose of effectuate, really effectuate pursuing a habeas corpus proceeding, you had to make available the transcript of the prior proceeding.\nNow, you could argue as --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [646.244, 647.262, 655.004, 665.618, 678.743], "stop_times": [647.262, 655.004, 665.618, 678.743, 679.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.244}, "reply_to": "15158__0_026", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_028", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That was the state habeas, wasn't it Mr. Small?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [679.511], "stop_times": [681.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.511}, "reply_to": "15158__0_027", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_029", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That was state habeas, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [681.058], "stop_times": [682.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.058}, "reply_to": "15158__0_028", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_030", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But is there a right to counsel to prepare a habeas corpus petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [682.944], "stop_times": [688.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.944}, "reply_to": "15158__0_029", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_031", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No, not necessarily and of course that's a point that we make in our brief that you can draw a legitimate distinction between right to counsel where a man made -- file repeated habeas corpus petitions which may or may not be meritorious and the right to a transcript which you need only once.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [688.675], "stop_times": [705.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.675}, "reply_to": "15158__0_030", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_032", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, is that -- on what provision of the constitution do you rely on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [705.603], "stop_times": [710.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.603}, "reply_to": "15158__0_031", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_033", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The Fourteenth Amendment, violation of the equal protection and due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [710.465], "stop_times": [714.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.465}, "reply_to": "15158__0_032", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_034", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Equal protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [714.859], "stop_times": [715.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.859}, "reply_to": "15158__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_035", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Equal protection.\nThat an indigent -- I'm --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [715.963, 718.15], "stop_times": [718.15, 719.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.963}, "reply_to": "15158__0_034", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_036", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's because (Inaudible) ending up tried jointly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [719.677], "stop_times": [723.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.677}, "reply_to": "15158__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_037", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [723.474], "stop_times": [723.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.474}, "reply_to": "15158__0_036", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_038", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "He would be entitled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [723.957], "stop_times": [725.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.957}, "reply_to": "15158__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_039", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [725.274], "stop_times": [725.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.274}, "reply_to": "15158__0_038", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_040", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Because he was tried jointly and the other chap was supposed to get a transcript, the rules denied him of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [725.856], "stop_times": [731.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.856}, "reply_to": "15158__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_041", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's right, that he has none of his own and carrying that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [731.078], "stop_times": [733.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.078}, "reply_to": "15158__0_040", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_042", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's the only basis, is it, of your equal protection argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [733.531], "stop_times": [737.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.531}, "reply_to": "15158__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__0_043", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, I think you could carry it up a step further and say that there are other examples of how he was discriminated against, including on collateral attack.\nHe is not in the same position as a person who is moneyed defendant.\nThe whole theory of the Roberts v. LaVallee and the cases that stem from (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [737.991, 751.012, 756.243], "stop_times": [751.012, 756.243, 760.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.991}, "reply_to": "15158__0_042", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_044", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But on that basis, it carry the right to counsel too, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [760.178], "stop_times": [764.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.178}, "reply_to": "15158__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_045", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Not necessarily, not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [764.915], "stop_times": [768.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 764.915}, "reply_to": "15158__0_044", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_046", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Almost necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [768.857], "stop_times": [771.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.857}, "reply_to": "15158__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15158__0_047", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I wouldn't want to have to advance that argument here, in this particular proceeding but simply the right to the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [771.391], "stop_times": [777.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.391}, "reply_to": "15158__0_046", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_048", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "How does California decide which of the three or four or five defendants, codefendants gets the first shot at the transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [777.446], "stop_times": [786.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.446}, "reply_to": "15158__0_047", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_049", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I only wish I knew Your Honor.\nI really don't know the basis by which they do that.\nThe -- this is -- in this particular transcript as I recall --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [786.844, 788.709, 792.419], "stop_times": [788.709, 792.419, 795.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.844}, "reply_to": "15158__0_048", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_050", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Then for all we know it may have been made available to all of them and each of them collectively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [795.715], "stop_times": [804.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.715}, "reply_to": "15158__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_051", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, I'm a little reluctant to speak from my own personal perusal of the transcript as what apparently happened and since it's not of record in the case, but on the facts that were alleged in the habeas petition here, which haven't been denied, petitioner Wade never saw a copy of his transcript, never had it available.\nOne other pint in connection with the state's argument as to access as we -- it was the case here being sufficient it works a particularly discriminatory result on subsequent proceeding on collateral attack because even if you say access is sufficient for any defendant, you only have to allow him to see a transcript and not give him a copy of it then the state switches its position on collateral attack and no longer grants the right of access an in effect is saying, well, you can't see your transcript unless you first show meritorious grounds for off setting your conviction.\nSo that even if you were to use the access point that the state is using here to try and uphold the procedure the petitioner here is twice in a less advantageous position than he otherwise would be in.\nThe state is arguing in effect two points, essentially two points as I see it in trying to sustain the position that the petitioner should not have a right to a transcript.\nThey are in effect saying first all that the burden on the state economically would just be terrifying because then anybody could come in and on purposes of collateral attack ask for a right to a transcript, but that isn't this case.\nThey were referring to statistics where maybe no transcript had ever been prepared and the person would come in and apply for a transcript for purposes of collateral attack.\nThis is a case where a transcript had been prepared and was indeed available and could easily have been copied at a fairly small cost.\nSo the type of statistics that the state is citing for the purpose of establishing undue economic burden really aren't relevant to this particular case which is really a fairly narrow case.\nI say it's a case where there is a transcript in existence.\nThe man would've gotten it in connection with his original appeal, but for the particular operation of the California rules on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [804.009, 829.263, 867.818, 883.461, 898.744, 917.54, 927.134, 938.326, 951.308, 954.718], "stop_times": [829.263, 867.818, 883.461, 898.744, 917.54, 927.134, 938.326, 951.308, 954.718, 963.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.009}, "reply_to": "15158__0_050", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_052", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What stage did you come in to the case counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [963.885], "stop_times": [966.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.885}, "reply_to": "15158__0_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_053", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "In connection with the preparation of the brief on the merits in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [966.768], "stop_times": [972.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.768}, "reply_to": "15158__0_052", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_054", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And you were appointed by this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [972.871], "stop_times": [973.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.871}, "reply_to": "15158__0_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_055", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I was appointed by this Court for the purpose of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [973.905], "stop_times": [976.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.905}, "reply_to": "15158__0_054", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_056", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I'm not sure that its relevant at all and please don't assume I'm suggesting any criticism by the question, but I wonder if you made any effort to consider getting an order to show cause on the codefendant or other processes to get that transcript before you came all the way here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [976.574], "stop_times": [995.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.574}, "reply_to": "15158__0_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_057", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No sir.\nI felt under the terms of the appointment that my obligation was to brief and argue the case before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [995.672, 996.902], "stop_times": [996.902, 1003.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.672}, "reply_to": "15158__0_056", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_058", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Of course I recognize that.\nYou're here because we asked you to be here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1003.085, 1004.124], "stop_times": [1004.124, 1005.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.085}, "reply_to": "15158__0_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_059", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes sir.\nThe second argument that the state presents for denying his right to transcript to this petitioner is that it may have a deleterious effect on prison discipline.\nA suggestion is made that a prisoner gets a transcript, he might be discussing his case with other prisoners and this could hamper prison discipline.\nI'm a little perplexed by this argument because as I understand it, a prisoner who say was tried individually rather than jointly and convicted and furnished a transcript would be entitled to keep his transcript and have it in prison with him and use it there so that in effect, the state is arguing that it's only codefendants who were tried jointly who might be causing problems with the prison discipline by having the right to their transcripts and the -- I just don't think that this argument really holds water when you look at the practicalities of the situation.\nThe basic premise I think here come down me is really is the question of trying to balance -- carry out as effectively as possible the administration of justice, the persons who were incarcerated by not clogging up the channels of judicial administration, making available to them the instruments necessary to vindicate their rights, but the same time, not thrusting unreasonable burdens on the state.\nIt seems to me that in this particular type of situation where you have the man who would've had a transcript but for the peculiar operation, the discriminatory operation of California law, where a transcript is available and can easily be reproduced that the balance should be struck in favor of making the transcript available to a person such as this indigent.\nIn terms of trying to carry out the line of cases, Griffin, Roberts and LaVallee, those cases that try to ensure that the channels of the courts, the access to vindication of legal rights will be available to all without any distinction based on financial position of the defendant involved.\nI would like to reserve time now for rebuttal if I could unless the Court has any questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1005.733, 1011.583, 1023.261, 1032.248, 1074.214, 1105.114, 1132.643, 1157.484], "stop_times": [1011.583, 1023.261, 1032.248, 1074.214, 1105.114, 1132.643, 1157.484, 1161.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.733}, "reply_to": "15158__0_058", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_060", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Very well, Mr. Small.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1161.837], "stop_times": [1164.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.837}, "reply_to": "15158__0_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__0_061", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1164.786], "stop_times": [1168.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.786}, "reply_to": "15158__0_060", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__0_062", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Murphy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1168.557], "stop_times": [1170.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.557}, "reply_to": "15158__0_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_000", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nYour Honors, four facts stand out in this particular case.\nFirst, petitioner Wade is now an indigent.\nSecond, as a state prisoner, he is a potential applicant for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts or in the federal courts.\nThird, he is seeking here now a free copy of his trial transcript for no other reason than to comb the records in the hope or anticipation that he'll discover some trial error in the record.\nAnd the fourth fact and I think this ties in with your question Mr. Chief Justice, I think it's a -- the fact that we have to emphasize in this proceeding is that California has provided this indigent with a trial attorney, a daily transcript during the course of is trial with an appeal, with an attorney on appeal and has given that attorney an access to the trial transcript in the preparation over the brief on appeal.\nCalifornia has provided all of these services at state expense to this particular indigent.\nNow the trial proceedings and the appellate process which I suppose you can call the natural extension of the trial proceedings terminated in 1961.\nNow, since 1961, this petitioner has made no allegation in any court, state or federal respecting the validity of his state court conviction.\nWhat's -- he is in -- involved in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1170.127, 1173.687, 1182.318, 1188.895, 1202.059, 1224.915, 1260.808, 1269.699, 1284.944, 1303.075], "stop_times": [1173.687, 1182.318, 1188.895, 1202.059, 1224.915, 1260.808, 1269.699, 1284.944, 1303.075, 1305.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1170.127}, "reply_to": "15158__0_062", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_001", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Excuse me Mr. Murphy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1305.823], "stop_times": [1306.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.823}, "reply_to": "15158__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_002", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1306.714], "stop_times": [1308.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1306.714}, "reply_to": "15158__1_001", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_003", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Are you trying to say that he already had (Ianudible) daily transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1308.434], "stop_times": [1312.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.434}, "reply_to": "15158__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_004", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor, this was a capital case.\nIt's a first degree murder case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1312.806, 1316.081], "stop_times": [1316.081, 1317.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1312.806}, "reply_to": "15158__1_003", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_005", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And -- at -- was on appeal, first appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1317.714], "stop_times": [1320.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.714}, "reply_to": "15158__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_006", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1320.248], "stop_times": [1321.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1320.248}, "reply_to": "15158__1_005", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_007", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "This is the compulsory (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1321.015], "stop_times": [1323.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.015}, "reply_to": "15158__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_008", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No Your Honor, it was not a compulsory or automatic appeal because like --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1323.431], "stop_times": [1326.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1323.431}, "reply_to": "15158__1_007", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_009", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But he then -- he had a complete transcript for the purposes of that appeal, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1326.779], "stop_times": [1331.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.779}, "reply_to": "15158__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_010", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor, not personal possession, the record doesn't disclose that he had a personal possession of the trial transcript.\nThe record does disclose that his attorney had access to the record for the preparation of the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1331.34, 1341.178], "stop_times": [1341.178, 1349.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1331.34}, "reply_to": "15158__1_009", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_011", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "This is still something on how you been tried, and just to of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1349.836], "stop_times": [1353.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.836}, "reply_to": "15158__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_012", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor, codefendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1353.178], "stop_times": [1354.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1353.178}, "reply_to": "15158__1_011", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_013", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But there was only a single transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1354.45], "stop_times": [1356.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.45}, "reply_to": "15158__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_014", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1356.239], "stop_times": [1356.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1356.239}, "reply_to": "15158__1_013", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_015", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I see, a single daily transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1356.919], "stop_times": [1359.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.919}, "reply_to": "15158__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_016", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1359.057], "stop_times": [1360.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1359.057}, "reply_to": "15158__1_015", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_017", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Available --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1360.38], "stop_times": [1360.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.38}, "reply_to": "15158__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15158__1_018", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That is -- I can make that representation of fact that there was but a single daily transcript appeared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1360.584], "stop_times": [1369.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1360.584}, "reply_to": "15158__1_017", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_019", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Murphy what do you mean by access?\nActually, I mean, was it in the certain room where they can go and use it, could they take it to their office, could they Xerox it?\nWhat do we mean by access?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1369.358, 1373.034, 1379.546], "stop_times": [1373.034, 1379.546, 1381.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.358}, "reply_to": "15158__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_020", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, let me -- before I answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1381.542], "stop_times": [1383.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1381.542}, "reply_to": "15158__1_019", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_021", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1383.449], "stop_times": [1383.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.449}, "reply_to": "15158__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_022", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Let me premise your question Your Honor.\nThe record that is before this Court as it was before the District Court and the Court of Appeals, doesn't have the facts developed.\nThere was never any evidentiary process either in the state courts or the federal courts to determine what was distribution of the daily transcript, who had access to it and the full circumstances surrounding the use by appellate counsel, the transcript during the course of the appeal in the preparation of the brief.\nWe really haven't had any evidence presented on that.\nIf we look at this record, it would disclose that the appointed attorney on appeal borrowed a copy of the record from the State Attorney General because of some difficulty in obtaining the record from the codefendant, Mr. Pollard.\nAnd that in preparing his brief in the state direct appeal, he relied upon this record and I assume we can or infer from this that the record that he did use was the same record that the court had.\nIt doesn't appear here that there was any handicap because he had to borrow the record from the Attorney General's Office rather than going over to the prison, removing a record from a prisoner and using that in the course of the appellate process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1383.476, 1386.339, 1396.068, 1419.589, 1423.684, 1449.679, 1471.581], "stop_times": [1386.339, 1396.068, 1419.589, 1423.684, 1449.679, 1471.581, 1492.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1383.476}, "reply_to": "15158__1_021", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_023", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "May I ask your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1492.934], "stop_times": [1494.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.934}, "reply_to": "15158__1_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_024", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1494.046], "stop_times": [1494.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1494.046}, "reply_to": "15158__1_023", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_025", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "-- state, the method California use this when they have three or four defendants to make a copy of your evidence available to all of them?\nI don't mean all at the same time, but what is your method, if you are familiar with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1494.591, 1505.515], "stop_times": [1505.515, 1510.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.591}, "reply_to": "15158__1_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_026", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nDuring the course of the appellate process, there is an enforceable right that each co-appellant or codefendant would have a -- to obtain the copy of the record, either for the attorney to prepare the brief or if the appellant is proceeding in pro per, for himself to prepare the brief.\nThere is an enforceable right during this process that of course and it wouldn't be otherwise under this Court's decision in Griffin, the man is entitled during the direct appeal, to have access to the trial record in the preparation of the brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1510.681, 1511.455, 1542.901], "stop_times": [1511.455, 1542.901, 1561.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1510.681}, "reply_to": "15158__1_025", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_027", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "How does the state draw about fulfilling this obligation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1561.793], "stop_times": [1567.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.793}, "reply_to": "15158__1_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_028", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I can't speak with any -- any more than the general familiarity.\nWhen the attorneys are appointed by the court to represent the appellants, the attorneys would have their interviews or discussions or conferences with the appellant and borrow the record from the appellant.\nIt would be a mutual arrangement made among or between the attorneys who are handling the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1567.619, 1575.135, 1593.637], "stop_times": [1575.135, 1593.637, 1601.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1567.619}, "reply_to": "15158__1_027", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_029", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "You mean the state has nothing to do with it but just leave it up to the different defendant, if you get from another defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1601.724], "stop_times": [1609.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.724}, "reply_to": "15158__1_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_030", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "You Honor, if there was any complain, if every appointed attorney had a complaint that a transcript was not available to him to prepare a brief on appeal, all the attorney would have to do under the rules of court would bring this to the attention of the court and the court will take the necessary action --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1609.04], "stop_times": [1630.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1609.04}, "reply_to": "15158__1_029", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_031", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1630.634], "stop_times": [1631.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.634}, "reply_to": "15158__1_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_032", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "-- to either to reproduce, say a copy of the Court's transcript for the -- whether the co-appellant to furnish his copy to the appellant who does not have a copy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1631.021], "stop_times": [1644.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.021}, "reply_to": "15158__1_031", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_033", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "So, you are saying is -- in preparing his brief, or use in preparing his brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1644.477], "stop_times": [1651.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.477}, "reply_to": "15158__1_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_034", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor, in use for his brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1651.063], "stop_times": [1652.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.063}, "reply_to": "15158__1_033", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_035", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Whether it's yes as to whether the state will furnish each individual defendant with a complete transcript of the record, is that what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1652.604], "stop_times": [1666.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.604}, "reply_to": "15158__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_036", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What the state furnishes is access to the record.\nNow, if a defendant is tried separately, of course he has a unique trial record that is peculiar to his particular case.\nAs an incident or a circumstance of the appellate process, it may develop that at the termination of the appeal, after the reversal or the affirmation of the criminal conviction, he may retain personal possession of the transcript --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1666.672, 1670.614, 1683.336], "stop_times": [1670.614, 1683.336, 1705.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.672}, "reply_to": "15158__1_035", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_037", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But have we ever held that where there are more than one defendant, the state is under an obligation, and they're all indigent, the state is under an obligation to file a complete transcript with each one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1705.177], "stop_times": [1720.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.177}, "reply_to": "15158__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_038", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That during the appellate process Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1720.954], "stop_times": [1724.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.954}, "reply_to": "15158__1_037", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_039", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1724.045], "stop_times": [1724.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.045}, "reply_to": "15158__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_040", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The state would be under an obligation to furnish the appellate attorney or the appellant in pro per --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1724.094], "stop_times": [1729.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.094}, "reply_to": "15158__1_039", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_041", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But have we held -- has there been any in a case which either raised this question or decided the question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1729.768], "stop_times": [1736.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.768}, "reply_to": "15158__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_042", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1736.169], "stop_times": [1736.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.169}, "reply_to": "15158__1_041", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_043", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "-- whether there are four or five defendant, the state has to supply four or five transcripts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1736.533], "stop_times": [1741.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.533}, "reply_to": "15158__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_044", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No Your Honor, no case in California nor is there any federal case.\nLet's put this case in its perspective.\nPetitioner Wade without a transcript is really in no different position than any other potential habeas corpus applicant who does not have a transcript for any number of reasons.\nHe may not have a transcript because it was lost, it was stolen, it was destroyed, because he appealed on a settled statement rather than on a transcript or because he never appealed at all.\nHe doesn't have the piece of property which constitutes the transcript.\nWhat he did get, what California did furnish him was a transcript for use during the appellate process and when that came to an end, the state's interest in whether or not he continues to have this document in his cell or wherever he wants to keep it, is that a determination where --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1741.981, 1748.847, 1751.727, 1767.185, 1780.622, 1787.152], "stop_times": [1748.847, 1751.727, 1767.185, 1780.622, 1787.152, 1810.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.981}, "reply_to": "15158__1_043", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_045", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "In your view -- your argument then that the state is not compelled to provide a transcript for collateral attacks only during the time that matter can be held on the appellate process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1810.212], "stop_times": [1827.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.212}, "reply_to": "15158__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_046", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1827.403], "stop_times": [1827.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.403}, "reply_to": "15158__1_045", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_047", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "From the original judgment, is that to -- what you're arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1827.59], "stop_times": [1830.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.59}, "reply_to": "15158__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_048", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, yes Your Honor.\nNow during an appellate process, whether the appeal is a direct appeal from the trial or whether it's an appeal from a habeas corpus evidentiary hearing or whether it's an appeal from a lower court coram nobis proceeding, the appeal necessarily concentrates on a specific proceeding.\nThe state is interested in satisfying itself that the proceedings below have been fairly conducted in an accordance with law, state law and federal law alike.\nBut once the appellate process ends, and I think this Court recognized in Johnson versus Avery the responsibility of presenting a claim of illegality in the conviction rests upon the potential applicant for habeas corpus relief.\nHabeas corpus is a new proceeding.\nWe're starting something all over again.\nIt's broad in its scope and its varied in its reach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1830.076, 1831.926, 1853.88, 1867.664, 1888.324, 1891.121, 1894.968], "stop_times": [1831.926, 1853.88, 1867.664, 1888.324, 1891.121, 1894.968, 1901.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.076}, "reply_to": "15158__1_047", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_049", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Murphy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1901.14], "stop_times": [1902.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.14}, "reply_to": "15158__1_048", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_050", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1902.2], "stop_times": [1902.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.2}, "reply_to": "15158__1_049", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_051", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Do I understand you that this transcript, there is one that he had on appeal is still available some place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1902.29], "stop_times": [1909.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.29}, "reply_to": "15158__1_050", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_052", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nOf course there would be a copy in the files of the Court of Appeals.\nThere is a physical transcript available, yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1909.772, 1910.672, 1916.828], "stop_times": [1910.672, 1916.828, 1919.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.772}, "reply_to": "15158__1_051", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_053", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, is -- I understood you to say, you gave him one when he went up on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1919.412], "stop_times": [1924.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.412}, "reply_to": "15158__1_052", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_054", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe don't know those facts.\nWe really haven't had any evidentiary process to determine for certainty whether or not this man did have at one time physical possession either during the course of the trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1924.033, 1925.338, 1927.504], "stop_times": [1925.338, 1927.504, 1943.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.033}, "reply_to": "15158__1_053", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_055", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What I'm trying to get to, is there more than one copy of this transcript available as of this moment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1943.691], "stop_times": [1950.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.691}, "reply_to": "15158__1_054", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_056", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1950.504], "stop_times": [1951.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.504}, "reply_to": "15158__1_055", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_057", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, why not give it to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1951.552], "stop_times": [1954.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.552}, "reply_to": "15158__1_056", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_058", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, Your Honor we are involved here --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1954.59], "stop_times": [1957.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.59}, "reply_to": "15158__1_057", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_059", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I mean, you don't need the one, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1957.092], "stop_times": [1960.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.092}, "reply_to": "15158__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_060", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Your Honor, we're involved here with a very broad issue.\nNow counsel for petitioner has attempted to narrow this down and to paint the state as being irresponsible because it will not come up with $40 or $25 to Xerox a copy.\nWe have to look at the holding of the United States District Court.\nThe United States District Court said that an indigent prisoner is entitled, free of charge to his trial transcript to explore the record in the hope of finding some flaw.\nThis was the issue that was ruled upon by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when it reversed the District Court.\nSo, we're up before this Court on a broader principle and if we were to furnish, if we were to concede that the District Court were correct that any habeas corpus applicant, potential, let me emphasize that word potential.\nIt's just not any one who has filed a habeas corpus petition.\nThis is the potential applicant which was -- would be anyone in the whole prison system and the reach of habeas corpus or the vast number of habeas corpus cases involved matters, they go outside the trial record.\nThe are matters collateral to the trial proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [1960.215, 1963.477, 1982.118, 1985.72, 2007.531, 2015.407, 2031.96, 2039.07, 2054.61], "stop_times": [1963.477, 1982.118, 1985.72, 2007.531, 2015.407, 2031.96, 2039.07, 2054.61, 2059.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.215}, "reply_to": "15158__1_059", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_061", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I understand all of that, but I don't see the need for the Xerox copies.\nAs I understand it, the state can give him a copy which is available and which state don't need, is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2059.764, 2065.882], "stop_times": [2065.882, 2079.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.764}, "reply_to": "15158__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_062", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, I don't know the exact number of copies, but under the rule of court, there would be an original which would've gone to the appellate court and there would've been three copies because this was a capital case, the District Attorney would've received the copy and the Attorney General would've received the copy.\nThe third copy would've gone to be shared by the appellants during the course of the appeal.\nSo, the answer to your question is that there should be an original and two copies somewhere in the state of California.\nWhat we think is before the Court, the problem before the Court is not limited to this particular case.\nThe problem before the Court is whether or not when an indigent makes no allegation on collateral attack of any error that occurred in his trial, is the state then responsible to turn over its copy or the copy of any other documents whether they be police reports or any other matters that might be connected with the criminal proceedings, matters of physical evidence that might have been produced at the trial, whether or not the state is then responsible to turn over these documents because the man wants to engage in an exploration or fishing expedition.\nWe think the state burden comes to an end, that the conscience of the state, that it is satisfied, that it has given the man due process through a criminal trial in an appellate process, comes to an end when the affirmation of the -- with the affirmation of the decision on that -- on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2079.911, 2100.503, 2111.628, 2120.538, 2128.583, 2172.131], "stop_times": [2100.503, 2111.628, 2120.538, 2128.583, 2172.131, 2199.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.911}, "reply_to": "15158__1_061", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_063", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Murphy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2199.783], "stop_times": [2200.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.783}, "reply_to": "15158__1_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_064", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2200.852], "stop_times": [2201.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.852}, "reply_to": "15158__1_063", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_065", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "It seems to me that you and your brother counsel are -- differ a little bit as to what is the issue in this case.\nHe puts in terms of this; that since California does provide a free transcript to every individually tried defendant, rich or poor, it is obligated under the equal protection law, under the particular Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to provide an individual free transcript to every defendant, rich or poor who was tried jointly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2201.343, 2211.399], "stop_times": [2211.399, 2235.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.343}, "reply_to": "15158__1_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_066", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nThat's how I understand the issue --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2235.815, 2236.21], "stop_times": [2236.21, 2236.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.815}, "reply_to": "15158__1_065", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_067", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And that the only -- thus you can eat can the defendant be tried jointly be equated and give an equal protection with the defendant who is tried individually and singly, that's the way he posts the issue before us.\nYou on the other hand say what the issue in this case has nothing to do with that, but rather is the question of whether a state is obligated under the constitution, I suppose now the Due Process Clause to provide at a state convict's arbitrary request, a free transcript of that convict's trial even in the absence of any allegations whatsoever on the part of the convict that any error occurred at his trial that might be subject to collateral attack which is a much broader issue as you correctly say and which frankly it seems to me is what was the issue decided by the District Court and the Court of Appeals in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2236.766, 2251.205], "stop_times": [2251.205, 2300.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.766}, "reply_to": "15158__1_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_068", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nI might add one more fact that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2300.77, 2301.384], "stop_times": [2301.384, 2305.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.77}, "reply_to": "15158__1_067", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_069", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But would you -- am I right (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2305.28], "stop_times": [2307.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.28}, "reply_to": "15158__1_068", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_070", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think that's a very accurate summary of both our position and the position of the petitioner here.\nI like to add one more thing.\nIf there were an issue regarding the validity of the California procedure whereby co-appellants or codefendants share a single copy of the transcript, you would not need a copy of the transcript to raise this issue.\nThe possession of a transcript would be immaterial.\nThe issue could be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2307.156, 2307.816, 2313.461, 2315.971, 2338.906, 2344.097], "stop_times": [2307.816, 2313.461, 2315.971, 2338.906, 2344.097, 2344.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.156}, "reply_to": "15158__1_069", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_071", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Or the content of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2344.647], "stop_times": [2346.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.647}, "reply_to": "15158__1_070", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_072", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The content of the transcript would be immaterial.\nThe state courts in this case and the federal courts have never passed upon this issue raised by the petitioner and of course the petitioner, you might say would be even in a better position if he didn't have a copy of the transcript if he were raising this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2346.177, 2349.611], "stop_times": [2349.611, 2370.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.177}, "reply_to": "15158__1_071", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_073", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But which point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2370.716], "stop_times": [2371.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.716}, "reply_to": "15158__1_072", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_074", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2371.21], "stop_times": [2372.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.21}, "reply_to": "15158__1_073", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_075", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Which point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2372.346], "stop_times": [2373.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.346}, "reply_to": "15158__1_074", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_076", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "If you're raising the point that there -- the -- there are some invidious discrimination in providing an individual --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2373.376], "stop_times": [2380.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.376}, "reply_to": "15158__1_075", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_077", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, I understand that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2380.536], "stop_times": [2382.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.536}, "reply_to": "15158__1_076", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_078", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "-- defendant with the transcript in requiring codefendants to share a transcript.\nYou don't need a transcript to reach this issue, then the order of the District Court would be meaningless.\nThe court could have found if it reached that issue that this man had been discriminated against, it would've set aside its conviction and ordered the reinstatement of the appellate process, this wasn't done.\nThe decision that was reached and arrived at by the District Court which was reversed by the Court of Appeals was that this man who alleged no error, who we assumed -- we have no other course but to assume that he can't think of any possible error.\nAnd here is a man that comes before the Court and is asking for a transcript at state expense, in other words for the state to subsidize his exploration in the anticipation that maybe he'll come up with something that he can present to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2382.238, 2387.641, 2397.972, 2413.332, 2431.621], "stop_times": [2387.641, 2397.972, 2413.332, 2431.621, 2451.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.238}, "reply_to": "15158__1_077", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_079", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Seven or eight years after the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal at which his counsel did have access to a transcript, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2451.366], "stop_times": [2459.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.366}, "reply_to": "15158__1_078", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__1_080", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2459.206], "stop_times": [2460.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.206}, "reply_to": "15158__1_079", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_081", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Did anyone ask the District judge here to direct a copy of the transcript be made either from the codefendant or from some other person having custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2460.656], "stop_times": [2475.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.656}, "reply_to": "15158__1_080", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_082", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Not to my knowledge Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2475.278], "stop_times": [2477.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.278}, "reply_to": "15158__1_081", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_083", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The record doesn't show anything of that (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2477.646], "stop_times": [2479.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.646}, "reply_to": "15158__1_082", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_084", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The record discloses these alleged facts.\nAs I said, there's no evidentiary process to get into any certainty, but the record alleges these facts that he asked the petitioner, asked the California Court of Appeal for a copy of his transcript some five or six years after his conviction had been affirmed on appeal.\nHe was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2479.609, 2483.752, 2508.741], "stop_times": [2483.752, 2508.741, 2508.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2479.609}, "reply_to": "15158__1_083", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_085", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Wasn't that copy available in the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2508.821], "stop_times": [2511.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.821}, "reply_to": "15158__1_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_086", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nIf he had the funds --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2511.692, 2513.393], "stop_times": [2513.393, 2515.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.692}, "reply_to": "15158__1_085", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_087", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And was he indigent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2515.718], "stop_times": [2517.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.718}, "reply_to": "15158__1_086", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_088", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor, he was indigent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2517.419], "stop_times": [2519.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.419}, "reply_to": "15158__1_087", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_089", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "There was a copy in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2519.94], "stop_times": [2520.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.94}, "reply_to": "15158__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_090", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The allegation is that he was indigent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2520.532], "stop_times": [2522.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.532}, "reply_to": "15158__1_089", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_091", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And he asked to see a copy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2522.181], "stop_times": [2525.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.181}, "reply_to": "15158__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_092", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "He asked for a copy Your Honor, not to see a copy, asked for a copy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2525.195], "stop_times": [2528.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.195}, "reply_to": "15158__1_091", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_093", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And is that the only issue between them whether you give it to him or whether you'll let him have a -- have it available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2528.691], "stop_times": [2534.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.691}, "reply_to": "15158__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_094", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No Your Honor.\nAgain, there's a -- looking at this case in its broadest scope, it's a question of whether or not we are going to provide any requesting indigent who is a potential applicant for some form of collateral attack with documents at state expense, we don't provide him attorney --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2534.769, 2536.291], "stop_times": [2536.291, 2562.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.769}, "reply_to": "15158__1_093", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_095", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "You had it there looking at from a practical standpoint, the courts had it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2562.473], "stop_times": [2567.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.473}, "reply_to": "15158__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_096", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2567.642], "stop_times": [2569.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.642}, "reply_to": "15158__1_095", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_097", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2569.442], "stop_times": [2569.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.442}, "reply_to": "15158__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_098", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I don't think this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2569.807], "stop_times": [2570.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.807}, "reply_to": "15158__1_097", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_099", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What harm would it do the court to let him see it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2570.225], "stop_times": [2574.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.225}, "reply_to": "15158__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_100", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What harm would it do Your Honor in reply to -- provide him with an attorney or to provide with a team of investigators or provide him with some experts.\nThere's any number of things that you could not necessarily say would be -- would be harmful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2574.454, 2585.864], "stop_times": [2585.864, 2591.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.454}, "reply_to": "15158__1_099", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_101", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "(Voice Overlap)-- but we have said that a man who is indigent is entitled to get -- to have said as nearly as possible in the status of the man who would have money to pay for a record.\nWhat he is saying as I understand you now is that he is entitled to have that record made available to him and he asked the court for it and they wouldn't let him have it, although they had it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2591.237, 2606.816], "stop_times": [2606.816, 2619.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.237}, "reply_to": "15158__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_102", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The court would've made it available to him if he could have arranged for the reproduction of the record, that's what the facts of this case disclose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2619.484], "stop_times": [2628.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.484}, "reply_to": "15158__1_101", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_103", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "If -- who could arrange them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2628.091], "stop_times": [2630.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.091}, "reply_to": "15158__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_104", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Pardon me Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2630.072], "stop_times": [2630.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.072}, "reply_to": "15158__1_103", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_105", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "If who could arrange for the reproduction of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2630.733], "stop_times": [2632.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.733}, "reply_to": "15158__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_106", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "If the petitioner himself --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2632.529], "stop_times": [2634.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.529}, "reply_to": "15158__1_105", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_107", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well that means if he didn't have the money to do it, he just couldn't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2634.657], "stop_times": [2638.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.657}, "reply_to": "15158__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_108", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Your Honor if he had had the money, he could have to be candid with the court, he could have had a copy of the record, but that's not the question before the court, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2638.041], "stop_times": [2649.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.041}, "reply_to": "15158__1_107", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_109", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "It seems to be the question to me from what you tell me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2649.22], "stop_times": [2652.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.22}, "reply_to": "15158__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__1_110", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, Your Honor, here is how I would pose the question.\nIs the state responsible to provide a record to an indigent in his continuing efforts to search for a possible error in his trial or to put in another way, is the alleviation of any doubt in the mind of the prisoner about the validity of his state conviction, so important, so fundamentally important that the state must assume the great financial burden far greater than any burden it has right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2652.165, 2658.632], "stop_times": [2658.632, 2697.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.165}, "reply_to": "15158__1_109", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_111", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "What is the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2697.047], "stop_times": [2697.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.047}, "reply_to": "15158__1_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_112", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "-- of providing a transcript for any indigent who request a copy of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2697.618], "stop_times": [2703.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.618}, "reply_to": "15158__1_111", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_113", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Mr. Murphy, what is the financial burden of giving him the record that they have, you said they had it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2703.096], "stop_times": [2712.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.096}, "reply_to": "15158__1_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_114", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2712.194], "stop_times": [2712.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2712.194}, "reply_to": "15158__1_113", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_115", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "There is no financial burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2712.862], "stop_times": [2716.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.862}, "reply_to": "15158__1_114", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_116", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Let me answer the question this way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2716.051], "stop_times": [2718.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.051}, "reply_to": "15158__1_115", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_117", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, suppose if -- would you agree that it would fair to say that if there is one available, it should be shared with the prisoner, that there'd be no financial burden there, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2718.346], "stop_times": [2730.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.346}, "reply_to": "15158__1_116", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_118", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Your Honor I -- on an administrative basis, on a legislative basis, some procedure might be devised which would permit an incarcerated prisoner a glance or a look at his particular record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2730.536], "stop_times": [2749.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.536}, "reply_to": "15158__1_117", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_119", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But don't you think he should have the same right as the wealthy prisoner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2749.623], "stop_times": [2754.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.623}, "reply_to": "15158__1_118", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_120", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, does a wealthy prisoner Your Honor have any real need for the transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2754.69], "stop_times": [2762.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.69}, "reply_to": "15158__1_119", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_121", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Unless the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2762.375], "stop_times": [2764.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.375}, "reply_to": "15158__1_120", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_122", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's I think is a basic question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2764.148], "stop_times": [2765.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.148}, "reply_to": "15158__1_121", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_123", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Unless I misunderstood you, you said that this man could get it if he could pay for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2765.641], "stop_times": [2771.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.641}, "reply_to": "15158__1_122", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_124", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2771.422], "stop_times": [2772.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.422}, "reply_to": "15158__1_123", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_125", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And the only reason he couldn't get it was because he couldn't pay for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2772.741], "stop_times": [2776.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.741}, "reply_to": "15158__1_124", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15158__1_126", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's right Your Honor.\nBut he -- there's also many other -- there's many other things that he can't have because he can't pay for it.\nHe can't have an attorney, he can't have experts, he can't have investigators during the course of his incarceration and this Court has never held that upon a mere request for these services, he is entitled to it.\nNow, let me emphasize one more thing.\nWe don't have an absolute final foreclosure or preclusion of this inmate from access to the record, nothing is final here.\nAll we're asking is that this potential applicant come forward and state to some court on apparently meritorious ground why his conviction was invalid or why his custody is illegal, that's all we're asking.\nSo we have a balance, we had a great financial burden upon the state to provide transcripts to indigent and on the other side, a rather minimal requirement that the man tell the court, apprise the court that he is not engaged in a mere exploratory fishing expedition in the hope that he is going to find some error and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2776.788, 2778.668, 2786.147, 2810.65, 2814.592, 2828.42, 2853.355], "stop_times": [2778.668, 2786.147, 2810.65, 2814.592, 2828.42, 2853.355, 2881.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.788}, "reply_to": "15158__1_125", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_127", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Would you concede Mr. Murphy that the District judge had inherent power to direct that a Xerox copy or some other kind of copy would be made for the benefit of the District Court judge at the time of the original hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2881.792], "stop_times": [2896.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.792}, "reply_to": "15158__1_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_128", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Your Honor if he had -- if the petitioner had come forward and alleged some trial error, if he had come forth -- I don't think there'd be any question but that the District Court judge could've required the state to produce the trial transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2896.926], "stop_times": [2916.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.926}, "reply_to": "15158__1_127", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_129", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "We'll take it in exactly the posture it was in when it appeared before the United State's District judge, not the state court.\nCould the District judge have said, \u201cI want a copy of this transcript, please get one for me\u201d and for $25 or $30 at the most, it could've been made.\nNow, would you agree or -- I'm inquiring because I am not sure, does the District Court have any power to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2916.946, 2924.449, 2933.437], "stop_times": [2924.449, 2933.437, 2942.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.946}, "reply_to": "15158__1_128", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_130", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.\nI think the District Court in -- under those circumstances would be on a fishing expedition of its own.\nI think in order to get a justiciable issue before the District Court, there has to be some allegation of error in the trial.\nNow, if this petitioner had alleged that his attorney never discussed defenses with him, that there was facts outside the record that affected something that occurred during the trial, there wouldn't be any need then for the trial transcript to resolve that.\nAll we're asking in this case is to alleviate -- not to alleviate because we don't have the burden yet, but they asked this Court to -- not to impose upon the states the burden of financing the indigent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [2942.067, 2943.804, 2951.864, 2961.981, 2984.964], "stop_times": [2943.804, 2951.864, 2961.981, 2984.964, 3008.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.067}, "reply_to": "15158__1_129", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_131", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I think we have (Voice Overlap) -- I think we have your argument on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3008.719], "stop_times": [3011.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.719}, "reply_to": "15158__1_130", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_132", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "-- continuing efforts once the state has satisfied itself that the man has been validly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3011.153], "stop_times": [3018.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.153}, "reply_to": "15158__1_131", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_133", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I think we (Voice Overlap) Mr. Murphy that the state having provided this for a complete appeal once around that that's the end of the obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3018.109], "stop_times": [3025.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.109}, "reply_to": "15158__1_132", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__1_134", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3025.327], "stop_times": [3025.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.327}, "reply_to": "15158__1_133", "speaker": "john_t_murphy"}
{"id": "15158__1_135", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Alright.\nThank you.\nYou have a few minutes left, I think about ten minutes Mr. Small.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3025.715, 3026.493, 3027.595], "stop_times": [3026.493, 3027.595, 3034.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.715}, "reply_to": "15158__1_134", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_000", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor, I don't believe I'll need to take very much additional time.\nI just wanted to respond to two or three points that have been raised in the course of the counsel's presentation of argument and some of the questions raised from the bench.\nOne of the points that you raised yourself was the possibility of obtaining of show cause order to require Pollard to turn over his copy of the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3034.993, 3038.773, 3049.401], "stop_times": [3038.773, 3049.401, 3060.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3034.993}, "reply_to": "15158__1_135", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_001", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Would you mind speaking a little louder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3060.074], "stop_times": [3061.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.074}, "reply_to": "15158__2_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15158__2_002", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, excuse me Mr. Justice Black.\nOne of the point that Mr. Chief Justice raised was the possibility of ordering Pollard, the codefendant here who apparently still has a copy of this transcript to turn it over at this stage in the proceeding for use by this petitioner Wade.\nI'd have question in my own mind whether California would permit such a procedure now because the procedure for sharing transcript is cached in terms of the direct appeal process and I therefore would have really substantial question as to whether a California Court would be prepared to enter such an order at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3061.176, 3063.293, 3078.094], "stop_times": [3063.293, 3078.094, 3098.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3061.176}, "reply_to": "15158__2_001", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_003", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But since the codefendant presumably has it or may have it in his possession for use for the same purposes, why couldn't the district judge have issued such an order to show cause on that codefendant either at the request of the counsel if they had the imagination to ask for it or on his own motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3098.549], "stop_times": [3121.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.549}, "reply_to": "15158__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_004", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I suppose he could Your Honor, but I think that this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3121.402], "stop_times": [3123.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3121.402}, "reply_to": "15158__2_003", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_005", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And then this case would not have been engaged all the time, involve the people all the way to Washington?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3123.522], "stop_times": [3129.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.522}, "reply_to": "15158__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_006", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I suppose that might have been the result, but I think that that in and of itself underscores the unfair application of these California Rules of Court.\nAssume for instance that there were four or five codefendants tried here rather than just two codefendants --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3129.522, 3138.818], "stop_times": [3138.818, 3144.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3129.522}, "reply_to": "15158__2_005", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_007", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, why was there a denial when such a lack of imagination and enterprise at least as I see it as exhibited on this record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3144.927], "stop_times": [3153.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.927}, "reply_to": "15158__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_008", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Because I think that puts a burden on the indigent and his appointed counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3153.902], "stop_times": [3159.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3153.902}, "reply_to": "15158__2_007", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_009", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "To ask the court to do this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3159.253], "stop_times": [3160.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.253}, "reply_to": "15158__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_010", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "To have to go to court and fight to get a copy of the transcript to use, a burden that a moneyed defendant would not have placed upon it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3160.78], "stop_times": [3167.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3160.78}, "reply_to": "15158__2_009", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_011", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, now he is all the way through the chain of command to this Court and that was a considerably greater enterprise than simply asking the District judge in open court on an oral motion to do what I've just suggested, would you not agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3167.272], "stop_times": [3184.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.272}, "reply_to": "15158__2_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_012", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I'd say that that is correct, Your Honor that it -- that he is certainly having to take it up through this sort of procedure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3184.357], "stop_times": [3193.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3184.357}, "reply_to": "15158__2_011", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_013", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I'm directing no criticism or no implication of at you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3193.388], "stop_times": [3196.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.388}, "reply_to": "15158__2_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_014", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No, I understand that.\nCertainly, it would have -- well, just the cost of producing the transcript would have been a much smaller portion of the cost of bringing the proceedings up to this Court and paying for bringing attorneys back here to argue the case.\nBut this of course, this case is simply going to be exemplary of other codefendant cases that come up in the California courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3196.582, 3199.035, 3211.332], "stop_times": [3199.035, 3211.332, 3217.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3196.582}, "reply_to": "15158__2_013", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_015", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I hope it isn't exemplary of the lack of enterprise that I see for my part on this record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3217.856], "stop_times": [3224.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.856}, "reply_to": "15158__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_016", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "It would be easier though I believe in the terms of the administration of justice if instead of requiring court appointed counsel for indigents to fight to get copies of the record.\nIf it were made clear that they should be furnished them as a matter of course --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3224.419, 3236.903], "stop_times": [3236.903, 3242.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3224.419}, "reply_to": "15158__2_015", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_017", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Well, excuse me, I don't want to interrupt your answer to the Chief Justice Mr. Small.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3242.743], "stop_times": [3246.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.743}, "reply_to": "15158__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_018", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "No sir, that's quite alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3246.62], "stop_times": [3248.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3246.62}, "reply_to": "15158__2_017", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_019", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "I'm not sure I quite understand whether your basic claim is that it was incumbent upon California to supply a separate extra transcript to this man for his direct appeal which took place a good many years ago or whether its now incumbent upon California to supply to this man at -- upon his mere request a transcript of his trial that took place many years ago for the purpose of now making a collateral attack on his judgment of conviction, which is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3248.781], "stop_times": [3289.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.781}, "reply_to": "15158__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_020", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "My argument is that it was incumbent upon them to supply it years ago and because they didn't, he should not be placed in a less advantageous position now because of his indigency and having to show meritorious grounds for reversal before he can even have a look at his trial transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3289.496], "stop_times": [3306.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3289.496}, "reply_to": "15158__2_019", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_021", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Because the second is a much -- of course a much broader rule of law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3306.702], "stop_times": [3312.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.702}, "reply_to": "15158__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_022", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes, and I am not arguing for that.\nI'm not arguing (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3312.327, 3314.393], "stop_times": [3314.393, 3315.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3312.327}, "reply_to": "15158__2_021", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_023", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Very understandably you're not arguing that.\nBut what if the -- what if five or six, seven years ago he had been given it on appeal and then he had lost it, where would you be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3315.087, 3316.68], "stop_times": [3316.68, 3326.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.087}, "reply_to": "15158__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_024", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "If he had been given his appellate -- And he --(Voice Overlap)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3326.267], "stop_times": [3328.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3326.267}, "reply_to": "15158__2_023", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_025", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "With all his negligence that it just disappeared, now, where would you be in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3328.789], "stop_times": [3334.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.789}, "reply_to": "15158__2_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_026", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Just bearing mind before you answer there will be of other question I'll add.\nBearing in mind that if he were an affluent man, he could go out and buy one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3334.817, 3338.495], "stop_times": [3338.495, 3342.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.817}, "reply_to": "15158__2_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_027", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Yes.\nI would say and I'd grant, just go ahead and go beyond this particular case, I would argue that the state should furnish him that copy on balance because of the relative smaller expense involved where a copy of the transcript is available and can be reproduced.\nI don't think it's necessary to argue that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3342.223, 3343.638, 3361.542], "stop_times": [3343.638, 3361.542, 3363.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3342.223}, "reply_to": "15158__2_026", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_028", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "But that is really -- its that broader issue is it not that the District Court seems to have decided and that its upon that broader issue that the Court of Appeals seems to have reversed the District Court (Voice Overlap) --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3363.346], "stop_times": [3373.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.346}, "reply_to": "15158__2_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_029", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "The opinion could be so read, however, I don't think that this Court has to deny relief to this petitioner simply because of the broader basis upon which the District Court may have posited its result.\nThis Court could cut down the basis for granting a transcript to this particular petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3373.344, 3386.066], "stop_times": [3386.066, 3392.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3373.344}, "reply_to": "15158__2_028", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_030", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "And in this particular State of California where if this man had been -- for everybody who was separately and individually, this question would never arise unless he lost the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3392.957], "stop_times": [3402.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.957}, "reply_to": "15158__2_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15158__2_031", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That's right and in the same way in most states as we point out in our brief, the -- in most states this question isn't going to come up because the overwhelming majority of the states give transcripts to individual defendants whether -- and the codefendants.\nThey make no distinction the way that California and limited number of states do.\nSo they were talking about if there were a narrow issue.\nMr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3402.758, 3417.373, 3421.484, 3424.293], "stop_times": [3417.373, 3421.484, 3424.293, 3425.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3402.758}, "reply_to": "15158__2_030", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_032", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Perhaps the advent of the Xerox machine and other related machines will help solve this problem without more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3425.089], "stop_times": [3432.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3425.089}, "reply_to": "15158__2_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_033", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "That in substance is really my contention that that as modern techniques become available, they really should be applied to judicial process such as the stenotype machine here in this Court that over a period of time that hopefully by using modern methods of recording and duplicating trial transcripts, we won't have to get into this type of situation.\nThey'll be either way available and easily reproducible.\nThank you Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3432.298, 3454.059, 3457.695], "stop_times": [3454.059, 3457.695, 3458.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3432.298}, "reply_to": "15158__2_032", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15158__2_034", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Thank you counsel.\nYou acted at the appointment of the Court and you came here at our request.\nWe thank you for your assistance for the court.\nWe thank you both for your submissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3458.612, 3461.744, 3465.32, 3467.359], "stop_times": [3461.744, 3465.32, 3467.359, 3469.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3458.612}, "reply_to": "15158__2_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15158__2_035", "conversation_id": "15158", "text": "Thank you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_55", "start_times": [3469.219], "stop_times": [3470.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3469.219}, "reply_to": "15158__2_034", "speaker": "marshall_l_small"}
{"id": "15117__0_000", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Number 24, Waller against the State of Florida.\nMr. Levinson, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [0.0, 41.065], "stop_times": [41.065, 44.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__0_001", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case is on writ of certiorari to the Florida District Court of Appeal which affirmed a grand larceny conviction of the petitioner Joseph Waller, Jr. whom I represent.\nThis Court ordered the case to be argued immediately after the case of Ashe versus Swenson which we have just heard.\nTwo issues of great importance in the administration of criminal justice in the states are presented by this case, and each issue in our view independently will provide grounds for reversing the judgment below.\nOne issue is a double jeopardy issue, that is to say whether the double jeopardy rule as applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated where there are successive municipal and state prosecutions of the same defendant arising out of the same conduct.\nThe second issue in this case, is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated where the trial judge imposes the sentence of imprisonment after reading a pre-sentence investigation report which he refuses to make available either to the defendant or to the appellate court.\nThe facts of the case are not in material dispute and never have been.\nOn the City Hall of Saint Petersburg, Florida, there was a mural, a piece of canvas attached to the wall by glue or other adhesive.\nOne day in 1966, in broad daylight and during business hours in the presence of a substantial crowd which include the police officers and other public officials, a group of people entered the City Hall, tore this mural off the wall, brought it downstairs into the street and starting walking through the streets of the city carrying this mural.\nThe people engaged in this demonstration alleged that the mural portrayed the Negro race in an insulting caricature, and the people were expressing their displeasure by this form of demonstration.\nIt is undisputed that the petitioner, Joseph Waller, Jr. was a member of the group, and that he personally participated in the removal of the mural from the wall and in carrying it through the streets of town.\nA very short while after and as part of the same continuous happening or course of conduct, the police confronted Waller and the other individuals, recovered the mural after a scuffle, by then the mural was in a slightly damaged condition.\nPerhaps the only conflict in the testimony of the case is just when the damage occurred, but at any rate, the mural was recovered by the police and Waller was immediately apprehended.\nFirst, Waller was prosecuted in the City Court on the charge that he had violated two city ordinances during that course of conduct.\nOne ordinance concerns destruction of city property, the other ordinance disorderly breech of the peace.\nHe plead not guilty to both charges.\nA trial was held in the municipal court.\nWaller was found guilty on both charges and was sentenced to the maximum of 90 days on each charge.\nThe sentence is to be served consecutively.\nWhile he was serving, his total of 180 days on the city ordinance violations, an information was charged alleging the felony of grand larceny and this grand larceny prosecution is what turns out to be the subject matter of the present case.\nIt is undisputed that the events alleged in the information for grand larceny concern the identical defendant, that is the present petitioner, and concern the identical course of conduct, the same day, the same time, the same mural and the same general series of transactions.\nAnd this fact has been conceded by counsel for the State of Florida, is also established by an affidavit, executed by the petitioner and included in our appendix, page 15.\nThe District Court of Appeal also found as an undisputed fact that the same defendant and the same course of conduct were involved both in the city and in the information for grand larceny filed by the State of Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [44.067, 48.0, 60.34, 68.15, 82.143, 103.716, 127.679, 134.111, 145.581, 170.934, 185.823, 201.994, 219.294, 233.396, 245.307, 253.666, 256.399, 259.438, 268.059, 272.392, 292.858, 312.795, 327.56], "stop_times": [48.0, 60.34, 68.15, 82.143, 103.716, 127.679, 134.111, 145.581, 170.934, 185.823, 201.994, 219.294, 233.396, 245.307, 253.666, 256.399, 259.438, 268.059, 272.392, 292.858, 312.795, 327.56, 343.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.067}, "reply_to": "15117__0_000", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_002", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I understand Mr. Levinson that there is no dispute about the fact that it's the same defendant, and that it was the same general course of conduct.\nI don't quite understand how it could be actually the same action that could be disorderly conduct and what was it, a malicious destruction of property or destruction of government property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [343.617, 354.344], "stop_times": [354.344, 368.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.617}, "reply_to": "15117__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__0_003", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Destruction of city property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [368.543], "stop_times": [370.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.543}, "reply_to": "15117__0_002", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_004", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "City property, that was the subject to the first trial under the city ordinances and then the subject to the second trial under the state law was for larceny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [370.624], "stop_times": [381.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.624}, "reply_to": "15117__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__0_005", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, in both trials --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [381.514], "stop_times": [382.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 381.514}, "reply_to": "15117__0_004", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_006", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Larceny generally, doesn't -- I mean, the typical congressional larceny case doesn't generally embrace what we think of is disorderly conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [382.911], "stop_times": [392.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.911}, "reply_to": "15117__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__0_007", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, in the felony trial in the Circuit Court, that's the trial for grand larceny, the point was raised by the defendant, that larceny generally consists under Florida law as elsewhere in the stealing of the property.\nHowever, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the Circuit Court on the theory amongst others that larceny in Florida may also consists of the destruction of the property rather than the stealing of it, or even creating an unreasonable risk of destruction under Florida law, sufficient to constitute larceny.\nThe record contains a charge to the jury to that effect which we do not include in the appendix, but the Court may wish to refer to it.\nAnd the opinion of the District Court of Appeal which is briefed in the appendix actually mentions the matter which was an issue on appeal.\nAnd if I am refer to the Court, the Court to the opinion of the District Court of Appeal back on page 55 of our appendix, the District Court of Appeal coped with the problem, can there be a larceny by destruction under Florida law and they say yes, there can be, and there was.\nTo some extent, this represents a stretching of pre-existing Florida law on grand larceny.\nIt illustrates perhaps that the state was straining pretty far in order to try to pin a grand larceny label upon what actually happened.\nThe District Court of Appeal did affirm the trial court upon the theory amongst others that larceny can exist on the basis of destruction of the property rather than clipping it and concealing it as we would normally think of larceny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [392.38, 409.413, 431.99, 440.367, 450.434, 473.523, 481.11, 492.039], "stop_times": [409.413, 431.99, 440.367, 450.434, 473.523, 481.11, 492.039, 507.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.38}, "reply_to": "15117__0_006", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_008", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I was suggesting by my question that it was that it might be possible in a case, for example, let's assume there was a federal statute that makes it an offense to steal Government property and another statute that makes it an offense to destroy it, federal Government property.\nI suppose it's conceivable that a person might steal portrait of George Washington from the White House and then a couple of weeks and be guilty of stealing it and then a couple of weeks later, in fear that he is going to be discovered, destroy it and that you wouldn't contend those were necessary one offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [507.955, 528.584], "stop_times": [528.584, 550.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.955}, "reply_to": "15117__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__0_009", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well certainly not Mr. Justice.\nThey would take place under your circumstances at different times for one thing, and they would offend different policies of the state.\nWhat I suggest here is that the -- a single incident happened continuously within the very few minutes was the sole evidence introduced both in the city court and in the Circuit Court, and the state strayed rather far in order to label it grand larceny presumably wanting to, if I may use that expression, \u201cthrow the book\u201d at this defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [550.597, 551.73, 559.698], "stop_times": [551.73, 559.698, 581.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.597}, "reply_to": "15117__0_008", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_010", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, what was the -- what property was destroyed?\nWhat was it claimed in the first trial that was destroyed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [581.407, 583.668], "stop_times": [583.668, 586.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.407}, "reply_to": "15117__0_009", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_011", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Mr. Justice, there's no record of the trial in the city court and I was not there personally.\nI have to rely on the affidavit of the petitioner who was present and his affidavit which is not been controverted, states that the same facts were introduced an evidence in the city court as in the felony court.\nThat is the fact the he entered the City Hall, tore the mural off the wall, carried it out on the streets and it was recovered in a damaged condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [586.726, 590.556, 603.171], "stop_times": [590.556, 603.171, 610.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.726}, "reply_to": "15117__0_010", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_012", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, I suppose that it is possible that the on that state of facts, it wasn't the painting that was destroyed, but the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [610.664], "stop_times": [623.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.664}, "reply_to": "15117__0_011", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_013", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes, indeed, it is possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [623.889], "stop_times": [625.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.889}, "reply_to": "15117__0_012", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_014", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And that the -- within that the -- what was stolen was painting and what was destroyed is the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [625.237], "stop_times": [631.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.237}, "reply_to": "15117__0_013", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_015", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "This is possible and we concede that it is possible that a single course of conduct may indeed offend a number of statutes at the same time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [631.235], "stop_times": [640.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.235}, "reply_to": "15117__0_014", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_016", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And even maybe different separate acts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [640.812], "stop_times": [644.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.812}, "reply_to": "15117__0_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_017", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Maybe.\nWe believe that the -- our rule of compulsory joinder would require that as many complaints of the state may have against the defendant by reason of this course of conduct, they should join them into one trial, try it once on the multiple count indictment if this proper, but not to keep on trying him a number of different times so that to use Mr. Clifford's term, he shall not have to run the gauntlets of the criminal process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [644.925, 646.941], "stop_times": [646.941, 669.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.925}, "reply_to": "15117__0_016", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_018", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Oh, you would say that if in the last case, on the robbery case, robbing several people at the same time that if a defendant goes up to one person and lifts his wallet out of his pocket and goes up to the other person and lifts the wallet out of his pocket but sticks a knife in him at the same time.\nThat's a state may not try the person for murder at a different time then they try him for robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [669.518, 688.886], "stop_times": [688.886, 697.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.518}, "reply_to": "15117__0_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_019", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I think that if all the facts are known to the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [697.66], "stop_times": [701.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.66}, "reply_to": "15117__0_018", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_020", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Those are all the facts there are, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [701.08], "stop_times": [703.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.08}, "reply_to": "15117__0_019", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_021", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I believe that the state under the arguments which we have submitted in our brief and which I wish to elaborate on a little while, the state should join together all the charges in a single trial which may contain numerous counts alleging the various criminal statutes which has been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [703.447], "stop_times": [719.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.447}, "reply_to": "15117__0_020", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_022", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Though, that's critical to your case here, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [719.066], "stop_times": [721.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.066}, "reply_to": "15117__0_021", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_023", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "This is certainly important.\nWe have an alternative theory, that is for theory of lesser included offense.\nWe believe that either the compulsory joinder or the lesser included offense theory will be sufficient to require reversal of the double jeopardy aspect of this case.\nIf I may resume, if it please the Court, after the felony information was filed alleging the crime of grand larceny, three more informations were filed by the county prosecutor alleging the three misdemeanors of one; unlawful assembly; two, malicious destruction of public property; and three, resisting arrest without violence.\nCounsel was able to persuade the county prosecutor that double jeopardy had indeed been reached by the filing of these three misdemeanor charges and so the county prosecutor withdrew the three misdemeanors and they never came on for trial.\nBut the state's attorney persisted in bringing these grand larceny charges at trial to trial and ultimately, the trial resulted in a judgment in the verdict against the defendant.\nBefore the matter came on for trial, appropriate motions to quash were filed as the appropriate Florida means of challenging the double jeopardy aspect of a case, and when they were denied, a suggestion for a writ of prohibition was filed in the Florida Supreme Court as an additional means of attention -- to get the Florida courts to decide that double jeopardy had been violated.\nThese attempts were unsuccessful.\nThe case came on for trial.\nThe same evidence was introduced at this trial according to the petitioner's affidavit as had been introduced at the city court, the same mural was identified by the same witnesses as the record shows and eventually, the petitioner was found guilty and was given a sentence of from six months to five years which is the statutory maximum under Florida law for double jeopardy.\nI might briefly mention the facts or the proceedings as they arose concerning the pre-sentence report and then I would like to return to a discussion of the double jeopardy issue.\nAfter verdict and before sentencing, petitioner moved the court for discovery of the pre-sentence investigation report which had been prepared by a probation officer.\nNow, the court denied this motion.\nThe call to refer to the pre-sentence report.\nThe court pronounced the sentence.\nAfter sentence again, petitioner renewed his request to see report asserting he should have an opportunity to rebut any errors or to parry any unfavorable contents of the report.\nThis request was denied.\nWhen the case was being appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal, petitioner asked the clerk of the trail court to include the pre-sentence report in the record, this was denied.\nAppropriate motions were filed in both courts to try to get the pre-sentence report in the record.\nAll motions were denied and to this very day, this very Court has no access to the pre-sentence report which is still secreted in the desk of a trial judge in Saint Petersburg, Florida.\nThe conviction was appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Second District which affirmed that opinion which is contained in the appendix and if I may return now to the double jeopardy issue, the Florida District Court of Appeal stated and I quote from page 53 of the appendix.\n\u201cAssuming but not holding, that violations of the municipal ordinances were included offenses of the crime of grand larceny, nevertheless there is no violation of the double jeopardy rule because said the Florida Court of Appeal, even if a person has been tried in a municipal court for the identical offense with which he is charged in a state court, this would not be a bar for the prosecution of such person in the proper state court.\nThis has been the law of a state since 1894.\u201d\nAnd the Florida District Court of Appeals cited the case of Theisen versus McDavid which as it happens mentioned that proposition by way of dictum, but since then the proposition has indeed been absorbed as a principle of Florida law, that is that the same -- the identical offense could be prosecuted both by the municipality and the state without violating the double jeopardy rule of the State of Florida.\nFirst by way of argument upon the double jeopardy matter, the case of Benton versus Maryland decided by this Court on the last day of last term clearly holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the double jeopardy rule applicable to the states.\nWe argued that for purposes of applying the Benton rule, a prior prosecution by a municipality within the state must be treated as equivalent to a prior prosecution by the state itself.\nThe reason being that the municipality is a part of the state, a creature of the state and is not an independent sovereign.\nWe recognize that there have been attempts to employ a dual sovereignty theory.\nThe attempts following traditional Florida law in the Theisen case have urged that the municipality is a separate sovereign from the state and that each has a special interest which it may vindicate.\nAnd many of the cases in Florida and other states used as analogy, the relationship between the state and federal Governments.\n10 years ago, this Court held in the two cases of Bartkus and Abbate, this Court held that successive prosecutions by state and federal Governments are permitted within the framework of the double jeopardy rule.\nWe do not think it's necessary to reach for Bartkus and Abbate decisions in order to dispose of present case.\nWe think the relationship between city and state is not the same as the relationship between state and federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [721.889, 723.473, 729.23, 741.731, 766.576, 781.264, 793.175, 816.855, 818.951, 821.692, 848.57, 859.184, 871.247, 873.33, 876.4, 878.874, 892.997, 895.755, 907.041, 912.179, 927.265, 948.182, 977.763, 981.698, 1011.77, 1037.011, 1053.533, 1065.658, 1072.869, 1086.775, 1095.395, 1112.369, 1120.54], "stop_times": [723.473, 729.23, 741.731, 766.576, 781.264, 793.175, 816.855, 818.951, 821.692, 848.57, 859.184, 871.247, 873.33, 876.4, 878.874, 892.997, 895.755, 907.041, 912.179, 927.265, 948.182, 977.763, 981.698, 1011.77, 1037.011, 1053.533, 1065.658, 1072.869, 1086.775, 1095.395, 1112.369, 1120.54, 1127.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.889}, "reply_to": "15117__0_022", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_024", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Now suppose you prevail on that point, what do you suggest be done with this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1127.53], "stop_times": [1133.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.53}, "reply_to": "15117__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_025", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "This case I believe should be reversed.\nI think the second trial for grand larceny in the Circuit Court should never been held.\nThe second --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1133.443, 1135.818, 1140.677], "stop_times": [1135.818, 1140.677, 1140.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1133.443}, "reply_to": "15117__0_024", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_026", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well I know, but do you -- what is the Florida double jeopardy rule, same transaction or same evidence, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1140.8], "stop_times": [1147.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.8}, "reply_to": "15117__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_027", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Now, the Florida double jeopardy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1147.72], "stop_times": [1148.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.72}, "reply_to": "15117__0_026", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_028", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Last time as I read this opinion, they went off on the so-called to sovereign issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1148.553], "stop_times": [1153.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.553}, "reply_to": "15117__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_029", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes, they did Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1153.601], "stop_times": [1154.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.601}, "reply_to": "15117__0_028", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_030", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And they don't tell us what their double jeopardy rule would be if they were advised that they can't apply with this act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1154.201], "stop_times": [1160.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.201}, "reply_to": "15117__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_031", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well Mr. Justice, the leading case in Florida on double jeopardy, obviously has to be a case evolving two prosecutions in the state courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1160.178], "stop_times": [1167.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.178}, "reply_to": "15117__0_030", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_032", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1167.544], "stop_times": [1167.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.544}, "reply_to": "15117__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_033", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Because no other possibility crossed the threshold and in this connection, the Florida case of Stanford versus Faith cited in the brief on pages 30 and 31, decided in 1918, I believe still be definitive of State of Florida law.\nIt was reiterated by the Wilcocks's case in 1966.\nAnd if may read a quotation from Stanford on page 30, Florida says \u201cIf the first information as such that the accused have been convicted under it on proof of the facts by which the second information is sought to be sustained then the jeopardy which attached on the first must considered a protection against the trial on the second.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1167.785, 1184.041, 1188.167], "stop_times": [1184.041, 1188.167, 1210.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.785}, "reply_to": "15117__0_032", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_034", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, that would suggest then that -- as I understand it, as far as you know the identical facts that established the municipal conviction were the facts on which the grand larceny conviction is based?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1210.655], "stop_times": [1225.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.655}, "reply_to": "15117__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_035", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1225.352], "stop_times": [1226.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.352}, "reply_to": "15117__0_034", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_036", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And you're suggesting that in that set of facts, Stanford holds that there could not have been a grand larceny prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1226.18], "stop_times": [1235.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.18}, "reply_to": "15117__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_037", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1235.487], "stop_times": [1236.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.487}, "reply_to": "15117__0_036", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_038", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Are we to say that or should -- if we say the wrong on double -- on the so called two sovereignty, should we send it back to them to let the state courts apply the Stanford rule to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1236.783], "stop_times": [1250.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.783}, "reply_to": "15117__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15117__0_039", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I believe that the case is clear enough that this Court can dispose of it completely.\nObviously, this Court would first, have to reach the question as to whether the dual sovereignty rule should apply and I think clearly as this Court should hold --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1250.79, 1255.091], "stop_times": [1255.091, 1265.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.79}, "reply_to": "15117__0_038", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_040", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well on this my question assume the premise that we agree with you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1265.273], "stop_times": [1268.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.273}, "reply_to": "15117__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_041", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes.\nWell first, if this Court agrees that a municipality is a pose of the same sovereignty as the state, then we reach the Stanford rule.\nI believe the Stanford rule is clear enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1268.449, 1268.921, 1277.059], "stop_times": [1268.921, 1277.059, 1279.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.449}, "reply_to": "15117__0_040", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_042", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Should we apply the Stanford rule or let the Florida Court's apply it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1279.719], "stop_times": [1283.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.719}, "reply_to": "15117__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_043", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Since Florida law failed to apply it because they never reached it, I believe that the interest of justice so as to the disposal of this litigation this Court is probably able and certainly has jurisdiction to apply the Stanford rule under its general authority to dispose of the litigation as interest of justice may require.\nNow, this man is been in jail for 16 months and for about another 18 months, he is been out on bond in the shadow of imprisonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1283.616, 1302.192], "stop_times": [1302.192, 1312.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.616}, "reply_to": "15117__0_042", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_044", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What was his first sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1312.173], "stop_times": [1313.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.173}, "reply_to": "15117__0_043", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__0_045", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "His first sentence was two consecutive 90-day sentences.\nSo, that was six months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1313.932, 1318.749], "stop_times": [1318.749, 1321.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.932}, "reply_to": "15117__0_044", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_046", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Did he say at the trial --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1321.871], "stop_times": [1324.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.871}, "reply_to": "15117__0_045", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_047", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "This is a -- this is the question which is still unfortunately not clear because while he was serving the 6-month city sentence, he was also being held for trial in the state court.\nAnd when the state judge sentenced him to six months to five years the state court judge said the allowing credit for the time he is being confined.\nAnd we are not yet clear whether that credit refers to the fact that petitioner served a city sentence or to the fact that petitioner was held pending trial of the state case?\nWe have approached --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1324.334, 1337.92, 1348.995, 1359.938], "stop_times": [1337.92, 1348.995, 1359.938, 1361.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.334}, "reply_to": "15117__0_046", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_048", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "When he was confined on the city cases had he been tried and convicted of the state case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1361.448], "stop_times": [1368.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.448}, "reply_to": "15117__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_049", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No sir.\nHe was awaiting trial and we have approached the city judge in an attempt to determine whether the city believes that the man has served sentence or not and I sincerely hope that the judge will -- would agree that he has served his sentence, but there is at least a possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1368.97, 1369.752], "stop_times": [1369.752, 1387.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.97}, "reply_to": "15117__0_048", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_050", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, if he served a city sentence in one city jail and the state sentence was in state penitentiary or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1387.113], "stop_times": [1393.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.113}, "reply_to": "15117__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_051", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, he was confined to the county jail and it's not unusual for city prisoners to be switched around, even to county jail or even to state penitentiary while they're awaiting trial on state offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1393.153], "stop_times": [1404.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.153}, "reply_to": "15117__0_050", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_052", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1404.768], "stop_times": [1405.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.768}, "reply_to": "15117__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__0_053", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And my understanding is that as a matter of Florida law, it's somewhat unclear whether he has yet served the city sentence or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1405.256], "stop_times": [1412.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.256}, "reply_to": "15117__0_052", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_054", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Does the record show what bond do you wish for you to make of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1412.201], "stop_times": [1415.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.201}, "reply_to": "15117__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_055", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes, and as a matter of fact Mr. Justice, there was problem about the bond also.\nWe have to appeal for the Florida District Court of Appeal and also to the Florida Supreme Court before we go out on bond.\nHe turned out to be a defendant who was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1415.949, 1420.111, 1426.184], "stop_times": [1420.111, 1426.184, 1429.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.949}, "reply_to": "15117__0_054", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_056", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "A what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1429.333], "stop_times": [1430.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.333}, "reply_to": "15117__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_057", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "He turned that to be a defendant who was not given the maximum leniency by the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1430.24], "stop_times": [1436.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.24}, "reply_to": "15117__0_056", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_058", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Where the bond was fixed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1436.428], "stop_times": [1438.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.428}, "reply_to": "15117__0_057", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_059", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "$2,500.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1438.447], "stop_times": [1440.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.447}, "reply_to": "15117__0_058", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_060", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And he couldn't make it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1440.362], "stop_times": [1441.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.362}, "reply_to": "15117__0_059", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_061", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes he did make it.\nOriginally, a higher bond was set.\nOriginally, the court refused any bond, then a high bond was set and it took the pedal court proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1441.58, 1442.857, 1445.358], "stop_times": [1442.857, 1445.358, 1450.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.58}, "reply_to": "15117__0_060", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_062", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And not the bond entirely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1450.616], "stop_times": [1452.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.616}, "reply_to": "15117__0_061", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_063", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir, and as a reported opinion in the Southern Reporter in which a Florida appellate court reversed the trial judge on that matter which suggests amongst other things that the pre-sentence investigation report may have had prejudicial effect on the mind of the trial judge which perhaps will be discussed when I reach the other point of the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1452.025], "stop_times": [1472.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.025}, "reply_to": "15117__0_062", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_064", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What was it about it?\nWas the case a sensational case, what was it about it that made it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1472.555, 1473.577], "stop_times": [1473.577, 1478.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.555}, "reply_to": "15117__0_063", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_065", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1478.214], "stop_times": [1479.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.214}, "reply_to": "15117__0_064", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_066", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What was it that he took?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1479.377], "stop_times": [1480.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.377}, "reply_to": "15117__0_065", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_067", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "He took a mural from the wall of the City Hall.\nA painting --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1480.762, 1484.366], "stop_times": [1484.366, 1484.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.762}, "reply_to": "15117__0_066", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_068", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What kind of a mural?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1484.461], "stop_times": [1485.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.461}, "reply_to": "15117__0_067", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_069", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "A canvas painting.\nThe big thing, a group of Negro musicians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1485.713, 1486.913], "stop_times": [1486.913, 1490.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.713}, "reply_to": "15117__0_068", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_070", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "A what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1490.289], "stop_times": [1490.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.289}, "reply_to": "15117__0_069", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_071", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "A group of Negro musicians were depicted on this painting and he and other members of his group allege that this was an insulting caricature of their race.\nNow, he was punished for his conduct by 180 days in the city jail.\nWe are not appealing that.\nWe are protesting that he should not have been tried twice on the basis of this single --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1490.969, 1505.093, 1509.798, 1512.186], "stop_times": [1505.093, 1509.798, 1512.186, 1518.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1490.969}, "reply_to": "15117__0_070", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__0_072", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Same transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1518.597], "stop_times": [1520.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.597}, "reply_to": "15117__0_071", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__0_073", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "For same transaction, the same course of conduct or in current language the same happening, if I may use the words.\nNow, I indicated before if it please the Court, that the relationship between municipality and state is not analogous to the relationship between the state and the federal Government.\nI believe the more appropriate analogy is that between a territory of the United States and the Federal Government and this Court held as long as 1907 in the Grafton case that former prosecution by a territory clearly bars a subsequent prosecution by a tribunal of the United States.\nAnd I believe that Grafton case is adequate precedent for the proposition that two arms of the same sovereign should not be permitted separately to try a defendant.\nIf we may assume that municipality is an arm of a sovereign state, I believe we have two alternative approaches either of which would lead to the conclusion that the double jeopardy rule bars the state prosecution.\nOne theory is a theory of compulsory joinder and another theory is a theory of the lesser include of offense and Mr. Chief Justice, I see that the white light is flashing, I wish to reserve the remaining five minutes for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1520.439, 1529.726, 1543.84, 1566.071, 1581.805, 1598.48], "stop_times": [1529.726, 1543.84, 1566.071, 1581.805, 1598.48, 1621.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.439}, "reply_to": "15117__0_072", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__1_000", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1621.597], "stop_times": [1622.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1621.597}, "reply_to": "15117__0_073", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_001", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Mr. Georgieff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1622.294], "stop_times": [1623.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.294}, "reply_to": "15117__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_002", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "-- may it please the Court.\nWhat we have here is a wish to extend something that is patently stated in both documents whether in Florida or in the United States Constitution, the question of what constitutes double jeopardy?\nCounsel tells you that he's talking about the same conduct.\nI tell you that both documents are the same offense, not the same conduct, not the same happening, not the same event, but the same offense.\nHere we have two courts, the municipal court and the court of record in Pinellas County, Florida.\nNow, the one charge was the grand larceny which is here before you to decide whether it constituted a second attempt to do this man in for what he been prosecuted for in the city court to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1623.469, 1626.747, 1641.791, 1645.445, 1656.728, 1668.046], "stop_times": [1626.747, 1641.791, 1645.445, 1656.728, 1668.046, 1680.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.469}, "reply_to": "15117__1_001", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_003", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Where was the mural that he took?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1680.119], "stop_times": [1682.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.119}, "reply_to": "15117__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_004", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I Beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1682.136], "stop_times": [1682.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1682.136}, "reply_to": "15117__1_003", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_005", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Where was the mural that he took?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1682.948], "stop_times": [1684.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.948}, "reply_to": "15117__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_006", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "City Hall in Saint Petersburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1684.965], "stop_times": [1685.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1684.965}, "reply_to": "15117__1_005", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_007", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Of what?\nSaint Petersburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1685.892, 1687.266], "stop_times": [1687.266, 1687.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.892}, "reply_to": "15117__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_008", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "The City of Saint Petersburg and he was charged there under municipal ordinances with the disturbing of the peace and I don't know the exact wording of the charge on the second one, but it was damaging city property.\nNow obviously, we couldn't prosecute him in the state for damaging city property because it isn't state property.\nWe couldn't prosecute him for disturbing the peace because we don't have such an animal.\nSo, we have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1687.979, 1703.377, 1709.368, 1714.042], "stop_times": [1703.377, 1709.368, 1714.042, 1714.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.979}, "reply_to": "15117__1_007", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_009", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "You mean at the state level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1714.235], "stop_times": [1715.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.235}, "reply_to": "15117__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_010", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "At the state level.\nSo, the prosecution had to be in two separate courts if it was going to be at all.\nNow, somebody decided to prosecute him in the city court for these two violations, I assume the city prosecutor.\nThe county prosecutor decided for one or another reason that he did not want to move against this man on the misdemeanor charges in the county court or the county judge's court.\nNow, that was his option and he exercised it and that's not here except to demonstrate that somebody decided they didn't want to move against him.\nNow, I don't know what lesser included has to do with it.\nI don't see that disturbing the peace or destroying this city property was a lesser and included offense of grand larceny.\nAnd I don't understand that the law in Florida says that you can commit grand larceny by destroying property.\nNow, it may and I may stand corrected, but I don't believe that that's the law in Florida no matter what the Second District Court said.\nNow, when this painting was taken off the wall either because it was offensive or for any other reason he then violated for the first time the state law. Now, we're told that this can't be so because the separate sovereign theory that may have been the predicate from what you said in Bartkus and Abbate can't prevail here since the cities can't exist without the express provision of the state legislature which creates it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1715.952, 1717.805, 1723.426, 1729.767, 1740.556, 1748.749, 1751.86, 1761.64, 1767.772, 1775.699], "stop_times": [1717.805, 1723.426, 1729.767, 1740.556, 1748.749, 1751.86, 1761.64, 1767.772, 1775.699, 1807.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.952}, "reply_to": "15117__1_009", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_011", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "At what point in time do you say the state offense begun?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1807.266], "stop_times": [1814.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.266}, "reply_to": "15117__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_012", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I would say the minute they ripped it off the wall and carry it away and meant to keep it from the property of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1814.55], "stop_times": [1821.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.55}, "reply_to": "15117__1_011", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_013", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And have it -- had any other offense been committed against any sovereign in your view before they begun to tear it off the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1821.692], "stop_times": [1832.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.692}, "reply_to": "15117__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_014", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Certainly, breech of the peace was.\nThat seems to be the very first one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1832.987, 1834.501], "stop_times": [1834.501, 1836.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.987}, "reply_to": "15117__1_013", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_015", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What was the breech?\nWhat were the facts constituting the breech which occurred before they begun to tear it off the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1836.586, 1838.448], "stop_times": [1838.448, 1843.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.586}, "reply_to": "15117__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_016", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Would you believe Mr. Chief Justice, I can't tell you because there is no record here of it.\nWhat went on in the city court was not made a matter of record, I was not there.\nI had no hand in it and I don't function at that level, and I think Mr. Levinson did not either.\nI think the affidavit simply says that the same or similar evidence was introduced at both hearings.\nNow, I cannot tell you and it's simply because I don't know what physical events took place.\nThe gathering and don't let me amplify but the storming of the City Hall to get this mural off the wall.\nI would assume that constituted the breech of the peace, that would have been number one.\nNumber two, the destruction of the public for the city property would have been one, pulling it off the wall, destroying the adhesion which was on there, the attendant plaster that may have fallen off and the destruction of the wall on which it was attached and when they carried it off, the larceny.\nSo, I would assume now that that ran it one, two, three in approximately that order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1843.824, 1849.454, 1856.147, 1862.124, 1868.607, 1873.373, 1882.078, 1887.509, 1906.359], "stop_times": [1849.454, 1856.147, 1862.124, 1868.607, 1873.373, 1882.078, 1887.509, 1906.359, 1913.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.824}, "reply_to": "15117__1_015", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_017", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What was the offense of damaging the wall?\nLet's assume that the breaking of the bond of the adhesion did substantial damage to the wall for the moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1913.595, 1917.399], "stop_times": [1917.399, 1926.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.595}, "reply_to": "15117__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_018", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Chipped the plaster off as I understand it and damaged the painting so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1926.659], "stop_times": [1931.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.659}, "reply_to": "15117__1_017", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_019", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Was that in your view the damage to the wall an offense against the municipality or against the State of Florida?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1931.354], "stop_times": [1938.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.354}, "reply_to": "15117__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_020", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That would have to been against the municipality, it was their property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1938.34], "stop_times": [1942.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.34}, "reply_to": "15117__1_019", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_021", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Did the State of Florida prosecuted it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1942.682], "stop_times": [1944.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.682}, "reply_to": "15117__1_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_022", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1944.46], "stop_times": [1946.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.46}, "reply_to": "15117__1_021", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_023", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "So that we rule that out.\nThat falls if it falls anywhere under the local offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1946.271, 1948.494], "stop_times": [1948.494, 1953.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.271}, "reply_to": "15117__1_022", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_024", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes, of course, that's not here before you.\nThat's the part of the two that they're not complaining about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1953.724, 1956.346], "stop_times": [1956.346, 1959.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.724}, "reply_to": "15117__1_023", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_025", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I'm trying to find two separate offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1959.241], "stop_times": [1961.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.241}, "reply_to": "15117__1_024", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_026", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Oh yes.\nNow on the breech of the peace, there isn't any such animal at our level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1961.988, 1963.694], "stop_times": [1963.694, 1970.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.988}, "reply_to": "15117__1_025", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_027", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "At the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1970.141], "stop_times": [1971.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.141}, "reply_to": "15117__1_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_028", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's right, or disturbing the peace I think they call it, I'm not sure what the exact nomenclature is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1971.254], "stop_times": [1978.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.254}, "reply_to": "15117__1_027", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_029", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Do you have a state statute against malicious destruction of the property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1978.377], "stop_times": [1982.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.377}, "reply_to": "15117__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_030", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Not city property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1982.922], "stop_times": [1984.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.922}, "reply_to": "15117__1_029", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_031", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Do you have a state statue which makes it a crime to maliciously destruct property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1984.89], "stop_times": [1993.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.89}, "reply_to": "15117__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_032", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I'm sure there are several Mr. Justice.\nI can't recall them off hand, but I'm sure there are several involving both private and public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [1993.115, 1996.344], "stop_times": [1996.344, 2001.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.115}, "reply_to": "15117__1_031", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_033", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "So that when they damaged that wall, there was a violation of state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2001.883], "stop_times": [2008.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.883}, "reply_to": "15117__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_034", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No sir.\nThe state has no ownership or interest in the City Hall in Saint Petersburg.\nIt belongs to the city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2008.784, 2010.746, 2014.237], "stop_times": [2010.746, 2014.237, 2016.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.784}, "reply_to": "15117__1_033", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_035", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, if you maliciously destroy a person's private property, isn't that a violation of state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2016.365], "stop_times": [2022.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.365}, "reply_to": "15117__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_036", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir, in Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2022.936], "stop_times": [2024.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.936}, "reply_to": "15117__1_035", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_037", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And it would be the same for the city, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2024.661], "stop_times": [2029.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.661}, "reply_to": "15117__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_038", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No, I don't think so because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2029.567], "stop_times": [2031.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.567}, "reply_to": "15117__1_037", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_039", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, that's because it set in sovereignty of business, is that the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2031.199], "stop_times": [2035.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.199}, "reply_to": "15117__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_040", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2035.63], "stop_times": [2036.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2035.63}, "reply_to": "15117__1_039", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_041", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2036.539], "stop_times": [2037.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.539}, "reply_to": "15117__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_042", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Now --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2037.882], "stop_times": [2039.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.882}, "reply_to": "15117__1_041", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_043", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Mr. Georgieff, may I ask you.\nThe affidavit in which refer is this Mr., Waller's affidavit on page 15 and 16?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2039.194, 2040.433], "stop_times": [2040.433, 2046.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.194}, "reply_to": "15117__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_044", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That is sir.\nI take, it's the only one in the attendance sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2046.515, 2048.033], "stop_times": [2048.033, 2050.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.515}, "reply_to": "15117__1_043", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_045", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I gather this -- that it is before the trial than it was --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2050.706], "stop_times": [2055.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.706}, "reply_to": "15117__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_046", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2055.415], "stop_times": [2056.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2055.415}, "reply_to": "15117__1_045", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_047", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And to make complete characters referred -- that's final knowledge of the belief?\nDirect information with grand larceny made solely upon allegation to the engagement -- that is the conduct alleged in the prosecution in the district court.\nIf you don't know the lead of -- if remand any affidavit anywhere perhaps there is a record of what happened, I guess you would unable to work with this files as this information grand larceny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2056.521, 2063.978, 2074.42], "stop_times": [2063.978, 2074.42, 2086.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.521}, "reply_to": "15117__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_048", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's on the state charge.\nYou do have that, but you have no record whatsoever --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2086.128, 2087.226], "stop_times": [2087.226, 2090.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.128}, "reply_to": "15117__1_047", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_049", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Do we have any representation that what we have here is having been offered as evidence on the grand larceny charge, the same evidence that was offered in the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2090.431], "stop_times": [2102.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.431}, "reply_to": "15117__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_050", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No, you do not sir, no sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2102.498], "stop_times": [2107.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.498}, "reply_to": "15117__1_049", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_051", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Suppose he had been tried in the City Hall -- in the city for larceny taking that away and then, could he even tried in the state with same offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2107.529], "stop_times": [2120.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.529}, "reply_to": "15117__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_052", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Under the separate sovereign theory, yes he could Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2120.715], "stop_times": [2123.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.715}, "reply_to": "15117__1_051", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_053", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "So, that really is the basis of this thing?\nIt's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2123.685, 2125.884], "stop_times": [2125.884, 2126.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.685}, "reply_to": "15117__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_054", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's one of them.\nI prefer that you didn't make me hang it on just that one, but if I have to, yes it is, yes because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2126.391, 2127.112], "stop_times": [2127.112, 2133.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.391}, "reply_to": "15117__1_053", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_055", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Of course, the city is subordinate to the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2133.435], "stop_times": [2137.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.435}, "reply_to": "15117__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_056", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Just as the states are to the federal in my opinion --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2137.063], "stop_times": [2139.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2137.063}, "reply_to": "15117__1_055", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_057", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well not just that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2139.394], "stop_times": [2141.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.394}, "reply_to": "15117__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_058", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Similarly, I would assume that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2141.046], "stop_times": [2144.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.046}, "reply_to": "15117__1_057", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_059", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "In order that the rational of following -- it's a rational of body binds the relationship of this conduct to a state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2144.602], "stop_times": [2159.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.602}, "reply_to": "15117__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_060", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, I'm not sure I quite understand your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2159.889], "stop_times": [2161.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.889}, "reply_to": "15117__1_059", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_061", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Oh, I gather, what we dealt within the body was the questionable relationship between the federal Government and a state Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2161.781], "stop_times": [2169.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.781}, "reply_to": "15117__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_062", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2169.351], "stop_times": [2170.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.351}, "reply_to": "15117__1_061", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_063", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And prosecution for the same conduct?\nYou think that the body at least support two sovereign theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2170.264, 2173.894], "stop_times": [2173.894, 2179.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.264}, "reply_to": "15117__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_064", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir and I tell you why.\nIn Florida, I don't know that it's true in any other state, but I can tell you affirmatively that in Florida, when a city is structured, now, some of due come intervene from time to time, most of them are already there, but periodically they exercise the option of drafting their own ordinances or adopting by one ordinance, all of the laws of the state as their own in ordinance form you see.\nNow, if they do the latter, they are required to do one thing in addition there too.\nThey may not about the sentencing.\nThey must adopt their own sentences for violations of criminal laws that they adopt as their own one ordinance.\nWhereas, if they take a separate position and adopt individual ordinances by adopting a code of their own and may set whatever out -- whatever they like out.\nSo, there is a difference when they take this or that course.\nNow obviously, if they adopt and they're just a handful of that have --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2179.782, 2182.896, 2208.256, 2213.355, 2216.291, 2223.772, 2232.908, 2236.78], "stop_times": [2182.896, 2208.256, 2213.355, 2216.291, 2223.772, 2232.908, 2236.78, 2240.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.782}, "reply_to": "15117__1_063", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_065", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, I still don't understand how old is just rational of a body advice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2240.938], "stop_times": [2247.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.938}, "reply_to": "15117__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_066", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, I don't see why it doesn't.\nThey are simply creatures.\nThey are not an arm of the state.\nThey don't function as we tell them to.\nThey simply exist because we allow them to have life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2247.748, 2249.177, 2250.428, 2253.994, 2256.275], "stop_times": [2249.177, 2250.428, 2253.994, 2256.275, 2260.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.748}, "reply_to": "15117__1_065", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_067", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "But what you think of them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2260.065], "stop_times": [2261.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.065}, "reply_to": "15117__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_068", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Oh yes, tomorrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2261.849], "stop_times": [2262.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.849}, "reply_to": "15117__1_067", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_069", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2262.864], "stop_times": [2267.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.864}, "reply_to": "15117__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_070", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No, but I would imagine before the Congress would allow Puerto Rico in, a certain number of things would have to follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2267.311], "stop_times": [2272.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.311}, "reply_to": "15117__1_069", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_071", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "What we are dealing with is whether or not a state and federal government could prosecute a man for the same conduct (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2272.868], "stop_times": [2285.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.868}, "reply_to": "15117__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15117__1_072", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well sir, I think that's meaningless in this argument today because he's told you that if you brought all three of these in one court, he wouldn't be here complaining about it and that is what he said.\nHe says under compulsory joinder, if you were to move against Mr. Waller on all three of these in one court, then there wouldn't be any question of jeopardy and we wouldn't even be here.\nSo, he cannot have the best of both worlds.\nHe's got to have it one way or the other.\nTo Mr. Waller, I would imagine, it makes no difference whatsoever that he sits in jail under one theory or the other.\nIf it jeopardy it is, and if it isn't, it isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2285.597, 2298.739, 2310.427, 2312.384, 2314.207, 2320.703], "stop_times": [2298.739, 2310.427, 2312.384, 2314.207, 2320.703, 2323.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.597}, "reply_to": "15117__1_071", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_073", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "How does it makes quite a difference to him is whether he is once in jail or twice in jail for the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2323.299], "stop_times": [2329.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.299}, "reply_to": "15117__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_074", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I'm sure of that.\nBut, I don't quarrel about the idea that if it is jeopardy, it ought to be put aside.\nI say if it isn't jeopardy, it isn't made jeopardy by the fact it was done in the different court.\nNow, we were told that the fact that this is a part of the same transaction, is it all one open situation that nobody hiding or stealthily doing this that or the other.\nWhat seems to me that if that's the rule then what we wind up with is if you hold an audience, call an audience before you commit your crime, then that's the defense to the crime of larceny.\nI don't understand it that way and counsel tells us about compulsory joinder.\nWho's compulsory joinder?\nI don't know what that is?\nThere is no such creature, not in existence in Florida today.\nHe may have asked for it, although the record doesn't' even reflect that he did that, but the point is how can we complain about they should have been brought in the same court?\nThe point is, he didn't ask for it and they were not and structurally, Florida could have moved against him in one court for these three offenses.\nNow, the question of Benton -- we're told about Benton in doing this and that and the other thing.\nI don't pretend to tell you Mr. Justice Marshall what you meant in Benton.\nAll I will tell you is that it gives a complaining citizen another reason to complain about jeopardy, that's all it does, very much the same as Matt did on search and seizure and Gideon did as to counsel.\nNow Benton didn't change anything.\nIt simply says that here after, it will be a federally assured right under which people can complain when they think they've been placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense, not for the same course of conduct.\nNow, if you want to restructure the word offense to make it mean the same course of conduct, that's one thing, but if you are going to stick to offense that's what has to be done and it is simply not the same offense.\nIt is a series of acts, each one of which constituted a separate offense, two against one sovereign, one against another.\nSince he doesn't complain about the 180-day sentence which was imposed on the city complaint, but only complains about the grand larceny charge which didn't include the other two then as far as I'm concerned, the question of double jeopardy does not come up.\nThe question of collateral estoppel doesn't become a collateral estoppel simply because we decide we're going to make it something other than the same offense.\nWell in collateral estoppel you have to have an acquittal in order to have some adjudication of some question that's going to be involved in the other situation and that you certainly didn't have here.\nSo, I submit that collateral estoppel can't apply.\nI'll give you a good hypothetical.\nHow about the man who kills two people in let's say in a span of four or five minutes in an automobile.\nHe pleads insanity when he's charged with the killing of the first one, and the jury acquits him.\nThen the state seeks to try him on the second one and he moves to prohibit them by saying well now look here, you acquitted me and it must have been obvious that you did so because you found me insane, and therefore, considering this my insanity of time, it's absurd to say that I could have been insane at this time, wasn't at the second one.\nBut the question is suppose, suppose the jury have found him guilty, is it just possible that somebody would suggest that he's precluded from raising the defense of insanity on the second go around because the verdict of guilty precluded that?\nNo, it does not and we don't have mutuality here.\nIt weren't the same issues, it weren't the same sovereigns, it weren't the same victims, city the victim in the first; state the victim in the second.\nSame defendant, admitted; covered a short span of time; admitted, but not the same facts, no mutuality, no collateral estoppel.\nThe question of whether the pre-sentence investigation report should have been made public.\nI don't know how much of a role that plays in this, I suspect probably not a great deal.\nBut you are to recall into the federal rules, federal district judges are free to make them available to counsel or not as it happens to suit them.\nNow, I think that it's clear that if they decide not to give this information to defense counsel and so exercise their discretion, it is not reversible error.\nI submit that in Florida, though some courts have been heard to do this, it is the rule in Florida that they are secret and they are not to be made available to counsel but only available to the court for such information as they may take from it.\nIf it isn't a violation of law for the federal courts not to make these available on the discretionary basis then how can it be for the state court not to give it to counsel in this instance?\nIt is the same PSI report.\nIt's very much the same as what we do in the confidential informant.\nWe don't allow the man to be bedeviled by people who want to challenge what the informants may say about him, the neighbors, the one thing and another.\nCounsel says to you we want to have the opportunity to check this to see if hearsay comes up, to see if inaccuracies are there.\nThe only way he can do that is to go to the people whose names appear in the PSI and tell them, \u201cLook!\nWhy did you say this, and you're wrong this that the other, you must come in and you must correct it.\nThey'll harass him and you dry up the well spring, but beyond that, this doesn't go to the man's guilt or innocence.\u201d\nIn Florida, the PSI has no function whatsoever unless and until a guilty verdict is found.\nWhen it's found, there is an adjudication.\nThen the judge orders a pre-sentence report and he uses this as a predicate for wherever sentence he imposes and if the sentence is one that's well within the limits prescribe by law and this one is, six months to five years, then the sentence in Florida is not reviewable, that is the law in Florida.\nThey will not review the sentence, if it's within the limits prescribed by law.\nThis one was six months to five years, well within it.\nPSI couldn't made any difference whether it's available or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2329.993, 2331.993, 2336.636, 2346.684, 2359.815, 2370.83, 2375.553, 2376.652, 2378.481, 2383.828, 2394.811, 2404.688, 2411.339, 2415.261, 2429.456, 2432.245, 2445.565, 2457.97, 2465.544, 2482.913, 2492.348, 2504.79, 2508.653, 2510.078, 2517.568, 2524.874, 2543.234, 2561.483, 2565.486, 2573.374, 2585.49, 2590.954, 2595.708, 2604.44, 2615.2, 2630.643, 2644.041, 2646.171, 2649.289, 2660.202, 2667.432, 2673.782, 2679.049, 2687.047, 2693.459, 2696.052, 2714.632, 2720.784, 2723.55], "stop_times": [2331.993, 2336.636, 2346.684, 2359.815, 2370.83, 2375.553, 2376.652, 2378.481, 2383.828, 2394.811, 2404.688, 2411.339, 2415.261, 2429.456, 2432.245, 2445.565, 2457.97, 2465.544, 2482.913, 2492.348, 2504.79, 2508.653, 2510.078, 2517.568, 2524.874, 2543.234, 2561.483, 2565.486, 2573.374, 2585.49, 2590.954, 2595.708, 2604.44, 2615.2, 2630.643, 2644.041, 2646.171, 2649.289, 2660.202, 2667.432, 2673.782, 2679.049, 2687.047, 2693.459, 2696.052, 2714.632, 2720.784, 2723.55, 2726.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.993}, "reply_to": "15117__1_073", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_075", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "How much you say this one was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2726.896], "stop_times": [2728.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.896}, "reply_to": "15117__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_076", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Six months to five years sir.\nAll sentences now on Florida for anything less than capital must be predicated on a six-month minimum, and that is to say believe it or not that six months and one day conceivably a man could be turned loose on parole, but not before six months.\nAll sentences that can be given a year -- year sentence must have a six months minimum and the maximum can go to any number of years less than life.\nNow life and of course a terminal sentence and subject to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2728.373, 2730.867, 2747.89, 2759.706], "stop_times": [2730.867, 2747.89, 2759.706, 2763.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.373}, "reply_to": "15117__1_075", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_077", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Was this sentence appealed to the six -- this larceny larceny sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2763.494], "stop_times": [2768.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.494}, "reply_to": "15117__1_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_078", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I didn't hear you sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2768.933], "stop_times": [2769.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.933}, "reply_to": "15117__1_077", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_079", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Was the larceny sentence appealed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2769.959], "stop_times": [2772.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.959}, "reply_to": "15117__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_080", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2772.674], "stop_times": [2774.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2772.674}, "reply_to": "15117__1_079", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_081", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And did the State Supreme Court affirmed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2774.566], "stop_times": [2776.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.566}, "reply_to": "15117__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_082", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "It did not go to the Supreme Court.\nIt went to the District Court and the certiorari was brought here to that District Court, the intermediate appellant court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2776.941, 2778.284], "stop_times": [2778.284, 2784.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.941}, "reply_to": "15117__1_081", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_083", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And they affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2784.341], "stop_times": [2785.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.341}, "reply_to": "15117__1_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_084", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir.\nNow as I say now, they affirmed the judgment.\nThey don't affirm sentences Your Honor.\nI guess what I want to make clear is that they'll review convictions and judgments, but they won't review sentences unless the sentence is patently in excess of that provided by law.\nAll they'll look to is to see whether it's within the limits prescribed.\nIf it is, they won't disturb it as being excessive or otherwise.\nNow, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2785.502, 2788.437, 2791.214, 2793.922, 2806.608, 2809.503, 2814.773], "stop_times": [2788.437, 2791.214, 2793.922, 2806.608, 2809.503, 2814.773, 2817.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.502}, "reply_to": "15117__1_083", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_085", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Did the -- was this question of the making available to the defendant the pre-sentence investigation report an err that was brought to the -- claimed error that was brought to the attention of the District Court of Appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2817.027], "stop_times": [2830.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.027}, "reply_to": "15117__1_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__1_086", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes, it was sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2830.284], "stop_times": [2831.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.284}, "reply_to": "15117__1_085", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_087", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Because I don't believe there's any mention of it in the -- their opinion, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2831.218], "stop_times": [2834.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.218}, "reply_to": "15117__1_086", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__1_088", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Oh, they are often are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2834.388], "stop_times": [2835.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.388}, "reply_to": "15117__1_087", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_089", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, I understand that there is a catch all in the last next last paragraph, but we've examined the other --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2835.837], "stop_times": [2841.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.837}, "reply_to": "15117__1_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__1_090", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I shall be glad if that's included in that, but quite often, even when they -- I will assume when they don't want to particularly say anything about it.\nThey may include it in the phrase such as that, but it was brought to their attention, made a part of their complaint.\nAs a matter of fact, I think, there was some eight points involved in the appeal to the District Court.\nBut in any case, it's our position very simply whether you view it under Bartkus or Abbate, with or without Benton, it doesn't make any difference.\nIt can't have jeopardy here because you don't have the same offense.\nNot because the sovereigns are different, but because the act is different.\nOne constitutes an offense against the municipality, the other one is separate felony.\nNot an offense against a municipality.\nI would say the same if it been in the county court where we don't have the question about the sovereigns.\nIt doesn't make any difference.\nI say that you have to have the same offense unless you mean to restructure double jeopardy to make it the same course of conduct.\nAnd if you're not going to that, if you mean to have double jeopardy stand as the Florida Constitution and the Federal Constitution proscribe it then we're talking about the same offense or as it used to be said, crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2841.653, 2850.362, 2856.637, 2861.475, 2871.936, 2875.165, 2880.354, 2888.738, 2890.593, 2895.62, 2897.689, 2906.804], "stop_times": [2850.362, 2856.637, 2861.475, 2871.936, 2875.165, 2880.354, 2888.738, 2890.593, 2895.62, 2897.689, 2906.804, 2922.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.653}, "reply_to": "15117__1_089", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_091", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Did I understand you earlier to say that the state crime occurred when they ripped this mural off the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2922.134], "stop_times": [2931.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.134}, "reply_to": "15117__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_092", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And carried it off, and carried it off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2931.703], "stop_times": [2934.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.703}, "reply_to": "15117__1_091", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_093", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "When did the city crime of destroying the city property start?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2934.824], "stop_times": [2941.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.824}, "reply_to": "15117__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_094", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Damaging sir, I think it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2941.124], "stop_times": [2943.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.124}, "reply_to": "15117__1_093", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_095", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "When did that start?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2943.224], "stop_times": [2944.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.224}, "reply_to": "15117__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_096", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "When they started to tear it off and the plaster came off, the adhesive, and I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2944.52], "stop_times": [2948.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.52}, "reply_to": "15117__1_095", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_097", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "So, they both started, both crimes started at the exact same time involving the exact same instrument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2948.378], "stop_times": [2961.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.378}, "reply_to": "15117__1_096", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_098", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "For a point, yes, they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2961.533], "stop_times": [2962.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.533}, "reply_to": "15117__1_097", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_099", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And did they end at the same time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2962.969], "stop_times": [2965.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.969}, "reply_to": "15117__1_098", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_100", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2965.186], "stop_times": [2966.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.186}, "reply_to": "15117__1_099", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_101", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "When did the city crime end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2966.563], "stop_times": [2968.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.563}, "reply_to": "15117__1_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_102", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "After it came off the wall.\nThen, they cut it off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2968.821, 2971.567], "stop_times": [2971.567, 2972.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.821}, "reply_to": "15117__1_101", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_103", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Then.\nThat's when the city crime ended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2972.759, 2973.248], "stop_times": [2973.248, 2974.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.759}, "reply_to": "15117__1_102", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_104", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes, I would assume, oh yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2974.781], "stop_times": [2976.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.781}, "reply_to": "15117__1_103", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_105", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "And then they carried it off -- how far did they take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2976.179], "stop_times": [2980.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.179}, "reply_to": "15117__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_106", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I'm hard to put to be accurate about that, not too far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2980.492], "stop_times": [2983.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.492}, "reply_to": "15117__1_105", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_107", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Not too far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2983.579], "stop_times": [2984.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.579}, "reply_to": "15117__1_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_108", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "They got away with it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2984.342], "stop_times": [2986.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.342}, "reply_to": "15117__1_107", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_109", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Few minutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2986.91], "stop_times": [2988.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.91}, "reply_to": "15117__1_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_110", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Perhaps by a tenth Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2988.653], "stop_times": [2990.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2988.653}, "reply_to": "15117__1_109", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_111", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Another 10 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2990.042], "stop_times": [2992.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.042}, "reply_to": "15117__1_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_112", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I'm not that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2992.837], "stop_times": [2993.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.837}, "reply_to": "15117__1_111", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_113", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "So, that's the only difference between the facts of the two crimes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [2993.311], "stop_times": [3001.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.311}, "reply_to": "15117__1_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_114", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I'm afraid if I say yes to that, I'll agree that it's so minute that it isn't worth any discussion.\nI agree that there is that difference, but the difference is vast when we steal that which we damaged.\nYou can damage it without stealing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3001.747, 3007.883, 3017.832], "stop_times": [3007.883, 3017.832, 3019.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.747}, "reply_to": "15117__1_113", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_115", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, I understood that your District Court said that the crime isn't the damaging, that's what made it larceny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3019.387], "stop_times": [3033.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.387}, "reply_to": "15117__1_114", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_116", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, it was also in the carrying away if Your Honor please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3033.682], "stop_times": [3036.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.682}, "reply_to": "15117__1_115", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_117", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "But, they put emphasis on the damages, am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3036.635], "stop_times": [3041.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.635}, "reply_to": "15117__1_116", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_118", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3041.84], "stop_times": [3043.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.84}, "reply_to": "15117__1_117", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_119", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "So, we got two damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3043.727], "stop_times": [3046.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.727}, "reply_to": "15117__1_118", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_120", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's right.\nNow that the mural was damaged and was recovered in the damaged condition, beside of that fact that it was carried off.\nBut the damage that the city complained about and was made actionable against Waller was a damaged to the structure from which it was taken, a different kind, perhaps minute, but nevertheless, different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3046.184, 3046.609, 3054.785], "stop_times": [3046.609, 3054.785, 3068.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.184}, "reply_to": "15117__1_119", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_121", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Does the record show where they put it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3068.346], "stop_times": [3072.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.346}, "reply_to": "15117__1_120", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__1_122", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Do you mean that the city ever put the mural back?\nThat, I do not know sir.\nI've not been down there and I don't know and I've not heard.\nPerhaps, Mr. Levinson can tell you, I don't know.\nIn any case, I say very simply, I don't care whether we view it with or without Benton.\nI'm not relying on the separate sovereign to the exclusion of everything else.\nI say that separate acts occurred.\nI prefer to call them crimes but the word used is offense.\nNow, if he can show after flaw acquit or a convict, he's in business and we all know it.\nThere's no use of kidding ourselves, but he can't do that.\nHe's saying because I did three things in a short interval, what you should do is now extend the protection of double jeopardy to me and I say, unless you want to redo it, you ought not to and you ought to affirm the action of the District Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3072.634, 3075.11, 3076.206, 3079.121, 3083.48, 3088.189, 3092.661, 3095.056, 3099.221, 3105.114, 3108.377], "stop_times": [3075.11, 3076.206, 3079.121, 3083.48, 3088.189, 3092.661, 3095.056, 3099.221, 3105.114, 3108.377, 3122.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.634}, "reply_to": "15117__1_121", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_123", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I thought it was your argument Mr. Georgieff is that the District Court of Appeal did seem as I read their opinion beginning on page 52a of the appendix, did seem to rely exclusively upon this so-called two sovereignty's rule because they said one of the things, this information was based on the same acts of the appellant as were involved in the violation of the two city ordinances.\nAnd then they say, assuming but not holding that the violations of the municipal ordinances were included offenses of the crime of grand larceny, that the appellant nevertheless has not twice been put in jeopardy because and they go along and talk about your Florida's so-called two sovereignty rule and they based their decision as I read this, exclusively upon that ground.\nAm I mistaken of reading of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3122.469, 3148.684, 3174.021], "stop_times": [3148.684, 3174.021, 3175.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.469}, "reply_to": "15117__1_122", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15117__1_124", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No.\nNo, you're not and it's a painful reminder.\nI don't know whether silos preferable or correct this, I can't tell you which I rather go to.\nHowever, their outcome was correct, even though their reason was wrong and I don't know how much of this will get back to them but in any case that's my problem.\nI don't care what they said, my sins are enough for me to pay for it.\nThe point is if they reach the proper result, I don't care that they gave the wrong reason.\nMy contention is that the acts or offenses or crimes if you want to call them that, were separate and distinct and that they gave a wrong reason is to me relatively unimportant.\nYou're not bound by what they say.\nIt never happened in the past and I don't suspect it will be in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3175.799, 3176.142, 3178.505, 3183.617, 3194.614, 3198.686, 3203.794, 3214.894, 3216.827], "stop_times": [3176.142, 3178.505, 3183.617, 3194.614, 3198.686, 3203.794, 3214.894, 3216.827, 3219.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.799}, "reply_to": "15117__1_123", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_125", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, the offense against the State of Florida could not begin until that mural was off of the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3219.8], "stop_times": [3225.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.8}, "reply_to": "15117__1_124", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_126", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3225.368], "stop_times": [3226.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.368}, "reply_to": "15117__1_125", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_127", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Because it began with the carrying away?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3226.018], "stop_times": [3228.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.018}, "reply_to": "15117__1_126", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_128", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That is correct.\nAnd that is done --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3228.989, 3230.56], "stop_times": [3230.56, 3231.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3228.989}, "reply_to": "15117__1_127", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_129", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "The damage begun as soon as the tearing commenced, so that they did not commence at the same time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3231.873], "stop_times": [3240.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.873}, "reply_to": "15117__1_128", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__1_130", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, as I said to Mr. Justice Harlan Mr. Chief Justice, I don't like to see to something when it so minute that I may go into tank without knowing about it.\nIt's a little difficult to find when one stopped and the other begin, but they couldn't carried away until they got it off the wall, so obviously, there's a difference.\nI don't know how much and nobody seemed to remember those particulars since we don't have the record of the municipal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3240.945, 3251.181, 3260.633], "stop_times": [3251.181, 3260.633, 3266.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.945}, "reply_to": "15117__1_129", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_131", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That's the real problem is it.\nWe don't have that record of that events.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3266.951, 3268.384], "stop_times": [3268.384, 3270.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.951}, "reply_to": "15117__1_130", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15117__1_132", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "That is correct sir, and I wish as much as Mr. Levinson and the Court that it was here, but it is not and I don't know how to restructure that.\nIt's our position in the face of the matter puts to you today that the action of the District Court below, even if for the wrong reason should be affirmed today.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3270.143, 3279.611, 3287.851], "stop_times": [3279.611, 3287.851, 3295.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3270.143}, "reply_to": "15117__1_131", "speaker": "george_r_georgieff"}
{"id": "15117__1_133", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "You have five minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3295.737], "stop_times": [3297.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.737}, "reply_to": "15117__1_132", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__2_000", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, just a word about this question of larceny by destruction.\nIn order to establish the crime of larceny, the state has to prove amongst other things felonious intent, and as I understand Florida law, felonious intent can be proved either by an act of taking away to conceal the property or in Florida, felonious intent can be established either by the destruction or by exposing the property to an unreasonable risk of destruction.\nSince the taking took place in broad daylight in the presence of public officials and police officers, we contend there was no evidence before the jury which would justify a finding of felonious intent based on an attempt to conceal, that was impossible that in the circumstances.\nAnd so, since jury found him guilty, the only possible basis of those finding of guilt must have been on the other branch of felonious intent, that is to say on the destruction or creating the reasonable risk of destruction of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3297.463, 3302.875, 3328.403, 3343.746], "stop_times": [3302.875, 3328.403, 3343.746, 3359.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3297.463}, "reply_to": "15117__1_133", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_001", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "How about carrying it off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3359.623], "stop_times": [3362.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.623}, "reply_to": "15117__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__2_002", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Carrying it off can only be the ingredients of larceny if it is carried off with felonious intent and the presence of police officers negated the possibility of the requisite felonious intent on the evidence presented by the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3362.805], "stop_times": [3376.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3362.805}, "reply_to": "15117__2_001", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_003", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "You're making a pretty difficult to prove a bank robbery where you have a lot of uniform armed guards around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3376.925], "stop_times": [3383.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.925}, "reply_to": "15117__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__2_004", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, the circumstances of a bank robbery make it obvious that the robbers intend if they can to get away with the haul.\nThe circumstances of this case make it obvious that the petitioner had no intention of keeping the mural.\nHe wants it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3383.087, 3391.321, 3398.079], "stop_times": [3391.321, 3398.079, 3398.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3383.087}, "reply_to": "15117__2_003", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_005", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "I don't see difficulty with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3398.139], "stop_times": [3401.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.139}, "reply_to": "15117__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__2_006", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3401.715], "stop_times": [3402.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3401.715}, "reply_to": "15117__2_005", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_007", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Well, you said, they have some intention to take it away, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3402.526], "stop_times": [3405.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3402.526}, "reply_to": "15117__2_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__2_008", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "They have an intention to take it away for the purpose of carrying out a demonstration.\nThey --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3405.676, 3410.692], "stop_times": [3410.692, 3410.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3405.676}, "reply_to": "15117__2_007", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_009", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "They have an statement there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3410.804], "stop_times": [3413.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.804}, "reply_to": "15117__2_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__2_010", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "They walked the few city blocks with it in the presence of a large crowd of people including the police officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3413.116], "stop_times": [3417.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3413.116}, "reply_to": "15117__2_009", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_011", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Did the police back off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3417.099], "stop_times": [3418.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3417.099}, "reply_to": "15117__2_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__2_012", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "The police recovered.\nThis is I believe, the city authorities still have it in custody, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3418.858, 3419.715], "stop_times": [3419.715, 3423.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3418.858}, "reply_to": "15117__2_011", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_013", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Did they put it back up on the wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3423.123], "stop_times": [3425.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.123}, "reply_to": "15117__2_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__2_014", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "No sir.\nThey're holding it dependently --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3425.073, 3425.657], "stop_times": [3425.657, 3426.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3425.073}, "reply_to": "15117__2_013", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_015", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Your (Inaudible) been without that all this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3426.753], "stop_times": [3429.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3426.753}, "reply_to": "15117__2_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__2_016", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Yes sir, they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3429.126], "stop_times": [3429.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3429.126}, "reply_to": "15117__2_015", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_017", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "How long since this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3429.912], "stop_times": [3431.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.912}, "reply_to": "15117__2_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15117__2_018", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Three years, but the mural was in the custody of the city even or not on the wall of the City Hall.\nNow, we believe it is possible for this Court to resolve the issue of the identity of the proofs without the necessity of remanding it to the Florida Court.\nObviously, if this Court find itself unable to resolve the issue it would be a proper one to send back to Florida.\nNow, I would take the liberty of correcting the Attorney General in his comment that the State is unable to prosecute for the destruction of city property.\nOur appendix on pages 6 and 12 presents pertinent state statutes which do make it a misdemeanor.\nIn fact, one of the three misdemeanors which was filed and then dropped, specifically referred to the destruction or damaging the city property, and this is set forth on pages 6 and 12 of the appendix.\nIn fact, the state has an ample arsenal of statutes that whatever conduct violates a city ordinance can pretty well be assured that having a counterpart in the state statutes, the state assumed a self resourceful.\nIndeed, in finding statutes, there are the points of violating the Constitution and having the Vagrancy law reversed by a federal court recently.\nAnd so, I believe that if we require the State to have a single trial of all their complaints against an individual the prosecutor can find in their discretion adequate statutory basis for bringing whatever trial will appropriate.\nMr. Georgieff states that we will be quite prepared to have our petitioner tried and sentenced for all of his offenses in one trial.\nThis is not quite so.\nWe certainly want only one trial.\nIn that trial, the State could bring whatever complaints it wanted to.\nWe might then argue that that they would be unnecessarily overlapping between the complaints under rule of (Inaudible) case which holds that a legislation will be presumed to intend multiple punishments arising at a single act unless the language of the statute clearly states that multiple punishments are called for.\nJust to summarize the double jeopardy argument, and I can hope I can spent it at one minute on the important issue of pre-sentence reports.\nWe believe there are two basis, either one of which will support our argument on the double jeopardy claim.\nOne is compulsory joinder.\nWe assert as a rule of constitutional dimensions that the state should have only one trial of a defendant on the basis of a single act or course of conduct.\nThere maybe exceptions to this rule.\nFor example if the victim of an assault dies after trial, we could say will this would give rise to an exception to the compulsory joinder rule or if the first trial was a sham.\nBut in all that you clarify the law of double jeopardy and also included within it the common law tradition.\nWe submit that compulsory joinder should be the presumption and to then the exception needs to be justified by the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3431.132, 3440.79, 3452.595, 3460.062, 3469.946, 3476.558, 3488.832, 3503.5, 3512.777, 3531.437, 3541.146, 3542.675, 3544.747, 3549.617, 3570.508, 3576.617, 3582.323, 3584.669, 3597.1, 3598.685, 3610.368, 3617.875], "stop_times": [3440.79, 3452.595, 3460.062, 3469.946, 3476.558, 3488.832, 3503.5, 3512.777, 3531.437, 3541.146, 3542.675, 3544.747, 3549.617, 3570.508, 3576.617, 3582.323, 3584.669, 3597.1, 3598.685, 3610.368, 3617.875, 3625.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3431.132}, "reply_to": "15117__2_017", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_019", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Your time is up Mr. Levinson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3625.437], "stop_times": [3625.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3625.437}, "reply_to": "15117__2_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15117__2_020", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3625.788], "stop_times": [3627.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3625.788}, "reply_to": "15117__2_019", "speaker": "leslie_h_levinson"}
{"id": "15117__2_021", "conversation_id": "15117", "text": "We'll take your other points on the brief.\nThank you for your submission gentlemen.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_24", "start_times": [3627.048, 3628.921, 3630.494], "stop_times": [3628.921, 3630.494, 3633.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3627.048}, "reply_to": "15117__2_020", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__0_000", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Number 135, Walz against the Tax Commission.\nMr. Ennis you may proceed whenever you are ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [0.0, 31.357], "stop_times": [31.357, 33.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__0_001", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis is an appeal from a final order of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, affirming an order for summary judgment obtained by the defendant, dismissing the complaint which asserts that the plaintiff, appellant here, is a citizen and a real estate taxpayer, who sought in adjudication that the constitutional and statutory provisions of the State in New York, which exempt from real estate taxation all the property of religious corporations used solely for religious purposes violates the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.\nHe asserts in his complaint that he's a Christian not a member of any particular sect, and objects that the amount by which his taxes, his real estate taxes are increased by the exemption of all religiously owned property for use of religious purposes from taxations, constitutes an involuntary contribution by him to the activities of these religious organizations which violates his freedom of religion.\nBefore taking up my main argument which will be very brief because the principle that I assert is very simple, I would like to address one word to corporation counsel's suggestion in the first point of his brief that the Court should either dismiss or affirm this appeal on the ground that the record is inadequate.\nWe submit to the Court that all of the facts required for a decision of this issue no matter how momentous it maybe, are present either in the pleadings or in the facts which are judicial notice.\nIt was the defendant who moved for summary judgment and the facts were quite sufficient to obtain a judgment of the Court of Appeals in favor of the defendant.\nAnd the defendant is not in a good position here to assert that the facts are not sufficient for review by this Court.\nThe -- all of the facts required for decision are present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [33.895, 38.705, 103.285, 134.801, 157.574, 174.93, 188.153, 196.178], "stop_times": [38.705, 103.285, 134.801, 157.574, 174.93, 188.153, 196.178, 200.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 33.895}, "reply_to": "15216__0_000", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_002", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Ennis, before you proceed with your argument, I'm a little curious about the whereabouts of the plaintiff in this case.\nI refer particularly to VI of the appendix of the amicus brief of Mrs. Madelyn Murray O'Hare, in which it's indicated that the post office couldn't find Mr. Walz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [200.152, 215.857], "stop_times": [215.857, 232.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.152}, "reply_to": "15216__0_001", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15216__0_003", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [232.372], "stop_times": [232.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.372}, "reply_to": "15216__0_002", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_004", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Did somebody else sign for this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [232.675], "stop_times": [235.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.675}, "reply_to": "15216__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15216__0_005", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well, let me tell you what I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [235.065], "stop_times": [235.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.065}, "reply_to": "15216__0_004", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_006", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "-- registered letter.\nI wonder if he still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [235.84, 236.899], "stop_times": [236.899, 237.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.84}, "reply_to": "15216__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15216__0_007", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Walz is a member of the New York bar, and he's taken the case to this stage and intended to argue the case.\nHe requested me to argue it and present his position in his behalf because he happens to be suffering from a very high blood pressure and frankly, he stated that he did not think that he emotionally could undertake the responsibility to present the oral argument to this Court.\nI've known Mr. -- I know Mr. Walz, he's been in my office several times and I can communicate with him anytime I wish.\nI mean --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [237.609, 244.676, 263.706, 269.83], "stop_times": [244.676, 263.706, 269.83, 270.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.609}, "reply_to": "15216__0_006", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_008", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "That satisfies my question, I just wondered if he was still around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [270.081], "stop_times": [274.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.081}, "reply_to": "15216__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15216__0_009", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "And now, going to the merits of the argument, I do not intend to quote to this Court much of what had it said in the over 500 pages that the Court has written between Gobitis and Flast on the question of the meaning of the First Amendment.\nI think it appropriate however that we approach our argument with the statement made by Mr. Justice Jackson speaking for the Court in the Barnett case which established that this flag salute have violated the First Amendment.\nNow Mr. Justice Jackson for the Court stated that the task of translating the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the 18th Century into concrete restraints on officials dealing with problems of the 20th Century is one to disturb the self confidence.\nThese changed conditions from the laissez faire situation in the 18th Century for the government control of our century, often deprived precedence of reliability and cast us more than we would choose on our own judgment, but we act in these matters not by authority of our confidence, but by force of our commissions.\nWe cannot because of modest testaments of our confidence in such specialties as public education withhold the judgment that history authenticates as the function of this Court when liberty is infringed.\nApproaching this question, it is the appellant's submission that the plain words, the first ten words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights that Congress, which now includes the states, shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion bars all age religion including the massive tax exemption from real estate taxes presented in this case.\nI will not pause to lead the Court again as it has gone through its opinions through the course in the first Congress which produced these general words respecting an establishment of religion.\nIt is suffice to say that out of the narrower words introduced into the House, no law establishing religion and out of the still narrow words introduced into the Senate, no law establishing articles of faith.\nIn the conference between the two Houses, in which Mr. Madison was a member of the conference, we extracted the words no law respecting an establishment of religion which the Congress adopted and the states adopted.\nNow, this Court has said in Everson and in every case considered since Everson that the generalities of these words not only prohibit the establishment of a church, but they prohibit any aid to religion.\nOnly two words -- only two sentences from the Court's opinion in Everson which has been quoted by the Court in every opinion since.\nThe Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means at least this, \u201cNeither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.\u201d\nThe appellant's position very simply is that just as this Court has repeatedly stated and indeed in the last case in the Flast case, that of course the First Amendment forbids aid to religion and that any tax funds that any taxes be exacted or spent on religion.\nThat it's the appellant's submission that this exemption from real estate taxes is precisely the same as if the State of New York had passed a law stating that all religious property shall be valued, so that at least we might know its valuation and its increasing valuation, and shall be taxed like all other property.\nBut that upon application by the taxpayer, disclosing that it is a religious organization and that the property is used solely for religious purposes, these taxes should be refunded.\nWe submit to the Court that the exemption before us is no different, and that if this Court would strike down the hypothetical statute I've suggested, it should strike down the exemption statute of the State of New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [274.184, 297.392, 316.88, 338.313, 361.023, 378.133, 412.589, 427.85, 445.332, 461.686, 483.591, 492.75, 511.68, 534.219, 556.853, 568.512], "stop_times": [297.392, 316.88, 338.313, 361.023, 378.133, 412.589, 427.85, 445.332, 461.686, 483.591, 492.75, 511.68, 534.219, 556.853, 568.512, 582.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.184}, "reply_to": "15216__0_008", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_010", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Ennis, does this statute limit the exemption to Religious Corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [582.424], "stop_times": [589.215], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 582.424}, "reply_to": "15216__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__0_011", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "No, Your Honor, the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [589.215], "stop_times": [591.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.215}, "reply_to": "15216__0_010", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_012", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Part of a broader statute isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [591.909], "stop_times": [593.559], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 591.909}, "reply_to": "15216__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__0_013", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Of course, if the religious corporation is in the general provisions which exempts educational institutions, hospitals and the like, and it includes religious corporations.\nWe of course submit Your Honor, I'll have a word to say about the suggestion that religion can be subsumed under charitable activities, but it is so far as the statute is concerned, included with these other classifications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [593.559, 604.87], "stop_times": [604.87, 619.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.559}, "reply_to": "15216__0_012", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_014", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Would your argument go so far as to reach hospitals run by religious orders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [619.651], "stop_times": [625.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.651}, "reply_to": "15216__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__0_015", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Oh, no, no of course not Your Honor.\nThe hospitals, the asylums, the orphanages, the educational institutions, schools, all of these institutions which are run by religious organizations are exempt from real estate taxes by virtue of their function.\nOur argument only reaches to property used exclusively for religious purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [625.891, 627.754, 643.993], "stop_times": [627.754, 643.993, 651.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.891}, "reply_to": "15216__0_014", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_016", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Does that not assume that religious oriented schools are not teaching religion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [651.316], "stop_times": [661.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.316}, "reply_to": "15216__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__0_017", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "No, no it does not at all Your Honor.\nBut the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [661.066, 662.89], "stop_times": [662.89, 663.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.066}, "reply_to": "15216__0_016", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_018", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "But you have no trouble I take it with the school which is teaching religion to young children at an early age or to college students at a later age?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [663.969], "stop_times": [674.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.969}, "reply_to": "15216__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__0_019", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I have no trouble in exempting the real estate from taxation.\nAnd in any event, Your Honor, the statute relieves us from this problem because the statute we're addressing ourself to exempts only property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.\nNow, we do not have to address ourselves to what might be a more difficult problem as is to whether a hospital run by a church institution, whether physical care is sufficiently permeated with religious instruction to render it suspect.\nWe don't have to deal with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [674.243, 678.778, 691.707, 710.847], "stop_times": [678.778, 691.707, 710.847, 712.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.243}, "reply_to": "15216__0_018", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_020", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Could I ask you this question?\nSupposing New York changed its statute and granted the exemption to every kind of charitable organization except a purely religious organization, would you think that would give rise to a free exercise question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [712.327, 713.523], "stop_times": [713.523, 735.22], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 712.327}, "reply_to": "15216__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__0_021", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "No, Your Honor, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [735.22], "stop_times": [736.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.22}, "reply_to": "15216__0_020", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_022", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "You don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [736.55], "stop_times": [737.016], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 736.55}, "reply_to": "15216__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__0_023", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "The -- I -- I think that the constitution does not forbid the legislature to grant exemptions to charitable organizations, but only to religious organizations.\nIt is our position, Your Honor, that if prayer and bible reading in the public school is an aid to religion, it's inescapable that the practical economic financial aid of real estate tax exemption is an aid to religion.\nThis proposition is so simple that it is rather difficult to expand upon it.\nIts very statement is its own proof.\nUnless this Court is prepared to say that factually an exemption of pure property use purely for religious purposes is not an aid to religion, unless the Court is prepared to say that it must say that is an aid to religion which is unconstitutional.\nI think I would like to say a few words about the defenses, if I may call it that or the arguments which the corporation counsel has presented in his brief on this subject.\nAnd these are the defenses presented usually to support this awkward fact that we have in all of the states, this exemption, and although we've had it in all of the states for 180 years, it now for the first time comes squarely before this Court for consideration.\nThe first argument in support of it is the argument of history.\nHow is it that this exemption stands on the books of all the states for so long without having been challenged in this Court?\nOf course, the answer I think is a tribute to the great political power of the religious organizations in this country that have been able to achieve that this exemption from taxes for so long.\nAnother reason is that when this started in the beginning of our republic, the tax question was a very minor one.\nThe tax question has only loomed large when in part as a result of tax exemption, religious organizations in this country have accumulated literally hundreds of billions dollars of property.\nAnd now, with the increasing public services, social services that are required, the matter becomes acute as to whether this isn't part of the real estate in the United States which constitutionally should be subject to tax.\nAnd indeed, another simple argument is that history cannot turn aid into no aid not only real estate tax exemption, but it's been common in our public schools saying public prayers and bible reading.\nThis has gone on since the beginning of the republic, but it only reached this Court in the last 20 years when citizens determined to raise the issue.\nTake the Sunday store laws.\nThe Sunday store laws, as this Court in it cases -- in its decision recognizes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [737.016, 753.129, 774.79, 782.294, 785.63, 804.244, 817.062, 837.002, 840.634, 850.116, 864.035, 875.203, 889.529, 906.376, 921.681, 933.595, 936.832], "stop_times": [753.129, 774.79, 782.294, 785.63, 804.244, 817.062, 837.002, 840.634, 850.116, 864.035, 875.203, 889.529, 906.376, 921.681, 933.595, 936.832, 943.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.016}, "reply_to": "15216__0_022", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_024", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [943.032], "stop_times": [943.594], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 943.032}, "reply_to": "15216__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__0_025", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "This of course had a religious origin and yet, they went on with this religious justification, legislative justification was religious, they went on from the beginning of the republic until a few years ago and the Court in its opinion stated \u201cWe would strike these Sunday laws down as unconstitutional establishment of religion.\u201d\nIf it were not for the fact that in the development of our country, a secular reason for these laws has supplanted the original religious purpose of the laws.\nAnd the Court said that \u201cIf the purpose was aid to religion, these Sunday laws would've been stricken down and they were saved because the purpose has become secular.\u201d\nNow, -- but it's only as our country developed and people wanted to open up stores on Sunday, the stores that were involved that the question was presented to this Court, despite that fact that it was in its origins unconstitutional, although not tested.\nI think that this takes care of the argument from history to the extent that it can be taken care of.\nI do not mean to blink at the point that a practice which has existed for so long, it carries with it a certain historical momentum of its own.\nBut this Court is no stranger to striking down laws as unconstitutional which the American people have accepted for a long periods of time, until the time comes when a citizen properly raises the question, as I believe Mr. Walz has done, and requires that these laws be stricken down.\nNow, the second point that Mr. Rankin makes, and it also has its interest, is that the exemption really supports the purpose of the amendment which was to prevent strike between the religion and the secular state that leaving the state alone in this respect promotes that neutrality which was one purpose of the First Amendment.\nIf the Court please, my answer to that is that taxing real estate used for religious purposes, like other real estate, is just as neutral as not taxing it.\nThere is no -- there is not intended by this to promote any conflict with the church, and I cannot see how it will produce a conflict with the church to treat such property as all other real estate is treated.\nNow, the third argument that Mr. Rankin refers to in his brief is also a common one.\nThat what the legislatures have done have considered religion like other charities which it exempts.\nThat it is true of course that religion until the more recent period of our history, took up the burden of charity.\nThe alms houses, the hospitals, the orphanages, the old peoples homes, all of these in earlier days was largely left to religious private activity.\nThis of course is no longer the case and it explains, I think, why the legislatures have placed religious activities into the same statutory framework as other charitable activities, but it cannot satisfy the constitutional requirement that both the Congress and all of the legislatures are expressly prohibited from treating religion like other charitable activities.\nThe states and Congress are prohibited from this.\nNow, another answer is that the prayer which this -- the prayer of the public schools and the bible reading in the public schools which this Court has stricken down as unconstitutional, that promotes moral values, just as religious activity promotes moral values, but just as -- that is not a sufficient basis to save the prayer the fact that it promotes a secular object, if you will, namely moral considerations, if it is not enough to save that the prayer, it is not enough to save the tax exemption.\nNow, the last argument that's made on this point by Mr. Rankin is that this Court has approved other exemptions.\nFor example, the selective service exemption where the Court excuses ministers or rather the statute excuses ministers and conscientious objectors and the Sunday laws, not the ones that the Court struck down, but those laws in which a state has chosen to give an exemption for the two people who observed the Sabbath and let them run their business on Sunday.\nThe distinction, we submit, is that the power of the Congress in the interest of national defense and general welfare, it doesn't have to give those exemptions.\nIt did give them out of respect for acts of conscience for religious conscience, but it's not been suggested by the Christian churches that the payment of real estate taxes would offend their freedom of religion in the sense of their freedom of conscience.\nSurely, a church which recognizes that Caesar shall have what is his and God shall have what is His would not make the argument that to pay real estate taxes would violate their conscientious group.\nThey merely asked to be exempt for the payment of taxes, and I think this is a great distinction between these cases.\nNow, I'm going to address myself in just very briefly to an argument that is not made by the City of New York and that is that this statute is required by the Free Exercise Clause.\nThat argument is made in the brief of the national counsel of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America by Mr. Tuttle, who's here today to hear the argument.\nNow, Mr. Tuttle relies for that contention that these laws are not only permissible but are required on the Murdock case and the Fallet case.\nNow, as Your Honors will recall in Murdock, the Court stated that you could not place a license tax on the very activity of distributing religious literature by members of a religious sect whose -- the essence of their religious activity was going from house to house, distributing and selling their literature.\nBut as Mr. Justice Douglas said in that case, this is quite different from the tax on property used for religious activities.\nIt is one think to tax a preacher's property and another thing to tax his teaching.\nWe say that there's a very obvious distinction between the direct tax upon the religious activity involved in the Murdock case and the tax on the land and the wooden stones which constitute the property of the real estate tax of religious property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [943.594, 967.433, 980.316, 993.28, 1020.041, 1028.156, 1039.06, 1060.023, 1093.669, 1106.658, 1124.496, 1131.186, 1142.331, 1151.556, 1167.772, 1203.979, 1207.379, 1249.406, 1259.541, 1287.721, 1302.979, 1325.053, 1342.395, 1351.193, 1369.75, 1386.16, 1400.756, 1423.801, 1436.86, 1444.138], "stop_times": [967.433, 980.316, 993.28, 1020.041, 1028.156, 1039.06, 1060.023, 1093.669, 1106.658, 1124.496, 1131.186, 1142.331, 1151.556, 1167.772, 1203.979, 1207.379, 1249.406, 1259.541, 1287.721, 1302.979, 1325.053, 1342.395, 1351.193, 1369.75, 1386.16, 1400.756, 1423.801, 1436.86, 1444.138, 1467.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.594}, "reply_to": "15216__0_024", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_026", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I have -- I have some difficulty in that separation of the chapel from the teaching.\nIs that your point that the chapel can be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [1467.108, 1475.196], "stop_times": [1475.196, 1477.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.108}, "reply_to": "15216__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__0_027", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Yes, my point is Your Honor that this Court in the Murdock and Fallet case that followed it, in stating that attacks directly upon the activity was unconstitutional because it did limit the free exercise religion that Mr. Justice Douglas for the Court, and Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his concurring opinion expressly distinguished that tax from the tax that we have here.\nFor example, Mr. Justice Frankfurter said in very plain words, \u201cit is alien to our constitutional system to suggest that it exempts church held lands from state taxation.\u201d\nIn other words, the Court itself has very plainly made the distinction from the direct exercise of religion not subject to a license task, and indeed, I hardly have to go further and state that if this argument were true, would it mean that the great real estate holdings of our press and our T.V. organization should not be subject to tax because they are engaged in the exercise of the freedom of the press?\nIt's hardly distinguishable.\nThe land used by the New York Times to print its paper is just as much involved in the freedom of the press as the church building used in expressing religion.\nNow, I would like to close my argument, if the Court please, by a one sentence statement from James Madison, whom this Court has recognized in many opinions as the very architect of the First Amendment.\nWhen he'd retired as President to Montpeller, I had a chance to review all he had done and the attention he'd given to this important question of establishment of religion.\nIn his detached memorandum, which I hope Your Honors will again read because he has the fervor and eloquence on this matter which I can not match.\nHe indeed even goes so far in the detached memorandum as to say that the chaplains in the Congress and in the army and navy are establishments of religion, and should not be allowed.\nAnd he concludes, as I will conclude my argument with one sentence, he says \u201cIt is safer to adhere to a right principle and trust its consequences than to confide in reasoning however specious in fear -- in reliance upon a wrong one.\u201d\nI submit to Your Honor that the exemption of churches is aid to religion and is barred by the First Amendment.\nThese various arguments which have been made to attempt to excuse it do not excuse it, and are form of specious reasoning which the Court or should not accept, which should hold as simple logic and the words of the constitution require that an exemption is as much an aid to religion as if the taxes were collected and returned upon application.\nThank you very much, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [1477.362, 1508.238, 1523.343, 1552.004, 1554.03, 1565.315, 1586.217, 1598.949, 1610.121, 1623.701, 1644.649, 1654.117, 1682.082], "stop_times": [1508.238, 1523.343, 1552.004, 1554.03, 1565.315, 1586.217, 1598.949, 1610.121, 1623.701, 1644.649, 1654.117, 1682.082, 1683.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.362}, "reply_to": "15216__0_026", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__0_028", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ennis.\nMr. Rankin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [1683.222, 1687.481], "stop_times": [1687.481, 1688.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.222}, "reply_to": "15216__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__1_000", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nIt is the position of the City of New York that this case should either be dismissed as not presenting any substantial federal question in light of the record, or that it should be affirmed.\nWe have considerable difficulty with the position of Mr. Ennis and the Civil Liberties Union in their brief, because they appear to recognize that if you single out religious establishments or institutions and deny to them an exemption which you grant to other nonprofit, charitable, educational activities such as are allowed this exemption under this statute and under the constitution of the State of New York, you have serious problems.\nThey do not frankly say that it's free exercise problem but I do.\nAs you will note in our brief, I do not assert that we reach a free exercise problem with regard to this exemption as it is granted.\nBut if you're going to say that religious institutions, who have the same legal standing, an economic standing, are nonprofit, engaged in charitable or education activities are thereby to be singled out and told that they can not enjoy the same exemption by reason those activities as other people.\nI do not see how you can face up to say that that does not inhibit religion in this country.\nNow, I call to the Court's attention and emphasize the history of this exemption, and I do not say that it is conclusive of on the Court, of course it is not, but it has great bearing, 200 years of a course of conduct by the people of this country and I challenge the statement that it's just due to a great lobby.\nTo me, it is an action of the people of this country in recognition of the service and value of religion to sustaining this country throughout its various activities.\nIt is 200 years of universal consistent conduct, either in constitutional provisions or statutes and uniformed decisions sustaining, including the various actions of this Court some four times finding that there is not a substantial federal question in three cases, and not taking the fourth action.\nBut it is glibly assumed in the argument here that exemption is the same as aid to religion comparable to taxing and any careful examination of this situation will not bear that out.\nIt isn't supported by the law of this Court, interpretations of the constitution with regard to taxation.\nBut before I leave the history, I should like to call to the Court's attention the very real problem that you present the government in trying to maintain neutrality in neither advancing nor inhibiting religion.\nIf you say to the government, you must go in the City of New York to Saint Patrick's Cathedral and assess and tax based upon the fair and reasonable market value with the highest use of that property, or go with me to Trinity Church down in lower Manhattan and tell us to do the same or any little chapel in outlying areas, Harlem, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, now it can be done.\nBut in that process, what do we do to the relationship between government that we're trying to say that there's a separation wall.\nIt's difficult to imagine how much taxes we would assess against Saint Patrick's, Trinity Church and some of the others.\nOn the other hand, I don't want to minimize the effect upon the little chapel in the community which proportionately may have as much difficulty or more in meeting this assessment.\nNow, how does this 200 years of history bear upon that?\nIt bears upon the fact of the way our people have lived in the pluralism of our religion throughout 200 years of experience in dealing with this very problem.\nThey have proceeded upon the assumption from the earliest days of the very same time that this establishment took place, that they did not have to provide the taxes for their place of worship because it was recognized by the people, their legislatures and the exemption was granted either in constitution or in legislation or in both.\nNow, after 200 years with established parishes, many difficult financial problems otherwise, and 200 years of such experience of our people, all has to be changed overnight by a ruling of this Court and they have to find a way to either provide the taxes out of additional contribution by their parishioners, or move the church to some place that they can afford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [1688.957, 1695.988, 1718.069, 1767.392, 1773.931, 1784.309, 1818.106, 1828.945, 1857.481, 1877.394, 1910.833, 1932.936, 1944.215, 1966.892, 2017.656, 2033.034, 2043.755, 2059.444, 2063.69, 2082.324, 2114.731], "stop_times": [1695.988, 1718.069, 1767.392, 1773.931, 1784.309, 1818.106, 1828.945, 1857.481, 1877.394, 1910.833, 1932.936, 1944.215, 1966.892, 2017.656, 2033.034, 2043.755, 2059.444, 2063.69, 2082.324, 2114.731, 2156.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1688.957}, "reply_to": "15216__0_028", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_001", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Rankin, why do you say this record is insufficient to decide the issue in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2156.467], "stop_times": [2162.891], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.467}, "reply_to": "15216__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__1_002", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I think that it does not adequately show the effect of tax of -- in tax exemption of this kind, or tax exemptions if you're to assume that they are aid to an establishment on other taxpayers in the community.\nThis appellant had purchased a property for $100.00, I think he pays $5.47 something like that in taxes.\nThat's a very skimpy record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2162.891, 2191.057, 2204.189], "stop_times": [2191.057, 2204.189, 2208.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.891}, "reply_to": "15216__1_001", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_003", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2208.013], "stop_times": [2208.454], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.013}, "reply_to": "15216__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__1_004", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "-- to act upon if you're going to overturn something that's been present for over --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2208.454], "stop_times": [2212.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.454}, "reply_to": "15216__1_003", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_005", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "That goes really to a question of a standing, doesn't it?\nFlast against Cohen, it seems to me pretty well laid that to rest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2212.316, 2215.443], "stop_times": [2215.443, 2221.668], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.316}, "reply_to": "15216__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__1_006", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "If it's a constitutional question Mr. Rankin, can the Court be concerned with the impact in the same way that you would on construction of the statute where no constitutional question were involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2221.668], "stop_times": [2239.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.668}, "reply_to": "15216__1_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__1_007", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well, it seems to me that it gives the Court guidance and enlightenment insofar as you have information that is hard evidence in a record as distinguished from assumptions or inferences or whatever picture that counsel can portray to the Court with regard to the probable situation.\nThat is what I was calling attention to in regard to this first point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2239.863, 2267.635], "stop_times": [2267.635, 2273.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.863}, "reply_to": "15216__1_006", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_008", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "This is an appeal is not here on discussion area of review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2273.041], "stop_times": [2276.984], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.041}, "reply_to": "15216__1_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__1_009", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "That's right.\nThe next problem as I see it is the assumption in regard to the system of taxation.\nAnd the question of whether an exemption is the same in consideration of aid to religion than it would if there was a tax.\nIt seems to me it's clear that the exemption is neutral as distinguished from a tax which can be discriminatory in -- very easily in many ways.\nBut beyond that, they say religious institutions do not pay their fair share of the burden of government.\nNow, that is not a constitutional criteria, this Court has said that legislatures have the power and right to decide who shall be taxed dependent upon the question of whether or not two persons in exactly -- precisely similar situations as to economic and legal conditions are treated differently by the government.\nI do not think that if there was a mere exclusion as distinguished from exemption, this Court would be willing to accept that as an adequate distinction for constitutional purposes.\nBut there's no question about what the Court, the legislature, could choose various types of persons who are not similar in economic and legal position, and decide to tax them and decide not to tax a religious house of worship.\nThat is the fallacy in this situation.\nThere is an assumption that religious institutions have to be taxed just like others, or there is aid.\nThere's no proof of it and it doesn't follow our law in regard to the imposition of taxes, and the power of legislatures to make decisions about who should be taxed and who should not.\nIt doesn't deal with what other taxes churches pay in the course of the whole tax structure of the community, either New York or other communities that have similar exemptions throughout the country.\nIt just says that there must be a sharing in the cost of maintaining these benefits and it's entirely inadequate to meet the problem from a constitutional standpoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2276.984, 2280.174, 2288.488, 2305.618, 2322.934, 2334.568, 2367.38, 2384.786, 2411.829, 2415.579, 2428.361, 2446.51, 2468.193], "stop_times": [2280.174, 2288.488, 2305.618, 2322.934, 2334.568, 2367.38, 2384.786, 2411.829, 2415.579, 2428.361, 2446.51, 2468.193, 2491.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.984}, "reply_to": "15216__1_008", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_010", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "How would you say about a statute as far as the New York would appeal to this exemption that are all charitable corporations, overall, a charitable corporation is nonreligious charitable corporation and let the stand only with respect for the religious corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2491.0], "stop_times": [2514.489], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.0}, "reply_to": "15216__1_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15216__1_011", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I would find much more difficulty with regard to that, except that you do have the general principles of tax law allowing the legislature to decide that a corporation for instance, all corporations should pay taxes, no corporations should pay taxes but all natural persons pay taxes, the Court said that any number of times.\nSo, the legislature has a power and right to decide that the funds necessary to maintain the government, maybe to select -- taken from certain selected groups providing you don't violate this principle that I've just stated as a matter of constitutional law.\nNow, the problem is whether you're getting into the question of advancing or inhibiting religion in that particular area and that's the only problem that that kind of a situation raises.\nOn the other hand, if they are similar in regard with their functions to charitable and educational institutions and nonprofit making, and then you say \u201cJust because you're religious, you can have any exemption.\u201d\nIt seems to me you're singling them out in the same manner in a way that the Constitution does not permit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2514.489, 2539.807, 2561.114, 2576.27, 2595.296], "stop_times": [2539.807, 2561.114, 2576.27, 2595.296, 2603.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.489}, "reply_to": "15216__1_010", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_012", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Rankin, when I put the question to Mr. Ennis about church operated schools where religion is regularly taught, understandably, he wants to argue the case he has here and not some other case, but I wonder if you'd care to comment on whether a court could find that such a church operated school which received tax exemption was not receiving the same kind of in quotation marks \u201caid to religion\u201d that is argued is now extended to the churches?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2603.968], "stop_times": [2644.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.968}, "reply_to": "15216__1_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__1_013", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well, it is the position of the City of New York that it is -- as I view it and I frankly say, I'm not familiar with all the religions in this country.\nI do consider one of the great assets of this country is the fact we have pluralism in religions, that you can start any religion without interference by government.\nBut the religions I know, a number of them, all have an inherent part of the religion itself that you shall care for the sick, that you shall care for orphans and the elderly, you shall provide for them.\nThe ones I know have a \u201cMight\u201d box or a collection time after time throughout the year to support those activities.\nSome of them I know have a deacon's fund administered within the church structure itself to care for the poor and the unfortunate and it is a part of the doctrine and beliefs of the church.\nYou can go through a whole cross section of them, that people who have that religion will respect it, believe it and that is part of the doctrines that you not only believe in but you contribute to as a part of your worship, and you conduct that in the church, in the house of worship and the solicitation is made there almost every week, at least periodically.\nAnd many churches also have provision for their own institutions that they maintain, and the parishioners are asked to contribute to them as a part of their religious belief and an obligation as a part of that religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2644.068, 2657.238, 2673.052, 2697.662, 2708.976, 2727.107, 2762.846], "stop_times": [2657.238, 2673.052, 2697.662, 2708.976, 2727.107, 2762.846, 2792.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.068}, "reply_to": "15216__1_012", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_014", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Your argument therefore I gather, is directed to position that as a consequence the government would not constitutionally be able to finance a church school or a church hospital then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2792.732], "stop_times": [2808.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.732}, "reply_to": "15216__1_013", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15216__1_015", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I think that where you finance, a church school or hospital, you will do it, where this Court will permit it by the Government.\nIt will be in connection with case like Allen or other situations where you are carrying out the secular function, aiding of secular function which is not directly advancing the religion.\nBut I don't think that you can say that you can separate out of religion the elements of charity, or assistance to education, or other aspects that are the heart of it and have been for a thousand years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2808.73, 2822.822, 2842.309], "stop_times": [2822.822, 2842.309, 2864.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.73}, "reply_to": "15216__1_014", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_016", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "So, you suggest I take it that the government should make a direct grant to a church to carry on charitable activity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2864.112], "stop_times": [2872.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.112}, "reply_to": "15216__1_015", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15216__1_017", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "No, I think you've ruled that kind of an activity out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2872.563], "stop_times": [2878.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.563}, "reply_to": "15216__1_016", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_018", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well, but you're arguing now is that you can grant tax exemption though, because the churches are engaged in charity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2878.32], "stop_times": [2883.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.32}, "reply_to": "15216__1_017", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15216__1_019", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well, but a tax exemption is quite different from a direct taxing and imposing a tax upon individual in order that he contribute to the support of particular religious activity.\nA tax exemption may not mean anything to Mr. Walz or to me as a taxpayer in New York City or many others; it is neutral in its effect.\nIt is entirely different by nature under tax laws, under tax constitutional principles from the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2883.706, 2902.541, 2919.169], "stop_times": [2902.541, 2919.169, 2929.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.706}, "reply_to": "15216__1_018", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_020", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Rankin, if the appellant were to prevail with his arguments that this constitutes an aid to religion, to the establishment of religion, would you see any bearing on that kind of a ruling and the allowance of deductions for contributions to church which is now creature of statute and governed by regulations of I think most of the states and certainly the federal government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2929.307], "stop_times": [2961.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.307}, "reply_to": "15216__1_019", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__1_021", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2961.832], "stop_times": [2961.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.832}, "reply_to": "15216__1_020", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_022", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "In other words, could that exemption survive if the appellant prevailed here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2961.968], "stop_times": [2967.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.968}, "reply_to": "15216__1_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__1_023", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I can see many problems in that area if the appellant were to prevail here, because as Professor Bitkerr develops in his article in the Yale Law Journal, you would have the similar problem with regard to the Internal Revenue Act, the various provisions that Mr. Chief Justice, you're describing and tax laws throughout the federal structure as to whether or not if this is aid to education, aid to religion, that would not also be aid to religion.\nAnd you would conflict immediately in that whole area with those laws.\nI think it would cause a reexamination of the entire tax structure and the exemptions that are allowed in connection with religious charitable and educational activities and gifts as state benefits.\nFinally, I'd like to say that I think this would have a great impact upon the social structure of this country if the appellant should prevail in this action.\nI think it would --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [2967.257, 3013.707, 3023.928, 3063.413, 3073.648], "stop_times": [3013.707, 3023.928, 3063.413, 3073.648, 3075.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.257}, "reply_to": "15216__1_022", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_024", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Speak a little louder, Mr. Rankin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3075.197], "stop_times": [3076.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.197}, "reply_to": "15216__1_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15216__1_025", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I think it would penalize the small churches. The great establishments would be able to adjust to it.\nThe little parish church in the core city, in the country side that does not -- is not able to fall back upon the general congregations throughout the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3076.519, 3087.881], "stop_times": [3087.881, 3101.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.519}, "reply_to": "15216__1_024", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_026", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I think we'll stop until 12:30 Mr. Rankin? [Luncheon Break]\nMr. Rankin, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3101.428, 3115.202], "stop_times": [3115.202, 3117.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.428}, "reply_to": "15216__1_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__1_027", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.\nI'd like to conclude my argument very briefly.\nIt seemed to me that one of the things that the Court would like to examine which I have put there in connection with this case, is what has happened after 200 years of this exemption with regard to the fears that this Court has described that brought about the provisions in the First Amendment about establishment and free exercise.\nHave any of those feared conditions that were the basis for these provisions of the First Amendment come about or appear on the horizon in connection with this matter?\nYour -- the Court will recall its reference to various things, the fears that brought about this amendment, destruction of the Government, degradation of religion, persecutions that were occurred trying to obtain political religious supremacy for various religions, the establishment of a particular governmental faith which was disestablished about the same time as the exemptions were passed by the legislatures.\nThe various persecutions and attacks upon individuals who didn't support the established church, taxes for the payment of minister's salaries and the building of churches.\nThere have been at least one case this Court passed upon in regard to taxing the Bill of Church and of course it was stricken down.\nAnd we find none of those particular tiers of -- that brought about the amendment that are either present in our situation or after 200 years or as I can see it, threat.\nWe have great pluralism in religions of all kinds of beliefs, either of a God or no God, and you can almost hardly imagine the range that they cover in this country, and as I said before is one of our great assets.\nBut if you decide to sustain the appeal in this case, we are going to have Government up to its ears in religion.\nIn religious -- in examination of all these exemptions that are provided in the tax laws for religious institutions, because we will have to know what they make, what their properties are worth, what they claim they're worth.\nWe will have all kinds of certiorari contests like we do with other people in the community, about the value of their church property and that the taxes are too high as compared with other people, and we will have to know what moneys they take in and all of those various things.\nSo instead of being neutral, as this exemption permits and provides, we will be so engrossed in religious activities which is the very thing, I submit to you, that this country has been trying to provide against by this amendment, and this Court has used such great care in order to provide and insist upon a separation of Church and State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3117.094, 3120.729, 3124.769, 3151.172, 3169.054, 3202.778, 3213.667, 3224.169, 3240.783, 3266.97, 3280.381, 3300.986, 3320.92], "stop_times": [3120.729, 3124.769, 3151.172, 3169.054, 3202.778, 3213.667, 3224.169, 3240.783, 3266.97, 3280.381, 3300.986, 3320.92, 3348.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3117.094}, "reply_to": "15216__1_026", "speaker": "j_lee_rankin"}
{"id": "15216__1_028", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rankin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3348.543], "stop_times": [3350.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.543}, "reply_to": "15216__1_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15216__2_000", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "I'd like to make just two statements if it pleases the Court.\nOne that the corporation counsel has gone outside the record to tell the Court some knowledge he has about the value of Mr. Walz's property and how much his taxes were.\nI don't have that information and in the affidavit, a five-page affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment, the City of New York which could've easily have the information available about the value of that property did not choose to make that point.\nI don't think that should be taken into account.\nAnd about this specter that the corporation counsel raises that if we have to value the property of churches for real estate tax purposes there is going to be a lot of certiorari proceedings in the like.\nVery well, one of the socially undesirable factors in the exemption of church property is we don't have any idea of what the value of such property is, and there's no reason we shouldn't.\nIt's not true to suggest that knowledge is un-neutral or hostile, that it would be a good thing if we know the value of the -- increasing value of the property of religious organizations in the United States, why not?\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3350.031, 3352.951, 3363.832, 3378.879, 3381.267, 3395.713, 3410.179, 3426.627], "stop_times": [3352.951, 3363.832, 3378.879, 3381.267, 3395.713, 3410.179, 3426.627, 3427.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3350.031}, "reply_to": "15216__1_028", "speaker": "edward_j_ennis"}
{"id": "15216__2_001", "conversation_id": "15216", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ennis.\nThank you for your submission.\nThank you, Mr. Rankin for yours.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_135", "start_times": [3427.269, 3428.788, 3430.294, 3431.969], "stop_times": [3428.788, 3430.294, 3431.969, 3434.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.269}, "reply_to": "15216__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__0_000", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Number 76, Welsh against the United States.\nMr. Tietz, you may --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [0.0, 8.925], "stop_times": [8.925, 9.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__0_001", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen of the Court.\nThis is a draft prosecution for refusal to submit to induction because the petitioner didn't get the conscientious objector classification.\nEveryone concedes that he was truthful and sincere.\nHe is not an atheist so that isn't involved.\nHe objects to all wars, so that's not involved.\nBut the main objection of the Government is that his religion when which he started out by saying, \u201cI'm nonreligious\u201d is the bone of contention.\nBefore we get to the First Amendment point, I would like to deal with the two threshold matters that could be dispositive of the case.\nThe first is the short circuit, the corner cutting by the Government at the induction proceedings.\nI have briefed I think as adequately as I can one point raise by the Government that there must be a showing of prejudice.\nI rely on the Ninth Circuit rational in Welsh and in rather in Briggs and then Oshatz.\nOne point of the Government I didn't deal with adequately in the briefing is that the Government argues that the security questionnaire is for the benefit of the Army.\nNow, that's the same argument that was made by the Government when the Briggs matter of not getting the last minute cursory inspection came up is the same argument that was argued by the Government, used by the Government in the Welsh matter when he didn't get tendered to him the security questionnaire, and for the rational in there, they decided that it was required.\nNow, the same thing runs through the thread here.\nThere is one point though that it's not too material and that is, of the Government keeps saying that he refuse.\nActually, he didn't refuse, he raised the question, and then, the best reason why they short circuited him is in the one sentence statement of the Government rather in the opinion -- the majority opinion below that district judge who wrote the opinion concurred in by one of the circuit judges.\nThey put up this way rather than delay appellant's induction pending investigation, induction station personnel ordered him to step forward.\nThat's his brief description of the short circuit as possible.\nNow, my thought is this, as long as it's a part of the Army regulation that no man shall -- no selectee shall be inducted when he either qualifies or refuses to execute the oath pending a thorough investigation.\nHe's entitled to that.\nAnd just as in these other cases I mentioned, that was held to have sufficient prejudice, it should apply here, because not as the Government argues that he can -- by that avoid induction possibly for months enforcing the military to waste its intelligence resources, all the Government has to do.\nI mean, all of the Army has to do is strike out a few words, substitute a word or two and they can have it in the Federal Register in two or three dates.\nNow, fortunately for the security of a country, the Army is alert and when it sees things that it should deal with it does fairly prompt.\nFor example, when I get back in the practice in 44, about the first man in the office was Yost.\nHe was on-leave from Camp Roberts where he said he'd been forcibly inducted.\nHe testified in the trial court.\nI was standing with a great many other men who had passed the physical examination and the inducting officer came over and said, hold up your right hands and repeat the oath after me.\nTestified as one Jehovah's Witnesses, I couldn't take an oath, I didn't raise my right hand, I said nothing.\nThe trial judge believed and granted the writ.\nThe Government took an appeal.\nBut before an en banc decision affirming the appeal, the Government saw the light, the Army saw the light, and it changed the induction proceeding crucial point, point of no return from an oath to a stepping forward.\nNow, that still persist to this day, that's the way it's done for selectees to become inductee.\nTen years later though, the Army -- I had to consider another matter and that's when Corrigan came in the office.\nThese are reported appellate, the decisions of course and Corrigan says, \u201cI'm in the stockade at the Fort Ord and I'm here because I'm trying to make a good soldier out of me.\u201d\nWhen I asked him, \u201cHow's coming if you're in the stockade you're here?\u201d\nHe testified, we were seated in a theater-like arrangement.\nI was in the back row when we've jumped up as the sergeant told us to do and the officer came in.\nThe officer said, \u201cAnd now, when I call a name of each of you, you'll take one step forward and that step is in the Army of the United States.\u201d\nHe said, the members so crowded that no one except in a front row could do anything but shuffle to speak.\nThey shuffled, I didn't shuffle.\nI didn't make a move.\nThe trial judge decided it in another way asking, \u201cWhen did you make up your mind that you're a conscientious objector?\u201d\nHe said, \u201cWhile I was standing there.\u201d\nThe judge set us too late and I couldn't do anything about it.\nIt's never too late to face civil penalties rather than go into the military service.\nNow, the Court of Appeals unanimously, reversed on the basis that there was no evidence that he'd moved to state board and I think that one thing that helped them to reach that opinion was an affidavit that I filed with the closing brief and which I said, \u201cI've gone down to the induction station and I see that they've seen the light.\u201d\nThey now have a different procedure, they have a roll of chairs around three sides facing the podium as everybody can see the podium and they have a white line painted four feet from the wall.\nSo, the man can see when they cross the -- when they cross the Rubicon or any of expression you might want.\nSo that the Army learns and I say that in other cases for example, I won't belabor it.\nI'll just cite one more reported case on the trial level ex parte Barielle (ph).\nWhen Barielle (ph) secured the writ down in San Diego, the record which we got from the Selective Service System show that he was a married man and that was in the Selective Services System records.\nIt was quite a bit of publicity.\nIt is Stars and Stripes of Europe, Stars and Stripes of the Orient so it alarmed the Army.\nAnd what they did, they got the Selective Service System to change the regulation from saying that a husband is to be given 3-A to father and that's the way it is today.\nAnd many other illustrations can be given at the Selective Services -- the one word change.\nI don't want to belabor it but if there's any question about that, there are many can be recited.\nSo, I say that as long as it's the law, I think that Government agency should follow its own regulations.\nIt may -- it can do a way with them in a few days.\nNow, the next point I wish to go in to is also one, that if the Court agrees on me can be dispositive of a case and that is the point that which if he had been before this Court some years ago when Seeger with the other two different consolidated for the oral argument for decision Jacobson and Peter.\nI say he would've had exactly the same decision.\nHe would've been held to have a parallel brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [9.724, 12.656, 23.684, 28.545, 31.059, 35.227, 47.458, 61.126, 71.278, 79.979, 90.937, 107.919, 133.151, 136.515, 143.712, 170.193, 181.473, 184.958, 205.614, 207.658, 229.815, 239.643, 249.008, 257.649, 262.592, 265.614, 279.519, 286.164, 288.607, 290.466, 307.977, 314.251, 321.338, 332.951, 336.454, 343.261, 351.436, 362.052, 368.336, 370.163, 372.406, 378.768, 380.61, 383.477, 388.014, 407.647, 422.464, 429.015, 434.586, 441.548, 458.267, 460.157, 465.188, 478.532, 482.729, 488.568, 496.799, 500.563, 523.342, 527.527], "stop_times": [12.656, 23.684, 28.545, 31.059, 35.227, 47.458, 61.126, 71.278, 79.979, 90.937, 107.919, 133.151, 136.515, 143.712, 170.193, 181.473, 184.958, 205.614, 207.658, 229.815, 239.643, 249.008, 257.649, 262.592, 265.614, 279.519, 286.164, 288.607, 290.466, 307.977, 314.251, 321.338, 332.951, 336.454, 343.261, 351.436, 362.052, 368.336, 370.163, 372.406, 378.768, 380.61, 383.477, 388.014, 407.647, 422.464, 429.015, 434.586, 441.548, 458.267, 460.157, 465.188, 478.532, 482.729, 488.568, 496.799, 500.563, 523.342, 527.527, 529.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.724}, "reply_to": "14958__0_000", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__0_002", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Counsel, may I suggest to you that you used about one-third of your time and really haven't got to the issue yet.\nSo, I see it and I think you might well address yourself to it more sharply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [529.782, 536.122], "stop_times": [536.122, 541.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.782}, "reply_to": "14958__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__0_003", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "And the point I may make turn back now is that he has exactly the same situation as Seeger did.\nHe qualifies as the Circuit Judge Hamley put it.\nHe showed there's no basis in fact for saying that he didn't have a parallel equivalent belief.\nIn fact, I think his in a better position than Seeger for this reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [541.044, 550.169, 553.953, 560.002], "stop_times": [550.169, 553.953, 560.002, 564.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.044}, "reply_to": "14958__0_002", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__0_004", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Was this one of the questions you present here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [564.565], "stop_times": [568.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.565}, "reply_to": "14958__0_003", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "14958__0_005", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "The three that there's a constitutional point, that there is a security questionnaire point and that the man meet the base of all have been briefs that this point I'm arguing now that he qualifies has been briefed thoroughly and curiously enough.\nIt's a very striking thing.\nThe Government's argument that it doesn't qualify is almost word for word certainly follows the same path and frequently the very same phraseology that the Government's brief in Seeger because the Government very conveniently for everybody as a supplement to its brief.\nPut in the argument portion of a Seeger decision.\nNow, page 2 (a) and 3 (a) of the supplement are showed that they said then Seeger doesn't meet this standard.\nSeeger has a personal moral code and therefore he must attack the constitutionality.\nAnd we attack it as a matter of insurance and because it's involved but, I think that when you run a parallel, you'll find that this man, it was from the early childhood to about 15, he attended the Presbyterian Sunday School then he attended the Christian Science Sunday School.\nHis mother was a Christian Scientist and I would assert though I don't have to that one session that once mother's need is all that one needs for training.\nSo, he had the training.\nNow, the opinion of the court below in a words of the dissenting judge, they concede that he have the strength of conviction, the strength of belief that he just doesn't have in the religious background.\nWell, he has as much religious background as Seeger did. Seeger and he did almost the same thing with the form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [568.052, 584.627, 586.724, 603.177, 606.337, 615.54, 622.898, 641.423, 651.81, 654.066, 671.964], "stop_times": [584.627, 586.724, 603.177, 606.337, 615.54, 622.898, 641.423, 651.81, 654.066, 671.964, 680.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.052}, "reply_to": "14958__0_004", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__0_006", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Well, are you arguing now that his -- the case is based on religious belief and conviction or that it is not and it doesn't make any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [680.804], "stop_times": [691.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.804}, "reply_to": "14958__0_005", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__0_007", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "I say both of them, but I'm arguing now the former for this reason.\nThat's precisely the conclusion that Circuit Judge Hamley came to that he didn't.\nAlthough, he went over the constitutional questions such as at the grave one, he said they did not to reach it because he does comply.\nThat's what unfortunately for us.\nThe Circuit Judge Hamley concluded and that is our conclusion.\nWhen Seeger encountered the form, he struck out certain words and put quotation marks about the word \u201creligion.\u201d\nNow, I take that to mean that was Seeger was saying if you want to call what I believe religious unfortunately the Court did.\nThis Court did.\nLet's say he has the equivalent, you can do that but he disavows of being religious.\nNow, Welsh did more, he struck out the word \u201creligious\u201d but as I argued in the briefing, a man is not wholly to be judged by what he says and especially he wrote a reply to the Attorney General's recommendation to the Appeal Board.\nA reply that he was permitted to encouraged, invited to write by the regulations then enforce Congress has done a way with that now.\nHe wrote a reply which as the Circuit Judge Hamley says adequately answered.\nHe learned from the Seeger decision that under that definition, he then could be considered to meet the requirements of the laws.\nSo, he hasn't made I think from that standpoint.\nNow, on the questions of the constitutionality that of course is one which I argued as thoroughly as I could, I pointed out the four or five decisions of this Court which as I interpret and say not only may not Congress distinguish between religions but it may not distinguish between religion, any religion and I wish to save a few minutes of my time for possible rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [691.329, 695.809, 701.51, 711.914, 714.701, 718.552, 729.809, 738.809, 740.153, 745.622, 762.118, 770.515, 775.927, 784.827, 787.939], "stop_times": [695.809, 701.51, 711.914, 714.701, 718.552, 729.809, 738.809, 740.153, 745.622, 762.118, 770.515, 775.927, 784.827, 787.939, 816.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.329}, "reply_to": "14958__0_006", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__0_008", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [816.942, 818.334], "stop_times": [818.334, 825.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.942}, "reply_to": "14958__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__1_000", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThis is a difficult troublesome case.\nI hope that I can be of assistance to the Court in coming to a solemn solution of the problem that presents.\nThe statutory provision is clear.\nIt is set out near the top of page 9 of the Government's brief.\nAt the time the events occurred here.\nThis Court had already decided the case of United States against Seeger but the statutory provision still contain the language which appears at the middle of page 9.\nDefining religious training and belief as belief in a relation to a supreme being involving duties superior to those arising from many human relation but does not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.\nIn 1967, this was amended to strike out the reference to a supreme being.\nSo that it now says simply the term \u201creligious training and belief\u201d does not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.\nThe facts in this case are not so clear.\nThe majority of the court below felt that the defendant had raised no constitutional question there.\nApplying the statute to the facts in the record and taking into account the narrow scope of review in these cases, the Court concluded with Judge Hamley dissenting that there was a basis in fact for the conclusion of the Selective Service authorities that Welsh's objections to service were not based on religious training and belief and thus that he did not come within this court's decision in the Seeger case.\nThe Hearing Officer who met and talked with him reported that he and I quote, \u201che stressed that his belief is that his opinions have been formed by reading in the fields of history and sociology and that they are purely rational as opposed to religious.\nOf course, we fully accept the construction of the statute made by this Court in the Seeger case.\nThe statute which provides exemption for military service for persons who, in this statutory language by religious training and belief are oppose to war in any form.\nNevertheless, there was nothing there in the Seeger case which wrote out all content from the word \u201creligious\u201d and which was applied to training and belief in that statute by Congress.\nIt does seem to us that the whole that the position of the defendant here comes within the statutory provision would be plainly contrary to the manifested congressional intent.\nAfter all, Congress did say religious training and belief.\nI turn then to the constitutional question, if the Court should conclude that that question is open to the petitioner here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [825.473, 828.314, 834.62, 844.4, 847.8, 854.896, 859.125, 872.704, 894.225, 901.338, 916.999, 920.895, 929.363, 962.611, 984.088, 993.067, 1012.409, 1028.613, 1040.98, 1047.665], "stop_times": [828.314, 834.62, 844.4, 847.8, 854.896, 859.125, 872.704, 894.225, 901.338, 916.999, 920.895, 929.363, 962.611, 984.088, 993.067, 1012.409, 1028.613, 1040.98, 1047.665, 1058.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 825.473}, "reply_to": "14958__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_001", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "But before you do Mr. Solicitor General, if this man had come within the statute as defined in Seeger, what would've happen to him?\nHe would not have been exempt would he?\nHe would've been assigned either to noncombatant duty and within the military or else to a nonmilitary civilian work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1058.978, 1072.814, 1074.343], "stop_times": [1072.814, 1074.343, 1082.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.978}, "reply_to": "14958__1_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14958__1_002", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "If his draft board had found that he team within the statute and there was not evidence on which it could have found otherwise, then he would've been entitled to one or the other of two classifications either 1-A-O or 1-O.\nNow, 1-A-O is available for a military service but noncombatant.\nEssentially, a medical service, they are put in but sometimes other types of service.\n1-O would be completely exempt from military service but subject to civilian service of the statute says national importance and they are usually assigned to civilian hospitals or to other types of nonmilitary work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1082.329, 1102.267, 1107.821, 1114.242], "stop_times": [1102.267, 1107.821, 1114.242, 1134.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1082.329}, "reply_to": "14958__1_001", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_003", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "And are they assigned either 1-A-O or 1-O and obligated to serve at the same point in time as they would've been obligated to serve in the military at the remaining 1-A?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1134.157], "stop_times": [1146.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.157}, "reply_to": "14958__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14958__1_004", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Yes exactly, Mr. Justice.\nAt the time that they are so classified, they are entitled to the other classifications 2-S for students and 4-F for help and 3 --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1146.957, 1148.842], "stop_times": [1148.842, 1157.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1146.957}, "reply_to": "14958__1_003", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_005", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "But assuming he'd otherwise have been a --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1157.462], "stop_times": [1158.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.462}, "reply_to": "14958__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14958__1_006", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "(Voice Overlap) 3 for independency but if they get classified 1-A then they can contend that they are entitled to 1-O or 1-A-O Indeed, they can contend for that before they are classified 1-A, and if they are so classified, they are ordered to serve but in the alternative capacities.\nIndeed, the civilian service is customarily called alternative service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1158.912, 1181.12], "stop_times": [1181.12, 1186.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1158.912}, "reply_to": "14958__1_005", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_007", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "And there is no exemption statutory or regulatory -- no exemptions from all together from compulsory service for one who would be in 1-A except that he is a conscientious objector as defined by the (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1186.779], "stop_times": [1203.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.779}, "reply_to": "14958__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "14958__1_008", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "No, Mr. Justice.\nThey are all subject to service.\nThere are at least two constitutional provisions which are relevant.\nThere's not only the First Amendment but also the power explicitly given to Congress by Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 to raise and support armies.\nNow, this is unqualified.\nIt's not limited at the time of war or otherwise restricted except that appropriations for the purpose shall not be longer than a term of two years.\nLet us look particularly at the First Amendment.\nI need hardly say that it provides that Congress shall make no law respecting in the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\nThere are the two clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.\nGenerally, they are in complete harmony but occasionally there is some tension between them and this may be such a case.\nWith respect to the First Amendment, I would like to divide my approach under several headings.\nThese are one, the text which has nothing to do with the problem of this case, second, the contemporaneous history, third the subsequent practical construction and four, the precedents.\nAll of these, I think support our position here.\nIn most fields, that would be enough though perhaps here and altogether they are but a slender rift.\nFirst, the text, the section -- suggestion that what is involved here is an establishment of religion ignores what the members of the First Congress knew well.\nThey were thoroughly familiar with established religions.\nThey have them in at least Virginia, Massachusetts and New Hampshire and probably other states.\nIndeed, one of their objections was to make it clear that Congress could do nothing to interfere with these existing established churches.\nI know that an establishment has been carried further but to take it as far as would be required here.\nWould be it seems to me the case of the tyranny of words of what then Chief Justice Cardozo referred to as the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.\nMy one-time colleague Paul Freund in his Book on Law and Justice has a passage which seems to me they'd be relevant here.\nHe was referring to this Court's dealing of problems with respect to the regulation of commerce and I quote, \u201cMarshall's exuberant nationalism sought to solve the problem with clear cut absolutes.\nThe power over commerce among the states is exclusively vested in Congress.\nThe power to tax involves the power to destroy.\nGoods in the original package are immune from local taxation when brought in from a sister state.\u201d\nAll of these absolutes have had to be abandoned.\nWhat had used to compare his views of the world with that and his friend Bert and Russell?\nBert sees it at that noon on a brilliant sunny day.\nI see at that dawn on a misty morning John Marshall was however improbable to spiritual ancestry of periods and other respect the brick precursor of Bert and Russell.\nIn his view of national and state powers over commerce, over Bert and Russell in his view of national and state powers over commerce has not a century and a half of experience shown that the white headway was the path of greater wisdom.\nAnd then part from the text of the amendment, the contemporaneous history and understanding of the First Amendment.\nIt was for this reason that I had the argument portion of the Seeger brief reprinted and made available for the convenience not only of the Court but of counsel.\nThere is a more reprinted here than a strict be necessary to my present argument but I was fearful that if I didn't included all someone might say that it was not fully representative of our position and I'm particularly interested in the fact that on pages 26 (a) to 45 (a), there was set out by Solicitor General Cox in his step a full discussion of the historical development of the First Amendment.\nI had first thought that we would -- we worked that and then I concluded that we were not going to able to improve on it.\nI then thought we would simply cite it in our brief that I thought that might be inconvenient and so I had this supplement prepared.\nIt's perfectly plain --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1203.092, 1204.33, 1208.531, 1213.33, 1226.214, 1227.857, 1239.187, 1242.623, 1253.884, 1261.02, 1270.719, 1277.863, 1296.249, 1300.691, 1312.261, 1327.702, 1332.299, 1340.998, 1351.883, 1360.053, 1379.437, 1391.121, 1407.091, 1412.423, 1416.681, 1424.348, 1430.279, 1438.582, 1443.596, 1459.33, 1479.725, 1489.438, 1503.406, 1536.704, 1546.387, 1557.292], "stop_times": [1204.33, 1208.531, 1213.33, 1226.214, 1227.857, 1239.187, 1242.623, 1253.884, 1261.02, 1270.719, 1277.863, 1296.249, 1300.691, 1312.261, 1327.702, 1332.299, 1340.998, 1351.883, 1360.053, 1379.437, 1391.121, 1407.091, 1412.423, 1416.681, 1424.348, 1430.279, 1438.582, 1443.596, 1459.33, 1479.725, 1489.438, 1503.406, 1536.704, 1546.387, 1557.292, 1558.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1203.092}, "reply_to": "14958__1_007", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_009", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "I don't find that in my record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1558.967], "stop_times": [1562.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.967}, "reply_to": "14958__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14958__1_010", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "It's a -- has a great cover like all government documents, it is called the supplement to brief for the United States and I hope that it is made --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1562.589], "stop_times": [1574.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1562.589}, "reply_to": "14958__1_009", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_011", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "The supplement is in the supplement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1574.483], "stop_times": [1576.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.483}, "reply_to": "14958__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "14958__1_012", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "It's called supplement to brief for the United States.\nThere is first that pre-revolutionary relief which was habitually given by nearly all of the colonies to the members of the four-historic piece churches.\nThere were actions, similar actions by the continental congress then there was the consideration of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress.\nThere were numerous state proposals relating to churches and this show that what was in the minds of those who sought amendments on religion were three concerns.\nThey feared that Congress might one, infringe religious liberty.\nTwo, establish or record preferential treatment to one particular religious sect.\nAnd three, undermine the existing state religious establishments.\nWhen the -- what became the First Amendment was under consideration in Congress.\nThe proposal of James Madison was that the provision read that no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.\nRepresentative Scott made a very similar proposal which is printed at the bottom of page 31 (a) of our briefs.\nThe provision which was adopted by the House simply referred to establishment, a religion.\nCongress shall make no law respecting and establishment of rel -- no that's what the final provision was.\nCongress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship.\nIt then went to the Senate where we have no information as to what happened and the Senate version plainly related to establishment in the sense of an established church.\nIt then went to a conference from which the final version was adopted.\nSimilarly, in connection with the war of 1812, that is set out on page 33 (a) of the supplement.\nThe provision which was adopted by one House relating to the historic piece churches never enacted in the law because the treaty terminating the war that became known before the statute was passed.\nNow, there is of course Jefferson's wall of separation but he was not one of the draftsmen of the First Amendment.\nHe was in France in 1789.\nHe's striking phrase came a number of years later and may have become an example of what again quoting Judge Cardozo what he had in mind when he observed that the search is for the just word the happy phrase that will give expression to the thought but somehow the thought itself is transfigured by the phrase when found.\nAnd then we have on page 35 (a) of the supplement of the statute which was passed during the civil war.\nBoth the Confederate Congress and the United States Congress and all of the provision of the United States Congress is at the bottom of the page 35 (a) but both of them exempted members of the established organizations that federal statute reads, that members of religious denomination who shall by oath or affirmation declare that they are conscientiously oppose to the bearing of arms and who are prohibited from doing so by the rules and articles of faith and practice of said religious denominations should be entitled to a kind of exemption.\nAnd similarly, the statute which was passed by Congress in the First World War, 125 years after the Constitution was adopted.\nThe exempted members of any well-recognized religious sect or organization at present organize in existing and whose existing creed of principles forbids its members to participate in war.\nThat is on page 40 (a) of the supplement.\nAnd then finally turning to the precedents, there is the decision of this Court in the selective draft law cases cited on page 20 of our brief.\nWhere this question was briefed and argued by a John W. Davis, Solicitor General and where the Court treated it rather summarily.\nIt is not usually noted but I think it is relevant to note here that one week later, the Court decided on the authority of the selected draft law cases.\nThe Rothenberg case in 245 U.S. 480 where the contention was specifically made that allowing exemption to members of a religious sect violated the First Amendment and the Court found that that could be disposed off on the basis of the selective draft law cases.\nThere's also the Free Exercise Clause.\nIt's obvious that Congress has over the year and legislated within the influence of that clause.\nThat Congress has endeavored to accommodate the various draft laws it has passed, the claims made under the Free Exercise Clause.\nSeveral cases decided by this Court within the past few decades support the power of Congress to make such an accommodation.\nOn page 21 of our brief, we have cited the Everson case where the Court found that the public money could be used to pay the cost of transporting students to schools even though some of the students went to parochial schools.\nOn page 21, we also cited the Zorach against Clauson, the released time case where it was held that it was valid under the First Amendment for public authority to release children from school to attend religious educational classes.\nThen, there are the Sunday Closing Law Cases decided on pages 22 and 23 of our brief which not only it seems to me a relevant and in involving the interrelation of law and the First Amendment but also the particular fact that it appeared that in 21 of 34 states which had Sunday laws there were exemptions for Sabbatarians and provisions that if they kept closed on Saturdays they could be open Sunday and the Court at page 608 of 366 U.S. said and I quote, \u201dThis may well be the wise solution to the problem\u201d and that of course was a clear accommodation.\nThere are analogies in other statutes passed by Congress.\nFor example, this very statute, the selective draft law, it contains an outright exemption for ministers and for the divinity students with which this Court as dealt in the (Inaudible) case not suggesting at all that the exemption was unconstitutional.\nThere are numerous provisions in the tax laws not only allowing deductions for contributions to churches.\nThere is in Section 1402 (a) 8 of the Internal Revenue Code, a special rule for computing the self-employment income of an individual who is a duly ordained commissioned or licensed minister of a church or a member of a religious order.\nIn 1402 (h), there is a really rather choice on exemption for persons who are members of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and are adherence of established tenants or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which they are conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments for death, disability or old age or retirement or for medical care.\nPersons who are within a particular division or sect of a religious group which objects to social insurance have an exemption.\nThe propriety of the exemption based our religious training and belief has at least been recognized and accepted by this Court in recent years.\nThere is first I would mention the Whitmore case in 348 U.S. where the Court said because the ultimate question in conscientior objective cases is the sincerity of the registrant in objecting on religious grounds to participation and more in any form.\nAnd then finally, there is a Seeger case itself where the notion or the idea that the restriction to religious training and belief was valid is surely implicit.\nIt's perfectly plain of course that the Court gave a very broad construction to the meaning of religious training and belief to which we take no exception whatever but there is nothing in that case which indicates that the Court was intending to write the word \u201creligious\u201d out of the statute or to holds that it was unconstitutional.\nIndeed, if the religious training and belief provision is invalid why does not the whole exemption provision fall which would lead to the affirmance of the judgment below.\nThere's nothing arbitrary or capricious violative of the Fifth Amendment in the judgment Congress has made.\nThe test of drawing the line is an exceptionally difficult one but we believe that there is a qualitative difference.\nA difference of degree perhaps but none the worst for that between religious and nonreligious objection to war which Congress could reasonably recognized in deciding whom to subject to involuntary military service.\nThe Constitution does not set up freedom of conscience despite appealing arguments made in brief amicus curiae to the effect that that might be a good thing to do.\nIt does not equate conscience with religion.\nCongress could reasonably draw the line as to who shall and who shall not be compelled to serve by taking into account as the Constitution does the right to exercise one's religion freely.\nThis was an appropriate place for legislative judgment that Congress has power to make this judgment is in our view implicit in the power expressly granted to raise and maintain armies.\nThe test of reconciling the constitutional commands of the establishment and the Free Exercise Clause is not exclusively a matter of judicial concern.\nCourts are not the only agencies of our Government which are bound to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.\nIn circumstances where the tension between these provisions is taken, the preferable course for the courts to follow is to set outer limits but to live the legislature considerable school or the alternative is to substitute judicial attitudes for those of the elective representatives of the people on matters where the constitutional lines are not clear and where the considered views of the representatives of the people is entitled a great weight.\nThe sound constitutional approach in construing the Establishment Clause in such circumstances is one of reasonable accommodation not with an application of thoughtful resolution of difficult problems and not formalistic absolutes and that is the approach we raise here.\nThe petitioner has raised a further question and I would point out that in -- though I don't want to be technical that in the petition in this case only two questions were raised, only first the question of the constitutionality of the statute.\nThere is no question presented as to whether the petitioner comes within the statute.\nAnd second, this technical question about his failure to sign a form a time of induction.\nThis latter question, we have dealt within our brief and I leave consideration of it to the discussion there.\nFor these reasons, I urge that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [1576.599, 1581.641, 1597.451, 1610.02, 1628.437, 1633.963, 1640.747, 1648.735, 1655.075, 1669.755, 1681.463, 1694.281, 1703.957, 1710.714, 1725.776, 1734.048, 1743.936, 1764.995, 1774.386, 1778.38, 1806.797, 1818.942, 1858.585, 1869.183, 1881.859, 1887.44, 1902.641, 1916.2, 1928.017, 1961.21, 1964.662, 1971.554, 1980.824, 1991.291, 2008.469, 2029.742, 2081.853, 2085.304, 2104.158, 2115.384, 2132.381, 2164.921, 2179.741, 2189.522, 2217.053, 2233.855, 2253.659, 2267.392, 2275.86, 2286.245, 2304.676, 2319.578, 2323.855, 2340.393, 2358.061, 2370.406, 2380.016, 2414.899, 2439.598, 2455.659, 2460.981, 2469.298, 2479.58], "stop_times": [1581.641, 1597.451, 1610.02, 1628.437, 1633.963, 1640.747, 1648.735, 1655.075, 1669.755, 1681.463, 1694.281, 1703.957, 1710.714, 1725.776, 1734.048, 1743.936, 1764.995, 1774.386, 1778.38, 1806.797, 1818.942, 1858.585, 1869.183, 1881.859, 1887.44, 1902.641, 1916.2, 1928.017, 1961.21, 1964.662, 1971.554, 1980.824, 1991.291, 2008.469, 2029.742, 2081.853, 2085.304, 2104.158, 2115.384, 2132.381, 2164.921, 2179.741, 2189.522, 2217.053, 2233.855, 2253.659, 2267.392, 2275.86, 2286.245, 2304.676, 2319.578, 2323.855, 2340.393, 2358.061, 2370.406, 2380.016, 2414.899, 2439.598, 2455.659, 2460.981, 2469.298, 2479.58, 2484.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.599}, "reply_to": "14958__1_011", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_013", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Are you going to argue some more facts and statistics of the (Voice Overlap)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2484.547], "stop_times": [2491.056], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.547}, "reply_to": "14958__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14958__1_014", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Mr. Justice, I am not planning to argue more about religion in Sisson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2491.056], "stop_times": [2495.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.056}, "reply_to": "14958__1_013", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_015", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "You're not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2495.657], "stop_times": [2496.745], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.657}, "reply_to": "14958__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14958__1_016", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "There are two problems in this simple little statutory phrase by reason of religious training and belief is opposed to war in any form and this is the argument I propose to make about religion.\nBoth questions are involves in the Sisson case and the argument there is essentially that I -- the way I planned it is to deal essentially with the selective conscientious objection there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2496.745, 2512.706], "stop_times": [2512.706, 2524.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.745}, "reply_to": "14958__1_015", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_017", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Well, then I think I like to ask you this question.\nIt's necessary to answer it now.\nSuppose and despite the history of you established to argue take a very broad suite that this Court has built of Establishment Clause decisions.\nYou start from the premise while the Constitution did not require the Congress to give any exemption religious or otherwise to anybody that Congress interest of giving effect in some way that if the Exercise Clause within the religious exemption and in order to give that, what is the answer with the argument and having chosen that course that purports (Inaudible) that the broad scheme of this Court's position as an establishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2524.352, 2528.496, 2531.636, 2549.056], "stop_times": [2528.496, 2531.636, 2549.056, 2598.593], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.352}, "reply_to": "14958__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14958__1_018", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "I don't know Mr. Justice that I can say much more than I have.\nMy first argument on that would be that the Establishment Clause have been pushed very far and it ought to be pushed any further or more specifically --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2598.593, 2604.918], "stop_times": [2604.918, 2613.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.593}, "reply_to": "14958__1_017", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_019", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2613.6], "stop_times": [2614.535], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.6}, "reply_to": "14958__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14958__1_020", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "More specifically that it ought not to be push to apply to this particular situation and I can find no doctrinal or historical basis on which it should be indeed all the evidence seems to me to be the -- to the contrary.\nThe other question is what I tried to deal with very summarily to short the time, but it seems to me to be essentially a Fifth Amendment question that is whether it is a proper classification.\nA classification which Congress could reasonably make and not be arbitrary under the Fifth Amendment to allow exemption to persons by reason of real -- all these views by reason of religious training and belief and not to allow them to others.\nAnd on that, here again, feeling is much as argument has a great deal to do with that I suppose.\nIt does seem to me that an argument can be made that there is a difference in quality between objections which in the broadest base are religious in nature having some connotation with the unknown with the unknown with what's above now beyond this.\nOn the one hand and those which are merely intellectual, merely rational, merely internal on the other.\nThat is an argument which isn't easy for me to verbalize because in the quicker tradition that I'm familiar with, it's the inner voice which expresses the external force.\nBut so that I can't say it's just a question whether it's external or internal.\nBut it does seem to me that it relates to whether it deals with the unknown and what is beyond this on the one hand and what the man out of his own intellectual activity rationalizes to a conclusion for himself and my position on that would be that that is a classification -- a distinction which Congress has made for a 175 years which was well understood and contemplated at the time the Amendment was adopted that it would not be a construction of the Constitution to say that Congress can not do it.\nIt would be an extension of it beyond anything that was contemplated either at its drafting or in a century and a half since then.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2614.535, 2629.465, 2643.855, 2661.553, 2674.018, 2696.645, 2706.141, 2721.351, 2727.607, 2775.236, 2786.824], "stop_times": [2629.465, 2643.855, 2661.553, 2674.018, 2696.645, 2706.141, 2721.351, 2727.607, 2775.236, 2786.824, 2787.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.535}, "reply_to": "14958__1_019", "speaker": "erwin_n_griswold"}
{"id": "14958__1_021", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2787.528], "stop_times": [2787.956], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.528}, "reply_to": "14958__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "14958__1_022", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Thank you Mr. Solicitor General.\nMr. Tietz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2787.956, 2790.144], "stop_times": [2790.144, 2790.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.956}, "reply_to": "14958__1_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__2_000", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "It's my belief that Seeger definitely decided the question that there is to be no distinction between internally derived belief and external derived belief.\nIf I'm wrong on that, the opinion of the Court is present then Seeger might be modified, but I don't think Seeger should be modified.\nNow, Whitmore with one case that decided that case turned on veracity.\nHe wasn't considerate sincere because he jumped into conflicting plaint.\nIn this case, everybody considers this man sincere and that is in an essence, the most important single factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2790.413, 2806.012, 2815.371, 2825.727, 2831.604], "stop_times": [2806.012, 2815.371, 2825.727, 2831.604, 2838.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2790.413}, "reply_to": "14958__1_022", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__2_001", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "I think we'll hear you that if you stay closer to the mike, Mr. Tietz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2838.821], "stop_times": [2840.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.821}, "reply_to": "14958__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__2_002", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Oh, sorry.\nAnd that's so important because no one on earth knows the truth except the man himself that believe him but we don't believe him.\nIn this case, everybody believes him.\nThey merely say didn't have of the origin of his beliefs.\nNow, the argument has been made historically on page 35 (a) and on that whole history helps the Government here and we've made very little effort to go back into history but on page 6 of our reply brief, we pointed out that Madison wrote to Jefferson.\nI'm sure that the rights of conscience are particular and so on.\nSo, that the concern over conscience and incidentally there was little statement there that writes a conscience based on religion.\nI'm not saying that religion may not be the best source of conscience, but there are other sources of course for conscience too.\nThe Court can come close to equating conscience and religion, and to many people now was stated 27 years ago by Judge Hand in the Kauten case that's as much as most people have now.\nMaybe the pendulum has swing the other way but that's where we are.\nNow a question was asked about the 1-A-O and the 1-O duties by Mr. Justice Stewart, a rather curious picture about this case is that when this man initially presented his claim he was classified in one Hill.\nIt's only as his beliefs developed that he claimed the 1-O and then other than procedure was send on for the big investigation inquiry by the FBI and so on.\nAnd the result depending solely on the interpretation of the Department of Justice and his recommendation in the Appeal Board ended him up without even the 1-A-O.\nI'm not saying that was very wrong but I'm saying it's interesting that they thought what his said running through.\nNow, with respect to the selective draft cases, it's very true that Rothenberg is based on Arver, the selective draft cases but that's like building a pyramid up by my shaky point, we've attacked that in our brief and probably as much as we could.\nI have some things to say in rebuttal to what has been just brought out.\nIt's the best statement of it, more concise than I can make is the Circuit Judge Hamley's on page 1091.\nWell, just disclaimer of a religious motivation was predicated upon the misunderstanding of a statutory meeting of a term as construed in Seeger.\nWhen he finally realized the broad reading which Seeger gave to that term, Welsh made it clear that he did have a religious motivation.\nSo all the Government has said in his brief the great weight must be given to what the petitioner says.\nHis last statement which is unrefuted and not to impugn in any way is that he believes not only strongly in what his always believed but that he comes within the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [2840.646, 2842.372, 2852.566, 2854.261, 2859.809, 2888.826, 2893.504, 2901.589, 2909.72, 2924.406, 2928.485, 2947.801, 2959.29, 2968.711, 2976.874, 2995.569, 3002.713, 3012.56, 3023.144, 3031.82, 3037.163], "stop_times": [2842.372, 2852.566, 2854.261, 2859.809, 2888.826, 2893.504, 2901.589, 2909.72, 2924.406, 2928.485, 2947.801, 2959.29, 2968.711, 2976.874, 2995.569, 3002.713, 3012.56, 3023.144, 3031.82, 3037.163, 3050.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2840.646}, "reply_to": "14958__2_001", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__2_003", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "That comes pretty close to saying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3050.431], "stop_times": [3052.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.431}, "reply_to": "14958__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__2_004", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3052.039], "stop_times": [3052.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3052.039}, "reply_to": "14958__2_003", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__2_005", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "That comes pretty close to saying Judge Hamley's opinion helped the petitioner understand the basis of his claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3052.669], "stop_times": [3066.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.669}, "reply_to": "14958__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__2_006", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Oh, the cart is before the horse, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3066.301], "stop_times": [3070.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3066.301}, "reply_to": "14958__2_005", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__2_007", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "But you just suggested I thought I misunderstood you that he didn't articulate this position till after he had read Judge Hamley's opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3070.305], "stop_times": [3077.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.305}, "reply_to": "14958__2_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__2_008", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "No, no and that's why I used the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3077.673], "stop_times": [3079.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3077.673}, "reply_to": "14958__2_007", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "14958__2_009", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "Well, then I did misunderstand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3079.174], "stop_times": [3080.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.174}, "reply_to": "14958__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "14958__2_010", "conversation_id": "14958", "text": "-- a rather crude expression that cart before the house.\nJudge Hamley is referring to the record that was before that court.\nHe's referring to what I mentioned before that provisions of the, what we call the special appellate procedures for registrants professing conscientious objector and provide it that after the Attorney General made his analysis of everything and his recommendation to the State Appeal Board.\nThe registrant is to be permitted to file a rebuttal if he doesn't in 30 days and that rebuttal included just were I have been quoting and that is what Judge Hamley was referring to.\nThat was all in the record before the trial court and before the Court Of Appeals and I believe that when this is all read it will be seen that even if the Court should have a feeling that the Government has some base for saying we didn't raise the point which I dispute that plain error exists and the court then can say, this man is the same as Seeger.\nThis man should be dealt with the same as Seeger.\nNow, I'm not saying that I give up the constitutional point as I mentioned before.\nI put that in just for insurance, it's a very strong insurance and it's a very strong case as Judge Hamley points out.\nHe says he don't have to reach it but he went into it quite bit of detail.\nHe pointed out that the Everson and the other cases support the point we're making that to take religion as against non-religion is forbidden by the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_76", "start_times": [3080.128, 3082.77, 3087.858, 3107.509, 3124.278, 3149.137, 3151.597, 3155.748, 3164.223, 3167.938], "stop_times": [3082.77, 3087.858, 3107.509, 3124.278, 3149.137, 3151.597, 3155.748, 3164.223, 3167.938, 3183.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3080.128}, "reply_to": "14958__2_009", "speaker": "j_b_tietz"}
{"id": "15558__0_000", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Number 14, Wheeler and others against Montgomery and others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [50.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_001", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "May it please the Court.\nMy name is Peter E. Sitkin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [50.667, 53.2], "stop_times": [53.2, 54.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.667}, "reply_to": "15558__0_000", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_002", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mr. Sitkin, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [54.904], "stop_times": [58.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.904}, "reply_to": "15558__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_003", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "This case involves the question of what procedural rights are to be afforded to the most dependent members of our society: the aged, the disabled, the blind, and the children of the poor.\nThe basic issue presented by this case is whether welfare recipients, after being found eligible, after full and vigorous investigation, are to have their benefits terminated without an opportunity for a full and fair adjudicative hearing.\nIn California, at the present time, there is a hearing which comports with the requirements of due process after the termination of welfare benefits.\nUnder the regulations adopted by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, this hearing takes place-- should take place within 60 days from the date of termination of benefits.\nIn point of fact, the hearing takes place long after that 60-day period, as has been conceded by appellees of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [58.302, 74.589, 96.664, 109.238, 121.072], "stop_times": [74.589, 96.664, 109.238, 121.072, 129.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.302}, "reply_to": "15558__0_002", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_004", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is this a federally part-- federally funded program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [129.446], "stop_times": [133.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.446}, "reply_to": "15558__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_005", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, it is.\nThe appellants who I\u2019m representing specifically are old age security recipients who are recipients under the Categorical Aid Program funded by the Social Security Act.\nThe regulation at issue in this case concerns all of the categorical aid programs, that is, the Aid to Families with Independent Children, Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Disabled, as well as Old Age Security.\nPrior to termination of benefits, a welfare recipient is not afforded an adjudicative hearing to contest the reasons upon which the department has based its decision to terminate.\nA welfare recipient is only provided with an opportunity to confer informally, usually with the very individual who has made the initial decision to terminate at a conference which can take place at a minimum of three days before a check will be terminated or a check will be withheld.\nThere is no opportunity within this short period of time to adequately prepare for this conference, nor is there an opportunity at the conference to have an opportunity to fairly and fully adjudicate the questions which might involve continuing eligibility.\nQuestions, for example, such as whether an individual has intended to transfer property to remain on public assistance, questions which are traditionally been decided in adjudicative hearings with the procedural protections usually connected with such hearings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [133.516, 134.146, 149.764, 167.077, 181.895, 205.457, 223.782], "stop_times": [134.146, 149.764, 167.077, 181.895, 205.457, 223.782, 241.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.516}, "reply_to": "15558__0_004", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_006", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mr. Sitkin, you said that a person becomes eligible after a full investigation.\nWhat is the procedure?\nThat\u2019s not a trial type hearing, is it?\nA person applies for old age assistance.\nThere\u2019s no trial type hearing before he\u2019s found to be eligible, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [241.632, 247.359, 248.28, 250.227, 255.383], "stop_times": [247.359, 248.28, 250.227, 255.383, 258.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.632}, "reply_to": "15558__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_007", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, there is no trial type hearing prior to eligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [258.18], "stop_times": [260.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.18}, "reply_to": "15558__0_006", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_008", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What is the procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [260.894], "stop_times": [262.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.894}, "reply_to": "15558__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_009", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "An individual applies to the Welfare Department and information is provided by that individual.\nThe regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare indicate that the recipient himself is to be the primary source of the information regarding his eligibility.\nThe department obtains consents from the individual and, if necessary, investigates the individual\u2019s eligibility by contacting collateral sources with respect to the income that the individual might have or with respect to other particulars that concern his eligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [262.134, 268.984, 280.23], "stop_times": [268.984, 280.23, 297.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.134}, "reply_to": "15558__0_008", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_010", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But there\u2019s not an open hearing with confrontation and cross-examination and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [297.3], "stop_times": [301.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.3}, "reply_to": "15558__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_011", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Not for an individual who\u2019s applying for assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [301.64], "stop_times": [304.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.64}, "reply_to": "15558__0_010", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_012", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [304.403], "stop_times": [305.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.403}, "reply_to": "15558__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_013", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The issue before this Court is whether or not an individual who has already been found eligible prior to the withholding of those benefits should be afforded an opportunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [305.121], "stop_times": [314.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.121}, "reply_to": "15558__0_012", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_014", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I understand what the issue is.\nI\u2019m-- we\u2019re talking about the process by which somebody eligible becomes ineligible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [314.846, 315.826], "stop_times": [315.826, 324.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.846}, "reply_to": "15558__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_015", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [324.671], "stop_times": [325.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.671}, "reply_to": "15558__0_014", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_016", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "My question was directed to the how did he become eligible in the first place and that\u2019s, as I understand it, not anything like a trial type hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [325.454], "stop_times": [331.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.454}, "reply_to": "15558__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_017", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There is no hearing.\nThere is a full investigation with respect to the individual and, I might add, that as an individual remains on public assistance, he is periodically reinvestigated and is required to provide the department with information to maintain his eligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [331.252, 332.141], "stop_times": [332.141, 351.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.252}, "reply_to": "15558__0_016", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_018", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Who determines the eligibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [351.372], "stop_times": [354.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.372}, "reply_to": "15558__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_019", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Initially?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [354.12], "stop_times": [355.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.12}, "reply_to": "15558__0_018", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_020", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [355.018], "stop_times": [355.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.018}, "reply_to": "15558__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_021", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The County Welfare Department in the particular-- in California, the welfare programs are administered locally by County Welfare Departments, although the overall supervision of the program rests with the State Department of Social Welfare, but it is the individual County Welfare Department, usually in the person of the social worker or the social work supervisor who initially approves the application for eligibility.\nIf there is a dispute with respect to eligibility, the individual is afforded an opportunity for a hearing to contest the reasons why the department has refused to grant assistance in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [355.593, 381.309], "stop_times": [381.309, 394.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.593}, "reply_to": "15558__0_020", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_022", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is that a trial type hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [394.63], "stop_times": [395.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.63}, "reply_to": "15558__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_023", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, that is a trial type hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [395.991], "stop_times": [398.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.991}, "reply_to": "15558__0_022", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_024", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is it your contention that once a person has been declared eligible by this county authority that he cannot be cut off without depriving him of a constitutional privilege?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [398.963], "stop_times": [414.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.963}, "reply_to": "15558__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_025", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, it is our position that once a person is found eligible for public assistance, if he is not afforded opportunity to be heard with respect to the reasons for discontinuance, then his rights in the Due Process Clause would be violated since he is not being afforded a fair opportunity to contest the very reasons upon which the governmental agency has made its decision to terminate benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [414.775], "stop_times": [439.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.775}, "reply_to": "15558__0_024", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_026", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "And there never was any contest of that originally of eligibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [439.091], "stop_times": [446.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.091}, "reply_to": "15558__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_027", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "At the time that the individual applied for aid, he did meet the qualifications for the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [446.108], "stop_times": [452.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.108}, "reply_to": "15558__0_026", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_028", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "He met the qualifications, but was there any trial type procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [452.757], "stop_times": [458.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.757}, "reply_to": "15558__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_029", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, there would be no need in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [458.699], "stop_times": [460.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.699}, "reply_to": "15558__0_028", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_030", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Was there any-- was there any trial type procedure when he was first declared eligible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [460.408], "stop_times": [468.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.408}, "reply_to": "15558__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_031", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There would only have been a trial type procedure if the Welfare Department had initially found the individual to be ineligible and then he took an appeal from that initial determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [468.668], "stop_times": [478.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.668}, "reply_to": "15558__0_030", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_032", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is it your answer then that there was no trial type procedure in these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [478.533], "stop_times": [483.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.533}, "reply_to": "15558__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_033", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There is no trial type procedure when an individual applies to welfare.\nWhen he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [483.198, 487.42], "stop_times": [487.42, 487.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.198}, "reply_to": "15558__0_032", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_034", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "He is ineligible without any trial type of procedure, and you\u2019re argument is that it\u2019s unconstitutional to cut him off without a trial type procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [487.51], "stop_times": [497.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.51}, "reply_to": "15558__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15558__0_035", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is our position.\nUnless an individual is able to convince the very individual who made the initial determination that a person is ineligible, unless he is able to convince that person that this informal conference held, as I mentioned, three days prior to the date that it should be held, he has no opportunity to have his aid continue until the state administrative hearing is provided at least 60 days after the termination of his benefits.\nIn determining the extent to which procedural protection should be afforded to a welfare recipient, this Court in numerous occasions has indicated that one must examine the system in which the procedural protections will operate, examine the interest of the individual concerned, and examine the interest of the state or the governmental agency involved.\nThe one overwhelming and unique factor which is present in the welfare programs, which is present in no other government program is that maintenance of the welfare grant is the difference between survival, between starvation and continuation of some type of sustenance.\nIt is this fundamental interest on the part of the individual that, we assert, must be protected by those procedures which this Court has considered to be appropriate in adjudicative hearings.\nProtections such as the right to cross-examine and confront where appropriate, the opportunity to have a decision made by at least a relatively impartial arbiter, not the very individual who made the initial determination, to withhold benefits, that an individual be afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing, a hearing which might, in the many instances, involve the preparation of some interpretation.\nFor example, in the case of Mrs. Wheeler, the appellant in this case, Mrs. Wheeler had to submit one or two affidavits to the Welfare Department.\nThis would take some time.\nShe\u2019s given just a three-day period.\nShe must, in many instances, retain a representative or counsel.\nMrs. Wheeler was 77 years of age when her benefits were terminated and did need the assistance, first, of a lay representative and, ultimately, of an attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [497.238, 504.373, 536.897, 562.887, 584.41, 601.191, 632.137, 642.194, 643.455, 645.656, 649.272], "stop_times": [504.373, 536.897, 562.887, 584.41, 601.191, 632.137, 642.194, 643.455, 645.656, 649.272, 658.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.238}, "reply_to": "15558__0_034", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_036", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The real issue between you and your adversary, I-- unless I\u2019m mistaken, is when this hearing need be given, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [658.816], "stop_times": [665.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.816}, "reply_to": "15558__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_037", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is the basic issue in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [665.532], "stop_times": [667.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.532}, "reply_to": "15558__0_036", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_038", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Because the hearing of the kind and quality that you\u2019re talking about is ultimately given under the law, isn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [667.074], "stop_times": [674.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.074}, "reply_to": "15558__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_039", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [674.655], "stop_times": [674.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.655}, "reply_to": "15558__0_038", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_040", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That\u2019s ultimately given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [674.796], "stop_times": [675.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.796}, "reply_to": "15558__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_041", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The hearing is ultimately given, but it is our contention that given the injury that occurs to an individual when benefits are withdrawn, that in those relatively few cases, and I underscore that, the relatively few cases where the question of ineligibility is contested, an individual should be given an opportunity to have this type of hearing prior to the withdrawal of benefits.\nWe are not talking about a hearing procedure which is going to be available for all one million welfare recipients in California nor the 23,000 old aged security recipients who have been discontinued from assistance, for the figures bear out that it is a relatively few number of welfare recipients that appeal the determination of the Welfare Department.\nIn many instances, there is agreement.\nAn individual obtains employment and is no longer eligible for assistance.\nHis income now exceeds the welfare limitations.\nIn another instance, an individual may have remarried and may no longer be in need of additional public assistance.\nSo that, we are only concerned about those issues we are-- those situations where serious questions of fact have arisen between the welfare recipient and the County Welfare Department, and it is to that issue that we search an adjudicative hearing having basic protections is necessary.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [675.934, 704.044, 732.228, 736.018, 740.451, 744.903, 755.721, 779.111], "stop_times": [704.044, 732.228, 736.018, 740.451, 744.903, 755.721, 779.111, 779.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.934}, "reply_to": "15558__0_040", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_042", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "With the second, suppose California said after this three-day hearing, we will continue, but if you don\u2019t successfully meet the appeal procedure within 60 days, you\u2019re out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [779.208], "stop_times": [796.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.208}, "reply_to": "15558__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__0_043", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That-- if that administrative decision was made by the State of California that would be satisfactory to the appellants in this case.\nThe problem about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [796.53, 804.561], "stop_times": [804.561, 805.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.53}, "reply_to": "15558__0_042", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_044", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "So, to make it final, your real criticism is to cut off the money for two months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [805.467], "stop_times": [812.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.467}, "reply_to": "15558__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__0_045", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, if in fact California was adhering to the 60-day requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [812.077], "stop_times": [815.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.077}, "reply_to": "15558__0_044", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_046", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Suppose California said you lose in the first instance and you win in the second instance and so, we give you the two months if you win.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [815.986], "stop_times": [828.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.986}, "reply_to": "15558__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__0_047", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "If-- you\u2019re saying that if we lose in the first instance and we win in the second instance and then we get retroactive benefits, that is not sufficient to fully make whole, if you will, the individuals who were terminated from assistance.\nAs this Court has noted in a case decided last term, in Nash versus the Florida Industrial Welfare Commission, the fact that an individual ultimately can recoup through retroactive payments is not a satisfactory answer when the funds are necessary to provide the difference between continuing subsistence and possible starvation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [828.107, 848.726], "stop_times": [848.726, 875.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.107}, "reply_to": "15558__0_046", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_048", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What\u2019s the case you\u2019re referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [875.183], "stop_times": [877.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.183}, "reply_to": "15558__0_047", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__0_049", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The case was the case in Florida where an individual was when the Florida law precluded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [877.492], "stop_times": [889.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.492}, "reply_to": "15558__0_048", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_050", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Did the case reach this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [889.109], "stop_times": [890.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.109}, "reply_to": "15558__0_049", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__0_051", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [890.465], "stop_times": [891.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.465}, "reply_to": "15558__0_050", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_052", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It was decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [891.126], "stop_times": [891.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.126}, "reply_to": "15558__0_051", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__0_053", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Nash versus Florida Industrial Commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [891.698], "stop_times": [894.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.698}, "reply_to": "15558__0_052", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_054", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What\u2019s the citation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [894.93], "stop_times": [895.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.93}, "reply_to": "15558__0_053", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__0_055", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The citation to the case is 389 US 235.\nIn addition, if the Court would review particularly the affidavit of Henry Fraser which is contained at the rec-- in the record, not in the appendix, in the record at pages 137 through 140, the Court will graphically appreciate the circumstances that individuals are placed when benefits are withheld even for a period of 60 days.\nIn the situation of a number of the interveners in this case, the individuals were reduced to a diet of potatoes to not having the ability to purchase any type of clothing and to severe injury, but it must be made plane that in California, at the present time, not even the 60-day requirement is being met.\nOne would assume, however, that if the hearing preceded termination that the 60-day requirement would be met, indeed, the experience in a number of states who have instituted a continuation pending the hearing has resulted in a situation where hearing decisions are rendered within two weeks, so that when there is the additional interest on the part of the state, both to rapidly adjudicate the decision so that additional moneys are not paid out in some instances to potentially ineligible persons, the hearings are held expeditiously and rapidly.\nThis flexibility is available within the administrative agencies involved and the individual, the recipient, can be afforded those rights which are traditionally associated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [895.806, 910.882, 940.345, 965.204, 999.89], "stop_times": [910.882, 940.345, 965.204, 999.89, 1013.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.806}, "reply_to": "15558__0_054", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_056", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "May I ask you of-- suppose a pension has been granted or receipt or whatever you call it, and the Congress or the legislature wants to repeat it.\nIs it your position that the constitution forbids it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1013.602, 1027.593], "stop_times": [1027.593, 1030.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.602}, "reply_to": "15558__0_055", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_057", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, it is not our position.\nOur position is that an individual does not have, we use the term, \u201cvested right\u201d to the benefits which he is be-- receiving, but however we characterize that interest, it is a substantial one and it is an interest which should not be taken from an individual without according that individual basic elements of procedural fairness and due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1030.691, 1032.287], "stop_times": [1032.287, 1060.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.691}, "reply_to": "15558__0_056", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_058", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Has that ever-- question ever been tested with reference to any pension, Revolution War pension, Civil War pension, Spanish-American pension, or the First and Second World War pension?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1060.229], "stop_times": [1075.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.229}, "reply_to": "15558__0_057", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_059", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I don\u2019t believe that the specific issue before this Court in this case has been tested with respect to the procedural rights that are to be afforded individuals, but there have been cases that have been decided by this Court that have indicated that however one characterizes the interest, that government must act in a fair and reasonable way in the administration of programs where basic interests are involved, whether one characterizes it as a right, as a vested right, or as a privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1075.501], "stop_times": [1109.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.501}, "reply_to": "15558__0_058", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_060", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, would it be your position that a pension cannot be cut off where once it\u2019s been decided that a man gets a pension without giving him some kind of hearing before it\u2019s cut off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1109.176], "stop_times": [1123.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.176}, "reply_to": "15558__0_059", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_061", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "One-- to answer that question directly, one would have to be aware of the circumstances under which the pension was granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1123.388], "stop_times": [1133.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.388}, "reply_to": "15558__0_060", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_062", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Just the pension?\nJust the pension, just granted because he was in the army--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1133.591, 1135.556], "stop_times": [1135.556, 1142.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.591}, "reply_to": "15558__0_061", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_063", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, under those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1142.054], "stop_times": [1143.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1142.054}, "reply_to": "15558__0_062", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_064", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Of course the government doesn\u2019t have to grant it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1143.089], "stop_times": [1145.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.089}, "reply_to": "15558__0_063", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_065", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The government does not have to grant it in the first instance, but once it does grant it and assuming that the legislation remains in effect, then the individual should be entitled to continue to receive that pension until he is afford-- unless there\u2019s a determination which is reached after a reasonable opportunity to adjudicate the matter, the individual is no longer eligible for that pension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1145.882], "stop_times": [1174.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.882}, "reply_to": "15558__0_064", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_066", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "You\u2019re not suggesting that the legislature would have to consult with anyone if the legislature decided to repeal the entire program, would-- are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1174.429], "stop_times": [1183.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.429}, "reply_to": "15558__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_067", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, not at all.\nI\u2019m not suggesting at all that that legislature does not have within its power the right to withdraw the-- any government benefit program.\nThe issue is whether or not once the legislation has been passed and once benefits are being provided to individuals, before specific individual\u2019s welfare assistance is removed, he should be afforded those opportunities which have been afforded individuals in like circumstances by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1183.123, 1184.048, 1194.653], "stop_times": [1184.048, 1194.653, 1215.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.123}, "reply_to": "15558__0_066", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_068", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "How about employment termination?\nYou\u2019re working for the federal government.\nDo you have a constitutional right to-- not to be terminated until there has been a trial type hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1215.077, 1219.675, 1221.222], "stop_times": [1219.675, 1221.222, 1230.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.077}, "reply_to": "15558__0_067", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_069", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "My position that you do have a right to have a hearing which ahs the basic elements of due process before termination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1230.141], "stop_times": [1239.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.141}, "reply_to": "15558__0_068", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_070", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What\u2019s this Court said about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1239.449], "stop_times": [1242.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.449}, "reply_to": "15558__0_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_071", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "This Court, in the case of Green versus McElroy which, admittedly, was not a constitutional decision but spoken constitutional terms, indicated that basic procedural protections are indeed essential before the right to-- public employment is withdrawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1242.563], "stop_times": [1262.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.563}, "reply_to": "15558__0_070", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_072", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But in Cafeteria Workers that was not made quite as rigid, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1262.683], "stop_times": [1269.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.683}, "reply_to": "15558__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_073", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No.\nIn Cafeteria Workers it was not made as rigid, but the Court clearly indicated that due process applied and, with the analysis I suggested earlier, should be undertaken.\nIn that case, it was felt that the interest of the government and national security and the fact that the individual involved in that case was not so substantial that procedural safeguards of the type we\u2019re seeking here should be afforded.\nIn that case, the individual was only stopped from working at one particular base.\nWhat we have in this particular situation is the withdrawal of the very means of subsistence to an individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1269.895, 1270.144, 1279.983, 1299.001, 1306.775], "stop_times": [1270.144, 1279.983, 1299.001, 1306.775, 1314.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.895}, "reply_to": "15558__0_072", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_074", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Do you mean that the pay of a federal employee may not be stopped pending a hearing?\nThat before he could be suspended from the job and his pay stopped there must be a trial type hearing, and you say this Court has held that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1314.56, 1323.909], "stop_times": [1323.909, 1332.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.56}, "reply_to": "15558__0_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_075", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "This Court has held in cases where there has not been the overwriting interest of national security that a public employee does have an opportunity to be afforded an opportunity be heard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1332.528], "stop_times": [1346.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.528}, "reply_to": "15558__0_074", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_076", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Before his pay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1346.883], "stop_times": [1347.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.883}, "reply_to": "15558__0_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_077", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Before his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1347.656], "stop_times": [1349.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1347.656}, "reply_to": "15558__0_076", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_078", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Before his pay is stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1349.012], "stop_times": [1351.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.012}, "reply_to": "15558__0_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_079", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Before his benefits are-- before his wages are taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1351.074], "stop_times": [1355.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1351.074}, "reply_to": "15558__0_078", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_080", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "In what case did the Court hold that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1355.473], "stop_times": [1359.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.473}, "reply_to": "15558__0_079", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_081", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "As I indicated, in the case of Green versus McElroy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1359.826], "stop_times": [1362.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.826}, "reply_to": "15558__0_080", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_082", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It didn\u2019t deal, did it, with the question of when the pay could be stopped in relation to the time of the hearing?\nIf I recall correctly, McElroy was put on suspended status and his pay was stopped and such hearing, as he was given, was given at a later date.\nWhen he was ultimately reinstated, he got backpay retroactive to the date of the suspension.\nIt seems to me, that\u2019s the point to which Mr. Justice White is addressing himself.\nI\u2019m not sure you\u2019ve answered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1362.218, 1371.537, 1380.964, 1389.837, 1394.369], "stop_times": [1371.537, 1380.964, 1389.837, 1394.369, 1398.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.218}, "reply_to": "15558__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_083", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "In the case of Sloucher versus the City of New York, the individual in that particular case was afforded an opportunity to be heard before his wages were withdrawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1398.326], "stop_times": [1424.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.326}, "reply_to": "15558__0_082", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_084", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Did the Court hold that the state had to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1424.714], "stop_times": [1428.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.714}, "reply_to": "15558__0_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_085", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1428.663], "stop_times": [1429.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.663}, "reply_to": "15558__0_084", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_086", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Did the Court hold that the state had to do that, to afford such a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1429.571], "stop_times": [1432.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.571}, "reply_to": "15558__0_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_087", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1432.926], "stop_times": [1435.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.926}, "reply_to": "15558__0_086", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_088", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well let\u2019s assume, for example, that there is no constitutional requirement for a trial type hearing before termination of employment and before at least termination of the man\u2019s pay, although he has-- may have ultimately a right to a trial type hearing.\nWould you say that, nevertheless, the welfare recipient is entitled to a trial type hearing prior to termination of benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1435.45, 1458.785], "stop_times": [1458.785, 1468.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.45}, "reply_to": "15558__0_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_089", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I would say that the welfare recipient is entitled to such a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1468.509], "stop_times": [1472.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.509}, "reply_to": "15558__0_088", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_090", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Regardless of what the employee is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1472.139], "stop_times": [1474.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.139}, "reply_to": "15558__0_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_091", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Regardless of what the employee is entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1474.801], "stop_times": [1477.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.801}, "reply_to": "15558__0_090", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_092", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Now, what if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1477.973], "stop_times": [1478.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.973}, "reply_to": "15558__0_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__0_093", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Because, again, the individual was on public assistance, really is receiving the last public defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1478.084], "stop_times": [1487.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.084}, "reply_to": "15558__0_092", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_094", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I\u2019d like the answer to be clear about this part of your argument.\nIs it your position that when Congress or a state enacts a gratuity piece of legislation, giving somebody something out of the treasury and declares that issue be found eligible by agencies, that they can never be declared ineligible without going through a tri-- a type of trial procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1487.546, 1493.265], "stop_times": [1493.265, 1519.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.546}, "reply_to": "15558__0_093", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_095", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Not at all.\nOur position is that an individual can be found initially ineligible by the Welfare Department, but he must be notified of that fact and, if he contests that determination, then should be entitled to a hearing which affords him basic procedural safeguards when such a vital interest is involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1519.559, 1519.981], "stop_times": [1519.981, 1538.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.559}, "reply_to": "15558__0_094", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_096", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But then I guess-- maybe I\u2019m-- my question was right.\nI don\u2019t quite understand your answer.\nIs it your position that when there\u2019s a gratuity given, such as has been given in many wars, after many wars, bread, meat, gratuity of various kind, somebody is found eligible by an agency, that the government cannot deprive that person of that gratuity without going through a trial type procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1538.861, 1542.978, 1545.501], "stop_times": [1542.978, 1545.501, 1570.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.861}, "reply_to": "15558__0_095", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_097", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "If there is an individual dispute regarding eligibility, then the individual should be afforded a hearing.\nThe problem I have with the question is the term \u201ctrial type.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1570.353, 1578.092], "stop_times": [1578.092, 1581.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1570.353}, "reply_to": "15558__0_096", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_098", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1581.911], "stop_times": [1582.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.911}, "reply_to": "15558__0_097", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_099", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "We\u2019re not asking for a hearing which has all the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1582.076], "stop_times": [1585.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.076}, "reply_to": "15558__0_098", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_100", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, I\u2019m saying you say they have to have notice before the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1585.548], "stop_times": [1588.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.548}, "reply_to": "15558__0_099", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_101", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1588.494], "stop_times": [1588.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.494}, "reply_to": "15558__0_100", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_102", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Government cut it off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1588.692], "stop_times": [1589.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.692}, "reply_to": "15558__0_101", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_103", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1589.312], "stop_times": [1590.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.312}, "reply_to": "15558__0_102", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_104", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Now, after the Civil War, there were large numbers of gratuity given in this country of food and meat and raiment of various kinds.\nWas there any show-- any case record involved in that gross gratuities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1590.362, 1600.911], "stop_times": [1600.911, 1608.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.362}, "reply_to": "15558__0_103", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_105", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Not to my knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1608.023], "stop_times": [1609.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.023}, "reply_to": "15558__0_104", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_106", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Has there ever been one before with reference to gratuity where it has been insisted that a pure gratuity, a man has such a right to it after he once gets it, that he must have notice before the government cuts it off?\nHas it ever been directly held and, if so, when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1609.104, 1625.554], "stop_times": [1625.554, 1628.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.104}, "reply_to": "15558__0_105", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_107", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There is no direct holding with respect to a welfare--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1628.484], "stop_times": [1633.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1628.484}, "reply_to": "15558__0_106", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_108", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Not the wel-- this statute and on any statute in the history of the government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1633.289], "stop_times": [1640.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.289}, "reply_to": "15558__0_107", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_109", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There-- in the case of Goldsby versus Garfield, which, was decided in 1908--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1640.709], "stop_times": [1648.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.709}, "reply_to": "15558__0_108", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_110", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1648.899], "stop_times": [1649.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.899}, "reply_to": "15558__0_109", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_111", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Goldsby versus Garfield.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1649.897], "stop_times": [1652.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1649.897}, "reply_to": "15558__0_110", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_112", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1652.504], "stop_times": [1655.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.504}, "reply_to": "15558__0_111", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_113", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1655.617], "stop_times": [1658.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.617}, "reply_to": "15558__0_112", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_114", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What report is the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1658.649], "stop_times": [1660.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.649}, "reply_to": "15558__0_113", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_115", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I don\u2019t have the citation.\nI will attempt to furnish it to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1660.08, 1661.285], "stop_times": [1661.285, 1664.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1660.08}, "reply_to": "15558__0_114", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_116", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "And what Court was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1664.345], "stop_times": [1665.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.345}, "reply_to": "15558__0_115", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_117", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It was the United States Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1665.779], "stop_times": [1668.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1665.779}, "reply_to": "15558__0_116", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_118", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is it in your table of cases of you brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1668.261], "stop_times": [1671.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.261}, "reply_to": "15558__0_117", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_119", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, it\u2019s in the amicus brief in the companion case.\nThe citation to the case is 211 US 249.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1671.41, 1675.639], "stop_times": [1675.639, 1684.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1671.41}, "reply_to": "15558__0_118", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_120", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What\u2019s that about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1684.978], "stop_times": [1686.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.978}, "reply_to": "15558__0_119", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__0_121", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "In that case, it was a question of the government providing to individuals Indian lands, and Mr. Goldsby in that case was initially found eligible for an allotment of this land provided by the federal government and the Court held in that case that the action of the Secretary in removing Mr. Goldsby from the roles of the individuals who were entitled to that land without affording Mr. Goldsby an opportunity to be heard and notice was a violation of due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1686.614], "stop_times": [1727.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.614}, "reply_to": "15558__0_120", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_122", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "They held to cut him off from land that he had been legally held on, didn\u2019t he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1727.132], "stop_times": [1732.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.132}, "reply_to": "15558__0_121", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_123", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, that was the issue.\nThe question was whether or not he did, in fact, have the right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1732.593, 1733.586], "stop_times": [1733.586, 1736.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1732.593}, "reply_to": "15558__0_122", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_124", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "They found that he legally own it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1736.157], "stop_times": [1738.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.157}, "reply_to": "15558__0_123", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__0_125", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, the Court did not find that he did or did not legally hold that land.\nThat was an issue to be left for the administrative determination.\nThe Court was only dealing with whether the Secretary could absent any type of an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether or not Mr. Goldsby did, in fact, have proper title to that land, whether he could continue on the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1738.74, 1743.516, 1747.324], "stop_times": [1743.516, 1747.324, 1762.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1738.74}, "reply_to": "15558__0_124", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_126", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mr. Sitkin, I remind you, you\u2019re now cutting into your rebuttal time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1762.369], "stop_times": [1766.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.369}, "reply_to": "15558__0_125", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__0_127", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, I think I will conclude at this particular point.\nI would just like to make clear to the Court that what we are dealing with here is not a large mass number of individuals who will be continuing aid.\nIt is only in those situations where there are serious issues of fact involved that we are asserting that there is a right to continuation of assistance and, given the vital interest of the individuals who were involved here and given the fact that administrative procedures have already been developed by the state, it is our position that due process requires the procedural protections which we assert are required in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1766.686, 1769.943, 1788.867], "stop_times": [1769.943, 1788.867, 1819.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1766.686}, "reply_to": "15558__0_126", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__0_128", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sitkin.\nMrs. Palmer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1819.388, 1823.113], "stop_times": [1823.113, 1823.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.388}, "reply_to": "15558__0_127", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__1_000", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, Mr. Justice.\nMay it please the Court.\nIf I may directly rebut what my colleague has brought to the Court\u2019s attention in Goldsby, the Goldsby case there was a hearing prior to the determination of eligibility to being placed on the list for the allotment of land.\nNow, the Secretary struck the name from the list without any hearing, and that is not comparable to the situation that is before this Court.\nI ask the Court to take a close look at the pre-withholding termination of aid procedures.\nIt isn\u2019t a three-day notice.\nJust there we are, \u201cthree-day notice you are going to be cut off aid.\u201d\nIt is preceded by an investigation, discussion where a case worker, as soon as there is any hint of ineligibility, the recipient is the primary source of information.\nCollateral resources are only consulted with the consent of the recipient who has also explained why we want to see Mr. X or whoever, the reasons for that.\nIf the notice does go out of withholding or contemplated withholding, it is only sent out when the evidence of ineligibility is both substantial in nature and reliable in source.\nIt\u2019s not hearsay on hearsay on hearsay or gossip, rumor, or surmise.\nIt must be substantial in nature and reliable in source.\nIn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1823.257, 1824.721, 1826.677, 1845.426, 1856.391, 1866.171, 1869.357, 1874.436, 1891.52, 1906.524, 1925.953, 1932.828, 1938.581], "stop_times": [1824.721, 1826.677, 1845.426, 1856.391, 1866.171, 1869.357, 1874.436, 1891.52, 1906.524, 1925.953, 1932.828, 1938.581, 1938.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.257}, "reply_to": "15558__0_128", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_001", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mrs. Palmer, how can the recipient test that out as to how reliable it is and how non-hearsay it is and how- how can the recipient test that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1938.645], "stop_times": [1952.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.645}, "reply_to": "15558__1_000", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_002", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "With the assistance of the Office of Economic Opportunity attorneys, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1952.036], "stop_times": [1957.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.036}, "reply_to": "15558__1_001", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_003", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I didn\u2019t mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1957.756], "stop_times": [1958.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.756}, "reply_to": "15558__1_002", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_004", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I didn\u2019t-- I\u2019m not being facetious, Your Honor, but with counsel as able as my opponent here and with the offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, they are closely scrutinizing this and, also, Mr. Montgomery--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1958.134], "stop_times": [1975.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.134}, "reply_to": "15558__1_003", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_005", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "They didn\u2019t--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1975.885], "stop_times": [1976.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.885}, "reply_to": "15558__1_004", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_006", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The appellee is-- I beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1976.077], "stop_times": [1978.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.077}, "reply_to": "15558__1_005", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_007", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Excuse me, Mrs. Palmer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1978.018], "stop_times": [1979.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.018}, "reply_to": "15558__1_006", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_008", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1979.19], "stop_times": [1979.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.19}, "reply_to": "15558__1_007", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_009", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I\u2019m talking about before the end of this three-day period.\nHow can the recipient test all these out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1979.273, 1983.389], "stop_times": [1983.389, 1985.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.273}, "reply_to": "15558__1_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_010", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The case record is open, Your Honor.\nThere is the investigator\u2019s report.\nThere are the names of the sources of information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1985.305, 1988.321, 1991.103], "stop_times": [1988.321, 1991.103, 1995.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.305}, "reply_to": "15558__1_009", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_011", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That\u2019s all given to the recipient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1995.298], "stop_times": [1996.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.298}, "reply_to": "15558__1_010", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_012", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There-- the case record is right there to be opened to the recipient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [1996.83], "stop_times": [2000.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.83}, "reply_to": "15558__1_011", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_013", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There\u2019s a given--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2000.391], "stop_times": [2000.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.391}, "reply_to": "15558__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_014", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Any time-- at any time with counsel, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2000.489], "stop_times": [2004.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.489}, "reply_to": "15558__1_013", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_015", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, the recipient without counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2004.12], "stop_times": [2006.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.12}, "reply_to": "15558__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_016", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The recipient without counsel can walk in and look at his or her record too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2006.69], "stop_times": [2011.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.69}, "reply_to": "15558__1_015", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_017", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is it turned over to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2011.419], "stop_times": [2013.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.419}, "reply_to": "15558__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_018", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Absolutely.\nThe law requires it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2013.198, 2013.953], "stop_times": [2013.953, 2014.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.198}, "reply_to": "15558__1_017", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_019", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Or is it handed to him to say that \u201cif you want to look at it, you could look at it.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2014.066], "stop_times": [2018.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.066}, "reply_to": "15558__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_020", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I beg your pardon, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2018.059], "stop_times": [2018.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.059}, "reply_to": "15558__1_019", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_021", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is it just said \u201chere it is.\nIf you want to look at it, you can look at it.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2018.907, 2020.376], "stop_times": [2020.376, 2022.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.907}, "reply_to": "15558__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_022", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "They walk in.\nThey ask for their case record, which is required to be kept, and it is immediately made available to them to look through, take notes with or without counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2022.917, 2023.823], "stop_times": [2023.823, 2036.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.917}, "reply_to": "15558__1_021", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_023", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, what do they get in writing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2036.409], "stop_times": [2039.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.409}, "reply_to": "15558__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_024", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "In the case record, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2039.372], "stop_times": [2041.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.372}, "reply_to": "15558__1_023", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_025", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2041.153], "stop_times": [2041.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.153}, "reply_to": "15558__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_026", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "In the case record, there is the narrative of every--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2041.944], "stop_times": [2044.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.944}, "reply_to": "15558__1_025", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_027", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, I mean, what is the recipient handed that tells the recipient this is what is-- you were wrong about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2044.987], "stop_times": [2051.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.987}, "reply_to": "15558__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_028", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Alright.\nThe notice says \u201cmust include,\u201d according to the resolution, \u201cmust include the grounds for the contemplated withholding of the aid, what information is needed to maintain eligibility.\u201d\nNow, no longer can there be the cryptic notice of \u201cessential information is lacking,\u201d because the \u201cwhat essential information\u201d has to be put right there in the notice, plus the fact that they are advised that they may have counsel, they are advised that they may come in at a specified time at a specified place for a conference with a case worker, eligibility worker, or other county representative.\nThat, in the event, no agreement can be reached between the case worker, and I must say that, in the large counties, the interview would not normally be with a case worker because there is a special complaint and review unit that is set up that the interview would be, in partial, referee.\nBut, you must realize that the California\u2019s 58 counties vary greatly in size.\nAlpine County has a welfare caseload of 84.\nLos Angeles County has well-over half-a-million.\nThere is a-- the availability of staff for these interviews.\nThen, all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2051.9, 2052.234, 2073.331, 2103.338, 2126.583, 2132.073, 2136.273, 2139.653, 2146.984], "stop_times": [2052.234, 2073.331, 2103.338, 2126.583, 2132.073, 2136.273, 2139.653, 2146.984, 2147.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.9}, "reply_to": "15558__1_027", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_029", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What county was that you said had had a million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2147.971], "stop_times": [2150.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.971}, "reply_to": "15558__1_028", "speaker": "j__lewis_f_powell_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_030", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Los Angeles County, Your Honor, with around 11,500 welfare workers.\nAlpine County has three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2150.494, 2157.092], "stop_times": [2157.092, 2159.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.494}, "reply_to": "15558__1_029", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_031", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "11,000 welfare workers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2159.599], "stop_times": [2161.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.599}, "reply_to": "15558__1_030", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__1_032", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "11,500 welfare workers in Los Angeles County and over-half-a million welfare recipients.\nSo, California cannot blank it and that\u2019s why Mr. Montgomery, in promulgating regulations, has to consider the varying problems of these counties.\nRegulations of the Department of Social Welfare are not-- they are only adopted after public hearing, where interested individuals, organizations, and including the welfare directors who don\u2019t always get together on what they want, as you can very plainly see because of their different problems.\nConsequently, the regulation that is being attacked here is a result of compromise, as most legislation is.\nThe-- then if-- then follows the fair hearing.\nThat is the full trial type adjudicatory hearing which is required by-- under the Social Security Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2161.0, 2171.757, 2186.344, 2205.327, 2216.86, 2226.111], "stop_times": [2171.757, 2186.344, 2205.327, 2216.86, 2226.111, 2234.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.0}, "reply_to": "15558__1_031", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_033", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "What happens at the pre-termination stage where there is this conflict and there\u2019s a last conflict of fact?\nDo the recipient, in views of the fact, trying to make a relief and agencies in our nation says, that\u2019s not correct.\nWhat happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2234.741, 2247.107, 2259.954], "stop_times": [2247.107, 2259.954, 2261.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.741}, "reply_to": "15558__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_034", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, if it\u2019s a factual situation, Your Honor, then it is a difficult question.\nIt is whether the review unit of the department feels that the evidence is substantial as to ineligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2261.28, 2266.249], "stop_times": [2266.249, 2275.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.28}, "reply_to": "15558__1_033", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_035", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, that\u2019s what your adversary is talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2275.659], "stop_times": [2281.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.659}, "reply_to": "15558__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_036", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Then, if it\u2019s on a policy matter, there is an immediate review by the State Department, not the fair hearing, but on whether, under these facts, this policy should be applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2281.874], "stop_times": [2294.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.874}, "reply_to": "15558__1_035", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_037", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I\u2019m not talking about policy.\nThe policy is already set.\nIt\u2019s just if the recipient is right in his taking of the facts, the policy, whatever may it be, was satisfied.\nIt\u2019s not like the policy is not satisfied, it\u2019s just the plain issue of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2294.855, 2296.512, 2297.943, 2305.735], "stop_times": [2296.512, 2297.943, 2305.735, 2310.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.855}, "reply_to": "15558__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_038", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Your Honor, in-- the Wheeler case is a perfect example of conflicting evidence, but if the State Department had been consulted, there was a misapplication of regulations to the facts even with the dispute.\nDid she get rid of this money to remain eligible on aid?\nThe regulation said it felt that you have to consider her purpose.\nShe is the primary source of whether she did or did not get rid of this money to remain eligible for welfare.\nConsequently, on the very same facts, the referee held that she was eligible for aid.\nSo normally, in factual disputes, surely they say \u201cI did,\u201d somebody else says \u201cyou don\u2019t,\u201d and someone has to decide and the review unit of the county is the one who decides at this initial stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2310.403, 2330.688, 2334.814, 2340.204, 2349.964, 2363.316], "stop_times": [2330.688, 2334.814, 2340.204, 2349.964, 2363.316, 2379.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.403}, "reply_to": "15558__1_037", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_039", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "This case, in fact, involved the kind of factual issue to which my brother Harlan referred to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2379.899], "stop_times": [2383.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.899}, "reply_to": "15558__1_038", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_040", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2383.725], "stop_times": [2385.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2383.725}, "reply_to": "15558__1_039", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_041", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Didn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2385.066], "stop_times": [2385.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.066}, "reply_to": "15558__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_042", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2385.729], "stop_times": [2386.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.729}, "reply_to": "15558__1_041", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_043", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "This Mrs. Wheeler was the-- received the proceeds of her deceased son\u2019s veteran\u2019s insurance policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2386.064], "stop_times": [2391.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.064}, "reply_to": "15558__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_044", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2391.638], "stop_times": [2391.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.638}, "reply_to": "15558__1_043", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_045", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "At least she was the beneficiary under that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2391.904], "stop_times": [2393.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.904}, "reply_to": "15558__1_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_046", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2393.725], "stop_times": [2394.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.725}, "reply_to": "15558__1_045", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_047", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "And the son died, and the department claimed that she had received the proceeds and she claimed that she had transferred the proceeds to a nephew, first, claiming that it was debt of her son to the nephew and then amending her story to say that it was carrying out her son\u2019s--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2394.664], "stop_times": [2412.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.664}, "reply_to": "15558__1_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_048", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Dying wishes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2412.318], "stop_times": [2412.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.318}, "reply_to": "15558__1_047", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_049", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Dying wish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2412.903], "stop_times": [2414.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.903}, "reply_to": "15558__1_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_050", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "And with the obligation to report these funds and not having done so despite conferences with her-- interviews with her case worker, I presume that that had some human element of doubting the story. Getting to the fair hearing and the link of time that it takes for the fair hearing, in appellant\u2019s reply brief, there is set forth a table that I found shocking of the case\u2019s fair hearings that have been pending from one to two years.\nI immediately called the Chief Referee of the department and he, with very little time, went through the ones that were over year old, and he found that in most of them, if not all of them, should have been closed out due to being unable to find the claimant, that the matter had been settled at the department level, that the claimant had asked for an indefinite continuance, and so on.\nBut, most of these-- but due to the terrific increase in fair hearing requests from 500 normal requests a month to 700 now, in July, August, and September, that they felt that they should try to meet the 60-day requirement, try to meet the state regulation that the hearing must be held within 17 days of the request for the hearing, and not bother because they haven\u2019t had a commiserate increase in clerical staff or referees.\nConsequently, they have also adopted the position that when the referee hears it, and that the claimant is right, that\u2019s going to be the referee\u2019s decision, that decision goes out immediately, less harm to the recipient whose hearing decision is going to be unfavorable to the claimant.\nNow, that isn\u2019t ideal, but at least it\u2019s the best thing that the department feels that they can do under the circumstances.\nSo, I ask you when you would look at that chart to please do not be as shocked as I was when I looked at it, that there are reasonable explanations for that link of time.\nIn another table of statistics, the same series as this table 62, is table 60 which may give the Court some idea of the number of fair hearings that are filed.\nLast fiscal year, there was 6,218.\nThis is 2,000 more than the preceding year.\nThat 5,915 appeals were closed last year.\nThat\u2019s 2,769 more than the preceding year.\nSo, all I can say is that the State of California is working at it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2414.317, 2441.375, 2490.167, 2533.041, 2557.43, 2564.831, 2577.17, 2591.701, 2596.46, 2601.535, 2608.205, 2614.247], "stop_times": [2441.375, 2490.167, 2533.041, 2557.43, 2564.831, 2577.17, 2591.701, 2596.46, 2601.535, 2608.205, 2614.247, 2618.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.317}, "reply_to": "15558__1_049", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_051", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is there anything in this record, Mrs. Palmer, about what success the State of California has had in recouping of payments improperly made to recipients who were determined not to be eligible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2618.613], "stop_times": [2636.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.613}, "reply_to": "15558__1_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__1_052", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No.\nI don\u2019t know of any statistics, Your Honor.\nI have-- I understand that it\u2019s not too successful. California does not take liens on property as some other states do.\nCalifornia-- I must also, and I\u2019m sorry I forgot to bring to the Court\u2019s attention that in California, one of the peculiarities of California I guess, the counties on general assistance or home relief, whatever you want to call it, it is solely county financed with solely county standards.\nWe are here talking only about the so-called categorical aids, the federal state finance programs which the counties also participate in California.\nSo, you can have as wide a range in what benefits are received under general assistance as there are 58 counties.\nAs a matter of fact, I assume, and I\u2019m pretty sure of that, there are some gross inadequacies in this program, perhaps equal to $35 a month for a family of four on the average grant in Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2636.73, 2637.221, 2640.282, 2653.906, 2678.159, 2690.253, 2702.034], "stop_times": [2637.221, 2640.282, 2653.906, 2678.159, 2690.253, 2702.034, 2716.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.73}, "reply_to": "15558__1_051", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_053", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But, we\u2019re not-- there-- in this case, there\u2019s no issues about general assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2716.958], "stop_times": [2721.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.958}, "reply_to": "15558__1_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_054", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No.\nThere is, in the next case, it is common.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2721.055, 2721.446], "stop_times": [2721.446, 2722.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.055}, "reply_to": "15558__1_053", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_055", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Is it the amount of it or how one becomes eligible or how one becomes ineligible or anything else?\nThis case does not involve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2722.672, 2727.71], "stop_times": [2727.71, 2729.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.672}, "reply_to": "15558__1_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_056", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2729.154], "stop_times": [2729.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.154}, "reply_to": "15558__1_055", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_057", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Except the federal assisted categorical program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2729.816], "stop_times": [2732.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.816}, "reply_to": "15558__1_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15558__1_058", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, and I wanted to make that clear, Your Honor, because I believe that the New York case does involve general relief or home assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2732.173], "stop_times": [2740.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.173}, "reply_to": "15558__1_057", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_059", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "May I ask of you what position you take when a person has been put on the program to get the money, the relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2740.645], "stop_times": [2751.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.645}, "reply_to": "15558__1_058", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_060", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2751.549], "stop_times": [2751.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.549}, "reply_to": "15558__1_059", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_061", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The state wants to terminate it.\nCan it terminate it without a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2751.78, 2754.329], "stop_times": [2754.329, 2756.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.78}, "reply_to": "15558__1_060", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_062", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Your Honor, we submit that we do give a hearing, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2756.912], "stop_times": [2759.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.912}, "reply_to": "15558__1_061", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_063", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "You what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2759.681], "stop_times": [2760.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.681}, "reply_to": "15558__1_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_064", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "We do, this pre-withholding procedure and hearing satisfies due process under the circumstances of the case.\nThis-- we conceded that there was statutory entitlement to aid as long as there was eligibility, but if there is substantial evidence on ineligibility, then the procedure that I have outlined to you satisfies due process under these circumstances, and then followed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2760.353, 2769.124], "stop_times": [2769.124, 2789.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.353}, "reply_to": "15558__1_063", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_065", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, do you mean satisfy the requirement for notice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2789.781], "stop_times": [2793.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.781}, "reply_to": "15558__1_064", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__1_066", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Notice and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2793.355], "stop_times": [2794.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.355}, "reply_to": "15558__1_065", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_067", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2794.414], "stop_times": [2795.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.414}, "reply_to": "15558__1_066", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__1_068", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "And a hearing or a conference says-- as it is termed.\nEven a fair hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2795.086, 2801.009], "stop_times": [2801.009, 2801.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.086}, "reply_to": "15558__1_067", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_069", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "There\u2019s no dispute that they are not entitled to it or as to the date in which they are trying to put into effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2801.451], "stop_times": [2808.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.451}, "reply_to": "15558__1_068", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15558__1_070", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Your Honor, when-- if I understand correctly, on following a fair hearing and the if the decision is in favor of the claimant, it is retroactive to the date of termination.\nThere is retroactive payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2808.244, 2820.015], "stop_times": [2820.015, 2822.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.244}, "reply_to": "15558__1_069", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_071", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mrs. Palmer, part of due process to have a hearing officer that has no interest whatsoever in the matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2822.556], "stop_times": [2831.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.556}, "reply_to": "15558__1_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_072", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It depends upon the circumstances, Your Honor.\nThere are cases that hold that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2831.103, 2834.478], "stop_times": [2834.478, 2835.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.103}, "reply_to": "15558__1_071", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_073", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, is it your idea of due process that the person making the charges should arbitrate it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2835.827], "stop_times": [2842.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.827}, "reply_to": "15558__1_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_074", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "California Supreme Court has held in Griggs against Board of Education that one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2842.664], "stop_times": [2851.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.664}, "reply_to": "15558__1_073", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_075", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I have great respect of the California Supreme Court, but I still don\u2019t believe the California Supreme Court has ever said that the person making the charge has the right to judge it.\nIf they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2851.493, 2862.948], "stop_times": [2862.948, 2863.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.493}, "reply_to": "15558__1_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_076", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It isn\u2019t--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2863.587], "stop_times": [2863.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.587}, "reply_to": "15558__1_075", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_077", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I\u2019d like to hear that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2863.649], "stop_times": [2864.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2863.649}, "reply_to": "15558__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_078", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I beg your pardon, Your Honor, it isn\u2019t a charge.\nIt\u2019s questioned eligibility and it\u2019s an exploratory and, I contend, a non-adversary proceeding to determine, is there eligibility or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2864.463, 2867.919], "stop_times": [2867.919, 2880.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2864.463}, "reply_to": "15558__1_077", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_079", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Well, what do you say to Mr. Sitkin\u2019s point that it\u2019s a question of whether the person eats or not?\nThat\u2019s our understanding of what his point is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2880.551, 2886.499], "stop_times": [2886.499, 2888.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.551}, "reply_to": "15558__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_080", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Your Honor, I can\u2019t defend the welfare system, and I don\u2019t think anyone can.\nIt is indefensible.\nNo one is happy with it.\nCertainly, the poor are not happy with it and the taxpayer is less happy than because of the enormous amount of money that goes into it.\nI\u2019m not defending the system.\nI\u2019m merely saying that the procedure that California has adopted does satisfy, at this stage of the proceedings, due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2888.441, 2893.003, 2894.442, 2896.279, 2906.033, 2908.08], "stop_times": [2893.003, 2894.442, 2896.279, 2906.033, 2908.08, 2918.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.441}, "reply_to": "15558__1_079", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_081", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mrs. Palmer, does the federal law permit a state to terminate benefits pending a full trial type hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2918.895], "stop_times": [2932.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.895}, "reply_to": "15558__1_080", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_082", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, they do.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2932.042, 2934.077], "stop_times": [2934.077, 2934.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.042}, "reply_to": "15558__1_081", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_083", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Although the federal law requires a fair hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2934.165], "stop_times": [2937.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.165}, "reply_to": "15558__1_082", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_084", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That requires a fair hearing and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2937.148], "stop_times": [2938.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.148}, "reply_to": "15558__1_083", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_085", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It\u2019s enough to satisfy the federal law if you grant the fair hearing after the determination of benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2938.959], "stop_times": [2945.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.959}, "reply_to": "15558__1_084", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_086", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2945.428], "stop_times": [2946.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.428}, "reply_to": "15558__1_085", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_087", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But, at the same time, I suppose the federal law would continue to support the state program if the state didn\u2019t terminate pending the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2946.7], "stop_times": [2959.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.7}, "reply_to": "15558__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_088", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is true, Your Honor.\nThe option is there for the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2959.274, 2960.838], "stop_times": [2960.838, 2963.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.274}, "reply_to": "15558__1_087", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_089", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "If California wanted to, after the informal conference where termination was decided on, if California wanted to continue benefits pending a full trial type hearing, the federal government would contribute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2963.353], "stop_times": [2980.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.353}, "reply_to": "15558__1_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_090", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2980.732], "stop_times": [2982.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.732}, "reply_to": "15558__1_089", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_091", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But, also, if California doesn\u2019t want to do that, which it doesn\u2019t, the federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2982.056], "stop_times": [2987.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.056}, "reply_to": "15558__1_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_092", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is the auction of the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2987.035], "stop_times": [2989.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.035}, "reply_to": "15558__1_091", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_093", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "So, under the federal statute, the federal authorities construe the fair hearing provision, I take it, to be satisfied by California system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [2989.912], "stop_times": [3000.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.912}, "reply_to": "15558__1_092", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15558__1_094", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, that is correct, Your Honor, and the brief of the Solicitor General confirms that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3000.732], "stop_times": [3009.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.732}, "reply_to": "15558__1_093", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_095", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mrs. Palmer, as I understand it, the state\u2019s position is that what is now provided before actual termination satisfies due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3009.44], "stop_times": [3025.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.44}, "reply_to": "15558__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_096", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3025.534], "stop_times": [3026.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.534}, "reply_to": "15558__1_095", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_097", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "And do I understand that inquisit in that is a concession that, constitutionally, something in the way of due process must be afforded before there may be a termination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3026.893], "stop_times": [3043.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.893}, "reply_to": "15558__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_098", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That- yes, Your Honor.\nThat was admitted at the very early stages, and that is why the appellee promulgated these regulations to strengthen the procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3043.088, 3047.763], "stop_times": [3047.763, 3059.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.088}, "reply_to": "15558__1_097", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_099", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That being so, I gather the issue for us, if that concession states constitutionally the requirement is simply whether what you do provide does satisfy the constitutional conflict--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3059.181], "stop_times": [3074.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.181}, "reply_to": "15558__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15558__1_100", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "That is the conflict.\nIt\u2019s really, do we satisfy due process with the procedure we have?\nAnd, may I point out to the Court that, in many instances, Court judgments are based on just affidavits.\nThat, preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, arrest warrants, and so on are just affidavits and this is more than just affidavits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3074.733, 3076.875, 3083.411, 3096.059], "stop_times": [3076.875, 3083.411, 3096.059, 3108.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.733}, "reply_to": "15558__1_099", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_101", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Mrs. Palmer, I draw that if the recipient says \u201cI need more than these three days to get these affidavits,\u201d they would give them that extra time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3108.761], "stop_times": [3118.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.761}, "reply_to": "15558__1_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_102", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I can\u2019t answer that, Your Honor. I\u2019m sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3118.64], "stop_times": [3121.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.64}, "reply_to": "15558__1_101", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_103", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "I imagine it would vary, wouldn\u2019t it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3121.134], "stop_times": [3122.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.134}, "reply_to": "15558__1_102", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_104", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "It would vary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3122.422], "stop_times": [3123.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3122.422}, "reply_to": "15558__1_103", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_105", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "But there\u2019s nothing in the matter before us that says it has its way on it.\nThere\u2019s nothing in this record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3123.429, 3127.624], "stop_times": [3127.624, 3129.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.429}, "reply_to": "15558__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15558__1_106", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No, there\u2019s nothing in the record about it, and I was interested in counsel stating that the only time they want the full fair hearing prior to termination is when there are \u201cfactual conflicts,\u201d I believe was the statement.\nThat isn\u2019t the prior that was asked for.\nThe prior asked for the full fair hearing whenever a county is contemplating suspending, terminating of ai-- or withholding of aid.\nThis was the position that counsel took at the public hearing on the regulation.\nThis was our understanding of counsel\u2019s position.\nI am surprised that that, apparently, is not their position before this Court.\nIn California, one can file for a fair hearing within any-- within one year.\nHowever, Under the Macola order, and you have heard about the Macola order which was a somewhat unusual order, which ordered when the preorder hearing conference to be held, just as I\u2019ve outlined to you.\nThat if the Court-- if the department was satisfied that aid should be terminated, there was-- the recipient was so advised.\nThen if the recipient requested a fair hearing accompanied by an affidavit which specifically negated the reasons given by the county for ineligibility, then aid must be resumed pending the fair hearing.\nIn the briefs, it\u2019s pointed out that this has not been used very much that-- or not that it has not been used, but it hasn\u2019t crossed state very much, and I contend it\u2019s because it hasn\u2019t been used very much.\nThere were only three restorations of aid from Los Angeles County where there are over half-a-million welfare cases.\nSo, whether this is being one of the most, well-kept secrets, I don\u2019t know, but at least it has not been used.\nIt\u2019s a cumbersome procedure.\nIt\u2019s one that takes quite a bit of county time but, regardless of that, it\u2019s-- it hasn\u2019t created much of a stir.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3129.118, 3150.375, 3153.193, 3164.588, 3172.901, 3176.964, 3184.924, 3193.861, 3211.081, 3219.726, 3242.132, 3252.693, 3258.62, 3266.006, 3268.017, 3301.439], "stop_times": [3150.375, 3153.193, 3164.588, 3172.901, 3176.964, 3184.924, 3193.861, 3211.081, 3219.726, 3242.132, 3252.693, 3258.62, 3266.006, 3268.017, 3301.439, 3302.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.118}, "reply_to": "15558__1_105", "speaker": "elizabeth_palmer"}
{"id": "15558__1_107", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "Thank you, Mrs. Palmer.\nThe case is-- does Mr. Sitkin have any time left?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3302.019, 3305.791], "stop_times": [3305.791, 3309.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.019}, "reply_to": "15558__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15558__2_000", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3309.432], "stop_times": [3310.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3309.432}, "reply_to": "15558__1_107", "speaker": "peter_e_sitkin"}
{"id": "15558__2_001", "conversation_id": "15558", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_14", "start_times": [3310.684], "stop_times": [3312.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.684}, "reply_to": "15558__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_000", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "We'll hear arguments in Number 927, Williams against the State of Florida.\nMr. Kanner you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [0.0, 27.665], "stop_times": [27.665, 30.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_001", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Thank you Mr. Chief Justice, and may I please the Court.\nKnown as this case involves the validity of the Florida procedural requiring the defendant in a criminal case to on proper notice to give the prosecuting attorney the names and addresses of any alibi witnesses which the defendant might use.\nYour Honors, the case also involves the validity of Florida six-men criminal trial jury.\nThe facts are not in the list of dispute, they are reflected both in my brief and in the state's brief without any dispute.\nI will not dwell on them here other than to note the state apparently acknowledges that the questions were properly raised and preserved below and that the state apparently acknowledges now that to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments applied to the state.\nYour Honors, I will discuss the interpretation of the terms witness, compulsion and against himself in discussing the Fifth Amendment right.\nAnd I will also discuss reasons why Your Honors in my opinion the number 12 is fundamental to the jury system in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [30.363, 34.36, 53.242, 59.756, 67.24, 84.138, 99.005], "stop_times": [34.36, 53.242, 59.756, 67.24, 84.138, 99.005, 108.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 30.363}, "reply_to": "15064__0_000", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_002", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "In the State of Florida, does the statute require the prosecution to furnish this to its witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [108.289], "stop_times": [115.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.289}, "reply_to": "15064__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_003", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor we have a procedural rule which is the same affect as a statute which when I offer to disclose all of my witnesses, the state is then required to disclose all of their witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [115.255], "stop_times": [131.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.255}, "reply_to": "15064__0_002", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_004", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "It's conditional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [131.16], "stop_times": [132.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.16}, "reply_to": "15064__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_005", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "It is conditionally Your Honor on that I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [132.762], "stop_times": [135.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.762}, "reply_to": "15064__0_004", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_006", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "On defense counsel has been making that offer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [135.339], "stop_times": [137.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.339}, "reply_to": "15064__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_007", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir Your Honor.\nWe have another statute that is not conditional Your Honor that the state without any conditional on my part must disclose the name of their witness upon whom the information is based as distinguished from their witnesses on the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [137.53, 138.779], "stop_times": [138.779, 153.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.53}, "reply_to": "15064__0_006", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_008", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That would be the chief prosecuting witness, if he were the victim of the offense presumably?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [153.098], "stop_times": [157.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.098}, "reply_to": "15064__0_007", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_009", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Presumably yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [157.9], "stop_times": [160.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 157.9}, "reply_to": "15064__0_008", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_010", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But you proceed only by information and the Florida not by indictment at all?M", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [160.471], "stop_times": [165.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 160.471}, "reply_to": "15064__0_009", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_011", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, the statutes in Florida provide for indictment on capital cases.\nOn non capital cases Your Honor the prosecuting officials have the right to proceed by either information or at least has been in my experience in solitary cases, even in misdemeanors sometimes that they are proceeded on by indictment but this is strictly up to the prosecuting authorities.\nYour Honors, the Fifth Amendment is historically simple.\nNo person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.\nYour Honors, whatever this prohibition means and I'm going to get to this in a minute.\nThis prohibition Your Honor is utterly and completely without qualification or exemption, absolutely.\nThis prohibition, the Fifth Amendment is absolutely, positively never ever, ever subject to competing public interest regardless of how vast this public interest might take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [165.82, 170.858, 189.124, 192.021, 195.866, 201.586, 209.561], "stop_times": [170.858, 189.124, 192.021, 195.866, 201.586, 209.561, 219.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.82}, "reply_to": "15064__0_010", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_012", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Are you talking about it now on the context to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [219.668], "stop_times": [222.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.668}, "reply_to": "15064__0_011", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_013", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Alibi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [222.772], "stop_times": [224.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 222.772}, "reply_to": "15064__0_012", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_014", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, I am speaking of the defendant himself when you say it's absolute and subject to no qualifications, do you mean that no one can make him take the stand under oath and testify or not under oath and testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [224.174], "stop_times": [239.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.174}, "reply_to": "15064__0_013", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_015", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I mean Mr. Chief Justice, the Fifth Amendment says this, the cases of this Court I think of which I've cited in my brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [239.718], "stop_times": [248.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.718}, "reply_to": "15064__0_014", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_016", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I was wondering what scope you were giving it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [248.867], "stop_times": [251.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.867}, "reply_to": "15064__0_015", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_017", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Only the scope that this Court has given it Your Honor because the state has argued in its brief that the reason for the alibi rule is to combat perjury.\nThe reason for the alibi ruling Your Honors is in a quest for the search for truth.\nIn arguendo Your Honors, I concede all of this absolutely for the sake of this argument.\nI would also concede Your Honors if they would ask and without being utterly facetious about it that the alibi rule would stop pollution and stop the war and anything else because Your Honors, I think not subject to reasonable question that whatever comes within the scope of the Fifth Amendment it is not subject to competing state interest.\nThe state has not been able to show a solitary case which came within the Fifth Amendment that this Court or any other Court has said or at least that this Court has said, well even though this comes within the Fifth Amendment, the rights of the state in this context are so great that we are not going to bring it out of the Fifth Amendment.\nYour Honors, I suggested in my brief or at least cited in my brief an early case Boyd versus United States which had to do with the forfeiture of goods but in the -- and Boyd, this Court quoted from an English trespass case and there the English justice noted that trespass in a single nature is just absolute.\nAnd I suggest that at least whatever the Fifth Amendment says it's true here, that as the English case said.\nIf you're going to have an invasion of this privilege, you have got to go back to the common law principles and find some justification for it and that the silence of the books according to the English justice is authority against the invasion.\nThe state is not been able to cite a solitary case of this Court or any case in principle in history which would sanction the use of an alibi witness.\nThe fact I note parenthetically that the alibi witness rule has been proposed twice in the federal rules and rejected but I don't think that that is determinative of all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [251.458, 261.654, 267.104, 272.563, 296.588, 318.237, 346.734, 356.755, 371.462, 387.587], "stop_times": [261.654, 267.104, 272.563, 296.588, 318.237, 346.734, 356.755, 371.462, 387.587, 397.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.458}, "reply_to": "15064__0_016", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_018", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, isn't it rather incumbent upon you to show us why this is constitutionally invalid, here is a statute or rule of law that state of Florida would use it quite rightly if it does violate the Fifth Amendment to the constitution, even if we might think it does a good or wise rule if it violates the constitution that violates the constitution, but that as I understand your argument is what you told us so far now isn't it incumbent upon you to tell us why it violates the constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [397.359], "stop_times": [430.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.359}, "reply_to": "15064__0_017", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_019", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes your honor I'm going to discuss --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [430.183], "stop_times": [431.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.183}, "reply_to": "15064__0_018", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_020", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Not up to Florida to find cases, it's rather up to you to find the precedence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [431.938], "stop_times": [437.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.938}, "reply_to": "15064__0_019", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_021", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I agree, I believe I've cited them in my brief but I'm going to discuss now the interpretation of these words in the Fifth Amendment compelled to be a witness against yourself and let's see what these words mean.\nLet's take the first one which I think is easiest and that is witness.\nI believe Your Honor is that the state concedes that this alibi and notice rules falls within the term 'witness' and I think they correctly concede that.\nWhile they cite in their brief some of the physical test cases Schmerber versus California the blood alcohol test, I believe there they might not cite the finger print test cases.\nAll going outside the Fifth Amendment privilege and properly so, is I understand the rationale of those cases.\nThe Court said the that the Fifth Amendment is related solely to communications and that the physical test not being communications or not being documents or not within Fifth Amendment and I only suggest to the Court that this rationale should not be expanded today because since the state apparently concedes that the notice of alibi rule is within the purview or the category of witness, let's leave it at that.\nI know that one case that I cited in my brief Albertson versus Subversive Activities Control Board which was the case which this Court said the communist need not register.\nNow, this is the same thing, the mere fact that it's a document, a pleading prior to trial by counsel should not take this Court out of the term or this case rather out of the term of witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [437.615, 450.892, 454.943, 466.078, 479.197, 490.844, 522.974, 537.507], "stop_times": [450.892, 454.943, 466.078, 479.197, 490.844, 522.974, 537.507, 550.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.615}, "reply_to": "15064__0_020", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_022", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "The communist case of course turned to a large extent on the fact that there was incriminatory aspect to the registration, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [550.285], "stop_times": [563.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.285}, "reply_to": "15064__0_021", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_023", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir that's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [563.677], "stop_times": [564.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.677}, "reply_to": "15064__0_022", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_024", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "What you see is the incriminatory aspect of furnishing the names of witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [564.373], "stop_times": [570.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.373}, "reply_to": "15064__0_023", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_025", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, the Fifth Amendment doesn't say incriminatory Your Honor.\nThe Fifth Amendment says no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [570.425, 576.27], "stop_times": [576.27, 581.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.425}, "reply_to": "15064__0_024", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_026", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, doesn't against himself imply the same thing that might could be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [581.21], "stop_times": [586.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.21}, "reply_to": "15064__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_027", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor this is position that the state takes.\nThe state says this, that the alibi notice rule is not incriminating but its exonerating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [586.188, 587.988], "stop_times": [587.988, 596.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.188}, "reply_to": "15064__0_026", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_028", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You're going to bring the witness and to help you, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [596.076], "stop_times": [600.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.076}, "reply_to": "15064__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_029", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You're going to bring this witness into trial to help you anyway and the mere acceleration of the disclosure of notifying the state attorney is to when this witness is going to come in can only exonerate you.\nWell Your Honors as I reach the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [600.07, 615.702], "stop_times": [615.702, 616.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.07}, "reply_to": "15064__0_028", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_030", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Kanner, assume a case where the defendant never talks to anybody, police or anybody else and does not testify at the trial.\nHow do you get that under the Firth Amendment witness word?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [616.759, 633.111], "stop_times": [633.111, 637.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.759}, "reply_to": "15064__0_029", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_031", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [637.839], "stop_times": [638.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.839}, "reply_to": "15064__0_030", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_032", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He has never been a witness by this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [638.24], "stop_times": [642.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.24}, "reply_to": "15064__0_031", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_033", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "The state says this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [642.389], "stop_times": [643.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.389}, "reply_to": "15064__0_032", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_034", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He has never been a witness earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [643.823], "stop_times": [646.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.823}, "reply_to": "15064__0_033", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_035", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "The defendant is never going to witness, the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [646.54], "stop_times": [648.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.54}, "reply_to": "15064__0_034", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_036", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, that's the only one he can put the claim on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [648.578], "stop_times": [652.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.578}, "reply_to": "15064__0_035", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_037", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, the state says this in answer to your question Mr. Justice Marshall.\nThey say that should defendant give the name of my witnesses prior to trial to the prosecuting attorney is according to the procedural rule that no notice can be ever be given to the jury by way of opening or closing argument that here, the defendant supplied the state with the names of the alibi witnesses, where are those alibi witnesses?\nYour Honor, the defendant says or rather the state says that there can be no argument like that to the jury.\nThey have not cited any cases and I have not found the first case Your Honor which would support their contention that should I comply with the statute that this alibi witness will not become known to the jury.\nAnd I believe Your Honor that that is a context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [652.395, 656.391, 686.43, 693.267, 708.979], "stop_times": [656.391, 686.43, 693.267, 708.979, 711.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.395}, "reply_to": "15064__0_036", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_038", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, suppose he is there (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [711.835], "stop_times": [716.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.835}, "reply_to": "15064__0_037", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_039", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [716.665], "stop_times": [717.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.665}, "reply_to": "15064__0_038", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_040", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Once he is done in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [717.347], "stop_times": [719.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.347}, "reply_to": "15064__0_039", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_041", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No Your Honor, it was not done in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [719.686], "stop_times": [721.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.686}, "reply_to": "15064__0_040", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_042", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, how does the court (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [721.097], "stop_times": [725.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.097}, "reply_to": "15064__0_041", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_043", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "We only suggest this is what the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [725.484], "stop_times": [727.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.484}, "reply_to": "15064__0_042", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_044", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [727.642], "stop_times": [733.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.642}, "reply_to": "15064__0_043", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_045", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No Your Honor, I'm suggesting Mr. Justice Marshall that in answer to your question, if the defendant would not testify, how the alibi notice rule would be a witness.\nI'm only trying to suggest a possibility that the state in arguing opening and closing argument to the jury will announce to the jury that the defendant has an alibi.\nWe do not believe that this alibi is proper.\nThis the only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [733.132, 745.318, 760.694, 764.028], "stop_times": [745.318, 760.694, 764.028, 764.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.132}, "reply_to": "15064__0_044", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_046", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That assumes that a prosecutor will say it and that a judge will let him say it and that the state court rule have said it.\nThat's four assumptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [764.171, 771.382], "stop_times": [771.382, 774.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.171}, "reply_to": "15064__0_045", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_047", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "These assumptions made by the state in its brief Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [774.38], "stop_times": [777.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.38}, "reply_to": "15064__0_046", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_048", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, which side do you argue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [777.973], "stop_times": [779.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.973}, "reply_to": "15064__0_047", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__0_049", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I'm arguing my side Your Honor that the only possible way that the witness rule can apply is if the defendant does not testify as in the context that I have suggested.\nThat is the state apparently it concedes in its brief that the alibi notice rule comes within the purview of witness at least as I understand their brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [779.955, 795.266], "stop_times": [795.266, 803.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.955}, "reply_to": "15064__0_048", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_050", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, that doesn't bind us anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [803.776], "stop_times": [806.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.776}, "reply_to": "15064__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_051", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No Your Honor but I only suggest the -- regardless of whether their brief buying support, I only suggest that in the communist case and then Schmerber versus California, this Court held that witnesses mean anything communication and I feel that the alibi notice rule is a communication within the Fifth Amendment scope of a witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [806.238], "stop_times": [829.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.238}, "reply_to": "15064__0_050", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_052", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well this is what is requires the defendant to do as I understand it specify number of days before on trial to ten days is to give the prosecution, a list of people who are going to testify on behalf of the defendant and his behalf and then his favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [829.398], "stop_times": [848.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 829.398}, "reply_to": "15064__0_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_053", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Our only alibi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [848.394], "stop_times": [848.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.394}, "reply_to": "15064__0_052", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_054", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "In support of his alibi defense that's what I mean.\nHow does this -- I don't really -- certainly these people are going to be witnesses, the defendant says they're going to be witnesses, there's no question about, no problem about that but how does this requirement violate the defendant's right against or anybody else's right against self incrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [848.795, 852.665], "stop_times": [852.665, 869.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.795}, "reply_to": "15064__0_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_055", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [869.176], "stop_times": [869.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.176}, "reply_to": "15064__0_054", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_056", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Or constitutional right not to be a witness against him?\nIt's all to be a witness against himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [869.778, 872.819], "stop_times": [872.819, 872.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.778}, "reply_to": "15064__0_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_057", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor as I read the cases.\nI -- or at least I as counsel have the sole right of the determining when I am going to make this judgment as to what to put forth by alibi witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [872.855, 876.892], "stop_times": [876.892, 887.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.855}, "reply_to": "15064__0_056", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_058", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "What's that, perhaps that's true and that is true in many jurisdictions but what does that have to do with the self incrimination clause of the the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [887.054], "stop_times": [895.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.054}, "reply_to": "15064__0_057", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_059", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "As I read the cases that I've cited in my brief --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [895.441], "stop_times": [900.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.441}, "reply_to": "15064__0_058", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_060", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Schmerber doesn't decide that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [900.572], "stop_times": [902.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.572}, "reply_to": "15064__0_059", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_061", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No!\nSchmerber only says that, what is a witness, I didn't cite Schmerber, as I read the case --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [902.245, 902.544], "stop_times": [902.544, 909.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.245}, "reply_to": "15064__0_060", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_062", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I would suppose you would.\nYou make the suggestion earlier that Schmerber made the dichotomy between communicative and non communicative?\nI thought the dichotomy in Schmerber was testimonial and non testimonial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [909.061, 911.372, 917.835], "stop_times": [911.372, 917.835, 922.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.061}, "reply_to": "15064__0_061", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_063", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Those words may have been used Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [922.292], "stop_times": [924.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.292}, "reply_to": "15064__0_062", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_064", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "They were, aren't they?\nThat's rather different isn't it?\nThe test is not whether the violation of the memo to communicate something in advance, whether it's testimonial or non-testimonial, isn't it, as far as the privilege is concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [924.326, 925.712, 929.124], "stop_times": [925.712, 929.124, 942.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.326}, "reply_to": "15064__0_063", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_065", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, I have possibly used the term testimonial and communicative synonymously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [942.984], "stop_times": [949.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.984}, "reply_to": "15064__0_064", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_066", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "How does this disclosure become testimony in any term, how does it become giving evidence or becoming a witness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [949.353], "stop_times": [960.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.353}, "reply_to": "15064__0_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_067", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [960.87], "stop_times": [961.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.87}, "reply_to": "15064__0_066", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_068", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That's what you left me in the dark on so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [961.641], "stop_times": [965.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.641}, "reply_to": "15064__0_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_069", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, the test as I read the cases Your Honors is not whether the disclosure is incriminating.\nAs I read the cases Your Honor, the test is whether this evidence is going to be used or whether this information can be used by the state at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [965.109, 972.409], "stop_times": [972.409, 985.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.109}, "reply_to": "15064__0_068", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_070", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, I did not include in my question any incriminatory aspect.\nI just said, how is it giving evidence becoming a witness, how is it, how does it trespass the Fifth Amendment in its precise language?\nYou said you were depending on the precise language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [985.094, 989.45, 1000.164], "stop_times": [989.45, 1000.164, 1002.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.094}, "reply_to": "15064__0_069", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_071", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1002.415], "stop_times": [1003.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.415}, "reply_to": "15064__0_070", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_072", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Now how does it trespass that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1003.43], "stop_times": [1007.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.43}, "reply_to": "15064__0_071", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_073", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I feel that cases here bring the notice of alibi statute within the term witness.\nI feel that it brings the language -- the cases that I cited brings the notice of alibi rule within the language witness against himself because as I read particularly like Garrity versus New Jersey, Brown versus Walker that the defendant's absolute right to remain silent and the test of against himself at least as I read the cases is not whether it is incriminating.\nTrue that in most all instances or every instance that I'm aware of, the rational has been that the testimony of the communication was incriminating but I don't read the Fifth Amendment like that as you -- as I read the Fifth Amendment and as I read the cases without taking things out of context, the test of against himself is whether evidence from the defendant's own lips is to be used against him at his trial.\nGarrity versus New Jersey as I recollect was a case where some policeman testified at the civil service area and then this evidence was used in their trial.\nWell the record doesn't disclose Your Honor but theoretically these policeman would not have testified at the civil service hearing anything but what they thought would have exonerated.\nSo I don't feel Your Honors that the test of against himself is necessarily incriminating and it maybe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1007.618, 1013.194, 1045.271, 1078.451, 1089.083, 1099.313], "stop_times": [1013.194, 1045.271, 1078.451, 1089.083, 1099.313, 1108.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.618}, "reply_to": "15064__0_072", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_074", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But I gather for example finger prints that are taken before trial are used by the prosecution against the defendant at trial.\nThat's information they obtain for the purpose of using it against the defendant in that trial.\nYou would not claim that that in anyway violated privilege, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1108.244, 1118.239, 1123.472], "stop_times": [1118.239, 1123.472, 1128.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.244}, "reply_to": "15064__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15064__0_075", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Not in the list Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1128.374], "stop_times": [1130.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.374}, "reply_to": "15064__0_074", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_076", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Nor blood test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1130.742], "stop_times": [1131.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.742}, "reply_to": "15064__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15064__0_077", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Not in the list Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1131.668], "stop_times": [1133.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.668}, "reply_to": "15064__0_076", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_078", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "So you really have to hear to establish that in giving the notice on the name of the witness, this is testimonial in the sense that we do a distinction between testimonial and non-testimonial Schmerber and the other case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1133.521], "stop_times": [1148.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.521}, "reply_to": "15064__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15064__0_079", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1148.626], "stop_times": [1149.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.626}, "reply_to": "15064__0_078", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_080", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But the whole thing comes down to, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1149.959], "stop_times": [1153.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.959}, "reply_to": "15064__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15064__0_081", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, I believe that the state is conceded that it's testimonial.\nI think the state says though that is not compulsion and the reason that they say that it's not compulsion, I believe it was even the Chief Justice raised or maybe Justice Marshall raised the question that since this alibi witness is going to be used to trial anyway, there's no compulsion about it and my answer to this Your Honor is quite simply that I believe that I as counsel have got the absolute positive right to wait until the conclusion of the state's case before I want to make a decision is to whether I wish to put an alibi witness on.\nWe have without a doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1153.752, 1157.305, 1191.774], "stop_times": [1157.305, 1191.774, 1192.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.752}, "reply_to": "15064__0_080", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_082", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You don't have to put them on because you disclosed his name though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1192.537], "stop_times": [1197.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.537}, "reply_to": "15064__0_081", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_083", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your honor --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1197.264], "stop_times": [1198.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.264}, "reply_to": "15064__0_082", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_084", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your position is not impaired except on this hypothesis that you went around with, that it might be used in argument by the prosecutor but if Justice Marshall said that case isn't here today, how are you injured in this sense by disclosing the name when you come to the decision of whether you are going to put on witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1198.429], "stop_times": [1224.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.429}, "reply_to": "15064__0_083", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__0_085", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I don't believe that the Fifth Amendment requires that I be injured.\nI don't believe that the Fifth Amendment requires that I incriminate myself.\nI believe that the Fifth Amendment says that I cannot be compelled to be a witness against myself and I believe that your point is certainly the most difficult that I have to overcome that is what is the test of \u201cagainst himself.\u201d\nI believe that that is the strongest argument that the state has, that this is really not against himself.\nAnd the only answer that I have to this Your Honor is I feel that I have an absolute right to remain silent up until the very close of the state's case that there are factors that are going to be apparent only at trial even the composition of the jury that I'm going to base my decision on.\nThere may not be anything incriminating and I believe the analogy is reasonable if we uphold the alibi-notice-rule, the state can come back and say ask that question of the defendant by a procedural rule, are you going to testify?\nWell, I don't believe it would be any question about that as being invalid.\nI believe that we uphold the alibi notice rule.\nThe state can come back with a procedural rule, give me the names of your character witnesses if you're going to use them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1224.731, 1228.505, 1231.931, 1250.532, 1259.852, 1281.331, 1297.394, 1300.829, 1303.819], "stop_times": [1228.505, 1231.931, 1250.532, 1259.852, 1281.331, 1297.394, 1300.829, 1303.819, 1312.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.731}, "reply_to": "15064__0_084", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_086", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your argument goes so far as to say that it will be now criminal discovery of any kind against himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1312.021], "stop_times": [1320.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.021}, "reply_to": "15064__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15064__0_087", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Not quite Mr. Justice but almost.\nThe only criminal discovery that I would sanction and against the defendant is the notice of insanity and the reason that I would -- I believe that the notice of insanity rule is good.\nNotice of insanity is very similar to the alibi in Florida and I believe it's predominant through out the state.\nIf the defendant is going to rely on insanity, he advices the state a certain amount of days before trial with the names of his witnesses.\nBut there Your Honors, there is always a presumption of sanity and once you file a show that you are insane, this gives the state an additional burden of proof other than the facts that are in the information.\nWell of course the alibi-notice-rule does not.\nSo Mr. Justice, in answer to your question, the notice of insanity rule is the only criminal discovery that I as a trial attorney would allow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1320.644, 1323.497, 1336.477, 1342.357, 1350.38, 1369.531, 1372.215], "stop_times": [1323.497, 1336.477, 1342.357, 1350.38, 1369.531, 1372.215, 1384.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.644}, "reply_to": "15064__0_086", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_088", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, it's not what you might allow, it's which in your opinion the Fifth Amendment allows?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1384.377], "stop_times": [1389.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.377}, "reply_to": "15064__0_087", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_089", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir Your Honor, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1389.656], "stop_times": [1404.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.656}, "reply_to": "15064__0_088", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_090", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Suppose the defendant refused to give the name, what could he then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1404.98], "stop_times": [1411.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.98}, "reply_to": "15064__0_089", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__0_091", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, the statute provides that the alibi witness cannot testify, the defendant himself in Florida can testify at all times as also provision in the rule that the judge if the circumstance is warranted can excuse the defendant from the provisions of the alibi notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1411.426], "stop_times": [1434.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.426}, "reply_to": "15064__0_090", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_092", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You mean they would decline to the familiar relevant witness to testify in its favor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1434.018], "stop_times": [1440.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.018}, "reply_to": "15064__0_091", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__0_093", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, Your Honor we are getting into the Sixth Amendment right here which I noticed in my brief of Washington versus Texas and I'd like to only make this comment that I raised the point and I suggested in my brief Washington versus Texas which was a case which a defendant try to subpoena a co-defendant who was not on trial and the Texas procedure apparently was that the co-defendant could not testify.\nI am going to answer your question Your Honor.\nThis Court held that the Sixth Amendment right of compulsory attendance of witnesses was inapplicable to the states.\nYour Honor, I did not specifically raise the Sixth Amendment during trial but I have always relied on the Fourteenth Amendment and I suggest only that this Sixth Amendment right in the context Your Honors that I presented it here today is similar to our Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.\nIn answer to your question Mr. Justice, the law of the procedural rule in Florida is clear that should there not be notice given, the defendant or the witness rather is not a confident witness at trial unless the judge within the exercise of his own discretion --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1440.884, 1469.594, 1473.883, 1481.741, 1501.977], "stop_times": [1469.594, 1473.883, 1481.741, 1501.977, 1524.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.884}, "reply_to": "15064__0_092", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_094", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Which is happened in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1524.521], "stop_times": [1526.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.521}, "reply_to": "15064__0_093", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__0_095", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No Your Honor because I complied -- I received the notice of alibi form, I move for a protected order on the Fifth Amendment on grounds and also the Florida declaration rights ground and the Fourteenth Amendment and my motion for protective order was denied which is how this case got here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1526.375], "stop_times": [1550.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.375}, "reply_to": "15064__0_094", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_096", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "And then you went to trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1550.954], "stop_times": [1552.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.954}, "reply_to": "15064__0_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_097", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1552.5], "stop_times": [1552.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1552.5}, "reply_to": "15064__0_096", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_098", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "And you're convicted, did you present your alibi witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1552.832], "stop_times": [1555.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.832}, "reply_to": "15064__0_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_099", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1555.377], "stop_times": [1556.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.377}, "reply_to": "15064__0_098", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_100", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "And so how did hurt you even if it did violate the Fifth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1556.308], "stop_times": [1564.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.308}, "reply_to": "15064__0_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_101", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, we get down here to the -- I see here that my time is about running out, I'm going to answer your question Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1564.9], "stop_times": [1570.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.9}, "reply_to": "15064__0_100", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_102", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Oh you're done, sorry.\nYou go ahead and you would argue the jury point I would assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1570.04, 1571.035], "stop_times": [1571.035, 1574.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.04}, "reply_to": "15064__0_101", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_103", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, Your Honor and I want to take five to argue the jury point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1574.776], "stop_times": [1577.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.776}, "reply_to": "15064__0_102", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_104", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1577.45], "stop_times": [1578.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.45}, "reply_to": "15064__0_103", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_105", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honors my initial reaction on the jury point was that Florida being Spanish domain, our six-man jury came from that.\nIn the words of the vernacular Your Honor suggests isn't so.\nMy research that there are four states with less than 12 man juries, of the four Your Honor, only Utah has had a six-man jury from the inception.\nSouth Carolina in its 1776 constitutional and up to 1865 had 12 man juries.\nFlorida had -- Andrew Jackson's first order when he was territorial government said that all criminal cases shall be tried in accordance to the principles of the common law.\nLouisiana Your Honor, there's a specific federal statute when Louisiana was admitted to a territory that said all criminal cases there shall be a jury of 12.\nSo Your Honors, I feel that the number 12 whether it's good or bad regardless the number 12 Your Honors is sufficient and rather as fundamental to our jury system.\nYour Honors I only suggest --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1578.624, 1588.936, 1592.802, 1603.07, 1610.342, 1622.85, 1632.824, 1646.714], "stop_times": [1588.936, 1592.802, 1603.07, 1610.342, 1622.85, 1632.824, 1646.714, 1650.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1578.624}, "reply_to": "15064__0_104", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_106", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I wonder why that should be, why is it fundamental, you mean just because historically has always been 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1650.827], "stop_times": [1656.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.827}, "reply_to": "15064__0_105", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_107", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, Mr. Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1656.305], "stop_times": [1657.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1656.305}, "reply_to": "15064__0_106", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_108", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "We know why 12 is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1657.18], "stop_times": [1659.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.18}, "reply_to": "15064__0_107", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__0_109", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I did in -- during this period of time while this case was pending.\nI did a great deal of reading to try and answer your question but I have not been able to find anywhere Mr. Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1659.107, 1663.179], "stop_times": [1663.179, 1671.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.107}, "reply_to": "15064__0_108", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_110", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "What was the size the jury in the original hundreds when the jury system got started?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1671.962], "stop_times": [1675.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.962}, "reply_to": "15064__0_109", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__0_111", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honors as I read it, the jury was always 12 or more and that the reason, the 12 came out --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1675.421], "stop_times": [1683.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.421}, "reply_to": "15064__0_110", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_112", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I think sanctity -- this trial was 500, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1683.126], "stop_times": [1686.039], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.126}, "reply_to": "15064__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15064__0_113", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That at least to the common law Mr. Justice that at least 12 persons had to agree and if they couldn't get 12 persons to agree they -- throughout some of the juries and they brought in some more juries and held 12 could agree.\nI believe that at least historically is how I read it but I don't know the number of 12. Your Honor I only suggest here that the Bill of Rights were enacted not to protect the guilty or rather to protect the innocent but rather they were made by our founders to protect the innocent and that the reasons which dictated the Bill of Rights 200 years ago, that is that all Governments want to get rid of all trouble makers as quickly as possible is certainly is true today as it was way back then.\nAnd Your Honors the Bill or Rights being to protect the guilty and to shield the guilty from the powers of the state, I feel that it's incumbent on this Court to read them in the manner in which they were written.\nAnd then answer to one of the -- I guess -- one of the justices, there is no criminal discovery in a -- against to the defendant unless we're going to change the literal terms of the Fifth Amendment compelled to be a witness against himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1686.039, 1699.475, 1732.076, 1748.969], "stop_times": [1699.475, 1732.076, 1748.969, 1769.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.039}, "reply_to": "15064__0_112", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__0_114", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. McCrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1769.961, 1770.542], "stop_times": [1770.542, 1772.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.961}, "reply_to": "15064__0_113", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_000", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "May it please the Court.\nThe respondent would like to respectfully address itself to the issues as they have been raised in our brief.\nThe first issue being, do the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment privileges against self incrimination violated by requirement that a defendant disclosed ten days prior to trial, his intent to rely on alibi defenses.\nFirst, I would like to say that Florida's rule of notice of alibi as we were referring to it is fundamentally fair and it's not unconstitutional.\nThe rule is not designed in any way for a defendant to say anything against himself.\nThe rule is a rule of procedure.\nNow, the constitution, it do not think does not grant to a defendant the right to so have the kind of defense, so that the state cannot check the veracity of that defense and that's what he is suggesting here.\nAll that the constitution or all that we profit to the Court today is that upon a written demand by the prosecuting attorney and we want to straighten out a few of the concessions that we were supposed to have made that there must be a written demand by the prosecuting attorney first to a defendant asking whether or not he intends to rely on an alibi defense.\nIf he so does, then and only then is he required to give the names of the witnesses as are known to him who will testify for him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1772.068, 1773.668, 1778.932, 1795.718, 1804.129, 1810.484, 1812.799, 1827.307, 1853.212], "stop_times": [1773.668, 1778.932, 1795.718, 1804.129, 1810.484, 1812.799, 1827.307, 1853.212, 1862.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.068}, "reply_to": "15064__0_114", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_001", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Why does the state need that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1862.669], "stop_times": [1865.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.669}, "reply_to": "15064__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_002", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, I think it's necessary during a time when we are trying to modernize criminal law in its search for truth.\nAnd I don't think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1865.444, 1874.322], "stop_times": [1874.322, 1874.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.444}, "reply_to": "15064__1_001", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_003", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Search the truth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1874.766], "stop_times": [1875.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.766}, "reply_to": "15064__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_004", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1875.814], "stop_times": [1876.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.814}, "reply_to": "15064__1_003", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_005", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Or who's going to be a witness for the alibi?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1876.102], "stop_times": [1879.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.102}, "reply_to": "15064__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_006", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, I think it is because if Mr. Justice Black, I think it helps to avoid the popping up of phony alibis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1879.012], "stop_times": [1887.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.012}, "reply_to": "15064__1_005", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_007", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "How would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1887.777], "stop_times": [1889.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.777}, "reply_to": "15064__1_006", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_008", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "How would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1889.072], "stop_times": [1890.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.072}, "reply_to": "15064__1_007", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_009", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1890.013], "stop_times": [1890.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.013}, "reply_to": "15064__1_008", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_010", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Because if the state has an opportunity or the state knows of the witnesses that the defendant intends to use as an alibi and the alibi statute probably states that if alibi, the defendant was not at a particular place at a particular time, therefore he could not have permitted the crime.\nIt gives the state an opportunity then if nothing else to know a price or to dismiss the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1890.274, 1910.727], "stop_times": [1910.727, 1916.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.274}, "reply_to": "15064__1_009", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_011", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I presume it wouldn't be looking forward to Mr. 3200 to investigating the witness and the people around it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1916.902], "stop_times": [1926.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.902}, "reply_to": "15064__1_010", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_012", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I think that you are correct sir, I think that the state is looking to find out the truth of the matter whether or not a person did commit a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1926.965], "stop_times": [1936.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.965}, "reply_to": "15064__1_011", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_013", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Do you think the state has the right to talk to those witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1936.606], "stop_times": [1941.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.606}, "reply_to": "15064__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_014", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I think the state does have the right to talk to those witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1941.09], "stop_times": [1943.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.09}, "reply_to": "15064__1_013", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_015", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But you think it's unethical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1943.812], "stop_times": [1945.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.812}, "reply_to": "15064__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_016", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No sir, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1945.892], "stop_times": [1947.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.892}, "reply_to": "15064__1_015", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_017", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "For a lawyer to talk to the witness on the other side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1947.041], "stop_times": [1951.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.041}, "reply_to": "15064__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_018", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I don't think it's unethical Mr. Justice Marshall.\nI find that in the same rule that the state does provide that we are obligated to give to you the names of all of our witnesses and we are under continuing obligation to give to the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1951.601, 1954.45], "stop_times": [1954.45, 1966.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.601}, "reply_to": "15064__1_017", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_019", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, why would you say that a rule of the Florida that a defendant must 15 days before trial divulge the name and address of every witness he intends to use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1966.091], "stop_times": [1980.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.091}, "reply_to": "15064__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_020", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor this is not the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1980.845], "stop_times": [1982.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.845}, "reply_to": "15064__1_019", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_021", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I agree but would that rule be alright when you get more truth, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1982.394], "stop_times": [1991.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.394}, "reply_to": "15064__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_022", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You may get more truth Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1991.254], "stop_times": [1992.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.254}, "reply_to": "15064__1_021", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_023", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But you wouldn't call us --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1992.95], "stop_times": [1994.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.95}, "reply_to": "15064__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_024", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I will not advocate that rule to the Court today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1994.803], "stop_times": [1997.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.803}, "reply_to": "15064__1_023", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_025", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But you don't think it will stand up either, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [1997.327], "stop_times": [2000.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.327}, "reply_to": "15064__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_026", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I am not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2000.909], "stop_times": [2001.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.909}, "reply_to": "15064__1_025", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_027", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You prefer to stick with the Alabama.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2001.859], "stop_times": [2003.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.859}, "reply_to": "15064__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_028", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2003.946], "stop_times": [2007.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.946}, "reply_to": "15064__1_027", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_029", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I suppose your position would be then that the Florida constitutionally could have a statute which simply says that the accused shall ten days before the trial provide the prosecutor with the names and addresses of all the witnesses he expects to call in his defense, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2007.126], "stop_times": [2027.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.126}, "reply_to": "15064__1_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_030", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You Honor, I don't want to go that far over on the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2027.649], "stop_times": [2031.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.649}, "reply_to": "15064__1_029", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_031", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Why not, what's your theory that why can't you do it here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2031.244], "stop_times": [2034.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.244}, "reply_to": "15064__1_030", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_032", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I think we can do it here because we -- it's an attempt to modernize and it's reciprocal kind of discovery.\nI see nothing unconstitutional about it, there is no abridgement of his right to remain silent.\nIt is not testimonial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2034.908, 2041.864, 2046.955], "stop_times": [2041.864, 2046.955, 2048.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.908}, "reply_to": "15064__1_031", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_033", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Then your answer is that constitutionally the state could go that far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2048.077], "stop_times": [2051.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.077}, "reply_to": "15064__1_032", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_034", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir but it just -- this does not abridge his right as he maintains under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent.\nWhen we look at the rule, the rule is, it is absolutely reasonable and constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2051.726, 2059.466], "stop_times": [2059.466, 2064.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.726}, "reply_to": "15064__1_033", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_035", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "To remain silent about what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2064.509], "stop_times": [2068.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.509}, "reply_to": "15064__1_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_036", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He is not required in anyway to say anything that will incriminate himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2068.541], "stop_times": [2071.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.541}, "reply_to": "15064__1_035", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_037", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "About what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2071.911], "stop_times": [2073.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.911}, "reply_to": "15064__1_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_038", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "About the crime or the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2073.163], "stop_times": [2074.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.163}, "reply_to": "15064__1_037", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_039", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "About the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2074.609], "stop_times": [2076.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.609}, "reply_to": "15064__1_038", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_040", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "About the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2076.402], "stop_times": [2078.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.402}, "reply_to": "15064__1_039", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_041", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "They are the witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2078.042], "stop_times": [2080.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.042}, "reply_to": "15064__1_040", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_042", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, I don't think that talking about the witnesses Your Honor has anything to do with incriminating him or it's not testimonial to the extent that the Fifth Amendment would cover that situation.\nI think that all he is doing at this point is tendering a name, the names of witnesses that he is going to use for one instance, alibi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2080.467, 2093.246], "stop_times": [2093.246, 2100.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.467}, "reply_to": "15064__1_041", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_043", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But they wouldn't give them the right to remain silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2100.692], "stop_times": [2104.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.692}, "reply_to": "15064__1_042", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_044", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He has that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2104.089], "stop_times": [2105.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.089}, "reply_to": "15064__1_043", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_045", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "The state -- no he could remain silent as the state can go and say, now what witnesses you're going to bring in here to prove you are not guilty and they could force him to do it.\nHe doesn't have a right to remain silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2105.211, 2115.584], "stop_times": [2115.584, 2118.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.211}, "reply_to": "15064__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_046", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor he has the right to remain silent as I understand.\nThis Court's decision in Malloy versus Hogan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2118.678, 2122.256], "stop_times": [2122.256, 2124.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.678}, "reply_to": "15064__1_045", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_047", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "About what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2124.498], "stop_times": [2125.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.498}, "reply_to": "15064__1_046", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_048", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He has the unfettered right to remain silent about incrimination and what he gives to the state in terms of witnesses does not incriminate him.\nAnd what they are suggesting to us is that we ought to make criminal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2125.303, 2130.921], "stop_times": [2130.921, 2139.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.303}, "reply_to": "15064__1_047", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_049", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That weakens his hands of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2139.628], "stop_times": [2142.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.628}, "reply_to": "15064__1_048", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_050", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor it does not weaken his hands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2142.899], "stop_times": [2144.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.899}, "reply_to": "15064__1_049", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_051", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I would take, I take as a very valuable thing for a prosecutor to have in advance and they have been the alibi witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2144.981], "stop_times": [2152.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.981}, "reply_to": "15064__1_050", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_052", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, I think it is very valuable. Additionally, I think it's very valuable to a defendant to have the names of the witnesses that the state will use to rebut this testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2152.331], "stop_times": [2161.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.331}, "reply_to": "15064__1_051", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_053", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "They may be allowed but the constitution requires that's help it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2161.246], "stop_times": [2164.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.246}, "reply_to": "15064__1_052", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_054", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2164.452], "stop_times": [2165.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.452}, "reply_to": "15064__1_053", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_055", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I think maybe there are a lot of state law of our constitutions that do requires that the state give the names.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2165.082], "stop_times": [2170.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.082}, "reply_to": "15064__1_054", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_056", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2170.587], "stop_times": [2170.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.587}, "reply_to": "15064__1_055", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_057", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "In the Senate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2170.888], "stop_times": [2171.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.888}, "reply_to": "15064__1_056", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_058", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "State of Florida does too.\nI would suggest to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2171.019, 2173.215], "stop_times": [2173.215, 2173.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.019}, "reply_to": "15064__1_057", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_059", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But I presume that nothing in the constitutions says that state shall not be compelled to give any testimony on either side in advance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2173.86], "stop_times": [2187.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.86}, "reply_to": "15064__1_058", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_060", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I don't remember anything in the constitution saying that I -- as we discussed this I am reminded of Schneider versus Massachusetts where a former member this court Mr. Justice Cardoza said that while due process is due to the accuser it is also due to the accused and that's precisely what we are talking about.\nThat we are not abridging him of any right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2187.805, 2208.316], "stop_times": [2208.316, 2213.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.805}, "reply_to": "15064__1_059", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_061", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. McCrary, Mr. Kanner suggested that you concede on that -- this information though this and remain the witnesses it's testimonial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2213.265], "stop_times": [2224.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.265}, "reply_to": "15064__1_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_062", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No sir, the state of Florida does not concede that it's testimonial.\nWhat I think we are talking about here is that petitioner is probably trying to make criminal law like a poker game so that the person who has the biggest surprise at trial then should win and probably would in many instances.\nBut we had cases in this Court, and other inferior courts probably have suggested that the whole purpose of trials in both criminal and civil proceedings is the search for truth.\nNow, we are not suggesting in any way that this defendant should be required to get on the stand or not to get on the stand.\nWe are simply saying that if you intend to use alibi --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2224.244, 2230.075, 2246.876, 2259.817, 2267.901], "stop_times": [2230.075, 2246.876, 2259.817, 2267.901, 2271.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.244}, "reply_to": "15064__1_061", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_063", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Why don't you put him on the stand when you require that he give the names of the witnesses he intends to use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2271.382], "stop_times": [2278.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.382}, "reply_to": "15064__1_062", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_064", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, this would be a clear violation of all of the cases that this Court have decided, if we forced a man to testify and we are not suggesting that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2278.856], "stop_times": [2287.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.856}, "reply_to": "15064__1_063", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_065", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Won't this force him to testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2287.073], "stop_times": [2288.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.073}, "reply_to": "15064__1_064", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_066", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No sir it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2288.854], "stop_times": [2290.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.854}, "reply_to": "15064__1_065", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_067", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That he is maybe not something relevant to the actual commission of the crime and certainly does make him testify and give the names of the witnesses he intends to use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2290.207], "stop_times": [2301.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.207}, "reply_to": "15064__1_066", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_068", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I respectfully --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2301.779], "stop_times": [2303.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.779}, "reply_to": "15064__1_067", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_069", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I'm not saying it is good or bad, I'm just saying it does make him do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2303.872], "stop_times": [2309.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.872}, "reply_to": "15064__1_068", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_070", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I respectfully disagree with the Court, Mr. Justice Black with you on that position.\nIt does not in my opinion require him to testify because it is a matter of timing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2309.344, 2314.785], "stop_times": [2314.785, 2320.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.344}, "reply_to": "15064__1_069", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_071", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "What does it require him to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2320.901], "stop_times": [2322.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.901}, "reply_to": "15064__1_070", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_072", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "It simply requires him to disclose the names of the witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2322.462], "stop_times": [2325.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.462}, "reply_to": "15064__1_071", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_073", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That he intends to use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2325.923], "stop_times": [2327.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.923}, "reply_to": "15064__1_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_074", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "For alibi alone.\nThis is all --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2327.608, 2329.291], "stop_times": [2329.291, 2329.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.608}, "reply_to": "15064__1_073", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_075", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes but suppose you said everything, why wouldn't he think good about alibi, why couldn't he do it about everything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2329.395], "stop_times": [2335.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.395}, "reply_to": "15064__1_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_076", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Then I suppose they could do it about everything and I don't think I'm in a position to discuss the constitutionality of that principle on this occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2335.779], "stop_times": [2346.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.779}, "reply_to": "15064__1_075", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_077", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But the real problem I have with the graph is that do you agree that in that stage, Florida has no right to ask him and require him to answer anything other than his alibi witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2346.184], "stop_times": [2364.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.184}, "reply_to": "15064__1_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_078", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2364.082], "stop_times": [2365.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.082}, "reply_to": "15064__1_077", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_079", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Why the alibi would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2365.706], "stop_times": [2366.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.706}, "reply_to": "15064__1_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_080", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Under this rule Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2366.824], "stop_times": [2371.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.824}, "reply_to": "15064__1_079", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_081", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I thought under all the decisions of this court, he doesn't have to tell you anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2371.023], "stop_times": [2375.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.023}, "reply_to": "15064__1_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_082", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He does not have to give any information that would incriminate him and this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2375.574], "stop_times": [2379.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.574}, "reply_to": "15064__1_081", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_083", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He doesn't have to tell you anything either he not to give you his name.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2379.566], "stop_times": [2385.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.566}, "reply_to": "15064__1_082", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_084", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I would agree Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2385.092], "stop_times": [2385.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.092}, "reply_to": "15064__1_083", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_085", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He can stand absolutely silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2385.698], "stop_times": [2387.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.698}, "reply_to": "15064__1_084", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_086", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He can stand mute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2387.882], "stop_times": [2389.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2387.882}, "reply_to": "15064__1_085", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_087", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But on this one question he can't stand silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2389.367], "stop_times": [2393.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.367}, "reply_to": "15064__1_086", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_088", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, the rule -- if the rule does provide that he can stand silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2393.663], "stop_times": [2398.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.663}, "reply_to": "15064__1_087", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_089", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But he can't use an alibi?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2398.399], "stop_times": [2401.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.399}, "reply_to": "15064__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_090", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No the rule does not go that for us Mr. Kanner said.\nThe rule to answer Mr. Justice Black's question specifically provides that if he does not comply with the rule, the trial judge may exclude the testimony.\nIt does not say that he can not use that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2401.257, 2404.009, 2415.699], "stop_times": [2404.009, 2415.699, 2416.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.257}, "reply_to": "15064__1_089", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_091", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I guess there's another provision in the constitution says that the man shall be entitled to summon witnesses with no things that are relevant to testify on his behalf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2416.809], "stop_times": [2428.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.809}, "reply_to": "15064__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_092", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, I would quite agree, I think that the same Court that decided this case, the Third District Court of Appeal is mindful of this and we cited it at page 14 in our brief, (Inaudible) versus State of Florida and Wilson versus the State of Florida where the defendant did not comply with the notice of alibi rule and the Court still let those witnesses testify so that the rule is not an un-reasonable rule where we say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2428.056], "stop_times": [2454.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.056}, "reply_to": "15064__1_091", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_093", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well I know the next judge wouldn't do differently and make him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2454.322], "stop_times": [2458.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.322}, "reply_to": "15064__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_094", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, I have to assume from my position that judges are fair and that they are knowledgeable and reasonable that they will apply --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2458.224], "stop_times": [2465.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.224}, "reply_to": "15064__1_093", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_095", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But then you'll be saying then that a fair thing a judge would do would be not to the enforce the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2465.536], "stop_times": [2472.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.536}, "reply_to": "15064__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_096", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Oh!\nNo sir.\nI am certainly not saying that.\nI'm simply saying that the Florida cases have been decided on this rule.\nThe judge has allowed the alibi witness to testify even where the defendant in some instances did not comply with the request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2472.09, 2472.348, 2473.861, 2475.993, 2481.287], "stop_times": [2472.348, 2473.861, 2475.993, 2481.287, 2491.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.09}, "reply_to": "15064__1_095", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_097", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Why they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2491.902], "stop_times": [2494.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.902}, "reply_to": "15064__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_098", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He thought that it was the proper thing to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2494.143], "stop_times": [2498.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.143}, "reply_to": "15064__1_097", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_099", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That was violation of the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2498.89], "stop_times": [2501.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.89}, "reply_to": "15064__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_100", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No sir it's not a violation of the rule Your Honor because the rule provides that the judge may exclude the testimony, it does not say he cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2501.085], "stop_times": [2508.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.085}, "reply_to": "15064__1_099", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_101", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "He has the right to do it if we wants to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2508.775], "stop_times": [2510.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.775}, "reply_to": "15064__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_102", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2510.6], "stop_times": [2511.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.6}, "reply_to": "15064__1_101", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_103", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your friend seems to have conceded if I heard him correctly that it does not violate the constitution to require the defendant to give advance notice of the claim of insanity by way of defense.\nI take it defense there, insanity is an affirmative defense in Florida.\nNow, do you see any distinction between the advance notice which he concedes as constitutional and the advance notice on alibis which he argues is unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2511.936, 2529.871, 2535.775], "stop_times": [2529.871, 2535.775, 2548.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.936}, "reply_to": "15064__1_102", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_104", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I think that the -- they are both the same.\nThey are identical except for the defenses.\nNow, the names of the defenses, the purpose is the same.\nIf one is going to plead insanity, he should be required to give notice of that intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2548.936, 2552.005, 2555.484, 2559.892], "stop_times": [2552.005, 2555.484, 2559.892, 2566.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.936}, "reply_to": "15064__1_103", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_105", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Or that law should be provide that he's compelled to give the state the names of all witnesses that he claims witness to the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2566.644], "stop_times": [2582.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.644}, "reply_to": "15064__1_104", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_106", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, once again Mr. Justice Black I think this Court has decided that the defendant can remain absolutely mute and say nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2582.929], "stop_times": [2594.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2582.929}, "reply_to": "15064__1_105", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_107", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But he can remain absolutely mute, he has to give the name of the witnesses he's going to use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2594.284], "stop_times": [2598.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.284}, "reply_to": "15064__1_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_108", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, he could remain mute under the situation and we've had cases where it's been done.\nThey remained mute in 4325 versus the State of Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2598.794, 2604.372], "stop_times": [2604.372, 2607.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.794}, "reply_to": "15064__1_107", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_109", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "The state court might tell him that he can't afford to put on these witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2607.67], "stop_times": [2612.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.67}, "reply_to": "15064__1_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_110", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, -- once again I'm not in the position to say what those gentlemen would do.\nI don't know what the state court could do --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2612.275, 2617.486], "stop_times": [2617.486, 2618.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.275}, "reply_to": "15064__1_109", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_111", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But they could, can they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2618.714], "stop_times": [2618.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.714}, "reply_to": "15064__1_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_112", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I can only go based on the decision --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2618.999], "stop_times": [2620.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2618.999}, "reply_to": "15064__1_111", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_113", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "They can under the rule, can't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2620.736], "stop_times": [2623.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.736}, "reply_to": "15064__1_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_114", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, I assume that they could but I can only go by at this point of what they have done and I have to watch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2623.139], "stop_times": [2629.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.139}, "reply_to": "15064__1_113", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_115", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You mean they've always violated the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2629.661], "stop_times": [2632.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.661}, "reply_to": "15064__1_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_116", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No sir, I'm not saying that.\nI'm saying that the appellate court of Florida have -- when they've had appeals in situations like this, they have said it was not error for this person to testify and the trial judge properly let him testify under the provisions of the rule even though he didn't comply.\nAnd I think that I've been simply speculating to this Court, if I said that they would rule some other way and have to abide by the precedence that they've set down here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2632.036, 2633.495, 2652.214], "stop_times": [2633.495, 2652.214, 2661.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.036}, "reply_to": "15064__1_115", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_117", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You mean that we'd have to assume that they'll always -- he then have to give the name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2661.028], "stop_times": [2667.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.028}, "reply_to": "15064__1_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_118", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I think that I have to assume at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2667.965], "stop_times": [2671.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.965}, "reply_to": "15064__1_117", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_119", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That they'll always never enforce it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2671.903], "stop_times": [2677.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.903}, "reply_to": "15064__1_118", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_120", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I can't go that far and I think that simply back myself in the corner and never get out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2677.144], "stop_times": [2681.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.144}, "reply_to": "15064__1_119", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_121", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I should think in your argument that you would almost have to assume that if the names weren't, given the defendant couldn't use those witnesses on his behalf.\nThat's what the statute provides can happen and that's what the constitutional issue really is, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2681.639, 2689.77], "stop_times": [2689.77, 2695.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.639}, "reply_to": "15064__1_120", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_122", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2695.849], "stop_times": [2695.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.849}, "reply_to": "15064__1_121", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_123", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That might give us another case some other day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2695.972], "stop_times": [2698.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.972}, "reply_to": "15064__1_122", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_124", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2698.884], "stop_times": [2699.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.884}, "reply_to": "15064__1_123", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_125", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "That might give us another case on a different point some other day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2699.323], "stop_times": [2702.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.323}, "reply_to": "15064__1_124", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_126", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I did -- it very well may Your Honor but at this point I don't think that this is the question before this Court, I don't not understand it as being the question before this court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2702.203], "stop_times": [2711.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.203}, "reply_to": "15064__1_125", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_127", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Here the names were given and the witnesses were used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2711.499], "stop_times": [2715.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.499}, "reply_to": "15064__1_126", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_128", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Were used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2715.298], "stop_times": [2715.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.298}, "reply_to": "15064__1_127", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_129", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2715.698], "stop_times": [2716.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.698}, "reply_to": "15064__1_128", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_130", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir and if we talk about the trial strategy, there was nothing that prohibited the defendant from testifying in his own behalf if he wanted to at any time during the trial.\nWhat we are really talking about is a bit of timing.\nNow, he can determine at the close of the state's case whether he wants to put on alibi witnesses or he can determine 15 days before trial that he does not -- that he wants to put or does not want to put on alibi witnesses.\nNow, the way it harms and is absolutely (Inaudible) to me and there is not any violation anywhere of the Fifth Amendment here because he is not required to put on anybody on the stand.\nHe is not required to testify or not to testify in his own behalf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2716.528, 2731.944, 2735.652, 2750.438, 2764.688], "stop_times": [2731.944, 2735.652, 2750.438, 2764.688, 2771.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.528}, "reply_to": "15064__1_129", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_131", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, that's quite a different argument the one you've been making up today, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2771.143], "stop_times": [2777.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.143}, "reply_to": "15064__1_130", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_132", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "No, I don't think it's a different argument but Mr. Justice Black I think that I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2777.211], "stop_times": [2780.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.211}, "reply_to": "15064__1_131", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_133", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "It means to me to be entirely different say well even if that is rule, it wasn't broken and certainly he couldn't have been harmed by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2780.997], "stop_times": [2789.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.997}, "reply_to": "15064__1_132", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_134", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor what has happened here is that defendant did comply with the rule.\nHe complied with the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2789.592, 2794.755], "stop_times": [2794.755, 2796.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.592}, "reply_to": "15064__1_133", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_135", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Maybe it's not an issue in this case at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2796.58], "stop_times": [2800.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.58}, "reply_to": "15064__1_134", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_136", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "May not be.\nThe non-compliance is not a issue I submit to the Court.\nThe fact is that he did comply that he did as a matter of trial strategy decide to put on his alibi witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2800.968, 2802.611, 2806.538], "stop_times": [2802.611, 2806.538, 2813.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.968}, "reply_to": "15064__1_135", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_137", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Maybe he did it because he thought he'd have to under the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2813.902], "stop_times": [2817.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.902}, "reply_to": "15064__1_136", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__1_138", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I can't -- Mr. Justice Black I certainly cannot stand here and say that I can make up counsel's mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2817.1], "stop_times": [2826.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.1}, "reply_to": "15064__1_137", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_139", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You only have about three minutes left and we haven't got to the six-man jury question, so after lunch we'll hope you will address yourself to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2826.026], "stop_times": [2834.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.026}, "reply_to": "15064__1_138", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_140", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.\nI just like, well conclude a statement to the question given before the Court.\nThe first issue is that, certainly it's not incriminating, what might have happened is not before this Court and as suggested by Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart in the total effect over here, it was absolutely harmless to the defendant to have those witness to testify where he complied with the rule.\nThe second issue is raised in our brief is to the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and the Sixth Amendment entitle a state defendant to a trial of 12-men jury.\nFirst, I think to understand or towards to get to the core of this problem, we first must necessarily talk about the 12-men jury of a purpose of the jury trial as defined by this Court's decision in Duncan versus Louisiana.\nI think the majority opinion stated that the purpose of the jury and the Anglo-American system was protection against arbitrary power.\nThe jury of a pierce gave this kind of safeguard from overzealous prosecutor and overzealous federal and State Governments.\nSecondly, there have been decisions from this Court, says that the federal standard only requires that we adhere to the essentials of the common law jury.\nAnd to number the essentials, we think that the essentials are one, that a person's needs or should have the right to a jury trial in serious offenses.\nAnother essential of the jury system as we think the unanimous verdict as defined by this code in Patton versus United States and the only decisions tend to say Maxwell versus Dow and Thompson versus Utah suggest that 12 men is an essential of the jury system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2834.231, 2839.868, 2844.39, 2866.501, 2878.608, 2893.687, 2902.402, 2910.273, 2921.006, 2930.631], "stop_times": [2839.868, 2844.39, 2866.501, 2878.608, 2893.687, 2902.402, 2910.273, 2921.006, 2930.631, 2948.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.231}, "reply_to": "15064__1_139", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_141", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2948.833], "stop_times": [2950.985], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.833}, "reply_to": "15064__1_140", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15064__1_142", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir, that word suggest did not -- I didn't mean suggest, the Court said or held, but they were only applied then in terms of the federal standard.\nNow, we have to look at what are the essentials of the jury system.\n(Inaudible) we think that this is essential because of the possible confinement.\nUnanimous verdict and Florida complies with this but when we talk about the 12 men jury, there is nothing, there's no particular reason for having 12 men on a jury as opposed to six men.\nWe find that the common law or the reason that we have to have is merely a carry over of the common law at the time we adopted the constitution in 1789.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2950.985, 2963.683, 2968.841, 2974.565, 2988.617], "stop_times": [2963.683, 2968.841, 2974.565, 2988.617, 2996.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.985}, "reply_to": "15064__1_141", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_143", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "How about one man, excuse me?\nThere are some offenses in the six brothers and 12 jurors and so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [2996.889, 3002.138], "stop_times": [3002.138, 3005.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.889}, "reply_to": "15064__1_142", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_144", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, the State of Florida does provide for 12 men juries or 12 person juries, I might say in capital offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3005.156], "stop_times": [3013.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.156}, "reply_to": "15064__1_143", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_145", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Why the distinction or other offenses of six-man jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3013.642], "stop_times": [3016.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.642}, "reply_to": "15064__1_144", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_146", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I truthfully think that it is a vestigial remain of the common law, that's all and there's nothing more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3016.762], "stop_times": [3025.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.762}, "reply_to": "15064__1_145", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_147", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, even if it isn't to that or if it's that, it may also be just a matter of line drawing.\nThey might have drawn the line, the defense is over one year or defense is over two years or as some other states have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3025.494, 3030.067], "stop_times": [3030.067, 3036.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.494}, "reply_to": "15064__1_146", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_148", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor there is a line drawing in the 12 versus 6 in the State of Florida and the capital offenses -- these are the offenses at the time it was drawn and the present time carry with it a death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3036.517], "stop_times": [3049.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.517}, "reply_to": "15064__1_147", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_149", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "This petition, they got a life imprisonment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3049.074], "stop_times": [3051.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.074}, "reply_to": "15064__1_148", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_150", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3051.364], "stop_times": [3052.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.364}, "reply_to": "15064__1_149", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_151", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "So you get up the life before a six-man jury and if that's involved, it's a 12 man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3052.193], "stop_times": [3057.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.193}, "reply_to": "15064__1_150", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_152", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.\nI would like to point out to the Court of Florida does provide for 12 man jury in eminent domain cases as we've cited in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3057.843, 3059.078], "stop_times": [3059.078, 3065.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.843}, "reply_to": "15064__1_151", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_153", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Really?\nYou know of any place in the country where there are fewer than 12 persons on the jury in the capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3065.101, 3066.491], "stop_times": [3066.491, 3075.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.101}, "reply_to": "15064__1_152", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_154", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not familiar with any place where there is less than 12 on a capital offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3075.026], "stop_times": [3080.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.026}, "reply_to": "15064__1_153", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_155", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "But I suppose if your position is sustained, the states would be free to have fewer than 12 in capital cases like all other cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3080.385], "stop_times": [3088.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.385}, "reply_to": "15064__1_154", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_156", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I think there would be sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3088.807], "stop_times": [3090.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3088.807}, "reply_to": "15064__1_155", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_157", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Have as few as three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3090.122], "stop_times": [3094.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.122}, "reply_to": "15064__1_156", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15064__1_158", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor I don't know where we can draw the line in terms of the numbers gained and I think that this is what it is, it's a numbers game.\nI look at it to say a jury of peers which would suggest to me.\nSir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3094.692, 3103.657, 3109.222], "stop_times": [3103.657, 3109.222, 3109.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3094.692}, "reply_to": "15064__1_157", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_159", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You said a jury of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3109.56], "stop_times": [3111.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.56}, "reply_to": "15064__1_158", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_160", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "One should be tried by a jury of his peers which was suggested to me the plural of the word peers would mean more than one.\nHistorically we have seen and I think it's lost in history that sometimes people were tried by 500 as have been suggested today or down to as many as three.\nWhen this jury system was developing but there is no statistical data available that has been presented by the petitioner which suggests that a man tried by 12 is going to receive a fairer trial than a man who was tried by six.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3111.586, 3120.075, 3132.422], "stop_times": [3120.075, 3132.422, 3146.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3111.586}, "reply_to": "15064__1_159", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_161", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Isn't it true that if you have 12 jurors as compared to 6 you lose opportunity of six, one votes for hung jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3146.738], "stop_times": [3162.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.738}, "reply_to": "15064__1_160", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_162", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "You use that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3162.818], "stop_times": [3163.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3162.818}, "reply_to": "15064__1_161", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_163", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "If you have 12, you already had convinced one out of 12 to get a hung jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3163.026], "stop_times": [3168.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.026}, "reply_to": "15064__1_162", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_164", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3168.696], "stop_times": [3169.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.696}, "reply_to": "15064__1_163", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_165", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "And if you have six, you only six chances to find that one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3169.679], "stop_times": [3174.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.679}, "reply_to": "15064__1_164", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_166", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Mr. Justice Marshall you're absolutely correct but I think that we come back to a number's game and this Court is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3174.318], "stop_times": [3180.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.318}, "reply_to": "15064__1_165", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_167", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well it would be better to have 25 under my theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3180.651], "stop_times": [3183.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.651}, "reply_to": "15064__1_166", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15064__1_168", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, if we took to this to the logical conclusion, we ought to have the population of Washington sitting on one case.\nSo long as we provide, as this Court said in the jury system a buffer between overzealous prosecutors or overzealous state officials and we provide it by a fair and impartial manner, I think that this is all that's required and if we play the number's games I would suggest that we shouldn't use 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3183.354, 3190.601], "stop_times": [3190.601, 3212.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.354}, "reply_to": "15064__1_167", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_169", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, there any fewer than 12 man juries anywhere in the states when the constitution was adopted, was anyone trying criminal cases or a jury trial was required with any fewer than 12?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3212.087], "stop_times": [3228.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.087}, "reply_to": "15064__1_168", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15064__1_170", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, my research does not reveal that, it does reveal that Thompson versus Utah, before they were a state, I think this was about 1898 decided by this Court stated that Thompson wanted to be tried by eight people or some number less than 12 and the Court said -- that the State of Utah, not the state but the territory of Utah could not do this because they were on the federal jurisdiction.\nTo me, the dicta sort of indicated that had not, they had been on the federal jurisdiction that he would have been allowed, it would have been okay to try him by a people or by a number less than 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3228.15, 3256.756], "stop_times": [3256.756, 3268.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3228.15}, "reply_to": "15064__1_169", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_171", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "They use six now don't they or they did --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3268.331], "stop_times": [3271.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.331}, "reply_to": "15064__1_170", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_172", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor, I think the State of Utah use a six and I think that there are some 12 states at some trial proceedings throughout from the lowest court up to the highest trial court use less than six on one occasion or another, I mean less than 12 on one occasion or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3271.669], "stop_times": [3288.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.669}, "reply_to": "15064__1_171", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_173", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Well, in Utah it historically was a matter of the lack of man power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3288.986], "stop_times": [3294.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.986}, "reply_to": "15064__1_172", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__1_174", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor this historically, I think that Florida might have gotten this rule too.\nIn its legislative history --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3294.872, 3300.84], "stop_times": [3300.84, 3302.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.872}, "reply_to": "15064__1_173", "speaker": "jesse_j_mccrary_jr"}
{"id": "15064__1_175", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "When did it adopt six men jury law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3302.018], "stop_times": [3305.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.018}, "reply_to": "15064__1_174", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15064__2_000", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Sir, it first appears under constitution of 1875 by constitutional amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3305.219], "stop_times": [3313.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3305.219}, "reply_to": "15064__1_175", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__2_001", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "As a reconstruction which is statutory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3313.157], "stop_times": [3315.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.157}, "reply_to": "15064__2_000", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15064__2_002", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Yes sir.\nWe suggest that in our brief we put in our brief joined Mr. Justice Harlan's words that there's nothing significant about the number 12 that we've come to get this number based on the anti-establishment clause that its basic reference comes from the bible, 12 disciples to 12 stones to 12 tribes of Israel to 12 gates to Jerusalem, all and there's nothing significant about it.\nAnd that six people can provide what Mr. Justice White did say that we put to provide a buffer between Government and the people so that this kind of a pressure is not put on people by overzealous prosecutors or overzealous Government.\nThere have been some statistical study shown in Winchester Massachusetts District Court, the legislature authorized there six-men jury and the report said that it's been found the six member juries render the same kinds of verdicts that 12 member juries render or their render the same kind of lawyers would expect from 12-men juries.\nIt was also found true to be -- this to be true in the state of New Jersey.\nTo quote Mr. Justice Holmes in our position, he says that it is revolting that we have no better reason for keeping a rule than that rule was laid down in the time of Henry IV.\nHe says that it's more revolting as the grounds upon which it was laid down long vanished and the rule persist from the blind imitation of the past.\nWe think that the 12 men jury should not be required on the states, additionally we think that the numbers game is not essential to fulfilling the purpose that this Court pronounced in Duncan versus the United -- versus Louisiana and that the sole purpose of the jury is to protect the public and whether that number is six or 12, it is fulfilled and that there is nothing violative of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Sixth Amendment when you use six men on a jury trial.\nWe respectfully urge this court on both issues to affirm the District Court of Appeal and to hold particularly that a six men jury does not violate the constitution and the notice of alibi does not violate the Fifth Amendment nor the due process clause of the United State constitution.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3315.641, 3319.903, 3347.18, 3365.619, 3385.562, 3389.614, 3403.737, 3413.113, 3446.501, 3463.463], "stop_times": [3319.903, 3347.18, 3365.619, 3385.562, 3389.614, 3403.737, 3413.113, 3446.501, 3463.463, 3464.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3315.641}, "reply_to": "15064__2_001", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__2_003", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McCrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3464.3], "stop_times": [3465.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.3}, "reply_to": "15064__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15064__2_004", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "Your Honor unless the Court has any question, I have no further argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3465.926], "stop_times": [3471.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3465.926}, "reply_to": "15064__2_003", "speaker": "richard_kanner"}
{"id": "15064__2_005", "conversation_id": "15064", "text": "I guess not.\nThank you for you submission Mr. Kanner and Mr. McCrary.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_927", "start_times": [3471.793, 3472.449, 3476.056], "stop_times": [3472.449, 3476.056, 3478.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3471.793}, "reply_to": "15064__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_000", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The nest case on for argument is Number 1089, Williams against Illinois.\nMr. Bass, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [0.0, 36.482], "stop_times": [36.482, 39.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_001", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, May it please the Court.\nThis is an appeal from the Illinois Supreme Court presenting the question whether Illinois statutes which authorize a pauper\u2019s incarceration in excess of the maximum period prescribed by law, at the rate of $5.00 a day for payment of fine and Court costs.\nDespite the fact that the defendant is willing and able to pay them, if given the opportunity, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe facts which are undisputed are briefly as follows: the complaint was issued in June of 1967 against Willie Williams for the crime of theft of property not from the person, and not exceeding $150.00 in value.\nA warrant was issued and a $2000.00 bail was set.\nWilliams was arrested on August 13.\nThe case was brought before the Court the following day on August 14 at which at the time bail was set at $2000.00.\nWilliams was remanded to jail on motion of the state, the case was continued to August 16.\nOn August 16, the case was again continued on motion of the state to September 6.\nOn September 6, the trial commenced.\nThe defendant appeared in the Court said, there was no Court reporter present.\nThe record shows that the defendant waived his right to a jury trial.\nThe case was tried before the judge without a jury.\nFinding of guilty was made and the maximum of sentence of one year plus a $500.00 fine was imposed.\nThe $5.00 cost was also made part of the judgment.\nAnd the judgment further ordered that the defendant stand committed in jail, if he would default from the payment of the fine and cost.\nSometime afterward the defendant contacted the civil legal aid service in the jail and a petition was presented to the sentencing judge, November of 1967, which prayed that the portion of the sentencing order of September 6, which directed that the defendants stand committed in default of payment of the fine and cost be vacated.\nThat further prayed that the defendant be granted sufficient time and wish to obtain the funds and wish to pay the fine and cost and further asked for such other relief as maybe just inappropriate.\nThe petition was made under oath and contained some of the following allegations, that defendant was indigent, inmate of the county jail.\nHe had no funds, no valuable property.\nHe had been unable to post bail.\nHe lacked $200.00, wished to post the 10% under the Illinois law.\nHe was unable to hire an attorney and that he was then unable to pay the fine and cost.\nHe further recited that he had been in jail since August 13 and had been unable to earn funds since that time.\nAnd it further alleged that if the defendant were released from jail upon the expiration of the one-year jail sentence that he would be able to get a job and earn the funds to pay the fine and costs.\nThe state did not contravene the factual allegation but moved to dismiss.\nThe lower court dismissed the petition without evidentiary hearing and an appeal was taken to the Illinois Supreme Court.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court held that there is no denial of Equal Protection of the law, when an indigent defendant is imprisoned to satisfy payment of his fine.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court granted a stayed pending appeal, and for the stayed the mandate pending appeal to this Court.\nIt should be noted at the outset what is not challenged in this case.\nWe do not challenge the practice of incarcerating contumacious defendant who refuses to pay the fine nor do we attack the discretion of the sentencing judges who wish to make the punishment for the offender, nor do we attack defendant's obligation to pay that debt, nor do we attack --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [39.532, 42.95, 59.61, 68.197, 82.012, 85.607, 88.316, 96.351, 101.567, 106.944, 109.424, 112.909, 116.2, 119.301, 126.181, 129.818, 139.48, 162.112, 173.728, 182.378, 185.642, 188.503, 193.581, 201.15, 208.264, 221.475, 225.806, 233.27, 242.972, 250.395, 254.445], "stop_times": [42.95, 59.61, 68.197, 82.012, 85.607, 88.316, 96.351, 101.567, 106.944, 109.424, 112.909, 116.2, 119.301, 126.181, 129.818, 139.48, 162.112, 173.728, 182.378, 185.642, 188.503, 193.581, 201.15, 208.264, 221.475, 225.806, 233.27, 242.972, 250.395, 254.445, 273.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.532}, "reply_to": "15554__0_000", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_002", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What was the total sentence that resulted from the application of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [273.116], "stop_times": [279.884], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 273.116}, "reply_to": "15554__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__0_003", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The total sentence would be one year, plus 101 days, which would be the $505.00 at the rate of $5.00 a day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [279.884], "stop_times": [287.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 279.884}, "reply_to": "15554__0_002", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_004", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "A year and three months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [287.607], "stop_times": [289.153], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 287.607}, "reply_to": "15554__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__0_005", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "About a year and three months, yes.\nThat was diminished slightly by the good-time credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [289.153, 291.266], "stop_times": [291.266, 293.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.153}, "reply_to": "15554__0_004", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_006", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you mean that he suggested that defendant that in light of that and the facts which he shown that the record in this event was not represented by counsel (Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [293.811], "stop_times": [311.142], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 293.811}, "reply_to": "15554__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__0_007", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's a possible question.\nWe did not urge the right to counsel the question for a number of reasons.\nThe first reason is that it was doubtful of whether or not the defendant would succeed in that because under Illinois law, the right to counsel depends upon a request for counsel.\nSecondly, the possibility was substantial that if there had been a retrial, or would have been a reconviction with the same sentence, which would only have resulted in the issue coming up at a later stage, and possibly the defendant is spending more time in jail than he did with respect to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [311.142, 312.363, 316.858, 327.558], "stop_times": [312.363, 316.858, 327.558, 346.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.142}, "reply_to": "15554__0_006", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_008", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What was the maximum sentence that could have been imposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [346.157], "stop_times": [349.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.157}, "reply_to": "15554__0_007", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__0_009", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The maximum sentence that could be imposed for theft of property, not from the person and not exceeding of $150.00 in value was one year plus a $500.00 fine.\nIf the person commits a subsequent offense, it's a felony, one to five years, if he commits theft of property from the person or exceeding $150.00 in value is 1:10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [349.622, 358.859], "stop_times": [358.859, 368.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.622}, "reply_to": "15554__0_008", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_010", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which classification did this come in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [368.904], "stop_times": [371.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.904}, "reply_to": "15554__0_009", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__0_011", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Pardon me Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [371.494], "stop_times": [372.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.494}, "reply_to": "15554__0_010", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_012", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which classification did this crime come in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [372.079], "stop_times": [374.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.079}, "reply_to": "15554__0_011", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__0_013", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "This came in the lowest, the misdemeanor of one year plus $500.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [374.705], "stop_times": [378.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.705}, "reply_to": "15554__0_012", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_014", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Only in one year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [378.141], "stop_times": [379.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.141}, "reply_to": "15554__0_013", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__0_015", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [379.211], "stop_times": [380.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.211}, "reply_to": "15554__0_014", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_016", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Bass, how long he would stay or he had actually been in prison under this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [380.69], "stop_times": [387.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.69}, "reply_to": "15554__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15554__0_017", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "How long would he actually be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [387.233], "stop_times": [388.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.233}, "reply_to": "15554__0_016", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_018", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Or how long has he in fact been?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [388.242], "stop_times": [390.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.242}, "reply_to": "15554__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15554__0_019", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, he was bailed out after serving five days of the fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [390.182], "stop_times": [394.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.182}, "reply_to": "15554__0_018", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_020", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "So, that is had he served the sentence itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [394.277], "stop_times": [397.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.277}, "reply_to": "15554__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15554__0_021", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Served the full sentence and at the conclusion of the sentence, he asked for bail and the Illinois Supreme Court five days after, he began serving --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [397.63], "stop_times": [404.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.63}, "reply_to": "15554__0_020", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_022", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "How long was he actually in jail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [404.69], "stop_times": [407.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.69}, "reply_to": "15554__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_023", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I think he received approximately 84 days, which is a normal good time credit.\nSo it would be a year plus five days minus 84, which would be the period from August of 1967 to May of 1968, about nine months.\nWhat we do challenge in this case is the construction of the statute by the Illinois Supreme Court which authorizes 24-hour a day imprisonment over the maximum at the rate of $5.00 a day, despite the fact that the defendant has said without any opposition by the state that he will go out and get a job, and earn the funds to pay his fine if he is given the opportunity.\nThe state has indicated that it has two primary goals to be served, the practice of incarceration of indigence should be sustained because of those goals.\nThose are deterrence of crime and collection of revenue from the fines.\nBut whatever the examination reveals that round-the-clock imprisonment of an indigent under these circumstances is neither necessary nor rationally related to the stated goals and that there are clearly less onerous alternatives and perhaps more effective ones to satisfy the state's interest.\nCertainly, if the state's interest is in collecting the revenue by remitting the person to jail, they're not going to get the money.\nAnd in addition, the state has to pay substantial amount of money to house prisoners in already overcrowded and overburdened facilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [407.953, 413.825, 428.23, 452.381, 461.556, 466.388, 484.616, 492.905], "stop_times": [413.825, 428.23, 452.381, 461.556, 466.388, 484.616, 492.905, 500.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.953}, "reply_to": "15554__0_022", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_024", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Could the state insist that we pay the fine by working for the state, and I don't say in a workhouse or in a work farm or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [500.919], "stop_times": [514.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.919}, "reply_to": "15554__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_025", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, it's our position that the state could certainly do that as long they let him go at night.\nIn a hierarchy of alternatives that we have suggested, we have placed remitting to the work house as one of the possibilities, but the problem is in this case, that they keep the man in jail around the clock and there's absolutely no justification for incarcerating somebody at night merely because they're extracting his day life, that's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [514.412, 520.919], "stop_times": [520.919, 539.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.412}, "reply_to": "15554__0_024", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_026", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you think the Supreme of Illinois had judicial power to shape that kind of solution to problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [539.926], "stop_times": [549.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.926}, "reply_to": "15554__0_025", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_027", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, we feel that the Illinois Supreme Court could easily have saved the statute by construction.\nFor example, the first provision -- the first sentence in the statute talks in terms of a judgment of a fine imposed upon a defendant, maybe enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered the civil action.\nJust last November, the Illinois Supreme Court held that civil case.\nIt could not obtain the body execution that is jail to facilitate.\nAbsence of showing or refusal to pay, that's the lawyer's title of Phoenix versus Gerber, which we said in Footnote 19 on page 22.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [549.117, 553.543, 566.221, 569.613, 574.067], "stop_times": [553.543, 566.221, 569.613, 574.067, 583.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.117}, "reply_to": "15554__0_026", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_028", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Is that -- was that done in the context of the old notions of imprisonment for debt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [583.167], "stop_times": [591.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.167}, "reply_to": "15554__0_027", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_029", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No, the Illinois Supreme Court does not treat imprisonment as a result of a conviction as a debt which is considered within that prohibition.\nBut if the Illinois Supreme Court had construed the section, to require resort to the other alternatives before remitting the person immediately, The Illinois Supreme Court could have avoided the constitutional infirmity in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [591.022, 602.11], "stop_times": [602.11, 616.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.022}, "reply_to": "15554__0_028", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_030", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, then you don't complain about the rate of the workout, that this $5.00 a day if he goes home at night.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [616.556, 624.365], "stop_times": [624.365, 624.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.556}, "reply_to": "15554__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_031", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "If he goes home at night, I think there maybe some question about whether or not $5.00 a day comports with a reasonable rate.\nBut certainly, $5.00 a day --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [624.837, 632.897], "stop_times": [632.897, 634.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.837}, "reply_to": "15554__0_030", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_032", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Are you raising that here or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [634.581], "stop_times": [636.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.581}, "reply_to": "15554__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_033", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "We do raise it.\nBut what we have it in this case is $5.00 a day not for the workday but the pleasure of his company during the night as well, and that certainly, under those circumstances, that's certainly not compensatory, certainly unjust compensation for -- not only taking his labors during the day but having him around at night too against his will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [636.551, 638.439], "stop_times": [638.439, 657.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.551}, "reply_to": "15554__0_032", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_034", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But you don't consider the compelled presence and requirements of work in the day -- daytime hours as a form of incarceration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [657.739], "stop_times": [672.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.739}, "reply_to": "15554__0_033", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_035", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, we had originally suggested that the alternative of allowing the man to go out on his own is to be preferred.\nBut we're willing to acknowledge that there maybe situations where a person is unable to get a job, where the state is unable to get a job for him, do an employment service.\nAnd as a last resort, the state might want to give him the public works program, the job.\nThey could make him work at the hospital or a boy's club or at the work farm.\nBut our point is what the state has done is much more onerous here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [672.081, 682.407, 696.017, 703.705, 708.657], "stop_times": [682.407, 696.017, 703.705, 708.657, 712.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.081}, "reply_to": "15554__0_034", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_036", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What -- suppose this was a civil case and he had cost, what does Illinois do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [712.939], "stop_times": [718.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.939}, "reply_to": "15554__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15554__0_037", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Illinois does not imprisonment for nonpayment of cost in civil case.\nIt will clearly have an irrational discrimination here.\nOne can hardly think that costs are necessary to enforce a criminal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [718.556, 722.833, 725.809], "stop_times": [722.833, 725.809, 735.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.556}, "reply_to": "15554__0_036", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_038", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "You were suggesting I take it, just a moment ago, that there were circumstances under which the state could keep the man in jail around the clock, weren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [735.145], "stop_times": [750.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.145}, "reply_to": "15554__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_039", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I wasn't suggesting that.\nBut I can envision the possibility where after an adequate inquiry is made, it's determined that there's very, very, real probability that they let him out to go to the job during the day and they'll never see him again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [750.523, 751.917], "stop_times": [751.917, 764.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.523}, "reply_to": "15554__0_038", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_040", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, let's assume he refuses to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [764.966], "stop_times": [768.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.966}, "reply_to": "15554__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_041", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "If he refuses to work, that might well be the contumacious type of conduct that could lead to remitting him to incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [768.223], "stop_times": [776.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.223}, "reply_to": "15554__0_040", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_042", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Bass, if that's true --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [776.566], "stop_times": [778.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.566}, "reply_to": "15554__0_041", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__0_043", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "As a substitute for the fine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [778.708], "stop_times": [781.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.708}, "reply_to": "15554__0_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_044", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Not as a substitute for a fine but as a means of collection or as a means of getting him to be willing to go and work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [781.832], "stop_times": [788.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.832}, "reply_to": "15554__0_043", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_045", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "You're position is you ought to -- all you want probably is money although it limits your remedy to that as long you think you can get it, as long as there are some chance of getting it.\nNow, what if there is no chance of getting it, is there then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [788.999, 800.036], "stop_times": [800.036, 805.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.999}, "reply_to": "15554__0_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_046", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, the state can provide the job.\nIf he absolutely sits down at the job --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [805.633, 807.756], "stop_times": [807.756, 808.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.633}, "reply_to": "15554__0_045", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_047", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What if he won't work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [808.829], "stop_times": [811.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.829}, "reply_to": "15554__0_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_048", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, if he absolutely refuses to work, that is contumacious conduct.\nThat's a complete refusal to be cooperative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [811.123, 815.888], "stop_times": [815.888, 819.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.123}, "reply_to": "15554__0_047", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_049", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well then, what could state do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [819.998], "stop_times": [822.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.998}, "reply_to": "15554__0_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_050", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, under those circumstances, the state might do, but it does with respect to a person who has the funds and that is say, you sit unless you work or pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [822.097], "stop_times": [831.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.097}, "reply_to": "15554__0_049", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_051", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "There was separate proceeding for that to determine this, the factual situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [831.548], "stop_times": [835.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.548}, "reply_to": "15554__0_050", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_052", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But not under the Illinois statute.\nThat's the problem.\nNo provision has made for any kind of inquiry or hearing or factual evidence to determine whether or not the defendant is refusing to pay or refusing to work, refusing to comply with his obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [835.647, 837.158, 837.861], "stop_times": [837.158, 837.861, 853.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.647}, "reply_to": "15554__0_051", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_053", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Would you say that the state, in order to satisfy his obligation, he would always purport that incarcerating then 24 hours a day would have to offer him work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [853.853], "stop_times": [863.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.853}, "reply_to": "15554__0_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_054", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, our position is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [863.101], "stop_times": [864.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.101}, "reply_to": "15554__0_053", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_055", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Would he work by the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [864.511], "stop_times": [866.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.511}, "reply_to": "15554__0_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_056", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Our position is that where liberty is involve, that the state is obligated to utilize alternatives rather than automatic remission to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [866.343], "stop_times": [875.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.343}, "reply_to": "15554__0_055", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_057", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I understand but how about that alternative, are they obligated to use that one too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [875.249], "stop_times": [881.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.249}, "reply_to": "15554__0_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_058", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, the alternatives that we would suggest would be first, straight installment payments.\nAn economy that's based upon time payment, that's certainly not strange.\nSecondly, garnishment, that is once he goes out, automatically seize a portion.\nThird, possibility is to utilize a state employment service to find a job for him.\nThe last one would be to put him on the public works job, whether that would be out in the farm or out in the workhouse.\nThat's the last the last one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [881.196, 885.307, 889.691, 897.268, 901.393, 906.826], "stop_times": [885.307, 889.691, 897.268, 901.393, 906.826, 907.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.196}, "reply_to": "15554__0_057", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_059", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But what if no jobs are available in the community that he can get, must the state furnish him the opportunity to work on its own payroll?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [907.965], "stop_times": [918.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.965}, "reply_to": "15554__0_058", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_060", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, we think that it's unrealistic to think that there is no work at all these days, but if it were shown -- evidence did show that it was impossible to place him anywhere, we think that it would be permissible to require him to work at a designated place during the day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [918.51], "stop_times": [939.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.51}, "reply_to": "15554__0_059", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_061", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, permissible yes.\nBut the state says, we don't want him, we better put him in jail.\nWe haven't got any place for him to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [939.861, 940.941, 943.495], "stop_times": [940.941, 943.495, 945.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.861}, "reply_to": "15554__0_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_062", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, it's our position that the interest of the society do not justify such as onerous exaction, such an imposition upon the liberty of the defendant.\nIt's interesting to note that the state which talks in terms of these alternatives really administratively feasible for a stance of cost is that administrative convenience is not a sufficient ground for such an onerous exaction.\nBut the second one is that Illinois, by passing a work release program has itself recognized that these alternatives are feasible.\nOf course, there's one glaring defect in the Illinois work release program as applied to the person who is incarcerated for nonpayment of fine.\nThat's triple punishment.\nDefendant is required to serve his year in jail, pay his fine with the earnings he gets during the day but he sits in jail at night.\nAnd there's absolutely no justification why a person should have to sit in jail at night when he is out there during the day working off his fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [945.812, 957.985, 971.46, 980.318, 988.879, 990.97, 998.45], "stop_times": [957.985, 971.46, 980.318, 988.879, 990.97, 998.45, 1004.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.812}, "reply_to": "15554__0_061", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_063", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Bass, going back to this case, is there anything of this record that shows that his incarceration beyond the year is any different from a man being sentenced to two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1004.386], "stop_times": [1022.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.386}, "reply_to": "15554__0_062", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_064", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, if I understand your question Mr. Justice Marshall --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1022.269], "stop_times": [1024.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.269}, "reply_to": "15554__0_063", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_065", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, for example, the release on work applies to a man that's serving the sentence of just one year and nothing else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1024.736], "stop_times": [1032.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.736}, "reply_to": "15554__0_064", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_066", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.\nIt applies to straight jail sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1032.827, 1033.298], "stop_times": [1033.298, 1034.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.827}, "reply_to": "15554__0_065", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_067", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "This is nothing just where people are put in because they couldn't pay a fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1034.339], "stop_times": [1038.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.339}, "reply_to": "15554__0_066", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_068", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1038.94], "stop_times": [1039.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.94}, "reply_to": "15554__0_067", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_069", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "So what is the basis of this argument?\nI thought your argument was that put them in jail beyond the one year period solely because he was broke, was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1039.98, 1042.364], "stop_times": [1042.364, 1053.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.98}, "reply_to": "15554__0_068", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_070", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Right, let me explain that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1053.193], "stop_times": [1054.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.193}, "reply_to": "15554__0_069", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_071", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1054.793], "stop_times": [1054.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.793}, "reply_to": "15554__0_070", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_072", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "With respect to a person who is doing a straight jail sentence, he's certainly receiving quite a benefit to be told that he can obtain some liberty during the day and he can hardly complain of that.\nBut the person who is being incarcerated for nonpayment of fine, the only interest that the state has is his money.\nWhen they let him go out during the day to get that money, may then have completely undermined that by saying he must come back to jail at night.\nThere is no rational justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1054.982, 1064.178, 1070.037, 1077.603], "stop_times": [1064.178, 1070.037, 1077.603, 1077.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.982}, "reply_to": "15554__0_071", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_073", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, getting back to this case, is he out or in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1077.646], "stop_times": [1081.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.646}, "reply_to": "15554__0_072", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_074", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Williams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1081.817], "stop_times": [1082.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.817}, "reply_to": "15554__0_073", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_075", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1082.586], "stop_times": [1082.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.586}, "reply_to": "15554__0_074", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_076", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "He's out.\nHe was bailed by the Illinois Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1082.97, 1083.474], "stop_times": [1083.474, 1085.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.97}, "reply_to": "15554__0_075", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_077", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "He was bailed out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1085.44], "stop_times": [1086.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.44}, "reply_to": "15554__0_076", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_078", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1086.647], "stop_times": [1087.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.647}, "reply_to": "15554__0_077", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_079", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "So how does the work release program come up?\nHe might never qualify for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1087.483, 1090.186], "stop_times": [1090.186, 1092.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.483}, "reply_to": "15554__0_078", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_080", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, as to Williams, of course, the work release program was passed by the legislature effective January 1969 and all of the Williams proceedings occurred in 1967.\nI was addressing myself to in the event that it were applicable to him or other persons similarly situated what the effect would be, and my point was that the work release statute shows that the administrative convenience argument doesn't hold up.\nAnd secondly, that there's a glaring defect in it because it requires night time incarceration so which does no rational justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1092.105, 1102.329, 1116.989], "stop_times": [1102.329, 1116.989, 1123.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.105}, "reply_to": "15554__0_079", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_081", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Does it also require that he pay room and board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1123.168], "stop_times": [1126.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.168}, "reply_to": "15554__0_080", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__0_082", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That adds in injury by making a $3.50 a day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1126.177], "stop_times": [1135.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.177}, "reply_to": "15554__0_081", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_083", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I don't -- perhaps you told us, but if so, I didn't get it clearly.\nAs I read the Illinois Revised Statute 1967, Chapter 38 Paragraph 180-6, its language would seem entirely to take care of your claim, however, I understand that it's been construed by the Illinois Courts in such a way as to mean something other than what it seems rather clearly to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1135.084, 1141.154], "stop_times": [1141.154, 1162.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.084}, "reply_to": "15554__0_082", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_084", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, we certainly thought that the language of the statute could be interpreted literarily and would be granted for discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1162.328], "stop_times": [1168.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.328}, "reply_to": "15554__0_083", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_085", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And how has Illinois suit reviewed? How the Illinois Courts construed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1168.431], "stop_times": [1172.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.431}, "reply_to": "15554__0_084", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__0_086", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "They've construed the language until all the legal means have been exhausted to mean that the defendant either must show, he's physically unable to work which is the Goldstones case and People versus Hardenbergh.\nOr that no work is provided for him.\nNow, there's always housekeeping available.\nIn fact, the record shows, the jail record of Williams is included in here on page 33 of the record.\nAnd it does show that when he was serving his jail time, he worked in the laundry and he worked in the tailor shop and he worked in something beginning with 'K' which I think is the kitchen.\nSo that, all people that are in jail have the opportunity to work.\nSo person who is serving off or working off a fine is not going to be doing anything differently.\nThe state has attempted to suggest that the policy of deterrence requires the result reached in this case.\nWe dispute that contention for the following reasons.\nFirst, the fact the Illinois is going under 180-6 to discharge a persons who are unable to work or for whom no work is provided is an indication that automatic incarceration of everybody who don't pay fines, not necessary to the enforcement of the criminal law.\nWe submit that the fine is certainly a different order of punishment than a jail sentence.\nIf the trial judge wishes to individualize the sentence, imposed a fine because he feels that the interest of society require no more than a fine.\nIt's inconsistent with that trial judge's determination then to have the defendant sitting in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1172.017, 1181.654, 1184.912, 1187.945, 1195.319, 1206.125, 1210.766, 1221.722, 1234.06, 1237.524, 1264.312, 1271.81, 1283.26], "stop_times": [1181.654, 1184.912, 1187.945, 1195.319, 1206.125, 1210.766, 1221.722, 1234.06, 1237.524, 1264.312, 1271.81, 1283.26, 1290.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.017}, "reply_to": "15554__0_085", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_087", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Are you arguing this is an equal protection matter or a due process involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1290.653], "stop_times": [1297.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.653}, "reply_to": "15554__0_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_088", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "There really a blend of equal protection and due process, almost all of this Court's criminal procedure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1297.217], "stop_times": [1304.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.217}, "reply_to": "15554__0_087", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_089", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "How would you define your equal protection position?\nHow do you frame it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1304.526, 1310.458], "stop_times": [1310.458, 1311.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.526}, "reply_to": "15554__0_088", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_090", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "We frame it in terms of the fact that the indigent is required to spend more jail time than the person with funds.\nThe fact the indigent defendant despite his willingness to work is deprived that the opportunity to payoff the fine but rather remitted to incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1311.869, 1320.535], "stop_times": [1320.535, 1332.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.869}, "reply_to": "15554__0_089", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_091", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's the consequence of the economic necessity to go into that kind of a \u2013", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1332.388], "stop_times": [1339.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1332.388}, "reply_to": "15554__0_090", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__0_092", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, there is more to it than that.\nThere is a due process aspect to this extent that the state seems to be conclusively presuming that incarceration is necessary because the person might run away and they lose the risk, so to speak, and he'll run away from the job and he won't be around to pay the fine.\nThat type conclusive presumption in the absence any showing, any hearing, any inquiry, certainly doesn't comport with fundamental principles.\nSo, to that extent, there is this blend of Due Process into the Equal Protection.\nThe state's attempt to justify this 24-hour day incarceration for fear that some people might skip is not based upon any evidence.\nCertainly, not in this record and I take it the state this arguing in a broad proposition that they're entitled to incarcerate somebody around the clock in any case regardless of the fact that a felon may come in and say, \u201cWell, look, I have great possibility of getting a job.\nI could earn enough funds in perhaps a week or two to pay off this fine.\u201d\nBut -- and the state says, it wants the revenue from collecting these fines, and yet that state does precisely by incarcerating the person and depriving him the opportunity to go out to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1339.117, 1343.968, 1364.501, 1373.106, 1382.637, 1391.708, 1407.085, 1411.963], "stop_times": [1343.968, 1364.501, 1373.106, 1382.637, 1391.708, 1407.085, 1411.963, 1426.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.117}, "reply_to": "15554__0_091", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_093", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Did you put in the evidence in this case what the reasonable value of services would be in the place of $5.00 a day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1426.465], "stop_times": [1435.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.465}, "reply_to": "15554__0_092", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_094", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, there's no evidence in the record to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1435.027], "stop_times": [1439.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.027}, "reply_to": "15554__0_093", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_095", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Would that, in your judgment, as a constitutional matter, would that have to be tailored to his capacities or could the Illinois legislature fix another figure such $16.00 a day or based on the minimum wage which I guess is a $1.60 times eight hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1439.195], "stop_times": [1458.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.195}, "reply_to": "15554__0_094", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_096", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Clearly, the evaluation is a legislative matter.\nHowever, there is a point when 24-hour incarceration for $5.00 a day is so obviously unjust compensation as to render it on Constitution because we have to remember that the defendant here is being kept for longer than the work day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1458.845, 1462.237], "stop_times": [1462.237, 1479.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.845}, "reply_to": "15554__0_095", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_097", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, my problem with your argument counsel is that I can understand someone rationally fixing a rate for his services.\nI have some difficulty seeing how you put a rate on his liberty by the hour.\nYou seem to imply that they might rationally fix some X dollars per hour for depriving him of his liberty.\nWhere is your basis for doing that?\nHow do you measure the value of a man's freedom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1479.784, 1489.403, 1496.258, 1506.153, 1507.901], "stop_times": [1489.403, 1496.258, 1506.153, 1507.901, 1511.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.784}, "reply_to": "15554__0_096", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__0_098", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, it seems to me that the remission to incarceration at a certain value is the last resort.\nIt's our submission in this case that the state should have done something before they resort to that alternative.\nAnd the state didn't.\nDespite the fact that the defendant said he could go and get the money on his own, the state wouldn't have to keep him in jail and to work off the fine at whatever value they assigned.\nHe said that he could go out and get that money.\nAnd the state instead of even inquiring into the credibility of the weights of those contentions which the state did not meet simply denied the petition without evidentiary hearing.\nAnd the Illinois Supreme Court rather than adopt the type of construction that could save the statute, simply said, there is no denial of Equal Protection when an indigent is required to work off his fine.\nThe heart of this thing is that there is no equivalent between the rich man's choice that is whether anyone is to pay or sit in jail and there are some people who would like to do that.\nAnd the exactions on the indigent requiring him to sit in jail, that is simply an inequality and that is (Inaudible).\nI'd like to save a few moments for rebuttal, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1511.496, 1520.5, 1526.496, 1528.06, 1539.3, 1542.185, 1555.342, 1568.945, 1579.415, 1588.394], "stop_times": [1520.5, 1526.496, 1528.06, 1539.3, 1542.185, 1555.342, 1568.945, 1579.415, 1588.394, 1589.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.496}, "reply_to": "15554__0_097", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__0_099", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well then, thank you.\nMr. Thompson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1589.835, 1599.283], "stop_times": [1599.283, 1600.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.835}, "reply_to": "15554__0_098", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__1_000", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and May it please the Court.\nIn 1927, Mr. Justice Holmes referred to the Equal Protection Clause as the last resort of constitutional arguments.\nReading the opinions of this Court will show that we have come quite a ways since that characterization.\nIn fact, Judge Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently referred to the Equal Protection Clause as the cutting edge of our expanding constitutional liberties.\nOne of the issues that's involved in this case before the Court today is whether that cutting edge will press so deeply not only into the statutory scheme in the state of Illinois, the statutory of scheme of the other American states in the Federal Government, to compel those states and the Federal Government to adopt the system of criminal justice administration.\nGreatly different from that which they have adopted by the legislative process in the name of the explication of the Equal Protection Clause.\nI think we should consider at the outset what some of the interests are in considering the context or setting of the Equal Protection argument in this case.\nAs Mr. Justice Brennan referred to it in the concurring opinion of Allen versus Illinois just some weeks ago, the constitutional claims must be considered in context.\nAnd we think the context of the Equal Protection claim here is an important one.\nFirst, the history of incarceration to work off a fine which cannot or will not be paid is an ancient one far outdating the American legal system.\nMr. Justice Black said in his opinion for the Court in Kotch versus the Board of River Pilots some years ago and in a dissenting opinion in Harper versus the Virginia Board of Elections, the history of a practice in important in considering whether or not that practice violates the Federal Constitution.\nSimilarly, the widespread usage of a particular feature of a criminal justice system by the states and by the Federal Government is also important in assessing its validity under the Federal Constitution as was noted for the Court in the opinion in Roth versus the United States for the fact that not only in all American jurisdictions and the Federal Government ban the dissemination of obscenity but most of the civilized nations of the world did as well, we think it's equally relevant then to consider in the context of whether or not Equal Protection has been violated here, that all of the states of the Federal Union for years and years and years and the English Government before that have allowed the incarceration of those who cannot or will not pay their fines until the fines has worked off.\nThe impact of this Court's holding that the Illinois system is unconstitutional must also be considered, we believe, for this Court to decide how far they will take the Equal Protection Clause because if the challenge to Illinois statute is successful in this Court today, similar challenges will follow.\nChallenge to the bail system, the claim that the requirement of a monetary bail in any case is irrational.\nIf other factors will show or seek to persuade that the defendant will not flee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1600.41, 1605.368, 1615.029, 1621.533, 1635.031, 1658.337, 1668.921, 1679.95, 1690.609, 1697.147, 1714.087, 1736.332, 1788.676, 1811.658, 1817.992], "stop_times": [1605.368, 1615.029, 1621.533, 1635.031, 1658.337, 1668.921, 1679.95, 1690.609, 1697.147, 1714.087, 1736.332, 1788.676, 1811.658, 1817.992, 1823.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1600.41}, "reply_to": "15554__0_099", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_001", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "How many states have got a statute, where the Illinois statute here, or as construed, the Illinois statute is construed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1823.505], "stop_times": [1831.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.505}, "reply_to": "15554__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_002", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "At least 48, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1831.426], "stop_times": [1833.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.426}, "reply_to": "15554__1_001", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_003", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "48?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1833.566], "stop_times": [1834.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.566}, "reply_to": "15554__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_004", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "At least 48.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1834.096], "stop_times": [1836.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.096}, "reply_to": "15554__1_003", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_005", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which of the two do not have it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1836.361], "stop_times": [1838.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.361}, "reply_to": "15554__1_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__1_006", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, New York has a statute where there is to be a hearing on the question of whether or not the indigent can pay the fine and if he cannot pay the fine, they go back and re-sentence and they don't follow exactly the same procedures in Illinois and I'm informed by counsel in the case that you are to here following this one that Maryland has recently changed its statute in light of the opinion below in the Schoonfield case.\nBut to my knowledge, all the rest of the states of the American jurisdiction have statutes similar to Illinois so as the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1838.33, 1864.893], "stop_times": [1864.893, 1871.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.33}, "reply_to": "15554__1_005", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_007", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Many of them, as I understand it, do not -- I have so -- do not have Illinois as the provision that Illinois has that if a man in fact is unable to work off his fine, he must be released and am I not right that many states to apply that sort of a release --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1871.575], "stop_times": [1893.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.575}, "reply_to": "15554__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__1_008", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Illinois' policy is more benign in this regard because Illinois does allow discharge where no work is available or where his physically unable to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1893.136], "stop_times": [1900.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.136}, "reply_to": "15554__1_007", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_009", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's what I thought.\nAnd many of those other 47 states do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1900.691, 1901.791], "stop_times": [1901.791, 1904.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.691}, "reply_to": "15554__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__1_010", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1904.347], "stop_times": [1904.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.347}, "reply_to": "15554__1_009", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_011", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Am I mistaken about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1904.493], "stop_times": [1905.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.493}, "reply_to": "15554__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__1_012", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's right.\nThat follows, I think, our policy of regarding the incarceration for failure to pay this fine as the equivalent of the collection of money by collecting in labor and obviously if we can't collect in labor, the man has no business in jail.\nBut some other states justify incarceration in lieu of payment of fine on an alternative punishment theory and since they don't depend upon the collection of revenue theory, it's easy to see why they don't discharge for failure to provide work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1905.718, 1907.317, 1922.075], "stop_times": [1907.317, 1922.075, 1937.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.718}, "reply_to": "15554__1_011", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_013", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But in this case, if the statute said one year, maximum of one year period and the judge thought that this was a horrible case, and the man said get more time.\nHe couldn't get him for about a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1937.685, 1953.218], "stop_times": [1953.218, 1954.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.685}, "reply_to": "15554__1_012", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_014", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "He could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1954.65], "stop_times": [1955.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.65}, "reply_to": "15554__1_013", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_015", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But if the statute says as it does here, the year and a $500.00 fine, the judge -- it's undisputed the judge knows this man is a pauper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1955.891], "stop_times": [1967.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.891}, "reply_to": "15554__1_014", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_016", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think that's a fair inference to draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1967.648], "stop_times": [1969.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.648}, "reply_to": "15554__1_015", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_017", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well he had his -- I assume he had probation.\nI mean he had a sentencing report, I'd assume so.\nAnd so he says, well I can't give this man any more time but I can give him a hundred more days by merely giving him the $500.00 fine.\nOn the other hand, if the probation report said that this man is a millionaire that has a hobby of stealing, he couldn't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1969.278, 1971.662, 1975.761, 1986.7], "stop_times": [1971.662, 1975.761, 1986.7, 1999.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.278}, "reply_to": "15554__1_016", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_018", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "A judge could say that, Your Honor.\nThe record does not reflect Judge Giles said in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [1999.493, 2001.764], "stop_times": [2001.764, 2003.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.493}, "reply_to": "15554__1_017", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_019", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I mean the judge couldn't give that man a hundred more days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2003.221], "stop_times": [2007.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.221}, "reply_to": "15554__1_018", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_020", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct, he could not --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2007.241], "stop_times": [2007.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.241}, "reply_to": "15554__1_019", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_021", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No way under the sun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2007.807], "stop_times": [2009.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.807}, "reply_to": "15554__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_022", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That he could not give him an additional 101 days as punishment neither could he give the indigent man an additional 101 days as punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2009.228], "stop_times": [2017.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.228}, "reply_to": "15554__1_021", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_023", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What he gives him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2017.007], "stop_times": [2017.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.007}, "reply_to": "15554__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_024", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "He could simply impose a fine which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2017.217], "stop_times": [2019.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.217}, "reply_to": "15554__1_023", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_025", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which he knew he couldn't pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2019.08], "stop_times": [2020.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.08}, "reply_to": "15554__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_026", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which he knew he couldn't pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2020.458], "stop_times": [2021.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.458}, "reply_to": "15554__1_025", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_027", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And you don't think that's giving him a hundred days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2021.723], "stop_times": [2023.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.723}, "reply_to": "15554__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_028", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No sir.\nWe do not equate that 101 days it takes to work off the fine to give the state your labor for 101 days as the equivalent of 101 days of straight punishment under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2023.833, 2026.817], "stop_times": [2026.817, 2038.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.833}, "reply_to": "15554__1_027", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_029", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The difference being?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2038.406], "stop_times": [2040.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.406}, "reply_to": "15554__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_030", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The difference being that in one case, he is in there to give the state the value of his services.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2040.354], "stop_times": [2046.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.354}, "reply_to": "15554__1_029", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_031", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But in both cases, he's in the same jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2046.234], "stop_times": [2048.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.234}, "reply_to": "15554__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_032", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2048.789], "stop_times": [2049.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.789}, "reply_to": "15554__1_031", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_033", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In the same cell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2049.656], "stop_times": [2050.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.656}, "reply_to": "15554__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_034", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2050.826], "stop_times": [2051.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.826}, "reply_to": "15554__1_033", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_035", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But after the one year, he's serving something different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2051.699], "stop_times": [2056.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.699}, "reply_to": "15554__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_036", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In terms of the theory of why the state has in there, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2056.353], "stop_times": [2058.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.353}, "reply_to": "15554__1_035", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_037", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The theory?\nWhat about the man's theory?\nHe's in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2058.897, 2060.347, 2061.967], "stop_times": [2060.347, 2061.967, 2063.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.897}, "reply_to": "15554__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_038", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well in terms of what happens to the man, obviously there's no difference between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2063.187], "stop_times": [2066.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.187}, "reply_to": "15554__1_037", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_039", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you do different work after the one year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2066.873], "stop_times": [2071.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.873}, "reply_to": "15554__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_040", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2071.224], "stop_times": [2071.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.224}, "reply_to": "15554__1_039", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_041", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Why do you keep him overnight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2071.904], "stop_times": [2074.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.904}, "reply_to": "15554__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_042", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I suppose one reason we keep them overnight --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2074.228], "stop_times": [2079.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.228}, "reply_to": "15554__1_041", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_043", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "If your theory isn't some substitute kind of punishment, but you're really just collecting your fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2079.579], "stop_times": [2087.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.579}, "reply_to": "15554__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_044", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2087.4], "stop_times": [2088.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.4}, "reply_to": "15554__1_043", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_045", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "If he doesn't work for night and day, I suppose, why don't you let him go when he isn't working?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2088.469], "stop_times": [2094.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.469}, "reply_to": "15554__1_044", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_046", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I don't think I have nothing the record to support this but I don't think that the value of work off system insofar as it applies to a jail system, considering the people who are convicted and have no money to pay their fines who would stand very long if they were permitted to be released at night.\nI think there would be a substantial percentages of failures to return to the jail during the day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2094.606, 2116.428], "stop_times": [2116.428, 2124.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.606}, "reply_to": "15554__1_045", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_047", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But Illinois, in taking this approach currently would keep a person as long as necessary to work off the fine at that rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2124.419], "stop_times": [2135.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.419}, "reply_to": "15554__1_046", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_048", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2135.252], "stop_times": [2135.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.252}, "reply_to": "15554__1_047", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_049", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Even though the -- what's the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2135.391], "stop_times": [2138.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.391}, "reply_to": "15554__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_050", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Illinois has a maximum limitation of six months no matter what the fine is.\nIt cannot serve longer than six months in the working off with the fine.\nIllinois is one of the few states to have such a maximum period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2138.109, 2141.936, 2145.776], "stop_times": [2141.936, 2145.776, 2148.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.109}, "reply_to": "15554__1_049", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_051", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But he -- he will stay -- he can't stay in jail more than six months beyond the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2148.615], "stop_times": [2160.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.615}, "reply_to": "15554__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_052", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No, no he can -- if he is given the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense, he would stay in jail beyond that maximum term only for so long as it takes to workout the fine for $85.00 a day or six months, whichever is greater, whichever is less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2160.431], "stop_times": [2177.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.431}, "reply_to": "15554__1_051", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_053", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "So he can stay in jail six months longer than the maximum term of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2177.997], "stop_times": [2181.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.997}, "reply_to": "15554__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_054", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2181.806], "stop_times": [2182.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.806}, "reply_to": "15554__1_053", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_055", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "-- imprisonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2182.143], "stop_times": [2182.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.143}, "reply_to": "15554__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_056", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct, that right.\nNow, in the brief of the appellant, an attempt is made --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2182.823, 2187.029], "stop_times": [2187.029, 2192.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.823}, "reply_to": "15554__1_055", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_057", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Before you get to that counsel, how far back is the $5.00 a day measure go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2192.984], "stop_times": [2198.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.984}, "reply_to": "15554__1_056", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__1_058", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2198.144], "stop_times": [2198.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.144}, "reply_to": "15554__1_057", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_059", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Can you go over from an old statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2198.887], "stop_times": [2200.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.887}, "reply_to": "15554__1_058", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__1_060", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No sir, back in the early 1900s, the rate was $1.50 a day.\nI'm not sure precisely how far back it goes but I think it's relevantly recent, $5.00 a day provision.\nAnd it's among the highest in the country in terms of work off statutes.\nI think only a very few states have a higher rate, $8.00 or something like that I think being the maximum.\nMost of them averaging around $5.00 or in some cases even less.\nOhio recently declared unconstitutional the $2.00 a day, I believe.\nBut they vary.\nBut Illinois is fairly high up in the list.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2200.53, 2206.402, 2211.368, 2216.405, 2221.749, 2226.09, 2231.492, 2232.603], "stop_times": [2206.402, 2211.368, 2216.405, 2221.749, 2226.09, 2231.492, 2232.603, 2235.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.53}, "reply_to": "15554__1_059", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_061", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you charge him for his board room?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2235.654], "stop_times": [2238.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.654}, "reply_to": "15554__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_062", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Not under the work off system as such, I think it's probably reflected in the value of his labor, in other words, we're not saying your labor is only worth $5.00 a day to as we're probably really saying to him that your labor is worth at least $11.00 a day to us because it costs about $6.13 to keep him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2238.69], "stop_times": [2256.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.69}, "reply_to": "15554__1_061", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_063", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "When he's serving his year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2256.9], "stop_times": [2262.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.9}, "reply_to": "15554__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_064", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2262.605], "stop_times": [2263.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.605}, "reply_to": "15554__1_063", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_065", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "When he's serving his initial year, you got a year here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2263.67], "stop_times": [2266.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.67}, "reply_to": "15554__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_066", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2266.605], "stop_times": [2269.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.605}, "reply_to": "15554__1_065", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_067", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Did it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2269.09], "stop_times": [2270.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.09}, "reply_to": "15554__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_068", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think his record in the appendix reflects that he was assigned to the tailor shop or the kitchen so I presume he worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2270.733], "stop_times": [2277.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.733}, "reply_to": "15554__1_067", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_069", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which is the same as he was assigned after that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2277.426], "stop_times": [2279.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.426}, "reply_to": "15554__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_070", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I presume that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2279.414], "stop_times": [2281.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.414}, "reply_to": "15554__1_069", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_071", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Why doesn't he get credit on his fine for that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2281.73], "stop_times": [2285.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.73}, "reply_to": "15554__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_072", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I suppose on the theory that it's a sort of consecutive sentence idea.\nI mean if he were convicted say of two crimes, defendant under Illinois law could be sentenced consecutively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2285.569, 2292.486], "stop_times": [2292.486, 2298.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.569}, "reply_to": "15554__1_071", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_073", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, what would have to go -- while he's serving his year, assume he refused to work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2298.867], "stop_times": [2305.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.867}, "reply_to": "15554__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_074", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "During the first year?\nWell, I assume he might be put into the disciplinary cell or subject to discipline of some kind or loses good time, probably, most likely a remedy that will be employed.\nIf he refused to work, if he refused in his lawful assignment in the prison system, I assume he would lose his good time.\nThat would be an incentive for him to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2305.92, 2308.722, 2319.706, 2326.388], "stop_times": [2308.722, 2319.706, 2326.388, 2328.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.92}, "reply_to": "15554__1_073", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_075", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But why?\nWhat good reason is there for not crediting the work he does during his regular prison term on his fine?\nThe state is collecting that value from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2328.232, 2329.975, 2337.622], "stop_times": [2329.975, 2337.622, 2340.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.232}, "reply_to": "15554__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_076", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes it is.\nI assume though that the state is entitled to put its regularly sentenced prisoners to work even though no fine has been imposed and as an incidental benefit to the state, flowing from the year's imprisonment, they're entitled to collect that labor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2340.157, 2342.497], "stop_times": [2342.497, 2358.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.157}, "reply_to": "15554__1_075", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_077", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you pay people for working in your --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2358.872], "stop_times": [2362.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.872}, "reply_to": "15554__1_076", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_078", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "There are some projects in the city jail which prisoners may obtain a small amount of paid form even though they're not working out fine.\nAlthough sometimes the pay is in the form of privileges or tobacco or things of that sort but it's really not a reimbursement scheme and such.\nBut to answer your question, I think that if the man was sentenced simply for a year in jail, the state is entitled to exact that year in terms of his time in the normal theory of a jail punishment and they're also entitled to the benefits of his labor, I think during that period.\nBut the sentence in this case was a year in jail and a fine of $500.00, a sentence permissible under Illinois law, sentence which is not challenged in this Court on grounds of constitutionality or rationality.\nThe state is therefore saying to Willie Williams, we are entitled to keep you in jail for a year to derive whatever incidental benefits flow to the state from that year of service in jail and we are also entitled to collect from you a $500.00 fine or its equivalent in labor.\nAnd I don't think it's irrational for the State of Illinois to say that in so far as the collection of the benefits from the labor are concerned, they must be served separately.\nIn other words, that the fine work off must follow the year's work off and that he need not, under a rational scheme of prison administration, be given credit for the fine work off during the course of the first year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2362.215, 2374.061, 2382.832, 2400.228, 2413.567, 2430.211, 2439.26], "stop_times": [2374.061, 2382.832, 2400.228, 2413.567, 2430.211, 2439.26, 2451.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.215}, "reply_to": "15554__1_077", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_079", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "They in fact show an indigent is forced to serve a lot of time that a man who's not an indigent would not have to serve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2451.921], "stop_times": [2459.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.921}, "reply_to": "15554__1_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__1_080", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, a man who was an indigent must work off his fine in the same jail that men go to who are sentenced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2459.791], "stop_times": [2474.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.791}, "reply_to": "15554__1_079", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_081", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Same jail but you don't have to work off his fine at the same jail that the millionaire would have to work it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2474.78], "stop_times": [2480.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.78}, "reply_to": "15554__1_080", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__1_082", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "As a millionaire, who pays his fine, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2480.975], "stop_times": [2482.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.975}, "reply_to": "15554__1_081", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_083", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, that's the difference practically speaking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2482.992], "stop_times": [2486.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.992}, "reply_to": "15554__1_082", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__1_084", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2486.15], "stop_times": [2486.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.15}, "reply_to": "15554__1_083", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_085", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And that's your real issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2486.361], "stop_times": [2487.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.361}, "reply_to": "15554__1_084", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15554__1_086", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's true.\nThe question, that that raises, is does that violate the Equal Protection Clause?\nAnd that was the question that was raised in the brief and that is a question which this Court has never really considered.\nAnd I'd like to turn for my remaining moments of argument to an examination of how this Court's previous cases, setting forth what the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause are that touch this case.\nObviously, the traditional test that this Court has talked about in Equal Protection cases is what class has the state set up?\nIn this case, those who do not, for whatever reason pay their fine.\nWhat scheme has the state adopted to deal with that class?\nIn this case, the work off system.\nWhat interests of the state does that scheme serve?\nIn this case, transit crime by preserving the value of fines and the Courts which impose fines as a component of our criminal justice system and the collection of revenue which fines bring in.\nThe final question under the traditional test, does the state's scheme rationally relate to the end result which they seek to achieve?\nAnd in this case, we say it does because the work off system of Illinois offers the opportunity for the state to keep its fine system viable and at the same time to collect the equivalent of fine and the labor of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2487.954, 2488.489, 2493.805, 2501.417, 2516.217, 2526.51, 2532.543, 2537.151, 2540.948, 2545.38, 2559.081, 2568.323], "stop_times": [2488.489, 2493.805, 2501.417, 2516.217, 2526.51, 2532.543, 2537.151, 2540.948, 2545.38, 2559.081, 2568.323, 2583.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.954}, "reply_to": "15554__1_085", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_087", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What is Illinois' collected fines usually?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2583.926], "stop_times": [2588.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.926}, "reply_to": "15554__1_086", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_088", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I'm not certain Your Honor but it's certainly in the high millions of dollars when you count in the fines collected by the Courts which handle cases in which the fine is the only punishment, including traffic offenses.\nI'm sure it's in the high millions and as a practical matter, offers the source of support for those Courts which enforce misdemeanor and petty offenses and traffic offenses without the revenues derived from the imposition of fines.\nEspecially in traffic cases, it would be extremely difficult for the State of Illinois under its present budget to support those Courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2588.153, 2602.318, 2618.573], "stop_times": [2602.318, 2618.573, 2627.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.153}, "reply_to": "15554__1_087", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_089", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Thompson, I assume that the jails are overcrowded in Illinois lately than place else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2627.191], "stop_times": [2632.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.191}, "reply_to": "15554__1_088", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_090", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Not necessarily, Mr. Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2632.498], "stop_times": [2634.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.498}, "reply_to": "15554__1_089", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_091", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Really?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2634.199], "stop_times": [2634.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.199}, "reply_to": "15554__1_090", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_092", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "It adds and flows -- I was out to the Bridewell Jail just a few weeks ago and they are not overcrowded in the Bridewell.\nIt depends on a number of factors, sometimes they are overcrowded, sometimes there is space available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2634.734, 2643.86], "stop_times": [2643.86, 2647.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.734}, "reply_to": "15554__1_091", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_093", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "You mean, the need as to workers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2647.56], "stop_times": [2650.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.56}, "reply_to": "15554__1_092", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_094", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No, but crime doesn't follow a steady pace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2650.283], "stop_times": [2656.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.283}, "reply_to": "15554__1_093", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_095", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you think that the statute in Illinois was passed putting a head tax on everybody of $100.00 a year and all who didn't pay it went to jail, would be valid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2656.626], "stop_times": [2674.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.626}, "reply_to": "15554__1_094", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_096", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I think the State of Illinois would be entitled to impose a tax, a revenue collecting tax on all of its citizens and to provide some means for alternative collection if the man failed to pay it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2674.301], "stop_times": [2689.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2674.301}, "reply_to": "15554__1_095", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_097", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The man that couldn't pay it?\nMan that couldn't have a $100.00 in his life, you could put him to jail because he didn't have $100.00.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2689.549, 2690.825], "stop_times": [2690.825, 2696.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.549}, "reply_to": "15554__1_096", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_098", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "We could extract the value of his labor and services to the state and if necessary, to accomplish that objective --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2696.542], "stop_times": [2705.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.542}, "reply_to": "15554__1_097", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_099", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you think that's true in the year of 1970 to put a man in jail because he doesn't have money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2705.25], "stop_times": [2710.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.25}, "reply_to": "15554__1_098", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_100", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I would draw a distinction, your honor between your hypothetical in my case for this reason.\nWe're not dealing in the Williams case with an ordinary citizen who has been taxed and who has failed to pay.\nWe're dealing with a man who has committed a criminal offense, has had a trial which was presumably fair, has been found guilty and has been sentenced to a criminal fine.\nNow, I think the state is entitled to draw different assumptions with regard to Willie Williams and what is necessary to extract the value of his services than it is with a taxpayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2710.939, 2716.161, 2722.968, 2733.013], "stop_times": [2716.161, 2722.968, 2733.013, 2743.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2710.939}, "reply_to": "15554__1_099", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_101", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What's the difference between Willie who doesn't have $1.75, paying the tax or paying the fine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2743.2], "stop_times": [2753.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.2}, "reply_to": "15554__1_100", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_102", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, the difference is simply I think that the state --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2753.818], "stop_times": [2756.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2753.818}, "reply_to": "15554__1_101", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_103", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The state doesn't need the money that he has, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2756.238], "stop_times": [2760.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.238}, "reply_to": "15554__1_102", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_104", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I think on the broad scheme -- on the broad scale, you could certainly say that they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2760.36], "stop_times": [2764.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.36}, "reply_to": "15554__1_103", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_105", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, didn't the judge, when he sentenced this man know that he wasn't getting a single dollar out of Willie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2764.609], "stop_times": [2772.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2764.609}, "reply_to": "15554__1_104", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_106", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I'm sure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2772.182], "stop_times": [2773.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2772.182}, "reply_to": "15554__1_105", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_107", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2773.153], "stop_times": [2773.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.153}, "reply_to": "15554__1_106", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_108", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I'm sure he presumed that Willie Williams is not going to come up with $500.00 in cash, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2773.992], "stop_times": [2777.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.992}, "reply_to": "15554__1_107", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_109", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "All he wanted was to extend the one year sentence, that's all he was interested in doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2777.833], "stop_times": [2784.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.833}, "reply_to": "15554__1_108", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_110", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I don't think that that is necessarily a motive which you can ascribe to the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2784.157], "stop_times": [2788.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.157}, "reply_to": "15554__1_109", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_111", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well can you give me any other one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2788.366], "stop_times": [2789.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.366}, "reply_to": "15554__1_110", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_112", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes, I think he was saying that the circumstances of Williams' crime, whatever they were, and the record does not show it, warranted the maximum penalty provided for by law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2789.996], "stop_times": [2801.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.996}, "reply_to": "15554__1_111", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_113", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which is a hundred -- so far as jail was concerned was a hundred -- one year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2801.95], "stop_times": [2807.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.95}, "reply_to": "15554__1_112", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_114", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct and then so far as the fine is concerned, the maximum fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2807.864], "stop_times": [2811.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2807.864}, "reply_to": "15554__1_113", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_115", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "So, he sentenced him to one year and 100 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2811.349], "stop_times": [2816.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.349}, "reply_to": "15554__1_114", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_116", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That is the net result of the sentence, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2816.844], "stop_times": [2819.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2816.844}, "reply_to": "15554__1_115", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_117", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And you don't see anything wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2819.081], "stop_times": [2821.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.081}, "reply_to": "15554__1_116", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_118", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No sir, I don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2821.244], "stop_times": [2822.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.244}, "reply_to": "15554__1_117", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_119", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What effect, suppose we were to hold, just assuming we were to hold that that provision is unconstitutional because it denies equal protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2822.828], "stop_times": [2833.571], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.828}, "reply_to": "15554__1_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_120", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2833.571], "stop_times": [2834.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.571}, "reply_to": "15554__1_119", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_121", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In fact, although it does not do so theoretically, but in fact, what are we to hold?\nWhat effect could it have on the administration of the law in Illinois?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2834.049, 2841.611], "stop_times": [2841.611, 2845.047], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.049}, "reply_to": "15554__1_120", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_122", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think the extraordinary effect on the administration of criminal justice, not only in Illinois but in all the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2845.047], "stop_times": [2850.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2845.047}, "reply_to": "15554__1_121", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_123", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Where would it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2850.209], "stop_times": [2850.908], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.209}, "reply_to": "15554__1_122", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_124", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In several areas, first, a holding of that time would necessarily take this Court far beyond the rationale of Griffin versus Illinois which provided for the first time that the state must attempt to remedy the imbalance between the poor and the rich, so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned.\nBut the impact to that opinion so far has always been confined by this Court to those stages of the criminal justice process which determined guilt or provide for a first appellate review of guilt.\nThis Court has been very, very hesitant, in fact has not at all taken the rationale of Griffin beyond those narrow bounds.\nIt seems to me that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2850.908, 2872.188, 2884.903, 2894.211], "stop_times": [2872.188, 2884.903, 2894.211, 2894.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.908}, "reply_to": "15554__1_123", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_125", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I'm trying to find that I would block the state of Illinois is in anyway, I wouldn't talk about rationale and (Voice Overlap).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2894.834], "stop_times": [2901.113], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.834}, "reply_to": "15554__1_124", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_126", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, alright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2901.113], "stop_times": [2902.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.113}, "reply_to": "15554__1_125", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_127", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I will not -- how will it really affect the administration of the law in Illinois?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2902.331], "stop_times": [2908.068], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.331}, "reply_to": "15554__1_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_128", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "This is what it would do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2908.068], "stop_times": [2910.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.068}, "reply_to": "15554__1_127", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_129", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Adversely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2910.84], "stop_times": [2911.714], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.84}, "reply_to": "15554__1_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_130", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "As to those cases where the only penalty provided by law was a fine --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2911.714], "stop_times": [2918.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.714}, "reply_to": "15554__1_129", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_131", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which could be changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2918.055], "stop_times": [2919.7], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.055}, "reply_to": "15554__1_130", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_132", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Which could be changed except that that would have an extremely harsh impact on the administration of criminal justice because --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2919.7], "stop_times": [2925.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2919.7}, "reply_to": "15554__1_131", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_133", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Why would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2925.769], "stop_times": [2926.506], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.769}, "reply_to": "15554__1_132", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15554__1_134", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, in the traffic area, for example, a state would be low to provide that the only possible penalty that could be imposed in a traffic case was a jail sentence.\nI think we would have chaos in traffic law enforcement.\nAnd I think the same would be true in a number of petty offenses and misdemeanor cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2926.506, 2935.754, 2938.324], "stop_times": [2935.754, 2938.324, 2940.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.506}, "reply_to": "15554__1_133", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_135", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, that's getting to what I was talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2940.648], "stop_times": [2943.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.648}, "reply_to": "15554__1_134", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_136", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Right.\nThe second thing that it would do is that it would encourage spurious claims of indigency and that it would impose on the Court's least able to handle it, a burden of determining something new in a case, not only must they first determine guilt, but after determination of guilt, if there was a claim on indigency and that a fine could not be paid, they would have to hold a hearing to determine whether the man was in fact indigent.\nNow, it's one thing to require a hearing of that sort in a criminal court where the issues is does he have the money for a transcript on appeal or a lawyer on appeal where the judge may have on his call one or two or three or five cases a day.\nIt's quite another thing to say for example to the Municipal Court of Chicago, in a traffic case where a judge may have two or three or 400 cases on his call per day that whenever he is confronted with the claim of indigency, he must stop and determine that fact in order to decide whether or not the defendant is going to have to work off his fine under the Illinois work off system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [2943.74, 2944.229, 2972.892, 2986.829], "stop_times": [2944.229, 2972.892, 2986.829, 3008.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.74}, "reply_to": "15554__1_135", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_137", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I preclude that that's true.\nThere are few in the illustration you've mentioned, to driving automobiles around to the country, couldn't pay a $5.00 fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3008.702, 3010.421], "stop_times": [3010.421, 3019.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.702}, "reply_to": "15554__1_136", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_138", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I'm not so sure that's true, Your Honor because first, suppose the fine was substantially greater than that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3019.416], "stop_times": [3025.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3019.416}, "reply_to": "15554__1_137", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_139", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, do you have any statistics, how many traffic offenders who can't pay their fines are required for work off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3025.295], "stop_times": [3032.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.295}, "reply_to": "15554__1_138", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15554__1_140", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No I don't, no I don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3032.545], "stop_times": [3034.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.545}, "reply_to": "15554__1_139", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_141", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you know that this actually happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3034.065], "stop_times": [3036.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.065}, "reply_to": "15554__1_140", "speaker": "j__william_j_brennan_jr"}
{"id": "15554__1_142", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes I do, it does actually happen but the percentage figures I don't have.\nI think it happens fairly often, I think it happens fairly often.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3036.1, 3041.617], "stop_times": [3041.617, 3045.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.1}, "reply_to": "15554__1_141", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_143", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I had some experiences of prosecutions in my state.\nI do not recall a single one where they were not able to pay except somebody who had stolen the car or something of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3045.96, 3049.788], "stop_times": [3049.788, 3059.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.96}, "reply_to": "15554__1_142", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_144", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, Your Honor I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3059.303], "stop_times": [3060.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.303}, "reply_to": "15554__1_143", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_145", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What this amounts to, which has to be paid is that it imposes a punishment upon a man who has no money, cannot possibly be imposed on a man who has money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3060.513], "stop_times": [3075.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.513}, "reply_to": "15554__1_144", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_146", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, if I accept it Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3075.917], "stop_times": [3077.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.917}, "reply_to": "15554__1_145", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_147", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3077.842], "stop_times": [3078.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.842}, "reply_to": "15554__1_146", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_148", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "If I accepted your premise, I would agree with you.\nI cannot, under the terms of my argument, accept the premise that it imposes initial punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3078.666, 3080.886], "stop_times": [3080.886, 3084.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.666}, "reply_to": "15554__1_147", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_149", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But I' not talking about the premises.\nI'm talking about terms of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3084.02, 3085.449], "stop_times": [3085.449, 3087.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.02}, "reply_to": "15554__1_148", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_150", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In fact, he goes to the same jail as a man who is sentenced to a straight jail term, that's correct.\nAnd in fact as a man pays his fine, he does go to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3087.921, 3093.244], "stop_times": [3093.244, 3095.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.921}, "reply_to": "15554__1_149", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_151", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In fact, it amounts sending a man to jail without his fine and who is indigent, you do not send a man to jail who has money and is not indigent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3095.98], "stop_times": [3107.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.98}, "reply_to": "15554__1_150", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_152", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And who pays the fine, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3107.875], "stop_times": [3109.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3107.875}, "reply_to": "15554__1_151", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_153", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3109.238], "stop_times": [3109.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.238}, "reply_to": "15554__1_152", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_154", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3109.815], "stop_times": [3110.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.815}, "reply_to": "15554__1_153", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_155", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's what it results.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3110.322], "stop_times": [3111.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.322}, "reply_to": "15554__1_154", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_156", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's just what happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3111.41], "stop_times": [3111.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3111.41}, "reply_to": "15554__1_155", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_157", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And the question is, does that violate the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3111.953], "stop_times": [3115.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.953}, "reply_to": "15554__1_156", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_158", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "It does not violate the Constitution because under this traditional Equal Protection test which this Court has set up, if we shown irrational class, those who do not pay, rational state objectives to be achieved in a rational connection between the two of the work off system.\nIt doesn't violate Equal Protection even though it may treat some people differently than others.\nBut even if we move beyond that traditional test, as this Court has moved in some areas.\nFor example, in the Shapiro case, testing whether or not a one year's residency require it for welfare, violated the Equal Protection Clause where Mr. Justice Brennan said that in cases involving the exercise of constitutional right, you have to show a compelling state interest, not merely a rational relationship or some other cases which have essentially used a balancing approach to the advantages gained by the state, outweigh the disadvantages to the defendant.\nWe believe that the interest of the State of Illinois and the rest of the states of the union, in preserving the idea that this does not violate Equal Protection, this and allied practices such as the area of bail, is so strong that it outweighs the disadvantage to the indigent defendant even if the test is compelling state interest or the balancing of advantages to one side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3115.506, 3134.789, 3139.792, 3144.583, 3171.952], "stop_times": [3134.789, 3139.792, 3144.583, 3171.952, 3196.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.506}, "reply_to": "15554__1_157", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_159", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I'm going to state your balancing in a little different way.\nLet's forget about the theories.\nWhat you're saying is that the state has such a compelling interest in making indigent serve time that no one else has to serve in the state.\nIt has simply brought the state's efforts to fall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3196.251, 3199.464, 3203.388, 3214.399], "stop_times": [3199.464, 3203.388, 3214.399, 3218.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.251}, "reply_to": "15554__1_158", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_160", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think that if this Court were to hold that indigency excused a man from incarceration under the work off system, that the threat to other state interests, including the maintenance of the whole fine system, the maintenance of the Courts which enforce the fine system, especially in those cases where the fine is the only penalty and the maintenance, the monetary bail system and the potential saddling of all those Courts with spurious claims of indigency which do not now arise because a man knows if he doesn't pay his fine, he's going to jail to work it off, are so compelling that they outweigh whatever disadvantages there are in sending an indigent man to jail to work off his fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3218.234], "stop_times": [3262.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3218.234}, "reply_to": "15554__1_159", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_161", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I have a hard time convincing the indigent is that reasonable but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3262.832], "stop_times": [3267.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3262.832}, "reply_to": "15554__1_160", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_162", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "We probably would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3267.147], "stop_times": [3268.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.147}, "reply_to": "15554__1_161", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_163", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And the federal system, do you know what the statute is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3268.649], "stop_times": [3272.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.649}, "reply_to": "15554__1_162", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_164", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, the man goes to jail for no more than 30 days in lieu with paying off the fine.\nThe Federal Government has it too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3272.476, 3279.825], "stop_times": [3279.825, 3281.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.476}, "reply_to": "15554__1_163", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_165", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "All for hearing on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3281.535], "stop_times": [3283.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.535}, "reply_to": "15554__1_164", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_166", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3283.566], "stop_times": [3284.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3283.566}, "reply_to": "15554__1_165", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_167", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Is there also a hearing before that's done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3284.14], "stop_times": [3286.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.14}, "reply_to": "15554__1_166", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_168", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Under the federal statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3286.592], "stop_times": [3287.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3286.592}, "reply_to": "15554__1_167", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_169", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3287.679], "stop_times": [3288.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.679}, "reply_to": "15554__1_168", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_170", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I'm not sure about it, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3288.149], "stop_times": [3289.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3288.149}, "reply_to": "15554__1_169", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_171", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well in practice, would you -- will it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3289.389], "stop_times": [3292.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.389}, "reply_to": "15554__1_170", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_172", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In Illinois there is no such, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3292.189], "stop_times": [3295.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3292.189}, "reply_to": "15554__1_171", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_173", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Do you think, the intermediate position is also destructing your statement which I gather about putting a man who can't pay his fine immediately, putting him on probation (Inaudible) and he would work outside, I take it that is a provision in Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3295.006], "stop_times": [3309.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.006}, "reply_to": "15554__1_172", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_174", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3309.997], "stop_times": [3310.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3309.997}, "reply_to": "15554__1_173", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_175", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And I suppose that work offs may be cheaper and more efficient way of control but what's so destructing about state interest when a felon says, \u201cI got a job, I can get a job and I will work to pay in installments.\nAnd I'll be on probation which is more than every week?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3310.304, 3327.559], "stop_times": [3327.559, 3335.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.304}, "reply_to": "15554__1_174", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_176", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, there are two considerations, I think Mr. Justice White, if we're going to consider the question of alternatives to the work off system which are thought to be less onerous to the indigent defendant than the work off system.\nThe first question which arises is, is it within the province of this Court to examine whether there are viable alternatives?\nOr must this Court, in an Equal Protection case refrain from deciding what is a wiser, what is a more humane, what is a more just system of the enforcement of the criminal laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3335.247, 3351.53, 3360.861], "stop_times": [3351.53, 3360.861, 3371.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3335.247}, "reply_to": "15554__1_175", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_177", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I know but you are talking about state interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3371.984], "stop_times": [3375.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.984}, "reply_to": "15554__1_176", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_178", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3375.184], "stop_times": [3375.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3375.184}, "reply_to": "15554__1_177", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_179", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "A compelling state interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3375.921], "stop_times": [3377.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.921}, "reply_to": "15554__1_178", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_180", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3377.258], "stop_times": [3377.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3377.258}, "reply_to": "15554__1_179", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_181", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "And if there is a viable alternative why they'd put your (Inaudible) about compelling state interest (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3377.852], "stop_times": [3389.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3377.852}, "reply_to": "15554__1_180", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__1_182", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I'm not sure.\nIf we were -- if we were following the traditional test of Equal Protection cases, we would not stop to inquire whether there were in fact alternatives.\nBut if we are following what's been called the balancing test or the compelling state interest test, I'm not sure even there that the same rule doesn't carry over.\nIn other words, if this Court can find a compelling state interest which is carried out by a rational scheme which the state has selected, we think the work off system, standing by itself is a rational scheme.\nThen I'm not so sure that even in a compelling interest case, if this is one.\nThat this Court can say, but we will strike down the rational scheme because there are other rational schemes which contain less disadvantage to the defendant.\nAs this Court said just a few weeks ago in the Dandridge case talking about the maximum grants on welfare payments.\nThe language of Mr. Justice Stewart, reiterating again words which have been used for years in equal protection cases.\nIt may well be that there are other policies which are available at the State of Illinois but the question is, can this Court, under the Equal Protection Clause make the state used.\nIn Illinois, as this Court sits today, we have a legislature sitting and we have a constitutional convention sitting.\nAnd I think the arguments of Mr. Bass has made to this Court today are more properly directed to those two bodies.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3389.619, 3390.535, 3399.65, 3409.086, 3422.644, 3427.471, 3437.955, 3444.645, 3451.718, 3463.331, 3471.376, 3476.878], "stop_times": [3390.535, 3399.65, 3409.086, 3422.644, 3427.471, 3437.955, 3444.645, 3451.718, 3463.331, 3471.376, 3476.878, 3477.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3389.619}, "reply_to": "15554__1_181", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_183", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Mr. Thompson I have a question, it won't take too long I hope.\nIs it possible that in considering these various alternatives that a holding along the lines, holding adverse to the State of Illinois in this case, could lead judges to impose direct prison penal sentences without the alternative of a fine and then produce what is a new term to me these days, counterproductive consequences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3477.309, 3485.091], "stop_times": [3485.091, 3518.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3477.309}, "reply_to": "15554__1_182", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__1_184", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think that's entirely clear.\nI think one of the results of such a holding would be that some judges would simply impose maximum jail sentences where they do not now impose jail sentences.\nI couldn't say that all judges would do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3518.727, 3520.49, 3532.266], "stop_times": [3520.49, 3532.266, 3534.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3518.727}, "reply_to": "15554__1_183", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_185", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, that doesn't apply to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3534.479], "stop_times": [3536.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3534.479}, "reply_to": "15554__1_184", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_186", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "No sir, it would not apply to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3536.677], "stop_times": [3537.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3536.677}, "reply_to": "15554__1_185", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_187", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "You gave the over maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3537.469], "stop_times": [3539.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3537.469}, "reply_to": "15554__1_186", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__1_188", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "In this case, he could not give anymore, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3539.787], "stop_times": [3542.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3539.787}, "reply_to": "15554__1_187", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_189", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Now, my question was addressed to the consequences of a holding, not to any consequence on this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3542.752], "stop_times": [3549.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3542.752}, "reply_to": "15554__1_188", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__1_190", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think the danger of that as a consequence to the holding is great danger as to the consequence to this holding for the bail system, for the whole system of fines in the Courts which force that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3549.931], "stop_times": [3563.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3549.931}, "reply_to": "15554__1_189", "speaker": "james_r_thompson"}
{"id": "15554__1_191", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Thompson.\nMr. Bass you have five minutes left?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3563.01, 3564.07], "stop_times": [3564.07, 3567.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3563.01}, "reply_to": "15554__1_190", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__2_000", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I don't think I will use that up, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3567.865], "stop_times": [3570.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3567.865}, "reply_to": "15554__1_191", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_001", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "What do you think about this last thing that if you seem to have some spare time, do you think there's a so-called counter productive possibility or potential here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3570.25], "stop_times": [3579.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3570.25}, "reply_to": "15554__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__2_002", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.\nI think that the traffic courts have utilized the fines as a method of keeping the system supported.\nI don't think there's any reason to believe that the traffic courts are going to change their practices overnight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3579.489, 3580.582, 3586.722], "stop_times": [3580.582, 3586.722, 3592.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3579.489}, "reply_to": "15554__2_001", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_003", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, I wasn't thinking so much of traffic court as the misdemeanor court dealing with behavior not as serious as the behavior involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3592.921], "stop_times": [3603.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3592.921}, "reply_to": "15554__2_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__2_004", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I think we're entitled to trust the trial judges' discretion.\nIf they want to individualize the sentence, they should be allowed to do so.\nIf they think that a fine is called for rather than imprisonment, they will impose a fine.\nIf they feel that incarceration is called for, they will impose incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3603.174, 3606.161, 3610.156, 3614.912], "stop_times": [3606.161, 3610.156, 3614.912, 3620.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3603.174}, "reply_to": "15554__2_003", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_005", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The matter of your view then I take it is that there is no potential for the -- what I've characterized as counterproductive results.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3620.02], "stop_times": [3630.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3620.02}, "reply_to": "15554__2_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__2_006", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The potential is there but I think we have to test the Courts.\nI think the potential will not be realized.\nI did want to make an observation with respect to the state's complaint that they'll have difficulty administering these evidentiary hearings going to the financial ability of the defendant.\nI'd always thought that was a basic principle of American law that it's not better to let a man rot in jail because it was easier for the state's administrative machinery to have to dispense with hearings.\nBut besides, the lower court judges right now, under the Illinois statutes conduct inquiries into the defendant's background, etcetera in setting bail.\nThere's a statute right now that requires such inquiries, so I don't understand how the state is going to be put to any substantially greater hearings that it engages in right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3630.863, 3633.854, 3637.13, 3649.472, 3662.493, 3670.957], "stop_times": [3633.854, 3637.13, 3649.472, 3662.493, 3670.957, 3681.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3630.863}, "reply_to": "15554__2_005", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_007", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, Mr. Bass, what would you think of an overt system by state or a criminal court system which says where it's determined after investigation that a defendant cannot pay a fine, we just won't impose a fine but we will impose an alternative, what we think is some equivalent jail sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3681.952], "stop_times": [3706.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3681.952}, "reply_to": "15554__2_006", "speaker": "j__harry_a_blackmun"}
{"id": "15554__2_008", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's not an equivalent, that's the problem in this case.\nIf the state feels that he cannot pay, they still must do something less than putting him in jail.\nA fine is not the equivalent of jail.\nThat is obvious and if the state wants to get the revenue, there are ways of collecting it.\nIf the state feels that a fine is the type of punishment, that's different from jail.\nIf that's appropriate, then that's the punishment that the state should stick to.\nWe're not telling the trial judges what to do.\nWe're simply talking about the manner in which the state gets that exaction.\nIf the judge determines money is the sanction that should be the sanction.\nI did want to point to a reference in terms of cost, it was estimated that in the City of Chicago between 1907 and 1921, when prison costs were relatively low, the city lost $5 million in uncollected fines and incurred an additional expense in prison maintenance of $5 million, a total cost of $10 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3706.03, 3709.615, 3716.267, 3720.419, 3726.208, 3730.564, 3734.368, 3736.178, 3740.698, 3745.129], "stop_times": [3709.615, 3716.267, 3720.419, 3726.208, 3730.564, 3734.368, 3736.178, 3740.698, 3745.129, 3768.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3706.03}, "reply_to": "15554__2_007", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_009", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "(Inaudible)", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3768.626], "stop_times": [3780.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3768.626}, "reply_to": "15554__2_008", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15554__2_010", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, we don't have those figures.\nI'm sorry Your Honor.\nI believe that the traffic courts have been granting installments on some occasions but I don't have the exact figures.\nBut in terms of the cost problem, the economics of it is not so clear at all that the state will be bankrupted by a ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3780.858, 3782.193, 3786.838, 3795.939], "stop_times": [3782.193, 3786.838, 3795.939, 3804.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3780.858}, "reply_to": "15554__2_009", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_011", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "I suppose that it will be hard to contain that (Inaudible).", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3804.118], "stop_times": [3816.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3804.118}, "reply_to": "15554__2_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__2_012", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, to the extent to which the offense is punishable by fine only, we would be dealing with the situation of poor people being subjected to a sanction different from the sanction as to rich people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3816.663], "stop_times": [3826.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3816.663}, "reply_to": "15554__2_011", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_013", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "So, now you would say that if we agree with you in this case, we agree to the same (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3826.988], "stop_times": [3832.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3826.988}, "reply_to": "15554__2_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15554__2_014", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, you don't have to reach that in this case, but we would submit --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3832.823], "stop_times": [3836.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3832.823}, "reply_to": "15554__2_013", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_015", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But we take that step, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3836.35], "stop_times": [3838.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3836.35}, "reply_to": "15554__2_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__2_016", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "We would submit that if the judge determines that -- well, first of all, if the offense is serious enough to warrant incarceration of an individual would seem to underlie a lot of these, letting an indigence to get away with violating the law with impunity.\nThis legislature has the ability to set up imprisonment as an alternative but if the offense is not serious enough to require an exaction greater than the fine, there's not justification for putting people in jail simply because they don't have the way with all to pay that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3838.009, 3851.803], "stop_times": [3851.803, 3867.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3838.009}, "reply_to": "15554__2_015", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_017", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "You've almost -- you've almost gone around the circle now on my counterproductive proposition.\nYou said the legislature might respond by making greater class, number of classes of crimes subject to imprisonment which are now subject only to fines as a response to a holding that you can't have an alternative for a poor man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3867.812, 3873.725], "stop_times": [3873.725, 3889.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3867.812}, "reply_to": "15554__2_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15554__2_018", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, it's possible that the legislature has always had the discretion to determine what penalties are appropriate for what offenses but we're talking about this situation is an automatic system that puts people in jail without any inquiry whatsoever as to whether or not the money, that the state says is the appropriate sanction, the fine, can be satisfied in the means less onerous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3889.943], "stop_times": [3910.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3889.943}, "reply_to": "15554__2_017", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_019", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, the legislature has done this, isn't it?\nIt's the legislature that has all these powers, this is exactly what the legislature has done in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3910.2, 3912.866], "stop_times": [3912.866, 3918.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3910.2}, "reply_to": "15554__2_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__2_020", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The legislature has not, according to the construction put on the statute by the Illinois Supreme Court.\nThe legislature has not allowed these alternatives to work.\nThe legislature --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3918.571, 3922.859, 3926.368], "stop_times": [3922.859, 3926.368, 3927.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3918.571}, "reply_to": "15554__2_019", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_021", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The legislature has proved, as I understood that this case is about that the Illinois legislature has said that if a person is convicted and he cannot pay his fine, he can be put in jail instead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3927.318], "stop_times": [3943.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3927.318}, "reply_to": "15554__2_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__2_022", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well that's what they've said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3943.899], "stop_times": [3945.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3943.899}, "reply_to": "15554__2_021", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_023", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "That's what the case is about and that's -- the legislature has done this, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3945.259], "stop_times": [3948.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3945.259}, "reply_to": "15554__2_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__2_024", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Well, but our point is that the legislature may unconstitutionally do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3948.694], "stop_times": [3954.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3948.694}, "reply_to": "15554__2_023", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_025", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "But it may, according to you submission, as I understand it, say that the punishment for any offense can be a fine up to $5.00 or imprisonment up to five days, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3954.304], "stop_times": [3969.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3954.304}, "reply_to": "15554__2_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15554__2_026", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "The legislature may prescribe maximum penalties, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3969.33], "stop_times": [3975.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3969.33}, "reply_to": "15554__2_025", "speaker": "stanley_a_bass"}
{"id": "15554__2_027", "conversation_id": "15554", "text": "Thank you Mr. Bass, thank you Mr. Thompson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_1089", "start_times": [3975.79, 3978.468], "stop_times": [3978.468, 3981.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3975.79}, "reply_to": "15554__2_026", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__0_000", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Number 412, Woodward against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.\nMr. Cooney you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [0.0, 7.435], "stop_times": [7.435, 10.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__0_001", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nThis case is here on certiorari to the Eighth Circuit.\nIt is an income tax case involving the question of whether the cost of a stock appraisal proceeding held in connection with the extension of a corporation's charter are ordinary and necessary expenses incurred for the production -- excuse me, ordinary and necessary expenses incurred for the management of property held for the production of income and are thus deductible, or in the alternative whether they are capital expenditures paid relevant to the acquisition of title to corporate stock and thus nondeductible.\nIn other words, this Court is asked to characterize for income tax purposes money spent by the taxpayers as majority shareholders for professionals services rendered in a litigation arising under a state appraisal statute wherein the only issue in the equitable action was the real value and in some states its fair value of the dissenting shareholders stock.\nThe character of this deduction so far as the taxpayers maintain is to be determine under Section 212 (2) of the present code.\nThis is a successor to the so-called nonbusiness deduction section that was added by the 1942 Revenue Act which this Court in 1965 was called upon to interpret in the Gilmore case.\nMechanical, Section 212 (2) deduction would have been taken on last year's income tax return that would be the one for 1968 on page 2 of 1040 under itemized deductions under this Section entitled Miscellaneous.\nThis year under the new forms it would be a deduction on the schedule entitled Itemized Deductions under Miscellaneous Deductions.\nIn this particular instance the taxpayer are majority shareholders.\nThe majority shareholders are people the petitioners if this are otherwise in the companion case.\nThe factual situation involved herein was precipitated and it is completely controlled by the Iowa renewal statute.\nIf you want wish to refer to it like at this particular time if you refer turn into page 23 of the appendix there are excerpts of the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court and the last paragraph on that particular page contains the perhaps of the statute.\nThis is a little bit different in most case.\nThis is not by way of the apology but Iowa's corporate law link to something to be desired relative to speed in adopting changes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [10.274, 13.368, 17.735, 67.868, 104.176, 116.961, 145.716, 163.867, 175.81, 184.307, 197.18, 207.213, 240.778, 245.246], "stop_times": [13.368, 17.735, 67.868, 104.176, 116.961, 145.716, 163.867, 175.81, 184.307, 197.18, 207.213, 240.778, 245.246, 259.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.274}, "reply_to": "15361__0_000", "speaker": "donald_p_cooney"}
{"id": "15361__0_002", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "What would happen in Iowa if the stockholders did not purchase the stock to the dissenters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [259.233], "stop_times": [267.667], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 259.233}, "reply_to": "15361__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15361__0_003", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "They -- that is the State of Iowa has adopted the partnership theory of the corporation.\nThis is a corporation for a term of years -- a term of 20 years at the end of 20 years it would have been dissolved because this is a contract.\nAs I understand it, it goes back to the case that Dartmouth College case versus Woodward and the case is subsequent thereto that hold that it is the corporate charter is a contract between the stockholders and between the corporation and the state, and between the state and the stockholders, a three-way type contract.\nThis is important because at that particular time if the dissenting shareholder had not purchased the time had not -- I beg your pardon, under the common law if this statute wasn't here because of the unanimity of consent rule.\nIn other words, this was a contract based upon a partnership law and everybody had to agree to terminate the corporation because she had entered the dissenting shareholder.\nHe had entered the agreement, the contract, the business venture to go for 20 years and it could not be stock unless there was some reason relative to it was better -- it would be better for the investment to terminate it.\nThen there is law that would indicate that you could then but she had agreed, everybody had agreed to go to 20 years and this is what the Iowa statute has been for me is initially from 1851 until the middle of the decade of 40's but that was just immediately prior to the last renewal for 20 years of this corporation.\nThe context this Iowa law the taxpayers are residents of Iowa.\nThe corporation happens to be a newspaper corporation, that once a radio station.\nThe taxpayers control approximately 70% of the shares of stock.\nThe dissenter owned approximately 30%.\nThe evidence shows that there hadn't been an offer or a sale of this stock at least to 1950 that is the evidence in the valuation case, the petitioner of which in the Supreme Court decision are included in the appendix.\nSo the corporate charter was due to run out in December of 1961 having been renewed for a term of years in December 1941.\nThat a meeting was held with notice to the given, etcetera that on June 9, 1960 the dissenting shareholder voted against the resolution to extend the corporation's charter.\nNow, Iowa has adopted the statute which has show on page 32 -- 23 of the appendix 49125 and it was adopted abrogate the common law rule of unanimous consent whereby everybody had agree to every fundamental change.\nIncidentally, in Iowa the extension of a corporations life is considered a fundamental change, this is otherwise in most states, in other words the Model Corporation Act indicates in its annotation there's only three other States that consider the extension of a corporation's life is a fundamental change to finance the problem and to increase economic activity and to proceed toward the investor management theory of corporations which will would be involved in the next case.\nThe States generally change or adopt the statute that will adopt the majority rule but they were concerned that they would run smack into the Due Process Clause only to the protection of contractual rights.\nSo as a compromise to finance the problem they granted appraisal rights.\nIn other words, here you started (Inaudible) shareholder in 1941.\nAs a stockholder we agreed to go to 1961.\nWe want to extend the life of the corporation.\nYou want out, alright, under the common law she'd have to continue to the end, it would be to the end and everything would be divided up pro rata and of course with the income tax consequences that would arise from dissolving the corporation.\nThen in return for year for letting me continue we will give an appraisal right, fine.\nAll right now, in Iowa this appraisal right is a finding of value.\nNo judgment is I asked and if for instance in this particular case if the majority stockholders had not paid the defendant -- excuse me, the dissenter dissenting show or whatever it would have to sue on the judgment, it's important.\nIn other words all this is, is a judicial determination of value, this is a closely-held corporation.\nThe dissenter says it worth (Inaudible) and this is exactly what happen and the majority shareholders says would nothing and there is a judicial determination and this case with the evidence took about five or six weeks and then it went up to the Supreme Court and was lowered and on rehearing it was lowered again.\nThen she was paid in 1965.\nNow, the Iowa court has held that this is the statute extending the life of a corporation is not a sale and purchase transaction.\nIt is a method whereby the dissenting shareholder is allocated her adequate share of the corporation's assets.\nIn other words, if there were a thousand shares during December of 1941 she paid $7,000.00 for her shares -- excuse me, $3,000.00 for her shares.\nThe majority shareholders paid $7,000.00 for theirs.\nTwenty years later, when it's evaluated what is she entitled too?\nAny increase, she is entitled of 30% of any increase.\nIt is not a sale or purchase taxation.\nAs a matter of fact we were advocating we represented in valuation case the majority shareholders.\nWe were advocating strenuously that the stock should be discounted because it represented a minority interest and or because if not that then because there would be a broker's commission taken in the use of course of business.\nNow, those theories of course arise under the fair market value cases under the -- generally under estate and gift taxes.\nBut the Supreme Court of Iowa would have nothing to do with that argument they said what he or she entitled to if she would have continued?\nThere being two of course the question arises how are these expenses to be determined.\nIt's our understanding, the taxpayers\u2019 understanding that there are two questions that are involved.\nThe first question is whether or not this is a personal expense of the payor, the taxpayer or expense that arises in a profit-seeking venture.\nThis Court's case of Gilmore enumerated the test that's now referred to us the origin and character test that is to determine whether or not a particular expenditure is a personal expense or therefore nondeductible because of the prohibition in the code, or whether or not it would be any expense that would come under 212 as a management expense or expenditure relative to property or for the production of income.\nIt would seem without -- by just reviewing the facts or situations that this is not a personal expense.\nThis are -- this is in a profit seeking status or venture or context.\nThe next test is whether or not the item -- the expenditure is an expense that would be deductible or a capital expenditure.\nNow, we are maintaining in the Iowa court, the Delaware court, the New Jersey court hold that this is a nature in this appraisal statute that is the fundamental change statutes that give us appraisal right are generally considered as accounting an action for an accounting.\nIn other words the dissenting shareholder says, \u201cI am entitled to \u201cX\u201d number of dollars because the increase in the value or the decrease in the value.\u201d\nThe majority shareholders say, \u201cYou are entitled to this much.\u201d\nThey are required to account to the dissenting shareholder for the value of her interest in the corporation if she would have continued, in other words if she had wanted out.\nNow, this Court in Gilmore relied on its origin and character test to determine whether or not a particular expenditure is a -- is personal or not and therefore nondeductible upon -- principally upon the Bingham Trust case.\nNow, this case relied on the Kornhauser case.\nThe Kornhauser case arose in 1928.\nIt was a case -- it was an income tax case course and then involved the deductibility -- or whether or not an expense for an attorney defending against his ex-partner defending an accounting action brought by his ex-partner for the value of some stock that he allegedly had received there's a fee after the partnership was dissolved but for services rendered while there was a partnership.\nHe was -- that is the action in the action of accounting it was held that not withstanding that these fees were for the defense of property that is the defense of -- the title to property that they were deductible.\nThis case was relied on in the Bingham Trust case was the second case that interpreted this particular Section.\nIf you -- one who would lead the sections and the taxpayers\u2019 brief, the blue one, we set out one section that was called the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the next section under the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 so you can see the comparison but the government and we'd certainly agree that essentially the law is the same under this Section even though the numbers are different.\nI have chosen to divide at my argument this particular point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [267.667, 279.438, 288.463, 326.043, 350.571, 365.263, 391.525, 422.31, 430.216, 436.675, 445.792, 450.58, 472.119, 487.116, 505.38, 535.4, 592.249, 613.677, 623.466, 633.904, 639.216, 642.283, 663.96, 675.077, 683.841, 702.729, 709.179, 737.698, 742.133, 759.288, 769.896, 787.039, 792.299, 798.933, 802.6, 807.644, 818.211, 842.762, 852.122, 863.216, 875.707, 881.268, 904.268, 956.706, 964.626, 974.862, 989.424, 1020.489, 1033.275, 1039.553, 1056.12, 1098.509, 1104.117, 1108.211, 1151.578, 1180.28, 1195.577, 1244.276], "stop_times": [279.438, 288.463, 326.043, 350.571, 365.263, 391.525, 422.31, 430.216, 436.675, 445.792, 450.58, 472.119, 487.116, 505.38, 535.4, 592.249, 613.677, 623.466, 633.904, 639.216, 642.283, 663.96, 675.077, 683.841, 702.729, 709.179, 737.698, 742.133, 759.288, 769.896, 787.039, 792.299, 798.933, 802.6, 807.644, 818.211, 842.762, 852.122, 863.216, 875.707, 881.268, 904.268, 956.706, 964.626, 974.862, 989.424, 1020.489, 1033.275, 1039.553, 1056.12, 1098.509, 1104.117, 1108.211, 1151.578, 1180.28, 1195.577, 1244.276, 1252.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.667}, "reply_to": "15361__0_002", "speaker": "donald_p_cooney"}
{"id": "15361__0_004", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Very well.\nMr. Walters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1252.67, 1263.335], "stop_times": [1263.335, 1264.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.67}, "reply_to": "15361__0_003", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__1_000", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nAs a corporate charter which was involved here was about to expire, the majority stockholders who voted to extend the charter and enlarge the powers of the corporation, Mrs. Quigley on 379 shares of the 1200 outstanding shares of the corporation, she voted against the extension and enlargement of the corporate charter.\nWith her having done that under the Iowa law the majority shareholders were required to purchase her stock and purchase it at its real value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1264.03, 1271.018, 1306.724], "stop_times": [1271.018, 1306.724, 1323.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1264.03}, "reply_to": "15361__0_004", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_001", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "What's the price value turn out to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1323.339], "stop_times": [1327.689], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.339}, "reply_to": "15361__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15361__1_002", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Sir, it's started off in the initial proceeding.\nIn my recollection, it was $1,750.00 per share ultimately.\nI think the final appraisal was $1,620.00 per share.\nThe majority shareholders had three years within which to purchase the stock.\nIn accordance with the Iowa law they comment these appraisal proceedings in the state court to determine the real value.\nIn that litigation they incurred attorney's fees and other expenditures which they later sought to deduct under Section 212.\nThe Internal Revenue service denied the deduction.\nThe tax court affirmed that denial and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the tax court decision.\nIn determining whether the expenditures in this case are deductible for federal income tax purposes, we must look to Section 212 and Section 263 and to some of the leading court decisions.\nSection 212 provides that an individual may take a deduction where the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred during the taxable year for the management protection or maintenance of property held for the production of income.\nThis of course is a counterpart to Section 162 which provides for deduction of the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred and carrying on a trader business.\nBut here we are concerned with the individual provision which is Section 212.\nTurning to Section 263 which deals with capital items we find this provision prohibits deduction of capital expenditures.\nThe costs of asset, tangible or intangible that have a life an excess of one year are capital costs.\nThey are nondeductible capital expenditures.\nSome examples which the courts have recognized are the cost for acquiring or disposing of capital stock and the cost incurred in connection with corporate reorganizations.\nThere is no dispute here as to this basic substantive tax rules.\nThe dispute arises as to which of these rules is applicable in this case.\nThe Woodward's content that Section 212 applies and provides for deduction of these expenditures.\nThe Government on the other hand contends that Section 263 is applicable and that deduction of these expenditures is prohibited.\nThe Woodward's contention basically is if the appraisal cost or ordinary and necessary expenses incurred for the management or maintenance of property held for the production of income.\nThey would avoid Section 263 and the capital expenditure treatment but saying that the appraisal proceeding was solely for the purpose of determining the real value of the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1327.689, 1331.897, 1338.328, 1345.8, 1351.535, 1364.498, 1377.37, 1381.058, 1392.209, 1412.461, 1438.175, 1453.784, 1461.337, 1475.343, 1487.611, 1492.037, 1511.367, 1517.87, 1525.906, 1535.866, 1548.111, 1565.655], "stop_times": [1331.897, 1338.328, 1345.8, 1351.535, 1364.498, 1377.37, 1381.058, 1392.209, 1412.461, 1438.175, 1453.784, 1461.337, 1475.343, 1487.611, 1492.037, 1511.367, 1517.87, 1525.906, 1535.866, 1548.111, 1565.655, 1584.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1327.689}, "reply_to": "15361__1_001", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_003", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's about the fact of the matter isn't it?\nIt was determined the price in stock period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1584.522, 1586.775], "stop_times": [1586.775, 1589.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.522}, "reply_to": "15361__1_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15361__1_004", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That was evolved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1589.39], "stop_times": [1590.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.39}, "reply_to": "15361__1_003", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_005", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That was about their duty to purchase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1590.356], "stop_times": [1592.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.356}, "reply_to": "15361__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15361__1_006", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's right Mr. Justice Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1592.276], "stop_times": [1593.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1592.276}, "reply_to": "15361__1_005", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_007", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "And the only purpose of the proceeding was to determine the price?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1593.697], "stop_times": [1596.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.697}, "reply_to": "15361__1_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15361__1_008", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That was the purpose of the proceeding but we say Mr. Justice Stewart that this is not the whole picture that we must look beyond that.\nWe say that you cannot look just at that segment of the overall transaction and we think that to ask the Court to look at that fragment of the overall transaction is asking the Court to close its eyes to the entire picture.\nThis Court has provided precedents that help us in approaching this problem to distinguish between deductible expenses and nondeductible capital expenditures.\nIn the Gilmore case, already mentioned this morning, the Court held that the origin and the character of the obligation from which an expenditure arises determines the character of that organization of that \u2013 the expenditure.\nIn the Gilmore case, Mr. Gilmore was owner of three General Motors franchises.\nHe encouraged substantial expenditures in connection with a divorce actions started by Mrs. Gilmore.\nHe attempted to deduct those expenditures on the theory that an unsuccessful defense of the divorce action would have had substantial adverse effects upon his status and his businesses.\nAnd that therefore, these expenditures were incurred to protect, manage, and maintain property held for the production of income.\nHe was victorious in the divorce action but this Court held that the character of the proceeding from which the payments came determine the origin and character and that therefore Mrs. Gilmore's divorce action arose out of the personal relationship, the marital relationship and not out of any income-producing activity.\nAccordingly, the expenditures were held to be nondeductible personal expenditures.\nNow, while the Gilmore case involved the question of distinguishing between personal and business expenses we just think that nevertheless that this broad decision by this Court indicates a principle that can be applied in determining whether an expense incurred in an income-producing activity is a business expense or a deductible expense or a nondeductible capital expenditure.\nIn this decision below in this case the Eighth Circuit looked at this overall transaction involving Mrs. Quigley stock and decided that this was a case -- was a transaction involving the purchase of a capital stock?\nThus, this case is much like the case decided by this Court some 30 years ago in Helvering versus Winmill.\nIn that case, the taxpayer was engaged into buying and selling of securities.\nHe attempted to deduct the brokerage commissions he paid but the Court held, however, that the commissions constituted a part of the cost of acquisition of the securities purchased.\nAnd that therefore, they were not deductible.\nWe say that there is much comparison between the brokers' commissions in that case and the case and the expenditures incurred in this case.\nBoth were directly related to acquisition of capital asset and we see no sound reason to distinguish between the two merely because the amounts of each were calculated in a different way.\nThe Woodward expenditures here for this appraisal proceeding were part of the cost of acquiring Mr. Quigley stock.\nAlso in accordance with the statute requiring the purchase of that stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1596.989, 1610.918, 1630.317, 1644.893, 1666.263, 1676.752, 1685.606, 1706.926, 1719.011, 1753.275, 1765.16, 1801.257, 1822.643, 1834.218, 1843.127, 1858.374, 1862.736, 1874.446, 1894.701, 1906.077], "stop_times": [1610.918, 1630.317, 1644.893, 1666.263, 1676.752, 1685.606, 1706.926, 1719.011, 1753.275, 1765.16, 1801.257, 1822.643, 1834.218, 1843.127, 1858.374, 1862.736, 1874.446, 1894.701, 1906.077, 1913.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1596.989}, "reply_to": "15361__1_007", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_009", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "What you're saying is the taxpayer had not been satisfied with the appraisal figure that resulted to proceeding and withdrew his dissent and the majority stockholders then wanted to deduct the expenses which he had incurred anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1913.024], "stop_times": [1935.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.024}, "reply_to": "15361__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_010", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, then that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1935.236], "stop_times": [1935.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.236}, "reply_to": "15361__1_009", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_011", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "He never did acquire -- he never did acquire the dissenter's stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1935.455], "stop_times": [1938.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.455}, "reply_to": "15361__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_012", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Right and that Mr. Justice White under Iowa law that could have occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1938.467], "stop_times": [1944.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.467}, "reply_to": "15361__1_011", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_013", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I know it could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1944.253], "stop_times": [1945.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.253}, "reply_to": "15361__1_012", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_014", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "And in that case she would have gone along with the corporate extension.\nI think at that time, possibly the majority stockholders would attempted to have deducted this expenditure or written it off as a capital items something that they had tried to do had failed although I'm not sure that that would have been justified because it was an expenditure still involved with this corporate statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1945.424, 1950.049], "stop_times": [1950.049, 1976.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.424}, "reply_to": "15361__1_013", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_015", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Oh!\nYes, do you think it would have been deductible at all under any theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1976.341, 1976.507], "stop_times": [1976.507, 1982.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.341}, "reply_to": "15361__1_014", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_016", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I think it would have been doubtful, yes sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1982.523], "stop_times": [1986.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.523}, "reply_to": "15361__1_015", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_017", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Doubtful, what would be the possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1986.177], "stop_times": [1991.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.177}, "reply_to": "15361__1_016", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_018", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1991.422], "stop_times": [1991.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.422}, "reply_to": "15361__1_017", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_019", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "A capital loss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1991.902], "stop_times": [1993.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.902}, "reply_to": "15361__1_018", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_020", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, possibly if they were going to be deductible possibly that but it seems to me that these expenditures were incurred to extend the life of the corporation and the life of this corporation even in this case would have been extended.\nThis would not have deprived them course an ultimate deduction because it would in such case have been added to the basis of their stock --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [1993.311, 2014.051], "stop_times": [2014.051, 2023.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.311}, "reply_to": "15361__1_019", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_021", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Let's assume the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2023.328], "stop_times": [2023.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.328}, "reply_to": "15361__1_020", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_022", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "-- to be recovered later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2023.965], "stop_times": [2024.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.965}, "reply_to": "15361__1_021", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_023", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Let's assume the majority stockholder under the Iowa law has some duties with respect to getting the expense.\nHe has to hire a lawyer and he has to deal with the state and unless the life is extended while he is going to have to turn his stock and get some money back but he wants to retain his stock.\nHe doesn't want the corporate charter day to expire.\nHe spends some money to make sure that corporate charter doesn't expire so that he can keep his stock.\nYou wouldn't think that expense is deductible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2024.533, 2033.957, 2051.516, 2055.031, 2063.335], "stop_times": [2033.957, 2051.516, 2055.031, 2063.335, 2065.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.533}, "reply_to": "15361__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_024", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's presents a tougher question because in that case I think he can argue that he's going along with it but that he is doing this to conserve and protect and manage --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2065.907], "stop_times": [2078.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.907}, "reply_to": "15361__1_023", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_025", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, isn't that what this whole operation here is all about?\nNo but he didn't want to buy that minority stock.\nThe law made him buys it.\nWhat his major purpose is to extend the life of the corporation so that he can go on holding his stock through which he earns income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2078.063, 2083.389, 2086.127, 2088.205], "stop_times": [2083.389, 2086.127, 2088.205, 2096.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.063}, "reply_to": "15361__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_026", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's true but does not quite is involuntary as it sounds Mr. Justice White because when the majority stockholders voted to extend the corporate charter, they knew that if any stockholders dissented and voted against him, that they would be required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2096.556], "stop_times": [2115.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.556}, "reply_to": "15361__1_025", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_027", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, I understand that but nevertheless the thing that triggered this whole problem was the desire to extend the corporate charter and maintain as the stock ownership, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2115.143], "stop_times": [2126.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.143}, "reply_to": "15361__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_028", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's right, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2126.013], "stop_times": [2127.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.013}, "reply_to": "15361__1_027", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_029", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Why isn't that the origin of this claim here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2127.618], "stop_times": [2133.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.618}, "reply_to": "15361__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_030", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I think it is the origin sir.\nI think that decision to extend it is the origin and I will come to that in just a moment but I think in addition to extending the life of the corporation for their own stock which is the case as I understand you present they here acquired some additional stock which is a little different sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2133.287, 2134.964], "stop_times": [2134.964, 2155.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.287}, "reply_to": "15361__1_029", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_031", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, I would think that -- let's assume, again I'll go back to the other example assume that the dissenter withdrew his dissent after these expenses have been incurred and he wants to deduct them as an expense incurred to maintain and safeguard his stock.\nThese expenses were necessary in order to extend the life of the corporate charter and to perpetuate his ownership of the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2155.969, 2176.643], "stop_times": [2176.643, 2187.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.969}, "reply_to": "15361__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_032", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2187.185], "stop_times": [2188.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.185}, "reply_to": "15361__1_031", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_033", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Why isn't that a perfectly decent argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2188.123], "stop_times": [2192.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.123}, "reply_to": "15361__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_034", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I think it is a decent argument sir and particularly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2192.836], "stop_times": [2196.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.836}, "reply_to": "15361__1_033", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_035", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Just for a while.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2196.947], "stop_times": [2197.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.947}, "reply_to": "15361__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_036", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "[Laughter Attempt] And particularly if they did not acquire something else but here there's another staff they acquired some additional stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2197.482], "stop_times": [2207.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.482}, "reply_to": "15361__1_035", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_037", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well then my example, they didn't anything.\nWouldn't he say he could deduct that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2207.252, 2211.961], "stop_times": [2211.961, 2213.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.252}, "reply_to": "15361__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_038", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's why I could agree with you on your example, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2213.755], "stop_times": [2218.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.755}, "reply_to": "15361__1_037", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_039", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well, I didn't understand you agreed with Justice White, you said that would be a harder question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2218.961], "stop_times": [2223.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.961}, "reply_to": "15361__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__1_040", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I did initially but he convinced me during of course of the argument that if -- Mr. Chief Justice, if they did this and did not acquire anything out which is the case we have here then I think a good decent argument can be made as Mr. Justice White presents it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2223.7], "stop_times": [2243.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.7}, "reply_to": "15361__1_039", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_041", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well then why would be the expense changes carried to just because the dissenter didn't withdraw?\nI mean, it's the same expense -- it has its roots in the same transaction.\nIt maintains the same justification just because he suddenly gets some share doesn't change the character of the expense, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2243.921, 2251.878, 2258.243], "stop_times": [2251.878, 2258.243, 2269.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.921}, "reply_to": "15361__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15361__1_042", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I think it does sir.\nI think that here we have an acquisition that we can't ignore that.\nThe origin, tying in with the point of Mr. Justice White was making a moment ago, the origin we say of this appraisal proceeding was not the sole question of determining the real value.\nWe think that if the origin lay in the decision to extend the corporate charter then the statute required the acquisition of these stocks.\nSo we say that our origin of this lay further back than just picking up after the corporate charter have been extended to view the appraisal proceeding as stemming from any other origin we think is to ignore the entire picture.\nThe character of the appraisal proceeding was set by the character of this overall transaction not just by the little question of what is the value of the stock.\nThe appraisal proceeding thus was part and parcel of the whole transaction.\nIt was an integral part that the fact the statute required the majority stockholders to purchase the stock and afforded the appraisal proceeding machinery does not change the character of the appraisal proceedings.\nNow, the Woodward's capitalized the stock.\nThey paid to Mrs. Quigley for her stock.\nWe see no difference between that and the amount of money have cost them to determine what that figure was.\nIt was a part of the total cost figure they paid for the stock.\nThus, under both the origin and character test and the cost of these appraisal proceedings must be considered capital expenditure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2269.411, 2270.832, 2279.736, 2297.521, 2308.553, 2333.963, 2348.366, 2354.36, 2375.412, 2378.773, 2382.736, 2392.789, 2400.616], "stop_times": [2270.832, 2279.736, 2297.521, 2308.553, 2333.963, 2348.366, 2354.36, 2375.412, 2378.773, 2382.736, 2392.789, 2400.616, 2411.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.411}, "reply_to": "15361__1_041", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_043", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "The -- when they finally purchased their stock, did they purchase it with other stock or with cash?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2411.026], "stop_times": [2418.696], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.026}, "reply_to": "15361__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15361__1_044", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Though she was getting out sir so --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2418.696], "stop_times": [2420.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.696}, "reply_to": "15361__1_043", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_045", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Yes, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2420.193], "stop_times": [2420.733], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.193}, "reply_to": "15361__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15361__1_046", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "They paid for her stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2420.733], "stop_times": [2422.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.733}, "reply_to": "15361__1_045", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_047", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Well then what in cash?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2422.415], "stop_times": [2423.243], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.415}, "reply_to": "15361__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15361__1_048", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "In cash.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2423.243], "stop_times": [2423.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.243}, "reply_to": "15361__1_047", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_049", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Cash, that's what I thought so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2423.868], "stop_times": [2426.805], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.868}, "reply_to": "15361__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15361__1_050", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Before you go on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2426.805], "stop_times": [2427.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.805}, "reply_to": "15361__1_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__1_051", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2427.934], "stop_times": [2428.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.934}, "reply_to": "15361__1_050", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_052", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "I know its place quite a bit of reliance both in your brief and your argument on Gilmore and I am having difficulty with that.\nThe Gilmore case is the whole expense was rooted in the disestablishment of the family -- personal relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2428.757, 2435.607], "stop_times": [2435.607, 2445.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.757}, "reply_to": "15361__1_051", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__1_053", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2445.155], "stop_times": [2445.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.155}, "reply_to": "15361__1_052", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_054", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "No business roots in that though and I don't see how that helps you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2445.897], "stop_times": [2451.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.897}, "reply_to": "15361__1_053", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__1_055", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "We think it helps Mr. Chief Justice and that is shows a guideline.\nIt shows how you approach the question.\nCertainly, we agree with you that the Gilmore case is not directly in point but we think it is a light that shows us how to approach this question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2451.493, 2455.638, 2458.453], "stop_times": [2455.638, 2458.453, 2472.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.493}, "reply_to": "15361__1_054", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_056", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Now, it doesn't give me much light on the problem which is essentially a business investment problem.\nThe maintenance and conduct of investments for profit on no matter how I see, you don't place much reliance on it then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2472.235, 2478.181], "stop_times": [2478.181, 2493.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.235}, "reply_to": "15361__1_055", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__1_057", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Except as a guide, that's right sir.\nWe do not say that it's directly in point.\nThe result for which we are here that these expenditures constitute capital expenditures cannot be avoided by reference to the primary purpose test which has been mentioned in many court decisions and also argue to this Court.\nThat test comes into play when litigation involves a defense or protection of title.\nIn the appraisal proceedings in this case however, it was no question about who own title.\nTitle, question of title was not involved.\nTherefore as the Eight Circuit pointed out in its decision the primary purpose test does not come to play in this case.\nEven if it did however, we could not agree with the Woodward's as to the primary purpose of these appraisal proceedings.\nIn determining that purpose, we would say as we mentioned earlier Mr. Chief Justice that we have to look at the entire transaction, the overall transaction not at just one little piece of it.\nThe tax law does not allow us to fragment the events that are related.\nThus, we said that the primary purpose of this was to complete the acquisition of Mrs. Quigley stock which was a part of the overall transaction.\nThe fact that the appraisal proceedings came after Mrs. Quigley was deprived of her stockholder right was immaterial.\nThe tax law as I indicated a moment ago does not allow us to separate events that are functionally related.\nIt not only does not allow it, it prohibits us from fragmenting events that are related when to do so would not achieve a proper tax result.\nThus, we say that the timing of this appraisal proceeding in relation to other events in this integrated picture is not critical but we say that the functional relationship of these events, the appraisal proceeding, acquisition of the stock, that they are very definitely and directly related and critical.\nThe Woodward's have argued extensively that in this case the stock owned by Mrs. Quigley passed essentially to the majority stockholders prior to the appraisal proceeding.\nWith this, we do not agree for the reasons stated in the incision of the Eighth Circuit and even if it were so we would say that this does not make any critical difference in this case.\nThe timing of the events which are directly related should not be critical in determining what the tax consequences are one of the little fragment is.\nAnd so we say here that even though this appraisals proceeding preceded or followed the transfer of title, it makes no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2493.161, 2495.326, 2500.737, 2523.157, 2532.277, 2540.196, 2543.941, 2554.458, 2566.831, 2582.55, 2591.918, 2608.196, 2621.109, 2631.161, 2646.603, 2678.71, 2699.57, 2716.021, 2730.937], "stop_times": [2495.326, 2500.737, 2523.157, 2532.277, 2540.196, 2543.941, 2554.458, 2566.831, 2582.55, 2591.918, 2608.196, 2621.109, 2631.161, 2646.603, 2678.71, 2699.57, 2716.021, 2730.937, 2747.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.161}, "reply_to": "15361__1_056", "speaker": "johnnie_mckeiver_walters"}
{"id": "15361__1_058", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Thank you Mr. Walters.\nMr. Cooney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2747.312, 2751.477], "stop_times": [2751.477, 2760.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.312}, "reply_to": "15361__1_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15361__2_000", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "The Government persists on making an analogy with the expenses of the appraisal the litigation in the Iowa State Court with brokerage fees and cites Winmill case.\nIn that case, we don't -- the result of that case we have no quarrel with.\nBut the brokerage fees were incurred to find a seller for a buyer or a buyer for a seller.\nThis is not what's involved here.\nIf you pick up your telephone and want to buy 100 shares AT&T you don't discuss usually the value of AT&T with your broker.\nHe executes the order, this is what he does.\nIf this is their thinking that this is what went on in that case nothing could be further from the truth.\nIt was not a search for a buyer.\nThere was one that was brought about by the extension statute itself.\nThe second point we would like to make is they insists in dividing these or exists in joining the two actions that is the two elements of this.\nOne, the extension of the life of the corporation by the special meeting of the shareholders and the evaluation proceeding.\nObviously, the evaluation proceedings wouldn't have occurred but for the shareholders' action in renewing the corporation's charter.\nWe would take the case of Apsey versus Kimball of this Court which appears at link in our brief on page 15, 16 and 17.\nThis it would seem this case are arose in 1911.\nIt would seem that this would take care of this once and for all.\nThe Iowa court quotes -- or excuse me, the Iowa court cites this case in its dissenting opinion in the case entitled Terrell versus Ringgold which was to the Supreme Court for an interpretation a various aspects of this evaluation and renewal statute.\nIn that, they held without doubt, without controversy that there is two transactions that the title passes under statutes like this when the vote is taken simply because these appraisers -- appraisal statutes are in obligation of the common law and have to be strictly construed.\nWhat does it do?\nIf you get out of the business, then you can have your -- in exchange for that the state will grant you the right to dissenting shareholder the right to have their shares appraised.\nIn this particular instance, under the common law if there was in the statute the whole venture would have terminated at the end of the 20 years in any event.\nBut this case arising under a statute that creates a federal banking corporation and was cited by the Iowa court as comparable to our particular statute sets adrift his argument, the Government's argument relative to this business that is all one transaction that we recognized this business that one wouldn't have happen but for the other one.\nThe case -- we have no quarrel with the Government in their citing and using the Gilmore case to determine whether or not this is a personally expense or an expense or an expenditure that is in a profit-seeking context -- arose in a profit-seeking context but it can't going on further than that.\nThis Court in its Bingham Trust case which is based upon the Kornhauser case enumerated the approximate cost test which it approved in the Gilmore case which very easily is -- takes care of the problem and would indicate that the deductibility here would arise under the Section 212 of the 1954 Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [2760.524, 2784.824, 2789.767, 2802.855, 2805.291, 2816.455, 2820.942, 2830.358, 2835.094, 2846.459, 2862.469, 2875.605, 2890.636, 2910.104, 2913.243, 2916.588, 2942.978, 2974.529, 2976.474, 2994.765, 3006.039, 3044.582, 3072.918], "stop_times": [2784.824, 2789.767, 2802.855, 2805.291, 2816.455, 2820.942, 2830.358, 2835.094, 2846.459, 2862.469, 2875.605, 2890.636, 2910.104, 2913.243, 2916.588, 2942.978, 2974.529, 2976.474, 2994.765, 3006.039, 3044.582, 3072.918, 3104.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2760.524}, "reply_to": "15361__1_058", "speaker": "donald_p_cooney"}
{"id": "15361__2_001", "conversation_id": "15361", "text": "Thank you Mr. Cooney.\nThank you Mr. Walters.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_412", "start_times": [3104.768, 3107.031, 3107.903], "stop_times": [3107.031, 3107.903, 3109.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.768}, "reply_to": "15361__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__0_000", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "We will resume arguments in Number 896 Wyman against Rothstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [17.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__0_001", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [17.466], "stop_times": [18.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.466}, "reply_to": "15053__0_000", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_002", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Strauss, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [18.008], "stop_times": [19.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 18.008}, "reply_to": "15053__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__0_003", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "-- may it please the Court.\nYesterday, I believe I was asked at the close of the session about remand, ought there to be a remand, ought this Court finally to pass on the statutory issue here.\nI think I should say, I think there would be a substantial point in remanding it, there\u2019s no need to pass on the statutory issue finally.\nAnd this is a preliminary injunction.\nAll that\u2019s necessary is that the Court be convinced that the appellees probably will succeed upon their cause of action in the court below.\nAnd as I was starting to say, the State of New York in this most recently enacted statute, of which I believe the Court has copies, has made some policy judgments which I think go to the heart of some of the doubts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [19.786, 22.036, 38.191, 45.982, 47.764, 57.512], "stop_times": [22.036, 38.191, 45.982, 47.764, 57.512, 74.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 19.786}, "reply_to": "15053__0_002", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_004", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [74.312], "stop_times": [75.876], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 74.312}, "reply_to": "15053__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15053__0_005", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [75.876], "stop_times": [76.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.876}, "reply_to": "15053__0_004", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_006", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "If we were the remand [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [76.582], "stop_times": [80.385], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 76.582}, "reply_to": "15053__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15053__0_007", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, I should think not.\nTo affirm the preliminary injunction, but on the basis that appellees had shown that they probably would succeed that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [80.385, 82.449], "stop_times": [82.449, 91.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 80.385}, "reply_to": "15053__0_006", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_008", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Succeed on the constitutional issue or on the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [91.385], "stop_times": [94.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.385}, "reply_to": "15053__0_007", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__0_009", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "On the statute, I think this Court can pass on that issue here.\nIt remarked with some strength in footnote in the Dandridge case regarding the right of appellees to put forward any ground that would support the judgment which they received below.\nIt remarked with some strength in Rosado, that statutory issue should be reached before constitutional issues and I think on those basis that this Court would have no difficulty reaching the statutory issue and making the judgment on the basis of the facts which New York has I think conceded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [94.863, 98.897, 112.38], "stop_times": [98.897, 112.38, 133.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 94.863}, "reply_to": "15053__0_008", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_010", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [133.071], "stop_times": [142.94], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 133.071}, "reply_to": "15053__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15053__0_011", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I think that was left open in Rosado.\nI think the situation in this Court in Rosado however was that the petitioners there had relief before this Court.\nHere petitioners come into this Court, relief having been granted.\nWe take the position that that relief is no more than an order of compliance with the federal standard which in our view New York is in any event obligated to comply.\nWe believe that petitioners have made the showing, a sufficient showing that New York is out of compliance with that standard to justify such an order.\nIt leaves free to New York the choice which this Court said New York must have in Rosado, that is the choice of withdrawing entirely from the federal program.\nAnd then the point I wanted to make them the basis of the statute is that New York has in fact made that choice.\nIn the statute the legislature said and I\u2019m quoting at line nine of the first page, if you have it there, \u201cThe legislature hereby declares its intent to make provision for the state to meet all necessary federal requirements under the Social Security Act.\nAnd again at line three, \u201cIt is the intent of the legislature that the Department of Social Services shall determine and establish the standards of need for public assistance in this state in conformity with federal requirements.\u201d\nAnd again, within the adopted amended Section 131 (a) itself on page 4 at line twelve, \u201cIf federal requirements make it necessary to adjust any schedule of grants and allowances or part thereof, the department shall make such adjustments.\u201d\nSo that I think New York\u2019s judgment in this case is entirely clear and as we set out in the rather long footnote of the end of our amicus brief, is the judgment in which all states of the union have essentially concurred.\nAnd there was also the question yesterday and I think this goes back to what I was trying to say during the short time I had then, \u201cWhy was the Government had put as part of its question presented, whether the New York State plan improperly favors residents of New York City over residents of other areas of the state,\u201d and this goes I think to the heart of the issue.\nThe impropriety is not in itself in the payment of more money in New York City than New York State, but as I was trying to state yesterday in considering that residents of New York State need services, need goods, need items which are not under any circumstances made available to residents of any other part of the state even though their need for those items might equally be made the same.\nAnd it seems to us that this is directly inconsistent with the statute, with the provision of the statute which in both cases, Section 602 (a) and Section 1382 (a) provides that a state plan for aid and services must provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the state and if administered by the subdivisions must be mandatory upon them.\nAnd it has been since the beginning of the act to the departments understanding and interpretation that that means that you cannot say within a state the people in part of the state are entitled to goods and services, I\u2019m not talking about amounts of money at this point, entitled the goods and services to accounting for those goods and services which people in another part of the state simply have no access too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [142.94, 145.134, 154.912, 159.281, 169.765, 178.809, 189.655, 196.368, 212.106, 225.691, 245.383, 261.334, 286.981, 317.63, 349.201], "stop_times": [145.134, 154.912, 159.281, 169.765, 178.809, 189.655, 196.368, 212.106, 225.691, 245.383, 261.334, 286.981, 317.63, 349.201, 374.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.94}, "reply_to": "15053__0_010", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_012", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I don\u2019t quite understand ultimately what it is that you submit that the federal statute requires in the way of uniformity.\nI gather you -- the claim as that it requires a -- the same -- that the same criteria they used in establishing the standard of need throughout the states, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [374.403, 382.642], "stop_times": [382.642, 395.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.403}, "reply_to": "15053__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15053__0_013", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, I think that\u2019s right Mr. Justice Stewart.\nIn --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [395.572, 397.367], "stop_times": [397.367, 399.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.572}, "reply_to": "15053__0_012", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_014", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "But in New York City, for example there are subways, that\u2019s the way people get back and forth and every -- anybody, most people who live uptown or work downtown, live in Harlem, work in midtown have to use those subways and as in a little town up right Alexandria Bay, you walk.\nI don\u2019t see how this can be worked out uniformly because there is a need for a service in New York City that does not exist in Redwood or Alexandria Bay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [399.183, 417.754], "stop_times": [417.754, 429.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.183}, "reply_to": "15053__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15053__0_015", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, I think it\u2019s correct that it doesn\u2019t exist in Redwood or Alexandria Bay, but I don\u2019t think it can be said on the basis of this record that that need doesn\u2019t exist in Nassau County or in Westchester County which are crowded, congested areas, where necessary services and jobs may also --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [429.227], "stop_times": [451.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.227}, "reply_to": "15053__0_014", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_016", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I think New York City is the only city in the state that has a subway system and where that the people have to use it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [451.887], "stop_times": [459.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.887}, "reply_to": "15053__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15053__0_017", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, suppose it comes down to how particular judgment you were to make.\nAs I understand the New York standard of need, the list of basic needs which New York State recognizes claims to recognize in its standard of need doesn\u2019t include any allowance for transportation, that is at page 47 of the appendix, food, clothing, personal incidentals, household supplies, school expenses, utilities, laundries and sales taxes.\nNow, it is certainly our position that New York State could if it felt it was necessary to the residents of that state make provision for transportation expenses to take your example.\nAnd it could do so either on a basic need basis, or on a special need basis, I think the Court is familiar with that difference from Rosado.\nIf it does on a basic needs basis, that means that the cost is to be figured in to the flat ground for every resident of the state.\nIn figuring that cost, the state has the option of doing it on an average basis or doing it on a local regional basis, and if they did it on a local regional basis, I would certainly agree that the amount for New York City would quite possibly be higher than the amount for other parts of the state.\nFrom the evidence of the record it might also be lower than let\u2019s say Nassau County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [459.468, 463.866, 491.435, 503.861, 516.076, 525.463, 543.288], "stop_times": [463.866, 491.435, 503.861, 516.076, 525.463, 543.288, 548.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.468}, "reply_to": "15053__0_016", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_018", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Then your argument really comes down to the fact that there\u2019s been a mistaken judgment here, a legislative judgment any/or an administrative misjudgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [548.518], "stop_times": [561.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.518}, "reply_to": "15053__0_017", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__0_019", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, it\u2019s more than that Mr. Chief Justice.\nWe are talking here not about or at least I am talking here, not about the Equal Protection Clause with the judgments of rationality which this -- to which this Court referred in Dandridge, but about federal standards.\nAnd the federal standard I\u2019m talking about is the requirement that in deciding what it is its public assistance beneficiaries required, the state must reach this decision on a uniform, statewide basis.\nIt may cost it on a local basis, but the legislature cannot make the judgment and it is not simply a disagreement of judgment, it\u2019s a question of consistency.\nThe legislature may not make the judgment.\nThe people in New York City are conclusively presumed to need transportation and people outside New York City are conclusively presumed not to need transportation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [561.099, 564.36, 579.214, 597.025, 609.048, 611.651], "stop_times": [564.36, 579.214, 597.025, 609.048, 611.651, 622.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.099}, "reply_to": "15053__0_018", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_020", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I suppose under your theory of remand, we go no further [Inaudible] basis to probability of success in this case then go back to District Court and the District Court would be free to reject to which the HEW [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [622.673], "stop_times": [650.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.673}, "reply_to": "15053__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__0_021", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I would suppose all issues would be open for trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [650.798], "stop_times": [653.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.798}, "reply_to": "15053__0_020", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_022", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "[Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [653.271], "stop_times": [653.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.271}, "reply_to": "15053__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__0_023", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nWe are only showing here probability of success.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [653.749, 654.686], "stop_times": [654.686, 657.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.749}, "reply_to": "15053__0_022", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_024", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "But the fact is that we don\u2019t have to accept that this level, the HEW recommendations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [657.411], "stop_times": [662.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.411}, "reply_to": "15053__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__0_025", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, you need only --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [662.901], "stop_times": [663.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.901}, "reply_to": "15053__0_024", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_026", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "All we have to say is that the temporary injunction has got a sufficient basis, probability of success justify it\u2019s continuance and then send the case back to the District Court to sort out the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [663.613], "stop_times": [679.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.613}, "reply_to": "15053__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__0_027", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s right.\nIf I can go back for a moment because appellants raise this issue, they talk about the California differential and they talk about the Maryland differential, how are those different from the situation in this case.\nThere are three situations in which HEW does recognize cost variances.\nThey\u2019re all provided for in these regulations which begin at 34 Federal Register 1394 and which we cite in our brief.\nAnd the first of them is the California situation in which the state establishes a standard of need on a statewide basis, but is unable to pay the total amount of that standard applies a ratable reduction or it applies a maximum, so that there\u2019s a gap between need on the one hand and actual payments on the other.\nIn that situation, any local subdivision may fill the gap and that\u2019s what some of the California subdivisions do.\nThey may make payments between the level of state payments and the level of need as determined by the state under its uniform standard, and those payments will not be counted as income of the recipient and therefore do go to supplement the program.\nNow, of course those payments aren\u2019t subject to federal matching, the local subdivisions receive no funds for the federal -- from the Federal Government for that.\nThe second situation is a situation in which New York City, let us say determined that its residents needed transportation and there was no provision in the New York State standard of need for transportation as there is now, New York City could then provide those services which weren\u2019t provided for in the state plan.\nAnd again there would be no conformity issue, and there would no reduction of payments but again New York City\u2019s payments for transportation would be not matched by federal payments, there would be no federal funds involved in that.\nAnd then the third situation is the one under which New York State seeks to justify its payments here that there maybe differences in payments where those differences are justified by differences in costs, but before one can get to the question of differences in costs and this again is the essential point here, there must be a uniform standard of need and that is what we think is lacking here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [679.423, 680.177, 692.601, 699.687, 708.464, 727.578, 734.642, 750.3, 758.602, 779.895, 793.287], "stop_times": [680.177, 692.601, 699.687, 708.464, 727.578, 734.642, 750.3, 758.602, 779.895, 793.287, 818.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.423}, "reply_to": "15053__0_026", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_028", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well what is the -- which system has been followed in Maryland and Dandridge against Williams.\nAlthough [Voice Overlap] I remember had a maximum of 250 months, and the rest of state 240?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [818.162, 825.923], "stop_times": [825.923, 833.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.162}, "reply_to": "15053__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15053__0_029", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Maryland has not been -- I should say that Maryland hasn\u2019t been called on to justify this by HEW and what I\u2019m saying is no more than a belief of the officials and the department as to what that is about, but the Maryland\u2019s sums includes sums for housing.\nThe maximum is in all inclusive maximum including housing expenses, and our belief is that that difference reflects a difference in the cost of urban housing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [833.573, 851.471], "stop_times": [851.471, 861.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.573}, "reply_to": "15053__0_028", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_030", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Are staff discussions still going on in this case between the staff of HEW and the appropriate authorities in New York State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [861.206], "stop_times": [868.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.206}, "reply_to": "15053__0_029", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15053__0_031", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "My understanding is that New York has not responded to the letter of November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [868.789], "stop_times": [872.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.789}, "reply_to": "15053__0_030", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_032", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, that doesn\u2019t answer my question.\nYou say that in your brief, but then you say staff discussions have not yielded at any acceptable showing to support the difference and that was your brief on file earlier this month which implies the staff discussions have taken place, are they still going on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [872.654, 874.618], "stop_times": [874.618, 891.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.654}, "reply_to": "15053__0_031", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15053__0_033", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I couldn\u2019t -- I don\u2019t believe people are meeting today.\nI think it\u2019s at the stage of a decision in the regional office, whether to bring a formal conformity proceeding or not, but more than that I\u2019m afraid I simply don\u2019t know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [891.272, 895.869], "stop_times": [895.869, 907.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.272}, "reply_to": "15053__0_032", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_034", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Strauss, well although you read the items that went into New York standard of need -- now those items are standard statewide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [907.21], "stop_times": [916.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.21}, "reply_to": "15053__0_033", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_035", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, and all the evidence is that the cost to those items is standard statewide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [916.115], "stop_times": [921.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.115}, "reply_to": "15053__0_034", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_036", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And you say that the standard is -- insofar as the standard is described by those items, that is the same statewide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [921.491], "stop_times": [930.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.491}, "reply_to": "15053__0_035", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_037", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [930.679], "stop_times": [931.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.679}, "reply_to": "15053__0_036", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_038", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And your intention is that New York has not substantiated the difference in cost for those items as between the different parts of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [931.146], "stop_times": [944.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.146}, "reply_to": "15053__0_037", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_039", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, I --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [944.245], "stop_times": [944.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.245}, "reply_to": "15053__0_038", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_040", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That the legislature may not conclusively presume that are different like the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [944.398], "stop_times": [948.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.398}, "reply_to": "15053__0_039", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_041", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, I think New York is trying to justify that difference on a different basis.\nIt\u2019s not saying that those items cost more in New York City.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [948.72, 953.686], "stop_times": [953.686, 956.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.72}, "reply_to": "15053__0_040", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_042", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "So what is the different basis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [956.385], "stop_times": [957.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.385}, "reply_to": "15053__0_041", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_043", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "As I understand their basis, they are saying in addition to those items, New York City residents require money to pay for security locks, and New York City residents require money to pay for transportation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [957.451], "stop_times": [970.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.451}, "reply_to": "15053__0_042", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_044", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "You mean within those broad categories making up the standards, you need like household items?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [970.242], "stop_times": [978.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.242}, "reply_to": "15053__0_043", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_045", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [978.952], "stop_times": [979.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.952}, "reply_to": "15053__0_044", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_046", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "They must be fitting them in somewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [979.492], "stop_times": [982.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.492}, "reply_to": "15053__0_045", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_047", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "It\u2019s a household supplies, I don\u2019t think in the same sense that furniture wouldn\u2019t come within household supplies or personal incidentals, I don\u2019t believe that under the ordinary circumstances hardware would, I maybe wrong in that. These -- as I understand this list, it doesn\u2019t provide for durables with the exception of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [982.845], "stop_times": [1007.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.845}, "reply_to": "15053__0_046", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_048", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well you\u2019re saying -- your claim is not that the legislature has made a judge -- an unacceptable judgment about cost of various items but if -- but that they want to pay for items for New York City residence, if they refuse to pay for elsewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1007.979], "stop_times": [1025.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.979}, "reply_to": "15053__0_047", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__0_049", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s right, museums, cultural activities and so forth.\nWell, if I may just say in conclusion in Rosado, this Court put New York under an obligation fully and realistically to reassess the recurring needs of its welfare recipients in this case, the issue is whether the state must not do so on a uniform statewide basis, and we believe it must.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1025.833, 1030.304, 1048.613], "stop_times": [1030.304, 1048.613, 1049.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.833}, "reply_to": "15053__0_048", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__0_050", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Thank you Mr. Strauss.\nMr. Weinberg you have 13 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1049.765, 1054.56], "stop_times": [1054.56, 1057.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.765}, "reply_to": "15053__0_049", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_000", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Thank you Your Honor.\nMay it please the Court.\nI think the short answer to Mr. Strauss\u2019 argument about albeit the District Court started of on the wrong foot, why don\u2019t we simply take it the other way and affirm the injunction anyway because they\u2019re probably right about the statutory ground as well.\nThe short answer to that is that the sweeping injunctions that were granted below aren\u2019t supported by the statutory ground.\nAnd this Court\u2019s decision in Rosado makes that clear because what the Court did below was issue an injunction against enforcement of the statute at all unless it were corrected and objectives -- what they thought were objective standards were imposed, which would have been a valid injunction under the Equal Protection Clause assuming a violation of that clause had been shown.\nThe language is, other -- they\u2019re enjoined from enforcing this statute at all other than according to objective, non-discriminatory standards based upon the cost of the needs of such recipients.\nNow, a statutory nonconformity as in Rosado doesn\u2019t support any such injunction, and indeed this Court, Rosado made that clear.\nThe most that could be done there would be a remand to the District Court to what -- assuming that the probabilities were that the HEW is right and we were wrong about the statutory argument, the most that could be done would be to remand the case of District Court for a much more narrow injunction such as the one this Court discussed in Rosado.\nNow, over and above that when we --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1057.464, 1059.761, 1060.579, 1075.236, 1081.364, 1103.337, 1115.223, 1125.025, 1143.438], "stop_times": [1059.761, 1060.579, 1075.236, 1081.364, 1103.337, 1115.223, 1125.025, 1143.438, 1144.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1057.464}, "reply_to": "15053__0_050", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_001", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Because the District Court has never fashioned an injunction -- preliminary injunction based on the possible statutory validity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1144.91], "stop_times": [1152.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.91}, "reply_to": "15053__1_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_002", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1152.879], "stop_times": [1153.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1152.879}, "reply_to": "15053__1_001", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_003", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Is that your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1153.446], "stop_times": [1154.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.446}, "reply_to": "15053__1_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_004", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, they started off on the wrong foot.\nThey aimed toward the constitutional ground and they did just what this Court in Dandridge said they shouldn\u2019t do and what we cited earlier cases suggesting that they not do, namely they decided the constitutional issue and let the statutory --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1154.241, 1156.04], "stop_times": [1156.04, 1169.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1154.241}, "reply_to": "15053__1_003", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_005", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "What precisely would be different in the injunction that should be entered.\nJust assume for the moment that New York is probably correct or that the Government is probably correct on the statutory ground, now what injunction on that basis should be issued?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1169.802, 1175.626], "stop_times": [1175.626, 1189.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.802}, "reply_to": "15053__1_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_006", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Justice White, the -- this Court in Rosado indicated that in a nonconformity situation which is what that would be, the most that could be fashioned would be an injunction against that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1189.194], "stop_times": [1200.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1189.194}, "reply_to": "15053__1_005", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_007", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "The nonconformity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1200.654], "stop_times": [1202.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.654}, "reply_to": "15053__1_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_008", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Against the nonconformity or against the receipt of the federal funds by the state of New York.\nIndeed in Rosado, the plaintiffs wanted all along that the statute be enjoined for nonconformity and that although the Court agreed with them on the merits, the Court didn\u2019t grant such an injunction.\nAnd in Rosado it specifically sent the case back to District Court in Brooklyn to fashion -- to see what the state would in 1970 first of all, which is not applicable here but the point is that even if the state remained in the nonconformity, this Court\u2019s opinion in Rosado seem to make it clear that the most could be an injunction against the receipt of federal funds, if we remained in nonconformity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1202.306, 1207.826, 1218.282], "stop_times": [1207.826, 1218.282, 1239.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1202.306}, "reply_to": "15053__1_007", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_009", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Until that should be formed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1239.605], "stop_times": [1241.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.605}, "reply_to": "15053__1_008", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_010", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1241.422], "stop_times": [1242.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1241.422}, "reply_to": "15053__1_009", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_011", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, let\u2019s assume we decided on the statutory ground here that New York was wrong and the Federal Government is right then that\u2019s the only difference could be [Inaudible]", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1242.403], "stop_times": [1258.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.403}, "reply_to": "15053__1_010", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_012", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Unless the state board itself into conformity assuming the court ruled that it was out of conformity but that\u2019s a far different sort of injunction from the injunctions that were granted below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1258.227], "stop_times": [1268.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1258.227}, "reply_to": "15053__1_011", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_013", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Has New York had any conformity proceedings in the past in this area at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1268.442], "stop_times": [1275.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.442}, "reply_to": "15053__1_012", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_014", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Not to my knowledge.\nOf course, every change that\u2019s ever made or any claim or standard of need has to conform to federal law and there you have to be submitted to HEW.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1275.113, 1275.747], "stop_times": [1275.747, 1283.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1275.113}, "reply_to": "15053__1_013", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_015", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I mean the enforcement process by the Department of Health Education and Welfare?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1283.053], "stop_times": [1288.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.053}, "reply_to": "15053__1_014", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_016", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "To my knowledge, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1288.252], "stop_times": [1289.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1288.252}, "reply_to": "15053__1_015", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_017", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Have they in any other states to your knowledge?\nDo you any information on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1289.767, 1293.05], "stop_times": [1293.05, 1293.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.767}, "reply_to": "15053__1_016", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_018", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Again to my knowledge, no.\nAs I\u2019ve said they\u2019ve -- as I indicated yesterday they permitted the Maryland and California disparities which Mr. Strauss just discussed to continue over the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1293.875, 1295.864], "stop_times": [1295.864, 1304.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1293.875}, "reply_to": "15053__1_017", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_019", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "But there is a complete procedure or a procedure provided by Congress to achieve conformity by a state as a condition to getting the federal grants, isn\u2019t there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1304.317], "stop_times": [1315.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.317}, "reply_to": "15053__1_018", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_020", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, indeed and they can compel that.\nWhen we look at the standard of need, we see that in fact New York has one standard of need and it\u2019s the same throughout the state just as the federal statute says it must be.\nThis isn't a case where we have one standard of need for the city and one for outside the city, although the Government tries to paint it that way.\nIt\u2019s simply isn\u2019t so.\nThe standard of need isn't in statutory in New York -- it\u2019s administrative.\nIt\u2019s prepared by Commissioner Wieman, by the department of social services and it lists the various components of that standard of needs; food, household appliances, shelter, although rent is paid separately, clothing, and so on and so forth.\nBut it would be simply contrary to reality to expect that every welfare recipients or indeed any welfare recipient adhere so precisely to that standard of need which tells them how many razorblades he has to buy in the course of the year and how many newspaper, and so on, obviously, there\u2019s a great deal of flexibility in the standard of need.\nThe state arise that it figured that they consider to be an approximation of what the social realities are, and then they give that money to a welfare recipient and he\u2019s presumed to purchase with that money what he has to buy.\nNobody is there to make sure that he buys a newspaper everyday or a razorblade three times a week or whatever the standard of need happens to work out.\nThat\u2019s an administrative averaging process, and if the standard of need in New York City doesn\u2019t list buying the lock for door, or a window guard, if a persons lives in a bad neighborhood, or if he doesn\u2019t say anything about taxi cabs, well the fact that there\u2019s a higher sales tax in New York City, it\u2019s simply flies in the face of reality to expect that welfare recipients aren\u2019t going to nevertheless buy locks if they need locks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1315.231, 1319.215, 1328.699, 1335.18, 1336.468, 1341.48, 1356.632, 1376.825, 1390.948, 1398.779], "stop_times": [1319.215, 1328.699, 1335.18, 1336.468, 1341.48, 1356.632, 1376.825, 1390.948, 1398.779, 1422.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1315.231}, "reply_to": "15053__1_019", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_021", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "What happens if the people living in the ghettos in Westchester County and Nassau County, and believe me there\u2019s some ghettos out there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1422.345], "stop_times": [1431.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.345}, "reply_to": "15053__1_020", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_022", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I know that very Justice Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1431.974], "stop_times": [1433.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1431.974}, "reply_to": "15053__1_021", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_023", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And they need a gauge too, don\u2019t they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1433.867], "stop_times": [1435.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.867}, "reply_to": "15053__1_022", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_024", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, they do but the legislature was entitled to find that statistically comparing New York City with its enormously high crime rate and narcotic addiction and all the rest with the rest of the state taken as a whole and they saw fit to draw the line at that particular point, that problem was greater in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1435.171], "stop_times": [1451.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1435.171}, "reply_to": "15053__1_023", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_025", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Then why not throw New York City and then draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1451.861], "stop_times": [1456.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.861}, "reply_to": "15053__1_024", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_026", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, they could have drawn the line to say cities over a hundred thousand people.\nWell, they could have drawn Westchester in with New York, but they didn\u2019t.\nIt's a -- again we\u2019re in the area which where a legislature has to have some discretion or it doesn't have any discretion at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1456.396, 1459.907, 1462.74], "stop_times": [1459.907, 1462.74, 1466.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1456.396}, "reply_to": "15053__1_025", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_027", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Is the crime rate in New York higher than Buffalo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1466.949], "stop_times": [1472.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.949}, "reply_to": "15053__1_026", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_028", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well the legislature saw fit to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1472.164], "stop_times": [1474.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1472.164}, "reply_to": "15053__1_027", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_029", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Did they find that it works?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1474.391], "stop_times": [1477.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.391}, "reply_to": "15053__1_028", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_030", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, they did.\nNow crime isn\u2019t the only component of that.\nFor example, the utility rate is lower in the western of state than it is in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1477.451, 1479.461, 1481.634], "stop_times": [1479.461, 1481.634, 1485.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1477.451}, "reply_to": "15053__1_029", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_031", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Is it lower in Westchester?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1485.591], "stop_times": [1488.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.591}, "reply_to": "15053__1_030", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_032", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Utilities, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1488.096], "stop_times": [1490.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1488.096}, "reply_to": "15053__1_031", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_033", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "In Nassau?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1490.122], "stop_times": [1491.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.122}, "reply_to": "15053__1_032", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_034", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, utilities are the same in the New York area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1491.402], "stop_times": [1493.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1491.402}, "reply_to": "15053__1_033", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_035", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Those are the two counties that are here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1493.3], "stop_times": [1495.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.3}, "reply_to": "15053__1_034", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_036", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1495.919], "stop_times": [1497.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1495.919}, "reply_to": "15053__1_035", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_037", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "So what you take, the state of New York takes position that you can\u2019t defend this across the board but you had throw all these little components in and they slide in this way.\nYou mentioned razorblades where I assume that a hippie doesn\u2019t need one.\n[Laughter] I mean I just don\u2019t see New York\u2019s position except that for some reason unclear to me, New York City was set aside from the surrounding area, Nassau and Westchester County?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1497.47, 1510.387, 1516.87], "stop_times": [1510.387, 1516.87, 1533.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.47}, "reply_to": "15053__1_036", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_038", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well Mr. Justice Marshall --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1533.364], "stop_times": [1533.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1533.364}, "reply_to": "15053__1_037", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_039", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "You say subways, they have elaborate bus systems in those counties and I would assume the bus fare is as high as the subway fair, I would assume?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1533.959], "stop_times": [1544.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.959}, "reply_to": "15053__1_038", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_040", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "The evidence in the record indicates that it is but the legislature found that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1544.004], "stop_times": [1547.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1544.004}, "reply_to": "15053__1_039", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_041", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That it\u2019s different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1547.655], "stop_times": [1549.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.655}, "reply_to": "15053__1_040", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_042", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "The legislature found that the New York City child on AFDC has a greater need to avail himself and his parents also to avail themselves of the municipal transportation system in taking their child to a park or a zoo which in New York City to a ghetto resident is up to not be near where he lives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1549.233], "stop_times": [1569.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.233}, "reply_to": "15053__1_041", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_043", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, how about the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1569.208], "stop_times": [1570.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.208}, "reply_to": "15053__1_042", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_044", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Now that might well also be true in --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1570.646], "stop_times": [1572.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1570.646}, "reply_to": "15053__1_043", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_045", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "How about the beach in Westchester?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1572.086], "stop_times": [1575.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1572.086}, "reply_to": "15053__1_044", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_046", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well they might --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1575.189], "stop_times": [1575.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1575.189}, "reply_to": "15053__1_045", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_047", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "They got beaches too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1575.509], "stop_times": [1576.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.509}, "reply_to": "15053__1_046", "speaker": "j__thurgood_marshall"}
{"id": "15053__1_048", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, question about it Mr. Justice Marshall but this is a legislative determination based on discretion and some of these things are simply factual, such as the sales tax about which there is little dispute.\nAnd others are perhaps more debatable but as long as reasonable people can differ about them then I don\u2019t see how were -- how the legislature can be held to have transgressed the Equal Protection Clause or not have a statewide standard of need, the fashion and after objective and equitable standards which what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1576.816, 1587.858], "stop_times": [1587.858, 1606.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.816}, "reply_to": "15053__1_047", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_049", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Do you really want to -- are you really trying to justify deciding the equal protection argument before the statutory argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1606.836], "stop_times": [1616.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.836}, "reply_to": "15053__1_048", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_050", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, we maintain this as we have throughout that the District Court improperly went to the equal protection arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1616.904], "stop_times": [1622.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1616.904}, "reply_to": "15053__1_049", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_051", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1622.83], "stop_times": [1623.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.83}, "reply_to": "15053__1_050", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_052", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "The statutory argument obviously is different -- different and as we\u2019ve indicated it won\u2019t support the injunction that was granted below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1623.319], "stop_times": [1630.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.319}, "reply_to": "15053__1_051", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_053", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, it may not but you may not be in compliance either, that\u2019s what the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1630.875], "stop_times": [1641.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.875}, "reply_to": "15053__1_052", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_054", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s very true.\nBut HEW has never said we\u2019re not in compliance except in effect in their brief in this Court.\nThe letter from their commissioner which is the only evidence otherwise that we have indicates that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1641.031, 1641.645, 1646.953], "stop_times": [1641.645, 1646.953, 1650.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.031}, "reply_to": "15053__1_053", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_055", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, the United States says that, yes there\u2019s -- looks like there\u2019s uniform standard in terms of these are the items.\nBut apparently, they argued that you\u2019re giving New York City residents money for items that you won\u2019t give money to suburban residents for.\nNow, what\u2019s your response to that?\nAre you or aren\u2019t you giving money for certain expenses that you won\u2019t give suburbanites?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1650.835, 1658.569, 1672.096, 1674.637], "stop_times": [1658.569, 1672.096, 1674.637, 1683.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.835}, "reply_to": "15053__1_054", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_056", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "We are, because -- well, let me rephrase it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1683.527], "stop_times": [1686.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1683.527}, "reply_to": "15053__1_055", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_057", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That is because -- is it because those items aren\u2019t available in these surrounding counties or is it because they cost more in New York City or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1686.373], "stop_times": [1697.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.373}, "reply_to": "15053__1_056", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_058", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "The answer to that Mr. Justice White, varies with the item we\u2019re talking about in the case of the locks, and window guards, and taxi rides, and the other things that go with the higher crime rate in the New York City ghettos and that\u2019s a matter of fact, I mean no doubt this crime in Buffalo and in Yonkers and we\u2019re not going to suggest that there isn\u2019t, but statistically it\u2019s enormously greater in New York than it is in the rest of the state if you make that division.\nAnd the case of those things no doubt a lot would cost the same wherever you bought one but if you don\u2019t need a lock living in a small town, or if you needed even less in a suburb and you needed more in New York City, the legislature has a right to take that into account and give the New York City welfare recipient a little bit more money for that cab ride, for that lock to pay the sales tax which concededly doesn\u2019t exist in these are the places.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1697.357, 1719.792], "stop_times": [1719.792, 1741.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.357}, "reply_to": "15053__1_057", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_059", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "So are you -- would you categorize this justification as saying that in just costing out the standards, it costs more in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1741.244], "stop_times": [1750.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.244}, "reply_to": "15053__1_058", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_060", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1750.304], "stop_times": [1751.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1750.304}, "reply_to": "15053__1_059", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_061", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Rather you\u2019re saying --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1751.196], "stop_times": [1752.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.196}, "reply_to": "15053__1_060", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_062", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Not because any individual items except for the sales tax cost more, but the components that go into a person\u2019s way of life simply require more money in New York City.\nA standard of need isn\u2019t some kind of an ironclad procrustean thing, as I tried to indicate in mentioning razorblades and things like that.\nA welfare recipient has to buy what he needs in order to survive and if the legislature found that it takes more in New York City then certainly it didn\u2019t have to so find that\u2019s debatable, but how can it not be objective and equitable for them so find and how can it be a violation of a statute saying they have to have a statewide standard of need when they have a statewide standard of need.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1752.107, 1763.27, 1771.088], "stop_times": [1763.27, 1771.088, 1792.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.107}, "reply_to": "15053__1_061", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_063", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And it\u2019s so obvious, why is there such difficulty in demonstrating this to the HEW?\nI mean if it\u2019s just perfectly obvious about the crime rate and about the sales tax and things like this then why is there -- this big rumble between you and the HEW?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1792.22, 1799.214], "stop_times": [1799.214, 1811.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.22}, "reply_to": "15053__1_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_064", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I think it\u2019s obvious that there\u2019s a higher crime rate and sales tax in New York City, the other factors aren\u2019t so obvious and then --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1811.021], "stop_times": [1816.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.021}, "reply_to": "15053__1_063", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_065", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "But what did HEW say to you?\nI mean why can\u2019t -- if you expect us to see this, they ought to be able to see it, didn\u2019t they, if you\u2019re right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1816.797, 1818.281], "stop_times": [1818.281, 1827.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.797}, "reply_to": "15053__1_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_066", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "We never got very far in the dialog with HEW because all that ever happened was their Regional Commissioner Callison wrote us a letter --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1827.76], "stop_times": [1834.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.76}, "reply_to": "15053__1_065", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_067", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Which you had never answered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1834.952], "stop_times": [1836.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.952}, "reply_to": "15053__1_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_068", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s true, because of the pendency of this litigation, but as the Government indicated lower level discussions have been going on, we\u2019ve never heard a definite pronouncement from HEW except for the brief that they filed here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1836.212], "stop_times": [1847.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.212}, "reply_to": "15053__1_067", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_069", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well would you object -- why would you object, I guess just because you don\u2019t have to litigate but would you object demonstrating this in the District Court, if you can\u2019t settle it -- if you can\u2019t settle it administratively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1847.948], "stop_times": [1862.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.948}, "reply_to": "15053__1_068", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_070", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, we\u2019ve been trying to demonstrate it all along.\nWe\u2019ve certainly prepared to demonstrate it whether before HEW or before the District Court.\nWe\u2019ve attempted to demonstrate here to the extent necessary to reverse these injunctions that these things are debatable.\nI\u2019m not suggesting that they\u2019re obvious certainly reasonable minds can differ in as Mr. Justice Marshall indicated in his earlier questioning that certain things may not be necessary for certain people and perhaps --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1862.002, 1863.834, 1868.358, 1875.613], "stop_times": [1863.834, 1868.358, 1875.613, 1886.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.002}, "reply_to": "15053__1_069", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_071", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yeah but the end of that argument is that you shouldn\u2019t have to litigate it at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1886.808], "stop_times": [1891.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.808}, "reply_to": "15053__1_070", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_072", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, we\u2019re not suggesting that we\u2019re immune from litigation on this point if we had it a patently arbitrary standard then we wouldn\u2019t make the statutory criterion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1891.842], "stop_times": [1899.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.842}, "reply_to": "15053__1_071", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_073", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "You\u2019re suggesting that you come to the end of the litigation, though once you demonstrate the legislative judgment about something that reasonable minds can differ on.\nFrom then on, you ought to stop at that point, don\u2019t you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1899.608, 1908.421], "stop_times": [1908.421, 1912.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.608}, "reply_to": "15053__1_072", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_074", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Oh --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1912.266], "stop_times": [1912.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.266}, "reply_to": "15053__1_073", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_075", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "You don\u2019t want to go on and say really which reasonable man is right.\nYou don\u2019t want to have to decide that in litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1912.889, 1916.762], "stop_times": [1916.762, 1919.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.889}, "reply_to": "15053__1_074", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15053__1_076", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, I think that\u2019s why HEW wants a conformity hearing to the extent that -- but it seems to me when you look at the words objective and equitable which are employed in the HEW regulations, they\u2019re really imposing their own reasonable man test.\nNow, perhaps at a conformity hearing, they would have the last word, these are the states subject to the states appeal through the courts but they\u2019re imposing their own reasonable man test.\nSpecial grants are an individual thing and in the Rosado case this Court may quite a point of saying that individual special grants were important.\nIndeed this Court noted that New York City lost its special advantage which it previously had when individual grants were eliminated in Rosado.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1919.318, 1932.538, 1943.134, 1951.892], "stop_times": [1932.538, 1943.134, 1951.892, 1960.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.318}, "reply_to": "15053__1_075", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_077", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Of course this whole discussion [Inaudible] tend to mix up this statutory arguments [Inaudible] and constitutional argument and the Federal Government [Inaudible] to New York on any basis it wants, any basis it wants.\nTherefore what New York would be entitled to do as a matter of equal protection is wholly irrelevant it seems to me of what whether or not on Congress has [Inaudible] the use of these federal funds on the tax of the HEW says the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1960.378, 1984.8], "stop_times": [1984.8, 2003.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.378}, "reply_to": "15053__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_078", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I agree.\nAll Congress said, it was that there has to be a uniform statewide plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2003.805, 2005.131], "stop_times": [2005.131, 2008.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.805}, "reply_to": "15053__1_077", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_079", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "The question of what New York further tax -- could not do in drawing distinctions between out state or out of the city province or not is wholly irrelevant to the statutory problems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2008.776], "stop_times": [2022.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.776}, "reply_to": "15053__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_080", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2022.82], "stop_times": [2024.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.82}, "reply_to": "15053__1_079", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_081", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Congress say that they couldn\u2019t make this non-uniformity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2024.035], "stop_times": [2028.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.035}, "reply_to": "15053__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_082", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "We\u2019ve talked about the question of whether New York was arbitrary or within the embed of the legislatures permissible discretion because the injunction we\u2019re appealing was based solely under equal protection argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2028.528], "stop_times": [2038.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.528}, "reply_to": "15053__1_081", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_083", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "How can you deal with the question it seems to me that possibly the scope of the injunction that\u2019s a different question, but the main question is on the statutory ground is HEW view of the statute peripheral?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2038.847], "stop_times": [2054.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.847}, "reply_to": "15053__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_084", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Well, as to that even if it is, we submit the injunction still have to be reversed and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2054.15], "stop_times": [2058.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.15}, "reply_to": "15053__1_083", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_085", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s the question of -- that injunction if that turns out to be the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2058.377], "stop_times": [2063.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.377}, "reply_to": "15053__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_086", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I agree that\u2019s a separate issue.\nAnd as to the propriety of HEW\u2019s used when the wrong regulations used words like objective and equitable, no doubt you\u2019ve got give the practical -- the benefit of the practical construction of the statute that an administrative agency administering a system is entitled to one of the cases, although here, it\u2019s an awkward here as we indicated yesterday that there\u2019s no long consistent history of construction.\nIn fact they\u2019ve ignored this problem until this case and get ordered in this until the appeal came to this Court.\nThey weren\u2019t heard from in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2063.512, 2065.509, 2090.062, 2096.248], "stop_times": [2065.509, 2090.062, 2096.248, 2102.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.512}, "reply_to": "15053__1_085", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_087", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That maybe a question of whether we should deal with it up here, they are taking a flatfoot position up here rightly or wrongly that this violates HEW regulations and the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2102.883], "stop_times": [2115.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.883}, "reply_to": "15053__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_088", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "There\u2019s also Mr. Justice Harlan, the question of whether a violation of the regulation alone and the regulation uses the words objective and equitable would constitute nonconformity.\nThat\u2019s not nonconformity with an act of Congress as we had in Rosado or in King against Smith.\nThat\u2019s merely a regulation and -- I question again as we indicated in our reply brief whether that would be sufficient to grant this injunction or any injunction for that matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2115.037, 2124.102, 2129.215], "stop_times": [2124.102, 2129.215, 2138.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.037}, "reply_to": "15053__1_087", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_089", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "You say injunction was based on the Equal Protection Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2138.727], "stop_times": [2143.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.727}, "reply_to": "15053__1_088", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_090", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, the injunction below was based solely on the Equal Protection Clause the court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2143.865], "stop_times": [2147.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.865}, "reply_to": "15053__1_089", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_091", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Did they base it on the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2147.831], "stop_times": [2150.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.831}, "reply_to": "15053__1_090", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_092", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "No, didn\u2019t they --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2150.36], "stop_times": [2151.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.36}, "reply_to": "15053__1_091", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_093", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "What do you say about the Equal Protection Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2151.473], "stop_times": [2154.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.473}, "reply_to": "15053__1_092", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_094", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "We say that a legislature has to have discretion to deal with these problems as it sees fit and that what the court below did just as plain as day, Mr. Justice Black was to substitute its own views on policy for what the constitution commands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2154.604], "stop_times": [2169.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.604}, "reply_to": "15053__1_093", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_095", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And that give us quite a number of cases that we have to pass on all those [Inaudible] from every state of the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2169.74], "stop_times": [2176.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.74}, "reply_to": "15053__1_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_096", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "It certainly would.\nThat was just our point and we\u2019ve kept -- we\u2019ve kept try to keep in focus throughout this appeal that that was the ground on which the court below acted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2176.608, 2177.849], "stop_times": [2177.849, 2187.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.608}, "reply_to": "15053__1_095", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_097", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "You know how many counties there are in the state of Texas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2187.298], "stop_times": [2190.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.298}, "reply_to": "15053__1_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_098", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I think there\u2019s 365 if I\u2019m not mistaken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2190.409], "stop_times": [2192.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.409}, "reply_to": "15053__1_097", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_099", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That raised quite a problem just to decide county by county wouldn\u2019t it, whether each one have to get a uniform --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2192.924], "stop_times": [2200.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.924}, "reply_to": "15053__1_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_100", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "I don\u2019t think it\u2019s an issue that belongs in this Court barring some discrimination on the ground of [Inaudible] they\u2019re obvious basis like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2200.095], "stop_times": [2207.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.095}, "reply_to": "15053__1_099", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_101", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Legislative decisions on those points are based on broad approximation, the Court's mostly be based on actual judgment, based on the evidence, reach that after careful conclusion, isn\u2019t that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2207.616], "stop_times": [2222.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.616}, "reply_to": "15053__1_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_102", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "That\u2019s exactly our point here.\nWe think the legislature had a right to make a findings such as it did that based on certain things which are somewhat intangible in some instances and quite tangible like a sales tax and other instances, had a right to find that the ghetto resident, the welfare recipient in New York City was entitled to a little bit extra compensate with those factors.\nAnd it\u2019s ironic that this litigation came up at a time when every enlightened social commentator was asking people to do more about the cities and to concern themselves with the problems of the urban core.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2222.327, 2224.195, 2243.573], "stop_times": [2224.195, 2243.573, 2253.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.327}, "reply_to": "15053__1_101", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_103", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Do you think if they decide to make a uniform rate they ever get person in Texas of the 367 counties or whatever it is, that we would have to pass on the evidence on each one of those to see whether or not, they had the reached the correct conclusion on such difficult problems as how much you to cost to live in that county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2253.556], "stop_times": [2276.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.556}, "reply_to": "15053__1_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15053__1_104", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Justice Black we\u2019ve tried to indicate throughout that we don\u2019t think the Equal Protection Clause reaches that far unless if where a case of something like racial discrimination or just complete patent arbitrariness where the state just didn\u2019t come forward with anything at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2276.723], "stop_times": [2291.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.723}, "reply_to": "15053__1_103", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_105", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "But you got a District Court with a different view of the matter now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2291.13], "stop_times": [2294.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.13}, "reply_to": "15053__1_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_106", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, they certainly did.\nThey completely violated what this Court said in Dandridge and what this Court has said earlier in cases like McDonald which we cited to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2294.335, 2295.612], "stop_times": [2295.612, 2302.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.335}, "reply_to": "15053__1_105", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_107", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Is it your view that Congress intended the confirmaty proceedings as the primary method of resolving the differences in standards between the states in the Federal Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2302.587], "stop_times": [2314.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.587}, "reply_to": "15053__1_106", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_108", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "In the situation that we have here, yes sir, I believe so sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2314.516], "stop_times": [2318.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.516}, "reply_to": "15053__1_107", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_109", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And that would be in a District Court proceeding, would it, a single-judge district court, a regular evidentiary case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2318.878], "stop_times": [2325.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.878}, "reply_to": "15053__1_108", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_110", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "It would be an appeal from the HEW determination through the courts it would be, I assume a single-judge district court along, I\u2019m frankly not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2325.705], "stop_times": [2333.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.705}, "reply_to": "15053__1_109", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_111", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "And then it would go to the Court of Appeals and then come here possibly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2333.997], "stop_times": [2337.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.997}, "reply_to": "15053__1_110", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_112", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2337.369], "stop_times": [2338.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.369}, "reply_to": "15053__1_111", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_113", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Instead of coming in one leap from a three-judge court to this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2338.028], "stop_times": [2342.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.028}, "reply_to": "15053__1_112", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_114", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Precisely.\nAnd for all of those reasons, we submit that these injunction should be reversed for the reasons we\u2019ve suggested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2342.041, 2344.256], "stop_times": [2344.256, 2349.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.041}, "reply_to": "15053__1_113", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15053__1_115", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Weinberg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2349.586], "stop_times": [2351.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.586}, "reply_to": "15053__1_114", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_116", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, could I --.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2351.154], "stop_times": [2352.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.154}, "reply_to": "15053__1_115", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__1_117", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Why not?\nMr. Strauss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2352.589, 2354.49], "stop_times": [2354.49, 2356.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.589}, "reply_to": "15053__1_116", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15053__1_118", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Mr. Strauss, I notice around your amicus brief there\u2019s no the HEW -- there\u2019s no HEW lawyer, did you represent at the Court of that brief represent that usually together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2356.289], "stop_times": [2369.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.289}, "reply_to": "15053__1_117", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15053__2_000", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Oh, surely Your Honor.\nOur general practice is not to put lawyers of the Government departments on our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2369.104, 2371.035], "stop_times": [2371.035, 2378.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2369.104}, "reply_to": "15053__1_118", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15053__2_001", "conversation_id": "15053", "text": "Thank you gentlemen.\nThe Case is Submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2378.386, 2379.113], "stop_times": [2379.113, 2381.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.386}, "reply_to": "15053__2_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_000", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Number 896, Wyman against Rothstein.\nMr. Weinberg, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [0.0, 7.305], "stop_times": [7.305, 9.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_001", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMay it please the Court.\nThis appeal raises the question whether when a time when urban problems are recognized by virtually every thoughtful person in every social commentator examining American life to be of the most serious proportions.\nThe State of New York made out employee; it's concededly limited resources in the field of social welfare in such a way as to address itself to these problems with slightly greater emphasis.\nNow, 131-a of the Social Services Law of New York which is the statute of this case is all about provides levels of welfare allowances for welfare recipients in the State of New York.\nIt was enacted by the 1969 legislature and as I'm sure the Court knows it was the same statute that was involved in Rosado against Wyman which this Court decided in April 6.\nSection 131-a establishes levels at one rate for welfare recipients within New York City and it is slightly lower rate approximately $5.00 a person for welfare recipients living outside New York City.\nIt then goes on to give the appellant, Commissioner Wyman, the State Commissioner of Social Services, discretion under an Amendment which was passed prior to the effective date of 131-a, which was July 1, 1969, discretion to increase the payments in any county upon the request of that county or indeed without the request of that county if the facts warrant and prior to the effective date of the statute.\nCommissioner Wyman did indeed exercise that discretion and he have the differential between the New York City Welfare Payments and the Welfare Payments in the suburban counties including Nassau and Westchester counties which are adjacent to New York, essentially suburban counties and which the two counties in which the plaintiff here reside.\nIt has to be presumed as this Court has stated on many occasions that the state legislature acted with that knowledge of local conditions and indeed the assemblymen and state senators who passed this section of the Social Services Law are elected from very small districts.\nThey're about as close to their local constituencies as any elected representative can be.\nTheir district is so much smaller and they represent less people than a congressman, and they have to be presumed to be aware of local conditions.\nIndeed, it's noteworthy that the assemblyman from Nassau and Westchester counties predominantly voted for this bill.\nNow, where --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [9.648, 10.492, 12.257, 25.577, 36.408, 49.061, 61.905, 78.248, 104.561, 127.315, 143.367, 148.386, 156.597, 164.01], "stop_times": [10.492, 12.257, 25.577, 36.408, 49.061, 61.905, 78.248, 104.561, 127.315, 143.367, 148.386, 156.597, 164.01, 164.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 9.648}, "reply_to": "15351__0_000", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_002", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, you're speaking now of the Bill which established a differential to recognize the higher cost of living in New York City?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [164.213], "stop_times": [169.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.213}, "reply_to": "15351__0_001", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_003", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.\nYes, sir, which differential was I have indicated halved by the administrative action of the appellant Commissioner Wyman before the Bill took effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [169.73, 170.767], "stop_times": [170.767, 180.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 169.73}, "reply_to": "15351__0_002", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_004", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Halved, H-A-L-V-E-D?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [180.043], "stop_times": [181.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.043}, "reply_to": "15351__0_003", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_005", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [181.674], "stop_times": [182.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 181.674}, "reply_to": "15351__0_004", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_006", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [182.05], "stop_times": [183.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.05}, "reply_to": "15351__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_007", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What's about (Inaudible)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [183.022], "stop_times": [185.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.022}, "reply_to": "15351__0_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__0_008", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The 1970 legislature reenacted Section 131-a with increase levels but they maintained the differential so that the case isn't moot.\nThe differential still exists except that as a result of the very sweeping preliminary injunctions issued by the three-judge District Court in this case the state is now paying the identical payment to welfare recipients in the counties involved in this case.\nBut that's only because of the injunction.\nBut the 1970 legislation, a copy of which is annexed to our reply brief which was then superseded by a slightly different statute copies of which we mailed to the Court last week when it was enacted still maintains the differentials, only that the figures are slightly different their higher but the differential still exists except in so far as the preliminary injunction has eliminated it for the purposes of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [185.343, 196.061, 212.242, 214.519], "stop_times": [196.061, 212.242, 214.519, 238.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 185.343}, "reply_to": "15351__0_007", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_009", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, the differentials are between New York City on the one hand and all the rest of the state on the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [238.903], "stop_times": [245.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.903}, "reply_to": "15351__0_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_010", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [245.042], "stop_times": [245.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 245.042}, "reply_to": "15351__0_009", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_011", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [245.435], "stop_times": [246.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.435}, "reply_to": "15351__0_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_012", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [246.099], "stop_times": [246.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 246.099}, "reply_to": "15351__0_011", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_013", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And all the rest of the state is now treated equally by statute subject only as I understand it to the discretion to increase it up to a maximum of what New York City pays.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [246.564], "stop_times": [257.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.564}, "reply_to": "15351__0_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_014", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.\nExcept to the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [257.8, 258.632], "stop_times": [258.632, 258.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 257.8}, "reply_to": "15351__0_013", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_015", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It's used to be -- it's used to be three areas in New York --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [258.791], "stop_times": [263.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.791}, "reply_to": "15351__0_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_016", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [263.658], "stop_times": [263.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 263.658}, "reply_to": "15351__0_015", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_017", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- as I understand it before this present legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [263.742], "stop_times": [267.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 263.742}, "reply_to": "15351__0_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_018", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That's right Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [267.292], "stop_times": [267.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 267.292}, "reply_to": "15351__0_017", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_019", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It was done by -- and it was done by regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [267.637], "stop_times": [269.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.637}, "reply_to": "15351__0_018", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_020", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [269.516], "stop_times": [270.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 269.516}, "reply_to": "15351__0_019", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_021", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, there are two under the statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [270.833], "stop_times": [272.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.833}, "reply_to": "15351__0_020", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_022", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [272.78], "stop_times": [273.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 272.78}, "reply_to": "15351__0_021", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_023", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- New York City and the rest of the state.\nThose two --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [273.079, 275.006], "stop_times": [275.006, 275.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.079}, "reply_to": "15351__0_022", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_024", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Except -- except for the commissioner's discretion which he has exercised in eliminating the differential --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [275.543], "stop_times": [280.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 275.543}, "reply_to": "15351__0_023", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_025", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [280.635], "stop_times": [281.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.635}, "reply_to": "15351__0_024", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_026", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- and the commissioner by regulation in 1969 returned in effect the three districts or really four districts because New York City gets the statutory rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [281.023], "stop_times": [289.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 281.023}, "reply_to": "15351__0_025", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_027", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [289.254], "stop_times": [289.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.254}, "reply_to": "15351__0_026", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_028", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The suburban counties which will previously lump in with New York City.\nNow, get him out slightly lower than New York City and the two other upstate districts are administratively established that is slightly lower rate than the suburban counties ringing New York City and also couple of upstate counties which were traditionally thrown in with these suburban counties.\nSo that now in effect they were four rates subject only to the injunctions which have thrown the suburban counties in with New York City.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [289.639, 293.114, 310.259], "stop_times": [293.114, 310.259, 318.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 289.639}, "reply_to": "15351__0_027", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_029", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "So --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [318.087], "stop_times": [318.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.087}, "reply_to": "15351__0_028", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_030", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But at least does the questions still remain as it was before whether this is a reasonable classification on the part of the commissioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [318.824], "stop_times": [325.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.824}, "reply_to": "15351__0_029", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_031", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That's precisely the question Mr. Chief Justice, on whether --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [325.396], "stop_times": [328.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 325.396}, "reply_to": "15351__0_030", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_032", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You change because you have fewer possible cases.\nBut the fundamental question hasn't change in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [328.086, 331.325], "stop_times": [331.325, 334.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.086}, "reply_to": "15351__0_031", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_033", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No, sir.\nUnder the Equal Protection Clause is still a question of whether there's any rational basis for the differential and as we shall show there's a more than adequate basis for that differential for the reasons which were reduced before the three-judge court in which I'd like to expound on here.\nIt should be noted before we turn to that that these payments don't include rent or fuel for heating and the record shows that the actual payments received by welfare recipients in New York City for rent which have paid over and above these statutory or administratively set allowances are considerably higher in the suburban counties than they are in New York City.\nIndeed as the record show here, a -- the average rent received by welfare family of four in New York City is $84.00 a month.\nThe plaintiffs here who are single women just one person, are getting a $105.00 and $108.00 a month, if my memory serves over a hundred many event and in Nassau county, the record indicates that the maximum permissible payment for family of four is a $155.00 or a $160.00 a month depending on whether it is an apartment or a private house.\nBut that almost double the average that's received in New York City.\nThis is due to rent control and I suppose to the larger amount of apartments available in New York City and the general squeeze and housing in the suburban counties which have grown so rapidly over the past years.\nBut in any event, whatever the reasons when discussing the actual benefits or allowances received by welfare recipient of which shelter is obviously one of the basic components.\nYou've got to look not only at the welfare allowance which doesn't include shelter but also at the cost of shelter which is also paid by the commissioner.\nAnd since the cost of rental are so much less in New York City and averages also that in fact these plaintiffs and other similarly situated in Nassau and Westchester counties are actually receiving as much money or perhaps more as people in New York City.\nUnfortunately, the record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [334.295, 334.642, 351.081, 371.818, 379.277, 399.707, 403.416, 414.771, 426.03, 434.716, 449.036], "stop_times": [334.642, 351.081, 371.818, 379.277, 399.707, 403.416, 414.771, 426.03, 434.716, 449.036, 449.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 334.295}, "reply_to": "15351__0_032", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_034", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Another shelter as well as the heat, fuel, oil or whatever heat they used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [449.815], "stop_times": [454.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.815}, "reply_to": "15351__0_033", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_035", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, I'm lumping that in with shelter fuel for heating is paid separately but in many cases there's no separate item for that.\nFor example, typically a welfare recipient lives in an apartment --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [454.096, 460.586], "stop_times": [460.586, 463.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 454.096}, "reply_to": "15351__0_034", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_036", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Gets --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [463.988], "stop_times": [464.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.988}, "reply_to": "15351__0_035", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_037", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- where there is central heating in so that it wouldn't come up or even if a welfare recipient rented a house they might well or an apartment in a house or something that they might will be central heating --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [464.162], "stop_times": [472.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 464.162}, "reply_to": "15351__0_036", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_038", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But not necessarily because it is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [472.487], "stop_times": [473.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.487}, "reply_to": "15351__0_037", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_039", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [473.601], "stop_times": [474.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 473.601}, "reply_to": "15351__0_038", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_040", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It is shelter and heat isn't dissipates effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [474.17], "stop_times": [477.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.17}, "reply_to": "15351__0_039", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_041", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.\nBut the heat is a -- it's he minimum item, it doesn't exist in most cases.\nIn any event, while we unfortunately don't have in the record full statistics on the total aggregate amount of rental money and fuel for heating paid in New York City vis-\u00e0-vis what's paid in the suburban counties?\nThe record does indicate that the average rental for welfare recipients in New York City is so much lower than these plaintiffs in particular received or that the maximum permitted in Nassau County and Westchester is that the record indicates plainly that fall from being discriminated against are receiving less money when shelter is considered as a certainly it should be.\nThey're coming out just as well as a person in New York City.\nBut over above that the claim here is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and also of the Social Security Act and Regulations there under.\nAnd the court below, we submit improperly and certainly improperly in the light of this Court's opinion in Dandridge bypass completely the Social Security Act and Regulation claim and instead of veering away from the constitutional issue as courts are suppose to.\nIt in effect veered toward it and went out of its way to determine the constitutional question adversely to the state as it happens and we submit that reversal as required on that ground alone over above everything else.\nBut this statute has to be viewed whether we talked of equal protection or the statute in regulation in the context of a statutory scheme in New York State which traditionally treats New York City as sui generis and indeed New York City is a special case.\nIt's -- it's the urban megalopolis par excellence.\nIt comprises half the people in New York State and indeed, more than half of the welfare recipients about three-quarters as the record states and the -- throughout the statutes in New York, we see special treatment given New York City far and excess I'm sure of this special treatment given Chicago or Baltimore or Philadelphia in the statutes of those states.\nIndeed, this Court itself in Salzburg against Maryland remarked quoting an earlier case Missouri against Lewis, a 19th century case that it would be permissible under the Equal Protection Clause for New York State to apply the civil code, the civil law in the New York City in common law of the rest of the state if it wanted to.\nNow, that's sounds like hyperbole but this Court said it and it quoted it Salzburg against Maryland which is a case from the 1950's.\nThe fact is that New York City is different, it is unique, and the legislature has to be presumed to be aware of that.\nThe -- our brief and balance specific examples, for example the Multiple Dwelling Law which prescribes all kinds of requirements for apartment houses, only applies to New York City.\nThere's a Multiple Residence Law which is entirely different which applies to the apartment houses outside New York City.\nAs this Court knows well from the Baldwin case which is before it, the entire structure of the penal law is the code of criminal procedure is different in New York City and indeed this Court has before it the question of whether New York State can permissibly within the Equal Protection Clause give jury trials for misdemeanors outside the city and not give them in New York City.\nNow, whatever the rights and wrongs are there.\nIt's again illustrative of the fact that the New York legislature has traditionally treated New York City as a very, very different thing from the rest of the state.\nNow, when we look at Section 131-a, we don't see the enormous difference that we find in these areas where you talking about giving jury trials in one place and not somewhere else or having stringent requirements on multiple dwellings in New York City and not having them in the other counties of the state.\nWe're talking here about a very slight $5.00 a person differential which the legislature which as I've said it has to be presumed to be aware of the specific local conditions, so fit to provide as a benefit to compensate for the higher social cause of urban living which the New York City welfare recipient has to endure.\nThe question here is this Court said is whether the grounds adopted by the legislature are wholly irrelevant to the states objective and the -- unless the Court can say that they are also wholly irrelevant then it plainly has to reverse it appears.\nNow lets look at the grounds, these grounds are specific and factual.\nThey're not policy grounds and yet in Dandridge, this Court so fit to declare that the maximum family rule in Maryland which created a real difference, a sizeable difference in the amount of welfare benefits received by individuals depending on whether or not they were in a large family.\nIt held that that was a permissible exercise of Maryland's legislative discretion based solely on Maryland's policy grounds.\nNow here we don't have policy, we have actual -- factual material.\nFor example, we have the rent control and the actual lower rents within the New York City which I've already alluded to.\nIn addition as the record shows and the studies on housing within New York City show because of rent control and because of the antiquity of much of the housing in areas where welfare recipients have large to live, there's been an enormous deterioration in the quality of that housing and realistically, the legislature was entitled to find that this entails the purchase of items necessary to maintain this deteriorated housing which might not exist in suburban area.\nIn addition, you have the crime rate within New York City.\nNow, the statistics again within the record and set forth in our brief show that the amount of crimes and the amount of violent crimes specifically are far higher within New York City per capita.\nAnd once again, the legislature has to be presumed to be aware of these factors and it has to be presumed to be aware that the higher crime rate which unfortunately strikes people the hardest who live in the areas, getaway areas, and low income neighborhoods were welfare recipients for the most part of obliged to reside.\nThis necessitates taken a taxicab home at night.\nIt necessitates buying lots, replacing stolen goods, replacing stolen monies, replacing stolen welfare checks.\nIt's true that New York City does permit stolen welfare checks to be replaced if they're reported but certainly not every stolen welfare check is reported and stolen goods and monies undoubtedly are not reported in the majority of cases.\nWindow gates and bars and other devices that are necessitates by a high crime rate are simply effective life for New York City slum dweller.\nAnd its no doubt debatable whether the legislature should give more money within its standard of need to compensate the New York City welfare recipient for these problems.\nBut once we concede that its debatable then the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply and its simply becomes a matter of what the three-judge court below did in our judgment namely substituting its views on policy for the legislature's discretion in coping with the realistic problem before it.\nWhat this Court characterized in Dandridge as the, I'm paraphrasing the Court, but the extraordinarily difficult problem of apportioning or puzzling out to welfare recipients all of whom obviously need whatever the state can afford to give him.\nPrecisely how much this state can give this one and that one and here we repeat the differential was extremely slight compared to the family maximum which this Court sustained in Dandridge.\nAnother fact which the legislature -- since it enacted this factor had to be aware of with the sales tax and New York City has a 6% sales tax, 3% state, and additional 3% imposed by the city.\nIn Nassau, the 3% state sales tax applies to statewide of course but in Nassau County, the county tax is only 2%.\nIn Westchester County except for one city, the City of Yonkers, there's no county tax at all.\nThese means and if -- in the other suburban counties, there's no county tax or city tax at all.\nThese means that on items other than food which welfare recipient has to buy clothing, household appliances, and the like to the extent that this additional 3% vis-\u00e0-vis Westchester County resident or 1% vis-\u00e0-vis Nassau County residents sales tax applies that in it of itself makes a difference.\nI refer the Court in our brief to the fact that the internal revenue service in its tax forms for the year 1969.\nSo fit to recognize that for a family with an income between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00 a year which is the income of family of four on welfare in New York.\nThe sales tax allowable under the suggested permissible allowances for a sales tax deduction on income tax is $92.00 for New York City for that family of four at that income level and only $46.00 in Westchester County.\nNow, right there you've got a $4.00 a month differential.\nNow, we are not suggesting that this is necessarily binding on a legislature or that they have to abide by that.\nBut once we can see that it is debatable point then we've left the Equal Protection Clause far behind and we're in the area of legislative discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [477.225, 477.537, 482.463, 494.989, 517.447, 520.489, 531.204, 547.173, 559.662, 574.577, 577.72, 597.694, 616.28, 624.327, 631.411, 641.265, 647.627, 668.492, 670.671, 679.507, 695.866, 718.885, 732.308, 735.989, 753.858, 763.083, 767.501, 773.598, 802.361, 805.39, 816.491, 836.548, 839.655, 847.687, 861.043, 869.544, 879.359, 897.034, 911.084, 922.198, 935.038, 942.617, 947.984, 953.963, 973.716, 981.373, 990.01, 1004.633, 1008.165, 1014.386], "stop_times": [477.537, 482.463, 494.989, 517.447, 520.489, 531.204, 547.173, 559.662, 574.577, 577.72, 597.694, 616.28, 624.327, 631.411, 641.265, 647.627, 668.492, 670.671, 679.507, 695.866, 718.885, 732.308, 735.989, 753.858, 763.083, 767.501, 773.598, 802.361, 805.39, 816.491, 836.548, 839.655, 847.687, 861.043, 869.544, 879.359, 897.034, 911.084, 922.198, 935.038, 942.617, 947.984, 953.963, 973.716, 981.373, 990.01, 1004.633, 1008.165, 1014.386, 1021.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 477.225}, "reply_to": "15351__0_040", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_042", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "For now let's assume Mr. Weinberg that you're quite right and that base on the factors that you've been discussing and others.\nWe have left the Equal Protection Clause far behind particularly in light of the -- this Court's recent decision in the Dandridge case.\nWe still -- we're not -- that doesn't get you out of the woods in this case, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1021.96, 1032.344, 1040.065], "stop_times": [1032.344, 1040.065, 1044.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.96}, "reply_to": "15351__0_041", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_043", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No, sir.\nBecause we have the statute in regulation we chose --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1044.973, 1045.294], "stop_times": [1045.294, 1046.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1044.973}, "reply_to": "15351__0_042", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_044", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, the statutory ground and you have the amicus brief filed here by the secretary of HEW, telling us that the statutory ground is a good ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1046.175], "stop_times": [1057.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.175}, "reply_to": "15351__0_043", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_045", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But we do have that and I would like to get to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1057.643], "stop_times": [1059.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1057.643}, "reply_to": "15351__0_044", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_046", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I -- I trust you are going to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1059.672], "stop_times": [1061.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.672}, "reply_to": "15351__0_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_047", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I certainly will.\nIt's -- it's interesting to learn of an administrative policy when you pick up a brief that's filed in this could.\nWe -- weren't aware of this administrative policy.\nThe letter sent by the Regional Commissioner of HEW, Mr. Collison to Commissioner Wyman back in November said that while there was a differential and they questioned that differential.\nThey said that to the extent that it could be demonstrated that courts were different between New York City and the other counties, that differential would be alright.\nNow, Commissioner Wyman didn't reply of the letter of regional commissioner because the pendency of this lawsuit.\nThe commissioner invited, Commissioner Wyman, to indicate what the factual basis where for the slight differential in favor of New York City welfare recipients.\nAnd as I've said because of the pendency of this litigation, Commissioner Wyman didn't reply and that's where the matter lay until last week when I got the Government's brief and I was interested to learn that they have a consistent administrative policy in this area.\nThis was fascinating because not only has New York City paid a different amount over the years long before the adoption of this section.\nThey had as we've been indicated three separate areas within the state.\nBut as I learned in the Dandridge case the City of Baltimore pays $10.00 a month more than the rest of Maryland.\nI should say the State of Maryland pays people in Baltimore $10.00 a month more and as we discovered in our research and set forth in our brief.\nThe State of California has a whole crazy quilt of amounts paid it varies with the contribution of the county wants to make and their enormous differences.\nAnd of course, once we look beyond state boarders and we start looking to what happens between one state another state.\nThen the difference has become enormous and without even discussing the differences in wealth they are paid between the states like New York and the southern states, right on the northeastern states where the standard of living is about the same on the states that you pass through taking the train from New York to Washington.\nYou'll see that the level of payments in Wilmington, Delaware with the standard of living can't be very different from New York City or Philadelphia.\nThe welfare payment is about half what it is in New York City and Philadelphia it's a lot lower than this in New York City.\nSo, since the federal government and specifically the Department of Health Education and Welfare is the agency that's suppose to administer all these and try to make assemblance of order.\nIt appears to us that the straining at gnats when they get all excited about $5.00 a month between New York City and the suburbs around it and they're perfectly willing to let all the rest to just go by.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1061.418, 1062.25, 1069.002, 1071.89, 1078.495, 1089.505, 1097.466, 1106.327, 1119.74, 1127.021, 1130.941, 1136.415, 1144.193, 1153.499, 1159.092, 1176.724, 1184.248, 1190.626, 1199.434], "stop_times": [1062.25, 1069.002, 1071.89, 1078.495, 1089.505, 1097.466, 1106.327, 1119.74, 1127.021, 1130.941, 1136.415, 1144.193, 1153.499, 1159.092, 1176.724, 1184.248, 1190.626, 1199.434, 1211.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1061.418}, "reply_to": "15351__0_046", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_048", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Oh, you don't understand the HEW, the Health Education and Welfare, same with this equal protection to have different rates, in all of the thousand of counties in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1211.641], "stop_times": [1225.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.641}, "reply_to": "15351__0_047", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_049", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well HEW, Mr. Justice Black, resisted the urged to talk about equal protection and they confined themselves to the statute and the regulation.\nAlthough, they said quite astonishingly I think that the -- that the regulation went further than the Equal Protection Clause and that struck me as odd and I think it will strike anyone as odd who looks at it.\nThe regulation simply says there has to be a statewide standard of need which New York concededly has that's admitted by HEW.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1225.316, 1233.093, 1243.883], "stop_times": [1233.093, 1243.883, 1250.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1225.316}, "reply_to": "15351__0_048", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_050", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They're not arguing, are they?\nWe ought to know as a matter of personal knowledge that its man can live just as cheap in one part of United States and one part in the state as they can in any other?\nThey're not claiming evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1250.167, 1251.477, 1263.793], "stop_times": [1251.477, 1263.793, 1265.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.167}, "reply_to": "15351__0_049", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_051", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, they appear to be saying that the use of the words objective and equitable in their regulation require the state to pay the precise mathematical same figure in every part of the state.\nUnless they can come forward and show that there's a demonstrable difference.\nNow, we maintain that we're doing that.\nWe're showing that there's a demonstrable difference but the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1265.895, 1280.668, 1284.433, 1285.864], "stop_times": [1280.668, 1284.433, 1285.864, 1288.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1265.895}, "reply_to": "15351__0_050", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_052", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Every part of every state you said, what about all the states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1288.877], "stop_times": [1291.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.877}, "reply_to": "15351__0_051", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_053", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, that's precisely why I say they are straining it gnats here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1291.664], "stop_times": [1294.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1291.664}, "reply_to": "15351__0_052", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_054", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They defend it different between the cost of living in one state and another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1294.527], "stop_times": [1300.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.527}, "reply_to": "15351__0_053", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_055", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, I can't speak for them Mr. Justice Black.\nThey don't -- they don't say anything about that in their brief.\nAll they say is that they want New York State to pay the precise same dollar amount throughout the state.\nOtherwise, they are violating the regulation which talks about an objective and equitable standard but --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1300.628, 1302.402, 1304.475, 1310.787], "stop_times": [1302.402, 1304.475, 1310.787, 1315.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1300.628}, "reply_to": "15351__0_054", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_056", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "All over the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1315.166], "stop_times": [1317.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.166}, "reply_to": "15351__0_055", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_057", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Unless the -- unless it can be demonstrated that there is an objective difference even that which there own Regional Commissioner Collison said, they appear to be backing away from because when you read their brief they seem to require a -- a mathematical precision and the payment throughout the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1317.202], "stop_times": [1333.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1317.202}, "reply_to": "15351__0_056", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_058", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But the statute says the statewide standard, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1333.934], "stop_times": [1337.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.934}, "reply_to": "15351__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15351__0_059", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThere is a statewide standard of need but that doesn't mean that the -- that the dollar amount paid throughout the state has to be identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1337.729, 1338.378], "stop_times": [1338.378, 1344.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1337.729}, "reply_to": "15351__0_058", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_060", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "As for you apparently get in to an argument in HEW?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1344.933], "stop_times": [1348.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.933}, "reply_to": "15351__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15351__0_061", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.\nRegional -- the regional commissioner conceded in this letter of November 10, 1969 which is appended to their brief and it's in the appendix and it's appended to the plaintiff's brief as well.\nThey said in there that if there's a demonstrable difference then we're not violating that regulation or that statute.\nAnd throughout the years we had three different standards varying between New York City and the suburban counties which used to be lumped together until 1969, then a batch up of counties and then another group of upstate counties.\nNow, probably that was alright with HEW.\nMaryland giving people in Baltimore $10.00 a month is alright with HEW.\nThe variation as between the states which have paid for half by federal money alright --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1348.77, 1349.863, 1359.506, 1368.551, 1381.458, 1384.098, 1388.221], "stop_times": [1349.863, 1359.506, 1368.551, 1381.458, 1384.098, 1388.221, 1392.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1348.77}, "reply_to": "15351__0_060", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_062", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I read the -- I read the whole thing different perhaps I'm wrong.\nThere's a statute that requires a standard, statewide standard and you can show in every case.\nThe existence of actual needs that will permit a variation from the standard because I don't think there's any thing inconsistent necessarily between --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1392.089, 1395.965, 1402.549], "stop_times": [1395.965, 1402.549, 1412.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.089}, "reply_to": "15351__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15351__0_063", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, HEW doesn't insist that the dollar amount paid that would be the same in every count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1412.021], "stop_times": [1419.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.021}, "reply_to": "15351__0_062", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__0_064", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, the regional commissioner didn't insist it.\nAs I read their brief I'm a little unclear as to whether they're --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1419.091, 1421.168], "stop_times": [1421.168, 1423.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1419.091}, "reply_to": "15351__0_063", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_065", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I read it as indicated that there must be a statewide standard but as to what the need is but if you can show the satisfying need to touch you unless one kind and another.\nThere could be differences in money amounts paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1423.945, 1433.786], "stop_times": [1433.786, 1436.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.945}, "reply_to": "15351__0_064", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__0_066", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Oh, I'd like to read the brief that way Mr. Justice White and if we can read it that way.\nThen, I think with all due respect the New York is home free because we've shown that there is that demonstrable standard.\nAt least it's debatable and once it's debatable that regulation certainly can impose any greater requirements on New York and the Equal Protection Clause.\nIt uses words like objective and equitable and that can mean anything more than Equal Protection Clause means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1436.668, 1440.177, 1445.956, 1453.324], "stop_times": [1440.177, 1445.956, 1453.324, 1458.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1436.668}, "reply_to": "15351__0_065", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_067", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No, but if -- I suppose HEW could say to you -- well, if sounds like you got a statewide standard but somehow rather you pay different amounts and you haven't got any evidence that there is difference in cost and there must be a difference in the standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1458.109], "stop_times": [1476.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.109}, "reply_to": "15351__0_066", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__0_068", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That appears to be what they're saying.\nBut when you look at the reasons for the slight differential in favor of New York City, we see that the legislature in fact have valid reasons.\nIt had the deterioration of housing, the higher crime rate, the higher sales tax, and one which was testified to by the commissioner which I didn't get to yet.\nAnd namely the fact that the best bulk, the overwhelming preponderance of welfare monies are paid under the AFDC Program.\nAnd that means that most welfare recipients in New York as in other states are children and the -- where the social cost of urban living hits home is to the child on AFDC living typically in New York City.\nUnfortunately, in a tenement of and in areas remote from a park as our brief indicates there are huge areas in Bronx County particularly which has a high number of welfare recipients where there simply no folk around from miles.\nThis necessitates the parent taking the child on public transportation and bringing him to a park or to the zoos in museums and aquariums and other facilities, beaches which are available to the -- in New York City, and which a part of urban living.\nNow in the suburbs, we're not about to suggest that life in the suburbs where an AFDC child is rosy but there's more room around and the legislature had a right to find that a child on welfare in Nassau or Westchester County is a lot more right to have some kind of a vacant lot around than a child in tenement and hold them with the self Bronx.\nAnd for this -- and also the zoos and beaches and so on which existed in New York City are simply inaccessible in Nassau County.\nSo, this is another item which the legislature and its discretion had a right to consider.\nWe're not saying that that every member of this Court are indeed any member of this Court has to necessarily agree with what the legislature said in everyone of these instances or any of these instances.\nBut there has to be an ambit or scope of legislative discretion and these are factual things here.\nThey're not -- they're not policy things such as Maryland advanced successfully in the Dandridge case.\nThese are factual things which the legislature and the commissioner who has the expertise and the core of civil service people or staff who would administers this program have to be presumed to be aware of.\nNow, the commissioner --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1476.776, 1478.304, 1487.362, 1496.323, 1503.919, 1516.804, 1528.907, 1543.728, 1565.26, 1572.845, 1577.137, 1587.366, 1592.203, 1597.998, 1610.932], "stop_times": [1478.304, 1487.362, 1496.323, 1503.919, 1516.804, 1528.907, 1543.728, 1565.26, 1572.845, 1577.137, 1587.366, 1592.203, 1597.998, 1610.932, 1612.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1476.776}, "reply_to": "15351__0_067", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_069", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, you're back on the constitutional argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1612.429], "stop_times": [1615.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.429}, "reply_to": "15351__0_068", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15351__0_070", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Oh, I think they meld or dovetail, Mr. Justice Douglas.\nThe standard the regulation is objective and equitable, and when one reads that together with the statute which speaks of the statewide standard of need.\nI think we're -- we're roughly in the same territories the Equal Protection Clause which says that there has to be rational standard for the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1615.256, 1618.765, 1626.974], "stop_times": [1618.765, 1626.974, 1634.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.256}, "reply_to": "15351__0_069", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_071", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, I don't know if equal protection never was held to in event.\nFurthermore, the fact that you're roughly equivalent, it doesn't mean that you're there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1634.539, 1638.391], "stop_times": [1638.391, 1642.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.539}, "reply_to": "15351__0_070", "speaker": "j__william_o_douglas"}
{"id": "15351__0_072", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No, sir.\nI agreed but we think that the where the legislature has the demonstrable standard.\nThe very language that the regional commissioner of HEW talked about that they're both under the Equal Protection Clause and both under the test on the under regulation of objective and equitable.\nThis -- their existence adequate ground from the differential, but we note that the three-judge court didn't look at that way at all.\nThey bypassed the statutory and regulatory ground and they -- as we've indicated they veered toward the constitutional ground.\nIt's that right off the back, it would appear that the sweeping injunctions granted below have to be reversed.\nBut we submit that a remand for the purpose of considering the statutory and regulatory ground wouldn't served any useful purpose here because the scope or the ambit of discretion within which the state legislature was allowed under that test seems to be about the same as the Government in effect says in its brief as under the Equal Protection Clause.\nAnd indeed as their commissioner said that to the extent they are demonstrable differences the differential will be justified as indeed they've justified differentials in New York, Maryland, and California, and for awhile in other states over the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1642.71, 1643.275, 1647.558, 1658.946, 1665.204, 1674.316, 1680.47, 1701.956], "stop_times": [1643.275, 1647.558, 1658.946, 1665.204, 1674.316, 1680.47, 1701.956, 1715.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1642.71}, "reply_to": "15351__0_071", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_073", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What does the Government mean by this question it present rather than New York's state plan of public assistance, improperly favors residents of New York City over residents of other areas of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1715.553], "stop_times": [1731.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.553}, "reply_to": "15351__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_074", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They appear -- they appear sir to be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1731.191], "stop_times": [1734.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.191}, "reply_to": "15351__0_073", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_075", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1734.218], "stop_times": [1734.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.218}, "reply_to": "15351__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_076", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They appear to be saying sir that there were no objective standards under which the legislature pays a differential to people in New York City who are in welfare.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1734.83], "stop_times": [1743.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.83}, "reply_to": "15351__0_075", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_077", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What do you mean by improperly favors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1743.339], "stop_times": [1746.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.339}, "reply_to": "15351__0_076", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_078", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, they're suggesting that it's discriminatory or that it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1746.363], "stop_times": [1748.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.363}, "reply_to": "15351__0_077", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_079", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1748.571], "stop_times": [1749.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.571}, "reply_to": "15351__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_080", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- it's invidious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1749.022], "stop_times": [1750.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.022}, "reply_to": "15351__0_079", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_081", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Over New York City residents than other parts of the state.\nWhy did they say it does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1750.796, 1753.963], "stop_times": [1753.963, 1756.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.796}, "reply_to": "15351__0_080", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_082", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I'm not sure I follow Your Honor that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1756.765], "stop_times": [1758.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.765}, "reply_to": "15351__0_081", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_083", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They say rather you knew the question presented one of this is the New York state plan improperly favors residents of New York City over residents of other sections of the state.\nWhat's the basis for that question presented?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1758.224, 1771.264], "stop_times": [1771.264, 1774.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.224}, "reply_to": "15351__0_082", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_084", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The statute which says that there has to be statewide standard of need and the HEW regulation which says that the standard of need and the amounts paid have to be objective equitable throughout the state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1774.006], "stop_times": [1785.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.006}, "reply_to": "15351__0_083", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_085", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, in there it seems to me from what you say.\nThey're claiming that it shouldn't be just one raised.\nThe New York City and one raised with any other part of the state, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1785.54, 1788.866, 1792.573], "stop_times": [1788.866, 1792.573, 1798.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.54}, "reply_to": "15351__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__0_086", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I think they're saying that to the extent that we can demonstrate that there's a valid reason to pay people in New York City more then we don't violate the statute or the regulation, to the extent that we can't show such a valid reason and we do violate the statute in there regulation.\nBut the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1798.02, 1813.966], "stop_times": [1813.966, 1814.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.02}, "reply_to": "15351__0_085", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_087", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You claim that on this record, you have shown that there's a valid basis for a difference in the cost of living in the two places?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1814.77], "stop_times": [1821.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.77}, "reply_to": "15351__0_086", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_088", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Exactly, sir.\nAnd over and above that, we point out that the injunctions granted below were not granted on the statutory ground with the three-judge court so fit to ignore.\nThey were granted on the constitutional ground and the way they phrase their border than what this Court permits and permitted under the Rosado case for example, in issuing an injunction where the only ground statutory and not constitutional.\nThe most this Court did in Rosado where there was a violation found of a -- of an Act of Congress was to remand the case back to the District Court to give New York State the choice of letting federal funds go or of redrafting the statute.\nAnd we submit that the three-judge court below didn't do anything like that for the good reason or at least for the reason that they didn't take the statutory route.\nThey took the constitutional route and for this reason, I think this Court can pass on both the constitutional ground and the statutory ground and find that -- as this Court said in Dandridge that there isn't anything special about welfare statutes which requires a more rigorous constitutional standards to be employed as in cases involving racial discrimination or the right to vote or the right of freedom of speech.\nThe Dandridge certainly laid that argument to rest and that's the keystone of the whole argument adopted by the three-judge court and I think once we remove that keystone, there's not much left to support those injunctions.\nThe statute and regulation, I never even consider so at the very least of remand is required but we go further than that and we say that the complaint should be simply dismissed.\nAnd that summary judgment should be granted and in our favor because the requisite demonstrable differences have been shown to exist.\nAnd whether we're talking about equal protection or the statute or the regulation, New York State has demonstrated that it had a demonstrable reason a rational basis for the determination that legislature made.\nAnd it -- and I should add the determination that the commissioner made in which he reduced the size of the disparity to approximately half.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1821.64, 1822.279, 1831.332, 1846.293, 1862.08, 1870.912, 1894.273, 1906.078, 1915.409, 1922.951, 1935.601], "stop_times": [1822.279, 1831.332, 1846.293, 1862.08, 1870.912, 1894.273, 1906.078, 1915.409, 1922.951, 1935.601, 1943.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.64}, "reply_to": "15351__0_087", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_089", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "We're dealing here with the preliminary injunction are we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1943.271], "stop_times": [1945.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.271}, "reply_to": "15351__0_088", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_090", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWe are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1945.727, 1946.055], "stop_times": [1946.055, 1946.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.727}, "reply_to": "15351__0_089", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_091", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And if the -- it should be -- if we should think you're mistaken and that the preliminary injunction should remain in the effect and that would be followed by a plenary hearing.\nAnd the purpose of which would be decide that whether or not they ought to be a permanent injunction or no injunction at all, would that be true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1946.943, 1958.334], "stop_times": [1958.334, 1966.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.943}, "reply_to": "15351__0_090", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_092", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That's correct of course.\nBut we submit that the facts are basically before this Court and this isn't the kind of disputed issue effect which lends itself to a trial.\nAlthough, if the Court orders a trial we'll have one I suppose if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1966.915, 1967.817, 1974.349], "stop_times": [1967.817, 1974.349, 1977.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.915}, "reply_to": "15351__0_091", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_093", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "How at all -- how are these facts get in?\nThere's an affidavit or deposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1977.684, 1979.545], "stop_times": [1979.545, 1981.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.684}, "reply_to": "15351__0_092", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__0_094", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "There was a deposition of the commissioner.\nThere was an affidavit of a one of the men on his staff and the rest of facts which I think the Court can take judicial notice of such as the existence of rent control, the higher crime rate, the sales tax and things of that nature.\nThe once that the Court can't take judicial notice of such as the higher cost of living to the trial on AFDC in the City or testified to by Commissioner Wyman and set forth in the affidavit of Mr. Murphy, a member of Commissioner Wyman's staff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [1981.603, 1983.242, 1995.721], "stop_times": [1983.242, 1995.721, 2011.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.603}, "reply_to": "15351__0_093", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_095", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "As you read it, has the injunction directed the New York not anymore to the residents of New York on the grounds that needed more expensive to live in New York than there's another part of the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2011.116], "stop_times": [2025.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.116}, "reply_to": "15351__0_094", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_096", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, it added -- it said that Mr. Justice Black and I added the words, and I'm paraphrasing it, unless objective criteria can be demonstrated or something like that but nevertheless the injunctions in effect.\nAnd while the injunction was issued by the three-judge court on a finding that these plaintiffs weren't people on AFDC and therefore, our whole argument about children on AFDC didn't apply to this disabled ladies who presumably don't want to go to the park or the zoo and so on.\nThey nonetheless permitted intervention by people on AFDC.\nSo that now the injunction applies to everyone on welfare within those states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2025.455, 2037.702, 2053.492, 2057.507], "stop_times": [2037.702, 2053.492, 2057.507, 2061.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.455}, "reply_to": "15351__0_095", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_097", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Precisely what does the injunction order New York to do to which you object?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2061.425], "stop_times": [2066.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.425}, "reply_to": "15351__0_096", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_098", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It orders New York to pay the same amount of money to people in the suburban counties as to those in New York City --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2066.329], "stop_times": [2072.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2066.329}, "reply_to": "15351__0_097", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_099", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "All over the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2072.733], "stop_times": [2074.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.733}, "reply_to": "15351__0_098", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_100", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No.\nIn the suburban counties around New York City, Nassau, Westchester and the six other counties which the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2074.311, 2074.531], "stop_times": [2074.531, 2080.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.311}, "reply_to": "15351__0_099", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_101", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It names the counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2080.404], "stop_times": [2082.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2080.404}, "reply_to": "15351__0_100", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_102", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2082.043], "stop_times": [2082.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.043}, "reply_to": "15351__0_101", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_103", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It names the counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2082.627], "stop_times": [2083.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2082.627}, "reply_to": "15351__0_102", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_104", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, it names the counties.\nUnless we can show that objective criteria exists other than in a Court in accordance of objective criteria.\nSo --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2083.703, 2085.657, 2091.391], "stop_times": [2085.657, 2091.391, 2091.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.703}, "reply_to": "15351__0_103", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_105", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Are you telling us in the whole frame of work.\nYou're argument that -- if you have that opportunity, you can't show anymore objective evidence than the record has already made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2091.5, 2095.007], "stop_times": [2095.007, 2103.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.5}, "reply_to": "15351__0_104", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__0_106", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, if we have the opportunity.\nWe'll try to Mr. Chief Justice, but we think that we've shown enough here to set aside the preliminary injunctions and to grant summary judgment in our favor.\nI'd like to reserve the remaining time for rebuttal, if I may in hopes that we won't impose on the Court for tomorrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2103.932, 2105.062, 2112.436], "stop_times": [2105.062, 2112.436, 2118.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.932}, "reply_to": "15351__0_105", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_107", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Before you sit down.\nDo you mind telling me just some here, what evidence did they offer to the future evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2118.366, 2119.174], "stop_times": [2119.174, 2126.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.366}, "reply_to": "15351__0_106", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_108", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They showed that the actual cost of living of individual items, the loaf of the bread and the bottle of milk were and I suppose a pair of trousers and so on that people have to buy were the same in New York City as they are in Nassau County.\nAnd that's not in dispute, they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2126.118, 2139.694], "stop_times": [2139.694, 2141.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.118}, "reply_to": "15351__0_107", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_109", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, how do you combat that first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2141.793], "stop_times": [2144.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.793}, "reply_to": "15351__0_108", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_110", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, we combat that sir by suggesting that that's not the only thing that a welfare department has to concern itself with in paying these allowances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2144.874], "stop_times": [2155.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.874}, "reply_to": "15351__0_109", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_111", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The rent?\nDoes it include rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2155.135, 2155.587], "stop_times": [2155.587, 2157.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.135}, "reply_to": "15351__0_110", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_112", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, rent is separate as we've been indicated.\nRent is higher in the suburban counties because of rent control.\nAnd because there's more housing available in New York City so that rent is entirely different but of the factors outside of shelter.\nThe essence of their proof is that the bread and milk and so on, and clothing specific items the toaster cost the same in the New York City as they do in Nassau County.\nWe have no quarrel with that but we don't think that resolves the case.\nWe certainly don't think that that in of itself demonstrates that the legislature was so irrational and seemed fit to give these people, the New York City, $5.00 a month a person more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2157.654, 2159.456, 2162.265, 2171.212, 2180.7, 2184.546], "stop_times": [2159.456, 2162.265, 2171.212, 2180.7, 2184.546, 2195.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.654}, "reply_to": "15351__0_111", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_113", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "How do you think that either one can prove with precise difference, the difference in the cost, one family living, one of those places, one living at the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2195.604], "stop_times": [2207.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.604}, "reply_to": "15351__0_112", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_114", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I don't think a fact -- a group of elements like that lends itself a whole a configuration of factors lends itself to precise computation.\nI don't think this is like a -- let say a negligence case or a case where you have to appraise the value of a piece of property.\nThe legislature has a right in its discretion to consider a lot of factors.\nSome of which aren't very tangible and some of which are very difficult to put a dollar and cent sign on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2207.396, 2219.581, 2226.506, 2230.484], "stop_times": [2219.581, 2226.506, 2230.484, 2235.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.396}, "reply_to": "15351__0_113", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_115", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Are you raising the question that the court is not the proper one to consider and try to make a final and definite judgment on those differences --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2235.327], "stop_times": [2243.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.327}, "reply_to": "15351__0_114", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_116", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "A court would be the proper --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2243.913], "stop_times": [2244.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.913}, "reply_to": "15351__0_115", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_117", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- of the community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2244.743], "stop_times": [2245.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.743}, "reply_to": "15351__0_116", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__0_118", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- a court would be the proper forum if we transgress the Equal Protection Clause.\nFor example, that we pay people of one race more than people of another race, or we did something that was so totally out of line that there was just no way to justify it.\nLike paying people in New York City three times what we paid people on Long Island.\nBut so long as we're in the area of a slight differential and so long as we've come forward with cogent reasons for what we did.\nWe say that the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied and the standard set forth in the regulations satisfied.\nAnd consequently, the injunction should be set aside and this complaint should be dismissed.\nI haven't touch on the unripeness of this case.\nIt's set forth in our brief and I'll refer to it on my rebuttal time defending, if I may?\nThank you very much for the opportunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2245.798, 2249.994, 2258.546, 2262.631, 2269.842, 2275.844, 2281.55, 2283.864, 2291.469], "stop_times": [2249.994, 2258.546, 2262.631, 2269.842, 2275.844, 2281.55, 2283.864, 2291.469, 2292.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.798}, "reply_to": "15351__0_117", "speaker": "philip_weinberg"}
{"id": "15351__0_119", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Alright, Mr. Weinberg.\nMr. Sparer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2292.008, 2296.808], "stop_times": [2296.808, 2299.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.008}, "reply_to": "15351__0_118", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_000", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please this Court.\nIn the brief said in the argument, may I just this moment the appellants have engaged in various reasoning, various speculations as to possible differentials between the cost of living in New York City and the cost of living in the surrounding counties.\nI hope to examine those speculations in as much detail as time permits in the latter half of my argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2299.792, 2303.165, 2321.433], "stop_times": [2303.165, 2321.433, 2329.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2299.792}, "reply_to": "15351__0_119", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_001", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Do you think that to pursue Justice Black's question, do you think that these factors taken as a whole are susceptible of the precise mathematical proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2329.071], "stop_times": [2342.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.071}, "reply_to": "15351__1_000", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_002", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt is susceptible to precise mathematical proof as to what the cost of living of objective, what the cost of living of the items and the basic needs schedules of New York's state are and New York City and in the surrounding counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2342.445, 2343.765], "stop_times": [2343.765, 2356.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2342.445}, "reply_to": "15351__1_001", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_003", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And are your telling me that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2356.315], "stop_times": [2356.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.315}, "reply_to": "15351__1_002", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_004", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And to demonstrate that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2356.772], "stop_times": [2357.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2356.772}, "reply_to": "15351__1_003", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_005", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- that you're saying then in effect that it is inevitably the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2357.974], "stop_times": [2363.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.974}, "reply_to": "15351__1_004", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_006", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "We're saying that in fact, it is the same not inevitably the same.\nNot at all, it could be different and if the proof were and there are cost of living studies conducted all the time by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which was introduced below by the New York State Welfare Department which study was introduced below by the various locals social service agencies such as the New York City Social Service Department, the Nassau Social Service Department, the Westchester Social Service Department despite --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2363.835, 2366.852], "stop_times": [2366.852, 2390.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2363.835}, "reply_to": "15351__1_005", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_007", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Did they all agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2390.227], "stop_times": [2390.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.227}, "reply_to": "15351__1_006", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_008", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "-- despite.\nThey all agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2390.947, 2391.841], "stop_times": [2391.841, 2392.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2390.947}, "reply_to": "15351__1_007", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_009", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They all agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2392.727], "stop_times": [2393.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.727}, "reply_to": "15351__1_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_010", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "They all agree that the costs of the basic items going to food clothing, furnishing are withdraws that on furnishing.\nThe schedules of the local social service agencies show that household furnishing are slightly more expensive in the suburban counties than they are in the New York City area but there is a conclusion on this subject which appellants have made and which is very, very pertinent to the question Your Honor is raising with me and it was raised by Mr. Justice Black a moment ago.\nUnfortunately, this conclusion was published too late for citation in our brief.\nThis published in the 103rd Annual Report of the New York Social Service Department and the New York State Board of Social Welfare and appellant Wyman on April 9, 1970 and I quote from page 4 of the appendix to that brief which is a report dated November 21st but which was not made publicly available at least to us until the time this was release after our brief was written.\nIt says this and I think its right in the heart of the statutory issue with this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2393.393, 2401.301, 2423.925, 2430.005, 2454.659], "stop_times": [2401.301, 2423.925, 2430.005, 2454.659, 2458.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2393.393}, "reply_to": "15351__1_009", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_011", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Are you going to supply that to us --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2458.179], "stop_times": [2459.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.179}, "reply_to": "15351__1_010", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_012", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes.\nI would like to do that very much Your Honor.\nI'll quote the relevant two sentences.\n\u201cWe have considered evidence concerning the cost of living.\u201d\nThese are the appellants speaking in their 103rd report.\n\u201cWe have considered evidence concerning the cost of living in different regions of the state and recommend that there be one statewide schedule of monthly allowance for all basic items of need, exclusive of shelter costs.\nThe evidence presented to us indicates that the major source of differentials and the cost of living and shelter cost which is not included in the flat grant and the effect of variation and other items of basic need for different regions results in approximately the same total cost of living for households comprise of the same number of persons and all such reasons which goes considerable beyond our case because we're simply talking about the suburban counties.\u201d", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2459.872, 2460.246, 2461.786, 2464.512, 2467.591, 2470.895, 2483.919], "stop_times": [2460.246, 2461.786, 2464.512, 2467.591, 2470.895, 2483.919, 2510.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2459.872}, "reply_to": "15351__1_011", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_013", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What does the legislature itself provided in reference to the difference -- by the difference states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2510.492], "stop_times": [2517.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.492}, "reply_to": "15351__1_012", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__1_014", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The legislature so far as we can determine Your Honor, has considered no cost of living studies whatsoever.\nThe legislature has simply cited in the second amended version of 13-a, that is the version presently in effect not the version which was in effect when the case began and not the version which will be in effect when the case began and the not the version will be in effect on June 1st, when the Rosado they tend to compliance will go into effect.\nThe legislature has found state it in its findings that finds as a fact that the cost to living in urban areas is greater due to the higher social complexity of living in those areas due to the higher complexity in utilizing programs services and facilities.\nThis was the reason, the reason, given by appellant Wyman to the Court below.\nThe reason I would like to examine in some detail because I think it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2517.952, 2524.016, 2542.229, 2562.442, 2568.164], "stop_times": [2524.016, 2542.229, 2562.442, 2568.164, 2572.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2517.952}, "reply_to": "15351__1_013", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_015", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I believe according to you, has not fixed in it, such difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2572.866], "stop_times": [2577.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.866}, "reply_to": "15351__1_014", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__1_016", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Oh!\nI misunderstood Your Honor's question.\nThe legislature fixed a statutory scale which reflects a certain difference between New York City and the rest of the region and then instructed the commissioner, appellant Wyman, to adjust the scale for the other regions if he finds that the cost of the items which comprise the basic needs in the other regions.\nThis is more or less and appellant Wyman in the one opportunity he had to act prior to the injunction in this case did so act.\nDid narrow the differential set initially in the legislative maximums as he was permitted by the legislature but did not, did not narrow it sufficiently.\nHe leaves a 7% to 16% gap in the total amount of differential which we consider is not slight at all but of very, very serious consequence --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2577.985, 2578.987, 2580.45, 2601.842, 2609.607, 2618.995], "stop_times": [2578.987, 2580.45, 2601.842, 2609.607, 2618.995, 2629.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2577.985}, "reply_to": "15351__1_015", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_017", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Quite a job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2629.852], "stop_times": [2632.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.852}, "reply_to": "15351__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__1_018", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That is quite a job.\nThat is quite a job, and it's the very difficult job and the evidence indicates the costs are the same.\nThere have been from the inception of this case Your Honors, two issues, the constitutional issue and the statutory issue.\nThe appellants just before made what I consider the rather surprising statement that we were unaware of the administrative policies which lead HEW to that conclusion that it stated in its brief.\nI think that this case can be decided on the probabilities, that is the issue before the Court whether the preliminary injunction can be affirmed.\nIt should be affirmed, can be decided on the probabilities of success of plaintiffs in the statutory argument.\nAnd I think the reason for surprise on the part of appellants' surprises me.\nThere are several outstanding features of this case with regard to the statutory argument.\nFirst, there are three causes of actions set forth causes of action set forth in the complaint to this case.\nThe first three deal purely with statutory ground.\nSecondly, of two briefs submitted to the lower court by the appellees on the substantive issues one dealt almost exclusively with the statutory issue.\nWe were in fact had dealt with it at some length the greater length in our brief dealt with it before this cost -- Court.\nWe were quite worthy then.\nThird, the Court below devoted two pages of its opinion to the statutory issue.\nIt didn't conclude on the statutory issue because it believes that its duty was to refer to HEW but it devoted two pages and what it is an obviously sympathetic consideration a plaintiff's position.\nFourth, --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2632.197, 2633.337, 2638.942, 2646.254, 2660.826, 2669.372, 2676.825, 2682.785, 2687.593, 2694.112, 2697.636, 2708.728, 2715.153, 2717.267, 2721.262, 2733.322], "stop_times": [2633.337, 2638.942, 2646.254, 2660.826, 2669.372, 2676.825, 2682.785, 2687.593, 2694.112, 2697.636, 2708.728, 2715.153, 2717.267, 2721.262, 2733.322, 2733.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2632.197}, "reply_to": "15351__1_017", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_019", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The lower court is wrong in that respect, I gather --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2733.932], "stop_times": [2737.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.932}, "reply_to": "15351__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_020", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "In referring to HEW on that.\nI would conclude on the basis of the majority opinion in Rosado that the lower Court was wrong Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2737.274, 2739.107], "stop_times": [2739.107, 2746.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2737.274}, "reply_to": "15351__1_019", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_021", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What should have it done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2746.734], "stop_times": [2749.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.734}, "reply_to": "15351__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_022", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "It should have considered the statutory argument.\nInvited HEW to submit an amicus brief in its views and attempted to see if the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2749.444, 2751.479], "stop_times": [2751.479, 2756.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2749.444}, "reply_to": "15351__1_021", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_023", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Does not make the constitutional issue as very dependent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2756.643], "stop_times": [2759.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.643}, "reply_to": "15351__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_024", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor and I urge that this Court decide whether or not the preliminary injunction should be affirmed on the basis of whether or not the statutory issue can be evaluated at this stage and we think it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2759.638], "stop_times": [2771.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2759.638}, "reply_to": "15351__1_023", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_025", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You mean on this record we can examine it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2771.397], "stop_times": [2773.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.397}, "reply_to": "15351__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_026", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Oh, I think its clear Your Honor.\nI think that he -- in addition to the fact as I've already cited there is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2773.775, 2775.267], "stop_times": [2775.267, 2779.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2773.775}, "reply_to": "15351__1_025", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_027", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You don't think the disposition in Rosado is indicated here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2779.954], "stop_times": [2784.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.954}, "reply_to": "15351__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_028", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2784.108], "stop_times": [2785.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2784.108}, "reply_to": "15351__1_027", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_029", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The disposition you made in Rosado, you think is not indicated for this case, on the statutory ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2785.043], "stop_times": [2792.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.043}, "reply_to": "15351__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_030", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I'm not sure I properly understand Your Honor's question.\nIf what Your Honor is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2792.655, 2795.053], "stop_times": [2795.053, 2795.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2792.655}, "reply_to": "15351__1_029", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_031", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, we sent it back for a remand, didn't we in Rosado?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2795.501], "stop_times": [2799.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.501}, "reply_to": "15351__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_032", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You sent it back for a remand after you concluded that the New York State standard of need as suggested by 131-a violated Section 402 (a) 23.\nIf you reach the same conclusion here with regard to the difference that's use of a differentials there is a proper basis for affirming the preliminary injunction which was before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2799.14, 2808.07], "stop_times": [2808.07, 2817.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2799.14}, "reply_to": "15351__1_031", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_033", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You don't -- do you think they finally submit the resolve, the statutory issue or just say there's enough likelihood of success on it to justify the preliminary injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2817.69], "stop_times": [2828.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.69}, "reply_to": "15351__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_m_harlan2"}
{"id": "15351__1_034", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I think that in light of what the appellants' argument is that they have nothing further to say on the statutory issue.\nYou could finally resolve but I don't think you have to.\nI think you can simply state that the -- there's enough probability to it to reach conclusion.\nI know that the appellants have stated both in the reply brief and before the Court just a moment ago that the statutory issue is the same as the constitutional issue on equal protection --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2828.788, 2837.23, 2840.221, 2845.436], "stop_times": [2837.23, 2840.221, 2845.436, 2856.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2828.788}, "reply_to": "15351__1_033", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_035", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But not quite.\nNot quite -- not quite Mr. Counsel.\nYou said that as I understood then that there was a certain amount of overlap?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2856.054, 2857.28, 2859.025], "stop_times": [2857.28, 2859.025, 2864.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.054}, "reply_to": "15351__1_034", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_036", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, Your Honor, as I understand their position which if I may have misinterpreted as oral statement but their brief is quite clear.\nThus, whether that I'm quoting from page 13 of the reply brief, \u201cThus, whether the Constitution, the Social Security Act of the HEW regulations be conceded the touchstone in any cases whether the differentials are arbitrary.\nIf they meet the test of rationality under the Equal Protection Clause, they cannot reasonably be held violative of any -- anything in the Act or regulations.\u201d\nThat is their argument.\nI think that's an error.\nI think it's quite clear as we consider the HEW regulations that one can arguably meet the test of minimal rationality under the Equal Protection Clause and not meet the requirements of the regulation.\nI think that's very clear.\nAnd I -- with your permission I would like to move on to a consideration of the regulation.\nThe regulation embodies four related requirements which are best understood when considered together.\nFirst, the regulation and the HEW material require that the standard of need, the standard of need which is compose of both items of need and a money assessment of those items of need that the standard of need be statewide.\nThat is if the state is going to recognize clothing needs in one part of the state, the recipient is going to recognized clothing needs in any other part of the state where people need clothing.\nIt must be statewide, number one.\nNumber two, the standard -- the money amount established by the standard must be said on the basis of objective facts.\nThat is an important part of the regulatory requirement.\nNumber three, the standard must be uniformly applied throughout the state unless subject the facts show that there's actually a variation in the cost of living, in the cost of the items throughout the state.\nAnd number four, if the state can't afford to meet the full cost of the standard of need because the maximums because of insufficient funds any reduction in meeting that full standard must be applied uniformly.\nThe idea as HEW expresses it in his handbook is that recipients with similar needs wherever they live in the state with similar resources will get equal benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [2864.001, 2872.492, 2886.344, 2894.699, 2895.788, 2897.464, 2910.85, 2913.635, 2920.759, 2929.219, 2944.415, 2955.123, 2957.142, 2967.326, 2970.382, 2982.845, 2998.424], "stop_times": [2872.492, 2886.344, 2894.699, 2895.788, 2897.464, 2910.85, 2913.635, 2920.759, 2929.219, 2944.415, 2955.123, 2957.142, 2967.326, 2970.382, 2982.845, 2998.424, 3010.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2864.001}, "reply_to": "15351__1_035", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_037", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Between New York City if now immediately by whatever administrative process is necessary.\nIf New York City cut back to the level of these other areas then you wouldn't be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3010.471, 3017.433], "stop_times": [3017.433, 3026.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.471}, "reply_to": "15351__1_036", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_038", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That's correct.\nNear the Court injunction that our argument requires that the standard go up for recipients New York City could come down but I call Your Honor's attention to the very consideration you've placed, this Court place forward in the Rosado.\nAnd that is there is a point this Court argued to an articulation of the standard of need which reflects social realities and cost realities throughout the state.\nThere is a point because if that's going to be cut back, at least the people of a state in the legislature of the state should know how much cut back is actually going and how far sure the state is falling.\nNow with the purpose of 402 (a) 23, I just suggest to you that the state is free to cut New York City back and move the suburban counties up but it must do so on the basis of a frankly recognize standard of need which is uncommon to both of these places and one which was also affected by 402 (a) 23.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3026.05, 3027.951, 3043.543, 3056.977, 3067.806], "stop_times": [3027.951, 3043.543, 3056.977, 3067.806, 3085.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3026.05}, "reply_to": "15351__1_037", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_039", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, you mean they have to make the new objective findings or couldn't they just take your brief and say well we, we surrender and we cut New York City back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3085.321], "stop_times": [3094.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.321}, "reply_to": "15351__1_038", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_040", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the objective findings have already been made by the appellant commissioner in his report and they've been made again, again, again, again.\nThey were -- have made for years now but the cost of these items are the same.\nThey don't have to meet those scores.\nThey can cutback.\nThey can pay a less of percentage.\nBut unless they come up with some kind of objective showing, some kind of study, some kind of consideration of the actually costs of these items which shows that the items vary in one region or another or more or less than one figure or another.\nThey simply can't state that New York City shall receive this amount and Nassau shall receive some other amount.\nI think what has taken place in this Court in this case is that one of the appellants have done and done clearly in terms of their argument is establish a different standard of need.\nNot a different cost but a different standard of need for New York City then for the suburban counties.\nAnd if one examines, anyone of the arguments that they put forth that becomes quite clear.\nFor example, the primary argument cited as a finding by the legislature, relied on by the appellant below is that there is a higher cost of social living in New York City which requires transportation to daycare centers, to welfare centers, to beaches, to museums, to clinics and so forth.\nWell, there was an examination of appellant Wyman on this question.\nAnd the results of the examination made quite clear what took place.\nLet me cite two of these issues.\nQuestion:\u201cDo recipients to your knowledge have a need for transportation to the welfare centers in Nassau County?\u201d\nAnswer of appellant Wyman: \"I should imagine so on occasion.\u201d\nQuestion:\"Approximately the same as recipients in New York City?\u201d\nAnswer of appellant Wyman:\"I don't know.\u201d\nQuestion:\"No reason to believe otherwise?\u201d\nAnswer:\"No, reason to be otherwise.\u201d\nQuestion:\"Are you aware of the daycare centers for children in Nassau County?\u201d\nAnswer:\"Yes.\u201d\nQuestion:\"They are all -- there are some and there are daycare centers for children in Westchester County?\u201d\n\"Yes.\u201d\n\"And for those people who need to use them are transportation costs involved?\u201d\n\"To the extent that the transportation system's costs more than New York City, the cost is more.\nThe evidence had already showed that the transportation cost more in Nassau?\u201d\nAnswer:\"That is correct.\"\nWhat took place in this case and what is taken place in this case is that the legislature is seen fit to declare a different standard of need to provide a differential which allows for transportation cost of some sort to the welfare center, to daycare centers, to beaches in New York City and not to do that in Nassau and not to do that in Yorkers, not to do that in Poughkeepsie.\nWe would assert on the equal protection issue as a basis of minimal rationality and I know to this Court that the Court below decided not simply on the express special scrutiny standard which was rejected in Dandridge.\nBut on the basis of the minimal rationality test as well.\nBut traditionally for protection standard test as well.\nI would assert that a test doesn't make sense on the basis of any common relation to experience to assert that the mother in Yorkers or the mother in Nassau who has to pay more to get her kids to a beach or to get to the welfare center itself or to get to a daycare center should receive nothing while an allowance is provided for the mothers in New York City doesn't make sense but the point --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3094.35, 3100.709, 3104.714, 3106.37, 3107.535, 3109.562, 3125.795, 3133.023, 3143.918, 3150.55, 3156.179, 3174.884, 3178.73, 3181.967, 3183.858, 3190.757, 3194.436, 3198.189, 3201.177, 3204.143, 3207.291, 3211.094, 3212.472, 3220.742, 3217.475, 3221.712, 3226.95, 3229.717, 3231.835, 3254.845, 3268.815, 3271.824, 3275.167], "stop_times": [3100.709, 3104.714, 3106.37, 3107.535, 3109.562, 3125.795, 3133.023, 3143.918, 3150.55, 3156.179, 3174.884, 3178.73, 3181.967, 3183.858, 3190.757, 3194.436, 3198.189, 3201.177, 3204.143, 3207.291, 3211.094, 3212.472, 3220.742, 3217.475, 3221.712, 3226.95, 3229.717, 3231.835, 3254.845, 3268.815, 3271.824, 3275.167, 3298.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3094.35}, "reply_to": "15351__1_039", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_041", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But do you think the New York legislature might know a little bit more about that than maybe nothing you do that -- but than most of us do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3298.554], "stop_times": [3308.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.554}, "reply_to": "15351__1_040", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_042", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, Your Honor this Court noted in Rosado that speculation is the mode this to be in shown and I would not engage in speculation as to motive but I would sight the brief for appellants on this issue.\nAnd I would call your attention to page 38.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3308.445, 3323.81], "stop_times": [3323.81, 3328.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3308.445}, "reply_to": "15351__1_041", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_043", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3328.71], "stop_times": [3328.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.71}, "reply_to": "15351__1_042", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_044", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3328.891], "stop_times": [3329.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.891}, "reply_to": "15351__1_043", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15351__1_045", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Page 38.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3329.863], "stop_times": [3330.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3329.863}, "reply_to": "15351__1_044", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_046", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3330.639], "stop_times": [3331.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.639}, "reply_to": "15351__1_045", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_047", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Of the brief for appellants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3331.211], "stop_times": [3332.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3331.211}, "reply_to": "15351__1_046", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_048", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Alright.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3332.652, 3332.948], "stop_times": [3332.948, 3335.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.652}, "reply_to": "15351__1_047", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_049", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "What appellants argue with that point is that the system created under the Section 131-a is kind of analogous to a matching grand program since welfare county officials are empowered to make application for increase amounts on the approval of the appropriate legislative body.\nThey go on to state this which is really at the heart of the problem in this case.\nThey go on to state that this demonstrates the state legislature's concern for the ability to pay of various welfare districts and stay would be required to pay one quarter of any increase over the establish levels.\nI think that what's going on this case Your Honor.\nI think they're right in what they say there that the legislature was concern with the ability of upstate localities to pay their one quarter of the welfare share.\nIf one looks into the HEW regulations and the HEW materials that problem is exactly the problem which the uniformity regulations are aimed at and were aimed that from 1935 on.\nIt's a very old regulation we're talking about here and the reason they were aimed at this problem from 1935 on is that the general characteristic of public welfare in the United States prior to the Social Security Acts passage in 1935 was that each local county throughout the state paid exactly what they please whether they pay full need, half need, no need, a variation was absolutely enormous.\nThis was one of the major problems.\nThe reason of variation was enormous was that welfare standards were dependent upon the localities willingness to raise the taxes in many localities a great problems as HEW's properly interpreted the requirement that the states financially participate in each locality throughout the state that requirement means that the state must financially participate through the extent necessary to relieve a locality of any problem it has in meeting a uniform schedule.\nThe state must put in enough money to make sure that a uniform schedule was met.\nNow, if New York State is permitted to retreat on this issue will allow localities to have a local -- to have a lower standard because of the problems they have in raising taxes and New York has decided that they cannot pay one quarter of the total share.\nWe are taking a very long step back to the pre-1935 situation.\nThis is what motivated the HEW regulation.\nThis is the real interest of welfare recipients in this case throughout the country and I would argue in answer, Mr. Justice Stewart to your question.\nDon't you think the legislature knows better than we?\nThe legislature may or may not know the local condition that if than anyone else.\nI don't think this case raises that issue.\nI think this case raises the issue of whether or not the legislature has in fact created disparate standard of need of these localities because of their financial problems and that is what's taken place.\nIt is exactly what's taken place.\nIf you --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3335.922, 3355.57, 3360.669, 3374.078, 3376.422, 3387.236, 3400.225, 3427.075, 3429.137, 3459.447, 3464.755, 3480.35, 3484.975, 3487.42, 3496.414, 3500.293, 3504.566, 3506.598, 3519.328, 3522.447], "stop_times": [3355.57, 3360.669, 3374.078, 3376.422, 3387.236, 3400.225, 3427.075, 3429.137, 3459.447, 3464.755, 3480.35, 3484.975, 3487.42, 3496.414, 3500.293, 3504.566, 3506.598, 3519.328, 3522.447, 3523.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3335.922}, "reply_to": "15351__1_048", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_050", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The local with county has to raise what percentage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3523.423], "stop_times": [3526.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3523.423}, "reply_to": "15351__1_049", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_051", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "25.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3526.41], "stop_times": [3527.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3526.41}, "reply_to": "15351__1_050", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_052", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "25%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3527.216], "stop_times": [3528.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3527.216}, "reply_to": "15351__1_051", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_053", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "25%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3528.442], "stop_times": [3528.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3528.442}, "reply_to": "15351__1_052", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_054", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "In the state, the others reported.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3528.837], "stop_times": [3530.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3528.837}, "reply_to": "15351__1_053", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_055", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Which is a -- throughout the state another 25% federal government about 50.\nThose are approximate figures.\nAt 25% is considerable figure.\nThat's not the way the system works throughout the United States but in those states where the localities have to pay a large share of the local welfare burden, welfare is a very hot and difficult political issue.\nIt just follows as day follows night, and night follows day.\nThe same problem, Your Honor, with regard to the creation of a different standard of need is seen when we consider any of the other arguments asserted by appellants.\nFor example, the rent control argument, what do they say here?\nThey say that, does rent control in New York and not in some of other counties but of course there is but let's assume that's accurate.\nTherefore, there's lower rent in New York City than some of other counties.\nTherefore, the amount of money given in the special rent grants to New York City welfare recipients is last than that given to welfare recipients in the other counties.\nTherefore it's proper for the legislature to make this up to New York City recipients to some extent so that they can buy some other things by giving them a little extra money.\nThis is said right on the bottom in their brief.\nThey make no bones about it in their reply brief.\nInitially, it seems we misunderstood their argument in their reply brief.\nThey come right back and say, we misunderstood what they're saying, does lower rents within the New York City area --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3530.689, 3534.685, 3536.763, 3539.228, 3550.588, 3556.435, 3566.137, 3569.339, 3577.362, 3581.995, 3591.384, 3601.265, 3604.797, 3608.104, 3611.318], "stop_times": [3534.685, 3536.763, 3539.228, 3550.588, 3556.435, 3566.137, 3569.339, 3577.362, 3581.995, 3591.384, 3601.265, 3604.797, 3608.104, 3611.318, 3617.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3530.689}, "reply_to": "15351__1_054", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_056", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Where are you reading from, Mr. Sparer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3617.475], "stop_times": [3618.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3617.475}, "reply_to": "15351__1_055", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15351__1_057", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Page 11 of appellant's reply brief, at the very top.\nThus, lower rents within New York City directly result in a lower standard of need and higher rents outside the city.\nIn the highest standard of need compensating for the slightly higher allowance within the city with components of the standard of need other than rents.\nNow, they start with the fact that rents are paid especially according to actual need in that part of a basic need requirements which is what at issue in this case.\nThen they state that we give more rent because the people upstate have more of a rent need so they give more money which goes into rent.\nAnd then they state will give some extra to New York City, So that they can buy some other things, but that's establishing a different standard of need for New York City.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3618.691, 3631.563, 3637.093, 3644.793, 3655.53, 3662.911], "stop_times": [3631.563, 3637.093, 3644.793, 3655.53, 3662.911, 3669.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3618.691}, "reply_to": "15351__1_056", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_058", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But do you think it's a denial of equal protection to give more people of the -- more rent to the urban and to the suburban people and the urban people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3669.427], "stop_times": [3679.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3669.427}, "reply_to": "15351__1_057", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_059", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNot in the way you phrase the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3679.832, 3680.73], "stop_times": [3680.73, 3682.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3679.832}, "reply_to": "15351__1_058", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_060", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, the question is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3682.72], "stop_times": [3685.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3682.72}, "reply_to": "15351__1_059", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_061", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I would phrase the question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3685.864], "stop_times": [3686.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3685.864}, "reply_to": "15351__1_060", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_062", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I was telling you the way it is.\nI was taking your statement facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3686.987, 3690.002], "stop_times": [3690.002, 3692.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3686.987}, "reply_to": "15351__1_061", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_063", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, taking my statement of facts Your Honor, I'd rephrase the question this way.\nI would say that if what New York State has done is average out the costs of rent throughout the state.\nAverage out the cost of all these other basic need items and presented one average sum to the people of New York State that would not deny equal protection even those some benefited more and some benefited less.\nBut I would state that when New York State decides that it's going to pay rent and especially, so that everybody has their full rent needs pay.\nAnd then it's going to take another sum and meet other basic needs.\nAnd then it's going to pay up to 16% more to people in New York City because they don't have as much money to pay rent which they don't need to pay rent.\nThen there's something -- there's something irrational about that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3692.175, 3695.793, 3700.818, 3715.741, 3723.858, 3728.462, 3736.838], "stop_times": [3695.793, 3700.818, 3715.741, 3723.858, 3728.462, 3736.838, 3739.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3692.175}, "reply_to": "15351__1_062", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_064", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, I understand about this matter that its argument.\nBut let's just stay on the rent for a moment.\nDo you think there's rational basis for a differential in the rent allowance in New York City under their places?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3739.896, 3742.269, 3745.217], "stop_times": [3742.269, 3745.217, 3753.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3739.896}, "reply_to": "15351__1_063", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_065", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes.\nThe rational basis --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3753.137, 3753.53], "stop_times": [3753.53, 3754.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3753.137}, "reply_to": "15351__1_064", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_066", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "How did they -- it is anymore precise than the differences that the commissioner is relying on than the other areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3754.344], "stop_times": [3759.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3754.344}, "reply_to": "15351__1_065", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_067", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Oh, yes.\nWell, it's not anymore precise as precise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3759.428, 3760.404], "stop_times": [3760.404, 3763.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3759.428}, "reply_to": "15351__1_066", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_068", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3763.15], "stop_times": [3763.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3763.15}, "reply_to": "15351__1_067", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_069", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The commissioner has average figures, who are they paid for rent to welfare recipients in New York City and elsewhere which they referred to.\nIf they wanted to pay those average figures that would be fine.\nThey've chosen not to and that's fine too.\nThey've chosen to pay the exact amount of rent and that's fine.\nThat doesn't raise any equal protection questions.\nAll we argue is that haven't chosen one method or other to pay rent to then state to the people upstate that because you have a higher cost than people in New York City have, we're going to give the people of New York City 16% more to buy things which we're not allowing you to buy because we're not giving you any money to buy him with.\nIt doesn't make any sense at all.\nNow, as I argue Your Honor, this Court need not reach that question in terms of equal protection, that's a question of judgment as to rationality and whether how much difference is going to be given to the legislative judgment on this.\nIn terms of the statutory requirement of statewideness, the violation is clearly.\nIt could not be clearer.\nIt is -- the problem I think on appellant's part occurs because they confused the standard of minimum rationality for equal protection and the standard under the HEW requirements of uniformity.\nThey confuse them badly and therefore don't address in reality the standard of uniformity.\nI would conclude Your Honor that we could engage in the same process as we have in our briefs with regard to every one of the arguments raised by appellants.\nBut I would conclude --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3763.67, 3771.037, 3773.934, 3775.922, 3779.161, 3781.669, 3802.021, 3804.887, 3819.637, 3825.351, 3826.996, 3838.505, 3844.593, 3854.455], "stop_times": [3771.037, 3773.934, 3775.922, 3779.161, 3781.669, 3802.021, 3804.887, 3819.637, 3825.351, 3826.996, 3838.505, 3844.593, 3854.455, 3856.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3763.67}, "reply_to": "15351__1_068", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_070", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Would you think the federal act requires equal money amounts statewide, in each county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3856.161], "stop_times": [3865.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3856.161}, "reply_to": "15351__1_069", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_071", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Statewide, yes.\nUnless there's a variation in the cause which --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3865.085, 3866.429], "stop_times": [3866.429, 3868.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3865.085}, "reply_to": "15351__1_070", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_072", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "In the cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3868.344], "stop_times": [3869.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3868.344}, "reply_to": "15351__1_071", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_073", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "In the cause.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3869.12, 3869.798], "stop_times": [3869.798, 3870.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3869.12}, "reply_to": "15351__1_072", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_074", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And if there is, there could still be a statewide uniform standard and variations in money amounts without violating the federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3870.173], "stop_times": [3878.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3870.173}, "reply_to": "15351__1_073", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_075", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3878.984, 3879.716], "stop_times": [3879.716, 3880.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3878.984}, "reply_to": "15351__1_074", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_076", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And now, what's the objection here to -- how do -- what do you understand the United States' position to be that there is not a uniform state standard or that he just hasn't shown that there's variation at any cost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3880.714], "stop_times": [3892.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3880.714}, "reply_to": "15351__1_075", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_077", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "As I understand it, the United States' position which will be exploit by the United States shortly is this.\nFirst, they have established a different standard for New York City because they are allowing a different kind of position in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3892.106, 3897.564], "stop_times": [3897.564, 3901.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3892.106}, "reply_to": "15351__1_076", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_078", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Is that your position, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3901.636], "stop_times": [3902.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3901.636}, "reply_to": "15351__1_077", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_079", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "That is our position, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3902.992], "stop_times": [3903.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3902.992}, "reply_to": "15351__1_078", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_080", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And what then -- and what is the different standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3903.849], "stop_times": [3906.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3903.849}, "reply_to": "15351__1_079", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_081", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The different standard is that they are allowing by their own language.\nMonies for transportation to daycare centers, to social welfare centers, and so forth, the people of New York City which they're not allowing elsewhere.\nEven though by their own testimony, the people elsewhere have those very same needs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3906.478, 3911.026, 3918.944], "stop_times": [3911.026, 3918.944, 3924.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3906.478}, "reply_to": "15351__1_080", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_082", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, that's -- in the standard of need is there some miscellaneous category or is it every listed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3924.552], "stop_times": [3936.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3924.552}, "reply_to": "15351__1_081", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_083", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, the -- the principle of standard of need allows as HEW sets forth in the three simplified methods allows the states to combine a wide variety of items.\nIn the past, New York did not combine, it listed individually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3936.218, 3949.41], "stop_times": [3949.41, 3952.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3936.218}, "reply_to": "15351__1_082", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_084", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "But it is now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3952.328], "stop_times": [3953.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3952.328}, "reply_to": "15351__1_083", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_085", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, it combines.\nBut those combined items reflect particular matters.\nThey give one overall sum for that.\nAnd what --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3953.036, 3954.902, 3958.754, 3961.331], "stop_times": [3954.902, 3958.754, 3961.331, 3961.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3953.036}, "reply_to": "15351__1_084", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_086", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "How could it -- how would it, let's assume that laundry cost the same in New York City and in Nassau County per pound.\nOr however each shirt cost the same.\nThe only thing is that shirts get dirtier often in New York City.\nNow, how would that be reflected in the -- you could still pay the New York people, I suppose more for laundry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3961.376, 3971.142, 3973.576, 3977.694], "stop_times": [3971.142, 3973.576, 3977.694, 3986.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3961.376}, "reply_to": "15351__1_085", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_087", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You could increase the standard on the showing that shirts get dirty in New York City.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3986.128], "stop_times": [3988.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3986.128}, "reply_to": "15351__1_086", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_088", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The increase standard is that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3988.646], "stop_times": [3990.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3988.646}, "reply_to": "15351__1_087", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_089", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You could increase the standard for New York City, yes.\nThe standard --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3990.599, 3992.854], "stop_times": [3992.854, 3993.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3990.599}, "reply_to": "15351__1_088", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_090", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "By?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3993.125], "stop_times": [3993.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3993.125}, "reply_to": "15351__1_089", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_091", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "The standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3993.805], "stop_times": [3994.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3993.805}, "reply_to": "15351__1_090", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_092", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, you've got to pay him for laundry.\nYou've got to pay him for laundry if --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3994.321, 3995.715], "stop_times": [3995.715, 3997.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3994.321}, "reply_to": "15351__1_091", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_093", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Or you could create a special need allowance for laundry which is allowed under HEW regulations in which you pretty much use to be the case in New York City.\nThe only point which is relevant about that that I see to this case is that if you create a special allowance for laundry.\nLet's say $10.00 a month maximum depended on how much need do you actually have to wash shirts for a month long.\nYou have to apply that statewide so that people who live in Buffalo and working in or near or live near a steel mill in Buffalo will also happen to have that same need can also get the shirts washed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [3997.837, 4006.669, 4014.064, 4020.335], "stop_times": [4006.669, 4014.064, 4020.335, 4031.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3997.837}, "reply_to": "15351__1_092", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_094", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Now, but what if you don't have it in Nassau County?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4031.187], "stop_times": [4034.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4031.187}, "reply_to": "15351__1_093", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_095", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "If you don't have it on Nassau County unless it can be shown --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4034.829], "stop_times": [4037.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4034.829}, "reply_to": "15351__1_094", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_096", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "And if then -- then were not going to listen to the argument much here, are we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4037.381], "stop_times": [4040.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4037.381}, "reply_to": "15351__1_095", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_097", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4040.936], "stop_times": [4041.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4040.936}, "reply_to": "15351__1_096", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_098", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "We wouldn't listen very long about it here would we on an equal protection basis?\nWe might on the statutory basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4041.843, 4046.025], "stop_times": [4046.025, 4048.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4041.843}, "reply_to": "15351__1_097", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_099", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Well, I -- I know you're not interested in laundry cost in particularly --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4048.756], "stop_times": [4052.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4048.756}, "reply_to": "15351__1_098", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_100", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No, but I'm not interested in when you argue somebody else's right under the Equal Protection Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4052.772], "stop_times": [4060.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4052.772}, "reply_to": "15351__1_099", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__1_101", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I think welfare recipients can and ought to be in a position to argue that when they had rents are cutback as they were cutback under Section 131-a to be low what New York State had described previously as the absolute minimum and necessary for survival.\nAnd then welfare recipients in one part of a state are further cutback up to the 16% more of the 16% more than recipients in the other part of the state.\nWelfare recipients have something very vital at issue.\nNow, that vital matter may not result in the need for a special standard of equal protection.\nAs this Court noted in Dandridge but it does require some sort of attentionality -- attention to the rationality of the procedure.\nAnd I think that issue is there.\nThe lower Court concluded that it violated minimum rationality as well as special scrutiny.\nBut it certainly violates the statute.\nThat's what it issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4060.364, 4077.902, 4089.268, 4092.493, 4099.011, 4106.511, 4108.238, 4113.554, 4115.21], "stop_times": [4077.902, 4089.268, 4092.493, 4099.011, 4106.511, 4108.238, 4113.554, 4115.21, 4118.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4060.364}, "reply_to": "15351__1_100", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_102", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Both the state of New York legislature made a legislative judgment that helped relieve the congestion in the cities that they would have equal rates all over state.\nThe same in Poughkeepsie and whatever your northernmost towns are, the small towns as in New York City eventhough they acknowledge the differential in costs.\nBut they did this deliberately to get people to move out of the cities and as a matter of public policy.\nDo you think that would be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4118.698, 4130.176, 4139.3, 4146.718], "stop_times": [4130.176, 4139.3, 4146.718, 4149.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4118.698}, "reply_to": "15351__1_101", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__1_103", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Yes.\nI think and perhaps I misunderstood part of Justice White's question.\nI think these questions are related.\nI'll try to answer it more fully now.\nWe -- there are two contrasting situations.\nContrasting situations number one which is what we alleged took place here is the creation of two separate standards for people in parts, two parts of the state, one part put on a lower basis without any relation to actual cost than another part.\nSituation number two which may also raise a uniformity question would arise where one uniform standard is created throughout the state eventhough it is quite clear that in one part of the state that uniform standard is totally insufficient to meet the items or base the cost the of items of basic need which it does need because of the actual cost situation in another part of the state.\nWe suggest that it's consistent with the principle of uniformity to average costs and apply a uniform standard statewide.\nHEW has said out of experience that costs outside of rent just don't really basically differ within most states and therefore some objective showing would be made.\nBut if an objective showing is made that cost really different, different in a very significant extent and the uniform state standard is not arrived at by an averaging principle but simply by taking the lower place as the standard and subjecting the people who lived in the very high cost place to that.\nThen I think there would be a uniformity issue raise.\nNow, Your Honor in terms of the soundness of the legislative policy involved.\nI think that is an issue in the first instance for the United States Congress.\nAnd it seems to me that with 35 years of a Social Security Act which is administered by HEW has followed the uniformity principle the United States Congress may be said also to follow this uniformity principle.\nAnd this principle is critical.\nIt's critical and important to public assistance administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4149.573, 4149.982, 4153.908, 4155.613, 4159.196, 4161.863, 4175.867, 4203.574, 4210.631, 4220.671, 4237.645, 4240.353, 4246.579, 4250.541, 4265.053, 4267.649], "stop_times": [4149.982, 4153.908, 4155.613, 4159.196, 4161.863, 4175.867, 4203.574, 4210.631, 4220.671, 4237.645, 4240.353, 4246.579, 4250.541, 4265.053, 4267.649, 4274.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4149.573}, "reply_to": "15351__1_102", "speaker": "edward_v_sparer"}
{"id": "15351__1_104", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Mr. Strauss, you can get underway for a little while today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4274.536], "stop_times": [4294.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4274.536}, "reply_to": "15351__1_103", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__2_000", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nI gather we will be going over until tomorrow and so for now, I just want to say a few things rather briefly to get down what seem to me, seem to the United States to be the central features of this case.\nFirst, I think it is by now clear that the only issue in this case is a preliminary injunction.\nA preliminary injunction whose effect I think has been dramatically over characterized by appellants here.\nIt is not a requirement to the state to appropriate funds.\nIt is not an injunction to the state to pay the injunction tells the State of New York strictly in the terms of Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in Rosado.\nIf the state wishes to continue receiving federal funds then it must order its need standard in such a way that it is done on an objective rational basis which are submission is the requirement of federal law and no more.\nSecond, I think again to clear out the point which has been raised here.\nIt is fundamentally our belief and I will put it in probability terms which are all that are required here on preliminary injunction that the appellants have shown that in all probability New York State is applying two different standards of need.\nOne for New York City which includes the social class of living in a city, in transportation, in visits to museums, in beaches, and possibly laundry costs and a lot of costs, and a number other items and another standard of need for the rest of the state in which residents and the rest of the state cannot obtain those item or I should put it more correctly because welfare recipients may spend the money they received, however they wish have no allowance for those items no matter how badly they may need them even if they live in Ghetto and Yonkers or in Buffalo.\nThere simple is no allowance for them for these items.\nAnd it is the position of HEW that the standard of need is a standard of services.\nNot a standard of money necessarily and that the obligation of the state is to determine for itself and they have great latitude in doing so.\nWhat services are required it is a minimum for living in that state.\nWhen they determine what services are required then they may cost those services and they may do so as Mr. Sparer has just suggested on one of two bases.\nAnd they do so throughout the state taking an average of those costs throughout the state or they may do so on a regional basis.\nIt may very well be that the average expense for Knox in New York is considerably greater than the average expense in Buffalo or certainly than the average expense in Malone.\nAnd the state would be entitled to take that into account and deciding how much to pay on those regions.\nBut it must make provision that if it's going to provide that these things are available it must make provision for their availability on a statewide basis.\nAnd I think Mr. Chief Justice that really provides the answer to your rent question.\nNew York has made the judgment.\nI for myself would think it's a wise judgment although not necessary one that the costs of rent are so variable in different parts of the state that it would be unfair to treat them as on average.\nAnd therefore, they treat them on an individual basis.\nBut in terms of the standard of need, what's important is that everyone in New York State has the right to rent.\nBut it doesn't matter whether you live in Buffalo or New York City or on Nassau County.\nYou have the right to rent.\nYou could have it on average basis.\nYou could have it on individual cost basis but you have the right to that service.\nWhat New York City is doing on this case, we submit is to say that only people who live in New York City have the right to go to the beach.\nAnd only people who live on New York City have the right to an allowance for transportation and only people who live in New York City have the right to an allowance that might provide them some security or repair their dilapidated premises.\nThose are the only rationales we've heard and those rationales do not meet federal requirement in uniformity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4294.973, 4298.005, 4314.906, 4320.36, 4326.832, 4330.63, 4343.019, 4363.154, 4369.566, 4388.322, 4427.221, 4430.856, 4436.916, 4446.247, 4452.841, 4463.233, 4471.441, 4481.247, 4486.943, 4496.029, 4501.076, 4503.399, 4514.768, 4518.13, 4524.064, 4528.065, 4530.292, 4532.162, 4536.296, 4543.712, 4555.848], "stop_times": [4298.005, 4314.906, 4320.36, 4326.832, 4330.63, 4343.019, 4363.154, 4369.566, 4388.322, 4427.221, 4430.856, 4436.916, 4446.247, 4452.841, 4463.233, 4471.441, 4481.247, 4486.943, 4496.029, 4501.076, 4503.399, 4514.768, 4518.13, 4524.064, 4528.065, 4530.292, 4532.162, 4536.296, 4543.712, 4555.848, 4561.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4294.973}, "reply_to": "15351__1_104", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15351__2_001", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "So therefore, this should mean that we should finally settle statutory argument here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4561.229], "stop_times": [4566.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4561.229}, "reply_to": "15351__2_000", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__2_002", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "No.\nI think -- I think a -- I think the Court --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4566.124, 4566.615], "stop_times": [4566.615, 4568.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4566.124}, "reply_to": "15351__2_001", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15351__2_003", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "You think first of the preliminary injunctions --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4568.064], "stop_times": [4569.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4568.064}, "reply_to": "15351__2_002", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__2_004", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I think the Court might but all that's necessary is to affirm the preliminary injunction and leave the further proceedings below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4569.845], "stop_times": [4576.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4569.845}, "reply_to": "15351__2_003", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15351__2_005", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Because you don't --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4576.638], "stop_times": [4579.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4576.638}, "reply_to": "15351__2_004", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__2_006", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I think --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4579.66], "stop_times": [4580.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4579.66}, "reply_to": "15351__2_005", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15351__2_007", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "United States has taken the final position though that conflict with the federal statute --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4580.315], "stop_times": [4586.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4580.315}, "reply_to": "15351__2_006", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15351__2_008", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "We have.\nI think one of -- I think one of the features that the Court might wish to have in mind in deciding what to do is that there is this new statute that Commissioner Wyman is under very explicit instructions from the State of New York about meeting the federal standards.\nHe -- he knows there can be no question what our position is now.\nLet me read you this.\nThis is from Section 1, the enacting part of this new statute of April 16th.\nThe legislature hereby and declares its intent --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4586.698, 4587.295, 4602.448, 4605.867, 4606.876, 4612.981], "stop_times": [4587.295, 4602.448, 4605.867, 4606.876, 4612.981, 4615.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4586.698}, "reply_to": "15351__2_007", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15351__2_009", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "I think you better defer till morning on that Mr. Strauss.\nI think we'll suspend for the day to take you more time when we have left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4615.142, 4617.679], "stop_times": [4617.679, 4621.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4615.142}, "reply_to": "15351__2_008", "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15351__2_010", "conversation_id": "15351", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_896", "start_times": [4621.736], "stop_times": [4625.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4621.736}, "reply_to": "15351__2_009", "speaker": "peter_l_strauss"}
{"id": "15520__0_000", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Number 25 and Number 52.\nGentlemen as you observed, I sat on this case in the Court of Appeals and therefore, will not participate in it here.\nI will yield in Senior Justice Black will preside and carry on.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [0.0, 47.09, 55.692, 60.802], "stop_times": [47.09, 55.692, 60.802, 64.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__warren_e_burger"}
{"id": "15520__0_001", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and may it please the Court.\nThe principal question in these consolidated cases which are here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the Secretary of Agriculture has authority under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to include in note marketing orders a provision for the payment of a premium to farmers who are located close to the center of the milk market.\nMore specifically, the case involves the validity of the so-called \u201cfarm differential payments in the Boston Rhode Island Milk Order.\nUnder which farmers whose farms are located within 40 miles of the center of the market are paid a differential over and above it the blended price of all farmers receive are 46 cents per 100 pounds of milk which is the equivalent of one cent a quart.\nThere's also a provision in the order which provide for payment of 23 cents a 100 pounds for farmers who are located in the next area 40 to in effect, 40 to 80 miles from the center of the mark.\nBut that involves a very small percentage of the differentials involved in under the order and I therefore sure limit my discussion because its considerations of equally applicable to the 46 cent differential.\nThe present case brought as a class action is by farmers in Vermont who are located beyond the area covered by these differentials and therefore under the order and not eligible for them.\nThe District Court and the Court of Appeals in this case held with the statute does not authorized these particular differentials and enjoined the enforcement and payment of the differential.\nIn so ruling of the Court appeals relied squarely on an earlier case which I shall discuss called Blair against Freeman which it struck down a similar differential in a New York-New Jersey Milk Marketing Order and I'd also say that the outset that these two decisions of the Court of Appeals saying the Secretary has no authority to include this differentials contrary to a decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1939, 30 years ago which specifically held these particular differentials.\nNow, to put these statutory issues in the appropriate frame of reference, first, I just very briefly like it, refresh the Court on what I'm sure is already familiar to it.\nThe peculiarities of the way in which milk is sold in the problems that require this kind of legislation, and then I'd like to sketch the legislative history of full statutes involved and finally to describe the administrative background of this order and its predecessors.\nWe start with the fact of course, that milk basically has two uses.\nThe use of milk as fluid milk for drinking purposes which is known as Class I use and then the use of other milk for manufactured purposes, butter, cheese, ice cream which is known as Class II purposes.\nThe demand for so-called fluid milk, milk for drinking is relatively static throughout the whole year.\nBut unfortunately for the milk industry, the production of the cows is not static.\nThe cows produce more milk in the spring and the summer than they do in the fall and the winter.\nSo, this means in order to meet the uniform demand for class milk, one milk throughout the year, it is necessary to add sufficient cows to produce that amount during the winter months. When they're not producing as much and accordingly, the result is in the spring and summer months, there is a surplus of milk production.\nMilk of course is a highly perishable commodity and the result is that milk that is produced of the great distance from the market cannot compete with locally produced milk for the Class I use.\nAlthough of course, it can compete the Class II use.\nThat is in the Boston market, fresh milk from Wisconsin cannot compete with Massachusetts' milk, but obviously manufactured cheese from Wisconsin easily competes with manufactured cheese from the Massachusetts area.\nNow traditionally, milk is which is used for Class I purposes has commanded a substantially higher price in the market than milk that is used for Class II purposes.\nNow, the result of this combination of fact, this has been that without any regulation drastic and devastating cut throat competition developed among the farmers to try to get their milk sold for the Class I use which would yield them a higher amount.\nThe dairies for example would play different farmers off against each other driving the prices down.\nAnd as a result by the time of the depression in the earlier 1930's, the milk prices had been drastically reduced and in some instance, farmers -- where farmers were forced to sell milk at less than their cost.\nNow, in order to stabilize this completely disorganized milk market, two purposes were achieved.\nFirst, it was important to raise the price of milk and secondly, it was important to avoid the destructive competition among farmers to try to get access to this Class I market.\nAnd the Secretary in the Boston area has followed the same practice that he has followed in most other areas. He employs a system of so-called Market Pooling.\nUnder which, the amount each farmer receives for his milk doe not depend upon the particular use that that farmer's milk is put.\nHe gets the same price whether or not his milk is use all for Class I purposes, all for Class II purposes, or in some blend.\nThe way this is done is by the use of a so-called blended price.\nUnder which, the Secretary of Agriculture sets minimum prices for Class I and Class II milk, then determines how or for what purposes the milk.\nAll the milk sold in the market has been used and on this basis calculates the total value of the milk.\nThen in effect device this by the total volume and ends up with a blended price with each farmer's to receive and by definition of this price, of course, is less than the Class I price and there something more than the Class II price.\nNow, the particular milk dealers, the dairies, the manufactures who are in the statute to call handlers, what happens to them is if a particular dealer sells of more milk in the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [64.662, 68.68, 97.782, 108.416, 127.573, 139.304, 154.708, 169.959, 183.077, 218.484, 229.212, 246.306, 251.273, 266.286, 273.88, 279.117, 285.702, 306.738, 319.405, 322.11, 337.097, 349.324, 368.109, 374.293, 388.299, 396.677, 409.229, 419.97, 429.378, 438.259, 443.811, 454.176, 459.903, 474.898], "stop_times": [68.68, 97.782, 108.416, 127.573, 139.304, 154.708, 169.959, 183.077, 218.484, 229.212, 246.306, 251.273, 266.286, 273.88, 279.117, 285.702, 306.738, 319.405, 322.11, 337.097, 349.324, 368.109, 374.293, 388.299, 396.677, 409.229, 419.97, 429.378, 438.259, 443.811, 454.176, 459.903, 474.898, 488.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.662}, "reply_to": "15520__0_000", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_002", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [488.997], "stop_times": [489.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.997}, "reply_to": "15520__0_001", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__0_003", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.\nI'll just add some if they're in explained, just take me one minute.\nIf the particular deal or sales more of his milk for Class I use which means he would under this calculation receive more than he has to pay his dairies, he in effect pays the excess into this producer's settlement fund.\nConversely, if more of the milk is use to Class II purposes so that he would not get enough on this calculation to pay his farmers what they're entitled to, he draws on this producer settlement fund, and the result is everyone gets the same price.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [489.633, 489.923, 492.586, 506.415], "stop_times": [489.923, 492.586, 506.415, 522.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.633}, "reply_to": "15520__0_002", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_004", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Friedman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [522.128], "stop_times": [523.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.128}, "reply_to": "15520__0_003", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__0_005", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and may it please the Court.\nI want to make one thing very clear that in determining the blended price pay to all farmers under the statute, these differentials are deducted before this is calculated that is out of the pool which is divided among the all farmers.\nThere is first pay out of various of statutory differentials.\nAnd that of course is why we have this case because the effect of taking out the 46 cent nearby farm differential in the Boston milk market is to reduce by 12 cents, the blended price that is paid to all the farmers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [523.523, 526.991, 542.816, 545.728], "stop_times": [526.991, 542.816, 545.728, 561.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.523}, "reply_to": "15520__0_004", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_006", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "The differentials come off the top so to speak?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [561.578], "stop_times": [564.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.578}, "reply_to": "15520__0_005", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_007", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's right.\nThey come off the top and then what is left is divided up and the theme of my argument will be that that precisely would Congress intended the scheme to be.\nNow, these farm location differentials had their origins a long time ago.\nIn the marketing practices at the 1920's, the mid 1920's, long before, there was any federal regulation.\nBut that period under contracts that the various of the dairies had with cooperatives.\nFarmers, whose farms were located close to the Boston area, received the greater amount with their milk than farmers whose farms were located distance away.\nAnd when I say a greater amount and I will keep referring to the greater amount, I want to stress one thing because this is -- there's a challenge by our opponents.\nThis was an amount that exceeded the difference in the cost of transportation between bringing milk in from the distance and from nearby.\nThe indications are that these men received roughly a dollar more for 100 pounds which again in a very rough estimate was very close to the 46 cents that they now receive under the Boston --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [564.291, 565.447, 573.701, 579.966, 588.361, 594.774, 606.019, 614.466, 624.84], "stop_times": [565.447, 573.701, 579.966, 588.361, 594.774, 606.019, 614.466, 624.84, 640.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.291}, "reply_to": "15520__0_006", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_008", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "How can the economic justification for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [640.559], "stop_times": [643.363], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 640.559}, "reply_to": "15520__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__0_009", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, they were numbered.\nThey are numbered Mr. Justice.\nOne of them was the fact of course that the farmers located close to the market would traditionally able to sell more of their milk at the Class I use which produced the higher price.\nIn addition to that, the farmers who are close in over the years had been able to make their milk production more even which was of advantage to the handlers to the dairies and then in the fact --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [643.363, 644.371, 646.058, 659.135], "stop_times": [644.371, 646.058, 659.135, 670.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.363}, "reply_to": "15520__0_008", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_010", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Why could they do that just because of their geographical location?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [670.188], "stop_times": [674.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.188}, "reply_to": "15520__0_009", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_011", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, its not that its not so much of the geographical locate, just developed over the years that they found that in order to do business with the handlers who is selling the most of the milk for Class I uses, it was important to continue -- for their relationship that they have an even production.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [674.657], "stop_times": [689.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.657}, "reply_to": "15520__0_010", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_012", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But you can't and how the cows know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [689.888], "stop_times": [693.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.888}, "reply_to": "15520__0_011", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_013", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Oh, well this entails them apparently in very involved farming practices through the use of artificial insemination.\nThey are able at some cost to spread the milk production over.\nThe expression they use is the cows of freshened, and apparently, the cows of freshened some of them in a way that they produced their milk in the fall and in the winter rather than in the spring and summer, and that is the technique they use.\nNow, there's another advantage of course to the producers of having this relationship with the nearby farmers which is that these men were available in the event of an emergency.\nThat is if sudden those days if late in the day, they suddenly discovered they needed more milk, they could just send a truck out and get this milk more easily, then if they have to go a great distance away when we didn't have modern methods of refrigeration, and also of course in bad weather.\nIf you had a very bad snow storm in the area, it would be much better to have the source of supply.\nNow, when Congress passed the Agriculture Adjustment Act in 1933, very early in the administration of this Act, the Secretary issued a so-called license to the Boston border.\nThis was the predecessor to the present order type of arrangement.\nAnd under this license, the license continued the previous advantage that the nearby farmers had enjoyed.\nThat is the nearby farmers got more for their milk than the distant farmers.\nTo be sure, it was not in the present form of the differential.\nIt was not paying them a certain amount over and above the regular price.\nIt was, however, reflected a high up price paid for milk from the nearby farm is then was paid for the distant farm farmers.\nTwo years later from reasons unrelated to the differentially, Boston license was invalidated by a District Court decision.\nPartly as a result of this Court's decision in the Schechter case, Congress in 1935 amended the Agriculture Adjustment Act.\nThe Amendment added the identical language it is now in Section 8c (5) which I'll come to in a couple of minutes dealing with milk marketing orders.\nAnd in making these amendments, the committee report stated that the provisions dealing with milk marketing and distribution and I quote, \u201cFollow the methods employed by cooperative associations of producers prior to the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.\u201d\nNow shortly thereafter, a new order was issued for Boston in 1936.\nThis order for the first time specifically provided for higher prices to any farmer whose farm is located within 40 miles of the state house of Boston.\nAgain, it provided of them not for the mechanism of differential a premium to this nearby for farmers of approximately 46 cents.\nThis was done by providing that these nearby farmers want to receive the Class I price rather than the somewhat low of branded -- blended price.\nThis order remain in effect for only six months when another District Court in Massachusetts upheld the amended statute unconstitutional.\nThe Secretary then suspended the order and the order remained suspended until Congress had passed the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.\nThat act utilized and bought in the identical language dealing with milk marketing orders that had been under the 1935 amendments to the triple Act.\nBut in addition to this, there was a specific provision in the 1937 Act Section 4 that stated, that it expressly ratified, legalized and confirmed all existing licenses market orders and provisions that had been issued under the Agriculture Adjustment Act and its amendments.\nThe Secretary reinstated the farm location differential in the Boston milk marketing order in 1937 and this time, for the first instance, explicitly provided for the 46-cent and then the 23-cent differential depending upon the distance from Boston.\nAnd since that time, since 1937, every milk marketing order, the Secretary has issued for this New England area has included similar differentials both the amount of 46 cents and the 40 miles within the center of the market.\nThis included 1949 marketing orders for Springfield and Wister, 1958 when he passed/adopted an order for southeast to New England consisting of Rhode Island and Southern Massachusetts.\nAnd finally, in 1964 when after extensive hearings, the Secretary consolidated before previous orders for this area into the present order.\nAnd I would just like to quote three sentences which we set forth at our brief on pages 16 to 18 in which the Secretary explained why in 1964, he was reject in both proposals to eliminate the differential and proposals on the other side of the differential should be increased.\nHe said as follows.\nSuch farm location differentials have been in effect under the several New England orders since the inception of the orders.\nThe differentials were adopted to reflect in the pricing structure of the orders, historical price relationships by location which prevailed in these markets.\nIt is --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [693.461, 702.161, 708.334, 722.13, 731.937, 746.46, 753.687, 766.725, 771.146, 779.237, 783.197, 786.321, 790.473, 800.333, 809.142, 819.923, 831.144, 851.317, 858.364, 869.663, 878.261, 886.91, 894.981, 905.489, 915.668, 934.662, 954.92, 968.939, 982.573, 994.479, 1011.839, 1013.62, 1021.26, 1031.489], "stop_times": [702.161, 708.334, 722.13, 731.937, 746.46, 753.687, 766.725, 771.146, 779.237, 783.197, 786.321, 790.473, 800.333, 809.142, 819.923, 831.144, 851.317, 858.364, 869.663, 878.261, 886.91, 894.981, 905.489, 915.668, 934.662, 954.92, 968.939, 982.573, 994.479, 1011.839, 1013.62, 1021.26, 1031.489, 1031.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.461}, "reply_to": "15520__0_012", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_014", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Where are you reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1031.686], "stop_times": [1032.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.686}, "reply_to": "15520__0_013", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_015", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "This page 14 to 15 of our brief.\nIt's also contained in the record --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1032.723, 1034.847], "stop_times": [1034.847, 1036.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.723}, "reply_to": "15520__0_014", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_016", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I have it now, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1036.981], "stop_times": [1039.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.981}, "reply_to": "15520__0_015", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_017", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "It was found that customarily somewhat higher values, above those which normally reflect the transportation costs, attached to milk produced near the principle consumption centers as compare to the market value of milk produced in a more distant areas of the milk shade.\nSo, if I may just very briefly recapitulate what I think we have before us is the following. First, since before the time of federal regulation, farmers located close to the Boston and New England milk marketing areas have always received more for their milk over above the transportation differential than farmers located further away.\nSecondly, that when Congress in 1937 passed the Agricultural Marketing Adjustment Agreement Act, it ratified confirmed and legalized all previous licenses, orders and provisions which of course, included the nearby differential provisions of the Boston orders.\nJust in passing, the Court of Appeals discounted this and said, it believed that all of that provision was intended to do is to avoid a lapse under the statute, and we have explained in our brief while we think that while that was one of the purposes, the legislative history also indicates that was further intended to approve and confirmed and ratify everything that had been done before.\nI now like to turn to the statutory provisions involve in the case which we think determine the in control or legality of the farm location differentials.\nThey're set out at the bottom of pages 2 to 4 of our brief and it begins the statutes speaks of milk and its products terms and conditions or orders it says in the case of milk and its products.\nOrders pursuant to this section shall contain one or more of the following terms and conditions and accept this provide else when no others.\nAnd then over at the bottom of page 3, it should to provide -- milk orders may provide for the payment to all producers and associations of producers, delivering milk to all handlers of uniform prices for all milk so delivered, irrespective of the uses made of such milk by the individual handler to whom it is delivered.\nAnd then it goes on it says, subject only to adjustments for volume, market and production differentials customarily applied by the handlers subject to such order.\nNow, the Court of Appeals found that these orders were beyond the Secretary's authority for two reasons.\nFirst, they apparently believe that the irrespective of the use provision by any consideration of the fact that historically farmers were receiving a higher amount for their milk because a larger portion of that was available in use for Class I purposes.\nAnd secondly, the Court said, this in any event was not a market differential as that term is use in the statute.\nNow, I first like to turn to the question of the Irrespective of Uses Clause which the Court in this case relied squarely on the prior holding in Blair.\nAnd after saying that it accepted the whole naturally the holding in Blair that you, Secretary was barred from taking any account of the prior use of the milk, and then went on and examine what the Secretary had said in this, this case in concluded on the basis of the statements over the time that he promulgated all the orders.\nThat in fact, he had relied on this impermissible factor.\nNow, we think that contrary to the view of the Court of --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1039.015, 1055.848, 1079.686, 1099.711, 1120.882, 1130.712, 1141.731, 1148.611, 1170.142, 1181.419, 1187.683, 1206.322, 1213.235, 1223.262, 1243.478, 1247.482], "stop_times": [1055.848, 1079.686, 1099.711, 1120.882, 1130.712, 1141.731, 1148.611, 1170.142, 1181.419, 1187.683, 1206.322, 1213.235, 1223.262, 1243.478, 1247.482, 1249.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.015}, "reply_to": "15520__0_016", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_018", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Did the Secretary try to bring them back case up here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1249.298], "stop_times": [1252.39], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.298}, "reply_to": "15520__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__0_019", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No.\nThe Secretary did not Mr. Justice and the reason for that is that when we study the case, we felt there were various factors in it that would not make in the appropriate vehicle for reveiw by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1252.39, 1252.824], "stop_times": [1252.824, 1265.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1252.39}, "reply_to": "15520__0_018", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_020", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Different in the present case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1265.391], "stop_times": [1267.325], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.391}, "reply_to": "15520__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__0_021", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.\nYes Mr. Justice.\nFor one thing in the Blair case, the Secretary had relied solely on the fact of the use of the milk.\nThat is the higher percentage class used, Class I use.\nWhereas in this case, we think he has indicated that the other factors.\nSecondly in the Blair case, the Secretary relied solely on the claim not that this was a market differential, but this was another of the statutory differentials relating to the place at which the milk was delivered.\nThat was the sole basis of this opinion at the Blair case.\nAnd for those reasons quite frankly, we did not feel that case would be inappropriate one to take to this Court for presenting the broad question of the Secretary's authority to include these provisions.\nNow, this cost it seems to us the Irrespective Abuse Clause it seems to us, has nothing to do with differentials at all.\nRather, it's purpose is to make it clear that the Secretary may pay a uniform price to all farmers even though a particular farmer's milk was sold for the higher Class I use than someone else's milk.\nIndeed, it was that factor that that was the basis for the unsuccessful attack in this Court in the Rock Royal Cooperative case in 307 U.S. upon the whole marketing equalization program that contention there was that it denied the farmer of his milk was being use for Class I purposes.\nIt took us property without Due Process of law and it was discriminatory that he didn't get the full value of his milk, that he got only the blended price.\nAnd we think in Stark against Wickard, this Court made it very clear that that was the sole purpose of that.\nNow of course under this arrangement, all of the farmers, all of the nearby farmers get the identical price for their milk without regard to the use made of their milk by the particular handlers.\nStatute speaks and the use is made of that such milk by the individual handler to whom it is delivered.\nEvery single one of the farmers located within this nearby area gets the blended price, plus the differential.\nHe gets it whether his handler sells all of his milk for Class I use, all of his milk for Class II use or some blend.\nAnd we fail for a think that the validity of these differentials does not at all depend upon the Irrespective of Use Clause that the way of determine the validity of these differentials is looking to the next clause which deals with the adjustments and differentials.\nAnd therefore, it seems to us the critical question in the case is whether this market different leaves, differentials are market differentials customarily applied by the handlers.\nThe act of course does not define market differentials, and we think what this phrase means is a differential that customarily has been applied by the handlers in the market.\nNow in the light of the history I have given, the statutory history --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1267.325, 1267.934, 1268.872, 1276.73, 1280.85, 1284.53, 1299.438, 1302.481, 1314.211, 1321.719, 1339.156, 1358.508, 1366.406, 1372.344, 1386.109, 1391.832, 1399.633, 1407.204, 1421.621, 1432.692, 1449.36], "stop_times": [1267.934, 1268.872, 1276.73, 1280.85, 1284.53, 1299.438, 1302.481, 1314.211, 1321.719, 1339.156, 1358.508, 1366.406, 1372.344, 1386.109, 1391.832, 1399.633, 1407.204, 1421.621, 1432.692, 1449.36, 1454.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.325}, "reply_to": "15520__0_020", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_022", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Your phrase -- when you talked about this phrase, you're talking about the one appearing at -- on the bottom line of the page 3?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1454.059], "stop_times": [1460.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.059}, "reply_to": "15520__0_021", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_023", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.\nThe A and it would be forget --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1460.158, 1460.445], "stop_times": [1460.445, 1462.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.158}, "reply_to": "15520__0_022", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_024", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Market differentials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1462.581], "stop_times": [1463.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.581}, "reply_to": "15520__0_023", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_025", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Market differentials over to the top customarily applied --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1463.908], "stop_times": [1466.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.908}, "reply_to": "15520__0_024", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_026", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Applied by the handlers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1466.782], "stop_times": [1467.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.782}, "reply_to": "15520__0_025", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_027", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "The handlers subject to set forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1467.251], "stop_times": [1469.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1467.251}, "reply_to": "15520__0_026", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_028", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1469.088], "stop_times": [1469.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.088}, "reply_to": "15520__0_027", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__0_029", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And we think that in the light of the history I have given, the previous experience before federal regulation, the history shown that Congress intended to adopt the procedures formerly applied by the cooperatives, the confirmation and ratification of 1937 that this definition cannot be given the very narrow reading that the Court of Appeals gave them.\nThe Court of Appeals said that all it is covered by the phrase market differential is payments which a farmer receives extra payments for delivering his milk to the country -- city plant rather than to the country plant.\nThat is, it's a differential for delivering they say in the city market rather than the country market.\nThat interpretation rest on a statement in the committee reports which so describes the market differential.\nWe think in the light of all this history that this decrypting was merely intended to be illustrative of the type of market differential and it was not intended to define the outer limits of the differential.\nWe have set forth in our brief, it's somewhat complicated the reasons why if this language was construed as the Court of Appeals construed it, it would not be particularly meaningful.\nThere be other phrase of the statute that will embrace the type of differential at the Court of Appeals thought was the market differential.\nNow as I pointed out earlier that in 1939, the First Circuit upheld the validity of the market differentials in the 1937 Boston Milk Marketing Order and express -- explicitly held that they were market differentials.\nAnd in addition to that as we develop in our brief, we think that this Court's decision in the Rock Royal Case, although, it dealt not with differentials paid on a market wise basis but by individual handlers, nevertheless since the operative language of the two sets in the statute is the same as equally applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1469.256, 1495.637, 1511.634, 1517.753, 1526.91, 1539.319, 1549.528, 1558.168, 1577.922], "stop_times": [1495.637, 1511.634, 1517.753, 1526.91, 1539.319, 1549.528, 1558.168, 1577.922, 1597.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.256}, "reply_to": "15520__0_028", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_030", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "What do you think the committee reported then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1597.353], "stop_times": [1601.094], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.353}, "reply_to": "15520__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__0_031", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I think it just suggested that this was one of the types things.\nI don't think it can fairly be said that the committee was saying that is all a market differential means.\nI think, in the light of the history in the broad language market differential, it was intended to give the Secretary the authority to continue this payment.\nMr. Justice, I think the whole history of this statute shows that, what Congress was trying to do in this case was to stabilize milk markets to eliminate the cut throat competition within the existing pricing structure.\nIt is not intended to radically alter the relationships that it existed from many years among the different groups of producers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1601.094, 1604.166, 1611.18, 1620.899, 1634.791], "stop_times": [1604.166, 1611.18, 1620.899, 1634.791, 1644.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1601.094}, "reply_to": "15520__0_030", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_032", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Exception for weed out the unused would been the test or justification for any differential?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1644.967], "stop_times": [1651.265], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.967}, "reply_to": "15520__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__0_033", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's right because that Mr. Justice, it was the fact that payments would tied to the end use that led to this drastic and devastating competition among the farmers driving down the price.\nAnd that's what they were attempting to do, it seems to us, was to eliminate as a fact that leading to the depressing of milk prices.\nFarmers fighting each other to see which one could have the greatest share of the Class I market and preventing the handlers from using this is to leaver to fight them.\nBut once that was accomplished, once that type of the limp competition was eliminated, it seems that what cut to us that would Congress was trying to do was to say that that was as far as you could go.\nYou could eliminate this type of pricing competition that was not to be the radical realignment, the radical changing of the structure of the milk marketing that is results from this decision below.\nNow, the respondents repeatedly tell us that this is a very unfair thing that the effect of this differential is basically requiring the farmers in the distant markets to subsidies a nearby farms.\nAnd they say, if in fact this nearby milk has some value to do the handlers, let the handlers pay for it.\nDon't make us pay for it.\nThis again it seems to us rests on the mistaken notion that under the act, all farmers have to be treated equally.\nWe think under the act, what it is that all farmers are to be treated equitably.\nThat is they are to receive the same prices subject to the various differentials provided.\nAnd if as we believe the market differentials that here are permissible that farm location differentials are valid as market differentials, it seems it's quite immaterial with the effect of paying this differential as to reduce the blended price.\nThat's precisely we think, but the statute contemplates.\nAnd if the handlers would give them discretion to decide to whom to make payments for the additional values, how much under what circumstances fee -- its very clear.\nThis will be exactly this sort of thing that Congress was trying to prevent; the same kind of cut throat competition that you have back in the early days.\nAnd finally, the arc man it seems to us rests on a mistaken, at least, a dubious factual assumption, the assumption that somehow, if you'll eliminated the nearby differential and increase the blended price, the distant farmers would be much better off.\nWell of course they'll be much better off immediately.\nThey get 12 cents more a 100-pound, but it doesn't follow at all.\nBut in the long run, they'll be any better off because once you increase the blended price in the Boston market, the result is likely to be that handlers operating in other areas will begin to bring their milk into the Boston market.\nThis will create a surplus.\nThis in turn will result in depressing the price in the Boston market and the end result for all that appears is that the prices maybe driven down, indeed even below the present level.\nAnd then there's another problem is which is that everyone knows farms is having a hard time today that the nearby farmers for more than 30 years have acted on the assumption that would receive this differentials.\nThat these differentials have suddenly terminated.\nThere's a reason to believe that a large number of nearby farmers in the Boston area have may decide either that they can use their land more profitably for something other than farming and they sell out to the real estate, subdivided it, etcetera.\nSo, the end result again is likely that it be a serious shortage of milk for the nearby area and once again, leading to great instability in the market.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1651.265, 1663.155, 1670.952, 1681.103, 1691.418, 1704.318, 1722.064, 1728.495, 1730.714, 1739.287, 1745.122, 1751.029, 1765.828, 1769.547, 1779.895, 1789.578, 1805.597, 1807.733, 1813.701, 1827.598, 1828.913, 1840.224, 1853.113, 1855.828, 1868.891, 1879.907], "stop_times": [1663.155, 1670.952, 1681.103, 1691.418, 1704.318, 1722.064, 1728.495, 1730.714, 1739.287, 1745.122, 1751.029, 1765.828, 1769.547, 1779.895, 1789.578, 1805.597, 1807.733, 1813.701, 1827.598, 1828.913, 1840.224, 1853.113, 1855.828, 1868.891, 1879.907, 1892.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1651.265}, "reply_to": "15520__0_032", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__0_034", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Hollman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1892.544], "stop_times": [1893.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.544}, "reply_to": "15520__0_033", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__1_000", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, may it please the Court.\nI'm Lawrence D. Hollman, counsel for petitioner's Frederick T. Zuber et al, seven nearby milk farmers located within the 46-cent or nearby zone within the Massachusetts, Rhode Island milk marketing area.\nThey and some two thousand other farmers have been consistently for over 30 years under federal orders recipients of the nearby differentials at the identical race that are now in effect 46 cents and 23 cents either under the Massachusetts, Rhode Island order or under the constituent Boston and secondary market orders which were consolidated in 1964.\nEssentially, these are farmers who deliver their milk to urban centers within the concentrated populations of New England, Massachusetts for example on Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Brockton, Holy Oak, Fall River cities which are fairly sizeable.\nAnd one other point, these nearby farmers are not the large and affluent farmers within the marketing area, anymore than are the distant farmers.\nThere's evidence in the original record affidavits that were submitted by the seven nearby farmers, file as Government exhibit three in support of its opposition of preliminary injunction, which indicates that their return on investment is a very neither one.\nAnd that without the nearby differential, that could well shift their neither profits to losses as a result of their dairying operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [1893.842, 1897.433, 1918.409, 1949.574, 1970.477, 1983.08, 1999.428], "stop_times": [1897.433, 1918.409, 1949.574, 1970.477, 1983.08, 1999.428, 2010.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1893.842}, "reply_to": "15520__0_034", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_001", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "What differential did you say have been receiving many years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2010.058], "stop_times": [2013.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.058}, "reply_to": "15520__1_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__1_002", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "The nearby differential Mr. Justice Black, that is the farm location differential either under the Massachusetts Rhode Island Milk Marketing Order.\nUnder the orders --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2013.329, 2023.361], "stop_times": [2023.361, 2023.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2013.329}, "reply_to": "15520__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_003", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Which was how much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2023.958], "stop_times": [2025.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.958}, "reply_to": "15520__1_002", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__1_004", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Which was 46 cents and 23 cents Your Honor.46 cents?Right.\nOf the same identical rate under the Boston order, originally promulgated in 1937 after the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 37 and under the secondary marketing orders which will promulgated by the Secretary in 1949 for Worcester and Springfield, and in 1958 I believe for Southeastern New England.\nApproximately the same differentials were also paid under the 1936 Boston order of the Secretary and essentially the same in subsequence that is the same amount to the same people were paid under licenses, Boston license, issued under the 1933 Act or perhaps even more importantly.\nApproximately the same amount was paid to these nearby farmers before federal regulation began and here I'd like to supplement certain comments that Mr. Freidman made.\nBefore federal regulation commence in these markets, most large for preponderance of the farmers in the Mass, Rhode Island markets, both nearby and distant were members of cooperatives.\nThese cooperatives, the largest of which I believe at the time and still today is New England Milk Producers Association, entered into collective bargaining agreements with handlers that started in the 20's and perhaps even shortly before.\nUnder these collective bargain agreements, the nearby farmers receive a higher price which in effect reflected the 46-cent differential that they received today.\nBut the one problem that develop with respect to these collective bargaining agreements in the early 30's and why federal regulation was necessary and indeed why the triple A in part was pass was because destructive competition had in sued within the market.\nThis was competition among the handlers and let me explain this.\nUnder the collective bargaining agreements, a handler would agree to pay certain prices.\nA handler or dairy would agree to pay certain prices to the cooperatives.\nThe cooperatives at that time were also using a system not at all dissimilar in fact quite similar to the equalization fluid and blend price enforced today under the Secretary's order.\nAnd under that equalization and blending classified price system in nearby farmers received a higher price by approximately 46 cents per hundredweight.\nBut all handlers would not enter into these agreements with the cooperatives.\nAnd as long as you had any significant number of handlers who would not do so, they could then go to other farmers within the market place not numbers of the cooperative, and offer them a price not equal to the Class I fluid milk price.\nBut just slightly above the blend price that the cooperatives were paying to their members under the collective bargaining agreements.\nAs a result of that, they could charge lower prices these outside handlers not members of the collective bargaining agreements could charge lower prices to consumers and thereby increase their consumer markets.\nAs a result the coops who are members of the collective or parties to the collective bargaining agreements, then had to reduce their price which means they had to put pressure on their producers to take lower prices and this kept going on and on.\nSo that what Congress intended to do as at under the triple A of 33 and the 35 Act expressly to follow the same patterns that the cooperatives had followed and they stated this in their committee reports.\nBut to bring all handlers in under regulation because it is the handlers who are regulated under the orders.\nNot the producers as such directly.\nA producers have no right to go into court to appeal from an order under the statute.\nTheir right is established here for example under this Court's holding and Stark against Wickard, to the extent they can complain of any diminishment in what they should rightfully or otherwise, get from the equalization pool.\nBut the regulations is a regulation of handlers and as long as a particular farmer or groups of farmers sell to a handler who markets some milk in this market today for fluid milk purposes, that farmer gets the advantage of the blend price.\nNow in fact, the requirement here is really quite minimal that is much of the milk that many farmers sell to handlers is use for the lower price, manufacturing purposes; cheese, butter, etcetera.\nBut because their handler may shift no more than a 25% of his milk into the market for fluid purposes during a few months of the year, and I believe 15% during three other months.\nThat handler qualifies all his farmers for the fluid milk price, even though, most or all or large part of their milk is going for Class II are manufactured milk purposes.\nI'd like to comment on what the interest is of the nearby farmers here because I think there are at least three points which reflect in the opinion of the Court below and on the equities here.\nThe nearby farmers have consistently received these differentials over the years and always in excess of transportation and handling cost savings.\nOverwhelmingly, these orders have been approved by referendum both the Mass, Rhode Island Order in 64, the Boston order in 37, and the secondary market orders.\nEach time, an overwhelming approval by farmers and farmers must vote to approve this order by a vote more than two thirds of the farmers in the market.\nIf that vote is not obtained, there is no regulation.\nThis is a unique partnership between the Secretary and the farmers and perhaps the most salient point here is that the nearby farmers who have voted for this order have always been a minority of the farmers in the market.\nThe distant farmers have I think consistently over the years numbered well over 50%, indeed over the two third that is necessary to approved the order that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2025.485, 2030.184, 2054.242, 2076.679, 2088.786, 2100.973, 2116.044, 2130.603, 2146.629, 2152.027, 2158.335, 2162.146, 2175.566, 2187.482, 2191.877, 2206.77, 2213.799, 2228.102, 2242.303, 2256.416, 2263.194, 2265.591, 2271.622, 2284.105, 2301.392, 2317.021, 2331.046, 2343.18, 2357.248, 2368.081, 2379.741, 2387.805, 2390.73, 2403.849], "stop_times": [2030.184, 2054.242, 2076.679, 2088.786, 2100.973, 2116.044, 2130.603, 2146.629, 2152.027, 2158.335, 2162.146, 2175.566, 2187.482, 2191.877, 2206.77, 2213.799, 2228.102, 2242.303, 2256.416, 2263.194, 2265.591, 2271.622, 2284.105, 2301.392, 2317.021, 2331.046, 2343.18, 2357.248, 2368.081, 2379.741, 2387.805, 2390.73, 2403.849, 2413.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2025.485}, "reply_to": "15520__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_005", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Is the voting one farmer, one vote, or does it depends upon the size of his herd or the amount of his acreage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2413.312], "stop_times": [2422.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.312}, "reply_to": "15520__1_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__1_006", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "My understanding Your Honor is that the system the Secretary employs is one-farmer-one-vote by referendum and approving these orders.\nNow, in fact however Your Honor, the statute also authorizes cooperatives to vote for their members and so, in this voting from time to time, I think quite consistently in fact, the cooperatives due vote for their members.\nThe largest cooperative in the Mass, Rhode Island market, I believe Your Honor, is still today is NEMPA which is more heavily distant producers than nearby producers.\nThe vote, excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2422.171, 2430.982, 2445.679, 2455.914], "stop_times": [2430.982, 2445.679, 2455.914, 2456.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2422.171}, "reply_to": "15520__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_007", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Do you say that if the nearby farmers who voted against these marketing orders because of the failure of getting differential?\nWould it carry anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2456.786, 2465.413], "stop_times": [2465.413, 2467.944], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2456.786}, "reply_to": "15520__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__1_008", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I believe so Your Honor.\nIt would always depend at any given time on the mix of nearby and distant farmers.\nI think quite clearly under the Boston order if it would have carried anyway and I believe today, the nearby farmer's number no more than one third of those.\nNow, it may vary between one third and 40%.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2467.944, 2470.374, 2475.509, 2486.078], "stop_times": [2470.374, 2475.509, 2486.078, 2490.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2467.944}, "reply_to": "15520__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_009", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But a cooperative votes for its members, does it do it by block voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2490.882], "stop_times": [2495.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.882}, "reply_to": "15520__1_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__1_010", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I believe, well, I believe it can do at either way Your Honor.\nI believe --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2495.861, 2500.057], "stop_times": [2500.057, 2500.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2495.861}, "reply_to": "15520__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_011", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I mean that's the majority and -- in other words like the Electro college in a state and in a presidential election if the 51% are for come down on one side and that the propertive is it empower them to vote its entire membership by that side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2500.385], "stop_times": [2517.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.385}, "reply_to": "15520__1_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__1_012", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not sure --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2517.666], "stop_times": [2519.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2517.666}, "reply_to": "15520__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_013", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "-- 49% of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2519.47], "stop_times": [2520.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.47}, "reply_to": "15520__1_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__1_014", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "If I understand your question, I'm not sure that the cooperative may each time internally ballot or request to votes of its members on this.\nI believe the cooperatives place their votes based on what the Board of Directors of the cooperative decide.\nI'm not sure of this Your Honor.\nAnd I think, this may indeed vary among cooperatives.\nSo obviously, if a cooperative voted against the interest of its majority, it would be a simply matter for the majority either to leave that cooperative or to vote out the Board of Directors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2520.458, 2528.394, 2537.311, 2540.687, 2543.217], "stop_times": [2528.394, 2537.311, 2540.687, 2543.217, 2552.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2520.458}, "reply_to": "15520__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_015", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, if the majority but I wondered if well, I guess you don't know the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2552.577], "stop_times": [2557.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.577}, "reply_to": "15520__1_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__1_016", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I don't know how the internal workings of the cooperative is, no, Your Honor.\nThe respondents have alleged that the 64 consolidation order that change drastically the economics of the markets place and so far as the nearby differential is concern.\nThat simply isn't so.\nThe 46-cent and 23-cent differentials were retained in the identical rate that they were under the constituent orders.\nWhat did happen was that as a result of bringing into the Boston order which was the by far largest order here counting for over 75% of the farmers in the market by bringing in secondary markets which had high fluid use, the ultimate result for those distant producers, marketing in the Boston order just before consolidation was to increase the amount of money they receive in the 12-month period after consolidation.\nThree cents more per hundredweight in what they had received before.\nOne other quite obvious reason that the nearby farmers are interested here and indeed, they sort to intervene before the District Court.\nThat intervention was denied.\nIt was pursued on appeal.\nThe motion for summary reversal was filed and denied by the Court of Appeals.\nThereafter, the District Court rendered it summary judgment below.\nAt that point, the nearby farmers sought a stay of the summary judgment order in aid of their appeal on intervention.\nIn that proceeding, the Court of Appeals denied the stay, a stay which already been denied in effect to the Government by the District Court.\nCourt of Appeals denied the stay but gave the nearby farmer applicants for intervention, the choice by mooting their appeal on the intervention point to go -- to take -- to become interveners for the purpose of filing an appeal.\nNot to enter into the District Court proceeding which had already terminated.\nIn effect, that was a Hobson's choice since for the nearby farmers not to have elected that option would have meant that the escrow fund would have been distributed out to the distant farmers, farmers who would never relied on it.\nAs a result, the nearby farmers chose the route, which enable them.\nOne, to prosecute an appeal at that time the Government have not noted an appeal and also to move before the District Court for a stay since the Court of Appeals had denied the state of a nearby farmers.\nThe nearby farmers obtained that stay and that is why there is now and when I say stay, I mean preservation of the status quo on effect where the escrow, the differential continually as computed and then added to the fund.\nThere is now an escrow somewhat over $8 Million.\nI'd like to comment on the -- that part of the statute involving the volume of market and production differentials customarily applied.\nWe've commented at length in our brief and Mr. Friedman is already commented to you on the uniform price irrespective of use portion of the statute.\nWith respect to the volume market and production differentials customarily apply.\nThese are certainly crucial words in the statute.\nWe submit that these are price variation relating to marketing's of milk.\nNot all price variations, not any price variations that might come into existence after the act was pass.\nThey had to be variations that were customarily paid by the handlers.\nUsual market variations, I believe that's what this Court in 39 decision in Rock Royal referred to the matters and they had to be not sporadically applied by handlers before the act was pass and before the order, I'm sorry, before the order took effect.\nThey had to be customarily applied by handlers before that.\nAgain, Congress intended to preserve as much as possible of free market competition that had existed before 1933 and 1935.\nThe Secretary has consistently interpreted volume market and production differential, marketing differential customarily applied language to enable him to provide for the nearby differential in the Mass, Rhode Island market.\nThis Court in Rock Royal 20 cents of a 25-cent differential was born by the pool in Rock Royal.\nIts not an individual handler pool, I believe it was a market pool but in the pool born -- bore that 20 cents just as the pool bears today, the 46 cents, and this Court upheld the differential in that case.\nIt was not identical with the differential involved here.\nIt provided not only for farm location but said also that farmers must deliver to plants located within the nearby zone.\nBut that impractical effect is always what nearby farmers have done in the Mass, Rhode Island market.\nThey did so years ago and we're advised today by the Market Administrator in the market that virtually all nearby farmers delivered the plants within the market's core -- close to the major markets.\nWe believe one of the major reasons that the Court of Appeals went astray as Mr. Friedman is already commented, is that they looked to -- they made erroneous factual assumptions.\nThey thought that the differential pre 1937 was not one paid over and above transportation and handling cost savings was not one paid to distant farmers who delivered to a nearby zone.\nThat is factually incorrect.\nAnd we have pointed out at length in our brief, pages 51 and 52 that that isn't correct.\nYour Honor, if the Court pleases, I'd like to save the remaining time for rebuttal for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2557.729, 2564.258, 2575.346, 2576.76, 2587.128, 2616.697, 2621.726, 2630.047, 2631.556, 2637.05, 2641.828, 2646.172, 2654.791, 2663.126, 2679.684, 2683.934, 2699.575, 2704.315, 2716.076, 2728.94, 2734.149, 2742.661, 2751.129, 2755.694, 2759.308, 2764.718, 2771.061, 2775.543, 2792.496, 2796.812, 2807.403, 2821.314, 2831.082, 2844.722, 2848.738, 2857.088, 2863.093, 2875.655, 2887.743, 2900.55, 2903.043, 2910.466], "stop_times": [2564.258, 2575.346, 2576.76, 2587.128, 2616.697, 2621.726, 2630.047, 2631.556, 2637.05, 2641.828, 2646.172, 2654.791, 2663.126, 2679.684, 2683.934, 2699.575, 2704.315, 2716.076, 2728.94, 2734.149, 2742.661, 2751.129, 2755.694, 2759.308, 2764.718, 2771.061, 2775.543, 2792.496, 2796.812, 2807.403, 2821.314, 2831.082, 2844.722, 2848.738, 2857.088, 2863.093, 2875.655, 2887.743, 2900.55, 2903.043, 2910.466, 2914.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2557.729}, "reply_to": "15520__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_017", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Alright, Mr. Hollman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2914.741], "stop_times": [2916.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.741}, "reply_to": "15520__1_016", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__1_018", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I'd like to know if you have more time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2916.565], "stop_times": [2920.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2916.565}, "reply_to": "15520__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_019", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You have 15 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2920.418], "stop_times": [2922.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.418}, "reply_to": "15520__1_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__1_020", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I have 15 minutes?\nThen if I may, I'd like to complete my argument if the Court pleases?\nMr. Justice Harlan, you have commented on the committee and what the committee report means.\nWe've set forth the committee report as an appendix to our brief and the particular provisions relevant here are on page 24(a) of the appendix to our brief, the green brief.\nFrankly, the committee report language regarding market differential is not a model of clarity.\nAmong other things, the report language would indicate that the differentials they were talking about were usually paid in secondary markets.\nAnd I believe the Court in Blair said that market differential there depended upon the nature of the market.\nNature of the market I believe, they thought of a secondary markets.\nBut in fact, not only the nearby differentials but the country station differentials which respondent say in the Court of Appeals below says, where market differentials are those paid in primary markets and traditionally, they've been paid in primary markets.\nWhile the lower court did not get into the question of substantial evidence, they certainly looked to certain excerpts from the evidence in analyzing the interpretation and construction of the statute.\nFor that reason and because we believe that if this Court reverses finding that the Secretary had the authority to put a nearby farm location differential in the Mass, Rhode Island market, then it can at that point dispose of this case rather than remanding it.\nI should like to comment and make it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [2922.153, 2924.003, 2931.846, 2937.495, 2950.933, 2958.299, 2970.135, 2977.575, 2982.673, 3002.359, 3020.886, 3037.663], "stop_times": [2924.003, 2931.846, 2937.495, 2950.933, 2958.299, 2970.135, 2977.575, 2982.673, 3002.359, 3020.886, 3037.663, 3040.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2922.153}, "reply_to": "15520__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_021", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You said that we believe what now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3040.148], "stop_times": [3041.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.148}, "reply_to": "15520__1_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__1_022", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "If you believe contrary to the Court of appeals Your Honor that the Secretary had the authority and has the authority today under the market differential customarily applied language to put a nearby differential in the Mass, Rhode Island order that is the 46-cent and 23-cent differentials that we're talking about here.\nThis Court if you in other words affirm the Secretary's power reversing the lower court.\nThere are then possible questions of substantial evidence which has -- have been raised in the initial complaint of respondents that have not been passed upon by the lower court here and were not passed upon by the District Court.\nWe believe that even though this is a truncated record and it is a truncated record, it contains only illustrative excepts from the administrative proceedings in 64 and in years passed that there are still sufficient evidence to support the Secretary's determination that a nearby differential in the Mass, Rhode Island, marketing order was necessary and would support market's stability.\nAnd in effect, this is what he found in proposing for referendum vote by the farmers and what he had to find them to the statute that the order with the differential would promote market stability.\nCommenting of the evidence, this --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3041.825, 3064.158, 3071.29, 3086.993, 3113.308, 3126.947], "stop_times": [3064.158, 3071.29, 3086.993, 3113.308, 3126.947, 3128.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3041.825}, "reply_to": "15520__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_023", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Did you think that was essential under the statute to make that finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3128.808], "stop_times": [3133.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.808}, "reply_to": "15520__1_022", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_024", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "To make a finding that the order is a whole would promotes --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3133.494], "stop_times": [3136.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3133.494}, "reply_to": "15520__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_025", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "They dare by the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3136.658], "stop_times": [3138.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.658}, "reply_to": "15520__1_024", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_026", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No, I don't Your Honor.\nI think, he need only find that the order as a whole.\nThis is an integral -- interweave of provisions.\nI do not think that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3138.173, 3139.179, 3141.792, 3144.515], "stop_times": [3139.179, 3141.792, 3144.515, 3145.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3138.173}, "reply_to": "15520__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_027", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well does the issue here on the whole order in this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3145.112], "stop_times": [3149.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.112}, "reply_to": "15520__1_026", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_028", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, what is being challenge here is simply the nearby differential Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3149.621], "stop_times": [3153.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3149.621}, "reply_to": "15520__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_029", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But, was the whole order in that state if the Court in Court of Appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3153.88], "stop_times": [3160.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.88}, "reply_to": "15520__1_028", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_030", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, no.\nI think just the nearby different -- the Court of Appeals took the position that they could strike the nearby differential provision.\nBut that the order would still remain viable.\nWe took the contrary position before the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3160.511, 3162.675, 3170.178, 3172.581], "stop_times": [3162.675, 3170.178, 3172.581, 3174.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3160.511}, "reply_to": "15520__1_029", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_031", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Which they leave the rest to the order standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3174.867], "stop_times": [3178.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.867}, "reply_to": "15520__1_030", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_032", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "They left the rest of the order standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3178.496], "stop_times": [3179.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3178.496}, "reply_to": "15520__1_031", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_033", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "How could they have done it without resolving whatever issues they were about facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3179.803], "stop_times": [3187.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.803}, "reply_to": "15520__1_032", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_034", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not sure -- what they did is simply going the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3187.719], "stop_times": [3191.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3187.719}, "reply_to": "15520__1_033", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_035", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You say that there are some leftover questions about evidence whether the evidence supports the finding that it would promote the market's stability?\nHow could the Court of Appeals leave the rest of the orders standing without --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3191.148, 3202.567], "stop_times": [3202.567, 3206.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.148}, "reply_to": "15520__1_034", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_036", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, we believe in short Your Honor that they should not have done that, that it was improper for them.\nBut in terms, they never commented upon the substantial evidence points.\nThey commented only and held only with respect to whether or not the Secretary had authority to put the nearby differential in the order.\nThey never reach the question of substantial evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3206.06, 3211.688, 3216.085, 3223.621], "stop_times": [3211.688, 3216.085, 3223.621, 3225.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3206.06}, "reply_to": "15520__1_035", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_037", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Okay, but the orders still outstanding except for these provisions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3225.817], "stop_times": [3229.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.817}, "reply_to": "15520__1_036", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_038", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, because it's a Separability Clause in the order and they promise that their elimination of the differential --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3229.399], "stop_times": [3236.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3229.399}, "reply_to": "15520__1_037", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_039", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I know but they left the -- and apparently, the part of what they thought was valid and let it stand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3236.579], "stop_times": [3244.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.579}, "reply_to": "15520__1_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_040", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, the only evidence they have before them was evidence regarding the differential, not evidence.\nThere was not administrative record before the Court regarding the entire order.\nThey only had select --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3244.559, 3249.019, 3253.231], "stop_times": [3249.019, 3253.231, 3253.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3244.559}, "reply_to": "15520__1_039", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_041", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But how can the issue -- how can we broaden the case if they still put the case appear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3253.898], "stop_times": [3261.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.898}, "reply_to": "15520__1_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_042", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well we believe Your Honor that even this excerpts which have been supplied and given the consistent administrative into the both on a basis of these excerpts and on the basis of the consistent administrative interpretation by the Secretary over 30 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3261.341], "stop_times": [3277.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3261.341}, "reply_to": "15520__1_041", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_043", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But we don't have to abuse of either through the Courts below on this question, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3277.846], "stop_times": [3281.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.846}, "reply_to": "15520__1_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__1_044", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "On substantial evidence?\nNo Your Honor.\nThe District Court judgment was limited to its holding that on the basis of Blair, an injunction will be granted.\nI started to say that these marketing orders are not something that once promulgated or left alone.\nThey're delicate and very intricate complex of interrelated economic and marketing factors.\nExperts pay close attention to them both the Secretary and experts within his department and the farmers themselves.\nThere are constant amendments, suspensions, decisions or orders affecting each marketing order.\nThe Boston order and the Mass, Rhode Island order since 1936, just two orders had been the subject of suspensions, amendments, decisions or orders 208 times according to the records to the Department of Agriculture.\nThere been some 47 Amendments to these orders over the year.\nThe farmers and the Secretary together have cautiously and zealously observed the workings of the order and modified it.\nThe provisions of it are an instreakably intermingled.\nIts with that thought in mind that we maintain that even if the -- this Court were to believe that there were questions regarding the statutory authority that it would not be possible simply to excise one provision from the order and leave the order standing.\nAn expert from the Department of Agriculture, one of the leading experts in the dairy industry, Mr. Herbert Forest in an affidavits submitted to the District Court in which is in our appendix in the record here stated that in his belief, the elimination of differential would cause disruption and instability in the market place.\nBut the whole purpose of the order is to promote market stability.\nAnd if taking out this provision will promote market instability, then this matter, if there are questions regarding the Secretary's authority must be remanded to enable him, we believe and submit to determine what will make the order stable.\nHe has other powers which may accomplish some of the inherent economic values at the nearby differential, that he can employ in this regard.\nBut we also believe under the ruling of this Court in Addison against Holly Hills on the basis of that case, if there is any question regarding his authority, a remand is an order and under this Court's statement in Lehigh, we believe that the Secretary should then be given an opportunity to resort pro tanto to the escrow fund, which we believe in any of the event should be the property of the nearby producers who have relied on the differential for so many years.\nWho have made investment decisions and marketing decisions on the basis of the differential.\nI would like now to reserve my time for rebuttal if I may?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3281.927, 3283.043, 3283.989, 3296.234, 3302.714, 3309.083, 3318.307, 3324.874, 3337.288, 3341.314, 3349.185, 3353.404, 3371.416, 3389.993, 3393.969, 3410.766, 3422.311, 3451.569, 3459.079], "stop_times": [3283.043, 3283.989, 3296.234, 3302.714, 3309.083, 3318.307, 3324.874, 3337.288, 3341.314, 3349.185, 3353.404, 3371.416, 3389.993, 3393.969, 3410.766, 3422.311, 3451.569, 3459.079, 3473.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3281.927}, "reply_to": "15520__1_043", "speaker": "lawrence_d_hollman"}
{"id": "15520__1_045", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Ryan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3473.296], "stop_times": [3474.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3473.296}, "reply_to": "15520__1_044", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_000", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and members of the Court.\nFirst, I'd like to make a couple of preliminary observations.\nThis particular differential has no relationship at all to any 40-mile zone from any principal consumption center or the City of Boston or any other city.\nThat was true of the 1937 greater Boston order.\nBut at the present time under the consolidated orders, all dairy farmers within the State of Connecticut and all dairy farmers within the State of Massachusetts other than one county are all classified as nearby producers.\nInitially, the under the greater Boston market order, there were over 7,400 distant producers serving that market.\nThey supplied approximately 92% of the milk.\nAt that time, there were 672 nearby producers.\nAnd at the present time as the petitioners have indicated, there are over 2,000 approximately 2,200 nearby producers.\nShort --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3474.871, 3478.302, 3484.322, 3499.957, 3505.404, 3522.223, 3533.466, 3537.418, 3542.821, 3554.378], "stop_times": [3478.302, 3484.322, 3499.957, 3505.404, 3522.223, 3533.466, 3537.418, 3542.821, 3554.378, 3554.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3474.871}, "reply_to": "15520__1_045", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_001", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "So, the percentage under the old regime was nearby producers for something about 8% or so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3554.741], "stop_times": [3561.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3554.741}, "reply_to": "15520__2_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_002", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3561.737], "stop_times": [3562.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3561.737}, "reply_to": "15520__2_001", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_003", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And now, the percentage is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3562.53], "stop_times": [3564.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3562.53}, "reply_to": "15520__2_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_004", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Approximately one third.\nThe significance -- the significance of that Your Honor, Mr. Justice is this.\nThat under the Boston order, the distant producers, so-called distant producers only paid under this nearby differential.\nTwo to three cents per hundredweight, they did not have to pay the 46 cents simply for the reason if they were so many distant producers.\nAs their numbers have been cut and as the nearby producers have increased in number, the differential that is deducted from their milk price has grown.\nInitially, it was a factor that was regarded as admittedly illegal, but that they could afford to wink at it so to speak, in order to get the benefits of federal regulation.\nBut at the present time it has grown like the proverbial topsy and it has a resulted in its incorporation and to other others simply because of the fact that existed in the Boston order.\nNow on that connection, I think its important to realize that this particular differential exist in only one other milk order in the United States out of approximate 75 federal milk marketing orders.\nThat fact conclusively indicates that is not a vital provision.\nIt's not a necessary provision.\nThe only effect that it has is to discriminate against the marketings of distant producers.\nThe only other milk order which contain is particular differential is a Connecticut federal milk marketing order.\nAnd that illustrates very graphically the injury that a differential provision of this type can effect upon distant producers.\nUnder the Connecticut milk order, there are only 89 to 95 dairy farmers that are characterized as distant or non-nearby dairy farmers.\nThere are approximately 2,000 that are characterized as nearby dairy farmers.\nAll of your dairy farmers within the State of Connecticut are termed nearby dairy farmers even though at least 50% of the milk for that market is supplied by out of state dairy farmers.\nNow, the result is under the computation in that exactly reverse situation that the distant dairy farmers marketing under that order have to pay 44 cents for every hundred pounds of milk of their needed milk that they regularly market in the State of Connecticut.\nNow, how this is benefit the Connecticut nearby producer?\nIt increases his price not by 46 cents but by 2 cents per hundredweight.\nThat is simply a trivital to the fact that there are not enough distant producers to pay this differential.\nThe distant producers under that order loose from $5,000.00 to $6,000.00 a year in order to benefit the nearby producer in the amount of approximately $12.50 a month.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3564.662, 3566.328, 3573.168, 3582.077, 3593.87, 3605.784, 3616.67, 3630.341, 3644.29, 3650.876, 3652.664, 3659.299, 3666.585, 3679.433, 3692.134, 3697.884, 3713.387, 3735.205, 3739.1, 3747.399, 3754.935], "stop_times": [3566.328, 3573.168, 3582.077, 3593.87, 3605.784, 3616.67, 3630.341, 3644.29, 3650.876, 3652.664, 3659.299, 3666.585, 3679.433, 3692.134, 3697.884, 3713.387, 3735.205, 3739.1, 3747.399, 3754.935, 3768.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3564.662}, "reply_to": "15520__2_003", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_005", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You're not referring to the order that's before us to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3768.212], "stop_times": [3771.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3768.212}, "reply_to": "15520__2_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_006", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Not in this case, no Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3771.434], "stop_times": [3773.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3771.434}, "reply_to": "15520__2_005", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_007", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yet you're talking about the Connecticut, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3773.029], "stop_times": [3774.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3773.029}, "reply_to": "15520__2_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_008", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I'm talking about how that it exist and only one other order out about 75 in the countries --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3774.544], "stop_times": [3780.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3774.544}, "reply_to": "15520__2_007", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_009", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And it did exist under New Jersey order but that was not out in the Blair case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3780.181], "stop_times": [3783.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3780.181}, "reply_to": "15520__2_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_010", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.\nAnd that order incidentally is functioning much better than it ever has simply because of the fact that dairy farmers are able to cooperate and act in harmony.\nInstead --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3783.742, 3785.227, 3796.252], "stop_times": [3785.227, 3796.252, 3796.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3783.742}, "reply_to": "15520__2_009", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_011", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "This order covers the State of Connecticut and powered also, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3796.452], "stop_times": [3800.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3796.452}, "reply_to": "15520__2_010", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_012", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That is one reason why I brought in the Connecticut order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3800.741], "stop_times": [3804.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3800.741}, "reply_to": "15520__2_011", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_013", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's what confuses --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3804.023], "stop_times": [3805.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3804.023}, "reply_to": "15520__2_012", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_014", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, it is very confusing.\nThe distant farmer in Vermont, take for example, if he wants to market his milk, his needed milk, although, he is supplied Boston, say for instance for over 30 years.\nHe has to pay this differential to nearby producers located in the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts and Rhode Island.\nRhode Island is a very small factor.\nThey produce only about 1% of the milk for the market and are not significant factor in the case.\nHowever, if the Vermont producer or the main producer of the New Hampshire producer wants to market his needed milk in the State of Connecticut.\nHe also has to pay the same differential.\nOnly this time in a much larger amount.\nBy the same token, the Connecticut producer collects both ways.\nHe and the Rhode Island producer does also.\nHe is entitled to this differential irrespective of what market his milk goes to.\nSo, it's not simply a question --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3805.201, 3806.796, 3819.856, 3832.223, 3834.329, 3842.434, 3853.408, 3856.627, 3859.958, 3864.756, 3867.179, 3873.884], "stop_times": [3806.796, 3819.856, 3832.223, 3834.329, 3842.434, 3853.408, 3856.627, 3859.958, 3864.756, 3867.179, 3873.884, 3877.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3805.201}, "reply_to": "15520__2_013", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_015", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No, but do not all of State of Connecticut as I read it, its east of the Connecticut River plus the towns of Grandview and Sophia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3877.553], "stop_times": [3884.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3877.553}, "reply_to": "15520__2_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_016", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, that is in respect to the order that presently considering.\nYes.\nIn respect to the Connecticut order, it does encompass the entire state, and in both orders --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3884.028, 3888.072, 3888.838], "stop_times": [3888.072, 3888.838, 3896.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3884.028}, "reply_to": "15520__2_015", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_017", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's Connecticut market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3896.119], "stop_times": [3897.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3896.119}, "reply_to": "15520__2_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_018", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's correct and those are the only two milk orders in United States that have this particular provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3897.566], "stop_times": [3904.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3897.566}, "reply_to": "15520__2_017", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_019", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Are their any groups of these farmers who contend that the order has writing or has change by the Court of Appeals will cause them to be compelled to sell their milk at a lowest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3904.947], "stop_times": [3921.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3904.947}, "reply_to": "15520__2_018", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_020", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "As a result of the Court of Appeals decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3921.497], "stop_times": [3924.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3921.497}, "reply_to": "15520__2_019", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_021", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3924.536], "stop_times": [3925.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3924.536}, "reply_to": "15520__2_020", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_022", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No, and in fact, it's my contention and I think this would be substantiated that most nearby dairy farmers are not desirers of exacting this penalty payment from their fellow dairy farmers.\nIt's not necessary in any other area of the country.\nIn this particular differential like all others of its type has been brought about really through the inconsistence of a very limited group and it's been perpetuated in the same manner.\nNow --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3925.332, 3942.0, 3946.269, 3963.049], "stop_times": [3942.0, 3946.269, 3963.049, 3963.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3925.332}, "reply_to": "15520__2_021", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_023", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But is it true then for instance, what I'm trying to get at is, actual effect on it.\nIs there any one group that contends that by reason of this owner, they'll be compelled to produce and sell market and sell milk have a substantial loss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3963.698, 3968.756], "stop_times": [3968.756, 3984.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3963.698}, "reply_to": "15520__2_022", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_024", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Not under our view.\nThe case except for the fact that the record shows that shortly after the consolidation of these orders in which the Boston, Southeastern New England, the Worcester and the Springfield orders were consolidated previously.\nThose nearby producers could only obtain this particular differential by delivering to that particular market that they were associated with.\nAfter the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [3984.02, 3985.227, 4006.049, 4015.911], "stop_times": [3985.227, 4006.049, 4015.911, 4016.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3984.02}, "reply_to": "15520__2_023", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_025", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Which group do you represent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4016.358], "stop_times": [4018.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4016.358}, "reply_to": "15520__2_024", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_026", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, we represent by a class action order that was contested in the District Court.\nWe represent the distant producers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4018.394, 4023.454], "stop_times": [4023.454, 4025.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4018.394}, "reply_to": "15520__2_025", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_027", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Distant producers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4025.727], "stop_times": [4026.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4025.727}, "reply_to": "15520__2_026", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_028", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Approximately 6,500 dairy farmers and after --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4026.765], "stop_times": [4030.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4026.765}, "reply_to": "15520__2_027", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_029", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And there's no claim on your part because I understand it that whether this Court of Appeals order stands or not.\nYour clients will actually have to sell milk at less than it cost them to produce it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4030.428, 4041.093], "stop_times": [4041.093, 4047.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4030.428}, "reply_to": "15520__2_028", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_030", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Not at less than it cost to produce, no.\nHowever --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4047.66, 4050.36], "stop_times": [4050.36, 4051.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4047.66}, "reply_to": "15520__2_029", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_031", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "It's only the profit that's involve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4051.149], "stop_times": [4053.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4051.149}, "reply_to": "15520__2_030", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_032", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4053.033], "stop_times": [4053.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4053.033}, "reply_to": "15520__2_031", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_033", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Division of profits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4053.432], "stop_times": [4054.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4053.432}, "reply_to": "15520__2_032", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_034", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That is correct Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4054.64], "stop_times": [4056.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4054.64}, "reply_to": "15520__2_033", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_035", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And you understand that to be true with reference to all others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4056.267], "stop_times": [4059.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4056.267}, "reply_to": "15520__2_034", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_036", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That is my understanding.\nHowever, I will say this that the margin of profit is something that very amongst different producers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4059.764, 4061.006], "stop_times": [4061.006, 4069.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4059.764}, "reply_to": "15520__2_035", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_037", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Undoubted to that have to be just --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4069.79], "stop_times": [4071.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4069.79}, "reply_to": "15520__2_036", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_038", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And it does affect some more than it does others.\nFor instance, when this order consolidated in 1964 so that a producer did no have to have any historical association with any particular market.\nHe could receive the nearby producer could receive this differential irrespective aware his milk was delivered.\nThen, we find that approximately one year, within one year, at least 1,000 distant dairy farmers were forced out of business by this particular differential.\nNow, we do make that claim and we think it's substantiated.\nNow, I would like to mention what we regard the congressional program to be here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4071.744, 4075.267, 4087.924, 4096.156, 4110.026, 4113.446], "stop_times": [4075.267, 4087.924, 4096.156, 4110.026, 4113.446, 4119.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4071.744}, "reply_to": "15520__2_037", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_039", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, if you didn't quite finish -- at least, I don't think you get on that explaining how this came about.\nYou said it represents the views of only a very limited group of people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4119.442, 4127.117], "stop_times": [4127.117, 4131.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4119.442}, "reply_to": "15520__2_038", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__2_040", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.\nI was coming to that in period Mr. Justice White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4131.935, 4132.484], "stop_times": [4132.484, 4135.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4131.935}, "reply_to": "15520__2_039", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_041", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And how -- that is also represents the views of the Secretary of Agriculture I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4135.205], "stop_times": [4141.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4135.205}, "reply_to": "15520__2_040", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__2_042", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No, it represents the view the Secretary of Agriculture only to the extent that it has been included in these two orders out of about 75 in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4141.02], "stop_times": [4151.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4141.02}, "reply_to": "15520__2_041", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_043", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But he is most -- as they rather recently reaffirmed his views that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4151.814], "stop_times": [4158.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4151.814}, "reply_to": "15520__2_042", "speaker": "j__byron_r_white"}
{"id": "15520__2_044", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "His actual finding in 1964 was that the differential was not resulting in such disorderly conditions as with warrant, its deletion at this time.\nNow, we don't think that that is a proper finding.\nNumber one under the act, he is definitely obligated to find that not only the order but the every provision of the order will tend to effectuate the policy of the act.\nAnd --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4158.908, 4174.345, 4178.057, 4191.924], "stop_times": [4174.345, 4178.057, 4191.924, 4192.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4158.908}, "reply_to": "15520__2_043", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_045", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "As I understand that the basic question is one of power for that when he gets the power.\nNot what you see now to be addressing yourself to that he does have power but he exercise mistakenly or wrongly on a wrong state by their own understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4192.383, 4199.093], "stop_times": [4199.093, 4209.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4192.383}, "reply_to": "15520__2_044", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_046", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, what I'm saying there is that he also fail to make the proper finding even assuming that he have this power.\nBut we are saying that he definitely does not have this power that a more --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4209.537, 4217.61], "stop_times": [4217.61, 4221.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4209.537}, "reply_to": "15520__2_045", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_047", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And that's what the Court of Appeals held to understand it that without power --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4221.492], "stop_times": [4225.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4221.492}, "reply_to": "15520__2_046", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_048", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4225.244], "stop_times": [4225.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4225.244}, "reply_to": "15520__2_047", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_049", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Put any differential.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4225.941], "stop_times": [4226.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4225.941}, "reply_to": "15520__2_048", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_050", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That a more basic violation of the act could not be comprehended.\nIt's our contention that initially the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed for the simple reason that all dairy farmers were receiving very low prices for the milk.\nThe fact that some dairy farmers have received higher prices than others in the 1920's has no real relevancy here.\nThe fact is that the private sector of the milk industry that cooperatives and so forth, there were varying prices that actually contributed to the market instability here and it resulted eventually in all producers receiving low prices for their milk, below the cost the production actually in the 1929 to '33 period.\nAnd consequently because of the fact that a state as this Court held in Bowman versus Ceiling could not regulate the price of milk that moved across interstate borders, the Congress was force to meet this problem by the enactment of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933.\nThat provided primarily for solving the problem through marketing agreements and supplementing licenses.\nBut the licenses and the marketing agreements were at that time relegated solely to the prevention of unfair trade practices and the act was very vague and nebulous.\nAs a result, many different features were included within these licenses that were doubtful legality and definitely against public policy.\nAs a result, the handlers actually refuse to comply with the different provisions of these licenses as did the producers and this compounded the situation, in fact that Congress was well aware from different reports from the Federal Trade Commission that the situation was such that the act would have to be amended if it was to be made workable.\nAnd in 1935, they so amend the act so extensively that is referred to as the 1935 Act which is the Court has also characterized it as such some of its decisions of that particular 1935 Act get away with the licenses and included a provision whereby the Secretary was authorized to issue milk marketing orders.\nBut the Congress was very definite and stating that these orders could contain the enumerated terms and conditions and no others.\nThe Secretary of course has discretion concerning which terms to include in this particular others.\nBut he of course, cannot amend the act or reappeal by including within it various provisions without any statutory basis.\nAnd as the petitioners have indicated the primary problem involved here in the milk industry is not only that milk is highly perishable, but also that there is a surplus of milk, a necessary surplus even in a short production season of the year approximately 20%.\nThis, of course results in a much larger surplus during the flash production season of the year and this is unnecessary surplus and in a Secretary has found as recently as 1957 that without regulation.\nWe find that the level of prices to all producers would be below the cost of production.\nRegulation --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4226.867, 4230.919, 4243.613, 4252.606, 4277.058, 4297.245, 4305.969, 4319.033, 4328.602, 4353.5, 4379.051, 4391.533, 4398.618, 4408.345, 4427.969, 4442.094, 4448.479], "stop_times": [4230.919, 4243.613, 4252.606, 4277.058, 4297.245, 4305.969, 4319.033, 4328.602, 4353.5, 4379.051, 4391.533, 4398.618, 4408.345, 4427.969, 4442.094, 4448.479, 4449.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4226.867}, "reply_to": "15520__2_049", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_051", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Why is the necessary surplus in the land the lowest production period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4449.098], "stop_times": [4453.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4449.098}, "reply_to": "15520__2_050", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_052", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, there are, although the demand for milk is fairly constant, there are daily fluctuations.\nFor instance, during the summer months, you have various areas that the countries that are resort areas for instance that have an influx of population --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4453.637, 4461.389], "stop_times": [4461.389, 4469.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4453.637}, "reply_to": "15520__2_051", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_053", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Of that the high production period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4469.223], "stop_times": [4470.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4469.223}, "reply_to": "15520__2_052", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_054", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.\nWell, not always.\nThere's different -- you have in Vermont for instance, the skiing dairy --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4470.958, 4471.485, 4472.95], "stop_times": [4471.485, 4472.95, 4477.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4470.958}, "reply_to": "15520__2_053", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_055", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well in other words, you have peak periods --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4477.062], "stop_times": [4478.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4477.062}, "reply_to": "15520__2_054", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_056", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4478.208], "stop_times": [4478.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4478.208}, "reply_to": "15520__2_055", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_057", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And you have to have enough production --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4478.366], "stop_times": [4479.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4478.366}, "reply_to": "15520__2_056", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_058", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And this is in the right period.\nYes.\nThere's no dispute as to this.\nThis is in the record that you have to maintain the necessary reserved in order to protect the consumer by an adequate milk supply.\nAnd it is the contention of the respondents here that the Congress was motivated to solve this problem by apportioning the burdens of surplus along with the benefits of the Class I or fluid milk price through the issuance of a program that call for a uniform price to all dairy farmers, irrespective of the use of their particular milk.\nNow, of course, this was the big problem that some dealers had a fluid milk outlet for their milk.\nProducers that were selling to that particular handler or dealer where sometimes able to obtain a higher price than other dairy farmers and other handlers serving another handler who was able not to sell in the fluid milk market.\nAnd although the petitioners here cite the case of Rock Royal is authority for this differential, we contend that it was -- is clearly just the opposite and the Rock Royal actually, it was -- there were no producers before the Court.\nIt was a case that involves solely handlers and it was shortly after the passage of the 1937 Act.\nThe handlers contended that it violated their constitutional rights to require them to pay a part of the monies that they have obtained from the Class I sales into the market wide pool or producer settlement fund in order that these monies would be paid over to other handlers who have low fluid sales.\nMost of their milk was dispose of for manufacturing purposes, but it's obvious that the congressional plan couldn't work unless there was a provision of this nature and also that Congress did not provide for any great unusual situation here.\nThey provided for minimum milk prices that the handler was obligated to pay for milk.\nNow, the Court in Rock Royal held that it was not a violation of Due Process or the taking of the handler's property to require him to pay the excess of his fluid sales over the market wide average into the producer settlement fund for distribution to other handlers who in turn would pay these monies to their own producers.\nNow, its very evident that if a handler could not retain these monies over the market wide blend price and pay them into his own producer and was obligated to pay this into the fund that a dairy farmers that server that particular handler certainly couldn't make the same claim that this could be accomplish indirectly through a nearby differential.\nNow, we contend that the words irrespective of use simply mean that a dairy farmer is entitle to the payment of the uniform price irrespective of the use of his milk and in every case in which this Court has considered the milk appeal, they have indicated that this is the interpretation of the congressional language.\nNow, the contentions of the petitioners would actually nullify the act, if they were to delete that language and simply say that this means that you can pay a dairy farm around the basis of use of his milk.\nThis is clearly just the opposite of what the Congress contended should be done.\nNow, the petitioners acknowledge that in the Blair case that the adjustments to the uniform price in that case involved a location differential.\nLocation differential really is nothing more than a differential that is allowed for the transportation element that enters into the price of milk.\nMilk that is delivered to one part of the milk shed naturally is has to be delivered to the primary consumption center.\nThese are the large cities and the dairy farmer does have to pay for those transportation cost.\nWe make no objection in that regard even though that does detract from our milk price.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4479.592, 4482.135, 4482.392, 4484.219, 4492.987, 4522.892, 4531.055, 4549.623, 4567.868, 4576.158, 4603.318, 4623.046, 4629.751, 4656.691, 4685.565, 4707.831, 4725.232, 4730.482, 4745.885, 4756.85, 4766.328, 4773.342], "stop_times": [4482.135, 4482.392, 4484.219, 4492.987, 4522.892, 4531.055, 4549.623, 4567.868, 4576.158, 4603.318, 4623.046, 4629.751, 4656.691, 4685.565, 4707.831, 4725.232, 4730.482, 4745.885, 4756.85, 4766.328, 4773.342, 4780.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4479.592}, "reply_to": "15520__2_057", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_059", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I think that supported that the use of 45-cent importing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4780.044], "stop_times": [4785.963], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 4780.044}, "reply_to": "15520__2_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__2_060", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "In our brief, we have outlined the report of both the House and the Senate in great detail and if quotes the language of the reports where the report does say that that location differential is for transportation purposes from the place, from the plant where the milk is delivered to the principal consumption center.\nAnd you have to have the system whereby you set up zones and fix a particular transportation charge for each zone as related to the principal consumption center because this is the where the milk is going, this is where its produced.\nAnd of course, the Court in Blair held that this was not a proper differential to justify the one that was in the New York order in which was very similar to the one that is in this order that that related strictly to transportation.\nNow, if the petitioners -- I don't understand whether they currently maintain that that is a proper differential that would support the location differential that would support the nearby differential involve in this case.\nBut they seem to be limiting their argument at the present time to the fact that it is a market differential.\nNow, the reports clearly state that a market differential is a differential that is paid to a dairy farmer for delivering his milk to a city market rather than to a country plant because in a country plant, there are double handling cost involved.\nAnd the measure of this particular market differential is normally the difference between the receiving cost that the country plant and that at the city plant.\nAnd the dairy farmers pay that particular differential because he actually performs a service there and he accomplishes a reduction and the cost of the handler that maintains the various country plants.\nNow the Congress, if the reports are examined both the House and Senate reports show that they gave great consideration to this particular 1935 Act because of the reason Schechter case and the recent case of Panama versus Ryan, the other particular case that dealt with delegation of powers.\nIt was very careful to spell out in complete detail what provision the Secretary could include in this milk orders.\nAnd we contend that there's a no possible basis for saying that there's any statutory justification for the nearby differential when that particular differential is not even mention either in the act or in any of the reports.\nNow, the act provides for a volume market and production differentials and our understanding of the petitioner's contention here is that the market differential is simply illustrative in nature.\nNow if this was true, there'd be no point in the Congress specifying the volume differential, the production differential, the butter fat differential, the quality differential, the location differential.\nThey could simply have set all customary market differentials, if this was what they meant by market differential.\nBut it was not and this is clearly reflected in the reports.\nIncidentally, the nearby producer can deliver his milk to a country plant and still receive this nearby differential.\nWhereas the distant producer can deliver his milk right to the market center and he does not receive this differential.\nAnd in fact he has to pay the nearby producer this particular differential out of his milk price.\nSo, it's just exactly the opposite of what the Congress has defined the market differential to be; one for delivery to the city market.\nAlso, the only exception to the uniform price that is authorized by the act is one which is provided for in Section 8c (5) (B) pertaining to new producers.\nThe Congress was concern that handlers were bringing milk into various markets and beating down local prices within that reach of market.\nBut it was also concerned that if wanted to make sure that new producers would be given reasonable opportunities to enter markets.\nIn other words, that these would not be close markets.\nConsequently, provision 8c (5) (B) provides that a new producer is to conceive the same price as any other producer after he serves a particular market for two months.\nNow, the two months probationary period is obviously for the purpose of assuring that he is going to regularly supply that market.\nDuring that period, he receives the lowest price use classification price.\nDuring that particular two months and this is to assure that he will not market his milk in a particular region only when it's an opportunity time for him to do so.\nNow, under the particular provision 8c (5) (B) pertaining to new producers that specifically states that that lowest used price that he is to receive during those two months is subject to all other adjustments authorize under the act.\nNow for instance, he would receive the butter fat differential if his milk wanted it, he would be subject to the transportation differential.\nHe would be subject to the market differential for direct delivery of milk.\nBut under the act he would also, if this nearby differential is a valid differential, he would also be subject to the nearby differential and this would result in a new producer whom the act requires to receive the lowest possible price during the first two months of his delivery because of the fact that he is never supplied this market.\nHe would receive a differential under this nearby differential provision which would pay him because of the fluid use his milk on a historical basis, even though he had never supplied the market.\nNow, this is a double link consistency that cannot be attributed to the Congress.\nThis is an inconsistency that is particularly applicable only to the Secretary and even if he didn't pay this nearby differential to these new producers, this simply could not be explain the way by a second violation because the act requires that all of the adjustments be taken into account even in respect to these new producers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [4785.963, 4815.17, 4835.445, 4852.845, 4869.685, 4876.27, 4894.111, 4905.936, 4922.839, 4948.45, 4957.23, 4972.595, 4987.254, 5001.692, 5009.456, 5015.322, 5025.524, 5034.153, 5041.367, 5051.444, 5065.565, 5076.044, 5085.48, 5088.723, 5102.514, 5111.21, 5117.591, 5128.902, 5148.128, 5157.267, 5162.291, 5186.419, 5203.157, 5208.921], "stop_times": [4815.17, 4835.445, 4852.845, 4869.685, 4876.27, 4894.111, 4905.936, 4922.839, 4948.45, 4957.23, 4972.595, 4987.254, 5001.692, 5009.456, 5015.322, 5025.524, 5034.153, 5041.367, 5051.444, 5065.565, 5076.044, 5085.48, 5088.723, 5102.514, 5111.21, 5117.591, 5128.902, 5148.128, 5157.267, 5162.291, 5186.419, 5203.157, 5208.921, 5237.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 4785.963}, "reply_to": "15520__2_059", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_061", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Ryan earlier in your arguments, you told us that there are now only two marketing orders is the same these nearby differentials.\nThis one and the one governing the Connecticut market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [5237.279, 5245.482], "stop_times": [5245.482, 5248.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5237.279}, "reply_to": "15520__2_060", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_062", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [5248.955], "stop_times": [5250.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5248.955}, "reply_to": "15520__2_061", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_063", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And of course, I understand, it's your position that no of them should have them because the Secretary has no power to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [5250.594], "stop_times": [5256.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5250.594}, "reply_to": "15520__2_062", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_064", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [5256.355], "stop_times": [5256.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5256.355}, "reply_to": "15520__2_063", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_065", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "To impose them.\nBut that to one side, what is the reason from the Secretary's point of view, what is the reason why other milk marketing orders do not contain these nearby differentials?\nDo you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [5256.615, 5257.441, 5267.593], "stop_times": [5257.441, 5267.593, 5267.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5256.615}, "reply_to": "15520__2_064", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_066", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, he has not given a reason for other markets.\nHe has said in respect to Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut producers that historically, dairy farmers in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut because of their location with reference to the large population concentrations of New England have disposed of a substantially larger percentage of their production for fluid use than have dairy farmers in the up country area.\nHence, nearby producers have been able to realize that price higher in relation to more distant producers than can be accounted for by the advantage of the transportation to market.\nUnder market wide pooling here in propose and without some adjustment mechanism, the nearby producer notwithstanding would be paid on the basis of the air utilization of all milk in the milk shed rather than according to the utilization of his milk.\nNow, this is a direct admission of a violation of the act because the act specifically states that no dairy farmer is to be paid on the basis of the use of his milk.\nHe is to be paid a uniform price irrespective of the use of his milk.\nThe Secretary also found that under a regulated market, the nearby producer also obtains the protection of the federal regulatory program and receives in many instances, a higher price and he would otherwise received.\nSo, we come to the a situation where prior to federal regulation, all dairy farmers where receiving low prices and even prior to the 1964 Act.\nMuch of the local produced milk had been dispose of for manufacturing your surplus purposes and its just not an accuracy to say that nearby producers consistently supply the fluid milk market.\nIn fact as recently as 1946, the Secretary had to amend the Boston order because of the fact that the nearby producers where supplying milk to the country plants and were receiving actually a higher price than what they were entitled to at those particular plants.\nNow, we also feel that this Court's specifically stated in Rock Royal that any variants between uniform prices would result in a discrimination and would actually cause certain producers to bear an unfair burden of the surplus market.\nAnd this is exactly what the nearby differential does.\nIt reserves the fluid milk market or a larger percentage of it to nearby producers and it cast on other producers who regularly supply the market a larger share of the burden of surplus.\nNow, the Secretary has also admitted that nearby milk has no inherent value that should be compensated for by nearby producers.\nIn his New York decision, all of these particular factors where raised in apparent justification for this differential.\nHe rejected all of them.\nHe rejected the factor of inherent value of nearby milk.\nHe rejected the factor of its availability or its accessibility.\nHe rejected the factor of so-called increased production cost.\nHe rejected everything except the fact that he thought they should be paid on the basis of the historical use of their milk.\nAnd of course, this is a direct violation of the act.\nNow also in Hood, in the Hood case decided on the very same day that the Rock Royal case was decided.\nThis Court also stated in that case that the producers, the intervene in that case where not entitled to maintain a historically price under this particular Act.\nThe lower court had stated that the only right to a historical price higher price that producer's head depended upon the unconstitutionality of this Act and that they were entitled only to a blend price or to the uniform price.\nAnd we feel that the Hood case is a direct authority for our position here that historical prices are not the criterion for insertion into a milk order that the criterion is uniform prices rather than varying historical prices.\nNow, the petitioners have also indicated that there some question as to the record in this case.\nActually, the case in the New York-New Jersey milk order was also heard on motions for summary judgment, cross motions for summary judgment.\nI don't know of any milk case that hasn't been heard on excerpts from the record.\nNow, when they say excerpts from the record, they imply that there some deficiency here, but there is no deficiency in the Blair case.\nThere was a 15,000-page record with hundreds of exhibits.\nIt was necessary to excerpt a relevant material in order that the Court could actually comprehend the problem.\nThe same thing occurred in this case and every page of the administrative record that was pertinent to the issue was before the District Court.\nAnd the nearby producers, although they presently say that they were denied intervention in the District Court.\nThey were accorded every opportunity to present whatever argument that they might desired to in that case in the District Court.\nThey filed a brief amicus curiae through the state of or rather the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in that case.\nAnd the District Court had every conceivable argument that could be made before when it ruled that this particular provision was beyond the statutory power of the Secretary.\nNow, we also contend that this is not only discriminatory as well as beyond the statutory power of the Secretary, but that it constitutes a trade barrier.\nIn other words, the fact for instance in the Connecticut order illustrates this very graphically where you only have 89 or to 95 dairy farmers that are able to market their milk on a regular basis in that particular order.\nNow, they have to pay a large share of there milk price, even though it benefits the nearby producer by only 2 cents per carton, cart hundred pounds.\nAnd the inconceivable to contend that this was meant to reward nearby producers, 2 cents per hundredweight rather than to penalize distant producers and to keep distant producers out of this particular market or any market that has this particular penalty provision.\nNow, if this particular differential was legalized and it spread to other markets, one can readily visualize that it would simply create chaos and disorderly marketing.\nIn fact the very reason that this particular milk order that consolidated order came about was because of the different and varying conditions that these differentials participated, that they actually commanded to which market the milk would go.\nIt was very uneconomical and very unrealistic because the farmer wanted his milk to go the market where he would get this differential rather than have it go to a market where it could be distributed most economically for the benefit of the consumer in all dairy farmers.\nSo, we contend that is a much more discriminatory and vicious differential then was look and validated in the Blair case.\nIn the Blair case, we had a differential where when the fluid milk in the market reach 80% total.\nThis particular differential would actually seize to exist.\nIn this particular differential, it would have to reach 100% before it would seize to exist.\nIn other words, the differential provides that is 46 cents or such lesser amount as will equal the Class I or fluid milk price.\nThis means that when surplus and the market is the greatest, the differential is the greatest. And the nearby producer can actually increase his production and contribute to this surplus without worrying that his is going to sustain a reduction in this differential.\nOn the other hand, the distant producer, he, when he increases his production actually increases the amount that he pays under this protector of differential.\nSo actually, it provides protection to the nearby producer and at the same time it injures the distant producer when he needs this protection the most.\nNow, we don't think that there's any possible basis that has been set forth here for remand.\nThe Court has fully considered all of the factors involved in this case.\nAnd we would also like to mention that the producer association that was mentioned by Mr. Hollman, the New England Milk Producers Association, does vote for the farmers on whether a milk order as a whole should be approved.\nBut no dairy farmer has the right to vote on this particular provision of the order.\nNow, this is very crucial when you realize that the New England Milk Producers Association which is Boston base actually attempted to intervene in the suit as a defendant without advising any of their membership of this.\nAnd it's a matter of record that its counsel fails to consult its membership whenever he proposes vary administrative provision that will effect their very livelihood.\nAnd we contend that that any attempt that remand here would actually simply cause the respondents to have the attorneys for the nearby producers represent them because the NEMPA is actually controlled by nearby producer's representatives.\nNow, they have a much larger proportion of their membership in the distant areas.\nBut in the particular dairy field that we're examining here today, dairy farmers did not take that much interest.\nI shouldn't say interest, but they're unable to effectuate changes in these dairy organizations as much as they would like to particularly when they are not advice as to what this actually going on.\nSo, if under any question of remand or any vote here, we would find that the New England New England Milk Producers Association would vote for the great majority or the plaintiffs that have brought this action and that the attorneys for the New England Milk Producers Associations is Mr. Hollman his associate counsel below.\nNow, we also feel that the Congress specifically intended to prevent this type of thing because there's another type of pooling other than market wide pooling which is called individual handler pooling.\nUnder this particular provision, alternative provision of the act, all dairy farmers serving the same handler have to be also paid a uniform price, but the price does vary amongst handlers.\nNow, this particular type of pooling individual handler pooling is only appropriate in a market where the supplies are very short and where there is practical uniformity amongst all handlers.\nAnd this type of pooling has been found to be totally inappropriate for this particular market.\nBut the important thing is that in order to institute that type of pooling, the Congress has provided that every producer should have one vote on that particular issue alone in a separate referendum on that one issue.\nAnd this, in our mind indicates that the Congress was concern that the associations could sometimes vote hand different things that would affect their membership if they fail to consult with them and the Congress wanted to preclude this type of happening.\nAlso, we would like to point out that in respect to summary judgment that the Lehigh Valley case was heard on motion for summary judgment.\nThe New York Currency Producers versus Wickard case was heard on motion for summary judgment.\nAnd indeed, the petitioners here propose in January, shortly after the institution of this suit that the case be heard on cross motions for summary judgment.\nNow subsequently, they withdrew that particular proposal, but nevertheless, they were desirers of disposing of the suit at that time and nothing was brought up in the District Court that would in anyway reflect on the propriety of the granting of summary judgment.\nThe record was very voluminous five large files in the administrative record numbered many hundreds of pages as illustrated by the 753-page appendix here before this Court.\nSo, every facet of this particular differential was considered and also the act requires that the Secretary institute only differential that had been customarily applied by handlers.\nNow, the record, the administrative record reflects that this differential had never been applied by handlers, and this is the reason why the petitioners advert to the contracts of various cooperatives.\nNone of these being in a matter of record and in this case or any other case that I know of, there's no document dairy evidence whatsoever to this effect.\nThe fact is that the records choose conclusively that this particular differential did not exist until August 1, 1937 in the Boston order.\nIt could not have been legalized or validated by the Congress because of the fact that the 1937 reenactment occurred on June 3, 1937.\nOf this particular differential was instituted subsequent to that time.\nSo, there's no actual question of reenactment even involved this case.\nAlso, they alleged that similar differentials existed prior the 1937 however.\nBut actually, this is not the case because the similar differentials actually number one, required delivery of the milk to the city market and the nearby differential does not.\nSo, we have that distinguishment here between the pre 1937 and the post 1937 differential.\nAlso, the similar differentials that they're referring to is actually what is known under the act base rating.\nBase rating requires that all dairy farmers receive the same fluid or Class I milk price for their base milk.\nBut under the 1936 order, only the nearby producer received the Class I or fluid milk price for his base milk.\nMany producers were never even assigned a base and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [5267.814, 5272.463, 5298.083, 5307.97, 5324.894, 5338.625, 5343.784, 5363.515, 5377.471, 5394.514, 5414.873, 5438.381, 5441.722, 5456.297, 5467.769, 5476.879, 5478.649, 5483.267, 5487.95, 5493.966, 5502.982, 5506.22, 5514.082, 5531.353, 5549.474, 5566.708, 5572.825, 5583.551, 5590.051, 5600.499, 5605.507, 5613.76, 5626.124, 5633.608, 5642.835, 5652.042, 5663.675, 5677.012, 5696.353, 5709.417, 5729.591, 5746.973, 5768.897, 5788.776, 5798.813, 5808.26, 5812.038, 5819.532, 5831.205, 5851.417, 5863.467, 5875.242, 5882.457, 5888.222, 5909.703, 5917.524, 5936.286, 5948.112, 5971.63, 5977.905, 5988.921, 6001.469, 6024.592, 6039.924, 6054.441, 6070.047, 6076.941, 6092.618, 6111.121, 6126.466, 6134.609, 6146.841, 6163.228, 6178.911, 6195.014, 6208.942, 6218.139, 6228.312, 6240.289, 6244.668, 6250.392, 6259.12, 6273.279, 6281.65, 6289.006, 6298.989, 6308.391], "stop_times": [5272.463, 5298.083, 5307.97, 5324.894, 5338.625, 5343.784, 5363.515, 5377.471, 5394.514, 5414.873, 5438.381, 5441.722, 5456.297, 5467.769, 5476.879, 5478.649, 5483.267, 5487.95, 5493.966, 5502.982, 5506.22, 5514.082, 5531.353, 5549.474, 5566.708, 5572.825, 5583.551, 5590.051, 5600.499, 5605.507, 5613.76, 5626.124, 5633.608, 5642.835, 5652.042, 5663.675, 5677.012, 5696.353, 5709.417, 5729.591, 5746.973, 5768.897, 5788.776, 5798.813, 5808.26, 5812.038, 5819.532, 5831.205, 5851.417, 5863.467, 5875.242, 5882.457, 5888.222, 5909.703, 5917.524, 5936.286, 5948.112, 5971.63, 5977.905, 5988.921, 6001.469, 6024.592, 6039.924, 6054.441, 6070.047, 6076.941, 6092.618, 6111.121, 6126.466, 6134.609, 6146.841, 6163.228, 6178.911, 6195.014, 6208.942, 6218.139, 6228.312, 6240.289, 6244.668, 6250.392, 6259.12, 6273.279, 6281.65, 6289.006, 6298.989, 6308.391, 6311.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 5267.814}, "reply_to": "15520__2_065", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_067", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But what's base milk means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6311.675], "stop_times": [6313.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6311.675}, "reply_to": "15520__2_066", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__2_068", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "It means this that they compute the demand, the normal demands of the market and they divide up the market, the fluid milk market and assign each producer a base.\nAnd the base is a quota that he supposed to produce.\nFor that particular quota, he will received the fluid milk for Class I milk price.\nAnything he produces in excess of that, he will receive the manufactured or surplus price.\nNow, he is free to produce as much milk as he likes, but any milk produce in excess of his base is paid for at the surplus price.\nUnder the act and this has been reaffirmed in 1965 in the Food and Agriculture Act, all producers are entitled to received that fluid or Class I price for their base milk.\nYou cannot give it that price to the nearby producers and the rest of the surplus to the distant producers and this is what is referred to a similar differentials by the petitioners here.\nActually, this is an admission of the illegality of the so-called similar differentials because of the very fact that they are related to use and constitute a violation of the base rating plans of the act.\nNow, they have mentioned the case of the Green Valley Creamery from the First Circuit has been authority for the promulgation of this particular nearby differential as a market differential.\nWe just like to point out that in the Green Valley case, there were no producers before the Court.\nThat was a handler case for enforcement and involved entirely different issue.\nMoreover, the Court there did not even examine this issue for the very reason that it was not properly before the Court.\nThis was the contention of the Government that handlers could not question disbursements from out of the pool and that therefore, when the handlers attempted to raise this argument concerning the nearby differential, the Government's argument was accepted that this particular contention or issue could not be raise by handlers.\nSo, we have the Government contending that they have relied on the Green Valley decision when that Court actually accepted its argument for that particular issue concerning the legality of a nearby differential was not even before the Court.\nAlso the Green Valley Court actually fail to realize that the market differential which it said was a valid differential on which we agree was already in the order.\nIt confused the market differential with the nearby differential.\nThe Court and Green Valley thought that there was a benefit in a service provided when milk was delivered to the city market and it stated that it was of the impression that nearby producers did deliver their milk to the city market.\nNow, there is no question but what this is a compensable service or value.\nBut this was already in the order and a reading of the Green Valley case will illustrate that that Court did not realize that this particular differential was already in the order and the producers were compensated for delivering their milk to the city market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6313.849, 6327.203, 6330.87, 6337.188, 6344.28, 6355.925, 6370.586, 6386.808, 6409.392, 6422.08, 6428.137, 6433.318, 6444.404, 6466.096, 6480.713, 6496.085, 6501.124, 6516.808, 6522.976], "stop_times": [6327.203, 6330.87, 6337.188, 6344.28, 6355.925, 6370.586, 6386.808, 6409.392, 6422.08, 6428.137, 6433.318, 6444.404, 6466.096, 6480.713, 6496.085, 6501.124, 6516.808, 6522.976, 6540.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6313.849}, "reply_to": "15520__2_067", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_069", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But what is this termed to nearby differential?\nIs that a term of colloquial term or is it a term of art?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6540.15, 6543.582], "stop_times": [6543.582, 6547.859], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6540.15}, "reply_to": "15520__2_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__2_070", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, when the regulation was first instituted in the Boston milk market, there were a small number of producers nearby the market who formed an association known as a Nearby Producers Association.\nAlthough, it was beyond any contradiction that all producers where receiving low prices for their milk at that time, they contended that they were entitled to a special price that they were not subject to equalization as required by the act and they threatened to become an menace to the enforcement of the act.\nAt that time the act in this program was in a very fledgling state and they needed the enforcement support of the State of Massachusetts.\nThe State of Massachusetts refuse to give this enforcement support unless this particular concession was made to its producers.\nAnd they were other view the distant producers and the Government at that time that this was a temporary concession.\nBut like all concessions once their made, it's very difficult to have the individual set or receiving the particular benefit give it up.\nIn fact the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6547.859, 6565.642, 6588.885, 6599.515, 6608.707, 6616.673, 6625.186], "stop_times": [6565.642, 6588.885, 6599.515, 6608.707, 6616.673, 6625.186, 6625.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6547.859}, "reply_to": "15520__2_069", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_071", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You don't find that term in any of the marketing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6625.452], "stop_times": [6627.646], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6625.452}, "reply_to": "15520__2_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__2_072", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNot to my knowledge.\nIn fact, it's not in the act, it's not in report send, it's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6627.646, 6628.752, 6630.297], "stop_times": [6628.752, 6630.297, 6633.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6627.646}, "reply_to": "15520__2_071", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_073", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well what concession was given to him if you say temporarily?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6633.868], "stop_times": [6637.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6633.868}, "reply_to": "15520__2_072", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_074", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, state claim that they were not required that they could not be required to equalize their milk production with other dairy farmers.\nAnd in order to gain the --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6637.883, 6648.744], "stop_times": [6648.744, 6651.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6637.883}, "reply_to": "15520__2_073", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_075", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "They can equalize the price?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6651.189], "stop_times": [6653.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6651.189}, "reply_to": "15520__2_074", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_076", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.\nIn other words, come in to the blend price and this was in effect, a temporary acknowledgement or concession to them, in order to gain the enforcement support of the Massachusetts Milk Control Board.\nThis was found by the lower court to be a fact also.\nIn order words, the case of Whiting Milk Company, United States versus Whiting Milk Company in the Boston market in the 30's found that is little as 2,000 quarts of milk or one tank load of milk introduce in the Boston market, not subject to regulation or control could affect the entire price of all dairy farmers.\nConsequently, you had to have control of the interstate milk and unless the local authorities would enforce that control why you had no way of actually controlling the milk market price of all the dairy farmers.\nSo, this was a temporary concession in that respect, although, it was recognized that it was a deviation from the requirements of the act.\nNow, as I indicated has grown and the only evidence that was introduce during 1935 hearing, 1936 hearings was the testimony of one individual who referred to the alleged milk price receive by one dairy farmer out of about 20,000 that were supplying the market.\nAnd even that price to one dairy farmer was admittedly subject to correction.\nThe only other evidence that was introduce that would purport to justify this was the prices paid by two handlers, smaller handlers out of hundreds that were operating in that particular market.\nSo there actually wasn't any real evidential basis for the awarding to this differential, and this is all brought out in the record.\nThese hearings, the pertinent parts of them are in the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6653.183, 6653.502, 6669.302, 6673.431, 6697.374, 6712.385, 6722.428, 6748.731, 6756.164, 6771.656, 6782.612], "stop_times": [6653.502, 6669.302, 6673.431, 6697.374, 6712.385, 6722.428, 6748.731, 6756.164, 6771.656, 6782.612, 6788.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6653.183}, "reply_to": "15520__2_075", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_077", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You mean by that, there is no support that giving a differential to a farmer based on the location of his farm?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6788.877], "stop_times": [6798.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6788.877}, "reply_to": "15520__2_076", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_078", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "No.\nNot at that time because of the fact that all farmers receiving low prices at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6798.671, 6799.006], "stop_times": [6799.006, 6806.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6798.671}, "reply_to": "15520__2_077", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__2_079", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6806.241], "stop_times": [6807.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6806.241}, "reply_to": "15520__2_078", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__2_080", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And the Assistant Attorney General of Vermont is trying to address the last five minutes.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6807.686, 6813.065], "stop_times": [6813.065, 6820.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6807.686}, "reply_to": "15520__2_079", "speaker": "charles_patrick_ryan"}
{"id": "15520__3_000", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Justice Black, may it please the Court.\nMy name is Edwin H. Amidon.\nI'm Assistant Attorney General of the State of Vermont, here representing the State of Vermont and its Attorney General and its Secretary of Agriculture who incidentally are here today.\nThe legal argument had certainly been well covered.\nI just like to briefly emphasize some additional aspects of the factual context.\nVermont, unlike I think almost any other state in the country is overwhelmingly dependent on the dairy industry.\nMuch more so, even in Wisconsin and in addition, the overwhelming majority its dairy production is sold under this order.\nThe Vermont dairy industry secondly is in a great deal of trouble right now.\nIt is lost over a thousand producers since 1965.\nThird, unlike the 1930's when this type of differential was first adopted, the cause of dairy farming in Vermont are now fully as high as they are in Southern New England.\nTaxes, labor fee, the equipment, the various things that go into cause of producing milk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6820.361, 6823.796, 6826.032, 6840.12, 6843.252, 6851.978, 6861.656, 6874.72, 6881.664, 6890.286, 6905.375], "stop_times": [6823.796, 6826.032, 6840.12, 6843.252, 6851.978, 6861.656, 6874.72, 6881.664, 6890.286, 6905.375, 6912.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6820.361}, "reply_to": "15520__2_080", "speaker": "edwin_h_amidon_jr"}
{"id": "15520__3_001", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Did that cost differential which you imply that exist the generation ago?\nI think that was part this differential or part of a ground that --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6912.25, 6917.697], "stop_times": [6917.697, 6921.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6912.25}, "reply_to": "15520__3_000", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__3_002", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think that may been implicit in the Secretary's --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6921.447, 6922.436], "stop_times": [6922.436, 6927.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6921.447}, "reply_to": "15520__3_001", "speaker": "edwin_h_amidon_jr"}
{"id": "15520__3_003", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "It wasn't represented if they on the grounds in the Secretary's submission here today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6927.614], "stop_times": [6932.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6927.614}, "reply_to": "15520__3_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__3_004", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's true Your Honor.\nI believe that is not to be found in any of the orders, but I think it's a sub silentio factor if I may say so.\nFourthly unlike the 1930's, I think the accessibility, availability, reliability of non-nearby producers milk is equal now wholly to the milk of Southern New England producers and evenness of production Your Honors, if formally was not compensated it is, it is now compensated.\nFifth, I should say that the Vermont farmers who are the overwhelming majority of the non-nearby producers have bought this nearby differential from the very beginning.\nThey have never acquiesced in it.\nThey have always opposed it.\nAnd of course, when it comes to vote on a milk order, they have to vote for the milk order in order to avoid the chaos of unregulated milk market where they sell most of their milk.\nIf they didn't vote for the order with this nearby differential in it, they'd be out of the ball game anyway, if I may use that slang.\nSixth, there's been no record of any disruption of the New York-New Jersey milk market since the decision in Blair.\nSeventh, and this is already been said in Vermont, we wonder why Vermont should be the only shall we say recipient of this nearby differential.\nWe are most of the non-nearby producers and this nearby differential is only found in New England milk orders.\nSo finally in conclusion, it is our position that this is not the nearby differential or farm location differential is not an authorize adjustment the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937.\nIt in fact constitutes really a de facto tariff which must be paid by Vermont farmers for the privileges of selling milk in Southern New England.\nThank you Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [6932.941, 6935.177, 6948.692, 6979.48, 6990.964, 6993.628, 6996.183, 7011.977, 7022.393, 7033.621, 7047.62, 7057.441, 7076.051, 7089.997], "stop_times": [6935.177, 6948.692, 6979.48, 6990.964, 6993.628, 6996.183, 7011.977, 7022.393, 7033.621, 7047.62, 7057.441, 7076.051, 7089.997, 7094.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 6932.941}, "reply_to": "15520__3_003", "speaker": "edwin_h_amidon_jr"}
{"id": "15520__3_005", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Freidman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7094.007], "stop_times": [7094.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7094.007}, "reply_to": "15520__3_004", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__4_000", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Mr. Justice Black and may it please the Court.\nI have just fourth brief points I'd like to make in rebuttal in each of them really arises in response to a question of number from -- of the Court.\nFirst, Mr. Justice Harlan asked the question of the origin of this phrase \u201cnearby differentials\u201d.\nI think that's colloquial phrase but what the Secretary, the word Secretary used in this order in 1964, he spoke of it as farm location differentials.\nFarm location differential which I think is a more accurate representation.\nNow, Mr. Justice Black asked the question whether anybody would loose as a result of this decision.\nThey were presented in the District Court in opposition to the motion for summary judgments and it is referred to at page 84 of the record, affidavits by some of the nearby farmers which indicated that if this differential is abandoned, if this differential is struck out, they will in fact not be getting back the total expenses as result of the blended price they received.\nAnd then I'd like to refer to --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7094.813, 7097.558, 7106.351, 7112.786, 7122.618, 7126.766, 7135.137, 7160.076], "stop_times": [7097.558, 7106.351, 7112.786, 7122.618, 7126.766, 7135.137, 7160.076, 7161.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7094.813}, "reply_to": "15520__3_005", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_001", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Is there a finding on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7161.495], "stop_times": [7163.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7161.495}, "reply_to": "15520__4_000", "speaker": "j__hugo_l_black"}
{"id": "15520__4_002", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "There is no finding on that, no Mr. Justice.\nI'd like to refer the two questions that Mr. Justice Stewart asked.\nThe first you inquired Mr. Justice as to how the cooperatives vote?\nThey do vote as a unit.\nThat is if there is a division all the votes are cast in one way.\nOn the other hand, it seems very clear that if that this vote must represent from votes of the majority and --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7163.05, 7165.793, 7169.304, 7173.871, 7175.17, 7179.707], "stop_times": [7165.793, 7169.304, 7173.871, 7175.17, 7179.707, 7186.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7163.05}, "reply_to": "15520__4_001", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_003", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "At least the majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7186.202], "stop_times": [7187.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7186.202}, "reply_to": "15520__4_002", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__4_004", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7187.37], "stop_times": [7187.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7187.37}, "reply_to": "15520__4_003", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_005", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "If the management's going to say --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7187.697], "stop_times": [7188.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7187.697}, "reply_to": "15520__4_004", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__4_006", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And of course, the evidence in this case that indicates that when this 1964 order was put to a vote, it was approve by something like 89% of all the farmers in the area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7188.925], "stop_times": [7201.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7188.925}, "reply_to": "15520__4_005", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_007", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "But this so-called referendum is a plebiscite on the whole order or all -- take it or leave it --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7201.28], "stop_times": [7205.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7201.28}, "reply_to": "15520__4_006", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__4_008", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That's right, take it or leave it and then many situations -- this is true of many situations, you face when you've deciding whether to do something with the pros and the cons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7205.539], "stop_times": [7214.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7205.539}, "reply_to": "15520__4_007", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_009", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7214.349], "stop_times": [7214.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7214.349}, "reply_to": "15520__4_008", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__4_010", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Now finally, I'd like to talk just a minute about this point that they are only two other orders in the whole United States that have this provision.\nOriginally, a few years ago, there were four orders.\nThe New York-New Jersey order that was struck down, an order in Chicago which was subsequently vacated because of the unwillingness of the handlers to accept certain changes.\nThe present order which been struck down and the Connecticut order which of course is now under litigation before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Cranston case.\nWhile, these are only four out of 70 orders, they it covered roughly 40% of all the milk production in the United States.\nAnd in addition to that, we have something which I think it's quite significant.\nThere's testimony in this record at page 549 and I'd like to refer to it.\nAs to the extent of the hold's problem of how these differentials come into being, what that causes is 549 statements -- statement that in the State of California and the State of California is a state, one of the states that has no federal regulation at all.\nThis is statement of State of California, produces located nearby Los Angeles distributing plants are able to obtain more favorable contracts and thus, a higher Class I utilization then produces that are located in the central valley or any other place.\nIn order words, even without a milk marketing order at the present time, handlers are willing to pay more to farmers who located near the or -- near the center of the market than to distant farmers.\nNo coercion, no claimant, the distant farmers are required to accept to the -- quite accept this.\nThis is the operation, the normal operation of the market and I think the reason why we don't have anymore of these provisions in milk marketing orders is just the way markets have a reason.\nSome of the areas of the country, smaller areas what has happen is you haven't had the problem.\nThe farmers had been closer in.\nYou haven't hired this kind of competition for the Class I market characterized these Eastern markets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7214.971, 7223.266, 7226.138, 7239.274, 7248.426, 7258.663, 7263.072, 7270.857, 7301.585, 7319.923, 7335.598, 7341.554, 7352.342, 7357.415, 7359.271], "stop_times": [7223.266, 7226.138, 7239.274, 7248.426, 7258.663, 7263.072, 7270.857, 7301.585, 7319.923, 7335.598, 7341.554, 7352.342, 7357.415, 7359.271, 7365.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7214.971}, "reply_to": "15520__4_009", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_011", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "You could -- you can argue I suppose to prevail the status that the secondary that introduce this differential in any marketing are real waste?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7365.788], "stop_times": [7382.444], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7365.788}, "reply_to": "15520__4_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__4_012", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "If, if depending on what the circumstances, if that he have -- if an appear that prior to the time of the marketing order, they had this existing -- I -- it would be --", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7382.444], "stop_times": [7392.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7382.444}, "reply_to": "15520__4_011", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_013", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "That fact would have to exist?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7392.014], "stop_times": [7394.01], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 7392.014}, "reply_to": "15520__4_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "15520__4_014", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Well, I'm not sure about that.\nIf for example the Secretary found, I would think it would have to -- yes, it would have to exist Mr. Justice, I retract my question.\nIt would have to exist because the statute's speaks of market differentials customarily applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7394.01, 7395.477, 7403.847], "stop_times": [7395.477, 7403.847, 7408.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7394.01}, "reply_to": "15520__4_013", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_015", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "And you would mean, that would mean customarily in that marketing area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7408.449], "stop_times": [7412.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7408.449}, "reply_to": "15520__4_014", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__4_016", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "In that marketing area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7412.372], "stop_times": [7413.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7412.372}, "reply_to": "15520__4_015", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
{"id": "15520__4_017", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Right then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7413.598], "stop_times": [7414.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7413.598}, "reply_to": "15520__4_016", "speaker": "j__potter_stewart"}
{"id": "15520__4_018", "conversation_id": "15520", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1969_25", "start_times": [7414.825], "stop_times": [7418.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7414.825}, "reply_to": "15520__4_017", "speaker": "daniel_m_friedman"}
